HomeMy WebLinkAbout20050914satrangTO:
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
Board of County Commissioners
Regular Meeting- September 14, 2005
Cindy Hoube ,n~C~mmunity Development Director
Suzanne Wolff, Senior Planner*
ZTS Construction Incorporated Request for Constrained Lot TDRs
REQUEST: The Applicant submitted a request to the Community Development Depamnent pursuant to
Section 3-310-054 (adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 052-2004) to make a determinatioa whether the lots
are "undevelopable or severely constrained" in order to obtain TDRs in exchange for preservation of the lots.
The Community Development Department has determined that the lots are constrained, as described below,
and are eligible for TDRs. Pursuant to Section 3-310-053.2, the BOCC "shall determine that principles of
equitable mitigation favor relief in the form of issuance of one or more TDRs.'
APPLICANTS: ZTS Construction Incorporated, Zack Satrang
REPRESENTATIVE: Glenn Horn
LOCATION: Lots 15, 16 & 17, Crystal River Park Subdivision Second Addition
ZONING/LOT AREA: The lots contain 2.179, 1.397 and 0.752 acres, respectively, and are nonconforming
size lots in the RS-30 zone district.
BACKGROUNI}/DESCRIPTION: The lots are located along the upper boundary of Crystal River Park
Subdivision directly below the steep sandstone cliffs to the north (photo attached). The BOCC approved the
Crystal River Park Subdivision Composite Plat (including First and Second Additions thereto) in July of
1966. The BOCC then approved an amendment to the Plat in 2002, which vacated High Drive and
established an access easement to Lots 15-17. The Land Use Code states, "Common ownership of
contiguous substandard size lots or parcels shall cumulate with the exception that lots in subdivisions
approved and signed by the Board of County Commissioners shall not cumulate regardless of their size."
Therefore, each of Lots 15-17 is separately developable.
PROCESS: Staff is to review the request and make a determination whether the proposed preservation
sites are undevelopable or severely constrained under the Pitkin County Land Use Code. If there is a
determination that that the property is not developable, The Board shall, at a public meeting, make a
determination as to whether one or more constrained lot TDRs will be granted, subject to the principles of
equitable mitigation.
DETERMINATION OF CONSTRAINED LOT: The Community Development Department finds that
the lots are "undevelopable or severely constrained" pursuant to the Land Use Code, based on the following:
Slopes: Lots 15, 16 and 17 are primarily comprised of slopes in excess of 30% (97%, 99% and 76%
respectively), with the majority of Lots 15 and 16 comprised of slopes in excess of 45% (90% and 75%).
The Land Use Code prohibits development on slopes in excess of 45%, and in most cases over 30%.
A~,alanche: Art Mears evaluated the avalanche hazard and determined that two avalanche paths affect
the lots: one that primarily impacts Lot 15 and one that affects Lot 17. On Lot 15, the red zone continues
all of the way through the lot. On Lot 17, the upper portion of the lot is within the rod zone, and most of
the remainder of the lot is within the blue zone. The driveway to Lots 15 and 16 would cross the blue
zone. The Code prohibits development within a red or high avalanche hazard zone; the Code permits
development within a blue or moderate avalanche hazard zone only if the entire property is affected and
if the bazard can be adequately mitigated.
Debris Flow andRocl~all: All tbree sites are on alluvial fans and are within the potential rockfall runout
zone. HP Geotech states,
"A major debris flow event could result in damage to buildings on tbe three lots and present a safety
risk to the occupants of those buildings."
"A high velocity rockfall similar to past rockfalls on Lot 15, Lot 16 or Lot 17 would result in severe
damage to buildings and other facilities and will present a life safety risk to the occupants of the
buildings. During our field roconnaissance of the property, several large rockfall blocks measuring
25 to 35 feet in size with estimated weights of 5,400 to 14,800 tons were observed on Lots 16 and
17."
The Code prohibits development within rockfall hazard areas, and permits development on alluvial fans,
subject to mitigation.
Wildfire: Eric Petterson rated the wildfire hazard on all three lots as severe. The Code permits
development within severe wildfire hazard areas.
Staff bas determined that, in accordance with Section 3-310-054.1, the lots are not developable pursuant
to the Pitkin County Land Use Code.
The Board sball make a determination as to whether one or more constrained lot TDRs will be granted.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The principal of equitable mitigation, which governs the action of the
Board, does not require an analysis based upon value of the land relative to the value of TDR's,
consideration of whether or not to grant TDR's and how many to grant are based on fairness reflective of
the overall situation of the property and its history. Staff recommends that one TDR be issued for each
lot.
2
Cliffs behind Lots 15, 16 and 17, Crystal River Park Subdivision Second Addition
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO, GRANTING A CONSTRAINED LOT TDR FOR EACH OF LOTS 15, 16 AND 17
OF CRYSTAL RIVER PARK SUBDIVISION TO ZTS CONSTRUCTION INCORPORATED
Resolution No. -2005
RECITALS
ZTS Construction Incorporated, Applicant; has applied to the Pitkin County Department of
Community Development for a constrained lot determination and to the Pitkin County Board of
County Commissioners (BOCC) to determine whether one or more constrained lot Transferable
Development Rights (TDRs) should be granted.
2. The lots for which the determination is requested are described as Lots 15, 16 and 17, Crystal River
Park Subdivision Second Addition.
3. The'lots contain 2.179, 1.397 and 0.752 acres, respectively, and are nonconforming size lots in the RS-
30 zone district.
The BOCC approved the Crystal River Park Subdivision Composite Plat (including First and Secood
Additions thereto) in July of 1966. The BOCC then approved an amendment to the Plat in 2002,
which vacated High Drive and established an access easement to Lots 15-17. The Land Use Code
states, "Common ownership of contiguous substandard size lots or parcels shall cumulate with the
exception that lots in subdivisions approved and signed by the Board of County Commissioners shall
not cumulate regardless of their size." Therefore, each of Lots 15-17 is separately developable.
5. The Community Development Department bas determined that the lots are "undevelopable or
severely constrained" pursuant to the Land Use Code, based on the following:
A. Lots 15, 16 and 17 are primarily comprised of slopes in excess of 30% (97%, 99% and 76%
respectively), with the majority of Lots 15 and 16 comprised of slopes in excess of 45% (90% and
75%).
B. The west side of Lol 15 is within the red avalanche zone. A portion of Lot 17 is within the red
avalanche hazard zone and most of the remainder of the lot is within the blue avalanche hazard
zone. The driveway to Lots 15 and 16 would cross the blue avalanche hazard zone.
C. All three lots are subject to debris flow, severe rockfall, slope instability and severe wildife hazard.
The BOCC reviewed the request for a determination as to whether one or more constrained lot TDRs
will be granted at a public meeting on September 14, 2005, at which time evidence and testimony
were presented with respect to this application.
7.. The BOCC determined that one constrained site TDR shall be granted to each of Lots 15, 16 and 17.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin
County, Colorado, that due to the fact that tbe Community Development Department has determined that
Lots 15, 16 mid 17, Crystal River Park Subdivision Second Addition are undevelopable or severely
constrained under the Pitkin County Land Use Code, one constrained site TDR shall be granted to the
Applicant or successors in interest for each of Lots 15, 16 and 17.
ATTEST:
Jeanette Jones
Deputy Clerk and Recorder
Resolution No. -2005
Page 2
APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE 14th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2005
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
By
Patti Kay-Clapper, Chair
Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
John Ely
County Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Cir~y~Houben
Community Development Director
PID #272929202004
Case P157-05
Davis Hornm c.
PLANNING & REAL ESTATE CONSULTING
June 29, 2005
Lance Clarke AICP
Aspen Pitkin County Community Development
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO. 81611
RE: Crystal River Park Subdivision Lots 15, 16 and 17: Ordinance
#52-2004 Constrained Site Transferable Development Rights
Dear Lance:
Davis Horn Incorporated represents ZTS Construction Incorporated,
owner of Lots 15, 16 and 17 Crystal Park Subdivision Second
Addition (hereinafter applicant). ZTS Construction Incorporated
is owned by Zack Satrang of Windsor, Colorado.
