HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.eh.272929200006 (1988)roe
ASPEAI#PITK N�00(a
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERidIT NO.��� S,3
TYPE OF PERMIT:
AInitial Construction ( )Emergency Use ( )Repair Work,(Pievious Permit / ) ( )Alteration of an existing system,
/ or installation (Previous Permit ! )
( )Use Permit as a result of Sale ( )Other:
C�
ISSLr:D T0: _ DATE OF ISSUE .
Owner_ Home Phone 7k — zz%'/Business Phone
Mailing
Address'/Oz-7S / /✓�llf �'�7T/�l/A� .
Agent,
Mailing
Address
Sewage Disposal System Work to be performed bye
This permit valid
/�only for premises location by the following legal dencrip on:
LOT SIZE WATER SUPPL L VERJLC.E ERCOLATION R11TF.
i
This Individual Sewage Disposal Permit is grant d h regard to he following use
Nue.Axar of: Dedreoms _ Lofts _ Carbage Disposals Dishwashers^� Clothes Washors �.
CALCULATED AVERAGE DAILY WASTE Ab GALLONS.
THE NATUP.E OF THE SYSTEM I�'CLUDED DER TRIS PERZiI. :
Typ._ of Tank or Treatment Units
Mcthod of Final Disposals;�el'�qG'C -
t?i Description (including brand name, if any) of then
Tank. Capacity Z e & _Callon Minimu:a
Absor tiop . Urea 2-s— Square Feet Minimum
or 51
cost
A
Other Condition! or Specificationst '
_Pf �G c i hW7-1,04G� `/..TCS
STAG REQ R N3SPECTIO 3C THE EALTH DEPARTMENT:
( )Ac. -fore Excavation ( )Upon complet d.of ex avation and prior to placement of gravel Before covering distribution
system of absorption fi._ld
(Prior to backfill of ,any component ( )0th S city:
Plana and specifications of the proposed sewage disposal system have been reviewed and arr_ ecnsidered satisfactory. Pernissi.on
is hcrcby granted to tl,c owrer or his agent to perform the work indicated above in accordance with the Pitkin County Ind1V1 I1a.l
Sewa;e Disposal Revelations in effect on the date of issue. In addition to general provisions set forth on the reverse her-:!0e,
Permit is subject to the following additional terns and conditions:
APPROVED FOR ISSUE BY ��< / (title) Or14 E�iLHzT// C�►"��
The aixive in:iividual fievago disposal system installed by _
: has txcn in,:pcctcd for use by a represcntativc of the Aspen 1'it in L:nvi;anr,�rita acs [. Dcp.�runent. Tho uwnor avUwn0 a1�
rveponeibillty in cc -se of failure or inao q uacy of thio scware disposal system. Complete 31 -built drawing attached.
r .
DATE 01 FINAL INSPECTION
BY:
TITLE
Vaytc CC, : Owis,/ Z.(r,i C'ftN„p,
Vz-
130 South Galenaltreet Aspen, Colorado 8161'1 303/925-2020
t l:
ASPEN*PITKIN
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
APPLICATION FOR AN INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL•PERMIT
Name of OWNER �{�/% /� 1P PHONE Z16 7 `/`/
Address of OWNER llGYv�l� �' GLr �/, c�l�
Name of APPLICANT PHONE
PERMIT TO BE: Picked Up ( )Hailed tot TYPE OF PERMIT: New Installation ( )Repair
( jOwner ( )Applicant ( )Emergency use ( )Alteration NOT due to failure
LOCATION OF PROPOSED SYSTEMS
Legal Description 1✓!� y c �cyn .Z9 2:0,
T �
Lot Block Filing Subdivision Size of Lot .2 acres
TYPE'OF STRUCTURE: Single Family Dwelling ( )Others Do you plan any furthep additions to the
residence? ( )YES
No. of bedrooms 9 No, of Lofts No. of Garbage Disposals No: of Automatic Dishwashers
No, of Automatic Clothes Washers
HATER SUPPLY: t -)Private Well, Depth or ( )Public, Name of System
( )Spring
( )Stream or Creek
TYPES OF INDIVIDUAL SEWACE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PROPOSED:
,"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 Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department (925-2020, 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/PITKIN 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 false information will invalidate t
a applicat;n nd ubsequent permit.
Signature of Applicant I ILt�2� DATE
(This 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.
