Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.planning.246522300009DOCUMENT 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 (11x17) «,.- ,; '+' - 's' 'piAaEE:CN±'Nf~+.A~G7fC'f[sl: 912 511 9 9 6 ,. - ... ,x, '~. No •, - '~~X.`~Wa ~ 96-254#399627 ~~ PZ: 11~~~ "~-;, :.: ~~ ~'~~~~~ ~ B41,P96~#401685 ~,~ ~YJNN'HfD$X; ~~~~ ^ . -.,..: ,;.. :.,x. r .,: ~~-- .... ~. ~:. , i V ~...». .._ .....___.. .._ '... . 41 Hazard Review .fy ineral Submission ,.. -. '~?q1B?, •~ ~ ~. 816/07 "= p:;: FF ~:--~ _ i.. . a~..S ~+'•:x '',fir.'„":' .. '~"f"fr`.'y-''^?£j,'1~'``:'vim. ;y...+:' y'C~ :,'. ,.. .:x :.. y: ~# J ~ .~ t '~ ~v ~"~ ; ~,.... .; RESOLUTION OF THE,BOARD OF„CO COUNTY COLORADO, DETERMININ! OF DENIAL CONSTITUTES. A TAKIi!T( APPROVAL OF THE GRIFFITHS 104] Resolution 1Vo, 96- ~`1 NT r .n G Qi N N D ~.i a D c 1. Anna May Griffiths, hereinafter "Applicant" has applied to the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, hereinafter "Board", for approval of 1041 Environmental Hazard and General Submission Reviewyfor the construction of a single- family residence. , 2. The Applicant's lot is zoned RS-30 and is approximately 38 acres in size. 3. Said lot is known as Lot 5 of the ,West Sopris Creek Ranch (a.k.a Terliamis Tracts), and is more specifically described in Exhibit A, attached. 4. The Planning and Zohing Commission reviewed this. application on May 28, 1996 and unanimously found that this proposal complies with the criteria set forth in the Pitkin County Land Use Code. 5. The Board heard this application at a duly noticed public hearing on September 11, 1996, at which time evidence and testsmony was presented with respect to this application. 6. The Boazd determined that the proposed development does not meet .the criteria established in Section 3.80.50 of the Land Use, Code. The Board., voted to deny the application as evidenced by ResolutionNo. 96-~`~ 'l. Pursuant to Sections 3-290, 4-150 and 5-220 of the Land Use Code, the Applicants filed for a Takings Determination Hearing. 39$219 1@/22/1996 10:2.~iA GG t `OF 7 REC DOC NOT SILVIA llRVIS ~!iTKIN COUN-fY CLERK R"RECORDER ke.Qft~ ~..- r.~ ,. Resolution No. 96-~ ' iJ Page 2 8. The Boazd of County Commissioners heard the Applicant's appeal of the September 11, 1996 denial on September 25, 1996, at which time further evidence and testimony was presented with respect to the application. ~,~ ~a 9. The Board determined that the previous denial constitutes a regulatory taking, as defined in the Pitkin County Land Use Code.. In order to avoid this situation, the $oard ~ resolved that the Applicant be granted an approval to build asingle-family residence and customary accessory uses on the subject property, provided that the Applicant comply with all the conditions of approval in this document. NOW, TIiEREFORE BE TT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, that it does hereby grant approval to the Griffiths 1041 Hazard Review and Genetal Submission applicaticn, subject to the following conditions: F4 1. The Applicant shall adhere to all material representations made in the application y and in the public meetings. `~° ,n 2. Prior to building pernut application, the Applicant shall record a 24 x 36 inch mylar m 1041 Hazard Review'. Site Plan which meets. the approval of the Community .- Development Departrnent and County Attorney. The site plan shall include the following 1041 Hazazd Review Warning and Disclaimer: r v "The provisions of these regulations do not in any way assure or imply that areas outside of designated hazazd areas will be free from ~~ .hazards, or that approved mitigation measures will guarantee the safety of any property." o 3. Outside illumination shall comply with County lighting standards in effect at the ~ time of building permit. issuance. 4. The Applicant shall comply with the following wildlife mitigation measures: a. Dogs are prohibited. b. Fencing shall be a maximum height of 42' ; 4 strands or less with a 12" kickspace between the. top 2 strands. Any rail feacing'shall be the round type, 42", 3-rail or less with at least 18" between 2 of the rails. c. All garbage shall bekeptwithin beaz-proof gazbage containers. The DOW can supply specifications upon request. Horse grain shall be stored/locked to prevent access by bears.. 3982F9 2O/42/1996 2Q~:2~A pG 2 OF 7 ' 2 ,, ; ;~ : Resolution No. 96-~ Page 3 d. Horses shall be kept within the building envelope. All haystacks shall be fenced with 8-foot fencing to prevent game damage to haystacks. e. Native vegetation shall not be disturbed outside the building envelope, except as required for the access driveway and the implementation wildfire mitigation measures. Vegetation within the envelope -shall be preserved as much. as possible in order to screen the. residence: f. No grazing on the hillside south of the building envelope. g. The Applicants shall waive their right to any compensation from the Division of Wildlife for property damage caused by bears: 5. Wildfire mitigation shall be as follows: a. All vegetafion shall be removed within 10 feet of proposed structures. This "defensible space" area shall be maintained in mowed grass or non- flammable material, such as dewratve rock or gravel. b. Brush shall be thinned and standing dead or dead down trees shall be removed for a distance of 4U feet upslope and 47 feet downslope of proposed structures to breakup the vertical and horizontal continuity of the fuel. c e r c 4 r 4 c. Spacing between clumps of brush and vegetation within the 40/47 foot ; perimeters shall be a minimum of two times the height of the fuel. Maximum diameter of the clumps shall be two times the height of the fuel. t All measurements shall be from the edges of the crowns of the fuel ~ d. All branches from trees and brush within the stated perimeters shall be` ~ pruned to a height of 10 feet above the ground. e. Tree crown separatiott withinthe perimeters shall have a minimum of 10 feet between the edges of the crowns. This does not apply to mature stands of Aspen trees where the above recommendation for removal of ladder fuels have been complied with. In areas of aspen regeneration, the spacing guidelines shall. be followed. f. All branches which extend over the roof eaves shall be trimmed and all branches within 15 feet of the chimneys shall be removed. g. Roofs and gutters shall be kept clear of debris. h. Yards shall be kept clear of all litter, slash, and flammable debris. 39a~19 1~D/^c2/1996 10:~5A PG 3 OF_7 3 W Resolution No. 96~~ ( _ , Page 4 i. Firewood shall be stacked on a parallel comour a minimum of 15 feet away from any structure. j. At least one ten pound approved ABC class fire extinguisher shall be placed in a visible and accessible location for each structure. ~ V V k. Fences shall be kept cleaz of brush and debris. 1 1. Wood fences shall not be connected to the structure. m. Fuel tanks shall be installed underground with an approved container. n. Roof construction shall be Class A, non-combustible (no wood shakes or shingles) material with no flat roofs. o. All vents. shall be screened with corrosive resistant wire mesh of one quarter inch (1/a'~ maximum.. ~, s p. Addresses shall be clearly mazked and visible with minimum 2" letters. .. q. Maintenance of the "defensible space" shall be required in order to retain it's m value as wildfire mitigation. Oak and servicebeny tend to sprout vigorously after cutting, so it will be necessary to trim back vegetation every year or fQ two. ~ t, r. Any additional buildings shall incorporate wildfire mitigation measures. ~ r 6. 'The A licant shall install a water store a tion to be approved pp g tank, the size and loca__ by the Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District with an approved and accessible fire o district connection, for fire-fighting purposes. '~ 7. The Applicant shall install a residential sprinkler system or foam fire retarding system in the residence which meets the standazds of the Basalf Fire Protection District and the Uniform Building Code. 8. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall provide documentation of an adequate domestic water supply. Quantity and quality of said supply shall meet the approval of the Environmental HealthDepartment. 9. The septic system designed for the site shall meet the approval of the Environmental Health Department. The Applicant shall obtain such approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. Should the EHD determine that the building envelope is not lazge enough to meet required setbacks (septic from well), the Community Development Department will have the ability to approve a minor expansion of the envelope for septic system use only. 39&2t9 a 1~1/~°2/1996 10:25A FAG 4 OF 7 Resolution No. 96~~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y ., ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ Page 5 ~ 9. The septic system designed for the site shall meet the,approval of the Environmental _ ~ Health Department. The Applicant shall obtain. such .approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. Should the EHD determine that the., building envelope is not large enough to meet required setbacks (septic from well), the Community Development Department will have the ability to approve a minor expansion of the envelope for sep$c system use only. 10. The Applicant. shall obtain a fireplace/woodstove permit from Environmental Health Department, prior to the issuance of a building permit. F 11. The disturbed areas within,the building site shall be revegetated with native grasses ~~ to limit water consumption and additional runoff, immediately following project completion. 4 r 12. All development included grading, septic system, well, fences. and landscaping shall occur within the building envelope. ~ F 13. The Applicant. shall obtain. an access permit from the County Engineer, prior to ' commencement of any construction. ' c 14. The Applicant shall adhere to the following standards for development on slopes: ~ a. Adequate mechanical support shall be provided for cut slopes. b. Adding water which may decrease slope stability shall be avoided.. ?9819 c. Adding weight to the top of the slope shall be avoided. d. Disturbed slopes must be contoured so that they can be revegetated. e. Steepening of existing. slopes shall be avoided. f. Confine cuts, fills, grading and excavation to the minimum area needed for...,..., construction. t~D/2^c/E996 10e~5A F'G 5 OF 7 APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1996 ` BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO BY lam- ~~ awes R. True, Chairman ;o - rs~9~_ 5 N v ~u ,. ~. ,. ,.~ , Resolution No. 96 ~ 1 Page 6 Jones, f% Clerk and Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: !- john Attorney case #P7-96 parcel#2465-222-00-002 399827 398219 APPR,OyV~ED AS;TO CONTENT: ~%~!~~ Cindy Houben, Community Development Director 12/09/1998 12:i4R F'G 6 OF 7 10l22/i996 10:~SR RG 6 `OF 7: 6 e a 1 EBHIBIT A ' CEL 1 WEST SOP CH PARCEL NO. li, MORE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A parcel of land s ted in the of Section 22, fiownehip 8 South, Range 87 West of the 6t M. , re particularly deecibed as __°ollows: ~' Beginning at the. NW cp of sai ction 22; thence S 88°53'16° 19.54 feetto t _ VE POINT OF HEGIPII~TING; theacz 3 Oi°00'4 1169.50 feet; theace S 88°5 2° E 1318.95 feet; thence N 0 2'31" E 1169.00 feet; thence 8°53'16" W 1319.54 feet to the TRUE POINT OF SEG 3iQG. P CEL 2 WEST SOPR.IS R11NCH PI4RCEL NO. S, .MORE FL7LLY DESCRI9ED AS FOL:~OWSc A aarcei. of land situated in the W1/2 of Section 22, Township 8 South, Range 87 We$t`of the 6th P.M. , more particularly described as Follows: Beginsiiag at the NW career of said Section 22; theace S 0°59'02° W°3510.16 feet; thence S 88Q54'42° E 231y.76 feet to the. TRUE POINT bF BEGhTNINGi thence S 01°00'46" W 1283.76 Feet; thence S 88°57'06° $ 1317.11 feet; theace N 01°02'31" E 1282.83 feet; theace N 88°54'42" W 2317.76 feet to the TRUE POINT OF EBGINNING. 399827 12/ 09/199b 12a 14F' F'G 7 pF 7 698219 10/22/ 1996 10:25p PG 7 OF 7 r _.. F y ~, RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMNIISSIUNERS OF PITHIN COUNTY COLORADO, DETERMINING THAT A PREVIOUS RESOLUTION ~,.~.,~,.~~ .. ~,~.a ~..~„ ~ ~N . OF DENIM, CONSTITUTES A `TAI{IN°G~'S AND GRANTING DEVEIrOP~1V'T ' APPROVAL OF THE GRIFFITHS 1041 Aa~aRn gE~~i AND GENERAL SUBMISSION Resolution No. 96-,~~ 1. Anna May Griffiths, hereinafter"Applicant" has applied to the Boazd of County Conuttissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, hereinafter "Boazd", fo approval of 1041 Environmental Hazard and General Submission Review for the'construction of a single- ' family residence. 2. The Applicant's lot is zoned RS-30 and is approximately 38 acres in size. 3. Said lot is .known as Lot 5 of the West Sopris Creek Ranch (a.k.a. Terliamis Tracts), and is more specifically described in Exhibit A, attached. 4. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this applicatioson May 28, 1996 and nnan;mQUgIy found that this proposal complies with the criteria set forth in the Pitkin County Land Use Code. 5. The Boazd heard this applicatiot at a duly noticed public hearing on September 11, .1996, at which time evidence and testimony was presented with respect to this application. 6. The Board determined that the proposed development does not meet the criteria established in Section 3-80.50 of the Land Use Code. The Board voted to deny the application as evidenced by Resolufion No. 96- ~S? 7. Pursuant to Sections 3-290, 4-150 and 5-220 of the Land Use Code, the Applicants filed for a Takings Determination Hearing. .?,98c^19 l~l/cE/1996 1~t1;;_,rjA F'G 1 OF 7 REC DOC h10T SICVIA DAVIS F'ITN,IN CDUNTY CLERK & RECORDER ~,~~ ~~~. ~ ~ . - Resolution No. 96-~ Page 2 8. The Boazd of County Commissioners heard the Applicaut's appeal of the September 11, 1996 denial on September 25, 1996, at which time further evidence and testimony was presented with respect to the application. 9. The Boazd determined that the. previous denial constitutes a regulatory taking, as defined in the Pitkin County Land Use Code. In order to avoid this situation, the Boazd resolved that the Applicant be granted an approval to build asingle-family residence and customary accessory uses on the subject property, provided that the Applicant comply with all the conditions of approval in this document NOW, THEREFORE,-BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County - Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, that it does hereby grant approval to the Griffiths 1041 Hazard Review and General Submission application, subject to the following conditions: The Applicant shall adhere to all material representations made in the application grid in the public meetings. 2. Prior to building permit application, the Applicant shall record a 24 x 36 inch mylaz 1041 Hazazd Review Site Plan which meets the approval of the Community Development Department and County Attorney. The site plan shall include the following 1041 Hazazd Review V/anung and Disclaimer: "The provisions of these regulations do not in any way assure or imply that areas outside of designated hazazd areas will be free from hazazds, or that approved mitigation measures will guarantee the safety of any property." Outside illumination shall comply with County lighting standazds in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 4. The Applicant shall comply with the following wildlife mitigation measures: a. Dogs aze prohibited. b. 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, 42", 3-rail or less with at least 18" between 2 of the rails. c. All sazbage shall be kept within beaz-proof gazbage containers. The DO W can supply specifications upon request. Horse grain shall be stored/locked to prevent access by bears. :,95219 l~c~/'c:2/199E i1;25q P6 2 OF 7 ,, ' Resolution No. 96 ~~~ Page 3 d. Horses. shall be kept within the building envelope. All haystacks shall be fenced with 8-foot fencing to prevent game damage to haystacks. e. Native vegetation shall not be disturbed outside the building envelope, except as required for the access driveway and the implementation wildfire .mitigation measures. Vegetation within the envelope shall be preserved as much as possible in order to screen the residence. f. No grazing on the hillside south'of the building envelope. g. The Applicants shall waive their right to any compensation from the Division of Wildlife for property damage caused by bears. 5. Wildfire. mitigation shall be as follows: a. All vegetation shall be removed within 10 feet of proposed structures. This "defensible space" area shall be maintained in mowed Bass or non- flammable material; such as decorative rock or gravel b. Brush shall be thinned and standing dead or dead down bees shall be removed for a distance of 40 feet upslope and 47 feet downslope of proposed strictures to breakup the vertical and horizontal continuity of the fuel c. Spacing between clumps of bn~sh and vegetation within the 40/47 foot perimeters shall be a minimum of two times the -height of the fuel. Maximum diameter of the clumps shall be two times the height of the fuel All measurements shall be from the edges of the crowns of the fuel. d. All branches from trees and brush within the stated perimeters' shall be pruned to a height of 10 feet above the ground. e. Tree crown separation within the perimeters shall have a minimum of 10 .feet between the edges of the crowns. This .does not apply to mature stands of Aspen trees where the above. recommendation for removal of ladder fuels have been complied with. In areas of aspen regeneration, the spacing guidelines shall be followed. f. All branches which extend .over the roof eaves shall be trimmed and all branches within 15 feet of the chimneys shall be removed. g. Roofs and gutters shall be kept cieaz of debris. h. Yazds shall be kept clear of all litter, slash, and flammable debris. ?98819 1~/c2/1996 1@:~?5A pG 3 DF 7 3 ~; . ,, Resolution No: 96!~~~`? Page 4 i. Firewood shall be stacked on a parallel contour a minimum of IS feet away from any structure. j. At least one ten pound approved ABC class fire extinguisher shall be placed in a visible and accessible location for each structuue. k. Fences shall be kept clear of brush and debris. I. Wood fences shall not be connected to the structure. m. Fuel tanks shall be installed underground with an approved container. n. Roof construction shall be Class A, non-combustible (no wood shakes or shingles) material with no flat roofs. o. All vents shall be screened with corrosive resistant wire mesh of one quarter inch (1/4") maximum. p. Addresses shall be cleazly mazked and visible with minimum 2" letters. q. Maintenance of the "defensible space" shall be required in order to retain it's value as wildfire mitigation. Oak and servicebeny tend to sprout vigorously after cutting, so it will benecessary to trim back vegetation every year or two. r. Any additional buildings shall incorporate wildfire mitigation measures. 6. The Applicant shall install a water storage tank, the size and location to be approved by the Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District with an approved and accessible fire district connection, for fire-fighting purposes. 7. The Applicant shall install a residential sprinkler system or foam fire retarding system in the residence which meets the standazds of the Basalt Fire Protection District and the Uniform Building Code. 8. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall provide documentation of an adequate domestic water supply. Quantity and quality of said supply shall meet the approval of the Environmental Health Depaztment. 9. The septic system designed for the site shall meet the approval of the Environmental Health Department. The Applicant shall obtain such approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. Should the EHD determine that the building envelope is not lazge enough to meet required setbacks(septic from well), the Community Development Department will have the ability to approve a minor expansion of the envelope for septic system use only. ,~95c19 4 i~c~/~~/1996 10:~~p pr 4 OF 7 _. ResoludonNo.96~h~ Page 5 9. The septic system designed for the site shall meet the approval of the Environmental Health Department. The Applicant shall obtain such approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. Should the EHD determine that the building envelope is not large enough to meet required setbacks (septic from well), the Community Development Department will have the ability to approve a minor expansion of the envelope for septic system use only. 10. The Applicant shall obtain a fireplace/woodstove permit from Environmental Health Departmern, prior to the issuance of a building pemvt. 11. The disturbed areas within. the. building site shall be revegetated with native grasses to limit water consumption and additional runoff ,immediately following project completion. 12. All development included grading, septic system, well, fences and landscaping shall occur withinthe building envelope. 13. The Applicant shall obtain an access permit from the County Engineer, prior to commencement of any construction. 14. The Applicant shall adhere to the following standards for development on slopes: a. Adequate mechanical support shall be provided for cut slopes. b. Adding water which may decrease slope stability shall be avoided. c. Adding weight to the top of the slope shall be avoided. d. Disturbed slopes must be contoured so that they can be revegetated. e.. Steepening of existing slopes shall be avoided. f. Confine cuts, fills, grading and excavation to the minimum area needed for construction. s98'c'19 10/'c:c/1996 10:~5A P6 S OF 7 .APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER; 1996 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PTTHIN COUNTY, COLORADO By - ames R. True, Chairman i©-~S_9~ 5 Resolution No. 96-~~ Page 6 Jones, Clerk and Recorder 39819 APPROVED AS TO FORM: _ ~- John Attorney case #P7-96 pazcel n2465-?2~-00-002 APPROVED A?,S T~O CONTENT: Cindy Houben, Community Development Director l~t~/~/1996 1Qt:;?SA PG 6 OF 7 ! ' ~.. `~ 6 fy_ ~~ 4}L'• CT 1 `..~ `. a EffiiI31"1' A ?ARCA...L NC} . 11, MOFLS F~Y'DESCRT_3ED AS FOI,LGSPS a ~ A parcel Range 87 of lane si West f h ted is 6 the of Section 22, Township 8 South, o t e t K., re particslarly descr:~ed as _°oL'awe: ' Beg.:a niag at `~.he NW cn of sai ctioa 22-; thence S th n 88°53'16" E ° 19.54 feet ta t R4E POIPiT OF BEGINNING; e ce S 01 00'4 1159.50 feet; thence S 88°5 Z" ~ 1318.95 feet; thence N 0 2'31" E i1b9.00 feel; theAC°- 8°S3'~6" Gf 1319.54 feet to _ the TRBE ?GIyT OF 3EG G. P ~ 2 +7SS: SGPH25 R.'AbTCi PARCH NG . 5 , i~lCRF,, z'i72.LY F}SSGZI?r~ AS OL:.CWQ A parcel Ra 7 of ?and s dated the 'R7/2 cf Section. 22, T.^artsh:;p a Sout!: . nge 8 West oz the 6th ?. h. , ~ncra , particular'_y cescribed as foLcevs: Beg' -•+~ :•g at .the NW career of said Sect=cn 22 ; therca S 0°S9'a2" W 3510:10 feet; thence S theac~ d8°54'42" E ° ' 1317.76 feet. to *_he TRIIE ?C2VT QF 3EGI.VN~7G; S Q1. QO 4b" Tfl 1293.76 feet; t.~^.eace S 88°57.OS° S 1317. II _eet; taeaca N 'JI°02'31" E 1282.83 feet, thence A7 88°S4'42" W 1317.75 feel to- the TRH' ?QI~iT CF 3EGu~7Nu`TG. 398219 10/~~/1996 10:25A F'6 7 OF 7 n w } ~ PITKIN COUNTY COMNIISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING AGENDA WEDNESDAY. SEPTEMBER 25. 1996 1:00 PM SITE VISIT - (Tentative) Lazy Glen 3:30 PM Location: Plaza One Conference Room ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO AGENDA CONSENT AGENDA Abatement Hearings: Camalotta Enterprises; Bidgle; LLC; Colas Investments; James George; Robert Rolf; Anne Murchison; Charles Gardner, Velmar, Inc.; Lois Marmont; Lowell Hager; Carol Foote ,Resolution Endorsing Use of City Owned Property for a Transportafion Corridor, Tom Newland ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS... 1. Construction License, Mountain Air Express, Scott Smith 2. Resolution Supporting Marolt Open Space Ballot Question, Tom Newland ADMINISTRATIVE PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. 1st Reading and Set for Public Hearing on October 9; Personnel Policy Revisions, Cheryl Cumnock 4. 2nd Reading, Bandit Trail Easements, Jane Ellen Hamilton 5. 2nd Reading, Ordinance Banning Open Fires in Unincorporated Areas and Authorizing Sheriff to Act as Fire Wazden, john Ely 6. 2nd Reading, Ordinance Approving Restrictions Limiting Vehicular Traffic on Hunter Creek Roads, John Ely 7. 1st Reading and Set for Public Hearing on October 9th, Resolution. Agreeing to the Appointment of an Advisory Director by the City of Glenwood Springs to the RFTA Boazd, John Ely BREAK 5:00 PM Location: District Coumoom PUBLIC COMMENT COMMISSIONER COMMENTS PROCLAMATIONS CONSENT AGENDA PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Moon Run Ranch Extension of Vested Rights, Francis Krizmanich (PN 8/24/96) 2. Arnold 1041 Hazazd Review & Lot Line Adjustment, Ellen Sassano (PN 8/24/96) 3. Piffer Lot Line Adjustment & Road Vacation, 2nd Reading, Lance Clazke (PN 8/10/96) 4. Aspen Skiing Company Special Review, Rick Magill (PN 8/24/96) ACTIONS 5. Griffiths ~Ta"kt'ngs ITeantig; Rick Magill LAND USE PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. Weber Caretaker Dwelling Unit, Francis Krizmanich (PN 8/24/96) 7. Burke GMQS Exemption & Special Review, Ellen Sassano (PN 8/24/96) 8. Mollie Gibson Minor Plat Amendment, Ellen Sassano (PN 8/24/96) 9:00 PM ADJOURN ...~ . ~._ t .