HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.planning.273717300022 (4)'rv't m~aMM.,ru:ae +IY:=F.{fnsa~~^!mu~"m:C,**.n^xr'.tAS:.wm
"'~~.; I
I,.p
CASI.E"AD SUMIVIAR'i'`~I~EET - I'TTKIN JNTY
~.
DATE RECEIVED: 4110/97 CASE # P 45-97
DATE COMPLETE: STAFF: Rick Magill
PARCEL ID # 2737-173-00-022
PROJECT NAME: Bidell 1041 Hazard Review
Project Address: Highway 82 across from the Northstar Preserve
APPLICANT: Alan Potamkin
Address/Phone: 4675 SW 74th St.
REPRESENTATIVE: Glen Horn
Address/Phone: 215 S. Monarch St. Suite 104 Aspen, 925-6587
RESPONSIBLE PARTY: Applicant Other NamelAddress:
FEES DUE FEES RECEIVED '
PLANNING $0 PLANNING $ # APPS RECEIVED
ENGINEER $0 ENGINEER. $ # PLATS RECEIVED
HOUSING $0 HOUSING $ GIS DISK RECEIVED:
ENV HEALTH $0 ENV HEALTH $
CLERK $0 CLERK $ TYPE OF AP-ELICATION
TOTAL $ TOTAL RCVD $ ~Appro~tal. ~,
REFERRALS:
County Attorney
[County Engineer
~ning
^ Housing
(environmental Health
^ Sheriff
^ Land Management
^ Risk Manager
^ Airport Manager
^ Floodplain Administrator
^ Open Space Board
DATE REFERRED: ~ ~1v
CO State Forest Service
[~]'CO Division of Wildlife
~ CO Geological Survey
^ CO Div of Water Resources
^ US Forest Service -Aspen
^ US Forest Service - Sopris
^ CDOT
^ BLM
^ Caucus:
^ Homeowners' Association
(~ildlife Officer
^ Aspen Fire
(~ Basalt Fire
^ Carbondale"Fire
Aspen'~Va'ter
^ Aspen P&Z '
^ Clean Air Board
ACSD
^ Rocky Mtn Natural Gas
^ Holy Cross Electric
[j Aspen School District
^ Other:
INITIALS: Y~:~- DATE DUE: ~1t~
APPROVAL: Resolution/Ordinance # Date:
Staff/Hearing Officer Approval Date:
Plat/Site Plan Recorded Book ,Page
CLOSED/FII,ED DATE: INITIALS:
ROUTE TO:
,,P_ ~-~.. ~-~ ...m ..,,:
indicates that there are no significant geologic hazards to the development. Jeff Hynes of the
Colorado Geological Survey concurs with the findings of the Applicant's geologic report. Mr.
Hynes suggested that a condition be added which.. requires that radon mitigation measures are
followed for the development. Staff has included condition #5 to satisfy NIr. Hynes concerns:.
Wildlife Hazards- Randy Cote indicated to Staff via telephone that there will be no additional
wildlife impacts as a result of the proposed addition. Staff has not yet received Mr. Cote's written
comments.
Scenic Review "sign-offl': The residence is barely visible in the winter due to the numerous
tnn
ner~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Cindy Houben, Community Development Director
FROM: Rick Magill, Senior Planner
ax.
°e fr
RE: Bedell/Potaxnkin 1041 Hazard Review & Scenic Overlay Review Exempfron
DATE: May 13, 1997
APPLICANT: Alan Potamkin
PROPERTY OWNERS: Mazk & Linda Bedell
REQUEST: The Applicant is requesting an exemption from 1041 Environrnental Hazard
Review pursuant to Land Use Code Section 3-80.20, which provides an exemption for:
"Remodeling, expansion, or reconstruction of single-family or duplex structures provided there is
no construction or expansion of a structure thaf would create additional 1041 hazard impacts."
The Applicant is also requesting a "Planning Director Sign-Off' for a Scenic Foreground
Overlay Review pursuant to Code Section 3-60.40 (D). This section gives the Planning Director
the authority to approve developments that are demonstrated to be insignificant and not impact
the visual quality of the scenic overlay area.
LOCATION: The property is located east of Aspen at 43151 State Highway 82.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Applicant is .proposing add 1,800 square feet to an existing
4,100 square foot residence. The addition is proposed to be to the west of the existing house. The
elevation drawings submitted with the application indicate that the addition will comply with
County height regulations and that the same architectural style will be utilized in the new
construction. The proposed addition will be approximately 270 feet from Highway 82.
STAFF COMMENTS
1041 Hazard Review :The 1041 Hazards identified at the pre-application conference for the
subject property include medium wildfire hazazd, slopes in excess of 30 percent and potential
rnrkfall FavarAc anA a h;,, r.amo..~....«~+;..., ,.,.««: A,.« 7,.~_~_a ... ~t__ ___.
6. All development including grading shall be within the proposed building envelope, as
depicted on the site plan in the application.
Cindy Houben, ~. ~~
Community Development Director ~.J
Date
Alan Potamkin,
Applicant
ATTACHMENTS:
1. CSFS letter
2. applications w/photos
3. site plans/elevations
Date
'°j ~0
FOREST
SERVICE
May 8, 1997
State Services Building
RICk Maglll 222 S. 6th Street, Room 416
Aspen/P'itkn Community Development Department Grand Junction, Colorado 81501
Telephoned ~470~ z4s-~azs
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Bedell 1041 Wildfire Hazard Review
Rick,
I inspected the property with Glen Horn the owner's agent on April 8th. I also
read the application. As you know this application is fir an addition on to the
present structure. The aspect is east with a slope of 5-10% where the addition is
being built. The vegetation is cottonwood/aspen with scattered conifers. The
understory vegetation is scattered chokecherry. I would rate the wildfire hazard
as medium. There is (ots of vvoodyfuel on the ground in the addition area. The
access is good' from Highway 82 and within the property. In addition there are
ponds and a cleared area to the south of the addition that would serve as a
fuelbreak should a fire originate from the highway side of the property.
I use the Pitkin County Land Use code, the National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) 299 standard for the Protection of Lif and Proq~rty from Wildfire and
other Colorado State Forest Service publications to come lip with my wildfire
mitigation recommendations. My mitigation recommendations are as follows.
1) Establish and maintain a clear 10 foot area around the addition. The wegetafion
within tliis area should be maintained at 6`inches or less (e.g., mowed 'grass). No
woody vegetation should be planted within this cleared zore. This situation
presently exists around most of the original house.
2) Within a 30 foot perimeter around the addition thin the existing trees so that
the tree crowns are 10 feet apart. In addition remove the lower limbs on those
trees altbwed to remain to a height of 10 feet to eliminate ladder fuels.
3) Trees allowed to remain should not overhang the proposed addition.
4) Remcve dead~.vopd wothir~ a 100 feet of the addition.
Feel free to call me with any questions you might have about my
recommendations. Thank you for the opportunity to review this application.
Sincerely,
n
A. Vince Urbina
Assistant District Forester
cc: Glen Horn ~d5~
P. S , ~ ~.co ~(-v~-~-a>~. p4~-co r~s-'~ L~-o.~.2-- .c-~-~(zry~-,~.'~..
~~
.~
~'°,
,
April 4; i9§7 , "~
~:
-`:
..~,
`I ~ {a a }
Rick Magill
Aspen-P,tkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, ~olorado 81611
~...t,.q , { -_. x .~ . .,. L, ,
Re: Bedell 1041 Environmental Award Review
Dear Rick•
Davis Horn Incorporated represents Mark and Lihda Be<
Antamlr iii /h crcindff~er`~~`~a nvi'l ira ni'rl 1'. ~ TXa rlt" anA 9`:i n}1~ ii
subject site a metes and bounds lot located a'
82. The owners have contracted to sell' t
Potamkin, subject to obtaining land use~'appY"c
lot is improved with a single family house.
zoned ASR-1 and bordered by BLM land to the nc
the east, North Star Nature Preserve to tie so7
house to the west. Figure 1 is a 8 1%2'T
depicting the location' of the subject site
Figures"are at the 24" is 3611 scale).' '
Each of these environmental hazards are addressed in this section.
,a
Geologic Hazards
As depicted on Figure 3, Bedell 3 '1041 Environmental Hazard 'Review
_,: ~.
Site P]an, the proposed building envelo"pe'~is located iii `an area
with slopes of less than 15 percent.
,, ~ - r
Attachment 1 is a March 17, 1997 Geologic Hazard Assessment Study
ALICE DAVIS, AICP f GLENN HCR~7, AICP .. ale _ ~ i -,
215 SOUTH MONARCH SL SUITE TCP4 ASfTE~I; CO~Cd(2~D"b'$1b7T'~'97bj925 687 ~ KaX'~ oY?~°ro~`.~:krarS' " " '`
1
r
._
Alan
the
subject site to
s. The 2.`85 acre
_ subject site is
~; a vacant lot 'to
and single-family
~1" Vicinity M'ap
other referenced
This application seeks 1041 Environmental Hazard Review approval
for an "addition to the existing single Family house. Figure 2 is
an improvment survey of the subject site: Figure 3, "fhe 104'1
envelo eefor the addition to the house.s~The enve proposed building
p
the wes ~, ~, telope is located on
_. ... .~ . ._ ,~n.
t side of the house.
~_ r_ a
The subject site is located within the Scenic Overla Zone. Th
applicant wil~ spupmit a separate land use`"app~'icaton requesting
g
Scenic Overla a royal for the site.
1041 ENVIRONMENTP,T, HA2ARb 12EVY~,"
The following environmental hazards impact the subject sitee
.;,,
1.' Geologic Hazards- Slopes in Excess of. 15 Per`c~nt
~,
2. Wildfire; and
3.: Wildlife.'. r;
i_ ~ ~ e ~ ~.
,, f
r ..:e. ~ ~, ~, _ .. ,_. ,~; ~ t , ;. ~ , . _ ~:,._
_; r.
,, r _ .:.. z ... ,.: w. .>7 s..w.d:xv m. e~.K. ,., =a .-+ yx. y. lu.)>, ...vd~ „~ ...4y
.... .. F v
r~' '~'. 1 "' ".~ .', I a , .. ' , .. ~ _uS t`. n.~dxeszn~-V _ "' Vii" ~. 7 ° ( i ~
- .~ - x ~
S A,,f~. F .ta' ,~- r~~ ,y'a.~ I a
;..~ ~ ~ . k. i . W' .,
',,
prepared by Maxim Technologies Inc.'desdrbing the geologic hazards
impacting the site. The Assessment concludes`,. that the wilding
envelo a is well suited for constructio„ , ject to compliance
n su
P ~ _
with the following recommendations: '~ "` '''
1. Soils Engineering studies should be performed prior to
i construction to insure proper foundation design.
2.' Good surface drainage .should, be provided around all
': permanent cuts and fills to direct surface ruhoff away
from'the slope faces.
' " g sCodeficatons of
3 SeismicrZonehIuof the TJniform Bu~ ding
-. ~= j:
Wildfit~'e
The existing: house is located in a low wildfire area. The
applicant has already visited the site with the""Colorad'o State
Forest ,Service. The applicant commits' to th'e following Pitkin
County ;Land Use Code wildfire mitigation standards.
Pitkin 'County Wildfire Mitigation Standards
1. Location•
a. The building snvelope shall not be located in
draws, canyons or on slopes greater than 30%.
r e ~ ~~ _ ._
2. Defensible space:
a. The area around the structure' shall
incorporate landscaping'' with 'wildfire
defensible space considerations as follows:.
NOTE: Actual ve etataon ma
these conditions may not~'b~ipulation to meet
the natural vegetation pat a necessary where
terns have already
fulfilled these conditions, '
1) Brush, debris, and non-ornamental
vegetation shall be ', removed within a
structurei0 foot perimeter around the
2 ) Vegetation, shad 1 be reduced to brea y up
the vertical a d horizontal~continuit ~of
the fuels a minimum of a 30 foot
perimeter around a structure built on
flat ground. (For greater slopes ref.