4. 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 undersigd� hereby acknowledges receipt of this individual sewage disposal i/S p ion and a per it f�in the amount
of i CJL`. Receipt Number , Date Fee Received ! by
Administrativo Officer
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925,2020
CLAYCOMB ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
SUITE 207 VILLAGE PLAZA
GLEN WOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601
303-945-8676
January 11, 1985
Bob Nelson
Pitkin Co. Environment Health Office
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
��MO E'r0
u w
MEMBER
RE: Percolation test, SE 1/4 of NL'7 1/4, Sec. 29, T 10S, R 88W
Job No. 1785.145
Dear Bob:
A percolation test was conducted by personna.l from our office on
Monday, January 7, 1985 at the proposed site of an infiltration bed
for a residential dwelling on a 20 acre parcel located in the SE
1/4 of the NW 1/4, Sec. 29, T 10S, R 88W, near Redstone, Colorado.
The test results indicate that the soil is well suited for an
infiltration bed. The average percolation rate for the three holes
was 26 minutes/inch. The soil profile holes revealed no
groundwater or bedrock to a depth of 8'. The bed will be over 100
feet from the Crystal River and about 15' above the water level of
the river.
Please contact us if you have any questions.
Sincerely yours,
CLAYCOMB ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
Elmer L. Claycomb, P.E.
President
cc: Roy Arneson
ELC/cic
COLORADO SPRINGS OFFICE
4360 MONTEBELLO DR., SUITE 150 COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO 80918 303-594-6146
January 23, 1985
Pyr. Roy Arneson
0341 Bison Lane
Redstone, Colorado 81623
Re: Claycomb Engineer's Opinion on the On-site Wastewater
Disposal System for a residence in SE 1/4 NW 1/4, Sec. 29
T 10S, R 88W
Dear Roy:
Based upon the January 11, 1985 letter from Elmer Claycomb, it
would appear that a conventional on-site sewage disposal system
consisting of absorption trenches (400 square feet per bedroom)
or an absorption bed (575 square feet per bedroom) can be constr-
ucted in compliance with Pitkin County codes. The overall site
conditions appear to be suitable and as a result of the engineering
evaluation, it is our conclusion that a permit to construct a
septic system can be issued.
If you have further questions regarding this matter, please call.
RFN/co/Arneson
Sincerely,
Robert F. Nelson
Environmental Health Officer
LC3'.TTA BANNER
PI rK14 c l Y. RECORSER
SEP ' ` 1 43 PM '86
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, GRANTING 1041 HAZARD REVIEW
APPROVAL TO STEPHEN BROITZMAN AND RENAE COTTON
FOR A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SITE ON A PROPERTY WHICH CONTAINS
MAPPED 1041 HAZARDS INCLUDING FLOODPLAIN,
GEOLOGIC AND WILDLIFE CONCERNS
Resolution No. 86-80
WHEREAS, Stephen Broitzman and Renae Cotton (hereinafter "Appli-
cants") have requested that the Board of County Commissioners (herein-
after "Board") grant Special Review approval for a residential house
site on a 23 acre parcel (more specifically described in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto) which contains mapped 1041 floodplain, geologic and
wildlife concerns; and
WHEREAS, on August 11, 1986, the Board reviewed the request at a
duly noticed public hearing at which time evidence and testimony was
presented with respect to said application; and
WHEREAS, the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
reviewed this request at their regularly scheduled meeting of July 8,
1986, and recommended that the Board grant approval of this request
subject to conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board that it does hereby
grant Special Review approval to the Applicants subject to the
following conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission:
1. Dr. Nicholas Lampiris's geological report and conclusions,
Resolution No. 86-80
Page 2
dated November 20, 1985 (attached as Exhibit "B" and
incorporated by this reference) shall be complied with.
2.A professional geologist, shall be present at the staking of
the building envelope to insure proper placement and
configuration of the landscaping :improvements, including the
berm (as referenced in Lampiris' geological report in
Condition One), for the purpose of reducing flooding impacts
to the single-family residence. The landscaping improve-
ments shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Office
prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
3. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall
obtain a soils engineering study to insure proper foundation
placement, construction and drainage flow.
4. The bridge design over Hawk Creek as designed by Buckhorn
Geotech is approved by the County Planning Engineer. Any
modifications to this design shall be re -certified by a
qualified professional engineer and reviewed and approved by
the County Planning Engineer prior to construction. To
prevent stream sedimentation and bank erosion, the bridge
construction may not take place during the months of May
through June.
5. To protect critical wildlife habitat:
a. No dogs shall be permitted on the property.
b. All buildings shall be limited to the defined building
envelope. No building shall occur on the ridge or
along its south facing slope.
