Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
pitkin.planning.273717200001 (2)
a:..... i... .i. Y DOCUMENT LAYOUT __ THIS FILF, MAY OR MAY NOT CONTAIN ALL OF THE INFORMATION t+2~ .m i,r9 .. ax i .r: ,o- r. LISTED BELOW IN THE FOLLO~VIl~`VG ODDER Summary Sheet Resolution for the BOCC andlor P&Z OCC and/,or P&Z Ordinance for the B . ~_ , , Determination for the Hearing Officer Administrative Determination Staff Memo Application Public Notice, Acceptance Letter, Referral(s) Letter Site Plan Miscellaneous Plat copies (11x17) u_,, -, .~. ,, ~ ~.. ,,;~~~E ,y nx ..:- ., nrv ..;G-w. ... ,, .:Fr r„wM-.w.Npw`w xk ,.•, ~•~ ...r .,is:.w«r4.dt`+ix~b~fnx.xwwEaa~Fraak ,.,wxa a.,~E~M~d r.- y G EXTEPI,IVP1 Vr VEAlrai acar-+. rava.,~.+ - COLORADO, GRANTIN ., ..~..~ .~ ~~~.,.~~„~~~,,~.,~. ~:~~,z,r,r~:. ~t'w~ ~~.~: N~"~~'~r"; ~~,;~ w~ ';.~. ~DTEVIN I'R~PERTY ~._ , ... w .,~.... _~,. Resolution; No. 97- I ~ 7 ' 1. Joe Nevin (hereafter "Applicant's has applied to the Pitkn County: Board of County Commissioners (hereafter "Board's to consider an extension of vestaed real property, rights ptusuant to Section 4-140-30 of the Land Use Code (hereafter "Code'. , , a.. _, Z. The subjectptoperty is located on,Mountam Latuel Drive, adjacent to and above the Mountain Valley Subdivision; and is more specifically described m E.~dribit A. 1 3, The subject property contains approximately 12 acres and is zoned AFR l0, 4. The Planning Commission granted,ihe property 1041 Lazard Review approval on December .2, 1987, pursuant Resolution No PZ 87 ~6 _ 5. On December 29, 1987, the Bo`ard,adopted Emergency 1esolution No.' 87,-111, Concerning the Estabtishrtient ve on January 1, 1988, and "the; Resolution shall not apply to any site specific development was effect:... ,.. , plan or other land use application approved prior to such date, and the I,aw applicable on the date of , approval shall apply to such projects." 6. Section 4-140.10(C) of the current Code includes the same provisions on applicability of the vested rights provisions. 7. The County Attorney has determined that the !aw applicable prior to January 1; 1988, required the owner to perform certain actions rn reliance on the approval m order,to establish a common law i~~. vested right, that°actions taken were not s ffcicent~to establish thrs nght, and therefore, the approval is l ~.a,.~,~. „ ~,_ .., . We, ..._, ,: ,. not vested under common law , ~~ 1111111 II(II Illlif 1{III Illill III 111111 i(I 11111111 Iill 410383 11/07/lOD7 02a1'IP RE`56LU7I dAYIS;SILVI 1 of 7 R 0.00 t5"0 00 W ~~: ~"ts'i"fk3N~,~ .~,. _. ~,-~_. ,. ~:,.. ..~.ws.arw.,.m .rl3xe k'.:.n Yn,~.,., z~...ke ar ....~~+ .s,.~... w.a kiw ., x,j-~rw N~a~ n_.......nda~l~`a? Resolution No. 97- / 9 7 41986 11/1D`l/19!17 1!!2 17P RESOL.UTI DpVIS SILVI Page 2 2 of 7 R 0,.'0Ib ~" 9 E9, ~ 0 0iD (t'TKI~t 1'TY t7® ...~~~:, w~.,~,;:.~:,~. ~~ti~ . ~~,~~. ,.,~, r 8. The applicant requested to be eligible to avail hunself of the vested rights extension:provisions of the current Code., _ .. .., .: _.... ,. ' 9. After discussion of this Issue with the County Attorney; the Boazd agreed to allow the. applicant to apply for an extension of vested. rights, rather than requiring an entirely ,new 1041 review. 10. The Board also agreed to direct staff to process a code amendmem which would allow approvals granted promo January 1, 1988, to be eligible to apply for an extension of vested rights subject to the regulations in Section 4-140 ofthe Code ... ~v,.W..~.,_,.. ~._ ~ ,.~., .,.....~,, _.... ,. .: 11. The Boazd considered the Nevm request for an extension of vested rights at a public hearing on October 22, 1997, at which time evidenge_agd testimony was presented with respect to this application. 12. The Board determined,thatthe ptnposed development, as revised by the conditions of this resolution,. meets the criteria established, m Section 4 140 30 of the Land Use Code, and therefore found ..pew a atv., vrs+..~m.,r ya+yxo . ~z:iv ..., s the extension to be appropriate: NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED by the Ptkin County Board of County ~. ,_•. Commissioners that it does,hereby grata an'extenson of the vested right for the Nevin property until October 8, 2000, subject to compliance with the following conditions of approvaL• 1. This approval does hereby repeal and. replace Planning. Commission Resolution No. PZ-87-36. 2. The applicant shall submit an amen~iedsite plan depicting the revised building envelope to the Community Developmem Department for approval and recordmQ; pnot to snbmfssion of any .,,: ,~ building permit applicanons "I'lie site plan sliatl also be submitted; in digital format for integration into the County's GIS system. The,site plan shall be modified as follows: , The prior conditions of approval shall be removed Amend the sr store block for the Chan of the'Board of Conn Commisstoners. C areas exrstethat might affect tha propertyan y on rte tan: 1041 envrronmen p i hazard B. ~~ ' g an im ements and the use and occu an thereof." D. Include a signature block for the owner(s), mortgagee(s), and lienholdei{s). B. Identify the extent of the front lot line. 3. The applicant shall comply with the following standazds for development on slopes of greater than 30°l0: A. Adequate mechanical. support shall be provided for cut slopes: .~... .., B. Adding wafer which may decrease slope stability shall lie avoided. . _- _ ,.r ~. .. .... ,..~.. F:::rs.. ., ..Y. v.. ... a's ..y .+w,v,.~,:a .~_ts ., .x.:~. .! ~^. i~i.'+kS ag 1C'"1 43®396 11/f0//~Zqr ~O~: ilr ~cca.n.v~a r.... Pesel3tionNo.97- / 3 of 'f h f6:~"i! 0 i>f0 I~`0~0 "i~'TKIF$.CGt]N7~VyCb .,r: C. Adding weight to the top of the slope shall be avoided. D. Disturbed slopes must be contoured:,so thatthey can be rei>egetated. E. Steepening of existing slopes shall be avoided. F. Confine cuts, fills, grading and excavation to tfte mrnrmum area needed for construction.., ~._ ~ .,. 4. The applicant shall comply with the following landscaping and wildfire defensible space mitigaflon standards: • um 10 foot.. A., Brush, debns; and non-ornamental vegetation shall be removed withut a mmtm_,,, perimeter around the structure B. Vegetation shall lie reduced, to breakup the veiticai acid horizontaTcontmiiity of the fiiels a musritomum de of th on the downhill side of the residence and up to 50 feet on the srdes and C Sacin between clumr s ofbrush and ye etauone :ter;a~ ~ b, t ,~.__ ~ .. p g p g within the perimeternoted above shall be ,emu .. a mimmtun of two trmes,the height of the fuel. 'lviaximttm diameter of a clumps shall not exceed 10 feet. All measurements shall be from the edges'of the crowns of the fuel. _, ,_ ~. D. All branches from trees and brushtit die pemneteY noted above shall"be pinned to a height of 10~ feet' above the. ground and er fuels from'ai'ound trees-and brush shallpbe ,- ~. removed Tree crown separarion within the perimeters shall have a minimum of 10 feet between the , . E. F ed es~ f the crowns. All branches which extend over the roof eaves dial! be trammed and ail branches within I S G. The dene c oi~ fneys shall be removed. tty eYs within a 100 foot perimeterofthe stnlcture,shall be reduced. t y t.~ ~. s,~ -. ... ~,.a~a.Penm . J. The Ve i Gantt sh hall be maint fined wrthm a 10 foot eter around ail strucitres. ` g 1. All fall "t'tthalI bee responsible for the contumed maointenance of the defensible space vegetation requirements. 5. The applicant shall comply wtth the following structural design standardsr A. Projections at the roof line (which include but, are, not limited to eaves, cornices, soffits and roofs over open decks) shall be sheathed with materials approved for 1 hour fie- ,. __ resistive construction. B. For projections below the roof line (~ balconies, decks, porches; canriteven space betweert,grade and the tinders enclosed by solid, vertical walls. The approved for 1 hour fire-resistive col extend from the top of grade to the u projection... but aze not limited to exterior :floras; and bay windows) the open ms below the roof line shall be be constructed with materials he extenor side of the wall and shall u ~ , u.~., , , .. An alternative construction method for such projections;would require use of totally nodcombustible building materials. Areas below such projections shall be void of vegetative or other combustible matenals ,These areas below ro'ections shall be„ P protected from accumulation of vegetative materials by placement of a vegetative barrier covered with rocks,or gravel or by coverage with concrete or stone. There shall be no storage of combustible. matenals under projections. The walls underneath projections shall be constructed with materials approved for ihourfire-resistive construction on the --- ----~ ,..:;...~, ., mow. ..w.... ,: ,..:~. ~ ~~,-.;~:~.:~:, ..~.. - I ' ag No, 97-197 410386 11/0T~199`/ 02 17P INesOLUtI DRVI5 SILV i o' Resolution 4 of 7 lC 0 'id0 `~ 0 00` N 0 08 '>~'YTIt'Ili tATll~fi'l C0' P e 4 ,,,.. a ..a ~,.,, M~~..~.~~, ~,a~ ~ ~ y;;... _. ,,..e ''~ exterior side of the wall W endow openings in walls below projections shall be tempered ~~ -. ~..~ glass, Doors,shalCbenoncbmbush~Ieor~l4dwoo~ 6. When the thereof pr all undezf materials wall....:..... C. Windows and Glass Glazed openings shall be pmvtded with closable, solid, exterior . ,. ,.. non-flammable shutters or shall be tempered glass ,~ .~w ...~.~. w .k -~~. ,. ,. D. Exterior, Walls,and Siding Siding and exterior wall construction shall have a minimum, 1 hour_fre resistive rating ground level to rooflne Exterior doors shall, be _„ noncombustible or 1 i/4" sohd wood , ..,..u,~~,...ro ,~, .,., s ~. E. Foundations. Foundations skirting and crawl space openings shall be fully enclosed and ,. ~ .. w. constructed with materials approved for t hour~ire-resist~ve construction on the exterior „y:,- :ys r~,.rnc-. 3~. side of the wads. and shall_extend fromathe~tmop of grade to. the underside of the floor - ., . . , ~. decking or walls. F. Stilt Construction The underside of decks and`structures with stilt foundations shall be ti ~.zn kku~ HIF-AAA fl~+3t' *~^Qs~d'u ~Kk°`~#'MPn zi+wh`..~^ w~. t~ '~,. fully enclosed and constructed with materials approvedor 1 hour dire-resistive construcrion on the exterior side of the walls and shall extend from the top of grade to the underside of the floor c„ecking or wall§. 'Ili PP P g g lion standards;.. e a licant shall coin lywith the foliowin additional wildfire miti a A. Roof construction shall be Class A non-combustible material with no tlat roofs B.. C. II. E' F: G. H: I: J. K L. M. IV. Yards shall, be,kept cleaz of all litter, slash, and flammable debris. All flammable materials shall be stored on a parallelcontour a minimum of I S feet away _.,w .., ~ o , ,..,~ ~~, r , ,~ ,~.._ ~ ~ ... ;~ .. _. fiom any structure. ,. Weeds and grasses withifrthe 10 foot perimetershail be maintainedto a height not more than 6 inches Firewood/wood, piles shall be stacked on a parallel contour'a minimum of I5 feet away from the stnzcture , , _. Swimming pools shall be accessible to Fue bepartment vehicles. Fences shall be kept clear ofbivsh and debris. Wood fences shall not connect to the structure Any outbuildings oradditionat structures snataunere to the same stanaards as s uel tanks shall be installed underground with as approved container F r Propane tanks shalt be installed according to N`~PA ~8 standards and on a comb from the structnre'with standard defensible space vegetation mitigation around: ..-,. ,. Bound tank. Any wood enclosure around the tank shall be constructed wath ma approved for 2 hour fire-resistive construction on the exterior side of the walls. ..._.....~ ,<. , ~..E~~;,. F.ach tructure shall have a mmlmum°of one LO pound approved ABC fn~e extin. placed in a visible and accessible location. ~ ` r away ry above- •rials u ~, . 3.~... , .... ~ ,. ..... __ .~} , .b.- n a ~ ~.D~~ „3. ,n~nf'a~ .W'+A~ kP3.i'Nw a+rv.Yikv~ . ...vxA;~„!~e"~9 ---- , ~ ~~~m inn ..~..~ .. . Resolution No. 97-)97_. 410386 11/07/19si9 02 1'1P RE50LUTY DfIVtS SII.VI - S of `"l ' ff 0;: ~""i!` ~ 0`6"Fl ~ ~" ~~TK3N COIII'1'~` CO Page 5 ...~ . a~ ~ . _ , . O. Addresses shall be clearly marked with 2 arch non-cornbushble letters •and shall be vis ble LL and installed on anon-combustible post. ... P. Utility lines shall be buried. Q. 'The applicant shall install a residenrial sprinkler system if the stnicture exceeds 5,000 squar$~feet of floor area, The applicant shall comply with the following wildlife standards;. A. Mesh or woven w~terefences aze prohibited Fences are limited to a maxunum of 4 strands,... of wire or 3 rails, aztd shall not exceed 42" m7teig~t. „~ B. Dags shall be kennelled. 8. No, development, including grading, landscaping, and vegetation rerhoval or disturbance, shall' occuroutside of the approved building envelope, except for utility and driveway eid~nson and. ,~ ,... , ... ,. ,,n~ __ maintenance, and as may be necessary to unplement the wildfire mitigation ~rreasures,_tequired elsewhere in this document. 9. The builcutg site and all other site and dnveway disturbance areas"shall be teyegetated with native vegetation to limit water consumption and additional runoff vht~tm one growing season of project ..u,.. ~,._.. completion. All drarnage from roofs and paved areas shall be detained on site. 10. A fireplace/woodstoye, permit shall_be approved by the Environmental Health Department prior to issuance of any building permits. 1 I . The applicant shall obtain, .and the County Engineer shall approve a drivewaylaccess permit prior to issuance of any building permits. 12. A vaztance from the Board of Adjustmeiit will be required for any structitre within the requiredi .,„,..,. w.,,.N. front yazd setback. 13. The applicant shall adhere to all material representations made in public hearings and in the application. 14. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the AspeuFire Protection District.. APPROVED. AND ADOPTED ON T$E 22ND DAY` OF OCTOBER, 1497. .^^^^-^~^~+°^^-'~ ~. .::.. .. : ,.,. ,. , a<.. «z, v~rvms:B•N:+d~kr~xar~iwktw ~. ,~...>m:^..•~+~Wx..+.ra s.vadP+~asK+ls..9'w~wc~.`+,x°A~~WA~tiks?&dwE~krci~+lh~5'~~"?'~:'4~eh x:! w T t } a..Fl yS l'' ~rAr w. L\a~A~~ +-i 'b 6.' i tt e.,.`n~'~ ~ e;: yi~.~„iy,.w:;.."i .„,...,~. .+w...-^C~*x + ~r...wM-,: `w»^~w n,., iJ^... ,x,'<'' s.'~„ P~`t'I* 4:a' ~N Vr k ...,~:: `Yy~ r... '.\ '9 .{`r.m .:°^"{ :;{ Resolution No. 97- ~ 9'J Page 6 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT,.,, APPROVED AS TO FORM.: ,.. ...mm M. ,, M . ,::7 ..., ~ ..::, . ,....s- . ~ .,:. .~... :._., ~_. w,a,.M~.__~~ .,~...... .._.~ , Y Comruuni D elopme „ -0„ JoFin Ely nt Director. Coumy Att P96-97 PID #2737- I72-00-001„_ surannew\piddn\cases\vreAnev~ulmso.doc . r _ .., ,. - :.. ~.....,.,,~ h,M.,.;.~~~~~~.-_~,...~,.,s,~<$..,Wow..w,.~~.~.i..,...~.a_i,~~~4.~.~., ..-, mY-:-. .. .aa..:...3i.~i"N1aa~~+eia ~~ ~~ 3u5i.3.r:. ",'^ t~ ~i:.-'.a`i.a.6iu33L'i~iw~' C~*hKw wP~, t .t pi! - .w&4a^,mxmrwLU~%!,W-= 3~w~"~m9P~G.+ w,L. wY~;a.:.'~V v ~ 5av 'k [ ~ c a+.waaMku sg ~. ~ ~tl 1 1 hlaJ-06 1957 36 1A _, .,~FROMiCTh1~C~ .t,~~,, ~~s-~a,..~~,~s='~ ~.,,,,,,,u ' _ ~ ,, ,~h„:, ~ 1 • .. _., ~ r ~• ` ~ ~EViN ~f"o~~~ rX-gssbi. _ ~ .,~w:.....~...~~ .~ ~~osrn$i)~p 10 Sa:;l~, >Zarge 6:'ihest of Pr.:~ I7 ~ ~ Trat ~.. - , cc cn l rt:. of i,snirq ,~,r ~ ~ti~int .a'renc~ t •~ ,~ tneas ' ' '~ ~`" 6tis n..t ~eg a, : . , ces4_ #"c~ ~w~ij5~ied~by zd S~c~ion s'1, t~s c! s Cornea , us to "_he [n*est il4~_Ccrnei ° 5ostfi. 3'~ ~ :~"sz '~2 ~' feec, e~ ~"541 b the B L c ~ . Y ~ ~ ,~ ~-.e ~,_~,, «ra ~ in i =e feet co C~~r , a a •- ~ ~ L2 ' ~ ~ t'rc.,ce . . x ~, r .u ,~ .,. t C1 CJ =asi ,~ a r~h .:v ~~yrA~'*~" ~'v b'f~v '` ~~ $ ' " ` T n+~ it ~ eXa 4 ;S . .S. ~ ~Cvr (aY lUO Y Ua L11e .