HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.planning.273730401002 (2016)(2)DOCUMENT 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&7
Ordinance for the BOCC and/or P&l
Determination for the Hearing Officer
Administrative Determination
Staff Memo
Application
Public Notice, Acceptance Letter, Referral(s) Letter
Site Plan
Miscellaneous
Plat(s)
DECISIONS
RECEPTION#: 635145, 01/03/2017 at
11:23:20 AM,
1 OF 2. R $0.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION
Janice K. Vas Caudill, Pitkin County, CO
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO, DENYING THE GREGG SPECIAL REVIEW TO EXTEND AN ELECTRIC
SERVICE LINE IN THE RURALIREMOTE ZONE DISTRICT
Resolution No. 159--2016
RECITALS
I Jason Gregg (hereafter "Applicant') has applied to the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin
County (`BOCC`) to request Special Review approval to extend Holy Cross electric seryice to a cabin
in the Rural/Remote (R/R) zone district. If the Special Review approval is granted, the Applicant is
requesting a minor amendment to the previously approved Activity Envelope and Site Plan to include a
"Utility Line Envelope."
2) The property is located off of Richmond Hill Road and is more specifically described as the
Washington Lode, U.S. Mineral Survey No. 5964, lying in Section 31. Township 10 South, Range 84
West of the 6° PAT
3) The property is zoned Rural/Remote and contains 9.331 acres.
4) The property is bounded by U.S. Forest Service ("USES") lands to the north and south and private lands
to the cast and west.
5) The Community Development Director approved an Activity Envelope and Site Plan, pursuant to
Administrative Decision No. 11-2016. The Site Plan was recorded in Plat Book 114 at Page 1. Only
temporary construction access was approved at that time.
6) The BOCC subsequently granted Special Review approval for a driveway, pursuant to Resolution No.
044-2016.
7) The building permit for the cabin was issued on June 9, 2016 and construction is currently underway.
8) The Applicant is requesting to extend electric service from an existing electric box adjacent to
Loushin pond/reservoir on the Shoaf parcel below.
9) Holy Cross provides electric service to the adjacent Shoat property; service to this property was in
place prior to the rezoning to Rural/Remote. Mr. Shoaf granted a utility easement across his parcel to
bereft the Washington Lode(Reception No. 620962).
10) The BOCC heard this application at a duly noticed public hearing on December 7, 2016, at which
time evidence and testimony were presented with respect to this application.
11) The ROCC finds that the request does not comply with the Special Review standards in Sec. 2-30-
30(h)(2) and Sec. 4-30-30(f)(1) of the Land Use Code ("Code'), as follows:
A) Extending electric service up to Richmond Ridge is not consistent with the intent of the
Rural/Remote zone district. Extending electric service up to Richmond Ridge opens up the
possihility of further extension along the ridge and down into the Little Annie Basin. Once a
Resolution No. -2016
Page 2
precedent is set that electric service is nearby, then it will be difficult for the County to argue
against each incremental extension. Sprawl begins with actions taken in isolation.
B) The extension of electric service will permanently change the "baekcountry character and
lifestyle' that was central to the creation of the Rural/Remote zone district. Living off -grid
encourages conservation of resources and an acceptance of difficulties or inconveniences that are
avoided when connected to the grid. The intended use of the arca is forever altered and the valued
buffer surrounding a high intensity urban area and high intensity recreational area is lost. This
buffer is valued as a low intensity area for human activity, as well as for wildlife.
C) The proximity to utilities that existed prior to the rezoning of this area to Rural/Remote should
not encourage the extension as it disintegrates the buffer between low intensity uses in the
Rural/Remote zone district and high intensity uses on the ski area and the urban arca beyond.
D) The zone district is well-defined and there is no reliance on traditional utilities within this zone
district. One of the defining characteristics for the zone district is the absence of traditional
utilities, which the community deemed were too expensive and too difficult to provide and
inappropriate in this area.
F,) The trench for the mility cable will traverse slopes in excess of 30% and 45%. Sec. 7-20-20(e)(8)
of the Code states, "utility cuts on any slope with a gradient of fifteen (15) percent or greater shall
be reviewed through the Site Plan process." While the Code docs not prohibit utility cuts on
steeper slopes, in this case, the cut can be avoided by utilizing alternative, off grid energy
sources, which are typical for development in the Rural/Remote zone district.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the BOCC that it does hereby deny the Gregg
Special Review to extend electric service to a cabin in the Rural/Remote (R/R) zone district.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PUBLISHED IN THE ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY on the
3ed day of November, 2016.
DENIED this 7th day of December, 2016.
A7TST:
j
Jeand'tte Jones, Clerk to (fie BOCC
I �/
APPROVED AS FO CONTENT:
Cin ouben
Community Development Director
P076-16: PID 4273730401002
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
PIPKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
4 �
By�i�G'I(/q -
Rachel E. Richards, Chair
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
John 6Ly
mlv Allsmm
STAFF
MEMO
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Regular Meeting — December 7, 2016
THRU: Cindy Houben, Community Development Director
FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Senior Planner
RE: Gregg Special Review for Utility Extension in the Rural/Remote Zone District and Minor
Amendment to Activity Envelope/Site Plan
REQUEST: The Applicant is requesting Special Review approval to extend electric service to a cabin in
the Rural/Remote (R/R) zone district. If the Special Review approval is granted, the Applicant is requesting
a minor amendment to the previously approved Activity Envelope and Site Plan to include a "Utility Line
Envelope."
APPLICANT: Jason Gregg
REPRESENTATIVE: Mitch Haas
LOCATION: Off of Richmond Ridge; Washington Lode, USMS 5964
ZONING/LOT SIZE: Rural/Remote/9.331 acres
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The Community Development Director approved an Activity Envelope and Site Plan, pursuant to
Administrative Decision No. 11-2016. The Site Plan was recorded in Plat Book 114 at Page 1. Only
temporary construction access was approved at that time. The BOCC subsequently granted Special Review
approval for a driveway, pursuant to Resolution No. 044-2016.
The building permit for the cabin was issued on June 9, 2016 and construction is currently underway.
Temporary electric service is in place via a cable that runs on/over the ground surface up to the cabin site
from an electric box adjacent to the Loushin pond/reservoir on the Shoaf parcel below. The County issued
an electric permit for this temporary service in error; building staff was unaware of the restriction on the
extension of utilities in the Rural/Remote zone district.
STAFF COMMENTS:
SPECIAL REVIEW: Special Review approval is required in the Rural/Remote zone district to extend
utilities; approval is at the discretion of the BOCC. The Applicant is requesting to extend electric service
from an existing electric box adjacent to Loushin pond/reservoir on the Shoaf parcel below. Holy Cross
provides electric service to the Shoaf cabin (service was in place prior to Rural/Remote rezoning). Mr.
Shoaf granted a utility easement across his parcel to the Washington Lode when he sold the Washington
Lode to the Applicant (Reception No. 620962; 6/23/15).
The electric cable is proposed to be buried in the approximate existing alignment as the existing
temporary cable. The cable will be approximately 2,100 feet long. The cable will be buried in a narrow,
roughly 1.5 foot wide by 2 foot deep trench. A small excavator will dig the trench, and hand digging will
be employed in certain locations.
A. The special review use shall consider the applicable County Master Plan.
Response: The Castle/Maroon Master Plan recommends that new utility lines be buried to minimize scenic
impacts, but does not specifically address the extension of utilities in the Rural/Remote zone district.
B. The special review use shall not conflict with any applicable sections of the Pitkin County Land Use
Code, including the County Land Use Policies in Chapter 1.
Response: Sec. 1-60-230 of the Code, the Scenic Quality land use policy, states in part,
"Undergrounding of utility lines is supported where and when appropriate to minimize visual impact."
In this case, the issue is not the visual impact, since the area is not visible from any public roads or
vantage points, but whether it is appropriate to extend an electric line in the Rural/Remote zone district.
C. The proposed development must not materially endanger the public health, safety or welfare.
D. The proposed development must not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting
property.
Response: The Applicant asserts that the electric extension will promote the health, welfare and safety of
the Applicant and other occupants of the cabin, while eliminating the potential for adverse impacts to the
value of adjoining properties that could result from the use of generators and deliveries of propane. Staff
has no reason to believe that the proposed electric extension will materially endanger the public health,
safety or welfare, and would potentially increase the value of adjoining property by providing an
opportunity for further electric extensions to other properties in the Rural/Remote zone district. However,
an electric extension does have an impact on the public welfare by changing the character of development in
the Rural/Remote zone district. Rural/Remote is a community value. If one extension is granted, it would
be hard to argue against any other request, thereby changing the intent of the zone district.
E. The special review use shall be consistent with the intent of the zone district in which it is
proposed to be located.
F. The special review use shall be compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the
parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or shall enhance the mixture of
complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for
development.
Response: The intent of the Rural/Remote zone district is to:
(i) Conserve and protect the natural environment and its resources, while allowing for limited
recreational uses and limited residential development, (ii) preserve the small scale, low-density
backcountry character and lifestyle, (iii) retain undeveloped areas, and (iv) allow for the
transfer of development rights to areas that are more appropriate for development. This district
accommodates only small new structures and very limited types of development.
2
Extending electric service up to Richmond Ridge opens up the possibility of further extension along the
ridge and down into the Little Annie Basin. Once a precedent is set that electric service is nearby, then it
will be difficult for the County to argue against each incremental extension. In fact, BOCC Ordinance
No. 94-24 provides that if utilities are extended in the Little Annie/Richmond Hill area, the Urschel
Family (owners of property along Richmond Ridge just west of the Washington Lode "shall be permitted
to utilize and extend those facilities to serve the existing A -frame or replacement structure."
The extension of electric service will permanently change the "backcountry character and lifestyle" that
was central to the creation of the Rural/Remote zone district. Living off -grid encourages conservation of
resources and an acceptance of difficulties or inconveniences that are avoided when connected to the
grid. The intended use of the area is forever altered and the valued buffer surrounding a high intensity
urban area and high intensity recreational area is lost. This buffer is valued as a low intensity area for
human activity, as well as for wildlife.
G. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed special review use must
be in harmony with the surrounding area and minimize adverse effects, including visual impacts,
impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, traffic generation, parking, trash, service
delivery, air/water pollution or other impacts on natural resources, noise, vibrations and odor
on surrounding properties.
Response: The Applicant asserts that extending electric service will provide the following benefits:
• Less reliance on fossil fuels and wood -burning, thereby lowering the overall carbon footprint.
• The photovoltaic system will be inadequate on its own but coupled with electric service will minimize
consumption while allowing any extra generation to be fed back into the grid.
• Grid fed service will reduce or eliminate generator noise.
• The property is adjacent to existing utility lines, so no new trunk lines will be required.
• There is a simple, established path from the power source to the cabin.
The trench will traverse slopes in excess of 30% and 45%. Sec. 7-20-20(e)(8) of the Code states, "utility
cuts on any slope with a gradient of fifteen (15) percent or greater shall be reviewed through the Site Plan
process." While the Code does not prohibit utility cuts on steeper slopes, one consideration is whether
the cut can be avoided. In this case the cut can be avoided by utilizing alternative, off -grid energy
sources, which are typical for development in the Rural/Remote zone district. In addition, the Applicant
pursued and obtained approval for a driveway to the cabin, in order to accommodate limited vehicular
access, including access for services such as propane deliveries.
H. There must be adequate public facilities and services to serve the special review use, including
but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection,
emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools.
Response: Not applicable
The proposed special review use must comply with any additional standards or requirements
stated for such use in Sec. 4-30 and/or 2-40-20.
Response: Section 4-30-30(f)(1) provides specific review criteria for extensions of utilizes in the
Rural/Remote zone district, as follows:
SEC. 4-30-30(F)(1) PUBLIC UTILITIES, MINOR: UTILITY EXTENSIONS IN THE
RURAL/REMOTE ZONE DISTRICT
The following criteria are to be used in conjunction with the special review criteria established in Sec. 2-40-
20 of this Land Use Code in order to allow the extension of utilities such as electricity, water, sewer,
telephone and cable on lands located within the Rural/Remote zone district:
(a) Is the extension of the utility service less disruptive to the environment than an alternative source?
Response: The Applicant notes that the installation of the cable will have minimal disruption to dig the
trench, which will then be filled and revegetated. In addition, the Applicant asserts that the electric
extension will be less disruptive to the environment as it will eliminate the noise from a generator and
propane deliveries. Staff asserts that the disturbance of the steep slope to bury the cable from the
existing electric box up to the cabin site is unnecessary, since the alternative energy sources can be
accommodated within the previously approved Activity Envelope, which does not disturb any slopes in
excess of 30%.
(b) Does the proposed utility extension encroach upon or impact environmental hazards or resources such
as floodplain, geologic hazards, slopes exceeding fifteen (IS) percent in grade, wildlife habitat, wildfire,
groundwater, ridgelines, vegetation, agricultural lands (irrigated meadows, dry land pastures or other
environmentally significant features)?
Response: As noted above, the trench for the electric cable will impact slopes in excess of 30% and
45%. The Applicant's engineer found no evidence of slope instability or failure, and made
recommendations to minimize impacts on the slope. Staff noted above that the cut can be avoided by
utilizing alternative, off -grid energy sources, which are typical for development in the Rural/Remote zone
district.
(c) Is there a significant visual change or impact to the land area affected by the utility extension?
(d) Can the visual impact be mitigated?
(e) Does the extension visually impact surrounding properties?
Response: The affected area is not visible from any public roads or vantage points. The only affected
property owner (Jeffrey Shoaf) granted an easement for the utility trench and submitted a letter
supporting the request (Attachment A).
(fl Do reclamation and landscaping measures appear natural as related to the former condition and
surrounding environment?
Response: The Applicant commits to revegetate in a manner consistent with the USFS requirements
outlined for eventual restoration of the access road. The revegetation would be accomplished without
irrigation.
(g) Does the utility extension comply with the intent of the Rural/Remote zone district?
Response: Extending electric service up to Richmond Ridge opens up the possibility of further
extension along the ridge and down into the Little Annie Basin. Once a precedent is set that electric
4
service is nearby, then it will be difficult for the County to argue against each incremental extension.
This will permanently change the "backcountry character and lifestyle" that was central to the creation of
the Rural/Remote zone district. Living off -grid encourages conservation of resources and an acceptance
of difficulties or inconveniences that are avoided when connected to the grid.
The well-planned approach to the Rural/Remote zone district, which was developed over 2%2 years of
work with the Planning Commission and the Little Annie/Richmond Ridge property owners, has been a
zoning success. Pitkin County "zoned it like we meant it." The zone district allows no more or no less
development than is acceptable for the location. The zone district even offers incentives for less
development, the impacts of which the entire community accepts through the TDR program in the form
of additional and larger residences exempt from growth management in the urban and other areas.
