The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.CR.Smuggler Mtn.0044.2004.ASLU .....,.. " - City of Aspen Community Development Dept. CASE NUMBER PARCEL ID# CASE NAME PROJECT ADDRESS PLANNER CASE DESCRIPTION REPRESENTATIVE 0044.2004.ASLU 2737-071-00-040 Pitkin County Referral Adam Sworden / Joyce Allgaier 1041 Hazard Suzanne Wolff DATE OF FINAL ACTION 07/30/2004 CITY COUNCIL ACTION PZ ACTION ADMIN ACTION BOA ACTION DATE CLOSED BY Memo to Pitkin County 07/30/04 D DRISCOLL MEMORANDUM TO: Suzanne Wolff, County Community Development Department THRU: Joyce Allgaier, City of Aspen Community Development Deputy Director FROM: Christopher Lee, City of Aspen Planner RE: Government Lot 33,1041 Hazard Review Application-City Planning Referral Comments DATE: October 7th, 2004 The City Planning Staff reviewed the proposal to construct a single-family residence and has the following concerns: I. Staff observed that government lot 33 is severely constrained given its location on Smuggler Mountain and does not appear to be an appropriate location for any level of development. 2. Staff observed the vast majority of the site has a grade that is actually steeper than Highland Bowl. It also presents a severe wildfire hazard given its continuous brush/foliage coverage. Staff feels these conditions cannot be adequately mitigated through site design and construction techniques. 3. Staff also commented on the high visibility of the site from town. 4. Staff encourages the County to pursue a mechanism to sterilize the site while permitting the economic value to be transferred to a site with less constrained development conditions, thus providing benefit to the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, and the property owners. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on this County application. :: Pl'Ulllh _ ~ ~X fie Edt Rec",d NlIYiQIte Fonn __ Tob He\:> ;~il!ll' .TriT"i~liTM'~'~'~ li CUc:[I................... . ...... ,.",.," ""' . ~~~~~~~~'"_.~-"--------""'".,,".._,,~---~-,-'"'---~--~-_", ...___-'__.,.., . ..,_~_~"__M""._~__"'"'"..._""'"'___" pmt"'" I Sti>fem I l!- . I Moin 1 R~ 51""" I Ar~ng I P.,coIt 1 C\ntom FJOIdt I FOO! I Fee S~ P_Type Add<... 1 Cit.1 J .,i "'* Convnenl Ii <$> I ~ I Routingl!iotay I,.... _ _1oo<<.2OO4ASW AptIS....1 S,...r-::::J . M....._I ~ RoutingQueuelaslu p,ojectl ~ 5'_1....... De."""", FlTKIN COUNTY REFERRAL. T1MROTH 1041 HAZ RVW ANO CONCEPTUAL SUB ~ ~ I8l Clock IR"..." D... ro P_ID 1 3111$ AooIed I07/1Ja/2OO4 ~ .....ovedl J..J 1..<JOd1 ~ F""'I ~ E,.,.", 10710312005 ~ ..., S_ISUZANNE WOLFF 92lJ.5093 r ViWle 00 tne web? Ii? iii l:l) , I!J .. Owner"''''''' l"" N....IPlTKlN COUNTY COMMU ~ F'" N.... Phone 1(970] 92lJ.5526 r S GALENA ST PEN CO 81611 j;> l...N....IPlTKINCOUNTYCOMMU ~ F.~N....I ~j(q7fll~% ('....t#l~;,? ~ 5 GALENA 5T =;1 PEN CO 81611 . ~ PITKIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone (970) 920-5526 FAX (970) 920-5439 MEMORANDUM TO: Engineer Aspen Fire Department City of Aspen - Planning ACSD Wildlife Officer FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Community Development Department RE: Timroth (Government Lot 33) 1041 Hazard Review and Conceptual Submission (pID 2737-071-00-040; Case P1l2-04) DATE: July 8, 2004 Attached for your review and comments are materials for an application submitted by theTimroth LLLP. The Hearing Officer will review the application on Tuesday, September 21,2004. Please return your comments to me by Friday, July 30, 2004. PLEASE RETURN APPLICATION MATERIALS TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IF YOU HAVE NO FURTHER NEED OF THEM. Thank you. TO: MEMORANDUM Ezra Louthis, Pitkin County Planner THRU: Joyce Allgaier, City of Aspen Community Development Deputy Director FROM: James Lindt, City of Aspen Planner RE: Lot 4, Cheek Subdivision 1041 Hazard Review Application-City Planning Referral Comments DATE: November 20, 2003 The City Planning Staff reviewed the proposal to construct a single-family residence and has the following concerns: I. Staff recommends that the County require that all materials be non- reflective and painted with dark earth-tone colors to minimize the visibility of the structure. 2. Staff recommends that the County require the building envelope to be fenced during construction to prevent any prohibited grading, vegetation removal, and development that is not allowed outside the approved building envelope. 3. Staff encourages the County to request that the Applicant provide significant natural landscaping to the southwest of the proposed residence to screen and minimize the visual impacts from within the City. 4. Staff encourages the County to consider requiring elevation drawings, floor plans, and a landscape plan to determine if the proposed residence is consistent with the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhood. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on this County application. cJGt3 ;::;q~ Hfr.A~ - >~t- () G f!> e... +,.,'-ok., (U f I......L ~ P-- -Ivve"- J....- ......d\. \-\z." ~..uJ:~ ~ ~ f"C.<.. . &c-...+ hI~. e/- ?"'''J TPt2- oJ- "",~~~1. ;?",,/,er~ r-;- / Mw r-o h LLL P " hi) c.... .{- - A~ ( ,/- '" !DYf J./.."Z.IJ.I l!ev.e.... ~."k PlA.~ -.,.. ~~~~..,. ,-e.n ',4,.", M 1.5' Jl,c1'C. G-... /.. r 5> . 44<A/ ..~ $r~e sl- ~/\ :>_Jjler -:;:k.- ~)I (.""".foj$ A-f(2. -10 _____ -.$"* outs.).. .~ AP'-"I'~" Bj - /).U..,! ~ Yr A.#~_I n ~.....,&. d' ",,4-/';',I"'s (/H .... e)</~~ ~~t j "'~d 7.....~~.tA..'" <!>/\ ~ ~r.vc.c.. s 1-, - J,:J...z..--.I.1 "'1f11"1//~1 .,t;....... -/~ ~ -I pD~;'alr ImJJ..J,~ s-tl'u t/t t.!<<U.1 r ,J,;Oa() '/8% r?-rv:JJ.. I~~r' /'G.~ ,(r ~;, l:y G"n'<- (Je.~''"' ~ ),.cc.es.r . c.../Yl:Aftr Ix..~ Ie.vd~ ~,... '" ... </.../,1 ~~S I J~ p""",'1- 6es/~ /o~/ .e ;.. ..r..&,,'(" _~ ~/~~5. - ~Cc~>~ -/1.-~~ e-~ I(<r."-"s G-.. ?c.e. ;'4,h'7! C/,..,~~ bll~ $~.l,; ;...""~ U. s. ~+. ~,c.<:.. ;::"'1""'7 - ukf, ho '. /I'W"'~/J"'/ ~O, c...~ Jr~J e/~c../ ""...,) ,1-'1'''1-; ~~..s _I( c.~ff.r ~. '{ "- ~I, 6-.. ,yI"VC' f f., - f,nc..-t.- ~'k l"j~.( #IZ-IO fl'~ 4--rr /~ "'"" (v /..,.')~ --- ./lv16 - ~ I,,~f- ;. f- /~ ckve(y~ ~/~ ~ rd",r,o GOVERNMENT LOT 33 1041 ENVI1UJNMENTAL 1lAZA'RVS 'REVIEW & CONCEPTUAL SU'BMISSION APfJUCA nON SU'BMI1TEV 'By llMS LAND PLANNING~ LLC 201 N. MILL SrRffT, SUITE 108 ASPEN, COLORAVO 81611 phone/. (970) 925-7819 flNlV:(970) 925-7395 Em.a.lU ~!Op~n.et JUNE, 2004 1,-.4.,. AN APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF 1041 ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS REVIEW & CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION FOR MR. ALBERT G. TIMROTH ,,~ ... - - - - - - - - - Submitted by: - - Mr. Albert G. Timroth P.O. Box 375 Basalt, CO 81621 - - . - - - - - - - - Prepared by: - . HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC Planning Consultants 201 North Mill Street, Suite 108 Aspen, CO 81611 phone: (970) 925-7819 fax: (970) 925-7395 email: mhaas@sopris.net - - - - - - - - - PROJECT CONSULTANTS ... PLANNING - .. Mitch Haas, AICP Haas Land Planning, LLC 201 North Mill Street, Suite 108 Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 925-7819 - ... - - - LEGAL . - Mr. Leonard Oates, Esq. Oates, Knezevich & Gardenswartz, P.c. 533 East Hopkins Avenue, 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 920-1700 - - - - .. SURVEYING - .. Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc. John Howorth 210 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 925-3816 - - - .. - GEOLOGICAL ... Collins & Associates Dr. Bruce Collins, Ph.D. P.O. Box 23 Silt, CO 81652 (970) 876-5400 - - - ... - ... - .. - .. I,... I'" 1- ...,. 1- .- 1M - ... ... ... - - - - - - - V. - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - GOVERNMENT LOT 33 1041 ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS REVIEW TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. INTRODUCTION........... ..................... ......... ............ .................. ...1 II. THE NEIGHBORHOOD & SUBJECT PROPERTY (Existing Conditions)...3 · Vicinity Map... ........................................ ................................4 III. THE PROPOSAL............... ....................................... ................. ....5 IV. REVIEW REQUlREMENlS.................. ..... ..................... .... .... .... .... ...7 A. 1041 Environmental Hazards Review............... .............. .............. ...7 1. Section 3-80-050, Geologic Hazard Areas........... ................... .....7 2. Section 3-80-070, Wildfire Areas............ ............ .............. ... ....12 3. Section 3-80-080, Wildlife Habitat Areas...................................13 B. Conceptual Submission Requirements............... ........... .............. ..16 1. Article 2, County Land Use Policies............ ....................... ... ..16 2. Section 3-60, Environmental and Aesthetic Standards.................17 3. Section 3-70, Water Resources...... ............ ......... ............. ........18 4. Section 3-110, Improvements and Services...... ............ ...... .......19 VESTED RIGHTS.......................................... ........................... ...21 EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Proof of Ownership Exhibit 2: Letter of authorization Exhibit 3: Pre-Application Conference Summary Exhibit 4: Geologic Report Exhibit 5: Wildfire Hazards Review and Recommendations Exhibit 6: Wildlife Biologist Referral Letter Exhibit 7: Agreement to Pay Form Exhibit 10: List of Adjacent Property Owners - , ~~ ,~ I. INTRODUCTION ,,- This is an application for approval of a 1041 Hazard Review Site Plan (building envelope) and General Submission for a single-family residence and customary accessory uses on the 1.581 acre Government Lot 33. The property is located above Spruce Street on Smuggler Mountain and has a Parcel Identification Number of 2737-071-00-040. In addition, 1041 approval is needed to extend utilities (in an existing easement) from the last switchback on North Spruce Street up to the driveway serving both Lot 33 and Smuggler Mountain Parcel C. - - ... - - - ... The property contains areas mapped for geologic hazards including an alluvial fan and potentially unstable slopes (slopes in excess of 30%). It is mapped as a "low" wildfire hazard area, but was given a "Severe Hazard: Brush" rating by Mr. Eric Petterson. The 1041 maps do not indicate the presence of any regulated wildlife habitat, and a site specific review of an adjacent parcel carried out by the Pitkin Wildlife Biologist resulted in a similar finding. - - - - - This application is being submitted pursuant to Sections 3-80-050, 3-80- 070,3-80-080,3-110,3-70,3-60, and Article 2 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code by Timroth LLLP (hereinafter "the applicant"), who is the owner of the subject property. Proof of Timroth LLLP's ownership is provided in Exhibit 1, the Interchange Deed. A legal description of the property is also included as part of Exhibit 1. Authorization for Haas Land Planning, LLC, to represent the property owner for this application is provided in Exhibit 2. A pre-application conference summary is included herewith as Exhibit 3. A geologic hazards report, prepared by Dr. Bruce Collins is attached as Exhibit 4. A wildfire hazards review prepared by Mr. Eric Petterson is attached as Exhibit 5. A letter frorn County Wildlife Biologist, Mr. Jonathan Lowsky, regarding an adjacent property is attached as Exhibit 6. - - - - - - - - - Documentation of how and when the subject parcel was created is provided by the Interchange Deed from the United States Government (see Exhibit 1). The Interchange Deed was the original grant of the property from the United States of America, which did not and does not own any adjoining property. The property has not merged with any adjacent parcels as ownership has always been held in different names and involved different parties. For instance, Government Lot 33 was originally conveyed from the US Government to Albert G., Donna M., and Grant C. Timroth as tenants in common in 1997 and stayed in that ownership until December of 2002 when it was conveyed to Timroth LLLP (a limited liability limited partnership of six individuals with capital interests, see Exhibit 1). Smuggler Mountain Lot C was recognized as a separately developable parcel by the BOCC in 1990 (Declaration of Restrictions, - - - - - - - - - Government Lot 33, 1041 Hazards Review Application Page I - - - I,~.... Book 615, Page 219) and again in 2001 with approval of Resolution No. 117-2001. Timroth LLLP does not own and has never owned Smuggler Mountain Parcel C. .'. ... Proof of access to the subject property was provided with the Smuggler Mountain Parcel C application in 2001. The same easements that serve Parcel C also serve the subject Government Lot 33. These access easements were reviewed by the County and considered sufficient proof of adequate legal access in 2001. In fact, the easement and access for Parcel C are currently being developed pursuant to a valid access/ driveway pennit (as well as 1041 and Scenic Overlay approvals) and traverses Government Lot 33. An executed application fee agreement and a list of adjacent property owners are attached as Exhibits 7 and 8, respectively. .