CSFS Safety Zone chart. Page 13, Wildfire
~,
Z'
<r.. ,. ,.. ..~~ ,. ,...
r
-'%ti^ _ ~~
a~
i l ~~- i ~
.. ~y
~ 3 ..
Guidelines For"Rural
Spacing betty
vegetation wi
shall b2 a
height of ttie
clumps of
the 30 foot
ium of two
4) All branches from trees and brush within
the 30 foot petimeter shall be pruned to
a height of 10'feet above the `g`round and
,_..
f ladder fuels from around trees
and brush
5) Tree crown separation within the 30 foot
perimeters shall have a minimum of 10
a .. -
fee`t between tTie edges' of ttie crowns.
This does not ,apply to mature stands`"of
Aspen trees where the` above
recommendation
for removal of ladder
.,,
... ,.
fuels h
ane'bee
com lied with. ~In areas
'
p
g
of as en re enerat
ion, the spacing
uidelines shall be followed.
g
6
) a roof
.
,
, i
r
s
h
e
.
~,.
eaves
shall
be
trimmed
and all br
anches
within i5 feet of the chimneys'shall be '
w ,. ,.
removed:
7) The density of fuels within a 100 foot
perimeter of the 'structures'~'shall ~"die '
~.,
Y"educed where natural reduction ties riot
already occurred.
8) All deadfall' within the `~d0''"' `"foot"
perimeter shall be removed.
9 a
shall'be responsible for
pP
the
cunt nue'
f the
defensible space veget tion requir
ements.
Structur al Design and Construction RequirFements:~
i
a. Roo fing:
a 'v~. x`.. f`C,i . . . .a.~~~. p" v.. ` ..mart Y+ x a,.4 /rn
_.,. 4,
- i v . .. i -v . .
+ ;.~ r r+
screened with corrosive
1 resist nt lwire' mesh witki mesh `"1J"4 inch
maximum.!
Wildlife Habitat
The subject site is. proximate to _a big game migratory corridor.
The applicant has already sent Randy Cote a lettef requesting his
comments on the proposed improvements. "
., ';
,._
IMPROVEMENTS AND SERVICES ~.
served by ca privateswater w 11 anT individual yta to w ter d sposa
1
system.- The, applicant does nom°`anticipate placing further demands
on the„existing utilities.
_ _ _ ~;.
SIIMMP;RY
This letter has addressed all of the relevant land use standards
„~
identified by Rick Magill during the pre-application conference.
~,.
Please schedule this item as soon'as'po$si~le."" '
The following list summarizes attachments which may be helpful to
you. _ ~;," r,N. rP,,. r ~ r
Attachment 1 -March 17, 1997 Geologic Hazards Assessment
ti,.,
Study prepared by Maxim Technologies Incorporated.
Attachment 2 Proof of°Own'eY'$hip, title polio;
Attachment 3 -Non-meYger Certificate;
- _.;
Attachment 4 List of Adjacent Prdperty Owners;
Attachment 5 - Pre-app"lication Summary Sheet;
Attachment 6 - Letters of authorization from property
. ~,~. ~~
owners authorizing Davis Horn Inc. to submit this land
use application and to repz`esent' him in the `review
process;' and _ _ __
Attachment 7 -Agreement to pay Fees.
j
Please call if you have any questions oz if we have inadvertently
neglected to address any of your concerns.
Sincerely, ..
INCORPOR7'PED`
HORN AICP
4_ ,
};
______.
.. ~ ~.~ ,
MaICn 1/, lyy/
,~~ :~. ,. ~ _ ..:,,,., .,.~ _,.... .~~., ..., ~, a. ~ ~ ~ ,., ~ ; ,,
Mr. Michael 7. Herron "
Garfield & Hecht, P.C.
601 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
~, ~~
,;
;,
Subject: Geologic Hazards Assessment Study for the Meets & 'Bounds Parcel at 4315
Highway 82 in Aspen, Pitkin County; Colorado ' '` ' ' "
1- i
Maxim lob Number: 5009 70 0289 `
Deaz Mr. Herron "" ~ ' ~ '° j
~; _ I
At your request, we have conducted a geologic hazards assessment study for the project area.
The work was done to identify potential hazardous conditions and other
be considered. during planning and design of development in tTie area; conditions which should
,;. ~ ,~ ,.
The study has shown that no landslides or debris flows were observed to be present that
,.....
represent an r'mmediate potential hazard to the site structure "ar t`lie pr"oposed addition
,, ~. , ;:
{ ~,
Other geologic conditions represent potential hazazds and should be considered during'plannirig
and design, are construction related slope instability, earthquake related ground shaking", and
snow avalanche areas. Adverse impacts associated with these conditions can be mitigated by
engineered designs. ` '' " '"'
The report which follows summarizes otrr findings and presents our conclusions and
P commgendations.p IPs im grtant that w g ro gde con g uma consucoriditions are ~cbrrectly
tannin and`desi n roceeds so that the eolo tc and eofechnical ~~ services as project '
constdered in the ro"ect desi n.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact us.
Respectfully submitted, ~ap0 REG/~
I ~ s,;s•~~, D. k~~
NIAXLI~I TE'CHNOLOG7E5, INC. ;,~
`~~/~~ ~ 31699
L"~ F
c-~ilifron W. Pope, dr. Frank D.'Kinder P. `~s "••~
r ~ sIONAL E
l Senior Geologist/Certified Professional Geologist Project Engineer
~. ,, ~ .,
CWP
Enclosures
investigations
City Testing ``'
'i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY .
.
' 1
...
..............
............
PRESENT SITE STRUCTURE AND PROPOSED ADDITION . , .. '............ 1'
i
SITE CONDITIONS .
2
........... . .................. . ....... .
.
:..
GEOLOGIC SETTING
.
.......
........
..............,. .,
...
ROCK FORMATIONS
.
3
...........
........:...... , .....:... 4
Precambrian Rocks .......
. 4
...
.......................
Older Alluvium (Qom) ... ........ 4
'
'
~
Younger Stream Alluvium (Qys) ........
. ...
.
... ...
5
.Younger Alluvium (QYfl .............,'.. -.......
.
. 6
, , .
.....
.
Couvium (Qcw) ... .... ~
, , , , ,
LANDSLIDE & POTENTIALLY UNSTAB7 E SLOPRS
.
,. • ,
A
'
....
.
SNOW
VALANCHES
...........: .... .
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT ...... : ...
...... 9 :
.
.............
LANDSLIDE HAZARDS '
.......................:.........
DEBRtSFLOW HAZARDS
.
.
. 10
...
...........
.......
......
10
SNOW AVALANCHE FAZARD5 ............ 10
.. ... ...
EA
RTHQUAKE HAZARDS .... ., ,
.
CONSTRVCTION RELATED SLOPE INSTAB~ILIT1}
..........
... . ... 12
LIMITATIONS .............................
APPENDIX A
FIGURE 1 SITE LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 2 PRELINIII~IARI''GI~DT,OGY ~vL4P
APPENDIX B
PHO'IjOGRAPHS
APPENDIX C
REFE12F~1CES
APPENDIX D
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
.......,~ .. 12
..~ ,
_ .... ..
PURPOSE AND SCOPl OF STUDY
.. . , _.
This report presents the findings of a geologic hazards study for the Meets & Bounds Parcel at
4351 Highway 82 in Aspen, Eagle County, Colorado;) A site location map is'shown on Fig. 1.
The u ose
p rp of the study was to observe the general geologic conditions at the site and the
adjoining properties located up-slope of the site and to identify coridtioas which could be ' ~ '
oten6all hazardous, to the existing structure and th p p pment or which should
P y e ro osed develo
be considered in planning and design of the new 'addition. The work was preformed in
accordance with our proposal "dated February 2g I997 and the" signed agreement for ~'
,.:, ,,,
Geotechnical Engineering Services with Garfield & 1=eclif, P.C. ' ' "~
Afield reconnaissance of the development area was made on March 7, 1997 to observe the
g gi dipons. Based on this reco
su~cial eolo 'c con nnaissance, review of published geologic
P SruP , rP w ,- - ,;;,
information, afrial hofo li infe relations and our general expenence~in Elie area, potentaIly
hazardous conditions and other conditions, which should be considered for the site and the
proposed addition during planning and design, have been identified. This report has been
prepared to summarize our findings and to present our conclusions and recommendations.
PRESENT SITE STRUCTURE AND PROP~SE~nAIS1~ITIOIV `,'~ ,' - i.,.„
The site has been develo ed b a nvate residence including attached garage, asphalt driveway,
P Y P~
and two small ponds. An approximate 1,$00 square foot addition to the existing structure is
planned to be constructed along the northwest side of the existing structure.,
1
;,.
,~
~;, . -
SITE CONDTfTO1~TS ._ _. ;:
The site study area covers about 2.856 acres and isylocated in the SE I/4, SW 1/4 of Sec. 17` `
Township 10 South and Range 84 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Ptkin County, Colorado.
The site is sttuated within the Roann Fork VaIle al ' ° ~ ,
' g y ong the east side of the~I~oaring Fork River
and along the west-southwest flank of Smuggler Mountam. The lustonc ~ ° " ` ~ "
` `' business district o{f the
Town of Aspen, Colorado is located approximately 1.5 miles to the northwest, The general
too h ui the area is shown on Fi . 1. Elevatto
P ~P Y ~ .g ~ ns differences on-site, where the residence , ;
and developed portions of the lot are located, vary approximately 15 feet with a base elevation
_ .._ , .
., „,
,_
..
of approximately 8,040 feet above mean seal level (MSL) where the residence is constructed.
Elevations to the north-northeast, and east of the site'rise from 8,040 to greater than 9,000 feet
above MSL. No natural erennial streams are resent on the site but a shallow northwesterly
P P
trending irrigation ditch cross through the west side,of the site. The ditch and the majority of
the ground for the site was covered with approximately l.S feet of snow during the site visit.
Slopes along the Roaring Fork Valley sides'vary from less than 5% (3°) to 70% (35°). The
g Y P g ~ g ,g .... ..`...
more entl slo in temdm is located alon the Roarin "Fork liver floodplairr and river terraces
and is typically less than 5% (<3°). Natural slopes along the numerous alluvial fats, upon
which the site and many surrounding residences have been constructed, vary between 5 % (3 °)
(°). Slopes to the north-northwest of the stte,~along the flanks of Stttuggler N[ountain,
_'~ ;. ; . _
commonly range between 10% (6°) to 70% (35'):
2
~. .w,
:
~ ~ ~ Y
..... , _ ~. . _ .
. .,.
.,.
. i V i ~ ~ '.
4.,.. ' f '. _.
Vegetation of ;the site~consist of relatively dense aspen and conifer forest intermixed with large
~, ~ .r~
cottonwood trees, and dense thick stands of scrub oak and brush undergrowth. The small and.,.,
shallow irrigation ditch, crossing through the westert portion of the site, was not visiUle at the
!,
time of our field reconnazssance because of the snow cover. Based u o'
p n our lrnowledge of the
Aspen azea drainages, the near surface soils. appear to be well-drained. There are a few areas
of marsh and oorl drained ~ properties located `°
y p y ground on the adjacent off-site to the west, and, ,
southwest along the modern Roaring Fork River floodplain as shown on Fig. 1. ``
GEOLOGIC 5ETfiIlVG , " ,
The site is located on, the northwest flank of the Saw "
atch Range where the Roaring Fork River
cuts through and drams the western side of the mountain range. Smuggler~Mountain~ located''
adjacent to the site, is situated within the 5awatcli Range. Tfie primary geologic structure in the
,_ ~ .
region is the north trending and north plunging Sawatch Range anticline which generally defines
the north trend. of the mountain range. Rock formations in the. area aze the Precambrian (Pre C)
g q ' e overlain by either Quaternary age Older A11uvi g of
a e uartz mtinzonrt nm (Qo) consistir ",
glacial. moraines (Qom) or Younger Alluvium (Qy) consisting of alluvial ~ans (Qyfj (Olander and
et.a1, 1974 and Tweto and Others, 1978). The Precambrian rocks are igneous rocks and
outcrops aze found off-site to the north along the steeper portion of the gully, along a road cut
created by Highway 82, and more than, 1,000 feet north-northeast and east of the site. The
Quaternary rocks are sedimentary formations and weze formed by a combination of glacial and
stream activates.
