The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutbocc.min.reg.05281991 `�� i{ �e.i- -ti . ..•i. � .Y,{� f � � . �.!C � r�} .,� ! r�L'� 1( '4 . . 1 }�_ t`�y{a T.�' _ > r _y t�+ � p'•ZL�' � , ♦� ay - � �� i � �r ry�� +r A �p,,��, �'�,,� g� � . . � ��.Yn��.�T��ti..Lf:..'S:[.�-��rZ��Sb.t-��btiit<. ti�-�ve�"S - - `. '�:. . .. � 'iU`1'r v�t:e` l:a�,l�� . � � � �`yti�r� ,:'7•�' U�'2��M�1�i. �: PITRIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS �'::. REGIILAR ME&TING AGENDA ' . District courtroom - TIIEBDAY. MAY 28. 1991 5:30 PM PIIBLIC COMMSNT ° /' CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of Previous Meeting �, ','c.�� ' 2. Sardy Field Resolution, Brad Christopher � 3. Airshow Fireworks Display Permit, Hilary Smith � 4. Citizen Board Appointments, Temple Glassier � ADMINISTRATIVE PUSLIC HEARINGS F , t 5. 2nd Reading, Resolution Extending FBO, Brad Christopher (To j � j be Tabled to June 4?) I �' � 6. 2nd Reading, Resolution Amending Regulation 32 to Close the f , Airport During the Airshow, Hilary Smith 1'I"; 7. 2nd Readinq and Continued Public Hearing, Pitkin County °ji`-� Partial Consent Decree, Smuggler Mountain Superfund � !.• Litigation, Tom Smith 8. 2nd Reading, Institutional Controls, Tom Smith � 9. 2nd Reading, ordinance Approving Intergovernmental Aqreement � between RFTA and the Town of Carbondale and Ratifying IGA �:' . between City of Aspen and Pitkin County Creating RFTA, Dan Blankenship ;!. E - LAND II3E PIIBLZC HEARINGS % i10. Mollica Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission Decision Y . and General Submission Review, Mary Lackner (Staff i ' ,;, Recommends Tablingj Huffman General Submission, Mary Lackner (To be Tabled to June 4?) ' �� Lily Pad Lake Hut Special Review, Mary Lackner (TO be Tabled �i � 3 to June 4?) ' Ease2y General Submission, Ellen Sassano (To be Tabled to ' � June 4?) � Olson Low Impact Subdivision General Submission, Ellen � Sassano {To be Tabled to June 4?) � • ' 11. Miller Appeal of Planning Commission Decision and General i Submission, Mary Lackner ' 12. Margy's Hut Special Review, Mary Lackner '{ LAND IISE ACTIONS ;{ 13. Kirk "Caretaker" Employee Dwelling IInit, Mary Lackner $ -_.� ADHINISTRATIVE ACTIONS 14. lst Readinq and Set for Public Hearing, Resolution Approving � Courthouse Plaza Purchase, John Ely 15. Joint City/County Resolution, Highway IIesign Guidelines, Tom :;� Baker, Bud Eylar ADJOURN � �,� `:a� � :; :tr. v'� ' -� ��:�. � f - �, . '` _ • - 4. . . . . .. . . . � ! "" �� .. � . h. A'�rt�'r:, � . .. � , . _ . . �F.��.�.'t';i?�; . . ��sF..•:�; . . . ..l:� `'�1. ^ 1 :Sy,l.�. � . • . , . ��;Y�q' :'�`,Q"3�' .n'�'�y�� . . ' r��?�� 'Y: �tj; �� N� a�.: .C�.�•''��`{ . . .'��4 �i1 . . ' .. � .. � :• : Ms. v�v�i(Nr�" 4 :L4�.�°' ��"F ii J � f �`�� ,i� �r + s,+ ,�� ,d�,��,��€ ��.�,;�'�� ^ �v�i r��,� ��sylir,4i fr� 1 .t''��1Si! � �k�.y �f :.:t: i�-� ..:5��c a+rt'}iw. Y.��.�t��e' ( °� �� i3ti c � ' � � . ,: '4�.L. ,�,, .� T,. � ��i.{�;. "_'o . .+ti r �t:. .� � � � , .. .' .'t�+�,+'r• , � .. i�fil cc�.�:�-.� w �j� . �'� y� '�¢.�iY � .. �.:^" . .. .. . t�_� . . _ .. �I.zil" ... ..... . . . . .... .,. �� . 1f�i . r .' •. � ' APPHOVED AT � � ` JUN04i991 ' . MxxoTES MEETING • - PITRIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONSRS ' :! . REGOLAR MEETING ti: �`��T<' ' " >:.s MAY 28. 1991 ;',�' � ;- CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Ethridge called the meeting to order at � . 5:3� p.m. � � MEMBER& PRESENT: Chairman Wayne Ethridge, Commissioners Herschel �, �`.. „ Ross, Fred Crowley and Jim True •i�•.'• PIIBLIC COMMENT: Buzz Cooper appeared before the Commission with regard to the Little Annie Road. A copy of his presentation and a letter from the Forest Service with regard to the road are made �� a part of this record as EXHIBIT �+A��. CONSENT AGENDA • Commissioner True moved to remove the Citizea Appointment to the - Housinq Authority from the Consent Agenda. Aith a second by �` Commissioner Ross, the motion passed unanimously x� ' :j; APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 14, AND MAY 15, 1991 j -i RESOLIITION DESIGNATING THAT THE ASPEN/PITICIN COIINTY AIRPORT SHALL ;�� • , OFFICIALLY BE RNOWN AS SARDY FIELD :��;' - 1' RESOLIITION GRANTING APPROVAL OF A FIREAORiC DISPLAY PERMIT FOR THE ASPEN AIR SHOW i' , CITIZEN BOARD APPOINTMENT3 WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE COIINTY �•' ' APPOINTEE ' ' ' Commissioner Ross moved to approve the four items on the Consent . � Agenda. with a second by Coaunissioner Crowley, the motion passed � unanimously. CITIZEN HOARD APPOINTMENT3 - MOTION TO APPROVE - PASSED IINANIMOIISLY ;';! � ,�:. Commissioner True moved that the terms for the new County �; ` - appointees to the Housing Authority begin on June lo and the �r , present member�s terms extend to June l0 for the reason that there �,� y , � is a meeting on June 5, which he feels is important to have the �,J� old members involved in. With a second by Commissioner Crowley, � the motion passed unaaimously. ;� ; �f BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1 MAY 28� 1991 1'��•, .sn'� ;.n. ' 4 � � - . ' - . � . . .:rd.'�':_: ' � ' .. . ... . , _ . . . ... . . i?.Yi�1� ' . ti��' ' ;:;��j f�`.;',�:��,-",at; �� '�'�?" � . . 4.fk� �� ♦ �:t�ci R �,W y' •.i:. a �.�:c, �;... ��`.!°" � .. , _ _ ' .. . . . � . . _ . �1-X]"4s . . . . � .. . � �c . � t �' ' ' {S �t+ S� � 5"]+ '� �} � � , ..`3 t� .^�' . � . ..�. , � - ¢ �...Nf {�r t��,r��#� L� � r_ ,4"4��. E��.,�Y`y+$ti ' - t �Q� 'r. .'i:i' r L ' ��: �` � �.. r�' �� "` � x a.� �i Y �+4 �z! �. ��1. ,�,�i �0. 1� '�4..tii`�� -B' .'. � G 3�.f�t�� 1` iL� t�M� 4'�♦ � a � ' � . . �V�F�g-J.� 1L/. �" Sq�+ �;��;�- + ��x;�:h y� F '�,�� -�3h; '�i��I�`'`d''.' v,,� �,�7yy,.,�� tw{ '.� 1s7-��`,�+� � r.'�y^M!'C+sJ!h' _ . ,_4.•x ,' .. i, . . Chairman Ethridge recognized Alice Rachael Sardy. Mrs. Sardy expressed her deepest appreciation for adding the aame . "Sardy Field" to the official designation of the Aspen/Pitkin .��r County Airport. , ./.-.':, • Sill Martin speaking on Mrs. Sardy's behalf also, expressed her • appreciation to the Board o£ County Commissioners for the � Resolution, and also a brief history of Mr. Sardy's involvement � :I with the airport. SECOND READING - RESOLIITION DETERMINING THAT A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION s OF THE PRESENT AGREEMENTS WITH THE FIXED-BASE OPERATORS AT THE ASPEN/PITRIN COIINTY AIRPORT ARB IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CODNTY "' � AND GRANTING THE SAME• AND SE'PTING OUT A STAFF WORR PLAN TO AbVANC$ �� " TAE DNRESOLVED PLANNZNG ISSUES PREREOUISITE TO PROPOSED AIRPORT i �.>. GENERAL AVIATION AREA REDEVELOPMENT AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE • PROCESSZNG AND COMPLETION AT THE EARLIEST PRACTICAL DATE OF MINIMDM STANDARDS FOR THE CONDIICT OF AERONAUTICAL ACTIVITIES. LAND-USE APPLICATION3 AND PROCURBMENT ACTZON NECESSARY FOR A COMPETITION FOR TAO FIILL-SERVICE FZXED-BASE OPERATOR$ AT THE AIRPORT - MOTION TO - TABLE - PAS$ED UNANIMOIISLY Commissioner Crowley moved to table this matter to June 4, 1991. With a second by Commissioner Ethridqe, the motioa passed unanimously. E� ' SECOND READING - RESOLUTION AMENDING ARTICLE 32 OF THE PITRIN" COUNTY AIRPORT REGULATIONS TO PERMIT CLOSURE OF THE ASPSN/PITRIN ,f COUNTY AIRPORT FOR THE ASPEN A2R BHOW - MOTION TO APPROVE - PASSEb .� . UNANIMOUSLY � Commissioner Ross moved approval of the Resolution. With a second � by Crowley the motion passed unanimously. �i:' SECOND READING - ORDINANCE APPROVING INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT � � BETWEEN ROAI2ING FORR TRANSZT AGENCY AND THE TOWN OF CARBONDALB e7ND RATIFYZNG INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS BETWEEN CITY OF ASPEN AND • PITRZN COUIQTY CREATING ROARIN(3 FORR TRANSIT AGENCY - MOTION TO � APPROVE - PASSED UNANIMOIISLY Coaunissioner Ross moved approval of the Aqreement between the j.� Roaring Fork Transit Aqency and the Town of Carbondale and n� ', approving and ratifyinq Intergovernmental Aqreements between the ;4 Roarinq Pork Transit Agency, City of Aspen and Pitkin County. With a second by Commissioner Crowley, the motion passed unanimously. � - i� � MOLLICA APPEAL OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECISION AND GENERAL SQBMIS3ION - MOTION TO TABLE INDEFZNZTELY- PASSED � UNANIMOUSLY . Commissioner Crowley moved to table Yhis matter indefinitely. With : Y • BOARD OF COUNTY COMMIS3IONERS 2 MAY 28� 1991 � - � I`' +:. _ . " . �:x 1�R • . ' -a;+y_�� . - . . .'r';'�''v. �:::.q�,; � ::•t�.i�.':=:�;." . ..,,. •��:-; .,.�X:.,"J-r;. . �.`'.LEi::;'i x.,x,.n.�. � . �'�. . .i. .'4/^ �� ..... .. . _ ' � . . 1 Ya ..� �..... � . " . . .. . .. -�i.7'k ..i ' .�: . ' . .' . . '- .� . . . � ..� _ . __: y 7 � � _ I . . � (. 3��a �rPa .._ ��l� s'� i�. �. :��: +.�i)!a {� �", � +a . . � � �. 4 ��4��::��y�'�s', ��.N''�i �� a� �r'�fi.k li c t -:�'. a ; .,�r� .�y�; r �. ) `�� t��. x 3 , �� r� ,k ��j n 1 '{' Ky,�_..� 1 /� �G�r�"a y ��,�� 9. r� � Kri w hk�.i x cg��1��et � � s _: � :N�Yii�;:N�. . . 'bljj �'�t :�' ��4 F y. q�� 1�•1�1�fi4� �� i�/ . �� . � . ��+P��r' .. . . _„ -��.. �iE -�..-h-..�i: s. . � ,�. a second by Commissioner Ross, the motion passed uaanimously. HUFFMAN GENERAL SDBMIS6ION - MOTION TO TABLE - PASSED UNANIMOOSLY : � •r LI7,Y PAD LARE HIIT SPECIAL REVIEW - MOTION TO TABLE PASSED UNANIMODBLY � _ �`.::�<' EA3ELY GENERAL SIIHMISSTON - MOTION TO TABLE PASSED UNANIMOUSLY s� � MARGY AUT SPECIAL REVZEW - MOTION TO TABLE PASSED UNANIMOU3LY `? �r . Chairman Ethridge asked if there was anyone present who wished to � address any of these items. There being no comment he closed the ;. public hearing. �, ` �. >?` Commissioner Crowley moved to table the Huffman, Lily Pad Lake Sut, i�.�, Easely, olson Kirk Caretaker unit and Marqy�s Hut until Juae 4, 1991. Aith a second by Ross, the motion gassed unanimously. � SECOND READING - R$SOLUTZON APPROVING PARTIAL CONSENT DECRES IN IINITED 3TATES OF AMERZCA V. SMUGGLER DIIRANT MINING CORPORATTON E.AL. U.B. DISTRICT COURT LI3TRICT OF COLORADQ - MOTION TO ' �APPROVE - PASSED IINANIMOIISLY , _ SECOND READING ORDINANCE AMENDING TITL& VII BUILDING REGULATIONS BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 7016 PERTAINING TO EXCAVATION ' AND DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE SMUGGLER MOUNTATN HAZARDOUS WASTE SITS - �:. ' MOTION TO APPROVE - PASSED UNANIMOUSLY ::� Chairman Ethridge Introduced Mzrti austin, Principal Spokesman for �, . the EPA, Nancy A. Magone, Assistant Reqional Counsel U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Dr. Jim LaBell, EPA '� Toxicologist. � . Mark Austin stated that the EPA has worked with the County on the �` Smuggler Mountain 5uperfund site for some time, and in several � . ways. As a potentially responsihle party, they have worked with the County, and this meeting is a formal one with respect to , consideration of the County�s Consent Decree. On behalf of their �.., , constituents, the County has also raised concerns on several ' matters with respect to the citizens. He said they are here to �. : ' present information and respond to questions as requested by the ', County. ut . Austin said the SuperFund program is intended to address hazardous "' waste, and at the SmuggZer site they have found extremely high lead levels and cambium Ievels in soils. And these are levels, which ��., , - they feel presents a risk to human health, and such a risk, that � the superfund program is responsible for remediating the site. He ' said lead is one of the EPA's highest priority contaminants and � several of the EPA's programs including SuperEund are addressing , � lead levels with attempts to lower exposures. f BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 3 MAY 28� 1991 �;;; � �:i' - , .. � . � � , � . ,,�as�a �. � .. � . , . . . . . . � . . . • . . . i'!.n '•4� � ' . ;i;D��<� . . . 1��'. � -�Y_��I'.�� . jui� �� .4F'�v'�A.�.k'�:' ' , . .�°�•:�r �-° a� ��s ' t� �rM r,�-{�' �� ;�, - ', . _ . -��.. r+ �, � •� . , . .� �s� •(rJ ijx J��: e.,�M� 1'.. 7r'.�'�'" .(,�, �t�tr�s 1 � . x ;� ' a�a��" '"�y„ �i . � .l;: : - "� z ,.,� + r��:��,�i,+��. ��` �,+,� _, ,.1'1�1;�,�`3��4C�'al'1 r � T fA�.. r1 .� �,� .: �.r u�� i.i- t'. .<v-�.�1„��,k'1��•xu�q�r�.a�� 'T.',",I�7 4 a - - �� ' �. + Y.w� L 1 A � �—�l"2> fi � J�� '.�4 il\ ( �' *�1'�r;;,• �, . ��`� c� � r., a{ � P�. � �_,�? t ��} . �� . . ~4E��GRr!:• -- ��?1�.�'f an< .s, . .' •. i,, • . . Austin said over the past several years, the EPA has learned that , - lead, even at very low Ievels, is much more toxic than previously . thought. They are not currently aware of any safe level of lead ' •�'r exposure. From human studies, rather than animal studies, lead is known to have health effects. Also, lead is known to af£ect "' • -' behavior, blood pressure, intelligence and growth. He said the �, 7 '•�� + national policy is to clean up soil lead leveZs from 500 ta 1,000 s� � parts per million. At the Smuggler Moun�ain site, their target ,�' � • level is 1,000/million, thus within that national policy range. ys Austin said Region Eight has done lead cleanups at several other �', sites in this reqion, two in Montana which are somewhat similar to ; the smuggler biountain, and they are also very shortly undertaking �� ;. a cleanup �t Bingham Creek in Utah. �; `•` ,i - Austin said in general, the EPA does not use blood lead screens as a means of deciding whether or not to take remedial measures. With respect to community relations, they have had a community relations component of their program. He said their realize their timing has not always met the expectations of the community, yet he does need to say that they have expended more resources at this site, than any other site with respect to attempting to address the - community's concerns. In responding to the community they feel they have been very flexible. Under the Denver Agreement, the � remedy was changed, a Citizen's Consent Decree was developed to attempt to meet citizen's needs, and they have worked with the ` � Citizen's Caucus to try to respond to additional concerns. With respect to the berm, they have heen flexible with that, and have .j recently decided that it will re�nain as a visual barrier, and that �� they will only rework and cap the berm. There is also a recent � change that they have agreed to make with respect to offering the citizens the options of having graveled driveways versus paved �' driveways. With respect to the current schedule for the remedy, contract � . • proposals are under review. In late June they expect the preparation of the repository to begin with actual remedial • . excavation to begin in the first week in August. Also, they have • an air monitoring program that they feel with their experience with � the demonstration project and some modifications to that will meet �'_ : '� ' the concerns of pratection and will prove the protectiveness of F-:� the remedy. And they are also offering temporary relocation to j'r, individuals 12 and under, pregnant women and those with other .( ' health problems. = Nancy Mangone stated, that her purpose is to present a brief �?y, , outline of where they are with specific issues which citizens asked - � to be addressed, and the status of a number of settlements. � With respect to the Citizen's Consent Decree, the deadline expired ` � on May 25, and they have received a number of Consent Decrees or �.j � BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 4 MAY 28� 1991 et riF; � lr! . f�+� .. .. . . . . _ . . . . � . � . . � � , . : ,1„ "�4�� • � ' .<,e�'.(e�'��,� . ' . ;�, .��Se,: ��;r:;��, � , �.��'�-0� . �,,¢��I ��yTk .'T�,� • q R'.+Fi.. ��:�� , ."t€':�,;. . _ . l�.sr-�' , . , 1 ��,f.n 7n,µ t F��'k't�" 7, k�i�� ¢ }� � �� '. t+ y�` iS � 7 Y � :.,s� �z'�y`�i i�.j�� ;�,�� ': '��7��'��{#a+` � . .��.,,��v��.�.,�! �l'�.. , r �� Y��, �s. r ��.��.� ;:�.. u.n��.�_�r� L11'h°�i� w c A�;,r, . � � .<��tE�G!KUCV�?.". � �.0. C��ie'� � �...�-��°ti, �� . .� •. i: � . . access agreements signed. However, even though the deadline has - expired, they are continuing to get not only the decrees or the ' � - access agreements themselves, but they are also continuing to qet • a lot of questions about how to properly fill those out. � r Therefore, they are continuing to accept the decrees even thouqh they are technically late, and will continue to do so until the `. �,�:..{'` � - point to where they have to go to the court to actually present the _ citizen's consent decree. ;'i � , With respect to the process, there is a 30 day public comment � period during which time any person, not a part to the decree, has . the ability to make their comments on the content or the purpose a of the decree. This period will run beginning sometirae in mid- ; � June with the remediation to start the first week of August. �' '. gt r Mangone said she has been in the area of couple of times to talk F'°'' to the lending community. She thinks that those discussions have gone very well, that the lending community has been educated on what the EPA's position is with regard to lender liability and in regard to looking to any of the lenders with respect to any superfund claims that they might have. Also, there are questions about access, and what is going to happen on people's property once the consent decree is being offered, and no one is any longer ! � signing those decrees. She said that at some time they will determine what parts of the site they are going to remediate first, and that will cause them to take a look at what properties they do need access to remediate. � With regard to settlements with *_1-ie homeowners' associations, they �� have transmitted a first draft of those decrees on May 7th, and they are continuing to work with counsel for a number of the I�� " homeowners' associations with counsel for the Hunter Creek Association, with representatives of the Racquet Club, Centennial, � Hunter Creek Management, Smuggier Limited, and have reached an � agreement in principaZ with the Atlantic Richfield Company. �' • Jim Labelle, a Toxicologist with the EPA, stated that they are looking at human health effects, and the potential caused by lead, �� ' and potentially cambium. He said over the last 10 years increasingly sophisticated studies have shown very clearly, that ,. , ` lower and lower exposures to lead do result in adverse effects. These adverse effects include decreases in performance on IQ tests, decreased mental perfqrmances which include an increase in anti- +�, : , social behavior, and problems with hearing. He said the experience j{`3 of the EPA indiaates very clearly that soil lead levels of the kind J} , that is found in this area are above those which would be protected ?Sy " of human health. This is shown very clearly by looking at other �%�Y � mining and milling sites in which the kinds oE lead that is seen `, here in the Smuggler are very similar, that is they aze mainly lead .;!� sulfites. He said it is clear when you look at those studies that , . � there is positive correlation between the amount of lead and soil, � and the amount of lead in children's blood. He said, that they � i � BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 5 MAY 28� 1991 ��,�. � . . ' . j, �ti:�..f , . � ' � � � . . . . . . . �( :[" . . ,lq r 7v• . � . ;.1. a�r,��:` . . :�3.. �. .iv;�`S'� . -,..daY'a�,�(;'..; . �Mr:+.a.:��:;;r" . . �: ��; .�;:.� � • s�4'.r �.' y�� ._____�...._. � ....n '_. _ _ -�:_, ��; . .' " _ -.. r ' , � .. ^ .. , ' ��v'��4� �� : � � � `I`' t � , i*. �.'' �. � .�;� t�v` �,�4F �'4"L �"'-*'i :�c `'��'��'��Kf^s�+�l��s� ,� ,. '.�,�t, ti i��. r t � ! ;_�G n.��07` �v�y'�: Z,� y. ^1" t--dr.s. r:. •y�JI:+.��',��`,''��`}��P�t r ,�;' ',rv{�,�4`k;,4 n �µ�L�..k1�� irt��f� 1 . � �,v�i��:ti.. 'r1(�jp' :,9! ��,.i7!f �. q��`" � �r ��3�{' � %E��v�L�� l � ' ��+y�� . - . . �.r . �r:+?�t�� .�f��'�09M[I^I'��' _ . . .,.. •�+nM81M-�..-:A.� Ut,i i�:.;.. .) '' L ' � • • have found when you look at blood lead studies that are done on � very similar sites, i.e, the East Helm Smelter in Montana, and � . Kellogg site in Idaho, that when you compare the blood lead studies .. there are differences, even though those sites look very much the � + same. What that indicates is there are limitations to blood lead studies and to blood lead screening. Therefore, you cannot use :`-�`}`::.�:• - that by itself to set the action level at any site. and they don't do that. They look at a wealth of information on many sites ��;� . . � {similar to Smuggler) in order to action levels. Based on all of ` that, they have determined that the Smuggler soils are at Zevels ' above those which should be protected for human health, and that �s is why the remedy has been designed. !� ,,. chairman Ethridge proceeded to review staff's research with regard �� % - to the issues which had been raised in previous meetings. A copy �� '� r of this with the EPA's responses to these issues is made a paxt of �i�,':, this record as ERHIBIT ��8��. Tom Dunlop, with the Environmental Health Department, explained the monitoring equipment which will be on site during the remediation. He said that they are requesting that the contracts be briefed very thoroughly, and the EPA has agreed to do that before they start excavating anyone's property. � Ethridge continued by stating, that the last issue which has not ' - been resolved has to with contribution protection for future . landowners. He referred to a letter from Jim Scherer Regional � Administrator o# the EPA to Senator Tim Wirth. He asked John Moscoto with the United States Department of Justice, to summarize � this letter. Mr. Moscoto proceeded to do this. A copy of this .� letter is made a part of this record as ExHIBZT ��C�'. p, Ethridqe said that Senator Wirth also wrote a letter to the EPA .� �_ expressing a number of concerns, and has written a subsequent letter based on the response from the EPA. He asked Mr. Austin to summarize this letter. A copy of this letter is made a part of � - • this record as EXHIBIT "b��. �� Ethridge said there is perception, that once the County takes , action on their Consent Decree and Institutional Controls that ' there portion of this is over and the citizens are on their own. . ,'' He said that he wanted to assure everyone, that is not the case. The County has a long term responsibility for monitoring under the � Institutional Controls and along with Senator Wirth, will be �i ` ' working very hard to try to get the issue of lender Ziability. Chairman Ethridge opened the hearing to a question and answer �� `` '- period between the residents of Smuggler and representatives of •:,Y the EPA. {: . � There were several residents which posed questions to ?:� ' _ representatives of the EPA and staff with regard to the Consent `• � Decree and the issues involved. They reiterated their concerns of �;�f'. � BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSZONERS 6 MAY 28� 1991 , �;," _? I . � , _ . . , . �r `- ±"'S!