The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutbocc.min.reg.05141991 �; ��a .�tt�r rs�Y y �� f�( .� -,'.� ' ;.��,� �� j �I+1 .L -��,- �ai� re � .�'T�"a"�$ ..�y� F�' .i� � �• �v",j�C` � � :: :�" C a i <.. � �J ,� °n� � a�'.v-p .- � �1-� . ;ji L t s � � -: � � SF,a�� _,�r 4��I4�� E (y ��5 �l 1�� , �V� 1. 1 � � L` . � ' k �4 � � {F��f {� e n"�C��.� ��if�,� 9 1.�a�� `�a1F�� :li`� ��: .t��'r4°�'� .ar �74 . �`' fs��j t� �`�`�r� ��.hiril�. . . ._ _ = m .,�- ,. a. PITRIN COONTY COMMISSIONERB ` '' REGULAR MESTING AGENDA District Courtroom � TIIESDAY. MAY 14. 1991 5:30 PM PQBLIC COMMENT ;?�+' CONSENT AGENDA ;`;�..`�<•.• MINUTES _ 1. Rail Task Force Appointments, Reid Haughey ' 2. Proclamation for National Historic Preservation Week, � ' � Roxanne Eflin 3. Aspen Air Show Special Liquor License Permit, Kim Schultz 4. Child Care Committee Endorsement, Marty Ames � . ' � 5. Proclamation for National Transit Appreciation Day, Dan � Blankenship � e i 6. Public Works Week Proclamation, Stan Serryman � `•` � ADMINISTRATIVE PUBLIC AEARINGS + ,: 7. 2nd Readinq, Resolution Extending FBO, Brad Christopher f 8. 2nd Reading, 1990 Supplemental Budget Appropriation, Lynn Dunlop LAND OSE PIIHLIC HEARINGS 9. Miller Appeal of Planning Commission Decision and General ��", Submission, Mary Lackner � 10. Marx PUD Amendment, Mary Lackner � " 11. Cook General Submission, Ellen Sassano 12. Margy's Hut Special Review, Staff recommends tabling until • May 28 ;; LAND USE ACTIONS � 13. Benedict/Park Trust Subdivision Exemption for a Community Facility, Ellen Sassano M�" , 14. Davis/Donnelley Density Reduction Lot Split Final Plat, �' , Ellen Sassano ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS � . � 1. 2nd Reading, Final 1990 Housing Authority Supplemental ��. .� Budget Resolution, Carr Kunze � � , 2. Placement Alternative Contract, Kate Jangula 3. lst Reading and Set for Public Hearing, Resolution Amending Regulation 32 to Close the Airport During the Airshow, '" , Hilary Smith ? 4. Conundrum EIS, Mark Fuller 5. Joint Resolution Authorizing Aspen to Snowmass Transit Plan, ti� ' Tom Newland 6. Solid Waste Study Intergovernmental Agreement, Reid Haughey (i ' - 7. lst Reading and Set for Public Hearing, Ordinance Approving ei; ` � ' . Intergovernmental Agreement between RFTA and the Town of ��. i Carbondale and Ratifying IGA between City of Aspen and � ,. , ; Pitkin County Creating RFTA, Dan Blankenship :.� 8. Ambulance Licenses, Skitch Rounsefell " { AWOURN �1 . i �, ,_�I'I- . ,' ..�d " � �. . . . ._ . . � ... , .. � _r '�;: .. :- . . .� .. . . :..v ;.: �..: . � • , �— �.._. r�:.� . . . . . -.� ��: � ' � - ::: ' ,'-. -�: . � � : . . .� . � . � �rt��F ., . . � . .. . � � � , . .,. . . � . • r�.� � . r:,•3r , . .:i��:r::�ti , ' ;Zt..!�!�-_ . � L�S,L.., . - , y�!t;�✓�< ,,��w � �'y` `��,Ys°��.: .iiR'��-��E'E� � � . �� . . `T ��t� . .�-`. �_� �� ' 's � ':" _ _... J}* ,, < . , � 2 1 4!M f` ''i . : �� / .�1` ( ;.._` . . ,� 4 �,F\ ,.. , C ) F � 3 � ' ,�� ,. � � �..�,jr c � � • n. R.`Z.' �� `�•,:� ',i`�� . A. . . � �.'��`a�„dr�� ' ��S �...��e. . S+x-i�'� y��" . ��,, t „ ��.. '. r • ,�k . ` . � . . .��,�`f�. �� T�� l�� M:.�* . ._`!'�C.�1'0A4.:�_. lGT��35.�+��'F.�bY"..k}. :f*F , �j.: �:,_�,. ._.. -,. . ' .. , _. `M}.5}> . �.J � � APPRO�IED AT . � . MIN[JTSS f+�Y 2Qj,194} . , PITRIN COIINTY BOARD OF COUNTY C6MMZSSIONERS MEETING . REGIILAR MEETING � MAY 14. 1991 :'f . !`�'`-.j�: � • CALL To ORDER: Chairman Wayne Ethridge called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Wayne Ethridge, Jim True, Bill Tuite, Fred Crowley and Herschel Ross ;�'� - ��e ;j PUBLZC CoMMENT: Michael Rinsley expressed a concern about an I;�� •, article he read in the newspaper regarding a flea beetle which is !''"� 'r :, . proposed to be used to control a certain kind of thistle. He asked � -: that the County be very cautious about introducing something into € the area that could have a major impact in the future. 1 Also, while biking on Smuggler Mountain recently he noticed about `' 40 mature conifers which had been cut lying across the road. �+ `� �!. . Tim whitsitt responded, that Wilk Wilkinson contacted him in March to tell him that he had been doing some cutting over the winter, which he maintained was a timbering operation on his land up there. `� , . He told him that he had cut trees anfl some of them were indeed across the road; that his intention was to clear them out as soon � as it was dry enough for a vehicle to get up there. He said it was � not his intention to block the road in anyway; that it was " " impassable at that time anyway. However, he will follow up with �, Wilk and make sure that those do in fact get cleared out. t`, �t Herb Klein and Bob Dugan, representing Executive Security � International, appeared before the Board to discuss an application k for ESI's school and operations at the Woody Creek Raceway. He �• ' � said he would like to invite the Board to a site visit. The operation has been there for approximately 20 years and has enjoyed ` a pretty good rapor with its neighbors, and therefore, they filed ' an application back in January to comply technically with the code ., because they had never gotten formal approval for their operation. '�' Subsequent to filing the application, a couple of neighbors had complained about the operation and asked the County to take some '��; . action, and ultimately the operation got red tagged a couple of d days ago. He asked if the Board wouid consider lifting the red tag _ until their application goes through the process because the t' marketing and scheduling is done well in advance, people send in r their deposits, students make their plane arrangements, hotel arrangements, etc. which are not cancellable deposits. And the �•. • HOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1 MAY 14, 1991 .�., ! �r, ,'�^ __... ,,, _ _ -�- - 4 � • �YT�a.,V��i!�' .. . ' - . . . . . {�1�y(�.�:f • . � �. .0�3l...,. - ' . . � � � ' - . 1�<:,"j � �'�h � . _� : .. ��Y�Y��' . . . '�.�r!Y�� _ . •Y�+C'fi ;�`1..i v: :��'i�j•��R�' - � "'��; � �!� 'N • .J.S�+.yr� , ..'`�.c':, �� Lq �,9 ' . " � •, � � ':i . � " " � , � L j �1� R'Y : r: � `. � ' F .'t y:,_,�. � +�Y� ; G U�'1��r*1 r k�� 1 n�.1� a � �`M'�� ''�{'. �i,j�� `.� s�"��` f��: �u. `x��,"r�`+'�� .a�. t 9 �.:- Y . ��' �J�� ...�^� �:: .� �� _ �.� . r �.. �'_ �?"'�..��t_��° . �::�ki;�" + � v.� t. t a.. ��:_ ,C,�,.,.:,_ _ _ _ � . � � � schedul3nq is done well in advance, people send in their � deposits, students make their plane arrangements, hotel - arrangements, etc, which are not cancellable deposits. And they - cannot simply stop this part of the program without a lot of ' : , reprocuss ions. :��r Chairman Ethridge addressed Mr. Klein comments by stating, that at yesterday's work session the Board asked for a full report on `� "-,�`�� ' the circumstances leading to the red tagging but have not � , received a report as yet. However, there is a special meetinq tomorrow night and the matter could be added to the agenda pending that report. : Commissioner True mwed to place this matter on the agenda on May 15, 1991 pending a report from staff_ With a second by ;f Commissioner Ross, the motion passed unanimously. CONSENT AGENDA Co�issioner Crowley moved to remove the Rail TasK Force '� Appointments and the Aspen Air Show Special Liquor License Permit � from the Consent Agenda to vote on them separately. With a C second by Commissioner Ross, the motion passed unanimously. ' ; �PPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 8 9 23 AND MAY 7, 1991 :�• E PROCLAMATION FOR NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION WEER � • CHILD CA12E COMMITTEE ENDORSEMENT � PROCLAMATION FOR NATIONAL TRANSIT APPRECIATION DAY � , RESOLDTION PROCLAIMING PIIBLIC WORKS WEEK � � � Commissioner Ross moved approval of the Consent Agenda. . With a second by Commissioner Tuite, the motion passed unanimously, APPOINTMENT OF KAY CLARKE AND STACEY STANDLEY TO TEiE ROARING FORK � � FORUM RAIL TASK FORCE - IiOTION TO APPROVE - PASSER WITEI FOIIR YEA j , AND ONE NAY VOTE y; . Commissioner lioss moved approval of the resolution appointing •• , members to the Roaring Fork Forum Rail Task Force. With a second � by Commissioner Tuite, the motion passed with four yea votes by � Commissioners Ethridge, Tuite, True and Ross, axid one nay vote by �t . Commissioner Crowley. Commissioner Crowley stated, that he has absolutely no problems with the two people being appointed, but he does have a proY�lem �. with the task force. ASPEN AIR SHOW SPECIAL LT4UOR LICENSE PERMIT - MOTION TO APPROVE BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 2 MAY 24, Z991 ;1, . r; �..:.,'�f � . , . .. . . . . . �. � � . . . £' "�� ^� � � � � � - � � � - � F� k �r:: . � � � �' . � '"*•7i�f.� ' ' ��Fy .r�1Q`��'s , �� ik"�',1:.�`� . };.!+a.,._c-!;,.yt;. !"� r �'�14Jr,' ��i�T • �+� 3N�' ,.y�r� �� 1v � _, . -- . � . . ��6yti� ;' sh � C � ��.y a j�`. / � �::�. .,� �3 � __t'� � - . ,,�' ,,h„t.' � ` -� � Fr.��+b ,Q�"�}' .a - . �+jf i n.'(�'�k�'+ ..��Oy��.. �eF� �' r�� yN�tt � udy� �� .� }�f.'*'. YY`a..± ��;k'"'�� 4 �r.A P �[� . . h��l.!P�� 4 �+�'�<, y�� "��4 f��{.Q�w._.. kS_+ ��R:,r3tF'(�`R»#��) �,._ i i . PASSED WTTH FOLJR YEA VOTES AND ONE A$STENTION " Commissionex Ross moved approval of the permit. With a second by Commissioner Tuite, the motion passed with four yea votes by • Commissioners Ross, Tuite, True and Ethridge and one abstention - by Commissioner Crowley. ' r f Commissioner Crowley stated, that he is the President of the �,`:�.t" Eagles and for this reason will be abstaining from votinq on this ' matter. � �; SECOND READING - RESOIATION EXTENbING FIXED BASS OPERATIONS- � MOTION TO TABLE - PASSED WITH THI2EE YEA AND TWO NAY VOTES - Reid Aaughey, County Manager, stated, that what is before the Board is a resolution extending Aspen Base operation and '; � Tailwind/Richmor's lease at the airport for a period of one year. �? This is a result of conversations and determinations that the Board has made in how to proceed with its activity of rebidding . ' FBO contracts at the airport and the determination, that there •'' �` would be an extension granted for the current FBO and attempt to �� xebid on September 30, 1992. ! Chairman Ethridge opened the hearing to public comment. � 'r. � Tom Melberg read a prepared statement addressinq this matter. A ;�, • copy of this is made a part of this record as EXHIBIT °A°. He � also read a letter on behalf of Don Lemos. A copy of this letter ; is made a part oF this record as EXfiIBIT °B". Y . There were several other members of the public present who voiced ( a concern with regard to Section 3 of the Resolution, and a ' concern that it was being fast tracked by County staff. A copy � : of this section is made a part of this record as EXHIBIT °C°. �; Tim Whitsitt, County Attorney, stated that the staff's feeling was that this was not at all in any sense a fast track as it has ; been perceived by some people. But was just a recognition that {: ' there is only going to be an extension for one year. And if the `: ' County is indeed going to be ready to put the FBO Zeases out to bid again a year from September, then a nubmer of things need to � • be done. The plan was to have those all done by September of this year, and this is just a recognition of all of the various �; . � things that would have to be done before it is ready to bid. And ' this is at least an honest attempt to qet through those studies ( and the processes so that they could go out to lease in a year. I`: 1 Chairman Ethridge stated, that there is a debate at the Board level as to whether or not this is a realistic timeframe; " regardless of the impression that it is fast track. It is fast i.• � track but the Board has been in the position oP trying to get these issues resolved with FBO and it is tied up in a lot of other considerations about expansion at the airport. He thinks, !�` BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 3 MAY 14, 1991 �'' .�, ...4:h . . . . , .• Y�' +s".; .•� . � �::�X=3' `:�i;r; , . ct �;r pF :.;��j " . _../...�., . ''t�:ri.', • . a�'��>4:�'� � . .��:� �r��'� , � `. ��:^�"a��'-ki`. . .. ;: �T�f A J �r- - . � .i,r�, • �� ,.�s�. � � , z �i:i �t?� .,� , , — � r - . � . - . . � . � a � p 't ��e4'"�t- . � � �� Y'' Jt' '�� t �. C ,i,� ,� • � : '. �- � Ai .�- �.-: �' !• y f�q ' W�'y�� 1�,� �5+� ..i l"':s�f�b t �. � 1 �ix ' },,� � � c'%�� '�� t;�y] Wi{;..+�� t JF�_� � . ' � .a5 � �`�r 7.'�:f.y6 y�c . . - �r��: . . �� y��4l�7��lS .�, '�....�.. 1��,r . .�_�P�:..':��,?b R,�.r�. .c. r<5.p':. ' � , ,. _ ,. ,. _ _ ...._... 4i. �'Y L in fairness to staff, and in fairness to the Board, the purpose for this is to qet the Board to make some decisions and personally, he thinks the wrong proaess is being used to make � decisions at the airport. Commissioner Ross stated, that what this resolution purports is • that the staff is to get together a work plan; this is what it , says in the first paragraph of Section 3. Then bring the work ; , plan to the Board so that they can move along and make some � decisions. Also, there is an Airport Master Plan which is only a couple of years old. And what it says is, these are all the things that could possibly happen with this piece of land. In no way does this resolution mandate, or is the Board voting on some expansion of the airport at this time. He said the tenants are "'`4 having more and more of a problem with the business responsibilities and their financing when they do not know if ::_:� there is going to be a bid or not and whether or not they are :•�: going to be there. Therefore, he does not feel sending it back '==:j-::� to P&Z and putting everything off is not acting in a responsible _._f`� manner to their tenants. Whitsitt stated, that standard procedure would have been to put ;�� the lease out at the end of the term this September. One of the reasons it is not going out is because staff has not been able to �� get through some of the basic studies, and get some of the questions answered. He said when the resolution was put together, it was felt there needed to be some direction to get , . . the studies done within the year time period. ;:-`.� Chairman Crowley stated, that to be fair to the tenants, he does ± not think the one year extension period is fair. Therefore, he ` would support a longer extension i.e, three, four or five years. ._�;�y�; He said their employees are in limbo and they cannot make any • plans, etc. 4:,.`�: ' Tom Blake stated, that he does not wish to speak directly to the ��;?�� lease. However, he feels the status quo situation has really • • created a hardship on a business level in that the investment '-��-� picture that you get at the airport, is everything has to be •'' :+ amortized over a six, twelve or eighteenth month period. And : i when you are talking about those kind of investment periods you are talking about whether or not you can buy a new copier, etc. . �� Therefore, it is not a situation that a landlord wants to get a ,';�� tenant into just on a matter of business principle. He said :�� another problem is, that hanking relationships have been , - deteriorating a21 over the country, and those banking , relationships deteriorate more rapidly if in the mid-term or - short term horizons, there is the ability for someone to stay in business. Also, there is the problem of the employees not ;.�; knowing whether or not they are going to have a job in the near . ,�� future. . �.-��..I . . F;`' BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONER.S 4 MAY 14, 1991 Y��ti4� • �� :.':.� '�.lt��.'I 3t"�a _� �„j t . � ' .. . ..r� r�. 5.74, � ' � - � � � . . ,y,�Y-: .:i.S' . . „-ii%.'�w�ti+ � . . . `"�r-�'_::'.�.n " ' ,' ._ �i S,r,��'. � , , • r: ,�,u4�;� , . . .n;��,,, � . . ,��1"-�,,,�.`r_,y r ��.'"�''�t;r_y�- � � ' essj'.+�r.?+`.`, , + f n+:: `r;n(�'��•�([?� ��' t .:--'��,t-"i ' s �'J X' �� .;��=t.� , � ,� , ///''' , LL A r,. ��' . �t � �.. ��. . . . � � r 4 i ti,'��Sr� :. � + � r �.in t ' �.,� 7 . _ a.3 ' _ ��,�'1�� ,V 15-'� �f�..� ! � .�� 7�'t•ts.'tr �� .MSr 2'E' c ',��s .. #-�Y��, T, � �'�lt � w� � ' i .� � ' �.4 .�w• , �, �� f'� ' r .....� 3 . .. .. .. . f . ��`,.��.:�> . �w�1�21 � � �`��.� � � 1 �k��Y � . �. �;;°: � ._ . 'r ... � � ....__. . ....--- �._ �a �'�.:iQl4�l.,.a�.�PS1..�' �^ .,...__._. .. . . . . . �" .. .. . . _ s � ' Chairman Ethridge closed the hearing to public comment. A discussion ensued with regard to this matter. . Commissioner Tuite moved to table the matter to May z8, 1991 pendinq a discussion i.n a vorlc session. With a second by Commissioner Crowley, the motion passed wi.th three yea votes by . Commissioners Tuite, Crowley azid Ethridge, and two nay votes by " Commissioners Ross and True. F�NAL 1990 SUPPr�ramAL BUDGET RESOLxrrYON MOTION TO APPROVE PASSED DNANIMOIISLY - Lynn Dunlop, Budqet Direotor, stated that `' ;� this is the follow-up, 1990 year-end clean-up budget resolution. :,;� Chairman Ethridge opened the hearing to public comment. There being none, he closed the public hearing. "r.:.ri ,�'� Commissioner Crowlep moved approval of the resolution. With a second by Commissioner Tuxte, the motion passed unanimously. • MILLER 1041 HAZARD RE�IIEW APPLnr � GBNERAi. SUBMISSION MOTION TO TABLE - PASSED DNANII+loIISLY - Chairman Ethridge advised the ,:_� applicant's zepresentative, Herb Klein, that they would be willing to hear a brief presentation of the applioation. However, it is the consensus of the Board that they would like to table the matter pending a site visit. . .:I�. .F. < �� Chairman Ethridge stated, that he was contacted before he became . ' a Commissioner about representing the current owners of the � Smuggler Durant Mining Corporation about a different application - on this site. However, he declined to do that but he did want to � '=��1�` disalose that previous contact. He said if the applicants �:'`�, representatives feels it has an appearance of conflict of � interest or an appearance of coloring his decision, he would ��=��`� agree to step down from this discussion. ��v -�..•� '+-! Commissioner True stated, that his wife works for Mr. Iflein and has for some time. He said Mr. Klein has been before the Board `� before and he has made the same disclosure. . ^`_:.� The applicant's representative asked for a brief consultation � period to discuss Chairman Ethridge�s participation in this ;.�� matter. � Marty Kaun, Attorney for the Applicant, asked that because of the potential of litigation prob2ems, and a possible delay of the � -V� project, that Commissioner Ethridge abstain from participation on ��. their application. ':�:: --"�( Ethridge stated, that he does not view this has a conflict of interest or even an appearance of conflict of interesf. However, :"�t;� thinner straws have been used for litigation in the community in _�� _:;?N;3e .�;.�, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMTSSIONERS 5 MAY 14, 1991 � ,,� �_� ��''� t"':' 1 i},1i'�a� '_—" *�ry,, "i-s$6 Y. '' y,. . �� ^l. � � . . . .. . . . s r 'z� �A •i � �. .. � .- � . . . . � � . .. .. .. . . Sej� .,•,..�5� � . ' . . .. . . . . . . � sV.. . . . � �.. . . . .tti, >� � . , .`-:.`.,f.'-..`: aer;;�+,g,a . . . 't�:.'�Y� . . .:��J. ' , . ,.'�,�.�::'•.:�.. �'.r�'F'W....... .a��;:. � � '�;„}i''" � . ��. ..'�,p�'�.�y .'.n • .^ i.w�. �_y.N M'�t4t� i �� . : �� J .; � � � . . . r .`s c�i .,:` �� ' . -. � ��f . r ,�S t , � . fr�. � �i�.�mlka�y�� ti�'�"1C�4 �f�-� t � ��` a�s.`F°'Y �..��,5��'•' ��'��`�. ; yh��' a ,.1 '� q: ty r '�1 _�� i,�wL�ci 4 i . . .. ,��Hk�i�;kt��t�'I�K"�C��'.�:�� ..1'`.?a'!'....�.. ]rr�'�.� ,. �K'n,��__ . ��:.:'Sfr.�.4'F'.�f,C P '�itr: 14�i,�..;^�n(�37 . a the past, and therefore, he will honor the request to step down. Vice-Chairman Jim True took over as Chairman for this hearing. Mary Lackner. representing the Planning Office, summarized this item by stating, that the applicant, Gordon Miller, is appealing . a denial by the Planning and Zoning Commission for a 104I Geologic and Wildfire Hazard Review, General Submission and Scenic Foreground Overlay approval for a single family residence. The 1041 request is for geologic hazards consisting o£ avalanche path, potential debris flow, and slopes greater than 30 percent. � Also, the site has severe wildfire hazards. ''=� The agplication was heard by the Planninq and Zoning Commission on October 16, 1990. The commission denied the applicant�s ,;jj request for a single family residence on the Newfoundland Lode by J Resolution PZ-90-36. The applicant appeared before public =.;=?g comment at the November 6, 1990 Planning and Zoning Commission • �� meeting to ask if the Commission would consider an amended •:•'�` application for a single family residence on the Newfoundland Lode. The information was reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission on February 5, 1991. The review resulted in a denial by the Commission. ,�� Randy Wedum proceeded with a presentation of the proposed site. _ A copy of his written preseatation including reports from . consultants is made a part oE this record as EXIiIBiT "D^. -;;:.