Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
pitkin.planning.291102401001 (1978)
DOCUMENT LAYOUT THIS FILE MAY OR MAY NOT CONTAIN ALL OF THE INFORMATION LISTED BELOW IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER Summary Sheet Resolution for the BOCC and/or P&Z Ordinance for the BOCC and/or P&Z Determination for the Hearing Officer Administrative Determination Staff Memo Application Public Notice, Acceptance Letter, Referral(s) Letter Site Plan Miscellaneous Plat copies (11x17) ~°~;PAQCE~103. 2911-02401-001 -~~' .'~, '"' ~L`.ASE~NAME. Highland Ranch~Subd P' ~'PRtSJ AAUR:#0~30~0 Conundrum Cree ..... ~ .. -~ "t?wfdlAPP:~ Schwien -Highland ~: REP: t?~j :. "Y: .~~SRtEFERRAIS~., .,,: ;;~7 ~..' ' itl iaTC riA'r~"~'i-i~E~V^-s-b-n~v 1 ~I q ~'tl _,k- .. ...''RENIARK$~~~ .. ... .. .. . ... ... a!. y.. ... Rd .,~Ati"OCG HCili~2~S ,_ :_.,,~. ...... ..~ .~,;.:r;',:., 2/26/1979 ACT]ON;:. ~~.. . ~.. .wcr ;«.: ' BOCC Reso: ~~ ti v ^rv4 n ~... „ ~ .y/.~ ~;, ;, rsr,i0R1ldDU:"•" 10: Goa rd of io~.nt;;f Conrnissionets FF:?i~i: Richrsrd trice, i'lar~ning Office; RC: I;~sgh~iand Ranch SubdivisiGn ., Filingr?~l - I'.il. I:;r,TE: I)ec.e:rber ?0, 1873 This applicatiGn requests a lot; split subdivision cf a ten acre parcel ~Por purposes Gf s~i!raTe family development. Tile fathering parcel is th^ 9:; acre Niyhland Ranch located in Castle Crer~k,Valley at the ini;ersection o'` CGnundr~_~m Crock. 1'tPe ten acre parcel lies at the bottgm of th!: valley at the confluence of Conundrum and Cas*..le Creeks. An inspectiGn of the site ccr.ducted by myself revealed 'it tG be ar. extremely reasonable ~,nd suitable truildiny site v;h'ich is virtually flat throughout the a?ajority of the parcel. There are nc, significant geolociical hazards. _., . - .nls si!bdivision involves ngne of the land which ~s su~ta5l2 'Por agri- culture ova,~ed by Highland Ranch. Visibility will rot bu aproblem as the dLnSe Vegetatl0il a5 l^fE?11 aS lt1 lOCdtl Gn in the bQt~tO!n Of ti'10 Valii'y will provide for minimum visablity. This a.pplicati`ch w~<s t~eferred to eight state and local agencies for comment. "fhe most vital of the referral comments are nevi in and are summaP•ized as r,gilc,ws: 1. ;•tith regard to septic suitability and the pi"oposed water system, Gob tdelson, County Sanitarian, agrees vaith 4dright Water Encir.eers that an ad•quate donrastic orator supply earl be developed onVthe parcel pro~.~ided the well is properly loca'%ed ar.d constructed, Gqb reels very stronc,,ly that due to the high percolation rate discovered to exist in the alluvial soils., the septic system will require ei'igineerir•g exper±ise to avoid pollution. 'l.. We received a comment from the,$t~te Enyi;leer of the Division of Water Resources in which the; State that they agree with Wright W:cter Engineers about the physical availability of vaster for the well. No',UEVer, they disagree that the affect of the well is not injurious to senior avater rights. They indicate that Castle Creek is over appropriated at the present i:ime and any additional development of tributary ground water r~^sources resulting from new subdivisions would be injurious to senior vaster rights. Gdriol)t 4later Engineers have indicated that the vaster rights en Highland Ranch could be used to augment depletions from the proposed well. Their positiol~ is that a plan for augmentation appro~~ed by tie district water court will be necessary prior to the issuance of a well permit in Filing ;#l. 3. Engineer, I_ou Geuttner", has revieP~~ed this oeneral submission and comments that he has no real pr:,blem with the application val)ich is in fact the most complete submission that he has ever reviewed. fle does suggest two areas or' clarification which he would like to see. He requests that the plai be dated, that the area of parcel 1 i;e correctly indicated, and that a word description be placed on the plats. 4, bob Jacabs, Fire i~arshall, has told us that the praperty is located approximately 6.8 miles from the f~spen Volunteer Fire Station and that this location 1'~rovides a reasonable response time of about 18 minutes, good a.eather GGnditions permitting. 5. Dave Shelton of the Colorado Geologic Survey has commented that he concurs with Nick Lamp'iris' report vaith t".e exception of two specific items "We recgmmend a greater setback from the ;:. stream bank, particularly in areas where the flow of the stream is directed directly at the bank creating a significant potential for bank erosion during high stream flow. Secondly, we believe that sewage disposal through common septic tank leach field systems may not be feasible due to the potential for high ground water in the area. If these items are_adeguately handled during the planning, engineering and construction of the area, we believe that there is no geologic reason why this subdivision should not be approved." Nick suggests that since the building sites are located in an area of alluvial deposits that a soils engineering study should be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. This application presents very few issues to the Planning Office. We feel that it is a reasonable request and provided we can work out several small details prior to final approval, we see no reason why it should not be ultimately approved. We suggest that you approve the general submission as the Planning and Zoning Commission did at their regular meeting on November 8, 1978, with the following conditions to be met at detailed submission: A soils report is prepared by a qualified' engineer to determine the most appropriate homesites and 2. A proposal for an engineered sewage disposal system should be provided to the satisfaction of the County Sanitarian, and 3. The clarifications requested by Lou Beuttner in his memorandum to the Planning Office of October 25, T978 are followed on future submissions, and 4. The applicants agree to deed covenant the property against future subdivision of the ten acre parcel, and 5. That proof of water in the form of a well permit is provided. A. ~~ e_ *,r.~i' M.v +'-~« K 0.x .4., .~ ~ ... ... ..,. ~' .I ~A MEMORANDUM TD: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Richard Grice, Planning Office RE: Highland Ranch Subdivision - Filing #1 - P.H. ATE: December 20, 1978 ¢' \ This application requests a iot split subdivision of a ten acre parcel for purposes of single family development. The fathering parcel is the 93 acre Highland Rahch located in Castle Creek Valley at the intersection of Conundrum Creek. The ten acre parcel lies at the bottom, of the valley at the confluence of Conundrum and Castle Creeks. An inspection of the site conducted by myself revealed it to be an extremely reasonable and suitable building site which is virtually flat throughout the majority of the parcel. There are no significant geological hazards. This subdivision involves none of the land which is suitable for agri- culture owned by Highland Ranch. Visibility will not be aproblem as the dense vegetation as well as its location in the bottom of the valley will provide for minimum visability. This application was referred to eight state and local agencies for comment. The most vital of the. referral comments are now in and are summarized as follows: With regard to septic suitability and the proposed water system, Bob Nelson, County Sanitarian, agrees with Wright Water Engineers that an adequate domestic water supply cah be developed on the parcel provided the well is properly located and constructed. Bob feels very strongly that due to the high perculaton rate discovered to exist in the alluvial soils, the septic system will require engineering expertise to avoid pollution. 2. We received a comment from the State Engineer of the Division of Water Resources in which''they state that they agree with Wright Water Engineers about the physical availability of water for the well.. However, they disagree that the affect of the well is not injurious to senior water rights. They indicate that Castle Creek is over appropriated at the present time and any additional development of tributary ground water resources resulting from new subdivisions would be `injurious to senior water rights. Wright Water Engineers have indicated that the water rights on Highland Ranch could be used to augment depletiorrs from the proposed well. Their position is that a plan for augmentation approved by the district water court will be necessary prior to the issuance of a well permit in Filing #1 3. Engineer, Lou Beuttner, has reviewed this general submission and comments that fie has no real problem with the application which is in fact the most complete submission that he has ever reviewed. He does suggest two areas of clarification which he would like to see. He requests that the plat be dated, that the area of parcel 1 be correctly indicated, and that a word description be placed on the plats. 4. Bob Jacobs, Fire Marshall, has told us that the property is located approximatehy 5.$ miles from the Aspen Volunteer Fire Station and that this location provides a reasonable response time of about 18 minutes, good weather conditions permitting. 5. Dave Shelton of the Colorado Geologic Survey has commented that he concurs with Nick Lampiris' report with the exception of two specific items, "We recommend a greater setback from the .._ i stream bank, particularly in areas where the flow of the stream is directed directly at the bank creating a significant potential for bank erosion during high stream flow. Secondly, we believe that sewage disposal through common septic tank leach field systems may not be feasible due to the potential for high ground water in the area. If these items are adequately handled during the planning, engineering and construction of the area, we believe that there is no geologic reason. why this subdivision should not be approved." Nick suggests that since the building sites are located. in an area of alluvial deposits that a soils engineering study should be required prior to the issuance of a building;-permit. This application presents very few issues to the Planningi0ffice. We feel that it is a reasonable request and provided we'can work out several small details prior to final approval, we see no reason why it should not be ultimately approved. We suggest that you approve the general submission as the Planning and Zoning Commission did at their regular meeting on November 8, 1978, with the following conditions to be met at detailed submission: 1. A soils report is prepared by a qualified engineer to determine the most appropriate homesites, and SO^~-i ~e~ ~.c:~C ~r.,~ is~-cc~c~~ ~c ~G A proposal for an engineered sewage disposal system should be provided to the satisfaction of the County Sa itarian, a~ ~,` GS :..~-e f:•42,;~-~,,..X c~,,•^~'~ in;..w,.w~., ~Ea,-,.r.~.r,~.,vn .t-cu The clarifications requested by Lou Beuttner in his memorandum to'the Planning Office of October 25, 1978'are followed on future submissions, and 4. The applicants agree to deed covenant the property against future subdivision of the ten acre parcel, and 5. That proof pf,water irr th form of a p1] per2mit is provided. 7'Gi n....2n•I~.M-~,c'~n P...G.ni.,~~~ ~. ~.~gnkCi:' k'I fi.?'C£-c^CC~ 'CJ-i~1 {`Xt3.Rn..~ti~ co-c..~~ (~ ~", C; Ivy n) ~ /~ C u W q '~(R..~ 't^.-C~:7.~ .~. L, ~ ^~ i~::0: L- a fs. u: fR t .(~-G ~'-k~ II. 'h ` ~~,~i~~i' lo0year {food ~evbi ~ity ~ :. ~ ~~ i /_.'-:="s /. ~ 617 { ep ..... - " r Z6 ~ ~`. i '. ~,~, ~~ y . •. , f~ r . . ,. ,, ~- , , . ~ ~ i / r. ~ ~ 1 r ~ (., ~ k f ~. ( ~ !, .. ay ~._ ~e~~ , S f ~ mil / ~, ~ , ' , ~ I ~~ ~ ~ I ~ ,ro ~ / / r ~ ~ ~ / rv ',zi I / ~ I 7 ~' , ~\ N 23°IP~'58''E 103.41'- ' r , ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ '. ~ / , / ~ `~ / / / ~3. ~~ ~ N Zb°3~' 27"F_ 14%38'- ~ ~ h ~ tl 41~, i , ;~ ~ K ~i~ ~ r I N4i"Z737C "aG l7_'- ~ ~ /~' I 'I S ,, ~ h C I +~ I^" E ,iii ~5- 7t'sb~ I~ ~~ r° , '. ~ i ~ t i 1 4 •w . ~ N Ib ~ ?r E 7Ll t' - , r ~~ ~ ! 1 ~ '' 'lu J ' ~~~ IP! ~ i - ~ N II° ~~' S0 `G it 70 , ~ I I~ ~C ~ ' NiB°~1'IGr°F to {./T- /i " ~h / i ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~`\, ~~ ~~ N 3L~ 5T Z2" F, 9~5 7..... ij / ~, h YC ~ I '. N /t`7" `7`7 Ol G, _ `I!' lip - / ~ ' " ' F I 3 ~ >, ,/ h ~/ I ~ ,~ w grr aYer ~ W z9 Oo 7_ii :v ' l I & x ~ han ~ t / ( iI ~ ~~ ~ x y . / ~ ` % '~ •_ N 40" IZ' IE" f= ICXJ.AT- .. >; // I ~4 t + .- 5 OI° 44' ZZ" W I I! / ~ y / ~ / ' I ~ i o ~ w u N Z.7° 13' ! I',' F lnl 53' .- /) ~ % 1 `< "~ n r / 1 / 1 ~ ~ ~ / r / ~ ~ ~ f I ~ ( Beet 1 ~ ~ r N I I° PM' ` Z7" P- ) t building 1 "11 <Iq - ~ 14) l ~ Si7e5 ~ ' I~ Ii F y _ y 20° .4' ?_~" W I pi 7il ~! , I I~ 1 ~ ~ v % "' ` , ~ \ I ~~ ' ~ ~ ' ` \ / / ~ 1 ~ I x. P. `~ / ~ , a' ti ~I` 3~'r' S5 ['. 657`! ~ -.../~,~ / i~°'~~ `_~~_,,, _ ~/ '~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ' -.5 03° 03'57"ki 441 ~' x N\1. 1 N 5G' C6' 41i" E 587Z' ~ / : i ~ ~~ / I , % / , i , t % % ~ ~ /100 yeaY ~ ~ ~~ ~ i i ~ 1 1 / ~ {lood i~ / 7 PoSh;bility ~ I / Other b¢ild/ - gam" .30' 17° F 145 G,i.J' n~ ,._ .' ~ ~ n9 rites i Con hrSh % ~ ~ ~ ~ ? ~ i eurtG) 9 i ~ , IG~"~~ 310. fl"T ,;~' / ~ 1 - ~ @ -pry' ~ ' S G5° Zf3` W"W u7. ~/i^`J/ ~~/ ~. /,~+ _-354`27_'CX~"trv' 109.0?` '~ ~ / 1.'/ l ./ i / /~ ~- / ~ / / --9 39° Zi 00" W CnZCXJ' /. ~ / ~~// ,i'ce' /' ~ i / / / / /''n~ // l~~ / Io0 year {lood Posvbn'ty /f~ ~ / // \~ f~/~~.~ _'a 41` '~7'-.CCU" W "O ~~ _ ~,,4~ .~ `' ti; s '" .r/',2^' ~' .dam'=`~O' _ .. .. _ .. - _ .,. ._ _. ~eb~Opll L ~YE(~try S dd 1~~~ a /7, `~i~,^~ ~ M E M O R A N D U M T0: Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Office, Richard Grice RE: Highland Ranch Subdivision - Filing #1 DATE: November 2, 1978 This application requests a lot split subdivision of a ten acre parcel for purposes of single family development. The fathering parcel is the 93 acre Highland Ranch located in the Castle Creek Valley at the intersection of Conundrum Creek. The ten acre parcel lies at the bottom of the valley at the confluence of Conundrum and Castle Creeks. An inspection of the site conducted by myself re- vealed it to be an extremely reasonable and suitable building site which is virtually flat throughout the majority of the parcel. There are no significant geological hazards. This subdivision involves none of the land which is suitable for agriculture owned by Highland'.: Ranch. .Visibility will not be a problem as the dense vegetation as well as its location in the bottom of the valley will provide for minimum visability. This application was referred to eight state and local agencies for comment. The most vital of the referral comments are now in and are summarized as follows: 1. With regard to septic suitability and the proposed water system, Bob Nelson, County Sanitarian, agrees with Wright Water Engineers that an adequate domestic water supply can be developed on the parcel provided the well is properly located and constructed. Bob feels very strongly that due to the high perculation rate discovered to exist in the alluvial soils, the septic system will require engineering expertise to avoid pollution. 2. We received a comment from the State Engineer of the Division of Water Resources in which they state that they agree with Wright Water Engineers about the physical availability of water for the well. However, they dis- agree that the affect of the well is not injurious to senior water rights. They indicate that Castle Creek is over appropriated at the present time and any additional development of tributary ground water resources resulting from new subdivisions would be injurious to senior water rights. Wright Water Engineers have indicated that the water rights on Highland Ranch could be used to augment depletions from the proposed well. Their position is that a plan for augmentation approved by the district water court will be necessary prior to the issuance of a well permit in Filing ~#1. 3. Engineer, Lou Beuttner, has reviewed this general sub- mission and comments that he has no real problem with the application which is in fact the most complete submission that he has ever reviewed. He does .suggest two areas of clarification which he would like to see. He requests that the plat be dated, that the area of parcel 1 be correctly indicated, and that a word description be placed on' the plats. 4. Bob Jacobs, Fire Marchall, has told us that the property is located approximately 6.8 miles from the Aspen Volun- teer Fire Station and that this location provides a rea- sonable response time of about 18 minutes, good weather conditions permitting. Memo to County P&Z Highland Ranch November 2, 1978 Page Two 5. Comment has not yet been received from the Colorado Geologic Survey. However, we expect that they will concur with the evaluation prepared by Geologist, Nicholas Lampiris. Nick suggests that since the build- ing sites are located in an area of alluvial deposits that a soils engineering study should be required prior to the isssuance of a building permit. This application presents very few issues to the Planning Office. TAe feel that it is a reasonable request and provided we can work out several small details prior to final approval, we see no reason why it should not be utimately approved. We suggest that you approve the general submission and require that the following conditions 'be met at detailed submission: 1. A soils report is prepared by a qualified engineer to determine the most appropriate homesites and foundation designs, and 2. a proposal for an engineered sewage disposal system should be provided to the satisfaction of the County Sanitarian, and 3. the clarifications requested by Lou Beuttner in his memo- randum to the Planning Office of October 25, 197A are followed on future submissions, and 4. the applicants agree to deed covenant the. property against future subdivision of the ten acre parcel, and 5. that proof of water in the form of a well permit is provided. rh RICHARD D. LAMM Governor _ c '~ ~ d * J) *~ 84® ** DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES Departmen4 of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street- Room 81 B Denver, Colorado 80203 Administration (303) 839-3581 Ground Water (303) 839-3587 ' October 27, 1978 Mr. Richard trice Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen., CO 81611 Re: Highland Ranch Subdivision Filing No. 1 Dear Mr. trice: C.J. KUIPER State Engineer This is to acknowledge receipt of preliminary plan information for the above referenced subdivision consisting of one lot. The water supply is to be provided by a single domestic well to be constructed on the lot. We agree with the evaluation by the consultant's engineer concerning the physical availabilSty of water for the well. However, we disagree that the effect of the well is not injurious to senior water rights. Castle Creek is over-appropriated and any additional development of tributary ground water resources resulting from new subdivisions would be injurious to senior water rights. The developer's engineer has indicated that the water rights on the Highland Ranch could be used to augment depletions from the well or wells if additional development is being considered. It is our position that a plan for augmentation approved by the District Water Court will be necessary prior to the issuance of a well permit in filing no. 1. We cannot recommend acceptance of the subdivision until the developer obtains approval of a plah for augmentation from the Water Court. If additional information is provided, we would be most happy to review it. Very trulny yours/~, V\, r"' JAD./HDSmvf Jeris A. Danielson cc: Lee Enewold, Div. Eng. D puty State Engineer Ralph Stallman Ago R.A ra~ ~ - ~ _ 1 ..... To; Yaren Smith, Planning Office From: Louis Buettner"` Re: Highlands Ranch Subdivision, General Submission Date: October 25, 1978 In reviewing this general submission for the Highlands Ranch I found that it is the most complete submission that I have checked. The only things that are lacking from the plat are the "DATE THAT IT ~NAS PREPARED" and the "AREA OF PARCEL 1" is not shown . One thing that I would like to see is the word description placed on the plats. 