HomeMy WebLinkAbout20080625brownMEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
THRU: Cindy Houben, Community Development Director
FROM: Catherine Berg, Planning Engineer and Carrington Brown, Code Enforcement Officer
RE: David Brown Reclamation Plan
DATE: June 25, 2008
SUMMARY: On June 2T" 2007 The Boazd of County Commissioners denied the Applicant's appeal of the Hearing
Officer's February 20`", 2007 conditioned approval. The Applicant is presenting his remediation plan to the Boazd as a
result of this denial. The Board's action specifically required a review of the plan.
See Attachment E for the Staff Memo to the BOCC describing the Applicant's appeal.
See Attachment F for the Staff Memo to the Hearing Officer describing the Applicant's original request.
APPLICANT: David Brown.
LOCATION: 3000 Bear Ridge Road (Tract 12, Section 36)
ZONING/I.OT SIZE: RS-30 PUD/55.003 acres.
BACKGROUND: On Wednesday June 27`", 2007 the Applicant appealed the Pitkin County Hearing Officer's
decision to the Board of County Commissioners. On February 20'", 2007 The Hearing Officer had approved the
Brown 1041 Hazard Review and Conceptual Submission (Attachment D). The Applicant appealed three conditions;
condition 3A which required a remediation plan for the illegal trail/two track located above the water tank, condition
36 which required a remediation plan for the illegal road cut located on the northern property boundary, and 3D
which required the Applicant to submit an earthmoving permit for review and approval for the utility cut done by
Holy Cross.
The Board of County Commissioners moved to deny the appeal; see Boazd of County Commissioners Resolution No.
052-2007 (Attachment B), on June 27~', 2007 and to support staff's conditions 3A, 3B and 3D with "complete,
substantial and thorough remediation" (See minutes, Attachment C) and the need for permits to be pulled, as
necessary. The new plan for 3A, 3B and 3D was to be submitted within sixty days. No double fee determination was
covered in the motion. Staff was directed to bring the plans back to the Board as a consent action item so that the
Board could look into the double fee determination.
The Applicant submitted a plan to the Pitkin County Community Development Department on August 24'h, 2007.
The plan was deemed insufficient by staff and the Applicant was directed to submit another plan.
The Applicant was mailed a letter by Carrington Brown on February 29, 2008 requesting that a new plan be
submitted (See Attachment G). It was stated in this letter that "the remediation plan must be accepted by Pitkin
County and the work based on the accepted plan must be started, all by April 3, 2008.
The Applicant submitted an Earthmoving Permit to Pitkin County Community Development on April 3, 2008. The
plan was initially deemed incomplete by Staff and Staff has been working with the Applicant since this initial
rage i of3
submittal to develop a full plan. A letter was mailed by Catherine Berg on April 16`", 2008 that outlined the
specifics of what would be considered an acceptable remediation plan (See Attachment H). The Applicant's final
submission of his plan was June 4's, 2008 (Attachment A)
STAFF COMMENTS: The .Board of County Commissioners moved to deny the appeal and to require that
conditions 3A, 3B and 3D of Hearing Officer Determination No. OS-2007 be met, these are listed below:
- Condition No. 3A, which states: "Provide a remediation plan for the illegal trail/two-track located east
(above) the water tank The remediation plan shall contain a regrading plan and a revegetation plan that
includes erosion control. As part of the remediation plan, the Applicant shall submit an earthmoving
permit for review and approval for the work, and work shall not be conducted between May 1 and June 21,
and December 1 and March 31. The permit will require double fees, and the work shall commence within
one year of the recordation of the Determination, or prior to issuance of a building permit, whichever is
less. If the work has not commenced within one year, the Applicant will be in violation for the illegal
work. "
Staff Response: The submitted earthmoving permit substantially addresses the issues outlined in condition
3A. The Applicant has proposed that a ]'-6" trail be maintained where the two-track road was created. The
road cut would be substantially eliminated except for this path.
Staff recommends the following three additional conditions; one, the newly seeded azea shall be covered
with staked straw matting rather than scattered straw; two, the remediated areas shall be inspected after
two growing seasons, if the area has not reached 70% vegetation cover the Applicant shall be required to
take further remediation steps as directed by County Staff; and, three, the 1'-6" trail shall be restricted to
no motorized vehicle access.
- Condition No. 3B, which states: "Provide a remediation plan for the illegal road cut located on the
northern property boundary. The remediation plan shall contain a regrading plan and a revegetation plan.
As part of the remediation plan, the Applicant shall submit an earthmoving permit for review and approval
for the work The permit will require double fees, and the work shall commence within one year of the
recordation of the Determination, or prior to issuance of a building permit, whichever is less. If the work
has not commenced within one year, the Applicant will be in violation for the illegal work. "
Staff Response: The Applicant has not directly addressed the remediation work for the road cut, however
he has represented his full remediation effort by providing pictures showing the removal of the culvert and
the mulching and revegetation of the disturbed area. Staff concedes that revegetation has started. However
the remediated areas shall be inspected after two growing seasons, if the area has not reached 70%
vegetation cover the Applicant shall be required to take further remediation steps as directed by County
Staff.
Page 1 of 3
- Condition No. 3D, which states: "The Applicant shall submit an earthmoving permit for review and
approval for the utility cut done with Holy Cross. The permit will require double fees. "
Staff Response: The Applicant has not directly addressed the remediation work for the Holy Cross utility
cut, however he has provided pictures showing the revegetation of the disturbed area. Staff agrees that the
revegetation of this area is naturally well under way and further remediation work may have a detrimental
effect on the current growth.
Two pictures of Holy Cross utility cut as it exists today.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the plan subject to the conditions of the attached resolution.
Attachments:
A. The applicant's final remediation plan.
B. Board of County Commissioners Resolution No. 052-2007.
C. Minutes from the BOCC meeting on June 2Th, 2007
D. Hearing Officer Determination No. 005-2007.
E. Staff Memo to the BOCC describing the Applicant's request.
F. Staff Memo to the Hearing Officer describing the Applicant's request.
G. Letter by Carrington Brown on February 29, 2008.
H. Letter by Catherine Berg on April 16th, 2008.
I. Neighbor Letter
J. Draft Resolution
Page 3 of 3
Picture of road cut as it exists today.
~~r~ctt~~-~T ~
~~ CLEARING, GRUBBING AND.EARTHMOVING PERMIT APPUCATtON
130 S Galena Streak - Acpen, CO - 81811
970.920.8524 Faz 970-920.5439 P0rR1fi A'CI I ~~,~C7OU Y~-
www asoenoltkin.com
VALID PERMIT MUST 8E KEPT ON SITE AT ALL TIMES
Permit va9tl for one year unless otherwise specfried
1. JoD Atldress:
D O' l E A C
2. Legal description of property: pA~
S ~ o~ 'E Gor: / s ~ccEt N .1 ~ ~c 36-x- drux
3. Owner(s)'s Name: CoMacFlFax Number. Ma3ng Addresc:
~ - 63 P D f3 - D, SAe 7 CD
4. Owners Aufhodzed Agent: Contad/Faz Number. Melling Address:
NONE
5. Contradors Name: ComacUFex Number: Mailing Address:
E
6. Architect or Engkreer on Record: Con(acVFax Number. Malting Address:
7. Parcel ID number d property where work wi0 occur: Check http:lMmwaspenpiUctn.com/dep[s/3! or call the Pitkin County
,~ ~t S 3 6 i D O Assessors Office at 970-920-5160 for the parcel N number.
8, property also known as: (Provitle a tletaUed map showing the location at tegibte scale)
~b 1 rlcnl v7
9. Lantl rase approv 1 number(s):
10. Type of work: ~ ~ -
_ Berms) _ Trench(es) ~ TraO(s) _ Undergrounding Utilities
_ Ponds (s) or other water tliversion(s) _ CleadnglGnlbbing ~~ Site Grading
'~ ether.. 'T/1AIL ~R~fiM~i1 lATrn tJ '
71. Type of material to be excavated or placed on property. '
11a. Material av7l be brought from: pN sl7fc -ALOtJL Sr4S 6XfSY1~!< TRAIL
11b, Excavated material vfi9 be taken to: Orl SlT~E' TO FILL /LJ EXlST1iJt rf2AlL
12. Description of work G t rP r L'/ FT, X 6 F,_7,,,p„~
Taal acreage or sgrure footage of disturbance: 2~yt 00 SR._Fr,
Total Cubic yarc)s of matedai moved:) ~tL R~~
Max wt depth; )) Ff, Max fill depth: ~~_
13. Witi the pro)ed resuN m disturbance oft 1 acre of land? Yes No
13a. if you answered "Yec", submN a wpy of your state Construdion Slormwafer Pemdl or R-Fedor wanrer. Irdortnation on ihis~pennU Is
avagabla at: hrtptpelOAwrm.cdphDegrs0t~t~e.?co.uslwq/PennitsUnNstonmvater/copnsWdiosnl.ohttmi. ~y
1'-O$o: ~£ Rq,L~w.94 NFnbDaRTE37•~67'7NA£ t +9tH4~srir'Oy aRS al7dlAro(p2f poF ceWdA1~~«L4 5e Aer~tE Cry lfArlA.
15, Wla dre projed tlisfurb/resuti in removal d any vegetation? Yes ~_ No ,
i ~, If you answered'1'es" submit a revegetafion plan, includng a pleM Gst with sdeMific names d spades, plaming schedule and
method of ircigation. The Countys Revegeta6on Gurde9nes are available ak Mtp•J/w.~w.aspanpitkin.com/deDt~srMW/tleptmain.dm.
' 15b. Now wNl you prevent the establisfxrrerrt d noxicusweeds at the projed7 ~ FE R -j/F GE7AT1 otJ PLA~r
16. WYI the projed result in disturbance of any wetlands or riparian areas? Yes No
18a. If you answered "Yes", submit a tlescdption of your revegetatiordm8igation plan, including a pleM list vAth sdentifw names of
species, planting sdfedule and method of ircigatbn. Also s'ubmti a copy of your V.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sea 404 permU kr
- cormec0on wllh any disturbance d °judsdktional waters" of the U.S. Contad the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Grand Jundion
(970.243-1199) for Information on Sea 404 permit requiremems. '
" Fartlanovm9 Peim%2007 (2).xls( ~ ~S ~.~ ~j ~y,~,~Vl~~ 2.22A7
17. Wilt the projed'mvoNe work in Ore Pftkin County Right of Way? Yes No
17a. if you ensweretl "Yes' a County Right of Way Work Permit must be obtained prior to commencing work Informaflon on this permit is
available at hftp:llwww.aspenpitkin.com/deptsl24lpertnits.cfin or by caging Pubec Works at 970-920-5390.
78. WIa the project disturbflnvolve work h Ore 100-year flood plaln7 Yes No
18a. O you answered "Yes" a County Floodplain Developmem PertnN must be obtained prior to commencing work information on this
perms Is ava$able at httpllwww.aspenpHkin.comldepfsll2hvater res.ctm or by calling the Natural Rescourse Specalist at 970-429-
2033.