� • "? Commissioner True o ened the hearin to -� p g public comment. = Commissioner Ross mnved to continue the public hearing to May 28, 1991 pending a site visit by the Soard, With a second by . '"�� Commissioner Crowley, the motion passed with four yea votes by �:�;,_;'� Commissioners True, Tuite, Crovley and Ross, and one abstention by Commissioner Ethridge. �`t`."! Commissioner Ethridge took over as Chairman. j:��tr, -+�" � RESOLUTION APPROVING OWL CREEIC 12ANCH PIID AMENDMENT FOR TfiE RELOCATION OF LOT 2 BITILDING ENVELOPE - MOTION TO APPROVS- ` �' PASSED IINANTMOUSLY - Mary Lackner summarized this item by ,,, . � stating, that the applicant, Lawrence Marx, is requesting to �'< amend the Owl Creek Ranch Subdivision PLTD and 1041 Hazard Review :,ti:� approval to relocate the building envelope located on T,ot 2. The Planning and Zoning Commission granted I041 Hazard Review - ; approval at their March 15, 3991 meeting. � f -- - The applicant wishes to relocate the building envelope on Lot 2 I': approximately 120 feet to the Northeast from the existing _ `�' approved envelope location. The amendment is being requested for •`=`ti two reasons: 1) the underground utilities were constructed ' 'r�: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSTONERS 6 MAY 14, 1991 -_�� . ~� �•�7 x"��::�, __�. jr . � .' . .. . ' �+`�.�. , . . ' � � . . . . „ . h��.' . .. . ,. � . . - . .. .S';4��R4:'S{. .. .. . • . . . . . .:.?si . . . :AF�i..�� . i'i':l•��.:.�� ' � . ,�:..,=y _ ..�,_,-_-. 't��w ' - . .:x; -, . r�.T2s• � • . . a�`�`-�.a�� . . 'S1�C'��.=. �'�.�'t^KJC*�"�'!�)}�`Si(u , , F��ey .."�4i'ti�. °�C''�c ,� �.. .. �_a� +� �t . �1`�cv a ?o''% �� ;r ��. , � � x � , �e�� . {� � i _w � �s+ a. : -� ; ... ��i � � : / :•t w° � �1 r � +�� ° �q•� ' . '�'�yra�,',.'`,��.��5��,t�,�,�♦,r`�� F �` � r� "t��x�i'a�'f � �e��'�"' ,�e t , � , ...' '�'.�`._��*�H'��.�'��S�SY"y��(i��:e'�RbC. �'i+ ".e:��C . . � r�-q�`"-e� �A,. a.J"��i�.af.�f� _ _-: —.- -. ..__ �;,.. . 'L. t- within the existing huilding envelope and were in conflict with the proposed footprint of the new structure, and 2) to lessen the visual impact of the single family home from owl Creek Road. The proposed building envelope will be approximately 40,000 square �� feet smaller than the approved building envelope of 2.03 acres. • - She said the Planning Office and Planning and Zoning Commission recou�end approval with conditions. A copy of these conditions are made a part of this record as EXIiIBTT ^E^. Jeff McMeniemen, representing the applicant from Design Workshop, - presented a site plan of the existing and the new proposed _ building envelope. He said they have two objections. One is to shift the envelope outside the utility easement, and the second -;:,;_; objective was to lessen the visual impact of the house. Chairman Ethridge opened the hearinq to public comment. There ,;=.�h, being none, he closed the public hearing. ,'j;� Commissioner Crovley moved approval of the application. With a second by Commissioner Ross, the motion passed unanimouslp. RESOLLITION APPROVING COOR CARETARER UNIT 1041 SPECIAL REVIEW AND GENERAL SIIBMISSION - I30TION TO APPROVE - pASSEb UNANIMOIISLY- Ellen Sassano, representing the Planning Office summarized this ''�=;� item as an application submitted by Werk Cook, to construct a " single family residence and a barn with a caretaker unit on a 20 - acre parcel located in the Woody Creek area. Tn addition, the � applicant is requesting a subdivision exemption for the purpose , �' ';>' of facilitating a purchase of the Cook parcel by the Underwoods, �'�' who own adjacent property. Specifically, the applicant zs _- � � requesting the following: � _�, � 1. General Submission Revzew pursuant to Section 6-3 of ,=.,. the Code; ':: �� <�ti`=; 2. Geologic, Wildfire, Wildlife and Floodplain =';'� Environmental Hazard Review pursuant to Section 5-400 �'+�;._- S of the Code; . ;.�� 3. Approval of a caretaker unit, pursuant to Section 3- 8.13(a) of the Code; ' ��;j� 4. Subdivision exemption for the purpose o£ changing the ` �`.={ form of ownership of a previously subdivided parcel, so �'�? that the parcel may be purchased by the adjacent _ rteighbor without merging, pursuant to Section 402.2 (a) (1) Sassano presented a site plan of the proposaZ. She said the - �a:'>~` Plannin Commission reviewed the 104Z re q quest and approved it. :::;y� There are not outstanding issues regarding 1041 hazards, general ' � submission or the proposed caretaker unit. Iiowever, the _�:.�L ;x:' �� BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSTONER.S 7 MAY 14, 1991 ..,i:�`v, x.: =`.;k� _. � _t��,Y4� --- ��``'�, �� ^ � � :. ! � ,,r �. ; '��;.r�-$,..� _ �„��_�:. .. . . . ..KX(�,-'�:,::�:'S " . . i:ti•��':'.'.' :+�� _ " ��l{�` , • . ..l Y'��• - . ,.�,�,.,�`h.,i• . , � ;ti . ..-� . . .��"��, ��,� . ��`�: - �� : •k.. ��1 "�'t- �� ' `� .;� i,- _4 h;•S. . `s3 ,�-.�-P �'��.7�{� 4�> � . � ..-. � �� } i ir� • �, � � ; �i�-F `';i » �as r � �'�i�i'.��,y'$ `. v �. .��* v !r �.•��a_..��!�!,.��?'.i�H:��l�l��.'l�,u.b.�:�:�.�. �..��-.+.�,� ,..,�n�{}� �rsx�..'..�:� . .�.�£1�_. . . �.t.�.li`�4'a�k . `��.'�� fp,. applicant is requesting a subdivision exemption in order to `'� facilitate the purchase of the Cook parcel by the Underwoods. The Underwoods would like to purchase the Cook parcel, but do not want the parcel to merqe with their adjacent property, as they would like to retain the development right on the Cook parcel. It is the opinion of the County Attorney, that Section 4- � 2.2(a) (1) is not intended to accomplish the request proposed by the Underwoods. It is the attorney's opinion, that this section was intended to exempt parcels located within pZatted approved subdivisions from the merger provision. The Cook property is a � 20 acre metes and bounds parcel which was retained by the Cooks when they sold the Aspen Valley Ranch to the Underwoods. As - � such, the request does not comply with the intent of the section. Therefore, staff and the County Attorney recommend denial of the Subdivision Exemption request. -;';� Chairman Ethridge asked why this application for Subdivision :'�;� Exemption, which is directly opposed to the land use code, was .,.,�, accepted. _.� ��'T-� Tim Whitsitt, County Attorney, stated that Section 4-2.2 (a) (1) ;..,"� gives certain exemptions from subdivision. And any applicant has the right to make an application to the Board. It is a discretionary provision of the Board of County Commissioners, �a that they have the right to exempt certain exemptions from ',� subdivision regulations. However, the criteria has to be met. This happens to be a provision that has not been used in recent history, but in fact an applicant has the right to make that ;� application, and has done so. The Planning Office felt it was inappropriate and they have discussed it. He also concurs, that . "4 the exemption request does not fit with the purpose of that , section as he understands it, and therefore, does not qualify for • • ' that exemption. ;:;ai ::-�1 Sassano addressed the issue by stating, that the Cook parcel � ;� which is 20 acres, was retained when the Cooks' sold the Underwoods the Aspen Valley Ranch, and it was subdivided at that ' time. The Underwoods at this time have the right of first " >� refusal to purchase the Cook lot. And the Underwoods are ,. concerned, that if they should purchase the Cook lot the lot will "�' be considered merged with Aspen Valley Ranch. And because of the merger, it will lose its development right. The Underwoods' �''' � would like to have the ability to retain the development right so ` � that in the future, in the event that they choose to sell the lot � ,� off it will still basically have a development right. If the two • � lots merge, the development right for the parcel will go away. t� So the underwoods are attempting to use the subdivision exemption -- � • as a means to retain the Cook parcel as a separate parcel with a �� development right. , Herb Klein, representing the Underwoods, stated, that their '� concern is, that anybody in this world can buy the lot and not .� BOAI2D OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 8 MAY 14� 1991 . '� � _� �' �, - : _ .. , ;� �. i��4�•� . . . � . . . . � ' • �. • • .�F ��:' . . � . � . . ��.�5-��j. /�.... i��v�.� . . , . . ..r:,�.j;.�*�p t`�'- , 'c.:k;.�;�/-'. � . . :.r�'.*,!�?�� . . . ' '.'IpF�.y-. . ':;�� ,A,.'' iF•i..' ,r �� , . ��'s' ,o x:+•''r, ��41 r � i ��4i�4`+�i� ,� �?� ti ' t3'.' � � ' _.` � • + : �. E !�F�'�'G .F? �� 1 h L� 1 \ : � `,2 �i jt:'� i s �- .,M, l; ��l t � t�f��.- �k�t �-6� .•� 2 .� ''.. 'i,r �`��i � '��e`rC�1.E`�� . � +�.�a 1��,�b,��, t�'d�.-�` 'Y;,j}�a.e+b G �''�, < :.� .,..f��'..r. �Ys......,q�t1 b "�`�"-,��Jii►�6.�.�.'.�"t"a��`.#ill�.:"'-a��.-i�:.:�- �A� Ybi+�_ . ... _ �y?; ., have a merger problem and not risk the development right except a _ neighbor. He said it is a conforming lot, the ranch is a conforming lot; the ranch was sold to Mary Jane IInderwood, and the Cooks retained the other piece back in 1962 before any of the merger legislation, and they gave Mary Jane a right of first refusal. He said in the exemption there is language that states "for the purpose of changing a form of ownership of the previously subdivided parcel provided the chanqe does not alter the overall existing density of the parcel being subdivided." He . _ said he looked through the code, and this appeared to him to be the technically correct way to do this. � A discussion ensued with regard to the language "form of ownership." Whitsitt stated, that it is his interpretation, that it is being used here as a anti merger provision as opposed to a subdivision - °:'� exemption. There is no subdivision of any Zots here, they have already been subdivided. He thinks what the exemption is ";;� intended to address,, are issues of partition of a lot among ,� common owners, time sharinq on a lot, those kinds of instances. If you look at the definition of subdivision it includes a lot of separation of interest on a single lot. He thinks the intention ;� of the provision is to say beforehand �'if you come into the Board •.� and say we have a necessity to subdivide interest, partition ° interest on a lot but, we are not going to create additional `� density, or create additional building rights, we would like to be exempt from subdivision." That's what this was intended to Ya do. It has been his opinion, that the Board as well as the code x<� have been fairly aggressive on the merger doctrine. And that two adjoining lots (conforming or non conforming) that are metes and . ; bounds types parcels, when they are in common ownership will ' ' merge. It has been his opinion, that it is inappropriate to try and employ this to protect a future potential merger situation ` - �'� which is how it is being presented tonight. �� Klein stated, that for a long time, the County has taken the :;t� position that the combination of parcels as well as the division ;� of property is a subdivision activity. He cannat justify this • • ..:, but this is what has come down. .iz `t. � Ethridge stated, that there is a fundamental question of whether �� or not this section of the code is being applied appropriately. � His recollection of the subdivision exemption had to do with the � � definition, they want to see a form of ownership. And that is ' � not consistent with the definition of where evezyone is trying to get. - C I '_� Klein stated, that the form oE ownership to him, has to do with how it is titled, And that is why he thinks this section of the _� code may work. Because what is being said is, the form can be an ' ,.� adjoining neighbor yet it does not merge. - ;-, � BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 9 MAY 14, 1991 i ,,� .y' <;�. � � � `� ' . ��;.�,. . �5+ff'r#� � . ' . . . '1`�,.,' s'*. ' . , .. k�f;�, ,t. � • '=}r,r. . 4ir�:`.i'':�^�.,. . � � ..�"'a.".�;�� . ;��'r;•'' '��.�,:1.sj�'r ' �'�.� _ wc � . :S� X til�' •�0.. �� , L;_ r r .i�j . �'7YeA]�� . J}�� . I .' � . � T -� �'' .n . _: -..� _ , v r� :n�'.-C�T'0. J Y r �.� �- xi y-. k � y � i' � t �� !6 . �V S j ` � ; Y ., ��_ f ��' ..: ��} .5 ! " ��y "" y+ �F � . `°KA�N, r 4'a'�`�� {�a ��^'u �k i ' � �»�,`p1 ��c�+ � � �� .. _ . . . �_ .� . . - v �` � �'�:�l:.,.,:�'ti'�,��;�siae�,�+.�u.��{'�z4rli `.�n�. ''.�i,�. a.,. . �� iQ�.. ��.�a �,.�'�' -��..�f.��_�£ti . �i; ___ . ... . . .__ .._ . . Crowley stated, that whole idea of the merger rule is to prohibit people from avoiding subdivision. He said this property was adjacent to the Aspen Valley Ranch, which has gone through the subdivision process. Therefore, this one if granted, will have been through subdivision tonight through general submission. The Aspen Valley Ranch (both of them) will have already been through subdivision. So there is no avoidance of any subdivision rules - and regulations. It is just really splitting fine hairs, that these two are next to each other and therefore, would become . .. merged. A discussion ensued with regard to the caretaker unit. It was ;-,;i agreed that the size of the unit will be determined by � regulations in place at the time of building permit. - ;� Chairman Ethridge opened the hearing to public comment. .:.fi 'a�•j Glenn Horn representing the Cooks submitted an affidavit showing � their public notice. This affidavit is made a part of this � '' record as EXIiIBiT "F°. ;� Horn said the way this application evolved, was he was hired by ` the Werk and Shea Cook to do 1041, general submission and the '� caretaker unit. And while he was doing that, the property was placed under contract to Laurie and Dean Rollins who wanted to buy the site and build a house there. However, the Underwoods � ,I,� had the first right of refusal, and exercised their option to . - step in a buy the property instead of the Rollins. After they - did that, Klein wrote him a letter asking if the Cooks would be willing to submit an amendment to their application and ask for � � this subdivision exemption pursuant to Section 4-2.2., and ,�;:� therefore, that is how it all happened. Also, they are not � ,� opposed to any of the conditions proposed by the staff or the ��' Planning Commission. However, they do have a stumbling block of `<::�� what to do about avoiding the potential merger if the Underwoods go ahead and exercise their option. • r.� With regard to the history, Werk's father owned the entixe • • �i property. He sold it to another party and then it was sold to the Andersons which is Mary Jane Underwood's family, and they �.:. reserved out this 20 acre tract. When they did that, there were no subdivision regulations so they could not have gone through '�� any subdivision to get this seal of approval from the County on � "" the subdivision. They just described the metes and bounds � � properties; they did all they could back in the 60's because at .�y that time there were no subdivision regulations. So in light of - '.~.6 the fact, that it wasn't a platted subdivision just a metes and ':,� bounds parcel, they did not know what to do about avoiding this potential merger. So Herb Klein suggested that they make an :.� application under Section 4-2.2. He wonders if this section is i not for this, what it would be for. r; _� HOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 10 MAY 14, 1991 '�; � i �,}� _� `�•� . �•~ - . - - . �' �..,,: '� +�i ' � �. • �� .,_ ,.. .:a:a3.: ;`i' , • '"�'~�'V4. . � . �-4�c`l 5 � . !'•'*��'' _ � '�. .'��,`^) ,��sp�.�jj�� . }��R�.: . . . . �� . .:''D t'�" . � _ +'i>s; �•' �4.,,- �� ;� � a,� F , ' r L : � Y ^ � •:a , a A 4 ' L4.`�`'� . ...�� ) . t k.� � � .. F' � .j.�'Y,�"9".` �I � _•� e� k t t� h. . 1 d r 4Y�-�;�r;� � �r `� � f 91�u�i,�yn a�. ��in' �� .ny��`bt� ��Y,T.��;�p,�+,!•1yr�?��z`�`:. ;3 F y`�'�� , . x . H� . , �� `�`� �, 7��i��Ji t�: ' .__ ..:.. ��_-'-� ..��`wi�4i�[W.�r'Je`"k.�'S��t��r#"�# .e�-,.�' n.�'-"£. h'W�,. . ��..X�,.. .x,�n?`C��'tn`�'..r.t�C......,+fK' .,{,�;j�,. Yi`., i. Further discussion ensued with regard to whether or not the application was appropriate to be approved under this provision � of the code. Brook Peterson, representing the Cooks with regard fio sale of the property, stated, that he has discussed this issue with both Horn a�nd Klein. And what he sees, is a situation where Mary Jane Anderson Underwood is the only person in the world who cannot buy - this piece pf property and develop it, and he thinks this is • ; inappropriate. He thinks the property was properly subdivided 60 years ago, it has a development right, and the reason they are - here tonight is to deal with the development right. He reiterated that Mary Jane should not be prevented from acquiring -:�,; the property, being able to develop it or pass it on to someone else to develop. He said what Herb is asking for, is for the ',:� Board to not give the subdivision exemption but rule merely the ! interpretation, that there is not a merger because of the ;:~�,3 previous ownership of the two pieces of property, and he feels �?=�� this would solve the problem. He urged that the Board not make :._:J� the Underwoods the onl eo le that cannot bu this Y P P y piece of property and develop it. 'J Commissioner Ross asked Counsel if the exemption was approved or 'y,� if they take the letter of interpretation that Mr. Klein is suggesting, if it would set a precedent for other applicants to , ;� come in for the same consideration. ""' Whitsitt responded, that this is an exemption which can be ''�' < granted by the Board. Therefore, the Board will always have control because the Board can either grant or deny the exemption on a case by case basis. Iiowever, the Soard could be encouraging :;,a a number of people who have or are contemplating buying adjoining � • . -.V-;.� metes and bounds parcels before they do it to come in and ask for an exemption. ��w�� Peterson suggested, that the Board make specific findings �`�:' relative to this piece of property, that this right arises by , , �;;^� virtue of the right of first refusal and the subdivision of the ;'�-� property prior to the existence of suhdivision regulations. , `i >::j Klein reiterated, that because the property is a subdivision, it `• qualifies for an exemption. So he thinks that the section of the �� -"�� code is available for this even though it has never been used � before. . Glenn Horn suggested, that if this is approved, the Board should state a finding, that the Cook site is a con£orming site ih the -- _ RS-20 zone distxict. ' � �� Whitsitt stated, that he concurs with the two findings mentioned ;;1 by Peterson and Horn. He thinks in essence, what they are saying � '..' BOARD OF COUN'PY COMMISSTONERS 11 MAy 14, 1991 �� i i _i • � �;;. -_._ �r . �- > , . _ . ��a .. „_, .. - .. � . . � � � . - � ' .. . � . �; `.. � . . .. � . � .. , - � . ' �. . . . . . •'syxb*,;-'•�??�; £��ti;';,:, ' ..a,-i'.r:_=:.�:� . , � F,-` . *^r,. � ' a3Yj�' „ n'�A S ` �'�J!ry.'� . ,..��,�"i;.•: ' ';�;f�yr,:s�:�,. . ;��'-��-��`.`�' ,� ' � � .�`-� �.�,>. .k.,. : ,. _.;�F. : .. �� , ,� . 1 ��a ,�2 �,� ' � C ! ;t� N �� i . ?�7, F> 4 `��.c � . F � ` -,�, \ ._ �.�. • r ..• � � �sa t E�� . � ��•- s :'- � ,�r � � . �1A��yy}A*�. {, +• �y. . ,,,,��I ��i �'��r � �� t �t n � � ► a � , k�.. �u� �^�"�rGaL�� r�` r ! .. .. .�`�'�4�tr.. ,�.��.��v.��:k�'�� .c�r��tt��'`� �°.A'_'T:�.-��'.rc"' . Y.$.��,..... .��`� ,.a�. . z��:itt?'r4 r.�"`.'1ri1X. . i. �'�-�- -�Lc . is, if it is the Board's decisioa to employ this subdivision exemption provision they are essentially going to be rewriting it , and give some legislative history about what it means in the resolution, and he thinks it makes sense to confine it to the � facts. . - Chairman Ethridge closed the public comment portion of the hearing. . _ Commissioner Ross moved approval of the Cook caretaker unit, 1041 . � Special Review, General Submission and the Exemption from Subdivision siting those specific findings that have been enumerated by the County Attorney and subject to the conditions recommended by staff. Also, that the size of the caretalcer unit ! will conform to vhat is legal at the time of building permit. `:1 With a second by Commissioner Crowley seconded the motion. - ` ::� Whitsitt stated, that his recommendation would be use Section 4- �� 2.2 of the Code. That it is a discretionary exemption that has "?