The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutpitkin.planning.246513100013 (2000)DOCUMENT LAYOUT THIS FILE MAY OR MAY NOT CONTAIN ALL OF THE INFORMATION LISTED BELOW IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER Summary Sheet Resolution for the BOCC and/or P&Z Ordinance for the BOCC and/or P&Z Determination for the Hearing Officer Administrative Determination Staff Memo Application Public Notice, Acceptance Letter, Referral(s) Letter Site Plan Miscelianeous Plat copies (llxl'n SECOND AMENDED ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO, APPROVING THE THOMAS ADMINISTRATIVE 1041 HAZARD REVIEW Determination No.~-2000 Pursuant to Section 3-80-020 of the Land Use Code, Viviane Thomas ("Applicant") has applied to the Community Development Director of Pitkin County, Colorado, ("Director"), for an Administrative 1041 Hazazd Review. 2. The Applicant is requesting approval to establish a building envelope for asingle- family residence and customary uses. 3. The Applicant's lot is zoned AFR-10 and contains 9.99 acres. 4. The property is Lot 1 of the Thomas Subdivision Exemption in Emma. 5. The Director finds the request is consistent with requirements of the Code. THE DIRECTOR DOES HEREBY APPROVE the Second Amended Thomas 1041 Hazard Review subject to the following conditions: Prior to submission of any building permits, the Applicant shall submit for Community Development approval and recordation a 1041 Hazard Review Site Plan, on which the building envelope is delineated. The Site Plan shall include a note that no building improvements shall occur outside the building envelope and residential building improvements shall be limited to 5,000 square feet of floor azea for a combination single family residence and attached or detached caretaker dwelling unit. In addition, the Applicant may construct a barn for agricultural purposes. The recorded site plan shall indicate that all improvements including driveway access shall be a minimum of 50 feet from the Home Supply ditch. 2. The applicant shall abide by all material representations made in this application. 3. This Amended Administrative Determination supersedes Amended Administrative Determination No. 10-2000, dated Apri14, 2000, recorded April 6, 2000 as Reception No. 442032. I IIIIII "III IIIIII IIIII IIII IIIIII IIIIII III "III IIII IIII 444407 06/22/2000 04:35P pDMIN DE DiiVIS SILVI 1 of 2 R 0.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO 000001 a~' 15 'Determination No.~-20~ • Page 2 APPROVED by the Community Development director, this ~ ~ day of 2000 /~~7~=~~L2~~~- Cindy Houben, Community Development Director 1°4'l-00 24GT-isi-oa -ai3 IIIIIII 444487 "III"III'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII"IIIIIIIIIiI 06/22/2000 04:16P RDMIN DE DRVIS SILVI O O ~ o O 2 2 of 2 R 0.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO 442032 04/08/2000 02:38P RDNIN DE DAVIS SILVI 1 of 2 R 0.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO AMENDED ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF PITHIN COUNTY COLORADO, APPROVING THE THOMAS ADMINISTRATIVE 1041 HAZARD REVIEW Determination No.~Q_-2000 1. Pursuant to Section 3-80-020 of the Land Use Code, Viviane Thomas ("Applicant") has applied to the Community Development Director of Pitkin County, Colorado, ("Director"), for Administrative 1041 Hazard Review. 2. The Applicant is requesting approval to establish a building envelope for asingle- family residence and customary uses. 3. The Applicant's lot is zoned AFR-10 and contains 9.99 acres. 4. The property is Lot 1 of the Thomas Subdivision Exemption in Emma. 5. The Director finds the request is consistent with requirements of the Code. THE DIRECTOR DOES HEREBY APPROVE the Thomas 1041 Hazard Review subject to the following conditions: Prior to submission of any building permits, the Applicant shall submit for the Community Development approval and recordation of a 1041 Hazard Review Site Plan, on which the building envelope is delineated. The Site Plan shall include a note that no building improvements shall occur outside the building envelope and building improvements shall be limited to 5,750 squaze feet pursuant to Pitkin County Ordinance #2000-002B. The recorded site plan shall also indicate that all improvements including driveway access shall be a minimum of 50 feet from the house supply ditch. 