HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.planning.264502203001, 264502203002DOCUMENT 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)
O7
PARCEL ID. 264511 3-001 26 " DATE4 # COPIi tl
.
- RCVD S: " "CASE NO 1978 �
022 0 � E
CASE NAME: Biers Lot Split/Detailed Submission Planners
PROJ ADDR: 2316 Snowmass Crk Rd Lot A Snowmass Crk 2502 Snowmass Crk Rd Lot
OWN /APP: I Biers, Irving ADR� C /S /Z:� PHN:
�-
REP: A DR: C /S /Z: PHN:
Email Addr ALLOCATED HOURS;
FEES DU Ili
REFERRALS
MTG DATE
REMARKS I no vesting
CLOSED: BY:
% OVER:
REEF= F DUE:
Y PH ii 1 OTICED DATE OF FINAL ACTION:
"f No
No
No
BOCC Reso:
BOCC Ord:
PZ: Staff Approval
HRG OFF:
HO INDEX:
ADMIN: I
PLAT RECORDED— PLAT (BK,PG):In /a ADMIN INDEX: I
VR APPROVAL DATE: VR EXPIRES:
CASE TYP: I Lot Split/Detailed Submission CASE TYP5:
CASE TYP2: CASE TYPE:
CASE TYP3: CASE TYP7:
CASE TYP4: Date Scanned: F-- 3/20/2012
File Location: IFF Box #218
MEMORANDUM
TO: Pitkin County Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Richard Grice, Planning Office
RE: Biers Lot Split /Detailed Submission
DATE: August 27, 1980
The attached application is the detailed submission for the Biers Subdivision.
The general submission wasapproved by the Board of County Commissioners in
October, 1979-subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of more specific descriptions of the grade and location of
the existing access road, and
2. The opinion of a registered engineer regarding the load capacity and
stability of the existing bridge,
3. Identification of the floodplai.n located on the southern side of
Snowmass Creek, and its interaction with the existing improvements,
and
4. Location of structures affecting the county road right of way, and
5. Designation on the plat of the geologically suitable lower flat bench
identified by Nick Lampiris as the building envelope, and
6. Inclusion of a deed restriction against further subdivision,
7. Inclusion of easements for Holy Cross Electric and Mountain Bell,
along with the appropriate language on the plat, and demonstration
of the availability of adequate water, including its ownership and
control, and
8. Submission of designs for engineered sewage disposal system, to the
satisfaction of the County Sanitarian and the inclusion of plat lan-
guage stating that dogs will not be allowed on the property since it
abuts a critical elk winter range, with existing dogs to remain but
others to be prohibited.
REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS
The County Engineer has indicated his approval of the engineering concerns
which were identified at general submission. At this point, Pat has recommended
approval subject to three conditions:
I. Dedication of a recreational use easement and access easement for
Snowmass Creek, and
2. Assignment of water rights to run with the land, and
3. Dedication of a road easement thirty feet northeast of the center line
of the County Road in place, and
4. A driveway grading and alignment plan for access to Parcel B building
site.
The Division of Water Resources has indicated that Snowmass Creek is not over -
appropriated and their office can issue well permits for individual domestic
wells. They recommended approval of this subdivision.
The plat indicates that a site - specific engineered sewage disposal system will
be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Bob Nelson has inci-
cated that he has no problem with that technique for satisfying the general
submission concern. Bob feels that all environmental health requirements
F0.
of
FA
related to water and sewage disposal have been satisfied and therefore has no
further comments.
PLANNING OFFICE COMMENTS
We would like to note that the general submission approval was conditioned
upon a prohibition against dogs for this property, rather than a requirement
that the dogs be confined to the premises. This matter can be corrected prior
to final plat. That is the only problem we have with the submission. We
would therefore recommend your approval subject to the four conditions described
above from the County Engineer, and subject to the final plat reflecting that
dogs shall be prohibited on the property, with existing dogs to remain.
0 UOjO2
III
M E M O R A N D U M
pitkin county
506 east main street
aspen, colorado 81611
TO: Richard Grice, Planning Office '
FROM: Patrick Dobie, County Engineer
DATE: August 20, 1980
RE: Biers Lot Split
I would recommend approval of this detailed submission
subject to the following conditions:
1. Dedication of a recreational use easement and access
easement for Snowmass Creek.
2. Assignment of water rights to run with the land.
3. Dedication of a road easement 30 feet northeast of
the centerline of theAroadway in place.
C,ov-%4`\
4. A driveway grading and alignment plan for access to
the parcel B building site.
�13UU. to
C4 ASPEN PITKIN
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Richard Grice, Planning Office
FROM: Bob Nelson, County Sanitarian
RE: Biers Lot Split - Detailed Submission
DATE: August 19, 1980
We have no further comments on this proposal. The statements
in the submittal and the recorded requirements on the plat
are acceptable and accurately reflect the position taken by
the Department of Environmental Health on this subdivision.
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925 -2020
RICHARD D. LAMM
Governor
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street - Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
Administration (303) 839 -3581
Ground Water (303) 839 -3587
July 30, 1980
Mr. Richard Grice
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Biers Lot Split
Dear Mr. Grice:
J. A. DANIELSON
State Engineer
We have reviewed the material submitted for the above referenced
lot split. When we initially reviewed this proposal, we found that we
could not recommend approval due to the fact that Snowmass Creek was
considered over - appropriated (our letter of January 17, 1979). Since that
time, we have re- evaluated the water availability on Snowmass Creek
and now find that we could issue permits for individual domestic wells.
Due to this, we recommend approval of the Biers Lot Split.
Very truly yours,
,4Z ,n , i;�
Hal D. Simpson, P.E.
Chief, Water Management Branch
HDS /GDV :mvf
cc: Lee Enewold, Div. Eng.
Ralph Stallman
Land Use Comm.
uuujub
V7
co
0
N M
0
}
W O
> to
cc m
D
V) 0
in 0
z
J 0
.0 U
w
r 0 Eli
N z
w a-
x V)
gN
� 3
W Z
w
J
z
W
z
J
D
V)
z
I•
z
a
a
an
0
z
FX
w
w
_z
z
w
0
0
Q
0
0
J
W
x
0
m
a
w
z
W
a
W
QY
J
M
co
V tr
1- r
July 21, 1980
I'ir. YaL Dube
Pitkin County Engineer
c/o Pitkin County Courthouse
Aspen, Co 81611
RE: Snowmass Creek Bridge - Irving Biers
Dear Mr. Dobie:
At the request of Mr. Jim Reser, I have inspected the above re-
ferenced bridge for the purpose of determining whether or net
it has been constructed in conformance with our plans dated May
30, 1978.
Based on my field inspection which was conducted on July 15, 1980,
I have concluded that the bridge has been built in substantial com-
pliance with our plans. The plans are for an HS -20 bridge.
My only recommendation would be that the owner be requested to place
steel bolts through the bottom steel anchor shoes at the base of the
timber A -frame where the A -frame connects in to the abutment walls.
Holes have been provided through the steel shoe but the bolts have
not been installed.
This investigation was limited to a visual observation only. Rein-
forcing steel details in the bridge are not known in that the bridge
was constructed without benefit of inspection by the undersigned.
Please contact me if you have further questions in this matter.
Sincerely)
f
Roger Hocking
P. E. & L. S.
RH/ j 1 w
xc: Hr. Jim Reser
�1`vUJJb
,ems J ••�GiSTeke'. ° %%/G�♦,
Z 10049
AND
° w
1eHe►5o6110
Aspen/Pitk.i
130 s04
aspen;
MEMORANDUM
ning Of f ice
treet
31611
TO: Colorado State Forest Service
Bob Nelson, County Sanitarian
Pat Dobie, County Engineer
Jeris Danielson, Colorado Division of Water Resources
Mountain Bell
Holy Cross Electric
FROM: Richard Grice, Planning Office
RE: Biers Lot Split - Detailed Submission
DATE: July 21, 1980
The attached information makes up the Biers Lot Split detailed submission
portion of the subdivision procedure requesting approval for a lot split
on on the Snowmass Creek property. This item is scheduled to come before
the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission on September 3, 1980;
therefore, may I please have your written comments concerning this submission
no later than August 21, 1980? Thank you.
uUL;jJ l
'1
i
t
iluu" J `3 3
Alpine Surveys
Post Office Box 1/30
Aspen, Colorado 8161 1
303 9252688
July 10, 1980
Richard Grice
Aspen /Pitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re:
Dear Richard:
Subdivision
This is to accompany the detailed and final
submission of the captioned subdivision and is in
response to your memo dated Feb. 1, 1979 to the
Pitkin County P. & Z.
1. Water. The Division of Water Resources has stated
that a well permit can be issued for Tract B. No
application has been filed since no immediate
development of Tract B is contemplated. If you still
feel that a permit is required, please let me know,
and I will file an application.
2. Mountain Bell. The plat reflects the easement
requested.
3. Sewage Disposal. Bob Nelson has done a site
inspection and is satisfied that a workable system can
be designed. The plat reflects that an engineered
system will be required before a building permit is
issued.