%y:�if' � . � � ��`a.�r r � �. k; , ;,,:�:=�;• ��'�°; .� a� ".r. � �ita �. RV q�' .�......:;:� x��; �. .,. - l4�r�4 c �� K5�Hk, 4 �r. r , y �ry. � �y t i� � � . ,f,t ti"v. �{�- F; y _ ' �' �.`f�f��yZ�'�� '�E'�i'� ';�,; �°k r6S� �'i.� ��`i�?��k�yl'�tr�� t } �`^`S'� � k','1 r�. Y =f }L.. ."�.,,y�a'i� .��4 LL'��r§�� .�� y . p"�� r �, yt� : t��:v ��; '�`:�j: , +��'�' ry�i j� c.,c Cx`1�` � '� .�f�i'K . r .. . .. , . . ��° 'aY.� ,'.v��ii��.'.: �.�{� { �s��J�f:f.�)'r��t�i'c �,�;. . >:. '. s. � _. . � , . . previous meetings which included guarantees of delisting once the site is clean, quality of replacement soil, guarantees that . revegetation will grow, life of liners, problem of backhoe noise, . diesel Euel, problem of Molly Gibson repository, run off of mud on • + N roads, plot plans received, and particularly, the issue of being able to sell their properties. The EPA's answers to most of these ' concerns are in the above referenced Exhibits. ` .T •� , � . - There were also questions as to why the Smuggler site was targeted, �� ' when there are other sites in town which have been bui2t in an area of hazardous waste. `i With regard to this issue, Mark Austin responded, that they do have R a program for investigating and assessing sites. Aowever, they ' + have not qotten any formal request from this area to investigate �- ' further sites in this County, and it is their procedure to request � a.�., a formal request in writing. Tom Dunlop, of the Environmental Health Department, addressed the - questions with regard to air monitoring, river pollution, etc. He assured that there will be monitoring as long as the remediation of the site is in process. ' Chairman Ethridge closed the public hearing. Commission�r Crowley asked representatives of the EPA what would happen if this matter was tabled for a month or two to allow an � opportunity for fhe questions raised by the residents to be . answered and plot plans completed. ;� John Moscoto responded, that the rush is because the County asked �. , them to go faster. It has been their judgement, that the best �;� thing they can do is get in an get out of here as quickly as � possible, and to Ieave as much as they can to local control, which is what the purpose of the institutional controls are. i. Commissioner Crowley advised representatives of the EPA, that they have heard a lot of questions, they have given good answers, • reasonable to the people, and a lot of representations. Therefore, the residents are basically trusting them, and the community would , hope that the EPA stick by their representations. " Other Commission members expressed, that they need to do for the ;,;''; best of the County, and to fulfill this obligation, they fee7. they �;�." ' need to sign the Consent Decree and approve the Institutional ��' . Controls because overall, that is in the best interest of the ;��' "' -- people in the County. ,, ; �, Y � Chairman Ethridge stated, that he does not feel a further delay � ' would help the case. Also, there are representations on the record �',� � tonight about the EPA's intention, and the Board will be monitoring ` - those concerns and making sure that the contract issues, and the ; �C. :I,:�• BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 7 MAY 28, 1991 `�, � � . �.. _ � . .;>,:.�` - • ..,x�`f�f;: , y;��r' ,�,. ,.';� , �;- . �^..^�. . � ,.,.,�!�§,�,s�,:;: i5x'm'o°.-.3�n',:� ,�R� ;��.V.•.: �i�� . � ky� �� , t4t - . � .. . " � � '��i�r� �. . . " _ . b. �Sk..�{��_��, �� ,r�� ? j�Y��r�'{;�'�i'ia 1�r .p f (� � . - ti � f L * , y FE �i i. �F tr� i+w ,.r'a�ihs.y � P k. a ..�� V a+..�} ? Y�� y �y +� � s `�`��e»��'t. �c� rn��,��i'y.,,p.S j,��Y�n�S 1r , _r ^r '� � r�,�[- �, 1 , . ' '4`.�^'r�p�� µ�� .etrQ°,f'�� ,��++E��r.". 7� � .�` �ti'.#��t_.oe��l'3-'� ,F , '�� t'. 1�A� � l . homeowners individual concerns are addressed. Commissioner Ross moved approval of the Resolution approvinq the - Pitkin County Partial Consent Decree on the smuqgler Mountain ��?" superfund litiqation. with a second by Commissioner crowley, the motion passed unanimously. ' '_,,`�:;. Commissioner Ross moved approval of the Ordinance Amendinq Title �.� VII, Huildinq Requlations by adding a new section 7016, pertaininq 'i ' to excavation and development within the Smuqgler Mountain Haaardous Waste site. Fith a second by Commissioaer Crowley, the ' . mation passed unanimously. � ; � ` RE30LIITION AIITHORIZING THE PIIRCHA3E OF THE COIIRTHOUSE PLAZA ^ BUILDING AL30 RNOWN AS: 530 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN COLORADO �' `; - 81611 - MOTION TO AYPROVE AND 3ET FOR PDBLIC HEARING PASSED 1PITH �i�•?. ., FOUR YEA AND ONE NAY VOTE - Reid Haughey, County Manager, summarized this item by stating, that this resolution explains the tentative agreements that have been made with the owner of the Courthouse Plaza Building, Sam Clark, which states a total purchase price of 3.2 million dollazs, a $100,000 earnest money, and a maximum value for the land lease that occurs under the building of $110,000. The closing on the sale is set for September 25, 199L '� , � Commissioner Ross moved approval and set for public hearinq ott June 11, the resolution authorizinq purchase of the Courthouse Plaza �� Buildinq also known as 530 East Maih Street. With a second by ' Commissioner Tr�Ye, the motion passed with four yea votes by ;};.. Commissioners Ethridge, Ross and True and one nay vote by Commissioner Crowley. ;�� , RESOLUTION APPROVING MILLER 1041 HAZARD REVIEA APPEAL AND GENERAL ' SUBMIS3ION - MOTION TO APPROVE - PASSED WITH TWO YSA AND ON& NAY ='1�" VOTES AITH ONE AHSTENTION - Commissioner Ethridge stated, that in keeping with past practice, he would be abstaining from participating on this item unless there is a tie vote. He turned ' � • the meeting over to Vice-Chairman Jim True. 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 1041 Geoloqic , � and Wildfire Hazard Review, General Submission and Scenic Foreground Overlay application for a single family residence. She said the issues are as follows: 1. The site is encumbered by slopes in excess of 30 percent, r{!• ' - potential avalanche and debris flow, severe wildlife and Scenic •:�l';r�1 � Foreground Overlay. To mitigate the hazards on the property, �- extensive land and vegetation manipulation would be required. �, . ;,.•.:� 2. The access driveway intersection with Ute Avenue requires ' ` _ significant reworking to meet County standards. A ski trail is �f, � BOARD OF COUNTY COMMZSSIONERS 8 MAY 28� 1991 1�.'; I Y f . .. _.. . . ". .. . � _ _ . .. � . ' �9:1:; '��'j:: • � . , -::;ff.� ' ' Q�d4`:'�� , :C�i:E 1 � •��':fii`�� ' '-,��A�%a . . ;y..:�:'.�K;�-`Y.), i^�q �� . y _ !'tr'y"�,... .iY:,..`:'. �„�� _.. � . . + ��lt�rti . .. . . . ..: � � eM ' M�E•� � 'S'a��t��S��`f.� t'�9•�+''K3yi�?y,.�,r� � � 4♦� �� (�� i�� t�� r r'7+.� ��b��r �v� �� i�r(�� ,7�, �"� ; �.� ✓ ��.d�-�� a °`'�` `�� L� 1'y+� } . d� ,�S)� h � _. � L cF^�.q �T. ;.t r��r; � ,�,...�� ::- .�. ��'�'�"•�' �' -.� ...��s�i�'�,` ��t��:.�..�»fipi�'''' �..�.:r'1 . ,K 1��i.a4� �w' 1L�f�.v�+r`�.. . ��:.. .. .. .. , . . also required to be placed within the driveway easement and should :- _ be physically separated from vehicles. f 3. There is public concern regarding mitigation of construction impacts. ".•�'• Lackner said that she also is in receipt of a letter from John . Kelly, Esq. who represents several of the neighbors in the area. A copy of this letter is made a part of this record as E7�iIBIT nE��. Lackner said, the Planning office and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommerid denial of the applicant's request to construct a single family residence. Herb Klein, representing the applicant referred to the language in - page 18 of staff's memo which states "staff concurs with the ��., _ applicant that mitigation of geologic and wildfire hazards are ? possible with the proposed structure by following the i recommendations of the technical reports." He said they have mitigated. The problem that the P&Z had, and he thinks that the . staff had with this application, is that they had several hazards, and they perceived some conflicts and competirig goals between the hazards e.g., for scenic quality, which is a general submission goal, And in order to mitigate wildfire hazard trees have to be cut. So there is a conflict because you cut some trees and that affects scenic quality. And there is nothing in the code that '� • talks about how to deal with those conflicts, and how to resolve 1 them. Nor is there anything that penalizes an applicant for what may be considered the cumulative affects of mitigating hazards. �' You look at each hazard individually and you mitiqate it. � Notwithstanding tha�, he thinks they have mitigated the cumulative � affects, and have gone beyond what the code requires for that kind � � of mitigation. He referred to their technical reports from ; i consultants with regard to this. A copy of these letter reports ! � j are made a part of this record as EXHIBIT "F��. . � ° Xlein continued by stating, that the propexty i5 located in a . . ,, 1 developed area, it has houses below it, and another house recently ; ' approved by the City of Aspen. He said by approving this [ application, the County will get a better road, and a better road � • I intersection because the agreements they have with the County would � � give more control than what they would get if only the City action ` were approved. Also, there is no future development which could !,` • � be approved along the road because the County owns the mining � claims around it, and they would agree not to grant a road easement _ � to anybody else along the road. � ! Klein referred to a resolution of approval from the City of Aspen approving the Zaluga house. He referred to the second page of !j ' paragraph 11 which indicates an acknowledgement ot the existence � of the property, and that one of the conditions of the Zaluga '�f ; approval is that the access road shall not be expanded beyond - � access for one single family home on the Newfoundland parcel. He ; ' � HOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 9 MAY 28� 1991 i° �.F� a � +.t�„Yis_'. . , i , , .,s.-�sc w.,`- 'Y X7� , �"�tu , q;,��::•,; ;,ti:.,,� ,,,,« .,-" va.��" ,� r.•..-. ��,+'1,�-�c; �r�� ' yY�T � �y t� �{ f4`F�' ��w��F�+�� , � . "� �'F.�. . . • ' f. . .. .. ' . ' . . . . � . . . � ! 1 � a * "w�. � �: :.s t '�+'�`'"'�re`��h�`��M1��'�'P � 't`��. 1�`��'��`�c�'��zy^r� � . � 3"+H F r�cS' - r�`1 A e�� . �'.�]� �'P � w . S ,,+��, ,�o �� 4i��" �C '��h+tF��'.,��Y,�,`a��1 r��:75�,''e! � ��4 . s�t-, F„� ��. �' -a"��c. � f ..t �` , � � � � u ._. . . . .. . 'd.1�., Kp „R.t Yr�{�.j.i,ty�f � �'.I�µ . . . .. % .r~ � �� ._ ��E��'. . .� .�.�. '7��nr , �� aa-," L� , '�. said they would covenant against granting an easement agains�, and the City approval also said, that the access was limited to just one other house on the parcel. _ ,•.r . With regard to FAR, staff's memo states, that their property is � � about 5900 square feet; the Zaluga property is 2400 square feet, ' ahd they are comparing FAR. He said he thinks this is misleading. '��,�'�� • They have a 240o foot FAR, and if this FAR criteria is used for - their site, they would have about a 800 square foot house. So ' comparing apples to apples and the actual square footage, they would have about a 5800 square foot house, and Zaluga would be � about 5400. The Planning Office memo indicates the distinction � that they are saying Zaluba is 80o and they are 5,000, and that is `s � not really the case. distinction, that j�. ;,.., „ � With regard to Scenic Foreground, the site is about 1200 feet from M�:.. ; Highway 82, and he does not think this is a significant intrusion ' � i on the visual perspective of the hillside because the roof of the � �' house would be the bottom of the site plain. He proceeded to � . review a praposed site p2an with Commission members, �:. With regard to the wildfire he referred to a letter from John �, Grieve, with the Colorado State Forest Service, which clarifies "� some language in his prior letter which states that if they did things like he recommended, it would improve the hazardous � : condition. A copy of this letter is made a part of the record as � i ERSISIT��G��. He also referred to a letter from the Aspen Fire • j Marshall with regard to fire protection. A copy of this letter is � made a part of this record as E][IiIBIT ��A��. � I jKlein continued his presentation addressing the mitigation of ' - avalanche events. He said they fee2 that they have totally �- ; mitigated the hazards. He referred to a letter with his report i � dated November 14, 1990 from their consultant Arthur Mears. � ; t. � With regard to debris flow, he said all their reports say, that �� • • although on steep slopes sometimes there is the potentia2 debris + flow, they go on to say there is no evidence or indication of any , y danger of debris flow on this site. ; . � With regard to a drainage plan, they have submitted one, and Tom . . '" fNewland, the County Engineer has accepted it. With regard to the driveway intersection with Ute Avenue, Tom ��' ' Newland has found this satis£actory, and he will be submitting a j report to the Planning Office with this regard. ' '- I � . i ; With regard to disturbed areas around the house, they have j submitted a revegetation plan. Tom Newland has reviewed the plan, ' � and has found it satisfactory. �� Klein summarized, by stating, that the Planning and Zoning �'f '? BOARD OF COUNTY COMMIS&IONERS 20 MAY 28� 1991 i;: . i �;~.:.. �! `y . � � ; � . � :,�;'Y;,.,;�:t,.: . . 5��'!�'F.. , ' . :SrSiw.iti.�� . _}, .,_ .. . . ��y Y�a;+ . ��..;` . ��„ f�;,; �y�.a�':JlyE� ��±�. . .. . . . - � ��'V � � 4'i+y' .«i�. ��'�� . • - . , I ' . . . . � i�� i i 1��y... �R�' 75;"��.��Fp�?� T '� ,�s� +�j x, .n;.�!�""5a � `'"°k, � {i•I�'�,. ��" � '�.�'� "A�{ �S a�y� ��1��y k�y�'�'ts��`��,�y'�,�,.?�� y : r . '0�� 1a, M S � ��t '��"r vM`�efl'y fi� �.�j�i��('l+ +� ..1 � ... � x��yS� . .. .. . .3!�'�yr"�v i :x��:. ,� '� �aw` it �T�•e1e �'}� ''��i ,��?o�' . �i��t��r��}t,� a. . . � ' • Commission found, despite all of their technical evidence, that � there are conflicts between the various 1041 criteria, and therefore, the site is undevelopable. He said that is not the case, that is not what the expert reports say, that is not the -�'r ,� � conclusion that the code requires the Board to find, they have mitigated the impacts, and they think they have gone to the letter ,�_��;�. of the code, and probably beyond it, and therefore, think they are ` ''•* �, entitled to an approval. ` A discussion ensued with regard to the Conditions. A copy of these f are made a part of this record as EXHIBIT ��I+�. . Klein referred to Condition No. 1. He said they have a site plan i for the building envelope, and have the tachnical reports. He � ;, thinks this is what should be approved. He does not want them to '� have to go back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. �� „ i�� : F ,',- . It was agreed, that this Condition would be deleted. f Klein referred to Condition No. 5. (cj . He said he thinks this condition has been taken care of by the submission of the drainage pZan to Tom Newland, an@ his approval of it. It was agreed, that this condition would be deleted. ' � si Klein referred to Condition No. 5 (d) . He said he thinks this - condition has been taken care of by the subroission of the � _ revegetation plan to Tom Newland, and his approval of it. However, - he thinks the bonding for tlie landscaping is fine, but should be ' � made prior to issuance of a building permit, Also, an excavation j permit for any reconstruction of the road. � • ' � Klein referred to Condition No. 7 and 8. He said they are redundant because they are also stated in 4 (aj and 4 (b). �,' � f With regard to staff's new requirement for an improvements i . agreement, he thinks he and the County Attorney can work it out. � Lackner stated, that the land use code has some specifie language +� ' about approving development into areas that subject occupants to ' increased hazards. This is under the geologic guidelines for administration, and also, there are some concern under the �� ' avalanche areas uttder the geologic provisions for the land use �" � � code. She referred to Art Mears report in which he states, that j� ` • "the person one wishes to protect may simply not be in the specially designed building when the avalanche occurs. Persons , � could be exposed to avalanches if they are above the building or �� 1 i in the forest on the side of tha building." He also states, that `�Y � "since there may be an increase in the overall avalanche hazard } simply because more people will be in an avalanche terrain after �;� building construction. This increase can be mitigated if residents ; _ educate themselves about avalanches and heed official warnings arid '�F .. s � BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 11 MAY 28� 1991 �:" l . 1 ', . .. . o-�g{ �{: & r �C ' �r ..b.t�; :Y:�y; . . . . ;-a��'�t��. . . � . � �`r.e''^�y.(�� . . � .��y, � � ' L`t _r.��s*'+�. . � SFa��,r.;i_�;. . +.��>WUh;, �� . 1 .r Y„✓4.' .N„ 4!; �f� � ' a � ;� i Y. S � � ''� "�,� ; J ` ; � , +� '> � f � t � y,t��+`�� 'F i .� : } ; r51dlM�i � � .. � ''{ � �A'%Cy ..�� ..y4. ��i'�d IT ��4`a w 1. �i > ti � ,..�� ,� +F � ' y . � ?..� ��c '^ .; ��. { �,. .. -.t ' s Y ; A`+ ¢ ,5�.�.�'F- :. ,.. R+��°�'� � . - e��dr-,a�-.��p�:.�i:�.i�3R��:��.�'��: �u� .. .. �Mr _t.�'"_�.+�. . .. .. ... ' ��,�� ! !�1 ..�„M'4 t.r i t. advisories." . • • Lackner said, what she is saying, is that you have got people in - the area, and you are increasing the hazard by having them reside there. But they are also going to have to be more aware about what ` avalanches are, and when they might be taking place. Therefore, ''� the code does address how to structurally mitigate a building, but it does not address these issues about people being put into an `:r ,j� � . area where there is an increased hazard. . Tim whitsitt, County Attorney, stated that the code specifically says "the activities that are not permitted are the structural � construction associated with residential, commercial and industrial development and high impact recreational activitiies, and roads. � He would assume, that cross country skiing on a trail is considered i' a iow impact type recreational activity because it would not be ;; attracting as many people for as long as period of time into those, i�� what are considered excessively steep areas. "�` .. Klein stated, that there is not a big avalanche threat, but rather �!,r :: . these are small avalanches which are not high velocity, and are usually only three feet in height. He said, that one of the problems with the part of the code that staff is pointing out, is that based on her interpretation, there is no mitigation. If you � ; are in an avalanche zone, you cannot build because if you bring ' ' people into a hazard zone, you are increasing the risk, increasinq the hazard, and therefore, you cannot build. That is not the way he reads the code. Also, the County has approved land use , . � applications on a 3o percent slope in the past. �' G, " • i Commissioner Crowley asked i.f the applicant would be willing to °j carry extra insurance to protect the neighbors from damage from construction. �� . � The applioants responded, that they would be willing to do this. 4 i Commissioner True opened the hearing to public comment. i' 1 John Kelly, representing Jack and Carolyn Davis, owners of the �'.' � house directly below the building site, and Gary and Susan � ' Rappaport, another adjoining neighbor, stated, that these two are �, .. the most affected by this, and both of them are opposed to the application. Iiowever, if there is to be an approval, they want to be assured, that there is proper financial teeth in the Subdivision � Improvements Aqreement to assure that the mitigation things occur. � . Also, that once the project starts, that i� is £inished in some •`t � kind of a prompt way, and they would like to see some bonding to � ,, _ insure that. `�i .,' ; IClein responded, that they would be willing to have an improvements j,,, , � agreement, and that before they get a buiiding permit or an "l,.,� . � excavation permit, they would be willing to post some kind of � , t SOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 12 MA7� z8. 1991 f i � ti �' 1 :r•' , _`� ;. - . . . . ,. _ . .`�., .`�� , ' . . .. . . . . -.t: .. . . . . . � . . �... , � � � � . ��;!L%.� ,- . ��''(.1::;�..r,3'1' • . i /��'liw.�:..,vS . . . . 'h'.iy,...;%; , . ..Y�°t'4�'l'i� � .. , . .p��"�..i�r.. . . � :j1,� .'w'... . d '.',1��1�=l�.J _ '�R �k��'��i{," .�� 7�. r ��'A i✓ a'J'k:' ..�.A �� /��Yy V �+ � - G ��. � -; �F,; �. � _ . . . � '�� e jv, cf. � " . ' >t ` �y�rM��, . ;:•�i�;,�,� . "�1��n ' ; �ti��.� yi�,.�+�,, M: '�� -, rn A �. � 4..t'a.��lA.Citr.�:,�u�e i,�'Iw.�'�l fs�'n.n t�.��._E. _....,�.i� �.S�a.,.bda .'{�'!d_. � , „�.��'� . �^ t�1.�.... � ..�.'c;r�,' � p'r�°f:��a�:.( ,r.�YS j. ! security for the completion of those particular improvements, that , ,�' :: if they were not completed, wou2d pose a danger, However, that � • does not mean that they would bond to complete the house, but they � would bond to adequately secure the excavation, to adequately grade . the road to deal with drainage structures that are neces�;ary or any � other hazards that were created due to the construction of the - , house which are reasonable, A discussion ensued with regard to this matter. ��r Whitsitt stated, that in the past the County has not typically �.