3
~' ~ _. ~_
__.
~, ,,, , W ......
_: ,,, , ._,.., ~ .m .~ , ~.,.: v ~, ..... , ~, m
~. ... ... .. _... _.. ~. wpa * .•r m e>m \wfl ~ wp C , x, :. , a'Y+M'*' M ww+dk n
^. ... { i
Northerl trendin fault daces have been inferred to c
Y g rocs through the Roaring Fork Valley but
they are not visible in the area. There was no evidence of any movement along the faults and
the have been cansrdered eolo call inactive for t
Y g gi y ' 'fiousands`of Years ,(Bryant and Freeman,
1977). No evidence of or landslides. deposits were observed on-site and none have been mapped
,. ,~,..
in the area of the site in previous engmeering geology studies'(Olander and et.al„ 1970. The
rmct al ~eolo y
p ' 'p , gic features at the site and in the surrounding properties are shown on Fig. 2 `and
discussed in tfie following sections.
ROCK FORNTATIO~TS _ ,
Precambrian Rocks (Pre Cl ~ '
Precambrian igneous rocks, quartz monzonte, are present and make-up Smuggler Mountain to
the north and northeast of the site. Tn the vicinity of the site, these rocks are typically covered
with glacial moraine deposits except for outcrops located north-northeast and east of the site
(Fig. 2). Quartz mon~onites are intrusive, granitic rocks consist of approximately 10 % to 50
feldspars with the remaining portion consisting of quartz., and minor mafc minerals. The rocks
are very hard, often jointed,. and very resistant to weathering processes.
Older Alluvium (Ooml
I
The Older Quaternary Alluvium consisting of glacial°moraine` depositsycover the majority of the _ '
properties adjoining the site and overly the Precambrian quartz monzonites. The glacial deposits
4
~~
.1~.a..,w:b.d,~.: ,d+ ~~..~s.~ ~~. ~. . ,..~.~h.e
are unconsolidated oorl stratified de ost of anailai~ to roue
> P, Y P b ded rock fragments from gravel
to boulder size, in a mixed silt and sand matrix with some,. clays. The glacial deposits aze
derived from valley glaciers that left deposits as lateral and end moraines as the ,glaciers
r. .. .> w „ ~ ~ ..F,~ e .~ , ,.:.. .
advanced and retreated within the Roarmg Fork Valley. The depth of glacial motaine deposits '~~i ' '
is expected to be quite variable over relatively short distances, where iY, could range from less
than a foot to'several ten's of feet.
For the purpose of this study, the glacial moraine deposits have been mapped as Older Alluvium
.. i;
(Qom). The glacial deposits observed`along the flanks of Smuggler Mountain and to the north- a.
northeast and east of the site appeared to be stable. 'Thick stands of scrub oak, pine trees, and
bushy undergfowth have helped stabilize the deposits. No evidence was observed during the
ep ,,. ..
site vtstt to utdicate ihaf soil movement or recent c
ohuvial d osits were forming along the
slopes above'tlte site in these rock formations. ,
Younker Stream Alluvium (OvsY
The Younger Quaternary Stream Alluvium consist of stream. deposits thatcover a limited portion
of the south-southeast side of the site and,adjoining properties located to the south, southwest,
and southeast of the site alo
ng the Roaring Fork Valley. The stream deposits are
unconsolidated, moderately to'well sorted by size, and; poorly to moderately stratified. The large
rock fragments are typically angular to rounded rittging from gravel to clay size sediments. The
stream deposits are derived from sediments created by Roaring Fork River and can be mixed
5
y .: .. ,:
I ~'~ i..
with alluvial deposits and colluvial deposits within and along the Roaring Fork Valley. The
depth of stream alluvial. deposits is expected to be quite variable over relatively short distances,
where it could range from less than a foot to several ten's of feet.
For the purpose of this study, the stream alluvial deposits have been mapped as Younger Stream
Alluvium (Qys). The stream alluvial deposits are limited at the site to the south and southeast
{,,.
sides. No evidence. was observed during the site visit to indicate that soil movement or recent
stream deposition was occurring on-site. Recent deposition appears to be limited to the modem
floodplain and channel of the Roaring Fork River.
,,, .,
Younger Alluvium fOvfl
The Younger Quaternary Alluvium consist of alluvial fan deposits and cover the majority of the
site and adjoining properties located to the immediate north-northwest,, west, and southwest of
the site. The alluvial deposits are unconsolidated, moderately to well sorted by size, and poorly
to moderately stratified. The large rock fragments are typically angulaz to rounded ranging from
gravel to boulder size in a mixed clay, silt and sand matrix. „The ralluval deposits are deiived
from side valley drainages and can be mixed with stream deposits and colluvial deposits within
and along the Roaring Fork Valley. The depth of alluvial deposits'is expected to be quite
variable over relatively short distances, where it could range from less than a foot to several
,. ..
ten's of feet.
6
.. r ~ ~'.
i
„~ ,.
For the purpose of this study, the alluvial ~depo§its liad`e been mapped as Younger Alluvium
(Qyf). The alluvial deposits observed, upon which the site structure is built, appeared to be
stable with no evidence of recent. depositions from the gully to the north. This gully is the
principle source of the alluvial fan deposits. An abandoned channel of'the fan is present on-site
to the north of the site structure and the active channel of the gully is located more than 325 feet
to the north-northeast. Thick stands of aspens, cottonwoods, pine trees, and brush undergrowth
cover the fan deposits and have stabilized the deposits. No evidence was observed during the-
site visit to
indicate that soil. movement or recent deposits were forming along the alluvial fan
in the vicinity of the site acreage.
Couvium (Ocw)
The only modern Colluvial (Qcw) deposits observed in the vicinity of the site were restricted
,._._ ~,
to two areas. One area is found along the gully iocated north of the site, where colluvinm is '
being deposited, and should have no impact on the, site. The area where clluvium, is being
deposited is more than 500 feet from the site'where the gully has cut deeper into the north side
of the gully and has been undercuttin the i p ,lacial moraine deposits.
g gneous rock outcro s and
Angular, cobbles and small boulders (less than 2 feet in diameter) were observed on top of the 1
snow present in the base of the guIly during the site visit.
Additional colluvial de osits were observed alon a road cut, located n
p g orth of the site, created
by the construction of Highway 82. This area is located more than SOO feet north-northwest of
the site and should have no impact on the site.
7
~ a mow' ~ 4~w ksat. f ° %4~hR'w 3a ~i.`h+~e~'~f , n r+„
^ry»~P2^
a I
a=,4 i.
-' . ~ i ~
~.. ., .. -,- ~ w +;~ v 4 -
No landslides and suspected landslide areas were identified in the vicinity of the site and no
known landslide areas have been mapped during previous studies (Bryant, 1972 and Olander and
et.al, 1974). ,Potentially unstable slopes'are defined as steep slopes overlain by relatively thick
unconsolidated d osits that mi ht slide or slum if undercut. The
~ g ~ p, ~ only areas identified as
r~
potentially unstable slopes are located along'the gully to the north of the site and in the area of
the Highway, 82 road cut. No potentially unstable slopes were observed immediately up-slope
from the site structure or the proposed addition, in aerial photographs reviewed for 1963, 1979,
1991, and 1996, No potential unstable slopes were mapped immediately up-slope during
previous investigations (Bryant, 1972 and Olander and et. al, 1974).` No deformed trees or
damaged trees, often indicative of soil movement, were observed during the site visit and no
rock shut or run-out areas were observed.
,.
SNOW AVALANCHES...
The properties located immediately to the north-northeast and east of the site have been
identified as'potential avalanche areas (Olander and~et. al, 1374). These areas are defined by
Olander as: "Areas with a slope of approximately 45 % or steeper where avalanches could
possibly occur under optimum conditions". , In general, open slopes hold snow the poorest and
w
ooded slopes hold snow the. best. The ..higher north and east facing slopes would' more
frequently developed favorable conditions for small avalanches whereas the lower south and west ..
8
., ~ ._. ,;.. .. ~.r az ,, n„ ....:.' w .. w _ , :. , . ..r_, ,~. e 4, r v.$.~fY .,-.a~avsa °''§o-:
,~q~A~ ,._ .._ sxi a ran v; wamamvr.+ ~i,QO~~r5- rw.- N~ka^r<rhaV~.- '...,,l.,,p,~.
y ~
i .: i
facing slopes would seldom, if ever, have avalanche conditions (Bryant, 1972). Tye slopes
above the site 'are south and west facing. and' do not meet the criteria for avalanche conditions.
No avalanche shuts or deformed trees indicating pofential`or'past avalanche condifions were
observed during the site visit. According to the current owner of the property and information
obtained from'the Town of Aspen, no known avalanches have been reported in the vtcinity of
the site since 1981 when the structure was built at the site.
Maxim has reviewed the Pitkin County Avalanche Hazard maps and observed potential
avalanche conditions in the site vicinity. According to the map's reviewed and priblished
geologic hazazd studies, mcludin the site and ad'acent ro ernes it a `pears that the existing
g J P P ~ P
house and the proposed addition are not located, within the avalanche moderate. or high hazard
zones as defined within the Pitkin County Land Use Code.
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS A55ESS~~T` ~" " ~~ ~~' '~' '~
Based on the, findings of this study, we have. not ,identified current conditions which aze
immediately hazazdous to the. site. We did identify potentially hazardous~conditions that should
be considered in the planning and design of proposed addition to the existing structure. Our
assessment of Yhese conditions, their anticipated likelihood of causing problems, and possible
mitigations are discussed in the following sections.
9
;. ...
_ ~. m ~.
.
t.
i :~~ ~ i
Based upon published geologic hazards reports and the Pitkin County Avalanche Hazard maps,
it appears that the existing house and the proposed addition are not located within the avalanche
moderate or high hazard zones as defined by the Pitkin County Land rtTse Code.
EARTH AKE HAZARB ', `
There is a potential for low to moderately strong earthquake ground shaking in the Aspen area,
but the potential for severe ground shaking is remote during a reasonable service life for
residential construction. During the last 130 years of historic record, the Aspen area has been
subjected to occasional earthquake ground shaking with ivlod~ieii Iv2ercalli~lnierisity o`f ~V and }
less (Kirkham and Rogers, 1981 and 1985).'
Intensity V and VI ground shaking is usually felt by most .people, but results in negligible
damage to buildings of good construction: Slight damage' can occur 'in buildings' of poor
construction at intensity VI. In our opinion, it is likely that the residences and other
structures
could experience intensity V and VI ground shaking. during. a reasonable service. life.
Earthquake resistant designs commensurate with the regional hazard should be used in the design
of the residences and other structures. The Aspen area is in the Uniform Building Code Seismic
Risk Zone 1 (TJBC 1991 Edition) which corresponds to minor damage. Based on our current
understanding of the earthquake hazards in this part of Colorado, we see no reason to increase
-, ,
the commonly accepted seismic risk zone.
11
.,.. u. . ._,m.,w..,~w_.~„~r _~c,~v.:.
k~e~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~wM~y,~m
T . ~" :a, ,{w~,:,pa.
4^' +~
~.
¢
a u , y<
. ~ y ~
~.
,
r
~ ,~~.-
'
u~ Tin ~%d~~~a5a~~~~ _W;.
RELA ~ ,.,v~~~...... ~ , ~_,..~.., :
~ ..,
We do not anticipate major problems with construction related slope instability near the proposed
residential addition. Grading plans and foundation design for the building addition should lia
based on site specific geotechnical investigations which include subsurface exploration.
