HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.planning.246515300006,246515300007,246522300010,246522200004 (1995)(2)DOCUMENT LAYOUT
THIS FILE MAY OR MAY NOT CONTAIN ALL OF THE INFORMATION
LISTED BELOW IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER
Summary Sheet
Resolution for the BOCC and/or P&Z
Ordinance for the BOCC and/or P&Z
Determination for the Hearing Officer
Administrative Determination
Staff Memo
Application
Public Notice, Acceptance Letter, Referral(s) Letter
Site Plan
Miscellaneous
Plat copies (llxl'~
d µv{.d Y~+^k'.='': s+..:. I.. ACS
~' '~~2465-153-00-006246 ..~~RRTER6VP: ~ itwrrt~:~ t.wopt ~iruco-~o
~ GravesJBenVLeonhardt 1041 HR 8 Gen Subm PLNR:~
__
Parcels 3, 8,10 & 14 W Sopris Creek Ranch Sub I
_-,
_..
'- .~ Graves Bent Leonhar ~;. ~~G~/~: ~~
~`.~~.._
;n,.,~~ IES~ROV~Y~ A4t.OCA'i'EDHDURS:~
,. ;-. ; ::. <,; . ; . Y, OVER: ~._
!...
_. .:.-b.rar:_;:,'!~. is ,~ -
.. .,
,r• , ..~ .
,:.- ... N
~j~w~_ ~ ~,1`~ BOCC :~ No
• "" ~ 8OC:C R880: 95-168#385947, 95-179
%~ kS.
_ No
2465-223-00-007 & 010 Graves 2465-222-00-004 Leonhardt 2465- P2: ~~+
- ~ : ~ 153-00-006 Bent BOCC Reso #95-179 #386815 B36 P91
`~ `. #288232 638 P92 #388233 B38 P93 #388234 HRG OFF. ~-
_ •.
~.
Y:
.... .........1
.,,.~.,,e.;
..,
ADMRJ•
:'.dp'i';; : ~ ., y..~; ,~e;x::~~trrt~. _ - w•.~y .
z.-;;..::: -... ... :
~....:.~a: ~-a . #0,'.= :' ' ~ ~ 368235 ADt.~N INDEX: r -
S:
- 1041 Hazard Review C0.SETYM~: ,~__
',`~ s I
a~, ~: ..~._~...
:. '~~. General Submission t'~48E"iNP6:
,,:
,,,, ~?f?A:~. pd~''S~allnid: 6/z/o7
~u..~• .. ~..-
, d~ ~ ~ _
~..;_ # X354628 ,.3~~ ~ 10:46 -•.~
~. 9o Rec 2, r> > ,~
-^»-_ i vilvia Devi C Rk' 705 F"` ",420
7 rit4ein Cnty Clerk., Doc R. r(,<
RESOLIITION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF PZTRIN COIINTY`, COLORADO GRANTING
1041 HAZARD REVIEW AND GENERAL SIIBMISS`ION`APPROVAL
TO THE HARRIS BENT APPLICATION
Resolution No. 93-~
RECITALS
L George J. Harris Jr. and Dorthea Sent, hereinafter
"Applicants", have applied to the .Board of County
Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, hereinafter "Board",
for the following land use approvals:
a. 1041 Environmental Hazard Review, pursuant to Section 5-
400;
b. General Submission, pursuant to Section 6-3;
2. The Applicant's parcel is zoned RS=30".
3. The applicants. propose to construct a single family
residence and a detached garage/owner's .artist. .studio
accessory structure on a parcel of land which is approximately
35 acres in size.
4. Said parcel is known as Lot 13, Terliamis Subdivision;
located approximately two miles north of 'the intersection of
the Terliamis subdivision; road and. West Sopris Creek Road;
Section iS,Township 8 South, Range 87 West; more specifically
described in Exhibit "A"; and
5. The Planning and Zoning Commission heard the application
at their regularly scheduled meeting on November 17, 1992, at
which time they recommended conditional 1041 Hazard and
..~ ..~ .xi,a~ , ~.a.. ~ ._
#.;;,46^3 ~;;3/~~S/93 10:40 Fec ~. C.~~~ Bk: 705 F'6 ~~
Silvia Davis, F rin Cnty Cler4;, Doc $,(jQ
,..
Resolution No. 93-~
Page 2
General Submission approval of the. development proposal to the
Board.
.,, , _ _,,
6. The Board heard this application, at their regularly
scheduled meeting on January 12, 1993, at which time evidence
and testimony was presented with respect to .this application.
At this meeting, the Board moved to continue this case to a
regularly scheduled Board meeting on February 9,1993 to allow
the Board time to visit the site. The Board also directed
Staff to gather additional information regarding the wildlife
and wildfire hazards on the property.
7. Members of the board of County Commissioners visited the
site on February 8, 1993.
8. The Board reviewed. this case again at a regularly
scheduled meeting on February 9, 1993 at which time additional
information regarding wildfire and wildlife was considered and
additional testimony from the applicant was heard.
9. The Board finds that the Applicants have complied with
applicable Land Use Code criteria for a 1041 Hazard Review and
General Submission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE ZT RESOLVED by the Board that it does
hereby grant General Submission. and 1041 Hazard Review approval to
the Harris/Bent application subject to the following conditions:
1041 HAZARD REVIEW
1. To mitigate impacts to Wildlife habitat, the applicant shall
comply with the following measures:
a. Dogs shall be prohibited..
b. Fencing shall be prohibited, unless necessary to fence out
. ~ ~ w.;
#3546.^_8 U3/C.~E~° ~~~- ~ ,r f ~ ,.. ~ 1
13:46 Fec ~.dn Pf 705 F'G ~22
Silvia Davis, F'itk:in Cnty Cler4.., Doc ~,6<~ "`
.esolution No. 93-~ ~~~~"'~~~
'age 3
cattle grazing on adjacent BLM lands, in which case it shall
- be a maximum height of 42", smooth strand wire, 4 strand or
less with a 12" kick space between the top 2 strands, or split
rail.
`c. Native vegetation shall be preserved outside of the building
envelope in compliance with U.S.F.S. requirements. Grazing
outside of the"envelope shall be prohibited.
d. All development, with the exception of the access drive and
utilities within that alignment, .shall be limited to the
building envelope designated on the site plan.
e. An easement shall be granted to the Division o'f Wildlife to
accommodate access to winter ranges for the purpose of
trapping, tagging, or otherwise studying wildlife, and for the
purpose of dog control and enforcement.
f: All trash on the property shall be kept bear proof containers.
2: To mitigate geologic hazards on site the following measures.
shall apply:
a. No development shall occur on slopes exceeding 30g.
b. A professional engineer shall review and approve
foundation design for the home prior to building permit
application.
c. The building site shall be revegetated with native
grasses to limit water consumption and additional runoff.
In addition, all surface drainage shall be contained on
site through the use of drywells.
3. Wildfire mitigation shall be as follows:
a. Residential sprinkler systems shall=be installed in the
residence and artist studio.
b. The applicant shall install an underground water storage
tank to accommodate a minimum of 2,000 gallohs. Capacity
and location shall be determined by the Basalt and Rural
District Fire Marshal.
c. All roofs shall be kept cleared of debris.
d. The base of the building(s) shall be kept cleared of
weeds"and debris.
e. Firewood. shall be stacked on a contour away from
building(s).
f. At least one .ten pound ABC class fire extinguisher shall
be placed in each structure.
g. Regarding vegetation:
1) All vegetation shall be removed within 10 feet of the
structure. This area should be maintained in the future
as low groundcover such as mowed grass.
2) Vegetation shall be thinned within a minimum of 30
feet around the structure(s) with a minimum of 10 ft.
crown separation between clumps of oak/serviceberry.
„.._
#{~~ 44^E3 U3/.U8/93~'^.0:4cr Rec ~.irU Bk: 'i'Q'S FG 4;.
Silvia Davis,P~ ..-in Cnty Cler4r., Doc $.Gci
Resolution No. 93-/~ .
Page 4
Remaining clumps shall not have an aggregate crow'
diameter in excess of 10 feet. Dead limbs and ladder
fuels that would carry fire into the crowns of brusY
shall be eliminated. Slash shall be properly disposed
of by chipping, hauling away, or piling and burning
during a safe time period.
3) Vegetation density shall be reduced by thinning out
to a distance of at least 100 feet from structures.
4) Maintenance of the "defensible space° shall be
required annually.
h. Any additional proposed buildings within the building
envelopes shall incorporate wildfire hazard .mitigation
measures.
i. Non-combustible roof material including tile, asphalt,
metal or Class B Certi-Guard (registered brand name) Red
Label shake's and shingles utilizing Class B construction
techniques (1/2" minimum solid sheathing) or better,
shall be required for all structures of the subdivision..
j. Addresses shall be clearly marked and visible with min.
2" letters.
k. All power and telephone lines shall be buried along the
driveway alignment.
1. The driveway shall be improved to comply with. County
standards. Pull-offs shall be located on the driveway
to accommodate two-way traffic.
4. The septic system designed for the site shall meet. the
approval of the Environmental Health Department. The
applicant shall obtain approval prior to issuance of a
building permit..
5. A more detailed drainage plan shall be submitted for review
and approval by the County Engineer prior to issuance of a
building permit.
6. The home shall be limited to a maximum height of 26 feet. The
home shall also be limited in floor area to_2400 square feet
,,~• with the exception that the floor area of the structure may
~7i ~.#j`~ -be increased by up to 30 percent without further review.Any
Z'~ increase in floor area that exceeds 30' percent of the
7~~ ~ permitted 2400 square feet will require further review by the
p ~ Board of County Commissioners. The home shal araee shall
structure with anon-reflective roof. The q g
utilize similar exterior materials and shall be one story in
height.
~. The. applicant shall revegetate all areas disturbed by
construction within one growing season of construction.
8. Outside illumination shall comply with Pitkin County Lighting
#3S46~E o3/~~E/9 i~'*k,4~ fiec ~. <~p Eth:` 705 F'G 424
Silvia Davis, Pi tf.. ,w' Cnty C1 erL , Doc $ tl<j ~y/Q/~~q/~
Resolution No. 93-~~ `~-'~~`''}f1 S
Page 5 ~~~~~
regulations in effect at the time lding permit issuance.
Exterior lighting of the second story of the residence shall.
be prohibited.
9. The proposed art studio shall comply with the requirements for
Home Occupations as defined in Article 20 of the Pitkin County
Land Use Code, and shall not be used as a commercial studio.
l0. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant
shall upgrade the subdivision road and access driveway to the
site to meet County standards as specified by the County
Engineer. The applicant shall obtain an earthmoving and
access permit from the County Engineer prior to issuance of
a building permit,
11. The applicant shall comply with Pitkin County air quality
standards in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
12. The .applicant shall record a 24 x 36 inch _mylar site plan
which meets the approval of the Planning Office and County
Attorney prior to the issuance of any building permits for the
property.
a. The following 1041 Hazard Review Warning and Disclaimer
shall be noted on the Plat:
"The provisions of these regulations do not in any
way assure or imply that areas outside of designated
hazard areas will be free from hazards, or that
approved mitigation measures will. guarantee the
safety of any property."
13. The applicant shall waive their right to compensation from the
Division of Wildlife for property damage caused by bears.
14. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and in public meetings shall be adhered to,
15. The .applicant shall provide an easement through the subject
.property providing access to the Division of Wildlife, BLM and
County radio personnel to access radio transmission towers,.
adjacent to the site. The easement. shall be recorded within
six months of signature of the resolution of approval,. and
prior to issuance of a building permit.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1993.
BOARD OF COONTY COMMISSIONERS.
OF PITRIN CODNTY, COLORADO
#354625 Cr3/OS/93 "";':40 Few ~ UU F:K: 705 F'6 425 •~`
Silvis Davis, F'it` '.~ Cnty C1er4; Doc $.00 "' ~~°
Resolution No. 93-~
Page 6
By ~ ~~,~
Bill Ttibit , Ch n-~~
Date ~ '- ~ -" ~~
ST:
eanette Jo ,
Deputy Cou Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
--~--~
Timothy E. Wh' itt
County Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Suza a RorTchan,
County Planning Director
reso harrisbent 1041
#354628 U/93 iC;.4U Rec' ~.cjC~ Bi; 705G 426
.' Silvia Davis, F'itF:in Cnty Cler};, Doc ~.CiC~
EXfIIHI'l' A
~~ NES'P SOPR15 RANCH, PARCEL 19: A De'rcel oP lehd situated in
the Neat 1/2 oP Section 15, T65, R67N of the 6th P.H., sore
psrtieuiarly described as Polioaa: Esaginning at the SN -
corner oP eeid Section 15; thence SN8o53'16" E. 1979.S1 Peet
to the True Po1nt oC Be;inning; thence continuing S6b~53'I6"
E. B59.// Y,tet; thence N0o5'L'u9" E. Y990.'00"feet; thence
NBfio53'18" N. tsby.58 Pest; Chenca SOo52'24" N.'2340.00 feet
to the True Point oP BeQinining, ns hereinbePore dsecribed.
Sub3eot to: The non-exclusive right to use in perpatuity an
eaeenent Pifty Peet in xidth for inKreas and egress niong
roadways as ere eppatent end canetruuted and in plane
axtending Yron thu Pitkin County road on Neat"Sopria Crbek
through portions uP the SE1/~ 'o l' the NNI/4, E1/7 of the
5111/4, of Section 15; the N1/2 oP Section 22; Lhe N1/2 of the
NN1/4, Lota S and 2, oY Section 27, All in 9'. 6 5., R. 87 N.,
6th Prinoipnl Heridian.
Cannty of t'itkin, Stste oY Colotad,~
38681°i B-797 G-865 ~/C7/95 1Z~::79A PG 1 OF~ REC DOC NC
5IL:!IA DRVIS FiTKIN COUNTY CLERK & RECORDED " 0.02
.~
RESOLDTION OF THE BOARD bF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITRIN
COIINTY COLORADO, RESCINDING'A PREVIOUS RESOLUTION OF 'DENIAL
U AND GRANTING APPROVAL OF THE GRAVES/BENT/LEONHARDT `~
~ 1041 HAZARD REVIEW & GENERAL SUEMISSION" `
`_ 5' Resolution No. 95-
RECITALS V
1. Lauren Graves, Dorthea Bent, and Anne Leonhardt;
~'~ hereinafter "Applicants", have applied to the Board of County
._
...
Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, hereinafter"Board", for
approval of the construction of single-family residences on
°~ separate. lots in the West Sopris Creek Subdivision; pursuant to the ~
~~.~ Pitkin County Land Use Code.
2. The Applicant's lots are zoned RS-30 and are each over
c ;-
:-z 35 acres in size.
~, J
ti ~ 3. Said lots are described as Lots 3,8,10 and 14 of the West
..~
Sopris Creek Subdivision (formerly the Terliams Tracts). ,S~ ~
,~ 4. The Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed
this application on June 20,' 1995 and has` forwarded a
fi recommendation of denial to the Board, based on severe wildfire
~~ s
~,T hazard on all four of the subject properties.
u
r~
"' S. The Board heard this application at a duly noticed public
li' LL
hearing on September 27,..1995; at which time evidence and testimony
ti~
4 Iy
`''~~ was presented with respect to this. application.
6. The Board determined that the proposed development does
not meet the criteria established in Section 3-80.70 of the Land
Use Code. The Board voted unanimously to deny the application as
E
R
.:, .,.< , a ,,.~~~<. ~~.
,.,8E+8i5 P-797 F-BE+E ~0/c7/95 1~D;~9A PG ~ OF
F
3esolution No. 95-~
Page 2
evidenced by Resolution No. 95-168.
7. Pursuant to Sections 3-290, 4-150 and 5-220 of the Land
Use Code the Applicants filed for a Takings Determination Hearing.
8. The Board of County Commissioners heard the Applicant's
appeal of the September 27, 1995`denial on October 11, 1995, at
which time further evidence and testimony was presented with
respect to the application.
9. The Board determined that the previous denial does
;: constitute a regulatory taking as defined in the Pitkin County Land
Use Code. In order to avoid this situation, the Board resolved that
.~ the Applicant will be granted an approval to build single-family
`~ residences on the subject
7 properties, provided. the Applicants
`` comply with all other required conditions of approval in this
Vj
document.
~~ NOW, THEREFORE, HE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
~,
5 Commissioners of Pitkin County, 'Colorado that it does hereby
,~
rescind Resolution No. 95-168, attached as Exhibit A.
n HE IT FIIRTHER RESOLVED by the Board that it does hereby
;~ approve the Graves/Bent/Leonhardt 1041 Hazard Review and General
m Submission, subject to the following conditions:
a
h
1. The Applicants shall adhere to all material representations
made in the application and in the public meetings.
',~ 2. Prior to building permit .application, the Applicants shall
-~ record a 24 x 36 inch mylar 1041 Hazard Review Site Plan for
r` each Lot which meets the approval of the Planning Office and
County Attorney.
a. The .following 1041 Hazard -Review Warning and
Disclaimer shall be noted on the Plat:"
:86815 B-797 G-867 c7/95 1~:,_9A GG ,:,` OF g
q a
_;y >
` ` -'
T~esolution No. 95-~
Page 3
"The provisions of these regulations do not in any
way assure or imply that areas outside of designated
hazard areas will be free from hazards, or that
approved mitigation measures will guarantee the
safety of any property."
3. The Applicants shall obtain access permits from the County
Engineer, prior to issuance of ..building permits.
4. The Applicants shall submit drainage and erosion control plans
to the County Engineer for each development, prior to the
issuance of building permits.
5. Outside illumination shall comply with County" lighting
standards in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
na
6. The Applicants shall comply with the recommendations of the
DOW as follows:
a. Native vegetation shall be preserved within the building
"' envelopes to the maximum extent possible.
b. Dogs are prohibited.
n~
` c. Fencing shall be a maximum height of 42", 4 strands or
` :less with a 12" kickspaee between the top 2 strands. Any
~ rail .fencing shall be the round type, 48", 3-rail or less
~: with at least 18" between 2 of the rails.
w.
d. All garbage shall be kept within bear-proof garbage
~ containers. The DOW can supply specifications upon
.., request (North American Bear Society specifications).
e. Horses shall be confined to the approved building
;. envelopes. All hay shall be fenced with 8 foot game-
'
,~ proof fencing.
~ f. The Applicants shall construct low profile homes.
;~
~
w 7. Wildfire mitigation shall be as follows:
a. A sprinkler system or a foam fire retardant system shall
u be installed in each residence. The systems shall meet
`~ the standards of the Basalt Fire Protection District and
~ the Uniform Building Code..
~•:
b. The Applicants shall have available for firefighting, a
water storage facility to accommodate a minimum of .1,000
gallons for each lot. Capacity and location shall be
approved by the Basalt District Fire Marshal.
386815 R-797 G-868 1'`;_7/95 10:~9A PG 4 OF 9
Resolution No. 95-~
Page 4
c. -Roofs and gutters shall be kept clear of debris.
d. Yards shall be kept clear of all ..litter, slash, and
flammable debris.,
e. Firewood. shall be stacked_on a parallel contour a minimum
of 15 feet. away from any structure.
f. At least one ten. pound .approved ABC class fire
extinguisher shall be placed in a visible and accessible
location for each structure.
g. Swimming pools shall be accessible_to Fire Department
;,~ vehicles.
i. h. Fences shall be .kept clear of brush and debris.
i. Wood fences shall not be connected to the structure.
V
_, j. Fuel tanks shall be installed underground with an
= approved container.
1
k. Regarding vegetation:
y 1) All vegetation shall be removed within 10 feet of
,,~ structures. This area should be maintained in the future
~^ as low ground cover (to a height not more than 6'inches).
.,
. f:
:~ 2) Vegetation shall be thinned within a minimum of
100 feet around all structures, with a minimum of 20 feet
'~ crown separation. between clumps of oak/serviceberry.
~ Remaining clumps shall not' have an aggregate crown
diameter. in--:excess of 20 .feet. Dead limbs and ladder
f fuels that could carry. fire into the crowns of the brush
'= shall be eliminated ...slash shall be properly disposed of
-by chipping, hauling away, or piling and burning during
T a safe time period.
3) Maintenance of the "defensible space" shall be
required in order to retain it's value as wildfire
,,,~ mitigation. oak" and serviceberry` `tend to sprout
s vigorously after outtinq, so it will be Necessary to trim
back vegetation every year or two.
m
rr
1. Any additional proposed buildings within the building
envelopes shall incorporate wildfire mitigation measures.
m. Structural Design and Construction Requirements:
1. Roof construction shall be Class A, non-combustible
(no wood shake/shingles) material with no flat
386815 P-797 F'-869 i''~"'7/95 1~ec9A F'G 5 OF 9
'Resolution No. 95-~
Page 5
roofs.
2. Vents shall be screened with corrosive resistent
wire mesh. with mesh 1/4 inch maximum.
n. Structural Design and Construction Options:
1. Projections at the roof. line. .(which include but are
not limited to eaves, cornices, soffits, and roofs
' over open decks) shall be sheathed with materials.
approved for 1-hour.fire-resistive construction...
2. For projections below the roof line (which include
but are not limited to exterior balconies, decks,
porches, cantilevered floor projections, and bay
;_; windows) the open space between grade and the
underside of projections below the Yoof line shall
be enclosed by solid, vertical walls. These walls
shall be constructed with materials approved for 1
hour fire-resistive construction on the exterior
~,, side of the wall and shall extend from the top of
4 grade to the underside. of the floor decking or walls
_ of the projection.
L.i
'~
"~ 3. Windows shall be made of tempered glass.
4. Exterior siding and wall construction shall have a
°~ minimum 1 hour fire-resistive ratin
g, ground level
~ to roof line.
~::
ca
5.
Foundations, skirting and crawl space openings shall
~-' be fully enclosed and constructed with materials
.
approved for 1 hour fire-resistive construction on
~
n the exterior side of the walls and shall extend from
~` the top of grade to the underside of `the floor
u decking or walls.
~ 6. The underside of decks and structures with stilt
n foundations shall be fully enclosed and constructed
~; with materials approved for 1 hour fire-resistive
construction on the exterior side of the walls and
shall extend from the top of grade to the underside
s, of the floor. decking or walls.
m o. Addresses shall be clearly marked and visible with
"' minimum 2" letters.
p. All utility extensions shall be buried within the
driveway alignment.
q. Propane tanks shall be installed according to NFPA 48
.;,86815 P-797,. G-870 10!-'x/95 10:c9A F'6 E OF 9
Resolution No. _95-~~
Page 6
standards and on a contour away from the structure with
standard defensible space vegetation mitigation around
any above-ground tank.. Any wood enclosure around the tank....
shall. be constructed with materials approved for 2 hour.,...
fire-resistive construction on the exterior side of the
walls. _ _., .. __
8. The Applicants shall .consider.. purchasing a portable foam
system for fire fighting that can be accessed and utilized. by
the residents of the subdivision and firefighting personnel.
9. Prior to issuance ,of building permits, the .Applicants shall
provide documentation of an adequate domestic water supply.
Quantity and quality of said supply shall meet the approval
~„ of the Environmental Health Department.
.-
1 10. The septic systems designed for each site shall meet the
^- approval of the Environmental Health Department. The
Applicants. shall obtain such. approval prior to the issuance..
~ of building permits.
~~
li. The Applicants shall obtain fireplace/woodstove permits from
;;_ Environmental Health Department, prior to the issuance of
~ building permits.
-:~
~, 12. No development, including disturbance of vegetation and
~~ grading, shall occur outside of the building 'envelopes, other
c+ than that required .for wildfire_mitgation, construction of
the access driveways and necessary utility extensions within
the access driveway.
'" 13. The building sites shall be revegetated with native grasses
,~ to limit water consumption and additional runoff, immediately
m following project completion.
