The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutpitkin.eh.264316101006 (1986)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. 0 , �2�`�3-1�1-0/-00� ASPEN*PITKIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT NO. ��0419 TYPE OF PER14IT: ( )Initial Construction ( )Emergancy UseDO Rapa(r Work,(Pievlous Permit 1 t)iJ.) 1 )Alteration of an existing system, or Installation / ` (Previous Permit 1 .j 1 )Use Permit as a result of Sale - ( )Othort _ p. ISSUED TO: DATE OF ISSUE. 0 V Ownerlm Home Phone 3 )_D Business Phone q2-5--9937 Mailing -4 n //� AAA---- �,I^ F /Ula„�� C11IT, 1n 7 � F-{COF AI Agent TrJM lyj�-I)qtk6 Phone Mailing�2n f /� 40Address I ✓M A,0 L,0 Sewage Disposal System Work to be performed /M1- /��y This permit valid only ,for premises location by tho following ,nleg/all description: 1, ( %. / t. /t% s LOT Site t /Z AGK MATER SUPPLY' 'RheeIJ WELL, AVENGE PERCOLATION RATE. 5 Mitilmc{L. This Individual Sewaye DisPosel Permit is granted with regard to the following use: - FAMIL16SILFAkf_ W..Wr of: Dodicoms __3__ Lofts C1 Carbage Disposals_L Dishwashers_ Clothes Washers CALCULATED AVERAGE DAILY WASTE LOAD 1 sn ALLONS. THE NATURE OF THE SYSTEM INCLUDED UNDER THIS PERMIT: pe of Tank or Treatment URIt[SEP% e_TM K Tank Capacity� /f/fJ V Callon minimum thod of Final Diaposaltseep"t6 -' Absorptloo Aree& t94 3 Sguaro feet Minim scrlptlon (including brand name, if any) of other equipment or appurtnancost ((.2y Y I2� X �0 1 PEEP (in/�Fr) 11 Other Conditions or Specifications ABSo�oj Al -,4A lnt)sT,Bc- Im )EET FAA1 U1ELL,S STAGES REQUIRING INSPECTION BY THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT: \' ( )before Excavation pO Upon completion of excavation and prior to placement of gravel y�)Deface rnverinq distribution X U / ,system of absorption field )Prior to beckfill of any component ( ;Other. Specify: Plans and specifications of the proposed sewage disposal system have been reviewed and are considered satisfactory. Pecmisslon is hereby graotrd to tim owner or his agent to perform the work indicated above in accordance with the Pitkin County Individual Sewage Disposal Re•mlaaions in etfvct on the date of issue. In addition to general provisions act forth on the raveree hcre_et, this Permit is subject to the following additional terms and conditions: _ APPROVED FOR ISSUE BY (title) The above Individual ae,oga disposal system installed by MM 1- 0N7fKttilfCN has brei ln.ymcted for use by A reprraentattvc of the IMM [ Dcp.:rtmcnt. The. wwoar asylum rcrlwnsibklity in case of failure or inadequacy of thisl,aewj)o dispoul system. Complete as -built drawing attachaJ. TITLELG Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-2020 DATE?BY: 1 730 SOutrt Galena 16-C 3 TITLELG Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-2020 ASPENObPITKIN • ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT APPLICATION FOR AN INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT n,PHONE 21 � 8S3 Name of OWNER 'l�'t S UInIC� Prf�zrrt-.a�Ll Address of OWNER /00 E 1i'Y.t"A`",— S 4sA&-'4 Name of APPLICANT PHONE PERMIT TO BE: ( )Picked Up O/ /04.iled to, TYPE OF PERMIT04. Installation ( (Repair (LlOwner ( )Applicant . ( )Emergency Use ( )Alteration NOT due to failure Ld7ATION OF PROPOSED SYSTEEMI Legal Description �'✓`( ��vV vv Yf Lat 4 Block %%/A- U Filing Subdivision 1-iifl2- TC=x HS Size of Lot TYPE OF STRUCTURE: (")Single Family Welling ( )Other, Doyou plan any further additions to the res idence2 (N'4ES ( )NO l f rtp i0. d[ bed[ s 3 No. oC to(b No. of Gat begs Disposals No. of Automatic Dishwashers No. of Autonatle Clothes Washers /� Name Of System WATER SUPPLY: 1Pr ivate well, Depth_ �R� or ( IPublie, y ( )Spring ( )Stream or Creek TYPES OF INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PROPOSED, ail Septic Tank/Absorption Field ( )Aeration Plant/Absorption Field ( )Composting Toilet ( )Incineration Toilet ( )Mound ( )Recycling, potable use ( )Recycling, other use ( )Vault Privy ( )Other. The initial site inspection must be arranged with the ARPen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department (915-2020, 8:30-9:30 a.m.) before a permit can be issued. The individual sewage disposal permit must be Issued before a building permit can be obtained. FINAL INSPECTION APPROVAL MUST BE GIVEN BY THE ASPEN/PITAIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO BACKFILLING ANY PORTION OF THE SYSTEM. Application for an Individual sewage disposal permit is hereby submitted. The undersigned acknowledges that the above information is true and that Calsa Infos/ ion will invalldpte the application and any subsequent permit. Signature of Applicant 1 Up1pl_ DATE m6ts application becomes. invalid 12 months from the above date.) NOTE: PLOT PLAN must be filed with this application. Please locate the following items by measured distances: 1. Property lines and dimensions. 2. Proposed and existing water wells on subject property and adjacent property. 3. Domestic water service lines. {. Proposed and existing buildings, driveways, and other Structures. S. Streams, lakes, ponds, irrigation ditches, and other water courses. 6. Proposed and existing individual sewage systems on subject property. SUBMIT A REVISED PLOT PLAN PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION IF INSTALLATION IS TO BE CHANGED FROM ORIGINAL PLAN. The undersigned hereby acknowledges receipt of tthis 1 lvidual sewage disposal p(�/pit \a PPI kation and • pe rmig e_SA the amount of I fi"V Receipt Number / / Date Fee Received k — 1r]` �1 ` by �, _ Administrative Officer 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-2020 r7-- -�k3--gS LEORA ANDREW, M.D., F.A.A.P. 7500 TRIPP AMARILLO. TEXAS 79121 %- 95- gi`s�l A'tp� .,a- e'x�� --�"7 ASPENOP+ITKIN ENVIRONMINTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT FIELD TEST DATA SHEET Legal decription: WT 4—brn /E-, Name of owner: M &�8 P—G Address: (# & st. / p.o. box) (city) (state) (zip) Name of Agent: HOukfOW YACAIEUI, Water Supply: Public Utility_ Subdivision_ Private WellXsH%Ij�D) Lot Area: TI_A_C, Distance to Nearest Surface WaterISO ft. Dates Observations Made: Soil Borings: p � /Ota by RFAI— Percolation Tests: 423% 2 by SOIL BORING TESTS �■1l1€I�ifiHiiMi€iRi€[l(IflYl€■[ilii€■viii€[�lti[1€ifi€i�iii[i��i[i�i��Y€f€f€illl€i� S 1 LTY SA /JD TO ' H P.MVFL SHOD 'ro S PERCOLATION TESTS YVY.[• IF (,[[ r.�t 4M [fa a�. bl(a Ifi w[r OI(M♦ eY� Ow( 414 ,u..A i. r.r., .(r r. P-1 90 sL Tr , b r I tt B-1 /ti /�lD,UE 7� 1�7Y LLWM �. S CTo(�Snl L OR F!« S 1 LTY SA /JD TO ' H P.MVFL SHOD 'ro S PERCOLATION TESTS YVY.