~~_ MEMORANDUM TO: Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners Regulaz Meeting -September 25, 1996 RE: Griffiths Takings Determination Hearing ~/ THRU: Cindy Houben, Community Development Director FROM: Rick Magill, Planning Office APPLICANT: Anna May Griffiths APPLICANTS REPRESENTATIVE: Alan Richman REQUEST: The Applicant has requested a "Takings Determination Hearing" pursuant to Section 3-28 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code. This request has been made_as a result of the Board's, September 11, 1996 denial of the Griffiths application for 1041 Environmental Hazard Review and General Submission (see attached resolution of denial). STAFF COMMENTS: On September 12, 1996, the Applicant submitted a written. request for a Takings deternunation. The Applicant's. letter of request includes the information required by Section 5-22 in the Code (see attached letters). Section 4-1502 of the Code requires that the Boazd conduct a hearing within 15 days of the receipt of the written request. Both of the above requirements have been. satisfied, in Staff's. opinion: RECOMMENDATION:. Staff recommends .that the Boazd of County Commissioners rescind a previous resolution of denial and. approve the construction. of asingle-family residence on Lot 5 of the West Sopris Creek Ranch Subdivision (Griffiths 1041), provided the Applicant complies with all the recommended conditions outlined in the attached resoluton of approval. ATTAC1rIlVIENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval 2. Takings Hearing request (Alan Richman & John Thorpe letters) 3. Staff memos w/attachments 4. Resolution of Denial 1 _ , hex 3613 ~4a~iei, ce(.s~sada ~f612 Pluwre/~az (9?0) 920-1125 ..September 11, 1996 Mr: Rick Magill, Planner Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen,. Colorado 81611 RE: GRIFFITHS PARCEL 5 TAHINGS DETERMIlKATION Dear Rick, On September 11, 1996, the Pitkin County Board. of Commissioners denied the 1041 hazard review and general submission: application submitted by Ms. Anna Mae Griffitfis for Parcel. S of the West Sopris Ranch. The denial was based. on the Board's finding that the. driveway access to the building envelope crosses a short section of land hat has a slope in excess of 30%. While we had hoped thafthe Boazd would have supported the staff's interpretation of how to apply the County's definition of the term slope to this situation, we agreed to proceed through that denial so that the Board could schedule this matter for a takings hearing, pursuant to Section 4-150 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code. Please consider this letter our written request that the Board hold said takings hearing. It is our understanding that the hearing will take place on September 25, 1996. We hereby agree to waive any notice requirements that could delay the timing of that hearing. In response to the submission contents of Section 5-220 and the standards of Section 3-290. of the Code, we submit that denial of the 1041 application has denied the property owner aL' reasonable use of thz .property and constitutes a taking 'of private property without compensation. We make this statement ,.based on our analysis of the property, which demonstrates that the proposed driveway represents the most logical and. effective method of accessing the building envelope and w>71 cause the least possible disruption to the environment and pose the least hazard to users. of the property. Our review of the Planning Office report on this matter, dated September 11, 1996, and the Pitkin County Engineer's referral memo to you, dated September 4, 1996, indicates that you concur with this analysis. Since the proposed driveway plan represents. the most effective, least environmentally damaging, least hazazdous access to the building envelope, and since the building envelope has been designated in the location on this property that best complies with the standards of the Pitkin County Land Use Code, denial of this access would prolu'bit any beneficial use of this property and would be a taking. As you know, the property is presently undeveloped and has no right. to any beneficial. usewithout obtaining this approval. The property is currentlybeing marketed for $275,000, contingent on obtaining this approval, and recent sales in this. area support such a valuation: The. value of the property without the 1041 approval_would be difficult to precisely determine, but would certainly approach no value whatsoever: The property has no agricultural value, given its relatively small size and the surrounding residential uses, so the only use that would generate any value would be residential. The property has. not generated any income, and expenses for the property have been primarily those associated with this development application and with the. costs of being part of the Stone Road Association. Ms. Griffiths,is the-sole owner of the property. To determine whether there has been a taking under this set of circumstances, you must compare the. value that has been-taken from the property to that which remains (See Williams v. City of Central, 907 P:2d 701, Cola App 1995). Since the applicant does not rely upon other bases for her position that permit denial constitutes a taking, oilier types of economic information are not. being submitted. However, I would be happy to provide you additional economic information. on She property, if you believe that will be pertinent to the Board's hearing on this matter. Thank you for your continuing assistance with this project: Very truly yours, ALAN RIppCH__MAN PLANI~TING SERVICES rJ^ ~~~ Alan Richman; AICP September 18, 1996 Mr. Rick Magill, Planner Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Deaz Rick, I am writing with reference to and. in support of Alan Richman's request of September 11, 1996 for a takings hearing on Anna Mae Griffith's Parcel 5_of the West. Sopris Creek Ranch. Mason & Morse Real Estate has listed,this Pazcel for $275,000 based on its receiving a 1041 approval.. Our firm has listed and sold two properties in West Sopris Ranch recently; these and other comparable sales certainly supporfthis as a realistic selling price. Without an approval for the 1041 review, the value of the property would be drastically reduced as there is virtually no mazket for small parcels of rural land surrounded by residential development. I would be happy to provide. any additional information to you that would be helpful in the matter. Sincerely yours, MASON & MORSE REAL E~ST~ATE HN E. THORPE Sales Associate 7ET:ct 514 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81 61 1 (970) 925-7000 FACSIMILE: (970) 925-7027 MEMORANDUM TO: Boazd of County Commissioners Regulaz Meeting -September 11, 1996 THRU: Cindy Houben, Community Development Director Cep FROM: Rick Magill, Planning Office RE: Griffiths 1041 Hazazd Review and General Submission , REQUEST: The Applicant is requesting approval of 1041 Hazard Review and General Submission for the construction of asingle-family residence. The subject property contains areas mapped for wildfire (low to severe hazard), geologic (slopes in excess of 30 percent), and wildlife hazazds (deer & elk winter range; adjacent to critical winter range, winter concentration azea, and severe winter range for both species). APPLICANT: Anna May Griffiths APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Alan Richman SIZE/LOCATION: The property contains approximately ~8 acres and is known as Lot 5 of West Sopris Creek Ranch (Terliamis Tracts) located off of West Sopris Creek Road neaz Emma. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:.The.Applicant is proposing to establish a building envelope {I/2 acre) in the eastern portion of the parcel. The proposed driveway will be approximately 140 feet long and will traverse slopes averaging 18-30 percent. The driveway will traverse a short section of slopes (10 feet horizontally) of 60 percent. immediately below Stone Road. The.. Applicant is proposing the construction of a boulder retaining wall on the lower side of the driveway. ISSUES: Wildfire - According to the State Forest Service, the proposed building envelope is contains moderate wildfire hazard. The building envelope has a southwesterly aspect with a slope of 15-20 percent. The vegetation consists of sage, scattered servicebeny, and oak. There is a Vass meadow to the south and wesf of the proposed building envelope. That portion of the property above Stone Road (approximately 100 feet above the buildiiig`envelope) is rated for severe wildfire hazard and contains slopes in excess of 30. percent. Vince Urbina has recommended specific mitigation measures for the proposed development and Staff has included them as conditions of approval. Geologic -The property contains slopes in excess of 30 percent. The bulk of the areas which contain steep slopes are located in the western portion of the property (above Stone Road). The proposed building envelope contains slopes of approximately 15-22 percent. The proposed access driveway will cross slopes of approximately 60 percent at the edge of Stone Road. This short azea of steep slopes (10 feet horizontally) is associated with the fill required m the construction of Stone Road and cannot be avoided by any driveway that would intersect this stretch of Stone Road, A retaining wall of up to 9 feet tall will be necessary to stabilize the driveway on the downhill side. It appears that the access alignment proposed by the Applicant is the only logical way to reach the proposed building site.. The. Land .Use Code prohibits development on lopes in excess of 30 percent, yef Staff believes that some latitude of interpretation should be applied in this case due to the short duration of slopes in excess of .i0 percent; the fact that this slope was created by fill material .during the construction of Stone Road; and that there is no other less 'impactive access alignment. The .County Engineer points. out the proposed location for the .driveway is the best location given the site's constraints, and that the proposed design will comply with the County standazds. Wildlife- The subject property is mapped for ells and mule deer winter range. The West. Sopris Creek Ranch Subdivision is adjacent to critical winter range, winter concentration area, and severe winter range for both species. Black bear also inhabit this area. The subject property is within 800 feet of the intersection of Stone Road., and West Sopris Creek Road. consequendy,`the lot receives a fair amount of disturbance (vehicular traffic and people). Kevin Wright of the Colorado Division of Wildlife recommends that. the. Applicant should comply with the conditions suggested in the application and the additional conditions outlined in his.. memorandum (attached). l~fike Villa is scheduled to conduct. a site inspection and Staff will report his fmdings at the meeting. Building envelope. The Environmental Health Department indicates that the building enveTOpe is "flat enough and free. of constraints like ditches", yet the building envelope is relatively small and because of required setbacks to the well, ``there could be a problem fitting the septic system within the envelope". Site specific soils data will have to be obtained in order to determine. the type and size of the septic system required for this development. Staff recommends that a minor e:cpansion of the building envelope for the septic field may be approved by the Community Development Depamnent, should the EPID determine ,that the envelope is not lazge enough to meet required setbacks. RECONIMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Boazd approve the Griffiths 1041 Hazard and General Submission Review, subject to the conditions in the attached resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. draft resolution 2. Staff memo to P&Z w/referral comments ~"~ ,. MEMORANDUM TO: Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission. FROM: Rick Magill, Planning Office RE: Griffiths 1041 Hazard Review & General Submission DATE: May 28,1996 REQUEST: The Applicant requests approvals for the constuction of asingle-family residence and customary accessory uses. APPLICANT;. Anna May Griffiths APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Alan Richman LOCATION: The project site is located approximately 2 miles np West Sopris Creek Road in the ' West Sopris Creek Ranch Suhdivision._ _, SIZE/ZONING: 38 acres / RS-.Q thirty acre minimum lot size. ACCESS: The Applicant is proposing to access the residence via a new driveway off of the existing subdivision road (Stone Road). PROJECT DESCRIPTION:. The Applicant proposes to establish a 1/2 acre building envelope on a bench in the eastern portion of the subjectproperty. The proposed driveway will be approximately 140 feet long and will traverse slopes of 25-60 percent. The Applicant isproposing the construction of a boulder retaining wall on the lower. side of the driveway. REFERRAL .AGENCIES: Referral.. agency comments are incorporated throughout this memorandum and are attached for reference as necessary. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. County Attorney Zoning Office Environmental Health Department County Engineer Colorado State Forest Service Basalt Fire District Division of Wildlife Stone Road Association ~, * comments not submitted STAFF COMMENTS: 1041 REVIEW WildSre - According to the State Forest Service, the proposed building envelope is contains moderate. wildfire hazazd. The building envelope has a southwesterly aspect with a slope of 15-20 percent. The vegetation consists of sage, scattered serviceberry, and oak. There is a grass meadow to the south and west of the proposed building envelope. That portion of the property above Stone Road (approximately 100 feet above the building envelope) is rated for severe wildfire hazard and contains slopes in excess. of 30_pement. Vince Urbina has recommended specific mitigation measures for the proposed. development and Staff has included them as conditions of approval. The Basalt Fire District bas not submitted .comments as of this, writing. Staff has included a standard condition which requires a water storage tank for fire-fighting purposes, to be approved by the Fire District. This recommendation is consistent will all other recent.. approvals in this area. Geologic -The property contains slopes in excess of 30 percent. The bulls of the areas which contain steep slopes are located ui the western portion of the property. The proposed building envelope contains slopes of approximately 15-?2 percent. The proposed access driveway will cross slopes of approximately 60 percent at the edge of Stone road. A retaining wall of up to 9 feet tall will be necessary to stabilize the driveway on the downhill side. It appears that the access alignment proposed by the Applicant is the. only logical way to reach the proposed building site. The road as proposed will comply with the County standards for driveways. Wildlife- The subject property is mapped for ells and mule deer winter range. The West Sopris Creek Ranch Subdivision is adjacent to critical winter range, winter concentration area, and severe winter range for both species. Black bear aiso inhabit this area. The subject property is within 800 feet of the intersection of Stone Road, and West, Sopris Creek Road, consequently; the iot receives a fair amount of disturbance. (vehicular. traffic and people). Kevin Wright of the Colorado Division of Wildlife recommends that. the. Applicant should comply with the conditions suggested in the application and the additional conditions outlined in his memorandum (attached). E~TF_ Ai. MI SION Drainage and Erosion- There are, no outstanding concerns with respect to drainage and erosion for the residential building envelope, provided all disturbed areas are revegetated within one growing season a$er project completion. 2 Impacts to Roads -'this single-family development will not cause significant additional impacts to the County roads. The Applicant recently joined the Stone Road Association, a newly formed group of landowners in the area, for the purpose of improving the access roads within the West Sopris Creek residential development. (see attached letter). The Association has completed the initial phase of the improvements to the existing subdivision: mad and final work is expected to be finished this g• Scenic Quality - The subject property will be visible from a very short section of West Sopris Creek Road and should have a minimal effect on the scenic quality of the area. The proposed retaining wall for the driveway will be lazgely screened from view by existing vegetation. Water and Sewer -The., Applicant proposes that water be supplied to the residentialdevelopment via an existing on-site well. The Environmental, Health Depatment will require that the Applicant submit information which documents,thg well location withn the building envelope and that the quality and quarnity of the well water are adequate, prior to the issuance of a Septic Permit. The Applicant is proposing an Individual Sewage- Disposal System for this project. The Environmental Health Department' indicates that the Building envelope is "flat enough and free of constraints like. ditches", yet the building envelope is relatively small and because of required setbacks to the well, "there could be a problem fitting the system within the envelope". Site specific soils data will have to be obtained in order to determine the type and size of the. septic system required for this development.. The Applicant will be required to obtain a Septic Pemtit from the EHD, prior to the issuance. of a building permit. Utility Extensions. -The Applicant plans to extend the telephone and electric service in the new driveway from Stone Road to the building envelope. No other utilit}L extensions are planned or requested. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the,Planning and Zoning Commission forwazd a recommendation of approval to the Boazd of County Commissioners for the Griffiths Genera! Submission and 1041 Hazard Review, subject to the following conditions: The Applicant shall adhere to all material. representations made in the application and in the public meetings. 2. Prior to building permit application, the Applicant shall record a 24 x 36 inch. mylaz 1041 Hazard Review .Site Plan which meets the, approval of the Community Development Department and County Attorney. The site plan shall include the following 1041 Hazard Review Warning and Disclaimer. 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. Outside illumination shall comply with County lighting standazds in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 4. The Applicant shall comply with the following wildlife mitigation measures: a. Dogs are prohibited... b. Fencing shall be a maxhnum height of 42", 4 strands or less. with a 12" kickspace . between the top 2 strands. Any rail fencing shall be the round type, 42", 3-rail or less with at least 18" between 2 of the rails. c. All gazbage shall be kept within beaz-proof gazbage containers. The DOW can..... supply specifications upon request. Horse grain shall be stored/locked to prevent access by bears. d. Horses shall be kept within the building envelope. All haystacks shall be fenced with 8-foot fencing to prevent game damage to haystacks. e. Native vegetation shall not be disturbed. outside .the building envelope, except as required .for the access driveway and the implementation wildfire mitigation measures. Vegetation within the. envelope shall be preserved as much as possible in order to screen the residence. f. No grazing on the hillside south of the building envelope. '. 5. Wildfire mitigation shall be as follows: a. All vegetation shall be .removed .within 10 feet of proposed structures. This "defensible space" area shall be maintained in mowed. grass or non-flammable material, such as decorative rock or gravel. . b. Brush shall be thinned. and standing dead or dead down trees shall be removed for a distance of 40 feet upslope and 47 feet downslope of proposed structures to break up the vertical and horizontal continuity of the fuel.. a Spacing between clumps. of brush and vegetation within the 40/47 foot perimeters shall be a minimum of two tunes the height of the fuel Maximum diameter of the 4 ~"" ~.. ' „I-ya..z.. ,,..,.,, , .: ... .. clumps shall be two times the height of the fuel. All measurements shall be from .• • the edges of the crowns of the fuel. d. .All branches from trees.. and bnish within the stated,perimeters shall, be premed to a height of 10 feet above. the ground. e. Tree crown separation .within the perimeters shall have a minimum of 10 feet between the edges of the crowns. This does not apply to mature stands of Aspen trees where the above recommendation for removal of ladder fuels have been ._ complied with. In areas of aspen regeneration, the spacing guidelines shall be followed. , f. All branches which extend over ;the roof eaves shall be trimmed and, all branches within 15 feet. of the chimneys shall be removed. g. Roofs and gutters shall be kept clear of debris. h. Yazds shall be kept cleaz of all litter, slash, and flammable debris. i. Firewood shall be stacked. on a parallel contour a minimum of 15 .feet away from any structure... j. At least one ten pound approved ABC class fire extinguisher shall be placed in a visible and accessible location for each structure. k. Fences shall be kept clear of brush and debris. 1. Wood fences shall not be connected to the structure.. _ m. Fuel tanks shall be installed underground with an approved container. n. Roof construction shall be Class. A, non-combustible (no wood shakes or shingles)material with no flat roofs. o. All vents shall be screened with corrosive. resistant. wire mesh of one. quarter. inch (1/4")maximum. p. Addresses shall be clearly mazked and visible with minimum 2" letters.. 5 q. 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.. r. Any additional buildings shall incorporate wildfire mitigation measures. 6. The Applicant shall install a water storage tank, the size and location to be approved by the Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District with„ an approved and accessible fire.. district connection, for fire-fighting purposes. 7. The Applicant shall install a residential .sprinkler system or foam fire retardant system in the residence which meets the standards of the Basalt Fire Protection Districf and the Uniform Building Code. 8. Prior to issuance. of a .building permit, the Applicant shall provide documentation of an adequate domestic water supply. Quantity and quality of said supply shad meet the approval of the Environmental Health Department. 9. The septic system designed for the site shall meet the. approval of the Environmental Health Department. The Applicant shall obtain such approval prior to the issuance of a building pemrit. 10. The Applicant shall obtain a,fireplace/woodstove penxat from Environmental Health Department, prior to the issuance of a building permit. 11. The disturbed areas within. the buildingsite shall be revegetated with nauve grasses to limit water consumption and additional runoff, immediately following project completion, 12. All development included grading, septic system, well, fences and landscaping shall occur within the building envelope. ATTACANIENfS: 1. DOW comments 2. Environmental Health.. Dept. comments 3. Colorado State Forest Service memo 4. Zoning Office memo 5. Stone Road Association letter 6 To: From: Through: MEMORANDUM' Rick Magill ,Community Development Dept. MaryEngelmann, Environmental Health Officer. aC9c' -~`n2C Lee Cassin, Assistant Environmental Health Director ~f~ Date: April 29, 1996 Re: Griffiths 1041 Hazard Review & GeneraL,Submission Parcel ID # 2465-222-00-002 The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health, Department has reviewed the details of the Griffiths application under the authority of the Pitkin County Cotle Title II Land use Code and has the following comments: anF~i ~a~ paDVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: Sections 2-170 and 3-110.4: "It is the policy oftheCduntV Co insure the availability of awater supply of adequate quality, quantity, pressure and depentlapility for fire protection and support of a proposeBJand use prior to appCOVaI of the use. The County shall require land uses to hodk up to existing public systems if service is available." ... _.. This .Department needs adequate information on the quantity and the quality of water available. This can be done. from tests of wells 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 the Snowmass Water and Sanitation District or Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. Water of acceptable quality andquantity has been obtained in other lots in this area. Before a eptic permit can be issued, the well must be drilled to assure that setback requirements from the welt to the'sewage disposal system can be maintained. Pitkin County Land Use Code requires that the. well site be within the. building envelope: Nick Lampiris has indicated that successful wells have been drilled on four lots within the subdivision and. feels that water for domestic use will,be obtained at a depth of perhaps 200 feet. It is recommended that low water_landscaping (xeriscaping) be used and that the timing of any sprinkler systems be decreased for Tow water plants. The Colorado State_ University Cooperative Extension office can be contacted for more information on xeriscaping. A condition of .approval for this applica documenting that the location of the can be placed within the building envel welt water are adequate. Without mee disposal system permit and buttding pe ~n is the receipt of information II(s) meet setback requirements and se and that quantity/quality of the g These requirements a sewage ~. 4 _ , ~Eh~AGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION• Sections 2-180 and 3-110 5• "It is the policy of the County toehsure that atlegUate sewage treatment fac~ilttes are available to serve existing antl new develoomehts. Public and private sewage tlisDOSaI systems antl connections to such systems shall comply with the sewage tllsposal guidelines of Pttkn. CountV'slhtlivitl4al5eN2ge DISPOSa15y5tem RegUladOn' _:" Lots in the West Sopris Creek area are served by individual sewage disposal systems. Ail such systems installed within Pitkin County require septic permits issued, by the Environmental Health Department, and must comply with the County's sewage disposal regulations. To receive aseptic permit, the applicant will need to submit a septic permit application and appropriate fee with a completed Soit Data Form including percolation test results and profile hole information. It must be possible to design an adequate sewage. disposal. system before a building permit can. be issued. The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Heaitn.Department will design the system for the applicant as part of the permit fee, iii an engineered system is not required. We will do a site visit, advise the applicant about the best `location for the system and provide a system design. We will determine if an engineered system is needed based on soil test results. An engineered system is required if any one of the following conditions exists: a percolation rate fiaster.thari 5 mpi or slower tfYan~ 60 mpi;'maximum seasonal level of the groundwater table„or bedrockless than four feet below the bottom of the proposed absorption system; or a'slope in Nexcess~of 30%.~ Pr~or4to initiating any tests at the site, the applicant should contact this_office. We believe it will be possible to install either a conventional or an engineered sewage disposal system on this lot based on the data in the geological report submitted by Nick Lampiris: Mr. Lampiris has noted that there. are areas of.near surface bedrock that may exist which would require an engineer to design the system. Mr.'Lampirs has also noted that high ground water tables should not pose a problem. Site specific soil data will have to be obtained in order to determine the type and size of the system required. Jay Hammond of Schmueser Gordon Meyer mentions, percolation rates are likely to be moderate to high in the sandy to ctayeysoils_overlaying the mancos shale.. According to the report submitted, the slopes within the building envelope range between 1530%. No slopes with the building envelope are higher thah 30%. The sewage disposal system must be located within the building envelope. The envelope is flat enough ahd free of constraints like ditches. The building envelope is fairly small and its triangular dimensions mean ttlat the well will,have„to be located_n orne„corner of the envelope and the septic system in another corner. It may be necessary to pump to the septic system, which is less desirable than using gravityflow, but is allowed under county regulations. We believe, that a septic system can be put in the envelope, if the house is not extremely large. However, if perc rates are stow and the house is very large, it is possible that there could be a problem fitting the system in the envelope. Mr. Hammond has suggested that the applicant reserve the'ability to locate the s2wage disposal system outside of the building envelope should locations within prove unsuitable. We have evaluated only the building envelope for suitability of a septic system. We cannot determine what. the impacts would be if the septic system were located on other parts of the lot: that would require further evaluatioh depending on the proposed site. The leach field will need to be located a minimum of 100 feet from the, applicaht's well and from any neighboring wells. The setback distance maybe more than 100 feet from the leachfield to the well depending on the size of the hbuse to be built. 