Having earefu0y read the requiremems, l (Applieam) hereby agree to the terms and conditions described wRhin. This form is a pennif
only when va0dated by County sffiff. Work started without a permit will be sutgeet to Pifkin County enforcement acOon and charged
double permit fees.
19. afore Appliearrt:
' Gf ~ -~~ 19a. Daffi:
~ 3 o g
20. natu of Properly r(s): ~
(~~(0
' 20a. Daffi:~
3 0 $
FOR STAFF USE ONLY (DO NOT WRITE BELOW THI S LINE
21. Addibonal Tenns and Condfikns of Permit (check all that apply):
_ At the time of issuance of this permk you are requ'ved to post S_ as financtal security to ensure successful completion
of your revegetaflon plan. These morass vrill be held for two graving seasons from the date of completion of the project and will only
be released at that Ome'd a site viisit by Pttkin County Land Management confirms that successful revegetaikn has been
accomplished. AppOceM is obligated to contact Pitkin County Land Management (970-920214) to schedule the required two-year
site visO. The monies wiA be forfeited O successful revegeffitlon k rwt conflnnetl after two growing seasons, or if AppAcent fails to
flmety schedule iha required sfte vistt.
A Fugitive Dust Control Plan approved by Ore Ernironmenlal Health and Natural Resources Department is required.
_ Documenta0on of decreed water rights is required.
_ Documentaflon oT State Engineer approval of a judsdicttonai sized dam, or documentation of filing of a Notice of Intent to
Construe a Non-Jurisdicflonal Water Impoundment Structure pn the case of non-Judstliafonal size dam) is required.
Other.
There fa a 5500.00 permit flat fee due at submittal of permit application.
The following addkional fees may bs required to be paid prior to issuance of this permit
Natural Resource Specialst Referral Fee: ~ (required where water resource issues exist and in connec0on with wetland/riparian area
disturbance).
County Fsgineer Referral Fee: ,~
Additional Flat Fee for AppBceflons Involving Large Scale Undergrounding of Utiltties & Earthmoving Projects: #2~
You vdtl also be invoked by the Land Manager, Planning Engineer and Natural Resource Spedalnt for any review arW follow up Inspection Ome
exceeding 2 hours at a rate of $150/1x.
Date Pennfl Applicatb Penntt Flal Fee (due at submittap: Check #
Received: Atldftional Fees (due at Issuance): Check ~
Date Pennft Issued. TOTAL FEE (no refunds):
22. Staff Comments:
23. Approved by Pitkin County Engineer ('rf req'd): 23a. Date:
24. Approved by Pitkin County NR Specialist ('d req'd): 24a Date:
25. Approved by PItkN County Land Manager. 25a. Date:
26. Approved by Pitkin County Planning Engineer. 28a. Date:
Earthmoving Penntt 2007 (2).xis 2-22.07
CAPE A R C H I T E C T
HALL
M7 DALY ENTERPRISES LLC
100 Norih Third Street
Suite 102
Carbondale Colorado 81623
Tel 970 963 9896
Fax 970 963 5775
mtdaly@sopris.net
April 1, 2008
David Brown Property
3000 Bear Ridge Road, Pitkin County, Colorado
Section 36, Township 8 South, Range 87 West of the 6m P.M.
Findings:
In reviewing the plans provided by Mr. Brown, it was determined that there were two
different ecosystems that required revegetation. The first area, referred to as Area 1, is
located in the aspen grove in the lower area of disturbance. Area 1 can be seen in photos
3, 6, 9, 13, and 16. These photos are also marked on the corresponding plan of the
disturbed area. The second area, referred to as Area 2, is the area of disturbance above
the aspen grove. Area 2 can be seen in photos 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, and
18. These photos are also marked on the corresponding plan of the disturbed area. After
speaking with Carrington Brown it was determined that there will be no machinery used to
restore the disturbed areas and the disturbed area can be restored to a hiking trail no
wider than 36".
Area 1 Reveaetation:
In Area 1, native grass seed will be raked in and covered with sterile straw.
The grass seed to be used is the Pitkin County Mix, available from Rivendell Sod Farm, (970)
945.2568, in Glenwood Springs, Colorado. the seed mix is as follows:
Common Name
25%Slender Wheatgrass
20ib Mountain Brome
20%a Western Wheatgrass
20`~ Secar Bluebunch
5%Thickspike Wheatgrass
5`~ Idaho Fescue
3~ Green Needle
2`~ Indian Ricegrass
Botanical Name
Elymus trachycaulus
Bromus marginatus
Pascopyrum smithii
Psuedoregeneria spicata
Elymus lanceolatus
Festuca idahoensis
Stipa viridula
Achnatherum hymenoides
Seeding Rate: Y2 pound PL5 per 1,000 SF
Area 2 ReveQetatfon:
In Area 2, native grass seed and forbs mix will be raked in and covered with sterile straw.
The grass seed to be used is a mix of Pitkin County Mix and native forbs, available from
Rivendell Sod Farm (Pitkin County Mix) and Western Native Seed (Native Forbs), (719)
942.3935, in Coaldale, Colorado. The seed mix is as follows:
Pitkin County Mix (70~ of total Mix):
Common Name
25~ Slender Wheatgrass
20% Mountain Brome
20% Western Wheatgrass
20~ Secar Bluebunch
5~ Thickspike Wheatgrass
5% Idaho Fescue
3% Green Needle
2% Indian Ricegrass
Botanical Name
Elymus trachycaulus
Bromus marginatus
Pascopyrum smithii
Psuedoregeneria spicata
Elymus lanceolatus
Festuca idahoensis
Stipa viridula
Achnatherum hymenoides
Native Forbs Mix {25% of total Mix):
Common Name
25% Arrowleaf balsamroot
25% Mule's Ear
10% Rocky Mountain Penstemon
10°6 Silvery Lupine
10% Sticky Geranium
10% Western Yarrow
5% Aspen Fleabane
5%Showy Goldeneye
Botanical Name
Balsamorhiza sagittata
Wyethia amplexicaulis
Penstemon strctus
Lupinus argenteus
Geranium viscosissimum
Achiliea miliefolium var. lanlulosa
Erigeron speciosus
Viguiera multiflora
Western Sagebrush (5~ of Total Mix)
Common Name Botanical Name
Tall Westem Sagebrush Artemisia fridentata
Seeding Rate: Yz pound PLS per 1,000 SF
Reveaetation Method:
Rake the areas to breakup lumps and produce a smooth, even grade, free from unsightly
variations, ridges or depressions.
Broadcast by hand, the above seed mixes available from Rivendell Sod Company and
Western Native Seed, respectively.
Completion:
Establish a dense stand of permanent grasses, free from humps and depressions.
Areas failing to produce germination shall be reseeded again in fall. Such
replacement shall continue until a dense stand has been established. Bare spots will
~ot be allowed except for the 36" wide designated hiking trail. Adequate
germination shall equate to 20 to 25 seedlings per square foot over 95% of the
seeded areas.
The seeding will take place this fall, after October 1, 2008. There are two reasons why
we would like to seed this fall. The first is due to D.O.W. regulations that will not allow
Mr. Brown to work in the disturbed area from May 1, 2008 -June 21, 2008. By this time
it will be too late to effectively seed in the spring. The second is to allow soil
temperatures to have cooled off enough to stave germination until the spring. Areas
that have not showed adequate germination shall be reseeded again the following
spring. In the fall of 2009, the land will be assessed to see if additional seeding should
take place in order to satisfy the requirements for revegetation.
Please see the attached site map/1041 Hazard Review and photos for specific
locations.
Sincerely,
~/!!
Michael Callas
Mt. Daly Enterprises, LLC
n.. _-- -.
7o Mnr~H
~~47N9 ~
Typ~~q~ TRAI ~ SE c i/~ o,~ 6JFrER Ftic~
~~1t'IEQ1Rr /DN ~NQ RE"VEG~T~1T/D:rl.
~RDw~I ~RopERry
3000 ~~~~ ~{Q4,E ~oqA
p~R,~~r ~ 00~6,~oas, ~q~~
5~13,a o0 6
,l^,~
/~ ~ M
.SCALE d~ -' ~'D
3 ~` `
May 9, 2008
Catherine Berg
Planning Engineer
RE: 3000 Bear Ridge Rd Earthmoving Permit
Permit 0016.2008.peam
Deaz Ms. Berg:
This letter is in response to your letter dated April 16, 2008 and is intended to be a
supplement to the remediation plan that I submitted on April, 3`d, 2008.
I am somewhat confused as to what the county would like to see from me in the
way of an excavation plan to go with the re-vegetation plan that I submitted on that date.
In the plan that I submitted on 8124/07 I proposed to fill in the trail to its original width
by hand above the azea where it is already closed and then re-vegetate the visible banks
above. The plan was accompanied by several photos. This plan was rejected by Ezra
Louthis. I later spoke with Carrington Brown and he suggested I contact Julia Mazshal's
firm to help me with the re-veg. plan. He told me (at least twice) and he told Ms.
Mazshall's staff that no machinery would be allowed to be used for the remediation. This
seemed to be in line with the recommendations from the Colorado Division of Wildlife in
their letter dated July 7, 2006.
My understanding is that the chief complaint about the trail is the visual impact to
my neighbor's property to the north. If I am directed to cleaz the trail from below and
then remove the material which has filled in the trail from above in order to gain machine
access there will be a much greater area of disturbance and a lot of the bushes, shrubs and
native grasses which have come back will be destroyed. This will result in more of a
visual impact and delay in the re-growth of the vegetation.
My other concern has to do with your project completion date of August 15, 2008.
I should be able to complete the restoration of the trail to its original width and lessen the
slope angles above to accommodate the new plants by that date. However -the
recommendations from Mt. Daly Enterprises are that seed mix not be applied until fall so
as to give it a better chance of germination with water from the winter and spring. There
is no other water available for any kind of irrigation.
Please respond by June Zl, 2008 as that is the date after which I
am allowed to start work in the azea.
~t-~ Y u
~.P{'W{~1. ~1'QYid ~I~ ~ Da ~~ ~/
avid A. Brown
Will ref' Pic~e ~~'m~'n~-:
~,D4Q,l ~f-`clcaCe55
~r1oe ~ ~, ~ vw-r-~ .
05/27/2009 12:02 FAB 8708218829 HIGH CON INC n£-J 002/002
David A. Brown
P.O. Box 1303
Basalt, Co 81621
May 23, 2008
Catherine Berg
Pitkin County Engineer
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: 3000 Bear Ridge Road, Basalt, Co.
The following will serve as supplement to the re-vegetation plan dated April 1, 2008,
which was submitted on May 9, 2008.
I contacted Julia Marshall's Brrn Mount Daly Enterprises LLC and asked them about the
addition of taller plants to better mask the trail after It is remediated. They informed me
that we could try to add Serviceberry by seeding and it would probably be successful.
They also told ma that we could try to transplant taller plants but the success would be
[invited without irrigation. They did maintain that the straw mulch would probably work
best.
As far as the machinery used, l will use amini-excavator that is 5'6" in width.
Por the time line I will start to fill in the old trail after June 21~` (or as soon as the permit
allows). 'i'bis portion of the work will be complete by August 15, 2008 and the re-
vegetation itself will be done between September 15 and October 15, 2008.
