HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.planning.264316101003DOCUMENT 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 (11117)
Fi!
CASE NAM
PROJ ADDR: 0106 Little Texas Ln Lot P Little Texas
OWN /APP: Melberg,Tom ADRF C /S /Z:F PHN:r
REP:I ADR: C /S /Z: PHI
Email Addr: ALLOCATED HOU
FEES DUE:— FEES RCVD:F— % OVER:
REF: BY F DUE:
MTG DATE REV BODY PH NOTICED
DATE OF FINAL ACTION:
_ 7/17/1990 jP&Z INO F
BOCC Reso:
F— F— No F—
VR EXPIRES:
No �
BOCC Ord:
REMARKS no vesting
PZ:
CASE TYP3:
HRG OFF:
CLOSED: BY:
HO INDEX:
ADMIN:
�
k Flle Location:
7/17/1990
I
Box #212
PLAT RECORDED 8/24/1990 PLAT (BK,PG):
624 P76 #325576 ADMIN INDEX:
VR APPROVAL DATE:F
VR EXPIRES:
CASE TYP: 1041 Hazard Review
CASE TYPE:
CASE TYP2:
CASE TYPE:
CASE TYP3:
CASE TYP7: F—
CASE TYP4:
Date Scanned:
1/'
7/17/1990
I
Box #212
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
Pitkin County dog J y
DATE RECEIVED: 4/20/90 P R EL ID AND CASE NO.
DATE COMPLETE: 7 i 7 Sv ck 5 "00-3 P49 -90
STAFF MEMBER:
PROJECT NAME:
Project Addre
APPLICANT: Tom Melberg
Applicant Address:
REPRESENTATIVE: Davis /Horn
Representative Address /Phone: 300 E. Hyman. Suite B
Aspen CO 81611 925 -6587
PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: $890.00 NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED: 8
TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: _ 2 STEP:
P &Z Meeting Date PUBLIC
HEARING:
YE
NO
VESTED
RIGHTS:
YES
NO
BOCC Meeting Date PUBLIC
HEARING:
YES
NO
VESTED
RIGHTS:
YES
NO
Staff Level: 1041 Minor Hazard Review: Date of Approval
REFE
� ttorney
_ Aspen Consol S.D.
_ School District
Engineer
_ Mtn. Bell
_ Rocky Mtn Nat Gas
Housing
/holy Cross
State Hwy Dept
Water
_� Fire Marshall
(Glwd) (GrJtn)
EE pen
tg v ir. Hlth.
Snowmass Vill
Zoning
anger
FAA
CO Geo. Survey
Div. Wildlife
Div. Water Res.
USFS (Aspen)
Caucus
USFS (Carbondale)
other:
DATE REFERRED:
/r 4
7 o
INITIALS:
FINAL ROUTING:
DATE ROUTED:
_ County Attorney. County Engineer Zoning
Housing � Envir. Health
_ other:
00000t Pz_ V /- O
pa (-.;7 -P�
4-1 i�:( ?c 4.. �'l D� 628 -G 33
r
w w
RESOLUTION OF THE PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
GRANTING 1041 GEOLOGIC AND FLOODPLAIN HAZARD REVIEW APPROVAL
TO THE MELBERG /PATE APPLICATION
Resolution No. PZ -90- ,�G
WHEREAS, Jack Pate, hereinafter "Applicant ", has applied to
the Planning and Zoning Commission of Pitkin County, Colorado,
hereinafter "Commission ", for 1041 Geologic and Floodplain Hazard
approval for a single - family residence pursuant to Section 5-
400.2(a) (1,2) of the Land Use Code; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant's lot is zoned AF -1 and contains
approximately 29,225 square feet; and
WHEREAS, said parcel is described as Lot P, Little Texas
Subdivision, accessed off Upper Woody Creek Road; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant is proposing to construct an addition
to an existing single - family residence; and
WHEREAS, the proposed addition will encroach on slopes
exceeding 30% but will not encroach into the 100 year floodplain
of the Roaring Fork River area; and
WHEREAS, the Commission considered the Application at duly
noticed public hearings on July 3 and July 17, 1990; and
WHEREAS, the Commission determined that excessive slopes can
be mitigated, given mitigation techniques recommended by Dar
Powell in his letter of April 4, 1990, attached as Exhibit " A " ;
and
WHEREAS, the Commission determined that there 'is a
legitimate reason to allow building within the 30% slope area on
I.
628 34
♦ 5
Resolution No. PZ -90
Page 2
this lot; and
WHEREAS, said determination is based on the following
findings:
1. There is a considerable amount of noise impacting the
upper bench of the site; The noise is caused by the
proximity of the site to Highway 82, and the airport; and
2. There is a potential for impact from noise on the upper
bench resulting from development of the Rio Grande railroad
right -of -way as a mass transit corridor; and
3. Allowing building to occur slightly down the slope will
alleviate the noise impact to some extent; and
4. Less visual impact to the State Highway 82 Corridor will
be caused by building on the slope area of this site rather
than building on the upper bench.
WHEREAS, the Commission made the determination that the
riverside boundary of the building envelope shall be located
approximately nine feet in elevation below the top of the slope
measured at the center of the lot to the 89 foot elevation line
as delineated on the site plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it
does hereby grant 1041 Geologic and Floodplain Hazard Review
approval to the Applicants subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall adhere to criteria stipulated in Section
5 -401.2 of the Land Use Code. Criteria is as follows:
a. Cuts shall not be made into slopes steeper than thirty
percent (30 %), unless mechanical support is provided.
An engineering report shall be submitted prior to
issuance of a building permit.
b. Cuts and fills, and grading and scraping shall be
confined to the minimum area needed for construction.
All disturbed areas shall be revegetated within one
growing season after completion of construction.
2. A landscaping and drainage plan shall be submitted and
4 " f
`"u 0003
6213 G. 35
Resolution No. PZ -90 '5�O
Page 3
approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. The
plan shall incorporate the following recommendations:
a. Steepness of cut and fill slopes shall be the maximum
which will insure stability and still allow
revegetation.
b. Use mulches or temporary cover on exposed soil areas
and re- establish permanent vegetation and install
erosion control measures as soon as possible.