The applicant is seeking an administrative decision by the Pitkin
County Community Development Department that each of the three
separate subject properties is Uundevelopable or is severely
restricted" pursuant to Ordinance #52 of 2004 and the Pitkin
County Land Use Code. If and when such an administrative
decision is made, the Board of County Commissioners may employ
the principles of equitable mitigation to determine whether or
not to allow a development right to be severed and transferred
from each of the properties and how many development rights
should be recognized for each property. Of particular importance
in the Pitkin County Community Development Department's
administrative decision is the review standards concerning
environmental preservation and avoidance of hazardous areas.
This letter address the issues under the headings:
* History of the Subject Lots
* 1041 Environmental Hazards
* Findings Pursuant to Ordinance #52-2004
* Summary.
HISTORY OF THE SUBJECT LOTS
Each of the subject lots is separately developable. The Crystal
River Park Subdivision Second Addition which originally created
Lots 15, 16 and 17 was approved by the Board of County
Commissioners on July 18, 1966. Attachment 1 is a copy of the
ALICE DAVIS, AICP ~ GLENN HORN, AICP
2]5 SOUTH MONARCH ST. · SUITE ]04 · ASPEN, COLORADO 8]6]] · 970/925-6587 · FAX: 970/925-5]80
Lance Clarke AICP
June 29, 2005
Page 2
Plat which is recorded at Plat Book 3 Page 103.
In 2002, the Amended Plat of Lots 3, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20
Crystal River Park Subdivision was approved and recorded at Plat
Book 61, Page 14 (see Attachment 2). The amended Plat vacated
the public road, High Drive (formerly know as Aspen Drive and
often referred to as the last section of Ruby Mountain Drive),
the access road to the three subject properties. However, the 25
foot High Drive road became a driveway and utility easement
serving the lots. The other lots referred to on the Amended Plat,
Lots 3, 18, 19 and 20 were only minimally affected as their
access via Ruby Mountain Drive remained essentially the same.
The driveway easement was sufficient for meeting the access needs
of the three subject parcels, Lots 15, 16 and 17. During the
review process in 2002, it was clarified and confirmed that the
three lots were individual, separately developable lots.
Attachment 3 is a copy of Ordinance No. 8 of 2002 which granted
approval for the Amended Plat.
The applicant contracted to acquire the subject lots in October
of 2002 from CRV Properties, LLC and closed on the lots in
December of 2002. On December 1, 1975, the Pitkin County Board
of County Commissioners adopted Resolution 75-97 which enacted
1041 Hazard Review Regulations for geologic hazard areas,
floodplains, wildfire, and wildlife habitat areas. Until July of
2002, Pitkin County did not require lots in Board of County
Commissioner approved subdivision to comply with the 1041
Environmental Hazard Review standards.
In July of 2002, for the first time, the Board of County
Commissioners began to require lots in Board approved
subdivisions which never went through a 1041 Environmental Hazard
Review to go through the 1041 hazard review process and comply
with County Land Use Code standards. The applicant, the seller
and his real estate broker were not aware of this change in
County land use policy when the lots were sold which is
understandable because there was not a public notice or public
hearing. The applicant was informed by the County staff of the
1041 Environmental Hazard Review requirement at a October 2, 2003
pre-application meeting (see Attachment 4, Pre-application
Conference Summary Sheet).
Initially, the applicant was proposing to develop a vacation home
on Lot 17. In the fall of 2003 and in the winter of 2004 the
applicant hired experts to study all three lots. However, due to
the many constraints impacting the property including avalanche,
rockfall, steep and unstable slope hazards, development plans
were postponed because the applicant believed the lots might not
Lance Clarke AICP
June 29, 2005
Page 3
be developable. Until the Board approved Ordinance 052-2004 in
December of 2004, the applicant was not sure what to do with the
three lots. Due to the many constraints on each lot, as an
alternative to the development of three single family homes, the
owners are seeking a determination that the lots are
undevelopable or severely constrained, so that TDRs can be
separated and transferred off the lots.
1041 ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS
Lots 15, 16 and 17 are zoned RS-30. Ail three lots are located
on a series of coalescing alluvial fans down slope of prominent
sandstone cliffs. Vegetation consists of native grasses and
weeds with scrub oak, aspen and scattered conifer trees.
Potential geological hazards that could affect all three lots are
debris flow, rockfall, potentially unstable slopes and snow
avalanche. There are large rockfall blocks or boulders, some up
to 35 feet in size on all three lots. This section of the
letter summarizes 1041 Environmental Hazards impacting the
subject lots under the headings:
* Steep Slopes;
* Debris Flow, Rockfall and Potentially Unstable Slopes;
* Avalanche Hazards; and
* Wildfire.
Steep Slopes
Attachment 5 is a slope analysis of the properties prepared by
the Aspen/Pitkin County GIS Department. The slope analysis shows
Lot 15 contains 2.2 acres. Approximately 90 percent of Lot 15 is
comprised of slopes in excess of 45 percent. Most of the lot is
comprised of slopes in excess of 50 percent.
Attachment 5 shows that Lot 16 contains approximately 1.4 acres
and approximately 75 percent of the land is comprised of slopes
in excess of 45 percent. Only 1.3 percent of the lot has slopes
of less than 30 percent.
Lot 17 contains approximately .8 acres and is not as steep.
However, approximately 59 percent of the lot has slopes between
30 and 45 percent and only 14 percent of the lot has slopes in
excess of 45 percent.
Lance Clarke AICP
June 29, 2005
Page 4
The Pitkin County Land Use Code prohibits development on slopes
in excess of 45 percent. In some cases, development is permitted
on slopes varying between 30 and 45 percent. Typically, when
slopes exceed 30 percent it is advisable to study land to see if
other geologic hazards impact potential site development.
Avalanche Hazards
In January of 2004, Art Meats prepared the "Avalanche Mapping and
Hazard Analysis Lots 15, 16, 17 Crystal River Park Subdivision
Pitkin County" (see Attachment 6). Mears states that the lots
are directly below steep, south facing slopes and cliffs. Slopes
above the lots range in steepness from vertical to nearly
vertical near the cliffs to less than 25 % in grade. Due to the
solar exposure/sunny orientation, the slopes do not support a
dense forest and existing vegetation is not sufficient to prevent
snow avalanche formation during periods of snowpack instability.
There are two avalanche paths which affect the properties, one is
significantly larger and impacts Lot 15, while the smaller
avalanche path primarily affects Lot 17.
Page 8 of the Mears report depicts a map showing the red and blue
avalanche zones (see Attachment 6). The Pitkin County Land Use
Code prohibits any development in the red avalanche zone. The
red avalanche zone severally impacts Lot 15.
According to Mears' mapping, the upper portion of Lot 17 is in
the red avalanche zone and most of the remainder of the Lot is in
the blue avalanche zone. The Land Use Code prohibits development
in the blue zone unless there are not alternative building sites
on a property. In such a case development is permitted with
structural mitigation devices. There is a small portion of Lot
17 located outside the blue zone, but it may be too small for
development. A driveway accessing Lots 15 and 16 would have to
cross the blue avalanche zone.
Lot 16 is not impacted by avalanche hazards.
Wildfire Hazard
Attachment 7 is an October 2003, Wildfire Hazard Review prepared
by Rocky Mountain Ecological Services Inc. (Eric Petterson).
Wildfire hazard is severe due to the steepness of the three lots
and the fact that fuels are continuous. Peterson recommends
extensive mitigation measures to mitigate wildfire hazard. These
recommendations related to vegetation, a modified structural
design and construction standards, maintenance and access and
utilities were modified for the conditions of the three lots.
Lance Clarke AICP
June 29, 2005
Page 5
The Pitkin County Land Use Code does not prohibit development in
severe wildfire areas.
Debris Flow, Rockfall and Potentially Unstable Slopes
Attachment 8 is a May 26, 2005 report from HP Geotech entitled
"Review of Debris Flow, Rockfall and Potentially Unstable Slope
Impacts, Lots 15, 16 and 17 Crystal River Park Subdivision,
Pitkin County, Colorado." The Report indicates all three lots
could be the sites of debris flows associated with intense
thunderstorm precipitation or unusually rapid snowpack melt.