Please contact ma with questions.
~ ~, ~~~~
David A. Brown
David A. Brown
P.O. Box 1303
Basalt, Co 81621
June 4th, 2008
Catherine Berg
Pitkin County Engineer
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: 3000 Beaz Ridge Road, Basalt, Co.
The following will serve as supplement to the re-vegetation plan dated April 1, 2008,
which was submitted on May 9, 2008.
I contacted Julia Marshall's firm Mount Daly Enterprises LLC and asked them about the
addition of taller plants to better mask the trail after it is remediated. They informed me
that we could try to add Serviceberry by seeding and it would probably be successful: We
will replace 10% of the "Pitkin County Mix" with Serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia)
and the seeding rate will remain at % pound PLS per 1000 SF. They also told me that we
could try to transplant taller plants but the success would be limited without irrigation.
We will attempt to transplant some of the bushes which have grown back into the trail
since they will have to be moved anyway to access the upper end. We will use the sterile
straw mulch'as outlined earlier.
As faz as the machinery used, I will use amini-excavator that is 5'6" in width. The upper
end of the trail wil! be accessed only along the existing disturbed area and no new azeas
will be effected.
For the time line I will start to fill in the old trail after June 21'r (or as soon as the permit
allows). This portion of the work will be complete by August 15, 2008 and the re-
vegetationitself will be done between September 15 and October 15, 2008.
Please contact me with questions.
Q~
David A. Brown
--------- ~Tr~c~~T g
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COi!'IIVIISSIONERS OF i?i1TKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO, DENYING THE BROWN APPEAL OF CONDITION NOS. 3A, 3B AND 3D OF
HEARING OFFICER DETERNIINATION NO.O$-2007, BROWN 1041 HAZARD REVIEW AND
CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION
Resotntion No.0.4~ - 2007
RECTfALS
i. David Brown ("Applicant's has appealed the February 20, 2007, decision by the Pitkin County
Hearing Officer approving the Brown 1041 Hazard Review and Conceptual Submission to the
Board of County Commissioners of Pitldn County, Cobrado ("BOCC").
2. The parcel is located at 2600 Beaz Ridge Road (Tract 12, Section 3b), and is more specifically
described in Exhibit A.
3. The Hearing Officer heard the Brown 1041 Hazard Review and Conceptual Submission on
February 20, 2007.
4. The BOCC heard this appeal at a duty noticed public hearing on Lune 27, 2007, at which time
evidence and testimony were presented with respect to this application.
5. The BOCC finds that an error did not occur during the Hearing Officer's Hearing, and he used
appropriate discretion in conditioning the approval. -
NOW THEREFORE SE IT RESOLVED by the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners
that it does hereby deny the appeal of Condition Nos. 3A, 3B and 3D Hearing Officer's Determination of
the Brown 1041 Hazard Review and Conceptual Submission, and further requires that the Applicant
provide the remediation plans required by 3A and 3B within 60 days of this denial.
RECEPTION: 541232, 08/21/2007 at
02:55:28 PM,
1 of 5, R $0.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION
Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO
Resolution No.Qf3_ 2004
Page 2
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PUBLISHED IN TAE ASPEN TDYIES ON THE 27T" DAY OF
MAY 2007.
DENIED ON THE 27~ DAY OF JUNE, 2007.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF ITKIN CO RADO
f ~J
ichael Owsley,
Chav
Date:
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Cindy Houben,
Community Development Director
246536100008
EXHIBIT A ~~I~IIIII~NI~u1t~I~~III~tAIIINI1N~~l ea'46 z96 ma:4gi
JANICE K WS CAW ILL PITKIN CIXINYY CO R 8,00 D 0.00
A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 8 SOUTH,
RANi3E 87 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO., BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
EEGINNING AT THE EAST ONE-QUARTER CORNER bF SAID SECTION 36;
THENCE S 00 DEGREES OS'S6" E 135.00 FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE
OF SAID SECTION 36;
THENCE S 74 DEGREES 53'03" W 999.90 FEET;
THENCE S 85 DEGREES 57'OD" W 1435.00 FEET;
THENCE N 19 DEGREES 14'00" E 649.00 FEET;
THENCE N 44 DEGREES 48'00" W 800.00 FEET;
THENC£ N 45 DEGREES 52'00" E 222.00 FEET TO THE CENTER LINE
OF ASPEN GROVE DRIVE;
THENCE ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF SAID ROAD 298.34 FEET ALONG
TTiE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 900.0'0 FEET
AND A CHORD WHICH SEARS S 70 DEGREES 18'00" E 291.47 FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF SAID ROAD 331.61 FEET ALONG
THS ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 1000.00
FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF SAID ROAD 107.70 FEET ALONG
THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 70.00
FEET; "
THENCE ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF SAID ROAD 220.12 FEET ALONG
THE ARC OF R CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 80.00 FEET;
'T'HENCE ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF SAID ROAD 241.26 FEET ALONG
THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 395.00
FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF SAID ROAD 273.44 FEET ALONG
THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 200.OD
FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF SAID ROAD 91.92 FEET ALONG
THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 40'D.00
FEET;
THENCE S BO DEGREES 00'OD" E 466.00 FEET ALONG THE CENTER
LINE OF SAID ROAD;
THENCfi ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF SAID ROAD 315.91 FEET ALONG
THS ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS DF 100.00
FEET;
THENCE N 79 DEGREES 00'00" W 305.00 FEET ALONG THE CENTER
LINE OF SAID ROAD;
THENCE ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF SAID ROAD 524.65 FEET ALONG
THE RRC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 200.00
FEET;
THENCfi A.,ONG THE CENTER LINE OF SAID ROAD 248.59 FEET ALONG
THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 2D0.00
FEET;
THENCE N 29 DEGREES 25'28" E 210.75 FEET;
THENCE S 82 DEGREES 14'00" E 1240.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE
EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 36;
THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 36 S OD DEGREES
03'09" E 288.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
D0~~1~1~-f~l-~fflHilillllil IIfINf1~111iN1
2 sf A R 41.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PIS1fIN CCL4RY CO
• I I~I~~ "'" ~~~~~ ••'° Rllltl I'I ~~ 111 ~,I~ IIN II01 04/003 20067 03: Sot
EXHIBIT A .1fM1ILE K voL Cil(DILL PIMIN COUN;v (;p R 0,00 D 0.00
TOGETHER WITH:
A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT OR RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR ROAD PURPOSES
AND FOR LOCATION OF UTILITY LINES OVER, THROIIGH AND ACROSS A
TRACT SIXTY (60) FEET IN WIDTH, BEING IN SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP
8 SOUTH, RANGE 87 WEST OF 'THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, THE
CENTER LINE OF WHICH I3 MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN BOOK 234 AT
PAGE 703 AND IN BOOK 245 AT PAGE 195, PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO, RECORDS.
AND
A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT OR RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR ROAD PURPOSES
AND FOR THE LOCATION OF UTILITY LINE OVER, THRGUGH AND ACROSS
A TRACT 6IXTY (60) FEET IN WIDTH, BEING IN SECTION 25,
TOWNSHIP 8 SOUTH, RANGE 67 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL
MERIDIAN, GRANTED BY THAT CERTAIN SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT
C-7694 ISSUED SY THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, SUREAII OF LAND
MANAGEMENT.
AND
A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT OR RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR ROAD PURPOSES
AND FOR THE LOCATION OF UTILITY LINES SITUATED IN THE NORTH
ONE-HALF OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 8 BOUTS, RANGE 87 WEST OF
THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. SAID
EASEMENT I9 60 FEET IN WIDTFI, LYING 30 FEET ON EACH SIDfi OF
THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTER LINE:
BEGINNING AT A POINT WHENCE TH8 NORTH ONE-QUARTER CORNER OF
SAID SECTION 36 HEARS N 89 DEGREES 49'28" E 315.70 FE$T;
THENCE S 73 DEGREES 39'10" W 24.57 FEET;
THENCB 89.52 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVfi TO THE LEFT HAVING
A RADIIIS OF 81.00 FEET;
THENCE 147.23 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT
HAVING A RADIUS OF 97.00 FEET;
THENC$ 125.11 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT
HAVING A RADIUS OF 230.00 FEET;
THENCE 8 66 DEGREES 08'00" W 82.00 FEET;
THENCE 125.54 FEET ALONG TH8 ARC OF A CUAVE TO THE LEFT
HAVING A RADIUS OF 95.00 FEET]
THENCE S 09 DEGREES 35.00" E 195.00 FEET;.
THENCE 206.53 FEET ALONG THS ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT
HAVING A RADIUS OF 250.00 FEET;
THENCE 129.81 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT
HAVING A RADIUS OF 250.00. FEET;
THENCE S OB DEGREES 00'00" W 128.00 FEET;
THENCE 316.67 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT
HAVING A RADIUS OF 252.00 FEET;
THENCfi 9 80 DEGREES 00'00" W 279.00 FEET;
THENCE 131.74 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT
HAVING A RADIUS OF 148.00 FEET;
THENCE S 29 DEGREES 00'00" W 310.00 FEET;
THENCE 124.39 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT'
' 000020
C~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~f ~~~~ ~~~
412104 12/31/Sg7 03f031 GCD Oi1VI0 OIWI
_~ • • ~+ ~ a O.N N 0.00 PITKIN COlRITT CO
E$HIBIT A
HAVING A RADIUS OF 305.00 FEET;
THENCE S O5 DEGREES 38'D0" W 982.00 FEET;
THENCE 77.32 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING
A RADIUS OF 75.00 FEET;
THENCE N 36 DEGREE9 34'00" E 740.0D FEET;
THENCB 556.49 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVB TO THS RIGHT
HAVING A RADIUS OF 2030.87 FEET;
THENCB N 52 DEGREES 16'00" E 290.00 FEET;
THENCE 245.20 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT
HAVING A RADIUS OF 135.00 FEET;
THENCE 362.21 FEET ALDNG THE ARC OF A CffitVE TO THE LEFT
HAVING A RADIUS OF 400.00 FEET;
THENC$ 185.82 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT
HAVING A RADIUS OP 400.00 FEET;
THENCE 298.34 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURV$ TO THE LEFT
HAVING A RADIUS OF 400.00 FEET;
THENCE 331.61 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CARVE TO THE LEFT
HAVING A RADIUS OF l0D0.D0 FEET;
THENCB 107.70 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT
HAVING A RADIt7S OF 70.00 FEET;
THENC$ 220.12 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT
HAVING A RADIUS OF 80.00 FEET;
THENCB 241.26 FEET ALONG THfi ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT
HAVING A RADIUS OP 395.0D FEET;
THENC$ 273.44 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT
HAVING A RADIUS OF 20D.00 FEET;
THENCE 91.92 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING
A RADIIIS OF 400.00 FEET;
THENCE S 80 DEGREES 00'00" E 468.00 FEET;
THENCE 315.91 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT
HAVING A RADIUS OF 100.00 FEET;
THENCE N 79 DEGREES OD'00" W 3D5.00 FEET;
THENC$ 524.65 FEET ALONG TH8 ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT
HAVING A RADIUS OF 200.00 FEET;
THENCE 248.S9 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT
HAVING A RPS3IVS OF 200.Db FEET:
THENCE 92.70. FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT
HAVING A RADIUS OF 105.00 FEET TO THE CENTER OF A CDL-DE-SAC
HAVING A RADIUS OF 40.00 FEET. ___
I_IIIN 11(11 IINII IIN 11111111 Illllil III Ilfll Ilil 1111
4 efe4 R2211l0~0 oaEl~~00 IP~T1f=LNSCOINfTY CO
~~IIIIII~~I~lllll~{~~~flll~~~I~nI~ 0636 996 9
JP,NII$ K lqb Cp1AILL PITKIN COIMTY 04~03~2007 03:44(
CO R 0.00 D 0.00
~DQOn~
,~ TT prCt~ -~~ 7 ~.
park parcel and 1.76 acre parcel that would be separate from the park
parcel and available for conveyance.
