HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.planning.273512400010DOCUMENT LAYOUT
THIS FILE MAY OR MAY NOT CONTAIN ALL OF THE INFORMATION
LISTED BELOW IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER
Summary Sheet
Resolution for the BOCC and/or P&Z
Ordinance for the BOCC and/or P&Z
Determination for the Hearing Officer
Administrative Determination
Staff Memo
Application
Public Notice, Acceptance Letter, Referral(s) Letter
Site Plan
Miscellaneous
Plat copies (I 1x17)
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-20852 DATE RCVD:". ~ # COPIES:I CASE NO P049-91
CASE NAME: Wolftone Corporation 1041 HR & Gen Subm Planners
PROD ADDR: W Cooper Ave (Shadow Mtn L20)
OWWAPP: Reeder, Lyle ADR~~ C/52~~~r PHN:~-
REP: ~ ~ ADR:~~~ CIS2~ PHN:~
Email Addri ALLOCATED HOURS:
FEES DUE:- FEES RCVD:~ %OVER: ~-
REFERRALS,
~, REF:- BY~~ DUE:
yj. ' .
MTGDATE "" REV BODY pH NOTICED -- DATE OF FINAL ACTION;
~. ~_.. No ~ ,. BOCC,,,Reso:
~`',. ~-..'. No ~r -' BOCC Ord: ~-
REMARKS 2735-124-00-010 GF PZ: '.. 91 ~5 #338723
HRG OFF:
CLOSEDo-~J BY: ~~ HO INDEX:
ADMIN: :.~`
PLAT RECQRDED~~ PLAT (BK,PG): 827 P72 & 73 #33 ADMIN INDEX:
VR APRRtbVALU TE:.~~ VR EXPIRES:~J.,
~ u ~
CASE TYP " 11041 HR CASE TYP5::
i 1
CASE TYP*2:- Gen Subm CASEIYPS: i
CASFr TYP,3: CASE.TYP7:
CASE TYP4: Date Scanned: ~ 8/5/09
File Locatloni Boz 172
CASELOAD SIIP4MARY SHEEP
PITRIN CODNTY
DATE RECEIVED: 5/14%91
DATE COMPLETID'
PROJECT NA24E: Wo1ft
Project Address: SE
West of the 6th P.K.
P.~iRCEL ID AND CASE NO.
2735-124-00-010 P49-91
STAFF MEMBER• ES
APPLICANT: Lyle Reeder
Applicant Address: P.O. Sox 4859, Aspen, CO 81612 525-5360
REPRESENTATIVE'
Representative•Address/Phone:
AMOIIbIT PAID: $1934.00 NO.OF COPIES RECEIVED 15 PLAT: 15
2
TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: X
P&Z MEETING DATE g/~D~q ~ PIIBLIC HEARING: YEu NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
BOCC Meeting Date ~ PDBLIC AF.ARTNG: YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
Staff Level: 1041 Kinor Hazard Review: Date of F~,aproval
RE FRRAT S:
' ~ Attorney
~~ ~ ~ `5~ Engineer
Housing
Aspen Water
~_ Envir.Hlth.
Manager
Div.Wildlife
r)~pZ. ~!` aa'-~ Caucus
~-~x,~ ~'~"~i-~_ Zoning
G ~ ~"- ' _ Homeowners
~~ `'~ ~ Assn_
Aspen Consol S.D.
_Mtn.Bell
Holy Cross
Aspen Fire
Basalt Fire
Carbondale Fire
_Div.Water Res.
-Airport Manager
_CO Geo. survey
Sheriff
School District
_ Rocky Mtn Nat Gas
State Hwy Dept
(Glwd) (GrJtn)
_ Snowmass Vill
IISFS (Carbondale)
_ IISFS (Aspen)
_ BLM
City PfiZ
_ Other:
s~4-~-,~° z -y~~
-'/ ~~K~'-, ~ DATE REFERRED' ~/° ° ~ ~ ~ INITIALS:
~/ FINAL ROOTING:
ij~o~noLCis
u, // ~ county
~- nz ~ ~o Housing
s i :~eLe ~~ Other
DATE ROOTED:/
~Coun y Engineer
_Envir. Health
FILE STATIIS AND LOCATION
Zoning
r Cx/
~ 3
#4338723 ~,,, '^1/91 1. ~c'_59 Rer: 4. Of? F'K: r.--..1 F'r 579
Silvia Davis, F'i t6::in i:nty Clerk. Doc a. V~?
RESOLIITION OF THE PITRIN COIINTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
GRANTING GENERAL SIIBMISSION AND 1041 GEOLOGIC AND WILDFIRE HAZARD
REVIEW APPROVAL TO THE WOLFTONE APPLICATION
Resolution No. PZ-91-~
WHEREAS, Wolftone Corporation and Stanford H. Johnson,
hereinafter "Applicants", have applied to the Planning and Zoning
Commission of Pitkin County, Colorado, hereinafter "Commission",
for 1041 Geologic and Wildfire Hazard approval for a single-family
residence pursuant to Section 5-400 of the Land Use Code; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant's parcel is zoned R-15 and contains
approximately 1.21 acres; and
WHEREAS, the site is located at 333 S. Second Street at the
base of Shadow Mountain, immediately adjacent to the Little Cloud
Subdivision, more specifically described in Exhibit "A"; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission heard the
application at a duly noticed regularly scheduled meeting on August
20, 1991; and
WHEREAS, the applicant shall explore the option of gaining
access from the Little Cloud Subdivision Road; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission supports the concept of
access from the Little Cloud Subdivision Road; and
WHEREAS, the Commission determined that the applicant can
adequately mitigate identified 1041 hazards; and
WHEREAS, the Commission determined that said application meets
General Submission requirements of the Code.
:_,.:„_~"N ' '^i /91 iS.59 Ric Y.i~0 t;. ;62 PG 580
-~i ~
.r ~it~. ieavis _ .'i'l.:i.n Cr~ty Clerk:, i7cc ~E.~--
Resolution No. PZ-91-~
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it
hereby grants General Submission and 1041 Geologic and Wildfire
Hazard Review approval to the Applicants subject to the following
conditions:
GENERAL SUBMISSION
1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Aspen Water and
Sanitation Districts shall review and approve a utility plan
which identifies proposed location and design for extensions
and connections to City water and sewer lines. If the site is
not within the Aspen Districts, a petition for inclusion shall
be required.
2. The applicant shall revegetate all areas disturbed by
construction within one growing season of construction. A
drainage, erosion control and revegetation plan shall be
approved by the City and County engineers prior to building
permit application.
3. Outside illumination shall comply with Pitkin County Lighting
regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
4. All development, with the exception of the access drive
improvements, shall be located within the building envelope
as designated on the Site Plan.
5. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall
obtain an access permit from the City and County Engineer's
Offices.
6. The applicant shall comply with Pitkin County air quality
standards in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
7. Floor area shall be limited to a maximum of 16 percent of the
lot area.
8. Recommendations regarding drainage of the site shall be
adhered to. The consulting engineer recommends the following:
a. There is a need for detention of a minor amount of water
volume which can be accomplished by adding a dry well if
sufficient detention is not retained behind the existing
railroad grade.
b. There is a need for construction of positive drainage
away from all building improvements in all directions.
`-~
s. t = .._,q r,~~: . co L k: 662 f=~[; 581
'?ilvic ll~tivis, F'i.tl~:in rnfi.y Cl'e;•~~i<, Dac Q.pir
Resolution No. PZ-91-~
Page 3
c. There must be erosion control during construction and
during revegetation by using silt fence or close placed
straw bales to prevent silt from entering detention
facility and leaving the pond outflow.
9. The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5080) for
design considerations of development within city public
rights-of-way and shall obtain permits for any work or
development within public rights-of-way from city streets
department (920-5130).
10. A portion of the driveway is within the city limits.
Therefore, the driveway shall meet applicable city code
requirements.
11. The plans indicate a railroad tie retaining wall in the right-
of-way. This appears to be an encroachment into the right-
of-way by an adjacent property owner. This area shall be
improved in conjunction with this project. The City
Engineering Department shall review proposed improvements to
this area.
12. Road cuts shall be treated with natural materials so as not
leave bare earth faces and to prevent sluffing and erosion.
Road cuts shall be approved by the City Engineering Department
prior to issuance of a building permit.
13. The applicant shall coordinate with the City Engineer on
development of the right-of-way at the end of Second Street
to provide for displaced parking. The applicant shall work
with the adjacent property owner to relocate the dumpster out
of the public right-of-way at the end of 2nd Street.
14. Design of the driveway cut, and specifically, the proposed
excavation of the Midland railroad grade must be finally
approved by the Planning Department, the City and County
Engineers, prior to issuance of a building permit.
15. Stone, wood and glass materials shall be utilized in
construction of the home. Non reflective roof materials shall
be utilized.
16. The house shall be limited to single story at the top of the
building envelope, or a maximum height of 16' (to roof peak)
at the top of the hill, and shall be designed so that any
additional stories are stepped down the slope to minimize
grading/site disturbance and visual impacts.
17. Cut and fill shall be limited to the area required for
construction of the engineered foundation and driveway.
#338,~~: 1. I. !2 ]. i 9 ]. ].5:59 Rr=c 4~. [-~[-7 _.~ 662 F'G 582
•~;;1~:..~. Dav:i.=_~, Pi. t4=:yn ~',nt_y ~,ler•!-:, lloc ~.[u'
Resolution No. PZ-91-~
Page 4
18. The applicant shall explore the option of gaining access from
the Little Cloud Subdivision Road. in the event that the
applicant chooses to access the site from said road, the
driveway alignment shall be subject to Planning Staff and
County Engineer review and approval prior to issuance of an
excavation permit.
1041 HAZARD REVIEW
19. The applicant acknowledges that he has been informed by Pitkin
County of the existence of "1041 hazard areas" that might
effect the property and any improvements, and the use and
occupancy thereof.
20. The following wildfire mitigation measures shall be adhered
to:
a. All roofs will be kept cleared of debris
b. Oak brush shall be thinned for a distance of 30 feet from
the home. Thinning shall result in patches of vegetation
within 10 foot spacing between the crowns of remaining
patches.
Dead vegetation within 30 feet of the home shall be
removed.
All vegetation within 10 feet of the home shall be
removed with the exception of low growing grasses and
plants.
c. Firewood shall be stacked on a contour away from
building(s).
d. At least one ten pound ABC class fire extinguisher shall
be placed in each structure.
e. All power and telephone lines shall be underground.
f. Roof materials shall be of non-combustible materials such
as tile, metal or asphalt.
21. Recommendations made by Dr. Nick Lampiris shall be adhered to.
They are as follows:
a. If slope must be cut for foundation construction, it
shall be done with care and the resulting foundation wall
designed to act as a retaining wall, replacing the
supporting material which will have been removed.
,7./x'1. ~..~:59 fitr 4:.i~u ljl 42 PG 583
~~ _.~ '4:.+ .! ^^ iii
~~ 1`,;; ti?.vi P'i'_I::in Crt s f•1E=:..i_, T"n-,~:_ ~.
Resolution No. PZ-91- y
Page 5
b. Drainage within the adjacent depression shall be made
positive so that ponding does not occur during spring
runoff or thunderstorm activity. The alternative is to
create a retention pond or dry well at that site where
water will percolate and evaporate away, without draining
into the street system.
c. The rear foundation wall shall extend at least four feet
above grade, be without windows, and be designed by an
engineer to withstand whatever small scale snow sliding
that could potentially reach the proposed structure.
d. The applicant shall include a foundation plan which
has been certified by a structural engineer prior
to issuance of a building permit. Said plan shall
incorporate review and mitigation of subsidence on
site due to past mining activities.
e. It is possible to access the site from the east,
from South Second Street, along a properly designed
hillside cut. Retaining walls and snow
stabilization techniques shall be employed in the
lower alignment, if required by the City and/or
County Engineer.
f. Nick Lampiris, or other qualified professional
geologist shall be present during the final staking
of the structure.
GENERAL
22. The applicant shall record a 24 x 36 inch mylar site plan
which meets the approval of the Planning Office and County
Attorney prior to the issuance of any building permits for the
property.
23. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and in meetings shall be adhered to.
APPROVED by the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
at its regular meeting on August 20, 1991.
PITRIN COUNTY PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMIBBION
~, (J
Jim Reser, Chairman
#1338i`.ww~ 'i./^7./91 7.J:Jg Rer_ ~.i,p 1~,,, i62 F'6 584
Silvia Davis, F'i tk:in Cnty Gl er--i~::, Doc $.i~U
Resolution No. PZ-91- Y~
Page 6
ATTEST:
Deborah Skehan,
Administrative Assistant
APPR ASS TO O S
Timo• 8. Whitaitt,
county A rney
APPROVED AS TO CfO~NfT,EN-T:
~v'- ~'-
Susan a Ronch n
Plann q Dire for
reso_wolftone_1041ge
#33Bi~3 11/21/91 15-°-Yfiec x.00 PK 662 F'(; 585
S9.lvia Davis, F'itk:i`ar...~i_y Clef^F~:, Doc 4.iii~
SCHEDULE A (wntlnued)
T
s
Order No. 400994-C
Plat I.D. P
Covering the Land in the State of Colorado, County of Pitkin, Described as foilows:
PARCEL A:
Government Lot 20 located in the SE1/4 of Section 12, Township 10 South, Range
85 West of the 6th P.M.
PARCEL B:
All that portion of the SIBLEY Lode Mining claim (United States Mineral Survey
#9609AM) 'lying Easterly of the line 2-3 of the Mollie G. Lode Mining claim
(United States Mineral Survey Y7577) and more partlculprly described as
follows:
Beginning at corner 4 of the Sibley Lode, thence northwesterly along Ilne 4-5
of .the Sibley Lode to line 2-3 .of the Molle G. Lode N55°36'18"W 15.38 feet
more or less;
thence southerly along Itno 2-3 of the Mollie G. Lode to line 3-4 to the
Sibley Lode S 15°05'48" W 19.54 feet more or less;
thence northeasterly along Ilne 3-4 of the Sibley to Corner number 4 the point
of beginning N60°12' E 20.46 feet more or less.
,,~,
~kl i~H ~TTA H t
'Ek~ONAL REF RESENTATIyf'S pF~F EXHIBIT A
HgRRY E. SHAW es Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF DOROTHY KOCH SHAW,
~_ deceased, en unmerned person, Grantor, to IYLE D. REEDER, Grenlee for a lreCt of lend
sltueted in Lot I, Section IS, T 10 S, R 85 W. of the 6th P M, Pgkin Cunly, Coll>/sdd.
~~ _ THIS SKEi H h vrporcr~ ~-ID.NA1 A S E N U E "
. re99
~ _ -_ _____ _ • re9e i ~ t
Y.. ~ .. _ _
t I _~+-Y ; ~~VV 1
Y I I
~; 50 25t 0 6 t 100 ~, ~.~
'- ~ CONTOUf7 INTER ~~~ ~ ~~
VA 2 FEET - ~ ~.. r~~ ;
A ~
-- -- '
~,,- ,_
4 , .. T 20 m ~,`
~ " (~ m ~'-
/~, ~ [30oK 17S pgba Ga$~
~ ;~ . ` ~ .9D 1~~ Rft ate.
t
~ i
~.~' .COOPER .mss
+i ~, ~~ _
'f ~'~~+~L+is[
~ -
%"V
i(~~I~
n, \1~
~G2
' ~ _ -
E'4M AODIT70n/
Mou T1,tat E ooc
ANNl7(,,TION
c~~ 'o `- ~'KO~H U~ER ~.
\~\_."
~~,. _
\\ 1
~t
~,, .
_,
A G E N D A
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGIILAR MEETING
August 6, 1991, Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
ist Floor City Council Chambers
City Hall
I. COMMENTS
Commissioners
Planning Staff
Public
II. MINDTES
III. PQBLIC HEARINGS
A. 100 Park Avenue Subdivision/PUD Growth Management
Quota System Exemption and Condominiumization - Rim
Johnson
B. Depagter Map Amendment Rezoning - Leslie Lamont
C. Krebs Conditional IIse Review for an Accessory
Dwelling IInit - Rim Johnson
D. Aspen Villas PDD Amendment (request to be tabled by
the Application to the August 20 meeting) - Rim
Johnson
IV. NEW BIISINESS
A. Wolftone Corporation Presentation - Ellen Sassano
V. ADJOIIRN
a.cov
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Ellen Sassano, Planner
DATE: August 6, 1991
RE: Wolftone Corporation 1041 Review Referral - Presentation
SIIMMARY: The Applicant is requesting 1041 hazard review and
approval from the County for the construction of one single family
residence on a lot which is approximately 1.21 acres in size.
APPLICANT: Wolftone Corporation and Stanford H. Johnson
LOCATION: 333 S. Second Street; Base of Shadow Mountain,
immediately adjacent to the Little Cloud Subdivision site.
ZONING: R-15
REQUEST: Staff will present a summary of the applicants request at
the meeting. The application has been referred to the Commission
by the County so that any concerns expressed by the Commission may
be forwarded to the County Planning Commission and the Board of
County Commissioners in the review process. Map exhibits of the
proposed building envelope and access to the site are attached as
exhibits for reference.
1
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Ellen Sassano, Planner
RE: Wolf tone General Submission and 1041 Hazard Review
DATE: August 20, 1991
REQUEST: Wolf tone Corporation and Stanford H. Johnson are
requesting general submission and 1041 hazard review and approval
for the construction of a single family residence on a parcel of
land which is approximately 1.21 acres in size. The lot is located
in the R-15 zone and is currently undeveloped, with the exception
of mining remnants and the Midland Railroad bed. Proposed access
to the property is from South 2nd Street, as illustrated on the
attached map. The lot is encumbered by steep and potentially
unstable slopes, rockfall zones, snow slides, avalanches and
potential subsidence areas. Wildfire is not mapped on the site but
is mapped directly above the site and has been addressed by the
applicant.
APPLICANT: Wolf tone Corporation and Stanford H. Johnson
LOCATION: 333 S. Second Street; Base of Shadow Mountain,
immediately adjacent to the Little Cloud Subdivision
ZONING: R-15
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
County Engineer: No comments have been received to date. Comments
will be brought to the meeting.
City Engineer: In a memo attached as Exhibit "1", Chuck Roth
recommends that runoff from the site be limited to historic flows,
driveway runoff be provided for on-site, and proposed drywells be
maintainable. Mr. Roth requests that the applicant coordinate with
the City in the design of the access drive, and advises the
applicant that hooking up to the City water system will require
conveyance of water rights to the City. All utility service
connections and extensions are to be buried. The applicant is
requested to mitigate construction impacts on adjacent properties.
County Attorney: The County Attorney has reviewed the application
and had no comments.
Environmental Health: Standard comments (attached as Exhibit 2),
regarding sewage disposal, provision of water, water quality and
air quality were submitted by the Environmental Health Department.
No unusual problems are anticipated regarding water and sewer
service. However, it is noted that the applicant has not provided
"will serve" letters from the City. Air pollution impacts are
expected to be minimal, though potential removal of the trail
through the property may have long term air quality impacts.
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District: In a letter attached as
Exhibit "3," Bruce Matherly indicates that the District has
sufficient capacity to serve the proposed development. There is
some question as to whether this site is in the District Service
area. If not, a petition for inclusion will be required. A line
extension and detailed plans must be thoroughly reviewed by the
District prior to connection to the system.
Aspen Fire Protection District: The Fire Chief had no comments.
Zoninq Department: In a memo attached as Exhibit "4", Joanna
Schaffner makes the following comments:
1. Applicant shall include with the building permit application,
a foundation plan which has been certified by a structural
engineer.
2. The proposed building envelope lies outside of all required
setbacks.
3. Floor area shall be limited to 16 percent of lot area.
4. An access permit shall be obtained from Pitkin County.
Sheriff's Department: In a memo attached as Exhibit "5," Steve
Crockett recommends that the applicant:
- Comply with the Colorado State Forest Service Wildfire Safety
Guidelines for Rural Homeowners.
- Comply with Fire District Recommendations for water supply and
access.
- Address the avalanche hazard in greater detail.
STAFF COMMENTS:
GENERAL SUBMISSION
The following general submission items are pertinent to the case:
Water Provision - Water is to be provided by the City of Aspen.
Prior to recording of the site plan it is recommended that the
applicant provide a "will serve" letter from the City. It is
recommended that the line extension be coordinated with the
adjacent Little Cloud Subdivision water line extension, if
possible. The extension should also be placed in the driveway.
Final design and location of the extension shall be approved by the
City prior to issuance of a building permit.
Fire flow will be provided from a fire hydrant located at the
corner of Hyman Avenue and South Second Street.
Sewaae Treatment - The applicant proposes to utilize the City
Sanitation System. (See "Referral Comments".) Aline extension and
detailed plans must be thoroughly reviewed by the District prior
to connection to the system and prior to issuance of a building
permit.
Drainage/Erosion - The applicant's consulting engineer makes the
following recommendations for drainage on the site:
1. There is a need for detention of a minor amount of water
volume which can be accomplished by adding a dry well if
sufficient detention is not retained behind the existing
railroad grade.
2. There is a need for construction of positive drainage away
from all building improvements in all directions.
3. There must be erosion control during construction and during
revegetation by using silt fence or close placed straw bales
to prevent silt from entering detention facility and leaving
the pond outflow.
It is recommended that any areas disturbed by construction be
revegetated within one year of construction. The applicant commits
to preserve vegetation to the extent possible on the site. It is
recommended that a drainage, erosion control and revegetation plan
for the site be approved by the City and County Engineers prior to
issuance of a building permit.
Logical Extension of Utilities - The applicant commits to place all
utilities underground within the access drive alignment where
practical. There is currently electricity on site. Connections for
water, sewer, natural gas, telephone and cable T.V. lines are
located in the vicinity of the southwest corner of the Aspen Ice
Gardens.
Impacts to Roads and Internal Road Design - The applicant proposes
to construct a driveway via 2nd Street. It may also be possible to
access the site through the Little Cloud Park. This option will
be discussed at the meeting.
The City Engineer makes the following comments regarding impacts
to City streets:
a. The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5080) for
design considerations of development within city public rights-
of-way and shall obtain permits for any work or development within
public rights-of-way from city streets department (920-5130).
b. The application indicates intent to comply with county
requirements, but failed to indicate that a portion of the driveway
is within the city. Therefore, the driveway must meet applicable
city code requirements.
c. The plans indicate a railroad tie retaining wall in the right-
of-way. This appears to be an encroachment into the right-of-way
by an adjacent property owner. This area should be improved in
conjunction with this project.
d. The application indicates roadway cuts for the access driveway
but does not discuss aesthetic treatment of the cuts. It is
suggested that the cuts be treated so as not leave bare earth
faces. Treatment could be timbers, boulders, revegetation, or
combinations. This will also prevent Bluffing and erosion from the
cut face.
e. This project will present an adverse impact by deleting existing
parking for Ice Garden users. It appears to be appropriate to
require the applicant to mitigate this impact by developing the
right-of-way at the end of Second Street to provide for the
displaced parking. There is also an impact on an existing dumpster
location. The applicant should be required to work with the
adjacent property to relocate the dumpster out of the public right-
of-way.
f. Driveway location options - The possibility of access through
Little Cloud Park would require additional examination by city
staff. This could result in a possible exchange option for a trail
easement.
The applicant proposes to excavate the Midland railroad bed
approximately 5.5 feet in order to provide a less steep access
drive. It is recommended that an alternative to excavation be
considered so that the railroad bed/trail will remain at a
consistent grade. The applicant will be required to meet County
driveway standards and must obtain a County access permit prior to
issuance of a building permit.
Impacts on Taxes and Management of Necessary Services and
Facilities - The Sheriff's Department has expressed concern about
the strain which approval of this project may place on their
Department. Increased demand for wildfire responses may be a
result of approval.
