HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.planning.246522200005 (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 andlor P&Z
Determination for the Hearing Officer
Administrative Determination
Staff Memo
Application
Public Notice, Acceptance Letter, Referral(s) Letter
Site Plan
Miscellaneous
Plat copies (11x17)
a detached cazetaker
dwelling unit.
Z. The subject property is described as Lot 9 of the West Sopris Creek Ranch Subdivision, and
is more speci$cally described in Exhibit A, attached.
3. The Boazdheazd this application at regularly scheduled meetings on October 22, and
November 19, 1997, at which time evidence and testimony was presented with. respect to the
application. ..
s ; . ~ .:
4. The Board fords that the detached caretaker dwelling uiut application does not comply with
the Special Review criteria of Land Use Code Section 3-21.0 (A)(3), due to the potenfial for
..: .. ~. .vn MhxJ a~.~o~NN4jf'~J&mya~kv~...O.a ?i•
unacceptable impacts on wildlife. The Boazd believes that impacts to elk and deer winter range
. .o ..ire ..r. v w v. + Y..r vuk'tt ft1
could be teduced if the cazetaker unit were attached to the, main residence. The Board considered
the statements of the Division of Wildlife and the County Wildlife Biologist in this matter.
5. The Board further determined that a caretaker unit attached or within the principal dwelling
unit weuld be acceptable for the: subject property, besng that the attached dwelling unit will be less
?.i3.T'itC`1V~°.t~!"d^ia.'ar.C'~2£hE'ai~~Yel1LZa'.3nt "rV!th ?eSDe.^.. t0 ?li~°, 12 ~.1 ^.fs:a~)aCtStC ~n~idllfe _>n :at.
~~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ !!,~ lid ~~~ ~~ ~~
~:~t~i° gym.'??/SS~+S ^v2: tcra ayw^4vw'73 vE"~l,,,.,,a .._
,.: a ,? ~ i
S af..~ R ~J,?a ~ D..~9 V :'~.c'J ~"s?';3~! '„a",a~!:}y ~,~
a t a ~.w,sx^,~,^~..~~w+bhS+x~+~.-`3 C"<"^. + X" s~~e Y~G a ... ~' ~. 2 PN.
,,
deed IeShlCtlOn tOthe )''TouSwg VIIICe " ~` ` `~''~ "~ u.. ~ ~`
~,
.. wx
"•" •,•• ~ W rotr~A+~4Y uv ~' r } iv• a~ ~~ ~w..w ..-m ?!.J ~ -i`4* ti,..`. a ,..i. 3c
2. The caretaker dwelling nmt sfia'~e~~ted io TOt~square feet of net'~iva$le floor area.
- ,
., .
3. The Applicant shall adhere to all relevant material representations made in the application
andin the pubhcmeeting ....,,;~ ~.~;~ ,,:..~~~, ~,v.u,.,~.~ _M .
Case +:'_~: i?-97
a~.~Ab$ «e127f:'~~ ~2 r't..attls' .E~~d.~ a., ,, ';,
? r~-. ,.~ a"..
__
i ~ ;....
~Sa~~oc 3 3aL E x .+ ~?ffi ~ ~ a uaw,
r
a p t ~ x
,~ • 3.;k
~~ Wimse;egataadeuls__ less`"~ve~~; GJl.ae^, C'olonrec ~(r4.1TI~ t . .- ,, .. ...a.._ „*. n ,
_ N,e. . -
.... . r. k
?,>k:w'~&'r?YZy xw~ 4r. v°.;: ^w~, sJ. +.s~ a..-x: x,x v'~ my
,. ~.~?.. ..x as ~,,,mw ,a~', ..... . < ..eTomxa.. ,.6 .v _ ~ ., cw,~., _;
°~-t -
of the ~ - `Z Gaaty of _.. , .. zL:9:5otI , " ` ~~. Stam az Gianac.~sl ~ , :"
_ __ -
WI'I^.IESSe 3 ~1~2 ~7G s ^:^r~'.tar Sa .II p1RCC^3IO,R 9( !hG Sai:i OI ~.,.~t.. ..; :i.~ R~ ,at ~~1 LL `n. fIj i
., -
r _, ., , .
::U:1DRJ .t:y~ VCi_u0 ~SIQi,~~u.00 ------------=-------^`--°--- ---`-- -°-ycr.L.:as.
3te:~: anusui~..enei ai •+rbic. is heresyaecc~+.+e¢gx.:a ~ ystsca. ~-..:.:,.;aidaacnve}c~aVv~.=c^esa.:o ~5 y
~+ rrs al ~mr~. as ~arn.:aw :fie ,:sr.."r2J. e:' ;mss :nc sr:3^s -~ri tae .~ ~:cs~, o3c^c nm -:^ccvctcs.
ii aav ntt.are y:eg ~a r z _e Gunty r .:: the r C.corcc.
descx^ 3 911awr - _ an _ _ _ _ _ _
_ - _ ..
~ .~___ -.::.;. ~ __~ ~ 1st ~~ -, 3 3. 's. ':
° •, .
f .~'.9'r ...~'~ '_ "` )c ~4 ~"°' n'°_ ..dC ~v'R '_ _ _ ~'~e.-o.35- ~' ,__25.
_
o •o ~
.
,.
~..: 52COIICS ~. _'- ~ ~ :° :° J 33 °: °5:.._ L 5 c ,e P °
-
»i
- 2 3~ ear - z ~ J 3E~ r_ _~ °w _ µr°,._°° .~~.(s -,c
i` =0 Sa.COR.^.S 1. _..- 7. ~1] .°°_, ~:°^C J. .3$ ~es_ °S w Z LT°5. t ~2 i CS
s
., ~ °r _.. .._ _~ .. ~ ,
• _ _
_ __3.__ __ _~ __._ . ~ ...
. ..... ( >im xaawm cy saeet aaa ratmxr as: -%~'- .,. ,. • . .
i :OGc.3E3 n:a vi ;aa naga:a toe c~itnm~u ~zd anonaectattr3 ;:.e%a aconaa~. ar .a aayWiseaaeer..,:mrg. sa :s :v~cs:oa sa
1 aasiotu.:mince aaa ~ndets. Wis.: ~ and:totiss :hecxi aad ail ::.crate, =~. ~~ie. ;ascent. -:aim inn ,:~~sad ~Lnacsonc of ':'
~.. , , . .v.~,- ,..,,~-.,.,
~satoetst s:the :o iaw or 3atey oi, in andca cite attove"has~sned ptrnsses. •~nh tYe r•^:••"~-..
TD FL~YE.L`iD ~ AOL.7 the smd cseenssa above haz3zitrcd and des~tue •.vit6 toe aavnaz~ne
assi3ns ioc:i~And the giatsbttr~,:br It~.^S se!_, :SSS ~Ytens aad xsonsl .acacctnaves.
aetG:a and wiQS rs ~ttCe71• 'per hcra aua •sssgns hu.s the iimeor che:asr~in¢adddvcyoi
seia:ed of ::te ptc-ssa above ~nvexd. :v 5 good:,zue. ;area. absolute :ad iadei~elc estate
-a
ma.
~a:ca~ i1,e: :te5s 3na
c.~resa. T~SIIL bax3-sn_ ahd
a.~n 1 -'
s_-zxa RE 25 vleti
Lance. Ed 1.4w, is is sictnta ihd
.,.
r
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Regular Meeting -November 19, 1997
THRU: Cindy Houben, Community Development Director/
FROM: Rick Magill, Senior Planner
RE: Hampleman Caretaker Dwelling Unit
APPLICANT: Dick Haznpleman
REQUEST: The applicant is applying for approval of a detached caretaker dwelling unit. The
CDU is proposed to be located to the north and approximately 30 feet from the main residence.
The caretaker unit is attached to a two-car gazage. .
BACKGROUND: The applicant concurrently applied for approval of an extension of vested
property rights and a caretaker dwelling unit. The Board of County Commissioners approved the
extension of vested rights at the October 22, 1997 regular meeting. The caretaker dwelling unit
review was continued to this meeting so that. a full Board may be present.
OUTSTANDING ISSUES:
Wildlife issues: The subject property is mapped for elk and deer winter range. The property is
also adjacent to critical habitat for both big game species. The Division of Wildlife indicates that
the caretaker unit should be attached to the main residence to minimize impacts to elk and deer
winter range habitat. The County Wildlife Biologist also believes that attaching the CDU to the
main residence would result in less disturbance to wildlife in this area.
Wildfire issues: Vince Urbina of the Colorado State Forest Service indicates that "the area
surrounding the building envelope is rated as "severe" wildfire hazard and "the area in and
azound the building envelope is rated as medium", due to moderate slopes and the scattered
vegetation. Mr. Urbina points out that the existing subdivision road (Stone Road) has been
recently improved, but is not ideal$om an emergency access perspective.