506 E. MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 i M E M O R A N D U M T K 1 717: Richard Grice N Planning Office FRCM: Bob Nelson C County Sanitarian o DATE: October 27, 1978 U RE: Highland Ranch Subdivision - Filing One N T This office has completed a review and site inspection of 'Y' the referenced property for the purpose of determining the adequacy of proposed sewage disposal and water systens and potential environmental in>pacts. The proposed water supply for the parcel is a well. The appropriate sections of the Pitkin County Land Use Code have been satisfied with an engineering report prepared by Wright Water Engineers. It concludes that in the engineer's opinion "an adequate domestic water supply can be developed on the parcel provided the well is properly located and constructed". The engineering report is in our opinion, complete. We do not question the conclusions that the water supply should be available, the quantity sufficient and the quality satisfactory. Eoth the geology report of Nicholas Iampiris and the water resources report of LVright Water Engineer's address the question of individual sewage disposal. The 'conclusion of these reports are consistent with our findings on adjacent properties. An individual sewage disposal system will probably be required to comply with county regulations. The alluvial soils have exhibited percolation rates faster than 5 minutes per inch; and with the proximity of ground and surface water in the area, particular care must be taken in locating and designing an absorption field. Without site investigation of subsurface soil conditions, it is not possible to conclude the most appropriate system; but we conclude from the submitted reports and our knowledge of general conditions in the area, that it v,~uld be possible to construct an acceptable individual sewage disposal system. The ground water resource impacts are dealt with in the Wright Water Engineer's Report. We anticipate no significant air quality or noise impacts. M E M O R A N D U M TO: RICHARD GRICE PLANNING FROM: BOB JACOBS ~ Q FIRE MARSHAL P/ DATE: October 18, 1978 RE: Highlands Raneh Subdivision - General Submission The proposed Highlands A,anch Subdivision is located approximately 6.8 miles from the Aspen Volunteer Fire Station at 420 East Hopkins, giving'a'reasonable re- sponse time by fire apparatus of about 18 minutes, good weather conditions permitting. There is an unpaved road to said property of about .6 -.: of one mile that should give ''adequate access except in times of heavy snowfall. In regard to Section(b) Water Supply, I would recommend, as a guide, the "National Fire Codes," Section 22-1, Water Tanks for Private Protection. jk RICHARD D LAMM GOVERNOR 715 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING - 1313 SHERMAN STREET DENVER,COLORAD080203 PHONE 13031839-2617 November 8, 1978 Mr. Richard Grice Aspen/Pitkin Planning Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mr. Grice: RE: HIGHLAND RANCH SUBDIVISION, FILING #1> GENERAL SUBMISSION JOMN W. ROLD Director We have reviewed the preliminary plat and supporting documents for the proposed Highland Ranch Subdivision, Filing #1. Included in the materials was a geologic report by Mr. Nicholas Lampiris. We concur with the findings of that report with the exception of two specific items. We recommend a greater setback from the stream bank, particularly in areas where the flow of the stream is directed directly at the bank, creating a significant potential for bank erosion during high stream flow. Secondly, we believe that sewage disposal through common septic tank leach field systems may not be feasible due to the potential for high ground water within the area. The specific sewage disposal system for any proposed residences should be carefully examined to insure that the potential for ground water contamination does not exist. In conclusion, it appears from the information submitted that there are reasonable and safe building sites within the property limits as described. These building sites, however, must be carefully chosen so as to avoid the potential flood hazard and bank erosion potential during high stream flows. In addition, sewage disposal may be difficult throughout much of the property due to permeable soils and a high ground water table. If these items are adequately handled during the planning, engineering, and construction of the area, we believe that there is no geologic reason why this subdivision should not be approved. If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office. Sincerel_y,/, /~~ David C. Shelton Engineering Geologist cc: Land Use Commission DCS/bd G E O L O G Y STORY OF THE PAST ...KEY TO THE FUTURE Jake A. Moss Right-of-Way Agent October 30, 1978 Richard Grice Pitkin County Planning Department 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Highlands Ranch Subdivision Dear Mr. Grice, PO. Box 2688 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 Phone (303) 243-8011 We have reviewed this plat and find that the only easement Mountain Bell would require is for access to this property and others beyond. In view of this, we would request that the easterly side of Conondrum Road be dedicated as a utility easement the entire length of this property. May we suggest the follocaing phraseology be used in the dedication of easements within said subdivision. "And hereby dedicate to the public all the streets, avenues and roads as shown on the accompanying plat, forever, and dedicate to the UTILITIES those portions of real property which are labeled as utility easements on the accompanying plat, as easements for the installation and main- tenance of utilities and drainage facilities, including, but not limited to, electric lines, gas lines, telephone lines; together with the right to trim interfering trees and brush; together with the perpetual right of ingress and egress for installation, maintenance and replacement of such lines; said easements and rights shall be utilized in a reason- able and prudent manner." We believe all preliminary, as well as final plats, should show the dedication or reference to the particular "Protective Covenants" which will run with the property. Also, all "Private Roads" should be dedi- cated to the utilities for the installation, maintenance and operation of gas, lights, power and telephone lines. No easements should be dedicated to the property owner, cities or counties exclusively; all easements should be dedicated to the utility companies. a -"-_ o ~ .~ ~ ~,~ P .. ~ Jake A. Moss Right-of-Way Agent October 30, 1978 Richard Grice Pitkin County Planning Department 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Highlands Ranch Subdivision Dear Mr. Grice, PO. Box 2688 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 Phone (303) 243-8011 We have reviewed this plat and find that the only easement Mountain Bell would require is for access to this property and others beyond. In view of this, we would request that the easterly side of Conondrum Road be dedicated as a utility easement the entire length of this property. May we suggest the following phraseology be used in the dedication of easements within said subdivision. "And hereby dedicate to the public all the streets, avenues and roads as shown on the accompanying plat, forever, and dedicate to the UTILITIES those portions of real property which are labeled as utility easements on the accompanying plat, as easements for the installation and main- tenance of utilities and drainage facilities, including, but not limited to, electric lines, gas lines, telephone lines; together with the right to trim interfering trees and brush; together with the perpetual right of ingress and egress for installation, maintenance and replacement of such lines; said easements and rights shall be utilized in a reason- able and prudent manner." We believe all preliminary, as well as final plats, should show the dedication or reference to the particular "Protective Covenants" which will run with the property. Also, all "Private Roads" should be dedi- cated to the utilities for the installation, maintenance and operation of gas, lights, power and telephone lines. No easements should be dedicated to the property owner, cities or counties exclusively; all easements should be dedicated to the utility companies. The above request is in accordance with C.R.S 106-2-34 (3) (d) (viii) and the Colorado Land Use Commission's paragraph 5-2, Item /~G-7. We appreciate the opportunity of being able to review this plat. Very truly yours, G~ ~"~-sue Jake A. Moss Right-of-Way Agent JAM/jh cc: Highland Ranch Inc. Alpine Surveys Pitkin County Commissioner Gene Krill, Mountain Bell Bill McDaniel, Mountain Bell Nick Marquez, Mountain Bell M E M O R A N D U M T0: Lou Beuttner, City Engineering Bob tdelson, County Sanitarian Dave Shel"ton, Colorado Geologic Survey Mount Sopris Conservation District Holy Cross Electric Mt. Bell Bob Jacobs, Fire Marshall C,J. Kuiper, Colorado Division of bdater Resources FROM: Richard Grce, Plahning Office RE: Highlands Ranch Subdivision - General Submission DATE: October 16, 1978 The attached application comes from the Highland's Ranch, located up Castle Creek and requests a single lot sprit. This item is tentatively scheduled for review by the County Planning and Zoning Commission on November 1, 1978. Please return your written comments concerning your respective areas of expertise to the PTanning Office by Alsoember 25; 1978:'" Thank you very much. sr ~~ SQ,,~ '1J~v is ,~aa. ~o _. n l I IQ D E X HIGHLANDS RANCH SUBDIVISION FILING N0. 1 T;•Y EXHIBIT'NO. DESCRIPTION 'OF DOCUMENT 1 APPLICATION FORT4 2 LEGAZ DE$CRIPTiON-ATTORNEY'S CERTIFICATE 3 NAMES & ADDP,ESSES OF ADJACENT LAND OT4NERS 4 REPORT FROM LAD4PIRIS GEOLOGIC CONSULTANTS 5 SCENIC QU~ILITY REPORT - Moffatt Associates 6 WATEk SUPPLY AND RESOURCES REPORT - Wright Water Eng neers 7 ROAD SYSTEM IMPACT AtdD 'PRANSPORTATION REPORT - Moffatt Associates FIGUkE NO. 1 200 Scale Map. of Entire Property Including fathering parcel with acreages, slope calculations, topography, etc. 100 Scale D4ap of Parcel 1 2000 Scale Vicinity ~Iap (inset) 2 Geologic Overlay Map '~' Nicholas Lampiris, PhD CONSULTING GEOLOGIST PO BOX 10936 ASPEN, WlORA00 81611' (303) 926-6020 OFF: 923-2126 RES. September 8, 1478 Hesb Klein Box 12035 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Herb: i . ~ ~~ I have completed my investigation of the approximately ten acre Parcel 1 of the Highland Ra` nch Subdivision. This tract of land lies at the junction (see accompanying map) of Conundrum and Castle Creeks in the southern portion of the Aspen 7~'minute quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado. The Castle Creek Road to Ashcroft lies just east of the property. All of the developable part of the tract (west of the greater than 45% slope) lies in the alluvial plain formed by Castle and Conun- druFn Creeks: The areas which are believed to be subjecE to the 100-year flood are shown on the accompanying map. This entire portion of the property is covered by riparian vegetation. A high bank averaging six feet in height lies on both sides of Castle Creek after its confluence with Conundrum Creek, and the stream channel is straight and very well defined there. The developable portion of the tract consists entirely of Quaternary age alluvial deposits; the steep slopes to the east and the flat areas above them are the distal portions of an alluvial fan system extending westward from the other side of the county road. The underlying bedrock is inferred to be the red siltstones and sand- stones,of the Pennsylvanian-Permian age Maroon Formation, although no outcrops were seen on the property. These beds dip about forty degrees northeast in the hills west of the tract, and about seventy degrees northwest in the hills east of the property. This discrepancy in the dip of the beds on either side of the valley is probably the major reason for a fault being mapped under tFie alluvium in thi§ area; there is no surface indication of this particular fault in the vicinity of the property. From a geologic standpoint a large portion of this property is suitable for development. There is no evidence of avalanches having reached the property, there are no high rock cliffs nearby from which rocks might fall, there is no evidence of mining near the tract so that sub- sidence hazard is not present, and the developable portion of the tract is out of the range of mudflow hazards. The inferred fault running under the property has not had movement in millions of years and would F f: Herb Klein September 8, 1978 Page Two ~. only present a problem in the unlikely event o£ a major earth- uake in this q part of Colorado. Zt"s my j'udgemenE that only the areas marked as "100-year flood possibility" are subject to a sig- nificant amount of flood hazard, although no floodplain maps showing the bopndaries of the 100-year flood are available. It is my recommendation that the high ground within the two proposed building envelopes be chosen fo'r construc£ion`of permanent structures. Buildings should be set back at least six feet from the edge of the stream bank. The fault should only be considered during the course of normal foundation design based on a soils engineering study of fhe specific site"prior to development.' Domestic water should be available within fifty feet using a conventional drilling technique. Waste dis- posal through the use of a leach field system should pose no problem because of the generally permeable soils of the property. A sanitation engineer should be consulted, however, before the final design stages' of the system. Access is readily available to the indicated building envelopes off the Conundrum Creek Road. I will be available to help in choosing the most suitable site when that decision is to be made. "If there are fur`ttier questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ` ~~ ~~ `~,¢, Nicholas Lampiris Consulting Geologist References Bryant, Bruce, 1971, Geologic map of the Aspen quadrangle: U.S.G.S. Map, GQ-933. 1972, Map showing areas of selected: potential geologic" hazards in the Aspen quadrangle: U.S.G.S. Map, I=785-A. 1972, Map showing avalanche areas in the Aspen quadrangle: U.S.G.S. I3ap, I-78~-G. ._. ~~ a ~n t ! { ! Y 11 r ;; A ti i d S ~,.. 1 r fl 3 h .~ a: v~ I ~i ii i . ~ ~ r . y. ~ j t' ~: ' ;' L S `f i~b4 s ~, ~~~ ~ ;~ ~. ~ ~ I '>2 r ~ '6 i ~~ r .` , ,. '. .. T`~y .' J ~.,,.-. NdTE U7;IL11-Y AND AGGEhS EASENiENT~i NOT PA;2?_ OF "tH15 SURVEY. y ~_ _. ~fh1„n?~ni t' _/ I f ~ ~ } S'U I~,' i ~ r I ' II ~ ~' C(," !y 1 1 P~ i 1 .~ -'~-. :w. ~,. ... ld e = A n +4u. ~ f ~ "w r"„aa~AC".N "~r,; r ~ '~»4 R^ya, s~.k ~. ~,n~F.Y`~ a ~^ u~~'€"., 't ~" ' . ,; , { ., , ~ i ~, ' ., ' ]]) ~ I .In ~ .N t ~ ~ Nti•!O'2y'e I70,9T ~Mx.. r' v ,4; {.~,: ~ ~~ ~( ~ V I \ + ~ ~ ti Z3"8' 3A" r 10941'- wivr~ANn ~~ KANGH \\~.,~ ,~. ~~•~..~ 1 ~~~A N. p`.i' 27"E !4'736' \\ ~ I / , P j} ~'~ I` i 47- Z7' 37 46.IZ' ~ ~:. \" . ~ ~ C c,. h 6i 5 Z" E i4 t4. , I ~~ L ", x k 1H >i P4"~ 77 4'- 7\~\3~~ O ~~ ((~'r I ' % N 1~ lr.A°C. ~9z.70', i ~ . ~\ 1~ (I ~~ ~~ I~~~g N1d'7l'16'C GL77`. ~~~ S\,J~ ~ry`~l. N 3G'BT LZ"E k5. 74'~ ' O ~ n'; \ ri.-~ N 47. 59' ONE `f4.lCe' i % '_,~l ~ ~' $IODo •~ 1 / c ro 4han y; ~l ~~`Wy 40. 12'18"E !QO -VT- ,// y ,Y K " / I Y a g / ~~ 4 ' ...~ ~. / ~ I 3 /~ i , ' y.j f &et I N11'd'e`27"C 7140'- iu t 511 ~~~ _._~. 1.~,~1 1 (I ' ~~ ~ ~ 1 i ` \` /1 ~; V J'r 34'53" E 6574'-- ` / / ~! ~ ~\ / V 56' LLti' 48" E 587E ~ ~~ ~ I ~1 N 4d 13`b'Z J16.87,` I /~ ; / Other ~~6n9 ~ 7 Con h19h yreunQj / i • /~ -~-5 7fF 26'W" W w7W' -h 31" Oi' Z~" W 1ZQ.00' roo year }7001 pnv 6e6fy / ~~ ._~y` '~N 73"LT•x"W .~00' ` .. ~,.' ~I 1, l l ,~ i i; ~ ~-9 'S' Gf J4' :,i 1 /% ~/ !PI r,~ ~t~ ~i ~~ I -7 J8' ~Yo' 37" £ .~ I I' 28' OD"'.+' Lf h01'k4'ZZ"W P -520`;4'26'W i54 Z~ - g 11' 111' 02' W .'.E G2' -g 03" OJ' 5T W X4.15' - 5 04" 53' 9Y" E: .:~4.if.' _N J1'Li9L'W ,E1 Oi GCOIOgI L dYCf b~ 1 //J Fly q ~F 174 _ n wrvAVa w- ..- -w.. a .Nfu~.. . ;, .s p:,..; ~. e:Y;;......:#£~eSF,4 . ^,•~''1Xi+r=c5y'~fi' "sat,., .,~t'`~ra/'~fo{>~.~',-x"e2. ~.L ".1`i,'u^puw ..YF,rx^.".;r''~':~t,~y -"-y--n'", a-.+rn" -c~}'nrr^'i4+ - •-~"r+aln• -..+~x.'" "e'r" w«wm '1 itR~_'+* ~mNr ~-~. .w^^m^?;F ^-rvxvNC+d{, '+-.T.a 'S r y.~J~ >.v",.vw.:.w.iv`.ue.-ra+w'...~.;j~.u....v.-+wl....:..i"~ b wG.ra.".~Y ~^w~~"'2x v°~.L" ' +''!«.Y~'"°' "'.~~.9~r~x .3- .",~ ~c ~ ~ti'2"itu~ .G~"~~'~" 'C d.M. Y "°~ 'P%~L`. G «~.~'FA~+c~, n raw~ia { ..v. ~. I y .. .: ' `~ .,. a A .. ~. 4' ' ' .:.. ... Y'-.e.~dy WF,i~.e, a.~-0a .XeJ.'z.. x.a. a h, .a ...~' ,........~. ... .~- I .. .~ ,. ~. .., s• ~ ;. 4 ', ... n. ., .... if it is appropriate to grant approval tc '....>. n i%l,icafion at this point whom there are unresolved problems. Crice replied ti:at the purpose of the general submission is to identify the problems to be solved; the burden is then on the applicant to solve these problems ' rib {. r wr > a:,: :..4.,y x ~, ..., a. s '~ I a lT "F ;vy°h '' ~ .^r . s , ' ., ';, Cdwarcls reque~'~ed the fcillowinr xmeridmcnts to tf~e five conditions 'included'an ._„ i j ,.. w.' '. .. ~ ~. ,.~ .~.. ... ~ . Kxns~ey''s moffon that°the fir~,t~~Ycon~tion ~ne~ude a requirement for a fiEt~y foot ,. .,r:„o ~ ,• . t,. setback in a location satisfacGOry to the Colorado Geological Survey, that Sohn ... _._~ t '" v <. .. ,~.....~.~,. 1~r .~ -.~,,....rr ..... dition; that~the requirements" "% and that the last condition .Public The Board convened a public hearing to consider a resolution raising the plumbing Hearfng: ' Plumbing permit and inspection fees. Newbury explained that these fees are tekan from the Permit Fees Uniform Plumbing Code, and the resolution adopts the changes made on a national level. There was no public comment. Kinsley moved approval of the resolution. Child seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Home Brian Stafford presented a resolution submitting five proposed changes to the Rule Charter Home Rule Charter to the electorate. at the May municipal election. The five amend- Amendments ments concern the salary for the Coroner, the requirement for meeting the first Monday of each quarter, the County disaster agent, bond issuance questions at special elections, and .the number of Commissioners to serve on the Board. Kinsley was not certain whether the cost of submitting these questions is justifiable, with the exception of the fourth issue which may be crucial for construction of a law enforce- ment Facility. Edwards, noted that, given the current salary rate for Commissioners, the two additional Commissioners now required by the Charter would have a substantial impact on the County budget for salaries and support services. Kinsley requested that the Finance Office generate cost figures for two additional Commissioners. Ochs felt the last question, which would reduce the number of Commissioners to three, would have a much better, chance of passing now than when there are already candidates for the two additional positions. Kinsley felt people could look at the Commissioners Meeting February 26, 1979 - 14 ~' .,~. 4 license, but the vehicle has been inspected a~Ia 's .-~'':. renuirements. Kinsley moved approval sub3ect to receipt of an apps;..