Air Oualitv - The applicant agrees to comply with County Air
Quality standards in effect at the time of issuance of a building
permit. In addition, the applicant shall submit a fugitive dust
plan to the Environmental Health Department prior to issuance of
a building permit.
Visual Impact - Visual impact of development on this site is a
major consideration. The site is located at the base of Shadow
Mountain which can be seen from many vantage points in town. Four
homes have recently been approved for development on property
immediately adjacent to the subject parcel. Visual impact was a
major concern associated with that review. The homes were
restricted to a maximum size of 6,000 square feet in order to
lessen visual impacts.
The applicant agrees to use stone, wood and glass materials, to
utilize native materials in landscaping, to step the home up the
hill in order to reduce building mass, and to comply with County
lighting standards. These are all means of reducing visual impact.
Siting of the home plays a significant role on visual quality of
the home. If the applicant places the home in the northwestern
corner of the parcel (as recommended by the consulting geologist),
it will have the greatest visual impact. This location represents
the highest portion of the parcel. In order to reduce visual
impact from town, it is recommended that the building site be as
low on the site as possible, without encroaching on the identified
geologic hazard area. Staff will have met on-site with the
consulting geologist and the applicant prior to the meeting. Staff
anticipates making a specific recommendation for the placement of
the building envelope, based on the site visit and further
consultation with the consulting geologist.
Finally, it is recommended that the home size be limited to further
reduce visual impacts
1041 REVIEW
Geologic Hazard
The lot is encumbered by steep and potentially unstable slopes,
rockfall zones, snow slides, avalanches and potential subsidence
areas. Wildfire is not mapped on the site but is mapped directly
above the site and has been addressed by the applicant.
Nick Lampiris, consulting geologist, has reviewed the site and made
the following comments and recommendations:
"- The building envelope should be as near to the top of the lot
as possible and as far west as the soils engineer will allow.
Rock fall and snow slide hazard are highest in the swale just
east of the building envelope.
I do not believe that falling rocks could reach this site
except in the most unusual circumstances, such as a very
strong earthquake. As long as the hillside behind this
bench is not cut, these slopes should remain stable.
Minor snow sliding, but not avalanching, is possible.
The dense conifer cover on the hillside makes the
likelihood of slides reaching the site with any
destructive potential quite low. If this slope must be
cut for foundation construction, it should be done with
care and the resulting foundation wall designed to act
as a retaining wall, replacing the supporting material
which will have been removed. Drainage within the
adjacent depression must be made positive so that ponding
does not occur during spring runoff or thunderstorm
activity. The alternative is to create a retention pond
or dry well at that site where water will percolate and
evaporate away, without draining into the street system.
I recommend that the rear foundation wall extend at least
four feet above grade, be without windows, and be
designed by an engineer to withstand whatever small scale
snow sliding that could potentially reach the proposed
structure. This will also be advantageous in protecting
against any rolling rocks which might reach the building.
Soils engineering studies will be necessary to insure
proper foundation design and to determine whether
subsidence potential exists at or near the site. This
can be accomplished either through seismic study or
through the drilling of one or more moderately deep holes
during the soils investigation in order to be sure that
mining activities have not undermined the site. An
individual very familiar with the history of mining in
this particular area may be consulted to establish that
no mines or shafts can affect the home site.
It is possible to access the site from the east, from
South Second Street, along a properly designed hillside
cut. Retaining walls and snow stabilization techniques
may have to be employed in the lower alignment.
Because placement of a home within the potential building
envelopes is important, I should be present during the
final staking of the structure.
The home should be designed to prevent the accumulation
of radon gas."
Steve Crockett has expressed concern that potential avalanche
danger has not been adequately addressed by the applicant. It is
the consulting geologist's opinion that minor snow sliding, but not
avalanching, is possible. Mr. Lampiris makes specific
recommendations for foundation design in order to mitigate
potential snow sliding.
If geologic hazards can be adequately mitigated on a building site
which is well below the top of the site, Staff recommends that the
envelope be lowered. As previously stated, Staff will make a
specific recommendation for building envelope location after a site
visit with the geologist.
Regarding potential ground subsidence, the applicant has submitted
a letter from Mr. Edwin J. Smart, who indicates that he is very
familiar with past mining activities in the Aspen area. It is his
opinion, based on all evidence, documents and visual inspection,
that there has never been any tunneling under the subject parcel.
It is recommended that building plans be approved by a professional
engineer who shall verify that subsidence due to mining activity
is not a hazard on site, and/or that potential subsidence areas
have been identified and will be mitigated prior to development of
the property.
The applicant agrees to mitigate hazards, as recommended.
Wildfire
Wildfire is not mapped on the site but is mapped directly above the
site and has been addressed by the applicant. The applicant
proposes to control the "understory" plants on site which may
contribute to wildfire hazard. The driveway will be designed for
emergency access and afire hydrant. The hydrant is approximately
320 feet from the house site and will provide fire flow. The Fire
Marshal indicates that placement of the hydrant is adequate for
protection. In addition, Steve Crockett recommends that the
applicant comply with the Colorado State Forest Service Wildfire
Safety Guidelines for Rural Homeowners.
Given compliance with recommended procedures, the wildfire hazard
can be mitigated satisfactorily.
1041 Summary
It is recommended that the building envelope be placed as low as
possible on site without encroaching on the rock fall, snow slide
area and assuming that soil stability will not be an issue. Given
compliance with procedures discussed above, any wildfire hazard
associated with the site can be mitigated.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Commission approve the 1041 hazard review
and general submission with an amended building envelope and a
house size limitation. The recommendation is subject to the
following conditions:
GENERAL SUBMISSION
1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Aspen Water and
Sanitation Districts shall review and approve a utility plan
which identifies proposed location and design for extensions
and connections to City water and sewer lines. If the site is
not within the Aspen Districts, a petition for inclusion shall
be required.
2. The applicant shall revegetate all areas disturbed by
construction within one growing season of construction.
3. Outside illumination shall comply with Pitkin County Lighting
regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
4. All development, with the exception of the access drive
improvements, shall be located within the building envelope
as designated on the Site Plan.
5. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall
obtain an access permit from the County Engineer's Office.
6. The applicant shall comply with Pitkin County air quality
standards in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
7. Floor area shall be limited to a maximum of 16 percent of the
lot area.
8. Recommendations regarding drainage of the site shall be
adhered to. The consulting engineer recommends the following:
a. There is a need for detention of a minor amount of water
volume which can be accomplished by adding a dry well if
sufficient detention is not retained behind the existing
railroad grade.
b. There is a need for construction of positive drainage
away from all building improvements in all directions.
c. There must be erosion control during construction and
during revegetation by using silt fence or close placed
straw bales to prevent silt from entering detention
facility and leaving the pond outflow.
9. The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5080) for
design considerations of development within city public
rights-of-way and shall obtain permits for any work or
development within public rights-of-way from city streets
department (920-5130).
10. A portion of the driveway is within the city limits.
Therefore, the driveway shall meet applicable city code
requirements.
11. The plans indicate a railroad tie retaining wall in the right-
of-way. This appears to be an encroachment into the right-
of-way by an adjacent property owner. This area shall be
improved in conjunction with this project. The City
Engineering Department shall review proposed improvements to
this area.
12. Road cuts shall be treated so as not leave bare earth faces
and to prevent Bluffing and erosion. Road cuts shall be
approved by the City Engineering Department prior to issuance
of a building permit.
13. The applicant shall coordinate with the City Engineer on
development of the right-of-way at the end of Second Street
to provide for displaced parking. The applicant shall work
with the adjacent property owner to relocate the dumpster out
of the public right-of-way at the end of 2nd Street.
14. Design of the driveway cut, and specifically, the proposed
excavation of the Midland railroad grade must be finally
approved by the Planning Department, the City and County
Engineers, prior to issuance of a building permit.
15. Stone, wood and glass materials shall be utilized in
construction of the home. Non reflectiv eroof materials shall
be utilized.
1041 HAZARD REVIEW
1. The applicant acknowledges that he has been informed by Pitkin
County of the existence of "1041 hazard areas" that might
effect the property and any improvements, and the use and
occupancy thereof.
2. The following wildfire mitigation measures shall be adhered
to:
a. All roofs will be kept cleared of debris
b. Oak brush shall be thinned for a distance of 30 feet from
the home. Thinning shall result in patches of vegetation
within 10 foot spacing between the crowns of remaining
patches.
Dead vegetation within 30 feet of the home shall be
removed.
All vegetation within 10 feet of the home shall be
removed with the exception of low growing grasses and
plants.
c. Firewood shall be stacked on a contour away from
building(s).
d. At least one ten pound ABC class fire extinguisher shall
be placed in each structure.
f. All power and telephone lines shall be undergrounded.
g. Roof materials shall be of non-combustible materials such
as tile, metal or asphalt.
3. Recommendations made by Dr. Nick Lampiris shall be adhered to.
They are as follows:
a. If slope must be cut for foundation construction, it
shall be done with care and the resulting foundation wall
designed to act as a retaining wall, replacing the
supporting material which will have been removed.
b. Drainage within the adjacent depression shall be made
positive so that ponding does not occur during spring
runoff or thunderstorm activity. The alternative is to
create a retention pond or dry well at that site where
water will percolate and evaporate away, without draining
into the street system.
c. The rear foundation wall shall extend at least four feet
above grade, be without windows, and be designed by an
engineer to withstand whatever small scale snow sliding
that could potentially reach the proposed structure.
d. The applicant shall include a foundation plan which
has been certified by a structural engineer prior
to issuance of a building permit. Said plan shall
incorporate review and mitigation of subsidence on
site due to past mining activities.
e. It is possible to access the site from the east,
from South Second Street, along a properly designed
hillside cut. Retaining walls and snow
stabilization techniques shall be employed in the
lower alignment, if required by the City and/or
County Engineer.
f. Nick Lampiris, or other qualified professional
geologist shall be present during the final staking
of the structure.
GENERAL
1. The applicant shall record a 24 x 36 inch mylar site plan
which meets the approval of the Planning Office and County
Attorney prior to the issuance of any building permits for the
property.
2. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and in meetings shall be adhered to.
e
a
a
B
1
1
GOVII2NMEHT LO'f 20
LOCATED A7:
333 S. SECOND SYYEB7
ASPEN,COLOgADO E1611
VICINITY MAF
EXHIBIT "C"
n~
o\
J m ~ e f t ' s
I I ~ I~ 4 L.
ylV
~~ ;
'„ 5. fIAST fT'~
~~
.~. ~.
i
~~ ~is ~I i
V III I ~_ ~/9• i ~ .~•,
a w
3
w'=
~~
Ada
ON~
o<~
o V o ~-~-,- m_
-~ - 0 5. SECOND SI ' '
za
w„
za
~~
>~ ~.
0 o i j
_ ~
8 k
c a
~ ~ !
~ ! r
/ Z F ~ ~;
~~ ' ~a
Cp 6
/ _' P t aad
it /// ~ ~~ - YE gE
II E! S z 9v =!
l~ ' E~ o
0
m
i~
Y / ~ ~/~%i;~//i.
w
~ /// z
V~' I I'I /11 /')/// / / ~~ w
~~~I III I II I~//// /. / ////% O
`;'-'_
.. :. a
aa. sY- -
oY~ ~~
:.::
/ /
~.~ ~ /
~g /~~••• ~ ••••
~~. ~ M A , /
I
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO ellen sassano CC Stan berryman
CC bud
From: Bud Eylar
Postmark: Aug 15,91 10:57 AM
Subject: Wolftone Corp/Government Lot 20
Message:
Ellen, I have reviewed the above refrenced application and have the
following comments:
1) The recommendations in Dr. Lampiris's report should be followed.
2) Foundation walls should be designed by a professional engineer and
shall act as a retaining wall.
3) Final drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted from a
professional engineer and be approved by the County Engineer.
4) Driveway shall meet with all applicable County standards.
CONTINUED NEXT MESSAGE
----------=====X=====___-------
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO ELLEN SASSANO CC STAN BERRYMAN
CC BUD
From: Bud Eylar
Postmark: Aug 15,91 11:04 AM
Status: Previously read
Subject: Wolftone (cont)
--------------------------------------------------------
Message:
5) Since the applicant went to great lengths to point out that there
is no trail access through the property, the trail shall be
physically closed at the points where the driveway intersects. From
a safety standpoint, a 5.5 ft. dropoff can't be allowed. The
existing rail bed must be totally blocked off. Closure plan shall
reviewed by the County Engineer before driveway access permit is
issued. Bud
----------=====X=====___-------
To: Ellen Sassano, Pitkin County Planner
From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer ~~
Date: July 2, 1991
Re: Wolftone Corporation 1041 Hazard Review & General Submission
Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made
a site inspection, the city engineering department has the
following comments:
1. Drainage
a. It is a requirement of subdivision and PUD in the city that
runoff from the site be limited to historic flows for the 100 year
event. The city has also been listing this as a request for other
land use reviews. Therefore we would like to request that this be
a condition of approval for this project.
b. The driveway in particular could convey significant quantities
of runoff to city streets. These flows should be intercepted at
the property line and provided for on the property site.
c. Any drywell installations for runoff mitigation should be
required to be maintainable. Considerable concern has developed
during recent years with drywell installations which cannot be
cleaned and maintained.
2. Access, Roads
a. Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development
in city public rights-of-way, we request the following condition
of approval:
The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5080)
for design considerations of development within city
public rights-of-way and shall obtain permits for any
work or development within public rights-of-way from city
streets department (920-5130).
b. The application indicates intent to comply with county
requirements, but does not indicate that a portion of the driveway
is within the city and therefore must meet applicable city code
requirements.
c. The plans indicate a railroad tie retaining wall in the right-
of-way. This appears to be an encroachment into the right-of-way
by an adjacent property owner. This area should be improved in
conjunction with this project.
d. The application indicates roadway cuts for the access driveway
but does not discuss aesthetic treatment of the cuts. It is
suggested that the cuts be treated so as not leave bare earth
faces. Treatment could be timbers, boulders, revegetation, or
combinations. This will also prevent sluffing and erosion from the
cut face.
e. This project will present an adverse impact by deleting existing
parking for Ice Garden users. It appears to be appropriate to
require the applicant to mitigate this impact by developing the
right-of-way at the end of Second Street to provide for the
displaced parking. There is also an impact on an existing dumpster
location. The applicant should be required to work with the
adjacent property to relocate the dumpster out of the public right-
of-way.
f. Driveway location options - The possibility of access through
Little Cloud Park would require additional examination by city
staff. The possible need of an easement would be a possible
exchange option for a trail easement.
3. Water Resource Impacts - The applicant should be advised that
hooking up to the city water system requires conveyance to the city
of all water rights associated with the property as compensation
for use of city water supplies and rights.
4. Utilities extensions - Please be clear with the applicant that
not only shall all utility service connections be buried, but also
any and all utility extensions shall be buried. The project site
abuts a portion of the city which has had 99$ of all aerial
utilities buried. Existing remaining aerial utilities are
currently included in an improvement district which has been in
progress for more than a year.
5. Construction impacts - Please require appropriate mitigation as
needed to ensure that no construction spoils, debris, earth, rocks,
etc., be allowed to migrate onto other private property or public
rights-of-way by installing rockfall fences, etc.
6. Trail
It is difficult to imagine that obtaining a trail easement and
constructing a trail would result in value diminution of the
property in the amount of $75,000. It is difficult to imagine that
there would be any depreciation in value of the applicant's
property due to a dedication to the public of a trail easement and
subsequent construction of a trail there.
cc: Bob Gish, Public Works Director
Amy Margerum, Planning Director
cr/M91.167
ASPEN~PITKIN
ENVIRaNMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
To: Ellen Sassano, Planning Office
From: Environmental Health Department
Date: June 28, 1991
Re: Wolftone Corporation 1041 Hazard Review & General
Submission
Parcel ID# 2735-124-00-010
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the
above-mentioned land use submittal under authority of the Pitkin
Countv Code, Title II, and has the following comments.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: Sections 2-7 and 5-200:
The application indicates that the sewer service will be provided
from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. The provision of
service to this area by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
meets the requirements of this department. This conforms with
Section 1-2.3 of the Pitkin Countv Regulations On Individual Sewage
Disposal Svstems policy to "require the use of public sewer systems
wherever and whenever feasible, and to limit the installation of
individual sewage disposal systems only to areas that are not
feasible for public sewers".
While the applicant has agreed to serve the project with public
sewer, he has failed to provide documentation "...that both the
applicant and the service agency are mutually bound to the proposal
and that the service agency is capable of serving the
development..." as defined in Section 5-200.2 of the Pitkin Countv
Code.
ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: Sections 2-6 and 5-205:
a The application indicates that the water service is to be provided
from the Aspen Water System. The provision of potable water from
the Aspen Water System is consistent with the area service plan and
should provide a satisfactory quantity of water meeting all
standards of the Colorado Department of Health for drinking water
quality. The plan conforms with the Pitkin County Code requiring
projects to be connected to the municipal water utility system as
a logical extension of utilities.
While the applicant has agreed to serve the project with water from
the City of Aspen system, there is no letter of intent to service
the proposal..." as defined in Section 205.2 of the Pitkin Countv
Code contained in the submission documents. This should be
'130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 816'1'1 303/920-6070
ie[y[ledpapN
i
Wolftone 1091
June 28. 1991
Page 2
provided.
WATER QUALITY IMPACTS: Sections 2-22 and 5-107.2:
The application includes sections addressing the control of erosion
~~ during construction and revegetation by the use of silt fencing or
I_ closely placed straw pales. After the project is constructed there
are plans to provide a drywell and complimentary retention pond in
a portion of the depression formed by the old railroad bed.
Retention of drainage on-site conforms to the policies of this
department to limit the amount of non-point source runoff entering
and degrading the water quality of surface waters. We concur with
the engineering recommendations of High Country Engineers and agree
that these controls will prevent discharge to the City storm
drainage and minimize the amount of sediment loading which can
pollute the area streams.
AIR QUALITY: Sections 2-17 and 5-106:
vCj The air quality impacts from this project come from several
sources, all of which can be mitigated. First, the house is
limited to a maximum of two stoves or fireplaces: the fireplace(s)
must contain gas logs and be used only with gas, and the
woodstove(s) must be EPA-certified. This office has a list of such
stoves. A permit is required from this office (separate from the
Building Permit) for installation of any woodstove or fireplace
(including gas log fireplaces).
Interference with the public's longstanding use of the existing
trail going through the property would have a very unfortunate air
quality impact. It would conflict with the city's system of
alternatives to auto use, which require people to be able to
continue to use trails such as this one. This particular trail is
an especially important one, since it is peripheral to the core
area so is used by many people to avoid conflicts with traffic
downtown. This trail has had high usage for many, many years, and
it is hoped the applicant will avoid the negative air quality
impacts of preventing people from using it.
The City Pedestrian Bikeway Plan anticipates use of Hopkins St. or
Hyman as a primary bike route, used by cars only for residents.
There appears to be no reason for this project to interfere with
this plan, which has significant potential for improving air
quality.
In addition, if a train is found to be financially feasible, it
could have a tremendous air quality benefit. A train on this
existing Midland Railroad line is a likely route since it would
provide access to Snowmass Village and would not require a shuttle
to downtown Aspen. Preserving this option to improve air quality
Wolftone 1041
June 28. 1991
Page 3
should also be ensured.
To reduce air quality impacts caused by the proposed house, the
applicant can agree to install compact fluorescent lights or other
high efficiency lights which will significantly reduce air
pollution generated by producing electricity for them.
NOISE: Section 2-23
~ Noise impacts generated by approval of this project are anticipated
during the construction phase of the project. However, long term
negative noise impacts are not anticipated given the use of the
property will be residential.
Should complaints be received by this office, Title 25 Article 12
CRS 1973 - Noise Abatement, or subsequent noise laws passed by
Pitkin County, will be the document used in the investigation.
~~ CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS: Section 2-2
(\,J None that are enforced by this office.
CONTAMINATED SOILS:
^ The applicant is advised to contact this office for comment should
(•~(`) mine waste, waste rock or mine dumps be encountered during the
excavation phase of the project. Disposal f such materials off-
site is discouraged due to the possibility of excessive heavy
metals being present in the soil.
This is not a requirement, but simply a request based on past
experience in dealing with mine waste and possible negative impacts
to humans.
The geology report states there is no mine waste originating on
this parcel, but some mine waste was deposited on the land from
the adjacent Little Cloud Subdivision at some point in the past.
It is the advise of this office that the applicant commit to either
have the mine waste sampled and contact this office with the
result, or not sample and cover the mine waste with uncontaminated
soil to a depth of two feet.
r~- -~~~
.{aspen consolidated cSanitation I~istvict!~ ~ ~ ,~N 2 61991 ~~
565 North Mill Street i; ! o~ E,~
Aspen, Colorado 81611 ~_i__,~_~ '' ,
Tele. (303) 925-3601 FAX 8(3 3) 925-2537
Sy Kelly -Chairman Albert Bishop
John J. Snyder - Treaa Frank Loushin
Louis Popish -Secy. Bruce Motherly, Mgr.
June 25, 1991
Ellen Sassano
Planning Office
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Wolftone General Submission
Dear Ellen:
The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District currently has
sufficient collection and treatment capacity to provide service
to this project. There is a downstream constraint in 1st street
which will necessitate a prorated development impact fee of
approximately 53,000 which will be added to our regular
connection fees for the project.
Since this property adjoins the four residence Little Cloud
subdivision, which is yet to be built, a District approved line
extension will be required to a point within the cui de sac
driveway (show in the site plans), which will allow connection of
the Little Cloud homes to our system. The cost of the extension
will be prorated between this residence and the Little Cloud
subdivision. It is not clear that this project or the Little
Cloud subdivision is completely within our service area
boundaries. This can be determined by checking a recent tax bill
for the property <an ACSD mill levy of .967 would be listed). !f
the property is not currently included the owner will need to
petition for inclusion <the paperwork is available at our
office).
We will need to review a copy of the easements referenced in
schedule B of the title insurance policy to see that they are
suitable for a line extension, and as detailed plans become
available, we will need to review the cut sheets for access to
the proposed residence. As usual no clear water connections
(patio, storm, roof, or foundation drains) are allowed on our
system.
Sincerely,
'~,.......~ `lu ~..c~
Bruce Motherly
District Manager
EPA AWARDS OF EXCELLENCE
1976 - 1986 -1990
REGIONAL AND NATIONAL
M E M O R A N D Q M
T0: Ellen Sassano
FROM: Joanna Schaffner
DATE: June 19, 1991
RE: Wolftone Corp 1041 Hazard Review & General Submission
Government Lot 20
Parcel ID# 2735-124-00-010
I have reviewed the above application and offer the following
comments.
ZONE: R-15
1. Applicant shall include with the building permit application,
a foundation plan which has been certified by aA'structural
engineer.
2. The proposed building envelope lies outside of all required
setbacks.
3. Floor area shall be limited to 16 percent of lot area.
4. An access permit shall be obtained from Pitkin County (not
City of Aspen).
,.._
...~ ~.
rn;MORAxnuM ! 0 -,,
TO: Ellen Sassano, Planner
FROM: Steve Crockett, Emergency Management Coordinator
THROIIGH: Bob Braudis, Sheriff
DATE: June 14, 1991
RE: Wolftone 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 a reciprocal mutual aid agreement with and relies heavily on
the Aspen Fire Protection District to perform initial attack on
wildfires at his request. The Aspen Fire Protection District
fulfills its suppression responsibilities with an all volunteer
fire department.
Although the proposal lies in an area that is not mapped for
wildfire hazard, the area immediately adjacent to the proposal is
mapped as severe wildfire hazard. In light of this information, I
take exception to the proponent's statement that "wildfire
mitigation measures will not be necessary." The Colorado State
Forest Service Wildfire Safety Guidelines For Rural Homeowners
offer a considerable amount of mitigation measures applicable to
this proposal.
