The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutbocc.min.reg.07251989 � .. ...-......- V ... ...' . . . - 0..5. . ~` � . .i`7'� �� ..' � } , �� i��'2 � � �• ,f1�t�E, � NW.` �asv' ., !:,+vr.��:.,°cA`�`�� ?�rie.�,:�,ii.f_t . �..s.':. . ,_. . _ t �`,'•. Frj'II�1 W�JPY QI�KI'SSIQ�S 1gC33IDA �AY 30LY 25. 1989 % d.,,;` 9:00 At+! SPHCiAL M�TIN�_ �1°n�ts� Boanl Rocan ING BOOC ACPIIJG AS HOAl2D OF��`ION �.:; :: 12:30 PM �� ..'�: ' �: r : � �� 7� . .. ,� It�IAli I�-Q�ACC�II�A t Distxi,c.�t Ouut,i.vaa �; >_.:�� 5:30 PM POffiIC aCE+MENr ., �`a:�� '',., . �� 1989 Supple.mental &.�dget Res°lution, Lynn l�m1oP 1. SecorKl Readi�J. 1ntrnPhts, Brad �ristopher ':<=� 2. Aizport Noise Camnittee AI�O� ;<�'`I 3. RETA ApProPriation Resolution, BYUCe Abel :`::°-�1 4. Airport Rsveixie Honds �ln��t',�A�nlop :a'� 5. State Health "'�' - IAt��E I2ESOIITIZQ�S �`r� 6, ASYWL Coxporation Special Reviea, BUddY Ilx�'� ;�'�; ��'j I�—�--I� Francis Krizmanich 7. Gayla GYe�7orY-�t°ne Yopoorn Wa4on. ,;� . � p06LiC f�t� 8. p� � $Ubd'lVi.sion/PUDr C�Y HOUbe.n 9. Gitlitz 50& Density Reduction Iot Split, HuddY Iu�'° 10. Lird/R�7. Inw 3�+�� Subciivision, �Y �O � � A[370[JRN 4� ±.�i pjg�S�11ryPE- Ai�.POSLiC F�R��NdPLCID�i 5:30 PM. AC7ilAi.x�WIIS;VARY. �: - -•�` �.� '3 � �.�.' - ��.' �� . r `�. �''� � . , a _ — : .� ;:: ... __ _�� ,v�„ ,._ ,_ , . .. .. �•:,; _. _ _ ;:�`�7 {YC:. : . .- � - �'`�t.::�3`�-;y.T . ,y:�r;,,.�',.. '�;t. - " ':�':< . � � :� ;; , _ .,•i;. ;s.'i. -:`;a y�"�:, ' . � u}�.Q'�1�-. '��=:'y�_.F�� ' � „l�e,w'i..�[�`S.: .qr��r��' '=:�� . '�S':s�,:,>x ^ �.,�.� .��,�=�; � v� :;t ' — '�;�:- �� . __... , .. ......___ _ _. . ._. .._ ` � � , ,. , . � - . t.t]t}'�Y��.,-J 7.;��-��Si'1,X _.��q 3.. „7��'r/ . - � . C �: qr � ..� �. ' Y '�'��7�� . �~ �� (�� 4� �i �;��g i � + f }�y � ,,.: q �.�:.,��'4I�'t'K�I ,t,,,�.�f'k.y »7'H�s i�H r`1 7f' . t•�ti"�^�.. c".k y.'.�-��xc��,v!�'�:xr i .�.' ,�Y,`��S F�'�»� _. , �.��af(;��a�t' ��'K :,�"M� APPROVED AT AU6 Z 9 1989 MixtrrES MEETIN6 PITKtN COLJNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ::r'- REGQLAR MEETING �;a;:;;:' JULY 25, 1989 �,� _ f ..,• � MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Colette Penne, Commissioners Herschel ? • Ross, Jim True, Fred Crowley and Wayne Ethridge � �.': CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. [��._', `` �i PUBLIC COMMENT: A representative from the Colorado Environmental � Coalition presented a petition from the Colorado Environmental � '� r• t. � Coalition throuqh the Wilderness Workshop requesting Commissioner's support of the Wilderness Bill that is presently j being reviewed by Congress, t � j � Bob Gish, Eormer ChieE Building Official, introduced Jerry Lymon � � who has been promoted to that position. i ; Ha»s Gramiger appeared beEore the Commission to request that � J staff be instructed to work with himself and other property ' 1 owners to implement a 20 foot vehicular traffic area and a 15 ; foot pedestrian/bicycle path on South 7th Street extended to the 1 � Marolt Bridqe. � •� Commissioner True stated, that he knows that Mr. Gramiger has put � a lot of work into this matter, and he feels it is somethinq that . i.r should be explored. However, the County Attorney has indicated � � that it is more than Commissioners can take action on at this - , time. He feels that the County Manager can be directed to look `� into the matter. � i. Commissioner Ethridge stated, that he does not want to sand bag r the City. In otherwords, if this is an alternative where they � ; are proposing to come on the backside he wants to make sure what tf;` the City's position is. ; �� Commissioner True reiterated, that Commissioners do want to i coordinate with the City and any efforts that they may have, and \� � that is something that staff will look at. � ; It was the consensus of inembers that staff be directed to look �:., � into the matter. ��'� `` :_�,.., _,:. ( ` `.L,? CONSENT AGENDA: i--`tki". ::�:`:r,y,,V. I ,r�',:T T`:: � BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1 JULY 25, 1984 ��;� ri: � a � . �. .. ''� .... _: .. ... , . - t�Y, '-: : , ,._ �=��:c:�+__:? �;.<�<'<- - - � _ . � . ;�� , ' �;,=�:: n -�;`: .Kti,;,{,,_.;Y,_ . . .:r'f:y;:.qF',�7� . ��'} �`�`�1�;��14'" . . ;±y5w�,�'�n��T w . +s',° \ �' :; �'�� . . _ , ��'` , , .�'. .:. . .rA�.K�� :��$�Y ii4�', � .}s r'� �.;;f k, i •1+�' -��, ytt �� 1,�q � ',�.t�; � s� �� 9��'�{��7} 't��,�z�b w-:. .`�- ua i' i�n � :;7s.`'�.��4C e�i'�',t �.�t�.S�..�t a<..,F�sF �:�5:.;�r ...?A+,".r'�.�'.�'� k� . �it�'`.�'�'�'+n�.-...»�'?�. SECOND READTNG 1989 SUPPLIIKENTAL BIIDGET RESOLIITION RESOLUTION TO CRFATE AND APPOINT TfiE PITRIN CODNTY AIRPORT • °NOISE ADVISORY COMMITTEE • RFFA APPROPRTATION RESOLUTION �`� fR FIRST READING — RESOLLTTION PROVIDING FOR A PUBLIC SALE OF AIRPORT 7..* •,. REVENIIE BONDS IN THE AGGREGATS PRINCZPAL AtIOUNT NOT TO EXCEED �_. '. �� 190 000- REPEALING ACTION HERE�'OFORE TAKEN IN CONFLICT HFR�TH- AND RATIFYING ACTION PREVIOiTSLY TAREN IN CONNECTION - '� Tf�REWITH - STATS HEALTH DEPARTMEN'P CONTRACT AFPROVAL • � b: � MINUTES OF JIILY 11 1989 AND JULY 18, 1989 j � ':i Commissioner Ross moved approval of the Consent Agenda. ':j:; - Commissioner True seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. �r" ' t � :� � Commissioner Ethridge moved to amend the Resolution Appointing the °Noise Advisory Committee" to have the Committee's work � ; completed and report back to the Board by December 3I, 1989. Commissioner Crowley seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. -`3 Chairman Penne called for a vote on the Consent Agenda, and the ,;;i motion passed unanimously. •;,� � RESOLU'PION GRANTING SPfiCIAL REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY -� HOIISE WITH FIF'TEEN BEDROOMS TO ASPCOL CORPORATION - PASSED WITH THREE YEA AND TWO NAY VOTES - This item was heard by the Board at �`;t a public hearing held on June 27 and July 11, 1989 at which time =! evidence and testimony was presented with respect to this ,,; appZication. ;� � Commissioner Ross moved approval of the Resolution. Chairman � � Crowley seconded, an..3--'.3ie motion passed with three yea votes and two nay votes by Chairman Penne and Co�issioner Ethridge. �{ RESOLUTION GRAN'PIN6 SPECIAL REVIEW APPROVAL FOR AN ADDITIONAL � � EMPLOXEE DWELLING IINIT TO ASPCOL CORPORATION - MOTION TO APPROVE ` . � AS AMENDED- PASSED WITH T[�2EE YEA AND TWO NAY VOTES - This item ' ! was heard by the Board at a pub2ic hearing held on Juhe 27 and � � July 11, 1989, at which time evidence and testimony was presented h� with respect to this application. �� _ , Fred Peirce, representing the applicant asked that the last P :' ; �, paragraph in Condition No. 2 be deleted because the deed � • restrictions will be taken care of as a note on the plat. }} Cammissioner Ross moved approval of the Resolution with the � � amendment of striking the last sentence of Condition No. 1. � +� :.;�,;. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2 JULY 25, 1989 * �� ::�c, [ *. h r � , �F _._..� .�".l s+ . .� .._ , '„�a�,� � . . .. . , _ .. : .,. . ,. . , . ' ' . - . � "t• '�iF'Y i� ` ' ~�Z � � i � , . ��.y , , . .. ... . .. . . . . ._.,... � . .. � ... A� . �a�, .. _ - r..tr,�� "`i +}M�'MC�.'.'��u �Y't��"�� `{':,i � �qy y��7},q�,' ,}��tk, �i f'� . ?(�]r� 4'�`b'�. '�..�,�` t 1j,��(7�y y� �`1�r q ' t S 5§ t7 �{ - ," r r � , � . ..� i�, �'�r{�'�a� ��;�2� s^,�1�..r� �^l.'��,'P:�,e t`#�� . . �5��.'�. :�'� ~.:v��,:.�.�ii:i��u.��iy i :-'..."'"`�x.��4..�s...� - ..'.��r�3;�Y�Y �'r..�.' Commissioner Crowley seconded, and the motion passed with three yea and two nay votes by Chairman Penne and Commissioner Ethridqe. � GAYLA GR�GORY - REDSTONE 1'OPCORN WAGON - MOTZON TO RL�IOKE SPECIAL - IISE PERPIIT - PAS5ED IINANIMOIISLY - Francis Krizmanich, t-;, , representing the Zoning Department, summarized this item by �`<, - stating, that at its regular meeting on June 27, 1989, the Board �; i,, found that the popcorn wagon owned by Gayla Gregory was not in s� compliance with the conditions of the Special Review PErmit , granted by Resolution 88-89. The Board gave the applicant until - July 25, 1989 to bring the wagon into compliance at which time, if changes are not made to the Board's satisfaction, they will .t direct it to be removed from the site. He stated, that he went �• :;� by the site today and the same popcarn wagon is still there as �- i` was there a month ago. %'. r; ' ,°--{ Gayla Gregory stated, that they were not able to get the original s, ,. wagon back. It was never their intention to deceive either the }? ;:;�� people in the town or the Board by bringing up a different wagon. -• "'a They went to a great deal of time and expense to make the `�-.:� dimensions and the color scheme they same as they were. I£ they ::-_'+� continue to do business in Redstone, it will be with the original wagon. They are in negotiations for the water and sewer hookup, and therefore, she requested an extension o£ time to September - - ''� 15, 19$9. ' It was the consensus of Commission members that they could not :;� approve the request. = Chairman Penne stated, that the new wagon is significantly different from the one which was approved. The new one Zooks � like a sheepherder's wagon when in fact the old one looked like -._:�:� an old railroad car. Tom Smith, County Attorney, stated, that the activity can continue only in conformanae with the conditions of the special `'��``•' review approval. What the resolution says is that once a year '`,.-�; they have to come in, submit a written report attesting a <��,� continued conformance of the operations with the conditions of the special review approval. If it is not in conformance, then ..__�;� the Planning Director can recommend that a hearing be held to consider revocation of the special review approval in accordance �.:� to procedures de�ended by the code. However, the Board has the � option to either suspend, revoke or consider changes to the conditions of the permit. He further stated, that under no �::, � � circumstances could it ever be continued again excep� with ( ;. conformance of the approval. � �, A discussion ensued with regard to this matter. �?:w:;;; j ' ;�• :�'i Commissioner Ross moved that the Special Use Permit be revoked #'��• ;:'� ��= BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3 JULY 25, 1989 F .�, .� �. � �.:� ::,> . �':3 <,�� , - -- _ - a;:;:'`j:; • _ ":;�i'�; �:Y�ti �"sl'� � .�5_:?