+ l.} _` Mt]: ^} rT r :encc • ~ Y r. vt.~ C~ 4 vu_ lI tt~~ ~ ~ .. ,eta. :-<w P`.:r ~ r.. ~ 't;~ i C^'^~t-tai ~ ~V .asV , ,, lC !i n r: J..-l...ds , J4.. the:s~ z~~.5t i'/R:~• i~ TCeL, ~'i,^e IeCY~.^.E:_ 'Y 0°C9' "`hes~ i7zU 78 `ect '-e a ?~ain~ on _ ~ '~ t:-e.^-c.L ~ out ~ ~ cz S~aLe ,~xgcs~.*ay`~a ~-; l rlcht o ir_ .=wzp ,. s~ '~S:"g' Feet along said; rsgi:t; of-way .she; 5= ` ft taence ' ~ e North. 69'. ^:orth ?5'33'aC`~~es' ?t10 ~~.feCt along 3810. ~Tg,t-o•`-way tnencc ,~ .c~tt*, am rrr-~-ar,xF~+~w,~#rt*~ , ••. ,. ~ • ine: ,2ti felt along said: rzg=~-of-wap tine: . CtesL .~95 ' o9°~7 t Vo eaenc:e . , n. . _ = curve., tq~,the r_gnt.'with.a ~ adius 'of . of a •: arc ??ears o , . .. f ~rn~c. ssanc_ o£ xU0 C feet, ,tlie'crord ~rtmst 299 $C eet,:':elong' said s.iglss o~ ~•aY Izre; ~5' vest ~3""~o feet alG=_-~~ sazci;'rig^L-o`-~Y ?ine; • ` . raa.ius ; of c~' a~ cY~~e 'ta. tre zig'ht aid t`s a ' ' arc ,~ n trse crord' of wr~cn bears ~ `"~ feet ^ j , 4e zs y, arc^g ?a~.d ria~.t of ~.ay 2a^~, ee 0 "~'4~ ~ ;•Ie ^ .~ r ~ } "yy^^~~~~ ~ ii .. (.~ JV~L44t ~~hY1q oaf d"r~g~.::.-o='way liael. Ye ti ~. ~ '~ . ~ f .i atc'~cx a curve to.,;t~e:.3efc w~ca a .adius o£ 613.,0 ' .,the' ct oxa` of w'h_c~ burs '~ortn. 4 feat 360 of . , . ., ]:ine, fi , .,' ~sid right of'=wan ,Zlonrs ~ee 1 0 L , ~., : 6 l :: aicngf~:sat3" righ.. ~~ way,,:.} ne^ s ~ 09` 6v-es~ 6~•0' f°Pt ~~ , , 3 `' hest X62`,04 ¢eet~iTonc,~• szriay~.gh•,.,of wav Ii e, , : of„~Grap._~,line i5'artjS~, I8=°~~" E'ast I25 30 --~;~w,~w ~~:;, aid'r_gnr . Asa .tq~ tlse point of, beg :as~ng ,,• :~ >• a portions=~subdsv'd~d. as~;Noun•ca+n da2ley ,- . om t ' ,. s Est ~"f?ing, .Seeond• r+iir~i~, arses "TYsira F?i ing.. .. - ~. ~, . ' ..Courty :o£ Pitkin, State of Caloraco~ >d` ..-.. _ , ; . . .. ,. •,~. .:., ,.-.... .,. .. , ' } ~~ ~ t '~~~~I l~~'~~~~ ~~~~~~~r ~'I~I ~ ~ If'III ~~I~~'~~"~ C~~II ~ '~ J , S. ~ u .: -~r~~~• ~ I ^ II . e3a6 ~Y~e7lrs~~ ez s~ ~sa.uri aavts sr~;vr ' _.. : ..• .:;';`°. : . . •; :<.:•.~> . Ctl I '~ o~' 7 R "1D 00 ""b 0 ~0" I~ ~ ~ P'Yl~ Cbt~N'I"Y" . •, ; ..., ~ '• . .r : ~ j i ; . . .. -! .: s T ai ..y~'j-~ ~ ti=t ~ t ' ' 1 s ., y r ,~ l w .. i n ~ ,.::: `" -recorded at ~ ~ ` ,o'clock, ,~ Reception No ~~ ~,u StlV1A OAVIS PITKIM COUNTY Ri RESOLUTION OF THE., ADOPTING AMENDMENTS zT0 t „{ SECTIONS 5-400; 5 402.1(a)(1); 5.404.1(a)(1) :.. ,. ~ ~ ., .. .: ,; 5-402.2 (e) 6-6_1; 3-8.2; 6-3_2(b); 3-3_43; 19-4 AND 5-300 OF THE LAND USE~CODEu(CODE AMENDMENT,PACKAGE #1) ,.~., ~c~ Resolution,. No ,872 ~L WHEREAS, the Pitkin, County Board of County Commissioners (hereinafter, the "Board") has recently endorsed the adoption of the Pitkin County Down Valley Comprehensive;. Plan .and is now in the process of .implementing the Plan by adopting amendments to the Pitkin County Land Use Code; and WHEREAS, the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission considered the amendments contained here~n a€ r~gular~y scheauled meetings and. in work sessions which were open for public comment on the following dates: October' 14, 1986 October 21, 1986, November 12, 1986, November 19, 1986, December- 9, 198b, December 16, 19.,86 and February 10, 198?; and WHEREAS, by its Resolution 87- 5 the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission recommends ,approval of Package #1 to the Board of County Commissioners; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Board, to adopt packages of Code Amendments, of which this is the first, to bring, County regulations into better consistency with the. goals of the Plan. WHEREAS, it is the intention of the Board to adopt updated wildlife and floodplain maps in association with the adoption o,f .. ,..., the amendments to ,Section 5-400,... ,_. ...... ... ..-~~.~,r, .. ~ M.-.-: .,,., ., w;,.a.M,.:-„-ww;~~aa..rvNmm~e'sw„~^n3a+~rY, kxa+~w~,aai..rrat,d~L~«i.,.xc. ,pFr~a~"~„'~8 . r 310KJ~~ ,~i ~ 4~ ~1 ~, M _ v.. .. ;,.~ ~. Resolution No. 87- Page.. ~ _ ,, ,. ,. , (5) Historic and archaeological resource areas (6} Area$ around key f"acilites,including airports"and rapid or mass transit teYminals, stations or fixed , guideways ' (b) Activities (1) Site selection and yconstructlo~n of major new " "` _ systems, and tment domestic water and sewage trea and domestic water sting ` ~ , ,. ems yst sewage treatment ~s ~ ( ) Site selection and develo ment of so ° '"`" "^ p- id waste ,. disposal sites. (3) Site selection of airports. (a) Site selection.. of rapid or mass transit facili- ties. (5) Site selection of arterial highways and interc-, ..~- .tea a, . w... . hanges and collector"~iighways. ,~ (~) Site selection and construction of ,mayor facili- , . a . ~ 2, .., ,. ,w„ w~,„~ .~ ~.,~~~., .. te ., a. ~ -. .,~.~ ,~e ,.;,, ~ . ~ ,.. ties of- a public ut~.l y. (7} Site selection and development; o€ new communities. , ($) nation of municipal and industrial l projects water (9) Conduct of„nuclear detonations. 5-400.3 Boundaries (a) The boundaries of any area designated and location and " ` , ''"Articl`e shall be as they __~.., ....,a .,-~;,~~,+ tom t`h; c appear on maps adopted by the Boara pursuant , t~ ~~.~~, Article:""~A par"~°el which is crossed by the boundaries of any area of local or state interes~pmustube reviewed, .,.. . , . Y _,~.-..~ . pursuant to this regulation when d'eve~lopment :is proposed within any such area. Otherwise, a building permit may be applied for and obtained subject to a limitation that no construe tion shallxoccur° in any area.,. of local and state interest , (b) The boundary lines shall be, deteYmined by the use of the scale appearing on the map Where"interpretation is needed as to 'the exact location of the_line or where ,~~.n ~ ~.v.~,a,~ s, Y there appears to bed a ~conf'lct~ between a d boun'~ary and actual field ,conditions, the Planning ,Director or .vi~,vwx~:-wkvreAVk+~,.+d"v,*:dr.~.aa: eiirv.d}~mY,'~.F,W,~16'rifs..' ~` poor, ~~,~ ,~~.~;1v Resolution No. 87-~ Page 4 .I;:, .. i"•,Y ., • his designee shall make such determination. The Planning Director may also seek .,.the advice of any appropriate Federal, State or local agency in making such determination. 5-400.4 Exemptions (a) These regulations shall not apply to any development in interest cif ona May117eTS974or to any activity of state (l) The specific development or activity was covered by a current building permit;, (2) The specific development or activity was directly approved by the electorate of the state or Pitkin County, provided that approval by t2ie 'elec'torate` of any bond issue by itself shall not be construed as approval of the specific deve~opmenC or' activity; (3) The specific development activity is on land which was zoned, or rezonedm,an res~5onse to an applica- tion, which specifically contemplated said specific development or activity; or• P,4 The s ecific development or ,activity is on land P with respect to which a final plat had been approved (as witnessed by the Board of County _... . Commissioners approval notation on said plat). (b) Other exemptions from the requirements of this Division provided Afor herein hall ,also include, unless otherwise (1) Additions to single family and duplex family ~___„___ ...,;,-~ ~..~,i ~,e a~'InwPd provided that no requirements lncludin Bualdin and Zoning regulations. Remodels wa.thin the existing structures, adding no additional floor area; 'shall be exempt. (2) For accessory structures not intended for human occupancy or regular group assemplage `(e.g., agricultural out buildings) or for a direct a functionp of another permitted principal os greaterluse,uutility bor mode e a d ructures used ar _, _ ~ _b- , . ,~.. _ ~ r .. .. . . ...... . .. • • ~ ... . rr, sooh 533 ~~; ~ :151`.. .. Resolution No. 87- Page 5, (3) Additions to exis3ting structures of less than $S,OOD in value, as determined by the Building' -Department. (4) Roads and driveways, unless they are located in a geologic or floodplain "Fia2ard `area. 5-400.5 Procedure and Submission Content (a) Application for development in areas of state and local submitted(n conformancelwithcthenfollowinga)) shall'be (1) Procedure: An applicant shall follow the steps outlined below unless heJshe qualifies fora minor { the1rPlanningntCOmmissionw sh 11 p beg waivedngand a oval is authorized to be obtained thrqugh` staff review only. • (i) attend a pre-application conference with Planning Office. (ii) submit a complete application with sufficient copies for referral:" to P"1`anriing' Office. (iii) In the CdSE Of one Si?IUxA fermi l v nr Anne ov +.u IECL Snal1 DE rpV1PG1erY_~-te• a kith the "plairiin` ~ `~nmm~ac,;"on-€or' al of the aQ~caton In the r; type of development tie"project y the Planning Commission at a and by the hoar"d of County a public hearing. (iv) apply for a building permit. (Z ) governinonth s tf ll thensgudelin sea de regu ations g g llow~.ng areas of concern. (i) 'proof of ..,ownership and legal description (deed)s (ii) proof that the parcel is a legally created parcel (title history); (iii) fees (determined by the 'current adopted fees structure); Resolution No. 87-~ Page 6 (iv) maps: site map and vicinity map; l ~i ~i~ • v s ecific information for area of concern or ( ) form a e property which phas geo ogic rhazards present); and (vi) other information identified by the Planning Office as being reasona"b`Iy"necess'ary' at the pre-application conference. The following information shall review for a deterinnation.as tc ~: the necessaYy imprbvemerits on. £] 'full compliance (i.e., technaca documents, issuance of water cou: if these improvements are affect. will only be required prior to of 41 x ..,~ ~_~ ,_ ,- parcel in question. Proof, of iesgn finalization of legal decrees, etc..) maybe required ining~a building permo~herwse (vii) sewage (septic or hook system); (viii) water supply; up to existing (ix) utilities (underground/above ground); and (x) arpublic rightsof?way)t accessed directly off (3) Review Schedule: (i) Upon receipt of a complete. application, the Planning and Zohng Coi}imission shall issue its recommendation or decision within 6o days .. ...n. ,N :eu of the date that the application is certified as complete by tie Planning Office, unless requested addition- the Commission shall,.have w. al information from the applicant. (ii) Where a decision by the Board of County Commissioners is required, the Board shall issue its decision within 6o days of the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission. (b) Minor_Reyew:_ Resolution No. 87-~ Page 7 ~ °~'~~rJ33 .~.r.:1~J where 'the Zoning Official finds „the .,proposed develop- ._,~. y d area., £lie building Dent ma or will occur in a hazar ~irector"pplication shall be referred to the Planning p ,~~,u_ ~a.~..~, s,.... _.,.~.,,,,.-. ermit a or his/her designee for review pursuant to" section 5-400.3 P ,p ahd for a P etermination regarding the location of( ro osed develo merit. (2) Where the Planning Director determines that proposed development is outside of ,a hazard area, ~....~ tionscshallanot be tregtiired ew underfthese,regulae (3) Where the Planning Director determines that,. p p p hazard area, ro osed develo went is within a / y g fficial and"`the he she shall so notif the Zon1n O applicant, and an application shall be submitted„ .. .. . in accordance with Section 5-400.5(a). ~J (4) The, Zoning Official and the Planning Director may re ire such information as ~.r«,« sar~y to determine the `locats reasonably neces= ion of~ any "prop"'osed development, and may conduct site 'inspections where necessary and appropriate. (~) Applications for activities of local and state interest .~, .,.... hW „„N,,.,. ~., (as identified in Section 5-400 2(b)) shall be su mit- ~.. ted in conformance with the following: (1) Submission contents of .._ Sion contents of a spec of local and state inte a pre-application cone Office and shall be " policies and general which apply to the type (d) Special Procedures The submis for an` actiyit e determined a ased",upon all applicable -egula£ions of this code of activity proposed. (1) Application,. If the development is any of the five types of applications (rezoning, special review, building perrtfit review, subdivision or PUD} requiring a review under this Code, apAlica- tions for separate rebiews shall be made simul- taneously. ( ) y t ident- 2 Afied n by the" appropriate referralteagency 'not previously designated may be designated in accordance with appropriate .procedures of Article 17. Resolution No. 87-~ Page 8 .. 5-400.6 Mitigation of ,Haz.ardS --~ (a) No application for a permit pursuant 400 shall be approved unless, the al merits from the guidelines for adm>a through 5-4b0.7) are satisfied and conditions ,are included in sucFi pes all reasonable mitigation requiremen 5-400.7 (a) (b) ~. ~:_ , ;`1~4 ~~ooK 533 , ..,, `; • .o this Sect li~cabl'e re stration (! mess apprC 't "to '"ehsi~i s are ianpos ion 5- ~`iire- -400.1 priate e that a°. Appeal Procedures Any person who is dissatisfied with a boundary line decision made by the Zoaing Of"ficiaS:,`'or°'~the planning Director (see Section 5-400.3(b)) may appeal to the Pitkin County Planning Comm>ssion for a decision to modify or uphold the decision. A erson adversely affected or aggrieved by a ion may appeal to the t' h3.~s or her applica- ~uble~hear" of County ing notice..., :etion 6=3.4(d). The shall make a deter- .... o wh`etfaer""oa' "not to decision made by the ,,,, nf'"tTie B"o~a`~d` Shall be the final action o e ..., ...-5. (c) The Board shall conduct a hearsng within forty-five (45) days of `tkre' panning and~"'"~oni3~g `Commission hearing regarding the applicator.unless action is postponed for., the purpose of gathering aitional"information. ny p decision of„_the Planning € BOCC. the appliean`~ may'` tion, evii~enee `and testimc Commissioner at,a sche~i according Eo" tfae`~`s"'tandads Boa=d of County Commiss urination at.°such hearing uphold, modify or' revers Planning Commission The., f th~ 5-400.8,_ Warning and Disclaimer The provisions of thesew regulatl.ons do not am any way assure or imply that areas outside of designated kiazard areas will be free from hazards., or that app~o''ved mitigation measures wiYl guarantee the safety of any property. ;and Section 2 5-402.1 Applicability of Regulations (a) The regulation shall apply to all lands within the unincorporated area of Pitkin County as follows: Resolution No. 87- Page 9 1 Areas located within the 100 ear flood lain a ( ) Aeencted(FEMA ,t Flood aTnsurar~ oe Rmte No vember~5t National Flood Insurance" Pr„g ( , 1985). • ;and Section 3 5-404•1 Applicability of Regulations (a) This rrepgulation. shall apply to al ~ lands within the uninco orated areas of Pitkin Count as follows- (1) All.. areas mapped by the Colorado State Division of wildlife ~n the WilcTlife :Resource Information ... vxa.. q w..., -- System (WRTS) report entitled Critical Wilc'~life Patterns in Pitkin Comity (adopted as of 3/30/87). ;and Section 4 5-408.2 Guidelines, €or Administration„_ (e) All proposals which quali€y referred" to in Sections 5-4''' bonform to the Federal En National Flood Tnsurande '` section" 60.3(d). These c allowed 'in flood prone areas specifications by the County provided they conform to the Section 5 T;~~~~533 ;,.,.~ 1~~5~ for exemptions mentioned or 00.4(x1' and 5-40"0.4(b) must Flood Plain above cited igele"~i1t Agency lakigns, sub= will then be 1 of plans and Administrator', regulations. 