The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.CR.Smuggler Mtn.A015-01 /-\ ~ '!I -><,' ~ CASE NUMBER A015-01 PARCELID# 2737-074-00002 CASE NAME Timroth County Referral PROJECT ADDRESS PLANNER Fred Jarman CASE TYPE County Referral OWNER/APPLICANT Grant Timroth REPRESENTATIVE Haas Land Planning DATE OF FINAL ACTION 3/19/01 CITY COUNCIL ACTION PZ ACTION ADMIN ACTION Comments Returned BOA ACTION DATE CLOSED 6/1/01 BY J. Lindt ""'" r-, '1 ,Qfulll1. oQ.Jl n ,~ ,-xl. MEMORANDUM TO: Suzanne Wolf, Pitkin County Senior Planner Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director ~ Joyce Ohlson, Community Development Deputy Direct;; THRU: FROM: Fred Jarman, City of Aspen Planner ;::.). Smuggler Mountain, Parcel C: 1041 Environmental Hazard Review & Conceptual Submission Application RE: DATE: March 19,2001 View looking North West of the Timroth Property standing on (approximately) the location of the proposed driveway F reject Summar,:! The applicant and owner of the subject property, Grant Timroth, is requesting an approval from Pitkin County for a 1041 Environmental Hazard Review & Conceptual Submission Application in order to establish a building envelope for a single-family residence. The subject 1.179 acre property is located in Pitkin County's AFR-IO Zone District (as a non-conforming lot) and contains slopes in excess of30%. While this property is located directly above the Silverload Subdivision in the City of Aspen, it is located outside the City of Aspen Urban Growth Boundary. (See Exhibit A) Upon Staff review of this request on 2/22/01, several issues arose as to the appropriateness of allowing development on this property as requested. These points are described below: ~.... -~,-''''--" ...,..._...._.,~.~. . .' " ~ () 1. The wildfire hazard on the site for the proposed development envelope is mapped as "low." However, a second more recent review completed by the Colorado State Forest Service indicated the area as "severe." The City Planning Staff does not support the "clearing" of native vegetation, including service berry and scrub oak, to mitigate for this potential natural hazard. Re-vegetating steep, south-facing slopes is frequently unsuccessful and scars hill and mountain sides. Further, clearing these species and unsuccessful re-vegetation leads to severe erosion on the mountain sides, creating hazards for residents below. 2. The proposed development does not comply with the 1993 Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP), the Draft AACP 1998 Update, and the adopted 2000 AACP. Specifically, the 1993 AACP states on Page 46: It is the position of the Open Space Committee that Smuggler Mountain be purchased as open space and a recreation areafor the community. Wefeel that it is one of the highest priorities the City and County should have relative to recreation, access to public lands and visual character. Smuggler Mountain is the last remaining undeveloped mountain side as seen from the gondola. It has increasingly become one of the highest used recreation areas of our community. Smuggler mountain also provides access to the USFS public lands. We are not opposed to housing on the lower portions of Smuggler Mountain with development no higher than the existing level of development (excluding the Cooper housing located higher on the side of the mountain.). In addition, both the 1993 and 1998 plans include the following action statement: If the opportunity arises, acquire properties on Smuggler Mountain for public open space. Finally, the development would be located outside the proposed Aspen Community Growth Boundary. Further, the 2000AACP states that the boundary is intended to help preserve open space, discourage urban sprawl and manage the transportation impacts of new developments. In order to make the boundary effective, the County may need to lower acceptable density levels in the unincorporated areas, and the city will need to pursue infiU in existing neighborhoods. The Community Growth Boundary would also serve as the base of a future annexation agreement between the City and County and require intergovernmental coordination for any development approvals in the joint planning area. 3. City Planning Staff does not believe the proposed development meets the City's Development in Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) standards. The purpose of the ESA standards are to identify areas within the City that are of particular ecological, environmental, architectural or scenic significance. Specifically, Staff does not believe the proposed development meets several of the 8040 Greenline Review Standards, including standards 1,2,4,5, and 7 below. 2 -'-~"--""-""-..__.._.'''-,~ 1"""\ ('l 'I 8040 greenline review standards. No development shaU be permitted at, above, or one hundredfifty (I 50) feet below the 8040 greenline unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with aU requirements set forth below. 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rockfalls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and re-vegetate the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removedfrom the site to a location acceptable to the city. 2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution. 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the city. 4. The design and location of any proposed development, road, or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and naturallandfeatures. 6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can be properly maintained. 10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. However, if the proposal is approved, then the City Planning Staff recommends the following conditions of approval be adopted: 3 r"'j ('l , 1. The owner shall convey a trail easement to Pitkin County Open Space on the property, and the County has sole discretion over the location of the trail easement as long as it is located outside the building envelope (it may be located inside the development envelope). 2. The affordable housing unit shall not have interior doors connecting to the remainder of the house. should be located above grade in a side-by-side configuration with the free market unit (instead of an above-grade/below-grade configuration), and fully deed restricted. 3. Limit the floor area ratio (FAR) to that same maximum allowable FAR allocated to the Silverload Subdivision lots in the City of Aspen. 4. The submission of a lighting plan for the development that demonstrates compliance the City's new lighting ordinance and that shows the following: A. The location and height above grade oflight fixtures; B. The type (such as incandescent, halogen, high pressure sodium) and luminous intensity of each light source; C. The type of fixture (such as floodlight, full-cutoff, lantern, coach light); D. Estimates for site illumination resulting from the lighting, as measured in foot-candles, should include minimum, maximum and average illumination. Comparable examples already in the community that demonstrate technique, specification, and/or light level should be provided if available to expedite the review process; and E. Other information deemed necessary by the Community Development Director to document compliance with provisions of the Land Use Code. 5. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall consult with the County Wildlife Biologist and City Forester for selection of vegetative species for revegetation efforts. 6. That the applicant not be allowed to construct any roof form on the site that contains any highly reflective materials and use other materials that allow the structures to effectively blend into the mountainside. 7. That the applicant prepare specific water I sewer demand impacts on the City System and work with the City of Aspen Water department and Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District and enter into the appropriate agreements for service. City of Aspen Community Development Department Recommendation The City Planning Office reviewed the Smuggler Mountain application for 1041 Environmental Hazard Review & Conceptual Submission Application. The City of Aspen Community Development Department recommends denial of the application for the aforementioned reasons. 4 -~'~'-''''';''''~'_'_-''':''__'_'_''''';'_'_'''''--"'-....'';'''_.__.__:'."",-.._. .~. "'_n. ~ Attachments Exhibit A - Geographic Information System Coverage Exhibit B - Photographs of the Subject Property () 5 ., ~ E,K J" "" jL- B Timroth f ropert~ View looking North West of the Timroth Property standing on (approximately) the location of the proposed driveway l View looking north to the Timroth Property looking up Smuggler Mountain. ~ f""'\ , >.1 ~ '...." .. .,',. ,'~.'" .....,.,.....,... ...",>.. '._," ,___..' ',;. ..', .,,',,'k.', ....'.... <~,..,i"...'.,".,./,j,:..".;.'i.:;:,.,',"';>..,'.:;:G,.,.\.>',<:',-i ",:>:.j::;:.., '",: ':':.;':.~,:" View looking northeast to the Timroth Property from the proposed driveway area. ..}'/? "'/;,!/s{~ +- "c';'C" ',",; :,)( ':_''' """ ~:-.:. C''''~~;E0:^~~=~,~ 'L "/ ;':-ii-.{ l? <~~'ji ", "Jx.........:.....: c 'c' _ ,', _ , : \:~ :":I:~ ... A~~--;f~ ."'. ; '-', >_~ ~. ". ';" "', ' '- c, '.\~ :'" .,. ''\ c '<", , , ,:: '\Cc,,: ':,'; " " '"...~..,'\.'..... (;C' ~ CI'.l-:-,:::-: " ", '., , i;~~'''J;'..:.''"\' . :;::)'/\ ";';"0 , " , ' / !:' j ,',' " :e_, ",,:,,' y ,,' '"c, 'i; /' , ',:;,; "c' 'c __ ;,,' ",' f"j: \" ,,:,cI: 'c', '. '_~'/~:C "', '<<"'_~" ",,"" Y-." c,; \, '" "'/' " :- ' ~ " : ':;S:i c ' ; ~ "-, '/c ; ,/~_-,,- _ , ;, 'c'f" ' .. '., /; .<-~, ':... "\,i",\"' X""::; /,c,' ,~,: , 'c: __ " '" ",' "0[;,;,' ,',',;, ''-''\ii,',,'c ": ' :-;: ;" ,', ,'c '; __ __ ;:::, ,_',,' :,:.. /,' , "..,.~~ '+:c,~',_',; ,,', , ," "I,: :<';'/"':'. 'e. _.....\ >"'..' ",,'. ' ". :i~:'- :- , , IT'""", '~ '..:.. : ',/ - C, ',",\, 'i,' /" ' c--"'-, 'J '. . :': '/' ~ ....~,~ _ """~~ " " ", ': ~ '" , , '. ,:', , , c':'__ '1", " : : '." " ", "C, ;~ [' '. " , '.; '- ,':i''-,'',:,,, '. _,' j, ; " , ' , " ~c:~:.".:, .","" ~cL ''',' , ," -} ,- " ; ,. :'\ - , ' ,-,' .. '/, ',- ;c, "'" > ,,,!,,' , /LJf 'n ,c. / :"" ~ >;c, ! ,',', ;/:;'I"'~_'.' . ~_': :, : " , , / '" L - ,,"j ..,.."... "" ......>--: .. ".::.,'. ./, Ii ... ....,,, ...:,,"" ' ".. / . , . III...' ... .' _ .. . ':", , fA, ,c, ~ -<- ",- ~ z ~ 'CO' . , .. - "" , : . ,- ..~, . .' /.,j/i. . ' , , I ~,'. .' I' ..:. '. . ".',,' ./ "'/(~'~' ::I,---,:-~ '- / "' .' . .. ... I '.. . '." ~ , "'.. ", ( , I I ~ ' . 1 ',' I. ' : " , . ',"./ - '.~/. ! .:,/ I ,;", >-./ '-,' ", ""',. j""":C~~{;0C".:,c,~~::-=: :.. .' '.. _ ;/;C-".':!