[• IF (,[[ r.�t 4M [fa a�. bl(a Ifi w[r OI(M♦ eY� Ow( 414 • (t u[.ft I(11.D l.f. r[.+ofl r urofl P-1 90 sL Tr , b r I Iz I S -b2 Average Rate: minutes/inch Plan of he pite on the back Date Signature u -b NELSON ASPEN/PITKIN SANITARIAN 130 S. GALENA ASPEN, CO 81611 • PR -v r 9erC DRAWN BY gAILIzOAL) Sc 0 RAND ¢ Sea ROAD ,FP' .. Lif)P I �q O O ti ij r L Davis "OA -x111 - PLANNING -APPRAISING • REAL ESIAIE CONSUUING April 16, 1990 Ellen Sassano Aspen -Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Melberg One-step 1041 Environmental Hazard Review and a Building Permit Exemption Review to Construct a New Single - Family Dwelling Unit on Lot 4 Little Texas Subdivision Dear Ellen: I represent Tom Melberg who is seeking a One-step 1041 Hazard Review approval from the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to Section 5-400 and an administrative Building Permit Exemption Review pursuant to Section 18-2.5 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code. The subject site is located adjacent to the Roaring Fork River on Lot 4 Little Texas Subdivision as depicted on the attached vicinity map (refer to Attachment 1). The site is approximately 22,500 square feet in size, zoned AF -1 and improved with a single-family residential dwelling unit. The applicant is seeking approval to construct an addition to the existing structure. One-step 1041 Environmental Hazard Review The site is impacted by slopes in excess of 30 per cent and floodplain hazards. You also requested that the applicant address wildlife hazards. Wildfire hazards are not a site planning concern. The proposed building envelope is not located within a floodplain hazard area. However, a portion of the proposed building envelope encroaches upon a slope in excess of 30 per cent. Attachment 2 is a letter from Powell & Associates, consulting geologists, evaluating slope stability and suggesting mitigation techniques to alleviate the hazards. Dan Powell, Ph.D. concludes in his letter that the building envelope is well suited for any kind of construction, provided that the following recommendations are adhered to: Run-off water should be channeled down the slope away from the foundation; Existing natural vegetation on the slope should be ' AUCE DAVIS, RM I GLENN HORN, AICP �'^ U 300 EAST HUMAN • SUITE B • ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 • 303 925 6587 0 0 maintained; and 3. There should be positive drainage away from foundation footers. The proposed building envelope as depicted on Attachment 3 is located within a mapped deer winter range. Despite the mapping, wildlife habitat should not be a factor in the 1041 environmental review. In a discussion with Randy Cote of the Colorado Division of Wildlife, he indicated that the mapping for the Woody Creek quadrant is inaccurate. Randy informed us that the Division of Wildlife recently sent the Aspen -Pitkin Planning Office a new set of wildlife overlays deleting lands located between the Roaring Fork River and Upper River Road from wildlife habitat areas. Based upon our discussions with Randy and the new mapping, wildlife hazards do not affect the subject site. Building Permit Exemption Review to Construct a Single -Family Dwelling Unit Section 18-2.5 establishes a procedure to exempt single-family dwelling units located on meets and bounds parcels from the full building permit review procedure if a proposed building site lies outside any area of state and local interest. During our pre - applications discussions, the Planning Office and County Attorney determined administratively that the building permit exemption process would also be available for lots located within platted, recorded subdivisions. The subject site was platted in 1946 and recorded (see Deed Book 2 Page 34 A). To qualify for such an exemption an applicant is required to address proposed water supply and waste water disposal systems. Bob Nelson of the Aspen -Pitkin Environmental Health Department indicates that either an engineered septic system or a leach field on the upper bench will be required. The applicant commits to install a system meeting with the approval of the Environmental Health Department. Quality and quantity of water should not be a problem because the site is already served by an existing well. Proof of Ownership and Merger At their request, on Friday, April 13, 1990, I submitted proof of ownership and the title chains to Susan Snyder and Tom Smith to establish that this is a legally subdivided, separately developable lot. Please contact them for verification of title issues. Miscellaneous Issues and concerns I will be on vacation from April 23, 1990 until May 3, 1990 and will not be available to clarify issues or provide additional information. The applicant is most anxious for this application to be scheduled for review. As of the date of my departure for vacation, there were some outstanding issues regarding the c� potential merger and the 1946 plat. In order to avoid potential postponement of the scheduling of this application I have prepared responses to General Submission/Building Permit Review standards and Section 7-2.4 , the special approval standards for separation of a sub -standard size lot located in a "platted subdivision which did not require and did not receive approval by the Board of County Commissioners" (see attachments 4 and 5) The following listing of attachments may assist you in reviewing this application: 1. Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map; 2. Attachment 2 - Letter from Powell Associates, Consulting Geologist; 3. Attachment 3 - 1041 Environmental Review Site Plan; 4. Attachment 4 - Responses to General Submission/Building Permit Review standards; 5. Attachment 5 - Responses to Section 7-2.4, Special Approval Standards for Separation of a Sub -standard Size Lot; and 6. Attachment 6 - Letter from Tom Melberg to Amy Margerum Authorizing Alice Davis to Submit a Land Use Application for Lot 4 Little Texas Subdivision. Thank you for assisting me in preparing this application. Sincerely, ^ Alice Davis Planning Consultant /0 11111 1MAWN TO "KALE • :., ss9 ro PFaoQh Mwy 133 0 ccLURE PRSS Flwy 133 mm I \ \ To 1 4 Mur, �'nrzK 113 COUNTY ROADS FROM GLENWOOD TO ASPEN Suri C,j III pR,u� CR RD W. SOPRIS CR RD 969 4; n, h� 11D ILI 119 p5 71 Hs FRYIuG �PRDAD A I _ I i i r I . r_ 01 P WELL (131. ASSOCIATES 0-7- 13 N 2 U L T 1 11 9 C a 0, O r: { I S P. U. Box 60204 Grand Junction, CO 61506 ( Aprll 19, 1990 303) 241-6865 Alice Davis 300 E. Hyman, Suite 8 Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Geological