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. ~t is desrable,to locate the system downhill from the house so that the system can operate by gravity. The applicant should refer to the Pitkin County Sewage Regulations for detailed information; or call our office t® discuss this site. If the well permit states that the sewage disposal system must be of the non- evaporative type where the water is returned to the same stream.system in which the well is located, a completely lined field, such as an evapo-transpiration bed, is not allowed unless the applicant contacts the Colorado D,iv_ision_of Water Resources and a new wel(permit is in place or a piah of augmentation is created. A condition of approval for this. application is the receipt and approval of the sewage disposal permit by the'Environmental Health Oepertment before a building permit can be issued. Our comments relate onlYto placement of the system in the building envelope. If the system is to"be located outside the envelope, we would have to conduct another evaluation of that site.... WATER QUALITYIMPACTS• Sections 2-140 and 3-70.5 and 3-70.10: "It is The policy of the cpunrv to preserve and protect its preSCnt water resources, reCOgn2ing the COUnty's semi-and CharoCCer and that significant tronSmOUOtdin and trohSbaSin dlVerSlbnS and the VeStetl I'IghtS Of senlOtappr'Oprl2tOf5 ih the basin h3Vematel'Ially curtalletl tj7e avallabiliiyOf ah alreatly scarce water resource. To [his end it is th_ epolicy of the County that no land usebe mttiated~which would atlversely affect the quantity, gClallty, or accessibility of the County's water resources; or which would oaur at th¢ expense of established'v/a't2fFdepen[JenYagriculturol att(vities; orwhich wOUltl result In inCreaSEd SalinRatlbn of water resources, loss of minimum stream fIOWS, further destrudlon of WTdI(fe hablrat~ Or major eXpendltUreS to reacquire Or redl5trlbute majorviaiier resource's: It`is also the policy of fh'e COilhty`to'malntiaifi"a"r~ah3ro"I~~tIe~atfve buff~l' 3(009 its surface waters SUCK that the sUrfaCe~antl9rbUndwateR Of thEa~Ea are f7bL eI1CTQathetl Ubbn by land USES Or Other human 3cCillltles whlCncbUld CdUSe delerlOfatlph Of. 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 driveways can be nonpoint sources of water discharge which can contaminate water supplies. This Department recommends that nonpoint sources of discharge must be retained on the property of origin which can be accomplished'through landscaping, drainage patterns, detention ponds, and dry welts for water runoff from buildings. Surface water and groundwater contamination can also be caused by inadequate setback distances from sewage disposal systems to proximate wells, rivers, creeks,. ponds, and reservoirs. Minimum horzontal,distances,betvueen components of a sewage disposal system and physical features must be in accordance with the Pitkin County Sewage Regulation. A condition of approval for his_appiication is: None ~u Alit OUALITY• Sections 2-130 and 3-602: "Only that development is permitted which will nptcontribute significanUV Co gegrotlaUOn of air quality. This project is not expected to contribute significantly to degradation of air quality in Pitkin County... A conditiion of approval should be: None The applicant must file afireplace/woodstoye permit with the Environmental Health Department before the building permit will be issued. The less densely populated parts of the county like the West Sopris Creek area may have two devices per bui(ding: a maximum of one. wood burning fireplace and a second device which can be either a gas log fireplace or a certified woodstoye. In addition, unlimited numbers of decorative gas appliances are allowed. Coal may not be burned. in any device. No wood burhing device may be installed in barns or agricultural buildings. A condition of approval for this.. application is the receipt and approval of the fireplace/woodstoye permit by the Environmental Health bepartment before the building permit can be issued. °tt is the policy of the county to ensure that no use or development of land is permittea which is in violation df the laws of the county, the state of coloraao, or the unrced states of gmerica.' This Department is not aware of any issues of concern regarding other environmental health laws. ... ENViWP:LAND USE: .~ `-~ ~ ~ °~' ~ ~, APR 1 ~ 1995 S~xF~.s~T . ~ Smte Services Building C ~ 222S. 6th Street Room 416 _. _ April 8, 1996 Grano Jnnodon. colorsao alsol '9;~ ~ / Telephone: (970) 248.7325 Rick Magill Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, C0 81611 Re: Griffiths 1041 Wildfire Hazard Review Rick, I read the plan and inspected the site ~gith Alan Richman, the owner's agent on December 12th. Alan alluded to my visit in the plan. The Griffiths property is one of the first properties serviced by the. Stone Road as it comes off Ehe West Sopris Creek road. The Stone Road originates at a 90 degree angle off the West Sopris Creek road which is recommended in Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) publications. At the tilne of my inspection the Stone Road was only one lane and did not. have dual "access/egress. The Stone Road Association has °snce"upgraded the road sometime between my first visit and a second visit on_March 19th. This upgraded road now has turnouts that would allow vehicles to get around each other in the event of wildfire in_ _ this area. ,The. turnouts is an improvelnent over what was there before. The Stone Road still does .not have dual access/egress which is recommended by the National Fire Protection Association -(NFPA) 299 and CSFS publications.' The driveway 'at the time of inspection was only roughly flagged into the building envelope. The building envelope has a southwesterly aspect with a slope of IS-20%. The vegetation is sage with scattered serviceberry and Gambel oak. I would rate the building envelope as a moderate wildfire hazard. Above the Stone Road the vegetation is pinyon/juniper with a slope that exceeds 30s. The wildfire hazard for his portion of the property is severe. South and west of the Griffiths property line the vegetation is a grass meadow.- My wildfire hazard mitigation recommendations are as follows:.. 1) Provide a ten foot space around all structures where the. vegetation can be maintained at,6 inches or less. 2) For a distance of 40 feet upslope and 47 feet downslope from the house manipulate the vegetation to break up vertical-and horizontal continuity. These prescriptions'vrere referred to on page 6 of the Griffiths Parcel_5 West Sopris Ranch application submitted by Alan Richman. However, Mr. 'Richman stated this. will.. only happen for a 30 foot perimeter. Because of the existing vegetation. and slope I recommend a larger defensible space area. Please see the enclosed photocopy taken from the CSFS`publication Wildfire Protection in the Wildland Urban Interface. . ~ ~` ti ~ ~ n • ~ ~ ~ 1 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Rick Magill, Planning FROM: Joanna S. Schaffner, Zoning Officer DATE: March 19, 1996.... RSe Griffiths 1041_.Hazard Review,& General Submission Parcel ID# 246.5-222-b0-002 I have reviewed the above referenced application and offer the following comments. ZONE: RS-30, thirty acre minimum lot size This parcel contains 38,8 acres and is conforming in size... SETBACKS: The required setbacks for this parcel are.: 100 foot front yard setback 50 foot side yard setback 50 foot rear yard setback The proposed building envelope appears to lie within the .east side... yard setback. _ The envelope should be reduced to avoid this encroachment. Board of Adjustment approval will be required before any development may occur within required setbacks. FLOOR AREA: This parcel. is allowed. 15,000 square feet of residential floor. area.., Agricultural structures are exempt from floor area calculations. HEIGHT: Plahs have not been submitted to determine compliance with County height regulations. OTFO;'R: Excepting the access drive and utilities, all development must be .contained within the approved building envelope .unless specifically exempted through this review. This. includes landscaping and septic systems. ~'"' GRIFFITHS 1041 3) The vegetation .above the building envelope does not need to have anything done with it until the adjoining property is developed. At that time the pinyon/juniper stand should be thinned to create defensible. space for the property above the Griffiths property. 4) Implement the other recommendations,.spelled out in the.. Griffiths. application in Section B. Wldfsse Sazard Areas... Thank you for the opportunity to review this application. Feel free to call me if you have any questions.. Sin~ce~rely, A. Vince Urbina Assistant District Forester cc: Steve Crockett -Pitkin County Sheriff's Office Steve Howard -Basalt RFD Alan Richman MOVIEWORLDCORP. 'S~97~s63-2sts ~3/2tf96 ~D8:44PM pZl3 Stone Road Association c!o Leslie C. Strawbridge Box 587 Basalt, CO 81621 (970) 927-1499. March.21, 1996 Mr. Rick Magill Aspen/Pitkin _ Community bevelopment Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Grififiths 1041 Hazard Review & General Submissign __ Parcel 1D #2465-222-00-002 Dear Rick, I am in receipt of your memo dated 7!29/96 and have reviewed, the application submitted by Anna Mae Grifififhs. This letter will confirm #hat the applicant is a member in good standing of-the Stone Road Assoeia#ion. The applicant was, in fact, one of the first lot owners to voluntarily join the Association, At a meeting of The Sfone Road Association held last fall, the applicant agreed to participate in the cost of the improvements to the existing subdivisian_ road as specfied by Pitkin County and agreed to by the Association and to date has done so. „A,n mitai phase flf improvement was completed last November. with the final work expected to be finished this spring. Please don't hesitate to call me.if you should have any questions or need. more information. Best regards, Leslie C. Strawbridge cc: Anna Mae Griffiths ,.. ,_ , MESSAGE.DISPLAY TO Rick Magill CC Bud Eylar From:. Bud Eylar Postmark: Sep 04,96 1:01 PM Subject: W Sopris Ranch-Lot 5 Message: Rick, I have reviewed the application and have the following comments: The access looks as if it is the best Tocaton to minimize. impacts to the meadow and to avoid a. major crossing of the stream. It looks as if the drive is'`right at the'edge of encroaching on 30$ or greater slopes. However, if it is moved downhill it would have a greater impact. It also doesn~t have a 96'degree entrance but once again it'may not be'possible to meet grade if it is at a right angle. I feel the drive is acceptable as presented. Bud X ~, Ste' 1010 % 10ge0RM PITKIN PUH WORKS _._. __.... J7-Z Pitkin xo:Riok Magi11 FROM:Hicliael s. villa RE:Griffith's 1041 &eviem DAT%:September 9, 1896 Dear RicJC, As me discussed tOdaYr totally within mapped estimates that deer an transition pexiods and used extensively by se virgiriia warblers, bla porcupines, cottontail and small mammals use ~s Lot 5 of SPest Sopsis Ranah lies rqe Por daes asxd elk. staff the area frequently during er months. The area is probably :tal species: Spotted totioheea, .grosbeaks,...black fleas, striped skunks, and other Piirda throughout the year. Staff agrees with all of the mitigation measures outlined iri Kevin Wright's memo i~etsd"Fet>x'uary ~0," 1995: "''Tri addition, 'staff would like a canditiari of rio dogs .due. to t31e juxtaposition of the subdivision With critical Winter range, The cso~rtt area" is axtremelyimportant to wintering nig game anima2s~~aaH~~~it would be staffs. recommeridat~,ori for `'a no dog condition gn t3ie north side oP West Sopris Creek Road. Staff thinks this condition, biologically speaking, would io3.tigate if not decrease the impacts of developiment on mildifa during a critical time of year, Michael J. vi11a Pltkin County ~Vild~ife $iologist Pitkin County Land AA3itapemeM 76 Service Center Road PnrtnEOn" Aspen, Cohxado 81611 ~.( ~ REC'lC~L--O PGVEG (970) 9Z0-5214 Fax: (870) 920-5374 >~ , RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY. CObIl~IISSIONERS OF PTTKIN COUNTY COLORADO, DENYING THE GRIFFITHS 1041 Ha7ARn REVIEW & GENERAL SUBNIISSION Resolution No. 96- 1. Anna May Griffiths, hereinafter "Applicant" has applied to the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, hereinafter "Boazd", for approval of 1041 Environmental Hazazd and. General. Submission Review,for the construction_of awsingle- family residence. 2. The Applicant's lot is zoned RS-30 and. is approximately 38 acres in size.. 3. Said lot is known as Lot 5 of the West Sopris Creek Ranch (a.k.a. Terliams Tracts), and is more. specifically described in Exhibit A, attached. s 4. The PIanning and Zoning Commission reviewed this application on May 28, 1996 and unanimously found that this proposal complies with the criteria set forth in the Pitkin County Land Use Code, and forwarded a recommendation of approval to the Board. 5. The Board heard this application at a regulazly scheduled meeting on September 11; 1996, at which time evidence and testimony was presented. with respect to this application. 6. The Board determined that the proposed development does not meet'the criteria established in Section 3-80.50 (C)(2) of the Land Use Code. 7. Specifically, the proposed driveway was found to be unacceptable by the Board based on the encroachment on a small area with slopes in excess. of thirty percent (30%). The azea of slopes in excess of 30% is approximately 10 feet in durationand was created as a result of the construction BOARD OF COUNTY CONIlVIISSIONER$ OF PITHIIV COUNTY, COLORADO By James R. Tnze, Chairmazi Date of the main road serving the West.. Sopris Creek Ranch lots. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado that it does. hereby deny the Griffiths 1041 Hazard Review and General Submission. APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON_THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1996 ATTEST: Jeanette Jones, Deputy Clerk and Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORMc APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: John Ely, County Attorney Cindy Houben, Community Development Director case #P7-% parcel #2465-222-00-002 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners Regular Meeting -September 11, 1996 THRU: Cindy Houben, Community Development Director ' (~ FROM: Rick Magill, Planning Office RE: Griffiths 1041 Hazard Review and General Submission REQUEST: The Applicant is requesting approval of 1041 Hazard Review and General Submission for the construction. of asingle-family residence. The subject property contains areas mapped for wildfire (low to severe hazard), geologic (slopes in excess of 30 percent), and wildlife hazards (deer & elk winter range;. adjacent to critical winter range, winter concentration area, and severe winter range for both species). APPLICANT: Anna May Griffiths APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Alan Richman SIZE/LOCATION: The property contains approximately 38 acres and is known as Lot 5 of West Sopris Creek Ranch (Terliamis Tracts) located off of West. Sopris Creek Road near Emma. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Applicant is proposing to establish a building envelope (1/2 acre) in the eastern. portion of the parcel. The proposed driveway will be approximately 140 feet long and will traverse slopes averaging 18-30 percent. The driveway will traverse a short section of slopes (10 feet horizontally) of 60 percent immediately below Stone Road. The Applicant is proposing the constructon of a boulder retaining wall on the lower side of the driveway. ISSUES: Wildfire - According to the State Forest .Service, the proposed building envelope is contains moderate wildfire hazard. The building envelope has a southwesterly aspect with a slope of 15-20 percent. The vegetation consists of sage, scattered servicebeny, and oak. There is a grass meadow to the south and west of the proposed building envelope. That portion of the property above Stone Road (approximately 100 feet above the building envelope) is rated for severe wildfire hazazd and contains slopes in excess of 30 percent. Vince Urbina has recommended specific mitigation measures for the proposed development and Staff has included them as conditions of approval. Geologic -The property contains slopes in excess of 30 percent. The bulk of the areas which contain steep slopes are located in the western portion of the property (above Stone Road). The proposed building envelope contains slopes of approximately 15-22 percent. The proposed access driveway will cross slopes of approximately 60 percent at the edge of Stone Road. This short area r''*: of steep slopes (10 feet horizontally) is associated with the fill required in the. construction of Stone Road and cannot. be avoided by any driveway that would intersect this stretch of Stone Road. A retaining wall of up to 9 feet tall will be necessary to stabilize the driveway on the downhill side. It appears that the access alignment proposed by the Applicant is the only logical way to reach the proposed building site. The Land Use Code prohibits development on slopes in excess of 30 percent, yet Staff believes that some latitude of interpretation should be applied in this case due to the short duration of slopes in excess of 30 percent; the fact that this slope was created by fill material during the construction of Stone Road; and that there is no other less impactive access .alignment. The County Engineer points out the proposed location for the driveway is the best location given the site's constraints, and that the proposed design will comply with the County standards. Wildlife- The subject property is mapped for elk and mule deer winter range, The West Sopris Creek Ranch Subdivision is adjacent to critical winter range, winter concentration azea, and severe winter range for both species. Black bear also inhabit this area. The subject property is within 800 feet of the. intersection of Stone Road and West Sopris Creek Road, consequently, the lot receives a fair amount of disturbance (vehicular traffic and people). Kevin Wright of the Colorado Division of Wildlife recommends .that the Applicant .should comply with the conditions suggested in the application and the additional conditions outlined in his. memorandum (attached). Mike Villa is scheduled to conduct a site inspection and Staff will report his findings at the meeting. Building envelope- The Environmental Health Department indicates that the building envelope is "flat enough and free of constraints like ditches", yet the building envelope is relatively small and because of required setbacks to the well, "there could. be a problem fitting the sepfic system within the envelope". Site. specific soils data will. have to be obtained in order. to determine the .type and size of the septic system required for this development. Staff recommends that a minor expansion of the building envelope for the septic field may be approved by the Community Development Department, should the EHD determine thaf the envelope is not large enough to meet required setbacks. RECOMMENDATION; Staff recommends that the Board approve the Griffiths 1041 Hazard and General Submission Review, subject to the conditions in the attached resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. draft resolution 2. Staff memo to P&Z w/referral comments „,~ `ti` f" ~`~~' RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COIVIMISSIONER$ OF PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO, GRANTING APPROVAL OF THE GRIFFITHS 1041 HAZARD REVIEW AND GENERAL SUBMISSION. Resolution No. 96- RECITALS 1. Amia May Griffiths, hereinafter "Applicant" has applied to the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, hereinafter "Board", for approval of 1041 Environmental Hazard and General Submission Review for the construction of asingle-family residence. 2. The Applicant's lot is zoned RS-30 and is approximately 38 acres in size. 3. Said lot is known as Lot 5 of the West Sopris Creek Ranch (Terliamis Tracts), and is more specifically described in Exhibit A; attached. 4. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this application on May 28, 1996 and unanimously found that this proposal complies with the criteriaset forth in the Pitkin County Land Use Code. 5. The Board heazd this application at a duly noticed public hearing on September 11, 1996, at which time evidence and testimony was presented with respect to this application. 6. The Board determined that the proposed development meets the criteria established in the Land Use Code, provided the conditions of this document are adhered to by the Applicant and her successors. NOW, THEREFORE, BELT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, that it does hereby grant approval to the Griffiths 1041 Hazard Review and General Submission application, subject to the. following conditions: 1. The Applicant shall adhere to all material representations made in the. application and in the public meefings: 2. Prior to building permit application, the Applicant shall record a 24 x.36 inch mylaz 1041 Hazard. Review Site Plan which meets the approval of the Community Development Department and County Attorney. The site plan shall include the following 1041 Hazard Review Warning and Disclaimer: "The provisions of these regulations do not in any way assure or imply that areas outside of designated hazard azeas will be free from Resolution No. 96- ``~ "' '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- Page t - hazards, or that approved mitigation measures will guarantee the safety of any property." 3. Outside illumination shall comply with County lighting standards in effect at the time of building permit issuance.. 4. The Applicant shall comply with the following wildlife mitigation measures: a. Dogs are prohibited.. b. 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, 42", 3-rail or less with at least I8" between 2 of the rails. c. All garbage shall be kept within bear-proof garbage containers. The DOW can supply specifications uponrequest. Horse grain shall be stored/locked to prevent access by bears. d. Horses shall be kept within the building envelope. All haystacks shall be fenced with 8-foot fencing to prevent game damage to haystacks. e. Native vegetation shall not be disturbed outside the building envelope, except as required for the access driveway and the implementation wildfire mitigafion measures. Vegetation within the envelope shall be preserved as much as possible in order to screen the residence. f. No gazing on the hillside so of the building nvelope. 5. Wi dfire mitigation shall be as follows: a. All vegetation shall be removed within 10 feet of proposed structures. This "defensible space" area shall., be maintained. in mowed grass or non- flammable material, such as decorative rock or gravel. b. Brush shall be thinned and standing dead or dead down trees shall be removed for a distance of 40 feet upslope and 47 feet downslope of proposed structures to break up the vertical and horizontal continuity of the fuel. c. Spacing between clumps of brush and vegetation within the 40/47 foot perimeters shall be a minimum of two times the height of the fuel. Maximum diameter of the clumps shall be two times the height of the fuel All measurements shall be from the edges of the crowns of the fuel 2 Resolution No. 96-_ Page 3 d. All branches from trees and brush within the stated perimeters shall be pruned to a height of 10 feet above the ground. e. Tree crown sepazation within the perimeters shall have a minimum of 10 feet between the edges of the crowns. This does not apply to mature stands of Aspen trees where the above recommendation for removal of ladder fuels have been complied with. In areas of aspen regeneration, the spacing guidelines shall be followed. £ All branches which extend over the roof eaves shall be trimmed and all branches within 15 feet of the chimneys shall be removed. g. Roofs and gutters shall be kept clear of debris. h. Yards shall be kept clear of all litter, slash, and flammable debris. i. Firewood shall. be stacked on a pazallel contour a minimum of 15 feet away from any structure. j. At least one ten pound approved ABC class fire extinguisher shall be placed in a visible and accessible location for each structure. k. Fences shall be kept cleaz of brush and debris. 1. Wood fences shall not be connected to the structure. m. Fuel tanks shall be installed underground with an approved container. n. Roof construction shall be C1assA, non-combustible (no wood shakes or shingles) material with no flat roofs. o. All vents shall. be screened withborrosive resistant wire mesh of one quarter inch (1/4") maximum. p. Addresses shall be clearly marked and visible with minimum 2" letters q. Maintenance of the "defensible space" shall be required in order to retain it's value as wildfire mitigation. Oak and servicebeny tend to sprout vigorously after cutting, so it will be necessary to trim back vegetation every yeaz or two. r. Any additional buildings shall incorporate wildfire mitigation measures. 3 Resolution No. 96-_ Page 4 6. The Applicant shall. install. a water storage tank, the size and location. to be approved by the Basalt & Rural Fire Protecfion District with an approved and accessible fire. district connection, for fire-fighting purposes. 7. The Applicant shall install a residential sprinkler system or foam fire retarding system in the residence which meets the standards. of the Basalt. Fire Protection District and the Uniform Building Code. 8. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall provide documentation of an adequate domestic water supply. Quantity and quality of said supply shall meet the approval of the Environmental Health. Department. 9. The septic system designed for the site shall meet the approval of the Environmental Health Department. The Applicant shall obtain such approval prior to-the issuance of a building permit. Should the EHD deternune that the building envelope is not large enough to meet. required setbacks (septic from well), the Community Development Department will have the ability to approve a minor expansion of the envelope for sepfic system use only. 10. The Applicant shall obtain afireplace/woodstove permit from Environmental Health Department, prior to the issuance of a building pernut. 11. The disturbed areas within the building site shall be revegetated with native grasses to limit water consumpfion and additional runoff, immediately following project completion. 12. All development included grading, septic system, well, fences and landscaping shall occur within the building envelope. 