_,� to come before the Board of County Commissioners. Ae said it �sz seems to him, if they make a finding of non merger, then the ``.i Board may be bound by that and people will, in similar circumstances,. assume that they have not merged. Therefore, he ,! would prefer that the Board use this section rather than � determining, that this is not a merger under the County code . �� because he thinks it is clearly a merger under the code. Chairman Ethridge called for a vote on the motion. The motion - ; passed unanimously. � ' . a-� 4? CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - MARGY'S HUT SPECIAL REVIEW FOR SII1�II��R USE - MOTION TO TABLE - PASSED UNANIMOIISLY �� Chairman Ethridge opened the public hearing. There were no r"i � ,s comments. t:i�f � Commissioner Ross moved to table the matter to May 28, 1991. ,�'�^I With a sec.:nd by Commissioner Tuite, the motion passed . • .y� unanimously. y�j Chairman Ethridge stated, that tomorrow night there will be a „� public hearing on the Pfister Ranch/Golf application which will _ start at 5:30 p.m. in the District Court Room. , � !:.RESOLLITION APPROVING BENEDICP/PARIC TRIIST SIIBDIVISION EXEMP'PION FOR A PUBLIC PARR - ISOTION TO APPROVE - PASSED DNANIMOIISLY- ' Ellen Sassano, representing the Planning Office, summarized this item by stating, that the applicants, Fritz and Fabienne �- Benedict, are requesting approval of a subdivision exemption for i the creation of a public facility. The applicants propose to donate a ten acre parcel encompassing a portion of the face of ,:� Smuggler Mountain to Park Trust, Ltd, as a passive park. The 10 _ , BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 12 MAY 14, 1991 �::; • � 'ta v'� . ._ ,.. . _ __.. �r � . . . � � ' � � � . .. -... . . . .. . .. Jt''p�f-y" - � ��1 � ' . . . '- � � . . .k'�?�`.�.. . , . . . • �.e.�;-=-`� � . � '?Y•'.: .,:.ra�.. . �R:-�._ . . . _ , . w-Fr.�',`'�,i. ::+,y^S:wF'. . . 'u:r'y�J,,.'� � � i..'�'��,•, ��';: b��,��k^ i�.,i.,�1 . yM � 4 �'�,^. r:N� � � /// � f� t � w�'� . .i �hn �r � J . ' .�( � �k ..;N � � " . � .�, y - fl��,�`i t i r�, ��fs�ir d�ti i ', i � b � ��i � ; 3 q i \ ,� � . a . �� t�k ; = �t�: '� , �`3'�'r�,a'��t : + + + � a 31 i ^"v tu 1 �`y � �''� `, "�',�, W•.4��euW� .-y�, � �y� �� ..'�.&�.,1��,",.�",�-..pw:�ty.=�.�+o.'Stf�f.<��'�'�i -:d.��. . .. .�ys.t�'.e. ��..,. . ;� � f.,,r"!.i"t'j�.tt�. a acres are to subdivided from a 72 acre parcel located south of Hunter Creek on the north side of Smuggler Mountain. The applicants wish to donate the site as compensation to the Aspen community for the loss of the Marolt open space now used for affordable housing. The only issue associated with the subdivision exemption is access to the site. The applicant has been working on an access easement for use of the Hunter Creek Trail far pedestrian access to the site. However, the easement has not been completed to " � date but the appliaant anticipates having a final agreement in place soon. The County Attorney initially recommended that it be made a condition of approval, that the applicant agree (given the fact that there is not a signed access agreement) to indemnify the County in the event, that anybody using the trail sues the County before there is an access easement in place. However, the applicant has requested that the County Commissioners 1) accept - and approve the applioation as it has been submitted, assuming ��;=;� the access agreement will be finalized; 2) go with the County Attorney's recommendation to require the applicant to indemnify ��'�°� the County so the County would be liable for any suits that might -y'i be brought against them by people using the access trail; 3) ' allow the applicant to go through the process and get approval but to hold up signature of the final plat by the Board Chairman ' until the access agreement has been signed. *k: "`� Whitsitt stated, that the Board has approved the South Trail Access Agreement to this parcel, and it is now being circulated among the other landowners for signature before it comes to the `:.�. -� Board. There has been some delay but he thinks this is primarily ' • ". � because nobody picked up the agreement itself to circulate it for signature as opposed to there being any problems with it. He � expects to see it signed off by all the other parties and :� 4 presented to the Board in a fairly short time. ..y_::v . �:.;:,� -" Whitsitt said the code is very clear, that the Board require legal access to a lot as one of the requirements for approval. `':�� Failing the legal access, there has always been an indemnity � �`` '` requested from the landowner. And there have been specific 'yj�} instances, when approvals or reviews of land use items have gone � �r;- j ahead based oa the landowners agreement to release the County � from liability and indemnify against suit in the event that the � • laws are contested on the access issue. In this case, his , ' recommendation would be to stick with this requirement. However, � '"1 he thinks the Board could consider giving a conditional approval . and that the plat not be signed by the Chairman until such time as an access agreement has been fully executed and recorded. - Glenn Horn, representing Park Trust, Inc., stated that the only thing they are concerned about is, if the access issue drags on, � the opportunity to pick up the ten acre park will be jeopardized. _�� However, they do not have any problem waiting to sign the plat BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIaNERS 13 MAY 14, 1991 ��;� ,;; , �m. Ss •a . . . ... .. _.... . .. .. .... . , .. � __+ �r� .... ,. .. , .... . . . . .�� . . .. . .. . ,.. � . . ��h� . . . � - - . . : . • � �� .�� . ,A�'i.x`..F't� • � ' � . � . . r �'�Y:�x:'�' ` . � . � .��. �+ ��'j� ��. F�.:y y l.i�v. �,fti• %k�ki�*e:'- ..i; �,��(:��>: . � . �� 1�T ,r t'�'�,.. "`�'� - _ ' ' . � �� : � ��41w,3 - ��°5 �' � � � i. �''f4`y � i` � --2i .y'':.i; � �+r'�smt' a, f , `t � k� ..�lf,�{�f�.i ,y,y� .�� {�ii��a 'i �'�� `'"v y�T� �.� �� .� ' 4 t„� ,s!�� f - ,� �i a ;4' ��. �' �' Y ;�� y . . ��'�«� � - .. :'�... . #�.��,�_.. .. �"' �'a`��t .. . . K . �, r'�a�7��., . . . ....., L. .. •^f,F.,,,W!�.�,• . L until the easement has been approved. A discussion ensued with regard to this matter. - Commissioner Crowley moved to accept the subdivision exemption ' subject to access bei.ng provided pzior to the Chairman's signature, With a second by Commissioner True, the motian passed R ,.. . unanimouslg. Horn stated, that in their application, Park Trust asked that the County waive the $912 application fee because this is intended for a public park. ":';�� Commissioner Crowley moved to waive the $912 application fee. With a second by Commissioner Ross the motion passed unanimously. -'',_:;aj � RESOLL7TION APPROVING DAVIS/DONNELLY — MOTION TO APPROVE — PASSED :�;:�ii UNANIMOIISLY - Sassano summarized this item by stating, that the � _ �:�� applicants, Laura Donnelley, Brad Davis and Janis Provisor, are requesting Final Plat approval for the Davis/Donnelley Lot Split which received General Submission and 1041 Hazard approval from the Board on February 27, 1990. She said the applicants have : submitted response to conditions that were placed at general ��:� submission, and those have been addressed. They have also submitted a Final Plat Exhibit and a Subdivision Improvements _, Agreement. She proceeded to review the general submission conditions and the applicant�s response to them. A copy of her ;;',',j written presentation is made a part of this record as EXHIBIT • ..� nGn . � ` With regard to the Final Plat Exhibit, there is one amendment to ' � ;_:;y; :;, Condition No. 13 c. She said the applicant has requested, that . `;;,__;;:� the plat note state "each Zot is limited to 7500 square feet within each building envelope (including primary residence and "`�'y other accessory structures.) Staff does not have a problem with ��' this amendment. -- ,.;�. :y; ' A discussion ensued with regard to this amendment. It was - ' 1,�;; agreed, that the applicant's proposed amendment would be . "`°"i incorporated. . Sassano continued by stating, that another change the applicant �• ''�:=i� has requested relates to a statement in the Subdivision Improvements Agreement which currently says "access improvements shall be limited to grading, surfacing, slope stabilization and drainage control as, where required and shall be consistent with the plan submitted by the owner and approved by the engineering department and the Sasalt Fire District at the time final plat is 'c;:;� obtained." She said the applicant has requested a change in the �'; -`'''' language to state "shall be consistent with the plan submitted by ''-;�;' the owner and approved by the engineering department in '�, ..,��`;� coordination with the Basalt Fire District" rather than approved a;;:=?;; ,,�,,.;�. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 14 MAY 14, 1991 ' '�:%�.{ ::h J�C•v;�� .^�� ` � . . . .. . . -.. .. . . ... . . ' ��i� . _ �",€.cyy.�:a . � . .c:p,�^=. , . . ' . ��t.rGl:"{:1r`C " � . . ;:.;n-r,ds;' � . . s, 4i. +n.�,.�, � . Xy. . ��.fr ' . . iaah.. �M �. ::��' .. . . I � ��,�i�.:<,' .�r,�z �� • 'f�-�. l'�T +'�,'� "�fY k �� I �(� L Y f { h f�.'- Y .1•., � l; 1�� ,y �� n ipy ��r�t1, �� Ibl�S�e1� 1 ,�..:� C_ ,I h_.' � � Y�t��S �0:1!�'� tl��_.�`Y �*{t�.i�1y� L � . , . ♦ u+ � t � I � J A�'.d��.� ��v�,'�ti"� � r l �+a?�."�,o�,"y 0.� � �'. 4'��<}�°� ��y kt�' �` �`� ��'"�� `'�.� , � , .e� _t'��,��`�y:i''. ^� �ay y�,.�— 9_�f ��,7Ay�� '�'.� . ._ ..`ii�'��'^� - l ,'��' :' •� 1 . ` by the engineering department and Basalt Fire District. Staff concurs with the applicant because the final action is the same. ?_ With regard to the sprinkler system requirement, the applicant . has asked that this be added to the Subdivision Improvements Agreement and not be a requirement. She said staff continues to ��':• recommend it as a requirement. Sonny Vann, representing the applicant, addressed the issue by stating, that if the road is designed and brought into compliance � with the County's access standards, there will be no need for - that requirement, and therefore, it should be up to the ' discretion of the owner. � Amy Margerum, Planning Airector, stated that if the applicant did � not want a condition on sprinkling, then they shauld have 1 ; designed the roads and had all that information available and z apgroved prior to final plat. She said it concerns her, that � ;;� final plat is being approved without the information and taking � out such a condition. 3 Vann stated, that the plan was based on existing topography of , the area which would best fit the property boundaries. They � utilized the design of the individual access driveways, not roads, but driveways (existing jeep roads) an the property. The Planning Office requested plan and profile or engineering •:r drawings on those driveways by final plat. There was one section ' as well as a couple of other small areas which exceeded the 12 '� peraenC requirement for a driveway. Therefore, they agreed in , i their final plat appliaation to provide a detailed plan profile of the individual areas prior to issuance of a building permit. � Vann said generally speaking, individual driveway plan profiles . � are not required to be designed for a final plat application. ' ,:i Therefore, they provided the best information they had at the � time. He reiterated, that if they do provide the detailed plan • _, profiles at the time of building permit, then he does not think y sprinkling should be required. In the event they can not fulfill � the requirements, then they will have to reconsider sprinkling ' the residences. a � A discussion ensued with regard to the sprinkling issue. ' ' Sassano stated, that the fire protiection district would like to �' see both an adequate access road and sprinkling. However, the � Board has the authority to require sprinkling and the fire �'' district does not. � � Further discussion ensued with regard to this issue. Chairman Ethridge suggested, that staff continue with the other conditions of approval and come back to this issue later. . ; BOARD OF COUNTY WI�SSIONERS 15 MAY 14, 1991 � i=, i.� __.. �`� e . ... . � . . . . . . � . . � . .� .� � � . � _ • w . ��Y �� -::-.. . - �. . . � . `�, .�..: ' . . �•�-.,�ti:i; � _ . ��.��'�`', ' ' - . . E:!��e:.`Si. . .,x'1' :��d'-_ � • . ��i,.j, . •q`Sk'.,�it4„� '� :•��L`' �*��.�y; ��sa: +a,� � '�' . � � h;✓"�"•' �; .r., .-�.i'� ;�';,:� .«'�,'u; ��Y'r� � .� .- .. � I:.. �r: - . � . .. . y 4{ n ,y �� }'k A1 � + �� "�'v � S � :r�,,"i �r".� '` �r�d� t4 �+�`��'�-�S;!�`li� �'��"�y��'4S`'c1 j�t.��t�: �j�, �� t �S � 4 7 t a �� ,(d Y;S� „�'�'1"'^� Y �� I #i� .A.:'°•� J �. . s � �'�c'i��r ,.,� 'j n 1 : � ,.�-0n . aryy � x'+�yr i� rk� ��? . . X ��1,' t s�i -� � 1� ,� '��t�r .. �L�.�'Si�' '�� . . . �� '�� r "f � . . . . . . .. .��yE��. _ .. .. . ..... . .. .._ � :?� IiR�. •, • '�: ` 'e: , Sassano continued by re£erring to the condition regarding sewage " : disposal systems. She said Bob Nelson, with the Environmental �;•,r Health Department, recommends language which states "the ' applicant shall comply with the State Division of Water Resources ,:.1 , regarding restrictions on individual sewage disposal systems." � ,% .�` Staff has no problem with this recommended revision. � � . . With regard to Condition No. li a., she referred to a wildlife easement agreement when in fact, it is a conservation easement. Sassano said staff is recommending approval of the Davis/DOnnelly �:.. lot split final plat subject to conditions and the amended ;;� conditions which she has talKed about. ' �' Vann stated, that with regard to the conservation easement, they �",�; do have a problem with making the County a grantee in the , . conservation easement. He said the attorney�s office concern � was, that if something should inadvertently happen to ACES what happens to the easement. They have discussed this with the � attorney's office and they would like to see an amendment to the ± ; conservation easement to provide a provision if, for whatever • reason ACES is no longer, then the easement will automatically �• convey to the County. He would like to request an amendment to Condition No. 11 that simply states that a provision for .' � conversion of the easement to the County be provided in the event , that ACES is no longer a legal entity capable of holding such an � easement. . ; Commissioner members cancurred and agreed that the language could • be changed. '% Vann continued, that the only other comments he has with respect '� to the design of the particular portion of the access to Lot 2 being subject to the County Engineer's approval. Iie said the way : ; it is written now is it would also be subject to the Basalt Fire j District. He has a concern that another entities criteria may be , � more stringent. He feels as fax as the final plat is concerned it is a County issue and not a decision of the fire district. . , .ti . ,+ � Ethridge suggested, that prior to the Chairman's signature of the ; final plat be contingent upon the County Engineer approval, that ; ` the County access standard had been met. This will allow the applicant some time to get with the County Enqineer, do some � � surveyinq and work it out on that basis. ` � ;, ' Vann stated, that he would like to request, if the access � � � slightly exceeds 12 percent, and is acceptable to the county � enqineer, that he have the authorization to sign off on it. � _ � i "J Tom Newland, County Engineer, addressed the fire sprinkling issue � by stating, that he feels a sprinkling system should be installed . BOARD OF COUNTSC CpMMTSSTONERS 16 MAY 14, 1991 .�f� a ��r 4R� y , r� E✓tr�� . , .' . . � . � - . . .. � . . r�.. _ i: . . i , .. , . . . . . Y. � °F,rFd• - . .��---- . ��V7. .. � . , 'atr?r �.krr,p��...a:��.�- . . �� '��,.`�;'��•r . . . �� „��' �::,. �� .`"�� .� t'a j `� . �,` � , �j ��,�`�[x , t " * \ _, �,� �. 'l�� ' '�-�� ,, ,^n�. Et��+'��1 I"J .' ' ' �.:� ��', �n, �$"ti y �5 ! �„�T`y��, �aL�qV Y.t� �'"F �r:.� � ''it . i �, �� r a Ay` ^i".. �p. ar i,l'��'. �T Y � ��yb�+'.��.� .. . . '� �� .. .. ��y;�•_� l �� r+ . .Y�tv. �"-s`�,' �... r � .��'X�;,�.... .. . .. .. .. . .�.r'J``.1 4' . . '.. �, ' rather than trying to wait on a rural fire district to save the ' house in the case of a fire. - Ethridge stated, that the Board has been fairly consistent in :'lr .� terirts of having either adequate access or a sprinkling system. They can recommend that the applicants have an adequate � sprinkling system but they can not require it in the code. �.',`'•�� Sassano addressed the issue that Vann brought up with regard to � the 12 percent variance. She said the district has stated, that they can live with 12 percent. However, Sonny has asked that the applicant be allowed to vary with the approval of the County • Engineer and she thinks this is where the rub will be. ± Ethridge asked to correct his previous statement with regard to � the sprinkling issue. He said the Board has not in the past �!.:: required both adequate access and sprinkling, that was a condition recommended by the Planning Commission, but it is also ' in the latest letter received from the Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District. A copy of this letter is made a part of this record as EXHIBIT "H". ' Ethridge stated, that the two unresolved issues are sprinkling �?; and/or access and the issue of the access prior to final plat. He asked what the Board's pleasure was regarding the � recommendation by the Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District � � regarding sprinkling. The majority of the Board recommended • sprinkling on Lots 1 and 2. j He asked what the Board's pleasure was with regard to access issue. He said there was a suggestion made to his proposed , - amendment which would give Tom Newland the authority for some �- � slight variation in the interest of a broader environmental standard. Therefore, the Chairman would be authorized to sign the final plat upon approval by the County Engineer, that the � _ County access standards have been met to his satisfaction. It was the consensus of the Board that this amendment could be made. , Commissioner Ross moved approval of the Davis/Donnelly Lot Split and General Submission application with the recommended , , ' conditions with amendments. With a second by Commissioner True, the motion passed unanimously. � �.� SECOND READING - FINAL 1990 SIIPPLEI+IENTAL BUDGET RESOLIITION- �t MOTION TO APPROVS - PASSED UNANIMOUSLY ! _ es:i Commissioner Ross moved approval of the resolution. With a �s; � second by Commissioner Tuite, the motion passed unanimously. APPROVING PLACE!lI�NT ALTERNATIVE CONTRACT - I�OTION TO APPROVE- ,`,� � PASSED UNANIMOIISLY ;:'� BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 17 MAY 14� 1991 � ��1;r:. i I �. � --i � ♦ .:�-.1 �-.,.-. ..-��' . . . ... . . ..... .._ . . _ , �i�� - � . .. .. . . " . - . . � . ' �y.. �'a�i"f.;�,. . ' - � ... . . �'f:..��:� � , . ._..� .,x,��_,;��u.. . . ' . v°'t{�+'�,� , �n't ii;.Sy�',� � ' . :,�.LL�t�� . ' �� .�.�: z..'.r: . �:;�'��''�.��,.'�.ia . i�Y.tti;x �y J � . � �� ./ �.a;�.. L f.t ._..... �„�� 3 � r ' �t��!+�- M1 � � S'�' `+�4f t t t t ,. ��'`w 1 � . ( `� k�,�` �""'' d� i� ^L�S�'a �� J,r S �� , , � t 1 � x`r x�. � � ( � �. ' R �T� �' �.c� 1 � ��S 4 ; w ' -� �, a,��Y i`�St��'�t k�:�j��rx�.�,� L'�wi'4� ' i ,i�� n�� .�p�� 5 c��`.;.ti� ,�� . ,d'�s, `{�s,�'j r,t�i `t+� . 5 �� 4 1' }A r a" b4;�'�rr. S.�� . . . ��' t 1 .� '' 1��!� . ._ . ,.. . . .. �'.V'.+ ..�. u + . _ Co�nissioner Cxowley moved approval and author.ized t�he Chairman . to sign the contract. With a second by Commissioner Tuite, the `��r motion passed unani.mously. TEMPORARILY �MENDING ARTICLE 32 OF TEIE PITKIN CODNTY AIRPORT ` .'� ` REGIII,ATIONS TO PERMTT CLOSIIRE OF TfiE ASPEN/PITKIN COIINTY AIRPORT FOR TfIE ASPEN AIR SHOW - MOTION TO APPROVE AND SET FOR SECOND 1 READING - PASSSD UNANIMOUSLY � • ! Co�missioner Tuite moved approval and set for second reading on � , May 28, 1991. With a second by Commissioner Ross, the motion passed unani.mously. � %. � i.` RESOLIITION ADOPTING A RESP02JSE TO 7.'HE CON[JNDRUM MARBLE PROPOSAL �i;,-. � DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATII��NT - MOTYON TO APPROVE - PASSED ' t _ . WITH FOUR YEA AND ONE NAY VOTE - Mark Fuller summarized this item by stating, that at the Board's direction he has redrafted several parts of the letter of response to the White River National Forest to emphasize a nwnber of points among those the County's feeling, that the draft Environmental Impact Statement does not meet the standards of the County's environmental policy and it should be rewritten. A copy of his written presentation is made a part of this record as EXHIBIT "T"_ Commissioner Ross moved approval of the resolution adopting a �;�� response to the Conundrum Marble Proposal Draft Environmental :i;, Impact Statement. With a second by Tuite, the motion passed with `. , � four yea votes by Commissioners Ethridge, Tuite, Ross and True `• and one nay vote by Commissioner Crowley. '..�� JOINT RES07ATION pF THE PITRIN COIIN'PY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS THE V1�! :� � ' TOWN COIINCIL OF SNOWHASS VILI.AGE. COLO AND THE CITY COIINCIL OF ASPEN COIARADO AIITfiORIZING A SCOPE OF WORK AND ESTABLISHING A TASIC FURCE FOR TAE SNOWMASS TO ASPEN TRANSIT PI�tJ - MOTION TO -: � � ' APPROVE - PASSED IINANIMOIISLY - Tom Newland summarized thi5 item :. �. by stating, that this resolution has been drafted in response to • the Board's direction after the February 19, 1991 joint meeting between the Snowmass Town Council and the Commissioners. The joint resolution authorizes the Scope of Work for the Snowmass to ', '" Aspen Transit Plan, as amended at the joint meeting, and • establishes a task force of staff inembers to be charged with completion of the Scope of Work. � �; ' ,:�.' Reid Haughey, County Manager, stated that in a work session � ' - yesterday, the Board directed that the wording in the Scope of , �'Y Work that authorizes the potential hiring of consultants be I��, removed and to correct the spelling of Dick Wall's name. -53 Commissioner Crowley moved approval of the resolution as amended. With a second by Commissioner Tuite, the motion passed �I unanimously. i-:;. BOARD OF COUNTY COMIIISSIONERS 18 MAY 14, 1991 !,': . � • +�t�a�:'� �v,, r� 'M ..