HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.planning.264320406004 (3)DOCUMENT LAYOUT
THIS FILE. MAY OR MAY NOT CONTAIN ALL OF THE INFORMATION
LISTED BELON IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER
Summary Sheet
Resolution for the BOCC and /or P&Z
Ordinance for the BOCC and /or PSZ
Determination for the Hearing Officer
AdministratiN a Determination
Staff Memo
.application
Public Notice, Acceptance Letter, Referral(s) Letter
Site Plan
Miscellaneous
Plat(s)
REP ADR:
Email Addr
FEES DU
FEES RCVD::
#COPIES:— CASE
Flannels
e
QSIZ :: PHN:
C/S /Z:F--- PHN:
ALLOCATED HOURS: :—
%OVER I��
REF:— BY: DUE:I
MTG DATE REV BODY PH NOTICED DATE OF FINAL ACTION:
3/19/1991 JP&Z No r —
�— ND
No
PFMARKsl[no vesting
I
CLOSED:— BY.
F
PLATRECORDED : — PLAT (BKPG): n/a
VR APPROVAL DATE : VREXPIREST-
CASETYP: I Scenic Overlay Review
CASE TYP2:
CASE TYP3:
CASE TYP4:
,File Location: IFF Box #214
BOCC Reso:
BOCC Ord:
PZ:
HRG OFF:
HO INDEX:
ADMIN:
ADMIN INDEX:
CASE TYP5: I _
CASE TYP6: �-
CASETYP7: -- --
Date Scanned:
t /l!i
wed
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
. Pitkin County
DATE RECEIVED: 11128190
PARCEL
ID AND
CASE NO.
DATE COMPLETE: /
J60-3 - AC
A -vL cc *
P142 -90
VESTED
Jc STAFF MEMBER:-ML
�gi c �V�r�ct �
YES
PROJECT NAME: Pearson
� Review
Project Address: Lot 13,
Block 7. Brush Creek
Villaoe.
Aspen, CO
APPLICANT: Spencer G. Pearson
Applicant Address: P.O. Box 2595, Aspen, Co 81612
REPRESENTATIVE: Peter Dobrovolny. SunUp Ltd.,Architects
Representative Address /Phone: P.O. Box 1669
Basalt, CO 81621 927 -3369
PAID: YESXXNO AMOUNT: $780 NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED: 10
TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: V 2 STEP:
P &Z Meeting Date `l ' � PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
VESTED
RIGHTS:
YES
NO
BOCC Meeting Date PUBLIC
HEARING:
YES
NO
VESTED
RIGHTS:
YES
NO
Staff Level: 1041 Minor Hazard Review: Date of Approval
REFERRALS: /v ONE
Attorney
Engineer
Housing
Aspen Water
Envir. Hlth.
Manager
Div. Wildlife
Caucus
Zoning
Other:
DATE REFERRED:
_ Aspen Consol S.D.
_ Mtn. Bell
Holy Cross
Aspen Fire
Basalt Fire
_ Carbondale Fire
_ Div. Water Res.
Airport Manager
CO Geo. Survey
School District
Rocky Mtn Nat Gas
State Hwy Dept
(Glwd) (GrJtn)
Snowmass Vill
_ USFS (Carbondale)
USFS (Aspen)
BIM
City P &Z
Homeowners Assoc.
INITIALS:
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: ti INITIAL:
_ County Attorney _ County Engineer Zoning
Housing _ Envir. Health
Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: I,FJI
� ���1714-1— "v,2 - y/ -/3
Gu0J01
k #336196 09/04/91 11:31. Rec $.O(] Elk. 633 FG 901
£Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc x.00
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO GRANTING
SPENCER PEARSON SCENIC OVERLAY APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A
SUBSTANTIAL ADDITION TO A RESIDENCE ON RIDGELINE
IN THE BRUSH CREEK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION
PZ -91 --L�
WHEREAS, Spencer G. Pearson (hereinafter "Applicant "), the
owner of Lot 13, Block 7, Filing 1 of Brush Creek Village
Subdivision has applied to Pitkin County for a Scenic Overlay
review to construct a substantial addition to an existing residence
on a mapped ridgeline; and
WHEREAS, Pitkin County amended Section 3 -1.13 of the Land
Use Code by Resolution 90 -07, which identified ridgeline
development as being subject to Scenic Overlay approval if it is
located in the Brush Creek Village; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter
"Commission ") considered the applicant's request at a duly noticed
public hearing on March 19, 1991; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant's proposed addition is to add
approximately 3,669 square feet to an existing 397 square foot
structure, pursuant to the evidence and testimony presented in the
application and at the public hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning
Commission hereby grant Spencer Pearson Scenic Overlay approval to
break the ridgeline on Lot 13, Block 7, Filing 1 of the Bruch Creek
Village Subdivision subject to the following conditions:
UUUJ02
*336196 09/64/91 11 :31 Rec t 00 BN 633 PG 902
g�lyia Davis, Pith :in Cnty Clerl, Doc S.OV
Resolution No. PZ -91-
Page 2
1. The recommendations of Chen- NOrthern's report dated
August 14, 1990 (Exhibit "A") shall be adhered to by the
applicant for building placement.
2. The Landscaping Plan dated March 18, 1991 and submitted
by the applicant from West Canyon Tree Farm, Inc.
(Exhibit "B ") shall be adhered to by the applicant. The
planting shall be in place prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy.
3. All material representations made by this applicant
specifically regarding ridgeline penetration and finish
grade, landscaping, screening, and lighting, as presented
in Exhibit "C" shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval unless amended by other
conditions.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on March
19, 1991.
ATTEST:
Debbie Skehan,
Administrative Assistant
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
- r k2t
TIM is t,
caujity t aey
reso.pz.so.pearson
UJUJ�3
PITEIN COUNTY PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION
By -- v,'zz�n A
Suzanne Vbskey, chairpers *n
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Sarge m,
l`�yl
P1 ning � rec4
TO: Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner
RE: Pearson Scenic Overlay Review for Development on a
Ridgeline in Brush Creek Village
DATE: March 19, 1991
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Scenic Overlay approval to
construct a substantial addition to an existing single family
residence on a mapped ridgeline, pursuant to Section 3 -1.13 of
the Land Use Code.
APPLICANT: Spencer and Elain Pearson.
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Peter Dobrovolny, SunUp, Ltd.,
Architects.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: The application is attached to this
memo.
LOCATION: The property is located on Lot 13, Block 7,
Filing 1 of the Brush Creek Village Subdivision.
ZONING: The approximately 2.2 acre parcel is zoned AF -1.
ACCESS: Access to the site is on improved subdivision
roads.
WATER: The property has an on -site well.
SEWER: The property has a soil absorption septic system.
REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: This application was not sent to any
referral agencies for comments.
STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant's existing and proposed residence
break a mapped ridgeline as viewed from Highway 82. The
applicant has an existing house on site which is 397 square feet
and the proposed new residence is 4,066 square feet. Section 3-
1.13 of the Land Use Code was amended in September 1990 to
include review of development on ridgelines. This application
was submitted pursuant to the amended code section as defined in
resolution 90 -07.
The Land Use Code requires the following review criteria for
ridgeline development:
(1) Whether the development has utilized existing
topography and natural vegetation, such as ridges and
vu�J04.
hills to screen buildings
possible.
to the maximum extent
Response: The application indicates that a lower ridge with
natural vegetation on the property will screen the lower portion
of the residence and additional natural planting will help
minimize the visual impact of the structure on the ridgeline.