�:';.:_�.r:, accepted bonding. They have taken either letters of credit, cash or certificates of deposit. ; i� r Klein asked if they would consider a performance bond? f Whitsitt responded, that the County would not accept a performance � , bond. _ ; ;. - Klein said they would then provide whatever is required, because � :'' �, they would not be cutting holes unless they know that it is going f�';,-�, '� to be safe throughout the process. . ;. � � �:, , Commissioner True closed the public hearing. Commissioner Crowley moved approval of the Miller 1041 Hazard �= Review and General Submissioa appeal with the conditions as spelled out and the chaaqes and the representations made by the applicant. �, � With a second by Commissioner Tzue, the motion passed with three yea votes by Commissioners Crowley and True and one nay vote by . commissioner Ross. � a JOINT CITY/COiJNTY RESOLIITION, SIGHWAY 82 DESIGN GIIIDSLZNES - MOTION ; TO APPROVE - PASSED WiTH THREB YBA AND ONE NAY VOTE - Commissioner �• Ross stated, that he would be opposing this resolution because of � ` the section referring to the airport Maroon/Creek bridge section - ? where the design speed was recommended to be lowered to 4o miles per hour. He does not think that this speed limit on a four-lane ;i � highway is realistic. And the State Highway Division has �. represented, that the kind of inedian that the County is requesting � that goes with a forty mile per hour speed is not safe over 40 � . • miles per hour. Commissioner Ethridge suggested that, if possible, Castle Creek ' i Road should be designed to allow a free flowing "off intersection" , lane to access in-bound Highway 82. ' Commissioner Ethridge referred to page 3 of the resolution and the { 1` language which states "hard architectural treatment�� He said he ''i • thinks the intent was to say "hard surface landscape architectural %� , treatment,�� It was agreed that this language should be corrected �`r'' - ! throughout the resolution. ' ; i ; : BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 13 MAY 28i 1991 i;� � ��'{ . � i;'; ,� .�- � � � ' . "' - � `'.. . . . . _ . .. ' �• _� ��+� : ,.l'p.�'x.„`Y�*�� . . � ��z,_� - . '��=-�::;" . ;�,�::`._�?�c , �:r n�::;��• . . ��k:�:-� � . ,�sa>'.�y . ��j� . r�,`��"' , ��{�� . ,�� .s 'v4+'�i; �T+v?•Ty'. � ' Y .. ��p � � � � si , r :. i d � . . . �� ; � �, �y J } g 3 � �- y��N �: ' ;{� �u, i 9 +� r1. F � d�,4�'': n t G �� ''ttA 4 �1�8''n'a�k 4r� �� '��F- � `es .;, �` ��.� A � ��' .t � gy. � �� y��r�, P 6.� � '�. �Y�i��A ��: ,y� �. `y. . 1 4 'y�. '•f !•.. �+ � p�y � g,a.; ti d Y�... � � I 4� '.n��h-�a�i'm. _.�1'r.iti}�'+8i 4�-��.. . . . �tka.a.`.';'.}�},�:y�, _. . �. ._�c`s��yA��-, 7{ � Commissioner Ethridge moved agproval of the resolution as amended. • Aith a second by Commissioner True, the motion passed with three yea votes by Commissioners Ethridqe, True and Crowley and one nay '" vote by commissioner Ross. - E ` � - � ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 p.m. � ! F� sp ctfully submit ed, �`� � � --- - i l ��"��;TiC/ iJ l � � � ;.. anette Jones - 'Clerk to the . ard of County Commissioners ;,:`:;,..I -;s-`I ''`�.�r,�i '`��.�� ....:�: :f'3' { I tJ i . `�t; � . .-,> . � - ' . ,'6.. ,� i �.. .�..I �. . . ��. � . �� - .Ft;%.��L ��. -yi�r.�`�' �k. A�'`.= .;��'." � � . . ., a'�-'� . �� S. .4�� ;' :'IrY+ . �. r`�-I i ,. .�� BOARD OF COIINTY COMMIBSIONERS 14 HAY 28� 1991 � ' .v: _..,�r ..s;F j . :�� 1 � � . ��;:' ,.. , . .. .. k1" '.'�d,r'R .�i . , ; -�� - ... 1 � ri�.RCa'kp.P*S�h�:s�";�� r�!W`Y� v. ' ;; �__ R'"' .- , ; y�.. �'��.._ �,•,iti-�' �.� . —�� . . .. ., . . . �.. F.p.r*: ''1?.. .�. � . � ' . . . . . . �.tik 3?: . � . . . . �. . � : . � . � ; . . . ' .�: .. , . . . .. � . . .. � � "/f'` . . . . - . - . . r. � � :yt � . . � . � � , ..�y,� � . ... .� � . . - � � . � tr.,y :�,; �e��„�F��4 'lw��t - ' • ' . r � r .�� . . b• .,� ., Rn,� }'i}� ��li� +�'�''[�t��5�'e''��'� .y'ur „��'�4.+�� "'ri'�?r5 at��I . � ;� '�'�dl+° °a, �: �i,i � s`` ... ' k�r�li�k9�r-� ...«.�.�.��y k-.*.s.��;dty� �r�3; `h : r • r, � , ' ;. � ' 4 ��z- � , 7` ,�^ .' � �- . . ,.,. - �'�J"�� _.w . , , ,; , -#��` �..��.��:�,. r� � � °' s . . . . .. . . . .. . . • + ._ _. _r.?E !t ti ��..�. '^- ±. A PLEA FOR TWO PUBLTC ROADS . • This is a plea for the Pitkin Countq Commissioners to declare that , . the Little Annie Road, from the Castle Cxeek Road to the Midnigbt Road, is ublic. Also this is a plea for the Commissioners to declare that the • . branch road, from the Little Annie Road to the county owned Storm King _ claim, is up blic. �'i- , REASONS: '�,. ...�.< . � 1. Colo. state law has already stated thart alI roads used adverselq ;Y- (without contest, posting or gates) Por 20 consecutive years are `.''� declared to be ublic, The County would only be affirming what is already true. ; 2. There are numerous people who can testify that they have used the �'� Little Annie Road adversel for 20 3Q or more than 40 �• y , years. There ; � . is no debate over. that Yact. • � .�, - 3. The county attorneq has stated that the declaration of a "public" ��' �� , , road does not mean that the County must maintain it. ' .��.' 4. If anyone wishes to contest the County's assertion of a "public" � road, they maq do so. However, it wouZd be folly for anyone to challenge such an obvious public use. 5. The County already has a request from Gretchen Merrill, local. U. S. Forest Ranger, to declare both of these roads to be "public." The ' forestrq officials obviously will not challenge the declaration of "public" roads in these two cases. In fact, they will expedite any paperwork required. 6. The County is in a strong position to decl.are the Storm King branch road "public," even if there are challenges, Part of the road was '�'�i . built in recent years without permission, a signiticant portion of :'�:@ ' the road crosses a claim which holds an incompleta cabin (the ^�% certificate of occupancy can be withheld pending clear access), ;, � parts of the road cross U. S. Forest Service land (grants oP right _ of way have not been granted to any of the local land owners who !�;}I� use the road), and - above all - it is likely that it can be �� estabZished that the Storm King branch has beea "public" since �� i the 1800's. 7. The Land OPficer at the Forest Service has suggested that the County check historic records which may very well show access to the Storm ' ` � ' - King is guaranteed. � '- 8. The County loses nothing by declaring the two roads "public." Y ' � 9. The County has much to lose by failing to act quickly. Pressures Por development in the area are very real; areas and roads will ,. ' be closed in the coming weeks/months. The County will be torced to ! purchase access rights after expensive condemation proceedings, if action is not takea NOW! 10. All of the actions taken to establish these two roads as "public" '`: � ' will be of major significance as the dream of a pub2ic park on the (` back of Aspen Mountain is pursued. . . <S� - 11. Article 43-2-201 of the Colorado statutes clearly declares that a , r' road used adverselq for 20 years becomes "public." That same i', Article, supported by case law, states the right and duty of County ��,,t Commissioners to protect and maintain "public" roads. 12. Please help. ?:' "�. BOARD OF G0.Gf:i":`:°'':'R'S P17KIN COi'��"; . Puetic n:.`arir!i:,f_�:�ic::s �, Datc: �• �"�t �",�— ��'/r�2 ' Subiect.�-��_��•u`"_�CT"/;�r�.!•L..� . n.�. Fi� �/..--'•-_.....--L '}, . t ��, . . � . . ... . . � . .. � - . - • ... l 1i • � 'b �A';�'�''� � � . � . . p,`��i?rt F j ' . . . A�;� :F. � . . .��__�,�� . . � . .��^�, ..[�'',�''�`i:.i.,'�.: , � � "�Cj�,j�ic:Ni:t . . ��; . ao7 . .'�'e+y. s � ti�i; , ,�, .. �� =��` - :`� -0. �� —'' ' �, r - , � ' .�•i�}t j,F•'. p�� . ��'�v� �y`ti1� ��" ' �-1 t rry._.:�vw"vk'� �j1:��";#��fi�� ir ��j��N�: ��2 �, ti � Q$ ..*r4�t�� i,��*�at f� �9 �� '''Y �� Y ;,+� �f -a ; ;��} ,;;� ''1 "L.( �' � �y�'ke,`�f� r .. _. � ��.'fi�,' . . _ . . �"$}��x : . . �4 s�lc.: - '"��llen Sassano M�..�(1 i�% /y�� yg, i �' �, "��F . .'_. . It is Forest Sexvice policy that a public road authority should have . jurisdiction wer roads that prwide access to subdivisions. The cumulative effect of residential development on the small parcels in the Little Annie area �' will be little differeat from snbdivision. Pitkin County has requested an easement for that poztion of Little Anaie Road from Castle Creelc Road to Lime � - Village Subdiviaion. i request that Pitkin Couaty additioaa2lq apply for a :'.�- �� Forest Road and Trail Act Eae�ent for: 1} that portion of Little Aanie Road from the east boundary of Lime Vi7,lage Subdivi.eion to the iatersection s�ith tfie � ��, road to ETCETSRA Pazcel; 2) the road to the ETCETERA Parcel. The landowners �`F. � would have couaty road access to their property aad the unlcnowns regarding RS x:� . . 2477 status vill be of no practical significaace. At some time in the fntvre, '•;;-� , we should consider all of the Little Annie Road becoming a Pitkin County road. Ii , .r.. The application indicates that the STORM KING Parcel and the PAYSTONE Parcel are ovned by Pitkin County. A record in my office states that the PAYSTONE was � � not pateated. Research of Bureau of Land Management records vill be aeeded to i`; � confixm the status of the PAYSTONE. �„; !:� i'�r'... Ownership ia the area of the ETCETERA Parcel is complcated by werlapping ' `i ;. boundaries and at leaet 4 pateats (ETCETERA [MS 30616J, JAMES G. BLAINE [MS 6987], TARIFF [MS 6I89J. & STORN RING [MS 9232]). Detezmi.nation of ownerahip t _ wouid require careful ezamination of patenta and other documeats and, probably. location of boundaries by survey. Sincerely. � • � �, !ffiRRILL �� v �, . ; atrict Ranger �3I?'4' � - S . � Lpw,•�, s �. / li�tJr�' (.� �` , �i rT°rB �� : ��/�' ` - ;• .. ��' � (�.� - , ;: � ; � . � 'a . ,, ' F � � ' L�: 7�'. Caring lor the Land and Serving People �� G, P1� J � • G�_: , � —y .� - FS-620o-Y817-B2) �,�'��. {.;,:: q � �1 . ,:�.. . ,.•: ..-:.. .. ..� , . . _. " ��.. � � . . . .. ... � , . . .� . t. , .. � .. .., .�.. . .. . . '�+"''�Ka."5'� � . . ... . ;`y��y�I .. � . ' 1 . . . � ��, ' . 9 Y. ,�� , '�� ! M� _.� - /C .��y_1 � •.. . ..... .. ... ... _. . , � . '3'�Yi�. -, .. . . . � " . � . _ . .. . � . . . . � . . . .. •, . . . . � "�+ a• ` t 1�r � i�Orti+1.� ��"�r�� , . .� 4.:�r�.x��y`t _ ��A j�,-� . .�+..AfJ�� y 7` �.' y� �¢' -� e i �. �' � "°1- t�' �j..„4��+�Fr�R'� � 'j'T5R s ,�i.i;� �� 'Y'# Tt�l j.�..4 . f� t . .. .. �• "�"v�tr. . �.�� . . ♦ 'P..�.. ,_'''� � ,��!i; - i':'A``cv``j S pj.. j�'{+a�l�'.Y'r � . .. ��.ac i ,� .. .�R��.�. g t'.i '�ti . .. .. . . . -� � .' . ...,� ,n }„�:,.,�. 4 ,. ' " �?L�%?Fi��F(:0.GOf�9�n'�i�.s,' , .. �'�TKIi�CDiJ(r'TY ' � ' ��=L_t;iL'Hcr>«ritt"y E,/��±Lii3 . � � [)I::i'L... ��J��`!. . � . M E M O R A N D II M �,;h,..,•, (/{��4�U/G1� . � ,,. : •� - " -��. � .. .��.frY-r�-- , .��... � To: Board of County Comm3ssioners FROM: Reid Hauqhey, County Manaqer . `,`•t�� , ;�.... . SOBJECT: SPA Response to Questions Raised subsequent to First .:Y+ � Reading of the Citizens Consent Decree � l .F DATE: May 24, 1991 ! �= K� _ ��---____--__=_-___-=___ � ,:�; .. .,�� '�{�a� Fy"}4 S f r d ��$ 4�^� � � .�i'' N : . ... t 44 1� ' i t t ' ,,'` �:• � ��'� � y�M'-'�#� �w M,t�t 5Ti� .�,'.� `t ` ' �ALJU�Y� .� ,^l� st� •�� :o�.�� f ��:�, � 4. . ".X . _ vro'3� _:�' yf ',$ J t's k�r !•e�+J 1 . . .. .. ,. , , . ,e l�.��^':, .tR�M^�". ,1i �"'��i��'��}� b .;; ,. . . � . . . . , .... .. .. �'�12?��'�: . ...,i'� . ' , .!��: � � ' . .>.. replicated before it would be available for consideration of changes to the ROD. It does not seem to be realistic to await that ' " ''.: outcome as the probability that this has any effect or bearing on � the Smuggler Site is very limited. • " '. r; :':.y �; ,' The Remediation at Kelloqa Idaho Caused Blood Lead Levels to be t' �' � Raised. � i � S ARCO contends, apparently, that the remediation increased blood � ':�� ?; lead levels in children by some 2p�_ The Zdaho Dept. of Health ., . has been contacted and repudia�es these claims stating that blood . "� . . lead levels have steadily decreased from the beginning of the a � remediation to this point in time. In addition, there was no air t`:f ' .�l. ' monitoring program in pZace in Rellogg that was of the magnitude ��''� " • '' of the air monitorin that is re `� ' ;; g quired at the Smuqgler Site. �,_, .. i � � '� pcsem/wp/5.431 ��i; �: � 3 ,:::; � ;�'�i;, y ; :. . � ' � , . a 4 � 9 , - - � � : � ' � a • � � ;� :; ci i' i . � .. '; 5 I:: � . 3 ['."fr • .. E ' � •y ' ' " 1 �� J � `ti_ � ��U,'. � i#';'; �,.r:..`Y __r1�'�:i � ...�..r _ � ��' � . " .. - • . - �": .. �� ! ."y ��R�"`� . " . � . . . . � . . . . . �� .F'.; . � . � . �"X�� -. � . ' . � . ,. . :'� �t ' . � � � N'- „yj� � .. ' . . _ ' � � �..�� -----�----__ �.. ��K� �.� . . . .. .. _ ' .. � . . .... . �i5"y .. � E� 1 � � . RS'Y�i�A�,,V 1 l . . ''1'�1 1 °'� � � `, p�� ry-r .�1 ..s .� _�"k ar�{�i�� .�'i.�n��.e� 'k:��,,�� ,ui'�t,,l tr �-�� . . 1` +ha f,� q�r � � w F6k� �t '� w � 3� � I *' �t :;x�"� �&�L. a q t "i�y% •1,3$ jt�Y?at,�. -. i-- , � �Ax`c. v{.�k Y - ,� y} ,i ,� 4 h F �.. .,a r�'`Vti.. � � e . . . y ' l-.-.�b, '�f��rj��,,yyy�,Sik;d�� {ri�',/,.,r,'v� n�"3trr� .e�� {��{ r� �.�pt��, y�t„�,t��f y,��r �� . ��'`. . �''".w7.".. F��•a��1.► 1,�.. . ..y.L�l�fr .-V 4iv�`/'"r"«JRi';.N��f:':'YTi'� a�>�t.,:: �' i . � _ .�.. •... 7( . MAY-?4-19a1 15:u� FROPI USEF�T F$�,ilC'hf 9 OEra TO �6t519 p,gQ� a. ` . , � UMTED STATES ENVIRONMENtTAI.PROTEC77dN AGENCY • �� ffiEGION VGI . �� 999 t 6th STRE�T � $UTE 600 . DENyEA, GOI.�AADO 80202-240� � � r ��v l Q ` . ,�,�<.l:.� BQARD OF C0.�JG�d°A'R'S ;;.`, RQf: 8AC ?ITICI�1CQi�;4TY '' , {'U�;IIC Hfufliit;�.. i.'.5 The Aonorabie Tlmothy E, wirth �a�i':..__.��"�L- ,i' : united 5tat�s senate ��hj,.4,::.,,�i�ri�.. fLy�?--- F/, iVashin�ton, DC 205t0-06o3 �� ,� ,� ; � ,:,t�.s<a. —L-�-----_.____._ • Dear Sehator. Wfrth: , `�; ~ Thank ��,.f , you for your April 19, 1991 letter to Mr. William Aetlly, in which you exprasa concern Eor the residential homeownera of pxopertine locnted xithin the Smugglar Meuntain ` 9uperfund Site ("81te"). Thank you also for your ack7ovledqemeat that the EnvironmPntal Prot�etion Aqeney ("SPA") haa been woryJc3ng hard to address theae citixens' cancerns and to establiah a, COOpdrative relationship with the City of Aspen nnd Pitkia County � in the hope of completing a suHStantial portioa o! EPA's. remedial =. action this summer. • Let me steto nt the outset that EP7� hae not souqht past or LuCUie aosts fox impiementinq its selected refiedy Erom the reaidential lari8owners in the United states' cost r�covery aetion � �i ' (United States v. Smuqa�er-durant Minin Cor . ot al., Distriet '� . . of Colorado, Civ_ No. 89-C-t8D2, october t5, l98 , nar do ae presently contempiate suir�q residential Sandawners in the tuture. � As a general matter, the Agoncy has a policy against ' enta:'_ng i^to agreements with unidentifled "prospective purehasers." 2his is because, futu:e use o! the land is � , unldentified, the purchasex is yet to be identStled, and the �;. . � benefit to tha United States i� spACUlative. we are willina, nonetheless, to eettle any potential liability the Aspen � landownere may have as current oxners under Section tU7(a) o! the '� federal SuperEund larr ("CERCLA'•). As you noted, the pzimary mechanism to address the citizens� potentinl liability is a �. judicial consent decree. This consent decres is being offer2G to � aII reeidentiai IandoWners at Operable Unit �kt ("OU tt"J oE the ; ' Site, i.e. those landowners within the Hunter Creek, Centannlai dnd some amaller rondominium comple�ces, the Smugaler Run ar.d � Smucqler Moblle Home Parks and ou:�ers of single fami?y homes. �� . (Operable Un�t Y2 co�ers the Smuggler Mine. ) '�r � a The covenant not to sue contairted in this deCree re?eases �� . ' � EPA vill, however, go through the ro forma step o! � " � ffling a judicial aomplaint against the residential homeowners . who sigY the eonsent decree, xhich is a procedura? pre-requisitq to approving a final settlemant with them. - i rq { ' t• : _� � t ,:�� . . . - . . � . . . � � � .� :�i:�;:-?t=.;^�; . - ,.a'�;'' . . _�.'n ��`..�.e5„ � . . � a•; ��.1iC:':N •.,��'Y�'}'��4�,:?''v ' 'S:�y1}F`'.''�".:. . � �.��77rty`:.'. ��.'��*¢.il.'" " . `v}.. a..:�.� . �CT t'✓��. 1i:.-.: : . _ .. .. ;.�.,,�,.. '�,�..4.�t. � .�.: _ -- -. ....�.....:..,. ......:. . . `��{.��.!1'•;�;. MRY-!4-1991 15�� FROPI USEFA F.EuIGI 9 OFri TO �61519 ?•00� ;t�i�`�f�� .r f..-.r�.e , r - � �"'�ii;'<`��;,.. i�.. ..r...• • • � �,rit.�.�;�,.:,�. � UMTEO STATES ENVIR�NMHNTAI.PFiOTECT(bN AGENCY � REGION VGI �� 999 !6th STREET : SUTE 600 o6NVER, COI.ORAOO so2o2-240� � , . I�� i Q `_ " . BONRO Of-G�.CGi��4'R'S RQf: 8RC i'I�lClil C;!'t.!;�lY • - � �'U�7�f5 fti;utlii!;�:�,��"�� ... The Hanorabie Timothy E. wirth O.�tt>:..,��L- , r Unitad Statas Senate ti�r!:.s�;:�j�i;r��r'.___ i:'7":;:�' � � Weahington, aC Z0510-0603 „ �i �:;�,.f<:,. .A�---___ . Dear Seh3tor. Wirth: , � , Thank you for your April 19, 1991 letter to Mr. William Reilly, in which you exprnss concern for the residential i . � homeowners of propertiea located xithin the Srtiuggler Mountain � � 8uperfund Site ("91te"J. Thank you also fos your acknovledgement % that the Eavironmental Protection Aqency ("EYA") has been wor�kinq �;`�: bard to a8dress these citfaens' cancerns and to acta611sh a. � ..:-. „ GOOpertttive relationship with ttte City of Aspen nnd Pitkin' County � � ia the hepe of aomp?eting a aubstttntial portiosf o! EPA's. remedial action thia summer. Let me statQ at tha outset that EP7� has not souqht past or LuCUte o4sts !or implementiag its select�d remedy from the reaidential 1nt19ownere in the IInited 3tates' coat r�covery nction , ' (United States v. Smuqvler-durant Mihin Cor . pt al.� Dlstrict of t;olozado, Civ. No- 89-C-1802, October 16, 198 , nor do �e � presently contemplate suir�q residential landowners in the ` - luture.� As a general matter, the Agency has a golicy against � � _ ente-ing i^to agreements with unidenttfied "prospeCtive F purehasers." 2his is because, future use o! the lnnd is j , unidentiEied, the purchaser is yet to be identitied, and the benefit to the United States is speculative_ We are Wfllina, t� ponethelegs, to settle any potential liability the Aspen � " landowners may have as current oxners under Section 707(a) ot the � federal Superfund law (TMCEACLA"l. A6 you noted, the prlmAry �; - mechanism to address the citizens� potential liability is d judiclal consent decree. This consent decr2e is being oflered to � • ' aIl :esident±al landowners at Operable Unit �t ('�OU �f�") of the Site, i.e. those landowtters within the Hunt9r Creek, Centennial ' dnd some smal1er �ondominium comple�ces, the Smugaler Run ar.d Smuaqler Mobile Home Parks and oW7xrs of single family homes. (Operable Unit N2 covers the Smuggler Mine. ) The covenant not to sue contained in this decree reieases I . � i EPA will, however, qo through the pro forma sCdp o! ' ` �- flling a judicial complaint aqainst the residential homeowners . ��• who sigY the eonsent dec:ee, Which is a procedural pre-requisita to approving a final settlement with them. _ �� ' '( . ._.,, . . , _ . . . �`:; „�;., • ' . ;� �y r� , . . � _ �`" . , � �. � . � �� i��'�t . . . �� . y � �,� �� `' • ..Y:'^1�_� � � • '-ti"Y7 , � . ar}'^ �":-^,.:":,• y � . .Y�:?;5)o . , t�' .r�-.�V,l;;.. . . , ';��;c. �_i��j ��„`ka '-�i- ,.a�� . . +r >'ii i.; . , __. . _.. .. _ ._ ,. _ . .. ... . . . � hlf+Y-1-i-1?c: l:::J9 FROP7 USEFti P.EGI�?ld � OEA TQ 986E,i?i? P.k70� �Y�>'lf� 9,� ' .. . . �� Ak#`•.a . � (.':.4+4''"tii1 s these resid4ntidl owners lrom any prR�ant or luture CERCL7� I.iability a�cociated t+ith their ownerahip of pzoparty at the Site, as thoee torms tlre broadly detlnad Sn th� Ci,ti.zen�' Conaent . � ; tieczee. Yro�ant liability ic deliaed as responsibilSty tar any • ' cost$ altAady incurred and to be ineuzred in implem�ntinq th� . seldcted ramedy. Future 11ab3lity 1s daEined ea any additional, yet unidrtAtllied Hork necaa�nry to implem�nt th� r�medy and . moreover includes any tuture rssponsa acti�ns which might be . naceesary ehould EPa determina that the remody as lmpl�mgnted is �,�`r not �u£fiCiently proteGtive. Thu6, thQ citl.zens� coasant dacres seladses Cut'rent OWaera !z'om liability for raspons• coets avnn if • - the ramedY as impl�mentefl iaila and additional reapons• actions • ' '•�. , are requ3red. � _ ;,. . Th16 release lzom liability is much broader thati BPA • ,' generally xill qrant a poCeatially rasponsiblv party. For ,�t example, EPA has deleted its "star,dard reopennr" claus�s, xhich �� provide that a settlor remain� liable for future liability ari6�nq from new information or conditions ursknown to EPA at the �� % time the consent deci'ee is entered- Doletion o! these reopenerc :�� '-` is permitted by the C�RCLA statute in very rare situations; .�i;.�'. statutoYily, reopeners mu6t be deleted uridar CEHCLA Section � i22(!1(2) when an cn-site remedy which is consistent xith the National Contingeney P�an is rejected in favor ot an off-site � remedy and reopeners may be deleted in settlements with de minimis part:es undpr 5ection 12Z(g) of CERCLA. The Administrator, in his discretion, may also delete the standard . reopeners ia "extraordinary circamstances" if such settlements �'� , : ara in the public interast and "if other terms, conditions, or requtrements oE the agreement containinq the covenant not to sue are su£ficier_t to pravide all reasonablo assurances that public � hea'th a:�d.the enaironment� �rill be protected from any future ;i�� • releases at Or !rom the facility." (See CERCL?, Section ;�i%. 122(t)(5)?- EPA has decermined thak Ste ^standard reopeners" � , should be deleted in agreements wtth the residential homeowners '` � in the Smuggler MounCain case. EPA retains the right to seek �� respanse costs lrom present or tuture residential Iando�ner9, `.�� , • nonetheless, if tha 8xisting residential use crianges to a ; eommercial one. Thi9 provision vae lncluded to precludQ private part�es from gaining a benefit Prom a cieanup paid for with � public funds. ` ` � � The eonbent decree a7.so provides the cltlzens with ' pratection aqainst suit from pzivate part3es seekinq contribution, to the exteZt alforded by Section 113(�1 of CERCLA. ,. . The consent decree requires in return that EPA be given access to .'�� , � the homeowners' property to perEorm the remedy an� that the ��.�. resldential pvmers vill cooperate with its implementation. The homeawners further provide assurances that the remedy Will not be `::7� " disturbed or the� contamiriation exacerbated by tkeir actions, and ; �t that thAy will comply with the City or �ounty's land usa ' ordinances (i.e., "inctitutional controls"1. ;�s' • . .� 2 �',,�j ;� � ;._ . _ _ , .. .,.. _ _ . , �.` _ _ . �. *��.f;°;; . '�+:: �,Y�, , • ,�?.�1'��">, ` . ___•. .-,•r��'�: t,. '.�?-`-�'- �'"�� . ;�-�:;�� . ,,,••,°`.;'. ' ';x`c.`'�`:: - +_�::.;p;> .=', , , �-;;fi- . ,':_�i:< • �.T�':,:A," . � � µh. ,4'y✓ !��:��.� . . . -ei-'Z,'yr..::` . .,,��'��.`.�i'f°��, ��_k ��'is . s ':�L. F'.a �.1 �� ' .��yyp��(�� ;..r �H�.._�� .r': �Y'i4..`�f.:.. .. ' �. '. .�..�-�''. .. . " . i'..� . . . . .. ... . . .. . . .::'... . ' . . . . . �. - . . . �`��F *",. hIRY-1-J-1?.1 15�Q? FF.011 U3EFF REGION � OE:+ 70 9cbe191? P.C�01 ��r x�F?� •� ' � ;y - , ' . ��c.. !'�!'�tiif>.,,i'_� - Ia addition to the conaent decroQ itsQif, tha r4aidential > :. � landowaers r+ere provided t�he encloaad "Landown�rn latter to ' ': asstsra tkiem that EPA belieyea it has no 1ngaT causa o! action aqdlttst futura �8ndown�rs if thv ramody remains protective and the luture ownar cemplies xith the applicable inati�utioaai controls. Pinaily, in reqerd to lutura lando++nora, �PA is villing kQ ' '.''','r�� oEfer the eoaaent decree ta any purchacara who buy property within the Si�e prior to the completion o! our r*m�dia�iQn ;.;'':;,�' • aptiviti�� on that Sndlvidual piece o! prog�rty. 