The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutpitkin.eh.264916102009 (1996-1998)_RESOf aGqQ RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY1041COMMISSIONERS HAZ SARD REVIEW PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, DE AND CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION TO ERIC LAWRENCE Rcsolution.N- "8 --ay RECITALS 1. Eric Lawrence, hereafter "Applicant", has applied to the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners, hereafter "Board", for 1041 Hazard Review and Conceptual Submission approval to establish a building envelope for the construction of a single-family residence. The property is located approximately 9 m:ies south of Carbondale in the crystal River Estates Subdivision, and is more specially described in Exhibit A. 3. The property contains approximately .62 acres and is zoned RS -30. ommission, hereafter 4, This application was reviewed by the Planning and,anZoning recommendat on of denial "Commission % at a regular meeting on June 2, 1998, and for the 1041 Hazard Review approval was forwarded to the Board. 5, The Board heard this application ants Wer�laresent d scheduled vith respecgto ti:iugust 26, s appl ation98, at which time evidence and testimo y P 6, The Board finds that virtually the entire parcel is within the 100 -year floodplain of the Crystal River as determined by the County Floodplain Administrator. 7. The Board finds that development of the subject property is prohibited, pursuant to Section 3-80-040 of the Land Use Code, which prohibits development within the 100 - year floodplain. NOW THAEI'.Er'ORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners that it goes ;lereby ' "The _ rcr; e 1041 i?uzard i:evie:v :ind Ccnc-ptual Submission. DENIED ON THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1998 ATTEST: s A vwee .,e, )4#'L" Deputy Clerk andRecorder -ARD r)F COUNTY COMMISr")NERS PITKIN (-v..:NTY, COLORADO Dorothea Farris Chair Date: %� ✓ �� - �� 111111111111111111111111 till 11111111111111111111111SILVI1,111 APPROVED AS TO FORM: County Anorney Case#P92-96 PID42649-161-00-009 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Cinav Houben Community Development Director 111111 Hill IIII 1 i11 1 1111111111111111 Mill 11:1 IN 422489 09/28/198 09:S3R RESOLUTI DpVIS SILYI 2 of 3 R 0.00 0 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO FrZAi DESCIZ LEGAL DES "Pari', Cryst 1R ver Country Mates, Block 1, according to the plat thereof filed March 8, 1996, in Plat Book 3 at Page 79, Pitkin County, Colorado. 422489 09/28/1998 09:53A RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI 3 of 3 R 0.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO r b M a To: Rick Magill, Community Development Dept. From: Mary Engelmann, Environmental Health Officer Through: Lee Cassin, Assistant Environmental Health Director Date: September 23, 1996 Re: Lawrence 1041 Hazard Review Parcel ID # 2649-161-00-009 The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the details of the Lawrence 1041 Hazard Review application under the authority of the Pitkin Co. ntu Code,Title II, Land Use Code. Our first concern when reviewing a property is the. ability to install an individual sewage disposal system in accordance with the regulation.. The Pitkin County Individual Sewage Disposal System Regulation states that no new or expanded system may be installed in a floodwayor floodplain. The.'entire property lies within the 100 year floodplain, except for southeastern -most corner. Also present in this corner is a drainage ditch. The minimum horizontal setback distance between a drainage ditch and an absorption area is 50 ft. The length of the corner that is not wit4iin the.floodplain is just about 50 ft., so, there is no room available for a sewage disposal system on this. property. One possible option to be considered by the applicant is to obtain a permanent easement for the installation of a sewage disposal system on a neighboring piece of property that is outside of.the floodplain. Another, way to allow for the lot to be built on, if all other codes allow it, would be if there was ever a sewer system available that a home on this lot could hook into. No further.comments in regard to other 1041 issues will be made at this time. If the situation can be remedied, the Aspen/Pitkin Environmental' Health Department will complete the review. ASPEN/PITKIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT PERMIT FOR INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM Permit # Name Lawrence Parcel ID # Fee Paid () Date Received Receipt # Received by: Date when all data and information was received: House Size (75 gpd, 100 gpd, or 130 gpd) 75 # of Bedrooms in Main House 2 # of Lofts, Offices, Similar Rooms Main Hou 0 # Bedrooms in Caretaker unit 0 # of Lofts, Offices, Similar Rooms Caretaker 0 Design Criteria of System to be Installed: Any changes must be submitted and approved in writing by this Dept. Perc Rate 10 Q (Design Flow), _ # possible bedrooms X 2 people/each X gpd X 1.75 Q= 525 (average daily flow=) 450 state review required? no Absorption Area (=Q/5 X SQRT perc rate) 375 possible A= 332.0392 sq. ft. of absorption area required A maximum 30% reduction is allowed for use of deep gravel or gravelless chambered system. Type of system: Is an Engineer -Designed System required? no Minimum tank capacity SETBACK FROM WELL # of feet = 100 yes _ reason: gallons Printed on Recycled Paper C December 9. 1996 TO: Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 X E57M 131996 ENVIRONIVENTAL HEALTH ASPEN / PITKIN RE: 1041 Application: Lawrence Property Legal Description: Park, Crystal River Country Estates. Block 1 County of Pitkin, State of Colorado As property owner in Crystal River Country Estates, I am very concerned about the attempts by NIr. Rick Lawrence to build on the property described above. At a recent Property Owners' Association meeting we agreed to write to Pitkin County agencies to voice our concerns and express that the "Park" is not a buildable property within our subdivision. This property is wedged between a subdivision road and the Crystal River. a. A building envelope may NOT be possible with current set backs. b. The property is prone to flooding. c. Given the size and location, a septic system is NOT appropriate on this property. d. It may be closer than 100 feet from the Highway 133 right of way. 2. This property was presented by the developer, Warren Brethower, to many of the original purchasers of lots in the subdivision as a "park" which was community property for the common use of the subdivision property owners. It is noted as "Park" on the plat. The intent being, this property would not be built on, that it would not be assessed association dues or even be listed on the ledger of the subdivision books, that it would be platted as a park and was not platted of adequate size to meet the filed protective covenants for buildable lots. Evidence exists that, as late as mid 1989, Mr. Brethower intended to deed the property to the Property Owners' Association. 