6-6 Final Approval by Planning and Zoning Commission 6-6.1 Other provisions of this Article to the contrary notwith- standing, the Planning and Zoning Commission may undertake„ the review of the following applications and finally approve or deny the same: (a) Applications to vary from the setback requirements made pursuant to Section 3-8.12; b . ( ) ppplicgtonps to estagblished the "number of off-street arkin s aces re uired for 'warehouses, lodges', dormitories and vehicle storage, maintenance and repair facilities pursuant to Section 3-2; Resolution No. 87- 2 Page 10 r~ n~~K~33 ;,,.~: (c) Applications for subdivision exemptions pursuant to Sections 4-2.2 (a) (2 )` and 4-2.2'(a} (3)' only; ` (d) Applications for the development of one (1) single- family or duplex structure when required by Section 5- 400. (e) Applications for special review for satellite radio frequency signal reception and/or transmission devices, pursuant.. to Section 3-3.59. Provided, however, the Planning Director may authorize., without review by the Planning Commission, the placement of a single satel- lite radio frequency s1gna1 reception or transmission device if it is found to be in conformance with the criteria in Section 5-3o5.2(b) and 'if it is the oriiy such reception or transmission device located on the parcel. (f) Applications for special review approval pursuant to Section 7-2.4(a). (g) Applications for the lot split exemption from growth management- pursuant to Section 5-510.2(c) tahen the parcels to be created are in excess of thirty-five (35) acres. ,, ,,. 6-6.2 Whenever any of the €oregoing requires notice and hearing, any such notice and hearing requirements shall be ' satisfied by the Planning and ''Coning Commission `prior"to acting on said application. 6-6.3 All other requirements and provisions of this Article 6 not inconsistent herewith shall remain', in full force`"and ' effect. ` and Section 6 3-8.2 Mihimum Setback (a) In accordance with the purpose of this regulation, there may be designated on the Zoning District Map "arterial highways" "major roadsB1, and "collector streets°' along which the minimum setback requirements for any structsres from the right-of-way M shall not be less than the following distance:' (1) Arterial highways. 200 feet qq • Resolution No. 87- ~~ Page 11 (2) Major .roads. 100 feet (3) Collector ,streets. : 50 feed (b) Th,2 following road designation shall apply in Pitkin County for pu'rpose's of dete"rtnining setback requirements from a right-of- way for structures or uses,: (1) Arterial Highways: Highway 82 - West of Aspen to County line; Brush Creek Road. (2) Major Roads: Highway 82 - East of Aspen to County Line; Castle Creek Road; 1~°~rbo'ri "Creek Road; County Road 19 (from ~~. , r•t< the Slaughter House°'Bridge to Highway 82 across the Smith Bridge); State Road 133` (Crysta'1 River Road); and Owl Creek Road. (c) U'$es other than structures (.off street,. parking, lights and signsp shall. meet the 'minimum setbacks as follows: This is q p ` fight distance along re uired in order to rbvide essential s vehicular traffic ~ and 7 pedestrians aernter n lector streets.. ,for g and leaving such • right-of-way.' Access roads shall be allowed between the right- of-way and the setbacks listed below.: (1) Arterial highways. 100 feet, (',2) Mayor roads. , ., . 50 feet (3) Collector streets. ., , 25 feet and Section 7 6-3.2('b) Submission Contents (p.176.1, Supp:.6 add new paragraph to end of Section (b)). PP Y. Ccnvepanceans s resultin n the creatnce of the history of y ( ) g zon of the parcel or lot (which is the subject of the application) to establish to the satisfaction of the County Attorney how the parcel or lot was' created and that 'the same ..was not created in violation of any' State or local subdivision regulations or' requirement. and Section 8 19-4 (b)(5) Federal Emergency Management Aijency, (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Natgnal" Flood Insurance _, ,, ... ~1~8 K533 ,~:~ , seo ~ • Resolution No. 87- Page 12 Program .(November 5, 1985). (9) of Wildlife, Wildlife Resource Colorado State Drvision ~,~.. 4 * .. (WRIS) report entitled Critical Information SystemYf Wildlife Patterns in P}tkin County,. (f)(33) Pitkin County Road Standard's and Specifications;. Adopted May 28, 1985. (h)(40) Roaring Fork East Neighborhood Master Plan: Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, October, 1985., (41) Aspen Area Comprehens,ye Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Tr'ails Element,~July 1985. '" ~"° (42) State Highway 82 Corridor Master Plan, February, 1985. (43) Pitkin County Down Valley Comprehensive Plan, January, 1987. and Section 9 5-300 Rousing 5-300 housing 5-300.2 Guidelines for Administration,, ( ) g g 'on and the Board. of y ,. count h Commissioners shall determinessa, ( ) y qu PPP Yp ~ g y accommodates an aaddi Tonal o ulaton swhichx mas b'e expected to come to the County as a result of employ- meht resultn from construction, or o eration o,f th, g P e development; (2) Whether the proponent of the development can and will rovide housing adequate to"meet any discrepancy between 'the erected need and the ,available supply on a P schedule consistent with the housing demand` generated by the construction or operation of the proposed development; ( ) p p 's not an ,exclusionary 3 That the land use ro osal 1 development or will help to alleviate the shortage of low and moderately priced ownership and rental housing units in the County; and (4) That suitable provision has or can and will be made r • Resolution No. 87-~ Page 13 to ensure that units specified in the application as low and moderately priced units will remain committed to the low and moderately priced 'housing needs of the County. (b) Developments shall not be approved which do not comply with the policies established by Resolution 74-87 (1974). Zn order to establish criteria to determine which proposals constitute low-, moderate- and middle-income housing and therefore comply with said resolution, the Pitkin County Housing Authority shall, prior to April 1st of every year, advise the Board of County Commissioners as to the current supply of affordable, non-exclusionary residential housing within the community and the Board shall, from this report, assign a range of purchase and rental costs for each of the ,, above three categories; provided, however, that the appli- `~, cant shall have the right to obtain approval of a deve op- (1) Because of special circumstances, the development will not be exclusionary as defined by said resolution; (2) Criteria or techniques different from those established by said resolution should be utilized with respect to the subject development, which when adopted will prevent the development from being or becoming exclusionary) or (3) That acceptable, special or innovative programs applicable to the development will provide necessary; primary residential housing for` low- and moderate- income persons and will fully or substantially mitigate the effects of any exclusionary aspects of the develop- ment. (c) In general and pending such showing, the guidelines for compliance with this housing policy are as follows (although an applicant may satisfy the requirements of this Section by meeting any one of the conditions identified in Section 5- 300.4 herein)c ,~, Resolution No. 87- ~1 Page 14 .. 9DID1~rJv~ ~~i:li~0 GENERAL EMPLOYEE HOUSING PERCENTAGES AND CRITERIA FOR NON-EXCLUSIONARY DEVELOPMENTS Full Time Equivalent Employee Housing Land Use Cateaorv Emoloyees Generated ~teoviremeht \J Residential Not applicable 33~ of the number of residents of non- deed-restricted units Tourist Accommo- 0.2 - 0.4 employees per 100 of total employees dations, generated ' v loom based on review of Housing Authority Commercial Professional/Office - 3.9 100 of total employees employees/1000°sq. ft. generated `' Retail/wholesale/services 3.5 employees/1000 sq. ft. Warehouse- 0.4 employees/1 000 sq. ft. Manufacture - 1.5 to 4.0 employees/1000 sq. ft. Restaurant/bar - 5.0 to 10 .0 employees/1000 sq. ft., Utilities/Quasi-Government al - 1.5 to 2:5 employees%1000 sq. ft., Other - Based on review of Housing Authority Note: Employee generation for commercial uses shall be based on net leasable square footage and shall be subject to the review of the Housing Authority. 5-300.2: Submission Contents A report on housing prepared by the applicant or the applicant's . agent including: • sooxJ3~ ,;~.~ r 1~~ Resolution No. 87-~ Page 15 (a) The number of dwelling units proposed, by type, and the market that each type is expected to serve. (b) In the case of condominium.. or other multiple unit development, the maximum density allowed by the zoning district in which the proposed condominium units proposed, designation thereof (i.e., one-bedroom, studio, etc.) and estimate of square footage size of each designation; a conceptual description of the building(s) and other improve- ments proposed, together with the approximate proposed location thereof on the site plan. (c) The extent to which the demand far low and moderately priced housing would be increased or decreased by the proposed development, including estimates of the temporary demand likely to be generated by development of the proposal ' and of the long-term demand likely to be generated by its operation. (d) The measures by which the applicant and the Board may ensure that any low and moderately priced housing within the proposed development or otherwise provided will remain . committed to such housing needs o£ the County. (e) The. schedule in which such low and moderately priced units will be• constructed. (f) A description of the management plan for the subject development's employee housing. 5-300.3 Conditions for Waiver The housing requirements of this Section 5-300 shall be waived for residential developments on lots formed by a lo£ split as defined in Section 4-6, provided, however, that such waiver shall ~, be granted for a given parcel of land only once and, upon further subdivision of either lot,. full compliance with the housing requirements established in Section 5-300 shall be meta" 5-300.4 Satisfaction of Requirement (a) The proponent of a development wild. be deemed to have satisfied the requirements of this Section 5-300 if he shall, on the site of the proposed development or on an alternative site, comply with one of the following condi- tions: (1) Construct employee housing as Hart of tha rP~iriAr- only be given for the c_omme~rcial project acfion 5-300.1(c). provision of+units ': Resolution No. 87- Page I6 .-;~~533 ;~:: 1G2 meeting the guidelines and/or approval of ,the Pitkin County Housing Authority. (2) Construct employee housing as part of a tourist accommodation or commercial dedelopment project which is capable of accommodating all' of the employees necessary to serve the project folYowin it g s construe-'. tion. The applicant shall be required to consult with the Housing Authority and to document 'to the Authority that all employees generated by the project will be provided with housing as part of the project. (3) Convey Jt~q,,,,~,.,~tkin County lot(s) whose market value / is equal to £the equivalent employee housing dedication' fee as calculated for the project at the General Submission stage.. The applicant shall provide prelm- inary proof of value .at the General Submission stage itych The market valuecofpthellots'sha11 be a tablished' by an opinion of value for the' lot(s) which must bey acceptable to the Housing Authority at the time of `~ ofctheacustomary re 11 est tea commission foretYxe salenof the lot s At the time of final' lat, the applicant ( ~ P shall demonstrate that the 'value o'f the eoatmitment is- equivalent to the~Employee Housing commitment made at General Submission. markettvalueyis eequal lto thesdisco itkin ~un y nwkiosY unted a ivalent b the Housing Authority. Approval of the present value d~Ycount shall' be at the option of'the Housing Author-' i I' ~~ The lot(sj) shall be conveyed to Pitkin County at the time of recording the final plat of the project. The ( ) Y l the Board of Count eCommissioners end shallapproval of Y be subject to all appropriate requirements of the Land. Use Cade' far a building permit. Pitkin County shall have the abilit~r to sell the lot(s) on a non-price-restricted basis and use the fund from the sale of any''lot(s)"for the subsidy of employee housing. The funds from the_sale of any lots shall be combined with the emp3opee housing dedicatipn fee and limited to only those uses permitted for the dedication fee. (4) Purchase (and ,subsequently deed-restrict to the Pitkin Co unty Housing Authority guidelines) fully constructed dwelling units: meeting the guidelines of Resolution No. 87- 3 7 Page 17 4+~ .;~ .. ~- .. sooK533 ,~:~,1.G3 the Pitkin County Housing Authority. The dwelling units deed-restricted to the Housing Authority guide- lines shall meet with the approval of the Author- ity and the Board of county'Commissioners and be rented or sold at such price and in such manner as to contr- bute to the alleviation of the critical shortfall of affordable housing in Pitkin County, as this shortfall has been defined annually by the Housing Authority. (5) Payment of an employee housing dedication fee, based on the formula and conditions for such fees identified within the guidelines developed by the Pitkin County Housing Authority and approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Payment shall be made to Pitkin County prior to, and on a proportional basis to the issuance"°of any building permits for the non- deed-restricted units and/or commercial square footage of the project. Applicants may choose to prepay the employee' housing dedication fee prior to the issuance of any building permits for the proj"ect and receive a included within the discount on thpp~ value of 1 the presentd valuehedilscoung Authority. A shall be at the option of the Housing Authority. t All employees housing dedication, fees shall be ear marked for the subsidy of employee housing, including but not limited to the acquisition of land and build- ings, subsidizing the planning, site development, construction, and financing of employee projects, and other uses 'app`roved by the. Board of County Commis- sioners. The dedication fee shall not be commingled with general operating funds of Pitkin County or the Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority nor used for general operations by Pitkin County or the Housing Authority. (b) If an applicant shall .propose to develop employee housing units on a separate site from the remainder of the project, review of the employee housing proposal shall proceed according to all appropriate requirements of the Land Use Code prior to application for a building permit. (c) Employee dwelling units constructed pursuant to the provisions of Section 3-8.13 of the Land Use Code shall not be, used to satisfy the requirements of this section or to obtain points in the Growth Management Quota System. only those units meeting the appropriate income and occupancy requirements of the Pitkin County Housing Authority may be used to satisfy these requirements. APPROVED upon first reading and set for public hearing this 3DOK533 r'~L`.1U4 Resolution No. 87-~ Page 18 rd C a3 day of r ~~~, 1987. ~n APPROVED upon s-e~i_cond reading and after public hearing this ~/ day of o/`l.C(,r.-'LYl 1987. ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO mas Ir. smith, county Attorney CH.400 Clerk APPROVE D AS T O CONTENT: n/ t 'H ~ ~ 1`~ Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director BOARD OF COIIN'I`Y COM131SSIONERS OF PITRIN CODNTY, COIARADO, Describe action/type of development being requested: Requests extension of Vested Rights. 