HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.planning.264511100003 (1986)(3)DOCUMENT LAYOUT
THIS FILE MAY OR MAY NOT CONTAIN ALL OF THE INFORMATION
LISTED BELOW IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER
Summary Sheet
Resolution for the BOCC and/or P&Z
Ordinance for the BOCC and/or P&Z
Determination for the Hearing Officer
Administrative Determination
Staff Memo
Application
Public Notice, Acceptance Letter, Referral(s) Letter
Site Plan
Miscellaneous
Plat copies (11x17)
PARCEL ID: 2645-101-00-001 DATE RCVD: ~- #COPIES:r- CASE NO P258-86
CASE NAME: Jensen Residential GMP Gen Subm Planners ,~-
PROJ ADDRi 4001/3333 Snowmass Creek Rd
-0WN/APP: Jensen, Robert N. ADR~- C/S/Z:~ PHN:~-
REP: ADR:~~ C/S2:~- PHN:~-.
Email Addr: ` ,-.. ALLOCATED HOURS:-.:
FEES DUE:- FEES RCVD:` ^/o OVER: ~-
r
• REF•~- BY ,..
CLOSED: ~- BY
PLAT RECORDED
' VR APPROVAL DATE:,~~J
CASE TYP: GMP
'. CASE TYP2:
CASE TYP3;!~-
CASETYP4:;~-
File Location:. Box 176
' DUE.
~
/ BODY PH NOTICED DATE OF FINALACTION:,.
. ~-
.
_ NQ ' ~ BOCC Reso:.:~
No ~r ~ BOCC Ord:
' PZ:' 86-27 #_81561
HRG OFF. `.
~- HO INDEX:.. ~- ,
ADMIN:
PLAT (BK;PG): 619 P11 # ~ ADMIN INDEX:
VR EXPIRES:;` ,:..
CASE TYP6:
CASE TYP6:
CASEITYP7:
~_
Date Scanned: ' ~ 9/18/09
A
MEMORANDDM
T0: Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Francis Rrizmanich, Planning Office
RE: Jensen 1041 Hazard Review
DATE: September 2, 1986
APPLICANT: Robert N. Jensen
REQUffiT: The Applicant is requesting 1041 Hazard Review approval
for two residential homesites on a 269 acre parcel located on
Snowmass Creek Road adjacent to the eastern boundary of the
Windstar property..
ZONING: The property is zoned RS-30 PUD and is 260 acres in
size..
WATER: Water is to be provided by individual wells for each
residence..
SEW ER: Sew age is proposed to be treated by individual septic
systems..
ACCESS: Access to each site will be via individual pre-existing
driveways.. No new road cuts are proposed..
MAJOR ISSDffi AND CONCBRNS:
A. Referral Agency Comments:
1. Office of the State Engineer - In a letter dated August
8, 1986, Hal Simpson commented that sufficient well
permits are available for the proposed development and
he recommends approval.
2.. Colorado Geological Survey - In a letter dated August
13, 1986 (attached) Jeff Hynes commented that the
recommendations of the geologic report should be incor-
porated into the project..
3. County Environmental Coordinator - in a memo dated July
24 1986, Mark Fuller submitted the following comments:
"The division of this property into two and the
concurrent proportional division of the water
rights thereon may create difficulty in future
irrigation.. Any approvals must be conditioned on
full and regular w ntinued irrigation according to
historic practices.. The application makes no
commitment as to how the second house will be
provided water.. The 25 gallon-per-minute produc-
tion from the existing well on Homesite One is
pro bably adequate for two houses and such dual use
would eliminate the need for new well development
and consequent development of an augmentation plan
and possible loss of irrigated land.. This water
supply plan should be proposed as a condition of
approval. It is also possible that the existing
pond on the property could be used as an augmenta-
tion structure. I would also recommend that
vegetative screening around the residences and
ranch buildings and a dog prohibition be added as
conditions in order to maximize protection of
adjacent wildlife migration routes."
4. Environmental Health Department - In a memo dated
August 19, 1986 (attached) Bob Nelson submitted the
following w mments:
o Water Supply - A well is in place to serve
Homesite One.. There is sufficient quantity for a
residence, and the geologic report indicates that
a similar well can be developed for the other
homesite. The chemical and bacteriological
quality of both the existing and proposed wells
should be analyzed prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy..
o Sewage Disposal - Both homesites should be able to
support w nventional septic systems and absorption
fields. Control of irrigation water is critical
to the operation of the sewage systems in the
summer.
o Water Quality Impacts - The development proposal
is small and we agree with the conclusions in the
application that there will not be any resulting
adverse water quality impacts from the proposal.
o Air Quality Impacts - The applicant should obtain
burning permits for agricultural operations..
