HomeMy WebLinkAboutordinance.council.021-00
,~
A "
o
[i"'-"",
111111I1111I1111I111111111I11111111I11111I1111111111111
44!443 07/2!/2000 11:02A ORDINANC DAVIS SILVI
1 of 16 R 80.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
---------~---
/'
ORDINANCE NO. 21
(SERIES OF 2000)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROytNG THE HOLY
CROSS ENERGY CONSoLiDATED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND
REZONING TO R-30, LOWDKNSITYRESIDENTIAL, WrmAI'DD OVERLAY
ZONE DISTRICT, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY,COtORADO.
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Holy Cross Energy, represented by Alan Richman of Alan Richman Planning
Services, for a Consolidated Planned Unit Development (PUD), and Rezoning to R-
30/PUD, Low-Density Residential, for a rectangular shaped property located above the
Aspen City Shop; and, .
WHEREAS, the Holy Cross Energy property is approximately 32,456 square
feet, is located in the Conservation and Public Zone Districts; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.310 of the Land Use Code, the City Council
may approve Amendments to the Official Zone District Map, during a duly noticed
public hearing after considering comments from the general public, and
recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission, Community Development
Director, and relevant referral agencies; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445, the City Council may approve a
Planned Unit Development, during a duly noticed public hearing after considering
comments from the general public, and recommendations from the Planning and Zoning
Commission, Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and;
WHEREAS, the Fire Marshall, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, the City
Water Department, City Engineering, City Parks Department, and the Community
Development Department reviewed the Project and recommended approval with
conditions; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on May 30, 2000, the Planning
and Zoning Commission recommended, by a four to one (4-1) vote, to recommend City
Council approve of the Holy Cross Energy Rezoning to R-30, Low Density Residential,
and Consolidated Planned Unit Development, with conditions contained herein; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development
proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has
reviewed and considered the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission,
the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and
considered public comment at a public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds
all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal,
with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community
Plan; and,
r,
.,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code,
the Holy Cross Energy Association property, which is a rectangular configuration and
located above the Aspen City Shop, shall be rezoned from Conservation and Public to R-
30, Low Density Residential, with a Planned Unit Development Overlay.
Section 2
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code,
the Holy Cross Energy Planned Unit Development is approved subject to the conditions of
approval described hereinafter.
('1""'\
1. A PUD Agreement shall be recorded within 360 days of the final approval by City
Council and shall include the following:
a. The information required to be included in a PUD Agreement, pursuant to Section
26.445.070(C).
2. A Final PUD Plan shall be recorded within 360 days ofthe final approval granted by
City Council and shall include:
a. A final plat meeting the requirements of the City Engineer and showing
easements, encroachment agreements and licenses with reception numbers for
physical improvements and parking spaces within City rights-of-way, and
location of utility pedestals.
b. An illustrative site plan of the project showing the proposed improvements,
landscaping, parking, and the dimensional requirements as approved.
c. A drawing representing the project's architectural character.
3. Prior to an application for a building permit:
a. The PUD Agreement and the Final PUD Plans shall be recorded with the Pitkin
County Clerk and Recorder.
b. A public utility easement shall be approved by the Parks Department and, if
approved, utilities shall be installed and the trail along Highway 82 and under
Castle Creek Bridge on the subject property shall be rebuilt in a manner approved
by the Parks Department.
c. A permanent and non-revocable trail easement shall be granted by Holy Cross
Energy Association to the City of Aspen for the trail parallel to and under
Highway 82 and Castle Creek Bridge.
~.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII~~! Il\l~JI
44!443 07/2!/20000 110:002= gR~~N~~~K~= COUNTY CO
2 of 16 R 80.00 D. .
r\
d. A conservation easement, deed restriction, or other similar mechanism acceptable
to the City's Attorney's Office shall be placed on the portion of the property
located below Power Plant Road to ensure that this area remains open space and
undeveloped in perpetuity.
e. The applicant shall grant a permanent easement to the City of Aspen for the
maintenance of the retaining walls and support structures below and around
Castle Creek Bridge. The easement shall be approximately 15 feet to the sides
and above the retaining walls and structures, and continuing to Power Plant Road.