The issue of approving an additional unit of density in an area containing severe wildfire hazards
was discussed by the Board at the October 22, 1997 meeting. The approval of another residential
dwelling unit in this area may materially endanger the health, safety or welfare of, not only those
who reside in this subdivision, but also the emergency personnel who will respond to an event.
The County Engineer recently conducted an inspection of Stone Road to check that the
improvements and on-going maintenance required by the Road Maintenance Agreement between
the County and the Stone Road Association are satisfactory. Bud Eylar believes that the Road has
been improved and maintained as per the agreement with the County (see attached memos).
n ~,
RECOMMENDATION; Staff recommends that the detached caretaker unit. be denied by the
BOCC based on lack of compliance with the Special Review criteria of the Land Use Code, as
described in the attached resolution of denial.
Attachments:
1. draft resolution
2.October 22nd memo w/attachments
3. County Engineer and CTL/Thompson comments on Stone Road
2
Recorded at ><.-:~., ~xH/<3/T' ,~{
Reception Na. ~ixa "~ R<cnmeA
WARRANTY DEED..... --
THISDEED,.tiademi3 ISth yyof February le 40
betweenl2ichlyd T. Knight
coumy of Denver
hfargot B. BOttcaer
of the clay 3IId
Sate di Colorado. gmnroKS) and
wi,ose:egat addnss is SZ Bess Avenue, Golden, Colorado 30401
of the County of Jefferson , sate of Calmado. ;rante_-is):
W[TVESSETH, That the grarstotlSX :ar and in consideration of the sum of vVE ;:li`'DREJ SE ~IE`I THGliSr1ND F'i
HU:iDRED .a2JD VO/i00 (5107,500.DO)---------------------------`-------------vcc:.Aas.
dte teceint and sufticency of which is herzby acknowledged,ha S g~anted.bargained.;gid aid conveyed, and by thue ptssents dd ~S gntnt,
bargain. ;ell. convey, and confirm. unto the grant
e":2)• her heirs and signs forever, ail :he :~ prooenv, :oge:her with improvements,
if iny, si[uate. 'ying and being in the. County of ?~_~;i~ ; .Sate of Colorado,
descilxd u follows:
oar..-_ ..= lard situated ~ tae i~ of Section. __, 3 5. R. 37 .V. of tze
5th P.:f. none part_culari;J described as follows:
3eginni.^^.; at tae ViV corner pf said Section _3, thence S. 0 deg-ees 59 ninutes
02 seconcs -P. _ 1'0.10 ceet, t':erce S. 33 des_ees 34 ninutes 42 seconds _.
'_,313.94 ...et ,.., tae True ? int of 3egianirg, -e^.cs S. 1 dew=e 00 minutes
4b seconds .9. ?,1;0.00 fee*_, thence S. 33 degi-i3es 54 ninutes 42 seconds E.
_,318.35 '>_et thence V. 1 ,.egre_° 02 minutes 3i seconds E. 1,1;0.00 -=mot,
thence ~'. 33 de;rees 54 minutes 42 seconds PJ. 1,3i8.95'feet to t'7e "~.e POizt
of Beginning, ,:
also known by sttLK and number as: n/ a % i
TOGETHER ~.virn nit and singular :he heteditaments and appurtenances ener.:o belon¢ing, or in anywise appenaining, and the ie5ezsion and -~
enersions.:-mainac and :emaindea. 2nts. issues and proms theieoi. and all :he estate. izht. tide, inttaest, claim and demand whatsoever of the
granroAsl. either in Iaw or equity, of, in and to the above bargained premises, widtthe hesditamems and appurtenances. :.
TO HAVE .\ND TO HOLD the said premises aimve bargained and desrnbed with the apwnendnces, veto [he gran[txp~ her heia and
assigns fo2ver. And the granton~. for hlm >ei f , 1715 heirs and personal reptexntuives. do e S covenant. grant. bargain. and
agteemand w;tb the gta»tee~), her.. heirs and assigns. ehuuihe timeof the ensealins; artd deiiveryofthese pteten[s, Ile 15 well
seized of the premises above conveyed, ha 5 good, sure, perfect. absolute and indefeasible estate. of inheritance. in taw, in lee simple. and
MEMORANDUM,.
TO: Boazd of County Commissioners
Regular Meeting -October 22, 1997
THRU: Cindy Hoube , ommuntty Development Director
FROM: Rick Magill, Senior Planner
RE: Hampleman Extension of Vested Rights and Cazetaker Dwelling Unit
APPLICANT: Dick Hampleman
REQUEST: Pursuant to Section 4-14030, the applicant is requesting an extension of the vested
property rights for Lot 9 of the West Sopris Creek Ranch Subdivision. The previous owner,
Richazd Knight, obtained an administrative 1041. approval in 1987 (see 1041 siteplan with
conditions, attached). The applicant is concurrently applying for approval of a detached caretaker
dwelling unit.
ZONING/LOT SIZE: The lot is zoned AFR-10 and contains approximately 36 acres.
STAFF COMMENTS:
1041 HAZARD RF_VIEW; The property contains mapped wildfire hazard areas, slopes in excess of
30% ,and significant wildlife habitat areas.
Geologic: The property contains slopes in excess of 30 percent. The topography provided the
previously-approved building envelope contains slopes of 5 to 20 percent. The proposed access
driveway is telatively flat and contains slopes of less than 5 percent centerline gradient.
Wildfire: Vince Urbina of the Colorado State Forest Service indicates that "the area surrounding
the building envelope is rated as severe" wildfire hazazd and "the area in and azound the building
envelope is rated as medium", due to moderate slopes and the scattered vegetation. Mr. Urbina
points out that the existing subdivision road (Stone Road) has been recently improved, but is not
ideal from an emergency access perspective. Mr. Urbina is strongly recommending that
defensible space mitigation measures be effectively implemented for this property and that the
structural mitigation requirements of the Land Use Code also be considered for the buildings.
Wildlife: The subject property is mapped for elk and deer winter range. The property is also
adjacent to critical habitat for both big game species. The Division of Wildlife indicates that the
caretaker unit should be attached to the main residence to minimize impacts to elk and deer
winter range habitat (see DOW comments, attached) Although Mr. Wright goes on to say that the
impacts will not be great due to the close proximity to the residence. The DOW's original
comments in 1987 suggest that outbuildings not be allowed on the property. However, the
conditions of the 1987 approval allow outbuildings within the building envelope. The DOW
~^, ~ .
comments include other specific mitigation measures for the proposed development that Staff
will include as conditions of approval. The County Wildlife Biologist agrees with Kevin Wright
of the DOW with respect to recommended wildlife mitigation measures, and also believes that
attaching the CDU to the main residence would result in less disturbance to wildlife in this azea.
Staff feels that the gazage may also have to be attached to the main residence, should the DO W
confirm the position that the CDU should be attached. Staff is attempting to contact NIr. Wright
and will report any findings at the meeting.
N .RA . sMI Iorr: The property will be served by an existing well and a proposed
Individual Sewage Disposal System. Access to the lot will be provided by a proposed 500-foot
long driveway. The driveway. has been constructed to access the well site and is proposed to be
extended another 250 feet to access the building site.
OTHE_ R ISSL7F5:
Setbacks: The Zoning Office points out that the building envelope is within the 100-foot front
yazd setback. Staff recommends that the building envelope be:revised to be outside of this
setback. This small reduction of the building envelope should not affect the applicant's ability to
construct the residence.
Stone Road Association: Leslie Strawbridge, President of the Stone Road. Association, indicates
that Lot 9 (subject property) is not a member of the Association. The Road Maintenance
Agreement for the Stone Road Association and Pitkin County dated August 28, 1995; recorded at
Book 791, Page 978 requires that property owners be required to join the Stone Road
Association as a condition of any land use approvals requested from the County. The Agreement
also requires that all property owners pay a pro rata share ofthe initial improvements to the road..
CARETAKER D L IN IT• The CDU is proposed to be located to the north and approximately
30 feet from the main residence. The caretaker unit is a two-story structure attached to a two-car
garage. Cazetaker Dwelling Units aze Special Review uses in the AFR-10 zone district.
The special review use must be consistent with:
The applicable County Master Plans;
Staff response: The proposal is consistent with adopted County Master Plans.
County Land Use Policies in Article 2;
Sections 2-80 & 2-90: Natural and Man-Made Haiard and Resource Areas & Soil, Surficial
Geologic Characteristics and Radiation
Staff response: Section 2-80 states: "It is the policy of the County to manage the use of the lands
which are identified as containing Areas and Activities of Local and State Interest (House Bill
1041). The County will prevent any use which may subject any person, use, or resource to natural
or Man-Made hazards". Section 2-90 states: "It is the policy of the County to discourage land uses
and development activities in areas subject to radiation and geologic hazazds."
Slopes: Development is not being proposed on slopes in excess of 30 percent. Staff has included the
standards of Land Use Code Section 3-80.50(C)(1) - PotentiallyUnstable Slopes (15-30 percent)
and will require the revegetation of disturbed slopes as conditions of approval.