=' 14. The principal structures shall be limited in size to .5,000
square feet of floor area. All structures shall be limited to
~., a maximum height of 20 feet.
n
15. The Applicants shall waive their .right to any compensation
from the Division. of ..Wildlife for ,property damage caused by
~_~, .bears.
~ 16. Building foundations shall. be reviewed and_ certified by a
~ Colorado registered professional engineer. The certified
,a foundation plans shall be included with the building permit
submittal.
17. The access driveways for Lots 3, 8 & 10 shall be reviewed and
certified by a registered engineer or surveyor, prior to the
issuance of an access permit.
38E81~ B-797 F'-871 10/{?7~aw'0,~5 1Q~:c9A F'G 7' OF 9
~ ~.
;,..
'Resolution No. 95-( ~/
Page 7
18. The Applicant shall obtain Board of Adjustment approval of a
variance to the front yard setback for Lot 10, prior to the
issuance Of a building permit.
19. The Applicants and future owners and,ass,igns shall maintain
membership in the Stone Road Association.,
APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE 11TH DAY, OF OCTOBER, 1895
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF PITRIN COIINTY, COLORADO
Da
ATTEST:
Jeainette Jones~%
Deputy Clerk and Recorder
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
AS TO CONTENT:
Ja;tlt--ELY, ~ 'rim~l~aa++a+yi
1 ~ County Attorney Acting Community
'{~55 " Director
3871 k'~c R-798 F'-701 11 /G6795 k'~4: c8F' F'G 7 OF 1.3
reso_graves_1041
t1
AGENDA ITEM 3IIMMARY
TO: Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners
Regular Meeting - October 11, 1995
TERII: Tim Malloy, Acting Community Development Director
FROM: Rick Magill, Planner.
RE: Graves/Bent/Leonhardt Takings Determination Hearing
SII2~SARY: Staff has reviewed the information provided by the
Applicants and the criteria in Section 3-290 of the Pitkin County
Land Use Code for determining whetYier a"taking has occur'red.`Staff
finds that the Board's denial of the Graves/Bent Leonhardt 1041
Environmental Hazard. Review andGeneral ~Subinission application
constitutes a taking.
REQUEST: The Applicants have requested a "Takings Determination
Hearing" pursuant to Section 3-29.0 of the Pitkin County Land Use
Code. This request has been made as a result of the .Board's
September 27th denial of the Graves/Bent/Leonhardt application for
1041 Environmental Hazard Review 'and General Submission.
BACKGROUND: On September 27, 1995 (within the required 15 day
period), the. Applicants submitted a written request for a takings
determination. The Applicant's letter of request includes the
information required by Section 5-220 in the .Code (.submission
requirements). Section 4-150 of the Code requires that the Board
conduct a hearing within 15 days of the receipt of the ';written
request.
APPLICANTS: Lauren Graves, Dorthea Bent, and Anne Leonhardt
LOCATION: The West Sopris Creek Subdivision .(formerly known as the
Terliamis Tracts) is located approximately 3 miles from .Emma, off
of West Sopris Creek Road .__
FINDINGS: Staff finds that the Board's denial of the 1041/General
Submission application (Case #P28=95)'constitutes a "taking" since
there are no developable areas on the property outside of confirmed
severe wildfire hazard and that the denial resulted in the removal
of all reasonable use and economic return from the subject
properties.
RECOMMENDATION: If the Board of County Commissioners concurs with
_. ~. ., . x _ ~ ..,
Staff's finding that a "takingsr'~ has occurred by virtue of the
Board's 1041/General Submission denial of this application, Staff
has included conditions of approval for the construction of single-
family residences on Lots 3, 8, 10 and 14 of the West Sopris Creek.
Ranch Subdivision in the attached resolution.
,., _ . ~ ~ w. , ~~z
---
~+a ~f~iB~T ,~
385947 ~ B-795 P-90 09/x" 95 O1:SiP PG 1 OF 2 REC DOC NO
3ILVIR DAVIS PITY.IN GUUNTY CLERK_8 RECORDER 1 0.00
RESOLIITION OF THE. BOARD OF COUNTY CO2~ISSIONERS OF PITRIN
COIINTY COLORADO, DENYING TSE GRAVESJHENT/LEONHARDT
1041 SA2ARD REVIEW 'GENERAL SIISMISSION
Resolution No. 95-~d
.y
RECITALS
~;
1. Lauren Graves, Dorthea Bent, and Anne Leonhardt, w
;,
hereinafter "Applicants", have applied to the Board pf ..County
m
;~;
Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, hereinafter "Board", far
approval of u'~e construction of single-family residences on
separate lots in the~~7est Sopris Creek Subdivision, pursuant to the. ~.
w
Pitkin County Land Use Cqde.
2. The Applicant's lots are zoned RS-30 ahd are each over ;';
m
35 acres in size. T~
r;
3. Said lots are described as Lots 3,8,10 and 14 of the West ~
Sopris Creek Subdivision. (formerly the TerIiamis Tracts).
-,
4. The Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed
F+
~~a
this application. on June._20, 1995 and has forwarded.. a
recommendation of denial"to the Board, based on severe wildfire
hazard on all four of the subject properties..
5. The Board heard this application at a regularly scheduled
meeting on September 27, 1995, at which time evidence ahd testimony
was presented with respect to this. application.
6. The Board determined that. the proposed development does
not meet the criteria established in Section 3-80.70 (A)(1&2) of
the Land IIse Code.
7. All four. development proposals were found to be
.386815 $-797 P-87^c 1@/7/95 14J:^c9A F'G 8 OF 9
~e~=4~ e,-7y~ r-~-91. k~~, '>~7s ~1:~iP Pr ~ ar-
w ..,
,Resolution No. 95-%
Page 2
unacceptable by the Board based on_the environmental hazards to the.
life and safety of residents .and. emergency response personnel..
NOA, THEREFORE, SE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Pitkin County, .Colorado that_it does hereby deny
the Graves/Bent/Leonhardt 1041. Hazard Review and General
Submission.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE ,;27TH„DAY OF SEP"'EMHER, 1995
BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS
OF PITXIN COIINTY, COLORAlD~}O'~
Michael `C. Ireland, Chairman
Date
ATTEST•
Jeanette Jones _ _.
Deputy Clerk 'and Recorder
~~,
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT.:
~~
John Ely, f,
County Att.oraey
.%
/ ~ :%
Tim Ma11oy~,, - ~
~ Acting ~2.`dmmunity Develoo~
Director
38710c R-798 P-783 11/06/95 04:28F' PG 9 OF 1':
,~~ ~~~: denial
386815 P-797 F'-873 10/='795 10e~9A PG 9 OF 9
t
~:
w ...u.., s~,. ~ ~...,.,~~,~•<._.,m., ...~w..~,~.,~,.~,~.~~~E
l p /~ _ _ .~..~..~
..a~.,----_.....-.~~,~'-----~...__/~'J~~ IY Via, >:z.
~.
_ '.
{~ 2,i~ - a Feb. P„ 1980
y:_ st.
,.~ !, ._ , ~ , ;Zti.li:`U Lor?tta P~anm~r ;;......a.,,
~.. 1 r'. ;'Jt~J .i..: Y~U
i
`` ~~
t•.
i, -
i~ -
l~F
Fr
_,
4t
R
r.
M,
5
L
... _..:c!.!r:•-•.- ;'_• (;;w~r:~, '.tac L•t Sc:cn ~ ic.t
i ~.. •. SanC1 crud ~ta:C •'I
...... ~~ rnia .. , ~ ...~.,n:idr.ra;:'c: ~, ten
. ...~ i .'.. _i Ini faC Cd .pr.t.
GaL. in:~b:utti of lmt t,i••ic ~
fracb::::d of L:^:''-2 Cn~pi~rxnt. ~IC$i U ._. Ku :nand of 1
FiA1F U^.CpSIEl1ApY EFF
FEa a ~sao
~_ ~.
~~~
i ~cr~. 1L1rk :'anPornis, .
':rrt t '. ~. n!'tn Gaut n•nf ..'•~:
. r~:;' riai lu:rhnna. ~, ~ .
. am! titn:~ o: :i.M'a, the fullrnt'inf: rr:d pr. ncr:y.. m the
('aunty r: PiU;i r. .and S'.a:^ of j_Mnrado. to icitt
.1 ?nrcel o'' land situ .trd :n tue ; of
lT ~ v ni' i~ I t':12'CC1 f:.t . .
Sor. ~on ~ .:n<itle ~_: or the ~"+:'. or SCrtior. 27. Toanahi,. S aoufh, &1ciR=
;: tr.~r t;^r Jth P.!.t. rr re ,:.r -cnlarlp leGCribed. as So"ous
> _i.ta ., t• [Ix• Sot ht c'S2 m^+ar of s, td Section ~2 ~' ncn
::. ^n:0') E. ~:S'i.-00 .eat;...thrncr...S.RRo57'06"I:. 6~o.W feet
:. ;... Paint. of 3r•innin~: rh0nce S. ~`i56'12 .'•ti. 7G.06
," tt~ - ,o_.. L, ~9i"n.52feet: thence S. 1002'3]" I:.
I rot. trcnc ~- S. 607-5 ..:
^S.. S: d, tha 5', c0rnor c,' sazc Sr>ction ~2: thenttco¢tinuin~
.. r_ gFS.03 feet: t!tenee S. Sb'o57'0(i" l[. :rJ.22 test
`' l"° " r r.,,.nrir~. cantain:na 35.142 acres :rrirc cY
u. •.:e :.-;, Point e_ i3 ,.
<. .
••.~.a-.~ ~.:ll ro:tCs. e;Lti^iarte _a a^ ~wr~~'~~l oevca^^n' lc 0r r^^d tcr~and
::.^. tt:.. vt .~ cx,r . i^. ~ a to font aide
r'vart.ctcr a ^c+~5 s ! ton >. and funthC re<nn~in~ a
..5._.n `r~nc :•:ec n° a id i m~ert;:.
.,: r•rnanr~-, art! :•: 'ran: ~ -i tar :i:!r !" thr rar.^.e..ubia•;. ;~, ',ktrCCEtn Ik+ed
'a'.'h :.~. .. ~.. .
....< ~ ~ _ .: tir•r_entipn n'rnt:e^ ,. -. --
rr•rordr~ a•. i3CCk~_ ~ 'onc :n aCCOr~anre to the tc"as anG
ttt'aCt: r..;.;tau'y ayg11'nC, find -'TCf _ ..
Qe^r'.1 t1nnS Of 4aiG ~:a^:_:4;r' OC'r'. '--~~
^..
~ ~
..,
• ..~(.i... r." ..
I. ~ar••:dtt
....:. ..' zrN}:<rtxtst..
i ~. .:ntv .~i
S::nt ~ Cnrz
Vo, w', ... ._. n... _..,..._.~
.• ./( ;_
C.i
CD
y
9
F~ii
rD
V
v0
lA
TI
1
J
m
5
T
C1
ti
r
fV
tz
n
n
~]
5
G'
W
~'~_ ~ID~asni'1d at ~ 3rd"1dMnetP--V-.• •~ ..
_ B.a.ytleq xa. ': 'JttLl~ Haar;
..
t
TEU Btu, SYadetL6. .'4th" . da7d Mercti ,2976' ..
betweae Nicholas:I.. 'Terliamis, • Harry ~L, 7er11aiais_ and
Anna I~ayTerliamis~-aka. pnnaMay~Griffiths ~~ ~ _
° of thaCountiea of Garfield. Ea¢~,e and unda4ta d `
,Colondo,dthetlxstpart,aod• a arson
. Anna May Griffiths-
_ ~ .:.. ~r':...
as th•. • .. ~Connt7 of •lefferson _and etaee of: '~. I '. ~-
-COlotado, of tha taroad yatt, ' ~ . - ~ ~ .. , ,. , .. _ •
WSCtiE89ETH, 17tat the aald'Dart ies of the asst Nt'C for and in ceoafdention of the wn oIT~ AND. NO/ 1 C
'($10'.00) and other valuable .eons i~deration-------=---- -------------DOLIr1IiS.
to thr sold Fascias of the tint part.{ahaadpat'd b7'tha Laid Patty' ~ of the sacottt! part, tha ieeeiP4 wheteo•
'la hanb7 centered and aelmowledged, ha ve'~semiad. xleased,. sold conrefed~ and t2UIT CLAIMED, sitd~~by
than pseamb da' ~ raafae, telaaae; aeD, tonre7 end QUIT: CSAI31vnto the aald part.q .. of tha roeend psY,
_.
. her heln,aneeaaron and arigoa:.fo:erar. all thtzSBht, titl0. .fnEesat,'.clalm sod drstandwlifehths ac~:
part ies o! tba 11zft part have ' In and to tha following `de+crlbed lot or parcel of land ettnata IsiaR. ar:;
haina ~ ~ ~ ~ •ro~tr~ ~ P f tkin and State of Colorado, tonitc' WEST."S01`!'. f °.
RANCH; ~ PARCLI, N0: 8 ~ ~ ~'
CORRECTTVt:.Ui•:ETI' `..
'A parcel of~land situated Sn [hc lJ!; of Secctrni 'L.•TBS:.R87W~oL~~the bth.P'.lf. mn~ ~_
particular- y'~escrihe as. o ows: ReRirtn9ng-nt [hc.-NN-corner~of.said::.SecCion,2_..
thence.S6'S9'02" W..2;340.10 race, to. the Truc Point bf'.Ret;inning, thence
.588.54';42"E.'~~1318.35,feet,. thence S1.00'46 W. i170i00fcet, ~thence~NBA'.54'.42" t:.
'131T.1b. •feeC,. thence N0 59'02" 'E. 1170.00 face the "1rtu. Point "of T3eg3nning.'
Nete':•-abl 'bearings ~,~re ~~Colorado-Cdnrdinace Svcs ^' :.' Ceiicial-lone _ .
' Co' a ing. 35,462 'Acres. "' . '
.EXCEPTIONS: Rase ving[herefmm~~.ll m5ds~, c't~••~n~nta end Teserv~ttnn§ cxist.in^
~o o record;~an d: furthermore t'eserving~a bl~n':; 50 vi dv ,easement ~fnr.a road
~tn'be'constructed across •subjecr prnpertp: and fur[!icrmnre rescrvtttg.~~a ]5. uid.•
utility easemenEihside~all boimdaru s;'. .-.-
. - ....
The~:foregnihe cot:.rcc[s>a•.decd rccoracd. October 25-. 1974 an iStiok ~92~~t Papc i3J _
.. .
TO HAVE filL7D TO-HOLD tbe~aama, toaather with allind eingalar the appnrteeanen aad ptirtlegee thrreoa •- '
hdangfag orla anywfaetheremto appertaLdag, and alltbeeagh; r18ht.~titi:~fnteteat and tLim wtiitaoever, of tha.
.iatd partyes ':.. of the IIxst part, elf]tar~fa~law~or eQaity; h7~tha ani7'p:eifer ~a'se,-benrtft•and behoof obtlta said"
part g ~. ~ of the eeeoad pant, her ': ';ieita and aastgds foterer. ' ~, ":''' ~~'. , .' ..
.IId-WITNESB' WHEREOF, Tha aa(d yart ies of the Sint part~hi'e hereunto see Llici r.hands
.~ seal s - tha dal aad Tear tirataboee written.??.. ..~/. ~ ' , ~ ~ '
\icholas i.. crl s
' 8laaed, Bealed aadDellaand lath.Ilr+®es of ~ ~;. .
- 9 ~/ I 1.. , rseAL7 -
. ., ... Kir I ).Tcrl-c mt~--
„
_ '. nna `tau ~Terl.iamrs~a ARAa ~... rtf fitIIs.~.
i .~t~~t ~ .:c [SRA2.7
IiTATE 0£~COI:O1tAD0
c~ ~~ .
Cemth~et ,<eeo.~ ._
23sdotaaeina Inatevmenhrt.teimewledaed baton me Hite /- ~ di7 et
•29 )G,,;!!i~ +~-.N;1'ehntaa•-L ?erliamis,Harry L .Tert~iamis and.Anna May erliamis
'~-eka~,Anna Maq..Oriff.iths~:."-`-:- .._ _' ~• ~ •~, ...~,, - .. --~~_
"~`'~=
GI
Co
J
..
..,
!
V
n
U
}-
9
T
L?
_ T
. _ '''
Oz
•, , T
r
. G7
•- O
T,
CU
i+-, + T'Cefmt pt , Pitkla`. and Bob af'Cetoratlo, et SLa aaemd'part "''ti),~ ~
~ .
`
.Tlnd:Hia wltltnastY .. of HIS that part, .for apd , ia.: eeaddifatlea'^oL• ~ ..
4 .
' .. 67.•30 - .. thet=valvabt ' .~ ..tee ton_ .:,~ ;mt~r;~LT.'~ig$
.
i
'
-
-
'
:
-
"
-
~^•~ m
4 :
p•tli
YFd+parry; ~.
tM that yeeCla Latld
. . af
~ h tha
.a
7d
xtf
$''-'Tf-tbi ~
,: '`i
'r °c^ .. _
f ~wLmaatb Luabs,eeaisaeedaad ar.Imowiatlged, Lab 'sraabd.'nar~ttna4 ae7d and eeavarw(andLrtLaaa•pnamb .... r
yi. .i:;
__
~s :,;
i
.a.de es •:. 'ananC barsafa. a~1. eeevaf aad smtl:m, vMO tba add of tLa aseeed
~
e
r.~t ~
'
•• ~ -
~ Ldn aaa.uaisar teraiar,aII'
'tb'a foIIo!irtt'daaal6Mlot. ~ ...eepneai
'• of lind.•dlmb.l/!v[">~d:
LahF ''" -~' ~
~~^"~`> .
' SatLa .: ~ =-'Comb of '. PStk1n and 8tata at Qntainda to wltt ~. WEST SOPRIS' ,
~,~y~ y r.RANCH,.~PARCEL N0.'10..A.parcel•of land situaced..in thetJlf'of Section 22,'TSS, ry
~, ~ ;'R87W_of~;t:he 6thP:N: corepazticulazlydescribed~as-follow: Heginning.at:'the
- L;
•?t`%! ~
~~ ~~~'NW~
corner of'~said Seetion 22, thence SO'59'02"W 1170.10'feet to the 7rve'POint ~~~~. ,JD
....~ .., £. He nia';thence 5II8'S4'42" E 1318:94feet,.thence 51'00'4'6" W'1110.OO,:feet., m
j.'•`~' ,
thence NSS 54'42" :; 1318.35 feet,ttienee-NO 59'02"-.E_1110.00 feet: to tpeTrue-'
~~'~
-»:-,.:..,
,. '"'T'b2nt'of-HeRiiininr. .._. ....-.. ..
_.. -- n
...
u.-~~~+.:.; _
"Note: all bearings are Colorado Coordinate $yst:em: Central Zone. -~~ ~ _
-- ~ i
:_,:
~, `, , ~ Cantaiaing 35.418 Acres.. ~: ~ `~
vt~•- ~ ERCEPIICNS: Resezv3ng~therefrom all roads, easements and reservations existing .-. T
;;,
; .or of record; and~'.urthernorereserving a blabke[ 50`wide easement
~for a road
~;,
. .
to ba constructed across s{ibject property; and furthermore reserving a 15' wide r,.
;~-d~`'~ -utility easement inside all boundaries.- - ~ r
..
_ .. 5
. ._
~
- Q,
:::;;~• ~ .~
_., STYE E:.Ii`"S~iY ftE... ~
.. ~ ~ L1I
• APR ~ N,{•iJ
~,
. w
,'-
--TfKETHER-.with all .and_ain¢nlar the heraditamenta apd appurrena>\a_},hetevnto belonging
or is sn9 Mae .n
~ T'
``
:.. ,
~appertaiamg, and the menien and sevenlona, remainder and xmainden, xnm, Topes, and piefita LAereof; tad
-~~ -alt-ebsatatn, right, intexs4 Uaim and demand +hataosrer afthe~uidparty of Lhe fint~Dart:'elfber is n.•
-- ~ -taw~or-ewitrrot,.ta.and to•the abn.e bat7fained Premiaea. with th5 hend(tamenn snd aPPnrtanees,_ Ri
-
~-~ TO HAVE AHD TO HOLD the said Pnmieo above bargnintd aad deeeribed, mth the appurtenaneea unml --- C
' ~ the said party -. . oT the s<eond arc. her hein and. aasi 9"..`
p gas forever. Aad 1Fe -said ynrt ~1
of the fint part. Sor - 1 t aN f S Ca hare, eseevmn, snd admmistmm~. dps ewetun; i' ,..
nt hatasia and agtee m. and' wit1: the said party of the eemad part, her hein and sssigtst, CJ
_ that tt tJietime of a en Ing xd-dclivmy-of these-graaaaes_7_[ is _w<i~ eeis<d of th< premfan ibove
_ • convared, as of good, sore, Perfeet, sbwiute and indefeuibte nfats of inherihnee, m law, in tee atmpEe,Tn31u
.7_._. ~: anod right fuHDower aad Ia}fal authority to grant, bargain. fell and eomey the same in roamer aad torpi as '
"" "' "aforesaid. and that Hie acme are free snd clear fipm all former snd other
grsnss, bsrgaina: aloe, liens, u:ea, aa•
atumenta std encumbnato M whatner kind ornatan aoever.
~ti.., ..
q_>
~t1,+M: _
~~ ..
;:'.:!^•?
~
.aad tba'abeea 6argalned premiaea fn the rider and peaeeahle
poWea{on of the aafd `party "of the aeeond part,
-
p~.-i. __
_ ~-;'FIGS...; lrin and Wigan, agafnac as and evert peraaa er perae,. Iswfn-r elafmiag or b claim tbs whets
='1' -: ar ear past tilerasl, eha said parry' : - of the tint part etWl. and ~i1t tVARRAHT'AT:D°FCREVER' DEFEND. ~ .:.
'I"t++_'-
aa~ ~", :. '.. LX y-S11VpdH WIfHCEOP,ZLa ar,ld ---
paety <f the lint part n aROn,o ~..~st6•--
~~
ar`..Fi,~ '.. _: :.:~7red -:mF anal •, tLaAq apd fear IIni abnie .rftrm. ~
• _
.J
fM :~ . ,
~
,-+1i ~t licad,'Baa1Nt'ttbd DaDvend 1n ~. ths. Psvasnu
:.w ~...~_ __
~ ~~ INCOSPORA7~.~... ~ BLAL ~
~
-
= r _
Tear' - _ -~--------.- . ,_,j
sEALT
_ _ _.
,
~
~.: ~ - ) _
/1
~d
°
~~P{['Crveter; eere ary - ~ 1 Donald E:. Pi er, President
7Cy
r P -
•~.
~
, r '
~?~'
~ :. 'ltaMfia 4th ' bat March x176. _ _
. ~. _ .
a' - lliehelaa L. Ssrl.isia,• Marrq L. Serliasis and.
..
"'v ~" ~iF11ai Sasliafia aiu Anna Maj Critfitha .~ _.
.:
~~
i:f110amftl~e ,ot3 CaTfl.eld. jaY~fers~oa aeA tlata d ., .... .
4l
~~
j :~Lle1a•itY~e!}1Ritl• A~ ~ GTi£tlths .
,
,~, e.
.
.: ~ ~ -
.. .. _
~ - &
?~ . sa6 .ewd
tsr ..' t11ma)at' . Jefferson • n?
atiee d sr flnl paeRlar~la aeeddradea at dram ei'iP1Q Altl NO/1=
. °1l~flraadt p
..-
'... p1lnf~ DOLS.A1t8:
.:' ~ (510.007•and other valuable mnsideratlon - ,. ...
... ~ .* Hr acct p~ Ses d fJw tfnt pall 63rd 7eu bs.tL. sold p~e!'y at Sr neead pa's. !be eeeeiit Treat ..