C. Fencing shall be restricted to the area within the
building envelope. No fencing shall be permitted along
the property boundaries on the ridge where there are
wintering elk.
6. The site plan shall be modified to show the existing road
which traverses the property. This road shall be used to
determine the final configuration of the building envelop
for the purpose of protecting riparian vegetation and
insuring stream bank stability. This site plan, which shall
be presented on a 24"x36" mylar sheet, shall be approved by
the Planning Offict. and recorded with the Pitkin County
Clerk and Recorder at the time of the Board's resolution of
approval for this project.
7. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the
applicant shall follow the Environmental Health Office's
requirements for water and septic systems, referred to in
1 11
Resolution No. 86-80 J
Page 3
their memo dated June 20, 1986 (attached hereto as Exhibit
"C" and incorporated herein by reference).
APPROVED by the Board at its regular meeting on August 25, 1986.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
PITKIN COUH,T,IY, CO,bORAD*--
ATTEST:
�iP��ry �erriy
Deputy County Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
omas F. Smith, County Attorney
FK.7
B
eren`4C. Xl?Oiderud, Chairwoman
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:
Alan Richman, Planning and Develop-
ment Director
ALTA OWNER'S POLICY — Amen, 0/j EXHZRS T A
SCHEDULE A
Order No.: 8998
Date of Policy: January 12, 1981 at 4:16 p.m.
flc,, 518 P,I-i,-400
Policy No.: 0-357389
Amount of Insurance: S 40,000.00
t. Name of Insured:
STEPHEN BROITZMAN AND RENAE COTTON
2. The estate or interest in the land described herein and which is covered by this policy is:
Fee Simple
3_ The estate or interest referred to herein is at Date of Policy vested in:
STEPHEN BROITZMAN AND RENAE COTTON
4. The land referred to in this policy is described as follows:
That part of the Southeast one-quarter of the Northwest one-quarter of
Section 29, Township 10 South, Range 88 West of the 6th P.M., lying Easterly
and Northeasterly of the center of Hawk Creek and Easterly and Southeasterly
of the center of the Crystal River.
EXCEPTING therefrom, that part described in instrument recorded in Book
212 at page 577, Records of Pitkin County.
County of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
Authorized Countersignature
Page 2
:ODE 0012 GUARANTY COMPANV
EXHIBIT 8 nI ]wr
Z�
~ l \
Nicholas L2rnpinC. PhL/
co^,Uu.*sacoLuo.s
po.BOX 1oyo
ASPEN. COLORADO 81612
(303) 963-3600 925-6020 ASPEN OFFICE
ho,amher 25, 192--
2c! McCormick
..
Qrvstal River Realty, Inc.
117 1/2 Redstone Blvd.
Radstcne' CO' 81623
R[: Broitzman/Cotton Lot
Pszr Mr. M=Cormick:
���� ���
RC7x "�'��� 7�� ����.
I have completed mv geologic investigation of the
approximately 23 acre tract between Hawk Creek and the
Crystal River for purposes of satisfying House Bill 1041.
Thd parcel lies in the NW 1/4 of Section 29, T 10 S, R 88 W,
mf the Si:th P.M., within the Redstone 7 1/2 minute
quagrangle. Pitkin County, Czlorado. Although the parcel is
la-gc, only the western corner near the Crystal River was
studied as a potential building envelope.
'' `agraph/caiI`, this site is within tvs ulinr
floodplain of the Crystal River and could be termed a P001 -1y
dezined terrace' The lot is heavily wooded, including large
conifers. There are linear mounds associated with Hawk Creek
to the south and the remnants of twq bridges as shown on the
accompanying map with an old dirt road which once connected
them. Except for the linear mounds and a well defined swale
aw shown, the general area of the site is nearly- level-., _
r�n bedrock formation in the entire -area is the Pennsylvanian
' -Fornian age Maroon Formation which dips roughly 30 degrees
to h4e west on the mountainside above the site. The Maroon
Fcrmuticn in this area consists mostly of siltstones,
s^rdstones, and a few conglomerate units cemented by a red,
iron compound called hematite. The building envelope itself
most probably lies on alluvial deposits containing silts,
jocds, cobbles and boulders. There are some debris fon
jcpowits superimposed on the terrace near Hawk Greek as shown
a,4 pr,Uably same colluvium near the base of the steep �
hillside.