4. Wildfire. The lower building envelope was chosen
to avoid building a firebreak.
5. Holy Cross. The easement requested is reflected
on the plat.
:I
FA
i�11�11t,��
Page 2
6. County Engineer.
a. A plan and profile of the road is being furnished
to Pat.
b. The engineer who designed the bridge will report
to Pat as to the load capacity.
c. The flood plain is reflected on the plat.
d. Improvements affecting the county road are
reflected on the plat.
7. Future Subdivision. The plat reflects that none
shall occur.
8. Dogs. The plat reflects that dogs -shall be
restricted to the premises. I can't recall how this
came out in the Board's resolution, but we will change
the note if necessary.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely yours,
JFR /ml
James F. Reser
k
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Richard Grice, Planning Office
RE: Biers Subdivision - General Submission
DATE: April 2, 1979
This application seeks to split approximately 55 acres into two tracts,
"Tract A" would be 14.542 acres and "Tract B" would be 40.648 acres. This
property is located on Snowmass Creek across from the Monastery Retreat House.
This area is zoned R -30 P.U.D. with one additional dwelling unit being allowed
1 _,for each separate parcel of land in existance as of the effective date of
Resolution 77 -33 (June 9, 1977). The applicant and the Planning Office agree
that the proposed division along Snowmass Creek is the most reasonable use of
the land in light of the topography. Tract A at present contains one single
family home occupied as the Biers residence and several outbuildings.
This application was referred to 8 state and local agencies. As of the
time of this writing, the most relevant of these comments have been returned
to the Planning Office and are summarized as follows:
The Division of Water Resources has stated that, "the Snowmass Creek
is an over appropriated stream. Due to this a well permit cannot be
issued for Tract A (14.542 acres) without a plan for augmentation.
A permit could be issued for Tract B since the lot is greater than 35
acres in size. This permit would be issued for domestic purposes
including irrigation of up to one acre of lawn or garden and could be
used to serve no more than three single family dwellings."
2. Mountain Bell has reviewed the plats on the Biers general submission
and found that they will require a utility easement in, over, under
and across the access road as shown on the plat together with the
existing easements previously granted to Mountain Bell and cited on
the plat. Their requests should be followed on future submissions.
3. Bob Nelson expects few problems with a domestic water supply. Due
to the weather, Bob has been unable to perform soil perculation tests.
From mapping information available, Bob expects that the absorption
rates may be rapid and present some pollution potential. Bob recommends
that a site specific engineered sewage disposal system be designed
to mitigate any problems of soils and a possible high seasonal ground
water table.
4. John Denison of the Colorado State Forest Service has noted wildfire
hazard related to the upper proposed homesite. John suggests a firebreak
to be built across the slope above the homesite in the event this
homesite is choosen. The Planning Office does not endorse the firebreak
proposal.
5. Holy Cross Electric Association has commented that they have the
capacity of serving Mr. Biers' property and ask only that a 20 foot
wide powerline easement with course and distance description of the
centerline of the powerline be granted to Holy Cross Electric for the
existing powerlines.
6. Pat Dobie, County Engineer, recommends several conditions for approval
of this general submission:
"a. A more specific description of the grade and location of the
existing access road; and
b. The opinion of a registered engineer as to the load capacity and
stability of the existing bridge; and
6U�ii0
�.r
C. The appropriate location of the floodplain on the southern
side of the Snowmass Creek should be shown and its interaction with
existing improvements should be discussed; and
d. Improvements in structures affecting the County road right -of -way
should be shown."
The CSU maps indicate that the upper homesite would be in a highly visual
area. In addition, the CSU maps indicate most of Tract B to be protected lands,
due to a variety of hazards including talus slope, alluvial fan, and close proximity
to a wildlife habitat. However, due to the fact that we know there are suitable
sites from a geologic point of view on the property we feel the general submission
can be approved provided the indicated geologically suitable sites are designated
as the building envelope.
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this application at their
regular meeting on February 7, 1979 at which time they recommended approval
subject to the following:
1. The lower flat bench identified by Nick Lampiris as being geologically
suitable is designated on future submission plats as the building
envelope, and
2. Future submissions should reflect a deed convenant against any future
subdivision, and
3. The concerns expressed by the County Engineer in his memorancum
to the Planning Office of January 29, 1979 are addressed on future
submissions, and
4. Easements requested by Holy Cross Electric and Mountain Bell are
to be shown on future plats by appropriate plat language, and
5. Demonstration shall be made of the availability of an adequate quantity
and quality of water, its ownership and control, and
6. A proposal for engineered sewage disposal system shall be submitted
to the satisfaction of the County Comet; and
r.,
7. Language shall appear on future plats such that dogs are to be contained
when on the property, and
8. Plat shall indicate that a soils engineering study will be provided
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
r
u0�U,Jl
V.
Alpine Surveys
Post Office Box 1730
Aspen, Colorado 81611
303 9252688
December 27, 1978
Pitkin County Planning Office
Attn: Richard Grice
130 S. Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Biers Lot Split
Dear Richard:
V3
This is to accompany the materials necessary to apply
for a property division under the provisions of
Paragraph 3.01.08.d of Resolution 77 -33, Board of
Pitkin County Commissioners.
I believe that those materials are self explanatory
and that the proposal itself is clear. During the
pre - application conference, however, you asked that
several problems be addressed, and that is the purpose
of this letter.
The problems raised and my comments are as follows:
1. Domestic Water Availability. The accompanying
geological report by Dr. Lampiris indicates that water
in sufficient quantity and of sufficient quality is
available. The applicant has sufficient water rights to
trade, if necessary, for domestic .rights.
2. Proposed Sewage Disposal Method. Dr. Lampiris states
that a conventional septic tank - leach field system is
reasonable and workable. We agree that such a system
should be properly designed by a qualified engineer prior
to installation.
3. Building Sites. Dr. Lampiris has chosen appropriate
building sites, as shown on the accompanying map. We
agree that,. before the final building site is chosen, a
qualified soils engineer should verify that the site is
free of geological constraints.
4. Access. The bridge and access road -to the 35 acr -a
parcel is in place, and has been for some years. The
vUv�11'2
P
I Page 2
"recent construction" that Dr. Lampiris mentions was
actually a reconstruction_ of the bridge, following
damage caused by a loaded truck falling through it. The
proposed lot split will not create an additional road
cut since the road to the above mentioned bridge has been
used for some years for access to the argricultural lands
on the North side of Snowmass Creek. We view the
further impact on this road by one more single family
residence as minimal.
5. Impact on Agricultural Lands. It is apparent by
inspection that no matter which final building site is
chosen, the proposal will meet the requirements of the
Land Use Code.
6. Dog Control. We recognize the proximity of game
range to the property, and sympathize with the
Commissioner's efforts to control dogs within the County.
The applicant is willing therefore, to insure that dogs
are not allowed on the property unless kenneled or
otherwise confined.
My notes do not reflect any other areas of concern,
but please feel free to contact me if others arise or
if clarification of these is required.
Enc.
JF R /ml
Sincerely yours,
J,aM, R s e r
EMU
Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D.
CONSULTING GEOLOGIST
PO BOX 10935
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
(303) 925 -6020
December 21, 1978
Mr. Irving Biers
Post Office Box 248
Snowmass, CO 81654
Dear Mr. Biers:
I have completed my investigation of that portion of your 55.19
acre tract which lies on the northeast side of Snowmass Creek. The
parcel of interest is approximately 35 acres; about 20% of it is an
open terrace situated above the floodplain of Snowmass Creek and at
the base of a southwestern dipping slope (see accompanying map). The
roughly triangularly shaped piece of property lies in the SW1 /4,
SW1 /4, Section 35, T 8 S, R 86 W, and in the NW1 /4, NW1 /4, Section 2,
T 9 S, R 86 W, of the Woody Creek 7 1/2 minute quadrangle, Pitkin
County, Colorado.
The geology of the property, according to the map of. the Woody
Creek quadrangle by Val Freeman (1972), consists of a talus slope
(containing blocks of Cretaceous age Dakota Sandstone from higher up
the slope), a series of coalescing alluvial fans forming the fairly
flat terrace, and the alluvium of the floodplain of Snowmass Creek.
It is apparent on first hand inspection that the alluvial fan complex
is an old feature no longer active as shown. The active fans are the
three shown on the map of the parcel. The underlying bedrock is the
Cretaceous age Mancos Shale but it lies well beneath the surficial
deposits. There are no faults or other geologic hazards affecting the
property.
I have indicated the areas suitable for home sites on the map.