~;?.. :. ~b breb! andrad aai ae>mwrladaed, have . eaa~iui. Sdaasd. wld aeawTed sad t1II1T CbAn~D, sd.. bl
.~. . ~ peaaahi tead~ +.ta....it. aaasq ad1 QVrr'cf.Aa[ :eb w. re 1~ : -' et tl. a..i sett: -
~~::.~_~ ~ ~ _ her .b~le~ewrmsamd amdpa,tmewtilltlaelabt, tlHti boast ebda aad`dsa~d whlab`tYe a~ld
.`~. __: .peel tea.. d Sr Seel pal hire Sa sad ti t3a "le11e!!1aa daeeeLd least pawl at Lad dtaeto. 171se sad. .
.. ~. y~Liy .. ~ OsaatFl Yitkin :'smd'8taa at Cetee±da lsks f7ESY SOPRYS,.
r :RANfI[.:PAACELNO. '14
:. CORRECTIs1E D1:ED ~ .
Aparcel of land situated in the ~ of..Section 15, TBS, R87N of ehe"6th P.M. more,
.' ~ ~ parcicnlarly described ae follova Beginrting etthe SW corner of said Section 15,
~~~ ~thence.Sg8L53'16" E.1319 54 feet to theT'rue.Pointof Beginning, thence conEinu~.ng
•988'83'16"-~E~,659.77-faet..shence Ntl~'S2''24"E 2340.00 feec, thenceNgB 53'16 u
~._.. 659.59, thence 5052'40" W 2340.00 feecto.the'Sive Point of~Beginning.' _ .,
" ~~~ Note: ell bearings-ate Colorado Coordinate System, Central Zone. -,-~;
~~ ~ ~ Contdining.34.436 Acrea.~
.' ~~~~~ ESCEPTIONS: Reserving therefrom all rgads.,.easementa and..reservations exisCing
' or of record; and furthermore reserving a blanket 50' vide easement,for a road
to hd conecrocced across subjecc pi'oper'ty;.and~furthermose reaerving~a 15' wider
'~'~' otilitq eeaement inside all boundaries. ~' '::
y ~ _ The:faregoing:correct~ a deed,.recorded.October 25, 1974 Sn Book 292 ac Page741.
-.' ...' . TO sAVS ASfD TD HOLD tb. aem.. tsatLer with all .ed eteSeteT ~ epPo*~ea rd -•+•uee.. ta,ammro
.. : bdoaalea : h'mgwr tiara ypsedtidas. and .n-the:ae+a.`stsht;'9w. letaa.l"";nd etdm .h.rawae, at th.
.r
aeW pates 'rte.' a[ t~ Si+t paw steer In W. ee .wilR r eb. aniT vAvar w b.n.ac see D.eeet ~ w oid -
' pert y. et ua ~eeed pet .-her ieiie sad aadaaa toewer.:
~~ IIt WTR>S4.4 W1~F, The addpnltes. of tia !lest pact lrVe Lgeednte oaf ~heiry~s
aed seats tiadq sad Taertleatabs•e welttee.., -~ ,.
. ~ -:.
Nlc o as L. er is -~.... ..
. alaaed. Baslad seed Dalt..eed ~ ti. Pnsas et. - [SEAL']
.
_ -
a y i. /
... .:, .r r ~. lln ,iu-i teTar.t
J. _. /~
. ~ 8TATE OF COIARADO, 1 _
a
CamtT of ~4'p.ti~ .
TLa lereslnt lastrument ~wt7s7sdme+ladied !alms ma thls ~ ~ dal of
5176 .1T' Nieholaa L. Tcrltamis,'Ha rryl.. Teri tnmis and Anna Mm T rl lam~.~aka-.
.. _..
Anna tiny Griffiths.
]tT aeamviss{es esbes , 19 . Wttuau mT baud and otllefal aaaL '
Y• tamminiaa Estires hIT ii.1871
.;
. - --
°~; ..~,
~:
~. ~
Q
r_.
I
J
OS
V
!..
5
Ut
S
-R
N
tp
r
n
G;
C~
-n
t~
r°, ~,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners
Regular Meeting - October li, 1995
THRII: Tim Malloy, Acting Community Development Director
FROM: Rick Magill, Planner
RE: Graves/Bent/Leonhardt Takings Determination Hearing
REQUEST: The Applicants have requested a "Takings Determination
Hearing" pursuant to Section 3-290 of the Pitkin County Land Use
Code. This request has been made as a result of the Board's
September 27, 1995 denial of the Graves/Bent/Leonhardt application
for 1041 Environmental Hazard Review and General Submission (see
attached resolution of denial).
Staff has attached the September 27th Staff report regarding this
application.
SACRGROUND: On September 27, 1995 (within the required 15 day
period), the Applicants submitted a written request for a takings
determination. The Applicant's letter of request includes the
information required by Section 5-220 in the Code (submission
requirements). Section 4-150 of the Code requires that the Board
conduct a hearing within 15 days of the receipt of the written
request.
APPLICANTS: Lauren Graves (Lots 3 & 8), Dorthea Bent (Lot 14), Anne
Leonhardt (Lot 10).
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE¢ Lauren Graves
LOCATION: The West Sopris Creek Subdivision (formerly known as the
Terliamis Tracts) is located approximately 3 miles from Emma, off
of West Sopris Creek Road.
ZONING: RS-30, thirty acre minimum lot size
STAFF COMMENTS: The standard for review of a taking is identified
in Section 3-290 of the Code and reads as follows:
"The Board shall determine whether the property owner will be
denied all reasonable. use and economic return on the. property
as a result of the questioned determination. If the Board
determines that a takings has or may occur; it should take
such action as it deems appropriate to remedy the situation.
1 _
~::
in making its decision, the Board shall consider the value of
the property as a whole and shall not base its decision on the
impact of the regulation on one portion of the ownership
interest. In making its determination the Board shall consider
the beneficial uses which remain in the property
notwithstanding the challenged determination and shall give
due consideration to the reasonable investment-backed
expectations of the landowner".
AU~licant's Resnonse•
The .Applicants argue that the locations proposed for development
in the application are the only suitable sites for development on
the properties. Further, the Applicants contend that the Board's
denial of the application (the questioned determination) has
"adversely affected" the Applicant's ability to utilize the
properties for single-family residential and related usage.
The Applicants believe that the BoardTS denial of the 1041 and
General Submission application 'constitutes a denial of all
reasonable use and economic return from the subject properties. The
Applicants contend that the sale value of the properties with the
offending determination is $O, while the sale values without the
offending determination is $92,000, $150,006, $159,000 and $77,000,
respectively.
According to the Pitkin County Assessors Office the current
assessed value (ASD) of the subject properties are $24,650,
$24,650, $23,200, and $23,200, respectively, with a mill--levy of
71.817.
Staff Resuonse•
1. With respect-to the issue of
Staff would point out that
served by existing roads
suggest that the use of this
and that any other type
agricultural or industrial,
residential use.
reasonable use of the property,
there are 3 existing residences
in this subdivision. This would
area has already been established
of .use, such as commercial
may conflict with the existing
The subject property is zoned RS-30 Planned Unit Development
(PUD) Resource. Staff is also compelled to point out this zone
is intended to:
1. Permit low density, single family residential development
and customary accessory uses, while recognizing natural
hazards, wildlife areas, limited utility service, roads
or schools, and other facilities may constitute a
constraint precluding the realization of zoned density;
Encourage orderly development pattern minimizing
2
F,
~i
scattering of development in rural areas;
3. Provide potential for clustering of development
preserving open space 'and creating efficient utility
.service for development;
4. Preserve agricultural. operations and environmental
resources;
5. Maintain rural lifestyle;
6. Locate development outside irrigated lands and deer and
elk habitat;
7. Protect cattle and wildlife by prohibiting dogs in new
subdivisions.
2. With respect to the issue of economic return and investment
backed expectation, Staff would note that the Applicants
entered into a contract to purchase the properties with the
knowledge that any development was subject to land use
approvals from the County, the final outcome of which was
questionable (the Applicants were aware that the Pitkin County
Land Use Code prohibited development within severe wildfire
areas and that the subject properties are encumbered by said
hazard).
OTHER ISSIIES
The Board requested that the Division of Wildlife be contacted
again for the purpose of clarifying their position on the locations
of the proposed building envelopes. Staff conversations with Kevin
Wright indicate that he is comfortable with the proposed building
envelopes for Lots 8 and 10 because they are somewhat "clumped"
together. Kevin is also satisfied that the building envelope for
Lot 14 is the best site on the property because of it's proximity
to the existing residence on Lot 13. The building envelope proposed
for Lot 3 is also satisfactory from a wildlife perspective. Staff
will have additional information on Lot 3, after Staff meets on-
site with Mr. Wright.
Staff re-visited .Lot 3 at the request of the Board to determine
whether there was an alternative building site available which
would be less impactive. The Applicant had a surveyor further
delineate the eastern lot line of the parcel in order to determine
if a relatively flat area approximately 150 feet below the.: proposed
building envelope is within the boundaries of Lot 3. The results
of this. examination revealed that there is a small area (approx.
2,900 square feet/ 48'X60') that could be considered as a building
site. Staff will meet with Kevin Wright on Wednesday October 11th
to review this particular site. Staff cannot recommend the lower
site over the currently proposed building envelope until the
3
____
~, r. ~;
a
.. ., .. tl.. ,. - a . . -
comments of the DOW are obtained. Staff will present the results
of the site visit with Mr.__Wright at the October 11th meeting.
Staff also re-examined the upper portion of Lot 3 for .potential
building sites. There is a buildable site in the western ,(upper)
portion of the parcel. Staff .cannot recommend this site for the
following reasons:
1) Utilization of the upper building site would require that the
residents and emergency response personnel drive an additional 1/4
mile of subdivision roads, through severe wildfire hazard areas
to access the residence.
2) The construction of a driveway down from the upper subdivision
road would be no less impactive than the driveway currently
proposed from-"below, as the slopes being traversed are no less
severe...
3) The Division of Wildlife indicated that access from above will
be allowed only in specific location (in areas of very steep
slopes) and not"on a ridge that would offer the best driveway
alignment with respect to the existing topography.
A number of the landowners have recently formed the Stone Road
Association for the purpose of upgrading and maintaining the
subdivision roads. All of the landowners in this application are
members of this Association. Staff understands that the roads will
soon be improved to a standard that has been approved by the County
Engineer. The Board of County Commissioners had strongly 'encouraged
the landowners to form such an Association during the review of the
1041 Hazard Review for Lot 6 (Restivo/Strawbridge).
The existing conditions in the West Sopris Creek Ranch Subdivision
substantially limit the Applicant's ability to pursue and implement
site planning alternatives. Those existing conditions include:
existing subdivision roads (with two homes. located at the ends),
three existing County-approved residences, and most importantly,
the lack of motivation of the part of a majority of the landowners
to participate in large scale lot line. adjustments and/or re-
subdivision.
ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTS: The review of this proposal is extremely
difficult, given that any approval of residential development in
this area may present a significant health and safety risk to it's
residents. Nonetheless, Staff cannot find building sites on the
subject properties that are outside of severe wildfire hazard. In
addition, Kelly Rogers of the CSFS has stated that the Applicants
have chosen the best building sites for all four parcels from a
wildfire standpoint.
Staff would refer to Land Use Code Section 3-80.70 (A) which
states: '~In the event there is no area of a development site free
4
n, ~
of "C-Severe Hazard: Trees" or "X- Severe Hazard: Brush" wildfire
hazards and a development application is subsequently denied, an
Applicant may appeal the denial to the Board of County
Commissioners, pursuant to Section 3-290 of this Code. If an appeal
of a project denial is granted by the Board, than the development
application shall incorporate hazard mitigation according to the
standards in part C of this section." Part C includes the wildfire
defensible space, and construction and design requirements.
STAFF FINDINGS: Staff finds that the Board's denial of the
1041/General Submission application (Case #P28-95) constitutes a
"taking" since there are no developable areas on the subject
properties outside of confirmed severe wildfire hazard areas and
that this, consequently, constitutes a denial of all reasonable use
and economic return from the subject properties.
RECOMMENDATION: If the Board of County Commissioners concurs with
Staff's finding that a "takings" has occurred by virtue of the
Board's 1041/General Submission denial of this application, Staff
has included conditions of approval for the construction of single-
family residences on Lots 3, 8, l0 and 14 of the West sopris Creek
Ranch Subdivision, as follows:
Note: The conditions listed below were included for discussion
at the June 20, 1995 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
1. The Applicants shall adhere to all material representations
made in the application and in the public meetings.
2. Prior to building permit application, the Applicants shall
record a 24 x 36 inch mylar 1041 Hazard Review Site Plan which
meets the approval of the Planning Office and County Attorney.
a. The following 1041 Hazard Review Warning and
Disclaimer shall be noted on the Plat:
"The provisions of these regulations do not in any
way assure or imply that areas outside of designated
hazard .areas will 'be free from hazards, or that
approved mitigation measures will guarantee the
safety of any property.'
b. The building envelopes shall be revised pursuant to
the recommendations of the Referral Agencies and the
Planning Office.
3. The Applicants shall obtain access permits from the County
Engineer, prior to issuance of building permits.
4. The Applicants shall submit drainage and erosion control plans
for each development, prior to the issuance of building
permits..
5
,~,
5. Outside illumination shall. comply with County lighting
standards in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
6. The Applicants shall comply with the recommendations of the
DOW as follows:
a. Native vegetation shall be preserved within the building
envelopes to the maximum extent possible.
b. Dogs are prohibited.
c. Fencing shall be a maximum height of 42", 4 strands or
less with a 12" kickspace between the top 2 strands. Any
rail fencing shall be the round type, 48", 3-rail or less
with at least 18" between 2 of the rails.
d. All garbage shall be kept within bear-proof garbage
containers. The DOW can supply specifications upon
request (North American Bear Society specifications).
e. Horses shall be confined to the approved building
envelopes. All hay shall be fenced with 8 .foot game-
proof fencing.
f. The Applicants shall construct low profile homes.
7. Wildfire mitigation shall be as follows:
a. A sprinkler system or a foam fire retardant. system shall
be installed in each residence. The systems shall meet
the standards of the Basalt Fire Protection District and
the Uniform Building Code.
b. The Applicants shall have available for firefighting, a
water storage facility to accommodate a minimum of 1,000
gallons for each lot. Capacity and location shall be
approved by the Basalt District Fire Marshal.
c. Roofs and gutters shall be kept clear of debris.
d. Yards shall be kept clear of all litter, slash, and
flammable debris.
e. Firewood shall be stacked on a parallel contour a minimum
of 15 feet away from any structure.
f. At least one ten pound approved ABC class fire
extinguisher shall be placed in a visible and accessible
.location for each structure.
g. Swimming pools shall be accessible to Fire Department
6
~ ~
vehicles.
h. Fences shall be kept clear of brush and debris.
i. Wood fences shall not be cohnected to the structure.
j. Fuel tanks shall be installed underground with an
approved container.
k. Regarding vegetation:
1) All vegetation shall be removed within 10 feet of
structures. This area should be maintained in the future
as low ground cover (to a height not more than 6 inches).
2) Vegetation shall be thinned within a minimum of
100 feet. around all structures, with a minimum of 20 feet
crown separation between clumps of oak/serviceberry.
Remaining clumps shall not have an aggregate crown
diameter in excess of 20 feet. Dead limbs and ladder
fuels that could carry fire into the 'crowns of the brush
shall be eliminated. slash shall be properly disposed of
by chipping, hauling away, or piling and burning during.
a safe time period.
3) Maintenance of the "defensible space" shall be
required in order to retain it's value as wildfire
mitigation. Oak and serviceberry tend to sprout
vigorously after cutting, so it will be necessary to trim
back vegetation every year or two.
1. Any additional proposed. buildings within the building
envelopes shall incorporate wildfire mitigation measures.
m. Structural Design and Construction Requirements:
1. Roof construction shall be Class A, non-combustible
(no wood shake/shingles) material with' no flat
roofs.
2. Vents shall be screened with corrosive resistent
faire mesh with mesh 1/4 inch maximum.
n. Structural Design and Construction Options:
1. Projections at the roof line (which include but are
not limited to eaves, cornices, soffits, and roofs
.over open decks) shall be sheathed with materials
approved for Y hour fire-resistive construction.
2. For projections below the roof line (which include.
but are not limited to .exterior balconies, decks,
~""~
porches, cantilevered floor projections, and bay
windows) the open space between grade an$ the
underside of projections below the roof line shall
be enclosed by solid, vertical walls. These walls
shall be constructed with materials approved for 1
- hour fire-resistive construction on the exterior
side of the wall and shall extend from the top of
grade to the underside of the floor decking or walls
of the projection.
3. Windows shall be made of tempered glass.
4. Exterior siding and wall construction shall have a
minimum 1 hour fire-resistive. rating, ground level
to roof line.
5. Foundations, skirting and crawl space openings shall
be fully enclosed and constructed with materials
approved for 1 hour fire-resistive construction on
the exterior side of the walls and shall extend from
the top of grade to the underside of the floor
decking or walls.
6. The underside of decks and structures with stilt
foundations shall be fully enclosed and constructed
with materials approved fbr l hour fire-resistive
construction on the exterior side of the walls and
shall extend from the top of grade to the underside
of the floor decking or walls.
o. Addresses shall be clearly marked and visible with
minimum 2" letters.
p. All utility extensions shall be buried within the
driveway alignment.
q. Propane tanks shall be installed according to NFPA 48
standards and on a contour away from the structure with
standard. defensible space vegetation mitigation around
any above-ground tank. Any wood enclosure around the tank
shall be constructed with materials approved for 2 hour
fire-resistive construction on the exterior side of the
walls.
8. The Applicants sha1L consider purchasing a portable foam
system for fire fighting that can be accessed and utilized by
the residents of the subdivision and firefighting personnel.
9. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Applicants shall
provide documentation of an adequate domestic water supply.
Quantity and quality of said supply shall meet the approval
of .the Environmental Health Department.
8
10. The .septic systems designed for each site shall meet the
approval of the Environmental Health Department. The
Applicants shall obtain such approval prior to the issuance
of building permits.
11. The Applicants shall obtain fireplace/woodstove permits from
Environmental Health Department, prior to the issuance of
building permits.
12. No development, including disturbance of vegetation and
grading, shall occur outside of the building envelopes, other
than that required for wildfire mitigation, construction of
the access driveways and necessary utility extensions within
the access driveway.
13. The building sites shall be revegetated with native grasses
to limit water consumption and additional runoff, immediately
following project completion.
14. The principal structures shall be limited in size to 5,000
square feet of floor area. All structures shall be limited to
a maximum height of 20 feet.
15. The Applicants shall waive their right to any compensation
from the Division of Wildlife for property damage caused by
bears.
16. Building foundations shall be reviewed and certified by a
Colorado registered professional engineer. The certified
foundation plans shall be included with the building permit
submittal:
17. The access driveways .for Lots 3 & 8 shall be reviewed and
certified by a registered engineer or surveyor, prior to the
issuance of an access permit.
18. The Applicant shall obtain Board of Adjustment approval of a
variance to the front yard setback for Lot lb, prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
ATTACHMENTS•
1. Reso.~95-168 .(denial)
2. Letter of appeal w/attachments
3. Sept.27th Staff memo w/attachments
memo_graves_taking
9
F. N/A no appraisals or preliminary estimates of value have been made on the properties.
(attached is a listing of recent sales information for the past two years)
G. N/A there are no mortgages on these properties.
H. NIA properties are unimproved and have not been rented. The primary expense for
the properties are approximately $1,562 each in property tax.
I. The ownership structure of the properties is: individual.
J. N/A per Rick Magill.
K. N/A these properties have no rent value without improvements; the entire subdivision
is zoned and taxed as residential property.
L. The sale value of the properties with the offending determination is $0; the sale value
without the offending determination is $92,000, $150,000,$159,000 and $77,000,
respectively.
M. Other information bearing on the value without the offending determination is
attached in the form of the listing of recent sales in the subdivision and neazby areas.
Information regarding the bearing on the value with the offending determination is not yet
available.
Please contact us via Lauren Graves at your earliest convenience with a hearing date.
Sincerely,
,~.~.
Lauren Grave ,and
Laure" n Graves for Do thea Bent and Anne L~ haz
D .-.
09/27/95 09:25:43 ~"
Opening files, please wait...
DETAIL v2.l.h ASPEN BOARD OF REALTORS
Enter the number for the information desired
Do you wish to print DETAIL for ALL LISTINGS
Print in 8 1/2 x 11 format? (one listing per
Full print by LISTING number
or [?] for help ==>4
found on last SEARCH? ==>y
page) [Y/N/##lines] N
MLS#=24460 ( 5)ADDR= LOT 14 W SOPRIS CREEK
( 1)CLASS=LD ( 2) TYPE. =SINGLE FM LOT ( 3) ZONE =5BA)PRICE- $77,000
( 6) CITY =BASALT (6A)ZIP CODE=81621-
( 7)STATUS=SOLD ( 8)FOR SALE
( 9)LOT SIZE=REFER TO ACR (10)ACREAGE =21-40 ACRES
(19)NO.ACRES= 35.40 (20)$/ACRE 3000
(22)AGENT=GRAYSON, CHRISTINA 625-3629 FOR HUEBINGER REAL ESTATE INC 945-6190
(24)SUB/LOC = W SOP CRK-WEST SOP
(26)LIST DATE =06/09/92 (27)EXP.RDATERE06
/30/94A(28)LOTRS
1
(29)COUNTY =P
(32)FAR
(30)ZONING ,
=RS30 (31)OWNER QFT
UNK
=GRIFFITHS
=N
(37)WTR RGT =N (34)SURVEY
(38)GRZ R
T =N (35)FRONTAGE=N
= (36)LOT FACE=N
(47)OFR SUBA=N G
(48)OFFER N (39)GRZ ACRS=N
=5 (40)CAPACITY=N
(49)ORIGINAL PRICE= 99500
(51) ASSUME =N (57)TAXES =946.50 (58)TAX YEAR=92
(59)AS$N FEE=O (60)SPC ASMT=N
(71)FIN REMK=25o DOWN, BAL AT 12%
(72)REMARKS =10 YEARS AMORTIZATION
(73)REMARKS =0R TERMS TO SUIT SELLER
(77)HOW SOLD=1031 (78)CONTRACT,DATE=03/01/94
(79)CLOSING DATE=07/26/94 (80)ASKING PRICE'W/SOLD=
(81)DAYS ON MARKET=632
(82)AGENT=GRAYSON,`CHRISTINA 625-3629 FOR HUEBINGER
99500
REAL ESTATE INC 945-6190
MLS#=25179 ( 5)ADDR= 0 WEST SOPRIS CREEK
( 1)CLASS=LD ( 2) .TYPE =SINGLE FM.LOT ( 3) ZONE =SEM)PRICE=
( 6) CITY..=BASALT (6A)ZIP CODE~81&21-
( 7)STATUS=SOLD ( 8)FOR SALE '
( 9)LOT SIZE=REFER TO ACR (10)ACREAGE =21-40 ACRES
(19)NO.ACRES= 35.10 (20)$/ACRE _ '2617
(22)AGENT=WELLS, CARRIE 925-8080 FOR CB THE ASPEN BROKERS LTD 925-6750
(23) CODE =31000 (24)SUB/LOC = W SOP CRK-WEST SOPRIS CRE
(25)LEGAL =PARCEL 3 (26)LIST DATE =06/01/94
(27)EXP. DATE =12/31/94 (28)LOT SQFT=O (29)COUNTY =p
(30)ZONING =R5 30 (31)OWNER =VAN PERNIS (32)FAR
(34)SURVEY =Y (36)LOT FACE=S (47)OFR SUBA=N
(48)OFFER =BB - 5°s, TB - 5% (49)ORIGINAL PRICE=
*ACCESS
*GAS
*SANITATION
SURVEY
RANCH
CASH
*AGENCY
UNPAVED
AVAILABLE
SEPTIC
*POSSIBLE USE
VIEW
OWNER FINANCE
EXCL RIGHT SELL
*ELECTRIC
*WATER
*DOC~MENTS FILE
SINGLE 'FAMILY
*TERMS OFFERED
*DISCLOSURES
*SIGN
90000
$92,000
=0
NONE
WELL TO DRILL
FINANCIALS PHOTOGRAPHS
*LOT DESCRIPTIO HORSE PROPERTY
1031 ASSUMPTION
1041 REVIEW
YES
_. __
i
d51) ASSUME =N (56)LOAN BAL=17578 (57)TAXES =0
(58)TAX YEAR=1993 (59)ASSN FEE=O (60)SPC ASMT=O
(61)AVG UTIL=O (71)FIN REMK=ASSUMABLE/OWNER FINANCING
(72)REMARKS =GREAT LOT! Privacy, southern exposure and
(73)REMARKS =exceptional views. Seller will go through
(74)REMARKS =1041 process and raise the price after app-
(75)REMARKS =roval. NOW's the time to purchase at the
(76)REMARKS =lower price! ~,
(77)HOW SOLD=OTHER (78)CONTRACT DATE=07/19/94 I
(79)CLOSING DATE=10/11/94 (80)ASKING PRICE W/SOLD= 90000
(81)DAYS ON MARKET= 48 ~~
(82)AGENT=BUCHANAN, JOHN 963-9700 FOR COLORADO TOWN & COUNTRY 963-9700
i
MLS#=24491 ( 5)ADDR= - LOT 8 WEST SOPRIS RANCH ( 4)PRICE= $150,,000
( 1)CLASS=LD ( 2) TYPE =STNGLE FM LOT ( 3) ZONE =SEM ',
( 6) CITY =CARBONDALE (6A)ZIP CODE=81621-
( 7)STATUS=SOLD ( 8)FOR SALE
( 9)LOT SIZE=REFER TO ACR (10)ACREAGE =21-40 ACRES
(19)NO.ACRES= 35.40 (20)$/ACRE _ 0
(22)AGENT=THORPE, JOHN 925-2682 FOR MASON & MORSE REAL ESTATE. 925-7000
(23) CODE =M&M ASP (24)SUB/LOC = W SOP CRK-WEST SOPRIS CRE ~~
(25)LEGAL =METES & BOUNDS (26)LIST DATE"''=02/15/94
(27)EXP. DATE =02/15/95 (28)LOT SQFT=35.4 (29)COUNTY =P ',
(30)ZONING =RS 30 (31)OWNER =GRIFFITHS (32)FAR =-
(34)SURVEY =N (36)LOT FACE=SW (37)WTR RGT =N (38)GRZ RGT =N
(39)GRZ ACRS=NA (40)CAPACITY=NA (41)HOME SQP=NA
(42)BEDROOMS=NA (43)BATHS =NA
(44)CONDITIO=NA (45)STYLE =NA (46)YR BUILT=N~
(47)OFR SUBA=N (48)OFFER =5oBB/TB
(49)ORIGINAL PRICE= 150000.