- - - - - - - - This application is divided into five sections. Section I provides a brief introduction to the application, while Section II furnishes an overview of the neighborhood and subject property (existing conditions). Section III of the application summarizes the proposal. Section IV addresses cornpliance with the review criteria of the Land Use Code, and Section V is a request for the granting of vested property rights. For the reviewer's convenience, all pertinent supporting documents are provided in the various exhibits to the application. - - - - - - While the applicant has attempted to address all relevant provisions of the Code, and to provide sufficient information to enable a thorough review, questions may arise which require further information and/ or clarification. Such additional information as may be required in the course of the application's review will be provided upon request. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Government Lot 33, 1041 Hazards Review Application Page 2 - - - II. THE NEIGHBORHOOD & SUBJECT PROPERTY (Existing Conditions) ,..,,,, The subject property is known as Government Lot 33, Section 7. It is a 1.581 acre, triangularly shaped parcel located on Smuggler Mountain between the Ballarat 4488 claim, Smuggler Mountain Parcels C and E, and Lot 3 of the Cora Lee Subdivision. It is located on a steep hillside with a west aspect. Slopes along this hillside average nearly 48%, and virtually all of the subject property consists of slopes in excess of 45%. The site is within Pitkin County's AFR-10 zone district and is located just outside of the Aspen Area Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). .. .. .. .. - - - Access to the property is gained via a thirty foot wide easement across the Cora Lee Mining Oaim, the Ella Sherwood Mining Oaim, and U.S. Forest Service property. The access easement is recorded in Book 578 at Pages 774 and 778. The access easement provides connection to the Spruce Street public right- of-way. The driveway utilizes an existing but abandoned roadbed, which follows a topographic contour. The access drive is under construction pursuant to a validly issued access/driveway permit as well as 1041 and scenic overlay approvals. - - - - - - - Municipal water service, cable television, telephone, electric, and sanitary sewer service are all currently available from Spruce Street. The applicant maintains a utility easement (known as the "spur" easement, Reception Number 445238) from Spruce Street through Lot 3 of the Cora Lee Subdivision to Government Lot 33. This utility connection will also serve Smuggler Mountain Parcel C. The spur easement is platted on the recorded land survey contained in Book 131 at Page 452. Pursuant to approval of this 1041 application, the applicant intends to have the utilities extended from Spruce Street through the spur easement for connection to Lot 33. However, before construction can occur, scenic overlay approval for this utility extension will still be required in connection with the scenic overlay review of the residence on Government Lot 33 or Smuggler Mountain Parcel C, whichever comes first. - - - - - - - With regard to geology, Dr. Bruce Collins has concluded (see Exhibit 4) that the geologic hazards affecting Government Lot 33 are not significantly different from those affecting many sites in Pitkin County previously approved for development, most particularly those in the immediate area. The property is within a somewhat geologically sensitive area, but with the implementation of relatively simple mitigation measures, the hazards to which the property is exposed can be minimized. - - - - - - While the subject property is outside of the Aspen Area Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), the hillside neighborhood in which it is located is a developing - - Government Lot 33, 1041 Hazards Review Application Page 3 - - - I..,.~ portion of the Aspen area. The Cora Lee Subdivision, Williams Ranch, and Silverlode developments are located almost immediately to the west and southwest of the property. Williams Ranch includes thirty-five affordable housing units, located on slightly less than six acres of land (a density of approximately six units to the acre). Silverlode contains fifteen free market units located on slightly less than seven acres of land (a density of approximately two units to the acre), with lot sizes ranging from approximately 11,000 square feet to 30,000 square feet. The entire neighborhood has been developed on slopes of approximately the same gradient as that of the subject site. t..... ... - - - - - - -' --GJ . 'd~~ ~\ (~<' 1;.e\~..IIOO '" -'fro ~'\\.! .' u~~ " -I> 1,,( ~V [ \~.,~> ;' : ,;,.,:<:~,~ ~ r/ ! ~(I1 .::......., 9~'f:ltm !, 4"t!!!{~ r~~JO{, (\.:::.-.... )l ~1 I '", I ,____ ",i" 1J0!~G l "~'iJ1liJ-, ( 'al"""-' / , I , \ 1/ ( {. '( , \ ..~ \ 01./\./ ~............ - ... ... - - - ... - - - Vicinity Map - - - - - - - - - - - Government Lot 33, 1041 Hazards Review Application Page 4 - - - III. THE PROPOSAL - The 1.581 acre property is zoned AFR-10 but does not meet the minimum lot size requirement of 10 acres. As such, Section 6-50-010, Development Permitted on Substandard Size Lots or Parcels, limits the subject property's development potential to a single-family dwelling unit and accessory uses/ structures. In other words, all other types of development that might otherwise be permitted in the AFR-10 zone district are effectively precluded. - - - - With the exception of a small portion of the site (the Spruce Street switchback), the entire property consists of slopes in excess of 30%. In fact, almost the entire site has a slope of greater than 45%. The small and disjointed portions of the site that have slopes of less than 45% are not adequate in size to accommodate a building envelope. The one relatively sizable area (although still not adequately sized for development of a residence) with slopes of 30-45% is bisected by the driveway serving the adjacent Parcel C and, therefore, is not usable as a building envelope. Aside from the slopes, no significant geologic hazards are believed to affect the site. - - - Mr. Eric Petterson of Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc. (RMES) assessed the wildfire hazard on the property and surrounding area as "Severe Hazard: Brush" due to the fact that the slope is greater than 20% and the fuels are continuous. As such, Mr. Petterson recommended some five-plus pages worth of hazard mitigation requirements (see Exhibit 5). The applicant will accept Mr. Petterson's recommendations as conditions of approval and will adhere to the sarne. - - - - The County Wildlife Biologist, Mr. Jonathan Lowsky, conducted a site visit/ site-specific review to evaluate potential wildlife impacts of developrnent on the adjacent Smuggler Mountain Parcel C. Mr. Lowsky noted in his letter (Exhibit 6) that, "Although the Timroth [Parcel C] property is not within any wildlife habitat mapped by the Colorado Division of Wildlife it is important to note that mule deer use this habitat throughout the non-winter months and elk migrate through on their way between winter and summer ranges." In short, Mr. Lowsky assessed the site to include only summer and transitional range, neither of which is regulated under the 1041 standards. - - - - - - - The applicant proposes the designation of a building envelope to accommodate the development of a single family residence and customary accessory uses. A driveway is being constructed in the existing access easernent and the proposed building envelope will share in its use. The proposed building envelope is located at an elevation closely approxirnating that of the existing residence on Lot 2 of the Cora Lee Subdivision and that approved for Smuggler . '"" - - - Government Lot 33, I 04 I Hazards Review Application Page 5 - - r- ~ - - - - .,..,........ .~ ,...... ... .. ~ /.')';':~.~~~.. P"_ , . -. ,_._--~....-."..._. ..- - .-. ".- . _ . ....;..-._._.;_.....:.....-'~~______~____--'-A_.-____..,;.:.~~,_:-".~___._..._:_,....;.".._ __~_, _'_" _. "0".._.'" , ~ .. > ,.. (') '" .... '" . ~ ; 0 .. > ,.. .. (') > '" ,.. .... (') '" (') .... .. ,~ '" - ~ ~ 0: c .1 ... ~ .Z S m ~ z ~ i ~ m n~ _ . " - . m ~ l:I: m ~ . ~ . ~ Ie ,i > ~ ~ m " , ~ i-' . II:~ . Ii ~ I n!: t i~2 E!t: 11' e l~ i (01 lie " "!i ". iI~ '. " ! ;;' !I~. !r.!11~ 1 ~'., ~ . ~i'i.~ I~ ~h! i '.lll!H ai, I:! ! . '.p ii~ ,il! ,f;m'~ ~ .lid ~ !' e Ii=- Ii. - If i'i~r 'I!: 1= i' IIn . ! j5 1 " n ... ..., .... , ... ~...~-,;...,...-~-,- ..._,,-,.;......,...~.......~. ' ~.. .' ~'. '1 '. i! , 1 J;o Z t::::l- .i . ~! . . C'l 0 , <: , t!l ~ z !:: / t!l Z "" r-< 0 ..; i ~ - yo I . s - i <> I ... - ij ! :r: , > ! N > ~ t:I ~ t!l <: - t!l ~ VI - ..; t!l .... r-< > Z , .... I 0 , >i i ':.-:-:-- '" I ~ !!!mil , 2==l:t~t=..II~ ~. -Ii' '~''';' '~. , :"' 8EU.= 11:" .. :; ~ lini;"w" i i 'i II A ":.IIol~-":';. t !:~I . 'mio'l's. S 't';U .to -.:ott.' .. ... '~Ini' ,..... ~!ki' HN H_ Ii iii . " e ! ir~l: ; i~,; I"~i ! ! J,'" I I..;::::. '; !!,ift , f.~ , ;r,i~ iF" ~ J.lit~i ~~. 00 _ ~ j!I /II i d ; H' i it ; n ~ ~. I . I i 1 I f:1I: J f-p;: 'mIl ~ ':( I , I. > .~i s' Z .i~. ~ 0 :111 ~ "" to:I VI ~..: .'} ',' .:t - ,,..-~ ..... Mountain Parcel C. That is, the proposed building envelope extends up to but not beyond the 8,240 foot elevation contour, while the designated building envelope on Parcel Creaches the 8,248 foot elevation. Please refer to the attached Government Lot 33 1041 Hazard Review Site Plan. - - - - The proposed building envelope extends from the access road (shown as " Access Envelope" on the proposed 1041 Site Plan) to the northeast for a distance averaging approximately 115 horizontal feet. It culminates at the 8,240 foot elevation contour. The building envelope is fairly narrow due to the shape of the lot and is further constrained by the applicable setback requirements of the zone district. Virtually the entire building envelope resides on slopes of greater than 45%, as no viable options exist. The Access Envelope consists of the existing roadway that provides access to Parcel C as it passes through the subject property. - - - - - - - In addition, an "Accessory Envelope" is proposed in the area extending from the 8,140 foot elevation contour above Spruce Street to the Access Envelope. The Accessory Envelope will not allow any buildings or above ground improvements but is merely intended to accommodate utility extensions and the like. That is, the applicant maintains a utility easement (known as the "spur" easement, Reception Number 445238) from Spruce Street through Lot 3 of the Cora Lee Subdivision to Government Lot 33, and the spur easement is to-be included within the mapped" Accessory Envelope." The spur easement enters Lot 33 just above the 8,140 foot elevation contour, and the accessory envelope will provide for extension of utility lines from Spruce Street, through the spur easement, to the proposed building envelope. The Accessory Envelope is one of the few areas containing slopes of between 30% and 45% but is far too small and constrained (by setbacks and proximity to roads and associated road cuts both above and below) to accommodate a residence. - - - - - - - - Development of the property and utility extension will require Scenic Overlay approval in the future. As was the case with Parcel C, the applicants have not yet hired an architect or otherwise engaged in design of a residence. For this reason, only 1041 approvals are requested at this time. - - - - - - - - - Government Lot 33, 1041 Hazards Review Application Page 6 - - - IV. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS A. 1041 Environmental Hazards Review -, ... A review of the County's 1041 maps during the pre-application conference indicated that the applicant should address the impacts of geologic hazards and wildfire hazards on the property. The application also addresses the general standards for wildlife habitat areas even though the area is not mapped for and does not lie within any regulated habitat areas/types. Specifically, the 1041 hazards addressed herein are as follows: ,Wf" ... -. - . Geologic Hazard Areas: Slopes of greater than 30% are present on the property. Although the site is mapped within an alluvial fan, site specific analysis by a professional geologist has determined this aspect of the mapping to be incorrect. (See Exhibit 4.) - ,.. - . Wildfire Hazard Areas: The property has a "Severe Hazard: Brush" wildfire hazard rating and mitigation will be required. (See Exhibit 5.) - - . Wildlife Habitat Areas: The site is not mapped with regard to wildlife habitat areas; the Pitkin County Wildlife Biologist conducted a review of the adjacent and similarly situated property and provided a comment letter, a copy of which it attached hereto. (See Exhibit 6.) - Responses to each of the applicable standards of the County's Land Use Code with regard to these hazards are provided below. - 1. Section 3-80-050, Geolo~c Hazard Areas - Section 3-80-050 identifies development standards applicable to specific geologic hazard areas, including avalanche areas, landslide areas, potentially urtstable slopes, rockfall areas, alluvial fans, talus slopes, mancos shale, fawts, expansive soil and rock, and ground subsistence. Please refer to the geology report prepared by Dr. Bruce Collins, attached hereto as Exhibit 4. - - - - Dr. Collins' report ends with the following conclusions. The most significant geologic hazards which affect Government Lot 33 are the steepness of the slopes on the property and the nature of the glacial till. These hazards, he concludes, can both be addressed by proper soil testing and foundation design as well as the installation of retaining walls or other structures to support excavations and fills. Geologic hazards affecting Government Lot 33 are not significantly different from those affecting many sites in Pitkin County previously approved for development. The property is in a geologically Government Lot 33, 1041 Hazards Review Application Page 7 - - - - - - - - - .... sensitive