The easement shall be approved by the City Engineer.
f. The Applicant shall meet the then current growth management requirements for
the development of a new single family residence, which may include, but not be
limited to, applying for and obtaining a GMQS allotment or exemption, and
providing affordable housing mitigation requirements at the then current
standards.
g. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado
licensed Civil Engineer which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and
after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation
report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 2-year storm frequency
should be used in designing any drainage improvements.
h. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall approve at a public hearing a detailed
landscape plan showing the size, species, quantity, and location of all existing and
planned native vegetation on the portion of the parcel located above Power Plant
Road. The review criteria for the landscape plan shall be the following (the
existing PUD landscape review criteria in the Land Use Code):
o
~
I. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces,
preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity
and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate.
2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide
uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an
appropriate manner.
3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape
features is appropriate.
1. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall approve at a public hearing detailed
architectural character plans for the development of any structure on this site. It is
the purpose of the architectural character plans to demonstrate how the
development will encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual
identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting
efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a
building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed
massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of
materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of
the proposed development. There shall be approved as part ofthe final
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
44!443 07/2!/2000 11:02A ORDINANC DAVIS SILVI
3 of 16 R 80.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
('
development plan an architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the
character of the proposed development.
The review criteria for the architecture plans shall be the following (the
existing PUD architectural character plans review criteria in the Land Use
Code):
1. be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately
relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a
character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the
scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources.
2. incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking
advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of
non- or less-intensive mechanical systems.
3. accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and
appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance.
0,
4. The building permit application shall include:
a. A copy of the final Ordinance and recorded P&Z Resolution.
b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set.
c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District.
d. A tree removal permit as required by the City Parks Department and any approval
from the Parks Department Director for off-site replacement or mitigation of
removed trees.
e. A completed curb, gutter, and sidewalk agreement, if necessary.
f. A completed agreement to join any future improvement districts formed for the
purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent public rights-of-way.
g. Copies of the public utility, trail, conservation, and retaining walls and structures
maintenance easements.
5. Prior to issuance of a building permit:
a. The primary contractor shall submit a letter to the Community Development
Director stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood.
b. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. If an alternative
agreement to delay payment of the Water Tap and/or Parks Impact fee is finalized,
those fees shall be payable according to the agreement.
6. No excavation or storage of dirt or material shall occur within tree driplines or outside of
the approved building envelope and access envelope.
~
111111I1111I1111I111111111I1111111I111111I1111I11111111
44!443 07/2!/2000 11:02A ORDINANC DAVIS SILVI
4 of 16 R 80.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
.,._._-'-'--,.,_._-_.,-~-~~~_._--,._---_.,'-~---_.~--"~
0.
7. All construction vehicles, materials, and debris shall be maintained on-site and not
within public rights-of-way unless specifically approved by the Director of the Streets
Department. All vehicle parking, including contractors' and their employees', shall
abide by the 2 hour residential parking limitation of the area. The applicant shall
inform the contractor of this condition.
8. The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to
the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m.
9. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed
rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction.
10. All uses and construction shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System
Standards and with Title 25 and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water Conservation
and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code as they pertain to
utilities.
11. The Applicant or owner shall mitigate any public impacts that this project causes,
including but not limited to utility expenses and sanitary sewer and water lines.
12. The building plans shall demonstrate an adequate fire sprinkler system and alarm
system for the entire structure. The Aspen Fire Marshal shall also approve access to
the property.
~,
Ii
13. A fugitive dust control permit will be required during construction.
14. Slope stabilization, erosion COntrol, and sediment control measures need to be
implemented before, during, and after construction.
15. No other landscape improvements or changes to the parcel, except those approved by
the Community Development Director, are approved outside the established building
and access envelopes, excluding all necessary trail and retaining wall work.
16. The Applicant has represented that an old storage tank has been removed from the
site and that a soils test has been completed which shows no contamination of the site,
and that no future liability would accrue to the City of Aspen. The Environmental
Site Assessment is attached as Appendix 1.
Section 3:
All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or
documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are
hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied
with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity.