�.. �•'{!�e• , �:�f.. "�.��r. ._ � �� n . ,�`�~ �>jr � � :• . . :,.. ��. ^r}� M� :l � <}�"��ti� s'��-��' s:,; ` ryE ��r PJ f� - ' �'}{.t��5iya YJ� ��f+'�t f�1h1�'i,�L �y � : tf . - �''I f � n��j' �=� �' l,��Y .. '. Y �v/�k�� 1" �yf�i.v4�'9"�'$' � K.=`S`�a £1� �� - .. � �. �,.:�_��Pj'�'t�: ��(�t�"(�j�,JY�`Tjj�S cu�[,*,'y(�.�,�� y c4 �' Tw.. t � � �L��A �iW.Y'AJ�✓A.�GI. .ik'�ie�!HU4.i.�;.l..V`f4+i'SYii� ":^1��.�`.�l.'tcsr : .L�� .a�Ji�, .� Y��%4,i`:.'��: for the Redstone Popcorn Wagon foZ� noncompliance. Commissioner Ethridge seconded the motion_ A discussion ensued with regard to whether the applicant would have to apply for a new permit if they bring the original wagon back. It was agreed that they would have to do this. Chairman Penne called for the vote, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLi1TION GRAN'PING 6ENERAL SUffi�iISSION AND 1041 AAZARD REVIEW ; APPROVAL OF THE LIND/ROPPEL IAW IMPACT SIIBDIVISION - MOTION TO APPROt1E - PASSED IINANIMOIISLY - Buddy Lucero, representing the Planning Office, summarized this item by stating, that the applicants, Barry J. Lind and Allan Koppel are requesting F; ;:.`;:, approval for a Low Impact Subdivision and 1041 Environmental I� Hazard Review. The purpose of the Low Impact Subdivision is to t .':,-; subdivide a parcel of land into two free-market lots requiring `'� the deed restriction of seventy-five acres. �� The property is located in the Snowmass Creek Valley adjacent to -':a Watson Divide and approximately three miles from Highway 92. Access to the property is off of Snowmass Creek Road. The `:::;� property is approximately 113 acres and zoned RS-30 PUD. The _ �"3 property contains a pre-existing constructed house. The Planning p and Zoning Commission and staff encourage the applicant to zone `-i the existing residence to a PMFi lot/unit instead of demolishing � r,� the residence. ',..-,g Staff recommends approval of the application with conditions. ' .'� Gideon Kaufman, representing the applicant, stated, that they ,'.. � would be willing to dedicate the existing structure as an ..;a;.+� employee unit. . :;i'�j He further stated, that the only other issue he has is with regard to the five foot fishing easement. He does not feel that ��'-;i� one extra house creates an impact that in any way justifies a --° fisherman's easement all that way of the property. However, they ��! would be willing to give a fisherman's easement about a third of . � -� the property. �"; A discussion ensued with regard to this matter. ' {.. i 1 �1 It was agreed that a fisherman's easement will be dedicated on ( � the east side of the property only. Et - ' B A discussion ensued with regard to the road easement. � � It was agreed that the applicant would grant the County a l0 foot �� ' 1 width right-of-way along the portion of Snowmass Creek Road as it � +� � passes by their property. �`� - `� BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 4 JIILY .25, 1989 �'��.: a .�. • 1:� : ,:.N l� si� � . .� ' . � ' . ` . . • . .. . . . � . . . . � ..- .'SV �:F:'� , ' ` �,�;: .i:�t'YF;':"q.''i t�� . .�� -..i�r. ,:,'�-. C��"'� ., ' �l.4 i�w ::��.: _ ` S . �� : _. . _ . , :, . ..._ � �F� . � i . . � ��a ;�a.�, r ;� ��p� !''S�-� p � �� i�.� � {� � �`tiN}�R� '�i't� �,�y�'"f� ��'L�S�Ar��'��++41 ,} _ - `�:R,'�d`� ��i��]��¢�'iF �f{�`��}''{y � 3q{�G�T�`��:�. � �� 1 '^`.�� r-ti�i:`� d I;�'k��d :.:, . � f.1 AP7�Sy��x�2CJ��d 14CSn.�13�. �� Y�:.s�'tf�' ."" _ _ .. ,.....,.1^� ��. .r.+M�r 1�'+n•- Commissioner Crowley moved approval of the Low Impact Subdivision Application with the changes noted. Commissioner Ross seconded, - and the motion passed unanimously. ASPEN BUTTERMILK ASSOCIATES SUBDIVISIONfPIID - MOTION TO APPROVE AS AMENDED - PASSED WITH FOI7R yEA AND ONE NAY VOTE BY CROWLEY- Cindy Houben, representing the Planning office, summarized this item by stating, that the applicant, is requesting approval for General Detailed Submission and Final Plat for Subdivision and " 1041 Hazard Review and Scenic Foreground Review for a portion of ' the parcel. This proposal is a result of a lawsuit settlement agreement between the applicants (ASpen-POSt Company, Kona-Post � Corporation and Aspen Buttermilk Associates) and Pitkin County. � The agreement allows the applicants to compress the land use � `''�`-� process into two steps of review exempt from GMP. � :.:: ' ;;+I..j She presented Commission members with a proposed site plan of the �` �,.� project. She stated, that the applicant proposes eight free market units -"�.:� and eight employee caretaker units on 105 acres located in the �_-� AF-1 Zone District. A portion of the property sits within the =::_� AF-SKI boundary. It has been determined that this area shall be reviewed pursuant to the AF-1 zone district regulations. The 105 }f� acres consists of three parcels (A,B & C) which shall be reviewed as one for the purposes of this Subdivision/PUD review pursuant to the settlement agreement. The lots range from six acres to 28 ;; acres thereby requiring a PUD variance from the lo acre minimum .� lot size requirement in the AF-1 Zone District. The average lot size is 13 acres. She further stated, that the Planning and Zoning Commission ;::;�±� reviewed this request at their meeting on July 25, 1989. The P&2 . .�� recommended approval to the Board subject to conditions. A copy of these conditions are made a part of this record as Exhibit ��A" ;�� She said that the main issues which the Planning Office would • �� like to have addressed are: 1) Staff feels that since this ;?�;: application is being considered as one PUD they feel that Lot 1 `:'; on Parcel C was inappropriate and that it should be pulled onto .�; the larger parcel and not have any development on Parcel C. r _� With regard to access, access for Lots 2-8 is proposed via the � West Buttermilk Road. Lot 1 access is by way of the Tiehack Road � .: and an existing dirt road. t ' i:. i fz;;.:: With regard to water, a central water system consistinq of two t � wells and storage facilities is proposed to service Lots 2-8. _ �.� ;} � Lot 1 will contain a well and an individual storage facility. �-:.:';;;>" 1 ' x i With regard to sewer, individual septic systems are proposed for 1 ��j. .;: `'; BOAI2D OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 5 JULY 25, 1989 . �i-; r.� .�y ;:,c.:� ;-i �3�'. -. .._ _ =.ea , - , . � . . . . - �jy .;:�...�;��- _ � � ( �y!� .x± "��;' , � . �;S" .�.+j::-__'_ � v . _ ; , . . ... . . . .. .,._ _. ��„ _ . - '�: .' " � ^i!+ V4�o. ,r � �� .; � -:-�' `YF� K..�;.�� '� 'R�� V i��;y'(,��[ /(I�,t}{ 5 ] �':R �.' [[ ly't�� i. 1 � . �Y.x�;0, rtf.M�Pti+Yi i��"r�+Cf.�'74'+��..Y Lr.n�� /�}.�[4��` A` �y�'Y � 1 w�j,�TS � �V!Q. } V� ��ht��ll��, w� ti1°�S.Q�1�� .� 1�� .� �•...f..�. ��ilt�. all lots within the PUDs. All other utilities are proposed to be placed underground within the roadway easements. With regard to 1041 issues, the application covers geologic and - wildPire areas of state and local interest, The geologic �;��;:=- concerns deal primarily with steep slopes of which the applicants '": `" have successfully avoided with the exception of the roadway to �� , : _ Lots 6, 7 and 8. " ' r None of the homesites are located within the wildfire hazard area with the possible exception of Lot l. Individual sprinkler systems are proposed for each house and two fire hydrants are proposed within the development. � With regard to scettic foreground, Lot 1 is located within the 1 Scenic Foreground Overlay as defined and regulated by Section 3- 2.13 of the Land Use Code. However, the chosen building envelope �:;�•: - ".j is outside of the scenic foreground and will be visible from i Highway 82. 1 Sonny Vann, representing the applicant, stated that, with respect ; to prices, the review steps have been consolidated but since they did not know whether the project would be approved with the terms `;.;� and conditions, they could not prepare a final plat document nor ,..� could they prepare a subdivision improvements agreement. ;:a:_} Therefore, what will happen at this time assuming that the Board l agrees will be an. approval subject to conditions one of which ,,1 will be to return to another Board meeting with a final plat 4 docuinent and a subdivision improvements agreement, and also demonstration of ineeting whatever conditions are attached ':�i thereto. ;;:;� A discussion ensued with regard to adequate water �or the future _� development, and whether existing houses in West Buttermilk would - ,� be impacted because of new wells. ,.,� With regard to the condition that was attached to the test wells : �� was that the Environmental Health Department has to approve and ��; review the onsite water distribution system, and prior to preparation of final plans and submission of them they would have to include the results of test wells in order to enable the County to review that system for its adequaoy. He said that he � has consultants present who will address that issue later in the meeting. �:;: , . . � � Tom Stevens, p�anner for the applicant, proceeded to review with � Commission members a proposed site plan of the development. He ;,'.:� � stated, that they did go through a slope analysis on the project which has been included in their application. � �': BOARD OF COUNPY COMMTSSIONERS 6 JULY 25, 1989 ��f"� � =%�': �r �.� ,��. -3 , ''<�''`�`'. . ��y�- yr :,�: � . ;i: _�t.:, _ '�S`�,'.�'� . � _�.�:., . . .. -f.�",�' � . �'.}It'^' .��{'.:::�• � ";�.i�.. . . �1'•�`�'• � + • . �,� . . , . .__ s�- , ,.. . ._ . . . -' K� �� _ . .. . � ..i-t+y��h4.7.r i�"R St��,�. �,�"Jj�,' �'�� .al,`{r ' � � . .. r �y}�i i: r�..-� .. �... .��5 k'�x �i 1 ��'$�'� \a..,A}�r.�°l. �y � 1 r'� f�aL�'�� a'.:7.}�.��.�L�.�i��i. . �'�:'��Stk!�� y��+��.5�',.c�.L?� t?�� . .C�,+¢" J h r ..vc,� .wt ... -i , �;'' With reqard to the access issue on the Tiehack Road which a�.aes into Parcel C or Lot 1, the easement for that is not affected. They have agreed to use the existinq alignment of the jeep road • into the parcel. At some point at which Design Workshop firms up the plans for the ranch project if that materia2izes, they will ;._ then review those plans with them to determine if they can incorporate access to that lot in conjunction with their plans. ��: If they can they will do it if not they have the existing road. ;� �` He then proceeded to review the bui2ding envelopes shown on the ti site development plan with Commission members. - With regards to Lot 1 on Parcel C, the parcel is approximately 28 :" . acres. He said that the majority oP the site is unbuildable because the slopes are in excess of 3og and unstable soils � i conditions, The prime site on the parcel is where they h�ve i, �..'