area, but with mitigation, the hazards to which the property is exposed can be minimized. - a. Section 3-80-050(A), Avalanche Areas - Government Lot 33 is not included in high or moderate avalanche hazard zones on the Pitkin County 1041 maps. Given its southern exposure, its relatively low elevation, and its vegetative cover, the hillside on which the property resides is not thought to be subject to the accumulation of snow at levels which would constitute an avalanche hazard, nor are avalanche starting zones believed to be present on or above the property. There is no known history of avalanches on the Smuggler Mountain exposure where the subject site is located. - - - - - - b. Section 3-80-050(B), Landslide Areas - - The area is not included in landslide hazards areas as depicted on Pitkin County or Colorado Geologic Survey geologic maps. . Nevertheless and as Dr. Collins explains in his report, site-specific soil testing should be sufficient to establish either depth to bedrock or that sufficient moraine material is present to prevent potential slippage. Cuts on slopes greater than 10% and more than four feet high will be supported by engineered retaining walls, and any foundation cut into such a slope will be designed as a retaining wall. - - - - c. Sectian 3-80-050(C), Potentially Unstable Slopes - - Section 3-80-050(C)1.a., Definition, provides that" Potentially unstable slopes means slopes that equal or exceed a thirty percent gradient, which tend to be susceptible to a landslide, a mudflow, a rock fall, and/or accelerated creep of slope-Janning materials." The attached Government Lot 33 1041 Hazard Review Site Plan meets the requirements of sub-section 3-80-050(C)1.b. The Development Standards fot potentially unstable slopes are provided in sub-section 3-80-050(C)1.c. The development standards state that development is prohibited on slopes of greater than forty-five percent. Thus, even though the applicant has no viable option, the proposed building envelope is prohibited by the Code and will likely require a takings appeal to gain approval. - - - - - - Nevertheless, should a takings appeal result in eventual approval of the proposed building envelope, the standards of sub-section 3-80-050(C)1.c.ii.a., Thirty Percent of Greater Gradient: No Alternative Building Site, will apply. Under said sub-section, - - - - Goveinment Lot 33, 1041 Hazards Review Application Page 8 - - - - If there is no alternative building site available on the parcel with slopes of less than 30% (this provision may not be utilized for driveways or roads), development may be approved by the Community Development Department through the review process of section 3-80-050(C)2.b., subject to the following development standards: - - - - 1) An engineer or geologist licensed in the State of Colorado shall be required to demonstrate that the site can be engineered in such a way that there is no hazard posed by the location of development on slopes in excess of thirty percent. A precise engineer or geologist approved mitigation plan shall be required that shows the area of disturbed slope, any re-grading required and the exact size and location of all mitigation devices. Any development approved pursuant to this section shall be conditioned upon compliance with the engineer or geologist's recommended mitigation measures. - - - - - - - 2) The mitigation measures must be determined by the Community Development Department to be the least visually and ecologically obtrusive alternatives. - - 3) To the extent possible, the development shall be designed so as to: avoid adding water to the site that would cause decreased stability; avoid removing the toe of the slope without adequate mechanical support; avoid increasing the weight load on top of the slope; re- contour disturbed slopes so that they can be re-vegetated; avoid steepening of existing slopes. - - - Pursuant to Section 3-80-050(Q2.c., the applicant requests that the proposed development be reviewed through a One-Step, Public Hearing Review by the Public Hearing Officer in accordance with Section 4-50. In the alternative if the application can be forwarded directly to the Board of County Commissioners so as to bypass the need for an intermediate step and separate takings appeal, that would be the most preferable process. Section 3-80- 050(q2.c. states that, "at the review the applicant will be required to demonstrate through an engineer or geologist licensed in the State of Colorado that the site can be engineered in such a way that there is no hazard posed by the location of development on slopes in excess of 15%. A precise engineer or geologist appraved mitigation plan will not be required as part of this review, but will be required subsequently at building permit." - - - - - - - - The applicant has provided a geologist report demonstrating that the site can be engineered in such a way that there is no hazard posed by the location of development. A precise mitigation plan will be a subsequent requirement at the time of building permit application. The final mitigation strategy will incorporate the recommendations of standard "3" above. As such, the standards - - - Government Lot 33,1041 Hazards Review Application Page 9 - - ~ of section 3-80-050(C)1.c.ii.a., Thirty Percent of Greater Gradient: No Alternative Building Site, have been satisfactorily addressed. At the time of building permit application review, the mitigation measures will need to be determined by the Community Development Director to be the least visually and ecologically obtrusive alternatives. In fact, if better to carry out this review during Scenic Overlay Review, that will be acceptable as well. " .... 'n .. - The site resides on slopes in excess of 45%. The slopes present on Government Lot 33 are similar to those found in many Pitkin County locations that have been approved for development and have, indeed, been developed. Many such sites are located in the immediate vicinity (i.e., Smuggler Mountain Parcel E, Smuggler Mountain Parcel C, the Cora Lee Subdivision lots, the Silverlode Subdivision, the Auger property, etc.) of the subject property and, accordingly, excavation, foundation, grading, and landscaping design and construction techniques for such locations are well-established. .. - - - - ... - Dr. Collins suggests site-specific soil testing be done prior to foundation design, and that foundation design be based on the result of the soil tests. Dr. Collins further concludes that, with soil testing and appropriate foundation designs, the nature of the moraine materials is such that construction on the slopes found on the property is possible provided all excavations, including foundations, are adequately supported with or designed as retaining walls, with appropriate drainage on the upslope side(s). These recommendations will be adhered to by the applicant in the course of design and construction. - - - ~ - - .... Also, in accordance with Dr. Collins' recommendations, artificial irrigation of landscaping will be avoided completely unless subgrade drains to a natural and unobstructed drainage, evaporative catch basins, or other satisfactory methods to prevent uncontrolled infusion of irrigation water can be installed. Foundation design and construction will distribute weight sufficiently over the cut-and-fill area so as to ensure stability, including but not limited to anchoring to bedrock, installing friction anchors, piling, and so on as necessary depending on the soil testing and subsequent engineering analysis. Cuts, fills, and other excavations will be minimized, steepening of existing slopes will be avoided, and all disturbed areas not covered by construction will be graded to allow revegetation subject to the irrigation limitations discussed above. - - - - - - - - The utility extension minimizes potential for impacts of or on 1041 Environmental Hazards by taking the shortest practical route. The affected area will be revegetated with native species in consultation with the Pitkin County Wildlife Biologist as soon after construction as reasonably practicable. After the extension is completed and the area is filled back over (the lines are to be buried) and revegetated, it will no longer be discernable from Highway 82. - - - - Government Lot 33, 1041 Hazards Review Application Page 10 - - - ~ '''''II Given the foregoing response, the development of the site will be based on detailed site analysis, including geologic and engineering studies, and will adhere to the considerations stipulated in the review standards. ... - - d. Section 3-BO-050(D), Rockfall Areas - The site is not mapped as a rockfall area on the Pitkin County 1041 maps, but on the basis of slope angles in excess of 25%, most of Smuggler Mountain is included in areas of potential rockfall on the general (1" equals 2 miles) maps of the Colorado Geologic Survey. Dr. Collins notes in his report that there are no significant exposures of rock cliffs or ledges above Government Lot 33 and no indication of rockfall in recent time in the immediate area. He concluded, therefore, that rockfall hazard is minimal. Given this minimal hazard and the lack of any review of rockfall hazards for any of the surrounding properties even though they are subject to the same theoretical hazard, it would be inappropriate to deny this application on the basis of Section 3-80-050(D)(1). - ... - - .. ... - - Nevertheless, to ensure mitigation of this minimal hazard, Dr. Collins suggests (and the applicants agree to comply with these recommendations) that final grading and landscaping be designed to prevent rolling rocks from reaching the structure, and that the lower three feet (above grade) of the structure be stiffened and not include any windows or other openings on the uphill side(s). - - - - e. Section 3-BO-050(E), Alluvial Fans - . The Pitkin County 1041 Maps indicate the presence of alluvial fans on the subject property, but the Code provides that the mapping remains subject to field verification by a qualified expert. According to Dr. Bruce Collins, the subject site is not located on an alluvial fan. - - _1 - f Section 3-BO-050(F), Talus Slope - The subject property is not located on, in the vicinity of, or affected by a talus slope. - - g. Section 3-BO-050(G), Mancos Shale - - The subject property is not located on, in the vicinity of, or affected by Mancos Shale. - - - Government Lot 33, 1041 Hazards Review Application Page 11 - - - - h. Section 3-80-050(H), Faults ..,ill, ... The subject property is located in a complexly-faulted area, but the exact relationship between these faults and Government Lot 33 is not known. While there has been no known movement on these faults in historic time and probably none for thousands of years, minor earthquakes have occurred in the Aspen area within the last few decades. As such, Dr. Collins suggests that new structures be designed and built in accordance with UBC provisions for Seismic Zone II. ... 'M - ow i. Section 3-80-050(1), Expansive Soil and Rock - - The subject property is not located on, in the vicinity of, or affected by known or suspected deposits of expansive soil and rock. - - j. Section 3-80-050(J), Ground Subsistence ~ ~ Subsistence effects on Government Lot 33 due to past underground mining have been found to be highly unlikely. .. . 2. Section 3-80-070, Wildfire Areas II" Section 3-80-070 establishes mitigation standards applicable to developments within either severe wildfire hazard areas, or low and medium hazard wildfire areas. Mr. Eric Petterson of Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc., visited the subject property to evaluate wildfire hazards and mitigation requirements. Mr. Petterson provided a letter containing his recommendations for wildfire hazard mitigation, and said letter is included herewith as Exhibit 5. - - .. '" - ...'l In general terms, Mr. Petterson rated the wildfire hazard as "Severe Hazard: Brush" and concluded that the proposed building envelope and construction therein can be mitigated to eliminate andf or minimize wildfire hazards. He suggested acceptable mitigation measures, as described in Exhibit 5. - - - Wildfire review has been removed from the 1041 requirements and can be deferred to building permit review. As such, the fact that the property has a "severe" rating should not affect the ability to approve the proposal. That said, the applicant would like any and all wildfire mitigation measures that will be required for building permit issuance to be included as conditions of this application's approval. - .... - - .... - - Government Lot 33, 1041 Hazards Review Application Page 12 - - - 3. Section 3-80-080. Wildlife Habitat Areas .- The 1041 maps do not contain wildlife information with regard to the area surrounding the subject property. As such, the site is not mapped for, nor has it been found to contain, deer, elk or bighorn sheep: winter concentration areas; severe winter range; critical habitat; or, migration patterns, corridors, or highway crossings. The County Wildlife Biologist, Mr. Jonathan Lowsky, conducted a site visit and site-specific review to evaluate potential wildlife impacts from development on the adjacent and similarly situated property. Mr. Lowsky noted in his letter (Exhibit 6) that, "Although the Timroth [Parcel q property is not within any wildlife habitat mapped by the Colorado Division of Wildlife it is important to note that mule deer use this habitat throughout the non-winter months and elk migrate through on their way between winter and summer ranges." ... ,. ,. - . .