HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.eh.264308400014 (2000)(Main House)Document Layout
(From Most Recent to Oldest Permit)
Permit
Application
Log Sheet/Notes & Photos
Communications
As -built Design
Engineer Design
Soil Information
Water Permit & Information
Second System on property
Third System etc.
Floor Plans
Please See Building and Land Use Approvals Files for additional information. .
Pitkunty Environmental Health Depart
Pe or an Individual Sewage Disposal m
130 S. Galena St., Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone 970-920-5070 / FAX 970-920-5074
Permit # 00049 Parcel ID # 2643-084-00-014
Type of permit New( x) Repair( ) Addition to House( )
Name of Owner Dr. Robert Hunter
Street Address 201 Pitkin Iron Rd.
Property legal description
Size of lot • 3.22 acres Total square footage of the house 3000 sq ft
Water source Private well
# of bedrooms in house 4 # of offices, lofts 8 similar sized rooms in house
Caretaker unit N/a Total square footage of the caretaker unit
# of bedrooms in caretaker unit # of offices, lofts 8 similar sized rooms in caretaker unit
Design ,.for What # rooms (list) 4 bedrooms
Permit information
Designed by High Country Engineering (Deric Walter)
Mailing Address 923 Cooper Ave, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Perc rate 30 Profile hole depth 9 ft Depth to groundwater or bedrock Greater than 9 ft
Septic tank capacity 2000 gallons Absorption area 1074 sq ft
Comments
Septic permit approved per compliance with the engineer design and specifications dated July 26, 2000. Any
changes must be approved by this department and the design engineer prior to them being made.
Minimum horizontal distances between components of the system and physical features shall conform to the Pitkin
County ISDS regulations. A setback of 132 ft must be maintained from the absorption field to the well. A minimum
setback of 5 feet must be maintained from the house to the septic tank.
The system design calls for a 2000 gallon tank followed by a dosing chamber. The absorption field is in a bed
configuration with 7 rows of 10 Infiltrator units for a total of 70 chambers. The sewer line will need to be encased
within 50 feet of the well location and within 10 feet from the water line. The alarm system must be audible and
visible, located within the house and on a circuit separate from the pump. Clean -outs should NOT be installed every
100 feet on the pressurized line to the field. This department does not endorse any brand of products.
The engineer must do a final inspection of the installation and submit an as -built letter to this department. This
department must also be called for an inspection with a minimum of 48 hours advanced notice.
Permit approved by: 'CL t_.(R hL Date: 1 27
Plans and specifications of the proposed individual sewage disposal system have been reviewed and are considered
satisfactory. Permission is hereby granted to the owner or the agent to perform the work indicated in accordance with the Pitkin
County ISDS Regulation in effect at the time of issue. This permit becomes invalid 6 months from the date that the permit was
issued unless system construction has commenced or an extension has been approved in writing by the Department.
As -built drawings must be included with this permit before the final approval will be issued.
I Ins Iler:
I
ASPEAKIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DLOARTMENT
APPLICATION FOR INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM
130 S. Galena St., Aspen Colorado 81611
gaol Phone 970-920-5070/Fax 970-920-5074
0�
Name of OWNER .& . prb f/c%✓fr.r—
Owner's Mailing Address Pa. sVX ggM /-A--
Business
yBusiness Phone: 2,,57 09 2,,7 Home Phone: 5::1011 F�/y
Primary Contact Person (all communication regarding this permit will go through this person)
Name er- x O -j
Company 4`i0,/ F6IL6 s/
Contact Mailing Address 2,3Y V/ct-e// A/-/ 4+'�/E
Business Phone : Z 6 Cell Phone : Fax: —Vd^W—
Parcel ID # (available from assessor's office
at 920.5160 or at www.aspon.com/assessorn
Street address of property 2,o /
z 6 4 3 - o 8-)/ - oo -o / +
Legal Description: Lot 5EP /'�"drecr Filing
Size of lot: LZ acres. Type of proposed structure:
8/65'4
,Subdivision
Size of bldg. envelope: 3 da o -0 -�—
Total square feet of house # of bedrooms in house
# of offices, lofts & similar sized rooms in house 6
Caretaker Unit: Attached (/ �/f Detached ( A///<%) Total area(sq. ft.) of caretaker unit
# of
# of offices. lofts and similar size rooms of caretaker unit
Permit is for: New Home (--J Repair due to failure ( ) Remodel/Addition ( ) Emergency use ( )
Water: Private well (✓) Spring ( ) Stream ( ) Community/Public Water System ( )
If community system: Name of system
The fee for a ISDS application is $330 for a permit that takes 6 hours or less for the department to approve. If approval takes
longer than 6 hours, a rate of $55 per hour will be charged. The maximum fee is $1000. The basic fee of $330 is due at the time
of application. The remainder, if any, will be due in two stages: first, at the time of issuance of the ISDS permit; second, before
final approval of the ISDS permit.
Application for an individual sewage disposal system is hereby submitted. I hereby certify that the above information is true and
accurate and that I have provided true and accurate information on locations of all existing and proposed wells, contour
intervals, buildings, property lines, ditches, slopes, waterlines, springs, suction or irrigation lines, drinking water cisterns, drain
tiles, irrigation ditches, lakes, water courses, streams, floodplains, dry gulches, and existing septic systems. I hereby certify
that any such features not shown on attached site map are not present. Issuance of the permit does not imply the approval of
any other permit required for construction pursuant to Pitkin County codes. No construction may be undertaken until all
approvals and permits have been obtained.
The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department, Pitkin County and employees of these agencies will be held harmless
should the individual sewage disposal system fail or malfunction. The permit to construct is issued on information submitted by
the applicant or his/her representatives. The owner assumes full responsibility in case of failure of the system.
Signature of applicant /i! Date
Received by —T�Q Receipt # 9 Date 3 oZl D�
G:\eh\isds\isdsapp.doc
•spen / Pitkin Environmental Health Depart
Contact Log Sheet
me:
elID#: Address:
Date Person Spoken To Comments / Action to be Taken Initials Time
2�
PNii PJI.L -
ee
_ Q
5
�Gf/ •
EJG:%FEP/NG
OCT 1 2000
October 9, 2000
ASPEN/PMQN
Carla Block
Pitkin County Environmental Health
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81601
Re: Hunter ISDS - Government Lot 10
HCE File Number 99004.31
Dear Carla:
On September 12, 2000 and October 9, 2000, High Country Engineering personnel observed the
construction of the absorption field and tank arrangements for the Hunter Residence, Government
Lot 10, in Pitkin County, Colorado. Seventy standard Infiltrator units with hanging pipe
distribution, five inspection wells, one 2000` concrete septic tank (labeled "2000 gallon', but
measured closer to 2500 -gallons) and one 1000 -gallon concrete dosing tank had been installed, but
no backfilling had taken place. The only components missing were the dosing tank
pump/appurtenances and the effluent main. Due to the excessive size of the cobbles excavated,
HCE has advised the contractor to import pit run material for backfilling. Other than that, the
installation of the septic system was in conformance with the intent of the design. If you have any
questions. or need additional information, please contact us.
Sincerely.
HIGH COUNTRY
Roger D. Neal, P.E.
Project Manager
RDN/djw
INC.
A
29975 ¢
� S/ONP—
923 Cooper Ave=, t4 Inverness Drive Fast Sufse B-144
Glerrvood Springs, CO 81601 Englewood, CO 80112
Telephone (970) 945-8676 - Fax (410) 945-2555 Telephone (303) 925-OSU - Fax (303) 925-0537
4b
Fax
40
To: Deric Walter
From:
Carla Block, Environmental Health
Fax: 945-2555
Pages:
3
Phone:
Date:
04/04/00
Re: Hunter septic
CC:
❑ Urgent 0 For Review
❑ Please Comment
0 Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle
Several items of concern must be addressed before I can issue this permit.
