HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.spec.05161995 ���.. ,:..s�..t"�`A.F i�f��'A�'..... . ��:��.... . . .i•%. �'rJ,i� u ., � .... .... Sa�4��.4`�*!r�`iR�".w�te?K�1.��'Fd���' .�ir�`��1�i�6�i1,'+�.,.�,��.F-.,�
.�'��' � . , .I.�r
PI t.
. . , , � � -,44,
. . . . . �" '`:.�
� - . � � � . .�. � y'y �ti
�
i'' .
} PTfKIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS �,`�'�
; WORK SESSION AGENDA � L":,, y
� PLA7,A ONE CONFERENCE ROOM
�,:=: :r.
T[JFSDAY.MAY 16. 1995 �. :
.
� .. ..
_ __ �r.
. . . . . . . 4...;.,,'.
. . . . - � Q �;.. ._: .
� � � � ��[::,
10:00 AM SPECIAL MEBTING �'`" �
x'-;
Murray Trust Fxpedited Review,Suzanne Konchan �.
ADJOURN SPECIAL MF,ETING rt
• �
12:00 LUNCH BREAK 't �
- 1:30 PM 1. Castle/Conundrum Creek Road Discussion, Stan Berryman !7
r
COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT j'
, 2:30 2. Code Amendment for Pre-1978 GMQS Exempt L.ots,Francis Krizmanich
3. Taa�Burden Discussion Letter, Reid Haughey
4. Memos of Interest
i
� 3:00 BOCC OPEN DISCUSSION �
Agenda Requests �•�
'` � BOARD MEMBERSHIP REPORTS
RFTA ;
Housing Authority , `
NWCCOG
QQ Fund � ,
� Ruedi Water&Power_ �
,-": Colorado River Water Conservation Disuict �
Early Leaming Center j '
Castle Maroon Creek Plan
� 3:15 SPECIAL MEETING-EXECLJT'IVE SESSION
� Owl Creek Lot,Reid Haughey
ADJOURN SPECIAL MEETING
3:30 PM ADJOURN �
� 4:30 PM ELECTED OFFICIAIS TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING I .
�;:
I.ocation: Plaza One Conference Room a � -
� �:
f f•;
; s
i . . . : . i��.
� . i . � . . i�,�
...S . . . . � 4VL.'�..•�
� . � w'1Yd A n+.Nv�N �f i.,�� _y R.
. .. . . . .- .. :��T �Y �!'s I ... ..T.M�n f�- � y,� 1�.
. -�. .� . - . . Q .
\� '~ _ _ � `, -. .. . ' � ` .,;.
, i .
. . ..: . .. . ,-� ..� . . -_,.... .. , ..
�.��.. � - . .. . .. -,. .. ... � � �:i.;. ' '.
� . . . .. . ,. . . . . .. ... .
\. 1 . ' � . .. � . .' . . . . � ,. �
i �
. . . . �� . '. . ' _ � � . . � . . ' . .' �� � . - . . �� �..
. .. . . � . . ��.: . .�. . . .. . . . . . . , .
�..:- .— - ._ ., � . . .
. . . .� . .�. . �
. . , . _ . . - . � ;
�: . . � .. . . . .. . . � ' �
rs.�•��x�� . . ' _ . . . �. - . � � .. � . � . � . . .. . .. . . . .
s•ti
a�2 '
1,}
�. .
. . ..♦ . �� r ' ,,
. , � . ft_..,.�w �
� 5.�:�c)c,t .�' _. «, �1�• 't�;'C7#'��+�i; ,�:. "�' .. �3�..,'�_. :=a�if�e.� r�,:� ��k.;,a.
tti,��'1.
. . . . . . . - . . . � r '.•,;
'4`"; . � . . � . . � . . . .. � ��� t�
ti . . . . . . . � � - .. t�i.•t
",� . . ' . � � . .. .. '�����"...
� Agenda: � f�= `'. .
. RFTA Board Make-up ' � �`'�
� ;�t':
- - Free Bus Discussion �''f '
Transportation Development Program Scope of Work,Dan Blankenship 4 ' :
1 - Maroon Creek Bridge Update,Stan Berryman �*i; �
� Denver&Rio Grande Railroad Right-of-Way Half-Cent Use Tax Budget �; ,�.
Resolution,Tom Newland �
l � i _
�,� .
__i .: �
ADJOURN ;�,. •
� ��
�.
f-�
� '�9':.
.5. ;
I �;.
- ,�.'
' �i�
� , :..
� .
S'� � .
i �.
;
;i .
... __ _
:. .. ::�. _ ..: � . �..� � . ._�_ Y �. .
�_ .,1 �
I :
i. . i
,� }.
,.. ' '
�<
� -
� ' ��
, ;';
l !��.�.
.� , :
�,
� ��,;��.�.,.���,..�.�,..�...m�:°~.--- ' 'i
i,�>'� �- ,
, , o
a y f
� � � i \
. 1 v- '� ` .�. , 1 .� S
.�-� .:� � I,-
. ,
\ 1 '
,l .l. ..' ..
' �
r-, � -F' '
� .�'�: ' . . �
`��,�� •
„� '
� � `��. .� ,.��.'�.n::idt....�'.... ..,. _. . .. ':��:- .. / .� ..� . �.SJ.:".'.�x5...�. .s..i�ht...;;^��.k-.,_._.1:..,.,,:.�¢._� �r�
r
�;.
i4pp/106S�b �+
, ,f-!13-'1s � `�,�; �
r i � .