~ .. In short, the site is within only summer and transitional range, neither of which is regulated under the 1041 standards. Accordingly, Mr. Lowsky felt that development of the property would not be detrimental to wildlife habitat given compliance with certain conditions, as provided below. Mr. Lowsky's letter (see Exhibit 6) suggests that the following conditions be applied to the 1041 approval so as to minimize impacts to wildlife: .. .... - .. .. 1. Fencing outside the building envelope must comply with ~3-80-080(A)(10) and ~3- 80.080(A)(II) of the Pitkin County Land Use Code. 2. Dogs should be kenneled as per ~3-80.080(D)(2). 3. Native vegetation must be maintained outside the building envelope as per ~3- 80.80(A)(3). 4. An orange safety fence should be erected around the building envelope during construction to prevent any inadvertent impacts to native vegetation. 5. Installation and use of approve bear-proof trash containers [fully enclosed, steel container of any size with a steel lid that has a two step opening mechanism, as approved by the Pitkin County Wildlife Biologist or personnel of the Colorado Division of Wildlife] should be required. Verification of this condition should be required prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 6. If possible, utility lines should be buried. - .. - .. - - - - - ;~ Section 3-80.80, Wildlife Habitat Areas, establishes land use standards for wildlife habitat areas. Given the information provided in the letter from the County Wildlife Biologist, the wildlife habitat portion of this application responds only to Sections 3-80.80(A), General Standards. Responses to the applicable standards of said Section, as provided below, demonstrate compliance therewith as well as with the recommendations of the Pitkin County Wildlife Biologist. .. - - - ..; - Government Lot 33, 1041 Hazards Review Application Page 13 - - - .- a. Section 3-80.80(A), General Standards .... The review standards of Section 3-80.80(A) are provided below in indented and italicized text, with each standard immediately followed by a response. .- .. 1. Commercial, industrial or high impact recreational development, open pit mineral extraction, or construction of roads should avoid the habitat areas identified in this section. .. .. - There is no commercial, industrial or high impact recreational development, or open pit mineral extraction being contemplated or requested. The only road construction that will take place involves the already permitted and ongoing development of a driveway on an existing yet abandoned roadbed. The County Wildlife Biologist found that only summer and transitional range affect the subject property, and his recommended conditions of approval will be followed so as to minimize potential impacts to wildlife. - - - - .. - 2. Residential development shall be clustered outside of habitat areas to the maximum extent possible to minimize impacts on wildlife. ... - The proposed access, building and accessory envelopes will ensure that residential development is confined to an area which avoids impacts to habitat areas, and ensures that the location of development will be as close to the surrounding, existing residential structures as reasonably possible given the setback limitations of the applicable zoning. The recommended conditions of approval summarized above will be followed so as to fully ensure minimization of impacts to wildlife. - .. - - - .... 3. The removal of vegetation shall be minimized. Disturbed areas shall be promptly revegetated with beneficial browse species. - .. Vegetation removal will be kept to the mmrmum necessary for construction and mitigation of wildfire hazards. Disturbed areas will be revegetated with and future landscaping will be comprised of appropriate species. Furthermore, in accordance with Mr. Lowsky's recommended conditions, the applicant will maintain native vegetation outside of the building envelope and erect safety fencing around the envelope during construction so as to prevent inadvertent impacts to native vegetation. ... - ..;, .... .. 4. When existing vegetation must be altered, for an access road, utility line or similar uses, an applicant will cooperate with the County and the Colorado Division of Wildlife to devise a compensation plan acceptable to the County. Such compensation plan may substitute (in a nearby area on the subject property) vegetation equal in type and quantity to that being removed to mitigate effects on wildlife species. - <Ill - .. Government Lot 33,1041 Hazards Review Application Page 14 - .. To the extent that the County and the DOW feel such a compensation plan would be warranted or appropriate, the applicant agrees to cooperate. ~ 5. Food, cover and water sources beneficial to wildlife shall be preserved. Mitigate development effects which would destroy or damage these. Give special consideration to trees and shrubs with high wildlife value, especially heavy seed, berry and fruit producing species. .- ,- Except for the minimal removal of vegetation necessary for construction and mitigation of wildfire hazards, all food, cover, and water sources beneficial to wildlife will be preserved. - ,- - 6. Wildlife food species and woody cover along fences should be encouraged as one way of improving wildlife habitat. - "'" By agreeing to comply with the letter and spirit of standards (4) and (5), the recommendations of this standard will, in turn, be satisfied. No fencing exists on the property, nor will any be installed unless necessary for kenneling purposes, in which case compliance with the fencing standards of 3-80.80(A)(lO) and (11), below, will be achieved and maintained. - - .... - - 7. Waterholes, springs, seepage, marshes, ponds and other watering areas should be preserved. - There are no waterholes, springs, seepages, marshes, ponds or other watering areas that affect the property or that will be affected by development of the property. - - - 8. Endangered species habitat shall be protected. All disturbances to such habitat shall be minimized. - - The site and, certainly, the proposed building envelope are not known to contain any endangered or even threatened species habitat. Accordingly, such habitat will not be disturbed. - - - 9. All golden eagle nest sites and bald eagle roost sites shall be protected. Provide a three-hundred (300) yard buffer around nest sites. Protect all other raptor nest sites with one hundred (/00) yard buffers. - - There are no known nesting sites within the subject property or its access way. All standing dead trees that are not required to be removed for wildfire hazard mitigation will be left alone. - - ... - - Government Lot 33,1041 Hazards Review Application Page 15 - - - " 10. Mesh or woven wire fences are prohibited. ." It is understood that this prohibition applies to areas outside the building envelope but exempts any dog kennel areas within the envelope, if kennels are installed. As such, the applicant will comply with this prohibition. ... - 11. Wire fencing shall employ a three strand barbed or smooth wire fence with a 42 inch maximum height above ground level and at least 12 inches between the top two strands. Wood rail fencing shall employ three rails or less, be the round or split rail type, shall not exceed 48 inches in height abave ground level and 12 inches in width (top view), and shall have at least 18 inches between two of the rails. '. - - - If any fencing is to be installed, the applicant will comply with DOW fencing recommendations and those of Sections 3-80.80(A)(10) and (11). - - 12. Edges (places where two habitat types meet) must be avoided by development and shall be maintained whenever possible since deer and many other species of wildlife utilize edge areas. Vegetation disturbances on winter ranges should be minimized and all disturbances revegetated with beneficial browse species. - - - The property is entirely within one type of habitat area and will, therefore, comply with standard 3-80.80(A)(12) which requires the avoidance of "edges" (places where two habitat types meet). No winter ranges exist on the subject property . - .. - - 13. Tall, overly mature trees and standing dead trees should be retained whenever possible as nesting habitat for woodpeckers and other tree nesting species, such as eagles and hawks. Den trees in wooded areas which provide homes for birds, squirrels, and raccoons should also be retained. Disturbance or destruction of wildlife den sites shall be prohibited except in certain nuisance cases, like skunks under homes. - - - - No tall, overly mature trees or standing dead trees are known to exist on the site, but to the extent any are found and not required to be rem.oved for cOflstruction or wildfire hazard mitigation, they will be left undisturbed. No den sites have been found on the property and, as such, none will be disturbed. - - - B. Conceptual Submission Requirements - - 1. Article 2. County Land Use Policies - The County Land Use Policies contained in Article 2 of the Code state that, "The dominant policy of Pitkin County is to conserve and protect from further degradation the present natural environment and its resources." The proposed building envelope, along with the conditions of 1041 hazard review approval, will ensure that the single-family development of this site will promote this "dominant policy." This application is in harmony with the County's growth - - - - Government Lot 33, 1041 Hazards Review Application Page 16 - - - "II" rate and phasing of public services and facilities related goals as the surrounding area is already developed and the site will be served with public water, sewer, gas, and electric. Since many of the existing properties in the surrounding area have been developed for residential use, approval of this request will be compatible with the existing hillside neighborhood. - "..". - - Article 2 also identifies all of those concerns addressed by the various 1041 environmental hazard reviews; the preceding portions of this application demonstrate compliance with these. Concerns regarding road design, transportation, water and air quality resources, sewage treatment, and energy conservation are addressed below and will need to be addressed and satisfied in connection with building permit applications for the subject property. - -, -.. - - 2. Section 3-60. Environmental and Aesthetic Standards - ... a. Section 3-60-020, Air Quality - The eventual development of a single family residence on the subject property will not result in a direct or indirect source of air pollution under any applicable regulations, and the development will comply with all Pitkin County codes. - - - - b. Section 3-60-030, Preservation of Natural Landscape - - In accordance with Section 3-60-030(A), Grading and Fill Placement, all grading and fill placement which exceeds 50 cubic yards will be subject to the review and approval of the County Engineer and Planning Director. Similarly, all grading, excavation and fill placement related to specific building permit applications will be subject to the review and approval of the Chief Building Official. - - - - - It is also understood that, pursuant to Section 3--60-030(B), the CoUnty Engineer and/ or Planning Director may suggest and/ or require design and construction techniques which lessen physical and visual damage to the natural terrain or other natural features of the landscape. The recommendations of Dr. Collins (see Exhibit 4) will be followed as well. - - ... - c. Section 3-60-050, Scenic Quality - - Scenic Overlay review and approval will be required prior to building permit issuance. Consistent with the standards of Section 3-60-050, the proposed building and access envelopes avoid, to the greatest extent feasible on the subject site, alterations to the natural landscape which would be visible from other ..::: - Government Lot 33, 1041 Hazards Review Application Page 17 - - - " properties and public use areas. Like the existing home directly to the southwest, development of the subject parcel will be set into the hillside to minimize its bulk and perceived height, and earth-tone colors will be used on the exterior in an effort to blend with the surrounding environment. ,., - If any landscaping and/ or outdoor lighting proposals are to be brought forward in the future with regard to the subject property, such proposals will comply with the Pitkin County Landscape Guidelines as well as all applicable lighting standards. All utility installation will be carried out in a manner that minimizes damage to the natural environment and all lines will be buried, as required and as recormnended by the County Wildlife Biologist. If any satellite dishes are installed, their visual impacts will be minimized by using earth-tone colors, screening, and appropriate siting relative to other land uses. ... - ... '... ... - 3. Section 3-70. Water Resources ..;. - At the time of building permit application, the proposed development of the site will demonstrate maintenance of historic drainage patterns to reasonably preserve the natural character of the site and prevent property damage. The flow of natural water courses will not be impeded, and adequate drainage will be provided for all low points. The recormnendations of Dr. Collins (see Exhibit 4) will be followed. - - .. - - All erosion related impacts associated with development of the property will be minimized and addressed as part of the building permit application. Erosion control will be accomplished by minimizing disturbance to natural vegetation and soil cover, ensuring that all cuts and fills are adequately designed and revegetated, and providing provisions for protection