As can.be seen the majority of the land suitable for homes lies on the
terrace well above the floodplain of Snowmass Creek and away from the
alluvial fans. One site is located on a bench on the talus slope
above the terrace. This talus slope has developed a soil profile with
sparse vegetation and therefore can be judged as stabilized. The
other building sites should be aE least 10 feet back from the terrace
bank to insure that minor sloughing does not affect the home. In all
cases soils engineering studies for each site should be conducted
prior to construction, especially since alluvial fan sediments, even
old ones, are subject to hydro- compaction. It would be advisable for
myself or another competent professional to check any final home sites
to be sure that the alluvial fans have been avoided.
t�� ii
Mr. Irving Biers
December 21, 1978
Page Two
in
Water for domestic use is probably available by drilling into the
surficial deposits to a depth of about 50 feet. Waste disposal
through the use of a leach field system should be easily adapted be-
cause the soils in all parts of the tract will be permeable. A
sanitation engineer should be consulted for his specific recommenda-
tions. Access to the buildable sites will be from the county road to
a bridge recently under construction over Snowmass Creek and then up
to the terrace. The solitary site on the talus slope would have to be
approached by a road traversing the talus slope from the east.
It is my opinion that this tract has several very good sites for
homes. The visual impact of most of these sites will be minor and the
geologic environment contains no serious constraints. If there are
further questions please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Nicholas Lampiris
Consulting Geologist
NL : abs
Enclosure
uU�JxS
MEMORANDUM
TO: Richard Grice, Planning Office
FROM: Sandy Stuller
RE: Irving Biers Lots Split
DATE: September 16, 1979
Richard:
Irving Biers was in my office late Friday to discuss
his lot split application. It was my recollection (and cor-
rect me if I am wrong) that the question arose, during the
discussion, as to whether or not he was eligible for a lot
split (limited to the creation of two single family homesites)
inasmuch as, it appeared, that the approval would result in
the creation of three lots.
If that was the difficulty, he has satisfied me that no
problem exists.
It was assumed that Irving was the owner of two adjoining
lots, one 35 acres, and another 55 acres, in size. If this
were so, then the following recent amendment to the definition
of subdivision would apply (Resolution 79 -54):
(c) In the event that two or more contiguous parcels
of land, previously separately conveyed (or described)
shall come under single ownership, the division of
such land into two (2) or more lots, tracts, sites,
parcels, separate interests, interest in common, or
other division, even if divided along the line of a
previously described or conveyed parcel,, shall con-
stitute a subdivision of land. Nothing herein shall
be deemed to apply to a lot shown on any recorded
subdivision plat, unless such subdivision plat shall
not have received those approvals required by state
of local law.
If both parcels, then, had "merged ", then the effect of the lot
split was to resubdivide the two, and create a new lot, resulting
in a three lot subdivision. If, however, the lots had not merged,
i.e., were not under single ownership, then the result of the
lot split was merely to split the separate 55 acrea lot into
two parcels; an activity (then) permitted under the expedited
lot split procedure.
Irving has supplied me with the two deeds conveying these
parcels (attached). I am satisfied that the 55 -acre lot was
separately conveyed to his corporation and the 35 -acre lot to
himself; and done so at different times for different purposes
(the former to start a tennis club; the latter for personal use).
I can detect no attempt to circumvent our regulations (the merger
theory,above, had not yet become a County policy).
In addition, please note that both parcels exceed 35 acres;
and, until December of 1974, parcels in excess of 35 acres were
exempt from the subdivision regulations.
There is one difficulty remaining. That is, the amendment
of the lot split sections of the code now pertain only to agri-
cultural lands. Inasmuch as Irving's application preceded this
amendment and could have been properly and timely processed; I
would suggest to the BOCC that he be permitted to proceed.
11U'uu.,_�i
RICHARD D. LAMM
GOVERNOR
�oF o
0
#* 18T® �*
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
715 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING — 1313 SHERMAN STREET
DENVER, COLORADO 80203 PHONE (303) 839 -2611
February 13, 1979
Mr. Richard Grice
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Mr. Grice: RE: BIERS LOT SPLIT -
GENERAL SUBMISSION
We have reviewed the preliminary plat and supporting documents for the
proposed Biers Lot Split. From a geotechnical point of view there appears
to be no reason why this application should not be approved. The recommen-
dations of Mr. Lampiris should be adhered to by the developer.
If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office.
DCS /vt
cc: Land Use Commission
Sincerely,
David C. Shelton
Engineering Geologist
GEOLOGY
STORY OF THE PAST ... KEY TO THE FUTURE
JOHN W. ROLD
Director
f � .
om
MEMORANDUM
TO: Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Planning Office, Richard Grice
RE: Biers Subdivision - General Submission
DATE: February 1, 1979
on
This application seeks to split approximately 55 acres into two tracts,
"Tract A" would be 14.542 acres and "Tract B" would be 40.648 acres. This
property is located on Snowmass Creek across from the Monastery Retreat
House. This area is zoned R -30 P.U.D. with one additional dwelling unit
being allowed for each separate parcel of land in existance as of the effective
date of Resolution 77 -33 (June 9, 1977). The applicant and the Planning
Office agree that the proposed division along Snowmass Creek is the most
reasonable use of the land in light of the topography. Tract A at present
contains one single family home occupied as the Biers residence and several
outbuildings.
This application was referred to 8 state and local agencies. As of the
time of this writing, the most relevant of these comments have been returned
to the Planning Office and are summarized as follows:
1. The Division of Water Resources has stated that-"the Snowmass
Creek is an over appropriated stream. Due to this a well permit
cannot be issued for Tract A (14.542 acres) without a plan for
augmentation. A permit could be issued for Tract B since the
lot is greater than 35 acres in size. This permit would be issued
for domestic purposes including irrigation of up to one acre of
lawn or garden and could be used to serve no more than three single
family dwellings." The Planning Office feels that the State
Engineer has misunderstood the application to request two wells
when it is our understanding that only one well will be necessary
as the existing house already has a water supply.
2. Mountain Bell has reviewed the plats on the Biers general submission
and found that they will require a utility easement in, over, under
and across the access road as shown on the plat together with the
existing easements previously granted to Mountain Bell and cited',
on the plat. Their requests should be followed on future submissions.
3. Bob Nelson expects few problems with a domestic water supply. Due
to the weather, Bob has been unable to perform soil perculation
tests. From mapping information available, Bob expects that the
absorption rates may be rapid and present some pollution potential.
Bob recommends that a site specific engineered sewage disposal
system be designed to mitigate any problems of soils and a possible
high seasonal ground water table.
4. John Denison of the Colorado State Forest Service has noted wildfire
hazard related to the upper proposed homesite. John suggests a
firebreak to be built across the slope above the homesite in the
event this homesite is choosen. The Planning Office does not
endorse the firebreak proposal.
5. Holy Cross Electric Association has commented that they have the
capacity of serving Mr. Biers' property and ask only that a 20 foot
wide powerline easement with course and distance description of
the centerline of the powerline be granted to Holy Cross Electric
for the existing powerlines.
%.
R
I
6. Pat Dobie, County Engineer, recommends several conditions for
approval of this general submission:
"a. A more specific description of the grade and location of
the existing access road; and
b. The opinion of a registered engineer as to the load capacity
and stability of the existing bridge; and
C. The appropriate location of the flood plain on the southern
side of the Snowmass Creek should be shown and its inter-
action with existing improvements should be discussed; and
d. Improvements in structures affecting the County road right -of-
way should be shown."
The CSU maps indicate that the upper homesite would be in a highly
visual area. In addition, the CSU maps indicate most of Tract B to be
protected lands, due to a variety of hazards including talus slope, alluvial
fan, and close proximity to a wildlife habitat. However, due to the fact
that we know there are suitable sites from a geologic point of view on the
property we feel the general submission can be approved provided the indicated
geologically suitable sites are designated as the building envelope. We
recommend general submission approval be conditioned upon the following items
being satisfied at detailed submission:
I. The lower flat bench identified by Nick Lampiris as being geologically
suitable is designated on future submissions as the building
envelope.
2. Future submissions should reflect a deed covenant against any future
subdivisions.
3. The concerns expressed by the County Engineer in his memorandum
to the Planning Office of January 29, 1979 are addressed on future
submissions.
4. Satisfaction of the requests made by Holy Cross Electric Association
and Mountain Bell.
5. Proof of water is furnished in the form of a well permit.
6. A proposal for an engineered sewage disposal system should be
submitted to the satisfaction of the County Sanitarian.
duU'319
"_... ` .. lncr_ J_ a r. , (3 copie living in the
a _rr _ rt vicinity are thaC t:•,2re ri ill be Lic, r it __,' gats a.ft e - 8:30 p, m. , except when
it is not yet dark. McCoy felt the: Baa,d. s'.zouid rc as much is they can to remove
hindrances such as these fres s'r travel. Kinsley asked how many weeks of the year
this would allow flights after, 8:30 p.m. :McCoy estimated it would be in effect four
to five weeks during July and August. Ochs pointed out that there is a problem with
enforcing the present regulations, since it is still light, however pilots are pre-
vented from taking off or larding. McCoy felt it would be much easier to substantiate
a curfew based on darkness; he added that without this amendment, there will be many
curfew violations occurring during summer months. Child suggested a compromise,
allowing flights until one -half hour after sunset, but prohibiting any flights after
9:00 p.m. Edwards said he would support the resolution as drafted because of the
enforceability problems now occurring. Kinsley moved approval of the resolution.
