Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.planning.264320300015 (2)DOCUMENT LAYOUT THIS FILE MAY OR MAY NOT CONTAIN ALL OF THE INFORMATION LISTED BELOW IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER Summary Sheet Resolution for the BOCC and /or P &Z Ordinance for the BOCC and /or P &Z Determination for the Hearing Officer Administrative Determination Staff Memo Application Public Notice, Acceptance Letter, Referral(s) Letter Site Plan Miscellaneous Plat(s) Alm SE NO 1991 a Wright Water Engineers, Inc. DENVER OFFICE 2490 West 26th Ave., Suite 100 A Denver, Colorado 80211 (303) 480 -1700 July 11, 1991 Glenn Horn AIPC Davis Horn, Inc. 300 East Hyman, Suite B Aspen, Colorado 81611 GLENWOOD SPRINGS OFFICE 818 Colorado Avenue P. O. Box 219 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 (303) 945 -7755 Denver Direct Line: 893 -1608 RE: Well Potential on Alexis Artel Property Near Aspen Dear Glenn: Thank you for your confirmation to begin a water resource development plan for the Alexis Artel site located near the Upper Brush Creek Village near Aspen. Wright Water Engineers, Inc. ( "WWE ") has completed a study to determine the probability of drilling a domestic well on the property. The enclosed letter is prepared for you to submit to the County for the 1041 review. It is our opinion that an adequate yielding domestic well could be drilled on the Artel property to support a single - family home, a caretaker unit, and some minimal irrigation usage. WWE has investigated the State Engineer's records of all permitted wells in the area. A map has been developed to depict char- acteristics of wells surrounding the Alexis property site (see "Well Drilling Locations" map enclosed). We have also contacted well drillers and pump installers that have worked on wells in the area. The Geologic Quadrangle Maas of the United States, 1972, for the Highland Peak and the Woody Creek quadrangles have also been reviewed for geologic information of the area. Based upon the above references, it is assumed that a well drilled on the Artel property located in southwest quarter of Section 20, Township 9 South, Range 85 West, 6th P.M., will have the following characteristics: Depth: 200 -300 feet (possibly up to 600 feet) Yield: 15 gpm instantaneously; 5 gpm long -term, may be some mining of the aquifer. Water Quality: The water from this aquifer is known to be high in TDS (Total Dissolved Solids) and sulfates. It may be desirable to treat the potable portion of the water by a reverse osmosis process. A typical household in Pitkin County consumes approximately 100 to 150 gallons per day per person on the average. A well producing 15 gallons per minute would provide 21,600 gallons per day if a storage tank was installed to capture all available water. Although the average consumption is easily met by a well GuCJo1 4- y9 object to the recommendation. It would be unfair of the County to require Mr. Artel to demonstrate an adequate water supply prior to General Submission approval when the recently approved neighboring parcels in the Subdivision were not required to demonstrate an adequate water supply until time of building permit. Please reject the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation and condition the Artel General Submission upon demonstration of an adequate water supply prior to the issuance of a building permit. Thank you for taking this new information into consideration. Also, the Brush Creek Homeowners Association is requesting the applicant to remit $ 4,438.35 as reimbursement for past capital expenses; $ 1,185.00 for retiring outstanding debt and $ 612.00 annual maintenance costs. Our position on this issue is expressed in Tom Smith's letters dated May 31 and June 21 attached hereto. To summarize our position, we agree to pay the annual maintenance fee and our fair share of retiring outstanding debt if and when the property is included in a road improvement district. Beyond that, we believe that the request of Brush Creek Village has no legal bases whatsoever and is entirely unauthorized. You should deny their request. Sincerely, DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED GLENN HORN AICP attachments cc: Tom Smith Alexis Artel Suzanne Konchan Tim Whitsitt uii00i02 x w Davis Horn - PLANNING • APPRAISING • REAL ESTATE CONSULTING July 16, 1991 Board of unty Commissioners 506 Eas ain Street Aspen Colorado 81611 Re;/ Jacques Alexis Artel 1041 Hazard Permit /General Submission Review Dear Commissioners: JUL 17 yy� Review and Building We represent Jacques Alexis Artel who has applied for Building Permit /General Submission Review for his 35 acre lot located in the Aspen Ridge Subdivision above Brush Creek Village. You will consider his application at your July 23, 1991 meeting. On June 4, 1991 the Planning and Zoning Commission granted 1041 Environmental Hazard Review approval. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that General Submission approval be granted by the Board subject to the applicant drilling a well. Typically, demonstration of a potable water supply is a condition which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a building permit. The County has recently approved two neighboring single - family homes in the Aspen Ridge Subdivision. Both the Smith 1041 Environmental Hazard Review approved pursuant to PZ Resolution 86- 10 and the White General Submission approved pursuant to BOCC Resolution 90 -98 were conditioned upon the applicant demonstrating an adequate water supply at the time of building permit. We cannot recall the County ever conditioning General Submission approval upon drilling a well. Nevertheless, after the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing the applicant retained Wright Engineers Inc. to investigate the potential for drilling a domestic well on the subject site. A July 11, 1991 letter from Robert D. Krehbiel and William L. Lorah of Wright Water Engineers Inc. is attached for your consideration. They conclude that "there is a high probability of developing an adequate domestic well on the Artel property to meet the domestic water needs for a single - family home, a caretaker unit and up to 2,000 square feet of irrigated lawn." Bill Lorah will appear at your public hearing on July 23, 1991 to address his findings in further detail. The applicant objected to the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation regarding an adequate water supply and continues to ALICE DAMS, RM { GLENN HORN, AICP v 300 EAST HYMAN - SUITE B - ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 - 303/925 -6587 ¢O� YO es i c ��►tii�y, J�C �p Secs a =CC11 20 0' VI I \, Sad I 1 MiDiz �� v �� l`�! -� �, M. �1 Iii rter. ,II ;�I�Lr o ��_ •� _ , .. �}. % "/� ✓,�jB�._. �"� -�• .��1 "' �., C 8 �d I' u t I I 1 I 1 1 �I3 91 A al N JI I �I s 0 0 d o� m �> 9 ea 0. "oo � b �a o ej e q$ a' za d 1 � z Ib 1 IT I� 5 o i \ q / \ t 41 V U0 �m Q W Q J d Q `^Q lV d° F e ss :.5fia Y. `V �C8 _ d o@ Y rr € 8 $ d i kE� 3 I$aa $ m U .n �1` c 10 �> 9 ea 0. "oo � b �a o ej e q$ a' za d 1 � z Ib 1 IT I� 5 o i \ q / \ t 41 V U0 �m Q W Q J d Q `^Q lV d° F e ss :.5fia Y. `V �C8 _ d o@ Y rr € 8 $ d i kE� 3 I$aa $ m U .n �1` THOMAS FENTON SNUTH ATTORNEY AT LAW 320 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 5 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 AREA CODE 303 TELEPHONE 925 -5004 TELECOPIER 925 -2442 June 21, 1991 X Arthur B.'Ferguson, Jr., Esq. Holland'& Hart 600 East Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Alexis Artel - Contributions to Brush Creek Village Roads Dear Boots: On May 31, 1991, I sent you a copy of a letter to Glenn Horn which discusses the request of the Brush Creek Landowners' Association for the payment of fees by Alexis Artel in conjunction with his 1041 and General Submission Application pending before Pitkin County. In that letter, I explained why the request for reimbursement for previous capital expenses may be unauthorized as a matter of law. While I have received no response from you on this subject, I do have a copy of a letter dated June 18, 1991, from the Brush Creek Landowners' Association to Glenn Horn on the same subject. It apparently remains your client's position that Mr. Artel is obligated to the Association for past road improvements. It is now my firm opinion that there is no legal or equitable basis whatsoever for the request for reimbursement of previous capital expenses. As stated in my May 31, 1991, letter, there is no basis for Brush Creek Village to assess any costs whatsoever against Mr. Artel, unless and until he joins the Road Improvement District. At that time, and pursuant to Colorado statutes, he can be required only to pay his proportionate share of outstanding indebtedness. Pitkin County can only require more if, in fact, such additional costs can be justified as a legitimate "development exaction" to be imposed upon development approval. As stated in my letter, there must, first, be regulations establishing the basis for an equitable assessment of such fees before road impact fees can be required. I am aware of no such regulations. Second, impact fees may be imposed where new development requires additional public facilities. Impact fees are not a basis for charging fees for past road improvements not required by the development under consideration. While