HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.planning.264322110002DOCUMENT LAYOUT
THIS FILE MAY OR MAY NOT CONTAIN ALL OF THE INFORMATION
LISTED BELOW IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER
Summary Sheet
Resolution for the BOCC and/or P&Z
Ordinance for the BOCC and/or P&Z
Determination for the Hearing Officer
Administrative Determination
Staff Memo
Application
Public Notice, Acceptance Letter, Referral(s) Letter
Site Plan
Miscellaneous
Plat copies (llxl'~
PARCEL ID: 2643-221-10-002 DATE RCVD:. ~ # COPIES CASE NO P030-95 -
CASE NAME: Hovdesven Minor Amend Dev Permit Planners ~-
PROJ ADDR: 0191 Yellow Fox Ln
OWN/APP: Hovdesven, Bayard .:ADR~~ CIS2i~~ PHN:~
REP: ADR:~- ClSIZ~~.PHN~-
Email Addr: ALLOCATED HOURS:-
FEES DUE: FEES RCVD:~ ~ %OVER: ~-
.._. ~. ...~..I
REF:- BY~- '. DUE:
MTG DATE REV BODY PH .NOTICED DATEOF FINAL ACTION: 3/3/1995
~~~ No
I- ~- BOCC Resa .Approval
-
I
I I NO ~
;
~..~': No ~ :. BOCC Ord:.
REMARKS PZ: ~-
- HRG OFF:
.CLOSED: ~- BY:. ~- HO INDEX:
ADMIN: ~ ~.
PLAT RECORDED-- PLAT (BK,PG~:~ ADMIN INDEX: ~-
VRAPPROVALDATE:'- .VR EXPIRES:-'..
CASE TYP: Minor Amend Dev Permit CASE TYP5:
CASE TYP2: CASE TYPE:..
CASE TYP3: CASE TYP7: '- '
CASE TYP4:.. Date Scanned:..'. 9/24/09
File Location: Box 177
r CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEE~°~.
PITKIN COUNTY
DATE RECEIVED:
DATE COMPLETE:
STAFF MEMBER:
03/O1J95
CASE # P30-95
PARCEL ID# 2643-221-10-002
PROJECT NAME: Hovdesven Minor Amendment to Development Permit
Project Address: Tract 2, White Star Ranch Gl9/ ~:>d~<, fix !tip
APPLICANT: Bavard Hovdesven
Applicant Address:
REPRESENTATIVE: Stan Mathis ~i7.~7~?L~~
Representative Address/Phone:
FEES: PLANNING $ 224 # APPS RECEIVED
ENGINEER $ # PLATS RECEIVED
HOUSING $
ENV. HEALTH $
CLERK $
TOTAL $ 224
TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL: X 1 STEP: 2 STEP:
DRC MEETING DATE
P&Z MEETING DATE PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
BOCC MEETING DATE PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
HEARING OFFICER MEET ING DATE:
REFERRALS: -------------------- ---------------------------
Attorney Aspen Consol S.D. School District
Engineer Rocky Mtn Nat Gas USFS (Carbondale)
Housing Holy Cross USFS (Aspen)
Aspen Water _ Aspen Fire Div. of Wildlife
Envir.Hlth. Basalt Fire BLM
Zoning Carbondale Fire Snowmass Village
Land Mgmt. Div. Water Res. Risk Manager
Airport Mgr. State Forest Ser. Caucus
Sheriff CO Geo.Survey Homeowners
City P & Z CDOT Open Space Board
Building Dept Clean Air Board Other:
Brush Ck Metro Dist Other:
DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: DATE DUE:
--------------------
RESOLUTION #: -- --------------------
DATE: ---------------------------
PLAT OR SITE PLAN RECORDED AT BOOK PAGE(S)
FINAL ROUTING:~,o~~L DATE ROUTED: 3 ~J :'S INITIAL: 4-~~
County Attorney _County Engineer Zoning
Housing _Envir. Health Applicant
Open Space Bd.
Other:
FILED:
Revised 02/08/95
~` h `l3-,~~-10 ~~a:%
3 r ~ t ~ i9~6
Pitky~n County
9 October, 1996
J. Nicholas McGrath, Esq.
J, Nicholas McGrath, P.C.
600 East Hopkins Ave. Ste 203.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: White
Dear Nick:
This is in response to your September 11, 1996, letter regarding the above
reference matter. 1 have reviewed the County files concerning this property and
correspondence between your office and Tom Smith and Tim Whitsitt.