The applicant has indicated that a landscape plan will be
submitted for Planning Office approval prior to building
issuance.
(2) Whether the development has been designed to complement
the natural topography of the land, including, whenever
possible and appropriate, the utilization of innovative
architectural techniques such as earth sheltered design
natural materials and coloring, non - reflectability and
clustering of structures on the least visible portions
of the site.
Response: The only portion of the home which is "earth -
sheltered" is the subterranean basement. The application
indicates that exterior finish material will be earth colored and
will simulate the soil colors in the immediate vicinity. The
southwestern style has roofs which are generally flat or slightly
sloping which should be invisible from the Highway below. The
applicant contends that by moving the house to the south, closer
to the front yard setback, would result in raising the structure
about four feet, which would increase it's visibility. The
Planning Office would like to see the house moved closer to the
front yard setback, but have the structure built into the
hillside so it would not increase in height.
(3) Whether the development's height and bulk has been
designed to avoid, to the maximum extent possible, the
visibility of buildings from the highway and public
viewplanes.
Response: The applicant is proposing a two story house above
existing grade. The application indicates that the upper floor
has been stepped back from the lower floor to reduce bulk, and
that the house is designed within the new height limits. The
house will be visible from a portion of Highway 82.
(4) The proposed structure shall be placed so it does not
break a ridgeline, unless there are no alternate
building sites on the lot.
Response: The application indicates that the proposed expanded
residence is located on the least visible portion of the property
as viewed from Highway 82, due to the geologic constraints on the
property. The Planning Office feels that visual impacts would
be lessened if the applicant did not extend to the maximum
E
UUGSv5
allowed height limit.
(5) Whether the proposed development has avoided the
location of uses on the highest ground or most visible
portion of the site as viewed from State Highway 82 and
public right -of -ways, identified in Section (B)(1).
Response: The building envelope is located on a gently sloping
bench just below the highest portion of the property. The
expanded residence will break the ridgeline from Highway 82, as
does the existing residence.
(6) Whether the development has been located outside of the
designated Scenic Overlay, or on a suitable site at the
greatest distance possible from State Highway 82 and
identified ridgelines.
Response: The entire Brush Creek Village subdivision is within a
mapped ridgeline area. The site is at the top of the subdivision
approximately one mile from Highway 82. The application points
out an appropriate point that depending on one's vantage point
from Highway 82, many houses break both distant and near
ridgelines in the Brush Creek Village subdivision. It is
indicated that this is the last remaining lot at the top of Brush
Creek Village that will be developed. The application goes on to
say that none of the existing houses that break ridgelines
required scenic review by the County. However, with the adoption
of this regulation, significant changes to existing homes will
require County review.
(7) Whether the development has been landscaped in
accordance with the adopted State Highway 82 Corridor
landscape guidelines and has preserved natural
vegetation, to the maximum extent possible, including
the avoidance of development within irrigated meadows.
Existing vegetation shall be maintained to the maximum
extent possible, while using existing vegetation to
screen development. A landscaping plan shall be
submitted by the Applicant and approved by the Planning
and Zoning Commission.
Response: The application has stated that new vegetation will be
planted consisting of service berry and choke cherry to screen
the building. As illustrations in the application indicate,
vegetative screening will be a substantial element to the overall
visual impact of the expanded residence.
The applicant is requesting that a landscaping plan be submitted
with the building permit application, and be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Office at this time. The Planning
Office prefers that the Planning and Zoning Commission maintain
this responsibility due to the extent that vegetation is used to
UUGJU,b
screen the proposed structure.
(8) Whether the development's exterior lighting has been
designed in such a manner that light sources, such as
facade and landscape lighting, will not be seen from
public right -of -ways as identified in Section (B)(1).
In addition, an application shall be consistent with
the lighting regulations identified in the Pitkin
County Land Use Code.
Response: The applicant has indicated that there will be no
facade or landscape lighting on the property. The applicant will
submit a lighting plan with the building permit application to be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Office. Staff is concerned
with visible lighting from the upper unscreened floor and that
the applicant has not adequately demonstrated that lighting will
not be seen from the public right -of -way. The Planning Office
prefers that the Planning and Zoning Commission maintain their
responsibility in reviewing proposed lighting of the structure.
(9) Landforms and earth moving shall generally not be
acceptable as the sole measure of compliance with these
regulations. However, they may be utilized in
conjunction with other site techniques designed into
the development plan. These methods may be acceptable
when utilized as one of several methods to complement
and enhance development, rather than as the single
device for screening development from view from the
State Highway 82 Corridor and as mapped.
Response: These methods are not proposed by the applicant.
(10) Whether the development has been designed so as to
avoid, to the maximum extent possible, any Scenic
Viewplane identified on the adopted State Highway 82
Corridor Master Plan and Down Valley Comprehensive
Plan.
Response: The site is within a mapped ridgeline area and not a
scenic viewplane.
(11) In the case where 1041 Hazard Areas may be in conflict
with preservation of scenic areas, the Board
acknowledges that 1041 issues take precedence over
scenic concerns. These issues shall be reviewed on a
case by case basis.
Response: The Brush Creek Village subdivision was approved by
the Board of County Commissioners in 1966 . The subdivision has
many geologic concerns which do not require 1041 hazard review by
the County, due to the Board's approval of the subdivision. The
applicant has retained a Consulting Engineer, Chen - Northern, Inc.
UUvJU l
to evaluate the property for geologic constraints. This report
dated August 14, 1990, made the following findings and
conclusions:
1. A well defined landslide is present in the northeastern
part of Lot 13 and portions of this landslide were
reactivated in 1984. The 1984 landslide reactivation
appears to be primarily associated with several
consecutive years of above average precipitation. The
landslide movements appear to have substantially
decreased or stopped since the 1984 reactivation.
2. The existing residence on Lot 13 is located just to the
southwest of the well defined landslide which is
defined by the prominent escarpments on the lot. The
preferred new building site would place the new
residence on the well defined landslide, which in our
opinion presents a higher potential for future
landslide displacement than that which is present at
the existing building site or other areas in the
southwestern part of the lot.
3. The owner should be aware that there is some potential
for future landslide deformation at any building site
on the lot. While this potential appears to be
relatively low, the lot should not be considered
totally risk free. The risk of incurring structural
damage can be reduced, but not eliminated, if the new
building site is not located on the well defined
landslide.
The applicant has indicated that the reference to the preferred
building site under finding #2 above, was for a site near the
crest of a prominent escarpment, located to the northeast of the
existing building. This is not proposed as a building site,
however the applicant wanted illustrated that a more prominent
location on the lot has greater geologic hazards. The Chen -
Northern report refers to areas in the southwestern portion of
the lot and existing building site as being preferred from a
geologic standpoint.
SUMMARY: If the applicant located the building closer to the
southwest corner of the building envelope and did not extend to
the maximum height limit of 28 feet, visual impacts could be
lessened. However, due to the existing suburban nature of the
Brush Creek Village ridgeline this 4,066 square foot expansion of
an existing 397 square foot residence, should not have a negative
visual impact on the community. The applicant has indicated that
the proposed landscaping of natural brush and the southwestern
building design will blend into the ridgeline more than the other
homes which break the ridge in the Brush Creek Village
subdivision.
5
UUoJ08
_1
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the Planning
and Zoning Commission approve the application with the following
conditions:
1. The recommendations of the Chen - Northern report dated
August 14, 1990 shall be adhered to by the applicant
for building placement.
2. The maximum height of the new residence shall not
exceed 23 feet.