your client has apparently reduced its demand to $4,438.35, I would suggest that their letter is evidence of the arbitrary nature of the attempt to recoup these costs from Mr. Artel. There is no basis whatsoever for identifying an arbitrary appraised value for the purpose of establishing the amount of reimbursement to be requested. In fact, if assessed valuation were LJUu�u, 6 Arthur B. Ferguson, Jr., Esq. June 21, 1991 Page 2 to serve as such a basis, since the request is for past years' improvements, then the reimbursement should be based on the assessed valuation at the relevant point in time. Therefore, it would be necessary to determine the actual assessed valuation in each of the relevant years, 1985 through 1990, and to base the mill levy in each year on the proper assessed valuation at that point in time. However, the fact of the matter is that we are not prepared at this time to agree to any reimbursement for previous capital expenses. As your client has acknowledged, and which is obviously the case, this property was not developed and is not developed as a building site, so that there is no development which has been served by the Brush Creek Village road system in previous years. Had the Brush Creek Landowners' Association desired to assess a mill levy against such additional properties, an effort should have been made to include them within a road improvement district in order for such assessments to be legally valid. The fact that Morgan Merrill had, for his own purposes, reached an agreement with the Brush Creek Landowners' Association, which appears to have acknowledged an obligation to reimburse the Association for previous capital expenses, is not binding on owners such as Mr. Artel, who are obviously not a party to such negotiations and are not willing to accede to be bound by them. While I remain willing to hear from you as to the authority for the Brush Creek Landowners' Association's demand for reimbursement for previous capital expenses, as of yet I am not in receipt of any information that establishes such authority. Accordingly, we have no choice at this time but to appear before the County Commissioners when this application is heard and object to any requirement for the reimbursement of previous capital expenses. If you can shed new light on this issue, I remain willing to consider reasonable alternatives. TFS /dd °cc: Jacques Alexis Artel Glenn--Horn J. Nicholas McGrath, Jr., Esq. Ferguson.620 Very truly yours, Thom:75 on Smith THOMAS FENTON SMITH ATTORNEY AT LAW 320 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 AREA CODE 303 TELEPHONE 925 -5004 TELECOPIER 9252442 May 31, 1991 Mr. Glenn Horn Davis Horn, Inc. 300 E. Hyman, Suite B Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Jacques Alexis Artel 1041 Hazard Review and General Submission Dear Glenn: As you know, the applicant in the above referenced matter, Mr. Jacques A. Artel, requested that I represent him in negotiations with the Brush Creek Village Road Improvement District and the Brush Creek Landowners' Association, regarding his obligations for maintenance and improvements to Brush Creek Road. This letter is intended to advise you of the status of the negotiations. The Brush Creek Village Landowners' Association has demanded the following payments from Mr. Artel: 1. Reimbursement for previous capital expenses ($6,500.00); 2. Annual fee for retiring bonds ($1,185.00); and 3. Annual maintenance costs ($612.00). Negotiations with the Landowners' Association and the Road Improvement District are ongoing. However, it is my view at this time that while the demand for payment of an annual fee for retiring bonds and annual maintenance are reasonable, the request for reimbursement for previous capital expenses is unauthorized. The basis for my current opinion is as follows: 1. This issue must be analyzed in the appropriate legal context. Accordingly, it is necessary to determine the authority for imposing such fees by a Homeowners' Association, a Road Improvement District, and /or a County. 2. The Brush Creek Village Landowners' Association is only authorized to assess fees against its members. As the Artel property is not now and will not in the future be included within this Landowners' Association, there is no authority for the Landowners' Association to impose any fees thereon. �JUJLi3 Glenn Horn AIPC Jnly 9, 1991 Page 2 this size, instantaneous demands can far exceed the capacity of the well. Typically, a small storage tank, 50 -200 gallons, is installed to meet instan- taneous needs. Household landscaping should be limited to not put a strain on the aquifer's capacity, especially if mining of the aquifer is observed. We suggest irrigating no more than 2,000 square feet, maintaining enough water for a large household and a caretaker unit. The aquifer to be used is in the Mancos Shale, which is approximately 4,000 to 5,000 feet thick on the property. It is a dark -gray shale and a silty to sandy shale. Minor very thin bentonite beds and zones of concretions are common. An upper sandstone member of the Mancos Shale exists through the property. This layer is approximately 40 feet thick and slopes to the northeast at a dip of 10 degrees. It contains medium -gray, fine - grained clayey sandstone that weathers to a grayish yellow. There are some beds with a low angle cross lam- ination. A fault line in a north -south direction exists along the east edge of the property. This is favorable condition because the Artel property is located on the downthrown side of the fault, where fractures are usually more numerous and aquifer transmissivity is higher. We suggest locating the well on the east side of the property for this reason. WWE would be pleased to help develop this water resource. We can assist in selecting the most suitable location for a well within the property. We can arrange the well drilling and hydraulically test the well. In addition, we can test the water quality and make recommendations as needed. If a good well is drilled, we can secure the water rights for the well and design an intake and water distribution system for domestic potable water usage. Please contact its if we can be of further assistance or answer any questions concerning water resource development. Very truly yours, WRIGHT WATER ENGINEERS, INC. 14,& By: �Cd�it� J- Robert D. Krehbiel Water /Civil Engineer RDK /blh Enclosures cc: Alexis Artel ULJG j . ROY ROMER Governor COZ * 1876 OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 1313 Sherman Street -Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 866 -3581 FAX[303]866 =3589 April 8, 1991 Ms..Ellen Sassano, Planning Office Pitkin County Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Artel 1041 Hazard Review Sec. 20, T9S, R85W, 6TH PM Dear Ms. Sassano: JERISA DANIELSON _ __ State Engineer I� non j APR 1510 We have reviewed the above referenced proposal to construct a single - family residence and employee dwelling unit on a 35 acre parcel. The proposed water supply is to be an on -lot domestic well. This parcel is in an area which is tributary to the Roaring Fork River, an over - appropriated river. Domestic well permits can only be issued for lots of 35 acres or more without a Water Court approved plan for augmentation. A domestic well permit will be available for this 35 acre lot. The permit will limit well use to, fire fighting and household purposes inside two single - family dwellings, the watering of domestic animals, and irrigation of up to one acre of home lawn and garden. The applicant's consultant indicates that a septic tank and leach field wastewater disposal system can be constructed on the site. We could not issue the well permit if an evaporative system was required. If the above provisions are met, we can recommend approval of this proposal. ncerely, James C. McDanold, P.E. Senior Water Resources Engineer JCM /JTS:clf /6519I cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer Bruce DeBrine , "f �i 0J.,.L MEMORANDUM TO: ELLEN SASSANO, PLANNING OFFICE LLI 1991 FROM: TEMPLE L. GLASSIER, ENGINEERING OFFICE y�, THRU: TOM NEWLAND, ASSISTANT TO THE COUNTY MANAGER-IIKW RE: ARTEL 1041 HAZARD REVIEW, GENERAL SUBMISSION, SCENIC OVERLAY REVIEW AND EMPLOYEE DWELLING UNIT PARCEL ID# 2643- 203 -00 -013 DATE: APRIL 2, 1991 I have reviewed the information submitted and would like to forward the following comments to you: INTERNAL ROAD SYSTEM: Being that this subdivision is seeing incremetal development, and this access road now serves four residences, we believe that this road may need improvement. In the Pitkin County Road Standards and Specifications Section 2.25 says: Driveways serving 4 to 8 residential or agricultural uses may be of one -lane construction provide that: 1. Said construction conforms to the design parameters for one -lane roads set forth in Section 2.10 Number of lanes; 2. are designed by a registered professional engineer. 3. are recommended for approval by the County Public Works /Engineering Office and are approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners through the land use revisions process. IMPACTS ON COUNTY ROADS: There will not be significant impacts on the County road Juniper Hills Road. DRAINAGE: The recommendations of Bob Daniel, Jr. should be followed. tlg:referral:artel UiJ�.iJ1.2 ` .