,~
Section 4:
1 111111 11111 111111 11111 1111 11111 11I1111 III 11111 1111 IIJI
44!443 07/2!/2000 11:02A ORDINANC DAVIS SILVCO
! of 16 R 80.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY
,0
!:
If'"
1'''''\
This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 5:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law,
by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 12th day of June, 2000.
Attest:
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 26th day of June, 2000.
Attest:
Approved as to form:
~~f/~
orces , City Attorney
111111I111111111I11111111111111111I11111111111111111111
44!443 07/2!/2000 11:002AN gR~~N~~~K~=V~~U~~~V~o
6 of 16 R 80.00 D 0.0 .
I
r
,
I
I
I
I
]
I
I
0.
...
I
I
I
I
I
I
--,
0,
1
"
1
tfr.py~~ I Y. ~
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF SERVICE..................................................................... 1
2.0 SITE DESCRlPTION................................................................................................................ I
3.0 RECORDS REVIEW ................................................................................................................ 1
3. I Historical Use Information .............................................................................................. 1
3.1.1 Ownership Information ...................................................................................... 1
3.1.2 Review of Aerial Photographs ............................................................................ 2
3.1.3 Historical Map Review ....................................................................................... 3
3.1.4 Historical Interviews ........................................................................................... 3
3.1.5 Historical Summary ............................................................................................ 4
3.2 Physical Setting Information ........................................................................................... 4
3.2.1 Topography ......................................................................................................... 4
3.2.2 Soil Conditions .................................................................................................... 4
3.2.3 Site Geology ........................................................................................................ 4
3.2.4 Regional Groundwater Conditions ..................................................................... 5
3.3 Regulatory Review .......................................................................................................... 5
4.0 SITE INVESTIGATION........................................................................................................... 6
4.1 Site Observations ............................................................................................................. 6
4.1.1 Current Use of the Site.....................:.................................................................. 6
4.1.2 Description of Specific Site Features.................................................................. 6
4.2 Adjoining Property Observations .........................................................:.......................... 7
5.0 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................... 7
6.0 TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ASSESSMENT................................................................. 7
FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Map
Figure 2 USGS Map 1960
Figure 3 USGS Map 1987
Figure 4 USGS Map I 972-Mining Activities in Aspen
ATTACHMENTS
Sanborn Fire Insurance Map Coverage
Photographs
EDR Report
11
-
- 0
-..u
!!!!! >
-..1>-
-"I-
_UlZ
-::>
-UlO
=....u
->
_CEZ
-....
=""
_UI-
_z"
_CElL
=z
=c~
-"".
_0..
iiiiiia:z
-N
=StS)
-..6)
-.. .
-....
=cgc
!!!!! ..
-....
_N"
=........ ~
-"'..
_NUl
=;:::a::
-..
-...
-.....
=...
-......
-"'0
!!!!! ...
-.......
1
J;-
I
)
]
J
1
]
I
1"':""'\
,
I"'i"'\
(
Environmental Site Assessment
Holy Cross Property
Aspen Lot, Aspen, Colorado
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF SERVICE
This report has been written to comply with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM)
Phase I Site Assessment Standard E1527-97.
This site assessment includes, in the following sections:
. site description
. limited review of the historic use of the site and adjacent properties
. review of regulatory agency records and environmental databases
. conclusions
Waste Engineering, Inc. (WE!) observed the site (Site) in the field on December 21,1999.
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
The Site is generally rectangular in shape and consists of approximately 0.75 acre, as shown on the
attached Site rnap (Figure 1). The Site is located on a steeply sloping hillside with vegetation
consisting of native grasses and scrub oak.
At the time of WEI's reconnaissance, the Site was not developed. Approximately six to eight
inches of snow covered the Site at the time of WEI's visit. Access to the Site is via Power Plant
Road, which bisects the Site, or by a pedestrianlbicycle path. An approximate 1,000-galIon
aboveground storage tank (AST) was Iocated in the sotith-central portion of the Site. Underground
utilities including telephone and gas lines were observed along the southern Site boundary.
The Site is bordered to the north by Castle Creek. Residential deveIopment borders the Site to the
west. Highway 82 forms the Site's southern boundary. The City of Aspen's Maintenance Facility
is located east of the Site.
3.0 RECORDS REVIEW
3.1 Historical Use Information
Historical use information for the Site and adjoining properties was obtained by reviewing
reasonably ascertainabIe sources such as ownership information, aerial photographs, and interviews
listed below.