The County Attorney's office has requested that this item be continued to
July 11, 2007.
Chairman Owsley asked for public comment There was none.
Commissioner Richards moved to continue the Mollie Gibson Parcel
Resotution reading and public hearing to July 11, 2007. Commissioner
Farris seconded the motion. Motion passed 4 to 0 with Commissioner lCay-
Clapper not present
e AppiicanY. David Brown
o Applicant's Representative: Tom Newland, Planner
Tom Smith, Attorney
• Summary of Request: The appl'~caM is appeaing the February
20, 2D07 decision by the Pitkin County Hearing Officer approving the
Brown 1041 Hazard Review and Conceptual Submission.
/ Speaficaliy, he is appealing Condition 3A which requires a remediation
plan for the illegal traiUtwo track located east (above) the water tank.
/ And, Condition 3B which requ ices a remediation plan for the illegal road
cut located on the northern property boundary (and shall contain'a re-
grading plan and a re-vegetation plan).
/ And, Condition 3D which requires the applicant to submit an earthmoving
permit for review and approval far the utility cut done with Holy Cross.
The follov~ing four exhibits were submitted for the record.
- A black and white map of the area highlighted in blue and pink
- A June 21, 2007 setter from Dale Paas in support of Mr. Brown continuing
to use the legal easement he has had since purchasing the property.
~ A series of colored photographs of the area submitted by Mr. Brown.
D Pictures marked Picture 1-Picture 8 submitted by Mr. Gina,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMlSSiONERS 10 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 27, 204}7
Ezra Louthis makes his presentation to the board as mirrored in his staff
memorandum.
Commissioner Richards raised the following concern. Maybe it's not Mr. Brown
we're concerned with, she said, but with a potential owner in the future who has
this option for vehicular access off another access point and will continue to clear
vegetation. .
Commissioner Hatfield said that it seems inconsistent to hirn to leave the cubert
there.
Chairman Owsley opened the hearing to public comment.
Tom Smith, attorney representing Mr. Brown, proceeded with his presentation.
His June 20, 2007 letter to staff, which mirrors his presentation, mistakenly states
that Aspen Grove Drive is a County road. it is not. ke apologized for this error.
Mr. Brown also addressed the board. His letter to the board dated June 19, 2007
is attached to the meeting packet material and outlines his requests regarding
the above three (3) conditions as well as his position regarding the appeal.
Garrett Brandt is an attorney representing Peter Gina who owns parcels adjacent
to (north and east of) the Brown property. Mr. Gina supports Mr. Brown's right to
develop his property, but as conditioned in Mr. Brant's memorandum to Ezra
Louthis dated February 07, 2007.
Trail constructed without permit is a catalyst for erosion and is an eyesore.
Use of the trail could only result in trespass onto Mr. Gina's property.
• Road easement along property line; Road construction without permit.
• Utility easement from. existing Brown service line to Gina's Lot 9.
Again, Mr. Gina supports this applicatiori, with his requested changes as noted in
the February 07, 20071etter from Garrett Brandt.
Mr. Brandt went over the changes themselves requested by Mr. Gina. They
were:
^ Keep the full remediation requirement in the approval and have Mr. Brown
restore the bar ditch as it was and re-vegetate it. He believes the culvert
invites additional violation on this, nat necessarily by Mr. Brown but by
future owners ar the public at large. Take out the culvert.
^ Picture 1 regarding the cut across the hillside where the trail was. Picture
2 is a 2005 fall image of this lot showing the cut. Picture 3 is a 1994
photograph and clearly, the magnitude of this has increased greatly; he
said. Erosion will be a big issue. Mr. Brandt said that when a plan is
presented, he would like not cation on behalf of Mr. Gina. He would also
like to get a completion date so that there can be a follow-up on this.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 11 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 27, 2007
Regarding utility lines, whenever possible Mr. Brandt would like utilities to
be brought in on right=of-ways on existing roads. He would Ice an
easement granted allowing connection of a line from Lot 10 to the north
end of the existing electric service line on the Brown properly. Such
connection line would be buried underground, and following installation,
Mc Gina would restore any disturbed land to its prior condition.
NOTE: Mr. Brown commented that Holy Cross gave him a map and he
submitted that map to the Building Department.
Mr. Smith responded to Mr. Brandt's conditions of approval request. He is fine
with the request on Condition 3A. But, he added, he is asking the board to
remove Condition 3B which has to do with removing the culvert. He said he
thinks that should stay. Thirdly, on the issue of the earthmoving permit and the
penalty of double fees, that is also not addressed by the remediation plan. ThaYs
a question for the board, he said, on whether they will grant some relief from that
and deal with the fact that there was an electrical permit issued for the work.
Regarding this appeal, Mr. Smith does not believe there is any basis for the
board to require Mr. Brown to grant Mr. Gina an easement for utilities or to re--
route the utilities.
Mr. Gina further described the impacts or potential impacts to him.
The board members discussed this item.
Commissioner Hatfield moved to deny the appeal and support staff s
conditions 3A, 36 and 3D with c~mplete, substantial and thorough
remediation and the need for permits to be pulled, as necessary. {NOTE: no
building permits to be pulled until remediation plan is in effect).
Remediation plans to be submitted in 60 days. Commissioner Richards
seconded the motlon. Motion to deny passed 4 to 0 with Commissioner
Kay-Clapper not present.
The double fee determination was not covered in the above motion, but
was a part of the denial as the denial was a condition asking for double
fees.
Commissioner Richards said that if she sees a good remediation plan
successfully completed she would be willing to look into waiving the double fee.
She would Pike to have this brought back to the 6000 as a consent action item.
STAFF DIRECTION -Bring the remediat[on plans back to the BOCC as a
consent action item so that the board can look into the double fee
determination.
STAFF DIRECTION -Cooperate closely with Mr. Gina so that he can review
the plans in process or at the end of process.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 12 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 27, 2007
Mr. Gina initiated further discussion an his request for access to electricity.
Rather than forcing someone to give him an easement he asked if there could
not be a situation where that person. has a choice between two options. One to
grant an easement or iwo to bring in electricity the way that the Code indicates.
Chairman Owsley responded that he thinks that this is completely out of the
board's purview. The rest of the board agreed.
For the record, Tom Smith stated that the utilities were put in with a County
permit. The County was on notice of the location. The fact that the earthmoving
permit was not issued is not diapositive in his view of the location of those
utilities. He would be happy to put the permit Into the record 'rf the board wants.
It does not show a map.
Clialrman Owsley said that he sees this as a separate issue from this appeal. If
Mr. Gina wants to bring it up on some basis and further retain his attorney to
pursue ft he is welcomed to do that, he added.
LAND USE ACTIONS:
• Applicatrt's Representative: Peter Martin
Summary of Requests The appl""scant desires to amend
language of the Resolution of the Remediation for the taking for Sawmill
Hill Parcels 2, 4, 5 and 6, Resolution Number 116-2002. The approval,
since it was through a takings procedure, did not include vested rights.
The approval did say, "the applicant can rely on these conditions of
remediation for a period of five years". The five years expires on June 26,
2007. The applicant is asking for three more years of reliance on these
conditions.
Lance Clarke proceeded with his presentation as mirrored in his staff
memorandum.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 13 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 27, 2007
• Applicant: Peter Martin, Cecil DeLoacri and
Christine De Loach
lq~~~'~~
IIN~II~N~IIIII~IINIINII~[NI~Nlllnll~N mss z~~ 03:1
JBNICE K Y0a CpUDILL PtTKIN COGN7Y CO R 0.00 _ D 0_00
DETERMINATION OF THE HEARING OFFICER OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT OF P]iTKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, APPROVING THE BROWN 1041
Aa~.aRn REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION
Determination No1~-20D7
RECITALS
1. David Brown ("Applicant's has applied to the Community Deve]opment Director (hereafter
"Director ~ for 1041 Hazard Review approval to establish building envelopes for asingle-family
residence and accessory buildings, access envelopes, an activity envelope for a pasture azea and
an activity envelope-for an existing trail and water tank with vested rights.
2. The parcel is located at 2600 Bear Ridge Road and is more Specifically described in Exhibit A.
3. The property is zoned RS-30 PUD and contains approximately 55.003 acres.
4. The Hearing Officer heard this application az a public hearing on February 20, 2007, at which
time evidence and testimony were presented with respect to this application.
5. The Applicant submitted a complete application prior to July 6, 2006, therefore, the application is
being considered pursuant to the 1994 Land Use Code, as amended.
6. The Hearing Officer finds that the proposal is in compliance with the applicable Standazds of the
Pitkin County Land Use Code.
NOW THEREFORE BE TT RESOLVED by the Pitkin County Hearing Officer that approval is hereby
granted to the Browm 1041 Hazard Review subject to the following conditions, which shall run with the
land and be binding on all successors in interest:
v' ~'
1. The Applicant shall adhere to all conditions and material representations made in the application
t : and public meetings except as amended herein.
°er ;~~4'
2. Prior to submission of any future building permit applications, the Applicant shall be required Lo
submit for approval by the County Attorney and Community Development a Site Plan in
rdance with Land Use Code Section 5-70-040, which shall depict the envelopes. The above
r~."
sx~;er~llced approvals shall be a condition precedent to finalization and recordation.
3. ~'" ~' Prior fb issuance of any building permits for the new residence, the Applicant shall:
A. Provide a iemediation plan for the illegal trail/two-track located east (above) the water
tank. The remediation plan shall contain a re-gradin~ plan and a revegetation plan that
includes erosion control. As part of the remediatibit`)59an, the Applicant shall submit an
earthmoving permit for review and approval for• the work, and work shall not be
conducted between May 1 and June 21, and Decenfber 1-March 31. "[lie" permit will
require double fees, and the work shall commence within one year of the recordation of
the Determination, or prior to issuance of a building permit, whichever is less. If the
J9s.:
:o;~:.,
.- ~
r 3
. .ri s yk - ~":.4.4..... ... .. ~ # .~ .... ~. ..
s.-.-.. -~ .... .. .........m~...~n.fNU~.-r ea. ..n., n~Mrv. w.....u,.~.~. • n... ... ~. .... ~.... .. '.. ..i. ... il.. ~i - _.. .. ....... n.. -~ ...