��;.r�z... ;
� � �1�,�.'bi�'�L�:•
MIHOT86 �:,� .�
" ":.-�J
PITRIN COUNTY BOARD OF COtJNTY C014SI88IONERB '
_ �'.:� .•.�,
SpSCTAL MESTING r,s ., �:�
< 4',� '
S MAY 16. 1995 '
f I.�...' �
�:.a:
_ ; f^�:�.'"=
t_-_ =�
� i=.r.::>..:?.
CALI+ TO oRnBR: Chairman Treland called the meeting ta order at � :�
10:05 a.m. ��:,:I:.,.;
F.;.
. COMMISBION MEMBERS PREBSNT: Mick Ireland, Wayne Ethridge, Bob
I Child and Jim True .
� MIIRRAY TRUST BXPEDITBD REVIEW ':��
! Bill Sterling appeared on behalf of the Murray Trust, to request "
� the Board to expedite their 1041 review application. `:
f w:'
i Mr. Sterling proceeded with a brief history associated with their
{ application. He said a pre-application conference was held in July ':��
� of 1994 with Ellen Sassano and Maxwell Aley, Attorney for the
� Murray Trust. Subsequent to that, on October 25, 1994, it was
determined that their application was complete by a letter they
;, received. In their application they applied for a combined review
� of 1041 and the issue they thought at that point, was a demerger
� of a lot. At that time their research had not gone deep enough nor ;.�
�; had the planner at that time, gone deep enough to know, that in
fact, what they had was technically an illegal lot. Francis
- Krizmanich then took over this case, through an internal change of
£ the planning department, and discovered through his research, that
� they in fact, had an illegal 1ot.
�
� Sterling said they first appeared before the P&Z in Fehruary, using
� their original application , which was the one that they had i
received a letter on, indicating that they were on the right tract
'�. __...� on what they were doing. Why they took the ridgeline out of fheir �
+ a original application is that because the seller did not know where i;
t a buyer might want to put a house on that particular lot. They �
were told that if they went through 1041 for a building envelope, ,
then they could deal with the issue of the ridgeline later. He
• referred to minutes from the P&Z meeting of February 7 regarding
some of the issues that were raised there. •
Sterling said the final issue was that staff could not recommend �
� scenic overlay approval because there was no propasal. He said �;
they never intended to submit a proposal, and not until that point,
did it laecome very apparent to them, that the P&Z was not going to 1
be able to act on all the land use issues about 1041, Without
BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 2 MAY 16, 1995 ` �~=�
' j; 1.
�.
I
,
;
.
.
....:.: ...: .:: _ ,..: , .. . . ,. : <
, . .:
. � . . . . .., ...... . _. . � . .. . . :,l�i �
, ' ,
w` _ ` ' � r' �,
` � '
. •
} • , .
� �
(
V� -• : -
:��%.',� . .
a�� .
. R,,.. , .. �,.,
,� �''I`':�,.,.
,L
�: t,
;"�s'<,.
,��lx;�
' trying to combine in a full way the ridgeline issues so they asked
Eor a tabling at that time. A copy of the P&Z minutes of the '
February 7, 1995 meeting, which Mr. Sterling referred to are `�
; attached hereto and made a part of this record as S%HIBIT ��A��. �,1�
i Sterling said they wenL back to the P&Z on April 18, where they !• i,:
` went through the full review process where a number of Krizmanich's �
1 recommendations were integrated into a unanimous approval of the � :
i 1041 and ridgeline review. Then they discovered that they were �" ;
scheduled to come before the BOCC in four months. Because their t' .
' contract on the property expires on June i5, 1995, they are �;��:; '
requestinq an expedited review before the BOCC. r
' True commented that it looks to him like the a licants asked for �F�
i PP ti;:> -
_ : a tabling at the February 7th meeting to avoid the restrictive f
� approval associated with the ridgeline. Then they came back and !�
showed the P&Z the propexty and then it was passed less
� restrictively.
� � I
� Sterling explained that he is not quarreling with the process.
However, he thinks it seems like a long period of time from the end
of one approval to the next time they get to have their application
heard by anather body.
Suzanne Konchan, Community Development Director, said what she has
heard from the applicants is that the length of scheduling from
• � their completion date to the P&Z was four months. Once they got
through the P&Z process, they had to wait another four months to
get to the Board, and there were further statements to the effect
that they got delayed in P&Z two months between February and April
because it was staff�s fault. So she went back and pulled out the �
documents she thought could help present some of the positions.
A copy of these documents are attached hereto and made a part of
. � this record as BBHIBIT ��8��.
� Konchan said what she is most surprised about is that the
applicant's representative did not know there was a issue with an
illegal lot. She noted that Maxwell Aley was in her of£ice talking
� with her months before the application ever came in doing a variety
� of research on other cases where there have been a recorded plat
'� � of people who have asked Eor a lot separation. She believes they
� - - � d Ied him to the Whitehorse Springs plat. Therefore, she thinks the
� applicant's attorney was pretty aware of the lot separation issues
� that Francis raised.
` Konchan proceed to give the history of the Planning Office�s review
associated with this matter. She referred to page 7 and 8 of the �
above referenced documents where staff did in fact identify this
s property as a ridgeline area and told them that in their
application, they would have to address the code sections regarding j
ridgeline.
j BOARD OF COiINTY COMMISSZONERS 2 MAY 16� 1995 �
1
i 1'
� .'.
--__._.y._.�_,.�.
: / __._ ... _._._ ..__.. . _ __.____-� - ^�
,. �:,.; .. >.;,.. ( __ : . . ...,-: ,e , ,
f' 1+`
/ . . .. . . - I . .��p .
C
� � ' . � . q - . ,I.,:,_,: '.