The Special Review for extension of utilities should not be taken lightly. While in isolation, this one
utility extension does not visually burden or physically/environmentally significantly disrupt the exact
location, the act of extension of a utility in this area is very significant. The extension jeopardizes the
foundation of the zone district more so than even other locations within Rural/Remote, since the
Washington Lode is so close to the edge of the zone district and utilities that existed before the rezoning
to Rural/Remote. Sprawl begins with actions taken in isolation. The zone district is well-defined and
there is no reliance on traditional utilities within this zone district. One of the defining characteristics for
the zone district is the absence of traditional utilities, which the community deemed were too expensive
and too difficult to provide to this area. The mere proximity of this location to the ski area begs the
question of the possibility of rental or resort cabin use. The burden on the community will eventually be
felt if services are extended in the area. The other owners in the zone district are closely following the
outcome of this application and will follow with similar requests if approved.
Staff strongly asserts that the BOCC developed the Rural/Remote zone district with great care and
deliberation, in order to direct growth and development very intentionally. There is no compelling
reason to extend utilities to this location. Staff recommends denial of the Special Review request, based
on inconsistency with the intent of the zone district, the lack of need, the disintegration of the buffer
between low and high intensity uses, and the sprawl impacts associated with not "holding the line" of the
Rural/Remote zone district.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the BOCC deny the Gregg Special Review for a utility
extension in the Rural/Remote zone district, subject to the attached Resolution.
Attachments
A. Jeffrey Shoaf 10/19/16
Application provided separately
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO, APPROVING THE GREGG SPECIAL REVIEW FOR A DRIVEWAY IN THE
RURAL/REMOTE ZONE DISTRICT
Resolution No. -2016
RECITALS
1) Jason Gregg (hereafter "Applicant") has applied to the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin
County (`BOCC") to request Special Review approval to extend electric service to a cabin in the
Rural/Remote (R/R) zone district. If the Special Review approval is granted, the Applicant is requesting
a minor amendment to the previously approved Activity Envelope and Site Plan to include a "Utility
Line Envelope."
2) The property is located off of Richmond Hill Road and is more specifically described as the
Washington Lode, U.S. Mineral Survey No. 5964, lying in Section 31, Township 10 South, Range 84
West of the 6"' P.M.
3) The property is zoned Rural/Remote and contains 9.331 acres.
4) The property is bounded by U.S. Forest Service ("USFS") lands to the north and south and private lands
to the east and west.
5) The Community Development Director approved an Activity Envelope and Site Plan, pursuant to
Administrative Decision No. 11-2016. The Site Plan was recorded in Plat Book 114 at Page 1. Only
temporary construction access was approved at that time.
6) The BOCC subsequently granted Special Review approval for a driveway, pursuant to Resolution No.
044-2016.
7) The building permit for the cabin was issued on June 9, 2016 and construction is currently underway.
8) The BOCC heard this application at a duly noticed public hearing on December 7, 2016, at which
time evidence and testimony were presented with respect to this application.
9) The BOCC finds that the request does not comply with the Special Review standards in Sec. 2-30-
30(h)(2) and Sec. 4-30-30(f)(1) of the Land Use Code ("Code"), as follows:
A) Extending electric service up to Richmond Ridge is not consistent with the intent of the
Rural/Remote zone district. Extending electric service up to Richmond Ridge opens up the
possibility of further extension along the ridge and down into the Little Annie Basin. Once a
precedent is set that electric service is nearby, then it will be difficult for the County to argue
against each incremental extension. Sprawl begins with actions taken in isolation.
B) The extension of electric service will permanently change the "backcountry character and
lifestyle" that was central to the creation of the Rural/Remote zone district. Living off -grid
encourages conservation of resources and an acceptance of difficulties or inconveniences that are
avoided when connected to the grid. The intended use of the area is forever altered and the valued
Resolution No. -2016
Page 2
buffer surrounding a high intensity urban area and high intensity recreational area is lost. This
buffer is valued as a low intensity area for human activity, as well as for wildlife.
C) The proximity to utilities that existed prior to the rezoning of this area to Rural/Remote should
not encourage the extension as it disintegrates the buffer between low intensity uses in the
Rural/Remote zone district and high intensity uses on the ski area and the urban area beyond.
D) The zone district is well-defined and there is no reliance on traditional utilities within this zone
district. One of the defining characteristics for the zone district is the absence of traditional
utilities, which the community deemed were too expensive and too difficult to provide and
inappropriate in this area.
E) The trench for the utility cable will traverse slopes in excess of 30% and 45%. Sec. 7-20-20(e)(8)
of the Code states, "utility cuts on any slope with a gradient of fifteen (15) percent or greater shall
be reviewed through the Site Plan process." While the Code does not prohibit utility cuts on
steeper slopes, in this case, the cut can be avoided by utilizing alternative, off -grid energy
sources, which are typical for development in the Rural/Remote zone district.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the BOCC that it does hereby deny the Gregg
Special Review to extend electric service to a cabin in the Rural/Remote (R/R) zone district.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PUBLISHED IN THE ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY on the
3rd day of November, 2016.
DENIED this 7d` day of December, 2016.
ATTEST:
Jeanette Jones, Clerk to the BOCC
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Cindy Houben
Community Development Director
P076-16; PID 9273730401002
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
Lo
Rachel E. Richards, Chair
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
John Ely
County Attorney
�I'xlnw
Y
I <i!l m , r lw
Suzanne Wolff <suzanne.wolff@pitkincounty.com>
Fwd: Washington Lode application for Special Review to extend electrical service
from my property to Jason's Cabin
Jeff Shoaf <jeffreyshoaf@me.com> Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 1:57 PM
To: Suzanne Wolff <suzanne.wolff@pitkincounty.com>, Suzanne Wolff <Suzannew@co.pitkin.co.us>
From: Jeff Shoaf <jeffreyshoaf@me.com>
Subject: re: Washington Lode application for Special Review to extend electrical service from my
property to Jason's Cabin
Date: October 19, 2016 at 1:26:26 PM MDT
To Suzanne Wolf and
After having read and reviewed Jason's request, please know that I have no issues or concerns and I do
fully support Jason Greg's application for Special Review with the Pitkin County BOCC on December 7th,
2016 to extend the Holy Cross electrical service from my Iron Silver Placer property up to his cabin
located on the top of his Washington Lode.
I know Jason will install the electrical line in a sensitive manner with the least disturbance practicable and
that he'll fully restore any affected ground. The presence of electric service to my Rural and Remote cabin
has never been an issue or in any way contrary to the zoning or character of the surrounding area.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Shoaf
Jeffrey Shoaf
Aspen Realty Exchange
P.O. Box 3123
Aspen, CO 81612
jeffreyshoaf@me.com
970-925-4501 Office
970-948-3129 Cell
www.kingstreetaspen.com
www.lupinedriveaspen.com
APPLICATION
MATERIAL
i
• I Ao
(U.S.M.S. Na: 5964)
AN APPLICATION FOR:
Spm Re/v �em fo-r thoe/
f x teiw4i a -w of Ut' ' 6" vw th &
R wra IZ &mxxtel Z &ne/ D v4trCct
SuBMIrr£v BY
VAAS LINE) PLANNING, LLC
420 F. MAIN SrR££r, Surr£ 8-10
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
(9 70) 925-7819
ml tc h@ htp sp Pivn.. c &m
Septelmkrnr 29, 2016
PID#s 2737-304-01-002
000001 O -I 50
AN APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL REVIEW
FOR EXTENSION OF UTILITIES IN THE
RURAL/REMOTE ZONE DISTRICT
FOR THE WASHINGTON LODE
(U.S.M.S NO. 5964)
Submitted by:
Jason Gregg
99 Bluebonnet Trail
Aspen, CO 81611
Prepared by:
HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC
Planning Consultant
420 E. Main Street, Suite B-10
Aspen, CO 81611
Phone: (970) 925-7819
Email: mitch®hlpaspen.com
PID#s 2737-304-01-002
000002
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................ I
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS..................................................................2
III. PROPOSAL....................................................................................3
IV. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS................................................................5
A. Special Review Approval for the Extension of Utilities ...........................5
B. Minor Amendment to a Development Permit.........................................9
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 Proof of the Applicant's Ownership and Authority
Exhibit 2: Authorization for Haas Land Planning, LLC to represent the applicant
Exhibit 3: Pre -Application Conference Summary
Exhibit 4: Administrative Decision No. 11-2016 and BOCC Resolution No. 044-
2016
442016
Exhibit 5: Letter from Daniel E. Hardin, a Colorado Licensed Professional
Engineer with HP/Kumar
Exhibit 6: Utility Easement Agreement between Jeffrey S. Shoaf and Jason A.
Gregg enabling the proposed extension
Exhibit 7: Spec sheet of the type of cable being used
Exhibit 8: An executed application fee agreement
Exhibit 9: Property Owners Within 300 feet
PID#s 2737-304-01-002
I. INTRODUCTION
This application requests Special Review approval for the extension of utilities to
the Washington Lode parcel in the Rural/Remote Zone District. The Washington
Lode is a 9.331 acre tract more specifically described as being a part of Mineral
Survey No. 5964, lying in Section 31, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the
6th P.M., County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. Ownership of the property was
transferred from Jeffery Shoaf to Jason Gregg (owner and applicant) on June
19th, 2015 via Warranty Deed. The property is located on the easterly side of
Aspen Mountain, approximately half to two-thirds of a mile southeast of the
Sundeck and east of the area commonly referred to as Pandora's.
An approved access route has been developed and provides vehicular access to
the site for construction. The access route connects to Richmond Hill Road across
the adjacent properties to the south. Administrative Decision No. 11-2016
approved the Gregg Activity Envelope and Site Plan for development of a cabin
and associated improvements. BOCC Resolution No. 0442016 granted Special
Review Approval for the driveway.
Construction on the approved cabin and associated improvements is currently
underway. Temporary electric service is in place during the construction process
via a heavy cable that is specially designed for withstanding the elements (see
spec sheet attached as Exhibit 7) and runs on/over the ground surface up to the
cabin site from an electric box adjacent to Loushin pond/reservoir on the Shoaf
parcel, below. Holy Cross already provides electric service to the cabin on the
Shoaf parcel, immediately adjacent to and below the subject site. Further, a utility
easement agreement has been executed and recorded (Reception No. 620962,
copy attached as Exhibit 6) to allow for the proposed extension.
This application seeks special review approval to carefully and sensitively bury
the cable in its existing alignment (more or less) so as to maintain electric service
on a permanent basis. The cable will be buried with minimal site disturbance and
complete revegetation so that the cabin will function safely and efficiently
without the impacts that would otherwise result from noisy, disruptive
generators or intrusive deliveries of liquid propane to this Rural/Remote site. All
recommendations for maintaining slope stability, as provided in the engineer's
review letter dated September 27, 2016 and attached hereto as Exhibit 5, will be
followed.
The application is divided into four sections. While this section provides a brief
introduction, Section II furnishes an overview of the existing conditions affecting
the subject property and surrounding area. Section III summarizes the
applicant's proposal, and Section IV addresses compliance with the review
criteria of the Code.
Gregg Rural/Remote Special Review Application for Utilities Page 1
000004
For the reviewer's convenience, all pertinent supporting documents are provided
in the various exhibits included behind the application narrative, including:
• Exhibit 1: Proof of the applicant's ownership;
• Exhibit 2: Authorization for Haas Land Planning, LLC, (HLP) to represent
the property owner;
• Exhibit 3: A pre -application conference summary;
• Exhibit 4: Administrative Decision No. 11-2016 and BOCC Resolution No.
044-2016;
• Exhibit 5: Letter from Daniel E. Hardin, a Colorado Licensed Professional
Engineer with HP/Kumar;
• Exhibit 6: Utility Easement Agreement between Jeffrey S. Shoaf and Jason
A. Gregg enabling the proposed extension;
• Exhibit 7: Spec sheet of the type of cable being used;
• Exhibit 8: An executed fee agreement; and
• Exhibit 9: List of property owners within a 300 -feet radius.
While the applicant has attempted to address all relevant provisions of the Code,
questions may arise which require further information and/or clarification. Such
additional information will be provided as may be required in the course of the
application's review.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The subject Washington Lode property is a 9.331 -acre tract of land being a part of
Mineral Survey No. 5964, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. It is located at
approximately 11,000 feet above sea level, along the eastern slopes of the area
commonly referred to as Richmond Ridge and approximately half to two-thirds
(%) of a mile from the Aspen Mountain Sundeck and Gondola. The property is a
forested mountain environment with some steep but scattered slopes dispersed
with flatter areas and upland grassy meadows. Sweeping views of the
Continental Divide dominate the horizon to the east with the upper Roaring Fork
Valley below. The site is currently under construction to develop a single-family
home (cabin), as approved in Administrative Decision No 11-2016. As mentioned
above, temporary electric service has been brought to the property for
construction purposes.
The site is progressively sloped from the west to the east, with predominantly
15% slopes at the top of the site. The prevailing grade of slopes remains relatively
consistent but increases to a narrow band of slopes just over 45% at the eastern
property line. The prevalent vegetation on the property is natural grasses and
mature conifers. The cabin is being built on the upper extent of the site, which is
less forested than the other parts of the parcel but remains completely obscured
Gregg Rural/Remote Special Review Application for Utilities Page 2
000005
Pitlan Maps & More
,JOt Pitkin Maps More
Map Created on 10:44 AM 02/12/16 at http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com
t
THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES.
Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee
concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability
of the content represented.
y.
82
r-
82
82
Legend
State Highway
Road Centerline
o Primary Road
— Secondary Road
Parcel Boundary
Rivers and Creeks
— Continuous
_.. Intermittent
River, Lake or Pond
�= To Boundary
Federal Land Boundary
FLM
13 State of Colorado
13 USES
Notes
from all other development and from established view corridors. For more
details on the conditions of the proposed alignment, see the letter provided in
Exhibit 5.
The subject property is within Pitkin County's Rural/Remote (RR) zone district.
To the north is a forested area of mostly spruce and fir trees that extends
considerably beyond the property line to the Aspen Mountain ski area
operational boundary. Richmond Hill Road traverses a couple hundred yards
above and west of the property.
The area immediately surrounding the cabin site is undeveloped private
property and US Forest Service lands. While undeveloped, the area immediately
beyond the property line, to the south-southeast, contains the open and gladed
slopes that are home to part of the Aspen Mountain Powder Tours (AMPT)
operation. There is also a privately owned cabin located on the adjacent property
below/to the east of the Washington Lode, near the Loushin pond/reservoir;
Holy Cross currently provides electric service to this cabin Loushin
pond/ reservoir is located down the hill from and east of the site.