My general wildfire concerns with the Wolftone proposal would
revolve around the severe wildfire hazard adjacent to the
property, access to the area by emergency response personnel,
water supply for fire protection and the steep slopes surrounding
the building envelope.
I am also concerned that approval may result in increased demand
for wildfire responses. This could place an additional strain on
existing services and thereby overwhelm the Sheriff's
Department's ability to meet the inevitable increased demand for
services.
An additional concern is that of the potential avalanche hazard
as shown on Art Mears' "Snow Avalanche Hazard Zones" map of the
area. The proponent does not specifically address avalanche
hazard mitigation measures in any great detail in the application
so I am unable to make nay specific recommendations.
Bti
In conclusion, I would ask that a condition of approval would be
adherence by the applicant to the Colorado State Forest Service
Wildfire Safety Guidelines For Rural Homeowners and that the
avalanche hazard issue be addressed in greater detail.
The proposal does lie within the Aspen Fire Protection District
boundaries and I am assuming that they will address fire
protection on a more detailed level, specifically; access and
water supply.
cc: AFPD
CSFS
W1041.91
Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D.
CONSULTING GEOLOGIST
0793 VALLEY ROAD
CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623
(30319833800 (26 HOURSI
May 6, 1990
Lyle Reeder
60:: 489
Aspen CO 81612
RE: Shadow Mountain--East--Lot 2u
llear Mr-. Reeder;
I have completed my geologic investigation, as required by
House Hill 1041, of the above referenced property (see
accompanying map). The building envelope, as shown, is at
the west end of the parcel southwest of the end of Second
Street. This is within the Aspen 7 1/2 minute quadrangle,
Fitkin County, Colorado.
The topography of the subject property consists of the steep,
northeastern sloping hillside at the base of Shadow Mountain
where it merges with the man-made berm which is the former
Colorado & Midland railroad bed. There is a prominent bench
at the base of the Copperopolis claim approximately 7C1 feet
above the base of the depression and west of it. The building
envelope should be as near to the top of the lot as possible
and as far west as the soils engineer will allow. Rock fall
and snow slide hazard are highest in the swale just east of
the building envelope. It is my understanding that two
homes will be built above this site (House #'s 3 and 4 of the
approved Little Cloud Subdivision), which will partially
protect it.
Most of the hillside above the bench, and above the subject
property, is covered with conifers up to ten to twelve inches
in diameter. There are a number of large limestone and
dolomite blocks scattered along the hillside and its base
with a well developed foot path system all along the hillside
toward the base of the cliffs above. There are several mine
dumps, indicating past mine wor{:ings, in this area, however,
there are no mine dumps on the property.
EXHIBIT "D"
lTie gcc;lon,•; of the area consists of colluvial and talus
mater-ial which teas been derived over the centuries from the
ca.rbor.crte and sandstone outcrops above. This material ranges
{~r-om clays, sills and sands to angular rocks and boulders.
No outcrops were visible within the area proposed for
development. The sandstones and carbonate units on the
mountainside above the site are mostly the faulted Leadville
L1fr1esl:UnE', Manitou Dolomite, and Sawatch Lluartzite of
Paleozoic sge. Beca+_rse of the complexity of the geology of
tyre site, it is difficult to ascertain what unit or units
under:tie the proposed development site, but it is probably
either i:he Belden Shale or one of the previously mentioned
unites. T'erst holes drilled on the Sibley Lode Mining Claim
from 197' indzcate that no 6edrocF: was encountered to at
least a depth of 14 1/< feet. The general geologic setting
of this sequence of P=aleozoic rocks is that of the steeply
dipping, E:VEen overturned, west limb of a north-south trending
syncline on Aspen Mountain. The Castle Creek: fault zone
parses .iust west of the sr-rb~ect area.
The g-_~ulugic concerns on this property are:
1. Steep and potentially unstable slopes.
~. RocY::fall zones.
-. Sr~ow slides and avalanches.
4. S+-rt:rsi.dence areas.
The faulting is not a concern because there has been no
recorded movement on it for thousands of years and no
evidence could be found in the field of any activity.
The best area fur development is dust below the roughly
circular bench previously alluded to ad.7acent to the base of
the Col:~pr:-zr~~opuli.s claim. Because of the dense tree cover on
the hi.llsi.de above the bench, the di. stance from the rochfall
sourc~a al::;nve, and the general configuration of the hillside,
I do not believe that falling rocka could reach this sitE:
e~:cept in the most unusual circumstances, such as a very
strong earthgc.ra4::e. As long as the hillside behind this bench
i:; ncat cut:, these slopes should remain stable. Minor snow
s.lidir.g, but not avalanching, is possible. The dense conifer
c::over- orr the hillside makes the likelihood of slides reaching
the s:i.te with any destructive potential quite low.
~~
]:f i:his sloprrt must be cut: for foundation construction, it.
sl-,ould be none with care and the resulting for.rndation wall
designed Lo act as a retaining wall, replacing the sr_rpporting
materi~:rl which will have been removed. Drainage within the
adjacent depression roust be made positive so that ponding
does not occur dr.rring spring runoff or thunderstorm activity.
'I"hc al~:ernat.ive i.s to create a retention pond or dry well at
ttrat site where water will percolate and evaporate away,
without draining into the street system.
I recommend that the rear foundation wall extend at least
four feet above grade, be without windows, and be designed by
an engineer to withstand whatever small scale snow sliding
that could potentially reach the proposed structure. This
will also be advantageous in protecting against any rolling
rocka which might reach the building. Soils engineering
studies will be necessary to insure proper foundation design
and to determine whether subsidence potential exists at or
near the site. This can he accomplished either through
seisrni.c st:.rdy or through the drilling of one or more
moderately deep holes during the soils investigation in order
to be sr.rr-e that rni.ning activities have not undermined the
site. An individual very familiar with the history of
rnininq in tFiis particular area may be consulted to establish
that nc:r mines or shafts can affect the home site.
Dome~,t.ic water and waste disposal should bath be available
through the Town of Aspen. Access to the site is already
physically present from the west, but needs Borne improvement.
This access is across the Little Cloud Lode Mining Claim and
i.s delineated on the ifl96 Willits Map. It is also possible
to access from the east, from South Second Street, along a
properly designed hillside cut. Fetaining walls and snow
stabilir.a.ti.on techniques may have to be employed in the lower
allignment..
Because placement of a home within the potential building
envelopes is important, I should be present during the final
stai::ing of the structure. The home should be designed to
pr-c>vent tF,e accumulation of radon gas. 'I his is becoming
standard practice in the State. Please do not. hesitate. to;-.
contact. me if there are any further questions.
Sinc r ly, ~•;
r. `,:r
'`~ Imo.
Nicholas L~ s
Consulting Geologist -
~i1•y .
/~.
~/ ~ ~//
~~/
..
~~- x .:
..
~ ..
.-
'~/
/ ,..
i / _ / = O ~
/~~ ' ~
~/~///j/
3' ~lll///~j/
///////
l,~l~l
/~ ~ ~ i~
~~ i
~O
Nicholas Lampirls, Ph.D.
1
~~
i i m
f
O
l^t
• : .
~'
om ,+ I
O Xp ~
1111 n ,s
J N~
V li
1 11
~, la3als
~i~~ ~~
l O
~~
. z
N ~ ~
__ m~~ '
_- _ ~ O
O~
z
~m
Z
m
1~m~j
N
~,1
N
lsi
Y
O~~
O
~ ~
3
D
r~
Z
Y
V
~y 1
~_
w= Ir-
,~/O/f\~\\!
/ \ I
1
D
m
z
II
~~
I t'
14
I I.
MEMORANDUM
`_~
TO: Ellen Sassano, Planner
FROM: Steve Crockett, Emergency Management Coordinator
THROUGH: Bob Braudis, Sheriff
DATE: June 14, 1991
RE: Wolf tone 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 a reciprocal mutual aid agreement with and relies heavily on
the Aspen Fire Protection District to perform initial attack on
wildfires at his request. The Aspen Fire Protection District
fulfills its suppression responsibilities with an all volunteer
fire department.
Although the proposal lies in an area that is not mapped for
wildfire hazard, the area immediately adjacent to the proposal is
mapped as severe wildfire hazard. In light of this information, I
take exception to the proponent's statement that "wildfire
mitigation measures will not be necessary." The Colorado State
Forest Service Wildfire Safety Guidelines For Rural Homeowners
offer a considerable amount of mitigation measures applicable to
this proposal.
My general wildfire concerns with the Wolf tone proposal would
revolve around the severe wildfire hazard adjacent to the
property, access to the area by emergency response personnel,
water supply for fire protection and the steep slopes surrounding
the building envelope.
I am also concerned that approval may result in increased demand
for wildfire responses. This could place an additional strain on
existing services and thereby overwhelm the Sheriff's
Department's ability to meet the inevitable increased demand for
services.
An additional concern is that of the potential avalanche hazard
as shown on Art Mears' "Snow Avalanche Hazard Zones" map of the
area. The proponent does not specifically address avalanche
hazard mitigation measures in any great detail in the application
so I am unable to make nay specific recommendations.
P. O. Box 4859
Aspen, Colorado 81612
(303) 925-5360
August 19, 1991
Ms. Ellen Sassano
Aspen-Pitkin County Planning Office
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Wolftone General Submission and 1041 Hazard Review
Dear Ellen:
The Applicant has completed a review of your Memo, dated August 20, 1991,
addressed to Pitkin County Planning & Zoning Commission.
The recommendations of the Planning Office are acceptable to the Applicant except
for the following items:
1. Applicant desires that the building envelope remain as proposed. This is
in keeping with the Mr. Nick Lampiris', recommendation made at the site
inspection, last week, that the building envelope not be moved down the slope.
2. The maximum house size be limited to 16% of Lot area which you have
provided for in paragraph No. 7 of your recommendations.
3. Applicant suggests Paragraph No. 4 be modified so that a swimming pool
may be constructed outside of the building envelope. Applicant suggests adding:
"..., except for swimming pool and/or hot tub which can be
located outside the building envelope provided no
encroachment occurs into the set-backs."
The other recommendations are such that the Applicant can live with them; and
thus, are acceptable if the three above items are acceptable by the Planning & Zoning
Commission.
Should you have any questions, please contact me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
~-
Lyle D. Reeder
LDR se
L
~r
i
r
r
~.
r
r.
L
L
GOVERNMENT' L®~° ~®
SECTION 1 e
~04~ I~EVIE~'~ APPLICATION
secTr~N 20
APPLICANT'S EVALUATION
FOR POTENTIAL "TRAIL"
AND / OR RA'.w. CORRIDOR
ACROSS LUT 2®
SUBMITTcD TO
ASPEN / PlTICIN COUNTY
PLANNING OFFICE
139 S. GALENA STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO
BY
LYLE REEDER
P. O. BOX 4859
A31'EN, COLORADO 81612
(303) 925-5360
MAY, 1991
i~
~.
~~
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Ellen Sassano
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P. O. Box 4859
Aspen, CO. 81612
(303) 925-5360
May 13, 1991
Re: 1041 Review & General Submission for "Government Lot 20".
-. Dear Ellen:
Attached please find fifteen (15) copies of a land use application
for approval of a 1041 permit on "Government Lot 20" owned by Wolftone
'~. Corporation and Stanford H. Johnson. As part of the application three folded
plats, 24" x36", are inserted within each copy of application.
'~- Attached is a check for $1,934.00, in payment of the Planning
Office and referral agencies review fees.
"" The Pre-application Conference Summary letter, Item 11 requests
that the potential for a trail and/or rail corridor across Lot 20 be addressed.
The Applicant is addressing this item as a separate and independent issue
from the 1041 review application. However, for convenience a copy of the
Applicant's analysis is included and bound with the 1041 review application
'~ as Section 2.
'~ Should you have any questions or need any additional information
during the period of staff review of the project, please feel free to contact
~- me at the address or phone number above.
.. Thank you for your assistance while the application was being
~" prepared and for your continuing attention to this project.
Yo s truly,
C
a' Lyle Reeder
LDR se
,- encl.
..
1,,,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1. 1041 REVIEW
Planning Office Letter: Pre-Application Conference Summary Letter
APPLICATION:
,. I. Project Description
A. Introduction
°- B. Site Summary
`r II. 1041 Review Requirements
A. Section 50401: Geologic Hazard Areas
'~ B. Section 5-403: Wildfire Hazard Areas
~. C. Section 5-404: Wildlife Habitat Areas
III. General S ubmission Requi rements
A. Section 5-101/5-102: Drainage and Erosion
B. Section 5-103: Compatibility with Historic
& Archaeological Resources
C. Section 5-104: Compatibility with Agricultural Lands
D. Section 5-105: Scenic Quality
E. Section 5-106: Air Quality
F. Section 5-200: Sewage Treatment and Collection
G. Section 5-201: Impacts on Road System
H. Section 5-202: Road Design and Construction
^~ 1. Section 5-203: Logical Extension of Utilities
J. Section 5-205: Adequate Provision for Water Needs
~ K. Section 6-3.2: General Submission
,.
IV. Conclusion
~.
EXHIBITS:
A.
B.
C.
D.
-„, E.
F.
µ- G.
H.
I.
Warranty Deeds -Grantees being present owners
Letter signed by owners consenting to Application
Vicinity Map -Showing general location of Lot 20
Geologist' Report
Edwin Smart's Letter - Re: No Mine tunnels
Engineer's Report
Proof of Ownership -Commitment for Title Insurance
List of Adjacent Property owners.
Attorney's Letter, No merging with adjacent property
,. PITKIN COUNTY
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
DATE: 11/5/90 PLANNER: E.S.
PROJECT: Lot 20 - Shadow Mountain
`~ APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Lvh Reeder
REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE: 925-5360
OWNER'S NAME: Lvle Reeder
,.
r
y
~.
..
SIJNII4ARY
1. Type of Application: 1041 Hazard Review/Genl Subm;ssion
o ne¢..,-;T,n wrtinn/tvnP_ of development being requested:-
4. Review is before: (P&Z Only) (BOCC Only) (P&Z & BOCC)
r 5. Public Hearing: (Yes) (No) At: (P&Z) (BOCC) (BOTH P&Z & BOCC)
'" 6. The applicant needs to post a sign for each public hearing
,. 'pursuant to Section 6-3.4 of the Code. (YES) (NO)
O~ERS? yo YESell(NDPP1Disclosure of Ownershipf ADY,7ESCEN tNPO;OPERTY
•. 8. Number of copies of the application to be submitted: 10
- ~~ 670 00 (this
.,. 9. What fee was applicant requested to submit:
~~e ;,, t_he near future. The
3. Areas in which Applicant has been requested to respond, types
of reports requested:
Policy Area/
Referral Agent Comments
5 400 areas discussed above• (primarily geologic hazards)
r
m
s
s
a
w
r
applicant will be required to pay the fee which is in place at
the time of submittal of the application.)
10. Anticipated date of submission:
it crosses your property
frm.pre_app.county
y.
SECTION 1: APPLICATION FOR 1041 HAZARD REVIEW
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Introduction
May 13, 1991
The applicant, Wolftone Corporation and Stanford H. Johnson, are
,, owners of record of a parcel of land containing approximately 1.21 acres
(52,855. square feet). The property is known as "Government Lot 20
(hereinafter referred to as "Lot 20"), which is more fully described in the two
warranty deeds attached as Exhibit "A". The applicants request approval of
the following land use actions by Pitkin County:
1. Approval of the location of the Building "Envelope".
W
2. Permission to construct a principal residence and a driveway
on land that is located below property that is designated for review on the
'~ "1041 Geologic Hazard map, pursuant to Section 5-401 of the Pitkin County
Land Use Code. The subject property is not identified on the 1041 Geologic
Hazard map, Wildfire Hazard map or Wildlife map.
A letter has been provided by the applicant, a copy attached as
Exhibit "B", authorizing Lyle Reeder to submit this application on the owners
behalf.
® The application, which follows, is organized to respond specifically
7 to the Land Use Code criteria for 1041 Hazard review. The application also
,~ addresses the provisions of General Submission, Section 6-3.2 of the Pitkin
County Land Use Code, and those general regulations identified as being
pertinent to the project in the pre-application meeting between Lyle Reeder
and Ms. Ellen Sassano. A copy of the Pre-application Conference Summary
letter is included herewithin.
'' Architectural design for the proposed house has not been
~. undertaken pending the 1041 Review approval. The design guidelines for
the house will maximize the use of existing terrain whenever possible to
"step" the house into the slope to reduce apparent mass and height.
Particular attention will be given to the architecture of the house to assure
.. harmony with the mountain environment and adjacent neighbors,
particularly with the architecture of the four houses planned for the Little
1
~~
• Cloud Subdivision. Roof structure will be multi-faceted to reduce its apparent
mass and height and will be designed to hold snow to allow blending with the
backdrop. The dominant feature of exterior walls will consist of native stone
'' with a balance of wood and glass surfaces.
w
B. Site Summary
The subject property is located outside the City of Aspen in Pitkin
County and lies southwesterly of the Aspen Ice Gardens, at the end of South
Second Street just across the Townsite boundary line. The Zoning is R-15.
'' A vicinity map, showing the property's general location, is
., attached as Exhibit "C". In addition, 24" X 36" blueprint copies of the
following Plats are included in this booklet:
a
-- 1. A Representational Plat Map prepared from a
.. copy of the recently approved Little Cloud PUD Subdivision
Landscaping Plat, recorded Plat Book 26 at Page 11. An overall
perspective is provided by adding Lot 20 and other pertinent
~' details to demonstrate relationships with adjoining properties.
,~
2. A Plat Map showing topography, physical Features,
adjacent structures, proposed building envelope and proposed
~. driveway.
3. A Property Survey Plat that shows the property
boundaries and proposed building envelope with a Vicinity Map
~ shown thereon. The proposed building envelope is less than 25%
of the Lot area.
~.. II. 1041 REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
A. 5-401: Geologic Hazard Areas.
~. Adjoining lands located above the proposed building envelope are
_ identified on the Colorado State University Geologic Hazard maps as being
subject to potentially unstable slopes and avalanche hazard. Lot 20 has not
ben identified on the map.
The adjacent Little Cloud PUD Subdivision project obtained
approval under 1041 Hazard Review process. On April 5, 1991, the final plats
and related documents for the Little Cloud were recorded. The Building
..
_, 2
W
..
~. Envelopes approved for Lots 3 and 4 are locate directly upslope from the
,~ proposed Building Envelope on Lot 20. The County Resolution granting
Detailed Submission and Final Plat Approval restricts Building Sites 3 and 4
by stating that: "If the toe of hill is cut at all, rear retaining wall is to
,, protrude at least four feet above finished grade with no doors and/or
windows above finished grade". The Little Cloud approval substantiates that
the Geologic Hazards have been mitigated for the area located above this
proposed building envelope by the fact that building envelopes of Lots 3 and
4 of Little Cloud received 1041 Review approval.
A site visit was conducted by Dr. Nicholas Lampiris, consulting
geologist, to study the potential for hazards to impact the proposed
~, development. Dr. Lampiris issued a geologic report analyzing the situation
and recommending appropriate mitigation techniques which the applicant
agrees to follow. The identified geologic concerns can be mitigated and should
not pose problems to development of the site. While a complete copy of his
,. report is attached as Exhibit "D", a summary of his findings is as follows:
"' 1. He recommends that building envelope be as near
°' to the top of the lot as possible and as far west as the soils
engineer will allow because of the rock fall and snow slide hazard
are highest in the Swale just east of the proposed building
r envelope.
2. The concerns and mitigation techniques
recommended by Dr. Lampiris include:
a). Foundation cut, be done with care and the
resulting foundation wall be designed to act as a retaining wall
replacing the supporting material which will have been removed.
.. b). Drainage within the adjacent depression be made
positive so that ponding does not occur during spring runoff or
thunderstorm activity unless a retention pond or dry well is
" constructed to allow the water to percolate or evaporate to keep
the water from draining into the street storm sewer system.
c). The rear foundation wall be extended at least four
feet above grade, be without windows and be designed by an
engineer to withstand whatever small scale snow sliding that
could potentially reach the building.
+.
..
3
d). Soil engineering studies be conducted to insure
proper foundation design.
e). Drill one or more moderately deep holes to
,. determine whether subsidence potential exists at or near the site.
f). Consult an individual very familiar with the history
of mining in this particular area to establish that no mines or
,. shafts can affect the home site.
The applicant concurs with these recommendations and agrees to
follow same in the development of the proposed residence. In addition, the
foundation on Lot 20 will be designed and built to conform to the Seismic
Zone II criteria of the Uniform Building Code.
5-401.2(b) Avalanche Areas. As evidenced by the presence of a
,. dense, mature spruce and fir stand of trees, located upslope from Lot 20, the
property exhibits no history of avalanche activity.
5-401.2(e) Landslide Areas. Dr. Lampiris' report is submitted as
,, evidence that the area is free of landslide areas.
5-401.2(f) Potentially Unstable Slopes. The proposed building
~• envelope is located on a stable slope. Dr. Lampiris recommends that
~, Foundation walls be designed to accommodate any additional soil loading
associated with steeper areas, and to act as mechanical support for the slope.
The recommendations of Dr. Lampiris will be followed during construction of
the residence.
a 5-401.2(g) Rockfall Area. The proposed building envelope is not
in the "drop zone" of a rockfall areas, and the dense evergreen vegetation
located, on the adjacent Little Cloud P.U.D. Subdivision, upslope from the
,~ building envelope provides protection of the building envelope against any
rolling material which might reach the area. The foundations of Little Cloud
houses No.'s 3 and 4, located upslope will almost totally shelter the proposed
.. building envelope from any potential rockfall. The said houses will have
uphill retaining walls that protrude at least four feet above finished grade.
Landscaping will be placed on Lot 20 to provide additional protection. The
~' recommendations of Dr. Lampiris will be followed during construction of the
.. residence.
r
5-4q1 2(h) Slopes of 30% and Greater. Mitigation of slope
impacts is provided by the low erosive characteristics of the soils, the
4
.~
a. excellent upslope vegetative cover, and the detailed landscaping which will be
proposed for the site. Mechanical support will be provided for any cut slope
areas, and the use of retaining walls will assure slope stability and eliminate
the need to "lay back" slopes.
High Country Engineering's report, Exhibit "F", indicates that the
Applicant's intent to "step" the foundation into the hill will help with general
^~ stability, and help the structure fit into the site.
~.
There are some areas of slopes in excess of thirty percent within
the proposed building envelope. Stability of the soils will be enhanced by the
foundation walls being designed to accommodate any additional soil loading
.~ associated with steeper areas, and to act as mechanical support for the slope.
The presence of large timber located on the adjoining upslope property is
evidence of stable soils, and in fact the trees are themselves a significant
^- stabilizing influence. Extreme care will be exercised in the construction of the
,. residence to assure preservation of the existing spruce and fir trees. It is
obvious that protection of the existing vegetation has significant ascetic value,
' as well as environmental benefits.
,~ 5-401.2(1) -Alluvial fans. (j) -Talus Slones. (k) - Mancos Shale,
(1) -Faults (m) -Expansive Soil and Rock. These are not applicable to this
application.
..
,, 5-401.2(n) - Ground Subsidence. One or more relative deep holes
will be drilled as part of the soils investigation to check for ground
"' subsidence. Mr. Edwin J. Smart, who is very familiar with past mining
r activities in the Aspen area has written a letter stating that there has been no
history of mining activity that affects Lot 20. A copy of his letter is attached
as Exhibit "E".
y B. Section 5-403: Wildfire Hazard Areas
The applicant's proposed homesite does not lie within an area that
is designated on the Colorado State University Wildfire Hazard Area Map as
potentially being subject to wildfire hazard. A portion of the Little Cloud
Subdivision's, Copperopolis tract, located upslope has been identified as
'~ having a wildfire hazard. The upslope Subdivision will have a driveway
"' which will provide a separation of upslope vegetation from Lot 20.