Good surface'drainage should be provided around all permanent cuts and fills to direct surface
runoff away from the slope faces. Fill slopes, cut slopes and other stripped areas should be
protected against erosion by re-vegetation or'other means:
LI~YIITATTONS
This study was conducted in accordance with generally accepted engineering geologic practices
in this area to provide the client with an identification and assessment of potential geologic
hazazds and other conditions which should be considered 'as project planning and design
proceeds. The opinions and recommendations are based on a field reconnaissance, `aerial
photograph interpretations, and review of the regional geologic literature. The opinions and
recommendations presented are suitable for prelunnary project planning and design, but site
specific design: recommendations should be based on„additional geotechnical studies.
12
.. ,.=o Nnw ,. ~.~ a .x.sx'~a.. . ].z...., e~ ~ k "A,Z. 0_.E I~
_ .. :: ,, ,,,. , -, .,...:., -.arow~. 3-n.A ~v r,~~~K-Ar-'4ixkkaz. m~lWwwi,.bi...w;e::, 4w.:+.y"'::.~f::::t.»
T ATTACHII~'' ~_
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURA~VC~E "" : = r~~----•
SCHEDULE A
1. Effective Date: 01/02/97 at 08:30 A.M.
2. Policy or Polices to be issued:. Case No. PCT11508
(a) ALTA Owner's Policy-Form 1992 Amount$ 3,750,000.00
remium$ 3,304.00
Pro osed Insured:
P Rate:RE-ISSUE"' RA'I~E~
ALAN POTAM7CIN ;
(b) ALTA Loan Policy-Form 1992 Amount$
., ., Premium$
Proposed Insured: Rate:
Tax Certi~a.cate 20.0,
... $ 0
i
3 referred toeinEthisMCommitment ~s atttheseffectiveland described or
" vested in!' _ date hereof
MARK W. BEDELL and LINDA D. BEDELL
4. The land referred to in this Commitment is situated in the"County
._, ,~ . .
of PITKIN,'State of COhORAb0 arid" is descried "'as #"~o~7.ows s
See Attached Exhibit""A"
ISSUING COMPATQ`Y d FIDEhYTY'~ NA~'T~O ~ ' ~-" " , k°" ," '"' , " . " "
'~YTI;E~~T1~EN'CE'"CD"I~SPAI~"Y`~ .~
By: PITKIN COUNTY T7TY,E, INC. Schedule A-PG.1
601 E. HOPKINS This Commitment is invalid
ASPEN, CO. 81611 unless the Insuring
970-925-1766 Provisions and Schedules
970-925-6527 FAX A and B are attached.
AUTHORIZED'AGENT
.. m,..,h, . , ,,.., ...",.d~, ,~,
.s ..ev a x.. wrvc..-xrF-'"v< !w "w~+^~Y~yk+P'°NY%'aMh~d: T^YeA ~[y.4S ... ..
ERHIBIT P.
Coloradoanand8beingtmoredfullyhdescrbedlasefollows:Pitkin Tountyip 10
Beginning at the SE corner of said SE1/4SW1/4, as establish~d.by the
Harpin Survey (1978); thence S 89°34'30" W 321.36 feet along the
Southerly boundary line of said SE1/4SWi/4 to the Easterly right of
way line of Colorado State Highway 82; thence 163.64 feet along said
right of way line the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of
533.00 feet, the chord of which bears N 29°55'44"'"W"163.00 feet;
thence N 21°08' W 79:9tl"'feet along said right of way line; thence
departing said right of way line N 64°40' E:°465.7'7 feet to the point
of intersection with the Easterly boundary line of said SE1/4SW1/4;
thence S O1°27'30" E 412.83 feet along said Easterly boundary line to
the point of beginning.
COUNTY OF 'PITKIN, STATE OF COLOf2AD0.' ' '
---,- .:- ~k ~ ~
.... - _ u ... .. _. }9 e^vWnJq'sM" ~.. .. ~:.ss ~ w.. n.« Wn' ~;
... ~.
NT - ~.
SCHEDULE B - SECTION 1
REQUIREMENTS
The following are the requirements to be complied with:
ITEM (a) Paymen*_ to or for the, account"of the grantors or mortgagors
of the full consideration for the, estate or interest,. to, be,irsured.
ITEM (b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be
insured must be executed and duly filed for record to-wit:
1. Release by the Public Trustee of the,
Deed of Trust from MARK TrI. BEDELL and LINDA D BEDELL
to the Public Trustee of the County of"'P`1TK~I`~7` "'`~" '
for the use of : PITKIN COUNTY,BANK & TRtrST COMI~ANY
original amount $815,200.00
dated May 4, 1994` '
recorded May 9, 1994 in Book. 749, at Page 813
reception no. 369803
Duly acknowledged Assignment of the Deed of Trust recorded May 10,
1994 in Book 749 at Page 968, assigning the deed of Trust to
COUNTRYWIDE`FUNDING CORPORATION.
Y g g
D191 1995n~n'1Bookd802satnPage 761thassgning thesDeedcofdTd December
' rust to
PRUDENTIAL HOME MORTGAGE.
2. Deed from MARK W. BEDELL and_LINDA D. BED~LL
To :. ALAN POTAMKIN
3. Certificate of nonforegn status executed by the transferor(s). (This
instrument is not required to be recorded)
4. Completion of Form DR 1079. ,regarding the witholdng of Colorado Tax
on the sale by certain persons, corporations` and firms selling-'Rear
Property in the State of Colorado. (This instrument is not required
to be recorded)
5. Evidence satisfactory to the Company that tree Declaration of Sale,
Notice to County Assessor as required by H.B. 1268`has been complied
with. (This instrument is not required to be recorded; but must be
delivered to anc~ retained by the Asses"stirs Office in the County in
which the property is situated)
:pT `. r:
SCHEDULE B SECTION 2
EXCEPTIONS
p y policies to be issued will contain exc p
followinc unless the same are'dis~osed of to the sate tions to the
g p isfacton of~the'
Company:
1. Rights or claims of parties in .possession not shown by the public records.
2. Easements; or claims of easements, not shown by t2ie public records..
3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shorb'age'in area, enchroachments,
and which arecnot showncbystheepubliclrecordson of the premises would disclose
a hereafter'furnishedtoimposec~ by laweandcnot s ow~~Tiyrt~ie~puhlichreccrdsre or
5. Defects, Ziens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other ina~fters, f`aiiv,
created, first appearing in the public records oY attachsng subsequent to the
effective date hereof but priorto"tlie`date the propo'se3"nsisred~'acaures
of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by
this Commitment.
6. Taxes due and a able; and an tax, s ecxal assessment, c
p~y y p "` barge or lien imposed
for water'or sewer service or for any other special taxing district. `
7: Right of way for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of
the United StaEes as reserved in Patent recorded 'in Book 31.4 at Page
686.
8. Easement and right of way to construct, re'const`ruct, enlarge,.
operate, maintain and remove an electric transmission or '
~,Q- distribution line or system as granted to 'HolyC`r'oss' Electric
Association, I
Jul 11, 1978 nc., by James Hopkins Smith in instrument recorded
y :tn Book 351 at Page 20T.
pp~~ii9. All matters as contained in Agreement Concerning Water Use and Water
1687hat Pages23Dforth in instrument recorded P;ugust 2"7`,'`1~92~ in Book
This commitmgent ched. -- e B-Section 2
the Ihsurin Pro
A and B are'attavisionslanduSchedules Commitment No. PCT11508
. a ,JA'. ~...u. :. ., n :P~.. ,.. _~,,. y, . a«.I . ~ ..,
::.. ...:.. :.. .... a ~.:, M. .,d::, ~,k.sec :;..:+ w..rz. .iM v.i'yr b .-a-',: d' ,.
yti°->w,~H"..e
~YT ..~. .. ~~ =
'. ~., . ', v `:
wi. ,w6 t '. ~,_ I :..
ADDITIONAL INEOF2I~SATI`O27
AND'DISCLOSVRES
The Owner's Polic to be issued, if an shalx contain the following
Y Y
items in addition to the ones set forth above:
eed of Trust, if any, required under Schedule B Section 1.
(2) WateD' rights, claims or title to water. (NO'Y'~`: 1'HTS EXCEPTION
WILT, APPEAL OLV THE OWNER'S AN17,NIOR'TGAG~ "POI,I~'Y~`"T`O"E"E ~S~iTE~ :`''
HEREUNDER)
Pursuant to Insurance Regulation 89-2;
NOTE: Each title entity shall notify 3n wri
insured in an owner's title insurance
residence (including a condominm or
that title entity's general requireme
exception or exclusion to coverage re
or materialmens liens, except when sa`
extended to the insured under the to
satisfactory affidav"it and agreement '
against unfiled mechanics' and/or Mat
by the persons indicated in the'attac
must be furnished to the Company. Up
and any others requirements to be spe
request, Pre-printed Ite"m Number 4 ma
Owner's policy when issued. Please c
• further information. Notwithstanding
contained in this Paragraph shall be
requirement upon any title insurer to
materialmens lien coverage.
t',ng every prospective
policy for a single family
townhouse unit) {i) of
nts for'the deletion of an
lating to unfle~ mechanics
~d coverage or insurance is
rms of the policy. A
indemnifying the Company
erialmen's Liens executed
"fied copy of said affidavit
o'n receipt of these items
Cified by the Company upon'
y be deleted from the
ntact the 'Company for
tithe foregoing, nothing
P y.,-._
~eemeii to im ose an
;provide mechanics. or
NOTE: If the Company conducts the owners' closing under
circumstances where it is responsible for the recording or
4 g p - ~ p erateon, tie"Company
willnbe deemedltoohaventrovidedsaGa tCov'" g
Pursuant to Senate Bi11 91-14 (CRS 10-11-I22);
(a) Districtect Real Property maybe located in a Special Taxing
(b) TreasurerestAuthorized Agentlsying each taxing jurisdiction
ma be obtained form the Count treasurer of the Count
(c) Information re ardin S ecial Dist
Commiss,onerssgthe CountyaClerkfand1Rec rderahorbtheaCounty f,
,.; ,. ,..
Assessor.
T~easurertby thetCompany and1the Costsethereoftchargedtto
nce of
This commitment is invalid unless Schedule B-Section 2
the Insuring Provisions and Schedules Commitment No. PC:T11508
A and B are attached.
__
~.,, ...(. .. ~. A.,. '.... viw n .. ...:..e rY '4.'.: .. s. .. i.*. ..~.t .rE v.v. ..n~..iri iY.
nrr, ert v( 119•JVM19 V,M; KisCi ..
VA1L~,
yw ..:, +a d' eu.y..aw.wMaraw:awNC uw..~..»i*ri•-;-~. P- x, e
P.1
~ t
Third Floor, Aspen Plaza Building
533 East Ht+pkina Avenue"
?spen, Colorado 81611'
(970) 420-1700 Telephone
(970) 420-1121 ?elefax
°A1TA~gWEPi"r ?
~~ Glenn Horn
from: Richard A. Knezevicfi i
tax *: 925-5180
re: ,Mark and Linda Bedell • Sale of East Aspen Property
date: Apri! 7, 199? _.,: „ . .. ...,. ~ ., ,.
pages: 2, including this cover sheet,
note: ,?'f you have trouble receiving this fax, please call Claudia as soon as possible. ,
ausaage:
Dear Glenn:
Per your request, attached is the Non-Merger Certificate.
Hest regards,
OATES, HI7GF3>»S, TZ~NEZ~tGF18t GARI~I~TBWART~ ~.C~".
,; ~ (
.~._ ,,_~
Richard A Knezevich
RAK:cr
Attachment
:. ~wy..wk,~%A,a.res„n mxr mw.+rrrs~ ~r• '^e~+~~;~
HI"K k7 / 7Y lb ~ ~k)HM V. H, K,wCi. .. ..... ., ...{.:.. . , t ,,.., ,-:~..A. ~ .... ,...n-::.,.a,.. ~ r ~.+.,-~:.-... r~*
-~;' ~:H#~fENT 3
NON-MERGER CERTIFICATE
PITK
THE
TITL
OFFI
BY
THA
AND
P2-
PITK N COVN iTLE, INC.