13. The Applicant shall obtain an access permit from the County Engineer, prior to commencement of any construction. APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1996 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO' By James R. True, Chairman ATTEST: Jeanette Jones, Deputy Clerk and Recorder 4 R 1 t N 96 ~ ' eso u ion o. Page 5 APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Ely, County Attorney case #P7-96 pazcel#2465-222-00-002 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Cindy Houben, Community Development Director 5 _, ... `. EXHIBIT A CEL 1 WEST SOP CH PARCEL NO. 11, MORE FUh7e'Yr DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: ^ A parcel of land s ted in the of Section 22, Township 8 South, Range 87 West of the 6t M., re particularly described as follows: ~' Beginning at the NW co of sai coon 22; thence S 88°53'16" E 19.54 feet to t `RUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence S O1°00'4 1169.50 feet; thence S 88°5 2" E 1318.95 feet; thence N 0 2'31" E 1169.00 feet; thence 8°53'16" W 1319.54 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGI G. P CEL 2 WEST SOPRIS RANCH PARCEL NO. S, MORE-FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A parcel of land situated in the W1/2 of Section 22, Township a South, Range 87 West of the 6th P.M., more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the NW corner of said Section 22; thence S 0°59'02" W 3510.10 feet; thence S 88°54'42" E 1317.76 feet to the .TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence S O1°00'46" W 1283.76 feet; thence S 88°57'06" 8 1317.11 feet; thence N O1°02'31" E 1282.83 feet; thence N 88°54'42" W 2317.76 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. r MEMORANDUM TO: Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Cornrnission FROM: Rick Magill, Planning Office RE: Griffiths 1041 Hazard Review & General Submission DATE: May 28, 1996 REQUEST: The Applicant requests approvals for the construction of asingle-family residence and customary accessory uses. APPLICANT: Anna May Griffiths APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Alan Richman LOCATION: The project site is located approximately 2 miles up West Soprs Creek Road in the West Sopris Creek Ranch Subdivision. SIZE/ZONING: 38 acres / RS30, thirty acre minimum lot size ACCESS: The Applicant is proposing to access the residence via a new driveway off of the existing subdivision road (Stone Road). PROJECT DESCRIPTION:. The Applicant proposes to establish a 1/2 acre building envelope on a bench in the eastern portion of the subject property. The proposed driveway will be approximately 140 feet long and will traverse slopes of 25-60 percent: The Applicanf is proposing the construcfion of a boulder retaining wall on the lower side of the driveway. REFERRAL AGENCIES: Referral agency comments are incorporated throughout this memorandum and are attached for reference as necessary. 1. County Attorney 2. Zoning Office 3. Environmental Health Department 4. County Engineer 5. Colorado State Forest Service 6. Basalt Fire District* 7. Division of Wildlife 8. Stone Road Association `""~ , . * comments not submitted STAFF COMMENTS: 1041 REVIEW Wildfire - According to the State Forest Service, the proposed building envelope is contains moderate wildfire hazard. The building envelope has a southwesterly aspect with a slope of 15-20 percent. The vegetation consists of sage, scattered servicebeny, and oak: There is a grass meadow to the south and west of the proposed building envelope. That portion of the property above Stone Road (approximately 100 feet above the building envelope) is rated for severe wildfire hazard and contains slopes in excess of 30 percent. Vince Urbina has recommended specifio mitigation measures for the proposed development and Staff has included them as conditions of approval. The Basalt Fire District has .not submitted comments as of this. writing. Staff has included a standard condition which requires a water storage tank for fire-fighting purposes, to be approved by the Fire District. This recommendafion is consistent will all other recent approvals in this area. Geologic -The property contains slopes in excess of 30 percent: The bulk of the areas which contain steep slopes are located in the western portion of the property. The proposed building envelope contains slopes of approximately 15-22 percent. The proposed access driveway will cross slopes of approximately 60 percent at the edge of Stone road. A retaining wall of up to 9 feef tall will be necessary to stabilize the driveway on the downhill side. It appears that the access alignment proposed by the Applicant is the only logical way to reach the proposed building site. The road as proposed will comply with the County standards for driveways. Wildlife- The subject property is mapped for elk and mule deer winter range. The West Sopris Creek Ranch Subdivision is adjacent to critical winter range, winter concentration area, and severe winter range for both species. Black bear also inhabit this area. The subject property is within 800 feet of the intersection of Stone Road and West Sopris Creek Road, consequently; the lot receives a fair amount of disturbance (vehicular traffic and people). Kevin Wright of the Colorado Division of Wildlife recommends that the Applicant should. comply with the conditions suggested in the applicafion and the additional conditions outlined in his memorandum (attached). GENE AT BMI ION Drainage and Erosion- There are no outstanding ooncerns with respect to drainage and erosion for the residential building envelope, provided all. disturbed areas are revegetated within one growing season after project completion. 2 ~""~ Impacts to Roads -This single-family developmenfwillvot cause significant additional impacts to the County roads. The Applicant recently joined the Stone Road Association; a newly formed group of landowners in the area, for the. purpose of improving the access roads within the West Sopris Creek residential development (see attached letter): The Association has completed the initial phase of the improvements to the existing subdivision road and final work is expected to be finished this spring. Scenic Quality - The subject property will be visible from a very short section of West Sopris Creek Road and should have a minimal effect on the scenic, quality of the area. The proposed retaining wall for the driveway will be largely screened from view by existing vegetation. Water and Sewer-The Applicant proposes that water be supplied to the residential development via an existing on-site well. The Environrental Health Department will require that the Applicant submit information which documents the well location within the, building envelope and that the quality and quantity of the well water are adequate, prior to the issuance of a Septic Pernut. The Applicant is proposing an Individual Sewage Disposal System for this project. The Environmental Health Department indicates that the building envelope is "flat enough and free of constraints like ditches", yet the building envelope is relatively small and because of required setbacks to the well, "there could be a problem fitting the system within the envelope". Site specific soils data will have to be obtained in order to determine the type and size of the septic system required for this development. The Applicant will be required to obtain a Septic Permit from the EHD, prior to the issuance of a building pernut. Utility Extensions -The Applicant plans to extend the telephone and electric service in the new driveway from Stone Road to the building envelope. No other utility extensions aze planned or requested. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission. forward a recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners for the Griffiths General Submission and 1041 Hazard Review, subject to the following conditions: The Applicant shall adhere to all material representations made in the application and in the public meefings. 2. Prior to building permit application, the Applicant shall record a 24 x 36 inch mylar 1041 Hazard Review Site Plan which meets the approval of the Community Development Department and County Attorney. The site plan shall include the following 1041 Hazard Review Warning and Disclaimer: 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. Outside illumination shall comply with County lighting standards in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 4. The Applicant shall comply with the following wildlife mitigation measures: a. Dogs ate prohibited. b. 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; 42", 3-rail or less with at least 18" between 2 of the rails. a All garbage shall be kept within bear-proof garbage containers. The DOW can supply specifications upon request. Horse grain shall be stored/locked to prevent access by bears. d. Horses shall be kept within the building envelope. All haystacks shall be fenced with 8-foot fencing to prevent game damage to haystacks. e. Native vegetation shall not be disturbed outside the building envelope, except as required for the access driveway and the implementation wildfire mitigation measures. Vegetation within the envelope shall be preserved as much as possible in order to screen the residence. f. No grazing on the hillside south of the building envelope: 5. Wildfire mitigation shall be as follows: a. All vegetation shall be removed within 10 feet of proposed structures. This "defensible space" area shall be maintained in mowed grass or non-flammable material, such as decorative rock or gravel. b. Brush shall be thinned and standing dead or deaddown trees shall be removed for a distance of 40 feet upslope and 47 feet downslope of proposed structures to break up the vertical and horizontal continuity of the fuel c. Spacing between clumps of brush and vegetation within the 40/47 foot perimeters shall be a minimum of two times the height of the fuel. Maximum diameter of the 4 . clumps shall be two times the height of the fuel. All measurements shall be from the edges of the crowns of the fuel. . d. All branches from trees and brush within the stated perimeters shall be pruned to a height of 10 feet above the ground. e. Tree crown separation within the perimeters shall have a minimum of 10 feet between the edges of the crowns. This does not apply to mature stands of Aspen trees where the above recommendation for removal of ladder fuels have been complied with. In areas of aspen regeneration, the spacing guidelines shall be followed.. , f. All branches which extend over the roof eaves shall be trimmed and all branches within 15 feet of the chimneys shall be removed. g. Roofs and gutters shall be kept clear of debris. h. Yards shall be kept clear of all litter, slash, and flammable debris. i. Firewood shall be stacked. on a paza11e1 contour a minimum of 15 feet away from any structure.. j. At least one ten pound approved ABC class fire extinguisher shall be placed m a visible and accessible location for each structure. k. Fences shall be kept cleaz of brush and debris. 1. Wood fences. shall not be connected to the. structure. m. Fuel tanks shall be installed underground with an approved container. n_ Roof construction shall be Class A, non-combustible (no wood shakes or shingles)material with no flat roofs. o. All vents shall be screened with corrosive resistant wire mesh of one quarter inch (1/4") maximum. p. Addresses shall be cleazly mazked and visible with minimum 2" letters. 5 "` q. Maintenance of the "defensible space" shall be required in order to retain it's value as wildfire mitgafion: Oak and serviceberry tend to sprout vigorously after cutting, so it will be necessary to trim back vegetafion every year or two. r. Any additional buildings shall incorporate wildfire mifigation measures. 6. The Applicant shall install a water storage tank, the size and location to be approved by the Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District with an approved and accessible fire district connection, for fire-fighting purposes. 7. The Applicant shall install a residential sprinkler system or foam fire retardant system in the residence which meets. the standazds of the Basalt Fire Protection District and the Uniform Building Code. 8. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall provide documentation of an adequate domestic water supply. Quantity and quality of said supply shall meet the approval of the Environmental Health Department. 9. The septic system designed for the site shall meet the approval of the Environmental Health Department. The Applicant shall obtain such approval prior to the issuance of a building pernut. 10. The Applicant shallobtain a fireplace/woodstove permitfrom Environmental Health Department, prior to the issuance of a building permit. 11. The disturbed azeas within the building. site shall be revegetated with native grasses to limit water consumption and additional runoff, immediately following project completion. 12. All development included grading, septic system, well, fences and landscaping shall occur within the building envelope. ATTACHMENTS: 1. DOW comments 2. Environmental Health Dept. comments 3. Colorado State Forest Service memo 4. Zoning Office memo 5. Stone Road Associafion letter 6 STATE OF COLORADO Roy Romer, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISfON OF WILDLIFE AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOVEfl Perry D. Olson, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192 2-20-96 Dear Rick: ~,. ,, ,~,v;. fE~ 2 1 J9~~ ,., ~~ f For ~ldlife- ForPeople Griffith's Lot 5 of West Sopris Ranch lies within elk and mule deer winter range. The subdivision lies adjacent to critical habitat, winter concentration area, and severe winter range for both species. A 12-6-96 site visit. revealed a fair amount of mule deer trails and other sign (droppings, browsing). Black bear inhabit the area and have caused problems and damage within the subdivision. Most bear use`occtirs Spring and Fall as they forage for food in the oakbrush/pinon-juniper. This lot receives a fair amount of disturbance as it is a lower lot adjacent to the main access road to the subdivision. Wildlife impacts can be minimized by following the recommendations outlined on page 8 of the submission (#1-5). In addition, the following would help to minimize impacts: 1. Maintain native vegetation outside building envelope 2. Any horses be confined. to the area immediately south of the building envelope between the envelope and access road (Stone Road). No grazing on the hillside leading down from the bench. This area is already highly disturbed and does not contain significant winter. browse species. This will also preserve more natural vegetation on the bench where homesite is located. (this modifies recom. #5 in the submission; haystacks still need to be fenced) 3. Keep homesite as far south as possible on the bench In addition, Homeowners need to be made aware that there is a motor vehicle and snowmobile closure on the Crown from Dec. 1 - June 1 each year to prevent disturbance to wintering wildlife. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Si c r ~y, Wri t~ District i dlife Manager DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Kenneth Salazar, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, William R. Hegberg, Member • Eldon W. Cooper, Chairman • Felix Chavez, Member • Rebecca L. Frank, Member a _. ~4. ,.,:. REFER TO the ~~ a76 ~~ ~~ LOUis P. Swift, Member • George VanDenBerg, Membef • Larry M.Wrig ht; Member• ThomasM. Eve, Member To: From: Through Date: Rick Magill ,Community Development Dept. Mary Engelmann, Environmental Health Officer ot'Sc' -~.-.`j~2~ Lee Cassin, Assistant Environmental Health. Director. o~fC April 29, 1996 Re: Griffiths 1041 Hazard Review & General Submission Parcel ID # 2465-222-00-002 The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health. Department has reviewed the"details of the Griffiths application under the'authority of"tile Pitkin County Code Title II Land Use code and has the following comments. ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: Sections 2-170 and 3-110.4: "It is the policy of the County to insure the availability of a watersupply of atlequate quality, quantity, pressure and tlepentlabilitY for fire protection antl support of a proposetl lantl use prior to approval of the use. The County shall require lantl uses to BooK up to~ezisting public systems if service is available" .::... ... ... _.. ,. This Department needs adequate information on the quantity and the quality of water available. This can be done. from tests of wells present on-site by a water engineers or well drillers report. The applicaht must ensure that the water quality is acceptable by having it tested by a lab such as the Showmass water and Sanitatioh District or Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. Water of acceptable quality and quantity has-been obtained in other lots in this area. Before a septic permit cah be issued, the well must be drilled to assure that setback requirements from the well to the sewage disposal system can be maintained. Pitkin County Land Use Code requires that the Well site be within the building envelope. Nick Lampiris has indicated that successful wells have beeh drilled on four lots. within the subdivision and feels that water for domestic use will be obtained at a depth of perhaps 200 feet. It is recommended that low water landscaping (xeriscaping) be used and that the timing of any sprinkler systems be decreased_for low water plants. The Colorado State University Cooperative Extension. office can be contacted for more information on xeriscaping. A condition of approval for documenting that the local can be placed within the bi well water are adequate. W disposal system permit and this application is the receipt of information ion of the web(s) meet setbalck requirements and ilding enveiope and that quantity/quality of the thout meeting these requirements a sewage building permit can not be issued. ~° SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: Sections 2-180 and 3-'I'10 5• "It is the policy of the county to ensure that atlequate sewage treatment facilities are available to serve existing and new tleveiopments. Public and private sewage tlisposal systems and connections to such systems shall comply With the sewage disposal guitlelines. of PitkM County's Ihdividual Sewage DiSposafSYStem Regulattoh:' ' " Lots in the West Sopris Creek area are served. by individual sewage'disposal systerxis. All such systems installed within Pitkih County require septic permits issued by the Environmental Health Department, `and must`comply with the County's sewage disposal regulations. To receive a septic permit, the applicant will. need to submit a septic permit application and appropriate fee with a completed Soil Data Form ihcluding percolation test results and profile hole information. It must be possible to design ah adequate sewage disposal system before a building permit can be issued. The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department will Idesgn the system for the applicant as part of the permit fee, if an engineered system is not required. we will do a site visit, advise the applicant about the best location for the system and provide a system design. We will determine if an engineered system is needed based on soil test results. An engineered system is required if any one of the following conditions exists: a percolation rate faster. than 5 mpi or slower than 60 mpi; maximum seasonal level of the grouhdwater table or bedrock IeSs than four feet below the bottom of the proposed absorption :system; or a slope in excess of 30%. Prior to initiating any tests at the site, the applicant should contact this office. We believe it will be possible to install either a conventional or an engineered sewage disposal system on this lot based on the data in the geological report submitted by Nick Lampiris. Mr. Lampiris has noted that there are areas of near surface bedrock that may exist which would require an engineer to design the system. Mr. Lampiris has also noted that high groundwater tables should not pose a problem.' Site specific soil data will have to be obtained in order to determine the type and size of the system required. Jay Hammond of Schmueser Gordon Meyer mentions, percolation rates are likely to be moderate to high in the sandy to clayey`soils overlaying the mancos shale. According to the report submitted, the slopes within the building envelope range between 15-30%. No slopes with the building envelope are higher than 30%. The sewage disposal system must be located within the building envelope. The envelope is flat enough and free of constraints like ditches. The building envelope is fairly small and its triangular dimensions mean that the well will have to be located in one coi•her of the envelope and the septic system in another corner. It may be necessary to pump to the septic system, which is less desirable than using gravity flow, but is allowed under county regulations. We believe that a septic system can be put in the envelope,'if the house is not extremely large. However, if perc rates are slow and the house is very large, it is possible that there could be a problem fitting the system ih the envelope. Mr. Hammond has, suggested that the applicant reserve the ability to locate the sewage disposal system outside of the building envelope should locations within prove unsuitable. We have evaluated only the building envelope for suitability of a septic system. We cannot determine vvhat the impacts would be if the septic system were located on other parts of the iot: that would require further evaluation depending on the proposed site. The leach field will need to be located a minimum of 100 feet from. the applicant°s well and from any neighboring wells. The setback distance maybe more than 100 feet from the leachfield to the well depending on the size of the house to bebuilt The area for the leach field should be located in an area of no traffic, planted with dry land grass, and should hot be watered. It is desirable to locate the system`dowhhill from the house so that the system can operate by gravity. The applicaht should refer to the Pitkin County Sewage Regulations for detailed information,°orcall'our office to discuss this site. If the well permit states that the sewage disposal system must be of the non- evaporative type where the water is returned to the same stream system in which the well is located, a completely lined field, such as an evapo-transpiration bed, is not allowed. unless the applicant contacts the Colorado .Division of Water Resource=s ahd a new well permit is in place or a plan of augmentation is created. A condition of approval for this application is the receipt and approval of the sewage disposal permit by the Erivironmental'Hea'Ith Department before a building permit can be issued. Our comments relate only to placement of the system in the building envelope. if the system is to be located outside the envelope, we would have to econduct another evaluation of`that site. WATER QUALITY IMPACTS: Sections 2-140 and 3-70.5 and 3-70.10: °it is the policy of the county to preserve andprotect its preseht water resources,recdgnizingtke county ssemi-arid character and that significant transmountain and transbasip diversions and the vested rights"df senior appropriators in the basinhave materially curtailed theavailatiility of an alreatly scarce water resource. To this end it is the policy of the County that no lantl use be mrtiaE"ed which would adversely affedithe quantity, quality, of accessibility Of the COUhty'S WatBr re5OUf CeS; Or Which WOUId OcCUf at the.C~pen5e Of CStdbTi511ed Water-depefldOnt`a9~'iCUltuh2l aCtlvlties;'dr which wdultl result in increased salinization of water resources, 1055 of minimum stream fldWS, further destruction of wiltllife habitat, or majoreicpenditures to reacquire or redi5tfibUte major water resources. It is also the policy of the County to maintain a nZtUY21 vegetative buffer along its sulfate waters such that the surface and groundwater5 of the area are not encroached updhby land uses or other tiumarractivities whidh edultl2ause tleterio~atidn of water quality or impair thenatural treatment processes provided by meadowsantl Wetlands ' 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 importahce. Roofs and asphalt driveways cah be nonpoint sources of water discharge which can contaminate water supplies. This Department recommends that nonpoint sources of discharge must be retained on the property of origih which can be accomplished through landscaping, drainage patterns, detention ponds, and dry wells for water runoff frgm buildings. Surface water and groundwater contamination can also be caused. by inadequate setback distances from sewage disposal systems to proximate wells, rivers, creeks, ponds, and reservoirs. Minimum horizontal distances between components of a sewage disposal system and physical features mtast be in accordance with the Pitkin County Sewage Regulation. A condition of approval for ths_application is: None . ~""~ b , AIR QUALITY: Sections 2-130 ahd 3-602- "Only that development is permitted which will not contribute significantly to oegtadatiobof air quality. This project is not expected to contribute significantly to degradation of air quality in Pitkin County. A condition of approval should be: None 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 the West Sopris Creek area may have two devices per buildirg: a maximum of ohe wood burning fireplace and a second device which cah 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 any device. No wood. burning device maybe ihstalled in barns or agricultural buildings. A condition of, approval for this application is the receipt and approval the fireplace/woodstove permit by the Environmenta~'~eal~i~Dlapar'~me before the building permit can be issued. rONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS• 'Sec ion 2-70- "It is the policy of the County to ensure that no use or tleyelopment bf lahd is permitted whicH is inbiolatidh of the laws of the County the State of Colorado,or the United States of America " This Department is not aware of any issues of concern regarding other environmental health laws. ... ENV:WP:LAND USE: ~~~~ t April 8, 1996 ~~« f~~~ Rick Magill FOREST SERVICE state services Building '. 222 S: 6th Street,Room 416 Grand Junction; Colorado 81501 Telephone: (970)248-7325 Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Griffiths 1041 Wildfire Hazard Review Rick, I read the plan and inspected the site with Alan Richman, the owner's agent on December 12th. Alan alluded to my visit in the plan. The Griffiths property is one of the first properties serviced by the Stone Road as it comes off the West Sopris Creek road. The Stone Road originates at a 90 degree angle off the West Sopris Creek road which is recommended in Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) publications. At the time of my inspection the Stone Road was only one lane and did not have dual access/egress. The Stone Road Association has since upgraded the road sometime between my first visit and a second visit on March 19th. This upgraded road now has turnouts that would allow vehicles to get around each other in the event of wildfire in this area. The turnouts is an improvement over what was there before. The Stone Road still does not have dual access/egress which is recommended by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 299 and CSFS publications. The driveway at the time of inspection was only roughly flagged into the building envelope. The building envelope has a southwesterly aspect with a slope of 15-20°s. The vegetation is sage with scattered serviceberry and Gambel oak. I would rate the building envelope as a moderate wildfire hazard. Above the Stone Road the vegetation is pinyon/juniper with a slope that exceeds 300. The wildfire hazard for this. portion of the property is severe. South and west of the Griffiths property line the vegetation is a grass meadow. My wildfire hazard mitigation recommendations are as follows: 1) Provide a ten foot space around all structures where the vegetation can be maintained at 6 inches or less. 2) For a distance of 40 feet upslope and 47 feet downslope from the house manipulate the vegetation to break up vertical and horizontal continuity. These prescriptions were referred to on page 6 of the Griffiths Parcel 5 West Sopris Ranch application submitted by Alan Richman. However, Mr. Richman stated this will only happen for a 30 foot perimeter. Because of the existing vegetation and slope I recommend a larger defensible space area. Please see the enclosed photocopy taken from the CSFS publication Wildfire Protection in the Wildland Urban Interface. GRIFFITHS 1041 3) The vegetation above the building envelope does not need to have anything done with it until ,the adjoining property is developed. At that time the pinyon/juniper stand should be thinned to create defensible space for the property above the Griffiths property. 