. ""� ' , . � � . . . � � � . � . . � �I � �i
� � .. . � . . . . . . �. - � _.. ��
' � . � . � . � ' . . . . . .
1 ' , . . . . .. • ' . . . .
� � . . . . ' .. i .
k,�¢. � . . . . � � . , .
�f•���. � � � . . � - .
'i�t-. �4 � . . .
P1}
..�,.� � ,
t ,�,, ._ . " '
���' , y�-�4,J�1� i .S4�'t. {�yY . .JA ��� ti/�. y�}, r���yyy� ��.7+��{�,fi _y�;u(�,7��;7�y .....
3 t'� ��kr.u�lb''.. . .,�, 1" � . - �.s?..�`��P- •V��6.�'t➢r°d� . � FS9El�'s�4f_'�A.�`..IVet )xi.i`
4'_. �.�i�`�A_ . , ...
t��i;
:4:
. � ��"' i.�,:l
I�,+" ''
� . k7���i41G'�eti
'w
Ronchan said the applicants could have taken a Planning Commfssion %' '�
approval on February 7th and then they could have argued the � `�
,t ridgeline issue to the Board of County Commissioners. However they �-�;:��
' opted to have their appZication tabled. Therefore, she does not r';:'�-
, feel that it is somehow lack oP due diligence on staff's part that ='Z •
� their application was tabled. She is down to the point that there '� •° '�r
p is a very difficult calendaring issue, and Bill and Max�s clients }:�; ' ;..
� are stuck in a very tough situation with planning office's �'^ r
_ � , calendars. It is an eight month process right now as it looks I�- �.
,today. d
� ir.:
Ireland said he would be willin to e edite the review but he is �;•,�"',
� 4 XP • F :
not happy to hear the buck passed to staff because he does not t��> .
think it belongs here.
irelaad moved to expeCite tbie application to Juiy 26, 1995 to help !:
the applicant�s vith their pendinq oontraat. The motion died for #,
a laak of a aecond. �'
I It was the consensus of other commission members that there was not
- a basis, in this situation, as to a reason to justify this
particular application moving forward on its own merits; there was
more than ample notice about the ridgeline issue. However, they
do think there is a calendaring problem and this is a internal �
- issue that needs to be discussed: i
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m. - j
R s ectfully� mitted, i
i � l�(�'-� �
Je�nette Jone '
C rk to the Board of County Co issioners '
's
i
`
'� Michael C. Ireland, Chairma ` � j
� - 1= . Board of County Commissioners
� ' w;.
iz.
BOARD OF COIINTY COMMI8820NER8 3 MAY 16� 1995 1 '-
i ;`.:
�
�
S �::.
� —•----_..:��:� ,.�.,...�. . .. � ._._.__..v: . ...r_. _.,..--. _ �;,�k--
J��>
o w
. • � - � � . .- . -. ..�. � . �. r{:_ -i
.�1 . . . � - . ���.\
. - .'.� . . . . �. . �.�•.
. . . . . . . . � . ' . . '.4.�.���.
'� ' � . .. � . � ' . � . . t� ,.. . - . � . . .�
.. - . � . � - . . . � � � .. . . ' _ . � . .
. . . . .. ...__ . . _ . . . . . . � � .
�: . . ' ' .. .. . . .. " . . . . . . . . .
a�+,'�T. . . � _ .- . - .. . _ : . • ' . � .. • .
.���: .
._ rirr��i � _ _
_ �
.. .
+;.. ,� . ..a..._.«, . -..._».�-�... -...... _-.x....,.. � .
.. . ..,.... . .,..
. >. .T.,.. . ._. - - � ......,.. ..... �
_ • • �� � ��` ;�,t�..
Pitkin County Planni�g&Zoning Commission ,f�/�i-r/s ~�M Psge 2 ��.r���,..���y
Minutes of February 7,1995 �::t�`�'i:`
,..
;r. t
is .
! ' Ellen Sassano presented the applicanPs request to the commission. Staff is recommending �%'�'.-�'�
� gPProval. �:';.';:y,
( Rod Dyer is present and is representing Howard and Joyce Hardy. He explained that Fmm Brush �,`J, ;.
Creek Road you can se�a good portion of the third story of Lee Miller s house. Fmm those �' i
observations,they have designed a house sa that only a small partion of the Hardy house wiil b� f ?� -
1 seen. Ae demonsuated on drawings presented at the meeting. ; -
r..,
The public hearing was opened and closed,with no memhers of the public offering any eomment ���^�-;
`:'+�::: •
Shellie Harper moved to appmve subject to the conditions oEfered in Ellen's memo. Seconded by
Ceorge KrawzoR: The motion was amended to include direction to the Chairperson to cxecuu
the resalution prepared by sta[E All in favor with Jake Vickery voting in Jack Ha�eld's place. Y�
B. Pfeifer Scenic Overlay &1041 Hazard Review-7ody Edwards opened the hearing for
public comment. Ellen Sassano described the applicant's request. Wildfire mitigation is to be
{ required. An area may encmach on a slight slope so staff is recommending that tha foundadon ':
, be approved,per the Code,by a Colorado registered professional. Staff is recommending ��x
I approval subject to conditions. Ceorge Krawzo[f asked that condition No.3 be changed since the
applicant indicated that the trees are to be cottonwoods rather than aspens. David Cuthrie
moved to approv�and direct the chair to execute the resolution with the edit ro Condition No.3 �
I as discussed. Seconded by George KrawwfF. Jack Hatfield asked that the applicant make sure �•:
that compliance is.being accomplished relative ro the employee housing and he noted that it is a �.�
stretch to allow the Crown's to live in the employee housing. He also noted that the master plan �
` I shauld address this. All in favoc
_ - III. NEW BUSINESS
u.