My information reveals that the litigation was settled and the settlement terms
were memorialized in BOCC Resolution #90-98. Ultimately, the property received full
development approval by BOCC Resolution #90-151. Although I do not have copies of
the documents, it appears Tim Whitsitt signed a stipulated motion to dismiss the
lawsuit. The Court file has been archived and is therefore not readily available.
There is some correspondence concerning a request to modify the approval
regarding payments to be made to the Brush Creek Improvement District, but I show no
record of this modification having been effected.
Although the Board has expressed a desire to reexamine and perhaps modify the
land use code provisions concerning vested rights, this task has not been completed.
Based upon the changing priorities of items in front of the BOCC, I would not want you
or your client to wait to act with the expectation that this item of work will be
completed by the BOCC within a specific period of time. I would suggest that you
contact the Community Development Office with a request to modify the development
approval for the property and to establish a three year vested right period from the date
of that modification. The planning office is better equipped than I to evaluate
information regarding any particular property.
Administration
530 E. Main, Suite 301
Aspen, CO 81611
(970) 920-5200
FAX 920-5198
County Commissioners
Suite 301
530 E. Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
(970)920-5150
County Attorney
Suite 302
530 E. Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
(970) 920-5190
Finance and Use Tax
530 E. Main, Suite 201
Aspen, CO 81611
(970) 920-5220
FAX 920-5230
printed on recycled paper
I have forwarded a copy of your September 11, 1996,1etter with its attachments
to the Community Development Department. If I can assist you further, please let me
know.
Sincerely,
~- ~ --~
John M. Ely
Pitkin County Attorney
JME/Icm
1/j/mist corres/mcgrath.ltr
cc: Cindy Houben
J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, P.C.
A Professions! Corporation
Attorneys At Law
J. Nicholas McGrath'
Susan W. Laatsch
Diana L. Godwin
September 11,1996
John Ely, Esq.
Pitkin County Attorney
530 East Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Hovdesvan, White
600 East Hopkins Avenue
Suite 203
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Telephone [970 925-2612
Facsimile 1970) 925-4402
CompuServe 74020,150
nicklawecsn.net
www.aspenlink.com /Wicklow /
~, r ...... .. . .
JCY I J (.i>,
Dear John:
~~" ;,:
4TT~u~ :: ..: r'.~) ~ .` fig.`
I wrote you on June 25 to discuss this 1041 approved building envelope, and
we briefly discussed that the County is in a state of flux on 1041 and vesting. I think
it is in my client's and the County's interest to get this lawsuit settled and
dismissed.
I enclose a copy of the plat approved in settlement of this litigation, and an
updated wildfire report, wildfire hazard being the only 1041 issue that I can think
of as anyone wanting to re-review, since the envelope was fully reviewed
previously. The Colorado Forest Service rates the hazard as low to medium, and all
of its recommendations are acceptable to Bayard Hovdesvan, the owner.
Can't we get rid of this old matter by staff review, Bayard's agreement that
the conditions in the Colorado Forest Service letter of July 15, 1996 are additional
conditions of approval, tiTat he ttlen has a fnree year vesting, and we can dismiss
the lawsuit?
Please review and let me know. Thanks.
Sincerely,
J. NICtAH~OLAS MCGRATH, P.C.
By: J. Nicholas McGrath
'Member, Colo. 119711. Calif 179697, nmi U.C. h9661 bnrs
•#
~~
9E -
o a 'y" 3
~ e
~ ° a
~ ~~
t } :
~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ,
-
a 5 i~
a
5 _ .
I.
o g/ I
i i
~a'^ _ '
~^
i''°o
fy¢,
Vii. n
m
V1w_ ~
A2' {;~~ ~
# ;,,` ~
~~,
ay3 ~
n
>: 3~ °
o
`p~
y
49t m
,:
e
~
n
~
+
4~ ~
N~
r ~,
i
c ~ ~ .
~~, ~
i.
1~ ,' ~ a
'h I°
1
~ .
$ !I ~ :<
1~~~~
o ~.
- `' t
A ~
i~
In
°.
'jy
.a
4~
Rg~
~ ~ ~g
a
s ~~{ s
{~~ T
d b
a3
€+
' ai
tt{
~~~
{~
;i:
t j;:'
i ~.
~ i9a{ ;
{ i
,..4• < a
~~aB ~~~
e++c n lY.A"
a I=~
8
j
~v~ ~
;
' IJt
~i 3
:
: ~
T~' ~
< i{
IIC~F f
!