4) Implement the other recommendations spelled out in the Griffiths application in Section 8. Wildfire Hazard Areas. Thank. you for the opportunity to review this application. Feel free to call me if you have: any questions. Sincerely, G ,~ Lys-cJL, A, Vince Urbna _ ___ Assistant District Forester cc: Steve Crockett.-Pitkin County Sheriff's Office Steve Howard -Basalt RFD Alan Richman M E M O R A N D V M TO: Rick Magill, Planning FROM: Joanna S. Schaffner, Zoning Officer DATE: March 19, 1996 RE: Griffiths 1041 Hazard Review & Geheral Submission Parcel ID# 2465-222-00-002 I have reviewed the above referenced application and offer the following comments. ZONE: RS-30, thirty acre minimum lot size This parcel contains 38.8 acres .and is conforming in size. SETBACKS; The required setbacks for this parcel are: 100 foot front yard setback 50 foot side yard setback 50 foot rear yard setback The proposed building envelope appears to lie within the east side yard setback. The envelope should be reduced to avoid this encroachment. Board of Adjustment approval will be required before any development may occur within required setbacks. FLOOR AREAd This parcel is allowed 15,000 square feet of residential floor area. Agricultural structures are exempt from floor area calculations. HEIGHT: Plans have not been submitted to determine compliance with County height regulations. OTHER: Excepting the access drive and utilities, all development must be contained within the approved building envelope unless specifically exempted through this review.. This includes landscaping and septic systems. MOVIEW©RLDCORP. 'B'{970)963-2616 ~13f21d96 ~6:44PM 01273 ~- Stone Road Assaciatian c/o Leslie C. Strawbridge Box 587 Basalt, CO 81621 {970j 927-1499 March 21, 1996 Mr. Rick Magill Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department. 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Griffiths 1041 Hazard Review & General Submission Parcel ID #2465-222-t30-002 Dear Rick, I am in receipt of your memo dated 1!29/96 and. hake reviewed the application submitted by Anna Mae Griffiths. _ This letter will confirm that the applicant is a member_n good standing of the Stone Road Association. The applicant was; in fact; one'of the first lot awners to voluntarily join the Association. At a meeting of The Stone Road Association held last fall, the applicant agreed to participate in the cost of the improvements to the existing subdivision road as specified by Pitkin County and agreed to by the Association and to date has done so. An initial phase of improvement was completedlast November with the final work expected to be finished this spring. Please don"t hesitate to call me if you should have any questions or need more information. Best regards, Leslie C. Strawbridge cc: Anna Mae Griffiths r MESSAGE DISPLAY TO Rick. Magill CC Bud Eylar From: Bud Eylar Postmark: Sep 04,96 1:01 PM Subject: W Sopris Ranch-Lot 5 Message.. Rick, I have reviewed the application and have the following comments: The access looks as if it is the best location to minimize impacts to the meadow and to avoid a major crossing of the stream. It looks as if the drive is right at the edge of encroaching on 30$ or greater slopes. However, if it is moved downhill it would have a greater impact. It also doesn't have a 90 degree entrance but once again it may not be possible to meet. grade if it'is at a right angle. I feel the drive is acceptable"as presented. Bud` 3:00 PM -Quarterly Meeting with BOCC Commissioners Meeting Room, Courthouse Plaza AGENDA PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING. AND. ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY; MAY 28, 1996, 4:30 PM ` COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, COURTHOUSE I. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public II. MINUTES Apri130, 1996 III. NEW BUSINESS A. Griffiths 1041 Hazard Review and General Submission, Rick Magill B. Silverbrick GMQS Amendment, Francis Krizmanich C. Burke GMQS Exemption and Special Review, Ellen Sassano D. Gateway Map Amendment, Ellen Sassano E. Elliott/Arte1 1041 Hazard Review and General Submission, Ellen Sassano (cont. from 2/6) IV. ADJOURN RE: Upcoming Agendas DATE: May 21, 1996 June 4 -Growth Management Commission (4:30 pm Sister Cities Meeting Room, City Hall) North 40 Subdivision/PUD Conceptual Submission (RM) June 4 -Regular Meeting_(6:00 pm) Arnold 1041 Hazard Review & Lot Line Adjustment (ES) Piffer Lot Line Adjustment&Road Vacation (LC) .June 18 -Growth Management Commission (4:30 pm) Rural/Remote Zone District Code Amendments (CH) AH Overlay (TM) Jane 18 -Regular Meeting (6:OO pm) Records Lot Line Adjustment (LC) Cote Ridgeline Review, Extension of Vested Rights & CDU (ES) DeLoach Conceptual Review (FK) (cont. from 4/2) July 2 -Regular Meeting (4:30 pm) Braun Detailed Submission, Residential GMQS, Subdivision, 1041 Hazard Review & PUD Cazbonate Mill 1041 HR & General. Submission (ES) Basalt Major Water & Sewer Line Extension (RM) July 16 -Regular Meet~gg (4:30 pm) Hospital Master Plan (ES) (te°tativel .a _, a ,:, ,,. MEMORANDUM. TO: Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Rick Magill, Planning Office RE: Griffiths 1041 Hazard Review & General Submission DATE: May 28, 1996 REQUEST: The Applicant requests approvals for the construction of asingle-family residence and customary accessory uses: APPLICANT: Anna May Griffiths APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Alan Richman LOCATION: The project site is located approximately 2 miles up West Sopris Creek Road in the West Sopris Creek Ranch Subdivision.. SIZE/ZONING: 38 acres / RS-30, thirty acre minimum lot size ACCESS: The Applicant is proposing to access the residence via a new driveway off of the existing subdivision road (Stone Road). PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Applicant proposes to establish a 1/2 acre building envelope on a bench in the eastern portion of the subject property. The proposed driveway will be approximately 140 feet long and will traverse slopes of 25-60 percent. The Applicant is proposing the construction of a boulder retaining wall on the lower side of the driveway. REFERRAL AGENCIES:. Referral agency comments are incorporated throughout this memorandum and are attached. for reference as necessary. 1. County Attorney 2. Zoning Office 3. Environmental Health Department 4. County Engineer 5. Colorado State Forest Service 6. Basalt Fire District 7. Division of Wildlife 8. Stone Road Association ,. - . ._ v .. ,., * comments not submitted STAFF COMMENTS: 1041 REVIEW Wildfire - According to the State Forest Service, the proposed building envelope is contains moderate wildfire hazard. The building envelope has a southwesterly aspect with a slope of 15-20 percent. The vegetation consists of sage, scattered serviceberry, and oak: There is a grass meadow to the south and west of the proposed building envelope: That portion of the property above Stone Road (approximately 100 feet above the building envelope) is rated for severe wildfire hazard and contains slopes in excess of 30 percent. Vince Urbina has recommended specific mitigation measures for the proposed development and Staff has included them as conditions of approval. The Basalt Fire District. has not submitted comments, as of this, writing. Staff has included a standazd condition which requires a water storage tank for fire-fighting purposes, to be approved by the Fire District. This recommendation is consistent will, all other recent approvals in this area. Staff will contact the District, prior to the P&Z meeting: Geologic -The property contains slopes in excess of 30 percent. The. bulk of the areas which contain steep slopes are located. in the western portion of the property. The proposed building envelope contains slopes of approximately 15-22 percent. The proposed access driveway will cross slopes of approximately 60 percent at the edgeof Stone road. A retaining wall up Yo 18 feet tall will be necessary to stabilize the driveway on the downhill side. It appeazs tha4 the access alignment proposed by the Applicant is the only logical way to reach the proposed building site. The road as proposed will comply with the County standards for driveways. Bud Eylar has not .submitted written comments on the application, as of this writing. Wildlife- The subject property is mapped for elk and mule deer winter range. The West Sopris Creek Ranch Subdivision is adjacent to critical winter range, winter concentration area, and severe winterrange for both species. Black bear also inhabit this area. The subject property is within 800 feet of the intersection of Stone Road and West Sopris Creek Road, consequently, the lot receives a fair amount of disturbance (vehicular traffic and people). Kevin Wright of the Colorado Division of Wildlife recommends that .the. Applicant should.. comply with the .conditions suggested in the application and the additional conditions outlined in his memorandum (attached): GENERAL SUBMISSION Drainage and Erosion- There. are. no outstanding concerns with respect to drainage and erosion for the residential building envelope, provided all disturbed. azeas aze revegetated within one growing season after project completion. 2 Impacts to Roads -This single-family development will not cause significant additional impacts to the County roads. The Applicant recently joined the Stone Road Association, a newly formed group of landowners in the azea, for the purpose of improving the access loads .within the West. Sopris Creek residential development (see attached letter). The Association has completed the initial phase of the improvements to the. existing subdivision road and final work is expected to be finished this spring. Scenic Quality - The subject properly will be visible from a very short section of West Sopris Creek Road and should have. a minimal effect on the scenic quality of the area. The proposed retaining wall for the driveway will be largely screened from view by existing vegetation. Water and Sewer -The Applicant proposes that water be supplied to the residential development via an existing on-site well. The Environmental Health Department will require that the Applicant submit information which documents the well location within the building envelope and that the quality and quantity of the well water aze adequate, prior to the issuance of a Septic Permit. The Applicant is proposing an Individual Sewage Disposal System for this project. The Environmental Health Department indicates that the building envelope is c2flaf enough and free of constraints like ditches", yet the building envelope is relatively small and because of required setbacks to the well, "there could be a problem fitting the system within the envelope". Site specific soils data will have to he obtained_n order to determine. the type and size of the septic system required for this development. The Applicant will be required to obtain a Septic Permit from the EHD, prior to the issuance of a building permit. Utility Extensions -The Applicant plans to extend the telephone and electric service in the new driveway from Stone. Road to the building envelope. No other. utility extensions are planned or requested. RECOMIVIENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners for the Griffiths General Submission and 1041 Hazard Review, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Applicant shall adhere to all material representations made in the application and in the public meetings. 2. Prior to building permit application, the Applicant shall record a 24 x 36 inch mylaz 1041 Hazard Review Site Plan which meets the approval of the Community Development Department and County Attorney. The. site plan shall include the following 1041 Hazazd Review blaming and Disclaimer. 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. Outside ilhimination shall comply with County lighting standazds in effect at the time of building pemut issuance. 4. The Applicant shall comply with the following wildlife mitigation measures:.. a. Dogs are prohibited. b. 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, 42", 3-rail or less with at least 18" between 2 of the rails. a All garbage shall be kept within bear-proof garbage containers. The DOW can supply specifications upon request. Horse grain shall bestored/locked to prevent accessby beazs. d. Horses shall be kept within the building envelope. All haystacks shall be fenced with 8-foot fencing to ptevent game damage to haystacks. e. Native vegetation shall .not be disturbed outside the. building envelope, except as required for the access driveway and the implementation wildfire... mitigation measures. Vegetation within the envelope shall be preserved as much as possible in order to screen the residence. f. No grazing on the hillside south of the building envelope. 5. Wildfire mitigation shall be as follows: a. All vegetation shall be removed within 10 feet of proposed structures. This "defensible.. space" .area shall be maintained in mowed grass or non-flammable material, such as decorative rock or gravel. b. Brush shall. be thinned and standing dead or dead down trees shall be removed for a distance of 40 feet upslope and 47 feet downslope of proposed structures to break up the vertical and horizontal continuity of the fuel. c. Spacing between clumps of brush and vegetation within the 40/47 foot perimeters shall be a minimum of two times the height of the fuel. Maximum diameter of the 4 ,` ~"°° clumps shall be two times the height of the fuel. All measurements shall be from the edges of the crowns of the fuel d. All branches from trees and brush. within the stated perimeters shall be pruned to a height of 10 feet above. the ground. e. Tree crown separation within the perimeters shall have. a m;,,;r„um of 10 feet. between the edges of the crowns. This. does not apply to mature stands of Aspen trees where the above recommendation ,for removal.. of ladder fuels, have been. complied with.. In areas of aspen regeneration, the spacing guidelines shall be followed. - f. All branches which extend over the roof eaves shall be trimmed and all branches within 15 feet of the chimneys shall be removed. g. Roofs and gutters shall be kept clear of debris. h. Yards shall be kept clear of all litter; slash; and flammable debris. i. .Firewood shall be stacked on a parallel contour a minimum of 15 feet away from any structure. j. At least one ten pound approved ABC class fire extinguisher shall be placed in a visible and accessible location for each structure. _ k. Fences shall be kept clear of brush and debris. 1. Wood fences shall not be connected to the. structure... m. Fuel tanks shall be installed underground with an approved container. n. Roof construction shall be Class A, non-combustible (no wood shakes or shingles)material with no flat roofs. o. All vents shall be screened with corrosive resistant wire'mesh of one quarter inch (1/4") maximum.. p. Addresses shall be clearly marked and. visible with minimum 2" letters. 5 q. Maintenance of the "defensible space" shall be required in order to retain it's value as wildfire mitigation. Oak and servicebeny tend to sprout vigorously after cutting, so it will be necessary to trim back vegetation every yeaz or two. r. Any additional buildings shall incorporate wildfire mitigation measures.. 6. The Applicant shall install a water storage tank, the size and location to be approved by the Basalt & Rural Fire Protection. District.. with , an approved° and accessible fire district connection, for fire-fighting purposes. 7. The Applicant shall install a residential. sprinkler system or foam fire retardant system in the residence which meets the standazds of the Basalt Fire Protection District and the Uniform Building Code. 8. Prior to issuance of a building pemut, the Applicant shall provide documentation of an adequate domestic water supply. Quantity and quality of said supply shall meet the approval of the Environmental Health Department. 9. The septic system designed for the site shall meet the approval of the Environmental Health Department.. The Applicant shall obtain such approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. 10. The Applicant shall obtain afireplace/woodstove permit from Environmental Health Department, prior to the issuance of a building perniit. 11. The disturbed areas within the building site shall be revegetated with native grasses to limit water consumption and additional runoff, immediately following project completion. 12. All development included grading, septic system, well, fences and landscaping shall occur within the building envelope. ATTACHMENTS: 1. DOW comments 2. Environmental Health Dept._comments 3. Colorado State Forest Service memo 4. Zoning Office memo 5. Stone Road Association letter 6 ~ ~ STATE OF COLORADO ~ ~F$'EFERTO` "" ~ Roy Romer, Governor S 01AR9~ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCE ` ~ DIVISION OF WILDLIFE o ~ ~ AN EQUAL OPPORNNIN EMPLOYER Director Olson Per D ~ ° ~U'j qy , ry . ,.,. ~ ~ 1, ~ 6060 Broadway 6 l a ~ ` {{ 9[~p ~~~ ~ ~ OF 9 2 31 29 7--1 Telephone: (3 7 13,7 For i~ldlife- `~ For People ,~ 2-20-96 ~ ~0+a Dear Rick• Griffith's Lot 5 of west_Sopris Ranch lies within elk and mule deer winter range. The subdivision lies adjacent to critical habitat, winter concentration area, and severe 'winter range for both species. A 12=6-96 site visit revealed a fair amount„of mule deer trails and other sign (droppings, browsing)'. Black bear inhabit the area and have caused_,problems and damage"within the subdivision. Most bear use occurs__Spring and Fall as they forage for food in the oakbrush/pinon-juniper. This lot receives a fair amount of disturbance as it is a_lower lot adjacent. to the main access road to the subdivision.- Wildlife impacts can be minimized by following the recommendations outlined on page 8 of the submission (#1-5 )'. In addition, the following would help to minimize impactsc 1. Maintain native vegetation outside building envelope 2. Any horses be confined to the area immediately south of the building envelope between the envelope and access road (Stone Road). No grazing on the hillside leading down from the bench. This area is already highly 'disturbed and does not contain significant winter browse species. This will also preserve more natural vegetation on the berich where the' homesite is located. (this modifies recom. #5 in the submission; haystacks still need to be fenced) 3. Keep homesite as far south. as possible on the bench In addition, Homeowners need to be made aware that there is a motor vehicle and snowmobile closure on the Crown from Dec. 1 - June 1 each year to prevent disturbance to wintering wildlife. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.. If you have any questions, please give me a call. 'lY District ~4vi~(dlife Manager DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Kenneth Salazar, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, William A. Hegberg, Memtier • Eldon W. Cooper, Chairman • Felix Chavez,Member •-RetiecdaL. Frank, Member LOUis F. Swift,Member • George VanDenBerg, Member • Larry M. Wrig ht,Member • Thomas M. Eve, Member ,~, To: Rick Magill , Commuhity bevelopment Dept. From: Mary Engelmann, Envirohmental Health Officer. o~9C -~-~~2~ Through: Lee Cassin, Assistant Environmental Health Director ~fG Date: April 29, 1996 Re: Griffiths 1041 Hazard Review & General, Submission Parcel ID # 2465-222-00-002 _- , - -- - - - - - - 5~~-~. .:a .~ ,...w. ~ . ~~. , .~~~.. r,,.r. .._~ . .~.~. The Aspen/Pitkin. Environmental Health_,Department has reviewed the details of the Griffiths application under the authority of the Pitkin Countv Code Title I7 Land Use Code and has the following comments. ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS• Sections 2-170 and 3-110 4• "It is the policy of the County to insure the availability of a water supply of atlequate quality, quantity, Pressure and depehtlability far fire protection and Support Of a propOSed land US¢ prior t02ppfoV81 of the USC. TheCOUnty Shdll fegllifB land USeS tDhOOK Up t0 EXI$In J`p11bI1C Sy5ten15 If SeNICe IS available." _. This Department needs adequate information on the quantity and the quality of water available. This can be done from tests of wells present on-site by a water engineer's or well driller's report. Theapplicant must ensure that the water quality is acceptable by having it tested by a lab such as the Srowmass Water_and Sanitation.. District or Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. Water of acceptable quality and quantity has been obtained inother lots in this at'ea.,Before a septic permit can be issued, tike wellmust be drilled to assure that setback requirements from the well to the sewage disposal system can be maintained. Pitkin County Land Use Code requires that the vvell site be within the building envelope. Nick Lampiris has indicated that successful wells have been drilled on fourlots within the subdivision and feels that water for domestic use will be obtained at„~ _. 4 ...... ..~, ... ,. a depth of perhaps 200 feet. It is recommended that low water landscaping (xeriscaping) be used and that the timing of any sprinklersystems be decreased for, IovV water plants. 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, etback requirements and _,..:v. ~.,..- . can be placed within,, the building envelope and that quantity/quality of the well water are-adequate. Without meeting these requirements a sewage disposal system permit and building permit can not be issued. WAGE TREATMENT AND_COLLECTION: Sections 2-180 and 3-110. '9t is the policy of the County to ensure that atlequate sewage treatment facilities are available to serve existing antl new developments. Public antl prWate Sewage di5pO531 5Y5tem5 antl COhheCLiOfiS t0 SUCh SySte(fi5 Shall comply WRh The seiva9e d~5pO5a1gU1tl911nC5 Of Pltklff Cbunty'SIhtlIVltlllalSBwa9e °iSPOSaI SYStem Re9ulatioh:' `.~ Lots in the West Sopris Creek area are served by individual sewage disposal systems. All such systems installed within Pitkin County require septic permits issued by the Environmental Health Department, and must comply with the County's'sewage disposal regulations. To receive a septic permit, the applicant will need to submit a septic permit application and appropriate fee with a completed Soil Data Form including percolation test results and profile hole information.. It must be possible to design ah adequate sewage disposal system before a building permit can be issued.. The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health, Department will design the system for the applicant as part of the permit fee, if an engineered system is not required. We will do a site visit, advise the applicant about the best location for the system and provide a system design. We will determine if an engineered system is needed based on soil test results. An engineered system is required if any one of the following conditions exists: a percolation rate faster than 5,mpi or slower than 60 mpi; maximum seasohal level of the groundwater table or bedrock less than, four feet below„the bottom of the ~, proposed absorption system; or a slope in excess of 30%. Prior to initiating any tests at the site, the applicant should contact_this office. We believe it will be possible to install either a conventional or an engineered sewage disposal system on this lot based on the data. in the geological report submitted by Nick Lampiris. Mr. Lampiris has noted that there are areas of near surface bedrock that. may exist which_would require an engineer to design the system: Mr. Lampiris has also noted that high ground water tables should not pose a problem. Site specific soil data will have to be obtained in order to determine the type and size of the system required. Jay Hammond of Schmueser Gordon Meyer mentions, percolation rates are likely to be moderate to high in the sandy to clayey soils overlaying the mancos shale. According to the report submitted, the slopes within the building envelope range between 15-30%. No slopes with the building envelope are higher than 30%. The sewage disposal system must be located within the building envelope. The envelope is flat enough and free of constraints ,like ditches. The building envelope is fairly small and its triangular dimensions mean that the well will have to be located in one corner of the envelope and the septic system in another corner. It may be necessary to pump to the septic system, which is less desirable than-using gravity flow, but is allowed under county regulations. We believe thata septic system can be put in the envelope, if the house is not extremely large. However, if perc rates are slow and the house is very large, it is possible that there could be a problem fitting the system'in the envelope. Mr. Hammond has suggested that the applicant reserve the ability to locate the sewage disposal system outside of the building envelope should locations within prove unsuitable. We have evaluated onlythe building envelope for suitability of aseptic system. We cannot determine what the impacts would be if the septic system were located on other parts of the lot: that would. require further evaluation depending on the proposed site. The leach field will need to be located a minimum of 100 feet from the applicant's well and from any neighboring wells. The setback distahce may be more than 1.00 feet from _ the leachfield to the well ,depending on the size of the house to be built. The area for theJeach field should be located in an area, of no traffic, planted with dry land grass, and should not be watered. It is desirable to-locate the system downhill from the house so that the system can operate by gravity. The applicant should refer to the Pitkin County Sewage Regulations for detailed information, or call our office to discuss this site. If the well permit states that the sewage disposal. system must be of the non- evaporative type where the water is returned to the;same stream system in which the well is located, a completely fined field, such as an evapo-transpiration bed, is not allowed unless the applicant contacts the Colorado Dvision,of Water Resources and a new well permit is in place or a plan of augmentation is created. A condition of approval for this application is the receipt and approval of the sewage disposal permit by the Environmental Health Department before a biuilding permit can be issued,. Our ,comments relate only to placement of the system in the building envelope._If the system is to be located oatside the envelope, we would have'to conduct another evaluation. o~ that site. ~nfnTFR DUALITY IMPACTS• Sections 2-140 and 3-70 5 and 3=7010: _.... .~_.,a~- .