C. Incorporate natural drainage patterns into the
development plan.
d. Run -off water shall be channeled down the slope away
from the foundation;
e. Existing natural vegetation on the slope should be
maintained; and
f. There should be positive drainage away from foundation
footers.
g. If a major portion of the slope is excavated for
construction, footers shall be placed at the base of
the slope, on grade with the eastern margin of the
lower terrace.
h. The applicant shall abide by mitigation techniques as
recommended by Dan Powell in his letter of April 4,
1990, attached as Exhibit "A ".
3. No development shall occur outside of the established
building envelope.
4. The riparian zone associated with the Roaring Fork River
shall be preserved in its natural state in order to continue
to provide habitat for wildlife species in the area. The
following shall apply to the riparian zone:
a. Native vegetation shall be maintained along the river
bed.
b. Thinning and pruning of this vegetation shall be
prohibited unless written approval is obtained from the
Colorado Division of Wildlife.
5. The septic system designed for the site shall meet the
approval of the Environmental Health Department. The
applicant shall obtain approval prior to issuance of a
building permit.
me
628 PG 36
Resolution No. PZ -90 G
Page 4
6. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall
provide documentation of an adequate domestic water supply.
Quantity and quality of said supply shall meet the approval
of the Environmental Health Department.
7. The residence shall be limited to one fireplace and one
certified stove.
8. Construction hours shall be limited to the hours of 7:00
a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
9. The applicant shall prepare a site plan for recordation
which meets the approval of the Planning Department and the
County Attorney. The riverside boundary of the building
envelope on said plan shall be located approximately nine
feet in elevation below the top of the slope, measured at
the center of the lot, to the 89 foot elevation line as
delineated on the site plan.
10. All material representations made in the public hearing and
in the application shall be adhered to.
APPROVED by the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
at its regular meeting on July 17, 1990.
PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION
Suzann Caskey, Chairman
ATTEST:
Deborah Skehan,
Administrative Assistant
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Thomas F. Smith,
County Attorney J
E LS
000005
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
P(_%-.-WELL & ASSOC ;:tATES
CON f U LT I N O O, O L O C I, I f
P.O. BOX 60204
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506
(303) 241 -15865
4 April 1990
Alice Davis
300 East Hyman, Ste. B
Aspen, CO 81611
Ref. Geological evaluation of site for single- family dwelling,
Lot P, Little Texas subdivision, Pitkin County, CO.
Dear Ms. Davis:
I have completed the geologic appraisal of the subject property /building site
for the required HB 1041 hazard review. The property is in the SW /4 NE /4 of
Section 16, T. 9 S., R. 85 W., about seven (7) miles north of Aspen, Pitkin
County, Colorado.
The subject lot stretches from the east bank of the Roaring Fork River east-
ward across a narrow, younger river terrace, thence upward and over a west - facing
25- feet -high bench onto the flat surface of an older river terrace. The lower and
upper terraces are composed entirely of rounded, river- deposited boulders, cobbles
and gravel in a matrix of porous sand made of decomposed rock fragments. A thin,
porous, sandy soil containing minor amounts of clay and humus mantles the entire
lot. Bedrock beneath the terrace levels is not exposed but is inferred to be
Mancos Shale. However, terrace gravels are at least 12 feet thick on the lower
level and 30 feet thick on the upper terrace. The slope leading from lower to
upper terrace levels is presently stabilized by vegetation, mainly mature
Gamble's oak and serviceberry. However, the natural slope is probably not greater
than the maximum angle of repose of the terrace gravels.
The anticipated building envelope for the residence will include the slope, from
its base to the upper level, and an adjacent portion of the terrace flat. Soil,
subsoil, and underlying terrace material are practically uncompressible, exhibit
excellent internal (matrix) porosity and drainage, and contain minimal amounts
of clay. Consequently, standard foundation designs should be adequate for the
substrate. However, if a major portion of the slope is excavated for construction,
the footers should be placed at the base of the slope, on grade with the eastern
margin of the lower terrace. This placement will help to ensure minimum under-
cutting of footers by internal drainage within the terrace gravels in the buil-
ding envelope.
With regard to stability of the terrace slope, after construction, care should
be taken to minimize surface run -off of water down, the slope. Specifically,
run -off should not be channeled down the slope. It is further suggested that
existing, natural vegetation be maintained where feasible on the slope which
would preclude any significant watering of these xerophytes.
,
!!Ills
.I: 41 Fec $.iil; B�. 628 rG 38
'viz nPVI c•; +i;n Cn'. C'er! Iior 7.00
I
Page 2
Despite the porous soils and substrate, the granitic composition of the terrace
material might subject the site to slight emanations of radon gas. Adequate sub -
floor ventilation or gas shield should be provided to ensure acceptable levels
of radiation within the home.
In conclusion, the homesite and building envelope are well suited for almost any
kind of construction, provided that the recommendations above are followed.
Please feel free to call me should questions arise.
Yours faithfully,
J. Dan Powell, Ph.D.
Registered Professional Geologist
cc: Mr. Tom Melberg
IOWILL 6 ASSOCIATES
00000
TO: Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Ellen Sassano, Planning Office
RE: Melberg and Melberg /Pate 1041 Special Reviews
DATE: July 17, 1990
REQUEST: At the July 3rd meeting, the Planning and Zoning
Commission requested site visits to both the Melberg and
Melberg /Pate 1041 Hazard Review sites. Commission members are to
meet at 7:45 am at the Little Texas Subdivision entrance or at
City Hall at 7:30 am on July 17th to carpool to the sites. The
primary issues to be reviewed on site are as follows:
1. Extent to which proposed residences are to encroach on
sloped embankment;
2. Extent to which riparian area will be impacted by proposed
residence locations;
3. Location of proposed residences on slope as they relate to
the location of existing and recently approved residences in
the Little Texas Subdivision;
4. General location of wells and septic systems in the
Subdivision.
The Commission will reconvene at 9:00 am for their regularly
scheduled meeting, during which the results of the visit will be
discussed and a decision made regarding the proposed
applications. The original July 3rd Staff memos are attached for
reference.
MEMO MELBERGPATE_SITEVISIT
.S
1111 i
MEMORANDUM
TO: Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Ellen Sassano, Planning Office
RE: Melberg -Pate 1041 Special Review
DATE: July 3, 1990
REQUEST: Jack Pate is requesting approval of a 1041
Environmental Hazard Review. The applicant is proposing to
construct an addition to an existing single family home on a lot
which is 29,225 square feet in size. The site is encumbered by
slopes in excess of 30 %, floodplain and mapped deer winter range.