A. M�sray Lot Sepazation and Conceptual Subdivieion-Jody Edwards declared a conflici of i
interest indicating that he had done some research on this case. Francis Krizmanich indicated � :, .
that he had uncovered documentation to indicate that the lots were created illegally and steff
,; cannot recommend aQpmval. However,it was noted that five of the six lots in the subdivision
i
.� have already been deve]aped and separate development of this lot will have minimal impacts.
.,. _-- 2�
i Francis feels the building envelope as conGgured does not comply with ridgeline requirements
and there are no real building height restrictions and the building proposal uses.the steepest part '•
' � of the lot and no lighting proposal has been submitted. StaFf recommcnds that the bu�lding ,.
envelope be brought back appmximately SO feet from the top of the ridge. Given no pcoposed
� height restriction,and with a house at the top of the ridge,you would hsve a signiFicant impact. �
ThereFare,staff cannot recommend Seenic Overlay Review approval,because there is no proposal.
1�:
�`
Max Aley is present representing the Murrays. It was indicated that when they purchased the � , r;�,,;
lots in 1971,the understoad the were bu in le al lots. He su ested that in faimess the �'j; ���1
Y Y Y� 8 g g8 t;.
� members should allow the separation. �1
�
� � ;�
� __ r !
---.._ . _;:,..- „.
�;
- -�-•- �._..,. .�. f ..... - -. -- ._._. . ...._ .... . �k'��;`
� , �s ;:
. . .. . . - . . . . - q � �a
_ � . . .. . . . - _. ... t -r
, .� . ' . . � . . � � - - .. . � _.._ �
� ��. . . .. . � _ � . . . . � . - . � ' . . � � . , � . .
` . . . . . _ . . .. . ;;�. . . _ ..
` � '� , .. . . � . . � . � � . . � . � .. .. . . . �
. . . � . . � . � ... � .. . . . . . . � , .
nti.±j„: . . . . . ' . . . . . . ' . . • ..
. � . .. . . . , . .
r�7itT. . " ' . . , � .
� �
'��}
, �.h.��.. ...,S�h>.�J���.�,.ts: .•7.e'.: _ _. .... . !n. . _.� . �L.. _,a���i�"��...�.»...wL•a�aur+.dv,s,�.:a..�i._,.tn..1e!a .L,'
� � '�..h�:e
•, � y
Pitkin County Planning&Zoning Commission Page 3 �r;; �v}��,'
Minutes of February 7, 1995 -:,'�ti��"
`.y�.�.�..
1�� ' .
i� '�i: -'.,
Jack Hatfield indiceted that there is a legal issue here. He would like direetion from che County "*�•,�'7
�' Attomey because there is a faimess issue and a technical issue. Technically he does not see -;!"r%' '
:y>..
j how they can grant a lot separa►ion. He asked if a Plat of Survey has ever been substandated as , '.
� something that could patentially make this a legal subdivision. !j:����
i �
� Francis suggested that the pianning commission needs to make a"gut call"on it. He suggested "'-` �
� '. f,-,'.:t -
that the Commission decide whether or not it is appmpriate,taking into consideration the fsimess �:
__ 1 �R r �
issue and noting that the area has already been developed. �
�_.� ;' '
Shellie Harper ssked if this Iot or these lots wauld have been included in the community plan �y;;.
While no one was certein,they believe that this lot was included in the count for undeveloped �'t� '
lots in the metro area. She indicated that some credence should be given since everyone hes ,'+.'>
��.
been considering thcse as legal lots for 24 years. Discussion ensued about setting precedents. �
��� ,
Bill Stirling,is the Trustee for this remainder Charitable Trust_ Bill noted that he noticed that �
they were going to have a prohlem because the edjacent locs were owned by the same group. �`;,;yi;
They have been getting separate tax bills on the two parcels far all af the years of ownership. ��'
i ' There have heen no objections from any other home owners. Fundamentally,he believes that it , ,•;
is a fairness issue. Ae also believes that this wiil have no detrimental affect on Pitkin County.
George Krawzoff�cplained several alternatives for reviewing this case. He suggested focwarding
this,pending an opinion from the County Attomey on the iega}ity of the lot.
� •
� Tim Malloy is concerned about setting a precedent for allowing a lot separation on en illegel l04 �'!j.�
Allowing a further illegal action on something they have explicit knawledge of is questionable.
� Diseussion ensued.
� ' All of the lots in this area are non-conforming. The lots proposed are also non-confotming. �
Across the street is a 120 acre lot split that ended up with two lots.
Shellie Aazper moved to pass the decision to the Caunty Commissioners and the Connty Attorney
� to determine whether or not this has been legally glatted. As a note,the Planning Commission
-- will continue its deliberation and make a recommendadon on the 1041 and scenic issues,
condiflonal upon the determination oF the legality of the lot. Jake Vickery seconded the motion. �'
Jake indicated that it is clear to him that the lnt is nat legal[y created. Jack Hatfield will not ;4'
support this motion and he prefers to get a fiinding ficst including the Eaimess issue. Discussion
' , ' f ensued. George Krawzoff,Shellie Harper,David Guthrie in favor. Jack Hatfield and Jake a . '
' Vickery opposed. �
; Tim Malloy suggested that the language"'Ihe Planning&Zoning Commission recommends ���
apptoval,having consideced the issues on this,pending a Gnding by the BOCC and County 1
Attomey that this lot has been legally created"be added to any conditional appmval. 4�.