1) Setback from well must be 132 feet. If this distance is not met, a letter can be written
stating there will be no contamination of the well water because of the location of the
drywell.
2) What is the depth from the ground to the inlet pipe? This distance will determine how
deep the profile hole will need to be.
3) A profile hole needs to be dug. The depth must be the number from above + 12 ft + 4 ft.
If the hole is dug in the SAME location as the proposed drywell, 4 feet of fill will need to
be brought in with a perc of approx 15mpi to replace the soil that was disturbed soil.
4) Revised map of soil test location. (Talked to Jordy at HP 4/4/00)
5) Dimensions of drywell. Perimeter to equal 99 feet.
6) Water line proposed route. Setback to drywell must be met (25 ft) or water line must be
encased.
RV FERGUSON WOODWORK. 970 92107 P. e4
115111fE UN WNOWIRM 8.
232 PickW Pin Ian,
9ncwm SO 8:654
( WV/UYl/2367
Fax 970 927 2567
August 1, 2000
To Whom 11 May Concern:
This letter is in regards to a minor amendment to a 1041 Hazard Review.
The applicant, Dr. Robert Hunter, requests use of the upper portion of his land (see
High Country Engineering septic design of 7/24/2000) an elevation of approximately
940 feet, to be used for septic absorption purposes only. This area has been
deemed by H.P. Geotech, soils engineers, as the only suitable location for an
absorption field, as all testing in the current building envelope has produced
percolation rates unsuitable for a four-bedroom residential home. The pipe that
would run up the hillside to the absorbtion field will run in the same utility easetnent
as power and water. The effluent pipe will be double -sleeved.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Robin Ferguson
ROBIN FERGUSON WOODWORKING, INC.
General Contractor for Dr. Hunter
P11
0 0
Wolff.Suzanne, 12:00 PM 08/24/2000 -0600, Hunter Minor Ammendment
To: Wolff.Suzanne
From: Carla Block <carlab@ci.aspen.co.us>
Subject: Hunter Minor Ammendment
Cc:
Bcc:
Attached:
Suzanne,
In regards to the 1041 Hazard Review Minor Amendment to the Hunter Property, I agree that
using the upper portion of the land is the only adequate place for the leachfield for the four
bedroom home. When soil testing was conducted in the areas near the house, bedrock was
encountered at 13 feet and the >i efC at 9 ft was 180 minutes per inch, so the proposed dry
was not a suitable option. There is not enough room within the building envelope to
accommodate both a four bedroom house and a conventional septic system.
I have issued a permit # 00049 for the Hunter Property. This design will require pumping the
effluent to an area of the property above the proposed house near the road. The piping for both
the water and sewer line will be in the same utility easement, so the sewer line will be encased.
Thanks,
Carla
Printed for Carla Block <carlab@ci.aspen.co.us> 1
PITKIN COUNTY
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
October 20, 2000
Dr. Robert Hunter
P. O. Box 8878
Aspen, CO 81612
RE: Invoice
Dear Dr. Hunter;
Enclosed please find an invoice for extra time taken by The Pitkin County Environmental Health
Department staff to review your Individual Sewage Disposal System (ISDS).
A total of 14 hours was spent on your system, 6 of those hours were covered by your initial
permit fee of $330.00. The remaining 8 hours are billable to you at $55.00 per hour.
In order to receive Final Approval of your ISDS we must receive payment for the invoiced
amount.
Please remit payment within 30 days.
Thank you,
Maddy menthal
Gdisds/huntecdoc
lU
130 SomH GALENA STREET - AgPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 - PHONE 970.920.5070 - FAx 970.920.5074
www.wpengov.com/ehnew/county/index.html
PrnkE m RrtrHM Pry
W
Carla Block, 09:55 AM 10/10/2000 -0600, Rob Hunter ISDS
To: Carla Block <carlab@ci.aspen.co.us>
From: Tom Dunlop <tomd@ci.aspen.co.us>
Subject: Rob Hunter ISDS
Cc:
Bcc:
Attached:
Carla,
I inspected Rob Hunter's isds on Friday 10/6/00 at 4:30pm. The tanks had been set, but the
risers were not in place over the clean -outs. All piping into the 2 tanks was properly installed.
There were "T"s on inlets and outlets on the first 2,000 gallon thank and also on the dosing tank (I
think it was a 1,000 gal tank). The leach field installed on the upper terrace by the highway was
installed as per the engineer design and our permit. The connecting pressure line between the
dosing tank and the leach field was not installed at the time of my visit.
called Rick Kelly of Aspen Digger at 379-5559 at 4:50pm on the 6th to let him know he could
cover the tanks and field. He said he was in a dispute with CDOT over an illegal access being
made off Hwy 82 to get to the field. So until he can resolve this issue, he can't access the field to
cover it. He can cover the tanks so they will have access to the house, since the tanks will be
under part of the driveway. He did install a traffic lid over the dosing chamber. I asked him to
install an access port on both ends of the dosing tank to provide entry for pumping and
maintenance.
The permit calls for the leach field to be 132 feet from the well. I paced it off to be approximately
180 feet away..
asked Rick to call us to look at the pressure line installation to make sure either the water or
pressure sewer line is encased as per the regs and the permit. Rick had called Deric Walter from
High Country to inspect the system on Friday the 6th, but Deric could not make it out until the 10th
or later. I told Rick we would not final the permit until: 1) we looked at the connection between the
dosing tank and field, and 2) we got the as -built letter from Deric.
I met Rob Hunter on site by coincidence during my inspection. I explained to him what I saw and
that things looked good.
I will print this email and put it with the permit for future reference and put the permit back in the
alpha file. Thank you, TSD
Printed for Tom Dunlop <tomd@ci.aspen.co.us> 1
/a
W
0
L0 3DVd
I
DI1d3S b 6
171
0
1
a
0L09E96 LE:90 L00L/8L/Z0
w
m
N
A
�
h
9 �
a O
O
Q
T
M/
S
m j
fte
M
K
C.
icy
Q
m
mz
N ®
iQ
W
N
N
10
O
N
�
0
1
a
0L09E96 LE:90 L00L/8L/Z0
�3
Lance Clarke, 01:24 PM 07/10000 -0600, Re: Hunter ISDS Page 1 of 1
46
i
X -Sender: lancec@comdev
X -Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 13:24:15 -0600
To: Tom Dunlop <tomd@ci.aspen.co.us>
From: Lance Clarke <lancec@ci.aspen.co.us>
Subject: Re: Hunter ISDS
Cc: Suzannew@ci.aspen.co.us, carlab@ci.aspen.co.us
No problem -I wanted to talk to Suzanne W. as she did the review. Bottom line -we have no
authority to approve disturbance of a continuous 30% slope. That is a very constrained
building envelope and was limited initially in approval to 3,000 sq.ft.
At 10:27 AM 7/10/00 -0600, you wrote:
Lance,
I know we put you in an awkward position this morning with the issue of an ISDS for Rob
Hunter. I am sorry for that. It was one of those difficult moments we face from time to time,
and it seemed like the best thing to do was to come talk to you while we were still all
together. Our dept has made no commitments to the owner other than discussing options.
You are certainly free to make the call you need to make on this one. The owner, builder
and engineer are all aware of the discussion the BOCC had when this lot was approved a
Few months ago.
se call me or Carla with your decision. Thank you, TSD
nas S. Dunlop, Director
m/Pitkin Environmental Health Dept.
S. Galena St.
;n, CO 81611
920-5073 desk
920-5074 fax
Printed for Tom Dunlop <tomd@ci.aspen.co.us>
C-aplq
3.30 7// 2,,490 •7
G! P1" o-� '0 e -U 5
777aT ti was cTAoT��* 7
i,51
1/3
07/12/2000
JLL-24-2000 09:44 H—P GEOTECH P.02/04
0 •
c�tecn
July 21, 2000
Dr. Robert Hunter
Hepworth•Powlak Geotechnical, Inc.