-+" :° ar:d ailing fee. Child seconded and the motion passed unanimously. McCrpcklin reported that both vehicles for the Aspen Valley hospital initially failed 1.Y l: C'1, c: LILL LILA4 i },/~+ • V • a. ua va Yu v.i~u ousiy. ~~ ~.. . Public Hearing: Highlands Ranch Lot Split ~w hlecrocxlsn states tnat the county nas receives no application rrom snowmass-wiiaca Fire Department, and after inspecting their vehicle the EMS determined that the main stretcher tie down needs replacement. Child moved. approval with the"conditions that an application be filed with the County, and that"the main stretcher tie down be re- placed. Kinsley seconded and the motion passed unanimously. McCrocklin reported that B.B. Construction, working at the Hunter Creek diversion site, has not filed an application, and the EMS inspection determined that the ambulance has no'radio, no back boards, and no EMT available on the second shift. The Board can either deny the application or approve it based on E.B. Construction's correction of these deficiencies. Stuller recommended that conditional approval be granted and if the situation is not rectified within thirty days the license be automatically revoked. Child moved to grant conditional approval for a thirty day period, with the three conditions cited by PfcCrocklin to be corrected by that time or the license will be revoked. Kinsley seconded and the motion passed unanimously. The Board convened a public hearing to consider the general submission application by the Highland Ranch for a lot split on their property located at the intersection of Castle and Conundrum Creeks. RicY:ard Grice explained that the applicant wishes to create one single-family homesite, and the area was evaluated by geologist Nick Lampiri for flood plain, suitable building sites, etc. There is a potential problem with the sewage disposal system; an engineered, sophisticated sewage system will be necessary because this location is so close to Castle Creek which is part of Aspen's water supply Herb Klein, representing the applicant, said an evapo-transpiration system is being considered by the prospective buyer. Grice reported that water availability has been shown, but the Division of Water Resources will not issue a well permit unless Highlands Ranch agrees to put back some of their water rights; a building permit will not be issued until that is done. The application has been reviewed by the Fire Department and the response time in summer months is estimated at 18 minutes. The Commissioners Meeting December 26, 1978 - ~~a c:. i. w~. ~ , y Colorado Geological Survey commenteu r'i~ -- .i~^. n. should be set back more than sir. :4.. s ~~ feet from the stream bank; Lampiris' ~ "" ''''on was for a six foot setback. Klein said the buyer doesn't intend to build within six, feet of the stream. Grice also noted that a soils. report should be done prior to detailed submission in order Kinsley moved approval of the application with the following conditions: a soils ,.. report be prepared by a qualified engineer to determine, appropriate homesites, an engineered sewage disposal system be approved by the County Sanitarian, the cla^ifi- cations requested by Lou Buettner in his October 25, 1978 memo be made, the ten acre parcel be deed covenanted against future subdivision, and proof of water in the form of a well permit be provided. Child requested an amendment to state that City approvs also be given to the sewage system. Kinsley felt that was unnecessary, since Bob Nelson would consider that. Grice asked if the requirement for soils tests to deter- mine foundation design is deleted at this point. Kinsley replied it is. Child seconded the motion, without amendment, and it passed unanimously. Snowmass Joe Wells, of the Planning Office, presented the Snowmass Village Master Plan Village Master Policy Statement which has been reviewed by the P & Z, at the Board's request, and Plan approval without amendment was recommended. BiI1 Kane suggested if the Board has any reservations or requested changes to the plan, they draft a resolution stating these comments and it be presented to the Town Council. He felt that would be the most efficient method of response since the resolution would be attached to the Plan, and a record would be made of the-Board's recommendations. Kinsley said he had considerations about the overzoning concept, although details may solve this problem, and felt it was inappropriate for Wells to both draw up the document for Snowmass Village and review it for the County. Wells explained that he has not reviewed this document for the County; he is present as the Town of Snowmass Village planner. Kinsley felt a different member of the Planning Office should review and analyze the Master Plan. He added that it is the Board's statutory responsibility to thoroughly review this master plan, since what happens in the future is based on this document. Commissioners Meeting December 26, 1478 - 9 ~ ~ a6 ~ + G ~, f -. iy«.vmrwv ~~ - ~' `„~ f ~r RECORb OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves roaM ~ c. r. eocatt a. e. a ~. ca '- PITKIN COUNTY ' 'PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Regular Mee£ina November 8, 1978 PRESENT: ` Oan Levinson, acting chairman Dottie Fox Ellie Brickham (voting) J. R. McCarthy (voting) Murray "Pope (voting) _" The minutes 'of the October 4, 1978 meetin4 were unanimously approved on a motion by McCarthy and a second by Fox. - ~hland's Ranch Subdivision -General Submission Richard Grice, of the 'Planning Office, presented the application for subdivision of a 10 acre, parcel located at the confluence of Conundrum an'd Castle Creeks. ,_ ,...., Grice said visibility was not a prob em. Grice noted tfiat Bob'N"el son;"County Sanitarian, felt there was no problem with the well but he recommended an engineer- ed septic system. Grice said the State Engineer of the Division of Glater'Re- sources suggested not approving the application unti`I tfie applicant got a well permit from the state engineer. Herb Klein, representing the applicant, requested that a well permit not be a condition of approval. Louis Beuttner, of the Engneer- inq Department, had requested that the plat be dated, that the area of parcel l be correctl.v indicated, and that a word description 6e placed on the plats. On a the~an licatonncgnditionalbon8thekfollowenQOmmission voted' unanimously to approve PP 1. A soils report is prepared b.y a qualified engineer to determine the most appropriate homesites and foundation designs, and 2. A proposal for an engineered sewage disposal system"should be .provided to the satisfaction of the County-Sanitarian, and 3. The clarifications sted by Lou Beuttner in his memorandun to the Planning Office of bctober 25, 1978 are followed on future submissions, and 4. The applicants agree to deed covenant the property against future subdivision ;~ of the ten acre parcel, and ' 5. That proof of water in the form of a well permit is provided. Racquet Club.- Special Review ' rice noted that this application proposed expansion in excess of 5000 sq'. Richard G e access to a more appropriate`location and re- location and doubling of the ark ~- lanerecHmmbndKeddthatothe1app1ican~-ng. It was ttoted th~t traffic,"was the key issue t and the County stud the costs of a turn-out e ein, representing the applicant, noted that the only increase 7n '" traffic would be generated by an increase in tennis courts from 9 to 12. There- fore, the maximum would be 1?. addi$ional cars. McCarthy commented that design workshop said there would be an increase of 16 cars. Grice expressed concern ~. that the addition cif a pool would cause",people to stay longer. In reply to Fox's question, Klein said the club owned 19`acres and the fact i'fies were on l acre. ;- McCarthy questioned the car impact and the cost of the turn-out lane. 'He suggested ~' that approval be subject to satisfaction pf the cost between the applicant and the County. Pope requested drawings of the'new access`'to be'su(imi'tted to P & Z. Levin- . son wanted to see more work. done with the increase in cars and projections of member- shi includin new em to ees. Mc Carth fie height of the proposed club- . P 9 P Y y questioned t r house roof. Fox commented that the clubhouse would he quite visible from Highway 82 and the whole idea was to keep Highway 82 open and uncluttered. Klein responded that the structure was needed so players could have a decent facility. Levinson stated he was sympathetic with the need to keep up with the competition but he ' apposed expansion. And because this was locate"d in an extra sensitive area he was not satisified with the application. Roy Vroom reminded the Commission that the ,. _ _ ..: ~ ~< .mss.. .,5 ~~~ ..wi`~ ~ .4P`{ ~` ,.~~,.,:y .. ` .*" :c~. .~.a, .t~ .., ... . ~. .. RECORD' OF PRQCEEDINGS 100. Leaves tan x e. r. somas. e.s ~. ca' ' r Planning and Zoning Commission November 8,1978 page two present structures were built in 1969 and 1970; that they were designed to be temporary; and he felt they couldn't serve 9 courts; and a lot of the expansion would be storage and underground. Tom Sommers noted that the application got parking off Highway 82; added landscaping; maintained a low profile with the clubhouse.; economically needed 12 courts; and represented a local tennis club. Levinson said the preservation of the Righway 82 strip conflicted with the appli- cation and he felt the proposal was for too much. pope felt that the danger of a gradual eYOSion of the approach to town existed and that the pool would attract more members. Fox requested the height of the clubhouse be lower and that more Aspen trees be used to hide the building. McCarthy made a motion to table the application until the following 5 points could be addressed: 1. anew intersection design with acceleration and deceleration lanes. 2, the County"and the applicant should enter into an agreement for costs for the Highway $2 revisions. 3. revised traffic count to reflect expansion. 4. physical size of clubhouse.. compacted and xeduced in height. 5. revised site plan to show additional evergreens for screening the club- house. On a second by Fox .the Commission voted 4 to 0 to table with Pope absent. Water Approval for Lone Pine The resolution was amended by adding "and" after "comprised of twelve free- market" in the Tst paragraph. Also, "iow" and "middle" were dropped from the ' 5th paragraph. On a motion by Brickham and a second by Fox, the Commission voted 5 to 0 to approve the resolution - Pope having returned. Code Amendments In her memo to Karen Smith of 9-29=78 Sandra S idler, Counfy Attorney, summarized the proposed amendments to the LUC. They included adding subsection (d) to Section 10.03 titled: Required Removal of Improvements; adding Section 10.05 titled: .7udical 8evew by Board of County Commissioners; adding Section 3.08.11 titled: Temporary Uses; amending Sections 3.03, 3.04 and 3.05 by adding the new use category "Bus Stop"; a3c~irig fhe definition of "Bus Stop" to Section 12; re- -_ a _. pealing Section 5.09.03 d 'and Yeenacting`t orth new wording; repeaiig the" first sentence of Section 5.09.04 a. 2. and reenacting it with new warding. The Commission wanted the Planning and Zoning Commission dropped from the judicial review of fhe BOCC. The Commission recommended that the definition as shown in Karen Smith's memo to P ~ Z of 11-3-78 omit "a small shelter° and add "provided no storage of vehicles with a 24 hour maximum. On a motion by Fox and a second by Brickham the Commission voted unanimously to have 'Stuller draw up a resolution addressing all the proposed amendments to be presented " at the next meeting. ' There being no further business the meeting was adjourned. • Respe tfully submitted, ~_,: Loretta Banner Clerk and Recorder ,.,,,,.. z ,. ,,. ... ., f. l~ (ti f~'Lj~ a ~'. ~ " / "" t . i / / i _._, q rt 4~, ~` i~ Y~ ~f^ ', ^~o ,. ~ , $ 1 .. :... I r o- ... ... .~ i k~F a i ~ ~ ~ `• / i i v 1 \~~ i N 13"1O'?.`J'E 176 `1T~ NZ3°lo'56'"~" 103+1'- N 7t3° 3T 47 ' c. ~~ ~Y' _. NC' S5'IZ„E ~.. L~- _. r: IQ 1l C ~:' t- `~7c ~ ~~~ t N 3G° 57' Zt" E ~ 5 /h' i % f r /~ ! ~~ `b~~\~'I«~ ,,._, h 4`i° h9 GI' (•.'. _ `l4 .;b ~°d~~-Gji ~~I ~ ~h / ti i' ; ~ I ~3f.AO , ^2 ~O' IZ' IE' E ICXJ.4T-- O /~ I r:d ' / ~: ' I i ~ Ir~ / / I !''a/ / I ~ r / ~ I `) ~ ' I L~eSi I r N I I° C;.'o Z7" C "; 140,- t buildin~ I p; II ~, I riles ~ i ,~'~ %IJ~ ~ I ~, ]. , i I N 3x~° 40' SI" E 74.21'-- ~ ,~ A~ I ~~ ~I ~ ~ \\ 1 I I ~~ ` ' ~ I~ N q(n• p' ir8" E `i~7.7Z_' - i'~~"/~ ii / I i ~ / ~i i ~ 7 {load , ~ ~ other bu;ld,r,J ~;fw i II possui;~i-y ~ t / y 1 '~ j / Con hl~h fjrc'~„d) ~ 1 ~ 1I. ~ x / / ~ t I(o" E hIG .Fi7' _ ,~°:~ij'// .. i / I ~i ~' h. y.,-~~~ i\, I 11; 7 i ~ .. ili°3`'(. I I I I i I !I I I I I l 1 T ! I ' 1 i i I % / ~ 'i' l~ /r/ c : % ~ i' ,! '! ~i 9 1'. ,':5 i i ~ ~ !' l ;`"~ i7~ ~ /~~ /~/ 2 ~/ ~-1 ~~ .,. I I t - -- 5n3° os' 1 r' w 7i ~«Z' . ,~ '. 03' d' ."~7" F_' L!O ;:~ a '!n c p," Slo~ie yreatar a '~' ~Y g ll`7..fl'CXJ"W 1F m ahan w: a m 45°~ Ft- ~ ~. .ti Q7 OI" 4<e' ZZ" 'w' I It ~ ,, ~ /^'~ ~~ r/~_ r> 5a° u'cc cr ~,~ cis'! / / ii k„ : /"rte ~~ / ~~ ~/ / / /~ ~ ~ / ~ i ~l -/ ~--5 39° Z6'IXT W ti7CKT / i .'i ~~'~~„ ,% ~~7 7 ~ ~~ . ~~~ i~~ i ~'" _--~ ~ ~ ; ', ` l ~-~~~ log year {load posmbiLty ~ `' i,- , / -~ •, ° ~- ~/ yy~'„'„..~~yy~~~~ _ 3 / _.v_.. ._ ... v; •t°W ir.)= .. ~.V -,:3"?TCC3=W ~PiY Q~ _ , _ /~i~}..j ~ .. _ _ «. ~. N iY' £r ~.^.(. 104 ~ ... ~..-rte 1 -OJ ZO° ly.' 'Jo° W 154.?_-~r' ~- 500° 30' 7" F_. 14 S GO' J eol oc~, ~ crer lay s b~~ ~~~ ~r ~ti~ q /U,~7w ~~ n HIGHL73ND5 RANCH SUBDIVISION EYEING .TO 1 - GEr]ERAL SUBMISSION SUBMISSION COr7TF~]TS SUP~7MARY (6.03.02) (a) Application form - attached at Exhibit 1 (b) Disclosure of ownership (ll,egal:.descrption-attached at Exhibit 2. Also attached at Exhibit 2 is letter from attorney for applicant cextfying ownership. (2) Map indicating public road access - attached at Figure 1 (3) List of adjacent land owners - attached at Exhibit 3 (c) Vicinity Map - attached at Figure 1 as insert frcan 2,000 scale USGS indicating subdivision boundaries and roads for one-half mile on all sides (d) Other Maps - General Sulxnission map at 100 scale with 200 scale inset attached at Exhibit 1 which includes: (1) Conceptual drawing of parcel and road system with acreage of fathering parcel and Parcel 1, topography, man-made features, improvements, total acreage of tract and percentage of total area in excess of 459a slope, zoning, geologic hazards, and vegetation. (2) Geologic Overlay - attached at Figure 2 (e) Compliance with land-use policies (1) Master plan/Rate of Growth. Tne proposal calls for a single lot split of 10 acres for purposes of one single family residence. The fathering parcel contains 93 + acres. This lot split is exempt fran G.M.P. quota and phasing requirements. (2) Zoning. Site and vicinity are within AF-1 zone. (3) .Hazard and Resource Areas. a. Geologic b. Floodplain c. Soils/erosion Lairg~iris Geologic Consultants 'report attached as Exhibit 4 hereto treats a - c above and indicates suitable development capability. e. Wildlife - CSU maps indicate no adverse effect fr~n development. ,, f. Wildfire. CSU maps reveal no hazard in area of development. (4) Agricultural Conservation. No Agricultural activity exists on Parcel 1. The fathering parcel will maintain all existing agricultural operations. (5) Scenic Quality. Report from NSoffatt Associates attached hereto as Exhibit 5 describes, the scenic clk-iracter of the Ranch and the proposed development. Parcel 1 is visually screened by topography and vegetation. Moffattreport indicates no adverse visual impact. C:SU maps confirm report. (6) Water Supply. The proposed development calls for an individual domestic well to serve one residence on Parcel 1. Water storage will be provided to provide fire fighting capabilities to augment Aspen Fire Pro- tection District response time. Location of storage will be determined after locafion of producing well is established. Wright Water Engineers study attached hereto as Exkiibit 6 indicates that domestic water is available for proposed dwelling by utilizing domestic well and indicates no adverse,.impact on underground aquifer, stream quality or stream flow. (7) Sewage Disposal. An individual septic system will be engineered to canply with Piticin County Individual Sewage Disposal System Regulations. See study attached hereto as F_xhibit 6 from Wright. Water Engineers and Lampiris Geologic Consultants at Exhibit 4 indicating suitability for. individual septic system. In the event a high water table area exists in the vicinity of proposed dwelling, engineered sewage disposal systems will be utilized as necessary to canply with the Piktin County Regulations at Building Permit review phase. (8) Roads/Trails;_Impacts, Maintenance. See map attached for circulation and access at Figure 1. See also Exhibit 7, N~ffait Associates report on Road System Ii~act, - 2 - ~"""~ (9) Drainage. Detailed drainage plan to be submitted with detailed sulxnission if necessary. Preliminary study attached hereto as Exhibit 4 from Lampiris Geologic Consultants indicates no drainage in~oacts. (1~) Impact on Transportation. See report fran MoffattAsso- ciates attached as Exhibit 7. (11) Impact on Public Services/Utilities. a. Solid waste disposal and collection - private sector collector. b. Fire protection - see referral comment. (see also (6) above, water supply for description of water storage for fire fighting purposes.) c. Police protection - oral confirmation indicating adequate service available. d. Sanitary landfills - See solid waste above. e. Extension of utilities i. Nbuntain Bell - oral. confirmation that service is available. 1. Holy GYoss Electric Association - oral confirmation that service is available. 3. Public Schools - oral confirmation that facilities are adequate. 4. Pitkin County .Assessor - oral confirmation that development creates no adverse impact on fiscal capabilities. S. Other utilities provided by applicant as indicated f. Public Shops/Yards. Applicant will provide all interior road maintenance and clearing. (1"l) Eanployee Housing. This single lot split is exempt fYom Employee Housing Requirements. (13) Energy Conservation. Several. building sites exist with solar design potential. (14) Water Resources Impact. See Water Supply information at Exhibit 6. - 3 - ff) Assessment and marketability Data. (1} Appraisal and anticipated sale price of lot. Parcel 1 is under contract for sale at a price of $150,000.00 (2} Developr.~nt Costs. Applicant is in the process of obtaining development cost data and wi11 provide it as soon as data is acctmanulated. (3) Lot Sizes. One 10 acre lot; fathering parcel will "Have 83 + acres remaining. (4) Discussion of Proposed Covenants. Parcel 1 will be precluded from further development. - 4 - ~. . " FZ!m~ n1 ,. ' APPENDIX B PIT~AS,`t GO~dV ,L d ~ PROJEC?' NUMBER Section/Parcel LAND USE APPLTCATION FORM. GATE SU)3MITTED 78 b ;t NLah1£ SCHWIEN - Hi hQ lands Ranch Subdivision, Filn¢ No. 1 AUDRI:S$ _c/o Schwien, P.O. Box 1152, Aspon, Colorado $1611 y PHONE 925-3130 NAM1 oE" PROJECT 'Highlands Ranch Subdivision, Filing No. 1 PROJECT LOCATION:., (On attached sheet, locate on zoninymap, showing boundaries of any natural hazaKd and resource areas, any other special regulatory districts, Section 5, Land Use Code; and locate on appropriate CSU/ERA. Maps any areas not covered by the above.D TOTAL AkEA' gg * acres EXISTINGUSE(S) 'Residence with some ranching activity PROPpSED USE(S) one single family residential lot of 10 acres (app-oxmate sgaard footage for each) ' PRESENT ZONING OF SITE AF-1 ' DESCRIPTION OF LAND (7SE FROPOSAL Applicanf~~proposesa Lot split to create ly 10 acres. ' parcel will have approximately 83 ± acres remaining after the lot split. ... ~.: . .:. ... rv.. ... . :.::~: x i . ....':. '.v .'.. ~.. ~.. f.. ~ .... .. TO BE CO:•iPLETED BY THli PI:AidNING OFF?CE TYPE nf' APPhIC11TION: ~ ~ 7.1>^ON?NG ~ SUBDIVISION I •'i D. EXE[dPTTON SP CI1?I. fiI:V If;l4 35-acre + SUBDIVISION ~_ /~~ /t4+U7 LUI N:; S S ISi7I R[~/,.V~(I1:W ' R1:V1FW F'13ASx:: PF} FPL~ A'PI (iN _ (,.~/?t~~ 1"~ ~ DATE COMPLETED GENF.Iv1L SUBMISSION _ ---~rrr-----_---_ P.C. F~C'PION ~' DATE BJAR:) ACTION DATE UT;TAILED S(JBF1'ISSION ~ "" "- "'_°"-'- P.C. ACTION PATE BOARD inCTZON .. :....: DATE FIN~l7, PLAT 43O<1RD ACTION DATE TO BE COMPLETEb B~ APPLICANT: Appen~3i,x A PITKIN COUNTY 1. 2. 