Edwards seconded and the motion passed with opposition from Child.
'ublic The Board convened a public hearing to consider an application for exemption from the
searing:
& Y non- conforming use n_rovision of the Code by K & Y Partnership. Jolene Vrchota, of
ion -con-
.orming the Planning Office, explained this involves a non - conforming fourplex located at the
fse
:xemption base of the Gataway of Snowmass subdivision. The fourplex has existed as a source
of rental employee housing for approximately eight years. Vrchota reminded the Board
that when they considered non - conforming uses last spring, they looked at any hazardous
conditions associated with the use, and at mechanisms for the preservation of the exist-
ing employee housing supply. No hazardous conditions are associated with this applica-
tion, and Housing Director Mark Danielsen has recommended that six -month minimum
leases be required. The P & Z has recommended approval with Danielsen's suggested condi-
tion. Vrchota subn._tted for the record the Planning Office memorandum, the application,
and the P & Z resolution, and, by reference, the Land Use Code with all amendments to
date. There was no public comment.
Kinsley moved approval of the exemption from the non - conforming use provision, with
a six -month minimum lease restriction. Child seconded.and the motion passed unanimously.
iers The Board again considered the general submission application for the Irving Biers
)t
alit lot split. Richard Grice, of the Planning Office, noted that this matter was previously
?neral
ibmission considered at a public hearing in May, but action was tabled at that time pending
determination of the issue concerning an adjoining parcel under the same ownership which
,mmissioners Meeting
UUUU20
October 9, 1979 - 2
included in the application. sc__11er -leas- reviewed the deeds and f0ulld i. r t•
�5 acre parcel in question was separately conveyed prior to the adoption of suh_.
d_'vision regulations relating to tracts of 35 acres or larger. In addition, the tract:
s-conveyed to a separate corporate ownership, while the remainder of the property
is held in Biers' name. - Stuller pointed out that it -is critical to note that-the
parcel was acquired by a corporation specifically established for the creation of a
tennis club on the tract; both parcels are over 35 acres and were acquired prior to
institution of subdivision regulations which would relate to tracts of that si za. Grice
noted that the Code has been amended since the initial consideration in May of 1979,
to allow lot splits only for agricultural operations, however the Planning Office feels
that since the application was made under regulations which would allow lot splits in
this instance, the application should be considered under the regulations that were in
-effect at the time. Edwards disagreed, stating the law in existance at the time of
th-e Board's action should apply. - Kinsley agreed with Grice, noting that it was the
_- Board's considerations regarding ownership that caused the initial delay. Child
added that the Board would have acted favorably on the application,in May, -but did
not proceed because of the ownership question. Edwards pointed out that a' proposed
Code amendment Concerning lot splits will -be considered this afternoon, and suggested
the Board table action until that issue has been resolved. He stated he would have a
problem with approving an application today under a regulation that no longer exists.
Stuller felt the critical point is the date of application; the Board, at their
discretion, may apply a previously- existing law if it was in -force at the time of appli-
cation. In the past, the Commissioners have adopted administrative delays to prevent
applications under a regulation that is being proposed for an amendment, however that,
too, is at their discretion. Kinsley moved approval of the general submission appli-
- cation with the following conditions: provision of more specific descriptions of
- -the grade and location of-the existing access - road -;- the opinion of -a registered
- engineer- regarding the load capacity and stability of the existing bridge; identifica-
tion of the floodplain location on -the- southern side-of Snowmass - Creek, and its inter-
- action with the existing improvements;- locat-ion-of- structures a.f-fecting the--Count
-`road -right -of -way; designation on the plat of the geologically suitable lower flat
bench identified by Nick Lampiris -as -the building envelope * - inclusion of-a deed cove-
nant against future subdivision; inclusion -of easements for Holy -Cross Electric and
--Mountain Bell, -along with- appropriate language, on -the plat; demonst- ration of..the
c'aVailibility of-adequate water.- including -its ownership and control; submission of
designs for an engineered sewage.disposal system, to the satisfaction of the County
omuliss loners Meeting Lj Li U, 1 October 9, 1979 - 3
Public
ie-aring:
Elam
Vagneur
Pit
j: lat l.a nj;uage stating the t dogs wi.l d '�e
;r.•Cr;QI*tyy. o c', lan {;u age stati that a soils en ineeri.ng study will be ;rrvicied
*c, t`.e- issuance of a building permit. Child felt no dogs should be pa mitted on
the property, since it abuts a critical elk winter range. Kinsley agreed to allow the
existing dogs to remain, but prohibit any others. Child seconded the motion as amended,
and the motion passed with opposition from Edwards. Grice noted that Bob Nelson has
reviewed a Lincoln- DeVore report on the sewage system, and expects no problem with
the proposal.
The Board convened a public hearing to consider a special review application for a
sand and gravel operation, and a general submission application for subdivision, sub-
mit•ted by Elam Construction. Joe Wells, of the Planning Office, noted that a rehearing
of this matter is necessary due to a faulty public notice published for the previous
public hearing. He submitted the following items to the record: letters and memo-
randums from the Aspen Kayak Club, Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District, Colorado
Geological Survey, Hal Clark, Bob Nelson, Patsy Newbury, Mark Danielsen, Mark Fuller,
Musick, Williamson, Schwartz, Leavenworth and Cope, Pat Dpbie, Stanley Natal; along
with Planning Office memorandums, the general submission.application, correspondence
from Hal Clark, P & Z resolution 479 -6, Agreements #57(79) and 58(79), Board of County
Commissioner minutes from previous discussions, the proof of publication, and incor-
porated by reference the Aspen Area Master Plan and'Land Use Code as amended. He re-
ported that included in the packet for today's meeting is a revised agreement with Elam
including the following changes: the five year approval would begin October 9, 1979,
with a condition for extension if the regulations are amended to allow permits for a
period longer than five years; additional exhibits have been added; -the access road
dedication: regsirer-2nt has been dropped; the air pollution performance standards have
been amended to require Elam to meet the State or County standards, whichever is more
stringent; the addition of language stating the application must meet the Land Use
Code requirements concerning water supply before final approval; no duplicate State
and County bonds are required at this point, however the Board could require additional
bonding at a later date if necessary; and Elam's participation in County road improve-
ments is clarified. The Planning Office recommends that if the Board determines to
grant approval to the sand and gravel application, they also grant approval to the sub-
division application. Kinsley noted that recent budget sessions have indicated the
situation in the Road and Bridge department is bad, and asked if that would alter the
;omiiissioners Meeting
uuGj2_2
October 9, 1979 - 4
JAN 74 -
r7 a
14
?b3
aj!.resses
0r`..' tiandred
1)011ars,
-""-Y t') IRVING
itkin
the County
A
0 n
TR-8311
4 whence the
761.�. S 89a
48'19"
93 feet;
23 " W.
Cori-
ro
f P-11 is ti 60 -font
side do of the
-road whence G: ti-
the northwest' : -elnterline of
corner Of said said
2 bears 4(056'4 W. 2791
55036'4611 1-1. 447.92 8 to .61 feet* th....
203.42 f feLt, Section
?'4
eet; thenr--- N '
thence Iq 5 :, ', -' ? 6403815p,
Containing .1 . Ir'J aor'-IS, , rR iS3611 W. 272.81 feet;
The above- describe zJrO or
net, More or .Ss.(1 tract CODta4
Along with: containing n5-002 acres
(a) .70 C.p.r
0,
NO- 4 (Di the
an 377) ICIM-13 lei tCh
with Zqpprop,- J L Of 4 Ch wi-'t'.'- -
Priori _) r.. S. f1: J s de ri v(, (I
fro,
S'
Dr i.n rjo,
C.
ap-
it I
at
541.
BOOK
!b) Right -of_
Telegraph Co. way to M, ntaii. Sta
recorded tes Tel and
(c) Right -of -wa in Book 151 at Page 43.
Y for existing C> >snty Road.
(d) Taxes for the year 197
subsequent Years. payable in 1974, and
(e) Any tax
assessment
e inclusion
the of the property in the or charges y reason
b of
District lwo,nt S°
and the Basalt Pris Soil Co.
(f) Restrictive and Rural �serva_
Page 9i2SIGNED covenants recodedei�rOtection District.
this 4�� k 276 at t.
day of December, 1973.
OGDEN
CECEL�A.Sp,,114—Zto
6TA i''c UP On�HO�tilrl ) `'- -
COUNTY Off, ) SS.
Th
foregoing instrument
ument
- day of Deo,n, ,ber was acknowledged before me
E. ,� 1973, by FlEi,EN I,. this
�i �.aH. arn�:N and
CECELIA A.
��Y CO7�' i cn expires �.
uU
AL7 A Owner's Po: icy —For in 11 — Amended 10.17 -70
�r
eF.�t r.t
o .f•
►.F. r` i
r•;t {:
"C'
,
e 7 ,..
