Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.packet.10222014 - GSS Properties LLCMEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners Regular Meeting — October 22, 2014 TI-IRU: Cindy Houlerl, tvOmmunity Development Director FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Senior Planner RE: GSS Properties LLC Driveway Site Plan Review — Takings Remediation SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The Applicant requested a hearing, pursuant to Section 2-40-130 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code, as a result of the Board of County Commissioners' denials of two separate applications for the property: • GSS Properties LLC Site Plan Review for Driveway, pursuant to BOCC Resolution No. 070-2013. • GSS Properties LLC/Holloway Site Plan Review for Driveway and Special Review and GMQS Exemption for a TDR Receiver Site, pursuant to BOCC Resolution No. 102-2014. On August 27, 2014, the BOCC found that both denials constituted takings and directed staff to bring back the various driveway alternatives for the BOCC to consider appropriate remediation for the taking. The BOCC conducted a site visit on September 23, 2014, to view the driveway alternatives. The Applicant submitted summary comments and drawings of the alternatives in the attached packet dated October 12, 2014. APPLICANT: GSS Properties LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Jim Curtis LOCATION: Woody Creek Road ZONING/LOT SIZE: RS-20162.95 acres BACKGROUND: 2011 Activity Envelope Review: The Community Development Director denied an application for Activity Envelopes for a single family residence and a driveway, pursuant to Administrative Decision No. 27-2011. The Director found that that the activity envelope for the residence complied with the Code, but that the driveway envelope contained slopes in excess of 45%, where development is prohibited by Sec. 7-20- 20(b) of the Land Use Code ("Code"). The BOCC subsequently found that a taking had occurred as a result of the denial, and remediated the taking by approving Activity Envelopes for the residence and driveway, pursuant to Resolution No. 099-2011. The Activity Envelope Plan was recorded in Plat Book 102 at Pages 55-57. The Protective Covenants restricting the property against further subdivision into smaller lots was concurrently recorded as Reception 4597704. 1 0i00001 c�� 2013 Site Plan Review for Driveway: The Applicant then submitted a Site Plan Review application for the driveway within the approved Driveway Envelope. The BOCC denied the application, pursuant to Resolution No. 070-2013, based on the following findings: The BOCC finds that the proposed driveway does not comply with the intent of the Scenic View Protection provisions in Sec. 7-20-120 of the Code, as follows: A. The driveway has not been designed and located to complement the natural landscape and the natural features within the public viewplane, and does not achieve an aesthetically pleasing, rural atmosphere. B. The visual impact of the driveway and the retaining walls when viewed from Woody Creek Road is substantial and has not been minimized to an acceptable extent. C. The driveway is inconsistent with and degrades the rural character of the Woody Creek area. The BOCC further finds that the proposed driveway does not satisfy Condition #4a of Resolution No 099-2011, as the visual impact of the retaining walls has not been reduced to an acceptable extent. The BOCC found on September 10, 2014 that the denial constituted a taking. 2014 Site Plan Review for Driveway across Holloway Property: The Applicant submitted a Site Plan Review application for a driveway across the adjacent Holloway property. In addition the Applicant requested Special Review and GMQS Exemption to utilize one TDR and Site Plan Review approval to develop a residence of up to 8,250 square feet of floor area within the previously approved Activity Envelope. The BOCC denied the application, pursuant to Resolution No. 102-2014, finding that the driveway crossed slopes in excess of 30% and 45%, where development is prohibited by Secs. 7-20-20(b) and (c) of the Code. ISSUES RELATED TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: DRIVEWAY ALTERNATIVES: The map provided by the Applicant shows seven alternative driveway alignments. All of the driveways encroach on slopes in excess of 30% and 45% to reach the mesa where the activity envelope is located. The Applicant has analyzed the alternatives in the attached memo. Staff concurs with this analysis. The pros and cons of the driveway alternatives are summarized below: 2 000002 The pros and cons of the driveway alternatives are summarized below: DRIVEWAY ALTERNATIVES PROS CONS Alternative A Minimal visual impact from Woody Creek Road Retaining walls typical 7-12', max 14' Significant impact on draw and wildlife movement Daylights on eastern end of mesa — away from location of structures Sight line improvements — removal of trees and grading side slopes Alternative