3. ~°°+t LAND USE AYPhICATION FORM ~~~~: t SUMMARY OF FINbTNGS' RTa~UIRF.D BY F2E;VTJ'W PHASE Directions: Any applicant for a development requiring a permit under this. code shall be responsible for showing conformance with any applicable policies of Section 2 as listed below. The. applicant shall submit those requirements necessary to show conformance with these policies and the related general regulations of Section 5. O'pon submission of the applica- tion and all submission contents, the Planning Office shall distribute same tp appropriate referral agencies which shall indicate its certifica- tion or non=cert.i.fication of the proposal as being in conformance. with policies and as satisfying submission requirements and review guidelines of relQvant generaa regulations. Referral agencies shall also indicate whether further. study in a later review Phase is required and any further recomm2ndations or conditions, attach:nq comments and returning same to the Planning Office. ' ' OCAL REVIEW- CERTIFICATION ! CONDITION STUDY REQUIRED POLICY FACTOR NG STAFF YES NO AND INITIALS DA.TF RecorL*;F:rm TIONS PA GS DS FP* . Not inconsi.stant Planning with Master Plal Office - - - Rate of Growth - - - Hazard & Resourc Planning ' Areas Office I \ ~1G~ Geologic Q ~ C t'tp ~U ~ Hazards ~ `~ Ploodp]ains ~1~ ~`~~ ~~\ ~ t Riparian C3L Areas Sdildlife wildfire Radiation Soils/Erosion County Ex- tension Agent ~ i I Evtractablo i ~Pla:nninn ~._ ~.~ RC SO UrCCS `Y~~~( ICi.` . Pfincral ~ ' Vegi.tuble ~ Other j i I ~ k'A Yre-Application DS Detailed Submission GS Q General Sahmission FP Final 'Plat A- ,_.;_--:.~ Appendix. B .~s .,~~~,. ~~)~, , ~ 1I - PITKTN COUNTY tiAND .,aE "APrI:TCA'TTON' T'b~2M k, - ~ ..._ ~ ..,~-, , ...,w..... _. ~ .: STUDY`REQUIRED POLICY FACTOR LOCAL REVIEW- CERTIFICATION CONDITIONS ING STAFF YES NO AND INITIALS DATIi RECOMMENDA- TIONS 4. PA GS DS FP Agricultural Planning Conservation Office ~ 5. _ _ J Scenic Planniny Quality3~ Office ~ r~ r ~ .! ! (a7`' ~ ~ 4.~ Gam ~: lw. 'ri IAAL .Y.t .._.: b: ~ 6•. _ _ Water Supply Environ- mental Health ~ ~• `~ _ _ _ Sewage Dis- Environ- posal mental Health $•__ _ _ _ Noise Environ- mental Health 9• ~ _ _ Air Quality Environ- mental i Heal rh 0• _ _ _ historic/ 1 Historical Arc hacnlol;fcal ~! Society ' Resources I P . ;, aAppendix 73 PITKIN COUNTY LANll USE P.rt _~AT?ON TORM STUDY REQUYRED POLICY FACTOR LOCAL REVIEW- CERTIFICIATION CONDITIONS ING STAFF YES NO AND INITIALS DATE RECObfMENDA TIONS P GS DS FF 11. _ _ _ _ Road/Trails County Engin- Design & Con- eer struction " Impact on Road system Maintenance provisions 1~ _ Drainage Count Y . Engineer ' 13. _ _ _ Impact on County Transportation Engineer 14. ~ _ ~ Impact on Public Planning Office Facilities/ Services Solid Waste County Engin- Disposal & ineer Collection Fire & Police Sheriff/ Protection, Fire Dist. Response Service • Sanitary County Land Fills Engineer , • Hospital Hosptial Capacity Board Library Sub- Library station Site Board Post Office Postal Substation Service Site P ~.~--~'m:_ i _ ~~ Appendix B PITKIN COUNTY LAND USE APPLICATION FORM r f STUDY REQUIRED POLICY FACTOR 1,OCAL REVIEW- CERTIFICATION CONDI TIONS ZNG S'LAFF YES NO AND INITIAL DATE RECOMMENDA- ~ TIONS ~ PA/ GS DS FP f/V _ _ Extension of Rocky Mt. utilities, Natural Gas water and ~ispen/Holy sewer Cross Electric ~:--Mountain Bell Municipal Water & Sewer Dist.s Public shops, County garages, yards Manager Recreation Sites City Recreation Director General Tax Cost/ County Finance Benefit Officer 15. ~ _ _ Contribution to ]lousing Housing Stock Coordinator 16. _ _ _ _ Man-made Hazards/ Building Safety Official 17. _ ,_ _ _ Wildlife Colo.Div. of Preservation 1+lildlif.e 18. _ _ _ _ Energy Building Conservation Official 1~• ~ _ _ _, _ Water Re~;;ourccs District Water ___~-~~ Lnpact Court 20. _ final Plat County Engineer, Contents Attorney,Plan- ning, Office JEFFREY N. SACH$ HERBERT S. KLETN JON DAVID SEIOLE Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena S'treef ` "` Aspen, Colorado 81611 SACHS KLEIN & SEIGLE' ATTORNEYS AT LAW 601 EAST MAIK STREET ASPEN, CbLORADO 81611 (303) 925-8013 September 13, 1978 DENVER OFFICE: 1660 LINCOLN ST.- SUITE 1618 DENVER. COLORA D'O'8~02'64 (3031 881-2493 REq Highland Ranch Subdivision, Filing 1 To Whom It May Concern: This letter is to_certify that the undersigned attorney has reviewed legal title to the parcel of property described in the attached Exhibit as Highland Ranch Subdivision, Filing 1, Parcel 1, and that ownership is currently vested in the applicant for this subdivision request. Very truly yours, SACS KLEIN & SEIGLE /~h~, Herbert S. Klein HSK:mb Attachment •~. -'-H< .,.. - .Mr+ Sul ::'.vr .S Y., a .. ., . .,. ._ . ~, r,y ____ _ _ _ _ L Aipine Sunr~yys Post Office Box i730 Aspen, Colorado 81611 3C3 925 2688 September 6, 1978 78-123-3 HIGHLAND RANCH SUBDIVISION FILING ONE " PARCEL 1 A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED 3N H.E.S. NO. 112 AND OFETHE 6TH P1M„TPITKSITT COUNTAND 7.]. SOUTFI, RANGE 85 WEST' S.', COI;OR1?.DO, BEYN`G"~1~YbRE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOT~T,OWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE 'OF CONUNDRUM "" CREEK ROAD, WHENCE CORNER NO.' ° 1 OF SAID H.E.S'.~ ~NO. 112 BEARS N O5 20 00 E 268.25 FEET; THENCE S 78°00°00'° E 57.24 FEET; THENCE S 43°17'02" W 44.98 FEET; THENCE S 29°09'16" W 52.16 FEET; THENCE S 07°35'01" W 200,00 FEET; THENCE S ZS°21'04" W 342.36 FEET TO A POINT ON AN EXISTING FENCE LINE; THENCE FOLLOWING SAID FENCE LTNE'THE FOLL047ING COURSES AND DISTANCES: S 03°'03'11" W 79.42 FEET; S OS°06'37°" E 210.01 FEET; S 11°28'00'° W 28.66 FEET; S O1°44'22"`W 118.20 FEET; S 20°14'26" W 154.24 FEET; S 11°20'02" W 28.62 FEET; S 03°03°57" W 44.15 FEET; S 04°55'58°' E 34.18 FEET; ' S 00°30°17" E 145.60 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING FROM"'5A1D FENCE TINE, `N "69°21'52`" W. ,. 151. O1 FEET TO THE CONFL~T7ENCE''"OF CASTLE CREER ~AN'D~ " CONUNDRUM CREEK; _,.. _ _.. THENCE FOLLOWING THE CENTEI2T,II~E 'OF~ 'SA'D CO~U"t~1iUN!""CR,E"EI~"~ ~ `~"`"~`~ _'~`~~~~~ "~ THE FOLLOWING COURSES 'AND `DIS'T'ANCES S 65°28'00" W 117.00 FEET; S 54°22'00",.W 69.00 FEET; S 39025'00" W 67.00 FEET; 5 31°O1°00°' W 120,00 FEET; .,... _-„ai,..,s . ,. i:r o i w v ..norm . -s-.nx. n„ '<. ,,.. , xeav4: 4 .n 4Yca .~ September 6, 197$ Job No. 78-123-3 S 41°50'00" W 50.00 F S 73°28'00'° W 65.00 F N '73°27'00" W 89:00 'F N 52°47'00" W 63.00 F S $1°27'00" W 40.00 F S 46°53'19'° W 70:'55"'F Page 2 TTiE CREEK ROAD TFIE FOELO"~7Ti~G COU72SESMFA~?D""DxI`S~r:"C~ v~. N ~~~3011' 5~3"~ ~ 84'.08 ~~., .. ,~ , N 11°11'26" E 61.00 FEET;"' , N 40°13'16" E 316'.$7 FEET; N 56°06'48"~E 58'.72 FEET; N 39°34'55" E 65.79 FEET; N 30°,40'51" E 74.21 FEET;' N 11°,36' 27" E 91.40 FEET';`" N 27°13'11'° E 61.53 FEET; N 40°12°18" E 100.47 FEET; N 49°59'01" E 94.16 FEET; N 36°57'22" E 45.74 FEET; N 18°32'16",E 61.37 FEET;- N 11°57'30" E 92.70 FEET; N 18°55'24'° E 57.24 FEET; N 38°59'06" E 23.63 FEET; N 61°'45°12" E 34.14 FEET N 78°37' 47" E 40.28 FEE''S`; "' _ N 47°27°37" E 46.12 FEET; N 28°32'27" E 147.38 FEET; N 23°18'58°' E 103.41 FEET; N 13°10°25" E 170.97 FEET; '`` N 18°28'46" E I03.68 FEETp N 05°20'00" E 75._18 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 10.0I6 ACRES, FORE"`OR'~ES5. "'~' """ .~. , . _. .. ,., ,_.,,,... ~ -_-~:...~~~~~~ ~.~z° sin=sF ~, E~.3 Sunee~rs ;e Box 730 olorado 8161 August 16, 1978 ADJACENT PROPERTY OLPNERS HIGIiLAND RANCH "SUBDTVIS70N 1. Ten Corporation c/o Everett Gust, Jr. 623 St. James Blace Newport Beach, California 92663 2. John D. LaSalle 434 E. Cooper Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 3. Tommy J. & Carla Gene Carter Box. 537 Aspen, Colorado 81611 4. Jack & Esther Gossard Box 351 Aspen, Colorado 81611 5. Walter H. Birk Box 8003 Aspen, Colorado 81611 6. Conundrum Solar, Ltd. Box 8003 Aspen,-Colorado 81611 7. Judith Greene Box 933 Aspen, Colorado 81611 8. Radcliffe & Sue Spivey Kllam Box 499, Laredo, Texas 78040 .x ..,.... .~. , .m ~- .,~...~ , ~, a ...:, ,.; .~.,, ._ Page 2 9. Dean E. Rollings & Laurie McFarlin Box 9023 Aspen, Colorado 81611 10. Hillary and Margaret Raab Box 126 Dyer, Indiana 46311 11. Robert B. Lewis Box 2190 Aspen, Colorado 81611 ' ~-~ 5 (S) SCENIC QUI~TY (L.U.C. 5.0.7) n;;- The proposed Parcel One of Highland Ranch lies in the valley bottom and is bounded by Conundrum Creek and the Conundrum Creek Road (CR 15~), It is heavily wooded by dense stands of evergreens, aspens and 3~rush. Several glades well within the property con- stitute the most likely building sites. The only land areas with overlook vantage to the property consist of steep, near-vertical, mountain sides and are part of U. S. Forest lands. i'ublic views from the. Castle. Creek. Road are almost totally buffered by an approximately 60 foot high tree-covered bank run- ning along the east edge of Castle Creek. The remaining view to the property. over the top of the bank consists of treetops, both on the property and at the base of the mountain slope to the west. Public views from the Conundrum Creek Road consist of the dense evergreen growth immediately at the edge of the property. Vehicular access would be via the Conundrum Creek Road and there exists ample opportunity for an on-grade driveway with- out the necessity for cut or fill grading. Views from adjacent homes to the befoze mentioned probable building sites are screened by the dense evergreen growth. cn ~•' sr- v6OE BRO0 iB0'[9 pSPE N.COLORP00. 916rr G L£NW 000 BPR1N 650FiICE p O. BOX 1}BU Ol GLEN WOOD SPRINGS. CO LOFPD~ STEV pR BO%922 BOd09 STE PMBOAT VILLACpLOq PVO GO OFFICE rSA NTO O~_w pTEq EN GiN EE RS r .K T.M F. yu BLlc KM 9% PNT (G V P .JO MRI N IC pN RE PR 5p NT0 OO'OM I NG O. yy RIG HT Vy ATER ENGINEERS, IN ENGINEERING CONSVLTANTS 1 p30 pLCOTT STREET DENVER. COLORA0080111 i'!O!1 P60.6'801 Glenwood Springs Tel. 945-7755 August 31, 1978 Mr. Herbert S, Klein 601 East Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Highland Rancfi Subdivision Water Resources n crvrvE~N a wu1w.T W LI.IpM LORAN RUSSELL E OARR ~ Cq AIG GREEN RIt.H PRV O 1 pFl[ t5n~ gaOER* U gALPa r. rt>veN Dear Mr. Klein: our request water resources report ahland Ranch Sub- We have prepared the followfje family parcel of the Hig concerning one ten acre sing W 6th P M , about five males division. The ten acre parcel is located neR85the confluence of Conun rum in Section 2, T115, rimary building Creek with CastlenCP?akin County. We understand that the p south of Aspen, ecifically address water resources site is located osetof thishreportnisdtomspreek on the west side of Cast e Creek. The Pu p the Pitkin County Land Use Code for General Subect~on~,, impacts as outlined in ublished geo- Section 5.09• Our evaluations and conclu~eviewaof variousnpfield insp review of State Engineer Office reCOand~personal interviews. logic and ground water information, le family residential 100 gallons per capita per da and Water supply requirements are calculated for a sing water supply °f 350 unit based on 3.5 persons per unit, ions, a would Based on these assumpt acre feet per year) year around occupancy. er ear (0.39 arcel, it is gallons per day or 127,750 9hls°~alpcharacteristics of the p will be non-existent be required. Based on the p Y anticipated that irrigation or out-of -house water usage or minimal. b developing Water supply for the proposed single family unit will be met Y ineering ground water from the Castle Creek/Conundrum Creek alluvium. Review o An Envif-onmeetao~tanndEaetes that e the "Roaring Fork and Crystal Valleys No 8 1974„ P rilnarily Geology Study, Enviornmental Geology oun er alluvial deposostts are char- major portion of the property contains y 9 be moderately sorted by alluvium of Conundrum and Castle Creeks. These all ravel to clay particles acterized by unconsolidated rota gestep size from g water size, This material commonly deposition. This same report indicate and is generally better rounded than colluvial debris. Historical Y9 has been the prime moving force during robably contains developable waand seaoonalrfluctuatic the alluvial material P recharge, total use, variation particle distribution'ieldy within a given area. Most wells in the or of material, and depths range from a few fee result in a wide range of well y study area are in this categ Y Mr. Herbert S. Klein _2_ August 31, 198 to over two hundred feet. Expected yields range from 0 to 500 gallons per minute. The "Groundwater Geology Map of Pitkin County" dated January 1977 shows this area to be a major recharge zone in alluvial material, however, the map does not indicate this source as a major alluvial deposit. It is our opinion that use of this 10 acre parcel as a single family residence should not cause an adverse impact on area ground water recharge. The State Engineers Office 1977 Tabulation of registered wells lists the following sik wells in Section 2, T11S, R85W: LOCAT70N YIELD DEPTH WATER LEVEL PERMIT N0. (S2, T115, R85W) (GPM) (Ft.) (Ft) 5-49-022450 NE NE 70 10 -- 5-49-028301 SE SE 10 47 22 5-49-o3i704 SE SE l0 35 8 5-49-039745 SW NE 10 45 26 5-49-039746 SE NE l0 30 g 5-49-0$4867 NE SW 15 60 -- From the above data, it is our opinion that an adequate water supply for domestic purposes 'can be developed on the parcel provided the well is properly located and constructed. Contacts made with individual well users in the area indicated that water supply and quality has been adequate. Further, it is our opinion that this well will not have an adverse impact on the above listed wells, nor should the cumulative. impact of the several wells be adverse on water resources of the area. It is anticipated that waste water treatment will be by some type of engineered septic tank/leach field disposal system. If the system is properly designed and constructed, it is expected that adverse impacts on ground water and surface water resources can be avoided. Due to the close proximity to ground water and surface water, consumptive use resulting from leach field disposal can be expected to be on the order of TO-20 percent of the water diverted, or about 0.08 acre feet per year. This will have minimal impact on downstream water rights and minimum stream flows. However, should aug- mentation of the well be required, a plan could be developed using a small portion of existing rights on the Highlands Ranch. A cursory review of the State Engineers Office records and Pitkin County's water rights maps indicates the following decreed irrigation right associated with the ranch: AMOUNT ADJUDICATION APPROPRIATION DITCH (cfs) DATE DATE Highland Hope Spring Ditch 1.0 1T-5-1971 10 16-1957 v ^~ If you, have any questions regarding our report, please do no hesitate to tali. Very truly yours, WRIGHT GIAI'~R"~FIGI"FtELCtS,~ t'N~. '~`: ~~~A..`~~:"~ fay ~ . icfiard D. John n RDJ:ep 781-27.29 This right is presently being used to irrigate meadows and pasture for grazing. The subject 10 acre parcel has rrot been used for agricultural purposes., . Based on this study, it is our opinion that an adequate domestic water supply can be developed for the parcel, and if, properly TmpTemented, adverse impacts on water resources can be avoided. if you have any questions regarding our report, please do n'o hesitate to call. RDJ:ep 78t-27.29 Very truly yours, WRtGHT tiIATER ENGTNIrERS, T~T~. `".'" "~ ._,..,~,,.~:,- By_~ ~ . ichard D. John n ~~,~ HIGHLAND RANCH SUBDIVISION Moffatt Associates 9/6/78 - Page 1 (8) IMPACT ON ROAD SYSTEM (L. U.C. 5.21) Introduction ~x ~ The Highland Ranch property is located at the confluence of Castle Creek and Conundrum Creek five miles up Castle Creek Road (County Road 15} from the SH-82 intersection. The existing ranch. facilities are served from Castle Creek Road. The pro- posed subdivided parcel will be served from Conundrum Creek Road' (County Road 15B). Data Source Road Netiaork Analysis - Pitkin County, Colorado Brisco/Maphis, Inc. - 1973 Existing Road System and Traffic Castle Creek Road (CR 15): The Castle Creek Road is classified as a Type 2 Collector. The first 12.6 miles of the total 13.3 mile length is paved (the proposed subdivision is at mile marker #S). The road serves residential, ranching and industrial use's, as well as the new hospital. The Castle Creek Road has a Design Capacity of 3750 ADT, a Tolerable Capacity of 776 ADT and a Service Volume of 834 ADT. The estimated 1972 volume was 340 ADT and the projected estimated volume for 1980 is 1000 ADT (Table 8). Table 3, page 53 and Figure 52, page B-16 list numerous roadway and edge condition deficiencies, not unlike all other Type 2 collectors inventoried. Proper maintenance and pavement widening from 22 feet to 24 feet would in- crease the Tolerable Capacity to 1090 ADT and the Service Volume to 1252 ADT (B/24 - Corrective Action, Page 61). Conundrum Creek Road (CR 15B): The Conundrum Creek Road is classified as Type 4 - Semi- Primitive. It is unpaved and serves a total of eleven HIGHLAND RANCH :''';DIVISION Moffatt Associates `` Road System - Page 2 residences as well as U. S. Forest access. Three of the above residences are served from directly beyond the bridge at the Castle Creek/Conundrum Creek confluence and the remaining eight residences are served along the 1.25 mile total length of the road. Proposed access to Parcel One of the Highland Ranch is approximately 0.5 miles from the Castle Creek Road. The Conundrum Creek Road is assigned the minimum Design Capacity and Tolerable Capacity of 100 ADT. No ADT esti- mate for 1972 or 1980 were made (Table 8). The bridge over Conundrum Creek at mile 0.2 is listed in good condition (Figure 87). Local residents have recently improved 15B with grading and gravel road base. Local resi- dents maintain the road in winter. Conclusions Castle Creek Road: There is no evidence to conclude that the 1980 estimated volume o£ 1000 ADT will be reached. Given no new unfore- seen development, but buldout of previously subdivided lots and increased tourist traffic, it carr be assumed though, that the I972 volume of 340 ADT has increased to- wards the 1972 Tolerable Capacity of 776 ADfi. Although the recommended widening by two feet and mitiga- tion of deficiencies has not been accomplished for the entire road length, there has been repavement of at least one section and correction to several edge conditions. The resultant increase to the Tolerable Capacity is unknown. with the exception of possible impacts to the Castle Creek/ SH-82 intersection given the new hospital, it would not seem reasonable to assume that one new dwelling unit on Parcel One of Highland Ranch would compound that problem or cause any significant new impact to the first five miles of Castle :.~ _ •, HIGHLAND RANC~UBDhV151ON _ Moffatt Assoc ~~es Public Transportation - Page 3 Creek Road. Conundrum Greek Road: CR 15B seems essentially to be a local feeder serving a cluster of houses. An increase of 11 to 12 D.U.'s served does not seem to constitute overloading and because main- tenance seems to be a local responsibility, additional users might help improve the situation. (11) IMPACT ON PUBLIC 1'RANSPOR`1'ATI01V ._ ' "" The Highland"Ranch is five miles from 3Ii-82 via the Castle Creek Road. At present the only public transportation serving the area is the Pitkin County taus Service. Assuming the existing level of service, it is possible that persons related to the pro- posed subdivision might utilize the bus to and from down valley but unlikely for trips to and from the center of Aspen. Existing school bus service up the Castle Creek Road would serve the de- velopment with no_modfications. Zt can be assumed that local taxi and limousine companies would serve the development. ti TAE1.S 3 ~> SUhL*tARY OF RCAt) SL:ChfLNTS 6LFICZENCICS~ 0 oad Segment a u w ~, : a ,'n v cap a ~ s ° ~ ~ Other .C .1 h C d . . [~ V ~ 0. a. .< N ~ y v j , o N 4 ~ y P . 1 N O M o N P V ~C ~ . v. Vl vi a j 1 lA x x x x x x lA-E x x x x x x Z 3 n ~ n n - X 3A-II (semi-primi tivc) _ - _ _ _ x - 4 4A-E (semi-primitive) U _ - _ _ x _ Q __ x _ 5 _ 6 6A - - - r, N x Li x - x x x x 7 - _ _ _ _ 8 (Larkspur Noui,tain) ,<j ~ ~ ~ y x x 8A-E (loca]lsemi-p riml.ti vc) - - - 9 (Capital Creep.) _ ~ 0 ~ _ x 9A Qqk Creek P,a nth) r. x >: 9R (n.f Yr C_) _ x x 9C (Closed) _ _ _ _ ` _ - 70 (I:ru ah Creel:) _ - - Inn ((Jwl crook) ~ ~~ (~ ~ U ]06 (Country club) x x (y O - lOC (send.