Further, the vegetation on Lot 20 consists primarily of thin brush
type plants with a few evergreen trees and scrub oaks located in the
Southeasterly corner of the property. With the construction of the house and
5
.~
associated landscaping, undergrowth of plants contributing to favorable
wildfire con ditions will be controlled. The driveway from South Second Street
will permit emergency vehicle access. A fire hydrant, located at corner of
Second and Hyman streets, is approximatel y 320 feet from the house site, a
.. reasonable distance for use of fire hoses. Thus, Wildfire mitiga tion measures
will not be necessary.
"' C. Section 5-404: Wildlife Habitat Area
The property is not considered as critical habitat for mule deer or
elk. Portions of the adjacent upslope property above the 8,000 foot elevation
"' line were used as winter range by elk until the severe winter of 1983. Since
~. 1983 no elk have used the upslope property as winter habitat. Given the
impact of development that has occurred near the base of Shadow Mountain,
and the consequential increases in human impact, it is unlikely that elk will
return to the area.
While no wildlife impacts are present or expected on the property,
'" the proposed building envelope has been located in an area not historically
~' used as winter range.
III. GENERAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
,,, The following general regulations of the Pitkin County Land Use
Code were identified as being relevant to the proposed development.
~~
A. Section 5-101/5-102: Drainage and Erosion
"' A representative of High Country Engineering, Inc., Consulting
.. Engineers, visited the site to study engineering conditions associated with the
~, proposed development. High Country Engineers issued an engineering report
analyzing the situation and recommend appropriate mitigation techniques. A
complete copy of the engineer's report is attached as Exhibit "F".
-:r
A summary of the development issues with respect to drainage
_ and erosion control includes: a). The need for detention of a minor amount
'' of water volume which can be accomplished by adding a dry well if sufficient
., detention is not retained behind the existing railroad grade. b).
Construction of positive drainage away from all building improvements in all
directions; and, c). Erosion control during construction and during
~.
6
..
.~
revegetation by using silt fence or close placed straw bales to prevent silt
„_ from entering detention facility and leaving the pond outflow.
" The property has no defined water courses, and exhibits no
erosion due to water runoff. The soils are. generally well-drained and
cohesive. A portion of the depression formed by the old railroad bed will
continue to serve as a retention pond and if needed complimented with a dry
well settling basin to allow percolation and/or evaporation of any runoff. A
small portion of the depressed area will be filled to accommodate construction
of the driveway. The fill area, retention pond and/or dry well will be
designed in accordance with recommendations of the engineer to avoid any
compromise of the retention needs of the site.
On site construction will expose some new soil areas which might
r be subject to erosion. While the soils on site exhibit good resistance to
erosion, care will be exercised during construction to minimize disturbed
.~. areas and erosion mats will be placed wherever necessary. Recommendations
of the County's land management specialist and the applicant's engineer will
'~ be followed in respect to erosion control.
,,, Given the design of the site plan, and the nature of the terrain, no
soil loading of any kind is anticipated on the Roaring Fork River or its
r tributaries.
~, B. Section 5-103: Compatibility with Historic and
Archaeological Resources
No historic structures are present on site and no known
archaeological sites or resources are known to be present.
C. Section 5-104:
Compatibility with Agricultural Lands
and Operations
The site is not now in agricultural production and no evidence
'" exists to suggest agricultural use has been made of the site.
D. Section 5-105: Scenic Quality
The Applicant's comments on the various sub-sections of Scenic
.. Quality are as follows:
5-105.2(b) (1) Revegetation and reforestation. -The landscaping
~- for the property will be chosen to assure that the impacts of construction and
~. 7
..
.. resulting residence will be mitigated in a manner that is harmonious with
existing landscape materials. Douglas Fir and Colorado Blue Spruce will be
used as theme plantings due to their presence in the area and the year-
around screening effects they provide. Some Aspen trees will be used to
provide summer and fall effects of movement and color and to harmonize
with the aspen and cottonwood plantings found in the area. This will
additional compliment the approved landscaping plan of the adjoining Little
Cloud Subdivision.
~.
There is a small "spill over" from a mine tailings pile located on
the neighboring Little Cloud Subdivision. The spill over lies outside of the
proposed building envelope. It is anticipated that these tailings will be
removed or revegetated when a residence is constructed on Lot 2 of the Little
Cloud Subdivision.
All materials to be used in revegetation of the site are indigenous,
-~ and the stone to be used in construction of the landscape features, walls and
residence will be chosen for consistency with the color of the rock
outcroppings on Shadow Mountain. The applicant intends to complete
'" landscaping as an integrated part of the improvements.
~, 5-105.2(b)(2) Topsoil. - Any topsoil removed as part of
construction activities will be stockpiled on-site and used for revegetation
'~ and/or landscape installation.
5-105.2(b)(3) Weed Control. -While little, if any, weed problems
,~ are expected to occur as a result of development of the property, the
recommendations of the Pitkin County Land Management Department will be
" followed.
5-105.2(b)(4) Utility Installation. - All utilities required to
service the proposed residence will be placed underground within the
alignment of the access driveway from South Second Street, where practical.
.. Consequently no damage to the natural environment will occur as a result of
utility installation. An electric transformer, supplied by underground lines,
presently exists on the property and will be used to serve the property.
^' Connections for water, sewer, natural gas, telephone and cable T.V. lines are
.. located in the vicinity of the Southwest corner of the Aspen Ice Gardens.
'~ 5-105.2(b)(5) Scenic Views & Vistas. - The homesite has been
" chosen to take advantage of the views available and to minimiumize any
~. impact on adjacent prop erties. The homesite is to be buffered from
surrounding homes with s eparation, particularly from Lot 2 of Little Cloud
Subdivision by moving the proposed building envelope to the west side of the
property and by proposed landscaping.
r
8
~.
The combination of limited view angles available from adjacent
properties, anticipated landscaping and architectural treatments, and the
"' presence of existing vegetative cover will assure that adjacent property
owners are not adversely affected by the proposed building envelope. The
four homesites on the adjoining Little Cloud Subdivision have an approved
landscaping plan which is to be implemented when those lots are developed.
^~ A copy of Little Cloud's landscaping plan is shown on the 24" x 36"
~, Representational Plat included with this application.
5-105.2(b)(6) Road System ImQact. -The driveway will be an
"' extension of South Second Street. It will be designed to minimize
disturbances during construction and to blend with the surroundings. The
abandoned railroad bed will be excavated a maximum of 5.5 feet where the
'~ driveway crosses to permit a 8-10% grade to the residence from the end of
the payment on South Second Street. A 8-10% grade was chosen rather than
~, the 12% maximum permitted by County standards, due to driveway facing
"North", which is not as receptive to solar snow melt as a "South" facing
driveway. The proposed driveway width will vary from 12 feet and 20 feet
in width.
,.
High Country Engineers in their report, attached as Exhibit "F",
recommends that the driveway be entirely "in cut" and that if a fill portion
should become necessary, that a retaining wall be constructed to enhance
,,, stability and to minimize the extent of the downhill fill slope. In addition, the
engineers recommended that soils report be obtained which should contain
recommendations for road cut slopes. The Applicant agrees to follow the
engineers' recommendations.
Prior to initiation of driveway construction, the applicant shall
obtain access or street cut permits required by the City of Aspen Engineering
Department.
5-105.2(b)(7) Satellite Dishes. - Given the availability of cable
"" service, the applicant will covenant against such devices through appropriate
deed restrictions.
s E. Section 5-106: Air Quality
~.
Pitkin County guidelines suggest that each residence may generate
seven vehicular trips per day. The proximity of the residence to downtown
.. Aspen and the ability to ski from Aspen Mountain to the residence will, the
,- applicant believes, lessen actual vehicular trips.
9
r
r
Even if it
is assumed that seven trips per day
were generated, the
trips would likely be of short duration and would have n egligible impact on
Aspen's air quality. The low speeds expected on the 180 feet long driveway
~. will reduce particulate emissions. It is anticipated that
~, eventually be paved which will further reduce particulate the driveway will
emissions.
Applicant shall submit a fugitive dust plan to the County prior to
the issuance of a building permit and Applicant shall comply with County Air
Quality Standards in effect at the time of issuance of a building permit.
Dr. Lampiris in his geologic report states that the home should be
,. designed to prevent the accumulation of radon gas, which is becoming a
r standard practice in the State of Colorado. The recommendations of the
Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department will be followed with respect
to appropriate venting of the residence to control any radon gas which may be
,. present on the site.
"' F. Section 5-107: Water Resources Impacts
,,, The property will be served by the existing supplies available
through the City of Aspen. Sufficient capacity exists to serve the property.
~. Thus, no impact will be felt on existing water resources.
G. Section 5-200: Sewage Treatment and Collection
The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's system will provide
sewer service to the property. Sufficient capacity is available without system
modifications. Plans for a sewer line extension design shall be submitted and
approved by Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District prior to construction.
H. Section 5-201: Impacts on Road System.
A worst-case scenario would indicate that seven trips per day
°' would have to be accommodated by the existing road network. The driveway
from the residence connects to South Second Street. The first intersection
that exiting vehicles cross is the corner of Second and Hyman streets. Both
.. streets are currently operating well below their rated capacity. Consequently,
"' no upgrading of existing roadways will be necessary as a result of the
,. proposed residence.
..
..
10
I. Section 5-202: Road Design and Construction
'~ The design of the access driveway has been discussed in
' considerable detail in Section 5-105.2(b)(6), above. The driveway will be
.. privately constructed and maintained, consequently there will be no fiscal
impact on Pitkin County or the City of Aspen.
"' J. Section 5-203: Logical Extension of Utilities
The proposed residence will be served by existing utility lines
which will not require extension or upgrading. As previously stated,
"' underground Holy Cross electric lines and a electric transformer are installed
,. on the property. In addition, sewer, water, natural gas, telephone and cable
television lines are available within one block of the property.
K. Section 5-204: Impacts of Taxes and Management of
,. Necessary Services and facilities
It is expected that the proposed residence will be seasonally
occupied which assures that there will be no impact on the area's schools,
,~ recreation sites or other public facilities and services.
Significant tax benefits can be expected to accrue to public
agencies as a result of the residence and associated improvements
contemplated.
L. Section 5-205: Adequate Provision for Water Needs
and Fire Protection
Fire protection will be available from a Fire Hydrant located at the
' corner of Hyman Avenue and South Second Street. This is approximately 320
feet from the proposed building envelope. Sufficient capacity and pressure is
available to serve the proposed residence.
M. Section 5-300: Housing
..
This submission is exempt from employee housing requirements.
Applicant believes that the proposed residence will be seasonally occupied by
a family who will travel with their own maid. Thus, no demand for additional
employees in [he community is expected.
..
11
r
W N. Section 6-3.2: General Submission
Certain mapped and written descriptions of the proposal's
compliance with the criteria of the Land Use Code are contained in the body
.. of this application. The following item address requirements of General
Submission that are not include elsewhere in this application:
A. Title Insurance Commitment. A copy of the
Owner's Title Insurance Commitment, which is evidence of
ownership of record, is attached as Exhibit "G".
"' B. Adjacent property owners names and addresses.
The names and addresses of all adjacent owners have been
provided, both in list form as Exhibit "H", and on the stamped,
'~ addressed envelopes which accompany this submission.
ng" of
Attorney's Letter re ag rding possible "mer ig
C
,.,, _
.
title with adjacent properties. Attorney, Dennis Green, in a letter,
a copy which is attached as Exhibit "I", states that he has made
^" an examination of the chain of title regarding merging of
.., ownership of Lot 20. He concludes that Lot 20 has never
merged under the same ownership with any parcel of land that
~' joins it.
,., V. CONCLUSION
" The Applicant has responded to all criteria of the Pitkin County
Land Use Code applicable to the project, pursuant to direction given by the
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office. Sufficient evidence has been provided
of the project's compliance with said criteria and the applicant has made
commitments in order to insure that proposed homesite will mitigate all
•. development impacts.
Request by any reviewing agency for additional information, or
clarification of the statements made herein will be responded to by the
applicant in a timely manner.
12
.r,
a.
ar
*w
e~
ui
•i
,.
;r
~,
ar
,+
rr
a
«r
,r
~,
,r
a~
r
r
„rrr
EXHIBITS
TO
SECTION 1:
APPLICATION FOR 1041 HAZARD REVIEW
EXHIBITS:
A. Warranty Deeds - Grantees being present owners
B. Letter signed by owners consenting to Application
C. Vicinity Map - Showing general location of Lot 20
D. Geologist' Report
E. Edwin Smart's Letter - Re: No Mine tunne-s
F. Engineer's Report
G. Proof of Ownership - Commitment for Title Insurance
H. List of Adjacent Property owners.
I. Attorney's Letter, No merging with adjacent property
,I
er
a
a
r
r
r
1
A
i
w,
a
"rY
.,r
r
PccorJcd at e'cluck
Reuplion No.
M
""°""eaoR 511 ~
7811?
19 86.
ORETTABANHER
N CTY.RECORDER
SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED
HIS DEED. MWe min 21st dry of May
Iween
LYLE D. REEDER
rvmy of Pitkin
of IM ~
salt or CWaredo, yYnmrfal. and
WOLFTONE CORPORATION, A Colorado
Corporation
hose leyl YddrtY+k P. 0. Box 4859, Aspen, Colorado
81612
f,na Coumy of Pitkin .{u4 dCYleredo, vmYSe(D:
21 10 os AM `86
l.~ 2 ~ ~-
O
W ITNES{ETH, Tnu Ule {rYnwnal, fu anJ In egRWYMian of IIw wen of
Ten (510.00) and other good i Valua~b~~~co~n/~~r~~NU~a ~~
MrtulµW wmekncYOfwhkh knertby aehnavkd{ed.M 8 penRd.bu{JnM.
w{Jn, all, eonwy nld <onnrm. unm IM pwoee(q. it • Mln uA wI{ru farwer. dl Ne rtd propcnY, m{eUw wiln Imporomenu.
Cwmyd Pitkin .SUle or Colartlo,
d Yny, dwue. lyln{ w Miry in dR
kYeribed u follow:
An undivided three-fourths interest,
LOT 20, Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 Weat of the
6th P. M., according to the Dependent Roeurvey and Survey,
approved by the United Staten Bureau o! Land Management,
dated February 14, 1980, filed with the Bureau of Land
Management, Colorado State Office on May 30, 1980 and the
U. S. Patent therefor recorded in Book 508 at Page 699
Pitkin County, Colorado
.4Y
n
county of Pitkin 21st a.y nr May .w86
TM fort{oin{ imwment wu Yc4nuwkJ{eJ Mfurt nw Ibia
yy LYLE D. REEDER
GRANTEE TAKES TITLE SUBJECT TO FIRST DEED OF TRUST IN
THE AMOUNT OF ;25,000.00 IN FAVOR OF STANFORD N. JOHNSON,
DATED APRIL 21, 1986, RECORDED APRIL 21, 1986 IN BOOK 509
AT PAGE 340. '
alw 4nwvn by weel YM number u:
TOGETHER wish all YM do{ulu IM MrtdilYmtnU end eppyrlenmKee dRrta Mbn{in{, u fn Ynywiu Yppenainin{. Yrd Illt menian W
rtveniau, rtmYindu mM rtmYinden. rtnu. IYwea erd poM1U IMrtoh ud JI UR Beale, ri{hl, lick. krrtR, elaim and demaM wheuaevtr of IM
yrYnlar(Y), eilhu k kw' or equity, oL in Yrd a UR Ybv.e 6R{YiRed prtmiw, wW IM Mrediumew W eppunewRes its Min Ynd
TO NAVE AND TO HOLD IM aid prtmuea YDmt bur{Yined ~ gibed wish UN YPpwY:nYlleta. umo IM {nnleeal.
wi{na fon:vtr.TM pmlw,(aG for h18 eel f hi/ Min Ynd perRmJ rtpreaem.liwea auccsnora. dre/ <ovenYnl eld ryadW
he atoll a:d wlll WARRANT AND {OREV ERDDEPEN~ryM veM.t `nberyined~ mke~~n~Quk~endM eenwlY p~%nJC~nep mM+rrslaA
its MIn YnJ wi{m.u{Yinn Ull Ynll entry pc
IN WITNE{{ WHEREOF, IM yannvl•I M e saeeuRd rule Jttd en IM due nl null IIbWt. .I .
_i_
~'T
L E D. REEDE .: ! 'j,,; : m
•oo
1 f~ ~~
Y, ~\
i '•'o~ .~~ l~~o'...
STATE OF COIARADO
W nneu mY ~ a"d ofllek uQ
My m mbn eapi a JI S 9
Nnn A4i,
L 9f in Denver. Imes "ury Yw. _._. -__. EXHIBTT Y` A fr
....._......vnoR :no yn«.n
NY. 16. RiY. yr<e, mYA'In1. WAMRANfY Ui.' . ... ...... .
,.., ~
Decepion No.
PecoNed u oYloct _ M.
acoK 5'.1J P:,6c
4~
[aaadrr
WARRANTY DEED
i 277256
THIS DEED, Made this 15th day of April •i9 s6•
betwan WOLFTONE CORPORATION, 8 Lyle D.
Reeder, P. 0. Box 4859, Aspen, C0.81612
^ corporation duly or{anizcd and existin{ under and by virtue of the laws of the Sun
of Colorado . {Howe [nd
STANFORD H. JOHNSON
a
a
a
a
w
rs
i
wlwx le{al addnss is P. O. Hox 406, Aapen, CO. 81612
LORETTA BAtINER
PITKIN CTY. RECORDER
Are IS 4 s3 PH'86
of the •County of Pitkin .Sloe of Colurodu. {ranee: ~'~
WITNESSETH, That the {ranwr. for and in consideration of the sum of
Ten (510.00) ______________________________________________ pOLLARS.~
the rtc<ipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowleJ{ed. hu {ranteJ. buplnM, sold and enmgxd. and by these prtunu doer 'I
{ram, bupin, sell, convey and confirm, unto the {Hoot, his heirs and auipns fismxz ell the rtal pnspcny, to{ether with
impmvcmenu, if any, situau, lyin{ and bein{ in the County of Pitkin
Sum of Colorado, described u follows '!
An undivided one-fourth interest, ,I
Lot 20, Soctlon 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the i;
6th P. M., according to the Dependent Resurvey and Survey,
approved by the United States eureau of Land Management, dated
February 14, 1980, filed with the Bureau of Land Managament,
Colorado State Offlco on May 30, 1980 and the U. S. Pate_fs
therefor recorded in Book 508 at Page 699 t•• 'F.D000MENT~
Pitkin County, Colorado
APR 1519E
also known by strtel and number u:
~ /
TOGETHER with di and sin{ulv ,hc hertdium<nls anJ aDpunenuneo sherchs helnnpin{, or in anywlsl;~[
reversion and tevenions, remainder and nmainden, rents, issues and pwflss deteof. and all the estate, ri{ht, title. inercss, claim and
demand whatsoever of the {raptor. eider in law or equity, aL in and m the shots her{aired pnmies, wish she henditaments and
appuncnanccs.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the uid prtmiscs above bu{aired asd dcuribed with the aDpunetunces, umo she `ranee, his hcin and
usi{ns forever. And the {rancor. for i1u1f, and its sucttsson. does coveMns. {nos. bar{ain and a{tee w and with the {ranee. his heir
and usi{u, she n she time of she ensalin{ and delivery of these prtsents. It is well uiaed of the prtmises above conveyed. hu {ood.
Buse, perfect, absoluu and indefeuible Hue of inheritance. In law, in fee cimpk, and hu {ood ri{ht. full paver and authority to {Taos,
bu{ain, ell and convey she came in manner and form u afarcuid, and slut she ume an free and cite Isom all former and other {row,
bvpins, sales, liens, sues, usessmenu, encumbrances and rcsWctions of whauver kind or noun sueven ucep
easements of record.
The gnnwr shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the nbove-bar{aimd prtmiaes in she qufa cud peaceable
posussion of the [ranee, his h<in and usi{u, a{slut all and every person or persons lawfully claimin{the whole or any put dettroL
The sin{ulv number shall include Uu plural, the plural she stn{ulu, and the uu of any {ender atoll be applicable to ul {eraien.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The {ranwr hu xauud iu corporate name to be henunto suhuribed by iu
President, and its corporau seal to be henumo affixed, ousted by is Secrttary. the day and yxu flnt
above written.
Atusc ~
_~/is,_,~., ~~~ ~~ _ ~ ~` WO FTONE CORPORATION
HENRY W ~THURST~, III By ,~~ ~( j) ~,~~
7
LYLE D. REEDER
STATE OF COIARADO
u.
County of Pitkin
..
Th< fort{oin{ inswment wu acknowied{ed befon me this
by LYLE D. REEDER
and HENRY W. THUASTON, III
of WOLFTONE CORPORATION
My commission upirts s~ .,~,~ . yaL,
Wimess my hand and official seal.
•If In Denver. Insert "City and."
15n~ day or April, .1986
u prcsidcm
u '~ Segetary I ,
C a~ofeon?on.
d c1J.(~ c • ! rub. 'i ~Jf~ ` J
~ '• .NSt dpl~ '~ t
...... „
No. apB. Rev. 3-a1. WAaaANfYD[[p tce,puMal hlAra tyReey. al:lWWM.. WwW.eO q:n-nDar7aliaeD Fn ~~
.~
~.
June 1, 1989
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office
City Hall
.. 130 S. Galena Street
,~ Aspen, Colorado 8161 1
Re: '333 S. Second Street Lot Split/P.U.D./1041 Review Application.
Dear Ladies 8~ Gentlemen:
The undersigned hereby authorizes Lyle D. Reeder to act in
behalf of Wolftone Corporation, Silviculture, Inc., Stanford H. Johnson and
himself, as joint applicants, in matters relating to the DENSITY REDUCTION
,~ LOT SPLIT, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT end 1041 REVIEW application to be
processed for the Pitkin County land tracts known as:
1. Government Lot 20.
~, 2. Portion of Government Lot 1.
3. "Triangle' portion of Sibley Lode Mining Claim.
"' You may contact, Lyle Reeder by phone at: (303) 925-5360
~- or write to him at: P. 0. Box 4859, Aspen, Colorado 81612.
r
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
,.
r WOLFTONF~ORPORATION
6y --~~~ - re nt
~.
SILVICULTURE, INC.
~+ 8y President
~.
~- ldr se
R NSON, n ~vidually
.~,
LYLE D. REEDER, Individually
EXHIBIT "B"
~.
~.
~.
~.
..
,.
..
r
w
a
+w
i
v
r
~ ~~ I~ ~ ~
LOCA't® A7:
333 S. SHCOND STl;EB7
ASPSN.COLOgADO x1611
VICINITY MAP
EXHIBIT "C"
r
Elks Building
S 10 E. Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 8161 t
(303)925-3717
Apr1122, 1991
Aspen-Pitkia County Planning Office
130 S. Galena Sueet
Aspen, Colorado 81611
1'fe: Historical Mining Activities is the vicinity oC GL")iibici~iiriiuv7 L(1T Z0.
located is the SB 1 /4 of Section 12,'C.1 OS., ReS '~• ~' the 6th P. M.,
°' Aspen, Colorado.
Ladies & Gentlemen:
-. 1 have been requested by Mr. Lyle Reeder fa infamatioa as to
,, the location ~ any miaiag tunnels and shafts that may be located on or
under Lot 20, which is located southwesterly from the Aspen Ice Gatdens.
,.
I have bees persoanlly involved is variow mining activities in
the Aapea area for many years. During this Ume I have collected many old
ham v~ amined sad iaspectad au Shad w Mafia sin mining Properties. ition, t
r
Based on all evidence, documents sad visual inspection, it is my
opinion that there has sever been any tunneling under Lot 20.
Should you have any questions, please contact me at your
convenience.
,r Very truly yours,
Bdwia ). S t
E}S kw
earl.
~- EXHIBIT "E"
~_ ,O
o;
~ A ~ ~ ~
~ ~~ ,..