BY:
AUTHORI D FFICER
DATED: `MARCH 5, 1997
.vc+.:.
~: ~.;
~a°RA~t~tE1~r `~
LIST OF ADJAC'EN;T PROPERTY "_ _ `
OWNERS TO LINbrC"Bi IGIA"l B~D1E'T.I. PIiO~~`li"TY
'Parcel No. 273717300021
Address: 43.151 Highway 82, Aspen, Colorado 81611 ` ' '' , .,
Paul A. Chesley
POB 94
AspesCO 81612-0094
Juliet E. Shield
1570 Home"stead Drive
Aspen CO $1611 '
Pitkin County
530 E. Main Street
Aspen CO 8161 I
Bureau of Land Management
50629 US Highway 6 and 24
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
- 30703-3~ ~ :`.r :- Tom' ~~~~.~ ~~ '~ 0 9
-~ ~`,
. \ 0'J 0 34 ..-_ ~~~- \ ---333 -, v,'
\\\` ---- 07035 ~,` ~~~ ~
~ 3~f 0,37 07p9
`~ . ~ - 1
~ ~- r
~7
r'Y c~~rt~r
/ 319Ei3
Frt,+r~r
~~~
311001 ~~~
\~\
1
31100Y~ .~~ i
11-~~/(~i ~ 311012 ~~~'
%~'
\~ /
//r
I~y71181$r -
__ __ - .._..~ _ ~ - ~rC- -
i
~ s.r~*' _z ~~= a .~ i q~ ji
rs E
3 0 0 0 1 0 _ - ~,~," '""?q~r' .: gip:--cx ~ "
t 4
~\ ~ YS -ti -~ '.
~ E~ ~
...~ sa
...
a~~ ~ ~ _
pr. s:
r ~
~ ... nom? ::=n:. .'a'_'-`-"':-~; .. _ _-`te''~3`~.'
~ ~ ~~
-- ~.
1 \ _ ~~[Ui it n"f'.' ~- s.r v~~- - - .r yh _ '",-~`, ~.
~ n r ~Y ~~~~ z. f ''fir r~x
- d ~ -l~i1[1` ~FN~ fl~ ?.~3"2~ ~ lzit. F~'°jrkx ""
i.,r 380022 ~"'"- a,~-'`' --:, ~'_ n~~-,~~ ++
t
- - .Y - _. v.~ '. ~ ~
\'h~ a ~j7 ~(~ l000~5
~' Jutte~ ~ . Shr~'!rJ``
I S?0 FtmxaS+'r:-~~ ~ r
~°f ~ loooos
g[[71~
a ~ ~~
.,
` - 100330
/..
/ /
.,`~_
1 i
C
0 ~.
T6ie
t e p r c
depic''
r epre
m•y c: ~-
enyar;
r ~ r
rih~K-J1-177r 1J•FOb rKUf9 HSPENfP ~TKtN CQ19 t}'~U TQ
~~ ~ ~7~ Jr
__ ~ 9-9255180 P.01,~
DATE: 3/28/97 PLANL`
PROJECT: Bideli Residence
APPLICANTS REPRESENTATIVE: Glenn Horn..
REPRESENTATIVE'SPFIONEIF`r~K` '925=6587 fax 925-5180 {
SUNIlVIARY
l . Type of Application: 1041 Hamrd Review 8c S'
2. Describe action/type of development beipg P~ seIocated easttof Aspen
addition to asingle-family residence. The ro
Northstar Pireserve.
.<
3. Areas in which,, Applicant has been requested to respond, types of reports r
_,
.,
Code Section `
L
3-60 Scenic Overlay
3-80:50 Geologic Hazazd Areas
3-80.70 Wildfire Hazard Areas
3-80.80 Wildlife Hazard Areas -
3-I10 Imbrovements and Sercrirrc
Referral Agencies'
1, County Attorney
2. County Engineer...
3. toning Uffice
4. Envi>•onmental Health
5. Colorado State Forest Service
6. Colorado Geological Survey
7. llivison of Wildlife'
8. County Wildlife Officer
4. Review sbefore: Hearing Officer
5. Public Hearing: yes
6. The applicant needs to post a sign for each public hearing pursuant to
yes
ATTACFWENT,r, s
Rick Magill
g to ronstvct an
SH $2 from the
Sec~ion 4-90 of the Code.
Aiwa-~t-t7yr' iJ~Nb rKUl9 HsPEN;PITk:IN COM DEV 70 9-92551'30 P.01~ '
x.137- ~ .~~ ; ~ a~
~rri~v coorrrx ATtACHMENT S
PRE-A~'PLTCA7tON CO'~I~1~~ivCE 5'C7~TAT2 ,
DATE: 372$79'7 PL ER: Rick 1Gfagill
PROJECT; Bidell Residence
~ APPLICANTS REPRESENTATIVE: Glenn Horn
REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE/FAX:'925-6587 faz. 925-5180 '
I
SUMIVTARY ,
I .Type of Application: 1041 Hazard Review & Seei~•~'~z~r1i~
add tion to a sn a-famil dresidenc eThel ro a nested: The A licant i, en ross SH E2 from the
Northstar Pieserve~ p m g, q Pp ~~ esting to construct an
g Y p p rty is located east of A
..
'~ 3. Areas in which. Applicant has been requested to respond, types of ieports r nested:
Code Section
~ '
3-60 Scenic Overlay
3-80.50 Geologic Hazarc! Areas
3-80.70 Wildfire Hazazd Areas
~~ 3-80.80 ; Wildlife Hazard Areas'.
li 3-110 Improvements and Services
Referral Agencies
~ 1, County Attorney ' '
j 2. County Irngineer ,
3. Zoning Office
4. Environmental Health
5. Colorado State Forest Service ',
6. Colorado Geological Survey ~~
7. bivision of Wildlife"
8. County Wildlife O'fficer
4. Review is before; Hearing Officer
5. Public Healing: Yes
6. The applicant needs to post a sign for each public hearing pursuant to Secglion 4-90 of the Code.
yes i
6- ;
I
'~
f9NR-~t-iy97 1306 FROM~PEPJ%PITKIN' COM DEV TO 9-9255180 P.02;,
` 7. Please submit a list of Aalaceztt Property Owners: yes
8. The Applicant shall provide stamped, pre-addressed, letter size envelopes, `th the return address
,~~.
of the Coisimuni
ty Development Department, for marling to all adjacent pro owners. yes
9. Number of copies of applicatonpackets to be submitted: I3 "
10. PIanntn Office fee de osit re Z f r Scenic- $1,0
Referral Fees required: County~gineer ~' I55 00' (one step to P&." 80.00)
- .Environmental health $ 155:00 ,
l
Total eposit: ~ 760.00 ($1,390.00)
11. Anticipated date of submission:
; 1Z. COMMEN"CSNNTQUE CONCERNS Pursuant to Seeuon 3 60 40(D), e Applica¢et, may be
'. ~ ~ .. ~:~ ~ +~ ~w f iy.~drvVl~iiY'.$ µwv ~ .nM wr s~_.. '~
eli 'ble for a Plannin ' Darectoi sl ofl~ for the Scenic overlay portion of a review. This sign-
off would simply be rolled in with the Tearing Officer'Review fot 104E S ould the addition not
qualify for align-off, the Planning 'and Zoning Commissiirn mtast review the project under the
Scenic Overlay review standards.
13. FOR COMPLETE APPLICATION PACKETS;°PLEAS1r~CNCI;L`JD~'THE FOLI,O'VJING:
1. Letter of request which describes the project in detatl and a sses the Code
Sections listed above;
2:, 24" x 36" Site Plan which includes the entire parcel, propo building envelope,
proposed access, topographic information at 2' contour interv s (for buiIdin~
envelope), watercourses, proposed and existing son:ctures and {viciaity map;
~ ,
3. Digital data/GIS submission (diskette) which includes the'infonnation lisf~ed above
,:,, .. i ,
for the site plan;
4., proof of ownership;
5. copynfthis pre-app form;
i _, _ ., _ ,
6. geologist's report addressing tl'ie geoloeic issues; ',
7. elevation drawings of proposed addition as viewed from SH 8$ comdor;
8. photographs of existing residence, as~viewed from the SH 82 ~rridor.
J
° Application Fee & Agreement for Payment foam (' 1 copy only, availalile at the front, desk).
I
TOTRL P.02 ~~
Apr-08--97 ~ 09 a 3`6A potamk~ Lompan ins
e,rr2 nr •7r "3e~'tk?'I~ " i.~.~1 HE
CQI~IS~tT ~pR F
enbwowiwU~aaNLcon ';~
305 5041 P.02
~~*act~tsrt'
______
~ c~a , _s7lort.
RPR. 9:1997 ~10~52AM1~~KELROPERTIE5 N0.649 P.3P 1 ~~-'•^'
,.
• ~ ...,
-•
. ~ ~ ,,-r~CHMENT
.,
T,Ul~I~~R~3GS!tFD as Owner of the Real 1~roperty desuibed on E~-ibit "A"
attaciied;hereto, ~ieteby consents to Davis=Horn lncorpo~atad and GarAeId St Hecht,
P.C, rep'resentu~g'them in connection ucith a 104] Land [Ise Application to the
Community De~elopipent:t~epactmein for Ptkin County, Colorado.
• ~• .-
__ ,
s
• ' E~ind Sedell
__._ ... :. mr.~ ..., .. d.,.K:... .W. r a.,... ... _. t
AITACF~IENT_~
ASPENIF'i'i'~Il~i
CUM1bIL':VTTY DEVEILOPN~~IT ~EPAR:'`":V1E~1'T
,~„~,ree:^ent f~?avmP!at of itkin f'n~m±Y Deve!+npment Ap, i •~don_'F
PITI~IN COUti'TY (1'.ereinafrer COUNTY) and A1ar~ t" o'fc'in., 4~ s •'t
,,:
thereinafter APPLIC ~..NT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. APPLICPuvT has submred/to COUNTY an appiicacion for
`'-{ A r rl U ~ /'U J'1 a'ri ~r n T ~.. t ~'-1 ~~-U r~ /~. ~ v i e c..~`.J
(hereinafter:. THE PROJEC :~.
2. APPLIC:~VT understands and, agrees Fiat Pizkin County Resolution
No. 9r-.36 establishes a fee structure for Planning applications azd the payment of
ail processing fees is a condition precedent 'to a determanatior. c application
completeness.
3. APPLICANT and COtl\iTY agree that because cf the size. n~tnre or
scope of tl:e proposed project. it is rot possible at this dire to ascertain the full
extent of the costs invoive~ in processing t#ie application. ' APpLIC~NT and
C(3UNTY" further agree that it is in the interest. of the parties. to allow
APPLIC AMT to make payment of an initial. ~'eposit and to rhereafrer permit
additional costs to be billed to APPLiC.~NT on a monthly hzsis. APELICANT
agrees he will be beneTlted by retaining g*eater cash liquidity and will make
additicnaal payments upon nocif;cation by the' COUNTY-when they are necessary as
costs are incurred. COL,'NTY_agrees it will be benefited through the greater
ce^ainty of recovering its toll costs to process APPLICANT'S application.
4. COUNTY and ~PPLIC.~~~T fur~her agree that is is impracticable for
COUNTY staff ~o complete processing or present sufficient informarion to the
Planning Comtission and~or Board of Counry Commissioners to enable the
Planning Commission and; or Board of Counry Cozmissioners to make iegaIly
required tindirgs for project approval, unless current billings are paid in foil prior
to decision.