APPLICANT: Jack Pate
LOCATION: Lot P, Little Texas Subdivision
ZONING: AF -1
1041 REVIEW
Slopes
The proposed building envelope encroaches on a slope which
exceeds 30 percent in grade. Section 5- 401.2(h)(2) of the Code
stipulates that development shall be discouraged on slopes of 15%
and greater unless problems of stability and erosion can be
overcome. Any development approval is to be based on a detailed
site survey including geologic and engineering analysis and is to
comply with the following criteria:
1. Cuts shall not be made into slopes steeper than thirty
percent (30 %), unless mechanical support is provided.
2. Cuts and fills, and grading and scraping shall be
confined to the minimum area needed for construction.
3. Steepness of cut and fill slopes shall be the maximum
which will insure stability and still allow
revegetation.
4. Use mulches or temporary cover on exposed soil areas
and re- establish permanent vegetation and install
erosion control measures as soon as possible.
5. Incorporate natural drainage patterns into the
development plan.
A consulting geologist has reviewed the site, evaluated slope
m
stability, and suggested mitigation techniques to alleviate the
hazards. He concludes that the building envelope is well suited
for any kind of construction, provided that the following
recommendations are adhered to:
1. Run -off water should be channeled down the slope away
from the foundation;
2. Existing natural vegetation on the slope should be
maintained; and
3. There should be positive drainage away from foundation
footers.
He further notes that standard foundation designs should be
adequate for the substrate. However, if a major portion of the
slope is excavated for construction, footers should be placed at
the base of the slope, on grade with the eastern margin of the
lower terrace.
The Code specifically discourages development on slopes exceeding
15 %. However, Staff notes that the Planning and Zoning
Commission recently granted approval for development on slopes
exceeding 30`c on a near -by lot. It was determined that mitigation
was adequate to accommodate development on the slope.
It has been determined that steep slopes can also be mitigated on
the applicant's site. It is noted that development on the slope
in this particular case will cause less visual impact from
Highway 82 than would development on the flat bench above.
However, building on the slope will potentially impact the view
corridor from the river. Finally, mitigation of the slope hazard
is the primary concern in this review.
Floodplain
While the Roaring Fork River floodplain does encroach on the
Melberg /Pate parcel, it is below the building site, as delineated
on the site plan. The applicant agrees to maintain the riparian
area associated with the River in it's natural state. No
development shall occur within the floodplain area.
Wildlife
Though the site is mapped as deer winter range, Randy Cote has
indicated that mapping for the Woody Creek quadrant is
inaccurate. New mapping, which has yet to be adopted by the
County, has been submitted by the Division of Wildlife to the
Planning Office. The updated map has deleted lands located
between the Roaring Fork River and Upper River Road from wildlife
habitat areas. Based upon discussions with Mr. Cote and new
mapping, it is concluded that big game habitat is not a concern
2
000010
on this site. It is concluded however, that the riparian area
associated with the river is to be maintained in it's natural
state in order to continue to provide habitat for other wildlife
species. The Division of Wildlife recommends the following
treatment in the riparian zone:
1. Native vegetation should be maintained along the river
bed.
2. Thinning and pruning of this vegetation should be
prohibited.
GENERAL SUBMISSION /BUILDING PERMIT EXEMPTION REVIEW
The County Attorney has ruled that lots within existing legally
platted subdivisions do not require General Submission review
before the Board of County Commissioners. Pursuant to Section
18 -2.5 of the Code, the applicant has addressed proposed water
supply and waste water disposal for the site.
Bob Nelson, having reviewed the site, indicates that a
sophisticated, engineered septic system will be required. It is
recommended that the system be located on the lower bench next to
the steep slope. Setback variances may be required for placement
of the septic system due to the location of the limited area on
site considered to be suitable for the system. The applicant
commits to install a system which meets the approval of the
Environmental Health Department.
The site is served by an existing well which, the applicant
contends, provides an adequate domestic water supply in terms of
quality and quantity. Bob Nelson makes the following comment
regarding water provision:
There is no information in the submittal as to chemical
or bacteriological quality of the drinking water, the
maximum pumping rate, the yield, the water main sizing,
the existing or proposed water storage, or a legally
recorded permit for the well construction or water use.
The additional increase in size of the residence on the
property and the change from a seasonal Summer usage to
year round occupancy could substantially affect the
quantity of water available, particularly during low
flow periods of the late winter.
Water provision for the site shall be addressed to the
satisfaction of the Environmental Health Department prior to
issuance of a building permit.
Finally, the site is served by an interior subdivision road which
gains access from Upper Woody Creek Road. Said road is 10 feet
in width. County access road standards require a width of 30
M
(100011
feet. The County Engineer has recommended that the access
easement along this road be widened to 30 feet to conform to
standards. In the event that a 30 foot easement cannot be
granted, a 20 foot easement will suffice, given County Attorney
and County Engineer approval.
SUMMARY:
While the intent of the Code is to discourage development on
slopes exceeding 30 %, it is clear that mitigation of the
excessive slope is possible, given procedures recommended by the
consulting geologist. The applicant agrees to abide by said
recommendations.
The applicant agrees to preclude development in the delineated
floodplain area and to maintain riparian vegetation associated
with the river.
The Planning and Zoning Commission recently granted 1041 approval
to a nearby lot with similar slope and floodplain
characteristics, feeling that carefully planned development, as
proposed, can occur in this area without negative impacts to the
slope and riparian zones.
Finally, while it is not a requirement, it is requested that the
applicant consider granting a fishing easement along the Roaring
Fork River. Said easement would encompass the area from
centerline of the river to 5 feet above the high water line on
the bank.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Melberg /Pate 1041 Review
subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall adhere to criteria stipulated in Section
5 -401.2 of the Land Use Code. Criteria is as follows:
a. Cuts shall not be made into slopes steeper than thirty
percent (30 %), unless mechanical support is provided.
An engineering report shall be submitted prior to
issuance of a building permit.
b. Cuts and fills, and grading and scraping shall be
confined to the minimum area needed for construction.
All disturbed areas shall be revegetated within one
growing season after completion of construction.