*ACCESS PRIVATE UNPAVED *ELECTRIC NONE
*GAS NONE *WATER WELL TO DRILL
*SANITATION SEPTIC *MINERAL RIGHTS NONE
*IRRIGATION NONE *POSSIBLE USE SINGLE FAMILY
*LOT DESCRIPTIO VIEW *TERMS OFFERED CASH
*DISCLOSURES 1041 REVIEW *AGENCY EXCL RIGHT SELL
*SIGN YES
(57)TAXES =1350.02 (58)TAX YEAR=93 (59)ASSN FEE=-
(702)REMARKST=PRISTINE SETTING WITH SPECTACULAR WILDERNESS ~I
(73)REMARKS =VIEWS. GREAT BUILDING SITES, VERY PRIVATE.
(74)REMARKS = BE SURE TO SEE THIS LOT.
(77)HOW SOLD=OTHER (78)CONTRACT DATE=10/10/94
(79)CLOSING DATE=12/05/94 (80)ASKING PRICE W/SOLD= 150000
(81)DAYS ON MARKET=235
(82)AGENT=GRAVES, LAUREN 925-6209 FOR. COLORADO TOWN.& COUNTRY 963-9700 ~
MLS#=24907 ( 5)ADDR= 0 W. SOPRIS CREEK ROAD ( 4)PRICE= $155,000
( 1)CLASS=LD ( 2) TYPE =SINGLE FM LOT ( 3) ZONE =5EM
6) CITY =BASALT (6A)ZIP CODE=81621-
( 7)STATUS=SOLD "T 8)FOR SALE
( 9)LOT SIZE=REFER TO ACR (10)ACREAGE =21-40 ACRES
(19)NO.ACRES= 35.41 (20)$/ACRE = 4489
(22)AGENT=AULT, GLEN M 928-9100 FOR MASON & MORSE REAL ESTATE 927-3232.
(23) CODE =50501 (24)SUB/LOC = W SOP CRK-WEST SOPRIS CRE
(25)LEGAL =LOT 10,W.SOPRIS RANG (26)LIST DATE =05/12/94
(27)EXP. DATE =11/10/94 (28)LOT SQFT=35.418 (29)COUNTY =P
(30)ZONING =R5 30 (31)OWNER =PIPER (32)FAR
(36)LOT FACE=SO (41)HOME SQF=O (42)BEDROOMS=O
(43)BATHS =0 (47)OFR SUBA=N
(48)OFFER =BB-5%;TB-5°s (49)ORIGINAL PRICE= 159000.
*ACCESS UNPAVED *ELECTRIC NONE
*GAS NONE *WATER WELL TO DRILL
*SANITATION SEPTIC *MINERAL RIGHTS NONE
*IRRIGATION NONE *DISCLOSURES 1041 REVIEW
*SIGN YES
(51) ASSUME _? (57)TAXES =1350.02 (58)TAX YEAR=1993
(59)ASSN FEE=O (60)SPC ASMT=O
(72)REMARKS =SPECTACULAR LOT...UNSPOILED SPLENDOR!..
(73)REMARKS =FAMILY-SIZE HOMESITE WITH EVERGREEN TREES
(74)REMARKS =AND SCRUB OAK. ENJOY THE SERENITY OF THE
(75)REMARKS =MOUNTAINS AND RETURN fi0 BASICS! 1041 REVIEW
(76)REMARKS =REQUIRED. A TERRIFIC BUILDING SITE. MUST SEE!
(77)HOW SOLD=OWNFN (78)CONTRACT DATE=09/13/94
(79)CLOSING DATE=12/28/94 (80)ASKING PRICE W/SOLD= 159000
(81)DAYS ON MARKET=121
(82)AGENT=STRAKA, DON 927-3337 FOR MASON & MORSE REAL ESTATE 927-3232
MLS#=24343 ( 5)ADDR= 00 E EAST SOPRIS CREEK ROAD ( 4)PRICE=
( 1)CLASS=LD ( 2) TYPE =SINGLE FM LOT ( 3) ZONE =5EM
( 6) CITY =BASALT. (6A)ZIP CODE=81621-
( 7)STATUS=SOLD ( 8)FOR SALE
( 9)LOT SIZE=REFER TO ACR (10)ACREAGE =21-40 ACRES
(19)NO.ACRES= 35.96 (20)$/ACRE = 3000
(22)AGENT=GROSJEAN, DARRYL 927-3343 FOR BASALT REALTY 927-3174
(23) CODE =24000 (24)SUB/LOC E SOP CRK-EAST SOPRIS CRE
(25)LEGAL =SEC 36 T8S R87 W 6PM (26)LIST DATE =09/23/92
(27)EXP. DATE =09/23/94 (28)LOT SQFT=35.96 (29)COUNTY =P
I
i
=N '
i
$107,900
i
(30)ZONING =RS-30 (31)OWNER =P.RAFELSON (32)FAR =N ',
(33)ALLOWFAR=N (34)SURVEY =N (35)FRONTAGE=W (36)LOT FACE=N
(47)OFR SUBA=N (48)OFFER =BB-5 o, TB-5 o, SA-0
(49)ORIGINAL PRICE= 129300 ',
*ACCESS
*ELECTRIC
*WATER
*MINERAL RIGHTS
*CROPS
UNDERGND UTILS
*LOT DESCRIPTIO
*DISCLOSURES `
*SIGN
EASEMENT PRIVATE.
HOLY CROSS *GAS
WELL TO DRILL. *SANITATION
NONE *IRRIGATION
GRASSES *$XTRAS
*DOCUMENTS FILE CC & R's
HORSE PROPERTY VIEW
1041 REVIEW *AGENCY
NO
UNPAVED 4WD RECOMMIENDED
NONE
.SEPTIC
...NONE
BRDS PUBLC LD HORSE PROL~ERTY
*POSSIBLE USE SINGLE FAMILY
*TERMS OFFERED CASH
EXCL RIGHT SELL ~
n ~_
(57)TAXES =1350 (Sri)TAX YEAR=1993 (59)ASSN FEn=O
(60)SPC ASMT=O
(72)RENIARKS =AWESOME VIEW OF MT.SOPRIS FROM THIS HIGHLAND
(73)REMARKS =AREA BETWEEN EMMA AND OLD SNOWMASS: GENTLY
(74)REMARKS =ROLLING OAK COVERED TERRAIN WITH ,PLENTY OF'
(75)REMARKS =FLAT LAND FOR HOUSE, BARN & HORSES. 2 MILES
(76)REMARKS =0F GRAVEL ROAD;UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC TAP FEE.
(77)HOW SOLD=CASH (78)CONTRACT DATE=,05/11/94
(79)CLOSING DATE=07/28/94 (80)ASKING PRICE W/SOLD= 107900
(81)DAYS ON MARKET=598
(82)AGENT=FARING, CAROL S 925-9509 FOR CAROL FARING 925-9509
MLS#=25907 ( 5)ADDR= OFF OF EAST SOPRIS CREEK ( 4)PRICE=
( 1)CLASS=LD ( 2) TYPE. =SINGLE FM LOT ( 3) ZONE =5EM
( 6) CITY =BASALT (6A)ZIP CODE=81621-
( 7)STATUS=SOLD ( 8)FOR SALE
( 9)LOT SIZE=REFER TO ACR (10)ACREAGE =UNKNOWN
(19)NO.ACRES= 35.20 (20)$/ACRE _ 0
(22)AGENT=HAGGERTY, JOANIE 927-4587 FOR BASALT REALTY 927-3174
(23) CODE =24000 (24)SUB/LOC = E SOP CRK-EAST SOPRIS CRE
(25)LEGAL =LOT 1, SECT.36, TSSR (26)LIST DATE =11/01/94
(27)EXP. DATE =01/15/95 (28)LOT SQFT=O (29)COUNTY =P
(30)ZONING =RS-30 (31)OWNER =JOY (32)FAR
(47)OFR SUBA=N {48)OFFER =BB _4°s, TB 4%, SA 0% '
(49)ORIGINAL PRICE= 144500.
*ACCESS UNPAVED *ELECTRIC HOLY CROSS
*WATER WELL TO DRILL *SANITATION SEPTIC
*EXTRAS HORSE PROPERTY *DOCUME,NTS FILE
' 1041 CC &
~
*POSSIBLE USE SINGLE FAMILY IO
*LOT DESCRIPT NAT FORREST
BO
*AGENCY EXCL RIGHT SELL *SIGN YES
(57)TAXES. =$1350 (58)TAK YEAR=1993 (59)ASSN FEE=O
(60)SPC ASMT=O
(72)REMARKS =BEAUTIFUL VIEWS OF MT, SOPRIS, PRIVATE BLDGIN
(73)REMARKS =SITE. BORDERS BLM. 1041 HAZARD REVIEW
(74)REMARKS =COMPLETED. DOGS & HORSES ALLOWED. ASPEN
(75)REMARKS =MEADOWS & SCRUB OAK. PRIVATE COUNTRY SETTING
(76)REMARKS =YET CLOSE-TO ASPEN.
(77)HOW SOLD=CONY (78)CONTRACT DATE=12/30/94
(79)CLOSING DATE=02/03/95 (80)ASKING PRICE W/SOLD= 14450b
(81)DAYS ON MARKET= 59
(82)AGENT=DAVIS, ALICE L 925-2167 FOR ALICE DAVIS, BROKER 925-6587
MLS#=26869 ( 5)ADDR= 0 E SOPRIS CREEK ( 4)PRICE=
( 1)CLASS=LD ( 2) TYPE =SINGLE FM LOT ( 3) ZONE =SEM
( 6) CITY =BASALT (6A)ZIP CODE=81.621-
( 7)STATUS=SOLD ( 8)FOR SALE
( 9)LOT SIZE=REFER TO ACR (10)ACREAGE =21-40 ACRES
(19)NO.ACRES= 35.22 (20)$/ACRE 0
(22)AGENT=HAGGERTY, JOANIE 927-4587 FOR BASALT REALTY 927-3174
(23) CODE =24000 (24)SUB/LOC _ E SOP'CRK-EAST SOPRIS CRE
$144;500
i
I
.0
I
R, i
s
i
$175,000
i
(25)LEGAL =LOT 1 $ECTIC6 (26)LIST DATE =05/95. ~'
(27)EXP. DATE =10/31/95 (ao)LOT SQFT=O (29)COUNTi"' =P
(30)ZONING =RS-30 (31)OWNER =TRUE (32)FAR =0
(36)LOT FACE=S (47)OFR SUBA=N (48)OFFER =BB 40, TB 40, SA 0% ',
(49)ORIGINAL PRICE= 177000
*ACCESS
*GAS
*SANITATION
*IRRIGATION
*DOCUMENTS FILE
*LOT DESCRIPTIO
*AGENCY
EASEMENT.
NONE
SEPTIC
NONE
1041
BO NAT FORREST
EXCL RIGHT SELL
UNPAVED *ELECTRIC HOLY CROSS
*WATER WELL TO BRILL
*MINERAL RIGHTS NONE
*EXTRAS BRDS PUBLC LD
*POSSIBLE USE SINGLE FAMILY
VIEW *TERMS OFFERED CASH
*SIGN YES
(57)TAXES =$1562 (58)TAX YEAR=1994 (59)ASSN FEE=O ',
(60)SPC ASMT=O
(72)REMARKS =BEAUTIFUL VIEWS OF MT SOPRIS.PRIVATE BUILDING
(73)REMARKS =SITE BORDERS BLM ON 2 SIDES. 1041 HAZARD
(74)REMARKS =REVIEW COMPLETED. DOGS AND HORSES ALLOWED
(75)REMARKS =PRIVATE COUNTRY,SETTING YET CLOSE TO ASPEN II
(76)REMARKS =-
(77)HOW SOLD=CASH (78)CONTRACT DATE=06/16/95
(79)CLOSING DATE=07/19/95 (80)ASKING PRICE W/SOLD= 177000
(81)DAYS ON MARKET= 38
(82)AGENT-SCHEY, BARBRA J. 927-9997 FOR ASPEN REAL ESTATE COMPANY 920-2006'i
MLS#=27653 ( 5)ADDR= 0 W SOPRIS CRK ROAD ( 4)PRICE= $282,500
( 1)CLASS=LD ( 2) TYPE =SINGLE FM LOT ( 3) ZONE =5EM
( 6) CITY =EMMA (6A)ZIP CODE=81621-
( 7)STATUS=SOLD ( 8)FOR SALE
( 9)LOT SIZE=REFER TO ACR (10)ACREAGE =21-40 ACRES
(19)NO.ACRES= 35.10 (20)$/ACRE = 7830
(22)AGENT=HAZEN, BRIAN 925-5585 FOR COATES REID & WALDRON 925-1400 ~
(24)SUB/LOC =SOP MT RAN-SOPRIS MT RANCH (25)LEGAL =PARCEL 53
(26)LIST DATE =08/14/95 (27)EXP. DATE =08/14/96 (28)LOT SQFT=35.1A
(29)COUNTY =P (30)ZONING =RS30 (31)OWNER =SILLIMAN
(32)FAR =Y (36)LOT FACE=S (47)OFR SUBA=N
(48)OFFER =4aBB 4°a TB (49)ORIGINAL PRICE= 275000
*ACCESS UNPAVED COUNTY ROAD
*SANITATION SEPTIC *EXTRAS
*LOT DESCRIPTIO HORSE PROPERTY VIEW..
*WATER WELL TO DRILL
HORSE"FACILITY HORSE PRO~ERTY
*TERMS OFFERED CASH
i
(57)TAXES =280.10 (58)TAX YEAR=1994 (59)ASSN FEE=180/MO
(60)SPC ASMT=O
(72)REMARKS =INCREDIBLE VIEWS OF MT SOPRIS, OVERLOOKING
i
(73)REMARKS =THE COMMON HORSEBARN, PASTURES & IRRIGATED
(74)REMARKS =MEADOWS OF SOPRIS MTN RANCH. EASY ACCESS OFF
(75)REMARKS =W. SOPRIS CREEK ROAD. 1041 IN PLACE. it
(77)HOW SOLD=CASH (78)CONTRACT DATE=08/24/95
(79)CLOSING DATE=09/06/95 (80)ASKING PRICE W/SOLD= 275000
(81)DAYS ON MARKET= 10
(82)AGENT=RITCHIE, ROBERT 925-9466 FOR COATES REID._& WALDRON 925-1400
i
MLS#=24621 ( 5)ADDR= 0 W SOPRIS CREEK RD. ( 4)PRICE=
( 1)CLASS=LD ( 2) TYPE =SINGLE FM LOT ( 3) ZONE =SEM
( 6) CITY =BASALT (6A)ZIP CODE=81621-
( 7)STATUS=SOLD { 8)FOR SALE
( 9)LOT SIZE=REFER TO ACR (10)ACREAGE =21-40 ACRES
(19)NO.ACRES= 35.20 (20)$/ACRE _ 0'
(22)AGENT=HAGGERTY, JOANIE 927-4587 FOR BASALT REALTY 927-3174
(23) CODE =24000 (24)SUB/LOC =SOP MT RAN-SOPRIS MT RANCH
(25)LEGAL =LOT 52,SOP.MTN.RAN (26)LIST DATE =03/07/94
(27)EXP. DATE =01/13/96 (28)LOT SQFT=35.2 (29)COUNTY =P
(30)ZONING =RS30 (31)OWNER =JOY (32)FAR
(33)ALLOWFAR=N/1 (34)SURVEY =Y (36)LOT FACE=5 (37)WTR RGT =N
(38)GRZ RGT =Y (47)OFR SUBA=N (48)OFFER =TB-3o,BB-3%,S-0
(49)ORIGINAL PRICE= 395000
$305,''.000
=0
*ACCESS PAVED *ELECTRIC HOLY CROSS.
*GAS NONE *WA'TER WELL TO DRILL
*SANITATION SEPTIC *MINERAL RIGHTS NONE
ILS
ERGND U'
*EXTRAS BRDS PUBLC LD HORSE FACILITY HORSE PROPERTY ~
UND
*DOCUMENTS FILE CC & R's PHOTOGRAPHS SURVEY
*RESIDENCE INFO RANCH *PO$SIBLE USE RANCH SINGLE FAMILY
~
*LOT DESCRIPTIO HORSE PROPERTY BO NAT FORREST VIEW
*TERMS OFFERED CASH *DISCLOSURES 1041 REVIEW
*AGENCY EXCL RIGHT SELL *ASSN FEES INCL MANAGEMENT SNOW REMOV~L
*SIGN YES
(57)TAXES =325.26 (58)TAX YEAR=1993 (59)ASSN FEE=145/MO
(60)SPC ASMT=O (61)AVG UTIL=O i
(72)REMARKS =GOOD RANCH SITE! UNSURPASSED VIEWS OF
= CITIES INC`I;i7DE POL0
D
C
R
AND 5,000 SQFT. CLUB-
BARNSA
ARENA
(74)REMARKS =FTELDP I
(75)REMARKS =HOUSE,EASY ACCE$S.OVER 1500. ACRES FOR RIDING.
,..~, _... ~m~ .~ . ,
s ,
_ I ~~
(76)REMARKS =24 HRS.NOTICE TO SHOW. RNCH MANGR: 927-9540 i
(77)HOW SOLD=CASH (78)CONTRACT DATE=08/10/95 ~
(79)CLOSING DATE=08/30/95 (80)ASKING PRICE W/SOLD= 349000 I
(81)DAY3 ON MARKET=518
(82)AGENT=ADAMS,- BJ 923-4322 FOR BJ ADAMS AND COMPANY 923-2111
MLS#=24996 ( 5)ADDR= WEST SOPRIS CREEK ( 4)PRICE= $330,000
( 1)CLASS=LD ( 2) <TYPE =SINGLE FM LOT ( 3) ZONE =5EM
( 6) CITY =EMMA (6A)ZIP CODE=81623-
i
( 7)STATUS=SOLD ( 8)FOR SALE
( 9)LOT SIZE=REFER TO ACR (10)ACREAGE =21-40 ACRES.
(19)NO.ACRES= 35.00 (20)$/ACRE = 0
(22)AGENT=KELLY, JOHN THOMAS 925-.7423 FOR SPAR REAL ESTATE 920-1700 ~
(23) CODE =60600 (24)SUB/LOC =SOP MT RAN-SOPRIS MT RANCH
(25)LEGAL =LOT 14 (26)LIST DATE =03/08/94
(27)EXP. DATE =11/30/94 (28)LOT SQFT=35 (29)COUNTY =P
(31)OWNER =TRUESDALE FAMILY TRUST (32)FAR =Y (33)ALLOWFAR=10000
(47)OFR SUBA=Y (48)OFFER =3%
(49)ORIGINAL PRICE= 350000
*ACCESS PRIVATE UNPAVED *ELECTRIC HOLY CROSSi`
*GAS NONE *WATER` WELL. TO DRILL. i
.,. ,. ,, ..r~,,,.,,Tr.,., e~nmTr *MTNF.RAT~ RIGHTS NONE'
*IRRIGATION DITCH SYSisM *EXTRAS COMMON. ARE
HORSE FACILITY HORSE PROPERTY UNDERGND UTILS *bOCUMENTS FILE 1041
*POSSIBLE USESINGLE FAMILY *li~~l' E$~`I~`~'PT~~' ORS` ~2'RbPERTY I
*TERMS OFFERED CASH *DISCLOSURES REPORTS AVIAL it
*AGENCY EXCL RIGHT SELL *ASSN FEES INCL SNOW REMOVAL i
*SIGN NO ~
(57)TAXES =- (58)TAX YEAR=- (59)ASSN FEE=O
(60)SPC ASMT=O (61)AVG UTIL=O
(72)REMARKS =EXCELLENT VIEWS, 15 YR 1041 APPROVAL _ 'I
(73)REMARKS =HOMEOWNER HOUSE AND BARNS, GRAZING FOR
(74)REMARKS =HORSES.