'z� EPA is lully nware that private and publia lenders and :') bAnks have expressed cortGerrl that takinq titie to propartifls - j within the baundaries of the Site may eubject them to Supertund • liability or claims for contribution from third parties. We also ��,s understand t5at homaowners are.xorried abeut a deereaae in their • ; Hroperty valuee asaoaia�ed with the designatioa of their `�' ;';. _ properties as MithlZ the boun�ariss e! a Superfund site. ;�: � ' To address these concerns, Assistant Administrstor Strock testified before Congress on the mattar oE leader liability. As y0u are also auara, EPA is in the procoss of developing a . national rule to clarliy the6e issuea and allay these concerns. � At the local level, I met xith representatives of the � lendinq Communi�y in Aspen over a yeas' ago. Some banks told EPA �� that Chey wculd be willing to approve a prospective purchaser's moitgaqe dppiicat�on or buy mortgages on the secondary market i! .`,,� EPA could 3iifiUK6 tha bank: (t ) that it is very unlikely that we • �� , would puraua a claim agai.nst a prospective purchaser 1or pas: �r` costs, t2) that the hpmeowners xould be given contribution 'i', protection lrom other PRPs, and (3) that Compliance with all the terms Ot the oriqinal "citizens" cansent decree is sufficient to �� ,� . prevent our claims !oz any other cost zecovery or injunctive ','i�:� - � relisf. zn respvnse to the lenders' Coocerns we note that EPA has not sued a lender under CERCLA for its mortgagee's liability �� where the lendex was itself not rasponsible for areating or axacerbating the site conditions. Also, the enclos�d "Landovner" � � . letter goes far in pzo�iding that assurance. Faxthsr, � ;:... representative6 trom our of:ice p2an to meet again later this . ,. month vith local lenders to allay any residual concerns. We have also explained the process for delatlnq a Sugerfund Site from the National Priorities List to County offic=als to aive the citi�ens •�• � and the lending community some idea of when the Site may be � eligibl¢ for del�tion. '�i � . Lastly, EPA is also exploring the Dossibility of issuinq a '�t ' general policy statement with respect to the residential .�! . _ fr homeowner 16sues raised by the citiz2ns of As_r_en and other °tia � _. communities across the country. However, such an important �''� 3 l..� . . _ °, . ' � ' �7 . . . . .. � ,. . .. �. ... _ __._ _ __. .. _ - -,.�..:.,. . . _ . � _ :=f< ,. • . ' ° . ;,, ~`.-�;; , ::;;�:,t - . J� � . / __�__� 't��;ri, �.. . .�:�.�.t�:: :Y��. ��::<.;;�� - . . ,. ,�_��::=:w , .��; . x` =;�. . 4�� t`'��.c}•i'y', :tM:;F. ' ' x-r:R'�^:...... . ��;_�. .ti „�i� , � t��, �, ,.;o.�: __ � _ _._--- -- .�- __ c��S�i41:ifi}:, ttfn�."w.-..,r,.s- .�r�,.... _.. - ,_ - ..... _ .�_ .. —..... _. ' . _.... _ ._ _. .. . ... . .� . - - - �;, ��,�t k i MAY-�4-1391 15�10 FROM U$EPA REGION B OEq TO ?@6E1919 P.�DS � •✓ , . �yfi`��;,�j;'-� kti�S� hSefr"�+��;�� . a7„=�ai s'yi;.: . , • ' . . • ' national policy dea�slon 3s beinq avaluated and devqJ.oyQa by our ' �- ' Haadquartora oFfica. '�:;.�� k , . , I,' 11kq yGU, am committed ta haviag our staff9 work togethQr = te pzovide tha maximum protectlon� nnd assurancea avaiiabie to - the ctttsene ot 7�apan nnder the 8uparEnnd 2aw. It ie my underataading that ol�r reapective statfs have already met 1n • Aenver and are cosftiriuinq to discues tha issues and pos�ibl• - . golutians. '�``+' ;; . ' &lncarely yours, �';.;'�•,;" � • ; � � • . ;�� . Jamea J. Sch�ror # , , . Aeqional 1►dministrator �;ri �; Enclasure �' �. ':*; ��:. . _yyyr�:-:'��. . y � . . • � ��'{ti;�f�;�. . . . IS -' ��. � � _ . • � i i I ' �t � • . �� . . , • i,�� ' . � , ,, � � _ '�'��`,. .. . .!-' . . �. . � . . � . .+� , �. � i! . ' , . � %il,��:j . `.� � tt,1 � , _ i s� . i i::. + 4 _ • _ . 1!�. .: . � .,, , , _ _„�_._ (., �t.� ,�_: ...._.., • . . _ � ��j�. . � �. �t"�.. . . / , . . . '•je.., �� 'Y�ii.� .� " . '. ' � . .. � �, . . � j��. ` '. �. . " � . . ' . . r 1� ��7 r . .. . . � . y , �. .. .��y . • •. . � '~ryi � � � ' ' .�, Y�N.�'.� . .. ��.. ..........,.,.. . .. --.'...- .... �: .�..:: .,s� . '" -...� '.,i.t..-. . _ � . . .. . � . ... . ._ "_. . . . ��s�;�r . . . TiMOtnr t.wiarH � �'�i ' ao�nm�o GOLOMDO Cr.`.�;';.h`,::,. . A�MFD 6E11V1CF{ ;.„i� ',� `� � ' • BANKINO - '�'1�� eUWE� �nft�d $tar�� enate lNEIIOY AND / NATt)qa�pE50URt� WASHINGTON,OC 20810-0803 May 22, 1991 • � • � Mr. James Scherer BOAFlD OF C0.GUh1M'R'S " Regional Adminiatrator PI'rK{�i CuI��TY ' . TJ.5. Environmental ProteCtion Agency f''.�t{;!'�°xriiiy ti� ��5 Reqion VIII 0?;�'._ ��-�-- ' . 999 18th 3treet, Suite 500 �j,oti�,�U�up____ �': Denver, CO 80202-2405 ��';``:- _...p -`�":�� ' Dear Jims E•::�. �a. _��?___._.— '.r.,.{` .�, , . I want to thank yau for meeting cvith memhers of my e�taff thia i,�� paat Friday, May 17� to diecuss the Smuggier Mountain 3uperfund + site iri Aspen, Colorado. I appreaiate the efforte you and your .•i atn£f have made to addreea the concerna of the reaidential " homeownere. It appears thst you understand the plight of these �� , landowners and are continuing to work with the residents, the �;, ; City nnd the county to aolva these di£ficult problems aa well as '!!, ':' ensure aa effective, expedient, and safe claanup. " i7�i' ;� " During Friday�e meeting, my staEP raised n number of my concerns +. regerding the Environmental Protection Aqency�s (EPA) cleanup efforts. Your attention to theee matters and your efEorta to ' resolve them are encouraging. �'�. .i T was particularly pleaaed tp learn that EPA ie prepared to � �!; ` provide relocation asaistaace for families with children and ' pregnant women while the remediation is underway. i know that �� . these families and expectant mothers will appreciate EPA's �� willinqnees to go the ex;tra mile to aliay any concerns about <w� . ;,�,., + health effects. ,;�; My staff also raised concerns about possible air emissions oE �� i lead while the cleanup is underway. I was impa:essed by the ;�,�� ' scope of the measures triat EPR will take to prevent possible lead ( � air emie6ions. Your commitment to saturate the soil before �'��i. . digginq in an area, to continuously water the mate=ir�l to prevent '`� � ' dust, to conduct continuous air monitoring auring the excavation, ' to place protective overnight coverings, and other measures '� ,• _ . should effectively eliminate any potential health rieks. .' �:,. AB you know, I have been especially concerned about the 1�� homeownera' possible liability for cleanup costs and the ' financial impact of this threat to these homeowners. Xour •- aPforts to protect these innocent homeowners from the expensive " , cleanup costs at this site is also encouraging. As currently drafted, the Citizen Consent Decree contains innovative �,.�� ' . . provisions which, in short, insulate these homaowness from possibJ.e lawsuite by either governmental or third parties. The �.{!� - Citizen Consent necree ensures that the homeowners will not be ,,..� • S, � • ;�''f' 11ZY I[NNSY�v�NU 6TIIeCT 100.7 M�IN STIIER �]0 N.TfJON ST. UN�TEDl�ryK eW�O�w4 � ' OFNVMCODDS07 GRANDJUNCTION.COl1701 SVIiE103 t01WE5�OTN�ThF[Y '� '� � soa�eee_�� 09/2�6-1011 COtORA4uSHNNG5.00E0YO� SWTEl9O 71!/67�-lS2� . �1�/61l`��)�' ` l , CONr�INBflECYLtED FlBERB '�.. �.'__'_"". , ..__._.. ... .... . � . . � � . . . � .. .. . . �� . , • _ . ; ai�i,�x F'. , , . . , , . . -. .��..Y..: � � � � .^i�� .��'-�`t£i�i • . � - � . ��,,,1� �� ._ . ., _ —�+ `'-.Y��1`��'' . . ��1 fi�� . • . � „ � �{Fr :- �. ?f,4.y� d . ' , � , ..g�`,.-`+�": 9 t; ��n'� � YY"��y '.�,k3.�4.. . t:� ��" ;,;',�i:.i: . `��, r�-` �� . <'x y T u,`�''. ,- � ��{�. . . . ` - '.�.�.AW`F�i�...rlr'n�.:.�i..^.L ��Y �' . .1-_u ' . �'. t .. . t..k ..: .-:�v:hl�..n.. �.,��.ri.'.. .,. _. ..�,..._ .._ .. ..,.. . ._......,. .......... ..�._..... . ..._,. _. ._. ...., � :. �. �I'�i '�{:�',� ' � a��S�y' . . �� .> �;,,��;�,:�-:; �i i �. � , <.>� i . , • I - i .�� ;i-.�:.�. ... ; SENATOR WIRTH INFORMATION f.`..":•_ •. V � � . � � �t,`T?c,��.,: . '� �r,.�. . . , �:�_. �'� . � �` i k, �� _ i ��. � � ��.�; � ,.�� i `� . i � � , _ . � . ; , � . �.S_ � ��%: . i �': • � _ '" . �:. -�4 .: :. i Ji � !y � i�. � . I ' . f ,� �r�. I ♦ � *` I 1,, � I't y�'.� . 1 1 � . . � }�� t _ 1 �— !:' { _ I . . . ,��.f� ; �. '.I . � . . . �,t�. . . � '��, '.�- _"—.. '__.' _ '- . - _ - _.� .....,.-..._�—._.... .___' . �; � ��__._—, . . � . 1 ...._. . ..� . . . . . � .� •7�T }�', � .,:. .. �: .� . . .., . -'.''_.�... -- � : ` . • � , . �� . - . � � . . �. . . .:'aR�i'�v?; � _ � . . ' � �. . • , . . '-..'.,^ii: � p:. +i .. . . . � . '. . " X� � � I . � . '� . . . . ' .. I� . :�, . . ' � . . . .. , . . . '� . . . . , • .. .. . ' . ., . . _Y. .�. ' . , .. r , , . . ... . .��I�� .. . . . . � . ' . . . � , . _p .r.. . .. , � . . . . � i F+� �,..� .4i . . . .� . . . . .'� • ' � .�. =w;'- '�'�"`; . . , - ' � .. . , ._ . , , . . . . ; ... . . . :. _ _ .. �� :..,. .. ��.,. ,a . .. ..... .::. .... .. . . . _ _ . ,. ... `� t _ �y�,��.t .. � � h F " 1, ,. ,� h II_)..{1(�. . � �. � • y�i1.1�"4f� /�. acr. James 8chorer May 21, 1991 •'� Page Two �` liable for any present or future costs aeaocinted with the � � cleanup. Ae I mentioned, it further provides that homeowners would be proteated from euita by third psrties seekiag contxibution for their share of the cleanup coata. Tt is elso " • - imAortant to point out in this regard tihat the EPA h8a released � the Hunter Creek Co�none Corporation from liability. Thia '.'� . homeownera association was initially held liable for the cleanup . costs by the L"PA, but 1t is good to hear that this association, '� �;��'._;�'!� and ite homeowner membere, wilx not be held liabla for the . • cleanup coets. ��' ' Another ma�or point of conten�ion which wae rait�ed by my staff cortaerns the posaihle liability of future landowneYS, Homeowners s ' . cou,td find it difficult to sa11 thair propertiee if futuze ownera F • would be held liable for claAnup coste. I am pleased to learn ; �� that you are willirtg to enter into agreemante w.ith futu�e ' � landowners providing the same kinds of liability protections that �' �` " . the current landownere enjoy in the Citizen Conaent Decree. So i ��-• long as the cleaaup remains undiaturbed, both present and future ! ` '; landowners will be held hannless for cleanup costs when they sign the Citizen Consent necree. �' Your continued efforts to address the banks' concerns regaxding. their potential liability are very important. I am qlad to hear . that you are meeting regularly with the Aspen banks to address , itheir concerns. Every effort should be made to asaure banks and i lending institutions that they are protected frnm liability. I � am very interested in preserving the financial inveatmenC of these residential landowners in theiz homes and properties. MX . office is here to help address the concerne of the banks and ' lendinq institutions and to preserve the financial integrity of , ; theae Properties. My staf£ will strenuously urge the Federal � . National Mortgage Aasociation, or Fannie Mae, to re-enter the j secondary mortgage market. As a way to allay the banks' ' , concerns, it is worth noting that the EPA•s remediation efforts �` will remove the contamination and, once certified as remediated, , the EPA will de-list the site as quickly as possible. � iIt is also important to note that the homeowners need not sign � � the Citizen Conaent Decree at all, if they prefer. As I � • ; understand it, if a homeowner is not comfortable signing the � Decree, the EPA is willing to negotiate aa access agreement with I the iandowner so that the Ep1� can enter the pzopertp and clean i.t up. � .. { `,.� � � . - � F i �;Y i ; � � j .- '� '�. �i .::.. , .. . . . : � .. : -:". ; .:... , , _. . ro.re+�-:,- , .... �h�.�,. . .. ,._. �. . -S:J;:L�� .. � , . J'j . �6ti'r' . � � . . - .. J �j{��t . �i`�.d c�.Ci r�j.. � , . .. � �'��"�� V�, . . �� - Y K.� , :.i.14:i_`"+.-r� ' • .: 3.�� . �;;t�<<;u . . .�Y��.+ . � `��Ci'V� . . r'g�y'j'�'. #�k��•,v, � � . � vfa� • � { .tl �.��Fw�. � � � .:.i..- � . � ; .'{�'j�_ :�.iy . .�.� � .�MF . JJ.�� .. .� :.a .'.- ......-_�.:...: ......�.�.....w.l.....,:.. . ..,.:,. .... __.. .. ..... .. _....._.. ... . ..... ..... — ��:'. _- -. ��.. _�1�. .,,. . � _ . .�. � - � ��,;-��,+:. -, . � ��'.;�x.s�1�,,.,nr,.�;�_' ��r��•:.}��A;•ip,;��. (+-`.M;!'�'#�?4 i'1��l.;'� Mr. Jamee Sahezez � riay 21, 1991 � : Page Three .,, . , •. y . . Cleanup activitiae �t mine waete sites s.fmilar to Smugqler " ' Mauntain have ehown that remediation at the 6muqqler Mountein ' " � site can be conducted in a ssfe and effective manner. The '�;; extremely high lraad levels in portione oP the eoil at Lhe � - � 6muggler Mountaia eite warrant cleanup. I am sure thdt you will :�:�. `� � do ali that you can to conduct a quick and eafe c].esnup operaLion � at Smuqgler Mountain. �='� � F:.;.��_.... , >�..�'�'. � x thank you aqain for addrassinq my conceXns, and those of the ' . i residentisl landownera, regarding the cleanup activities at �� , � Smugqler Mountain. , ,� ' .i"`.:. wxth beet wiehee, _ Sincerely yaura, ' ,� � ��F. _ ��. �� c� �� r Timothy E. Wirth : � TEW/dy � . . y^ ,,j ;f. i �. . - � � ` � . , � � ' tii a ~� �.�� ' � ,. ;{ . � ...� � `i �+' _ -� �,�� . ,''j �• ' ,�i ' i. +.+� _ _ _ _ . ___ __ ___ •---___ ___ _ __._ ...___.__ _.. , ��v�:,-. .. � . �,,_• g'*L +.'Y�c. . . . .- . . . . r� , � ��: 4 . � , �f. .� .. ,, �'` _ � . �� . . �s��z�. � - � ;;�¢ �,;;�'- , , • �;, � �� . ��,i � "Ee �a�� , �� • � ��s.��. �� .`��`C _.e��it ir�^i . . .' 1- _� -� 'v!.� ... ... . d... _ ... .. . . ""' ' . . . r r . _ i �4 j',. �_ ' _ ' . , ,�' L�[ �'�I.._ 'Q�.„ , ��'.. � � - � � i . + lAW OFFICES i � J �]� .'� lU+l1�r��f lt.•�. �.V 1 � � OATES. HUGHES 8L KNEZ�VICH ,J�} PROFESSIONAL GORPOFIITION L � THfRO FGOOR,ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING ' „ ' ' • 53�EASTHOPNINSAVENUE ' � )_, • i, IEOMARGM.0ATE5 ASPEN.COLORAD081611 APEACOOEJ03 � . NOBERTW.HUGNES TELEPNONEA30-f]00 � RICMAMOA.KNEZEVICH TELECO►IERp20-112t - May 22, 1991 - � OiCOUNSEL � JONN TNOMAS KELLY BONAD OF C0.C�1F,iJl'R'S • - P11KU'7 CUL'P+TY f�+� •_ Public Haarin2�;:t�cit� ��'`c .' � � Pit � County Board of Commissioners ��______. ' �j �� 506 as ain Street Da!o:r.-� •`r`. :Ji�~ {.y��`-��-l-- ;'��:.+ . ; Aspen, CO -C�1 SuhjeCt:..,ff�-- ,� . Gentlemen: `��--�_ l.xli,Flu. ._ _k_.---- This office represents I.G. and Caro2ine Davis, owners of Lot 2, Hoag Subdivision and Gary and Susan Rappaport, owners of Lot 5, � � Hoag Suhdivision. The Davis lot is almost directly below the � � ' '. proposed site and the Rappaports are just below the point where the i•±. " access road to the Newfoundland and the Zaluba lot has been cut. ' t,r,. 6 � y Obviously, our clients' properties will be the most severely ��r�, impacted were this development to be approved. � �� • , Initially, I would state that it is our position that this project should not be approved. As Mary Lackner stated in her memo � to Planning and 2oning, r. � This site with it's northern exposure and lack �+ �� of sunlight, extremely steep slopes of 52�, potential avalanche, debris flows, wildfire � . and visibility concerns should, within all � reason, not be developed. The Newfoundland ' mining claim would not receive subdivision � i approval under today's regulations, nor was it � initially envisioned for residential use when ; it was staked as a mining claim. . i ' Planning and Zoning concurred denying Scenic Foreground overlay � . � Review and 1041 Geologic and Wildfire Hazard Review in PZ � � Resolution No. 90-36. The following concerns were among Planning f and Zoning's reasons in voting for denial: i� ; ': t 1. slopes i.n excess of 50�, � " � 2. avalanche hazards, fl � , I , 3. severe wildfire hazards, f; 1 �t ' ! 4. visual concerns due to too much bulk and square footage .' ' � and the need for variances, and _ i i ,f � � . ! 1 �' �;r�-^x ,....,._:.�. __ ...� ______ -----___._.. . _._ _...... _ . , . ,. . , __ . ,. . .... T ti `:;.. ,9{2E.:''f= � • 1' -� �� ` ' , . . ;I � -,��3� „ ' .�� . .�� •',.��"`",� • �;��tti%P;�' . ; . �i��:�_? . �; .�,; -9�.-�tr . K��a'� �R��;�:, � � .��,. Y$�� + � ' � .haa"� __..,._�..�_ �. _..._ _ _ — . ,:�;_ a �� r ., , - , . , ��'� .�.-.-�:� )?,...: +�r `�' n ..,�,:<, ;�.....: _i.,j.. �.:�a: y.:;��,, , . � .. .. .. .... . . _ .. . .. ,.. . . . . . .. . _ . .. . .... . .. . . � ,.}fM.`�.� . � F�«n�Y:i.�'; - ' • . �y�v,'�%r9.,,� . "OA'I`ES,HUGHES & KNEZEVICH,P.C. �'6'��'��r-�� Pitkin County Board of Commissioners ,•.' `- May 22, 1991 . . Page 2 • 5, joint use of a portion of the nordic trial and access � � road. , While T believe the applicant has made a sincere effort to ��`; � mitigate these matters, they still exist. Of particular concern to - our alients, is the completion of the road and assurances regarding F�•�"�� , - run off and protection against rock slides, debris, etc. The ' `�'•{ concerns spring from past experzences with the owner of Lot 3, Hoag � � Subdivision, Joe Zaluba, who will share the cost and maintenance of � � the road. The road has not, to date, been brought up to the , standards required by the City of Aspen, nor has the required > � revegitation occurred. It is our belief that it will not occur k �, until the property is developed. Our clients have been forced to • take it upon themselves to see to it fihat proper drainage and the � ; " like is accomplished. In short, while the City of Aspen placed � �`` man conditions on the Zaluba a roval no erformance bonds or � ',� Y PP . P 1��,,`, other securities were required. Accordingly, enforcement has been ;:. . ! difficult. • In closinq, it is the Davises' and the Rappaports' position that development of this site is inappropriate particularly the � siae and bulk contemplated. However, were the County to grant an ; , approval, our clients would urge that all mitigation requirements � { put on such approval, particularly safety issues regarding the �' affects of the road and construction of other properties (drainage, r I rockfall, etc.) be supported by an adequate performance bond. We ;, � would also request that such activities as may be approved be @ • ? completed in a reasonable period of time or the approvals lapse. i I Thank you for your consideration in this matter. � � Sincerelg,� �♦ [� OATES, HU ES KNEZEVICH, P.C. � � � �. i g y'. j J n T. Kelly ,. ' JTK/klh � i cc: Rappaports " � Davises .. �s . � � � �' _ � i � • :i : J ; . =af � � ._.._�.._.y._____�..._-----__ . _ __.. _.._.__. ._.. a-T-:;, , : . _ .,. � , ,, , ,w�'yy'_ . , . . . . . ��-.;. � . . . . . .. . . �t .� . . . . � ' . . n- —_�` ".y.�� , ' �" � ' . � . . ��y . -- .. �' �� . E,�„�-� , . . ..�� ::; ..z��. :}��.�. � , ; . ��' � � ,�..�: �� : Y�+.u:' .. . . � • t'� '!�i...>',•. ��"� . �:; ' � .� . , . .. . .. _ ,.�.,, �. ., ,, _.�. . — . �. � . . : ��) - . ,AT`iACH�fiENT 3 `'�`�.�;��\ . , � , � . . � /�-��1 ,'�`I�Vs �ir{. . . ( ( )J��l�� 7 , • ... i 3 � � vv �;_�RL�J�`. • November 12, 1990 -- ES RVI�CE - � � smce Servioes auila�ng .. � � 222 S,6[h Sccoc4 Room 4t6 � . . E, . � Gnnd 1uncUon,Cnlondo 8150i ' JOliIi R,. WACit1ID ' Telephone(303)24&73Z5 ' 616 E. Hyman Ave., Suite 102 ' Aspen,�CO 81611 Dear Mr. Wedum, ' • .. l;`Y This letter is to reflect our conversation and ef�orts during our site visit to the Newfoundland parcel in Pitkin � ` County on October 31, 1990. During that visit, I marked the " �� • trees that I feZt should be removed to make the property safer from wildfire. • . I have received the revised tree survey (Sheet 6, 10/29/90) � that you prepared shoHing the trees to be cut and those to ' ' � be left, with respeet to the propertq lines and the 45 foot ' ; • � thinnin line g previously recommended. By your survey, it ii, appears that I have marked 4 trees west of the house that ' are neither on your property or within the 45 foot thinning - ? line. These trees do not need to be removed since they are I��:. � outside the 45 foot thinaing line. , • As I mentioned during my visit, there are no trees on the � National Forest to the east of your property that need to be removed. Furthermore, the strip of trees betwaen the access t, road and the recreation trail does not need ta be thinned to ', protect the site from wild�ire. The firebreaks created by �� the recreation trail, access road, and parking area in frant o� the house provide adequate protection. If your neighbor � to the north is willing to thin or prune this strip of • ' , trees, please encourage him/her to do so. This will add to i your protection as well as remove some of the disease that ! inflicts these trees. , � After our site visit, it was my understanding that aZl dead j and su ppressed trees would be removed within the 45 foot �' � thinning line. I assume that is why they are not shown on i� your tree survey. Tha trees that are shocrn to be left k' 'I standing on your survey should be pruned to a height of 10 i' , , ' feat. As I mentioned in my last letter, tall brush should � be removed or broken up 'into non-contiguous groups. .- I �� ,� Please let ma know if I �may be of further assistance. �, ' � SincerelY, � . n 'I 4P�ttq o�cn.cbr��s'rt".: �� . ; �'�.-, �/J /�-�CC� f'�TKW COt!tJTY :;. ;� John W. Grieve f'u�lic�-H-e�aririg�>.+:ioits ��. � Asst. District Forester 0�<<•�-��--�' ; Suhject�r�� • - ��.._. • CC: Mary Lackner�J c!:h.F:o. _F---•--- � :. � Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office . �; � , � ,�.� x; :.;:a.,_ .,.:,.._... -�.:......... .�_ . . . t� . .•, ..,.. , . . . .. . . . . _ . , ,i , �*iE � • ��•�!� ��e�+��. ` � ! • .. � � 'r�� .. �-.�� Y .�{� �,�'. � ��{ , ��: � �.�;_� , . 'L{��:r , �1 X`"'S::s,L��: . � .. ;;r.;.t;.��a2..� . t.:y. Qv�:�� .�(H� � . ��9 � , ,l�:��'�•`�� ' . .,�'��y�r . iw f`�,�j.'i ' �T • d•1�� . a';+�'r' . ...-, t; - � �� a y� ` , ' _ .. . 'qy'!'*y'.�.:':, � �(� ' .'A�i��'Se , ' \./t/•� � . . � y�7�� t . Ak�;�r�rr r� ' OCi $Iopr ��ua+�-' .�,art.�y;�,' ;,;.�lu�;;;.. . FORESI' � - SERVICE 5[atc Scrvfccs Buildin8 222 S.6th Strcct,Room 116 ' . _ Gnnd lunctlon,Colorado 81501 �>,-;. � . � ' ' TdeDhonc(103)24&7325 �, . . ♦. • • . • ' October 2. �990 ATTACHMENT3 . Mr. Joha R. Wedum - � "" 616 E. Ayman - Suite 102 �.�r . Aspea, Colorado 81611 . . {`.� Dear Mr. Wedum, << , . . i.