~'o-:~ fl' ,. . ...' - _:-' :: ,<~.... - " -" '.-.,.",::::,. ,-. - .., ..' .. .. -,._,- -, , , .. -." / "--,--,, . ---- . '--... " /':::_-, "~...,- >. 1:: ~ >. o C/) .r:::. ~ (Dc. a..(D ~~C/) i .r:::. C .a e> Q5 I ...... :.::J () 0 () I e>...c2C.(ij i E......e>......Oa.. .- <:3 ::> CJ) t- I t.1'~ 11>0 K' ~. _I. Sl-1U17GL.f;-R~9Bl\Jrt;lXly,e""'RCFLC 1 0'1-1 tNVIRC9N"MENTA L llAZA RVS Rt\llflV &- .... . ..................... CONCEP11i-ALsitffMISSttJKfli.'PP[ICA TION ~I'~.' i,;{ "" .. !II ,4j t SU13Mn "l:VBY HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC" 201 N. MILL STREET; SUITE 108'" . ASP'tN, t(~J[oR;ri5(flil"6rr"'" ". ...... . (970) 925 ~7819" . .. ....... ~ (970) 925:' 7J9T~'~~~""""'''''' ......... .......... JANUARY,20UJ ':"":C":~"'''''_''_''''''C'", , AN APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF 1041 ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS REVIEW & CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION FOR MR. GRANT C. TIMROTH Submitted by: Mr. Grant C. Timroth P.O. Box 89 Aspen, CO 81612 Prepared by: HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC Planning Consultants 201 North Mill Street, Suite 108 Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 925-7819 fax: (970) 925-7395 mhaas@sopris.net PROJECT CONSULTANTS PLANNER 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 Banner Associates, Inc. John Kobylarz 2777 Crossroads Boulevard Grand Junction, CO 81506 (970) 243-2242 GEOLCX;Y Collins & Associates Dr. Bruce Collins, Ph.D. P.O. Box 23 Silt, CO 81652 (970) 876-5400 SMUGGLER MOUNT AIN, PARCEL C 1041 ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS REVIEW TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. INTRODUCTION... ...... ... .......... ......... ........ ...... ... ...... ......... ........ ...1 II. THE NEIGHBORHOOD & SUBJECT PROPERTY (Existing Conditions)...2 III. THE PROPOSAL............. ....... ......... ................. ......... ............... .....3 N. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS................ ................... ........ .... ............ ....4 'A. 1041 Environmental Hazards Review........................;;....................4 1. Section 3-80-050, Geologic Hazard Areas...................................5 2. Section 3-80-070, Wildfire Areas.................... ........... ....... ........9 3. Section 3-80-080, Wildlife Habitat Areas...................................11 4. Section 3-80-030, General Standards. .......................................15 B. Conceptual Submission Requirements..........................................15 1. Article 2, County Land Use Policies........................................15 2. Section 3-60, Environmental and Aesthetic Standards.................16 3. Section 3-70, Water Resources................................................17 4. Section 3-110, Improvements and Services...............................17 V. VESTED RIGHTS................... .................................. ........ .......... .19 EXHIBITS Exhibit #1: Proof of Ownership/Title Policy Exhibit #2: Letter of authorization Exhibit #3: Pre-Application Conference Summary Exhibit #4: Geologic Report Exhibit #5: Wildfire Hazards Ratings and Recommendations Exhibit #6: Referral Letter from Jonathan Lowsky Exhibit #7: Declaration of Restrictions Exhibit #8: Proof of Legal Access Exhibit #9: Agreement to Pay Form Exhibit #10: List of All Adjacent Property Owners I. INTRODUCIlON 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 1.179 acre northerly portion of the Pride of . Aspen Mining Claim (U.S. M.S. 7883) located on Smuggler Mountain. The property is recognized by Pitkin County as a separately developable parcel pursuant to the March 1, 1990 Declaration of Restrictions, recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder in Book 615 at Page 219 (Reception No. 320504). , 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 rated by Mr. Vince Urbina of the Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) as a "severe" wildfire hazard. The 1041 maps do not indicate the presence of any regulated wildlife habitat, and a site specific review 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 Mr. Grant C. Timroth (hereinafter "the applicanf'), who is the owner of the subject property. Proof of Mr. Timroth's ownership is provided in Exhibit #1, . the title insurance commitment. 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. Vince Urbina (CSFS) is attached as Exhibit #5. A letter from County Wildlife Biologist, Mr. Jonathan Lowsky, is attached as Exhibit #6. Documentation of how and when the subject parcel was created, and a demonstration of non-merger of lands for the subject parcel and all adjacent parcels is provided in the March 1, 1990 Declaration of Restrictions, recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder in Book 615 at Page 219 (Reception No. 320504), a copy of which is included herewith as Exhibit #7. Proof of access to the property is provided With Exhibit #8. An executed application fee agreement and a list of adjacent property owners are attached as Exhibits #9 and #10, respectively. The application is divided into five sections. Sections I provides a brief introduction to the application, while Section II furnishes an overview of the TimrOlh 104 I Hazards Review Application Page I neighborhood and subject property (existing conditions). Section III of the application summarizes the applicant's proposal. Section N addresses the proposed development's compliance with the review criteria of the Land Use Code, and Section V is a request for the granting of vested property rights. For the reviewers 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 evaluation of the application, questions may arise which require further information and/ or clarification. We will provide such additional information as may be required in the course of the application's review. IT. THE NEIGHBoRHOOD &: SUBJEcr PROPERTY (Existing Conditions) The subject property is COmmonly known as Smuggler Mountain Parcel C, otherwise described as the 1.179 acre northerly portion of the Pride of Aspen . Mining Claim (US. M.S. 7883) located on Smuggler MouI1.!ain. It is located on a relatively steep hillside with a west aspect Prevailing slopes along this hillside are in the range of 30% to 40%, and virtually all of the subject property consists of slopes in this range. The property is recognized by Pitkin County as a separately developable parcel pursuant to the March 1, 1990 Declaration of Restrictions, recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder in Book 615 at Page 219 (Reception No. 320504), and attached hereto as Exhibit #7. The site is within Pitkin County's AFR-I0 zone district Access to the property is gained via a thirty foot wide easement across the Cora Lee Mining Claim, the Ella Sherwood Mining Claim, and US. Forest Service property. The access easement is recorded in Book 578 at Pages 774 and 778 (proof of legal access is attached hereto as Exhibit #8). The access easement provides connection to the Spruce Street public right-of-way. The driveway will utilize an existing but abandoned roadbed, which follows a topographic contour and has been graded to be relatively fIat. The access drive will, however, need to span a small draw/drainage; and this will be accomplished using one of the recommended methodologies provided in Dr. Collins' report (see Exhibit #4), as . later described herein. When the adjacent property (Parcel E, to the west) was developed, utilities were stubbed into the subject site in anticipation of its eventual development for single-family reSidential use. For instance, municipal water service, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District service, and electric service are all currently available via utility easements through Smuggler Mountain Parcel E for the use Timroth 1041 Hazards Review Application Page 2 and benefit of the subject property, and said easements are platted on the recorded land survey contained in Book 131 at Page 452. With regard to geology, Dr. Bruce Collins has concluded (see Exhibit #4) that the geologic hazards affecting it 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 portion of the Aspen area. The Williams Ranch and Silverlode developments are located almost immediately to the southwest of the prol'erty. 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. ill. THE PROPOSAL The applicant proposes the designation of a building envelope to. accommodate the development of a single family residence and customary accessory uses. Approval of the driveway to be constructed in the existing access easement is also requested. The proposed building envelope is located at an elevation closely approximating that of the existing residence on Lot 2 of the Cora Lee Subdivision, and the property was recognized by Pitkin County just ten . years ago (in 1990, see Exhibit #7) as a residential development parceL The 1.789 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 dishict are effectively precluded. With the exception of a small portion of the site on its extreme southeast corner, the entire property consists of slopes in excess of 15%. The small portion Timrolh 1041 Hazards Review Application Page 3 i ~ g " ~ ,(;.j .~ :" ul1l t (n1l,eJ 0.' fr~ ~ if-"~-'8 <~~ 5<8 g ~ ~ ~ J\r' Z <l -' a... ::E w:o.: t: ,;: "'", ::.i w. - " >'QO w cr:,0::. Cl '^ O::og <f - 4 N~~ <(...J :t'!',. 8 z ~,g ~- Q ~'5 If): 0 . u () \3 z .....IN::2 w'~,"~ Of- O::;:'V'I 4~' a..'w :-i: ... .:;: ;!; <0 O:~ -'Woe:( ;,,~,() ,~',5' (0. j) .:iE..... '" . ~' g ~ 0: e,~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ,g ~ ~' i ~ g B ~ > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~8 z ~ g ~ ~ :: ;!; !O g ~ " z " , 8~ @< <:it '0 s~ z "" ~Sl ~~ ~ . < ~ , u I " , it " h .~ '" .- ~~ ". 11 ~~ i~ ". " ~j <- I. . ':'j " .': II' IIH . . .~ l!! 8" l'. Ii lh ", > " ]I u ~ i: i .;" ~ ~ : t:o ~ 0 '$ 0 [J~~ " . , 1 . , ~ "'U iii!2l3 ~~~ >I.. ... . , ~ I 0 I : ~ 1 . ; I I ! II ! j ~; 1 : '" , :!~ "" '" V1Ji;1i " .. . ,'it :1> --- II g .:r 1 ! j "s , l. 1 . ~ ~] ~ J . . 1 i , I ~ 'Z ~, i ~i if , j ! I Ig , !~" I ~@g. " :t ~~ ;:; ~~~~ i >-~"~ t :~~~ 0 h~~ ~ ~!,~ ,,~> I ):~"'.i:. ~ ~.~~ i ~!!I'j ! glll.i '" ..: t" ~ ! ~~~.! & j>~.! ! ~ ~~... , ! "!'~~ 1 i I :.!.e : I I 1 , t 5 ~,.. 1> 'Ss i,l~ ;l'i:-8] 5 ~ ~ ~ I" oS " ji" j ]iH ~ l~U · ,n: I !~ >-8 e- m I ~ ., ;;" ";Z;;;t."~ ~ 811'6 I" ...... h. ''[if ~ I .1'1 -' . }:;!i j ih;. ~tl :SoH!:,! N h~ ~1 11 ~ -'OlS!j ;!; ,s " ~ ." . " $ .. ~. u.. ~~ 0 ;, " ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ g -z o <l u ..:.:J ,.z 11...,: 'il! ~ '~ LW '0.: !::',,~ <n,w .