,~I
;.'' R.
a a a
g~~3a .a:
a@;
' f
~ t
'(~
Ra:
B~ ?3'a~
. 'iifte :f
A
.~.:. ..
6 .C
3
;3:: :~
a
a i,
It a ~ r
it as ee
Aa } z
~ i
]33i
"t
~~
0
.O
0
',
__
~~,
~~ ,
a
D
~, O
i~- ~
I
~~ y'
I
• a• r
.~„ a
E; ; m
c~
;
0.3` ~~ m
L {9 A i
"A ~~ Z
~
f
~ 3
r'
~ m
~
i n
r yr z
~ ~
7; ~ A o
" m m
o
:q~ 8'
a rS.
r , ~ ;-
-s;
;~ ,
B .
~ n
~ ~
Fs-
4 ;o ia2~E; ii~ deo ~
~ •
.
YF a
' a
1 :a
a
~~ w e
:~a ~0
3 + a
~"
. ~ A ~~ ~ 2 ~ 'A
i YL §
lad . tf:~a. a < e{ 1 ..
~
{ f a
~°7 3 'j• a 35=~~ O la{
' a 4; t e
a A~ ~ p ; e
~
.~:'. it°.
iata:
i i3 e
fi
sFia4; z.
SI
,~.
m!
G
A
i
m
m
m
m
z~
m
pl
N
N
O
~_
~...
FOREST
SERVICE
July 15, 1996
Bayard Hovdesven
P.0. Box 3810
Aspen, CO 81612
State Services Building
?22 S. 6th Street. Room 416
Grand Junc[ion, Colorado 81501
Telephone: (970) 248-7325
Dear Bayard,
When I do a 1041 Wildfire Hazard review I look at the road
system, the existing fuels, percent slope and how they all relate
to each other. The road system into the Brush Creek housing area
has always been troublesome to me. In its current configuration
the road system goes against t:.e Colorado State Forest Service
(CSFS) and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 299
standard recommendations. The roads are narrow. The NFPA 299
standard states that all developments shall have roads that allow
for the simultaneous access of emergency vehicles and evacuation
of residents with a road surface of 24 feet with 4 foot
shoulders. There should be more than one access route. In some
spots the existing grade exceeds the maximum of 100. In addition
there are hazardous fuels growing right up to the road edges. I
realize that you can't do much about the road system. Therefore
with your property being situated at the end of the road system
it would behoove you to incorporate the defensible space
recommendations listed below.
The location of your building envelope as we discussed on June
25th is to your advantage. The aspect is north with a slope of
5-100. Below the envelope the slope is 20o to the property line.
The vegetation within and immediately surrounding the envelope is
aspen, sage, chokecherry and scattered Gambel oak/serviceberry.
I would rate the wildfire hazard as low to medium in the envelo e
and medium aroun t e enve ope. use the Pit in ounty Land Use
Co e, the Natrona Fire r ection Association 299 standard for
Protection of Life and Property from Wildfire and CSFS
publications to formulate my recommendaticns to mitigate the
wildfire hazard.
My specific wildfire hazard mitigation recommendations are as
follows.
1) For a distance of 10 feet around all structures clear away
dead material; mow and maintain vegetation at 6 inches or less
(e.g mowed grass). No woody vegetation should be growing in this
10 foot perimeter. Experience has proven that woody fuels next
to structures can carry a wildfire to the structure. In the 1989
Black Tiger in Boulder County, 44 homes were lost to a forest
fire even though the local fire department was on the scene
within 20 minutes. Many of these homes could not be saved
because there were trees growing up right next to the houses.
The heat produced by the existing woody vegetation around these
homes prevented the firefighters from saving these structures.
~...,
HOVDESVEN PAGE 2
2) For a distance of 40 feet uphill and to the sides and 47 feet
downhill incorporate defensible space thinning because the slope
below the building envelope is 200 (see enclosed graph). Gambel
oak, serviceberry and chokecherry which are growing together on
your property should be thinned according to the prescription of
the Pitkin County Land Use code 3-807. Spacing between clumps of
brush within the defensible space perimeter enumerated above
shall be a minimum of two times the height of the fuel. Grass,
forbs and flowers should be the vegetation growing between these
clumps. Maximum diameter of the clumps shall be two times the
height of the fuel. For example; if the clumps are 10 feet tall
then spacing should be 20 feet between clumps and the maximum
diameter of the clump patch should be 20 feet. The cleared area
between these clumps must be maintained to remain effective. Any
trees left in this defensible space zone should have a tree crown
separation of 10 feet between crowns.