2. The applicant shall abide by all material representations made in this application. 3. This Amended Administrative Determination supercedes Administrative Determination Admin. No. 00-6, dated March 22, 2000, recorded Mazch 27, 2000 as Reception No. 441716. ~~()~~~ Determination No.1p_-200~ I IIII IIIII'lllll I'll0~ll'lll "I'il (li"III IIII IIII Paget 2 of 2 R 0.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO APPROVED by the Community Development director, this ¢ day of 2000 __~~~ ~~ Cindy Houben, Community Development Director 000004 iuiiiiiiiiiiiiiuuiiiiiuiiiiiii~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ~ 441718 03/27/2000 02.10P RDNIN DE DRVIS SILVI 1 of 1 R 0.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF PITHIN COUNTY COLORADO, APPROVING THE THOMAS ADMINISTRATIVE 1041 HAZARD REVIEW Determination No. Admin. 00-~~ 1. Pursuant to Section 3-80-020 of the Land Use Code, Viviane Thomas ("Apllicant") has applied to the Community Development Director of Pitkin County, Colorado, ("Director"), for Administrative 1041 Hazazd Review. 2. The Applicant is requesting approval to establish a building envelope for asingle- family residence and customazy uses. 3. The Applicant's lot is zoned AFR-10 and contains 9.99 acres. 4. The property is Lot 1 of the Thomas Subdivision Exemption in Emma. 5. The Director finds the request is consistent with requirements of the Code. THE DIRECTOR DOES HEREBY APPROVE the Thomas 1041 Hazard Review subject to the following conditions: Prior to submission of any building permits, the Applicant shall submit for the Community Development approval and recordation of a 1041 Hazazd Review Site Plan, on which the building the envelope is delineated. The Site Plan shall include a note that no development shall occur outside the building envelope and that development shall be limited to 5,750 squaze feet pursuant to Pitkin County Ordinance #2000-002B. The recorded site plan shall also indicate that all improvements including driveway access shall be a minimum of 50 feet from the house supply ditch. 2. The applicant shall abide by all material representations made in this application. APPROVED by the Community Development director, this a-~ day of ~yy~, 2000 G~/~G Cindy Houben, Community Development Director 000005 MEMORANDUM TO: Cindy Houben, Community Development Director FROM: Brian McNellis, Planner RE: Thomas Administrative 1041 Hazard Review DATE: Mazch 22, 2000 APPLICANT: Viviane Thomas REPRESENTATIVE: Leonard Oates LOCATION: Lot 1 of the Thomas Subdivision Exemption in Emma ZONING/LOT SIZE: AFR-10/ 9.99 acres PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Applicant proposes to establish a building envelope for a single family residence and customary accessory uses. The proposed envelope avoids all 1041 hazards as defined in Section 3-80 of the Land Use Code. STAFF COMMENTS: Pursuant to Section 3-80-010(B)(1) of the Land Use Code, the Community Development Director may approve development that is located entirely outside of 1041 hazazd azeas. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning director approve the Thomas Administrative 1041 Hazazd Review subject to the attached Administrative Decision. ooooos J LAW OFFICES OF GATES, KNEZEVICH cYL GARDENSWARTZ, P.C. PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION THIRD FLOOR. ASPEN PLAZA OUILOING 533 EABT HOPNINS AVENUE ASPEN, COLORAD081811 LEONARD M. GATES RIC HARP A. NN EZEVICH TED D. GARDENSWgRT2 pAVID B. KELLY OF COUNBEL. MICHAEL FEIGENBAUM JOHN T. HELLY DAVID B. MUELLER HAND DELIVERED Deborah Quinn, Assistant County Attorney Courthouse Building Plaza Third Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Apri15, 2000 Re: Thomas Emma Subdivision Exceptions and 1041 Hazard Review Site Plan Deaz Debbie: TELEPHONE 19]01920-1]00 FACSIMILE 19]01920-1121 e-mail ohkg®rof.net Enclosed herewith is a revision for the Thomas Emma Subdivision Exceptions and 1041 Hazazd Review Site Plan, which I believe incorporates the changes you requested as modified by my discussion with Cindy. Very truly yours, GATES, KNEZEVICH & GARDENSWARTZ, P.C. 1 By Leonazd M. Oates LMO/dw Enclosure cc: Dale Will, Pitkin County Open Space Coordinator Cindy Houben, Community Development Director ~~~~{,Q7 ~(,'(' '. PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to the general public that on March 22, 2000, the Community Development Director of Pitkin County granted approval for the Administrative1041 Hazard Review application for the Thomas property (P42-00) located on Highway 82 in Emma and described as Lot 1, Thomas Emma Subdivision. This site specific development plan grants a vested property right pursuant to Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes. s/Cindy Houben Community Development Director Pitkin County, Colorado Published in the Aspen Times on April 1, 2000 Pitkin County Account 002.02 OOtl~Og ~, LAW OFFICES OF GATES, KNEZEVICH Sz, GARDENSWARTZ, P.C. PROFESSIONAL COR PORATION THIRD FLOOR, ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING 533 EAST HO PKINS AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO BIfiII LEONARD M. GATES RICHARD A KNEZEVICH TED D. GARDENS WARTZ DAVID B. KELLY OF COUNSEL. MICHAEL FEIGENBAUM JOHN T KELLY BAVID B. M V ELLER March 17, 2000 Brian McNellis HAND DELIVERY Planning Technician Pitkin County Community Development 130 South Galena St. Aspen, CO 816] 1 Re: Request for Administrative 1041 Approval/ Viviane Thomas 10 Acre Parcel Be Retained The Thomas Exemption Subdivision Dear Brian: TELEPHONE I9]0~920-1]00 Fq C51MILE 1901 920-I 121 e mail ohkg®rot net We represent Viviane Thomas Trimble ("Thomas"). Ms. Thomas is the owner of an approximately 75 acre parcel of land situate in the Emma area of Pitkin and Eagle Counties, Colorado. Ms. Thomas has entered into an Option Agreement with the Trust for Public Lands ("TPL") wherein an option has been granted to TPL to purchase 65 of the 75 acres. As we understand it, TPL will have Pitkin County take title to the 65 acres. Transmitted herewith is a copy of a draft of the Exemption Plat which is being reviewed by Cindy Houben and Assistant County Attorney Deborah Quinn. It will be refined pursuant to their requirements and recorded as apart of the approval of the subdivision exemption. It is my understanding that the plat will be approved under an exemption allowed for a essential public facilities. Lot 1 will be retained by Thomas and Lot 2 will be conveyed to the County along with Ms. Thomas's Eagle County land. The Property Parcel ID # is 2465-131-00-013 for identification purposes. Please note that the Plat contains the location of the building envelope for the improvements on the 10-acre pazcel to be retained by Thomas. It has been reviewed and been determined to be acceptable by the Pitkin County Open Space Council. ~U~~O?1~ GATES. KNEZEVICH Sz GARDENS WARTZ, P.C. • Brian McNellis Planning Technician Mazch 17, 2000 Page 2 We have been told the only way which way Thomas' rights can be vested on is for their to be a 1041 Hazard Review of the property. Although we do not believe that there aze any 1041 concerns after having reviewed the 1041 hazard maps in your Department, a potential case could be made for minimal wildlife concerns. Thomas asks that this letter be considered a request for 1041 Administrative Review which such approval to constitute a part of the review and approval to be obtained for the subdivision exemption allowing the County to acquire Lot 2. I am informed that everyone is trying for amid- to-late April closing