5020 County Road 154
Glenwood springs, Colorado 81601
Phone: 970-945.7988
Fax: 970-9454454
hpgwQhpgeotech.com
100 East Main Street, Suite 101
Aspen, Colorado 81611 Job No. 199 600
Subject: Additional Percolation Testing, Proposed Septic Disposal System, 201
Pitkin Iron Road, Pitkin County, Colorado.
Dear Dr. Hunter:
As requested, a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. conducted
additional percolation testing at the subject site to evaluate the feasibility of an
infiltration septic disposal system. The results of our work are presented in this report.
The work was done in general accordance with our agreement for professional services
to you, dated June 20. 2000. We previously conducted a subsoil study and percolation
test for the proposed residcrze and presented our findings in a report dated August 25,
1999, Job No. 199 600.
rX" profile pit and three shallow backhoe pits were excavated south and uphill of the
residence at the locations shown on Fig. 1.. Percolation test holes were hand dug in the
bottom of the backhoe pits. The test holes were soaked one day prior to testing- The
soils exposed in the percolation holes are similar to those exposed in the profile pit and
consist of about 1/2 foot of topsoil overlying dense slightly silty sandy gravel with
cobbles and boulders to the profile pit depth of 8 feet. Groundwater was not observed
in the profile pit and the soils were slightly moist.
Percolation tests were performed on July 20, 2000 by a representative of Hepworth-
Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. The percolation test results are presented on Table I. The
percolation test results indicate an infiltration rate of between 5 and 30 minutes per
inch. The fast rate of test hole P-3 could be due to disturbance in the coarse gravel
subsoils. An infiltration rate of about 30 minutes per inch should be used in the design.
Based on the subsurface conditions observed and the percolation test results, the tested
area should be suitable for a conventional infiltration septic disposal system.
If there are any questions or if we may be of further assistance, please let us know.
Sincerely,
HEPWORTir
Jordy Z. Ad\amso
Rev. by: DEH
JZA/ksm
attachmcnts
cc: High Country
0
Engineering - Attn: Deric Walter
RECEIVED
JUI 2 4 2000
ASPEN/PITKIN
E"RONMENTA HEALTH
JLL-24-2000
09:44 H -P GEOTECH
P.03iO4
LEGENG;
■ PITS EXCAVATED FOR PREVIOUS STUDIES.
APPROXIMATE
SCALE PERCOLATION TEST HOLE EXCAVATED
FOR
1 50'
PREVIOUS STUDIES.
❑ PIT EXCAVATED FOR CURRENT STUDY.
PERCOLATION TEST HOLE EXCAVATED
FOR
CURRENT STUDY.
P2,n�OP3
P 1� PROFILE PIT 3
1
/"fib
1
0
940
940
—^ ---�
930
930
-�'"^
920
920
_ter
��
f�
910
l
`�
900
910 -!
f-
r1
890
��
900
PIT 2
PIT 1
880
BUILDING
89CpROFILE 4
_ 4P
•
ENVELOPE
r ` �OPOSED
2
880 *r
RESIDENCE _ --- —
P3'
—
870--- '� _ _ 1 �"_.
870
860 --- ��� '
860
850 - — BUILDING
ENVELOPE
850
840
840
PROPERTY
BOUNDARY-.,.,,
I199 600 I HE WOEC NICAL, AK I LOCATION OF PERCOLATION TEST HOLESI Fig 1
JUL-24-2000 09:45 H—P [EOTECH P.04iO4
t
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE I
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. 199 600
HOLE NO.
HOLE DEPTH
(INCHES)
LENGTH OF
INTERVAL
(MIN)
WATER DEPTH
AT START OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES)
WATER DEPTH
AT END OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES)
DROP IN
WATER
LEVEL
(INCHES
AVERAGE
PERCOLATION
RATE
(MIN.IINCH)
P-1
59
15
water added
water added
7
6
2
30
7
5 3:
1 Y.
5%
4%
1
5 %
51/4
Y.
5 %
4 4/.
A
4 Y.
4 Y.
'h
P-2
"
54
15
water added
8
1 6
2
23
6
4
2
8 A
7
5 Y4
1 R
5 '/2
4 h
1
414
4
Y,
4
3 Y,
Y,
P•3
60
15
water added
water added
water added
water added
6
0
6
5
6 '/,
0
6 Y.
6
2
4
6
3
3
7
4
3
4
1
3
Note: Percolation test holes were hand dug in the backhoe pits and soaked on July 19, 2000.
Percolation tests were conducted on July 20, 2000. The average percolation rates were
based on the last three readings of each test.
(G
TOTAL P.04
P. 02/04
• Hepporth-Pawlak Ce tochnicd, Inc.
GiUtech 5020 County Road
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Phone: 970949-79888
Far.: 970-054454
July 7, 2000 hpgeo@hpg.eotech com
Dr. Robert Hunter
100 East Main Street, Suite 101
Aspen, Colorado 81611 Job No. 199 600
Subject: Percolation Testing, Proposed Septic Drywell System, 201 Pitkin Iron
Road, Pitkin County, Colorado.
Dear Mr. Hunter:
As requested by Robin Ferguson, a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical,
Inc. conducted percolation testing at the subject site to evaluate the feasibility of a septic
drywell system. The results of our work are presented in this report. The work was
done in general accordance with our agreement for professional services to you, dated
June 20, 2000. We previously conducted a subsoil study and percolation test for the
proposed residence and presented our findings in a report dated August 25, 1999, Job
No. 199 600.
A deep profile pit had been excavated prior to our arrival at the location shown on Fig.
1. Percolation test holes were hand dug at two levels within the profile pit and soaked
one day prior to our testing. The soils exposed in the profile pit consisted of about 3
feet of topsoil overlying slightly silty sandy gravel with cobbles and boulders to a depth
of 12 feet where hard sandstone bedrock was encountered. The gravel subsoils had
calcareous cementation from 7 to 12 feet. Groundwater was not observed in the profile
pit and the soils were slightly moist to moist.
The percolation tests were performed on June 27, 2000 by a representative of Hepworth-
Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. The test results indicate an infiltration rate of 30 minutes per
inch for the upper gravels and 180 minutes per inch for the calcareous gravels. Based on
the variable rates, we recommend that a civil engineer be engaged to design the septic
disposal system. The system will likely need to be in the upper gravel soils.
If there are any questions or if we may be of further assistance, please let us know.
Sincerely,
WLAK
Jordy Z. AdamsFn, Jr , PJ 2970p pI'
Rev. by: SLP ! / �'•� I?17
JZA/ksm Cir ,.7I t dos?�`
attachments ss/ONAL ENG\
cc: High Country Engineerin is Walter
JUL-07-2000 16:42 �P GEOTECH •
l
LEGENG;
■ PIT EXCAVATED FOR PREVIDUS STUDY.
APPROXIMATE SCALE
I' = 50' ❑ PIT EXCAVATED FOR CURRENT STUDY.
900
PIT
'r
890-- ❑PIT 2 I
r �1 PROPOSED oIT 1
880 — ` 1 RESIDENCE — — — — J
870r
860
850 ` f
840
199 600I HE WORTH KALA INC. I LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY PITS Fig. 1
�PWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICO INC.
TABLE I
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. 199 600
HOLE NO.
HOLE DEPTH
(INCHES)
LENGTH OF
INTERVAL
(MIN)
WATER DEPTH
AT START OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES)
WATER DEPTH
AT END OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES)
DROP IN
WATER
LEVEL
(INCHES)
AVERAGE
PERCOLATION
RATE
(MIN.IINCH)
P-1
60
15
water added
10
6 %.