Wildfire: The Colorado State Forest Service has rated the wildfire danger as medium and has
recommended specific mitigation measures for this development that have been included as
conditions of approval.
Wildlife: The DOW. and the. County Wildlife Biologist have recommended that the caretaker unit
be attached to the main residence to minimize impacts to wildlife.
Secfion 2-120: Scenic Quality
Section 2-120 states: "It is the policy of the County to preserve its natural, rural scenery for the
benefit of its residents and continued viability of its resort economy. To preserve scenic quality. the
County will prohibit or require mitigation of the visual impacts of land uses and development".
Staff response: Staff feels that the visual impacts of the proposed residence will be relatively
insignificant due to the existing topography and vegetation.
3. The intent of the Zone District in which the proposal is located; and
Staff response: The AFR-10 zone is intended to maintain the rural character of lands proximate to
State highways by preserving agricultural operations, wildlife habitat, and scenic quality while
permitting low density, single-family dwelling units and customary accessory uses: The proposed
development will not encroach on any agricultural lands and will not significantly impact the scenic
quality of the area. The impacts on wildlife aze discussed above.
4. The character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and
surrounding land uses, or enhance the mixture of complimentary uses and activities
in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
Staff response: Staff feels that the proposed residence is consistent with the existing land uses and
character of the azea.
B. The location, size, design and operating chazacteristics of the proposed special review use
must be in harmony with the .surrounding area and minimizes adverse affects, including
visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehiculaz circulation, parking, trash, service
delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties.
3
r, ,~3
Staff response: The location, size and operating characteristics of the proposed single-family
residence will be in harmony with the surrounding azea and adverse visual effects can be
minimized.
C. There must. be adequate public .facilities and services. to serve the special review use
including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer,-solid waste, parks, police, fire
protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems,
and schools.
Staff response: The Applicant indicates the use of an on-site well for domestic water for the new
dwelling unit. The Environmental Health Department will require information documenting the
quality and quantity of the well water, prior to the issuance of aseptic permit.
The Environmental Health Department will require the receipt and approval of a sewage disposal
permit, prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The County Engineer will require that the applicant obtain a County Access Permit, prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
Staff believes that there will be no adverse impacts on the community's pazks, schools, and hospital
facilities caused by the proposed single-family development. Staff feels that there may be some
impacts to the community's police, fire, and emergency services; given the barely adequate
condifion of the subdivision road. In the event of a major wildfire, the people at'risk aze not only
those who reside in this subdivision, but also the emergency personnel who will respond to an
event.
D. An application for a special review use must demonstrate that the proposed development
will not:
1. Materially endanger the public health, safety or welfare; and
2. Substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property.
Staff response: The proposed development could potentially materially endanger the public health,
safety or welfaze due to the presence of severe wildfire hazards surrounding the building envelope
and a less than ideal subdivision road.
No adverse effect on the value of the remaining private pazcels abutting the Applicant's property is
anticipated.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve the Hampleman Extension
of Vested Rights for a period of three (3) years, subject to compliance with the conditions in the
attached draft resolution, and the conditions of the previous approval, unless otherwise revised or
eliminated by the conditions in the draft resolution.
4
~ ~
Staff further recommends that the detached cazetaker unit be denied by the BOCC based on the
findings of the Division of Wildlife and. the .County Wildlife $iologist, as described in the
attached resolution of denial. In addition, the approval of another residential dwelling unit in this
area may further contribute to impacts on the community's police, fire, and emergency services,
given the barely adequate condition of the subdivision road. In the event of a major wildfire, the
people at risk aze not only those who reside in this subdivision, but also the emergency personnel
who will respond to an event.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. draft extension of vested rights resolution
2. CDU denial resolution
3. Zoning Office memo
4. Environmental Health memo
5. CSFS letter
6. DOW letters
7. Wildlife biologist memo
8. Stone Road Association letter
9. Housing Office memo
10. application w/maps
5
.,`~,
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Rick Magill, Planning
FROM: Joanna S. Schaffner, Zoning
DATE: October 15, 199'7
RE: Hampleman Caretaker Dwelling Unit
Parcel ID#.2465-222-00=005 '
I have reviewed the above referenced application and offer the
following comments:
ZONE: RS-30, thirty acre minimum lot size
This parcel contains in excess of 35 acres and is conforming in
size.
SETBACKS: The required setbacks for this parcel are:
l00 front yard setback
50 side yard setback
50 rear yard setback
The proposed structure is located within the approved building
envelope and is outside of all required setbacks,
FLOOR AREA: The maximum allowed floor area on this parcel is
15,000 square feet of residential floor area. All agricultural
structures are exempt from floor area calculations.
The applicant is proposing a 699 square foot detached caretaker
dwelling unit. It appears that this number reflects the amount of
floor area and not the amount of net livable floor area contained
within the unit.
HEIGHT: Sufficient information has not been submitted to determine
compliance with County height-regulations.
OTHER: Development is not ..permitted outside of approved
building envelopes unless specified by this or other County
approvals. This includes entry or ranch gates, septic systems and
landscaping.
All room uses must be labeled in English.
,:
The proposed parking for the caretaker dwelling unit should be
located within the building envelope.
When grade is. proposed to chahge 30 inches or more in height
within the required setbacks, approval is required from the Board
of Adjustment prior to the issuance of any development permit.
This is important when considering driveway designs, as driveways
by their nature, are .located wEhn'the setback. A regrading plan
is required with the Driveway/Access Permit application for the
proposed driveway.
Because the proposed caretaker dwelling unit hugs the building
envelope line, development of the structure can be expected to
extend outside of the envelope. If this is not desired, the
structure should be relocated away from the envelope line.
N .~: ~. w,. ~~ .~, ,..._~, ., ~~ r:_w~
..,
MEMORANDUM
To: Rick Magill, Community Development Departrnent
From: Lee Cassin, Assistant Environmental Health Director
Date: 19 September, 1997
Re: Hampleman Extension of Vested rights
Parcel ID #2465-222-00-005
The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the details of-the
Hampleman vestedxights application under the authority of thePitkin County Land
Use Code and has the following comments.
ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: Sections 2-17 and 3-1104•
"It is the policy of the County to insure the avaffability of a water supply of adequate quality, quantity, pressure and dependability
for fire protection and support of a proposed land use prior to approval of the use. The County shall require Iand uses to hook up
to existing public systems if service is available." _
A condition of approval should be that the applicant provide adequate information on
the quantity and the quality of well water. The application states that well yield is
adequate, but a well pump test is required to confirm this. The applicant must ensure
that the water quality is acceptable by having it tested by a lab such as the Snowmass
Water and Sanitation District or Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. The well has
already been drilled but its location is not given so we cannot comment on the
likelihood of meeting setback requirements from the best location for aseptic system.
On a nearly-two-acre building envelope, this would not normally be difficult.
It is recommended that low water landscaping (xeriscaping) be used and that the timing
of any sprinkler systems be decreased for low water plants, since the well may not
always provide as much water as it does initially. The Colorado State University
Cooperative Extension office can be contacted for more information on xeriscaping.
A condition of approval for this application is the receipt of information
documenting that the location of the well(s) meet setback requirements and
that quantity/quality of the well water aze adequate. Without meeting these
requirements a septic permit and building permit. can not be issued.
Pr~ntedun Recycled Popery
~-, ~
St/ W ACiL~; I K1A 1'M1rN'I' AN ll CULLEC:TION: Sections 2-1$ and 3-1105: °It s the policy of the
County to ensure that adequate sewage treatment facilities are available to serve existing and new developments. Public and
private sewage disposal systems and connections to such systems shaII comply with the sewage deposal guidelines of Pitkin
County's Individual Sewage Disposal.System Regulation.'
Lots in the West Sopris Ranch area are served by individual septic systems. All such
systems installed within Pitkin County require septic permits issued by the
Environmental Health Department, and must comply with the County's septic
regulations. To receive a septic permit, the applicant will need to contact a Registered
Professional Engineer to discuss the best options for performing soils tests. It must be
possible to design an adequate septic system before a building permit can be issued.
While the building envelope is large, the neighboring lot had a very unsuitable soil
percolation rate, which required a very large septic system. Also, the larger the house,
the greater setback distances are required between the well and septic system. Given
the slopes and concerns about the soil, the building site may be constrained in some
ways: it may not be possible to put the house and septic system exactly where the
owner would most desire, it may be necessary to pump to the septic system, and it may
be necessary for the house size to be reduced. for the septic system to meet required
setback distances. The RPE doing the site analysis and soils tests will discuss with the
owner what the various options are for septic system location.