>.'. :----...._---- , % ----,- I. . r-- ~ - >. I ! ! I p <; ~ -! ~8i i ~; ~ gc ~, tl~ ~i i; ~~ !DO II I 4~ ~ ~ ~ i [ ~ ~ . . . L ." . . ~ 1i5 ~ ~ ! ~ '11 ,h' 'ii of the site that has slopes of less than 15% is not adequate in size to accommodate a building envelope and, given its location in the extreme southeast comer of the property, its use for placement of a building envelope would require significantly more disturbance and thus more impact for providing access and extending utilities. The remainder of the site resides on slopes in excess of 30%. No other significant geologic hazards affect the site. Mr. Vince Urbina of the Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) assessed the wildfire hazard on the property as "severe." Nevertheless, based on the "low to moderate" wildfire hazard ratings assigned to and accepted by Pitkin County for ,the immediately surrounding properties, and based on the mitigation recommendations provided by the CSFS, we believe the hazard associated with the subject property should be considered "moderate." (See Exhibit #5.) The County Wildlife Biologist, Mr. Jonathan Lowsky, conducted a site visit/ site-specific review to evaluate potential wildlife impacts. Mr. Lowsky notes in his letter (Exhibit #6) that, "Although the Timroth 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 other words, Mr. Lowsky believes the site to include only summer and transitional range, neither of which are regulated under the 1041 standards. N. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS A. 1041 Environmental Hazards Review A review of the County's 1041 maps during the preoapplication conference indicated that the applicant should address the impacts of geologic hazards, wildfire hazards, and wildlife habitat areas on the property. Specifically, the mapped areas which we were directed to address are as follows: · 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 the mapping to be incorrect. (See Exhibit #4.) · Wildfire Hazard Areas: The property is subject to wildfire hazards, but the level of severity associated with the hazards is disputable. (See Exhibit #5.) Timroth 1041 Hazards Review Application Page 4 · Wildlife Habitat Areas: The site is not mapped with regard to wildlife habitat areas, but the Pitkin County Wildlife Biologist conducted a site specific review and provided a comment letter attached hereto as 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, Geologic Hazard Areas Section 3-80-050 identifies development standards applicable to specific geologic hazard areas, including avalanche areas, landslide areas, potentially unstable slopes, rockfall areas, alluvial fans, talus slopes, mancos shale, faults, expansive soil and rock, and ground subsistence. a. Section 3-80-050(AJ A valanche Areas The subject property is not included in high or moderate avalanche hazard zones on the Pitkin County 1041 maps. Given its southern exposure, it 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. Co Section 3-80-050(C), Potentially Unstable Slopes Section 3-80-050(C), Potentially Unstable Slopes, provides standards for the review of development proposed on slopes of between 15% and 30% as well as slopes in excess of 30%. The specific standards of Section 3-80-050(C), Potentially Unstable Slopes, are provided below (indented and italicized), and. each standard is directly followed by a response. I. Development is prohibited on slopes greater than fifteen percent (J 5%) unless a specific development proposal is found to result in a site design that creates less impact than if the development was limited exclusively to slopes of less than fifieen percent (J 5%). In the event that a development proposal utilizes slopes in excess of fifteen percent (J 5%) or if a development site is comprised Timroth ] 04] Hazards Review Application Page 5 exclusively of slopes which exceed fifteen percent (15%), design and development shall be based on a detailed site analysis, including geologic and engineering studies to identifY the best development.,area based on the following considerations: a, Adequate mechanical support shall be providedfor cut slopes, b. Adding water which may decrease slope stability shall be avoided c. Adding weight to the top of the slope shall be avoided d Disturbed slopes must be contoured so that they can be revegetated e, Steepening of existing slopes shall be avoided f Confine cuts, fills, grading and excavation to the minimum area needed for construction. With the exception of a very small portion of the site on its extreme southeast corner, the entire property consists of slopes in excess of 15%. The small portion of the site that has slopes of less than 15% is not adequate in size to accommodate a building envelope and, given its location in the extreme southeast corner of the property, its use for placement of a building envelope would require significantly more disturbance and thus more impact for providing access and extending utilities. Also, use of the area with less than a 15% grade would require side and rear setback variances. The remainder of the site resides on slopes in excess of 30%, meaning the . development site is comprised exclusively of slopes in excess of 15%. The slopes present on Lot C 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, 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 Timroth 1041 Hazards Review Application Page 6 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. 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 sub-standards" a" through "f' (above). 2. Development is prohibited on slopes greater than thirty percent (30%), except as permitted herein. a. Exception for Minor Changes in Slope-Development may be permitted on lands that have a slope in excess of thirty percent (30%) when the slope is due to the presence of a minor natural or man-made change in the gradient of a continuous slope, provided the following conditions are met: 1, Not Subject to Instability - The applicant demonstrates that the slope's ground surface are not prone to instability or failure and that the proposed development will not cause greater instability or increase the potential for slope failure. 2. Compliance with Other Regulations - The applicant demonstrates that development on slopes in excess of thirty percent (30%) does not increase visual, wildlife, or wildfire impacts, or compromise or conflict with other poliCies or standards of the Land Use Code, Please refer to the narrative provided above in response to the previous standard. The ground within the proposed building envelope is stable, will not be subject to failure, and development within said envelope will not increase the potential for slope failure given adherence to the recommendations of Dr. Collins, as described above and in Exhibit #4. While the grade of the driveway to the building site will not exceed 8%, accessing the property from Spruce Street requires that the driveway cross a small, ephemeral drainage. A dip crossing, bridge, or culvert across the . ephemeral drainage will, as recommended by Dr. Collins,..be designed to pass at least the lOO-year flow calculated for the drainage area above the property (which is quite small). With regard to wildfire impacts, development of the site will serve to lessen the hazards by implementation of a defensible space, use of noncombustible building materials, and breaking up the continuity of fuels. With respect to visual impacts, development of the site will be similarly situated in elevation to the existing home on Lot 2 of the Cora Lee Subdivision, and will be significantly lower in elevation than many of the homes located on Red Mountain. Timroth 1041 Hazards Review Application Page 7 d. Section 3-80-050(DJ 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 Lot C, 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 unfair to deny this application on the basis of Section 3-80-050(D)(I). 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. e. Section 3-80-050(EJ 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. f. Section 3-80-050(F), Talus Slope The subject property is not located on, in the vicinity of, or affected by a talus slope. g. Section 3-80-050(GJ Mancos Shale The subject property is not located on, in the vicinity of, or affected by a Mancos Shale. h. Section 3-80-050(H}, Faults The subject property is located in a complexly-faulted area, but the exact relationship between these faults and Lot C 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 Timroth 1041 Hazards Review Application Page 8 the last few decades. As such, Dr. Collins suggests that new structures be designed and built in accordance with DEC provisions for Seismic Zone II. i. Section 3-80-050(IJ 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(JJ Ground Subsistence Subsistence effects on Lot C due to past underground mining have been found to be highly unlikely. 