Apr-G~7-97 10 e~14A ~~~ '+ P.03
~-
Fm" ~~ }`
~. - Therefore, APPLICA1vT agrees that in consideration;; ~f the
COUNTY'S waiver of its right to collect &:11 fees prior to a deterrninaaon of
application cotnpleceness, APPLZCAIVT shall pay ail initial deposit in the amount
of ~ aG which is for _ hours of Platuring `staff time, and if acval recorded costs
~, .. ~ .,-
COUNTY to ue•.mburset~th~C'OUN"1`YTMsfor'~e g~ s' g of~Y billings to
e application
made within ~0 da s of'rhe billin date APPLICA`V~°I`xh:rttie=~c Paymenrs shall be
aenn~~e ~cbrued costs shall beSP*ou =oval review Such erio agrees fiat failure to
~ ~
P Y ,. nds for svspensian of processing.
PITT COL'\'TY APPLICA~~IT
Cindy Houben !!~~ii~~~ v~n,~ -
Commurity Development Director C~L, ° 'r r ~j~C
Signature ~j,~c
Date: c
1Wiailing Address:
i~j'
(~
b ~<' ' ~ Lf dY1'~V' -
,. r~ a M.w r ,.,.,-.n.< .-.,.M..~.. ,....,. . ~. ..
., .
. _. I
_ 1;4.
ay
`Wd llll Yll llll<lle~ ~ lllllln~llllll9 ~o~o
RONALD GAR(IC,L~* '
ANDRCW V. (iFChll'**
MICIiAELJ HBhRON***
DAVID L. LEN 1"O
MATTHEW C. PHRCUSOV*
6RISTI S. FERR.ARO*"**
°aho ad~:~amd m
N~~w v~~~ti ¢,.
~a~, ~a~,I::e~I:o
Uistrio: of Colurobin l3nr
**' xlso rvdmlucd :o
Florida Rar
`" "nlso rvdnducA io
Pt nrylv~n In I3ar
VIA HAND DELIVERY
/~l'T6RN CiY5 AT LAW
V ICTORI.4N SQUARG6UILDfNG
601 GASP IIYMAN AVGNUP
ASPHN, COLORADO 81(I L
June 17, 1997
Mr. Rick Magill, Senior Planner
Pitkin County Community Development Dept.
130 S Galena Street
Aspen, CO 8161 1
TGL[PHONB ~~'
(97(1) 925-1936 `
TGLCCORIHR
(970) 925-3008
B-mail
garhech[eTrol'.nct
Re: Bedell / Potamkin 43151 State Highway 82. Aspen. CO '
Dear hick:
In connection with the granting of staff approval for 1041 and Scenic Review, be '
advised as follows:
(A) Mr. Potamkin, as contract purchaser for the property, assigned his rights and '
purchased the property in the name of Claudia Aspen View, L1.C, a Colorado`limited liability '
company;-and '
g closed you will find the memorandum executed by Cindy dated May 13,
1997, grantinn'an exemption from 1041 Review and 1'800'sq. ft. of additional FAR '
Exemption from Scenic Review which 1 would appreciate your placing in the file:
Your cooperation in connection with this transaction has been greatly appreciated and '
1 thank you for the time tharyou have spent assisting my client.
Very truly yours,
Michael J. Herron
MJH/asg
Enclosure
cc: Glenn Horn (w/encl)
Alan Potamkin
c:\mJh\po[amkin\H W Y82\MagilLLtr
COLORADO GEOLOGICALSURVEY
Divisioh of Minerals and Geology
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 715
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone (303) 866.2611
FAX (303)866-24$1
w
~~` „~.
_, ~,
Mr. Rick Ma ill Rov Romer
g~ P I- 9 7- 0, 018 Governor
Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department lames s. locnneaa
130 South Galena St. Exewtive Direetnr
Aspen, CO 81611 Micnaei e. long
Division Director
May 3 0 , 1997 Vicki cawart
5t5te Geologist
._.. end, Director
ear Mr. Magill:
Re: Bedell 1041 Hazard Review
we have reviewed the materials submitted regarding the above
referenced matter as well as the general and engineering geology of
the site. Afield visit was conducted on May 29,1997.
The area of the proposed expansion is underlain by a deposit of
large boulders associated with a relatively oTd debris flow event
but this should note present any particular problem to the
construction or long-term security of the addition. The area also
shows signs of significant high groundwater conditions for portions
of the year (but the existing house is in the 'same situation with
designaofntherfoundationd this should be taken into account in the
Given these observations, we see no geology-related conditions at
this site which would preclude the construction of the addition as
proposed.
Yours truly
~,'
Jeffr :!Hy es
G'~- -~
~ J , ~ t,
.~ ~.' ~ `
.. ~ ~ ~ , .. ~.~.R < lri th ~ a t, _, .. _.. ..
i well water are acle ate without mee£' g ese;regnirerimerits°'~: l
sewage disposal sy"stem permit and building permit cannot be : `'~.'
;;
iss~Yed'. ..- :P-: ~'r i
~ ELECTION. Sectaons`Z~`180.~yand 3-
SEWAGE TR~ATM~NT'AND CO, ~- J 110~5:~ 1
"It is tYi"e policjr of the County to ~;nsure that adequate sewage ,
tr-eatment' fac'ilities' aver available to serve" existing `and riein"~=': ' '
developments .'Public arid'private sewage'd"sposal'''systems and -
..,~.
connections to'such systems sfiaXl comply .with the sewage disposal,
,~
guid'eline's of Pit~Cin County'~'Individual Sewage Disposal~S~Ystem ;
a ;, . .,,.
Regulation:" 1`. ~ ,..
.--; ~,. ~ i i .
Lots in ~hi`s'area'are:served by indvidual'sewage disposa'1 systems -
(ISDS). I't appears'tliat'~he"proposed addition will not eiicY-oach into
the~prese}zt ISDS area ,and the addition would meet setback .',....,.'...
' requirements ;,:r ~"' ! '~ i
This departmen~C`does not have~'recor~s on tkie sewage'sy"stem"for this
~~ parcel 'The Building Department files do indicat-e'that the ~' j
- Environmental Health Departm~n,t did 'sign the building permit for a 4
bedroom Touse `' I'f the p'rbposed addition .requested 'by ,the applicant '
increases; the-"i~umber`of potential bedrooms; the applicant'taill be ~
q g. ~ ..~ P Y
' re u~zed ~t'o!"~n~1-ar ~e the sewn e dis osal s stem `to meet' curY-en't ~
regulations The 'size of the'presen~ system would have to ~e
determined. There is Pugh ground water on this property and a creek' '
to northwest which migYit make it di~`ficult to exp'Y~d the pre"sent ~,~ ~'
R ~.
system. N'o'groundwa,ter was o~'served in the'area of'the present
on field. .., i ._
absor ti ,
p
z ~
,. ,
-, A~1such`~expanded'sewage,disposal systems 'installed within Pitkin." -
'County Yequire"'sept'ic permits issued by the ~nvro,nmental Health
Department, and must comply with the County'ssewage'disposal
~' regulations Tb receige aseptic permit;'`the applicant will need to `
submit a'septic'permit application and appropriate fee with a
c'ompleted`-Soil Datay~'orm'including percolation test results°and `
profile Yiole info~rmati'on:~N`p"~'t must-be'pos~ible to' design"ari"adequate
sewage disposal system before a building permit can"`be issued.
The Aspen/Pitkin'En~Irironmental Health I~epkrtment''utill'design the .
.. , . -
sj'+stem''f"or• the applicant ~-as -part of fthe permit f ee, if ,an ~rigixxeerecl i
system is not required.-' We will c~o'a site viszt,'ac~vise the''
,..-..
applicant about the'best,location for, the system and provrde a system.'"
design. W`e will determine if an engineered-system is 'needed 7~ased on
soil test results An ;engineered-'sys'tem'is requirec~_if any brie of
the following conditions'exists: a"~5ercolation rate ,faster than 5,mpi''
or slower than 60 mpi; maximum seasonal level of'~the groundwater '
table or' bedrock 'less than fqur £eet below the bottom of tYie proposed, "
absorption system or a"slope ,in exbess of 30~`. Prior to"initiating
any tests„at the site, th'e applieant'shou'ld'contac't~this office for a..,
pre-appllcation~conference. It `is highly recommended 'that,percolation,~
tests be performed between. April 15'and November'15 'This, department
-., . ,.
„° ;
4
. t j _ ..'tl , i~, L 1. ~ ~ ..
~ ...
f
y t 1~v T
• S ,
' ~ d
i
(" y 1
'does not feel confident accepting winter soi"ls fe'sts and will
' rmsn ., ,...,..' ,_ ,,,
• ~ .dete e 'their validity'on a case by case basis": .y,,
{ i"
A condition of appro~Yal `"~'or £his appl.ics.tio~ is„ the applicant !
wage disposal '
mnst.comp~.y with all requirements of the se
permitting process before a building permit'cai~1 be issued '
,~ :.
WATER QUALITY'IMPACTS.Sections 2-140 and ,•3 70..5~anfl 3-70.10: .r~,•; .I
he" olic of t
"It'is t p y' he County to p'.reserve and protec£ ite present ~ ,
. ~~„t
" water'resource"`s';""re~ognizing'the,Cpunty's `s`emi-arid character and.'
that"sign'ificariE'transirioun~an and ~'ransbasin diversion's and, the "
vested rights of senior,appropriators in the basin have mate"rially
curtailed the avazlabi,li "~' '
' t of"an""alread scar'ce' water r'es~o'u~onitiated
olic y y land use be _.....
this .end it is the p y, of the •County that 'no • i ~ •
adversel affect the uan"tit t e 'fo a
'which would y q ~ y, quali y or accessibility
of the Coizn~y's water resources, or' w~i~ch 'would 'occur" at -the expense
.. of established water-dependenE a~ricu`Ttural actiirites,;'or'which '
would re~~1't in increa~ed'salinization of. water resources'; 'loss o~ ~ •''
minimum stream flows further destx'uction of`wildlife~habitat';'"br " '
major expenc~itures'to' reacquire or redistribute major Water
resources'. It,, is also "the ,policy of the ~CouYity' to maintan'a' natural
,.
vegetative buffer along its surface~watezs such that the surface and
groundwatera of the area are 'not encroached upon by:land uses`,or'
other hum~n,ac~tivities which"c'ould cause deterioration of"'water
quality oz impair the natural ,freatment'processes,pi`ovided b~ meadows
and wetland's'.,,, .. _ , .
,,;. .. ,
.i.. .,~ ., ,.
The Enviri~nmental Health Departme_nt'~is chaYged with preserving and
protecting ,the quality of'Pitkin County''s',wa~er''resourc'es': Since a `,' '
.. , _ ....
;. , .
large"percentage"'of the population is dependent upon, water .from
,wells, elimination of 'roundwater. bllution, and prote'ctiori of
' g, P f
aquifers `'and their drainage areas are 'of utmost importance: Roofs•and
asphalt driveways can', be nonpoint sources 'of water discharge' which.
„ w:.
can'contaminat
• ou`~ce iaater supplies., This;', Departmer~t,'recommends that"
,. .' .,,.
nonpoint ;s es of discharge' must"be'retained on~the'property of,
origin which can be accomplished through landscaping drainage
patterns;#'deteition ponds, and dry wells forwater 'runoff from ~ -' I
• buildings,. a : •~,,,, ~
~.:•
Surface water arid" gYoundwater"'contamirsation can~also be caused by
inadequate; setback distances from sewage disposa~ systems to '
•'proximate'CVells; rivers`; creeks, porids, `andrrese~boirs. Minimum •
horizontal distances between'"cortipon2nts of.a sewage disposal, system `'
'and h sical features must be in accordance with
' p Y '' the Pitk~n County
Sewage Regulation 7-
~ i" i„
• - ,1, ~ ~,
.;,~.- ..
'.n ~ 1
.. i ~ ..
..
'~ .. '
i ~
~~ i ~ ~ -1.'n :. - ~',` ~.r^.~^y+aM MRS'{ ~ ~ f ~ ' ! ~ ~, ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ..