(77)HOW SOLD=CONY (78)CONTRACT DATE=10/22/94
(79)CLOSING DATE=11/22/94 (80)ASKING PRICE W/SOLD= 350000
(81)DAYS ON MARKET=224 ~
(82)AGENT=JONES, HAYS 925-1730 FOR_UTE CITY BROKERS 925-1730, ~
MLS#=24997 ( 5)ADDR= WEST SOPRIS CREEK ( 4)PRICE= $375,000
( 1)CLASS=LD ( 2) TYPE =SINGLE FM LOT ( 3) ZONE =5EM
( 6) CITY =EMMA (6A)ZIP CODE=81623-
( 7)STATUS=SOLD ( 8)FOR SALE
( 9)LOT SIZE=REFER TO ACR (10)ACREAGE =21-40 ACRES I
(19)NO.ACRES= 35.00 (20)$/ACRE = 0
(22)AGENT=KELLY, JOHN THOMAS 925-7423 FOR SPAR REAL ESTATE 920-1700
(23) CODE =60600 (24)SUB/LOC =SOP MT RAN-SOPRIS MT RANCH ~
(25)LEGAL =LOT 34 (26)LIST DATE =03/08/94
(27)EXP. DATE =11/30/94 (28)LOT SQFT=35 (29)COUNTY =P
(31)OWNER =TRUESDALE FAMILY TRUST, (32)FAR =Y (33)ALLOWFAR=10000 ',
(47)OFR SUBA=Y (48)OFFER =30
(49)ORIGINAL PRICE= 395000
*ACCESS PRIVATE UNPAVED *ELECTRIC HOLY CROSSI
*GAS NONE *WATER WELL TO DRILL
*SANITATION SEPTIC *MINERAL RIGHTS ,NONE I
*IRRIGATION DITCH SYSTEM *EXTRAS COMMON AREA CORRALS I
HORSE FACILITY HORSE PROPERTY *DOCUMENTS FILE 1041 I
*POSSIBLE USE SINGLE FAMILY *LOT DESCRIPTIO HORSE PROPERTY i
~.
*TERMS OFFERED CASH *DISCLOSURES RE~O~2TS~A`CTIAL
*AGENCY EXCL RIGHT SELL *ASSN FEES INCL SNOW REMOVAL `
*SIGN NO I
(57)TAXES =- (58)TAX YEAR=- (59)ASSN FEE=O
(60)SPC ASMT=O (61)AVG UTIL=O
(72)REMARKS =EXCELLENT VIEWS, 15 YR 1'041 APPROVAL
(73)REMARKS =HOMEOWNER HOUSE AND BARNS, GRAZING FOR
(74)REMARKS =HORSES.
(77)HOW SOLD=CONV (78)CONTRACT DATE=10/22/94
(79)CLOSING DATE=11/22/94 (80)ASKING PRICE W/SOLD= 395000 ~I
(81)DAYS ON MARKET=224
(82)AGENT=DURRANCE, DAVID 923-2189 FOR DURRANCE REAL ESTATE CO. 923-5376
Thank you from ASPEN BOARD OF REALTORS
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Regular Meeting - September 27, 1995
THRU: Tim Malloy, Acting Community Development D
FROM: Rick Magill, Planner
RE: Graves/Bent/Leonhardt 1041 Hazard Review & General !I
Submission '
REQUEST: The Applicants are requesting approval of 1041 Hazard
Review and General Submission for the construction of single family
residences on Lots 3,8,10,& 14 of the'West "Sopris Creek Ranch
Subdivision. The properties contain areas mapped for wildfire,
geologic, and. wildlife hazards. '
i
Pursuant to a written request by the Board of County Commissioners, '
the owners of four (4) separate parcels have combined their land
use applications into one joint application for the purpose of
coordinating planning and design efforts.
APPLICANTS: Lauren Graves (Lots 3 & 8), Dorthea Bent (Lot 14), Anne
Leonhardt (Lot 10).
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Lauren Graves
LOCATION: The West Sopris Creek Subdivision (formerly known as the,
Terliamis Tracts). is located approximately 3 miles from Emma, off '
of West Sopris Creek Road.
ZONING: RS-30, thirty acre minimum lot size
GENERAL SITE/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The entire subdivision isl
primarily a southeast facing hillside and is oompr"sed of stands
of oakbrush, serviceberry, juniper, pinion pine, and other shrubs
and grasses typical of this aspect and elevation. There are nod
major water courses in the subdivision (except for west Sopris,
Creek which runs through the extreme western portions of Lots 2 ands
fifteenh(1 ) sparcelssreachkovercthirtyaf veg (35)thacresosThree! '
single-family residences have been built on 3 lots to date. They
Applicants state that they intend to build homes ranging in size
from 1,000 to 4,500 square feet.
REFERRAL AGENCIES: Referral ..agency comments are incorporated',
throughout this memorandum and are attached for reference as
necessary.
i
1. County Attorney
2. Zoning Office
3. Environmental Health Department
4. County Engineer
5. Colorado State Forest Service
6. Basalt Fire
7. Sheriffs Office
8. Division of Wildlife
STAFF COMMENTS: Staff will review each parcel individually for 1041
Hazards and review General"Submission issues as a group.
LOT 3
1041 HAZARD REVIEW
Wildlife - The DOW determined that this lot lies within elk and '
mule deer winter range, and is adjacent fo critical habitat, winter ~!
concentration area, and severe winter range for both deer .and elk.
Kevin Wright recommends that the building envelope be located where
the toe of the ridge meets a small bench and should not be ..located
on the small knob east of the proposed building envelope. '
Mr. Wright further recommends that native vegetation be preserved ',
to the maximum extent possible to screen the homesite. ,Mr. Wright
indicated that the construction of a low profile home, and the
existing pinion/juniper acid oakbrush, will_ serve to minimize i
impacts on wildlife. The DOW also recommended that dogs be
prohibited and that horses be.restricted`to the" building envelopes'
for all of these parcels. Black bears .inhabit the area and have)
caused damage to personal property in the subdivision'._
i
Wildfire - The Colorado State Forest Service has determined that
the proposed building site, in fact the entire property, is located
in an area rated for high wildfire hazard... Due to the continuity:
and density of the surrounding oakbrush/serviceberry fuels and the
steep slopes on this and adjoining lots, there is a significant',
threat from wildfire in this area. Kelly Rogers indicated that
wildfire risk should be mitigated somewhat. by placement of thee,
building envelope on the lower more level portion of the lot. The'i
driveway below the building site will also act as a fuelbreak. Mr.~
Rogers recommends the full menu of both defensible space vegetation
modification and architectural guidelines outlined in Land Use Codes
Section 3-80.70.
As a general note relating to all of these parcels, the Colorado',
State Forest Service also points out that the current access road
(existing subdivision road) does not meet CSFS standards for grade
and width, and does not provide. for dual. ingress/egress to the',
area. In the event of a large wildfire in this area,, the high'.
hazard fuels along much of this road, combined with the relative',,
2
i '
i
remoteness of the site, may limit access .for emergency vehicles ~,
into this and adjacent parcels. ',
Kelly Rogers further recommends that the landowners of all these
parcels investigate the. possibility of jointly"purchasing a ~,
portable foam system (for fire fighting). These systems have proven ~~
extremely valuable in protecting structures in wildland fires, but
should not be relied upon in lieu of other mitigation measures.
Geologic - The property contains slopes in excess of 50 percent,
with no significant areas of slopes less than 15, percent. The
proposed building envelope contains. slopes of approximately 10-25 ',
percent and is located in the north central portion of thee,
property. There are no other buildable areas which oontain lesser
slopes on the entire parcel. The proposed driveway will access Lot ~,
3 from the north, through Lot 5; from the subdivision road. The
proposed access driveway is approximately 2,000 feet long and wild i
cross slopes ranging from approximately 18 to 55 percent. The
access road will traverse a 20 foot deep intermittent drainage on
Lot 5, which will require a significant amount of-fill material i
with a culvert. Planning Staff has significant concerns with
respect to the long access driveway and the resulting potential for
environmental impacts, although there does not appear to be an
alternate driveway alignment any less impactive than that proposed..,
Nick Lampiris did not identify any additional geologic hazards to
development on the property, yet he did suggest that structural
foundations and the .access road be engineered.
LOT 8
1041 HAZARD REVIEW
Wildlife - The Division of Wildlife determined that this lot lies
within elk and mule deer winter range, and is adjacent to critical
habitat, winter concentration area, and severe winter range for
both deer and elk. The DOW recommends that the homesite be placed.
in the northern half of the proposed building envehope on the flat]
bench adjacent to Lot 20. Kevin Wright indicated that they
clustering of the building envelopes for Lots 8 & 10 will serve to'
minimize disturbance and impacts to wildlife. Mr. Wright pointed
out that natural vegetation should be used to screen the driveway.,
Mr. Wright suggests that the construction of a low profile home,'
and the existing pinion/juniper and oakbrush, will serve to ',
minimize impacts on wildlife,
Wildfire - The Colorado State Forest Service has determined that
the proposed building: site; in fact the entire property, has been
mapped accurately as severe wildfire hazard area. A mature oakbrush
and serviceberry mix predominates, with a sagebrush and grass`s
understory. The building site is located along a bench where the
slope .appears to be the least and the brush has some naturals
openings. Kelly Rogers states. that the building envelope has been
3
placed in the .best possible looation with regard to wildfire
hazard. The driveway slightly below the building site will also act ~~
as a fuelbreak. Mr. Rogers recommends the full menu of both i
defensible space vegetation modification and architectural
guidelines outlined in Land Use Code Section 3-80.70.`
Geologic - The property contains slopes in excess of 50 percent.
The proposed building envelope contains slopes of approximately 7-
37 percent and is .located in the north central portion of the
property. The proposed driveway will access hqt 8 from the north
and traverse slopes of approximately 26 percent. The driveway as
proposed is approximately 300 feet. long. Staff recommends that the ~
access driveway alignment proposed by the .Applicant be utilized.
This road alignment, along with the DOW recommendation to place .the
home in the northern half of the proposed envelope, will in effect
shorten the access driveway to approximately 200 feet. Nick
Lampiris did not identify any significant geologic hazard to
development on the property, yet he did suggest that structural
foundations and the access driveway be engineered. Mr. Lampiris did
point out that here are some depressions associated with colluvial ~
soil deposits that should be avoided, and that they should be made
to drain properly early in the excavation process. Staff recommends
that the building envelope be revised in order to eliminate the
depressions, to eliminate slopes in excess of 3o percent, and to
comply with DOW recommendations. The resulting building envelope
will be approximately one (1) acre in size. ~
LOT 10
1041 HAZARD REVIE~P_
Wildlife - The Division of Wildlife determined that this lot lies'
within elk and mule deer winter range, and is adjacent to critical
habitat, winter concentration area, and severe winter range for,
both deer and elk. The DOW recommends that the homesite be placed
on the low flat bench below and east/southeast of a ring of spruce
trees. This is the same bench which has been cleared and a well
drilled. Staff recommends that the building envelope be revised to~
comply with the recommendation of the DOW and to correspond with'i
the existing clearing. This. revision will require a variance to they
front yard setback of Lot.. 10 (100'to 50'). The resulting building',,
envelope will be approximately 30,.000 square feet in size. Kevin'i
Wright indicated that the clustering of the building envelopes for
Lots 8 & 10 will serve to minimize disturbance and impacts to,
wildlife. Mr. Wright suggests that the construction of a lows
profile home and the preservation of existing pinion/juniper and'
oakbrush, along with the ring of spruce trees, will serve to
minimize impacts on wildlife,
Wildfire - The Colorado State Forest Service has determined that
the proposed building site, in fact th'e entire property, has been
mapped accurately as severe wildfire hazard area. A mature oakbrush
4
~ I
and serviceberry mix predominates, with a sagebrush and grass ',
understory. The building site is .located along a bench where the
slope appears to be the least and the brush has some natural
openings. Kelly Rogers states that the building envelope has been
placed in the best possible location with regard to wildfire
hazard. The driveway slightly below the building site will also act
as a fuelbreak. Mr. Rogers recommends the full .menu of both ,~i
defensible ..space vegetation modification and architectural
guidelines outlined-in Land Use Code Section 3-80.70.
Geologic - The property contains slopes in excess. of 50 percent. !,
The proposed building envelope contains slopes of approximately 7- I
30 percent .and is located in the north-central portion of the
property. The revised building envelope oontans slopes of 7 to 24
percent. The proposed driveway will access Lot 10 ..from, the north
and traverse slopes of approximately 20 percent. The driveway as'~,
proposed is approximately 160 feet .long. Staff recommends that the 'I
access driveway alignment proposed by the Applicant be utilized.
Nick Lampiris did not .identify any significant geologic hazard to
development on the property, yet he did suggest that structural
foundations be engineered.
LOT 14
1041 HAZARD REVIEW,.
Wildlife - The Division of Wildlife determined that this lot lies ',
within elk and mule deer winter range, and is adjacent to critical
habitat, winter concentration area, and severe winter range for
elk. The hillside to the north contains winter concentration area
for mule deer (below ridge). The DOW recommends that.: the homesitel
be placed on the low flat bench adjacent to the main subdivision..
road .towards the top of the ridge. Kevin Wright recommends that
the buildings not hangover the bench on to the hillsides to the,
north and south. If there needs to be some overhang, Mr. Wright
DOWtindicatedtthat theuconstruction of a low profile bhome, and the',
preservation of existing native vegetation will serve to minimize
impacts on wildlife. .Staff will recommend., that the building
envelope be revised to comply with the DOW recommendations. The DOW
recommendation, coupled with required setbacks, will create a~~
envelope that is approximately 12,000 square feet. These and other!
suggested mitigation measures will be recommended conditions ofi
approval. ',
Wildfire - The Colorado State Forest Service has determined that'
the proposed building site, in fact the entire property; is located
in an area rated for high wildfire hazard. Mature oakbrush and.
serviceberrg occupy the proposed building envelope, and the slope
is gentle along this portion of the ridge. slopes below this ridge,
drop off steeply, and are covered with dense brush.. Once again the!,.
5
n
Applicant has chosen the best site on the lot with regards to
wildfire hazard. Mr. Rogers recommends the full menu of both ~
defensible .space vegetation modification and architectural
guidelines outlined in Land Use Code Section 3-80.70.
Geologic - The property contains slopes in excess of 50 percent.
The proposed building envelope contains slopes of approximately 5-
23 percent and is located in the southern portion of the property.
The Applicant did not depict a proposed"alignment for an access '~
driveway for Lot 14. Given the building envelope now recommended I
by Staff, a very short-driveway will be necessary to access the
revised envelope. Nick Lampiris did not identify any significant
geologic. hazard to development on the property, yet he did suggest
that structural foundations be engineered.
1041 SUMMARY: The wildfire hazard to Lots 3 8 10 &14 has been
identified and documented as being severe by the Count 1'041 Hazard
y ~,
maps and the Colorado State Forest Service. The Pitkn County Land
Use Code prohibits development in severe wildfire areas. ~
Staff has included the condition that house sizes be limited to I
5,000 square feet based on'wildfre hazard considerations.. Staff
also recommends that the maximum height of the structures be
limited to 20 feet based on the comments of the Division of ~
Wildlife. These recommendations are consstent'witli past approvals
in areas containing severe wildfire hazard and significant wildlife I
habitat concerns.
i
GENERAL SIIBMISSION REVIEW FOR ALL FOUR PARCELS it
Drainage and Erosion- Site drainage is limited. to surface ~
drainage and absorption. Development within the building envelopes,
poses little potential for erosion .provided that .all areas
disturbed by construction be revegetated within the first growing
season following the completion of each development. I
The County Engineer will require that all proposed access driveways'
by the C unty Engineer,spriorrto thecissuance of bu lding permitsa',
The County Engineer will also .require a drainage and erosion
control plan for. each.. development, prior to the issuance of'i
building permits. ',
Impacts to Roads - The County Engineer determined that these
developments will not cause significant additional impacts to the
County roads.
There are several sections of the existing subdivision road which 1,
do not currently meet County roadway 'standards. The referral
agencies (CSFS, Sheriffs Office, Basalt Fire) have consistently
pointed out that the subdivision road does. not provide adequatei
6
ingress/egress for emergehcy vehicles and personnel. ',
A number of the landowners have recently formed the Stone Road
Association for the purpose of'upg'rading and maintaining tha
subdivision road. Staff understands that this road is currently
being improved to a standard that ,,has been approved by the Couhty
Engineer. The Board of County Commissioners had trongly encouraged
the landowners to form such an Association during the review of the i
1041 Hazard Review for Lot 6 (Restivo/Strawbridge).
i
Scenic Quality - The subject properties are not in, the mapped
scenic foreground overlay or ridgeline area, although Lot 14 is
located quite close to a mapped ridgeline area.. Development in the
area of Lot 14 recommended by the DOW may be visible from the north
(E1 Jebel/Missouri Heights). The developments. may be visible from ~~_
the West Sopris Creek Road, internal subdivision roads, and
.adjacent parcels. There are currently no construction plans for the it
residences, although the Applicants have represented to Staff that i
"low- rofile homes will be constructed to lessen the visual impact
P ~~
of the developments and to help minimize impacts to wildlife. li
Water and Sewer - The Applicants are proposing to supply the
residences with domestic water by installing wells. A well has
already been established on Lot 10, and the Applicants and Nick
Lampiris have indicated that there are other wells which have
adequate yield and quality in the 'immediate area. The Environmental
Health Department will require documentation of the. adequate
quality and quantity of the water supply for each development,
prior to the issuance of building permits.
The Applicants are proposing Individual Sewage Disposal Systems for
each residence. The specifications _of the Environmental Health
Department must be followed for the design of the`ISb5. "Septic
Permits will be required by the EHD, `prior to the issuance of
building permits.
IItility Extensions - Electric and telephone service is available
in the subdivision roads. Any utility extensions will be required
to occur within the access driveways.
SUMMARY: The wildfire hazard to Lots 3,8,10,&14 has been identified
and documented as being "severe". Section 3-8o.70(A) prohibits'
development in severe wildfire areas. The Planning Office
recommends denial of this application (all four lots) based on the!,
aforementioned Code Section. If the development application isi
subsequently denied by the Board of County Commissioners, thee,
Applicant may appeal to the Board of County Commissioners pursuant,
to Section 3-290 of the Code (Takings betermination).
Staff feels that the wildfire danger throughout this development
presents a significant risk to residents and emergency response
personnel. Other issues, such as, the inadequacy of the subdivision
7
I
roads, encroachment on wildlife habitats, and development on areas '~
of steep slopes need to be considered in the disposition of this i
application.
While Staff appreciates the efforts of these landowners with !I
respect to this group application, it was hoped that more
aggressive and creative means would be utilized to more effectively
cluster the developments, such as Iot reconfigtiration through lot ',
line adjustments. Staf£ does acknowledge the difficulty of this
request. The BOCC recently expressed their wish to see the
Applicants continue investigating creative solutions in site design
and planning. !i
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of ..County
Commissioners deny the Graves/Bent/Leorihardt General Submission and
1041 Hazard Review based on Land Use Code Section 3-80.70 (A)(1&2). it
,,
ATTACHb~NTS: _ !~
1. DOW comments
2. CSFS comments ~ ~
3. Basalt Fire comments
4. County Engineer. comments _ ~~
5. Zoning Office comments
memo GRAVES bocc
8
r STATE OF COLORADO
Roy Romer, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Perry D. Olson, Director
606 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303) 297.1192
3-18-95
Pitkin County Planning
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Rick:
''. REFER TO
22\°1°~ o°ti°~°c
~f ~~4~, `Jf Sl,~
""""'"`~ For Wildlife -
For People
Graves/Bent/Leonhardt's Lots 3, 8, 10, and 14 of West Sopris
Creek Ranch Subdivision (Terliamis Tract) lie within elk and mule
deer winter range. They lie adjacent to critical habitat, winter
concentration area, and severe winter range for both. Lot 14
contains winter concentration area for mule deer on the north
side and hillside of the flat bench on top (outside of proposed
building envelope). Black bear inhabit the area and have caused
problems and damage within the subdivision. Most bear use occurs l;
Spring and Fall as they forage for food in the oakbrush/pinon-
juniper.
Clumping of the homesites and building envelopes as proposed for
lots 8,10 and 14,13 will help to minimize disturbance and ~
impacts. This clumping should be maintained and encouraged.
The following are recommendations for each specific lot and
building proposal followed by more general recommendations for
all of the proposed homesites and lots in order to minimize
wildlife impacts.
LOT 3 - 1. Tuck homesite in where toe of ridge meets small i
bench
2. Maintain as much native vegetation within
building envelope as gossible. Use pinon-
. juniper and oakbrush to screen homesite.
Homesite should not be located on small. i
knob along east side of building envelope
and bench
3. Driveway be kept to minimum width as possible
and any cut/fill be revegetated immediately
with native grass/oakbrush/pinon-juniper
LOT 8 - 1. Maintain clumping with lot 10
2. Homesite be placed in north 1/2 of building
envelope on flat bench adjacent to lot 10.
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, James S. Lochhead, Executive Director '~,
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Thomas M. Eve, Chairman • Louis F. Swift, Vice-Chairman • Amold Salazar, Secretary
Jesse Langston Boyd, Jc, Member • Eldon W.Cdoper, Member • Rebecca L. ,Frank, Member ',
William R. Hegberg, Member • Mark LeValley, Member ',
.~ ~--
3. If driveway enters building envelope from
the south end it should use the natural
vegetation to screen the driveway.
LOT 10 - 1. Homesite be placed on bench below and.
east/southeast of a ring of spruce trees. This
is same bench which has been cleared and a well
drilled.
LOT 14 - 1. Homesite be placed on low flat bench adjacent to
main access road on top of ridge (current
building envelope location)
2. No building hang-over of bench to hillsides on
north and south.
General recommendations:
L No dogs ',
2. All garbage be kept in approved bear proof garbage
containers. (N. American Bear Society specifications)
3. Maintain native .vegetation outside building envelope
4. .All fencing be restricted to building envelope. All ',
fencing be 42", 4 strand or less .with a 12" kickspace
between the top 2 strands. Any rail fencing be the round ',
rail or split rail type, 48" 3 rail or less with at least '
18" between 2 of the rails '
5. All horses be restricted to the, building envelope and
any haystacks be fenced with 8' fencing at the owners
expense to prevent game damage. ',
6. Lo~.r ~~c1e 6wMes
In addition, the BLM in cooperation with the Division. of .Wildlife
have a motor vehicle and snowmobile closure on the public land of ~~
the Crown from Dec. 1 - June 1 each year. Homeowners need to be ',
aware and respect this closure. I
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any
questions, please give me a call.
Since ely,
~~
Kevin Wrigh
District Wi life Manager
Carbondale
MAR 2 01995
an:~ ~;
~i:~ ~ a
March 17, 1995
Rick Magill
Aspen/Pitkin Community
i30 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 8161 1
Development Department
FOREST
SERVICE
Slate Services Building
222 S. 6th Street, Room 416
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501
Telephone (303) 248-7325
Re: Graves/Bent/Leonhardt 1041 Wildfire Hazard Review
Rick,
I have reviewed the building application for the
Graves/Bent/Leonhardt lots in West Sopris Creek Ranch
subdivision, submitted by Lauren Graves, Dorothea Bent, and Anne
Leonhardt, and visited the sites on March 15th, 7995. I have the
following comments with regard to wildfire hazards on these lots.
Lot #3:
Vegetation on lot #3 consists of dense to patchy oak and
serviceberry brush approximately 4 to 10 feet in height,
interspersed with sagebrush and grass. Occaisional juniper trees
occur across the lot. Slope appears to be 10-15A; across the
building envelope, although slopes directly below the proposed
building site are steeper. The site has been mapped accurately as
"X: severe hazard - brush"; the vegetation and slope on much of
this and the adjoining lots pose a significant threat from
wildfire. Under favorable burning conditions, a fire originating
below this site would probably be quite intense and difficult to
control.
The wildfire risk should be mitigated somewhat by placement of
the building envelope on the lower, more level portion of the
lot; the proposed site is the best location possible from a
wildfire standpoint. Locating the driveway below the structure
will also act as a fuelbreak, While it is not impossible to
mitigate the wildfire hazard on this lot, I would recommend the
full menu of both defensible space vegetation modification as
well as the architectural guidelihes outlined in the Pitkin
County Code Section 3-807, C, including all of the options listed
under item 4, "Structural Design and Construction Options".