2. Section 3-80-070, Wildfire Areas Section 3-80-070 establishes mitigation standards applicable to developments within either severe wildfire hazard areas, or low and medium hazard wildfire areas. Sub-Section (A) of 3-80-070 provides that development is prohibited within areas designated as "C - Severe Hazard: Trees" or "X - Severe Hazard: Brush" by either Pitkin County's adopted wildfire hazard area maps, or by the Colorado State Forest Service and/or the Pitkin County Sheriffs Department. Vegetation on the subject site consists predominantly of ten to twelve foot . tall Gambel oak and six to eight foot tall serviceberry. The aspect of the site is west with a slope of over 30%. Access to the parcel will be via Spruce Street and a driveway extended therefrom. The driveway will utilize an existing but abandoned roadbed, which follows the contour. The driveway will not contain slopes prohibitive to fire protection apparatus. There is an existing fire hydrant within 250 feet of the property. There is an existing home very close to the proposed building envelope, and said development helps to reduce the fuel load below the subject site. The wildfire hazard on the site is mapped as "low," while the hazards associated with neighboring sites have been rated as "low to moderate" by the Colorado State Forest Service. In fact, when the abutting property to the west (Smuggler Mountain Parcel E) was granted 1041 hazards review approval in 1993 (BOCC Resolution 93-141), the wildfire hazard on that property was rated as "low to moderate" by the Colorado State Forest Service and "low" by the Pitkin County Emergency Management Coordinator. Vegetation, aspect, slope, and other factors which contribute to wildfire hazard ratings have not changed since then, and these characteristics on Parcel E are identical to those of the . subject site. As another example, the wildfire hazard on tne Auger property just Timroth 1041 Hazards Review Application Page 9 a short distance (less than 500 feet) to the north-northwest of the subject site was rated by the CSFS as "moderate" in December of 1998. Nevertheless, the wildfire hazard on the subject property was recently characterized by the Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) as "severe." The only explanation we can offer for this drastic change in rating is timing: professionals tend to be more conservative 'Yith regard to assignment of ratings today than was the case in 1~~3(and 1998), and the recent rating was done at a time when Colorado was experiencing an unusually high amount of wildfire activity throughout the state. Note that even with the "severe" rating, the CSFS did not recommend prohibiting development of the subject site (see Exhibit #5). In fact, the CSFS did not even provide structural design and construction recommendations but, instead, recommended only that the defensible space tactics described below be employed to mitigate the wildfire hazards associated with the site. Based on the "low to moderate" wildfire hazard ratings assigned to and accepted by Pitkin County for the immediately surrounding properties, and based on the mitigation recommendations provided by the CSFS (below and in Exhibit #5), we believe the hazard associated with the subject property should be . considered "moderate." Since the hazard rating is somewhat subjective and the applicants agree to comply with Mr. Urbina's recommendations, as described below and in Exhibit #5, as well as with the mitigation measures described in the sub-sections of 3-80- 070(C), we believe there would be nothing to gain by assigning the "severe" rating and, thereby, forcing the applicant to appeal a consequently required denial to the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to Section 3-290 of the Code. Furthermore, the home will be served by City of Aspen water, will be equipped with an automatic fire suppression system (i.e., sprinklers), and will be within reach of an existing fire hydrant. Based on his site visit and an understanding of the proposed building envelope's location, Mr. Vince Urbina of the CSFS provided the following recommendations aimed at mitigating the existing wildfire hazard (see Exhibit #5): 1. For a distance of15 feet around all structures, establish and maintain vegetation at six inches or less in height, This can be accomplished with mowed grass, low growing perennials or some type of non-flammable material (i,e., rock mulch, pavers, etc) , Woody vegetation should not be planted within this perimeter. In addition, flammable material (i.e., firewood) should not be stored within the 15 foot perimeter. Timroth 1041 Hazards Review Application Page 10 2. For a distance of 200 feet in every direction, thin the existing shrubby fuels to break up the vertical and horizontal continuity of fuels. Thin the existing oak/serviceberry such that the remaining clumps are no larger than 2 times the height of the existing plants and the spacing between clumps is 4 times the height. The area between clumps should have low growing vegetation (i,e" grass or perennials) that can be maintained at six inches or less, 3. To eliminate ladder fuels, remove the lower branches of all shrubs from the ground up to half the total height of the plant. For example, a 10-foot tall shrub should have no branches below five feet. 3. Section 3-80-080, Wildlife Habitat Areas Section 3-80-080 establishes land use standards for wildlife habitat areas, as mapped by the Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW) on the County's adopted Wildlife Resource Information System (1041 Wildlife maps) and as otherwise known to be wildlife habitat areas by the DOW. ...... i< . 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 visitj site-specific review to evaluate potential wildlife impacts. Mr. Lowsky notes in his letter (Exhibit #6) that, "Although the Timroth 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 other words, Mr. Lowsky believes the site to include only summer and transitional range, neither of which are regulated under the 1041 standards. Accordingly, Mr. Lowsky felt that development within the proposed building envelope would not be detrimental to wildlife habitat given compliance with certain conditions, as provided below. Mr. Lowsky, provided a letter (see Exhibit #6) recommending 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 S3-80-080(A)(lO) and S3- 80.080(A)(ll) of the Pitkin County Land Use Code. 2. Dogs should be kenneled as per S3-80.080(D)(2), 3. Native vegetation must be maintained outside the building envelope as per S3- 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. Timroth 1041 Hazards Review Applicationi Page II 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). 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. 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. I. 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 development of a driveway on an existing yet abandoned roadbed. One small section of the driveway will extend beyond the limits of the abandoned roadbed to cross a small drainage and will comply with the recommendations of Dr. Bruce Collins . (described above) as well as those of Mr. Lowsky. The Ccumty Wildlife Biologist found that only summer and transitional range affect the subject property, and ills 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 driveway and activity envelope 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 existing residential structure to the west 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. Timroth 1041 Hazards Review Application Page 12 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 mlmmum necessary for construction, development of a driveway, and mitigation of wildfire hazards. Disturbed areas will be revegetated with and future landscaping will be .comprised of appropriate species. Furthermore, in ..ilccordance with Mr. Lowsky's third and fourth 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 ejftcts on wildlife species, 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 nece!,sary for construction, development of a driveway, 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. .I 'j 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)(10) 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, seepage, marshes, ponds or other watering areas that affect the property or that will be affected by development of the property. Timroth 104] Hazards Review Application Page 13 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 (lOO) 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. 10. Mesh or woven wire fences are prohibited. It is understood that this prohibition applies to areas outside of the activity envelope but exempts any dog kennel areas within the activity 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 ftncing shall employ three rails or less, be the round or split rail type, shall not exceed 48 inches in height above 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 activity envelope 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 irees 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, Timroth 1041 Hazards Review Application Page 14 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 removed for canstruction or wildfire hazard mitigation, they will be left undisturbed. No den site have been faund an the praperty and, as such, nane will be disturbed. 4. Sectian 3-80-080CA), General Standards The standards of Section 3-80-030 apply to. all Areas af Lacal and State Interest/1041 Environmental Hazard Areas. In response to the standards of this Section, the praposed building envelope has been sited to, where possible, avoid. environmental hazards, and to. minimize the affects of and on such hazards where complete avoidance is not feasible. The narratives provided above in response to the applicable 1041 hazard review sections demonstrate compliance with and satisfaction of the general standards of this Sectian. 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 jitrther degradation the present natural environment and its resources." The praposed building envelape, along with the conditions of 1041 hazard review approval, will ensure that the single-family redevelopment of this site will promote this "dominant policy." The subject property was recognized by Pitkin County in 1990 as a separate development parcel. This application is in harm any with the County's growth rate and phasing of public services and facilities related goals as the surrounding area is already developed and the site is served with public water, sewer, 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 cannection with building permit applications for the subject property. h'" Timroth 1041 Hazards Review Application Page 15 2. Section 3-60, Environmental and Aesthetic Standards a. Section 3-60-02a Air Quality According to Section 3-60-020, all land uses shall: a) "Not constitute a direct or indirect source of air poUution under applicable Federal, State or County Regulations," and b) "Comply with Pitkin County Code Title III Air Pollution Regulations," 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 3-60-03a 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 3-60-0Sa Scenic Quality 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 properties and public use areas. Like the existing home directly to the west, 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 although all lines will be buried, as required and as recommended by the County Wildlife Biologist. If any Timroth 1041 Hazards Review Application Page 16 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 ang prevent property damage. The flow of natural water courses will not be impeded, and adequate drainage will be provided for all low points. The recommendations 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 City 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. 