A -eccnt flcod cn Hawk Creek has destr'syed the bridge there
�`n�� �ld�r �lso�s in the form of^de�rts flows have also
`
-;Fqctad the preu. The bei|oznq onvel oco as snown is free of
0i ,lccOLMc Aut in Srcr "c"re M
aev c
"e
ld b affected Wong the
home, !andzcaPing �nou �
Whw,,t 3ide cf the uumlding envsloco which would deflect
any jlooJL cr debris flows into ths'swale already present to
.ort�
t��� s of the site. The landscaping would only have �to''
have a net relief Of approxi t l five feet because of the
ma e y
z..f a-
0 518
nanomcs from the sourca o! the dabris flown and the evidence
their historic p<atn3.
hs building envelope as defined should be at least =u fr=et
r cm the base of the steep hill becauge of the potential of
xi "or- snow slides down to the base. There is no evidence of
._avolanching having historically affected this site, nor was
there any evidence of rock:fall or unstable slopes in this
7.:.,7.1+='diate vicinity.
Tho Pitkin County floodplain maps of this portion of the
Crystal River indicate that the 100 year flood boundary i
very close to the top of the bank in this area; therefore, a
detailed survey of the 100 -year floodplain will be necessary.
Although the 100 -year flood should not overflow the bank: in
this straight stretch of the Crystal River, the proposed home
should to held at least 0 feet back: from the edge of the
Wk: but certainly south of the previously mentioned swale.
Access t� � the site was once available, but will now require
tne building of a new bridge to the site. This bridge should
Piave' as wide a span as feasible in this area and have a. final
height of at least two feet .above present grade to allow
amain _:.:ace for floods and debris flows to pass beneath. It
_•.,-,.id be advisable to have this bridge designed by an
arr_i.n=er- familiar with mountain flooding, rather than built
by a contractor without the necessary expertise.
Soils engineering should be performed at the site specific
lc_vel to insure proper- foundation design. This report should
include provisions .for positive drainage away from the
i QmG site and a perimeter subsurface drain around the
f:_,yndstion. If necessary, water for domestic use will be
available by the drilling of a fairly shallow well within the
c:!_ i i j i na_ envelope. Waste disposal should be available
t;l'-ough the usy of a septic sy=stem and accompanying leach
ti_ld in this type of permeable soil with a significant depth
tQ bedrock; however, the Pitkin County Sanitation Engineer
.-auld be consulted for his specific recommenda-tions,
.__:pacially in view of the proximity to the Crystal River.
7is site should be a suitable one for the development of a
0.ng l e family residence, if my recommendations are f of l owed .
i;; addition, I would like to be present during the staking
cf the bu, lding so that final landscaping considerations
7:i be dealt with effectively at that time. please feel free
-n calt..act me if there are fur-tner- questions.
cincerely,
encl. Nicholas L.ampir* s
NL_rclk Consulting Geologist
xH Lid T_7- G
ASPEN*PITKIN
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Francis Krizmanich, Planning Office
FROM: Bob Nelson, Department of Environmental Health
DATE: June 20, 1986
RE: Broitzman/Cotton 1041 Review
Parcel ID #2729-292-00-006
This department has reviewed the recently forwarded submission
for compliance with Colorado Department of Health Regulations,
local requirements, and those specifications in the Pitkin County
Land Use Code under our jurisdiction. We present the following
review comments for your consideration regarding the referenced
proposal:
1. WATER SUPPLY
The geologic report of Nick Lampiris dated November 25, 1985
indicates that it should be possible to obtain a drinking water
supply from a well drilled in the diluvidi material "within the
building envelope" and as long as the minimum separations from
the septic system are maintained, we concur with this general
conclusion. A well permit has already been issued by the
Division of Water Resources.
2. SEWAGE DISPOSAL
It should be possible to construct a conventional onsite waste-
water disposal system on this site. We do have some concern that
the absorption area of the septic system be placed in such a way
that it is as far from the creek and the river as is possible.
As indicated in the attached correspondence, the other site
factors influencing the type and design of a septic system have
been evaluated last year and found to comply with Pitkin County
Code.
3. OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CONCERNS
Other concerns of this department relate to the water quality
impacts an the potential of sediment being introduced into the
river as a result of the bridge construction. We would suggest
that the applicant develop a plan with his contractor and
engineer to coincide the timing and construction activities to a
period of low flow and, that the design minimize the erosion of
the banks during construction.