3) The lower limbs of all woody vegetation should be removed to
eliminate ladder fuels. Ladder fuels are branches growing next
to the grassy ground fuels that could carry a ground fire into
the crowns of trees and mature shrubs. When wildfires move via
the tree crowns they produce flames and heat that make
conventional fire fighting techniques useless. On mature aspens
remove the limbs on the lower 10 feet. For shrubs that are less
than 10 feet in total height remove the branches up to half the
total height.
4) Any dead material (e.g. fire wood, down trees) within a 100
feet of structures should be disposed of and/or chipped.
5) I usually make comments for the entire property but the rest
of your property is in that narrow band that extends to the east.
The only action that I would recommend for this area would be to
mow the shrubby vegetation for at least 10 feet on either side of
the road as it crosses your property. In theory, mowing would
break up the vertical continuity of fuels next to the road and
thereby turn a crown fire into a ground fire.
6) You may want to consider incorporating some of the
architectural elements of the Land Use code mentioned in 3-
807.C.3-4. Specifically: using roofing materials that are non-
combustible (e.g. metal), enclosing wood decks and using wall
construction materials that a 1 hour fire-resistive rating.
The location of your property at the end of the road would make
it difficult for fire fighting vehicles to reach in the event of
a wildfire in the Brush Creek subdivision. Therefore it is
prudent that you incorporate defensible space around any
structure built on your property.
Feel free to call me with any questions about my comments.
Sinc ely,_
A. Vince Urbina
Assistant District Forester
enc.
Wildfire Pr. otection
fi--
- ---- ~,.. I - ~~ I ~ ~~~
-- How slope affects defensible s ace ~I - -
P
-- - -
-- ' ---- ' ' ~~_I
As heat rises, fuels on slopes preheat and ignite
quickly, causing wildfires to travel faster upslope.
Therefore, enlarge defensible space around homes on
slopes -particularly on the downhill side. Defensible
space size will not affect fuel modification
recommendations; it will only increase the area to be
completed for fire protection. Give special attention
to ladder fuels on all sloping terrain.
Minimum defensible space recommendations:
Thinned 30% Slope
Compared ro level terrain, rate of fire spread increases by two.
The increase in defensible space size is based on
increased rate of fire spread at the listed slopes. If you
live on slopes other than those listed, use the slope
chart to help determine your side and downhill
dimensions. However, if the forest surrounding the
defensible space has not been thinned, double these
sizes.
so
I
ao ~
30
20
10
0
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 80 90 l00
Example: /f your home is situated on a 20 percent slope,
defensible space dimensions would be 40 feet uphill and to the
sides of your home, and 47 feet on the downhill side.
7
Thinned 55% Slope
Compared to level terrain, rate of fire spread increases 6y four.
Level Terrain
~.
TO: Suzanne Konchan, County Planning Director
FROM: Joanna S. Schaffner, County Zoning Officer
RE: Minor Amendment to a Development Permit
Location of proposed house outside of the "Recommended
Building Site"
Tract 2, White Star Ranches Subdivision
DATE: March 3, 1995
APPLICANT(S): Bayard Hovdesven
APPLICANTS REPRESENTATIVE: Stan Mathis, Architect
LOCATION / LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Tract 2, White Star Ranches S/D
REQIIEST: The applicant is requesting approval to construct a
single family residence outside of an area identified on the
subdivision plat as a "recommended building site", pursuant to
Section 3-1908 of the Land Use Code. The Second amended
subdivision plat was approved by the Board of County Commissioners
in 1988.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION / SITE DATA:
The site contains mostly gently sloping terrain except for the
eastern most quarter of the lot which contains slopes in excess of
30$. The southern most quarter of the lot lies within a 200 foot
boundary setback as platted, and limits development. The only
vegetation visible above the snow were scrub oak located on the
steep slopes.
The "recommended building site" for this lot is located on slopes
in excess of 30% and requires the removal and disturbance of the
natural scrub oak.
STAFF COMMENTS: The proposed location for the new residence is
located over an existing ditch on the portion of the lot containing
gently sloping terrain. The applicant owns the ditch and proposes
to relocate it around the new residence.
A site visit was made on February 21, 1995. Staff concurs that the
proposed building site is preferred to the recommended building
site, as it will cause no disturbance to the steep slopes and will
also minimize damage to existing vegetation by preserving the
existing scrub oak.
