Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.planning.273707100040DOCUMENT 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(s) Parcel ID: 2737- 07 -1 -00 -040 Application Date: 11/7/11 Case No: P088 -11 Description: GOVT 33 LLC Scenic View Protection Review Planner: Suzanne Wolff # Copies: 1 Allocated Hours: 5 Project Address: 877 SPRUCE ST, ASPEN, CO 81611 % Over Hours: 6 Property Owner: GOVT 33 LLC Address: 604 W MAIN Owner Phone Owner's REP: MITCH HAAS REP's Email: mhaas @sopris.net Referrals: ALL OTHER REFERRALS Comments Due Date: 12/20/2011 ASPEN, CO 81611 Address: 201 N MILL ST, SUITE 108 REP's Phone: (970) 925 -7819 ASPEN, CO 81611 Other Referrals: North Spruce St HOA none Meetings: 1st Meeting: 2nd Meeting: 3rd Meeting: Meeting Date: Review Body: admin Public Hearing? yes Notice Date: 11/20/2011 Meeting Notes: Approvals: BOCC Resolution #: P &Z Determination #. BOCC Ordinance #: HO Determination #: 002 -2012 #587524 Admin Determination #: Other Information: VR Approval Date: 02/16/2012 Plat Recorded Date: VR Expires Date: 02/15/2015 Plat (Bk, PG): Remarks: Application Type: Scenic /Ridgeline Review RECEPTION #: 587524, 0 311 6/2 01 2 at 03:21:58 PM, E 1 OF 3, R $0.00 Doc Code Y DETERMINATION Ir Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO —� DETERMINATION OF THE HEARING OFFICER OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, APPROVING THE GOVT 33 LLC SCENIC VIEW PROTECTION REVIEW Determination No. .9 -2012 7. The Hearing Officer considered the application at public hearings on January 19 and February 16, 2012. 8. The Hearing Officer finds that the proposed residence complies with the provisions of Sec. 7-20 - 120(d) of the Code, as it is not located on the most visible portion of the site as seen from Highway 82 and does not project above a ridgeline; the residence is broken up vertically by stepping up and back into the hillside with the upper two floors set back from the lower level; the hip gable roof has a low profile; the residence will be built into the hillside and earth - sheltered on three sides; and earth - toned and natural exterior building materials will be used. 9. The Hearing Officer further finds that the two alternatives proposed by the Applicant to mitigate for potential rockfall hazard and slope instability — (1) tiered Ground Nail Walls on the sides and rear of the residence, or (2) a combination of tiered Ground Nail Walls to the rear and Hybrid Micropile and Ground Nail Wall Systems on the sides of the residence — are feasible and will have negligible visual impacts as seen from Highway 82. With both alternatives the retaining walls will not be visible behind the structure of the residence and the architectural plans /renderings, site plan and landscape plan remain the same. The first alternative can only be accomplished if the Applicant obtains easements for soil RECITALS 1. GOVT 33 LLC ( "Applicant') has applied to the Pitkin County Community Development Director G ( "Director ") for scenic view protection review approval to construct a new single family residence. 2. Neighbors Austin and Georgie Gleason and Arnold Porath submitted objections to the application, _t" therefore, the application was continued to a public hearing before the Hearing Officer. 0 3. The property is located above the Silverlode/Williams Ranch Subdivision on Lower Smuggler O Mountain at the top of Spruce Street; and is more specifically described as Lot 33, in Section 7, U Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6" P.M. � c N 0 4. The parcel contains 1.581 acres and is a non - conforming size parcel in the TR -2 zone district. N V 5. The Hearing Officer denied a request for 1041 Hazard Review and Conceptual Submission approval, a) N c c a pursuant to Determination No. 25 -2004. The BOCC then determined that the denial constituted a ,f for _ taking, and remediated the taking by granting approval for development of a single family residence, eo pursuant to Resolution No. 006 -2005. The BOCC subsequently extended the vested rights for seven c O years until April 13, 2012, pursuant to Resolution No. 044 -2005. The 1041 Hazard Review Site Plan N I* 0 p y is recorded in Plat Book 73 at Page 73. Condition #3 of Resolution No. 006 -2005 requires scenic 2 w 4 j review prior to submission of any building permit applications. 0 F � W g x a � Q: LU 4i N LU y 6. The Hearing Officer granted Scenic Overlay Review approval for a driveway to serve the GOVT 33 0MO O w r LLC parcel and the adjacent Smuggler C LLC parcel, pursuant to Determination No. 15 -2004. The X owner subsequently obtained an access permit and constructed the driveway. 7. The Hearing Officer considered the application at public hearings on January 19 and February 16, 2012. 8. The Hearing Officer finds that the proposed residence complies with the provisions of Sec. 7-20 - 120(d) of the Code, as it is not located on the most visible portion of the site as seen from Highway 82 and does not project above a ridgeline; the residence is broken up vertically by stepping up and back into the hillside with the upper two floors set back from the lower level; the hip gable roof has a low profile; the residence will be built into the hillside and earth - sheltered on three sides; and earth - toned and natural exterior building materials will be used. 9. The Hearing Officer further finds that the two alternatives proposed by the Applicant to mitigate for potential rockfall hazard and slope instability — (1) tiered Ground Nail Walls on the sides and rear of the residence, or (2) a combination of tiered Ground Nail Walls to the rear and Hybrid Micropile and Ground Nail Wall Systems on the sides of the residence — are feasible and will have negligible visual impacts as seen from Highway 82. With both alternatives the retaining walls will not be visible behind the structure of the residence and the architectural plans /renderings, site plan and landscape plan remain the same. The first alternative can only be accomplished if the Applicant obtains easements for soil Determination No. Q -2012 Page 2 nails to encroach onto the adjacent properties, and obtains activity envelopes on those properties for the encroachment. 10. The rockfall netting fence below the driveway will provide additional off -site mitigation during construction. THE HEARING OFFICER DOES HEREBY APPROVE the GOVT 33 LLC Scenic View Protection Review, subject to the following conditions, which shall run with the land and be binding on all successors in interest: 1. The conditions of BOCC Resolution No. 006 -2005 shall remain in full force and effect. 2. The Applicant shall submit a lighting plan specifying the location, type and number of exterior fixtures and demonstrating compliance with the County's lighting regulations, for review and approval by the Community Development Department, prior to issuance of a building permit. Exterior lighting shall be prohibited on the west facade, except the minimum required to comply with the building code. 3. The exterior of the residence shall be built or painted with indigenous earth tone materials or colors. All roofs shall have a non - reflective color or composition. Tinting or non - reflective coatings shall be applied to all west facing windows to minimize the reflectivity of these surfaces. 4. The Applicant shall adhere to all material representations made in the application and shall consider those representations to be conditions of approval, unless amended by other conditions. The footprint shall be substantially consistent with the site plan attached as Exhibit B, and the west elevation shall be substantially consistent with the graphic representation attached as Exhibit C. 5. If additional structures are identified in the building permit application that cause additional scenic impacts as seen from Highway 82, the Applicant shall obtain scenic review approval for such improvements. 6. The maximum height of the residence's tallest elevation shall not exceed forty (40) feet measured from the natural or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive, to the highest part of the residence, excepting chimneys. 7. Prior to commencement of construction on Lot 33, the Applicant shall install a rockfall netting fence along the length of the downhill side of the driveway through the property, consistent with the fence installed on the adjacent Smuggler C parcel. The fencing shall be located within the Access or Accessory Envelopes. The fencing shall remain in place during construction and for one year after the Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the Lot 33 residence. 8. Soil nails shall only extend onto adjacent properties, if the Applicant obtains easements from the property owners and obtains approval for activity envelopes on those properties for the soil nail encroachments. 9. Failure to comply with these conditions of approval may result in revocation of this permit or any subsequent permits related to this property or vested rights associated with this property. Determination No. P, -2012 Page 3 10. Statutory vested rights for the approval contained herein are granted pursuant to the Pitkin County Land Use Code and Colorado Statutes, subject to the exceptions set forth in Pitkin County Land Use Code, § 4 -140 and C.R.S., § 24 -68 -105. The statutory vested rights granted herein shall expire on llxtt, 2015. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PUBLISHED IN THE ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY on the 20t4 day of November, 2012. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16i4 day of February, 2012. PUBLISHED AFTER ADOPT FOR VESTED REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS in the Aspen Times Weekly on the � day of MC4,r h , 2012. ATTEST: ann1Q LJa- 0141,0K Bonnie Waechtler, Administrative Assistant APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Ely, — County Attorney" P088 -11 PM#273707100040 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING OFFICER OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO By ��� - -� James R. True, Hearing Officer Date 2 Z APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Cindy- louben, Community Development Director 5i! � il1`51fii 4�E�Rx 1 Pi 133N1Sn JSE 101 MOD <m 37N341M 31VANd ' a a a J LL 8$ Y IN i s] y m � $p J I I 1 I e + l j I o / Yip V I U� I l l l l i l l I� I I I I _yam +l Irl j j I 1 1 J I l/ I i i + IT L-1 _ N P `o U myP egP Y? 4 ➢= ea 3 9 5 1a�lo 3 ea a avi ,733983 aAST °. d s Cg3Z�� ' ; `•" , N ayj yy i 3a a• €a'epi� i rn � Sao M r3 j��_�Tg,a 15 i a3 4�iy5 �a. aa�,.: $a n'Eag °_�' 3 m$a L 3a Fga p� •a 1 €�3y� �$ .a �3 �'aa p3 89',3 �� E � y m. ��:�a '� i : 8 z 3 F a � d � � � I I $ ale 'a, N tr o•2q9 2 a �8i� $$!. F iE} qqL$ .Y t aa$d�• g d 1 Ee � _ _ _ is° C. X3893[;9 �: 88:3ia,i �a4 �5.g3g 3 e t ?3gas 4atp .:+ 3 gag :1]p ! �33 Fa sa] a 4 a i.n iB �i�i q :951i U S' pp All a 5 w =a i.d33 9 � SiE Ai^Ei3!9:M` .. ^:m -��. J 1 C�- i i ;fir - i r i r n- - ------- - - - - -- i t 2 i'4e4 �ix 8 I'§ij�e¢9 , i�iF dilai °p 9'g li laj ogle nvds,cE Nidav L J33111.S 3J(llld5'EE lO"ILAp7 IDNI4ISJ`d 1IVANd j ° - 1 C�- i i ;fir - i r i r n- - ------- - - - - -- i t 2 i'4e4 MEMORANDUM TO: Pitkin County Hearing Officer FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Senior Planner RE: GOVT 33 LLC Scenic View Protection Review — Continued Public Hearing DATE: February 16, 2012 SUMMARY: The Applicant is requesting Scenic View Protection Review approval to construct a new single family residence. The Land Use Code authorizes the Community Development Director to grant Scenic View Protection Review approval. However, a public hearing before the Hearing Officer is required if any objections are received from the adjacent property owners. Objections to the application have been submitted by neighbors Austin and Georgie Gleason and Arnold Porath; therefore, the application is being considered by the Hearing Officer. Neighbor Todd Martin has also submitted comments supporting the objection. Tom Smith, representing Gleasons and Poraths, has also submitted a letter. All emails and letters are attached for reference. The Hearing Officer continued the application on January 19, and requested additional information from the Applicant on the geologic hazard mitigation and the scenic impacts of the mitigation alternatives. APPLICANT: GOVT 33 LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Mitch Haas LOCATION: Top of Spruce Street ZONING/LOT SIZE: The parcel contains 1.581 acres and is nonconforming in size in the TR -2 zone district. ISSUES: The Applicant submitted a letter from HP Geotech and a plan sheet showing the approximate locations of all slope stability /retaining walls that will be involved in the construction and mitigation efforts. The plan shows tiered Ground Nail Walls to the rear (northeast) of the residence, and Hybrid Micropile and Ground Nail Wall Systems on the sides (northwest and southeast) of the residence. The Hybrid System would eliminate the need to encroach onto adjacent properties for the soil nails. HP Geotech states, • "The retaining walls uphill of the pool house will create flat areas to help catch rocks and the shoring walls of the cut faces will mitigate dislodging rocks from the cut face and rolling off of the site." • "The risk of rocks being dislodged by erosion on the natural hillside is considered low and typical of this area. Development of the proposed pool house will not increase the hillside rockfall risk to adjacent properties below the pool house site." The Applicant will continue to pursue easements from the adjacent property owners (McCallum and Pitkin County) to allow soil nails to encroach onto those properties below the surface. The Applicant asserts that the mitigation alternatives (Ground Nail Walls on three sides or combination of Ground Nail Walls to the rear and Hybrid System on the sides) have similar and negligible visual impacts as seen from Highway 82, as the retaining I of walls will not be visible behind the structure of the residence, and that the architectural plans /renderings, site plan and landscape plan remain the same with either alternative. The Applicant also notes that a rockfall netting fence has been installed below the driveway to the adjacent Smuggler C parcel. The fencing is to remain in place during construction and for one year after the Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the Smuggler C residence. The Applicant commits to extend this fencing through the GOVT 33 parcel along the length of the downhill side of the driveway, and to maintain the fencing during construction and for one year after the Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the GOVT 33 residence. The fencing is not visible from Highway 82. Staff believes that the Applicant has demonstrated that the two alternatives to mitigate for potential rockfall hazard and slope instability are feasible and will have negligible visual impacts as seen from Highway 82. The rockfall netting fence below the driveway will provide additional off -site mitigation during construction. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Hearing Officer approve the GOVT 33 LLC Scenic View Protection Review, subject to the attached Determination. ATTACHMENTS: A. HP Geotech — Review of Proposed Grading and Shoring Wall Plans with Regard to Rockfall Risk dated 1/31/12 B. Plan of Approximate Wall Locations C. Mitch Haas letter re: Rockfall Fence & Photos Application provided separately 2 gyK :y 3 ry rt January 31, 2012 Warren Lichtenstein C/o RGS Architecture Attn: Robert G. Sinclair P.O. Box 8114 Aspen, Colorado 81612 robs'O-T ,irchiteture_alui Job No. 107 287A Subject: Review of Proposed Grading and Shoring Wall Plans with Regard to Rockfall Risk, Lichtenstein Pool House, Lot 33, Spruce Street, North of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado Gentlemen: As requested by Scott Kraelmke with RGS Architecture, we have reviewed the Site Plan and Grading Plan provided by RGS Architecture and the Shoring Wall Location Plan by Yeh and Associates dated January 9, 2012 with regard to rockfall risk to the proposed pool house development at the subject site. We previously conducted a subsoil study for design of foundations at the site and presented our findings in a report dated November 30, 2007, Job No. 107 0287 and a geologic site assessment that included Lot 33 in a report dated June 8, 2007, Job No. 107 0280. A cursory review of the site was made on January 31, 2012 by the undersigned representative of Hepworth - Pawlak Geotechnical. The site is essentially the same as described in our previous reports. The driveway to Lot 33 had been rough cut and additional excavation in the pool house site had apparently not been made. The proposed excavation for the pool house foundation is proposed to be retained by shoring walls on the 3 cut sides and will be made in 3 levels stepped into the hillside. The uppermost cut and shoring will be for a site wall separate and uphill of the pool house that will provide for surface drainage away from and around the pool house. The risk of rockfall impacting this site was evaluated m our geologic site assessment and consists of rocks being potentially undermined by erosion on the steep hillside above the pool house and rocks being dislodged by excavation for the pool house foundation. The retaining walls uphill ofthe pool house will create flat areas to help catch rocks and the shoring walls of the cut faces will mitigate dislodging rocks fi-om the cut face and rolling off of the site. 3 Warren Lichtenstein January 31, 2012 Page 2 The risk of rocks being dislodged by erosion on the natural hillside is considered low and typical of this area. Development of the proposed pool house will not increase the hillside rockfall risk to adjacent properties below the pool house site. The flat areas uphill of the pool house will help to further reduce the potential for rockfall impact to the pool house but the site should not be considered totally risk free. We understand that this low rockfall risk is acceptable to the owner. Based on these conditions, no further rockfall risk mitigation is needed. The recommendations submitted in this letter are based on our understanding of the proposed grading, construction and owner accepted risk, and our previous experience at the site. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please call our office. Sincerely, HEPWORTH — PAWLAK CONICAL, INC. Steven L. Pawlak, P. fl**.' gg, 15222 SLP /ksw d rSino., C� ec: RGS Architecture— Att"n oft Kraehnke (sccrtt!iiagg3rchitrcture coin) Job. W287A f/ GcV tech PApproximate Extent of_/ \ \ Ground Nails Below Grade \ Approximate bri Extent of Hybrid Mibropile an reposed Ground Nail Wall Ground Nail Wall System \ (Tier 3) N$ IN d• reposed Ground Nail 41 (Tier 1) `' \ �J \m� J 16 20 0 10 20 7 - _ �•',r reposed Ground Nail Wall pr\�ay� (Tier 2) SCALE, P = 20' RMIrOui L m� / P _ a - StYW01tvT) \ A DI V R Proposed ouna Nai Wall (Tier 4) PLACE 100 ,,0_ DMEWAY 1.0.RTW1751 tiA� - Y \ '. ii CA�41 RO I I F \. 817 4'10 V3 S \ Approximate Extent of Hybrid Micropile and Ground Nail Wall System _ y CORNER NO. 1 r ,,y F BALLARAT MS4438 -a*� •y�py FOUNO •x• ON ORIGINAL STONE y 1/4438 SCRIBED IN Notes: SOUTH FACE 1. Based plan provided by Robert Sinclair Architecture, Inc. a, plans dated 12.8.11. tI • P 2. The proposed wall locations are approximate and may vary Q 8174.8 sp based on field conditions. Wall lines shown Indicate approximate base of wall locations. rd O sa•. ms's >K 3. The ground nail wall shall be contained entirely within property boundaries. 4. This drawing should not be used for wall or building layout. 3nect Kev151on Deigned For IN Yeh and Associates, Inc. °"` RevinoNlnue ebeekndM Robert C. Sinclair Architecture, Inc. Project Number: Approximate Wall Locations Consulting Geotechnical Engineers 271 -233 1525 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 D.. by: RDJ De.; Projw: shat Number: Phone: (970) 384 -1500 Fax: (970) 384 -1501 February 1, 2012 Lichtenstein Residence Pool House 1 or 1 Checked by: RDJ HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC February 9, 2012 Pitkin County Community Development Department c/o Suzanne Wolff, Senior Planner 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Government 33 LLC Rockfall Fence (Parcel ID 2737 - 071 -00 -040) Dear Suzanne: As you are aware, the owner of the Government Lot 33 property also owns the adjacent property known as Smuggler Parcel C, and both properties share a common driveway. Smuggler Parcel C has already received 1041 and Scenic Review approvals and has been issued a building permit. Construction has recently commenced on that property and, as a precautionary measure, a rockfall netting fence has been installed below the driveway. (Please see the two photos attached to this letter.) In getting the building permit issued, the applicant agreed to keep this fencing in place during construction and for one year after the Certificate of Occupancy (C /O) is issued for the Smuggler Parcel C residence. An extension of the same type of fencing will be sufficient for rockfall mitigation on the Government Lot 33 parcel as well. As such, and with Scenic Review approval for Government Lot 33, the applicant will commit to the extension of the rockfall fencing along the length of the downhill side of the driveway through the parcel and will retain it throughout construction and for one year after a C/O is issued for the Govt 33 residence. It is noted that the existing fence is barely visible from the bottom of the driveway. Therefore, it will not be visible from State Highway 82 and, thus, will have no bearing on the Scenic Review approval now being considered for the Government Lot 33 parcel. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. I can be reached at the numbers and address provided at the bottom of this page, or by email at mitch @hlpaspen.com. Very truly yours, HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC s *'D Mitch Haas Owner/Manager Pitkin County FEB Y 3 2012 Community DeveloPment 201 N. MILL STREET, SUITE 108 • ASPEN, COLORADO • 81 61 1 PHONE: (970) 925 -7819 • FAX: (970) 925 -7395 Z, t , je /r r • .. � �- __�f..r ,•rte __ t' �.:'�"' 1 ir 4r ALMS smw � f f -7- . -_ 0 r*P ,Afr ti l 'i 1 - `� f i I. .�.* * l IF. Y f t L-1 I< �-N' 1 `,•1\11\1 , \\\ 11 ` L \`, Jl 11 \1 \\ \ \\\ \\` \ \`\ \\ ` \1 \`` \` 1♦ \ \ \ \1 \ \ \1` \1\\,, 1\ \ ;,`,,,1 t,;`. Approximate EXtento( '.