1041 Hazard Revewapproval granted pursuant to Resolution No. PZ-87-36 (Williams). PITKIN COUNTY PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE~SUM1V7fATiY' PLANNER: Suzanne Wolff DATE:: Tuly 29, 1997 PROJECT: Nevin Extension of Vested Rights LOCATION: M/B lofadjacent to Mountain Valley Subdivision (PID #X273')-172=00-001) OWNER: Toe Nevin REPRESENTATIVE: Glenn Horn PHONE/FAX: 925-6587/925-5180 4LTM1ViARV 1. Type of Application: Extension of Vested Rights 2. Areas in which Applicant has been requested to respond/types of reports requested: Summarize 1041 concerns which were initially reviewed and mitigation measures which were approved. Address the criteria for Extension of Vested Rights as contained in section 4-140.30. Address 1041 hazards which were not reviewed in 1987: mapped low and severe wildfire hazard areas and elk winter range, severe winter range and critical habitat within 1/4 mile of the proposed building envelope. 4. 6. Review is before the Board of County Commissioners at a public hearing. The applicant shall post a public notice sign at least 15 days prior to the public hearing. Staff will refer to: County Attorney, ACSD, Aspen Water Department, City of Aspen, CO State Forest Service, DOW, Wildlife Officer, County Engineer Planning Office deposit required: Referral Fees required: ;, $1080 County Engineer $155 County Clerk $110 Total Deposit: $1345 To apply, please submit 15 copies of the following, unless otherwise noted: • Letter addressing issues and Code sections noted above. • Approved Site Plan • Original approvals (ie. resolutions) • Proof of ownership • List of adjacent property owners (one copy) and an addressed envelope for each owner with the return address of the Community Development Department. • Letter from owner giving consent to represent, if using a representative (one copy) • Application fee • Copy of this pre-application summary • Agreement for Payment form (2 copies). ' . :ry e Quinn, 11: ~_ 772 nevin, ursc-hes'- X-Sender: debbieq@commons.co.pitkin.co.us Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 11:07:02 -0600 To: suzannew@co.pitkin.co.us From: Debbie Quinn <debbieq@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: nevin, urschel Cc: lancec@c'o.pitkin.co.us, cindyh@co.pitkin.co.us Suzanne, On Urschel, I told Michael Feigenbaum he needed to do an extension of vested rights, and he'll be calling you about the application. On Nevin, the BOCC agreed to the policy of allowing pre-1988 approvals to take advantage of the extension of vested rights provisions, and I'll be advising Glenn Horn. Are we discussing vesting on the code retreat? we will need an amendment to clean up the language to clarify that pre-Y988 approvals can. also apply for an extension. Debbie L ~ 3-~- I'1 Z .-o ~~ ~ ~ G+-tiL- lam--~ ~i~e o3-f r Suzanne o <suzann-'view co.ptTcin:cous> Tcle. (970) 925-3601 FAX #(970) 925vv~S~~ry~TM~~KtOPMENT ,. Sy Kelly ~ Chairman ~ Michael Kelly P ea§." "Frank Loyshin,, i , Louis Po hshT~Secy: Bruce Matherly; n$gr. August 28, 1997 Suzanne Wolff , Community bevei'opmenf 130 S. Galena ' { Aspen, CO 81611 .- Re: Nevin extension of vested rights ' ._ , Dear Suzanne: ,, ...Y .. rF A3 v ...:~.;y~. '. X .:.n. ti. ..'. ". .ky: The Aspen Consolidated Sanitatidn District curr0ntly has sufficient collection and treatment ~ ' capacity to serve this project Service is contingent upon compliance with tfie bstrict's rules, regulations,; and specifications which are ott file at the b~stnct office. ' " " , ., ~ ~ n. .. ,. .~ x, Tt is our understandin that the conditions set in BOCC Resolution #8T`-36 will continue to g nzn with the extension of vested rights. ~ ' .:.. , Please call if you need additionaTinformation. - Sincerely, . ,. Bruce Matherly District Manager S HH~Si 7A ~/ B. /.~c (,r.? ~ e, ?~ S uss5ein w / i 1 ~;\ 5 it ~ JJ 6 ZO Ws.YER 1~ ., ~~ ) I JB O~\ EASEMCtJT 1OY f; ~ ~ '. ~ AK 300 P6 8'77 '~~ ~ f3 VILOr14G p 1 '~ . / O' EX19T1fi6 GRAV ~I EH V E~.OP C. ROAb 419°23'24~W i 11, II ~ \\\\\\\\~~ \ ~' 119 ~ ) ~ ` ~ _1 103 \`i~ /exist we •! 1G° I6 E J~Ros~O ~ry~ GO OD CC ~1 ~^ \`_~ A Mo~NrQiN ;3, ~ 9,~ ~v CqV a~q5 foz ORi V[M6NC V ~' q1 41esk of the .e the Wi Mess" )rlvs talrlished by •et; )Y. I`IO. V ni the Ii ehl and Pl stet ,' ) thr. tlar tlierly rht-of-wav liner 1 right-of-wav i Uh t-af-Way Ifne a radius of whf ch beers -of-waV 1{net pht-of-way Ilnee a radius of wh{Ch bPaY9 ~.-or-waY liner ]ht-of-WdY Ctn!'F +i th a ratllus oi' of which bears -O{-Welt' tlnG1 rP.-of-way linel .oht-o{-waY Ifnf ~.~' Eas! 125.E ' )ntaLi Valtby ¢ 1 Fl linq. S t r, ~~. ` r ~~~ ~-- WATE2 ~. To:.11c slr£ LZ+ AG0.ES 97 9u C 1T1 r.J ~.. ~ Q G. 0 c t7 W n h h O O z Qy o3ca, P0.EVl0~•-11. '~o`,r , ,set o.c ,, ~ .... r , ,. ax„ rs, . r:_ tt~rY to _,. V p. ..m. .. r.)k`: RFD. ~ . s..... .t m; ae^W ,~- / / .- - ~ ~ ,: / / ~ / .~ / ~ ~ -~ ~'~ '' ,/ ~ /' ~ _ s '// ,,~- .. ~l. / ~ ~/' _ ~ / ~..-- ,' ~ ~ / ~~ LC~T 102 ~~ '~ '-T' ' ~j~ ~ ~ -, __-- _~~ ,~ ~ ~ J ` / / - ~, r ~. L .,. 5~r~o ~ ~ ~,~+'~ ~~ u~.. ,. - , /•. .r ~ .,. ~ .... ... ,. ~ i. ~. ,, ~, .~ ,~ \~ _ - `/, r ,, . ,_ ~ '""" ~ ~_ - .- ,,._ :. _ _ _ _- ~::^' _~ ~ ~~~-~.-~_._"'ice' / / ~vr `: ~~ / ^`-~- - _07 10'~ ~.~ ~_ ~. _ ..,,_ ~~~..,~,~ ,. r ;: a, r Davis Horn= PLANNING & REAL ESTATE~G~'~JSULTING June 22, 1997 Debbie inn Assist t County Attorney 536 E t Main Street Aspe Colorado 81611 Nevin Property -- 1041 EnvironTnental Hazard Review Approval Dear Debbie: Last week we met with Suzanne Wolf to discuss Joe Nevin's lot which is located on a metes and bounds parcel, located adjacent to the Mountain Valley Subdivision. The purpose of our meeting was to discuss 'the status o~ the subject site with respect to the County land use review process and the requirements for obtaining a building permit. At the conclusion of the meeting, we agreed to complete further research regarding the issue. Since our meeting i have researched the Biktin County Land Use Code and discussed the issue with former County Attorney, Tom` Smith and former Aspen Pitkin Planning Director, Alan Richman. This letter summarizes my findings and requests a written opinion from you. Pitkin County granted the subject site a 1041 Geologic Hazard Review approval on December 22, 1987 pursuant to planning aad 2oninq Commission R2solutl ner of the subject sppeoval Reso ution d 87~ 36 h st 1 ulated a several wachment ' 1) . The p conditions to be satisfied prior to issuance of a building permit. On December 29, 1987 the Board of County Commissioners adopted Emer encp Re~ y ugion (7-111'Concern t 2).'°Section 9 of Resolution RealgPro ert R hts see AttacTimen ng the Establishment of Vested 87-111 clearl indicated that the Resolution was effective on January 1, 1988 and the 'Resolution shall not apply to any site specific development plan or other"land use. application approved prior to such date, and the law applicable on the date of approval shall apply to such projects:" 'Resolution 87-ilY caas subsequently amended by BDCC'Resolution 88-95 ahd the'adopton of the current Land Use Code on April 26, 1994, however the preceding language remains unchanged (see Attachment 3 Section 4-14O.10.C.). The next step in my research was to determine the applicable law in effect on January 1, 1987. On Marsh 30, 1987 tine )#dard of County Commissioners approved Resolution 87-34 adopting amendments to the Pitkin County Land Use Code ib41 Environmental Hazard Review standards and procedures (Sections 5-400, 5-402.1{a}{1}, 5- 402.2{e}}' and to those applications subject to 'Final Approval by ALICE DAMS, AICP 1 GLENN HOf2N, AIC1'~~ 215 SOUTH MONARCH ST SU17E 104 ASPEN' COLORADO 81611 • 970/925-b587 • FAX: 970/925-5180 ---'-- ---~-~_-~--------err cwt=vxr-~..-crionZ -any-T-¢r cllex' land use reviews. Debbie Quinn June 22, 1997 Page 2 ~~~~ the Planning and Zoning Commission (Section 6-6. 1). Board of County Commissioners Resolution 87-34 appears as' Attachment 4). Section 1 of Board of County Commissioners Resolution 87-34 repealed the old section 5-400.5 of the Code: entitled""Special Procedures" and established new "Procedure and Submission Content" for 1041 Environmental xazard Review land use applications. This section of the Code established that the Planning and Zoning Commission (instead of the Board of County Commissioners) could approve or deny 1041 applications for single-family or duplex structures and exempted the single-family and duplex reviews from the General Submission procedures of Section 6-3.4. The following four-step procedure was established in Section 5-400.5 (a)(1) of Resolution 87-34: (i) "attend a pre-application conference with Planning Office." (ii) "submit a complete application with sufficient copies for referral to Planning Office." (iii) "in the case of one single family or duplex structure the project shall be reviewed at a public .hearing with the Planning Commission for approval or denial of the application In the case of any other type of development" the "project 'shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a regular meeting and by the Board of County"COmmssioners at a public hearing." (iv) "apply for a building permit." Section 5 of Resolution 87-34 established that the Planning and Zoning Commission may finally approve or deny applications for one (1) (ingle-family or duplex structure{wh>n required by Section 5- 400 see'Attachment 4 Section 6-6.1 d The preceding Code sections time the'subject site receive and Zoning Commission Resolut provisions in the Code for e: 6-3.4 of the Code (General S Based upon Section 1 of Resol site may submit a building pc land use reviews. ablish the applicable law at the )41 approvals pursuant to Planning 87-36. At the time there were no ation of 1041 approvals.' Section fission Procedures) did not,. apply. ~n 87-34, the owner of the subject t application without any further My recollection of the preceding 1041 land use 'review process is consistent with the preceding Land Use Code 'interpretation. Debbie Quinn June 22, 1997 Page 3 <;a _ Additionally, Tom Smith and Alan Richman both indicated to me that. prior to 198:8 common practice was that lOd1 land use approvals d'id not expire and that ohce a property owner h'ad a 1041 land use PP 7 afterVan approvalebut pr or to the t ssuance4olfregulations emoted a building permit. Please consider the information presented in this 7etfer and prepare a letter to me confirming the following findings regarding the Nevin property. 1. Pi.tkin County's Vested Property Rights regulations do not apply to"land use approvals granted"by the Coun"ty prior to January 1, 1988. 2. Pitkin County land„use approvals granted prior to January 1, 1988 shall only be required to comply with the land use .regulations in effect at `the` time of the land use approvals. 3. Section 1 of BOCC Resolution 87-34 establishes the applicable tl43 HnvironmentalI-tazard`Review procedures at the time land use approvals were granted for the Nevin property. 4. Since the Nevin property received a 1041 Environmental Hazard Review approval on December 22, 1987, Nevin may apply for a building permit without any further County land use review. I would be happy to meet with you to discuss this matter. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, D IS HORN INCORPORATED G HOR ATCP cc: Suzanne Wolf . aemn ,...a_ -». ..a'. a. amr..n.'a 4. hrt{.~ ~P~~' ~~~ MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners Regular Meeting -October 22, 1997 TIIItU: Cindy Houben, Community Development Director~C ~~ ~' FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Planner RE: Nevin Extension of Vested Rights -Continued Public Hearing REQUEST: Pursuant to Section„4-14.30, the applicants are res~uesting aq extension of the vested property rights for the 1041 Hazard Review approval originally granted in 1987: APPLICANT: Toe Nevin REPRESENTATIVE: Glenn Horn LOCATION: Mountain Laurel Drive, adjacent to and above the Mountain Valley Subdivision ZONING/LOT SBZE; The lot is zoned AFR-10 and contains approximately 12 acres. BACKGROUND: Pursuant to Resolution No. PZ-87-36, the Planning Commission granted 1041 Hazard Review approval to construct asingle-family residence on the parcel. The site plan was recorded in Plat Book 20 at Page 50. ', On December 29, 1987, the ]3oard adopted Emergency Resolution No. 87-111, Concerning the Establishment of Vested Real Property Rights. Section 9 of the ltesolutior'indicated that the Resolution was effective on January 1, 1988, and "the Resolution shall not apply to any site specific development plan or other land use application approved prior to such date, and the law applicable on the date of approval shall apply to such projects." Section 4-140.1Q(C) of the current Code includes the same provisions on applicability of the vested rights provisions. The County AtCOmey has determined that`the law applicable prior to 7anuary 1, 1988; required the owner to perform certain actions in reliance on the approval iri order to establish a common law vested right, and that actions Taken were not sufficient to establish this right, and therefore; the approval is not vested under common law. The appticanf requested to be eligible to avail himself of the vested rights extension provisions of tie current Code. After discussion of this issue with the County Attorney, the Board agreed to allow the applicant go apply for an extension of vested rights, rather than requiring an entirely new 1041 review. The Board also directed staff to process a code amendment which would allow approvals granted pilot to January ], 1988; to be eligible to apply foran extension of vested rights subject to the regulations in Section 4-140 of the Code. REFERRAL COMMENTS from ACSD, Zoning, City Planning Staff, CO State Forest Service, County Engineer £n'd the Wildlife Officer are included with the staff comments below and are attached for reference. Certain comments are summarized below. Citv Planning Staff: Chris Bendon City Planner recommends that the$oard not extend the vested > ~„ rights for this parcel, since the~d`eveloper has not made any progress in pursuing the project and the 1., ,.