3.1.1 Ownership Informo.tilJn
WEI obtained Site ownership information by reviewing public documents at the Pitkin County
Assessor's Office and by interviewing Site owners. According to the county records, the Site is
currently owned by Holy Cross Electric. WEI was unable to trace previous transactions involving
the Site at the Pitkin County Offices and, as an alternative, performed interviews as discussed
below.
1111111111111111111111111111111111I11111111111111111111
44!443 07/2!/2000 11:02A ORDINANC DAVIS SILVI
8 of 16 R 80.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
Waste Engineering, Inc.
Page 1
j~
Environmental Site Assessment
Aspen Lot, Aspen, Colorado
Holy Cross Property
I
WEI interviewed Robert Gardner, with Holy Cross Electric, by phone Decernber 28, 1999. Mr.
Gardner indicated that, to the best of his knowledge, Holy Cross purchased a Iarge tract of land
including the Site in 1953 from Mountain Utilities Company. According to Mr. Gardner, the
original tract of land included property located east of the Site, currently owned and operated as a
maintenance facility by the City of Aspen. Mr. Gardner was not familiar with how long Mountain
Utilities had owned the Site but indicated that the City of Aspen's power plant had been located on
the adjacent property to the east of the Site as far back as the early 1900's.
The ownership information did not reveal past owners of the Site whose company titles or
individual names suggest activities typically associated with the use, generation, storage, or disposal
of hazardous materials.
3.1.2 Review of Aerial Photographs
Available aerial photographs depicting utilization of the Site were reviewed at both the Aspen
Historical Society archives, and at the United States Forest Service (USFS) office in Lakewood.,
Colorado.
r'\
Photo ID
CDL 33-87
Date
10/23/39
~\
;t i 1
,
A review of available aerial photographs indicates that, with the exception of a roadway/and
footpaths, the Site has not been developed since 1939. Adjacent property to the east haS been
Waste Engineering, Inc.
Page 2
--
,
- 0
-"u
~>
_...I....
-......
-ltIIZ
-::>
-ltIIO
=....u
->
_a:z
-....
='"
_u....
_z..
_a:1l..
=z
=....6)
-..",
..,.
!!!!o 6) I
-a:z
-N
=Qm
~.:.;6!
-..",
=",..
~'"
-"''''
_N'"
=.......
_10'"
_NlD
-'
=r-a:::
-'"
-'"
-.....
-...
-......
-100
~...
_"'01
I
,~
f
I
1
I
I
I
I
r'\.
,~
t,... . I' ~
Environmental Site Assessment
Holy Cross Property
Aspen Lot, Aspen, Colorado
developed as early as 1939, while residential development occurred on adjacent properties to the
west prior to 1958.
3.1.3 Historical Map Review
Historical maps for the Aspen area including the Aspen Times' 1893 map of Aspen and the Willits
map of Aspen, Colorado 1896 were reviewed at the Aspen Historical Society to evaluate potential
impacts to the Site from past development. The Aspen Times' map does not depict developrnent on
the Site. The Roaring Fork Electric Light Company's building is located east of the Site, and
Highway 82 is "located south of the Site. Two smelters and a lixiviation buiIding are Iocated further
south of the Site, upstream along Castle Creek. Similar Site and adjacent property conditions are
depicted on the I896 Willits map. '
WEI requested Sanborn Fire Insurance map coverage of the Site and .adjacent areas from
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) of Southport, Connecticut. According to EDR's map
database, there is no Sanborn coverage for the Site. A copy of the EDR Sanborn Map Coverage
statement is included in the attachments of this report. However, WEI observed a 1904 Sanborn
map (not avaiIable for reproduction) at the Aspen Historical Society which offered partial coverage
of the eastern portion of the Site and adjacent properties to the east. The Sanborn map did not
depict development on the eastern portion of the Site. The Roaring Fork Electric Light and Power
Company's building was depicted on adjacent property to the east of the Site, and Highway 82 was
shown to the south of the Site.
3.1.4 Historical Interviews
Interviews with persons familiar with the Site were conducted to obtain information pertinent to the
environmental evaluation of the Site.