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 or driven ove>•: It is desirable to locate the system
below the house if possible, so that the system can operate by gravity. l
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 OUALITI' IMPACTS: Sections 2-14 and 3-705 and 3-710•
"It is the polity of the County to preserveand protect its present water resources. To this end it vs the polity of the County that no
land use be ixutiated which would adversely affect the quantity, quahty; or accessibility of the County's water resources; or which
would occur at the expense of established water-dependent agricultural activities; or which would result in increased salinization
of water resources, loss of minimum stream flows, further destruction of wffdlife habitat, or major expenditures to reacquire or
redistribute major water resources. It is also the policy of the County to maintain a natural vegetative buffer along its surface
waters such that the surface and groundwaters of the azea arenot encroached upon by land uses or other human activities which
couldcause deterioration of water quality or impair the natural treatment processes providedby meadows and wetlands."
The Environmental Health Department will be addressing water quality impacts on
down stream water quality. This application is not expected to impact down stream
water quality if the minimum horizontal distances between components of the system
and physical features are in accordance with the Pitkin County Sewage Regulations.
P,vuN an 0. }xled P~~nx
~"~ ..:
The Environmental Health Department is charged with preserving and protecting the
quality of Pitkin County's water resources. Since a large percentage of the population is
dependent upon water from wells, elimination of groundwater pollution, and
protection of aquifers and their drainage areas are of utmost importance. Roofs and
asphalt areas can be nonpoint sources of water discharge which can contaminate water
supplies. This Department recommends that nonpoint sources of discharge be retained
on the property of origin which can be accomplished through landscaping, drainage
patterns, detention ponds, and dry wells for water runoff from buildings.
There is no condition of approval fofthis issue.
AIR QUALITY: Sections 2-13 and 3-602:
"Only that development is permitted which will not contribute significandy to degzadation of aiiu quality in Pitkin Covnty.
Developments may not constitute an induect or duect air pollution source under Federal, State or County regulations."
This project is not expected to contribute significantly to degradation of air quality in
Pitkin County, since it involves only a single residence, and much of the traffic itdoes
generate will not drive in the Pitkin County non-attainment area.
Activities such as road building and landscaping require a Fugitive Dust Plan. This plan
would need to include, but is not limited to, fencing, watering of haul roads and
disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove mud that has been
carried out, speed limits, or other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from
crossing the property line or causing a nuisance.
A condition should be approval by the. AspenfPitkin Environmental Health
Department of the fugitive dust control plan, containing enough measures to
ensure that dust does not become a nuisance or blow onto adjacent property.
The applicant must file afireplace/woodstove permit with the Environmental Health
Department before the building permit will be issued. The less densely populated parts
of the county like may have two devices per building: a maximum of one wood
burning fireplace and a second device which can be either a gas log fireplace or a
certified woodstove. In addition, unlimited numbers of decorative gas appliances are
allowed. Coal may not be burned in anydevice. No wood burning device may be
installed in barns or agricultural buildings.
A condition of approval for this application is the receipt and approval of the
fireplace/woodstove permit by the Environmental Health Department before
the buildingpermit can be issued.
Pe1n4J m~ RxyMd Pope
~"'
CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HE~4LTH LAWS• •Secton 2-7• ^it
is the policy of the County to ensure tlrati no use or development of land is permitted wlutnis m violation of the lawsof the
County, the State of Colorado, or the Uruted States of America."
This Department is not aware of any issues of concern regarding other environmental
health laws.
Pein4d on Recycled Payee
„. n rv. n . mta:§~.n
s~
July 11, 1996
state services Building
Richard Hampleman zza s. eth street. rzoom 416
Caudill Gustafson Architects c~a.rv<,eaoa.colotadnaisoi
Telephone: (9i0) 248-7326
234 Sast Hopkins Ave.
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Richard,
As we discussed on July 3rd when we looked over your property, my
comments only address the existing road system and wildfire
hazard. The Colorado State Forest Service {CSFS) uses the Pitkin
County Land Use Code, the National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) 299 standard for Protection 'f L~fP an Droperty from
Wildfire and other CSFS publications to develop wildfire hazard
mitigation recommendations.
The road system into West Sopris Ranch has been a concern to the
CSFS, the Basalt Rural Fire Department and the Pitkin County
commissioners: In a perfect world we would like to see a
subdivision like west Sopris Ranch have a road system where; dual
access/egress is in place, there is a traveled way surface at
.least 24 foot wide with 4 foot shoulders {32 feet total) and road
grades that do not exceed 10 percent. The dual access/egress
road system and the 32 foot wide roads facilitate the safe
evacuation of residents as well as access for large emergency
service-vehicles (e.g. fire trucks). Some improvements have been
made on the road as a result of the county commissioners
suggestion that the Terliamis residents get together to improve
the road.. The road surface has been upgraded by adding gravel
and some turnouts have been created due to road widening. Dual
access/egress and a 32 foot usable surface do not exist. The
grade does exceed: 30 percent in some spots for short distances.
I called the Pitkin County Planning office to find out what the
wildfire hazard maps said about West Sopris Ranch. According to
these ;.laps the entire area has been mapped as x_-Severe H~zard•
Brush. I have run into areas that were mapped as severe but were
in reality medium or low hazard, which is why we do inspect every
application. The area surrounding your building envelope is
indeed severe as we discussed.
To put it all in perspective let me tell you about the 1989 Black
Tiger Fire in Boulder County. This fire destroyed 44 homes in
six hours. despite having the local fire department on the scene
within 20 minutes of the fire starting. The enormous destruction
that took place in that fire was instn?mental in the development
of the NFPA 299 standard which I`referred to above. The houses
that burnt down had the following conditions in common: close
proximity to combustible vegetation (20 feet or less), wood
exterior construction and the presence of wood decks, porches or
balconies. Some structures did survive this devastating fire.
One had 75 feet of cleared area .(defensible space) in the
~~
~~ ~F
..~,.
HAMPLEMAN PAGfi 2
1 direction of the approaching fire. The others had good access so
a the fire department"could come into the property to control the
fire and build fire line before the fire arrived. Defensible
space and good access allowed some structures to survive. Since
your-roads have some problems I encourage you to go tiie extra
mile to develop defensible space.
This is what I saw on July 3rd. The staked building site is
south facing with a 10% slope. The vegetation in and around the
`: building envelope is scattered Gambel oak, junipers, sage and
( grass. The fuels are not continuous so I would rate the wildfire
hazard as medium for the building envelope only. The
existing/proposed driveway would suffice Eor fire vehicle access.
My recommendations. to mitigate the existing wildfire hazar3 are
i as follows.
! 1) Clear and maintain a 10 foot space around all structures where
~ vegetation can be kept at 6 inches or less (e.g. mowed grass).
There. should be ao trees within this 10 foot perimeter.
2) For a minimum distance of 55 feet downslope'and 43 feet
upslope and to the sides (see enclosed graph) clump and clear
away woody vegetation between clumps. The Pitkin County Land Use
Code states that the diameter and size of remaining clumps shall
be two times the existing height. For example, if the shrubs are
10 feet tall then the clumps should no larger than 20 feet in
diameter with a 20 .feet spacing between clumps. The veae*_ation
between these clumps should be something like grass or 'flowers.
In addition. to clumping the.. shrubs, the lower limbs should be
removed up to half the total height of the plant to eliminate
ladder fuels. If trees are allowed to remain in this defensible
space perimeter their crowns should be seperated by at least 10
feet.
3) Chip and/or remove. all dead woody material within the
defensible space area.
4) Because of the proximity of severe wildfire hazard you should
incorporate some of the Structural Design and Construction
Requirements of the Land Use Code (3-807.C.3-4.). Specifically;
metal roof, no wood shake/shingles, one hour fire resistive
siding, and no projections that could catch radiant or convective
heat. There are more considerations like windows, shutters, and
water storage that may be wise to incorporate.
If you have any questions about my comments feel free to call.
/S~in~c'lerely,
A. Vince Urbina
Assistant District Forester
enc.
STATE OF COLORADO a '~
Roy Romer, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNT'EMPLOYER.
John Mumma, Director
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80276
Telephone: 1303) 297-1192
9-30-97
Pitkin County Community Development
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Ricks....
For People
I will refer you to my past letters regarding wildlife use and
impacts for Hampleman`s Lot 9 of West Sopris Ranch. Previous
application did not mention a proposed caretaker unit. Had that
been the case I would have recommended that it be attached to the
main house.
Construction of a detached unit will further the lass of winter
range habitat. However;"due to the close proximity to the main
house., impacts will not be great. The site plan map did not
contain elevational contours and I did not observe`a stake placed
on the site for the caretaker unit so I was not sure the exact
location of the unit. In addition, one map showed the drive
entrance within the existing envelope while the more site
specific plan showed it outside the envelope.
Impacts to wildlife can be minimized by the following
recommendations:
1. Unit be located down aff of small ridge located to the
northeast. I was not sure how far into or on the ridge home
was to be located. This ridge and associated oakbrush will
help screen the unit from the draw on the other side of the
ridge to the northeast.