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIInIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVIII III (III a i6 z96 e3:aai
Hearing Officer Determination No~2007 JRNICE K V05 CnUDILL PI7KIN COUNTY CO R 0.00 D 0.00
Page 2 ---- -~- - ---
work has not commenced within one year, the Applicant will be in violation for the
illegal work.
B. Provide a remediation plan for the illegal road cut located on the northern property
boundary. The remediation plan shall contain a'e-grading plan and a revegetation plan.
As part ofthe remediation plan, the Applicant shall submit an earthmoving permit for
review and approval for the work: The permit will require double fees, and the work
shall commence within one year ofthe recordation ofthe Determination, or prior to
issuance of a building permit, whichever is less. If the work has not commenced within
one year, the Applicant will be in violation for the illegal work.
C. Submit building permits for review and approval for the water tank and the garage
structure. The permits will require double fees.
D. The Applicant shall submit an earthmoving permit for review and approval for the utility
cut done with Holy Cross. The permit will require double fees.
E. Remove the existing cabin that is located outside ofthe building envelopes. If the
Applicant wants to retain the cabin, the cabin shall be moved within the envelope, and
building permit will be required for the relocation.
F. Complete an access permit.
G. Complete afireplace/woodstove registration form with the Community Development
Department, if necessary.
H. Pay the applicable road and housing impact fees.
I. Submit a construction management plan for review and approval by the County Engineer
showing the locations of staging, material storage and employee and construction traffic
pazking.
J. Submit a drainage and erosion control plan for review and approval by the County
Engineer.
4. The Applicant shall comply with the following to mitigate impacts on wildlife:
A. Dogs shall be leashed or kenneled. Construction dogs aze prohibited.
B. Fencing outside ofthe building envelope shall comply with the wildlife fencing
standards in the Land Use Code.
C. Horse Hay shall be fenced with 8' mesh wire fencing to prevent game damage conflicts.
D. Install and use an approved bear-proof trash container as required by the County.
E. Maintain native vegetation outside ofthe building envelope.
E. Avoid fruit-bearing trees and shrubs in any landscaping.
The Applicant shall comply with the following landscaping and wildfire defensible space mitigation
standards as can be accomplished within the boundaries of the property:
A. From the edge of any structure, or deck projection, for a distance of 15', vegetation shall be
less than 6" in height, with the exception of if the Applicant desires to maintain or plant one
or more ornamental trees, in which case vegetation shall be less than 6" for 15' beyolid the
drip line of the expected mature size ofthe trees.
B: Beyond the 15' area, and up to 45' from the edge of any structures down the slope, and 35'
cross slope and up slope maintain grasses to less than 6", and thin and cluster brush and
trees. Lower limbs of trees and bushes shall be pruned to '/: the height ofthe trees, or 10',
whichever is less. Clusters of trees and bushes or shrubs shall be separated from each
Hearing Officer Determination No.~-2007
Page 3
ietMrwan~~~~
536196
Page: 3 of 9
04/03/2007 03:441
D 0.00
other, and from those beyond the perimeter by a distance of 2'/z times the height of the
mature vegetation. The diameter of clusters at their crown shall not exceed 2 %: times the
height of the mature vegetation.
C. All thinned snowberry, serviceberry or chokecherry stumps must be painted with Garlon,
(or equivalent) herbicide to prevent aggressive re-sprouting.
D. All branches which extend over the roof eaves shall be trimmed and all branches within 15
feet of the chimneys shall be removed.
E. All deadfall within the 60-foot perimeter shall be removed.
F. The Applicant shall be responsible for the continued maintenance of the defensible space
vegetation requirements.
6. The Applicant shall comply with the following additional wildfire mitigation standazds:
A. Roofs shall be constructed with a Class A roof covering on 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:
1. 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 the natural
process of clearing the 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 the adopted building code and shall
have a minimum slope of 1:48.
5. All roof designs, coverings or equivalent assemblies shall be specifically
approved by the Fire Marshall prior to submittal of a building permit
application.
B. Projections:
1. Projections at the roofline (which includes, but are not limited to: eaves,
cornices, soffits and roofs over open decks) shall be sheathed with
materials approved for one-hour fire-resistive construction;
2. For projections below the roofline (including, but nat limited to: exterior
balconies, decks, porches, and bay windows which extend over a flat or
sloped surface), the open space between grade and the underside of
projections below the roofline shall be enclosed by solid, vertical walls.
These walls shall be constructed with materials approved for one-hour
fire-resistive construction on the exterior side of the wall, and shall
extend from the top of grade to the underside of the floor decking or ,
walls of the projection, AND:
3. Any porch or deck or projection shall be void of vegetation below it, and
areas below such projections shall be protected from accumulation of
vegetation materials by placement of a vegetation barrier covered with
rocks or gravel, or by coverage with concrete or stone. Walls underneath
projections shall be constructed with materials approved for I hour
fireresistive construction on the exterior side of the wall.
C. Any windows shall be tempered glass. Doors on this side (if any) shall be non-
combustible, or 1'/<" solid wood.
I IIIIIIVIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVIIIIIII IIII 5Bs 47007 03:441
JLNlICE K VOS CRUDILL PITKiN COUNTY CO R 0.00 D 0.00
Hearing Officer Determination No~-2007
Page 4
D. Exterior Walls and Siding shall have a minimum one-hour fire resistive.
E. Foundations, skirting and crawl space openings shall be fully enclosed and
constructed with materials approved for 1 hour fire-resistive construction on the
exterior side of the walls and shall extend from the top of grade to the underside of
the floor decking or walls.
F. Stilt foundations shall be fully enclosed and constructed with materials approved
for 1 hour fire-resistive construction on the exterior side of the walls and shall
extend from the top of grade to the underside of the floor decking or walls (not
including porches, patios, etc.).
G. Vents shall be screened with corrosive resistant wire mesh with mesh '/, inch maximum.
H. Firewood/wood piles shall be stacked on a parallel contour a minimum of 15 feet away
from the structure.
I. Fences shall be kept clear of brush and debris.
J. Wood fences shall not connect to the stmcture.
K. Any outbuildings or additional structures shall adhere to the same standards as structures.
L. Fuel tanks shall be installed underground with an approved container.
M. 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-
groundtank. Any wood enclosure around the tank shall be constructed with materials
approved for 2 hour fire-resistive construction on the exterior side of the walls.
N. Each structure shal I have a minimum of one ] 0 pound approved ABC fire extinguisher
placed in a visible and accessible location.
O. Addresses shall be clearly marked with 2 inch non-combustible letters and shall be visible
and installed on anon-combustible post.
P. All flammable materials shall be stored on a parallel contour a minimum of 15 feet away
from any structure.
Q. Swimming pools shall be accessible to Fire Department vehicles.
R. Any fire department recommendation for individual structure water supply and storage
shall be accessible to fire departrnent vehicles from the exterior of the structure through a
• Fire Department approved mechanism (such as a fire hydrant). The amount of storage
capacity shall be determined by the fire protection district.
S. New utility lines shall be buried.
T. Roofs and gutters shall be kept clear of debris.
No development, including grading, excavation, fill placement, berming, landscaping, entry or
ranch gates, and vegetation removal or disturbance shall occur outside of the approved building,
accessory, activity [and/or] access envelopes except for wildfire mitigation and the trail and road
remediation. Construction, staging, parking, utility and driveway extension and maintenance
shall occur within approved envelopes.
8. Prior to commencement of any earthmoving or construction activity, the Applicant shall stake the
comers of the building envelope and install construction fencing around the perimeter of the
building envelope. The fencing shall remain in place until issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.
No vegetation shall be damaged or removed outside the building envelope.
9. At time of building permit submittal a landscape plan shall be submitted and approved by
Community Development prior to issuance of a building permit.
Hearing Officer Determination No~2007
Page 5
10. Any areas disturbed outside the building envelope must be revegetated with native vegetation
according to a revegetation plan submitted by the Applicant and approved by the County prior to
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
11. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Basalt Rural Fire Protection District.
12. 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 Pitltin County Land
Use Code, §4-140 and C.R.S., § 24-68-105. The statutory vested rights granted herein shall expire
on February 2Q, 2010.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 5 ®6 z9fi e .
_ _ _ _ _ _ N COUNTY CO R 0.00 3.441
-__..____._ __. __ D0.00
Hearing Officer Determination No.~-2007
Page 6
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PUBLISHED IN THE ASPEN TDVIES WEEKLY on the 14s' day
of January, 2007. -
APPROVED ON THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2007.
PUBLISHED AFTER ADOPTION FOR VESTED REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS in the Aspen
Times Weekly on the day ofln__ ask ___, 2007.
HEARING OFFICER
ATTEST: OF PfI'KIN COUNTY, COLORADO
~ ~ ~-
Bonnie Waechtler, y ~m True,
Administrative Assistant Hearing Officer
Date: ~, / -s /0 7
~`/
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
John Ely, , ~ ~ C~idy~ouben, -
Cou rney Community Development Director
Case #P143-06
246536100008
IN' InI 'I N' 'NI 536196
IIIIIII~IIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1,1111111 II~IIII IIII,I~IIIIIII~I 04 03/D2~00 3:441
JHNICE K WS _ _ _ ._ _ _ _.
EXHIBIT A IIIIIIIIIIIII~IIIIII~IIIIIIIIIIIIII~IIIIIIIIIII~IIII a 36 z96 ®a:a4;
JfiNICE K VOS CpUDILL PITKIN COUNtt 00 R 0.00 _ D 0.00
A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 8 SOUTH,
RANGE 87 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO-, BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE EAST ONE-QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 36;
THENCE 5,00 DEGREES 05'56" E 135.00 FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE
OF SAID SECTION 36;
THENCE S 74 DEGREES 53'03" W 999.90 FEET;
THENCE S 85 DEGREES 57'00" W 1435.00 FEET;
THENCE N 19 DEGREES 14'00" E 649.OO.FEET;
THENCE N 44 DEGREES 48'00" W BOD.00 FEET;
THENCE N 45 DEGREES 52'00" E 222.00 FEET TO THE CENTER LINE
OF ASPEN GROVE DRIVE;
THENCE ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF SAID ROAD 298.34 FEET ALONG
THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 400.0'0 FEET
AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS S 70 DEGREES 18'00" E 291.47 FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF SAID ROAD 331.61 FEET ALONG
THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 1000.00
FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF SAID ROAD 107.70 FEET ALONG
THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 70.00
FEET; "
THENCE ,ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF SAID ROAD 220.12 FEET ALONG
THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 60.00 FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF SAID ROAD 241.26 FEET ALONG
THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 395.00
FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF SAID ROAD 273.44 FEET ALONG
THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 200.00
FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF SAID ROAD 91.92 FEET ALONG
THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 400.00
FEET;
THENCE S Bb DEGREES 00'00" E 468.00 FEET ALONG THE CENTER
LINE OF SAID ROAD;
THENCE ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF SAID ROAD 315.91 FEET ALONG
THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 100.00
FEET;
THENCE N 79 DEGREES 00'00" W 305.00 FEET ALONG THE CENTER
LINE OF SAID ROAD;
THENCE ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF SAID ROAD 524.65 FEET ALONG
THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 200.00
FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF SAID ROAD 248.59 FEET ALONG
THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 200.00
FEET;
THENCE N 29 DEGREES 25'28" E 210.75 FEET;
THENCE S 82 DEGREES 14'00" E 1240.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE
EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 36;
THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE~OF SAID SECTION 36 S Ob DEGREES
03'09" E 288.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
i ~ Z1i~, i~~3i~i'I 1110~SI~I~IFQH~I~II'I I~SI~IV ~~'1 !„I ..