Lots #8 and #10:
i
These two building sites have been "clustered" together in order '',
to create the least impact to wildlife; the sites have very
similar wildfire hazard. Both sites have been mapped accurately
as "X: severe hazard - brush". A mature oakbrush and serviceberry
mix predominates, with a sagebrush and grass understory. The
sites are located along a bench where slope appears the least and'
the brush has some natural openings. Both building envelopes have'..
been placed in the best possible location in regards to wildfire
hazard.
!~s _,
As with lot #3, the proposed driveway will come in slightly below
the structures, and will act as a fuelbreak. Again, I feel it is
possible to adequately mitigate the wildfire hazard oh these lots.
by following the standards outlined in the Pitkin County Code
Section 3-807, C, including all of the options listed under item
4, "Structural. Design. and Construction Options°.
Lot #14:
This building site is located along a ridgetop that has
accurately mapped as "X: severe hazard - brush". Mature
and serviceberry occupy the proposed bu ilding"en`v`elope;
slope is gentle along the'top bf this ridge. The slopes
this ridge drop off steeply, and are covered„with dense
Once again, the applicant has selected the best site on
in regards to wildfire hazard.
been
oakbrush
and the
below
brush.
the lot
As with the previously mentioned sites, I feel the risk. of
wildfire can be adequately mitigated on this site by following
the above-referenced standards in the Pitkin County Code.
I have some additional concerns ,regarding access to these,
parcels. The current access road does not meet"CBEs standards for
grade and width, and does not ,provide for dual' ingress/egress to
the area. In the event of a large wildfire in this area, the high
hazard fuels along much of th is road combined with the relative
remoteness of the site might limit access for emergency vehicles
into this and adjacent parcels. For these reasons, it is even
more important that the applicants understand the potential risk
from wildfire, and that appropriate mitigation measures as
outlined in this letter and the land use application are taken.
I would highly recommend investigating the possibility of jointly
purchasing a portable foam system, as mentioned by Steve Howard
of the Basalt Fire Department. These systems have proven
extremely valuable in protecting structures in wildland fires.
However, I would caution, against relying too heavily on this
system in lieu of the other mitigation measures listed in this
application.
Thanks for the opportunity to review this proposal. Please
contact me if you have questions about these comments.
Sincerely,
Kelly Rogers
Asst. District Forester
cc: Steve Crockett, Pitkin Co
Lauren Graves
i
Sheriff's Office
i
Steve Howard, Basalt & Rural FPD
Fmm: Basag Fire-Reawe To: Rids Magill Date: &17~Tane: 15:17:55 _ Paget oil..
~,
From: Steve Howard, Fire Chief Date: 3117195
o: Rick Magill Time: 2:30 PM
Company: Pitkin Ca Panning_~ce - FAX #: 2t3-5439
Rick,
I have reviewed the Gravesl3entlLeon~a qt 2U4'I eviell ire par<~es mvviwu
,.~~~,..,~ ~_xm -~ ,n~, w.
have been very cooperative in trying to mitigate the rnargina~ stuation that exists ,
on the oPifest Sopris Creek Ranch Subdivision. {f they peri`orm ail of the steps
takeh, i believe it will avoid the Shield-O-~rtess situation.
Any questions, call meat 927-3365
FAX: (303} 927-3936
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO Rick Magill
From: Bud Eylar
Postmark: Jun 15,95- 10:49 AM
Subject: Graves et a1 1041
CC Bud
Message:
Rick, I have reviewed the application(s) and have the following
comments: Access Drives- The Graves drive is the most troblesome, in
that is is very long, across heavily vegetated slopes, some of the
slopes which may exceed 30%, a major drainage gully, with potential
alignment and grade problems. While it may be possible to, build the
drive to county standards, the visibility will be high and the length
across the heavily vegetated slopes cannot be avoided. If this
access is approved, an access permit will, be required. Pull offs will
be required for emergency access and a drainage plan shall be require.
------------===X=====___-------
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO Rick Magill
From: Bud Eylar
Postmark: Jun 15,95 10:54 AM
Subject: Graves et al 1041 (cont)
CC Bud
Message:
The remaining drives as discussed are acceptable. Access p
shall be required and drainage plans shall be submitted. Th
applicants should agree to participate in a a Road Improveme
District if on should be proposed for the subdivision. Bu
----------=====X=====___-------
__.,
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Rick Magill , Planning
FROM: Joanna S. Schaffner, Zoning Officer~~
DATE: April 12, 1995 II
RE: Graves/Bent/Leonhard
1041 Hazard Review & General Submission i
Parcel ID# 2465-153-00-006; 2465-222'-00-004;
2465-223-00-007; 2465-223-00-010
I have reviewed the above referenced application and offer the
following comments.
ZONE: RS-30, thirty acre minimum lot. size
Each of these parcels contain 35 acres and conform in size.
SETBACRB: The required setbacks for these parcels are:
100 foot front .yard setback
50 foot side yard setback
50 foot rear yard setback ~
All proposed building envelopes are located within. required
setbacks. ~
The building envelope on Lot 3 lies within the front. yard setback.
The .building envelope on Lot 8 lies within _a side yard setback.
The building envelope on Lot 10 lies within the front yard setback.
The building envelope on Lot 14 lies within the side yard setback.
These envelopes should be relocated outside of required setbacks.
Board of Adjustment approval will be required before any
development can be permitted within setbacks..
FLOOR AREA: Each of these. parcels is allowed 15,000 square feet
of residential floor area. Agricultural structures are not'i
included in floor area calculations as each parcel exceeds 20
acres. The applicants state that,they'intend to construct homes~~
ranging in size from 1,000 to 4,500 square feet.
HEIGHT: No building plans have been presented with this'
application, so compliance with County height regulations cannotll
be determined at this time.
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Regular Meeting - September 27, 1995
.J
THRUc Tim Malloy, Acting Community Development Direc~oY"
RE: Graves/Bent/Leonhardt 1041 Hazard Review ant./q,./~GE
Submission
FROM:. Rick Magill, Planner
al
REQIIEST: The Applicants are requesting approval of 1041 Hazard
Review and General Submission for the construction of single family
residences on Lots 3,8,10,& 14 of the West Sopris Creek Ranch
Subdivision (also known as the "Terliamis Tracts").
Pursuant to a written request by the Board of County Commissioners, ',
the owners of four (4) separate parcels have combined their land..)
use applications into one. joint application for the purpose of
coordinating planning and design efforts.
APPLICANTS: Lauren Graves. (Lots 3 & 8), Dorthea Bent_(Lot 14), Anne ',
Leonhardt (Lot 10).. _ i
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Lauren Graves
LOCATION: The West Sopris Creek Subdivision is located.
approximately 3 miles from Emma, off of West Sopris Creek Road.
ISSUES:.
1. 1041 Hazards: severe wildfire, geologic (slopes in excess of ',
30% and mancos shale), and wildlife habitat (elk and mule deer!i
winter range, and proximity to winter concentration areas,
severe winter range and critical habitat for both deerand
elk)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning Staff and the Planning and Zoning l'
Commission recommend denial of the Graves/Bent/Leonhardt 1041
Hazard Review and General Submission,' based on Lahd Use Code
Section 3-80.70 (A) Severe Wildfire Hazard Areas._
ais graves denial
~~ ~ ~.
~~ ~J ~ ~~~ ~~~ . ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~-~
~('~''~L~ a~ ~-~'~~
6 ~~ (~) 1.~' )~EMORANDIIM r 11
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Regular Meeting - September 27, 1995
THRII: Tim Malloy, Acting Community Development Director
FROM: Rick Magill, Planner
RE: Graves/Bent/Leonhardt ..1041 _Hazard Review & General
Submission
~ RE IIE3T• The A licants are re uestin a royal of 1041 Hazard
t
~
c
p ~
l tion of single family
he constru
Submission for
Review and General ~
~1 residences on Lots 3,8,10,& 14 of the West Sopris Creek Ranch i
Subdivision. The properties contain areas mapped for wildfire,
~.. ,.. w,
geologic, and wildlife hazards. ~
i
~ ~
^
v
~
Pursuant to a written request by the Board of County Commissioners,
the owners of four (4) separate parcels have combined their land.
e of ~
po
h
s
e pur
use applications into ,,,one joint application for t
s 3
.
coordinating planning and design effort
APPLICANTS: Lauren Graves (Lots 3 & 8), Dorthea Bent (Lot 14), Anne
Leonhardt (Lot 10).
"
\ `~~~CCt~~~
APPLICANT'S REPRE3ENTATIyE, Lauren Graves
I
LOCATION: The West Sopris Creek Subdivision (formerly known as the
Terliamis Tracts) is located approximately 3 miles from Emma, off
I ~
~„
_, __
of West Sopris Creek Road:
i
ze
ZONING: RS-30, thirty acre minimum lot s
GENERAL 32TE/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The entire subdivision isi
iids
t
f'
ris
d
n
s
a
o
e
d is comp
primarily a southeast facing hillside a
of oakbrush, serviceberry, juniper, pinion pine, and other shrubs
d
and grasses typical of this .aspect and elevation. There are no
major water courses in the subdivision (except for West Sopris,
Creek which runs through the extreme western portions of Lots 2 and'
th
r
o e
e
~
f
c
k
h
s
Three'I
s
acr
n35)
ive
thirty
ver
each
parcelss
(15)
fifteen
Th
t
e.
e.
single-family residences have been built on 3 lots, to da
ize
i
i
an
m
n s
g
ng
es r
nd to build ho
a
a
1
square feet
4e500
1a000 to
from
REFERRAL AGENCIE3: Referral agency
throughout this memorandum and are
necessary.
comments are. incorporated',
attached for reference asl
n
,~""~
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
County Attorney
Zoning Office
$nvironmental Health Department...
County Engineer
Colorado State .Forest Service
Basalt Fire
Sheriffs Office
Division of Wildlife
STAFF COMMENTS: Staff will review each parcel individually for 1041
Hazards and review General Submission issues as a group.
LOT 3
1041 HAZARD REVIEW ~~ ~~~ (..~/~
Wildlife - The DOW determi that this lot lie within elk and
mule deer winter range, and adjacent to critica habitat, winter
concentration area, and severe winter range for both deer and elk.
Kevin Wright recommends that. the building envelope be located where ~~
the toe ofthe ridge meets a small, bench and should not be located„~~
on the small knob east of the proposed building envelope.
,. I
Mr. Wright further .recommends that native vegetation_be,preserved
to the maximum extent possible to screen the homesite. Mr. Wright ~,
indicated that the construction of a low profile' home, and the ',
existing pinion/juniper and oakbrush, will serve to minimize,
im acts on wildlife. The DOW also recommended that dogs be ~,
prohibited and that horses be restricted to `the building envelopes
for all of these parcels. Black bears inhabit the area and have ~
caused damage to personal property in the subdivision.
Wildfire - The Colorado State Forest Service has determined that
the proposed building site, in fact the entire property, is located
in an area rated forwrhigh wildfire hazard. Due to ,the continuity'
~,,.-
and density of the surrounding oakbrush/serviceberry fuels and''the
steep slopes on this and adjoining lots, there is a significantl,
threat from wildfire in this area Kelly Rogers indicated that's
wildfire risk should be mitigated somewhat by placement of the 'I
building envelope on the lower more level portion of the lot. Thei
driveway below the building site will also act as a fuelbreak. Mr.i
Rogers recommends the full menu of both defensible space vegetation,,
,K
modification and architectural guidelines outlined in Land Use Coded
Section 3-80.70.
As a general note relating to all of .these .parcels, the Colorado's
State Forest Service also points out that the. current access road
(existing subdivision road) does aot meet CSFS,standards for' grade
and width, and does not provide for dual ingress/egress'to the'
area: In the event of a large wildfire in this area:, the high
hazard fuels along much of this road, combined with the relative
2
~""''+
remoteness, of mthe site, may limit access for emergency vehicles
o~r
into this and adjacent parcels.
Kelly Rogers further. recommends that the. landowners of all these
parcels investigate the possibility of jointly purchasing a
portable foam system (for fire fighting). These systems have proven
extremely valuable n_protecting structures in wildland fires, but
should not be .relied ,upon in lieu of other mitigation measures.
Geologic - The property contains slopes in excess of 50, percent,
with no significant areas of slopes less _than 15 percent. The
proposed building envelope contains slopes of approximately 10-25 ~,
percent__and is located in the ,north central portion of the i
property. There are no other buildable areas which contain lesser i
slopes on the entire parcel.. The proposed driveway will access hot
3 from the north, through Lot 5, from the subdivision road. The
proposed access.. driveway is approximately 2,000 feet long and will
P
cross slopes rangingfrom"approximately 18 to _55 ercent 5 The
access road will traverse a 20 foot deep intermittent drama e on
Lot 5, which will require 'a significant amount of fill material
with a culvert. Planning Staff has significant concerns.: with ~I
respect to the long access driveway and the resulting potential for i
environmental impacts, although there does. not ,appear to be an
alternate driveway alignment any less impactive than that proposed.
Nick Lampiris did not. identify any additional geologic hazards to
development on the property, yet he did suggest that structural 'I
foundations and the access road be engineered.
LOT 8
1041 HAZARD REVIEW ___ __ _ _
Wildlife - The Division of Wildlife determined that this lot lies
within elk and mule deer winter range, and is adjacent to critical ~i
habitat, winter concentrat,on,area, and severe winter. range for
both deer and elk. The DOW recommends that the homesite,be placed
w .~.,, ~ ,
in the northern half of the proposed building env"elope on the flat.'..
bench adjacent to Lot 10. Kevin Wright indicated that the
clustering of the building envelopes for Lots 8 & l0 will serve to ~
minimize disturbance and impacts to wildlife. Mr ., Wright pointed
out that natural vegetation should be used to screen £he driveway. I!
Mr. Wright suggests that. the construction of a low profile home,
and the existing pinion/juniper and oakbrush, will serve to 'i
minimize impacts on wildlife.
Wildfire - The Colorado State Forest Service has determined that ~
the proposed building site, in fact the entire property', has been
mapped accurately as severe wildfire hazard area. A mature oakbrush
and serviceberry mix predominates, with a sagebrush and` grass'
understory. The building site is located along a bench where they
slope appears to be the least and the brush has:. some natural
openings. Kelly Rogers states that the building envelope has been,
I
3
I
I
placed in the ,best possible location with regard to wildfire., I
hazard. The driveway slightly below the building site will also act i
as a fuelbreak. Mr. Rogers recommends the full menu of .both ~
defensible space vegetation modification and architectural
guidelines outlined in Land Use Code Section 3-80.70.
Geologic - The property contains slopes in excess of_50 percent.
The proposed building envelope contains slopes of approximately 7-
37 percent and is located in the north central portion of the
property. The proposed driveway will access Lot 8 from the north ~I
and traverse slopes of approximately 26 percent. The driveway as
proposed is approximately 300 feet. long. Staff recommends that the
access driveway alignment proposed by the Applicant be utilized.
This road alignment, along with the DOW recommendation to place the
home in the northern half of the proposed envelope, will 'in effect _~~
shorten the access 'driveway to" approximately 200 feet. Nick i
Lampiris did not identify `any significant geologic hazard to
development on the property, yet he did suggest that structural
foundations and the access driveway be engineered. Mr. Lampiris did
a .
point out that here are sours depressions associated with colluvial l
soil°deposits that should~be avoided, and that they should be made
to drain properly early in .the excavation process. Staff recommends i
that the building envelope be revised in order to eliminate the l
depressions, to eliminate slopes in excess of 30 percent, and to
comply with DOW recommendations. The resulting building envelope
will be approximately one (1) acre in size..
i
LOT 10 I
1041 HAZARD REVIEW,
Wildlife - The Division of Wildlife determined that this lot lies I
. „~,. ,
within elk and mule deer winter range, and is ad~acent'to'"critical
habitat, winter concentration area, and severe winter range for ',
both deer and elk. The DOW recommends that the homes.
~ng~ oP'spruae~
on the low flat bench below and east%sou£heast'~~of ~a~``r'i a be placed ~
trees. This is the same bench which has been .cleared and a well
drilled.Staff recommends that thebuilding envelope"be 'revised toll
comply with the recommendation of the DOW and to correspond with
the existing clearing. This. revision will require a variance to the i
front yard setback of Lot. 10 (100'to 50'). The resulting building
envelope will be approximately 30,000 square feet in size. Kevin i
Wright indicated that the clustering of the building envelopes for
Lots 8 & 10 will serve to minimize disturbance and impacts. to
k.
s. ~. ,,
g 5g
wildlife. Mr. Wri ht su rvationh ofuexest n structon of a low
profile home and the prese g pinion/juniper and
oakbrush, along with the ring of spruce trees, will serve to l
minimize impacts. on wildlife. '~
Wildfire - The Colorado State ,Forest Service has aer.erminea uia~
the proposed building site,'"in fact thexentire'property,"has been`
mapped accurately as severe wildfire hazard area. A mature oakbrush
4
~ ~
and serviceberry mix predominates, with a sagebrush ana grass
understory. The building site is located along a bench where the
slope appears to be the least and ,the., brush has some natural
openings. Kelly Rogers states that the building envelope`has been'"
placed in the.. best .possible location with regard to wildfire
hazard. The driveway slightly below the building site will also act
as a fuelbreak. Mr. Rogers recommends the full menu of both
defensible space vegetation modification and architectural
guidelines outlined in Land Use Code Section 3-80.70.,
Geologic - The property contains slopes in excess of 5Q percent.
The proposed building envelope contains .slopes of approximately 7- ~!,
30 percent and is located.. in the north-central portion of the
property. The revised building, envelope contains slopes"of 7 to 24 I
percent. The. proposed driveway will access Lot. 10 from the north
and traverse slopes of approximately 20'percent. The driveway as',
proposed is approximately 160. feet long. Staff recommends that the i
access driveway alignment proposed by the Applicant be utilized. i
Nick Lampiris did not identify any significant geologic hazard to
development on the property, yet he did. suggest that structural
foundations be engineered.
LOT 14
i
1041 HAZARD REVIEW ~
Wildlife - The Division of Wildlife determined that this lot lies
within elk and mule deer winter range, and is adjacent to critical
habitat, winter concentration area, and severe winter :range for
~, ..~.
elk. The hillside to the north~`contains winter concentration area
for mule deer (below ridge). The DOW recommends that the homesite ~
be placed on the low flat. bench adjacent to the. main subdivision ~l
road towards the top o£ the ridge. Kevin Wright recommends .that ~
the buildings not hangover the bench on to the hillsides to the
north and south. If there needs to be some overhang, Mr. Wright ~
would prefer that the homesite be located to the north, not to the
south where a home would be more impactive to the big game. The
DOW indicated that the construction of a low profile home, and the
w . ~ ..,~.. ~,_
preservation of existing native vegetation will serve to minimize i
impacts on wildlife. Staff will recommend .,that the building
_..
envelope be revised to comply with the DOW recommendations.. The`DOW:i
recommendation, coupled with. required setbacks, will create a
envelope that is approximately 12,000 square feet. These and other ~
suggested mitigation measures will be recommended conditions of
;.
approval.
Wildfire - The Colorado State Forest Service has determined that i
the proposed building site, in fact the entire property, is located
in an area rated for high wildfire hazard. ,Mature oakbrush and s
serviceberry occupy the proposed building envelope, and the slope
is gentle along this portion of the ridge. Slopes below this ridge,
drop off steeply, and are covered,. with dense brush. Once again thei
5
~'
Applicant has chosen the best site on the lot with..: regards to ',
wildfire hazard. Mr. 5 o ers recommendsthe full menur of both i
g
defensible s ace ve etation modification and architectural
guidelines outlined in Land IIse Code Section 3-80.70.
Geologic - The property contains. slopes in excess of_50 percent. ',
The proposed building envelope contains slopes of approximately 5-
23 percent and is located in the southern portion of the property.
The Applicant did not depict a proposed alignment for an .access
driveway for Lot 14. Given the building envelope now recommended '~i
by Staff, a very short driveway will be necessary to access the..;..
revised envelope. Nick Lampiris did not identify any significant.'.
geologic hazard to development on'the property, yet he did suggest
that structural foundations be engineered.
1041 SIIMMARY: The wildfire hazard to Lots 3,8,10,& 14 has been '
identified and documented as being 'severe by the County 1041 Hazard
maps and the Colorado State Fbrest,Service. The Pitkin County Land
Use Code prohibits development in severe wildfire areas.
GENERAL SIIBMISSION REVIEW FOR ALL FO(JR PARCELS
a e and Erosion- Site drainage is limited to surf ace~~ ~~~
Drain g
drainage and absorption. Development`wthin the building envelopes
poses little potential for erosion, provided that all... areas
disturbed by construction be revegetated within the first growing
season following the completion of each development.
The County Engineer will require that all proposed access driveways
be designed to County standards. ,Access, permits will be required
by the County Engineer, prior to the issuance of building permits.
The County Engineer will .also require a drainage and erosion ',
control plan for each development, prior to the .issuance of I
building permits.
Impacts to Roads - The County Engineer determined. that these ~I
developments will not cause significant additional impacts to the
County roads.
There are several sections of the existing subdivision road which
do not currently meet County roadway'standards. The. referral
agencies (CSFS, Sheriffs Office, Basalt Fire) have consistently
pointed out that the. subdivision road does not provide adequate
ingress/egress for emergency vehicles and personnel:.. ~
A number of the landowners have recently formed the Stone Road ',
r.MiY .. Xw 4F... WJV~+N'+F 4h
Association for tlie~" purpose of upgrading and maintaining the
subdivision road. Staff understands that this road is currently
~.. .~ ~ .. w.~, ~~~ b„ . r _.. ,...
being improved to a standard that"~as "been `approved"~by"theC'ounty
Engineer. The Board of County Commissioner'§Yiad strongly encouraged,
the. landowners to form such an Association during the review of the',
6
1041 Hazard. Review for Lot 6 (Restivo/Strawbridge). ~ '
Scenic Quality - The subject properties are_not in the mapped
scenic foreground overlay or ridgeline area, although Lo£ Y4 is
located quite close to a mapped ridgeline area... Development in the
area of Lot 14 recommended by the DOW may be visible from the north
(El Jebel/Missouri Heights). The developments may be visible from
the West Sopris Creek Road, internal. subdivision roads, and
adjacent parcels. There are currently no construction plans fo`r the'
_n:,
residences, although the Applicants have represented to Staff that i
"low-profile homes" will be constructed to lessen the visual impact
,.
of the developments and to help minimize impacts to wildlife. i
Water and Sewer - The Applicants are proposing to supply the ~,
residences with domestic water by installing wells. A well has _i
already been established on Lot 10, and the Applicants and Nick
Lampiris have indicated that there are other wells which have
I
qde uaye pelq and ~ lit in the immed papte area.: The Environmental`
q Y q Y
Health De artment will requiredocumentation of ~~the~ ache ua~e~
ualit and uantit of the water su ly for each develo ment
prior to the issuance of building permits. II
The Applicants are proposing Individual Sewage Disposal Systems for !~
each residence. The specifications of the Environmental Health
Department must be followed for the design of the ISDS. Septic
Permits will be required by the EHD, prior to the issuance of
building permits..
IItility Extensions -_ Electric and telephone service is available !i
in the subdivision roads. Any utility extensions will be required
to occur within the access driveways.
SIIMMARY: The wildfire„hazard, to Lots 3,8,10,&14 has been identified ~I
. ~ ~..~
and documented as being "severe"6:~ Section 3-80.70(A) prohibits
development in severe wildfire. areas. The Planning Office ',
recommends denial of this application_(all'four Iots)" based on the '~I
._~._
aforementioned Code Section. If the development application is
subsequently denied by the Board of County Commissioners, the '
Applicant may appeal to the Board of County Commissioners pursuant
to Section 3-290 of the Code (Takings Determination).
i
Staff feels that the wildfire danger throughout this development
r ,~.. .