of vegetation from fire. The drainage related improvements discussed in the previous paragraph will also aid in minimizing erosion. No land clearing or grading operations that are necessary in the course of site development will be done during periods of maximum water runoff. No ditches exist on the subject property, and development will not affect irrigation of any agricultural lands. Sedimentation controls will be implemented before and throughout development. - - - - - - - - - Finally, use and development of the property will not interfere with the designated uses of water resources as represented in relevant portions of the Water Quality Management Plan for the Roaring Fork Basin, the 208 Water Management Plan, and the State regulations. The use of the property will enjoy Oty of Aspen water service and will. therefore, meet the requirements for adequate provisions to meet water needs as established by the County Environmental Health Department. - - - - - Government Lot 33, 1041 Hazards Review Application Page 18 - - - 4. Section 3-110, Improvements And Services " Section 3-110 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code establishes standards for the following services and improvements: 3-110-020, Logical Extension of Utilities; 3-110-030, Water Distribution Systems; ~-110-040, Water Supply Systems; 3-110-050, Sewage Treatment and Collection; 3-110-060, Public Utilities; 3-110-070, Roads; 3-110-080, Parking; 3-110-100, Trails; 3-110-110, lighting; and, 3-110-130, Signs. ,.,.j - ,- - a. Section 3-110-020, Logical Extension of Utilities ,- "'" According to paragraph (A), Applicability, of this section, the "Logical Extension of Utilities" standards" are applicable to all maior [emphasis added] utility extensions within areas not presently served by major utility lines." No major utility extensions are proposed as part of this 1041 Environmental Hazards Review application, nor are any expected with the development of the subject property. Thus, section 3-110-020 is not applicable. Service lines will be extended from Spruce Street to the subject site in an already existing easement. - - - - - - b. Section 3-110-030, Water Distribution Systems - This section is not applicable, as no water distribution systems are proposed, nor will any be developed. Connection will be made to the existing City of Aspen Water distribution system. - - - c. Section 3-110-040, Water Supply Systems - - Water service will be supplied by the City of Aspen. - d. Section 3-110-050, Sewage Treatment and Collection - - Sewage treatment and collection services will be provided by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. - - e. Section 3-110-060, Public Utilities - The standards of this section are applicable to the installation of all public utilities. Prior to submitting a building permit application, the applicant will obtain written commitments to serve from all applicable utility providers. All utilities required to be placed underground will be so placed. .. - - - - Government Lot 33, 1041 Hazards Review Application Page 19 .. - - .- - - f Section 3-110-070, Roads - The road standards of this section are applicable to all roads and driveways. Since all new road and driveway construction must receive a development permit from the County Engineer and Planning Director, a permit for developing a driveway within the existing access easement to the building envelope has been obtained and construction is underway. The driveway has been designed to comply with the Pitkin Caunty Road Standards and Specifications and Pitkin County Road Management Plan. . ... .... - - The driveway for the adjacent Smuggler Mountain Parcel C is under construction pursuant to a validly issued access permit. The Parcel C driveway traverses the proposed Government Lot 33 "access envelope" and, in addition to providing access for Parcel C, it will be used to provide access to the improvements on Government Lot 33. The development proposal being put forth herein will not generate traffic volumes in excess of existing road capacities, rendering a road improvement plan unnecessary. - - - - - - g. Section 3-110-080, Parking - - The parking spaces to be provided on site will comply with the dimensions required by this section, and at least two off-street parking spaces will be provided for the residence, as required. The design of the parking area shall be reviewed along with the residence prior to issuance of a building permit. - - - h. Section 3-110-100, Trails - - This section is not applicable since no trails are proposed, nor do any presently exist on the property. - - i. Section 3-110-110, Lighting - Consistency with applicable outdoor lighting standards will be required when a building permit is applied for. There is no existing lighting on the site. - - ... j. Section 3-110-130, Signs - No signs are proposed. To the extent that any signs may be proposed in the future, the necessary permits will be applied for at the appropriate time. - - .. .... Government Lot 33, 1041 Hazards Review Application Page 20 - - - - v. VESTED RIGHTS ",,~ ,.'1It The applicant hereby requests that Vested Rights be granted to this site specific development plan and approval pursuant to Sections 4-140 and 4-40- 020(G) of the Pitkin County Land Use Code. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Government Lot 33, 1041 Hazards Review Application Page 21 - - - EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Proof of Ownership ....' Exhibit 2: Letter of authorization for Haas Land Planning, LLC ~. - Exhibit 3: Pre-Application Conference Summary - .. Exhibit 4: Geologic Report prepared by Dr. Bruce Collins, Ph.D. - Exhibit 5: Wildfire Hazard Review, prepared by Eric Petterson of Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc. .. - - Exhibit 6: Referral Comments Letter from Jonathan Lowsky, Pitkin County Wildlife Biologist Exhibit 7: Executed Fee Agreement (Agreement to Pay Form) - - - WI Exhibit 8: List of Adjacent Property Owners - - ,~ - - - - fill - .. - - - - - - - - ~ .. .. ,. .. - - - - - EXHIBIT 1 .. - - - - - -, - - - ... - - - - - - - - - - . 111111I1111I11111111111111111111111111111I1111111111111 4~~84~ 06/30/1997 01.3~P DEED_VIA DAVI 1 or 1 R 6.00 D 11.00 N 0.00 IN CLERK & RE . INTERCHANGE DEED THIS DEED, made this ~ day of :rulf}~ , 1991, between the United States of America, acting by and through the Forest service, Department of Agriculture, hereinafter called Grantor, and Albert G. Timroth, Donna M. Timroth, and Grant C. Timroth, as tenants in common, of P.O. Box 89, Town of Aspen, State of Colorado, hereinafter called Grantees. '.. !II.; WITNESSETH. The Grantor is authorized to convey certain National Forest System lands by the act of January 12, 1983 (96 Stat. 2535; 16 U.S.C. 521c). ... NOW THEREFORE, the Grantor, for and in consideration of land in pitkin County, Colorado containing 27.845 acres, more or less, the receipt whereof is hereby duly acknowledged, does hereby remise, release, and quitclaim unto the Grantees, its successors and assigns all it'S right, title, and interest, in and to the real property situated in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, described as follows: ",. ... ,.. Townshio 10 South. Ranqe 84 West. 6th P.M. .- - The East 1/2 of Lot 33, Section 7 Containing 0.785 acres, more or less. SUBJECT TO: - 1. All easements and rights-of-way of record. - - IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor by its duly authorized representative has xecuted this deed pursuant to the delegation of authority promulgated in 7 CFR 2.42 and 49 F.R. 34283, August 29, 1984. Ti tIe : I, JJ : i~i~ . i. . c:;r ]f. - {t- q\ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA By: $zJ ~~~ BEN L. DEL VILLAR Acting Forest Supervisor White River National Forest Forest Service United States Department of Agriculture 41 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INDIVIDUAL - .. STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ) - COUNTY OF GARFIELD - On this .J...k day of ~,II/-e ,19t.7,before me, *'~ 'b""".J.,L'p~"').o-, a Notary Public in and for said State, th principal office in Garfiel County, personally appeared Ben L. Del villar, Acting Forest Supervisor, White River National Forest, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same. - .. - seal the day and year first above written. - WITNESS my hand and official +./ bfr<,4 . Notary Public My commission expires 7//'l- //'19'9 { / - 1f1l.W fj.la :z:S ;gg c>>... eU !3 ....... ..... ~ ~ J;l ~ :B - ~ - - m -.. .. r- -81 - -- -~ -- 00 -- C>I u.o -i::; ~ u.o - a:: :z:: -s - a: ~ .:~ com -n~ S1~ ~e: - -I ~I .3 -s -;I .1 l~ -Rg~ :~. -~~'\ - - - - - - - - - - - - . . INTERCHANGE DEED THIS DEED, made this Lk day of Tul1.~ 19'11, between the United States of America, acting by and through the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, hereinafter called Grantor, and Albert G. Timroth, Donna M. Timroth, and Grant C. Timroth, as tenants in common, of P.O. Box 89, Town of Aspen, State of Colorado, hereinafter called Grantees. WITNESSETH: The Grantor is authorized to convey certain National Forest System lands by the act of January 12, 1983 (96 Stat. 2535; 16 U.S.C.521c) . NOW THEREFORE, the Grantor, for and in consideration of land in pitkin County, Colorado containing 27.845 acres, more or less, the receipt whereof is hereby duly acknowledged, does hereby remise, release, and quitclaim unto the Grantees, its successors and assigns all it's right, title, and interest, in and to the real property situated in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, described as follows: TownshiD 10 South. RanQe 84 West. 6th P.M. The West 1/2 of Lot 33, Section 7 Containing 0.785 acres, more or less. SUBJECT TO: 1. All easements and rights-of-way of record. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor by its duly authorized representative has executed this deed pursuant to the delegation of authority promulgated in Title 7 CFR 2.42 and 49 F.R. 34283, August 29, 1984. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA By: ~l #It/A BEN L. DEL VILLAR Acting Forest Supervisor White River National Forest Forest Service United States Department of Agriculture ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INDIVIDUAL STATE OF COLORADO ) ) COUNTY OF GARFIELD ) on this 1k.... day of ::JL<u-e ,191::1. before me, W~_"""A/ 'Pf:)MI-/'''''7~r-, a Notary Public in and for said State, wi principal office in Garfield County, personally appeared Ben L. Del Villar, Acting Forest Supervisor, White River National Forest, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. ~~~ Notary Ublic My commission expires 1//9-/19qq , Datfl loP I/. uu .. ~== 011- ....- ... ...- - ::om_ OJ~ .101_ I~ ..- aU) ...~ ' ...- .m_ m..-- m.. zJi ~JiI= 1m " ......- ~~ ...< z....- :D ..... G!~ :>t... .. it ,..011 - - - - - - - - - - - .. ~ - - - - - - - - . . INTERCHANGE DEED THIS DEED, made this Lk day of TuJl. ~ ,1911, between the United, States of America, acting by and through the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, hereinafter called Grantor, and Albert G. Timroth, Donna M. Timroth, and Grant C. Timroth, as tenants in common, of p.b. Box 89, Town.of Aspen, State of Colorado, hereinafter called Grantees. WITNESSETH: The Grantor is authorized to convey certain National Forest System lands by the act of January 12, 1983 (96 Stat. 2535; 16 U.S.C. 521C). NOW THEREFORE, the Grantor, for and in consideration of land in pitkin County, Colorado containing 27.845 acres, more or less, the receipt whereof is hereby duly acknowledged, does hereby remise, release, and quitclaim unto the Grantees, its successors and assigns all it's right, title, and interest, in and to the real property situated in the County of pitkin, State of Colorado, described as follows: Townshio 10 South. Ranqe 84 West. 6th P.M. The West 1/2 of Lot 33, Section 7 Containing 0.785 acres, more or less. SUBJECT TO: .' 1. All easements and rights-of-way of record. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor by its duly authorized representative has executed this deed pursuant to the delegation of authority promulgated in Title 7 CFR 2.42 and 49 F.R. 34283, August 29, 1984. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA By: _~l ~/~ BEN L. DEL VILLAR Acting Forest Supervisor White River National Forest Forest Service United States Department of Agriculture ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INDIVIDUAL ." STATE OF COLORADO - COUNTY OF GARFIELD on this.l.ta- day of .::T~Il/f' ,191:1. before me, uJ(/HN-A/ 'P~A,JI;.'!'P.eY" a Notary Public in and for said State, wi h principal office in Garfield County, personally appeared Ben L. Del Villar, Acting Forest Supervisor, White River National Forest, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. ~~~ Notary lie My commission expires -; II "P II 9 q q , Dat" . . INTERCHANGE DEED THIS DEED, made this 1!f day of Iup#. 