� This letter is to summarize our conversation during the site 3nspection of the Nes�rfoundland parcel in Aspen, Go. on October 1, `' F� 1990. • . . • . �i The building site is located on a steep (52%), timbered slope �� ahich presents a serious wildf�re hazard. The steepness of �he • �j' ;',, slope Hould allow for a rapid rate of spread if a fire were to �•�.;, � occur. The stand of Douglas fir trees and the brush, litter and •�'�- dead fall in the understory are dense enough to provide ample � " ; • fuel for Pire. Fire starting on the grourid could very possibly j • 'spread to the crowns of trees due to the steep slope and the presents of intermediate height fuels that serve as a. ladder for • fire to climb into the trees. ! � � The situatioa could be improved by manipulating the vegetation on �" + • j the site especially in the area around the home site creating a defendable space in the case of wildfire. Construction will ' i�,� probably disturb the immediate area around the home. The area �� ' iaithin 10'feet of the home should be revegetated with low growing i-� - forbs or grasses and kept free of tall brush or trees. A '!%� defendable space should be created that extends at least 45 feet (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. -�� • � i -� � 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. � ' * Prune trees up to a height of 10 feet or more. � " . , • ' * Thin trees so that the crowns do not touch; try to leave about ;-.;�� ` � 10 feet of space bet�een the crowns. �" i ' ; ._ ;�� - i�,, ; � } .� �,,� ; i "c. .. . ..___.__--- ,__--- .._...._._ . . .__ ,--- _ - --.._._.._ -- __.. _.. <�� . . . . . , ;.;. ,,�.; , : ,��.s�.' , `, . :�;�• ��:_� , . � • .. �,N , � ,. _ ,�5�� ; ,�,f� . '.�,�y..; r �,�+,, • �t�� . .p. �y .'��t'�+r�3� • . !��,�.v+r.. . - . . . .. •.�,ir'�'1`�.'�_',,j�i` � . � . : �,�uTk,l, . ��'�':� � ,� ,�• � � �� cs��ry� . �`�* ��v . � .. ,.�.,.�;. •14.. , ��,; . �� , , �...... ... . _ ,_.,. .__._.,....... .... _. ..._...._. _ _ ,, , - ' ��41��'. ' F .�_�*`!. '. � � • � j��'��'ii*k�3:`:. ��,��.1;'•:. �r��,. ,��_ • The area below the home is the most critical_ Fortunately the " � driveway up to the home and the cross country ski trail below the . . :, � driveway serve as fire breaks where all combustable fuel is � '"%� removed. There is a narrow strip of trees batween the driveway and the trail that should be treated as outlined above to . " �`. increase the effectiveness of the breaks. Again, cooperation •��*� with adjacent laadowners is suggested to extend this thinning ' " ��'��" `� heyond the provertY lines. ' � � .� As far as I can tell from tha drawings and:what you have told me, the huildiag itself does not present any problems. It is my :��'�.�`� � � understanding that the roof will be made of non-combustahle ' . i aaterial an� there will be no exposed decics. As I mentioned when � He met, I am concerned with tha access to the site. The main � I :3�:• � . problem is the acute angle formed bp the driveway and the main f' ` ; :.A access road_ It will be difficult for emergency vehicles to make >. the sharp turn onto the driveway_ A 90 degree intersection is �.; ' � y always preferred. The single ingress/egress and the narrow width f{ � �'�"� of the driveway is also a potentiol problem. Emergency equipment � �.. Hill not be able to enter tha driveway if people are evacuating I`�: at the� same time. If dual ingress/egress is not feasable perhaps �'`•� ? ' a pullout area could ba constructed �bout haif way between the f '' , �.'" ,j house and the main access road. • ; �'` j I hope my observations and comments will be of use to you. �� ` i Please contact me if you have any questions. `F �, j , , t� � Sinc rely, _ ti r� �„ G!/. .Ef.��i�2 f� ' ohn W_ Grieve r � , ' Assistant District Forester � i � � xc: Mary Lackner i . ..� .. _ . . . .�S � ' � � ', �� • _ .y+ .. .. . ._._.. � ,. 1 . t Ac ,i;' _ � � ' .i. , k!f � '. ;I . ��.� , `' ' - � .r i� j ��'' �. 1 ,.;.c; . . . �. ...I '• . . . � I:� ; M1 ` • ., � I y.+,.-�..:....-.�..,,.�.. ,.r`-s...�.._.r...........,.._. ...... :.:� ....,r .......,._d�"-...... _.. . . .. . w��_ - , . . , .,_.. ,:,,�. { �yr''�, �:` . , . _ ' r � - � . 1 ' , '�+�"'�f�,' . . ' . . , .. . _ }�:. . `:�,��r. . . . .. , . . . . • ' " � a �!: i �+�8 . -- � .- I . � -�: J . " t4�. .. . . . . . . � . . . ��. - . � . . . r .. • - � . r9 � a•,�•�w 1 . . . . . . . ,;,�GI' ° . � . � � �; �,''�r . �� w� :':�:- �y'�_�•{�b�'�^�/'X . M' . F�' ��:..... :.�.� .. r.,_. ..' _' .. :. . . . ........r."_'" ' � . •' ... .... .._... .. . ... .. . -.. ...._ .r . . . .. . ... . ... ..._. _ . .. ...n. � . . ... .. . ..- . ... ,' .t..... 1 . , � � � ATTACHME[�T� ;� . . . �.��,�.��,��. �'��E.� �.5.: • ' ' . . � ��3�`:�.' • �?1,hf'i�l:; 8040 Greenline Review Standards • 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is Lo be • ' ` located is suitable for development considering its - • ' , slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine i , 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 revegetate the soils, or, �where necessary, ' cause them to be removed from the site to a location � - • acceptable to the City. ' • : . E:r • 2. • The proposed development does not have a significant - adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, • �J,�,,}�:., � drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on -- water pollution. • . - 3. The prbposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the City. • • ; J 4. � The design and location of any proposed development, road, or trail is compatible with the terrain on the �� ;� . . parcel ort which the proposed development is to �be �<�� - � located. • . � C; .i ' !'t_;.: . 1 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, .i ., disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land � , features. . , i �. � 6. The placement and clustering of structures will ` i minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, � i maintain open .space, and preserve the mountain as a � ' scenic resourae. ' � - - � 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the � �, • structure will be designed to blend into the open ; char�cter of the mountain. :;�i ' � 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are r,y available to service the proposed development. i ' :,1 . ;•'-� . 9. Adequate roads are availabJ.e to serve the proposed , development, and said roads can be properly maintained. •:z 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 11. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area , . '.j Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails � Plan map is dedicated for public use. : � I l� t i j �. I_� , i ,,.A i . ,� � - . .' :;....��...�.........Y._�._-----.___.. .,_..__------`--- -----•----_ .._.--� --___. _ . . � 1 ,rq... . -. . ___ .... . ._.._.__—_ -. ---....- �� ; • . . . . . - . _.. � �. " . . !•� ��.yy:, .. . � ,�.�. ��y�, ��i:,�� . . . ' . / .. , .. . . ,.l.',� �''Y�� ' 4 ' .. ,��' � .. . .� � � . . . � . � .. . :�� . . - , .��,��`"t;.�} - . � . . . ��'yY. . . . . ' . � - �. . .. . . c:��'�^��'. ' ' �.�,K�7� � ' � � � .��r, � . . � � C 2��+`� �:. � ��_ �� • k��. w,. . 0. �( .�(.111'u:rlr3 f-��4t.t� .l-��rL 1 . . . .�... _.� . ....-. .r .. . ,.. . .. . e.dz-.. . . ..r�.�n •��{ ... .r .. ' .. . .. � _ . 1 , . ' , . -a�� .,� ' . . . . ��-�h`�,,: r�'"�'!: : � . . � ATTACHMENT � ��r_,>ti:� . G�.��,�.sh;,. ;, February 5, 1991 ' • • ' � . •. ; Mr. R�ndy Wedum. " :.. • 616 E. Hyman, Suite 102 ' Aspen, CO 81611 • ' - , RE: Driveway to Hoag Lot 3 and other Lots, _off U�e'Avenue . ' � • HCE.Job No. 3005I.001 . . ; i'`_'' ... . : Dear Mr. W�dum: . .. ��i�`.:�` . I i We. have reviewed the driveway and intersection area previoasly, � � ! and have reviewe8 the memos £rom Tom Newland to Mary LacY.ner;. We � � �• believe that the intersectior. can be zmproved to meet County idr•iveway standards. We agree w9.tb Tom Newland that the Access " - Permit process is the proper forum for working out the 8etails of ' design. We look forward to helping in that process. � ��` 1 ' ?� � � Regarding drainage, zt apgears that the County concerns have been �` - addressed in the reports from 8igh Country Engineering, Inc. and "�'� � Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. dated 6/1/89 and 9/25/90, ' �� respectively. � 8owever, if the County has a.dditional questions or + , conce.rns, please have them contact us. iIf you have any further questions, please call. ' i Sincerely yours, - . ";; i . . • � � �.I : AIGH COUDiTRY EN INESRING, INC. , � � t ` , � ' ` - . � ! Tim thy P. $eck, P.E. - : . , ' i • Pri cipal Engineer • . . . ( � r TPB: jm ,I • r� , ' i i � .. , � � �'� • 923 Coopee Avenue • Gienwood Springs,CO 816a1 �r` f• _�,., { TelephonC: 303-945-8676.�. 303-920-3664 • FAX: 303-945-2555 . • �'!S'. i 1 _ • : ' � � � l � � . . . . � (1. . . `�1 . _' , ' P . . j �� . ��. .__.___'.____---- � �-.....,. .. ......._ .,. ... , ,_.. .. . . . ., � a�y3•�iK;w�, .r..y,,. .-�_"..._-.�_ ._.._.-._.' , . . .. -F . ��, 44t�� • .��:. . . . � .if":. St .,��y . : . " . ' � � - . . • . I',. .. 3!7 ��m _� (�'?]� � . _ . .. � . . j .. f . :�� , . � .. . _ � . . .i �,� . . � . . ' . � . . . :yr;�y , � _ . . . , . . .. - k�^k 2^sr'�r, � . . � . ��"'��y3. _ , ' ' �� _+.�5°�/t�� . . . . . � ,'� � �.i: � e..G�:' ��. . �� `' .�� ui , f,� tt.. _:�� . ... . : . .. -� " - .. . _. ....... _,.. . ..._ ...,.r,._o.... __ . . .. .�...':;�.e ._t��....'._ .......,- .;-y�'_ . .. . .... L,. : ..... �� a. • ' � • , : • ' . �.,*�,,a,�s; ' , . SEP 2 8 I°90 �,��jr�'±`'{, . '�� : . A1'TACHMENr 6 :�::;::. : . . • � ; . _ - � . � � ^: . � . ; �,.�°. . . � .. . ' • ' .. �r !�S �. - BNOW-AV2ILANCHE LOADING ANAI�YSIS � I�;� _ : ,, � PROPOSED BIIILDING AT ^NEWFOIIN�LAND MS 5190" '` ' � OTE AVENiJE� NEAR A6PEN� COLORADO �3 `�+" �j: i ' � ' � �� :� .. , . ..�� j�. S .i . . :�; �: Prepared For i�,-�. MT. aT0$II AfHdt]m ;! A� I ' . • � i". I ' . � - , , f�. . ; � • • � • , �. f' ., . � � z ��-' Prepared By ��%. �:.�Arthur I. Mears, P.E., Inc. , Gunnison, Colorado � ,;�, - September, 1990 . i . 1 ' . j i i. : ' j ; i .. \ � . .. ' - . . . r' ` S. ! � fl��.^� . � �i �.:�`.�it ' ' � , � <�� S� j: � , � ' ... � � . �'�� - � ' j ' ( .'i' ' -- —: - _ _ _._ ..._ - ----— --- �� ' :.. • ��': �— " .— — _..�... .� _._.. jb. t�„"_ � i� ' � � � ' � ' . . �'.7�" . • �: .• �....,� ;. . ��-- .t ��+ ' I . . .. ._ i:�a. ' �� :.. � ._ . .. ,:�r'+�. , , � _ ' .. :�l 'F,; _ .. . . � , . . . rr . . . ' i_, . . : . :�. � t'` ' ��:, �o �' • �_ .� �; ��i �=3 � ;,t ,.>,� ` ;' - .� _ �.. ... _. ............. . .. ._... ._. , , _._ . . : w�:�,�;';;�': . . . � :,�.�.�, . � . - . e��, ,--y,. • ' `••'q,��.1tY7 f;�: . . . • 1'�'Gr . ..;" . � �':� ��,:• ' i�°�:��i�'L�': , 1 OSJECTIVES AND LTMITATIONS This analysis'of snow-avalanche loads was requested by Mr. Johri Wedum of Wedum Design and Development. The proposed building . � analyzed in this zeport is located on the lot identiEied as ' `. `'• : ^'Newfoundland MS 5190," above Ute Avenue, near Aspen, Colorado. , ,, The objectives of this study are: � . • . a. Computation of design-magnittide ("S00-year") . avalanche velocities and pzessure potentials at the � - • building site; ' � ' i'.�r b. Calculation of forces on exposed building surfaces at the above-described lot; , .- ��..� � c. Description of the avalanche loads and effects of , the avalanche on the structure; and � � d. Description oE the change in avalanche hazard � ' resulting from the proposed project. � � I �". This analysis considers snow avalanch�s and snow-avalanche load"s ;'; - only. Other geoloqical 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 ` ' i are applied in design at this Iocation 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 18, 1990. Significant changes to these plans ��• ,� may invalidate the loads given in this report. . � - . ; � 2 DESIGN-AVALANCHE CFiIiRI�CTERISTICS � � The design avalanche, or event with an estimated return period of � . :G 100 years (a constant 1� annual probability), will begin on the , " steep, northeast-facing slope approximately 40o feet above the � . ' buildinq site, at an elevation of 8,500 feet. Although this � ='j slope supports a continuous conifer forest, the spacing of trees � in the forest is not sufficiently close to anchor the snowpack % prevent avalanche release. Damage to trees above and at the site � � � indicates avalanches have occurred in the past. �'� y The design avalanche was computed by application of statistical � : and dynamic models as described iri Mears (2989j- and Mears (in ? . . ' • prep.). The design-avalanche parameters used in load j computations are: velocity = 11.0 m/s (25 mph) ;' flow density = { 40o kg/m3 (25 lbs/ft3); flow depth = 1.0 m {3.3 ft). Soil and �c , vegetative debris, including tree trunks, may be entrained in the � ,I avalanche debris and compZicate loading characteristics, as , •:1 • discussed in Section 3. � . " . i `,•j '� _ __ _�------ ____._ ..____ _.__ _._... . . ..._. �#'r; . , . .. . ., ;, _ . y, ��. . ' . . . ��.%f•,� ' , �I ��7'��1 . � . � . .:t: y ��5� ` , ' ' ' ,I• . � ' , . t`�,�4. .' � .. . rc�-�'��; . �c,*t . �� y�4; . . . . . . , ' ' . ... . . �+�,,,. � . ' ' � � , S'��':�v;. . ' . �r_ a:r, �F��s,j. . � ''__yy��-c��' �iy.� �� . Ajj'� •Nky:; .�^'t '�g� �4.� ; , ..� ..��.. . � : ' •� . . �'��;��°%;: � . . i{;.1•t�t' Yi:�.. • " !`��yt:.�i.�':��:.. p� 1:w...��, � 3 A9ALANC$E LOADS AND L07aDING CHARACTERISTICS . F"��1.��"�i�. � Bui.lding surfaces exposed to avalanches and rece3ving ava2anche � loads •are shown as surfaces "A" through "Y" on F'lgurr 1. Roof surfaces "A," "B." aMd "D" receive impact ' �, s,, ' (deflection) loads as the avalanche flow direction is , changed by the roof and receive depositionaZ loads as the compressed avalanche debris is deposited on the - roof. The deflection and depositional 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. `�.Y This load may persist for the entire snow season, a period which may extend•from December through April at � :�•,� � - - this location. • ' a The "elevator wedae." surfaces �'V" and "W" are vertical surfaces that receive avalanche impact loads. As shown + �� in Figure 2, unit•loads on the e3evator wedge have been ; � . resolved in�o 3 components which are normal (�3), i .• , horizontal shear (P4), and vertical shear (PS). These ' �'� are impact loads which will increase over the entire �' 10-foot height of the wedge from zero to the maximum N specified in Figure 2 in o,2-to-0.4 seconds. Because '� they increase quickly, the strains produced by these ,f.`" 1 loads may be greater than those resulting from an ' � equivalerit static load of equal magnitude, a fact that � should be considered by the structural engineer in � ' final design. ' �� The auide walls "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 wa12s receive a uniform, horizontal impact load (P6), . � as specified. These horizontal loads are assumed to be � � j constant to the top of the guide walls which decrease � in height in the downhill direction (nozth) . These loads also increase from zero to maximum in 0.2-to-0.4 . � seconds and probably also must be treated as impact -. � iloads because they may produce strains in excess of � i those resulting from an equivalent static load. ` � (. ,:� All of the impact loads specified in this report have been �• 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 ava2anche will probably contain small rocks, tree '' trunks, and other solid material which can produce point loads � that may exceed the average loads given in this report. However, ., . ' the loading surface areas for these point loads will be small " (less than 1 ft2), therefore would not precipitate general structural failure. They may, however, produce locali2ed damage �:, , to the surface receiving impact, a fact that should be considered • � in design and maintenance. , -_ I . � '.� . . . �; i - ------: .. _ .___. ,_..... . _ '''�. . _. f.. �' ;'. , � , �t.�`r , . � . Jf':>f�' � , ;�,;� t.i'�•?�L41� � ' . .• j� ],�.� � ' I 4 L3' l a'i ,� 1 _^-� ti-.rr ,�' . ! . � `�a�:'_{ . . � .. , � - ;. `✓��'...,�-;.4�. . . �1 Ng_4"'_ . . �T'f ��'��y..:. • x,k- :;�. . . . . ii'�a �:.;. • . . . �,6 y9,�5'. . - ' . . .. . �,4:r'y^�i�r�,{y.,^ . . r . , a .:%` . '�y��.�Y: : - . . .!Y.i�y��r � ' . f .;�,�:r.:,: , :�;��R,::��a Y�� • .�� .-.Y:� .. . . 2i� ' .�'lN� _.._ ._ ... ., .. ... .. .. .'.�-...�.� l�V ti . �. . . ... .�.,,�"_'_.. . ,. -.,-.: . � .. ... . . .... . ._ ... ... . . ,— . . .f�.. �,...r ,� .. . �_ : . .. .. �...0 . ., ... ....i. . . . , � � �� .��' . • i � . . . ��.�..�.��i.��'I ' • . r,• a�!v`�._?:. . _ �r;��-''n��.y.,__�. �,_M �t��,.t.� 1$tr�14.6f X`F_i' ! '4 CIiAPiGE IN AVALF�NCHE HAZARD In general avalanche "ha2ard'� 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 trroughout the tTnited States, Canada, and Europe, " ` � will dYaw an increased number of persons into avalanche tenrain, therefore may increase the overall hazard. The persons one , . wishes to protect simply may not be in the specially-design building when the avalanche occurs. They would be exposed to . avalanches if they were above the buildinq or in the forest on . the sides of the building. However, the proposed project does �'r not plan exposed living areas or decks in the avalanche areas. '�• � ` Furthermore, this project will stop avalanches before they reach �`•.� ',°x.• the aocess road. Therefore the exposure to avalanches belo*a the " � j�•�. � building and on the road will be reduced as a result of this �. � � project. . . • 1� . Because there may be a small increase in overall avalanche hazard �t '` simply because more people may be in avalanche terrain after . � � ` ' � buildzng construction, this inbrease can be minimized if residents educate themselves about the avalanche�phenomena and + A _ heed all official avalanche warnings and advisories. Such self � r�` i:_; , education is recommended for all those who plan to live in �i�,,, avalanche terrain. � F ;.. Re ort submitfed by, � � (��A� �Yl ,� Y V�aG4 , ' . Arthur I. Mears, P.E. ' ' � ! Avalanche-control engineer _ _ . j . i � � � I . . � . _ . '`. . J ,. � ' t.;-,, ' • .. .�.,i6. � � � :::j�.` • . � . t - � � ,' ` • � ' � � ., . � ' C. 1� ,cd�ES.dt>7�.,c�A+i+ss.� - i.,�.. ( .. ..... - � 3��, �'�.. � ��5; .� � � .. ' .. . . fi[� ��''' . �w'%. , . . . V . 1',,. .��-�p� �, . .. . . .• , . C , � t `iZ1 ' . . . . , . . �;� � . "� `. . - ' � 'i�;� .. 1 1 r 'F . . � . : � � . �• � .. . � ' . . .. . � � ",�-� . . . .. . . � . k s:y=:�,`. _ .. �� ; - , . . ' . �� ;. � , . �- , �., .;: . �, �� • .ia� �._ y�x ��: . .. . .� . . .. . �.. . . . . . .� .�_ _.. . . � . .... . . - - � . .. . � ' . . . � 4�:�NI:�ii''. . r�W��}s�, :. Roof surfaces A. B, and D { ` ` �• ,t:`�y� � _ .. � . . . �t;i,:T�'y.*��i'L�., ' Pl = �00 lbs/ftz y 1 P PZ = 15� lbs�ft2 . P (Static 2oads� WW� . — �� 15ft � ' - �r;� 000 moo n , ...Np� ��'��?�<'. - ava f` n�n Surfaces V and W (elevator wedge) - . �'E ..J . � J P3 = 25D lbs�ftZ (P3, P�, and'P5 . .'. I � P = 1 0 lbs ft2 are impact loads� ! - � � �+ 3 � . �� i . \ P5 = 130 lbs�ft2 �-i ,", . '; . P3 p� - � . � P5 is vertical (upward) shear acting � `• � . on sur£aces V and W. f� I- • �'' j Guide Walls X and Y ' � ' i � L I P6 - 100 lbs�ft2 • < � �, .3 P P6 is a uniform, impact load acting ; . �'� to the u p � pper edge of the quide wa11s, � ' which are variable in height. � - � ' r. ,. ,,i ' l , I FIGURE 2. Directions and magnitudes of avalanche loads on„yarious �` � !" • . exposed building surfaces. These avalanche loads are in addition to other loads (includi�ng snow loads� usually considered in design at this ; , � - ' :a ' � location. See text for limitations and additional discussion. .� ,;i � a , " " __ . -_1 . � �s— ---.. _�___._._ r__ _. .... . ...:... ....._._.. - __ . .. ------- ��.�.s�+9&'�,. . . . � i . _.. � , � . . . , : . i.y'y_. . . . . " • . 4 . , . :�,c'79y�'� _ . � - , . ��..-;... :.�r�.;'i*T+ .r " - ' . . . .M�; st-j..... ,,. —__... G�'��l' �, � . � � . . _ � �. ? � . ��` � . - . . . .. , . - ��'. . . . , � . 1 . �'�'�1�=�i . � _ .. � . . ' . . �p�'�` . , , . �.. ��L i . . . ' . . .�P�'.4y�tr~ . ' . F.r' "��'=:ti�� sa .�.�.�^,''k.-�i�;, � . � � ' �� • . �/<: �.�-... ......_........._ _.. ._.. .. . . ..._. .. ._.. � ' . ._. . f :E�_. _ CIJF.,iII'lii :�Ef,'lll�_E TEL I'10.��J'�—l-:dl—�-�5ci HUJ- 5,'JU 11�::iJ F",Uj L � _ . . �iy,,,,�� ' . . . . Y +4��4 � . � /�TTACHMENT 7 �,;.,�;�„��:'. ARTHUK L MF.AItS, P.�., WC. Nn�ural Hauvd�Cansultantt . . 222 F�,�(:oJ�:A�.. , �>� . . G��v+af toudo BI2iU � , . • � �� 303-G41-32}4 • nugust 3, 1990 ' Mr.. Johrc Wedum . • � . Wedum Deeiyn and Development :';:r �� 61f E. Hyman Ave. Aspen, CO 81612• • �;.��•.'�« . - Ae�T Mr. Wedum: ' . ,•i , At your reyuest, Z conducted a site inspection of the lot �; identified as ��Newfoundland MS 5190" above Ute Avenue cn Auyust 2, • if � 1990. The purpose of this site fnspection was �o evaluate the +� ,i potential fnr snow avalanches at the building site and to consider F ' the feasibility of avalanche mitigation. � ! , ,, AVALANCHE-}tAZ�Rn POTENTIAL ' i.�=, Inspection oF the terrazn and veqetation at and above the buildinq , rite indicates the proposec� construction area is within range o£ r,malt avalancLes L'hat flow throuyh the trees and can impact the ��royosed bui.ldinq. Characteristic avalanche damage near the site ronsists of bent a�id defoz�med mai� 6tems of fir trees, broken L-rees, and veqetative debri.s aligned downslope. Sma11 avalanches inay reach the site at 10-year return periods, on the average. liowever, evEn during design-maqnitude ("1o0-year�'j avalanche conditions, avalanches wi.11 be small and will not posse$s great ' de�truct3ve ehergy. , ]IVALANCt{E DIZ2'IGA'I,zora �• . Ci 1�valanche mitiyation at tl�is site is feasible and can be achieved �� , througli ��direct protection" of the building. This would be • �, eiccomplished by reinforcing the uphill wall/roof system for � �ivalanche statie and dynamic loads. The magnitudes, direetiot�s, . j� an� areas affected by these loads cannot b� determined at the � i ��resent L-ime. Loading characteristics can be determined given f:inal architectural details about building size, shape, and ��• � i orientation. The building should be designed to eliminate or ' minzioize activity or� the uphill side. Reinforcement of the � � l�uilding fvr avalancfte loads would stop the aval2nohe at the uphill eide af: the buildiny and therefore wauld reduce the hazard on the ' � driveways }-�el.ow the site which are nom er.posed to nvalanches. �,' ; � S�iicer.ely, i' . . � .��i,�r•tt��. ��`1('(1.� ' Artliur I. Meax•s, Y.F.. ' �r� - P,v�lanche-cotttrol enyineer • � �p J J - f. �,� ...�.. _ y__.._ . .....,_._. . .,_.., .._::.._. __ _ _ _ . , � , • '-:' �a ,�; • " ' ;�;�,z<� � ' . !. . ::,.,:.-�::.� �. :F> i.3:;�''.y - ' " „��;�•.�� ' , i• -�r. Fj . . .. �� 'c��` . Z�,.�,y.f� - , ��#i.��_�� . . . �`�;�� ' ,'';:?,��iF'��S'+ � , . � ; . . ��'�. F ..��i� . , ' ��5� � ,f�Y�P :��`t�^�.