`; \`, . Hybrid Mibropile an +' ` \` t` Ground Nall all System �i `1``: \`, ! •; ` ; •1, `\! `,`\`! \ \•,`! `1111,! \ , +,1 \• ,!111,1 \ ! \ 1 1 11 \1 \ \1 ` \,+ ,11 \1 \ \1 \,1` IN I V A, IN IN 1 \ Approximate Extentofi_ /` Ground Nails Below Grade \ roposed Ground Nail Wall \ (Tier 3) so . m \ ro osed Ground Nail V11 IN (Tier 1) \ CP t 11\ 11\ t \ \` \` \ +, \, 1\ CP � <,y. roposed Ground Nail Wall , (Tier 2) / .016g `v' •tio t`1 \�`` ' iTN` E GRA L APEYNp2ND \i�3♦ ;' \,I \ IN IN ORI; O EL V 819$' -7.';/ \ �': \ ' $Iise�l, I Wall s \ \ `: ♦+ (Tier DRIVLWAY TO. PLM ro SMLO141R ELEV. V. 3187 0 °\ ` OEL KO sEV 23179'10 V1 ,j / t```,` \ \\`\.`\ % IN t' ; 1', ', r � � ' � ' ' ; Approximate Extent of �, r t' Hybrid Micrgpile,ard i \` it t1 of Ground Neil 1A(all $y ter , CORNER NO. '. 1' �. \1 `'''f t''t `\` t` `\t``` ``` t \`\` '•t`, `, BAL —ARAT MS4438 ` i i ', : `.`. ` : + \1 ,1. \`\ •,`. .1\`, `, iii FOUND "X ". ON , ', `\ `\` IN \ 11t t ' ' '1 'V 't ORIGINAL STONE 1, , '' v1 1 , 1 , ti t\ IN i i ii iltl t y % — 1 \' , `, 1` \ i � ` \'t\ '.,1 /4438 — CRIBED',IN \ `1 \�`�\ `\ � `�`\ IN ,` , ♦1`,` t ` t i �� ' ` , ` , ' ' t \ , SOUTH FAC� I It IN INYeh and Associates, Inc. Dale Consulting Geotechnical Engineers 1525 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: (970) 384 -1500 Fax: (970) 384 -1501 N� JL r 20 0 10 20/�� SCALE. 1' = 20' P V Notes: 1. Based plan provided by Robert Sinclair Architecture, Inc. plans dated 12.8.11. 2. The proposed wall locations are approximate and may vary based on field conditions. Wall lines shown indicate approximate base of wall locations. 3. The ground nail wall shall be contained entirely within property boundaries. 4. This drawing should not be used for wall or building layout. -let Revision Designed For RevisiorAnue Cheeked by Robert G. Sinclair Architecture, Inc. Project Number: 211 -233 Drawn by: RDf Date: Checked by: RM February 1, 2012 Approximate Wall Locations Project. Sheet Number: Lichtenstein Residence Pool House I 1 of 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Pitkin County Hearing Officer FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Senior Planner i7tiv RE: GOVT 33 LLC Scenic View Protection Review DATE: January 19. 2012 SUMMARY: The Applicant is requesting Scenic View Protection Review approval to construct a new single family residence. The Land Use Code authorizes the Community Development Director to grant Scenic View Protection Review approval. However, a public hearing before the Hearing Officer is required if any objections are received from the adjacent property owners. Objections to the application have been submitted by neighbors Austin and Georgie Gleason and Arnold Porath; therefore, the application is being considered by the Hearing Officer. Neighbor Todd Martin has also submitted comments supporting the objection. Tom Smith, representing Gleasons and Poraths, has also submitted a letter. All emails and letters are attached for reference. The Hearing Officer will conduct a site visit prior to the hearing on January 19. The Applicant has notified staff that story poles will be erected for the site visit. APPLICANT: GOVT 33 LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Mitch Haas LOCATION: Top of Spruce Street ZONINGILOT SIZE: The parcel contains 1.581 acres and is nonconforming in size in the TR -2 zone district BACKGROUND: The Hearing Officer denied a request for 1041 Hazard Review and Conceptual Submission approval, pursuant to Determination No. 25 -2004. The BOCC then determined that the denial constituted a taking, and remediated the taking by granting approval for development of a single family residence, pursuant to Resolution No. 006 -2005. The BOCC subsequently extended the vested rights for seven years until April 13, 2012, pursuant to Resolution No. 044 -2005. The 1041 Hazard Review Site Plan is recorded in Plat Book 73 at Page 73. The Hearing Officer granted Scenic Overlay Review approval for a driveway to serve the GOVT 33 LLC parcel and the adjacent Smuggler C LLC parcel, pursuant to Determination No. 15 -2004. The owner subsequently obtained an access permit and constructed the driveway. Condition #3 of Resolution No. 006 -2005 states, "Prior to submission of any building permit applications, the Applicant shall submit an application and gain approval for a Scenic Overlay Review, pursuant to Section 3 -60- 040 of the Land Use Code [now Sec. 7 -20 -120 of the 2006 Land Use Code: Scenic View Protection Review], once plans for the proposed residence have been prepared. The application shall include a detailed landscaping plan. The Applicant shall erect story poles to represent the height of the proposed residence, prior to the hearing date for the scenic overlay review." The prior approvals are attached for reference. UUOCIUi REFERRAL COMMENTS: The application was referred to the North Spruce Street Homeowners Association, but comments were not received from the HOA. NEIGHBOR COMMENTS: The initial objections submitted by the Gleasons and Poraths addressed the following issues: • Question whether the photographic simulations are accurate. • Concern with development on slopes in excess of 30 %, slope stability and potential rockfall impact on neighboring residences. • Visibility of residence from Highway 82. • Height of residence. • Fire mitigation. • Drainage issues. • Road damage caused by construction. Tom Smith, representing Anne and Amy Porath and Georgie and Austin Gleason, submitted a letter dated January 9, 2012, in which he asserts that the application is incomplete, due to lack of a landscaping plan and the lack of complete building plans. In particular, Mr. Smith asserts that the application should address retaining walls and other improvements necessary to develop the residence on steep slopes, which should be considered as part of the Scenic Review. STAFF COMMENTS: SCENIC VIEW PROTECTION REVIEW (LUC Sec. 7 -20 -120): The property is within Highway 82 scenic view protection area ( "SVPA "). a. The proposed development shall utilize existing topography and natural vegetation, such as ridges, hills, and existing trees, to screen buildings to the maximum extent practicable when viewed from those rights - of -way listed in subsection (b) above. Response: Staff agrees with the Applicant that the existing topography and vegetation afford little opportunity for screening as seen from the highway, as there are no ridges, hills or stands of trees that would provide screening. b. The proposed development shall avoid the location of structures within the Scenic View Protection Areas, and shall avoid the location of structures within any Viewplane identified in the State Highway 82 Corridor Master Plan and Down Vallev Comprehensive Plan if possible. If location outside the Scenic View Protection Area and defined Viewplanes is not practicable, then the proposed development shall not be located on the highest ground or most visible portion of any site as viewed from those corridors listed in subsection (b) above. Response: The entire property is within the mapped SVPA, but it is not within an identified viewplane. The residence will not be located on the highest ground, as the property continues farther up the steep hillside. The visibility from the highway will be at a substantial distance and from limited vantage points. C. The proposed development's height and bulk shall be designed to avoid, to the maximum extent practicable, the visibility of buildings from those corridors listed in subsection (b) above. This may include, but shall not be limited to, breaking the mass of the building down into a series of smaller forms, articulation of the building facades to avoid a wall or row effect, and staggering roofines to avoid a long unbroken plane. LJtJQ(�`J� Response: The residence will be built into the hillside and earth - sheltered on three sides, due to the steep slope. The Applicant notes that horizontal articulation and modulation of forms is not practicable given the narrow dimensions of the property and the steep slope. Rather than designing the residence as one continuous mass, the residence is broken up vertically by stepping up and back into the hillside. The upper two floors are set back from the lower level, and the hip gable roof has a low profile. Staff agrees that the design responds to the constraints that were acknowledged when the prior approvals were granted. d. The proposed structure shall be placed so it does not project above a ridgeline such that a structure silhouettes against the sky when viewed from those corridors listed in subsection (b), unless there are no alternate building sites on the lot or parcel. Response: The proposed residence will not project above a ridgeline, as seen from the highway. e. The proposed development shall be designed to complement the natural topography of the land through the use of techniques such as earth - sheltered design, the use of natural materials and coloring, the use of low - reflectance materials, or clustering of structures on the least visible portions of the site. When a building is proposed near a ridgeline, then its form (particularly its roofform) shall replicate, parallel, or complement the natural form of the ridgeline so that it appears to be an element of the natural ridgeline. Response: The Applicant intends to utilize natural materials and coloring. A substantial portion of the residence will be built into the slope. The neighbors have questioned whether the photographic simulations accurately represent not only the residence, but retaining walls and other improvements necessary to develop the residence on steep slopes. The Applicant states that no retaining walls are proposed separate from the residence, and that soil nails will be used to stabilize the slope (Applicant has proposed to submit a letter from a civil engineer, but the letter was not available to include with this memo). Due to the narrowness of the parcel, the soil nails would extend into the two adjacent parcels — one owned by William and Yvonne McCallum and one owned by the County as open space. The Applicant has not demonstrated the right to extend the soil nails into the adjacent properties. If permission is not granted, then the Applicant must provide alternative mitigation, which may affect the design of the residence. f. The proposed development shall preserve natural vegetation and avoid development within irrigated meadows, to the maximum extent practicable. Response: The Applicant plans to remove as little vegetation as practicable, and to reseed disturbed areas. g. The proposed development shall install utilities in locations and through procedures that minimize visual impacts to the maximum extent practicable. Response: All utilities will be installed underground. h. All satellite dishes in the proposed development shall be located to minimize visibility from those rights -of- way listed in subsection (b), and shall use earth tone colors and /or screening to minimize their visual impact. Response: The Applicant shall comply. The proposed development shall not use earth moving and berms as the primary means of compliance with these regulations, but earth moving may be utilized in conjunction: with other techniques to comply with standards in this section. Where earth moving techniques are necessary, man -made forms should be undulating and natural in appearance. Response: Earthmoving and berms are not proposed. 0,0 iIUJ j. The exterior of all development, except development located and designed in the form of a ranch compound, shall be built or painted with indigenous earth tone materials or colors. The exterior of a ranch compound should be built or painted with indigenous earth tone materials, or shall be painted or stained using local, traditional ranch colors, which shall include shades of red, brown, or white. Paints or stains that simulate weathered barn wood also shall be permitted. k All roofs shall have a non - reflective color or composition. Reflective roof materials shall not be used unless the materials are treated prior to installation to eliminate reflection, with the exception of materials associated with solar or photovoltaic equipment. 1. Lands disturbed by earth moving or berms should be revegetated using native species that are already growing on or near the site. Topsoil shall be stockpiled and placed on disturbed areas. Irrigation shall be provided to the revegetated areas if it is necessary to ensure survival of planted native species. Response: Earth tone materials or colors shall be used. All roofs will have a non - reflective color or composition. All disturbed areas will be revegetated. m. To the maximum extent practicable, roads and driveways shall be located to skirt the edge of and avoid dividing meadows and pastures and to avoid major road cuts. Roads and driveways should take advantage of the screening potential of natural topography and existing vegetation. Existing roads and driveways shall be used where practical. To enhance screening, a row of trees may be planted along the roads or driveways. To the maximum extent practicable, roads and driveways located around the edge of or in meadows shall be laid out with soft, curving edges and shall avoid straight line corridors that are incongruous with the natural setting. Response: The driveway will remain in its current location, which was approved through Scenic Review prior to its construction. RURAL CHARACTER GUIDELINES: The property does not include any open meadows or pastures, and there are no stands of vegetation or topographic breaks to locate behind. The residence is located within the approved building envelope, which was the deemed the best possible location on the site, given the constraints. LANDSCAPING AND VEGETATION PROTECTION (LUC Sec. 7 -20 -130): As noted above, condition #3 of Resolution No. 006 -2005 requires the Scenic Review application to include a detailed landscaping plan. Landscaping is shown on the site plan (Exhibit 4 to the application). The plan shows limited plantings on the north and south sides of the residence, and plantings on the west side of the driveway. These plantings are not identified by size or type. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Hearing Officer continue the GOVT 33 LLC Scenic View Protection Review to 2012 to allow the Applicant to submit additional information, as follows: • Civil engineer report on mitigation to stabilize slopes. If soil nails are required, then the Applicant must provide easements to allow the soil nails to extend onto adjacent properties. If permission is not granted, then the Applicant must provide alternative mitigation, which may affect the design of the residence. • Detailed landscape plan, including size and type of plantings. ljUUJ04 ATTACHMENTS: A. Georgic and Austin Gleason B. Amy Porath C. Todd Martin D. Tom Smith E. Hearing Officer Determination No. 25 -2004 F. BOCC Resolution No. 006 -2005 G. BOCC Resolution No. 044 -2005 H. Hearing Officer Determination No. 15 -2004 (driveway) 1. 1041 Hazard Review Site Plan Application provided separately Suzanne Wolff From: Georgie Gleason <ggleas @comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 20119:13 AM To: Suzanne Wolff Cc: Amy Porath; Ymccallum @msn.com Subject: Scenic review Suzanne, I have received the hard copy of the scenic review. We appreciate Bonnie sending them. It further supports our opinion that there needs to be additional review of this project. The photographs do not appear to be realistic in respects to the skyline nor the surrounding structures. We are strongly opposed to this project for many reasons. The fact that is has gone this far with the slope being more than 30 degrees is a puzzle to us. If it could be built it would look like a house stacked atop another house. Not to mention that one loose boulder could destroy our home and our lives. And we believe the likelihood of that happening is great. We appreciate your time in this matter. Respectively, Austin and Georgie Gleason Email secured by Check Point Gr ui lu6 Suzanne Wolff From: Arnold Porath <alp @crgpm.com> Sent: Monday, December 19, 20116:53 PM To: Suzanne Wolff Cc: ggleas @comcast.net;'Yvonne MCCALLUM' Subject: Govt 33 Ilc Scenic View Protection Rview (Case P088 -11) Suzanne, This e-mail will serve to follow -up on our conversation of last week. There are many issues regarding the approval of Case P088 -11, too numerous to describe in a brief e-mail. I understand that the noticed review concerns scenic overview issues exclusively yet I believe there exist other extenuating circumstances that directly and indirectly affect the consideration of application for the referenced case. In particular the information submitted by the applicant has not fully satisfied the letter or spirit of the ordinance; as described the proposed building will clearly be visible from Highway 82 and severely so if the structure is taller than one story. Has the applicant stated that the structure will be limited to one story, has a story pole been used to describe the height of a single or two story structure? As we discussed, once this application has been approved it will almost be impossible to voice any objection to the development process and I remain concerned that once construction plans are submitted we will be without a voice to critique or object to the size or massing of the structure, visible or not from Highway 82. Fire suppression remains a very important concern for those homeowners downhill from the proposed site. There have been severe drainage issues a few years ago that affected many of the homes on Spruce as well as those at the bottom of the hill, disturbing the hillside for a construction site that will be greater than 30% above the natural grade only exacerbates the potential for severe damage from debris downhill. Two homes are in a direct line with the proposed construction site where severe rock and debris flow has the potential for property damage and one must also consider the life safety issue that could result in personal injury or loss of life. The owner of this parcel (State Parcel Identification Number 2737- 071 -00 -040) 1 believe has finally completed construction of another house on Spruce Street after five long years of development resulting in various inconveniences and damage. More particularly we have been subjected to noise and dust pollution and considerable road damage which the applicant has to date refused to repair. Please note that our road is a private roadway and therefore we have to bear the cost of any repairs to the roadway or underlying utilities. The applicant, as you are aware, has another lot adjacent to the referenced property and I suspect he will want to develop that site as well. The applicant was aware of the existing ordinance that prohibits construction of any improvement where the site is in excess of 30% above the natural grade, yet with full knowledge he decided to purchase the properties with all its benefits and burdens and now he cries foul and at the peril of adjacent neighbors and wants various agencies to address his grievencess. One last point, the homeowners provided a road access easement to the previous owner of the subject property knowing full well that the existing ordinance would not allow the construction of any structure above a 30% grade. I for one would not have agreed to provide an easement had I known that construction above the 30% limit would be disregarded placing all homeowners on Spruce in a compromising situation. It is not out of the question to revisit the terms of the access easement and if for any reason access should now be reversed or denied than the Scenic View Review Application is rendered moot. For the reasons stated above, I respectfully request that the hearing scheduled to review the application be delayed until such time as many of the important issues may be settled to the satisfaction of all the affected parties. Respectfully, Arny Porath 707 Spruce Street Aspen, CO 81611 Suzanne Wolff From: Todd Martin <tdmgml @gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 12:39 PM To: Suzanne Wolff Cc: Georgie Gleason Subject: Government 33 Development Concerns Dear Suzanne, My wife Martha and I own and live about half of the year at 313 Silverlode, directly below the Government C (888 Spruce) and Government 33 developments owned by Warren Lichtenstein. This letter is to express our grave concerns about these projects. First, we agree with the objections raised by Austin, Pierce & Smith PC in their letter to you of January 7. These two construction projects are on 30 degree slopes, directly above our houses, and stability is far from assured. The projects present significant dangers of falling rock and boulders, which can create significant and irreparable damage. The insurance policy taken out by Mr. Lichtenstein does not provide any comfort. Damage done may not be possible to compensate for, either financially or otherwise. Also, the projects are not fully and adequately specified. We do not know what Mr. Lichtenstein will plant or remove within the property, or what the result will look like. The result may well not unattractive for us, our neighbors, Pitkin County, and the City of Aspen. We were not notified of 888 Spruce (Government C) and given an opportunity to review development plans or to object. Having walked the parcel two weeks ago, I cannot imagine how a house will be built on such a slope and with such limited and difficult access. Given Mr. Lichtenstein's 6 -year construction project at 777 Spruce, having far more accessible land, it is highly likely that the next two construction projects, if they proceed, will create a multi -year mess and hardship across our neighborhood. It will be impossible for these projects to proceed without gross intrusion upon at least a dozen houses, and many more Aspen residents, below. We join with our neighbors in objecting to these projects and asking you to deny permits necessary for their construction. Thank you very much for your consideration of these concerns and interest in this matter, and please keep us informed. Sincerely yours, Todd Martin Owner 313 Silverlode Email secured by Check Point LJ ;iU! AUSTIN, PEIRCE & SMITH, P.C. Attorneys At Law 600 E. Hopkins Avenue Suite 205 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Frederick F. Peirce Telephone Thomas Fenton Smith (970) 925 -2600 _ Facsimile (970) 925-4720 Email Addresses fp-e rn tsmith(o)❑vs -pr ` January 9, 2012 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Suzanne.wolff(ia co.aitkin.co.us Ms. Suzanne Wolff, Senior Planner Pitkin County Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Government 33 LLC — Application for Scenic Review Dear Suzanne, We represent Anne and Arnie Porath, and Georgie and Austen Gleason, owners and residents of properties adjacent to and in close proximity to the property which is the subject of the above - referenced application. This letter is submitted for inclusion in the record of proceedings on the application, and we hereby request to be notified of all further proceedings and documents submitted in connection with the application. It is our position that the pending application is incomplete for the following reasons: 1. Lack of Landscaping Plan. BOCC Resolution No. 006 -2005, whereby the County Commissioners found a taking and approved remediation, included numerous conditions. Condition 3 requires the application for Scenic Overlay Review which is currently pending. This condition states that "The application shall include a detailed U i �� AUSTIN, PEIRCE & SMITH, P.0 Attorneys at Law Suzanne Wolff Letter January 9, 2012 Page 2 landscaping plan." However, the application contains no landscaping plan, detailed or otherwise. This condition is in addition to the Code requirements of Section 7 -20 -120, and the applicant County staff, and the Hearing Officer do not have the discretion to ignore this requirement. The application states "The existing topography and vegetation do not provide an opportunity for screening." However, this does not address Condition No. 3, which adds the requirement for a landscaping plan. Additionally, §7 -20 -120 (e)(2)(b) states that where natural vegetation does not provide adequate screening, "vegetation shall be planted to augment the existing vegetation and maintain the visual integrity of the protected view." 2. Lack of Complete Building Plans. The sketches attached to the application identify the location of the proposed residence and include a rudimentary design of the exterior of the home. However, this information is incomplete for the purpose of this review. Section 7 -20 -120 applies to all of the "proposed development' on the property, notjust the residence. (See §7 -20 -120 and §7 -20 -120 (d)). "Development' includes all of the building activity that will occur on the property (See §Ch. 11, Definitions, "development") The Hearing Officer previously found that the property is comprised of slopes in excess of 30 %, with the majority of the area comprised of slopes in excess of 45 %, areas where development is usually prohibited. Also, it is apparent from other development in the immediate area that significant mitigation will be required for construction on the steep slopes comprising the property. We understand that HP Geotech has done work on this property in connection with the geologic in stability of the site. BOCC Resolution No. 006 -2005 also requires a plan prepared by a professional engineer or geologist to address mitigation of geologic hazards. We believe that such mitigation will require retaining walls and related improvements which will compromise part of the "development' of the property. However, no such improvements are identified in this application. It is our fear that if this approval is granted without information regarding all of the development to occur on the property, the applicant may later claim that the improvements associated with mitigation of the geologic hazards are exempt from further Scenic Review. Since structural mitigation and additional development beyond the footprint of the residence are part of the development of the property, Scenic Review approval should not be granted in the absence of such information. Based upon the foregoing, we request that the pending application be tabled pending the satisfaction of the above requirements. UL1t.