III. THE PROPOSAL
As previously mentioned, the applicant received Activity Envelope and Site Plan
Review approval for a cabin and associated improvements from the Pitkin
County Community Development Director, pursuant to Administrative Decision
No. 11-2016. Additionally, Special Review approval was granted by the BOCC
for a driveway to the parcel, pursuant to BOCC Resolution No. 044-2016. Copies
of both approvals are attached to this application as Exhibit 4. The applicant is
now seeking Special Review approval to extend electric utilities to the parcel.
Although the applicant could have asked for the utility extension as part of the
previous Special Review application, plans at that time did not include electric
service to the parcel. However, once the temporary electric was brought in for
construction, it became obvious that the same heavy cable, which is specially
designed to withstand the elements (see Exhibit 7), could easily be buried in
more or less that same alignment that it now runs to the cabin site from an
electric box adjacent to Loushin pond/reservoir on the Shoaf parcel, below.
Furthermore, carefully and sensitively burying the heavy duty cable in its
current alignment to permanently supply electricity to the cabin will be
beneficial inasmuch as it will allow safe and efficient function without the impact
that would otherwise result from noisy, disruptive generators or intrusive
deliveries of liquid propane to this Rural/Remote site located adjacent to the
slopes used by Aspen Mountain Powder Tours.
Gregg Rural/Remote Special Review Application for Utilities Page 3
00000-1
The cable will be buried in a narrow, roughly 1.5 -foot wide trench (up to 2 -feet
deep) with minimal site disturbance. The trench will traverse slopes without
being affected by or causing any stability issues and complete revegetation will
be accomplished without the need for irrigation (i.e., using the same methods
and recommendations required by the USFS for the eventual revegetation of the
driveway access road). A small excavator machine will be used to accomplish the
trenching in most locations but hand digging will be employed as necessary to
carefully circumnavigate a few trees/roots and a short talus span. For a more
detailed description of the installation, please refer to the letter attached as
Exhibit 5 and note that the applicant will adhere to all recommendations
provided in said letter.
There are many benefits to be realized by allowing the applicant to bury and
retain the temporary electric service currently serving the construction site,
including:
• Less reliance on fossil fuels and wood burning, thereby lowering the overall
carbon footprint. This connection be a one-time occurrence, as opposed to
propane deliveries that would be necessary several times each year;
• The photovoltaic system will be inadequate on its own but coupled with
electric service will minin-dze consumption while allowing any extra
generation to be fed back into the grid (a possibility that does not exist with
only propane and solar);
• Grid -fed service will reduce or eliminate generator noise, with clean, quiet
electricity;
• The property is adjacent to existing utility lines, meaning that no new trunk
lines will be required; and
• There is a simple, established path from the power source to the cabin.
It should also be noted that, while zoned Rural/ Remote, the property is bounded
by Aspen Skiing Company operations to the north and south, and these
operations are served by utilities. In addition, the cabin on the immediately
adjacent Shoaf parcel has existing Holy Cross electric service.
The type of cable that is now in use to provide electricity during construction is
the same cable that will be buried to provide permanent electric service. It is the
same type of cable that was approved by Pitkin County for the Elephant
Mountain project, which included installation of more than 4,000 feet of electric
cable and a new generator, as well as a helicopter -landing zone. Much of the
Elephant Mountain work involved crossing slopes in excess of 45%. The same
type of cable is already in place to the subject property for construction and is
made to withstand weather, sun and other types of impacts. This cable is of such
industrial strength that it can be left to simply sit on the ground surface but the
applicant will bury it so as to avoid any potential for long-term visual impacts to
the immediate surroundings.
Gregg Rural/Remote Special Review Application for Utilities Page 4
According to Section 7-20-20(e)(8) of the Code, "utility cuts on any slope znith a
gradient of fifteen (15) percent or greater shall be reviewed through the Site Plan
process." As such, along with special review, this application seeks to amend the
approved Site Plan to include a "Utility Line Envelope' as shown on the "Utility
Line Corridor Topographic Survey" prepared by High Country Engineering, Inc.
and provided herewith.
Daniel E. Hardin, Colorado Licensed Professional Engineer with HP/Kumar
reviewed the site conditions and the proposed line burial to assess slope stability
concerns. Mr. Hardin found no evidence of slope instability, and no incised
drainages or evidence of concentrated water flow were observed along the
proposed alignment. As such, Mr. Hardin concludes that, "Excavation and
placement of the electric cable should be feasible pith regard to the slope steepness of the
lot." He states that the existing slopes appear stable and that, in his professional
opinion, are not prone to instability or failure. HP/Kumar concludes that the
proposed work should not impact the slope stability provided a few simple
recommendations are followed (see Exhibit 5). The applicant will adhere to all
recommendations contained in Mr. Hardiri s letter.
IV. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
A. Special Review Approval for the Extension of Utilities
Section 340-20(c)(2)(g) of the Pitkin County Land Use Code (the Code) lists
extension of utilities as a minor use permitted in the Rural and Remote zone
district by Special Review, provided that the extension complies with the Special
Review criteria enumerated in Section 2-30-30(h)(2) of the Code.
Outlined below in italicized print are the criteria that must be met, followed by a
description of the proposal's compliance and/or consistency therewith.
(a) The special reviezn use shall be consistent pith the applicable County Master
Plan.
(b) The special review use shall not conflict znith any applicable sections of the Pitkin
County Lund Use Code, including the County Land Use Policies in Chapter 1.
The proposed extension of utilities is consistent with the Pitkin County Master
Plan, and does not conflict with any applicable sections of the Code, including
the County Land Use Policies in Chapter 1. It is the applicant's intention to
underground an electric service line. This is supported by the County under
Section 1-60-230 of the Code, which states that, "it is the policy of the County that its
natural, rural scenery be preserved for the benefit of its residents and the continued
viability of its resort economy. Undergrounding of utility lines is supported inhere and
Gregg Rural/Retnote Special Review Application for Utilities Page 5
000010
when appropriate to minimize visual impact." Additionally, extension of utilities is
considered a minor use that is permitted in the RR zone district, subject to Special
Review. Moreover, Code Section 1-60-300 states that, "it is the policy of the County
to regulate public and private utility extensions. Areas served by such extensions must be
found suitable for development in accordance with the Pitkin County Comprehensive
Plan." This property has been found to be suitable for development pursuant to
the approved Activity Envelope and Site Plan.
(c) The proposed development must not materially endanger the public health, safety
or welfare.
(d) The proposed development must not substantially injure the value of adjoining or
abutting property.
The proposed extension of utilities will not endanger the public health, safety, or
welfare, nor injure the value of adjoining or abutting property. In fact, having
electric service will promote the health, welfare and safety of the applicant and
all occupants/users of the cabin while eliminating the potential for adverse
impacts to the value of adjoining properties that could result from the running of
noisy generators and/or heavy vehicle trips for the filling of a liquid propane
storage tank.
(e) The special review use shall be consistent with the intent of the zone district in
which it is proposed to be located.
(0 The special review use shall be compatible with the character of the immediate
vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or
shall enhance the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate
vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
The proposed extension of utilities is consistent with the Rural and Remote Zone
District, and it is compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the
parcel.
Per Code Section 3-40-20(a), the RR zone district is intended to:
(i) conserve and protect the natural environment and its resources, while
allowing for limited recreational uses and limited residential development,
(ii) preserve the small scale, low-density backcountry character and
lifestyle. (iii) retain undeveloped areas, and (iv) allow for the transfer of
development rights to areas that are more appropriate for development.
This district accommodates only small new structures and very limited
types of development.
It is important to remember that Rural and Remote does not imply "extreme"
and there is nothing about having electric service that inherently conflicts with
Gregg Rural/Remote Special Review Application for Utilities Page 6
000011
the zoning intent or character of the area. Even with the electric service
extension, the actual development of the property will remain limited to a single
cabin with not more than 1,000 square feet of floor area while the balance of the
property will remain undeveloped and protected by virtue of being located
outside of the approved Activity Envelope. The approved Activity Envelope has
an area of less than half an acre on a property with an area of 9.331 acres. In other
words, approximately 95% of the property will remain undeveloped. The small-
scale, low-density backcountry character will be fully maintained as the electric
service line extension will be sensitively completed, buried and revegetated.
The proposed special review use (electric service) is compatible with the
character of the immediate vicinity in the ways described earlier herein (see
Section III. The Proposal).
(g) The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed special
review use must be in harmony with the surrounding area and minimize adverse
effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation,
traffic generation, parking, trash, service delivery, air/water pollution or other
impacts on natural resources, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding
properties.
The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the buried utility line
are in harmony with the surrounding area and minimize adverse effects. In fact,
there are many benefits associated with allowing the applicant to retain the
temporary electric service currently serving the construction site including
decreased reliance on fossil fuels and wood burning, thereby lowering the
overall carbon footprint. The extension of utilities will be a one-time occurrence,
as opposed to propane deliveries several times each year. The extension will also
reduce or eliminate generator noise, replacing it with clean, quiet electricity.
Additionally, the property is adjacent to existing utility lines, meaning that no
new trunk lines will be required.
(h) There must be adequate public facilities and services to serve the special review
use, including but not limited to roads, potable water, seiner, solid waste, parks,
police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services,
drainage systems, and schools.
This standard is not applicable to this special review use.
(i) The proposed special review use must comply with any additional standards or
requirements stated for such use in Sec. 4-30 and/or Sec. 2-40-20.
Section 430-30(f)(1) of the Code addresses utility extensions in the
Rural/Remote Zone District, and provides the criteria that are to be used in
Gregg Rural/Remote Special Review Application for Utilities Page 7
000012
conjunction with the special review criteria established in Sec. 2-40-20. These
standards are enumerated below in italicized print and followed by response
demonstrating compliance or consistency therewith.
(a) Is the extension of the utility service less disruptive to the environment than an
alternative source?
The actual installation of the electric service line will entail very little disruption
to the environment and only on a limited and temporary basis as the alignment
will be fully revegetated. Furthermore, and as mentioned above, the extension of
utility service to this parcel will be less disruptive to the environment that would
a generator that will need propane deliveries several times a year. The electric
service will also be much quieter than a generator. Use of a photovoltaic system
will be inadequate on its own but coupled with electric service will minimize
consumption while allowing any extra generation to be fed back into the grid (a
possibility that does not exist with only propane and solar).
(b) Does the proposed utility extension encroach upon or impact environmental hazards
or resources such as floodplain, geologic hazards, slopes exceeding fifteen (15) percent
in grade, wildlife habitat wildfire, groundwater, ridgelines, vegetation, agricultural
lands (irrigated meadows, dry land pastures or other environmentally significant
features)?
The only hazard associated with the extension of utilities is the need to cross over
slopes exceeding fifteen percent (15%) in grade. According to Section 7-20-
20(e)(8) of the Code, "utility cuts on any slope utith a gradient of fifteen (15) percent or
greater shall be reviewed through the Site Plan process." As such, this application
seeks to amend the approved Site Plan to include a "Utility Line Envelope" as
shown on the "Utility Line Corridor Topographic Survey" prepared by High
Country Engineering, Inc. and provided herewith.
Daniel E. Hardin, Colorado Licensed Professional Engineer with HP/Kumar
reviewed the site conditions and the proposed line burial to assess slope stability
concerns. Mr. Hardin found no evidence of slope instability, and no incised
drainages or evidence of concentrated water flow were observed along the
proposed alignment. As such, Mr. Hardin concludes that, "Excavation and
placement of the electric cable should be feasible zvith regard to the slope steepness of the
lot." He states that the existing slopes appear stable and that, in his professional
opinion, are not prone to instability or failure. HP/Kumar concludes that the
proposed work should not impact the slope stability provided a few simple
recommendations are followed (see Exhibit 5). The applicant will adhere to all
recommendations contained in Mr. Hardin's letter.
Gregg Rural/Remote Special Review Application for Utilities Page 8
000013
(c) Is there a significant visual change or impact to the land area affected by the utility
extension?
(d) Can the visual impact be mitigated?
(e) Does the extension visually impact surrounding properties?
There will be less visual impact resulting from the underground electric line than
would be the case with additional ground -mounted solar/ photovoltaic panels
and/or liquid propane delivery trucks. There will be no long-term visual impact
to surrounding properties from the electric line extension, as it will be buried in a
narrow corridor before the alignment is revegetated.
(fl Do reclamation and landscaping measures appear natural as related to the former
condition and surrounding environment?
The applicant will revegetate in a manner consistent with the USFS requirements
outlined for eventual restoration of the access road. Accordingly, the process of
revegetating the alignment will begin immediately upon completion of the line
burial and will be accomplished without need of irrigation.
(g) Does the utility extension comply tvith the intent of the Rural/Remote zone district?
The extension of utilities to this parcel complies with the intent of the zone
district, as described above (see page 6 hereof). The proposed small cabin with
electric service will conserve and protect the natural environment and its
resources, and will preserve the backcountry character and lifestyle.
B. Minor Amendment to a Development Permit, Section 2-20-150(b)
If Special Review for the extension of utilities is granted, the applicant is also
seeking a Minor Amendment to the previously approved Activity Envelope and
Site Plan to include a "Utility Line Envelope' as shown on the "Utility Line
Corridor Topographic Survey" prepared by High Country Engineering, Inc. and
provided herewith.
Section 2-20-150(e) of the Pitkin County Land Use Code states that, after the
issuance of a development permit, a minor amendment to any development
permit intended to change an element or condition thereof may be approved
administratively, pursuant to the standards and criteria in Section 2-30-20. In
turn, Section 2-30-20 of the Code provides that Minor Amendments to
Development permits may be approved administratively upon confirmation that
the application meets the criteria of Section 2-20-150(b) of the Code. Said Section
2-20-150(b) requires that the Community Development Director find that the
request:
Gregg Rural/Remote Special Review Application for Utilities Page 9
000014
(1) Is consistent with action(s) taken during previous development approvals for the
property, and
(2) Does not change the use of the proposed development between residential, commercial
and tourist accommodation uses; and
(3) Does not change the basic character of the approved use of land on which the activity
occurs, including basic visual appearance and method of operation; and
(4) Does not constitute a new land development activity; and
(5) Does not increase off-site impacts in the surrounding neighborhood; and
(6) Does not endanger the public health, safety or welfare; and
(7) Does not violate any Land Use Code standard, and
(8) Does not substantially increase the need for on-site parking or utilities, or affect
affordable housing generation; and
(9) Does not increase the floor area of the use by more than five (5) percent or decrease
the open space on the site by more than five (5) percent.
The proposed amendment to the previously approved Activity Envelope and
Site Plan is consistent with the actions taken by the Community Development
Department and the BOCC as part of the previous approvals. The use of the
property/development will remain residential and limited to a single cabin with
not more than 1,000 square feet of floor area. The proposed change does not alter
the basic character of the approved use of land, including the basic visual
appearance or method of operation, nor does it constitute a new land
development activity. The changes proposed involve only a limited and
temporary disturbance of the land and do not increase off-site impacts in the
surrounding neighborhood. Furthermore, the proposed changes will not
endanger the public health, safety or welfare, and do not violate any Land Use
Code standards. Finally, the proposed changes do not increase the need for on-
site parking or utilities, do not affect affordable housing generation, and do not
at all increase the floor area of the use or decrease the open space on the site.