✓ BANNER 1041 Hazard Review Artel Parcel Page Two created by the development of this parcel above the historical amount should be directed to a drywell or other collection point for natural percolation into the surrounding subsurface. Water The subject parcel is not within the current service area of the recently installed Brush Creek Village water system or any other approved municipal water supply system. Therefore, this parcel must have an on -site water supply system comprised of a well and an associated pumping system. Although there is not currently an active well on the parcel, a parcel located to the west has recently been developed with a drilled well and a potable water supply has been obtained. I would recommend that the property owner contact the drilling company that drilled this well to obtain information regarding its depth. It would appear that from discussions with Nick Lampiris, the geologist for the project, there should be an adequate water supply that is obtainable. Sewage Collection and Treatment The subject parcel is not within the service area of a sanitation district and therefore must accommodate the collection and treatment of sewage on -site. Based upon a site visit and discussions with the Pitkin County Environmental Health Department, a system can be designed on this parcel. One of the issues to be addressed will be the relatively minimal depth to bedrock. This will require close inspection of the site to determine the most appropriate location for an absorption field. Due to the relatively large size and the minimal slope considerations for the parcel, there should not be a problem in establishing a field location. uu0jA BANNER 1041 HAZARD REVIEW ARTEL PARCEL PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Brief Description The Artel parcel is located above the Brush Creek Village Subdivision in Pitkin County, Colorado. The parcel is approximately 35 acres in size. Access Access to the site is west on the Cozy Point Ranch Road off of State Highway 82, through the Brush Creek Village Subdivision on Juniper Hill Road, both being paved surfaces. Above the Brush Creek Village, the access road is a non -paved surface approximately 12 feet in width. This access road services this parcel and approximately four other 35 acre parcels. The centerline of this road is shown on the provided 1041 Hazard Review map. A driveway to serve the proposed building site will be approximately 1400 feet west of the east parcel boundary. This location was chosen to minimize the grade on the driveway. Based upon the existing topography, this driveway will rise twenty feet between the access road and the building site for a +/= six percent overall grade. This is below the maximum allowable grade for a driveway as established in the Pitkin County Land Use Code. The location of the driveway was also selected to minimize the cut slopes to the access road. Although there is a curve in the access road nearby, there appears to be adequate sight distance for this location. Additionally, there are only three lots (or 35 acre parcels) west of this parcel to be served off of this access road. This shows that the potential for traffic conflicts is minimal. Drainage The existing drainage pattern on the site is south to north. At the northeastern edge of the property, there is a dry creek channel which is culverted under the access road. Should there be a need to install a culvert at the proposed driveway intersection, this will be done as a part of the drive construction. Due to the relatively gentle slope across the property, extensive measures to mitigate erosion may not be necessary during the course of construction. Residential construction should include a perimeter foundation drainage system to direct drainage around the structure. This system can be comprised of perforated flexible plastic pipe in a gravel trench lined with filter fabric. Any additional runoff for fierm i_syi_un to build a sit.;,ie f..; a t ion ,111Y d, cllinl, on a 35+ acre tract directly 1 scu ti,:•a:,t of the Pz u:a, Creek S�:i„iivis i 7•h^ prol ", ty is zoned AF -1. The reason for a 1041 h.:,r lug on L1,js is that till building site is located in the fellowint, ar�.is of state interest: Piancos shale, wildlife and wildfire. The applicant is ap;Icaling to tit, Commissf -nets to determine that this hazard, (Ines not roprc.,cnt a signlfi� ant hazard to public health or to the property at this spe, i_fic location within till hazard- designated area boundary for this particular us,. the .tppli runt is also rtquestiug exemption from the buildiu,^, permit review rcgulatinns. 'these rc ulatiocs apply when a water supply is inadequate. In this case the applicant would like to solve this ptriblem by either a storage Lank of sufficient size to provide a two week water supply for norral usa €,e, or a new well. At this time a permit has been issued fOr a well, however, two test holes have provided only indications of water without sufficient produc Lion for domestic use. Bob nelson, the County Sanitarian, COilmented on the water supply problem. Ile stated that the Colorado State Department of Health has no specific , regul.ati�,a rewarding private water ;supplies and there are no prohibitions on cisterns. He said it was difficult for hill, to Offer specific recommendations without knowing the specific design of the building. Bill Kane, of the Planning Office, felt there was a consumer protection problem involved here. Edwards noted that they have never approved holding tanks on a permanent basis, since they don't feel this is intended as com- pliance with the state statutes. Mayo felt that today should be for approval for exemption to the three state -wide areas of crntcern, and that the water problem should not be discuss- ed toda}. Shellmau moved and hinaley seco.iAcd th,it the exemption from the hazard see- Lion be denied. This was unanimously approved. At this point the joint City -Coup LS- nr..eting b,gan. City Council members present ware: Mayor Story Standlcv, e :ins John:, ton, Jenifer Pederson, Michael Behrendt surd Steve Aisl;arL. Review CET'A Sur.,w_r Program for Ilconrnni rally Dlsadv;a,t a;,ed Youth, included in ti;, A -95 re%;e•, w -z prrser,tr,l i,) Betty hrick,on. 'his was approved on a mntion by Nina Jnhu.ton and a scc,)ad by St-andlty. T:n, notion passed unanimous]}, toifh till additional ";' cut that this; Project to provide meaningful work , +ncr's ?f, ,Ling June 14, 190 - Page 7 oijol d 15 ASPENAPITKIN ENVIF%NMENTAL HEALTH DEPAR *MENT To: Ellen Sassano, Planning Office From: Environmental Health Department Date: March , 1991 Re: Artel 1041 Hazard Review, General Submission, Scenic Overlay Review and Employee Dwelling Unit Parcel ID# 2643- 203 -00 -013 Case #Pll -91 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: a� The application indicates that the means of wastewater disposal will be individual, on -site sewage disposal system and according to the application 11... will comply with County regulations." From our evaluation of the home site, the general Soil Conservation Service conditions are reported as having severe limitations for septic tank - absorption systems, and generally are not considered suitable for most conventional -type systems. The building site is located in an area classified by the Soil Conservation Service as Soil Types RLE and 46e. The first of these, to the south side of the lot, RLE, is described as a shale bedrock formation which is exposed and outcrops to the southerly portion of the ridge in the area of the building site. This type of material always presents severe problems and should not be considered for the construction of any sewage disposal system. The second soil type grading characterized as a loam grading and 40 inches. Bedrock is Typically such types of soil are high shrink -swell potential. problems for standard septi permeability and steeper slope. =o the north and east, 46E, is to a silty clay loam between 5 usually below 40 inches deep. very slowly permeable and have a Phis soil usually presents some c system construction due to The soil descriptions are confirmed by the observations of Nicholas Lampiris, consulting geologist, as submitted in the attached letter of December 5, 1990. In that letter Mr. Lampiris indicated that waste disposal with a septic tank and leach field might be possible in the area 11 ... where the soil cover is thick enough ". This conclusion, however, was qualified by indicating that often Mancos- derived soils do not yield adequate percolation U Ji Ja6 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 61611 303/920 -8070 LM Artel 1041 March 24, 1991 Page 2 v� rates and that the depth to bedrock may not be sufficient. He indicates that a mound system may then have to be used. Bob Daniel, in his letter of January 21, 1991, based on his site visit that an engineered system can be designed for ;this property. Our department's observations on the building envelope for the 35 -acre tract confirm the slowly permeable soils and shallow bedrock. An expensive engineered system may be required in order to conform to County requirements. However, while it is our opinion that in these geologic conditions, the County regulation would likely require an on -site waste water system designed specifically for this site by a registered engineer, such a system can be developed to conform to County requirements on the shallower slopes and deeper soils to the northeast part of the tract. ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: Sections 2 -6 and 5 -205: Water is to be supplied from a well to be constructed on the 1 property. A household use well, as proposed, has a maximum pumping rate of 15 gallons per minute. The Lampiris letter indicates that it should be possible to develop a well at an "unknown" depth. Typically, however, adjacent wells vary between 200 and 600 feet in order to provide a satisfactory source for drinking water. We concur with the geologist's and the engineer's conclusions that a well is possible on the property. However, a test well in the building area is the only means of verifying quantity and quality. The applicant should be prepared to provide treatment of non - mandatory chemical parameters such as sulfates or iron, typically present in heavy concentrations in the groundwater of the shale formations of this area. Due to the problems of wells in Mancos shale formations, we recommend that a test well be developed and checked before the water is placed into use. Additionally, because of the possibility of a low well yield in areas of Mancos Shale, and a well permit which might only permit a maximum pumping rate of 15 gallons per minute, we would suggest that the drinking water supply system be designed to include a minimum of 1000 gallons of storage for the residence and caretaker unit. The provision of these cisterns will ensure adequate supplies during periods of peak household usage. AIR QUALITY: Sections 2 -17 and 5 -106: L G Approval should be conditioned on the employee unit being attached and not detached (since this halves the number of fireplaces and woodstoves allowed). UUUJ -7 Artel 1041 March 24, 1991 Page 3 The applicant should install compact fluorescent lights which reduce air pollution. It takes more energy to power an incandescent bulb than a fluorescent bulb. Therefore, carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide pollution is reduced at the point of power generation by many pounds over lifetime of the bulbs. This is especially true given the large size of the house for which approval is being sought. NOISE: Section 2 -23 /6) Adverse noise impacts in the immediate neighborhood are not anticipated after the construction phase of the project is completed. Should noise complaints be received by this office, Title 25 Article 12 CRS 1973 - Noise Abatement, or subsequent County noise standards which may be adopted, 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 \Y 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. This is not a requirement, but simply a request based on past experience in dealing with mine waste and possible negative impacts to humans. UU61L8 TM, WAYNE L VANDEMARK, FIRE MARSHAL 420 E HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925 -2690 TO: Ellen Sassano, Plapning Office FROM: Wayne Vandemark,Aire Marshal RE: Artel 1041 Hazard Review, General Submission, Scenic Overlay Review and Employee Dwelling Unit Parcel ID# 2643 - 203 -00 -013 DATE: March 4, 1991 We have reviewed the application submitted by Alexis Artel. Water shall be provided per Section 10.301 (C) 1988 Uniform Fire Code. Also, Section 10.207, fire apparatus access roads shall be complied with. 'vvL.i.L i W. Davis Horn - PLANNING • APPRAISING • REAL ESTATE CONSUQING March 1, 1991 Ellen Sassano Aspen - Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Jacques Alexis Artel 1041 /General Submission Dear Ellen, I may have mentioned to you that I noticed a mistake on the 1041 site plan for the Artel application. The building envelope was supposed to be setback 60 feet from the rock outcropping, but it is only setback about 54 feet on the original site plan. I have prepared a new site plan which corrects this problem. Enclosed are two copies for your files. Please let me know if you will need any more copies. Give me a call if you have any questions. Thank you. sincerely, DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED 2 —A— GLENN HORN AICP ALICE DAMS, RM I GLENN HORN, AICP 300 EAST HYMAN • SURE B • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • 303/925 -6587 4, L8 BRUSH CREEK LANDOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. POST OFFICE BOX 4323 ASPEN, CO 81612 February 27, 1991 Ellen Sassano Aspen/ Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Ellen: This is in reply to your request for comment on the Executive Security International Special Review and the Artel application. Executive Security International — The BCLA Board has no problem with the ESI application. We would, however, ask that night use of the firing range be kept to an absolute minimum. Artel Application — We are concerned that Impacts on the Road System be addressed to our satisfaction before any approvals are granted. Page 7 of the application indicates that the applicant has received a copy of the Cozy Point Ridge Agreement and intends to "enter into a similar agreement." We have no problem with this approach but we would like to point out that the statement that, " The applicant is in the process of negotiating an agreement with the BCLA" is not true. We have had no contact with the applicant since I sent Glen Horn a copy of the agreement mentioned above. Further, we will insist that payments required to be made and actions required to be taken under the terms of any such agreement negotiated with Artel be done concurrently with the execution of the agreement. I would appreciate it if you could keen me informed as to when the Artel Application is scheduled for a public hearing. You can reach me at 923 -4372. Sincerely, James P. Crowley President cc: Boots Ferguson J?1 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Ellen Sassano, County Planning FROM: Joanna S. Schaffner, County Zoning DATE: February 26, 1991 RE: Artel 1041 Hazard Review, General Submission, Scenic Overlay Review, and Employee Dwelling Unit Parcel ID# 2643- 203 -00 -013 I have reviewed the above referenced application and offer the following the comments. Zoning: AF -1, ten acre lot minimum Floor Area: 15,000 square foot maximum Required Setbacks: 100' major road setback for principal structures as measured from the Brush Creek Road right -of -way. 100' front yard setback, as measured from the front yard property line. The East property line shall be considered the front yard. 50' major road setback for accessory structures as measured from the Brush Creek Road right -of -way. 30' side and rear yard setbacks as measured from the side and rear yard property lines. The proposed building these required setbacks. asv. , -' J envelope does not encroach into any of E e MEMORANDUM TO: Pitkin County Commissioners FROM: Planning Staff (HC) RE: Land Use Commission Hearing Section 5.40.06c - Artel /Mayo DATE: June 10, 1976 This is a request by Mr. Jacques Artel, represented by Robert Mayo, for permission to build a single - family dwelling on a 35 + acre tract situate directly to the southwest of Brush Creek Subdivision and more specifically described on the attached survey. The property is zoned AF -1. The building site is located in the following areas of State Interest: 1. Mancos Shale 2. Wildlife 3. Wildfire The applicant wishes to appeal to the Board of Commissioners for a finding pursuant to Section 5.40.06c of the Land Use Code of the following: that . . . hazard (designated) conditions do not present a significant hazard to the public health, safety, or to property at the specific location within the hazard (designated)' area boundary for the particular use.' In addition, the appicant is processing an exemption to the Building Permit Review Regulation. As required by this procedure the applicant has provided the following statement regarding water supply: "The water supply will be either a storage tank of sufficient size to provide two (2) week water supply for normal usage, or a new well. At this time a permit has been issued for a well, however two (2) test holes have provided only indications of water without sufficient production for domestic use. This statement is not to be considered as recognition of any local regulation or control of the type or source of water supply, and /or any legal requirement to provide such infor- mation since the State of Colorado has not relinquished authority to grant water use permits." Karen Smith has informed me that the intention of this section was to read "designated" conditions. u0��3 I . MEMO Artel /Mayo June 10, 1976 Page Two It appears that the applicant may not meet the requirements for water supply as set forth in the Land Use Code of Pitkin County. The comments of the County Sanitarian are attached. The recommendations of the Planning Office are as follows: The wildfire hazard is mitigated by the unvegetated cliff on the east or downwind side of the property. Also the low density of the proposal argues for minimum road construction which has been constructed. A dis- claimer on the Commissioner resolution regarding the wildfire hazard would be appropriate. The wildlife area desgnation is not for critical winter range and prohibition against dogs as suggested by Allen Whitaker may be a sufficient mitigation requirement. Mancos Shale has not been encountered in test pits excavations for leach field testing. However, an engineered foundation design should be required by the Building Department. Water - To the best of our knowledge this is the first building permit review application which presented the issue of water storage tanks as an adequate source of water for a dwelling unit. Certainly no subdivision could be approved with such water supply. The Planning Office considers this to be a policy matter for the County Commissioners and defer opinion in this issue to the County Sanitarian, Mr. Bob Nelson. As of this writing, Mr. Nelson's memo has not been received. Certainly the additional four lots in Aspen Ridge may face a similar situation as do other unsubdivided tracts in Pitkin County. There are dwellings in Brush Creek Subdivision which supplement their water supply during periods of low flow by storage tanks. uju124 MEMORANDUM ..r TO: Hal Clark, Land Use Administrator �?