2. A landscaping and drainage plan shall be submitted and
approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. The
plan shall incorporate the following recommendations:
4
.t
000012
a. Steepness of cut and fill slopes shall be the maximum
g. If a major portion of the slope is excavated for
construction, footers shall be placed at the base of
the slope, on grade with the eastern margin of the
lower terrace.
h. The applicant shall abide by mitigation techniques as
recommended by Dan Powell in his letter of April 4,
1990, attached as Exhibit "A ".
3. No development shall occur outside of the established
building envelope.
4. The riparian zone associated with the Roaring Fork River
shall be preserved in its natural state in order to continue
to provide habitat for wildlife species in the area. The
following shall apply to the riparian zone:
a. Native vegetation shall be maintained along the river
bed.
b. Thinning and pruning of this vegetation shall be
prohibited.
5. The septic system designed for the site shall meet the
approval of the Environmental Health Department. The
applicant shall obtain approval prior to issuance of a
building permit.
6. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall
provide documentation of an adequate domestic water supply.
Quantity and quality of said supply shall meet the approval
5
ti
000013
which will insure stability
and still allow
revegetation.
b.
Use mulches or temporary cover on exposed soil areas
and re- establish permanent vegetation and install
erosion control measures as soon as possible.
C.
Incorporate natural drainage
patterns into the
development plan.
d.
Run -off water shall be channeled
down the slope away
from the foundation;
e.
Existing natural vegetation on
the slope shall be
maintained;
f.
There shall be positive drainage
away from foundation
footers.
g. If a major portion of the slope is excavated for
construction, footers shall be placed at the base of
the slope, on grade with the eastern margin of the
lower terrace.
h. The applicant shall abide by mitigation techniques as
recommended by Dan Powell in his letter of April 4,
1990, attached as Exhibit "A ".
3. No development shall occur outside of the established
building envelope.
4. The riparian zone associated with the Roaring Fork River
shall be preserved in its natural state in order to continue
to provide habitat for wildlife species in the area. The
following shall apply to the riparian zone:
a. Native vegetation shall be maintained along the river
bed.
b. Thinning and pruning of this vegetation shall be
prohibited.
5. The septic system designed for the site shall meet the
approval of the Environmental Health Department. The
applicant shall obtain approval prior to issuance of a
building permit.
6. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall
provide documentation of an adequate domestic water supply.
Quantity and quality of said supply shall meet the approval
5
ti
000013
of the Environmental Health Department.
7. The residence shall be limited to one fireplace and one
certified stove.
8. Construction hours shall be limited to the hours of 7:00
a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
9. The applicant shall grant a minimum of a 20 foot access
easement to adjacent properties, using the existing access
road. Approval of less than a 30 foot wide easement shall
be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney and Engineer
prior to issuance of a building permit.
10. The applicant shall prepare a site plan for recordation
which meets the approval of the Planning Department and the
County Attorney.
11. All material representations made in the public hearing and
in the application shall be adhered to.
ELS
MEMO_MELBERGPATE_1041
R
000014
TO: Cindy Houben, Senior Planner
FROM: Tom Newland
RE: Pate 1041 Hazard Review
DATE: June 14, 1990
I have reviewed the information submitted and would like to
forward the following comments to you:
Steep Slopes: The recommendations of the geologist should be
made conditions of approval.
Impact on Road System: The proposal will not significantly
impact Upper River Road.
Internal Road Design: The submitted plat shows no development or
access roads on the parcel. I am unable to comment based on the
application's statement that no access roads will be built.
Trails: It is requested that the applicant consider granting the
County a fisherman easement along the Roaring Fork River as it
passes through the property.
00A015
ASPEN *PITKIN
Iftwe ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OEPARMENT
To: Cindy Houben, Planning Office
From: Environmental Health Department
Date: June 13, 1990
Re: Pate 1041 Hazard Review
Parcel Lot ID# 2643- 161 -01 -003
The Aspen / Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the
above - mentioned land use submittal under authority of the Pitkin
County Code Title II, and has the following comments.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: Sections 2 -7 and 5 -200:
The application indicates that the wastewater for this would be
disposed of by means of an individual septic system - absorption
field. In our opinion the existing system is probably undersized
and fails to conform to acceptable design standards. It should
be abandoned and a new sewage disposal system constructed.
From our evaluation of the home site with a site inspection and
by using the general conditions reported for the soil types
(indicated on the Soil Conservation Service maps) it is the
department's conclusion that most of lot would not be considered
suitable for any type of conventional septic system under
existing County Regulation. This is due to the expected high
ground water tables in the lower areas of the lot, and to the
placement of existing drinking water wells on the upper portions
of the property, requiring a minimum setback of one hundred feet
(100 to septic system components.
There are, however, alternative engineering designs which have
the potential to fit into the topography to the southwestern
portion of the lot on the lower bench and next to the steep
slope. With proper planning such systems for on -site wastewater
disposal conform to Pitkin County regulations. It is our opinion
that the sewage system for the parcel will be of the type
requiring a relatively sophisticated, site - specific engineering
design. This is because of the anticipated high seasonal
groundwater table mentioned and the location of the Roaring Fork
River. Also likely is very rapid permeability in the gravelly
alluvial soils in the valley floor. We expect that these
geologic and hydrologic conditions on the building lot will
dictate that sewage system will be an engineered mound or a
system of similar design. A properly engineered mound design can
conform to local requirements, but is very costly. Variances
from setbacks from property lines and foundations may also likely
to be required due to the narrow pie- shaped area which seems to
• 00001
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/920 -5070
Pate 1041
June 13, 1990
Page 2
be the most suitable site for sewage disposal system location.
�N ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: Sections 2 -6 and 5 -205:
Water is apparently to be supplied from a well serving the
existing residential unit. This well is apparently constructed
on the property and shown on the site map. This well, proposed
to continue to be the water supply, has not been demonstrated to
be an "adequate" water supply. There is no information in the
submittal as to chemical or bacteriological quality of the
drinking water, the maximum pumping rate, the yield, the water
main sizing, the existing or proposed water storage, or a legally
recorded permit for the well construction or water use. The
additional increase in size of the residence on the property and
the change from a seasonal Summer usage to year around occupancy
could substantially affect the quantity of water available,
particularly during low flow periods of the late winter.