, a
,Iack Hatfield noted that his thinking an this appiica[ion was the preference of the applicant. �
! i� '' ,
i -
s �
� , � � Z � ��` �
Y
i
�
? _ __ t r,�: : ,
,:.......___ __._,,.. :� �_-- __._.___ ,::. ...___ _._�____ _
.�,._.._. _ _ .' ��`i
. . . � � �.:.� . ..�.. - . . . . . . ., � . `.-. .. . r�.�..�. .n.�
. . ^ . . . . � ' . . � . . . � _. . . � `�.
.. . . _ � � � . . . . - � - � .. - 4.,�:�� . .
. . . . . . . . . . ��.�:': ....
. . . . . . �. � �. . . � � � . � . . � ���✓.'� � � ..
. i � , � � . � � � - � .. . . � . . . . �. � . . '.. .
\ �
��, � •
�..:�
.,.� �T:, . . . .. . - . . .
�+� .
�
' ��: .. ..�-��i9inr}�Id�.:�,y. . . ;�aH... . �. �3: , .. '.�a�. , . �:ff,�F _,tv'�'+:hv-v,..a,4dstr���:iw;d...�-:C_°� �.._..ti:�.;._
• `�� �(
Pitkin County Planning&Zoning Commission 4
Minutes of Februa 7 1995 Page 4 q���':
r7' r.�'e,' F�k-ypk4:
l� `� .
;;�q�, .�-
� Discussion ensued on the 1041 Wildfire,and scenic issues. It was suggested that this be `:,:�., .�a
j approved based on a single-story structure. Extensive discussion ensued on placunent of the � .
structure on the lot,impacts on scenic,restrictions on size and height if it were to be allowed on
�',�;,•�
i the ridge or less than the 50 feet back which was recommended by staff. ��-�� _ '
;�=�
i' Shellie Hacper moved to appcove the lot separation,the 1041 and scenic impacts,according ro i .::,^.:`. �
Francis Krizmanich's criteria including moving the building envelope 70 feet fmm the edge oE the f'�`�
� ridge,and subject to conditions as recommended by staff. Shellie included a note to the !:-��,�~"
i,c . .
i Commissionecs that the Planning Commissioners,as individuals,voted in a straw vote 5-1,ihat ,
k.�..: .
� there was a faimess issue,in terms of taking away the right to treat this as a legal lot. �`�`,;:;`'��:` •
� �y;t:' :
� F .-
�+.,
i Before the motion was seconded,the applicant asked to have the appiication tabled to allow them �;�
� I::�.` '�_
ro review further the ridgeline issues. ��,;
t.��;i
r,;
Jake Vickery would support the application with a 7500 s.f.size limitation,a flat roof structure,
i and no pitched rooE. �'�
.� �i�;4z. .
Jack Hatfield moved to tabie the entire applica[ion to April 18,1995. Seconded by David
Guthrie. All in favon �"�b
�'
B. Restivo/Strawbridge 1041 Hazard Review 3c General Submission-Rick Magill addressed �F.
wildlife mitigation which was requested by the DOW. Rick indicated that the entire property is
i in a severe hazard area with respect to wildfire. Staff is recommending denial,because of the
i Code requirements,and sending this applicant to a takings hearing before the BOCC,because it ri'=;�
is completely encumbered by severe wildfire hazard. Discussion ensued. Staff recommends that '����`
. ' the Planning Commission forward a set of conditions in the case of which some development is �
approved by the Board.
Leslie S�awbridge was present representing herself and Chuck Restivo. She described some oF !;•
the methods they anticipated incorporating into the design. Leslie told the Commission that she
and Chuck intend to solicit the advice oE renowned professionals in the valley to essist on the �'
� � design team. Furthet,they desite ro include a lap pool which would have a tap line to the road
� for use of the water in the event of a Gre. They also anucipate designing some type of alternative �~
building structure which would have higher resistent to fire. I.eslie explained that while she does
, not object ta joining a road improvement district,she has some reservations agreeing to
� something that is not a known. She also explained that she is president of the homeowners '4i
associauon for Pinyon Pines which have very restricuve covenants which she was in charge oF ,
enforcing. ��' .
�
Condition 6 b.shall be edited to allow for the pool to be used as the water storage rather than �•
the undergmund water storage tank should the applicant desire to include a pool in the structure, (�
I but[he water must be accessible. The applicant shall have available far fire Gghting af all times, ;�
storage to accommodate a minimum of 1000 gallons. Leslie indicated they have no problem with , -
working with the Fire Marshall to determine the location of the hookup or accessible point.
Capacity and location shall be appcoved by the Basalt District Fire Manhall. Change Condition I.
f g. to"aceessible". �I`�
j P
� 3
_ ;
, _
� -__ _--- -.. _ . _ ,. �.__ ___ _ _._.._ �___ v�
..r. _._ ,� _ . _.. ..
�
. / .' � ' . . ' . ' . . xA� "-
... � . -. � ' ' S . � � / . '��
. '�'a _ . . . � . I . ' . . tl .
. . � . - . . . . . • .... � � `
. . . . . . . ' � . � . � . .
. 4. 1 ... . . ' . ' � . . '.'_t '.. ' . . • _
I
' . . �� . � � � . . . .
.-. .-- . � ._ . .. . . . . . 1 .. .
C;?S'�' � . " . .- . . �. .. � - � . .'
w
.y.�.q�'..,: . . . � . . . � •
�P
.`��• •
'1�.,�:�. . .. �im�� .u.. ... .. .._.. ._ . ., ... .. '.+. .. � _ k:.ti __!::.iT,.,..s�...,}hwii4r'i...,�..�ni�:.L..._. ._.. L
.s. ��.�
'�rY�';�!.