/� FROM: Robert Nelson, County Sanitarian !l SUBJECT: Artel Property; Lot 5, Ridge of Aspen Subdivision DATE: June 10, 1976 While this office has no regulations under its jurisdiction concerning private water supplies, it should be a requirement that the owner or builder address much more specifically the size and construc- tion of any storage tank and the source, commitments, and method of transport for water supplied to the storage tank. This seems a most difficult method to supply potable water, and the proposal does not, at this point in time, address Sections 5.25.01 d or e, regarding quantity or quality. The development of a Department of Water Resources feasible alternative. UdoJ25 well is administered by the State and would certainly offer a much more MEDICINE BOW CONSTRUCTION CO. ROBERT & NAOMI MAYO, OWNERS ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 BOX 84 May 18, 1976 PHONE 303 923 -4497 TO VWX TT MAY CONCONs Ds reference to the supply of d®estic water for the new homes to be constructed on Lot 5. Rifts of Aspen snbdivisioar as reoordedr for Kr. and Mrs. J. Artel. The water supply will be 941#her a Btorage tank of sufficient visa to provide taro (P) week water supply for normal usage# or a new well. At this time a permit has been israod for a well, however two (2) test holes have provided only indicatiors of water witboct ssf 'It r:ent production for domestic use. This statement is not to Bo coasidarsd as recognition of auy local regnlation or control of the t -," or course of water ruppiyi and/or any legal requirement to provide wash informsatlen *into the hate of Colorado has not ralinquished autzor�ty " grant water we permaitse uuG1216 U STATE OF COLORADO John D. Vanderhoof, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE Jack R Grleb, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 (825-1192) MEMORANDUM TO: Pitkin County Planning Office FROM: Allen Whitaker, WCO RE: Mayo Building Request, West of Brush Creek Village Subdivision DATE: June 11, 1976 The tract of land in question lies within the elk winter range as mapped by the Division of Wildlife and Colorado State University. On site examination of the area shows approximately 18% use of browse species by elk. This tract also lies within a broad migration route for deer and elk. This and each subsequent home built along the ridge will constrict this migration corridor. The Brush Creek Village area has historically been used by wildlife but due to the development, this use has been largely curtailed. I view further development in the area as further encroachment upon wildlife range. v °.:u jr: I DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, T. W. Ten Eyck, Executive Director • WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Ford Strong, Chairman R. Withers Cool, Vice Chairman • Charles A. Gebauer, Secretary - or J. K. Childress, Member • Crest Gerbaz, Member • Dean Hull, Member Dean Suttle, Member • Jean K. Tool, Member • Vernon C. Williams, Member COLORAOO Colorado State Forest Service STATE 1039 North 7th Street, Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 UNIVERSITY Telephone 303- 242 -7518 Mr. Hal Clark Land Use Coordinator Pitkin Co. Planning & Zoning Office Pitkin County Courthouse Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mr. Clark, nATE RECEIVED -Y' %' ASSIGNED TO DATE REPLIED ROUTE June 2, 1976 After talking with Charlie Foster, we agreed that as far as 1041 regulations go for individual single family dwelling permits outside of subdivisions, it should be pretty well covered in your zoning regulations. Whether or not you wish to include individual developments as being regulated under 1041 is pretty much up to you. The main things the Colorado State Forest Service is concerned with in developments in wildfire hazard areas are: (1) ROADS - grade, turning radius of curves, width, elimination of dead end streets, road and building site slash disposal; (2) FUEL MODIFICATION - reducing fuel density, creation of fuel breaks around houses; (3) AVAILABILITY OF ORGANIZED FIRE PROTECTION AND WATER SUPPLIES, and (4) LIMITED DEVELOPMENT ON STEEP SLOPES. Obviously, we can't get around to all single family dwelling units being put in within the seven counties that we cover; so we have to rely on the good judgement of the local county planners when such structures are planned for wildfire hazard areas. Sincerely, -- c John Denison District Forester THIS IS YOUR WORKSHEET F.,..,. e.,., — nMn M. ana_nnnal DEPARTME ? TRANSPORTATION NOTICE TO PREPARER OF FORM FEDERAL AVWON ADMINISTRATION NOTICE OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION I. Retain this Work Sheet as year Copy. 2. Complete and return the remaining tour copies. Do net coma" carbons. 1. NATURE OF STRUCTURE (Complete both A and B below) A.(Cheoone) NEW CONSTRUCTION ❑ ALTERATION 3. Be an. all copies are legible. +. if a Notice is not required or if a B. (Cheek one) (State length PERMANENT ❑TEMPORARY of time) Mos. Standard of Subpart C. Part 77, to not exceeded a COPY of this form will be starved to yon appropriately marked to this area, otherwise n separate so- 2 NAME AND ADDRESS OF INDIVIDUAL COMPANY, CORPORATION, ETC. PROPOSING THE CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION (Number, Street, City, State and Zip Code) k0 be made within T —,..�7 /¢ daysgfr from receipt 30 days from teeelpi of Notice. 3. Print or type all time. The TO / address area will be need to return a Copy of Lea '.5 >/ — this form. (see above) ! b. waive the lu the FAA does not waive the r of my other CwverrunenE o(j �f ^ Agency Agency. 3. TYPE AND COMPLETE DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE f 7 /Ta&o!" P �dc[ A/c r P (/ PLC 677! PP/ 4. LOCATION OF STRUCTURE A. COORDINATES tau nearest second) B. NESTr7CITY OR TOWN,rijND SjATE �/ �r �J (�Q LATITUDE LONGITUDE a I� /E I (1) D ST N FROM 48 I (2) DIREtT10N FROM_48_ 0C, O.D MIS C. OF NEARS §T AIRPORT, HELIPORT, OR SEAPI E 7 (1) DISTANCE FROM NEAREST POINT OF (f2)) DIRECTION NEAREST FROM `/ Vq AIRPORT RUNWAY cD.DESOB(IP MINENT ON F LOGATI N S. TH SE$ EOT To TOHAdYS, STREETB,,�POBTOS, TERRAIN FEATURES, EX- ISTING RUCTURES, ETU. (Attach a highway, street, or any other appropriate map or scaled drawing showing the relationship of Construction Ws to neared airport (e). If more space is epuired, continue an a separate sheet of Paper and attach to this notice.) ` on p� yea G. �'/iy Fz,t,rN1sLe . 5. HEIGHT AND ELEVATION (Complete A, B and C to the nearest foot) 6. WORK SCHEDULE DATES A. WILL START A. ELEVATION OF SITE ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL HEIGHT OF STRUCTURE INCLUDING APPURTENANCES AND LIGHTING B' / �`— B. WILL - 1� L `\V (if any) ABOVE GROUND, OR WATER IF SO SITUATED C. OVERALL HEIGHT ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL (A +B) �[/ L9 ICOMPLETE fx-^ q 7. OBSTRUCTION MARKED AND /OR A MARKED YES NO LIGHTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENT FAA ADVISORY CIRCULAR B. AVIATION RED OBSTRUCTION LIGHTS t� C. HIGH INTENSITY WHITE OBSTRUCTION LIGHTS [/ 70/7460 -1, OBSTRUCTION MARK- D. DUAL LIGHTING SYSTEM ING AND LIGHTING I HEREBY CERTIFY that all of the above statements made by me e, nom , m4orrecVI:4 the b4 of my knowledge. R. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON FILING THIS NOTICE (Type or Print) ef. SIG RE I ) uuOJ29 10ATE OF SIGNATURE 9z 11. TE ONE O. (Freesds ea o Persons who knowingly and willfully fail to Comply with the prevision oft Federel AvleHOn Regalatiovs Park 77 are liable to a fine of $300 for the first offense, with increased Penalties thereafter as provided by Section 902(a) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1938 as amended. FAA Form 7460.1 (11 -72) SUPERSEUE5 PREV IUUS LUI I1UN UU INU I KtMU V t L- AKLSUN,) i NOTICE OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION §77.13 Construction or alteration requiqnetice. (a) Except as. provided in §77.15, each sponsor o proposes any of the following construction or alteration .shall notify the Administrator in the form and manner prescribed in §77.17: (1) Any construction or alteration of more than 200 feet in height above . the ground level at its site. (2) Any construction or alteration of greater height than an imaginary surface face extending outward. and upward at n of the .fallowing slopes: (f) 100 to I for a horizontal distance of 20,000 feet from the nearest point of the nearest runway of each airport specified in subparagraph (5) of this paragraph with at least one .runway more than 3,200 feet in actual length, excluding heliports. (if) 50 to I for a horizontal distance of 10,000 feet from the nearest point of the nearest runway of each airport specified in subparagraph (5) of this paragraph with its longest runway no more than 3,200 feet in actual length, excluding heliports. (fill 25 to I for a horizontal distance of 5,000 feet from the nearest point of the nearest landing and takeoff area of each heliport specified in subparagraph (5) of this paragraph. (3) Any highway, railroad, or other traverse way for mobile objects, of a height which, if adjusted upward 17 feet for an Interstate Highway that is part of the National System of Military and Interstate Highways where vererossings are designed for a minimum of 17 feet vertical distance, 15' feet for any other public roadway, 10 feet or the height of the highest . mobile object that would normally traverse the road, whichever is greater, for a private road, 23 feet for a railroad, and for a waterway or any other traverse way pot previously mentioned, an amount equal to the height of the highest mobile object that would normally traverse it, would .exceed a standard of subparagraph 0) or (2) of this paragraph. (4) When requested by the FAA, any construction or alteration that would be n instrument approach area (defined in the FAA standards governing instrument approach procedures) and available information indi- cates it might exceed a standard of Subpart C of this part - (5) Any construction or alteration on any of the following airports (in. cluding heliports) : (f) An airport that is available for public use and is listed in the Air- port Directory of the current Airman's Information Manual or in either the Alaska or Pacific Airman's Guide and Chart Supplement. (if) An airport under construction, that is the subject of a notice or pro - posalon file with the Federal Aviation Administration, and except for military airports, it is clearly indicated that that airport will be available for public use. (iii) An airport that is operated by an armed force of the United States. (b) Each sponsor who proposes construction or alteration that I. the sub- feet of a notice under paragraph (a) of this section and is advised by an FAA. regional office that a supplemental notice is required shall submit that notice an a prescribed form to be received by the FAA regional office at least 48 hours before the start of the constructiea or alteration. (c) Each .sponsor who undertakes construction or alteration that is the subject of a notice under paragraph (a) of this saction shall, within 5 days after that construction or alteration reaches its greatest height, submit a supplemental notice an a prescribed form to the FAA regional office having jurisdiction over the area involved, if— (I) The construction or alteration is more than 200: feet above the sur- face level of its site; at (2) An FAA regional . office advises him that submission of the form is re- quired §77.15 Construction.. or alteration not requiring notice. No p. r is required to notify the Administrator for any of the following construction or alteration: (a) Any object that wo e shielded by existing structures of perma- nent and substantial char or by natural terrain or topographic features of equal or greater height, and would be located to the congested area of a city, -town. or settlement where it is evident beyond all . reasonable doubt that the structure so shielded will not adversely affect safety in air naviga- tion. (b) Any .antenna. structure of 20 feet or less in height except one that would - increase the height of another antenna structure. (:c) Any air navigation .. facility, airport visual approach or landing aid, aircraft arresting device, or meteorological device, of 'a type approved by the Administrator, or an appropriate military service on military airports, the location and height of which is fixed by its functional purpose. (d) Any construction or alteration for which notice is required by any other FAA regulation. §77.17 Form and time of notice. (a) Each person who is required to notify the Administrator under §77.13 (a) shall send one executed form set (four copies) of FAA Form 7460 -1, Notice of Proposed Construction or .Alteration, to the Chief, Air Traffic Division, FAA Regional Office having jurisdiction over the area with- in -which the construction or alteration will be located. Copies of FAA Form 7460.1 may be obtained from the headquarters of the Federal Aviation Administration and the regional offices: (b) The notice required under §77.13 (a) (1) through (4) most be sub- mitted at least 30 days before the earlier of the following dates- - (U The date the proposed construction or alterationAs to begin. (2) The date an application for a c nstruction permit is to be filed. r How , a notice relating to proposed construction or alteration that is subject to the licensing requirements of the Federal Communications Act may be sent to the FAA at the same time the application for construction I. filed with the Federal Communications. Commission, or at any time before that filing. (c) Aproposed structure or an alteration to an existing structure that ex. eeds 2,000 feet in height above the ground will be presumed to be a hazard to air navigation and to result in an inefficient utilization of airspace and the applicant has the burden ofovercoming that presumption. Each notice submitted under the pertinent provisions. of Part 77 proposing a structure in of 2,000 feet above .ground, o n alteration that will make a ex- isting estructure exceed that height, must contain a detailed showing, di- rected to meeting this burden. Only in exceptional cases, where the FAA concludes that a clear and compelling showing has been made that it %sold not result in a n inefficient utilization of the airspace and would not result in a hazard to air navigation, will a determination of no hazard be issued. (d) In the case of an emergency - involving essential public services, pub- lic health, or public safety, that requires immediate construction or altera. tion, the 30 x day: requirement in paragraph (b) of this ssetum does not apply and the notice may be sent by telephone, telegraph, or other expeditious means, with an executed FAA Form 7460 -I 'submitted within 'five days thereafter. Outside normal business hours, emergency notiera by telephone or telegraph may be submitted to the nearest FAA Flight Service Station. (b) Each person who is required to notify the Administrator by paragraph (b) or (c) of §77.13, or both, shall send an executed copy of FAA Form 7460 -2, Notice of Progress of Construction or Alteration, to the Chief, Air Traffic FAA Regional Office having jurisdiction 'over the area ADDRESSES. OF THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND SAN JUAN AREA OFFICE FAA Form 7460-1 (11 -72) SUPERSEDES PREVIOUS EDITION Ak- ALASKAN REGION IN - NORTHWEST REGION NE -NEW ENGLAND REGION SW- SOUTHWEST REGION Alaskan Regional Office Northwest Regional Office New England Regional Office - Southwest Regional Office 632 Sixth Avenue FAA Building, Boeing Field 154 Middlesex Street 4400 Blue Mound Road Anchorage, Alaska ,99501 .Seattle, Washington 98108 Burlington, Mass. 01803 Mail Address: Tel. 907 -272 -5561 Tel. 206 - 767 -2750 Tel. 617 - 272 -2350 P.O. Box 7689 WE. WESTERN REGION DSO- SOUTHERN REGION1 RM-ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION Fart Worth, Texas 76101 Western Regional Office Southern Regional Office Rocky Mountain Regional Office Tel, 817- 624-4911 5651. West Manchester Blvd. 3400 Whipple. Street 10455 East 25th Avenue CE - CENTRAL REGION Mail Address:. - East Point, Georgia 30344 Aurora, Colorado 80010 Central Regional Office P.O. Box 92007 Mail Address: Mail Addressi 601 E. 12th Street Worldway Postal Center P.O. Box 20636 Park Hill Station, P.O. Box 7213 Kansas City, Mo, 64106 Los Angeles, California 90009 Atlanta, Georgia 30320 Denver, Colorado. 80207 Tel. 816 -374 -3246 Tel. 213- 670 -7030 Ext. 548 Tel. 404 -526 -7646 Tel. 303- 837 -3937 PC- PACIFIC REGION C° EA- EASTERN REGION San Juan Area Office GL -GREAT LAKES REGION Pacific Regional Office ` � Eastern: Regional Office RFD -1, Box 29A Great Lakes Regional Office- 1833 Kalakua.Avenue- - W JFK International Airport Loiza Street Station 2300 East Devon Ave. Mail Address: Federal Building San Juan, Puerto Rico 00914 Des Plaines, III. 60018 P.O. Box 4009 Jamaica, New York 11430 Tel. 791 -2310 Tel. 312 - 297 -1970 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Tel. 212- 995 -3333 Tel.