AIR QUALITY: Sections 2 -17 and 5 -106:
Including the addition, the entire house is allowed one
woodburning fireplace and one certified clean- burning woodstove.
If two devices already exist in the house, no fireplace or solid
fuel burning stove may be added to the addition. A permit is
needed from this office for any devices that may be installed.
There is expected to be no significant impact on air pollution by
construction of the addition.
NOISE: Section 2 -23
Adverse neighborhood noise impacts can be expected during the
construction phase of this project. However, long term impacts
are not anticipated.
Should complaints be received by this office, Title 25 Article 12
C.R.S. 1973 - Noise Abatement, will be the document used in the
investigation.
CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS: Section 2 -2
None that are enforced by this office.
CONTAMINATED SOILS:
The applicant is advised to contact this office for comment
should mine waste, waste rock or mine dumps be encountered during
the excavation phase of the project. Disposal of such materials
off -site is discouraged due to the possibility of excessive heavy
metals being present in the soil.
�
Pate 1041
June 13, 1990
Page 3
This is not a requirement, but simply a request based on past
experience in dealing with mine waste and possible negative
impacts to humans.
000018
v �
s
�`, � Wrli � / •
C
12" Pine
IC SCALF.
w
PEST )
20 It.
Iterval = Z'
i
/ , / Om R &C
15710 0
C ,
10" Spru4 r )
•J' ;pure
� h
j
000019
T �
STATE OF COLORADO
Roy Romer, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESMURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Perry D. Olson, Director
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: 13031297 -1192
May 29, 1990
Mary Lackner
Pitkin County Planning
130 So. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: PATE 1041- Melberg 1041
RE cR TO
These homesites should not fall under any wildlife contraints
other than riparian zones.
Native vegetation should be maintained along the river bed.
Thinning and pruning of this vegetation should be prohibited.
Randy Cote
District wildlife Manager -Aspen
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Hamlet J. Barry, Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, William R. Hegberg, Chairman . Dennis Luttrell, Vice Chairman • Eldon W Cooper, Secretary
Felix Chavez, Member • Rebecca L. Frank, Member • Gene B. Peterson, Member • George Van Den Berg, Member • Larry M. Wright. Member
0 00 02 0
D�Iorn�•
PLANNING • AP RAISING •REAL ESTATE CONSULTING r
April 16, 1990
Ellen Sassano
Aspen - Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Melberg -Pate One -step 1041 Environmental Hazard Review and a
Building Permit Exemption Review to Construct a New Single -
Family Dwelling Unit on Lot P Little Texas Subdivision
Dear Ellen:
I represent Jack Pate who is seeking a One -step 1041 Hazard Review
approval from the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
pursuant to Section 5 -400 and Building Permit Exemption Review
pursuant to Section 18-2.5 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code. Tom
Melberg has contracted with Jack Pate to acquire the subject site.
The subject site is located adjacent to the Roaring Fork River on
Lot P Little Texas Subdivision as depicted on the attached vicinity
map (refer to Attachment 1) . The site is approximately 29,225
Sq.Ft. in size, zoned AF -1 and improved with a single - family
residential dwelling unit. The applicant is seeking approval to
construct an addition to the existing structure.
One -step 1041 Environmental Hazard Review
The site is impacted by slopes in excess of 30 per cent and
floodplain hazards. You also requested that the applicant address
wildlife hazards. Wildfire hazards are not a site planning
The proposed building envelope is not located within a floodplain
hazard area. However, a portion of the proposed building envelope
encroaches upon a slope in excess of 30 per cent.
Attachment 2 is a letter from Powell & Associates, consulting
geologists, evaluating slope stability and suggesting mitigation
techniques to alleviate the hazards. Dan Powell, Ph.D. concludes
in his letter that the building envelope is well suited for any
kind of construction, provided that the following recommendations
are adhered to:
1. Run -off water should be channeled down the slope away
from the foundation;
2. Existing natural vegetation on the slope should be
maintained; and
3. There should be positive drainage away from foundation
ALICE DAMS, RM ) GLENN HORN, AICP
300 EAST HUMAN • SUITE 6 • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611.303/925 -6587
000021
footers.
The proposed building envelope as depicted on Attachment 3 is
located within a mapped deer winter range. Despite the mapping,
wildlife habitat should not be a factor in the 1041 environmental
review. In a discussion with Randy Cote of the Colorado Division
of Wildlife, he indicated that the mapping for the Woody Creek
quadrant is inaccurate. Randy informed us that the Division of
Wildlife recently sent the Aspen - Pitkin Planning Office a new set
of wildlife overlays deleting lands located between the Roaring
Fork River and Upper River Road from wildlife habitat areas. Based
upon our discussions with Randy and the new mapping, wildlife
hazards do not affect the subject site.
Building Permit Exemption Review to Construct a Single - Family
Dwelling Unit
Section 18 -2.5 establishes a procedure to exempt single - family
dwelling units located on meets and bounds parcels from the full
building permit review procedure if a proposed building site lies
outside any area of state and local interest. During our pre -
applications discussions, the Planning Office and County Attorney
determined administratively that the building permit exemption
process would also be available for expansions of existing houses
on lots located within a platted, recorded subdivisions. The
subject site was platted and recorded in 1946 (see Plat Book 2 Page
34A) . To qualify for such an exemption an applicant is required to
address proposed water supply and waste water disposal systems.
Bob Nelson of the Aspen - Pitkin Environmental Health Department
indicates that either an engineered septic system or a leach field
on the upper bench will be required. The applicant commits to
install a system meeting the approval of the Environmental Health
Department. Quality and quantity of water should not be a problem
because the site is already served by an existing well.
Proof of Ownership and Merger
At their request, on Friday, April 13, 1990, I submitted proof of
ownership and the title chains to Susan Snyder and Tom Smith to
establish that this is a legally subdivided, separately developable
lot. Please contact them for verification of title issues.