� . . ' 1 �y i..i}. ;V"J.t,O�'l��' . �w��, ' Y, � ..��qT� � ;S'L'�T . ,s Ayi; .:u.. �� . w ) .• ��-i�� ' . . '-, .... . ....... ...�..,�. . ..� . . . ..... . ... .. . . ' ....._....,. • � �. _1��'4 ,._ . __ ._.. _ — . 4,;,t'�� .::�� 4TTACHf�ENT -8 ��r��t,,, � : � . , tdGU , �$' : . � 6 i�.:r; � G,.ti�S , i�;;. • ARTHUR I.MEARS, P.E., INC. � .Naw.al Hssards C«uuluna 222 Fmt Gothic Ave. ' Gwmiw�.Color.do 81230 ' ; � 303-6413236 . � %� � � . , - Navember 14, 1990 , ' Mr. John Wedum � Wedum Design and Development � �.�.�� . 616 E. I�yman Ave. �`•' �� Aspen, CO 81612 � ' - >i'�,�"�'� �' . Dear Mr. Wedum: - This letter responds to your request for additional clarification of the ' oa the sed 'NexfouncLland � •`�' ' avalanche ha.zard on the road�drivexay appr ching pz'opo �. , t�ss 519o" building site above Ute Avenue. As discussed in my previous reports p`,� (� ' st and September, i99o)� a sma71 potential avalanche hazard does exist � �•� o. �ie road. ;" I feel the increase in potential avalanche hazard on the approach road and i�;�,, drivexay trill be sma11 enough to disregard in the land-planning and approval "F +� - process for these reasons: a. The driveway xill not be exposed to avalanches because it will be ' protected by the building; • b. The road xill be exposed to small ava.lanches and slides xhich will ' � . flox at small velocities and volumes through the trees, hoxever, the ! resulting hazaxd will depend on avalanche £requency and total exposure time on the road; consequently the ha.zard is small. Because the avalanche hazaxd is sma11 on the road, particularly when compa.red � wlth the avalanche risk xe normally accept on many mountain highKays, I do not %, ; £eel structural avalanche mitigation over the road is warranted. Furthermore, '� � this avalanche hazard is not large enougti, in my opinion, to prohibit construction , , on the site, �� ,I � . Please conta.ct me if you have additional questions. 1 Sincerely, • , G��.�.v�� . .. Arthur I. Mears, P.E. , Avalanche-control engineer , � : �., � !�i� s . ' • i�' ; '- . r s�g I � MauWmtny •Aa+lanchu •Am6�rcheContmlF�nyiMCnnr ' (��s... . � �.i. � .. � . I (`,., � i . � .• . . _ � ._.—___'_ ____. _�—_'_. .._ ._...___.__..' _._..__.... , .. .._.. __ . . .._.._"_.__. � � . ' . . .. � . . • , � n h' ��T!�"GV,y. . .. � . � : �r'' - 4 ' � " � . � . . - . � . __� ��. y . . � � .. .. ! .�, . ��- ' . , . ; . .. .. +��„k'- � .k. :�� , ! '. .�..�ti r'• . � . � . �� ,, .:�". r �a+:;t;;t;4 � . . . �� , � . � .�..�,T.-. 4�� :�.�.... ..•. .....n...��-. .. . . . . . . .... . , ��7��' . . � : . ATTACHM�ENT q �;,�Y,,:;��- . . . . . " • � SEP 2 8 i�JO ��'�".°�; ,. . . i',,��,:�',3,.;. DESIGN STRUC:IURES, (NC. � � ---- . ,�,..,.,w,,,w��,;,,,,�„ � " ' William H.Neaell,P.E , � ' Prnidenl • . � a., . . 25 September 1990 • - Wedwn Design Development �� 616 E. Hyman •��r . , Suite 102 Aspen, Colorado 81611 i ''�';��"' , �.; Attn: Randy iiedum ' Re: Gordon Miller '� Building Envelope . . `} . • • � 1 J Gentlemen: � i ;{ � ,: � '' We have reviewed the proposed house to be located on the �� i=� F . , Newfoundland Parcel, Aspen, Colorado. During our review and '' '. design of structural framing we reviewed the reguirements . for soil cond�tions and avalanche end debris flow against the buiZding. We have desiqned concrete foundation/retaining walls to resist the lateraZ forces imposed by the slope of the soil + against the building aad the avalanche and debris flow i forces. We have provided drawings showing the required ' ' reinforcement of the proposed walls. We have also desiqned ' � the roof of the house to resist a 300 psf live load as ' required for avalanche. � e � We feel that the proposed buil�ing is capzble of being �r , � constructed, and that it will withstand the imposed loads - � noted above. � . , � , Plesse contact us if you have any questions or coa�+nents. I i� . • I . Sincerely, � • � DESIGN STRUCTU ES, INC. " ``\``"`O�anuuumiwni � � ��,�� QPp�RfG/sT,,, C v ' I William H. New 1,�P EP `v 3�`�pM H.iV�F�l��O� � ;; •.�i� ��`: � °. , � � k': ��: 156 1 r�` � �13S � . President �� . 7 ��',�•• •� �"� �'�F^`a_.r,p �,.. '�: 'Gli�� '.'' �p`� `\`�a . (i nnumumu��a�� 1h9111AM H.PlEV'IELL s� . i . . ;� • 14G0 ticvcnleenth Strcc� • Suile 200 • Denver, Cnlorado�602U? • (30I1 623-�927 • FAX (703) 623-ft554 ;y' . { F �.... .-.�_"c ��.:.....,. .,...._... �..�..:....;....I . ..�. .. .. . .. . . . . . � . �� , . ��; .� �<h..>�; . ' ' ;w. ..::�.�?Y��' - . . � . , • $i< -'wi�tn , ' � . __� ��1��-' ~ . . . , .. '��y�� - . • . 7.rfi�U�b. . . . ��:�=�. �.`i�R-V . . , . ; . . . . . ,• .'''A�.'`e . . Q��'[�.� . . 6.S�Y ..''�..�itd,'" . ' � C','��y., . . .�N"�T.�:r,i,:. . /'�a: �� . 1� t '`ti✓�i. ��,:: �r� . ��tt"�� ;,;. �.. , .. .. . ' i . '`2%:r...,,., '� SCHMUESEq GORDON MEYEA INQ ' P•O.BO%Z')rj�J ' , . �:,j;.��!,"..- , . Aspen,Colorado 81612• ��'�F ra ' S4� 2 Q ia� (303)925�&727 �: `ti ' CONSU[T/NG EHCtNEERS 6 SU/tVEYORS 4�'� t'�"" September 25, ,9� . ATTACHMENT �A �, � Mr. Aandy Wedum � " 616 East Hyman Avenue, Suite 102 " � AeDen, Co. Bt61t , flPs: Gordon Miller Aesidence Drainase Report � Dear AanQy;,� � ' !' . Thia 2etter is in follow-up to�your request for a drainage report Y�,.�� • for the Gordon Miller Property, also known ae tne Newfoundland M:3. • 5�90 Mining Claim, ofF af Ute Avenue in Aepen. Th1s report Se ba.sed • ' on our aiacusaion of September 19, 1990, Lhe echematic builaing � plana which you proviQea to me at that time, a site vieit on September 24, 1990 anQ the review of a drainage plan for the Hoag � � Subdivialon, Lot 3, locateQ Just to the west of.this bu11d1ng eite. � ' It ia my understanding that thia drainage report Ss being requested � 1 in order to verify that off-site drainage�will not imDact the � - � proposed atructure and�that drainage passing througri trie building . f. � aite can De Qirected and controilea in an appropriate manner. • �?;, y d;: . ' Hasea pTedominantlY on my field inaDection�of SeptembeP 24, �g90, I , °I . do not anticipate that off-site drainage repreeents a significant hazard to the propoeed building envelope. During my site inepection ; I noted that there are no on-site gullles which woula appear to i direct a significant etoTm flow into the building area. The area ie generally well vegetatea inclUding numerous large fir trees and gives no eviQence of even aeaeonal Qrainage�impacta. In adQltion, � ` I as noted in NSCY Lampirls's letter to you of March 21, 194�, there _ ` exlats two large chutee, oIIe on either side of the bulldin8 site, r,i ' which would tend to contaln the moTe eignificant sttow811de and � ; rockfall eventa. As a reault, draina8e which may impact the Miller ! .Parcel will generallY tena to be eIIeet £low from the areas immediately above the site. The storm arainage plan prepareQ for ,_� the Hoag Subdivioion, Lot 3, by Tim Beck of HigII Country • ,,� En8lneering, proviQea several applicable conditlone for a aite nearlY identical to the Miller Property. Comparable calculations For upslope drainage area, soil tyDe, and run-off coefficienta \�� indicate that drainage Smpacting the Miller Aesldence shoula be in � ..� y�� the range of 0.7 of a cublc foot per second (cfs) in a 100 year - storm event. Because the upslope area is weii vegetated and °��; topography would not encourage a concentrated flow lmpacting the • ; aite, a debris flow event is highly unllKely. For purDOSea of deeign, however, I would be Snclined to utillze a debris flow , `_.! Dulking factor of 5o% resulting in a total 10o year etorm flow of " ' � 1.05 cfs. Even wittl these consePVative assumpLione, a t.05 Cfs f2ow ,.a doea not represent a signiflcant conCern. `� ::� • � - :- , � y I-?�� 1512 Grand Avenue,Suite 212�G(enwood Springs,Coiorado 81fi01 •(303j 945-1004 j; :I _ _ : a ._.. _ . .___ _ _ _ _ _ : 'R�=::_'� . +.4'�F..h,;: . . , � � , }'..,�. �. 1: n�.�i:�� ' , `1':�, . -_..�.F�:`�:�: ' i . . • � •([. ��...z.r�� ' ' - ��,�� ` � I � t�,�.�,4 , _ . ��;; ��. . � . -�r�;'�;� , �""':'" , ..y„��'�'�-�¢' - � - . . � `1�,;d',�7 , , , a�'�3s" . ..'y�'�i.a s.�, •M1f��3��'Y•4Y.. � � I .i�Fti'',yx�'1Y. �.� ' .. �Y'..Xi.H .M �, _�� • � 3w+�'�' .`�.. . ( 'Tn% �:., �. �. '.11l.d ,r..� �v:.._ . "� . . .. .. ' i � ._ . .. � . _ ..x.,a . .. ;� . � .' • ' • ��4�;t�� . . wr; ?�'i.�C...j:tij:�. ,�.i;y,..�. - ii,_��i�.��:1• . , riy!•� r:s.t.�:.; september 25, 1990 Mr. AandY Nedum "' . , ,• . ` Page 2 • ' . Mitixation Recommendationa - , GenerallY sDeaking, desired mitigation of the potentlal etorm rnn- ' • :��r ,� off impacting thie site compriaes a seriea of swales that will direct the flow around the atructure to the uphill aide of the entry �. . arive. TAe Droposed ewale south of the uphill Duilding wall, as i.�'.�+''•� � shown on your plans Qeliverect to me on September 9, 19g0, la more w; . than adequate to intercept a 1 c£s flow. I would recommen4 that thia l,i • awale� be continued arountl. the structure utllizing a Lriangular aection 4 feet Wide by 1 foot deep on both siQes of the building. `�t This swale ahould be revegetateq utilizing erosion control ma.tting, " � toDsoil and seeding with native Dlant types that would not interfere !� '; wlth etorm flowa through the ewale. � . h i� �'.+ ,. M'; !; - As you T�ad noted on the buildinB plan, deslgn-will entail retaining "' walla immediately above the road. I would suggest including a catch ��`:' r : basin above the retaining walls on each side of the etructure to intercept storm flowe before they over-top the wall. Flowe would be � routed behind t�1e wall and then throngt� the bottom of the wall to r the uphlll s1Qe of the road. Along the uphlll side of the roa4 � where tIIe drivewaya wou1Q be cro8sing, I would recommend the placement oF 18�� diameter eulvert croasinge connecting to the boTrow I�� ' ditch on the uphill side of the road. These culvert sizes are �' ; significantiy larger than the flow woula require but smaller ;i� � culverte can be more easily plugged and pose a maintenance problem. '�� I . ; As a final note, the borrow ditch on the uphill side of the new �� roadway ahould be carried downslope as far as necessary to avoid '4�' : impacts to ad�acent propertiea. Where appropriate an aaditional � `j ; culvert croseing to the aouth side of Ute Avenue may be needeQ. f� . ' � I trust that ttiia report will be adequate for County review �'�' purpoeea, fee2 free to contact me if I taay provide further ' information or additional detail regarding design. ' Reepectflllly eubmitted, � �` � � SCHMUESER GORDON M$YER, INC. ��u��4191°°«lui�� r � ' � ��o�Qapp RE /s'�.,� � ... . ^``o�'� ��•�,�TF'/�; , =c��tiQ' p: , ay W. Hammond, P.E. _ . O 8��t = _ Princlpal-Aepen OFFice ;� 'e�; ��` ai ��. \�t�\ �;�4 ` . JH/,)a902Q3 ��i��i��'SjQ�NAL�F��` �(�:� ' '- +s,y ' '1 . e,,,,E � ': `r . �, , ____ __._.__ ____ ___ , _ __ _.__.____, --..__ _._ -- --_._._ � . .�� >: � � _ : ��F_� . �� ,.:.t. :�; 4�.��.c�s ` . , � �:•. .. _� .�.f�� _ . • . ��°'� . . �.��,�� , � .�.�-:::..,.��. . . �a'��,� . . �'�`�5' :.rs��.-.. , c"'��y'w'"n�,..2`�e;ti� . . ��T ,�"�t�'' � . � ai�,; ,ikn� : *./; �� . , - . . .. ..' .. _..._ . . � . . . ,.... . . .... . . ..... . . � � .. ,. ... . . ..- . ..1�.�y..:.. .�l�i.'�.:.ti.._...... .... .... .. . ... . .r .. ,��.� �-. . � � . - � � � ��'��' �, , ,:.. ,�, � •Nichoias Lam iris, Ph.D. ` �'�°�'`` � � coNSU�nr+c po��,ST � �T�'ACHME�IT I� �� ,��y�„�k;;: . 0793 VALLEY ROAD . � � � i � CAflBONOALE,COLORADO 81623 , � (J0�19fw7J600 C1�HOURS) , � . . � � . .a';. . I'larch 2:.199U � ' i,_ . . . Jahn R. 4ledum ` • bi6 East H��man, Sui.te 102 . � . Aspen CO 01611 � ' "' ''r kE: Ne��foundland CJ.zim "- ' . . �j';I"��° � . Dear Ftndya -. • w � I h�ve compl�ted my grycioyic in�:��tiga�ion {ar- ?�maases of !.� . House Ri11 1441 of ttie 6uilding site on the Newfoundland �.i - Mining Clair� on the.north-fatiny slope of Aspen Mountain !�', ' �ahove Ute Avenue as shown on the accompan;�ing map. This is 1 along tl-�e southern edy� of t!-�e To�.n of As�an <<ithin the Aspen ; 7 1/2 minute quadrangle, Fii�:in Couniy, Colorado. � �� `-: - • �i'�,_:. w There is a pr�pased driv��•iay to another homesite beyond th� F ;, propo,ed site �•�nich is on a st�ep, conifer-cover�d hillside. ' There is no 6nnch c,r .other break'i� slope near the site and� • th� only nther {e��_�ir� �f :�otc . � an �ld por�al into tne • � mouni:ainsi�e �-�hich can be seen nbout fwo hundi�ed {eet east of the builcii.r.g site :.��d b_lo.-: it. , � • I,. The qeology of the site consists of a �hin ven�er of - colluvial deposits containi.ng ar•qula� 61ocl:s of limestone, sandstone and some granitic roc'r,s. The matri:: is mostly �({ ' . � silty sand. 7his surficial deprsit h�s Lzen mapped by Hruce �� . : Rryant, :971, as a tal!!s dep.-,si= but T_ belit•ve tnat the term i jcol l;_ivi um i s morc acc��r-ate aL- t�z s 1 o�a.ti on_ Th= und�rl yi ng 4%: bedrocF; co�i?.d not- be deternined because of lacl: af nearby ' I � outcrops, !�!it is ar-obahly thc= rambrian age �3W3tCFl �uartzite t�� • I or on= o� the Loa��r F'aleuzoic c?�ovna�e ur.i�s. Because of (;� . th� steep attitud� of bedroc!; �n_ts in thi� area and the I�'f. � faul.ting present, the �edrocF: cc�ald even be ihe F'rer_ambrian � age quart� mon�cna*_e. At'.any r-ate, the aop�arance of the rocF:s a�ithin the C07.111'Ji.tlfA indi�ztes thaL the'bedroc{; is near i , surface. J `I .. SfIG4: Slir!ing and r,;ino:- �octc �a;:l is � ?ossibility en this r prop�_rty b�i'*_ thcre ar�> t�•:o ��iell �=�t:ablist�ed chut.�s nn e:Y_nr_r ?'; . sid� of t.h� site �.n�cn shnuld r.�ntai� m:,st af these haxardous . . � events. 7hese path� c�n 6e well seer and their relationshzp „ '. to the sitfa EvaluaS_�•d ir-om acr•os�. the vall�v in �he Smugyler �..'`.�� area. �.� � • 1ti�. , . ��'' i� i • . �, Y � � ►.,;p . ' . � ; `r'. _._.... _ _..... ___..- :._ __._ _ . . �.:..: ;.:. _---_ . .-- -._._._ , _.___.. _ : ,��— . r � ,:. � �. _ _ t: z 1': .� ,,:z,v . • ' >�. , . . ;��.,. ( � , - , Y}3 �� _ . . . / .. .'_� ,_�y;�' . . 4 . . , �� .. � L��4' , • �, ��' ' t�"�,..:� . . .. 4��4��. � . . ' ' . "q^..'.� . � ,�,�.f{� ;.: " : . • . • H,,, ..y.i� a � . � E F4 ."+�N_!"` , . � r� ..,�...��4,� . . ��1 �� ' �. �� •tr..::��. ��t��c.' r.?�4';i�.�? .�e.�, ' .a..:�;., _n ..r .,. . ... c_:4..:� .:.r4.''J.� _.� . . `." ... . . .. .t .., � � - Y�i�y�It�'. � , j M , 1 . . . � R�;t �.. . . . . . �' ��y y:,-.' . . .5��'��{v�. . . . . • . . . ' . , �,�i�! },.�.ti<.:. l � . y, Tfiis, in �ddition to the e::tensive tree cover above the site; • , � should minimize the potantial hazard to tfie sit�; nevertheless� the rear foundation well should be designed to • - protrude at least six feet above 'finish=d grade and be '_ without doors or windoais on this upslope-facing side of the • - home. It should be strona enouqh. to withstand forces of at : '' least 2rJfJ pounds per square foot, or the equivalent if the �.�r building can be designed to be proo-i-shaped up thP hill•, . �. � thereby reducing the' forces potentially affettinq the � ��',�'� � . iI� ` ' propased home. ' ' �' . . Slope stability is the mo_=.t imoortant consideration for this ? site because of the ste�pness. Thei�e is no indicat:on o{ i'� •long term instability on this sike. . The "pistol-butting" of (p -.some trees is probably due ta down hil? sno�k pressure ratFter !��.. khan insLZbility ef th� coll�ivium, but a factor of safety � � c � • �analysis zs definiiely in oi^d�r. 7hF nearness of bed:roc4; tn � � the sur{ace is � positive �actor because pi�esum�bly the • �'.4' �f foundation can be �:.ncnored to it. Fa��itive dra'inage around i�r'� the home a�ill be impur'tani and natural veqeta�ion not � �?,� t requirinq o-iat�rir.e is advis�d to further insure stability of ' i , tne sit'e. Obviously, soi.l=,' �ngi.neering will be an isnportan� aspect o.f i-his proj°c*.. . ' y The fa�Qti�g �r�apped ir-� �hc-_ a�e:: tias '•�een inac�ive f�r �t thousands of years with n❑ evidenc= in th� fi�ld of recent_ , i movement. The abeve-r-eferenced portal trends well east o� ; the site but subsurface maps of the area should be evaluated }�.' . � �to' be sure there is no rzar-sur-face tunnel or stope directly . - � � under the site. � u:� f • '� ( I believe that water and a�uste dispasa, systems arill be tc' � available from municipal source�. In order to prevent ihe ,l � , � possi.ble accumulation oi radon qa�., adequate sub-floor I�. ventilation should bc- provided in the construccion of the i�� `• � home. If ihere are furrtier qu;=�tions.� olease do not hesit�te ��;.'. � t❑ con±act me. , � ► . � SincerelyT I `i��d� ��`ys 1 1 .. � v v c , Ihlichol�� I_ampiris � ! " , Can��!iitir.g Geologist � ( �'��,`�.� ' t!�i: - � � '�� , , �,.!j ;; . ,s: , ___— _ __. ... _:._ ... �,..,.. ---- � ____ ��l' _. --- . _ . � :, �-yf�° � , , , .�: :t,. : . . . � . � �`�..,''� � � / - .. i' . � �"'�� , . _ :7��; ti . , ��?'; . ' ' ' •;. �';r . �� , :� ��, � �- T�.,i`i: � . f• -, f�� . �,� ;"�?� �� _ . _ My�f� , . . , _ . _ __ ___ y��`�-.�+ . � ..,. .. .Y_...°3_.. . ._..5�. .. ....,,� !'!� . .. . � . . . e. . . ..�. �- i' . . � ' ,:' � � � qza: � � � � � • ,k.r ��i1.''. � Nioholas Lam iris, Ph.D. . ''y��.'j""�;�;' P r,€"';.�:.,;:. GONSUL71N6 GEOLOGIST • " Cr-��ti��5??r��Y.�;` � ' . . 0T93 VALLEY ROAD � , , CARBONDALE,COLORAU081823 (3p3)963�96W(24 NOURS7 .... . • '.>'i.�. i, ' J P.uyust 1, iqc3�j . , >• .7ahn �. Wedum .,. Gi b East Flym2n� Sui.th J U� , ��.f � Aspen i10 81611 :}s RE: hdewfoundland �laim ��`',15��'' • . C, � . '' , r�,ar f-:-.�rfy: ` ' . � . � Tnis t.etter is intended to su�nlement mV ].etter o-f M2rch 21, ;� .�`,: t , '•••� Si'40, Thc� mi.tigation eahieh T .r-rr_omm�ndc�d previously i•iau2d . � �, - � �-;i r.n ��:-c,tA.r.'-. t.`:G ;�nT,� i n tF�e t.ir:2 i.1::�11• E y�,•:t i-.'r�.t �, deh:-i s , . , 'i044 t�:�z;�h=d ti�=., s:�+_�. Sc�aus� or ;_��r-_ +�epo��r�Fny�n��r.! t-.;-eh 4�, � . cover as ciescribed, a 2ar-n�= Event is �not probable and thQ ' �1; ';- , :'y 'chinr.�ss of ich� colluvial coti•er also min3miz�_•s that . '�� . � �,:S, p�rtii_uiai� ha�arc.. f,, � I ' I� th�: hnm� is desiyre�l as � h�ve s�igge=.ted, oi- if it is � .. .. � . :irr.rF,-.y;�-.�.on�i:L> Y.!y i�i: l�: I.Bu=': ��h..� �:r-;r5a? c��s .T. ;-?.�-;.c+ i n rc�,: pv-evious le'tter, deLris flew ha�ard is «+initaz�ed as n by- ' �i-od�_t�_:`_. Fosi'kiv� ciraine:s�ca arc�!:�d th� tia�E ;•�ili b_• fi�l!�'u' , � in this r�gard �s �ve�l. It is currently planned to conduct '�• i s�u-far._e and subsurfar_e flnt:s -c.round ti�e presant building Qnvela�e, daylighti.nr� b°lo�•� the home, with ih� out�flow • � CU�1dl:C'r2+f sa,f��ly a:vay _7}� the d:-i�,�eway �nr-rcw di.tch-. , t=1"":: '^�-:2:<k t,��;i!'d,l a -. r �":... ��r'rl, 71 �r � !?•3 C� , I . . �-.ho.�:� i_o n oL :�t �ri�xi r + o-n.:�i x r_� � a�i i iu vii:�1 .'na .] . . :,: i �, _r � _n r a!,.� � tc -� . � � il � r,;�. r;,-- � ' or �trt t� n �I�x _Iz �' t:�� ;�Ivau �c o� i� �� ct zct r tr.t. h�tt�e vra: .. a�_,l�.;i.� i.._��i•�ci�� i�av� J,>>�� ;b��. x; _..� .�at�a a, � � v�gei:atS.ot� mus•t Ge c'tr_a�-�dli�:�r fire r-erson=, tYic>:t � ,� �p��-c�nr-iai� sh^ubs can b:a repl�tEau ir. 'thc.t .�e� t� r:-hai.n t;�e _ lev�l .^,� pro'tiar_:-inr� ar-eui;n.i_ty 21i:.4.7:-CIF.CI andcyet canply c•ii.tis . . i:�? ri.r� hreal; _cnc:,�,t. - 7t':c �9.:-;;.qn Gnci -tr'�n_,ch ;�{ ',:t�F r=:�r i:a�Z of the h�a:�c is ...�i:l � t�he cr-a.`.ical fac`_ar in oretecti.on �f:-om gravity-rc'_ai.ed , `, !��z%ar�:s� �:,nd i.k cz:n h= designed �v �n �nc�i:ie_•:- to te • :acier::ua�ts, If 'c!'i:�r� aar-e furrhe:- �uic,.c:.��st plec:sc. cor•'��aCti ��s. 1, r'• i . ' a . ,i =... .._. .._ �'' :� . ,� ` � ` ; - n�'�h-"`N c i',:,; � � I Ni.chnl�s ;_an:p;.r-is � ,r! Con��u.itinc� Gealoais�: 1 � j. � • ..___._.__.�__._._.,�.; . > W�... _......_ �_.._.. ___.,_..... _ __ ------ �-._ ' "_.�._ .t.:�..,�:::.:. ' _..__ � .� ' _ -. , . � � . . - 1..' . �..-r� . • � . . . ' , . �f . � �.�r�: . . � ' . . . . . . . . 6� ' ��• � �� . . • � • � . . _ . . �'I . —�r Y( . � . .. � . `�' :'f. _. . . . . � ,. . � ,.�� T," . . . - . . ' ; . .. ' . �, • j� . �.•:�� • . . ' • ;�.. � ' t�. k;�Y: ��, � .� .,�. ,Y.;.... .��t��t'a� ,,.;1 � . w •. .. _,: - -. . .__. .__ _ .'�ii1t\F.. ,.. ts� _N.__3...—..a_,..� .in:�._.. +,u "...�. .!S.a�. ..,... ,.._3.z .. ..... ,.. . . . I • . � �°_ ��..,: . . � 3A . • • . �� .�.x'a1:'{{ �i.�:,i � Nicholas Lampiris Ph.D. . r��t'�--•• , .+t... _>•. CONSULTINGGEOLOGI5T • ' •1„�+'.��,� ��3` ' . 0793 VALLEY ROAD � • � . . CAR80NDALE,COLORADO 81613 . � (703)963-3600(2!HOURS) : ... . i;;. i, � , . . . 'r"•uCjLlSt. 1.� 199V • � .. - . . -^. Jnhn fi, l�ledum . 61L- East f-tym�n, Suitc 1U� . , ��'Y ' �,� �qspen Ci3 81G11 _ �;,"'�� fiE: h.etufoundl�nd C1aim � ? �� , ,� ,�; ,. . . � .:� �-;,ar �:�:.r;�i�: 4 -i ;::.•'v.�vC� - . This l.etter is intendPd to siapnlement my letter of Piarch 21, s.J �.,r:� "•t 194��. 7h� mitigatinn :�hich T .rcacamm�_nded previously w��uld . � � ' 9ti;'.�,�'� � �?.lsn rnter.�- t.`.. ;:o^:e i� t��e �.irilzl��l.y ev�•!;t thst a d�^5-i� � �11 . � � � t�iGl4 'Y-.^'_diCh:3e �!_f�r .=il��. cac�,-au<.s:� or cn�� '.cf;f�rrapny ._.�ic'. itr'._� i _ _ ° i:, - .�'` r_over as cie!s�ra.bed, a lar'q�% event is �not probable and tha� ' �i1; �� c:..£�, • � '�`• thinness of the colluvial C�]VBY' 3:50 minimiz��s that � ' Y pai^ticutar ha�arc. ��'t ' " T� t.he� hr.an� is desiyned Ys � h:�ve s!iggestsd, or if i.t is � i . .. .. .. . . � � � �..-. . . •' . � , .:..: . � .l.'..: :.. � . :}Yirr,:.�;3i.011ciX) V:ia:!'� =1�' ;._:.t.5° 'ih::? ��'...i:i,r'B'^S Y ..!_±;�.''• i.f1 •mJ . ' previous lctter, deLt'isyflcei ha�ardyis minimxzed as a b�-- Z prodiact. Fositi•re dr�;int:gc. Z:��.^:J thc har.ie :aill b�- h�lpru'_ � in this r�gard as well. It is currently planned to conduct � ' � s�u-far_e and subst.irfar_r floa:s around the present huildinc� - .. 1 anvelope, dayligl�ting G21o�•i i_he heme, with tha outflow s conducte:� sa{�°J.y away .�y thc- d:-ivew�xy borrroa� d;.tcli. , � . � � • ::.nr'Elh`.1 7. '3r'.�t1 ._i drr ['�l ��• . . + ;=i�-r. '.i� � ,�-� `?�ricai'.:� a . . r± � � '� ' . e: iura= i r� n ot�_ct z•tt<<in=i� n i � an tia �:Glii?1. ,-i-�a _� $ •.t�,:,,] . v ,�t_.t9.•,�n fn_} I,�_ :i� o.� : te r am.ain �� a ,l..n F.;r f .��.. • . n�-c�i.r_.ci��ri �:rtiir_h e-:i'•1 t:i-� �._Iv�ii±�_,E.n�,s in �rr�t=ct;r? t� e +�_�mv> t '- ;..,. ' � • � s�o:-: ,.�:._ aeu.ic;ic i:aza°'r.7s I tia:^a d=-�sc�-:b•�:,J: i 9 't:��• :�ar.�.is-ai v�4e'i_ati.c.i musc Ge clearr-_•d ior fii^e r-e�sor�s, then � ap,r�rc�;�r-iat�• sh�ubs can be' r�_pl.��Eeu ir. 'th:;t er-ez to r::qain the . - levet a� pr�itFCt-ier: ��-e�!ious7.}� =_tii�FordFd and yc•t conply wi.'tii �: i ; ih� rirya hre�l: =cnc:,pt. . 1 'fhe .. :yn e.nci •si-r'er�yiti '.f ';:he r_ar ��.�?.1 oi- the homr is �ati : +:he ,cr-`i':ical fac�oi� in o��eir-�c�ti.on �ft^�m gravity-r�'_ated , , !-��z•ar.