In addition to the ownership information provided above in Section 3.1.1, Mr. Gardner provided
information on the,historic use of the Site. According to Mr. Gardner, Holy Cross never developed
the Site during their years of ownership. Mr. Gardner indicated that Holy Cross provided an
easement across the Site for a bicycle path in the rnid-1970s, but he was unaware' of other
improvernents made to the Site. Mr. Gardner stated the AST located in the south-centraI portion of
the Site was on the Site at the time of Holy Cross' purchase in 1953. According to Mr. Gardner, the
AST was used as a fuel source for the dieseI generators formerly located at the historic power plant
facility east of the Site. The AST was utilized to gravity feed fuel to the generators located
downhiIl. Mr. Gardner stated that the power plant continued to utilize the AST for generator fueling
purposes after HoIy Cross had purchased the Site, but he was unaware as to how Iong the AST
d. I
staye muse.
Mr. Gardner stated that, to the best of his knowledge, there were no pending, threatened, or past
litigation, administrative ,proceedings or governmental violation notices relevant to hazardous
substances or petroleum products in, on, or from the Site.
o
- u
-...
!!!!>>-
-..II-
_...z
-ItII=>
=",8
!!!!! ...
_>z
_a:...
_Oll<:
= I-
_u...
_ZlL
!!!!~6)
=1-4161
-0'
-"'61
_0
- Z
-a:
-NC!il
=lS.'IlS)
iiiii;;6i
-...
=610
!!!!!!QIS;)
_6161
_N.
=........6)
-"'...
_N
=;:::G:
iiiiQCO
-...
'"
=.."""
-"'0
-",
; !!!!!!.. 6)
-......
Waste Engineering, Inc.
Page 3
~
tr'"';,
. !
l-"\
Environmental Site Assessment
Holy Cross Property
Aspen Lot, Aspen, Colorado
WEI contacted Orrin Moon, with the City of Aspen's Fire Department, on December 28, 1999. Mr.
Moon stated that he was not aware of reported spill events of petroleum products or potentially
hazardous substances on or in the vicinity of the Site based on Fire Department records.
3.1.5 Historical Summary
A review of historical information revealed no recognized environmental conditions associated with
the Site.
3.2 Physical Setting Information
3.2.1 Topography
The 1960 7.5-minute United States Geological Survey (USGS) Topographic Quadrangle Map
(Figure 2) of Aspen, Colorado indicates that the Site ranges in elevation from approximately 7,900
to 7,840 feet. Surface water resulting from storm events or snowmelt would flow generalIyto the
north/northeast towards Castle Creek. No structures are shown on the Site. One structure is shown
on adjacent property to the east, and two structures are shown on adjacent property to the northwest
of the Site. Power Plant Road traverses the Site, and Highway 82 is located south of the Site.
The 1960 (photograph revised in I987) USGS Topographic QuadrangIe Map (Figure 3) of Aspen,
Colorado indicates that the Site is not developed. Development in addition to that shown on the
1960 quadrangle is depicted on adjacent property to the east.
The'1972 USGS "Map of Mining Activities in the Aspen Area" (Figure 4) indicates that the Site
and adjacent areas are not located in former areas of significant siIver, lead, or zinc production.
3.2.2 Soil Conditions
Based on a review of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) publication "Soil
Survey of Aspen-Gypsum Area, Colorado," the predominant soil type at the Site is the Uracca,
moist-Mergel complex, 1 to 6 percent slopes, extremely stony. This soil unit was derived from
mixed igneous, metamorphic, and glacial material and is typically found on alluvial fans, benches,
and valley slopes. Permeability is moderate, while the hazard of water erosion is considered slight.
The soil survey indicates that large stones and boulders are typically found on or just below the
ground surface in this soil unit.
3.2.3 Site Geology
According to the "Geologic Map of the Aspen Quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado," compiled in
1971 by Bruce Bryant, surficial geology at the Site is dominated by glaciofluvial deposits which-
consist of poorly sorted glacial outwash gravels.
Waste Engineering, Inc.
Page 4
o
- U
-o.
!!!!!>>-
-.......
_o.z
-fII:::>
- 0
-fIIU
=o.
->z
_a:..
_C>><:
=...
_uo.
_zQ.