3. The landscaping and lighting plan shall be approved by
the Planning and Zoning Commission, prior to building
permit issuance.
4. All exterior modifications to the residence shall be
subject to Section 3 -1.13 of the Land Use Code.
5. All material representations made by the applicant in
the application and public meeting shall be adhered to
and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise
amended by other conditions.
so.pz.pearson
E
UJGJJV
Pitkin County Planning
and Zoning Commissin
March 19, 1991
Page 4
001
A. Pearson Scenic Overlay Review for Development on a
Ridgeline in Brush Creek Village - Peter Dobrovolny, was present to
represent the applicant and will not be voting on this application.
Mary Lackner of the Planning Office described the applicant's
proposal for construction of a substantial addition to an existing
single - family resident on a mapped ridgeline. Mary Lackner
explained that staff has concerns about this request and noted that
if the applicant located the building closer to the southwest
corner of the building envelope and did not extend to the maximum
UUGJi0
Pitkin County Planning
and Zoning Commissin
March 19, 1991
Page 5
height limit of 28 feet, the visual impacts could be lessened.
Planning Staff has concerns about geologic hazards on the property.
Staff is concerned about the applicant's proposal for Planning
Staff review of the landscaping and lighting plan for the site
noting that the Planning Commission should review this portion of
the project prior to permit issuance. Jim Breasted asked for
clarification as to how far the structure can be moved toward the
southwestern portion of the property. Mary Lackner clarified and
noted the recommended 23 foot height limitation on the structure.
Peter Dobrovolny, representing the applicant, explained
some of the process which occurred in designing and locating the
structure on this site. Peter Dobrovolny explained how they are
mitigating visual impacts, using existing topography and existing
vegetation, and he contends that by planting vegetation as proposed
in the application, screening would be brought up to the lower
elevation line on the drawing. He explained that there are
difficulties with moving the structure further south and that there
would be great difficulty in accomplishing light on the lower floor
at the southernmost location. He contends that the outside of the
building will blend well and noted that the structure does break
the ridge as indicated in the drawings. He explained that the site
was purchased in part because of the views from the site and that
a premium was paid for the site because of the views. Approximately
604 sq. ft., or 13 percent of the total floor area of entire home,
when finally constructed will be above the ridge line and will
yield the desired views. Peter Dobrovolny indicated that the
structure's location does avoid the highest ground on the site.
The home could not be located outside of the scenic foreground,
since the entire subdivision is within the scenic foreground
overlay. The applicant is using indigenous vegetation. The
property can support a hedge of approximately 12 foot high choke
cherry bushes. Mr. Pearson indicated that they will plant 5 -6
foot plantings which will need to be approximately 10 feet apart.
Peter Dobrovolny described the proposed lighting plan for the
project and indicated that the proposal adheres to the Highway 82
Corridor Lighting Plans. They do not propose any earthmoving, and
they are submitting a letter regarding 1041 considerations. The
applicant agreed to comply with the Planning Office recommended
Condition No. 1. Peter Dobrovolny made argument against the
Planning Office recommended Condition No. 2, and suggested that
they instead be limited to the representations made at the meeting,
in that they will not exceed the ridgeline more than approximately
two to three feet. Peter Dobrovolny indicated that they will
include the current landscaping plan from Canyon Tree Farm, and
include the light fixture intended and placement of it on the upper
floor, noting that it does not seem necessary to come back before
the Commission in that not much more information would be available
in this respect than that which has been submitted to date. Peter
UUGJ,.1
Pitkin County Planning
and Zoning Commissin
March 19, 1991
Page 6
explained that the vegetation on Drawing #8 will be increased by
1/3 or more. Mr. Pearson explained that had they not attempted to
comply with the criteria, the home would probably have looked much
more like the adjacent structures. Peter Dobrovolny summarized
that the intended resolution is to obtain an aesthetically pleasing
rural atmosphere. Brush Creek Village is really suburban in nature
and that this expansion should not have a negative impact on the
community, they have complied with the criteria of a scenic overlay
review and that the applicant does not believe that, short of a
home that one could not see at all, a better job of mitigating the
visual impacts in what is really a suburban area, could really be
accomplished.
Mary Lackner explained that Condition no. 4 is intended
to approve this home as it is represented in this application and
that later the applicant cannot come in for a 30 percent expansion
by exemption.
Peter Guy moved to approve the application subject to the
following conditions: 1) delete condition No. 2, No. 3, and No. 4,
and reword No. 5 to state that all material representations made by
this applicant and any future application, specifically regarding
ridgeline penetration and finish grade, landscaping, screening, and
lighting, as presented in this document, shall be adhered to and
considered conditions of approval unless amended by other
conditions. Peter Guy explained that he is attempting to get the
applicant to hold to those material representations made in the
application and during this hearing. Bill Ball is not satisfied
with the lighting plan as presented. Tom Lankering is concerned
about the height. Jim Breasted seconds the motion. Peter Guy
explained that lowering the home in this particular location and in
this instance, is unnecessary. If there were not other roads, and
this were a pristine area, it would be required.
Jim Breasted opened the public hearing. Bill Lipsey
commented that he was not opposed to the location of the structure.
All in favor.
The Planning Commission adjourned for a break. Present and voting
upon return included: Jim Breasted, Chairperson, Suzanne Caskey,
Dwight Shellman, and Peter Guy.
UUUJ12
.0 i u.vin u
roject Number
Section /Parce,
Date Submitted
pitkin county
uJy
506 east main street
LAND USE APPLICATION
aspen, colorado B1611
TO BE COMPLETED BY
NAME
THE APPLICANT:
2 r
ADDRESS (P.v
S S 3-c,
!�(.
PHONE 3o3—
? - -3&2/3
NAME OF PROJECT
pea V
PROJECT LOCATION:
(On attached sheet, locate on zoning map, showing boundaries of any
natural hazard and resource areas, any other special regulatory
districts, Section 5, Land Use Code; and locate on appropriate CSU/
ERA Maps any areas not covered by the above.)
TOTAL AREA
zd Z re_
EXISTING USE(S)
.S /2
PROPOSED USE(S)
(approximate square
footage for each)
PRESENT ZONING OF SITE
/
DESCRIPTION OF LAND
USE PROPOSAL S�ei <
o� �� �•�
TO BE COMPLETED BY
THE PLANNING OFFICE
TYPE OF APPLICATION:
REZONING
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
P.U.D.
HBUILDING
SUBDIVISION
SPECIAL REVIEW
EXEMPTION
H35-acre
PERMIT REVIEW
+ SUBDIVISION
EVIEW PHASE: PRE - APPLICATION DATE COMPLETED
GENERAL SUBMISSION P. C. ACTION DATE
BOARD ACTION DATE
DETAILED SUBMISSION P.C. ACTION DATE
BOARD ACTION DATE
L J a 3 FINAL PLAT BOARD ACTION DATE
`r— Chen @Northern, mc. Conan It mg Engineers and Scientists
96 Soulh Zuni Slreet
Denver, Colorado 80223
303 744 7105
303 744 -0210 Facsimile
March 18, 1991
Mr. Spencer Pearson
P.O. Box 3299
Aspen, Colorado 81612 -3299
Subject: Building Location For Proposed Building Site, Lot 13, Block 7,
Filing 1, Brush Creek Village, Pitkin County, Colorado
Job No. 4 440 88
Dear Mr. Pearson:
As requested, we have reviewed the proposed building location planned for the lot
as shown on the attached Drawing 5. Based on the topographic lines shown on this
drawing, it appears that the proposed building has been located to the west of
the well- defined landslide escarpment discussed in our letter of August 14, 1990.