,aj~ ~
• IA •!
rte, ~"~ ~ ' ~'
i/~ /
~ / .~ .~
i
•~' .i
/~ ~
~// •• .•
~./ , ~•
~, .~ ~ .r:
./ );uj ..K3J
„"/,'/
.+ ,, . ~ ~:
r n' ~ ~ i.. • ~ j
it ' ~ ~_ ~. 'i
I ~
~ ~. C ~ •', ~ ~ 'Vi'a ,.
e / O
r ~ ~ -_ ~_
A
'JV
' '' ;. ~ Cem tery
.,~~ ' _ ~ _
r ~ p / 3 ~ / '~i
A ~ ~ ! Q~ ~~
.m 1 w ~
•~.
.. ~ / -- i
~~~
r ;..•
~, .; -' Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D.s
/~' ~~'~''~' ~ ' ~ 7i~(h CONSULTING GEOLOGIST ~
i
0~3e•.•~ ~~''.) ''~~G~
• ~.:, r«1
~• +.
I.. "~ ''' . ':i .' ~
~. ~. ; r •-
S '".; a •.' ~ S• 1 .f'
.~~
.~:-
.. -
'~..
•.-~n ~~
'. ~• 'O .,
2
~ I
.r,, f~(l~ ~ ~
,Y • ~a\ ~ ~ JuJ
N y' 4
V J
/ ~ l'
• j C rT~ ~ ~ 0
y ~'. A I
i.. ~ Q ,
i T
~~
Q ~ i i ' ~s~
~`-. ~~ Y
~• •, ~ I
/ ..._. I
f !'
l /~ I I i
l `.. I
~~Z
.~ 3 i
m
m
Z~ p I
o ,I
Y •~ ;1 J
'"~~1 L
+t °L ~ 3 ~
1
' r
~~
~.
~.
<,
r
Lyle Reeder
P.O. Box 4859
r Aspen, CO 81612
'" Re: Engineering Report
Shadow Mountain - East, Lot 20
HCE File Number 91016.001
Dear Mr. Reeder:
.~
This letter comprises our engineering report for the above
'" referenced property. St is our understanding that this project
,. consists of one single family residence. The lot is located
adjacent to the City of Aspen, at the southerly end of South Second
Street, southwesterly of the Aspen Ice Garden.
~ DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL
If the improvements are located as the Lampiris report suggests,
~ that is, in the southwesterly portion of the lot, we believe that
there could be no significant effect on historic drainage patterns.
this location also minimizes any effect of off site drainage
basins, such that they should have essentially no impact on the
building site.
The small percentage of lot covered by proposed improvements
~ indicates that there would not be a significant increase in runoff
flows over existing conditions. However, there will be some
increase, and a minor amount of detention volume will be required.
Runoff from the site has historically been detained behind the
existing railroad grade. This appears to be an acceptable solution
for the developed site also. It may be necessary to construct a
drywall in the historic detention area to increase the detention
volume available, and/or to increase the rate of groundwater
„ recharge. With the proper amount of detention, historic runoff
levels will be maintained, and there should be no additional impact
w on downstream facilities.
All building improvements located on the site should be constructed
such that they have positive drainage away from them in all
directions. This would likely involve a small berm/ditch on the
~, uphill side of all structures to direct drainage around the
structure.
..
EXHIBIT "F"
923 Cooper Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
.. Telephone: 303.945.8676 303.920.3669 FAX: 303.945-2555
0
April 29, 1991
Lyle Reeder
April 29, 1991
Page 2
Even considering the slope of the site, there should be no unusual
' erosion problems when compared with similar sites in the area.
r Erosion control would normally be a Concern only during
construction activities, and while the disturbed areas are being
.. revegetnted. The control during this time would not need to be
anything very elaborate. It could consist of small
collection/diversion ditches which lead to a small collection pond.
,, The pond outflow should bar silt from leaving the site by using a
synthetic filter fabric silt Pence, or just closely placed straw
+~ bales. If a drywell is installed for a permanent detention
facility, it could be used as part of the pond, and the silt fence
or straw bales could be used to prevent silt from entering it.
WATER PROVISION
The proposed residence can be served by the existing City of Aspen
• water system, which is nearby. Fire protection would also be
available from the existing City water system.
,s SEWAGE TREATMENT
,, The sewer service line from the proposed residence can be tapped
into the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's line in South
Second Street. Of course, a tap fee would be required to tie into
their system.
~. ROAD DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
Aecesa to the site is proposed to be from South Second Street.
From existing topographic mopping, it appears that an access can be
' constructed with maximum grades of 10E, which is less than the
County maximum for driveways. The construction should, of course,
meet all applicable County Standards for driveways. Also, we
~ recommend that, for long term stability, where the driveway
traverses Lhe hillside, the section be entirely in cut. That is,
^~ we do not recommend a fill on the downhill portion of the road
r section. If a fill portion should become necessary for some
reason, however, we recommend that a retaining wall be constructed
~, to enhance stability, and to minimize the extent of the downhill
fill slope. We expect that a soils report will be obtained later,
°~ and it should contain recommendations for road cut slopes.
..
~.
..
Lyle Reeder
April 29, 1991
Page 3
~ EXTENSION OF UTILITIES
In addition to the water and sewer, the other normal supporting
'" utilities are also available near the southerly end of South Second
Street. Since this is a single family residence, the only
extension of utilities required will be the running of service
,, lines.
BUILDING FOUNDATION
'" We believe that the recommendations of the geologist, the desires
_ of the owner, and the requirements of the site can be met with the
use of normal structural engineering practices. The intent to
.. "step" the foundation into the hill will help with general
stability, and help the structure Pit into the sits.
In conclusion, we do not believe that the development of this
property in the manner proposed will result in any significant
negative impacts. If you have any questions or need additional
information, please call.
sincerely yours,
a
,,,~ HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC.
lU~.
"' Ti thy P• Beck, P.E.
Pr cipal Engineer
~.
..
~.
w
.r
..
xm Na 1343 (CO.90)
.TA Plain Lan9uape Commitment
r
~,
~.
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
ISSUED BY
agent for
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
AGREEMENT TO ISSUE POLICY
..
' FIRSTAMERICANTITLEINSURANCECOMPANY,referredtointhlaCommltmentastheCompany,
through its agent,Identifledabove,referredtolnthleAgreementastheAgent,agreeatolsaueapollcyto
you according t'o the terms of this Commitment When we show the, policy amount and your name as the
proposedlnsuredinScheduleA,thisCommltmentbecomeaeffectiveasoftheCommltmentDateahown
in Schedule A.
~ If the RequlrementashownlnthisCommltmenthavenotbeenmetwlthinslxmonthsaftertheCom-
mitmentdate, ourobllgation underthlaCommitmentwill endAlso ourobllgation underthlsCommltment
will end when the Policy la Issued and then ourobllgation to y~will be under the Policy.
"" Our obligation under this Commitment Ia limited by the.following:
"' The Provisions In Schedule A.
m ,.
~ The Requirements in Schedule B-1.
The Exceptions In Schedule B•2.
The Conditions on the reverse aide of this page
r
~, This Commitment is not valid without SCHEDULE A and Sections 1 and 2 of SCHEDULE B.
..
a First America/Jn Title Insurance Company
,• BY ~~~ PRESIDENT
.,.
BY ~~,~,~~ c.3~,,~..,y~, SECRETARY
EXHIBTT "G"
,~,~ BY ~ COUNTERSIGNED
~~~1~E Ips~~'~
W '~~ F P B A~~~' ~
i x ~" ~'
o 0
r '. $EPFEMBfR 24. ~ y
d '• 1968 ~ a
r~ ~Al I F O R M~a~
~.
• Form 1768-A
^•+ Commltm~nt, SchWul~A
Lyle Reeder
,_ P.O. Box 4859
Aspen, CO 81612
SCHEDULE A
~ Custaner Reference No. Wolftone/Johnson/Reader
1. Effective Date: December 3, 1990 at 7:00 A.M. CommltmentNo: 400994-C
,.
PL/JP
r
2. Policy or Policies to be issued: Amount
r (a) ^ ALTA Owner's Policy S
Proposed Insured: TO BE DETERMINED
Ibl ^ ALTA Loan Policy S
a Proposed Insured:
Icl ^
"' 3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to In this commitment end covered herein is fee simple and
title thereto is at the effective date hereof vested in:
a
WOLFTONE CORPORATION, a Colorado corporation, as to an undivided
3/4 Interest 8 STANFORD H. JOHNSON, as to an undivided 1/4
"' Interest as to Parcel A, 8 LYLE D. REEDER as to Parcel B
4. The land referred to In this commitment is
LEGAL DESCRIPTION SET FORTH ON SHEET ATTACHED
HERETO AND BY TH15 REFERENCE INOORPOf2ATED HEREIN
AND MADE A PART HEREOF.
w
~ Owner's Premitms E CC's to:
Lender's Premium: S Lyle Reeder
Add'i Charges: E 138.00
,~ Tax Certificate: $
TOTAL CHARGES: ~
~.
r
~,~ Order No. 400994-C
Plat I.D. (~
SCHEDULE A (continued)
+r Covering the Land in the State of Colorado, County of Pitkin, Described as follows:
PARCEL A:
r
Government Lot 20 located In the SE1/4 of Section 12, Township 10 South, Range
85 West of the 6th P. M.
m
PARCEL B:
a
All that portion of the SIBLEY Lode Mining claim (United States Mineral Survey
F9609AM) lying Easterly of the line 2-3 of the Mollie G. Lode Mining claim
(United States Mineral Survey #7577) and more particularly described as
"~ follows:
Beginning at corner 4 of the Sibley Lode, thence northwesterly along Ilne 4-5
~" of .the Sibley Lode to line 2-3 of the Molle G. Lode H55°3618"W 15.38 feet
more or less;
thence southerly along line 2-3 of the Mollie G. Lode to line 3-4 to tl:e
~, Sibley Lode S 15°05'48" W 19.54 feet more or less]
thence northeasterly along Ilne 3-4 of the Sibley to Corner number 4 the point
of beginning N60°12' E 20.46 feet more or less.
w
r
r
a
r
v
Form 1766-at
'^" Commitment, Seh,dub B-1
SCHEDULE B • Section 1 No.
.. 400994-C
Requirements
The following are the requirements to be compiled with:
Item la) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or
interest to be inwred.
+r Item (b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be Insured must be executed and duly filed for
record, to-wit:
«. 1. Release by the Public Trustee of Pltkln County of the Deed of Trust from
Lyle D. Reeder for the use of Stanford H. Johnson, to secure E25,000,00,
dated April 21, 1986, and recorded April 21, 1988, In Book 509 at Page
® 340,
„~ 2, Release by the Publlc Trustee of Pltkln County of the Deed of Trust from
Wolftone Corporation, a Colorado corporation for the use of Stanford H.
~' Johnson, to secure $50,000.00, dated July 18, 1986, and recorded July
18, 1986, In Book 514 at Page 778.
r 3. Deod from Wolftone Corporation, a Colorado corporation, Stanford H.
Johnson, and Lyle D. Raeder to a buyer to be determined.,
' THE COMPANY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CONDUCT AN ADDITIONAL SEARCH OF THE
RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK AND RECORDER FOR PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO FOR JUDGMENT LIENS, TAX LIENS OR OTHER SIMILAR OR DISSIMILAR
INVOLUNTARY h1ATTERS AFFECTING THE GRANTEE OR GRANTEES, AND TO MAKE SUCH
~ ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AS IT DEEMS NECESSARY, AFTER THE IDENTITY OF THE
GRANTEE OR GRANTEES HAS BEEN DISCLOSED TO TFIE COMPANY.
,. NOTE: THIS COMMIThENT IS ISSUED UPON THE EXPRESS AGREEMENT AND
UNDERSTANDING THAT THE APPLICABLE PREMIUMS, CHARGES AND FEES SHALL BE
PAID BY THE APPLICANT IF THE APPLICANT AND/OR ITS DESIGNEE OR NOMINEE
CLOSES THE TRANSACTION ppNTEMPLATED BY OR OTHERWISE RELIES UPON THE
"` COMMIThENT, ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITIi 1HE RULES AND SCHEDULES OF RATES ON
,, FILE WITH THE OOLORADO DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE.
.W
...
+ Form 1756- B21Modified i/64)
• Commitment, Schedule B~2
a Colorado
Order No. 400994-C
r SCHEDULE B -Section 2
Exceptions
The policy or policies to beissuedwillconlainexceplionstothetollowingunlessthesamearedisposedofto
the satisfaction of the Company.
Any loss or damage, including attorney fees, by reason of the matters shown below:
1. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could ascer-
" tained by an Inspection of said land or by making Inquiry of persons in possession thereof.
2. Easements or claims of easement which are not shown by the public records.
3. Discrepancies,conflictsinboundarylines,shortageinarea,encroachmentsandanyolhertactsw Ic
a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by public records.
~, 4. Any water rights or claims or title to water in, on or under the land.
,, 5. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter lurnlshed,Imposed by
law and not shown by the public records.
6. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, Ii any, created, first appearing in the
public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the dale the proposed
Insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this
"~ commitment.
7, Taxes due and payable; and any tax, special assessments, charge or Ilan Imposed
for water or sewer service, or for any other special taxing district.
' 8. Right of the Pro prletor of a Veln or Lode to extract and remove his ore
r therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or Intersect the premises
hereby granted, as reserved In United States Patent recorded August 26,
1949, In Book 175 at Page 298.
a 9, Right of way for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the
,. United States, as reserved In United States Patent recorded April 10, 1986,
In Book 508 at Page 699.
10, Easement and right of way for electric transmission Tine purposes as
' granted by the Wolftone corporation to the Holy Cross Electric Association,
Inc. by Instrument recorded April 10, 1986, in Book 508 at Page 700 and In
Book 514 at Pages 208 and 210.
,~ 11. Wolftone CorporatlonftoatheoAspenaSanitatlonpDistrictgbyninstrument
- recorded April 10, 1986, in Book 508 at Page 702.
"" 12. Easement and right of way for road purposes as granted by the Wolftone
# Corporaiton to the United States by Instrument recorded April 10, 1986, In
Book 508 at Page 703.
.. (Continued)
Exceptions numher_ - ....- .. -__ .__-___are herobv omitted.
~. Commitment No, 400994 -C
EXCEPTIONS - continued
~ 13. Easement and right of way for sewer and other utility purposes as granted
by the Wolfione Corporation to John R. Tucker III by Instrument recorded
April 10, 1986, In Book 508 at Page 707.
~, 14. Easement and right of way for road and utility purposes as granted by the
Wolftone Corporation to Richard Pyritz, Jr. by Instrument recorded April
10, 1986, In Book 508 at Page 709.
a 15. Any and all unredeemed tax sales.
a
NOTE: Upon receipt of a Certificate of Taxes Due evidencing that there are
.. no existing open tax sales, the above exception will not appear on the
policies to be Issued hereunder.
4
r
.,,
r
».
..
..
~.
,.
w
..
GOVERNMENT LOT 20
1041 HAZARD REVIEW ~ GENERAL SUBMISSION
NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
1. 'FIRESIDE LODGE' PROPERTY: 7. SIBLEY LODE MINING CLAIM (Lower):
Mr. Peier Mocklin
P. 0. Box 807
Aspen, Colorado 61612
2. BLOCK 54, LOTS K, L, M, N ~ 0:
Mr. Fernando Gonzalez Parrs
Oveclones
Lego Iirehuvn, +279
Mexico 17, D.F., MENICO
3. BLOCK 54, LOTS P ~ Q:
Mr. Ramon Gonzalez Perna
Ms. Maregarlte Pame
Oveclonea
Lego Ilrehuen, +279
Mexico 17, D.F., MEIIILO
d. BLOCK 54, LOTS R ~ S:
Mr. Andrew J. McKelvey
R T. M. P., Inc.
1633 Droedwey
New York, NY 10019
5. MOLLIE G. LODE MINING LLAIMI
6. COPPEROPOLIS LODE MINING CLAIM (Lower)
(Both owned by:)
Mr. John R. Tucker, I I I
1102Hancock Street
Case Grande, A2 85222
CottonwoodGerdeneDevel opmentCorporetton
R Donald O'Ne11 Neck
7322 E. Thomas Road
Scottsdale, AZ 85251
8. KOCH PARK)
9. LITTLE CLOUD PARK}
10. BLOCK d7 (except N. pert of Lots F, N A I)
(A11 three owned by:)
Cltpof ABDeO
130 S. Getena Street
Aspen, Colorado B 1611
1 1. PORTION OF 8'YT LOT 1:
Lyle D. Reeder
P. 0. Box 4859
Aspen, Colorado 81612
EXHIBIT "H"
,.
r
TELEPHONE 303-925-1885
s
DENNIS B. GREEN
Attorney at Law
617 W. MAIN ST., SUITE B
ASPEN. COLORADO ri161 I
June 9, 1991
Ms. Ellen Sassano
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office
TELECOPIER 303-925-5656
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Examination of chain of title to "Lot 20" for merger of title
with any adjoining property.
..
Dear Ms. Sassano:
At the request of Mr. Lyle Reeder 1 have completed a detailed
examination of the chain of title to Lot 20, which is located in Section 12,
Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P. M. The purpose of of the
examination was to determine whether in the history of Lot 20 any of its
owners was concurrently the owner of an adjoining parcel of land. Lot 20
"' was owed by "The United States of America" until April 2, 1986 the date that
.. the Bureau of Land Management issued a U. S. Patent to the Wolftone
Corporation .
,~
I hereby certify that my examination confirms that no owner of
Lot 20 has been an owner of record of any real property that is contiguous to,
adjacent to, or adjoining Lot 20.
°' Should you wish more detailed information regarding the
~. examination please contact me at your convenience.
~.
~. Very truly yours,
~
~,z„
,
".
~.
W
DBG sw
EXHIBIT "I"
Dennis B. Green
L
i
r
~.
C
i"'
~~
r
L.
r
L
r
~.
L.
C
C
L
PREPARED
BY
~Y~E REEDER
Po ®, S®X 4859
ASPEN, COLORAD® 81692
X303) 925-5360
C
~- May 13, 1991
SECTION 2: APPLICANT'S EVALUATION FOR A POTENTIAL "TRAIL"
AND/OR RAIL CORRIDOR ACROSS LOT 20
1. Introduction. This trail report, is being submitted in
response to the request by the Planning Office that is stated in Paragraph 11,
,,, of the Pre-application Conference Summary Letter, dated November 5, 1990.
This report addresses the potential for establishing a trail and/or rail
'~ corridor easement across Lot 20.
~, For convenience this report is packaged in the same booklet with
the 1041 Review application. However, it is a separate item and should not
be considered a part of the 1041 Review application.
~.
2. Background information. Lot 20 was owned by the U. S.
Government until April 2, 1986, at which time a U. S. Patent was issued to
Wolftone Corporation pursuant to a land exchange agreement. Both the City
and County were notified of the exchange. Neither entity raised any
,~ objections to the exchange. A copy of the U.S. Patent that created Lot 20 is
attached as Appendix "A". Two newspaper articles publicizing the land
^- exchange that resulted in the Government issuing the Patent to Lot 20 were
.. published on July 7, 1983 and June 20, 1985. A copy of each article is
attached as Appendix "8".
3. Potential for Rail Corridor across Lot 20. The former
Midland Railroad "right-of-way" does not appear to be a viable corridor for a
rail system. The Pitkin County Commissioners in their Resolution No. 90-
120, recorded November 26, 1990, which approved the adjoining Little Cloud
P.U.D. Subdivision determined that the Little Cloud applicant was not required
,. to maintain the Midland right-of-way open as a transportation corridor
because the corridor was not shown on the Transportation Element of the
Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. In fact, the P.U.D. approval designates that
House No. 1 be built on the old railroad bed.
Lot 20's proposed building envelope allows for construction of a
residence and garage that will not be in conflict with a Rail Corridor should
it be proposed and adopted sometime in the future. In the 104 i Review
~, process the Lot 20 Applicant should not be required to maintain the historic
right-of way as an open corridor due to the fact that said corridor is not
presently shown on the Transportation Element of the Aspen Area
1
Comprehensive Plan. The County Commissioners have affirmed this position
by their actions in approving the Little Cloud P.U.D. Subdivision.
" 4. Background information regarding trail. The abandoned
.. railroad bed of the former Midland Railroad crosses Lot 20 and in recent
years has been used by the Public for hiking, bicycling and cross-country
skiing. The trail originates in Koch Park, traverses the base of Shadow
i Mountain, crosses the Marolt pedestrian bridge and eventually arrives in
Snowmass.
5. No Prescriptive or Public Easement exists across Lot
20. The "trail" across Lot 20 is located on private property. No dedicated or
prescriptive easement across Lot 20 exists for Public use. Any claim of
~, adverse possession or prescriptive easement that may arise can only be
based on a commencement date of April 2, 1986, approximately five years
ago. The new owner permitted the public to use the trail for about 4 1/2
,. years, after which the owner took steps to assert the claim of private
ownership by blocking the use of the frail.
Mr. Hal Clark of the Pitkin County Parks Association, in the "Green
,~ Speaks" publication, dated Fall, 1990, stated: "The Aspen City Attorney has
advised that public trail rights (prescriptive only, it appears) were never
r established on the property due to prior government ownership." A copy of the
article is attached as Appendix "C"
6. Published Articles regarding "closing" of trail. Copies
" of several published articles about the owner "closing" the frail in the
summer of 1990 and the Public reactions are attached as Appendix "D". The
owner's right to close the trail has not challenge by any Court actions to
date. The owner has concerns about his liability exposure from potential
~' personal injury claims by permitting the Public to trespass across Lot 20.
7. Owners reserving right to close trail across Lot 20.
The owner continues to reserve the right to close the trail to the "Public"
using such methods as posting signs, fencing, excavating a portion of and
placing large boulders upon Lot 20 at any time without notice.
8. Legal status of trail. There appears to be a misconception
by a segment of the Public that the trail easement can be extracted as a
condition for approval of the 1041 Review application. In recent years it
was established by case law that an easement generally cannot be extracted
..
as part of a land development that does not give something to the
°' development beyond what the development is entitled to receive. Extractions
2
..
~. are apparen tly still possible in the case of Lot Splits and Subdivision
Applications. Two legal cases that support the Applicant's position that the
frail cannot be extracted as a condition for receiving the 1041 Review
"' approval are Nollan v. Californi a Costal Co mmission. cited legally as S.Ct.
.. 3141 (1987), and a more recent case, believed to be entitled Surfside Colony
,~ Homeowners Association v. C alifornia Co stal Commission, citation not
conveniently available.
9. Options available to City/County for acquiring a trail
easement across Lot 20. If the Public wishes fo have a trail established
across Lot 20 it must be either negotiated for or condemned. The
establishment of a trail easement across Lot 20, either by negotiation or
,. condemnation, will negatively impact its value. Increased separation by
,~ distance between the trail and residence reduces the damages. If the
proposed house is located in an elevated position on the west side of the
Building envelope, the negative impact will be reduced since the trail would
.. be below the view plane from windows of the house. If the house is located
to the east side of the building envelope, at a lower elevation, traffic on the
"' proposed frail will be highly visible from within the house. Thus, having a
greater negative impact. The location of the trail in relation to the location
of the house influences the amount of damages to the property. Applicant's
comments regarding both options follows:
A. ~ Condemnation. Historically the Courts in
., condemnation proceedings generally compensates the owner for damages
caused, in this case, by the negative impacting of privacy caused by the trail
being located close to the building. Costs to be paid by the condemning
authority includes damages, cost of an appraisal on behalf of the property
owner, the owner's legal defense costs; and in addition, their own legal
costs, appraisal costs and court costs.
..
~. B. By Negotiations. Negotiations are always the
,, preferred method for achieving a goal. The owner of Lot 20 has been willing
to negotiate a sale of a frail easement across Lot 20, since February 7, 1989,
the date an Annexation proposal was submitted to the City. .