~ ,, .n~.. . e~x„ ._ , , ... . __,. , . _. "It is tnepolity of the County to preserve and protect its present water resources recognizing the Countys semi-antl character antl that. significant transmountain antl transbasin diversions and the vestetl rights Of Senior appropriators in the basin HAVE""materially curtalletl the availability of an alreatly Scarce Water re5OO[Ce. To ChiS end it i5 the pbllCy O'f the COUtity that hO labtl Use be iniildtetl which WOUId 3dyersEly affect Cne gbantity, quality, or accessibility of the County's water resources; Of which WOUId Occur at theezpehse bf'established water-dependent agricultufal activities; Or which would result 10 Increased SaIlniZdilOn of water rE5OUfCES, loss of minimum stream flows, furth¢r tleStrUGt1O1l Of Wlltlhfe habitat, Or major expentlltUreS to reacquire or retlisttibu[C major water resources. it i5 also the,pOliCy of theLOUnty td maintain a natural vegetative buffer along its surface waters such that the surface andgrountlwaters of the area~are not encroachetl uponby land usesbr Other human activities which coultl Cause tleterioration of water quality or impair the natural treatment processes provitled by meatlow5 and wetlahCls.' The Environmental Health Department is charged with preserving and protecting the quality of Pitkin County's water resources. Since a large percehtage of the population is dependent upon water from wells, elimination of groundwater pollution, and protectioh of aquifers and their drainage areas are of utmost importance. Roofs and asphalt driveways can be nonpoint sources of water discharge which can contaminate water supplies. This Department recommends that nonpoint sources of discharge must 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. Surface water and groundwater contamination can also be caused_by inadequate setback distances from sewage disposal systems to proximate wells, rivers, creeks, ponds, and reservoirs. Minimum horizontal distances between components of a sewage disposal system and physical features must be in accordance with the Pitkin County Sewage Regulation. A condition of_approval for this application is: None ` ~; "only that tlevelopment is permittetl which will not contribute significantly to Clegratlatign of air quality. This project is not expected to contribute significantly to degradation of air quality in Pitkin County. A condition of approval should be: None The applicant must file a fireplace/vvoodstove permit with the Environmental Health Department before the building permit will be issued. The less densely populated parts of the county like the West Sopris Creek area 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 any device. 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 building permit can be issued. rnnit=naan4NCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS• SectlOn 2-70• "¢ is the policy of the county to ensure that no use or geyelopment of land is permitted which is in violation of the laws of the county, the state of Colorado, or the united states of america." This Department is not aware of any issues of concerh regarding other environmental health laws. ... ENV:WP:LAND USE: ,. k. ,. ::. _. ,: ,ssa ;L ~'" - {. . ~ ~. '' FOREST APB ~ ~, ~ SERVICE 4 " State Services Building ~~ ~ ~ 222 S. 6th Street. Room 416 April 8, 1996 ;% GFand Junction: Colorado 81501 "~4 Telephone: (970)248.7325 Rick Magill ~~~ Aspen/Pitkin Community Development.. Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Griffiths 1041 Wildfire Hazard Review... Rick, I read the plan and inspected the site with Alan Richman, the owner's agent on December 12th. .Alan alluded to my'visit in the plan. The Griffiths property is one of the first properties serviced by the Stone Road as it comes off the. West Sopris Creek road. The Stone Road originates at a 90 degree angle off the West Sopris Creek road which is recommended in Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) publications. At the time of, my inspection the Stohe Road was only one lane. and did not have dual. access/egress. The Stone Road Association has since .upgraded. the road sometime between my first visit and a second visit on March. 19th. This upgraded road now has turnouts that would allow vehicles to get. around each other in the event_of wildfire in this area. The turnouts is an improvement over what was there before. The Stone Road still does not have dual access/egress which is recommended by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 299-and CSFS publications. The driveway at the time of inspection was only roughly flagged into the building envelope. The building envelope has a southwesterly aspect with a slope of 15-200. The vegetation is sage with scattered serviceberry and Gambel oak... I would rate the building envelope as a moderate wildfire hazard. Above the Stone Road the vegetation is pinyon/juniper with a slope that exceeds 300. The wildfire hazard for this portion of the property is severe:`'Solith and west of the Griffiths property line the vegetation is a grass meadow. My wildfire hazard mitigation recommendations are as follows: 1) Provide a ten foot space around all structures where the vegetation can be maintained at 6 inches or less. 2) For a distance of 40 feet upslope and 47 feet downslope from the house manipulate the begetation to break up vertical and horizontal continuity. These prescriptions were :referred to on page 6 of the Griffiths Parcel.S West Sopris Ranch application submitted by Alan Richman. However, Mr. Richman stated this will only happen for a 30 foot.. perimeter. Because of the existing vegetation .and slope I'recommend a larger defensible space area. Please see the enclosed photocopy taken from the CSFS publication Wildfire Protection in the Wildland Urban Interface. ~ , GRIFFITHS 1041. 3) The vegetation above the building envelope does not need to have anything done with it until the adjoining property is developed. At that time the pinyon/juniper stand should be thinned to create defensible space for the property above the Griffiths property. 4) Implement the other recommendations,spelled out in the Griffiths application in Sectioa S. Wildfire Hazard Areas. Thank you for the opportunity to review this application. Feel free to call me if you have any questions.. Sincerely, C -`1~~.-~;Cv~-~-- A. Vince Urbina Assistant District Forester cc: Steve Crockett -Ptkin County Sheriff's Office. Steve Howard -Basalt RFD Alan Richman. ~, ~,;_ M E M O R A N D U M TO: Rick Magill, Planning FROM: Joanna S. Schaffner, Zoning Officer DATE: March 19, 1996 RE: Griffiths 1041. Hazard Review & General Submission Parcel ID# 2465-222-00-0.02 _. , I have reviewed the above referenced .application and offer the.. following comments. ZONE: RS-30, thirty acre minimum lot size This parcel contains 38.8 acres and is conforming in size. SETBACKS: The required setbacks, _f or this parcel are: 100 foot front yard ..setback 50 foot side yard setback 'S0 foot rear yard setback The proposed building envelope appears to lie within. the east side yard setback. The. envelope should be reduced to avoid this. encroachment. Board of Adjustment approval will be required before any development may occur within required setbacks. - FLOOR AREA: This parcel is allowed _15,000- square feet of residential floor area.... .Agricultural structures are exempt from floor area calculations... HEIGHT: Plans have not been submitted to determine compliance with County height regulations. OTHER: Excepting the access drive and utilities, all development must be contained within the .approved building envelope unless specifically exempted through this review._ This. includes landscaping and septic systems. ..~ ~.», , - ,_ ~~ MOVIEWORLD COAF. S (970)963-2oY6 i~2i3/21f96 .~d'4d Fed I~2l3 a Stone Road Association c!o Leslie C. Strawbridge Box 587 Basalt, CO 81621 (970) 927-1499 March 21, 1996 Mr. Rick Magill Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department _ 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81811 RE: Griffiths 1041 Hazard~,Review. & General Submission ,. Parcel ID #2465-222-OQ-OQ2 Dear Rick, I am in receipt of your memo dated 1/29/96 and have reviewed the application submitted_by Anna Mae Griffiths. This letter will confirm that of the Stone Road Associa first lot owners to volurrtarii Stone Road Association h! participate in the cost of tt• road as specified by Pitkin and to date has done so. completed last November this spring. the applicant is a member in good standing lion The applicant was, in fact, one ofi the y join the' Association. , At a meeting of The .. iprovements to the existing subdivision ~nty and agreed to by the Association nitial phase of improvement was i ttie final work expected to be finished. Please don't hesitate to call me ifi you should have. any questions or need more information. Best regards, Leslie C. Strawbridge cc: Anna Mae Griffiths ~, ..__.. u. .... x. ..:: ; MEMORANDUM.... Tq: Rick Magill, Pitkin County Community Development FROM: Alan_Richman Planning Services ~, SIIBJECT: Griffiths Parcel 5 1041 Hazard Review DATE: March 21, 1996 Attached you will ..find four. (4) copies of the. following two (2) drawings with regard to the Griffiths Parcel 5:1041 Hazard Reviewc_ 1. A driveway design, prepared by Schmueser Gordon Meyer, illustrating"how we will comply 'with the applicable. County regulations. The driveway design was promised in our original 1041 submission booklet and is now complete and ready for County review, `well in advance. of .our scheduled P&Z ..meeting date (May 28). 2. A revised site plan that shows a minor extension of the proposed buildnq'envelope. The extension is recommended by Jay Hammond in his attached letter, and you and I have also briefly discussed his change. As we discussed, the proposed building envelope is still relatively small for a 35 acre parcel and is quite small when compared to the other building envelopes approved in 'the West Sopris Ranch development. Please let me know if there ;is anything else you require to accomplish your review of this project. If you would like, I would be happy to join you when you visit the site, to help you to see exactly where the building envelope is located. If you prefer to go on your own,-please call me in advance so I can help you to find some of the flagging we have left at the corners of the envelope. Thanks very much for your assistance with .this project. ENGINEERS SURVEYORS ~% . SG .w (970) 925-6727 SCHMUESER 1VL P.O. Box 2155 FAX (970) 925-4157 GOR°°N MEYER ASpen, CO 81612 March 20, 1996 Mr. Alan Richman Alan Richman Planning Services P.O. Box 3613 Aspen, CO. 81611 RE: Lot 5 West Sopris Ranch Subdivision, 1041 Submission, Driveway Design Dear Alan: Attached for your use and submission to Pitkin County are five prints of a driveway design for access to the proposed building envelope on Lot 5 of the West Sopris Ranch Subdivision (also known as the Terlamis tracts). The property is owned by Anna May Griffiths and is located off of West Sopris Creek Road in Pitkin County, Colorado. The parcel is the subject of a pending 1041 Environmental Hazard Review in Pitkin County. We are showing a 12 foot wide access drive with a 2% platform at the intersection with the existing private common road from the West Sopris Creek Road.. The distance that the intersection can be placed southwest of the proposed envelope is limited by the small gully at the edge of the topography provided by Alpine Surveys. Our access, at the 12% maximum grade permitted by Pitkin County regulations, will access the upper corner of the envelope as currently proposed although minor adjustments to the north boundary of the envelope maybe appropriate to accommodate related grading and entry to a home or garage. We have also shown an angled intersection with the common road at about 45°. Sightlines are good and a 90° intersection would result in substantial embankment and/or retaining wall construction adjacent to the gully. I would anticipate that the vast majority of traffic entering or leaving the property will be going down the common road, to the southwest. We have also indicated a section of guardrail near the entry, where the boulder wall approaches 9 feet high on the downhill side (note that the grade information on the drive and adjacent slopes is atone-foot intervals). I hope this is helpful, call me if you have further questions or if I may provide additional detail. Very truly yours, SCHMUESER C~OR/D9ON MEYER, I~NC_~~ W 1 11~_-s-C.~ ay W. Hammond, P.E. Principal, Aspen Office JH/Ih 96009AR1 118 West 6th, Suite 200 • Glenwood Springs, Colorado • (970) 945-1004 a __~_' '_ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ -H- ~ ~-M f: I ~ ~ -How slope affects defensible space t 1 _t ~~_ ~ ; ; ~ ~_ ~-~i ~-~ ~ r ~ ~= ~ ~ As heat rises, fuels on slopes preheat and ignite quickly, causing wildfires to traveC faster upslope. Therefore, enlarge defensible space around homes on slopes -particularly on the downhill side. Defensible space size will not affect fuel modification recommendations; it will only increase the area to be completed for Fire protection. Give special attention to ladder fuels on all sloping terrain. Minimum defensible space recommendations: Thinned 55% Slope Compared to level terrain, rate of fire spread increases by jour The increase in defensible space size is based on increased rate of ftre spread at the listed slopes. If you live on slopes other than those listed, use the slope chart to help determine your Side and downhill s` dimensions. However, if [he forest urroundng the ...;; defensible space has not been thinned, double these sizes. 4 3 2 t F 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 AO 90 `" Exam le: / € '~. p f your home is situated on a 20 percent slope, Thinned 30% Slope defensible space dimensions would he 40 feet uphill and tot '` Compared to [eve[ terrain, rate of fire spread increases by two. sides of your home, and 47 feet on the downhill side. ` Level Terrain 4 ,~ ., ~ . ~ a COlVIlVIUNITY Agreement for Payment of Pitkin County Development Apphcation Fees PITKIN COUNTY (hereinafter COUNTY) and o~`"`'~A ~~ ~2`~F .~.r (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLIC/A~NT has submi(tted/~to COUNTYY~ a\n application for ~ty `t l \~-~,al apn~.d {~a~-~L._ lj-F.+~.gr ~?..~ b~aCS i d ,.. (hereinafter, THE PROJECT)........ _ 2. APPLICANT understands and, agrees that Pitkin County Resolution No. 94-236 establishes a fee structure for Planning applications and the. payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a .determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and COUNTY. agree that because of the. size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this. time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and COUNTY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties to ..allow APPLICANT to make payment "of an initial deposit and to thereafter.... permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the COUNTY when they are necessary as costs are incurred, COUNTY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. COUNTY and APPLICANT further. agree that it is impracticable for COUNTY staff t~ complete processing or present sufficie:.t informatior. to the Planning Commission and/or Board of County Commissioners to enable the Planning Commission and/or Board of County .Commissioners to 'make legally required findings for project approval, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. a ,~'~ ".` ,..,,: > ~ .~ ~~~; ,~ ....~ .. ~ _w :~..a an ,:>~ ,, ~~ ~a of staff e riuiriber ~` d for your ~. ~~~-_.. ,~,~ Agreement for Payment of Pitkin County Development Application Fees PITKIN COUNTY (hereinafter COUN'TY') and ,~~"~A ~`t''1 ~i-2.~F `~`s (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGR>rE 'AS~L~S':"~" ~.~,~`.y 1. APPLICANT has submitted to COUNTY an application for (hereinafter, THE PROJEC1r). . , __ 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that. Pitkin .County Resolution No. 94-236 establishes a fee structure for Planning applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completenessa 3. APPLICANT and COUNTY agree that because of the size nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in'processing the application. APPLICANT and- COUNTY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties to allow APPLICANT to make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited _by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the COUNTY when they are necessary as costs are mcurred. COUNTY agrees if will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. COUNTY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for COUNTY staff tb campete .processing or present sufficient rforu.atior. to u'~e Planning Commission and/or Board of County Commissioners to enable the Planning Commission and/or Board of County .Commissioners to make legally required findings for project approval, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. ,` S. Therefore, APPLICANT ...agrees that in consideration of the COUNTY's waiver of its right }o collect full fees ,prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANTI° shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $~fl as which is for ~ hours of Planning staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLTCAI~T shall pay additional monthly billings to COUNTY to reimburse the COUNTY for the processing of the application mentioned above, .including post approval review. Such periodic payments shall be made `within 30days of the billing date." APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension. of processing. -~.~P~TKIIV COUNTY _ APPLICANT Cindy Houben Y ~-n ~ ~-- Community Development Director Date: ~, / /~ / `~ 9 ;" Mailing Address: _~_~ _,.~_~ ~.,~ ~ ~.~....~~:~ . ... r ~~ 2 L PROJECT DESCRIPTION Anna May Griffiths (hereinafter, "the Applicant") is the owner of Parcel S of West Sopris "` Ranch, a parcel of land consisting of approximately 38.8 acres, situated in the west half of ,/ Section 22, Township 8 South, Range 87 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, (as is more fully described. in the commitment for title insurance and the associated quit claim deed, attached hereto as Exhibit A). The owner is being represented by Alan Richman Planning Services for purposes of this application. A letter from the applicant confirming this arrangement is attached as Exhibit B. The Applicant proposes the development of one. residence and customary accessory uses on the subject property. These uses will be located within a designated building envelope that is illustrated on the 1041 site plan. The building envelope comprises less than 0.5 acres. The subject property is located along West Sopris Creek Road, approximately 2 miles from. the 3-way intersection of Sopris Creek Road, East Sopris Creek Road and West Sopris Creek Road.. It is one of fifteen parcels of land in excess of 35 acres that make up the West Sopris Ranch. Currently, hree of the parcels have been developed with residences. However, during 1995, the Board of County Commissioners granted 1041 hazard and general submission approval to five additional parcels, meaning that. eight of the fourteen parcels are now approved for development, while a ninth is owned by the Bureau of Land Management. q~ Several prints of a map of West Sopris Ranch are being submitted to the Planning Office, ~; to provide a general depiction of the building envelope for each parcel in the West Sopris Ranch which is developed or has received development approval from Pitkin County. ~, ~ The Applicant has reviewed the approvals granted by Pitkin County during 1995 to understand the issues which have arisen with the other parcels in the West Sopris Ranch and F the conditions which have been applied to these recent approvals. In particular, the Applicant understands that membership in the Stone Road Association is required of each parcel for which development. is intended and that the Association has adopted covenants t regarding the construction and maintenance of roads within West Sopris Ranch. The ~- Applicant has already joined the Stone Road Association. * These prior reviews provide a context in which to understand the subject application. "~ However, we believe that all of the standards and review procedures to which they were subject do not necessarily also apply to Parcel 5. We would suggest that the subject ~ ° application differs from the other parcels in the West Sopris Ranch which have recently received County approval in the following ways: ~ \ • Parcel 5 is directly accessible from the lower 1/3 mile of Stone Road, which is #"'' improved to County road standards. The proposed building envelope will be reached via a driveway of only approximately 200' that crosses primarily slopes of 15%-30%. .:r `t Griffiths Parcel 5 West Sopris Ranch 104LHazard and General Submission Application Page 1 1, ~~ • The portion of the parcel which has been designated as the building envelope is characterized. as having slopes of 15% to 30%. It contains no areas in excess of 30% slope. It contains a few isolated pockets of oak brush and no serviceberry vegetation, being primarily covered by sage. As a result, during a recent visit to the site, the building envelope was rated by a representative of the Colorado State Forest Service as being subject to "moderate wildfire hazard". Therefore, we believe that the hazards which affect this property are, without question, not severe and should not require the applicant and the County to follow the arduous "takings" procedure before an approval can be granted. The follow sections of this application have been organized to respond specifically to the Pitkin County, Land Use Code criteria for 1041 hazard review and general submission. The applicatiot specifically addresses each of the provisions of the Land Use Code which were identified as being applicable to this project in apre-application conference conducted with Rick Magill on September 14, 1995. i° Griffiths Parcel 5 West Sopris Ranch 1041 Hazard and General Submission Application Page 2 ,, M ., v ~ r.mvas.~; ~ -r ..sin r-: . ~- e.~, ~~, ,. » asc i~=.~ ... , ~T _ _ ,ZARD REVIEW MAP --~~' INSET MAP xa~e= I"= ~' ~ "TOft]GKAPHY DY a'fHER9 0 5 pTHS IOLiI HAZARD REVIEW MAP 9'. t,~~r ,r/n ni.~' - IL 1041 ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD REVIEW A review of the County's 1041 maps during the pre-application conference indicated that the Applicant should address the potential for geologic hazards and wildfire hazards on the property and the presence of wildlife habitat areas in and around the property. Specifically, the mapped areas which we were directed to address are as follows: A. Geologic Hazards 1. Slopes in excess of 30% exist on the property. 2. The property contains mancos shale. B. Wildfire Hazards 1. The property contains areas of severe wildfire hazard. C. Wildlife Habitat 1. The property is mapped for mule deer and elk winter range and is adjacent to elk severe. winter ranges and winter concentration areas. According to Section 3-803 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code, General Standards, development shall be restricted to the hazard free areas of a site, if adequately sized areas exist on the site. The Applicant's analysis has found that th__e_re is, not an adequately sized ---- hazard fre wilding. enyelop~~~arcel 5 __ This Section goes on to state that if there is not an adequately sized. hazard-free area on the site, then the diversity of permitted uses and the density of the proposed development may be limited. Since the applicant onlyproposes to develop a single residence on the property, these limitations would not appear to be relevant. This Section then states that development on the site will be prohibited if site planning and engineering techniques cannot completely mitigate hazards to public. health, safety and welfare and avoid subjecting other persons or the County to dangers or expenses required to mitigate hazardous conditions, respond to emergencies created by such conditions or rehabilitate improvements and lands. The Applicant believes that the proposed development described herein will fully mitigate or avoid the identified hazards and, thereby,. will avoid dangers. and expenses.. to other sF. k; persons or the County... The means by which this mitigation and. avoidance will be achieved '°-" are described in the following sections. m Griffiths Parcel 5 Wesf Sopris Ranch 1041 Hazard and General Submission Application Page 3 r, ,;w ~~ lr A. Geologic Hazard Areas The geologic. hazards which have the potential to affect the development of this property are that slopes. in excess. of 30% and mancos shall are found on the. property. Detailed investigations of the property indicate that neither of these hazards should limit the proposed development of one residence within the building envelope. With respect to the potential for development on steep or unstable slopes, the Applicant has prepared a site plan which illustrates topographic contours at 2' intervals within the proposed building envelope. While there are certainly areas on Parcel s which exceed 30% slope, we have evaluated the entire area within the proposed building envelope and find no areas within it with slopes which exceed 30%. Generally, slopes within the proposed building envelope are in the range of 15-20%. The building envelope avoids the drainage gully which traverses the lower portion of the property and the steep slopes which characterize the upper reaches of Parcel 5. ~ The site plan also illustrates where the proposed driveway will intersect with Stone Road. Jay Hammond of Schmueser Gordon Meyer has evaluated the slopes associated with the C:.r proposed driveway. Jay's report, which is attached as Exhibit C, states that as a result of u. , grading accomplished to build Stone Road, there is a small strip of land directly beneath %.: Stone Road which has slopes in excess. of 30%. This area of 30% slope cannot be avoided by any driveway which would intersect anywhere along this stretch of Stone Road. We have asked Alpine Surveys to supplement the area of topography which they have illustrated for the building envelope on the site plan map, to include the area we have designated as the proposed driveway intersection. This will allow Jay to prepare a design for the proposed driveway which will .illustrate the specific techniques to be used in its development to fully mitigate any impacts on slopes crossed by the driveway. We anticipate that a drawing and a report describing this design will be submitted by the end of January for review by County staff, well in advance of any hearing concerning this application. Nick Lampiris, Ph.D., Consulting Geologist, also evaluated the geologic concerns on Parcel 5. His review letter is attached as Exhibit D. Mr. Lampiris comments that "There are no geologic hazards associated with this slope that are out of the ordinary for a slope on ~~ mancos shale terrain". He concludes that "There are no sources of water in sufficient • ~~ ~~ !..r quantity to cause supersaturation of the soils on this hillside and there are no other sources of potential geologic hazard on this property.. " His recommendations include the following: ~. ~w' 1. .Soils engineering studies should be conducted at the site specific level to ensure proper foundation design in soils which could have a minor potential for swelling. 2. Landscaping should include as much natural vegetation as possible to keep the foundation area drier. .; i~ ~ ,~ . . ,,... ,,. .n~ .... ~ n Gri(Rths Parcel 5 West Sopris Ranch 1041 Hazard and General Submission Application Page 4 sw ~- ~, ;. The area around the residence should slope away from the house on all sides at a minimum of 5%. The uphill or north side of the residence should have final grades which will conduct surface flows around the home. The Applicant agrees to follow each of .these recommendations in the design and development of the residence.. B. Wildfire Hazard. Areas As the map of West ,Sgpris Ranch illustrates, the upper portions of Pazcel 5, above Stone Road, are generally quite steep. These areas are also. generally densely covered with oak brush and serviceberry vegetation. The combination of these two factors defines this portion of the parcel as severe wildfire hazard areas. The Applicant has purposely avoided all of the steeply sloping, densely vegetated portions of the property in this development proposal.. Instead, the building envelope has been located within an area which. contains .slopes that are generally in the range of 15%-20%. The primary vegetation type within the building envelope is sage brush, which State Forest Service officials have told us will not provide fuel for. a wildfire to the same degree as does oak brush. The building envelope contains only a few small clumps. of oak brush, which are separated from one another by a considerable distance,. so as to break up the vertical and' horizontal continuity of thesefuels and to reduce the potential for transmission of a wildfire throughout the site. Moreover, the areas below the site also do not provide the vertical or horizontal continuity of fuels necessary to transmit a wildfire to the building envelope. ~ a Based on these factors, the Applicant received a verbal indication, during apre-application ~, site visit with a representative of the Colorado .State Forest Service, that the proposed building envelope is subject to a moderate degree of wildfire hazard. The Applicant did not request a letter to this effect, so as to allow that letter to be submitted by the Colorado State Forest Service to Pitkin County during the traditional application referral process. The applicant has reviewed Section 3-807 C of the Pitkin County Land Use Code, Mitigation. Standards. for Wildfire Areas, in great detail. The applicant represents that the development will comply with each applicable provision of that Section, as described below. 