�,�w;J AUSTIN, PEIRCE & SMITH, P.C. Attorneys at Law Suzanne Wolff Letter January 9, 2012 Page 2 Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, By l7Ul - Thomas Fenton Smith cc: Annie and Arnie Poratb Georgic and Austen Gleason Neil D. Karbank, Esq. Mitch Haas 6'd 0 11.i RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMIVHSSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF VESTED REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR TIMROTH LLLP Resolution No. 0'1q -2005 RECITALS Timroth LLLP ( "Applicant ") has applied to the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners ( "BOCC ") to consider a 15 year Extension of Vested Real Property Rights pursuant to Section 4 -140- 30 of the Land Use Code ( "Code "). 2. The parcel is located above the Silverlode /Williams Ranch Subdivision on Lower Smuggler Mountain at the top of Spruce Street; is referred to as Government Lot 33; and is more specifically described in Exhibit A. 3. The parcel contains 1.581 acres, is a nonconforming size parcel in the AFR -10 zone district, and is located outside of the Urban Growth Boundary. 4. Government Lot 33 existed prior to June 12, 1978 and has not merged with any adjacent parcels. The Applicant acquired the parcel in 1997 through a land exchange with the US Forest Service. 5. The Hearing Officer denied the 1041 hazard review and conceptual submission, pursuant to 9 Determination No. 25 -2004. The BOCC found the denial to be a taking, and remediated the taking v m pursuant to Resolution No. 006 -2005. A 3 year vested right was granted with the approval. Nom m 6. The BOCC heard this application at a duly noticed public hearing on April 13, 2005 at which time a mm O evidence and testimony were presented with respect to this application. Lo n o 7. The BOCC finds that 7 year extension of vested rights isaieappropriate, given the Applicant's m m o commitment to limit house size. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners that it does hereby approve an Extension of Vested Property Rights for Timroth LLLP. Statutory vested rights for the approval granted pursuant to Resolution No. 006 -2005 are granted pursuant to the Pitkin County Land Use Code and Colorado Statutes, subject to the exceptions set forth in Pitkin County Land Use Code, § 4 -140 and C.R.S., § 24 -68 -105. The statutory vested rights granted herein shall expire on April 13, 2012. Y F- 6 N NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PUBLISHED IN THE ASPEN TIMES on the 13'" day of March, S 2005. N APPROVED AND ADOPTED on the 13 "' day of April, 2005. PUBLISHED AFTER ADOPTION FOR VESTED REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS in the Aspen Times Weekly on the _ day of /1'6. _ , 2005. ©96e of 4 �UijJ )VIIIIIIllIIItIlI1I�IIIIIIIII IIIII�IIIIIIIIIIO5 -� SiIIII e at:eeF e Resolution No. M -1005 Page 1 APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Ely, A Cou omey Case4PO33 -05 PID# 273707100040 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF TKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Patti Kay -Cla er Chair Date: 0.13-V3 -0 S' APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: C� Ci en, Community Development Director IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII VIII VIII VIII IIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII IIII05fl 4/ 0 0009:53, IIfIIIIIIiIi 509653 0 IIIof I�iilll Illll iilill ilill !rill 111111 �(d1111 ii111111111t1. A05845 05/30/1997 01:35P DEED�VIR DRVI � rr.w • 1 of S R 6.00 D 11.00 N 0.00 IN CLERK i RE INTERCHANGN DEED . THIS DEED, made this L41 day of JasNt ', 1997, between the United States of America, acting by and through the Forest: service, Department of Agriculture, hereinafter called Grantor, and A44verla -•18: TimrOth, Doan & -M '.Timroth, and Great C. Timroth, an tenants is common, of P.O. Box 89, Town of Aspen, State of Colorado, hereinafter called Grantees. wITNESSETA: The Grantor is authorized to ecmvey certain National Forest System lands by the act of January 12, 1983 (96 Stat. 2535; 16 U -S.C_ 523c).' I NOW THEREFORE, the Grantor, for and in consideration of land-in Pitkin County, Colorado containing 27.845 acres, more or less, the receipt whereof is hereby - duly acknowledged, doss hereby remise, release, and quitclaim unto the Granteea,'its successors and assigns, all it's right, title, and interest , in and to the real property situated in the County. of Pitkin, State of -Colorado, described as follows: Townshi2 .10 South, Went. P t ' The Bait 1/2 of Lot 33, Section 7 - Containing 0.785 acres, more or less. SUBJECT TO: t g1A a� 1. All easements and rights -of -way of record.:. IN wITAESS MMRSOF, the Grantor by it s 'duly authorized representative has exacute m d this deed pursuant to delegation of authority proulgated in 7 CFR 2.42 and 49 F.R. 34283, August 29, 1984. STATE OF COLORADO COUNTr OF GARFIELU UNITED STATES OF A1SR.ICA i By: V atl. AiW,Gf1.1' BEN L. DEL VILLAR Acting Forest Supervisor white River National Forest Forest' Service' " United States bep'sttirieat of Agriculture ACKNOwLEDGE2mNT of INDIVIDUAL , ) ) a m a m ('!) N 0 M E © mm LO if m m m rc +ter a o - d On thin f day y or T�.de 19jj, 'before me, a Notary Public in and for said State, with principal off Garfie, County, personally appeared Bea L. Del Villar, Acting Forest Supervisor, white River National Forest, known 'to me to be the person who, name is subscribed -to the within instrument, and acknowledged the Same. that be executed N WITNESS my hand and official Seal the day and. year first above written. / Notary Public cgmaieeioa expires 9 / n am N `M wv cF we m AND ..a LD a m G! m o: - o V � H �U �z � a - N g i �N � J 3 ti I 1 IL� N co 1a . • INTERCHANGE DEED W ll•vv THIS DEED, made this (fe day of SuN r 1987, between the United states of America, acting by and through the Forest Service, Department of 'Agriculture, hereinafter called Grantor, and Albert G. Timroth, Donna M. Tirm:oth, and Grant C. Tim:Oth, as tenants in. common, of P.O. Sox 89, Torn of Colorado, hereinafter called Grantees. Aspen, State of WITNESSETH: The Grantor is authorized to convey certain National Forest Slots= lands by the act of January 13, 1963 (96 Ste, 2535; 16 U.S.C..521c). NOW THEREFORE; the Grantor, for and in consideration of land iii'Pitkin County, Colorado containing 27.64S ecres, more or less, the receipt whereof is hereby duly acknowledged, does hereby remise, releass,'and quitciaija unto the Grantees, its suceesaore and assigns all it's right, title- slid interest , in and to the real property situated in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, described, as follows: . The West 1/2 of Lot 33, Section 7 Containing 0.785 acres, more or.loss SUBJECT TO: I, 1. All easements and rights -of -way of record. T� I ' � �i C . O O O 0 i i I N am m t7 °mm 0 QNm T p � Ltd o' m m � m � a z o F n IN cuted t WHEREOF, the Grantor by delegation n Of representative has executed this deed pursuant to the delegatiw of authority promulgated in Title I I a > 7 CFR 2.42 and 49 F.R. 34263, August 29, 1984. �° STATE of C0UW -AD0 COUNTY OF GARFIELD UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEN L. DEL VILI.AR -- Acting Forest Supervisor " White River National "Forest Forest Service United States Department of"Agxicvlture AcmKm ,EDGggzrr of INDIVIDIIAL ) On this _ 4 day of =:L , 1911 before l r,. a Notary Public is and for said State, Vi principal office in Garfield County, personally appeared Ben L. Del Villsr, Acting Forest Supervisor, Whits River National Forest, known to me to be the person whose name te.subscribed to the within instrument, and &O)Mcwledgsd that he executed the same. WITNESS my head and official seal the day and year first above written. My caamiission expires S /19174 rotary ublie ' N softa a o t CO 00 LO 0 O �m x 0 a° �m s. m s - Y a J N I RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, FINDING A TAKING AND REMEDIATING THE TAKING FOR THE TIMROTH LLLP PROPERTY (GOVERNMENT LOT 33) Resolution No4O—&-2005 RECITALS I . Timroth LLLP ( "Applicant") applied to the Pitkin County Hearing Officer ( "Hearing Officer ") for 1041 Hazard Review and Conceptual Submission approval to establish a building envelope to construct a single - family residence and accessory structures. 2. The parcel is located above the Silverlode/Williams Ranch Subdivision on Lower Smuggler Mountain at the top of Spruce Street; is referred to as Government Lot 33; and is more specifically described in Exhibit A. 3. The parcel contains 1.581 acres, is a non - conforming size parcel in the AFR -10 zone district, and is located outside of the Urban Growth Boundary. Government Lot 33 existed prior to June 12, 1978 and has not merged with any adjacent parcels 4. The Hearing Officer denied the application at a duly noticed public hearing on October 19, 2004, pursuant to Determination No. 25 -2004. The Hearing Officer found that the entire parcel is encumbered by slopes in excess of 30 %, where development is prohibited pursuant to Section 3- 80-050(C) of the Land Use Code ( "Code "). 5. . The Applicant submitted a request for a takings determination pursuant to Sections 3 -290, 4 -150 and 5 -220 of the Land Use Code on November 4, 2004 to determine whether the Hearing Officer's denial of the application constitutes a taking of private property without just compensation. 6. The BOCC considered the takings request at regular meetings on November 17 and December 15, 2004, at which time further evidence and testimony were presented with respect to the taking. 7. The BOCC determined that a taking had occurred pursuant to Sections 3 -290 and 4 -150 of the Code, based on the following findings: A. There are not any areas on the property that are not encumbered by slopes in excess of 30 %; B. The proposed building envelope is the best possible location on the property for development; and C. The denial constitutes a taking of all reasonable use and economic return from the subject property. 8. The BOCC considered the remediation at a regular meeting on January 12, 2005, at which time the conditions of approval were accepted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the BOCC that the denial of the Timroth LLLP 1041 Hazard Review and Conceptual Submission constitutes a taking pursuant to Sections 3 -290 and 4- 150 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code. 5 ©69 @9 UtJi�,l�.6 1111111nIHlllllllllllllllllllllllll�IIII 'll��lllll�ll 88:47 SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 0.00 D 0.00 3 � - C= — � -t 41ck l / Resolution No.00 -2005 Page 2 BE TT FURTHER RESOLVED by the BOCC that it does hereby remediate the taking by granting approval, subject to the following conditions, which shall run with the land and be binding on all successors in interest: 1. The Applicant shall adhere to all material representations made in the application or in public meetings or hearings and shall consider those representations to be conditions of approval, unless amended by other conditions. 2. Prior to submission of any earthmoving, access, or building permit applications, the Applicant shall submit a 1041 Hazard Review Site Plan that complies with the provisions of Section 5 -70 -040 of the Land Use Code to the Community Development Department for approval and recording. The mylar copy of the site plan must be signed by the owner prior to submittal for recording. The Applicant shall amend the site plan submitted as part of the original application as follows, prior to submission for recordation: A. Add "Timroth LLLP" to the title. B. Amend the signature block for the Board of County Commissioners instead of the Hearing Officer. 3. Prior to submission of any building permit applications, the Applicant shall submit an application and gain approval for a Scenic Overlay Review, pursuant to Section 3 -60 -040 of the Land Use Code, once plans for the proposed residence have been prepared. The application shall include a detailed landscaping plan. The Applicant shall erect story poles to represent the height of the proposed residence, prior to the hearing date for the scenic overlay review. 4. Prior to issuance of any building permit applications, the Applicant shall: A. Provide documentation to the Environmental Health Department of an adequate quantity and quality of water from the approved well. The well shall be located within the approved building envelopes. As an alternative, the applicant may obtain water from the City of Aspen. B. Pay the applicable road impact fee. C. Name the owners of the properties below the building envelope (identified by Parcel Identification Numbers 2737- 074 -00 -045, 2737 - 074- 30 -005, 2737 -074 - 30-006 and 2737- 074 -30- 007) as additional insured on their policy covering construction activity in the amount of the value of the improvement on each property, if deemed necessary by Community Development staff and the County Attorney, given the findings of the engineer or geologist with regard to the potential off -site impacts during construction. D. Execute an indemnification of the County in a form approved by the County Attorney. E. Submit documentation to the Environmental Health Department that the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) can serve the property. The Applicant shall comply with ACSD rules, regulations, and specifications. F. Provide a plan prepared and signed by a Professional Engineer or geologist to address mitigation of the geologic hazards on and off -site during and post- construction, for review and approval by the County Engineer, Chief Building Official and Community Development Department. The plan shall specifically include an analysis of potential off -site hazards created by construction and reasonable mitigation for those hazards. G. Obtain an access/driveway permit for the driveway, which shall comply with all applicable County access standards and shall be approved by the County Engineer, Fire Marshal and the Community ! l IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiIIIiIIIIIIIII�IIIII 0069090ea.47 Resolution No4fft-2005 Page 3 Development Department. Obtain fireplace/woodstove permits from the Community Development Department, if necessary. H. Submit a drainage and erosion control plan for review and approval by the County Engineer. The plan shall address all construction activities and shall provide for erosion control for a minimum of two years after the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, which shall include details on the types of erosion control and the maintenance of those systems, and a detailed revegetation and planting plan. 1. Submit a Construction Management Plan in accordance to the Asset Management Plan for review and approval by the County Engineer. The Construction Management Plan shall indicate that vehicles associated with construction (i.e. employee traffic, construction vehicles, staging and deliveries) shall not violate County Law, such as parking on County rights -of -way. 5. If the Applicant proposes to use City water to serve the residence, then prior to issuance of a building permit for the residence, the Applicant shall: A. Provide written confirmation to the Community Development Department and the City of Aspen Water Department from the North Spruce Street Homeowners'Association and the Silverlode Homeowners' Association that the water system infrastructure and pump station can accommodate the increased capacity required to serve the residence; and then B. Submit an application to the City of Aspen to amend the 1997 water service agreement for North Spruce Street. 6. The Applicant shall comply with the following measures to mitigate impacts to wildlife: A. Fencing outside of the building envelope shall comply with the wildlife compatible fencing standards in the Land Use Code. B. Dogs shall be kenneled. C. Native vegetation shall be maintained outside of the building envelopes, except as necessary for the utility extension. Safety fencing shall be erected during construction to prevent inadvertent impacts to native vegetation. D. Install and use bear proof trash containers, as required by BOCC Ordinance No. 010 -2001. 7. The Applicant shall comply with the following landscaping and wildfire defensible space mitigation standards: A. Within 20' of the residence, remove all brush (oak, serviceberry, chokecherry, sagebrush, etc.). B. Beyond 20' and within 45' of the residence, oak brush shall be thinned to 5x the height of the remaining plants, and remaining plants shall be limbed up to 10'. All sprouts and understory shrubs shall be removed. C. Beyond 45' and within 65' of the residence, bushes and shrubs shall be thinned to 3x the height of the remaining plants. D. A minimum of 10' spacing shall exist between tree crowns, except for aspen or cottonwood trees where ladder fuels have been removed. E. All other vegetation within 30' of the residence shall be kept to less than 1' in height, with a few scattered shrubs allowed beyond 25' from the residence. F. All branches from trees and brush within 30' of the residence shall be pruned to a height of 10' above the ground with removal of ladder fuels from around trees and brush. G. All deadfall within 70 feet of the residence shall be removed. U U f g 06 9 1222222 DAVIS II�� IIII Illlryl� �IIII III III (RII IIII O s 0009008.4, 3 Resolution N64 -2005 Page 4 H. Remaining oak brush, serviceberry or chokecherry stumps shall be painted with Garlon herbicide to prevent resprouting. I. Installed or native landscaping within 20' of the residence shall not contain any brushy or coniferous species and shall be irrigated. Aspen trees may be planted, but not within 10' of the residence and shall be limbed to 10'. No trees shall be planted within 15' of any window. J. Shrubs shall be thinned to 3x the height of the remaining plants within 25' on both sides of the driveway. Within 10' of the driveway, shrubs and conifers are not allowed and aspen are allowed. K. The Applicant shall be responsible for the continued maintenance of the defensible space vegetation requirements. L. These standards may be varied by staff in consultation with a wildfire expert when a landscape plan is submitted for review. 