Gregg Rural/Remote Special Review Application for Utilities Page 10
000015
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1: Proof of the Applicant's Ownership and Authority
Exhibit 2: Authorization for Haas Land Planning, LLC to represent
the applicant
Exhibit 3: Pre -Application Conference Summary
Exhibit 4: Administrative Decision No. 11-2016 and BOCC
Resolution No. 044-2016
Exhibit 5: Letter from Daniel E. Hardin, a Colorado Licensed
Professional Engineer with HP/ Kumar
Exhibit 6: Utility Easement Agreement between Jeffrey S. Shoaf and
Jason A. Gregg enabling the proposed extension
Exhibit 7: Spec sheet of the type of cable being used
Exhibit 8: An executed application fee agreement.
Exhibit 9: Property Owners Within 300 feet
PID#s 2737-304-01-002
00001G
SHERMAN6HOWARD
320 West Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611-1557
Telephone: 970.925.6300 Fax 970.925.1181 www.shertnanhoward.com
B. Joseph Krabacher
Sherman & Howard LL.C.
Direct Dial Number. 970.300.0123
E-mail: jkrabacher@shennanhoward.com
September 2, 2015
John Ely
Pitkin County Attorney
530 E. Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Washington Lode
Non -merger Status and Certificate of Ownership
Dear John:
This letter summarizes the "merger" status of the Washington Lode U.S.M.S. No. 5964
under the Pitkin County Land Use Code as to (legally described under "Certificate of
Ownership" below) (the "Property"). This letter is submitted in support of the land -use
application filed by Jason Gregg with respect to the Property.
Certificate of Ownership
The undersigned, an Attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Colorado with
Colorado Supreme Court Registration No. 010240 hereby certifies the ownership of the
Washington Lode U.S.M.S. No. 5964, Pitkin County, Colorado:
Legal Description.
A PARCEL OF LAND BEING THE WASHINGTON LODE (M.S. SURVEY NO. 5964),
LYING IN SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH RANGE 84 WEST OF THE SIXTH
PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO; SAID PARCEL
BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT CORNER NO. 1 OF THE WASHINGTON LODE, ALSO BEING
CORNER NO.4 OF THE IRON SILVER PLACER (M.S. SURVEY NO. 5963), A 3-1/4"
ALUMINUM CAP L.S. #19598 SET IN PLACE, THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE
S57029'28"W A DISTANCE OF 1,357.16 FEET TO CORNERNO.4 OF SAID
WASHINGTON LODE, A 3-1/4" ALUMINUM CAP LS. #19598 SET IN PLACE; THENCE
N33052'32"W A DISTANCE OF 300.33 FEET TO CORNER NO.3 OF SAID WASHINGTON
LODE, A 3-1/4" ALUMINUM CAP L.S. #19598 SET IN PLACE; THENCE N57°33'48"E
BUS_RE15742956 7
000011
ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID WASHINGTON LODE A DISTANCE
OF 1,186.12 FEET TO CORNER NO.2 OF THE IRON SILVER PLACER, A 3-1/4"
ALUNIINUM CAP L.S. #19598 SET IN PLACE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE
NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF THE WASHINGTON LODE N57004'07"E A DISTANCE OF
171.19 FEET TO CORNER NO 2 OF THE WASHINGTON LODE, ALSO BEING CORNER
NO.3 OF THE IRON SILVER PLACER, A 3-1/4" ALUMINUM CAP L.S. #19598 SET IN
PLACE; THENCE S33°51'01 "E A DISTANCE OF 300.09 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
2. Ownership. The Property is owned by Jason Gregg. There are no other owners.
The owner Jason Gregg has the right to apply for development of the Property as the sole and
exclusive owner of the Property.
3. Liens. The Property is not subject to any deeds of trust, mortgages, judgments or
liens, other than the lien for 2015 ad valorem real property taxes, payable in 2016.
4. Exceptions to Title. A list of all easements, contracts and agreements affecting
the Property is as follows:
a. Right of the Proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore
therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby
granted, as reserved in United States Patent recorded September 16, 1892 in Book 39 at
Page 104.
b. Right of way for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the
United States, as reserved in United States Patent recorded September 16, 1892 in Book
39 at Page 104.
C. Terms, agreements, provisions, conditions and obligations as contained in
Road Easement Agreement recorded April 23, 2015, at Reception No. 619272, and all
limitations of access as provided therein.
d. Terms, agreements, provisions, conditions and obligations as contained in
Utility Easement Agreement recorded April 23, 2015, at Reception No. 619273.
e. Terms, agreements, provisions, conditions and obligations as contained in
Agreement recorded April 23, 2015, at Reception No. 619274.
f. Terms, agreements, provisions, conditions and obligations as contained in
Water Works, Access and Utility Easement Agreement recorded April 23, 2015, at
Reception No. 619275.
g. Terms, agreements, provisions, conditions and obligations as contained in
Use and Operating Agreement for Water and Utility Improvements recorded April 23,
2015, at Reception No. 619276.
BUS RFJ57429562
000018
2
h. Terms, agreements, provisions, conditions and obligations as contained in
Utility Easement Agreement recorded June 23, 2015 as Reception No. 620962.
i. Terms, agreements, provisions, conditions and obligations as contained in
Access Easement Agreement recorded June 23, 2015 as Reception No. 620963.
J_ Terms, agreements, provisions, conditions and obligations as contained in
Agreement for Right of First Refusal recorded June 23, 2015 as Reception No. 620964.
Development Right — Non -Merger Summary
The following summary confirms that the Property was legally created and has a
development right because the Property was created prior to adoption of the Pitkin County
Growth Management Quota System in 1978 and has never subsequently been merged with any
adjacent real property.
The (now superseded) provisions for merger set forth in the prior Pitkin County Land Use
Code were effective on and after May 28, 1979, through October 1, 2003 (when the Colorado
Legislature adopted legislation prohibiting merger of parcels without the consent of the owner)
("Merger Period"). As described below, no merger occurred because the Property and the Iron
Silver Placer were never in common ownership during the effective Merger Period.
The Pitkin County Land Use Manual provides as follows:
"1.3 Demonstration of Legal Creation and Disclosur&rroof of Ownership: The application
shall include documentation that the property was legally established in accordance with the
applicable laws in place at the time (see Appendix for information regarding the chronology of
land use legislation governing subdivision, cumulation and merger). Disclosure of ownership of
the parcel on which the development is proposed to occur, 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 mortgages, 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. This shall normally require proof
of complete ownership or written consent from all owners. The staff may also request the
applicant to supply a title history for the subject property and contiguous property demonstrating
the chain of title or a letter confirming non -merger from an attorney or title company-"
5. Chain of Title. The following sets forth the chain of title to the Property. All
recording references are to the records of Pitkin County, Colorado.
a. On May 11, 1892, the U.S. Government issued a Patent to John M.
Conville for 100% interest in the Property which was recorded September 16, 1892 in
Book 39 at Page 104. See ExhibitA.
b. After the crash of the silver mining market most mining claims were
acquired by Pitkin County through tax sales and/or treasurer's deeds to Pitkin County.
We were unable to find the treasurer's deed for Property into Pitkin County. Title
BUS REJ57429562
000019
Company of the Rockies, Inc., will insure the ownership and title of the Property as 100%
vested in Jason Gregg. The title insurance commitment is submitted with this letter as the
title policy is pending. See ExhibitAA.
C. On February 4, 1952, Pitkin County conveyed title to 100% of the Iron
Silver Placer USMS No. 5963 ("Iron Silver Placer's to John Loushin, John Loushin Jr.,
William Loushin [we have assumed that Bill Loushin and William Loushin are the same
person and refer to him as William throughout this letter], Frank Lousbin, and Ludwig
Loushin (collectively the "Loushins") as tenants in common with each of the five owners
acquiring a 20% interest. See Exhibit B.
This conveyance is relevant to the chain of title analysis because the Iron Silver
Placer is contiguous to the Property, and the Iron Silver Placer is contiguous to the Cave
Lode USMS No. 6755 ("Cave Lode"), which is contiguous to the Little Prince Lode
USMS No. 6889 ("Prince Lode % which is contiguous to the Jack Adam Lode USMS
No. 5933 ("Jack Adam Lode'. A map of these properties is included for reference.
See Exhibit C. This chain of title analysis continues only with the Property and Iron
Silver Placer Lode as the conclusion is that there was no simultaneous ownership in the
chain of title, and therefore, no merger, rendering the chain of title to Cave Lode, Prince
Lode and Jack Adam Lode irrelevant.
d. On February 6, 1956, Pitkin County conveyed title to 100% of the
Property by quitclaim deed to John Loushin, John Loushin, Jr., William Loushin, Frank
Loushin and Ludwig Loushin, as tenants in common with each of the five owners
acquiring a 20% interest, which was recorded February 15, 1956 in Book 161 at Page 550
as Reception No. 103397. This conveyance also included the conveyance of 100% of the
Little Prince Lode, the Jack Adam Lode, and the Cave Lode by quitclaim deed to the
Loushins, as tenants in common with each of the five owners listed above acquiring a
20% interest. See Exhibit D.
e On May 27, 1966, the State of Colorado released its inheritance tax lien
related to the Property, Iron Silver Placer, the Prince Lode, the Jack Adam Lode, and the
Cave Lode in the instrument recorded June 9, 1966 in Book 221 at Page 32 Reception
No. 124486. See Exhibit E.
This instrument recites that the Property, the Prince Lode, the Jack Adam Lode
and the Cave Lode were.owned by John Loushin, John Loushin, Jr., William Loushin,
Frank Loushin and Ludwig Loushin, in each a 20% share. This instrument also recites
that the Iron Silver Placer Lode was owned by John Loushin as to a 20% interest, John
Loushin Jr. as to a 20% interest, William Loushin as to a 10% interest, Frank Loushin as
to a 20% interest, and Ludwig Loushin as to a 20% interest and George Preston, Jr. as to
a 10% interest.
£ With the exception of William Loushin, from 1966 forward many of the
transfers of ownership interest by the Loushin family members were completed in a like
M
0 0 0 0 2us RE/57429562
manner for both the Property and the Iron Silver Placer Lode, the Little Prince Lode, the
Jack Adam Lode, and the Cave Lode.
g. William Loushin transferred his interests in the Washington Lode and the
Iron Silver Placer independently of one another. In 1952, William Loushin transferred
half of his 20% interest in Iron Silver Placer to George Preston, Jr., by virtue of the Quit
Claim Deed recorded August 28, 1952 in Book 177 at Page 240. See Exhibit F. Mr.
Preston then transferred his 10% interest to Karl and Albert Loushin by Quit Claim Deed
on August 19, 1975 at Book 308 at Pge 469 and recorded as Reception No. 181366. See
Exhibit G. Subsequently, Karl transferred his interest to Albert and Frank Loushin on
January 17, 2004 recorded on January 23, 2004 as Reception No. 493818. See Exhibit
S. As such, Karl and Albert Loushin owned a portion of Iron Silver Placer from 1975 to
2004 (which includes the Merger Period). There is no evidence that Albert Loushin were
ever in the chain of title to any part of the Washington Lode during the Merger Period.
Moreover, William Loushin held his 20% interest in the Washington Lode until his death
in 2003 when his interest in the Washington Lode were transferred to his heirs, Brent and
Deborah Loushin (see below under William Loushin). Therefore, title to the Washington
Lode and Silver Placer could not have had identical ownership. Since the remaining
three parcels (Little Prince Lode, Jack Adam Lode and the Cave Lode) were adjacent to
the Iron Silver Placer Lode and not the Property, they could not have merged with the
Property unless the Property had merged with Iron Silver Placer.
h. Chain of Title to the Property 1966 —Present There were five owners of
the Washington Lode in 1966. The analysis below traces each 20% share individually.
1. Ludwick Loushin.
a. Ludwick transferred this 20% share of the Property to his Trust LFrank
Albert Loushin and William Joseph Loushin, as trustees of the Ludwick
James Loushin Trust, dated 1/18/1980] on January 19, 1980. The Deed
was recorded in Book 394 at Page 803 and recorded on 9/11/1980. See
Exhibit L
b. On 8/24/1984 the Ludwick James Loushin Trust transferred title to the
Property to the Loushin Brothers, Ltd., a Colorado limited partnership by
Quit Claim Deed recorded on September 13, 1984 as Reception No.
262458 in Book 473 and Page 429. See Exhibit J.
C. On 10/16/1990, the Loushin Brothers, Ltd., quit claimed 9/120 share of
the Property to William J. Loushin This quit claim deed was recorded on
November 7, 1990 as Reception No. 327806 at Book 633 Page 621. See
Exhibit K
d. On 10/16/1990, the Loushin Brothers, Ltd., quit claimed 9/120 share of
the Property to Frank A. Loushin. This quit claim deed was recorded on
5
BUS_RV574"562
000021
November 7, 1990 as Reception No. 327804 at Book 633 Page 615. See
Exhibit L.
e. On 11/7/1990, the Loushin Brothers, Ltd., quit claimed 9/120 share of the
Property to John B. Loushin, Jr. This quit claim deed was recorded on
November 7, 1990 as Reception No. 327807 at Book 633 Page 627. See
Exhibit M.
f. See William Loushin, Frank Loushin and John Loushin, Jr. below
2. John B. Loushin. Jr.
a. By Deed, dated 12/21/1989, John B. Loushin, Jr. transferred all of interest
in the Property to the Aspen Skiing Company. This deed was recorded on
12/22/1989 at Book 610 at Page 325 and as Reception No. 318404. See
Exhibit N.
b. By Warranty Deed, dated 3/2/1990, John B. Loushin, Jr. transferred all of
his interest in the Property to the Aspen Skiing Company. The warranty
deed was recorded on 3/16/1990, as Reception No. 320937 at Book 616
and Page 295. See Exhibit O.
C. By Warranty Deed, dated 10/16/1990, John B. Loushin, Jr. transferred all
of his interest in the Property to the Aspen Skiing Company. The
warranty deed was recorded on November 7, 1990 as Reception No.
327809 at Book 633 and Page 637. (This may have been to transfer the
interests John B. Loushin, Jr., received from Mary E. Loushin at her
death). See Exhibit P.
3. Wham J. Loushin
a. By Personal Representative Deed, dated 5/19/2003, the Estate of William
J. Loushin transferred % of all of its interest in the Property to Brent
Loushin. This PR deed was recorded as Reception No. 482886. See
Exhibit O.
b. By Personal Representative Deed, dated 5/19/2003, the Estate of William
J. Loushin transferred % of all of its interest in the Property to Deborah L_
Loushin. This PR deed was recorded as Reception No. 482887. See
Exhibit R.