!!!!lfSI
=....s
-C> .
-..1Sl
_0
- z
-a:
-NISl
=CSJ&
--';;.g
-..
=CS)o
!!!!!cgs
_1Sl&
_N.
=........6)
-"'...
_N
~""""a::
=...
_Qca
- ..
=~c...
-"'0
-",
!!!!!.......
-.....
I
f ;..........
,
j
I
1"""\,
1"7\
Environmental Site Assessment
Holy Cross. Property
Aspen Lot, Aspen, Colorado
3.2.4 Regional Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater at the Site was not measured during WEI's reconnaissance of the Site. Based on the
proximity of Castle Creek to the Site, groundwater at the Site is expected to be found at elevations
close to that of Castle Creek, an average of IOO feet below ground level.
33 Regulatory Review
The purpose of the records review is to obtain and review reasonably ascertainable records that will
help identify recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Site. For this review,
records were obtained frorn Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) of Southport, Connecticut.
The EDR report is attached at the end of this report.
Our investigation included, but was not limited to, a review of the following lists prepared and
maintained by environmental regulatory agencies for the area around the subject Site. The most
recent list update completed by the respective agency in control is identified in the following
section.
· Underground Storage Tank (US1) list, October 12, 1999, from the Colorado Department of
Labor and Employment, Oil Inspection Section
. Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUS1) list, October 12, 1999, from the Colorado
Department ofLabor and Employment, Oil Inspection Section (OIS)
· Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS), August 26, 1999 list from the Environmental Protection Agency (EP A)
· Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) Generators Iist,
September I, 1999
· National Priorities List (NPL) sites, Colorado, July 22, 1999
· RCRlS Treatment, Storage and Disposal Site list, September I, 1999
No mapped locations were found in EDR's search of available government records on the Site.
The Srnuggler Mountain site, located approximately one mile east of the Site, is listed in the
CERCLIS, RCRIS,FINDS, NPL, CONSENT, and ROD databases. This location is on the opposite
side of the Roaring Fork River from the Site and is not considered a recognized environmental
condition in regards to the Site.
The EDR report identified a UST location registered to Dooger Diggins at 1080 Power Plant Road.
In addition, the EDR report .identified a RCRIS SmalI Quantity Generator, a FINDS listing, and four
USTs at this same address registered to the City of Aspen. The City of Aspen's listing (Location
No.5 on EDR maps) is incorrectly located on the EDR maps and should be at the same location as
the Dooger Diggins listing (Location No.2 on the EDR maps). The I080 Power Plant Road
Waste Engineering, Inc.
Page 5
-
o
- u
-...
!!!!!>>-
_...II-
=.....z
-<III=>
-",8
~...
->z
_a:...
_a~
= I-
_u...
_Zll.
_a:
=ZCS)
=a6!
-....
-0
- Z
-a:
-N"
=&'1&
iiiii.:;s
-..
=CS)c
!!!!!t5)lSt
-....
_N.
=.......lS)
_"'CD
_N
-.......
=....
_..co
- ..
=::~
-.. 0
-",
!!!!!.-N
-......
]
l~
.,:
I
J
I
I
J
I
c\.
j
]
J
J
J
j
J
)~
J
)
Environmental Site Assessment
Holy Cross Property
Aspen Lot, Aspen, Colorado
address is on adjacent property east of the Site. This location is inferred to be down gradient from
the Site and does not represent a recognized environmental condition in regards to the Site.
The EDR report identifies a registered UST for the Aspen Ranger Station located at 806 West
Hallam Street. This site is located beyond minimum ASTM search distance from the Site and is not
considered a recognized environmental condition in regards to the Site.
The EDR report included three off-site listings that were incorrectly located on the EDR-generated
maps. The correct location of the Roaring Fork Transit Agency (Location No.1 on EDR maps) is
approximately 2.5 miles northwest of the Site, which is beyond minimum ASTM search distances
from the Site. Similarly, the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport and Rental Car Fuel Facility (Location A
on EDR maps) are both located approximately two miles northwest of the Site, beyond minimwri
ASTM search distances from the Site.. The third incorrectly mapped listing is for the Buttermilk
Upper Shop; the correct location is approximately one and a half miles north of the Site, beyond
minimum ASTM search distances from the Site.