�� e:nd i.t c�:n t;� dc_;iqred by an -ngisiE:e•:- to te , r�dei;t�atY. If ;:h:�re �.r-r �urthe- a,u�<..cic��s, oleesn cor•':ac'c m°. ' • i�'.• . �: . .. -.. < �.` • . , ,�„�, �,.�,, . ; � ; -- Nir_hnl�s Lam!�arit �Y � i L'onsu.lt:lnc� Fealoaisi- :� _• ,"•� �. . . "�� . _ _ _ _ __ ____ ..._..._--- ___. _�._ , .:,,�- __,... .. . v. __.��_...._.�� .f, ..�....::: . ��—�� . . . . . . , , . . . . t �. ��y��;: . . :r.. . . . . � . . . �� . _ � .;.. .. .�t .. .. . ` . . . / . , . � . ._ . E,� t'�d�1 ' ,zd•.' ._ • I :., .. � « il �� f. .. ' . � . . .. ' . ,�• � . � ' ' . � ��, � ��'Y. � �� I � • .4� � t .. .�".:t�;. ....._,.. , � . �� 'Chen�i�[orth�rn InG � . � � ATTACHiV7Ei�T :!2: A`�t:��-r.,;:; , . ��K„�.��,.��.�,,,� r s - �,ar�-'t•� '� . �ptt�,y�l; . � � : � . . �'��'M�"�. �f'1... �1,tit:,, � • SMOR�axf15�. ' �i�f�'.�.19�i',�q�-'J.� . . • ' Gknwuul5t+•!/s.fahxbblGtll . . ::�.SM��'ti;4i:yii,. - ' - 70.19�5•7<Sfl . , � ]OJ9f5�2JGJl�NU ' � + . . . . - , .t . .. April 18, 1990 � � - . Randy Wedtart ' " 616 Fast Hyman, Suite 102 . '. , . As�en 00 81611-1981 . ' � Subject: Review of Soil and Geoloyic Conditions, NewfauidI.aml Panzt, PitJcin �•.•r ' CovntY� (:olorado. . . , - .�,t j'�;;.��.- Job No. 4 319 90 ' " ;u .. � , . , ,, As recriie�teci, we are pmvidinq oam�ents *�,a*�ir,�r the soil arxl geologic :-� , cr-a'tions at the subject site based on our experience 3n the area. Q�en- N prevzously mnducteci geotecluiical studies on the adjacent Lot 3, Hoag !-.f ! teclu , ivision, for feasibiZity and #oundation design of a pYOp� residehce and i,�R , ! y�EpOrted our £itxiinqs wxier Joki No. 4 275 89. ' . ` , �.n 4 ; M_ p�:. � A residence is proposed at the laaer enci of the Newfauxltand Paz�el which will ;:�. � use a c�man driveway with Int�. 71ie h311side tetzain is consistent in the area . • • ��•'� ,A' .t a� we exgect the svhsoil ard geologic co�itions aze also simi.lar to those ; �identified on Lot 3. 4he propased building site lies within a potential ; avalanrhe zone and oouLd be inq�actEd by debris flows. ' j • ' . � � &zsed on our experience in the am-a, development on the property appeais feasible ; " ? frcm a qeotechnical viewPoint. 4heze is a risk of oonstruction irduoad slope ; instability. A design level geotec�nical study sha�ld be wr�duetec3 bo addcess . ' . ' the site stability, fowx3ation, dzainage arrl grading for the proposed build"ux7. �F - i 'ihe site should be evaluated for avalanche and debris fla✓ risk and any needed �'.:�f', ' mitigation. ;�; ; .r: � . i We are available to aonduct the subsoil study at ycur request. If you have any - ":�%- qu�tions or if we can be of furt.her assistanoe, plcase let us 1mcr,�. �.' � � �,.. .� . � � si�cern.ly, N Pq t:1;P.� �7�!-NO�IJ� IHC_ E f..�-i.. �4L � ' i ,y v�5T�9•�^y i /.�;`Fi F�.;� t j q�� ' C 15222 'f�' i � I j StOV,�W�'� :POA�� G•`�l �'?''i� �. . s�.SiONALEN :QO i�. ` I SLP/oc aTf,?i COt�� .. � ..�X. :' , . �'11 ' 1- . . ._`.��7�� ' I , � � �SI , pmemmrorurc Iiii�g�amdtam+nes ' �'.';; • ' 1 . [ � . .. . M-:..... . . . :....�... ..... .;.e.��.:._. ..i,.,. _ �.:......, �.�.. . . ��'F•' . ' -� ',. ',.,f �-�.�,;�._:� , • ;. �,1 '�� i - . , , .g:. �� .. i . � .� —�� Y � ��,y��. . . . � . .. i .. iF� � A . . . . . - . . . �� ' " . �t- ��j • ' • • ��y. N . X `Y�!y��;r'�.�' . , . . ', . 3��.:ld''�' . . . .:�".'�!"��e�. I�'Y,' ��53'�.1. . . i �� ' {� .f:;� _ � ,� �.o _ _ �,.�: . , ,. ,. , ; ., .�. , , ,. - , .. ..�.?�_ .,., , . : .:. - . . „.. , : - � : � � � ,r-� .. �� `i� ��+r��'�''�� f ' �- • � � �'.:��:�if„z��.s;.: � � � � � ATTACHMENT t3 ��F.��*�,,:s;}:.: ,. .. � . � , . . . ; . � ... • .� �b �o . p ;�': ' o I , '. IO �� '� �O �_.�..�,.�'e i � 4Y�- . N.� ' �CENTERL/NEUTEAI/ENUE �,i . ) p EDGEOFPAVEMEN7" �� :.• o f ---- EI.�V,= 79.63 � i:;,;. ;'�; ,: �N�:,'I _ _ 1 ,� .,, � m � . � .: � : I i . i � • ' F . f _ ��"1 \ t '�/� • �..i . ; g�� ° �zr � ! a�� ' � � � � �� j � ;�P� , i � Z � . � � � �, O "� - ;. I O 4� ; � r'o + ' `� , . - y ' ; � o� a . :i�:4 j � . � y� p �c O r,,' i � O A oi I . �'t @ 'j • j .� i � 4� � . �e �O i4� ' . � � N I O� � ��x �° �.'�1, O �o ' z . �� ]l1 y �, ; .. i Q �� '+ � �' ; � �� ,� � N , �: .. , � � �� 4 � ' .. j � � � ,�' • O � j � p, ;: . � � � . � 'f� '.. . ' �' 1, -� (,'c; , _ ' . . . �5:Y '�. ' • �"i� ' STA.l+00 NEW ROAD- �' • � --�-- _• .- -... . _. .. ......, i��(:., --_ __._ - . _......---- w`�; � `;, *�Y�. , ��,� ' , . ti �� . . ` ' . . '''_e :�, . . . . . .. i � r, . . - . . . . . .`�'��. � , . .. . ' . �` r�'y«;�r. - . � �?"�' � ' ' :��1� � . . . ' . . .._��Y.� � � . ' F.�,s ate. � • ,r dii'�' .Hjt1�,,�. c{' , �44.iS" .af.�...��, .. -.:.':.� ,:' � .y!!'.... ,... �.. i.i r. �f ... '.L: ...� . .� . . <. : . .. ._ . ,_ . ' y ., .. ._ _._ f / . ��;�„�ti; . ' ' � , . ', f� 1 t/ �� '#,��.{, '`,l tu��€w:.��:i�`: s � �� • . ,, � . . a . ��R� . . � �o . a . j '� ' ''r�n • ��`S�� '�'' Cp � k : . .�,�,.. ' � '�m � � i�_+�}'`.G. ' ax � ` . 1;� , .. _.? �� z� � i•f ( i �� rc,i c�i � �.1 co 0 i � i , m—i �. i a !� , � ' � / / p� � • / �` �+ .{ • l 6�x �i:f' ' �� q� ' i"'!', .p` / j � .`i i . . '�s / ,/ • • . . � . .. r-�Ap I_y.* �� ' ; - , . _ - r, - j �� ;i ��' i':/�`� 7p,� 3 � , e� i � 3 28 ; � 4' •w "•� i ' � "�' 'I i� • i _• v+ I i i� , � ' I ' , °: / '.� / �. � , i . , � : , ; ' • �� '�%� ix ' i i � � . . . . �o � � ��; i i i t . i ;.;f. . � i' � I � � i • � /rn ci � . -;1' ` � x rn ! u�, � / �� '. . `� -° �i �� :. � �. � .. � ��z �� D/p ' .. . j' , � ��, , . . , , ,. i � ,� � ' 8 �� ::�`'. � o ,� � ; i:;.... . i . o o ! � � � �(' :. I o tNi� u / % / � {4e�:� i • N � a � � i j , .,,'+, ,. ! � / . 'v � ; �� f ,/ � / � f n:i��.. �. � . �f ? i� N y ! / / � � ••t .. s . � ! . �r`.��'. �. . ...::�. ,r..:.:_......:._:_ . _ ..:.. . . . ..,. � . ...�. - . .._ .,.._..� .. ...."-- .... .. c... . . A'��?N'f. �r s,:,'..s�. . :�e'�_. .. �- + _ _ . . '� ..i:{...�..,. �. k . �.- .._�<.: .. . � ` '�..�' .. . . . . . . .,-r;. c�3�,�i �� / ��, • w � -�� .f� � �. ' . . . . '�y . � . ... ' . . _ . � . . t'��, 1 4 � . . .. . . � . . . �' . �'�g. • . . • . . . ' . .. � L�jc,� t FwF. ' . ' '`�-�.��' � . -� z ' :y�+"'."'f'i�'. . _ � � �,;�,�. . . . •C�i.4 . .. . ��. : � w� . ---�- _ � �� :�.. :. . �:�. _::. . _ . _ ` � . . ATTACHMEN�'� �9- ��;��` �:..�;,..�;;�:. !;�:. {�..,#;;,, _ 4i}:liktitt'�: , GARY AND SUSAN R�PPAPORT � � � ' 1115 UTE AVENUE ASPEN COLORADO 81611 (303) 925-4155 - . FA% (303) 920-1950 . • .. , . April 13, 1991 � - Hoarc2 ot County Commissioners �, `.� 506 East Main Aspen, CO 81611 . .?..';•:. � ,,.� • .,. RE: NEWFOUNDLAND/MILLER 1041 APPEAL � • x` � � " Dear County Commissioners, �.� . �G � our home is located on Ute Avenue just below the point where �� the access road to the Newfoundland Claim and Zaluba : property was cut in last fall. ' '� ' - �+ `�� To give you a little background, Joe Zalnba was qiven ��'t�:; pezmission to huild on Lot 3 Hoag's Subdivision. The only • way that he could access his site was to build another road - above•the existing Nordic Ski Tra,il. This road was to be . one vehicle wide. He also requested and was given the right ! to qrant an easement to the Newfoundland Claim property. . . He was supposed to grade and re-vegetate his road., as well I . as eliminate the road he had cut at the west and south end ' ' j of his property. We, as well as many others, including not ' only neighhors, but the Nordic Council, were opposed to his � :' ' + getting a permit, for many of the same reasons that the ' County P & Z rejected the above request. �� ! �:. ' Late in the fall last year, Mr. Zaluba cut a vezy rough road � above the Nordic Trail. It was not even graded, and we weze i very concezned about the damage from spring zun-off that I '� ; would flow directly over the edge onto ouz property. After i�� a lot of pressure from us, our attorney, and the city _ �� attorney, he made some corrections. He has not yet begun construction of his spec home. . _ ". Now for some comments about the above referenced appeal. We think the site is dangerous and unsuitable for a building, " and we would basically not like to see a home there. IE, however, it is approved, there are several concerns that we .. . � ;' want you to be aware of: ' l. The road is one vehicle wide. With the possibility �ti� . - of two homes being under construction during the ;:. ' , summer, how will the logistics of construction traffic (} _ ' be handled? ``1� � 6' '. � , '; i..;j ;, , � j"�E�. �'- _ r ,��:.�_.:��.,;:._. _,�< ---�--= � ..:_._ _... -_ __. _.._. ._ ..__ __ ___ ___.__._. .__. . , " �.� ,,, . . �f�+-'` !' , '.�'. ,�a ��`: . - - , � ��,�:. ' . ;' ��F1 . . , � . .. � .. . �ky'Ty,�,�, . . . ,�f ��Q�4 „� t y5" . . K.�r��' . , Y�� y , �� .�h��ti�'�.� . , ' � ' ��.R'�'a: `y y•.. � . �. ,�;,�;_ �+:,. �� _ ` � . r .. y. ,�. '. a : , .� ... .�.:;,::,�� - � ' ..`- , .. . . ,. . . . .. ._. �`4 _ .,1;:. , � '' _..� ''_ . _ . _. . ,... :.. _ _. _. _ .... . o� '-} 3�'��('� � ATTACHMEN� ��- �,��;�. j:� , . . ,��,� �,:. . if�; • �' r ��...�. ,_ri.��d yL±'ly.;. , GARY AND SUSAN RAPPAPQRT � � � 1115 UTE AVENUE ASPEN COLORADO 81611 (303) 925-4155 FAB (303) 920-1950 , • ,:;. i._ . ' • . April 13, 1991 � �: . :..: �: Board of County Commissioners �� '�'r .. 506 East Main � ' ' Aspen, CO 81611 . � ' t;.'•�••..� . RE: NEWFOUNDLAN➢/MILLER 1041 APPEAL ' • �•„' ' ' Dear County Commissioners, ' � � Our home is located on Ute Avenue just below the point where �x • . the access road to the Newfoundland Claim and Zaluba �'� : property was cut in last fall. • . M: ;!; - To give you a little background, Joe Zaluba was given ��^_'• permission to build on Lot 3 Hoag's Subdivision. The only � way that he could access his site was to build another road • i ' above�the existing Nordic Ski Trail. This road was to be. one vehicle wide. He also requested and was given the right to grant an easement to the Newfoundland Claim property. • . He was supposed to grade and re-vegetate his road,, as well � . as eliaunate the road he had cut at the west and south end ` ' of his property. We, as well as many others, including not only neighbors, but the Nordic Council, were opposed to his ` ` getting a permit, for many of the same reasons that the j �t County P & Z rejected the above request. f �� j}%. Late in the fall last year, Mr. Zaluba cut a very rough road '' ! ` {I above the Nordic Trail. It was not even graded, and we were p i�� . very concerned about the damage from spring ren-off that I� �,I�' would flow directly over the edge onto oar pro ert After !'' P Y• �: .�:� " a lot of pressure from us, our attorney, and the city , � ' � attorney, he made some corrections. He has not yet begun • construction of his spec home. � i. Now for some comments about the above referenced appeal. We � .. �'; think the site is dangerous and unsuitable for a building, ' � and we would basically not like to see a home there. If, !I ; however, it is approved, there are several concerns that we i � •. want you to be aware of: . ; } ^. 1. The road is one vehicle wide. With the possibility ;yi . of two homes being under construction during the , summer, how will the logistics of construction traffic '�� .. - be handled? - ��Y � ( �•;� ; �( r e.� .. . . . . . . _ ; , :�. ,._. , t. �.....�,..,'J.' � . .. . :'r-, . :, �G��; . ' . - ' .. u�,��,tit„ M • � , --- r';�'+r�'T'' .. ,�<f� ��i�*d��: . � . . ' � � . ��r��.�.,-,,, . . �'f'L.��]`�:: . . . . ��i-#1.F�' . . . 1�t,..:�.��, . ' '`�"�Yf�'.rl.':r ' � � ..�.Ae-`.-. . ' � �.�,.'.i�r'� . - . �.��?+��"•�4R,'. , � . , � . .¢nj�"^,�V✓' . , ja6 � . f.r��'.'��,. . . ��nao:..?��,_t: . ��.w��'� - . ��v +a+'A'� .__._.___ ��AIP-� ,__..._..... . .':M � . ��/ � . � �.�! . • ��. :2K{ rf . •3)h�. 1 �i . .. .. . -. :� .,.,c . .. .. � . _ _. . ... ...f.,, ....ir.... ..�. � . ..�. .. . .. . .. . . . . .. .. . . .. .. . . . . .... • , ~� ... ��'^r�Y, 1� � p� �f '.. . . � �;�,II,S(.7'�F:�;. . � �, y�'q�.y3'•: , ��.v��v,! � 2. Has anyone figured out how many truckloads of excavation dirt there will be, for either of these . projeots? It has to be many hundreds, maybe even i.nto •,.,'� :. the thousands, gi,ven the depth and breadth of the , , � excavationsl , ' • • 3. Is the existing road and the new road compatible ' � � • with this kind of usage? Will it hold up7 What about ;`-;; the run-off from rain storms7 Can those big excavation • ,- vehicles even navigate'on the road and the site, given :':r how steep the pitch is7 � ' ` ' �: z. _ 4. What if boulders fall out of the trucks and damage `' j`�� , ouz home which lies directZy below the road? � 5. What ahout dust control.7 • ' � .. 6. On some of the early plans we saw, there�was ; � " ', � supposed to be a green barrier between the Nordic Trail and the access road. The reality is that there is or_e � ; - road that qoes from Ute Avenue.up to about the tttiddle ; ': „ , of our home, then another road V's upward from there. i,_, i Who will moni.tor the desi.gn and construction to assure � ; :, , � aonformance with any permits that might be issued? Who • will be responsible and pay for corrections/finishing " etc. if it doesn't conform? 7. What if the project isn't finished during the course of the summer? Winter conditions could present � ,- M further jeopardies. Can limits be set on construciton time? 8. While this access road is the responsibilitp of Joe � ' i Zaluba, what if he doesn't begin construction on his } ` property and/or doesn't have the funds to finish the �� ' road according to his original agreement? Then the ij ! Newfoundland people use it, because they have an M� ' � easement, but they maintain they aren't responsible tor a finishing it or revegetating it. Maybe it will never �� • be right. Then whose responsibility is it2 � , You are the governing body on these issues, and we expect � .. ; you to require the proper amount of bonding and insurance to ��.- ' cover any damage or noncompliance. Thanks for your � .. � consideration on all of these issues. Hopefull.y, you'll , � have a chance to visi.t the site and see for yonrselves what � ; a problem this is. 3 Sincerely, �. � i i' .. j! �' � ��(��O'(0�/ �.� . b ' j `, � , 1 ?y • � � Ga a usan Rappaport �,f< i u ; , ; + . � ;1 � . , �f:: � - -cyaF,.' . _.._�..... ._...,........ . ........:: . .�..._...., � . .. ... ...�... ... . .... . . ....... ...._ ...�.... . .... . _.�......... ... ......... . ...... .�:... ......�.. �',F�af'� . � • . . ' � . • �• . � �r��: + ' , .. :I, �� , . ,*.,,��., . a,;,....,,� _ . `��'N�=�, . • �.'"::�:., ;;P�.�.':..:.ay= . . . .. - �_a��,�; - . � � . ' - � .. �lh��5: . . � �-�'�x �� . �� •:.�; - �� ,,��"t. ` ' _ _ . p•n: ._.. _ .. .. .. .�: . . :. }'.�yti'4,. �y i�rr.•,; IAWOPFiCE90F 7ti.* ,��'';yl,'"' .. �..�p�,�y�,;it{;f.:..� HERSER'f S.KLEIN C �,��,�., PROFE3510NN.CORPOMTION � ��,��:�r }!i.� � 20�NORTH MkLSTf1EET ! NEFiBEF7T6.1(LEIN 8UI7E2o� A9PEN,COI.OMDO Btel1 " _ RICHARO 3.CItOFf' ��o7)axsB7oo -.. � TELECOPIER po7�Y26a977 . �>�- YImWiMdNFlald� - • ' ' i. • October 9, I990 . ,r .. VIA HAND DEI�IVERY '�."K• `�, _!. . � Ms. Mary Lackner x� ' - . � Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office :.�� ` 130 South Galena Stzeet Aspen, Colorado 81611 ' Re: Gordon Miller 1041 Review ?� � � � , Dear Mary: �; �. ��",' � ' During the interval between the originally scheduled August ;� 14th Planning Commission (P&Z} hearing on. the above described application and the present time, we have had the opportunity to supplement certain reports concerning hazard mitigation. All of these reports have been previously provided to you by Randy Wedum or the particular referral agencies. I wanted to take this opportunity to summarize the additional information which has been , . provided to you since the time of our application. I would appreciate your providing this letter with the P&Z packet so that � the Commission members will have an o ortunit to review this :�" PP Y ' information in advance of the October 16 hearing. 'i`�: ' . ;1% 1. Avalanche Hazard. The original application contained a : j report from Nicholas Lampiris, PhD. which indicated that snow � , sliding was a possibility on the site but that because there were �;�� two well established chutes on either side of the site most of the �..;�` ' avalanche would not affect the building envelope. Dr. Lampiris :'� � recommended that although the potential hazard would be insignificant, the rear foundation wall should be designed according to certain specifications set forth in his letter. � � • ' In response to Dr. Lampiris' report and recommendations, your • office suggested that we obtain an opinion on the avalanche potential from a recognized avalanche expert. By letter of August 3, 1990, we obtained a report from Arthur Mears, P.E., a well- �� ' j recognized avalanche control engineer. Dr. Mears indicated in his report that the proposed building envelope is within the range of :' small avalanches that might flow through the trees above the site. �:`�4 �• ' , He further indicated that although small avalanches might reach the � r site at ten year return periods, even during a 100-year avalanche ;-t�,� '� � event, the avalanches would be small and would not possess great ' Y :�� i�•�i� `'� ��'. ��a^ - f �'� {� � : . t,r:./ __ .. -- . . v: - ._ ,,... . .. . ..: .- . � 3,;?;.`-r.', . � . � :. . .. _ . . . �ii..�:. � y j r" , ' '3{ �� . ''. . _�� ~ " . ' .. : . ��-v: . � . _ ' � � . ,.��' . . �s"t��, �n:,.r.,, . ::,�;;•r=:�..c'. • . . .. , ..�;.+��,:�;:iki;�. ' . �•�s , ' ' . ,; ��',-��. . . ��.a.lii' � � . � �i3�"� E.'�t+��:.:+, ;.�;�;,�r.�ti ��'�.."1�> Yr`�'�`,;�.� . ��'��p�� r•��` .:y,. �r�M .��`�s _ � � _ . ._. . . � � �,��.''� ,. ,. .. ' E`��;��• {:��_+��r+a,.z:.: J ' October 9, 1990 Page 2 _.. �::.�. `'- , destructive energy. Dr. Mears stated that mitigation was feasible . and could be achieved by reinforcing the uphill wall and roof • - system of the house. The precise specifications for these ' " reinforcing structures would not be determined until final architectural plans were prepared. He also indicated that such = reinforcement would reduce any hazard to driveways below the site :-r which are presently exposed. �� ' Although Dr. Mears' report and recommendation would be �: �'.�� sufficient for 1041 hazard review under the Pitkin County Land Use �. - Code, your office suggested that we provide the actual design for '� . the foundation walls to miti.gate this hazard as part of.the P&Z � review. In response to your request, our architect, Randy Wedum, provided a foundation design for the house which was then sent to � - Dr. Mears in order to obtain the precise engineering requirements. Dr. Mears generated a report entitled, "Snow-Avalanche Loading � % Analysis Proposed Building at Newfoundland MS5190, Ute Avenue, near j !:° "_ Aspen, Colorado," dated September, 1990. You have previously. � � ° � received a copy of this report. The report provides specifications ";, . for the roof and exterior walls of the proposed residence. Dr. Mears' report also indicated that the design of the building does not expose living areas or decks in the avalanche hazard area and that this project will stop avalanches before they reach the access road below, therefore, reducing exposure of properties and the road below the pzoject to such avalanche hazard. , �� Dr. Mears' specifications and Mr. Wedum's plans were further reviewed by a structural engineerinq firm, Design Structures, Ine., � � who provided specific design criteria for the retaining wall based � upon Dr. Mears' report and Mr. Wedum's design. Design Structures, Ina. report states that the proposed building is capable of being �� constructed and that it will withstand the imgosed loads discussed. li Design Structures also addressed the integrity of the wall as �� necessary to resist the lateral forces imposed by the slope of the ; soil against the building, the avalanche and possible debris flow t' ' � forces. Their report also provided designs for the roof to resist �;� a 300 PSF live load as recommended for the avalanche hazard. ; i. . In summary, the "low" avalanche hazard is fully mitigated by the design of the structure and as demonstrated by two seports from • . ` Ar. Lampiris, two reports from Dr. Mears and the specifications i provided by the structural engineering firm, Desiqn Structures, Inc. �,. ,.. � i � 2. Erosion, Slope Stabilitv, Drainaqe. These three issues ' � ' � are addressed in a comprehensive manner by all of our professional � ',� � consultants. They are interrelated as a result ot the steepness of � the slope's affecting the site. Dr. Lampiris reported in his March +,. '` 21, 1990 analysis attached as Exhibit 5 to our Application, that >!, •. ; ' � �L. -,� € ��F� . . .. ._--- • . ; !'� �, , �,:.:.s,: . , , ��a`�"-y';T�;r � � ' .. 7L;.:�: . *i, . � :�,r��9��&`'^;: � � , :�,��fir x,:; �:-,;n� - . ,,�.�;:..�;. ;.�..._„� �Y�...�.. •.j.'..:t.:. ' . . . . ..s.•1�is:.-�:'-,�Zx. . . . •��^y�:Rh.• � . ' � . z��-`{4r'` . �r�"�'P , P'��"1'�Y;�: � � � . l. .��r..� .. . ,�� • Y ��'. �� ..... . .�..:, .. .. "'_. .. . . ..-�....�'-... � ... .-,tF ... :I . .,...� '.� .. . .� .. ..-. . �. .. ...-. ' . .. .. . __. . ��1��tl ^y.:' 4 . . ��t�� . ' " � '`�I„•��f�`xU.. r�:h�i.T�.x.'�k..� October 9, 1990 Page 3 _.. . i . there was no indication of long term slope instability. This was • due to the nearness of bedrock to the surface as a positive factoz , , which wouZd allow the foundation to be set on the bedrock rather than on uncompacted soils. He recommended that positive drainage • . around the home be provided and that natural vegetation not _ requiring watering be used to protect against erasion. He ��'+' recommends that soils engineering be undertaken for specific design csiteria. �- i. ��''.! ' We also provided to you at Exhibit 6 of our Application, a report from Chen Northern, Inc. ("Chen"), consulting engineers, �.�� which, at their letter dated April 18, 1990, indicated that development of the property was feasible and that the subsoil conditions were similar to those found on Lot 3, Hoag Subdivisi,on, �s , which they previously analyzed in detail. A copy of the report for ! Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision was also included in aur Application. The '�� % Hoag 3 engineering analysis indicated suitable soils £or the � '�` _ construction of a residence provided adequate drainage and erosion �il.