C. By Special Warranty Deed, Brent Loushin transferred all of his interest in
the Property to the Aspen Skiing Company, LLC, on 1/17/2006. The deed
was recorded on 1/17/2006 as Reception No. 519858. See Exhibit S.
000022
6
BUS RE/57429562
d By Special Warranty Deed, Deborah L. Loushin transferred all of her
interest in the Property to the Aspen Skiing Company, LLC, on 1/17/2006.
The deed was recorded on 1/17/2006 as Reception No. 519859. See
Exhibit T.
4. John Loushin. Sr.
a. The death of John Loushin, Sr. appears to have granted interests in the
Properly to his surviving wife, Mary E. Loushin, or possibly to his sons.
No will, probate or estate records were found.
b. On 2/27/1990 Mary E. Loushin, by Decree of Heirs, recorded on 3/5/1990
at Book 615 at Page 506 and as Reception No. 320597, conveys 1/3 share
of her estate to John B. Loushin, Jr., Frank A. Loushin, and William J.
Loushin. See Exhibit U.
5. Frank A. Loushin
a. On 3/24/2006, Frank A. Loushin transferred its interest in the Property to
Jeffrey S. Shoaf by Special Warranty Deed dated 3/24/2006 and recorded
on 3/28/2006 as Reception No. 522268. See Exhibit V.
b. On 12/7/2006 a correction Special Warranty Deed was recorded
transferring all of Frank's interest in the Property to Jeffrey S. Shoaf.
This correction deed was recorded on 12/8/2006 as Reception No. 531976.
See Exhibit W
The Aspen Skiing Company and Jeffrey S. Shoaf s interest in the Property (as
well as Iron Placer Lode, Little Prince Lode, the Jack Adam Lode, and the Cave Lode)
was adjudicated in the Order and Decree of Partition of the Pitkin County District Court,
dated December 11, 2014, Case No. 2013 -CV -67, a copy of which is recorded in the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's office as Reception No. 616327. This Stipulation
and Order granted Mr. Shoaf title to Parcels C and D as described in the Order. See
ExhibitX Parcel D is the Property as defined in this letter. Mr. Shoaf subsequently
transferred title to the Property to Washington Carver, LLC on December 30, 2014. Mr.
Gregg, the Applicant herein, received a General Warranty Deed from Washington
Carver, LLC, on June 23, 2015. See Exhibit Y.
000023 7
BUS-RE/5742956 2
EXHIBIT
d 2
a
9
Pitkin County Community Development Dept.
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611-1975
RE: Special Review for the Extension of Utilities in the Rural/Remote Zone
District on the Washington Lode (U.S.M.S. No. 5964) (PID# 2737-304-01-
002)
To whom it may concern:
As owner of the above -referenced property, I hereby authorize Haas Land
Planning, LLC (HLP) and Al Beyer Design, Inc. (ABD) to act as my designated
and authorized representatives for the approvals captioned above. HLP and
ABD are authorized to submit an application for the approvals listed above and
any incidental approvals that may be associated therewith. HLP and ABD are
also authorized to represent me in meetings with Pitkin County staff, the
Hearing Officer, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Board of County
Commissioners.
Should you have any need to contact me during the course of your review,
please do so through Haas Land Planning, LLC, whose address and telephone
number are included in the application.
Yours truly,
Jason G gg
99 Blue et Trail
Aspen, CO 81611
PID# 2737-304-01-002
0000211
PITKIN COUNTY PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
VLAI NLN: Suzanne Wo
PHONE: (970) 920-5093
LOCATION: Washington Lode USMS 5964
PARCEL ID #: 273730401002
APPLICANT: Jason Gregg
REPRESENTATIVES: Mitch Haas
Type of Application: Special Review to extend electricity
3
DATE: 8/18/16
E-MAIL: Suzanne wolff(a)pitkincounty com
ZONE: Rural/Remote
SIZE: 9.331 ac.
EMAIL: mitch@hlpaspen.com
Description of Project/Development: The Applicant is requesting special review approval to extend
electricity in the Rural/Remote zone district. The Community Development Director granted Activity
Envelope and Site Plan Review approval, pursuant to Administrative Decision No. 11-2016; the Site Plan
is recorded in Plat Book 114 at Page 1. The BOCC granted special review approval for a driveway,
pursuant to Resolution No. 044-2016.
Land Use Code Sections to be addressed in letter of request (application):
• 2-20-150(b): Minor Amendment to Site Plan
• 2-30-30(h): Special Review Criteria
3-40-20: Rural and Remote Zone District Uses
• 4-30-30(0(1): Utility Extensions in the Rural/Remote zone district
7-20-20(e)(8): Steep and Potentially Unstable Slopes
Review by: BOCC
Public Hearing: YES. The applicant shall post a public notice sign on the property at least 15 days
prior to the public hearing and shall mail notice to all property owners within 300' and mineral estate
owners at least 30 days prior to the hearing with the return address of the Community Development
Department (copy of notice to be obtained from the Community Development Department). The names
and addresses shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more
than 60 days prior to the date of the public hearing.
FEES: $1,679 (make check payable to "Pitkin County Treasurer")
• $1,625 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
$325/hour)
• $54 Public Notice Fee
To apply, submit 4 copies of the following information:
1. Letter summarizing prior approvals, explaining the request and addressing compliance with the
Code sections listed above.
2. Easement for utility extension across Shoaf property
3. 24" x 36" and 11" x 17" Site Plan showing utility alignment and construction techniques (portions of line
to be buried or to remain on surface, and how that will be accommodated)
4. Street address and parcel description, including legal description, and 8-1/2"x 11" vicinity map locating
the subject property within Pitkin County;
000025
5. Disclosure and proof of ownership of the property, 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.
6. Parcel description, including legal description, and 8-112"x 11" vicinity map locating the subject property
within Pitkin County;
7. Total fee for review of the application
8. Executed Pitkin County Community Development Agreement for Payment of Land Use Application
Fees form (form attached);
9. Consent from owner(s) to process application and authorizing the representative (if applicable)
10. List of all property owners within 300'.
11. This Pre -Application Conference Summary Sheet (1 copy)
NOTES:
➢ PLEASE SUBMIT ONE UNBOUND AND ONE-SIDED COPY OF YOUR COMPLETE APPLICATION.
THE PARCEL IDs SHOULD BE INCLUDED ON ALL DOCUMENTS INCLUDED IN YOUR
APPLICATION.
➢ 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.
00002G
RECEPTION#: 626885, 02/08/
12:44:01 PM,
1 OF B. R 50.00 Doc Code ADL_'L�
DECISION
Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CC
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, APPROVING THE GREGG ACTIVITY ENVELOPE AND
SITE. PLAN REVIEW (WASHINGTON LODE)
Administrative Decision No. 11 -2016
RECITALS
I. Jason Gregg ("Applicant') has applied to the Pitkin County Community Development Director
("Director') to establish an Activity Envelope and obtain Site Plan Review approval for a cabin and
associated improvements in the RuralfRemote zone district.
2. The property is located off of Richmond Hill Road and is more specifically described as the
Washington Lode, U.S. Mineral Survey No. 5964, lying in Section 31. Township 10 South, Range 84
West of the 6" P.M.
3. The property is zoned Rural/Remote and contains 9.331 acres.
4. The parcel was created prior to June 12, 1978 (patented in 1892), and has not merged with adjacent
property, and, therefore, is exempt from growth management for one single family dwelling, subject to
the limitations of the RuralfRemote zone district.
5. The property is bounded by U.S. Forest Service ("USFS") lands to the north and south and private lands
to the east and west.
6. The owner entered into an Easement Agreement with Castle Creek Investors Inc. ("CCF') for a
perpetual non-exclusive access easement across the CCI property from Richmond Hill Road (Reception
#623267). The owner also obtained a Private Road Special Use Permit from the U.S. Forest Service
("USFS") for limited access to the property from the CCI property to drill a well and for construction
staging; the permit expires on December 31, 2017. The owner has also submitted a proposal to the
USFS to maintain long-term (20 year) motorized winter access and limited summer motorized access
to the site subsequent to the expiration of the USFS construction access permit; the USFS has not
completed its review of these requests.
7. The County issued a clearing, grubbing and earthmoving permit in the fall of 2015 to develop the
construction access and to drill a well prior to winter. Special review approval was not required as the
access was represented to be temporary.
8. The Director finds that the proposed Activity Envelope and Site Plan complies with the Land Use
Code ("Code") as follows:
A. The wildfire hazard is rated as medium and can be mitigated.
B. The Activity Envelope is comprised of slopes of less than 30%.
C. Art Mears. Professional Engineer and Natural Hazards Consultant, determined that the cabin site
is not exposed to avalanche hazard "because slopes above the cabin are not sufficiently steep for
avalanche release. Avalanche mitigation will therefore not be required." He adds that avalanche
hazard will exist at titres in the general area and possibly on tike access route to the cabin. The
I
00002-f
Administrative Decision No. tL-10/6
Page 1
Colorado Geological Survey agrees that the proposed building location is not within or exposed
to an avalanche hazard and that avalanche mitigation is not required.
D. The Activity Envelope contains approximately 21,777 square feet, which is less than the 0.5 acre
allowed by the Code. The Activity Envelope accommodates the cabin, a small shed, on-site
wastewater treatment system ("OWTS"), and associated construction disturbance.
E. The properly is not discernible with the naked eye from any point along Highway 92, and,
therefore is exempt from the Scenic View Protection area standards of Sec. 7-20-120(d) of the
Land Use Code ("Code").
F. The cabin will be sited at the edge of an open meadow and behind an existing stand of
vegetation, and, therefore, complies with Sec. 7-20-120(e) of the Code.
G. Two potential locations for ground -mounted solar energy collectors are included within the
Activity Envelope. The collectors will only be used for on-site residential purposes. Ground
mounted panels are considered necessary due to the siting of the cabin.
H. There are no known or mapped watercourses or water features on the site.
I. There are no regulated wildlife habitat areas on the property.
J. The Colorado Division of Water Resources issued a well permit for household use only (no
outside uses) in 2015. The well has been drilled within the Activity Envelope.
K. An OWTS can be accommodated within the Activity Envelope.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Pitkin County Community Development
Director that she does hereby approve the Gregg Activity Envelope and Site Plan Review, subject to the
following conditions, which shall run with the land and be binding on all successors in interest.
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 building permit applications for the residence, die Applicant shall be
required to submit for approval by the County Attorney and Community Development a Site Plan
in accordance with Land Use Code Section 2-30-20(g) and Application Manual Section 2.1.12.
The above referenced approvals shall be a condition precedent to finalization and recordation of
them. The Site Plan shall be amended as follows:
A. Designate die approved setbacks: 0' setback to the north property line; 50' setback to the
west property line; 100' setback to the south property line; and 1,000' setback to the east
property line.
B. Depict the location of the solar energy collectors.
3. The parcel is exempt from growth management up to 1,000 square feet plus additional floor area as
allowed in the Rural/Remote zone district pursuant to the Code.
4. Concurrent with submission of a building permit application for the residence, the Applicant shall:
A. Provide proof of an adequate water supply (in terms of quantity and availability) for
domestic and fire protection purposes, and for irrigation purposes, if applicable.
B. Submit a drainage and erosion control plan for review and approval by the Planning
Engineer. All historic and natural drainage patterns shall be maintained. Stormwater shall
be detained onsite and allow infiltration of runoff prior to discharge.
000028
Administrative Decision No. 11 -1016
Page 3
C. Submit a construction management plan for review and approval by the Planning
Engineer.
D. Complete a fireplace/woodstove permit from the Community Development Departmem.
E. Submit a detailed revegetation plan for disturbed areas with appropriate seed mixes and a
tree mitigation plan for removal of any trees with larger than 6" DBH if any such trees are
to be removed. Include a plan to irrigate the disturbed areas and any replacement trees,
since the well permit does not allow for irrigation.
F. Submit an outdoor lighting plan for any contenmplated outdoor lighting.
Prior to issuance of a building permit application, the Applicant shall:
A. Pay the applicable road and employee housing impact fees.
B. Obtain an OWTS permit from Environmental Health.
6. Special Review approval by the BOCC is required to maintain long -tern motorized access on the
driveway to the site. The Applicant must also obtain a Special Use Permit from the USFS to
maintain long-term (20 year) motorized winter access and limited summer motorized access to
the site subsequent to the expiration of the USFS construction access permit on December 31,
2017. The Applicant shall submit a Special Review application to the County by August 1, 2017,
so the BOCC can review the request prior to December 31, 2017, when the USFS permit for the
construction access expires. If the Applicant opts not to retain any summer motorized access to the
property or if the Special Review request is denied, then the access across private and USFS lands
shall be restored and rehabilitated within one growing season of the issuance of the Certificate of
Occupancy for the cabin.
The Applicant shall comply with the following wildfire mitigation standards:
A. Brush, debris, and non -ornamental vegetation shall be removed within a minimum 10 -foot
perimeter around the structure.
B. Vegetation shall be reduced to break up the vertical and horizontal continuity of the fuels
within a minimum ora 30 -foot perimeter around the structure.
C. Spacing between clumps of brush and vegetation within the 30 -foot perimeter shall be a
minimum of two times the height of the fuel. Maximum diameter of the clumps shall not
exceed 10 feet. All measurements shall be from the edges of the crowns of the fuel.
D. All branches from trees and brush within the 30 -foot perimeter shall be pruned to a height
of 10 feet above the ground and ladder fuels from around trees and brush shall be removed.
E. Tree crown separation within the 30 -foot perimeter shall have a minimum of 10 feet
between the edges of the crowns.
F. All branches that extend over the roof eaves shall be trimmed to no longer do so and all
branches within 15 feet of any chimney shall be removed.
G. The density of fuels within a 100 -foot perimeter of the structure shall be reduced.
H. All deadfall within the 100 -foot perimeter shall be removed.
I. Low vegetation shall be maintained within a 10 -foot perimeter around all structures.
J. The applicant shall be responsible for the continued maintenance of the defensible space
vegetation requirements.
000029
Administrative Decision No. IL -2016
Page 4
8. The Applicant shall comply with the following additional wildfire mitigation standards:
A. Roofs shall be constricted with a Class A roof covering or a Class A assembly as defined
in the International Building Code (IBC) Section 1505.2. Wood shake/shingle roof
coverings are prohibited. Roofs with less than a 3:12 pitch are not permitted unless they
comply with the following:
I. All roof coverings shall be noncombustible materials and installed on a Class A
roof assembly.
2. All roof coverings shall have a surface that shall facilitate die natural process of
clearing die roof.
3. All roof designs shall facilitate the natural process of clearing roof debris.
Protrusions above the roofline, such as parapets, shall be prohibited.
4. Roofs shall be installed as required by UBC 1997 Chapter 15 and shall have a
minimum slope of 1:48.
5. All roof designs, coverings, or equivalent assemblies shall be specifically approved
by die Fire Marshal prior to submittal of a building pennit application.