~,. Coun 's 1041 rocess has Chan ed si nificantl since the on final a royal, and, therefore, an extension t5' P g g Y •$~ PP is not in the community's interest. . Joanna Sehaffn that the extent of the front lot lme is ambi uous and shoul,~l be}nd~cat Zonin~• ernotos' ,. ,,_ .... ......... _g _ . _,<.. on the approved site plan. STAFF COMMENTS; Smce the original approval was granted, the' County has adppted a new Land Use Code. Staff has reviewed the previous approvals for conformance witli,current County policies and regulations: 1041 Ha ARn RFVIEw: Hazards on the parcel include mapped iow and severe wildfire hazard areas, slopes in excess of 30%, a drainage Swale, and the parcel is within 1/4 mile of mapped elk winter range, severe winter range and critical habitat. Geologic: ,The approved bwlding envelope was relocated during the original review to avoid a ramage Swale to the southeast of the envelope. The entire property is comprised of slopes in excess of 3®%. The Code currently allows development on slopes in excess of 30%, only if there is no area on a site with slopes of less than 30%. After visiting the site, staff felt that lower portions of the property were less steep than the area within the approved building envelope (though still in excess of 30%), but the apovided more det iledtod o Pa gha for the suet which u a orts s afflsloosi'tTon, aStaff hashttcludecl the P Pg PY _ PP P mitigation standards from Section 3-80.56(0)(1) in tfie conditions of approval, so the approval will be, consistent with the current requirements of the Code. Wildfire: The parcel is within mappedlow and severe wildfire hazard aeeas., Vince Urbina of the. Colorado State Forest Service rates the hazard within the building envelope as severe for brush, ...n Development within a severe wildfire hazard area is prohibited under the current Code, unless there is no area on the property free of severe wildfire hazard or if the Board grants a takings appeal. Mr. Urbina states that the hazard can be mitigated with defensible space thinning, and that this mitigation is enhanced by the proximity to existing roads and residences where the Gambel oak and serviceberry has been removed and replaced. Ffe recommends that the applicant comply with the structural design adds that thetroads m the Mountain Valle sSubdivision do not me tithe esistive, construction He also y PA or CSFS standards for N~ road width, shoulders, or dual access/egress. Mr. iJrbina's recommendations are included in the conditions of approval. Ed Van Walraven, Aspen Fire Marshal, visited the site and noted that the applicant will be required to improve the entrance to the driveway off oflVTountain Laurel Drive and'to provide afire truck turnaround in order to meet the standards of the Fire bistrict. t,;., . ~ , Wildlife: The building envelope is located within 1/4 mile of elk winter range, severe winter range and ..., critical habitat. Mike Villa has reviewed the application, and confirmed the accuracy of the mapping. _., _ Although the parcel is adjacent to a fully developed subdivision, ~t is highCr in elevation thari the otli~r residences and is closer to the specified habitats. He notes that the building envelope is clustered well with the existing residences below, but recommends that,the_applicant comply with the restrictions listed in the application, including a restriction to kennel any dogs on the property: CONCEPTUAL SUB~I$S~QL~': envelo es located onthe bound ithiof the maPeed area. The s~mc overlaare uirementsiwere in effect P ~'S' PP ~ ~ Y 4 g 2 ,. ,. 1' . at the time of the original review, however, apparently the scenic overlay review requirement was waived at the time, although the case file does not address this review. A determmatton was'made by Suzann0 _. _ .._ . Konchan, County Planning Director, in 1992 that the property would not be subject to further scenic overlay review. Access: The existing driveway exceeds the allowed 12% grade. Bud Eyler reviewed the site and agreed with the staff s assessment that the access to the building envelope would be safer if the building envelope was located adjacent to the lower portion of the driveway. 1041/CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION SUMMARY: Based on the steepness of the driveway and the. approved building envelope, the severe wildfire hazard, and the proximity to critical wildlife habitats, staff recommends that the building envelope be moved down the slope (to the southwest) in order to be adjacent to, the lower portion of tFie`driveway. The slopes in this area are less steep than those in the approvged building envelope, though syll irr excess op30%, and development will by clustered with the existin residences m Mountain Valle The envelo e will encroach into the front and setback; variances will be required forall structures within the. setback. Staff and the applicant have agreed on an amended building envelope; a sketch is attached as Exhibit G. v_F~FD RIGHTS EX N ION: The Board shall consider, but not b_e fimited to, the following criteria in reviewing a request for an extension of vested property rights: 1. Compliance with conditions of approval; The applicant recorded a site plan, as required by ,. ~~.. Resolution No. PZ-87-36. The other conditions are;not applicable until buildingpermit submittal or' _. _, issuance. 2. Progress in pursuing the project. In 1992, the applicant obtained a determination from the County Planning Director that no further land use review was required at thaftime since there were rio p e a licant was advised at' that t new regulations that would affect the arcel. Th pp ime that the;property "would be subject to additional. regulatory requirements which may be enacted prior to bullding permit ., submittal". No building plans were submitted. or prepared prior to adoption of the "new" T,aric(IJse Code in 1994. The applicant recently"retained an architect to initiate conceptual plans for a house on the site. 3. Nature and extent of benefils received by the County: No benefits'were required to be granted to the County as a result of the 1041 approval. 4. Needs of the County and the applicant that would be served by approval of the request• The County may impose conditions to bring the parcel into compliance with the current I041 standards of,the Code without requiring the applicant to go through the full 10d 1 review process again. ` In response to the referral comments from Chris Bendon, City Planner, the County has consistently allowed "lapsed" approvals to pursue an extension of vested rights. Section 4-140.20 of the Code states, "development approvals..shall not expire...; however, the vested right shall expire 3 years from the date of approval, unless extended pursuant to this section." Through an extension of vested rights, the County is able to review the application and impose conditions based on the current provisions of the Code; an "extension" in the County does not insulate against changes thathave been made in the Code. Also, the County Code does not require that ap applicant provide a "clear and compelling reason necessitating the extension" as stated by Mr. Bendon; the criteria listed above areprovided in the Code for the Board to consider (though not be limited by)'when reviewing an application for an extension. Staff appreciates Mr. Bendon's concerns, and feels that the extension of vested rights process is the appropriate process to ensure that development of this parcel is consistent with the community's interests. f'. ~. RECOMMENDATION: Pursuant to Section 4-140-30, staff recommends that the Board approve the Nevin Extension of Vested Rights, with the building envelope amended as recommended and subject to compliance with the conditions in the attached Resolution. This„approval will replace Planning Commission Resolution No. PZ-87-36. it A. Bruce Matherly, ACSD B. Mike Villa, Wildlife Officer C. Vince Urbina, CSFS D. Joanna Schaffner, Zoning Officer E. Bud Eylar, County Engineer F. City Planning staff comments G. Proposed amended building envelope 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Suzanne Wolff-- Community Development FROM: Michael Villa--Wildlife Biologist RE: Nevin Extension of Vested Rights DATE: September 22,1997 .;.. Suzanne, T have reviewed the application for the Nevin Extension of Vested Rights. The map shows that the areas ulding envelope is clustered. well with lots 103,104 and 105 of Mountain Valley. It appears that the concerns associated with wildlife in the area are covered with the conditions outlined in the,packet. The area is;definitely adjacent to severe winter range for deer and elk: This site, appears to be the highesf in elevation and the nearest to habitat with this designation. All restrictions should be in place as conditions of approval for his parcel. These are my comments'regarding tleNevin Extension of Vested Rights, Please call me at 5395 if you have any questions. ' ~. Sep 26'97 13:OG hio.007 P.01 ,^r,, ,, 6'~ FORESI" SF.RyiCE September 2E, t 997 Suzanne Wolff Aspen/Pitkin Community 1 BO South Galena Aspen, C(7 87&t1 development Departmen# Re: fdevin Extension of Vested Rights tQ41 Suzanne, smae serer auilamg 2.2 S 6kL Sixeed, Ruiom 435 r, a~~u~, ca°~a~, stator, Telepltpte: (97V} 243-7325 ! visited the site with Glen Horn the owner`s representative an $eptember 25th. Access to the property is from Maunta)n l~aure) Chive in the'111{©untain Valiey Subdivision. This road has recently been resutfaced and is 'in gadd shape. Access to the parcel driveway is adequate. There are two recurring coed problems that I feel 1 must mention, although they are not escclusivt ti3 th)s'site: pne is "road width' and the other is dual aGC:8s51egress. Both #Fte IVatiana! dice Protection Association {NFPA) 299 standard for the tech ~,~j~) ife and Prooerty from 1Ni[dfire and the Colorado State Forest Service tCSIFS) -~¢~1 P~qulations"for subdiv s ons shRt#uld h-~ av dual accessleitress wh'dClti± had pro de for safe auntain simultaneous"access for emergency fire equipment and civilian evacuation. Both pualic~dtions recommend a minimum of a 24 foot wide traveled way wjth 4 foot shoulders for subdivisions, neither of which exist in the Mountain Vailey stibdivision_ The proposed driveway is one Sane and steep for short sections, taut not a major problem. It does net originate at a right angle frorrr Mountain Laurel drive, which is recommended. The lauiiding site has a south aspect with stapes in excess of 3d°~6. The vegetation is Gambel oak, service6erry with same aspen encroaching on the envelope. Because of the vegetation fype and slope 1 would race the wildfire hazard as severe for brush, out 1 feel that the hazard can tre mitigated with defensible space thinning. The proximity of this site to existing roads and homes where'the severe fuel type has been removed and replaced wilt enhance any defensible space thinning implemented on this praperfy. My wildfire hazard recommendations are as follows. 71 Far a distance of 1 d feet around all structures establish and maintain vegetation at li inches ar less li.e., mowed grass). No woody vegetation should be planted within this perimeter.. In addifian, material like firewood should not be stored here. .... ... ~... - ~ ~ .. .. ..A . ,y ~ y ~ :..Y mu TEL Sep 26'7' 13 01 tJo.O©7 P.0?_ ~->, PIEVIN -PAGE 2 2} For a distance of 50 feet uphill and to the sides, and SCi feet downslope the vegetation should be #hnned to establish defensibly space. This means that the Gambel aak/serviceberry should be thinned so that the clumps allowed to remain are no Larger than two times the height. to addition, the eteared space be#ween these clumps should be a minim4im width of two times the height. There is a chance that the aspen growing on this site Could replace the CambeB oak and s®rviCeberry none it is remt7ved. Aspen, because of its growtfs habit would be a better species to have (ram a fuel standpoint. 3} The oak/servicetaerry clumps should have the lower limbs removed up tc half the tsrtal height to eliminate (adder fuels. 4y Ali dead fall should be removed for a distance of t c7p feet. 5} 1 would encourage implementing the. enclosed decks and 1 hour fire-resistive recomrnendatians found in the Fitkin County Land Use code section 3-$0.7.G.4 (Structural Design and Construction Options) for this site. A meta! roof would also be a prudent addition. Feel free to call me with any questions about my recommendations. Thank you far the opportunity to review Yhis application. S~ncerel , A. Vince tJfbina Assistant District Forester ca: C;len Horn ~., ~.. :a.o- a.e., s#~+-nw gym. , p.,v w:4~ ..w.(n~ waro,??~Fw ~e~.r.si;: MEMORANDU1Vt TO: Suzanne Wolff, Planner, Pitkin County (~ THRU: Stan Clawson, City Community Development Di ctor~C/~+~' FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner,'City of Aspen ~~~ RE: Nevin Extension of Vested Fights DATE: September 10, 1997 . ,;„ City Planning Staff reviewed this extension request'and does not recommend Pitldn County extend the vested rights for this property fo'r`the fol~owing`reasonsi~~ The purpose of vested rights is to balance the needs of i approval and the needs of government to`amend Land C circumstances in the jurisdiction. A vested right assure time, any changes in the Land Use regulations will not obtained. At the expiration of this period, fioweder, the current code provisions and is no longer insulated again dopers for some reliance on an ., re ula g tions to reflect changing A' welopers that, for a period of ct the approval already ~el`oper must comply with all hanges in the Land Use Code. Typically, the vesting period is three years from the final approval date. Prior to the expiration date, a developer may request an extension of this period. The developer, though, must show a clear and compelling reason necessitating the extension. For example, a valid technical or legal consideration that prevented development. Also, assuming changes m the Land Use Code are made in the best interests of the community, the developer should be regmred to identify community benefits tliat out-weigh those of the current Code provisions. This may include adding conditions of approval fo the extension to provide significant community benefits that are consistent with the current Code provisions: With regards to this specific case, the developer has not made any progress in pursuing the project. The developer has notpresented a compelling reason that prevented pursuing the project. The developer did not request an extension prior to expiration. The developer allowed the vested rights to expire. 'The developer is requesting a retroactive extension for an expired approval granted nearly ten years ago. There have been changes in the Land Use Code thafare in the community's best interest. And, the developer has not identified the manner in which the community is better served by an extension. Furthermore, the fact that the land owner granted an easement to the neighbor for a driveway represents progress on the part of the neighbor; not the subject land owner: Also, retaining an architect for conceptual plans within the period of vested rights does . ~,.. aaw Mr.~«..~. ~.h. a..: ~r a F~grvarv-;Vstw.-axw~,aia~h4a:+m"R ,. ~~,, i r i ~_ ~:_ .. not represent significant progress towards the project and represents even less after vested rights; have expired. Normally, an expired approval can continue to be valid unless some code revision is passed; which affects the project. In this case, a revised County I b41~ review process was established in 1994. This process significantly changes `the nature of the review which shouldibe undertaken for a project of Phis type. Therefore, it is essential that the Nevin project -which is visibly a part of tfie City urban enviro$vrient - should be subjeci to'this ` process. Finally, a 1041 Environmental Review protects the community s health, safety, and general welfare. This community includes the neighbors, the land, owner, and future land owners. The County should not compromise the community's interests based on the applicant's unfortunate reliance on aten-year-old expired approval and the monetary expenditure for a few architectural sketches. 2 . ~ 1 c. ~. ~ ~ :.- k, .. XK County's 1041 process has changed significantly since the original approval, and, therefore, an extension is not in the community's interest. E Zonine: Joanna Schaffner notes that the extent of the front lot line is ambiguous and should be indicated on the approved site plan. STAFF COMMENTS; There, are no proposed. changes to the Site Specific Development Plan approved in 1987. Since the original approval was granted, the County has adopted a new,Land Use Code. Staff has reviewed the previous approvals for conformance with current Counfypolicies and regulations. 