2 of 4 R 21.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNT'! CO
I IIIIII VIII III II VIII IIIIII II IIIIIII III VIII IIII nll 5 i fi z96 ®a: aai
EXHIBIT A JRNICE K VOS, CNUDILL PITKIN COUNTY_ CO R 0.00 D 0.00_
TOGETHER WITH:
A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT OR RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR ROAD PURPOSES
AND FOR LOCATION OF UTILITY LINES OVER, THROUGH AND ACROSS A.
TRACT SIXTY (60) FEET IN WIDTH, BEING IN SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP
B SOUTH, RANGE 87 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, THE
CENTER LINE OF WHICH IS MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN BOOK 234 AT
PAGE 703'AND IN BOOR 245 AT PAGE 195, PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO, RECORDS.
AND
A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT OR RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR ROAD PURPOSES
AND FOR THE LOCATION OF UTILITY LINE OVER, THROUGH AND ACROSS
A TRACT SIXTY (60) FEET IN WIDTH, BEING IN SECTION 25,
TOWNSHIP 8 SOUTH, gpriGE 67 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL
MERIDIAN, GRANTED BY THAT CERTAIN SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT
~-7694 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT' .
AND
A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT OR RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR ROAD PURPOSES
ONE-HALF OF SECT ONN36F OWNSHIPLBNSOUTHTURANGEI87 WESTOOFH
THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. SAID
EASEMENT IS 60 FEET IN WIDTH, LYING 30 FEET.ON EACH SIDE OF
THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTER LING:
BEGINNING AT A POINT WHENCE THE NORTH ONE-QUARTER CORNER OF
SAID_SE_CTION 36 BEARS N 89 DEGREES 49'28" E 315.70 FEET;
THENCE S 73 DEGREES 39'10" W 24.57 FEET;
THENCE 89.52 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING
A RADIUS OF 81.00 FEET;
THENCE 147.23 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT
HAVING A RADIUS OF 97.00 FEET;
THENCE 125.11 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT
HAVING A RADIUS OF 230.00 FEET;
THENCE S 66 DEGREES 08'00" W 82.00 FEET;
THENCE 125.54 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT
HAVING A RADIUS OF 95.00 FEET;
THENCE S 09 DEGREES 35'00" E 195.00 FEET;
THENCE 206.53 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT
HAVING A RADIUS OF 250.00 FEET;
THENCE 129.81 FEE'S ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT
HAVING A RADIUS OF 250.00. FEET;
THENCE S 08 DEGREES 00'00" W 128.00 FEET;
THENCE 316.67 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT
HAVING A RADIUS OF 252.00 FEET;
THENCE S 80 DEGREES 00'00" W 279.00 FEET;
THENCE 131.74 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT
HAVING A RADIUS OF 198.00 FEET;
THENCE,S 29 DEGREES 00'00" W 310.00 FEET;
THENCE 124.39 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT
C Iil~ Illif I~,~i IIIN ~NI1111~i1111~ ~I~iIlltll~111t
.. _~ .. „ a~ o e.ee x e.ee rITKIN COUNTY Co
r . t
.EXHIBIT A
HAVING A RADIUS OF 305.00 FEET;
THENCE S O5 DEGREES 38'00" W 982.p0 FEET;
THENCE 77.32 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING
A RADIUS OF 75.00 FEET;
THENCE N 36 DEGREE9 34'00" E 740.00 FEET;
THENCE 556.49 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT
HAVING A RADIUS OF 2030.87 FEET;
THENCE N 52 DEGREES 16'00" E 290.00 FEET;
THENCE 245.20 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT
HAVING A RADIUS OF 135.Op FEET;
THENCE 362.21 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT
HAVING A RADIUS OF 400.00 FEET;
THENCE 185.82 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT
HAVING A RADIUS OF 400.00 FEET;
THENCE 298.34 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT
HAVING A RADIUS OF 400.00 FEET;
THENCE 331.61 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT
HAVING A RADIUS OF 1000.00 FEET;
THENCE 107,..70 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT
HAVING A RADIUS OF 70.00 FEET;
THENCE 220.12 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT
HAVING A RADIUS OF 80.00 FEET;
THENCE 241.26 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT
HAVING A RADIUS OF 395.00 FEET;
THENCE 273..44 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT
HAVING A RADIUS OF 200.00 FEET;
THENCE 91.92 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING
A RADIUS OF 400.00 FEET;
THENCE S 80 DEGREES 00'00" E 468.00 FEET;
THENCE 315.91 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT
HAVING A RADIUS OF 100.00 FEET;
THENCE N 79 DEGREES 00'00" W 305.00 FEET;
THENCE 524.65 FEET ALONG, THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT
HAVING A RADIUS OF 200.00 FEET;
THENCE 248.59 FEET ALONGOOTF~FARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT
HAVING A Rp~_US
THENCE 92.70. FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT
.HAVING A RADIUS OF 105.00 FEET TO THE CENTER OF A CUL-DE-SAC
HAVING A RADIUS OF 40.00 FEET. ___
IItAI itfli lillN Illll fl~ll N11 1111111 III IINI Iltl lill
412104 12/31/16!7 03~93P QCD DRYIS SILYI
4 of 4 R 21.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
I IIIIII VIII VIII) VIII IIIIII III 1111111 III VIII IIII IIII 04/0 0 2 06 03:441
JRNICE K VOS CiiUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 0.00 D 0.00
~T7~C~~°NT ~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Regular Meeting -June 27, 2007
~C~t,~
THRU: Cindy Hou n, Community Development Director
FROM: Ezra Louthis, Planner
RE: Appeal of the Hearing Officer Approval of the Brown 104I Hazazd Review and
Conceptual Submission (Old Code)
SUMMARY: The Applicant is appealing the February 20, 2007, decision by the Pitkin County
Hearing Officer approving the Brown ]041 Hazard Review and Conceptual Submission.
See Attachment C for the Staff Merno to the Hearing Officer describing the Applicant's
request.
APPLICANT: David Brown
REPRESENTATIVE: Tom Newland
LOCATION: 2600 Bear Ridge Road (Tract ]2, Section 36)
ZONING/LOT SIZE: RS-30 PUD/55.003 acres.
APPROVAL BACKGROUND: The Hearing Officer heard this application at a duly noticed
pu(ilic hearing on February 20, 2007, at which time he approved the application with conditions (see
attachment B).
PROPERTY BACKGROUND: The property is developed with a garage structure, .
accessldriveway, earthmoving, a 20,000 gallon water tank and a traiUtwo-traok that accesses the
water tank and other portions of die property. The County has no permits for any of this '
development on the property. It has been indicated by the Applicant that the driveway, garage
structure and earthmoving were done by the previous owner without permits.
Tn 2005 the Applicant was notified by the County that the [rai]ltwo-track and water tank construction
that the Applicant developed was illegal, and required permits. The trailhwo-track travels west to
east across the property from the proposed envelopes, then it turns to travel from south to north.
The Applicant was then notified that he would be required fo remediate the infractions and/or
submit fora 1041 Hazard Review to establish what could remain, and what maybe required to be
remediated (see Attachment D). The Applicant made a decision to establish a 1041 review, and
submitted an application, at which time no further development was to be undertaken. The
Applicant then continued to perform earthwork and vegetation clearing on the very north end of
the parcel for what is now in the application as a secondary access that is adjacent to the
neighboring.property. The Applicant was again notified that no further work was to be done until
the 1041 was completed and conditions set forth.
?~~
ISSUES:
- TraillTwo-tractc: Staff recommended, and the Hearing Officer approved that the trail above
and beyond the water tank should be remediated completely due to the concern of the DOW,
the non-compliance with Section 3-80-050 (slopes) and erosion potential. Also, as noted in
the neighbor's letter, the upper portion of the irailltwo-track that travels north to south
provides access only to a neighbor's property, and could facilitate illegal trespass.
- Sernndary Access: The request for a second access that begins on and traverses the
northern property boundary, eventually meeting the proposed envelopes from the noitli was
denied. The Applicant argues that there is an existing "road bed" there, and he would like to
do a primitive ranch road through the area. Staff recommended against the second access
for a vaziety of reasons. One reason is that while there may be a historical "road bed"
located there (Staff was unable to locate the "bed's, the area has revegetated completely, and
the road has not been used for some time. The second reason is that the proposed road cuts
through a dense, mature Aspen forest that has been recognized as valuable wildlife habitat
via a study conducted by Wildlife and Wetlands Solutioru LLC. The study was conducted
as part of an approval to grant the adjacent property (east and north) "Constrained Lot
Status" for presence ofwildlife and steep slopes (see attachment H).
APPEAL REQUEST: The Applicant is appealing three Conditions of Hearing Officer
Determination No. OS-2007 (Attachment B), which aze listed below:
- Condition No. 3A, which states: "Provide a remediation plan for the illegal trail/two-
tracklocated east (above) the water tank. The remediation plan shall contain a re-
gradingplan and a revegetation plan that includes erasion control. As part of the
remediation plan, the Applicant shall submit an earthmoving permit for review and
approval for the work and work shall not be conducted between May 1 and June 21, and
December 1-Mcvch 31. The permit will require double fees, curd the work shall
commence within one year of the recordation of the Determination, or prior to issuance
of a building permit, whichever is less. If the work has not commenced within one year,
the Applicant will be in violation for the illegal work. " See pages i and 2 of attachment
A for the Applicant's argument to remove the condition.
Staff Response: The Applicant's letter states the Division of Wildlife as "favoring
reclamation if it can be done without greater disturbance:' Further reading of the referral
Letter from the Division shows that the Division would prefer that the two-track trail be
reclaimed to a foot path in order to minimize further erosion and impacts on wildlife.
Staff fully supports that a remediation plan be provided for the illegal work above the
water tank (but that illegal work up to the water tank can remain), and that the work can
be done without greater disturbance in order to minimize erosion and impacts on wildlife.
- ,Condition No. 3B, which states: "Provide a remediation plan for the illegal road cut
located on the northern property boundary. The remediation plan shall contain a re-
gradingplan and a revegetation plan. ~ As part of the remediation plan, the Applicant
shall submit an earthmoving permit for review and approval far the work The permit
will require double fees, and the work shall commence within one year of the recordation
of the Determination, or prior to issuance of a building permit, whichever is less. If the
work has not commenced within one year, the Applicant will be in violation for the illegal
work " See page 2 of attachment A for the Applicant's azgument to remove the
condition.