B. Roof Venting
I. Soffit venting shall be located in the outer 1/3rd portion of the overhang.
2. Attic, soffit and other roof venting shall be of non -corrosive metal mesh with
maximum '/4" openings.
C. Projections at the Roofline, including Soffits, Rafters, Porch or Deck Roofs, Fascias, or
Other:
1. Sheath with non-combustible materials, or
2. Combustible materials underlain with 5/8" Type X gypboard or equal, or
3. Minimum 4x6 rafters with 2x T&G decking.
D. Decks, Decking, Cantilevered Floors, or Other Projections Below the Roofline:
Minimum 6x6 posts, 6x10 beams, 3x8 joists, 3x decking, and 2x railings, or equivalent
log construction.
E. Roofs and gutters shall be kept clear of debris.
F. Yards shall be kept clear of all litter, slash, and flammable debris.
G. All flammable materials shall be stored on a parallel contour a minimum of 15 feet away
from any structure.
H. Firewood/wood piles shall be stacked on a parallel contour a minimum of 15 feet away
from the structure.
1. Fences shall be kept clear of brush and debris.
J. Wood fences shall not connect to the structure.
K. Fuel tanks shall be installed underground with an approved container.
L. 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 Fre-resistive construction on the exterior side of the walls.
000030
Adrninisirative Decision No. IL -2016
Page 5
M. Each structure shall have a minimum of one 10 -pound approved ABC fire extinguisher
placed in a visible and accessible location.
N. Addresses shall be clearly marked with 2 -inch non-combustible letters and shall be visible
and installed on a non-combustible post.
O. New utilities shall he buried within the Activity Envelopes.
9. The Applicant shall comply with the following measures to mitigate impacts to wildlife:
A. Fencing shall comply with the fencing regulations in the Land Use Code regarding wildlife
friendly fencing requirements.
B. Manipulation of vegetation outside of the activity envelope is prohibited, except as
necessary to comply with the wildfire hazard mitigation measures.
C. The Applicant shall comply with the Pitkin County Wildlife Protection Codes for Waste
Storage. Compliance with the condition shall be verified by Pitkin County Community
Development prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
D. Fruit -bearing trees and shrubs should be avoided in any landscaping.
E. Construction workers shall be prohibited from bringing dogs on-site.
I.. All outside doors shall utilize only solid round handled doorknobs unless another type is
required by the applicable building code for disabled accessibility purposes.
G. Bird feeders, including hummingbird feeders. shall be hung away from any deck or
window, and shall be at least 10' from the ground suspended between 2 trees or posts. All
seed feeders shall include a seed catchment pan to catch discarded seeds.
10. No development shall occur outside the approved activity envelope, with the exception of
vegetation removal necessary to remove weeds or comply with the wildfire mitigation measures
described above. In addition, a garden of not more than 2,500 square feet is permitted as
outlined in section 3-40-20 of the Code. No structures shall be permitted outside of the approved
activity envelope.
H. . Prior to commencement of any earthmoving or construction activity, the Applicant shall stake the
comers of the activity envelope and install construction fencing around the perimeter of the
envelope. The fencing shall remain in place until issuance of Certificate of occupancy. No
vegetation shall be damaged or removed outside the activity envelope, except as may be required
for wildfire mitigation purposes or weed management.
12. Areas disturbed by construction shall be revegetated no later than one growing season after
completion of work.
13. The ground mounted solar energy collectors and other ancillary development (racking assembly,
balancing system, utility boxes, etc.) shall have a "matte' finish or be of a non -reflective
material/color. Equipment that is painted shall be maintained. The collectors shall not shade the
leach field and shall comply with the standards of Sec. 4-30-50(h) of the Code.
14. The exterior of the structures shall utilize earth tone materials or colors that are indigenous to the
site and the 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 reflectivity,
with the exception of materials associated with solar or photovoltaic equipment. All outdoor
lighting shall comply with the lighting code.
000031
Administrative Decision No. /1 -1016
Page 6
15. The Applicant shall provide adequate engineering of any retaining walls over 4' in height. All
retaining walls shall be a maximum of 7' in height.
16. No calculations for height, bulk, setback, size, floor area, or any other building and zoning
requirements have been conducted. These requirements will be considered at the time of building
permit. Any structures represented in the application may not be permitted under building and
zoning regulations.
17. No development in excess of 30" above or below natural grade shall occur within the setbacks of
the lot, as specified above and shown on the recorded Site Plan, with the exception of driveways
and associated retaining walls of up to 6' above or below natural grade and fencing.
Landscaping in the form of berms shall not exceed four feet from the most restrictive grade. Any
development located within setbacks mandated by County zoning regulations that does not
comply with these restrictions shall require a variance from the Board of Adjustment. Approval
of an activity envelope within such setbacks does not assure approval of a variance.
18. Failure to comply with the conditions of this approval may result in revocation of this approval,
or any subsequent permit(s) or approval(s) related to this property, or vested rights associated
with this property
19. 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 the Pitkin
County Land Use Code § 4-140 and C.R.S., § 24-68-105. The statutory vested rights granted
herein shall expire on Tnn�> 2019.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PUBLISHED IN THE ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY on the 29" day
of October, 2015.
APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR this day ofnvt,. , 2016.
PUBLISHED AFTER ADOPTION FOR VESTED REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS in the Aspen
Times Weeklv on the j$ day of FQIomom 2016.
64
d Houben,
Community Development Director
Case #P077-15
PID# 273730401002
000032
RECEPTION#: 630619. 07/15!2016 at
01:35:11 PM
i OF 3. R 50.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION
Janice K. Vos Caudill. Pitkin County. CO
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO, APPROVING THE GREGG SPECIAL REVIEW FOR A DRIVEWAY IN THE
RURAL/REMOTE ZONE DISTRICT
Resolution No.�-2016
RECITALS
1) Jason Gregg (hereafter "Applicant") has applied to the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin
County ("BOCC") to request Special Review approval for a driveway in the Rural/Remote (R/R) zone
district. Prior approval was grunted for a temporary construction access. The Applicant is now
requesting to maintain long -tern motorized access on the driveway to the site. The driveway connects to
Richmond Hill Road across adjacent USFS land and property owned by Castle Creek Investors Inc.
2) The property is located off of Richmond Hill Road and is more specifically described as the
Washington Lode, U.S. Mineral Survey No. 5964, lying in Section 31, Township 10 South, Range 84
West of the 6°i P.M.
3) The property is zoned Rural/Remote and contains 9.331 acres.
4) The property is bounded by U.S. Forest Service ("USFS") lands to the north and south and private lands
to the east and west.
5) The Community Development Director approved an Activity Envelope and Site Plan, pursuant to
Administrative Decision No. 11-2016. The Site Plan was recorded in Plat Book 114 at Page I. Only
temporary construction access was approved at that time.
6) The owner entered into an Easement Agreement with Castle Creek Investors Inc. (`CCI") for a perpetual
non-exclusive access easement (Reception 9623267) across the CCI property from Richmond Hill Road.
7) The owner obtained a Private Road Special Use Permit from the U.S. Forest Service (`USFS") for
limited access to the property from the CCI property to drill a well and for construction staging; the
permit expires on December 3 I, 2017. The County issued a clearing, grubbing and earthmoving permit
in the fall of 2015 to develop the construction access and to drill a well prior to winter. Special review
approval was not required as the access was represented to be temporary.
8) The Applicant then obtained a Private Road Special Use Permit from the USFS for (a) a winter
snowmobile access route, and (b) occasional, non -winter, motorized access for cross country travel along
the same general route as the winter access, for the purposes of delivering supplies and equipment during-
dry
uringdry conditions, handicapped access, or for other reasonable purposes, provided notification is made in
advance to and approved by the Aspen-Sopris District Ranger. Unless sooner terminated, the permit
shall expire and temtinate on December 31, 2026; the permit may be reissued at that time for a period of
10 years.
9) Condition 46 of Administrative Decision No. 11-2016 anticipated a request for long-term use of the
driveway, and states: "Special Review approval by the BOCC is required to maintain long-term
motorized access on the driveway to the site. The Applicant must also obtain a Special Use Permit from
the USFS to maintain long-term (20 year) motorized winter access and limited summer motorized
000033
Resohrtion No. -3016
Page 3
access to the site subsequent to the expiration of the USFS construction access permit on December
31. 2017. The Applicant shall submit a Special Review application to the County by August I, 2017, so
the BOCC can review the request prior to December 31. 2017, when the USFS permit for the
constriction access expires. If the Applicant opts not to retain any summer motorized access to the
property or if the Special Review request is denied, then the access across private and USES lands shall
be restored and rehabilitated within one growing season of the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy
for the cabin."
10) The BOCC heard this application at a duly noticed public hearing on June 22, 2016, at which time
evidence and testimony were presented with respect to this application.
11) The BOCC finds that the request complies with the with the Special Review standards in See. 2-30-
30(h)(2) of the Land Use Code ("Code"), as follows:
A) The driveway was developed to minimize vegetation removal and grading, and no additional
improvements are requested or required in order to retain the driveway for long-term access.
B) Winter motorized access is limited to use by over -the -snow vehicles.
C) Non -winter motorized access is limited by the USFS Permit to cross-country travel along the same
general route as the winter access, for the purposes of delivering supplies and equipment during dry
conditions, handicapped access, or for other reasonable purposes, provided notification is made in
advance to and approved by the Aspen-Sopris District Ranger.
D) The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the driveway are in harmony with the
character of the surrounding area and minimize adverse effects.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the BOCC that it does hereby approve the Gregg
Special Review for a driveway in die Rural/Remote zone district, subject to the following conditions. which
shall run with the land and be binding on all successors in interest:
I The Applicant shall adhere to all material representations made in the current and prior applications and
in public meetings or hearings. Those representations shall be conditions ofapproval, unless amended by
other conditions.
2) The conditions of Administrative Decision No. 11-2016 shall remain in full force and effect, except
as amended herein. Specifically, condition # 6 thereof is superseded and replaced in its entirety by
the conditions of this Resolution.
3) Prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the cabin, the Applicant shall obtain an access
permit from Pitkin County to retain the driveway for long -tern use, as the original access permit only
approved temporary construction access and restoration and rehabilitation of the driveway once
construction was complete.
4) Vehicular use of the driveway is limited as follows:
A) Winter (November 23 - May 20): Over -snow motorized vehicles only.
B) Non -Winter. Occasional use by motorized vehicles for the purposes of delivering supplies and
equipment during dry conditions, handicapped access, or for other reasonable purposes; it is the
intention of the BOCC that daily, regular or frequent use is not allowed. Notification shall be made
in advance to and approved by the Aspen-Sopris District Ranger as specified in the Private Road
Special Use Permit.
000031
Resolution No. _-10/6
Page 3
5) Snow plowing of the driveway is prohibited.
6) The driveway shall not exceed 12' in width.
7) If the USFS permit is terminated or not re -issued in 2026, the Applicant shall remove the driveway
and restore the site. Re -issuance of the permit by the USFS must also be considered and approved by
the BOCC to ensure that continued use of the driveway remains consistent with the Special Review
standards.
S) Failure to comply with the conditions of this approval may result in revocation of this approval, or
any subsequent permit(s) or approval(s) related to this property, or vested rights associated with this
property.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PUBLISHED IN THE ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY on the
19`h day of May. 2016.
APPROVED this 22x' day of June, 2016.
ATTEST:
Jeanette Jones, Clerk to the AOCC
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Ci Houben
Community Development Director
P036-16; PID #273730401002
000035
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORA
By
R hcl E. Ric lards, Cha
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
John
only A
S
Geotechnical Engineering I Eng,neering Geology
Materials Testing I Environmental
September 27, 2016
Rutgers Construction
Attn: Jan Stenstadvold
256 Twining Flats Road
Aspen, Colorado 81611
jan 1002@comeast.net
Email:
5020 County FS
Glenwood Springs, C
Phone: (970) 945-7988
Fax: (970) 945-8454
hpkglenwood@kumarusa.com
Office Locations: Parker, Glenwood Springs, and Silvenhome, Colorado
Project No. I6-7-232
Subject: Slope Review, Proposed Buried Electrical Cable, "Halo' Residence, Richmond
Ridge Road, East Side of Richmond Hill Above Snowmaking Pond, Pitkin
County, Colorado
Gentlemen:
As requested, a representative of H-PIKumar observed the existing slopes at the subject site on
September 22, 2016 for current slope stability conditions. The findings of our observations and
recommendations for the electrical cable installation are presented in this report. The services
were performed as additional services to, and in accordance with, our agreement for professional
engineering services to Rutgers Construction, dated July 18, 2016. We previously observed the
foundation excavation for the residence as described in our letter dated July 22, 2016. Our
observations of the slopes were limited to the lower 1 100 feet from the snowmaking pond up the
slope.
The electrical cable will provide power to the "Halo" residence. The cable will be connected to
an existing power pole located just upslope of a small pond that provides water for snowmaking
on Aspen Mountain. The pond is located about a mile south of Bell Mountain at about elevation
10,500 feet. The cable will be about 2100 feet long and will be buried about 2 feet below the
ground surface. The cable was laid out on the ground surface along the proposed alignment at
the time of our site visit. We understand that a track -mounted mini -excavator with a narrow
trench bucket will be used to excavate the trench over most of the alignment. It is likely that the
steeper section will be excavated by hand.
The grades of the existing natural slopes along the proposed cable alignment are mostly between
20 and 45% down to the east-northeast. Vegetation on the natural slopes consists of open conifer
forest with an understory of grass and weeds. Rocks were observed on the ground surface in the
talus field located just above the pond. Approximately 700 feet up from the power pole, the slope
steepens to 45% to 50% for about 200 feet of the alignment. Few rocks were observed on the
ground surface in this steeper area and there were few trees near the alignment. Two pits were
dug by hand down to about 2 feet deep about 60 feet apart along the steeper part of the
alignment. The upper soils below the thin topsoil layer consisted of gravelly silty sand with
000036
Rutgers Construction
September 27, 2016
Page 2
cobble to small boulder size rocks encountered at about 2 feet. No evidence of slope instability
such as ground cracks, slumps, bulges, water seepage or distressed vegetation was observed. No
incised drainages or evidence of concentrated water flow were observed along the alignment. It
appears that water runoff in this area is mostly sheet flow down the hillside.
Excavation and placement of the electrical cable should be feasible with regard to the slope
steepness of the lot. The existing slopes appear to be stable, and in our opinion, are not prone to
instability or failure at the existing grade and site conditions. The narrow, 2 -foot deep trench
should not impact the slope stability when properly backfilled and compacted. We recommend
that collars be clamped onto the cable at regular intervals between 50 and 100 feet apart to
reduce the risk of the cable slipping downhill. Trench backfill can consist of the on-site soils
with the larger (greater than 5 incbes) rock removed. Above the bedding of the cable, the
backfill should be hand -tamped into place.