�� located Lot 1 which sits on approximately a 5$ s2ope, the area � has stable soils and access goes right past the building envelope. Therefore, they would not have to cut any new roads. He proceeded to review with Commission members the proposed `+�:� access to other areas oE the development. '# -� With regard to choosing the proposed building envelopes, they 5__� feel that have placed them in the appropriate places, and they � -.� can not be moved too much. Also, after walking the site several .;,,t times in the winter and the summer to identify building envelopes. From that they came up with seven building envelopes •�''1 on Parcel A and one building envelope on Parcel C. There are two ur�ti l or three buildable areas on Parcel C but due to access and view � � problems coupled with the fact that they would have to take out l`f so much vegetation to build the house, he was not comfortable with them as building envelopes. The envelope they have set, in �;�. .j his opinion, serves well as a building site because they would � ! not encounter the problems as they wouid with the other buildable -�:,� sites. . '=`{ A discussion ensued with regard to the visual impact of the house :.�:��,� on Parcel C. ;^,� Stevens stated, that the house will be able to be seen on Parcel ,,,.:� C primarily at night with the lights on. The building pad which # is there as he mentioned is five percent. Therefore, there would ; not have to be much excavation to get a house in which means that the existing vegetation can remain. They have designated a E ,,�� 10,000 square foot building envelope. From that 10,000 square feet out there is approximately another 40 to 50 feet of 5 � ,� percent grade so from �ahere the house is the grade does not drop , directly off, and would still stand several aspen and spruce } � trees in front of the house for screen. Therefore, the daytime � t impact would be minimal. As mentioned at night the lights would 1 be seen. However, in his opinion, the overal2 impact would be ` ;� that it would be minimal and would be considerably less than the � t�'o '` E;.;��: 3 BOARD OF COUNTY C�MMISSIONERS 7 3'(JLY 25, 1989 ��.. , ='�.i: .� ..:�i f �-.. -�:� r�`,a _ . ..- --:�E�r � . . � .. . . _ . -� ~^ . . � _ t.:i _- . . . . Y. . . , - _ =:F�� - ty:-- �, • =:,';�.;::,`� - ";:Fi::�. . L.�`�_ � _ r . , �� . ..... ,.._ . .. . . . . :. �,s� � �. � �-.� � � iu 4 �,';y- f {�v� �i5t ��tb Ci� �- i f � � t �U,{4f�4 � -. �.;; �- �kritt y ��(;�" �.��rl .l,s� �j �F I�'d ��y St,i f :: . .� �ti``�Ft.':�4Y��.7J.Jh.��J�.LS'L�J}.e�Ji��t��ty�'�i�yl, �]...� ��M'�..�.�k ~' ��f.�"e�, .��'� �'�L}I�+i�t�#, , �Ne:. homes on the West Buttermilk area which Face out on Highway 82. Vann commented, that they have addressed the scenic foreground • criteria in their application, and re-emphasized Steven's statements with regard to why this building envelope was selected. He offered that there was no reason to preclude its �� location if it can be done in such a manner as to minimize its �''�' : impact. They have offered as part of their application to ;;';. provide restrictions on the lot which require further review on ``..' - behalf of the Planning Office at the time of permit as being a reasonable requ3rement since they don't have a specific _ I architectural plan for that site at this time. He feels this would provide an adequate safeguard in this case. _ � Tom Smith, County Attorney, stated that he is satis£ied with the t� legal access on West Buttermilk Road, and he is satisfied with �' - .�,,' the access on the Tiehack with the exception of one portion of � the access known as the jeep road where there appears be some K' '� contention for future expiration of the easement. His recommendation would be to impose a condition regarding the resolution of that remaining issue, and that it be resolved by '1 final plat. =i With regard to the nordic trail, they will continue to work with .;,� Craig Ward to determine an appropriate alignment. - �`�� A discussian ensued with regard to development on Parcel C. , ;� ..:..i `,� Commission members expressed concern with regard to the visual impact, impacts on tha water system, etc. ,,,I ' ';�: i Vann commented that, as part of the setf.lement agreement, they are asking for eight building sites, and he feels that seven ,;;;'� units clustered on Parcel A represents the carrying capacity of that site. Also, he feels that they can demonstrate compliance ..`;� with the scenic foreground criteria. He continued with his presentation by stating, that with regard ;;-1� to the trail easement, the Nordic Council has been allowed to use - the property and they are proposing to memorialize that in the form of a formal easement. With regard to employee housing, the settlement agreement calls for a cash in lieu. However, their preference would be to J provide some lots to recoup some of their investment and he feels � I that would appropriately address the concern in the community at � this time. They had some iots in mind but those lots are no longer available. They are exploring some additional lots which � � will be reviewed by the Housing Authority and forwarded to the `° , � Board for consideration and final approval. This matter will � ' have to be satisfied prior to the issuance of a building permit. ``r ' � .s.`t �r :_:'� . �:..;.. {�' F <'li.•:. ,�;t BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 8 JULY 25, 1989 � �� : ._?,'i__ ,�'�. _�:� . yc�? .:. , ,,. � ' "_"_ -5k.�. . ' � ' -... . �'.-".,r'�.�,�-�_. �-j�C♦-'.^:,.. . . . c , �:„.',C�4:�:.�'.h�. . ^:/:. , ss,�V4�`> . . . ''!1'-._ t . _',_`E`}`.yj_ � � ♦ . . . . .... .... , � �"� ' � R� . , . . }k 4�'�r y�k..,�,v��iz1��":� e C}�� ( t�F i�s��.i � � > µ��s.�t�qr��kA�-..'�'Y�� A � Y,l'F��.�il� !r C .. �..�.. jfy�� ;�+ � Y��,. �� F, . l�v+.r{,r a. 1 '��+iV�"� ,L �,.� J`) � e!� �s.�g r.. y�w �t � r�� ' � � ;i� �'��,�9` ��:�.�',��fa�a�.�,S�'��f�.,�,.,'Z`,'��r'x� �� x�:��-.�.. .a��i�� .Y�,.,: t��..�•`ii. Vann continued by stating, that the remaining issues dea7. with water and the West Buttermilk Road. Kevin Patrick, water attorney for the applicants, proceeded to review with Commission members their proposal for water service �.�..: for the development. He stated, that when they went before the Planning and Zoning Commission they discussed at great length whether or not the extension of municipal service to this area was a logical _ extension of utilities. The cost of a municipal extension was approximately 5 to 6 times greater than an on site system. Additionally, they discussed the fact, that to bring a water line up from Highway 82 would be environmentally and aesthetic 'I� disruptive. The Planning and Zoning Commission did not feel that ", the extension of uti2ities could be justified by only hooking �- eight homes onto the line which would be over $100,000 per home. �y . i`. He further stated, that there has been a concern over whether �;:' injury would occur to other homeowners, whether or not there was "` recharge of the ground water aquifer, that the wells would be -°:.} depleting at a rate greater than the pumping rate. Rather than :i:,� take the word of one engineer over another engineer, they pulled and analyzed all available information from the state engineer's office, the Division of Water Resources and well drillers in the •`;`::;, area, and they believe they have taken that speculative argument ;-;_?� out of it. Also, they have retained Dean Gordon, from Gordon, `';;;a Schmuesser and Meyer as their hydrologist and engineer, and Tim Deckert who is one of the most respected geologist in the State - of Colorado for their reports in helping them make this "�' determination. `'"'� He proceeded to go through the mechanics of the plan for � .;_,1.'�.� augmentation from a legal prospective. Tie said that the type of augmentation plan which they will utilize will be one of two plans. One, they will utilize Reudi Reservoir as the �;�� augmentation vessel because there are times when you can exchange water upstream when the base flow exceeds the minimum stream flow -- injury would not be caused to another water right holder. Then �''�" those period of time the Reudi releases upstream. This has been - recognized by the water court in numerous instances, and was approved by the Board £or the water supply for the Roaring Fork - Train Station. Also, it is the water supply that the Starwood and the White Horse Springs District is seeking to secure at this ; ` `� time. As an alternate source, by retaining a qeologist, they � have been able to determine which formations they would be � encountering, and as a conditional of approval, they would be t ; :' willing to stipulate that they would utilize bedrock formations. �'��'"=:- ' ! One of the bedrock formations is Dakota sandstone which has been recognized in several instances as being nontributary which means � "�" ' it does pumping from the Dakota Sandstone at a rate egual to one �;,_•r�d;' i percent of the volume of water per year. This pZan will not � ;� � n q t � BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 9 JULY 25, 1989 r 's;` i C :�_Y ,� �,�� . . � . . - .. � ', � . . ` . . . . , _. . . �ii:r'=: �::1:;: _ ` . :�`),i- � . ��ti:'r'�l:�:�'i s;,' . ,-j/�,� +;:�j�,;:L. = � _ s �'� .. �, _ ..... . . . . . . .. _ _. , : �,�f �.�,,.(y_ i 7 .. ,s- � y -� � a'� Nj ff�� Xf ��,�',S. d "�'�A � ��{�,' 1iy� � . '.7.2Y��'� 't7p;� t�� - . �� „ �' � '� �� .�,t.Nds�+��}:�7!'.tf�.:.�.Y..•�•- .�� t ct.;. '�• �^` � �„��`.r.� i n'�.+,�� ri . " �`'�i�'�, affect a surface drain in 100 years. The monitoring of the test well will te1Z them to what extent waters which they produce are nontributary or not. Dean Gordon, Engineer for the applicant, proceeded to review with . Commission members the hydraulics of the proposed on site water systems. He stated, that from a physical standpoint, they � propose a ground water well system which would receive the � necessary treatment and be distributed to distribution systems and a water storage vessel. They have proposed a 20,000 gaZlon �=;�� storage tank which would give them the option of putting it under ground. a ' Tim Decker, geo2ogist for the applicant, reviewed with Commission members his findings as to where he has determined the _� neighboring wells are. a Ae stated, that if they were to drill individnal wells on ,�`', � individual lots there might be a possibility of the northern mos� :, � :.