Staff Response: Staff does not support a secondary, looping access to the approved
building envelopes for a vaziety of reasons. For one, Aspen Grove Drive is located on the
plat map for Section 36, which was aot a County approved subdivision. Whether or not
the road was constructed in the 1970's is in question. As noted above, there'is no clear
indication that a road ever existed prior to the Illegal work conducted by the Applicant.
Additionally, the proposed road cuts through a dense, mature Aspen forest that has been
recognized as valuable wildlife habitat via a study conducted by Wildlife and Wetlands
Solutions LLC. The study was conducted as part of an approval to grant the adjacent
property (east and north) "Constrained Lot Status" for presence of wildlife and steep slopes
(see attachment H).
To the point that the road is located on a County Road Map, Staff reviewed the County
Asset Management Plan, and Aspen Grove Drive is not a recognized County Road at any
level.
- Condition No. 3D, which states: "The Applicant shall submit an earthmoving permit for
review and approval for the utility cut done with Holy Cross. The permit will require
double fees." See pages 3-5 of attachment A for the Applicant's argument to remove the
condition.
Staff Response: The work was done without a permit, and carves through hillsides to reach
the Applicant's building azea. A permit is needed for this type of work, and not requiring
one even after the fact, would set a bad precedent
RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommends that the BOCC deny the Brown Appeal to the
Hearing Officer's Determination.
ATTACHMENTS:
A} Applicant's Letter of Appeal
B) Hearing Officer Determination No. OS-2007
C) Staff Memo to the Hearing Officer February 20, 2007
D) Violation Letters
E) CDOW
F) Basalt Fire Letters
G) Neighbor Letter
H) Resolution No. 123-2006
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jim True, Pitkin County Hearing Officer
FROM: EzraLouthis,Planner
RE: Brown 1041 Hazard Review and Conceptual Submission
DATE: February 20, 2007
REQUEST: The Applicant proposes to establish building envelopes for asingle-family residence and
accessory buildings, access envelopes, an activity envelope for a pasture azea and an activity envelope for
an existing trail and water tank. The pazcel is located on Beaz Ridge Road, and is part of the Section 36
tracts.
APPLICAlv"I': David Brown
REPRESENTATIVE: Tom Newland
LOCATION: 2600 Beat Ridge Road (Tract 12, Section 3~
ZONING/LOT SIZE: RS-30 PUD/55.003 acres.
EXISTING CONDITIONS/BACKGROUND: The property is developed with a garage structure,
access/driveway, earthmoving, a 20,000 gallon water tank and a trail/two-track that accesses the water tank
and other portions of the property. The County has no permits for any of this development on the property.
It has been indicated by the Applicant that the driveway, garage structure and earthmoving were done by the
previous owner without permits.
1
In 2005 the Applicant was notified by the County that the traiUtwo-track and water tank construction that
the Applicant developed was illegal, and required permits. The traiVtwo--track travels west to east across the
property from the proposed envelopes, then it toms to travel from south to north.
The Applicant was then notified that they would be required to remediate the infractions and/or submit for a
1041 Hazard Review to establish what wutd remain, and what may be required to be remediated (see
Attachment B). The Applicant made a decision to establish a 1041 review, and submitted an application, at
which time no further development was to be undeitalcen. The Applicant then continued to perform
earthwork and vegetation clearing on the very north end of the parcel for what is now in the application as a
secondary access that is adjacent to the neighboring property. The Applicant was again notified that no
further work was to be done until the 104I was completed and conditions set forth.
PROPOSAL. SUMMARY:
The Applicant is proposing the establishment of two principal building envelopes (Applicant is unsure of
which one is most suitable), an activity envelope for a pasture and such, an accessary envelope for the
gazage structure, an access envelope for the existing driveway and activity envelope for the traiUtwo-track
and water tank. As part of the amended application, the Applicant has also requested an access envelope for
a secondary access point that comas off the shazed road on the very northern edge of the property, and
eventually sweeps back to the proposed envelopes via the north. This proposal follows a recorded easement
called "Aspen Grove Drive", which is a private easement only to the benefit of the subject property owner.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Comments were received from the Division of Wildlife, Basalt Fire and a
Neighbor.
D CDOW: The CDOW reviewed the proposal and the illegal development and requested that the
original upper envelope be removed, and that activities remain in the previously disturbed azeas for
new development. The DOW went on to state that while the parcel is not mapped for wildlife, site
inspections and aezial flights concluded that it is Elk Winter Range, and in fact it may be an Elk
Production area. The Division further went on to state that the illegal tralUtwo-track should be
completely remediated, or restored to strictly a footpath with seasonal restrictions. The Division
made further commettts that will be reflected in the condhions.
D Basalt Fire: Basalt Fire commented initially on the illegal tralUtwo-track, and stated they supported
its existence as an ATV access for emergencies. The District's initial visit to the site for the trail
discussion was initiated by the landowner, not the County, as it is indicated in the Letter dated
September 19, 2006. The District's second letter has some standard requests that will be reflected
in the conditions.
D Neighbor Comments: Peter Gina, represented by Brandt & Feigenbaum, P.C, commented on
three eoncems in the attached letter. The first concern is that of the illegally constructed trail, and
his desire that the trail (specifically the portion that is most visible and moves south to north) be
completely remediated due to wildlife, erosion and visual concerns. The second concern for Mr.
Gina is that of the beginning work for the secondary access on the north end of the subject property
which was done illegally. The third concern addressed in the Letter is that there may be an illegal
utility cut for electricity on Mr. Brown's property which brings electricity to the proposed building
envelope. This has not been confirmed by the County. Mr. Gina goes on to request, as part of any
approval, an easement for electricity across Mr. Brown's property to his own. The County has no
authority to require this of Mr. Brown.
1041 HAZARD REVIEW (SECTION 3-801:
Geologic (Section 3-80.050): The proposed building envelopes, activity envelope for the pasture, accessory
envelope for the garage and access envelopes contain slopes of less than 30%, with the exception of a
couple of minor slope anomalies in the second principal building envelope. The tralUtwo-track activity
envelope contains slopes in excess of 30%, in particulaz the azea above the water tank. The Applicant
argues that the trail existed legally (ahhough the County finds no proof of that), and that it should fall under
the provision for allowing "Existing Roads and Driveways" to exist on slopes in excess of 30%. Staff
disagrees that a traiUtwo-track constitutes a "road" or "driveway", and recommends that the trail be
removed above the water tank.
Wildfire (Section3-80-070): The building envelope is located within a "Severe Hazard" rated wildfire
area. The Applicant will comply with the standards in the Code.
Wildlife (3-80-080): The parcel lies within Elk Winter Range and possibly Elk Production, although it is
not mapped. As noted before, the DOW has concerns about the illegal traiUtwo-track, and would like to see
it completely remediated or reconstructed into a footpath, and in particular, the area past the water tank
should be restricted and reclaimed.
dSSUES:
- TraNTwo-hack: Staff is recommending that the trail above and beyond the water should be
remediated completely. Due to the concern of the DOW, the non-compliance with Section 3-80-
050 (slopes) and erosion potential. Also, as noted in the neighbor's letter, the upper portion of the
traiUtwo-track that travels north to south provides access only to a neighbor's property, and could
facilitate illegal trespass.
- Secondary Access: The amended application requests a second access that begins on and traverses
the northern property boundary, eventually meeting the proposed envelopes from the north. The
Applicant argues that there is an existing "road bed" there, and he would like to do a primitive
ranch road through the area. Staff is recommending against the second access for a variety of
reasons. One reason is that while there may be a historical "road bed" located there (Staff was
unable to locate the "bed"), the area has revegetated completely, and the road has not been used for
some time. The second reason is that the proposed road cuts through a dense, mature Aspen forest
that has been recognized as valuable wildlife habitat via a study conducted by Wildlife and
Wetlands Solutions LLC. The study was conducted as part of an approval to grant the adjacent
property (east and north) "Constrained Lot Status" for presence of wildlife and steep slopes (see
attachment F).
RECONILVIENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Brown 1041 Hazard Review subject to the
conditions of the attached draft determination.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft Determination
B. Violation Letters
c. cDOW
D. Basalt Fire Letters
E. Neighbor Letter
F. Resolution No. 123-2006
I~T`TW Ck~t~ ENT C`1
ut e. ~ e
.a
N
ry7 Poatege $
m
Cenifrod Fee
p
p Rehm ReoNFI Fee
p (EMOrsenroMRequhedj
~
~
d
qsR ry
IEnd
s
en
i
qulretl)
p
)LINTY ATTORNEY
70X58 ftrIReX B][ijliJrtB .
Pae~nc Rain Street, Suite 302
Rare 1, Colorado 81611
~.. 7b1a1 Postage 6 Fees
$ 5.,~(
Rr ~6
gem o (f~
-II
p arPOBosAb per, c~o3 _
'` ciir s'ab Viva N...._._.__..» .____..._...__
~St~ aJ
Basalt, Co 81621
Dear Mr. Brown,
Le~l.4safaJmua~
Lisa MecDorutd
Jane Ac)try
7DD6 2760 DDDO 3887 3685
I am writing you concerning your progress in meeting the conditioirs set forth by Determination
No. OS-2007, regarding your property located at 2600 Bear Ridge Road; Pitkin County.' .
As you recall, this Determination directed that you perform certain actions to bring the property
into compliance with the. Pitkin County Land Use Code. Your subsequently appealed the
Deternination to the Pitkirt County Boazd of County Commissioners. Your appeal of the
Deternination was denied by the County Commissioners in August, 2007 via Resolution No.
OS2-2007. ~ .
The Determination directed that you provide-a remediation plan, that "shald contain tt re grading
:plan, and a re-vegetation plan that includes erosion control...A.s part of the remediation plan
the Applicant shall submit an earthmoving permit for review and approval of the work... "The
Determination also required tliat work must commence vzithin one year of the recording of the . '
Determination, which was 4/3/2007, but cannot be conducted between May 1 -June 21, and
December i -March 31.
Mr. Ezra Louthis, the Pitkin County Planner who woiiced'with you on this project has informed
me that he told you that the letter/remediationglan you submitted to him on 8/24/07 was
insufficient. Mr. Louthis further told me that he directed you to submit another plan and
suggested that you have the plan professionally made. Pitkin County records do not contain
evidence of such a resubmittedplan or of the required earth moving gamut.
Detemvnation No. OS-2007, pazagraph 3 (a)'& (b) state that "if the work has rmt commenced '
within one year, the.4pplicanYrvill be in violation for the illegal work". Such work would be
subsequent to a remediaflon plan being approved bq Pitkin County and would be subsequent to
an earth moving permit being issued. The Determination was rebcarded on 41312007. In
summary, in order for you to be in compliance with the Detemrination No. OS-2007, you must
submit anothei remediation plan to Pitkin County Community Development, submit application
for an earth moving permit, the remediation plan must be accepted by Pitkin County and the
work based on the accepted plan must be started, all by 4/3/08.
(970)920-5190
(970)92D-5196
2/29/08
• 1~ is s signiiicant mount to accomplish in a short time; if you have questions about the details
open acceptable remediation plan, please contact Catherine 1~erg, the Pitkin County Planning
engineer, at 429-2790. If you have questions for me, I am available to assist you at 429-2814.