•A �� `�y�f.s'�',:.
5-/6-+�S •.a. o�
_' • - �:��;,_��,
J� .:,,..
q�;;
Ms. Ellen Sassano /1///'��'�� '�O.^ ��. --..
October 17, 1994 � �y�/ r � :�_if' .c�
Page thirteen � � '
� ' r• t�
in the 80 mm. telephoto lens pictures (also enclosed) it is barely "•-'���,-+�,,
discernable with the aid af a magnifying glass but only in the '.
photo taken from Hwy 82 parallel to the Southerly end of the ' j;`:��
s runway at Sardy Field. �
i
j . The building envelope is approximat'e1y 70 feet deep and 150 �"': `
� feet wide. ?,3_;d;;:�:-'�
I The property is listed for sale at this time, and the P �`�s :
applicant has not obtained architectural plans or drawings for the ?�``' "'�
� single family structure allowed by the zoning. The Lot comprises i��'� � `
2.021 acres or 88 034.76 s ft. The buildin envelo e indicated on �`'�
, q• 4 P �xc; "
j the site survey is only approximately 10,500; it would have to be �,i� ,�
I amended for the maximwn single family FAR structure. ;'�=Tf
..: � � ��:�:. , ..
� Ridgeline approval will be subject to review hy the Planning � =��
" Staff when architectural plans are submitted to the Building � ��
�..�`:'
� Department to consider whether mitigation is necessary. Applicant ��*�,'
� will not submit any huilding proposal because as owner it has no �i�
� plans to develop the property. � `�"°"
e
� geview Criteria• �'
�"
� 1_ There is no alternative topography on the site that would
decrease ridgeline visibility, but the existinq vegetation, hiqher �! `;.rr
topography in the background viewing the property from the ;�'
northerly portion of Hwy 82, and distance, does assist in
� mitigating the impact o� any proposed structure from Highway 82.� �
• _i
• 2. Prior to tihe preparation of architectural plans �
consideration should be given to complementing the natural `�"
" topography, including innovative architectural techniques, such as `` �
earth srieltered design, natural materials and coloring, and non-
reflectability.
-� 3. The design structure should seek to mitigate height and k
bulk to avoid to the maximum extent possible the visibility of the
structure from Awy 82.
,Y
� 4. The size and location of the lot does not allow an � �
� alternative building site. .f :.; •
i
� 5. Existing vegetation shall be maintained to the maximum �
extent possible to screen the development consistent with wildfire ;�'
mitigation. After the structure has been designed additional �'}
landscaping may be designed to screen the structure. `�'
6. Exterior lighting shall be designed in such a manner that �. j
'.:
� �,'5
- i�..�;P
� 4 � �
� � 1 � _;
�" i r.:
_ ._ . __. . ___ ,____.... _.... � .,,. ,
..,. ..__-___ _.__.,...,:� � .._ _... ,.. , - ---- --°- __ -. --._.
_. ._ .. ... .yi��
,. . .�. __ - , _ �. i�;�
� � `l. +
� 5.+;
. r :
-. .
,.._.
� � 1
�, _
�, , � .
�-. . :.. . ..
i • - '� •
�� - ' . .
� - .. � � . � . ... . .. . . . , , � . � �/ � .
�: ._ _ - � . . � � � , . . . . �� ' .
. w ... . . . . . . .
� ;�fl.;:• � • . - . .
�. .
���
-. , ,
..�M'd.''. `�•i.:.�"_ �..kG?.��.. _ - . ' . .:� _ .. ,4 . �,.,...� .':,,I a tt i:r� � •
�.i..:5.��� . ... .u,. . ..n . .. ;-.LL.�.i.._.t'j:i_..:�s�t�Clk�ItJWM.u..�.�i1.2.f�'.�:.+J� J�I:�:,
• x) ...;f�. ',:
�e
. . l:�
.._4' .S�v' _
: k�, ,
r�� c
. Y'i +t�i:�
± Ms. Ellen Sassano ;�' '.
� October 1'7, 1994
i Page 14 ifir•- :,
� . - _ ��'.r.'...5'>
; light sources, such as facade and landscape lighting, shall not be !.;,•'�:•:-•
seen from Hwy 82. Lighting shall be consistent with the lighting r; ��'t�•
regulations in the LUC. S�, Sec.3-11I0. j'}�.,'• '
�-. ,
7. Reduction of at le�st four feet in height from the 28' i:.,�s��` r
allowable shall be obtained by excavation into the slope of the '��.�.r:`__?�. -
building envelope. � R:
_ - ' �T :�' �.
Based upon the foregoing, the application complies with the (��i?� • i
substantive review standards with the suggested mitigation. • SX�.:="��.= -
�, '` '
IV. � .� ::
- ENVIRONMENTAL AND AESTHETIC STANDARDS ' �+,�y�
�:' 'r
1. Air Ouality. No air pollution is anticipated in this �4�.
� development of a single family residence or any accessory buildings ,;
� on the property. ^ '�'
_ 2. preservation of Natural Landscape.
'F,
A. Grading and fill placement will comply with county
regulations.
�';;��
B. Design and Construction Techniquesc �;}'. •
1. The building site will be revegetated and �
reforested utilizinq native or similar horticultual material or
replaced with vegetation of equal or qreater foliage mass.
-i;,
2. Topsoil will be removed and saved prior to
grading and excavating and replaced for vegetation.