This should place the proposed new construction in an area which, in our opinion,
Presents the least risk of incurring potential damage which may be associated
with landslide displacement. Summaries of our assessment of the landslide hazard
on Lot .13 have been discussed in our previous reports submitted to you.
Recommendations presented in these reports should be applicable to the building
location shown on attached Drawing 5.
If you should have questions concerning this letter, please contact us.
Respectfully submitted,
Chen - Northern, Inc.
Ralph G. Mock
Engineering Geologist
Rev. by: SLP
R2Vkd
Enclosure
uuUiA
Amember of III group of companies
, -"/J
. +e
I
I
I
I
.00'Of �-
O
l �
DRAWING 5 f!
� V
� n>
o
x �
�ll
i
1N3W3SV3 S53J�Y 1H3M1'dCl � ` �
� a
UUUJ- b
r.b /! .
i
r.
r
r
I
I
I
O
z
v
W
W
C7
5
oa
x�
�o
a�
xw
.o .
r
w
U F
s�
F !1.
O
O
0
O�
�4O
a°
OU
U
x
a
d
a
c�
0
0
F
a
6
a.
DR :NG 2
3 e �
g � i
gg 9
t
Ucj�G
yFy$
o�
1
West Canyon
Tree Farm, Inc.
3 -18 -91
SPENCER PEARSON
P.O.BOX 3299
ASPEN,COLORADO 81612
TO WHOM THIS MAY CONCERN:
THIS LETTER WILL VERIFY THAT VIRGINIA CHOKECHERRY CAN BE
USED AS A SCREENING OR HEDGE PLANT AS IT GROWS TO AN
APPROXIMATE HEIGHT OF 12 FEET AND SPREADS APPROXIMATELY
5 -6 FEET. THEREFORE, WE WOULD RECOMMEND PLANTING 10
PLANTS FOR THE REQUIRED DISTANCE OF 100 FEET.
AT THIS TIME HE COST PER PLANT, 4 -5' B &B WOULD BE $36.95.
SI RE Y,
IL TI T
WEST CANYON TREE FARM,INC.
(303) 984 -2228
1650 Road 240 • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
uuGj- 7
TO: Amy Margerum, Planning Director
FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner
RE: Minor Ridgeline Development in Brush Creek Village
DATE: October 19, 1990
REQUEST: The applicant, Spencer Pearson, has applied for a
building permit to relocate and construct 443 new square feet to
an existing 449 square foot residence on Lot 13, Block 7 of the
Brush Creek Village Subdivision.
According to Ordinance 90 -7, this subdivision is mapped entirely
within a ridgeline. Section 3- 1.13(D)(1) permits the Planning
Director to sign off on, "development... is insignificant and will
not impact the visual quality of the ridgeline ". The proposed
development will not increase the visibility of the existing
structure on the ridgeline. The proposed development is located
on a ridgeline facing Highway 82.
The attached photographs illustrate a red flag locating where the
proposed move of the structure will take place. The net effect
of the move will be to leave visibility above the ridgeline
comparable to that of the current location. The additional
square footage being applied for under building permit #1569 has
no impact on the visibility of the moved residence.
A new residence is proposed on the property by the applicant.
The applicant is currently having an application for the Scenic
Area prepared.
FINDINGS:
1. The applicant's proposed addition has no increase
in ridgeline visibility by the increase of 443
square feet, and
2. The move and addition to the existing residence
does not significantly change the visual quality
of the ridgeline, and
3. The visible development is thirty percent (300) or
less of the existing square footage of the
structure.
UUi;J18
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning staff recommends that the Planning
Director sign off on the space below, to approve the development
proposed in Building Permit # 1569.
SO.m.pearson
i, L
A ROVED:
m arg um, - PlarinIng
Di ctor
Chen@Northern, rrre.
August 14, 1990
Mr. Spencer Pearson
P.O. Box 3299
Aspen CD 81612 -3299
C ni It in i Ergiiiu- s ai id Scienlists
5080 Road t 5C
Glenw000 Springs, Coloratlo 81601
303945 7458
303 9452 363 Facsimee
Subject: Site Reconnaissance, Lot 13, Block 7, Filing 1, Brush Creek Village,
Pitkin County, Colorado.
Job No. 4 440 88
Dear Mr. Pearson:
As requested, a field reconnaissance at the subject lot was made on July 17,
1990. The purpose of the reconnaissance was to observe the general geologic
conditions and to assess the potential impact of these conditions on the
construction of the new residence proposed on the lot. Our preliminary opinions
were discussed with you at the time of the site reconnaissance. This letter has
been prepared to summarize our findings and conclusions.
Site Observations: Lot 13 is located in the upper, southern part of the Brush
Creek Village Subdivision. Access to the property is by a private driveway off
of Juniper Hill Drive. The driveway also provides access to an existing
residence which is located on the adjacent Lot 16 to the north. An existing wood
frame residence is located on Lot 13 and it is our understanding that you are
considering razing this building and constructing a new residence on the lot.
The existing residence is located on moderately sloping ground in the south-
western part of the lot. Your preferred site for the new residence would be near
the crest of a prominent escarpment, located to the northeast of the existing
building. The existing residence is serviced by an on -site well and soil
absorption septic system. The absorption field is located near the toe of a
low, about 8 -feet high, escarpment which generally parallels the more prominent
higher escarpment to the northeast.
Geologic Conditions: The Brush Creek Village Subdivision is located in an area
of relatively complex geology on the south side of the Roaring Fork River valley
about six miles downstream of Aspen. Rock in the area is the upper Cretaceous -
age Mans Shale which is a gray marine shale with occasional sandstone and
bentonite beds. The bedding in the area generally strikes to the northwest and
dips about UP to 150 towards the northeast. The structure is complicated by
several small displacements, normal faults which cross through the subdivision
area and strike towards the north. The average slope of the valley side in the
area is about 20% down to the northeast. This would indicate that the bedding
dips are generally parallel to the existing valley side throughout much of the
western part of the subdivision.
Himmacky terrain which may indicate past landslide displacements is present in
much of the western part of the subdivision in the vicinity of Lot 13 and to the
uuG120
Amember of the FH-I-Hl group of companies
Mr. Spencer Pearson
August 14, 1990
Page 2
north. A well defined landslide can be seen on aerial photographs of the area
taken prior to most of the development. The crown of this landslide is defined
by the prominent escarpments in the northeastern part of Int 13. The landslide
extends downslope to the north for a distance of about 2500 feet. The toe of
the landslide is located in the vicinity of the cul-de -sac on Turtle Cove. The
width of the landslide averages about 600 feet.
It is our understanding that the well defined landslide was reactivated during
the late spring of 1984 and detectible movement could be observed at that time.
The asphalt pavement of the existing access roads within the subdivision was
displaced in areas where the roads cross the landslide boundaries. These areas
have been regraded and the asphalt repaired. Judging from observation at the
road crossings, it appears that the slide movements have substantially decreased
or are dormant at the present. open tension cracks are still present in the main
body of the landslide on lot 15 just upslope of Juniper Hill Drive. Lot 15 is
adjacent to lot 13 on the northeast. Open tension cracks were not observed on
Lot 13 but the well defined landslide does extend onto the northeastern part of
Lot 13.