� wells interfering with the neighbors. However, since they are �'��' � going to drill on the south end different formations will i alleviate the possibility of that. �1 Chairman Penne asked Mr. pecker if, in his opinion, the eighth house on Parcel C would add to the water problem. �:� " Mr. Decker responded by stating, that he does not see it as a ``�'` real problem from his standpoint. The well from the Dakota �� should supply more than peak demands of the unit. ^� A discttssion ensued with regard to the possibility of the .N,, applicants hooking onto the municipal system_ .;:; Mr. Patrick stated, that he wholeheartedly supports in every '�`j instance. However, there are situations such as this one, where �;� the proximity to existing mains, the environmental effects of . „-,..� extending those mains, and the cost do not justify municipal extensions. ,�,,� Sonny vann continued by stating, that with regard to legal access into the development they have addressed it, as the county i attarney as pointed out in his opinion, they have legal access, -�:� and it will be resolved in the context of final plat approval. j He further stated, that with regard to the upgrading up of road, � irhich would be to take the existing capacity of the raad and '� upgrading it to another level because they will be slightly above � � what the carrying capacity standard is for the road in question. However, the question becomes is it really worth while to go back :1>;:.:;<; . f in and cut the hillsides, fill the downslopes and put a shoulder `' �'- • in some locations to meet the carrying capacity number when the � � : � road, in its present stated is probably safer than it would be if YN , ' BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 10 JULY 25, 1989 �R�: -�:, ��':°..�c 1 w '.-� Pi.i :i� �� _ . .. : . . . . �. . ..f�. ,. . . , �. ' . ... . . �� . `:ii,. . .s':' ' � :,_43.::_`.yi,.�:�r . ;l�n:r�� i:..�F:��':- +tii� 'AF�� . _ � s � , �. ��;r: . .. . . . , ... .._ �s4M�� ,.'�' .'�i�x, 'jt��rj� ;} Y . y '.. � ,y{�rir��',y�t'��'Cxx,�`"��i'�F,4,�.��'R�v"�'�SF}u��'j1�Yll��;'"r � , .y� . �.,YX��i�, '�h�..L��rg'2�'rl�'✓�`J�µ.,�,�.-.-Y;;�?!i. ,�� rE�_. i.�:"�1' �...... 7A'J-.�t'S�r.�.f"��.'��.f'L'^.i..�i`,'�.�� upgraded. He said that Dean Gordon, their road eng3neer, has put . forth some arguments as why he feels this is inappropriate. Mr. Gordon proceeded to review with Commission members his reasons for his argument against doing �his. A copy of his ;',;" report is made a part of this record as Exhibit ^B". 1 '. _ Lenny Oates, representing the West Buttermilk Homeowners, stated ��?'.:; _ that they do not have a concern and the a ree with the a licant ��` in this regard. Y 3 PP �...: � Vann continued by stating that another issue regarding the road is whether or not they should be required to join in any future � improvement district and pay their fair share for future upgrades t,` ` to the road, maintenance improvements they control, etc. They �:: , >> feel this is an agreeable request and the applicant is agreeable :� to join snch a district in the event one is formed. Another ;�:�. ,� issue is there is a potential for damage on the road during their � '` construction, and they have agreed that if they do damage it they � will fix it and the subdivision improvements agreement would ;s include language as to how that would be done. Another issue is � the West Buttermilk Homeowners' Association has raised the question as to whether the applicant should be required to pay some amount of money to compensate or ref2ect their investment to `� date. Their attorney, Lenny oates, would like to recoup their ; - ,;j entire investment to date as a fee for benefit derived from their -'�+ road, and that is a point they object to. ! f Chairman Penne opened the hearing to public comment. � a '� Lenny Oates, representing Randy Woods and certain other property 4;� owners in the West Buttermilk area. However, he does not purport ; to represent all the homeowners. He stated that they are ::j willing to accept the development in the area. However, they do f have two concezns regarding the water and the roads. He - �� proceeded to review with Commission members thase concerns. A copy of his presentation is made a part of this record as Exhibit :-.i "C". He requested the Caunty's assistance in formulating what ;� would be fair compensation to the homeowners for the monies they - have vested in the existing road improvements up there. � 7 Tom Smith, County Attorney, stated, that he does not think the � burden should be placed on staff to develop a statement and some iguiding principles for the Board about how Mr, oates wants to � � allocate this responsibility. v: :..:. ! -:>.. � A discussion ensued with regard to ttcis matter. f It was the consensus of Commission members that fhis matter needs ' to be resolved by the two parties involved. �, ..c,:':. � Commissioner Ross moved agprovaZ as conditioned with additional ;�'r: �,::�'°_��.:�. �;��;,. t BOARD OF' COUNTY COMMTSSIONERS 11 JULY 25 I9$9 ..i � ��A�s.; .�".� Y��: � :+i . J&s� . � . . v . a � � � . . . . 1 .;�:J��r-�•'- , . �,7,:.. ��:.�:_�.� . '�� . " `),T.}a ' � � � . . . ...._.,-_.._ , . ._.; . . _.._... __ r � y�, ,� ��j v:.'''.1`"" :. .: . .- . . . t .�i{• y�rj��2'�� t �.�j,�5,`��e1„�i,, i y �_('f�t Y`�^� .... ,�;:. L ` k.:i 4+a . � �, + ...��.1�4�.'�., .. . ..A .��J��iG��1�� i� M. ..�r i_.��y, _��./SiY7d � 'a . YLd�� A�'V��.d'fa1.�. � R.4T. conditions as discussed. Commissioner Ethridge seconded, and the motion passed four yea and one nay vote by Commissioner Crowley. RESOLUTION GRANTING GENERAL SIIBIiISSION 50$ DENSITY REDIICTION IAT z • 1 SPLIT AND 1041 GEOIAGIC ENVIRONMENTAL AND WILDFIRE fIAZARD RE\TIEW � ,� APPROVAL TO Tf1E GITLITZ APPLICATION - MOTION TO APPROVE - Buddy ;;.:. Lucero summarized this item by stating, that the applicant, David ` A. Gitlitz, is requesting General Submission approval. The � - approval is for a 50� Density Reduction Lot Split. "•€ �, : , The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this request at their June 6, 1989 meeting and recommended General Submission approval ::' - for the lot split and 1041 hazard with the conditions outlined in 4'' staff's memo. F' = ;� Commissioner Crowley moved approval of the resolution. � , ;i Commissioner Ethridge seconded, and the motion passed "� "+�:: unanimously. - f '�`�i7: ADJOIIRNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. ��'�;� Re ectfully s itted, aa� . '"'='ti;i anette Jo s, Recording Secretary ;R"T`� oard of County Commissioners .,,r.: ._�4 '�';; :.�;,_ :,i ,��'s-�. �:1 :��`.' `� 7 il 4: _i � .�'I �(i�,>..1 ��'i .�:��'�. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 12 NLY 25, 1989 � " �;. �ve j�� y`f�.._. . . - -, . � . . � . �." . . � . . . . . . .. . . . . •�S� Z�r� . . . • . :..$��.�: . � _ � . '�'.: ��t.. �� . . . � . "k.l . � `:�; '�. ! �...1...:.. � . .z� • �1�S�W�--� . � . . _y r+• ..r�``Y: _ ' ;i'd.,��',n'�.�r�':.i` . . �.��:.;j�:�,':. .+tY��'`�.i�',. ;��E'��4. � r . ' . . . r�w.�` r :� � ., xr• �:��M ��k. . _. . • . .,. r . . _._ _, . _..... .. . .. ,; , . � , - ' a,,,,]] k�.� f� �' �,t`�" ;�i' ��<; ., i 2 ��,�f,��°i't� r�'�"" � � r� �rt j .., / •.,�` � � ��,� 1��E.l�� `� ) . �� '�'r y�'_,lt `t f� �r75riM"�'� t�x75'�ai i Y t � sAt � . � r' fy y r � t � �'� I � a �� ,� r.� �'�w�a <„�� , r � '��?�' r 3�, F .._ � "_' G''h' 2"i_. . �a�'131��'4"��`'�.e'��c:-'ai..�.-.�,..��r.�:1'�� Y �� . S�.t?�S'.r ` ~ 1. The appli.,ant shall de{�21op and service the property with on site water systems. 2. The property shall be developed and serviced by on site -' . sewer systems. 3. The appli.cant shall provide a more detailed analysis of• • the cost to extend water and sewer to the proposal. 4. If wells are to be used on site, the applicar:ts shall �,. . dzill test wells prior to approval of the final '';:�" development plans for a treatment and storage facility. F, _ I£ methane is encountered, the well method of water �� supply may be unacceptable_ ; `� , 5. The applicants shall provide proof of access to Parcels A and C prior to Board approval.. ` �' " 6. The applicants shall provide additional information `` .'.;•� regarding the height of the highcst structure located �` ;,;J� on the parcel, proposed lighting within the subdivision and whether or not any radio transnission equipment � will be placed on the site. !" �'t .. .:�•�",1.'Y .. '-"" 7. The proposal for fire protection facilities (size and � -� design) and methods shall be approved by the fire district prior to final approval_ 8. T he applican t s ha l l provi de t he necessary proo f o f , � access to the parcels and provide the Couttty Engineer '�, � -,� with a plan to upgrade the road to an acceptable County �T" -G� road standard. - ' 9. The applicant shall be required to pay their fair share -��'-� for the existing and future road maintenance and improvements as determined by the applicant and ' homeowners association. I£ the applicant and , homeowners association can not come to an agreement the `,�:N�� o Board shall determine the fair share amount. lo. The final alignment of the Nordic Trail easement shaZl ' be determined prior to final approval. The alignment shall be made in conjunction with the Nordic Council J��", and shall include an alignment through all of the � property (Parcels A, B and C) if necessary. 11. The employee housing commitment shall be that 3 F_� moderately priced lots will be deeded to the Housing :� Authority. ¢�� '�� 12. one caretaker unit may be attached to each house pursuant to Section 8-3.13 and shall be deeded pursuant s to the Housing Anthority Guidelines. ''`�= � �,',,,,'. :S fiOi,P,U UF�'U.B�wiFll'FI'� +� � � lo `riTKifJ COlis�TY e� -:;� _:` � . f;��-;.�.. ,?, p�;ulic Haaring Ex � � _ ',� �. qata:.__7—�T—�9_---- �,' �ubi;;ct .4�1X1,/� 6 . _ .z� r�•;, t��. ' N, i�- :� .��, t�,; 4`s.y�ilx : . . . . . ... � ( ..� � � .. ......� . _.... _ ., . ..��'..' .. `: . . . . � .. '., . .... . . • .. . . �2 � .i� ` . ,S`��N�,F � 2`.i?. __ t. ':5::�`x"-�: " � :'�5:�. . . . . ..�."�.`,''i.