�,, 3. There will be weed prevention. t`
4. Utilities will be located and installed in a
� manner minimizing damage to the natural environment and scenic
quality. '�
� • 3. Scenic overlav. This subject has been addressed in Part �� , �
III. hereinabove under the caption "Ridgeline Review". �
V. : �`
..�;�.
IMPROVEMENTS AND SERVICES �t
..S
The property is located in a developed area. Single family ° �"_
,�, residences are located close on the north, adjacent on the east and �
, i J,
5 � . - � c,: ��� ,...
� 5 �;� :
. K,: ,.
: __ . _ _ __ >r,,-� .
_-
,,�,,.rw. .�...--- --,----Y:��,�r:�.,.�_,.....�:��...�._���,.:::_,,.._. . - - -_._._...._.:... ----- . _. _�.�:�. — _ "
,. ,
�-,
,�
....; : - - • . ��J _
. - •..
_ : , . � :: .
, . r� t
�
�.
,, , ,�,' .
. _
, � , . :
..-. - .
� :;� - ' .
'� , - ;
, : :. . , . .
.'.`�.�s��', _ ; '
<�.
'�t�e . ,
a,� , '
�.: ,
. . .. - . �, . � ,. .;y _,a .•�..,-r�; ...., •. -�.., �,�Y : :-r
;..
• .�'J�� " ..5L�i Ys..a�L�i�..�•:�... r�Yr.. .,, �d�.,� . . .. - . +�«�w�,tnr-,3utar!r,Min�vu4Y�s�'ctss.�lli�.w.wl...r-'..2� i i :::_ �'�� .
_. ... .. .._. v , ,r,'�,
f . . . ��}/�,
. ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNiTY DEVELOYMENT DEPARTMENT i ' n
:I 130 Souch Galena Street �r�, �
; Aspen, Colorado 81611 " '�'�`.�
(303)920-5090 FAX!/(303)920-5197 s . `
. 3L
� k,�: .; ,
. . . . . �iir'/'.'1'j1
y ',
.. . . . . . . . -,C .
October 25, 1994 ,; �;
>� ?; :-
'.�
.)I Maxwell Aley . ,t' .
OOQ2 Williams Way ,�
� Aspen, CO 81611 �`: '°
Re: Murray Lot Separation,1041 Hazard Review&Scenic Overiay Review a
Case#P126-94 '�'
Dear Mazwell, ,;�_ 'L
Tfie Planning staff has completed its preliminary review of the capdoned application. We have ���'
determined that this appIication is complete.
�;}
This appGcarion has been scheduled for review by the Pittdn County Planning and Zoaing
- , Commission on Tuesday,February 7, 1995 at a meehn�to bean at 4:00 p.m..Should this date
' be inconvenient for you please contact me within 3 woridng days of the date of this letter. :
' After that the agenda date will 6e considered final and changes to the schedule or tabling of the "
' application will only be allowed for unavoidable technical problems. The Friday before the =:
; meehne date,we will call to inform you that a copy of the memo pertaining ta the application ��,�
j is available at the Community Development Office. �� `
i
:I Please note that it is your responsibility to post the subject property with a sign within 15 days �
of the public hearing before the Boazd of County Comm�ss�oners and to remove it from the
property within one week following the hearing. Please contact me at 920-5093 one week
followmg the Planning Commission meetina for the hearing date. Please submit the enclosed '�'
Affidavit of NoRce by Posring as proof of compliance with the Code prior to or at the hearin;. r
If you have any questions,please call Ellen Sassano,the planner assioned to your case,at 920- F '
'�- ` 5098. �
_ __j
Sincerely, ' 1.
G��� � ,
i Suzanne WolfF _
Administrative Assistant
ppz.no.ph M
:,' '�,'.:
:::�. :
�� . ,`'-:i
� �
4 _... ....- - _,, ___ ��..s
y..,� — ^—.�+,.u4:�iW..+-a""'„�."�� �x....�_.... _ < . ^""� 4 1�
��� ' tr�w—a _ . —..r-.��r�w
� ' u.e
� .. . . ....�-::... � ����
i�' . .. �� . ♦ �� �`„ y'�
. . . . � . . � ` .. .. t�R.cl i
�
1 . , .. . . , �� . .
.�♦ .. .. . . . �.,
. ...1. .� .. � , . . . . � "'.i ' � . ' � .
1 � ��
, .
_. ,
- _ _ , .
y. - -
� ' _
r��� .
,,�,�, ' ,
,�
�y d�. , .�,. . � ,
Tw.. , ie+L�. 6iT J��lr:.'�:.�_. . y_Y.N... ... .' `A�._ . �. '�w,% '.... �,( y,��ltio?f:`.`lSr..l� „_�•._..]
/\ ,
_ ' . �'-�/; � �""r �.
. � � ..... __ .Il�.�`"
:x
_.. y:�.
I . `�a�+�'�;`k',"
�u
I ...
; YITKIN COIINTY � -�y .
! PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE BIIHIiARY t�•,:��
�f DATE: 7/29/94 PLANNER: E.B. I��:'�.'i,�
�
PROJECT: lSurry Lot 8eparation, 1041 Review and Ridaeline Raview k.��,`
. .� S r
1PPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Maawel2 Alev
REPRE3ENTATIVE'S PHONE: 925-6500 ``-7'::_
OWNER'S NAME: Jovice S. Murzv Trust {`� �°
I i'
sm�sAxY fw ,
. �,�
1. Type o! Application: Lot Seoaration/1041 8azard Review/Ridael,ins
Review F � '
i .
i 2. Describe action/type of development being requested:
�� Wishes to seoarate twa merved lots and estab2ish a buildinq
enveloAe for a single familv residence on the separated lot TIIe �
ilot is located withia a manved ridceline area and contaias hiah )i
. wiZdfire hazard and slones exceedinq 15 and possiblv 30% in gTade �
' It is a2so located within the moderate airaort hazard zoae !(
� I
�
� �.
f �.