8. The Applicant shall comply with the following additional wildfire mitigation standards: A. Roofs shall be constructed with a non - combustible roof covering on a Class A roof assembly as defined in the international Building Code (IBC) Section 1505.2. Noncombustible materials shall be one of the following: cement shingles or sheets; exposed concrete slab roof; ferrous or copper shingles or sheets; slate shingles; clay or concrete roofing tile; or an approved roof covering of non - combustible material. Wood shake/shingle roof coverings are prohibited. Roofs with less than a 3:12 pitch are not permitted unless they comply with the following: a) All roof coverings shall be noncombustible materials and installed on a Class A roof assembly. b) All roof coverings shall have a surface that shall facilitate the natural process of clearing the roof. c) All roof designs shall facilitate the natural process of clearing roof debris. Protrusions above the roofline, such as parapets, shall be prohibited. d) Roofs shall be installed as required by the adopted building code and shall have a minimum slope of 1:48. e) All roof designs, coverings, or equivalent assemblies shall be specifically approved by the Fire Marshal prior to submittal of a building permit application. B. Vents shall be screened with corrosive resistant wire mesh with mesh '''A inch maximum. C. Roofs and gutters shall I be kept clear of debris. D. Yards shall be kept clear of all litter, slash, and flammable debris. E. All flammable materials and firewood/wood piles shall be stored on a parallel contour a minimum of 15 feet away from any structure. F. Swimming pools or ponds shall be accessible to Fire Department vehicles. G. Fences shall be kept clear of brush and debris. H. Wood fences shall not connect to the structure. I. Fuel tanks shall be installed underground with an approved container. J. Propane tanks shall be installed according to NFPA 48 standards and on a contour away from the structure with standard defensible space vegetation mitigation around any above -ground tank. Any wood enclosure around the tank shall be constructed with materials approved for 2 hour fire- resistive construction on the exterior side of the walls. K. Each structure shall have a minimum of one 10 pound approved ABC fire extinguisher placed in a visible and accessible location. L. Addresses shall be clearly marked with 2 inch non - combustible letters and shall be visible and installed on a non - combustible post. M. Utility lines shall be buried. I IIIII IIIII Ililll III IIII INIIII IIIII III Illf I IIII III 506909 8e //2005 0:471 !; SILVIA DAVIS N B Resolution No& -2005 Page 5 9. The Applicant shall submit a lighting plan specifying the location, type and number of exterior fixtures and demonstrating compliance with the County's lighting regulations, for review and approval by the Community Development Department, prior to installation of exterior lighting fixtures. 10. No development, including grading, excavation, fill placement, berming, landscaping, vegetation removal or disturbance, shall occur outside of the approved building envelopes. Exceptions to this prohibition include utility extensions within a designated utility easement, required wildfire mitigation, and plantings found to be necessary to mitigate geologic hazards, subject to a landscape plan reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department. 11. All areas disturbed by construction shall be revegetated with native shrubs and grasses to limit water consumption and additional runoff within one growing season of the project's completion. 12. The Applicant shall use exterior materials that "blend in" with the surrounding natural landscape. Non - reflective exterior, roof and window materials shall be utilized. 13. The Applicant shall comply with the codes and requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection District. 14. The total allowable floor area shall be limited to a maximum of 5,750 square feet of floor area, as measured pursuant to the definition of "Floor Area" in effect at the time of building permit submittal. The Applicant shall not be eligible to obtain additional floor area in excess of 5,750 square feet. 15. The Applicant shall comply with the following measures to mitigate geologic hazards: A. Site specific soils testing shall be conducted prior to foundation design to ensure stability. B. Excavations, including foundations, shall be adequately supported with or designed as retaining walls, with appropriate drainage on the upslope side. C. Cuts, fills and other excavations shall be minimized, steepening of existing slopes shall be avoided, and all disturbed areas not covered by construction shall be graded so that they can be revegetated. D. Final grading and landscaping shall prevent rolling rocks from striking the structure. E. The first three feet of the structure that extends above grade shall be reinforced and openings in this interval shall be limited. F. Adequate mechanical support shall be provided for cut slopes. G. Adding water, which may decrease slope stability, shall be avoided. H. Adding weight to the top of the slope shall be avoided. 1. Confine, cut, fills, grading and excavation to the minimum area needed for construction. 16. Failure to comply with these conditions of approval may result in revocation of this permit or any subsequent permits related to this property. 17. Statutory vested rights for the approval contained herein are granted pursuant to the Pitkin County . Land Use Code and Colorado Statutes, subject to the exceptions set forth in Pitkin County Land Use Code, § 4 -140 and C.R.S., § 24-68 -105. The statutory vested rights granted herein shall expire on January 12, 2008. APPROVED AND ADOPTED on the 121h day of January, 2005. ILVIIIDA IS PITKIN IIIIIIIIIINTY CO 0 0069200908 :47, U ([i Resolution No " '005 Page 6 ,N,L,ed 'Cindy Houben Community Development Director P 1 12-04 PID 4273707100040 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO 711 WPM R.T.PS-01 APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Ely County. Attorney I{ I1 1I I }I1 {I I1 506909 I I�IIII �III� ��Ifll IIII� IIII Page! II�I III II I 0 @2/10/2605 0 ¢08:47 I J11111111111111111 111111111111111 111111111111111111111. u w 405645 06/30/1997 02:35P DEED�VIR DRVI • 1 of 1 R 6.00 D 11.00 N 0.00 IN CLERK 6 RE INTERCHANGE DEED THIS DEED, made this L(P day of Xa V o 1917, between the United States of America, acting by and through. the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, hereinafter called Grantor, and Albeat G. Timroth, Donna-X., Timroth, and. Grant C. Timroth, as tenants in common, of P.O. Sox 89, Town of Aspen, State of Colorado, hereinafter called Grantees. L I py sg WITNESSETHt The Grantor is authorised to convey certain National Forest System lands by the act of January 12, 1983 (96 Stat. 2535; 16 D.S.C. 521c).' NOW THEREFORE, the Grantor, for and in consideration of land in Pitkin County, Colorado containing 27.845 acres, more or less, the receipt whereof is hereby duly acknowledged, does hereby remise, release, and quitclaim unto the Grantees,'its successors and assigns all it's right, title, and interest , in and to the real property situated in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, described as follows: s ' : The East 1/2 of Lot 33, Section 7 . Containing 0.785 acres, more or less. SUBJECT TO: 1. All easements and rights -of -way of record.: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor by its duly authorized representative has executed this deed pursuant to the delegation of authority promulgated in Title 7 CPR 2.42 and 49 F.R. 34283, August 29, 1984. STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF GARFIELD UNITED STATES OF AMERICA By: 4 BEN L. DEL VILLAR Acting Forest Supervisor White River National Forest Forest Service United States Department of Agriculture ACKNDWLEDGEMENT OF INDIVIDUAL On this t (G day of Ti[,c/2 19rj, before me., AV ,C4,1 a Notary Public in and for said State, with principal office in Garfieldr County, personally appeared Ben L. Del Villar, Acting Forest Supervisor, White River National Forest; known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same. ' WITNESS my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. �- l L my commission expires _ Notary Public U Lj . (/ s Rice �i mmm Q1 m m ©O °mm 0) 0 O N LO a m m m U U 2 Y f_ - 4 N S � N e+a c� o� � fl� lam �e a C w l 1. vv r e INTERCHANGE DEED m m e THIS DEED, made this (k day of TiiH t , 19g7, between the United States of 0) .mm O H m America, acting by and through the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, m 0 .•m a hereinafter called Grantor, and Albert G. Timroth, Donna M. Timroth, and 0 u� Grant C. Timroth, as tenants in common, of P.O. Box 89, Town of Aspect, State of ■ N Colorado, hereinafter called Grantees. m WITNESSETH: The Grantor is authorized to convey certain National. Forest System a lands the act of January by ary 12, 1983 (96 Stat. 2535; 16 II.S.C..521c). - NOW THEREFORE, the Grantor, for and in consideration of land in Pitkin. County, Colorado containing 27.845 acres, more or less, the receipt whereof is hereby o y duly acknowledged, does hereby remise, release, and quitclaim unto the Grantees, its successors and assigns all it's right, title; and interest in g , and to the real property situated in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, described as follows: a Township 10 South Rance 84 West 6th P.M. S The West 1/2 of Lot 33, Section 7 Containing 0.785 acres, more or less. N SUBJECT TO: 1. All easements and rights -of -way of record. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor by its duly authorised representative has executed this deed pursuant to the delegation of authority promulgated in Title 7 CFR 2:42 and 49 F.R. 34283, August 29, 1984. STATE OF COLORADO COUNTr OF GARFIELD UNITED STATES OF AMERICA By: BEN L. DEL VI Acting Forest Supervisor White River National Forest Forest Service United States Department of Agriculture On this /G day of �—J cu/P , 1911 before me, LJ a Notary Public in and for said State, with principal office in Garfield County, personally appeared Ben L. Del Villar, Acting Forest Supervisor, White River National Forest, known to me to be the person whose name in subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. w w own own M p_ pp. vet anums M M q rR M t� 2 w�► =.111111M on" iY My comission expires � //S /1494 ! 1 ') otary ublic Da VVV DETERMINATION OF THE HEARING OFFICER OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, DENYING THE TUYIROTH LLLP 1041 HAZARD REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION Determination No. z -zo(� --�60 y RECITALS 1. Timroth LLLP ( "Applicant ") has applied to the Pitkin County Hearing Officer ( "Hearing Officer') for 1041 Hazard Review and Conceptual Submission approval to establish a building envelope to construct a single- family residence and accessory strictures. 2. The parcel is located above the Silverlode /Williams Ranch Subdivision on Lower Smuggler Mountain at the top of Spruce Street, is referred to a Government Lot 33, and is more specifically described in Exhibit A. 3. The parcel contains 1.581 acres, and is anon- conforming size parcel in the AFR -10 zone district. The parcel is outside of the Urban Growth Boundary. 4. Government Lot 33 existed prior to June 12, 1978 and has not merged with any adjacent parcels. 5. The Hearing Officer considered this application at a duly noticed public hearing on October 19, 2004, at which time evidence and testimony were presented with respect to this application. 6. The Hearing Officer finds that the entire property is comprised of slopes in excess of 30 %, with the majority of the area comprised of slopes in excess of 45 %. Therefore, the proposed building envelope and driveway are located in areas where development is prohibited pursuant to Section 3- 80- 050(C) of the Land Use Code ( "Code "). NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Pitkin County Community Development Hearing Officer that he does hereby deny the Tiniroth LLLP 1041 Hazard Review and Conceptual Submission. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PUBLISHED IN-THE ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY on the 18`x' day of September, 2004. DENIED this 19`x' day of October, 2004. I I IiI I! I I 503526 Illlll Ill I111II IIIIi Page: I of 2 ,llllll III IIIIIII III VIII Illl ill0 10//27 /2 00 08:53A SILVIA DAVIS 00 uJ�� 11_� Hearing Officer Determination No. l,5 -2004 Page 2 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING OFFICER OF PITKJN COUNTY, COLORADO By � ATT ST: James R. True, Hearing Officer Date G z —rl .4-A -)OLA:STc�� }4'SSiS'l�cwi- APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: C John Ely, CYhdy Hoube-n, County Attor Community Development Director P) 12-04 PID #273707100040 ! SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 0.00 iuUC"! �5 503526 Page: 2 of 2 10/27/2004 08:53P D 0.00 1111 El�111111111111 III 11111 It a Page: 0 0 0 0 2:28P DETERMINATION OF THE HEARING OFFICER OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, APPROVING THE TV*IROTH SCENIC OVERLAY REVIEW FOR A DRIVEWAY Determination No. j�_-2004 RECITALS 1. Gerry Timroth ( "Applicant ") has applied to the Pitkin County Hearing Officer ( "Hearing Officer ") for Scenic Overlay approval for a driveway. 1. The parcel is located above the Silverlode /Williams Ranch Subdivision on Lower Smuggler Mountain at the top of Spruce Street; is referred to as the northerly portion of the Pride of Aspen mining claim; and is more specifically described in Exhibit A. 2. The parcel contains 1.179 acres, is a non - conforming size parcel in the AFR -10 zone district, and is located outside of the Urban Growth Boundary. 3. The Board of County Commissioners ( "BOCC ") recognized in the 1990 "Declaration of Restrictions" (recorded in Book 615 at Page 219) that the northerly portion of the Pride of Aspen (the subject parcel) was a separately developable parcel, "subject however to all of the provisions of the Pitkin County Land Use Code, including, but not limited to, the Building Permit Review and General Submission requirements." 4. The Hearing Officer denied the 1041 hazard review and conceptual submission application, pursuant to Determination No. 27 -2001, based on the finding that the entire property is encumbered by slopes in excess of 30 %. The Board of County Commissioners found a taking as a result of the denial and remediated the taking to allow development of a single family residence and associated access pursuant to Resolution No. 117 -2001. The 1041 hazard review site plan was recorded in Plat Book 58 at Page 75. Condition #2A of Resolution No. 117 -2001 required the Applicant to submit a scenic overlay application for the residence and driveway prior to building permit application. 5. The Hearing Officer considered this application at a duly noticed public hearing on May 18, 2004, at which time evidence and testimony were presented with respect to this application. 6. The Hearing Officer finds that the proposed development complies with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Pitkin County Community Development Hearing Officer that he does hereby approve the Timroth Scenic Overlay Review, subject to the following conditions, which shall run with the land and be binding on all successors in interest. 1. All conditions of BOCC Resolution No. 117 -2001 shall remain in full force and effect. 2. Obtain an access permit for the driveway, which shall comply with all applicable County access standards and shall be approved by the Comity Engineer and the Community Development Department. Hearing Officer Determination No. IS-2004 I IIIIII VIII IIIIII IIII VIII IIIIII IIIIII III VIII IIII IIII 05921 //2© 44 02:28P .Page 2 SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 0.00 D 0.00 3. The Applicant shall construct a boulder retaining wall on the uphill side of the driveway. The Applicant shall use boulders that blend with the colors of the natural surrounding environment. 4. The Applicant shall reseed any disturbed areas with a mix of native grasses and forbs that shall be approved by the County's Wildlife Biologist. All disturbance caused by construction shall be revegetated no later than one growing season after completion of construction. 5. Any lighting along the driveway shall be prohibited. 6. The Applicant shall adhere to all material representations made in the application or in public meetings or hearings and shall consider those representations to be conditions of approval, unless amended by other conditions. 7. Statutory vested rights for the approval contained herein are granted pursuant to the Pitkin County Land Use Code and Colorado Statutes, subject to the exceptions set forth in Pitkin County Land Use Code, § 4 -140 and C.R.S., § 24 -68 -105. The statutory vested rights granted herein shall expire on May 18, 2007. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PUBLISHED IN THE ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY on the 17 °i day of April, 2004. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18 °i day of May, 2004. PUBLISHED AFTER ADOPTION FOR VESTED REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS in the Aspen Times Weekly on the day of , 2004. ATTEST: CE) anis T ylor, Administrative A sistant APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Ely, County Attorney P028 -04, PID4273707400002 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING OFFICER OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO By— James R. True, Hearing Officer Date APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: CAdyAouben, Connnunity Development Director ,Fx k; b I -i- �- 49 IIIIII DAVIS llii IIIIVICOUNTY l CO III Illfl IIII IIII O z 906 02.28a 00 - -LEGAL DES-OMP 'ION A tract of land located in the Northeast' /, and the Southeast Y. Of Section 7. Township 1P South. Range 84 West of the 61h Principal Meridian, being a portion of the Pride of Aspen Lode Mining Claim U.S.M.S. N6.7883 7883 and the Ballarat Lose Mining Claim U.S.M.S. No. 4438 described as follows: Beginning at a point from which the Center East 1116 Comer of Section 7, Township 10 youth, Range 84 West of the 6th Principal Meridian bears N 01'32'48" E 5.47 feet: thence N 75 041'10" E 49.08 feet (record N 75'35' E 49.63 feet); thence N 75437'15" E 140.73 feet; thence 5 00 °17'31" W 217.49 feet; thence S 00 °21'42" W 25.69 feet (record S 00'05'W25,74 feet); thence S 56"19'40"W 219.53 feet (record WDB.3' W 219.78 feet); thence N 00 100'56" E 317.80 feet (record N 00401.9'W 311.85 feet) to the point of beginning. Ljor- Ie tr HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC November 7, 2011 Pitkin County Community Development Department c/o Suzanne Wolff, Senior Planner 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Government 33 LLC Scenic Review (Parcel ID 2737 - 071 -00 -040) Dear Suzanne: The applicant is requesting Scenic Review approval as required under BOCC Resolution 006 -2005. The 1041 approval on the subject property was granted pursuant to said Resolution and remains vested until April 13, 2012. Therefore, this application is subject to the Scenic Review standards but not the other Site Plan Review criteria of the current (2006 adopted) Pitkin County Land Use Code. The subject parcel is located immediately outside of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Background Government Lot 33 is a 1.581 acre parcel located above the Silverlode /Williams Ranch Subdivision on Lower Smuggler Mountain and at the top of Spruce Street. The parcel existed prior to June 12, 1978 and has not merged with any adjacent parcels. The site is a sub - standard sized parcel within Pitkin County's AR -10 Zone District. In 2004, the previous owner applied for a 1041 Environmental Hazards Review and Conceptual Submission Approval to establish a building envelope to construct a single - family residence and accessory structures. The Hearing Officer denied the application in Determination No. 25 -2004, finding that the entire parcel is encumbered by slopes in excess of 30 %. An application was then submitted requesting a takings determination to establish whether the denial constituted a taking of private property without just compensation. BOCC Resolution 006 -2005 determined that a taking had occurred, and remediated the taking by granting 1041 approval for development of a GMQS - exempt single - family home of 5,750 square feet, subject to certain conditions. A three -year vested right was granted with the approval. The previous owner then applied for an extension of the associated vested rights, and the BOCC extended the vested rights 201 N. MILL STREET, SUITE 108 • ASPEN, COLORADO • 81611 PHONE: (970) 925 -7819 • FAX: (970) 925 -7395 Govt 33 LLC Scenic Review Application November 7, 2011 for seven years, until April 13, 2012. One of the conditions of Resolution 006 -2005 stated that, prior to the submission of a building permit application, scenic overlay approval would need to be granted. In that Resolution, the BOCC found that the proposed building envelope is the best possible location on the property for development. The Proposal In order to preserve the character of Pitkin County, careful attention must be paid to the visible impacts of proposed development. Section 7 -20 -120 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code (the Code) establishes Scenic View Protection areas that are proximate to and most visible from specific roads in the County. The standards of Section 7 -20 -120 are designed to minimize the visual impact of new development and to preserve the character of all Rural Areas of the County. Since this property is visible from State Highway 82 (Main Street, Aspen), and State Highway 82 is a road specified in Section 7- 20- 120(b) of the Code, the standards of Section 7- 20- 120(d) must be followed. This review is for the development of the approved home, within the approved building envelope on Government Lot 33. RGS Architecture (RGSA) has prepared photographic simulations depicting the character of the proposed home from State Highway 82 (SH 82). As the provided materials show, this home will be earth - sheltered on three sides and tucked into the hillside, just above the Silverlode /Williams Ranch homes and the blue roofs of the Centennial Housing complex. The existing topography and vegetation do not provide an opportunity for screening, but the home will not be located on the highest or most visible portion of the site and will not project above a ridgeline. The Smuggler Mountain ridgeline is actually several hundred feet above the proposed home. There is no way to fully eliminate visibility of the proposed development from SH 82, although any visibility from SH 82 will be at a substantial distance and from limited vantage points. Any visual impact will be similar to that associated with the existing homes on surrounding lots. The plans, therefore, demonstrate an effort to adhere as closely as possible to the standards for Scenic View Protection by minimizing negative visual impacts and through the use of earth - sheltered design, and natural and earth -toned color and materials. The review criteria of Section 7- 20- 120(d) are provided below in italicized print, and each is followed by a response demonstrating compliance and /or consistency therewith, as applicable. Parcel ID 2737- 071 -00 -040 Page 2 Z Govt 33 LLC Scenic Review Application November 7. 