4' 1. Location: The building envelope is not located in a draw oT canyon, or on a slope greater than thirty percent (30%). r 2. Defensible Space: The applicant will. manipulate the vegetation on the property to ,_- enhance the existing defensible space and to break up the horizontal and vertical continuity of fuels on the property. The applicant will employ the following measures ``^' to the extent recommended by .the Colorado State Forest Service and the Pitkin County Sheriff's Department: 6= ~. _. 5~/ ..... :., . , . Griffiths Parcel 5 West Sopris Ranch 1041 Hazard and General Submission Application Page 5 Gw qe~'.w y'ffi'"nk ~KW` d,.. , {xa,ra :%'..., f k....~....i6, ,r. n. 83A . ^,..... ~.: ., o. xv- ..m. .., .. .. a. Ten Foot Perimeter: Brush, debris, and non-ornamental vegetation will be removed within a minimum ten foot (10') perimeter around the structure. b. Thirty Foot Perimeter: Vegetation will be reduced to break up the vertical and horizontal continuity of the .fuels within a minimum of thirty feet (30') around. the structure. Spacing between clumps of brush and vegetation will be a minimum of two (2) times the height of the fuel. The maximum diameter of the clumps shall be two (2) times the. height of the fuel. Measurements will be made from the edges of the crown of the fuel. All branches from trees and brush within. the thirty foot (30') perimeter will be pruned to a height of ten feet (10') above the ground. Tree crowns will be separated by a minimum of ten feet (10') between crown edges. a Branches: Any branch which extends over a roof eave will be trimmed, and any branch within fifteen feet (15') of a chimney will be removed. d. One Hundred Foot Perimeter:. The density of fuels within a one hundred foot (100') perimeter of the structure will be reduced, to meet the specifications of the Colorado State Forest Service and Pitkin County Sheriff's Department. All deadfall in this area will be removed. e. Continued Maintenance: The applicant agrees to be responsible for the continued maintenance of the above commitments. 3. Structural Design: a. Roof: The roof of all proposed structures .will be constructed of non- combustible material, such as tile, asphalt, metal or Class-A Certi-guard shakes and shingles, utilizing Class-B construction techniques. All roofs will be pitched. b. Vents: Al] vents will be screened with corrosive resistant wire mesh of one- quarter inch (i/4") maximum. c. Projections/Stilt Construction: Projections at the roof line will be sheathed with materials approved for 1 hour.fire-resistive. construction. .The open space between grade and the under side of projections below the roof line will be enclosed by solid, vertical. walls. These walls will be constructed with materials approved for 1 hour fire-resistive construction on the exterior side of the wall and will extend from the top of grade to the under side of the floor decking or walls of the projection. ~ " Griffiths Parcel 5 West Sopris Ranch 1041 Hazard and General Submission Application Page 6 ~.: ~56`" g~ i..r 6 d. Windows: Windows on the south-facing side of the house will be made of tempered glass. ~„~ e. Exterior Walls and Sidine: Exterior walls and siding will have a minimum 1 hour fire-resistive rating, ground level to roof line. ,; f. Foundations: Foundations, skirting and crawl space openings will be fully enclosed and constructed with materials approved for 1 hour fire-resistive construction on the exterior side of the walls and will extend from the top of grade to the under side of the floor decking or walls. 4. Maintenance/Miscetlaneous: The Applicant will keep all roofs and gutters clear of debris and keep yards clear of litter,. slash and flammable debris. Flammable materials, firewood and wood piles will be stored on a parallel contour at least fifteen feet (15') from the structure. Weeds and grasses within a ten foot (10') perimeter will be kept to a height of six inches (6) or less.. Fences will be kept free of debris; wood fences will not be connected to the structure. At least one (1) ten (10) pound ABC fire extinguisher will be provided within the residence. Addresses on the ,~ property will be clearly marked with two inch (2)non-combustible letters which are visible and installed on anon-combustible post. There will be no fuel tanks or propane tanks located on the property. All of the above limitations applicable to the residence will also apply to any out- building, or other structure developed on the property. 5. Access: The Applicant agrees to join the Stone Road Association and to remain a member of that Association. The Association has adopted Protective Covenants which specify the standards for road and driveway construction and maintenance within the subdivision. The Applicant agrees to abide by these covenants. 6. Water Supply: The Applicant agrees to install a residential sprinkler system or foam fire retardant system in the residence which. meets the standards of the Basalt Fire Protection District and the Uniform Building Code. '4 ,:~ The Applicant also agrees to have a water storage facility for fire fighting to ~. accommodate. a minimum of 1,000 gallons. The capacitysnd location of this facility will be as determined in conjunction with the Basalt District Fire Marshall. 7. .Utility Lines: An overhead utility line has previously been extended through the property, as is illustrated on the site plan. This line forms one edge of the area v " where topography has. been depicted, and is immediately adjacent to one side of the '~ building envelope. Any service line extensions off of this primary line will be buried within the property. r ~„ Griffiths Parcel 5 West Sopris Ranch 1041 Hazard and General Submission Application Page 7 s .- pc, `:, t+U' I ~~;g sw.~-'#4~:1',~,.F.rt r. N. ~., ~'..,. .:n&w ,..~,~~.:«e , sr s,,..n.. ...: ~_. .<. C. Wildlife Habitat Areas The area within the proposed building envelope is mapped as .elk and mule deer winter range. During a visit to the site with Kevin Wright of the Colorado Division of Wildlife, it was confirmed that the area is, in fact, used as winter range for these animals. The building envelope avoids any areas. mapped as winter concentration areas or severe winter range and Mr. Wright did not indicate that such areas are found in or immediately around the building envelope. ~, Mr. Wright stated that the Applicant should anticipate complying with similar conditions to those which have been applied to other homes in the subdivision. The Applicant agrees to comply with the following conditions: 1. Native vegetation will be preserved within the building envelope to the maadmum extent permissible, considering the commitments the Applicant has already made with regard to wildfire hazard mitigation. 2. Dogs will be prohibited on the property. 3. Any fencing on the property will have a maximum height of 42", with 4 strands or less, with a 12" kickspace between the top 2 strands. Any rail fencing shall be the round type, 48" in height, with 3 rails or less, with at least 18" between 2 of the rails. 4. All garbage on the property shall be kept in bear-proof garbage containers. 5. Horses will be confined with the approved building envelope. All hay will be fenced with 8' high, game-proof fencing. _. _ ,. ~,. Griffiths Parcel 5 West Sopris Ranch 1041 Hazard and General Submission Application Page S t 'w. III. GENERAL SUBMISSION REVIEW The pre-application form requests that the Applicant respond. to Section 3-110 of the Land Use Code, Improvements and Services. The Applicant has the following responses to the issues in this Section. A. Logical Extension Of Utilities As illustrated on the site plan, an overhead primary electric power.. line already extends through the property. Capacity is available on the primary line for extension of service to the building envelope. Any service extensions off of the primary line will be buried through the property. There is an existing phone line buried within Stone Road. Capacity is available from this line to serve the new home. The service line extension will be buried within the driveway. No other utility extensions are planned or requested. B. Water Supply The proposed residence will be served by an on-site well. Nick Lampiris has indicated that successful wells have been drilled on four lots within the. subdivision, several of which are much higher above the valley floor than the_subject property. He feels water for domestic use will be obtained at a depth of perhaps 200'. Jay Hammond has indicated that as a 35 acre parcel, the property is eligible for an individual exempt well permit from the State Engineer. He states that flows from the proposed well should be sufficient for domestic use, limited irrigation and fire protection purposes, and that the quality should meet applicable State standards without treatment. The Applicant will provide documentation to the Environmental Health Department of the adequacy of the quality and quantity of the domestic water supply and will demonstrate that there are no setback conflicts between the well and on-site wastewater systems. This will occur prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed residence. C. Wastewater Disposal The proposed residence.. will be served by an individual sewage disposal system which complies with the standards_of the Environmental Health Department. The reports from Mr. Lampiris and Mr. Hammond both indicate that a conventional leach field system or a ~: mound system should be feasible within the property. However, because the applicant has tried to limit the size of the building envelope (it is less than 0.5 acres in size), it is not possible for us to guarantee that the system can be located within the building envelope until -. Griffiths Parcel 5 West Sopris lunch 1041 Hazard and General Submission Application Page 9 e:r' ~::' fir F!'.r~?2ra's. awn .~xcw ..w. m«. A. em.,...s$Mn-~,v~~m».~e--;.:+nP .. .... ...: ... ...:_ .,... .., _. on-site testing and design are accomplished. The Applicant will obtain a permit for the system prior to the issuance of a building permit for the residence. The Applicant will make all reasonable efforts to design a system which can be installed within the building envelope. The Applicant requests, however, that if the Environmental Health Department concurs that the preferred site for the system is outside of the envelope, then the system should be permitted to be located where on-site soils and percolation rates will permit the safest, healthiest, best environmental solution to occur. D. Roads Access to the property is via West Sopris Road. The development of one house will have ~~ negligible impacts on West Sopris Creek Road. Access from West Sopris Creek Road is via Stone Road, a private road. The proposed `~ driveway location is approximately 1,600' from the intersection of Stone Road and West p. _ Sopris Creek Road. Jay Hammond states that. it appears that Stone Road has been upgraded to the County's applicable standard for width, gravel surfacing, grading and ~'` drainage, at least through Parcel 5. ~, As stated previously, the Applicant agrees to join the Stone Road Association and. to remain a member of that. Association. The Association has adopted Protective Covenants which specify the standards for road and driveway construction. and maintenance within the ~~ subdivision. The Applicant agrees to abide by these covenants. E. Parking At least two parking spaces will be provided for the residence, as the County Code requires. ~,,,; F. Drainage and Erosion " ' Jay Hammond states that drainage and erosion should not cause a significant design problem ~„ either during or after construction. The access road construction has already incorporated culvert crossings to accommodate existing drainage patterns. The home will incorporate positive drainage away from the structure, diversion of up-slope areas around the building, and, if necessary, on-site detention of flows from roof or paved areas to prevent sediment from impacting adjacent drainages. Temporary erosion control measures, such as temporary silt fencing, hay bale dikes and diversion swales, will be used during 'construction and disturbed areas will be re-vegetated as soon as practical after construction to minimize soil loss. The drainage and erosion control recommendations of ~"' Dr. L,ampiris, stated in his attached. letter and reiterated in the Geologic Hazards section of this application, will also be followed. ~:.ry ~.. .. GritTths Parcel 5 West Sopris Ranch 1041 Hazard and General Submission Application Page 10 ~- ~.. Ki aid .r. t 4+) .-ww.,Ye+~^ v T.q.: e.~ .. .~". :'.~.. .. iw.. ... .. Y-,. ;. v S. t ~ IV. CONCLUSION The Applicant has responded to all applicable criteria of the Pitlcin County Land Use Code, pursuant to direction given during the pre-application conference. Sufficient evidence has been provided of the project's compliance with said criteria, and commitments have been made to ensure that the proposed development will mitigate its development impacts. The ,' Applicant will respond in a timely manner to requests by any reviewing agency for additional information, or clarification of the statements made herein. 6 °- ., _ .. Griffiths Parcel 5 Wesf Sopris Ranch 1041 Hazard and General Submission Application Page LL :° i ... e, ~. ~,' I yn,w~~"~'~~~s~~<cv~+~~'~~f~;'~";'?~y;.~'~+R.n. ~5» ,.r.~.: tae, ,. x., r-;rr ,,,^». ~, ~. ~. r.-a, w.~ ,. ,. ,.., w.„ __ I ~_ ~: 1. 2. ~- EXHIBIT A CO1~II~IITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE A Effective Date: 10/01/95 at 08:30 A.M. Case No. PCTlp349 Policy ar Policies to be,iasued; {a) ALTA Owner's Policy-Form 1992 Proposed lnaured: Amount$ Premium$ Rate: (b) ALTA Loan Policy-Form 1992 Amount$ 97,000.00 Premium$ 523.00 Proposed,. ,Insured:. Rate:STANDARD PFC INVESTORS III, A COLORADO GENERAL PARTNERSHIP Tax Certificate $20.00 M, a 3. Title to the FEE__SIMPLE..eatate or_intereat in the.. land described or referred to in this Commitment is at the effective date hereof vested in: ANNA M. GRIFFITHS (AS TO PARCEL 1) CLEON L. GRIFFITHS (AS TO PARCEL 2) K,,, 4. The_land.referred to in this Commitment is situated in the county ~, of PITKIN, State of .COLORADO and is described as follows: See Attached Exhibit "A" '~ Countersigned at: PITKIN COTINTY TITLE, INC. Schedule A-PG.1 601... E. HOPKINS This_Commitment is invalid ASPEN, CO. 81611 unless the Insuring 303-925-1766 Provisions and Schedules Fax 303-925-6527 A and B are attached. ~'''' ~k u EXHIBIT A PARCEL 1 WEST SOPRIS RANCH PARCEL NO. 11, MORE FULLX DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A parcel of land situated. in the WS/2 of Section 22, Township 8 South, Range 87 West of the 6th P.M., more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the NW_corner o thence S 88°53'16" E 1319.54 thence S 01°00'46" W 1159.50 thence S 88°54'42" E 1318.95 thence N O1°02.'31" E 1169.00 thence N 86°53'16"-W 1319.54 E said Section 22; feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; feet; feet; feet;. feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 2 ~ WEST SOPRIS RANCH PARCEL NO. 5, MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A parcel of land situated in the wi/2 of Section 22, Township a South, Range 87 West of the. 6th P.M., more particularly described as follows: Beginning at .the NW.corner o thence S 0°59'02" W 3510..10 thence S 88°54'42" E 1317..76 thence S O1°00'46° W 1283.76 thence S 88°57'06" E 1317.11 thence N 02°02'31" & 1282.83 thence N BB°54'42" W 1317.76 4p V~Y.' E said Section 22; feet;. feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; feet; feet; feet; feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. I~, R:... !' Nt1.uR~vra~"dn ~_v ,:=, ,nom arr °uay~..r ,cnw.a, ,.v .:„ .mow.:-, r, ~ ~_,.. ,o-,,.' . ri ~ - ~./ ~ ~./ aC~QTa~/~i $ ~~. eBs$a1~CT=oN 1 ~« The following are the requirements to be complied with: ITEM (a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors f, of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. ITEM (b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured. must be executed and duly filed for xecord to-wit: 1. Deed of Treat from ANNA M. GRIFFITHS to the Public Trustee of the County of Pitkin for the use of PFC INVESTORS III to secure $97,OOD.UO f°m" rte. I~ `. `. scgsnvrs s ssc~rxarr a SXCEPTIONs The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: ~7 i. Rights or claims of parties in posaesBioa sot shown by the public records. 2. Sae~nenta, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discropancies, conflicts is boundary lines, shortage in area, enehroachments, any facts which a correct survey and iaspection of the premises would disclose sad which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or ,right to a lien, for services, labor, or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Defects, lines, ehcumbraacea, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or $ttaching subsequent to the effective date heireof but prior to the date the proposed_iasured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by g, this Comnitmeat. 6. Taxes due and payable; and any tax, special assessmeat, charge or lien imposed for water or sewer service or for any other special taxing district. Y 7. Right of way for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States and excepting and reserving to the United States all the coal and other. minerals in the land so entered and patented, together with the right to prospect for, mine and remove the same as reserved in United States Patent recorded July 20, 1993 in Book 167 at Page 511. 8. Easements ae set forth in instrument recorded in Book 312 at Page 20. 9. Deed of Trust from CLEON L. GRIFFITHS To .the Public Txuatee of .the County of Pitkin For the use of ALPINE BANK, BASALT Original Amount $10,148.00 Dated June 23, 1993 Xecarded July 7, 1993 in Book 717 Reception No. 358562 at Page 150 ~ ~'~,~ (THE AH~VE EXCEPTIONS AFFECT 1) ~.+ ;,,_ 10. Right of way for. ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States and excepting and reserving to the United States all coal!and_other minerals in the land so entered and patented, together".with the right to prospect for, mine and remove the same as reserved'in United States Patent recorded July 20, 1943 in Book 167 at Page 511. 11. Easements as set forth in instrument recorded. in Book 312 at Page 15. ~,. „.., ~ {~E ABOVE EXCEPTIONS AFFECT 2) ~_ a ~'' (Continued) t,., ~,> ~,.. ~, , .. r ,, , v ..~ .2. Those terms, conditions, provisions, obligations, easements, restrictions, assessments. and all matters as set forth in Protective Covenants... .for The Stone Road Association recorded August 1S, 1995 in Book 790 at Page 723, deleting therefrom any .restrictions indicating any preference, limitation or discrimination based on race, color, )"' religion, sex, handicap,. familial statue, or national origin. ,, (THE ABOVE EXCEPTIONS AFFECT 1 AND 2) This commitment is invalid unless the Insuring Provisions and Schedules A and B are attached. ~- _, ti Schedule B-Section 2 Commitment No. PCT10349 E-• a::. cs.., an=m ,t ; <sr m..,-~ ~ .¢ r e;w...n ,~m~~s: ~a=~nahttuu wr..,o....yna~rx-.... .. ...m, , .m -~, r ~......rws, ~ ..u ~ ., ...v. , ,, \../ ~~ ADDITIONI-L _INFORM7-TION 7111p Di8CLO8VP86 The Owner's Policy to be issued, if any shall contain the following items in addition to the ones set forth above: (1) The Deed of Trust, if any, required under Schedule B-Section 1. (2) Water rights, claims or title_to water. Pursuant to Insurance Regulation 89-2; NOTE: Each. title entity shall notify in writing every prospective insured in an owner's title insurance policy for a single family residence (including a condominm or townhouse unit) (i3 of that title entity's general requirements for the deletion of an exception or_exclusion to coverage relating to unfiled mechanics or materialmena liens, except when said coverage or insurance is extended to .the insured. under the terms of the policy. A satisfactory affidavit and agreement indemnifying the Company against unfiled mechanics' and/or Materialmen~s Liens executed by the persona. indicated in he, attached copy of said affidavit must be furnished to the Company. upon receipt of these items and any others requirements to be specified by the Company upon request, Pre-printed Item Number 4 may be deleted from the Owner's policy when issued. Please contact the Company for .further information. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing. contained in this Paragraph shall be deemed to .impose any requirement upon any title insurer to provide mechanics or materialmens lien coverage. NOTE: If the .Company conducts the owners' closing under circumstances .where it is responsible for the recording or filing of legal documents from.sad_transaction, the Company will be deemed to have provided "Gap Coverage". Pursuant to Senate Bill 91-14 (CRS 10-11-122); (a) The Subject Real Property may be located in a Special Taxing District; (b) A Certificate of Taxes Due listing each taxing jurisdiction may be obtained form the County treasurer of the County Treasurer's Authorized Agent; (c) Information regarding Special Districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the Board of County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County Assessor. NOTE:. A tax Certificate will be .ordered from the County -Treasurer, by the Company and the costa thereof charged to the proposed insured unless written. instruction to the rnntrarv a rr+ ronF+.9 v,aA by t e rr~mnanv prior to the issuance of This commitment is invalid unless. Schedule B-Section 2 the Insuring Provisions and Schedules Commitment No. PCT1~349 A and B are attached. ~~~ ~:~ „, ~""? ~~ V( QUIT CLAIM DEED THIS DEED, Made this "LL day of October, 1995, between CLEON L. GRIFFITHS of the County of Denver and State of Colorado, Grantor, and ANNA MAY GRIFFITHS whose legal address is 4247 Fillmore, Denver, Colorado 80216 of the County. of Denver and State of Colorado, Grantee, WITNESSETH, That the Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10..00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and. sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, has remised, released, sold, conveyed and QUIT CLAIMED., and by these presents does remise, release, sell, convey and QUIT CLAIM unto the.. Grantee, her heirs, successors and assigns, forever, all. the right, title, interest, claim and demand which the Grantor has in and to the real property, together with improvements, if any, situate, lying and being in the County of Pitkin and State of Colorado, described as follows: As .set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same, together with all and singular the appurtenances and privileges thereunto belonging or in anywise thereunto appertaining, and all the estate, right, title, interest and claim .whatsoever,. of the ..Grantor,-either in law or in equity, to the only proper use, benefit and' behoof of the Grantee, her heirs and assigns forever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The Grantor has executed this deed on the date set forth above. STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF DENVER ) ~ ~, ~ 'l i Cleon L. Griffit hs -r Subscribed. and sworn to before me this ~~l day of October, 1995, by Cleon L. Griffiths. Witness my hand and official seal. lj My commission expires:. ,,; .; y. ~, Ynl ~u±' ~• •4 1 . (, `. 4'~/ .^ (tip frj;;;;i;;aissicr;E-xpi~slv;arc.§i5, i9,97~ ;/ /~ r~~ Notary ublic C . ... ~,, EXHIBIT A WEST SOPRIS RANCH PARCEL N0. 5, MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A parcel of land situated in the W1/2 of Section 22, Township 8 South, Range 87 West of the 6th P.M., more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the NW corner of said. Section 22: thence S 00~ 59`02" W. 3510.10 feet; thence S 88. 54'42" E. 1317.76 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence S 01° 00`46" W. 1283..76 feet; thence S 88° 37`06" E. 1317.11 feet; thence N O1° 02'31" E. 1282.83 feet; rt.. thence N 88. 54'42" W. 1317.76 feet. to the True Point of Beginning. _, COUNTY OF PI TKIN, STATE OF COLORADO J. ~, ~' .:. C 4. ,l pp ' rY ~Y/ - 2 }.Ir EXHIBIT B December 7, 1995 Mr. Rick. Magill, Planner Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street '~' Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 1041 AA7.ARn"REVIEW AND GENERAL SUBMISSION FOR LOT 5 OF WEST SOPRIS CREEK SUBDIVISION Dear Mr. Magill, As the owner of record of Lot 5 of the West Sopris .Creek Subdivision, I hereby authorize Alan Richman Planning Services to act as my designated representative with respect to the land use application being submitted to your office for my property. Alan Richman is authorized to submit those land development applications necessary to obtain 1041 hazard review and general submission approval for a building envelope for this property. He is also authorized to represent me in meetings with Pitkin County staff, the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commissioti and the Board of County Commissioners. Should you have any need to contact me during the course of your review of this application, please do so through Alan Richman Planning Services, whose address and telephone number is included in the land development application. Sincerely, Anna May Griffiths ~; ~,.~. ¢.: :: R•'• . i i .... (303)925-6727 ~'' FAX (303) 925-4157 .. . .. `fNGI/7EEH5-... S SURVEYORS GM SCRMUESER GGRGGNMEYER January 12, 1996 k"" :~, Mr. Alan Richman Alan Richman Planning Services P.O. Box 3613 Aspen, CO. 81611 EXHIBIT. C RE: Lot 5 West Souris Ranch Subdivision. 