The annual precipitation in the Aspen area during 1984 was about 65% above the
long -term mean annual precipitation, and 1984 was preceded by three consecutive
years with above normal precipitation. During the five -year period following
1984, only one year, 1985, had precipitation which was substantially above the
long -term mean. Precipitation records have been recorded in the Aspen area for
about 55 years starting in 1935. Judging from the 55 years of record, it appears
that the "recurrence probability for a series of consecutive wet, years, similar
to those which led to the 1984 landslide reactivation, is relatively low.
Probabilistic interpretations of the historic precipitation record suggests that
there is about a 10% chance that a similar series of wet years could occur or
be exceeded during the next 50 years. This probabilistic inference should be
considered only a rough estimate because of the relatively short period of
record.
Conclusions: Our field reconnaissance has shown that the terrain in the vicinity
of Lot 13 may be related to landslide movements. A well defined landslide is
present in the northeastern part of lot 13 and portions of this landslide were
reactivated in 1984. The 1984 landslide reactivation appears to be primarily
associated with several consecutive years of above average precipitation. The
landslide movements appear to have substantially decreased or stopped since the
1984 reactivation.
The existing residence on Lot 13 is located just to the southwest of the well
defined landslide which is defined by the prominent escarpments on the lot. The
preferred new building site would place the new residence on the well defined
landslide, which in our opinion presents a higher potential for future landslide
displacement than that which is present at the existing building site or other
areas in the southwestern part of the lot.
The owner should be aware that there is some potential for future landslide
deformation at any building site on the lot. While this potential appears to
be relatively low, the lot should not be considered totally risk free. The risk
uvGJ21
r1r. Spencer Pearson
kugust 14, 1990
.age 3
Of incurring structural damage can be reduced, but not eliminated, if the new
building site is not located on the well defined landslide. Further risk
reduction could be achieved by switching to an evapotranspiration septic system
which would reduce the infiltration of waste water into the landslide and by
choosing a structural foundation system capable of tolerating more differential
movement than is normally considered for typical residential construction.
If you have any questions concerning this letter or if we may be of further
service, please contact us.
Sincerely,
M / /ai
a . .. af
Rev. By: SLP
u 22
n
u
1 •
P
a
0 1. D. NC x)43 -CC N? 000247
SAFECO Qr
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
Issued from the office of
TRACY TITLE LTD.
601 East Hyman Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
SAFECO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
a California corporation, herein called the Company, for a valuable consideration, hereby commits to
issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the proposed
Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest covered hereby in the
land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor; all
subject to the provisions of Schedule A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof.
This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of
the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either
at the time of the issuance of this Commitment or by subsequent endorsement.
D�
This Commitment is preliminary to th rss� ch policy or policies of title Insurance and all
liability and obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate six months after the effective date
hereof or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that
the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the fault of the Company.
In Witness whereof, SAFECO Title Insurance Company has caused its corporate name and seal to
be hereunto affixed by its duly authorized officers on the date shown in Schedule A, but this
commitment is to be valid only when it bears an authorized contersignature.
ALTA COMMITMENT - 1966 (COLORADO)
COP-288 (Rev 10 -79)
uUI;J25
f� (-4
President
..............
An Authorized Signature
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE WSUHNwCE
SCHEDULE A
APRIL 26, 1983 AT 8:00 A.M. Case No._—
1. Effective Date:
2. Policy or Policies to be issued:
A. ALTA Owner's Policy SPENCER G. PEARSON
Proposed Insured:
B. ALTA Loan Policy NED SHURE
Proposed lnsured.
SP -83 -1789
Premium
Amount $ 1181000.00____$398.50
48,000.00 $_ .00
Amount $- - - - - -- 40
C Tax Certificate
Amount $_ $ 5
Total Charges $0
3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is:
4. Title to the
vested in
IN FEE SIMPLE
NED SHURE
estate or interest in said land is at the effective date hereof
5. The land referred to in this Commitment is described in Schedule C.
Lot 13, Block 7,
BRUSH CREEK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION,
County of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
UUt�J26
SCHEDULE A SAFECI
ALTA COMMI TMENT - 7966
COP -288A X (12/78)
CERTIFICATE OF NAILING
RE: PEARSON SCENIC OVERLAY REVIEW
I hereby certify th
and correct copy of th
deposited in the United
to the adjacent property
of adjacent property
Office by the applican
Notice.
frm.mailing
�UL J�7
at on this 4th day of March, 1991, a true
e attached Notice of Public Hearing was
States mail, first -class postage prepaid,
owners as indicated on the attached list
which was supplied to the Planning
egard to the case named on the Public
owners
t in r
By: Debbie Skehan
Administrative Assistant
f
1�
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: PEARSON SCENIC OVERLAY REVIEW
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, March 19, 1991 at a meeting to begin at 10:30 am before
the Pitkin Planning and Zoning Commission, Commissioner's Meeting
Room, 506 East Main Street, Aspen to consider an application
submitted by Spencer Pearson requesting Scenic Overlay Review
approval for the expansion and remodel of the single - family
residence which breaks the ridgeline located at 2638 Juniper Hill
brive, Lot 13, Block 7, Filing 1, Brush Creek Village
Subdivision.
For further information, contact the Aspen / Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 South Galena St., Aspen, CO (303) 920 -5090.
s/Suzanne Caskey. Chairperson
Planning and Zoning Commission
--------------------------------------------- --------------------
Published in The Aspen Times on February 14, 1991.
Pitkin County Purchase Order No. 49559.
uJ�'J�a
3/k 7) / 7iQcu.
7k lz
1)/ /c �i / 0 %d e v
I
4
:y
s.
i
61/2-
F/• fi W)
ZL(Z � /� /'✓,
ter. #,�4V4 eY°
A . , C40.
e /�/ z
fili^• C r les �i pLia„✓t
CST# 6 dt� 0
uclLJ�`�
3� FloaKr �
use 1
ASPEN /PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
County
00113 53160 -126
GMP /GENERAL
130 South Galena Street
GMP /DETAILED
- 63180 -128
Aspen, Colorado 81611
53190 -129
SUB/GENERAL
(303) 920 -5090
LAND USE APPLICATION FEES
53210 -131
City
53220 -132
ALL 2 -STEP APPLICATIONS --
00113
-63250 -134
GMP /CONCEPTUAL
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
-63270 -136
GMP /FINAL
REFERRAL FEES:
-63280 -137
SU &CONCEPTUAL
00123 53340 -190
- 63300 -139
SUBtFINAL
ENGINEERING
-63310 -140
ALL 2 -STEP APPLICATIONS
00113 53080 -122
-63320 -141
ALL 1 -STEP APPLICATIONS/
COMP. PLAN
53140 -124
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
59000 -145
REFERRAL FEES:
00125
-63340 -205
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
00123
-63340 -190
HOUSING
00115
- 63340 -163
ENGINEERING
S ryS Pm'ect:
SUBTOTAL
County
00113 53160 -126
GMP /GENERAL
53170 -127
GMP /DETAILED
- 63180 -128
GMP /FINAL
53190 -129
SUB/GENERAL
53200 -130
SUB/DETAILED
53210 -131
SUB/FINAL
53220 -132
ALL 2 -STEP APPLICATIONS --
53230 -133
q�-
ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/ —�
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
53450 -146
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
REFERRAL FEES:
00125 53340 -205
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
00123 53340 -190
HOUSING
00113 53360 -143
ENGINEERING
PLANNING OFFICE SALES
00113 53080 -122
CITY /COUNTY CODE
53090 -123
COMP. PLAN
53140 -124
COPY FEES
59000 -145
OTHER
SUBTOTAL
U U L ,U 3(9 '"
TOTAL �
Name:
Phone:
Address:
U , !�t7 )C
S ryS Pm'ect:
L
6(1o( l
Check #
Date: // Z
Additional billing:
#ot Hours:
.ate
October 15, 1990
Mary Lackner
Planner
Aspen /Pitkin County Planning Department
130 So. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Building Permit Application and Ridgeline review for Lot 13
Block 7, 2638 Juniper Hill Drive, Brush Creek Village
Dear Mary:
The Building Permit Application currently in progress is to move
the existing 449 s.f. house on the above lot, a distance of
approximately ninety (90) feet to the north. It will be moved onto
a foundation enclosing an additional 433 square feet. Please see
the set of Construction Documents attached.