Channels are poorly developed on the alluvial fans on all three
lots. A major debris flow could result in damage to buildings on
the three lots and present a safety risk to occupants. In the
opinion of Arthur Buck of HP Geotech, "the debris flow risk is
not acceptable and mitigation to reduce the risk is recommended
if the three lots are built on. Additional studies would be
needed to evaluate the feasibility of mitigation and to develop
mitigation plans if mitigation is shown to be feasible."
Rockfall on the steep cliffs located 500 feet northwest of the
three lots is an active geologic process under current conditions
and the three lots are in the potential rockfall runout zone.
According to HP Geotech, "a high velocity rockfall, similar to
past rockfalls on Lots 15, 16 and 17, would result in severe
damage to buildings and other facilities and will present a life
safety risk to the occupants of the buildings." The runout zone
appears to run down slope beyond the boundaries of Lots 16 and
17. Lot 15 is exposed to significant rockfall hazard as well.
It is noted in Attachment 8 that rockfall blocks measuring 25 to
35 feet in size with estimated weights of 5,400 to 14,800 tons
were observed on Lots 16 and 17" (emphasis added).
As depicted by Attachment 5, the natural slopes of Lots 15 and 16
are 50 percent or greater. Cuts made in the steep hillside will
have a relatively high potential for construction-related slope
instability. Engineered plans would be required for any site
grading and geotechnical studies are required to evaluate slope
stability of Lots 15 and 16.
Further study is needed to determine what measures would need to
be taken to mitigate geologic hazards, if it is determined that
any mitigation is feasible. What is clear is that if there are
mitigation measures that are appropriate, they will be quite
significant due to the severe constraints on the site. Outcrop
stabilization is not a feasible mitigation method for rockfall
hazard for the three lots due to the size and ~emoteness of the
Lance Clarke AICP
June 29, 2005
Page 6
source. A massive earth catching structure located up slope of
the occupied buildings is the type of mitigation that may be
feasible considering the size of past rockfall.
The Pitkin County Land Use Code prohibits development in rockfall
hazard areas unless there is not a feasible alternative site on a
property. Extensive mitigation is required. In the case of the
subject lots mitigation may not be feasible.
CONSTRAINED SITE TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
(Section 3-310-050)
Ordinance #52 codifies the legislation related to constrained
site transferable development rights. The following section
addresses the standards for TDR eligibility in Section 3~310-053.
Section 3-310-053 Standards and Criteria for TDR Eligibility.
The Board may grant one or more transferable development right
only upon demonstration that the lot meets the following
criteria:
Section 3-310.053.1 Preservation Site Undevelopable or Severe
Restricted.
The lots shall be determined by the Community Development
Department to be undevelopable or severely restricted pursuant to
the Pitkin County Land Use Code.
Section 3-310.053.2 Equitable Mitigation.
The Board shall determine that principals of equitable mitigation
favor relief in the form of issuance of one or more Transferable
Development Right(s).
Section 3-310.053.3 Conservation Easements.
TDRs recognized and certified pursuant to this section, may be
obtained for property encumbered by a conservation easement
provided that the conservation easement is granted in conjunction
with the procedures contained in this section following a
determination by the Community Development Department that the
lot is undevelopable or is severely restricted and prior to the
issuance or certification of the TDRs.
Lance Clarke AICP
June 29, 2005
Page 7
Section 3-310.053.4 Rural and Remote Zoning.
Constrained site TDRs are not available for property zoned
rural/remote.
SUMMARY
The section of the application summarizes why each of
lots are not developable.
Lot 15 is not developable because:
the three
The west side of the lot is in the red avalanche zone.
Lot 16
Lot 17 is
Vehicles on a driveway accessing the lot would cross a
blue avalanche zone, potential debris flows and a
severe rockfall hazard area.
More than 89 percent of the lot is comprised of slopes
in excess of 45 percent.
The lot is subject to slope instability due to steep
slopes.
The lot is subject to debris flow and severe rockfall
and wildfire danger.
is not developable because:
Approximately 75 percent of the lot is comprised of
slopes in excess of 45 percent.
Vehicles on a driveway accessing the lot would cross a
blue avalanche zone, potential debris flows and a
severe rockfall hazard area.
The lot is subject to slope instability due to steep
slopes.
The lot is subject to debris flow and severe rockfall
and wildfire danger.
not developable because:
A portion of the lot is located in the red avalanche
hazard zone and most of the lot is in the blue
avalanche hazard zone.
Lance Clarke AICP
June 29, 2005
Page 8
The lot is subject to slope instability due to steep
slopes.
The lot is subject to debris flow and severe rockfall
and wildfire danger. There is a rock block which has
fallen on the property that is as big as a small school
bus.
The following is a list of attachments for your reference.
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Attachment 4
Attachment 5
Attachment 6
Attachment 7
Attachment 8
Attachment 9
Attachment 10
Crystal River Park Subdivision Second Addition
recorded at Plat Book 3 Page 103
Amended Plat of Lots 3, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20
Crystal River Park Subdivision recorded at Plat
Book 61, Page 14
Board of County Commissioner's Ordinance No. 8 of
2002 Granting Approval of the Vacation of High
Drive and a Small Portion of Ruby Mountain Drive
Adjacent to Crystal River Park Subdivision
October 2, 2003 Pre-application Conference
Summary Sheet
Aspen/Pitkin County GIS Department Slope Analysis
of Crystal River Park Subdivision Lots 15, 16 and
17
January of 2004 Report prepared by Arthur Mears
P.E. Inc. "Avalanche Mapping and Hazard Analysis
Lots 15, 16, 17 Crystal River Park Subdivision
Pitkin County"
October 2003, Wildfire Hazard Review prepared by
Rocky Mountain Ecological Services Inc.
May 26, 2005 report from HP Geotech entitled
"Review of Debris Flow, Rockfall and Potentially
Unstable Slope Impacts, Lots 15, 16 and 17 Crystal
River Park Subdivision, Pitkin County, Colorado
Pre-application Conference Summary Sheet
Fee Agreement
Lance Clarke AICP
June 29, 2005
Page 9
Attachment 11 Letter Authorizing Submission of Land Use
Application
This letter demonstrates that 1041 Environmental Hazards
impacting Crystal River Park Subdivision Second Addition Lots 15,
16 and 17 are quite severe. It is clear that the July of 2002
change in County land use policy was intended to subject lots
such as these to land use approvals because site development
endangers the health, safety and welfare of Pitkin County
residents, visitors and emergency personnel.
The applicant requests the Board of County Commissioners to issue
one TDR to the applicant for each lot.
Sincerely,
DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED
Satrang.1
ROCK CORNER
CRYSTAL RIVER PARK SUBDIVISION
PITKIN COUNTY, ¢OL ~RADO
AMENDED
PLAT OF LOTS
SUBDIVISION,
3, 15, 16, 17,
2nd ADDITION,
18,
PITKIN
19 & 20 , CRYSTAL RIVER PARK
COUNTY, COLORADO
N
SCALE: 1%40'
./
PLAT OF LOTS 3 &5-201
~NES ~ S~CE
'JAN. 28, 2OOb ~:22YM VJlEiN UUUNIY UL~KA KEbUKUEK [~u, Yo/ r, e
ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMI~ISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNT¥~
COLO]~DO~ GRA.,NTING API'ROVAL OF Tt-~ VACATION O1~ HIGH DRIVE A.ND A SMALL
PORTION O~ RUBY MOUNTAIN DRIV~ ADJ.~CENT TO LOT 3, CRYSTAL RWER PAH.K
SUBDIVISION
Orda~ee No.~d~ - 2002
RECITIAL8
1. CRV properties Ltd, LiaMlity Co, (Zo~ 15, 16, &17), Sl~wn & StephanJe ~,t~z (Lot 3); ~ K~I &
Margarita Carrasco Do Tkumcr (Lot 1 g); P.~ter & Mary Louise Manardl (Lot 19); and David Clm'ne~i~ (Lot
20); ("Applicants") have applied to the pilkln County Board of Connty Commissioners ("BOCC") for
approval of the vacation of High Drive and a small portion ofl~by Mountain Drive (formally Asl~n Driw)
adja~nt to Lot 3.