2. Locate driveway and parking within existing envelope to
help maintain native vegetation outside of building envelope
3. Refer you to previous recommenda* ons }>>,.va ;,, my 8_
27-97, 6-24-87, and 8-28-87"letters to the county
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any
questions, please give me a call.
District W ldl fe Manager
Carbondale
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, James S.Lochhead, Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Arnold Salazar, Chairman • Rebecca L. Frank, Vice-Chairman •Mark LeValley, Secretary
Jesse Langston 6oyd, Jr., Member • Chuck Lewis, Member • James Long, Member
Louis F. Swift,Member • John Stulp, Member
,.
REFER TO
.. . ~.,. ~ .. , .,~ <-: .,.,•:=.:emu-m
_,
STATE OF COLORADO REFER To
Roy Romer, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES GO~g~ ,O
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE "`'`! .
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNfiY EMPLOYER ~ !Wry.
John Mumma, Director ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~. ~ ' 'Y
6060 Broadway U
Telephone~l(3031 297-1792 U 8 ~r'
~OMMU SP ~ P 199j Oor Wildlife-
8-27-97 Niryp~E~opMENr For People
Pitkin County Community Development
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81623..
Dear Rick•
I will refer you to my 7-24-87 and 8-28=87 letter to Pitkin
County regarding Hampleman's Lot 9 of West Sopris Ranch.
However, I would update some of the recommendations made at that
time:
1. regarding the fence recommendation -all fencing should
be 42", 4 strand or less with a 12" kickspace between the
top 2 strands. Rail fencing should be the round or split
rail type, 48", 3 rail. or less with at least 18" between 2
of the rails. It should still be restricted to the building
envelope only.
2. I would also recommend all trash/garbage be kept in
approved bear proof garbage containers. There are bear
inhabiting the area which have caused problems and damage in
this subdivision.
If yqu have any questions, please give me a call.
Sinc ely~, , J
(~ G~
Kevin Wrigh
District Wil 'fe Manager
Carbondale
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, James S.Lochhead; Executive birector
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Arnold Salazar; Chairman • Rebecca L. Frank, Vice-Chairman • Mark LeValley; Secretary
Jesse. Langston Boyd, Jr., Member • ChuckLewis, Member •James Long, Member
Louis F. Swih, Member • John Stulp,Member
... s .a ~.~^~;,
rSTATEOFCOLORADO s~k- -
Roy Romer, Governor ' `"
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,-
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
James B. Ruch, Director.
8080 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80218
Tele Phone: (303) 297.1192
July 2A, 1987
Pitkin County Planning Dept.
130 So. Galena
.Aspen, CO 816].1
Dear Sir:
~ 5. N-•" s 'REPP4 i0
On July 21, 1987 Randy Cbte and I met with Mr. Nichblas
Lampiris regarding Lot 9 of the Tcrlamis tract of land, which
he owns, along West Sopris Creek of the Crown (Lot 9, Sec. 22,
TSS, R87w), Mr. Lampiris selected 3 possible building sites
in the southeast quarter of Lot 9 for our review and comments.
The lot lies within mule deer and elk winter range and adjacent
to critical habitat for both. Elk mainly move through the area on
their way to other parts bf the Crown with a limited amount of
grazing and browsing. D1ule deer use is greater with use occurring
year long. Greatest use occurs during winter months. There is
a substantial amount of browsing, trails and"droppings.
Building site #2 (see attached map) would have the least impact
on wintering deer and elk. Site #1 and #3 would have"greater
impact due to their proximity to heavier used slopes by mule deer.
Mr. Lampiris agreed to site #2. The following would reduce
impacts to wintering animals:
1. No dogs
2. No fencing
3. No outbuildings
4. No livestock
5. Maintain native vegetation outside of building envelope.
6. If the spring at site #1 is developed; any extra or over-
flow water from the ci~terh be stored and provided for
wildlife use.
If y"ou have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sin>~rely,
Kevin Wright ~(vv//
District Wildlife Manager
Colo. Division of Wildlife
Carbondale CC: Lampiris :~
' Seidel
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,CIyCe O. Marti,Execi,tiveDirector . WILDLIFE COMMISSION,Rebecda L. Frank,Chairman
George VanDenBerg, Vice Chairman. RobertL FreiO ehberger; Secretary . Eldon WCdoper, Mem dai. William R. Hapbe~g, Member
Dennis Luttrell, Mambar . Gene B. Peterson; Member . Larry M. Wright, Member
-~ ~_--
~;~
\\ r /
~~ \\~ -/'
1' //
;, ~ , /
., ~ ~ ~i)/
','~ ~ ~ I ~ ~l,
I ~;: ~~ ~ ~
,)
'i,
'~
,' ,
~~~ ~~\
;\~~\
~~ ~
~~ ~11~~
~, ~:~~
z
`~~
,~
~ ~~ ~'~~ .
~ -
~~
,' '~
~~
y i
/, r ~
f ~
~+ ~ ^ S.
~.
~ ~
f ` J
~' ~
,~ ,, ~ - __
~:,.._ o
~. ~ :~
,\
~~ ~ ~ ,
~~~~ ~ ~ ~~.i ~,i~~ ~~
0
` ~r
~ . , .;.
il: / ,~,
``,--~
~;\,~
_-~ ~ ~~\
.FATE OF COLORADO ?
Roy Romer,Go4emor ~ - _ -~~~ ae€Faro.~
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES L0~~OO
DIVISION~tO~'~~~IV'I~:bLIF~E _ .. _. ~~: ~=
8060 Broadway - s®~V
Denver, Colorado 80218 goy ,~~'
Telephone: (303) 297.1192 OF
August 28,•1987
Pitkin County Planning Department
130 So. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Francis:
I vas contacted by Mr. Nicholas I,ampiris on August 11 cor:cerning
our July 24, 1987 letter to you regarding his lot of the
Terlamis tract of land along West Sopris Creek on the Crown.'
He had 2 questions: 1. Could a certain size"and fence type
such as smooth ~~ire or split rail be allowed.,and 2. Could
outbuildings be allowed if restricted to a building envelope.
After consideration of his requests, the Colorado Division of
Wildlife would suggest a 42" or lower 3 strand smooth wire fence
and any outbuildings be restricted to a building ehvelope on building
site #2 (see letter July 24, 1987), Minimal impact would result
from these modifications and we do not object to them.
If you have any questions; please feel free to contact tne.
Sincerely,
` T
Kevin Wrg
District Wildli Manager
Carbondale
KWJlmp
xc: Lampiris~
Wright
File
•
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Clyde 0. Martz. Executive Director . WILDLIFE COMMISSION; Rebecca L. Frank, Cfiatrman
George VanDenBerg, Vice Chairman . Robert L Fre(dentierper,Secretary . Eldon W. Cooper, Mamtie~'. William R. Heg6erp, Member-
Dennis Luttrell, Member . Gene B. Peterson, Member . Larry M. Wright, Member
~JCT 141
97 ±2~~~~FM. PIT'~IN PUB lJ6RK5 P 1
4
/
Pktkkn
MEMORANDUM
TO: Rick Iviagill-Senior Planner
liltOlvl: Michael Villa-Wildlife Eiologist
RE; Hamplexnan 11741 Review
DATE: October 24, 2997
Psic'~, l have reviewed the. application material and jarevious commenfi:3 by
Kevin iNright (Colorado Division of ~Vsldlifej. In addition, I have also
completed a site. vist tb the parcel and have discussed the site trrith Ke~v9n
on the site. The area parcel has high quality gambles oakJser~ric~berry
habitat attributes. With_regards to the winter range designation i am in
coax~pletE agreement with the WRIS mapping and feel. that C;l/O'w'
recamxnendatians should be incorporated as conditions of approval. Tn
addition, i feel an attached caretaker dwelling unit would result. in .less
disturbance to wildlife in this. area. CROW fencing standards should be
used, as well: as the bear prong garbage contaixtmerit in order. to decrease
expected hurnaxX/wildlife ixtteraction.
MIYtF.O Ni
...... 9EGVCLEO^MI,P
Pitldn County Land Mana®ement
7B Service Center. Read
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(970j 82U-5214 PaX {970} 8205374
PEP-$2-37 ?rl0id ;i'i P"! .':{A'kE°,.:;~~ '~'IT.~RPRiSES PA:1 Iv
Leslie C. Strawbridge
Stone Road Association
Boz 587
Basalt, Ca 81621
lei; (97fl) 963-0734/Fax: (970} <,
~G en, A 1
iS3-.5519
September 22, 9997
Mr. Rick Magill
Community Development Department
130 South Gaten^a Street
Aspen. CO $163 7 VIA rAX#t 920-5439
RE: Hempleman Extension of Vested Rights
Parcel tD #2465-2Z2-0U-005
Lot 9, SNest Sopns Ranch
Dear Rick,
Per our telephone conversation of September 78, 7997, Stone Raad Association tried
repeatedly and unsuccessfully to peach the registered owner of Lat 9, Margot 8otfcher,
regarding tits formation of the .dssociation.