evaluation of site For single-family residence, Lot 4, Little Texas Subdivision, Pitkin County I have completed the geologic appraisal of the subject property/building site for the required H8 1041 hazard review. The property is in the SW/4 NE/4 section 16, T.9 S., R.85 W., about seven (7) miles north of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. The subject lot stretches from the east bank of the Roaring Fork River east- ward across a narrow, younger river terrace, thence upward and over a west - facing, approximately 30 -feet -high bench onto the flat surface of an older river terrace. The lower and upper terraces are composed entirely of rounded, river -deposited boulders, cobbles and gravel in a matrix of porous sand made of decomposed rock fragments. Sandy soil containing minor amounts of clay and humus mantles the whole lot. Bedrock beneath the terrace levels is not exposed, but it appears to be Mancos Shale as in adjacent lots. How- ever, terrace gravels are at least 12 feet thick on the lower terrace and 35 feet thick on the upper terrace. The slope leading from lower to upper terrace level is presently stabilized by vegetation, mainly mature Gamble's oak and servicebOrry, or partly occupied by a temporary structure. However, the natural slope is probably riot greater than the maximum angle of repose for the terrace gravels. The anticipated building envelope for the residence will include about half of the slope, from its crest downward to the middle of the terrace slope, and an adjacent portion of the upper terrace flat. Soil. subsoil, and under- lying terrace material are practically unrompressible, exhibit excellent in- ternal (matrix) porosity and drainage, and contain minimal amounts of clay. Consequently, standard foundation designs should be adequate for the sub- strata. However, if the upper part of the slope is excavated for construc- tion, care should be taken that foundation footers be designed to resist subsoil water drainage. Particularly, excess water from the upper levels should not be allowed to erode the base from beneath the footers. With regard to continued stability of the terrace slope, after construction, care should be taken to minimize surface water run-off down the slope, ad- jacent to the building. Specifically, run-off should be minimized and spread down the slope. It is further suggested that existing, natural vegetation be maintained, where feasible, on the slope which would preclude any signlgicant watering of these xerophytic plants. 1. a Alice Davis, Page 2 Despite the porous soils and substrata, the granitic composition of the terrace material might subject the site to slight emanations of radon gas. Adequate subfloor ventilation or gas shield should be provided to assure acceptable levels of radiation within the home. In conclusion, the homesite and building envelope are well suited for almost any kind of construction, providing that the recommendations above are followed. feel free to contact me shor:ld any further questions arise. Yours faithfully, Lk / PrW—W Dan Powell, Ph.D. Regis J.teredd Professional Geologist I -� POWELL \ ASSOCIAT[S 0 0 Attachment 4 General Submission/Building Permit Review Standards In the event it is determined that the subject site does not qualify for a building permit review exemption, I have addressed all of the Pitkin County Land Use Code General submission Regulations within this attachment. Section 5-100 Soil Surficial Geologic Characteristics and Radiation Refer to the attachment 2, a letter from Dan Powell addressing geological concerns. Section 5-101 Drainage The house shall be designed with positive drainage away from the foundation. The drainage system shall avoid over loading the steep slope. Section 5-102 Erosion Soil erosion will not be a problem if the geologic recommendations of Dan Powell are followed. Section 5-103 Compatibility with Historic and Archaeological Resources There are no known historic and archaeological resources affected by the proposed development. Section 5-104 Compatibility with Agricultural Lands and Operations The subject site is already developed. Agricultural lands will not be affected by the proposed development. Section 5-105 Scenic Quality The subject site is barely visible from SH 82. The proposed construction will not increase visible impacts from SH 82 because it is proposed to be constructed down the slope out of view from SH 82. Section 5-106 Air Quality The applicant will comply with the current County standards for woodburning devices. r <{ 0 0 Section 5-107 Water Resource Impacts Water quality in the Roaring Fork River will not be impacted by the proposed development. Section 5-200 Sewage Treatment and Collection The site shall be served by an individual waste water treatment system. There will be no demands on public facilities. The individual system will comply with County regulations. Section 5-201 Impacts on Road System Since the subject site is already developed there will be not be an incremental impact on the County road system resulting from the proposed development. Section 5-202 Road and Design Construction Road construction is not proposed in association with the proposed development. Section 5-203 Logical Extension of Utilities Utilities will not have to be extended to the subject site. Section 5-204 Impacts on Taxes and Management of Necessary services and Facilities Since the subject site is already improved, there will not be any additional incremental impacts on public services resulting from the proposed development. Section 5-205 Adequate Provisions for Water Needs The subject site is presently served with an existing well. Section 5-300 Housing Affordable housing mitigation is not required for the proposed development. The development will be occupied by a local resident. /5 0 Attachment 5 0 Section 7-2.4 Special Approval Standards for Separation of a Sub -standard Size Lot In the event the County Attorney finds that the subject site has merged with an adjacent sub -standard size lot, the site may be separated pursuant to Section 7-2.4 of the Land Use Code. Section 7-2.4 reads as follows: Any lot which is substandard as to area and/or width situated within a platted subdivision which did not require and did not received approval by the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to those County Subdivision Regulations adopted in the Commissioners Resolution 72- 17 (or any amendment there to) shall be considered separately developable for the purpose of erecting (or