1997, between the United States of America, acting by and through the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, hereinafter called Grantor, and Albert G. Tim~oth, Donna M. Timroth, and - Grant C. Timroth, as tenants in common, of P.O. Box 89, Town of Aspen, State of Colorado, hereinafter called Grantees. ... ... - - - - - - - - - WITNESSETH: The Grantor is authorized to convey certain National Forest System lands by the act of January 12, 1983 (96 Stat. 2535; 16 U.S.C. 521c). NOW THEREFORE, the Grantor, for and in consideration of land in pitkin County, Colorado containing 27.845 acres, more or less, the receipt whereof is hereby duly acknowledged, does hereby remise, release, and quitclaim unto the Grantees, its successors and assigns all it's right, title, and interest, in and to the real property situated'in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, described as follows: Townshio 10 South. Ranqe 84 West. 6th P.M. The East 1/2 of Lot 33, Section 7 Containing 0.785 acres, more or less. SUBJECT TO: -' 1. All easements and rights-of-way of record. - IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor by its duly authorized representative has rxecuted this deed pursuant to the delegation of authority promulgated in Title 7 CFR 2.42 and 49 F.R. 34283, August 29, 1984. . UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - - - - - - - - - - - - By: _~l MI~~ BEN L. DEL VILLAR Acting Forest Supervisor White River National Forest Forest Service United States Department of Agriculture ACICNOWLEDGEMilNT OF INDIVIDUAL STATE OF COLORADO - COUNTY OF GARFIELD On this ~ day of .Jt.:.H/.e. ,19!:Z before me, td/__~ J?"""....fp~...y-, a Notary Public in and for said State, wfth principal office in Garfiel County, personally appeared Ben L. Del Villar, Acting Forest Supervisor, White River National Forest, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official +~~~~ . Notary Public seal the day and year first above written. My commission expires "J' //cz, //'?9'~ , I - ,- ,- ,- - ,- - - - - - - EXHIBIT 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Pitkin County Community Development Dept. 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 1,- """'" - RE: 1041 Hazards Review Application for Government Lot 33 ,- - To whom it may concern: - - I hereby authorize Haas Land Planning, LLC, to act as my designated and authorized representative with respect to the land use application being submitted to your office for the above-captioned property. Mitch Haas is authorized to submit an application for 1041 Hazard Review & Conceptual Submission and any incidental approvals associated therewith. He is also authorized to represent me in meetings with Pitkin County staff, the Hearing Officer, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Board of County Commissioners. - - - - - - Should you have any need to contact me during the course of your review, please do so through Haas Land Planning, LLC, whose address and telephone number are included in the application. - - Mr. AI P.O. Box 375 Basalt, CO 81621 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .- - - - - .. - - - - EXHIBIT 3 - - - - - - .. - .. - .. - - - - '.. .. .. .. .. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PITKIN COUNTY PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Suzanne Wolff DATE: 11125/03 PROJECf: Timroth 1041 Hazard Review and Conceptual Submission LOCATION: Spruce St. PARCEL ID#273707100040 REPRESENTATIVE: MitchHaas OWNER: Timroth LLLP Type of Application: 1041 Hazard Review and Conceptual Submission Description of ProjectlDevelopment: Applicant proposes to establish a building envelope for a single family residence. The property is outside of the Urban Growth Boundary. Land Use Code Sections to address in letter ofrequestlapplication: ~ Article 2, Land Use Policies ~ 3-60, Environmental & Aesthetic Standards: The property is within the mapped Scenic Overlay ~ 3-80,1041 Hazard Review: o Geologic: Slopes & rockfall (?) o Wildfire: severe wildfire hazard o Wildlife: no mapped habitat ~ 3.110, Improvements & Services ~ 9-110-051, GMQS Exemption Staff will refer to: Engineer, Aspen Fire, City of Aspen Planning Staff, ACSD, Wildlife Officer Review by: Hearing Officer Public Hearing? YES. The applicant shall post a public notice sign on the property at least 15 days prior to the hearing and shall mail notice to all adjacent property owners and mineral estate owners at least 30 days prior to the hearing with the return address of the Community Development Department (copy of notice to be obtained from the Community Development Department). The names and addresses shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than 60 days prior to the date of the public hearing. FEES: $2,650 (make check payable to "Pitkin County Treasurer") ~ Planning flat fee: $2, I 00 (non-refundable; based on 9 hours of staff time; if staff review time exceeds 10.8 hours, the Applicant will be charged for additional time at a rate of$21O/hour) ~ $525 Engineer referral ~ $25 Public notice ~ $135/hour: Hearing Officer (to be billed after review is completed) To apply, submit 8 copies ofthe following information, unless noted otherwise: I. Letter of request, addressing Code Sections listed above; 2. 24" x 36" Site Plan that complies with the provisions of Section 5-70-040 3. Floor plans & elevations (if scenic overlay approval is requested) 4. Photos of site as seen from designated rights-of-way (if scenic overlay approval is requested) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5. Parcel description, including legal description and vicinity map 6. Application fee; 7. Proof of ownership; 8. Documentation of how and when the lot was created (2 copies); 9. Documentation of adequate legal access to the parcel (2 copies); 10. Agreement for Payment form (2 copies). II. Consent from owner(s) to process application and authorizing the representative (1 copy) 12. Copy of this pre-app form (I copy) 13. List of all adjacent property owners and mineral estate owners (I copy) NOTES: ~ In addition to the paper copies, all text documents must be submiued in digital format. Acceptable digitalfonnats are: text (.txt), Microsoft Word (.doc), Word Perfect (.wpd), and Rich Text Fonnat (.rtf). ~ PLEASE SUBMIT TWO-SIDED COPIES OF ALL APPliCATION MATERIALS (IF POSSIBLE). ~ ALL MAPS SHALL BE FOLDED. ~ This pre-application conference summary is advisory in nature and not binding on the County. The infonnation provided in this summary is based on current zoning standards and staff's interpretations based upon representations of the applicant. Additional information may be required upon a complete review of the application. - - - - - - - - - - - EXHIBIT 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - '" ... ..' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - BRUCE A. COWNS, PH.D. GEoI..ocIcAI.ND NA'RIlAL REsolacE OJNsuLTANTS P.O. Box 23 el116MINEUTADRJVE SaT. CoWRADO 81652 PHONE!FAX (970) 876-5400 bacol@rof.net ENVIRONMENTAL, EXPLORATION, AND MINING GEOLOGY December 19, 2003 Mitch Haas Haas Land Planning, I1.C 201 North Mill Street Suite 108 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Gerry TImroth P.O. Box 89 Aspen, Colorado 81612 RE: SMUGGlER MOUNTAIN GovERNMENr Lar 33, TIMR011I PROPEIm', PmaN CouNIY Dear Mr. Haas: I have completed my geologic investigation, as required by H.B. 1041 and Pitkin County Code ~ 3-80-050, of the above-referenced property on the lower slopes of Smuggler Mountain, just east of the Aspen city limits. The property consists of 1.581 acres comprising Government Lot 33, in the northeast quarter of the Aspen 7.5 minute quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado. Government Lot 33 is an irregularly-shaped parcel bounded mostly by the Pride of Aspen claim to the south and the Cora Lee claim to the north. Geolof!ic Settinll. The tract is located on intermediate-age glacial moraine deposits (mapped as Qmc by Bryant, 1971'), on relatively evenly-sloping ground between the apexes of two ill-defined alluvial fans which overlie the till to the north, south, and west and the minor ephemeral drainages, both of which originate near the top of Smuggler Mountain in the vicinity of the Bushwacker Shaft, that produced the fans. There are no drainages on the property itself, although a modestIy-developed ridge that forms the north bank of the south drainage crosses the proposed access envelope and that portion of the lot that lies below it. Vegetation on the tract consists primarily of Gambel oak, with mountain big sagebrush, serviceberry, and a variety of grasses. The moraine material consists of mostly-Precambrian quartz monzonite, gneiss, and schist pebbles, cobbles, and subrounded to subangular boulders up to 5 ft in maximum dimension, with a few larger, in a matrix of mostly sand derived from the same materials, of unknown thickness. The moraine and overlying alluvial fan materials to the immediate northwest through southwest are quite similar, and in fact cannot be easily differentiated except by variation in form. Bedrock beneath the alluvium is probably either upper Belden Shale (Fb) or Gothic (Minturn) Formation (fg), both of Pennsylvanian age, with bedding dipping northwest between 350 and 550. The Belden consists mostly of black carbonaceous shales and bituminous limestones, while the Gothic is gray, tan, and brown calcareous sandstone, siltstone, shale, silty limestone, and limestone. Because faulting in the area is obscured by surface cover, it is also possible that bedrock is in part lower Maroon Formation (ppm), grayish-red to bright-red 1 Bryant. B., 1971, Geologic map of the Aspen quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado: u.s. Geological Swvey Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ-OOJ. ...., - - - - - - - .. - - - - - - - - - - - .- - - ... - - - - PAGE 2 conglomerates, sandstones, and siltstones (BIy.lnt, 1971). Proximity to components of the Della- Smuggler fault complex, a group of northwest-southeast trending normal faults which dip southwest at 300 to 400 and which were significant in localizing the ore deposits of Smuggler Mountain, is unknown, while major projections of the generally southwest-northeast Aspen Mountain faults are well to the north and south of the property. The principal mine openings in the area, the Smuggler shaft and tunnels, the Free Silver Shaft, and the Molly Gibson shaft, are grouped in an area about Va-mile south of the property. The portal of the Cowenhoven Tunnel was located about 1,530 ft southwest, and the tunnel itself, which was driven almost west-to- east, passes within 850 ft of the center of Government Lot 33. Unverified information recently obtained indicates that the Free Silver 11th Level extends northeasterly beneath the southeast comet of Lot 33 from the General Jackson claim into the southwestern part of the Ballarat claim, at a depth of over 1,000 feet. The deeper 1'J'l' level extends across the north-central Ballarat boundlll)' into the northeastern part of Lot 33. None of these workings are beneath the proposed building envelope. While there was significant stoping off the 11th level, which is equivalent to the Smuggler 12th and Della S 1fi!' southwest and northeast of the property respectively, the maps suggest only prospect winzes on about 4O-ft centers in the vicinity of Lot 33. A limited area of stoping is indicated off the 1 'J'l', well away from the envelope. There are numerous other mine openings for exploration and ventilation to the east, as well as small unconnected discovery "shafts" (no more than 15 ft deep) and prospect pits in the area. ~ 3-80-0So-A. Avalanche Hazard. The area is not included in high or moderate avalanche hazard zones on Pitkin County geologic hazard maps (Colorado State University, 1974~. On the basis of slope angles in excess of 25%, most of Smuggler Mountain is included in "Areas of potential avalanches and/or areas of rock fall" on generalized maps published by the Colorado Geological Swvey (Olander, et 01., 1974~. Avalanche hazard recognition, evaluation, and mitigation is a highly specialized field that is not my area of expertise, and if an accurate assessment of the risk and recommendations for mitigation are desired you should seek the opinion of a qualified professional. ~ 3-80-0S0-8. Landslide Hazard. The area is not included in landslide hazard areas on Pitkin County or Colorado Geological SUlVey geologic hazard maps. Bedrock in the area consists of bedded sedimentary rocks dipping steeply (350 to 55") northwest, roughly parallel to surface slopes dipping somewhat less-steeply to the west, covered by a veneer of glacial till of unknown thickness. Site-specific soil testing prior to foundation design should be sufficient to establish either depth to bedrock or that sufficient moraine material is present to prevent potential slippage of thin alluvial cover against dipping bedrock. While moraine materials are generally stable, cuts on slopes greater than 10% and more than four feet high should be supported by engineered retaining walls, and any foundation cut into such a slope should be designed as a retaining wall. 2 Colorado State University (CSU), 1974, Pitkin County, Colorado - Lower Roaring Forie Valley: unpublished environmental resources analysis maps. 3 Olander, H.C., !.amm, N.B., and F1o"luist, B.A., 1974, Roaring forie and CI)ostaI vaUeys, an environmental and engineering geology study, Eagle, Garfield, Gunnison, and Pitkin Counties, Colorado: Colo. Geol. SUJVey Environmental Geol. No. B; 30 p. ~ - - - - - - - - - - - ... .