Please be advised that as of Lhls date, Lot 9 has not Joined the Stone Road Association,
paid tfie pre rata share of initial impraventerrts required by the County, or paid any
Assoaatan dues assessed `o-:he maintenance of Stone Road since September of 7995.
In the Road Maintenance Agreement for Stone Road Association and Pitkin County dated
August 28, 7 995 recorded at Soak-791, P-978, Paragraph 5 states, "The County
agrees, to the extent permitted by law, to require arty other. property owners who use
Stone Road who are not yet members of the Association to join the Ay~ociatton as a
condition of arty land use approval or permits requested from ~e County and to pay a
pro rata share of the initial imprpverrrentS." "fhe Stone Road Association appreciates the
County's upholding the spirif of our Agreement
I have a colt in to Mr. Hempieman and will keep you posted. Please give me a coil if you
have anyquestions. __
Sirscerely,
Les ie C~ridge
President
4CT 15 "97 94=93PM A5FEN SOUSING L~PC ~ _ P.1
„ ,
.. ~,
.MEMORANDUM
T4: Rick Magill, Community Develaptrtent Department
FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office
DATE: October 15, 1997
RE: Review for a Caretaker iwelling Unit t Hampleman
Parcel lD No. 2729=174-01-017
t~$Sl1:: The applicant is proposing a 889 square #oot, 2-story'car~taker Dwelling unit to be
tornted next to the detached garage....
t3E1~KGROUNQ: Acc~rdrng to the Pl~kin County i,and rise, 5ecticn 3-150.730 C, "Caretaker
Unite•Outbuildinge3", ttie'B~card may permit one Car~aker Dwelling t7nit not to exceed 700 square
feet, tq be located within a properly approved °OUtbtiildirlg on any'lot within'me R-30; AFR-10
AFR-2, R5-20, RS30 and RS-18fl zones. Ali. such un(ts may be approved urnier the following
canditlans and firnitationsf
1. .The total boor area of the principal and caretaker unit shall hat exceed the allowable ppR of
the applicable zone d lstrict.
2. The applicant shah by deetl restrfetion or other permanent commitment runnin® with fhe
land, guarantee :hat the caretaker unit shag not be required ie tee rented; hot tre
condomhiuntized or sold; not be occupied by the owner or spouse; be limaett to occupancy
by nai mare then two.(2) adulte, and related chtdren, who quality as {and have been found
by the Flouring Authority to be) employees of the community under such guidelines ~ may
be from time to time e3tabllshed by said Authority; be rented for terrns `not less than sa {6}
months if tented. ,She caretaker dwelling uns may be occupied by members of the
immediate family even though they may nat'qualNy as employees of the communityr
Wmmedia~ Famiy" shat mean a person relay bll blood or marriage' who is a first cousin
{or closer relative} and his ter tier ch~dren.
3. The Caretaker Dwetl'ng Unit rastrictlon may be removed by the property owner upon
approval of the Bo~d,'sut>ject to the requireineM that the drNelling ie removcd or rncd'died. if
modified the remaining improvements must no longer be eapatNe of ocCUparwy as a
dwelling unit and must rneet otnenMSe applicable Code requirements.
t2ECOMMEirtDAT70N: Staff recommends approval as long as the following conditions are met:
1. the kitchen contains at (east a twe-burner sicxe with oven, standard sink, and at least a 8-
rxrbicfoot refrigerator plus freezer;
2. a Caretaker Dwelling !brit deed restriction be recorded befarE building permit approval
....:(this document shalt be obtained through the Housing Office}; and
3. inspection by the Housing Offide prior to Certificate of Occupancy.
.~ v ~~ ~ ,~,!/
May 13, 1996
a
Stone Road Association
c/o Leslie Strawbridge
P: O. Box 587
Basalt, CO 81621
Subject: Aggregate Base Measurements
Stone Road
Pitkin County, Colorado
Job ":o. GS-iS70
Gentlemen:
As requested the subject site was visited to determine the depth of aggregate
base course on Stone Road in Pitkin County, Colorado:' We understand that the
road has recently been regraded and additional aggregate base course placed and
compacted by S. T. E. P. Construction.
The minimum depth of 4 inches of aggregate base course was randomly
verified on approximately 4750`linear feet "of Stone Road'startirig at VNesf`Soprs
Creek Road. The aggregate base course is in good condition: We believe the'
minimum county requirement has been met.
If we can be of further service, or if you have any questions, please call.
Very truly yours,
CTL/THOMPSON, INC.
~-/~-ice
Dan Downing
Laboratory/Field Manager
DD:JMIp
cc: Mr. Bud Eylar, Pitkin County
CTL/TH'OMPSON, INC.
CONSULTItVG `ENGINEERS
23a CENTER DRIVE ~ GLENWOOD SPRINGS',~CbLdgADO'8i~6"Oi "~""(g~'0)~'945 "280"9 ~" ~ ~'~ ~"
~, . e~^°+
~~
Pitkin Cou
MEMORANDUM
TO: Leslie Strawbridge
FROM: Bud Eylar ~~.(~!~ C°„~
DATE: August 11, 1995
Public Work
76 Service Center Roac
Aspen, Colorado 8161'
(303) 920-539(
Fax: (303) 920-537<
SUBJ: Road Specifications
------------- ----= _ e~ ., __.. ,_
The followingspecifications shall be used in the construction of
the roads in the subdivision. The following documents are to be
incorporated by reference: State Department of x; ~,h..,a.>~ a1-~.. a .. ,,.a
---_____.... ,.,,~ A~„a„ a,.u DLlU a construction--1991, or latest
edition of CDOT specifications, and Pitkin County Road Management
and Maintenance Plan--1995, or latest edition (Pitkin County
Standards).
Roads shall be constructed in accordance with Pitkin County
Standards for CLASS V: COUI7TRY ACCESS"Rd~~S':"` Material shall be 4°
of Class- 6 Aggregate Base Course as peY"Sec'tion 304 of CDOT
specifications. All other ,material supplied, design standards, and
construction methods shall be as per the .Pitkin County
Specifications.
Final quantities, units of payment, and alignment will be developed
for a road improvement bid, package upon completion and
implementation of road district, or formation of an association.
xc: Suzanne Konchan
Rick Magill
r,,.n./~ RECYCLED PAGER
MEMORANDUM
To: Rick Magill
From: Bud Eylar
Date: 11/12/97
Re: Stone Road
Rick, I have inspected the road improvements as per the agreement between the
Applicant and owners and the Board. of County Commissioners. The owners have made
the required improvements and have complied with the terms of the agreement. We also
had test of the road base material performed by CTL-Thompson and the material met
specifications. Bud
n F`3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Boazd of County Commissioners
Regulaz Meeting -October 22, 1997
~~ ~ c}~ ,
THRU: Cindy Hoube , ommuntty Development Director
FROM: Rick Magill; Senior Planner
RE: Hampleman Extension of Vested Rights and Caretaker Dwelling Unit
APPLICANT: Dick Hampleman
REQUEST: Pursuant to Section 4-140.30, the applicant is requesting an extensionof the vested
property rights for Lot 9 of the West Sopris Creek Ranch Subdivision. The previous owner,
Richard Knight, obtained an administrative 1041 approval in 1987 ('see 1041 site plan with
conditions, attached). The applicanf is concurrently applying for approval of a detached cazetaker
dwelling unit.
ZONING/LOT SIZE:. The lot is zoned AFR-10 and contains approximately 36 acres.
STAFF COMMENTS:
1041 Hwzn Fvt w: The property contains mapped wildfire hazard areas, slopes in excess of
30% ,and significant wildlife habitaf areas. '
Geologic: The property contains slopes in excess of 30 percent. The topography provided the
previously-approved building envelope contains slopes of S to 20 percent. The proposed access
driveway is relatively fiat and contains slopes of less than 5 percent centerline gradient.
Wildfire: Vince Urbina of the. Colorado StateForest Service indicates that "the area surrounding
the building envelope is rated as severe" wildfire hazazd and "the area in and around the building'
envelope is rated as medium", due to moderate slopes and the scattered vegetation. Mr. Urbina
points out that the existing subdivision road (Stone Road) has been recently improved, but is not
ideal from an emergency access perspective. Mr. Urbina is strongly recommending that
defensible space mitigation measures be.effectively implemented for this. property and that the
structural mitigation requirements of the Land Use Code also be considered for the buildings.