3'A
30
6 %
5 '/t
1 Y.
5 Ye
4 %
i'.
61/4
5
5%
5 '/.
4%
'A
P•2
105
15
10
9'/.
IA
9 '/x
9 X.
0
0
9 '/a
9 %i
110
91A
1 9 /.
i %.
Note: Percolation test holes were hand dug at two different levels in a backhoe pit and soaked
on June 26, 2000. Percolation tests were conducted on June 27, 2000. The average
percolation rate were based on the last three readings of each test.
TOTAL P.04
ASPEN/PITKIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
ISDS DESIGN REQUIREMENTS -DEPARTMENT USE ONLY
• Name Rob Hunter
House Size 3,500 (75 gpd, 100 gpd, or 130 gpd) 100
#of Bedrooms, Similar Rooms accessible to baths in Main Residence 5
# of Bedrooms, similar rooms w/ access to bath in ATTACHED caretaker
If of Bedrooms & Similar Rooms w/ access to baths in DETTACHED caretaker
Average Daily Waste Flow 750 # bedrooms X 2 people/br X 75
State Review Required? no
Perc Rate 20 (T) 3 equals # of Perc Holes Required
•
Design Flo w (Q) = # bedrooms X 2 people/bedroom X gpd X 1.75
Q= 1750
Minimum tank capacity 2188 gallons
Absorption Area (A= Q/5 X SORT)
A = 1565 sq. ft. of absorption area required
101 infiltrator units without reduction
A maximum 30% reduction is allowed for use of deep gravel or gravelless chambered system.
1096 sq.ft. with reduction
71 infiltrator units with reduction
AREA NEEDED FOR STANDARD ABSORPTION TRENCHES
522 1565 Total sq ft /3 =lineal ft of trench needed
9 522 lineal ft/assumed trench length of 60ft = # of 60ft trenches needed
8 # trenches minus 1 = rows of 6ft wide undisturbed soil between trenches
27 9 times 3 =total width of of 60" long field needed for just the trenches
48 8 times 6' = total width of 60' long field needed just for undisturbed soil
75 width of trench +width of undisturbed soil = total width needed
75 by 60 ft is the area needed for a standard absorption field in a trench configuration with no
reductions taken and ASSUMING AN AVERAGE PERCOLATION RATE OF 20
SLOWER PERCOLATING SOILS WOULD REQUIRE MORE AREA.
SETBACK FROM WELL SETBACK FROM POND, STREAM OR IRRIGATION DITCH
# of feet = 160 # of feet = 110
SETBACK FROM DRY GULCH
# of feet = 85
Remember: 8 feet of additional distance for each 100 gallons/day of design flow over 1,000 gallons/day
should be added unless an RPE can verify that it is not necessary to prevent contamination.
1/20/99
U Printed on Recycled Paper
ftech
August 25, 1999
Dr. Robert Hunter
100 East Main Street, Suite 101
Aspen, Colorado 81611
• Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc.
5020 Countv Road 154
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Phone: 970-945-7988
Fax: 970-945-8454
hpgeo@hpgeotech.com
Job No. 199 600
Subject: Subsoil Study for Foundation Design and Percolation 'fest, Proposed
Residence, Pitkin Iron, Pitkin County, Colorado.
Dear Dr. Hunter:
As requested, Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. performed a subsoil study and
percolation test for foundation and septic disposal designs at the subject site. The study
was conducted in accordance with our agreement for geotechnical engineering services
to you dated August 3, 1999. The data obtained and our recommendations based on the
proposed construction and subsurface conditions encountered are presented in this
report.
Proposed Construction: Design plans were conceptual at the time of this study. The
proposed residence will likely be a two story wood frame structure over a basement
level. Ground floors are proposed to be slab -on -grade. Cut depths are expected to
range between about 4 and 10 feet. Foundation loadings for this type of construction
are assumed to be relatively light and typical of the assumed type of construction. The
septic disposal system is proposed to be located to the west of the building area.
If building conditions or foundation loadings are significantly different from those
described above, we should be notified to re-evaluate the recommendations presented in
this report.
Site Conditions: The site was vacant at the time of our field work. A driveway had
been constructed into the building area. The ground surface in the building area is
relatively flat with a moderately steep slope down to the northeast at grades up to about
28%. The terrain becomes steeper down to the Roaring Fork River to the northeast and
up to Highway 82 to the southwest at grades of about 60%. There is about 8 feet of
elevation difference in the proposed building location. The lot is vegetated with some
evergreen trees, brush, scruboak, grass and weeds.
Q?1
Dr. Robert Hunter
August 25, 1999
Page 2
Subsurface Conditions: The subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by
excavating two exploratory pits in the building area and Ore profile pit in the septic
jisposal area at the approximate locations shown on Fig. 1. The logs of the pits are
presented on Fig. 2. The subsoils encountered, below about 1 to 21/2 feet of topsoil,
consist of relatively dense slightly silty sandy gravel with cobbles and boulders. Results
of gradation analyses performed on samples of the gravels (minus 5 inch fraction)
obtained from the site are presented on Fig. 3. No free water was observed in the pits
at the time of excavation and the soils were slightly moist.
Foundation Recommendations: Considering the subsoil conditions encountered in the
exploratory pits and the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend spread
footings placed on the undisturbed natural gravels designed for an allowable soil bearing
pressure of 3,000 psf for support of the proposed residence. Footings should be a
minimum width of 16 inches for continuous walls and 2 feet for columns. Loose and
disturbed soils encountered at the foundation bearing level within the excavation should
be moistened and compacted or removed and the footing bearing level extended down to
the undisturbed natural gravels. Exterior footings should be provided with adequate
cover above their bearing elevations for frost protection. Placement of footings at least
42 inches below the exterior grade is typically used in this area. Continuous foundation
walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span local anomalies such as by assuming
an unsupported length of at least 10 feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining
structures should be designed to resist a lateral earth pressure based on an equivalent
fluid unit weight of at least 45 pcf for the on-site gravels, excluding oversized rock, as
backfill.
Floor Slabs: The natural on-site gravels are suitable to support lightly loaded slab -on -
grade construction. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, floor slabs
should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints which
allow unrestrained vertical movement. Floor slab control joints should be used to
reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. The requirements for joint spacing and slal-
as H -P Ge.
Dr. Robert Hunter
August 25, 1999
Page 3
reinforcement should be established by the designer based on experience and the
intended slab use. A minimum 4 inch layer of free -draining gravel should be placed
beneath basement level slabs to facilitate drainage. This material should consist of
minus 2 inch aggregate with less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and less than 2%
passing the No. 200 sieve.
All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95% of
maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required fill
can consist of the on-site gravels devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock.
Underdrain System: Although free water was not encountered during our exploration,
it has been our experience in the area that local perched groundwater can develop
during times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring
runoff can create a perched condition. We recommend below -grade construction, such
as retaining walls and basement areas, be protected from wetting and hydrostatic
pressure buildup by an underdrain system.
The drains should consist of drainpipe placed in the bottom of the wall backfill
surrounded above the invert level with free -draining granular material. The drain
should be placed at each level of excavation and at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent
finish grade and sloped at a minimum 1 % to a suitable gravity outlet. Free -draining
granular material used in the underdrain system should contain less than 2% passing the
No. 200 sieve, less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and have a maximum size of
2 inches. The drain gravel backfill should be at least 11/2 feet deep.
Site Grading: The risk of construction -induced slope instability at the site appears low
provided the building is located as planned and cut and fill depths are limited.
Construction on the very steep slopes above and below the house site should be
avoided. We assume the cut depths for the basement level will not exceed one level,
about 10 feet. Fills should be limited to about 8 to 10 feet deep, especially at the
H -P GEOTECH
0 0
Dr. Robert Hunter
August 25, 1999
Page 4
downhill side of the residence where the slope steepens. Embankment fills should be
compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density near optimum
moisture content. Prior to fill placement, the subgrade should be carefully prepared by
removing all vegetation and topsoil and compacting to 95% standard Proctor density.