The reason for the move is in anticipation of a new and larger
residence to be constructed in 1991, in the general vicinity of the
location of the existing house. The existing (moved) residence,
with modifications to be made in 1991, will become a part of the
new residence, and will additonally provide a place for the owner
to live during construction next year.
The existing residence, in its current location, breaks a ridgeline
as seen from Highway 82. from a location about 100 yds north of the
Highway 82 entrance to Brush Creek Village, continuously to
approximately the driveway of the Martin residence at the south end
of the Aspen -Mass Subdivision.
See enclosed photographs: Exhibit A taken from the Highway 82
entrance to Brush Creek Village, Exhibit B taken from the Highway
82 entrance to Cozy Point ranch and Exhibit C taken from the
vicinity of the Martin residence. Note that house breaks the
ridgeline approximately 6 feet below the northeast corner of the
house and that part of the north and east walls of the building can
be seen.
unUP Itd architects
peter dobrovolny
box 1669 basalt CO 81621
S
927 -3369
Ridgeline Review, 2638 Juniper Hill Drive
October 15, 1990
Note also the red flag to the north of the residence in each photo.
This flag represents the northeast corner of the roof of the house
in the location to which it will be moved. In Exhibit A. the
visibility of the moved house will be similar to its current
location, in B it will be almost entirely obscured by vegetation
and in C slightly more visible than in its current location. The
net effect of the move will be to leave visibility above the
ridgeline comparable to that of the current location.
Further, the additional square footage being applied for under the
current building permit application has no impact on the visibility
of the moved residence.
The current building permit application complies with Article
3 -1.13, Scenic Overlay, (D) (1) a. for the Planning Director to
sign -off on the application as the "development ..... is
insignificant and will not impact the visual quality of the
ridgeline," as the development leaves the visual quality of the
ridgeline as it is.
I request that, based on these findings, that you expedite the
current building permit application.
I clearly understand that the new residence to be constructed in
1991 will need to go through Scenic Overlay and Ridgeline review.
That application is being prepared. As it appears that this will
be the first Ridgeline Review under the recently amended Scenic
Overlay Review, I request another pre - application conference to
review a draft of the application as to completeness, content and
conformance with the review criteria.
Sincerely,
Peter Dobrovolny
l3UUidl
A p p 1 1 c a t 1 o n f o r
S c e n i c O v e r l a y R e v i e w
O w n e r a n d
.� A p p I! cant
Spencer and Elain Pearson
2638 Juniper. Hill Drive
Brush Creek Village Subdivision
1 P.O. Box 2595
d Aspen, CO 81612
(303)923 -3843
a>i
Arcs h i feet and
A p p l i c a n t' s R e p r e s e n t a t i v e
Peter Dobrovolny
SunUp Ltd., Architects
P.O. Box 1669
Basalt, CO 81621
(303)927 -3369
November 19, 1990
7
32
v
-r
r
A p p l i c a t i o n f o r
S c e n i c O v e r l a y R e v i e w
O w n e r a n d
A p p l i c a n t
Spencer and Elain Pearson
2638 Juniper Hill Drive
Brush Creek Village Subdivision
P.O. Box 2595
Aspen, CO 81612
(303)923 -3843
ArcYii ttect and
A p p 1 i c a n Y_ s R e p r e s e n t a t 1 v e
Peter Dobrovolny
Sunup I.td., Architects
P.O. Box 1669
Basalt, CO 81621
(303)927 -3369
November 19, 1990
Uvu..
CON`C ENT S
Photograph - Scenic Brush Creek before proposed residence
Photograph - Scenic Brush Creek after proposed residence
Application Summary
Loction
Existing Conditions
Design Summary
Scenic Overlay Review and Responses
Conclusion
Drawings
Drawing 1 - Vicinity Map
Drawing 2'- Property Survey
Drawing 3 - Photocopy of photo showing existing house -
magnification equivalent to $0 mm lens
Drawing 4 - View of existing house - magnification
equivalent to 2400 mm lens
Drawing 5 - Partial survey showing proposed development
Drawing 6 - View of new house in most prominent location
magnification equivalent of 2400 mm lens
Drawing 7 - House as seen from Hhighway 82 im proposed
location - magnification equivalent to 2400 mm lens
Drawing 8 - House as seen from Highway 82 in proposed
location and in comparison to other ridgeline
residences seen from the same location and at the
same ',scale
Drawing 9- East Elevation of House
Drawing 10 - Floor Plans of House
Appendix
�v�t�6 Page 2
Scenic Brush Creek -- BEFORE proposed residence
Actual view from Hwy. 82 (50 mm lens, zero magnification)
,.W-Vz;r- - I - )I ow� . 0
AV n I! n a t i o ri S u m m a r y
Location: 2638 Juniper Hill Drive, (Lot 13, Block 7)
Brush Creek Village Subdivision
Existing Conditions:
The lot is approximately 97,375 square feet, or 2.23 acres.
Currently existing on the property is a small, one story house
of 397 s.f., in which the owner has lived for eight years. See
Property Survey, Drawing 2. The eastern half of the property,
which is not topographically surveyed, is a very steep hillside and
bowl, the result of past geologic sliding.
The ridge, over which the house can be seen from below, runs
roughly in a northeast, southwest direction through the center of
the property. See Drawings 3 and 4.
As of the writing of this application, there is a building
permit to move the existing house onto a new foundation enclosing
an additional 432 square feet. See Drawing 4 for this location.
The house will be moved in anticipation of an expaded residence to
be constructed in the location of the existing house. The
existing house will be converted to studio, bedroom and storage
space, connected to and made an integral part of the new residence.
This'proposedidevelopment is depicted in Drawing 5.
'
Design Summary:
A number of locations on the property were considered for the
location of the new house. The most prominent location considered
was on the edge of the ridge overlooking the valley. This location
would have afforded the best views. See Drawing 6 showing the
ridgeline appearance that the current design would present in this
location.
Note that the drawing is presented with a magnification
Iequivalent
to that which would be achieved with a 2400 mm lens.
This ridge line location was the first and obvious choice and
the location recommended by appraisers and realtors as the most
desirable. The current location as proposed (see Drawing 5) was
selected as it removes the house from the impact of highway noise,
preserves the more intimate foreground view of the property itself
and avoids blocking the views from adjoining houses.
Further, the proposed location avoids areas of geologic
instability as described in the attached Site Reconnaissance
'
prepared by Chen Northern. See Appendix. Given Scenic Overlay
requirements, setbacks and geologic constraints, there is no other
location in which to build the residence than the one proposed.
M
Page 3
1 ii30039
-The house is designed as a two story structure with a largely
subterranean basement below that partially daylights to the east to
benefit from morning sun and light. The form and exterior finish
will be a synthetic stucco, with some stone, to achieve a
southwestern character.
The second floor of the new residence, housing master bedroom,
is stepped back from the main, living, level to create deck space
and to reduce overall mass.