-p rimi[1 vc) _ _ _ _ 11 (Sngwmass Creek) ~' ~ (~ Q z 11A (semi.-toll c<tor) _ x 13 (Maroon Creek) _ x _ ~ n `x x 15 (Cas U.n Crack) IS % ~ Q x x A C semi-piiini tive) - 17A-II (local) _ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ x Q x Q ~ Q Guard Rail 19 (4loody Creek) 19A 0 0 0 - O _ x -~ - ~ (saml-primit tvc) _ _ _ _ x O (~ Cuard Rnit. 20 21 ~ X n >> n ( (~ n (~ _ _ _ - x z x _ > O ~. O A Q(cl eon Fanch) O C ~ a ~~ ~ U _ ~ © Q ~ (~ E (I:Sdre pun) ~ _ x x _ _ _ _ _ - 1) (1R ad OF:Olltt) X X X R (I;i dgc Iced. ilounratn) X x x X X _ _ _ _ ' C. (AS},en Grove) X X x X x - _ _ _ _ _ _ N (I:no]lunodllin ^,Cynnd) . - _ _ _ I (t:ount ain l'a11c)') x x x _ X _ _ _ ~ - ~ ` F (Srmgg lcr AlounraJn) _ x _ - _ ;t _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ x _ _ X X X % ~ Q - _ x x - Qz m,merous priVaCe drives - ® x ~ - - - x, x - x - % X X % (~ _ x ~ Q % ~ x ' - - _ x x - _ _ _ X - _ _ x _ x - - - x - - _ _ (~ x ( i~ - / x X l!a x ( `'~:~ X - x n Y r1 ., ,..__, .. .. r. Ind ica [es deli p,,i de ffci ency >~'. Crf tl ral to cnp.,~lt)' or mnt nl.unriuce ke fcrence Cqun[y Band Index, Appendix B pa}~c E-l. fnr locations. 53 RIt Crossing ~~~ ;.. r .. ,... . ~,. ~ _.... "Level of Service C is the zone of stable Flow, but- speeds and maneuvexahillty are more closely coiiirolled by the higher volumes, most drivers are restricted in then frer.dom to select their own speed, change lanes or pass. A relatively satisfactory operating speed is still obtained - with service volume perhaps suit~bl.e for urban design practice." The Following method was used to detcrmi:ne the service volume. SV = Service volume (VPIO v/c = Volume: to capacity ratio (Reference 1.) f1L =Adjustment for. lane width and lateral clearance at given level of service. TL = 'truck factor at given level. of service. Example: (Using the same data as pi.ven in example for capacity calculation except for a Level of Service C) '~ Sv = 2000 (v/c) WLT'c v/c = 4.70 {factor from P.eferencc. 1) i71. = 1..00 (factor from P.eference 1) Tl = .93 5 truck (level) (factor from Feference 1 SV = 2000 (.70)(1.OG)(.93) = 1307. VPI1 T'herefgre, service volume capacity of the example roadway at Level C is only 1302 VPH. lfsing this nethod the tolerable capacity and service volumes were cal- culated for a.11. applicable road segments and are listed iii Table 8 a'Tso included in this table are the estimated 2972 and 1980 traffic volumes as ' taken from the Regionah 'iransportation Yl.an for. the'Ci.ty of Aspen and >sitkin County prepared by Alan i`J. Vorhees & Associates, I)envcr, Colorado. - E. CAPP.CITY DEFICITTICTI:S It can be readily seen by a review of Table 8 that Pitkin County has no immediate problems of capacity on its present system. (Hxceptiou P.idge Red Mountain Road). The system will begin experiencing an overload to Che. established service volumes and tol.erabl.e capacity figures as ore apl>roach ].980 on the following road segments: CounL-y Road 8 Larkspur bfountain 10 Brush Creek (1owe:r) 10' P,ruslr Creek (upper) 10,E Owl Creek 1013 Country Club 7.5 Castle CYc'eIc 19 Woody Creak 20 CrOSSO\lr - Ceunty 1.9 to Colorado 82 21. Cms~;nv~~r - County 1J tc Colutado 82 .., s ,.... ~n,.c ~^~,ha'*..nM1.,..~rm„~bw,....3k .,.,w >'t~, „?Y; ° .a..rwtu u.~ f~ `.'.c:'~: A,,. r,~~.,..., aJ _ T °' i ,Nr NI U rl ; `..t 2`o Sq~ y. 7 t ff,~Sl l' ES p, ri / ~ n,'nf~ tR.f'~ ~~5'~l r~,~(z2 Di:8IG;1 nNEi 70LG(:AI311 C1,V''ill;llli~ y~ff1RV1CI V(71111.11sS" 1:S'i'TPIA1'P, 1972 and IJ',:) 1Rn31.'7f 6V(tLlRti~:S (,.DT) ' - e~ Y y !' --- Road Segments 1)eslfn f) Sl'c,lernb.te ~'~ S~rvi.cc "' Service Service Capacity /Capaci.ty iVol.un,e Volume Volume (All'a'y (nD'i') (- (All'1') listinuited Estimated 1972 Vol. 1980 Vot, ., ( ,) 1 l~25 251 264 264/lU0 264/200 1A 425 281 7.64 26,+1100 264/200 2 1Y75 "733 674 674/:'.00 674/250 3 (Redstone) 1275 J27 737 737/100 737/200 3A--R (semi-primitive) 7.00 100 t:/A r./A IJ/A 4 (Frying Pan) 37`0 2305 261£; 261.8/50(1 2618/1500 4A-E 1.110 [.00 N/t1 N/i1 rd/A 5 ~~•'--~ 256 234. 234/[.00 234/150 6 425 247 2?.(i 2:?6/]00 22Ei/150 6A l o0 7 0o N/n n'/n N/n 7 1 t)0 , 1 8 (Larks ur) 425 247 l2ti 226/100 226/300 8A-B L00 100 N/A N/A N/A 9 CCa~tal Creel.)._ _,__ .1275 733 G 4. 674/7 Q0 .__...---...._..674/200 9A - _ ._..... ]0(i .100 ~ N/A" N/A N/A' 9B r./n N/n rr/A rv/n N/A 9C, (closed) 100 lU0 i`/A N/A N/A 10 (Bnish Creek - lower} 3750 2320 'L820 2fi?.6/1500 ?820/3000 10' (Brush Creek -upper) 3750 2524 ?.443 2443/1.000 ( 2443/4000 ' l0A (Owl Creek) 425 247 22f 225/150 ~ Z2G/1200 lOB (Country Club) [,j5 264 1.41 241./1..10 ,~' 241/1.000Sp` - 100 1.00 N/A r./A .l~' pl/A ~. 11 (Snowmass Crec. 1100 (Snowma.~~ Crek) 7.271 738 6.74J.. __, _._._6.74/1.00, _ , G7~+~150 °~ ek) 425 ~!7 27.6 22(1/].00 226/150 1]." (Snowmass Creek) 100 700 8Z/A P1/.~ N/A 11A 425 247 226 22611`10 '?26/150 11C (closed) 100 / 13 (Maroon Greek) :1750 2086 1944 19'~4/~00 1944/1200 ~15 (Castle Creck) '3750 776 834 834/340 834/1000 ].SA 100 1.00 iJ/A N/n N/A 1523 1Q0 t00 N/n r,[~ ~- ,. , . 17 (Woody Creeh) ,uv :3750 inu 7953 NJn 1824 N/A N/A -- 17A 1324/200 7.824/1000 7 7B 100 100 r2/A N/A N/A . 19 (Woody Creek) J00 :37'.10 J00 7774 rl/A 1664 N/A N/A 19A tube/700 1.664/2500 20 IIJU 1(JO D./A N/A N/A 21 1275 738 (114 67v/2O0 674/1100 Ridgc Red btountain* 1275 275 1 738 738 6;4 674/2(10 674/1000 All Others** . pi/!, ;d/A 674 N/n G7<i/2000 id/A N/A ~' Data on volume for 1971 was taken by City of Aepen. TC apf,earr Lo be high duc to the number of or_cupiect homes 'in the unit. area and aut.omobilc trips generated pe r dwe17.1nf; ** Subdivisions A, ii, C, D, c:, G, il, 1, rtonilw;ty;: lIS-fS, ?A-n , 7('C 1tC cnprtr'ft not a factor. , y -- _. -,,~ r. cor:i:.l:c•rlvl nc•ilorr In order to correct tfuse cle.f.iciencies l.n capncit.y at the let•c:7 or service assumed for the. segments above, the full.ou;i.ng sper.i.tic or con~6.lration of actions wt.ll be necessary: Loch segment will be discussed individually. 1. 'Segment- 8 - (Laclcspur Dfountuin) G!iden road to two 11-foot lane;; wiCL ;a 2-foot shoulder and the capac- _ ~ •~ ity increases will be: '1'n7eralale rapaC:ity ._U Service volume - 305 2.* Segment 10 (Lcwcr.) tdi.den shoulder ±~ 4 feet and tht~ capacity increases toill he: Tolerable capacity - 3:1Flr So.rvice volume - }1.1.3 3.>~ Segment 10' (upper) fdiden shoulder to ~> Peet.' and lanes to 7.2 fee r. and chr. capacity increases will he: 1'olc:rable capacity - 3750 Service volume - 3750 4.* Segment l0A ((ha.l. Creek) Pave roadiaayi.ncrease lanes to 12 feet with 6-foot shoulders and capacity increases wi.l.l be: Tol.crahle capacity - t'75 Service volume - 1.275 5.~ Segment 1013 (Count:ry Club) Pave roadway i.nctease lanes tci 12 fer.t with 2-foot :;boulders and capacity increases will be: 'Lo7er.ible cspa~Ity - 7082 Sc:r„ice volume - 1.037 6. Segment 15 (L'astle L'reek) [~~i.den roadway to two 12-foot: lanr;.s with 4-foot'shoul<lers and capacity increases will he: Cnlcrab7.e ra,ari_Cy - 1090 Scrv.tce volumc••_ - i'1.52 / 'Truck Crtffic (7.0 ) is thr stgniricant item tha.C re.luccs capacity on this set;mm~t, coitltout fru,k (wrekcnds) nnlcr ~.LStin} con<lit:ionat.heceapacities would be: 1 il~.r:tblc cap~u;i.ty 250 .Service volume - 21.1.8 r 61 F ~r... . " ~" "~ 1'Ah L1: 9 UJ:S ICY I:LI:h F.ti'1' Dla'i Cf F:7CII:S - SAF'IY1' Y ItP.1.A'LI: U r. U toad $ r v H M C. :1 .° ~ °' 'i ., , r. ~~' +r V o Cj;mCn LR (Coon Cy Itgnd bes ignnt Son) ~~ ~ p j; %: ~: h m v V .+ ; ' N U m. G :+ ~ u v v 11 N :) i! , ~ ,i 'V ~ N W ~ ~ a x N y o ~; ; mc> v, c~~ Li v ~, ~ ,~' v ~ •~ i N N lA x % % lII-E (semi-p rtm(tl.ve) _ - x _ _ _ _ X x 2 3 (Redstone) x x X .n x - ' x ~ - - 3a-IS (semi-y rf mitLve) _ _ - _ x O - _ _ - - - _ _ 4 (Pry1nU Ym,) __ _ _ _ _ _ 4A-C (son!-prlniCivc) _ _ _ x - _ _ _ _ - 5 6 x x _ _ _ _ _ x _ r. _ _ - _ x _ s _ _ 6 A. - r. - x x - _ _ _ 7 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ 8 (La rlspur Mocntaf n) (~ n x - x 8A-E (i.oca7/semi-Priors ti.ve ) - - _ _ _ x Qc - 9 (Cxpltil Crock) 9A (C]k Creak Ranch) x x - _ x ~ ~ - _ - x ~ - - 4G (P rf vatc) x _ - x - _ - x _ _ _ _ • 9P (scm1.-p t.Lmi,tivc) _ _ _ - - IU (15 rlivh Crrrk) _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - IQA (P,~1. CrcclQ x _ _ x _ x _ _ _ lon (ranncry clla,) x x O x ~) - - - - (`) O - x x IUC (sona-prlnii flue) _ - ~ - x - 11 (S IiOWI.l.ls:, i, 1'e:e Hl 11A x - _ X _ _ _ X - _ x _ x _ O a _ llf (local.) - _ _ _ 1.1C (C105Cd) x _ x - x _ _ _ - 13 (*`aroon Creak) - r, _ _ _ x - _ _ _ _ _ 1> (Cas.t lc (1 vM) _ x Q (~ x - 15n C semi rl nri flue) - x x - x x - ~` - x 17 IJuody CI l c'r.) u y s x ,...~ x `°... - :.. _ _ x ,.. 17A-ri Qocnl) x e x 19A (Koody Cre R) x x x x - - - x ~ O ~ b x x U _ - _ ~ X 20 _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ % r. A (Mel Cnn ftanrh) % z r, x U x - r. l7 r. x L (R!dgc Rml) x x - _ _ .x x _ x x C (Wood RUn) - x % x - x b (Pleadowood) _ _ _ _ X %. - _ x E (R:.dfc I;rd lbuntain) % x :( % ~ x - - x P (Smuf;gl.cr Pioun[ain) _ x _ _ _ r, - - x - - _ x C (Aspen Crnvc) x - - - - - _ . B (Knoilu:ood/Cns [wood) x x _ - x x' '" _ _ x I (4toun thin Vii 1.1 cY) x _ -x x _ _ _ X , x _ x x _ x x lndl r-acct, ;1 ;safety deft ci enc-y Qx Indlcnt a: n ssr rl oua safe cy drl lclrncy b;lscd on ^s tlon nl or local atnt Ltlcs t{nuy Joca :m:. ;:cin L-prl miL fur road.... we rr. not lour^a lnn Lod due to khc not urC of volume. 711i:: does not indlr.,te. that po [otitf it La%a rris do nnC exls[. ' _... ' 72 ,, A. COUNTY ROAD IrIDP,X „ , a . w County Road Designation Name if Available ,~ + o «. , , Type Roztlw 1 lA TdoC maintained by County u (lc;cal ) 1B-D Not maintained b Count Y Y . 3 (local ) 2 tfot maintained by County . 4 (semi=private) 3 Redstone 3 (semi.-collector) 3A-B ~ 3B iv'ot maintained Gy County P 3 (.].Deal.) 4 (semi-primitive) 4A rying Pan River 2 (collector) 4BN 4 4 C ~~ 4D 4 Csemi-private) 4 E ~+ 5 4 6 3 (semi-collector) 6A 3 (seni.i-collector) 7 4 (semi-.private) 8 IIA Lax9cspur Mountain Ruad 3 U.ocal) 3 (semi-c ll o ector) 8B 3 (1pca:1) 9 Capital. Creel; 4 (semi-primitive) PA P:, lac Creek Ranch 3 (semi-collector) 9B 'Crappist Monastery 3 (local). 9C Nickelson free] 3 (loca.L) 9D 4 (semi-primitive) 10 brush Creek 4 (semi-primitive) l0A (hal. Creek 2 (collector) lOL' lOC Sncwmass Country Club Road 3 (semi-collector) 3 (semi-collector) 11 Snowmass Creek 4 (semi-Primitive) 1.1A 3 (semi-collector) 11B [dildcat Creek 3 (semi-collector) 11C 3 (focal) 13 Ptaroon Creek 4 (~~emi-prindtive) 15 Castle Creek 2 (collector) 15A n,F;: .. < ? (co l lector ) 15B Condundruni Creek . . . . 4 1.5C 4 (semi-primitive) ,, 17 b7DOdy Creek ~ ]J~ ~ (collccCOr) 17B 3 (local) 1.9 iJoody Creek 3 (loc:al.) 19A 2 (collector) 20 2] Ct u~, ,over (I9 to Colo. £32 ) 3 (l.oc. al.) 3 ( 82 CtD ;oveL (17 to Culp. 87 C l ) ;:en i col lector) (se°'c c o:lle t ) 133 o orodD State Iltf.I,way Colorado State lligitway . c or ~ (arterial) 1 (arterial.) IS- 2 . , ... ~nzn~ o ,.~ ~. ~it~i, ~.,,..._n,trz- ~ n~~ '.. _~~._,,__-- 15 - ~. ~ .,_. iJAP(%i: Castle Creek Poad DTSTA27CE ROAD47A$ ACTION LINE SECTION DESCRI^fiI0^,7 Start at intersection of TYpe of Surface - Asphalt, gced ccndition State Hwy 82 !?idth - 22 feet Shoulders - Marginal to none ! Drainage - Ditches, poor to !1 marginal Grade/Ali;nment - 6-10%/Road 47indy Speed Limit - Poated (30-35 mph) Signing, - Stripping - Pocr, bare:y visible Bridge at Castle Creak tither - l'epetati.on, needs cu't ^, (2 lanes) back mihi;gum of b feet. Steel stringers Good condition (see notes) Notes: Both Bridges at Castle Creek (5.8 & 10.21 ;Jidth - 22 feet Length - 51 £cet Dangerous unprotected Gad Area - 198 sq. Et. Drop-offs; Road windy Capacity - and steep grades in 3 - 30" x 12" I beams this section. Speed limit should be posted - 20 mph. Bridge at Castle Crc>ek ( 2 lanes Steel Stringers Good condition (aee notes) - Special Condltions 1 ~d of Pavement 1. fast lane heavily dsmaped due to truck traf- fic. 1 2. Effective shoulders or disa}iled vehicle area virtually non-existent on uphill side of rcadc.ay -- culvert sizing [iii der needed capacity. x 16' Box 30" culvert 3. Roadway plowed entire length (13.3 miles). +~.ud of public road R-16 :" ^ure S2 ., s ..v.n, ...+ss ., n 4,tih, -a .x"#m i~`f ~u"~y3 ='~`a s..r_ 5x.'u nv .. a.n^. t ~~' Jdgpl' ;;onuudru, ~r~c!c DISTANCIi ROAI)V9AY AC'T'i0N LlTdli .Start at :intersecti.on o, County Road 15 (Cast:l.e Creek Prive) Bri.d;,e over (:enundrxlm Creel: (single lane} Stoel. Stringers l~Jidth - :iS ft. LenFti, sP;in -- 36 : t, 8nd Area -- b4E; ,n. ft. CaPac.i.ty - 1]. - I Fcan-s, 15 :c 1./?. 51`(:T(^td 1~J?:.;t7R1I'1'70id '', Type of Surface .- fiCrt ~+~'J~I.~/if7~ Ll.idtlt -. 12 fret ( one-way road I)raina~e ^'tl, 1'u1.1-cuts) ~:rade/Aii.gnrleut ' r.^pr - 6-t0 /t'indin Srecd hirit g -- ric, i,~. ~,) Strinrtnn {!;-='=rl,~ended 20 nett) • ;/~,~ ( op sign should be installed at linter- . s~ctien of main hwy. an. lt0':" - C'euctty Rd. ].5.) . Narrn,o I?:i rt Read 'rah,,, C^nditficu T• ::not,' r':ot,~od Co hridpe. ~.~rJ ~,. ' if'nr~' __F7_ `i,; .- r..q 1 ,. ,... '"w. .. HIGHLRtv'L~S :Y1bICI3 SUE;DIVISION FILING N0. 1 - C,Ef~RF~l, SUf3MISSIUIQ „_ ; SUBMI$$ICN COCtP1:^7PS SUNddARY (6.03. C2) '. ... (a} Application form -attached at Exhibit 1 (b) Disclosure of cx~mcr~hip (1Legal:..description-attach~.l at Exhibt_ 2. Also,,, attached at Exhibit 2_is letter frcm attorney for applicant certifying ownership. (2) Map indicating public road access -attached,at.,Figure 1 (3} List of adjacent land aaners -attached at Exhibit 3 (c) Vicinity Map -attached at Figure 1 as insert from x,600 scale USGS indicating subdivision boundaries and roads for one-half rule on all sides (d) Other Maps -General Sutmission map at 100 scale with 200 ` scale inset attached at Exhibit 1 which includes: (1) Conceptual drawing of parcel and road system with acreage of fathering parcel and Parcel 1, topography, man-made features, ir~roveT~ents, total acreage of tract and percentage of total area in excess of 458 slope, zoning, geologic hazards, and vegetation. (2) Geologic Overlay - attached at Figure 2 (e) Cacipliance with land-use policies (1) Master plan/Rate of Growth. The proposal calls for a single lot split of 10 acres for purposes of one single family residence. The fathering parcel contains 93 + acres. This lot split is exenrot from G.M.P. quota and phasing requirements. (2) Zone s. Site and vicinity are within AF-1 zone. ~ (3) Hazard and Resource Areas. a. Geologic b. Floodplain c. Soils/erosion Lampiris Geologic Consultants report attached as Exhibit 4 hereto treats a - c above and indicates suitable developtmnt capability. . e. i~Tildlife - CSU Traps indicate no adverse effect fran developrent. ~ ?... i. f. ~4ila`fire. CSG maps reveal no haard in area of developnent. (4) icultural~Conservation. 1~?o Agricultural activity exists on Parcel 1. The fathering parcel will maintain all existing agricultural operations. u (5) Scenic Quality. Report from Moffatt Associates attached hereto as Exhibit 5 describes the scenic character of the Ranch and the proposed developmit. Parcel 1 is visually screened by topography axul vegetation. hbffattreport indicates no adverse visual i.ng~act. CSU maps confirm report. (6) Water Supply. The proposed development calls for an individual danestic well to serve arse residence on Parcel 1. Water storage will be provided to provide fire fighting capabilities to aug~iient Aspen Fire Pro- tection District response time. Location of storage will be determined after location of producing well is established. LvYight t4ater'Engineers study attached ~~ hereto as Exhibit 6 indicates that domestic water is available for proposed dwelling by utilizing domestic well and indicates no ,c7_ verse impact on underground-- aoqui.fer, stream quality or stream flow. ~~ (7) Sewage Disposal. An incliydual septic system will be engineered to cas~ply with Ptkin County Individual Sewage Disposal SystFan Regulations. Sep study attached hereto as Exhibit 6 fram Wright Water 'Engineers and Lampirs t~eol ogic Consultants at Exhibit 4 indicating suitability for. individual septic. system. In the event a high water table area exists >n the vicinity of proposed dwelling, engineered sewage disposal systems will be utilized as necessary to ccnrply with the Piktin e County Regulations at Building Permit review phase. . ,~ ~. (8) Rpads/'I'rails. Lrgk3cts, t~lintenance. See map attached E for circulation and access at Figure i. See also Exhibit r k= 7, Mo£fattlLsociates report on Road System Impact, -2 , ., m. _ .~.. k.. (f) Assessment and P".arketabilty Data. ppraisal and anticipated sa1P nr; rn F (1) A lot. Parcel 1 is tinder contract for sale at a price of $150,OOO.OU (2} Development Costs. 1lpplicant is in ;the process of obtaining develog~it cost data and will provide it as soon"as,data is acc~mmulated. (3) Int sizes. One 10 acre lot; fathering parcel will have 83 + acres rsnaining. (4) Discussion of I'raposed Covenants.. parcel 1 will be .precluded from further develo~xrient. U i i `t k K w x~. kE k~.; ~'. n,.. r ., .. ~_• APS~r:Ntilx [+ .,~J PIT~IN COUNT~`~ ., , l`p h1 ~;~~'r'~` LAND USL APPLICATION FORM TO BE COMPT;ETED BY `Ai'PLICANT Nt~htE ADruu•ss' Schwien, P.O. any natural hazard and resource areas;""anq" dt'kicr` special regulatory districts, Section 5, Land tJse Code;•and locate • on appro)Srate CsU/ERA Maps any areas not covered by the above.). . + acres _ ,, ... a _.~ :.. __ ~ _~.~ .._ PHONE 925-3130 •'" NAME OF`PRCSJECT Highlands Ranch Subdivision 'Filing No 1 e ~ . PROJECT"LOCATION; (On attached sheet, locate on aoniny map, showing boundaries • of _ TOTAL AREA • EXISTING USr:(S) Residence w;rh P120PpSED US$(S) one single family residential lot of 10 acres ' ,• (approximate square • footage for each) ,_,._-,w ~. , r, , .. .. _.< .,, ~_. PRESF.N'P ZON NG OF~SITE ` AF-1 • va.n. .. ...~!# .r cusaktvk.AV~ ~_ PP cant `pro:,; ,., , , :.r ... W •„ .. sm ~. a, i_ __ ... DESCRIPTION OF LAND USL FROPOSAL ~ ~i noses a tar split to create one single family residential lot of zpproxmately 10 acres.. The fathering ^-' wil imately 83 ~ '' ~-Y' ~ l~. 'i . , 1SR0TLCr .NU~iBEfi • ;. , -.. :;:, ; . ~ ...: •. , .~ Section/Farccl DATF, SUBMITTCD September 178 Filinr N 0 8 acr_ivity arter the lot. split. TO BE CO!dPLETED B1' TfiE PLAiV[~Itd'G JtSF'F rCE TYPE OF' APPLTGITION: PJi;.ONINC. SP.:CIAL R[:vli:iP ' ~ tbUILUING Rl:V1F.W PHASE: SUIIDIVISION EXEFIPTTON 35-acre + SUIIDIVISIpN / t'ECJ•tIT' FEVI/ESJ Fl:1-nPPT.IGI'I I(~N ~ ?~ ~ ~ G DATE COMPLI:TEU GENF..Pv\t SUCDtISSION P. C. AC'PICIN DATE BOARD ACTZON DATE DETAILED SUDMISSTON '' ` p,C,• ACT'ION DATE BOARD •AC'PY6N" DATE FINAL FLAT ~ l10At:D ACTION • DATE f»° t , l SACI-~S F:I:~Il`~T 8c SrIGL~ - _ I JEPFREY H. BAC HS ATTOANEY5-AT~LXW"'-- ~ '- '~ HERBERT S. KLEIf1 OENV[R OFFICE: 001 CAST MA{N dT4EE7 ' ~ -~ - '"" "~ JON DAVID iEIOLk ~ "' IaEO LINCOLN ST,- ]UITE IDt® ~ AtFEN, C'OLO`NAbb Ei~l~. .~.. ~- OCNVER'. COLORAOC BOZOi ~ I]O]1 010:087] - ~ ~ (70@I Btl@AO] September 13, 1978 Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 8T 511' RE: Highland Ranch Subdivision, Filing 1 To Whom It May Concern: This letter. is to certify that the undersigned attorney has _ reviewed legal title to the parcel of property described in =- the attached Exhibit as Highland Ranch Subdivision, Filing 1, - Parcel I, and that ownership is currently vested in the -- applicant for this subdivision request. Very truly yours, • SACHS KLEIN& SF.TGLE Herbert S. Klein HSK;mb Attachment ~. ~:. >~ -. .s~. ~ ~...~. a~.. N. ~- r ~~ -. _. ~ iCx ~- L ~ ~fi September 6, 1978 c 78-123-3 HIGHLAND RANCI SUBDITYYSION FILING ONE PARCEL 1 FENCE LINE; EXISTING THENCE FOLLOWING $AID FEN`C'E ~I'NE TIiE'"~'OL~O~II'NG COURSES AND DISTANCES: S 03°03'11" ` W 79.42 FEET; S 0 8°06'37" E 21Q.01 FEET;• S 11°28`00" W _ 28.66 FEET; S Ol°44'22"' W 118,..20 FEET; S 20°14'26" W 154.24 FEET; S 11°20`02" ° W 28.62 FEET; S 03 03'57" W 44.15 FEET; S 04°55'58" E 34.18 FEET; ' S 0'0°0'17" E 145.60 FEET; ' THENCE DEPARTING $'ROM S~~D FENCE 151 01 ` " " LINE, N 65`°21'S~2"'~r""""'' "" "' ~'` . FEET TO TFIE C ONE T~U~""``(jg'""~~$^TI.fi``C1~K~~,IVDR, nn~rr~rntTrn 1 04 W 342.36 FEET TO A POINT "i~N `~~ ,..