- - - - - - - - - PAGE 3 ~ 3-80-0SO-C. Potentiallv Unstable Slopes Hazard. The proposed building envelope portion of Government Lot 33 is included in a potentially-unstable slope area (pa) on Pitkin County geologic hazard maps. The proposed envelope consists ofslopes in excess of 30%. Keeping in mind the soil testing and design limitations regarding the bedrock-moraine contact that are dependant thereon as discussed above, the nature of the moraine materials is such that construction on such slopes is possible so long as all excavations, including foundations, are adequately supported with or designed as retaining walls, with appropriate drainage on the upslope side(s). Artificial irrigation of landscaping should be avoided completely unless subgrade drains to a natural unobstructed drainage, evaporative catch basin(s), or other method(s) to prevent uncontrolled infusion ofirrigation water can be installed. Foundation design and construction must diStribute weight sufficiently over the cut-and-fill area so as to assure stability, including but not limited to anchoring to bedrock, installation of friction anchors, pilings, and so on as necessary depending on soil testing and subsequent engineering analysis. Considering the steepness of the natural slopes, cuts, fills, and other excavations should be minimized, steepening of existing slopes should be avoided, and all disturbed areas not covered by construction should be graded so that they can be revegetated, keeping in mind that such revegetation must be subject to the restrictions on irrigation discussed above. It should be noted that slopes present on Lot 33 are similar to those found in many Pitkin County locations that have been approved for development, and that excavation, foundation, grading, and landscaping design and construction techniques for such locations are well-established. ~ 3-80-0So-D. Rockfall Hazard. The area is not included in rockfall hazard areas on Pitkin County geologic hazard maps. As previously noted, on the basis of slope angles in excess of 25% most of Smuggler Mountain is included in "Areas of potential avalanches and/or areas of rock fall" by the Colorado Geological SUlVey (Olander, et al., 1974). There are no significant exposures of rock cliffS or ledges above Government Lot 33, and no indication of rockfall in recent time in the immediate area. Rockfall hazard to the property is therefore considered minimal. However, considering the semirounded shape of many of the boulders exposed on the surface of Smuggler Mountain above the property, as on similar slopes elsewhere in the Aspen area there is the slight risk of such rocks being dislodged by freeze-thaw action or precipitation, wildlife, or human activities. Since these conditions are found in areas of Pitkin County that have been previously approved for development, site-specific design and construction techniques for mitigating the hazard in such locations are well-established. ~ 3-80-0So-E. Alluvial Fan Hazard. The area is not included in an alluvial fan hazard area on Pitkin County, State of Colorado, or Bryant geologic hazard maps. ~ 3-80-0So-F. Talus SlaDe Hazard. The area is not included in a talus slope hazard area on Pitkin County, geologic hazard maps. ~ 3-80-0So-G. Mancos Shale hazard. The area is not included in a Mancos Shale hazard area on Pitkin County, State of Colorado, or Bryant geologic hazard maps. ~ 3-80-0So- H. Faults hazard. The area is not included in a faults hazard area on Pitkin County geologic hazard maps. Government Lot 33 is located in a complexly-faulted area although the exact relationship between these faults, extensively exposed and mapped in the Smuggler Mountain mines, and Lot 33 is not known. While there has been no known movement on these faults in historic time and probably none for thousands or even millions of years, earthquakes .. II." - ". - - - - .. - - - .. - - .. .. - - .. .. - .. - PAGE 4 of up to Mercalli Intensity VI. have occurred in the Aspen area within the last few decades; therefore, new structures should be designed and constructed according to the Uniform Building Code provisions for Seismic Zone 2A. ~ 3-80-050-1. Exoansive Soil and Rock Hazard. The area is not included in an expansive soil and rock hazard area on Pitkin County, State of Colorado, or Bryant geologic hazard maps. ~ 3-80-050-1. Ground Subsidence Hazard. There is the potential for voids created in glacial till by piping, hydJ:ocompaction,'Q[ differential compaction. Detection of such voids can be accomplished by adequate soil testing, and mitigated if necessaJ)' by proper foundation design. While substantial portions of Smuggler Mountain have been undermined, subsidence events have been rare, even directly above shallow major stopes. In most cases such larger mined-out areas were backfilled with barren material from drifts, raises, winzes, and other openings driven for haulage, ventilation, and prospecting. The closest mapped stope to Lot 33 appears to be over 200 ft from the south boundary of the building envelope at a depth of about 1,200 ft in an area between the Della S 11th and Free Silver 11th levels, with the map suggesting at least partial backfilling. The Free Silver 11th Level drift passes beneath the southeast comer of the property at similar depth.s While several winzes were sunk from the Free Silver 11th Level, the deepest workings of the Smuggler Mine (which combined both the Free Silver and Della S, among others) at this location, for prospecting, sumps, or both, on about 4O-ft centers, no stoping is indicated. Drifts, winzes, and other such openings were typically no more than 10 ftwide and 6 to 8 ft high. Subsidence effects on Lot 33 due to underground mining are therefore highly unlikely. It should also be noted that all of these workings are flooded up to the Cowenhoven Tunnel level, approximately 7,950 feet, or between 240 and 290 ft beneath the envelope. General. Access to the proposed envelope is by approved easement from North Spruce Street across portions of Cora Lee Subdivision Lots 2 and 3 to the north boundaJ)' of Government Lot 33 (and across Lot 33 into Smuggler Mountain Parcel C). The access road will require crossing slopes exceeding 30% and includes cutting through the low ridge mentioned previously. From the site plan provided, grade across the property is an average of 5.5% up to the south. A qualified engineerwill be required to design cuts, fills, and support structures in accordance with ~ 3-80-05O-C. There are no drainages that cross the designated access envelope. The moraine materials present on the property are not known to contain radioactive minerals, but nevertheless all inhabited spaces should be designed and constructed to prevent the accumulation of radon or other noxious or toxic gases. City of Aspen water and Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District sewer as well as other utilities will be provided to the property via existing easements from Spruce Street to the west comer of Lot 33, and a proposed accessoJ)' envelope to the building envelope. Conclusions. The most significant geologic hazards which affect Government Lot 33 are the steepness of the slopes on the property and the nature of the glacial till. These hazards can both be addressed by proper soil testing and foundation design as well as the installation of retaining · Roughly equivalent to magnitude 5 on the more-familiar Richter scale. Earthquakes of this magnitude are felt by all, with damage from minor to moderate. S It should be noted that there are discrepancies in level designations between maps from different sow-ces. Also, significant wooongs, including stopes, are known that do not appear on available maps. .- .. .- .. .- .. .. - - - - - - - - - - - .- - - - - - - - - - PAGES walls or other structures to support excavations and fills. To minimize the already-slight rockfall hazard I would suggest final grading and landscaping to prevent rolling rocks from striking the structure, as well as stiffening the first three feet of the structure that extends above grade and limiting openings in this interval. Angling the structure so that significant portions thereof are not perpendicular to the slope would further limit this hazard. Geologic hazards affecting Government Lot 33 are not significantly different from those affecting many sites in Pitkin County previously approved for development. ~e property is in a geologically sensitive area, but with mitigation the hazards to which the property is exposed can be minimized; nothing in this report, however, should be construed as suggesting that mitigations recommended herein can or will eliminate such hazards in their entirety. If you have any questions or require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. IMPoIrrANT Nona;: This report roncems natural processes that are mpredictable and In large measure poorly wtderstDod. It Is intmded to identifY potential observable hazards within the srope ofwmtc to whidt the subject property Is elIpOSed and to suggest mitigating _ In rompllance with appIic:able regulations. NoIhlng In this report sbouId be ronstnJed or interpreted as suggesting the absence of the desaibed hazards. or that the recommended mitigations will proted:the subject property fiom the desm"bed hazards mder aD circumstances. furest:en or mforeseen. NoIhlng In this report should be ronstnJed or interpreted as suggesting that addItIonal wtidentilied hazards are not present. It must also be wtderstDod that "mitigation" does not mean either the eIimlnadon of the hazard(s) or prevention of the ronsequences of a hazard I!W!IIt or events. only the reduction to the extent reasonably possible of the latter. By auq,lh'll this report aD present and subsequent parties thereto agree to indemnifY and bold hannIess the preparerfor any and aD damages. direct, Indirect or consequendaI, including personal Injury or loss of life. above and beyond the original cost of this study, caused by or resulting fiom any 0CCWTeI1Ce of the desm"bed or other hazard(s). whether or not such damages may result fiom tai!ufe to identifY said hazard(s) or fiom f.IiIlD'e or lnadeqUlKY of properly engineered. ronstructed, and maintained rerommended mitigations. The preparer of this report cannot and will not be lesponslble In anyway or manner wbatsoever for the proper engineering, ronstruction. and/or maintenance ofremmmended mitig31...... or the inadequacyor f.IiIlD'e ofimproperlyengineered. ronstructed. and/or maintaII!ed~~ed 1IliIiai.4iuo.... ormitigationsthatbave """"~ fuanywaywhalSoeW1'fromthoseremmmended by the preparer. This report may be amended or withdrawn without notice at anytime prior to receipt of payment therefor. .~ '. - - - - - - - - - - EXHIBIT 5 - - - .. - - .. - .. - .. - - - - - - - - - NEPA'.WILDLIFE..VEGETATION..RECLAMATION..WE1LANDS'. PLANNING - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - December 2, 2003 Haas Land Planning 201 N. Mill Street, Suite 108 Aspen, CO 81611 RE: limroth Property 1041 Wildfire Hazard Review Dear Mr. Haas Please submit this letter with your application to Pitkin County. I visited the limroth property on Lot 33 of the Government Subdivision, in Pitkin County, on November 18, 2003 with Mr. Mitch Haas, the owner's representative. Mr. Haas is preparing a 1041 site review for development of the property to contain a single family home. The property and area around it are considered "Severe Hazard: Brush", due to the fact that the slope is greater than 20% (actual slope averaged 48%) and the fuels were continuous. Therefore, the following Mitigations are recommended for any new construction: I. Vegetation 1. From the farthest point of the new construction, extending out to 25', all brush (oak, serviceberry, chokecherry, sagebrush, etc.) must be removed. It is recommended that any remaining clumps within 30' of the structure be irrigated to keep live fuel moistures high during the summer months. 2. Oak brush shall be thinned to 4x the height of the remaining brushy plants within 50', and must be limbed up to 10' and all sprouts and understory shrubs must be removed and kept trimmed. If any coniferous trees (including planted trees) are fairly close to the house (<10 feet), then they may be considered to be an integral part .:r.. __ Steep slopes and continuous fuels charaCTerize Ibis site 0222 BOBCAT LANE. REDSTONE. COLORADO. 81623 PHONE/FAX: (970) 963-2190 . CELL: (970) 309-4454 EMAIL: ERICPETTERSON@MSN.COM Timroth/Lot33 Property 1041 WildfireHazcmiReview De_ber 2, 2003 ,t\:. . ~ . :::-'~ ....: i'!kY Mountain Ecologica~;~:~.' ,. - - - - - - 5. - 6. - - 7. .. 8. - - - - 9. - - - .. - .. .. - - - .. - - .. - - of the structure, and all dearances will start at the furthest extent of the tree crown. 3. Beyond 50', bush and shrubs must be thinned to 3 times the height distance to 65' from the dwelling, or to the extent of the property boundary (whichever is the shorter distance). 4. All other vegetation must be kept to less than l' (1 foot) in height up to 30' from any structures. A few scattered smaller shrubs can be left from 25' and beyond. Weeds and grasses within a twenty-foot (20') perimeter shall be maintained to a height of not more than six inches (6"). All branches from trees and brush within the thirty-foot perimeter shall be pruned to a height of ten feet (10') above the ground with removal of ladder fuels from around trees and brush. All deadfall within a 70' perimeter of the house shall be removed. All thinned oak brush, serviceberry or chokecherry stumps should be "painted" with Garlon@ herbicide to prevent aggressive resprouting. Installed or native landscaping within 20' of the house must be irrigated, and not contain any brushy or coniferous species- only grasses or forbs are allowed. Flammable mulches (wood chips) are not recommended. Aspen trees are allowed near the house, as long as they are not within 10' of the structure, and are kept limbed to 10' (unless the trees are less than 10' tall). No trees of any species may be within 15' of any window. The property owner shall be responsible for the continued maintenance of the above listed vegetation requirements. .. 