=, controls were utilized in order to prevent constructiott induced 4= slope instability. The existing geology of the site did not � present a slope instability problem. , '. We have had further drainage analysis undertaken by Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc., consulting engineers and by their letter of September 25, 1990, site speci.tic drainage recommendations were . provided after review of Mr. Wedum's building plans. The Schmueser report also utilized information from the Chen report which ,�' - analyzed the entire basin above the subject property as well as Lot � _ 3, Hoag Subdivision. Therefore, you now have complete drainage ' specifications for the site which according to the Schmueser ;1%, report, establishes that off site drainage will not impact the ,' + proposed structure and that drainage passing through the building site can be directed and con�rolled in an appropriate manner. ;�� With respect to erosion control, in addi�ion to following the �,i'I � Schmueser drainage plan recommendations, and recommendations in Dr. : Lampiris' reports, Greg Mozian, a we1Z known local landscape architect, provided a site plan and recommended plantings which � � • would ensure adequate ground cover for the disturbed areas of the !: � slope. Mr. Mozian has also provided a letter indicating, � unequivocally, that these plant materials will fully mitigate any , erosion potential. Tn addition to the foregoing, Chen has conducted a core B;�•. sampling exploratory drilling program on the site and the results ;; of their work will be available at the hearing on October 16th. It �� ' ' is not anticipated that these core samples will raveal any '(�� ' problematic subsoil conditions. t -- �,,f, f ,'; ��,j . i . �". �, �` . ,. . . . . ./.. .. ( . .. � _ . ' __,-� . : � . . ' ..�,Fi.�F:' ' - ' �,. ' \ vx .��v3' . I . ' " . � . ..r� . +��.LY�>. ... � ---� , •r�.;�iE;�.r , '�e'�'�*.�'=,; y�:: .�� • . . ��'?<�T_ • ' _R,%K�;,'��,�;ri�s . . � : "'y�,j.', . • . ' . ' :� ��y,-� 4 � ::�:Y�O .-�N._ " t•.',� i:F��q?.,.,�� i-�4 �a� �aYS�_ • '+o .d 1.�. �C.�. . s'�� ..... ��, . . � �j�;'��1�' �jF b� S };��'?'�('-,�Y�.�.��. �� . �',��k��F12�*.;'i. October 9� 1990 Page 4 � 3. Debris Flow. Dr. Lampiris supplemented his March 21, • • 1990 report with another report dated August 1, 1990 which specifically addressed debris flow, if any, which might affect the � site. He states in his letter that the previously recommended , mitigation measures for avalanche would also serve to protect the . house against any debris flow which he describes as "unlikely." ��i Dr. Lampiris states that because of the topography and tree cover of the site, a large debris flow event is not probable and the •.°r�.. thinness of the colluvial cover would alsotninimize this particular � ` �•{ hazard. He states that positive drainage around the home will also be helpful with respect to potential debris flow and that erosion ,Y�•� control plantings (similarly recommended by Greg Mozian) would be advantageous. �' ' ,• The Schmueser Gordon Meyer report of September 25, 1990, ��' concerning drainage also discusses debris flow and states that �� ;. _ there are no on-site gullies which appear to direct a significant `� '�' , storm flow into the building area. The Schmueser report fu=ther ��,,,:, states that the drainage which may impact the site would tend to be sheet flow from areas immediately above the site rather than debris 'y flow. The report indicates that "because the upslope area is well vegetated and topography would not encourage a concen�rated flow impacting the site, a debris flow event is hiqhlv unlikelv". � - Nevertheless, a debris flow factor has been included in the :, Schmueser report recommendations to be very conservative. ��'� ; 4. Wildfire. The original application on this matter ::� . . indicated that the Applicant would follow the standard cro' recommendations for minimizing wildfire hazard as set forth in �M� ' � published guidelines from the Colorado State Forest Service. At �4%. your office's request, we met with John Grieve, Assistant District �. .j Forester for the Colorado State Forest Sezvice at the site and obtained a written report from him. His report is dated October 2, ' �� • 199� and has previously been forwarded to you. Mr. Grieve does not ��.;�� require "clear cutting" around the building envelope and suggests •i � creating what he calls a "defendable space" extending 45 feet uphill behind the house and as far as feasible within the property � boundaries on either side of the house. The defendable space is • � � • created by 1) removing dead fall; 2) thinning stands of dense < �; •� brush; 3) pruning trees up to a height of 10 £eet or more; and 4) , thinning trees to provide a 10 foot separation between their crowns. „ � Mr. Grieve's report indicates that the area below the home is the most critical. In this area, he notes that the driveway up to the house and the cross country ski trail (the old road alignment) `.y� '.' below the driveway serve as fire breaks. He also indicates, based ( upon Nir. Wedum's drawings for the house, that the building itself �, - does not present any problems. His report indicates some concern � � y � ;1' , ��•.� : - "s . �� ,;i.. _ . � �— ' . 1 =�� • :_;;:=-.;�; . - • . ya �� . - ea 3��*'.� � i _� �r ,'• . �.. � .. . 9�� '�it��':s. ,`,,Y;Yr.:� - . ^�:°Y`_.��,� t_„ . . �` "q - , • _ �"rr,.-,- .. . . �a vx,�'t,yn . . . w 3j�°P � t {B''1.�4 >'�. � . ��T��1-4.. ��,��' ; x �: �< '�n; ''� . s t'+y.".ti;, , . .k,:.; � �4. t � .��:...�'" ...:'•.� ..�....,,_.;..."..::.:..... . ..�. ,.:...'-.. "','^'.:.-_ , . .. . ... . .. ._ ..._ ,..... . . � ... .,. � .� r.. .. . ....-.... rv-y... " '.-.- �::�. ' 1..:.., ...�.....� ; ��,. . .. ` e��+�s��,t,;;: . 1. C 1 i...� �� {"w"'.��'�;y!'i<�.:` � October 9, 1990 Page 5 -- , `� ' over emergency vehicle access tu=ning onto the driveway, however, ' the Fire Marshall has not expressed this as a concern and , subdivision design standards are not applicable to this project. However, the Applicant will attempt to i.mprove this situation. :`',�_ Mr. Grieve followed up his October 2 report with a letter ��r ' dated October 4, 1990, a copy of which was also forwarded to you. His October 4 letter clarifies his October 2 report to i;� �,'`" • unequivocally state that: "If the procedures (outlined in the �•� �'� ' - October 2 report) are implemented, I feel that the hazards will be ' adequately mitiqated." � ' Based upon the foregoing, the Applicant agrees to follow the r recommendations contained in Mr. Grieve's report and will be able k', " , to fully mitigate the wildfire hazard without clear cutting areas • around the parceL ' :�.� � r« . „ . . . In summary, we believe that the 1041 hazards present on the (i�i,,;,. ,� site will be completely mitigated by following the recommendations provided by our professional consultants. i 1 This letter is intended also to be made part of the record at ; the October 16, 1990 hearing on this Application. Thank you very much for your cooperation. Please call me if `, � you have any questions concerning these matters. Very truly yours, i HERBERT S. KLEIN PROFE SIONAL . i CORPORATION `� �� ; By: _ :--�_- �� . , ; Herbe,t S. Klein • a`� , `, I I \shaffran\18 � Enclosure ' ` � ' ! ' ; . � : . ;!� . �fl`,< I ��` �'? �t � ;. ; ;�; � ,.�; ��.a�� k::,;:�k�::�..,�y �>, � ...�:::;..� _. _:. .;. _:_ _ � =;; : , . 4 x\,. . . _ .. . �r. �'��f: - ' � . . . �• � . -,�F�, . ..:er�n:tr.. . . . .. . . , . . . ��! ` � / - � - ��+ �h :.. . .. . � . � � . , �� ' - .'�'tL'`�+�a: . . ' . � . 1�,,-i� � � - ' . ' . � - � , . .��x . � � . � . t,. ta�r� � - . ,��.� . . , . � s. �� ad.y�'t , ��,` _ .�� r7 '31a� ti� fIR.. , . �. t _ . �� . ... .. .t.'i: .. . ull . ... . .. ...... '.'.1_ . . .�;.(-�-' . , �+:,1r . .. .. ., , .. . . ... '� . ., ' ��I • � �A'� �r �yi r �.��ii.: ', . � V},;1-ay:�: � , '��L,"-��'�': ,(y'n�t:i;_` �qvl':hS7..� �. �' SF RF',GSz r;�.�,h`;` � . . � � � .. � titam Scr�•Icac Ilulldlne . � 2Lt 9,fith St�x.ptnm U4 - „ � , , CranJ)unctl�+�.Colotqdo NI50t �" , � �, ' 'fCiCDhone(W�l 2J8•1A25 ,>::.•. October. 4, 1990 60ARD pF C0.C011t?A'R'S PI1:KIy CU�^!TY . P�a61ic Hsario�[xhiG;ts - ' Mr. John R, Wedum � - ' 616 E. Hyma11 - Suite io2 Datr,:_�:.�.��L_____ � ;Y • ',i' � Aepen, Calorado' 81611 Subjcct:.�� E�.;t. �!o. __.__ � �r . � Aear Mr. Wodum, � St has aome to mY at�ention than T may not have mede myaelP c2ear .� with regard to the wildfire hazard mitigation procedures I -� ' outl.ined in mY last letter. I stated in mv last letter that the pracedures outliaed wi11 improve the hazardous situat�on on the � Newfoundland parcel. This could be interpreted that there Nill ' � _ still be a hazardous situation aftor the proosdures are �, '� implemented. IP the procedures are implementad, I feel that the � hazards will be adequately mitigated. ''''r. 'F :: . I hope thia clarifies my opinion of the wildfir6 haserd aituation on the Newfoundland paroel. Please contact me if you have eny questians. S�nc relv, ! i �Ik� �. ..F/_.s�i�. - . '�ohn W. Griave AssisT.ant DistriQt Forester. _ ;i • ' , , xc: Mary Lackner ; � . 1 �., ` ►' , , i , ' f . ' � i i: � �� `}; ' i - s r �. `Y _ :si :�• ,j . � ,' �;'. . __.�..__......_.,_ ......:�... ..... i n. 05. an n�:5� e�e rn� f.' . r��4 �`�'�"� �; ... ..✓'��'. _ � ; � ��, u,�`'"�t- � � . • � �'- _� �.�- , � ` . , . _ . , j• �. ...i _ , . ,��`�.r ��!.. � . .. � • � . . �^ , , "� '•.ij � � . � . . . � . . .j;;R�@`,�� . .. . . , . .. .. . n - . . . 4�,; , ��+y � � • . B� r . ti, . ��:: . i�� . av'�,�i _�,: � � . .. . . - � ...-.�. . ., ...-. . . . . . :.... . . . ,. ,�:� ,.�_t ,�:.:. __ � H: .SA. . _ • 1� � �� . , � ��_��k��;: i.S�!':, ' /1 ' . � ��__�� .. '''. ,�1�e�T, Cv�,��e �ro�`��i'o�� n u�l%r�c•G` ,:;-�. WAYNE L VANDC-MMK,FIRE MARSIIAL • , � ` �', A20 E.I10PKINS AVENUE � ' � nsrr:t�.co�.<�i�ntx3 a�ri i �sn��szsae�o .- ':k - ' . ',:r}..-� '1'O: Pinry Laclnier � , , RROPi: lJnyne Vnndemarlc `�U� � Itli: hl(I..Ler 1041 8azard Keview & Cenersl Submission `�`} ,•:- . ' Pnroel lUq 2737-183-UU-d01 ' �� .,. llA'fG: Play 1�, 19�1Q "" � �*�; :a -------------°---------------�--------------------------------- %�+ ± �'i�f• ''r :, . ' 9'his pro,i�eC is approximnL•elY 5 minutes from tlie l�ire DepnrLmenL. _a '{'hr:, sY.rucl:ur� is Ln excess oF 150 feeL• from un acr,ess rnndNa,v, therefore iL must c.omply wi Lh Secl;ion 1l).7Ol (Cl of Che 1988 Uniform fire Cnde. Please find attached n copy of said code. . CE'fl� ; . ±� �1��/,tJ.'�Lf�t'/l�� i%�f/'GSii?:.�c C cU�F.1-. y'>iJ�Y �O. ��/ �G� c,.�.r//�' I-'.�`C: �'i_� ,'''I ; . ;� . - 'i �I : �.#'� . „�: BOkRD OF C0.1;6h4"rAr►}'� �',l�. • ,•...� I ` P{Tk1N COUhTY 4 Puttic Hearin��xhivits �;`�: . ' D"etC:_ �.�`�� ' , Su6j�ct[�J�`��i , �. . Cxt1.ho. ��r �., . .. . • ; . I '• . � � � �>ti��''- . � , , _ ; _ �;` ; i ; ,+ . ;. � �: . 4 � ��,.';� i . I �.. � �1 . 1 ,� y [ �> _� �Ul._�'4Yfi'k2r�'�"•""�'SSF�'"#IY"Nri'1 i��'.!..` .K'. . . . . . � � 6� . ♦T t .� ��y f-% . , ... 9 , � - r,��. , . . . . . . _ . � � �'�'.w r� ` , . • ..; . , N�" . . � � . . . . . ' . ��, i ' `fS� �iM1 . ' ' . . , ' . � ' � . � .. . . . '4' ' .- . . . I .j��w_24', � ;e i . •r��. �.iV'.....� ,�,,,,..�+� �,-:-��."� � ._-_-_--. s� T M.;..�. ]t,��j � �_.. �;;• � h � � �}< <=; � � U:}:`:.!�<•�q,;:��-.i. ,-��.<, .. . .. . . _.-- � o + k,:r.. . - ��.:�,... ..,.. o . ,r,y�g,4:c.. � ,��y u o . P`�do�3�dn y� ' .o , .. wwn" , C� ?OU Y.Y.'w d C � )' . G 6 P C b uU � Y u��N , C�.� P M �a q�.,'�ry�O�,G � 0 p � , ' "c ,°�'nt� y .�°Nm U]Q °��'ntC o� <�ryj+ _ ^o M F co� n� p�� ,p >.r�iv �Q i.�.Y;rJ'u� F p . e3 Q o � o �o n .°�•.d w� a�3 � a ��v tyN y o�cp'3� �. �'; O� O. u N U � a u O�l � , o 'a°� u G n� �� o � NuK x s 0+� 9�e�no Na x - , N' H u 1 . i1 p 7 G O N y�p � � a 4�D� W�1F+ - o�b G:'+F�.M � ' .. N y� � �•N CT wY�. b �•y V V'y� V(A . '�`nbY�..�.� 'n� • .,�j-••� O x3��Y. G u�i<.�. E V'� �C.yn A AUAE� Q(n ,tl�Q�4QU �C • q�V y nF P Oti �N �^ �"' O p��'T Zy� '� G�� P- . � o°.g � Mu� � oo °a� '� Buc'�o = W4-�� '�'y�a„�o °� ':,,J Y�� '. L .�F'" �a .� U wa e� "S� i �,r u a.� �� o� � �:�e w,� o Qjq4 ��a a�t,�:o •u a . �x� u ti':..° o E �a a E E o L' •N p'a,5 a ii.7 a b `;.>.�. . �f a� Fj P `�N� Y Kd C A .:{ O;1 e! n 7 d�N D� �N N7� � Ry�M V p`d �7 Q, ,d �i T tf y U N ' p >.0 '^ G n G F �y "}�a V M� L� Q W 0' tu.p O�u G'? � G �.`�o � �"�� uS'°� ti �;3�� QJ'4 "�"�o��r '�'�% '� : p�:r a �F G °.>>�$ Q�w f.�i ° D'g�>` ZZ o4`},:y y3 ."d� r .e ,`i;� e °,d a o �.. n,a ra 3 yc. S°y'°o H O t7 Ra'O a,a p `�� tI� �u w �... .e c t n�� ,�� '•3u,c p,�!: Ql;, t:o��L' u,uo �y �.� ! .�.C'N a ° .�'"y CL° FC ="°„ �'�•mdC U �•'ho° r ' �.�o .,y°-u p.G� �9`t�' o Y'�..d", �> ��a o'a'S '�Y .:�d�g n"� �^ ,'��'�. . c�; ;��° ��> �`;�° �,°. ��'�°� �a ;�?a�b�a� �� Y,�;�'�.> . A gP r�g � � o � o r a „� �.� . ^ n�� Sa� day '�� a�iao':t a °$ ��.'`"tt�'..N.� Z M " ,a�o="d ; . . �r�'°�° �eJ ,� @o 'OODUi �� x .°..�o e w'^4pw3"� _ F�"ow�wu,c3u F• ' no�wy �� °� dy"°� � � oa. V a a�...o Hs efj� u o+ � .a.p�J O �� ?�� N�� N�G�� Yy�M o . E '� :�Gu� ,��GO ¢ a ��p .J � W wY+m�e a��•3.a "'° : ;�, , m �NS�," � ` ' � _.. � ^ .,� � � ,� , _. , . � , , . ! .a� , �..�i .e��° N s �i;. � >'Y AD 4�u 6�w"�{G '� � � .. ' �` ) ^Vu�.:T O �G^��w y 4�i{�!��i.� �jg� . _ " o .�aS�a7��ca �N�� .� �y�y�up ��qg+7�� N.N �.� . p eO�j�� V # �U� �V~f� ,`}P V F �n�"E�L C 4 . y D`O �6 4y N N� � �J F py Ur N e p i: ' `�`- ��v S�y�~t3� ��o p x a ��p ��p � �w�'3 t3��'D W� 2.�G .'�.� . � p T N °�� >. �p p U�U 3 O+ y� . >• g P�'nr+ y'� � . . � � w�� aqoo�� 5�� ' q�.g oe2� � � Y� �3'd��'�� wa . WE C�G��,p`�^IA .�3��AM� ��y� V,d�a A p uY! �� 4r � � �y •\ • tC �o�N,�'°'e�° u� r.�y�`p:��a .'u�'�� u%'p =� upO' 'ri� s� ° LJ � °'ys�u��U y�'a3.�yo�+,� d,� �C��.+ ��a'u°cYd �'.�a��° a �.`; y„ . . - u, pL'��pd�Y'd�4� ��5��-'3 �� n$�p,�, v,�,� t'�^�y,� ��j°�� . - z o��Ys o7'°�0� w L'�d �a �en�„ � °�o '�G �`�o ��9 Q,�,d� �NYi- ... , - � � �u t�.�b� o� w a 9�� !� � y�� S .r �o.=i3 ou�5 �f E 4 . �o�J. a a �V'8 L°'�" w "LSQ;�h �;.a� � tl�' �w�Q q y O�.p',� j1j � '�'�� `��y� >.sPa ��g r a° o oug� w.au��y�.. 4N �!S. a�U.$ wo�6 n�� ,'4�'o.� GC�,a' f' a E�a<f u bOU�.�.u V T .� ��n„'oRO.7o8� w.`a' O.i�$o Z�� oup,8.°y�a�y�Q ��5�°'Qj� G� .: . � �•=+.�io�yyu�a 1o1c�o �p�5 ��D�VI �g 4�ga cgoO�,d ° '� ,,�'� ' � ..w�.�.°.;� �}' ' ��a �3p°�r�uy� �o.3 'a° .�c�o.a o�,j '�v'c°a''a t3�' c.�'d ( �,. � �ya�Gp�� ° N �I�t 8.9+ao � VC ' Cd t.i4'i�� `'� U w�'.'3�a,� H"� D��E .°i� I� � . �. °Wpu��...�n > ,n�n G , � �o !y2�.�� ay��9�v�Xuo{�<ic��.aoy m�i t - �G H T w O q N P.� W�� K 4�O 4�+ �p u�i lr"� +'�eR�.G u P p V�`y S ~ '>^•�N U�G C M� .5.�t. O ��`~ �p'O NO'r�Y� UTH'� G O' � �U�; w� � �^�.� ! �u.�� -°�Omu'u �a °9�Y�'�j TN°� p�g��vi�. a '��3 °�Br:tn�-G y^�f'" � . ,td°��w,�°3�$9 rYSb.�a�"Y F1s�.y�°� c-.'_^.o'" 8xe v�.MO° y�� 'h � �i� a ..�� o�..N,`�,¢`~';,°II�� E•y�nw ��-� � a �n � uq E-:.'� $<au�_.-ao m �n 1 � �°p�ar39 ym3 � 7�0�� r.c o°�.��m1s�.�E',.'tl+E�jyg.�.•� �S�.au T` °' • ' , �',cy„�oy�"�Y`� .�'.'S"��yo.a3911c�8r� °ao"�.��.�~��dn� u�° i . • •,l�. . � �, N �nFO �j�y��UO� r= pGp b63�y�� U�� „ .�.. u y > `.1 UL Yp p d 4��r��,Q N � ,',',�,�i a �'��.a�'�a�°��uoF+�� '• . . . `.; ' � o a e�,`�,°,�'�� X �,,.�.�,,,,,,,'"".-"�^"""'..�� .. , � � , , , ` , , . `�„�,�ha : . `;:�;��tV, .r . . �.'�.•,:. .�4 x�'��n�,��i�' , . J�_ ^.Y�r:E�`-2:4i� - � � r��,��„ 7�,�.'R:, . - ' . y�C i . r'-''r.;^%;�'-� .�3:��r;. . e.n•?, ..#�i;i;'.t:`.:., ..,t.��y;A�4;, ��l"s'H '��Y��{':��Y • . �,l.�RY•"..e: N J.�j,�'. , x�� Y�i. ',� •;:.� ,.. _,.,�.,.;. Y �+i'.t .�. ...... . .. . . .. ... ... . ..- .r .. . . . . .. . . . . . ,. .. � . � � � . .... .. ,_. .. � i.. . . .....,. . ... . .. k�.-St�.�t. �.. ��;� .. . ..�d;.��.,��. - Bokn�or-co.cor.,;n��c°s �:-;�t„�;.;' r E�rrt:«�cu�i,v,�, :;��y=;.��,: I-'Ji:�l6'FIF�fI[IG I�:�:+�ii"s �.t��....�-��:�l..._._ - s�r;:: ._.m��i__ a „ >�:.�� . r>:;�.rs�. �--_-- � � � RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. 1041 Hazard Review Conditions: .,.r ._ 1) Prior to issuance of a buildinq permit the Applicant shall . '. provide a site plan which meets approval of the Board of j •;.,.� : , County Commissioners, County Engineer and Planning Office. ! �'.� ;. 2) Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall meet the following requirements identified by the Fire � District: � 4 a. The building must be outfitted with an automatic fire ° sprinkler system to keep the roadway width down to 12- � � � feet. y ' b. Adequate space must be provided for Fire District � "��:. apparatus to maneuver at the residence, as determined by � the Fire District. c. The Applicant shall provide a fire hydrant pursuant to . the specifications of the Fire District and the Aspen Water Department. �', ; 3) The following wildfire mitigation measures shall be adhered to by the applicant: • a. All marked, dead and suppressed trees shall be removed from within the 45 foot thinning line identified by the 1 State Forest Service and referenced in the November 12, ;_ 1990 letter. ' i � b. The Applicant shall utilize non-combustible roof �.' � materials and may not provide exposed decks. � - c. The area within 10-feet of the home shall be revegetated � with low growing forbs or grasses and kept free of tall � brush or trees. � . i � d. The trees that are to be left standing, shall be pruned to a height of 10-feet. � e. Tall brush shall be removed or broken up into non- •, i contiguous groups. i • i ` . B. General Submission Conditions: - �1�` ' -{ ;j; - f' � �•. �,�.' . . .. +' ' ' ; ,.,_.s _�,.e. . . '. . , �-#� _ , _ . • . ,�'r` �t �,�� : . v�.�� - . ; _�, �'r,r�a�' ` . =- . . . � ,Y��. �� .. � � . . . . . ,,�.E.,�a� . . . ��,� ' � � . . ; .�. ' . . ,��;:;;�X. � , . , �.. ECb�;�. - . ..,..c . . � ��s'�i`noy:, '. . • _.��-'��;; , ,Y� .. --�:�a �� , • ,.'�.�� ... a��; .�,, �� _'^ �f.x ,.� . YXX� ::' .,... , _,. � ;�, ,.. , . ._ , , . , - . , _.. _ , �� ,: y .; . ��',1�,[�.`�,I v: . ' ' �,� k�� '��•:., .� �` '�r,;.,: 1:!`�+��..J�''�+t: y.,-�ir�;�1=?:,'t!z 4) The applicant shall address the following concerns identified by the Environmental Health Department: a. The Applicant shall receive a letter of commitment from "" : the Aspen Water Department for service to the property, ' �. , . prior to building permit issuance. ' , b. The Applicant shall receive a letter of commitment from •• the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District For service _ to the property, prior to building permit issuance. � - c. The proposed residence is allowed one fireplace and one � -'' certified woodstove. i.: r....•��. d. During construction the Applicant shall prevent mud and dirt carry-out onto roads caused by vehicle traffic from - the site. .;1 , e. The Applicant sha11 contact the Environmental Health �f , Department should mine waste, waste rock or mine dumps s be encountered during excavation of the property. � � �� ., R� :.:. 5) The Applicant shall either have finally addressed or indicate � how the following concerns identified by the County Engineer ''`�"`� i shall be addressed prior to the issuance of a building permit. � `• ' a. The recommendations of Dr. Lampiris's March 21, 1990 letter, Chen-Northern's letter of April 18, 1990, Arthur Mears August 2, 1990 letter, Schmueser Gordon Meyer i September 25, 1990 letter and Design Structures October � 15, 1990 letter shall be followed with respect to +. � building design, placement and mitigation techniques. b. The Applicant shall submit a landscape and mitigation , � plan foz the driveway and intersection, developed and p,. stamped by a professional engineer, as a part of the ` Access Permit process, prior to improvement of the access 'j road. � . ' 1. The driveway needs to approach Ute Avenue in a �; � perpendicular fashion for the first 20-feet. � � � 2. The driveway shall not exceed a slope greater than i 2g far the first 20-feet as measured from Ute � ` i Avenue. ; ,. i ' 3. The applicant shall submit an excavation and , i reworking plan for the driveway, prior to the issuance of an access permit. �." � � 4. A ski trail shall be provided and be separated from h. the driveway. i�,' c. Prior to General Submission review by the Board of County ;� � " � ��: i . � t. *,.�,a�. � �, f - . t � . - , �h:�. �.��. , ' �, J�Hta '�i5 - . . � ' . �� M i n'��): � ' ' . . ��y� .. . . . � .. .. , .• 1.{�y,.7i:4i. ' �s"��' . � . '.�r14;�� . ' � ; .. . l�1'.ie.:�. r � � � � . +.i :.�'�r��,'. . ::d��f�:�� :-��,r,�@c..fi�ds{;: ' �+�Y' �.'. �� . �' {,i�. :.t.. .� ;�:� �. ,�:_:_.- . ..._._.... ... ,. ._.. � : ,. ..,.:� . :. . . _ .__... _.. . , ... .. - ��`,:��'; �, �- ..��:� �.,.��,t, », . „�X.J�' ... ��,M:��'y�f��4�t�. � Commissioners, an engineering report shall be submitted and reviewed by the County Engineer. This report shall calculate, through accepted models and formulas, the existing run-off characteristics of the.site prior to • � development and the anticipated run-off characteristics , of the site after development. The study should conclude ' � ' by recommending and sizing retention structures to ' accommodate for the difference between the quantities - calculated. Please see Section 5-I01 of the Land Use Code for a more specific description of the drainage � policies and submission requirements. • :'r . d. Prior to General Submission review by the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant shall submit a revegetation ;��'�'��_�iT'' ' plan to the satisfaction of the County Engineer. The Applicant shall secure bonding to provide landscaping �... ' suitable to the County, prior to signature of 1041 and � ' General Submission approvals. ' _j 6) Prior to issuance of a building permit the Applicant shall j; . receive a setback variance from the Board ot Adjustment. + �� ' . 7) Prior to building permit issuance the applicant shall submit �;;�A, " a letter from the City of Aspen Water Department indicating i•��t• that there is adequate water available to service the site. '� > 8) Prior to issuance of a building permit the Applicant shall obtain a letter from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District stating that this site can and will be serviced by the District. 9) The Applicant shall provide fiberglass or styrofoam insulation for wall and thermopane insulated glass in order to provide for maximum energy conservation. i 10) No expansion of the approved square footage of the structure i shall be permitted in the future. j , � li) The applicant shall submit an Improvements Agreement on the � ' property for access, revegetation, erosion, and drainage ' issues associated with the proposed development. This i � Improvements Agreement shall be accepted by the County 1;' � Attorney and the financial amount and type of work shall be � accepted by the Planning Director and the County Engineer. I'. � � j 12) All material representations made by the P_pplicant in the �' � � application and public meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. �� f�� io4l.appeal.miller '�'; �� . � � ' i - ., �• . �j f , .�.. ,..:�.� .�_:;: ::�..._.. .. ,._.. t K� : ... , - , � .�+`�"�` , � � ' , � � . �: . . � ., � �•��.h�: �'t.'..:'�{�l . , . . t�'��, ` ' � . ��.- , . ��tt!�r y f� ._ � � � . F��'Q��'��, . 1��„�.�. . . :._xnp.�%'r��_ � , . . ' - • a . 'r7:-: � ;��'x.F;" '��;��' �!` k's,.:�'� ' ' � ��k%�.a+,'. . :^r..b� '.:.[�- . � ��,� ��p . .✓, ��.