Wildlife: The subject property is mapped for elk and deer winter range. The property is also
adjacent to critical habitat for both big game species. The Division of Wildlife indicates that the
cazetaker unit should be attached to the main residence to minimize impacts to elk and deer
winter range habitat (see DO W comments; attached) Although Mr: Wright goes on to say that the
impacts will not be great due to the close proximityto the residence: The DOW's original
comments in 1987 suggest that outbuildings not be allowed on the property. However; the
conditions of the 1987 approval allow outbuildings within the building envelope. TheDOW
.'? ,`~ .
comments include other specific mitigation measures for the proposed development that Staff
will include as conditions of approval. The County Wildlife Biologist agrees with Kevin Wright
of the DOW with respect to recommended wildlife mitigation measures, and also believes that
attaching the CDU to the main residence would result in less disturbance to wildlife in this area.
Staff feels that the garage may also have to be attached to the main residence, should the DOW
confirm the position that the CDU should be attached. Staff is attempting to contact Mr. Wright
and will report any findings at the meeting.
tv xa sn~[t toN: The property will be served by an existing well and. a proposed
Individual Sewage Disposal System. Access to the lot will be provided by a proposed 500-foot
long driveway. The driveway has been constructed to access he well site and is proposed to be
extended another 250 feet to access the building site.
OTHF~~
Setbacks: The Zoning Office points out that the building envelope is within the 100-foot front
yazd setback. Staff recommends that the building envelope be revised to be outside of this
setback. This small reduction of the building envelope should not affect the applicant's ability to
construct the residence.
Stone Road Association: Leslie Strawbridge, President of the Stone Road Association, indicates
that Lot 9 (subject property) is not a member of the Association. The Road Maintenance
Agreement for the Stone Road Association and Pitkin County dated August 28, 1995, recorded at
Book 791, Page 978 requires that property owners be required to join the Stone Road
Association as a condition of any land use approvals requested from the County. The Agreement
also requires that all property owners pay a pro rata share of the initial improvements to the road.
CARETAKERbwE nv ittrT•The CDU is proposed to be located to the north and approximately
30 feet from the main residence. The caretaker unit is atwo-story structure attached to atwo-caz
garage. CaretaketDwelling Units are Special Review uses in the AFR-10 zone district.
The special review use must be consistent with:
The applicable County Master Plans;
Staff response: The proposal is consistent with adopted County Master Plans.
County Land Use Policies in Article 2;
Sections 2-80 & 2-90: Natural. and Man-lvlade Hazard and Resource Areas & Soil, Surficial
Geologic Characteristics and Radiation
Staff response: Section 2-80 states: "It is the policy of the County to manage the use of the lands
which aze identified as containing Areas and Activities of Local and State Interest (HouseBill
1041). The County will prevent any use which may subject any person, use, or resource to natural
2
T..:
_,
and evelopmen~actvities inlazeassnbject to radian nand ge logi hazardso discourage land uses
Slopes: Development is not being proposed on slopes in excess of 30 percent. Staff has included the
standards of Land. Use Code Section 3-80.50(C)(1) -Potentially Unstable Slopes (15-30 percent)
and will require the revegetation of disturbed slopes as conditions of approval.
Wildfire: The Colorado State Forest Service has .rated the wildfire danger as medium and has
recommended specific mitigation measures. for this development that have been included as
conditions ofapproval.
Wildlife: The DOW and the County Wildlife Biologist have recommended that the caretaker unite
. _ ...
be attached to the main residence to minimize impacts to wildlife.
Section 2-120: Scenic Quality
Section 2-120 states: "It is the policy of the County to preserve its natural; rural scenery for the
benefit of its residents and continued viability of its resort economy. To preserve scenic quality, the
County will prohibit or require mitigation of the visual impacts ofland uses and development".
Staff response: Staff feels that the visual impacts of the proposed residence will be relatively
insignificant due to the existing topography and vegetation.
The intent of the Zone District in which the proposal is located; and
Staff response: The AFR-10 zone is intended to maintain the rural character of lands proximate to
State highways by preserving agricultural operations, wildlife habitat, and scenic quality while
permitting-low density, single-family dwelling units and customary accessory uses. The proposed
development will not encroach on any agricultural lands and will not significantly impact the scenic
quality of the area. The impacts on wildlife are discussed above.
4. The character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and
surrounding land uses, orenhance the mixture of complimentary uses and activities
in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
Staff response: Staff feels that the proposed residence is consistent with the existing land uses and
character of the area.
B. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed special review use
must be in harmony with the surrounding azea and minimizes adverse affects, .including
visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service
delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties.
_. e..:. ~~~v, ...~",.._
A, _ ,.~
Staff response: The location, size and operating chazacteristics of the. proposed single-family
residence will be in harmony with the surrounding azea and adverse visual effects can be
minimized.
C. There must be adequate. public facilities and services to serve the special review use
including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire
protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems,
and schools.
Staff response: The Applicant indicates the use of anon-site well for domestic water for the new
dwelling unit. The Environmental Health Department will require information documenting the
quality and quantity of the well. water, prior to the issuance of a septic permit.
The Environmental Health Department will require the receipt and approval of a sewage disposal
permit, prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The County Engineer will require that the applicant obtain a County Access Permit, prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
Staff believes that there will be no adverse impacts on the community's pazks, schools, and hospital
facilities caused by the proposed single-family development. Staff feels that there may be some
impacts to the community's police, fire, and emergency services; given the barely adequate
condifion of the. subdivisionroad. In the event of a majo{wildfire, the people at risk are not only
those who reside in this subdivision, but also the emergency personnel who will respond to an
event.
D. An applicafion for a special review use must demonstrate that the proposed development
will not:
1. Materially endanger the public health, safety or welfare; and
2. Substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property.
Staff response: The proposed development could potentially materially endanger the public health,
safety or welfaze due to the presence of severe wildfire hazazds surrounding the building envelope
and a less than ideal subdivision road.
No adverse effect on the value of the remaining private parcels abutting the Applicant's property is
anticipated.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve the Hampleman Extension
of Vested Rights fora period of three (3) yeazs; subject to compliance with the conditions in the
attached draft resolution, and the conditions of the previous approval, unless otherwise revised or
eliminated by the conditions in the draft resolution.
4
. ...~ r. m ..,. .~.... - ~_
---
__ . ,. •~ «.~ a . ~ ,,
Staff further recommends that the detached caretaker unit be denied by theBOCC based on the
findings of the Division of Wildlife and the County Wildlife Biologist; as described in the
attached resolution of denial. In addition, the approval of another residential dwelling unit in this
area may further contribute to impacts on the community's police, fire, and emergency services,
'j given the bazely adequate condition of the subdivision road. In the event of a major wildfire, the
people at risk aze not only those who reside in this subdivision, but also the emergency personnel
who will respond to an event.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. draft extension of vested rights'resolution
2. CDU denial resolution
3. Zoning Office memo
4. Environmental Health memo
5. CSFS letter
6. DOW letters
7. Wildlife biologist memo
8. Stone Road Association letter
9. Housing Office memo
10. application w/maps
5
.....
g. _ .,...... ~ ..,,.....s
Rick Ma dl zzz s vc~ Street: xoom aiv
As en/Pitkin Communit Develo ment De artment cra~aa»netie~,ce~e~aesisoi
P Y P P TeiePnene: ~970~ gasaazs
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Hampleman Caretaker Unit 1041 Wildfire Hazard Review
Rick,
I previously inspected this property on July 11, 1996. 1 sent my comments (see
enclosed copy) to the ovvner and he submitted them vvith his extehsion cf vested
rights application to Pitkin County. I reinspected the property on October 10th to
look at the proposed caretaker unit envelope. Road access is'in the same condition
as my comments described in the enclosed letter. The aspect for the caretaker unit
is south with a slope of 20-25 %. The vegetation is Gambef oak, scattered juniper,
sage and grass just like I mentioni:d in the previous inspection. l would .rate the
wildfire hazard as medium for the caretaker envelope. Just outside the envelope to
the east and southeast the vegetation gets much thicker and is found on steeper
slopes. This situation would be rated as severe for shrubs.
My wildfire hazard recommendations are as follows.
1) Establish and maintain a 10 foot perimeter around all structures where vegetation
can be maintained'at 6 inches or less (i.e., mowed grass). No woody vegetation
should be planted within this perimeter. Likewise, flammable fuel (i.e., firewood)
should not stored within this 10 foot zone.
2) for a minimum distance of 60 ' to the east and southeast the existing vegetation
should be thinned and clumped as outlined in my previous letter.
3) Remove all dead woody material within a 100 feet of all structures.
4) Incorporate the Structural Design and Construction Options of the Pitkin County
Land Use Code Section 3-0=80.7.C.4: Specifically where it refers to roofing, siding
and projections (i.e., decks;.
Feel free to call me with any questions.