B Not feasible — cannot comply with driveway standards and make grade to access mesa Alternative D (combination of former Alternatives C and D — only difference is point where driveway daylights on the mesa) Utilizes abandoned ditch alignment — lessens visual impact from Woody Creek Road Retaining walls typical 5-8', max 12' Daylights on mesa in activity closer to location of structures Impacts lower portion of draw Visibility from Woody Creek Road is limited Sight line improvements — removal of trees and grading side slopes Alternative E Not physically feasible Significant visual impacts from Woody Creek Road Alternative F (denied by BOCC 2013) Avoids draw — least impact on wildlife Daylights on mesa in activity closer to location of structures Significant visual impact from Woody Creek Road Alternative G1 Avoids draw — least impact on wildlife Not visible from Woody Creek Road Daylights on mesa in activity closer to location of structures Not feasible — outside of 20' easement granted in 1961 Alternative G2 Avoids draw — least impact on wildlife Not visible from Woody Creek Road Daylights on mesa in activity closer to location of structures Not feasible — within 30' easement, but not accessible to emergency vehicles Staff agrees with the Applicant that Alternatives A and D are the most viable alternatives. The Applicant is willing to accept either alternative based on the preference of the BOCC. The 2011 comments from the Division of Wildlife are attached for reference. 3 000003 SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR RESIDENCE: The proposed residence is within the previously approved Activity Envelope, which is in the meadow on the mesa and below the Salvation Ditch. The residence has been placed near the top, or back, of the meadow and away from the edge of the escarpment. Site Preparation and Grading (LUC Sec. 7-20-10): • Grading: All grading and fill placement will occur within the Activity Envelope. Grading associated with the residence will be concentrated around the structure. The Applicant anticipates balancing the cut and fill for the residence on -site. • Clearing, Grubbing and Vegetation Removal: All clearing, grubbing and vegetation removal will occur within the approved Activity Envelope. The only vegetation affected by the construction of the residence is meadow grass. • Tree Removal and Mitigation: No trees will be removed for the construction of the residence. • Protection of Natural Terrain: Disturbance for the residence will only occur within the meadow. Topsoil will be saved for re -use Water Courses and Drainage (LUC Sec. 7-20-30): The Activity Envelope does not include any water courses. The residence will be located below the Salvation Ditch; the Applicant will be required to ensure that the residence is protected from water flow that could result from breaching or overflow of the ditch. Scenic View Protection Review (LUC Sec. 7-20-120): The property is within the scenic view protection area ("SVPA") and is visible from Woody Creek Road and Highway 82. The property is visible from the highway, but from a distance of more than 1.5 miles. The property is visible from Woody Creek Road intermittently along the stretch of road from the Little Woody Creek turnoff and beyond the Community School turnoff until the escarpment blocks the view. a. The proposed development shall utilize existing topography and natural vegetation, such as ridges, hills, and existing trees, to screen buildings to the maximum extent practicable when viewed from those rights -of -way listed in subsection (b) above. Response: The residence has been placed near the top, or back, or the meadow and away from the edge of the escarpment, so it is not visible from Woody Creek Road as it passes by (and below) the mesa. b. The proposed development shall avoid the location of structures within the Scenic View Protection Areas, and shall avoid the location of structures within any Viewplane identified in the State Highway 82 Corridor Master Plan and Down Valley Comprehensive Plan if possible. If location outside the Scenic View Protection Area and defined Viewplanes is not practicable, then the proposed development shall not be located on the highest ground or most visible portion of any site as viewed from those corridors listed in subsection (b) above. Response: The entire property is within the mapped SVPA, but it is not within an identified viewplane. The residence is sited on a mesa, where it will be visible, but only from a distance. c. The proposed development's height and bulk shall be designed to avoid, to the maximum extent practicable, the visibility of buildings from those corridors listed in subsection (b) above. This may include, but shall not be limited to, breaking the mass of the building down into a series of smaller 4 O00004 forms, articulation of the building facades to avoid a wall or row effect, and staggering rooflines to avoid a long unbroken plane. Response: The mass of the building is broken down into