C
.:_a4
a.�••
• �t "1
s:
1r1�:
dr, X
, `L-.
►> -+-rS ���}�. •r,r,,y .o•..� `", �...` ��±, n, y: ��` ia"' �✓ �. h" �•:." �, v��+ �' y✓ �%_a�.- .- ., ✓��"r.°�r%•¢- i,:3;'
POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE ISSUED BY c?`"'
,.
rrfl
4 1► R, f v
y °z x
GUARANTY COMPANY
SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE, THE EXCEPTIONS CONTAINED IN SCHEDULE B AND
THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS HEREOF, STEWART TITLE GUARANTY
COMPANY, a corporation of Galveston, Texas, herein called the Company, insures, as of Date of Policy shown in
Schedule A, against toss or damage, not exceeding the amount of insurance stated in Schedule A, and costs, attorneys' , .
fees and expenses which the Company may become obligated to pay hereunder, sustained or incurred by the insured by
to
reason of:
1. Title to the estate or interest described in Schedule A being vested otherwise than as stated therein;
2. Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on such title; or
3. Lack of a right of access to and from the land.
4. Unmarketability of such title
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Stewart Title Guaranty Company has caused this policy to be signed and sealed by its
duly authorized officers as of Date of Policy shown in Schedule A.
rr .
`l v''�\I LE CU49
Countersigned: 0
§
Q : ptlPOP4
?H: 1908 0\
��CA F/r/ �1���� / �•ummn'
Authorized Countersiglfa;dre
SCHEDULE OF EXCLUSIONS r'ROM COVERAGE g =�•,
- sdr Y
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy:
1. Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning ordinances) restricting or regulating or s '
prohibiting the occupancy, use or enjoyment of the land, or regulating the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or r „+
hereafter erected on the land, or prohibiting a separation in ownership or a reduction in the dimensions or area of the land, or the effect t �.
of any violation of any such law, ordinance or governmental regulation.
otice of the exercise of such rights appears in the public
2. Rights of eminent domain or governmental rights of police power unless n
records of Date of Policy.
3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters (a) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant, (b) not [ ;`: ••
known to the Company and not shown by the public records but known to the insured claimant either at Date of Policy or at the date
such claimant acquired an estate or interest insured by this policy and not disclosed in writing by thc, insured claimant to the Company
prior to the date such insured claimant became an insured hereunder; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (c!) t_,l „�
attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained it the insured
claimant had paid value for the estate or interest insured by this policy. ry
Ac_.�.•;= :%.' -'= Pale 1 of ^{
Policy Serial No. J
`u. �- V v« -�}- �y.i`w Yom..' :'•.1` ZV.,.t1j'�i.•'�' " "y'. /k� �.`
GUARANTY COMPANY
Chairman
{:'4
President
,
SCHEDULE OF EXCLUSIONS r'ROM COVERAGE g =�•,
- sdr Y
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy:
1. Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning ordinances) restricting or regulating or s '
prohibiting the occupancy, use or enjoyment of the land, or regulating the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or r „+
hereafter erected on the land, or prohibiting a separation in ownership or a reduction in the dimensions or area of the land, or the effect t �.
of any violation of any such law, ordinance or governmental regulation.
otice of the exercise of such rights appears in the public
2. Rights of eminent domain or governmental rights of police power unless n
records of Date of Policy.
3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters (a) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant, (b) not [ ;`: ••
known to the Company and not shown by the public records but known to the insured claimant either at Date of Policy or at the date
such claimant acquired an estate or interest insured by this policy and not disclosed in writing by thc, insured claimant to the Company
prior to the date such insured claimant became an insured hereunder; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (c!) t_,l „�
attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained it the insured
claimant had paid value for the estate or interest insured by this policy. ry
Ac_.�.•;= :%.' -'= Pale 1 of ^{
Policy Serial No. J
`u. �- V v« -�}- �y.i`w Yom..' :'•.1` ZV.,.t1j'�i.•'�' " "y'. /k� �.`
,zoo
CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS
1. DEFINITION OF TERMS
The following terms when used in this policy mean:
(a) "insured ": the insured named in Schedule A, and,
subject to any rights of defenses the Company may have
had against the named insured, those who succeed to the
interest of such insured by operation of law as distinguished
from purchase including, but not limited to, heirs, dis-
tributees, devisees, survivors, personal representatives, next
of kin, or corporate or fiduciary successors.
(b) "insured claimant ": an insured claiming loss or
damage hereunder.
(c) "knowledge ": actual knowledge, not constructive
knowledge or notice which may be imputed to an insured
by reason of any public records.
(d) "land ": the land described, specifically or by
reference in Schedule A, and improvements affixed thereto
which by law constitute reel property; provided, however,
the term "land" does not include any property beyond the
lines of the area specifically described or referred to in
Schedule A, nor any right, title, interest, estate or easement
in abutting streets, roads, avenues, alleys, lanes, ways or
waterways, but nothing herein shall modify or limit the
extent to which a right of access to and from the land is
insured by this policy.
(e) "mortgage ": mortgage, deed of trust, trust deed, or
other security instrument.
(f) "public records ": those records which by law
impart constructive notice of matters relating to said land.
2. CONTINUATION OF INSURANCE AFTER CON-
VEYANCE OF TITLE
The coverage of this policy shall continue in force as of
Date of Policy in favor of an insured so long as such insured
retains an estate or interest in the land, or holds an
indebtedness secured by a purchase money mortgage given
by a purchaser from such insured, or so long as such insured
shall have liability by reason of covenants of warranty made
by such insured in any transfer or conveyance of such
estate or interest; provided, however, this policy shall not
continue in force in favor of any purchaser from such
insured of either said estate or interest or the indebtedness
secured by a purchase money mortgage given to such
insured.
3. DEFENSE AND PROSECUTION OF ACTIONS —
NOTICE OF CLAIM TO BE GIVEN BY AN INSURED
CLAIMANT
(a) The Company, at its own cost and without undue
delay, shall provide for the defense of an insured in all
litigation consisting of actions or proceedings commenced
against such insured to the extent that such litigation is
founded upon an alleged defect, lien, encumbrance, or
other matter insured against by this policy.
(b) The insured shall notify the Company promptly in
writing (i) in case any action or proceeding is begun as set
forth in (a) above, (ii) in case knowledge shall come to an
insured hereunder of any claim of title or interest which is
adverse to the title to the estate or interest as insured, and
which might cause loss or damage for which the Company
may he liable by virtue of this policy. If such prompt notice
shall not be given to the Company, then as to such insured
all liability of the Company shall cease and terminate in
regard to the matter or matters for which such prompt
notice is required; provided, however, that failure to notify
shall in no case prejudice the rights of any such insured
under this policy unless the Company shall be prejudiced
by such failure and then only to the extent of such
prejudice.
(c) The Company shall have the right at its own cost to
institute and without undue delay prosecute any action or
proceeding or do any other act which in its opinion may be
necessary or desirable to establish the title to the estate or
interest as insured, and the Company may take any
appropriate action under the terms of this policy, whether
or not it shall be liable thereunder, and shall not thereby
concede liability or waive any provision of this policy.
(d) Whenever the Company shall have brought any
action or interposed a defense as required or permitted by
the provisions of this policy, the Company may pursue any
such litigation to final determination by a court of
competent jurisdiction and expressly reserves the right, in
its sole discretion, to appeal from any adverse judgment or.
order.
(e) In all cases where this policy permits or requires
the Company to prosecute or provide for the defense of
any action or proceeding, the insured hereunder shall secure
to the Company the right to so prosecute or provide
defense in such action or proceeding, and all appeals
therein, and permit the Company to use, at its option, the
name of such insured for such purpose. Whenever requested
by the Company, such insured shall give the Company all
reasonable aid in any such action or proceeding, in effecting
settlement, securing evidence, obtaining witnesses, or pros-
ecuting or defending such action or proceeding, and the
Company shall reimburse such insured for any expense so
incurred.
4. NOTICE OF LOSS — LIMITATION OF ACTION
In addition to the notices required under paragraph
3(b) of these Conditions and Stipulations, a statement in
writing of any loss or damage for which it is claimed the
Company is liable under this policy shall be fu.,iisheo to
the Company within 90 days after such loss or damage shall
have been determined and no right of action shall accrue to
an insured claimant until 30 days after such statement shall
have been furnished. Failure to furnish such statement of
loss or damage shall terminate any liability of the Company
under this policy as to such loss or damage.
5. OPTIONS TO PAY OR OTHERWISE SETTLE
CLAIMS
The Company shall have the option to pay or otherwise
settle for or in the name of an insured claimant any claim
insured against or to terminate all liability and obligations
of the Company hereunder by paying or tendering payment
Of the amount of insurance under this policy together with
any costs, attorneys' fees and expenses incurred up to the
time of such payment or tender of payment, by the insured
claimant and authorized by the Company.