('�-'-- � � � • �,K:�_ . . . � '�;:'`•::�+ � . '�y'r..,- . . :?:,r.'s'c?:_'--f;s��;y� . . w._;��, _.�''F.y,, �:� 5,��... . . �.``�s�� ^ .. . . it::` . � � - � �..;�;, �i. _ .. . �.._ .�._ ,, ,� . . � � �� ,y��{� � � � d� �+.,��__ i;�y��!��r �. *' z�. "8�>l .ti�D- .. . +.�,."#Jt�'d�'?��1�� . �• �F �� tf re .. . . .:..t�F7k.��2Y�'a�lh, •,�� ikr ��'+.. w��,�: t;,.., � �� 1�*�' ,}•waY�; ',h.w'.G_r.,l� � ,_{,?i � . ... . . . ' i`IityF�1�:.` . .. • +�c�� ' 8 13. Restrictive covenants for the development shall include . wildfire mitigation pursuant to the Colorado Forestry Wildfire quidelines. 14. The applicant shall develop restrictive covenants for " �,, the amount of water use for watering lawns and overall '��" _ domestic use. !'��"'', ,z, �4;';::.:. 15. The applicant shall consider developing restrictive ��1 ; covenants for the protection of wildlife. The t ,: j restrictive covenants shaZl consider such conditions :_� as: �'� 'r' � a. All dogs be kenneled or leashed. � f b. All fencing be 42: or less in height, 4 strand or ��.� less. � c. Maintain Native vegetation outside building ,.� envelope. _ - l F l �`' ;,� pzmemo.aspen_buttermilk . �,'; 7'� ¢ �:,� ,,� !;. ::?� ,.. t i."' '�l � ,:L�. A. ;�'l: :] .., . � � �. f ' �! F t. l . ;{ ,-� � � S � �� 4-: I . - �,.�ry{; �;'� .� '.�. 11 �,�;` � �: .k� ��.E , t'"r� ,.: M _ _ ��,..._._...,_ -. =='�- ;:;�: :r- �.1. ____..__�. _ _._::: ._.. .._ . w'..�.A�-.'�.�1,!C. . .. . ... -- �-� ... � . ��t � � - .� . - . . ._. .. . .. �}Sh�.y�'t��` . . . . . . ... . r� . . . . . � � . . � . . . 1:� i��;y,t . . . � . . . - � . . . . � .•�-0_�.ys�M� � . ��,��7 �.' � � ' .. . � `,,8 -,}^r�x;:_' , � � ,fi�u, �,� ,;}�+1.:: - \ . w ,,. . . ��r+ • '"�S'�.'e: _ _ V;."��` �� : � , �"�,�._ • v�;.�-t• * .�r �-�� _ .. � ,.. , �� ,. , . � t� . ,y�,is„��.:t�� "�}• r�5"J.��4��,��r 'L"`r ��'�{Ir .. ��a�.., �,�,q+�,''� �y�'�,y�,�Y ,�''�� .� " -t�r x di � � � � �r� �:.�+u��.. .�15.5'r.Yi�i.��z�rY'�{�._'':Yi�i.! 'ir'?��.�.�...�'a�"� � ..�.:�:r....�:�.�,�v,-"�,.r.sL.. �� '� �`t7�ti: 1_%�•`�.}.'w:b_N�'"^`-•,:e,, . —'----�- '2 Grand Avenue,Suite 212 �� SCHM1fUESEA GOi !MEYER(I7C..' i, � �.anwood Springs,Colo�ado 81601 I ��~t� (303)945-1004 S� - \ �11 � r L CONSULT/NG ENGlNEFRS d SUAVEYORS �� December 15, 1986 ' SOARD OF G0. CONM'R'S PITY,IN COUNTY '�"- rtr. Andrew J. Drampoli �.,,PuGlic Hearin�E>:hibits , ,t:; � Unicorn Balloon Company Date` �;��Zy'�� f..._, 413 East Cooper Avenue q-�� - (�-- 4, , Aspen, Colorado 81611 SubjecL��P��I 1`� ��' ��n RE: West Buttermilk Roadc,ray System Exh.Wo. - '� '• Dear Andrew: `� i:� ,.� At your request, I have perforn�ed an in-field engineering analysis of F� the structural condition of the madway systen which serves the West Butteunilk area. Zhis letter will serve as a siamnary report of that '''j analysis and will include reccmmendations and estimated oosts to bring z�.•. ,,y� the roadway system up to acceptable standards. I have a rather sub- stantial artaunt of technical calculations and field backup materiai.s which I have not included for the sake of brevity. 7Y�ese, obviously, ,� are available at your request if needed. r � Faasrxxc aorrorrraas ''� A survey of the roadway systen was conducted by myself in the field. I "v� walked each roadway in order that T might observe the amount of and �:� type of surface cracking which vras taking place, the amount o£ settlr ment which is occurring randanly thmughout the xoadway system and to 'p -`� measure and observe the width, depth and surface condition of the as- phal.t and gravel surfacing materials. It was my suggestion that it cras premature to retain the services of a s�ils exploration firm at this '`�'` point in time; in lieu of that type of investigation, I excavated with .� a pick and shovel at approxurtately two dozen locations, very shallow inspection holes for the purp�se of observing the depth of gravel ;�� materials and the type of suhgrade materials. No actual physical testing of their engineering properties was done for this report. ��:"r_i . - `.:-� West Buttermilk Road �,-,•� . �� West Buttennilk R�ad is the main roadway in the area, beginning at the • _,:i stop sign which separates the public parking area from the Ski Corp. maintenance area, then extending aphill to the padlocked gate at the ^j edge of the ski area. +i ,� The initial approximate 300 Eeet of roadway runs through the Ski Corp. � maintenanee area. �e roadway does not have any width definitzon T � through this area. �he madvray itself is severely cracked indicating ; that asphalt strength is substandard, but thak there apparently is ade- ��'.��:' quate base course strength. Zhe additional loading frcm the Ski, Corp. �;i''+�=::; I maintenance equignent area is apparently u�acting the condition of the ;�i:�:�'�:`'. �.M.. roadway. �X'-`�`�,, .1 �� :-,; I ' �'� `�� .----- ------------- ----- - :;i -��; . ... . _ __. ._. .. _. __ t. _ _ _ :�,;`� - . - ,.4:.��:t" . . _ � . i;'}..i � . . `:e..` . . . . . :M1'`.`'�,��'- L ':�y.� " Szy+i " ' ��';�,.`.� -�a','�V"i r J: . ��}�l r . ',�'' � ;ft ^'.a;'�� . . :�:tii:;;.":, . _ , �� ; - / � � - � . . . . .. . .. ., . ... .. . y� V-....r.�,{� �"�7��fly{�x'sY�lf�y�'� �� y�,�r��its i.r.'�• • � w i : �� -r'�t,k� l{j , -.�� a ,i i�i�x�'� �. '�� ' �:�Ffrtii(j,��R �( '� `�� A�� .q1�y,1�rP"i�rN��,/;�(k,�� b°3��,,�5 t � �5i{��`� �_a�,� T.q� x ! i�f A ,k�.. ':��i`.�5�'/��n..�� C3r��t��:�"",ai''�. ;5',�,'. ��,�`.��.i��v�._.!�C��..��.��: .�?��"� , Dece�nber 15, t986 Mr. Andrew J. Drao�poli Unicorn Balloon.Company Page ts,o . ,#,. �::;: .. EYom the Ski Corp. maintenance area up to Minor Iaoad B, the roadway � •:=: . condition is relatively oonsistent. 'Itie average asphalt deptl� measured � is 1-]/2" and gravel depths exceeded 6" in all locations. Average - roacicray wi.dth is 18' on straight seetions and 20' on clsves. Several of the msidents of the area indfcated to me that they thought the t, roadaray �ras approximately ten y�ears old. �e madway is in very good condition for its age. 7.ypical of such a roaelway, there is a moc7erate oxidation of the surface of the pavement resulting in aggregate expos- � ' � ure and raixlun cracking. 4here are isolated areas where it is evident that there has been either �vanent failure or base failure, but these �� aze isolated and not ir,dicative of the bulk of the pavanent areas. �'. - � One problan area is the initial hillside cut ooming f=an the valley ��. ;� floor up to the first switchback. �is area ti�equired cut/fill earth- � c�vrk to oonstruct the roadway. �ere was aoncern expressed that this - part of the madway was sliding downhill and was in danger of mass ;� failure. In addition to walking the roadway. I walked the entire sidr �� hill below the roadway anl�was unable to observe any field evidence of ' serious slope instability. It is my feeling that any settlement or :? cronsolidation which has taken place since the oonstruction of the mad- ,�` way, toak place early on in the life of the mad ar�d c�uld be typical ='� for a cut/fill situation that perhaps was mt oxtstructed �.mder a rigid quality aontrol gerogr�n. I also did not observe any current residual • � creep in the roadbed but I do not think it would be unusual for there _-=.� to be some additional �mvement currently and in the future. Aowever, I ''� would not anticipate any massive or catastrophic failure of the road- way. 2he area of gaven�ent dzstress due to mnsolidation is relatively ..� consistent with where one might anticipate the cut/fi11 boundary might : - � be, that is, tl�e line of distress follows the existing rtatural contours . ,� on the face of the alope. .y. '`? A repeat of the pavement dfstress due to cut/fill operations is seen "� between Mirior Fnad A and Minor Road B. 7he same oonclusions can be ;'`;� reached as stated in the preceding p3ragraph. � Just below Minar Rnad B, a msjor mad repair was required in the spring � of 1986. Zn reviewing the situation with Elan Construction, the azea � had to be su�excavated because of very unstable, saturated suhqrade. � The oonstruction tec3inique vsed was apparnntly svccessful sinc�e there � is ro evidence of any further distress of this area. I did rote, how-- s. ever, that there was additional subgrade failure below the repaired � area that rx�uld be indicative oE xlditional saturated subgrade. �ere � is no apparent source for this instability. I could not fi� any � � evidenoe of spri�gs in the area, and the drainage appears to be equal k-: ''- I to the drainage on other portions of the roadway. It may be that this �; • ! area was damaged at the same time the repaired area was, but that the r`= �"" � degree of damage c�ras rot significant enough tio either be of o�ncern or �' �%;i � to be noticeable last s�ring. The additional trafPic ard use since �i; �. � ;; ,,� l __;� ii;�.. _- -- ` .`{:' �I � �.�'-\^' w . ' 1.. � � ��' . � - ., .. . . ... _. ��'- ��.,��` i�a"�r��t�,g -',�y n 2 {� �: ' t3, a..� ��3 -�."r",'� � .hit+r �l;::'� 1xl.�-.rr��g.- X .. �.�� T t�!'�r�Si'�.r� �;,f,�,iia 4�k.��`�r:"`'"�!�+}, ",� ��;+'{ � ' �'-Y.W��'.�'��.Mt��T�!"�.tK'r`;it t:�t�:'�^.�,.r�a�''-.. ,wi��s.i�nS.�1 ht�..� ; ��s a„a:��,f::"iEl�-l.l�..,�''•j� � . ar..:?'�..�., . D7;C;:.:.` Dece�nber 15, 1986 Mr. Andrew J. Drampoli Qnicorn Balloon Cac�any Page three that time may have aggrevated the situation. In any event, s similar repair to that previously done should be anticipated in order to re- _ stabilize this particular area. ��;;.,:.- M1X 'lhe area above �fic�or Road H to the end of the pav�ent shows �ch more �" ; distress than the other pav�nent areas. My field examinati.on indicated that there was approximately 1-t/Z inches of asphalt, but that the gravel placement in this area was generally less than 4 inches and, in - •� , sane cases, as litkle as 0" to 2 " Zhe failures �oted are i.ndicative of an insufficient st�xjrade strength that has nat been oompensated £or with adequate roadbase and asphait surfacing. , • �: ;;�� Rhe portion of the zoadway fran the end of the pavement to the ski area boundary i.s a graveled/dirt n�adcray. I conld observe oo areas which � s showed significant distress of the existing madway; hcw,ever, Z also � " noCed that there was generally only sufficient gravel placed to oover f'` � the subgrade materia2s. Zhe qua.lity and quantity of gravel p2aced in- ` � dicates that fu7.1 depth placement of graveZ v�ould be required to ensure the longevity o£ an asphalt surface. � " Minor Aoadways :�3 Minor RQadway A was observed to have a 1-i/2° asphaZ� mat over a mini- - mum of 4" of gravel. Average tinadway width is 72 feet. 7he roadway is �; in relatively good oondition except for the lower 600 feet of madway. :y Z was unable to observe any change in characteristics in the asphalt, � gravel or drainage characteristics of the lower portion of the roadway, ;� but the madway has deteriorat� to a point where it is totally imsalv- ageable. P,gain, it appears that there is a subsurface drainage probleia which is mt evident by casuat obsecvation. Zhere is also one location °;� where a culvert pipe needs to be installed across the roadway, �ihere .