maintaining) one (1) single-family dwelling on each such lot ( without regard to the fact that contiguous lots may be owned by the same person) if the same shall be processed as and receive approval as a use by special review pursuant to Section 6-3 of this Code. The reviewing agencies shall in addition to the criteria otherwise established by this Code for special review approval consider the following:(emphasis added) Based upon the preceding language, a property owner may apply for a separation of a sub -standard size lot if the lot is situated within a platted subdivision. The Little Texas Subdivision was originally platted in 1946 and recorded (Plat Book 2 Page 34A) and surveyed and replatted in 1959. The surveyed 1959 plat was never recorded, however plat recordation is not a pre -requisite to apply under Section 7-2.4. I have submitted copies of both plats to the County Attorney with the title information for the subject site. Each of the standards of Section 7-2.4 are addressed in order below. 1. There are 22 sub -standard lots located in the Little Texas Subdivision. The separate development of the subject site will be consistent with the development character in the surrounding area. 2. The subject lots do not comply with subdivision and zoning regulations. However, the water and waste water disposal systems are in compliance. 3. Since the subject site is already developed, there will be no additional incremental impacts on public services resulting from the proposed development. 4. The physical limitations to site development have been ) (v 0 0 addressed in the 1041 review. 5. The configuration of the lots lends itself to separate development. The lots have been separately developed for many years. 6. If the subject site can not be separately developed the applicant will incur severe economic loses. The property was purchased with the intention of future development. The sales price was based upon the site's expansion and development potential as a separately developable parcel. 7. The history of acquisition for the subject site and contiguous parcels has been documented in detail within my submission to the County Attorney. The lot was purchased by the applicant with the sole purpose of living on site. 8. The lot has historically been considered a separately developable parcel. On 2/23/87 Pitkin County issued a building permit for a substantial addition to the house on lot 4 Little Texas Subdivision. On 1/6/86 Pitkin County issued a building permit to build a new house on lot 7 Little Texas Subdivision. The issuance of these two building permits led the applicant to rely upon the potential for the subject lot to be legally developed as a separate parcel. 0 _ A Ml � 1 PL n,vv.` -WT�. G2- �� t �1. �¢_ -i� C9, 1-41TV V\e re-"nck- we- be) -f /2-- l,zvjk t)41 re. v I w oT L-4 4 ,: � 1bXN I S l dam. L �:. 1 -e-Yjj-S i ,j� , .....414 J4 I/ I'ltli-A1'i'L1(A'1'lUN CONFERENCE SUMMARY PROJECT: I` f' / 1 `I A4LICANT'S REPRES REPRESENTATIVE'S PRONE: ES I �Z• oto �'L�rY1E � DATE (OWNERS NARE: l ( ' ,I •': I2. 13. 4. 5, 6. 7. e. 9. 7, II S NHARY Type of Application: �`-' t� I Describe action/.type of development being requested: 1 11 I Areas in which Applicant has been requested to respond, types of reports requested: Policy Area/ Referral Aaent Comments l y/y1 i A(1� A.W Review is: (P&Z Only) (CC/BOCC Only) (P&Z then to CC/BOCC) Public Bearing: (YES) (NO) Did you tel applicant to submit list of ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS? YE (NO) Disclosure of Ownership: 'YES :(NO) +. What fee was applicant requested to submit:� j Anticipated date of submission: COM ENTS/UNIQUE CONCERNS:T—V }. I 1 ASPENOPITKIN ENVI NMENTAL HEALTH DEPA ENT To: Cindy Houben, Planning Office From: Environmental Health Department Date: June 13, 1990 Re: Melberg 1041 Hazard Review Parcel Lot ID# 2643-161-01-006 The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the above-mentioned land use submittal under authority of the Pitkin County Code, Title II, and has the following comments. SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: Sections 2-7 and 5-200: The application indicates that the wastewater for this project would be disposed of by means of an individual septic system - absorption pit. The existing system was replaced in 1986 and meets County Regulations for acceptable design standards. (See attached permit). However, since the existing sewage system is for only a three-bedroom house, it should be supplemented with an additional new sewage disposal system constructed on the lower \bench so as to meet minimum setbacks from the building foundation and water wells on the upper terrace. From our evaluation of the home site with a site inspection and by using the general conditions reported for the soil types (indicated on the Soil Conservation Service maps) it is the department's conclusion that most of the lot would not be considered suitable for any type of conventional septic system expansion or enlargement under existing County Regulation. This is due to the expected high ground water tables in the lower areas of the lot, and to the placement of existing drinking water wells on the upper portions of the property, requiring a minimum setback of one hundred feet (1001) to septic system components. There are, however, alternative engineering designs which have the potential to fit into the topography to the southwestern portion of the lot on the lower bench and next to the steep slope. With proper planning such systems for on-site wastewater disposal will conform to Pitkin County regulations. It is our opinion that the existing sewage system should be converted to serve only the smaller bathrooms and perhaps a laundry room for the expanded house, receiving primarily what are referred to as "grey" water flows, much less polluted and with minimal contamination. The other addition wastewater flows could be accommodated on the parcel with a sewage system at the toe of the slope and on the lower bench. This type of location requires a relatively sophisticated, site-specific engineering design for a 3 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/920-6070 6 • Melberg 1041 June 13, 1990 Page 2 properly done system. This is because of the anticipated high seasonal groundwater table mentioned and the location of the Roaring Fork River. Also likely is very rapid permeability in the gravelly alluvial soils in the valley floor. We expect that these geologic and hydrologic conditions on the building lot will dictate that the expanded portion of the new sewage system will be an engineered mound or a system of similar design. A properly engineered mound design can conform to local requirements. ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: Sections 2-6 and 5-205: Water is apparently to be supplied from a well serving the existing residential unit and a unit on the adjacent lot. This well is apparently not constructed on the property and shown on the site map. This well, proposed to continue to be the water supply, has not been demonstrated to be an "adequate" water supply. There is no information in the submittal as to chemical or bacteriological quality of the drinking water, the maximum pumping rate, the yield, the water main sizing, the existing or proposed water storage, or a legally recorded permit for the well construction or water use. It would be advisable to check for recorded water line easements and agreement for sharing the water well with Lot 5 prior to approving the proposed remodeling and expansion. The additional increase in size of the residence on the property and the potential change from a seasonal Summer usage to year around occupancy at the house next door could substantially affect the quantity of water available, particularly during low flow periods of the late winter. AIR QUALITY: Sections 2-17 and 5-106: vv Including the addition, the entire house is allowed one woodburning fireplace and one certified clean -burning woodstove. If two devices already exist in the house, no fireplace or solid fuel burning stove may be added to the addition. A permit is needed from this office for any devices that may be installed. There is expected to be no significant impact on air pollution by construction of the addition. NOISE: Section 2-23 Adverse neighborhood impacts from noise generated during the construction phase of this project can be expected. However, long term impacts are not anticipated. Should complaints be received by this office, Title 25 Article 12 C.R.S. 1973 - Noise Abatement will be the document used in the investigation. al • Melberg 1041 June 13, 1990 Page 3 CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS: Section 2-2 None that are enforced by this department. CONTAMINATED SOILS: The applicant is advised to contact this office for comment should mine waste, waste rock or mine dumps be encountered during the excavation phase of the project. Disposal of such materials off-site is discouraged due to the possibility of excessive heavy metals being present in the soil. This is not a requirement, but simply a request based on past experience in dealing with mine waste and possible negative impacts to humans. .w • 0 MEMORANDUM TO: County Attorney Engineering Environmental Health Division of Wildlife Fire Marshal , County Zoning FROM: Cindy Houben, Senior Planner 0° RE: Melberg 1041 Hazard Review APR 2 71990 Parcel Lot ID # 2643-161-01-006 _ DATE: April 24, 1990 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTHgsp�p�IN ---------------------------------------------------------------- Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Tom Melberg represented by Davis/Horn, Inc. for 1041 Hazard Review approval. Please return your comments to me no later than June 11, 1990. Thank you. T`� Z14 V CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEE',,• Pitkin County DATE RECEIVED: 4/20/90 DATE COMPLETE: PROJECT NAME: Me Project Address: APPLICANT: Tom Melberg Applicant Address: REPRESENTATIVE: Davis/Horn Representative Address/Phone: PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. P50-90 STAFF MEMBER Aspen, CO 81611 925-6587 PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: $890.00 NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED: 8 J/ TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: P&Z Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARIN NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO BOCC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO Staff Level: 1041 Minor Hazard Review: Date of Approval REFERRALS: Attorney _ Aspen Consol S.D. School District Engineer _ Mtn. Bell Rocky Mtn Nat Gas Housing 4o ly Cross State Hwy Dept —_,Aspen Water Envir. Hlth. Fire Marshall Snowmass Vill (Glwd) (GrJtn) _ Zoning /Manager _ FAA _ CO Geo. Survey �L Div. Wildlife _ Div. Water Res. USFS (Aspen) Caucus _ _ USFS (Carbondale) Other: DATE REFERRED: 4 `I U INITIALS: >°- FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: a INITIAL: County Attorney County Engineer Zoning Housing Envir. Health Other: 4' FILE STATUS AND LOCATION �tl '4325575 ci8/24/9ir 11 r 47 Rec R. CIO Fl; 628 FG 39 6i1via Davis, Pitkin Casty r -l.:, Doc 1.00 RESOLUTION OF THE PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GRANTING 1041 GEOLOGIC AND FLOODPLAIN HAZARD REVIEW APPROVAL TO THE MELBERG APPLICATION Resolution No. PZ-90-_jj WHEREAS, Tom Melberg, hereinafter "Applicant", has applied to the Planning and Zoning Commission of Pitkin County, Colorado, hereinafter "Commission", for 1041 Geologic and Floodplain Hazard approval for a single-family residence pursuant to Section 5- 400.2(a) (1,2) of the Land Use Code; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's lot is zoned AF -1 and contains approximately 22,500 square feet; and WHEREAS, said parcel is described as Lot 4, Little Texas subdivision, accessed off Upper Woody Creek Road; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is proposing to construct an addition to an existing single-family residence; and WHEREAS, the proposed addition will encroach on slopes exceeding 30% but will not encroach into the 100 year floodplain of the Roaring Fork River area; and WHEREAS, the Commission considered the Application at duly noticed public hearings on July 3 and July 17, 1990; and WHEREAS, the Commission determined that excessive slopes can be mitigated, given mitigation techniques recommended by Dar, Powell in his letter of April 4, 1990, attached as Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, the Commission determined that there is a legitimate reason to allow building within the 30% slope area on this lot; and "i .