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; 3-110-040, 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. Tirnroth 1041 Hazards Review Application Page 17 a. Section 3-110-02(t Logical Extension o/Utilities According to paragraph (A), Applicability, of this section, the "Logical . Extension of Utilities" standards" are applicable to aU major 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 the existing stubs in Parcel E to the subject site. b. Section 3-110-03(t 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 3-110-0S(t Sewage Treatment and CoIIection Sewage treatment and collection services will be provided by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. e. Section 3-110-06(t 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. f Section 3-110-07(t 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 will be obtained prior to initiating construction. The driveway will be designed such that it complies with the Pitkin CountY Road Standards and Specifications and Pitkin County Road Management Plan. The development proposal being put forth herein will not generate traffic volumes in excess of existing road capacities, rendering a road improvement plan unnecessary. Timroth 1041 Hazards Review Application Page 18 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, TraiIs This section is not applicable since no trails are proposed, nor do any presently exist on the property. i. Section 3-110-110, Lighting Again, 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. V. VESTED RIGlITS 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. Timroth 1041 Hazards Review Application Page 19 EXHIBITS Exhibit #1: Proof of Ownership/Title Policy Exhibit #2: Letter of authorization for Haas Land Planning, LLC, to represent the applicant Exhibit #3: Pre-Application Conference Summary Exhibit #4: Geologic Report prepared by Dr. Bruce Collins, Ph.D. Exhibit #5: Wildfire Hazard Ratings and Recommendations Exhibit #6: Referral Comments Letter from Jonathan Lowsky, Pitkin County Wildlife Biologist Exhibit #7: Declaration of Restrictions (Book 615, Page 219), including proof of non-merger of lands Exhibit #8: Proof of Legal Access Exhibit #9: Executed Fee Agreement (Agreement to Pay Form) Exhibit #10: List of All Adjacent Property Owners EXHIBIT # 1 NOV. 21. 2000 9:27AM PITKIN COUNTY TITLE NO, 1583 p, 2/7 I COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE ! SCHEDULE A ' 1, Effective Dale: October 30. 2000 at 8:00 AM 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: Proposed Insured: (a) AL TA Owne(s Policy.Form 1992 Case No. PCi15697 i i i I I AmountS 0.001 Premium$ o.Db Rate: I (b) AL TA Loan Policy-Fonn 1992 AmountS 0.00\ Premium$ 0.00 Proposed Insured: Rate: : i i Tax Certificat~: $10,00 i 3. Ti~ to the FEE SIMPLE estate or interest in the land described or referred to in ftis Commitment is at the effective date hereof vested in: i I GRANT C, TIMROTH 4. The land referred to in this Commitment is situated in the Counly of PlTf(JN State: of COLORADO and is described as follows: See Attached Exhibit "A" PITKIN COl,lN1Y 'tiTLE. INC. 601 E. HOPKINS ASPEN. CO. 81011 ~925-1'6tl, <f7IP"'~27FAX ...UTHORlZEt> ACENT I . i I I S'fhedule A-PG,1 T1jis Commitment is invalid w\less the lnsuring PioviSions and Schedules A and a are attached. NOV, 21. 2000 9: 28AM PITKIN COUNTY TITLE EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION NO, 1583 p, 3/7 A tract of land localed in the Northeast Y. and the Southeast Y. of Section 7. Town:,hip 1~ South. Range S4 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, being a portion of the Pride of Aspen Lode Mining Claim U,S.M.S. No. 7883 and the Ballarat LOde Mining Claim U,$,M.S. No. 4438 described as follows:' ! I Beginning at a point from Which the Center East 1/16 Comer of Section 7, Township 10 ~outh, Range 84 West of the 6th Principal Meridian bears N 01 '32'48" E 5.47 feet; , thence N 75'41'10" E 49.08 feet (record N 75'.35' E 49.83 feet): ' thence N 75'37'15" E 140.73 feet; : thence S 00'17'31" W 217.49 feet; I thence S 00'21'42" W 25,69 feet (l1!Cord S 00'05' W 25.74 feet): ! thence S 56"19'40" W 219.53 feel (record 56"08.3' W 219.78 feel); I thence N 00'00'56" E 317.80 feet (record N 00'01.9' W 311.85 feet) to the point of beginning. I I ! EXHIBIT # 2 Pitkin County Community Development Dept. 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 RE: Smuggler Mountain, Parcel C, 1041 Application 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 my property located on Parcel C of Smuggler Mountain (North Half of the Pride of Aspen). Mitch Haas is authorized to submit an application for 1041 Environmental Hazards Review approval. 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. ~---oz Mr. rant C. Timroth, Ow"ner P.O. Box 89 Aspen, CO 81612 EXHIBIT # 3 PITKIN COUNTY PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Suzanne Wolff DATE: 8/14/00 PROJECT: Timroth 1041 Hazard Review & Conceptual Submission LOCATION: top of Spruce St. REPRESENTATIVE: Mitch Haas PhonelFax: 925-7819/925-7385 OWNER: Grant Timroth Type of Application: 1041 Hazard Review & Conceptual Submission Description ofProject/Development: Applicant proposes to establish a building envelope for a single family residence and customary accessory uses on a parcellccated outside of the UGB. Land Use Code Sections to address in letter of request/application: . Article 2, Land Use Policies . Section 3-60, Environmental & Aesthetic Standards . Section 3-70, Water Resources . Section 3-80-050, Geologic Hazard Areas: Mapped alluvial fan and potentially unstable slopes. Property comprised entirely of slopes in excess 000%. . Section 3-80-070, Wildfire Hazard Areas: Mapped low wildfire hazard area, CSFS rates as severe. . Section 3-80-080, Wildlife Habitat Areas: No mapped habitat. . Section 3-110, Improvements & Services Staff will refer to: Attorney, Engineer, Zoning, Wildlife Officer, Aspen Fire 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 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. Planning Deposit: $1,110 (additional planning hours are billed at a rate of$185/hour) Referral Agency Fees: Fees for the County Engineer will be billed on the final bill at a rate of $65/hour. TOTAL DEPOSIT: $1,110 (make check payable to "Pitkin County Treasurer") To apply, submit 8 copies of the following information, unless noted otherwise: I. Letter of request, addressing Code Sections listed above; 2. 24" x 36" Site Plan which complies with the provisions of Section S. 70-040 (attached) 3. Consent from owner(s) to process application and authorizing the representative (1 copy) 4. Parcel description, including legal description and vicinity map 5, Copy of this pre-app form (I copy) 6, Application fee; 7. Proof of ownership; 8. Documentation of how and when the parcel was created (2 copies); 9. Documentation of chain of title/non-merger of lands for the subject parcel and all adjacent parcels from title company or attomey (2 copies); 10. Documentation of adequate legal access to the parcel (2 copies); 11. Agreement for Payment form (2 copies). 12. List of all adjacent property owners (1 copy) This pre-application conference summary is advisory in nature and not binding on the County, The information 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 COLLINS & ASSOCIATES GeoLOGICAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE CoNsuLTANTS P.O. Box 23. 1116 MINEoTA DRIVE SILT, COLORADO 81652 PHONE/FAX (970) 876-54OQ bacol@rof.net October 31, 2000 Mitch Haas, AlCP 201 North Mill Street Suite 108 Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: SMUGGLER MOUNTAIN LOTC, TIMROTH PROPERlY, PITKIN COUNlY 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 1.179 acres in the northern portion of the Pride of Aspen lode claim (M.S. 7883), and is within the Aspen 7.5 minute quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado. . . " , . Geolol!ic Settinl!. The tract is located oninterl11ediate-age gladall110raine deposits (mapped as Qmc by Bryant, 1971') between the apexes of two ill-defined alluvial.faris which overlie the till to the north, south, and west. A minor ephemeral drainage originating near the top of Smuggler Mountain below the site ofthe Bushwacker Shaft crosses the northern part ofthe tract and disappears into the fan material immediately west. There are no other drainages on the property. 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 north and south are quite similar, and in fact cannot be easily differentiated. Bedrock beneath the alluvium is either upper Belden Shale of Pennsylvanian age or Maroon Formation of Pennsylvanian - Permian age, with bedding dipping northwest between 350 and 550. The Belden consists mostly of black carbonaceous shales and bituminous limestones, while the lower Maroon is grayish-red to bright-red conglomerates, sandstones, and siltstones (Bryant, 1971). Proximity to components of the Della-Smuggler fault complex, a group of northwest-southeast trending normal faults which dip southwest at 30~ to 400 and which were significant in localizing the ore deposits of Smuggler Mountain is unknown. The principal mine openings in the area. the Smuggler shaft and tunnels, the Fi-ee Silver Shaft, and the. MOlly Gibson "., ., .. . '., ,- . .' .", '. ... . ,.. .... ',' . -',,", " ",' '. J shaft, are grouped in an area about ~-mile south of the property. The portal of the Cowenhoveri , Bryant, B., 1971, Geologic map of the Aspen quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado: U.S. Geol. SUlvey Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ-933. Page 2 Tunnel was located about 1,500 ft west, and the tunnel itself, which was driven almost west-to- east, passes within 250 ft of the southwest corner of Lot C. Almost all of the mine workings of Smuggler Mountain were to the northeast through southwest of the property. Available maps indicate that the Free Silver 12th Level passes beneath the southeast corner of the Lot at a depth of slightly over 1,000 feet; while there was significant stoping off this level, which is equivalent to the Smuggler 16th, both southwest and northeast of the property, the maps suggest only prospect winzes on about 40-ft centers in the vicinity of the Lot. 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. ~ 3-80-050-A. Avalanche Hazard. The area is not included in high or moderate avalanche hazard zones on Pitkin County geologic hazard maps. 