~.,,._ ,.>_ ~ .... A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED'`IN• Fi.E.S`. "NO. I12'~AND ~ OFETF#E 6TH P1M.,T0 TKIN~COIINTY,rDCOLORA"DO, ~BE~G MORE~ST ~~ FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON` THE CENTERLIND OE` C(~IVtJIVDRUM CREEK ROAD, WHENCE CORN~I~"NO.`1 OF SAIll H.E.S. NO. 112 BEARS N OS°20'00" E 268,25 FEETp~~ ~` THENCE S 78°00'00" E 57,24 FEET; THENCE S 43°1 T 02" W 44.98 FEET; THENCE S 29°09'16" W 52.,16 FEET; THENCE S 07°35'01" Tn1 206.00 FEET; THENCE $ T5°2 ' '" .UM CREEK; FOLLOWING THE FOLLOWING S 65°2'8'00" W S 54°22'db"" "W S 39°28'00" W S 31°0~1' 00" W ~.I. .~ ~_<>, '. 00 FEET; __.. 00 FEET; 00 FEET; .00 FE$T .. ~-... a .. ~~ ...has; ,,.,. i'~' ~~ .. ..... :: September 6, 1978 Job...No: 7$123'-~.. ~~_~.. _ .:... ... . .. ... .. ....... ~,~. S 41°50'00" W 50.00 FEET; S 73°28'00" W 65.00 FEET; N 73°27'00" W. 89.00 FEET; N 52°47'00" W 63.00 FEET; S 81°27" S 46"53 N 23°11 N 11°11'26" E 61.00 FEET; N 40°13'16" E 316.87 FEET; N $6°06'4" E 58.72 FEET;' N 39034'55" E 65.79 FEET; N 30 40'51'° E 74.21 FEET; N 11°36'27" E 91.40 FEET; N 27°13!11`' E 62.53 FEET;. 0 N 43 12'18" E 100.47 FEET; N 49°59'01" E 94.16 FEET; N 36057'22" E 45.74 FEET; N T8°32'16" E 61.37 FEET; N 11°57'30" E 92.70 FEET; N 18°55'24" E 57.24 FEET; N 3'$°59'06" E 23.'03 FEET; N 61°45'12" E 34.14 FEET N 78°37'47"°E 40.28 FEET; N 47°7'37" E 46.12 FEET; N 28°32'27" E 147.38 FEET; N 23°18'58" E 103,.41 FEET; N 13°10'25" E 170.97 FEET; N 18°28'46" E 103.68 FEET; N 05°20'00" E 75.18 FEET TO THE POINT"OF""BEGTN~SI~YG, CONTAINING`10.016 ACRES;°MORE OR LESS. v _.. ,.,.. r ~ ~~,.~ _._ , i; ..~.~ fl _. _~ ~ ~ ~l .-- . ( "°~, L Nicholas Lampiris, F'hf7 ' COHSOC(MG'OE0000~37 PO BO%10935 ISOEN, COLORAD08£811 -~ ' (3031925.8020OFE 9233128 RES. ~' September 8, 1978 Herb Klein Box 12035 .Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Herb: I ?~mre completed my investigation of the approximately ten acre Parcel 1 of the Highland Ranch Su5'division. °This'tract of land' .... lies at the junction (see accompanying map) of Conundrum and Castle Creeks in the southern portion of the Aspen T~ minute quadrangle, Pitkn County, Colorado. The Castle Creek Road to Ashcroft Lies just east of the property. 451 of the developable part of the tract (west of the greater than slope) lies in the alluvial plain formed by Castle and Conun- drum 'Creeks. 'The areaswhich are beli~ede~'to be aubj'ect~~"to the' 100-year flood are shown on the accompanying map. 'this entire portion. of the property .is covered by riparian vegetation. A high bank afteraveraging six feet in height lies on both sides of Castle Creek its confluence with Conundrum Creek, and the stream channel is straight and very well defined there. The developable portion of the tract consists entirely of Quaternary age alluvial deposits; the steep sloges to the east and the flat areas°above [hem are the distal portions of an alluvial fan system extending westward from the other side of the county road.. The underlying bedrock is inferred to be the red silEstgnes and sand- stones of the Pennsylvanian-Permian age titaroon Formation, although no outcrops were seen on"the property. These beds dip about forty degrees northeast in the hills west of the tract, and about seventy _r ~... ...~~....-. <,~ degrees northwest in the hills east~of the property This discrepancy in the dip of the beds on either side of the valley 3s probably the major reason for a fault being mapped under the alluvium in this area; there is no surface indication of this particular fault in the vicinity of the property. From a geologic standpoint a large portion of this property is suitable for development. There is no evldence of avalanches having reached` the property, there are no high rock c1iFFs nearby from which rocks might fall, there is no evidence of mining near the tract so that sub- igdoeuce hazard is not present, and the developable g"ortion of the tract t of the range of mudfIow Hazards: Tfie inferred faulE running under the property has not had movement in millions of years and would .. { Herb Klein September 8, 1978 Page Two only present a problem in the unlikely event of a major earth- quake in this part of Colorado. It is my judgement that only the ' areas marked as "100-year flood possibility" are subject to a sig- nificant amount of flood hazard, although no floodplain maps showing' ' the boundaries of the 160-year flood are" available.' It is my recommendation that the high ground within the two proposed g P g ,.. ~.. _ ., P _ g .,. tures Buildin s shouldebebset back atrleasttsixifeetofTOmrtheeed etofbhe" ` stream bank. The fault should only be considered during the course f normal foundation design based on a soils engineering-study of"the wthific site prior to developmen[."Domestic water should be available in fifty feet using a conventional drilling technique. Waste dis- b sal through the use of a leach field system shouj,d"pose no problem ecause of the generally permeable soils of the property. A sanitation ' engineer should be consulted, however, before the final design stages ` ap, of fhe system. l~ccess is readily"available to the indicate$ building w., w.. .µ.,.~,. ,N.... envelopes off the Conundrum Creek""Road"""`~"~" ' I will be available to help in choosing""the most suitable site when that decision is to be made. If "there aie furtherquestions please'` do nbt hesitate to contact me.' Sincerely, ~ I~ ~jA~m~" ~ • Nicholas Lampirs " Consulting Geologist References Bryant, Bruce, 1971, Geologic map of the Aspen quadrangle: U.S~G.S.' Map, GQ-933. 1972, Map showing areas of selected potential geologic hazards in the Aspen quadrangle: U.S.G.S. Map, I-785-A. -. 1972, Map showing avalanche areas in the Aspen quadrangle: U.S.G.S. Map, T-785-G. (5) 'SCENIC QU T~ (~~~~ .'~. ~ )~. , ,~ .>' k_,. ~ , , ` I ~ . _. ' - ~ _ - . . The proposed Parcel One of Highland Rah lies in the valley bottom and is bounded fey Convndr`uin Creek and the Conundrum Creek Road (CR 15B). It is heavily wooded by dense stands of evergreens,.,, aspens and brush. Several glades well within the property con'- stitute the most likely building sites. The only land areas with overlook vantage to the property consist of steep, near-vertical mountain sides and are part of U. S. Forest lands. Public views from the Castle Creek Road are almost totally' buffe red by an approximately 60 foot high tree-covered bank ruh- Wing along the east edge of Castle Creek. The remaining view ~:o the property over the top of the bank consists of treetops, both on the property and at the base of the mountain slope to the west. Public views from the Conundrum Creek Road consist of the dense evergreen'-growth irunediately at_thc edge of the property. Vehicular access would be via the Conundrum Creek Road and p pportunit, there. exists am le o y fir an on-grade driveway with-' out the necessity for cut or fill grading. Views fYom adjacent homes to the before mentioned building sites are screened key the dense evergreen growthbable I •nrtn arH - M t[ ro tlo%[ozt ~.. Aar[ry co O G „ ,,:/RIGHT WAT~@R~~`~1'G I7~'E E`F3 ~" "1"fj'C 4 i~ L wKOO i 11 O CtMWOOD pRYNOI~O~fICC . . . },~ N' ~5~ - -, CNCINE(RIN ~'f cQNBULTAF~fY ' r a tlox f[[3' ' GL[ryWDOD 3IRIN CS COLOII~R Db UYUI ~ SiiO ALf.OT T4 TN[(T ~' ST(A MtlO.T OffICiY DRNV(N. OOLORRb'O~tlOlll ~~~""- ~-' [O [O%11 [0 ~ 4TtA MtlOAT VIL L.G[ COIOIIAOO [[[3! IiOl1..M.[[OI 1ANTO DOMINGO Or/SC[ W NID M,.Mtn. W.T[w [N41N[[N[ NMt%I1N TI4UII CARW[Y[ L ' '~- ~' "" ~' ' GI(lnwood Springs N DV A R T[ IANTO DOMIM4Of DOMINIGAMAIrODLIG Te 1. 945 -7755 August 31, 1978 Mr. Herbert S. Klein 601 East Main Street Aspen, CO 8.1611 Ex. 6 ll[NNCiN I+ Wplfil~l WIL4IM L LUM.N Nu44Yµ [ O.NR J CwAI ~ CMCCN RICn%MO a, JOIIN5tIN . .•RN`INtM LDTONC NLSMI RE: Highland Ranch Subdivision Water Resources Dear Nr. Klein: We have prepared the following water resources report at your request concerning one ten acre single family parcel of the Highland Ranch Sub- division. The ten acre parcel is located near the confluence of Conundrum souek with Castle Creek in Section 2, T11S, R85W, 6th P.M., about five miles th of Aspen, in Pitkin County. We understand that the primary building siCe is located to the north of Conundrum Creek on the west side of Castle Creek. The purpose of this report is to specifically address water resources impacts as outlined in the Pitkin County Land Use Code for General Submission, Section reviewn 5'09. Our evaluations and conclusions -are based on field inspectign, of State Engineer Office records, review of various published geo- logic and ground water information, and personal interviews. Water supply requirements are calculated for a single family residential unit based on 3.5 persons per unit, 100 gallons per capita per day, and year around occupancy. Based on these assumptions, a water supply of 350 gallons per day or 127,750 allons _ "~ " g per year (0.39 acre feet per year) would be required. Based on the physical characteristics of the parcel, it is anticipated that irrigation or out-of-house water' usage will be non-existent or minimal. Water supply for the proposed single family unit will be met by developing ground water from the Castle Creek/Conundrum Creek alluvium. Review of the Ro 11gyaring Fork and Crystal. Valleys, An En_vironmentai and Engineering Geolo Study, Enviornmental Geology No. 8, `t 974" report indicates that a maJor portion of the property contains younger alluvial deposits, primarily aete n zm of Conundrum and Castle Creeks. These alluvial deposits are char- ' ed by unconsolidated rock waste which may 6e moderately sorted by size. This material commonly ranges in size from gravel to clay particles .and is generally better rounded than colluvial debris. Historically, water' variation the alhuvtparticleldistributionCOrechargeeototal6usewaandsseasonalrfluhelcates result In a wide range of well yields within a given area. Most wellscinathens study area are in this category of material, and depths range from a few feet :: ,:; /r' ~ Mr. Herbert 5. Klein August 31, 1978 -z- to over two hundred feet. Expected yields range from 0 to 500 per 'minute. The "Groundwater Geolo Ma gallons 1977 shows this area to be a major rechaPgefzonekin alluv~aldmateraluary trowever, the map does not indicate this source as a''r~a~or` alluvial deposit. Lt 15 our opinion that use of this 10 acre parcel as a single family residence. should not cause an adverse impact on area ground water rechar e. The State Engineers Office T .~ ~ F, g followin 977 Tabulation of registered wells lists the g six wells in Section Z, TiiS, R85W; LOCATION WATER PERM`. i T`~ (~_ Ti l' S_ R85W) Y I EL!) QEPTH LEVEL (GPM) (Ft.) (Ft) 5-49-022450 NE NE 7D 5-49-028301 l0 -- SE SE 10 47 5-49-031704 SE SE 22 l0 35 8 5-49-039745 sw NE l0 45 26 5-49-439746 SE NE 10 5-49-084867 NE SW 30 8 15 60 _ From the above data, it is our opinion that an adequate water supply for domestic purposes can be developed on the parcel provided the well Is pro~eriy located and constructed. Contacts made with individual well users in the area indicated that water supply and quality has been adequate. Further, it is our opinion that this well will not have an adverse impact on the above listed wells, nor should the cumulative impact of the several wells fie adverse on water resources of the area. it is anticipated that waste water treatment wilt be by some type of engineered septic tank/Teach field disposal system. If the system is propeY'ty designed and constructed, it is expected that adverse impacts an ground water and surface wafer resources can be avoided. Due to the close proximity to ground water and surface water, consumptive use resulting from leach field disposal can be expected to be on the order of IO-20 percent of the water diverted, or about 0.08 acre feet per year. This will have minimal impact on downstream water rights and minimum stream flows. However, should aug- mentation of the well be req'u'ired, a piart could be developed using a small portion of existing rights on the Highlands Ranch. State Engineers Office records and Pitkn County's water rights maps indicates the fo11'owin9 decreed irrigation right associated withctheoranchv,ew of the DITCH AMOUNT ADJUDICATION" APPROPRIATION' g and (cfs) DAT1_ DATE Hope Spring Ditch 1.0 957 ' Hi hi I1-5-1971 10-16---- ~ .__._. _. r _ .. . 1. (° / ... y..- I ~ ` i .._ Mr. Herbert 5. Ki": a August 31. 1978 ~ ~ -3~ This right is presently being used to,irrT9ate meadoos and pasture ¢or grazing. The subJect 10 acre parCeT has not been used for agricultural purposes Based on this study, it is our opinion that an adequate domestic mater supply can be developed for the parcel, and if properly implemented' adverse impacts on water resources°t~'n be avoided. If you:; have any questions regarding our report, please do no hesitate to call. ' Very truly yours, WRiGHT WATER ENGIREERS; 'fNC~. ' ~ .,. ichard D. John n RDJ6ep 781.-27.29 • ... ~. >f t, i:,; ;w ', „:. `w~ ._ A n.4 ~. ., Introduction The Highland Ranch property is located at the confluence of Castle Creek and Conundrum Creep v~~ yup WCastle Creek IY ` Road (County Road 15) from the 5H 82. intersection The existing ranch facilities are served from Casjt~e Creek~Road, The„pro- posed subdivided ,parcel will be served. from ;Conundrum Creek Road y (County Road 158). Data Source Rozd Network Analysis - Pitkin County, Colorado Brsco/Maphis, Inc. -, 1973 Existing Road Svstem and Traffic «,, ~« , M . .,;, . .. , Castle Creek Road (CR 15): The Castle Creek Road_is,classifed as a Type 2 Collector. The first 12.6 miles of the total 13 3 mile ,length is paved (the proposed subdivision is at mile marker #S). The road serves residential, ranching and industrial uses, as well as the.new hospital. The Castle Creek Road has a Design Capacity of 3750 ADT, ,,.. >u , _. a Tolerable Capacity of 776 ADT and a Service Volume of 834 ADT. The._estimated 1972 volume was 340 ADT and the . ~ .: i . ,; .... ~. ,. ,; ....w .. _ w.,., projected estimated volume,,for 1980 is 1000 ADT (Tab e 8). Table 3, page 53 and Figure 52, page B-16 list numerous roadway and edge condition deficiencies, not unlike all other Type 2 collectors inventoried. Proper maintenance and pavement widening from 22 feet to 24 feet would. in crease the Tolerable ;Capacity to 1090 ADT and the Service Volume to 1252,, ADT (B/M - Corrective Action, Page 61). Conundrum Creek Road,(CR 15B): The Conundrum Creek_Road is classified as Type 4 - Semi- ..,,..w_._ ,. , .»r.~v~~ Primitive. It, is„unpaved and serves a total of eleven :,,_ . _ _ :..._._w.._ ~ ,_ .... _....,a _. ,. . HIGHLAND RANCHIBDIVZSION Moffatt„ Associ , ~s ' .Road System -Page 2 r r.. ~. residences as well as U S Forest access Three of the i above residences are szerved~frc~m~de~ctly beyond the +~ }`k, J bridge at the Castle Creek/Conundrum Creek confluence and W, _ ,.. the remaining eight residences are served along the 1.2'5' p ccess to Parcel One of the HinhlandfRanchrisaapproximately -0.5 miles from g ~ i k Road. _,,. the Castle Cree, _ ,, _ ,. _.,. ~~ The Conundrum Creek Road is assigned the minimum Design Capacity and Tolerable Capacity of 100 ADT. No ADT esti- ~, mate for 1972 or 1980 were made (Table 8), The bridge over Conundrum Greek at, mile 0 2 is listed in 'good condition (Figure 87). Local residents have recently improved 15B with, grading and gravel road base, Local resi-, dents maintain the road in winter. Conclusions Castle Creek Road:,.,.. There is no evidence to conclude that the 1980. estimated _ ,r.; .. ~ _.,. ~ ~., .r~.~~~. N r volume. of 1000, ADT will be ,reached Given no new unfore ,a +. ..v _~.e~n~ a •~» ~ r„a.wmm~. .c,m v:~+ r nr ,= ~ x1 vy seen development, but buildout of previously subdivided lots and increased tourist, traffic, it can be assumed .., w.~., ,.. ;;,.w.. ~,. ,.,.. though, that the 1972, volume of 340 ADT has increased to- wa ~ . _.... ~,.~.._ rds the 1972 Tolerable Capacity of 776 ADT. ` Although the recommended widening by two feet and mtiga- tion bf deficiencies has not been accomp hshed for the entire road length, there. has been„.repavement of at least one section and correction, to several edge conditions. The resultant increase to the Tolerable Capacity is unknown. ... ..a ats.,„ „w w ..,.rsbkW ~ .. ~ ,,.,~.. .. ..... e ..... With t_he exception of possible impacts ta_the Castle Creek/ SH-82 intersection, even the new hos ital, it would not see ,:g p ~ m reasonable to assume that one new dwelling unit on Parcel ,.. .,. One of Highland Ranch would ,compound that problem or cause ', any significant new impact to the first five miles of Castle .~, .. .. _ ; - . ,. _ ... ... .. _i .,,: .. w ..,...a,.. ,„~«-,.,~.:a,-,,.~+,mvata:..r..,r~.,r~,.,:.tea,a„~:.v,~~:.:..aL.+Wwrn:'kk ~ ;v't~y .. ,. '~°'+"~k"' 4v .~:na a .. r HIGHLAND RANG UEDIVTSIUN ~, .. ..~ ..,... , ,. .. . a , . >_ Moffatt A~soc~ ~$ ~'-.= .. _ l ~. Public ;Transport"aton - Pa~c ~ Creek Road. Conundrum Creek Road CR 15S seems essentially to be a local feeder serving a - . ses. An increase of 11 to 12"D:O.'s served cluster of hou ~~ overloading and because main- does no_~ seem to constitute tenance seems to be a vocal responsibilit additional ~ w:~~ ,, ~ _~..r , ~._~ ..,,,.., y ~. users might help improve the situation, ~' (11) The Highland. Ranch,, is fiver milesM„from $H i SL via Mine c,.aszlc i a Creek 'Road. At present the only public transportation serving ,~.. y g ~ n9 the aY~ea is the Pitkin Count Bus Service. Assumin the existi Pevel of service, it is possible than persons related to the pro osed subdivision might utilize the bus to and from down valley ~ ut~likel for tri s to ai2d from the,cen,ter of 1~spen. Existing but Y p school bus service, up the Castle Creek load would: serve the de- velopment with no,_modifications It can be assumed that local s-.;,2• taxi and limousine companies would serve the development. ~. _. ~.. ,.. _,'..... ..';:r ...».v ,A.,c e...~?d4zSi~Y,iM^~r."KYa5,4_ay~Lw"~a~.^v~~Maa*'itir`~cE dii~' M.. . ~~~ ,. ~ - ~~ . _ k TABLE 3 ~SUl47AP.Y OF YtOAD SW,<rfENIS DEFI`awYCNCIES ~ ~ ~ ~ - Road Segment m u a w a m y m ~ m y ' •"m ar ~ y o ^~ M a ,°, v m Other . c . . H V p "~ w t 00 d ~ 2 •s ~ 3 ~ ' h '.L N A V ',~ A. H u ~ m M '^. y y o: ~ 1 u-E x x >< % % % - - - x - - 3 3A-B (se,ml-primitive) ~_ 0 ~ ~ - - x - x x x - x x ~ ~ • ' 4 4A-E (ac;mi-primitiv ) _ _- - - x Q Q _ z _x x ,' d numerous r1va~ P le drives - e 5 - - - _- - - - _ ~ x Qr - , 6 .. bA - x x - %. O x _ - z z _ _ x x - - ~ _ - _ - z - - _ _ _ Q - 8 (Larkspur Nountain) 8A-G (local/semi- i ,!3 - - - O~ Q Q x x x _ - - - pr mi 9 CCdpi.taI Crcrk) tive) - - - - - _ _ x x x ~z - 9A (IIk Crnek P.anch) 9R (a.ivrte). _ © © U - r. x x x _ x x Qy O x r, ' " - x ' 9C (Closed) -' - - - x _ - _ t x x - 9D (seml-primi rive) - - - - - - ~ - - - - - !0 (brush Creel:) - - - - - _ - - ' l0A (thoY Creek) ]OB (Coma ty Club) _ - x x x Q Q ' ©~ O (] x - _ _- ' Q - ~. - _ x - - . ' lOC (send-prlmi tlvc) x x Q o - _ - - " x. © - 11 (Snowmgss Creek) 17A (semi-c ll ~ - - ~ - © ~ ~ ~ - - _- x _ ` - - ' o ector) 13 (Maroon Creek) x _ _ - - - x - - © x ~ - IS (Cas q.c. Creek) C 15A- (semi-pr7 mitlv ) Q x '' Q x -. x z x - - x x x _ ~ - - - ~ .Y x x e 1JA-II Y Crnek 4io(local ) - .