smaller forms with articulated facades and staggered roof lines and heights. d. The proposed structure shall be placed so it does not project above a ridgeline such that a structure silhouettes against the sky when viewed from those corridors listed in subsection (b), unless there are no alternate building sites on the lot or parcel. Response: The residence does not project above a ridgeline. e. The proposed development shall be designed to complement the natural topography of the land through the use of techniques such as earth -sheltered design, the use of natural materials and coloring, the use of low -reflectance materials, or clustering of structures on the least visible portions of the site. When a building is proposed near a ridgeline, then its form (particularly its roof form) shall replicate, parallel, or complement the natural form of the ridgeline so that it appears to be an element of the natural ridgeline. Response: The Applicant states that the color and finishes of the exterior will not contrast sharply with the immediately surrounding natural landscape. The residence is sited near the top, or back, of the meadow on the mesa, and back from the edge of the escarpment, which lessens the visual impact. f The proposed development shall preserve natural vegetation and avoid development within irrigated meadows, to the maximum extent practicable. Response: Natural vegetation will be preserved and disturbed areas will be revegetated. The Activity Envelope is comprised of an irrigated hay field; native vegetation will not be disturbed. The proposed development shall install utilities in locations and through procedures that minimize visual impacts to the maximum extent practicable. Response: New utilities will be installed underground. h. All satellite dishes in the proposed development shall be located to minimize visibility from those rights -of -way listed in subsection (b), and shall use earth tone colors and/or screening to minimize their visual impact. Response: The Applicant shall comply. The proposed development shall not use earth moving and berms as the primary means of compliance with these regulations, but earth moving may be utilized in conjunction with other techniques to comply with standards in this section. Where earth moving techniques are necessary, man-made forms should be undulating and natural in appearance. Response: Fill from the driveway construction will be used to create a berm along the western edge, which will be landscaped to provide some screening of the residence as seen from Woody Creek Road and Highway 82. The berm and landscaping will appear as an extension of the existing vegetation on the hillside below. j. The exterior of all development, except development located and designed in the form of a ranch compound, shall be built or painted with indigenous earth tone materials or colors. The exterior of a ranch compound should be built or painted with indigenous earth tone materials, or shall be painted or stained using local, traditional ranch colors, which shall include shades of red, brown, or white. Paints or stains that simulate weathered barn wood also shall be permitted. g• 5 000005 k. All roofs shall have a non -reflective color or composition. Reflective roof materials shall not be used unless the materials are treated prior to installation to eliminate reflection, with the exception of materials associated with solar or photovoltaic equipment. 1. Lands disturbed by earth moving or berms should be revegetated using native species that are already growing on or near the site. Topsoil shall be stockpiled and placed on disturbed areas. Irrigation shall be provided to the revegetated areas if it is necessary to ensure survival of planted native species. Response: The Applicant shall comply. in. To the maximum extent practicable, roads and driveways shall be located to skirt the edge of and avoid dividing meadows and pastures and to avoid major road cuts. Roads and driveways should take advantage of the screening potential of natural topography and existing vegetation. Existing roads and driveways shall be used where practical. To enhance screening, a row of trees may be planted along the roads or driveways. To the maximum extent practicable, roads and driveways located around the edge of or in meadows shall be laid out with soft, curving edges and shall avoid straight line corridors that are incongruous with the natural setting. Response: The driveway will require a major cut, but the cut will have limited visibility from Woody Creek Road. Once the driveway gets up on the mesa, it takes one switchback across the meadow to maintain an appropriate grade to reach the residence. The driveway cannot cut straigh up the edge of the meadow, due to the slope. By limiting the grade of the upper portion of the driveway, the driveway can be sited on the mesa without any major cuts. Rural Character Guidelines: The proposed residence will be located at the upper edge of the irrigated hay field and