2011 (1) The proposed development shall utilize existing topography and natural vegetation, such as ridges, hills, and existing trees, to screen buildings to the maximum extent practicable when viewed from those right -of -way listed in subsection (b) above. The existing topography and vegetation afford little opportunity for frontal screening. There are no ridges, hills or stands of trees that would provide screening for this development. That said, as the provided materials show, this home will be tucked into the hillside and earth- sheltered on three sides. The visibility of this home from SH 82 will be the same or less than that of existing homes on Smuggler and Red Mountain, which are largely obscured and /or obstructed by buildings along Main Street. (2) The proposed development shall avoid the location of structures within the Scenic View Protection Areas, and shall avoid the location of structures within any Viewplane identified in the State Highway 82 Corridor Master Plan and Down Valley Comprehensive Plan if possible. If location outside the Scenic View Protection Area and defined Viewplanes is not practicable, then the proposed development shall not be located on the highest ground or most visible portion of any site as viewed from those corridors listed in subsection (b) above. There is no way for this development to completely avoid the Scenic View Protection Area. However, this development will not be located on the highest ground or most visible portion of the site as viewed from SH 82. Accordingly, the building envelope is limited to areas below the 8,240 foot elevation (as directed and approved by the BOCC). (3) The proposed development's height and bulk shall be designed to avoid, to the maximum extent practicable, the visibility of buildings from those corridors listed in subsection (b) above. This may include, but shall not be limited to, breaking the mass of the building down into a series of smaller forms, articulation of the building fagades to avoid a wall or row effect, and staggering rooflines to avoid a long unbroken plane. Although the home will be visible from parts of SH 82, it will be at a substantial distance and will be in character with existing development patterns on Smuggler Mountain. Horizontal articulation and modulation of forms is not practicable given the narrow dimensions of the property, the setback requirements, and the steep slopes. Notwithstanding the horizontal constraints, rather than designing the building as one continuous mass, the proposed home is broken up vertically by stepping up and back into the hillside. The design takes advantage of the topography by cutting into the slope and sheltering a substantial portion of the structure below ground. The upper two floors of the Parcel ID 2737- 071 -00 -040 Page 3 I Govt 33 LLC Scenic Review Application November 7, 2011 home will be significantly set back from the lower level. This distance between the vertical rises, as well as the glass railing above the garage, the breeze de soleils that intersect the two upper levels, and the minimal profile hip gable roof, all combine to help to break up the perceived mass, bulk and height of the home. (4) The proposed structure shall be placed so it does not project above a ridgeline such that a structure silhouettes against the sky when viewed from those corridors listed in subsection (b), unless there are no alternate building sites on the lot or parcel. The proposed residence will not project above a ridgeline. There are no ridgelines affecting the subject site. The Smuggler Mountain ridgeline is several hundred feet above the subject property and the proposed home. (5) The proposed development shall be designed to complement the natural topography of the land through the use of techniques such as earth - sheltered design, the use of natural materials and coloring, the use of low- reflectance materials, or clustering of structures on the least visible portions of the site. When a building is proposed near a ridgeline, then its form (particularly its roof form) shall replicate, parallel, or complement the natural form of the ridgeline so that it appears to be an element of the natural ridgeline. The applicant intends to utilize natural materials and coloring. A substantial portion of the proposed residence will be built into the slope (earth - sheltered on three of its four sides), rendering such areas invisible from above -grade and from SH 82. (6) The proposed development shall preserve natural vegetation and avoid development within irrigated meadows, to the maximum extent practicable. The applicant plans to remove as little vegetation as practicable for the development, and simply reseed any disturbed areas with a native mix of grasses and forbs. The seed mix will be chosen in consultation with the County's Land Management Department. There are no irrigated meadows associated with or near this property. (7) The proposed development shall install utilities in locations and through procedures that minimize visual impacts to the maximum extent practicable. All utilities will be installed underground and in locations that minimize visual impacts. Parcel ID 2737 - 071 -00 -040 Page 4 y Govt 33 LLC Scenic Review Application November 7, 2011 (8) All satellite dishes in the proposed development shall be located to minimize visibility from those rights -of -way listed in subsection (b), and shall use earth tone colors and/or screening to minimize their visual impact. Any satellite dishes will be located so as to minimize visibility from SH 82, and will use earth tone colors. (9) The proposed development shall not use earth moving and berms as the primary means of compliance with these regulations, but earth moving may be utilized in conjunction with other techniques to comply with standards in this section. Where earth moving techniques are necessary, man -made forms should be undulating and natural in appearance. Due to surrounding topography and the shape/ configuration of the subject property, earth moving and /or berms do not provide a viable means of screening for the proposed home. Instead, the primary means of compliance are achieved by breaking up the mass, employing earth - sheltered design techniques, and committing to the use of earth -toned and natural exterior building materials and colors. (10) In the Rural Areas only, development shall be located so that activities and development occur in at least one of the locations specified in subsection (0 as they may apply to the particular property. This standard actually refers to subsection (e) and is addressed below. (11) The exterior of all development, except development located and designed in the form of a ranch compound, shall be built or painted with indigenous earth tone materials or colors. The exterior of a ranch compound should be built or painted with indigenous earth tone materials, or shall be painted or stained using local, traditional ranch colors, which shall include shades of red, brown, or white. Paints or stains that simulate weathered barn wood also shall be permitted. Earth tone materials and colors will be used where and to the extent possible. The ranch compound principles have no application to the subject site. (12) All roofs shall have a non - reflective color or composition. Reflective roof materials shall not be used unless the materials are treated prior to installation to eliminate reflection, with the exception of materials associated with solar or photovoltaic equipment. Parcel ID 2737- 071 -00 -040 Page 5 �l Govt 33 LLC Scenic Review Application November 7, 2011 All roofs will have a non - reflective color or composition. Roofing materials will not be reflective. (13) Lands disturbed by earth moving or berms should be revegetated using native species that are already growing on or near the site. Topsoil shall be stockpiled and placed on disturbed areas. Irrigation shall be provided to the revegetated areas if it is necessary to ensure survival of planted native species. All disturbed areas will be revegetated. Also, see the response to standard (6), above. (14) To the maximum extent practicable, roads and driveways shall be located to skirt the edge of and avoid dividing meadows and pastures and to avoid major road cuts. Roads and driveways should take advantage of the screening potential of natural topography and existing vegetation. Existing roads and driveways shall be used where practical. To enhance screening, a row of trees may be planted along the roads or driveways. To the maximum extent practicable, roads and driveways located around the edge of or in meadows shall be laid out with soft, curving edges and shall avoid straight line corridors that are incongruous with the natural setting. The driveway will remain where it is currently located. The existing driveway went through Scenic Review and received approval prior to its construction. All developments in Rural Areas are subject to additional guidelines that must be followed, pursuant to Section 7- 20- 120(e) of the Code. Said section states that, Development in Rural Areas should be located so that activities and development occur in one or a combination of the following locations as they may apply to the particular property: (1) at the edge of an open meadow or pasture; (2) behind an existing stand of vegetation; (3) behind or built into a change in natural topography; or (4) within a pasture or meadow, clustered in the form of a ranch compound, or adjacent to or integrated into an existing ranch compound. This property does not encompass any open meadows or pastures and there are no existing stands of vegetation to locate behind. No natural topographic break exists on or near the property. The home will be situated in a previously approved and vested building envelope, which was deemed the best possible location on the property for development by the BOCC in Resolution 006 -2005. The home has been designed to follow the natural contours of the site, while still complying with all other county regulations. Parcel ID 2737- 071 -00 -040 Page 6 6 Govt 33 LLC Scenic Review Application November 7, 2011 Should you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. I can be reached at the numbers and address provided at the bottom of this letter's first page, or by email at mhaas @sopris.net. Very truly yours, HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC xt�:) Mitch Haas Owner /Manager Attachments: Exhibit 1: Pre - Application Conference Summary Exhibit 2: Proof of Ownership Exhibit 3: Authorization for Haas Land Planning, LLC to Represent the Applicant Exhibit 4: Scenic View Protection Exhibits Exhibit 5: Executed Fee Agreement Exhibit 6: Mailing Addresses of Record for Property Owners within 300 Feet Parcel ID 2737- 071 -00 -040 191 Page 7 EXHIBIT —1 PITKIN COUNTY PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PROJECT: Govt 33 LLC Scenic View Protection Review LOCATION: Top of Spruce Street OWNER: Govt 33 LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Mitch Haas DATE: 9/26/11 Type of Application: Scenic View Protection Review PID# 273707100040 Phone: 925 -7819 PLANNER: Suzanne Wolff. 920 -5093 Description of Project/Development: The Applicant is requesting scenic review approval as required by BOCC Resolution No. 006 -2005. This approval is vested until 4/13/2012 and, therefore, is not subject to the other Site Plan Review criteria under the 2006 Land Use Code. The parcel is outside of the Urban Growth Boundary. Land Use Code Sections to be addressed in letter of request (application): Sec. 7- 20 -120(d and e): Standards for Scenic View Protection Areas Staff will refer the application to the following agencies: North Spruce St. HOA Review by: Community Development Director Public Hearing: NO. However, notice is required via posting, mailing and publication. The Applicant shall post a public notice sign on the property at least 15 days prior to the date specified for the Administrative Decision pursuant to Sec. 2- 20- 100(a)(3) of the Land Use Code. In addition, the Applicant shall mail notice (by certified mail) to all owners within 300' of the property and mineral estate owners with the return address of the Community Development Department (form of notice to be obtained from the Community Development Department). The names and addresses shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County, as they appear no more than 60 days prior to the date of the public hearing. A property owner receiving the public notice shall have 2 weeks from the date the notice was postmarked to submit comments or objections to the Community Development Department. FEES: $1,639 (make check payable to " Pitkin County Treasurer ") $1,560 Planning Office flat fee (non - refundable; based on 5 hours of staff time; if staff review time exceeds 6 hours, the Applicant will be charged for additional time above 5 hours at a rate of $312 /hour) $54 Public Notice $25 Web Technology Fee To apply, submit 1 copy of the following information, unless noted otherwise: 1. Summary letter explaining the request, providing background on prior approvals and permits, and addressing compliance with the Code sections listed above. 2. Scenic View Protection Exhibits as designated in Section 2.1.12 of the Pitkin County Land Use Application Manual; 3. Disclosure and proof of ownership of the properties, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company or attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property and all mortgagees, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting use and development of the parcel and proof of the owner's right to use the land for the purposes identified in the development application. Eli 4. Street address (if any) and parcel description, including legal description, and 8 -1/2 "x 11" vicinity map locating the subject property within Pitkin County; 5. Executed Pitkin County Community Development Agreement for Payment of Land Use Application Fees (1 copy) (form attached); 6. List of property owners within 300' (1 copy); and 7. This Pre - Application Conference Summary Sheet. NOTES: ➢ PLEASE SUBMIT ONE UNBOUND AND ONE -SIDED COPY OF YOUR COMPLETE APPLICATION. PLEASE SUBMIT TWO -SIDED COPIES OF ALL REMAINING COPIES OF YOUR APPLICATION (IF POSSIBLE). ➢ ALL MAPS SHALL BE FOLDED. ➢ This pre- application conference summary is advisory in nature and not binding on the County. The information provided in this summary is based on current zoning standards and staffs interpretations based upon representations of the applicant. Additional information may be required upon a complete review of the application. II CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the State of Colorado hereby certifies that GOVT 33 LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY is the owner in fee simple of the following described property: LOT 33, IN SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M. ADDRESS ACCORDING TO THE PITKIN COUNTY ASSESSORS OFFICE: SPRUCE ST., ASPEN, CO. 81611 ENCUMBRANCES: NONE This certificate is not to be construed to be a guarantee of title and is furnished for informational purposes only. PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. !•]A at] authorized signature CERTIFIED TO: December 18, 2007 at 8:00 A.M. Job No. 2348G /U Parcel Detail Pitkin County Assessor Parcel Detail Information Assessor Property Search I Assessor Subset Query I Assessor Sales Search Clerk & Recorder Reception Search I Treasurer Tax Search Search Basic Building Characteristics I Value Summary Page 1 of 2 Parcel Detail I Value Detail I Sales Detail I Residential /Commercial Improvement Detail Owner Detail I Land Detail I Photographs Tax Area Account Numb I Parcel Numberj 2010 Mill Levy 008 R016577 273707100040 22.854 Primary Owner Name and Address GOVT 33 LLC C/O MANSON & KARBANK 604 W MAIN ASPEN, CO 81611 Additional Owner Detail Legal Description =Section: Township: 10 Range: 84 LOT 33 Location Physical ISPRUCE ST ASPEN Subdivision: La 11.500 Land Sq Ft: 0 Section T Range 07 11 10 =1 84 2011 Property Value Summary Actual Value Assessed Value Land: 2,900,000 841,000 Improvements: 0 Total: 2,900,000 841,000 http:// www. pitkinassessor .org /assessor/Parcel .asp ?AccountNumber= RO16577 10/6/2011 Parcel Detail Sale Date: 10/26/2005 Sale Price: 11,875,000 Additional Sales Detail Basic Building Characteristics Number of Residential B 10 Number of Comm/Ind Buildings: 110 No Building Records Found Ton of Page Assessor Database Search Options Pitkin County Home Page Page 2 of 2 The Pitkin County Assessor's Offices make every effort to collect and maintain accurate data. However, Good Turns Software and the Pitkin County Assessor's Offices are unable to warrant any of the information herein contained. Copyright © 2003 - 2011 Good Turns Software. All Rights Reserved. Database & Web Design by Good Turns Software. iZ http:// www. pitkinassessor .org /assessor/Parcel .asp ?AccountNumber= R016577 10/6/2011 NEIL D. KARBANK, r.c. DIRECT DIAL 970.920.:aw mwnm m cm+anno utswrn IN N19 un� BY HAND MANSON & KARBANK AN Asnh IA t10N OI IMUFESSNAAL CORMNA ION' 6V \PEST MAIN ASPEN, COLORADO 61611 -1619 TLI 970.920.IAIW FAN 97LE920.2a95 e -mail: neaknOQcom<aat nel October 5, 2011 Pitkin County Community Development Department 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 EXHI 3 BIT KANSAS CITY OFFICE 1UNIMAIN STREET 59711 FLOOR RANSASCITI'.SIISSOCRI6E105 SICV JOHNSON COD\TS OFHCE 31 CORPORATE WOODS I08011MASTLN. SUITE 410 OVERLAND PARR. KANSAS 662111.1669 Re: Scenic Review Application for property known as Government Lot 33, Pitkin County, Colorado Ladies and Gentlemen, We are counsel to Gov't 33 LLC, a Colorado limited liability company ("Applicant"), and we write on Applicant's behalf. We hereby confirm that Haas Land Planning, LLC and its principal, Mr. Mitch Haas, and RGS Architecture and its principal, Mr. Robert Sinclair, are authorized to represent Applicant in connection with the referenced application and any incidental approvals associated therewith. They are also authorized to represent Applicant in meetings with Pitkin County staff, the Hearing Officer, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. Please call, of course, if you have any questions concerning this matter. Very truly yours, MANSON & KARBANK By: Neil D. arb k, P,6,. By: cc: Mr. Warren Lichtenstein Mr. Mitch Haas J3 oL xxt r.m Iy )MV IBIT © aowxtcvrryUx MUMRl7WC w. pp(OA �1 \�1Ff{IWMI�Pl Po01] 9T969349! v/(wlSNltl r W w �x W ►r n�. d QI L.La F U O ' O� W WLP �imrca atvEw maw A:11E w'.rP vT sin PLAN ui¢r rxnwau A2.1 Proposed Home Approved home for Smuggler C Will EL 'T � �• �� 1 � 'a r T �.' .-, Proposed Home Approved home for Smuggler C ►D S C EXHIBIT �5 PITKIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AGREEMENT FOR PAYMENT OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FEES PITKIN COUNTY (hereinafter COUNTY) and Govt 33 LLC, by Neil D. Karbank (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to COUNTY an application for Scenic Review (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that Pitkin County Ordinance No. 30 -2009 establishes a fee structure for land use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. The fee structure is based on the County's policy that development shall pay, in full, the cost of development review in Pitkin County. Fees have been set to be consistent and fair to the public and to reflect the expense incurred in providing such services to the public. 3. APPLICANT and COUNTY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it may not be possible at the time of application to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and COUNTY agree fees charged for the processing of land use applications shall accumulate if an application includes more than one type of land use review. 4. COUNTY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for COUNTY stafito complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or Board of County Commissioners to enable the Planning Commission and /or Board of County Commissioners to make legally required findings for project approval, unless current billings are paid in fill prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the COUNTY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay a base fee in the amount of S 1.639* which is for 5* hours of staff time, and if actual time spent by staff to process the application exceeds the average number of hours by more than 20 %, then the COUNTY will bill the APPLICANT quarterly for the additional time spent. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing. PITKIN COUNTY Cindy Houben Community Development Director APPLICAN Govi 33 LLC, by Neil D. Karbank Date: October 5, 2011 Phone: 970 -920 -2899 x 1 Mailing.c /o Manson & Karbank 604 West Main Aspen, Colorado 81611 `Includes Planning Office flat fee: $1,560 (non - refundable: based on 5 hours of staff tine). Also included. Public Notice fee of $54: and. Web Technology fee of S25 /Y PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET PITKIN COUNTY 530 E MAIN ST #302 ASPEN. CO 81611 AUSTIN AND GEORGE ANNA GLEASON 3918 SUNSET SHREVEPORT, LA 71109 PORATH FAMILY TRUST 12400 WILSHIRE BLVD, SUITE 1450 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 SMUGGLER C LLC C/O MANSON & KARBANK 604 W MAIN ASPEN, CO 81611 MCCALLUM WILLIAM T & YVONNE 8100 E UNION AV # 2404 DENVER, CO 80237 LICHTENSTEIN WARREN G & DIANE 1 ORCHARD RD GREAT NECK, NY 11021 LEWIS THOMAS E 1850 SE 17TH ST CAUSEWAY, STE 305 FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33316 LAWRENCE FAMILY TRUST C/O FRANK LAWRENCE AS TRUSTEE 1224 PROSPECT ST #130 LA JOLLA, CA 92037 DALBA BRUCE R & ELIZABETH A 10 MAPLE HILL GLENCOE, IL 60022 SUTHERLIN-MARTIN LTD 3616 MAPLEWOOD AVE DALLAS, TX 75205 EXHIBIT PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to the general public that on February 16, 2012, the Hearing Officer of Pitkin County granted approval for the GOVT 33 LLC Scenic View Protection Review (Determination No. 02 -2012; Case No. P088 -11 The property is located on Spruce Street and is legally described as Lot 33, in Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6`h P.M. The State Parcel Identification Number for the property is 2737 - 071 -00 -040.. This site - specific development plan grants a vested property right pursuant to Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes. s /James True Hearing Officer Pitkin County, Colorado Published in the Aspen Times Weekly, on March 1, 2012. PUBLIC NOTICE RE: GOVT 33 LLC Scenic View Protection Review (Case P088 -11) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that an application has been submitted by GOVT 33 LLC (604 West Main Street, Aspen, CO 81611) requesting scenic review approval. The property is located on Spruce Street and is leEally described as Lot 33, in Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6` P.M. The State Parcel Identification Number for the property is 2737 - 071 -00 -040. The application is available for public inspection in the Pitkin County Community Development Department, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 81611. For further information, contact Suzanne Wolff at (970) 920 -5093. Published in the Aspen Times Weekly on November 20, 2011. Attention All Property Owners within 300' of the subject property A property owner receiving this public notice who wishes to submit comments or an objection shall submit those to the Pitkin County Community Development, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611, by December 20, 2011. If any objections to the development application are received the Community Development Department shall continue the application to a public hearing before the Hearing Officer. Q0 / Cl) ® z S § °. � 2- �2G _mf } 2 2 z C� A i _ k.