- 25575 08/24/90 11:47 RecO BK 628 PG 40 .1 vi a. Dc "✓'i.s, Pit4:ir. Cn`y A.W., Doc $.00 Resolution No. PZ-90-'�L Page 2 WHEREAS, said determination is based on the following findings: 1. There is a considerable amount of noise impacting the upper bench of the site; The noise is caused by the proximity of the site to Highway 82, and the airport; and 2. There is a potential for impact from noise on the upper bench resulting from development of the Rio Grande railroad right-of-way as a mass transit corridor; and 3. Allowing building to occur slightly down the slope will alleviate the noise impact to some extent; and 4. Less visual impact to the State Highway 82 Corridor will be caused by building on the slope area of this site rather than building on the upper bench. WHEREAS, the Commission made the determination that the riverside boundary of the building envelope shall be located approximately nine feet in elevation below the top of the slope to the 966 foot elevation line which is the approximate location of the stakes observed on the property by the Commission at their July 17, 1990 site inspection. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it does hereby grant 1041 Geologic and Floodplain Hazard Review approval to the Applicants subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall adhere to criteria stipulated in Section 5-401.2 of the Land Use Code. Criteria is as follows: a. Cuts shall not be made into slopes steeper than thirty percent (30%), unless mechanical support is provided. An engineering report shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. b. Cuts and fills, and grading and scraping shall be confined to the minimum area needed for construction. All disturbed areas shall be revegetated within one growing season after completion of construction. #325575 OB/24/90 11:47 Rec $.00 BK 628 F'G 41 •il.vi.a Davis; Pit' -Ar. Cnty 014:, Dor_ $.0(-! Resolution No. PZ -90 -,Df Page 3 2. A landscaping and drainage plan shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. The plan shall incorporate the following recommendations: a. Steepness of cut and fill slopes shall be the maximum which will insure stability and still allow revegetation. b. Use mulches or temporary cover on exposed soil areas and re-establish permanent vegetation and install erosion control measures as soon as possible. C. Incorporate natural drainage patterns into the development plan. d. Run-off water should be minimized and spread down the slope away from the foundation; e. Existing natural vegetation on the slope should be maintained; and f. There should be positive drainage away from foundation footers. g. If the upper part of the slope is excavated for construction, foundation footers shall be designed to resist subsoil drainage. h. The applicant shall abide by mitigation techniques as recommended by Dan Powell in his letter of April 4, 1990, attached as Exhibit "A". 3. No development shall occur outside of the established building envelope. 4. The riparian zone associated with the Roaring Fork River shall be preserved in its natural state in order to continue to provide habitat for wildlife species in the area. The following shall apply to the riparian zone: a. Native vegetation shall be maintained along the river bed. b. Thinning and pruning of this vegetation shall be prohibited unless written approval is obtained from the Colorado Division of Wildlife. 5. The septic system designed for the site shall meet the approval of the Environmental Health Department. The applicant shall obtain approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 4 #325575 09/24/9Ci 11:4, Sec $ilei 1via D-tvis, Pitkin Cnt C�- P1; 628 FG 42 Y F;, Doc- Resolution rorResolution No. PZ -90-0/ Page 4 approval of the Environmental Health Department. The applicant shall obtain approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 6. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide documentation of an adequate domestic water supply. Quantity and quality of said supply shall meet the approval of the Environmental Health Department. 7. The residence shall be limited to one fireplace and one certified stove. 8. Construction hours shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 9. The applicant shall prepare a site plan for recordation which meets the approval of the Planning Department and the County Attorney. The riverside boundary of the building envelope on said plan shall be located approximately nine feet in elevation below the top of the slope to the 966 foot elevation line. 10. All material representations made in the public hearing and in the application shall be adhered to. APPROVED by the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission at its regular meeting on July 17, 1990. ATTEST: N�e'yz7 will �/'ICP,/l /x /11 Deborah Skehan, Administrative Assistant APPROVED AS TO FORM: Thomas F. Smith, fly }County Attorney l i � PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Suzanhd Caskey, Chairm n APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: AinMar e P1 ning Di` ctor Silvia Davis. Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $,00 POWELL & ASSOCI*ES C O N f U L T I N❑ C L O L O C i S Y S April 19, 1990 Alice Davis 300 E. Hyman, Suite B Aspen, CO 81611 P. 0. Box 60204 Grand Junction, CO 8150£; (303) 241-6865 Re: Geological evaluation of site for single.-faiA ly resldencr, Lot 4, Little Texas Subdivision, Pitkin County 1 have completed the geologic appraisal of the subject property/building site for the required HB 1041 hazard review. The property 1s in the Sw/4 NE/4 section 16, T.9 S., R.85 rW.. about seven (7) miles north of Asper, Pitkin County, Colorado. The subject lot stretches from the east bank of the Roaring Fork River east- ward across a narrow, younger river terrace, thence upward and over a west - facing, approximately 30 -feet -high bench onto the flat surface of an older river terrace. The :ower and topper tereaces are composed entirely of rounded, river -deposited boulders, cobbles and gravel 1n a matrix of pirr. sacd ra,e of dx•:-f s -d rt•c:. .`,3grenU. Sandy scil, ccr•'-_ie'r.g u. � - of clay and humus raanties the whole lot. Bedrock. beneath the terrace '.. . Is not exposed, butt it appears to be Mancos Shale as in adjacent lots. ever, terrace gravels are at least 12 feet thick on the lower terrace and 35 feet thick on the upper terrace: The slope leading fron lower to upper terrace level is presently stabilized by vegetation, mainly mature Gamble's oak acid serviceber:•;, or partly occupied by a terpoiary structure. 