The findings submitted in this letter are based on our observation of the existing slope conditions
and our experience with similar steep slopes. Variations in the subsurface conditions below the
ground could increase the risk of slope instability. We should be advised of any variations
encountered in the excavation conditions for possible changes to the conclusions and
recommendations contained in this letter.
If you have any questions or need further assistance, please call our office.
Sincerely,
H -P: KUMAR
Daniel E. Hai
Rev, by: SLP
DEH/ksw
H -P ; KUMAR
000037
Project No. 16.7-232
RECEPTION#: 620962, 06/23/2015 at 03:40:03 PM, 1 OF 7,
Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO
R $41.00
UTILITY EASEMENT AGREEMENT
This Easement Agreement is entered into this _a day of 2015, by and
between JEFFREY S. SHOAF, whose address is PO Box 3123, As e CO 81612 ("Grantor )
and JASON A. GREGG, whose address is c/o Sherman & Howard, 1 320 West Main Street,
Aspen, CO 81611 ("Grantee').
Recitals
WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of certain real property located in Pitkin County
described as Parcel C, and more particularly described and shown on Exhibit A which is
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference ("Parcel C"); and
WHEREAS, Grantee is the owner of certain real property located in Pitkin County
described as Parcel D, and more particularly described and shown on Exhibit B which is
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference ("Parcel D'); and
WHEREAS, a private power line is presently in place that delivers power to a final
distribution power pole located on Parcel C ("Power Pole') from which point Grantor has
connected separate power line that delivers power from the Power Pole to his uses on Parcel C;
and
WHEREAS, Grantee desires a utility easement across Parcel C, in a location to be
determined, to allow Grantee to connect separate power lines from the Power Pole to serve his
uses on Parcel D; and
WHEREAS, Grantor is willing to grant and convey a non-exclusive utility easement
across Parcel C to Grantee on the terms and conditions herein provided;
THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and agreements set forth below, and for
other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
1. Grant of Utility Easement. Grantor does hereby giant and convey to Grantee a
perpetual non-exclusive easement, in a location to be determined as set forth below, across Parcel
C from the Power Pole for the delivery of power to Parcel D ( Utility Easement"). Grantor shall
be entitled at all times to have Grantor's own separate utilities connected to the Power Pole to
deliver power to Parcel C, or any portion thereof, for service to any improvements thereon.
2. Operation of Power Lines. Delivery of power from the Power Pole to the parties'
own parcels and improvements shall be each parties' sole responsibility.
3. Location of Utility Easement. There are currently no improvements on Parcel D.
Grantee shall be entitled to connect utilities from the Power Pole through Parcel C to serve Parcel
D, and to bury such utilities as underground lines. The location thereof shall be determined by
Grantee and approved by Grantor, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Upon
BUS RP156724853
000033
RECEPTION#: 620962, 06/23/2015 at 03:40:03 PM, 2 OF 7,
Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO
completion of installation of the utilities from Power Pole to Parcel D, Grantee, at its sole cost
and expense, shall have the option to cause a survey to be made of the utilities, as constructed -
Grantor and Grantee shall thereafter execute and record a supplement to this Utility Easement
Agreement to include the full legal description of the Utility Easement, as constructed. In the
event that Grantor fails to sign the Supplement to the Utility Easement Agreement within thirty
(30) days of receipt, or in the event that Grantee fails to give Grantee written notice within the
thirty day period of the good cause reason for not signing the Supplement to the Utility Easement
Agreement, Grantee shall be authorized to record the Supplement without Grantor's signature
and such recording shall be valid and binding against Grantor.
4. Utility Easement Condition. Grantor makes no representations of any kind as to
the condition of the Utility Easement and shall have no obligation to maintain the some in any
particular condition. Grantee accepts the condition of the Utility Easement "as is" and as it may
change from time to time. When and if Grantee makes use of, and conducts contraction,
maintenance, repair or replacement activities within, the Utility Easement, Grantee shall return
the surface area to the same or better condition that it was in prior to the commencement of such
activities, and subject to restoration to Grantor's approval, which approval shall not be
unreasonably withheld.
5. Grantor's Use of Parcel C Subject to the LUtlity Easement Grantor shall retain
the right to use and enjoy Parcel C, including the Utility Easement, so long as such use and
enjoyment does not unreasonably interfere with Grantee's Easement rights hereunder. Grantor
reserves the right to make any repairs, replacements, improvements, alterations or modifications
to the Utility Easement in connection with its use of Parcel C in his sole discretion.
6. Liability to Others. Each party shall be responsible for any and all claims,
demands, actions, losses, liabilities, or expenses of whatever sort, including attorneys' fees, that
are incurred by any person or entity arising out of or in connection with such party's use of the
Utility Easement, or the use of the Utility Easement by its agents, employees, contractors,
invitees, licensees or other designated persons. In the event Grantor and Grantee, or their
respective owners, officers, directors, members, employees, agents, contractors, representatives,
heirs or assigns may be held jointly and severally liable under any statute, decision, or other law
providing for such joint and several liability for their respective activities on the Utility
Easement, the obligations of each to respond in damages shall be apportioned, as between
Grantor and Grantee, in proportion to the contributions of each as measured by the acts and
omissions of each which in fact caused such legal injury, damage or hamr and Grantor and
Grantee shall indemnify each other to the extent necessary to assure such apportionment
7. Notices. All notices which may be given or are required to be given shall be
deemed given upon deposit in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, properly
addressed to the person or entity to whom directed at its address shown herein, or at such other
address as shall be given by notice pursuant to this paragraph.
Shoaf: Jeffrey S. Shoaf
PO Box 3123
1318978
BUS_"Z6724853
000039
RECEPTION#: 620962, 06/23/2015 at 03:40:03 PM, 3 OF 7,
Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO
Aspen, CO 81612
jeffreyshoaf@me.com
(970)948-3129
Copy to: David H. McConaughy, Esq.
Mary Elizabeth Geiger, Esq.
Garfield & Hecht, P.C.
601 East Hyman Ave., Suite 102
Aspen, CO 81611
(970)947-1936
dmcconaughy(@,nrfieldhecht.com
megeiger@garfieldhecht.com
Gregg. Jason Gregg
c% Sherman & Howard, LLC
320 W. Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Copy to: B. Joseph Krabacher
320 W. Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
(970)300-0123
jkrabacher@shennanhoward.com
If there is any change in the above -referenced contact information, notice shall be
provided to the other party by sending the information to the patty's attorneys and representatives
as set forth above.
8. Binding Agreement - Recording. This Agreement is binding upon the parties
hereto, their successors and assigns, and any sale of Parcels Cor D, or any portion thereof shall he
subject to this Agreement This Agreement shall be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder, and shall impose an easement and covenants running with the land upon Parcel C and
shall burden the same for the benefit of Grantee. Deeds to subsequent owners of Parcels C and
D shall provide notice of this Agreement and the obligations contained herein.
9. Governing Law: Venue:This Agreement and the rights and obligations of the
parties hereunder shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of
Colorado. Venue for all actions arising under this Agreement shall be Pitkin County, Colorado.
10. Authorization of Signatures. The parties acknowledge and represent to each
other that all procedures necessary to validly contract and execute this Agreement have been
performed and that the persons signing for each party have been duly authorized to do so.
11. Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed using counterpart signature pages,
with the same force and effect as if all parties signed on the same signature page.
1318978 3
BUS-MS672485.3
000040
RECEPTION#: 620962, 06/23/2015 at 03:40:03 PM, 4 OF 7,
Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the patties have executed this Agreement the date and year
first above written.
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
Acknowledged before me this day of 2015, by Jeffrey S. Shoaf as
an individual.
/ I
My commission expires //&P
Witness my hand and official eal.
NOTARY PUBLIC, S' A11 E UF COL' 1t10O C N07&77Public
STATE OF COLORADO )
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
AclmowIedged before me this day of 2015, by Jason A. Gregg as
an individual.
My commission expires
Witness my hand and official ea]
L0-
1318978
BUS RE/5672485.3
•.� .^HI!"pfiY �'UB'. �,: ST/iF liN 1;4C�.
000041
Public
RECEPTION#: 620962, 06/23/2015 at 03:40:03 PM, 5 OF 7,
Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO
1318978
BUS_RE56724853
000042
RECEPTION#: 620962, 06/23/2015 at 03:40:03 PM, 6 OF 7,
Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO
2XH 11317 R Tv Wf 1 l Yt y
PARCEL
APORTION OF IRON SILVERPLACER(M.S. SURVEY•NO. 5963). LYING IN SECTION 30
AND 31. TOWNSFIIP 10 SOUTH. RANGE 84 WEST OF TFM 51XTHPRTNCIPAL MERIDIAN.
COUNTY OF P1TRID1, STATE OF COLORADO; SAID PARCEL. BEING MORE
PARMCOURLYDESCRMM AS FOLLOWS:
TRESOUTF[ERLYBOUNI
FEEI'TO CORNERNO.4 f
THE WASH]NGTON LOD]
SEIINPLACF,THENCE1
SAID IRONSI.VERPLAC
A 3-114` ALUMMUM CAP
OF 171.19 FEET T O CORN
CAP L.S. 619598 SET IMPI
THE WASET)NGTON LODE N29"18T6"W ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID
IRON SILVER PLACES, A DISTANCE OF 390.14 FEET; TAFNCE LEAVING SAID
WESTERLY BOUNDARY N49°14V6'E ADISTANCE OF397.69 FEET; TraNCE No] °53'19"E
A DISTANCE OF 93791 FEET; TRENCE N36^1727"EADISTANCE OF 450.10 FEET;
THENCENI I'15%'W A DISTANCE OF 1.265.16FEET; T$NCEIM15-37'E A DISTANCE
OF306.98 FEETTO A POINT ON TETE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID IRON SILVER
F LACEFL (WFIENCECORNc'R NO.6 BEARS N27'45'58'.W A DISTANCE OF 237.55 FEET);
THENCE S27.4S58`HAIDNG SAN EASTEPLY BOu1,7)ARY A DISTANCE OF3,413.86
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNINC_ SAID PARCEL OFLAFN CONTAINING 15.135
ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
3.1/4'ALUM1Nxu
.ER, A1SOB61NG CORNERING. I OF
k3 -ll" ALUMINUM CAP LS.#19598
)F 300.09 FEET TO CORYEANO3 OF
NO.2 OF SAID WASHINGTON LODA
T)IENCE S57°04' DT'W A DISTANCE
VERPLACER A 3-1/4`ALUMINllM
S O o I
} 78898 a' f
naw...e,.t.o�rer
o'wwveearotimnwr 4�w
/�/per no+maen.mws
+u-m.ncon
000043
RECEPTION#: 620962, 06/23/2015 at 03:40:03 PM, 7 OF 7,
Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO
EiC�-tt6�T I3. '1°_ _u'17L1'f1�_ GAI;&Y�tENi .4��26�X�t�1i
c0U1.
'i
HCE��
APARCEL OFLAND BEINGTHE WAgwGTON LADE (MS. SUAVEYNO.5964), LYING
IN=UM31, TOWNSFIIP 10 SOMP"GE $4 WEST OPTHE SDCMPRINCEPAL
MERMLAN, COUNIYOFPIRON, STATE OF COLORADO; SAID PARML 9MMO MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS F0UD W S:
COMMENCING ATC0M,TXN0A OF THE WASHINGTON L= ALSOBEING CORNER
N0.4 GF THE MDNSB.VERPLACE1t (MS.SURVEY NO.5963] A 3-1I4-ALUMLNUMCAP
L.S.K39595SEI1NFLACC:.TBEPOFNTOFBErP±DnNO: MIENCE S57o29M'W A
DISTANCE OF 1357.16FEE7TO ODMERN0, 4 OF SAID WASHMTON LODE. A3 -1N"
A3.Ve
000041+
BOUNDARY OF
?ARM OF LAM CONTAINNG 9.331 ACRES.
v.cama ..„vac
v� ¢ans. ru
m+rm.
EXHIBIT
AlumaFl
Type MC PVC Jacketed - 6 AWG through 1 AWG - with triple a TM
Lightweight Aluminum Interlocked Armor with Overall PVC Jac 0 S.
AlumaFlex TM with triple a TM Aluminum Alloy 8000 series (AA8176) Conductors .
Cross-linked Polyethylene (XLP) Insulated Singles rated XHHW-2.
Bare AlumaFlex TM Aluminum Alloy Grounding Conductor.
APPLICATIONS
Type MC Cable - "Flame retardant sunlight resistant PVC Jacket" is suitable for use as follows:
• Direct burial applications, installation in concrete and where exposed to cinder fills, strong chlorides, caustic alkalis, or
vapors of chlorine or of hydrochloric acids.
• Branch, feeder and service power distribution under high ambient temperatures in commercial, industrial, institutional,
and multi-residentlal buildings.
• Power, lighting, control, and signal circuits.
• Fished or embedded in plaster.
• Concealed or exposed installations
• Places of Assembly per NEC 518.4 and theaters per NEC 520.5.
• As aerial cable on a messenger.
• Installation in cable tray and approved raceways.
• Under raised floors for information technology equipment conductors and cables per NEC 645.5(D) & 645.5(D)(2).
• Class I Div. 2, Class II Div 2, R Class III Div. 1 Hazardous Locations.
STANDARDS & REFERENCES
Southwire AlumaFlex TM Type MC Cable with triple a TM Aluminum Alloy - PVC Jacketed meets or exceeds the
requirements
• UL 44
• UL 1569
• ICEA S-95-658 (NEMA WC70)
• Federal Specification A -A59544 (formerly J -C-306)
• IEEE 1202 (70,000 Btu/hr) Vertical Cable Tray Flame Test
• National Electrical Code
• Listed for use in UL 1, 2, and 3 Hour Through -Penetration Firestop Systems
CONSTRUCTION
Southwire AlumaFlex TM Type MC Cable with triple e TM Aluminum Alloy with "PVC, black, sunlight resistant jacket" is
constructed with Type XHHW-2 conductors rated 90 o C wet or dry, and a bare equipment grounding conductor. Conductors
carnet 2o0x •w.m... c"„�.,..
Southwire �U� {M�ADE •a ....r...
P/ o"•sw,mwo-e on,m ��*�i U$A
Grtoft, aa. 30110 USA �/ •r •u,pw.c•„o.r,..
Tue Jen 24 1123'03 EST 2012 Page 1 of 4
000045
AlumaFlex Type h,.; - PVC Jacketed - Alun,.Oum Conductors
are AlumaFlex TM AA -8000 series aluminum alloy compact stranded. A binder tape is wrapped over the conductors with
Interlocked aluminum tape applied over the assembly. Aluminum Interlocking armor is applied over the assembly. Refer to
color chart for conductor color sequence.