1041 Ha2AIZn REVIEW: Hazards on the parcel include mapped low and severe wildfire hazard areas, slopes in excess of 30%, a drainage Swale, and the parcel is within 1/4 mile of mapped elk winter range, severe winter range and critical habitat. Geologic: The approved building envelope was relocated during the original review to avoid a drainage Swale to the southwest of the envelope. The entire property is comprised of slopes in excess of30%: The Code currgntly allows development on slopes in excess of 30%, only i£there is no area on a site~with~ ~ ' slopes of less than 30%. Staff has included the, mitigation standards from Section 3-80.50(C)(1) in the conditionsof approval, so the approval will be consistent with the current requirements of the Cbde. Wildfire: The parcel is within mapped low and severe wildfire hazard areas. Vince Urbina of the Colorado State Forest Service rates the hazard within the building envelope as severe for brush. Development within a severe wildfue hazard area is prohibited under the current Code, unless there is no area on the ptoperty free of severe wildfire hazard or if the Board grants a takings appeal. Mr. Urbina states that the hazard can be mitigated`with defensible space thinning, and that this mitigation is enhanced by the proximity to existing roads and residences where the Gambel oak and serviceberry has been removed and replaced. He recommends that the applicant comply with the structural design standards in the Code with regard to enclosed decks and one-hour fire-resistive construction. He also adds that the roads in the Mountain Valley Subdivision do not meet thelVFpA or CSFS stahdards for road width, shoulders, or dual access/egress. He states that the driveway is "not a major problem". Mr. Urbina's recommendations are'included in the conditions of approval. Wildlife: The building envelope is located within 1/4 mile of elk winter range, severe winter range and critical habitat. Mike Villa has reviewed the application, and confirmed the accuracy of the mapping. Although the parcel is adjacent to a fully developed subdivision, ifis higher in elevation than the other residences and is closer to the specified habitats. He notes that the building envelope is clustered well with the existing residences below, but recommends that the applicant comply with the restrictions listed in the application, including a restriction to kennel any dogs on the property. CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION: Scenic Overlay: The parcel is within the mapped "scenic foreground overlay", but the building envelope is located on the bouridary of the mapped area. The scenic overlay requirements were in effect at the time of the original review, however, apparently the scenic overlay review requirement was waived at the time, although the case file does not address this review. A determination was made by Suzanne Konchan, County Planning Director, in 1992 that the property would not be subject to further scenic' overlay review. _~_ ., ... . ~,;, .. ~., .: ., r ,., ~ . Access: The existing driveway exceeds the allowed L% grade. Bud Eyler reviewed the site and agreed with the staff s assessment that,the access to the building envelope would be safer if the building envelope was located adjacent td the lower portion of the driveway. 1041/CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION SUMMARY: Based on the steepness of the driveway, the severe wildfire hazard, and the proximity to critical wildlife habitats, staff recommends that the building envelope be moved down the slope (to the southwest) in order to be adjacent to the lower portion of the driveway. In this location the driveway will avoid grades in excess of t2%, and development will be ' g y. p p ed and recommended clustered ~yrth the extstin residences in Nloiintain Valle Both tihe ro os envelopes are entirety comprised of slopes in excess of 30%. If moved, the envelope will encroach i`n'to the front yard setback, and a variance will be required. ,. _ „all consider, but not be limited to, the following criteria in VPSTFD RIGHTS EXTENSION: The Board sh_,. reviewing a request for an extension of vested property rights: 1. Compliance with conditions of approval: The applicant recorded a site plan, as required by Resolutio, not applicable until building permit submittal or n No. PZ-87-36. The other conditions are issuance. 2. Progress in pursuing the project: In 1992, tlae applicant obtained a determination ftom the County Planning Director that no further land use review was required at that time since there were no new regulations that would affect the parcel The applicant was advised at that time that the property "would be subject to additional regulatory requirements which may lie enacted prior to building permit submittal". No building plans were submitted or prepared prior to adoptiar of the "new" Land Use Code in 1994. ')`he applicant recently retained an architectto initiate ponceptualplans fora house on the site. 3. Nature and extent of benefits received by the County: No benefits`were required fo be granted to the County as a result of the 1041 approval. 4. Needs of the County and the applicant that would be served by approval of the request: The County may impose conditions to bring the parcel. into compliauce with tlve current 1041 standards of the Code without requiring the applicant to go through the full 1041 review process again. In response to the referral comments from Chris Bendon, City Planner, the Cowity has consistently allowed "lapsed" approvals to pursue an extension of vested rights. Section 4-140.20 of the Code states, "development approvals..shalinot expire.:.; however, the vested right shall expire 3 years from the date of approval, unless extended pursuant to this section." Through an extension of vested rights, the County is able to review the application and impose conditions based on the current provisions of the Code; an "extension" in the. County does not insulate against changes that have been made in the Code. Also, the County Code does not require that an applicant provide a "clear and compelling reason necessitating the extension" as stated by Mr. Bendon; the criteria listed above are provided in the Code for the Board to consider (though not be limited by) when reviewing an application for an extension. Staff appreciates Mr. Bendon's concerns, and feels that the extension of vested rights process is the appropriate process to ensure that development of this parcelis consistent with the community's interests. RECOMMENDATION: Pursuant to Section 4-140-30, staff recommends that theBoai•tI approve the Nevin Extension of Vested Riglfs, with the building envelope amended as recommended and subject fo compliance with the conditions in the attached Resolution,. This approval wi1'1 replace Planning ' Commission Resolution No. PZ-87-36. _ , ~. ..ac. nnuk ,-.,9zrs Navxx,a^m~ Nrrvy~rd, axrc»+am r-s+, - ~ ~~/z z MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners Regular Meeting -October 8, 1997 ~ THRU: Cindy Houben, Community Development Director FROM: Suzanne'Wolff, Planner RE: Nevin Extension of Vested Rights ._.. -, . , , .~ <. Ati _.. REQUEST: Pursuant to Section 4-140.30, the applicants are requesting au extension of the vested property rights for the 1041 Hazard Review approval originally granted in 1987. APPLICANT: Joe Nevin REPRESENTATIVE: Glenn Horn LOCATION: Mountain Laurel Drive, adjacent to and above the Mountain Valley Subdivision ZONING/LOT SIZE; The lot is zoned AFR-10 and contains approximately 12 acres. .. BACKGRQUND: Pursuant to Resolution No. PZ-87-36, the Planning Commission granted 1641 Hazard Review approval to construct asingle-family residence on the parcel. The site plan was recorded in Plat Book 20 at Page 50, On December 29, 1987, the Board adopted EmergencyResolution No 87 l I 1, Concerning tFie ~~a~~,,. , ... P Y g at the Resolutian was effective on J euted Rei98ro ert Ri tits Section 9 of the PP ~lutio ~ndtcatped tl cry 8, and "the Resolution shall not a I' to an site. s ec~fic development plan or other land use application approved prior to such date, and the law applicable on the date of approval shall apply to such projects." Section 4-140.10(C) of tkie'current Code includes the same provisions do applicability of the vested rights provisions. The County Attorney has determined that the law applicable prior to January 1, 1988, required the owner to perform certain actions in relaance on the _,., .... . ~.x ~„~.,.r,. d establish this nehtoand thareforeothe an 1 ov le s not vested under. ~ not sufficient to w . g > to be eligible to avail himself of the ve ted rights extension provisions f the currente applicant requested Code. After discussion o,f this issue with the County Attorney, theBoard agreed to allow the applicant to apply for an extension of vested rights, rather than requiring an entirely new 1041 review The Board also directed staff to process a code amendment which would a1lowWapprovals canted prior to January 1 198$, to be eligible to apply for an extension afvested rights subject to the regulations` in Section 4-I40 of the Code. ~,. REFERRAL COMMENTS from ACSD, Zoning, City P~lf~ommen~ belOow~and are attached foCoan~ En weer and the Wildlife Officer are included with the reference. Certain comments are summarized below. C~ Planning Staff: Chris Bendon, City Planner; recommends that the Board not extend the vested rights for this paccel, since the develo of has not made. an ro ess m urstlin the project and the r'1. Access: The existing driveway exceeds the allowed 12% grade. Bud Eylar reviewed the site and agreed with the staff's assessment that the access to the building envelope would be safer if the building envelope was located adjacent to the lower portion of the driveway. 1041/CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION SUMMARY: Based on the steepness of the driveway, the severe wildfire hazard, and the proximity to critical wildlife habitats, staff recommends that the building envelope be moved down the slope (to the southwest) in order to be adjacent to the lower portion of the driveway. In this location the driveway will avoid grades in excess of 12%, and development will be clustered with the existing residences in Mountain Valley. Both the proposed and recommended envelopes are entirely comprised of slopes in excess of 30%. If moved, the envelope will encroach into the front yard setback, and a variance will be required. y . T .D RI HT X .NCION: The Board shall consider, but not be limited to, the following criteria in reviewing a request for an extension of vested property rights: 1. Compliance with conditions of approval: The applicant recorded a site plan, as required by Resolution No. PZ-87-36. The other conditions are not applicable until building permit submittal or issuance. 2. Progress do pursuing the project In 1992, the applicaut obtained a determination from the County Planning Director that no further ]and use review was required at that time since there were no new regulations that would affect the parcel. The applicant was advi~cd at that time that the property "would be subject to additional regulatory requirements which may be enacted prior to building permit submittal". No building plans were submitted or prepared prior to adoption of the "new" LandUse Code in 1994. The applicant recently retained an architect to initiate conceptual plans for a house on the site. 3. Nature and extent of benefits received by the County: No benefits were required to be granted to the Countyas a result of the 1041 approval. 4. Needs of the County and the applicant that would be served fiv approval of the request: The County may impose conditions to bring the parcel into compliance with fhe current 1041 standards of the Code without requiring the applicant to go through the full 1041 review process again. In response to the referral comments from Chris Bendon, City Planner, the County has consistently allowed "lapsed" approvals to pursue an extension of vested rights. Section 4-140.20 of the Code states, "development approvals..shall not expire...; However, the vested right steal I expire 3 years ffrorn the date of approval, unless extended pursuant to this section." Through au extension of vested rights, the County is able to review the applicafiosand impose conditions based ou the curreut provisions of the Code; an "extension" in the County does not insulate against changes that have been made in the Code. Also, the County Code does not require that an applicant provide a "clear and compelling reason necessitating the extension" as stated by Mr. Bendon; the criteria listed above are provided in the Code for the Board to consider (though not be limited by) when reviewing an application for an extension. Staff appreciates Mr. Bendon's concerns, and feels that the extension of vested rights process is the appropriate process to ensure that development of this parcel is consistent with the community's interests. RECOMMENDATION: Pursuant to Section 4-140-30, staff recommends that the Boazd approve the Nevin Extension of Vested Rights, with the building envelope amended as recommended and subject to compliance with the conditions in the attached Resolution. This approval will replace Planning Commission Resolution No. PZ-87-36. _, ,. ,_ E ii A. Bruce Matherly, ACSD B. Mike Villa, Wildlife Officer C. VinceUrbina,CSF5 D. Joanna Schaffner, Zoning Officer E. Bud Eylar, County Engineer F. City Planning staff comments 4 ,. ., .i eA v. ~ .~~.. w.. ;x~, e" ..m ~': kk .. n x.~ ~t!~-..~.,.d~i':F'3c.'V.~~., ~:.~c.~ , „s~:,w~ri a~ DaV1S O1'11~• PLANNING & REAL ES~AT~ CC~r15ULTiNG August 4, 1997 Suazanne Wolf Aspen Pitkin Community Development Department 130 South Galena, Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Nevin Extension of Vested Property Rights Dear Suzanne• Davis Horn Incorporated represents Joe Nevin (Applicant) who owns ~ 3 p), p j ( grante Laurel Drive+ad'a ent to the Mounta~.n Valle 1Suecember 22 sl 87ttacliritent 1 Proof of Ownershi The sub'ect site was d 1041 Environmental Hazard Review. approval on D pursuant to Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 87-36 (see Attachment 2). The Applicant is seeking an Extension of Vested Property Rights pursuant to Section 4-140.30 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code. Your Pre-Application Conference ,Summary sheet requests the applicant to address the following: 1. Summarize 1041 concerns which were initially reviewed and mitigation measures which were approved; 2. Address Extension of Vested Property Rights standards; and s of Code. Address Wildfire and Wildlife standard. , Each of the preceding issues are addressed in the following sections of this application. initial 1041 Concerns The primary issue of concern in the 1987 land use review was a, drainage Swale that crossed the proposed building envelope. 'The previous applicant was required to revise the :building envelope to avoid the drainage Swale. The building envelope was revised as documented on the approved Williams 1041 Site Plan recorded, at Book 20 Page 50 (see Attachment 3). Ad 5 tional ~, the County included a standard condition that soils en ineerin studies are required prior to the issuance of a building permit. 1 ALICE DAVIS, AICP 1 GLENN HORN, AICP 215 SOUTH MONARCH SL SUITE 104 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • 970/925-6587 • FAX: 970/925-5180 I Extension of Vested Property Rights This section of the application demonstrates, compliance with the standards in Section 4-140.30 of the Viand t7se Code which must be satisfied to kie granted an extension of 'Vested""prdperty "#`ghts. ' i. The applicant's compliance with. any conditions requiring performance to the dale of'"app~`icatioa for extension of vested rights: The applicant was required to submit a revised 1041 site plan prior to the issuance of a building permit. The revised site plan has been submitted and has been approved and recor"ded:` All other approval'~~conditons identified ih Planning and' Zoning Commission Resolution 87-36 will be complied with prior .