Miscellaneous Issues and Concerns
I will be on vacation from April 23, 1990 until May 3, 1990 and
will not be available to clarify issues or provide additional
information. The applicant is most anxious for this application to
be scheduled for review. As of the date of my departure for
vacation, there were some outstanding issues regarding the
potential merger and the 1946 plat. To avoid the potential
postponement of the scheduling of this application I have prepared
responses to General Submission /Building Permit Review standards
(see attachment 4) and Section 7 -2.4 , the special approval
000022
w 9
standards for separation of a sub - standard size lot located in a
"platted subdivision which did not require and did not receive
approval by the Board of County Commissioners" (see attachment 5)
The following listing of attachments may assist you in reviewing
this application:
1. Attachment 1
2. Attachment 2 -
Geologist;
3. Attachment 3
4. Attachment 4
Permit Review
5. Attachment 5
Approval Stan(
Lot; and
Vicinity Map;
Letter from Powell Associates, Consulting
1041 Environmental Review Site Plan;
Responses to General Submission /Building
standards;
- Responses to Section 7 -2.4, Special
lards for Separation of a Sub - standard Size
6. Attachment 6 - Letter from Jack Pate to Any Margerum
Authorizing Alice Davis to Submit a Land Use Application
for Lot P Little Texas Subdivision.
Thank you for assisting me in preparing this application. Please
call me if you need any additional information.
sincerely,
Alice Davis
Planning Consultant
000023
G
POWELL & ASSOCIATES
CO N S U LT I N G G E O LOG I S T S
P.O. BOX 60204
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506
(303) 241 -6865
4 April 1990
Alice Davis
300 East Hyman, Ste. B
Aspen, CO 81611
Ref. Geological evaluation of site for single- family dwelling,
Lot P, Little Texas subdivision, Pitkin County, CO.
Dear Ms. Davis:
I have completed the geologic appraisal of the subject property /building site
for the required HB 1041 hazard review. The property is in the SW /4 NE /4 of
Section 16, T. 9 S., R. 85 W., about seven (7) miles north of Aspen, Pitkin
County, Colorado.
The subject lot stretches from the east bank of the Roaring Fork River east-
ward across a narrow, younger river terrace, thence upward and over a west - facing
25- feet -high bench onto the flat surface of an older river terrace. The lower and
upper terraces are composed entirely of rounded, river- deposited boulders, cobbles
and gravel in a matrix of porous sand made of decomposed rock fragments. A thin,
porous, sandy soil containing minor amounts of clay and humus mantles the entire
lot. Bedrock beneath the terrace levels is not exposed but is inferred to be
Mancos Shale. However, terrace gravels are at least 12 feet thick on the lower
level and 30 feet thick on the upper terrace. The slope leading from lower to
upper terrace levels is presently stabilized by vegetation, mainly mature
Gamble's oak and serviceberry. However, the natural slope is probably not greater
than the maximum angle of repose of the terrace gravels.
The anticipated building envelope for the residence will include the slope, from
its base to the upper level, and an adjacent portion of the terrace flat. Soil,
subsoil, and underlying terrace material are practically uncompressible, exhibit
excellent internal (matrix) porosity and drainage, and contain minimal amounts
of clay. Consequently, standard foundation designs should be adequate for the
substrate. However, if a major portion of the slope is excavated for construction,
the footers should be placed at the base of the slope, on grade with the eastern
margin of the lower terrace. This placement will help to ensure minimum under-
cutting of footers by internal drainage within the terrace gravels in the buil-
ding envelope.
With regard to stability of the terrace slope, after construction, care should
be taken to minimize surface run -off of water down the slope. Specifically,
run -off should not be channeled down the slope. It is further suggested that
existing, natural vegetation be maintained where feasible on the slope which
would preclude any significant watering of these xerophytes.
000024
Page 2
Despite the porous soils and substrate, the granitic composition of the terrace
material might subject the site to slight emanations of radon gas. Adequate sub -
floor ventilation or gas shield should be provided to ensure acceptable levels
of radiation within the home.
In conclusion, the homesite and building envelope are well suited for almost any
kind of construction, provided that the recommendations above are followed.
Please feel free to call me should questions arise.
Yours faithfully,
J. Dan Powell, Ph. D.
Registered Professional Geologist
cc: Mr. Tom Melberg
000025 VOWELL & ASSOCIATES
Attachment 4
General Submission /Building Permit Review Standards
In the event it is determined that the subject site does not
qualify for a building permit review exemption, I have addressed
all of the Pitkin County Land Use Code General submission
Regulations within this attachment.
Section 5 -100 Soil Surficial Geologic Characteristics and
Radiation
Refer to the attachment 2, a letter from Dan Powell addressing
geological concerns.
Section 5 -101 Drainage
The house shall be designed with positive drainage away from the
foundation. The drainage system shall avoid over loading the steep
slope.
Section 5 -102 Erosion
Soil erosion will not be a problem if the geologic recommendations
of Dan Powell are followed.
Section 5 -103 Compatibility with Historic and Archaeological
Resources
There are no known historic and archaeological resources affected
by the proposed development.
Section 5 -104 Compatibility with Agricultural Lands and Operations
The subject site is already developed. Agricultural lands will
not be affected by the proposed development.
Section 5 -105 Scenic Quality
The subject site is barely visible from SH 82. The proposed
construction will not increase visible impacts from SH 82 because
it is proposed to be constructed down the slope out of view from
SH 82.
Section 5 -106 Air Quality
The applicant will comply with the current County standards for
woodburning devices.
Section 5 -107 Water Resource Impacts
Water quality in the Roaring Fork River will not be impacted by the
proposed development.
000026
v�
CM
Section 5 -200 Sewage Treatment and Collection
The site shall be served by an individual waste water treatment
system. There will be no demands on public facilities. The
individual system will comply with County regulations.
Section 5 -201 Impacts on Road System
Since the subject site is already developed there will be not be
an incremental impact on the County road system resulting from the
proposed development.
Section 5 -202 Road and Design Construction
Road construction is not proposed in association with the proposed
development.
Section 5 -203 Logical Extension of Utilities
Utilities will not have to be extended to the subject site.
Section 5 -204 Impacts on Taxes and Management of Necessary
Services and Facilities
Since the subject site is already improved, there will not be any
additional incremental impacts on public services resulting from
the proposed development.
Section 5 -205 Adequate Provisions for Water Needs
The subject site is presently served with an existing well.
Section 5 -300 Housing
Affordable housing mitigation is not required for the proposed
development. The development will be occupied by a local resident.