below the Salvation Ditch. The Applicant has committed to limit buildings and structures to the western half of the Activity Envelope (see below), which is closest to existing development (on the Holloway and Craig properties) and the less visible portion of the property as seen from Woody Creek Road. Landscaping and Vegetation Protection (LUC Sec. 7-20-130): Landscaping with indigenous species of shrubs and trees is proposed. Landscaping is limited to the berm along the western property line, limited landscaping directly adjacent to the residence, and some tree and shrub plantings behind (northeast) of the residence to provide wildlife screening, as required by Condition #4B of Resolution No. 99-2011. Lighting (LUC Sec. 7-20-140): The Applicant shall submit a lighting plan for review and approval to ensure that the exterior lighting is consistent with the Code. GMQS EXEMPTION AND SPECIAL REVIEW FOR TDR RECEIVER SITE: The Applicant proposes to utilize one TDR for a total of 8,250 square feet of floor area. The Applicant is offering the following "public benefits" to support the increased house size: 1. The Applicant will decrease the "buildable area" of the previously approved Residential Activity Envelope to limit impacts on the property and on wildlife. Buildings or structures will be restricted to the western half of the envelope, while development on the eastern half of the envelope will be limited to the well, on -site wastewater treatment system, landscaping, and agricultural activities. 2. The Applicant commits to purchase two TDRs. Only one TDR will be used on the property and the second will be extinguished with no development associated with it. 6 060006 The transfer of a development right to a receiver site for additional floor area is exempt from GMQS pursuant to Section 6-30-50(b)(2)(b) and is subject to the standards and criteria of Section 6-70-40(b) and to the special review criteria in Section 2-30-30(h)(2), as follows: A. The special review use shall be consistent with the applicable County Master Plan. Response: The use of TDRs for additional floor area is not contemplated in the 1987 Down Valley Comprehensive Plan or the 1991 Woody Creek Master Plan. The Woody Creek Caucus District Planning Commission has no objections to the application. B. The special review use shall not conflict with any applicable sections of the Pitkin County Land Use Code, including the County Land Use Policies in Chapter 1. Response: The proposed development does not conflict with the applicable provisions of the Code, as specified within this memorandum, or with the County land use policies. C. The proposed development nrust Trot materially endanger the public health, safety or welfare. D. The proposed development must not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property. Response: Staff has no information that would indicate that the additional floor area would endanger the public health, safety or welfare, or injure the value of adjacent properties. D. The special review use shall be consistent with the intent of the Zone District in which it is proposed to be located. Response: The intent of the RS-20 zone district is to " (1) Permit low density, single family residential development and customary accessory uses, while recognizing that natural hazards, wildlife areas, limited utility services, roads, schools, and/or other facilities may constitute constraints on the realization of zoned density; (2) Discourage sprawl; (3) Encourage clustering of development, preservation of open space and promotion of efficient utility services; (4) Preserve agricultural operations and environmental resources; and (5) Preserve the rural visual quality and character while permitting carefully sited low density development." The proposed additional floor area within the approved envelope is consistent with the intent of the zone district. E. The special review use shall be compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or shall enhance the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Development of a residence of 8,250 square feet of floor area is compatible with surrounding residential development. Larger homes have been approved or built in the surrounding area on the Craig Ranch (7,500 square feet for 5 parcels; 10,750 square feet for one parcel), Compass parcels (7,500 square feet plus 1,500 square feet below grade); Questrom (approximately 10,000 square feet); and Flying Dog Ranch (13,250 and 15,000 square feet). F. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed special review use must be in 7 harmony with the surrounding area and minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, traffic generation, parking, trash, service delivery, air/water pollution or other impacts on natural resources, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties. Response: The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the residence will be in harmony with the surrounding area. The residence is sited on a mesa above Woody Creek Road, near the top, or back, of the meadow on the mesa, and back from the edge of the escarpment. The visual impact of the residence is minimized by its distance from the road, the design and the landscaping. As noted above, the Applicant has committed to limit buildings and structures to the western half of the envelope, which is closest to existing development (on the Holloway and Craig properties) and the less visible portion of the property as seen from Woody Creek Road. In addition, this restriction provides additional protection for the draw along the southeast corner of the parcel that is utilized by deer and elk as a travel corridor. Jonathan Lowsky with Colorado Wildlife Science, LLC, also notes that the siting of the residence on the western portion of the envelope places the center of human activity where the zones of influence from existing residential development overlap the zone of influence that will result from the implementation of the proposed development. G. There must be adequate public facilities and services to serve the special review use, including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools. Response: There are adequate facilities to serve the residence. An on -site wastewater treatment system will be installed, and water will be provided by a well. H. The proposed special review use must comply with any additional standards or requirements stated for such use in Sec. 4-30 and/or Sec. 2-40-20. Response: Not applicable. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is requesting direction from the BOCC regarding the driveway alignment, the Site Plan, and the TDR Receiver Site request, in order to prepare a Resolution Remediating the Takings for consideration at a subsequent meeting. Attachments A. 5/7/11 DOW referral B. 7/8/11 DOW email Driveway Alternatives Update and Maps (dated 10/12/14) provided separately 8 STATE OF COLORADO John W. Hickenlooper, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Thomas E Remington, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192 wildlife state, co. us May 7, 2011 Pitkin County Community Development 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RE: GSS Properties LLC/Stranahan — Sun Mesa Dear Suzanne: For Wildlife - For People The Sun Mesa property up Woody Creek lies within mule deer and elk winter range. Most of this winter use occurs from the Salvation Ditch uphill to the mountain shrub covered hillside which slopes down to the pastures. The pasture area immediately above the ditch is winter range and receives use due to the sagebrush and other shrubs found in this area. The pasture below the ditch will receive winter use in early and late winter as well as during Tight winters. The entire parcel receives significant spring and fall use as evidenced by the amount of droppings, tracks, and browsing observed throughout the parcel. The draw where the driveway is proposed is heavily utilized by mule deer and elk as a travel corridor from Woody Creek to the pastures and hillsides above as evidenced by the significant trails, tracks observed, as well as animals observed in the draw. Deer and elk will use this to access the adjacent Craig parcel which lies in conservation easement. Construction of an access driveway with the cuts and retaining walls will negatively impact this movement corridor. The corridor will most likely shift in one direction or the other as the deer and elk negotiate the retaining walls. Mountain lion inhabit the area and will prey upon mule deer and elk in the area. Black bear also inhabit the area and will forage in the mountain shrubs. Human -bear conflicts have occurred in this vicinity. Homeowners will need to take the necessary precautions to minimize conflicts with mountain lion and black bear. Loose or uncontrolled dogs will have negative impacts to wildlife when building within winter range areas. Impacts include direct and indirect mortality, increased stress and disturbance, and displacement to less preferred ranges. It is important that if dogs are allowed, they be controlled. Impacts to wildlife and human -wildlife conflicts can be minimized by the following recommendations: 1. Implement all applicable measures outlined under 7-20-70 LUC 2. Reduce the activity envelope to that portion which lies below the Salvation Ditch with any homesite located in the west-southwest corner which clusters it with adjacent activity and disturbance. 3. Vegetative screen be planted on the uphill side of any home to screen the activity and disturbance associated with the home from the winter range above. This should consist of evergreen type trees 12' — 16' tall. Screening plan should be approved before any construction 4. Any driveway be located along the southwest portion of the parcel alongside the edge of the pasture if the access driveway comes up the draw as proposed. 5. Any caretaker unit be attached. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Mike King, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Tim Glenn, Chair • Robert Streeter, Vice Chair • Mark Smith, Secretary Members, David R. Brougham • Dorothea Farris • Allan Jones • Gaspar Perricone • John Singletary • Dean Wingfield Ex Offido Members, Mike King and John Salazar 0V000Lr 6. Fencing meet fence code; existing fence is a 5 strand barbed wire fence in disrepair. This fence should be removed. No fencing above the Salvation ditch. 7. Any horse/livestock grazing be located in the pasture area below the Salvation Ditch. 8. Maintain native vegetation outside the activity envelop and above the Salvation Ditch 9. Any horse/livestock hay be fenced at owner's expense with 8' mesh game proof fencing. Owner needs to be aware of the potential for elk and deer to feed in horse/livestock feed lines during the winter. 10. Construction workers not be allowed to bring dogs on site as the Division has had problems with construction worker dogs chasing wildlife 11. Implement new section of code requiring round handle door knobs for all outside doors in order to minimize a bear's ability to gain entry 12. All horse grains, cookies, pellets, etc. be kept in approved bear resistant containers. 13. Contractors are required by code to provide a bear proof container for all edible and food related trash. There has been significant noncompliance (up to 70%) which leads to increased food habituation by bears and increased human -bear conflicts. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please contact DWM Kevin Wright. Sincerely, Perry Will Area Wildlife Manager Cc: R. Velarde, K. Wright, file 000010 Suzanne Wolff From: Wright, Kevin <Kevin.Wright@state.co.us> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 4:09 PM To: Suzanne Wolff Cc: Will, Perry Subject: RE: Sun Mesa Driveway Alternatives 1 finally had time to look over the alternatives. Strictly from a wildlife perspective, Alternative E would be least impactive to wildlife, especially mule deer and elk. It keeps the driveway away from the draw that is heavily utilized by deer and elk. It takes the drive to the location of the Division's recommendation for homesite placement, that being the west- southwest corner of the proposed activity envelope. If E is not selected then in preference for least impacts to wildlife would be D, then C. Alternatives A and B would have the most negative impacts to wildlife. Let me know if you need anything else. -----Original Message From: Suzanne Wolff[mailto:Suzanne.Wolff@co.pitkin.co.us} Sen't: Monday, June 27, 2011 10:41 AM To: Wright, Kevin Subject: FW: Sun Mesa Driveway Alternatives Original Message From: Suzanne Wolff Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 10:30 AM To: Kevin Wright Subject: FW: Sun Mesa Driveway Alternatives Hopefully it works this time! Original Message From: Suzanne Wolff Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 1:52 PM To: michaelcraig226@comcast.net; Kevin Wright Subject: FW: Sun Mesa Driveway Alternatives Hi Michael and Kevin. The Applicant has been looking at several alternatives for access to the parcel - all of which are shown on the attached drawing. You had both expressed concern with impacts on wildlife with the driveway in the draw, so wanted to give you an opportunity to review and comment on these alternatives. We will be going before the BOCC on July 27 for a takings determination, since the application was denied administratively due to development on steep slopes. If the BOCC agrees that the denial constitutes a taking, then we would presumably come back to the BOCC with recommended conditions at a subsequent meeting. It would be great if I could get any additional 1 GO311 comments by July 15. Thanks! Michael - I originally told you the BOCC would consider the takings on July 13, but that has been moved back to the 27th. Original Message From: Jim Curtis (mailto:lcurtis@sopris.net] Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 1:43 PM To: Suzanne Wolff Subject: Sun Mesa Driveway Alternatives 1st Attachment is package of driveway alternatives we discussed at our site visit of 5/31/11. 2nd Attachment is driveway sections for Alts. A & D which I feel are the 2 viable alternatives. Legal Opinion letter on abandonment of Level Ditch to follow under separate email. I will drop -by paper copies of all material on Mon. Please circulate as you wish & as always, please email or call on any questions. Its my understanding we are sch. for the BOCC on July 27 for Takings Hearing. THANKS! Emil secured by Check Point 2 a.. 000013 MEMORANDUM To: Suzanne Wolff, Pitkin County Community Development Office Fr: Jim Curtis, Owner Representative Date: October 12, 2014 Re: Driveway Alternatives Update GSS Properties, Woody Creek, CO. Parcel # 264315100021 Most importantly, I wish to thank the County Commissioners and neighbors for coming to the site visit on Sept. 23. I thought the site visit was very helpful for all parties. The driveway alternatives are shown on the attached drawings and given below are my Summary Comments on the alternatives representing the applicant. 