11 %e% Er, the n -lural slope is probably riot greater than the maximum angle of repose for tte terrace gravels. The anticipated building envel:,,e for the residence will inc %de of the slope, fro -i its cr y_ �-,,n'ward to the mi+dle Of _lic 'err'"CC and as adjacent portion of the upper terrace flat. Soil, subsoil, and under- lying terrace material are practically uncompressible, exhibit excellent in- ternal (matrix) porosity and drainage, and. contain minimal anounts of clay. Consequently, standard foundation designs should be adequate for the sub- strata. However, if the upper part of the sloptt is excavated for construc- tion, care should be taken that foundation footers be designed to resist subsoil water drainage. Particularly, excess water, from the upper levels should not be allowed to erode the base from beneath the footers. With regard to continued stability of the terrace slope, after construction, care should be taken to minimize surface water run-off down the slope, ad- jacent to the building. Specifically, run-off should be minimized and spread down the slope. it is further suggested that existing, natural vegetation be maintained, where feasible, on the slope which would preclude any signigicant cf ti-i.e xerophytic plants. POOR COPY a� 01 #325575 08/24/90 11:4ec L.00 BK 628 PG 44 Silvia Davis., Pitkin Vy Clerk, Doc $.00 Alice Davis, Page 2 Despite the porous soils and substrata, the granitic coeposition of the terrace material might subject the site to slight enanatians of radon cas. Ade%:ace subfloor ver,tilatior: or gas shield should to prcvIjeu, to assu`E acceptable levels of radiation within the home. In conclusion, the homesite and building envelope are well suited for almost any kind of construction, providing that the reconivendatiois above are followed. feel free to contact me should any further questions arise. Yours faithfully, ""._ AIA/ pr� OR COPY J. Can Powell, Ph. D. �� Registered Professional G=.7o�tst rowiu r waaocinr92 3b ,i 0 MEMORANDUM 0 TO: Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Ellen Sassano, Planning Office RE: Melberg 1041 Special Review DATE: July 3, 1990 REQUEST: Tom Melberg is requesting approval of a 1041 Environmental Hazard Review/Category 2 Exemption. The applicant is proposing to construct an addition to an existing single family home on a lot which is 22,500 square feet in size. The site is encumbered by slopes in excess of 30%, floodplain and mapped deer winter range. APPLICANT: Tom Melberg LOCATION: Lot 4, Little Texas Subdivision ZONING: AF -1 1041 REVIEW Slopes The proposed building envelope encroaches on a slope which exceeds 30 percent in grade. Section 5-401.2(h)(2) of the Code stipulates that development shall be discouraged on slopes of 15% and greater unless problems of stability and erosion can be overcome. Any development approval is to be based on a detailed site survey including geologic and engineering analysis and is to comply with the following criteria: 1. Cuts shall not be made into slopes steeper than thirty percent (30%), unless mechanical support is provided. 2. Cuts and fills, and grading and scraping shall be confined to the minimum area needed for construction. 3. Steepness of cut and fill slopes shall be the maximum which will insure stability and still allow revegetation. 4. Use mulches or temporary cover on exposed soil areas and re-establish permanent vegetation and install erosion control measures as soon as possible. 5. Incorporate natural drainage patterns into the development plan. A consulting geologist has reviewed the site, evaluated slope stability, and suggested mitigation techniques to alleviate the hazards. He concludes that the building envelope is well suited for any kind of construction, provided that the following recommendations are adhered to: 1. Run-off water should be minimized and spread down the slope away from the foundation; 2. Existing natural vegetation on the slope should be maintained; and 3. There should be positive drainage away from foundation footers. He further notes that standard foundation designs should be adequate for the substrate. However, if the upper part of the slope is excavated for construction, care should be taken that foundation footers be designed to resist subsoil water drainage. Specifically, excess water from the upper levels should not be allowed to erode the base from beneath the footers. The Code specifically discourages development on slopes exceeding 15%. However, Staff notes that the Planning and Zoning Commission recently granted approval for development on slopes exceeding 30% on a near -by lot. It was determined that mitigation was adequate to accommodate development on the slope. It has been determined that steep slopes can also be mitigated on the applicant's site. It is noted that development on the slope in this particular case will cause less visual impact from Highway 82 than would development on the flat bench above. However, building on the slope will potentially impact the view corridor from the river. Finally, mitigation of the slope hazard is the primary concern in this review. Floodplain While the Roaring Fork River floodplain does encroach on the Melberg parcel, it is below the building site, as delineated on the site plan. The applicant agrees to maintain the riparian area associated with the River in it's natural state. No development shall occur within the floodplain area. Wildlife Though the site is mapped as deer winter range, Randy Cote has indicated that mapping for the Woody Creek quadrant is inaccurate. New mapping, which has yet to be adopted by the County, has been submitted by the Division of Wildlife to the Planning Office. The updated map has deleted lands located between the Roaring Fork River and Upper River Road from wildlife N 0 0 habitat areas. Based ,upon discussions with Mr. Cote and new mapping, it is concluded that big game habitat is not a concern on this site. It is concluded however, that the riparian area associated with the river is to be maintained in it's natural state in order to continue to provide habitat for other wildlife species. The Division of Wildlife recommends the following treatment in the riparian zone: 1. Native vegetation should be maintained along the river bed. 2. Thinning and pruning of this vegetation should be prohibited. GENERAL SUBMISSION/BUILDING PERMIT EXEMPTION REVIEW The County Attorney has ruled that lots within existing legally platted subdivisions do not require General Submission review before the Board of County Commissioners. Pursuant to Section 18- 2.5 of the Code, the applicant has addressed proposed water supply and waste water disposal for the site. The existing septic system on site is not sized to accommodate a home with more than three bedrooms. Bob Nelson, having reviewed the site, recommends that the existing system be utilized for "grey" water flows and that a second system be added to accommodate additional wastewater flows. Said system should be located at the toe of the