0 00027
Attachment 5
Section 7 -2.4
Special Approval Standards for
Separation of a Sub- standard Size Lot
In the event the County Attorney finds that the subject site has
merged with an adjacent sub - standard size lot, the site may be
separated pursuant to Section 7 -2.4 of the Land Use Code. Section
7 -2.4 reads as follows:
Any lot which is substandard as to area and /or width
situated within a platted subdivision which did not
require and did not received approval by the Board of
County Commissioners pursuant to those County Subdivision
Regulations adopted in the Commissioners Resolution 72-
17 (or any amendment there to) shall be considered
separately developable for the purpose of erecting (or
maintaining) one (1) single - family dwelling on each such
lot ( without regard to the fact that contiguous lots
may be owned by the same person) if the same shall be
processed as and receive approval as a use by special
review pursuant to Section 6 -3 of this Code. The
reviewing agencies shall in addition to the criteria
otherwise established by this Code for special review
approval consider the following:(emphasis added)
Based upon the preceding language, a property owner may apply for
a separation of a sub - standard size lot if the lot is situated
within a platted subdivision. The Little Texas Subdivision was
originally platted in 1946 and recorded (Plat Book 2 Page 34A) and
surveyed and replatted in 1959. The surveyed 1959 plat was never
recorded, however plat recordation is not a pre- requisite to apply
under Section 7 -2.4. I have submitted copies of both plats to the
County Attorney with the title information for the subject site.
Each of the standards of Section 7 -2.4 are addressed in order
below.
1. There are 22 sub - standard lots located in the Little Texas
Subdivision. The separate development of the subject site
will be consistent with the development character in the
surrounding area.
2. The subject lots do not comply with subdivision and zoning
regulations. However, the water and waste water disposal
systems are in compliance.
3. Since the subject site is already developed, there will be no
additional incremental impacts on public services resulting
from the proposed development.
4. The physical limitations to site development have been
000028
7aay \.Ni.
addressed in the 1041 review.
5. The configuration of the lots lends itself to separate
development. The lots have been separately developed for many
years.
6. If the subject site can not be separately developed the
applicant will incur severe economic loses. The property was
purchased with the intention of future development. The sales
price was based upon the site's expansion and development
potential as a separately developable parcel.
7. The history of acquisition for the subject site and contiguous
parcels has been documented in detail within my submission to
the County Attorney. The lot was purchased by the applicant
with the sole purpose of living on site.
The lot has historically been considered a separately
developable parcel. On 2/23/87 Pitkin County issued a
building permit for a substantial addition to the house on lot
4 Little Texas Subdivision. On 1/6/86 Pitkin County issued
a building permit to build a new house on lot 7 Little Texas
Subdivision. The issuance of these two building permits led
the applicant to rely upon the potential for the subject lot
to be legally developed as a separate parcel.
90 -013
OLJ0029
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
RE: MELBERG /PATE 1041 HAZARD REVIEW
I hereby certify that on this 30th day of May, 1990, a true
and correct copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was
deposited 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 supplied to the Planning
Office by the applicant in regard to the case named on the Public
Notice.
By: Debbie Skehan
Administrative Assistant
frm.mailing
000030 -
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: MELBERG /PATE 1041 HAZARD REVIEW
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will b
Tuesday, July 3, 1990 at a meeting to begin at 9:00 am b
Pitkin Planning and Zoning Commission, Commissioner's
Room, 506 East Main Street, Aspen, CO to consider an ap
submitted by Alice Davis on behalf of her clients, Jack
Tom Melberg, requesting 1041 Hazard Review approval for
family residence. The property is Lot P, Litt
l e held on
efore the
Meeting
plication
Pate and
a single -
e Texas
Subdivision, which is located in the SW /4 NE /4 of Section 16,
Township 9 South, Range 85 West, 6th PM.
For further information, contact the Aspen /Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 South Galena St., Aspen, CO (303) 920 -5090.
s /Suzanne Caskev . Chairperson
Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in The Aspen Times on May 31, 1990.
Pitkin County Purchase Order No. ,,.-Ie
WD031
James and Karen Palazzi
408 Aspen Ariport Business Center
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Peter Godfrey Jr.
P.O. Box 1974
Kerriville, Texas 78029
William Dinsmoor
Box 121
Woody Creek, Colorado 81656
Dan Powell
Suite 309
2763 Campass Drive
Grand Junction, Co. 81506
Don and Roberta Rayburn
Box 1532
Aspen, Colorado 81612
U��Q�C
ASPEN /PITKIN PLANNING
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920 -5090
LAND USE APPLICATION FEES
City
00113
00125
00123
00115
County
00113
00125
00123
00113
OFFICE
- 63250 -134
GMP /CONCEPTUAL
- 63270 -136
GMP /FINAL
-63280 -137
SUB/CONCEPTUAL
-63300 -139
SUB/FINAL
-63310 -140
ALL 2 -STEP APPLICATIONS
-63320 -141
ALL 1 -STEP APPLICATIONS/
-63220 -132
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
REFERRAL FEES:
ALL 1 -STEP APPLICATIONS/
-63340 -205
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
-63340 -190
HOUSING
- 63340 -163
ENGINEERING
SUBTOTAL
-63160 -126
GMP /GENERAL
-63170 -127
GMP /DETAILED
-63180 -128
GMP /FINAL
- 63190-129
SUB/GENERAL
- 63200 -130
SUB/DETAILED
-63210 -131
SUB/FINAL
-63220 -132
ALL 2 -STEP APPLICATIONS
-63230 -133
ALL 1 -STEP APPLICATIONS/
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
-63450 -146
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
REFERRAL FEES:
-63340 -205
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
-63340 -190
HOUSING
£3360 -143
ENGINEERING
PLANNING OFFICE SALES
00113 -63080 -122
-63090 -123
- 63140 -124
-69000 -145
4!�i•U V i
a
SSA
SUBTOTAL —�
TOTAL
Phone:
Projects
Date: Q U
#of Hours:
CITY /COUNTY CODE
COMP. PLAN
COPY FEES
OTHER
Check # _ r (03,o
Additional billing: _
I
I fs
r
T
c-�xc sc:
/
m
/
I ..
ewwua roean•u . P'
_ j -
t,
t
\
?
i?"C
J s ;
rC swuS i•,,..