{ i
. Y '^
~ y"~ ~ i i
~ ~ ~~., I F
. ~ AIR "QUALYTf Sections ^2 130 and 3' 602 ~ ~' ~,' `
~- ,
"Only that- degel'opment, ~i's permitted'' whicki `wail riot contribute
,..
significantly to degradation of air quality ,.
~~ This project is no`t expected 'to contribute significantly to' ~+•
degYadation'of a:ir quality in ~Pitkin'C'o`u`nty.' r`" ' ~ ',`
,i
Activitie's'siiCh as road 'Building and landscaping require a Fugitive "
" Dust`P1aTi': !Phis plan would need to include, but is not limited to, ~'
fencing,'"watering of haul roads and disturbed"areas, daily cleaning
of ,adjacent pa,'wed roads to .remove mud ghat"has been carried out ~ ,
speed limits, or .other''measu~es' nece"ssary'to pre~rerit' windb~owri dust
.from crossing the ps`bpe'r"ty line or caiSsing'a nuisance:', i-
7 k ~{v-r a, ..
A Condition should be approval; b~ the Aspen/Ps.tkin E~iroxanesital
• ~ -~iea'1t'h be~iartMerit b~f t'he fugitive dust Control ~larn, ' c°n'Yitaiiiing ' -
enough measuY~es to ensue that dust doeb not become "a nvisaiace
., {,; ,
o~ blciw onto ad~aceat property.. ! +"
• ~' ~,~
The applicant ~ettsst file a fireplace%woodstove permit with the
Environme'rital'Health ,Department before the building permit will be'
„~ w: '
issued - '~
.;-
' Metropolitan areas of Pitkin County which 'include's this sYte linay~Iiav
two devices either two'gas log fireplaces, two certified c~.ean
burning woodstoves, or one o€,each.`"E"ach building may also have "'
unliinite'd'num~ers` o~ decorative gas' appliances:` "New homes may NOfi"
have wood,`6urning fireplaces; nor'inay any heating device use"coal ae~
fuel. "No,,wood burning device may'be' instal"led ii1 barns' or' " ~,
agricultural buildings.;. t " .,.~';....~..:.,.,;. ;'-., ,,.
, ~ - J I,'
Any remodeling that affects the firebox of a fireplace~.will ''
necessitate that the"c°C"evsce meet current regixlat~ions. ~ '"'
i~i. ~ n •
Prior to `any demolition the applicant 'should•Yiav2 the building tested
for asbestos ""a`iid if any'is present; should contact'ths Departmen£` ""
regarding proper"remgval ', ;- ~ " "r
„~ } i
' A coasidition of approval for this application 'is the receipt•and
r ~. appi~dval of •the fi:r~' lace/w,oodstowa `"" ""' ~ ' " ~ '.
eg pe'Y$iit ~y the,"Eri`viroximental
i~eal`ph Dep'a'rtatent before the building'permit~ can~be issued. '
' CONFORInANCE .(rtiITH b'3'i-f~R~~~1~'"dIVMSNT1a~ fiEAL'2'H 1,AWS: Section 2-`70. ~
..
> ,
"It'is the"pol'icy of the'County to ensure that nti.use or 'deve'lopment
of land"is permitted which~is in wiolation'of £he laws of"'the County,`
.,, .. _ ..
the State``'of C`
' olorado; ""or Ytli"e United $tate.5 of America. "
This Department is not aware,'of any'issues"of~c.oncern regarding other .
e,
nvironm
' 2h'tal health'-laws . .-; -.. •
., i ,- ~ ..
' ~ „ ~„
' ~ j ~ , ~,
-- ,' .
~ . ` x t _
~_
{ 5
~ y.~ ~•
:-
, •
i ..' n
t I
.
. + i
. ~ MEMOY2ANT)VM y,: . ~ ., ,. .
Toc 'Rick Ma ill,, ohutuTYi\t ~ "~' ''
g C y.De~e,lopment Dep.
' From ~ Nancy MacKenzie, EnvironMerital Health Dept,.,-~~. „
~r';, ~ ,
Thr'dugh ' Lee 'Cas'ein' Assistant Environmental Health Director,
,. . , ....
'` \Date is Friday, May 30' 1997 - ~"'
~ ,.
_ ._ .. ~.,. ,.k,
Re:` ~ BedelT 1041 Hazard Review ,
Parcel"ID"# 2737=1'73-b0=022
__ __
--- ~ -~ - - _ 1 .
--~.~, _~- __ i _ ¢ar,. mow' k-' w~" 1 .c ~r'`j. .,i. ' {
• A site visit was'corid_ucted oh:~tlia.s parcel on May\29, 1997 with Linda
,: ,. .
Bedell. Linda showed me.the loc'aCiori o~ the "well; the septzc' tank; ar~c~, .
the seWag;e`absorption .field. ~ '''` ~ ,, n . \ ~..
The Aspen/Pitkiri+EnvironmentaI,Health Department has reviewed the "
detail's of 'the` Bedell application '(`for ari'additi'on to-`t'he existing ~
,.
singSe family "house et\ 43'i91 ,State ~Iighway`82}`under ahe aut`ki'ority off,\'
• the Pitkin 'C'ounty Code, fiitTe II,"'Land Use Code and has tie""fol~ow~ng
comments = - r
ADEQUATE PROVISTON'S`FOR WATE27-NEEDS:' Sections 2 `170 -and 3-110'.4.
" "2t is tf~~e,policy of-the, County to insure the availability of a water
supply of~adequate guality,~quantity, pressure'aiid,depend"ability for,
fire rot'ection and su ort
- p pp of a 'propbsed• land use \prior "t"b• approva'1
of- the u"se`'. The'County"shall require. land,,uses to•`hook up to'existing •
public systems' i`f service' is ,available'.`" { ~ , ,,,,' ; I _
The~well''is not located in~the area .of the'propos'ed addit~on.~ ~
The application shows minor-changes"to the use`af tfie water supply
system.''This Department re~u`irss'information'that the well has
"~
performed sufficiently in t~ie'past'~n regards to supply and quality
of water. This information is a condition of approval.... ,' ~
~~,, ,..,., fir'.: - i,..,.~ ,
' It is ret~o'ininended that low water landscaping'(xeriscaping) be'\,used
and that,t~e timing of any sprinkler systems beydecreased for loW"'
water plants. The Colorado State TTnitrersity Cooperatlve,Extension'
-:` •• ..
office cah be contacted for mere i'n~'ormat•ion on xeriscaping.
r ~ pproV81 ~_ . e „ v s. - ',. f .'
A co3~c'~itioa~of a ~ ~ for ~h~ application i_ s the r~`ceipt of ,\ '
znfgrination dociimentsng that the guant%ty and quality of'the
~ is I, 7`,"~„
{.' ._ i' `
..,.~1 ., v ~ 4
.,
~,. ,
:n. ,.._,
r9 FdY-36-97 16: 08' PM COL4_GEb_'S 11R 4'. 3939'9~F217i4 ~ P. 92
DeAartment of Natural Resources
13f3 ~Frermen 3tn:ci, Rvam715" - ~
6enaeq Colorado 80203 ~ '
Phpne f30379dG-2611 '
FAX (393)86fi•2~761 ... ~, DFPA1~'Y~NSEi
NATCJ~
17.ESC)UR
Mr. F~igk Mac~i11 ~r-97-opss ~"YR°'"`••
.. co~rr~~r
aspenfPitkin Community nevelopmPr7t Department- I,,M,S ~~flr ~
1317 Sauth Galena rL. ~ '
ASpeYi, ('(} S1E1~- _ _,. EoCC~libr Dirvngr
~. Micho¢I B. Long
DiWsion DimNne
May ~Q, 1997 Vlrki Cowan
Sfnl:~t:snituNht
' '. and h~•arkn
IIear 'NSr. Magill
Re: Sedell 1041 xazard Review
We have reviewed the materials submitted regarding the above
referenced matter as well as the general aitd engineering geployry of
the site. 'A fie7.d visit coos conducted en May X3,1997.
iar e boulders associated expansion is underlain by a deposit of
The area of the pragposed wzth a Y ~ atively"oxc~` dapbcablemlotoeVtl t
g
but this should oat present an particular ie
ec+nsLtuc.tion or Ton lei•m secvrzt of the addition, 3`he aced also
shows signs of siguiLicant high groundwater Conditions for pQrtionh
of t}ie year (but the existing house is in the same situation with
no apparent problems} and Chis shquld be ta}Cen into account in the
design bf the foundac.ian. "' '
Gic=en these abservati~+ns, we see no geology-reiaL'ed conditj,ons at
of tfte addition a
tra~bsede which waul~i grecYude the`canstruotion, s
p p
Yours' truly
Jeffr HytYes
~i.. ~
_ .A ~::G ~ z ... .. Z ` ~.i ~ ~
M E M O R A N D V Nt
TO: Rick Magill, Planning
FROM: Joanna S. Schaffner, Zoring~/~//
~'/)
DATE: May 13, 1997
RE: Bedell 1041 Hazard Review
Parcel ID# 2'37=1'~3 _0~0„_.~~2~2 .. ~". -, " ~ ,
I have reviewed the above
referenced application and "gffer Elie "
following comments:
ZONE: AFR-10, ten acre"'minimum lot size
This parcel contains 2.85 acres and is non-confgrmng in size.
SETBACKS: The required setbacks for this parcel are: '
200 foot Arterial Highway setback a"s measured from the'Highway`82""
right-of-way
30 foot front yard setback
20 fpot side yard setback
30 foot rear yard'setback
The proposed building envelope lies outside of all `required
setbacks. --
FLOOR AREA: The allowed floor area on this parcel is a total of
15,000'square feet. The existing floor area must be verified prior "
to issuance of any new building permits.
HEIGHT:' Building plans have not been submitted to determine
p Y g . ~ ..,
com liance with Count hei ht"re ' lations.
s
OTHER:, Development is not permitted outside of approved
building envelopes unless specified by this approval.
~.,,„ ;,
,_ ,,~,.. ,„ „ .~ ._. ~N t < . ._ ._
_._._ ~_ ri
-~ -
,: '
i
MEMORANDUM
TO; Rick Magill
FROM: Glenn Horn
RE: Bedell/Potamkin Scenic',Ove7lay Review
DATE:. May 9, 1997
C~~i~ _____ Yr ice-'. ,fu ,. ~ Y '
_ ~, c tl i
Attached to this memorandum is a complete Scenic .Overlay
application for ~ec~ell/PO~amkin I hope this application can,
obtain a Planning Director Sign-off. Please Zook it over and let',
me know It would sure"save ,clot of time and hassle if it
qualifies for a sign-off. 2 have included winter pictures of Eh'e',
application (1993)ncontairis summsr pictures. P1 ase ta~Ceea lookhat',
the photos.
submit them onh ~ nd qualifies then 2 will make all. the copies and
Thanks.
.,
ASPENIPITKiPTCOMIVILTNITY DEVELOPMENT L~12TMEN`I'
' 130~South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(970} 920-5090 FAX# (970} 920-5434
April 16, 1997
Glenn Horn
Davis-Hom Inc.
215 S. Monarch Street, Suite 104
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Bedell 1041 Hazard Review
Case #P45-9T
Dear Glenn,.
The Planning staff has completed its preliminary review of the captionedapplication. We have
+,-.. ..
determined that this application is complete. After a more detailed review of the'submttal
information, additional information specific to the application may' be requested in order to
adequately review and process the application. 'The planner in charge of the review will
request the information from you directly.
We have scheduied this application for review at a public hearing by the Pitkin County Hearing
Officer on Thurs, y g g n the Commissioners `
da ,June 12, 1997 at a meetin to be in at 10:00 a.m. i
Meeting'Room in the Courthouse. Should this date be inconvenient for you please contact me
;,,
within 3 working days of the date of this letter. After that the agenda date twill be con§idered final
and changes to the schedule or tabling of the application will only be 'allowed for unavoidable
technical problems. The. Monday before the meeting date, we will call to inform you that a copy of
the memo pertaining to the application is available at the Community'DevelopmentDepartmeny
Please note that it is our res onsibili
y p ~ ty to post the. subject property with a sign within 15 days of
the public hearing and to remove rt from the property within one week following the hearing.