;: ; .
3..Areas in which Applicant has been requeated to respond, types S
i of raports requested: 1;
� Po2icy Area/ ` ,
Referral Aqent Comments ` .
� � ��
` -":--1- Section 6-503 - Lot seoaration (5-6 - Submission contents) ;
Section 5-9 - Ridaeliae Review (3-604 - Standards! 5-902 and 5- 4
, 903 for submi3sion reauirements
8ection 3-802 H 4 - 2041 Review foz Wildfire and Slooe hazards l5- �
, 6 for Submission coateats �
�rticle 2 - aovlicable policies
Bection 3-6 - Environmenta2 and Aeethetic standards , �
� Section 3-7 - Aater Resources t
8ectioa 3-11 - Imnrovements and 3errices j
� 8ectioa 4-602 - Proceduxes (
8eation 5-7 - submission conteats
� 8lease arovide topo4zaohv delineatina two foot contaurs for the � s�,
� pr000sed buildinC envelope and access drive � � _
,�,
� . � `..''
E ��c[�,,(r���`.' i �- 1
� � � 4- ..:,��..._.:.__-... _.—__•°_��..�._.�..__� ._. . .. .. _......,. . . i
.. .. ,_ . �_.... . . ....__..,_. ._..__.__.,--. ......._._._ _��: _ ,�,R,�� �. .
� _ _.... ... _ s�t F 1 r
. - � � . . .- . � � . � . . . . . . , �jr r .
- � ' . . ' . � . . � .. ��': i�
' . � .. . . � . �. . . . . .. � .. . . �. `i
. .. .. . .. • ... . . . . . . , . . . . � .1.. `i.� .
} . . ' - � - . . - . � �. . - .. � . .. �
- � �. .__ . . �-..�.. -.'- :;.. . . . . . . . ! . . .
���� � . . - � � . . . . .. .. . '
;�• �`° � � . . � � . � . � . ,
;;�.:.
:��•
___ �_____ __.��.._.. W_ _
___.._ �_
� �
�'i� ..,-. . � .. ' ._ . .. _ _ ._. . . .. �.. H�' .
�{� L'
• • �! 1 r'':
[� f
. F�.:-.�.�`�"'j',',
Refer to• Eav Health• Enaineer; Attornev; Asoen Fire Marshal; i: _�
State Forest Service• Sheriff, Airt�ort, West Buttermilk HA ;"., :�y
s.,. .�.,
4, Review is before: (P6Z Only) (BOCC oaly) (P8Z 6 BoCC) �.c :. .� r
tR,-
5. Public Hearinq: Yes) (No) At: (P6Z) BoCC) (BOTB P&Z 6 BOCC) ty;.?' ' �
; i,"%�:r:+,
,� 6. The applicaat needs to post a sign fos each public heazing ��:: "
_ - ptlrsuant to SectioII 4-9 of the Code. YE3) (NO) �-��'.:.��' .
�
7. nid you tell applicant to submit list of ADJACENT PROPERTY ,�;�,: .
� o�rExs? �s txo� Disclosure ot Ownership: YES (xo)
� .
y 8. Number of copies of the appiicatioa to be submitted: 20 ,
� 9. Fhat deposit was applicant requested to submit: 5978.00 �'!
±�120 00 referrals (Deposit is based on sis hours at an hourlv rata �,.
o! $163.D0 per hour. Additioaal billinci or refunds wi11 be
processed accordina to actual hours saeat vrocessia4 case.) �4�
i�:
l0 AnticiPated date of submission:
I 11. COMMENTS/IINIQIIE CONCERNB: In addition to submittal coatents in
' � Sections 5-6 5-7 and S-9o2 aad 903 v2ease submit: 1. Proof o!
ownershio and statemeat fram attornev or titla comuanvi ce=tifvin4 t
; whea Darcel was created and Arovidina infozmation on whether 2ot
j has merved with adiaceat uarcels• 2. Site Plan sho�riaa buildina .�.
� envelooe anv nhvsical features oertinent to 1041 Review `�'"�
I Idrainacewavs aontours etc ) acaess to buildina envelooe:• 3'. "�
� - CODY of access easement if avnlicable• 4. Letter describin3
• ' reauest and addressina Code sections shown above reaardsaa lot
aenaration ridgeline aeneral submission issues and mitiaation of
anv hazards• 5 Letter from owner 4ivina consent to reoresent; 6. �;
tventv cooies of anvlication• two copies of ovnershin info: one ;
'� � COA9 or adiacent owners list with an addressed envelooe for each . �
� adiacent owner• 7 Apvlication deoasit• 8 Copv of this vze-nvp._
=y
� j form 9 Acreement to pay form - ,
,__. ---i
/{ • Please also provide photoQraph(s) of site as seen from tha
� Hivhway viewplane -
, i ; �
frm.pre_app.county i
PAEAPP
1041 �,I
�'1:�
� • � '
(
�
i
� � .
j ' '
. ! � . . - _ � .. . f, � .
' __�.�__.._--_ __ l - -- --- .. _ __ _._. __------_.
_ fx:�
� �: � , -
4 . �i r'- .
� �,:
� . _ .1:�
. ,
_ . .
l 4 � '
. . . � .
a, ' .
k�.r°?�. � . . . ,
,'�,':tr . . . . .. . . . .
y�, .