2, The Crystal River Park ~lxlivialon Is localed south of Recls~one on the west side of Highway 133.
3, The Piikin County Planning and Zoning Commission r~vlewed th~ appli~tiou on January 15,
~.002, ~nd re¢ommond~:l appro~/sl.
4, Th.e BOCC heard the first msdin§ of'his application al a r~ular meeting on March 13, 2002, at
which l~ne ~videnoe and t~sfimony w~rg pr~nted wilh respect to this application,
5. The BOCC heard the second r~ading of this application at a duly noticed public hearing on March
27, 2002, a.t which time additionil evidence and testimony wer~ presented wffh respect to this application,
6. The BOCC finds that the application me~s t~ applicable policies and regulations of~he ?itldn
Counly Land Us~ Code, provided that eonditio,~s of this dcoumen~ am adh~d to.
NOW THEREFORE lie IT RESOLVED by tl~ Pitldn County Board of County Commissioners
that it does hgreby St, mt approval for the r~doction of the 25' High Drive easement to a mlniraam 14'
driveway ~semont, and the vacation of a small portion of Ruby Mountain Drive adjncent to Lot ~, subjeot to
the following conditions:
1. Thc Applicants shall adher~ to all msierial r~preseatations made in.tM application and ia publi~
meetings.
2. Ninoty (90) days fi'mn ~ approval of this Ordinance, the Applicant shall prepare and record a 24 X
36 inch mylar Plat. The plat shall also be submiited in a digital feramt for integration into the County
C~ogrsphlo Information System (Gig).
3, Th~ 25' ~s~r~nt f0r High Drive shali be chaa//ed t6 mfl~ct tho Pitkln County minimum drlvev~y
14~ v4tdth ~ta~ldardo Tl~ls shall be reflected on the ~_mended phc
.P ag~ 2
INTRODUCED, FIRST,READ, A~ THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC I~ARING ON
15TM DAY O~ MARCH, 2002,
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEAIL~G PUBLISHED l~ TR~ ASPEN TI3~E8 ON Y]~ 9TH DAY OF
MARCH, 2002.
AI~FROVED AND ADOPTED AFTER SECOND READING ON' T/~ 27TM DAY O1~ ~[ARCH,
2002.
Pt~Usmm n_vr~a ~m,t~o~ m ~ Am,~ rr~s oN ~ 1~'~ nay ov ~L_.
2002.
ORDINANCE SHALL HECOME EgF~:CI'IVE 30 DAYS AFI'F,R PTJB'LICATION
FOLLOWI3rG F/NAL ADOS'lION BY THE BOARD O1~ COlYNTY COM3'/IiSIOI~il~.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF ?I2'KIN COL2Xq'Y, COLORADO
P~i Y, ay-Clapp~ ' '
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
APPROVED AS TO CONI ~NT:
·
CoUnty Attorney
C~e #P170-Oi
272929202012
Cindy Hoube~
Community Development Di~or
Page; g of 2
L
0CT-02-2003 THU 03:49 P~
P, O!
PITKIN COUNTY
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
DATE:
PROJECT:
LOCATION:
ZONE
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
I,
O~ober 2, 2003
Satroag 1041 Hazard R~vicw and Conce~t~l Submission
Crystal River Park Subdivision (Parc. el ID: 272929202004)
Zach Satrang Tel: 970 686 6861; Fax: 686 6451
Rose Ann Sullivan 'feh 920-5482
Type of Application: ] 041 Hazard R'cvicw a~d Conceptual Submission. -
Description of l~rojcct/Development: Applicant propos~ to establish access and
a building cflvelopo for a new re~ide~lce.
Areas in which the Applicant b requested to respond, types of report;
· Section 3-60, Eflvirom'ncntal and Aesthetic Standm'ds
· Section 3.70, Water Resources
· Section 3-110, Improvements and Sexvices
Section 9-110-0:51, Growth Mmmgement Exemption for pro- 1978 parcels
s Section 3-80, 1041 Hazard Review 3.80.70 Wildfire (Low Wildfire)
3-80-50 Geologic (Slopes in F. xccss of 15% trod 30%, Potential
Aval~¢hc)
3-80-i10 Wildlife (Elk Winter Rm~ge)
4. Review i~ before: Hearing Officer
Public ltcnring: Yes, at fleering Officer. The applicant zlMII pos~ a public
notice sign on thc property at leab~ 15 days prior ~o ~he hearing and shall mail
notice ~o all adjacent property ovmcrs and mineral rotate owners at lenqt 30 prior
to thc hearing with file mturfl address of ~hc Commtmity Development
Deparlmem {cOpy of the notice to b~ obtained from tho Community Dev¢iopmem
Depmtment). The names and addrosses sMll be those on thc cun'cnt tax records
o£ PiLkin Couflty ~ they ~ppcar no more thmt 60 days prior ~o fl~e da~e of tho
public heating.
Will be referred to: Wildlili: biologist, Crystal River Caucus, Engineer, Crystal
Rivet Park IIOA,
7, What fees
Id WdgO:PO 000E IE '%°0
was the applicant ~equested to submit:
Plm3niflg Office $2,100 Flat Fcc O',Ion-refundable, 'based an 10 l~s oF
staff tim,.)
Bngiflcer $525 Fla~ l;~c
Wildlife B~ologist $500 Flat Fcc
Publlv l~otlce Fcc $25
Il'oral Fee at ~qubmiflnl
If the staff amc for this application exceeds 12 h~% thc Applicant will
be charged at $210 per hour b~yand 10 hrs.
Feez for llearing Officer at $135/hr.
- Entire Application is required to be submitted di~itally oll a disk
OF ~[J (acceptable Formats are: .tx~ .d0% ,wpd~ .rff~ .Jpeg~ ,pdf)
\q
00T-02-2003 THU 03:50 PM
FAX NO, P, O~
To appl},, submit nine (9) copies of thc foliowhtK intormaUon, unless othe~bc
not~ (plea~ ~e doub~ sided ~iaK when poseJble):
· L~r o~ ~t ad~sin8 C~o S~t[ons llst~ ~bove and dcscfib~n~
24" X 36" fold~ Bite Pl~s (s~ at~h~ si~ plan requk~m~ts);
~ctln~cntafio~ofofAc~ss (2 ~pies);
Wildf~ m~rt ~m local cx~
~cumcn~tion of~w a~ when pa~J w~ crent~ (1 copy);
l~ttcr from o~ atnhodzing mp~scnmttve, ii.liable (1 ~py);
Docut~tntion or Ch~n of'l'iO~r~fo~own~s~p (from n gtlc comply or
a~ey licensed in the State of Colorado) Including legal description (I
~py);
A I~t ofadja~[lt
To~ f~ t~ ~icw of tM app~caflon;
Copy of Ihb p~-appli~don form (I cop)');
PLEASE NOTE: ~i~ ~re.al~lJcaflon
ami nol binding on the (~uunt~.
on curr~m zoni~ ztandar~ and
tie ~t~ltc~t. ddditional tnformbtion ~ be required upon com~leN r~view of the
application. ' ·
Ed Nd9iD:~O 000E Ia '~o0 I~599090&6: 'DH XU~ : l. lO~
,,gend
2003 10ff Contours ~/~ USFS
--- Ddves ~ 0-15% Slope
-- Roads
15-30% Slope
~ Structures
_ I Subdivision
~ ~ >45% Slope
Parcels
N
501 1001 W~E
Feet S
map/drawing/image is
of the features depicted and is not a legal
representation. The accuracy may change
depending on the enlargement or reduction.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AVALANCHE MAPPING AND HAZARD ANALYSIS
LOTS 15, 16, 17, CRYSTAL RIVER PARK SUBDIVISION
PITKIN COUNTY
Prepared For
Mr. Zack Satrang
ZTS Construction, Incorporated
Prepared By
Arthur I. Meats, P.E., Inc.