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-2020
MEMORANDUM
TO: Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Francis Krizmanich, Planning Office
RE: B r of tz man/Cotton 1041 Geol oqi c/Floodplain Hazards
Parcel ID#2729-292-00-006
DATE: July 8, 1986
REQUEST: The Applicants are requestinq Special Review approval to
construct a single-family residence on property containing mapped
1041 Hazards including Geologic and Floodplain..
APPLICANT: Stephen Broitzman and Renae Cotton
LOCATION: The property is located on the north side of Hawk
Creek at its confluence with the Crystal River approximately two
(2) miles south of Redstone.
ZONING: The property is a 23 acre parcel that is zoned RS -30.
It is a legal non -conforming (as to lot size) lot.
ACCESS: Access to the property is via private drive from the
south which will utilize a bridge to cross Hawk Creek.
WATER: tater is proposed to be provided by a well. The Appli-
cants have been issued a well permit by the State Division of
Water Resources.
SEWER: Sewage is proposed to be treated by an on-site wastewater
disposal system.
MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS:
I. Referral Agency Comments:
1. Colorado Geological Survey -- In a letter dated June
20, 1986, Jeffrey L. Hynes commented that the Colorado
Geologic Survey has reviewed this application and has
no objection to its approval.
2. Environmental Health Department - in a memo dated June
20, 1986 (attached) Bob Nelson submitted the following
comments:
The Environmental Health Department generally
1
agrees with the Applicants that it should be
possible to obtain a drinking water supply from
the proposed well. An on-site wastewater disposal
system should be able to be constructed on this
site. We do have some concern that the absorption
area of the septic system be placed in such a way
that it is as far from the creek and the river as
is possible.
Ile would also suggest that the Applicants develop
a plan to coincide the timing and construction
activities to a period of low flow and that the
design minimize the erosion of the banks during
construction.
3. Colorado Division of Wildlife - In a letter dated
February 5, 1986 (attached) Kevin Wright has commented
that this property lies within critical habitat, severe
winter range, and production area for elk and is also
adjacent to bighorn sheep summer and winter ranges.
The specific building site for one single-family
residence should not cause major adverse impacts to
wildlife in this area if the following guidelines are
adhered to:
a. Buildina should be limited to the site envelope
and no builc-ing should occur farther up on the
ridge or along its south facing slope.
b. No dogs should be allowed in order to prevent
harassment to wintering animals on the ridge.
C. Fencing should be restricted to the area around
the dwelling and no fencing should occur along
property boundaries on the ridge where there are
wintering elk.
4. County Planning Engineer - In a memo dated June 19,
1986 (attached) , Tom Newland submitted the following
comments:
"The following recommendations of Dr. Lampiris'
geologic report should be included as conditions
of approval:
A landscaped berm at least 5 feet high and
400 feet long in the configuration depicted
on the submitted plat should be installed to
prevent anv flood or debris flow from harming
the dwelling unit,
2
M
' - soils engineering should be performed to
insure proper foundation placement, construc-
tion and drainage flow,
Dr. Lampiris should be present at the staking
out of the building to insure proper place-
ment and configuration of the landscaping
improvements.
Floodplain Concerns: The building envelope has
been properly located outside and above the
Crystal River and Hawk Creek floodplains.
I have reviewed the proposed bridge that will be
used to access the dwelling unit and have found it
to conform with county standards. The bridge has
been designed and approved by a certified en-
gineer, and the deck supports are 2 feet above the
100 year flood level."
II. STAFF COMMENTS: The Applicants' property is affected by
mapped 1041 Hazards including geologic, floodplain and
wildlife concerns. The recommendations of Dr. Lampiris'
geologic report should be made conditions of approval as
noted by Tom Mewland. The recommendations of the District
Wildlife Manager, Kevin Wright, should also be made condi-
tions of approval to protect critical wildlife habitat. The
Planning Staff also agrees with the floodplain mapping and
bridge design completed by the consulting engineers. The
Planning Office notes that there is a narrow band of mature
vegetation (5.0-100 feet) between the existing access road
and the Crystal River. We recommend that this road be shown
on the site plan and that it be used to establish the
setback from the river. This vegetation should be protected
as it is important in maintaining bank stability.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the Planning
Commission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners grant
1041 Hazard Review approval of this application subject to the
following conditions:
1. A landscaped berm at least 5 feet high and 400 feet long in
the configuration depicted on the submitted plat should be
installed to prevent any flood or debris flow from harming
the dwelling unit prior to issuance of any Certificate of
Occupancv. .
2.. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, soils engineering
should be performed to insure proper foundation placement,
construction and drair_aae flow.
3. Dr. Lampiris should be present at the staking out of the
0 .