~:. -~ :< x x (] Q ,. ~- - x ~ Q - X x '~ x - - - ~ Cuard Rail ) 19 (IJOOd Y Creek) j ZOA (seml-priniclv © ~. - Q O Q U _ - C] x ~ Q - Cuard Rail-RR Crnssing c 21 - - Q Q ~ x _ - - - - '~ Q Q - - - Cuard hail A (Pfei ton Ranch) () ~d ~ Q Q Y _ O - x y ~ ~ 8 (ltf dCe (:un) - % x - - © C) x . C (tdood' P.un) X - R x - K _ _ - - - - - ~ D (Ffcado~rood) X x _ =. _ _ = . F. (l;idgc Red llounrain C (As en C ) x % x x x x k x ' - - _ - p ruvc) H (Kno7.2vooA/East x x x % x - - _ _ - _ - vnnd) I (tlountain l'allcy) x x - x - - - - _ - - ' F (Smuggler )lountaln) x x _ x = = ~ - y ~ - a Indicates design dcf ic © Crf tical fcnry to capacity o r matnCenance Reference County Ifoad Index, Appendix B a , p ge 6-1 fnr locations., 53 _. _ -.e_, ~_ ~_ ...._.. ~ _ -. ,_ .. - ~~ ..._...: - a _ ~/ l "Level of. Service C is the :ono 4~f stab.ie flow, but' speeds and maneuvorabLllty are more closely conirul7ed by Che higher vv.lumes, mast drivers are restricted In CGeir freadom to se..lect their own speed, change lanes qr pass. Arelativel.y satisfactory oper2tin}; speed is still obtained with service volume perhap;; suitable for urban design practice." The following method was used to determine the service volume. SV VPH (v/c) i?L TL SV =Service volume (VPi[) v/c = Volume. to capacity ratio (Reference 1) + fJL. Adjustment for lane width anJ lateral clearance 1t given level of service TL =Truck factor ai given level of service.., Example: (Using the same data as given in extzmple for capacity calculation except for a Level of. Service C) ' Sv ='2000 (v/c) TdhTc 'v/c 4.70 (factor From P.eference 1) [:l = 1.00 (factor from Reference 1) T1 .93 5 [ruck (level) {factor fmm Reference 1 SV = 2000 (.70)(1.00)(.93) = 1302 VPIi Therefore, service. volume capacity of the example roadway at Level C is only 1302 VYH. Using this metF;od the tolerable capacity and service volumes were cal- culated for all appa:icable road segments and are listed in Table 8 also included in this table are the estimated 1972 anti 19E0 traffic volumes as taken from the Regional. Transportation Plan for the City of Aspen anal Pitkln County prepared by Alan PI. Vorhees & Associates, Denyer; Colorado. E• CAPP.CITY DEFICIEDrCIES ~ It can be readily seen by a review of Table 8 that Pitkin County has no immediate problems of capacity on its present syotem. {gxception Midge Red Mountain Road). Tire system wi1.1 begin experiencifig an'overlvad to the established service volumes and tolerable capacity figures as we approach 19$0 ou the following road aegmo'hts: County Road 8 Larkspur Mountain 10 ' Brush Creek (lower) 10 Brush Creek (tapper) l0A Owl Crech lOB Country Club IS _ Castle Creek 14 Woody Creek . . .., _. 20 21 Crossover - County ]9 to Colorado A7 . Crossc~~cr - Comity 17 to Colorado $2 ,:.-~:~ 4 ~ I' (nG '~~ 'rt.+sl r 9 neslc Aru) ~oi.u;nur,l: r,i~at t•rna - ESt'JFle1'1'1: l 9 72 :uul 1;1 °..lr 'l t`.A i'I~ 7C n ., .. te~ee,, m,NrtflU, (3G~.~R''~ (~ ~ r~ L ~~~~ ort ur~~"„re&Sy721~~1 . ''^ oKe rttvlcl vrn.nt~nts /~ p~U1,I1Pti.~ (AI)'1') ~ ' R d S oa . egments llesign t) ~9'ulcrable t' Scrvi ~` (5) Capacity Capacl.Cy ~ .c: jVutuutc a Service Volum Service (Al)'l') ' (AD'1') ( (e11~T') e fsstinuitad Vol,inte Fstimated _, 1~ V 0 Vol. 1~ .._. w. . _.~, ~ ~, 5 :t..~.=.~i~a ' s ~~-~°=Y(AU ) ~ ~AD'P) 1 lA !I t 5 45 2„t > 2(if LG4/lU0 264/200 2 1 _ 87 7 21i4 26ti/100 254/200 3 (Redstone) 1Y7~ 33 Ci7t' G74/20U 674/250 3A-)[ (semi-primitivr_) 100 1~0 f~A 737/100 737/200 4 (f'r in [ait) Y g 3750 290f, 2518 N//~ 0 N/A 4A-E 100 t00 tJ/A 2618/5 0 2618/1500 5 ' 425 2fi ?34 NJA 234/100 tJ/A 234/150 6 A ti25 l00 247 22G 2'16/100 225/150 7 l0U 700 1J/A N/A N/A 8 (Larkspur)' 425 lU0 2t 7 N/A / N A N/A 8A-B t00 i !OU 22G N/A 22G/I00 225/300 9A~Capital Creek)_, _, 1'175 ,739 6?ti . IJ/A G7ti/l0U N/A 674 /200 9L' ).00 iJ/A lU0 • 'N/A, __.. N/A , _. At/A~ 9C (closed) 100 N/A lUU t't/A N/A tJ/A N/A ek - Lower) ( 10' eck -u per) S1 37Stf `` 3750 "2820f _ '18.0 ' N A "'$201500 /A 2(320 ',/3000 p l0A (UwI 0ree 2524 247 2443 2443 1.000 2443/4000 ' 1GB (Country Club) /25 2Gt' 22G 24 L 22G/I50 •~ ' ' 226/1200 lOC 100 lOp ~~ 7.41/L 0 ,., ~' 241/1000 r 11 (Sno>»Tnass Creek) 11' ~ ~_ ~ 1275 .. .. 73$ , '.'... %~- .:-'-67t,)- N/A , - rily/l0U N/A ~'` GZ4L150 Snowma^s Creek) ' 11" (Snowmass Creek) t~25 1 U0 2ti7 226 - -- _ .. 22G lA0 / 226/150 11A 11C (closed) . 425 247 22G 22G/15U ,~ N/A 26/150 13 (Dtaroon C>•eek) 37~~ 6100 08G N/A 944 1 N/A' t N/A 15 (Casl•le L'reck) ?750 775 . !'34 19 i4/500 814/?GO 1944/1200 t JSA 100 7.00 N/A tJ/A 83 i/1000 N/A 15C lU0 1.00 N/A N/A h/A 17 ([Doody Creak) 700 ;J75U 1 9403 / 4 N/A N t7n 100 . loo 182 t:/A .1824/200 1824/1000 17B 19 (Woody r:rC~it) . 100 3'J'i0 JOU 7 ql/9 N/n N/A rt/A N A / ', 19A IUU .179 1.GG4 IGG4 700 / L6G4/L~00 20 21 1275 ' lU0 J38 r!/.1 G74 tl/A 674/200. N/A 674/ 1100 !I Ridge Red ttountain* 1 275 1.275 73$ 7 18 5N, G74 200 ,1000 674 All Ochcrs** f:/A . t./A 674 p!/A G7v/2000 N/A N/A * Uata Un volu;ne for 1971 fha nurttt ar f was tnlcan by City oi' A spen, IC it{a=nr~ to be high due to ` > o nrr.nplod unit. hamvs In t he lu'r;t and a ttGUmnbllc fr(p9 genct'al'ed-pe r dwellLnl; t Subdivision t* s A, 8, (l, A factor , C, (:, If, 1, f(q:u1c t Y~, IL•-C , '..A-8 , 1t)C, lli capacit y not a r u . .~ .v..: ,.. rr.~ 1..:J. ~:k 'S" . • x. ' ~: :-..~_ ' _ nra . 4e - i y.~ C ~: Y., ~ _. F. cbRttl:c'rzal: nc'L~Jw In order to Correct these de. f.l.etancics fn r.;q+nr.Ity at Chr. love]. oC servir.e assumed for the segment:: above, the Colloe•;i.nf Speci:Ci+ or condatnation of actions will be necessary. C~ch segment will be di ut,.^,ud .LnJlvidually. 1. Segment 8 - (Larkspur Plountain) tiiden road to two 11-Loot land: with i Coo + 'rolcrable rapacity - 3ZU` E :;houldur and the capac- ity increases wi.Jl be• Service volume - 305 2.* Segment 10 (Lower) Widen shqulder to 4 feet and the capacity increases will be: Toleca67.e capacity - 3]Fi~i Service vol.uine" = 3"17.3 3.* Segment 10' (upper) Widen shoul.Jer to 6 feel• .znd lanes to 1.2 Feet and the capacity increases will he: Tvlerable capacity - 3750 Service volume - 375b 4.* Segment lOn ((hal Creek) Pave roadc~ayi.n:crease lanes Co 12 feet'with 6-foot shoulders and capacity increases will be: 'tolerable capacity - 1.'.75 Service volume - 1275 5.* Segment 1073 (Country Club) Pave roadway increase lanes to .l.?. feet with 2-Coat shoulders a"na capacity increases will be: Tolerable capacity - 70$2 Service volume - 1037 6. Segment 15 (Castle (:reek) Widen roadway to two 12-foot lanes wiCh 4-foot"shoulders and capacity increases will be: '['olcrable canaci.ev - 100 Service volume -....12:,7. 'Truck traffic (LO%) is the signiCicanC item that rc.luces capacity on this segment, without trucks (wackends) under exist:.i.np; couditi.ans the capacities would be: 1blerable capacity - 2505 Service volume - 2'3].8 61 _. ~.. ` ~ -p ~ p . _ ~AUrI 1 DISICN Ih9:nI'.itl• fii.h~c}ratarra +•nrCrv ulrnrcu .. .. ., ,, . ,; ~ ~~ S • ~ RoadSegmcnls v u m N r 'Y N $ ~ u !~- ~ u b o 1 (County Itond DeslEnntfon) ~ 'O +, :' N1~ ii ~ ^~ u ~ N { O y; 4 N[: Y M V O N pp W r . 1 V+ q q ~J KU N U•. V ,, tt v N IA ti N lA - x _ - %: % - - ' 30-E (scm!-p riml CSvc) x 2 - - x x ~ - - _ _ _~ ~ 3 (Redstone) x x - ~ x ~Y~ x - _ © x _ - _ ~ ' 3A-C ' (sen:l-prim Clve) - x - Q - ~ - - _ ' 4 (Frying Yan) ~ - ~ _ - _ - _ . _ _ 4A-E (seal-prlmltlve) x - - - - _ ' 6 x x ' - - - x ,x - - x - _ 6A x I - - - - - z x - - _ .. _ _ _ ~ - _ _ ' 8 (la rls put Mountain} Q ~ t 8 ' x ` - _ - A-B (Local /semi-p riml Give) - _ _ x x 9 © _ ~ (CSpf Gal Creek) - ~ - - _ _ _ 9A (Elk Crock Rmict:) x x ~ O _ ~ x x _ ' x ' ' - - 9C {closed) _ ', 90 (semi-prLnicive) - > -.., _ - - _ _ _ - . '~ _ 10 (inrush Creek) ' - - - - _ _ - ton (o-.~l Crdel:> - - - x x _ 100 (Country Club) x x x x© lOC (sand- riml t _ U O - QQ x ' x p .t ve) ' 11 (Sna1JlAflpp la'ue R) _ _ - - ` - ~ - x . - 11A x x x 116 (local) - - x x _ _ - - _ O _ ~ `' 11C (closed) x x - x - _ _ _ _ _ . ~.. 13 (Dfa roan Crock) - ` - - - _ - _ 15 (Castle Creek) _ x x x x ' 15A-C - - x' - (j - - (~ x - _ semi .rl mi clue Woody Creek - - x x - :... -. - ; _ x 17A-li (local) x x x % . ~ ~ Y ,. _~.r._ X... - - i. 19 (ttoody Crcik) x x e x ', 21 x x x ' A (Melton Ranch) x x x x ~jr ~ x x (~ ~ z x _ '~ x - x ' x B (Rldgc Run) 'x ~ z - © C (Wood Oun) x - x x _ x x _ D (!leaelocond) x - - x x _ _ _ x E (Ridge Iced Y,ounealn) x x ' x x - y - x F (Smuggler Mann tai n) x x _ _ - r _ x - x C (ASpan Crnvc) - _ - - - - - - x ' N (Rnollwrood/Can CVOOd) x x _ - - x x' - - - x x _ I (Itountnin 4allcy) - x x - _ g x x _ _ _ x _ x - _ x - x r x Indt cater n :safety deficlrncy Qx Indlcnfes a sc;Yous safety Je llc lcocy 6a~ed on pallaonl n r local lfnny Inuil and nem t-prl ml CJve rnad.^. ve rc volume. Tlds does n ++o t' Lroo!;t 6¢at l scat is[Lcs ot indicate .hat pol w dnn Cn the rnllaf hazards do n~turc of nn C exist. ' .r 4, . ~~y~1 __. : . ::._ . `!.. ~~ r i~ 5 ~• u A. _. ~ . y COUNTY ROAU IPIUEX _. ,__. ,` u l County Road Designation Name i{ Ayai lable .~~ ~ ~ ~ • 1 ~ Not maintained by County N TYPe Raadw 1B-U ot maintained by County tdot 3 (local) 3 Z maintained by County (loca.i) 3 4 (semi-private) 3A-II Redstone 3 (semi-collector) 4 4A 3B Not maintained by County FrYing Pan River 3 (].oval) ~ (Set1i-primiti 4BN ve) 2 (collector) 4G 4 ~` kD 4E ~ (semi-private) S ' 6 4 6A 3 (semi-collector) 7 3 (semi-collector) g !~ (semi-private) SA Larkspur Mountain Road 3'(local) gB 3 (semi-collector) 9 3 (local) 9A Capital Creel; 4 (semi-primitive) 9B 9C Elk Creek Ranch 7~rappisC Monastery 3 (semi-collector) 3 (local.) 9D . Ilickelsoh Creek 3 (local) 10 4 (semi-primitive} l0A Brush Creek 4 (semi-primitive) lOB ~`'1 Creek 2 (collector) lOC Snowmas's Country Club Road 3 (semi-collector) 11 11A Snowtrtass Creek 3 (semi-collector) 4 (semi-primiti 11B 11C I+Iildcat Creek ve) 3 (semi-collector}' 3 (semi-colle 13 ctor) 3 (local) I5 Maroon Creek 4 (semi-primitive) 15A Castle Creek 2 (collector} 15B ~__, (collector) ~'!V 17 17A 17B 19 19A ZO 2l 82 133 'Woody Creek Woody Creek Crossover (19 to Colo. g2) Crossover (7.7 to Culc~. 82) Colorado State IIiFI~F^<iy Colorado St:ite lIglzw.ly 4 (semf-primitive) i. 2 (co.ilecCOr) ~ (local) ~ (local) 2 (c~;llector) 3 (Local) 3 (semi-collector) 3 (sem:i-collector) 1 (arterial) 1 B-2 `_: ~ ~ ~• X ort ~; NAPGi: Cas;ae Creel: Rony{ DISTANCE ROAD4IAY ACTION I:INE SECTION ll1;SCRIi"TIO2I 1 1 Type of Surface - Asphalt, good ccnditioh i?idtti - 22 feet Shoulders - btarginal to none Drainage - Ditches, poor to marginal Grade/Ali;nment - 6-10%/Road 6lindy Speed Limit - Pdated (30-35 mph} Signing' - Stripping - Poor, barely visible Other - S'e~etati.on, ns~e.is cutt.n{•, back minimum of G :: r:e t. Notes• Both firidges at Castle Creek (5.3 & 10.2} IJidth - ~2 feet Length - 51 feet Snd Area - 198 sq. ft. Capacity - 3 - 30" x 12" I beams Special Conditions 1. East lane heavily ciamaped due to truck trtsf- fic. 2. Effective shoulders or disabled vehicle area virtually non-existent on uphill side of rcadway -- culvert sizing under needed capacity. ' 3. Roadway plowed entire length (13.3 miles). B-16 £irure 52 - _ __,., _. - .,•„_ .. ...- ..,, ~ "._ ....... .~...<. .,s.. .<•.~,u. n~sr.~A,u~ cx.t~,s.m„anwa`~:-~k •u-~~:~a~:,~N.sa ,. ~ ~ .#~^.~am'~- c tart at intersection of State Hwy 82 • Bridge at Castle Creek (2 lanes} Steel stringers Good condition .(see notes) Dangerous unprotected- Drop-offs; Rdaii windy and steep grades in this section. Speed limit should be posted - 20 mph.. Bridge at Castle Creek ( 2• Lanes ) Steel Stringers Good condition (see. notes) ind` of Pavement )' x 16' Box 30" culvert Snd of public road l„!r !dA!!':. :'onuu~lru;a G"rec!c DISTANGE 'ROADWAY ACTION LINP: Start at intersection of ,County Rond 15 ' (Castle Crcelc nrive) Br±dge ovar Conundrum Cre.elc (single lane} Steei Stringers 6?idt6 - 13 ft. LenJ;t1~ s, an - 36 it. End Area - G4II sq. ft. Capacity - 11 - I Reams, 15 :c 1/2 i ,. $CCTCOt! titShiF7;F9'T~17 " ~` 1 c;. ~~ ,. ,: Tyre of Surface •- I[irt ~i4'f~~'J~h78 1•la,dth -- 12 feet (one-way road wa.th pull-cuts) Drainane - Po^r Grade/A1.:i.enment •- 6-.10 /F'indin~ Srt9t:e1 Lr•t -- llot posted (lt-:cenunended 20 nph) Stri.nrinn ^/p SiPninT •- i?one (Stop sign shot[ld ' be installed at inter- , section of main tiwy. and Geunty Rd. 15.) RD", .. • NarrrnJ I?irt Road 7.ou;h - h t;gl;e1 T1>' ve iecenniended Eer_al Cenditicn 1. Snow c.l.owea to h.r.idFe. 125- i.~ur.e 87 T L'-56 ~...>; MEMORANDUM T0: Pat Dobie, County Engineer Bob Nelson, County Sanitarian Colorado Geologic Survey FROM: Jim Reents, Planning Office RE: Highlands Ranch Subdivision - Detailed Submission DATE: July 16, 1979 Attached please find Detailed Submission for the Highlands Ranch Subdivision. This item is scheduled to come before the.;Pitkin,__County Planning and Zoning Commission on Wednesday, August 15, 1979. Therefore, may I'have your written comments concerning this application by Monday, August 6, 1979. If you cannot meet this deadline, please contact immediately and I will reschedule it for a more convenient time. Thank you. pF'CO HIi;IINiD U. LAMM +.3a 9 F nn'vc mor F' ~'', °:~~' p~ C.J. KtJIF'[R ~ , ~ .. SenM Entlinn:rr ,;, -. * 1876 DIVISIgf~1 OF WATER RESOURCES Department n( Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Sheet- Room818 ' ,Denver, Coloratlo 80203 Atlministration (303) 839-3581 Ground Water (303)839-3587 March 1, 1979 Mr. T. I,. Goudvis P. O. Box 562 Rancho Santa Fc, C11 92067 Dear Mr. Goudvis: Re: Highland Ranch No. i This is to acknowledge receipt o€ your letter concerning the above referenced subdivision. We believe our letter to the Pitkn County officials was quite,ciear in stating that a well permit would hot be `issued unless a plan for augmentation was approved by the Water Court.. In your letter, you state that'd suggestion by Mr. John Cowan in a letter enclosed with yours appeared to be the most reasonable solution. Unfortunately, this letter was not included with your letter so we are unable to comment on Mr. Cowan's suggestion. In 'order to apply for a welt permit in Colorado, you must complete the enclosed form and submit a filing fee of $25_ We would suggest that you have a well driller familiar with the permit a 'lication. In all likelihood, th~rea aid you in completing the wgll pp g ppro irate e permit will be denied on the basis of the well be in rn an over-a p d watershed and being in a new subdivision. We would recommend that you contact Virginia Sch-:vien of the Highland Ranch to determine if water rights can be acquired ~rehich could be used in a plan for augmentation as was. suggested by her consulting.engineer. If you have additional questions, please feel free to contact this office. JAD~HDS:rnvf Enclosure cc: Ralph Stallman Richard Grice Ver~ truly yours, Jeris A, Danielson zty State Engineer F, I _' MEMORANDUM , TO: Lqu Beuttner, City Engineering Bob Nelson, County Sanitarian ' Dave Shelton, £~lorado Geologic Survey Mpunt Sopris Conservation District Holy 'Cross Electric Mt. 9e11 ~dob Jacobs, Fire Marshall FROM: Richard Gr~ee, Planning Office 'g ands Ranch Subdivision -,General Submission RE: N1 hl DATE: October 16, 1978 _. ..-.... ,. .. ~,.,,....r . ....., i The attached application comes from the Highland's Ranch, ]ocated up Castle Creek and requests a single ]ot split. This item is tentatively scheduled for review by the County Planning and Zoning Commission on P7ovember 1, 1978. Please return your written comments concerning your respective areas of i expertise to the Planning Office by Q 25, 5978. Thank you very much.. sr _~ . - ~, , :~.; a. Ma V ,,~ ,_ 'y F.< „,. ~, _ .u .... ,..,-~,, PQr. Richard Grice Aspen/Pi'tkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, olorado 81611 Dear Richard: My moving from Ohlo too Cahfornla (temporarlYy, `I" hope, In ant clpation _u,~"" -'~ "~`~~`" W... ...-.v ~ ,. ~.. ~ . r. ._ of moving back to Aspenj-precipltated~"tfils boo~C"w~ilc~`I'~ve"had in mind for Y g; just didn't ou for so lon ' but which seem to want to be passea on. ught the book was great, bu't really don't expect consensus from very many ofrl;my friends, in Aspen or elsewhere. T`hop? that ''you are sympathetic, though. _ . I wonder whether compliance has been made by-the Highland Ranch people, and whether my property -- I say my somewhat wistfully ---has been advertised and w,,.. ,:. .w e.,»~ , "... ... ,.~,...,~H.r...,.~~ ~~wM. is in' line to $e heard by t`he'. County ~o"mmissioners. '~'t"~'~sur~e ~y appreciate learning of any`progre"s's, 'a§ I am very aiiEious t`o get going on my new home- <~...,~. stead as °` `"~" ""°` you c'an; I am sure, understand. T: L. Goudvis P. O. Box 562 ~ .. Rancho Spnta Fe, CA 92067 Best,.. e; b~ T, L. Goudvis ,_ Mr. Richard Grice Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mr. Grice: ,~~~~, , 5313 Portage Drive Vermilion, Ohio 44089 August 1, 1978 ,About a month back we chatted a bit about Aspen and Pitkin County efforts to plan growth. At the time I mentioned I was purchasing a ten acre parcel for a rustic home from the Schwiens (Highland Ranch Company) at the confluence of Castle and Conundrum Creeks, ahd looking forward to becoming an Aspen""local" Since then a purchase contract has been consummated for the land, and at your suggestion I have read the Growth Management Policy Plan and the Land Use Code. As a result of all this I am a bit puzzled. Over the years I have participated back here 'in country regional plahning activity, in developing a responsive building co~~e for the community, and in chairing our Zoning Appeals Board. Now that I am on the verge of moving back to Colorado, I feel that I may need a tiit more advice. As you can understand, I am anxious that my property be transferred to me in a timely manner so that I can get on with the job of building and moving. I un- derstand that our transaction must undergo approval procedure required for a subdivision, a four to six months program, and that the burden of this effort has to fall on the seller. I can appreciate why -- to the Country Commissioners, the members of the various Commissions, and to their planners and consultants -- the concept of growth must always remain strictly a matter of principle, exclusively qualitative, a concept which mandates that all planned for construction irrespective of the magnitude of any particular project, be given some standard scrutiny. However, it seems to me that for the kind of transaction I find myself involved in, to have to pass through the same full dress review as, say, a major subdivision application, could be cumbersome for all parties if aot overwhelming for someone like myself. (since~I cannoteownethespooseb~l~untilraths effort has to be upon the seller p p y fter P and Z approval of the transfer) I wonder how well the objective of planned growth will be served by a procedure where, say, after P and Z approval ah unimproved property changes hands. I have a feeling that there maybe some part of the procedure which I am misun- derstanding. I would very much like to phone you in, say; a week or so to learn (1) whether the Highland Ranch Company (their attorheysa:Y~ Sachs, !Elein and Siegel) has made proper application to P and Z, (2) whether there is any contri- bution to this application winch I can make as th,e prospective "developer" of my residential buildin site, and (3) whaf might tie the requirements for this appli- cation, the procedure, and the timetable for review, and, hopefully, approval. Sincerely, P. S. I've been trying to find a copy for you of the book I mentioned when we visited 'e e~ C o u ~ v l bacOrW;~heaSchell, published twd or three years title like The City that Saved It- T. L. Goudvis self, a remarkable story of growth planning by a responsible citizenry in Bodega Bay, just north of San Francisco, a book which I know will interest you. ..,~, „ ~~ C o. y ~Jo S y ,e f AN ENGI1`iEEf:1NG STUDY CF' AND2Eti1/S MODU\ S~t~1DWiCH PANELS f'OR Nlr. R. E. Andrews ;~ndrews Fion-:es jA67 dven od~~ ~G1d r oicrdda ~3 _~.. _. w. r.. ~.~ ' ANDREIh'S BUILDING SYSTEAAS, INC. 225 South prjce Roadr No. 44 Longmont, Colorado 80501 ~ (303T 772357E R. EUGENE ANDREWS Ij Metro 623-O94z Presioent LV, VEIOPEPS 4Np M4ME FLCTU4EPS OF COMPONENTS qND COMPQNCNi $V$TEM$ \ ....._ ~+, ` ~,1 February 1, 14:1 ~'~;:•-1 ~ .~"...,~ ~,Y 7^ee5 4EaA A': E. P.C. SCXG, RCUtGFR CDL,"Ral'0 ecsoz • ?H. ;W-/.3~4~66g ,.~..~ .,. aa,,,.m aroc~_ ., ~~.. o s..,,..., r_ `~ LABORATORIES "nS ~E-> Al', ?0 °OX G. 50ULOER, COLORACO 90?07 • PH 30J=.'d3-+650 February 7, 1971 Mr, R. E, Andrews Andrews Homes 7067 Ravenwood Road Boulder, Colorado 80302 Dear Mr, Andrews: ~. I << , ,. ~~~ ~ ~, b_ - _.