Gunnison, Colo[ado
January, 2004
I AVALANCHE MAPPING AND HAZARD ANALYSIS
LOTS 15, 16, 17, CRYSTAL RIVER PARK SUBDIVISION
I PITKIN COUNTY
I
I
I Prepared For
I Mr. Zack Satrang
ZTS Construction, Incorporated
I Prepared By
I Arthur I. Mears, P.E., Inc.
Gunnison, Colorado
I January, 2004
I' ARTHUR I. MEARS, P.E., INC.
i Natural Hazards Consultants
555 County Road 16
I
I
I
I January 26, 2004
I Mr. Zack Satrang
507 Hemlock Drive
Windsor, CO 80550
I Dear Mr. Satrang:
The attached report has been prepared as discussed with Mr. Glen Horn of
Davis-Horn, Incorporated. The report discusses potential snow avalanche
hazard to Lots 15, 16, and 17 and discusses mitigation options where
i appropriate.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
! Sincerer, ,
I Arthur I. Meats, P.E.
I Avalanche-control engineer o .
I
I
I
i Ma~z Wozting Avalanche$ Avalanche Control Engineering
I 1 REPORT OBJECTIVES AND LIMITATIONS
I The objectives of this report as follows:
1. To evaluate the terrain above lots 15, 16, and 17 for snow avalanche
I potential;
2. To quantify the avalanche hazard;
3. To recommend avalanche mitigation, if it is necessary.
I This report also has the following limitations, which must be understood by all
those relying of the results:
I t. The analysis is based on current (January, 2004) slope and vegetation
conditions; changes to these conditions (e.g., fire, landslides, etc.)
I the size of avalanche zones~ and invalidate the
may
increase
starting
conclusions;
2. Current design-magnitude (i.e., 100-year return period) conditions
i have been evaluated which are consistent with the Pitkin County
ordinance; even larger events are theoretically possible and could
exceed the boundaries indicated on Figure 1;
I 3. Final engineering details of avalanche protective structures, and
design criteria for such structures are beyond the scope of this report;
I 4. Evaluation of other geologic hazards, if any, including rockfall, debrfs
slides and flows, is also beyond the scope of this study.
I 2 AVALANCHE TERRAIN AND DESIGN-MAGNITUDE AVALANCHES
2.! Avalanche Terrain
I Lots 15, 16, and 17 are located on the north side of the Crystal River and
directly below steep, south-facing slopes and cliffs approximately 1 mile west of
I Redstone (see location map, Figure 1). Slopes above the lots range in
steepness from vertical or nearly vertical near the cliffs to less than 14° (< 25%)
just above the upper part of Ruby Mountain Drive. Possible building sites would
I be located above the of Mountain Drive.
upper
part
Ruby
Because of the sunny orientation, the slopes do not support a dense conifer
I forest but are populated with deciduous species such as Gambel's oak (Quercus
gambelii, and aspen (Populus tremuloides) and sparse populations of conifer
species. The slopes are crossed by major vertical cliff bands and small cliff
I outcroppings. These are separated by steep colluvial debris slopes which on
which a thin soil has developed which enables development of the trees and
I ' Starting zone - Steep area (generally greater than 30°) where avalanche start, accelerate, and increase in
I
02/i7t2004 09:09 9705di3236 ART NEARS PAGE 01
other vegetation. The vegetation is not sufficiently dense to prevent snow
avalanche formation during periods of snowpack instability.
The two avalanche paths~ affecting the subject property begin within the steep
colluvlal slopes north of the property. The western path (Path 1) is by far the
larger of the two (Figure 2). It can start at approximately 8,700 feet, will fall over
steep, broken terrain as it descends a distinct gully into the Subdivision and
crosses through Lot 15. Analysis conducted for this study indicates this
avalanche will stop, during extreme snowpack and weather conditions, well into
the existing subdivision.
A second, much smaller avalanche path (Path 2) can reach a portion of Lot 17,
on the eastern part of the property. The largest avalanches in this path begin at
roughly 7,900 feet in a sparsely-vegotated3 slope below the lower cliff band.
Although a starting zone does exist, it is small (roughly 5,000 to 8,000 ft; [about
0_11 to 0.18 acre]), and narrow. Even the largest avalanches in this path will
spread out into a broad, steep track above lot 17. They will lose energy quickly
because they will encounter trees, other vegetation, and rocks, all of which will
increase ground friction.
2.2 Design-Magnitude Avalanches
The major and rare design-magnitude avalanches' which must be considered in
land-use planning and engineering have not been observed at this location.
Furthermore no field evidence for major avalanches wes observed. Given these
data limitations the possible runout distances and hazard potential have been
modeled by using a three-step procedure as follows:
]. The runout distance (or stopping point) wes computed through
analysis of a large database of extreme avalanches in the Colorado
mountains; a regression equation derived from this database was
used to predict the stopping point in paths I and 2;
2. Given the stopping point derived in step '1 ,' avalanche speeds were
computed along the path centerline profile; and
3. The boundary between the "red" and "blue" hazard zone was
determined as that.point where potential impact pressures became
less than 600 lbs/fr.
2 Avalanche path - The entire area in which an avalanche moves, including the starting zone, uack, and
thc rlmout
~ Sparsely-vegetated slopa - Ifa slope is suff~elantly stcq~, a moderately de.se tree cove, such as the one
in this path will not prevent all avalanches, oven the slab avalanches of~'entest c.o~eem i~ land-use
~innning and engineering.
Desj~n-ma~imde avalanche - In Pitldn County. this avalanche has an estimated return period of 100
years (a c0~stant annual probability of 1/100 = 1%), Thc "100-yenr" ~um period is ~or~cct to the nenre~
order of magnitude, therefore thc ~ue ret'urn period lies between 30 and 300 years, approximately.
Mitigation requires site-specific study to ensure design avalanche impact and/or
stat c oads have been specified. Building design should require that facilities
such as hot tubs which may be exposed to avalanches are not built in avalanche
areas. Avalanche-free access to the houses should be provided.
5 INCREASE IN AVALANCHE HAZARD
f development is planned in or near the avalanche blue zones some increase in
avalanche risk to residents, guests, and other visitors will result simply because
the total exposure time within the avalanche areas will also increase.
Th s ncreased risk can be minimized if owners and guests are educated about
the avalanche phenomena, heed all official avalanche warnings and advisories,
and are prepared for self rescue. These additional steps are strongly
recommended if the avalanche zones are to be used for residential
development.
Sincerely,
Arthur I. Mears, P.E. (CO)
Avalanche-control engineer
PHOTO B. These houses in Sun Valley are built with the back comer facing the avalanche and splitting the flow.
.egend N
lOft Contours .~
Wamr
$
Structures
0 150 300
Parcels I ~ I
Feet
s map/drawmghmage is a graphical representation
of the teatures depicted and is not a legal
representation The accuracy maychange
depending on the enlargement or reduction.
Copyright 2003 City of Aspen/Pitkfn Counb/
FIGURE 2. Avalanche map and propen'y boundaries from Pitkin County GIS
database. Avalanche red and blue zones are shown and have been defined as
discussed in Section 2 of this report. Many additional avalanche areas exist on
this map but do not affect the property and are not shown.
SCALE: 1' = 300' (1:3,600)
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
TECHNICAL APPENDIX
This technical appendix includes the following:
1. Statistical regression analysis through which runout distances were
computed.
2. Sample avalanche profiles.
3. Avalanche-dynamics modeling output.
These procedures were used to compute avalanche runout distances, speeds
and impact energies, and to delineate the boundaries between red and blue
hazard zones.