10. Appraisal Report. The Cify had an "Appraisal" letter
prepared of the Fair Market Value for proposed trail easements located at the
" base of Shadow Mountain. A Preliminary Estimate of Fair Market Value
Letter was made by High Country Appraisal Associates, Carbondale, Colorado
as of September 2, 1988. The estimated value for the trail easement across
w
Lot 20 was $75,000.00. The trail was designated as being on the old
~° railroad bed. A copy of the "Appraisal" report is attached as Appendix "E".
~.
3
.~
11. Negotiations with City for trail easement. On
February 7, 1989, approximately 27 months ago, the Applicant proposed a
"" sale of the trail easement across Lot 20 in a letter, dated February 7, 1989,
addressed to Mr. Ron Mitchell, Asst. City Manager as part of an Annexation to
the City of Aspen. The proposed sale price was $75,000.00. Since that time
the City has ~ made a counter offer to purchase the trail. In summer 1990,
' the owner proposed that the City commence negotiations by getting a current
appraisal of the value of the trail easement upon which negotiations could be
based. The response was that the City did not have money to pay for an
appraisal.
12. Possible changes in a
conflict in traffic flow between trail &
believes that three alternative choices are
driveway to eliminate the accident hazards of
~. the driveway. Comments about each alternative
'riveway design to avoid
driveway. The Applicant
available for locating the
trail crossing on grade with
is set forth below:
No. 1. Realign trail to "North" to co-exist with 2rooosed drivewav
contained in 1041 Review. This option is the least expensive and least
costly to construct. By moving the alignment of the trail slightly to the
North dipping down in elevation of approximately 5.5 feet to grade of the
driveway the trail can cross the driveway on grade and then return upslope
to original grade of railroad. This alignment would necessitate that "Yield"
,. signs be posted for trail traffic. There is a potential for accidents involving
collisions between trail users and automobiles. This alignment is
' illustrated on Appendix "F".
~, No. 2. Lower the grade of ~rooosed drivewav in order that a
"trail" bridge can be built overhead. Until such time as the optional bridge is
"` constructed the frail can be temporarily diverted to the north and cross on
~. the grade of the driveway. This is similar to the trail outlined in 1., above.
However, the change in elevation would be 10-12 feet instead of 5.5 feet.
The trail bridge would be constructed, at the option and expense, of the trail
' system. Without a bridge the potential for accidents from collision is about
.. the same as that stated in 1., above. This alignment is illustrated on
Appendix "G".
`" No. 3. Relocate Drivewav access from S. Second Street to Little
Cloud Park road. The Applicant would relocate the driveway whereby the
access to the building envelope would come off of the Little Cloud Park road,
which is owned by the City of Aspen. This the most complicated alternative
to implement on paper and probably the least costly to construct. The cost
~. 4
..
..
of fhe driveway changes would be at expense of the owner of Lot 20. The
physical layout of the trail across Lot 20 would change very little with the
cost to the trail system being a nominal amount. Thus, driveway access
would be from the western side of Lot 20 off of the Little Cloud road. The
,, Little Cloud road has existed for approximately 100 years. The historic road
appears on fhe Willits' Map, dated 1896. This access alternative is shown on
Appendix "H" and a portion of fhe Willits' Map, dated 1896, attached as
^~ Appendix "I"
By relocating fhe driveway to the Little Cloud road the South
Second Street frail crossing of a driveway, proposed in the 1041 Application,
' would be eliminated. Little Cloud road is permanently open to vehicular
Traffic since it is legal access to the Pride of Aspen, a patented mining
claim, which will eventually have at least one residence built on it. This
permanent legal access across the Little Cloud road was established legally
~- under a "Harmonious Agreement" which has been recorded.
The railroad bed at end of South Second Street would remain
'" basically "as is" with only a sidewalk access to be constructed from the trail
' on Lof 20 fo the proposed house. In winter the sidewalk, at the trail, would
not be cleared of snow, thus, permitting uninterrupted cross-country skiing.
No motorized vehicles would cross fhe trail except during the brief period of
construction activity which would occur during the months of no skiing
-~ activity.
If the third alternative; i.e., Little Cloud road develops as a viable
s alternafive if may be necessary for the City of Aspen to grant an access
r easement across Little Cloud Lode Mining Claim from end of South Fourth
Street to west side of Lot 20. Mayor Sterling's letter, dated August 1, 1990,
a copy attached has Appendix "J", suggest that Aspen voters approval may be
"~ required, if this is given serious consideration.
13. Summary.
~. The 1041 Review application does not include a trail design
~. across Lot 20 since the Applicant had no guidelines or input from local
government fo design fhe trail into the project.
The "trail" across Lot 20 is located on private property.
..
Concurrent with the release of this analysis the Applicant filed a 1041
Review Application for Lot 20 for approval of a single family house and
..
5
r
.. driveway. No prescriptive easement or adverse possession exists for use of
the trail. As previously stated, the easement cannot be legally extracted as
a condition for approval of the 1041 Review application.
A frail easement on the land immediately east of Lot 20 was
granted to the Public in the approval process of Little Cloud PUD Subdivision
and the land immediately to the west upon which the trail is located, in
Block 47, was purchased by the City of Aspen. Block 47, except for two
,, privately owned parcels, is zoned "Park".
An alternative involves the complete elimination of the driveway
from the end of Second street by establishing the driveway off the Little
Cloud Road; thus, resulting in the driveway accessing Lot 20 from the
western side of the property.
~. The Applicant is willing to negotiate a sale of a trail easement
,~ and if appropriate negotiate an alternative to the driveway proposed in the
1041 Review application to mitigate the hazard of accidents from trail users
crossing the driveway on grade either with or without a frail bridge being
built.
14. Conclusions. If local government wishes to make the trail
easement permanent then there is a need to recognize the following:
,~ a). The railroad bed trail across Lof 20 is not a Public
Easement and that it can be closed to the Public at anytime by the
owner.
b). The trail easement cannot be extracted as a
i condition fora 1041 Review Approval; and,
~, c). The trail easement must be acquired; either, by
negotiation or by condemnation.
~.
~- Negotiations can result in changing the driveway as proposed in
., the 1041 Review to mitigate hazards that may result in collisions between
users of the trail and driveway traffic.
Negotiations may result in the driveway being relocated on the
Little Cloud road, which must remain open to access the Pride of Aspen
property. This would eliminate the proposed driveway crossing the trail at
~. end of Second Street.
6
.~
,.
w
~.
w
~.
w
w
a
iii
a
r
,r
Last but not least, negotiations can result in a trail easement in
some form being dedicated across Lot 20 thereby completing the trail link
from Koch Park to Hopkins Avenue & South Fourth Street.
Lyle Reeder, as representative of the owner of Lot 20, is
available to answer questions and hold discussions to consider the
alternatives of changing the driveway to eliminate hazards caused by the
driveway crossing the trail. In addition, negotiations for the acquisition of a
trail easement across Lot 20 would appropriately be a part of any
discussions.
7
..
..
,.
~.
r
w
i
...
i
APPENDIXES
TO
APPLICANT'S EVALUATION
FOR POTENTIAL "TRAIL"
AND/OR RAIL CORRIDOR
ACROSS LOT 20
APPENDIX:
A. U. S. Patent -Lot 20
B. Two Newspaper Article:
"USES Finalizing Two Land Exchanges"
"Hunter Creek Land is Exchanged"
C. Park Association's Article about Lot 20 trail
D. Several Newspaper Article:
Lot 20 Trail Closing and Reactions
E. Appraisal Report -Estimated Value of Trail
Easements
F. Plat -Alternative No. 1 for Trail
G. Plat -Alternative No. 2 for Trail
H. Plat -Alternative No. 3 for Trail
1. Willits' Map, dated 1896, Little Cloud and Lot 20
J. Mayor Stirling's letter regarding trail.
rr
..
form IxIA%
1 \1~y `+xt~
Colorado 36299
.r IJFtEREAS
N
~Cfje ~nitea ~tate~ of America
~o ell to taf)om there Dre~rnts [ball comr, ~rtxuna:
BOOR
Wolf tone Ccrporation, a Colorado Corporation,
S
"~ ~ ri is entitled to a Land Patent pursuant to the General Exchange Act of
'.~;_ (42 Stat. 465; 16 U.S.C. 485), as amended by the Act of February 28,
~'~ :::~ 1090; 16 U.S.C. 486), and Section 206 of the Act of October 21, 1976
~t•'•~~. 2756; 43 U.S.C. 1701, 1716), for the following described land:
"'~' i~.i
~~~; ' ~' Sixth Prinicpal i4eridian, Colorado,
_ - ~ T. 10 S., R. 84 W.,
'i-' t~> sec. 18, lot 53;
_C-'~;v S. T. 10 S., R. 85 W.,
sec. 12, lot 20,
50~ PAGEUJJ
March 20, 1922
1925 (43 Stat.
(90 Stat, 2743,
containing 1.27 acres.
that there
NOl•I KNOW YE is, therefore, granted by the UNITED STATES unto the
,
above-named Wolf tone Corporation, the land described above; TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the
said land with all the rights, privileges, immunities, and appurtenances, of whatsoever
nature, thereunto belonging, unto the said Wolf tone Corporation, its successors and
'~ assigns, forever; and
EXCEPTING AND RESERVING TO THE UNITED STATES from the land granted a right-of-way
thereon for ditches and canals constructed by the authority of the United States.
Act of August 30, 1890 (26 Stat. 391; 43 U.S.C. 945).
w
!
W W
~ G ~
^ WoC =
(~ 2 O Q
S U ~
a m (Y ~
~ f- Q1
f...
W U
~ ~ = O
i G
N -~ ~ d
,. d .a
~ / I~
,,
.`
'1 If ~r~'!`k
~ --1...
• y ~~~
.. ~~;
/~, I~
a . ~.
~5--~f3-.Tt;~,
I'a trot Numher
IN TKSTIMUNY Ww:Rra rr'. the undersigned authorized officer of tl
Bureau of Lund Munngemenl, in uttnrd once with the pruvisim
of the Act of June l7, 194A (A't Slut. 47ti), hns, in the name of t!
United Slates, cuuaed these letters to be made Pnte nt, and t
Seal of the Bureau to be hereu ntu affix cd.
Grvt.rv under my hand, in DENVER, COLORADO
du of in the yt
the SECOirI. Y APRIL
of our lord one thuusnnd nine hundred and EIGHTY-S I:
and of the Independence of the United States the two hund~
and TENTH.
- ~ ,
It r --S`~ 1
Ac[ins: Deputy Sta[e Director for Open~tio
APPENDIX "A"
~'
a
o
=
~
° °
~ a
j
"` 9 yyp ~ ccm
f.7 ~ C'm F v ~ $
q c v
.~o.
G LOm
c~u•
~.:~
v„~ ''~
S.
p ~
g ~ o s ~ ? -
'
=
~
3
~
po~~ '
o'u
,
°r$7~rB
+~ ~
a
.~
w.:
L 6. '~'J S 19 w~ O~ w ~ ~~ G W ~~ y i. tj b
... .w •
m
i
>"~
gin _.
;
~
.
^
r~
a VI O p '9 N (D C. tf O O !D ~
,:
.
00
M
~"
P
'
^ ~ y p 7
wE
G
y ~~
.
o.
,. S m
v~c~o' R.B 9 byp° o ~yE xa.U w o
~ w n •+ •d
".
•
y
:
C~
' or
y~.
w
~t
_.
r
~
c ~'~ =»~ w c,wU o
~ <
O '27S O 7 P..
~ _
!n"~ ~'n
F' •y
Y O
L
p
..
~ C C ry
~..
to ~ a
n '
• y 9 's7 w e. n r p E rn grS. ^ N N
m vI
.
~~ Q
^
-, - ~ ~, p C Or
~ o w'l. :I: ~
rt n 1 -" < 00'0 F<
C n'
7' [n '".
w
r `
~`; r,s ~. ,ol"o~m
o". ~+~ Et~~'
' m~E!'ow~°~m~ ~. o.y »y7
~n'7.~
9~ ~ -'
r ~~a 9°=~'• E y x c•R c ow n no rr. °•~ 6~ ~ a,
E <_ gE p
h
".n ;i["~.~•w~.»poN~R~cn_m~ ~
.,~~~~Z~p-,Y
oN.,~~~19 ~~
°_
^
'+
~,~ ~66wr~»•°•~$ ~^,~ ~w1D~,a
~ _
~,FS:,;S„ Cc~` wW7~
o
A
s
~ y
[
/~
rOIDd
~?' G'1 o.~ ~•
g~' Nc•e d''-•72~
o
'
~ c"~
`o
y~
w.~
m
'~'
~• 7~~•~
w
~
_ ~_.w o :r..g
a o g,
E fn ~ i
•
wv~o ~
n o ~ ~ ~
, m 1 n n
. O Co
+
W m ,
x R G
n
~ n
., ti 9 m o_ 7 p. .
.
.
1111
a
r
it
W
.~I~
i
+.
r
+~
rli
4 ~ r ~ .q C1. oy - '~ W '~1 O C ] ry
~. r'c ~ i~ ~ •.~, ~ b ~ C t ay ~ W r'y
~' 7
a
O. ~ :. ~ 1w'J Ci ~ 1 . :' j. y e~ p• . A
m j" =^Ti /S~~w
'..C ..: Ii .-L O. ~ y r N ry p
~~ q .L ~ ~. T O 0 ~.'" N ID 7 N A
~ ~ . _
Il ~ •f ~1 _. i !1. _r
__ ... 7 ~', w.I .
:1 r, rt g ~ r~ ~'i~ ~ ~d'% o
^ c r
.T % O C 2
.L %
A rc -. O
AFrcryuu
j n u
H
~ •
G~ ~~~.2
~ :] N
g > ;. a
A ~ U.
,O > ~, n.
S ~ ~ ~ ~
. '
~:w C] ?
ij w
--~ n n n
a ~ b' t.
•p r J~
n.
m ~ 7 a
v.
y ~' • '
n m
L) G p. o
D ~' ~L' G
~ ~ ~. ~ 2
p~ 1 QQ
C ~ 4 l~ C)
1 C
E U• ~ .4 p=
pT] . X•.
1 ~'
>.~~Dn.
~•w yy
w m ?. u.
;r. 9 ~ d n
. y
o' G ~ n
N .... j ."
~ L
IQ L
Il:
J _ i,.
~."Rt!9
~7
~m
m~
n!1~
rp"'rer„~
e.~.. ~ ~
Rt!f:~
~~
l~p~r~c
a T~lj'i
r~
e
~_
J
~J
Ry
N
t~
y p m o m P1 `S C° o rD ~ W '7. m G ~..A~ Fn Cy Ij N m
,.. p. .~ < ppp' ~ ~. ,.~ Q a• A 0~ y p gyp` <' "~"
° ~~. a3 b~ ~ A~R 6i'm p ~ ~ m
m ~'m g R o.~ ~ m _~ G o'O ° ~ ~m ~~ R
ma e
.~
~ ..
F, A a'a. R
can ~ o o' ~"
a
m .p p•~~
A
~ ~~b.~~
~b
~~ a
m~
c~~a~~
'~ ~` E ~
~ ~ ~ ~.
~ ~' ~ ~,Co
~~~5~~~~
w. ~' a '~ !off ~7y
°G A ~ O p 5
p ~ .~ ~~~.
m P yL~
~~~~~~
~~~~8~
~~~ ~~~~
~.
r
~o
~~
~3.
o~
g
~ ~~~~~
~~'~~
~~~~~
~A~~, E
~~~~~
~. ~: ~ ob
~~~;~
o ~'b ~~~
r 'M (D
~' ~
r
ap ~~~~ $~~~~ ~ x
~~.m
~C~y+~~~ ~ ~~,° ~~
G~ w ry ~ O ,~~ p po 'O O~
° S E' ~ a
s
' ~ bra
.~ ~
~, m ~ ~
W~
iip n ~~ppn~ ° two
m C.R ~ A O
Y 00 p 0 'I
~FO'e o.< ~
~ ~ m a
vC.v 8 Cm c^wF. s E O m fC ~, t-n m ~,..
y ^~1 16 ~ ~ ~ M m O ~ y ~ Y ~ 6' ° ~ „ C1 (E?a ID ~ ,d P ~ ~• ~ ~ N
p ° ,~~ g ~mG~a~ ° ~ ~ G JP f~D q "~~ C'~G'~~~ A
E '° e m •e w ~ ~ iRi u0 p 'O m •t ^
m v m m S p~~ a00 p '< ~ 5' ~ M• Q °' °o m
gm~ "'Tm o.=Fide. m0°p.+ lr~d~m
o ~ $ 9R~ ~~ o'~' qq.S~.s R.m mo OTC°,a ~.
m p,g '~c~'v ~ p GrJ'...~ m ~~ p ~'p m
A m's'. ~ ~ ~ ^' 8 w x m A -°i o ti °' n:'R °: ro ~ 5~ o. n. ~.
~~
v
~~
-~e
tU
e
~~
~3.
..~.
m
Q!~
~.
..
,.
+rt r
..
r
r
a
r
r
920.38
A private mn•proflt.oryan'rration committed m tht preservation of parks, mails and open swee in the Roaring Fork Valley.
Hal Clark
GREEN LINES
SHADOW MOUNTAIN TRAIL
Another crisis. Lyle Reeder has closed
a section of theShadow Mountain
Trail. This trail originates in Koch Park,
', traverses the base of Shadow Mountain,
crosses the Marolt pedestrian bridge,
and eventually arrives m Snowmass.
Mr. Reeder acquired this property some
tour years ago in trade for his in-
holdings of land in the Hunter Creek
Valley near Van Hom Park. The Aspen
City Attorney has advised that public
trail rights (pfescriptive only, .it appears)
were never established on the property
due to prior govemment ownership.
The govemment by law recognizes no
adverse possession of,i[s property. The
public's legal rights for prescriptive use
began only four years ago when Mr.
Reeder acquired the property. Obviously
we were all asleep when this transfer
was made. We could have insisted that
the govemment reserve these trail rights
prior to transfer: ~ '
The Parks~Board has recommended
to the City that negotiations proceed
with Mr. Reeder to preserve this trail
right•o6way for public use. o _ -
+r ..
m
a
r
a
.~
r
ar
..
W
*r
S
eY
s
w
a
is
s
ASPEN.DAILY
3
'
~
y ~
'Yt
.~
-.
i
1
~.
`,
.
y;
1 ,
~'
~
P
'~h'~
~ 4
AaWn Daly Naw / Nimla R4ripN
LandownerLy/e Readersyas he's closed a section of fhe Shadow Mountain
trail to protect his property rights.
Shadow Mountain Trail' Closed By Landowner
~ ~~ BROOM Aspen to claim the trail as public
~ ~r N.a. ~~ ro
p 'fhe trail travels along the aban-
AlandowneretthebaseofShadow donedMidlandRailroadright-of•way
Mountain has strung rope and "No from Koch Park to Little Cloud Park.
Trespassing" signs (cross the Reederhas stretched a rope with "No
Shadow Mountain trail rn an attempt Tresspassing" signs across the
So enforce his ownership of the trail portion of the trail that crosses his
easement. undeveloped land. Hikers and bikers
le Reeder said he is trying to
L
y
head off any attempt by the City of Please see TRAIL on papa 17
APPENDIX "D"
°• s 0 ~' ~' ~ » ~' ~
'~ 'i~ ~~s^~N.w~2~~?i~B~a~g~i'~$$~~g.~~~gv~~+s'~BO~O ,p~g
F~ "' ~ ~ t~1 $ ~ g~QQ$° 060. ~6 ~ 76
,, ~~ q x~Pn ~~o•°.~ x qJS ° S"2.R ~,~~'w B' :~ ~ ~'•A$ ~ ig w
°~ '~' O 'o ~ ~ ~ u~l V° ° k ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~C/' M ~ ~ ~. ff, n„ y ~, g :' y » 5 f1 0
sv o o°' $a.~g ~'oo ~c7 e~ Gs~~ F G$i~oG "`~
~~ ~ 3+'R~ a'Z~o n E~ ~~'»~ ? ~ ~yo'o o~ ~ ~S ~~s ~ `; g'5.~, a'H
~ d? ~ °~c~i~'O~ E.dc~i 3 °.voroycj ~,-.
88~~~° cDV,
a9x~QB°vH,3''An~+'r?~~~`;3Xw~ Cif ^FQ
o ~~:~ c ~'t+f~ ~° trlo.a o.~.c o.w ti ~ ~~
°' ^~rtrJ~e ~_.ock en~q~~~~OOUy ~D
~ n ~ ~ ~~$ s 3 aw ~ ° g~ N.~~ o ~ ~ fD
ai;~':° `moo ~ o g~.$.~ t5 0' o ~ fy(Q
n ~• R7~ °.=•e' c n 2i e ° EQ° ~-n~' ~i y O 07 7Cpp
0 70$0° ° ^ 3 ~'~ w ~,° n ~' ~ tSb 5.~~~.,~' iA ~ ~'
G. _ G. pp++ GG..G. G. -p S ?
s
r
r
no Nom
~ ~ o
v a '^
3E~~
c
cn ~o'
~~ ro
w o+
H• ~ a.
~ ;
N A
w
o~ ~.a
~~~~
° 9
~C. ~ ~. °
~ ~' ~
pp++ w~
n 70
.w
N
~~no
n
p, n, ...
~_ y vo
o w fZ
3°S0.°
~~~ (~1
0=0 6
°. s °
a °.
n
7 ~
n ~.
~,vo °
~ ~ w
~ y o
G
O
~_
~~
N .
~~I
h
O
_~
.~
~.
~.
~.
,.
.,
..
~.
a
v
w
-.
r
..
r
r
w
~ ~~ Xf.o$~~~AagE ~ ~cc
~`~-.~. a `o;yy~ ~ o ° °' IOC
8.3~R~o•g•~ ~g ~~~~ ~.
9 ~ ~ o > ~ b o ~ ~ ~r-
S ~o
~ ~~ ~m ~~'7°~ ~ ~ ~~ x ~ w
5 ~~~~`~~f~~' a ~ ~r
0
~~~° ~ ~.
a'A ~~~~g~. ~ ~~ N
m ~'m c~ w'3 N (~ 'M7
-.~.
a
O
Q
~ ~~
c~
Ia
n
!{ F
x~a~ gg°S~P ~~
~$~ ~= ~•
....~~ Q w • ~ ~
a ~C ~ '2~ ,wi ,~ S ~ g ~.~p .
$'-•3
i f` A~ F P n O~ w O `! ~~ f~
0
J
-n ~ O;" g ~ ° a°° m
y,^°e '^ 7g°3q~ 4~AA
~. p7E~~~~AN~~s~.yw~'
S ~w ~~~E a~5~~c1.c. Vin'
0 0 0"^ 7.~ ~ " n ~ o ~
.~ o -n ,.... ~ ~ 25 n
o~ a o w Win. ~. C
'~ < K o'~ yy~• n ~
' a Er'.~o , ~Q~~~~b~. oS
S. n y
O- w 0~ 5. s 7
# o ~ o~ w ow ~ Q•~
n, o 4~
~:
n
~•
~y,~ •
v ~i
~~~ x~~,~.~ ~~~y~g
w~~ o~ .. .
~ ~. ~ ~ ~
~~M~~,~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
ow H ~
"~ 7n~c'~a ~.~ 00 p 7. CM~ti ~•g
aww"+OpO 71 ~'0~ O
.. i m O-~ `~ K O Yi F Oo .
.~ ~ W a ~ w 6i (O~ .y M X y ~ ~ O~ri p .
aH '~ ~ ~o H ~' ~°
8 ova, ~.~•° ~ ~o ~~.w ~~
~r
~, ~~s ~~~~~~~~a~~
n°~~ O .o~o~v^`a
~•b m E 9 ~~~~ ~ ~2 s
9 G 0
~b~ ~'A~ c~'?gs.~~v~r
P~~_'+ ~nG ~~ ¢
~~. ~'On -~'~ Sii oo~<:a~ S
~•
vi
K
3
8
Vy
A
e
N
r
.~
~.