because the availability of funds to consummate this purchase from LOCO Funds is time sensitive. Please contact me with regard to any additional information you need in order to commence this process. We believe that "fees" in connection with this application fora 1041 Hazazd Review be paid by available Pitkin County Open Space Council funds. You should contact Cindy, Debbie and Dale to verify the priority and treatment this matter should receive. Very truly yours, GATES, KNEZEVICH & GARDENSWARTZ, P.C. BY U~~ ~ - C/Q~i~ Leonazd M. Oates LMO/jr cc: Viviane Thomas Deborah Quinn, Assistant Pitkin County Attorney Cynthia Houben, Pitkin County Community Development Director Dale Will, Director -Pitkin County Open Space Council C:\Da~s\Clients\lhomas\McNelhs.L V.3.17.OO.wpd QUl)1311 AAA a M(//R~~R 24 ' 00 01 ~ 18PM O. H, K&G ~~- ~~ y///p 1 LAW OFIIC L} OF ~ li~Y'•~VL~I/y-yv„ J ATE19, KNP~'ZEVICH Si GARDEIVBWA.RTZ,_ _ - RRORCSf IONAL ODRRORATION ~ ~ TNIRD ~LODM1r AO[N PLAZA pYILDINO }}i [A}T MOPNING AVLNYL ,/ A}PLN, COLORADO [1011 v LLONARO M. OATi6 RIOMARD A. KNLS[vICM TtD D. pARDiN}WARTZ DAVID D. KELLY OR DOUN94: MIONACL RLIOLNi AUM IOMN T. KCLLV pAVID D. MYLLLLM1 .Deborah Quinn, Esq. Assistant County Attorney 530 E. Main Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Thomas Emma Subdivision Exemption Dear Debbie: P.2 r~~.~. - "~~`-- TLLCRno NE (}TO) }t04 Tp0 IAp}IMILt I}TpI PCD-1101 M RI}~1 ORK@~fD}, M1}f VTA: FAC6I1rIILE / Dale Will dropped off tho suggested revisions to the Thomas Emma Subdivision Exemption Plat ("Plat"). All of the suggested changes are acceptable, except item no. 9 wntained is the Notes portion of the Plat. Viviano Thomas is unwilling to agreo t0 this language based upon the extremely vaguo language dofiniag "development" in Article 8 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code. The defuution could be and historically has been construed expansively and the enumerated subsections are examples only. Subsection b, is uncomprehensible sad can be and has been read to mean whatever the County weals it to. 5pocifically, byway ofexample, the definitioncontains language in subsection 5)relatingto clearingof land or removal of vegetation and disturbance of vegetation or substrata (soil) manipulation. It is entirely possible that Viviano Thomas would want to plant crops on the portion of the property not wntained within the 3-sore building envelope, till the soil for other reasons or create a berm, The lattguago would prohibit this. I have experienced the language in the definition of development end word to the offect "further development shall be prohibited" usod to hamstring people in the use of their private property. Byway of additional example, Ma. Thomas may want to fence and cross-fence portions of the property. This could be construed to be development. There are other activities es well. W hat Ms. Thomas is willing to do is to say that ao building improvemcnta will occur outside of the building envelope (if fences ere not construed as building improvements); and, fUrthet she is willing to say that the property will not be further subdivided. That is as far es she would be prepared to go. In the discussions that we have had relating to the l0 acre parcel. to be retained, this issue has never been brought ' up. The note contained as note 9 on the Plat would be tantamount to the establishment of an additional sore conservation easement and is unacceptable. March 24, 2000 000012 MRR 24 '00 01~SBPM OATrs$, KNEZEVICFI 8s Deborah Quinn, Esq. Mazch 24, 2000 Page 2 O, H,K&G (}p ~ N9WARTZ, P.C. P.3 As to the limitation that all permanent imptovemeats be placed 50 feet away fYom the Home Supply Ditch, that is not problematio with the exception of the right to have fencing in that area, Please discuss this with Cindy Houben and Dale Will and get back to me with your position on it Please understand that this situation is different from the typical development application. The County wants 65 acres