The EDR report indicates a list of orphan sites that were un-mappable due to incomplete address
information (page 17). WEI has reviewed this list of orphan sites, and the listings appear to be
beyond the required minimum search distance from the Site and are not considered recognized
environmental conditions in regards to the Site.
4.0 SITE INVESTIGATION
4.1
Site Observations
The Site and adjoining properties were visually observed on December 21, 1999.by WEI personnel.
Due to approximately six to eight inches of snow covering the Site at the time of our
reconnaissance, WE! was unable to evaluate the ground surface for the presence of surface staining.
Site photographs are included in this report.
4.1.1 Current Use of the Site
At the time of our reconnaissance, the Site was not developed. Power Plant Road traverses the
central portion of the Site, and a paved pedestrian/bicycle path is located in the south-central portion
of the Site.
4.1.2 Description of Specific Site Features
WEI observed an approximate 1,OOO-gallon AST located in the south-central portion of the Sit~,
adjacent to the pedestrian/bicycle path. Historical information on the AST was discussed earlier, in
Section 3.1.4. The AST was not in use at the time ofWEI's reconnaissance and was partly covered.
with snow. As noted above, due to the snow cover, WE! was unable to observe the ground surface
in the vicinity of the AST to evaluate the potential for release events from the AST.
The AST observed on the Site December 21, 1999 was scheduled for removal on December 22,
1999 and the results are discussed under a separate letter report.
Waste Engineering, Inc.
Page 6
_ 0
_ u
!!!!!;:>-
-.......
_...z
-III:;:)
!!!!cn8
=...
->z
_a:...
_c",
=...
_u...
_ZA.
_a:
=ZQ
=::;6!
-It:Q
-0
- Z
-a:
-NQ
=ss
iiiii.:;csi
-..
=901
!!!!!!cgQ
!!!!!~6!
=.......s
-"'...
_N
-'It:
=,... I
_QUI I
- .. ,
=:;!...I
-"'0
-",
!!!!!!!"'C")
-.....
II
II~
~
I)
~
J:
I
I
I
r'\
..
)
J
J
J
J
I
~.
I
1
Environmental Site Assessment
Holy Cross Property
Aspen Lot, Aspen, Colorado
WE! observed a buried metal pipe that was partly exposed in the southern portion of the Site,
running parallel to the bike path. A chain-link fence and a wooden fence were observed along the
bike path traversing the Site. Reinforced rock walls were observed along the steep slopes above and
below Power Plant Road.
Chemical odors, sumps, or pits were not identified around or near the Site that would suggest a
release event or recognized environmental conditions.
4.2 Adjoining Property Observations
Adjoining properties were visually examined from public accessright-of-ways to make a cursory
assessment of the current land use and its potential for recognized environmental conditions that
may have an impact on the Site. Reconnaissance of adjoining properties was performed by viewing
land use from legal boundaries or by walking upon the adjoining properties that were legally
accessibIe.
The Site is bordered to the west by residential development Undeveloped land and Castle Creek
form the Site's northern boundary. The Highway 82 right-of-way forms the Site's southern
boundary. The City of Aspen's Maintenance Facility is located on adjacent property to the east and
down slope of the Site. The facility includes three structures, one of which is the original Roaring
Fork Electric Company building that was constructed prior to 1893. WE! observed 55-gallon
drums, two ASTs, fuel pumps for both gasoline and diesel, two approximate 1,OOO-galIon vats
containing an unknown fluid, and road maintenance equipment in the vicinity of the city structures.
. .
5.0
CONCLUSIONS
Based upon the foregoing assessment and data obtained, this ESA has provided no evidence of
recognized environmental conditions existing at the Site. An approximate 1000-gallon AST was
removed from the Site after completion of the field reconnaissance portion of this environmental
site assessment. Information on the AST removal is being provided under a separate cover letter.
6.0 TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ASSESSMENT
TIlls assessment is based on the information available to WE! at th~ time of the investigation and
provides an indication of the status of the Site at that time. The opinions expressed concerning the
environmental risks or migration of contaminants are based on the data in the report. Additional
data could change the opinions expressed.