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 Survey (Olander, et al., 19742). I should note that I do not claim expertise in avalanche prediction or mitigation, and would suggest that should additional analysis be desired you contact an expert in the field. ~ 3-80-050-8. Landslide Hazard. The area is not included in landslide hazard areas on Pitkin County or Colorado Geological Survey geologic hazard maps. Bedrock in the area consists of bedded sedimentary rocks dipping steeply (350 to 550) 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 ofthin alluvial cover against dipping bedrock. ~ 3-80-050-C. Potentiallv Unstable Sloves Hazard. The area is included in potentially-unstable slope areas on Pitkin County geologic hazard maps. With the exception ofa small portion of the eastern corner of Lot C, the entire property consists of slopes in excess of 15%. Most of the remainder exceeds 30%. Keeping in mind the soil testing and design limitations 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 oflandscapingshould be avoided completely unless subgrade drains to a natural unobstructed drainage, evaporative catch basin(s), or other method(s) to prevent uncontrolled infusion of irrigation 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 offriction 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 2 Olander, H.C., !.amm, N.B.. and F1orquist, BA.. 1974. Roaring Fork and Crystal valleys, an environmental and engineering geology study, Eagle, Garfield. Gunnison, and Pitkin Counties, Colorado: Colo. Geo!. Survey Environmental Geo!. No.8; 30 p. Page 3 noted that slopes present on Lot C 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. ~ 3-80-050-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 Survey (Olander, eta!., 1974). There are no significant exposures of rock cliffs or ledges above Lot C, and no indication of rockfall in recent time in the immediate area. Rockfall hazard to the property is therefore considered minimal. However, considering the semi rounded 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. ~ 3-80-050-E. Alluvial Fan Hazard. The area is included in an alluvial fan hazard area on Pitkin County geologic hazard maps. Smuggler Mountain Lot C is not located on an alluvial fan as mapped by Bryant (1971), and confirmed by field examination. A minor ephemeral drainage that passes through the northern part of the lot has contributed to the alluvial fan complex that is present below the property. The existing access easement to Lot C crosses this gully, and therefore a dip crossing, bridge, or culvert must be properly design to account for at least a 100- year flow that might be expected in this type of drainage. It should be noted that flow in this drainage is and will be substantially affected if not entirely controlled by proper maintenance of the Smuggler Mountain Road above the property. Like alluvial fan deposits, glacial till is subject to voids created by piping, hydrocompaction, and differential compaction; properly- conducted site specific soil testing for foundation design should adequately identifY such hazards. ~ 3-80-050-F. Talus Slove Hazard. The area is not included in a talus slope hazard area on Pitkin County geologic hazard maps. Lot C is not located on, in the vicinity of, or affected by a talus slope. ~ 3-80-050-C. Mancos Shale hazard. The area is not included in a Mancos Shale hazard area on Pitkin County geologic hazard maps. Lot C is not located on, in the vicinity of, or affected by Mancos Shale. ~ 3-80-050- H. Faults hazard. The area is not included in a faults hazard area on Pitkin County geologic hazard maps. Lot C 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 C is not known. While there has been no known movement on these faults in historic time and probably none for thousands of years, earthquakes of up to Mercalli Intensity Page 4 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 II. ~ 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 geologic hazard maps. Lot C is not located on, in the vicinity of, or affected by known or suspected deposits of expansive soil and rock. The possibility hydrocompactive materials in glacial till and/or alluvial fan material has been discussed. ~ 3-80-050-1. Ground Subsidence Hazard. The potential for voids created in glacial till or alluvium by piping, hydrocompaction, or differential compaction has been discussed, detection of such voids can be accomplished by adequate soil testing, and mitigated if necessary by proper foundation design. While substantial portions of Smuggler Mountain have been undermined, subsidence events have been rare, even directly above 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 C is just east of the southeast corner at a depth of about 1,200 ft in an area between the Smuggler 11th and Free Silver 11th levels, with the map suggesting at least partial backfilling. The Free Silver 12th Level drift passes beneath the southeast corner of the property at similar depth.4 While several winzes were sunk from the 12'h Level, the deepest workings of the Smuggler Mine at this location, for prospecting, sumps, or both, on about 40-ft centers, no stoping is indicated. Drifts, winzes, and other such openings were typically no more than 10ft wide and 6 to 8 ft high. Subsidence effects on Lot C 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 170 and 260 ft beneath the property. General. Access to the property is by easement from an existing road across Cora Lee Subdivision Lot 3 and Government Lot 33 to the northwest edge of Lot C. That portion across Cora Lee Lot 3 is part of a long-abandoned prospect road. The access road will require crossing slopes exceeding 30% on an average grade of approximately 8% from the existing road to the Lot C property line. A qualified engineer will be required to design cuts, fills, and support structures in accordance with ~ 3-80-050-C. A dip crossing, bridge, or culvert across the ephemeral drainage discussed previously will also be required, and should be designed to pass at least the 100-year flow calculated for the drainage area above the property (which is quite small). 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 sewer as well as other utilities will be provided to the property via existing easements to the southwest corner. Conclusions. The most significant geologic hazard which affects Smuggler Mountain Lot C is the steepness of the slopes on the property and access to it. This hazard can be addressed by proper 3 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. 41t should be noted that there are discrepancies in level designations between maps from different sources. Also, significant workings, including stopes, are Imown that do not appear on available maps. Page 5 soil testing and foundation design as well as the installation of retaining 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 Lot C are not significantly different from those affecting many sites in Pitkin County previously approved for development. The 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. This report concerns natural processes that are unpredictable and in large measure poorly understood. It is intended to identitY actual and potential obseIVable hazards to which the subject property is expo~ed and to suggest mitigating measures in compliance with applicable regulations. Nothing in this report should be construed or interpreted as suggesting the absence of the described hazards, or that the recommended mitigations will protect the subject property from the described hazards under all circumstances, foreseen or unforeseen. Nothing in this report should be construed or interpreted as suggesting that additional unidentified hazards are not present. It must also be understood that "mitigation" does not mean either the elimination of the hazard(s) or prevention of the consequences ofa hazard event or events, only the reduction to the extent reasonably possible of the latter. By accepting this report all present and subsequent parties thereto agree to indemnify and hold harmless the prepilrer for any and all damages, direct, indirect or consequential, indudingpersonal injury or loss oflife, above and beyond the original cost of this study, caused by or resulting from any occurrence of the described orother hazard(s), whether or not such damages may result from failure to identifY said hazard(s) or from failure or inadequacy of properly engineered, constructed, and maintained recommended mitigations. The preparer of this report cannot and will not be responsible in any way or manner whatsoever for the proper engineering, construction, and/or maintenance of recommended mitigations, or the inadequacy or failure of improperly engineered, constructed, and/or maintained recommended mitigations, or mitigations that have been altered in any way whatsoever from those recommended by the preparer. i' , EXHIBIT # 5 ~ SERVICE August 21, 2000 Mitch Haas 201 N. Mill Street, Suite 108 Aspen, CO 81611 State Services Building 222 S. 6th Street, Room 416 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 Telephone: (970) 248-7325 Re: GrantTimroth 1041 Wildfire Hazard Review Dear Mitch, Please include this letter with any correspondence to Pitkin County. When I receive a referral from ihe county i will defer to the comments in this lattai. I visited the Timroth property with Mitch Haas the owner's representative on August 11th. Access to the parcel is via Spruce Street in Aspen. The owners are proposing to extend a driveway from an existing home over an existing but abandoned roadbed, which follows the contour, This proposed driveway would not have prohibitive slopes. There is a fire hydrant within 250 feet of the property. The aspect is west with a slope over 30%. The vegetation is 10-12 foot tall Gambel oak and 6-8 foot tall serviceberry. I would rate the wildfire hazard as sev~r;;. There is another home very close to the proposed building envelope, which helps to reduce the fuel load below this lot. My recommendations to mitigate the wildfire hazard are as follows. 1) For a distance of 15 feet around all structures establish and maintain vegetation at 6 inches or less, This can be accomplished with mowed grass, low growing perennials or some type of non-flammable material (e.g., rock mulch, pavers, sidewalk). Woody vegetation should not be planted within this perimeter. In addition, flammable material (e.g., firewood) should not be stored here. 2) For a distance 200 feet in every direction thin the existing shrubby fuels to break up the vertical and horizontal continuity of fuels. Thin the existing oak/serviceberry so the remaining clumps are no larger than 2 times the height of the existing plants. And the spacing between clumps is 4 times the heioht. For examole the shrubs are 10 feet tal!. Shrub dumas should be no !e.f:!8f ~ .. . ... . ~ than 20 feet in width and the spacing between clumps is 40 feet. The area between clumps should have low growing vegetation (e.g. grass, perennials) that can be maintained al6 inches or less. 3) The lower branches of all shrubs should have the lower limbs removed up to half the total height of the plant to eliminate ladder fuels. For example, 10-foot tall shrubs should have no small side branches below 5 feet on the plants. Feel free to call rne with any questions, Sincerely, \\- , .