1. Driveway Alternatives GI & G2 Throueh The Holloway Property A. Alt. G 1 - Not Feasible. The G 1 driveway falls outside the 30 foot easement which was granted in 1961 and would require the consent of the Holloway's which consent has not been given. B. Alt. G2 - Not Feasible. The G2 driveway is within the 30 foot easement granted in 1961, but pursuant to my follow-up meeting with the Fire Marshal on Oct.1, the Fire Marshal concluded a fire engine could not navigate the switchback turn and therefore could not drive the G2 driveway. 2. Driveway Alternatives B,C,E Eliminated A. Alts. B & E - Not physically feasible and are eliminated. B. Alt. C - Based on the site visit inspection, I have merged Alt. C into Alt. D, and eliminated Alt. C as a free-standing alternative. 3. Driveway Alternative F- Physically Buildable, Not Recommended Pitkin County OCT 142014 1 Community Development A. Alt. F is physically buildable, but would have a huge visual impact on the public using Woody Creek Road. Applicant recommends Alt. F be eliminated given its huge visual impact resulting from retaining walls being 30-36' high at the driveway intersection with Woody Creek Road. Applicant feels it is not possible to design the driveway to comply with the Scenic View Protection provisions of the County Code or be compatible with the rural character of Woody Creek. This was validated when the County Commissioners denied the Site Plan Review of the Alt. F driveway in September 2013, by BOCC Resolution # 007-2113. 4. Driveway Alternatives A & D - Both Viable Options Applicant feels both Alts. A & D are viable alternatives and the applicant is willing to accept either alternative based on the preference of the Commissioners. Given below is a summary of Alts. A & D, and the applicant's opinion of the Pros & Cons of each alternative. A. Alt. D has been modified to daylight on the mesa through the hillside gully based on the site visit inspection. Applicant feels Alt. D is the best, most drivable "physical" driveway, and best complies with most of the provisions of the County Driveway Standards. Applicant understands there are other issues associated with Alt. D, mainly wildlife impacts and sight line improvements. B. Alt. A is physically buildable, but will require extended sections of 10- 12% grades, and retaining walls will be higher and longer than Alt. D. Like Alt. D, applicant understands there are other issues associated with Alt. A., again wildlife impacts and sight lines improvements. C. Alt. D - Design Parameters, Pros & Cons 1. Alt. D Design Parameters a. 14 ' driving lane & 2' shoulders both sides b. Avg. grade 5% & max. grade 8% c. Typical retaining walls heights 5 to S' & max. height 12' +/-. 2. Pros a. Easily drivable avg. grade of 5 % b. Easily drivable for fire engine & emergency vehicles c. South facing for good sun exposure 000014 2 d. Limited visibility from Woody Creek Road, but would have some visibility from Woody Creek Road e. Daylights on the mesa at the western portion of the Activity Envelopes where structures are proposed to be located f. Requires sight line improvements both downroad & uproad, but these improvements would also benefit the public using Woody Creek Road 3. Cons a. Impacts the eastern draw, but no retaining walls would block the north - south movement of wildlife in the draw. The driveway would be relatively close to Woody Creek Road to limit its impact on the northern portion of the draw b. Some visibility from Woody Creek Road, but visibility would be fairly limited c. Requires sight line improvements both downroad and uproad. Sight line improvements require removing some trees & understory, and grading back the road side slopes. These improvements, especially, the downroad improvements, would also benefit the public using Woody Creek Road d. Will require crossing the Salvation Ditch siphon and review by the Salvation Ditch Company D. Alt. A - Design Parameters, Pros & Cons 1. Alt. A Parameters Design a. 14' driving lane & 2' shoulders both sides b. Avg. grade 11.3%, extended sections 10-12% grade & max. grade 12% c. Typical retaining walls heights 7 to 12", & max. height 14' +/-. 2. Pros a. Virtually no visibility from Woody Creek Road b. Requires same sight line improvements as Alt. D. These improvements, especially the downroad improvements, would also benefit the public using Woody Creek Road 3. Cons a. Total impact on the eastern draw. Retaining walls would impact the north -south wildlife movement in the draw b. Avg. grade 11.3% & extended sections of 10-12% grades. Steeper ®0S0015 3 000016 driveway than Alt. D but within County Driveway Standards c. Fire engine drivable, but steeper grades & mostly in the shade d. Less sun exposure than Alt. D e. Daylights on the mesa at the eastern portion of the Activity Envelope away from where structures are proposed to be located f. Will require crossing the Salvation Ditch siphon and review by Salvation Ditch Company g. Requires same sight line improvements as Alt. D In summary, 21pplicant feels both Alts. A & D are viable alternatives and is willing to accept either alternative based on the preference of the Commissioners. 