The goal of the processes established by the ASTM practice is to identify recognized environmental
conditions. The term "recognized environmental conditions" means the presence or likely presence
of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an
existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or
petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water
of the property. The term is not intended to include de minimis conditions that gener3Ily do not
present a material risk of harm to public health or the environment and that generally would not be
Waste Engineering, Inc.
Page 7
o
- U
-..
!!!!!>>-
=~!z
-U1~
- 0
-U1U
!!!!! ..
_>z
_a..
_c><
= I-
_u"
_za..
!!!!!!~s
=...lSl
-c.
-"'15l
_0
- z
-a
-NI5l
=tS)C5J
iiiii..:;.si
-...
=cgQ
!!!!!61S
_15l15l
_N.
=.......Q
_UlCO
_N
-''''
=lSica
-...
-..
=.c...
-"'0
-Ul
!!!!!!..
-......
I~
I
I
I
I
I
J
r-,
}
1
1
1
1
J
')
~,.
G:.... .,.j%
.J
1
"
Environmental Site Assessment
Holy Cross Property
Aspen Lot, Aspen, Colorado
the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental
agencies. This process is designed such that completion of the process, as described in this report,
should constitute all appropriate inquiry into the Site and uses of the Site to qualify for the innocent
landowner defense to Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA) liability.
A complete definition of the Site conditions would require substantial testing and a rnore detailed
investigation. Future conditions may change, and further investigation should be completed if
contamination is suspected or if Site conditions substantially change. Because of uncertainties
related to subsurface conditions and the changing nature of Site conditions, it is not possible for
WEI to provide guar;mtees with this assessment.
This ESA did not include any inquiry with respect to radon, methane, asbestos-containing materials,
lead-based paint, lead in drinking water, formaldehyde, endangered species, wetlands, subsurface
investigation activities, other services, potential conditions, or features not specifically identified
and discussed herein. In those. instances where additional services or service enhancements are
included in the report as requested or authorized by the client, specific limitations attendant to those
services are presented in the text of the report.
Attachments
C:1992194\OOOIa(RVS)\HolyESARVS.doc
Waste Engineering, Inc.
Page 8
o I
;:~ I
_...I~
=:;;~ i
- o!
-U1U
=... ~
_>z ."
_0:'" ~
_0311: ,.
= I- f'
_u"
_ZQ.
!!!!!~Q
=tootlS)
-co .
_..,6l
_0 f'
iiiii a: Z !'
-N6l
=C!iJC5.1
iiiii;;61
-'"
=6)0
!!!!!!!t5)CS)
!!!!!!!~~
=.......Q
_",co
_N
-''''
=l5ica
-...
-...
=.-c..
iiiii:; 0
!!!!!.....
-.....
]
"" l '_,
".,~
J
J
]
)
J
1
I
",....."
rv
ACMA
AHERA
AIRS
AST
CDPHE
CERCLIS
DOT
EPA
ERNS
ESA
FRP
LPST
LUST
NPDES
NPL
PCB
PLM
PST
RAATS
RCRA
USDA
USGS
UST
REGULATORY AND TECHNlCAL ACRONYMS
Asbestos-Containing Material
Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act
Aerometric Information Retrieval System
Aboveground Storage Tank
CoIorado Department of Public Health & Environment
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information
System
Department of Transportation
Environmental Protection Agency
Emergency Response Notification System
Environmental Site Assessment
Fiberglass Reinforced PIastic
Leaking PetroIeum Storage Tank
Leaking Underground Storage Tank
National Pollutant Discharge EIimination System
National Priorities List
Polychlorinated Biphenyl
Polarized Light Microscopy
PetroIeum Storage Tank
RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Geological Survey
Underground Storage Tank
o
- u
-...
~>>-
_..JI-
_"'Z
_fill:::>
=(1)8
=...
->z
_0:...
_c""
=1-
_u...
_ZQ.
!!!!!~lS)
=HC5.'I
-c.
-",,,,,
-0
- Z
-0:
-N""
=lSIlS)
iiii;;&
-..
=C5)O
!!!!lS)lS)
-""""
_N.
=......lS)
_.IOClO
-~G::
=...
-""CO
-..
-",
=..c...
-"'0
-Ill
!!!!!..ca
-.....
t'"
\.:,,/t
/
?
.----.---/