- 808- 9550 -491 FAA Form 7460-1 (11 -72) SUPERSEDES PREVIOUS EDITION cm .r MEDICINE BOW CONSTRUCTION CO. ROBERT & NAOMI MAYO, OWNERS ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 BOX 84 ;'s•,• 18, 1976 PHONE 303 923 -4497 _ •" IT YA° COX MN: In reference to the su,:nly _,f dreesti.c rater If r +h, new hcuse to be c• nstruct�2d cn ' ;, ' -�t -. ---«dge Fs-en �dlvi:;ion, as reccr-'ed, f ^r i r. and .:r:. j. ,irlel. e water -u -ply .;i11 be e=ther a e,age tank of s, :L ,iciert size tG '�Tf`Vide two (2'' .reek water _.a.,—I, frr .,nr, •a1 ii,a ej '.r a ';ew -Jell. At t•.. s tire a T)er;it has re ?: =_encd ire a well, however two (2) I , hG1ES haV'_' nrC'PlGEd only lnd' ca`•! crs r f water w- ti]nilt s'lf r'i r' ent rxoduct =on `nr dcmestic u--e. '_"his statem,r,t is not to be considered as recogrit°_un of any local r- gulation or cnotrcl of the ty->e or souree of water sunnly, and /or any legal requirement to provide such 9nfcrmatlon since the state of Colorado 1,al- ret rclin-uished authrr9ty to grant *.aster use re,- .._ts. '' =cri Jacque 'rtel �u��31 M LTD. October 1, 1975 Bps. Patsy Newberry Pitkin County Building Inspector Pitkin County Court House 506 E. Mein Ispen, CC 51611 Dear Patsy, In discussions with Jac" STI th I understand that the County has requested that we submit a survey on the five 35 -acre parcels in Aspen Ridge. Accordinaly, I have enclo -e' n survey of the five parcels and a. copy of the surveyor's letter explaining survey wor'�_ involved. If you need further information regarding Mr. Artel's building permit reeuirements, please let me or Er. Mayo "now. RYH /rp CC: Mr. Jack Smith ;r. Bob Mayo Mr. Jacques Artel Colorado West's only computerized property selection JOHNSON- LONGFELLOW and ASSOCIATES SURVEYORS - ENGINEERS Aspen — Snowmass -at -Aspen P. O. Box 5547— West Village Annex Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 923 -3496 September 30, 1975 Jack L. Smith, Esq. Holland and Hart P.O. Box 1128 Aspen, Co. 81611 Re: J. Nicholas McGrath, Jr. letter of Sept. 26, 1975 Dear Sir: In checking our records, we find that we performed the following work on the "Aspen Ridge" property in "Wildcat: 1.) Fall of 1973 - Prelimianry location work on the outside boundary. 2.) May, 1974 - Division of 175.1 acre parcel into 5 - 35 acre parcel -s. 3.) August, 1974 - Revision of 5 - 35 acre parcels along geographic features including location of interior lot lines in the field. 4.) October, 1974 - We were directed by the Bankruptcy Court to complete all work in order that the sale woule be approved and finalized by that Court. 'This was submitted to the Court on Oct. 17, 1974, via Helmick, Conover & Burkhardt, Attorneys. The term "more or less" is used by most aurveyor-s simply because of the human limitations on measurements. Nothing that is measured is exact. However, maLhemati.cally, acreages can Ic'cu- I —a ted to tt e exacLness of the measurements. These parcels could be certified that they contain more than 35 acres, dependent on the limitations of field measurements, which is better than 1 part in 5,000. Sincerely, Harold W. Johns JOHNSON - LONGFE & ASSOC. IIJ /sa cc: B. Iiovdesven J. Nicholas McGrath, Jr. 3110X133 (0. T K N C 0 U N T Y COUNTY ATTORNEY • P. O. BOX 3707 • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • PHONE: (303)n925 -2400 1 September 26, 1975 Jack L. Smith, Esq. Holland and Hart Post Office Box 1128 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Jack: This is in response to your,letter of August 19, to Mrs. Patsy Newbury concerning "Aspen Ridge," five lots in Wildcat each allegedly in excess of 35 acres in size. The facts you recite in your letter with regard to the bankruptcy proceeding and the actions involving Pitkin County are largely correct, with certain excep- tions. The Commissioner resolution dated December 23, 1974, and signed January 20, 1975, did not exempt the property of AIPI, but rather stated that the resolution would not.be enforced against its property until further order of the Bankruptcy Court or a removal of the res- trictions of the December 16th injunction. It blinks at reality to assert that there was no purpose in the transaction to avoid application of the subdivision laws, as obviously, absent the order of the Bankruptcy Court,_ a violation occurred. Moreover, the deeds to the five parcels each recite a legal description ending with e.g., 1135.02 acres, more or less" etc. In other words, the parcels are as close to 35 acres as possible so as to be above the size regulated prior to December 16 and yet be as close to it as possible. If one is smaller than 35 acres, clearly the subdivision laws should have been complied with. I would assume the County would not give approval for utility extensions nor grant building permits, unless it is abundantly clear that all relevant laws have been complied with. You might for example begin with evidence of an adequate survey prior to the date of the conveyance's showing that each parcel exceeds in fact 35 acres, the survey being evidence that a bona fide transfer of marketable title occurred. uuUjo4 PITKIN COUNTY ATTORNEY Jack L. Smith, Esq. September 26, 1975 Page Two If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, OATES, AUSTIN & McGRATH County Attorneys By J. Nicholas McGrath, Jr. JNM:cw cc: The Commissioners Mr. Peter Guy Ms. Patsy N`wbur :Ju�3j 5 ray 262 1976 oard of Bounty Co7m. ` - rners n criLnty, ^clot ldn entlemen: or. Jacques Artel ri,,b7its t'. e following application nnrsuant to -ectim 5.40.06 of the `itkin CcuntY Land Use rode to exclu e the land cescrived nr the attached "urvey :-an, from a ;nation as an Area -f -tat, `nt, rest, and in rusnort of this rer,ucst states the follaving: 1. The annlicant has oai.d certain cots for construction of a nrivate road to the q'te, 2• The annlic nt has received a °entic sy^ -i nit from .itkin Ccunty, 3. The annlicant has received a well Wt from the :tats= of Colorado, h. -he annlicant has excavated for the foundation and entered into an agreement for the construction of a single family residence on this 35 acre tract (there being no other dwelling on tiis tract), and 5. The anolicant has made application for a building nermit on rentemher 1, 1975, and after satisfying all reeuirements at that time, was assured that a permit could he issued by the County wilding insnectcro, 6. Due to inclemite weather, the construction of the road, and other unforeseeable natural causes, work could not continue until this time. 7. That the matter of a ne'mitfor construction was not nursued since the building inspec'ier never indicated that the cost had been commuted. The recently enacted land use code includes this parcel for the fcl- lowing reasons: a. Mankis "hale: No shale fr*mation was encounteded during_ ex- cavation, and makes this invalid at this s tea h Aviation Hazard Area: The FAA does not consider any structure of less that 50 feet in hight ayove ground level as a hazard and MOOT.. any knowledge of a requirement for their approval. c. hildfire area: wogatation is such that support of ever a minor fire is unlikely, and no public lands are in the area im which could be endangered. d. 'w'ildlife Feeding Area: This tract of land is grazed each year by sheep and has little or no value for grazing of wildlife. Alto, due tc the construction of this residence, this tract will no longer be used for ,razing of sheep, and will be allai-6 to revert to a more natural state. Y i,u01 J 36 'ape 2 *ay ^� 1976 Ar .e o1 Annlicati on e. ; ?isteric ,avalanche or 'now ^lide area: Since the location is on a level areal with no cliffs or mountains overloolcinr it in a proxeimity as to create a hazard) as a site inspection will verifys there is no such histori -c hazzard. To make th:: applicant to submit to the reouisite filings under the special review rrovisions cf the code would surport no Dart of the Lend Use nolicies as expressed bya the land use codes and would create a severe hardship on the applicant. Further, the land use code exnressly exempts from its rrovisions any legal subdivision, and we have attached an opinion from our legal council shooring that o_%inion. ?his application is not intended to admit the validit.v of any law or ordinance that abridges the right cf an individual to construct a dwe�irg e used sni. si F-•- ^ed e, t e r zc_ _ e '.r _ CeE- on his own Drop ,rty� _:!' i legal iSction to eh`,ain a rui ldi nL r. t. " i.CT`a JsTI�' 7 ay rent for cc: J'Ic Jacoues _rt 1 "oll.nd F-rt . _ , ^mi h L jou 'dZ doHNsw)N- LONGFELLOW Q A; ..wOC. INC DATE: SURVEYORS — ENGINEERS 9 -zl -mss JOB NO.: 150'1U8 'ORDERED BT: MPS.A2TELLQ- SECS. 19 &20 TwP 9So L) -"A RG. $SWEST CO. PITYIN NORTH llts q00� 8EA1atNGS FRO1N OC- SC21PTlUN RE- Go2DE1.:� 1N BOOK 238,PaGE 577 1N T41E OFFICC- Op THE prrwuN Cou NTY CLERK ANO t2@CO2Dl;I2- SET ? &C SOUTH 846.00• 1• O Q � W 0 NORTH 9te1.50' ' sET RHaC I,HAROLD W. JOHNSON, (JOLIN56N- LbNGFELLOW & ASSOCIATES, INC.), A REGISTERED SURV EVOR IN 11•IE 5TATE OF GULORO�O, DO UERESY CE R- TIFY Ti-14T IN OUNE, 015, A 50RVEY WAS MADE UNDER MY DIRECTSIJ- PERVISION OFTWE PROPE- N MOWN HEREON. CORNERS WERE FOUND OR SF-:TA5 514OWN ONTNI5 PL4r 5A1D SURVEY 15'MUEAND ACCURATE - -M THE 91 =5T0 F MY KNOWLEDGE AND 13ELIEF. JOL1N50N- LONGFF-LLO W & A550C I ATES,1 NC . HAROLD W. JOt. W-gON l FND G BRASS 3u I- Q W m 3 200. tt 472. 