Though not germane to this review,
completed project are as follows:
Existing house (moved & remodelled)
Main Level
Master Bedroom Level
Garage
Subterranean Basement
square footages for the
838
1,092
584
838
1,111
See Drawings 9 and 10 for floor plans and East elevation.
S c e n i c O v e r 1 a R a v i e w a n d
R e s p o n s e s
11
1I
II
S'
11
(E) Review criteria for development within the Scenic Overlay and Ridgeline I
mapping shall be as follows:
(1) Whether the development has utilized existing topography and
natural vegetation, such as ridges and hills to screen buildings to
the maximum extent possible.
Response: The house location selected allows approximately the
lower half of the house to be screened by the ridge to the east.
Much of the ridge is vegetated with Scrub Oak, Service Berry and
Choke Cherry. The ridge immediately in front of the view of the
residence is largely barren of larger vegetation. It will be
Planted with Service Berry and Choke Cherry, increasing the
screening, as shown in Drawing 7.
(2) Whether the development has been designed to complement the natural
topography of the land, including, whenever possible and
appropriate, the utilization of innovative techniques such
as earth sheltered design, natural materials and coloring,
non- reflectability and clustering of structures on the least
visible portions of the site.
Response: The subterranean basement is "earth- sheltered." The
topography of the house location, being only slightly sloping,
precludes further earth sheltering. The exterior finish materials,
synthetic stucco and stone, will be earthen colored and will
simulate the soil colors in the immediate vicinity. The form and
Page 4
1
1
I
I'
1
I
character of the southwestern style should be complimentary to the
topography of the land. Roofs are generally flat or slightly
sloping - invisible from the highway below, and will not be
constructed of reflective materials. The location selected is the
least visible portion of the site as viewed from Highway 82.
Moving the house to the south, closer to the front yard setback,
would result in raising the structure about four feet, increasing
its visibility. The separation between the expanded house and the
studio is carefully designed to maintain the maximum solar exposure
for the studio.
(3) Whether the development's height and bulk has been designed to
avoid, to the maximum extent possible, the visibility of buildings
from the highway and public viewplanes.
Response: The house is two stories above existing grade. The
upper floor has been stepped back from the lower floor to reduce
bulk. The roofs are generally flat to reduce height. The house
will be constructed under recently adopted height limitations,
which, for this house, will be more restrictive than those in
effect at the time of this application.
There are no public viewplanes in this area.
(4) The proposed structure shall be placed so it does not break a
_ ridgeline, unless there are no other building sites on the lot.
Response: As explained above, the location selected and presented
provides the least visibility of the residence from highway 82. It
still breaks the ridgeline as shown on Drawings 7 and 8. Drawing
8 is presented to show this proposal as it compares, at the same
scale, to two other residences which are obvious examples of
numerous houses which break the ridge line in this subdivision.
(5)
Whether the proposed development has avoided the location of uses
'
on the highest ground or most visible portion of the site as viewed
from State Highway 82 and public right -of -ways, identified
in Section (B)(1).
1
the visible
Response:
The house location proposed has avoided most
location
on the site as viewed from Highway 82 by moving back away
from the
ridge, as shown in the comparison between Drawing 6 and 7.
The
site is not visible from Brush Creek Road
(Section
(B)(1)).
(6)
Whether the development has been located outside of the designated.
Scenic Overlay, or on a suitable site at the greatest distance
possible from State Highway 82 and identified ridgelines.
'
Response:
The entire building site is in the Scenic Overlay.
Nonetheless, this site is about as far from Highway 82 as a
building
site can be in this subdivision.
'
Page 5
It is appropriate to point out that ,dependiag on one's
vantage point from Highway 82, many houses break both distant and
near ridgelines in the Brush Creek Village Subdivision. In fact,
this is the last remaining site at the top of Brush Creek Village
that will be developed. While acknowledging that none of the
houses that break ridgelines in this subdivision required this
review, do to careful siting, selection of exterior colors and
materials, and the addition of vegetative screening, this project
will have a negligible impact compared to others. Again, see
comparison with two prominent ridge line breakers on Drawing 8.
(7) Whether the development has been landscaped in accordance with the
adopted State Highway 82 Corridor landscape guidelines and has
preserved natural vegetation, to the maximum extent possible,
including the avoidance of development within irrigated meadows.
Existing vegetation shall be maintained to the maximum extent
possible, while using existing vegetation to screen development.
A landscaping plan shall be submitted by the Applicant and approved
by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Response: This site is to the north and outside of the Highway 82
Corridor Master Plan as adopted in 1985. There are no irrigated
meadows on this site.. As stated above, and as it applies to this
review, existing vegetation that provides screening for the project
will be maintained entirely and 'additional - indigenous vegetation
will be added to supplement screening.
With this representation, we request that a landscape plan be
presented as a part of a building permit application, to be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Department as a part of that
review process.
(8) Whether the development's exterior lighting has been designed in
such a manner that light sources, such as facade and landscape
lighting, will not be seen from public right -of -ways as identified
in Section (B) (1). In addition, an application shall be consistent
with the lighting regulations identified in the Pitkin County Land
Use Code.
.Response: Facade and landscaping will not be a part of the
eventual lighting plan presented as a part of a Building Permit
application. The Owner thoroughly enjoys the natural
characteristics of his property and desires to enjoy them in that
state, participating in the natural dirunal and seasonal rhythms
without the compromise of artificial amplification.
Lighting for the residence will be consistent with lighting
regulations of the Pi'tkin County Land Use Code.
(9) Landforms and earth moving shall generally not be acceptable as
the sole measure of compliance with these regulations. However,
they may be utilized in conjunction with other site techniques
designed into the development plan. These methods may be acceptable
when utilized as one of several methods to complement and enhance
Page 6
d
cl
A
development, rather than as the single device for screening
development from view from the State Highway 82 Corridor and as
mapped.
Response: Not applicable. Landforms and earth moving will not be
used as methods for screening.
(10) Whether the development has been designed so as to avoid, to the
maximum extent possible, any Scenic Viewplane identified on the
adopted State Highway 82 Corridor Master Plan and Down Valley
Comprehensive Plan.
- Response: Not applicable. The site is not in any designated
viewplanes.
(11) In the case where 1041 Hazard Areas may be in conflict with
" preservation of scenic areas, the Board acknowledges that 1041
issues take precedence over scenic concerns. These issues shall
be reviewed on a case by case basis.
Response: Not applicable. Brush Creek Village is not subject to
1041 review as it is a recognized subdivision approved by Pitkin
- County prior to adoption of 1041 regulations. It is pertinent to
note that we will comply with the recommendations of Chen Northern
by not considering construction in areas of geologic instability.
Colic 1 us i c>ri c
We have made every attempt to present the project in as
complete and accurate a form as possible as it applies to this
review. The graphic representations of the view from Highway 82
have been created as accurately as possible, understanding that
what can be seen in a photograph and what can be depicted as a
drawing will varv. Please note . that for clarity most drawings and
photographs magnify what would be seen by the human eye from
Highway 82. For example the pictures Laken with a 2400 mm lens or
drawings presented at the same scale are magnified 48 times.
Considerable effort has been made to design this home to
conform to these new regulations and still provide the owner some
incentive to build on the property he purchased seven years ago.
It is reasonable to suggest that the design could have been
considerably different without. them.
As the owner and applicant is a twenty year resident building
his first home, we appreciate the County's intention to preserve
the scenic corridor and hope the County appreciates our intention
to do the same.