A site plan of the proposed building site is attached for your
review.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds this request to be in compliance with
~,>,•
~~
Page 2
March 3, 1995
White Star Ranches
Tract 2
l"Ia~i 3 /99~
Date
the standards in Section 3-1908 and recommends that the Planning
Director approve this minor amendment to a development permit.
Approval will permit the applicant to construct a single family
residence in the proposed location, although it is not the
"recommended building site" as indicated on the Second Amended
subdivision plat.
A R VED:
~Su ~..~
Konch n, C u ty Director
Community Develo nt
~....
.!
__
_ -- __
_ _
__
_ ~,°~•;ov`~~5u~,~1~ ? . ^ _4 G ~. ~~~~"~ `Sfa'~Z.E~'~~k~s SU~PrVis~®I~~. __
__
_ __ _ _- --
_ __
_ __ _ _
~,~, CU l2 CC~U~'(L.~~!'r;c~ ~ Srf'I~ uISiT. 7 l~lol7Ll~ ~~U~T
air ~NIS-~r~-^~~~ r~;~' ~ '~~~~~~. ~~T~t~ M~~,r~~
'r~~~Nt~~i;J 13Ui~D)N G SI~'~~ ~t T,~ ~OVF '~G1~~GC,i i~ '~G-
f~'i~cG'k~lJ k~'=;
fit ~' G GAG I ~~ TrfL !!~M.~O() i~~' ~% ? ~ °=
~~
2~ ~ c.~l~s ~~ -~ 5r-r~ -pc~N c~ICTiNq ~ ~ ~
__ - ~U~I.DIN~ r.~e,Ei~~ ~ Sf'bw(iU~ TEt+/ C19~ !'~oMM~Nb~,~
(~~I;p~N~ ~i7E
'~~ ~~-Crc~{?. ~? bt~i-tcr~tz~~rd~ ;~o~ M~, f-ca'~:;~~GrJ r-~IZ M~ To
1~G,-ENS rtlM,
- --
._
. .
:-
_ ._ _ _ _
~ , _ i 1995
.y
\~ __ _ ...
5' :;' i { p; r ~ ~ i, ~' n
.;rE:, r.,, :.
I`~:'F. :Jk 1'.?! ii'i ;~° 7,I--;+=y (y ;> 1194 dtt 10'46 P.. M.
pr-.:~i;f.'i iN'c; '}ills.: J 4•ti',i.JO,.`1L
i. t'Fsr; 77.4_[? '.R CP+ r -E9T I;J 'i':iF. I,i~?SiJ ~7ii1Li1 IS C06'FPEa HY 'P h'1 ('~)(:t:~'Y
i~_ .. i..r:. ..
i. t,. ;i• -? t_ 1-'.:;T a: .... pIC !:Z'ti~F _'.' SI`y rri s.: ;,~.!. .7 :: :.. 'vF,TL-Li 1tr:
<< .. ,, ..r -. ~
._lw 11ti f r .:A' r'~ 'N }Str i:: ",•)R't .,
!I+ ?"r i l:hiP+, '~~i y ~F:~..`s.' tY:`) A F(`? tv4,
7':-i, t ~ A~" ' h ;v'!iY:E. 5"1:~,k R~ :HI?S SUI3[J1VIS;/J!J r'~t:Lr P.U.L}.
,a .,: r,~]iri;j t ~ f".k-t e'_• 1'':aC. ter e.l~2ti S' rC•UCL UF. C~ Ff.'~r Ua y-1 <<, 1. ~i?11 ;: L. e f:~.t
, 'l' 1-, rt~ t t:'' ~; .~ 1 eptl~r!~t LiO. 6576E~1.
-., .. t~-..:att. 'iitl. cz. ..; A. ?, r:, TGr`..
A:.~ ~ ,r r ii 1 6 1 .
[.:~
_f iii-9;3 `.-S`, 7'r
~- r
:51r_:i~'4 ~ ~ ~
~~
Q
Sales • Investments • Developments Slnce 1971
~~,~s-
~ ~ ~~
~~
~~8~E-CT ~~P9cT 2, ~~TE ~TA.e t~NG~
q.ST ~/ M~Tfi~/S /S ~~i°~ESEyT/~~
~~~ ,
~~
'Mail: ~ P.O. Box3810 • Aspen, Colorado 81612 Offtce: 0143 Red Oak Lane • Whlte Star Ranch• Aspen
(3031 925-5855 ~ Fax: {303) 9't~-3993