� is rn apparent right- of-way or easement for this madway shaan on the � pZat �ps of the area in my possession. It was also mted that the `�-j road impxvvements stopped at the far side of the Wilcvx p3rce1. I£ the � roadway must be extended further, then the msts of Minor Itoad B must ';;� be increased accordingly. . ., -., t�inor Roadway B was obseroed to have 1-1/2" of asphalt and a minim�na of " ` 4" of grave2 surfacing. The madway is in qenerally adqeuate condition ° except for the lower 40Q feet, which will need total reconstruction. i � TY�is la�rer poztion of the roadway �,�ras mt observed tr� very signi.ficant- , „ ly in tezms of asphalt or gravel depths, or in drainage cfraractexistics _,,:: � but has deteriorated to the point where total reconstruction is needed, As with �tiaor Faoad A, thezE appears to 6e subsurface defects which are '` a not readily obsenred itart the surEace which are causing roadway fail- io-..-;<�:,.;;' � ure. Pgain, there is nor right�f-way or esenent for this teadway on �..:,.,;;::.', . R117 111dj]p1CKJ• - 4 . � �- ,� k" '"�` Minor Roadway C is a graveled roadway. As with the main madway, there �'� �r � is not safficient gravel materials to allow placement of an asphalt �.�%. � �: .;,� �: `.,1 � __,._.... __.._ . _ .. .._. _.... . __ _ _. s,.: : _ — ..7_ . 4 � . . .. . ._ !J J�- :FjV- ` , 1 4� - "�R:. k:Y,`},i,y . � . . . . 4 - � � �:�� , . �� ._. . _ ,_ . . . _ . � .. -e,>�� - �. . .. . .. .;}r� �.:� r.�4�Z� � ��L . . ..�{��i+ "J cl�t 4' ,�XK �}��}'��n{�h Z .�f_. 5, � ..,'1�{�� ,., X +� .� �iw �i',C� � . e y J ry S � ��,�': �� `.�yt,� ;� �..;<.. ... � �p7�.�1�� '.�.� .,F�.s� j,,3�^�',F;� yj�' r ✓'..i o.'y' �n � � '"W �`��.ls��s.�:...� .�c�AEJ'.-Ak9F��2��fi:�i��.'2"".�.`i ?fL t�� .�d! '`.:h"�.'�r..... �• sni�.,�„�-t•+".n�g.�.'°i�'.�1.,:.{"�`�x��.'�, December 15, 1986 Mr, Andrew J. Drampoli � Unicorn Halloon Co�.+any Page four , _ ,: roadwa directl on the existi :`�' y y ng surface. �here are rights-of-way sho�z for this madway on the plat map; however, the madway is cl.early '= not built wi.thin the designated right-of-way cnrridors. A bulk of the '�' " roadway goes across the property which is desiqnated as Lot 13. In '' order be impmved, the mr-xivray c�ould require a full depth graveZ base - course prior tn asphait paving. . DFSIC�T EIEPHODOIAGY " '� , There are a number of eaiperical design proc_�edures that are accepted �'. _�?'"? across the muntry t�o analyze e�cisting or proposed roadway systems. � } Sa� of the key design ass�ptions that are made with respect to these , methods which are appropriate to this particular situation are as ��`,�;:;� follows: "`y 1) The stability oE roadway systens is almost entirely a function of ;;,-;� the amount of heavy truck traffic. Depending on the asscunptions ''-� macle, a truck is structurally equivalent to anywhere from 20fl to t 1,000 autcembiles and pickups. �ierefore, the �munt oE snall - - �`Sy. vahicuiar traffic can t�e igrrored and the systan analyzed soley for 7j} heavy truck traPfic. �...A.f _�;^:� 2) �AZl methods re�carcnend a miniminn structural section for roadways, ;, � those minimians in turn dependent upon minim� assianptions for the ::;� volimie oE heavy truck traffic. In our case, those minimum truck � trafEic loadings wauld be in e�ccess of what actually is occarring _;;� • -,.-except for.traffic.associated with specific residentiaL.-oonstruction �`:i projects. . - Y-`.j 3) Design pt��dures are laased on selecting an average daily loading � .`,.�+;:�� over a typica2 20-year life of the madway. Ebr low traffic wlemme roadNays such as ours, this guitie o£ten does not adequately address *'�'.`�''-' the situation which occurs during the c.vnstruction of significant �;;^� residentiat structures. 17uring that time, the Io�ing is very large with respect t;� the average. ' 2"he design methods also assittne adequate drainage of the roadways and if �"`=� adequate drainage does mt exist, they have a tendency t�o grossly urr � derestimate•the perfottnance of the resultant design facility. Wet sub- _. grade and base �urse materials cause t[ie structural stability of the t. t'�` : �( roadway to virtua2ly disa�aear resulting in atcrost inmediate failure ?�..: upon the applicakion of heavy Ioads. 4his is probably what occurred at ;�`- ,�'�r the intersection with Minor I�ad H this p3st spring; when the s,�6grade `�-• became saturated, it took only a handful oE heavy loads to cause ootn- �" Y� p7.ete failure of the roadway. Dterefore, it is extremeZy i�ortant �`� :.�,� that adequate drainage be provided at all times for aZl portions of the `=�t zoadway. " �� <'� � .,,,� Y.�� . ... . _ . V ._ . . . . .. . . . . _ . ._... . iT...?� ._ . . . . . . - . . � . . . � -.. . . ` �-i��.:. - � . . L:'i...vLt:.�H.�_ �t":tfA'�:�.ir; t:�'; " %'"_c{�,, L::�;�� na Y,;`S+. w _,_ - r d� _... - - :� :;: ._. ._ , . . . .,.. . __ �� . - r � .. . )��rv .. 1 � ` ./i �n �,=�' /� °Ly�' ,�x' . 11 ...� �' �� ;/'r .. . .:i�`� ' �'�� '� ' ��•'i�`�'�j :'"3� :. � �.� ��:� � �� _�,�� '�. :1 M��f� �:�. ... °1M,�..��' .,.�'��°��7�.�a'Z�,,...�..�'�� t � "k.'i�: �'_�� . ... .�� . x��' +X� s r1�� k1 t. yl, -r:.�. k �,..��:i�{:'.�_i .kt� .T�.?x$�:r..' S.'�.�� a��_.i'''��Y �-.+....+� Decemt�er i5, 1986 Mr. Andrew J. Drampoli ' Unioorn Halloon Company Page four . v • ' roadway directZy on the e�cisting surface, 2here are rights-of--way shoHm for this madway on the plat map; t�owever, the roadway is clearly not built within the designated right-of-way ciorridors. A bulk of the 'h roadway goes across the progerty which is designated as Int 13. Tn �` order be impLroved, the madway xould require a fu21 depkh gravel base - course prior to asphalt paving. D�SIQ3 MEPHl7DOT1JGY � ;;4� �- There are a n�anber of �rical design procedures that are accepted , '. � across the muntry tr� analyze existing or proposed roadway systans. � Some of the key design asscmrptions that are �de with respect t�o these C. ` : methods which are appropriate to this particular situation are as '��"'' follows: ;tfi � - 1) The stability oE zvadway systems is almost entirely a function of ;..=;;.a the an+ount of heavy truck traffic. Depending on the assiunptions -"'�' made, a truck is structurally ec�uivalent to anywhere fran 200 to - 1,OOQ automobiles and pickups. Zherefore, t�e amount of snal.i ` ` ,� vehicular traffic can t�e ignored aru3 the syst�n analyzed soley for heavy truck traffic. _>";;;_� 2) �All �thods reconanend a minim�nn structural section for zoaddrrays, .,� tkzose minunums in turn depe�ent upon minim�nn ass�snptions for"the vol�mie of heavy truck traffic. In our case, those minimuR truck ' tzaffic loadings would be in excess of what actually is occurring �-j , .-- �except for, traffic•associated with specific residentiaL.mnstruction i�:t projects. ;� • 3) Design proeedures are based oa selecting an average daily loading ��.� ovez a typical 20-year life of the madway. Ebr low tra£fic volume , 'j roadways such as ours, this quiCe often does not adequately address ;?=�ka��` the situation which occurs during the cx�nstruction of significant residential structures. During that time, the loading is very large ±"�_,� with respect to the average. ,�; The design �thods also ass�mie adequate drainage of the roadways and i£ ::-� adequate draina9e does not exist, they have a tendency tr� grossly un- �- derestimate•the perforniance of the zesultant design facility. k�t sub-- ;., grade and base wurse materials cause the structural stabili�y of the '- ' r•�, r� raadway to virtually disappear resulting in altrost iirnrediate failure ,M1,:: upon the application of heavy loads. �his is probably what occurred at . �:�.' the intersection with Minor R�ad B this �st spring; when the subgrade ,�� `� became saturated, it book onZy a harrlful oP heavy Ioads to cause mm- �ix{r` ::� plete failure of the roadway. �erefore, it i.s extremely i�+ortant ��.� �� that a�equate drainage be provided at all times £or all portions o£ the ;� roadway. � „';t;� �:�� _�;�y � . ... . .. ._.. . _ .. .._. _ _ _ _ . ._.. _ _ _�:�� ~ ` ` _. lF. i'x, � . . . . .. � . ' .. � � � t ;.:; t . :r'S�.i�L`+y.•x ��ti. :::'�::'4' -`. � , t��;�� . . -Y � {� y�Y . ...... . .. .. . ..... ..... � .. ...+ . . . . . . . .�. .. � .,�T �, ;,�� (. -a i��V 4'�"` � 1`y'. �L ,j�s{ t:... �,� } ��rd vr•�a�fK�w'��'a��cPi=:�&}N11�.�Sy�4+c��E'�.�3. ..... .. �o:._ ..,a�;;+;��"��:... w � ..Lv • "__.' . „ �}'.a .. F.,�:'. �... .. ii.c December 15, 1986 Mr. Andrew J. Dra�poli IInicorn Ba2l.00n Company • Page five . Tne best gauge of how a mad systan is functioning is to physically oh- '- serve the roadway, much as I have done �in the last few weeks. Zhe t;�' � previous section of the report siaisnarizes my cbservations; generatly, I r feel that the roadway syste�rt has perfozmed above average. As will be shown in m�re detail below, the asphalt and gravei. depths are below normally rec+amierxled minimians. Despite this, and despite the fact that .__ the madways c.ere subjected to signiEicant oonstruction loadings, the roadcrays have ren�ai.ned reasonably in tact. � �` f Coa�qaaring the n�miber oE F►�rr�es currently mnstructed with the Assessor's � � Plat, it appears that there is a potential for anywhere betv�en five ""_� and ten additional units within the area served by the roadway systgn. �. �his agpears t�o represent about 25$ of the total potential bciilding f lots of the entire area. 7his a].so suggests that about 75$ of the � ;`;;��:., potential construction �mpacts have already occurred on the roadway '�;: syst�n. - � OQSSTi2[]CIION I2DOQ�;TIQ1S ;;;3�j F�� Zhere are a laYye number of aombinations of base murse gravel depths _ ';?',,;,;ii and asphalt surfacing alternatives that are availabSe for wnsidera- tion. What I will attatept to do in this section i,s to select what Z ap °';�^,;, feel are the m�st mst effective anci viable alternatives for your ' £urther oonsideration. It has been my experience on pmjects of a sim- `=::�•::�� ilar nature, that homeoFmers groups £irtid that the "ideal" enc3ineering, �`'�.