slope on the lower bench and should be site specifically designed. The applicant commits to install a system which meets the approval of the Environmental Health Department. The site is served by an existing well which, the applicant contends, provides an adequate domestic water supply in terms of quality and quantity. Bob Nelson makes the following comment regarding water provision: There is no information in the submittal as to chemical or bacteriological quality of the drinking water, the maximum pumping rate, the yield, the water main sizing, the existing or proposed water storage, or a legally recorded permit for the well construction or water use. The additional increase in size of the residence on the property and the change from a seasonal Summer usage to year round occupancy could substantially affect the quantity of water available, particularly during low flow periods of the late winter. Water provision for the site shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the Environmental Health Department prior to issuance of a building permit. 3 3� Finally, the site is served by an interior subdivision road which gains access from Upper Woody Creek Road. Said road is 10 feet in width. County access standards require a width of 30 feet. The County Engineer has recommended that the access easement along this road be widened to 30 feet to conform to standards. In the event that a 30 foot easement cannot be granted, a 20 foot easement will suffice, given County Attorney and County Engineer approval. SUMMARY: While the intent of the Code is to discourage development on slopes exceeding 30%, it is clear that mitigation of the excessive slope is possible, given procedures recommended by the consulting geologist. The applicant agrees to abide by said recommendations. The applicant agrees to preclude development in the delineated floodplain area and to maintain riparian vegetation associated with the river. The Planning and Zoning Commission recently granted 1041 approval to a nearby lot with similar slope and floodplain characteristics, feeling that carefully planned development, as proposed, can -occur in this area without negative impacts to the slope and riparian zones. Finally, while it is not a requirement, it is requested that the applicant consider granting a fishing easement along the Roaring Fork River. Said easement would encompass the area from centerline of the river to 5 feet above the high water line on the bank. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Melberg 1041 Review subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall adhere to criteria stipulated in Section 5-401.2 of the Land Use Code. Criteria is as follows: a. Cuts shall not be made into slopes steeper than thirty percent (30%), unless mechanical support is provided. An engineering report shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. b. Cuts and fills, and grading and scraping shall be confined to the minimum area needed for construction. All disturbed areas shall be revegetated within one growing season after completion of construction. 2. A landscaping and drainage plan shall be submitted and F 2q approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. The plan shall incorporate the following recommendations: a. Steepness of cut and fill slopes shall be the maximum which will insure stability and still allow revegetation. b. Use mulches or temporary cover on exposed soil areas and re-establish permanent vegetation and install erosion control measures as soon as possible. C. Incorporate natural drainage patterns into the development plan. d. Run-off water should be minimized and spread down the slope away from the foundation; e. Existing natural vegetation on the slope should be maintained; and f. There should be positive drainage away from foundation footers. g. If the upper part of the slope is excavated for construction, foundation footers shall be designed to resist subsoil drainage. h. The applicant shall abide by mitigation techniques as recommended by Dan Powell in his letter of April 4, 1990, attached as Exhibit "A". 3. No development shall occur outside of the established building envelope. 4. The riparian zone associated with the Roaring Fork River shall be preserved in its natural state in order to continue to provide habitat for wildlife species in the area. The following shall apply to the riparian zone: a. Native vegetation shall be maintained along the river bed. b. Thinning and pruning of this vegetation shall be prohibited. 5. The septic system designed for the site shall meet the approval of the Environmental Health Department. The applicant shall obtain approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 6. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide documentation of an adequate domestic water supply. 5 0 • Quantity and quality of said supply shall meet the approval of the Environmental Health Department. 7. The residence shall be limited to one fireplace and one certified stove. 8. Construction hours shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 9. The applicant shall grant a minimum of a 20 foot access easement to adjacent properties, using the existing access road. Approval of less than a 30 foot wide easement shall be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney and Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. 10. The applicant shall prepare a site plan for recordation which meets the approval of the Planning Department and the County Attorney. 11. All material representations made in the public hearing and in the application shall be adhered to. ELS MEMO_MELBERG_1041 2 ],HAROLD W. JOHNSON, (JOHNSON-LONGFELLOW B ASSOCIATES, INC.) A REGISTERED SURVEYORIN THE STATE OF COLORADO, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ON THE 28TH DA) OF JULY, 1980, A SURVEY WAS MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION OF LOT v, LITTLE TEXAS SUB. SHOWN HEREON AND THE IMPROVEMENTS WERE -OUND TO BE AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAT. ALL EASEMENTS OR ENCRO/CHMENTS IN EVIDENCE OR KNOWN TO ME ARE SHOWN. SAID SURVEY IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELI'F. JOHNSON- LONGFE-LOW 8& ASSOCIATES, INC. HAROLD W. J01 -N 4-� ------------ L.S. 9018 SITE PLAN/ROOF PLAN IMPROVEMENT SURVEY LOT 4 LITTLE TEXAS PARCEL OF LAND IN SEC. 16 T.9S. R.85W. JOHNSON -LONGFELLOW 8 ASSOCIATES, INC. BOX 5547 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, COLORADO 81615 JOB NO. 00-11.0 SCALE I" =20 JULY 29, 1980 H.W.J.-.f,.R.H. �p.•90 19 z IL 2.1