P Splva sJ /
s �•Y � Sp•w+
l /
X /
M W Nr4 W.n n�hW � �n S Y i-
VY rM a
'�nrr .rya <. w�,•w��
cm+., Na nrox4 +ry Mean an . ,M ! . Ie.y
a S � A•a A✓ Y.. Ya v uti•
_ r sra J aa. m ,axx.
! ,vr •'+:u.Nr . "anNn YN.'w+n.. m. .4rq.nxr.
+� . a a� -r..�• a.n Jw - arr�a
tan w. .: r'x a�.: •er
wleu.0 a e -r
A ^YnvFMn! Ml: an alwv !m rc!ppwae ou.rNr
.. 'IM :nae'w Jan'bav' bx .3^ .Y.. he �FV. Y aa•:: %
o.an.0 e. a Nw n �'ae
•mte! b .rave mm xaa n A. Rxv�vN
bti r ...w+u. .nn✓
e naMr ..grtYU. w, ar mm+npnq yv; , xt n.w nr,
s v� eb rr�Nq w'/ bSalal M.p L yeti �
NaW
+a N MTvi ry .y
. rr. - Wob. = uGar�T Ty aW+.e' N rl✓
d iwrsstiw bun aN, m �mip b Jv wuv n' JLG e.n rc
e :s. a Wx wen , wr0a,w
aea eFan•w�N h. rva..wG :Nea^.m.r _ M ...
.Y Y n'w.ry MAn '. ew '.r 4mnu vJ n nr.
rM'aNw'. tfM 4 mIMN�
uk •Y Yr ;
1 ;.,
0000,34
11e1 b erg —Pa t e
1 041 tiS' to Plan
Jy ,x�Nxbw,ry,.
Oa4 n. M+e Mr. q L¢.�-v �x, fomMT 9 WH. F'a+Ce
Of war N Ye 6M au C.,M nne auY.Wn ,wxa0.e ar
Y u ^r •� Mx..
f . e. ! m Da. o-• Y. Away
Mrxr/ S w. mr 'r m. -e
N f •CJ '.a nyn er a ry ry pan, y a yx ?,
'�'•' xN:�1W M a+w. +rvwrr. � N,b• rnS
�NFI€: T1Ye A.�.N Hr 4N W�t Mtn
LCNVKK'�'H Of 7eEye{.JI{roN NO. $ te-i_
PC1LSDE0 ON DY -. %..3};�IN THE iR1414
GOt?•ffY C1i�F f FEFC%DR/Y G1i1GE.
'Nwjr't Lwtlry.•e(.
fn m�M aw'an b w avN� ^ry kw.'.W. ma
xFx.Y'!1: R VLSV. t_: 1T':0 dT
oinli, Nlwe
Co i 1C(h 10
7 /)I i Mc h H fl
Ir': /le i
l/ u" 1/ve
lfiekop 0
J P/e Y // , M, /
E
4k
If f , , , , i i / , , I I I � , ,, I ", /, , l , ) f If /fd/(fl,w/ji]
!ill
I 'e, A Ill -
r f I Purl/' /A I
2 1 (f oil,pl) c,
if i P a . �41, f ra c f f l OM /P ), I
X1 /f1 1, 1// r l I ill e
i
1/
i 1p If N I vvil/a, i 7ii a "v/) i l ,1' Ic 'o iil
/
If
P
e i f I lf e )f) 1pi-o f 111 i f
f il lobi'll ood br;6,ill t$/Piled
ill, 0// '1 Off 1011W 0/ jr llloo(o I f r, 0" /1// 1 o f If e i/I i, I l
P 1, e o
l)l Vi, lof'), i fV1 fill llie/ w , f fv i ) i 111JY7
/)o Y' Imm
//w/f dufli/ 0 , i,)10,ir I /f It 4 h I
i 'ofi/, '/ p Oilo il: i " , , M f/ 1 U fC Ii ),f
tif"I , /1f / "hif fe/ ('d Me //w /f i/ , f e, , '/ ) i
(d/l I fl f If i /e 1)1;' 7),)1/'1 , ,,1f I/ I l ^1 ,X1 q
11j, q ph, :d)i d/ e fee /o If I, , l/ Oij i ( //f e I) I'l l f f f
I I f P, ?I iN i lfilfid /)v / ) I 'o 've I, I ^io J/ i,
j"Ie if II "/ i?:f I I /l/b/
alif
le ii I l v/ l' "'ll Niv1 v
IV f fl lo "I'(l'i , iJY ol'imir l'( l ifi, P, /Ill
f /t, ^1 f l )f -f /l, /Ilf i//( vv//h/ If I/'/
e I/ V ( " lfir ,l / ,( lil /i I,') , fir( ,
0 /eflohl '' I t"Ic/ool'o fli,ill o, , lo' fillIfill)"'d f/i floe f V /' il
If 1111f9ial) NO, / , i / //ul, !, ( f lole( Jil 1// 1 //,I VI/" Ifif ,
/Nil=, flfilifie1 epoo f"111 p, 1 / it lo //i, b"wet lrll fW l
0/ /A Ili / , ,
Me , ,r / '(lc .1,;/ m , A /,p if u
Ulf , 11, /1 , l( l/) 1, 'ill, e/ Ile Will oof b ll, I li e/ l/ d)( i// h w
)p/ ef( // / '/ )i "I /f , I, , , „1!1172 / , 7 i 1, "ll A o eii,
if 1” t0 / , I/ i✓ IU, ill l q / W l / f U 1 , /ir (/pp// "<il/ lie 0
i f f if Ifi ji ✓e/ nvif t i, I" e i ?/f i, I( 'fle(elle If ' /M eli� "vo/ ) t1,(/
f, le [ill//!, eiii, pi, 1/11 :lo" i I/ I if f J I, I 1 /if 1 f i"
I / M,(/ 11 1/7 7( ?/ ;' ll, �? if Ill /)I
Ill /"/I I o "hid/ If, Ili I f f Ili ll i( e//, I 'ot illlf
J) ill /it/ If, ellf 1), 1, 01
le 'I , If lz`/( 'il bp 11/f
:V'h if I i ? fu (i l ii w ) , lb) /w?'
i /, f 0(/f if //li,' i Il I/i ln 11 1/1,1 1 U
if j/
f fl/7 ei) q II
lh , I , 1, , / f /, , f /I/,Vf /01,
C
d, f
V