The fill should be benched into the portions of the hillside exceeding 20% grade.
Permanent unretained cut and fill slopes should be graded at 2 horizontal to 1 vertical or
flatter and protected against erosion by revegetation or other means. The risk of slope
instability will be increased if seepage is encountered in cuts and flatter slopes may be
necessary. If seepage is encountered in permanent cuts, an investigation should be
conducted to determine if the seepage will adversely affect the cut stability. This office
should review site grading plans for the project prior to construction.
Surface Drainage: The following drainage precautions should be observed during
construction and maintained at all times after the residence has been completed:
1) Inundation of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be
avoided during construction.
2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and
compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density in
pavement and slab areas and to at least 90% of the maximum standard
Proctor density in landscape areas.
3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be
sloped to drain away from the foundation in all directions. We
recommend a minimum slope of 12 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved
areas and a minimum slope of 3 inches in the first 10 feet in pavement
and walkway areas.
4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of
all backfill.
H -P GEOTECH
IM
0 0
Dr. Robert Hunter
August 25, 1999
Page 5
Percolation Testing: Percolation tests were mon August 4, 1999 to evaluate
the feasibility of an infiltration septic disposal system at the site. One prof le j)it and
f it percolation holes were dug at the locations shown on Fig. 1. The test holes
(nominal 12 inch diameter by 12 inch deep) were hand dug at the bottom of shallow
backhoe pits and were soaked with water one day prior to testing. The soils exposed in
the percolation holes are similar to those exposed in the Profile Pit shown on Fig. 2 and
consist of about 1 foot of topsoil overlying relatively dense slightly silty sandy gravel
with cobbles and boulders. The percolation test results are presented in Table 1. The
percolation test results indicate an infiltration rate between 12 and'70 minutes per inch
with an average of 16 minutes per inch. Based on the subsurface conditions
encountered and the percolationtst results, the tested area should be suitable for a
conventional infiltration septic disposal system. The steep slope below the leach field
area should be considered in the deg*.
Limitations: This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted
geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no
warranty either expressed or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted
in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory pits excavated at the
locations indicated on Fig. 1, the proposed type of construction and our experience in
the area. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface
conditions identified at the exploratory pits and variations in the subsurface conditions
may not become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions encountered
during construction appear different from those described in this report, we should be
notified at once so re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design purposes.
We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As
the project evolves, we should provide continued consultation and field services during
construction to review and monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to
verify that the recommendations have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design
H -P GEOTECH
Dr. Robert Hunter
August 25, 1999
Page 6
changes may require additional analysis or modifications to the recommendations
presented herein. We recommend on-site observation of excavations and foundation
bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the geotechnical
engineer.
If you have any questions or if we may be of further assistance, please let us know.
Sincerely,
WORTH - PAWLAK
—)O1,�
Jo dy WORTH
Adamson, Jr., P.
Reviewed By:
Daniel E.
JZA/sd/rso
attachments
INC.
cc: High County Engineering - Attn: Deric Walter
Pat McAllister, Attorney
0
H -P Gec
APPROXIMATE SCALE
1" = 50'
940
930
920
�P
l
910
900
8 / PR -4
i IT1f
X80 PROPOSED P�P1T-
2
�� RESIDENCE J
P-1
87Q-
860
850
840
199 600I HEPWORTH - PAWLAK I LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY PITS
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Q4
940
930
920
910
900
890
880
BUILDING
ENVELOPE
870
860
- 850
840
Fig. 1
PIT 1
PIT 2
PROFILE PIT
ELEV. = 884'
ELEV. = 882'
ELEV. = 880'
0
the site
0
o•
3. Elevations of exploratory pits
were
obtained
•.
dr
and checked with instrument
level.
Logs are
drawn to depth.
4. The exploratory pit locations
5 •'i6; - +4=88
should be considered accurate only to the
:q` 5
-200=3
'o
+4=75
' �a
•.4 i —200=6
- J
_J
10 10
LEGEND:
®TOPSOIL; slightly clayey silty sand, scattered gravel, cobbles and boulders, organic,
firm, slightly moist, dark brown.
GRAVEL (GP—GM); sandy, slightly silty, with cobbles and boulders up to about 5' in size,
medium dense to dense, slightly moist, brown, subrounded to rounded rock.
I Disturbed bulk sample.
NOTES:
1. Exploratory pits were excavated on
August 3, 1999 with a backhoe.
2. Locations of exploratory pits
were
measured
approximately by pacing from features on
the site
plan provided.
3. Elevations of exploratory pits
were
obtained
by interpolation between contours on the
site plan provided
and checked with instrument
level.
Logs are
drawn to depth.
4. The exploratory pit locations
and elevations
should be considered accurate only to the
degree
implied by the method used.
5. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory pit logs represent the approximate
boundaries between material types and transitions may be gradual.
6. No free water was encountered in the pits at the time of excavating.
Fluctuations in water level may occur with time.
7. Laboratory Testing Results:
+4 = Percent retained on No. 4 sieve
—200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve
199 600I HEPWORTH - PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
U
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS I Fig. 2
0
0 0
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE I
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
PAGE 1 OF 2
JOB NO. 199 600
HOLE NO.
HOLE DEPTH
(INCHES)
LENGTH OF
INTERVAL
(MIN)
WATER DEPTH
AT START OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES)
WATER DEPTH
AT END OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES)
DROP IN
WATER
LEVEL
(INCHES)
AVERAGE
PERCOLATION
RATE
(MIN./INCH)
P-1
40
15
water added
8
61/4
1 314
20
6 1/4
5 1/2
3/4
5 112
4
1 1/2
4
3 1/4
314
3 114
2 1/4
1
5
4
1
4
3 114
3i4
3 1l4
2 112
34
P-2
36
15
water added
8
6 3/4
1 114
12
6 314
5 314
1
5 3/4
3 1/2
2 1/4
31/2
21/2
1
6 1/4
5 314
1/2
5 314
43/4
1
43/4
3 1/4
1 1/2
3 1/4
2 114
1
P-3
31
15
water added
water added
5
3
2
13
3
2 1/4
314
5 3/4
3
23/4
3
2
1
5
3 314
1 1/4
33/4
23/4
1
2 3/4
1 1 112
1 114
1 1/2
1 112
1
Note: Percolation test holes were hand dug in the bottom of backhoe pits and soaked on August 3, 1999. Percolation tests
were conducted on August 4, 1999. The average percolation rates were based on the last two readings of each test.
30
0
0
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE I
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
PAGE 2 OF 2
JOB NO. 199 600
HOLE NO.
HOLE DEPTH
(INCHES)
LENGTH OF
INTERVAL
(MIN)
WATER DEPTH
AT START OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES)
WATER DEPTH
AT END OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES)
DROP IN
WATER
LEVEL
(INCHES)
AVERAGE
PERCOLATION
RATE
(MIN./INCH)
P-4
32
15
9
S 112
1/2
20
81/2
7 1/2
1
7 1/2
5 314
1 3/4
53/4
5
3/4
5
41/4
3/4
41/4
31/2
314
Note: Percolation test holes were hand dug in the bottom of backhoe pits and soaked on August 3, 1999. Percolation tests
were conducted on August 4, 1999. The average percolation rates were based on the last two reading of each test.