_. __ ,~ .
presents a significant risk to residents and emergency response
personnel. Other issues, such as, the inadequacy o~ the subdivision
roads, encroachment on wildlife habitats, and development on areas l
,~,v
of steepslopesneed to be considered in the ~ispositionof this
application. ',
While Staff appreciates_ the efforts of these landowners withal
respect to this group application, it was hoped that more,
aggressive and creative means would be utilized to more effectively
cluster the .developments, such as lot reco iquratio~ t ugh lot's
~ ~~'~~ °~I v~ ~ ~ -' '
_.
..~._...x~... _ r_ ~..__ ~W. d~___~. .~~~~_
o~...~
=, ~ ... , s e.l.. .
line. adjustments. Staff does acknowledge the difficulty of this
request. The BOCC recently expressed their wish to see the ~
Applicants continue investigating creative solutions in site design
and planning.
RECOMMENDATION: ' -
Commissioners den}
1041 Hazard Revie~ I i
ATTACHMENTS:
....
1. DOW comments ! -
2. CSFS comments - '
3. Basalt Fire comments ~,
4. County Engineer comments I
5. Zoning Office comments _...... .. _ _....
memo GRAVES bocc
8
i
S`' l1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission.
FROM: Rick Magill, Planner
RE: Graves/Bent/Leonhardt .1041 Hazard. Review & General
Submission
residences on Lots'3,8,10,& 14 of the West _Soprls Creek Ranch I
Subdivision. The properties contain areas mapped for wildfire,
geologic, and wildlife hazards.
Pursuant to a written request by the Board of County Commissioners,
the owners of four (4) separate parcels have combined their land
use applications into one joint application for the purpose of
coordinating planning and design efforts. j
DATE: June 20, 1995
REQUEST: The Applicants are requesting approval of 1041 Hazard 'i
Review and General Submission for the construction of .single family
APPLICANTS: Lauren Graves (Lots 3 & 8), Dorthea Bent (Lot 14), Anne
Leonhardt (Lot 10).
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Lauren Graves
LOCATION: The West Sopris Creek Subdivision (formerly known as the
Terliamis Tracts) is located approximately 3 miles from Emma, off
of West Sopris Creek Road.
ZONING: RS-30, thirty acre minimum lot size
GENERAL SITE/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The entire subdivision is
primarily a southeast facing hillside and is comprised o£ stands`
of oakbrush, serviceberry, juniper, pinion pine, and other shrubs
and grasses typical of this aspect and elevation.. There are no
major water courses in the subdivision (except for West Sopris
Creek which runs through the extreme western portions of Lots 2 and
3), yet there are numerous intermittent drainages throughout the
area. The West Sopris Creek Ranch Subdivision is comprised of
fourteen (14) parcels, each over thirty-five (35)' acres: Three
single family residences have been built on 3 lots to date. The
Applicants state that they intend to build homes ranging in size
from 1,000 to 4,500 square feet.
REFERRAL AGENCIES: Referral .agency comments are incorporated',
throughout this memorandum and. are attached for ,reference as'I i
necessary. ~f
,e,~nrn~.(rh ~~.M,O ~fffi~o~,~~ ~ ~'~~-P'~ ~utA.~tiv`Zj ~il'~G4~
i
1. County Attorney
2. Zoning Office
3. Environmental_Health
4. County Engineer
5. Colorado State_Forest
6. Basalt Fire
7. Sheriffs Office
g. Division of Wildlife
Department
Service
.,STAFF COMMENTS: Staff will review each parcel individually for 1041
Hazards and review General Submission issues as a group.
LOT 3
1041 HAZARD REVIEW
Wildlife - The DOW determined that this lot lies within elk and ',
mule deer winter range, and is adjacent to critical habitat, winter
concentration area, and severe winter range for both deer and elk. i
Kevin Wright recommends that the building envelope be located where
the toe of the ridge meets a small bench ahd should not be located
on the small knob east of the proposed building envelope.
Note: The building envelope on the submitted site .plan was located 'I
incorrectly. An accurate representation of the building envelope
will be provided at the meeting. The comments of the DOW and the
CSFS pertain to the corrected building envelope location. The
proposed envelope is approximately 1.5 acres in size. ~
Mr. Wright further recommends that native vegetation be preserved '~
to the maximum extent possible to screen the homesite. Mr. Wright ',
indicated that the construction of a low profile home, and the
existing pinion/juniper and oakbrush, will serve to minimize
impacts on wildlife. The DOW also recommended that dogs bed
prohibited and that horses be restricted, to the building envelopes'
for all of these parcels. Black 'bears inhabit the area and have)
caused damage to personal property in the subdivision. These ands
other suggested mitigation measures will be included as conditions)
to be considered by the P&Z.
Wildfire - The Colorado State Forest Service has determined that
the proposed building site, in fact the entire property, is located,
in an area rated for high wildfire hazard. Duesto the continuity,
and density of the surrounding oakbrush/serviceberry fuels and the'
steep slopes on this and adjoining lots, there is a significant
threat from wildfire in this area. Kelly Rogers indicated that
wildfire risk should be mitigated somewhat by placement of the
building envelope on the lower more level portion of the lot. The,.
driveway below the building site will also act as a fuelbreak. Mr.
Rogers recommends the full menu of both defensible space vegetation
modification and architectural guidelines outlned`in Land Use Code
Section 3-807. ~
2
As a general note relating to all of these parcels, the Colorado
State Forest Service also points out that the current. access road
(existing subdivision road) does hot meet CSFS standards for grade
and width, and does not. provide for dual ingress/egress to the
area. In the event of a large wildfire in this area, the high
hazard fuels along much of this road, combined with the relative
remoteness of the site, may limit access for emergency vehicles
into this and adjacent parcels.
Kelly Rogers further recommends that the landowners of ,all these
parcels investigate the possibility of jointly purchasing a
portable foam system (for fire fighting). These. systems have proven
extremely valuable in protecting structures in wildland fires, but
should not be relied upon in lieu of other mitigation measures.
Geologic - The property contains slopes in excess of 50 percent,
with no significant areas of slopes less than 15 percent. The
proposed building envelope contains slopes of approximately 10-25
percent and is located in the north .central portion of the
property. There are no other buildable areas which contain lesser
slopes on the entire parcel. The proposed driveway will access Lot
3 from the north, through Lot 5, from the subdivision road. The
proposed access driveway is approximately 2,000 feet long and will
'cross slopes ranging from approximately 18 to 55 percent. The
'access road will traverse a 20 foot deep intermittent drainage on
Lot 5, which w'll require a significant amount of fill material
with a c Planning Staff, the (CSF~, `arid the DO have
n concerns with respect to the`~long access driveway and
the resulting potential for environmental impacts, although there
does not appear to be an alternate driveway alignment any less
impactive than that: proposed. -Nick Lampiris did not identify any
additional geologic hazards to development on the. property, yet he
did suggest that structural foundations and the access road be
engineered.
LOT 8
1041 HAZARD REVIEW
Wildlife - The Division of Wildlife determined that this lot liesli
within elk and mule deer winter range, 'and is adjacent to critical'
habitat, winter concentration area, and severe winter.. range fore
both deer and elk. The DOW recommends that the homesite be placed;
in the northern half of the proposed building envelope on the flat
bench .adjacent to Lot 10. Kevin Wright indicated. that the~i
clustering of the building envelopes for Lots 8 & l0 will serve to!I
minimize disturbance and-impacts to wildlife.. Mr. Wright pointed,
out that natural vegetation should be used to screen the driveway.
Mr. Wright suggests that the construction of a low profile home,'
and the existing pinion/juniper and oakbrush, will serve to',
minimize impacts on wildlife. These and, other .suggested mitigations
_ ~.w
measures will be included as conditions to be considered by the
P&Z.
wildfire - The Colorado State Forest Service has determined that I
the proposed building site, in fact the entire property, has been
mapped accurately as severe wildfire hazard area. A mature oakbrush
and serviceberry mix predominates, with a sagebrush and grass
understory. The building site is located along a bench where the
slope appears to be the least and the brush. has. some natural I
openings. Kelly Rogers states that the building envelope has been
placed in the best possible location with regard to wildfire
hazard. The driveway slightly below the building site will also act
as a fuelbreak. Mr. Rogers recommends the full menu of both I
defensible space vegetation modification and architectural
guidelines outlined in Land Use Code Section 3-807.
I
Geologic - The property contains slopes in excess of 5o percent. !~
.The proposed building envelope contains. slopes of approximately 7-
37 ercent and is located in the north central portion of the
p
andptraverse slooessof ariYeway will access'Lot 8 from the north I
p pp oximately 26 percent. The driveway as
proposed is approximately 300 feet long. Staff recommends that the
access driveway alignment proposed by the Applicant be utilized. i,
This road alignment, along with the DOW recommendation to place the
home in the northern half of the proposed envelope, will in effect
shorten the access driveway to approximately 200 feet. Nick 'i
Lampiris did not identify any significant geologic hazard to
development on the property, yet he did suggest that structural 'i
foundations and the access driveway be engineered. Mr ., Lampiris did
point out that here are some depressions. associated with colluvial ~I
soil deposits that should be avoided, and that they should be made
to drain properly early in the excavation process: Staff recommends I
that the building envelope be revised to eliminate thesg
depressions and to comply with DOW recommendations. The resultin
building envelope will be approximately one (1 acre in size. ~
u~vu ~~ rGn~rLC, 5/vim cu mss df 3 ° ~.
LOT 10
I
1041 HAZARD REVIEW ~
Wildlife - The Division of Wildlife determined that this lot lies~i
within elk and mule deer winter range, and'is adjacent to critical
habitat, winter concentration area, and severe winter. range for
both deer and elk. The DOW recommends that the_ homesite be placed.
on the low flat bench belowand east/southeasE of~a ring of spruce
trees. This is the same bench which has been cleared and a well
thepexistin t Tearing m histrevision we DOrequare a variancena owthe~ ~~~
g The resultin buildin
front yard setback of Lot 10 (100'to 50') g g
Wrightpindicated thatr the clustering of he building envelopeseforl
f"*a
Lots 8 & 10 will serve to minimize disturbance and impacts to
wildlife. Mr. Wright suggests that the construction of a low
profile home and the preservation of existing pinion/juniper and
oakbrush, along with the ring of spruce trees, will serve to
minimize impacts on wildlife. These and other suggested mitigation
measures will be included as conditions to be considered by the
p&Z.
Wildfire - The Colorado State Forest Service. has determined that
the proposed building site, in fact the"entire property, has been
mapped accurately as severe wildfire hazard area, A mature oakbrush
and serviceberry mix predominates, with a sagebrush and 'grass
understory. The building site is located along a bench where the
slope appears to be the least and the brush has some natural
openings. Kelly Rogers states that the buildng~~eiivehope h'as been
placed in the best possible location .with regard to wildfire
hazard. The driveway slightly below the building site .will also act
as a fuelbreak. Mr. Rogers recommends the full menu of both
defensible space vegetation modification and architectural
guidelines. outlined in Land Use Code Section 3-807.
Geologic - The property contains slopes in excess of 50 percent.
The proposed building envelope contains slopes of approximately 7-
30 percent and is located in the north-central portion of the
property. The revised. building envelope contains slopes bf 7 to 24
percent. The. proposed driveway will access Lot 10 from the north
and traverse slopes of approximately 20 percent. The driveway as
proposed is approximately 160 feet long. Staff recommends that the
access driveway alignment proposed by the Applicant be utilized.
Nick Lampiris did not identify any significant geologic hazard to
development on the property, yet he did suggest that structural
foundations be engineered.
LOT 14
1041 HAZARD REVIEW
Wildlife - The Division of Wildlife determined that this lot lies'
within elk and mule deer winter range, and is adjacent to critical
habitat, winter concentration area, and severe winter range for
elk. The hillside to the north contains winter concentration area~i
for mule deer (below ridge). The DOW recommends that. the homeste,
be placed on the low flat bench adjacent to the main subdvision'i
road towards the top of the ridge. Kevin Wright recommends that
the buildings not hangover the bench on to the hillsides to thel
north and south. If there needs to be some overhang, Mr Wright,
would prefer that the homesite be located to the north, not to the..,
south where a home would be more impactive to the.. big game. They,
DOW indicated that the construction of a low profile home, and the
preservation of existing native vegetation will serve to minimized
impacts on wildlife. Staff will recommend. that the building.
envelope be revised to .comply with the DOW recommendations. The bOW'i
F
recommendation, coupled with required setbacks, will create a
envelope that is approximately 12,000 square feet. These and other
suggested mitigation measures. will be included as conditions to be
considered by the P&Z.
Wildfire - The Colorado State Forest Service has .determined that II
the proposed building site, in fact the ,entire property, is located ~
in an area rated for high wildfire hazard. Mature oakbrush and.
serviceberry occupy the proposed building envelope, and the slope
is gentle along this portion of the ridge. Slopes below this ridge
drop off steeply, and are covered with dense brush. Once again the
Applicant has. chosen the best site on the Tot with regards to
wildfire hazard. Mr. Rogers recommends the full menu of both
defensible space vegetation modification and architectural 'i
guidelines outlined in Land Use Code Section 3-807.
Geologic - The property contains. slopes in excess of 50 percent. I,
The proposed building envelope contains slopes of approximately 5-
23 percent and is located in the southern portion of the property.
The Applicant did not, depict a proposed alignment for an access ',
driveway for Lot 14. Given the building envelope now recommended I~-
by Staff, a very short driveway will be necessary to access the
revised envelope. Nick Lampiris did not identify any significant
geologic hazard to development on the property, yet he did. suggest
that structural foundations be engineered... i
1041 SUMMARY: The wildfire hazard to Lots. 3,8,10,&14 has been
identified and documented as being severe by the County 1041 Hazard ~~
maps. and the Colorado State Forest Service. The Pitkin County Land ',
Use Code requires denial' of this application based on the
aforementioned 1041 hazard.
Staff has included for discussion, the condition that house sizes.
,^,~, be limited to 5,000 square feet based on wildfire hazard
IVn~",u, considerations. Staff also recommends that the maximum height of~
~~"" the structures be limited to 20 feet based on the comments of the
Division of Wildlife. These recommenda£ions are consistent with,
~° ,past approvals in areas containing severe wildfire hazard and~i
w ~ significant wildlife habitat concerns.
~!" GENERAL SUBMISSION REVIEW FOR ALL FOUR, PARCELS
Drainage and Erosion- Site drainage is limited to surface
drainage and absorption. Development within the building envelopes,,.
poses little potential for erosion provided that all, areas)
disturbed by construction be revegetated within the first growing
season following the completion of each development.
The County Engineer will require that. all proposed access driveways!,
be designed to County standards. Access permits wilS be required',
by the County Engineer, prior to the issuance of building permits.
6
~ .. ~~.-
The County Engineer will also require a drainage and erosion
control plan for each development, prior to the issuance of
building permits. ',
Impacts to Roads - The County Engineer determined., that these
developments. will not cause significant additional impacts to the
County roads.
There are several sections of the existing subdivision road which i
do not currently meet County roadway standards. .The referral i
agencies (CSFS, Sheriffs Office, Basalt Fire) have .consistently
pointed out that the subdivision .road does not provide adequate
ingress/egress for emergency vehicles and personnel.. Staff will i
.again strongly suggest that the landowners form a Road Improvements
District for the purpose of upgrading this road to improve access
in case of an emergency. At this point in time, the Planning Office
is limited to recommending that the landowners to .join a
improvement district, should one be formed.
The proposed access driveway to Lot 3 is approximately 2,000 feet
long and will traverse slopes from 18 to 55 percent. The access ~
road will traverse a 20 foot deep intermittent. drainage on Lot 5,
which will require a significant amount of fill material with a
culvert. Planning Staff, the County Engineer, the CSFS; and the DOW ~
have significant environmental and safety concerns with respect to
the long access driveway, although there does.. not .appear to be an i
alternate driveway alignment for the proposed building site any
less impactive than that proposed.
Scenic Quality - The subject properties. .are not ,in the mapped
scenic foreground overlay or ridgeline area, although Lot 14 is ',
located quite close to a mapped ridgeline area. Development in the
area of Lot 14 recommended by the DOW may be visible from the north
(E1 Jebel/Missouri H~igh~~s}.The developments may be visible from'
the West Sopris Creek ..Road, internal subdivision .roads, and
adjacent parcels. There are currently no construction plans for they
residences, although the Applicants babe represented to Staff that ii
"low-profile homes" will be constructed to lessen the visual impacts
I
of the developments.
Water and Sewer - The Applicants are proposing to supply the',
residences with domestic water by installing a wells.. Lot 10,
already installed a well, and the Applicants and Nick Lampiris have 1,
indicated that there are other wells which have adequate yield and,
quality `in the immediate area. The Environmental Health Department,
will require documentation bf the adequate quality and quantity of
the water. supply for each development, prior to the issuance of
building permits. ',
The Applicants are proposing Individual Sewage Disposal Systems for 1,
each residence. The specifications of the Environmental Health's
Department must be followed for the design of the ISDS. Septic'
7
Y _ d telephone service is available
Utilit Extensions Electr~c an,lity extensions will be required
in the subdivision roads. An uti
to occur within the access driveways.
SUMMARY: The wildfire hazard to Lots 3,8,10,&14 has been identified ',
and documented as being severe by the County 1041 Hazard maps and
the Colorado State Forest Service. The Pitkin County Land Use Code
requires denial of this application based on the aforementioned it
1041 hazard.
Land Use Code Section 3-807(C)(4) states that architectural design
standards may be applied in substitution for the Defensible Space
requirements of the Code. Section 3-807(C)(10)(a) states, however,
that "Additional recommendations from the Colorado State Forest
Service, Pitkin County Sheriffs Office, and the local fire I
protection district may be incorporated into any conditions of_
approval necessary to mitigate wildfire hazards". The. Applicant has
acknowledged the severity of the wildfire hazard on the property
and has indicated a willingness to comply with all reasonable
mitigation measures for this development. Staff has included the
Structural Design and Construction Options in the recommended ii
conditions [see condition~7(n))].
i
Section 3-807(A that the Planning Office recommend denial
of development in areas that have been identified as severe
wildfire hazard areas. If the development application is i
subsequently denied by the Board of County Commissioners, the '
Applicant may appeal to the Board of County Commissioners pursuant
to Section 3-28 of the Code .(Takings Determination).
While Staff appreciates the efforts of these three landowners with'i
respect to this group application, it was hoped that more
cluster the develo ments such as lot reconfi uration throw h lot
aggressive and crep at notes thstanding, the BOCCtrecently expressed)
their wish to see the A licants continue investi atin creative,
solutionsstin nslteTdesignpand planning. Staffelodin eVS to design
alternatives athatomalt chan e the characterV of pthgs and future
Y g i
applications.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning
Commission forward `a recommendation of denial to the Board of
County Commissioners for the` Graves%Berit/Leonhardt `General
Submission and 1041 Hazard Review based on Land Use Code Sectional
3-807 (A)(1&2).
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission forward~l
the following conditions for the Board's consideration, should this
application be subsequently denied by the Board and reconsidered
at a takings hearing, as required by Sections 3-807 and 3-28 of the
Land Use Code.
1. The Applicants shall adhere to all material representations
made in the application and in the public meetings.
2. Prior to building permit application, the Applicants shall
record a 24 x 36 inch mylar 1041 Hazard Review Site Plan which
meets the .approval of the Planning Office and County Attorney:
a. The following 1041 Hazard Review Warning and
Disclaimer shall be noted on the Plat:.
"The provisions of these regulations do not in any
way assure or imply that areas outside of designated
hazard areas will be free from hazards, or that
approved mitigation measures will guarantee the
safety of any property."
b. The building envelopes shall be revised pursuant to
the recommendations of the Referral Agencies ahd the
Planning Office..
3.
4.
5.
6.
The Applicants shallobtain`access permits from the County
Engineer, prior to issuance building permits. ~I
The Applicants shall submit drainage and erosion control plans
for each development, prior to the issuance of building
I
permits. I
Outside illumination shall comply with County lighting
standards in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
The Applicants shall comply with the recommendations of the
DOW as follows:
a.
b.
c.
d.
Native vegetation shall be preserved within the building~i
envelopes to the. maximum extent possible.
Dogs are prohibited.
lesslwgthha112"bkicksp heuround tntehe48 P'3 Srailnordless
rail fencing shall be YP
with at least 18" between 2 of the rails.
All garbage shall be kept within bear-proof garbage',.
containers. The DOW can supply specifications upon
request (North American Bear Society specifications).
9
I
e. Horses shall be confined to the approved building I
envelopes. All hay shall be fenced with 8 foot game-
proof fencing.
r
f. The Applicants shall construct low. profile homes.
i
7. Wildfire mitigation shall be as follows: ~i
a. A sprinkler system or a foam fire retardant system shall ''
be installed in .each residence. The systems shall meet
the standards of the Basalt Fire Protection District. and
the Uniform Building Code.
b. The Applicants shall have available. for firefighting, a
water storage facility to accommodate a minimum of 1,000
gallons. Capacity and location shall. be approved by the I~
Basalt District Fire Marshal. I
c. Roofs and gutters shall be kept .clear of debris.
d. Yards shall be kept clear of all litter, slash, and ',
flammable debrs._
e. Firewood shall be stacked on a parallel contour a minimum it
of 15 feet away from any structure.
f. At least one ten pound approved ABC class fire
extinguisher shall be placed in a visible and accessible I
location for each structure. i
g. Swimming pools shall be accessible. to Fire Department
vehicles.
I
h. Fences shall be kept clear of brush .and debris, I
i. Wood fences shall not be connected to the structure.
j. Fuel tanks shall be installed under round with an
9 I
approved container. ',
k. Regarding vegetation: I!
1) All vegetation shall be removed within l0 feet of
structures. This area should be maintained in the future)
as low ground cover (to a height not more than`6 inches).
2) Vegetation shall be thinned within a minimum of i
l00 feet around all structures, with a minimum of 20 feet
crown separation between clumps' of oak/serviceberry.
Remaining clumps shall not have an aggregate crown
diameter in excess of 20 feet. Dead limbs and ladder
fuels that could carry fire irito the crowns of the brushi
10
,il
1.
m
n.
shall be eliminated. Slash shall be ,properly disposed of ',
by chipping, hauling away, or"piling and burning during
a safe time period.
3) Maintenance of the "defensible space" shall ,be
required.-in order to retain it's value as wildfire ~'
mitigation. oak and serdiceberry`~ tend tosprout
vigorously after cutting, so it will be necessary to trim
back vegetation every year or two.
Any additional proposed buildings within the, building !I
envelopes shall incorporate wildfire mitigation measures. i
Structural Design and Construction Requirements:
1. Roof construction shall be Class A, non-combustible
~... ,
(no wood shake/shingles)' material with no flat
roofs.
2. Vents shall be screened with corrosive resistent
wire mesh with mesh 1/4 inch maximum.
Structural Design and Construction Options: li
1. Projections at the_roof line (which include but are
not limited to eaves, cornices, soffits, and roofs ~
over open decks) shall be sheathed_wth materials ~
approved for l hour fire-resistive construction.
_._ ~ ~_ i
2
For projections below the roof line_(which include ~!
but are not limited to exterior balconies, decks,
....k .
porches, cantilevered floor projections, and bay
windows) the open space between grade and the
underside of projections below the roof line shall
be enclosed_by solid, vertical walls. These. walls
shall be constructed with materials a roved for 1 ~
pp
hour fire-resistive construction on the exterior
side ofthe wall and shall extend from thetop of ~,
grade to the underside of the"f"loor'"decking or walls
of the projection.
3. Windows shall be made of tempered glass.
4
5.