��;r . � � � ��_.,- t,:p,u^,:.,., - - . :�:+•. ' �'.w:ilt.:'%i: . .a�_.;'`a_ k.:F.- . . ,�jGi';'aa'�' . � ..��Y?�`r.'�;i`.�t , • � y^CU;�a'�^��(. �'.,?�.,�te9':�-�::::i.. �i�r�� `�9i�. ,�''�f... - %;c; v�. . ^Yao.. �l`�'G n �.ti;�r. �r :�S'r4i S %T - �, �j,i'�.�yi �},.Kr �� -..i 3 i� ' � -:� . �.:' , �r�� s � �M�' � ;�„}�T�'d��Y YiJ r� 1 a�. �r d ,, � ,a� r,,,j f,� 3i s �,�*'�r+a�f x3� `� S ,�`1`° t � t� : �`s y`ry''` i�.ti r �"'*� x'y'�'�'�5 Eb�'��t , ; � 1 x e._. u Y _;��a.�T� �� .� 'i< ��:�� „ :�,�::. . � .�,7{e�s�t.f.;'I...�.J�?'y,t'� i � -; � : - r, e,� . .. . � '� • , . +. � � � .t�:�k�,�7�Q� ... '�'t �.:° ... . wF �.. . . . . � � ��. �y.� .�.,5' , . . .� . . . R. • APPROVING SOLID WASTE STi7DY INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT - MOTION - TO APPROVB - PASSED UNANTMOUSLY ' Y Chairman Ethridge stated, that he would like to thank the Town of �•� 1 ' Snowmass Village for stepping in and resolving a particularly ` "'� thorny patential liability issue and gettinq the issue before the ' � : Board tonight. � ' . Haughey stated, that agreement sets up an intergovernmental group I for a period of 18 months to govern a contract to study solid � waste issues within the Roaring Fork Valley. The apparent j � ' successful bidder is a group called RW Beck; the scope of work to � :!. be negotiated at the next meeting of the group. " +� �' ''�' Commissioner Tuite stated, that there was a correction made at last night City Council meeting. He said the population estimate for Aspen and Pitkin County was somewhat reversed. He asked if ; there is a clerical error, that it be corrected prior to final signature. Haughey said he would confirm the papulation estimates and if � �� t there is a correction to be made will see that it is done. Commissioner Tuite moved approval suhject to review of the ``` numerical information prior to final signature by the Chairman. :�� With a second by Commissioner Crowley, the motion passed r�;, - - unanimously. i. .i FIRST READING AND SET FOR PIIBLIC HEARING - ROARING FORK TRANSIT ',,�� AIITIiORITX RESOLUTION APPROVING INTERGOVERNMlENTAL AGREEMENT +•,`;�;: BETWEEN ROARING FORK TRANSIT AGENCX AND TOWN OF CARBONDALE AND ,:� � APPROVIIQG AND RATIFYING THE IGA'S CRF.ATING THE ROARING FORR - TRANSIT AGENCY - MOTION TO APPROVE AND SET FOR SECOND READING '. f i. . " Dan Blankenship, General Manager of RFTA, stated, that the RFTA � has been providing transportation to the Town of Carbondale for • approximately four years. The first three years it was provided .,�' on a subscription bases for Aspen Skiing Company employees. � , Approximately two years aqo, RFTA opened the service to the '; general public. In return for these services, the Town has provided an annual contribution and allowed RFTA to park buses at � its maintenance facility, and offered land for a park and ride _�� ' facility. • ( Last year, the County Powers Act (HB-1104) was amended to �� y + authorize counties to contract and cooperate with other political .!; subdivisions and governmental entities in the State of Colorado ;.� ,� to develop, maintain and operate mass transit systems. �- t,� Therefore, it is desirable to memorialize, by intergove7rnmental aqreement, the current arrangement between RFTA and the Town of �� Carbondale so as to benefit from the powers granted counties ' HOARD OF COIJNTY COMMISSTONERS 19 MAY 14, 1992 , � ��a . � _ . � � � � . . � . � � � �. i . . ��1=��_ • . , . . . �.�.._ ' . .:�,�iy?',��`'- •ar..��.-:��' � ' . �' , �: qvr±�3.7;' . � . 'K; '_,y+ � . �'r".�xij.: . ':?�:i�r�':f�'si�y: n�F'�` . } � �:��s-r ,r r.'iY z:. .ar,�..:'a _. �� a� yy�q�f�r � ON�♦ � - ' . �t��,�7�,1,p��,��F'��i zi' a 1 � "�� ;x !y l t�,��`'S�'+'"�la��tE��r {nt'. - kti., ��: [v'�X wiz ic :. � - . � .. ?�r �� i� ,,. . nyr,if:) f4�,� �. s4 A .= L y 4,Y'� K x ��K�s L.��aL F_ .�, .. ��`��'��.r.Y ,� .'.�,•a.t��w��1M�.Y��7!C;��.S��`�`��5.2^��tl� .� S t. , . . ,,. t'� ��dy�A�: . . . _rJ:. ' ��i+2y.d ; 1' ' ��i''�yte .fl.• .l�`�!_l:i,�ry'{'n��i t,' . .i�r��^r�.�kf:'�h;:� t' pursuant to Section 30-11-101O (F}, Colorado Revised Statutes. , "' , - , .� So as to bring the IGA between RFTA and the town of Carbondale ' � � into conformanae with the language of the County Powers Act, it � should be adopted by ordinance. Also, to brinq the original . - IGA�s creating RFTA into conformance with the language of the - County Powers Aat, they should also be approved and ratified by • �=-� ; ordinance. This ordinance also authorizes the Board of Directors - to execute future IGA/s on behalf of the Board of County ' '� Commissioners. Commissioner Crowle moved a r.'` �,�"�, y pproval of first reading of the ordinanae and set for pub2ic hearing on May 28, 2991. With a ,•`;�� second by Co�missioner Ross, the motion passed unanimously. ' APPROVAL OF AMBULANCE LICENSES - MOTION TO APPROVS - YASSED ' �f ,., . � � UNANIMOSDLY is��.,- � _ �,. � Commissioner Crowle moved a ',' ; y pproval of the ambulance licenses. � With a second by Commissi.oner Ross, the motion passed ''�' " � unanimously. i �' . i��? � � � AA70IIRNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. ' 5 � Res ectfully sab tted, � s :� G . l � � � �C�� Z,Le",• ti � eanette Jo Clerk to the Board af County Commissioners �'• .. ..i�i . "� . t ` � f . ? � ' 7 � � `' { .. � '� �' . i;f ' . .� . � .�;::� ,. , ; BOARD OF COIINTY COPIldTSSZONSRS 20 MAY 14, 1991 �" � '�; `>+� _; 1 �S,. + ::( � . ....... . • . . _.kti �� r � ' —_.,,, �,. :�_.. ..,r-.• .,r.�. .� �.:: '� .�. �1 ►K �.._. .. :. - , . _.. . , t . ' � ! - _ �� . i � ��. ' . :y ti,. � . �iY .� ` �.. . �. �'Y, . tk � � �' . �, ,L. �_,;e �+�`� r; , ' , ..! `, '� .. � � . � �l ' R` A�yi1L�;�JxF �Y�}�--j°l-. r �y�.9''�j�, $q' �y�l s..�p �.:.�.!, � .w ��'1 .' y � Rv'�iA �.�5��}'s Y �� 11�:'� ,�.Y ~,l�` �('t�Y�tt^'�Y% 1. ��,,�+H,e �� , F -.^t, .. � r t s ti � �C-�'! i +�'� ir n �� :�, � ��i` ,,s, `'�-T`4 .c av�.� k s y F �� '� ,q'�o�, ay t " c: � 1 '��r ��w.t�`-" J�tl f' `kh, � . . . - W�tr.-- . _ :.'M'q ,�,�. + �. �� ..f�.:i��l�, � ¢ti.: . .. . ... � . .j2 .. , � �.. . '`..r-..- .. 5��1'�i.'. � � . .li �t ir;:e . .. . . . . ... ., . ... �R' .... '� .. � ._.. ... . : ..... . ... . .. ., , ..-. .. . �'�:cs� �i �1�3'1.t(. I�tZ...� �° . t. 51'� ��;. May 14, 1991 � To the Board oE Covnty Coiamissioners: ••• I dm a member �f tlip �xrp��rk �r�i.se �dvi.'.�oty cc�mriittee ar.d also a • - m�=mksar of th� Wood� Cr.��:k _:•:�".za• eirrcttt.i^:�a ,°,�r.:m.t!:ee. As you ki7uw . ? � k C�CA .ct7 }1P_ Z 2,..FiD::'.. �.1 it�S 1mj78i7L" QR 1 t5 ��-r . Y�elt�e. h3r ii E:r.•n �%.ttt t.;r�+- ±� r -r ,.a neighbor.s for many yz�rs. . ; ' �,�;,:�u. Reasons �ay cxist for somc �E t:;,e 1F�rii3ua��ci o�' thr. draft airpor.t Fflo ,-• resol.utipn whiah yoia hav2 brf�,r.e yoi�. F�� e•:cample., I t?tink it is ''- " :,� �r go�ad itl�a t.� sh�:v 'tne t�ar.y rti=•�ns wtiit;h a�aj.�j�!)"'t. the ex:terszan of � th� c=ta>.•re:�C F.BO z�n..�ati:�nsr,:.j�s Go-r at: 2e�s_'; a y.^a:. (I. personaJ.?y -:- ^: aars bri:,_e 4�� w.il] yE able L•o 't rhin:� i� wiI]. t.�:N.�a �t le�a., y Y"' ' • • a.ssimila�a nll of tl��? ne� irii�:,rmation c:c�r.;i.r.�� ir� an�3 t.o tuake tha �s � best F80 �2ec.ision for C11e cw;�a�unity.) '�; i' However, Z see t10 r.e�won for 5cction 3 ct tt:e resolution at a?I. �' ;4. � yo onn in tY�F r.onu�unity i:> rc-:��er�ti*�y yr.-u �a rn�t trac}: the land ��:.`" � use planr.a.»g �r anpr.�v7.L �t�acess in t)tis way. iTany c,P us dz'E ue.ry conctrn�cl that Ct:s Ianguac�e of Sectian 3 fs v��Yy p't'emat;,ur4. 'tt is qi.citie pos�ibl.e tt�at "er..ta.�n 3 might ps�erl.ude options which tY�e co��nt� �ay wish to r_�'�ns?dr;r wcen the results of trie naxsP and safety s�ur3i�_= {tr,�w in �rroc��::.; ara rece?ved, and the � pr,�]P_Y FAA di_=.�utes are r.L?Sa].ved by litig..�iorz cr. �therwise. � M�t�y;cf us zn tY,�� cor�t�niCy ara not i.npre�.��i with th� ciaim tY:�t . we rousr. t�ke a :�ection 3 fast •track appr��a<<�� bF�.t�use the FAA or esame�ne else might sue us. �. Rather than �eing "pra-acY.ive« prem3Yuxe]y, we 1:hink tr�z cr.runty stivul�l advpt. a "c•eac.kive'� ��,ssiure re�3a�rdi.nq any Aajor f�srtner .� . . � a�r�,ort d�.ve:lr��mc�nr. r]ec-S.�ai.nr;. T11at is: arr�F,r. CYie ::eurts t�il us w� h�Vt �G d0 5041t'�.it]ruJ� 'r1c^ I4�.'.it t:D)�i;2dCX Wi1:st. h�`:a '�O d0 1� (and adopt �� . , new ma�terglans}. �,, " We ask tri� E�oatd t.�� de��te :sect_son 3 tn it� c:Y,t.i t^�ty, and te defez (. �ansi.dsrari.on of any f4rm:�1 land use plan�zng +�r approval f. • ' " activities �anti2 m.nre i� Y.nown, inc:l.udir�q tPie air�•ort studi.es. �`� j .. � In �h�a meantim�, ik w�:uT.d Y;� a ��av�l idfaa .if S:Vtie 3oaYd referred the � existi.ng airport ma��leri�la:� t?acic to P&, wAl•ti a r.erfilasY thaG pri�r , �astAr plan ap��r�val� bc: =�:=�en�. uen��ing f.ur.thF:t revlew Af all o: �' the new inFo_'ma`i��n (c�hirti7 i.� ;��ing ��at11�-r�ady ttkat need.5 to t�e c�nsi�ered. .�t th�it s:i.L�e th<: �&Z, c.he 6ur+-�] �+.nd (:ha community aan have >an info.rm�:d di�cussi.Un (i�t tha nc�r�.rel maskerplan r2visiotl �� h�_arirc� process) o:° khat��*r �x t�t:t, �ar h�;•w, we �ay want •t�a expanQ , _� y ��i airpux t besed �iE;vi: nuz• aR�i.1 i+:y p.0 i.nahr�i r..y tc> ;.antrol i'ts u5e. ' Sincerel.y, � Fi�AFtD 0��(9.�(?F!ti,�'t�'� � Tom Melberq F'i'iKih GOUNT`( F':�h;ic Finat'ir�;L•��iibitS •� 2 �atti'=...1.:_.��.aq/ i L��iijt�:t;f �u ` �s ', i�i a::t. 1`'J, i . V �� :. .;;� � "-�-,�,� , :..... .. . . , ,,. '•.. � �� . �v n��::�,;�, . - ��'��'`,r' , . , _ , Q •r' :'��+ .�y 'ryr:t;'v' ' , �� it� ��?u � � sa'e; ��.1 �y�� t r ~' � •�� . J ".. . + `` ,� „ ''": � �:�' a . . er, .c ,.qp.�}�nx?:t��' �'. 'Y,� � ` ,�'jt; �� , '�`S �,. . ".� \ :,� �' fi's-. "�'� ��'� i ��i�`�'� ti �� '�. b��t . 4 ��,��i � � q�p�t�, �t �n,� ;�y � i t��..t`} c i'N�. r��'r'� ��'f� �i��'��}�t-yrf . . . 4�:�rq`S !�..��:�. a�..'�� `�,��*��t"w��":��'��'�*�'f�tt�•.t��'�,,,,,�,t��Ls; • e� ; �� :> ;.� �c..►d�o��sr«P . . . ., at?Ftkt)t,F 56. ts::.dcr;�n�r, � � I�':I��•:I!:t.+: ;i'j . r�;r:�:�.i;,��;:;�`C�.�;;��;,s ��"h�--,�Xl� � �e,yi�n s =.;.� - !:i. ��... 'r y-�-�'�+�7�/vi` ... _"'.... .._'_'- ,'j';.P1�. 4 � May 14, 1991 • �; . Box 321 i.� Aspen, Co. 81612 �i, . .. : ,; 1� � _ Pitkin County Board of Commissioners � �i,-�,. + . F Dear Board Members: f For the record, please hear these comments regarding the airpoT� resolution before you. ' i• We urge you to approve the Fixed Base Operator one year extension, ;�t; , - -�: section �2, and to table section �3 and send it back to P&Z for :•�/;' re-consideration, P&Z approved this pla.n several years ago. �I�� They did this with little oi no public input. Much new informa- �- tion has come to light in the interim. We are currently engaged ;",''�� • , ;_� i in noise and safety studies due to be completed befox�the end of this year. To make a move before these studies are complete is not . . prudent. It is not in the best interests of Pitkin County. It is n�t in the best interestsof your constiuents. There is no pressing ' ; need to rush this resolution through at this time, even in the light of threatened litigation. ''� . ,' ,-' ;..:,;'. . We feel it is only reasonable and certainly not asking too much ,:�:5� to postpone this action. ,`��' �� ; -- .j"' � I represent not only myself, but many others in this request, � �, � :....� . � � Stop: Let's do it right; � ,* 'i; � Thank you. `.. ; Don Lemo)s `," ./1 ��V ��F' �f-�� Woody.;Creek Caucus � 1 � .. r��j , ; _ - cy� , � a• .�.'' � � :!��~ . ' ' �. , �� .k.;:;F� ' 5� �;��C"� 1= + ` . "{ �a A�, ( ��:{�- /l'� �y�.�y � y' 7�'.� ♦'E� !'4)t,,�' i �k.' - �. 1 x .: i � + � ,a.; : l�. � c� �r�r , i ;! A �v�r � �� t � i f i t�w.tf � �"Y��r�`t�'+x ' 1��, � ��.�R � �>; ��'�'hR ��+�:;p�,, f'��.�r � ��; '`��. . r�� 7F��.� �•+' 1��.y��:. � ._... .•.i��,A't,.,^� ��'r' .-�.... x..�lSi..,��t�A��i.A,[.::k'Jg:._.� . ..ur_:.:�....._...:Y .iiF��a. . r f��q�[• y:,. . nu'at''L'.��L!j:;`� BOAf:U UF G�. l•Utd;��'R':i :-�.�' f'!I!(IPd CUi!iF?V . . � Pu•.�;ic hfi+ariny Ci,ii'.ci?s � Qaie._�� Sub+.e�t:�L�/fo E�R•1tN� ; M �� - • {:Xh. (`�J. �� . . ��i:`•)?�.��.;. • ,,�•� . �. . c — ' I�'.f i'. , r .� ' i. :*',i.'� �i:i;: ., ; � . E�i: • : ; : >43; ; i-i' � i I i i� I .1�'.. 1 i,• . • k � .: i �,% '�V � . � ;: f Section 3 .�r � That the County Manager and the Airport Manager are hereby ., directed to present to the Board in work session as soon as is "� ' practicable, a staff Work Plan to advance and resolve, where � !.�;. . possible, the identified unresolved planning issues prerequisite •��t`f , to the proposed procurement action and conversion/redevelopment 'x:y`' i of the GA Area, all as set forth in Section 1 herein, and to ': �, �.; process and complete, as soon as is practicable, Minimum stan- : e�:� � dards (including a Land-use Identification Plan) , land-use � i applications and procurement action necessary for a competition ( `:�(�`,' ffor two full-service FSOs. The Work Plan should include, without ; ;��,!�.' � . limitation, the following: ; '" ,' .; 8 � _.�, , � ; 1�'� , ,>;:� . , . .. .� - -- --_ _ � _ --- _�.�,,. .._..__ . __-- ----- _ „ ��`:- . : ---- ._ ...._. .. � _ __ . .._. .-.' '�,�:., ` _ � _. .. . ,.. � � ' '� . ' �. - � ��_.�... zi�: '='` , ' � ��' ' .,� , � �.; -:�y: ��• ,� +�� ' .�.:� �� ''�,tis •1 ., ; < , . ' *�� y�� t ,n ��,,+� , -`�- , ,� ^y�; ,�r�,i t`+ n��'.f a4a ,,tR,� y�� '� t=t t � '.f� `��.��b�9�r�'�[.��'�§��''�4M'�F� i��;`�i j � , +�� . . ��'"��'�`,� �'��l .��.��. ' y� 1 ��,�.��r��"',. ��.��C��C��.it`*.A3e�P�°,�`.�•k}kl�y��.:'' a. A report (in executive session, if appropriate) on the ' precise stat�s of the Airport Ranch (Parcel A) land acquisi- tion/condemnation proceedings and proposed financing including - target dates for receipt of the pending appraisals, the possible ;:•r !� filing of a motion for immediate possession and actual posses- t ', i. sion. . ,., j:�',•:�'. t b. A report on the precise status of the proposed Highway . 82 relocation project, including design, approval, procurement, contracting and construction start and coordination issues. �' c. A report on the precise status of the various planning � r/ prerequisites to the proposed procurement action and development ( ;: o f t h e G A A r e a a s s e t f o r t h i n S e c t i o n 1 h e r e i n a n d a p l a n w i t h i { � calendar deadlines for the prioritization, coordination, resolu- }:= - tion and amendment of those issues, substantially with the following format: � (I) Minimum Standards and Land-Use Identification Plan. Staff shall, as soon as is practicable, but no later than May 30, 1991, submit to the BOCC for review, referral and approval, proposed Minimum Standards for Aeronautical Activities and an accom- �.� . panying Land-USe Identification Plan addressing the following alternatives: � the sequential or the simultaneous conversion/ , • redevelopmeht of two full-service FBO facilities; the conversion/redevelopment o£ existing facili- �j ties or the redevelopment of new faciZities; and, � . • V�ith regard to the land area ta be made available - • for FSO redevelopment, the existing GA operations area or the addition of all or part of future land that may be available if and when Highway 82 , is relocated. � This proposal should also include analysis and � j staff recommendations of the potential impact of ' various alternatives on the interrelated planning � ;� issues, including, without limitation, FAA Compli- �..: `* , ance Planning, Airport Master Planning, Airport ;::; � Land-Use Planning, Airport Capital Improvements !• •� . . Planning, Airport Data Base Planning, Airport Fi- �S nancial Planning, Airport Procurement Planning and � __ FBO Development Process Planning. �y ' << i ' . As part of this process, staff may employ a consul- i, ;� tant to make a recommendation on the effect of the ;.`r . various conversion/redevelopment alternatives on ;; present and future operational efficiency of the GA "�; ; 9 A ��,,,;�.: I . ��..�j� _ __ ... _ . . . . ,.., : ��EM ��:.w.. , � ' . ' . ' �;p�'�;��4. ' �' ; ' .. ' ar .� ,�� :''s' �� . � . � :�� r ��F . • . , . '�,.��'�'� � � � ;ih,�.'��:,�� t. . i�J�;� �� .?� ,.��,;< ��. "��`'�- , , / : 4 , �.j { ' � i � s 1 -`�' .� � \ �' � � ry. �, t�, �. . � � � ��p't�� J x+ �i��}�� ,�?.r�i�� '��f . ! �._�[,�,�at�d�. v},� 'f ��1.{,}�v�� vt �.� � �..� +1�� f..� 1�+ s' uvt,4.Pv 4n��.,,�t��`��k�� t��'tt ��. s�p� d' t y. +3 yA�t � �, � t,�� + '�+ �' ,�C+a,jt � y x, °1#k� ��!�.r, . ��'' AJ, ��1� . . ' l. ;�. _�.b.�:�."IN�s�'►��t';`��L�—�dt4fi'.�` y .`:�;i„��y�+.� �. . � � ', . . - ��. �. s,, � ' Area and of the Airport as a whole. Staff also may . contract for survey and platting services suffi- � ' cient to provide a data base for the Land-Use Iden- ' - tification Plan and future land-use applications ;•:,r !"' ; and contracting. ' ' Once fihese various alternatives have been presented i f1�r`,�` , - to and prioritized by the Board, the proposed Mini- � . mum Standards and Land-Use Identification Plan shall be referred to appropriate regulatory, review and user entities for comment. � :; . . I i , . After receipt of comment and final staff recommen- I dations, the Board will promulgate Minimum Stan- � � dards, adopt the Land-Use Identification Plan and �°. direct staff to file or facilitate the appropriate � land-use applications. °'�.. , This phase of the Work Plan must be completed by May 30, 1991, to reserve suPficient time to file a GMP Allotment Application, if appropriate, by July 1, 1991. � (2) Land-Use Applications. Depending on the consensus !• 3 of the Board, through the process of considering and adopting the Minimum Standards and Land-Use Identification Plan, on the type, timinq and loca- , . tion of the conversion/redevelopment to two full- service FBOS to be encouraged or required, the + Board shall then: direct staff to prepare and file � the appropriate land-use applications; open the . procurement and direct staff to prepare and file ; " the appropriate land-use applications with the prospective proposers participating in the land-use process in a pre-proposal stage; or open and con- duct the procurement and require the selected pro- , poser(s) to file the appropriate land-use applica- ` tions. , The potential land-use applications are: ' (a) Supplement or Amendment of the Airport Master "., Plan (and Airport Public Zoning Master Plan). " The adopted Airport Master Plan specifically "� . deferred �onsideration of commercial develop- � ment of the GA Area. Depending on the nature , of the proposed conversion/redevelopment, the ' Master Plan will have to be supplemented or, �Y � possibly, amended. • , rg . (b) GMP Allotment or Exemption. Again, depending !' . on the proposed development, the Airport (pos- � .l: � 10 ti,' i �'.. , a �,.:- I, . � ::�.�:: �.,:;. , ... .... _. _. ....._ . .. �� . . . .. _ ..,. ... . . _ . � �..�: , . ... . � �'�� ` ' . � . . . w^1�g��'' . . rlrR=�.s��`..t}"�1. • . . . �1�'Sy��'�L��. . . . • YR�, 1,�y_,f � . . S� �� .�� _ � f•'Y, i;��s Y��x � �� • �� d�„ - .b�� .'J.� . (I 1 . � . . . . . ' . .-..... ��T ��'.�' �" �t �1�� .�p '��y {r1� Il . .a,a,y�- �1�.. �'j`�'(��f. -�'f'. dr� � .f�OJ15��.:h�y� �'�y� � �-� YJ �4 '�� J��,4R �rS �! V�F ��.Y�Wa . 0�� y� � � % � .�' nstd,l�7�}� a�+.,q 1� 1 .�� n ��i4- r`. ty��9x�k � * .r�+�� y t�'��j�f �,�, , �'c t�T�� 'Y� .i��'� R { p y �,�� :y'� c�`�'�� x.,. 'a�4�,�'ti �`6 �� `��,°�` ,. l��r��7�'�GF��4r� ... . .,��,r�J(�,��Y.,��v^ Y- aC: n��j1}rjqN',�!{ ,,(t,��''f4�4..�. , . , . . .i+n.