Sheet1
Avalanche Profile and x/y coordinates
C~stal R, Pa~ 1
Raw Da~ in feet Da~ in metem Segment Da~
~ Y-feet X-metem Y-metem L-metem Ang - Deg Sum L 0 Avg Angle
0 878O 0 2677
230 8560 70 2610 ~ 97 43.7 97 43.7
490 8380 149 2555 96 34.7 193 39,2
575 8270 175 2521 42 52.3 236 41.6
680 8190 207 2497 40 37.3 276 40.9
715 8140 218 2482 19 55.0 295 41.8
885 8020 270 2445 63 35.2 358 40.7
1060 7900 323 2409 65 34.4 423 39.7
1140 7810 348 2381 37 48.4 460 40,4
1210 7780 369 2372 23 23.2 483 39.6
1260 7730 384 2357 ~o 22 45.0 504 39.8
1410 7560 430 2335 50 25.0 555 38.5
1480 7610 451 2320 26 35.5 581 38,3
1600 7550 488 2302 41 26.6 622 37.6
1775 7500 541 2287 55 15.9 677 35.8
1835 7490 559 2284 19 9.5 696 35.1
1930 7470 588 2277 /~ 30 11.9 726 34.2
2020 7450 616 2271 28 12.6 754 33.4
2055 7440 627 2268 11 15.9 765 33.1
..~2205~7420 672 2262 I~ 46 7.~ 81~ 31.~
Crystal R. Park 1 Avalanche
2650 ~
[ 25 0
2250
Horizontal d~stance (m)
I
I
I
484 particles start from top segment.
',. i! 5/ ~,"..
/.." M ". ii i
Ii!i ~,, \i ~/ C",,
i/~' I ~ ~ / ~",,~
c:\plk\Crystal R Park 1.txt
iPath drops: 415 m
Friction mu = 0.30
log M/D = 2.40
Random R =
0.250
Alpha = 31.7 degrees
1188 particles deposited.
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
· Front stops at X = 672 m
....................... Front speed (max = 28.3 m/s)
...... Mean speed (max = 28.5 m/s)
.Deposition (not to scale)
Exit and view distributions
in your file c:\plk\results.txt
ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL
NEPA' 'WILDLIFE'-VEGETATION--RECLAMATION. 'WETLANDS' 'PIdkNNING
SERVICES, INC.
ZTS Construction, Inc.
607 Hemlock Dr.
Windsor, CO 80550
RE: 1041 Wildfire Hazard Review
October 30, 2003
Dear Ms. Rubin
Please submit this letter with your application to Pitkin County.
I visited Lots 15, 16, and 17 in Crystal River Park, Pitkin County, on October 30, 2003
with Ms. Sherry Rubin, the owner's representative. Ms. Rubin is preparing a 1041 site
review in anticipation of her client building a residential structure the property. The
property and area around it are considered "Severe Hazard: Brush", due to the fact that
the slope is greater than 20% (actual slope averaged 37%) and the fuels were
continuous. Therefore, the following Vegetation Mitigations are recommended:
I. Vegetation
From the farthest point of the new construction, extending out to 20', all brush (oak,
serviceberry, chokecherry, sagebrush, etc.) must be removed. It is recommended that
clumps within 30' of the structure be irrigated
to keep live fuel moistures high dudng the
summer months.
Oak brush shall be thinned to 5x the height of
the remaining brushy plants within 70', and
must be limbed up to 10' and all sprouts and
understory shrubs must be removed and kept
trimmed. Coniferous vegetation may remain,
as long as it is separated by 5x the height of
the tree or clump of trees. If some of these
coniferous trees are fairly close to the house
(<10 feet), then they may be considered to be
an integral part of the structure, and all
clearances will start at the furthest extent of
the tree crown.
Beyond 100', bush and shrubs must be
thinned to 3 times the height distance to 150'
from the dwelling, or to the extent of the
0222 BOBCAT LANE · REDSTONE · COLORADO · 81623
PHONE/FAX: (970) 963-2190 · CELL: (970) 309-4454
EMAIL: ERICPETTERSON~MSN.COM
Lots 15-17 C~ystal Rt~r Park 1041 Wildfire Hazard Re~e~a
October31, 2003
property boundary (whichever is the shorter distance).
4. All other vegetation must be kept to less than 1' (1 foot) in height up to 30' from any
structures. A few scattered smaller shrubs can be left from 25' and beyond.
All branches from trees and brush within the thirty-foot (70') perimeter shall be pruned
to a height of ten feet (10') above the ground with removal of ladder fuels from
around trees and brush.
5. All deadfall within a 100' perimeter of the house shall be removed.
7. All thinned oak brush, serviceberry or chokecherry stumps should be "painted" with
Garlon® herbicide to prevent aggressive resprouting.
8. All branches that extend over the roof eaves shall be trimmed and all branches within
fifteen feet (15') of chimneys shall be removed.
Installed or native landscaping within 20' of the house must be irrigated, and not
contain any brushy species- only grasses or forbs aro allowed. Flammable mulches
(wood chips) are not
recommended. Aspen trees are
allowed near the house, as long as
they are not within 10' of the
structure, and are kept limbed to
10' (unless the trees aro less than
10' tall). No trees may be within 15'
of any window.
10. The property owner shall be
responsible for the continued
maintenance of the above listed
vegetation requirements.
The following Modified Structural Design and Construction Standards aro recommended
for any structures:
I. Projections:
Projections at the roofline (which includes, but aro not limited to: eaves, cornices
soffits and roofs over open decks) shall be sheathed with materials approved for
one-hour tiro-resistive construction.
2. For projections below the roofline (including, but not limited to: exterior balconies
decks, porches, and bay windows which extend over a flat or sloped surface), the
open space between grade and the underside of projections below the roofline
shall be enclosed by solid, vertical walls. These walls shall be constructed with
materials approved for one-hour fire-resistive construction on the exterior side of
~Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc
Lots 15-17 C~ystal River Park 1041 IVildflre Hazard Revie~v October 31, 2003
the wall, and shall extend from the top of grade to the underside of the floor
decking or walls of the projection, OR:
Any porch or deck or projection shall be void of vegetation below it, and areas
below such projections shall be protected from accumulation of vegetation
materials by placement of a vegetation barrier covered with rocks or gravel, or by
coverage with concrete or stone. Walls underneath projections shall be
constructed with materials approved for 1-hour fire resistive construction on the
extedor side of the wall. Pillars or columns shall be of non-flammable materials,
or if wood, made out of heavy log construction and treated with a fire retardant.
The underside of any porch, deck or projection shall be sheathed in 1-hour fire
resistive materials, or with fire-retardant treated wood.
An alternative for a deck or porch is use of non-flammable hardscaping
(flagstone, cement pad, etc.). Some planters may be in this area, but cannot
contain trees (except aspen) or shrubby species.
III. Exterior Walls and Siding
Extedor walls and siding shall have a minimum one-hour fire resistive rating on
the house and any other structures from ground level to roof line. Exterior doors
shall be noncombustible or one and three-fourths inch (1' % ") solid wood.
IV. Windows and Glass
1. Glazed openings shall be provided with closable, solid, exterior non-flammable
shutters or shall be tempered glass.
V. Foundations and Stilt Construction
Foundations, skirting and crawl space openings shall be fully enclosed and
constructed with materials approved for 1-hour fire resistive construction on the
extedor sides of the walls and shall extend from the top of grade to the underside
of the floor decking or walls.
Stilt foundations shall be fully enclosed and constructed with materials approved
for 1-hour fire resistive construction on the extedor side of the walls and shall
extend from the top of grade to the underside of the floor decking or walls (not
including porches, patios, etc.).
VI. Roofing
1. All roofs shall be constructed with noncombustible roofing materials on a Class A
roof assembly (see UBC 1997 Section 1504).
2. Roofs shall be installed as required by UBC 1997 Chapter 15 and shall have a
minimum slope of 1:48.
~Ro~ky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc
Lots ! 5- ! 7 C~ystal River Park 1041 [Vildfim Hagard P~iem November 20, 2003
3. All roof covetings shall have a surface that facilitates the natural processes of
cleaning the roof.
4. Vents shall be screened with a maximum %" corrosive resistant wire mesh.
VII. Maintenance
1. Roofs and gutters shall be kept clear of debris.
2. Yards shall be kept clear of all littler, slash and flammable debris.
3. All flammable materials (including firewood) shall be stored on a parallel contour a
minimum of 30' from any structure, or within a separate structure.
4. Weeds and grasses within a twenty-foot (20') perimeter shall be maintained to a
height of not more than six inches (6").
Viii. Miscellaneous
Fences shall be kept clear of brush and debris, and must have at least a 3" gap
between the fence and the main structure. Non-flammable, or treated wood
fencing material is
recommended within 20'
of any structures.