31
I
Y
0 0 • -" j� •
�GA NT 1 LERD UI L O 114 r. qR
�90 t
I.LEVLR@DAR[
L _
_ (�
F \ \ �' .B:U1L-0IW4 F.ODf.PR1N.T__._—_--
__$-U LIl1NG. E"NV ELO P.E_
_._5.-F�::LAKDSLA PE ARCA --� •\ `J�
A
P R O P O S E D D
A T A
D ASE M E N T
I i32 sp PT
,MAIN LEVE!_
1292 Sq.Pf.
Zt! FLOOR
1768 5Q -M
1
G. KR A G E
75-0 sV. F-
D CC KS 460, 300)
SSO sq. rr.
T 0 T'A L Eq. PT.
3000 s9.,.
NU MO_ER .BEDROOMS
- 4
_8
1
r p
aR�
N iy �•
I
a p 1"
J i ••
II
01
10.
Kia y!y
U�
z}�I
W z,zlf
I<iL
S A�
33
0
a
IJ
5 o U T N £ A 5 T _- E L E- —V—A T I O N
1 _
I�
—4L-
pO RrH WES1'.T-ELC: -v-A-TTD 4
—41twv�T�O NAL. iTU CCo�
p
E
Sq
0 0 0
s
0 •
0
. -.
-.V�- s . D
0
"
._:- I A d a
i
r
W Iw SGHE L-
a 0o RS E D J L F-
ki TV +
C 5Awd-
W
v ,
OAMUELSON PUMP CO. As
P.O. BOX 297 WATER SYSTEMS
GLENWOOD SPRINGS SALES, SERVICE & INSTALLATION
COLORADO 81602 945-6309
August 10, 1999
Patty Hunter
P.O. Box 8878
Aspen, Co. 81612
Attn: Patty
On August 9, 1999 a well test was conducted on a well on
property across Hwy. 82 from Wildcat entrance. The following
information was obtained;
Well Depth -----------------------500'-0"
Casing size (top) -------------- 7"(steel)
Standing water level -------------102'-10"
Max drawdown @ 7.5 gpm @ 2 hrs.--152'-2 1/2"
Production is greater than ------- 7.5 gpm
This test was conducted with a 1 1/2 hp. Gould submerible
Model 7EJ15. The well recovered back to 113'-6" in 76 min.
If you have any questions please call me Raun Samuelson at 945-
6309.
Sincerely;
�—/
Raun Samuelson
y3
0
ASPEN/PITKIN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone (970) 920-5090 FAX (970) 920-5439
MEMORANDUM
TO: Environmental Health - hourly I y
FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Community Development
RE: Hunter Minor Amendment to a Development Permit
2643-084-00-014
P102-00
DATE: August 15, 2000
Attached for your review and comments are materials for an application by Dr. Robert Hunter.
This application will be reviewed by the Pitkin County Community Development Director.
Please return your comments to me September 15, 2000.
PLEASE RETURN APPLICATION MATERIALS TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
IF YOU HAVE NO FURTHER NEED OF THEM.
Thank you.
qq
�
AUG 1 6 2000
:*NMENTAL HEALTH
ASPEN / PIT%IN
EN
FERGUSON
NOODWORK. 970
9 2567,
P.02
FAX N0.
m4.4 ''
01
ITKIN COUNT1
PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENC.1; SUNVINL1RY
PLANNER: Lance Clarke
DATE: August 3, 2000
PROJECT: Bunter - Nfinor Amendment to a Development Permit
PROJECT ADDREMPARCEL 1D#: 201 Pitkin Iron Road
OWNER. Dr. Robert Hunter
APPLICANT: Owner
RP.PRESENTATIVEi Rcbin Ferguson
REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE: 92.7-2567
SUMMARY
I. Type of Application: Minor Ar[iAdment to a Development Permit as providad in
Land Use Code Section : -200.080.
2. Describe action/type of development being requested: Minor amendment to a
dovelop:ncnt permit to request creation of a development envelop-, to accommodate
septic lea0fieid and piping.
3. Areas to which Applicant has been requested to respond, types of reports
requested: Pleaso addmss standards and criteria of Land Use Code Section 3-200-080
and minimum submission contents of Code Section 5-50.20.
4, Review is before: Administtativr,
S. Refer: Environmental Health,
6. Public Heating: No.
9. Number of copies of the application to be submitted: 3.
S. What fee was applicant requested to submit: S460,00 deposit.
9. C7niquc Cuuceros/ Cotu• tY; •
• Include """i "on sumr7ary sheet with application.
• Please clearly enumerate all requested aha ges to original approval and reasons %r
requested changes,
• PtOV!dc propcsod revised site plsn and proposed development eay.1lopc.
PLRASE NOTE: This praapplicat;on confmnce summary is advisory +n nature and not
binding on the County. Th: information provided in this summary is ba ted at current
zoning standards real s:afr"s int_rpretations based upon representations o!',,he applicant.
Additional infottration May ba required upon complete review of the appL-ration.
y (9
Z6
T,
rDi/ND 0 G'-/ ALUMINUM
CVP P -9-W M4RrYfk
ASSOM-9 EtEV 9Ql4'
I 0
I�
R
! "I
�ry�
Pe FCgp 5.
vtPST�,i
I
IN
�ou�n co v H. aQass
Improvemen
t Surve=;ZPlat &Top=pQrcoh1*c Survey —
w
a 041
�
, y
N..
,
_.,s Fr q .541.
t4Jl°�%0//".� "`� F
Ar i I F Y ptl(.P
IT
I � I
n
I
I I
I
I
- �I°p i% n
I I Qrr v
J c
II I • ° I I I
T I CL
0 ,� r
C y I
r
LU
Ir. _,iI
rLl I I `.ice •= e � 11
m I I I 1
' I ,
f
c"
0
1 /
T I oak,\ 1
I h
r ,
II 1 ;� r,ti / "►
I
1
r _
F,a,
i
r 1:
I
I /iFC0/�D 2!fT 4.91C�S%
aB9,A6
SCALE : 1 INCH = 20 FEET
sheet no. 1 n f 1
Notes
IVPROvT MF 1-17 SURvt- AND TOPOGRAPHIC MAP DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A TITLE
;EAFrH Y SORROW AND WALKER. INC TO DETERMINE OWNERSHIP OR EASEMENTS OF
P1 )+I II INFORMATION ,HOWTJ 4FPFON PLGARDINC OWNERSHIP, EASEMENTS AND
07HLR III.I,MRRANCES OF RECORD WAS JBTAFIFD FROM, AND SUBJECT TO A TITLE
FOMMIIMIN' PROADI_D BY iTFWAPI TITLE OF ASPEN, INC.. POLICY NO. 0-9701-
P
I uclL it St. T'TFMHER ", 1999.
ON )JR �I iJ2 vAI SHDWTJ HEREON = 2 DEFT
_1 fit ^."-II;)TIS SHUWN HFREC)N ARE BASEL ON AN ASSUMED ELEV4 FON OF 941.4 FEET
011)Rn IO :)I PAIiTMFN-T OF HIGHWAYS NUMINUM CAP RIGHT—OF—WAY MONUMENT
HDI ',, '7 84 r 7 F ' OORTHWE STFPI Y OF THE NORTHWEST PROPERTY CORNER, AS SHOWN
.41 TP IIT,<.. ,OP IF,I � �IIPA Y ; A At APING 01 N 41.50.10"W BETWEEN "
s
.'i I c,71. I ,HAA 7F. 'F TMFI,; OF WAY MONUMENTS. AS SHOWN HEREON_'
TIP'. T:[C ,, _OI UPADO I AA, rlU MUST COMMFNCE ANY LEGAL ACTION F
P4IT I JI'UNI NY DFFECf III 1HIS 1041 HA -ARD RFVILW MAP WITHIN THREE (3) YEARS '
^,r In r,L TI,` SUCH DEL IC' N NJ FILf_NT MAY ATNY ACTION BASED UPON ANY
1h 7 'II TH, �JRvE, BL COMMENCFD MORE THAN TEN (TD) YEARS FROM THE DATE OF
T + I .'Trcil, ,HOWL, ITT RL01v
IID TI , IhFEo-Ic 'RF° ,rXATlon,s RFouESTED By cuFr,T.