of her 75 acres. She is merely keeping 10 acres of her previously owned land. This land has been in her family for many ,years. Her retained 10 acres should be treated no differently from any other private property is Pitkin County in terms of what may or may sot be done with it, except 98 she may otherwise agree. I have triod to call you on a couple of occasions to discuss this, but yeu have been in depositions all week, I will be gone for the next 10 days and I would like to provide some direction to Lou Buettner fot the Plat rovieions as soon as possible if we can roach an understanding on this acceptable to Ma. Thomss. Very truly yours, LMO/dd cc: Dale Will, via fax Cynthia Houben, vie ti;x Vivian Thomas, via fax C:WaLlClimu~MiscWe Quinn Debeeah 3.1420.wpd c:IDOmICrfsnoldlbclLa pubes D~bmd, J.u-7o.wpd OATES, ]i{1~ZEVICH 8t GARDEN9'IWARTTy P.C. By ~ ~~k~~ Leonard M. Oates OOU013 LAW OFFICES OF GATES, KNEZEVICH ~ GARDENSWARTZ, P.C. PROFESSIONAL COR PORATION THIRD FLOOR, ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING 533 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 LEONARD M. GATES TELEPHONE 19]01 920-I ]OO RIC HARP A. KN EZEVICH FACSIMILE 19]01920-1121 TED D. GARDENS WART2 pnvlD B. nELLV e-mail ohkg®rof.net DF COUrvs EL. MICHAEL FEIGENBAUM FebrUp R~ 1'/, 200 JOHN T KELLY "'J DAVID B. MUELLER VIA HAND DELIVERY Ms. Cynthia Houben, Director Deborah Quinn, Esq. Pitkin County Community Development Dept. Assistant Pitkin County Attorney 130 South Galena Avenue 530 East Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Thomas Emma Subdivision Exemption Plat Dear Cindy and Debbie: You will each please find enclosed herewith a rough draft of what we have designated to be the Thomas Emma Subdivision Exemption Plat. It is submitted for the purpose of starting the dialogue on the subdivision process in order to permit the acquisition of Lot 2 under the presently pending contract which Viviane Thomas has with the Trust for Public Lands. Presumably, the discussions which we have heretofore had will serve to satisfy the need of apre-application conference. As we have discussed, and as I have verified on the County's 1041 maps, although there aze no 1041 concerns, it will be necessary that the subdivision process results in Lot 1(the Lot to be retained by Viviane) having statutory vested rights for a reasonable period of time Viviane would not be forced to proceed to develop the lot in the next few yeazs. Itwould seem that this would be in everybody's best interests and I do not see why the County should be concerned if Lot 1 was not developed. Given that the proposed subdivision exemption is unusual, Louis Buettner was unsure as to the plat language which would be required. We would like some help on this. The issues for consideration aze the issue of a supply of domestic water for Lot 1. I have previously discussed this with Debbie and believe thatthis would be best handled by Viviane filing an Application For an Exempt Well on the entire 75 acre pazcel with the idea that she and the County would then enter into a Well Sharing Agreement for the future use of any water other than that which would service Vivian's residence and a small guest house (if permitted) on her property. Perhaps this is something which the County's water counsel should look at and advise on. It is obviously 000014 OATES,' KNEZEVICH Si G•DENSWARTZ, P.C. • Ms. Cynthia Houben Ms. Deborah Quinn, Esq. February 17, 2000 Page 2 imperative to Vivi that she have the supply of domestic water and I do not want to complete the subdivision exemption process only to find we have created a problem in this regazd. After you have had an opportunity to go over the enclosure and the contents of this letter, please give me a call to discuss the next steps. Very truly yours, OATES, KNEZEVICH & GARDENSWARTZ, P.C. . r , I By: ~ , Leonard M. Oates LMO/jr Enclosure cc: Deb Frey Viviane Thomas C:\De~a\Clirnts\Thomas\Ltr.Houben end Quinn. 2.17.00.wpd 000015