-Y'� solution is usually out of their ixxtgetary reach. 7Y�ey, therefore, are forced to select an alternative which proves to be most mst effective °'�'� based on not only the structural characteristics of the alternative, ,,;:�� ' but the ability to pay for such improvsnents. ., R��edial Action .>�?:-;:-� While the bu2k of tlte roadway system can be dealt wi.th as'a single up- ;,y�:'y: grade probl�n, it will he necessary tn provide remedial action trs those ��. areas which are substandan�. Zhese areas would include portions oE the roadway which have settled, those portions whicti need to be reconstrur `..-� ted and those portions which reyuire gravel base �urse and asphalt surfacing before application of a surface oourse. A list of remedial `_ � cortstruction required and associated msts are as follows: ' `.� 1) Drainage improvanents - To mnsist oE one cutvert pipe plus rework- 4 : ing the drainage dit�es throughout the project. $ 3,000 f� ; •R 'h.,x . 2} Level Course - To eonsist of asphalt repair to the area located ,,:� ;� within the Ski Gorp. maintenance area. $ 4,600 �" .j ;;: $ ,_ ; :.� '� 4= ,� • 'T.� 4`(�� . . . . . ..�..-. . _.r....... .. .. _ ..�.. _.. - ... , _. , . . � �{ . .� i. , . . . . . . . . ----�'— >:'� 5 . . .. � . ' , � � . .. . � .. . ' 'f '>f�. . - , � ,. .''',s�i -, � _;�N'�i .. . . . � . ':�:m�.'y .. ::'1,':y:.:� ^'�,.`�"--kr'::a,a':,'"�� . '."�'_v;:�i i:ir'.`, .. . `,�;V..:" ..�,�.�:,i.,r�.,: :�K'-.p;.1,�. . ;,{'�"+::� � . . .�`4,;��: �► . °�^;;..::;: � ' . . r �r�". ' - -- . . . ._ _ _ ' . ,. , . � y X c . _ � , � � r� ��'�S c �y�` s,��,� f�s+f.'y � K`-� '� �1 ; p,'�� '�.f� ' ..r "��5.`C��Y��',ht'�..l,x`'SL�r��'��Rae�4��.S. Y i.`wi� '��i�`� � ��' tu'�r�`i�4:� . �t_�.i ' Decemher 15, 1986 t�. Andrew J. DracopoZi Unicorn HalZoon Company Page six 3) Leve2 Course - 'lb mnsist of re�ir of the settled portions oF West Buttettni.lk Road due to previoas cut/fill operations. Also, to t;' - include repair of the Pailed area belav Minor I�ad B. $11,700 ``�s Y�� 4} Reconstnrction - To oonsist oE repairing the asphalt portion oE West ;��-._ Buttermilk i3�ad fran Minor Road B tn the end of the pava�ent. kbrk ' to i.nclude scarifying existing asphalt paving, the addition of 4" oE '"' �� gravel and 1-1/2" o£ asphalt surfacing. $12,600 .`,__� 5) Base Construction - 7b �nsist of addir�g 6" of gravel base wurse ard i-1/2" of asphalt to West Buttermilk I�ad £rom the end of the existing pavenent tA the ski area 6oundary. $41,80� , !��`�1 6) Reconstruction - 4b oonsist of the reconstruction of the lower por- � tion o� Minor Road A. S+brk to include scarifying existing aspttalt t�: ;°N„ pavgnent and the addition of 4" of qravel base �urse and 1-1/2" of 4� . �;:j asphalt surfacing. $10,800 _�.;� 7) Reconstruction - To mnsist of the recronstruction of the lo�,er por- tion of Minor la�ad B. Hbrk includes the scarifying of existing ��,;� asphalt surfacing and the addition of 4" of grave2 base oo�se and y � 1-1/2" of asphaZt surfacirg. $ 5,6d0 ;:� 8) Base Construction - To oonsist of the addition of gravel base �urse -. (� to Minor Road C. $18,800 7.bta1 Remedial Costs $t08,900 - ,=;( --Surfacing Alternatives ! With the remedial s«ork outlined above, the entire roadway system will have a structural equivalency that can be dealt with as a si.ngle tvad- " -M� ay syst�. After briefly analyzing a n�nnber o£ alternaGive mmbina- ,,�:;�:�' tions, I feel there are only tc�n alternatives which merit final consid- � � eration. 4he first alternative avuld be the placenent oE a chip and seal surface '' treat�nent oa the roadway systgn. 4he c�hip/seal consists of the appli- ' cation of a road oi,l cnat on the existing surface and the placement of �:='� ' washed aggregate as a bir�der. This system is �m,�ch less-cnstly than �:;� asphalt surfacing applications. Tn addition to its vost, its effective - ` ;�' lffe will be a minimum oE five years to a maicimiun oE ten years, during which further evaluation of the tnadway system can he made. Rfie chip/ ;�?`,, ;y seal may grove to add sufficient additional structural strength tt� the - � roadvray systen that more expensive asphalt surfacing may not be re- ,;�_ quired. The disadvantages of the chip arxl seal pro9r�n are that the � finished product is mt as visually pleasing as an asphaJ.t tseatment; �, : �a,; a�, because of the low voliane of traffic in the area, it hnuld tend �; . ,�� not to lose its chip/seal appearance wer the life of the application. • k; �; '� �. ,_•�., :_.:.-.--.. -��.;-.., __. _.. _ __ .__ . : ��. , �_�..Y-- �..r t �L�� _' ... �.. . - . � . . . . � ��{"�'�� . . - . �. . - . `. � � . � � . � .... . � . � .. � :"1�.: , � . :^�- "4 �ti 5.; : �=�..�f�i.� r -ir:k:.��vi4?' ' :__z:,.:S . .'in"'R;= i • �; ;:z+y'i.�3t•' ' ' . .z,l+:;;',;,> . "` �� .. .. ... '�` . � .. ', f . . �,_ � � � rc �� ,:�.�v'�1}x�r��{.'[7�:��%if��L�I�.L l:�r�. . «..'",�D:._i��#.'S:( 4r. ' �..•_ t��1'J.r.� . . !�J f�le- r� . ' ��':��... pecelnber 15, 1986 F�. Andrew J. Dracopoli Unicorn Balloon Co�any , Page seven The loose rodc and rougher ride of the systen may not prove to be de- s��':' _ siteable t�o the residents. An additional chip/seal application should ''''� � �...._ be budgeted for at ten-year intervals. ��.�' ` �.,_ The second alternative would be the application of a 2" asphalt werlay ,'-: to the madway syst�n. The capital mst for an overlay �.ould be m�re - :. �_ than the chip/seal alternative, but the effective life of the roadway 3 would be approximately twenty years. An asphalt mat v,nuld be visually �� more pleasing arid c,vuld provide a better ride. On the minor roads, I ar would only recaiunend 1-1/2" werlay, the reduced strength reflecting the lower traffic wlumes and the fact that the minor roads have es- ?� sentially Eeen built out. The resultant structural section on the main � . +�'� roadway (3" to 3-1/2" asphalt surfacing over a minimum of 6" of gravel ir� ! base course) would, in my opinion, be sufficient to account for futute �,,c � rnnstruction traffic on the unbuilt lots, as well as to handle any �; .. anticipated truck loading for the existing development. ` � ZY�e mst estimates for the tc,�v alternatives are as follows: I.� A) Chip and Seal Alternative. `� 1) West Buttermilk I�ad $ 26,900 <-:� 2) Minor Ia�ad A 5,700 '"'� 3) Minor Rc�ad B 3.800 4) Minor Road C 4,900 ;_� Zbtal $ 41,300 =- B) Asphalt Overlay Alternatives `�T4 1) West Buttermilk Fd�ad $134,1d0 _ 2) Minor Road A 20,800 ` `'� 3) Minor RDad B 14,000 " 4) Minor Road C 23,800 4bta1 $192,700 - SQNIlNAFt7C/dONCT.OSIONS :'i� '.`�� The existing roadway system in the West Buttermilk area is in above av- ..j erage mndition with respect to other roadway systens of its age, and • certainly with respect to other private roadway systems in Pitkin Courr � ty. It doe's, however, require vte�diate attention in on9er to salvage �� the structural integrity wf�ich it does have and to avoid trore extensive ;� rehabilitation in the future. In addition, by upgrading the roadway �? , ; system, it may be possible to have the Poadways accepted into the putr- i�> � lic mad system by Pitkin County and, therefore, make then eligible for �°�': � } State of Colorado maintenance monies. Fhiile this t.ould not relieve the ��w hcmeowners group fran maintaining the roadway system, it kould provide "`�`'' --.�� :,.a1-,�. an outside souree of incnme to help in that expense. �` k� � � ��' ;..� . ....._. . . . . -..�y,:: ., • .'. :: � � ,: �.' -`.:�_�.__ � . ,.�. .. .. .._.�.. - .. . . " :Y t � ' • . ' '..� . . . .. . . v �'• � :__. � x � � - . . . . . . .. F�ar S. . . � � . . . �%-iF�'C:' . .. .;:�: i,, - . { �;:. , ' '.•?j_ ��r'�.:a!��r' � . iT":�.�j,:.... �. �.:..f.,.... ��'i;y7'.ti��:�,��r ' . . :_F,+�^Y.'�:.:M�_,N,�.�:'� . �.4�T{�'.4:v`��,:. . �t�, ' v-��jf�•�� . . r� .h�" t�� r . i� ^--T ,� �� r', ��; . .._ � �y 5 .�. 4 �;, , � �' ' ... � � - � r � t':1: � � "�S � r � � �' � . '' F r� � L, ,y �� t,4 p r`��5� r, � r ��\2�. _Y� ,.�IGiO��'. _.. .� �/��1I1�`..�5. �'.( ;x `k��'� j ..� 1 �' .... " . .. . t.L.�ta . . .t_' _�...k.�1�+�_��"� L�ecember 15, 1986 Mr. Andrew J, Dracocoli : Unicnrn Balloon Company . Page eight � TY�e renedial c.ronstruction procedures outlined above must be done in ' order to bring the entire madway system back to an acceptable struc- tural standard. The surfacicx? alternatives presented are both viable and acceptable construction techniqves. O�sts, effective life and vis- i .:, ual characteriskics need to be eonsidered in making the £inal choice. ' hbrmation of a �ecial Improvement District is a wmmon approach for � • financing the icnprvvements. Normally, it is difficult to finance any � .' :,+ improvements wtiich are not made on mads which have adeauate rigttts-of- _ . way or easements; the status of the existing minor roads should be re- ' r -- � viec,ed by legal eounsel to verify that they muld 6e a part of a Spec- E ' _ '� ial. Zmprovement District. �. i x �4`�+8 I c�nuld strongly recarmiend that, after all interested parties have had �:`F�1 a chance t,o review this report, a special meeting be cal2ed at which I ,;�;� could be gresent to explain the report in m�re detail. I £ind that, - typically, a report such as this often raises as many as c�uestions as J'�' it answErs and that the �st efficient way to get a full understanding 'i;-`?;S�;F of ail those affected by the proposed project is at a open meeting/ t�+ork shop setting where free exchange of ideas and cvrrnnents can be ''��`�c�;. made. I appreciate the opportunity to prepare this brief analysis for y ouu. I will remain available to provide aciditional input as required �''r"-� to either yourself or ariy homeowners group. �'v: + � Respectfully submitted, ,,,,f .�v ::;i SC�IDESER OJRDON MEYER, INC. s� _ .,,�;�;�. r/ � ` . . _ •/y�r— :.,�:1��Y..� `�' ,� Dean W. •rdon, P.E. � • ; President 1 / l �` a DWG:le 18i ..� ' Ek;` :� 'k ; :� � _ .�.�i _ _ �';; t.;.`" . :;Cii,r,a : rrs �� . .. . . . . .,. � k �'� , — �r�� ,r,�'� „ -. . , S"r 1°' ,•- ' . , ��: . � , :>e��,:��;LS.� ' .. . . . . y•��n�'s.a_',°�, . . . ' ..'��,,y . . . r ,,�,`._'' � . '""c��,•u 'g'.,}� .'��'#{`, - ��+�� ,: r . . 