\ ®0 {- � o \ 0 cu } ' = \ =o m 0Mbz \ � IV _\ o�!2 -\ -© km / /o�\ 4 K / : , oo ® w ~2 \2O'D \� \ f § { ` UMFIRST. ®ƒ , k & 14 AUSTIN, PEIRCE & SMITH, P.C. Attorneys At Law 600 E. Hopkins Avenue Suite 205 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Frederick F. Peirce fpeirce @aps- pe.com Thomas Fenton Smith tsmith @aps- pc.com February 16, 2012 VIA HAND DELIVERY James R. True, Esq. Hearing Officer Pitkin County 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Government 33, LLC Dear Jim: Telephone - (970)925 -2 -600 Facsimile - (970) 925 -4720 Our objections to this application were based upon the discrepancies between engineering reports identifying the need for retaining walls and the failure of this application to identify such improvements. A Scenic Review application should identify all above ground structures. The most recent information clarifies this issue, and it now appears that all above ground improvements have been identified. We anticipate that final building plans will be consistent with the plans submitted for Scenic Review. A condition of approval of this application should state that if additional visible structures are identified in the building permit application, the applicant must obtain Scenic Review approval for such improvements. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, Fre ' F. Peirce cc: Annie and Amy Porath (via e -mail) Georgie and Austen Gleason (via e -mail) Neil Karbank, Esq. (via e -mail) F Tiles M- ZPorath, Amy & Anme\hm True Ltr 2.16 12 doc i of I Suzanne Wolff From: Mitch Haas <mitch @hlpaspen.com> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 4:43 PM To: 'Tom Smith' Cc: Suzanne Wolff; 'Arnold Porath'; ' Georgie Gleason'; 'Robert G. Sinclair' Subject: RE Gov't Lot 33 Hi Tom. The current plan includes soil nails within the confines of the Gov't Lot 33 property only and, therefore, will need no easements. The soil nailing to the rear /north will stay well within the property itself. The hybrid micropile /soil nail walls on the east and west sides also stay within the property boundaries. Should we later be successful in obtaining easements that would accommodate pure soil nail walls on the east and /or west sides without the hybrid micropile part, then we would likely switch the plan on either or both of those two sides, but there would be no visual impacts associated as the soil nails would be below the surface. I hope I'm explaining this well enough, but I've copied Rob Sinclair (project architect) on this email so that he may shed additional light on this that he feels would be helpful, if any. Please let me know if you have any additional questions or if I can be of further help in any way. Best regards, Mitch Mitch Naas Haas Land Planning, LLC 201 M. Mill Once!, fake 108 Aspen, CO 81611 Phones (970) 925 -7819 Fax (970) 925 -7395 Emalb mhchPhlpaspen.cem `-fj Please consider the environment before printing this email From: Tom Smith [mailto:tsmith @aps- pc.com] Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 4:22 PM To: mitch @hlpaspen.com Cc: Suzanne Wolff; Arnold Porath; Georgie Gleason Subject: RE: Gov't Lot 33 Mitch, How are you addressing the easement issue in connection with the soil nails? TF Smith Austin, Peirce & Smith, P.C. 600 East Hopkins, Ste 205 Aspen, CO 81611 Voice: 970.925.2600 Fax: 970.925.4720 Email: tsmith(o)aps- pc.com OVT� 1 IMPORTANT: This communication contains privileged and confidential information for the persons authorized to receive it. If you are not authorized to receive these documents and you have received this communication in error, review or dissemination is prohibited. Thank you. From: Mitch Haas [mallto:mitch @hlpasll pen.com] Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 2:16 PM To: 'Suzanne Wolfr Cc: 'Robert G. Sinclair; Tom Smith; 'Scott Kraehnke' Subject: Gov't Lot 33 Hi Suzanne. Please find attached for your review and consideration a revised plan sheet showing the approximate locations of all slope, stability /retaining walls that will be involved in the construction and mitigation efforts, along with a letter from HP Geotech explaining that they have reviewed the plan and find it to be satisfactory for the needed mitigations, including any potential for rockfall from above. You'll notice that these plans do not contemplate the need for any easements or permissions from adjacent property owners as al construction will be contained within the Gov't Lot 33 property lines. The attached plan affects only the construction and subsurface improvements while the previously submitted architectural plans /renderings, site plan, and landscape plan remain unchanged. As such, there will ble no permanent visual impacts associated with the shoring, retaining and slope / rockfall mitigations, especially as the development would be viewed with the naked eye from Main Street/Hwy 82. Please; let me know if you have any questions. Best regards, Mitch p.s.: Tom, I do not have email addresses for your clients (Mr. Porath or Mr. and Mrs. Gleason). Please forward this email and /or the attachments to them as well. Also, should you have any questions or want to discuss iany of this, please do not hesitate to call or send an email my way. ilich Haas Haas Land Planning, LLC 201 N. Mill Street, mite 908 Aspen, CO 81611 Phones (990) 925x1819 Fasn (970) 925.9595 Eanails mitch @hlpaspen.com bA, Please consider the environment before printing this email Contldemwhtr no, I he,hove email and.mr .: !,, hmenhi eontnm mlomy: piov, OnU mm� be umfidanual and or p[i,i1q,d ; h: mfmnar.nn n, Gn the tna W lik mdn;2aal urent,lv un�uudiv vri:.ndcd Ii;ouarenottliemtem. n,, use of lin. miimnumnr, r. pml,ib,ttd It :Irr. aanwmsn�,airvrteri,<d m;nur. Bl,a,e unnwd¢delg noul; tho ,endri m,d dame the m: o-r:n!.: ,tr,:! �:. n:Wa:nwat> d.mv Email secured by Check Point Z- Suzanne Wolff From: Mitch Haas <mitch @hlpaspen.com> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 2:16 PM To: Suzanne Wolff Cc: 'Robert G. Sinclair'; tsmith @aps- pc.com; 'Scott Kraehnke' Subject: Gov't Lot 33 Attachments: Shoring Plan- Yeh&Assoc_2- 1- 12.pdf; HP Geotech Ltr_1- 31- 12.pdf Hi Suzanne. Please find attached for your review and consideration a revised plan sheet showing the approximate locations of all slope stability /retaining walls that will be involved in the construction and mitigation efforts, along with a letter from HP Geotech explaining that they have reviewed the plan and find it to be satisfactory for the needed mitigations, including any potential for rockfall from above. You'll notice that these plans do not contemplate the need for any easements or permissions from adjacent property owners as al construction will be contained within the Gov't Lot 33 property lines. The attached plan affects only the construction and subsurface improvements while the previously submitted architectural plans /renderings, site plan, and landscape plan remain unchanged. As such, there will be no permanent visual impacts associated with the shoring, retaining and slope /rockfall mitigations, especially as the development would be viewed with the naked eye from Main Street/Hwy 82. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best regards, Mitch p.s.: Tom, I do not have email addresses for your clients (Mr. Porath or Mr. and Mrs. Gleason). Please forward this email and /or the attachments to them as well. Also, should you have any questions or want to discuss any of this, please do not hesitate to call or send an email my way. Mitch Naas Naas Land Planning, LLC 201 N. Mill Street, Suite 108 Aspen, CO 81611 phones (970) 925 -7819 pasts (970) 925 -7595 Smalls mitch@hlpaspen.com APlease consider the environment before printing this email . , PI.,. . I .. , rt .I t , I L 1 11 1 '1 i, n' I. 1' , I v 1 V'. „'. 1'. ., I i , , . I , r I I I T 1 11 r i, VAYeh and Associates, Inc. Consulting Engineers & Scientists January 17, 2012 Mr. Scott Kraehnke Robert G. Sinclair Architecture, Inc. 710 East Durant, Suite W -4 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Project No. 211 -233 Subject: Conceptual Soil Nail Wall Design, Lichtenstein Pool House, Spruce Street, Pitkin County, Colorado Dear Mr. Kraehnke, Plans indicated a soil nail wall is proposed to retain the foundation excavation for the Lichtenstein Pool House in Pitkin County, Colorado. Plans indicated a tiered wall system will be necessary to attain foundation elevations with a total excavation depth on the order of 60 feet. Yeh and Associates completed preliminary design of the soil nail wall. Based on our preliminary analyses, we believe the wall system could be designed and constructed to meet industry standards. If you have questions or need additional information, please call us at 970 - 384 -1500. Sincerely, YEH AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Richard D. Johnson, P.E. Project Manager 5700 East Evans Avenue, Deno er, CO 80222 1525 Blake AN true, Glenwood Springs, CO 8 160 1 570 Turner Drive, Suite D, Durango, CO 81303 /0�) INYeh and Associates, Inc. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers 1525 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: (970) 384 -1500 Fax: (970) 384 -1501 of Grade V SCALE: V = 20' Notes: 1. Based plan provided by Robert Sinclair Architecture, Inc. plans dated 12.8.11. 2. The proposed wall locations are approximate and may vary based on field conditions. 3. The ground nail wall shall be contained entirely within property boundaries. 4. This drawing should not be used for wall or buildina lavout. Sheet Revision Designed For: Date Revision/fssue Checked by I Robert G. Sinclair Architecture, Inc. Project Number: 211 -233 Drawn by: RD J Date: Checked by: RDJ January 9, 2012 Approximate Wall Locations Project: Sheet Number: Lichtenstein Residence Pool House 1 3 of 6 N� r 20 0 10 20 SCALE: V = 20' Notes: 1. Based plan provided by Robert Sinclair Architecture, Inc. plans dated 12.8.11. 2. The proposed wall locations are approximate and may vary based on field conditions. 3. The ground nail wall shall be contained entirely within property boundaries. 4. This drawing should not be used for wall or buildina lavout. Sheet Revision Designed For: Date Revision/fssue Checked by I Robert G. Sinclair Architecture, Inc. Project Number: 211 -233 Drawn by: RD J Date: Checked by: RDJ January 9, 2012 Approximate Wall Locations Project: Sheet Number: Lichtenstein Residence Pool House 1 3 of 6 wluem xa z i M r 4 mxm sa r rUJ COHNQi NO. r Ij( /I� t/ I i / •\ �;,, rmsn snxnrtac +��, �C','' JI L �- 1 t �- . �� t`,. \ \, t tt' 1 � \t`\ a ;"• ;. %, ... �'- '•'' tl .\ ro of # t� . \` •'\ � ` AN \��.,. Ea \ 0 m9NwRF 0 ra nmumu o mNnowz luv.w,,.r - `\ @::i;itt � # s:cn > \ v. eeewww rneaeNUr Inawzaur t 411.I1J.Ve1lM SII III V \IICN, 911.IU VNIIJJ ,... \ \ s >sya \ \` t /) Ql rnvrolcl% 0,anlwumu �tannluwu ' \ <�a?\ J: •:. i� _ t tlteernro,r vEV.e�ro rueweq rn• ��YRlilrl`•q ��, \ \Car �. " ' \ \ \\ - N0. r 1 / • ` `�i (I /�li r 1 earxresnrJ.�a acwlrcna¢.� roeccew �nitmR.rooeD¢ noov.mv. . �roausner U w� d °o d� _ J vL OO LL M u OU _J V WLP es¢nwR manewe, aianiu erm• wma sent r•ma srre ruN 4HTMYtD9 A2.1 J `,\ ` \\ \ \ `\ IN \` \t \ \ \, \ �\\ \` \\ \` `\ \ `\ N. IN I •tai \`�\ \ \\ ` \ \;; \\ \ \\ \\\ \ \ \`, \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \\ \ \\ \\ \\ \\ \ N. `' t\ \ \ `\ \ ` \\ •\ \\ \ IN IN IN ` \ � X, :I„ \` I IN ;:\\\N. NO �v v a v Y IN \ 1 � 11 11 \I 11 \I 11 111 \7 •j I I I 1 N N N `\ `\ `\ `\ \ \ \\\ \`\ \ \ \ \\ \\ \\ `\ \ `\ `\ \ \ \ \\ \\\\\\`\`\\\ ` \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \` \ \ \` \` \` \ \ \ \ \` \ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ ` \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \\ \ \ \ \ \\ \\ \\ \ \ \ \ `\ \\ `\ \ \\ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ IN \ \ \ \ \ \ `\ `\ ` ` \ \ \ `\ `\ \ \\ \`\`\`\ \ \\ \` \\�` \`N. \ \ �\ \` \` \` \ \\�\�\� \\\`\ IN \` \` �'�'n�.i.\ \\ \ \ \\ \ \`��V`\ d \ \ \ \\ \\ \ \ \\ \\ \ \\ \ \ \\ \\ \`\`\ \` \ \` \\ \\ \ \�S\ \ `\ \\ \ \ \\ \ \ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\` \ \\ \\, `, `, \ \\ \ \\\ `\ `\ `\ \\ \ \ \\ \',\ \\ \ \ \` \\\\ \ 9, RVWMN®\RA ` \\ ,\ \ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \ \ \ `\\ \\ \ \\ \\ \\ \\ \ \ \\ \ i!. ` 1 \ \\\ 1 11 1 13 41 U r ri/\11 \ nL \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \c {11 GR)1M KOA \ j ` 1 / \ 1 1 1 1 1 1 111 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II I Iq I I 1 1 % � I � � 1 I 11 i i II 11 11 'III I, 11 II ulu 11 i1 I•� I �/ . � i � i 1 1v I�11 , \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \\ \ \\ \\ \\ \\ \ N. `' t\ \ \ `\ \ ` \\ •\ \\ \ IN IN IN ` \ � X, :I„ \` I IN ;:\\\N. NO �v v a v Y IN \ 1 � 11 11 \I 11 \I 11 111 \7 •j I I I 1 N N N `\ `\ `\ `\ \ \ \\\ \`\ \ \ \ \\ \\ \\ `\ \ `\ `\ \ \ \ \\ \\\\\\`\`\\\ ` \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \` \ \ \` \` \` \ \ \ \ \` \ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ ` \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \\ \ \ \ \ \\ \\ \\ \ \ \ \ `\ \\ `\ \ \\ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ IN \ \ \ \ \ \ `\ `\ ` ` \ \ \ `\ `\ \ \\ \`\`\`\ \ \\ \` \\�` \`N. \ \ �\ \` \` \` \ \\�\�\� \\\`\ IN \` \` �'�'n�.i.\ \\ \ \ \\ \ \`��V`\ d \ \ \ \\ \\ \ \ \\ \\ \ \\ \ \ \\ \\ \`\`\ \` \ \` \\ \\ \ \�S\ \ `\ \\ \ \ \\ \ \ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\` \ \\ \\, `, `, \ \\ \ \\\ `\ `\ `\ \\ \ \ \\ \',\ \\ \ \ \` \\\\ \ 9, RVWMN®\RA ` \\ ,\ \ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \ \ \ `\\ \\ \ \\ \\ \\ \\ \ \ \\ \ i!. ` 1 \ \\\ • 0 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 13 41 U r ri/\11 \ nL \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \c • 0 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 13 41 U r ri/\11 \ nL \ \, 1\ \ \\ `\ \c \\ IN k \X\ 11 \1 \\ 11 \\ 11 ; 111 \ \ \\ hK$-�E 11 $CRT �D\ N `\ \ \\ `\ `. N. `\ `\ �_I�.\ r. Vi 'n M1L9PTGSNO.10. MCMKI{RE rc roearew +`h*tcncx\ooem wovu�xvr %09LifM r U.) w j= u d O M LJa O U O� �V ♦ V LP 610JPoR uuw.ur Ivaaav flF. 19213 .9e ur =ry WE PLAN H/f�lA�AI%eSt ^/ ! \L.L Revegetation and Erosion Control Notes 1. good and drbeor, shell be rc,',.ound.uoon o pnnible fofewL,Q roe distulhvua to avoid unsightly man and need Inlxation ou 0e landscape. UXllly cub shall be reeegetnted Immediately for ImulWean ofmofflas to prm'ent weed Wresudere 4nd.oto, moll Inure prop, weed voarral W Imparted a,., 2 P 111-o control attemlon re disturbed areenball be Inplememed Ia more roes la no deldmradl Import or runoff'. no, p.ad , t,,. or Wouml; 3. In nrus'hot are to be re,egeYted Iup,lully veeAng lonllovs ,blub h, 'e roedeetl hu1T to ostrocutte lolpmml 1- 1541011 final[ be nu10ed before roe Application -sent Slope -art -cat tbull be roughened by rundnQ backed eqd omit up cad down the fore or Me dope. ♦Ncn, tied area hot[ be protected from,llnd and o.,r erodoa through the an of mnllhex Acceptable rodehn ore wood tope, threw, hydro- ram" and erosloo-ran[rol nming. 5. Elodan- coolrol -citing w0 be raptured on dope 3:1 a,' tlI,.r, Delicate by varbnce m Section 9 -1033, and be Dead.., nl'ala. Planting & General Notes I. Centric to m terry nuts toner and,dllk, companies the loutlom of all mullion poor be 0_...I plane rerponlbidty of roe eontnaor to [erne au Mtdng m0ide; 1lheWer mm,'n en rout dery tc naa :. Examine M1...d1a oUlMI1,mpwllgddly and tleplM1. go mtfivrt any watts tom atLcutr 1. ,.It all ors hale. corree,co yrdfy llmlbofnnrk beftrt eWrdng. 3. Contrmtve race to olbecontained tm.Qn to loo Non conditions. 4. Deduce Pilot nor n 11.' an 18ad n. norr ek,Ialm bed unless -in' 09, of noted. 5. o..thin bend let tam 18" ad no more than lJ "LOm,tier edge or plot ma4rial bD Athing. I. I, ConhactorMeanl.loumnine form[.toont.,. uvleu tp,0n11y noted mM1ernMe. I Contractor 0dl mdmet 10 PM re dalong. smooth lav'n rreu. 8. ordcpn.e.Illa +a street lopnaWa eemooth anal condnud grade foe <orlrreQvLrlBea r dept, doll ; 9. Iv,eatlore -ad .].[.a ",fodo,,brk nickftoprepantollu916minyu.18 ".rep plantmle,Aen.r,Intended 2" Jeep pork mdlM1 form1.1n, their an. by owner. 10.-- nttlese.meed..1cored in tooder IkenrBand a lbe gearauwctla,mrtle repreunfotloa raptred plan lle nitantr of eheaber,pontlbin for hhbW qn Iffi h,rapubed by pfoov d p idntl o. IL(if."aaldt). uepe Lnuasilon nllh lmnneXOV Of underground pd W rtyden (if ere Proposed IS.\rherepropotedtrulnalWns occur ee,to Under esLXnomtion, ualltl aledtling tree; mdry the lentltupe e,Nt,l ro adjust tr, lacelbv; Pitkin County Recommended Seed Mix COmmnn,ue, L•,le hem, Portnlry, sAM,r 11111.,' non <uu- Come, r<abm r, y% Ma,.M1W ner an- -,n ammo lr q)nm, 101, 1varr- wbnl,.n..re.'o.'m.n<e.,• lm nrumleeH,gymNS.drlm mx .... or to.. I— Fmvq Arpen6v or F...nW la% .".. bl.N„e„ IWmv' .Y'.WA I., snow .111. 10% See ing nee to be 8­13 pulls. The sitemW be mulched Mon wee0.eu nod, aaer plarge, rd, ,an to be. In. ad .1 the role erg qm p, here. 11.y 11 1'6 tuhllhr m.. be epplled at the race or ISO la. per acre to prtvml hind Iron blowing nay off the reregretled area; Plant Legend Symbol Qty Size Name Note: No fruit hearing teem wW be pleated ov site. Shrubs and trees rvW be fall, to area and site If possible. For example, Shrub, used to screen wall. sway from house will be seniceberry to blend Into rotbe landscape. Orr enamel shrubs wgl ou y be used In the vicinity of the home. n v Government • • i Lee Subdivielon G— ; 111 - -1 �`p�hoi� \ILta�!��i��,g OWNSAT. too e r,nnessessessingel l �• ,+y I- :.1140 1 1 All Screening treee will be on a drip Irrigation line tied to the males Irrigation system to the hou5e. Downy C le \a Parcel F she e -- -- -- 1 b / Propooed AapenTree For Screen/ r Plnpme d Sprwa Tree For 5,r xmdte 09ii 1 o 1 0.ClIXT4 JNl1MR ARIM OTA [ ... ONx hM ♦'1'Ftl<YllllAIX>9W2 9AW611e9r .ma IRIZU w �0 M L LJ F V rO O C� C� WLP stanern aumrm, I nl dnol wm ttivcw I+inner Orr nose LANDSCAPE PLAN asrwawau L -1 - 12' -11'— Colored. Spruce -'A' 8 10.16'— Colored. Spruce -'B' 3— 2" -25" — Quaki.g Aspen -'C' 5 2.511- 3o— QmJ,mg Aspen -'➢' Note: No fruit hearing teem wW be pleated ov site. Shrubs and trees rvW be fall, to area and site If possible. For example, Shrub, used to screen wall. sway from house will be seniceberry to blend Into rotbe landscape. Orr enamel shrubs wgl ou y be used In the vicinity of the home. n v Government • • i Lee Subdivielon G— ; 111 - -1 �`p�hoi� \ILta�!��i��,g OWNSAT. too e r,nnessessessingel l �• ,+y I- :.1140 1 1 All Screening treee will be on a drip Irrigation line tied to the males Irrigation system to the hou5e. Downy C le \a Parcel F she e -- -- -- 1 b / Propooed AapenTree For Screen/ r Plnpme d Sprwa Tree For 5,r xmdte 09ii 1 o 1 0.ClIXT4 JNl1MR ARIM OTA [ ... ONx hM ♦'1'Ftl<YllllAIX>9W2 9AW611e9r .ma IRIZU w �0 M L LJ F V rO O C� C� WLP stanern aumrm, I nl dnol wm ttivcw I+inner Orr nose LANDSCAPE PLAN asrwawau L -1 i — Tsu rnoxm OT • , p I I 1 I 1 1 i RQiPTGaNCL110. NWI[CTAF ec roeae ew AYE`1 fiLlC�6JeW(! v�oessams • v�nnuoe r U wl . �R :39 �o m� �1 WLP tca ai FCR mfuwwxr om2au KU ...I.- 96rTRIP W WFIt1EM PLAN scarrrnr+�: A3.1 r pd{T 9d1T ~ L----------- Y Y9 a wro• Irs 149N1OA9 I BAIa T M6$WAT IRBMWAY9IE W}9 (WI o W9/i l4ef6 vacrorxnElnr I etv waw l+• 14 RYM11PA1% Fuv.enur mnwwxxxvrr 9FVA11[N Innn�niuxu , etv. msvoe- I ( I 0 4 k 1 I I mane I I � WRNl4ex1 FIPY.!)ie LT,� I nIMlWRY9R I nrvAlFS! um�ne I ar ro Lill 111V41111 ! r1 5 5 w It i RQiPTGaNCL110. NWI[CTAF ec roeae ew AYE`1 fiLlC�6JeW(! v�oessams • v�nnuoe r U wl . �R :39 �o m� �1 WLP tca ai FCR mfuwwxr om2au KU ...I.- 96rTRIP W WFIt1EM PLAN scarrrnr+�: A3.1 ------ ------ ------ ------ &in I IV T.� v,w ----------- L- - - - O - - - - - - - - - - - U Z 10 10 u 8 Cr WLP W'-fa afuwinr nave aekx wan SCUP MAW .EVM PLAN 9 @fNIN99L A3.2 I N1 ------ ------ ------ ------ &in I IV T.� v,w ----------- L- - - - O - - - - - - - - - - - U Z 10 10 u 8 Cr WLP W'-fa afuwinr nave aekx wan SCUP MAW .EVM PLAN 9 @fNIN99L A3.2 B C D E F MP IP 9P 24 1P I I I I I I I I 1 I I I- -- - ------ I I \I i I V apt I I M�oan z - - - ------ - - - - - - - - /I \ \ \- -� -emx� -- I \ I ,� `\ sazv.mrzr W AIM rsrt I \\ ntnnl I ! 1 I \ I wn.�xurnu I`\ 0 azv.�ee•nr I f %. o- i 1 � � I I � I � 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - I � I I 4 I I ^v sr n• 1 Mn revr saw �� I 9r IC16$i WG Iff I I M voce � s ry IT b 6 b& iS P T MW S ey y( l4 a I O •` O I I I I I I I I I I I xv my vP PP nv A B C D E F Y 0.CB0.ic5PO.W. NIOQIH:i1AE tc F0611901 l46{CdGInLV lMI3 nosssasssr musssaae. U m � O O� v C., WLP mEUVwux ortimu AkMN {4•pQ ae� s $CVE W'�l9' 4 x11E L"ML LEVEL PLAN AU A B C D E F ■ ra va va rra va I � � r ________ ___ __ __ __ - Y I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I � I I m 1 I I I 1 I I I I I k 1 I C I I I I I I i I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 4 1 I I I I � I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I E I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I m I 0 I I I I i 2 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I 5 _ -------------------------------------------------------- _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ - _ -I I I I I I I jfq VP YY'P V6 fII A B tC) D E F 8 RcBeITG.W�M A8ON®UtB.c PcedtBN PB'imItlA10D■A0 4pAH]W r 9A935H11t i.i . n� s� Wma `r W W �W ul (04� = C o�2 U VY Ll IANWWY p/B'tW u.�v rnaun s 910ITfM P.00F PL. N 9F£r 1.141+801: A3.4 • II - -_ __ `__ ., innixmm�a eay.Par G R�XEITGAJCLV0. VIOLig'IIAE.c MlCI W �W aOlA0.W N6P 9]OOLiIW r 9)J9iSi06r llLRIN —M 6F'. WP InnlwulPmx 6EV� IAAYWMR 9fV.ClUVE- WLP mmv.n w• manou N£mso NYXIIz scan yr - ro- W TM AMN 96kTl5 m A4.1 I..I.� / i _ _ _ _ 01IINMU6IM 9kV.mf v W PMR esv� Q u7 V H Q � ` � � Q I60.1M➢lOM _ _ _ _ _ IQ9 i RQf llLRIN —M 6F'. WP InnlwulPmx 6EV� IAAYWMR 9fV.ClUVE- WLP mmv.n w• manou N£mso NYXIIz scan yr - ro- W TM AMN 96kTl5 m A4.1 •\ I I - - - ianmmeiu _ _ h IPM1IINN RA T Bpy. Q7`l � rnnnrt — nav mgr I I I iPluxoaou al �eav mnn• —� _— _ —___ —_ _ ___— _— _ - - -_- F ------------ �,.. I I I I I ' I \ I I 1 I I SI I I \\ TZMuu I I �I I — dl , I j I ri -1 I I I I j I I UwT Z ---- -_�----------- - - - -1- Psw o u - ------- - - -- -- �I - - -- � ri1T rL1T Li \ 5 5 /v RM0.TG.9N].r81 MONYTRF.c W B'StBYf . \Vai CC1MAP>Br5¢ W09351]bV. VN92 %O!. •nenvn�w x W U fWL. M 7Q O V 1� xaaueur orePm CUE W'•!P FEf 11pE NDKTH E ATM $TMa08l A4.2 �mnnrz aev,amry � mrolrz eay.mv ----------- --------- _ _ 1 33 2 ------ - - - - -- ' I I ----------------- I--------------------- L--------------- - - - - -- tl,n —TL'I, inNxDMIM IaSMnlgM I I 0 I '..