�k4tF�fr �W.i;t,i'cr�:•. a. ' � . + . . sibly with some level of partioipation from the prospective or selected Proposers) , may be di- ' rected to file an application for a GMP allot- ment (due on July 1 annually) or an application " - £or GMP exemption(s) (with mitigation) for es- ,•,� " sential governmental facilities and/or existing facilities. � � :'- .!';:.pr. •f • (c) Subdivision. Depending on the proposed length of term of the FBO leases (19+ years) and the ;.i , treatment of any future expansion area, an ap- plication for full subdivision may have to be ', ' prepared and filed. f • R .. (dj Scenic Foreground Review. Since all of the GA i �: - Area is along Highway 82, the setback and views �, ,;,. from present or relocated Highway 82 corridor i �,: � would have to be revised and requirements for '"''�� mitigation, if any, established. j '` " (e) Special Review. Special review would be neces- � sary to assure compliance with the existing Airport Master Plan and Zoning Master Plan and/or if the proposed development contemplates � ' any use of existing buildings (per existing ` ' � approvals for the Joint Maintenance Facilityj. This phase of the process should also include, . , . depending on the applications filed, sta£f analysis and recommendations of the potential impacts of the chosen alternatives on the interrelated planning � issues including, without limitation, FAA Compli- � . ; ' ance Planning, Airport Capital Improvements Plan- � ning, Airport Data Base Planning, Airport Financial � . � Planning, Airport Procurement Planning and Airport � ;j Development Process Planning. � Because the timing of this phase of the Work Plan � is dependent on the identity of the applicants, the � nature of the application(sj and the work load of ? the Planning office, Planning & Zoning Commission ' ' =+ and the various reEerral agencies, no specific I � target date for completion can now be set. Never- �'" ., � theless, staff is directed to proceed as quickly as � possible within the limits of existing personnel � ' and financial resources to prepare for commencement ' �' � �a of a procurement action by September 30, 199 L A i - 5 (3) Pzocurement. After the completion of the land-use d,' � approvals and depending on the level of review and involvement of the prospective proposers in the I�' , , � Minimum Standards and Land-Use phases of the pro- "i 11 ; ,Y. 1 ; , ' i � !f�•.. _� �1 � �� .__:..., .... ..�. , • _ , _ . . ,. _ . ._ : �� , ,,��,�� . �� , � �',5,;- . . � Y�. ,;x:a ►.F"�.'.'.i1�' � :s4:;:�y.�:��. • . . . . *''?'h,� . � � . � � .._ _ � .,�: �y� '��' _ t, � 'r`'�,��,''�� . �"'' T ��~ s „� . xi:� d�1._ ;"s, �� y.�y �, 'r��rh* . .' / . , ' . . . � i. l ' 1 S1. '�� _> � �& S Y . 1. � {�! t � ��i� �� w--�'��j� � ! � ,} ',t`. ��.iN;t�•��v %: �` yt� � �'. t &#t`'�j �� .�y'�'� �� yC��ft 4 � �'� +'�Yit;F i�'��(.a � � d-.v�&: S ,�j�-9 1 ?�y �r+ �i;` � �.b'�d,y§ ..y�� 'X }�q` �"��4 t� ��M1.r� k��+ aCf '� J� � �'�,,�r�-,. . . .. '4M� .::�'�?.i��'i�>L'��.�� ..�� .y ,�#t��°,`:�,,��. �� (7�'tc��,, �" yrF . .. �. �Z:. . � . . ; �v`L.v'�'��.{??."avti`?��.�'i+ .-.�M7a.r'!.`�. �: T i��ti,`�.�. i. • r';_ ject, staff is directed promptly to either open the , .. procurement or, if already opened, to then end the pre-proposal stages and proceed with the proposal . stages of the selection process. As part of the _ selection process, prospective proposers should be �`r required to comment upon, constructively criticize and suggest amendments to the products of the Mini- mum Standards (and Land-Use Identification Plan) T�� , and the Land-Use review and approval processes. ;�-.� � Using the rough equation set out in Section ` 1.c.10), above, staf£ should reduce the number of variables to an absolute minimum, by using either '' , determinations made by the Board in the prior pro- « . cesses (or recommended by other regulatory and ' ' approval entities and adopted by the Board) or by ��, ;. setting certain "givens�' on the basis of the best `` available then-current information and upon consul- ��;�, tation with the prospective proposers. � � . Prior to the final selection of the prospective i proposers (or proposer, if sequential development) , ! ? staff shall make a final analysis and recommenda- tions of the potential impacts of the procurement and the final "givens" on the interrelated prereq- �. uisite planning issues including, without limita- _ ; tion, FAA Compliance Planning (including FAA review j :. . � of the final procurement documents) , Airport Master ' Planninq, Minimum Standards (and Lanfl-Use Identifi- �� % ! cation Plan), Airport Land-Use Planning (including i;: any likely supplements or amendments to existing �+! land-use approvals), Airport Capital Improvements . Planning (including any input from other aeronauti- �'e� cal operators whose fees might be impacted), Air- ;;�' port Data Base Planning, Airport Financial Planning � (including method for dealing with any expected revenue shortfal2s or increases), Airport Contract Administration Planning, Airport Operations and . . • Emergency Planning, Airport Procurement Planning l:�.• and FBO Development Process Planning (including , tentative cotttracting and construction timetables) . � Again, because of the uncertainties of the land-use process, the target date foz the opening of the �::�, . . , procurement action or final selection of the FBO operators (or operator, if sequential development) .�.� � • cannot now be set. Nevertheless, staff is directed to proceed as quickly as possible within the limits {�. �� _ of existing personnel and financial resources to `:'! ; complete the procurement process in time for an !� � orderly transition oY lease rights and obligations ' by September 30, 1992, and for the appropriate t;� - - scheduling of construction activities. ` A ��I . s zZ k�'. t r ! �..: - _,... _ _ :_ . _. ,. ,.. . _ .� s;�'`� . .��;� � . �ji;��. . • ' � . . :Y�='''fta�. . . ' �.x�� _ . . ��'r . . .. � ' . . ..�'\"�lL'H�' � .. • . �t+E'�.�+��._�, . ' � k�,�sr.. �,.; . •��' �� . a' zv*�,a . .i+i.,.;g 1-Yi , 'k a� 1{ �v �4 t}. r � j- p � .. .� flf i,� ' r�t . . 1 Fc ,�� , 4��' � T N F p �fi �� } i> �r : .,. ' t ` �.i� � d'�. �4 ��` _.�� £ ., ; +�y�r, �r� `� � t�� {r i�'�+}tef�L �„ . -f. �,�i'ir {' � AfY£ �f _�'�"[A �+ � �."�� k 1� ! !�H �.M� Y �iY�' '� � J.l� j. f `w� � 1 w�2'y l •y!�(. �� i. , , r M, ,g'��_9�f�y�Y . ' . ... . . . .. , . . , �'�i r . t�s , . ��w � . _- �6",�r��"L��„ > bnaan r�F c�.�b7,+�;h��iH ' ) % � ; r��Ttii�r,au:�TV . _. =8 ,�� . . , 4' Puhlir.Heari;�y[�hiui�s oacz: s iy-9� ____ � �. s°bae��: ''`'``� ATTACHMENT �- � �` :' . � Cxh.fJo. "+Q_��.— ��.x.! " � ' {,.`,:,.. : '> �`, , &.< �,, . 4� �;� �� €;. . �, � St�IOW-AVALANCXE LOADING ANALYSTS � I� �'j PROPOSED SIIILDING AT "NEWFOUNDLAND MS 5190" °; � ��,;:,, `.1 IITE AV�NIIE, NEAR ASPEN, COLORADO f('" :�, .. ,� Prepared FoT :� Mr. John Wedvm '. , � ' . � ' . • Y :7 �� ` . � v � '�.-, � Prepared By a; Arthur I. Mears, P.E., Inc. . ` ' ' =� Gunnison, Colorado ;_F • September, 1990 �' ;Ls , ` i� 1, � . �G.' � � , ��; .., " 3y .. . . . �.� .. � � . ,�; . . . ' - � � t' � iw . . . �_Y�9t 'f' .� . . .� . p.A f'y�... � . �� . . t , . �4 �� .,�`7�:.. �iC b, ' . r _ . . �, ' y�• ..t � + � , _.�� s .-� .,�� .a. �"i�� `f � �^ -k?�,*,Md�: .�w . .. ., , .. � ,. � .. . .. , .. . � , . tf. _ . .' . . . .' � _� . . . . ,: �_ � , . . • _ , . . . _ . . :T� .. . _ . . . , � . . . �1�. . . ' . . ' � . . q � � .t,. . .. . . . `. . �:. .i . . � ' . . � ' � � • i�� •idMy s wi; �y�� y{ ' 'S�{ � !- . - � . / �' 1: . '� . ' � . . , i � .� . � .' , � ��'��` t S� f _ F�j ' t�� ia YLL,�f�L��V 4 �^:�+is� �. • � :.'.�SJ ��. �d� "��}�'4,� 1 �l• ��'��y{y .�a��f.S� . ��7 <R w t�M. 1. � �'(�4'� i.N+yl�y �. � 4 r c v �4u; s.. �1r �ui� �� ,� �S Y . . �..�� 'd.� i+ y��. .�yr�� i S�1 G�ZI {4 - . .. '� . �K.�e��. .> ,.�'y�i.s•. 4 1�1. . �4}'�"��%e'i=. i. .�. .r:. .. 1 OBJECTIVE6 AND LIMITATSONS This analysis of snow-avalanche Zoads was requested by Mr. John � Wedum oP Wedum pesign and Development. The proposed building analyzed in this report is located on the 1ot identified as � "Newfoundland MS 5190," above Ute Avenue, near Aspen, Colorado. ?'-r .� The objectives of this study are: �;�:� ' k;.'.'�;.� . ' a. Computation of design-magnitude ('�1o0-year") `� ' avalanche velocities and pressure potentials at the r? . . . building site; ?� , b. Calculation oP forces on exposed building surfaces .. � at the above-desczibed lot; i � � _` c. Description of the avalanche loads and eftects oP !y ; the avalanche on the structure; and ' �fs;> .. d. Description of the change in avalanche hazard � : resulting from the proposed project. This analysis considers snow avalanches and snow-avalanche '_oads `� only. other geological and/or meteorological process and the � interaction of such processes on the proposed structure have not `� been considered. In particular, design snow loads which usually � are applied in design at this location must be added to the . avalanche loads given here. �` The loads computed depend on buildinq location, size, shape, and • orientation as specified in the John Wedum drawings which were �� drawn on September 28, 1990. Significant changes to these plans may invalidate the loads given zn this report. . ,I _ 2 DESIGN-AVALANCHE CF.ARACTERSSTICS y� The design avalanche, or event with an estimated return period of , 100 years (a constant 1% annual probability), will begin on the steep, northeast-facing slope approximately 400 feet above the ,. building site, at an elevation of 8,500 feet. Although this slope supports a continuous canifer forest, the spacing of trees � in the forest is not sufficientZy close to anchor the snowpack prevent avalanche release, bamage to trees above and at the site indicates avalanches have occurred in the past. '� � Ij�: , The design avalanche was computed by application of statistical a� and dynamic mor3els as described in Mears (1989) and Mears (in - ': prep.} . The design-avalaache parameters used in load � �� j - computations are: velacity = 11.0 m/s (25 mphj ;' fZow density = 400 kg/m3 (25 lbs/ft3} ; flow depth = 1.0 m (3.3 ft) . Soil ahd ,;. vegetative debris, including tree trunks, may be entrained in the ;� - avalanche debris and complicate loading characteristics, as �;� discussed in Section 3. '�� ;i . ' •��.�.i _ ... _ .. y ... . - 4� � � �.. , � -_�, . . . � . . . �� t'`�. I�s.: x• ��.L ::.ti - _ .. • . . . .. . . I�.} .. .. . . , .. . , ..... .. . ... _.. .. ... . .. . . - � .. . -, .. . . � �- . � � ' .,' �ys . .. . . . . . . �;� , ' . �T .•;�v ��..a'��. � - . . . . � ��:-�' . . . , . y- ...�h�rr . . . , . . ��" a, �,: 3u''r. � � � . .'��.�;i.:� . � . � .p.ra::y5 . ��. ' � � k^:+'�'•� . ��^ , �� , ;(- , � .:. a , -� � f �c �, � �,,: � ', „ � ��'y'�.��'�' ��'i�"'`,�^y��r,,. �� I_„aJi�,��t��.sit a+.. y ,p �� 7t � -�a ^��:�+Da��" v 7� ��F �r� ;, r ;� 4�t�c.,1 .0 ��i„�`'�l�y X`�}� YI �� x�« � p'. 7� � ��" �� r. � - +M i , �1��. �F .:�`�� Y . . .. . ��.� .. _ . . Y ��,�'�. ��•?��iP�r''�. . . �lA"_}�y�+.L�V...� t • 3 AVALANCHE LOADS AND LOADZNG CHARACTERZ6TICS � Buildinq surfaces exposed to avalanches a»d receiving avalanche loads are shown as surfaces "A" through "Y" on Figure 1. ; - - Roof surfaces "A." "B," and "D�� receive impact '.r .. ' (deflection) loads as the avalanche flow direction is '±� changed by the roof and receive depositional loads as �.:','•..�" ' > the compressed avalanche debris is deposited on the roof. The deflection and depositiAnal loads are not ! ' � simultaneous, however. The design case on these '� ' . surfaces will be a static depositional load which is trapezoidal in cross section as shown on Figure 2. > , ` This load may persist for th•e entire snow season, a �, • period which may extend from December through April at �? a'' this location. � '� �. , :: `� The "elevator wedae." surfaces "V" and "W�' are vertical i�i'. surfaces that receive avalanche impact loads. As shown � in Figure 2, unit loads on the elevator wedge have been resolved into 3 components which are normal (P3), horizontal shear (P4), and vertical shear (PS). These_;,_ ;1 are impact loads which will increase ove� the entire 10-foot height of the wedge from zero to the maximum specified in Figure 2 in 0.2-to-D.4 seconds. Because • + • they increase quickly, the strains produced by these � ].oads nay be greater thzn those resulting fron an - �� equivalerit static load of equal magnitude, a fact that g, z� should be considered by the structural enqineer in � ' final design. The auide waZls "X" and "Y" are intended to protect the sloping glass surface "C," as the avalanche expands • �� laterally on the roof. As shown on Figure 2, the guide ;`! walls receive a uniform, horizontal impact load (P6) , as specified. These horizontal loads are assumed to be constant to the top of the guide walls which decrease in hei ht in the downhill direction ` � 9 (north) . These 2oads also increase from zero to maximum in 0.2-to-0.4 - seconds and probably also must be treated as impact • loads because they may produce strains in excess of � those resulting from an equivalent static load. All of the imQact loads specified in this report have been f'�: computed assuming the avalanche is a homogeneous "fluid" of a . � density of 400 kg/m3 (25 lbs/ft3) at the instant of impact. In � � fact, the avalanche will probably contain small rocY.s, tree trunks, and other solid material which can produce point loads �:� " i " that may exceed the average loads given in this report. Aowever, ,, • the loading Sur£ace areas for these point loads will be small " (less than 1 ftZ), therefore would not precipitate general '� , structural failure.._:.They may, howevgr,. produce localized damage� to the surface receiving impact, a fact that should be considered ;; � in design and maintenance. � '<i `i . _ . ,;,r . .. ...�,. z Is. . . . . . �,,,�,f� ,..-,� ` . 1; .. + ----- . i . ~'�,, ;;. ., .:... < .,. .. - ~�4 :. �.. �. .:.. . . .'.. . '•.� _ _ . � �'.. � . ' . . . . - � .. . .. . . . . �,�,�'s.� - . �� ' -,. t-�. K py - ,�++. � ' . _ . '."��i:,."•.'��''}�_.�'; , � � . .a(:��'r'l(�,t d: . ' . . .��1n�H,y+y' , �`��I; ' '�ti�+�;, ��:. _ � • �-' r� 4y+ ��x ��H`d .:J �� .. . , � .. - . . ._., . � . .. � . . . , . . .. � . . .,. �.ly, �� f�. �G �'�� -. ... ' .. s � N � ;�r � '. , . ` . � .K �� >-�:ar l�y�..�''I�F.� . y, ��i 7�,�s�°.9'�(�� .�y�9t�^f� ,""a'y�� :`�� ?�n �y�r�'kft�W- �� s ',tii,�:�y��r� '��lr, ,1 ^ j .0 1 Kkj � ' ��.. �. Pf'� ��.4s.�nv �, a�rp �v' . . :.K . .. ��..� .�.�L�A..:. ' �. , �.�.�'E��,1,7153.�: �� W, ij�'�. - �:��yr;,�,�.;. -� � � ::, :. ;, 4 CHANGE IN AVI+LANCHE HAZARD In general avalanche "hazard" will increase in proportion to the number of persons exposed to the avalanche process. The proposed project, similar to other projects planned and/or built in ~� avalanche areas throughout the United States, Canada, and Europe, :;�-'`� ,� will draw an increased number of persons into avalanche terrain, therefore may increase the overall hazard. The persons one � � r� wishes to protect simply may not be ih the specially-design 1 3 • ,<. building when the avalanche occurs. They wouZd be exposed to i.. . avalanches if they were above the building or in the forest on � the sides of the building. However, the proposed project does not plan exposed living areas or decks in the avalahche areas. _ Furthermore, this project will stop avalanches before they reach ! � . ' >� the access road. Therefore �he exposure to avalanches below the ♦ � : building and on the road wi11 be reduced as a result of this i ,; � *� project. a _ ,-i Because there may be a small increase in overall avalanche hazard ��y.;: '? simply because more people may be in avalanche terrain after buzlding construction, this increase can be minimized if ;y residents educate themselves about the avalanche phenomena and � heed all official avalanche warnings and advisories. Such self ,� education is recommended #or all those who plan to live in � avalanche terrain. ;;.� id . ;e i Re ort submitted by, ;{ �� Y V�� . . • ,� '� Arthur I. Mears, P.E. � Ava2anche-control engineer _ � . ; . � . ,.J :� . ii • ` !i ,. � . . 3� � ' ��;� `i ��. . � i�: ' ' • � '. �` . - 7'. � . . � ,� . i :i , � - � � 's � _ . - ' " r_ ;j . . • _ .. �. 4 . . ";�,. _-_.� - • - t .::T. � . .. � A,t rt?:+�--.'�u� ' . li � .....�': .... .'..:.. Y. �-��,�.,- . . -.._':-. �;- .I.. �..�`, �.. �..�. .. .'�. �.:.:.. . � ,.. . . , . . .-. .,..... .,.: 4 ... .�.�, �`, ,...�-�:.1.�. � y ' � t� '� � ,. . - . • � � � . . . . . � , . Y� ..��. � . . . ' , . ; , � — � r �.-' �'J4i . � . . � � rt� � � . � �� r�; ? . ..� , . - . .. . ..- a Z�� :; 3 --, 7 � �,. d�.' . . . . . .. ��'1 � i 1. . 'y��y J 1 �� Y�.� ' •p ••."M . V T Y ti`(F S y�`>' 1«'.� ��7�{jyj�;{�� tiW,.. Ar� � 'qO�iO��';ryV �,��f�f � .. �.��Yit�`)I �� . Ft�y" ��' ', .��j�- �'� � S ' 4, _iyr.,� : a��t1� t ry ,q 'kr-�. � �;` M.';,�� , ar{41� r .�.,Z ��. ��, 4�1'h�'c� rc . . . .��P'�°� : ... . .. _ '�'� ��;..,i•d.a �� •. y . 4 yy@}�'�;.S�. �. ��,�,� s . .�...i . Y�� .. J ,r'.4.4§�yAn.�,. . ,� . + ' Aoof surfaces A, B and D , >. P1 = 300 lbs�ft2 � PP2 = 15� lbs�ft2 ,•'x::� _ � {Static loads� � '�.< _-= j . W � • ��N i5ft � :# �o o • �. _. 00 . . '" i�� : _, =^ ', � . � �n� Surfaces Y and W (elevator Ned�e} E� :..: �4 � i , .. `�� 3 J � P3 = 250 lbs�f t2 (P3, P4, and PS j ;: . ;� � / ' 2 are impact loads) P4 = 130 lbs�ft `� \ P5 = 130 1bs�ftz • ; - ; P3 P+ � . � � � ' � P5 is vertical (upwazd) shear acting ,, " � u. on surfaces Y and W. i: � i . � • � Guide Wa21s X and Y � 1 � P6 = 100 1bs�ftZ ;j P P6 is a uniform, impact load acting . ;i to the upper edge of the quide xa11s, ' which ase variable in height. y�s S ' !� � . . „ ' � j _ ? FIGURE 2. Directions and magnitudes of avalanche loads og,.xarious ?t , a 3i exposed building surfaces. These avalanche loads are in addition to �: ;� other loads (including snow loads) usually considered in design at this ��' ' location. See text for limitations and additional discussion - ' ,: , . --::, ..�.. •� - . s � ..: . . -. . . .,.....- .. �' ... . . .. -' . � � y, •. . '� ' -;;..�, � :. . . . . • , . . . . ��„ � �: i . , �� -�� . - . �� . . . - i� . , � ,� � . , � : �� . ,�; �� , , .,� . ..�.,� i ' . ' _ .,;� � ' � , .Jy' �'�f: ' .. � . . � � . .�` �� ,��`; �- ' . � 'V; d �.� ' '. A � 1 �.��A..• C 4 I. � s��_ .. �.., r _ � : �,.:. ,��",�"i� . � k�aP ��E� 't�j11t r'F� 4� �. � �ry,�� ` � .. A ,� ' �Fi�.f'�Y ,C • � � � Y� . z � � �4 A i.x •Dw p� k 9 �'�� -'� �i ��is..si:� �x' � ��r`� "� � >+� a 9 M �" i d•. t_ ��y's . � ,,�y�y, � y' 6*ts�--u.Y�,'!�•�' "�.= ��`��j�� ' �� ac . . . . '��„�k j r�' :� :�JU a�l. lvC.,��y- �.�� .��. '" Y .. �`�u s� 1,,..r �r:�.�9�t��r C ... � .. .. '.... .::i,»i��;.t;:,. :E.l. :.' i �Ir`�IIfG 'i'cF"llt, f[L flo.:��;-c:dl-_�c�`� H��g. . ",� j��:�,� F ,��j `� ATT�iCHMENT ' ARTHUf�L MEAI�S, P,E., INC. - - Nnm�nl Hnwde Coneultmu ' ' 222 kenCo�hi,A... •��7 ... Gaw.+n+.Cnkv�do 81YIU 303-L91.721L � '�- ,. �f�.��j�._ i�i. fi .. ' Augu�� 3� 1990 • � . Mr. John wedum ,•� _ Wedum Desiyn and Development �f " 61G E. Hyman .nve. � ,. . - Aspen, CU 81612 � s � fi; % Dear Mr. liedum: --- . • • �. �: ,:=. `? At your. request, I conducted a site inspection of the lot ��".'`` �- identified as ��ttewfoundland MS 5190" above Ute Avenue cn Auyust 2, � "' '� 1990. The purpose of this site inspection was to evaluate the " potential for snow avalanches at the building site and to consider the feasibility of avalanche mitigation. AVALANCIiE-JiAZARD POTENTIAL ' � ! :[nspection of the terr.ain and vegetation at and above the building � r.ite indicates the proposed construction area is within range of ' % ismal.l avalanches that flow through the tYees and can impavt the '_ ��roposed building. Characteristic avalanche damage near the site + .' consists of bent and deformed main stems of fir trees, broken '� trees, and vegetative debris aligned downslope. small avalanohes '� `� map reach the slte at IO-year return periods, on the average. � �� Ho�•:ever, even dur.iny design-magnitude ("100-year"j avalanche ` conditions, avalanches will be small and will not possess great '; 'rj destructive ene.rgy. � jiVALANCHE PIITSGn'1'IOfI �' , . li.�. . Avalanct�e mitiyatio�� al t3�is site is feasible and can be achieved 1_hrough "direct protection" of the building. This would be ' accomplisher� b�� reinforcing the up1�i11 wall/roof system for avalanche static and c3pnamic Zoads. The maqnitudes, dlrections, � an� are�ss affected by these loads cannot be determined at- the E�resent time. Toading characteristics ean be determined given �. ` final arcliiCectural details about b�iildinq size, shape, and y�� :+ , ' orientation. The building should Ue designed to eliminate or `' ; minimize activit�> on the uphill side. Reinforcement of the ,:; l�uilding for avalancbe loads would stop the avalanche at the uphill =�•i � � �ide of' the. huilding and therefore wou2d redUCe the hazerd on the � clriveways bel.ow the site which are now er.posed to avalanches. ,',, :� S'ncerely, . . a�;� �� (��L��-�,.,�. 1��1��1� :�,. ; Arthur I MPars, F�.F.. ' ' ` P.valanch� ,COhC1U1 enyi�ieer �. � � - �. ,,.- ti� �. �:, �.��,.- , i •:. ;.: �: : . _ ;:� - '.�:. .. . .,,_ . : ... . .'; ' �_• . 1. a �--t�r, ;. , . _ . - '�'� i i;�ti . .. . - -, . ' . . ��` . 3s . • F �IA�t' . . � . .. _ ' ��'. , ' ' 'p x� . A�y , �.�� s�� . ��• �� z �� .i ...y ,i� ... / - . . . .,:� - 4 ' 1 � L . 1 ' p j 1 .��i } �'�, � i � �� T ` ,�.��Ax + �4y.� ' r �r'. � �'�k�F � � � q ' '� �T�. ka � �,r i� 7Qf�'. � '�W - '�"w "1' �T'.t• � 1� �.! ,� :ea's- i ,s�:�. � � ��M�'�A �� ti ��'�� i �1 P.�^ � .-�,�, .�}�. 1: 'j�.. T 3'y. h � �., vi) � �i. X�il �1�� L i�_ �i . ;�-_' _ �.'`�k� ,✓�+��_v,��. •r. •• t♦�.. - r r��r i�: r . . .. . '��. . . .�:c�+.:•' ��ii+1}4�wL!