-ED Jil HF HR WT'I AMENDEO 1041 1147APD REIIIEW STL PIAN
Far'15 ANC DIGK� ART 4IIOWED WITHm•I THE 5 FT LANDSCAPE AREA
1 If L1 FM arc IVLY BF (-ANh,F vERED ,F TO 10 I T ON THE UPHILL
IF (PIF H )Thr, ENVEI OPF SI OPT`: IN EXCESS OF 30% MAY NOT
BF Di TURBFD DURING THE CONSTRUCT(,.( OF ANY CANTILEVERED
q '11 f rtal r ML'.
1'I' pert} ICSclIptloll
WE5' OF --1E SIaTH Ruv. q_ MERIDIAN, COUN Y�01 POK1 I T�'F OF CCIORADO;
SAID PARCEL I YING i4,)PTHF AST! RI T 4ND AO t -LFII TO 11R NORIHEASTERI Y
RIGF17 OF WAY OF �)I E)R.')r7 -,A1[HIGHWAY 'IO 82 4rID BEING MORE PARTICUI ARL`
JENIRIBED AS FOILOWS
.IF I,)Inl: OrIT ON THE NORTHEASTFRIY RIGHT OF WAY OF COLORAIIF'
4A ru- 82 1 POM WHICH THE SOUTHEAS CORNER OF SECTION 8 A LI
F?NI+HILI ArI I OP CE SURVEY STANDARD BRASS CAP MONUMENT BEAR
53 42'F 4 -3 FEET (RECORD — S.23 -48'45"E ' "'1.80 FEF T); THEN
41 SO rn.w Al ONC SAID RIGH' -OF WAY 300.00 FEET 10 AN FISTING
I_ -LINE 'I -HN N 48'2900 E ALONG SAID FENCELINE AND FENCELINE EI, TENUtD
454 HO IE' I =HL CENTYRLINE OF THE ROARING FORK RIVER; THEN
;.4q 42 ri0.'E Al Jhh SAID ENT-RLINF 14452 FEET; THEN S.51'47'00"E.
ALOIN -AID cFNIERLINE 158.25 FEET; THEN 5.48'29'00"W. 489.36 FEET (RECORD
491 I.E 1'; TO THE POINT OF BFGIFINING, SAID PARCEL CONTAINING 3.22 ACRES.
10 ^ ,, : ;FMEINT DESCRIPTION
a IRIP )F AND HEING 3000 FEET IN WIDTH, SITUATED IN SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 9
SOL HATIGE 85 WESI OF THE SIYTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF PITKIN,
I 1F C,OLORADO; SAID PARCEL LYING 15.00 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF THE
AWING DESCRIBED CENTERLINF
HL IINIG AI POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF COLORADO STATE
I;. NAY N0 82 FROM WHICH THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 8. A U.S.
t RIIMEJT [AND OFFICE SURVEY STANDARD BRASS CAP MONUMENT BEARS
4300E 2850.24 FEET THEN THE FOLLOWING COURSES,
61 )0 I EE T ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, F+#VING A R4DIUS OF
2353 'EFT A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 28'1733" (CHORD OF WHICH BEARS
6C38FEET);
2 96 -1 iFE- ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT. HAVING A RADIUS Of
'.0401 FEET, CFN"RA[ ANGLE OF 53'16'30" (CHORD OF WHICH BEARS
80'19 54'E 93 2 FEE 1);
' S0 88 FFt ALONG THE ARC OF A CURvF TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF
I I RAL ANGLE OF OS S1 34 (CHORD OF WHICH BEARS
c- a 1rET
a S 48"1000 c 429,64 FEET,
94 Ir FTF YI (INC �FIF ARF' OF A CARVE TO THE :EFT. WAVING A RAD.'L,"
r, I' I i'n 921" ('40RIJ OF WHICH BEARS
-4, 5j Ire'
d L TI <I )F A CURV[ TO THF LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF
E= I TTF,AL ANGIF Of 444801"(CHORD OF WHICH BEARS
x.89 3'4'� 114 Fr=1);
04 4F T LING HF AR[, OF A ,RILE ') THE RIGHT H4y1ANG A RADIUS OF
I^� 43 F T E0k,*-[ ANGLL OF 81",9"08" (CHORD OF WHICH (EARS
r 150 ., ITT T IL THC '10RII-ERLY LINE OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND
TRHE 1 q 80 K 12 AT PAGE 368 THE TERMINUS FROM WHICrItI A REBAR AND CAH.
R rt <, W INL�S CORNER) BEARS N 48'29'00"E 20.3% FEET, f.ND ALSO FROM
I + T F IT. CORNER LD ;ECT(, 8 BEARS S'831'26"E 2163.32 FEET
n )F HIBFI. >TRIP OF LAND COEITANS 28.222 SQUARE FFET (0.647 ACRES(.
,.`II.. _�I,�,
[-5LMEtII
.. +D H'IPa'. 1500 f IN WIDTH, SITUAIFD IN SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 9
-(IGT 95 WEST �f THE 6TH P M COUNTY OF PITKIN, S"ATE OF COLORADO,
> T/LH IIu; TI "t:I I LC'H SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED
I
11 1-Jv IIF NOP THFFIT 'IINE OF 4 DOCUMENT RECORDED AT BOOK
tL F CLLPK AND RECORDERS OFFICE OF PITKIN COUNTY,
P A. ICT -+F IOLTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 9 SOUTH, RANCI
r`c N 1 ur H' ' M HE ARS S21'45 0-"F 2116 11 LEFT, THENCE LEAVING
T, r,032900'E 1 16 0 I FLT (HENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A
IhI r,1 ` IL) l414 FLFT, WII I A RADIUS OF 10743 FEET. A DELTA OF
5 'HOF' JI 56 2 530"F 99 `,4 FFF 10 A POINT ON THE
"I r.1 _NO 3r IN(. HF POINT O1 TERMINUS.
,urve,,oi c Cc tlflcatc
•I - n )I , Tri:, i[W) TAT.'F i0L,
T r_) 4, IG. v _r'Al IHh, YPP',,FMFr:T
,r:: r [ .,,[ ,Ir R F A' TI L.I H APF 'JE Rlgpn
NNF 101,+ ART
,+ ,M; TP T :,I. PF
,, Hr
,tialkFr, Iter
I PREPARED FDR-
Robert & Pztricia Hunter
RECEIVED
JUL Z 4 2000
ASPEN / PITKIN
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH'
SCMROW & #r-EXER, IM
Registered Land Surwprs
818 Colorado Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
(303) 945-8664
9-:q
.1
I
,1
1
1
'1
1
1
1
1
sheet no. 1 n f 1
Notes
IVPROvT MF 1-17 SURvt- AND TOPOGRAPHIC MAP DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A TITLE
;EAFrH Y SORROW AND WALKER. INC TO DETERMINE OWNERSHIP OR EASEMENTS OF
P1 )+I II INFORMATION ,HOWTJ 4FPFON PLGARDINC OWNERSHIP, EASEMENTS AND
07HLR III.I,MRRANCES OF RECORD WAS JBTAFIFD FROM, AND SUBJECT TO A TITLE
FOMMIIMIN' PROADI_D BY iTFWAPI TITLE OF ASPEN, INC.. POLICY NO. 0-9701-
P
I uclL it St. T'TFMHER ", 1999.