______ —_____ I 1 I I _ I I I I IaNNDmM raRIP'pmM I I I I eae mmo h�y.ROO 1_ __ __ __ —_ —_ I __ L__________ _______ _ _______________________________ I I I __________— _— __— _____� I rL__ _________ ____ _____ I 1 Lr ______________ __________ ________�, _ ___ ______________ _ I I I I IC RI M111pM1 In R11NIgYH. I I 1 I I 1 I 1 rL1T I I 1 I I I RC9P TG PIJp.�P. V.CIYIYiIRE x W 9Qf lYI i9TflrpgUW lI6Q 9M9 Mgr vro9usasr W Cw o w wC� M yy� G &M NP W.W UTfltP A aI ATIW, 0 NN — FIF/ IL'9' fRRnro3OM QEV W]]/8 � wrtnrosne Qtv ma y IALblg11R • BLV.4 Yl` _ In9lHIgYM Qtv.ero�r I 1 I i rye I -f etv.mv I I I� Irt _ _ — _— __ - - -_ T-------- -_ —_ —_ _ I I I ' I I I � I I I I / -- 1 1 I I I I i I� _ - -_ — ___-------- -. —_L_ -AL---- I, I I I I? I I I I - - - - -- r--------- - - - - -- — - — - — - — - +— - - — - — - — - — - — - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- rL1, r11, / ------ ��_____1_�. —./ 0.JBfAt GSP.CIVR �0.QYIAlIAE .c Po 6TI LY1 ++'E4 rvitxYOOewz wrova+sv� v]ayss�nnr W N � J W M O M U W o O U WLP �Po0. llYbVAt 2ypp 2tY {qyQ ME W.M amp )UTH EVAT1 [rrew®tn A4.4 G,66tech HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL Hepworth- Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. 5020 County Road 154 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Plione: 970-945.7988 Fax: 970. 945 -8454 email. hpgeo ®hpgeotech.com SUBSOIL STUDY FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN PROPOSED LICHTENSTEIN POOL HOUSE 777 SPRUCE STREET PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO JOB NO. 107 0287 NOVEMBER 20, 2007 PREPARED FOR: HIGHER GROUND UNLIMITED ATTN: TRAVIS FISHER 2670 S. HIGH STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80210 Parker 303. 841 -7119 • Colorado Springs 719. 633 -5562 • Silverthorne 970 - 468 -1989 6000O1 of / t/ -2- natural slope of the site is very steep down to the west at grades up to about 50 %. There is about 15 feet of elevation difference across the proposed building area. Vegetation on the site consists ofscruboak, sagebrush, grass and weeds. Scattered cobbles and boulders were exposed on the ground surface. FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration for the project was conducted on August 29, 2007. Two exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Figure I to evaluate the subsurface conditions. The borings were advanced with 4 inch diameter continuous flight augers powered by a track - mounted CME 45 drill rig. The borings were logged by a representative ofHepworth- Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. Samples of the subsoils were taken with a 1% inch I.D. spoon sampler. The sampler was driven into the subsoils at various depths with blows from a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches. This test is similar to the standard penetration test described by ASTM Method D- 1586. The penetration resistance values are an indication of the relative density or consistency of the subsoils. Depths at which the samples were taken and the penetration resistance values are shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings, Figure 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review by the project engineer and testing. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on Figure 2. The subsoils consist of about 1 to 3 feet of granular fill due to the access benches overlying relatively dense, slightly silty to silty sand and gravel with cobbles and boulders to the drilled depths of 14 and 17 feet in Borings 1 and 2, respectively. Drilling in the dense granular soils with auger equipment was difficult due to the cobbles and boulders and drilling refusal was encountered in the deposit. A boring drilled nearby at the guest house encountered similar soils and no groundwater to the bottom of the boring, 40 feet. Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural moisture content and gradation analyses. Results of gradation analyses performed on small diameter drive samples (minus 1' /z fraction) of the coarse granular subsoils are shown on Figure 4. Job No. 107 0287 Uu0004 -3- No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling and the subsoils were moist. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOUNDATIONS Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend the building be founded with spread footings bearing on the natural granular soils. The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing foundation system. 1) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural granular soils should be. designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 psf. Eccentrically loaded footings can be designed for up to a one third increase in toe pressure provided the resultant falls within the central third of the footing section. Based on experience, we expect settlement of footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section will be about 1 inch or less. 2) The footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous walls and 2 feet for isolated pads. 3) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided with adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost protection. Placement of foundations at least 42 inches below exterior grade is typically used in this area. 4) Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span local anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least 10 feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also be designed to resist lateral earth pressures as discussed in the "Foundation and Retaining Walls" section of this report. 5) All existing fill, topsoil and any loose or disturbed soils should be removed and the footing bearing level extended down to the relatively dense natural granular soils. Voids created by boulder removal should be backfilled with compacted sand and gravel. The exposed natural soils in footing area should then be moistened and compacted. Job No. 107 0287 CD&tech 660605 M 6) A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe all footing excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions. FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS Foundation walls and retaining structures which are laterally supported and can be expected to undergo only a slight amount of deflection should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 50 pcf for backfill consisting of the on -site granular soils. Cantilevered retaining structures which are separate from the pool house and can be expected to deflect sufficiently to mobilize the full active earth pressure condition should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 40 pcf for backfill consisting of the on -site granular soils. Backfill should not contain vegetation, topsoil or oversized rock. All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropriate hydrostatic and surcharge pressures such as adjacent footings, traffic, construction materials and equipment. The pressures recommended above assume drained conditions behind the walls and a horizontal backfill surface. The buildup of water behind a wall or an upward sloping backfill surface will increase the lateral pressure imposed on a foundation wall or retaining structure. An underdrain should be provided to prevent hydrostatic pressure buildup behind walls. Backfill should be placed in uniform lifts and compacted to at least 90% of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum Backfill in pavement and walkway areas should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density. Care should be taken not to overcompact the backfill or use large equipment near the wall, since this could cause excessive lateral pressure on the wall. Some settlement of deep foundation wall backfill should be expected, even if the material is placed correctly, and could result in distress to facilities constructed on the backfill. Compacting the wall backfill to at least 98% of the maximum standard Proctor density would help to reduce potential settlement of deep foundation wall backfill. The lateral resistance of foundation or retaining wall footings will be a combination of the sliding resistance of the footing on the foundation materials and passive earth pressure Job No. 107 0287 G&Rech 0001J06 -5- against the side of the footing. Resistance to sliding at the bottoms of the footings can be calculated based on a coefficient of friction of 0.50. Passive pressure of compacted backfill against the sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 400 pcf. The coefficient of friction and passive pressure values recommended above assume ultimate soil strength. Suitable factors of safety should be included in the design to limit the strain which will occur at the ultimate strength, particularly in the case of passive resistance. Fill placed against the sides of the footings to resist lateral loads should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum FLOOR SLABS The natural on -site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support lightly loaded slab - on- grade construction. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints which allow unrestrained vertical movement. Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. The requirements for joint spacing and slab reinforcement should be established by the designer based on experience and the intended slab use. A minimum 4 inch layer of free - draining gravel should be placed beneath basement level slabs to facilitate drainage. This material should consist of minus 2 inch aggregate with at least 50% retained on the No. 4 sieve and less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve. All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95% of maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum Required fill can consist of the on -site granular soils devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock. UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our experience in mountainous areas that local perched groundwater can develop during times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can create a perched condition. We recommend below -grade construction, such as retaining walls and basement areas, be protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an underdrain system. Job No. 107 0287 CVortech OUCJC7 The drains should consist of drainpipe placed in the bottom of the wall backfill surrounded above the invert level with free - draining granular material. The drain should be placed at each level of excavation and at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent finish grade and sloped at a minimum 1 % to a suitable gravity outlet. Free - draining granular material used in the underdrain system should contain less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve, less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and have a maximum size of 2 inches. The drain gravel backfill should be at least 1 %: feet deep. SITE GRADING The risk of construction - induced slope instability at the site appears low provided cut and fill depths are limited. We understand that the cut depths for the garage level will be about 20 feet. Fills should be limited to about 8 to 10 feet deep. Embankment fills should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density near optimum moisture content. Prior to fill placement, the subgrade should be carefully prepared by removing all vegetation and topsoil and compacting to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density. The fill should be benched into the portions of the hillside exceeding 20% grade. Permanent unretained cut and fill slopes should be graded at 2 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter and protected against erosion by revegetation or other means. Steeper slopes should be retained. The risk of slope instability will be increased if seepage is encountered in cuts and flatter slopes may be necessary. If seepage is encountered in permanent cuts, an investigation should be conducted to determine if the seepage will adversely affect the cut stability. This office should review site grading plans for the project prior to construction. SURFACE DRAINAGE The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the residence has been completed: 1) Inundation of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be avoided during construction. Job No. 107 0287 GgReCh Ouciod -7- 2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density in pavement and slab areas and to at least 90% of the maximum standard Proctor density in landscape areas. 3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be sloped to drain away from the foundation in all directions. We recommend a minimum slope of 10 percent in unpaved areas and a minimum slope of 2 percent in paved areas. Free - draining wall backfill should be capped with about 2 feet of the on -site finer graded soils to reduce surface water infiltration. 4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill. LIMITATIONS This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotecbnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no warranty either express or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory borings drilled at the locations indicated on Figure 1, the proposed type of construction and our experience in the area. Our services do not include determining the presence, prevention or possibility of mold or other biological contaminants (MOBC) developing in the future. If the client is concerned about MOB C, then a professional in this special field of practice should be consulted. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface conditions identified at the exploratory borings and variations in the subsurface conditions may not become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions encountered during construction appear different from those described in this report, we should be notified so that re- evaluation of the recommendations may be made. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design purposes. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As the project evolves, we should provide continued consultation and field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to No. 107 0287 G499teCh ULJCJ69 IF-I verify that the recommendations have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design changes may require additional analysis or modifications to the recommendations presented herein. We recommend on -site observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. Respectfully Submitted, HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Jordy Z. Adamson, Jr., P.E. Reviewed by: Daniel E. Hardin, P.E. JZA/vad cc: Jack Miller and Associates - Attn: Jack Miller Job No. 107 0287 000JI0 HG&rtech LOT 33 PROPOSED POOL HOUSE LOWER FLOOR ELEVATION = 117 FEET BORING 2 • 1 110 -- 1( 90 1070287 uucjj,- (DRIVEWAY AND GARAGE UNDER POOL, GARAGE SLAB ELEVATION = 96 FEET) • BORING 1 HOT TUB _ 1201 -- - - - - -_ 100 EXISTING DRIVEWAY APPROXIMATE SCALE 1 " =10' LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS I Figure 1 1 -- - - - - -_ 100 EXISTING DRIVEWAY APPROXIMATE SCALE 1 " =10' LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS I Figure 1 iu c 0 w 110 130 125 BORING 1 ELEV.= 126' 105 100 1070287 UULJ12 BORING 2 ELEV.= 115' 50/3 130 125 120 115 L' LL 0 110 w IM 60/12 WO =1.2 100 +4 =24 - 200 =11 Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Figure 3. GARAGE SLAB ELEVA110N 95 LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS I Figure 2 31/12 120 � : �' POOL HOUSE LOWER o• +4 =35 FLOOR ELEVA110N - 20D =14 115 50/6.30/2 105 100 1070287 UULJ12 BORING 2 ELEV.= 115' 50/3 130 125 120 115 L' LL 0 110 w IM 60/12 WO =1.2 100 +4 =24 - 200 =11 Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Figure 3. GARAGE SLAB ELEVA110N 95 LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS I Figure 2 LEGEND: ® FILL; silty sandy gravel with cobbles and boulders, medium dense to dense, moist, browns. SAND AND GRAVEL (SM -GM); slightly silty to silty, with cobbles and boulders, dense, slightly moist, brown. Drive sample; standard penetration test (SP-0, 13/8 inch I.D. split spoon sample, ASTM D -1586. 31/12 Drive sample blow count; indicates that 31 blows of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches were required to drive the SPT sampler 12 inches. --> Depth at which boring caved. TPractical rig refusal. Where shown above bottom of log, multiple attempts were made to advance the boring. NOTES: 1. Exploratory borings were drilled on August 29, 2007 with 4 -inch diameter continuous flight power auger. 2. Locations of exploratory borings were measured approximately by pacing from features shown on the site plan provided. 3. Elevations of exploratory borings were obtained by Interpolation between contours shown on the site plan provided and checked by instrument level. 4. The exploratory boring locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. 5. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory boring logs represent the approximate boundaries between material types and transitions may be gradual. 6. No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling. Fluctuation in water level may occur with time. 7. Laboratory Testing Results: WC = Water Content ( %) +4 = Percent retained on the No. 4 sieve -200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve 1070287 UL LEGEND AND NOTES I Figure 3 Pt HEPWORTH- PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL Hepworth- Pmtdak Geotechnical, Inc. 5020 County Road 154 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Phone: 970.945.7988 Fax: 970.945 -8454 email: hpgeo @hpgeotech.com GEOLOGIC SITE ASSESSMENT LICHENSTEIN POOL HOUSE AND GUEST HOUSE LOT 33 AND PARCEL C, SPRUCE STREET PITKIN COUNYT, COLORADO JOB NO. 107 0280 June 8, 2007 PREPARED FOR: WARREN LICHENSTEIN do RJW BUILDERS ATTN.- BOB WITEK 215 MONARCH STREET NO. G103 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Parker 303 - 841 -7119 9 Colorado Springs 719- 633 -5562 0 Silverthome 970- 468 -1989 uof CjiJ1_ OT 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT... SITE CONDITIONS REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING ........ UNDERGROUND MINE WORKINGS ...... PROJECT SITE GEOLOGY........... SURFICIAL SOIL DEPOSITS.... FORMATION ROCK .................. GROUNDWATER ..................... .. -2- ................................................ 2- ................................... ..- 4 - ................................ ............................... 4- ............................................................... 4- ................................ ............................... 5- ................................ - .. ...... ..................... 5- GEOLOGIC SITE ASSESSMENT ......................... ............................... CONSTRUCTION RELATED SLOPE INSTABILTY ..................... PROSPECTPIT ................................................... ............................... DEBRIS FLOWS AND FLOODS ....................... ............................... ROCKFALL......................................................... ............................... SNOW AVALANCHE ........................................ ............................... EARTHQUAKE CONSIDERATIONS ............... ............................... LIMITATIONS ................................ ............................... REFERENCES............................................. ............................... FIGURE 1- PROJECT SITE LOCATION ......................... 5- ......................... 5 - ........................- 6- ............ I ............ 6 - ........................- 6- .................. --.- 7 - ........................ - 7- FIGURE 2 - GEOLOGICALLY YOUNG FAULTS AND LARGER HISTORIC EARTHQUAKES FIGURE 3 - PROJECT AREA GEOLOGY MAP FIGURE 4 - UNDERGROUND MINE WORKINGS MAP FIGURE 5 - PROJECT SITE GEOLOGY MAP 000,J02 IN" PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the findings of a geologic site assessment for the proposed Lichtenstein pool house and guest house to be located on Lot 33 and Parcel C, Spruce Street, Pitkin County, Colorado. The project site is located about three- quarters of a mile northeast of the Aspen town center, see Figure 1. The study was conducted to evaluate the geologic conditions at the project site and to assess if the geology could present constraints and risks to the proposed two buildings. The study was performed according to our April 25, 2007 proposal to Warren Lichtenstein. A field reconnaissance of the two parcels and vicinity was made on May 1, 2007 to observe and map the geology. In addition, we have reviewed published regional geology studies, looked at aerial photographs and reviewed our previous studies in the area. Based on thus information, an assessment of the potential influence of the geology on the two buildings was made. This report summarizes our findings and presents our conclusions and recommendations. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The locations of the two buildings and driveway are presented on Figure 5. Architectural plans available at the time of this study show that the pool house will be a three level building with parking and a swimming pool on the lower level and office, recreational and living facilities on the second and third levels. The building will have a footprint area of about 4,600 square feet and the building will be stepped up the hillside. The cut required for the structure will have a maximum height of about 37 feet in two steps. The guest house with also be a three level building. The buildings footprint will cover about 5, 700 square feet. The basement level will have a walkout on the west. The driveway, parking and tum -a -round area on the north side of the building will be at the grade of the main level. A 30 foot high retaining wall will be built along the east side of the building and on the east and north side of the parking and turn-a -round area. Fill will be required for the basement walkout on the west side of the building. Job No. 107 0280 G9 teCh uuLJ33 -2- SITE CONDITIONS The project site is located on the northern side of the Roaring Fork River valley to the south of where Hunter Creek flows into the valley. see Figure 1. The general topography in the project area is presented on Figure 3. Detailed topography at the two building sites is presented on Figure 5. The valley side at the project site is very steep, about 50 percent and faces nearly due west. An old, excavated bench has been cut into the hillside just upslope of the guest house site. This bench appears to be a drill pad of a probable mineral exploration boring. Major drainages do not cross through the two building sites but a small ephemeral drainage with a alluvial fan at its mouth crosses between the two building sites. At the time of this study, the driveway had been rough graded to the north side of the ephemeral drainage channel. Pioneer roads had been constructed to the three geotechnical boring at the guest house site. Vegetation on the hillside in the project area is oak brush and other brush. The main Lichtenstein residence, which was under construction at the time of this study, is located at the switch -back at the north end of the driveway leading to the two building sites. Other residences are located on nearby properties to the west of the project site. REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING The project site is located in the west central part Southern Rocky Mountains to the west of the Rio Grande rift, see Figure 2. The site is on the western side of the north- trending Sawatch Range uplift, a first -order geologic structure that developed during the Laramide orogeny about 40 to 89 million years ago. Precambrian-age crystalline rocks that form the core of the uplift crop out about one -half mile to the east of the project site. West dipping, Paleozoic -age sedimentary rocks are present in the project area, see Figure 3. Older Paleozoic rocks (Pzo) lie to the southeast of the northeast - trending, Silver fault and include the Sawatch Quartzite, Peerless Formation, Manitou Dolomite, Chaffee Formation and Leadville Limestone in ascending stratigraphic order. Younger Paleozoic rocks (Pzy) lie to the northwest of the Silver fault and include the Belden, Gothic and Maroon Formations in ascending stratigraphic order. The Silver fault is a bedding plane fault that is downthrown on its west side. The fault and the Paleozoic sedimentary rocks Job No. 1070280 - - C�tech uJv�it�4 -3- dip steeply to the west. Bedding in the project area strike northeast parallel to the Silver fault and dips are in the range of 40 to 70 degrees to the northwest (Bryant, 1971). The Roaring Fork and Hunter Creek valleys in the project area were occupied by valley glaciers several times during the middle and late Pleistocene. Lateral moraines and colluvium (Qc) derived from the eroded moraines cover the Paleozoic rocks in the project area and rock outcrops are not present, see Figure 3. Older moraines (Qmbo) probably associated with an older Bull Lake glaciation underlie the rolling upland near the top of Smuggler Mountain to the east of the project site. Younger moraines (Qmby) probably associated with a younger Bull Lake glaciation are present on the lower valley side to the south of the project site. The Bull Lake moraines were probably deposited between about 132 and 302 thousand years ago. Glacial oulwash (Qopo) probably associated with the older of two late Pleistocene -age Pinedale glaciations forms terraces along northeast side of the Roaring Fork River valley in the southwestern part of the project area. This outwash was probably deposited about 65 to 79 thousand years ago. Small, coalescing alluvial fans (Qf) have developed in post - glacial times along the lower valley sides in the project area. These fans are geologically young, less than 15,000 years old, and many parts of the fans are active. The active part of the fans and the ephemeral channels above the fan heads are potential sites for future debris flows and floods. The Silver fault and other faults in the Aspen area are geologically old and are not considered capable of generating large earthquakes. The closest geologically young, post - glacial faults, considered capable of generating large earthquakes are in the Rio Grande rift to the east, see Figure 2. Post - glacial faults are present in the Williams Fork Mountains Fault Zone (Q50) about 58 miles to the northeast and in the southern section of the Sawatch Fault Zone (Q56b) about 37 miles to the southeast. At these distances, large earthquakes on tltese two fault zones should not produce strong ground shaking at the project site that is greater than that considered by the U. S. Geological Survey National Hazard Map (Frankel and Others, 2002). 106 No. 107 0280 tech i7ilcA5_ -4- UNDERGROUND MINE WORKINGS Extensive underground mine workings associated with mining of silver, lead and zinc ores are present along the northeast -trend of the Silver fault. The main mine shafts and tunnel portals in the project area are shown on Figure 3. A map of the underground mine working compiled by Rohlfing (1948) is presented on Figure 4. The underground mining started about 1880, peaked around 1890 and by the early 1930's mining had substantially declined with very little mining since 1952. The workings at the Free Silver Level 11 are located just to the southeast of the guest house site at a depth of about 1,230 feet. At this depth caving in the mine workings should not present a significant ground subsidence risk to the guest house or the pool house. PROJECT SITE GEOLOGY The main geologic features at the project site are shown on Figure 5. This map and the project area geology map (Figure 3) are based on our field observations and are modifications of the regional geology map by Bryant (1971). SURFICIAL SOIL DEPOSITS The hillside at the pool house and guest house sites is underlain by colluvium (Qc) derived mostly from erosion of the middle Pleistocene -age, Bull Lake moraines. The colluvium consists of gravel to boulder -size rocks in a silty to clayey sand matrix. The rocks are typically rounded and boulders of about 6 to 8 feet in size are common. The three geotechnical borings drilled by Hepworth - Pawlak (2007) to date at the guest house site indicate that the colluvium in this area is greater than 4 to 17 feet deep. The ephemeral stream channel that crosses between the pool house and guest house sites transitions to a geologically young alluvial fan (Qf). The stream channel and fan are potential sites of infrequent debris flows and floods. The flows and floods would be triggered by unusually intense thunderstorms or rapid melting of an unusually heavy snowpack. Job No. 107 0280 Gec�teCh OucJ66 -5- FORMATION ROCK The regional geologic map by Bryant (1971) indicates that the colluvium at the project site is probably underlain by the Pennsylvanian-age Gothic Formation. It is predominantly a gray, tan and brown sandstone, siltstone, shale and limestone. The depth to formation rock at the pool house and guest house sites is not ]mown based on the geotechnical borings drilled to date (Hepworth- Pawlak Geotechnical, 2007). GROUNDWATER The geotechnical borings drilled at the project site to date have not encountered groundwater. These borings are between 4 and 17 feet deep. Sounding of the probable mineral exploration boring to the southeast of the guest house indicates that this boring is greater than 200 feet deep with groundwater at a depth of 182 feet. The boring locations are shown on Figure 5. GEOLOGIC SITE ASSESSMENT There are several conditions of a geologic nature that should be considered as project planning and design proceeds. Geologic conditions that should be considered, their potential risks, and mitigations to reduce the risks are discussed below. CONSTRUCTION RELATED SLOPE INSTABILTY The hillside at the pool house and guest house sites is steep and relatively deep cuts will be needed to construct the two buildings. There is a relatively high risk of construction related slope instability if the grading for the two buildings and the turn-a -round and parking area are not properly engineered. Also, dislodged boulders in the construction excavations could develop into rockfalls that could potentially damage downslope buildings. Precautions during excavation at the two buildings should be taken to control potential rockfall. Geoteclmical recommendations for site grading, retaining walls and slope reinforcement will be presented in our geotechnical engineering reports for the pool house and guest house. These studies are in progress at this time. Job No. 107 0260 glech U��J'vT � as PROSPECT PIT A 25 foot diameter, mineral prospect pit is located near the western side of the guest house, see Figure 5. The pit is currently about 2 to 6 feet deep but the pit walls have caved and the original depth of the pit can not be determined from surface observations. The caved material in the pit is not suitable for building foundation support and it should be removed and replaced with compacted backfill during construction. If the caved material is too deep to be effectively removed with earth excavating equipment such as a large backhoe, then compaction grouting could be required. 11100IN 11 13 1Z�Z�Z. The ephemeral drainage channel between the pool house and guest house is subject to infrequent debris flows and floods that could potentially damage the driveway. These infrequent flows will contain boulders and organic debris that will likely plug culverts sized to pass clear water floods. One possible mitigation would be a dip in the driveway where it crosses the channel. The driveway fill at the channel crossing will need to be stabilized to prevent erosion. A grouted rip -rap faced fill using the on -site boulders is one possible method for constructing a stabilized fill. ROCKFALL Erosion over time on the steep hillside above the pool house and guest house has the potential for producing rockfalls by undermining and dislodging the boulders in the colluvium. The likelihood that a future rockfall will hit the two buildings during a reasonable exposure time for the building, in our opinion, is low. However, if a rockfall were to hit the buildings there is a potential for severe building damage and there is also safety concerns for occupants of the buildings. If this low risk is not acceptable then rockfall mitigation should be implemented to reduce the potential risks. Because of the steep hillside, rockfall mitigation options will be limited. Woven wire cable, catching nets located upslope of the two buildings should be a feasible mitigation measure. Site specific rockfall dynamic modeling will be needed to assess the feasibility UUCJ08 Job No. 1070280 ~6e Aech -7- of rockfalI mitigation and to develop design parameters. The existing hillside bench upslope of the guest house is a good site for the catching net in that area. Excavation of a bench above the pool house will be needed to provide a construction site for a catching net in that area. SNOW AVALANCHE Regional snow avalanche hazard mapping shows that the pool house and guest house site are not in high or moderate snow avalanche hazard zones (Mears, 1979). The hillsides above the two building sites are steep enough to produce small avalanches under some snowpack conditions. However, because of their west - facing aspect these slopes seldom, if ever, have snowpack conditions that could produce avalanches (Bryant, 1972). In our opinion, the snow avalanche risk to the two buildings is acceptable without mitigation. The rocicfall catching nets, if installed, would further decrease the very low risk of snow avalanche. EARTHQUAKE CONSIDERATIONS Historic earthquakes within 150 miles of the project site have typically been moderately strong with magnitudes less than M 5.5 and maximum Modified Mercalli Intensities less than VI, see Figure 2. The largest historic earthquake in the project region occurred in 1882. It was located in the northern Front Range and had a estimated magnitude of about M 6.2 and a maximum intensity of VII. Historic ground shaking at the project site associated with the 1882 and the other larger historic earthquakes in the region does not appear to have exceeded Modified Mercalli Intensity VI (Kirkham and Rogers, 1985). Modified Mercalli Intensity VI ground shaking should be expected during a reasonable exposure time for the project structures, but the probability of stronger ground shaking is low. Intensity VI ground shaking is felt by most people and causes general alarm, but results in negligible damage to structures of good design and construction. The pool house and guest house should be designed to withstand moderately strong ground shaking with little or no damage and not to collapse under stronger ground shaking. The U. S. Geological Survey 2002 National Seismic Hazard Map indicates that Job No. 107 0280 _ Hptech UUuJU%' -8- a peak ground acceleration of 0.068 has a 10% exceedence probability for a 50 year exposure time and a peak ground acceleration of 0.208 has a 2% exceedence probability for a 50 year exposure time at the project site (Frank] and Others, 2002). This corresponds to a statistical recurrence time of about 500 years and 2,500 years, respectively. The probabilistic site accelerations given above are for firm rock sites with shear wave velocities of 2,500 fps in the upper 100 feet. The pool house and guest house site should be considered 2003 International Building Code, Seismic Class D sites unless shallow bedrock is encountered or site specific shear wave measurements show otherwise. LD41TATIONS This study was conducted according to generally accepted engineering geology principles and practices in this area, at this time. We make no warranty either express or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based on our field observations and our experience in the area. The information presented in this report has been prepared exclusively for our client for preliminary planning purposes. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. Additional study will be deeded to evaluate the feasibility and design of rockfall mitigation if you decided to implement rockfall mitigation. Respectfully submitted, HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Ralph G. Mock Engineering Geologist Reviewed by: Daniel E. Hardin, P.E_ RGM/ksw Job No. 107 0280 G99tech UtJ(�JJ.J -9- REFERENCES Bryant, B., 1971, Geologv Map ofthe Aspen Quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado: U. S. Geological Survey Map GQ -933. Bryant, B., 1972 Map shorvingAvalanche Areas in the Aspen Quadrangle, Pitkirn County, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Map I- 785 -G. Frankel, A. D. and Others, 2002, Documentation for the 2002 Update of the National Seismic Hazard Maps: U. S. Geological Survey Open File Report 02 -420. Hepworth - Pawlak Geotechnical, 2007, Subsoil Study for Foundation Design, Lichtenstein Guest House, Parcel C, Spruce Street, Pitkin County, Colorado: Prepared for Warren Lichtenstein, c/o RJW Builders, Aspen, Colorado (Job No. 107 0283, in progress). Kirkham, R. M. and Rogers, W. P., 1985, Colorado Earthquake Data mud Interpretations 1867 to 1985: Colorado Geological Survey Bulletin 46. RoWing, D. P. 1943, Map of Workings in the Aspen Mining District, Pitkin County, Colorado: U. S. Geological Survey Mine Map Files, Denver Colorado. Widmann B. L. and Others, 1998, Preliminary Quaternary Fault and Fold Map and Data Base ofColor•ado: Colorado Geological Survey Open File Report 98 -8. Job No. 1070280 - - rip, _ UiiCJl ULJUJ12 N Intermountain C Seismic Belt Wyoming a L) 0 0 150. as )of WY. va Historic Seismic Zones: Fault younger than about 15,000 years. WY. I NB. U . CO. Eanhquakes with maximum intensity greater than VI O. VI Modified Mercalli intensity or magnitude greater than M 5.0 from 1867 to Middle 0 50 mi. Nuclear Explosion: CO. Rocky References: Scale: 1 in. = 50 mi. reservoir enhancement. Widmann and Others (1998) o U. S. Geological Survey Earthquake Catalogs 107 0280 to Lil 891 Basin Walden ❑ 0 HEPMRIR -I'AN K GEOTECHNICAL $ VI VI /^ Fort Great CrV �' U SSpring t 0 • Collins Loveland Gree Spring Fmnl snits ❑ ❑ 1882 Rocky Mtn. Arsenal 192101987 ❑Fo .I Range ly (n �^ M8.2 VII VI b VII Colorad 1 Kemmling M3.2 to M 5.3 Rio Blanco C. 1973 (Explosion) Meeker t 973 (^ G50 M 5.7 Golden Spero otl ❑ Vaii Springs Eagle ❑ Deaver ❑ ❑ yr Rifle � ❑Parker (Explosion) 1969 sbn) PfOJBCt 4 EKbwa 1969 Site P Cases ;r is Belt M5.3 S. Grand Do Rock is is eel[ P Grantl Ju❑npion 19 4ack Aspen O V18 0 f oab Derst" `}056h ❑Colorado Sp. Cimarron Ridge Gunnison J Montrose❑ M ❑ 5.5 Salid. 02 Pueb o G) \, / ❑ v 067 � lip �'iat2aLl p CD 1R91"y 0 069a VI 1955 City 069b VI N .-. alsenburg Cortez UT. CO. AZ. NM. Pagosa Springs G AlamOSe rT. Ch... �Tnnidad Raton Explanation: Post - Glacial Faults: Historic Seismic Zones: Fault younger than about 15,000 years. Areas with historically high seismic activity. Larger Historic Earthquakes: M Local, surface wave or body wave magnitude Eanhquakes with maximum intensity greater than VI O. VI Modified Mercalli intensity or magnitude greater than M 5.0 from 1867 to present. 0 50 mi. Nuclear Explosion: I I 1 Large underground nuclear explosion for natural gas References: Scale: 1 in. = 50 mi. reservoir enhancement. Widmann and Others (1998) U. S. Geological Survey Earthquake Catalogs 107 0280 ti Ge Ptech Lichtenstein Pool House and Guest House HEPMRIR -I'AN K GEOTECHNICAL Geologically Young Faults and Larger Historic Earthquakes Figure 2 UuuJ -L 3 QC /Pzy Of \N. Spruce St. iC J Cowenhoven Tunnel. r Copo Qf ll Free Silver q � shaft B �c c� Smuggle -� No. 1 Tunne / Smuggler ' Moll 'iSO son / �.` {( �) Shaft � till+ J1)1 Explanation: Colluvium Contact: Approximate boundary of map units. Qf Alluvial Fans Qopo Older Pinedale Outwash u •••• Faults: Approximate location, dotted where concealed, U - Qmby Younger Bull Lake Moraine uplhrown side, D - downthrown side. Qmb; Older Bull Lake Moraine Moraine Ridge Crest 0 4000. ©Younger Paleozoic Rocks zY Main Mine Shaft t I I Scale: 1 in. = 400 ft. Pzo Older Paleozoic Rocks Main Mine Tunnel Portal Contour Interval: 40 ft. June 2007 1070280 HP Ge(btech Lichtenstein Pool House and Guest House Figure 3 HEPNVRTH -PAW G OG CHNICA Project Area Geology Ma gy P UUL' J.L4 El Explanation: Tunnels and Inclines Production Stopes Mine Map Reference: Rohlfing (1948) Note: See Figure 3 far locations of main mine shafts and tunnel portals. 0 400 ft. I I t Scale: 1 in. = 400 ft. Contour Interval: 40 ft. June 2007 1070280 I GoV tech I Lichtenstein Pool House and Guest House I Figure 4 NO- WORn7 -PAwwc GEOIECNN�CAL Underground Mine Workings Map OUCJ15 QGPzy Qf QC/Pzy j \ QGPzy Qc /Pzy Explanation: ac Colluvium C Contact: Approximate boundary of map units. F--Qf--1 Alluvial Fans: Potential locations of debris flows and B B+e H H -P Geotechnical Boring: 9 Approximate location of exploratory boring for ®Younger Paleozoic Rocks: g guest house geotechnical engineering study Includes the Maroon, Gothic and Belden ( (Hepworth- Pawlak Geotechnical, 2007). 0 0 60 ft. Formations. The Gothic Formation I I I 1 probably underlies the two building sites. + + Probable Mineral Exploration Boring: Approximate location of probable mineral S Scale: 1 In. = 60 ft. exploration boring. Driller unknown. C Contour Interval: 2 ft. June 2007 1070280 C CeH L Lichtenstein Pool House and Guest House Figure 5 HEPNURi -PAVMR GEOME NICAL P Project Site Geology Map )J-L'6 PITKIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920 -5526 FAX# (970) 920 -5439 November 8, 2011 Mitch Haas 201 North Mill Street, Suite # 108 Aspen, CO 81611 mhaas(c)sonris.net Re: GOVT 33 LLC Scenic View Protection Review (PID #2737- 071 -00 -040; Case# P088 -11) Dear Mr. Haas: The Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that this application is complete. After a more detailed review of the submittal information, additional information specific to the application may be requested in order to adequately review and process the application. The planner in charge of the review will request the information from you directly. Please note that it is your responsibility to mail notice by U.S. Mail to all property owners within 300' of the subject property with the return address of the Community Development Department (copy of notice will be mailed to you by the Community Development Department) by November 20, 2011. The names and addresses shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than 60 days prior to the mailing. Please submit the enclosed Affidavit of Notice by Mailing and a photograph of the posted sign as proof of compliance with the Code. A property owner receiving the public notice who wishes to submit comments or objections to the Community Development by 20`h day of December, 2011. If any objections to the development application are received by this date, the Community Development Department shall continue the application to a public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 2 . By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) on the 5 1 day of December, 2011, which is at least fifteen (15) days prior to December 20, 2011. This must be submitted prior to any approvals being granted. 3. PLEASE SUBMIT A 24x36 SITE PLAN. If you have questions, please call Suzanne Wolff, the planner assigned to your case, at 920 -5093. Sincerely, Bonnie Waechtler Administrative Assistant PITKIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920 -5526 FAX# (970) 920 -5439 I M0lu C17:7_1101111u I To: North Spruce Street Homeowners Association FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Community Development Department Suzanne.wol tfnco.pitkin.co.us Re: GOVT 33 LLC Scenic View Protection Review (PID 2737- 071 -00 -040; Case P088 -11) DATE: November 8, 2011 Attached for your review and comments are materials for an application submitted by GOVT 33 LLC. The Pitkin County Community Development Director will review the application. Please return your comments to me by Tuesday, December 20, 2011. hUp: / /www.aspenpitkin.com /Portals /0 /docs /county /Com %20Dev /Plannin /g Land Use Ap plications/P088 11 app.pdf If you require a paper copy of this application contact Bonnie Waechtler at bonnie .waechtlergeo.pitkin.co.us or 920 -5109. Thank you. PITKIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Permit Receipt RECEIPT NUMBER 00032128 Name: Law Office of Neil 0 Karbank P Date:3/2/2012 Project Address: 0 SPRUCE ST Type: check # 8280 Permit Number Fee Description 0088.2011.PLAN PP- Hearing Officer Fee 1 Total: Amount 507.50 507.50 Communitv Development 130 S Galena St Third Floor Aspen, CO 81611 970 - 920 -5109 To: GOVT 33 LLC 604 W Main St Aspen, CO 81611 Date: Case Number Due apon receipt 2.50 Scenic View Protection View 0.40 Scenic View Protection View n 175.00 175.00 Invoice February 28, 2012 P088 -11 Subtotal $ Sales Tax Total $ Make all checks payable to Pitkin County Treasurer Thank you! 130 S Galena St Third Floor Aspen, CO 81611 70.00 507.50 507.50 PITKIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Permit Receipt RECEIPT NUMBER 00031682 Name: Law Office of Neil D Karbank Date:11/7/2011 Project Address: 0 SPRUCE ST Type: check # 8186 Permit Number 0088.2011.PLAN 0088.2011.PLAN 0088.2011.PLAN Fee Description Amount PP- Flat Fee 1,560.00 PP- Clerk Tech Fee 25.00 PP- Public Notice Fee 54.00 Total: 1,639.00