-�� . . � t C RTTACHMENT _ - . .,. . � ;:;'.; ARTHUR 1.MEARS� P.E., INC. ` Namnl Haruds C«uulunb ZZZ&n C,aloc Ave. .. . • � Cwni�.on.Coloodo 81230 . . � ' � 303-641•3236 . �i :,T ... '{:: ` November 14, 1990 Yr F. i �' i:. ' I�L. John Wedum ;� Wedum I'iesign and Development � 616 E. Hyman Ave. Aspen, CO 81612 _:f '�." _ �� ;;i Dear Mr. Wedum: � , � � � � . This letter responds to your xequest for additional clarification of the �_,{- ; avalanche hazard on the road�driver+ay approaching the proposed "Neufoundland i.;., �,i MS 5i9o" building site above Ute Avenue, As discussed in my previous reports '� � ', ,,_ , (August and September, 1990�, a small potential avalanche hazard does exist on the road. � I feel the increase in potential avalanche hazard on the approach road and drivexay xill be small enough to disregard in the land-planning and approval process for these reasons: � � a. The driveway will not be exposed to avalanches because it will be . y protected by the buildi�; ti b. The road will be exposed to small avalanches and slides xhich xill ' � " flow at small velocitles and vol�es through the trees, hoxever, the !:ry resulting hazard xill depend on avalanche frequency and total exposure � ? time on the road; consequentZy the hazard is small. Yi • � Secause the avalanche hazard is small on the road, particularly when compared � �! with the avalanche risk xe normally accept on many mountain highways, I do not �' feel structural avalanche mitigation over the road is warranted. Furthermore, this avalanche hazard is not large enough, in my opinion, to prohibit construction on the site. � . • i Please contact me if you have additional questions. .. Sincerely, � ' ' . f� � �! ��•Y(/lLt;vv �': .S :+ Arthur I. Mears, P.E. ��; • • iAvalanche-control engineer i� i 1+, ' . . -_ ;,+ �i . t„ � '; . 'i � ;:;�g : y ,, ,� . . . .� �,: . . , .t.:�:. � . . ��M�m.{S�mreiy•AmlmrJw•Ambnr6e Gnr,otEryMKahv- .�.. - �j,�.. , .... :i r '-s e- t.s�; ' �y M.>,� ,�,t. �� .. , _ r ., . .•:=s k .. � . ,. .• .: -:o,� .�V�r�..r�. . . ,r .... . . . _ - � .. . . . _ . ... �j ��,l� . �`.. � � .. . - - ' 'i � .. - . . . - .. . . . . r.a y ' � . � . � �� - . . � : . ►. 'Y'. . . . . _ . . `t4'�� . .. , � � . . . .. ... .� ;.,. . . , . . ' . :�X• .-� . . � � r.` -�y; �� , •+��...: ,s.. �� , ��v'�,a ,, - {/ < : ; r _ ,c� r. \.� '�.,• �'��j� � �',�s ��FW^°'��.�.. tA ��M'r1�FtLrt' ` ��./ •y c�. ��. ` z;s�ai'y, !' �r u5�i�� v t , "4 . yp� "6. '1• �vf: � e�' . [r�� 1 t r. �"rt{h�,�" Y�',�t•.�x� ,��°' Icl�h'c�� ti��: ,��lt."'�� ..p,'Y.',J �a'I . t,� 'Q . TL C'�Y � �_ LJ� ,'..'�'�n i� f!.5�,{'F 'f'�.'� yh�S . , I .. � , ' ' .'� � .�,�,iN'.• >4;�e�•t �� •�, �h. .� �' - �'Y`/l Vf'{ .ya� �J . . . .. . ..r . . .. �ai%�#�1�..�,E�1tMA."., .. . ... . ��x'Ii�h �h.� . � . ATTACHl�ENT - - :a :� :� � �._. , . . DESIGN �y�,q�� STRUCTURES, ING - � I'��r��.�un.A l�q;nxo�. �j�$.� ,• . ' 6�p ��: �aw� WAlum N.Nr.�xtl.P.E. . `• Y�rsxlrnl '�'.r . ' � 1.,�_.._..;�.�,. . 25 September 1990 �.:''•� � r... . Wedum Design Develoame_^.t ;.; r 616 E. Fiyman ,i �.. . Suite 102 • . ' Aspen, Colorado 81611 � �'::i . � �i, 4. _ Attn: Randp Wedum ' �; �r Re: Gordon Miller �� =�` r :. Huilding Envelope � Gentlemen= �` We have reviewed the proposed house to be located on the ' Newfoundland Parcel, Asnen, Colorado, During our review and � design of structural framinS �ae reviewed the requirements . i for soil condi,tions a^.fl avalanche and debris flow agains� s the bui?ding. • '`, We have designed concrete founc�ztion/retaining walls to ' resist the lateral forces imposed by the slope of the soil �� Li against the building and the, avalanche and debris flo:; . :� forces. We have provic'ed drawir.gs shoaing the required ' -� reinforcement of the proposed wa11s. We have also designed ' � "i the roof of the house to resist a 300 psf live load as .�� required for avalanche_ i" . • We fee2 that the �roposed buii�ing is capable of being �:'. , constructed, ar.d that it wi11 �=ttistand the i�posen loads , +( noted above. . , :� Please cor.tact us i� pou ha�e anv ques�ions or co:aner_ts_ �• � ` Sincerely, ' , y� � DESIGN STRUCTU ES, INC. t ``\`"��pt111tI11tIi1tNJi/i�� ``��. PpO,IIEC/s��,,�� C h� Q �� '` ��` �r�CvP.II' a``�,Oe'�Q,H'fl.yt�•�F�c � � 's,�. ; - i � �O:�y �'��:�F' r � � . �,. William H. New 12, P.E. �"�3 rC�� .` �135 �' �,' _; President _.d? �56 � :�'_ ;e� , � �R�� ' . :��,�'• '�.�,a� `F�i!��Qr _ `� 'i ' �� NA�� o�� . i �d. �i:. :.: ' a�nmmu�u�� Y1'ILLIAM " , H F�EPrELL ; .• ... .. � •-•: _ ' � r� � .' �� , ��t�-� . ' 1fG0 Seren�eenth Sttee� • Sulle�200 • Denver. Cotorado 80202 • OO7).623••�927 � �FAX 1303)��2) B55� � . �'��' � ; �,r,� . . . _�... ..,..;. � . .. �.. �. ,.� �.. ..., ...r'.fi?•°i.:e..,.:. .�. .- � . �i . :� :r�., . .. ... .. . . . . � .. •. . ' ..., . . ........ ...... :. � _ . ...��. . ♦ _:` . .. . . _ . `.-:,.� . . ' - - . '. 's7x:-�� . . � . . ' �''nri'' �.. � � . ' . ,.{..n'�1,A{"r; . . . :sC�.r;;;`i.'_ . � , � - . ��+��,�,J_j.� ' . • . ��`e��" - . , . r. 4Y: ��`` �. � • !y� Ma.J.I• �'�i"r' S . . . . , . ._ . '��'7� � -" . ' ( �� ',�,. �:� V �.�.�t' 1/i 5 � i ..�''�*'��'`�. a $��{t��.I t • � \ ` ,�� F� '�� , .V�� (��r{ YF/ � 9b'�.. ti 't��.�. � t� i .e''-:t�N`� f`ly�e �c� ��Zr��Y , �..�iS� + �FJ i �', 7 �j i '&m ��7. "l. f,.74��^ 5 .. K �,. � . ..M �.,'�i�� J�({ L� fi�.�� +' �`.� i � F p+7`�.��'� C�� i:. � J�.`�5�•�}iF�.4i;'�y.�t l I_ij}� .s.:,��.1�T��M.�r :.11f�S��C• '(iY"1�f�".• j� 4.jl> :�� .. .��. _. X�� P.O.Box 2155 �- SCHMUESFR CORDON MEYER INC. ASpBf1.Colorado 81612 � ' _, �a�-. (303)925-6727 , . . a ' - • CONSULT/HG ENCINEERS f SUflVEYORS september 25, t990 PiTTACHMENT � � � ,•.y Mr. RanQY WedUm 616 East Hyman Avenue, 5uite 102 �;,�;'"�� Aspen, Co. 81611 � � '� RE: Gordon Miller Reaidence DrainaKe Aeport � !J'� ` Dear Randy: i Thie letter is in follow-up to your request for a draina�e report i - £or the Gordon Miller Property, aleo known as the NewfounQland td.S. �, ; 5190 Mining Clalro, off of Ute Avenue ln Aapen. Thie reDort ie based �� ': - ' on our dlscussion of september 19, 1990, the schematic bullQing �.,,:, plans which you proviQed to me at Lhat time, a elte vlslt on � � • September 24, 1990 an4 the review oC a drainage plan for the Hoag � Subaivision, Lot 3, located �ust to the west of this bullQing site. � IL is my unaeratanding that this Qrainage report is bein8 reQUested Sn order to verifY that off-aite Qrainage'will not imDact the ! propoee4 structure and�that dralnage passing trirough the building aite can be directea and controlled in an aDPropriate manner. BaseQ Dredominantly on my fleld inaDection oC September 24, 1990, I do not anticipate that off-elte dralnage repreaents a aignlficant -a hazard to the propoeed building envelope. During mY eite Snepectlon • I noted that there are no on-site gu111es which wou1Q apDear Lo " � dlrect a signiflcant atorm flow lnto the bullding area. The area is ,' generally well vegetated including numerous large fir trees and - � 'j $Tves•no ev3Qence of even seasonal Qrairiage�'imjsacts:`�In�.ddition, �� ' ' as noted in Nlck Lamplrie�s letter to you of March 21, 1990, there t1 • " exists two large chutes, one on either side of the building eite, '�f which would tend to contain the more signi£icant enowslide and � ' rocY.fall events. As a result, drainage which maY impact the Miller ,Parcel will �enerally tenQ to be eheet tlow from the areas . . , immeQiately above the site. The storm drainage plan prepareQ for I:_�.� , tne Hoag Subdivialon, Lot 3� bY Tim Beck oC High CountrY i ': ,. Englneering, provides several appllcable conditione for a alte nearly identical to the biiller PropertY. Comparable calculationa for upslope arainage area, eoil type, and run-off coefficients �• � , indicate that drainage impacting the Miller Aesiaence should De in � the range of 0.7 of a cubic foot per second (cfs) in a 10o year `storid=��CVent. Because Lne upslope area is well vegetated and � ;41 ` • • topography would not encourage a concentrated ilow impactln8 the eite, a debrls flow event is highly unlikely. For purDOaea of '�y �� , -_ deeign, however, I would be inclinea to utlll2e a aebrls flow ��i � bulking factor of 50� reeulting in a total 100 year etorm flow of � + 7.05 cfs. Even with theee conservative aeeumptlone, a 1.05 cFe flow � � does not Pepresent a significant concern. �•� • ,. • . . . ,' ' '.:� 1512 Grand Avenue,Suite 212•Glenwood Springs,.Colorado 81601 •(303)94S10U4 �`' . ,r .. 'r.�t:: tr;. � - � .. - - . . . - . . .._ . . .._.._. .'''t.�e" . - . . �� . ._. , . .. . . . . . . - - . . . � � .. ' . ti �� . ,:�`w;�s: , t�{q::^r., . - _ .. ... . - k k _��. . . � � � . � �7:.. � af1�R_�,-:f'�:r��.. ` ..- � . ''�`�'^A•i W , � .1'",`,•!`-� !�.- . S.�,. �"°'j'�-.�i�.'v?'.' ��'�.. - ,r��x M�4 ' "�x A �,�.. .k•.w,:.. ��l�y1 :��-�i1.�•:'S� ! � � �y } ... . ... ' . . � .. 1M �� . � i � _ . �.�� { � . �. � 'I� . . g . � .: .,. .� ,.� . . .r �or�...2{�`, �. i � �' 7 Aidr; ��ji r�,� '-��.�`"rf�4 f1� r � r.�-.�' ry ' �` (; . <-.Sy,Y 4 � '( �, f al1' .� A ._i �Tia n k ry 1-• � i�; -.i k a� G.�'�, ,�"iNa M•��L'��a�,�� Ya�+Cte h�f..S.�. �� Q' i. { ��.'�� d�". � r, :� '. .,�r.,. . � L� �� I ... . .,...¢,��'�ti�.�� . :.�i��. ��.� . ..,� .��1t��!h`.:�_ . a r .t �� 4�`.�t��i4'!a �,��..`t,.. .e . t, . , SeDtember 25, 1990 , Mr. Ra11Qy Wedum . ,+ Page 2 �.,�> '.�`�: - MitlSatlon Aecommendations ;�r � • Cenerally speaking, deaired mitigat2on of the potential atorm run- �; off impacting tIlia site compriaes a aeries of swales that will ;s , . direct the flow around the stracture to the uphili aide of the entry � � " drive. The Dropoeed swale south of the uphill building wall, ae ; : ahown on youT plans delivered to me on September 9, 1990, is more ;� ;, ; , than atlequate to interceDt a 1 cfa flow. T would recommend that tIlis !� r�` ewale De continUed around the atructure utilizing a triangular i;,.:,, sectlon 4 feet wide by 1 foot deep on both sides of the Duilding. This swale should De reveBetated utillzin8 eroslon control matting, • topeoil and seedln�witA native plant types that would not interfere with atorm flows through the ewale. �� As you hati noted on the buiiding plan, deaign will entail retainln8 � walls immediately above the roaQ. I woula auggeet 1ncluQing a catch �? basin above the retalnins walle on each slde of the atructure to ' intercept storm flows before theY over-top the wall. Flows would be routed behind the wall and then tltPOUgh the bottom of the wall to � ",�i Lhe uphill side of the road. Along ttte uphlll slde of the road . where the driveways woula be croasing, I would recommend the �; �; placement oF 78° dlameter culvert croesinga connecting to the borrow . '_,� ditch on the uphill side of the road. Theee culvert sizes are } .1 signiCicantlY larger than the flow would re4uire but emaller x� `' cu2verts can be more easily plugged and pose a maintenance problem. • '.j ��;' - i As a final note, the borrow Qltch on the uphill side of the new roadway ehould be Carried Qownslope as faT ae necess2ry to avold Smp3cCs to ad,tacent propertles. Where aDDroprlate an aaQltional �' , culvert crossin� to the south slde a! Ute Avenue may be neecleQ. �:�... -- ; ,. ! trust that tAis report wi21 be adequaLe for County review purposee, feel free to contact me lf I maY provide further information or adaitional aetail regarding deeign. � • • Respectfully euDmitted, � ` '' SCHMUES6A GOADON MEYER, INC. ��0�°111101pj�� \``�aoQPpD RE�/f!��.,� vV• ��' �'x•m�.''F,�� `�� :; � aY W. HammonQ, P.E. 'c� �Q 0 $ o� �;, � Principal-AeDen Office 9;. �:�` S••�� ip� �` .. ;:'� dHlJa902o3 , '''�,,,`,hSip'N1AL,E`r�:` _ "'t'. f{. � . . . . '%K' ti 'F' :+f �� , � . . � .. . .. . 4� �� . . . � . .. ,7�✓ n r_ �y.L'Y�f z.'_ t-f � � . r'...� , - . . . . .. �..f�� ... ' - . .. . ..i'�..�FJ . � .. . �... �'�.:.. .lt "- �'. '� .. .i w ..�:.: '':.. �. .. . . ... ' ... .. ,. .. '-.. . . . . . .. , . . ♦ti .xw. .. . �. .. . . .... . ._. - . i . �-.:�' . . � . ��;;;i; _ , �;;, ��° � �,[��:ti. � ' �"f�., �.�:i�: - .. ' �r�� !� • h:�?r'' .��.. � �, '��,�: ��,y 'J (:` � ,� ,,�` _ '�� tr�t,�;� `qr�` .�� h-��`r�,y Y� t; � �,� :� �� a'� �, k '� `�'� _d � w {?� .�`=-x + � 5a �`��i' . � 3 i � 7 '�.. . f `Z �J.t t 1� . j l "�1 ', ry i.. (,�. ,+ _F.y � i��,� � . . -� 'Y� �. ��,y^�jk•,.. � �`�" �f•i '� : '�k. A} '4"t �T'�'yr ��'4 S � _ . .. .w�"';� � rt'�� . a• t < q, s a �'�.°��,:: , .n, +:a.� 1 "'�"4p r z } �.,. . . t.' . ��`��" .. -- ti�`i (�o � �� ,� . :>::. .. - - pTTA��NiEt'1T � ., - ^, .:r ;::�-> . ��:.,,,;�. , . ;: �� - . . . ;s � , o t� ' � o . o ` ,! v o o , i ° o o �o � �, '; o �o i �.�. �� 1 �,�.:, , F :i -� �CENrERtINE UTE AVEIdUE '� EDG�OF P4VE'MEN7' ;; p _._-- Ei.EV = 79.63 �:; ` . � o i `,. t - ' . _ ._� . o� 1 � • � . . ';i e ; :� \ � � ` � • �, � '� � =1 $.�rn � �z� ,o - -� � �� 1 � � �;'� �ti� � � ;; �`;� � �� `� o '=14:� : � f�. �� oo� o i . i q� � '; � `Z` --� ' � CJ� . � ,9 �� o � o, �� - � �� . .. ., o �� , �N #:. i � o n :, ;.� � . �'< �`� . � � . o� � ;w �► �� :;' . x o � cn ,F�� ' , O �� Z ,` � � � 2� . 1`. � . � t D q 4 4�° G� <I:� ' - „ � io fl � s;y �. % � � `�� ` y ° `� �. Q � 1: p !.,*{. � a ; � ___-__ .-c �i �� O ' • � .�.. . - ; � �; . � :. ., . _ ;. - � _., . .:.. ^^ � . _ �- �� - t . � ° 5,,�.1+00 NEW RDAD _.�; •i ; . .-.. ._ -,.._ _. � . ; . . ..,� - . .. , �..: . r,�r.:.y�, . . . . � � ...: _,� .. ..-...�. - _ .'�. . . ,t-:::. .... .... . . .... - '�'K. ., .. , .. . . . �;�C` . - . . � :r,Yyieq�-.. ,�• .. . . � , . ::Fs'• ,r � � . . .d'y. ~� � � A� :. +�. .�,,�, '� , ,. , , _ -lt"'�� t. s �,�' �:r � �'�` �� ,:��.'... -.�(.. Y . r* +� H�t^' ��`. E4�� tE 1r.�.�� . ` � ` ...: � �.�} , A � �� . .��4��M,� t ��` . .r� ..` ��r.i ,�...�,�Y.��; �� '`t' S. , y ., x ^t�siyt.. �L4 s '4 �u' � �, �`�`4 . ��.''i 8�!{S.�i �* k a K�.: �� Y . 1� �, '�'�� `�� c y� � �. �� a 6�t ,,._ .:k. ,.. . .. �`� `.�'"�°�r�.".. .. �» ,��,.,s��i�K�tih`.; .,:� ` . . �_. . � . ._ . � ... ,�� =� . •� :�., . :;ti . , � . . �. � �� D ,t�c�� ;; T:<�`. : t �m R.O `" . � _ �� z° '7r-� t� :' » ='m S� 3f ; � C p - e�. . i!., . i � �'' '^: _ �x k�,�.. ; . �N � �, � . � cn� z� a ��;:�'i .N .. C z � ��j�.�,. . . n 5 m m� io U , . 1:r,; . ;i n N � � � . ;� m-+ . a. ,•i ,�a > i / � :! =. / / k�` , ;<{ �.. �6o i ; . � . `� �oo. '•� � . ;-, � � � � . s � '' � ' `I • r--i�p l.r.T �� . .� _ n n u ; T ` i:�, • - II• �.: ' �p�3 `Yt' � �,��" e�' ( / �' 3,28 4 i; .. � ��•t�+ '''.I,A /�, /� / ; • m � :::,'_ , ; � . . / �.A / r � i � 7�� `� � ' ��' � i � ; . . i�- ' i i :`,' � ia i i .. ;; � ° � � a i .. ;� ; �' 1 . � � � • a /mc�� s � to + � X z . N cn � 1 �� . � • ��+ 'a 3 •� rn �� r `y j F' f /O� � (�" • ^ / � e �;� i� f / D�p y� .' j t � � ' � � . �� . 1 c4 � � � � . � � �{ ; �.'y��. . � cn p f � 'i : � . N o 1� � � % . � :`j•: g . � � :. ww � 1 � � I 1 i � N� � 1 / �� . !`.. 1 �� u � ' !�� -� _- � .�;' . i ' , Na � 1 f / '� - R � � ' ', .. �' � t / `r � + j .. _. . - - . � . _�y , .. . ...... .. ........ ... . . �. , .. •:.., _ � ,. . --��:y ' . � _ � � , �. �- ��ro. � ;, � � . ' . . a ; : .::�_ � 1 !�'' •�' -4: � • •!dre.�., . s :�t�: � ` a � ,,,,�. f -:� JJJ""" . �RF'�o-� !° �� / u a��- �:�.,� � y �� >:,�..i�-+�, S_;� ti�}�,� �. ; � � -.) ... . ,( �M1 Y �{�,/3�+t �.J 4T-i�t 1 �� . ! . 1 A � _��s..�t��G��%�� t�� . �t'a3�"YlYty� ., Q 4 � � F� � l, i ' . i 5� � t ' ^ ti,� � � ,a r t- �}� {k�,`# �'4'+-��'!��? J�i �°1 y�{��f r Q�. . . .j n��+7.f�q�, lt.t�}� � Fs�� .'„�� 4 . .. �NV � ' "{�� x�r[ r1y�i�..�t�i,.. �� -'. ��'� . . �` � •�.:: A'�r.'LT'"K+�e"..�in^. '1„ �rq� . . �"4r..`�.Y:y� 1,::`. - � (- .x.�,�._�. Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D. r �{ C�� p+�' . ' � � w ' . CONSULTING GEOLOGIST ��^C H IYi�IYT � s� ' 0793 VALLEY ROAD . .�� CARBONOALE,COLORADO B762J . � �!0])96}J60D rN HOURS) ��, . � 14arcl-� 2:,19?i! � . i:'�;r�^<��., e' . ��'� ` Johr R. 4!edum 1 � +. 616 E'ast H:•ma.n. Sui.te 1Q� �" Aspen CO �ie,ll � �i!, ; , . i!� RE: �lew�oundland Cle.im � ' �: ��. ,1. ' Oeai- Randy�: ' ''sA�,: ! y � �. .,�. , r+�i, � I hav� compleced my �ealoaic .n•res'i c,.3cior fat' �_:rposc-� of � `.� ? r . House �+ill 104), o$ tne building site �n the Nea�toundland . :�; � Mininq C1.s5m o:� the nortn-�-f.ac:ne slc,pc ef Aspe-n Ptountain = above Utc Avenue a� shpw.n on the acr_ompanyina map. This is along the southern edge of thc� To�.n of Aspen �.ithin the Aspen ?.� 7 1/� minute auadranqle, F'itki.n County, Colorado. ! ...n °p ,_'. . S"� There is a nr-aposed drivei�ay to an�ther h�mesite beyond th� � proposed S3tE- �•�hich is on a strepy conifer-cov�re�i hillside. _{ ,: There is no 5�nch or attier- brea'r:�in sloC,e near t!-�e site and '; tne onlv other- feature ��f note :s an cld por�al into the • ;;:,r'. - ' � mounta:nside e:hich ean be see� nbout ta�� hundred feet enst ot c,.4,. I the buildinr� site :;nd b=1�w it. ; . ;=i. :� ; . The oenloa•.• of ±h� site consists of a �hin vEr.=er of �. ' � ' colluvial dzposit=_ .rontaininq ar•aular hlacl:= af :imestc�ne, ,�,�. '! sandsione ae�d somc granil:ie rcc.::s_ The matri:: is mostly ,��•'. ; 'i silty s�nd. This sur-F:�ial c�°pc�s:t has ��een ma,r,ped by bruce E�ryant, ;471. �s u i'c1�Lt5 CIEF1O51� I7L4t ? beli�ave that the te�-m - CO11:lV1UIii is,morc^�ccu:-ate �t t�is Zocation. The und�rlying - ��`� i' ', ybedrock �ou�d nnt he detnrmined beczuse o;' lac�: af ne�.rby ' outcrops. bi.it is probably the Caml�rian ane Sa��atch Guartzite � �'., �� . , :`i or ore of the Lr,i•:�r F•aleo�oic c:�:bon-r.�e ur.i�s. E,�cause of tf'�° =teep attitud2 of beiir-ac!: �n?ts in i:his ar�2 and the � � ,j faul.tin� present, the u�•droct: �c�.ald Ev�n be thc Frecambrian + ;=•. � age quartz mon�enite. At .any ra.e, th� a�pe�rance of the ' + rocF:s o-�ithin tt�e Ct]),IIA'Jl.11f!! indicates thai the'.�,edrocF; i= nelr ' � �: • '� surface. "�''� • ' t �t Snow slid;ng and minoa- �ock ,'a:l is a possibi:ity on this . - ��,. :.��i . ;} prop�•rty buc there are ta:o �anll �<si:ablisl-�ee chutes on e:thc-r tj� ' side of the site a�f-�ich shnuld c�ntain most of th�se ha�zrdou� s! � � ' events_ These path� can be well seen and their relationship ,. ;;'.��`, � � to the site evalual:ed from acrqss the valley in the Smuaqler :�,.*� ;� ar e Z. . ,. I � _ . 3 ' . . :' „�:...,. �' : .''. . ;� ' . . , .. , . _ . � . • � ' .. ...- .. . . . . . .- .. +. .r.f ..: , �� . � ' .: - : . � :.i .�Y f .�,i,3^,rxJ. ,c-�.=��_p 'r'. , .. .... � .� S '. '- TY. .. :: . . y� . ...> .�. 4 -�1 � .:� a... . ...... .. F- .�..... �:...;' .. . +��r.: . _ L' � �. � �';:. '. ., ^c �' , ��..;• .. -"',.,r.;+v..K�..�-TS . . . . . �+ . _ . ': T} . � .... •. _ .T,�' '. � t �..�_. - . . � � � _u_.... '. •` J ` � i' . �_... � ..q-. .� . � . ... „ ..:..:..:. ._.. .�._...:.. ... . . .. . i. � . � . . . � \. . . S�� • . , - � , . 1��r_ , - � . _ . ."P��°4 ' , ' sr �.v; � . . � � � "�,'14��t�: . . ��, • � .�� ' �,- ,_�.. ;.. � _ � > � �t4,rryk � �^ ., ; a � �; : . � -, �,. �. � .,� � rr y.. , . n -.: � s � � �� '%y� � ��f"r��{�Zf�. x�, ��W��''.aV�T+� /�,� � ��y j�r.�r.t4 �' �k, rw �' �,ki`+x' � � ' �h{{,''�f�' �r ., .,. .... . � �M��;�� .�f' ...�:' '"� ,�� 'f �;i ,r;t 1�:i y{� . , , ' �.. �.. .. . � ,. ^' ..e. �� • �►�°�2Fi y ��4.�� a ��}�. .. . . .. _ . � . ... ,Ya . . _.. . . "� . �S^T'�5•'"L't,:� `5 t , � 1 �: 1 r �:� ' This in additian tc the e::tanS3VP. tre�+�c�:�rr above Yhc site, should minimize the pot=ntial h�zard t❑ the site: =i�.'�1t"' nevertl-ieless� thc rEar faunduAion r��ll s,hauld be designed to x�,':1-•�, protrude �.t least six feet above 4inisnr�d grade and b�_ tfsi,�-; • i•�ithout doors or �•iindo�-is on thzs upslope-4acing side of the � , hnme. It should be strono enou�ah, tu wittistznd forces of at ; -. . _ _ . � 7cc•c, n:- the �quivalent i-F thc 2�f � �taildinq can be cl�siqned to be Frnw-shap^d up the hill, ��'• ' thereby reducing thE' {orc�s pnter'r.ial2y a�fECting the �� .�. ! propos�d home. , ' �� f�;.! ;i tjE; r. . Slepe stabilitv is the most important consideration for this "'�r' . site because bf the st�zpness. "fher� is no indicat.ion o{ � ,��7 : . �� lo�g ter-m instability o� tf'1=5 L'1=k. T�7E "pistol--butting" of � some trees is prr.bab?y due to doo-�n hi2i snew pressure rather th�n ins�abi.lity o{ ths Colluviuc:i� Gut ��. factor or safel:y � anxlysis is definitely in ard�i-. The nearness af b�d:-o�k ta. t the sur{ace is a positive {actor b°cause presumahly the � foundatinn can be `.nchnred to i�. F'osii•ive drainaoe _�round ; the home wi21 ae importar�t and nat��ral veqEtaiion not 1 � jrequir-ing w�t�rir.c zs �dvisad to furth^r ins�re stabi.lity or the site. O�•riousl;�, soi1=. enqi.ne=ring wi].1 ba a.n i:��or::�nt . � �spect af this proj��t. ; ;�� , : • 'j The fau2ting mappe� in �hc_ z:^ea ha> �o•�n inac�:��e for � ��`' � thousands of years with no e:•idt��= in the field qf recent, ; , '+ movement. The atrcve-r-efere^ced portal #rends well east or � . , i the site but s�.it,surface m�+ps nf the a:-ea should b� eialuated s,�Z to be sure i'h�re is �o rear-�urface tun��cl or stopc directly . • ,� under the sitc_ �� j I beli.eve that water and waste di�posa2 systEms will 6e i?` i � available fron m�trsicip�.1 saurce:. In o:�d�r to pr-event the ` possible �i�cumul2tion u-f radon qas, aclecuate sub--1aor veni-ilation should bc- p�ro•.•idc_d ir, the Tonstruccion of the ` home. I{ th�-re a;'E- fUt"LhCr qur��.tions., nlease do not hesitate � to contact mc. : ..3 :'�'_ ' ' . ..