~.... to issuance of a building permit as required. 2. The progress made in.pursunq the project to date, including the sffq'r~""to~`obtan any other permits, such as building permits, and the expenditures made by t2ie "app`lcaat~ in pi~rsunq the project. approval.an~ial a'reTiance huponl the n1987o 10411 Hazard"aRe6ew' a. The Applicant granted an easement to the neighboring property owner for the. construction of the neighbors driveway and parking area. As compensation for granting the easement the neighbor Applicantes approved la cess dr ve.he bottom of the', b. The. Applicant retained Charles Cunnffe and Associates, a local architectural firm, to initiate ., ,,. , conceptual plans ~'or a douse on the subject site. A copy of the bill for archrtect~sral services has ,._.. been" rovided to"`bebbe P Quinn.', 3. The nature and extent of any bene~i'ts already reoeived by the Chanty as a result of '.project approval, such as impact fees: or' land dedications. thisCprojectas not received any benefits'or impact fees from ,. ~. 4. The needs of the County and the Applcant~that would be served by approval of the extension request. The Applicant will ,agree to reasonable conditions imposed by the County to comply with new 1041 Environmental Hazard Review standards adopted since 198?, The Applicant will be able to 2 µ.;. ,., proceed with building plans and obtain a building permit. 5. An eaetension may be duly author' zed'maiia" Reasonable condition atty such extension. standardsyadopt d~sinceh1987 lb"41"~ ~iroi5mental Hazard Review Wildfire said Wildlife Standards 19941Land Use Codept hese tandards are addressed sin this sectione Wildfire Standards This land use application will be referred to the Colorado State Forest Service fora wildfire review. If the site is determined to be located within a low, medium or severe wildfire area, the Applicant agrees to adhere by the recommendations of the Colorado State Forest Service for the appropriate wildfire category. Wildlife Sttandards You suggest in your Pre-application Summary Sh envelope is located proximate to severe deer. The Applicant requests tfia the"land use apps the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the Co to determine if this 'is an accurate assessmer building envelope is located adjacent to sev Applicant will agree to comply with the fo: Section 3-80.80 C. of the Code. :hat the, building .lk winter range. ~n be referred to Wildlife Officer If, in fact, the' winter range the ng standards in, 1. Commercial, industrial or high impact recreational development, open pit mineral extraction, or construction of roads should .,.,avoid the habitat areas identified' in this section. 2,. Residential development shall be clustered outside of habitat areas to the"maximum extent possible to ininianze impacts on wildlife. 3. The removal of vegetation shall be minimized. Distua°bed u"., ~ . . areas s all be Yom tl retie etated with benefic browse sp'Ccies. ~P p y g ~- ial 4. When existing vegetation must be altered, for an access ' road utlit line or similar uses P~ y ~ Y ~ an applicant will coo erate with the Count and"tkie Colorado Division of Wildlife to devise a compensation plan acceptable to the *., , County. Such compensaticn plan may substitute (in a nearby area on the subject property) vegetation equal in type and quantity to that being removed to mitigate effects on wldT~ife species. 5. Food., cover and water sources beneficial to wildlife shall be preserved. Mitigate development effects which would destro or dama a thes consideration to trees and shrubs w th hlghGwlldlifeecial p Y ~y ~ food value es eciall hea, seed berry and fruit producing species. 6. Wildlife food species and woody cover along fences should Poe encouraged as one way of improving wildlife habitat. 7. Waterholes, springs, seepage, marshes, ponds and other watering areas should be preserved. 8. Endangered species habitat shall be protected. All disturbances to such habitat shall be minimized. 9. All golden eagle nest sites and bald eagle roost sites shall be rotected. Provide a three-hundred (300) yard Lo buffer around nest sites. Protect all other raptar nest sites with one hundred (100) yard buffers. 10. Mesh or woven Wire fences are prohibited. 11. (ir; or threem3te gilsa No fence shallr (4) .strands of ( ) exceed forty=two 42 Inches in hei ht. 12. Edges (places where two habitat types meet) must be avoided by development and shall be maintained whenever possible since deer and many other species o~ wildlife utilize edge areas. Vegetation disturbances on winter ranges should be minimized and all disturbances revegetated with beneficial browse species. 13. Tall, overly mature trees and standing dead trees should be retained whenever possible as nesting habitat for woodpeckers and other tree nesting species, such as eagles and hawks. Den trees in wooded areas which provide homes for birds., squirrels,. and raccoons should also be retained. Disturbance or destruction of wildlife den sites shall be prohibited except in certain nuisance cases, like skunks under homes. 14. Avoid overgrazing of ranges by livestock. 15. Rmpactst development to areas that minimize wildlife 16. Preserve access to the Division of Wildlife for managing %y t` ,n~+Vv'.d <5u K aws ?.~y .~~`uY~°:: a....~~ ~. 1,~ wildlife: 17. Prohibit high impact recreational uses F 18. Kennel, dogs within or ,adjacent to winter range,. except for working dogs 'when at work,, ; SUMMARY_ This letter addre$ses the concerns identified in your Pre applicator 5u~tn~ry'"Sheet." The, #~ol~owing list' o~ a'ttacT~ments has,. been included to facilitate your reviewxof this application Attachment 1 - Proof of ownership ... .. ..:' Y 4... m ~:i ~;, i .ar e+Lh°YG'`.~.,i'!°"e1.'+R'$C' d ~~~!. Y... ~._ . _. ~,.. Attachment 2,- Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 8'7-36 Attachment 3 - Williams 1041 Site Plan (24" x 36") . ~. .k. w.., ,. ~ ~>: Attachment,4.- List of Adjacent Property Owners Attachment 5 - Letter from, Joe Nevin Consenting to Davis Horn .. ~ -,~ ~~an*t..~re=w . ,~,,„ . .~ .gyn. a~ ~ncorporate`d`ubmitting anc~ ~''se Application Attachment 6 - Pre-application Summary Sheet Attachment 7 - Agreement to„Pay Fees. Please, contact me if you need any additional information Sincerely, IS ,HO INCORPORATED GLENN HORN ICP 5 _. _..x.r ;` ...'S,r17+:uc ...r.: .. , . ~ .. ~ ,w^.u K.:. wS,E: .ass;. . ~ sA,:~ai,"= raccounc RO137~54 ' Year I /At~""^ess ~ Twn~~.I ~ BIk7L'ot ~ Condo? 1!"'~e? Sales? s Legal Description ~~/y,~~ ,.., I'alrilll~s 025 DESC. A TRACT OF LA D SITUATED IN SECTION i7; YO'VftNSDESC 1r) SOUTH. -iANG~~84~W.EST"OFTHE6TH"P:1VIj"PITKtN .. -.. DESC. COUPS,T'Y, COZO~tiAD6 BEING THAT ~, PORTION OP LOTS 2 ANO b1=SC:"5'LYING NORTNEASYERLY"OF'I(A'OUNTAtNVALLEY DESC: SUBDIVISION THIRO~fICtNG 1i5 PC7l"fTED'1N°" i ~: F Administration ~, 1 Names 1 2 Situs Address "' 2 3 MobiieF{orne "'. ~~' 3 4 Tracf/Section ~'~ 4. 5 Coridominiums' 5 6 Block & Lot 8 7 Book & Page/Sales 7 8 1Oiscellaneous ' 9 Taz Items ' 10 Pte/Succeed 11 Remarks ' 12 Tax Sale 13 Special Assess`inerits 74 Mines Update Clear Exit Tom Issac Pitkirs County Assessor 508 East #Aafn_Street, Suite 202 Aspen, Cototfldo Si6,11 t~ aC~ ~1 ..-~. t~ N Owner nalProperty lm t ~ r,~s9 CBOE Protest :t Tracking Gas"Master ads 1 Current Year Prior Version Go To Imaging LEGALISATA EQUENC ERSTAR tEI~TD ^ ^^^ , ,;,,,, ,, ,,, ,,,;,,,,~.~. .w: u+~uanz,;m~...,_+ax,a~re9~A ...._k,.+,;'^i.'.=a<v}e.»;sarrt>awvkvp~y,YaxAis~w'edca^sWxaab:.+Xw. ar;.vdtiati£'e^. i ., RESOI.LJTION OF PITKIN COUNTY PL~2,INING AND ZONING COMMISSION ._ ~ p;. hereinafter Commission is authorized to consider 10 GRANTING 1041 GEOhOGZCJ~tuunxu +'u;v~bF/'^ .=r;": r+-w 'f "r~ r . Resolutiori~87- Yn A1,', WFIEREAS, the Pitkin County Plannsng and Zdning Commission Geologic Hazard Reviews; and WfTEREAS, John Williams (hereinafter "Applicant") is seeking 1041 environmental hazard review for a parcel of land appro~i- mately it acres in size located, norm.. o= rneWr~vu„~a~~. ~a~~~=Y r...,,, ,. _ _,_ ~~ ~-._ _r_ ~ . i . - Subdivision as,,_depicted on Attachment 1; and WHEREAS, the proposal has._been r2viewed by the Commission., after referral to_the Colorado State Geologic ,officer; and WHEREAS, the application was. considered by the Commission at a duly noticed ,public fiearng at the December 8th regularly scheduled meeting of the Commission. the Coittmission that 104 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. by _ ~ ~ 1 geologic hazard revew.,approval is granted to, the. parcel depicted in Attachment 1 subject to the following conditions: 1• blatd whi heYwas ssubmi tefl ct t they Planninge OfficelOto' indicate the revised buildin plat de icted in ment 2 and the conditions 'li ted below attach- 2 'Pang condiaio s sha`~lc be met building permit the follow- a. The applicant shall apply for and obtain an en- croachinent permit from Pitkin, County for the „- . , ... proposed driveway. h. The applicant will be .required to obtain a letter of intent from the As en Consolidated Sanitation ~ District for Waste water disposal. Waste water - „_,.~ , , K.~.a-rW ~ ,,. ., .;~,...,~~. ,-~.: ~,a ate.„.,...~~« .vmr:..~..,~...~~.~~~.:.<......,~~:3.A Resolution #87 Page 2 AiTACtilEN1' `~ service must then be provided by the Sanitatian District. c. The applicant will be required to obtain a letter of intent form the City of Aspen to provide water service. Water service must then be provided by the City of Aspen. ` d. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant will conduct soils engineering analysis for the design of the :foundation and to insure propeY drainage. The soils engineering study will be provided to the Building Department at the time a building permit is applied for. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on December 22, 1987. PITKIN COiTNTY PLl~iNNING AND ZONIIIG C02~II~IISSION" _ By: Peter Guy, irman APPROVED AS~'~SO FORM: Thomas F. Smith, County Attorney APPROVED AS TO CbNTENT: - ~~ /~„~ Alan RZChman, Planning and Development Director gh.williams - /~ Ai7/1CFNIENT " i LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWN1tES NEVIN REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF VESTED RIGHTS Obtained. from the Assessor's Records on August 5, 1997 Joseph Ladou Trus¢ Bettina Batchelor 3364 Woodside Road 071 I Mtn. Lauret Drive. Woodside, CA 94062 3638 Aspen C0 81611 Rojer LLC Don D, Crawford An Arizona LLC POB U3 585 Mtn. l.aut'el Drive Aspen CO 81612 Aspen C0 81611 Gene Law Howard Bass & Michele Bodner POB 2532 POB 5078' Aspen C0 81612-2532 Aspen CO $1612-5078 Donald 8c Betty Lou King Robert 7. & Melanie Harth 803 Mtn. Laurel Drive 0602 Mtn. Laurel Drive Aspen CO 81611 Aspen CO 81611 Ellen J. Meyers 0658 Mtn. Laurel Drive Aspen CO 81611 Jim & Elizabeth Hatfield 7783 Rock Hill Cincinnati OH 43243 Andrew S. Zieve POB 4032 Telluride CO 81435-4032 "'P "~"'~ : I'12-p'l '~Q Robert 8c Leslie Friemuth POB 4170 Aspen CO 81612-4170 Edward & Bonnie Joe Sclamberg 2430 0rrington Evanston II. 602Q l Bureau of Land Management 50629 US Highway 6 & 2'4 Glenwood Springs; CO 81601 F'~ks- 23-d l OS : 19,tA Aug3-O1-3T~'09:?7a N _ JOE ]IE1lI!( 9• LA L01Q1 DRYY6 ltt~t,if 7?!11RtCo EX ~i025 •samasa®ai~s August 1, 1997 suelzahna wolf Jlsperi Pitkn Community DeveleplseYat Department 130'South Ga~.ena ~£reet Aspen, Colofa8fs 61S3I Ras ~tavixe amtassefan of ve~teos psoparty Rights Dear Suzanne: 221s letter authorises Davis tiOYn Zncarporatgd to prepare and submit a land usB applioaEifln tar my land la~atea ;n Firkin Count. Glenn Horn may a16o"ra15SaS~rit m,g in the land use Yeview pzocess. 't'hank yau. Sineesaiy, f ~~~y}~ ~'.' V t J IlHVIN 9Vnt~t-ttia rvtotm aRri'ace of tli>.'f'^~.......e....'w, T'fe.:m f.:.,... m.~.:..~~~ ~T'"'- ___.____ JUL-29-1997 2S 1S FROMASPEN,'PITKIN COM j7E0 TO ~~9-9255189 ~~P. 91 ~~ ~ ~~ ~rrac~t~tr ~ rrrzcnv t°otrNru YRE-ApYLTCA`t'Ittll CUN~`k~NCE SOMMAiZY PLANNER: Sutanae Wolff DATE: 29,1997 PROTECT; 1~IevinExteasionof`yestedRifihts LOCATION: ri9IB lot adjacent to Mountain Valley Subdivision (PTD #2737-172-0 001) OWNTiF: Joe Nevin REPRESENTATIVE: G1ennTiorn PTiONElFAX: 925-65871425-518 SiTARi1d, ARY 1. 'Type o£Appiication: T3xtension of'Vested Rights 2. Describe accionJtype ofdevelopment being requested Requests extension vested Rights. 1041 Tazard Review appiroval granted pursuant to Ttesolution 1`To P2=$7-36 ('@V' 'ems). 3. Areas in which Applicant has been requested to respond/types of reports req ested: • Summarize 1041 concerns which were initially reviewed and miti 'on measures which , !° weft approved. •' Address the criteria for Extension of Vested Rights as contained in ion 4-140.30. • Address 1041 hazards wTuch were not reviewed is 1987: mapped 1 wand severe wildfire hazazd azeas anii elk winter'range, severe witrter range and critical h bitat within 114 mile ofthe proposed`building envelope. 4. Review is before the Board of Coaniy Commissioneas at 3 public hea>IV1 The app[icam shah post a public notice sign of least 15 days prier to tfie public hearing. 5. StaB'wili refer to: County Attorney, ACSD, Aspen Water Department; Ci of Aspen, GO State Forest Service, DOW, Wrldlife OfFcer, County T:n;ineer ` 6. PPanning Office deposit regitired: 1080 Referral Feesrequixcd: CountyEngineer 155 County Cleric I10 Tptai Deposit: 345 7. ' To apply, please submit 1S copies ot'the foilowriiig, tmiess otherwise noted: • Cutter addressing issues and Code sections noted above • ' Approved Site Pian • Original approvals lie. z~asohuions) • Proo£ofownership * List of adjacent piroperty owners (one copy) and an addressed envel for each owner with itre re`eum address ofthe Communityl)e"veIopmentbepaitie . • T.etter from owned giving coasentto reptesent, if using a " e (one copy) ~ Application fee • ' Copy of tliispre=application summary • Agreement for Payment form (2 copies). TOTAL P.01 ..:~~ ~, qUG-01-1997 0646 FROM F1'SPEN'PT'fK~TTT~COM"T~C~ T0~ 99255180 P.01 . ATTACFWFMT t ~ C()Ml~tY3I~TITY DE'6~LOPMEI~'~ ~3F..~AR P.iTC~'IN Cfld.JDi'I'Y (hereiiaafter'CQtJNTY) anti ~C`3~ e ~ ~ n n : .,.. (hereinafter APPLIC'~ A AS FOLLQ~VS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to COUNTX an appla~arion for ~/' ,~^~ i ~%?r'T-v'.v1s ~ c>,n 8 ~ ~ ~ST~ ~ rO l~ e!' 1 ~ i v {'1?'~ (hereinafter, TfiE PRf371CT). 2 APPLICANT understands and ag*eas z~at l'itkin County Resolution No. 95-326 establishe§ a fee srrucnire for I'lantring applications and the paymern of all processing fees is a canditiou precedent to a date 'ou of application completeness. ~. APPLICAa'VT and Ct}UNTY agree that because c the size, nature or scope o€ the proposed project, it is ~n,nt gossa~aie at dais tip ascei~aiaa the full eeteni of the costs involved in processing the appticari0n. ApPLICAN?' and ~$LU ~ ~~ e that it is in Abe iztterest of` th parties to alloy payment of an initial s3eposit and daerea~ter permit additional costs t+o be billed. to APPI,ZC.