Page 7
uJ J43
DRAWINGS
uLiG,j4�
n —
r -
1
� � � l ���� �� �,.. O I� F •\ .�\ 600dy,��rl ,
z MW
17 n
j
7600 .�
co
u
,800'�7
DRAWING 2
is
4�
� 8 i
a
d Qd
pyy
o °
z
w
v
5 �
x-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7
i
i
i
a U
-0
IX
�p my 1
S[�-� Z � ,a X11\ \ ��\..� ` \• /y\�J- /,) i; �/
O q
a l_..7 l _f _ r7
a 11 1
IIIl 1
1
VIII 1
>JJ�J46
i. I., .`
}.,
�.
� 4 r� �
1V4 .111
Y
f �
�YT �T
t c� �
�, 1 '
4
l � ,
1 tea.
,, 'x
�:
{ � �.i .'.
I� q.�
1�.� ,�'j..iy
�; p! ,
i
,..r4 at .
�r
1j '� #'��:,�
���
e
t:
�, � ,'. ',
';;1�>
DRAWING 4
N
00 O
> c
(d Q'
3
t
= O
O
O �
L N
C I
N U
V% C
N N
Cd O
7 �
O
-C
c C
C O
y�
X O
� V
?y C
O
E
I t-
c c
o m
_ L
y- L
v �
V U
O
L
m
3 O
rU C
c �
c �
_ N
On E E
7 �-
O 0' N
L C Q
p N 0)
C -0 C
y L �
N N -
X w 3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,0 oc -I
0
f �
l �
� I
\Qe
�I
DRAWING 5
v �
� a>
Q�
L
1p
1
1
I
t
1
A
I
I
I
I
y
1N3W3SV3 SS330Y 1NRIVddV — — — —
0 -- --- a- - - - - -- _
� nn nn M AI
- X
VJV�L}9 �
DRAWING 6
C
O
c6
U
O
m
C c
m
O
Q
y d
E o
N
C I
� v
aj c
-Q c
` m
C o
7 �
:b c
� O
7
O °
L u
3 c
O o
y E
000050
s o
v -
° -°
° m
I �
DRAWING 7
c
O
c
O
U
O
N
� c
N o
c —
O
Q.
O
L
Q. Q
C
•— N
N
W
a �
� U
3
_ >
✓_ 7
O 0"
L N
c c
O o
O
o
cr) U
c0
w
W C
a,
O o
E
0 00051
0 0
7 �
W t C
O C �
O N O N
Ov O
m
v
c
0
n
x
N
(D
� U
N C
U) N -0 N
O 'O y p)
CL
O C ._
at—
a
O
N
� o
a�
O i
C N
O �-
�- O
0
»- o
m c
0 0
m —
> O
11
II
11
1
1
1
I
DIMMATIVIlil :3
Ij_..IJ2
co
1
co
U
co
C
cU
o
C
O
O
`n
O
C
O"
'
�
i
cd
Q
N
ccd
co
E
O
O
•=
O
N
c6
U
'
�
C
N
i
c
'
L-
N
�
co
I-
00
cd
N
'
=
L_
O
O
2
O
�
Ij_..IJ2
r
f
DRAWING 9
o � o
> m
E z f i
x - -
y c w f 1
- - - W
x
Ln / 1
LLI
`W' I I� � Q•f
> I ;' OD Lul
LU
� 1 0
_z �- x
Z (R
Ld
W Z
I J .
I
I
6 U I
1_
1
Fh t
I
000 153 1
I
N
� I
X z
W f
H 1
O
W
Z
!�
T
I
000 153 1
DRAWING 10
APPENDIX
duo - 39tid 86 T 00b7
82 :91 06, TZ d3S
Y
4.�• d
!t X14=
W
_r)
�J
0�
on
mz
Z�
_ 20
y� •'\ • JI YI {�
f � �.�. r'1r 'ir I•� \l,
oi... ,SaNd� NN p
3Wd�y�S3 341 ,,
�VOS
ffl
fp
�AJ iJ V •.
AP
a
t�.
ChenONorthern, Inc.
October 4, 1990
Mr. Spencer Pearson
P.O. Box 3299
Aspen, Colorado 81612 -3299
Consulling Engineers and Scientists
96 Soolh Zuni Sliest
Denver, Coloratlo 80223
303744 7105
303 744 0210 Facsimile
Subject: location of Prominent landslide Features on Lot 13, Block 7, Filing
1, Brush Creek Village, Pitkin County, Colorado
Job No. 4 440 88
Dear Mr. Pearson:
As requested, we have marked the approximate location of prominent landslide
escarpments on the topographic map submitted to us on September 21, 1990. A copy
of the marked site plan is attached. The prominent landslide features are the
main body of the landslide which lies to the east of the main crown escargnent
and secondary crown escarpments which are located to the west of the main
escarpment.
The location of the landslide features shown on the attached site plan were based
on the topography as indicated by the contour lines. T#e accuracy of the
topography and the scale of the map is uncertain, therefore it is re=wtrled
that if the marked site plan is used to locate facilities on the lot, that the
landslide features be field checked with respect to the proposed facility
locations.
A summary of our assessment of the potential landslide hazard on Lot 13 were
discussed in our letter of August 14, 1990. This letter should be reviewed in
conjunction with information given in this letter. If you have any questions
regarding this letter, please contact us.
Sincerely,
Chen - Northern, Inc.
Ralph G. Mock
Engineering Geologist
Rev. by: SLP
RZVkd
Enclosure
Amemberol the fH-71H groupolcompames
50plic lonk
new
C o f I
�oO
Nam 1
d
I k
Ja
//
FL.0I PLAN - -, E X 'S H OUSE
Alk'
"') ("(I I ()
1 1
ht\ zj,9 s-Z04 -0(Q-o0q
cck%a--- P I L(6 - 9 0
....... .. ... .. .. .... ..... ... .
\�
)
�
� :
\ )
1 1
ht\ zj,9 s-Z04 -0(Q-o0q
cck%a--- P I L(6 - 9 0
ox i ".", i [ I o ti n c
(p, I � I / i I I � 1 1 ,I 0
riew
o I I s , I I IAc,i A o I I
fi
e x c u d 1 n q un h o o i wd ei i, l ot.,k o 11 t f Y
/" 2 WEST ELEVATION
/4
i it I ( i I r k ) o f i i ) q C) P i
� h II1 y o r I x 1 0
o , c . W/
I t- h i t; k 1) o I I i t i s,
SECTION A" T" STORAGE HOOF":
C (I
G'I A/ I fl] G AR I A
�: O I I I 15 ") 1), � 1,
01 F SOU I I I I D d , 2 1
11 Cw o u
I I , d 11 . I , I I I I 'I � , " , , , n) " , " as
( � x c, I t t d i r) q, I i n h c � i I i ; d n i r I o u k e t i i t y
SOUTH ELEVATUN
, : , f . ri ( , , . i q I a i i i r:j of
u s i v e of u I I h t � i I I o, d o
EAST ELEVATION
... . ...............
........ .. ...........
... .„m..,..
. . ......... .. .
I
II
qua
dato o
rleviAOTIF
1 1 1 1,/A I I i )I\' 'I
C)44- (.)tg- ooq
yl f
i
Pi
xV
1A
jj )e�- '� 'on �
I
(,'A R 0 1, 1 N N
�lo
lj
1A
jj )e�- '� 'on �
I
(,'A R 0 1, 1 N N
�lo
lj
up,rt
PI 7LfL43 -U)q-()C9rC)() q
p►4z-q 0
/-N I-)
e 0 11-1? - q
vib
7LO_,!, - 7 oq- ()(D-dxlq