. D C
a
building to insure proper placement and configuration of the
landscaping improvements.
4. The bridge design over Hawk Creek as designed by Buckhorn
Goetech is approved by the County Planning Engineer. Any
modifications to this design shall be re -certified by a
qualified professional engineer and reviewed and approved by
the County Planning Engineer prior to construction. To
prevent stream sedimentation and bank erosion, the bridge
construction may not take place during the months of May
through June.
5. To protect critical wildlife habitat:
a. No dogs shall be permitted on the property.
b. All buildings shall be limited to the defined building
envelope. No building shall occur on the ridge or
along its south facing slope.
C. Fencinq shall be restricted to the area within the
building envelope. No fencing shall occur along the
property boundaries on the ridge where there are
wintering elk.
6. The site plan shall be modified to show the road which
traverses the property and this road shall be used to
determine the final configuration of the building envelop to
protect riparian vegetation and insure stream bank sta-
bil ity. . This site plan shall be recorded with the Board's
resolution of approval for this project.
7. The Applicant shall follow the Environmental Health Office's
requirements for water and septic systems.
FK. 12
4
x
ASPEN*PITKIN
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Francis Krizmanich, Planning Office
FROM: Bob Nelson, Department of Environmental Health
DATE: June 20, 1986
RE: Broitzman/Cotton 1041 Review
Parcel ID #2729-292-00-006
This department has reviewed the recently forwarded submission
for compliance with Colorado Department of Health Regulations,
local requirements, and those specifications in the Pitkin County
Land Use Code under our jurisdiction. We present the following
review comments for your consideration regarding the referenced
proposal:
1. WATER SUPPLY
The geologic report of Nick Lampiris dated November 25, 1985
indicates that it should be possible to obtain a drinking water
supply from a well drilled in the alluvial material "within the
building envelope" and as long as the minimum separations from
the septic system are maintained, we concur with this general
conclusion. A well permit has already been issued by the
Division of Water Resources.
2. SEWAGE DISPOSAL
It should be possible to construct a conventional onsite waste-
water disposal system on this site. We do have some concern that
the absorption area of the septic system be placed in such a way
that it is as far from the creek and the river as is possible.
As indicated in the attached correspondence, the other site
factors influencing the type and design of a septic system have
been evaluated last year and found to comply with Pitkin County
Code.
3. OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CONCERNS
Other concerns of this department relate to the water quality
impacts an the potential of sediment being introduced into the
river as a result of the bridge construction. We would suggest
that the applicant develop a plan with his contractor and
engineer to coincide the timing and construction activities to a
period of low flow and that the design minimize the erosion of
the banks during construction.
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 91611 303/S25-2020
EXHIBIT I
Legal Description
A building envelope situated in SE!'4t1W;'� of Section 29, Township 10 South, Ranee
t,; nest of the 6th Principal Meridian, P4V',in Ccunty, Colorado, and being more
particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point whence the Witness Corner to the Ncrthwest Corner of said
Section 29 bears N 47007158" W 2275.19 feet; thence N 59°211.56" E 222.29 feet;
thence S 00044112" W 73.51 feet; thence S 55°4.0'54" W 220.27,feet; thence N 05"
40137" W 84.84 feet to the point of beginning; containing 0.35 acre more or less.
COUNTY OF PITKIN
STATE OF COLORADO
Lines in Space
P.O. Box 121
Carbondale, Co. 81623
Y
0
Pitkin County
506 East Main St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Sirs:
X0
Please find the attached items to assist in our application
for special review for the property we own in the Crystal River
Valley.
1. GEOLOGIST REPORT: Please see Exhibit A, a -report from Nicholas
Lampiris, PhD.
2. CRITICAL WILDLIFE: Please see Exhibit B, a letter from Kevin Wright,
District Wildlife Manager. r
3. FLOODPLAIN MAPS: Please see Exhibit C-1, a 100 year flood plain ran by
Kenneth J. Wilson of Schmueser and Associates. This exhibit also
shows a building envelope. Also, Exhibit C-2 is a flood plain
map for Hawk Creek, from Buckhorn Geotech, Consulting Engineers.
4. PROOF OF OWNERSHIP: Please see Exhibit D-1, a copy of the title
insurance policy showing ownership. Also Exhibit D-2, a copy of
the deed dated May 28,1971 from Redstone Ranch Acres to Michael
Lawrence Oksner (recorded at Book 255, Page 748). This deed shot -,s
separate ownership prior to 5/5/72 and also shows the road easement
which provides access to the subject property. Further, Exhibit D-3,
is an assignement of the purchase agreement the Ernie J. Reynolds
had with Michael Lawrence Oksner, to Stephen Broitzman and Renee
Cotton
5. WILDFIRE HAZARDS: Please see Exhibit E, a letter from John W.
Denison, District Forester, Colorado State Forest Service, stating
that there is not a significant wildland fire hazard.