1'a��:"�r � i.t � ` .,:,.�{:y'�{r` - � �+t��. —• . . _-. . �v �+^ � �� r� ._.�... _.�_.. ,....... _,f _._ w„�3,�s�.Ei�3��i��fi�.ii"aT��.�.��Y+J��f3�`f� . . . �-;...,f;. _, ' ��?'' _ ' ' i�wO�fICES O�'�'�S,HUGHES & KNEZEViCH �nOfC5510M�1 CD9POP�T�ON TM�nO�100R,�SVEM�LAIA OU�IO�uG � SJ][�5�MO^�.�v5��LwUC . � �COw�wou o�i[5 ASPEN,COlORADO 81611 wnEw<oOC�O� � FOBEFT M'MULwlt+r. TELEPNOHE Ot0�1'lO0 � . '. w�GNawv�RHCZf.�CN TELEGOP�EM 9tO�lli� ��M«• July 6, 1989 �`��° 0I COlL+SEI: �.�r�o,..�R«,.. �s<<�'�Ll OF CQ.�t��n2G'R'S � r =iTt:i"! 'LO!� �1' � y.Gif'{C�u'3'��ti�v��1biiS , �.,.. j • HAIdD DELIVERED ,��Fj ` ' . . n:-:�._J_ ��/�C. - -� Cindy Houben _ ;;_-.;: ts p'� • Staff Planner �_H�/1 Aspen/Pitkin County PZanning Office '` ��'��: " ' � 130 S. Galena Street .� Aspen, CO B1G11 �_!;` �:�7 0<.�`. �r��j RE: Aspen-BUttermilk Associates General Submission, �(�.' S:.. '- � Detailed Submission and Final Plat Application f � `, Dated tiay 31 ?989 �� Dear Cindy: `� This letter is written.as we agreed and based upon our ,;.� meeting of last week. As you know, I represent Richard R. Woods �a who is the owner of a residence located on property in the West �=l.;:y Buttezmilk area. Sti*e have viewed with interest the ) Asoen-Butternilk Associates General Subnission, Detailed Submission and Final Plat Application (the "Application") and ,'j� would make the following comments. Mr. Woods does not , -�. specifically oppose the development, understands the '�� circumstances surrounding the Settlement �greemer.t and the need to go forward with the matter in a so-called "iast-track" mode, ;;� P]r. Woods caishes to raise two issues which are of signzfi- _ cant importance to all of the residents on West Buttermilk. This letter is not intendecl to be all-inclusive but merely address those most important issues. There are other issues which we may `y; wish te bring to your attention or which may be brought up by others. The issues of primary concern to us re2ate to roads and .:.�� water which I will discuss in that order. �! ROADS ;� �'; The basic unresolved issue of access to the project aside, I ;� enclose herewith a July 28, 1988 letter signed by Dean i+T. Gordon, P_E. of Schmueser Gordon rieyer Consulting Engineers and Surveyors z :'� to Andrew J. Dracopoli, employee of Mr. t�oods, and more ' � imoortantly a December 25, 1986 letter relating to the West Buttermilk roadway situation. Your special attention is called � , w :` �� .�;J��. � � l.' ��-� r�'.�. ��i� '� ` ��' � ,,,� ,;raK.....V— .....� "'__._..... .. .._...�... _. �-� -.....__.. .�__._.__ . ..._...._._' ,._.:....... � _. T S�J;,t�.�'. . . " y - �-/" . .. � . _ . . .�v+x�� -.. �. rs�-.... {' ' .. . . . .__ _ �_"�� . i �t':�Z_' . . w . . . � . �:',''��;"; . . � - _ _. .1,. '4..�f;` . ��.xxr?t.�, � - "'Sc�'��;,".. . . i��:��.: ;�ti. . � . . �-..�{ '.4y:,:i.,�_;:',"-Ji . i . �`r:.=;:•i,�;�:. . .. i;�F•:1.�..`: � . � - . t�� "� 'Y.Yi�.�^� ' b:�yy<,sC�.�•yy, .. ..{��.i�_, . . .`�{�yH'�' .'S5�"'�`H.v�.�-�+:. � . , t . :�k�� ;�.k:.:rr- � '� „.; �'. . -. .,..._.,_ - ' U . . '� �. 4 h� 1'sj' ,}q w�'� �, . � -��'�� , �1 't � �` 'tl�Sr Y'��,+ ,I�;�� _ v i�'''r' � �'flf'�}�y9��;; �� 'a��t r��;, � t�s�Y' � ��c�i�'.fi�l'�rlr_nt,d'+,b�7;l�rf"�u�"t.,"3i.'�'T�.+.,;wc.:::_.�__��s'-�.�=��. . , .r�'��£ 7� W... a :�r . �;.;; 4 - — -:'�:-� �s;��;•: .. , . : �.�;d��t `'�rt�_ �--._ _:,_ _ -='� . . � c �� . _.. �l. ,j- �� ; ” i4 I - -.~��=,-�:�-- I _ ; ;ff.;.�,(!� _ . . ,' , "'�:::-. ' . . _ . :'� _i- �`.�- .�%' - ..� ti:,•. :'' ' -��--� " "..— — --�-- • ,�.`�, _ ' `I �i:x _ . .��"-- _ � i • 'tl �(. v . . ' ; iil _' `��iY: ;� :---. ' - ... �. r �� ; --1 -- �_: �- '-._- - _ � � , � . � � . , .� •- �� / � .��! . :� �,.,. .-.1�' ` �Y�� " ' �� F � y j �.7_.�, ��,/�-l��a/1; '� �.'`�.'. ;� -� - - �`�,. �' . � - � � 4 \�.��.�� r �v� \ _ �'.��.:\ r i i ,y %-„ � 'tl � l"'�i _ ' . ' ' "� " ,� � �r � �/ . - — -- - _��'��_ _ ,_ .� CJ ,i/�• � / � " � . ,:� � 'I — .'T'�� %��F'`• ��' . \ ' . . . _!� �f� � �� c /^ l ��\-��/ �- �,. ��'•• . :'a.� - � � Y ^�.✓i� ' . ,c / / �� °i . / 'i "' /_ /N� } 1�, , p. �� , �.ii� :i/ � ' ' � u f �� ` `~��` \�• . �:ji1 • ' r�� F' _ � /_. �'' • o � :i �^� ✓' _ j � � •_ .�� .-. . ;,;. . ,� ,S` ��. � 3 .. . . �1 � :d . 1 � �V E �� c ..: :.� 'ti . ' __ —3 1 �:; � � �Q•. :-• V � t �'.: - ,�i:{ �) k� � � ,� �, -�1 i" ' ( _ \��--------- - ��'� _ k . .1 1 � . _ `:� ..\ - �s � ? ` ' ' - - - \ � e � �� - �- -'— � t .,.� :.� -t ' � � . .,:�3 ��, ..j _•I _ � -.s5�"+ti;'i y _ I t, �,; ..� '� � � I tv:.y; ��. - ' . r' �! ___ �?i � .`�.1J al . . '. ; '1 ' . . . '`9 .. � , ._. . ._---°—. , ;.. , __ �i�� ...�.__._�-.—._,._ .....,,.__._. _..;..__y. .___'. __ __._._. ...::_.: ._.' ��-� .. _ a � . _ .-- __=_ -... T- l�,iy�;.' . �i7� �' . . _.. c.;.,��.�;�� . . . ik �� . .. � . � . - . 71 �" �C� . S.`,*n r . �.:` �;"r`,'•. _ �;' `. N��~• � . , . •:;'..YCCiAi.i��•� '. _ ' ' ' ' . �::�.-.l,v{j�.�S. . .. • �C�. . . C,��`r 'ru3 , ��.��. . ,.-,;.;7r .:: .? aNy��i� , �;Yy�..��-<.` � - "t��C~y�.,e . - . '�,�� :,�:�; ` s :�:.�..- =Fr-�:��` r�� - . . .. . .,......-_. .. . .. n � � �tSl r � ' � .1�Ihc�;��y� ` ,,. ^ ,' � . t �,�} � � t�-ti �� : �,��>�,��yt��1��,&r.3��.,��,��ri�� ! � r� a r� ��'�,�( ��`�{}p��`.��; k�.�} � � -, r:. (I�� . .�.�vSC�ll4.sl�y�,:: �t��,...h.3�C]��i�1S�{'4�33�f�ili�`WW.�N3 ..w�'V,.i�.��Y�b� !��y L�'�.� i 1 "y�` � . . 1L. ��''� 1` a�.�aY:'.,'' �� . . � UATL•'5,t-tcciu>s � Kx�iL�'icli,Y.G. i � . . i Cindy Houben July 6 � Page 2 �.. � �:'.`.� j to the summary/conclusion section of the December 15, 1986 letter �„, ' which states that immediate attention will be necessary in order jto salvage the structural integrity that the road (the West �I• � Buttermilk Road) does have in order to avoid more extensive !_ ! rehabilitation in the future. Although the December 15, 1986 ; letter indicates that the road was in above average condition ;� `=� ; ' with respect to other roadway systems of its age, that letter was �' ' �: ; written almost three years ago and the effects of time have been �`` � significant over that period. Inspection of the road will � „ � � indicate that it has deteriorated significantly since the letter � , �t was written. It is now pr000sed that a significant amount of ;?� I additicnal traffic �eill be placed upon the road further �.,':. , � { e::acerbating the situation. The effect of the additional lots is �� . �?,� r compounded when you realize that the most significant contributor I to road deterioration is heavy development traffic such as +, concrete and excavation trucks during periods of construction. � { It is Mr. Woods' position that the County should reauire the ':� i applicant in this situation to bring the West Buttermilk Road, � :+ � from its intersection with Highway B2 to the project, up to j� � County standards at the applicant's expense. We would further * + :``V� request that the County consider acceptance of the roads as ,_„ � public for maintenance purposes once this nas been accomplished � ; by the developer. As stated earlier, legal access to the project ;� ` needs to be established to your satisfaction. , I WATER � � 4;hile c.�e are preser.tly unable to present our scientific `� { data, you are advised that Mr. Woods engaged the services of ' � ' hright [tiTater Engineers, with the concurrence of several other property owners in the S4est Buttermilk area, for purnoses of a � ' ground water hydrological study in the [,lest Buttermilk area. We ij have been informed by William Lorah of Wright Water Engineers :` that they will be in attendance at the July 11, 1989 hearing and `i j at that time •will, as well be prepared to submit written mater- y�Y s � ials standing strongly for the proposition that it would be t; ' ; inappropriate to consider wells as the source of water for the �� .� i proposed •project and that the proposal as made to make up for � : stream depletions with Reudi Reservoir water iq inappropriate. �(, ` � We believe that the alternative would be to re uire the extension ;� . by the developer of City �aater to the pro?ect. �4hile we under- � stand the 'use of the restrictions on water extensions as a tool �• � � to slow arowth, we do feel that given the circumstances and �' .� t �, � hydrology of the A'est Buttermilk arez, that the extension of City `, 'y+ ; � water would serve not onlv improve the project whicrt you are vy�,: :� �F:_�:,;;�'�.- ` _. ,.; -i � ��;+. - .i.i u � ` .... .��: ! . � ,�+� .___.•> . __..._ .`------ ---.___._. . ... - . . . .___...._.:._..._.. ._.__ _.� _.,_ __ ......: _.. ._. .. _.. . ... ... _ ,ys �r Y .. t'�..,�..�1`� . • . <t��:::�:�ti��: . . .. .. 1�:,:i��'i�� ' . _,•4$_. _ :.Y'''_ - . , ( .^C� _ . '�-i. :,'.1,�:: � �..y��_ .. . . � . . ,_y �"'� xt - ::�++^i�ry; '�it�.'y.<i-`� ' . ��,-�'��sr � � ` � � �.:T.1:�:" . „�r :: ,R -._ ..... _.. . _ � .. ,, . ..___ . _.... �}ti• . , . L I - . . . . . , . ! � .. A � f�h�LFy� O �� T� �� }”y� � . �:�fY f�i'� � � ' ..+l 4tf�� jLtiyf��' �{�}q} SV�. [�y{ � Yf - 1i'�. l �.[� !�(�{�` ...�'. � ' � � F}q7x ,�* ��*� i �. �+ �W X�' yE � � ��L•��N: '�.��iF.k'�r��-1�IAr� .: . � ., �.'_.� ' . ��[� .4 ri'��ii%f},� U: � 1�'g:�1.'l.i_ O�TCS,I'�GGH�S c tivr•_z�.�-icri,P.G. Cindy Houben July 6 Page 3 ``�-� ?:''�! - considering but also as a beneEit to those presently relying on ��'=`=- ground water as their source of potable water. 3•�S`��' The foregoing is not intended to be aII-inclusive with "��,'� ' respect to the two subjects which we have addressed and we will " `--' '� be in attendance at the July 11 meeting to present additional evidence and information. ''%`� � If you should be in need of further information between now ,,° � and the llth, please feel free to give me a call, �� ,. �� Very truly yours, , � , n� �. fE OATES, HUGHES & KNEZ VICH, P.C. i� :.� fi sy: �/ � Le nard . Oa es � LrlO:klm . Enclosure ;.� ... :� { �' � � .__. �. � � - � ' , . , � , � �� , ' -� M ' Y ` �• � � �>�. ,� . `��",...,. � (� �,i;: ri �� t .... . ry. � ' � }��...... .::si 6' , . . y vn.i'�..n _ '..:.:_ ...w':._. ..:.: . . • �� ....;.2 :."_... r...:;:. .._.;�� ... . Y � . � . �..`.:� . -. :.. : L ��r �_ _...;�� . :.:�� . .. .��, • i _ " ;:,��"3�,.t`�'�`� '?s �.,.r:�: :�;.;, �3,- . :Y h{'-s - .r�,t �.Se�if�SaFit: � . � . � - . � �� . t �s - � .�:�y'�'�.w i.:. . S�pF�� ' _ .a�,� � - . . .. J. r'¢,�!�. . ' �..�� ; . � " . , . . :`� t�1)•, x...S�'�;` . yi��"'. � � . ::��` w . . `h..:, �`= ` s �"�FY:?,',M: . . . .