3. This property has NEVER paid the annual assessed dues required of all lots in the subdivision for road and bridge maintenance. It is not considered a lot within the subdivision. The road which is listed as access to the property is platted in the subdivision and is maintained by the subdivision. Since there have never been payments for use of this road by this or previous owners, the Association questions its use as access. PAGE TWO 4 The Protective Covenants (doc fl -237/34, 1966) for the subdivision state: "3. The erection of more than one dwelling per lot, or the resub-division of a lot into smaller units than two acres I [sic] prohibited." (This was late updated - doc. #132760 for Block 2 in 1968 to one acre.) This supports the assertion the lot is not of adequate size (.62 acre) and that the property is not buildable within the subdivision. 5. This property is classified by the County Assessor's Office as "green belt -common area." Taxes accordingly at only a nominal rate ($18.14 for 1995). I believe that the points sited in Item #1 above are more than sufficient to deny the 1041 Application. Items #2 and #4* support the developer's intent that the "Park" was not to be developed as a building site. Item #5, the Assessor's classification for 30 years, clearly indicates that Pitkin County considered the site to be a park. Should the applicant plead hardship consider that: a. He bought the "Park for $2,500. b. He has had it for sale, asking as much as $77,500. c. He owned other property in the subdivision and had access to the covenants, and as a prudent businessman/builder would have been familiar with their contents. I ask that you deny the 1041 Application on the basis of Item #1 and consider the other points if Mr. Lawrence pleads ignorance or hardship. Sinc ly �9 ame Date Lot # cc: Environmental Health 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Pitkin County Commissioners 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 d 5,Z3r C,/- Address Obert J. McGill X535 Crystal Cir arbondale, CO. 81623 TtDjEC 1 3 1996 December 9. 1996 ENVIR0 1W. ` .� ,}�ALTH TO: Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 1041 Application: Lawrence Property Legal Description: Park, Crystal River Country Estates, Block 1 County of Pitkin. State of Colorado As property owner in Crystal River Country Estates, I am very concerned about the attempts by Mr. Rick Lawrence to build on the property described above. At a recent Property Owners' Association meeting we agreed to write to Pitkin County agencies to voice our concerns and express that the "Park" is not a buildable property within our subdivision. 1. This property is wedged between a subdivision road and the Crystal River. a. A building envelope may NOT be possible with current set backs. b. The property is prone to flooding. c. Given the size and location, a septic system is NOT appropriate on this property. d. It may be closer than 100 feet from the Highway 133 right of way. 2. This property was presented by the developer, Warren Brethower; to many of the original purchasers of lots in the subdivision as a "park" which was community property for the common use of the subdivision property owners. It is noted as "Park" on the plat. The intent being, this property would not be built on, that it would not be assessed association dues or even be listed on the ledger of the subdivision books, that it would be platted as a park and was not platted of adequate size to meet the filed protective covenants for buildable lots. Evidence exists that, as late as mid 1989, Mr. Brethower intended to deed the property to the Property Owners' Association. 3. This property has NEVER paid the annual assessed dues required of all lots in the subdivision for road and bridge maintenance. It is not considered a lot within the subdivision. The road which is listed as access to the property is platted in the subdivision and is maintained by the subdivision. Since there have never been payments for use of this road by this or previous owners, the Association questions its use as access. PAGE TWO 4 The Protective Covenants (doc #123734, 1966) for the subdivision state: "3. The erection of more than one dwelling per lot, or the resub-division of a lot into smaller units than two acres in [sic] prohibited." (This was late updated - doc. #132760 for Block 2 in 1968 to one acre.) This supports the assertion the lot is not of adequate size (.62 acre) and that the property is not buildable within the subdivision. 5. This property is classified by the County Assessor's Office as "green belt -common area." Taxes accordingly at only a nominal rate ($18.14 for 1995). I believe that the points sited in Item #1 above are more than sufficient to deny the 1041 Application. Items #2 and #4 support the developer's intent that the "Park" was not to be developed as a building site. Item #5, the Assessor's classification for 30 years, clearly indicates that Pitkin County considered the site to be a park. Should the applicant plead hardship consider that: a. He bought the "Park" for $2,500. b. He has had it for sale, asking as much as $77,500. c. He owned other property in the subdivision and had access to the covenants, and as a prudent businessman/builder would have been familiar with their contents. I ask that you deny the 1041 Application on the basis of Item #1 and consider the other points if Mr. Lawrence pleads ignorance or hardship. Sincerely,/ Name Date v - cc: Environmental Health 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Pitkin County Commissioners 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 37 Lot # DY�Sr CiLyS��}C_ Address �jf'�6o�J ,d/� e - c G9D 9/G y-5 Co-7�rJ.� Me L7J 0 Do -oaf DEC 0, 199 0 1996 ENVIRON ENTAL HEALTH ASPEN / PITKIN i u('; it'r r! r( `t f, v' n .I i� -0", O? r ;'i; 1- , (t dle 1041 cg fit i ., {;. Dome �..: j.;lv;rt�Itnierlal Health S�>iltil t;;� cua Street ) ) P0 (I Z.' y)Ct'a, C I 1 li ! i