6. WELL PERMIT: Please see Exhibit F, a well permit issued by Colorado
Division of Water Resources, good until June 19, 1986.
7. ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: Please see Exhibit G, a list of adjacent
property owners.
8. BRIDGE OVER HAWK CREEK: Please see Exhibit H, a copy of plans for
said bridge prepared by Buckhorn Ceotech, Consultina Engineers.
9. BUILDING ENVELOPE: Please see Exhibit I, a legal description of the
building envelope prepared by Sidney Lincicome of Lines In Space.
Also, please see Exhibit C-1, which also shows the building envelope.
10. SALES CONTRACT: Please see Exhibit J, a copy of the sales contract
between John J. Kieler (Purchaser) and Steven Broitzman and Renae
Cotton (Seller), which states in Paragraph 19 that a successful 1041
review process is a contingency.
1
., EXHIBIT A
Nicholas Lampiris, PhD
CONSULTING GEOLOGIST
P.O. BOX 10935
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
(303) 963-3600 925.6020 ASPEN OFFICE
November 25, 1985
Bob McCormick:
Crystal River Realty, Inc.
117 1/2 Redstone Blvd.
Redstone, CO. 81623
RE: Br-oitzman/Cotton Lot
Dear Mr-, McCormick::
I have completed my geologic investigation of the
approximately 21 acre tract between Hawk Creek: and the
Crystal River- for purposes of satisfying House Bill 1041.
The parcel lies in the NW 1/4 of Section 29, T 10 S, R 88 W,
of the Sixth P.M., within the Redstone 7 1/2 minute
quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado. Although the parcel is
large, only the western corner near the Crystal River was
studied as a potential building envelope.
Topographically, this site is within the older physiographic
floodplain of the Crystal River and could be termed a poorly
deVined terrace. The lot is heavily wooded, including large
conifers. There are linear mounds associated with Hawk: Creek:
to the south and the remnants of two bridges as shown on the
accompanying map with an old dirt road which once connected
them. Except for the linear mounds and a well defined swale
as shown, the general area of the site is nearly level.
The bedrock: formation in the entire' area is the Pennsylvanian
--Vermian age Maroon Formation which dips roughly 00 degrees
to the west on the mountainside above the site. The Maroon
Formation in this area consists mostly of siltstones.,
sandstones, and a few conglomerate units cemented by a red,
iron compound called hematite. The building envelope itself
most probably lies on alluvial deposits containing silts,
sords, cobbles and boulders. There are some debris fan
d: -posits superimposed on the terrace near Hawk: Creek: as shown
and probably some colluvium near the base of the steep
hillside.
A -ecent flood on Hawk: Creek: has destroyed the bridge there
and older floods in the form of`debr-is flows have also
.4nct.ed the area. The building envelope as shown is free of
evidence of flooding but in orner to insure aafetv of the
proposed home, landscaping should be affected along the
southwest side of the building envelope which would deflect
any floods or debris flows into the swal e already present to
the north of the .site. The landscaping would only have to
have a net relief of approximately five feet because of the
di �-tance from the source of the debris flows and the evidence
of their historic paths.
The building envelope as defined should be at least 30 feet
from the base of the steep hill because of the potential of
minor snow slides down to the base. There is no evidence of
avalanching having historically affected this site., nor was
there any evidence of rock:fall or unstable slopes in this
immediate vicinity.
The Pitkin County floodplain maps of this portion of the
Crystal River indicate that the 100 year flood boundary is
very close to the top of the bank: in this area; therefore, a
detailed survey of the 100 -year floodplain will be necessary.
Al though the 100 -year- flood should not overflow the bank: in
this straight stretch of the Crystal Fiver, the proposed home
should be held at least '<_r feet back: from the edge of the
bank: but certainly soUth of the previously mentioned swal e.
Access to the site was once available, but will now require
the building of a new bridge to the site. This bridge should
have as wide a span as feasible in this area and have a final
height of at least two feet above present grade to allow
ample space for floods and debris flows to pass beneath. it
,-jould be advisable to have this bridge designed by an
engineer familiar with mountain flooding, rather than built
by :a contractor without the necessary expertise.