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ti1Ilroth/Lm JJ Pruperry 1041 WildfinHazoniRll'iw D"""btr 2, 200J The following Modif~ Structural Design and Construction Standards are recommended for any new structures: I. Projections: 1. Projections at the roofline (which indudes, but are not limited to: eaves, cornices, soffits and roofs over Open decks) shall be sheathed with materials approved for one-hour fire-resistive construction. 2. For projections below the roofIine (induding, but not limited to: exterior balconies, decks, porches, and bay windows which extend over a flat or sloped surface), the open space between grade and the underside of projections below the roofline shall be endosed by solid, vertical walls. These walls shall be constructed with materials approved for one-hour fire-resistive construction on the exterior side of the wall, and shall extend from the top of grade to the underside of the floor decking or walls of the projection, OR: 3. Any porch or deck or projection shall be void of vegetation below it, and areas below such projections shall be protected from accumulation of vegetation materials by placement of a vegetation barrier covered with rocks or gravel, or by coverage with concrete or stone. Walls underneath projections shall be constructed with materials approved for 1-hour fire resistive construction on the exterior side of the wall. Pillars or columns shall be of non-flammable materials, or if wood, made out of heavy log construction and treated with a fire retardant. The underside of any porch, deck or projection shall be sheathed in 1-hour fire resistive materials, or with fire-retardant treated wood. 4. An alternative for a deck or porch is use of non-flammable hardscaping (flagstone, cement pad, etc.). Some planters may be in this area, but cannot contain trees (except aspen) or shrubby species. III. Exterior Walls and Siding 1. Exterior walls and siding shall have a minimum one-hour fire resistive rating on the house and any other structures from ground level to roof line. Exterior doors shall be noncombustible or one and three-fourths inch (1' % j solid wood. IV. Windows and Glass 1. Glazed openings shall be provided with dosable, solid, exterior non-flammable shutters or shall be tempered glass. V. Foundations and Stilt Construction 1. Foundations, skirting and crawl space openings shall be fully endosed and constructed with materials approved for 1-hour fire resistive construction on the ~ky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc 3 ,,,,... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ... - - - - - - Timroth/Lot 33 1'ruJ>ertJ 1041 WikIfin Haztml RninJ Dettlllbtr 2, 2003 exterior sides of the walls and shall extend from the top of grade to the underside of the floor decking or walls. 2. Stilt foundations shall be fully endosed and constructed with materials approved for 1-hour fire resistive construction on the exterior side of the walls and shall extend from the top of grade to the underside of the floor decking or walls (not induding porches, patios, etc.). VI. New Roofing 1. Any new roofs shall be constructed with non-combustible roofing materials on a Class A roof assembly (see USC 1997 Section 1504). 2. Roofs shall be installed as required by USC 1997 Chapter 15 and shall have a minimum slope of 1:48. 3. All roof coverings shall have a surface that facilitates the natural processes of deaning the roof. 4. Vents shall be screened with a maximum 14" corrosive resistant wire mesh. VII. Maintenance 1. Roofs and gutters shall be kept dear of debris. 2. Yards shall be kept dear of all littler, slash and flammable debris. 3. All flammable materials (induding firewood) shall be stored on a parallel contour a minimum of 30' from any structure, or within a separate structure. VIII. Miscellaneous 1. Fences shall be kept dear of brush and debris, and must have at least a 3" gap between the fence and the main structure. Non-flammable, or treated wood fencing material is recommended, but not required, within 20' of any structures. 2. Any outbuilclings or additional structures shall adhere to the same standards as the main house. 3. Each structure shall have a minimum of one ten-pound ABC fire extinguisher. 4. Addresses shall be dearly marked with 2" non-combustible letters and shall be visible at the primary point of access from the public or common access road and installed on a non-combustible surface. 5. Fuel tanks shall be installed underground with an approved container. 6. Propane tanks shall be buried, or installed according to NFPA 48 standards and on a contour away from the structure with stanclard defensible space vegetation mitigation around any aboveground tank (i.e. no shrubs within 30' of the tank). ~ Mountain Ecological Services, Inc 4 Any wood enclosure around the tank shall be constructed with materials approved for two (2) hour fire-resistive construction on the exterior side of the walls. 1. Thin shrubs (oak, chokecherry, serviceberry, sagebrush) to 3 times height along the driveway back 25' on either side. Stumps must be painted with Garlon herbicide to prevent aggressive re- sprouting. No shrubs or conifers are allowed within 10' of the driveway. Aspen are permitted within 10' of the driveway, iI!'~,,;J\;. but must be pruned to Location of proposed driveway- will need brush thinning on either side 10' above the ground. IX. Access ... .'. ." - - - - - 2. All other vegetation must be kept to 6" or less within 1 0' of the driveway. 3. New driveways shall enter the roadway at a ninety-degree angle for the first 25' of the driveway (this is to facilitate fire-truck access). However, it is likely that fire trucks would stop at the end of Spruce drive. Mr. Haas may wish to check with the fire department regarding this (contact Mr. Ed VanWalraven with the Aspen Fire Protection District). - - - X. Water Supply - 1. Any fire department recommendation for individual structure water supply and storage shall be accessible to fire department vehicles from the exterior of the structure through a Fire Department approved mechanism (such as a fire hydrant). The amount of storage capacity shall be determined by the fire protection district with a minimum of one thousand (1,000) gallon storage capacity per structure. - - 2. All livable structures shall be required to install in-house sprinkler systems that meet the standards of the local fire protection district and the Uniform Building Code. At building permit submittal, the Aspen Fire Protection District may require smaller structures to be sprinkled due to hazard considerations, emergency access difficulties and lack of proximity to fire protection services. - - - - - f"'!!;.ky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc - - - - - - 5 - , H. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ," , TiIIIroth/Lot JJ ProJ>errJ 1041 WiJdjirr HoztmI Rnfew D_btr2,200J XI. Utilities 1. Utility lines shall be buried. XII. Building Envelope and Wildfire Hazard Area Delineation 1. Concurrent with building permit submittal, a site plan that meets the requirements of section 5-70-040 shall be submitted that delineates all development within a building envelope (wildfire mitigation, and creation of defensible space, may occur outside the building envelope). Wildfire hazard areas shall be delineated within the building envelope consistently with the definitions of section ~70A.1; provided that, in the case of varying hazard levels within the building envelope, it shall be sufficient to label the entire envelope with the highest level hazard. The building envelope and a hundred-foot radius surrounding all structures shall be clearly labeled as either: low hazard, medium hazard; or severe hazard. XIII. Appeal An appeal pursuant to section 3-290 and/or 3-300 is available to any party aggrieved by a decision rendered pursuant to these Wildfire Mitigation Recommendations. The standards stated in 3-80-070 Wildfire Hazard Areas, has been slightly modified for the conditions at this property. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on this property, and please feel free to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Ga Eric Petterson Principal Ecologist Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc. i"'!!.ky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - EXHIBIT 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . -- .. PITKIN COUNTY WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT .................................... .. ..-............ .. ... .. . .................. ...... . .. ...................... ............... ...... MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJEcr: DATE: Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning Jonathan Lowsky, Pitkin County Wildlife Biologist Timroth 1041 Hazard Review 11/3/2000 The Timroth Property lies along the Gambel Oak-Serviceberry dominated lower slopes of Smuggler Mountain. These slopes provide habitat for a diverse array of wildlife from songbirds and raptors to black bears, mule deer, and elk. Although the Tirilroth property is not within any wildlife habitat mapped by the Colorado Division ofWddlife it is important to note that mule deer use this habitat throughout the non- winter months and elk migrate through on their way between winter and summer ranges. Black bears are very active in this area and there is a bistory of human/black bear conflicts. Given the above, the following conditions should be applied minimize impacts to wildlife: 1. Fencing outside the building envelope must comply with ~3-80.080(A)(10) and ~3-80.080(A)(11) of the Pitkin County Land Use Code. 2. Dogs should be kenneled as per ~3-80.080(D)(2). 3. . Native vegetation must be maintained outside the building envelope as per ~3-80.080(A)(3). 4. An orange safety fence should be erected around the building envelope during construction to prevent and inadvertent impacts to native vegetation. 5. Installation and use of approved bear-proof trash containers' should be required. Verification of this condition should be required prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 6. If possible, utility lines should be buried. 1 A beAr proof nub container must be a fully enclosed, steel container of any size with a steel lid that hIlS a two step opening mechanism. Approval is granted by the Pitkin County Wildlife Biologist or personnel of the Colorado Division of Wildlife. 76 SERVICE CENTER ROAD' ASPEN, co . 81611 PHONE: 970/920.5395 . FAX: 970/920.5374 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - EXHIBIT 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PITKIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AGREEMENT FOR PAYMENT OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FEES PITKIN COUNTY (hereinafter COUNTY) and ALBERT G. TIMROTH (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to COUNTY an application for 1041 HAZARDS REVIEW & CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION (hereinafter, THE PROmCT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that Pitkin County Ordinance No. 058-2001 establishes a fee structure for Planning applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and COUNTY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and COUNTY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties for APPLICANT to make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the COUNTY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. COUNTY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT's application. 4. COUNTY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for COUNTY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or Board of County Commissioners to enable the Planning Commission and/or Board of County Commissioners to make legally required findings for project approval, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. .~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the COUNTY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $2650.00. which is for nine (9) hours of staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to COUNTY to reimburse the COUNTY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing. - - - PITKIN COUNTY APPLICANT - - - Albert G. Timroth Print~~ Signa re - Cindy Houben Community Development Director - - Date: Mailing Address: P.O. Box 375 Basalt. CO 81621 - - - · = includes $525 Engineering referral fee, and $25 public notice fee - - - - - - - - - - - - - - EXHIBIT 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - GOVERNMENT LOT 33 LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AND THEIR MAILING ADDRESSES OF RECORD" - - - 2737.074-00-103: Aspen Mountain Construction Inc. PO Box 4067 c/o George Wilkinson Aspen, CO 81612 2737-074-00-045: Gleason, Austin & George Anna 3918 Sunset Shreveport, LA 71109 - .. - - - 2737-074000-046: Wilkinson, George Marsh DBA Echo Films PO Box 4067 Aspen, CO 81612 2737-074-00-002: Timroth, Albert G. Trustee PO Box 375 Basalt, CO 81621-0375 .. - - - 2737-071-04-014: Great West Life & Annuity Ins Co 8515 E Orchard Rd, 3'd Floor Tower 2 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 2737-071-04-801: Pitkin County 530 E Main St, Ste 302 Aspen, CO 81611 .. - - - - 2737-071-00-012: Lichtensteain, Warren G & Diane 1 Orchard Rd. Great Neck, NY 11021 2737-071-00-011: Porath Family Trust 12400 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 1450 Los Angeles, CA 90025 - - 2737-071-04-010: Lewitz, Cecil & Nancy 711 Spruce Street Aspen, CO 81611 2737-071-04-013: Auger, Raymond N & Camilla 709 N. Spruce Street Aspen, CO 81611 - .. - .. - 2737-074-00-103. 2737-074-00-045. and 2737-074-00-046 also list the followin1 owner and address: New Consolidated Et AI PO Box 4067 Aspen, CO 81612 - - - - *Per the Pitkin County Assessor's Records as of June 21, 2004 - - -