The earth moving permit application foan is available on line at:
htto //www asveriaitkin com/ydfs/depts/7/em-verinit ndf.
• The eath moving informational page is available, at
httvJ/www asnentiiikin.com/pdfs/dents/7/em-info-sheet.nd£
Thank you for your prompt attention to this issue and I look forwazd to your meeting the
Determination's requirements on lime.
Sincerely, ,
~r ~~~~ .
Carrington Brown ."
Pitkin County Code Enforcement
Cc: Lance Clark, Catherine Berg, Pitkin County Attorney
~.
~T`fl'jGl~wlk~lT 1~
April 16, 2008 ~~(~~ c{ ~ (6, ~ b
David Brown
PO Box 1303
Basalt, CO 81621
RE: 3000 Bear Ridge Rd Earthmoving Permit
PERMIT 0016.2008.paem
Dear Mx. Brown:
I am writing you concerning Pitkin County's review of your above referenced
Earthmoving Permit
As you know your appeal of the Hearing Officer Determination was denied by the
County Commissioners in August, 2007, via Resoluflon No. 052-207. The denial
outlined conditions 3A, 3B and 3D, which delineated three sepazate issues that need to be
addressed in a remediation plan with "complete, substantial and thorough remediation".
After reviewing the submitted plan it appears you have addressed only condifion 3A, the
"remediation plan for the illegal traiUtwo track". Also, the submitted plan for 3A is
substantially incomplete, the plan appears to only provide for revegetation of the trail
without addressing how the trial will be filled in, per the "complete, substantial and
thorough remediation" specified in Resolution No. 052-2007. In the Leiter accompanying
the plan, from 7ulia Marshall, dated April 1, 2008, it is stated that "After speaking with
Carrington Brown it was determined that there will be no machinery used to restore the
disturbed areas and the disturbed area can be restored to a hiking (rail no wider than 3G"". ~
Mr. Carrington Brown informs me that he drd not tell Ms. Marshall or any other staff
member from her compahp that a 36" trail would be acceptable to Pitkin County. He did
say that Mr. David Brown could propose what he felt was a reasonable answer to the
Commissioner's specifications and that County staff may or may not accept his proposal.
In order for County Staff to'support the;emediation plan it must show "complete,
substantial and thorough remediation" of items 3A, 3B and 3D as stated in Resolution
No..052-2007. These items include "a remediation plan for illegal road cut" and a plan
for "the utility cut done with Holy Cross''. We understand that filling in the illegal trail
cut across the hillside may be easier to accomplish by using machinery. While we d o not
wish to dictate how you perform the work, we do not condone the use of lazge machinery
that would require the building of a roadway to the trail. A reasonable method for you to
consider when completing the remediation work would be the use of a small machine, no
lazger than a skid steer, and accessing the project from existing trails.
In summary, the Board of County Commissioners specified that this plan ultimately be
submitted to them for review. In order for staff to bring an acceptable remediation plan
the BOCC for review you must submit a remediation plan that addresses all of the a~
130 S. Gaya Street Aspen.Cobrado 6161 I
(970} 920-5526 fax 920-5434 vmv+.aspenpitkin.cortf
.,t ~.~...~,».
s Page 2 Apri116, 2008
items and includes a project completion-date of August 15, 2008. Please submit the plan
to me by May 9u', 2008. 1
`--~ ~ey~, is ~ c~l~ed
Please feel free to contact me with any questions.
~ 5~.;h~ ~ a~ .
Sinc rely ~~~~~ J
Catherine Berg
Planning Engineer
Pitkin County
Car' ~- ~~rtir~` ,,,so r~ un;lii I ~wt,e Z ~s~•
~-T7~ c~-~ti-~ ~ Z
~~c~rv~~ ~6~~to~
Lance Ctazk APR ~r 4 2008
Director-Pitkin County Planning Office uwYrir>c~onr
130 South Galena aY_ e,2~a ~r
Aspen, Co 81611 --'_~----
Lance:
This is my wrifken response to the meeting we had on 4/11108 regarding David
Brown's remediation plan for Lot 12 Sect. 36 E Sopris Creek.
David was tasked by the County Commissioners on 6/07 to come up with a viable
remediation plan in two months to correct three areas of violations on Lot 12: an illegal
road cut on a hillside which he made to instal] electric power, an illegal road cut which he
made adjacent to my driveway on a deeded easement and an illegal road cut on his
hillside overlooking my property. My understanding is that Mr, Brown submitted an
earlier plan which was deemed inadequate. My comments here are made with regard to
his 2"d plan dated 4/1108.
Mr. Brown is now 8 months late in presenting an acceptable plan. The plan of 4/1/08
addresses only 1 of the 3 areas of violation (the hillside road cut) and so is incomplete
and therefore unacceptable on its face for that reason.alone.
What about the 1 area Mr. Brown did address in his new plan? Mr. Brown's plan calls
for hand spreading seed and hand raking the seed in. Is this a serious remediation plan?
The hillside road cut was made with a backhoe. Mr. Brown used the backhoe for several
weeks to create his road.. He excavated an 8 foot wide shelf on a slope that in excess of
45 degrees .removing approximately 200+ cubic yards of material. The immediate result
was to create erosion above the road cut which can be seen from 6 miles distant .The
erosion lends itself to an unstable slope situation. The road cut also facilitates
mechanized vehicleaccess -which was it's purpose. The hillside it traverses has been
recognized by the County as an elk migration corridor and the bottom of the hillside an
elk calving habitat. Finally, the road goes nowhere. It ends on my property and therefore
encourages trespass. Hand seeding and hand raking does not address any of these issues.
The concept of remediation means to me that an illegal action needs to be reversed. In
a letter to David Brown dated 6/23/06 Carrington Brown, Pitkin County's Code
Enforcement Officer, implicitly defined remediation as "returning the affected area to it's
original state". This is my understanding of the term also.
So what was the original state of the hillside in question? Mr. Brown says there was a
cattle track on the hillside which he enlarged. He buttresses this statement with a note
from Walter Wieben a 75 yeaz old area resident who says the path was created 65 years
ago. I have walked the same hillside at least 5 times from 1990-1996 in the area of Mr.
Brown's mad and never saw any evidence of a track. I spoke with Mac Smith whose
family owned all of Section 36 from 1962-1974 and who ran cattle themselves. Mac said
they never ran cattle on that hillside, never gave anyone else permission to do so and was
not awaze of anyone else running cattle there while his family owned the land. In fact,
Mac questioned why anyone would run cattle there as there was no forage at the top of
the hill. Bob ltafelson purchased Section 36 in 1974 and says he never ran cattle there,
never authorized anyone else to do so and was not aware of cattle being run there while
he owned the property through 1990 when I bought my land on the adjacent lot. The
testimony of these two men indicate that no cattle were run on the hillside from 1962 to
present- a 46 year period during which the land was not disturbed. Surely any hoof
damage to the slope which must have been random and infrequent and done by a small
number of animals would have disappeared over that time period if cattle had ever
traveled there at all.
Looking at topo maps of the entire hillside reveals that the steepest section is the small
slice of the hillside owned by Mr. Brown. Since there aze less steep gradients on either
side of Lot 12 why would anyone run cattle on the steepest pitch- a daunting 45+ degrees
which makes it almost impassable?
The road which Mr. Brown cut runs from the bottom right boundary of his lot to the
upper left boundary of his lot. At a time when no lot lines existed is it not an incredible
coincidence that the supposed track lay entirely within the small section that is Mr.
Brown's?
Is it possible that Mr. Wieben who did not know Mr. Brown's ]ot lines 45 years ago
(there were no lot lines then) misremembers since he would not have seen the cattle track
in 45+ years if he had ever seen it at all?
The above is all informed speculation and hearsay. What is tangible and not
speculative is the evidence shown on 2 aerial photos available from Aspen GIS. The first
from 9/28/94 shows no discernible track or trail. The second taken in the fall of 2005
shows Mr. Brown's road. The evidence, then, does not support a pre existing trail which
Mr. Brown "widened".
I am asking that remediation of the hillside return it to its original undisturbed state as
a continuous and natural slope as best as possible. Such remediation would shore up the
slope preventing erosion, close the area to vehicular access and prevent potential trespass
onto my own adjacent property. This solution would be in line with the memo sent by the
Planning Department to Jim True as mediator on 2/20/07 which called for comglete
remediation of the affected azea.
Thank you for your consideration on this matter,
Peter Gina
~1`tVgCNW1~N'f ~
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITHIN
COUNTY, COLORADO, GRANTING APPROVAL OF CONDITIONS NOS. 3A,
3B AND 3D OF HEARING OFFICER DETERMINATION NO. OS-2007, BROWN
1041 HAZARD REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION
Resolution No. -2008
RECITALS
1. David Brown ("Applicant") has appealed the February 20, 2007, decision by the Pitkin
County Hearing Officer approving the Brown 1041 Hazard Review and Conceptual
Submission (Hearing Officer Determination No. OS-2007) to the Boazd of County
Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado ("BOCC").
2. The BOCC heard this appeal at a duly noticed public heazing on June 27, 2007, at
which time evidence and testimony were presented with respect to this application.
3. The BOCC found that an error did not occur during the Hearing Officer's Hearing, and
he used appropriate discretion in conditioning the approval.
4. The BOCC requested that the Applicant's remediation plans be brought back before
them for review.
5. The BOCC reviewed these plans at a public meeting on June 25, 2008, at which time
evidence and testimony were presented with respect to this application.
6. The BOCC finds that the remediation plans are in compliance with the applicable
Standards of the Pitkin County Land Use Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Pitkin County Board of County
Commissioners that it does hereby approve the proposed reclamation and remediation
plans as meeting the requirements of Condition Nos. 3A, 3B and 3D of the Hearing
Officer's Determination of the Brown 1041 Hazard Review and Conceptual Submission
subject to the following conditions, which shall run with the land and be binding on all
successors in interest.
1. The Applicant shall comply with Hearing Oflcer Determination No. OS-2007.
2. The remediation plan for the trailltwo track located east (above) the water tank
shall include a details on covering the exposed dirt with staked straw matting rather
than scattered straw.
3. The traiUtwo track located east (above) the water tank trail shall be limited to a 1'-6"
width and restricted to no motorized vehicle access.
~.. i',.~
1
Resolution No. -2008
Page 2
4. All remediated areas shall be inspected afrer two growing seasons, if the areas have not
reached 70% vegetation cover the Applicant shall be requved to take fiuther remediation
steps as directed by County Staff.
5. The Applicant shall be charged double fees for the earthmoving permit due to lack of
compliance with required time frames for submitting plans and completing the work and
commencing the work without proper permits.
Resolution No. -2008
Page 3
APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE 25th DAY OF JUNE, 2008.
ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF PITHIN COUNTY, COLORADO
Jeanette Jones
Clerk to the Board
APPROVED AS TO FORM
John Ely
County Attorney
Jack Hatfield, Chairman
DATE:
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT
Cindy Houben
Community Development Director