~" }" I- t; ~v\J\A.l~ Vince Urbina Assistant District Forester ~~ - CDl~ SERVICE January 8, 1993 State Services Building 222 S. 6th Street. Room 416 Grand Junction. Colorado 81501 Telephone (303) 248-7325 Mary Lackner Aspen/Pitkin Planning office 130 S. Galena street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Timroth 1041 Wildfire Hazard Review Dear Mary, I have reviewed the building application for the Timroth property on lower Smuggler Mountain, submitted by Oates, Hughes, and Knezevich, P.C., and visited the site on .January 6th. I have the following comments with regard to wildfire hazards. The lot is rated as low to moderate wildfire hazard. Vegetation consists of low sagebrush mixed with grass, with scattered gambel oak and serviceberry. The building envelope is on a steep slope of approximately 40%, and'several shallow draws run generally east-west across the lot. A large grassy meadow directly below the lot would act as a fuelbreak in the event of a wildfire, as would roads to the north and west of the lot. The applicant has stated that the house will be of non-combustible material (stucco) which should contribute to a fire-safe home. In order to further mitigate the danger from wildfire, the following measures are recommended for this site: -Removal of all vegetation within 10 feet of structures. This area should be maintained in the future as lowgroundcover such as mowed grass. -with the absence of hydrants in the area, I recommend that the dwelling be supplied with a cistern or storage tank for fire control, with a minimum of 1,000 gallon capacity. This cistern should be accessible to the fire department through a dry hydrant or other mechanism. -Roof coverings should be of non-combustible materials. Shake- shingle roofs are a documented source of ignition in a wildland fire situation, and should be avoided. Thanks for the opportunity to review this proposal. please contact me if you have questions about these comments. Sincerely, %~'?~ Kelly Rogers Asst. District Forester cc: Steve Crockett, Pitkin Co. Sheriff's Dept. Leonard Oates, Oates, Hughes & Knezevich Pete Wirth, Aspen FPD ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Mary Lackner, Planner FROM: steve Crockett, Emergency Management Coordinator THROUGH: Bob Braudis, Sheriff DATE: January 12, 1993 RE: Timroth 1041 As the fire warden for the county, the Sheriff is responsible for wildfire suppression particularly if and when it exceeds the capabilities of the jurisdictional fire department. In order to fulfill that responsibility and since the Sheriff has very limited initial attack wildfire resources in his department, he has reciprocal mutual aid agreements with and relies heavily on the Fire Protection Districts in Pitkin county to perform initial attack on wildfires at his request. The Fire Protection Districts fulfill their suppression responsibilities with an all volunteer fire departments. The Timroth proposal lies within an area that is mapped for A - low wildfire hazard. After a site visit on 1/6/93 with Kelly Rogers from the Colorado state Forest Service, my general concerns with the Timroth proposal revolve around the wildfire hazard on the proposal, access/egress to the area by emergency response personnel and water supply for fire protection. The proposal lies on the south facing lower, steep (40%) portic~ of Smuggler Mountain. The surrounding fuels on the parcel are predominantly grass and sagebrush with one small stand of oakbrush. On the whole, the proposals has minimal wildfire hazards. My specific concerns are as follows: WILDFIRE: The location of the building envelope and defensible space around the structure. The applicant proposes to construct a single fatily residence with an attached employee dwelling/caretaker unit. RECOMMENDATIONS: Specific conditions of approval: NOTE: 1. The building envelope should not be located in draws, canyons or on slopes greater than 30%. 2. The area around the structure should incorporate landscaping with wildfire defensible space considerations as follows: Actual vegetation manipulation to meet these conditions may not be necessary where the natural vegetation patterns have already fulfilled these conditions. a. Brush, debris and non-ornamental vegetation should be removed a minimum 10' perimeter around the structure. b. Vegetation should be reduced to break up the vertical and horizontal continuity of the fuels a minimum of 30' perimeter around the structure built on flat ground. (for greater slopes ref. CSFS Safety Zone chart pg. 13 Wildfire Guidelines For Rural Homeowners) c. spacing betwe~n clumps of brush and vegetation within the 30' perimeters should be a minimum of two times the height of the fuel. Maximum diameter of the clumps should be two times the height of the fuel. All measurements should be from the edges of the crowns of the fuel. d. Pruning all branches from trees and brush within the 30' perimeters to a height of 10' above the ground and removal of ladder fuels from around trees and brush. e. Tree crown separation within the 30' perimeters should have a minimum of 10' between the edges of the crowns. This does not apply to mature stands of Aspen trees where the above recommendation for removal of ladder fuels have been complied with. In areas of aspen regeneration, the spacing guidelines (c.) should be followed. f. Trim all branches which extend over the roof eaves and remove branches within 15' of the chimneys. g. Reduce the density of fuels within a 100' perimeter of the structure where natural reduction has not already occurred. 3. Roofing material should be of a non-combustible material, Class B minimum roof construction. (ref. CSFS position paper) ~'- 4. Any additional proposed buildings within the building envelopes should incorporate wildfire hazard mitigation measures. ACCESS: Access to the proposal is via Spruce Street. RECOMMENDATIONS: Conditions of approval: 1. The driveway should enter the roadway at a ninety degree angle for the first 25' of the driveway. 2. Road and driveway standards should meet or exceed the standards listed in the CSFS wildfire Safety; Model Regulations for Protecting People & Homes in Subdivisions and Developments (revised April, 88) or NFPA 299. WATER SUPPLY: ' The property is not currently served by any pressured water system. I would strongly support a proposal to sprinkle the structure. With the potential addition of another structure in the area, wildfire protection for individual structures is a major concern. RECOMMENDATIONS: Conditions of approval: 1. Any fire department recommendation for individual structure water supply and storage should be accessible to the fire department from the exterior of the structure ie. hydrant. The amount of storage capacity should be determined by the fire protection district with a minimum of 1000 gal. storage capacity per structure. In addition to the above recommendations, I would ask that conditions of approval be to bury all utilities, the address be clearly marked and visible from the roadway with min. 2" letters, compliance with the Aspen Fire Protection District's water supply recommendations and that access at a minimum meet the county road and driveway standards. There are additional recommendations in the two referenced Colorado State Forest Service publications that could be incorporated into the individual structures' design and building materials. These additional. recommendations would greatly enhance wildfire protection for the subdivision as a whole and for the individual structures. There exists the additional unresolved concern of compliance and maintenance of the conditions of approval. cc: CSFS, AFPD tl041.93 EXHIBIT # 6 PITKIN COUNTY WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT ~=~=,==="'=,====''''=,=''',=='''=''''=='''==,.,.,=,=,=''''=,o:='''''',''''''"'==""=''''''=''''''''''=''=='''='''='''=='===== MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: 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 Timroth 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, Black bears are very active in this area and there is a history 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 93-80.080(A)(10) and 93-80,080(A)(11) of the Pitkin County Land Use Code. 2. Dogs should be kenneled as per 93-80,080(0)(2), 3, . Native vegetation must be maintained outside the building envelope as per 93-80.080(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, 1A bear proof trash container must be a fully enclosed, steel container of any size with a steel lid that has a mo 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 'w. ,~}.... .~. ~ Ii ; ~ i , , t" ',~ ;li;l.3'0'l ,... -'"," . f1 g ~'~l)O\{ tJ l:) f-'r\!j~._ l :x ~ ~'l'~~-~,o1C '" -< .:...> ~ t:.:S '>. "" </> rv i>~ "';= ~:.l}t~ :r. ." ,:;:) Cl> -< - -<> .c ~'~ UD '"'." (-7'j :zo- "'- O</> 0 = '" ..; '" '"' .:;,. = ,. DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS This Declaration of Restrictions rna~e ':his 1st day of March , 1990 by ASPEN MOUNTJl.IN CONSTRUCUON CORPORATION, a Colorado corporation ("AMC"), GRANT C. TIMROTIl ("Grant"), and ALBERT G. ~'IMRO~'H & DONNA M. TIMROTH ("Tirnr01,:h") and each of them for the benefit of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, a home rule county acting by and through its Board of County Commissioners ("BOCC") .p~1':.;;.C. !r~:: ,-- ~~','i .- WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, AMC is the owner of The Pride of Aspen Mining Claim, U.S.M.S. 7883 ("Pride of Aspen"), and WHEREAS, AMC has contracted to sell the portion of the Pride of Aspen to Grant lying northerly of the General Jackson Mining Claim, U.S.M.S. 3921 ("General Jackson"), and, the portion of the. Pride of Aspen lying southerly of the G"neral Jackson to Timroth, and (.' .li\ . \... r WHEREAS, the northerly pfJrtion of the Pride of Aspen is physically separated from the southerly portio:,) of thp. Pride of Aspen by the General Jackson, and WHEREAS, Timroth is presently the owner in fee simple to that certain parcel of property described a" Parcel E and more fully described in the deed to Tirnroth therefor recorded in Book 589 at Page 241 and rerecorded in Book 590 at Pa,!e 276 of the records of Pitkin Co'anty, Colorado, and WHEREAS, the BOCC, as the l"-,,d use authority of Pitkin County, Colorado is "illing to recognize as separate development parcels not merged under the provisions of the Pitkin County Land Use Code (Section Title 11/20-1) the said twe, portions of the Pride of Aspen (the northerly and the southerly), one to be conveyed to Grant and the other to Timroth upon the condition that the portion theJ:.eof to be conveyed to Tirnroth (the northerly portion) shall be c;eveloped only in connec,tion with the development of Parcel. E, , " . ...., t NOW THEREFORE, AMC, Grant and Timroth, and each of them, create the following restrictions which shall. be covenants running with the land, made .for the benefit of each of them and Pitkin County, Colorado, and its residents, by and through the BOCC, its employees,. agents and assigns: 1. The t,,'o portions of the Pride of Aspen separated by the General Jackson are hereby confirmed to be seF,rate from one another as development parcels of property, subject however to all of the provisions of the Pitkin County land Use Code, " l' ;"1,:' ,'t.. ~~.~ ~'.~" "-,,.; :-:'.'~ /"" ....:;,---.-.-:;;:;-- -~~ . .-.'. ~.,,~ . ..,; ".. ,..., ~."~1t"';;~' " "~~;\~' .,-.,'; ". .... -~ .... ._. .. ..... 'I'''~ ..__.~ Q ~ f'tlOK fJ15 >;:,;Z20 including., but not limited to, the Building Permit Review and General Submission Requirements thereof. 2. The portion or the Pride of Aspen lying southerly of the General Jackson shall be considereG. merged pursuant to Title 11/20-1 of the PitkinCounty Land Use Code with Parcel E for purposes of development. Henceforth, Parcel E and said southerly portion of the Pride of Aspen shall only be conveyed together as one parcel. Any development application proposing the development of either Parcel E or the said southerly portion of the Pride of Aspen shall be d"erned to i:oclude for purposes of such development the other (Parcel E or tile southerly portion of the Pride of Aspen, as the case may be). 3. For sc long as the northerly portion of the Pride of Aspen shall not merge in title pursuant to Title 11/20-1 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code, the said northerly portion of the said Pride of Aspen shall be a separately developable parcel of property. 4. This Declaration of Restrictions shall create perpetual covenants running with both Parcel E and the Pride of Aspen. 5. In the event of any action to enforce the re- strictions herein contained shall be made by the BOCC, its employees, agents, .the BOCC shall be entitled the award of its reasonable attorneys fees and costs in addition to any relief to which it shall be entitled. 6. This Declaration of Covenants shall not be altered or revoked by the undersigned without the consent of the BOCC. IN WITNESS. WHEREOF, the parties this Declaration of Restrictions this 1st 1990. hereto have executed day of March ATTEST: ASPEN MOUNTAIN CONSTRUCTI~N"'." CORPORATION -/ <>", 'r. ...,... , '- : .' J '" "~'~ ~ /:9- . ,.;/ ~:<~l By: (/. '- ~ ~ Ie .: i Alan Lauer,' reS1ce~t~.. -. J~O I .., 0, .'.~ ..-.....,) ~ "'" ,.. -" o\,i'- <l"" '., t... t. ,.~.;o I;.........n....,.. ~ ~ Secretary ~-- Gr nt C. Timroth (ADDITIONAL SIGNATURES AND NOTARIAL CLAUSES ON PAGES 3 and 4) -2- '/' .- --~ '-:'~- ~,;1~ r'''-A~' ~.:. ~;~'!~;' t.... "<(~I I, ~""""'j:" ....~:<'"-:!r t.; ~; t:;}';' , :; 'L: ....t'.~t- . ~ '. ~ ..- )" .#' J L ~-; ...:......; ..:i;:.v.:: It\ -( -, ,A f ; ~ ", , ;1 ~ ~t I~ :m I e ~." F~!'"' ,.:.-" .... ,~. ........ If,'" 'Ij;;' :7.~ ....,:.. !;llOi{ 615 ,,~(j,221 ~~,?p --. ~~ '\1\.r;-~*Q Donna M. Timroth ATTEST: /) 17 :-Ua,pd, LjJ}U./ !l}tJ/<ftJ ,{)eputy ClerX-" . I, 1/ (, BOARD OF COUNTY C01-llolISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO /", I By: 14j. 't..lL-kl~.Ol-)"" '/~o 140 Chairperson "Do5 STATE OF COLORADO ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing r~ day was acknowledged before me this of Nancy K. RamaleylNotary Pullllc PO, Box 154 Aspen, co 81612 My Commlsslon expires 11-2().93 . "-('Iffi,lii t Wen-.-J). cr Notary Pu Ii Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: STATE OF COLORl~O . ! , , ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN , i . , ~M~~e~~~~egoing was acknowledged before me this of ~ ,1990 by Grant C. Timroth. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: ['-';;'1'0-70 ".. "'-11" .""," HVf1/:.",.. ~ .',\' .,.. . , ~ .-'.,"'. ....... ....:'." .'.. A. ~~-.' -. ~ l :' \\.\)\{l.Hr \, No ary P lic. ) -:.~:- . '-. Pu;>\.\\",.'o 1 .,' ... . Q: . 1'_....... .....~'V',~ J '... 0 ," C (',r ':?~.,.," I ::;.111 day -3- ~.- .~ ~ r:;-.... ,:~~' . .,1:,_" ~;n:.-.t p""iIc',L f.;.~!t..;;.;' r, ,j.~':'''~' ...~! ~(~.,l v.i;.'~l;--' ';. ". r~~{:. ~ f/':' t i>.-.- .,", ~ -' . !,"-.- ;; ~ ~-, ~ ! ! , l: ! f ~ I f I I... ~ ; :'1. r", .. \~ l i. ~ .>. ",:' '<'. ~T~<, '. ~ c r11'0il tJ15 ~;1:i::!22 Q STATE OF COLORADO 1=>5. COUNTY OF PITKIN . ~The foregoing was acknowledged before me this il-tb day o~ _ ~ /I (J 1<.0' ,1990 by Albert G. Timroth and Donr,a M. T~mro .oj"", ,<~ \:~<;~/;4',>"".. l>Iitness my hand and official seal. '':'" ..' '. ". My commission expires: Y-2fD- '70 ,'",: ~c>HY"" '. ~ . ><, ,~ ..c- ' , ' l1Juuvt . . '" ,.h ,-,:0:: :."J"'....,'\.:c.: ~ . ". ;:. '.I '~~ .:;;; Not ry P blic . <....' .' "'r ,,", r. STATE OF COLORADO ss. "~ COUNTY OF PITKIN ~The foregoing was aCkn:Jj;dgl'Jbef;\'re me this g.o day of Ct{ , 1990 by 14: 14)>5 ,Chauman and D uty C~ rk of the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado.. ........' Witness my hand and official seal. M, 00=,,0<00 '''Ph." Lj )- ~q~ .U;Jr Nota~v T- ',\ ( Jw:r:t:iVo~: . ,..,~ 1"05LtC J ~:.'............. /~! \~~"" ....~,;:> ; i.,<, O;"'~'C\_\" ":,..,.,, """t;'-h~III'" . -4- - --. .- ,'. .... / ~ - ;y:, :",. . ~ :1 <j ,,". .- ;..~, I .' ~) ). ~ f' f",- 'j iJ ,; ". , EXHIBIT # 8 All documents proving legal access are too lengthy to include herewith, but are referenced in item number 12 of the attached Schedule B, Section 2, Exceptions to the Title Policy. Two copies of the referenced documents are provided under separate cover. T".".'''''' / .I. LV"'" I 111\1'1 ~VVI\I, It LL 11V. J.JI}.) I. .J I i The policy or policies to be issued will contain el<ceptions to the following unless thei same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: SCHEDULE B SECTION 2 EXCEPTIONS 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements. not shown by the public records, 3. Discrepancies, connicts in boundary lines, shortage in area. encroachments, any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4, Any lien, or right to a lien. for services, labor. or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. . 5, Defects, liens. encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, ~rst appearing in the public records or attaching sub~uent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed Insured acquires of record for Value the estate. or Inter,est or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6, Taxes due and payable; and any !ax. special assessment. charge or lien imposed for water or sewer service or for any other special taxing district . , 7. Reservations and exceptions as set forth in tile United Slates Patents recorded May 20, 1949 in Book 175 at Page 164 and April 14, 1922 in Book 159 at Page 90. ' 8. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and all matters as set fOr1h in Resolutipn of the Board of County Commissioners recorded February 3. 1984 in Book 460 at Pap 353 as Resolution No, 84-9. ! 9, Terms. conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Release of Easemeht recorded F'ebruary 22, 1984 in Book 461 at Page 395, ! 10. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Grant of Easement ~eCOrded June 28, 1984 in Book 468 at Page 679, : 11, Terms. conditions. provisions and obligations as set forth In Agreement record~ _ in Book 578 at Page 774, ' 12, Terms, conditions. provisions and obligations as set forth in Easement Agreements for access and utility purposes recorded in Book 578 at Page 774, Book 593 at Page 352 and re-recqrded in Book 593 al Page 429. Book 613 at Page 845, Modification of Easement Agreement recorded as ~eception No. 417304 and and Correction of Modification of Easement Agreement recorded as Reception fila. 419342. Book 723 at Page 667 and Amendment thereto recorded as Reception No. 415755, Book 7913 at Page 342. Reception No. 431116. 431118, 431119. Correction Sewer Easement recorded as Receptibn No. 433785, Correction Utility Easement recorded as Reception No, 433786, Grant of Non-Exclusive Acpess and Underground Utility Easement recorded as Reception No. 443145. Utility Easement recorded ~s Reception No. 445239. i 13. Terms, cOnQitions, provisions, obligations and all matters as set forth in Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners recorded May 3. 1995 in Book li9 at Page 991 as Resolution No. 90.163. EXHIBIT # 9 ASPENIPITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement for Payment of Pitkin County Development Application Fees PITKIN COUNTY (hereinafter COUNTY) and ~ ~~ (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to COUNTY an application for lo~ \ ~A~Alt1) ~I~ ~ ~CJsf>f'"VN- SveM~1C)..) (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that Pitkin County Ordinances No. 98-7 and 99-37 establish 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 to allAPPLICANT to make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. 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 $ J...l.1a.- ~hich is for~hours of Planning 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 G- {)A /VT G -r; 1/'1 /2...cT}-}- Print ~ -~ Signat e " (/2-3 / '2<:/0 I Cindy Houben Community Development Director Date: Mailing Address: Box 89 -A)i2.f<..Y1./ cvl/). '(;/6/2- g: Isu pport\forms\agrpaypt.doc 11/2/99 EXHIBIT # 10 'iii LIST OF ADJACENT OWNERS* Parcel Identification Number 2737-074-001-03 (south): Aspen Mountain Construction, Inc. P.O. Box 4067 Aspen, CO 81612 New Consolidated, Et. AI. and P.O. Box 4067 Aspen, CO 81612 Parcel Identification Number 2737-074-000-46 (east): Wilkinson, George Marsh DBA Echo Films P.O. Box 4067 Aspen, CO 81612 Parcel Identification Number 2737-074-000-45 (west): Timroth, Albert and Donna P,O. Box 89 Aspen, CO 81612 Parcel Identification Number 2737-071-000-40 (north): Timroth, Albert G., Donna M. and Grant C. P.O. Box 89 Aspen, CO 81612 This list was generated using the Pitkin County Assessor's information as of December 4, 2000.