4 0 s too YA 000017 1.1.1.11,. „,,, ......91n .ni, .. Y 1.n Gm. -A..aMn 302 E Hymn A. 2nn Pe, W 21 S1 910-3.9-0..2 GSS Properties, LLC Sure Mesa Property 13..•21 _fGG OEwEO ORrVFWAY OEMED SEPT. 2013 Si -• IFw� [142Q14 8 Proposed_Driveway o O 16 20 76 e{1°......aP rw+w.r ---w e.r Ma a.e r. Aar wbpi �weMM^Wi.+4wuun.a. wwayw Am hea-LAMA AArnertea .303 E W*on Amp 2rA AAer, Awn, CO 61611 970•319-062 GSS Properties, LLC 62AC.1- e.mrC PON" PC41 L ALL •!!.. Si r(pipu5 ``t--.�`�t` ` � __^_, _ �� ��' `'��-.r^-•• , .. � ice. GSS Properties, LLC Sun Mesa Property UAL Form. ATaeca es P.O. 9a. 697, Sn.•ewr, 60 Es 694 970-921 O666 p POPIp POLE t iF h�rr. V AIL ,+• 1 TREESTOa MEMO VW ! pFrnApty T07OROKL SrJTT 1J46 en 4141.1.0.4 Driveway Section A -A Condition leaving gully area - opr4UwAmiv OPIAVar agla+s allow m memo ANDAMMO auv,Ami WEN CO. • —1w0 $Finn R-B Crossing Salvation Siphon 000019 Pitki oc� Cammun't 11.5. HMS 000020 .1110 C4q wtlo Yt%YM \ .u• W(a1pS Po.[ M..cd.. 0001 Driveway .Sertion C-C Condition along abandoned level ditch oMw*�w:Kb Guralma. rm. if [YnvPP4ws[ 05.0.01351.01 10.1 4/10.0011115 1p KP011Ci Driveway Section D-D Condition along abandoned level ditch -rl10 7570 PO omR.lA�.4 ICY • 1mf11R Pl/1 ar11.1slr 01M0.0IR13.14.P 1 ..1Mww4 o' MP 1 $yy lion E-E Approaching 2nd Gully 111.1110.51.05 avirm WWI w.11 Driveway Section F-F Final Approach to Mesa a OC 0 W Count fll I L;eveiopmetlt GSS Properties, LLC }m Cute • Ores eaeetwee 300E k fl. Aye eoe Ivor. earner, CO 01611 9f0.319•Wt 000021 GSS Properties. LLC ,, S2 AC eh .x \ , � t MIMS r1 WIG WIG nor • inSAWN . 1 , n `Falel desgn and erq+aer it of drr✓ewey to be ,done & renewed a[ Ste Plan Renew. Fnel de=gn Mr no Rom rant eytual sign Eronoo hereon. Cs County I mure* Conceptual Driveway Envelope & detail 0� 1 75 UQ SrrE SECTION A TYPE:AL RCOCN- NU .LLr AREA M°[RLE "MA OF ■ETA1wk1 WALL SITE SECTION A - Alt 1 rrIAL.A. SCCMON • 111:1-pair AMA ONO./ NE OF RFTADAC WAIJ, GSS Properties, LLC Sun Mesa Property 022 An Cure.n - ue Awoctin 3W E Nprwn AVE NO F. Aspen , CO 81613 970319-0aa2 SITE SECTION B 1YYICK SECT - 5*9TDMMx isAW AEA pp{RE 1161 OF RaTAMK. WALL Q11 SITE SECTION B - Alt 1 rTRR'x SECEAI- Swnb€A IllRrI AREA bRx F TEII OF F{1A11 wALl ONE F9901 Astoertet P.O. ea. 697. Shawnm. CO S165a 920927-0566 Naves: Reh5ung shown conceptually as CAC rc1R9nalg walls & Boulder rp-1aa. Fi sIf desgn end engineenng o} dnveway and retaining walls to be done & reviewed it Slle Pisa Review. Final design will vary hem conceptual design shawn+,ereorl - a SITE SECTIQN C PrIACAL SECTIO# • Nu -SEE MIA MOLE PER di IErw,c iota SITE SECTION C - Alt 1 TPPC AL S%C OON-IlLSdF AREA INGLE TER or WAN 9 WALL SITE SECTION D SECTION- SLOPE 9RFAe0UT AREA SNOPr51!G43.4 I SINT SIOFJ POPE 1:2 -�� � 1 SITE SECTION D - Alt 1 SECTKIN • RAPE eaWOLFr AKA menu. REr,IHl6 WALL ;=itkin C 6CT l °ray❑ r'.rincu ehual Roadway Sar'inns 000323 • DRIVEWAY DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PLAN • , \site Plan Review Based on B.O.C.C. Resolution #099-2011 ••• • •• .• " • • ." \ %•.%• %.%. N'„ %' •, `. • ‘., %„ • — ______ — - - • '. ----- — • ▪ • • , • • . ". • • ‘ ' 4 1 .. '.,. \ , ,,, .., .... 1.•‘ ... ‘,, , ,, •,''' ,... 'I l '. ' \ \ \ •\ '.% ,. ' , ..% ' ' ^ • GSS Properties, LLC ' 1, `1, , , Nr..-L• Sun Mesa Property • • ........ ,.... .4+ ............" sq. ,.w....•. •••••s I I 1 :' ; ; 1 . .ii '1.% ' 4, •" ' . ‘....:‘‘.:1.71.„„,..4.-f..\''' , ,:':; .......\ :\ ‘4,' 1 1 4 . i • .- • .. •-•f„:.-•-•:',..,,.:\ .31.0 •••••:r tn. T....W., .......••• cm.. le• awn... I. 3. irm• .2,1. ow rd•ne• 0•11... ion., .........r.... 1 1 MAWR.. P•PPIX al•M•1 WM...rms. t. ...am ¢=acnsos miscsul Y. kb. elabal 1•••1•40.11....11ffearit WI 1.1•MATMI. MR •I••• idom......1•01,"•••••111. ___,It14...........,,, ' ‘ • \ ' ' ' . '' % . NOE 4termo Am 21•0 FMN,....m.„ CO 011.4.1 ...........„, 1 i i i ; 1. .1•'% \ '1. \ 1., 't I' .1 ‘ _....„'' , ,,... ' 1., M • •••••••,.. ••• .......Pm...1 r I Cull i - rufiai PaIdn,Irtei 9.70•319-0.1./ \.... .. • 1 it „ . % 4 , Co..c Fawn PA). 0. GP. 5.:•••••••• CO 81654 910,927.0066 0 IS 3010 1. • • sr. 1244m4A4,.. 1 N4.e 000024 Roadway Section C-C - @ Highest Wall Condition 1.1141ffla"s•. lsle —lu0 Typical Roadway Section B-B - i Turnoff Area of Deeoer Shelf Tyolcal Roadway Section.A-A Intersecton ragZF_GREIA19962. Lyman:rem IOW GSS Properties, LLC Sun Mesa Property 100.10,900 �... . No m.aippe0.01 ....ay] YR. .:.swi MOW EnTlf cone.® ▪ N▪ am .▪ 000,04 WAR CEVEICA NbNm00 ero- Roadway Section E-E © Typical Transitional Section ■ Driveway Cross Sections - Illustrative - Lower Level Jen Cuba - Cur1.01AMONlin 300E Mbnan MY ZMFbd. A rLO C1511 9]P319CHi �- Roadway Section D-D @ Typical Area After Turn C..,<FON.. 4.000.00 P.0. Ia 697. S.wiy.; CO 6165-. 910A21-0666 LEO 0 ❑ ?itkin Cou OCT 1 4 2dt4 1,13 ty ent5