Please submit the enclosed Affidavit of Notice by Posting as proof of compliance with the Code
prior to or at the hearing.
We have forwarded a copy of this application to the Colorado Geological Survey (303 866-2611]
and the Colorado State Forest Service (970 248-7325) for referral comments. Please contact
them directly at to arrange for payment of their fees.
If you have any questions, please call Rick Magill, the planner assigned to your case,'at 920-Sb62.
Sincerely,
J~"'
f ,,,
~~
Rhonda Hams
Administrative Assistant
6
, o w, w,w -,.¢ a P,.n. M1 .ix ,n
ASPEN/PITKIN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DE1'AR'I`MENT
130 Soutla Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone (970) 920-5090 FAX (970) 920-539 """'
MEMORANDUM
TO: County Attorney
County Engineer
Zoning
Environmental Health
` Wildlife Officer
CO State Forest Service'
CO Division of Wildlife-
CO Geological Survey
FROM: Rick Magill, Community Development Department
RE: Bedell 1041 Hazard Review
Parcel H) #2737-173-00-022 - ' -
DATE: April 16, 1997
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Alan Potamkin.
~: ,-
Please return your comments to me no later than May 30, 1997.
Thank you.
~ 1-
_,.n I ~ .,
~ ~,
CERTIFICATE'OF MAIIC;ING
RE: BEDELL 101 IIAZARD REVT~W
y fy y y' 1997, a true and correct copy of the attached
Notice of Public Hearing was depos ted in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, to'the
adjacent property owners as indicated on the attached list of adjacent property owners which was
.... .} A., r.Y.ux. ( ~ ...
pp p ty bevelopmerif Department iiy"t`he applicant in regard to the
case named on the Public C e~~ , ,__ .. . .
By: Rhonda Harris
Administrative Assistant
v
ai :.- ,.,
.. .. 3
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: BEDELL 1041 HAZARD REVIEW
mOTiIC to be~at~10 00 am befo eatlie P~tkin Counng Hearin h0~f"i er~~~y June l2, X997 at a
g $ ty g' , Commissioners'Meetirig'~~ ~''
Room, 506 East Main street, Aspen to consider an a~phcation submrttefl by Alan Potamkiri
requesting 1041 Hazazd Review approval to construct asingle-family residence. The property is
~,
located at 4315,1 Highway 82; and is described as a parcel of land situated in the SEl/4SW174 of '
„ . ,. .
,.
Section g ,Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P:1v1: F'or further information contact
Rick Ma ill at the t~spen/Pitkin Community Development DeparChient, (970 920=5062, '
s/Lance Clarke
Pitkin County Hearing Officer
Published iri The Aspen Times on May 10, 1997
;... ,~ .
ty
Pitkin Coun Accounf No. 001 I3. '
:. ..
A'i'i'ACFiiAEtiT ~.
LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY
OWNERS TO LINDA & MARK B"ED~~L PRO~E$'TY 4
ParcelxNo. 273'~17300D22 'u
Address: 43.151 Highway 82, Aspea,~~olorado`81611
Paul A Chesley
POB 94
Aspen CO 81612-0094 .
Juliet E. Shield
1570 Homestead Drive
Aspen CO 81611 ~ ~ . , ~ ,.. ~ ~ ,
Pitkin County
530 E. MainBtreet
AspenCO`81611" _ _ ,
Bureau of Land .Management
50629 US~ FTighway 6 and 24
Glenwood Springs, CO S1b61
..r~stkytiw+r-s~+~', t t c9
P$~^,e~~a i ... ~ M1~"Ny..~yk~
Development Depafti-ieh''
CalenaStreet
30South
' 1
,
,
_ ,...
'~ Aspen, Colorado~~~~611 ~~~
(970)920-5090
_..
City Land Use Applaeation Fees:
..
' ~
0-041 -Deposit
00113
~ ~
~~85
5 042, ~~ ~ Flat, Fee : , _'
-63860-043 IiPC
-635`85 268 ~ 1'ubhc fz~gl`t`=of-Way° `
-63875 046_ Zoning & Sign Permit
T
I -MJZ01 T Use `i"ax
,.,
10000 62Y0¢383 -Park Dedccatueon _T -_
.
,
::
- 15000-630~(f-4R0 Al{Commercial _
15000=630G6~82 AFfResident~al
County Land se App1'rcatson Fees:
.,
OOll3
-
~ ±
~
80
-
r -
-63
atFee
-03C
F
-b3820-037 Zoning _
S38?5"038 ".t"Boa`riSofAdjustinent
Referral FeeQ
OO113~8t0-035 _ -
00115`-b3340-363 __
62023=63.3,40-I90 _
00125-63340-'?OS
5-a36 `
OOI li-6381
.
OOI13-63'812=2D2
Sales:
OOI13-63830-034 County Coije ___
-69000-i45 Copy Fees
Other
rotai "'
Name: 1 ~ Date:
~,
Address: ~ "~_ l~ro3ec°°~.
~~~
"''`"'L`aser
Phone:
;~ _
.
,
„ ,
- (JI?AWINl7 NLIME%t5i' ~ U... UMH LC~~~.r, ^~
_. - I
~WAWfhIC lJUM417'N
. ~ pY.mue A
oorv:.nn rnmeMla'„ iaw,nmw.art:m `~ '...
nnm0 " nnm ~~. rv,.m. i.~ . . vznenm.:~ ..~ ..~.. ..._ _.... ..... ._. _.. ..
i
~~
~~p
e~
~~
~~.
~~~~
1
~..
~~
a _- ---
~ ~a
~sv g~
~, j.
.,~ ~
~~
F
~~ ' ~
~,, o ,
~w A~ J
\\~~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ a3
~~
\~' o _C~ ~
/ ~ i~
\~~ ~ ~ ~
1 i' ~ '~ i~
r~
3
~~ - -' ~a
s ~±
g~ ~'
s A~&~ ~~N
~ I~-s
Es
~~ykC
N g~gxA
°n
~ ~8
x~
N
0
N
N
a
C:
~y~
i
~mQ
G
~.
O
a
m
r
o~
a~°
.~
~~
V
O
c
~s~- ~~~
N'=
"_ ~~~
®~ $w
~~ ~y~b
~'~~~
w~a$s
~$ ~0~3
~g ~~~~~
~ ~r ~~~
~! Q ~ m `o 0
N
L
i
N
V
ON
N
fr9
0
}W, W
C
~z
i~
~~
~~
o~ ~$
}um
m
y N
~w
~g s
s ~
~~ ~o
~~~~ ~
Y
~~~~~~_'
~a~`°~~~
# ~ o dui ui o
~~~~~~~ o
C r ~ a ~ ~
tl$ N N ~ tlJtlj
0
ain aN V
g
.~
~r
a
~.
.~„ ~
~~
8
U
.~ E,,
;~
~~ ~`
T
N M
'O C
~~m
m
C c
CJ~
f~S'
W
Q
J
ra
~.l
E
`
, $
~i' E
m
~ y. ~
+ ~~T
~
~ s
3~
W
~ ~
,~
^~..__ W..
WZ h
m ~ ~® w
~ U ~~~
~ J~~
~~~
a ~~~
3
~ ~.
V ~.~
~ `~~
.^ ~~•
~~I ~ ~~
~4 ~~e
~~
F~
~ ~
h ~w ~
~. ~ ~
~~
A
C ~# ~
Q ~~
W R~~
.~ 4 ~ ~
Iz
yes
mss
d~
~~
6yM1 SS. q ~ ~ V ~ c ~
t ~ "~$ ~ 1
off` Y as ~~ ~y~~ kf,~~` /,(gist ~;. tr=~
~. w
r; w - u
aK k~~4 ~ r,
'.~uw~'~::w
Z
My
M K
k
C.L.
t...
N
i2p~1
I~/N
Q
c>g>x
~3
A~
~I
11
`rJ.
d~$
~re
~s3
~~`' ~--.
~~~~~~_
a
.,
_ _
~,
~- _ ~y _ 11.1\
t
1 e E
t W -~ a
v -d ~ M g -
e
aW
q
~ ~°
n
U
f\~~~\~\~/y+
\--Y
1..
to p
N Mpgpgee
Q
Ko ~ ~ .
..
O~
r
~ ~
~
o~ .. J
~
p `~
.
~ g
4 a
~4 ~ .~ W
z
w w
G
s
w
~R
ffi
v~ ti
~
a
r
W {
7f1~
dt o~
x m
~
~Y~
~. ~
a4~'x~,~. ~
~M, ~
~ C
q
~au~
.Np ~.~ . ~ .., .,ws :;~... ..w ..:. .~« ,.,. ,.:.< lx av~,, .,... ...1 ...~... ».w .,.~, .~: ,.~......~~«rorml m:a.:~.
tlrr. ~~..: ew+ .rv. nr.~. . n ,.+.u. .~~ +w.. .,..:. -+. -.+r '. oven N. C ~ c~:v N : ~... ..... .-..
µ
tlXWd Ill ~ I 1 y 911p T..
+_ v
~.- i 4 Y)N im~ m4 N Imo,. w. ~ R..a.~V
IK efl~rs~,~/t,, 7nu tarr,7 p t ~ ~nw ~M° ~rr4v~.
f„...., .~i~_.._ s e tvd s~l~ ~ ~_~` ~ .. ~,... i n~r,nrr'ni ardtnmrii(~,_._
,.. ..
r.: .W... ~..,,,....,._.,.
oe1. "`.---. ~ eF~ R y
~~ ~~~
~\ ~
~ - --~ ~
\ ~ ~ ~. ~,
~~~ ~ ,
a ~ ~~~
g g,~~
'-3, ~ .~
~``~\
~~\/j
/\
t l~O l
",~!
%'i
4,\
~~~R.,~.
m
~_~~
' _ ~.
/~ ~ ~
N
~ / ~-128 / ~____ ~,~~ ~ ~ '
i _ ~,
}_zao X24,, ~ ' -~_ ~ \ ~ i ~ ~^ ,.
i l f ~ ~ e9
i _ -__
~, ,,~ ~ ,,
- ~ %~ -_
~ ~ '
L i ~ ~
~X" rorFwrx
176_ _~ ~ __. ~}~~~~~~~f _~ ~/' \ _
.514 '~ i~sxaz~~ ~, \
I - ~ >. ~ f.
nz_ __ v ~ ,~i a ,-~~
710-r_ ~ ~/ Y \*~aezFam~rn\ ~`o. ~~. ~„/ ~e
:~\
.-
5
~ \ \\'' \'
v,,
~'
~d
,p9 -~
\\
~~/ V'
~/
~ ak \
p2
_ _.
~ ~ ~ 7KRN'i..CG5fK1 ~
p I ~\~ \ - -,~ ~_ tO ~ffNM1M
d4~ - 1 1 ~ P ~ ~ ~ \ ~ y i / ~ _
yyL I ~.` i -. tO REMAW ~ J \ t,~ ~xxixstwxns . < 1-- ~
,~ ~~
~ \v ~ _ = ;
l , , ,~ _
,~ ..,~ ~ i =-. ENGE
4i Ott' ~- ~~ / ,..
~F~ASpgY
HIGHWAY 82
Gear Mvzu>v env Assoontas, 3xc
Ph SM ~' K Ac (9Mmsun A~btl6 PaEnd_¢t
1
T . st ~ i
~~ ~;
~~~ ~!
~1
~5, ~,
aj
~ i
~~ e+
~1
~'s, ~.
~l ~;
z;
~~~ ~I'
~` 9 {
I ~ ~3
1
i
- _ __~ ~[
's
~~r
- L yj ~ 5
~ E
i
l
I
i
~ a
~~
I
3~
~l Lazard Review Exemption Site Plan ~ ~,
~~m~~.
ey.~ua
NoRS
~ A