589 -13' 94'W 32.57 • r n m 0 la 4• J uI U AI 11 u 0 N F _o w " � d 9 00 3 n n I1 i Q 4 N N 4 J V � O a2 • m K 0 •r 0 u v O P&C FWP R &C. A r NORTH 651.14 3 SET R&C NOTE R&C- RE5iiM &r&P r+c� s PITKIN COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMMP PERMIT NUMBER / rd i� RECEIPT NUMBER 19363 Owner Jacaues Artel Phone # iq 4= 478_iiT5 Owner's Mailing Address Box 2: Aanen, Col 81611 / 64 C ,.ti�*_Ave -; Hes.inga rm lhids ++- New York 10706 Contractor Robert Mayo / Medicine Bow Const. Co. Phone d 923=4497 Address Box 84• Amen, Col 8161 Systems Contractor's Name Mayo Address Legal Description_ Appen Rida,lat_5_(above Rruahnrppk) Lot Size 45 acres Type of Building by Use RpnjApnnp Number of Bedrooms_ 4 Type of Water Supply Wp'11 Type of Individual Sewage Disposal System pTI�ANt - �EE�iileLr e-0 Type of Soil or Soil Classification Proximal Location of Bedrock 7 Proximal Location of Ground Water Table Ner DE7Fzml-Alep 7 O / - Gc Owner's Signature , � Date Li1j PLOT PLAN: r *•a *�t•a *��x e�r�r�r� *ta *�r�r�� *�r * *��r� *�* *air *�r��r� *�r * *��* ��e�r/, �* �t** ��r** �t** a** �r���* ��� *� * * *��r *�r *� * *�� * * * * *� * *��ta Percolation Test Data fi/O Minutes per inch n ``) Minimum Recommended Absorption System Size / -3 �M elx/I b / � Min'.m /R�c o mmended Tank Size �0 Pe Oi lication valid one year from Date. Application to beco permit and final on y after lower portion is completed and signed by the Sanitarian. R TAIN THIS FORM AT THE CONSTRUCITON SITE. Date Sanitarian (Drawing of system on back) uucjj9 Q roli 3. ut�� j 00 40 �6 W,OA011 11,11 1 !�111''pirlim lop 'L�� f �• p' 01'•LNR (o✓JdX I)rrnx•rnuc,r'r• lY }• ,�,�';'`�', - ;',��, 1rof; :� VNI'F2Uh'IT 9'A9'h1 'j ��RR'1'I }i l'A'1'1•: (/h' . Fy ]N('UI2r'l MA'11l}N J� MARY ESTILL BUCHANAN, 2�`'r•re /((J' r� .�lf(( /r' �� f�r' .- � /rr /r' ( /,��nl:rrrr /o, �evc% r•c'J'fV� 2 f�rrf /� //2 /X % P UC4 / �/J'I'/lC�('J C7J - �JLC[7J /ICJ'((fi rt /I CG %J'(' I /CI /CP /'C( /f(t /�(J rj1lCG', 1/: /I JCr /fR CC1Jl�It J'/J( la ljQrfrorCifi74f,! f�P rlYrr/Pr.7rIJJ(crl, !'I/ rirfirr' / /�f�i'rrrrf %rarifi/ L�e9fcr /i/r J/ee ['1/ [(ru:, �ercl'l1 6ure.s fir(i 7�erf�i'nfc c��'rror�nr/rfroJr r/ pen Ridge_ Homeowners Association, Inc.- ---------- - ---- (A COLORADO NONPROFIT CORPORATION) Off2 f�(1-----Fi �v —� SECRETARY OF STATE I i i l V I l i t I. .. d the J t,, i11 MAY d 19i5 NOT FOR PROFIT ARTICLES Of iNt'0[?P(.)PAT10N 01'' ASPEN RIDGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. The undersi.gned,'ac-t.ing as incorporator of a cornnra- tion under the Colorado Nonprofit Corporation Act, adopts the following Articles of Incorporation for such corporation. ADTTl TV r The name of the corporation is Aspen Ridge Homeowners Association, Inc. ARTICLE II The period of its duration shall be perpetual. ARTICLE III The purpose or purposes for which the corporation is organized are: 1. To protect and maintain an area known as Aspen Ridge in Pitkin County, Colorado, as a desirable scenic rural residential area, and to do all things and perform all acts necessary or desirable in connection with said purpose. 2. To hold the title to any lands or interest in lands, including but not limited to common areas, trails, parks, roads,utility easements and any other easements or rights of way, and to improve, beautify, and maintain any such idnds an"' Lry suc:. interCS-S in lands. 3. To lease, purchase, sell, convey, and deal with lands, interests in lands, water rights, structures, and improvements, all as may be necessary or desirable in carrying out the purposes of the corporation. 4. To build, operate, improve, maintain, and beautify roads, ponds, trails, bridges, structures, utilities, utility lines and easements, common lands, Uu UJ4Z / _ .._.._ .. '.'cwt- .N..v..'•LW.wF,� meadows, park areas, recreation facilities of any and all kinds, and other things of like nature. 5. To arrange for or provide any services or utilities necessary or desirable to promote and advance the general welfare of the residents and property owners of the area known as Aspen Ridge, in Pitkin County, Colorado. 6. To establish, maintain, and enforce all necessary and reasonable rules and regulations concerning the_use of all lands and interest in lands held by the corporation. 7. To exercise all of the powers authorized or permitted to a nonprofit corporation by the laws of the State of Colorado now in force or hereafter in effect. 8. To exercise any other powers lawfully assigned to it by the Declaration of Protective Covenants for Aspen Ridge, and any amendment thereof, including, but not limited to, the power to levy assessments on members, approval of design and location of improvements on said property, and enforcement of use restrictions and protective covenants concerning said property. 9. To charge and collect such fees as may be set by the Board of Directors for the use of facilities or properties owned or operated by the corporation. ARTICLE IV The corporation shall have members, who shall be the owners of the property in Aspen Ridge, as provided in the recorded Declaration of Protective Covenants for Aspen Ridge. Each owner of a parcel of property in Aspen Ridge shall be a member. If title to a parcel is held by more than one person, the membership appurtenant to the property shall be shared in the same proportion of interest and the same type of ownership in which title to said property is held. In all matters upon which members -'- J4 may vote, each member shall have a number of votes equal to the number of acres of Aspen Ridge property owned by him, there being one vote for each one full acre owned. The proxy system of voting by members of the corporation shall be permitted. ARTICLE V The address of the initial registered office of the corporation is 725 E. Main St., P.O. Box 3810, in the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, 81611, and the name of its initial registered agent at such address is Bayard Y. Hovdesven. ARTICLE VI The number of directors constituting the initial Board of Directors of the corporation is three, and the names and addresses of the persons who are to serve as the initial directors are: Bayard Y. Hovdesven Eric B. Oliphant Jacques Artel P.O. Box 3810 Aspen, Colorado 81611 P.O. Box 2183 Aspen, Colorado 81611 65 Calumet Avenue Hastings -on- Hudson, New York ARTICLE VII The name and address of the incorporator is: Bayard Y. Hovdesven P.O. Box 3810 Aspen, Colorado 81611 -3- z} � )�44 10706 i Dated May S , 1975 STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) ' ,14 / I, /! /�/,< " /, y <' :.' a Notary public, hereby certify that Bayard Y. Hovdesven, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the annexed and foregoing Articles of Incorporation, appeared before me this day in person and being by me first duly sworn, acknowledged and declared that he signed said Articles of Incorporation as his free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein set forth and that the statements therein contained are true. My commission expires: My Commission Expires Sept. 18,1978 Witness my hand and notarial seal this :S =;day of 1' 1975. -•4- uoulJ45 Notary Public now I'ma:W logo i Tuts [TEED. Ob e pp=D4re40II dn.}+ n[Y101/[ - - I ,_ rr - L� :Wt M 1 f s t � _ t OF 1: 01.01. • ion 01 *O d Fidore n: utn ,., P.rsi. nt eRd le, cuts n1 1��, �• es c•q;:oreNor.. - ](p rourint pnmra04ninp exUVeb (R i,r,<vn my Tend and offtetnl ��TS D[ID._�'.+Yntl'° f1 +M .0 1•eh!ri:`u �'a. t /fi a n:.wt :;+n.t L,�••.. cc:..n' -4'- S- ut1L.J4 f itc-.'.d in Sccuor= ly arc i0. - f t: 6rh Principr ",.r"i::n, parcel is more Eull; :•'ribec t._ -OL thwr,;t co: ne: .i` _. :c: Se io. 79 feat Slung t - ,.ti ('r f.• -t; then - c,'15 9 Yn the southerly lir^ o' sari Se on Wb .`ev- t alonr tr 'rhHna� S 7Q° 1' ^0" BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION 1439 1 Jurisdiction of ' D D Applicant to complete numbered spaces only. JOB ADDS ESS /) SrcA-1 1 DESCR. LOT NO. Blx TRACT r "^ /,ELI ❑SEE,STTACXED SMEETI IV /V �v/ G^ 2 OWNER MAIL ADDRESS P z 1 ~Fii V7�1r S °� XONC % /Affil'. ✓NU'�IQA/ CONTRACTOR MAIL AODRE.E 3/1c l,F(/4/e r3L)v✓ ifA7A/+TRVC7_fuA1 PHONE LICENSE NO � 7"23 `//Y 7 ARCHITECT OR DESIGNER MAIL ADDRESS 4 PHONE LICENSE NO. ENGINEER MAIL ADDRESS 5 PHONE LICENSE NO. LENDER MAIL ADDRESS 6 BRANCH USE OF BUILDING 7 8 Class of work: VNEW ❑ ADDITION ❑ ALTERATION ❑ REPAIR ❑ MOVE ❑ REMOVE 8 Describe work: R& E (b C v r( A 1 $ lJ l 1—_13 Af G ,", /-1 t:'- 10 Change of use from Change of use to r Jd 11 Valuation of work: $ J t? U V J -- r PLAN CHECK FEE PERMIT FEE SPECIAL CONDITIONS' Type of Const Occupancy Group Division Size of Bldg. (Total) Sq. Ft No. of Stories Max. Occ. Load Fire Zone Use Zone Fire Sprinklers Required ❑Yes []No APPLICATION ACCEPTED BY PLANS CHECKED BY APPROVED FOR ISSUANCE BY No. of Dwelling Units OFFSTREET PARKING SPACES: Covered Uncovered NOTICE SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMB- ING, HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING. THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUC- TION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 60 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 120 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COM- MENCED. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE C WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT, TH ANTIN OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME T MIVR V T VIOLATE OR CAN EL THE PROVIS AT OR LOCAL LAW REG LATI G CO UC RT MANCE OF CONS UCT N. i Special Approvals Required Received Not Required ZONING HEALTH DEPT. FIRE DEPT. SOIL REPORT OTHER (Specify) 5 GHA URE OF CON TR AC O OR TX rRIZED ID E SIGNATURE OF OWNER IF OWNER BUILDER) (DATE) WHEN PROPERLY VALIDATED ON THIS SPACE) THIS IS YOUR PERMIT PLAN CHECK VALIDATION CK. M.O. CASH PERMIT VALIDATION CK. M.O. CASH L"j Form 100.1 INSPECTOR No. 20966 Account 00 County Treasurer's Office, Pitkin County, Colo. Colo.. h — O . I9i& jrrrturb of. Aspen, X0 A Credit to Fund. Treasurer i- rli -.ra3 �:;�JLtt1 - Deputy