0
..~
$ ~G a ~ ~ ~g $"x9 ~m a
RaBQ~a ~~~R~ ~~~yO~p~
7i~c H~ ~.8~O m° °
g, a .. o a iv H .~ a ° ~ ~.
0
r°8$'y~~...~om m~
qq
~~I
~~
o.
I.
~..~ b
~J
~~
g'~° ~ 8 ° g ~ ~ ° ° S ~g~ d v
~ ~~~o~ ow.~'~ omro.~^~gwb
r
~.
r
~^ ^~> o; ~ a.~ S.
~~~.~y
~ ~ ~ ~_ ryy~
s C. ~c~~ K~Fy
z m~
g E ~+
~~ 3yab~'
- .N
707'-
Q.~ ~.~
d~ ~7
c ~ 3-° _
~' H
~~cu a
°~.
~~N rt
Q
d ~
~
~ .~ ~
N
.-- N QQQ
ppp'
(D ~ ~
C1
! -
y
~ ~
~.
..
r
".
..
,.
".
ASPEN TZMES DAILY September 18, 1990
Pitkin County parks panel
may intercede in dispute
concerning Midland Trail
By JOFQd COLSON
rte.. n"sy s<drw,u..
The Pifkin County Parka Association is about to step into
a dispute between a local landowner and the city over a
popular trail that the landowner has threatened to close to
the public.
Meanwhile, landowner Lyle Reeder said this week he still
plans to block the hiking and biking trail as a way of forcing
the city to buy an easement to keep the trail open overReed-
er'sland.
But, Reeder said, "I've been busy at other stuff," although
he said he may carry out his threat this week.
According to a report a week ago, Reeder threatened to
block the path of the Midland Trail, which skirts the base of
Shadow Mountain between the Koch Lumber Park and the
Marolt Bridge over Castle Creek, crossing land owned by
Reeder.
Contacted this week, Reederreaffirmedhis threat to close
the trail either by digging it up or dragging boulders from
the near~y mountainside to block it.
But, he said, "Iial Clark of the parks association i ndicated
the parks may try to come in between me and the city and
put something together on it "
The dispute is over about 100 feet of trail near the Aspen
Ice Garden that crosses ]and Reeder got in a 1988 trade with
the US Forest Service for 116 acres in V an Horn Park above
Hunter Creek.
Until then, because it was public land, the use of the trail
route brought no objections.
But u private property, the trail can only remain open if
local government obtains an easement.
Prior use over the years as a public trail does not estab-
lish apublic right-of-way until 18 years oC uninterrupted
use hee elapsed.
Reeder, dissatisfied with a 1988 appraisal that set the
value of the easement at $77,000, said this week that when
he approached the city in July to negotiate an easement
agreement, "I just suggested they get an updated easement.
They never responded to ik"
City assistant Bill Efting, who said last night he hea not
dealt with the easement issue in a couple of weeks, was una-
ware of any move by the city to obtain a new easement.
Elting conceded the trail in questjpn is "an important loop
in the whole trail eys ' ' '` " '~
Hal Clark said the parks association is due to take the
issue up at its next meeting, and added, "I'm sure we want
the city to buy it or do whatever they can do to retain,ik"
But, he said, tie parks association has no money to con-
tribute toward buying the easement.
- - . ~ ^.
~.
6-A .The Aspen Ttnea September 20, 1990
City, Reeder seem to playa
waiting game over trail issue
by John Colson
The city and a local landow-
ner seem to be locked in a
waiting game over a popular
trail that the landowner has
threatened to close to the public,
although at least one organiza-
tion worried about the trail's
Cate decided this week to urge
the city into action.
A city otBctal said this week
that there have been no new
developments concerning the
trail issue.
But, Roeder' said, "I've been
busy at other stuff," although he
said he may curry out hie threat
this wcek.
Asked if ha has contacted the
city since making the closure
threat, Reeder said, "No. I didn't
think I should be bugging them."
public trail does not establish a
public right-of--way until 18
yeah of uninterrupted uce have
elapsed after the land changes
from government to private
ownership.
Reeder, dissatisfied with a
1988 appraisal that set the val-
ue of the easement at $77,000,
said this week that when lie
approached the city in July to
negotiate an easement agree-
ment, "I just suggested they get
an updated easement. They nev-
er responded to it."
Assistant city manager Bill
Elting conceded this week that
little has bcen done to bring the
dispute to an end, but pledged to
look into the matter.
The Pitkin County Parke
Association voted Wednesday to
send a letter to the city urging
that the trail dispute be resolved
ae quickly ae possible.
"It to a very important trail,"
noted parks association director
Hal Clark. "It's the main trail
from the city of Aspen to
Snowmase."
...
r
w
,~
a
..
He said he is waiting until the
dty ggeets in touch with him, but
reaffirmed hie threat to close the
trail, either by digging it up or
dragging boulders .from the
nearby mountainside to block it.
Meanwhile, landowner Lyle The dispute is over about 100
Reeder said this week he still fcet of trail near the Aspen Ice
plane to block the hiking and Garden thatcnoeeealand Reeder
biking trail an a way of forcing got in a 1986 trade with the US
the city to buy an easement to Forest Service Cor 115 acres in
keep the trail open over Reeder'e Van Horn Park above Hunter
land. Creek.
A week ago Reeder Until then, because it was
threatened to block the path of public land, the use of the trail
the Midland Trail, which skirts route brought no objections.
the base of Shadow Mountain But as private property, the
between the Koch Lumber Park tratl can only remain open if toe
and the Marolt Bridge over al government obtains an
CeatleCrcek,croseinglandown- easement.
ed by Reeder. Prior use over the years as a
~. ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~'a~°
o a~~ R~ OED
~~
~. pa„ o ow~a O
'v ~p' w~ am
~.~G o ~ ao e E
A.,vd'o a~~eo C.
.a
T
~
~~ ? ~'
~g ~~
~
~ R ~
$F7
.. A
~
a
ti~
g'7o.~1
C ° 4 8
~ W p ° ~.~
~ ~ ~~ ~~
~,~ ~~~
•~ ~
~
~. '
"
H s~~
r
' ~ ~1R~yw~..
A N
1
V.
C
~ .
1 ff V)
n^+
~ ^
~+xc-•
~6'~ A9
o' ~
.~ ~~~~
o~
~~~~~
y
R~p~_.
~~ ~p 7
5~';•a~~
~'~~-°~$
~. ~+ n ~ ~
R ~R ~ ~ ~
a
m ~ r
~ .. S o~~e
Amo $~~3 o~y9
+~ ~aA w ~'~ QS~~
~ xa m ~ B S~ avbm.
~ ~cT.'~ ~v X80 ~ o^g~
7 ~ y p
X00 ~ .Oy C ~ y ~ p `~ 7
W b 7 cb A
0~~~~++~Ha WC: ~D `iB~
., ~.9 6. g' ~o [~1 ~.E ~ m
3 ,.O ~8 ~ ~ ~ S'~
0. ,~ .0.
,y E `~ .e a S ~ ~. 3T m
~.a ~ ~ m ~ aw `~ m B
ff. 0.~ ~ ~ m
m o."iO M.7 y a m m
.~. O m yA p a `J ?.N d.C R
,~.~' ~ m 0.O Oi m m
_.. O2rr~ a AP~~ 8 ~eOi
IyC 0. G eOia ~ m ~~.m
O
8
~~
`^^J``
7~1J
~_
O
~~
~.
c~n
r
r
a
r
i
r
~.
N
r.~ C$f. ~ ~ ~. p~ y
S t n n, ~ ry ~ O `f1 f7 S p
~~~8_g'~.~~_~ a ~~~~ ~ ~ a~~
q.~ L o
oag,~~ ov ~o,b as gk~'~~.5•" ~' ,-n
~< s n d ='~
~'~'y~F G n ~~¢'~.`~ ~R ~~'~~.s~
~ 1
•
J
`}_j({ co
f ~ ,~
~ ~. ~~, ~
.`~? ~~ ~ "
,~ ~
:<. ~ .. •
~.I
t
~ - `._r
>.
r ~rp ~A ~~
EGG
• •
I ~ ~~.
•
I
7~'
I 'I
i,'
'~
W '
Q
,.
7
~.
r
..
r
Page 12, ASPEW DAII.Y fQBW S, Monday, Oetnber 1,1990
Reeder Wants City To Make Trail Offer
TRAIL from page 1
the blockade, will be nearly impossible
for local trail activists to undo, the land-
owner said. "I guess you could use a lot
of elbow grease and make it passable.
But there's nothing to stop me from
coming back in with heavy equipment,"
he said.
Reeder hired a backhce and operator
Sunday to push boulders across the
popular trail where it crosses his proper-
ty near Shadow Mountain.
Reeder said he blocked the trail to
protect his property tights. The City of
Aspen must buy an easement for the two
100-foot sections of trail crossing his
land beforo Reeder will remove the
blockades, he said.
IN ADDITION ro blocking the trail,
Rader moved boulders into a driveway '
between First St. and Second St. to lay
claim to the part of the driveway he says
he owns. The driveway provides partial
access to two buildings.
"I regret not doing this four years
ago," Reeder said Sunday, '"Che public
doesn't seem ro respell private property
rights."
Reeder said he decided ro block the
trail with boulders after ropes and 'No
Trespassing' signs he erected this
summer were vandalized. Anderson has
admitted cutting the ropes.
"It's disturbing that someone advis•
ing the city would take such measures;'
Reeder said.
Anderson has said he represents
himself, not the Planning and Zoning
Commission, in any actions he takes to
defend the trail.
"He's trying to hold the users of the
trial hostage for lack of action by the
city." Anderson said. "He needs to deal
with the city and not hurt the interests of
the trail users by using them as pawns."
The Midland Trail across Reeder's
land is on rho historic Midland Railroad
right-of-way. The trail is used by hikers,
"The public doesn't seem
to respect private proper-
ty rights."
Lyle Reeder
Property Owner
bikers and cross-country skiers traveling
between Kock Park and the Marolt
Bridge.
Reeder said it took the backhoe and
operator about two hoots to dig up the
trail and block it off Sunday. The trait
crosses Reeder's land twice between
Koch Park and Third Stree[.
HE OBTAINED the property, with
the trail across it, in a 1986 land swap
with the U.S. Forest Service for a
135-acre inholding in Van Hom Park
northeast of the Hunter Creek Valley.
Reeder plans to develop or sell the prop-
erty and says the lack of a clear trail
easement clouds the title to the land.
Reeder wants the city to purchase a
trail easement from him after doing an
appraisal of the property. Despite Reed-
er's threats since July to block the wail,
he said the city has not approached him
with an offer to settle the dispute. "They
haven't proposed anything," he said. "I
haven't heard a peep from them."
A 198g CITY offer of $77,000 for the
trail easement as part of an annexation
deal was rejected by Reeder because he
said there were too many development
restrictions that went along with
annexation.
The property is in Pitkin County.
However, Reeder said the city is the
logical entity to buy an easement
because it accesses city property.
a y .» otigaa~7. m~°O~S°~y ~SR°~~~p3~vm~m,.~ 1m
%~r~~ ~'"wo Rmpp~ 80' mgo?.~YmRN~e- aaae'3 ~'' o
,,,, ARb1 ayC~a w ~ pm •~,7 y apEc" a ~ ~°~x
m° 3.~m ^~.Rim~ ~~~,°,~~LJ~'-ai",~,~aim?{,'@.P.p~~~'ly-~o'd~-~~.~w~aZ
°-~sE~~ w,°ey3~a°E°~'~aao~°~wpd'o`~a•~~wBmN°~F~-~~~~~
ma$O~'~ ~m y?~oi~c~Em'b o.m ~~y e. ,d~p,~~C-~w.3 o-~~0
~S~~mmC ~mR~~m T~~mm ^~ 7 Q.sa ~• a~ 7~.
.~
'° a~3°o-n ByGmp~m~G•• ~'ro~~q~ ~° ~go~3. am~°°~
.d3°~~• so~i~o.°y~ ~~Aa°Rp^~E tl'R'.'O'mp ~'Smsia
y. ~ :: m `$. 0 9 0 ~ °: ~ ~y rr a a n o.~ m ~ o a o ,,, o' x'O
'^ ~•-.7 s 7Ca Cam. ~m ~7ya7P;u ° m.°j~~ ~ ~~~ m
.. ~ o e E o Sg,~ °-,"~ w~ ~ g7v ~,ap y~aa a ~ ~.'. A ~b ~ g•e~
7'dv ~;a~ c7-.~ oy~. G ate' mtiEa.a. -miAAw7 ~.aw'"q
ur mtSOsS4 RRm m~+^i P•H TGi+Om ?.
r .~0.~,b m•°~y0.~ ~~p
y „°„a ~.a o p7m~Jti ~• D
.. `< ~-
0
ratio o~ m~ ~o
~ ~ m -Rib o a 5...~ O
o.~~ 4 .'~.° ° Dv
E mdi*_m~.$ mo
SCR ~7. Q. ...C n w 7
O N
.r ~~ o C~~
~NmAa;;~av ~
_ o o <.»
a 3a7am~~so ?~
n K a^rim O' a W 4f
~ ~ m ° ° ~ ~ 70 ~ ~
JI 7£ G. y 9 m C O „~
lD O. ~ p' p V "' ~ C
•O ~.G aR Q`2
:ir 7 ~.' ,~ ~ S L
S:; -am ~ m ~? O
~j ~
~ ='sm= ~"- a~
;;~~'° ~ ~'y:~ aSp Q
~ °m p y C FE ~ 7 ~ C
o..~ m ~^~Sy 9 Nti
7„ ~'~~°3= ~e
N° w~ a E A~ ~ C
0
s ~9 °n G 7' n D• m p~
~+ ~ m o c
~ n m <~ !p ry x~ ~ ~
SG. T 7a 0'~aw
a ryXryS ° ~, ryFry7 m p C
~, ~q. ~ „
~B.c E~'~~ ~a",oe m,~
y~ R W S .~. ~~ n°
... „ uw 'U~ ~p~mm °~
Oa A E.y OG=~ 7~
"' ~' G a y S O ~ a e°. "'
o
~+ o ~ ~ ~ 7
. ry R N R ~'R °.Rm a
iY E o m m o m E~
o~~ o~~w°eti~
~ R
"" va8o`<
S 'J ~ O
R •' 1? A
a o
~~~e7i ~ ~ ~ C n
q C P. m a 7 ~..
~' =•,~ ~ e
Cm
~'°" =oCt'rm
.°.,~m cS? ~._
~~
O
~_
~~
^
mm R~S-„~ amy .~Vi
P. '~'~ ° ti ~ m 0~ 0
7 b7 ,p ~ O~ ~ O m+~ b0e 7 sQ
~SSO ~'oo~b'R~~sa~
ma moo p,S EROOa
e
~~~~~m~~~~ro~fi°~:
s < m ~ o m
.^~
v
1
a
s
r
a
i
w
i
a
ASPEN.DAILY NEWa, FYlday, Juna J9, 1990, Pane 3
.~
.~
,.
r
r
..
r
s
r
+W
..
Awan Wg' Nnaa / Mmla tt4roal
Landownerlyle Reedersyas he's closed a secflon of the Shadow Mounfaln
trail to protect h/s property r/yhts.
Shadow Mountain Trail' Closed By Landowner
By SCOTT BROOM Aspen to claim the trail as public
A•wn ter rr.w. ~~ ro
aban-
th
l
l
P
il
ong
e
trave
s a
The tra
AlandowneratthebaseofShadow donedMidlaadRailroadright-of-way
Mountain has strung rope and "No from Koch Park to Little Cloud Pazk.
Trespassing' signs cross the Reederhas stretched a rope with "No
Shadow Mountain trail rn an attempt Tresspassing signs across the
so enforce his ownership of the trail portion of the trail that crosses his
easement. undeveloped Iand. Hikers and bikers
Lyle Reeder said he is trying to
head off any attempt by the Ciry of Please sea TRAIL on page 17
APPENDIX "D"
V e
y
a
b
~1
0
r
~e
z
f
y
~ 1
;. I~
w
ESN Eo~ ~,~`~~`~ o ~~ga~~ ~~ ~~
°. 7C
m
~a
c R
'~"~ o r
~~ d
~. N S o
~~
t ~~~
ten?
ia~
"e g3~
'-,cu W
-~-~aa~
~~,
~~~
CA
~ ~m ~~.~,P~~ ~.
8 ,m °
fps sm~.
s' ~
SL~°ao ~wm
.:~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
F~.,s~ ~`-rr
I.n.
~o~~~~
o
s ~ °'°~~.~~ s
N ~~R.~ ~,~~ rl1
A~
N
M
ti
4
a
a
;~
O
r
..
W
W
0
~.
r
.r
..
.n
.r
.r
a
r
fie Aspen Tlmes October 4. 1990 . 11-A
roaring fork digest
:...
Moving mountains .. .
The chairman of the Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission may face tres-
passing charges in hie battle to keep a
popular hiking and biking trail from
being closed.
But P&2 chair Welton Anderson, who
stressed hie is "acting only for myself and
not for the P&Z," pledged to continue the
fight no matter what landowner Lyle
Reeder does.
Reeder, who owns land crossed by the
popular Midland Trail along the base of
Shadow Mountain, said early this week
he had not yet decided whether or not to
press charges against Anderson and
about 10 other men who showed up at
noon Monday to clear the trail Reeder
had blocked with boulders the day
before.
The trail, which ie the historic right of
way for the old Midland Railroad, has
been used for decades by hikers and bik-
ers as a route around the base of the
mountain. It currently is planned as a
maJor component oC a trails system
throughout Aspen.
But the city has failed to negotiate a
trail easement with Reeder, who claims
it ie up to the city to come to him before
he sells the land to a prospective home
builder.
Reeder, frustrated by what he termed
the city's inaction, Sunday spent two
hours pulling boulders onto the trail and
digging up a portion of it, blocking the
trail in two places.
Anderson, outraged by the closure of a
popular trail, called for volunteers and
with their help removed enough of the
boulders to make the trail passable
again.
Reeder, who watched the clearing
work for a while, asked a Pitkin County
deputy sheriff to take the names of
everyone involved.
The deputy complied, but Anderson
said he had checked with Sheriff Bob
Braudie earlier end had been told,'The
sheriffs office is not going to determine if
there 's trespassing going an. He's not
going to get on one aide or the other," but
would leave such questions up to the
courts.
Reeder, who wants the city to update a
two-year old appraisal that found the
property to be worth $77,000 in 1988,
said of the trail hassle, "I sympathize
with the people who are in favor of the
trail. But they're using their energy in
the wrong place. They should be down at
City Hall."
1 ~ 8 o a
~~$ ~„+~~ 7 ~=~ `o P.~S ~°pG~ .~i ~N by ~7R°'o3~'yp$~~
m5 8 ~~myam~Sa~g~a"~bYSar'~6tml~ ~5
g~~•oWam~~~ps~o ~~~~~ ~,~p~'S~,~
og~. ~. p~
a
a SE.~p E, ~'~o' k,..~~,P' pS~ ~~
r ~ ~! C. " O H y~ y~~~Si' ~y~ „~1 eai 0 ~ ~ O
a_ A~aoB;e~~
+~~gn ~'a~~p~y B~C~.ti 7
" p f0 ,~
r p A C,o^~
8 • H e .a p; p U1,
,~ '~~fT,~ ~~ ~ ~~f.~ ea ~R ~ (((0yyymppp5Q1. ~ ~ y
~ !D ~ a ~ ~ N ^~I y~~ O f' E .T1 ~Wf ~ f~f (~. y
1 ~y R 8 ~ p. a ~ cvb1 i ~ ~j ~ ia. 8 a
~(Wp Ge~a~PWb 55fPppY ~o~ C~_
g~°'app ~o ~y pQ~ a
ffd ~.~ RSR p m~~v m.0+ 7.~ CO
~~~y~~t~~~ p$.~ •w~~~a C~
m
_ a '~7 .t. 'q ~ ;,! ~ TOG h'~ p~
a ~waA~``~w ^pi~~~~ ao=
r Otl
_ ~~
~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8~ ~~
a ti a m 6
~ a ~ ~~~~~
a ~ G~S~~ ~~`G ~ ~~ v ~`
eg~p~~aa ~,.~~~~ ~ °
E.
°' ~~' 5' rr w ~'°, ~ °' m
8 ~~ ~£ 7 m~ p
~ '° ~ 5'b '~{ m ~~pQ+
f~ W ~ ~ p ~ C. ~ R L
tCD S~p~m~;~~a~o
~y._am ~" v ~'
~, ~ ! ^ p
c ~ ~ s ~ as
n
-- ~o$"
~ ~ 650 ~ „8„
Ci. p er .p~. 8 : ~ ~°~ ~
C ~•-p~~ w~a5~°
•. ,9~~,a mg¢F,~S
~, aa~i~~. ~a~~apum
ap.:do ~'~.°a E
~~ ^
~~
~~
~^
t'1
N
_Q.
3
1E•A • The Aspen Tlmes October 4, 1990
a ^ ~
Ito r~ a
e
the punishment of the
public has gone
y on long enough
..
..
~.
y
".
r
The burgeoning access ware in Aspen are
reaching unreasonable levels of absurdity.
The rights of private property have begun to ~
trample all over the rights of the public at
large. In effect, the public is being punished by
private landowners.
Lyle Reeder and Ed Smart, both longtime
residents of this area who have made careers
out of buying up old mining claims and mani-
pulatingmining laws for their own profit, have
both been guilty of such punishment. They join
such notable predecessors as Tom McCloskey,
George "Wilk" Wilkinson and Maxwell Aley,
all of whom have tried to close off access to
public lands over trails that cross their
property.
The circumstances in each instance have
varied, and the remedies for each are different,
but the central fact remains -they bought or
otherwise acquired lands the public was long
accustomed to using, and tried to close them.
In Reedes's case, in closing the old Midland
rail right of way, which has been a public trail
along the base of Shadow Mountain for
decades, his actions are akin to extortion.
He wants the city to buy an easement'over
his land now, and then hopes to sell that land
to someone who wants to build on it.
But to pay for an easement now would be,
for the city, premature and very bad business.
Reeder has no plane for the land at this point,
but when and if he sells it to someone with
plena to build, the easement most likely would
be one of the city's main bargaining chips in
the development review process.
So Reeder wants tae city to pay a lot of
money for something now that it probably can
get for free at some later date.
Ed Smart, on the other hand, is merely mad.
His closure of the Midnight Mine Road was
done in a fit of pique over a variety of real or
imagined slights perpetrated on him by gov-
ernment and others.
But once again, it is the public at large that
suffers. Once again, the people are held hos-
tage at the whim of one man.
Aa the population of this valley grows, and
the limited lands here are gobbled up by pri-
vate interests, these access fights are bound to
escalate.
Local government, which has been sorely
lax in safeguarding the rights and interests of
the public in this arena, needs to get off dead
center. Our vast bureaucracy, which seems so
adept at„keeping itself healthy and happy,
needs to turn its attention more to the broader
picture, to the needs of its constituency.
Specifically, we need to come up with ways
to keep this area from becoming a big park for
the gentry.
Such a development would leave the much
maligned worker bees relegated to employee
ghettos and small city parks while the more
satisfying recreational opportunities are so
deep in the backcountry as to be inaccessible to
all but the very fit and the very leisurely.
,.
.. HIGH EOU~7'~IR,X .A.~~~,1~~~~,I A.~~OC3A~~S
,. Real Estate Appraisers and Consultnnts
September 2, 1988
+• Mr. Ronald L. Mitchell
Deputy City Manager
City Of Aspen
~ 130 South Galena Streit .