(continued and concluded on last page of this policy)
AL_TA OWNER'S POLICY — Arner
SCHEDULE A
Order No.: 4936 —C2
Date of Policy: June 16, 1973 @ 8:00 a.m.
Policy No.: 0 182635
Amount of Insurance: S 225,714.00
1. Name of Insured: SNOWMASS CREEK PROPERTIES, INC. , a Colorado Corporation.
2. The estate or interest in the land described herein and which is covered by this policy is:
in fee simple.
3. The estate or interest referred to herein is at Date of Policy vested in:
SNOWMASS CREEK PROPERTIES, INC., a Colorado Corporation.
4. The land referred to in this policy is described as follows:
DESCRIPTION SET FORTH PAGE 2A.
�
UGJ.0 i
t . . ..
Page 2 %..,1'i' 1.. `iVIk 111 '1' '1' I ,r 1
GUARANTY
Continuation Form 203 -A 4-PT.
Attached to and made a part of Stewart -title Guaranty Company Policy No.
0 182635
Continuation of Schedule A
A tract of land situated in Tracts 82 and 83, Sections 34 and 35, Township 8 South
Range 86 West and in Section 2, Township 9 South, Range 86 West and in the Northeast
quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 3, Township 9 South, Range 86 West of the
Sixth Principal Meridian, Pitkin County, Colorado, being more fully described -as follo
Beginning at a point described as the AP 1 of said Tract 83;
thence South 00 °12'23" East 2149.90 feet along the Easterly line of said Tract 83
and an extension thereof to a point on the Northerly edge of a County Road;
thence North 55 003147" West 522.37 feet along the Northerly edge of said County Road;
thence North 59 °35'48" West 511.83 feet along the Northerly edge of said County Road;
thence North 68 039'05" West 595.56 feet along the Northerly edge of said County Road;
thence North 11 °06108" East 292.87 feet;
thence North 02 °28'10" East 238.39 feet;
thence North 02 °55'02" West 90.56 feet to AP 3 of said Tract 82, also AP 3 of said
Tract 83;
thence North 00 °47'40" West 323.24 feet along line 3 -2 of said Tract 83, to the cente3
of Snowmass Creek;
thence North 30 033'00" West 331.37 feet along the center line of Snowmass Creek;
thence North 44 °50'00" East 230.00 feet more or less to AP 6 of Tract 75, Township 8.
South, Range 86 West;
thence South 87 °48'07" East 42.16 feet to AP 7 of said Tract 75;
thence South 89 031'02" East 1323.24 feet along the Northerly line of said Tract 83 to
point of beginning.
County of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
Page 2A.
lit�VJG�
i
SCHEDULE B
Policy No.: 0 182635
This policy does not insure against loss or damage by reason of the following:
1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records.
2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records.
3. Encroachments, overlaps, boundary line disputes, or other matters which would be disclosed by an
accurate survey or inspection of the premises.
4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished,
imposed by law and not shown by the public records.
5. Community property, dower, curtesy, survivorship, or homestead rights, if any, of any spouse of
the insured.
6. Any titles or rights asserted by anyone including but not limited to persons, corporations,
governments or other entities, to tide lands, or lands comprising the shores or bottoms of navigable
rivers, lakes, bays, ocean or gulf, or lands beyond the line of the harbor or bulkhead lines as
established or changed by the United States Government or water rights, if any.
7. Reservations contained in Patent from the United States of America or State where the land
described in Schedule A is located.
8. Restrictive Covenants affecting the property described in Schedule A.
9. Taxes for the year 19 73 and thereafter. and any special assessments or charges not yet
certified to the office of the County Treasurer.
10.The right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore
therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises,
as reserved in United States Patent recorded in Book 55 at page 314.
(The Company hereby insures the insured against any and all loss or damage to
the improvements resulting from the use or exercise of the right, if any, to
enter upon the surface as reserved therein.)
ll.The right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore
therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises,
as reserved in United States Patent recorded in Book 55 at page 320.
(The Company hereby insures the insured against any and all loss or damage to
the improvements resulting from the use or exercise of the right, if any, to
enter upon the surface as reserved therein.)
12.Rights of way as granted to Mountain State Telephone and Telegraph Company as
set forth in instrument recorded January 23, 1920 in Book 151 at page 43.
13.Any tax, assessment, fees or charges by reason of the inclusion of subject property
in Mt. Sopris Soil Conservation District and Basalt and Rural Fire Protection
District. :; W. !" i
14.Deed of Trust from Snowmass Creek Properties, Inc., a Colorado Corporation to
the Public Truste160f257t00ndatedtJunerl5heI973 and Hrecorded June 15a Cecelia A.
1973 in
Spear to secure $ ,
Book 276 at page 915.
15_Restrictions, which do not contain a forfeiture or reverter clause, but omitting
restrictions, if any, based on race, color, religion or national origin, as containe,
in instrument recorded June 15, 1973 in Book 276 at page 912.
Page GVARARTY CO?11'A \Y
..CONDI% .NS AND STIPULATIONS Contim
(ck cued and concluded from reverse side of Policiface)
6. DETERMINATION AND PAYMENT OF LOSS
(a) The liability of the Company under this policy
shall in no case exceed the least of:
(i) the actual loss of the insured claimant; or
(ii) the amount of insurance stated in Schedule A.
(b) The Company will pay, in addition to any loss
insured against by this policy, all costs imposed upon an
insured in litigation carried on by the Company for such
insured, and all costs, attorneys' fees and expenses in
litigation carried on by such insured with the written
authorization of the Company.
7. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
No claim shall arise or be -maintainable under this
policy (a) if the Company, after having received notice of
an alleged defect, lien or encumbrance insured against
hereunder, by litigation or otherwise, removes such defect,
lien or encumbrance or establishes the title, as insured,
within a reasonable time after receipt of such notice; (b) in
the event of litigation until there has been a final
determination by a court of competent jurisdiction, and
disposition of all appeals therefrom, adverse to the title, as
insured, as provided in paragraph 3 hereof; or (c) for
liability voluntarily assumed by an insured in settling any
claim or suit without prior written consent of the Com-
pany.
8. REDUCTION OF LIABILITY
All payments under this policy, except payments made
for costs, attorneys' fees and expenses, shall reduce the
amount of the insurance pro tanto. No payment shall be
made without producing this policy for endorsement of
such payment unless the policy be lost or destroyed, in
which case proof of such loss or destruction shall be
furnished to the satisfaction of the Company.
9. LIABILITY NONCUMULATIVE
It is expressly understood that the amount of insurance
under this policy shall be reduced by any amount the
Company may pay under any policy insuring either (a) a
mortgage shown or referred to in Schedule B hereof which
is a lien on the estate or interest covered by this policy, or
(b) a mortgage hereafter executed by an insured which is a
charge or lien on the estate or interest described or referred
to in Schedule A, and the amount so paid shall be deemed a
payment under this policy. The Company shall have the
option to apply to the payment of any such mortgages any
amount that otherwise would be payable hereunder to the
insured owner of the estate or interest .covered by this
policy and the amount so paid Shall be deemed a payment
under this policy to said insured owner.
if the amount of insurance under this policy was divided
pro rata as to the value on Date of Policy of each separate
parcel to the whole, exclusive of any improvements made
subsequent to Date of Policy, unless a liability or value has
otherwise been agreed upon as to each such parcel by the
Company and the insured at the time of the issuance of this
policy and shown by an express statement herein or by an
endorsement attached hereto.
11. SUBROGATION UPON PAYMENT OR SETTLE-
MENT
Whenever the Company shall have settled a claim under
this policy, all right of subrogation shall vest in the
Company unaffected by any act of the insured claimant.
The Company shall be subrogated to and be entitled to all
rights and remedies which such insured claimant would
have had against any person or property in respect to such
claim had this policy not been issued, and if requested by
the Company, such insured claimant shall transfer to the
Company all rights and remedies against any person or
property necessary in order to perfect such right of
subrogation and shall permit the Company to use the name
of such insured claimant in any transaction or litigation
involving such rights or remedies. If the payment does not
cover the loss of such insured claimant, the Company shall
be subrogated to such rights and remedies in the proportion
which said payment bears to the amount of said loss. If loss
should result from any act of such insured claimant, such
act shall not void this policy, but the Company, in that
event, shall be required to pay only that part of any losses
insured against hereunder which shall exceed the amount, if
any, lost to the Company by reason of the impairment of
the right of subrogation
12. LIABILITY LIMITED TO THIS POLICY
This instrument together with all endorsements and
other instruments, if any, attached hereto by the Company
is the entire policy and contract between the insured and
the Company.
Any claim of loss or damage, whether or not based on
negligence, and which arises out of the status of the title to
the estate or interest covered hereby or any action asserting
such claim, shall be restricted to the provisions and
conditions and stipulations of this policy.
No amendment of or endorsement to this policy can be
made except by writing endorsed hereon or attached hereto
signed by either the President, a Vice President, the
Secretary, an Assistant Secretary, or valiclating officer or
authorized signatory of the Company.