2. Any outbuildings or
additional structures
shall adhere to the
same standards as the
main house.
3. Each structure shall
have a minimum of one
ten-pound ABC fire
extinguisher.
Addresses shall be
clearly marked with 2"
non-combustible letters
and shall be visible at the primary point of access from the public or common
access road and installed on a non-combustible surface.
5. Fuel tanks shall be installed underground with an approved container.
'~Ro~ky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc
6. Propane tanks shall be buried, or installed according to NFPA 48 standards and
on a contour away from the structure with standard defensible space vegetation
mitigation around any aboveground tank (i.e. no shrubs within 25' of the tank).
Any wood enclosure around the tank shall be constructed with materials approved
for two (2) hour fire-resistive construction on the extedor side of the walls.
4
Lots 15- ? 7 C~7stal River Park 1041 Wildfire Hagard Revie~v November 20, 2003
IX. Access
Thin shrubs (oak, chokecherry, serviceberry, sagebrush) to 3 times height along
the driveway back 25' on either side. Stumps must be painted with Garion
herbicide to prevent aggressive re-sprouting. No shrubs or conifers are allowed
within 10' of the driveway. Aspen are permitted within 10' of the driveway, but
must be pruned to 10' above the ground.
2. All other vegetation must be kept to 6" or less within 10' of the driveway.
3. The turn around space at the beginning of the driveway (next to the fire hydrant)
will be close enough for an emergency vehicle turn around.
Water Supply
Any fire department recommendation for individual structure water supply and
storage shall be accessible to fire department vehicles from the extedor of the
structure through a Fire Department approved mechanism (such as a fire
hydrant). The amount of storage capacity shall be determined by the fire
protection district with a minimum of one thousand (1,000) gallon storage capacity
per structure.
All structures greater than 5,000 square feet in size shall be required to install in-
house sprinkler systems that meet the standards of the local fire protection district
and the Uniform Building Code. At building permit submittal, the local fire
protection district may require smaller structures to be sprinkled due to hazard
considerations, emergency access difficulties and lack of proximity to fire
protection services.
XI. Utilities
1. Utility lines shall be buried.
XII. Building Envelope and Wildfire Hazard Area Delineation
Concurrent with building permit submittal, a site plan that meets the requirements
of section 5-70-040 shall be submitted that delineates all development within a
building envelope (wildfire mitigation, and creation of defensible space, may occur
outside the building envelope). Wildfire hazard areas shall be delineated within
the building envelope consistently with the definitions of section 3-80-070A. 1.;
provided that, in the case of varying hazard levels within the building envelope, it
shall be sufficient to label the entire envelope with the highest level hazard. The
building envelope and a hundred-foot radius surrounding all structures shall be
clearly labeled as either: Iow hazard, medium hazard; or severe hazard.
~ocky Mountaifi Ecological Services, Inc
5
Lots 15-17 C~ystal River Park 104 ! IVildfire Hazard Review Navember 20, 2003
The standards stated in 3-80-070 Wildfire Hazard Areas, has been slightly modified for the
conditions at this property. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on this property, and
please feel free to call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Eric Petterson
Principal Ecologist
Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc.
~ky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc
i:ecla
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL
May 26, 2005
Zachariah Satrang
605 Hemlock Drive
Windsor, Colorado 80550
Job No.105 426
Subject:
Review of Debris Flow, Rockfall and Potentially Unstable Slope hnpacts,
Lots 15, 16, and 17, Crystal River Park Subdivision, Pitkin County,
Colorado.
Dear Mr. Satrang:
As requested, we have conducted a review of the potential debris flow, rockfall and
potentially unstable slope impacts to the subject property. The study was conducted in
accordance with our Professional Services Agreement letter to you dated May 17, 2005. A
reco~maissance to observe the potential impact conditions to the property was madeon May
5, 2005. We have also reviewed published regional geologic literature and regional geologic
mapping, and the Avalanche Mapping and Hazard Analysis of Lots 15, 16, and 17 of the
Crystal River Park Subdivision, prepared for you by Art Mears (2004). This report
summarizes our findings and presents our conclusions and recowanendations.
SITE CONDITIONS
Lots 15, 16, and 17 are located on a series of coalescing alluvial fans down slope of
prominent sm~dstone cliffs in the northwesternpart of the Crystal River Park Subdivision.
The vegetation on the lots consists of native grass and weeds with scrub oak, aspen and
scattered conifer trees. The natural slopes on the lots are generally down toward the
southeast, with the exception of Lot 15 which has steep slopes down to the southwest
adjacent to a drainage that runs through the southwest part of the lot. The slopes on the lots
range in steepness from about 25% to 30% on Lot 17, up to about 50% on Lot 16, and up to
about 75% in the central part of Lot 15. An ephemeral drainage runs through the northeast
part of Lot 17 and a deeply incised drainage rm~s through the southwestern part of Lot 15.
Large sandstone rockfall blocks, some up to 35 feet in size, are present on all three lots.
GEOLOGIC SETTING
The Crystal River Park Subdivision is located on a topographic bench on the west side of ~1 0
the Crystal River valley near the southeast limb of the Grand Hogback monocline. The
Parker 303-841-71t9 * Colorado Springs 719-633-5562 · Silverthorne 970-468-1989
-2-
Grand Hogback is a geologic structure that was fom~ed during the Lararnide orogeny
about 40 to 80 million years ago. The near surface soils in this part of the Crystal River
valley consist mainly of alluvial fans and colluvium on valley sides and varying ages of
river alluvium in the valley bottom adjacent to the Crystal River. Lots 15, 16, and 17 are
located on a series of coalescing alluvial fans in the west part of the Crystal River Park
Subdivision. Lot 15 is located about 300 feet southeast of a fan head and the main
drainage on the fan runs through the southwestern part of the lot. Lot 17 is located
about 600 feet southeast of a fan head and an ephemeral drainage runs through the
eastern side of the lot. The area is underlain by the Penman and Pennsylvanian-age
Maroon Formation which crops out on steep cliff faces on the west sides of the valley
above the project site (Tweto and Others, 1978). The Maroon Formation consists of red,
interbedded sandstone, conglomerate and siltstone.
A northwest trending high-angle fault, downthrown on its east side is located on the
hillside about 1,200 feet west of the project site. The fault is geologically old and is
not considered to be potentially active. The closest geologically young fault zones to the
property with known or suspected post-glacial activity, movement within about the last
15,000 years, and considered capable of generating large earthquakes, are the Williams
Fork Mountain fault zone located about 77 miles to the northeast and the southern section
of the Sawatch fault zone located about 62 miles to the southeast (Widmam~ and Others,
1998).
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT
Potential geologic hazards that could affect development on Lots 15, 16, and 17 are debris
flows, rockfall, potentially unstable slopes and snow avalm~che. The snow avalanche
impacts for the three lots have been addressed by Mears (2004) and are beyond the scope
of our review. Potential debris flow, rockfall, and unstable slope impacts that could affect
the three lots are discussed below.
Debris Flows: The alluvial fans on the three lots are geologically young aud could be the
sites of debris flows associated with intense thunderstorm precipitation or unusually rapid
snowpack melt. Chmmels are poorly developed on the fans on the three lots and it is not
possible to predict the path that a debris flow or flood will take as it travels down the fans.