� _ G2f7^E'!-?1)'� � S��+!' ; � (;S . r 1 i `�Ii4�� '�� t� ' .`,� Nichala� Laropiris � � �:i � ;i . Cc�nsultir,g Gealoqist . =�` � ' � :`i • t . • • .;...��.. ` � - :, � . • . j' ? . ._ . .. ' �!' r . . . � 'r �i . ,,y-!.r,^. �i"'r1'� . , M" ---3 � . .� . t ..:f . 'T 1Y . : �y ' �n... . ..-. ., . � . . _...X .F. � . ' . . . '��.4_..`�'.•T,.-.. . f� ... ... . . .}�.... ' .. � .• . . . . .� • . '�>."t- ..>�r.;.. �:,� . ..� .- �.� ... � . �..!� e--:�..,�.. ..'.�, ,. ..-.... ..._ ._.... .. . . ... �.,. . ..�., .... . .-..,. . . . ..� . ' . . . ... ... d ..y , • ' � . . ',� �s�• �. . � .. � .. . . � . a :�tn �. . , . . � � �. . . �.r ;'�i@ .. �tiv: ,��, ' .��rt.. L'. �;y'��, � �t' !}t r a - //'' . .� �'3�� .J;e .n2 ( .:t u..' 1.'�• i �• .. ��) i'�.',•� fY3�' �� 1{� ��r �' �'} � p��.� py �� i� , i S '� � . � �' i '�42 r"k. `��, �,'S' k��R�n'�iF ' t �$Yf,�L �.! i � "hu `• � .1 Gti '�L'�� . '��5�.�'�4 Y��{�- ��f�a art�. �l. �,;�� r� , ; � , (� �r � .,�,J{.,s�y�� ;�*�yj. .� r v1M " .I� L(l.Y��:y4 5 tf . �r u�•'° A""�A`'� . . . ..4 . . . . .. `f..r�. t. ._. '�"�A'�M1_. . "'. z;�«kS'��4 iL,�.:'' � �� Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D. s��p�t�� y'��'�( i� � '.� � " •. �� CONSULTING GEOLOGIST .� ,-�1`y',i.�_� _1�`:-� 1 � ��<7 0793 VALLEY ROAD " CARBONDALE,COLORADO B1623 � (303�963•3600i2�NOURSI - lL` �. i,r . �a �:uyu;� i, _s'9i� j� j';;:� � ,�i JO'�"11l ;r'..lJCdufl- . ... ' . �:� -' . { t i f� �c:.i" {'iYT�::�',y S�_lJ."C E :�.I" � l'�': � :'��n ru !3i.i�'.1 � �' s ;:�i:� -+.� i � . � �:�: our�._' ��nd C_ain j 1"�ear- Far.dy: �k � -fii. 7.ct��r i.; intc-nd.�� _ suc;iler::�•nt rny '_e�_,... :��`r ;ieirch '_+_�. �+;'" ' ,99��. �'r;r-� mf�_i.yai:i.u� :•�hich :{ :acom:r,�ndec previous:ly :-�auiu � , a.l�o �:-�tecc th� tiorr.e in t!-�c unli.i�ely �'.•�•:�t tha_ c, debris ; ^low r-^�ached thc- �it�. becaucse or tne topo��i^apny �nd tren 2 cove�- as daac�ibed, large evr•_nt is noi pro6aL;ie and th= 2h.'..nrtess �t the r_�=�uv+_a1 co��er als� n:in�miz_s t`�•C � ryartic�;l�r haza:-d. E i �y i{� the r�r.�mc- _� cl�siqcec as 1 t�avc� suc�gested, ar i� it is :I � . design�d to prc�i:�cL• agai.ns± snow slidinc cn;• :,��t.r..vr • `.E ., _ ?-o-re�;sionul) a:zth at leas� ihe oarameters T_ citcd in my I r pr-evious l�tter� debris flr_•w ha=�rd is minim2zed as a by- � 1 _ _ . '. L prodi.ict. F'ositiv= draina�e zround che namE �vill h- he1p4u1 { in this r��ard as well. Ic is currentl'y planr.ed `to c�n+�uct ;{ =.u.i�ac� cxnd s�c:,surf a�_-± sl n;•;s _.:-�;and �he r�r•ese�r bui 1c±n�� . } ^:�v�J.or:�=, 'a:';.i•3ht_r.g b�loai •.:F:2 F;cm�. v�it;i th�= o�_it•f).o�v `' , . . {�. C011�11C'��?:.i Sl?r:�].V P�•Jd)� �7�' ::�'1E ii;'i',�°l•:c:\' �OI'1'GW (j::LC�':_ (� � �� ''� .-ir-°=...--r��::.!::aa <ac-�• �;�pic.�J._v arcur.d i:�� c.ownhi..t1 :;r•�� =;.�J�aln? �. : Yc.� :c� n:�c*ect ag�a�r:s+� :.iJ.-� Ti�c_, ° cina !ichi�l 1 , i^i] , .. _ �n �::ay � ..�:`��;�� c_ rrm�,�.n in .... >1::'� �� f7.t'° l;' i - -- .. . �� :)� �_n..L...Jf ^:4i'oYi'_—`:-a1;1 `i.. ,.. J✓a1 t.J175 l.�t ;:11~GC2C=T.�T`.^ TI'2 !l'�fiiv . ^ QL'•.-:li,��3.� � .� ...L. 7 ,?J '' t _b:?�. 1' i3T_i.l''.:� �.•-• f:�i.15'C Ci?,31 .l "fr: l.'=' f i:-�.Of'1 'i.�i'=- + a,G»:�o;::�i ac.� �_h:-uo� c:r L-•� �-:s�,7.a.:�Ea� =^ ch:_,c °�a 'c� r_.�cain 'r.ha f • � L�:•el c�. r�-,_,teci-.ior� previn!i�Iy an..f^rded endtl'E•t �✓IlFll�� l41'�ft � iih� t•i.ra �real:: =ancn�c. � �;- The �:�si.pn ,::nd strcnyth u� =he r��r �-ial l of the nn;rc i s sLi:1 !: � s �:he crx:_ica1. f�,c:•or in �roier_tion 'rom gravity—rc`_�ted �." � _ I nu��res� and it c�.n ba dESigned by an :anginAer t� b° . I � ay�euate. I{ th�ra are further questions, please cor:tact me. ,� . . ;j . . �. 3 5incerely, ` ,� � . /��l,-�! „j%'�%`�* -\' ' . _.. �� . . . 2 - � . Nicholas Lamp ris _ �r Consulting Geologist t� j i� d' . �'. ,,-,.-�-,. �� ``E"�,�".s �r � j� � � _,. . ', - . .:...- �� . . . N� ,iN�... •. . . . .. ,-� � - . ' ' - �+�fR- . , ,. . ��` ��.r� � ... ..�.. � . •- -.:....,:. ...�:.:._:: . ............ ��.... ..::,.._-. .. ... . .. .. , -..:.':.:. . ......� ..... � . '.i. �. .i.y�l. . :.. ... •._ , . .. c � . . - . _ � � � . . . � . � �n `PS7`. . • � — 9 : 7�, . _ . � ��¢s � � � - � , , ��{ �� +ti* •�:� _�w. �: �-w��• a .. . ' . . . . . . ... .. � ' ( �j� � .r"�7 ._7 s �� .' ri Y.e.+ `q��7� �?'R+i ,�j r'1I�ti �,�•N r.'�. �.�� . �' � ;.� -. ��. �+'��f ..� :.�hr 1� ^�.� �j��''.,��f .� y Y t 1 � � w� [ � � i: i ' F�~� r.� b :��a�M��ZT �{'� 4:�i' �j��w� e�yt� �i ;. 'a ��.4hw � �,1�; j Yi.� � (� �a.l '�,� ' '�'` 3~t �1 vr �t�''� +.3) �y �. z .. . �x-c�d�� "��-.��.�� . r. a r�d.°�'e`�... �,.��'�'�,y,�d�'��.. ,;�ro`y,��v�_:I. iFi� � � RTTt�C��E�T � Chen€3Northern,Inc ��G�p..,t��.�.,�°��.,.� �. . ; . ! t � �ryy7 q�115� - : _:\':___ . Gki�wwr151��ils.Cda.wW61Q11 . . . ]07 9�:.�7a 5M . . � :10]9�S�Z7G7fncsn•b . ' �r ... ' ; April 18, 1990 . . �� •�,p ' ¢ galx�7 Wedtml �. , 616 Fast NYman. S�ite 102 ' pspen 0� 81611-1981 • < --S�bject: Review of Soil and Geoloyic Conditions, Newfoundland Farcel, Pit]:in � � Camty, Colorado. �;•� a; �: Job No. 4 ]]9 90 • J� : . the soil azxi g ;i ' rovidirr� cmmnents r�axdin4 eologic t;,. As 1�equester3, we are P Chesr . i:i .;; . � corditions at the svbject site based on our experlP� in the arna• y-: . Nozthern previously corrlucted geoted�nical studies on the adjacest Int 7, Hoag i Stibdivision, for feasibility an� frnu�dation design of a proposecl residenc.e arcl rnu�d �p��t.,ed our fin3irx�s tu�der Job No. 4 275 89. r:. 1 which will �, A resideiioe is pivposed at the lowes �d of the Newfoundlard Fa�� , y _ � use a asrumn driveway with Ivt 3. 7he hillside tPSiain is consistent in the area �, and we e x p e c t t h a s�s°�1. � 9�l o gic conditions ax'e also similar to tl�ose ; building site lies wirhin a Po t e�'t ia l identified on I�t �• �e p�� debris flows• � , � avalanrlie zone arzl could l�e in� Based on our experience in the area. develog�nt on the prope�'tY aPPP-azs feasible f�n a qeotechnical viewpoint- �here is a risk of o�nstruc�ion indu�� instability. A design level g�� s�y �O�d � ��u�� 7,d'ux3• the site stability, foundation, draina9e ar�d g�d�J for the proP�� ? ' '' 4he site should be evaluatc� for avalanche atxl debris flod risk arxi anY nee�� . � . i mitigation. We are available to conduct the subsoil studY at ycur request. Tf you have any questions or if we can he of f��' �sistanoe, plea-se let us �a�- ; Sirw�erely. . ` JFN�;�•PA1y� ` � Q-�—NO�. INC. ��.a``�STE fl�y� . �'^; ` - i_ �;� o . . �_ ��' i�c ,5222 =� . ;;`` � � E �9 �� A • i � Steven L. Pawlak, P.G. �,°F�� .p � ` -_ `r ONAI •O �? � 5�� aT��7F cO��A - 3',` �. a _ . - } . z*� j . • . . � -• i.�1.' ; � . .... - <, -�.�,,,- � , . � 3 - i . �+a� r= � .: .��:�� . � . .rt..�c: "'3�`� .. . - . �.. p 1 , . Amemlxrtlll¢HIHa�'wtl�°'qu"es _. - . . • � . ._. %.. ,I ."`r..',�..'mqf ...... . . .. .. �� .''_:_:. . ..:�._- .. -:... . _ .. _ .. ..... .. .. � .. . . . .. . . , � . . ' e .. ..... .. ... .. , . . . '�e'�,:~`�'. . - . ' � . . � � . �� . . . . � � . / • . '�J��lf' � . . . ; '�. i .:'-t'. `,. . � ��; � ' �� . �. dli4� •�+y-n?. -�;;;,, �:'�. , , _ ��' ' '� � � + � � ° �� X3 4 �i.�� (y >��: ` 6�' a${1 t ei� . ,� ` ,a.�.�""��,�,g `�'�.�"r�`�„�� ,�"��, t �� #�,1�.y f s8�a � �v y� �l. �` � ..� f� ` 4.11't, `C ,��t�� x��S�� k �'�� '� ' 7 �C` 't w "`' �,�r, " �i „�� } , �1 � �a ��`?.��s � ,1 a� �s , � �}k� i�� S � t a�� ,��`.�'tr"�"*:��•'"i��";�?`�.�,�z��.b�y r.w=�'!�$$�N�s: . � � � �TZACHMiE�dT . �� Co �::..�. : . ; ��d�o , , FORFSI' - November 12, 1990 - SERVICE � Snrc Servlc�s$ullding . - � 222 S.6[h Strcct,Room�16 :"�,T � � Gnnd Junaloa Colorado 81501 i . � . John R. Wedum Ta�ono�e�wa>z+sa3zs !� 616 E. Hyman Ave., Suite 102 � �r'`,��`' Aspen, CO 51611 �' . Dear Mr. Wedum, This letter is to reflect our oonversation and efforts �:�;'; during our site visit to the NeWfoundland parcel in Pitkin County on October 31, 1990. . During that visit, I marked the a'' trees that I felt should be removed to make the property •'�. - safer from wildfire. � • i,=�, I have received the revised tree survey (Sheet 6, 10/29/90) . !':• that yon prepared showing the trees to be cut and those to , be left, with respect to the property lines and the 45 foot thinninP line p"°Y=0115I? recommerd��?. R" " sc-"'>°". - appears thaL i have marxed 9 trees West o2 the iiouse that are neither on your property or within the 45 foot thinning line_ These trees do not need to be removed since they are �t outside the 45 foot thinning line. - . As I mentioned during my visit, there are no trees an the National Forest to the east of your property that need to be ' �' removed. Furthermore, the strip of trees between the access road and the recreation trail does not need to be thinned to i protect the site from wildfire. The firebreaks created by � . the recreation trail, access road, and parking area in #ront - of the house provide adequate protection_ If your neighbor �� to the north is Hilling to thin or prune this strip of trees, please encourage him/her to do so. This frill add to �; your protection as well as remove some of the disease that inflicts these trees. � ' ' After our site visit, it was my understanding that all dead � `! and suppressed trees would be removed within the 45 foot - thinning ].ine. I assume that is why they are not shoHn on . your tree survey. The tzees that are shown to be le#t �`� . standing on your survey should be pruned to a height of 10 feet. As I mentioned in mY last letter, tall brush should ,y`' � be removed or broken up into non-contiguous groups. � S'.: . Please 1et me knoca if I may be of further assistance. � c ; �- t� i Sincerely, ' � _ h � � ✓"� . i� . . John W. Gr3eve � .. .. ' s�'� �� Asst, District Forester i� ' .. y " �,,� y .. � .y 1 ' CC Mary Lackner-�� '��' . �Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office _ � , ` . 1f ti: ' . ,�: - _ . _ _ _._ ..._.. •. , .. . . .� �'�i*;i?. �'� rk+' , ' ' ��'�i..,�,,.�: � . � � . �� ix ' _ . i �r �T. ��,�y`"'.^f=�,,. . . � . ��. �� • :n... `��.a.,-. ��f� �'�� `'�� "' ' _. . , . j' 4 . �� ;�" ` rt . . � .- .,. ..- Y � .f' �'� �} � ��g !� - a �y�•,t„�l��t��; ��i..'�} �1 a�. II `. � �vr:y {"�Li� `t� +1#�f��j�"�'.' `!i�'��t '�4i��$ ��'��'�� , [� a ti�1� `�l �y' ��.,9�l,,r.�A32 V�I t. y`�� •� wpx 'r� � . � '�YW�`�i;C-.��a�r�T��e��: f ��5 �.`� x � 4.. . .�' � ^`(.t'k' �F� ��t rA��,� �i : . . � '.� �..��(„t '�i�9� }, �� g�8'i� �t�Y �2 F 1F'�h . . ��li'Fjr . E 1 . .. �Z' � Tw:I�^'v� yiA�s Li�.'. � . . C�AC� _.. :,.:. . • _ : FO� , . . � ' SERVICE . - � sra�cScrv�asauqo�ng . ,�"��: 222 S.&h Scrcet,Room U6 Gnnd Junafon.Colondo 81501 ,•.r 4�� . ' Tclephone(1[11)248-7}25 . i!, ` . . ` October 2, �990 ATTACHME�T �. � 1��.��' Mr. John R. Wedum • �.. 616 E. Hyman - Suite 102 Y •- -- Aspen, Colorado 8161a � _ . , - Dear Mr. Wedum, i � . � s•� This letter is to summarize our conversation during the site �;,�; inspection ot the Newfoundland parcel in Aspen, Co. on October 1, i ;, 1990. The building site is located on a steep (52%), timbered slope which presents a serious wildfire hazard. The steepness of the slope �aouZd allosr for a rapid rate of spread if a fire were to occur. The stand of Douglas fir txees and the brush, littiar and � dead fall in the understory are dense enough to provide ample - - . fuel for fire. Fire starting on the ground could very passibly spread to the crowns of trees due to the steep slope and the presents o� intermediate height fuels that serve as a iadder for , fire to cl.imb into the trees. � - �� The situatioa could be improved by maniaulatiag the vegetation on r� • ,' the site especially in the area around the home site creating a ' defendable space in the case of Hildfire. Construction cri11 ' prohaoly disturb the immediate area around the home. The area • within 10'feet of the home should be revegetated with low growing �. forbs or grasses and kept free of tall brush or trees. A F defendable space should be created that extends at least 45 feet i• (60 feet is preferred), behind and to the sides of the home. � Because the property line is only 15 feet from the sides of the home cooperation with adjacent landowners is suggested. � A defendable space can be created by: �• * removing excess leaf litter, dead limbs or fallen trees, �!� ' , �';. * breaking up stands of dense brush so that its growth pattern is � in small patches instead of continuous. ' � ji ``,; ' _ �� , * Prune trees up to a height of 20 feet or more. ' � � ! d * Thin trees so that the croxns do not touch; try to leave about ;:� - " � 10 feet of space between the crowns. Y� � . ' \. , � .... .. :��. " +�: . . . . . . . .r�; . 'i • . � . � . . . ' � Y� . . `.��. � � .� 1 i r . . �_f+ �• �i .. .. . . .. . . - . . . .. ., . �M I . ..,�1,` i..�w , -r�r. �r- � c - r.-� t'S1Ls : • �, . � ..; ;.. _. ' . . ' - " v � . . ' • , .• , ... . ' x� . . ..� . . . �.. .. . y . .y `r �,.:.�,...�. , . .,. . . . .. . . '..�. . .. . .. ..... .. .. _. ... . . . . . � . . .,. ..,:-.�.. ....... .. f �y�*�;,� „�'�' ' � . � � . ��Y�J�•'��'j*''� . , . ' , ;_�. .''M,'.F , � . • _ - ' t � .. � � � � � � �nn�j7�n'��i�� ' � � ra��. � • � ,��„ �-y�,,�-�'i, '' r • , � : - • �'r�,°`� J'�< S .. � u ' , _ s �.4,��.1 _.- �: 1 �., N � 'i_'� �-�. '��t ( � �. .. . _ . ` . . �147�q. :y��.y G.e { Rr'��y ! ��['��7�A1 L' ' OV.}•1�" �� `6'; , +.:' �Y sFy� � et h � ' w N�t`7k�,_ � j�, ��1'yt��,�•._ ' �W��p�.. . . .. . ��?�.� _ � ...: .:'�` Is �.g5�5 r F ' . . . s'y�� ..... . . e �w�wF''��'t�,' .. � , . ; The area below the home is the most critical. Fortunately the � ' driveWay up to the home and the cross country ski trail below the �::.r � driveway serve as fire breaks where all combustable fuel is ��•,.. .. ' .?,...,. removed. There is a narrow strip of trees between the driveyray .;� � and the trail that should be treated as outlined above to � increase the effectiveness of the breaks. Again, cooperation � , , with adjacent landowners is suggested to extend this thinni�g beyond the property lines. � r�': As far as I can tell from the drawings and.what you have told me, the building itself does not present any problems. It is my f A � _ understanding that the roof will be made of non-combustable � ;• . ' aaterial and there will be no exposed decks. As I mentioned when !'�'• sre met, I am concerned crith the access to the site. The main }�� ;� problem is the acute angle formed by the driveway and the main � � , access road_ It will be difficult for emergency vehicles to make �• the sharp turn onto the driveway. A 90 degree intersection is always preferred. The single ingress/egress and the narrow width . • of the driveway is also a potentiol problem. Emergency equipment = wil'1 not k�e able to enter the driveway if people are evacuating ' j , at the same time. If dual ingress/egress is not feasable perhaps �' � a pullout area could be constructed about half way between the _ ! house and the main access road. � ' I hope my observations and comments will be of use to you_ - Please contact me if you have any questions. � Sinc rely, • , �,f/. �✓`.�.� ' " S . j ohn W. Grieve I Assistant District Forester 1 ; xc: Mary Lackner ' �'." n • i �, � ;;; . y `5 . R i � � i - 5 •'�_: ' . ? I. � . � .��. � � I� } �� , ' ' i�' . :� �� ;�. .ry : .. ' . H.� . � +r>.. �'� _ ; � i � ;,L c s7, . x � ,. i �. : .- . . _ i _I.; +� t F. ' . '.d • Z . ... Y - � '�� .� 1 � ..� . ` - ' . . .. '�:a. y j� ..�.:� ^:a:��` � -�4 S�v. � q .�. . . � ,__ .. . . .. .. _ i . ,, . -_.��._..___ __..�._ ____.... . _ .... _�.._ _... _ . .. ..,....... ___ .. _.._ .. ._ . _. . �- � . � � , :�. _��., � � . _ .p . . ti _ ;.�; , ,r��k ' �:.� ' .,;,� .�:- ��s � .. _�'.` .'ik� �. .. - � � �(` .N .�-� �. `�;� v '3 .;: .� •f;� ,�`�y;�r�� , � � - ' �� l3'�it� - � "tY'r�.'r} � .. ; , wr ' t r' ��,�:"'ff�� r �k � v � � � 1b�°S! = t�lif�ba �:� '�k. � ��t G�� ! i � 1 c4 r ��J(k,r ��+.w�`.`�+�E ��a � r�1 � f � ,"�.�� ly 1. I � 5��i �^ �° ( �� °��C�^ � �� Cy�� t �f. �' �,�':��f;E��°��",��t '�� r�°�'s"i... .. -r�4rr.,��"'r.�,�`'�A ti.�.. f . :. � ATTACNI�ENT � �. . 8040 Greenline Review Standards 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be _-.� �" located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine , . •�:'.,... : , subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls ��-;�� and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found 'to ' contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall .`' stablize and revegetata the soils, or, 'where necessary, I�:�� cause them to be removed from the site to a location ' :. � acceptable to the City. -•� , 2. •The proposed development does not have a significant '�''� ` ., ��' adverse affect on the natural� watershed, runoff, " '� cR� %� drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on :w: . water pollution. : ��': :� F 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the City. • ' 4. The design and location of any proposed development, � road, or trail is compatible with the terrain on the ' . parcel on which the proposed development is to be �•� , located. '. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, .'� � disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and naturaT land �� ' Peatures. �4%: 6. The placement and clustering of structures will � l minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, ,-�� ' maintain open .space, and preserve the mountain as a � ; ! • scenic resource. ' :.� . 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open . character of the mountain. ;�' G��•.� ' , ,. 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. , 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed ' �'�`' development, and said roads can be properly maintained. -,;;�;.�.i . 10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the ;��' proposed development so as to ensure adequate access' � ��, - for fire protection and snow removal equipment. `i i ; .�-� ' 11. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area -J . � Comprehensive Planx Parks/Recreation/Open Space%Trails • : .3..�.� ,. s. ' Plan map is dedicated for public use. ' � , i ';.. �� . , � �' ; , • , , , �. �,::,..�_ �.� u�.'. � I' . . � -�C��., �.�'. i �� . , . , . . ...: . .. : . -: ; . ...� : �.- �. -: � .. ' .. . ... - ' ' ' . . • . . . ' , . _'r.. . .. .... , . . . ' ' , .. . ._ �� . ._.__-_. _ .._..�..... ._.,..___....._._._..._. ...._._ . ._:_.... ._ _ ..._. .. _ .... . . ... . .. . ... . �� • .+�-�.�-� , . , . ..�,��s�; . _ , ' . �t�w..s„�I. , .. •�y . . � ��° � *7h �Y .��5. r��T . � .K �� a�X ty''�-�{. �� : ��; y�Jt.P .' t .. � / t . 1 � - �. r ` k , r I.: . ,� '�� ..p ,pp,'S� n �q�• .�}L� ��7�� , i��y„'�.... '� � .., \ 'T�� r 1. ��:[y�,��D�i,��"'�n k� �,�, � ?"tYt. �� '� .��i `'t��.�,i �,�i,' ��k�C^h '4�'F-ml'r� � 1 w �e t� '� � � y3� ,�a�4 ��`"' iS[[[i�y�� t� 4 rs 5;.. � . � 4�ST�,�'';:�,:�.��j�� ..�� .�.<. ��:��`rM�iy�•'r,''7"K�'Y.c7F:. .. _��K�.'^.�Y.:-V±�-'}�U�Y� \i.-. ,.. . �/ ' . .. � � �� . .. � ,. `. ��. . ��a��f�\t� February 5, 1991 - � ' •..r ': Mr. Randy Wedum �" 616 E. Hyman, Suite lOZ ' ':'';�i��j" - Aspen, CO 81611 � �' 1,::. !• • . }� : . , RE: Driveway to Hoag Lot 3 and other Lots, off Ute Avenue f ACE Job No. 9005I.001 ��: %,/`-'' Dear Mr. Wed�.:n; }� ,4 ; �; �� ; � We. have reviewed the drideway and intersection area previously, � and have reviewed the memos from Tom Newland to Mary Lackner. We ��" � .,:�. i . . ,:, . � believe that the intetsectior, can be improved to meet County dr�iveway standards. S9e agree with Tom Newland that the Access Permit process is the proper fotum fot working out the details of design. We look forward to helping in that process. ' Reqarding drainage, �_ ��peats tha� �5e Covnty concerns heve been ; ' addressed in the reports from High Country Engineering, Inc, ahd • , 5chmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. dated 6/1/89 and 9/25/90, cespectively. However, if the County has additional questions oz "� ' concerns, please have them contact us. �� , . Tf ou have an farther }'~ Y y questions, please ca21. Sincerely yours, • . ��` : , • . � � i, . AIGH COUNTRY EN INEF.RING� IP:G. � "�: � : � i ` • i i Tim thy P. Beck, P.E. ' ; • Pri cipal Engineer • `�"� � , ,. i TPB: jm , + . S;:, , , ;i, . � �i . ' �}., __ . • i, . i I.. . � . . . i � . • 923 CoopeC Avenue • Glenwaod Sptings,CO 81601 � i:� ' Telephonc: 303-945-8676:• 3�3-920-3869 • FAX: 303-9q5-2555 � . �.l. � - . ', _ .. �. . . . . . �;,� . . • .. �� '. � . , ,�„ , _� � _ • �. :.t 7-s.y. � � ,��..s.+� �, :.x•-•.;. .c�.r. +* . : � � � ... � . . . ' . . , , _. . .. . ... ._. . . . , .. . ' ' . :.. . . . . , . . _. .... . ... .. . . .,. ._. _. .. ��.}��st ...-._... ..__... ._ __.. . . ...... ...._ ._.,._ . _ ... . .. . . _ . "cS.'A' F-. .,..,.__ . . .. .. . . . . _ . ' . .. - . . . .• %•�� _ 'AR��7: . . .. - . . ' . . , ' :.�~( �� , �m= ' � • '�N'k^ _,� ,]}�Wf? j' L�� j�d �a�'y�i�,�� .. . / � a � � 2 [Wya � v � ��C,aiy ��e� Y;� F �y�4��rNf� . 'Yy��-� ' a . } 4 '.: ? ��?�.M�� i ��.;fi��x• ! a� �X��y F� '� ,.. �r.t �:Y} +�.. �.t�, 5� '� ,y� �,� �� ,� , i l '.:! .wV'�'�� 1�� ..yT� F� �' E�.-�' t� � .^� � . . ' � ��'-�.