~iNT on a itiy 's. APPLICA~~fi agrees he will be benefited by retaining heater cash liquf 'ty and wall make additional payments upon natificataon by the COZI~iTY when they are necassatq as costs are inGUrred. COi~'NTY as ees is will be bene~ired ugh. the heater cextainry of recaverang its fiisll costs to process APPLICANT'S aplication, 4. COUNTY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for COUNTY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information ua the Pianning Commissivti andtox Board of Couury Commissiot~rs ib enabYe the Planzaing Cotssisslon and/or Board of County Commzssipners to make legally. repaired findings for project appraval, unless eutzent afire billings + paid in foil prior 1A decision. Peb-23-~Cl1 Q5:19A Auc~-DI X97 09e27A ? -- y ` 5, Therefpre~, API?i,~CANT agr tb~ is COtJN1Y's praivcr of 'sas rigtu 'm cx>uec~ fait ~rro of $ vvfuch is far _ bouts of Planesmg seafP cline, e~oceed. dNr. i~ d~pCSU, APB CC:A1~1°I' "s6it1 ~ ~aY ai COiTNl"3t to use du Ct)ZJNY'Y fos ohc p{, Svc, i~Iuding post"ova! a~vyew, Secc ~woa wi~ia 30 cbzys of fie .. date. CAl~lsl p~71' $~oh scett~ed sh^1t lse gnxmt3s for Sian ~Y"1'K'4N C~t7~4"!'Y I.ICAId'E' C,adq &bti cif . I)e.~ar mc~torr S~geratwrc P_02 xr: P. 10 i "'. yaGJJtb~ ~~ ": ~JC ~ideza~tiaes~a of eho . ;,, rbe f ae~er~led cases Ys~ ~ {of tip ~glic~oet °i~'f isa~~ts shNl tie ~' awes faalar~ tq ~{,(S Ad~Lcrxb: +'~t~K Ev ~.R..k. ~~ ~ ~~D2J 2 ~: t'D7gt P. 02 ,~'' r _ , _. ,-- _. _.. , /~ tea t,^ m~ ^ ~, ~ 4130.20 The Planning Director, Planning and Zoning Commission br Board of County Commissioners. whichever is applicable, shall determine whether a proposed amendment constitutes either a minor amendment,or a major amendment to a development application pursuant to the standazds in Section 3-200.80. Major amendments shall require a new conceptual subdivision applicapon and shall be reconsidered by the Planning and Zoning Commission and Board of County Commissioners pursuant to Sections 460, 4-70 or 4-80, whichever is applicable. (Prior code § 41302) 4130.30 After the Issuance of a Development Permit A. Minor Amendments: Minor amendments to an approved development application which has been issued a development permit may be permitted by Administrative Review pursuant to Section 4-40. B. Major Amendments: Major Amendments to a development proposal which has been issued a development permit may be permitted by Two-step'Revew pursuant to Section 460. (Prior code § 41303) 4140 VESTING OF PROPERTY RIGHTS AND EXPIRATION OF DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS . ~jOrd. 95-6 § 3 (part), 1995: prior code § 414) 4140.10 General A. A vested property right shall attach to and run with the applicable real property upon approval of a Site Specific Development Plan. B. Approval of a Site Specific Development Plan may be made with or without conditions, and the failure to fully abide by the terms of any conditions of approval will. result in a forfeiture of vested property rights. C. The vested property rights procedures in this section shall apply to any site specific development approved on or after January 1, 1988. The procedures shall not apply tm any site specific development plan or other land use application approved prior to Janu "1, 1988, w lcable on the date of royal shall jOrd. 95-6 § alt), 1995: prior code'§' d-1401) 4140.20 Term of Vested Property Right and. Expiration of Development Approvals Development approvals, including the awazding of Growth Management Quota System Allotments, for single family and duplex dwelling units, and associated lots and pazcels, shall not expire; however, the vested right shall' expire three (3) years from the date of approval, unless extended pursuant to this section. All other development approvals shall expire three (3) years from the date of approval (concurrently with the vested right), if the approved use, building or structure' has not been'establisfied or commenced; or the term of the vested right has not been extended pursuant to this section. (Ord. 95-6 § 3 (part), 1995: prior code § 41402) 4140.30 Extension of Vested Property Rights The Boazd may approve an extension of vested property rights in accordance with this section and Sections 440, 450 and 5-50. 305 _. _ ~.. I. .. M E M O RAND U M TO: Suzanne Wolff, Planning FROM:- Joanna S. Schaffner, Zoning DATE: September 26, 1997 RE: Nevn_Extenson of Vested Rights Parcel ID# 2737-172-00-001 I have reviewed the above referenced application and offer the following comments: ZONE: AFR-10, ten acre minimum lot size This parcel contains approximately 12 acres and is conforming in size. SETBACKS: The required setbacks for this parcel are: 100 foot front yard setback 30 foot side yard setback 50 foot rear yard setback The extent of the front lot line is somewhat ambiguous. Tye front lot line could be determined as being `between the ~.~.~.9, or between the ~e x's on the attached sheet. The .pa.~ndicators show the envelope to be outside of all required setbacks. The ~~e x indicators show the envelope to be located within the required 100 foot front.. yard setback. The approved front lot line should be indicated on the approved site plan or within the resolution approving this application. There is no required setback from the road easement. FLOOR AREA: The allowed. floor area on this parcel is a total of 15,000 square feet. All structures are included in the calculation of floor area. The applicant has not represented proposed floor area at this time. HEIGHT: Building plans have not been submitted to determine compliance with County height regulations. ems, ~° OTHER: Development is not permitted outside of approved building envelopes unless specified by this approval_ This includes entry or ranch gates, septic systems and landscaping. In Resolution 87-36, condition 2a requires and encroachment permit for the proposed driveway. This should be revised to require an driveway/access permit instead of an encroachment permit. A building permit could not be found for the existing retaining wall. This parcel is located in the Scenic Overlay. When will this review occur? Now, without house plans, or in the future, once house plans are completed? r .: ;_ NOTICE; AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC OF APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL (Pursuant to Section 4-90 the Pitkin County LBiid"°Use"Co3e) state of Colorado) > ss. County of Pitkin ) The undersigned, being duly sworn, deposes and says as follows: I, Glenn Horn being or representing an applicant before Pitkin County, personally, certify giving Public Notice of the Board of County Commissioners hearing for tIie''27eVin Extension of '"Vested Property Rights by posting notice containing the information required in Section 4-90 which posting occurred on September 21, 1997 in a conspicuous place and that said sign was posted. Applicant:. Joe Nev' By .Glen orYi' The foregoing Affidavit of Public Notice. was acknowledged and signed before me this 8 day of October, 1997 by Glenn Horn on behalf of Joe Nevin. _. WITNESS my hand and offici 1 seal. My commission expires`'i~t3~3~0 I~LJ RY PUBLIC e"' Q ~+y CERTIFICATE OF MAIT.ING RE: NEVIN EXTENSION OF VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS I hereby certify that on this 2nd day of September, 1997, a true and correct copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was deposited in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, to the adjacent property owners as indicated on the,attached list of adjacent property owners which was supplied to the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office by the applicant in regazd to the case named on the Public Notice. By: Rhonda Harris Administrative Assistant r r. ~' ~ ~:. .~ '~ NO r iCE E?~a~rlE~'~:.. r~~E~~-_ P~.~-CE s~o E ~,,~N i~#JRPO~E~ .,... Puei.c Hen.a rn.c roa ,._-,- ,~~?iN ~X CE NStOy R,~~„ =. ~ ;n,' _ r+~ric ~~rE~~~ ter: r~ME~~_ Pi.ACE~2~~ ~~ ~i. PURPOSE~._. -~ _ "UEr_rc HCA R iryy L4 ,,,,~,~ t~~ r: '-YtFnt~o+a EtP !' _~ ~ ~I ~~ ~O°t'i~E .._ _ Mkt E~ _'.e.;~..' TIIIAE3c~..,... P'L,ACE~ ~~ ~ n.L Pl~tPO~E.-. _ .__ ~ C71Gk1L__1.if15'; _>afc.12$,..-.....,.~ '~`J'J._'r1~.~N3' 4 '3if. y, PUBLIC NOTICE RE: NEVIN EXTENSION OF VESTZ';D PROPERTYRIG~ITS' NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday,, g g g Ivi before the $oard of County October 8, 1997 at a re ular meetin to be in at 3:00 P ' Commissioners, Plaza One Conference Room; 530 E. Ivtain St., Aspen to consider an application submitted by Joe Nevin requesting an extension of vested property rights. The property is located on Mountain Laurel Drive adjacent to the Mountain Valley Subdivision, and is described as a tract of land situated an Section'17, Township 105, Range 84 West of the 6th PM. For further informationAcontact Suzanne Wolff at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department (970) 920-5093. Copies of the proposed Resolution are ~yailable for public inspection during regular business hours in the Office of the Clerk and Recorder, 530 East Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611. Phone (970) 920-5180. Jeanette Jones, Deputy County Clerk Board of County Commissioners Publshedin the Aspen Times on September 6, 1997 Pitkin~County~'AccountOd~l;. ._ .>, .,,_.. ... ,:, ~ y,, ~ ` "~ LYST OF NEVIN REQiTES Obtained Eton Joseph Ladou Trust Bettina Batchelor, ' 3364 Woodside Road ;Drve 0711 Mm. Laurel Woodside, CA 94062-3638 Aspen CO 81611 Rojer LLC rawford An Arizona LLC POB U3 585 Mtn. Laurel Drive Aspen'CO 81612 Aspen CO 81611 Gene Iaw Howard Bass & Michele Bodner ~ POB 2,S 3~" . .•;; ~~ POB 5078. _ C =253 2 81612 Aspen Aspen C0 81612-SD78 Donald & Betty Lou King Robert I. & Melanie Harth 803 Nltn. Laurel brve 0602 Mtn. Laurel Drive Aspen CO 816IT. .~ Aspen CO 81611 Robert & Leslie Friemuth Ellen I. Meyers POB X170 f 0658 Mtn. Laurel Drive Aspen CO 81612-4170 Aspen CO 81611 Edward & Bonnie Joe Sclamber 8 Jim & Elizabeth Hatfield 2430 Orrington 7785 Rock Hill ~~ Evansfon lIr~602'61_ Cincinnati OH 45243 , Bureau of Land Management Andrew S. Zieve 50629 US Highway 6 & 24 POB 4032 Glenwood Springs, C~ 81601 Telluride CO 81435-4032 w..- .. .... ASPEN/PITHIN CO , , 1h~aD1 na~L~~OI'M)rNTDEPARTMENT . Aspen, Colorado 8161' 1 (970) 920-5090 FAX# (970) 920-5439 ', ` August 8, .1997 Glenn Horn Davis Hom, Inc. 215 S. Monarch St. Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Nevin Extension of Vested Rights ', Case #P96-97 Dear Glenn, The Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that this appiication'is complete. After a more detailed review of the submittal information, additional information specific to the application may be requested in order to adequately review and process the application. The planner in charge of the'review will ` request the information from you directly. ' We have scheduled this application for review at a public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners, Plaza. One Conference Room, 530E. Main St., Aspen, on Wednesday, October 8, 1997 at a meeting to begin at'3:00 P.M: Should this date be':nconueni~nt for you, please contact" g y g final and changes t the sched a orttabling of the.application will only lie a'Ilowed for unavoirdab7e technical problems. The Friday before the meeting date, we "cviIl call to inform you that a copy'of the memo pertaining to the application is available at the Planning Office. Please note that it is your responsibility to post the subjectproperty with a sign within 15 days of the ublic hearin and to remove it from the roe within one week'following the hearing ' g P p TtY Please submit the enclosed Affidavit of Notice by Posting as proof of compliance with the Code prior to of at the hearing. If you have anyquestions, please call Suzanne Wolff, the planner assigned to your case, at 920- 5093. Sincerely, Rhonda Harris Administrative Assistant ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone (970) 920-5090 FAX (97U) 920=5439 MEMORANDUM TO: County Attorney County Engineer Zoning Mike Villa -Wildlife Officer CO State Forest Service CO Division of Wildlife ACSD Aspen Water Aspen Planning FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Community Development Department RE: Nevin Extension of Vested Rights, Parcel ID #2737-172-00-001 DATE: August 8, 1997 Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Joseph Nevin. Please return your comments to me no later than September 26, 1997. Thank you. _~ e ~ ~ 4 ~ '"~ f' }L'~ " i .f _ M t V ~ }sa i ~ ~ ~ ` ,, ~, ' ~ ~ ~~ ~ \ ~ I I '' ,, ~ i, Q ~ ~ ~ ` ~' ~ ' o Al ~ w ,, ' ~ .` 4 1 , , 1 ~ ` ~ Q 1 _ ~, '.. 1 , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 .~, 1 o I ~ ~~ ti, ~~= ,- ~,,,. i ~ ~ ~ ~ d ., ~ ,. ~ ~ ~~ y; . `~ ~ i ~, .~. 1 {`\`\ ~' t ~ I ~ ~ \ - ~' ' O t~ Ij I ~`~\ ~ I ~~ / \ ~ ~ `y ~ ,~ '~ i ~ ` 4 \ ~ ~ ~ i ~ t X ` , l \ / i ~ ° s ~4 ~r W..PF ~i ~ ~ 1 '. .3~ ~ M7'~. :dam ~ r J ~~'. k 5„ - "u x.10 4 bl I ~ / ~, `\~ ~ ~.I ,., ~~ .:~, ~ ~ •L ~ ~ r m.: _ . ,.. ... . ,- fi ,:; ~ a. ,, , , .: ,~ _ .... ., .. , ' ~ ,~ F ~ i ~ ~ C ~ ~is~J , CJ6°JAt ~4{ V w~ . ,.; tf ~ ~ ~ \\\ °n`~ \ ~~ ~ \ \~/ ,`` ti\Rt, \ ~ fir ~t r i~ `~1\~..:. r ~. .~~ ~'~ ~,! III i y~J. ', ~1 p ~ x ~ `,~ 1~ \ 1 +~,, \,, l1~ .,„ ~. ~ r ~ ~ ~1` t / ~ ~, : ~. ~ t i {( , ~, ,; j Y `~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ti ~i1!' Liu,-. ~~.~, -aid \ ~. ~ ~ '~. ' ~ \~t ~ `~ \\\ , ~ `,ti ~ ^ //' `art' :... ti i ~....._ "~ ~'y: 'may \i - ` „ `] ~ n s ,k. ~. ''v 1 war.... ~ ~ ~``~'-'`f •~ \ ~ i5 , .~ ~~ ``,. Flln~t".S --- s r3t~ s i 2.9 • Ini 8 ~ ~ co ~ , ~ ~,~ ,, »: NC' Cc'JR ~l..C!'i'"" 1°~~.~ ...~~.~.,~r~. ~.cw:M.,~F,~.w'ev+w. •wsr.,_u«•~i:u~,..e...S~~~'~..?~.a. xc...1,.~rc~, _~-_ .. ~5 i `~ I ,2, r„ N~~ 2.0 ~//a,TET2 ~.._ 101-4 1 {~ ~ c~K 300 PG 87T ' BVtL,01iVC~ ; ~ ~ _ ~~¢ / 1 G. ~ ` ENV~I...OPE.. 1, 1 v 19° 23.2-1"Vt~ ~ ~~ I b3 ~ \~~ Exl STING ~ .~ ~.. Mp ~ !,, , . ~ ' ~.. .'~ ~~,, ~AV 'g,.• ~'g~ tQz ~'`-~REL~~ aoaec oa (~R/ V~eue.ta<- z Ah West of the x_e the Witness (established b.y ?et 7 ~r. No. +4 of the ` ~\ • ~. r -~~ `a1312L ~ ~ .a .~..mr.~uernserirr~rr.u~ F' TJ i7. O.C. 4~ s }; H o~ M V L 2 -} AGRES 101 i 00 ..~ ~inhland FTacer, 99 i the Nartherl_v _.-. __..._-~.~ r.:,~,~.-~.-~-..-.-:-; ;,.~--=~^-.. tht-of-wav line; ~ `"' `••"' - __._ ___ i rght~of-wav 1 yht-of -way l i nr a radius of ' F which b@ari qay' _-of-waV liner lht-of-way Iin1Et a radius of which 6eeP's c-of-way 1$he• ~ht-of-wav lihei ui Eh a radius 'df ' of which beaha -of-way linc~a It-of-way linr>'; .qht-df-wdy litti! 25' East 125.~d Intain Valley ~. i Filinq.• <' e ,.,,.~ 'r ,~ , ~ ~ 0 9 ,,~. t` ~) .~ h O O z _ ,---- _., -... __._., i ____ s3„ v-~ _ 4e.. ~ a 9~ 9 Ca ~~?. 3 CZ O° J Pri.lEV l a u q 5LrT C'~.t :/~ -, _ ..... .. ,. ,. ~ , a Aspet-/CjttTtin Communi Development Department- - ,. ;_ . . 130 South Galena S"treef "" Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970)920-5090 City Land 1Jse Appt ecati®n Fees: : 00113-63850"041 Deposif ~` ~ ~ ~ "` ,~-~` ' 63860-043 _ ,., , . , HPC -63885-268 Public Right-of--Way `-`~-r '-~~' -63875-046 Zoning & Sign Permit ~' "" -bIR01'i --- .. ~ .. Use Tzz 10000-67100-3E3 ~. .. .. _ .'c ...~ , : V Park Dedication !5000-6:i05048C AHCommer`cal' "' " 15000-63065-482 AH Residenfial' "' "" ` }""' County Land Use Application Fees: 0017'3-63800=033 Deposit ~s~~<_.l".+ ~-~ -6382{}-037 - _--- Zoning -03825-f,38 - - ~ r .. ~~ ;,~.,,r F3oard'ofAdj~stment =-_-• ~,_ Referral Fees:.. _ - !, , 00(13-63810-035 CountyF..ngineer j OOii5-53340163- "CityEnanecr' - --"-- `` '" _ 62023-63340-1GO Housing' _ --~-~' ~"`'„,'.'""°,°' . " 00]25-63340=203 _ EnvironriientalHealth ~ ~--~ " "~ 00; l3-63815-036 Courty`Clerk " _ -_~ ,_,~~: - ,~ ryx.~ ~ QOit3-6'33{2-212 ~ lVildlifeOffcer ~ ~-~- Sa[esi 00813-63830-034" County Code `' ` -69D'b0 ]'4S _ ~Ccrpy Faes --Tt----.~~ r~ - Total~~tl~~ f~ _ :. ~'~" lid""' ~ Name. _~r - - Dale: ~,,.. c f `ia~ ~~ Cfieck: ~ Address: ~r~ ~j~ Project:,i.~J~ep,,-. , ~.