�R; Southwire
6
C.mo.' GHI. 30110 ❑eA
Tue Jan 24 11:23:03 EST 2012
000046
II' MADE
1e1L USA
an a'aM, a...ryn
6maru. Y , nyev,a r• W mst
ra.ur-.. coiro.N.
Page 2 of 4
AlumaFlex Type h.,; - PVC Jacketed - Alun. -.slum Conductors
Conductor Size/#of Cord.
Grounding Conductor
Approximate
Approximate Weight Ampaclty(Ani Connector
(AWG /kcmll)
(AWG)t
Dtemeter
Diameter (Ibs.1100M) (Model#)
Over Armor
Over Jacket 75°C 90°C
(inches)
(inches)
6-3
6 bare
0.784
0.884 317 50 60 WT 083-075
6-4
6 bare
0.850
0.951 372 50 60 WT 090-075
43
6 bare
0.879
0.979 384 65 75 WT 104-100
44
6 bare
0.957
1.057 461 65 75 WT 097-100
2-3
4bare
0.998
1.098 507 90 100 WT 104.100
2d
4 bare
1.089
1.190 613 90 too WT 111-100
1-3
4 bare
1.108
1.208 603 100 115 WT 118.100
1-4
4 bare
1.213
1.313 735 100 115 WT 125-125
Note : Ampacl0es are based on Table 310.16 of the NEC, 2011 Edition.
Allowable ampadties shown are for general use as specified by the National Electrical Code, 2011 Edition, Section 310.15.
`the equipment is marked for use at higher temperatures, the Conductor ampecity shall be limited to 01e following per NEC 110.14(C).
60°C - When terminated to equipment for circuits rated 100 amperes or less or marked for size 14 through 1 AWG Conductors.
75°C - When terminated to equipment for circuits reled over 100 amperes or marked for Conductors larger than size 1 AWG.
90°C - For 6mpacily derailing purposes.
Per NEC 310.15(8)(2)(1), the ampacity of 4/C cables shall be reduced by a factor of 0.80 when the neutral Is considered a current -carrying conductor.
Avallable with oversized grounding Conductor when used for parallel feeds on special orders.
FEATURES
UL Classified 1, 2, and 3 hour Through Penetration Firestop Systems: W -J-3037, W -L-3110, W -L-3113, W -L-3117,
W -L-3120, W -L-3121, W -L-3160, C -AJ -3115, C -AJ -3140, C -AJ -3142, C -AJ -3145, C -AJ -3173, C -AJ -3202, C -AJ -4065,
C -AJ -4066, F -C-3038.
Cable reverse wound on reel for ease of pulling and installation. When pulling from coils, pull from Inside to ensure ease
of installation.
Anti -short bushings are not required for use with MC cable per the NEC and UL
Phase Conductors are Black with Three Extruded Color Stripes
NUMBER OF CONDUCTORS
COLOR SEQUENCE
120/208Y
3
Black, Red, or White Striped
4
Black, Red, Blue, or White Striped
Grounding Conductor
Bare
ff-� 9outhivim
%U1 MADE
uueu:e°..,..a
r one Si Dili
�� fSn.•*xa
Larrolnon, Ga 30110 use
Toe Jan 24 11:23:03 EST 2012
000047
Page 3 of 4
AlumaFlex Type h,.; - PVC Jacketed - Alun,..lum Conductors
ONLINE CERTIFICATIONS & TOOLS
UL Online Certification Directory ( www.ul.com )
UL Online Product Guide Info - Metal -Clad Cable (PJAZ) (www.ul.com )
Southwim%MADE
1'1
'.:/ o.. souuwln onv. ql 1�5�
C..1fWn,0/a 30111 USA
w.d.nn. cvn..y.
Tue Jan 24 11:23:03 EST 2012
Page 4 of 4
EXH
PITKIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMES�
AGREEMENT FOR PAYMENT OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FEES
PITKIN COUNTY (hereinafter COUNTY) and Jason Gregg (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS
FOLLOWS:
APPLICANT has submitted to COUNTY an application for
2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that Pitkin County Ordinance No. 012-2015 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. APPLICANT and COUNTY agree that fees charged for the processing of land use applications
shall accumulate if an application includes more than one type of land use review.
5. COUNTY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for COUNTY staff to
complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or Board of County
Commissioners to enable the Planning Commission and/or Board of County Commissioners to make legally
required findings for project approval, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision.
6. 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 $ 1,679* 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.
PFI'KIN COUNTY
Cindy Houben
Community Development Director
APPLICANT:
Jason Gr gg
Mailing: 99 Bluebonnet Trail
Aspen, CO 81611
*Includes Planning Office flat fee: $1,625 (non-refundable; based on 5 hours of staff time). Also included: Public Notice Fee of $54.
000049
EXHIBIT
g
D
9
MAILING ADDRESSES OF RECORD FOR ALL PROPERTY OWNERS LOCATED WIRATE
THIN
300 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WILL BE PROVIDED UNDER SEPA
COVER WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE FIRST SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE
AND/OR WITH THE AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
000050
MISCELLANEOUS
DOCUMENTS
County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE &
} ss. MAILING PURSUANT TO
State of Colorado } PITHIN COUNTY LAND USE
CODE SECTION 2-20-100
I, VUOu UCw�W being or representing an
Applicant to the Pitkin County Development Department, personafl certify that I have complied with
the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 2-20-100 of the Pitkin County Land Use Regulations
in the following manner:
By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by fust -class, postage prepaid U.S. Mail at
least 30 days prior to the public hearing to all owners of property within 300' to the subject
property, as indicated on the attached list, on the 1� of AAS jr /, 2016 (which is3S days prior
to the public hearing date of The names and addresses of the adjacent property owners
shall be those on the current tax r6cords of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than 60 days
prior to the public hearing.
2. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by fust -class, postage prepaid U.S. Mail at
least 30 days prior to the public hearing to the owner(s) of the mineral estate underneath the subject
property, as indicated on the attached list, on the _ day of , 201_ (which is _ days prior
to the public hearing date of / The names and addresses of the mineral estate owners shall
be those on the current tax recor s of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than 60 days prior to
the public hearing.
3. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest
public way) on the day of Liie 04,,"20 1 ,, which is at least fifteen (15) days prior to the
public hearing. A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto.
U1�
Applicant's name
(Attach photograph here)
I:\comdev/county/plmning/bocoforms or pz forms or ho forms
4 VrS0
Si ature
Signed before me this e day of l 6C.
201(Qby
WITNESS MY HAND ANPOFFI IAL SEAL
My commission expires: . t 202-0
r—_1'E3C1 t LAW CcLleal[M
Notary Public J��
&DOOQ- (1Jt�lXQ" �b
Notary Public's Signature
ELBA KELLY CABnLIFRo
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF COLORADO
NOTARY IDMI64039530
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES OCTOBER 17.2D20
lilaq[aaill0to] 8
RE: Washington Lode (Gregg) Special Review to Extend Electric Service
(CASE# P076-16; PID 2737-304-01-002)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday,
December 7, 2016 at a regular meeting to begin at 12:00 PM or as soon thereafter as the
conduct of business allows, before the Board of County Commissioners, Library (William
R. Dunaway) Community Meeting Room, 120 North Mill Street, Aspen to consider an
application submitted by Jason Gregg (967 Ponte Vedra Boulevard, Ponte Vedra Beach,
FL 32082) requesting special review approval to extend permanent electric service to a
parcel in the Rural/Remote zone district. The property is located at 1640 Richmond Hill
Road and is legally described as a parcel of land being the Washington Lode (M.S. Survey
No. 5964), lying in Section 31, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6a' P.M. The
State Parcel Identification for this property is 2737-304-01-002. The application/resolution
are available for public inspection in the Community Development Department, City Hall,
130 S. Galena St., Aspen CO 81611. For further information, contact Suzanne Wolff at
(970)920-5093.
Jeanette Jones, Deputy County Clerk
Board of County Commissioners
Published in the Aspen Times Weekly on November 3, 2016.
Attention Applicant/Representative:
It is your responsibility to do the following:
1. Mail this Public Notice to all property owners and mineral estate owners within 300'
of the subject property at least 30 days prior to the hearing with the return address
of the Community Development Department. The names and addresses shall be
those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than 60
days prior to the date of the public hearing
2. Submit the Affidavit of Notice by Posting & Mailing (previously sent to you with your
applicant letter) as proof of compliance with the Code at the hearing.
3. Pick up Public Notice sign from the Pitkin County Community Development Department,
130 South Galena Street, Aspen, CO (970) 920-5526
4. Post the Public Notice sign on the property at least fifteen days (15) prior to the
hearing
5. Remove the Public Notice sign within one week after hearing date
http://Ditkincouniy.com/DDeumentCenterNiew/ 10830
[a
Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius
From Parcel: 273730401002 on 10/31/2016
�1TKIN
COUNT
&11"D*G
Instructions:
This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be
printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to
page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the
margins such that they no longer line up on the labels
sheet. Print actual size.
Disclaimer:
Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web
site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to
ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic
system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. Mineral
estate ownership is not included in this mailing list. Pitkin County
does not maintain a database of mineral estate owners.
Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning
the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this
site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and
reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the
user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and
liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or
data obtained on this web site.
http://www.1)itkinmapsandmore.com
• 1
,
+ • l�r�� ori 4
�1 l
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: Washington Lode (Gregg) Special Review to Extend Electric Service
(CASE# P076-16; PID 2737-304-01-002)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday,
December 7, 2016 at a regular meeting to begin at 12:00 PM or as soon thereafter as the
conduct of business allows, before the Board of County Commissioners, Library (William
R. Dunaway) Community Meeting Room, 120 North Mill Street, Aspen to consider an
application submitted by Jason Gregg (967 Ponte Vedra Boulevard, Ponte Vedra Beach,
FL 32082) requesting special review approval to extend permanent electric service to a
parcel in the Rural/Remote zone district. The property is located at 1640 Richmond Hill
Road and is legally described as a parcel of land being the Washington Lode (M.S.
Survey No. 5964), lying in Section 31, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6w
P.M. The State Parcel Identification for this property is 2737-304-01-002. The
application/resolution are available for public inspection in the Community Development
Department, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen CO 81611. For further information,
contact Suzanne Wolff at (970) 920-5093.
Jeanette Jones, Deputy County Clerk
Board of County Commissioners
Published in the Aspen Times Weekly on November 3, 2016.
Attention Applicant/Representative:
It is your responsibility to do the following:
1. Mail this Public Notice to all property owners and mineral estate owners within
300' of the subject property at least 30 days prior to the hearing with the return
address of the Community Development Department. The names and addresses
shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more
than 60 days prior to the date of the public hearing
2. Submit the Affidavit of Notice by Posting & Mailing (previously sent to you with your
applicant letter) as proof of compliance with the Code at the hearing.
3. Pick up Public Notice sign from the Pitkin County Community Development
Department, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, CO (970) 920-5526
4. Post the Public Notice sign on the property at least fifteen days (15) prior to the
hearing
5. Remove the Public Notice sign within one week after hearing date
hag://Ritkincouniy.com/DocumentCenterNiew/ 10830
y 4{j jTLIN
COUNT', Suzanne Wolff <suzanne.wolff@pitkincounty.com>
Jason Gregg special review
King, Peter G. <PKING@aspensnowmass.com> Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 2:10 PM
To: "suzanne.wolff@pitkincounty.com" <suzanne.wolff@pitkincounty.com>
Dear Suzanne:
I've had the opportunity as the Aspen Mountain Manager to review and consider Jason Gregg's special review
application for extension of an electric service line from the Shoaf Parcel at Loushin Lake up to his cabin on the
Washington Lode. From our perspective, we feel that Jason's proposal is a very sensitive and appropriate solution for his
power needs. We run our Powder Tours immediately to the east of his property and cabin site and would prefer that the
need for propane deliveries be minimized on his "occasional use" driveway. We'd also would prefer to minimize the need
for multiple solar panels or an array that might be unsightly and compromise the backcountry feel of the area. Perhaps
most importantly, we feel that the electrical service line would be a minimal -to -no -impact solution that would very much
eliminate the need for running potentially loud and offensive generators. Such generators have the potential of disturbing
wildlife in the area as well as compromising the backcountry feel and experience we seek to bring to our Powder Tours
customers.
Throughout the process of acquiring his property and developing his cabin, Jason has gone out of his way to keep the
SkiCo informed of his plans and be sensitive to not only the environment but also potential concerns we might have as
immediate neighbors. We have no doubt that the electric service line solution will be handled in the same sensitive
manner and for these reasons we offer our support and ask that you approve his special review request.
Sincerely,
Peter King
Sent from my iPad
PMUN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(970) 920-5526 FAX 4 (970) 920-5439
October 4, 2016
Mitch Haas
420 East Main Street, Suite #10-B
Aspen, CO 81611
mitch@hlpaspen.com
Re: Washington Lode (Gregg) Special Review to Extend Electricity
(PID 2737-30401-002; Case P076-16)
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.
We have scheduled this application for review at a public hearing by the Board of County
Commissioners on Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at a meeting to begin at 12:00 P.M. in the
Library Meeting Room, 120 North Mill Street, Aspen. Should this date be inconvenient for you,
please contact me within 3 working days of the date of this letter. After that the agenda date will be
considered final and changes to the schedule or tabling of the application will only be allowed for
unavoidable technical problems. The Friday before the meeting date, we will call to inform you that
a copy of the memo pertaining to the application is available at the Planning Office.
Please note that it is your responsibility to post a public notice sign on the property at least fifteen
days prior to the hearing (and remove it within one week after) and to mail notice to all property
owners and mineral estate owners within 300' of the subject property at least 30 days prior to the
hearing with the return address of the Community Development Department (copy of notice will
be sent to you by the Community Development Department). The names and addresses shall be
those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than 60 days prior to
the date of the public hearing. Please submit the enclosed Affidavit of Notice by Posting & Mailing
as proof of compliance with the Code at the hearing.
At this time please submit an additional $375 for the BOCC Clerk Fees.
If you have any questions, please call Suzanne Wolff, the planner assigned to your case, at 920-5093.
Sincerely,
Bonnie Shiles
Administrative Assistant
Encl: Affidavit of Notice (Code Section 2-20-100)
PITKIN SUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELAIMENT
Permit Receipt
RECEIPT NUMBER 00041182
Name: Jason A Gregg Date:9/30/2016
Project Address: 1640 RICHMOND HILL RD
Type: check # 217
Permit Number Fee Description
0076.2016.PLAN PP- Flat Fee
0076.2016.PLAN PP- Public Notice Fee
Total:
Amount
1,625.00
54.00
1,679.00
Name:
Project Address:
Type:
Permit Number
0076.2016. PLAN
PITKIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Permit Receipt
RECEIPT NUMBER 00041212
JASON GREGG Date:10/4/2016
1640 RICHMOND HILL RD
check # 218
Fee Description
PP- Clerk Fee
Amount
375.00
375.00
PLATS