Exterior siding and wall construction shall have a
u _~
tonroof lineur fire-resistive rating, ground level
Foundations, skirting and crawl space openings shall'
be fully enclosed and constructed with materials!i
approved for 1 hour fire-resistive construction onl
the exterior side of the walls and shall extend from
the top of grade to the underside of~the floor,
11
~,
~.
decking or walls. '
6. The underside of decks and structures with stilt I ~',I
foundations shall be full enclosed and constructed
with materials approved for l hour fire-resistive i
construction on the. exterior side of the walls and
shall extend from the top of`grade to the underside i
of the floor decking or walls,
o. Addresses shall be clearly marked and .visible with '
minimum 2" letters. it
p. All utility extensions shall be buried within the
/' driveway alignment
q. Propane tanks shall _be installed according to NFPA 48
standards and on a contour away from'the structure with
standard defensible space vegetation mitigation around
any above-ground tank. Any wood enclosure around the tank
shall be constructed with materials approved for 2 hour it
fire-resistive construction on. the exterior side of the
walls.
8. The Applicants shall consider. purchasing a portable foam
system for fire fighting that oan be accessed and utilized by
the residents of the subdivision and firefighting personnel. '
9. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Applicants shall
provide documentation of an adequate domestic water supply.
Quantity and quality of said supply shall meet the approval ~,
of the Environmental Health Department. '
10. The septic systems designed for each site shall meet the '
approval of the Environmental Health Department. The ~,
Applicants shall obtain such approval prior to the issuance
of building permits. !~
11. The Applicants shall obtain fireplace/woodstove permits from
Environmental Health Department, prior to the issuance of
building permits.'
12. No development, including disturbance of vegetation and
grading, shall occur outside of the building envelopes, other
than that required for wildfire atgation, construction of
the access drive and necessary utility extensions within the
access driveway.
13. The building sites shall be revegetated with native grasses',
to limit water consumption and additional runoff, immediately',
following project completion.
14. The principal structures shall be aimited in size to 5,000'1
12
square feet of floor area. All structures snarl ne ~~.~~~~=u ~~
a maximum height of 20 feet.
15. The Applicants shall waive their right to any compensation
from the Division of Wildlife for property damage caused by
bears.
16. The Applicants shall join a Road Smprovement District should
one be formed.
17. Building foundations .shall be reviewed .and certified by a
Colorado registered professional engineer. The .certified
foundation plans shall be included with the building permit
submittal . 7 ~\ ~„~(c,uj" Qi "`Z`~
5eO 18. The access driveways for Lots 3 & 8 's all be reviewed an
"l certified by a Ca~orzcel~a reglstered ~~nal engineer.
_ 't
ie
~tbmitta~'. pY b°" C"GCA~S y ~ e w
19. The Applicant shall obtain Board of Adjustment approval of a
variance to the front yard setback for Lot lo, prior to the
issuance. of a building permit..
ATTACIiMENTS
1. DOW comments.
2. CSFS comments
3. Basalt Fire comments
4. County Engineer comments
5. Zoning Office comments
~ l~ ~~ l ~
~ ~ ~~ ~~c~--a
memo_GRAVES_1041_pz (`/
~./ ~
lm ~r
1V~ \~~~
11
V\~
~~k
13
9
MEMORANDUM
To: Rick Magill, Planning Office '~
From: Nancy MacKenzie, Environmental Health Department
Through: Lee Cassin, Assistant Environmental Health Director~l~~l~
Date: June. 13, 1995 ~~--
Re: Graves~Bent/Leonhardt 1041 Hazard Review & General
~~.::.
Submission
Parcel ID # 2465-153-00-006
# 2465-222-00-004
# 2465=223-00-007'
# 2465-223-00-010
.. .. ~, ~ . .:: er....+2-~..my:vsAe. ~,w ssv.; ~M ..tip q . ,, er.w ,. ~: ,- w. , v._. . rx ., n, , ,. .~. . =eh
The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the. i
details of the Graves/Bent/Leonardt application for. Lots 3, 8,
10, & 14 of the Terlamis Subdivision under the authority of the
.. _ _ ~ _ .. __~ ..__ ~._a.. -~« 1 Mac +Rc fnl~nw~nU COIfIlllOntS.
"tt is the policy of the County to insure the availability of a watersupply of adequate quality, quantity, I
pressure and dependability for fire protection end support of aproposed land use prior to approval of the '~.
use. The County shall require Land uses to hook up to existing public systems if service is available."
This Department needs adequate information on the quantity and
quality of water available._ This can be done from tests of wells i
present on-site by a water engineer's or well driller's report.
The applicant must ensure .that the water quality is acceptable by
having it tested by a lab such as SnowmaSS Water and Sanitation
or theASp'en Consolidated Sanitation District
.. .,~.. ~.~. ~ .... ,~... r .,. ~, - ,.... ~~
The letter from Nicholas Lampiris states that there are
successful wells on Lots 4 7, 9 & 13. However some lots in the i
general vicinity have had a problem, such as high sulfur. Before`
a septic permit can be issued the well must be drilled to assure. ~
that setback requirements from the well'to the`septic system can.
be complied with. The well must be drilled within the building
.~..,~_. .,~~ .,.,.. ,._.. . s,. ~~,~..~ ,_ .. I ~M:~
envelope.
It is recommended that low water landscaping (xeriscaping) be
used and that the timing of`aiiy""sprinkler systems be decreased ~~
for low water.. plants. The Colorado State, University Cooperative
Extension office can be contacted for more information on
xeriscaping. ~
1
A condition of ,
approval by the
information doc;
quantity/qualt
de to serve '~i
ich systems "
..,....
lnty
:, ~
and must comply with the County regula ions... p--~e_a -,.-r --
Permit, the each applicant will need to submit a Se tic Permit
A licatg p.and a ro riate_fee with a comp"~.ete'd`SOil Data Form ~
Pp pP P ~ _ ~..... ~
includin erc test results and profile hole information. These
tests must be done by or u~tlder the supervision. of a registered`
engineer. The septic system permit must be issued by the
Environmental Health Department before a_buildiiq~permit can be
issued. _ - ~
The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department will desi the
~4~ .... ~
system for the. applicant as park"of"tie permit fee, unless an
engineered system is needed which we determine based on soil
,... _ .. i
test results. An engineered system is required if any one of the
following conditions occurs.: a percolation rate faster than 5 mpi
or slower than 60 mpi; maximum seasonal level of the ~groundvrater _i
table or bedrock less. than fourtfeetµbelow tke~bot~om o`~ the i
~. ._ M~..u4d~ _~w~.~~.,,,
proposed absorption system; or a sloe rn excess of~30&,
P
We believe it will be possible to install either a conventional ~i
or an engineered septic system on these lots basec~'on tTie data in
the geological report submitted by Nicholas Lampirs after I -
studying the survey mays"and after conducting a site visit to the
lots. It is likely that an'engineered 'system might be needed on ~I
some of the lots. Lot 7 required an engineered system due to
slow percolation rates, Mancos Shale soils occ~~r throughout that
area, especially on Lot 8, andwshou'T'd=`~ie va oiled The septic
field should be located in ,an area of soil cover where there is h
permeable soils Careful planning will"need~£o be done ~b do i
this and to also locate the septic system within the. building
envelopes. The_applcant will need to adhere to minimum i
horizontal setback requirements for placement of septic system
components. The leach field will need to be located a minimum of ~
._... ..r a >v. wv .,...~ N=1.. .vA ' ..,y~y~y",f+ v..na„ .rvv.:rYi WtlAS dtYn.iti,:x+M .c.u nt»ux~E.u.
100 feet from their well and; from,,. any neig~iboring weY'1s.
Depressions, such as on Lot 8, must be avoided. Prior to
initiating any tests at the site, the applicant should contact` ~
this office.
for
lion is .receipt and
artment of
n of the well and
"'regiYlatons:~
'at is the policy of the County to insure that adequate sewage treatment facilities
existingand new developments. Public and private sewage disposal systemsand connee
shall comply with the sewage disposal guidelines of Pitkin County Code Title X."
Lots in the West Sopris Creek areaLLare served by ii
~~
septic systems. All such systems instalWle~ within
require permits issued by the Environmental Health{
t' To r~.
Unless designed by a registered professional. engineer and
2'
approved by this Department, no soil absorption system shall be
permitted-in areas where the ground slope is in excess. of thirty
percent (30%).
The area for the leach field should be located in an area of no
traffic, planted with'dry land grass, and should not be watered. i
It is desirable to locate the system below the house so tha£"the'
system can operate by'gravity. The applicant should'r`efer to the ~
Pitkin County Sewage Regulations for detailed information, or i
call our office. to discuss this site.
A condition of approval for_this application is_the receipt
and approval of the septic permit`by the Environmental
Health Department before a building permit can be issued.
WATER UALITY IMPACTS: Sections 2 14 and 3 705 and 3 710:
-. ,,,;. ra ~. ~~u ,,-a~,,..~'1 .., w. a ,.. ...
"It is the policy of the County to preserve and protect its present water resources. To this end it is the
policy of the County that no land use be initiated which would adversely affect the quantity, quality, or
accessibility of the County's waterresourees;or which would oceur'At the expense of estebl fished water-
deperxlent. agricultural activities; or which. wpu Ld result in increased salmi zation of water resources, loss
of minimun stream flows, further destruction of uiCdtifghabitat, or"major expendituresto reacquire~or
redistribute nwjor water resources. tt is also the policy of the County to maintain a natural vegetative
buffer along its surface waters such that tfie surface and grourdwaters ofthe area are not encroached upon
b land uses or other fiuman activities which could cause deterioration of eater qual ityor impair the
y _. _„~ ... ~_-... . ,
naturaltrestment processes provided by meadows grid wetlands.'r
The Environmental Health Department will be addressing impacts
only on down stream `water quality. This application is not,.,
expected to impact-down stream water. quality if the minimum
hhrsicalafeatutances,between components of the .system and
p Y res are in accor ance with the Pitkin Countv ISDS
Reaulations.
A condition of approval for this. application is: NONE
AIR OUALITY• Sections 2-13 and 3 602: ',
z..._ _, ~ . _ ..,_ :_ ,
"Only that development is permitted which will not contribute significantly to degradation of air quality in
Pitkin County. Developments may not constitute an indi,reet or di reet air pollution source under Pedera 1,
.....
State or County regulations."
This project is not expected to contribute significantly to
degradation of air quality in Pitkin County.
Activities such as road building and landscaping may require a
Fugitive Dust Plan. This plan needs to include, but is not
limited to, fencing, watering of haul roads and disturbed areas,
daily cleaningofadjacent,paved roads to .remove muds. that has"~~`
been carried out, speed limits, or other measures necessary"to
prevent windblown dust from crossing the property line or causing
a nuisance.
The applicant. must file a fireplace/woodstove permit with the
3
i
~~-
: Environmental Health Department before the building permit will
be issued. The less densely populated parts of`"the county like
West Sopris Creek may"have one wood burning fireplace and one ~
department certified device or two departient certified devices i
_.
per building. In addition, unlimited numbers of decorative gas""' i
appliances are allowed. Coal may not be burned in an device. No
wood burning device may be installed in barns or agricultural
I
buildings. ',
A condition of approval. for .this application is the receipt i
and approval of the fireplace/woodstove permit by the
Environmental Health Department before the building permit
w~~ .
can be issued.
"It is the policy of the County to ensure that no use or deve Lopment of Land is permitted which is in
violation of the laws of the County, the State of Colorado, or the Um ted States of America."
This Department is not aware of any issues of concern regarding
other environmental health laws.
... ENV:WP:LAND USE:2465753.gra
4
PLANNING SL ZONING DEPARTMENT I
March 27, 1995 i
.Lauren Graves
P.O. Box. 3819 I
Aspen, Colorado 81612
'I
RE: Graves/Bent/Leonhardt 1041. Hazard Review.. '~
I
Dear Lauren, ~
It is the policy of the Community bevelopment Department to alert~~
applicants as soon as possible when a~potential conflict with~the
,Land Use Code exists. Specifically, the Planning Office is xequiredl
to recommend denial of this application based. on Land Use. Code'I
Section 3-807 (attached)'. This, Section of the Code prohibits
development .in areas determined to contain severe wildfire hazard.
The Section goes on to state that should an _applicatiori be denied)
by the Board of County Commissioners,.the applicant. may appeal the',
denial to the Board pursuant to section 3-28 (attached). ',
The Community Development Department recently received the comments)),)
of the Colorado State Forest Service. (March 20, 1995) which confirm
that the proposed building sites for all four parcels contain areas)
of severe wildfire hazard., ,_
If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at 920-!
,5062. I
Sincerely,
I
. Rick Magill, Planner
• ~ I
cc: John Ely
• Reid Haughey
letter graves w.sopris
130 Souix GALENA SiReET AspeN, CoLOxaoo 81611 PxoNE 303.920.5090 FAx 303.9205197
Prv~adonmydetl papa
...._. .... ..: ~ <,.o~..;,n...nx,.~•wcvix'taa~vla.;rxx ~.dts,:+A,w sx~w uaa~,.urr .m.:~::-+~YVr.#vs ,r,.a;,:~.teM,. i.
Lauren Graves
Box 3819
Aspen, CO 81612
Re: Graves/Bent/Leonhardt 1041 Hazard Review & General, Submission I
Case''#P28-95
Dear Lauren, it
The Planning staff has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have
determined that this application is complete. I
This application has been scheduled for review by the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning
- Commission on Tuesday, June 20, 1995 at a meeting to begin at 4:00 p.m. Should this date
be inconvenient for you please contact me within 3 working days of the date of this. letter. ~
After that the agenda date will be considered final and changes to the schedule or, tabling of the
application will only be allowed for unavoidable technical problems. The Friday before the
meeting date, we will call to inform you that a copy of the memo pertaining to the application
is available at the Community Development Office.
Please note that it is,your responsibility to post the subject property with a sign within 15 days ~
of the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners and to remove it from the ~
property within one week following the hearing. Please contact me at 920-5093 `one week i
following the Planning Commission meeting for the hearing date. Please submit the enclosed
Affidavit of Notice. by Posting as proof of compliance with the, Code prior to or at the hearing. ~
We have forwazded a copy of this application to the Colorado State Forest Service. for referral i
Comments will riot betreleased anti tly at (303) 248-7325 to arrange for payment of their fees.
hpayment is received.
If you have any questions, please call Rick Magill the planner assigned to your case, at 920- ~
5062.
Sincerely,
Su ' ne Wolff
~z~~J
Administrative Assistant
I
~,
'~
2900 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Apt. 245
Washington, D.C. 20008 ,~, e ,""\,
Mr. Rick Magill
Community Development
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81612
Dear Rick:
Department ~ pQ~ ~ ® ~~~
.~`,.-~
April 4, 1995 `', c-
~~. GL'J
I am writing regarding the 1041 application for parcel
10 in the West Sopris Creek Ranch Subdivision, which was
submited jointly with parcels 3, 8, and 14 of the same
subdivision. My signature was not submitted at the time you
received the .application as I was required to be out of the
country for my work and therefore unavailable longer than
had been expected. I would like to assure you that I have
been working substantially with the two other owners
involved and accept the application as submitted on February
21.
I have also received a letter from the Chairman of the
Board of County Commissioners, addressing the Boards
encouragement of a group site planning effort. I believe
that the plans for clustering lot 10 and lot 8 are spelled
out in the submitted application, and the owner of lot 8,
Lauren Graves, and myself have plans to collaborate on
utilities and other services provision. Please .let me know
if your have any questions or additional. ideas regarding a
group site planning effort. My best regards.
'i
Sincerely,
Anne eonhard
_rt..~ ~..~,.. v~~ ~.~,,. .,-~,.~~~.,,.~,.~~.~~~,
February 21, 1995
Mr. Richard Magill
Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Department
130 South. Galena St. __.
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Rick: ~~
Approximately three weeks ago, I informed you that Anne Leonhardt is currently in the 'I
bush in Mozambique until the end of February and unable to sign this application. I also I
said that I would attempt to get a letter from her stating that I could represent her in the
submission of this 1041 application. Unfortunately, Ihave been unable to reach het. In i
that telephone conversation, you indicated that we might go ahead and submit.the
~+, application without her signature, pending a letter from her immediately upon her return.
Both Dorothea Bent and I are anxious to proceed with this joint application, and therefore
have faxed to Anne Leonhardt_a letter requesting her signature. We hope to have it no
~~_..
later than the first week of March.
I understand that there maybe no public meeting until you receive her. signature.
However, I can assure you that it will be forthcoming, and hope that you can accept this
application with that in mind,
Once again, thank you for your consideration.
I
Sincerely,
~~ i~~---_ ~~~,
Lauren Graves I
i
~,
i
I
February 21, 1995 i
Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Department
ATTN: RICHARD MAGILL
130 South Galena St, 'i
Aspen, CO 81611
Deaz Richard
Please consider this document our Letter of Request to address the Code Section/Policy ',
azeas given in your PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUNIMARIES foc pazcels 3, 8,
10 and 14 in the West Sopris Creek Ranch Subdivision. We are. requesting the
appropriate land-use approvals necessary for the construction of asingle-family residence ~I
on each of these parcels.
Since the time that we began collecting information for this application, we have become
increasingly aware of the necessity to work together as a neighborhood. In order to help
facilitate an overall review of the property, we have created a single application to address
~^»,~, all four parcels. We have been diligent in our effort to create a better, more efficient use
' of the land in the subdivision. than if we were to apply individually. In our application, you
will find that we have clustered our homesites where possible, given the terrain of the
subdivision. We also intend to create a homeowner's association in order to make
improvements throughout the subdivision.
At this point in time, none of us yet has an architect, but can faithfully tell you that we
intend to construct. homes that range in size from 1,000 sq: feet to 4,500 sq. feet and that
meet all county regulations.
While we have attempted to address all relevant provisions of the Land Use Regulations,
and to provide sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation of this application,
questions may arise which result in the. staffs request for additional information and/or
clarification. We will be pleased to provide such information as maybe required in the
coilrse of this application's review.
Sincerely, ',
Lauren Graves Doroth Ben Anne Leonhardt ',
I
i
I _.. ~~ ~,~Gd 3~7 4y~"~ " -~ `"CASELOAD SUMMARY SHE~~ ~ ~
~ ,.
vf-v~ ~l nk, _ "PI~K~N`~ ~OU~NTY ~ -. ,.. ~ , ~~
"` I
DATE RECEIVED: 02/22/95 CASE'# P28.95
DATE COMPLETE: STAFF MEMBER: RM
PARCEL ID# 2465-153-00-006. 2465-222-00-004. 2465-223-00=007' 2465=
223-00-010 _ i
PROJECT NAME: Graves/Bent/Leonhardt 1041 Hazard Review & General;
Submission
Project Address: Lots 3. 8, 10 & 14, West Sopris Creek Subdivision
APPLICANTS: Zauren Graves Dorothea Bent & Ahne Leonhardt
Applicant Address:
REPRESENTATIVE: Lauren Graves 925-6209
Representative Address/Phone: Box 3819
Aspen, CO 81612
FEES: PLANNING .$2040 # APPS RECEIVED 22
ENGINEER $ 156 # PLATS RECEIVED. 22
HOUSING $
ENV. HEALTH $ 156'
CLERK. $ 300
TOTAL $2652
TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL: 1 STEP: 2 S`PEP X
DRC MEETING DATE I~~~
P&Z MEETING DATE e Z PUBLIC HEARINGz YES ,,,,NOS
BOCC MEETING DATE PUBLIC HEARING:<'~YE5'
HEARING OFFICER MEETING DATE: ~.../,' ',
________ ____________ __y--
--r--------
REFE~2RALS e
~/ Attorney
_,G Engineer
Housing
Aspen Water
Envir.Hlth.
Zoning
Land Mgmt.
Airport Mgr.
Sheriff
City P & Z
Building Dept
DATE REFERRED:
RESOLUTION #:
PLAT OR SITE PLAN
Aspen Consol S.D. School District
Rocky Mtn Nat Gas USFS (.Carbondale)
Holy Cross USFS (Aspen)
_Aspen Fire / Div. of Wildlife
/Ba$alt Fire
Carbondale Fire BLi~:
Snowmass Viil c.c:.
I
~\(N/
-div. Water. Res. _
__ Risk Manager ,
\",e/
~! State Forest Ser.
_CO'Geo.Survey Caucus _~
~ Homeowners Cr~O i
~~
_CDOT Open Space Board
Clean Air Board Other:.
_Br~ksh Ck Metro Dis t Other:
ig
',INITIALS ~ DATE DUE. I
_---_-_
rr=~ -__ '____ -_=_ ==== __- = '_-=__
7 ?T ~71 DATE: 9" 1~]~7 ~/U'~l-g`i
AT`BOOR PAGE(S)
FINAL ROUTING:
County Attorney
Housing
Open Space Bd.
Other:
_COUnty Engineer
_Envir. Health
FILED:
INITIAL: /~L/-~
_ Zoning
Applicant
Revised 02/08/95
{
,I
'~. ;
F
F
{' ,
~'t .,
~.~~ '
i~ a
f2 1;=
7~ °
I'
`5
S
1 y~ i
alp
~~
w
YI
VI
~. ~. m~~. tr,°,...
Alpine Surveys, Inc.
reaz once eo'tTao
sa'~ges~0`zeeasaO ann
SvwYee ReWeivro I.11-t5
Wefietl 1.4.95 ER lo.;e.ro
,s as
LOT 14 ~~
BENT 1041
HAZARD REVIEW MAP
o v x+ b w m m izo
SCALE - 1" - ~'
+~re TOfTJCrvtFHY aY OTHERS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A PARCEL CF IMID STVATED IN THE W. ~/1 CF SECTION 15, ~ 85.,
R. BT W cP THE 6rH PM.. PfikiN CCLNIY, GbLORAW, EEIt.,C M01'E
FULLY DE5CRI0ED AS FOLLOWS
EE6INNING AT THE 5W. (YxCNER CE SSID SECTIRJ 15. THENCE
5 E6° 53'1.' E 13H-54 FEET 10 ME TRUE PgNi CF EEGINNING;
7HEN('.E QTITINUING 585'53'>°'E 65t.-n FEEi~ TI-iEhCE
NCO°52'24"E 13roOFEET; THENCE Neg°53'G"W 659.~FEE;
THENCE 5 x'52 `90° w 23`b-O FEET Tp l1iE TRUE RY,NT CF
EE61NNIt K.
A.K.A. WEST 5pPR1S RN1CN PAJ:CEL t~b. kf
WAIVER
APH-IfA4i /GKK.WLECGE5 TVgT .~iE FitS C£EN INIbRMED BY
PITKIN NAYiY CE lHE E%tSTENLE OF 'IDM ti:J/J'O P.RF/5"
THAT MIGM AFFECT Tiff PRgPER(Y, ANY IMPRO/EMENTS, AND
ME USE AND OCCUPANCY THEREOF
DN:Ne'~L: DriQ.9TNC'1r ~ENr
BOARD OP COUNTY COMMISSICINERS APPROVAL
THIS EEN~ KAI FWARD R¢VIEW HAP 15 REVIEWEp, APPROVED, AND
ACCEPTED PX TFiE 2CARb CF'. CGUJTY Q"JHMI551DNER5 CF
PITKIN CGUJTY, COLORNl'1 CN TN15_CNY p"
19-, 6Y RE5O! UTICN No. ?.<, -f~ 9 '
~P~ i~ / y'
('
,~. _~?,.
CLERK & RECOEtDER'S ACCEPTANCE
1H19 EENi KKI FNTARD REVIEW µM 15 ACCEPFED P.JR FILtNi iN
THE GFFICE CF'THE,CLC'RK ~ REO GT= PtTKIN CCt;NTY,
~~~
~~~~yy i °e' fJ,{:
"`"f`e~-.'~ - CLERK R~RCER
~„„_ y
Tiib~ p91 H/.ZARp REVIEW
.bb Na 9d I~
Gienl EENT/C~RTrC5-