13. NOTICES, WHERE SENT
All notices required to be given the Company and any
statement in writing required to be furnished the Company
shall be addressed to it at its main office, P. O. Box 2029,
Houston, Texas 77001.
10. APPORTIONMENT 14. The premium specified in Schedule A is the entire
If the land described in Schedule A consists of two or charge for acceptance of risk. It includes charges for
more parcels which are not used as a single site, and a loss is title search and examination if same is customary or
established affecting one or more of said parcels but not all, required to be shown in the state in which the policy is
the loss shall be computed and settled on a pro rata basis as issued.
Valid Only If Schedules A and B are Attached. (l S 11, 1'1 �f1 a� �o ��� 11 �1 T , ��
u GVA1(AN*•ry cONIP.ILNr
Zm
LLJ
LL
:vl
0
ak-
0
CL
FM
04 Co
i4 ;- (.0 0
co
W
>- C/3
—i cr_
—i <
LLJ
0o
Lu i- (0 (D (j)
2 < z z :D
< < 0
-T F 2i
UJ F— >-
P,J W Z
cc 0
0
0
0
0 or_
t -u 0
W U-
�5-
w
UL
U)
•Pl.
W
m
cr-
w z
UUUJ31
>- C/3
—i cr_
—i <
LLJ
0o
Lu i- (0 (D (j)
2 < z z :D
< < 0
-T F 2i
UJ F— >-
P,J W Z
cc 0
0
0
0
0 or_
t -u 0
W U-
�5-
w
UL
U)
•Pl.
L Jim „ �—� ✓\ ` \ �: \� E31,
1
1 �
7153 \ O \ '•Z_ /. �. •�_ -
Bill
-'�7.100
7274 ;\
7 356
NO
VICINITY MAP
cl �,,y, Ii`la "./ 1'\ t- � I ,✓ _- _'_� \mow
j 32
P
I
T
K
I
N
C
0
U
N
T
X
506 E. MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Richard Grice, Planning Office
FROM: Patrick Dobie, County Engineer
DATE: January 29, 1979
RE: Biers Lot Split
As part of this general submission, I feel the
following additional information is needed:
1) A more specific description of the grade and
location of the existing access road;
2) The opinion of a registered engineer as to
the load capacity and stability of the existing
bridge;
3) The approximate location of the flood plain
on the southerly side of Snowmass Creek should
be shown and its interaction with existing
improvements should be discussed;
4) Improvements and structures affecting the
County road right -of -way should be shown.
UUUJ33
HOLY CROSS .ELECTRIC ASSC�..�.IATION,
1301 GRAND AVENUE
P.O. DRAWER 250
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
January 26, 1979
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Dept.
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Biers Lot Split
Gentlemen:
Holy Cross Electric Association has the capacity of serving
Mr. Biers property and asks only that a twenty foot wide
power line easement with course and distance description of
the centerline of the power line be granted to Holy Cross
Electric for the existing power lines.
Sincerely,
HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC.
.0
/John R. Spangler, Engineer
JRS:lsz
Uv�J�1
INC.
AREA CODE
303
945 -5491
945 -6056
*2
P
I
T
K
I
N
C
U
N
T
Y
506 E. MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
T0: Richard Grice, Planning Office
FROM: Bob Nelson, County Sanitarian i
DATE: January 24, 1979
RE: Biers Lot Split
This office has completed a review of the referenced proposal for
the purpose of completing an evaluation of the water supply, sewage
disposal and environmental impacts.
Water is to be supplied from a well and preliminary geologic reports
indicate water is "probably available by drilling into surficial deposits
to a depth of about 50 feet." A review of well permit records from
the Groundwater and Geologic Resource Map prepared for the Colorado
Geologic Survey by F.M. Fox and Associates indicate that wells in
the vicinity range in depth from 46 to 120 feet and yield 8 to 20
gallons per minute. The Wright Water Engineers Groundwater Resource
Maps also indicate that this property is in an area of major alluvial
groundwater recharge. We would anticipate few problems 1 %rith a domestic
water supply.
The soil conditions of selected building sites on the northerly lot
generally appear to be suitable for a conventional individual sewage
disposal system from mapping information available. Site specific
testing of soil percolation rates and location of groundwater tables
at high season should be accomplished when weather permits. We would
expect that absorption rates may be rapid and present some pollution
potential. The southerly tract could prove unacceptable for a con-
ventional individual sewage disposal system due to the small change in
elevation above the creek bottom and the anticipated permeable gravels
and rock below the surface. If this proposal is approved, we would
recommend that a site specific engineered system designed to mitigate
any problems of soils and a possible high seasonal groundwater table
be submitted to our office for review and proposal.
Other environmental impacts are anticipated to be minimal, and the
water pollution impacts due to the proximity to Snowmass Creek can be
mitigated with proper construction techniques during the site preparation
phase.
J. C. Kilmer , SR /WA
Right -of -Way Agent
January 22, 1979
Richard Grice
Aspen / Pitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Biers Lot Split - General Submission
Dear Mr. Grice,
Mountain Bell
PO Box 2688
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501
Phone(303)243 -8011
We have reviewed the plat on the Biers Lot Split and found that we will
require a Utility Easement in, over, under and across the access road
as shown on the plat together with the existing easements previously
granted to Mountain Bell and sited on the plat, as recorded in Book 151,
Page 143 of the official records of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin
County, State of Colorado.
We appreciate the opportunity of being able to review this plat.
Very truly yours,
C. Kilmer, SR /WA
Right -of -Way Agent
cc: Irving Biers
Alpine Survey
Tri -Co Management, Inc.
Pitkin County Commissioner
Bill McDaniel, Mountain Bell
Nick Marquez, Mountain Bell
Enclosure
JCK /jlh
i J 'v
RICHARD D. LAMM
Governor
•C
O
lgg6
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street - Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
Administration (303) 839 -3581
Ground Water(303)839 -3587
January 17, 1979
Mr. Richard Grice
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Biers Lot Split
Dear Mr. Grice:
C.J. KLIIPER
State Engineer
This is to acknowledge receipt of material pertaining to the above
referenced lot split. The developer proposes to use shallow wells for the
water supply which will intercept ground water tributary to Snowmass Creek,
an over - appropriated stream.
Due to this, a well permit cannot be issued for Lot A (14.542 acres)
without a plan for augmentation. A permit could be issued for Lot B in
accordance with CRS 1973, 37 -92 -602 (3) (b) (II) since the lot is greater
than 35 acres in area. This permit would be issued for domestic purposes
including irrigation of up to one acre of lawn or garden and could be used
to serve no more than three single family dwellings.
While we have no objections to both lots being served by one well,
we do not know if this is acceptable to either the developer or the County.
Also, it may not be practical due to the location of the creek. Therefore,
we do not recommend approval of the Biers Lot Split until more information
is submitted.
JAD /GDV:mvf
cc: Lee Enewold, Div. Eng.
Ralph Stallman
Land Use Comm.
Very truly yours,
a Al
. Jeris A. Danielson
puty State Engineer
M1 M 0 R A N D U M
TO: John Denison, State Forest Service
Bob Nelson, County Sanitarian
Pat Dobie, County Engineer
Mount Sopris Conservation District
Dave Shelton, Colorado Geologic Survey
Holy Cross Electric
Mountain Bell
C.J. Kuiper, Colorado Division of Water Resources
FROM: Richard Grice, Planning Office
RE: Biers Lot Split - General Submission
DATE: January 8, 1979
The attached application requests subdivision exemption for the purpose of
creating a two unit subdivision. As a lot split subdivision, this appli-
cation is exempt from growth management reviews. However, it will go
through full subdivision review.
This item is tentatively scheduled for review by the Pitkin County Planning
and Zoning Commission on February 7, 1979. In order to make this agenda
date we will need your written comments returned to the Planning Office no
later than January 26, 1979. In the event you are unable to make this
deadline date, we would appreciate your notifying us so that we can re-
schedule for a later date.
Thank you very much.
uVid
^ `Ile
Alpine Surveys
Post Office Box 1730
Aspen, Colorado 81611
303 9252688
December 29, 1978
Adjacent Property Owners to
Snowmass Creek Properties, Inc.
Irving Biers
Box 248
Snowmass, Colorado 81654
Helen L. Ogden
Box 27
Coweta, Oklahoma 74429
6U. Jd
Alpine Surveys
Pust Oil ice Bux 11-30
303 925 2688
December 27, 1978
Pitkin County Planning Office
Attn: Richard Grice
130 S. Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Biers Lot Split
Dear Richard:
This is to accompany the materials necessary to apply
for a property division under the provisions of
Paragraph 3.Ol.Q8.d of Resolution 77 -33, Board of
Pitkin CotAnty Commissioners.
I believe that those materials are self explanatory
and that the proposal itself is clear. During the
pre- application conference, however, you asked that
several problems be addressed, and that is the purpose
of this letter.
The problems raised and my comments are as follows:
1. Domestic Water Availability. The accompanying
geological report by Dr. Lampiris indicates that water
in sufficient quantity and of sufficient quality is
available. The applicant has sufficient water rights to
trade, if necessary, for domestic rights.