��,!.��.�,}.�.k.;: * Y ��`'. i _ n��_`�d�� 4�. t> �`��•'�".. �::'��. � .... r`�"�k,.''�_ . . 'ti . • ,! ... .1 � .. '�, . . . � � . _ _ . . . , .,� ... . ��;� , � . - .--�� . , T -'_jx. _ `fi . . ` ..�.., , . . ' . . 't`�F . , 1 _ . _ . , � � .`t . . . - ' Y� ' .. . � . ' , ' . . . ' � . .. . � . � ' : . . . ' � � � ' �'�:: - � �,�..; . . . .. .. . � .. ;��1 _f � ' ' . � . _ . . ... '_`.l,�:. . . . .'\ . . . . . �� _ .. .. . . . . . � .� . .. ' + . � � . .. � . - . :s � . � -.. . � �'� .'� . ' � � .. . - ' . , -. �.�� ' . � . . . � , - . , �� • _. , , � , . ;: . : - � . � �� .a .. .� �� . : . . , �:. � - . �:,�< , � � . ; �¢ _ . ., �_ . . - , , ; ��,, �;: . � t . .. •�_l;.�;��^ . . � � . _ ' . ^��, ' . , . . . . ` .J . � ' . . . ' .. . ' . . if . � , . � .. . ' .. ' 'i . .��; (�� . . ,;^•� , _. � �. _ -� ' � �,� `, i . , �� , • �! . . . �j . � . . . . � . . �. � �.�.1 . -. _ . . . . �l�.t�� . . � .. � � . . . .. \ � . . � �-i t � .�� _ _ - . , � '; �.�. �,:� . ' �� ,, . ; - Y I 1" � z.. , - � � . • . � _ ��;_ : . '. ,. . .r�. � K-;:�� ' . . . . . . �. . . � - . �� -, �t�J'!.4< �. . .. i . . - � .. T�r'� �, ' . . .. .. i . V�^1{ �' � . � � �- , . � � . _� '�•w,�� . . . , ' . .�, .. . .. . . . C�y �� . ... � . . , . " _ .' ' �:,. . '� � � - � . . � ,�_'§.��;,�. , . . � , . . � .�di C, 1 �'�t. y '�5��42�; - � , � . r8�+� . a .�� ._,�. �,?�i? . � ' . �;��` , �±j"x w �� 'L � �., � . Y . p ry �F' �'��5�"r w '� �. a � �.�` �'. .. �a �,y..��.}� � K . a� �x��yy„� . �� .��a � 3',.� .„vv��+ � de .` .�w 1} �� s�� : �! t. �T�.� '�,F�.' � r# ��f:r�l�#)�Q a: I r�: -J7�'�1'�k'�y d y,�' �'�.� �i� � t��.-.� t��-�} . �. . : .,,�. �r�"�' }r�: � �� +..: � ��.. 1 t�p�.3+.-".� � . , . `y#�� . � � � � ��:�:. ^��.,��y" �4"� 'atYi�.. a .."' �?`e?°ftu�..Y_./. 1d� .. - . .•�f."�.1,Nr� �'. '1 s��qi:Le-�'� . BOkRD Ot=C0.C;0°�41;i'F;'� �'__ !li,d.;Y pN-Klii f,i �:;.. .. , . C�uhtic Neari;ig E:<I�:i:iis 6ata.__.3..=./'��_._--- dr+tbµn ' . SubisctG.w��.EG K�� . Exh.1�u.M��..<<M•4.,....----- ' . ,� : ;. _ . RECO�2zDATION: The Planning OfEice recommends that the Planning � t,''.c.+ Commission recommend approval to the Board af County ! . � Commissioners subject to the following conditions: � . i 1. The County Engineer identified the following conditions of � approval: � . '. � a. The applicant shall follow the recommendations of the ! � - � Chen-Northern geotechnical report (dated November 7, ' � i 1990) with respect to foundation and drainage design. �ir�-' , ;i j b. The applicant shall contact the Road & Bridge 1 Supervisor and replace the culvert to his I specifications prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. The Environmental Health Department ic3entified the following �; conditions of approval: 7 a. The applicant shall receive Environmental Health �I . - a Department approval for the septic system prior to � building permit issuance. � ' b. The applicant shall incorporate water conservation � fixtures and methods into the final design of the residence. � - . � ,, � 3. All conditions of approval identified in the Owl Creek Ranch = :� PUD shall remain conditions of approval unless specifically � amended by this action. '((( i 4. An amended plat shall be submitted by the applicant for ;'. . � � approval by the Board of County Commissioners, prior to , t issuance of a building permit for lot 2. �. , � 5. Al1 material representations made by the applicant in the � �•• � application and public meetings shall be adhered to and � considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended • by other conditions. �` • �: ,;� pudamend.pz.1041.marx - � i �� 7 `S„ � � .�� --..... �. ',.' . ' � .. . . . . „ . �:.:. , r�� . • ._ . .i . .�� . . . � I . . � • ... . e . _ . . . f� . . . . . . . . . .. <��; . . " . . � . �`+'1��'t. � ' . � , :. . ��' � . � . � ... �.Y�1 F A :'�u"�`�°y , ��>., � �� ,'sr, '°�t� � �� }er+Y,.�'>f'F` / � � . . . . . w.�a1' . . � • .` � . . .. ��kr v � - � . . . � . ' ��j{ t,�.Tj�� i-�4� n��irJ� ,�.�3�';��}��j3'� !r l��. �.0�}i ho�5�1j� n�i"�� Z I.,�'r` )i ' �x � i. ��t�� M�i'r��F�t��t� ''�i".�T3M`'��~.,'"��'�}` {;�I' ;�' .: .. . „�7;p.._ ,,T�.,1#,'� Qa�y/_�{�.4#.Z� �{.Y,`f�,, � ��j tr�..,, �'{� ,��r�� t.� � � . ��N$f��-�t �u��{M .. . ' ..�.��.J ��"'w.�'�kdf1��F..IS��.r'�:'?��E. `l � " . . :_._....'�w�l:i�fxii�.'' 1?!U-_t4r.�f:�k.,,�,�-"��r"i,Y;Fst��.u:f1-a.� ..?�1� . �.'. t r .. . . . � T".'t:i, ,, . � f;. i; � - _ +�h� J ��` � { x� r • '' .,�--'s' � ! ''��•.'.: �, � �t�• i _ ��'s^ � .y� i.: I. J " ' ..;.'� 15s ?�`..r51. � �p�� .i J y .b w�..��~ -M�^�O`�r!/� _ L •� , . "'�.-�� T – -P{m��--\r �,�I � I � . �,�, '„�.�°°°-".v.`-�"..,�-�" �1i ' � �",� ;�,�_. ..y_ -� , �,,-.<..�� • �_ . --- -_.�.�:��;,,�9.,� " � �"� .- ` ��i. ;"� ., u,. .� ' � :r�'�.(. 7 r.��,. ;i ,, •`"�,. .,ti i=�.' '�V'�;. ri.� . , ,o�"`�I' • �' ��•,�}°'�� - :, � .t , i ,. ' � f � S Y 3 r .,� ' ,� , � �. �''t i� . . .. . . � ;•.��'!��Y•l.._........... ` . —� ',f;yp'� . .. . . ,��Yj�a�-,R�� . , �.�1. ,�'�;�4��. . :;5 yi. �;�:fY'+-_:•a9�� . . . 'y'F.. ' ?'i!.5�crc;a�. . ��r�Y;�.:y`..'. . � r�`n.�.�..� :�:irif��-�:: `�y�a,•,�,�J�� :<�'.''-., >^;�� sr''I. '�„�: ��tk � � ' � f 3 r k '.`fA1�`fS �R�'i� ._ . y"f�.�j1e . � 1 ..^' '��Y!� `'.' .Y �� Fh��rJ��. ' � e .�!ttr �R ' '{ � i �k ' h V� , P ..�: .�- �: a� t�3'-.b � s � r t. s .`r,� '`� ��a a =''�; a:..:. n��v��9'r�-ti�i�Er��I�:1��A'Jl.S{a��;.� ._ . i'ba._:.-.` d��.". . . �d.��..��t'�'�'. h IF.;` '. � . • . , r..1 �"1. i AFFIDAVIT OF PQBLIC NOTICE -_ OF APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL (PUrsuant to Section 6-3.4 of the Pitkin County Land Use Coda) State of Colorado) ) S8. �i:• _ _ � county of Pitkin ) The undersigned, being duly sworn, deposes and says as - t follows: I, Glenn Horn being or representing an applicant before Pitkin -a.,�,.� County, personally, certify that Public Notice of the application for the Cook 1041 General Submission and caretaker unit was given by posting notice containing the information required in Section 6- � ��3� 3.4 (d) (1), which posting occurred on April 26, 1991, in a "�� cons icuous lace as it could be seen from the nearest ublic wa ':4i,;:a P P ( P Y) ,;� and that said sign was posted. '�'J� Applicant: :�t • �+;� /� Wer a Sh Cook S � � �/'�✓ �----�1 ` ' � . ^ . gy ' ._;,� `,;.;� Glenn Horn '�.>i '' The foregoing Affidavit of Public Notice was acknowledged and .y _ signed before me this 13 day of May, 1991, by Glenn Horn on behalf • � of WERK AND SHAY COOK. . �`"�`� � ,;t:v WITNESS my hand and official seal. '.�.-� ,,:'� . My commission expires: 6--/��-�/� zYl,� ..111,�. V",�.'�(� . • .�� ` NO PUBLIC .,... < .� '��;" .. -� ,. A.::. . y,� • M1;� . � ,,;� -_ ' sokH�or co.cor;�;r.��;�� '�i3 PITKIi4 C��Ui�TY -�'�� P��iic Hearin;;E:.luai,s • .-'�� SuF�.v_��/._.____ � �� ,f„ . .,�. L"'{O,V�YO. . _�..,................... . '� F� �4'- �-. -. . : i. - .. . � ... . . . .�.. .. . , � .... . ... ..... � �.' `y U� �...: ,�,;:� v„ ..�'.:, . :.:. . .._...._, . .::.'� � . . D ..� �^ � � . ... . � ...�..._ .. ,,. . %t�':. .. . .. . .. }+�'��.4. . . . ' %,��.� . . . ` ' . . • . `,-C�,G.�"�� , . . . ' . , _ /.. . M1 �'"'. , {�',S. .\�: . F F�.F�'�' .. � � " C.� tl+ -� ' 1 � . .v. . . . . � ' � .�a�:,��. � . � sa� �:i.a... .,.�t,X'�' � . . . � � � x ! � � . . . � �. � ��d' ;�y�j?�i A j.�'� . : F . 1 �"1}� ��.� e R+ .. � � r.S y .S 6 4i ti � x - } I�,z s�^t y+ :; �4+ �S t,: '' t 1,,.° i ,,�?��`:. + . •�C ,+'>�� M1L�1�r� �Y v+�i a�`�� {�� •( � y�4� ��. 1>t Y12... S ! AM '�P�F �r:..�� C�:�l � ,�i ,,�} '( +�'� ry t•' iY}4,T ;y,� � . ...:- � k� Sti� .. � X . . .,.. .. . \,�:� .. ... y� u�S�,� «.�i:c �N�::7`r� _ l . '_lI? �.. • � '; BONFiU OF C0. i.0i :,��'R 5 ' • ;.� FItKiPb Gi t��I Y Fui�!ic Heeri;il r• ,:b;is . .. -`� s��e�-t�`!S/._!1/_o�!t�L�s__ . i Ex11,.a�. ��(sc�� —•� r � I �,.�r j Comnliance with Conditions Placed at General Submission - Those ! � which were to be addressed at Final Plat) `i y Condition #Z• No further development shall occur on the parcel. � : R Response: The applicant has provided plat notes which stipulate this condition. Specifically, it is noted that no further • %. _ i subdivision shall be allowed and that no development shall occur �� •y � outside of building envelopes designated on the plat. ��:.. �i :, ' Condition $3. At final plat the Applicant shall provide plans for the access roads where cut and fill is necessary. In addition, plans shall be presented for the proposed new portions of the roadways. These plans shall be consistent with the requests F of the Engineering Department. � , ' Response: Schmeuser Gordon has completed an analysis of the site access and made recommendations for improvements to the existing ' portion of the road, as well as recommendations for improvement � of the first 40 feet of the access road as it intersects with '� Snowmass Creek Road. This section is to be improved to Country �p• i Access standards, tj , I Tom Newland has reviewed the proposed access plans which were � submitted by the applicant. His comments were as follows: 4 . � The internal road should adhere to the County Road - standards and be adequate for fire fighting vehicles. � - . Staff notes that segments of the access road will exceed the , County road standards for grade. Standards allow a maximum of 12$. Portions of proposed sections are shown at a grade of 19$. � The County Engineer has indicated that these grades are � � preferable to the cutting and/or filling that would be required to bring the road into compliance with standards. There will be h:,� � less visual impact associated with the road if it is allowed to ii- � • : vary from the County standard. i �.� � ; The Basalt Fire District has indicated that a grade of 14$ ; � presents difficulties for emergency vehicular access. The District cannot assure that a fire truck will be able to access the site, given segments of road at this grade. ;S ' - The applicant will be required to obtain an encroachment permit ��( -1 ;f;� � ,'� . . , _ �� — � ' ' ---- ,::< ._ - . �.a - , ��,' . . ��: � ,�;v�=` . '�'�'!,��.. ' u�'.,�+�`°-*-*�, . . :;��n' � a:['rvy.......�,>�:Y.. � �� .. � } �i ' ,�t�'� ,s YN�' �� u,, >> s , "ri'�t � �� r � � - �� d /' �� a�`l��` �v Y., � , ... . R`�3� {;t.�� e �' �'.:�wy t7��.� �. / .`. `y ��"�k' 3�'Y'.-t',: p ..�j�i . .:..� ,'-��.ae��,�, �_, �,. '�� .y ' �i °1 � •f: �"^� l,v?t��1 y.i rt?`t. y�' ��3i F��' S i, �,�•h�j•�r �,� t, �.� � ,��} a � u �'r. x 't��T_c:�:t*J�!'�� ... ._ : t.'.. . _ S�: �. �'��k,��-c�"; �':'��:��',�'j�.�°,. � .' ', >:;'. from the County Engineer prior to issuance of a building perrait. i , , It is recommended that the encroachment permit not be issued until the fire district has approved the access for fire fighting vehicles. In the event that substantial alignment changes or � ' ", cuts or fills are required to accommodate emergency vehicular � access, it is recommended that the applicant return to the Board " � of County Commissioners for review of proposed changes. :�:.r�' ;`;.;.< , . ' Condition #6. The Applicant shall provide the County with a t.�';:7,''.� � right-of-way alonq Snowmass Creek Road to a11ow a ,;�,. minimum of 40' from the centerline of the road. ;:� , Response: The applicant has provided a 40 foot right-of-way for ;',} Snowmass Creek Road. The right-of-way is depicted on the Plat. • The County Attorney has requested that the applicant also convey 'r� ' _ the easement by a separate deed. ',; � �, ,A � Condition #7• The maximum total floor area shall be limited to '"��. j 7,500 square feet in each building envelope ' ��'F., � ,.� ( (including barns, art studio and any other ' i accessory structures). � � This restriction is not currently reflected on the Plat or within � ? the easement language. It is included in the Subdivision ! improvements agreement, It is recommended that it be noted on ' ; the Final P1at and within the conservation easement. � ' � i � } ' ' � ! . �,± e�� I i I! 1 , k I I �' f �� . �!.t �:t.; � '�( I ':,� __ � �' t� I f '1 ; . i t� � � `•!�, ;.� �s: � ';;= i�� .... . ....'� ^4. .— .. .,.' . . � . ., �I•' ' � �Z.. . . . . . . �'rR-�. � � • - � • . . . . . ��." - ��'� : ' � , ��' , � � � �� - � ,�. =��'*w..,,r . . � i �S +*�R ��J a " �. � . . _ . � � Z*.3` .,: .. ' � "�-�. ., ' . l Y ^ � � :� � ' '> .. �.�'_� -I t� .! 9 `; .1 ��'„��1Sn �,""ay"t} `�,� �<, ;� �.7 a�r `Efa� �. �r�e�Ki� ? A� '-e�l�,. � �, a t , 1�. ~'�. � ;:.�� ,k r,� + � a �. � � � �-'',W`��:��'��i�� y� ��''q� X • ' t�s 'S ��A`�t:��r'. ,�,,� � . � . �.�� '�_ ' �w�'�7e._.-. ....... �� .y'��"� ��4�.� a)u�,.�. R`tr- -^^..:�.,aj`'�A 1'�.�.. � �:.. . � f' e.!.�' BASALT R. RL'RAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT � P.o.�oX�, ;:G �c� QM��, . : BASALT,COLORADO 81621 �� ' �' 9273365 � �� ' NAY I 3 ts9� ; ' � : i �J� ;:.; May 9, 1991 r � �,�.� . .. . � ! , ;i � - Ellen Sassano, Planning Office � ' Aspen/Pitkin Planninq Office - ; 130 S. Galena Street . � Aspen, Co $1611 ;. . ' j RE: Dacis/Donnellep Lot Split Parcel ID #2645-1Z4-00-020 ��, . 4 I;,' ! Dear Ms. Sassano, F '" � IIn reviewing the above mentioned application, the following �'!' � was found that would need lmprovement to allow satisfactory fire 1 ' protection. ` I, � 1. R�adwa drivewa �J• �i Y/ y--The Fire District requires � that roadways/driveways, in accordanae to the Uniform Fire Code Section 10.207, shall not be � less than twenty (20) feet in width and shall , : have an unobstructed vertica2 clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. It further states that any radius curves be a , � minimum of eighteen (16) feet. . , + Slope on the roadwap shall be limited to twelve � � � (12) percent maximum. rn f t � �;A � In cases wbere road width in certain areas would � ,� .==r.. � be an extreme hardship exceptions may be made. ' .t � oc:r_.::? . �:.. I U.-� - •c:=='� �� 2. A required cistern of no less than two thousand C " `-� �� 4�1 `Z� (2,D00) gallon water capacity shall be installed . � • � o�s ; Z at each property site--the one as recommended � s.:., ;� a a: _ by the cansulting engineer with a dry type hydrant :' S a } y � connected to the cistern--location of tank and j;' ' . ! � �: r; � hydrant shall be no more than ten (10) feet from 3 0 � ,� the roadway/driveway near the main building on ' , the property. ( � -- S 3. While not required by the fire codes, it is ��' i ,� ,, advisable that occupied structures be sprinklered. While the espense at the time of construction • . � adds to the total construction costs, it is ,,i cheaper than a later retrofit and may pay for ;;� itself in insurance premiums over the years. The �' � intended builder should consult their insurance i. � � agent for details. � � �F= -� > .... ._.___. , . ,.. . .....___u �: ''�"�z�'y':. �i.; . . ' _. • rH:',�a r� � � - . ' .. �� G�` .':.�•.'. . . � . ��,:Sa .. � � ��'��' • .��,;� � ,.._�,- , :`� �� ,� +S nS � � { � �. � t6•��;,N��' � �{,�:..� r .:� r ,� r i y ,^y �. .� �h�;_ � ��', � }��, �ri t `r ,��^ / �; y, y��"�� `; 1{ �'+ '�� i i +• T �� , ,�� w � „p� .� .� • ., ��,�4'�Y, �+€.s : ,,r .J;;;, .� ,� - ._ 1� '� �.+ ..�,. _�e�n+w._.. . ...x.��#°�i�r., v :+a"c�&�y�� .`<al i ,` � . �- :,_� 4, � . . ' �. - i - , �; ( - + •.^x .,. � i ' `•j If any questions have not been addressed bp this lettez, I�``'�'"" . p ..�,. please feel free to contact me at the above address or phone - y number. - :� espe tfully, , y`,;;;:. i . ,,. s � �., ' �u��j,�-=��. C� ' ' � Ronald W. Thiering �;,_', �, { Fire Chief '�•1,, ` `;f,• . � RWT/vw ` i ; , i .i. ; • � ` , �. . � � . j •r. ,. � . . . . . _ . �i� . i � , , _ ; . ,. � ��.. . � �,; . f i�:��``E . . � � i[�; -� , -: I . �s, �. � . . �;� ' € �`.. ,� , . i �`` . � ��:'� ,.,;. � � ,;.,f: . � � `�� ,. - __�.�,.�____.__�____�...�._-.- ---- .__....., _.._._.___------ j .. �. � - - - .: . � . . ' . .�y 79, . � . . . . . . , `—�. . . . :��. . .. � . .. . ' � �.. . ' � . , ' �� " . . . . . . . . N � -�� ?�r - . . . . . . • . �, _ � .?. 'kn/. � �� .. 1 ,,; F ' 1r �ir4 : - . _ . ,;, .�: y r r�v,. n?-. �-y�}f� �ty�"�ici,l. � h ' , , �, ,��i:� r-�.�,,�,rf�a' '��,� w,�,r;ti��+e�j�� :v� �� , ' r. '�"�' ��s?• �t;�} k � i�,t •� i� 1 ,�:+ (` -:. � ..,�� 'a� � � h � . '� �� , ��".4 .a � ..�� n'�:jr S.��.��.� �.�.� y ��+Ma,��- �. ��°t C3�`M�� y w -� t �� ' ry�a �� J�xn u f � �� . � �� r "�X .'�Mw"..M"i��`;�� r �i. ' . ' �.�:� L"K 4 1. �,.H..." '��y�� +��:jry�y.� u* M:yp � � �.c tei��^'.... ^.�`�1� +� . ,��W�1�{ y,�� ,,,�IR:�9G�,y " � ^ F10AYij UF C0. `;'"�;'� , �: " `>;:`+;`;;'; PFi i:'t!•:• Ft�i:�!::14e�:�;ri,l:,....... MEMOR)1DTDUM p�!u:..._..S'/.'7.�'�I�-..__---- .� .. ' TO: MARK F[7LLER. ENVIRONMENT QUALITY b��I�CTOR'�`°;'"��y� r.•' . ` rYn.�:v ,._.-. .�.:._�...-->----- ,.. ., , : FROM: SIM DUKE� PUBLIC RE50URCE MANAGER �':� . DATE: MAY 3, 1991 � . �: CONUNDRUM MARBLE PROPOSAI, DEIS ' '� ------------------^---------°------------------------------°-_ Having reviewed the AEIS I would like to forward the following ' _ comments to you. � ..; � It doesn't appear as though increase sediment loads to Conundrum i.''. Creek or wetland mitigation has been adequately addressed in ' " ' a either alternative proposed by the Forest Service. The Forest Service's proposal to utilize existing wetlands as a bio-filter k for waste water from the sawing process appears to be the less acceptable of two options. it is staffs opinion that this bio- ! filter would fail to eliminate additional sediment loads to conundrum Creek during even normal mining operations, much less a '. worse case scenario. While such a bio-filter may work temporarily it would be changing the organic nature of these wetland soils by adding pacalsufied marble dusts and would also i , . , constitute illegal filling of wetlands over a period of time. Although not as dramatic as the dumping of dry fill materials • into such areas, this practice would over time result in � i� significantly filling and changing of the characteristic of the E . surroundings we�lands. ;: . � Should the County allow improvements along the County Road the j j resulting sluffing oE the cut banks could easily extend beyond E � the 60' right-of-way into the Forest Service jurisdiction. A11 t. cut banks should be stabalized according to an enqineered plan to �• � provide continued liablitily for future sloughing. S:.�i•`_ believes that a minimal upgrading of the road with the intention �` > of shared use by pedestrians and heavy equipment should be ' absolutely eliminated from consideration. The movement of heavy ,� equipment across loose rock surfaces, frequently results in the high speed expulsion of rock debree from under the tires. Such � " rock projectiles are known to have been fatal at many scores of i � . feet. This alone is reason enough to eliminate from k consideration the possibility of both pedestrian and heavy ' _ equipment traffic on a loose rock surfaced road. Staff believes �.� ' the only viable solutions to this problem would be the 'S�Y ' construction of a new access to the mine, the constructioh of a new trail head past the mi»e, the construction of a new trai� ua ;:.j , to the mine, or restricting mining operations only to winter , months when the ground is frozen hard and the materials could be skidded out over the snow minimizing impact to the environment. � Staff believes that the last 1/3 mile of road extettding beyottd }�.- County jurisdiction may indeed be under the authority of the Mine _ _ ._ . _ �� r,.�� _ _ . �;��J - , _- . ��F�i � � . ' �A��1.�� . . . � 1 ��'fi ' �� : �'Wro Ga�;4'. ��y�� : x�� s a'v."�r,�� . .:.i..;, t..."• �yY�, y i'j Y,�4f'! � ��`��,�t,��ij � !r�` I ?''1 ��10-;��.��.�� :i t�)!� � 6 , � �F :: :: t;. � . He',.. ... ...s.t.v........_.?...�. .._..,...n -...,-..a.:o F_....L::�,'i�.sf�2�. . �• ��t 1' � n' � k� ' :, ��ti:. _ ,� , �'`'�'h.`:; Safety and HeaZth Administration. Compliance ;with their road : standards on this last stretch could be extremely difficult if �,, not impossible. In conclusion staff would like to reiterate that the Forest . Servi::e's proposed alternative of utilizing wetlands as bio- •' filte:s would not adequately prevent additional sediment from �'�; �' reaching Conundrum Creek and would ir.de�� aava c��'_�-:.�_�. ' . ° impacts on the wetlands. Staff also recommends that all road r ` ' cuts be stabilized at the toe according to an engineered plan ' � such that there would be responsibility for future failur�s in __ any sort of retaining walls resulting in long term sl..iring. '�� , Finally, staff recommends we investigate the jurisdiction of the } .._ • Mine Safety and Health Board over the last 1/3 mile of access to � . ':, the loading bench. � �•:'. ;� j .� tlg:jd81.05 ;i :' ;:-:� ;� ;? , , _ -'�� {` ! � :.�� +:� I ��- -I , � � °� �.� � ' �. � � . a� i� , � ' I c � 'y�*� � : 5.;. i . f' ;M� � . �'�i ; -_ i. � . .. ,,_� .. . .�. c :� ' i.r+,.---�....�-.-...,.....,.. �. .�W„o.....".....�--"-'-'--'�---'---LL_.._._._.._.__._._. .__. _.. � , .__..__._�..�.�._ ......- -�'?3,� , . . .,..- .s.. �.. ',ys��`-�' � �. , - • - �I.r,,� . �� - ,_ j . .., _ .. . - , , �' �. . �. .;� . , . � •� _ � r� ' � ,+1': . � ' . � ..� . � . � ' � ,i�, �� ' �-'