Soils engineering should be performed at the site specific
level to insure proper- foundation design. This report should
include provisions for positive drainage away from the
hi,mesite and a perimeter subsurface drain around the
foundation. If necessary, water for domestic use will be
available by the drilling of a fairly shallow well within the
t,uilding envelope. Waste disposal should be available
t „-ouq_h the use of a septic system and accompanying leach
field in this type of permeable soil with a significant depth
t_,'3 bedrock;; however, the Pitkin County Sanitation Engineer
Should be consulted for his specific recommenda-tions,
;-specially in view of the proximity to the Crystal River.
7", i s site should be a Suitable one for the development of a
single family residence, if my recommendations are followed.
In addition, I woi:rld lik:e to be present during the staking
oi-tt of the building so that final landscaping considerations
c:< -:n be dealt with effectively at that time. Please feel free
r -c) contact me if thr-2?re are furttler questions.
Sincerely,
l�K4_14�1
encl. Nicholas Lampiris
tlLic1V: Consulting Geologist
EXHIBIT B
STATE OF COLORADO
Richard D. Lamm, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
James B. Ruch, Director
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216 (297-1192)
Crystal River Realty
Redstone, CO 81623
Dear Sir:
R4,0
?� w
On January 23,1986 I observed a 23 acre parcel of land known as the
Broitzman/Cotton Property, Redstone Acres, Redstone, Colorado,
SE -14, NW4, Sec. 29, T10S, R88W. This land lies within critical habi-
tat, severe winter range, and production area for elk and is also
adjacent to bighorn sheep summer and winter ranges.
Building within this area could have adverse impacts on wildlife.
However, the specific building site (envelope) for 1 single family
dwelling should not cause major adverse impacts to wildlife in this
area if some guidelines are followed. Building should be limited to
the the site envelope and no building should occur farther up on the
ridge or along its south -facing slope. In addition, no dogs should
be allowed in order to prevent harassment to wintering animals up on
ridge as well as added stress. Any fencing should be restricted to
the area around the dwelling and no fencing should occur along
property boundaries on the ridge where there are wintering elk.
Therefore, it is
will result from
proposed site if
my opinion that no major
construction of a single
the guidelines above are
cc. John Seidel, AWM
Pitkin County Planning/Zoning
File
adverse wildlife impacts
family dwelling on the
followed.
Sincerely,
Kevin Wright
District Wildlife Manager
P.O. Box 116
Carbondale, CO 81623
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, David H. Getches, Executive Director*WILDLIFE COMMISSION, James C. Kennedy, Chairman
Timothy W. Schultz, Vice Chairman*Michael K. Higbee, Secretary* Richard L. Divelbiss, Member.Donald A. Fernandez, Member
Wilbur L. Redden, Member.James T. Smith, Member.Jean K. Tool, Member
r -vim...- �:4.— Z' � Y-• 1 � 1 � � � �''� l / � t�
..��.- `"m
- � • Gi E®T NAME
PROJECT i 1 }
Consulting Engineers & Geologists
—
245 So. Cascade Ave. Montrose, Colo. 81401 303 - JOB # DATE249-6828 --
I
I
USI'd
&
-l= - _ -
•
T
I
!
I -�-
i
6e cFS - - �- 1 !
cs � � I
= {�;
2A- - - - - -..
I
I ,
� I
4 _-
f
1� ~
:
C+E�c;-'--
C.or�P�F2.tSO+U�-:—�R�7 iCo��: o_� �.L►�e�r �� .j ._ _
i ---I
441
: I
I :
i
EOTMH
Consulting Engineers & Geologists
245 So. Cascade Ave. Montrose, Colo. 81401 303-249-6828
NAME_ _(.0
1 _Z`— l,av 7e
rt-
i
-/
1.4 00 - 9 7d0/1Y3n
J.0
Vn SCALE
VELOC/T Y
FPS o
l e
h
OEM
OEM
I
ZZ
Q,
O
�I
u
�
v
K
o
L
y
OEM
OEM
I
ZZ
Q,
O
is
���►
��t
. ,fie
,, .
ONE
lit
9
I
ZZ
Q,
O
01
l�J�� = �j�l�,,�,", � �� ' � ��� .�� ��',�>>)i► `•t 1 it ����,• ;/. % 1r,
Ft (7,
�J !!)i llll I ��A\\,\AMNi1?,',A' li
M
SEI/4 N,;1/a. SECTION 29, TONNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 66
PITK-N COUNTY, COLORADO
NESTI
6TH P. M