ON )JR �I iJ2 vAI SHDWTJ HEREON = 2 DEFT
_1 fit ^."-II;)TIS SHUWN HFREC)N ARE BASEL ON AN ASSUMED ELEV4 FON OF 941.4 FEET
011)Rn IO :)I PAIiTMFN-T OF HIGHWAYS NUMINUM CAP RIGHT—OF—WAY MONUMENT
HDI ',, '7 84 r 7 F ' OORTHWE STFPI Y OF THE NORTHWEST PROPERTY CORNER, AS SHOWN
.41 TP IIT,<.. ,OP IF,I � �IIPA Y ; A At APING 01 N 41.50.10"W BETWEEN "
s
.'i I c,71. I ,HAA 7F. 'F TMFI,; OF WAY MONUMENTS. AS SHOWN HEREON_'
TIP'. T:[C ,, _OI UPADO I AA, rlU MUST COMMFNCE ANY LEGAL ACTION F
P4IT I JI'UNI NY DFFECf III 1HIS 1041 HA -ARD RFVILW MAP WITHIN THREE (3) YEARS '
^,r In r,L TI,` SUCH DEL IC' N NJ FILf_NT MAY ATNY ACTION BASED UPON ANY
1h 7 'II TH, �JRvE, BL COMMENCFD MORE THAN TEN (TD) YEARS FROM THE DATE OF
T + I .'Trcil, ,HOWL, ITT RL01v
IID TI , IhFEo-Ic 'RF° ,rXATlon,s RFouESTED By cuFr,T.
-ED Jil HF HR WT'I AMENDEO 1041 1147APD REIIIEW STL PIAN
Far'15 ANC DIGK� ART 4IIOWED WITHm•I THE 5 FT LANDSCAPE AREA
1 If L1 FM arc IVLY BF (-ANh,F vERED ,F TO 10 I T ON THE UPHILL
IF (PIF H )Thr, ENVEI OPF SI OPT`: IN EXCESS OF 30% MAY NOT
BF Di TURBFD DURING THE CONSTRUCT(,.( OF ANY CANTILEVERED
q '11 f rtal r ML'.
1'I' pert} ICSclIptloll
WE5' OF --1E SIaTH Ruv. q_ MERIDIAN, COUN Y�01 POK1 I T�'F OF CCIORADO;
SAID PARCEL I YING i4,)PTHF AST! RI T 4ND AO t -LFII TO 11R NORIHEASTERI Y
RIGF17 OF WAY OF �)I E)R.')r7 -,A1[HIGHWAY 'IO 82 4rID BEING MORE PARTICUI ARL`
JENIRIBED AS FOILOWS
.IF I,)Inl: OrIT ON THE NORTHEASTFRIY RIGHT OF WAY OF COLORAIIF'
4A ru- 82 1 POM WHICH THE SOUTHEAS CORNER OF SECTION 8 A LI
F?NI+HILI ArI I OP CE SURVEY STANDARD BRASS CAP MONUMENT BEAR
53 42'F 4 -3 FEET (RECORD — S.23 -48'45"E ' "'1.80 FEF T); THEN
41 SO rn.w Al ONC SAID RIGH' -OF WAY 300.00 FEET 10 AN FISTING
I_ -LINE 'I -HN N 48'2900 E ALONG SAID FENCELINE AND FENCELINE EI, TENUtD
454 HO IE' I =HL CENTYRLINE OF THE ROARING FORK RIVER; THEN
;.4q 42 ri0.'E Al Jhh SAID ENT-RLINF 14452 FEET; THEN S.51'47'00"E.
ALOIN -AID cFNIERLINE 158.25 FEET; THEN 5.48'29'00"W. 489.36 FEET (RECORD
491 I.E 1'; TO THE POINT OF BFGIFINING, SAID PARCEL CONTAINING 3.22 ACRES.
10 ^ ,, : ;FMEINT DESCRIPTION
a IRIP )F AND HEING 3000 FEET IN WIDTH, SITUATED IN SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 9
SOL HATIGE 85 WESI OF THE SIYTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF PITKIN,
I 1F C,OLORADO; SAID PARCEL LYING 15.00 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF THE
AWING DESCRIBED CENTERLINF
HL IINIG AI POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF COLORADO STATE
I;. NAY N0 82 FROM WHICH THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 8. A U.S.
t RIIMEJT [AND OFFICE SURVEY STANDARD BRASS CAP MONUMENT BEARS
4300E 2850.24 FEET THEN THE FOLLOWING COURSES,
61 )0 I EE T ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, F+#VING A R4DIUS OF
2353 'EFT A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 28'1733" (CHORD OF WHICH BEARS
6C38FEET);
2 96 -1 iFE- ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT. HAVING A RADIUS Of
'.0401 FEET, CFN"RA[ ANGLE OF 53'16'30" (CHORD OF WHICH BEARS
80'19 54'E 93 2 FEE 1);
' S0 88 FFt ALONG THE ARC OF A CURvF TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF
I I RAL ANGLE OF OS S1 34 (CHORD OF WHICH BEARS
c- a 1rET
a S 48"1000 c 429,64 FEET,
94 Ir FTF YI (INC �FIF ARF' OF A CARVE TO THE :EFT. WAVING A RAD.'L,"
r, I' I i'n 921" ('40RIJ OF WHICH BEARS
-4, 5j Ire'
d L TI <I )F A CURV[ TO THF LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF
E= I TTF,AL ANGIF Of 444801"(CHORD OF WHICH BEARS
x.89 3'4'� 114 Fr=1);
04 4F T LING HF AR[, OF A ,RILE ') THE RIGHT H4y1ANG A RADIUS OF
I^� 43 F T E0k,*-[ ANGLL OF 81",9"08" (CHORD OF WHICH (EARS
r 150 ., ITT T IL THC '10RII-ERLY LINE OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND
TRHE 1 q 80 K 12 AT PAGE 368 THE TERMINUS FROM WHICrItI A REBAR AND CAH.
R rt <, W INL�S CORNER) BEARS N 48'29'00"E 20.3% FEET, f.ND ALSO FROM
I + T F IT. CORNER LD ;ECT(, 8 BEARS S'831'26"E 2163.32 FEET
n )F HIBFI. >TRIP OF LAND COEITANS 28.222 SQUARE FFET (0.647 ACRES(.
,.`II.. _�I,�,
[-5LMEtII
.. +D H'IPa'. 1500 f IN WIDTH, SITUAIFD IN SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 9
-(IGT 95 WEST �f THE 6TH P M COUNTY OF PITKIN, S"ATE OF COLORADO,
> T/LH IIu; TI "t:I I LC'H SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED
I
11 1-Jv IIF NOP THFFIT 'IINE OF 4 DOCUMENT RECORDED AT BOOK
tL F CLLPK AND RECORDERS OFFICE OF PITKIN COUNTY,
P A. ICT -+F IOLTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 9 SOUTH, RANCI
r`c N 1 ur H' ' M HE ARS S21'45 0-"F 2116 11 LEFT, THENCE LEAVING
T, r,032900'E 1 16 0 I FLT (HENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A
IhI r,1 ` IL) l414 FLFT, WII I A RADIUS OF 10743 FEET. A DELTA OF
5 'HOF' JI 56 2 530"F 99 `,4 FFF 10 A POINT ON THE
"I r.1 _NO 3r IN(. HF POINT O1 TERMINUS.
,urve,,oi c Cc tlflcatc
•I - n )I , Tri:, i[W) TAT.'F i0L,
T r_) 4, IG. v _r'Al IHh, YPP',,FMFr:T
,r:: r [ .,,[ ,Ir R F A' TI L.I H APF 'JE Rlgpn
NNF 101,+ ART
,+ ,M; TP T :,I. PF
,, Hr
,tialkFr, Iter
I PREPARED FDR-
Robert & Pztricia Hunter
RECEIVED
JUL Z 4 2000
ASPEN / PITKIN
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH'
SCMROW & #r-EXER, IM
Registered Land Surwprs
818 Colorado Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
(303) 945-8664
9-:q