1041 Submission Engineering Report Dear Alan: P.O. Box 2155. Aspen, CO 81612 This letter comprises an Engineering Report regarding the relevant aspects of the 1041 Environmental Hazard. Review application to establish a building envelope oh Lot 5 of the West Sopris Ranch Subdivision (also known as the Terlamis tracts). The property is owned by Anna May Griffiths and is located off of West Sopris Creek Road in Pitkin County, Colorado. My comments are based on our discussions, discussions with representatives of the relevant utilities, review of available mapping and site visits to the property. Introduction Lot 5 of the West Sopris Ranch Subdivision comprises approximately 38.80 acres and is located in Section 22 of Township 8 South, Range 87 West of the 6th P.M. off West Sopris Creek abouf 2.2 miles west of the intersection of East and West Sopris Creek Roads in Pitkin County. This report addresses engineering related aspects of the 1041 Ehvironmental Hazard Review requirements for the further definition of the building envelope for the'proposed residence site. Water Supply Water supply to the building site wilC be provided via an individual, exempt well. The new well would be located in the area of the proposed building site, well above West Sopris Creek and its floodplain. Based on thepresence of existing successful wells in`the vicinity as noted in Nick Lampiris letter report of December 3, 1995, we anticipate that a well providing adequate water quality and quantities will be feasible within the site. Flows from the proposed well should be sufficient for domestic use, limited irrigation and fire protection purposes. An on-site storage cistern with a minimum capacity of 1,000 gallons would be needed for fire flow and high-flow use (actual sizing of the storage cistern maybe dependent on the finalhouse design and emergency storage needs). Water quality meeting the requirements of the Colorado Primary Drinking Water Standards should be feasible without treatment. Due to the extent mahcos shales in the strata below the property, as noted in Dr. Lampiris' report, water hardness may be a concern in which case an individual softener may be appropriate ih the proposed home. Care should betaken to ensure that there will be no setback conflicts between the proposed well and oh-site r.. I 1001 Grand Ave., Suite 2E • Glenwood Springs, Colorado • (303)945-1004 January 12, 1996 Mr. Alan Richman Page 2 wastewater disposal systems. Water supply of sufficient quantity, quality and pressure will be available for the proposed homesite. ~"^ ~._ Wastewater Disposal On-site wastewater disposal will likely be via a conventional leachfield system designed to Pitkin County standards. Percolation rates are likely moderate to high In sandy to clayey soils overlaying the mancos shales: As noted, again, in Dr. Lampiris's report, shallow bedrock areas may pose constraints on design or require a "mound" type system. Given the low density of proposed development and the amount of mildly sloping ground in the area of the site, location of on-site wastewater disposal should not be difficult for the homesite. Care should be taken to identify the most likely leachfield locatiohs and potential sizes in the event Pitkin. County requires the system be located within the building envelope. My current recommendation would be to reserve the ability to locate the ISDS outside the building envelope should locations within prove unsuitable. Appropriate on-site wastewater disposal that avoids contamination of area drainage features will be feasible. Site specific percolation testing and desigh will be needed for the site. prior to building permit. Electric Service An existing overhead primary electric line crosses through the property as shown on the draft 1041 Hazard Review Map by Alpine Surveys dated December 13, 1995. Primary electric service to the site is therefore in place, although a short service extension to the new home will be required. Based on a conversation with. Jeff Franke of Holy Cross Electric Associatioh, Inc., the rural cooperative that serves the area, capacity is available on the primary lihe for extension of service to the proposed homesite. No other upgrades to the existing primary system would be required to serve the home. Phone Service There is also an existing buried phone line within the common access road through the property from West Sopris Creek Road. Capacity is available from this line to provide phone service to the new home. Miscellaneous Utilities Gas and cable TV service is not available near the site and is not anticipated to be extehded to the site by the applicant. SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. ~,.;r January 12, 1996 Mr. Alan Richman Page 3 Access Access to the homesite_is via an existing private road from the West Sopris Creek Road a distance of about 1,600 feet (within Tract 5) to the vicinity of the proposed homesite. The road is the subject of a Road Maintenance Agreement and. related Declaration of Protective Covenants for the Stone Road Association dated August, 1995 and recorded at Book 791, Page 977'ahd Book 790, Page 723, respectively, of the records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Membership in the Stone Road Assdciation is mandatory for owners of lots 1 through 15 within the West Sopris Ranch Subdivision. The Declaration of Protective Covehants for the Association outlines specifications as well as maintenance standards for the common road. Standards include 4 inches of Class 6 road base and improvement to a Class V "Country Access" standard under the County's regulations.. Based on our site visit and conversation with neighbor and excavation contractor Jinx Stone, it does appear that the road has been"upgraded to the required standard for width, gravel surfacing, grading and drainage at least through Lot 5 (I haven't been up the road beyond Lot 7). Access to the homesite will be via a driveway to County standards a distance of approximately 200 feet to the residence. Construction of the driveway will require crossing limited areas of slopes over 30% (mostly where the common road embankment grading creates a strip of 30%+ slope). A preliminary design study on the initial topography by Alpine Surveys iridjcates that access to Pitkin County standards is feasible. Some additional topography is needed to complete an appropriate design for the access driveway. I have requested additional topography from Alpine Survey to provide a final design. This design will be provided to you for submission to Pitkin County well in advance of any hearing concerning this property. Drainage Given the remote nature of the property as well as the low-density nature of the development, drainage will not represent a significant design issue. Upgrades to the existing common road through the property have incorporated culvert crossings to accommodate existing drainage patterns. The lower common road crosses a significant drainage gully, which traverses the south and southeasterly portion of Lot 5, with an approximately 30 inch diameter culvert about 850 feet from the intersection with West Sopris Creek Road. The lower gully through the property is significant and shows evidence of scouring from intermittent drainage flows (although it appears to be dry most of the time). The proposed homesite and associated access drive avoid conflicts with this significant drainage feature. The home itself will require conventional design items such as positive grading away from the structure, diversion of upslope areas around the building and possible on-site detention of flows from roof or paved areas to prevent sediment from impacting the area drainage features. The design items noted above will prevent any introduction of pollutants to the adjacent drainages or West Sopris Creek. General recommendations contained in br. l_ampiris' report should also be followed. SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. ~, -4 g^^ ~a January 12, 1996 Mr. Alan Richman Page 4 Erosion Site soils are generally sandy colluvial materials with small to medium rock and clays overlaying the Mancos shales. Erosion potential is generally moderate to high in the more clayey soils. Given the location of the homesite, we would recommend that temporary erosion control measures such as temporary silt fencing, haybale dikes and diversion swales be placed during construction to prevent erosion of the more sensitive soils. We would also recommend that areas disturbed by construction be revegetated as soon as practicable to minimize erosion potential following construction. Slo es The proposed building envelope is located on slopes of between 15 and 30% for the most part with some areas below 15%. There are limitedareas over 30% near the proposed entry which are outside of the designated envelope. As noted in the access and driveway discussion, one small strip of over 30% slope is the result of the grading done to create the common access road. The driveway into the site, which must cross this strip of 30%+ slope can, in my opinion, be built without substantial disruption or structures: 'The actual building site completely avoids areas over 30% slope. Feel free to contact me if I can provide further comment or detail regarding these comments. t^ t. Very truly yours, SCHMUES~ERy GOnRD,ON MEYER, INC. (/iJ , i' / I/~} Jay W. Hammond, PJJ.'"'_E. Principal, Aspen Office JH/Ih AMG1091 ~"".' SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. ""~' EXHIBTT D _.. _ Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D. +n CONSULTING GEOLOGIST ~ ... P.O.BOX2 SILT, COLORADO 81652 h"'!' _.. ....... (303) 876-5400 (24 HOURS). December 3 1995,:.. n Alan Richman PO Bor. 5613 ;,~ _ Aspen, CO, 81612 RE: West Sopris Creek Property, Lot 5-Terliamis Tract E"'^ =- Dear Mr. Richman: ~"^ I have completed my investigation of the approximately 35 ` _ acre pareel on West Sopris Creek, otherwise known as Lot 5 of the Terliamis Subdivisiah. The property is on the south slope k.., of the Crownin Sec. 22, T 8 S, R 87 W, of the bth'`Principal r Meridian, within the Basalt 7 1/2 minute quadrangle. The proposed envelope is on a knoll in the northeast corner of the lot. ~. The topography of the site consists of a gently south sloping broad ridge or knoll above a steeper slope, covered with native ?^ grasses, sagebrush, and clumps of scrub oak. The probable access road is from the north, on contour from the main subdivision road. It will cross dopes generally less than SA %. There are „~ no geologic hazards associated with this slope that are out of the brdinary for a'slope on Mancos Shale terrain. "° The geology of the property consists of the Cretaceous age " Mancos Shale dipping north at law angle. There is a calluvial soil cover at the site. Although there are no'detailed published gealogic reports of this area, a close look at aerial ~. photographs, topographic maps, and an site visual inspections ,.. reveals that the area may have undergone earth movement thousands of years ago, probably during a period associated with the ~, melting of the lasnt glaciers. There is no indication of recent movement,- especially in view of the fact that there' are no ` sources of water in sufficient quantity to cause supersaturation of the soils on this hillside. r*~ `"' 'There are no other sources of potential geologic hazard on this property except that soils engineering '"studies should be .,, conducted at the site specific level to insure proper foundation design in soils which could have a minor potential far swelling. Slopes steeper than 30% were avoided when the building envelope ~, was designated, and there are areas within Ehat are 15% or less. e•+ Potable water for domestic use should be available through development of a well to perhaps 240 feet. There are nearby successful wells (Lots q T 9 and 13) t , , Was e disposal shauid be possible through the use f ~" o aseptic tank and associated leach field in the permeable soils of the property but the i "' , spec fic recommendations of the Pitkin County Environmental Health ~ " Department should be sought. Areas of near surface bedrock may i ex st but no high ground water tables will be found. ,~,, Landscaping. should include as much natural vegetation as is feasibleg this ill e w sav water otherwise used in watering lawns and shrubbery, and will also kee the f d """ p oun ation area drier. To this end, the area around the house should slope away from the house on all sides at a_minimum of 3%. The uphill or north side of the hom e should consist of final grades which will conduct surface fl o ows ar und the home. a The home should be designed to prevent the accumulation of radon ' gas If there are further questions, please do not hesitate to ,,,,, contact me. W : __ nx Sin,cerely~.__ ~ ti ~~~ ~i~ ~ °"' ~~ ~ d ` " ' Nicholas Lampir ie Consulting Geologist ~,, rn _ !"' _ _ _ . T- fi:,.a a vi ~ _ .. PITXIN COUNTY... PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARX DATE: 9/14/95 PLANNER;. Rick Magill PROJECT: Griffiths Residence OWNER~B NAME: Anna Mae Griffiths REPRESENTATIVE: Alan Richman phone.: 920-.1125 SUMMARY i. Type of Application: 1041 Hazard.. Review & General Submission 2. Describe. action/type of development being requested: The Applicant is requesting approvals for the. construction of a single family residence. The subject property is comprised of 35 + acres and is known as Lot 5 of the West Sopris Creek Ranch Subdivision. 3. Areas in which Applicant has been requested to respond: Code Section Comments Sections: 3-805 - Geologic Hazards: slopes in excess of 30 percent on the property (access road and building site may be less severe in slope); Mancos"Shale 3-807 - Wildlife Hazards: property is mapped for mule deer winter range, elk winter range and is adjacent to severe°winter range and winter. concentration area Por elk. 3-808 - Wildfire Hazards: the property contains areas of severe wildfire hazard 3-110 - Improvements .and Services Referral Agencies 1. County Attorney 2. County Engineer 3. Zoning Office 4. Environmental Health 5. Division of Wildlife 6. State Forest Service 7. Basalt Fire Protection District 8. Sheriffs Office 4. Review is before: P&Z and BOCC 5. .Public Hearing: BOCC 6. The. applicant needs to post a _sign for each pubha.c h~asxtag pursuant to Section 4-9 of the Code. yes 7~ ptsesa s~ibmi+, ~ 1.9t of A~ijacen+., Prn»Prty C1*axterg= yPs ..... ~`° 8. The Applicant shall provide stamped, pre-addressed, letter size envelopes, with the return address of the Planning Department,. for mailing to all adjacent property owners. yes "` 9. Number of copies of application packets to be sub~t~.Sted: 20 12. COMMENTS/UNIQUE CONCERNS: The applicant was made aware of the potential for denial of this application based on the potential for a severe wildfire hazard rating, to be determined by the CSFS. ~ p <._ _ ,_~:_, 14. FOR A COMPLETE APPLICATION PLEASE~~ ~INbIiITbE THE "~b`OLLOWI't~f~ INS PACKETS (plans folded): 0 e tia~k6 lo. Planning office fee deposit required: $102 0 ~o sa Referral Fees required: County Engineer $ 62.00 tis a Environmental Health 5 62.00 !.S Housng'bepartment County Clerk $ 100.00 to ~_ Total Deposit: $1244.00 ti3~o 11. Anticipated date of submission: 1. Letter of request, addressing Code Sections listed above; 2. 24" x 36" Site Plan which includes proposed building envelope, proposed access, topographic information at 2' contour intervals (for access and building envelope), proposed and existing structures and vicinity map; 3. letter from property owner authorizing representative (1 copy only); 4. copy of this pre-app form; 5. application fee; 6. proof- of ownership and chain of title/non-merger documentation from an Attorney or Title Company (2 copies only); 7. report from geologis t addressing the geologic hazards on the property. * Agreement for Payment form (available at the front desk) (1 copy only). preapp_griffiths 1041 k 400877 ; 01/14/1997 01:46P PQ i, ~~~ ~OF 3~ ~ ~ ~~ STLVIA DAMS PITKIN COUNT`! CLERK & RECORDER REC DOC "~` Nor ~ ~- RESOLUTIQN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMIVI[SSIONERS OF PITHIN COUNTY COLORADO, DENYING THE GRIFI''ITLg 1041 Ha~aRn RE~W & GENERAL, SUBMISSION Resolution No. 96-~~ I. Anna May Griffiths, hereinafter "Applicant" has applied to the Boazd of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, aereinafter "Boazd", for approval of 1041 Environmental Hazard and General Submission Review for the construction of a single- family residence. 2. The Applicant's lot is zoned RS-30 and is approximately 38 acres in size. 3. Said lof is known as Lot 5 of the West Sopris Creek Ranch (a.k.a. Terliamis Tracts); and is more specifically described in Exhibit A, attached. 4. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this application on May 28, 1996 and unanimously found that this proposal complies with the criteria set forth in the Pitkin County Land Use Code, and forwarded a recommendation of approval to the Boazd. 5. The Board heard this application at a regulazly scheduled meeting on September 11, 1996, at which time evidence and testimony was presented with respect to this application. 6. The Boazd determined that the proposed development does not meet the criteria established in Section 3-80.50 (C)(2) of the Land Use Code. 7. Specifically, the proposed driveway was found to be unacceptable by the Board based on the encroachment on a small azea with slopes in'excess`of thirty percent (30%). The azea of slopes 400879 01/14/1997 01:48P PG 1 OF 3 REC DOC NOT' 5ILVIA DAMS PITN.IN COUNTY CLERK. & RECORDER .0.00 400877 01/14/I997 01:46P P6 2 OF 3 .Resolution No. 96-~ Page 2 in excess of ~0% is approximately 10 feet in duration and was created as a result of the construction of the main road serving the West Sopris Creek Ranch lots. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT' RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado that it does hereby deny the Griffiths 1041 Hazard Review and General Submission. APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1996 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COTJNTY, COLORADO BY ~~-~- ames R. True, Chairman ` _ Date /~7~~,~ A Clerk and APPROVED AS TO FORM. John EIy, Coun ttomey APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ~'~~~~ ~ Cindy Houben; Community Development Director case #P7- % parcel #2465-222-00-002 40~a79 01/14/1997 01:48p p6 2 OF ~ ' .40x877 01/14/1.997 01 :46P R6 3 OF 3 r~iT3I' A Q' 1 - ~ +1EST a°fl _ ~~ ~~RQ ?QQ. ' 12, MCF{E . DESL'*i~EII AS ?CI,;,,pp75. A garCe~ =a 87 ¢= Zaa~ s ~ ted ixt West of t' e 5 the of 3eatioa 22, Tcurasitia $ Sant= ~~ ~,.. *. , s y. , ze A ic.:I rT _ ax't a ~y cTe"sCr'~:a~ as =Oi~~svs: . g 3t t :e ~ .... O~ sat.. Criaa 2Z ; t eace 3 t ~ e a C SS 88.053'1.6' y ". 3.9.54 Q ° ' r '~eec to t IIE 2a?~iT aF 3Er'~?**'r'~'s; yy .. ~~ ,, ~..~~ ~ '.. iG : i~.~.. rl I aQ 4 3.1509.30 e 'iV°~ 4" ~~ 1r 3 8 S~ a~e$t; f . , . . J eet; ~ ~ w ~ y+GiLC~ :v Q Z'31° E 1163.Q0 feet, . t`Ze=C= goc3r6" Df 1319.5 ~eeL to ttie "_'?LT~ :-CT ~i'P OF 3EG• P ~ 2 _. +iEST SC~_5 3AN~ ?ARGL ?70. 5. :+iC~ .-i'I,;,? ~E3C:t~~ A& ?CF..~RB: 3aace a"7 hest c= ~-:e 6tz ? +~ ~ c ~ hi^ $ S , :c~v " .: . ~Q ..3~ Par sai c 3ecr_aa ZZ . ` c~e; ^a 3 ° ' . 0 SS 82" ~T i5;3.1 tee r - e- t :sacs S 38 ° G4 , 42" 1317 ^6 ~e°= - t e __ ?C . _ „F '-:~IICe 3 9$°57'46" S 1.317.:.= :aBC; C..°~C~ ]T ^'°Q2'31" ~ 128Z.$3.. __~+nr'. ~ t$eres ~ Y 38 °54'g`" W 1~I7.76 ..,, ,.• „...--.. f~--. ~.. ~.ze ~QIY'* ~c 40x879 01/14/1997 01:48P P6 3 DF 3 '' County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF 2TOTICE B`l } ss . POSTING OF 1~1 PUSLIC BEARING State of Colorado } FOR A PITSIDT COIINTY d DEDELOPM4SIT P°..RASIT The undersigned, being .first duly sworn, deposes and says as followse jy~~~~ being or representing an. Applicant for a Pitcin County Development. Permit, personally certify that t'~e attached photocranh fairly and ac^urately rearesents the sign posted as notice of the public hearing on this matter in a consuicuous place on tte subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the sign was posted and visible continuously from the ~~~ da Y of ~~+a~~ 19~+'~, to the ~\ day of '-~{' S ~-...~.L.. i9=~• (Must be posted for at least 15 days before the public hearing). CERTIFICATE OF MAILING RE: GRIFFITHS 1041 HAZARD REVIEW AND GENERAL SUBMISSION' I hereby certify that on this 6th day of August, 1996, a true and correct. copy of the attached Nofice of Public Hearing was deposited in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, to the adjacent property owners as indicated on the attached list of adjacent property owners which was supplied to the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department by the applicant in regard to the case named on the Public Notice. By: IZhonda Harris Administrative Assistant frrn.mailing .:PUBLIC NOTICE RE: GRII!FTTHS 1041 AA7,ARn REVIEW AND GENERAL SUBMISSION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, September 11, 1996 at a regular meeting to begin at 5:00 pm before the Board of County Commissioners, District Courtroom, 506 E. Main St., Aspen to consider an application submtted'by Anna May Griffiths requesting 1041 Hazard Review and General Submission approval for the construction of a single- family residence and customary accessory uses: The property, Parcel 5 Wesf Sopris Creek Ranch Subdivision, is located approximately 2 miles. up West Sopris Creek Road, and is described as a .. .. ~s ~.-4, .. _~. ,~,,,.... ~ __ ,. parcel of land situated in the W 1/2 of Section 22, Township 8 South, `Range 87 West of the 6th PM. For further information contact Rick Magill at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department (970) 920-5062. Copies of the proposed Resolufion are available for public inspection during regular business hours in the Office of the Clerk and Recorder, 530 East Main Street Aspen, _. .Colorado 81611. Phone (970) 920-5180. Jeanette Jones, Deputy County Clerk s/J me R TrnP !`hair Boazd of County Commissioners Published in the Aspen Times on August 10, 1996 Pitkin County Account 00113 ~"~ LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS (GRIFFITH' S) 1. Leslie C. Strawbridge Charles W. Restivo P.O. Box 587 Basalt, CO 81621 2. Lauren Graves P.O. Box 3819 Aspen, CO 81612 3. Bureau of Land Management. P.O. Box 1009 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 4. Franz T. Stone c/o Diversified Business Services P.O. Box 0429 Clarence, NY 14031 `', w = ASPEN/PITHIN CONIMLTMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 South Gatena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone (970)920-5090 FAX (970) 920-5439 MEMORANDUM TO: County Attorney County Engineer' Environmental Health Zoning CO State Forest Service CO Division of Wildlife Basalt Fire Stone Road Association FROM: Rick Magill, Community Development Department RE: Griffiths 1041 Hazard Review & General Submission Parcel ID #2465-222-00-002 DATE: January 29, 1996 Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Anna Mae Griffiths. Please return your comments to me no later than March 22. Thank you. CASEi.~"" D SUMMARY SHEET - PITI~TN C'~"YTY, 4 '. DATE RECEIVED: 1/17/96 CASE # P 7-96~ DATE COMPLETE: ~'~„'2j ~~t7 -- ~;a`7 STAFF: Rick Magill PARCEL ID # 2465-322.99..9Q2•.a. PROJECT NAME: Griffiths 1041 Hazazd Review'and General Submission Project Address: Lot 5 West Sopris Creek Subdivision APPLICANT: ~ Anna Mae Griffiths Address/Phone: 4247 Fillmore Denver, CO 80216 ~ i REPRESENTATIVE: Alan Richman Bb-7c 3 G /3 R5~-h Address/Phone: 920-1125 FEES: PLANNING $1050 # APPS RECEPSEI~ 20 ENGINEER $150 # PLATS RECEIVED ~' HOUSING _$0 ENV HEALTH $65 TYPE OF APPLICATION: CLERK $105 Two Step TOTAL $1370 P&Z _ 2~ _ ^Yes ~No BOCC ~1 ,[(Yes ^No BOCC (2nd readih) ^Yes ^No ~~ Hearing Officer ^Yes ^No REFERRALS: ,/County Attorney ~ younty Engineer Zoning ^ H using [environmental Health ^ Sheriff ^ Land Management ^ Risk Manager ^ Airport Manager ^ Floodplain Administrator ^ Open Space Boazd DATE REFERRED: I APPROVAL: ~CO State Forest Service ~O Division of Wildlife ^ CO Geological Survey ^ CO Div of Water Resources ^ US Forest Service -Aspen ^ US Forest Service- Sopris ^ CDOT ^ BLM ^ Caucus: ^ Aspen Fire [v]'$asalt Fire ^ Cazbondale Fire ^ Aspen Water ^ Aspen P&Z ^ Clean Air Board ^ ACSD ^ Rocky Mtn Natural Gas ^ Holy Cross Electric ^ omeowners' Association ^ Aspen School District ther: S~iL /~C.~Tu /,jf~],Other: INTI'IALS: W DATE DUE: 3 ZZ Staff/Hearing Officer Approval bate: Plat/Site P]ari Recorded Book Page CLOSED/FILED DATE: _ INTl'IALS: ROUTE TO: ASPENIPITHIN__ COMMUMITI`1ITYDEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone (970) 920-5090 FAX (970) 920-5439 MEMORANDUM TO: County Attorney County Engineer Environmental Health Zoning CO State Forest Service CO Division of Wildlife Basalt Fire Stone Road Association FROM: Rick Magill, Community Development Department RE: Griffiths 1041 Hazard Review & General Submission ParcelID #2465-222-00-002 DATE: January 29, 1996 Attached for your review and comments is an application su_brn~tted by Anna Mae Griffiths. Please return your comments to me no later an March 22. Thank ou. Y n ~, ASPEN/PITHIN COD~Y[1J~IiJNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 Sonth Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone (9'70) 920-5090 FA% (970) 920-5439 MEMORANDUM TO: Mike Villa FROM: Rick Magill, Community Development Department RE: Griffiths 1041 Hazard Review & General Submission Parcel ID #2465-222-00-002 DATE: July 31, 1996 Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Anna Mae Griffiths. Please return your comments to me no later than September 9, 1996. Thank you. ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPA~2TIVIENT 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920-5090 FAX# (970)920-5439" January 29, 1996 Alan Richman Box 3613 Aspen, CO 81612 Re: .Griffiths 1041 Hazard Review & General Submission Case #P7-96 Dear Alan, The Planning staff has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that this application is complete. This application has been scheduled for review by the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, May 28, 1996 of 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 thisletter. After that the a enda date will be considered final and changes to the sch `°" g edule or tab mg of the application r4~ wi only be allowed for unavoidable technical problems. The Friday before the meeting date, we will call to inform you that a Dopy 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 following the Planning Commission meeting for the hearing date. Please submit the enclose~`~~ " tLffi~avit of ~lotice 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 refen•al comments.. Please contact them directly at (970) 248-7325 to arrange for payment of their fees. Comments will not be released until payment is received. If you have any questions, please call Rick Magill, the planner assigned to your case, at 920-5062 Sincerely, SuzannG~ i :. 1VT 21 i 32 "BS R$7W 26 2~ PlT;nY~ C~~NTY 1 (j z INSET MAP xALe• I'= ~' t ~.' ~O~APNY gY aruEx~ `~ a ~_ ~' 4 ipp !'l` 0 m J~ .'¢y~Aa q G~ ,,r° ,~~° \fIXlNO= R~BA,f a 1 3 ~. 11 ~/ ~1~8 Alpine Surveys, Inc. Posl pence BM t]30 /?Pen. C '-.'- 8*.sy. 9Z0 9Y: 3688 / °~ .r . . ~, ~..": ~ in / 11 A~ BOARD OF IEGAt DESCRIPTION COUNTY COM,V~ISSIONERS APPROVAL A PARC.0. Or LAND 51'7Lb°,TED IN THE WE~+-bLF GF ' P/~RI=,EL 5 ~IFFIiHS V~jl HAZ'lKO REVIEW NWP .9FLfL N 22 °TOWnW~FiIP 8 `.z~Jll-I, R/V~c 6J V':ESr OF THE 51Xil-I Ifiit-CIPAL MFi21GVAN, PfiKIN CIXJ1.,9Y, 19 KEViEW'EO~ !~,?P~yED AND AGCEPIED eY Ti-7E ;~'/yPp CF [ptJiyl CGMMY~CJIJE(~pi OE;' PIiKIN C1X7NP~ ~ COIORACO, NO?~E PAKT'LU~Ai;LY L~YKIBED p5 ~u~`"~' COIL'RAGb TTli~ie r,.j__ ,OAYOF_~~y _^ __ Iq9~ r 9Y KE 50LL/IIOH FO a 1, I~ ~lj . ~INNIt~AT THE SJ,IlHWEST CrJPNEK OF SAID r I ;_ ~ hEGTYJN 22, li-IEN`P NQ~°59'02'E 4&t~4o PEST ' ~ ~f AhID Sf1°i T.~J IXo'E 1317. t I FEET To THE TfJ.iE FLlM OF ChkNP~, J~t~ SEG WhtING~ T'n=NCE NCO°52'4G°E I25J3.7G FEET, ' ° i ~ °~ (HENCE 5t~° 5/~42 E 1312 7L FEET- THEI~YL ~I'tYL 3%°W 12Pj2.g3 FF,ET'~ THENCE Neb°S7'IXr'W 1317.1 I PEE.T TO "tl-iE.1',zlJf. POINT OF SEGINNItJC>~ A.K,A. WE57 ~'PP15 ~AIiCH PARCEL t~0. 5. WAIVER RECORDING CERTIFICATE APPLICANT MYJ-GGWJLECGES BE!1~ ;NfL?J/:ED DY PAP-GEL: 9 C-EiFFITNS !~II HA2A>zD PE.ViEW MAP 19 ITKN COL)'MY qF THE FX 167EFCE OF'1041 NAZA2D AKEA°'J ° THAT MICiF-fF AFFECT THE PRCFEP~Iy, ANY I ' ACCEPiEP FOE FlIJ~ I:H THE OFFICE OF T}iE CLEKK AND P~''CDP~OEK OF PfTYJN CDIRYfY CDIDPi.947 FtT ` '' MPP~/E:sEMS ANO THE tT~E ~ :PEGP. C_"-3__O _ UtX.<_~_M.°Tk-ii5_~.1_?d_ffAY GF_?„~3:e~si ;_ - - 1`is~IN PiAY EC>•=.~ _AT PAGE_~3..•____A9 ? '! ~~~ /-,~_ v ke 'k!:. ~_ ~ %1 KECEPTgN 1~:CJ . _. ~ ~ f. ' ~ - S4'v'~l4 N 6P~FFITr}F3 ?~ r Sft ~ ~ ~ ; Su<wtee 1205.`l5 D.L. Poisior~s 12.2(n.95 It~6ET !MP To`DGIeAPHY Oruffetl 1213.95 J-H_P. 1.15 9L PRIJft~cD EUILIJIi~G ENVCIL ~'25'9G ~E]r1DYET 3~rvUAY 2F\/i5E 6L11 'l'.W+ FNVP~PE rtr~ PARCEL 5 GP.IFFITHS IC><jl iiA7J~2D K.YIF\4' .U,:SF ~. .tan tw 95~P.C~ GieN GIZiF'"IT.-~ LARGE PLAT(S) AVAILABLE TO VIEW AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AVAILABLE TO BUY AT CLERK & RECORDER