2. Proposed Sewage Disposal Method. Dr. Lampiris states
that a conventional septic tank - leach field system is
reasonable and workable. We agree that such a system
should be properly designed by a qualified engineer prior
to installation.
3. Building Sites. Dr. Lampiris has chosen appropriate
building sites, as shown on the accompanying map. We
agree that, before the final building site is chosen, a
qualified soils engineer should verify that the site is
free of geological constraints.
4. Access. The bridge and access road to the 35 acre
parcel is in place, and has been for some years. The
140
Page 2
l
"recent construction" that Dr. Lampiris mentions was
actually a reconstruction of the bridge, following
damage caused by a loaded truck falling through it. The
proposed lot split will not create an additional road
cut since the road to the above mentioned bridge has been
used for some years for access to the argricultural lands
on the North side of Snowmass Creek. We view the
further impact on this road by one more single family
residence as minimal.
5. Impact on Agricultural Lands. It is apparent by
inspection that no matter which final building site is
chosen, the proposal will meet the requirements of the
Land Use Code.
6. Dog Control. We recognize the proximity of game
range to the property, and sympathize with the
Commissioner's efforts to control dogs within the County.
The applicant is willing therefore, to insure that dogs
are not allowed on the property unless kenneled or
otherwise confined.
My notes do rio£- °reflect any other areas of concern,
but please feel fre to contact me if others arise or
if clarification of these is required.
Eno.
JF R /ml
00 W141-
Sincerely yours,
Janus F. Re s er
C
Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D.
'. CONSULTING GEOLOGIST
PO BOX 10935
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
(303) 925 -6020
December 21, 1978
Mr. Irving Biers
Post Office Box 248
Snowmass, CO 81654
Dear Mr. Biers:
I have completed my investigation of that portion of your 55.19
acre tract which lies on the northeast side of Snowmass Creek. The
parcel of interest is approximately 35 acres; about 207 of it is an
open terrace situated above the floodplain of Snowmass Creek and at
the base of a southwestern dipping slope (see accompanying map). The
roughly triangularly shaped piece of property lies in the SW1 /4,
SW1 /4, Section 35, T 8 S, R 86 W, and in the NW1 /4, NW1 /4, Section 2,
T 9 S, R 86 W, of the Woody Creek 7 1/2 minute quadrangle, Pitkin
County, Colorado.
The geology of the property, according to the map .of the Woody
Creek quadrangle by Val Freeman (1972), consists of a talus slope
(containing blocks of Cretaceous age Dakota Sandstone from higher up
the slope), a series of coalescing alluvial fans forming the fairly
flat terrace, and the alluvium of the floodplain of Snowmass Creek.
It is apparent on first hand inspection that the alluvial fan complex
is an old feature no longer active as shown. The active fans are the
three shown on the map of the parcel. The underlying bedrock is the
Cretaceous age Mancos Shale but it lies well beneath the surficial
deposits. There are no faults or other geologic hazards affecting the
property.
I have indicated the areas suitable for home sites on the map.
As can be seen the majority of the land suitable for homes lies on the
terrace well above the floodplain of Snowmass Creek and away from the
alluvial fans. One site is located on a bench on the talus slope
above the terrace. This talus slope has developed a soil profile with
sparse vegetation and therefore can be judged as stabilized. The
other building sites should be at least 10 feet back from the terrace
bank to insure that minor sloughing does not affect the home. In all
cases soil; eu,;neer[rg studies for each site stloui.i be conducted
prior to construction, especially since alluvial fan sediments, even
old ones, are subject to hydro - compaction. It would be advisable for
myself or another competent professional to check any final home sites
to be sure that the alluvial fans have been avoided.
UUUJ42
1r
r
Mr. Irving Biers
December 21, 1978
Page Two
Water for domestic use is probably available by drilling into the
surficial deposits to a depth of about 50 feet. Waste disposal
through the use of a leach field system should be easily adapted be-
cause the soils in all parts of the tract will be permeable. A
sanitation engineer should be consulted for his specific recommenda-
tions. Access to the buildable sites will be from the county road to
a bridge recently under construction over Snowmass Creek and then up
to the terrace. The solitary site on the talus slope would have to be
approached by a road traversing the talus slope from the east.
It is my opinion that this tract has several very good sites for
homes. The visual impact of most of these sites will be minor and the
geologic environment--contains no serious constraints. If there are
further questions please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
J
Nicholas Lampiris
Consulting Geologist
NL :<abs
Enclosure
rte.► awr. 1 ��h 1f _ ,_ \ -- ^� -'
wpm
cl;-
-
1 F500
X7,,9 - - ' > -- - - -- - -- -- - -'_ -- _ --
k 71&3
Ell
lo
'274
VICINITY MAP
b JOj4`-4
pUo S�
0 9�
rM
FOREST SERVI[E
COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY
COLAOO
STATE
FOREST
SERVICE
Mr. Richard Grice
Aspen /Pitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena St.
Aspen, Colo. 81611
Re: Biers Lot Split
Dear Mr. Grice,
Petroleum Building
1129 Colorado Avenue, Rooms 217 & 218
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501
Telephone 303 / 242 -7518
Wildfire Hazards do exist on this site, especially above the upper small flat
bench homesite. The steep hillside above the upper homesite has gamble oak and
other shrub vegetation, a hazard compounded by its south west exposure.
If the upper proposed homesite is actually to be utilized, it would be a good idea
to require a firebreak to be built across the slope above the homesite. Such a
firebreak should be three or four times as wide as the surrounding brush is high.
Thank -you for the opportunity to review this proposal.
Sincerely,
h
J hn W. Denison
District Forester
C
PUBLIC NOTICE
M
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that there will be a public hearing before the
Board of County Cc ?miss-icners of Pitkin County. Colorado, on Monday, April
9, 1979 at 2.00 P.M. i n the Casmi ss ioners ` Meeting Room, Pitkin County Court -
hadse, 506 East Main Street, Aspen, to consider a subdivision application
submitted by Irving Biers for the Biers Subdivision. Further 'information may
be obtained at the Planning Office, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, 925 -2020,
ext. 78S.
/s/ Josgh E.__Edw rds, J_r._ __
Joseph E. Edwards, Jr., Chai nnan
Board of County Commissioners
of Pitkin County, Colorado
Published in the /'-aspen Times on March 1, 1979.
tj Ljo"J46
CID 0
Bmms far Sri-jr
M,jjv 2.24 -71
MAJ &1 -1-71 rl 13
M e 1,,o -1/ -71, q 2
Dmuled 508 . 1011)9160
sN��A� 4w0e, leoeee cA
3fb�8�
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: Biers Subdivision Detailed Submission
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the
Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, October 14, 1980,
at 2:00 P.M. in the Commissioners' Meeting Room, Pitkin County Courthouse.,
506 E. Main, Aspen, to consider the Detailed Submission for a subdivision
application submitted by Irving Biers. The subject property is 40.3 acres
located in the Snowmass Creek Valley near the confluence of Snowmass and
Capitol Creeks. For further information, contact the Planning Office, 3rd
floor, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, 925 -2020, ext. 223.
S/ Michael Kinsley
Chairman, Board of County Commissioners
Published in the Aspen Times on September 11, 1980
Pitkin County Field Order # 55614 .
I
PLANNING OFFICE SALES
00100 — 63061 09009 — 00000 County Land Use Sales
63062 GMP Sales
63063 Almanac Sales
Copy Fees
Other
/5
Name: f { e
Project:
Address:
Phone:
Check No. Date:
Receipt No. P Q l q:� r 1�� _ P-
_ ac��5- �aa- 03-Oo� ooh
GLi6 ; .
ASPEN /PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
LAND USE APPLICATION FEES
County
00100 —
63711
09009 — 00000 Subdivision /PUD
63712
Special Review
63713
P &Z Review Only
63714
Detailed Review
63715
Final Plat
63716
Special Approval
63717
Specially Assigned
City
00100 —
63721
09009 — 00000 Conceptual Application
63722
Preliminary Application
63723
Final Application
63724
Exemption
63725
Rezoning
63726
Conditional Use
PLANNING OFFICE SALES
00100 — 63061 09009 — 00000 County Land Use Sales
63062 GMP Sales
63063 Almanac Sales
Copy Fees
Other
/5
Name: f { e
Project:
Address:
Phone:
Check No. Date:
Receipt No. P Q l q:� r 1�� _ P-
_ ac��5- �aa- 03-Oo� ooh
GLi6 ; .
"A"
1,7 •"
I ja MA
ft 'jo 0 E 9 W U, $A
I I �
oo,
lqq I Ill UA
o
I'd
1111114P, olp,lol
10!117
oll,"i o" I olook"ll
o 111t,
I ..l
o
o ool f,
jolooll
1
ool I
I I
. . . . ... I IA
M, I
To
"A"
1,7 •"
I ja MA
ft 'jo 0 E 9 W U, $A
I I �