\ \ _-:< The enclosed report, which has been prepared at your request, includes an engineering analysis of the prefabricated modular panels used by your con- struction firm, This report has been prepared for submittal to the City of Boulder, Building Department and includes the following information: 1, An analysis of fihe sandwich panels as produced by your firm in modules 8 feet high and 4 feet wide consisting of urethane foam core and plywood facings. 2. Test results of shear strength, shear modulus and compressive strength values of typical sections cut from wall panels which you submitted to our firm, 3. A general description of sandwich panel analysis and design methods, - The Building Department should be supplied with two copies of this report as well as any plans you may have showing detailing on your "Clemente" and "Biscayne" homes., if any additional information is required, please contact us. Yours very truly, HAUSER 11aBORATORIES C!. C. M, Hauser, Colorado R.P,E. X4228 CMH/ck RESULTS FROM DESIGN ANC RESEARCH _. - _:,~.. _ ..~__.. ~, ,. ~,.6. i NTRODUCTION Preparation of this report has been completed under the authorizotion of Mr. R. Eugene Andrews, Andrews Homes, 1067 Ravenwood Road, Boufder, Colorado 80302, and covets an engineering and design analysis of prefabricated sahdwich panels manufactured and used by his contracting firm in home construc- tion. Since this type of modular panel unit is not defined by requirements given in the 7967 Edition of the Uniform Building Code (International Conference of Building Officials), this report is to be submitted for examination by the Building Department of the City of Boulder together with a request of variance to the Board of Appeals. This report will present a general review of recognized design standcrds for sandwich panels as well os calculations for the strength capabilities of the specific type of panel as constructed by Mr. Andrews' contracting firm. DESCRIPTION C1F ANDREWS MODULAR PANEL UNITS" The standard wall panel to be employed in construction of Andrews homes is a modular sandwich unit 4 feet by 8 feet. In some instances, wall panels of 4 feet by 14 feet will be used for special contruction in "Biscayne" model homziproposed by Mr. Andrews. (The other model home is the "Clemente". Roof panels will be either 4 feet wide with lengths of 12 or 16 feet.) A nailed wood forme (consisting of 2" x 4" lumber for the 4' x 8' panel or 2" x 6" members for larger panels) with plywood facings constitutes the basic panel construction. The hollow cavity of the panel is then felled with urethane foam to attain the sandwich panel construction. In all wall panels, a 1" header is used at the upper edge of the panel and a 2" member at the bottom edge for bolting to the plate alorig the foundation wall. .-. ~ _ ~~.~wr _. - gym, ..u,_ .. ~.„~ Exterior panel facings are C/D grade 'for plywood or rough -sawn cedar " ranging {rom 3/8" fhickness fcr file smaller wall panels to 1/2 or 5/8" thickness for the larger roof pareis, Interior fccings are 3/8" C/D plywood, Materiol properties for these types of plywood are shorm in Table 1. The foam used as the core materiel is foamed ir. place by specicl spray- gun equipment. After the curing time has elapsed, the foam hcs "set" and provides good self-ad'nering quclities to the plywocd surfaces. Strength tests v+ere conducted on some foam panels supplied to Hauser Laboratories by Mr. Andrews. The test results for compressive strength, shear strength, shear modulus and density are reported in Table 2, page , General panel assembly details for wall and roof construction are shown in plans subrnitted by Per. Andrews along ~,vith this report. Floor construction is of standard joisr and plywood fabrication. ANALYSIS OF SANDbVECf-I PANELS The analysis of these panels which fellows employs standard sandwich structural theory. The numerous equations whic}-, ate included in the analysis will not be enumerated here, The interested reader is instead referred to ore of the references listed afi the end of this report. A sandwich panel can best be defined ps a structure in which thin facings or skins are bonded to a thick core. An analogy can be made by comparing a sandwich panel to pwide-flange steel beam, a common structural shape, In a similar manner, the facings of a structural sandwich panel carry the compressive and tensile stresses and the care material trensmits the shear toads. The net result of the sandwich panel geometry is a unit having great structural rigidity and load carrying capacity while providing an economical and light-weight construction, z 3 Important considerations in sandwich pcnel desiyn are the maximum deflections the panel encounters under load, the tensile and compressive stresses induced in the facings, the shear stress encountered in the core and the maximum buckling load that the panel can withstand A. Deflection -- This factor is usually the governing criteria of most structural sandwich design since even panels with the thinnest of facings have strength capabilities far in excess of building code requirements. The Uniform Building Code recommends maximum permissible deflection equal to i/360th of the span. Many sandwich panel designers feel that deflections of 1/lE0 - 1/240 span are more realistic values due to the inherent flexibility of sandwich construction. The 1/360th span figure was originally based upon reinforced concrete research in which a deflection exceeding the 1/360th level indicated structural damage. B. Facing stresses -- The strength of a sandwich construction is dependenl• upon the materials that comprise the facings. For this reason, the stresses produced in the facings must be deter- 'mined from the bending moments encountered under the given loading conditions to ascertain whether they exceed the design stress for that material, This is usually the case for sandwich construction when the 1/360th span deflection is employed as the chief design Criteria. C. Core Shear Stress -- The shear characteristics of the core are of concern since the core must provide structural integrity between the facings by. resistance to the shear loads. .. At~!ALYSIS OF A~1DRF`r/ r~1ODLILAR PANi'LS bVithin the pasi five years special computer programs have been designed and put into use by i'iq~SCr LabOrgtarlP.S to evgluaie sandwich panel structural capabilities. The first programs used for this purpose on an IBAn 1130 were later converted for use v:ith Computer Complex Company, a timesharing system, This system uses XDS 440 and Sigma 5 cornputers. These programs have been written, successively, in BASIC, CAL, and XTRAN formats. Inpufi infcrrcafiion includes dimensions and moduli of elasticity for facings and core materials, panel size and loadings. Output covers deflection and facing and core shear stresses for this given loading. Table 3 shows a typical design example for both input and output. Table 4 shows the facing and core shear stresses for typical Andrews panels used for the Clemente and Biscayne mcdels shown in Figures 1 and 2, Attertian is directed to the (ow facing stresses which are well below the value of 1200 psi for species 2 plywood, it should clsc be noted that all cf the core shear stresses are well below the 9 psi maximum allowed for the foam corn, _ All loading conditions shown in Table 4 are for wind loadings of 30 pounds per square foot. CONCLUSIONS Due to the great inherent strength of prefabricated plywood panels of sandwich construction, their incorporation into a housing design as discussed on the previous pages offers distinct advantages over more standard types of residential construction. Other advantages of such panels not discussed within this report include: Vr ^,~ hinh ir,s;lating qualities offered by the urethane form core. c .~ ~. i, J ?_, Pane! capability to camp heavy lateral loads. 3, Good fire-resistant constructio;~ if the foam is of the self-er,ringuishiny type . As a precedent, the Federaf Housing Administration has issued approval for panel systems similar to the Andrews panels of plywood/urethane care construction, These systems are detailed in FHA Structural Engineering Bulletins, Nos. 501, 5]b, and 575. SANDWICH DESIGN REFERENCES 1. U, S, Forest Products Laboratory, Wood Handbook, U,S, Dept, of Agriculture Handbook Ne. 72, 1955. 2. Kuenzi, E. W, "Structural Sandwich Design Criteria, " Scrd~,vich Pane! Design Criteria, Publ, 798, Building P,esecrch institute National Research Council, 1959. 3. Plantema, Frederik J., "Sandwich Construction," John 1'Viiey $ Sors, Inc. New York, 1965. 4. Wood, Lyman W,, "Sandwich Panels for building Construction", Forest Products Laboratory U,S.C,A„ Pub(, Nq. 2121, October, 1953, Ii: bII 1 - WC]~JiC SJ CSr•S I ' t01" ~I Ys,VpOC. TgpC of SUtss Extrerre fiSer in Sending, Tension face grata para~IZI cr ' pzrpzndiculzf to span ' tat 45° to fact ,rain use 116)- Compression Paratlel or perendicular to face grain izt 45° io face groin use 113) 8earing(on £zce) Shezr in.ptane perpendicular to piys= Parallel or perpendicular t0 late grain fat 45° increasa 1C0%~) Shear, coiling, in plane of piys' Parallel or perpendicular fo face gain lat 45- increase I/3) 1.!odulus of Elasticity in bending Face grain para~:el or perpendicular to spar, Species ~ c::.: ;fCR :, A, Oro Up I „C C-C, and ccmparatlt ~rdes 01 G:Crlaid pP,wcad. STRUCTU.4;:C 1 r;~;;. A.~IUSe Group I stresses) i 2 3 I . 4 . 1 2. 3 t 4 2, 3 A ----~_ 1 2, 3 4 ~i ~~ All 2,OD0 1,40G 1,200 1,65D 1,20J - ' I,OOD 34D 220 I6o 250 t.ES 175 53 I 2>~ 4 Ui i •1¢n5r C C .+^J S:a"UJ rtl Sn°,i L.^.ir. me rrvgnntron pn~ ;an;a ine sne.a Zrt^ compination nr I,.".en tihca tipn~IMe• dnC IYCr,a pri', P.': S11n SS frTrlli`U,IJSn 1411 In! rinnin;p,p SPCCrBS erOUy P cw:. Si IS~2c •p- 3.'o-1.,n, l•2-3?; I6, 5/6-r2; 20, 3rC-<a, 23 USe G.'G'.:P ~ wOrr.llla Sl!°SSC S. A:. o:f.er m:nbira bons' of C~C and Sta ndaro -Use CroLP .: wC::iny stresses. ~orup'J'LSm sG ~„SS t-Use Crcup 3 shesses. For Plylorm Glass fl-Use fu ?.C.3 - ''= C:cup i sues ec. !27 s^`ar`Urc•a.:!~: r.-.:n ,'.czsi st¢sses arf Cas?tl Ln the ms;; cnm•,; r,n ap; nc~;, sns wnrr_ e F;Y+'vo, rs agxrh°J to rram~ar c. r.~;;-: :i rLu^: J!Y. ('i 9trC A,f /IYmGV. ,5 ell.rtnCtl i'l :rd nunj dI G;liy fw9 ',n..Y_ JS '11 t f-~ t Gd (: u5 irr k CSS Y., C '.life t d ~U':J'llC 51+ J 1, ....~n.i.in: .re e - r 1 .. venue tr ma Is Para Iii to laze Bra n a , fa, fer 51°UCII,~.:;, I use 7`. psi For SiNUCTllaAL II use 66 Gsi. .~ Pijfi:r^: i;1SSi „ and Ccr.:,:::r;:;:e ; „~. GI GeC rl.,:.l ,':: ~...V i.,' Si;:CC• I v ~ (Usz C:ce,, ; rs, S. GC:U', ,II ,. NSC Grp ; ; ey; fEa c:iu Cry All Ii~TE i,'i o2.; ,$ 1VITH E%i~;nioR uiiiE I,55D 1,2LC S,ODD l,J J 1, i 00 35D 34p 2?J icD 259 io5 175 53 L8CJ,G.;,; I,SJD,OJD 1,209.000 BDD,000 i I ~"Jet or Damp Lcc2:icc A!1 c!CEr Ir.t3;G, , :rclc!:r„ S i n:;C;. S' J $HEnTni;;u' 1.65J 1.20v I,O;,J I,SSJ i,l;) 65J :J zzJ ibD 2SJ 1 Tv 3Ct°i 43 vher¢ moistum ccnten; is ;- ; cr inure. multiply tn¢ L i IorJ:,cn .J:vei Cy IEe /cnowine fd C:P is ,~- For all sgdes of Exterior znc :r..rpr plywood with ex, :.ar ~.,;f, Extrem¢ lio¢r in bErd•ca . 75°, '•too:'s c' ErisbcJy-65° Cor.,przision-6: o S,"--'•' oiinnti _ p, no FCr all plher graC°5 Of f-ae Y, .~•. Extreme fiber •~ fzr.;,;a,-, _ ~;e,~ rdpQYll,S L/ LI°it~:,:y T¢n5lcn - 65°.° e..o Compression - 51^.o b.:ear _ e. , aearm; - 6)°° .. °, ,~.. t~ R ,_ o ~~ ~~ ~ LABORATORIES ~'i` ` ~ 'D 7965 FEAK 4VE. P.G. CCX G. GCCIDER. CO.CRACC 80302 ~ PN. 303-d-0j~df66 =:~ %'y`~••-••..~~_: ,: Test Report No..~7;1-4 January 7, 1971 CLIEI~IT: Andrews Homes, 1C67 Rcvenwood Road, boulder, Colo. 50303 Attn: Mr, Gene Andrews. MATERIAL: Urethane foram sandwich panel specimens prepared and supplied by client. TESTS: Compressive strength per AST?~1 D1621-64, Compressive Strength of 'Rigid Cefiu!ar Plastics; and Density per ASTM D1622-63, Apparent Density of Rigid Ce11u!ar Plastics on Samples A-1 and A-2, both urethane alonz. Compressive strength tested as above on Sample 6, a sandwich speciman. Three specimens were tested for sheer strength and rngduius per ASTivI C273-61, Shear Test in Flatwise Plare of Flat Sandwich Constructions or Sandwich Ceres, with a density test as above made on foam taken from ecch sample subsequent to sheer 'test, RESULTS: Sample Density, Fcf Direction Compressive Strength A-1 1.85 Parallel 33.7 A-2 7.92 Perpendicular 18.0 8 '--' Perpendicular ib.4 Shear Specimenf Hi #2 ~`3 Average Density, pcf 2.07 7.93 1.96 7.98 Shear $trength, psi 10.70 8,92 7.34 8.99 Shear Modeius ,psi 376 357 354 360 Test supervised & certi Pied by: ~yt Dr. na hawser, Research D~rector Rta5ULT5 r=ROM Dc:a!G!~i AND c~a;Ea~~.H iI .."i : ~ - = LI\='. ' -ri ::~ yc' ~ -:?4 I'~ .^...°'iI.iVS: ? U :\~ . SP'~ l; ;~I -- c8 5 i. a r: v > > 9 .::, 1 8 rl-I\ r2-iN E1-PSI . 0.291 0.291 E2-PSI - H-I~V C-IiV .180E+07 .180E+07 5.000 3.500 P-1-P !1-IN B-IV G-PSI c3-PSI 2150.000 1,2.000 42.000 600.000 .120c+07 I3-IN4 10.720 D-I\-L'3 L G-IN-L13 S-IN2-LB -473E+~7 0.727 .257E+08 .141E+09 •'-U: J1-PSI o 0. S7'? J2-. SI 733.110 738.110 K-PSI 6..050 rl-IV 0.200 r2-I\ EI-PSI 0.200 E2-PSI '. 130E+07 .Id0E+ H-IiV 07 4.250 C-IN 3.500 P-I'n 1376.000 A-ICI B-I~V G-PSI 94.000.{5.000 600.000 E3-PSI .120E+07 I3-IN4 5.360 D-IV-Ls L L-IN-LF3 270E+;;% S-IN2-LB , I .141 .129E+Oi; .697E+p;, ~~~-Iy J1-PSI 0.21 4.53.599 -L Cl u J2-PSi 463. 599 K-PSI 3.946 ype Size Plywood Facings, Exterior Interior Core Thickness Deflection, in. Maximum Fccing Stress, psi Exterior Wall Maximum Facing Stress, psi Interior Wall Maximum Core Shear Stress, psi TA (3LE 4 ~ Wall Panels --._ 4' x 8` I 4' x 14' i i ~ ---- i 3/8.. ---.. --------. i 5/8" 3/8" 3/8" 3-1/2" 3-1/2" 0,258 1.303 i 309 ~ 666 309 ~ 968 i I , ~ 2.58 4,67 Roof Panels 4' x 12' i 4' x 1 (72'_G _ - - ... . Sean) 1/2" 1/2" 3/8" 3, 8" 5-1/2" 5-1/2' 0.421 0,480 359 389 448 ~ 486 2,52 ;' 2.61 ~.> .~ ,. ~ a ~ ,, C- f _ . ~ _ ~ _-... y... . `~~, «? r ~~' 4r, = CITY OF ;n"L~"cr^,; CGLG.",F;^ ~-- ;~ , . DOCI:ET N0: ~~ J F!l_EC: ~c~;'y~ _ ~` +-' - r APPELLAhlT: ~ ((Y,r~7 =' /r7.:.~2x~L,r~, OL;;;ER: i~ ;=,~--~-~c~^ ~-/7 -~_.~z» ADDRESS: ~G'~~ /J ~i.,r-'li; ~.r~~^ Jr~";~1~ ADDRESS ~0~~ ~~.~ '~ rr- --~'-t Application of ~'", ~-; `~; [~~i~r~~;Sfor ~~~1y~3 ~~tt to at premises designated as_/7i/ ~ =/%~~ ~.= ~ is hereby disapproved on this ..iii r date under Secfion (:~-.,~.,-asr~ ~.-r',=..~ f Par. Page ~~Q cfi the ~ ,~i`,-, Code Ordinance hlo. for the reason that: ',~~- rte; ~T yo si=b ,~ rJ.L ~~~~ ~~~ ~a~,; r ~•~ ,~.. . /' °• j L-cj~ /y-/ ~ 4ir:.s ~ ~.~t1 ~ f iVb ~~ic, l-l ~'F.^l :=: S ~y ~','-; ~ ~'~i,~, ~;'t~ T Ui< b ifs ~ c G A ~ .. 1 -~ /'r yam,. ~. „N. , D OF APPEALS: ! hereby appeal from the decision of the Building Gfflcial, dated Premises affected is situated on the side of Distance Feet of the intersection of and ar.d known as Legal Description:Lot Block Subdivision Book Page Jccupancy Fire Zone ;?eahf:~ Stories Feet Status of Job: fltot Started Under Construction Finished Permit No. ]) Attach One {1) typewritten statement why it is not practicable to comply with the Ordinance. 2) Attach One (1) set of plans as required by the Building Official, it"lustrating clearly the points at issue. AFFiDAV1T 1, the undersigned, deposes and says that the undersigned is the Appellant herein and that al] the a5ove state.°en±s and the statement contained in the pipers sub- mitted herein are true, according tc t4e be=_t of my kncwledye, information and belief of the undersigned, Subscribed and Sworn to before me this _ ~~~~ = - - da of= ~`/~~ v - ;', c- C<xnmission E; pires -- - - flotary Public -in,and for cou!c'ar Gc'ar:n. i:olorado. 1 \ r """t~C~"~./~.`--C~ ~ ~ ALL'/.-, r ;~ ~- ~, Signature'-Cf !`,Ppe! cant ~~' .. ... ,: k.,.. ~ ..:., ., m ~ . f .. »: a .x .. N.: ~ vs~-~. .,. _,. ~ ~.. 'J ~cbr'tu,ry A0, iJ71 the requ?ar me~rinf i~~ i'.oard of F.oncol; ra ca~ d to order in the Cnur,ci', Ch?.;lb!'r~, i'iUniClDc 1 BUI 14',1;x, cGUlde(, tOlOroGO at 1{:r'i~ D.OL. ^,tiendanc•:: F?r. 4/i i i is ~~t;nsor5, Y,r. r;y1e Lorenzen, P;r. 5obert Srayson and Itr. a;•rrence Calch~rell. Chairman Johnson introduced the ne~:r member of Lilo Board, 9r. L<-;~rrencc Caldwell. minutes cf the January meeting r:ere approved as submitted. 1`Docket No: .71-2 rditFdra:~n. Appellant: Thomas E. Eldridge Address; 1047 Pearl Street ~ (Tomes Tavern) IlDocket No: U b G ;Acpellant: if Add r~ss 71-3 R. Eu~?one Andretas 1067 Raven•nood ,_. _ Applica*_ion for a pernit to erect one family d~:;el l inks in Eoulder. 1"he crooose dwellings o-roud have construction tech- niques and sandwich panels not covered by the Uniform Building Code, Chapter Zj, page 160. r, Carter presented the case statirg ti~at the. application for permits was asical]y the same system that had goon approved twice before try the Board of ppeals. He recon;mended that if this be approved that two do-rellings be ailo•./ed ~ be built, ~,Ir. R. Eugene Andrews, appellant, reviewed tt?e letter and report of itauser ]Laboratories dated 2-1-71, which are part of the record. He presented and ~cxplained drawings of tm:o dvteilings. ~~here eras discussion of the Board members concerninu the panels, desigr, and trength of the proposed structures. l7:otion: (Grayson) 1 move that Docket 71-3 be apprcved as requested. f~Second: (Caldwell] (Vote: Yes - 4. No - 0. Motion passed. 1 7' ~ PPlication for a permit to allow one !Docket No: ..tanle• M. Goldber exit rrom ba . O 77 Appelian ° } g seraent area. The proposed Address: Mohawk E ,9organ basement wi11 contain storage and laundry facilities. Under Section 330?. this would require two exits, paragraph 2, page 409 of the Unifon~r Building Coce. 1r. Carter presented the case, stating that this was the interpretation o` the :cde by the department, that the use o* this basement would be more than ju.<.t or seryice of tfle building. Since the basement crould be used by women for aundry, adege;_te exiting is necessary. i tr. Boycs, %hlef o` tF„ ~ Prevention Bureau, men-' t ~rcned he mealy which he ;;ar ~rtiten to the- Boa 'd n; ,~,>>ais dated Februar Y 5, 1971 and apart or the ._co.c r. Stan Goldber ' ,i g, appellant presented layouts to the Board and de=_cribed tSe + , rea in question. He ;hate:',t...^_t in his opinicn it would be limited use to ~.:hich i'.;, asement {:ruld be put; cc;cled with the fact tP,at it is co:rpieteiy a on^-!;our Pao`•• He menr~oJ,c+ ~_, ?acts that wire written in a letter to Lilo Board, ?' a, ,.1 January i6 :, ;~ ;,~rC o* L;~e record., it ans~.er r i-.~ Goar-c, he ~.,;_ !~e C_ilin to a goes=ion from ",t'-~ - a cf tr.c ba5cment ,.:as virtually at urade ... .law,_.1a.....t ...,,i r, .. i *J .~ ~ ~/ ~l ~ \ ,t '11 „ -_ '~ ! ti= o -_-~ =E >_-,, ~~~ 1:-fr~' j {f ~_ _ i i ! _^ __. ~ __` ~. ! _ ~' li ~~ =r~i -n r ~; ~~ ~~ ~ ~t ' Ni ~-. 1 '~ p' ~_' ~ ' it p: t_.- ;;~~ -- I r==--` ~~-'` ~ ~ ,_-- -~~ , ~__ _ !' _ I .: I ~ i t t ~~ ==~ ..; = c 'S. ~~;;t___ r'` ~~~ f ~ ~, f~ ~ ~ i, ~ n ~- -_ ~ ' ~ i ,yam `~. .~. . r .. ___ { >~ v,- - ~ - N I _.`` ~ L~ '- - , f .. 3' ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ d i r yI Apr II ~ l~i~: - ` i ~ r .,.: , t > i___ ~:, - NN a i L ~' .~~ .. .lj'i: il.i O fF ` ~ ' + ~ o ~ a-_ ~. < ~ r' ~u ~J /;-.. '_ .~ ..~ r --- ' 7 r+ '~ J ' s -i ~_ ~ t ( J lr f V ~L ~~ S: < • '.) ,~ j ~.; f ; - ~. -J-~ .„ z~ i 1,~#s ~, ~, r~ ~` ~~ ti~~ ~~ ~ i <r rs - .. A ~ 1"`-' 0 0 O (f. A O n~. 0 rio 0 ~oI '~I y n ~ C p Y r n -~ ~ r a s ~ p r ~ A P Z ~ 0 0 m y m 3 ~ .~ r ~' T_ ~~ z~ ~--, ~, {, f ~ 1 ~ ~~ f~ 1_ jr ~~ ~~ ,~ I t~ i -iU f_. N - I T ~ w - p-- '1 1 p ..t 'l Ir i ----t ~ T- --+ ..f_ . .1 r '' i L ~ .~ ~ ~: ~~ _ ~- N i , ~ ~ t ~~ I ! _ e -~L _ _. ~ P ' y x' N rte < ' _ / iS /~ i ~T ~f ^.~ < - ` _ S 2 ~ .. a ~ ~ ~ ~ F , ti~ ~ J i jl C - ~a -~ ~ I ~ ~ A ~ a ~ ` ~. I! T` `V 2 L C 0 0 r• 0 . ;. Q rr---~ r N Z „ .: ~ Y f -- r < r ~ t ~ , N c r o -t rn ~ z '` : D z O ro ~ r r O ~ ~ N ~' ~, G z .. y; F x r m r -f I ~7 V` i r . .: .r+. ~/~ ~~ n D m