Without long-term observations, which are not available, it is not possible to estimate
statistical recurrence probabilities for debris flow or flood events on the alluvial fans with
a high level of confidence. Considering the regional setting, the statistical recurrence of
Job No.105 426
-3-
major debris flows in the alluvial fans in the three lots is probably in the range of 50 to
greater than 100 years. A major debris flow event could result in damage to buildings on
the three lots and present a safety risk to the occupants of those buildings. In our opinion,
the debris flow risk is not acceptable and mitigation to reduce the riskis recommended if
the three lots are built on. Additional studies will be needed to evaluate the feasibility of
mitigation and to develop mitigation plans if mitigation is shown to be feasible
Rockfall Potential: Rockfall on the steep cliffs located about 500 feet northwest of the
three lots is an active geologic process under current environmental conditions and, in
our opinion, the three lots are in the potential rockfall runout zone. Rockfall in the
vicinity of Lots 15, 16, and 17 likely has a statistical recurrence probability greater than
100 years. However, a high velocity rockfall similar to past rockfalls on Lot 15, Lot 16,
or Lot 17 would result in severe damage to buildings and other facilities and will present
a life safety risk to the occupants of the buildings. During our field reconnaissance of the
property, several large rockfall blocks measuring 25 to 35 feet in size with estimated
weights of 5,400 to 14,800 tons were observed on Lots 16 and 17. The runout zone
appears to extend down slope beyond Lots 16 and 17. In our opinion, the rockfall hazard
to the eastern part of Lot 16 and all of Lot 17 is severe and will likely require extensive
mitigation. The rockfall potential on Lot 15 does not appear to be as severe as that on
Lots 16 and 17, however, Lot 15 is exposed to a significant rockfall hazard.
Outcrop stabilization in the source area will not be a feasible mitigation method for the
three lots due to the size and remoteness of the source from the property. A massive earth
catching structure located up slope of the occupied buildings is the type of mitigation that
may be feasible considering the size of past rockfall. Additional studies will be needed to
evaluate the feasibility of using a massive earth catching structures for rockfall
mitigation.
Construction-Related Slope Instability: The natural slopes on the hillside of lots 15
and 16 are 50% or greater. Cuts made into the steep hillside deposits on these lots will
have a relatively high potential for construction-related slope instability and engineered
plans will be required for site grading. Site specific geotechnical studies will be
required to evaluate the stability condition of the hillside deposits on Lots 15 and 16 to
develop appropriate grading criteria.
LIMITATIONS
This study was conducted according to generally accepted engineering geology principles
and practices in this area, at this time. We make no warranty either express or implied.
The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based on our field
Job No.105 426 ~
-4-
observations, previous regional geologic studies and mapping, and our experience in the
area. This report has been prepared exclusively for our client to evaluate the potential
influence of the geology on the proposed development. The infom~ation is suitable for
preliminary evaluations. We m'e not responsible for technical interpretations by others of
our infom~ation. Additional geologic assessments and geoteclmical analyses will be
needed to evaluate if debris flow and rockfall mitigations are feasible on the three lots.
If you have any questions or need further assistance, please let us l-a~ow.
Respectfully Submitted,
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Arthur D. Buck
Engineering Geologist
Reviewed by:
Steven L. Pawla
cc: Davis-Horn, Inc. - A~
REFERENCES
Mears, Arthur 1., 2004, Avalanche Mapping and Hazard Analysis, Lots 15, ! 6, ! 7,
Crystal River Park Subdivision, Pitkin Coio~ty, Colorado: Prepared for Zack
Satrang, ZTS Construction, Inc., January, 2004.
Tweto, Ogden and Others, 1978. Geology iliaR of the Leadville ] °X 2 ° Quadrangle,
Northwestern Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey Map 1-999.
Widmam~, Beth L., Kirkham, Robert M., and Rogers, William P., 1998. Preliminary
Quaternary Fault and Fold Map and Database qf Colorado. Colorado Geological
Survey, Open File Report 98-8.
.lob No,105 426 C.-~'tOGlq
. .]un 20 OS 02:32p YUSEM / HORI'~
PITKIN COUNTY PRE-APPIgICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PROJECT: Crystal River ParE, Lots 15,16, 17
LOCATION: Crystal Valley
APPLICANT: Zack Satrang
REPRESENTATIVE: Glenn Horn
DATE: June I, 2005
9'70 925-5180
PID#??? ( please provide)
PH: 925-6587 E-MAIL: ghorn~rof, net
LancZ'~"arke,~.~,~ 920-5452
PLANNER:
.>
Type of Application: Request for..C,o, nstrained Ldt TDR (s)
Description of ProjectfDevelopment: The Applicant is proposing the folloadng approval:
1. Determination that Lots I5, 16, and 17 are "Constrained" and eligible for a grant of TDR(s).
Land Use Code Sections to be addressed in letter of request (application'):
Section 3-310-050: Constrained Site Transferable Development Rights (Ord. # 052-2004)
Staff will refer the application to the fallowing agencies: Crystal Caucus, Crystal River Park HOA
Review by: Corrmmnlry Development Director for Determination. BOCC for possible Grant of TDR(s)
Public Hearing: No.
FEES: $1,006 (make check payable to "Pitkin County Treasurer")
· Planning Office flat fee: $896 (non-refundable; based on 4 hours of staff time; ifstaffreview time exceeds 5 hours,
the Applicant will he charged for additional time above the 5 hours at a rate of $224faour)
· Clerk flat fee: $110
To apply, submit 7 copies of the following information, unless noted otherwise:
1. Summary letter explaining the request, providing background on prior approvals and perm/ts, and addressing
compliance with the Code sections listed above.
2. Documentation of Lots' status as "undevelopable or severely restricted" under Land Use Code.
3. Proof o f ownership of subject property
4. Parcel description, including legal description and vicirdty map
5. Total fee for review of the application
6. Signed fee agreement (2 copies)
7. Consent from owner(s) to process application and anthorizing the representative (1 copy)
8. Copy of this preapp form (1 copy)
NOTES:
PLEASE SUBMIT TWO-SIDED COPIES OF ALL APPLICATION MA TERIALS (IF POSSIBLE).
ALL MAPS SHALL BE FOLDED.
This pre-application conference summaty is advisory in nature and not binding on the County- The iqformation
provided in this summary is based on current zoning standards and staff's interpretations based upon
representations of the applicant. Additional information may be required upon a complete review of the application.
· ~un 20 05 02:32~ YUSE~ ? HOrN
9?O 925-St80
p.3
PITKIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
AGREEMENT FOR PAYMENT OF LAND USE APPLICATION FEES
P[TKIN COUNTY (hercinat'tcr COUNTY) and 7'.'-~ ~ ~Ttun. t.-'rtot'~ '~_~C....
(hereinaD. er APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. APPLICANT has submitted to COUNTY an application for C...x.~ ~ ~-
~..e..~g.~--'e,'l- (hereinafter, THE PROJECT).
2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that Pitkin County Ordinance No~ 011-2005 establishes a
fee structure for land use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a
determination of application completeness. The tee structure is based on the County's policy that development
shall pay, in full. the cost of development review in Pitldn County. Fees have been set to be consistent and fair
to the public and to reflect the expense incurred i.t providing such services to the public.
3. APPLICANT and COUNTY agree that becatkse of the size, nature or scope of the proposed
project, it may not be possible at the time of application to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in
processing the application.
4. APPLICANT and COUNTY agree that fees charged for the processing of land use applications
shall accumulate if an application includes more than one type of land use review.
5. COUNTY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for COU~NTY staffto complete
processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or Board of County
Commissioners to enable the Planning Commission anti, or Board of County Commissioners to make legally
required findings for project approval, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision.
6. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the COUNTY's waiver of its fight to
collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay a base fee in the
amount ors ~,C>O~ which is based on~"~ hou-s of staff time, and if actual time spent by staffto process the
application ~xceeds the average number of hours by more than 20%, then the COUNTY will bill the
APPLICANT quarterly for the additional time spent. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of
the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for
suspension of processing.
PITKIN COUNTY
APPLICANT
Cindy Houben
Community Development Director
Effective 5/25/05
Mailing Address:
, Jun 20 OS 02:32p YUSEM / HORM 970 925-5180
ZACK SATRA~G
ZTS CONSTRUCTION INC.
607 HEMLOCK DRIVE
WINDSOR, COLORADO 80550
June 20, 2005
Lance Clarke AICP
Pitkin county community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: SATR/tNG CONSTRAINED LOT APPLICATION
This letter authorizes Davis Horn Incorporated to prepare a Request
for a Constrained Lot Review for three lots located in Crystal
River Subdivision Second Addition (.Lots.15, 16 and 17) owned by ZTS
Construction Incorporated.
Davis Horn Incorporated and Tom Smith will represent ZTS
Construction Incorporated in the land us~ review, process.
Sincerely,
COiPORATED
Clarke.325