Sincerely,
A. Vince Urbina
Assistant District Forester
enclosure ~~~~~~~®
N(3V 1 7 1997
~MMUru,jy"iYrrivvr
DEVEIOpry~E~
v:.a LL ill :at~av tJG a'.a v•a':[~IYatt~.a l'"vat atv a:a a"vv a~'~a ~u~~ ~ 'r~'- ~ ~....._...._.._~._.
v~~ ~L~ vt: LV"l:st v ..1
~ ~
Leslie C. Strawbridge
Stone Road Association
Soz 587
Basalt, C4 81621
lei: (974} 963-0734/Fax: (970} 963-5519
September 22, 1997
Mr. Rick Magill
Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Ca 87fi11 VIA FAX#: 920-5439
RE: Hempteman Extension of Vested Rights
Parcel l0 #2865-222-0iD=0(75
Lot 9, West Sopris Ranch
Dear Rick,
Per our telephone conversation of September 18, 7997, Stone Raad Association tried
repeatedly and unsuccessfaily to reach the registered owner of lot 9, Margot Bottcher,
regarding the' formation of the Association.
Please be advised that as of Phis date, Lot 9 has not Joined the Stone Road Association,
paid the pro rata share of initial improverttents required by the County, ar paid any
Association dues assessed fo- the maintenance. of Stone Road since September of 7 995.
In the Road Maintenance Agreement for Stone Road Association and Pitkin County dated
August 28, 7 995 recorded at Book-791, P-978, Paragraph 5 states, "Fhe County
agrees, to the extent permitted by law, to require am+ other property awrters who use
Scone Road who are not yet merribers of the`Aasotiation to join the Association as a
condition of arty land use approvals or permits requested from the County, and to pay a
pro rata share of the initial improvements." The Stone RoadASSaciation appreciates the
County's upholding the spirit of our Agreement
I have a tali in tib Mr. Hempieman and will keep you posted. Please give me a tail if you
have any questions.
Sin(ctyere~y,
Les ie Ct ridge
President
Richard Hampleman
Caudill Gustafson Architects
234 East Hopkins Ave.
Aspen, CO 81611
State Services Building
222 S. 6th Street, Room 416
Grand Junction; Colorado 81501
Telephone: (970) 248-7325
Dear Richard,
As we discussed on July 3rd when we looked over your property, my comments only
address the existing road system and wildfire hazard.. The Colorado„State Forest
Service (CBEs) uses the Pitkin County Land Use Code, the National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) 299 standard for PlotPrtion of Life andProoerty from Wildfire
and other CSFS publications to develop wildfire hazard mitigation. recommendations.
The road. system into West Sopris .Ranch has. been a concern to the CSFS, the Basalt
Rural Fire Department and the Pitkin County commissioners. In a perfect world we
would like to see..a subdivision like West Sopris Ranch have a road system where;
dual access/egress is in place, there is a traveled way surface at least 24 foot wide
with 4 foot shoulders. (32 feet total) and road grades that do not exceed 10 percent.
The dual access/egress road system and the 32 foot wide roads facilitate the safe
evacuation of residents. as well as access for large emergency service vehicles (e.g.
fire trucks). Some improvements have been. made on the road as a result of the
county commissioners suggestion that the Terliamis_resdents get together to improve
the road. .The road surface. has been upgraded by adding gravel and some turnouts
have been created due to road widening. Dual access/egress and a 32 foot usable.
surface do not exist. The grade does exceed 10 percent. in some spots for short
distances.
I called the Pitkin County Planning office to find out what the wildfire hazard maps
said about West Sopris Ranch. According to those maps the entire area has been
mapped as X-Severe Hazard: Brush. I have run into areas that were mapped as
severe but were in reality medium or low hazard, which is why we do inspect every
application. The area surrounding your building envelope is indeed severe as we
discussed.
To put it all in perspective let me tell you about the 1.9.89 Black Tiger Fire in Boulder
County. This fire destroyed 44 homes in six hours despite having the local fire
department on the scene within 20 minutes of the fire starting. The enormous
destruction that took place in that fire was instrumental in the development of the
NFPA 299 standard which I referred to above. The houses that burnt down had the
following conditions in common: close proximity to combustible vegetation (20 feet
or lessl, wood exterior construction and the presence of wood decks, porches or
balconies. Some structures did survive this devastating fire. One had 75 feet of
cleared area (defensible space) in the
HAMPLEMAN PAGE2
direction. of the approaching fire. The others had good access sq the fire department
could come into the property to control the fire and build fire. line before the fire
arrived. Defensible. space and good access allowed some structures to survive.
Since your roads have some problems I encourage you to go the extra mile to develop
defensible space.
This is what !saw on July 3rd. The staked building site is .south facing with a 10%
slope. The vegetation in and around the building envelope is scattered Gambel oak,
junipers, sage and grass. The fuels are not continuous so I would rate, the wildfire
hazard as medium for the building envelope 9nJy. The existing/proposed driveway
would suffice for fire vehicle access,
My recommendations to mitigate the existing wildfire hazard are as follows.
71 Clear and maintain a 10 foot space around all structures. where vegetation can be
kept at 6 inches or less (e.g. mowed grass). There should be no trees within this 10
foot perimeter.
2/ For a minimum distance of 55 feet downslope and 43 feet upslope and to the
sides (see enclosed graph) clump and clear away woody vegetation between clumps.
The Pitkin County Land Use Code states. that. the diameter and size,of remaining
clumps shall be two times the existing height. For example, if the shrubs are 10 feet
tall then the clumps should no larger than 20 feet in diameter with a 20 feet spacing
between clumps. The vegetation betvveen these clumps should be something like
grass or flowers. In addition to clumping the shrubs, the lower limbs should be
removed up to half the total height of the plant to eliminate ladder fuels. Jf trees are
allowed to remain in this defensible space perimeter their crowns should be seperated
by at least 10 feet.
3/ Chip and/or remove all dead woody material within the defensible space area.
41 Because of the proximity of severe wildfii-e hazard you should incorporate some of
the Structural Design and Constructiqn Requirements of the Land Use. Code (3-
807.C.3-4.). Specifically; metal roof, no wood shake/shingles, one hour fire resistive
siding, and no projections that could catch radiant qr convective heat. There are
more considerations like windows, shutters, and water storage that may be wise to
incorporate.
If you have any questions about my comments feel free to call;
Sincerely,
A. Vince Urbina
Assistant District Forester
enc.
rte, c'~
ASPEN/PITKIN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
130 South. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone (970) 920-5090 FAX (970) 920-5439
MEMORANDUM
TO: County Attorney
County Engineer
Zoning
Stone Road Association
Housing
State Forest Service
Division of Wildlife
County Wildlife Biologist
FROM: Ricj Magill, Community Development Department
RE: Hempleman Caretaker Unit
Parcel ID # 2465-222-00-0005
DATE: October 3, 1997
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Richard Hampleman,
Please return your comments to me no later than October 17, 1997
Thank you
Dear Sirs:
Tam submitting for review and approval an application for an Caretaker Unit.
My wife owns West Sopris Ranch Parcel No. 9:
Address: 0770 Stone Road
Legal Description:
West Sopris Ranch, Parcel No. 9 described as follows:
A parcel of land situated in the W 1/2 of Section 22, Township 8 South,
Range 87 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Pitkin County, Colorado,
and being more particularly described as follows
Beginning at the Northwest Corner of the said Section 22; thence S OOo
59' 02" W 1170.10 feet; thence S 880 54' 42" E 1318.94 feet to'the True
Point of Beginning; thence S 01 o OD' 46" W 1170.00 feet; thence S 880
54' 42" E 1318.35; thence N 010 02' 39"""E ~1170 feet; faience N 880 54'
42" W 1318.95 feet to the True'Point of Beginning.
Attached herewith are the ;
• Letter of request which describes the proposal ih defail, and addressing Code
Section 3-150.130 Caretaker Units.
• Pre-Application Summary dated: 7/18/97
• List of adjacent property Owners
• 24" x 36" Site /Building Plan, and a 24" x 36" Envelope /Vicinity Plan.
• Proof of Ownership in the form of a copy of the Deed.
• Check in the amount of five hundred eighty dollars ($ 5800.00).
~~ . , ,.
;..
Letter Describing the Project
The Owner/Applicant Margot Bottcher Buyers Hampleman and her husband Richard
Hampleman intend to construct a single family residence with a detached Caretaker
unit at 0770 Stone Road, also known as Lof 9, West Sopris Ranch.
The lot is zoned RS-30 PUD.
Designs for the house are being prepared. The total FAR allowed for the site is
15,000 S. F. The home and the caretaker unit will have a combined FAR significantly
less than the 15,000 s.f. allowed. The mainhouse will have four bedrooms, and the
caretaker unit will have one bedroom. Garage parking for four vehicles and two
additional off street parking spaces is planned.
The caretaker unit is detached from the main house and is located within the
designated building envelope. The caretaker units has an FAR of 699 S. F. as
calculated using prescribed Pitkin County guidelines.
The caretaker unit is designed to code standards of Section 3-150.130 Caretaker
Dwelling Units.
The Owners want to start construction in 1997 and would like to move in during the
Summer of 1998.