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: SHADOW MOUNTAIN TRAIL EASEMENTS
r City of Aspen
Pitkin County, Colorado
Dear Mr. Mitchell:
a
At your request I have inspected a number of properties crossed by the proposed
Shadow Mountain Trail, for the purpose of making preliminary estimates of the
°" fair market value of proposed easements on those properties. These preliminary
estimates are based upon approximate depictions of the properties and the
"' proposed trail alignment, as shown on a map identified as "City of Aspen Shadow
.+ Mountain Trail Approximation" and prepared by'Louis H. Buettner as of January
29, 1988. A preliminary estimate is not an appraisal, but does produce an
,., approximation of the value estimate which would result from a formal appraisal.
The function of the preliminary estimates is to serve as a basis for
y' negotiating acquisition of the proposed easements.
"' My presentation of preliminary conclusions, with a brief description of each
property, will be presented property by property, starting at [he western end
of the proposed trail alignment.
The Stewart property is located on the southeast side of South Seventh Street.
'° It Contains an estimated 46,000 s.f., and is improved with a modernized
victorian style single family residence. The proposed easement, located along
the northeastern boundary of the site, contains an area of approximately 2,505
s s.f. The easement would slightly reduce privacy, and cut off a small portion
of the site from the balance of the site. The taking would, in my opinion,
.. ,~ slightly diminish the value of the remaining land, but would not affect the
~` value of the improvements. Assuming that the condemnor would relocate existing
fencing and landscaping, and provide new fencing along the easement if desired
~ by the property owner, I estimate the total value of the proposed taking at
$29,000; this includes $14,700 in direct damages. I inspected this property
~_. from South Seventh Street.
-- The Schultze property is immediately northeast of [he Stewart property on South
Seventh Street. It contains an estimated 23,990 s.f., and is improved with an
older residential structure. The proposed easement, with an area o a out
1,125 s.f., lies along the southwestern boundary of the property; it lies
within the boundaries of a private access easement which appears to benefit the
18 N. Fourth Street -- P.O. Box 7 - Carbondale, CO 81623 -- (303) 963-1480
APPENDIX "E"
Mr. Ronald L. Mitchell
September 2, 1988
Page Two
.. Stewart property, but is not currently used for access. The proposed taking
r would result in a reduction in privacy, diminishing the value of [he remaining
land, but not affecting [he improvements. My preliminary estimate of the value
... of [he easement is $22,500, of which $10,500 is direct damage; this assumes
that the condemnor would fence [he eastern side of the easement. It should be
'' noted that the rights to be taken in the case of this property may be held
totally or in par[ by parties other than the property owner. I inspected this
~ property from South Seventh Street.
.. The Kahn property is located south of the Stewart and Schultze properties. It
~. contains about 35,167 s.f., and is accessed from South Seventh Street via a
private right-of-way over the western edge of [he Stewart property. It is
improved with a newer single family residence. The proposed easement crosses
[he northeastern portion of the site, and contains about 750 s.f. The easement
is below and remote from the house, and would have only a minimal impact on
.~ privacy; this will slightly diminish the value of the remainder land, but not
the improvements. My estimate of the value of the taking is $9,700, of which
$4,800 is direct damage. The estimate assumes that the condemnor would fence
the trail if requested by the property owner. I inspected the property and the
area of the taking from a distance of about 150 feet, from South Seventh
y Street.
,,, The Gramiger property, containing about 9.965 acres, is located on [he
southeast corner of Hopkins Avenue and South Seventh Street. It is improved
°' with a single family residence and assorted structures. The proposed taking
splits the generally level northern portion of the site from the remainder,
"" which consists of extremely steep lands on the northwest face of Shadow
~ Mountain; [he easement contains about 4,290 s.f. The trail will be close to
the existing improvements, as well as any potential building site, and will
.. thus negatively impact privacy. The lands south of the [rail are not
negatively impacted. In my opinion, the value of the remaining land will be
"' noticeably diminished; the improvements will no[ be affected. I estimate the
y value of the proposed taking at $86,000, of which $7,000 would constitute
direct damage; this assumes that the condemnor would fence the [rail on [he
north side. I inspected [his property from Hopkins Avenue and South Seventh
Street.
w
The Sheehan properly is a 36,999 s.f. vacant site located on the south side of
'~ Ho kins Avenue direc[1 east of Grami er. This is a lon ~
P Y g g, narrow site,
suitable under zoning for development with one single family residence. The
easement splits [he site into two parcels; as with Gramiger, the south portion ~
-. is quite steep and has no significant utility other than as open space. The
trail is somewhat above the level of any probable building location, and would
-- thus have only a moderate impact on the value of the remaining land. My
preliminary estimate of the value of the easement is $20,700, of which $8,700
r
Mr. Ronald L. Mitchell
„,,, September 2, 1988
Page Three
"'~ is direct damage. This estimate again assumes fencing of the trail on the
north side. I inspected this property from Hopkins Avenue.
,.` Immediately east of Sheehan is Lot 1 of the Mary B Subdivision. There is an
existing trail easement across this parcel, which contains about 48,350 s.f.
and is improved, with the adjacent lot to the east, with the Parlor Car
Restaurant, a temporary use. The Trail Approximation indicates a desire by the
City to slightly relocate the western end of the easement. This would involve
,~ subjecting about 260 s.f. of additional land area to the easement, and would
allow the abandonment of an equal amount of the existing easement area. Due to
~. the existence of an easement, it is my opinion that the relocation creates no
severance damage. My opinion of the value of the easement (100Y. direct) is
$1,500; it is conceivable that negotiations could involve an offset of this for
the abandonment of the portion of the existing easement which would no longer
.. be needed. I inspected [his property from Hopkins Avenue and from the east
., boundary of Lot 2 of the Mary B Subdivision.
++ Lo[ 2 of the Mary B Subdivision involves a situation nearly identical to Lot 1.
A realignment of the easement requires acquisition of an addition 300 s.f. more
or less, but would allow the abandonment of about 450 s.f. of the existing
easement. I estimate the value of the new easement area (100% direct) at
$1,500. This parcel also offers the possibility of a price offset for
~, abandonment of unneeded easement. I inspected this parcel from its eastern
boundary.
I have physically inspected each of the properties described below.
,.
a The Lost Diamond, Inc. property is an approximately 46,000 s.f. site located
south of Hopkins Avenue. The means of access to this properly is unclear; it
,, is assumed that the property has legal, physically usable access. The proposed
easement bisects the site, and contains about 2,850 s.f. In my opinion, the
y. easement would significantly reduce the value of the remaining site; as is, [he
site is one of the better sites along Shadow Mountain, with a number of
'° potential locations for a large, luxury home. The easement would probably
~, restrict potential building sites [o a much smaller area at the north end of
[he site. I estimate the value of the proposed easement at $75,000, of which
., $16,700 is direct damage.
Government Lot 18 is a small
• ~ parcel which has no utility as a separate entity.
Its only marketability would be to an adjoining owner. I estimate the value of
'" the proposed easement (about 300 s.f.) at $800.
r ~
The next parcel, east of Government Lot 18 and north of the Lost Diamond
parcel, involves an unknown ownership. This parcel is also too small [o have
any utility as a separate entity. The value of the easement (1,320 s.f.) is
1
'° Mr. Ronald L. Mitchell
September 2, 1988
.r
Page Four
~" estimated at $3,600.
The next parcel, located on the west side of [he 3rd Street right-of-way and
r bounded on the south by the City line, also involves an unknown ownership. The
parcel, while small, theoretically could be used as a building site. In [he
,s absence of any apparent means of physical access, however, I have concluded
that it has adjoining owner utility only. The easement, containing about 330
y s.f., has an estimated value of $900.
The next parcel, known as Lot 20, Section 12, is owned by Lyle Reeder. The
y,,, actual size and configuration of this property is unknown to me based upon
available information; size is estimated at 60,000 s.f. based upon information
.. provided by the City/County Planning staff. This site is vacant and has fairly
extreme topography. The highest and best use of the parcel would be a split
"' into two residential sites. It could alternatively be used as a single
building site. The area of the proposed easement is about 2,310 s.f. If the
value of the proposed easement is analyzed based upon highest and best use, my
+. estimate of direct damage would be $12,500. Because a condition of splitting
the property would be dedication of the proposed easement, this analysis
involves no severance, or indirect, damage. Analysis assuming use as a single
parcel results in a greater amount of damage, as the remainder would lose value
'~ due to a loss of privacy. I would estimate [his damage at $75,000, of which
.. $10,000 would be direct damage. The applicable estimate of value for the
easement would be, in my opinion, $75,000.
,r
Two parcels located southeast of Lot 20 are currently involved in a subdivision
^~ application and have thus been, per your authorization, deleted from [his
assignment.
a
The next parcel analyzed is the portion of the Mollie G lode located in Section
13; I believe this is owned by Lyle Reeder. Its size is unknown. It would
+. appear from my inspection that this parcel, due to topography, has utility only
for use in conjunction with adjacent or contiguous property. On this basis, I
feel there is no severance damage, and the value of the approximately 1,125
~ s.f. easement is $3,000.
,~ The final parcel is located immediately west of the Koch Lumber parcel owned by
[he City of Aspen, and involves unknown ownership. I[ also is of indeterminate
~ size. For purposes of preliminary analysis, it is my opinion [h a[ it has
utility only to adjoining owners. I estimate the value of the approximately
750 s.f. easement at $2,000. ~
A. A summary of my preliminary estimates is presented as follows:
w
d
Mr. Ronald L. Mitchell
September 2, 1988
Page Five
. .
Name Value
~.~ Stewart $29,000
Schultze 22,500
Kahn 9,700
Gramiger 86,000
`"' Sheehan 20,700
Lot 1, Mary B 1,500
"~ Lo[ 2, Mary B 1,500
,,, Los[ Diamond 75,000
Government Lot 18 800
Unknown Owner 3,600
Unclaimed 900
'° Lot 20, Section 12 75,000
~. Mollie G, Section 13 3,000
Unknown 2,000
Total $331,200
Please note that [he Trail Approximation map shows a small sliver of [he trail
alignment extending onto the Pride of Aspen lode, apparently owned by Gramiger.
I have not addressed this portion of the alignment, as its size is
insignificant and would not justify [he time and expense required for either a
negotiated or eminent domain acquisition.
The preliminary estimates set forth herein rely upon the previously referenced
trail approximation document, and upon available public records. This
~ information is limited, leaving significant uncertainty relative [o some of [he
parcels. Any preliminary estimate is thus made subject to any state of facts
which an accurate survey of each parcel, showing the proposed easement, would
reveal. Should it become necessary to formally appraise the proposed easements
+~ on any specific parcel, such data would be a requirement.
'" Please note again Chat I have made no appraisal of any interests described
herein, and this letter does no[ constitute an appraisal report.
r
Please call if you have any questions relating to these matters; I would be
happy to suggest negotiation strategies if you feel it appropriate. Thank you
r for [he opportunity to be of service.
Respectfully Submitted,
.,
1'1KG~Pc William K. Gray, I
..
LOT 20
{Reolign trail to the North to co-exist
with driveway es proposed
dropping 5.5 feet and roturn to grade)
APPENDIX "F"
w
ar
.r
r
1
7
tl
LOT 20
(BRIDGE OPTIONAL- Lower driveway to permit construction
of an optional trail bridge. A temporary trail diverted to
the North dropping 10-12 feet and returning to grade.
SCALE: 1' = 20'
APPENDIX "G"
•
.:
,.
.\ ~:,
~~
s
~.
BA ANDONED RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY '-
N~Mp,N Av
r-~ ~ ~~
~~ ~~~:~%/ j ~ \~~~/i i % , ~ ~ ` LOT 20
:. \. I ~ DUhP ~/ _... ...
,., \\~~
R\
~\
-• PRIDE OF ASPEN
„'etented Mining Claim)
.`
w
..
LOT 20 -ILLUSTRATION OF AN ALTERNATIVE
DRIVEWAY WITH ACCESS FROM LITTLE CLOUD ROAD
(Accessing Lot 20 from the West side)
DESCRIBED AS ALTERNATIVE NO 3 THIRD ST
Op08
~-~~
.::r:.. %
:I::
;~~`•~~ LITTLE CLOUD \/ i i _ . ' ~~--- .~,,,
\ ~, PARK ~. _~ %i~%i~ i
~\ ~ ~_.._
Op
~" EXISTING ROAD. 1 ;~
.. ~ti• i 8
- ..~
y. ~ PROPOSED DRIVEWAY,
(To be constructed if Lot 20
.. driveway is moved from S. 2nd ~.
.~~~-~~~
~~ N
O
"-0 -~
U `r
• w ..F
J /n
.r--~ .
J
APPENDIX "H"
'~
~1'~_ OpOg
~ /~-~ o
e ~
v~ I
d
i ~ °~
r
i
~~ / 0
~ p SCALE: UNKOWN
o=
w
a
a
j
F ~~ ~- y ~ /~ -- LOT 20 - WILLITS' MAP - - --
i* ~ ''r Dated 1896, Enlargement of Portion of Willits' Map showing
" ' r i, Fj Little Cloud Roed from S. 4th Street to Lot 20 (modifications
r ~ y '~ '~'+ , made to Map to illustrate Lot 20 boundary end Little Cloud Road
/' ~ ~ w
r •, 2 , ~.
~ /HpRTHA r ^
1NG?UN eIAI.~;. I ~ I 71 ~f/~~MM
i Q
~ e w,
y guy ~~~
~+ " IOt ~3IE ~ ~ ~ ° r ff~ '
,. ~
r
~~~ s SST
~ ~ G o ~o Lct2o ~ C GqR pFN
~.~..
1
A ~~~ I (~
O V ~ rOM ~ ~ 1
11 ` / ,rJ~r, ~{e. ~• MOT ~L,
~ ~s wER +~ ~ 0-
1 ~ / S~ BLF~' )f>~
r
/ _`
~ i - ~
~ ~,
~ ,~ .i i
,~ ,,^ I \
/, i ~
~~ ~ C. cif ~
UPPFR I
~ S~A«r ~4s~ ~ ~,
o :° ~ / ~
i d a
4 ~~ ~ ~
K o ~ b
~ ~
,. ~~ V ~ ~
Q ,
.: Q~ I e ,, .. ,~
,r w 1 ~ J'~~ / ~ .
Q I y ~ Ai
~ APPENDIX "1" t ~
CI
~.
~.
August 1, 1990
TY , ~ SPEN
1
30 - cil
303-920-5 nistration
303-920-5198 FAX
Mr. Lyle D. Reader
P.O. Box 4859
Aspen, Colorado 81612
,.. Dear Lyle:
~- I want to thank you for removing the ropes on the Midland right-
of-way as it traverses your property. As citizens have become
accustomed to using that trail over the decades, it seemed an
„~ inflammatory act to deny them access. I would also like to
express my thanks for the use of your various plats and surveys.
~+ The City's goal is to complete our trail system at the base of
Shadow Mountain and we need your cooperation and good will to
w complete our work on behalf of all the citizens.
`' Regarding the trail and the possibility of entering into some
type of agreement whereby a formal trail easement would be
acquired by the City, the City appreciates and welcomes your
.. willingness to explore possible solutions to the trail access
question which has now taken on added significance in the wake of
your recent decision to prohibit what had previously been free
and open use of the trail by the general public. We understand
your interest and need to give interested real estate customers
easy access to your land.
" The two alternative proposals for reopening public access to the
trail as set forth in your letter present some interesting and,
"' perhaps, complicated questions. Each proposal possesses somewhat
;W different advantages which must be balanced against various and
substantial disadvantages. A thoughtful and thorough study will
,, be required before the City is in a position to render a defini-
tive response to your suggested alternatives. Pending a more
• complete response, I would like to provide you these few obser-
vations concerning certain items mentioned in your letter.
~„ You note on page one of your letter that you are contemplating a
drive cut through the existing rail bed in order to access your
-. property from Second Street. As I am sure you are aware, access
onto any municipal street must be preceded by the issuance of a
'' proper city permit. Similarly, any access onto a municipal
street must meet certain engineering standards and specifications
,~
APPENDIX "J"
J
-. Letter to Mr. Lyle D. Reeder
August 1, 1990
"' Page 2
and be reviewed for safety. In view of the proposed location for
-. your access drive, any application for a permit will have to be
closely examined before issuance. It is possible that access
°' would be more appropriate at a different location, e.g., via the
,, existing private "street" as illustrated on your Exhibit F.
You also propose access to your parcel through Little Cloud Park
over what you describe as the "Little Cloud road". I believe
that you are under the erroneous impression that th> old *_rail,
which somewhat parallels the northern boundary of the Little
°" Cloud Park, constitutes a dedicated easement. As explained to
Mr. Gramiger some time ago, the easement granted to access his
w Pride of Aspen parcel runs along the western portion of the
a Little Cloud Park. This is clearly illustrated in the document
you attached to your letter as Exhibit D. The "existing road"
that you have depicted on your Exhibit C, to the extent it ever
~ legitimately existed, was extinguished as an access by the
execution of the noted agreement. Hence, any access to your
parcel over Little Cloud will require the dedication of a new
easement which, due to its nature and location, may implicate
.. certain provisions of the Aspen City Charter calling for a vote
of the electorate.
r Ae you can see, there are a number of issues that need review
before the City can intelligently respond to your two proposals.
., There may also be other alternatives that have yet to be
explored. In any event, the City recognizes the importance of
the issues raised in your letter and we will be diligently
working toward providing you a timely response.
Thank you.
.. Very truly yours,
.. ~.1 /` p ~, `~, ,
William L. Stirling
Mayor
cc: City Council
City Manager
"' City Attorney
County Manager
~-~
r~oRAxDUM - - _
r ~' ~7
TO: County Attorney --'`~_~~~
County Engineer i,+ ~,
City Engineer ; ~ `~~'"~' - ~ '~-+y~ 1
Aspen Water Department ~ ,
Environmental Health Department ~`-~--_ 'i
Z o n i ng -___ ,~_~ /~
Fire Marshal
Pitkin County Sheriff
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
/,
-' ` Ellen Sassano, Planning Off
RE
Wolftone Corporation 1041 Hazard Review & General
Submission
Parcel ID# 2735-124-00-010
DATE:
May 28, 1991
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted
by Wolftone Corporation, etc. requesting 1041 Hazard Review and
General Submission approval for a single-family house.
Please return your comments to me no later than June 28, 1991.
Thanks
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO Ellen Sassano
From: John Ely
Postmark: Jul 08,91 2:39 PM
Subject: Wolftone
Message:
The ownership and access concerning the parcel are fine. I don't see
any other legal issues present in the application. Call me if you
have any specific concerns
----------=====X=====___-------
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO Ellen Sassano CC Rob Thomson
From: Chuck Roth
Postmark: Jul 03,91 4:48 PM
Status: Previously read
Subject: wolftone 1041
Message:
I intended to include in the memo the information that there is a
portion of a mine tailings dump that is on the applicant's property.
The majority of the tailings is on the Little Cloud Subdivision. I
am not sure that we had a complete existing conditions map if the
tailings did not show up. There was also a transformer that was not
shown.
----------=====X=====___-------
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
RE: GOVERNMENT LOT 20 1041 HAZARD REVIEW AND GENERAL
SUBMISSION
I hereby certify that on this 5th day of August, 1991, a true
and correct copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was
deposited in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid,
to the adjacent property owners as indicated on the attached list
of adjacent property owners which was supplied to the Aspen/Pitkin
Planning Office by the applicant in regard to the case named on the
Public Notice.
By: Debbie Skehan
Office Manager
frm.mailing
PIIBLZC NOTICE
RE: GOVERNMENT
SIIBMISSION
LOT 20 1041 HAZARD REVIEW AND GENERAL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, August 20, 1991 at a meeting to begin at 9:00 am before
the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission, Commissioner's
Meeting Room, 506 East Main Street, Aspen to consider an
application submitted by Wolftone Corporation and Stanford H.
Johnson requesting 1041 Hazard Review and General Submission
approval for a single-family house. The property "Government Lot
20" is located adjacent to Block 47 and South Second Street at the
base of Shadow Mountain in the SE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 10
South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M.
For further infcrmation,
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office,
(303) 920-5090.
contact Ellen Sassano at the
130 South Galena St., Aspen, CO
s/Jim Reser. Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in The Aspen Times on July 18, 1991.
Pitkin County Purchase Order No.
,.
? H =
..
~~
~~
~~
s C
~ o ~
/' " > ; m
~
'~
x
z C`.' ~
n ~
? n~
p 2
- M
J A
Y
< _
l
4 ~~ a C ,~
? _
y
T
~ `~ !
z ~` ~ r
~ c;
x
o '~ . ~ ~~
~
~
l ~
1
i
G
J
~
C7 W p p
O N ~ 4 ~.-
~ N p p p
a m ~ m ~
o ...~ a ~ o
m op o
o
a ~ .
~
m
N
N ~ p
,
~ ~ _ ~
I~ G ~, N
v
i
~
_
D
'Q
t0
~ '~
i
r~
----; •,
i' `
i
ti.
,.,
i
r t ~O m
~~
_~
~'~
~. ~~
`.
9 J g °'
~,
,,;~~ ~
r
~,:..~.
M
r~oRAxDVx
T0: County Attorney
County Engineer
City Engineer
Aspen water Department
Environmental Health Department
Zoning
Fire Marshal
Pitkin County Sheriff
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Ellen Sassano, Planning Office
RE: Wolftone Corporation 1041 Hazard Review & General
Submission
Parcel ID# 2735-124-00-010
DATE: May 28, 1991
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted
by Wolftone Corporation, etc. requesting 1041 Hazard Review and
General Submission approval for a single-family house.
Please return your comments to me no later than June 28, 1991.
Thanks
ASPEN/PITICIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-5090 FAX# (303) 920-5197
May 28, 1991
Lyle Reeder
P. O. Box 4859
Aspen, CO 81612
Re: Wolftone Corporation 1041 Hazard Review & General
Submission
Case #49-91
Dear Lyle,
This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its
preliminary review of the captioned application. We have
determined that this application is complete.
We have scheduled this application for review at a public hearing
by the Pitkin Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, August
20, 1991 at a meeting to begin at 9:00 am. The Friday before the
meeting date, we will call to inform you that a copy of the memo
pertaining to the application is available at the Planning
Office.
Please note that it is your responsibility to post the subject
property with a sign for the public hearing.
If you have any questions, please call Ellen Sassano, the planner
assigned to your case.
Sincerely,
Debbie Skehan,
Office Manager
s
1
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 97611
(303)920-5090
LAND USE APPLICATION FEES
city
00713 b3250-734 GMP/CONCEPTUAL
-63270-136 GMP/FINAL
-63280-137 SUB/CONCEPTUAL
-63300-139 SUB/FINAL
b3310-140 ALL 2-STEP APPUCATIONS
-63320-741 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIC~IS/
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
REFERRAL FEES:
00725 b3340-205 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
00123 b3340-190 HOUSING
00115 b3340-163 ENGINEERING
SUBTOTAL
County
00113 b3160-126 GMP/GENERAL
b3170-727 GMP/DETAILED
b3180-128 GMP/FINAL
b3190-129 SUB/GENEFJIL
-63200-730 SUB/DETAILED
-63210-137 SUB/FINAL
b3220-132 ALL 2STEP APPLICATIONS
b3230-733 ALL 1STEP APPLICATIONS/
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
b3450-146 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
REFERRAL FEES:
00'25 -63340-205 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
00;23 -63340-190 HOUSING
00173 -63360-743 ENGINEERING
PLANNING OFFICE SALES
00173 -63080-122 CITY/COUNTY CODE
-63090-123 COMP. PLAN
-63140-124 COPY FEES
b9000-745 OTHER
Name: LY /~ /C f 2L~-elm
Address: p0 ~ o X ~{8.5'~
l~dey, U7 ~l6 /a
Check >t ~Oti _3
Additional billing:
~~a 00
SS. o c~
SS.od
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL 3 . Od
Phone: //~~ .~_S3~ Q
Project: l9 o V 2rr1 N7 P-/7~7 ~D f o~/Q
Date~t ~~~11.5~/ 3 L~~
#of Hours: ~p(