Burning should be limited in quantity and duration
and to times of the year when the pollution
potential is minimized..
5. County Planning Engineer - In a memo dated August 11,
1986, Tom Newland has submitted the following comments:
o Road System - The access road to Homesite One does
not meet County standards at its intersection with
Snowmass Creek .Road. The submission should show
"a road and access plan detailing road specifica-
tions, alignments and relation to existing
roadways" as required by Section 5-104.1 of the
Land Use Code.
B.. STAFF CONNBNTS: This application is requesting 1041 Hazard
Review approval for the construction of two single-family
residential homesites. The property is zoned RS-30 PUD.
General submission (subdivision) approval is not required
for this proposal because the proposed division of the
property into a 200 acre parcel and a 70 acre parcel is not
subject to subdivision or PUD review (Section 4-3 of the
Land Use Code).. The 1041 concerns affecting this property
are elk and deer migration corridors and winter range.. Mark
Fuller has recommended that dogs be prohibited from this
property to maximize the protection of adjacent wildlife
migration routes.. The applicant raises dogs and has had
do gs kennelled on the property for the past year. In
discussion with Randy Cote of the Colorado Division of
Wildlife, Randy indicated that he has experienced no
problems with the current situation on the property.. Randy
recommends a condition requiring the kenneling of dogs as a
sufficient protection for wildlife on the property.. The
Planning Staff agrees with Randy's recommendation to allow
dogs if they are kenneled.. Our opinion is that the low
density of this proposal and kenneling dogs should be
sufficient to mitigate potential wildlife impacts..
Regarding the geologic hazards associated with this proper-
ty, the applicant should follow the recommendations of
Nicholas Lam piris, the project geologist. The terrace above
the road which accesses Homesite One sho uld be irrigated
carefully to prevent potential road failure.. Homesite Two
should have a site specific soils engineering study per-
formed to insure proper foundation design and to protect
against potential high gzoundwater conditions.
RBOON!lENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the Planning
Commission grant 1041 Hazard Review approval for the two home-
sites subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall submit a 24" x 36" mylar site plan
detailing building locations and access drives meeting the
approval of the County Attorney and Planning Office prior to
the issuance of a Building Permit.
2.. Driveway access and interior road design shall require the
approval of the County Engineer prior to issuance of a
Building Permit..
3. The applicant shall comply with the recommendation of
Nicholas Lampiris's geolo gic report which should be attached
to the Resolution of approval and be incorporated therein by
ref erence.
4. To mitigate wildlife impacts dogs on the property shall be
kenneled..
5. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the
Environmental Health Department memorandtun dated August 19,
1986, which shall be attached to the Resolution of approval
and incorporated therein by reference..
6.. The applicant shall obtain two residential allotments from
the Board of County Commissioners prior to final approval of
this application..
FR.25
<~
SCORE SHEETS FOR ~9'8~ ~9~
ow n Va~~ AREA RESIDENTIAL GMP APPLICATIONS
Name of Proj ect: ~~,~~pN~ Date: SP~~~~98b
1. AVAILABILITY OF PDBLIC AND PRIVATE FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum
24 points). The Commission shall consider each application with
respect to its impact upon public facilities and services and shall
rate each development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
0 -- Indicates total impracticality of providing service.
1 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased
public expense, or propased services do not meet the standards
of the Land Use Code.
2 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of service in
the area or any service improvement by the applicant benefits
the project only and notzthe area in general or service improve-
ments simply meet the standards of the Land Use Code.
3 -- Proj ect in and of itself improves the quality of''service in
a given area or service; improvements go beyond the standards
of the Land Use Code. 1111 '
The following facilities and services shall be rated accordingly:
r
(i) WATER (maximum 3 points) considering the ability of the water
system to serve the development, and if a public system, the
applicant's commitment, to finance any system extensions or
treatment plant upgrading required to serve the development.
Considering the commitment of the applicant to convey any unused
water rights to the water system and the commitment by the
applicant to maintain the availability of water for irrigation
purposes, whenever appropriate. If a private system, considering
the capacity and reliability of the system being proposed and
the demonstration of water rights to serve the development
and to attain any necessary water augmentation plan.
~~,t--// ~ // (MultipliLLer - 1) _~
COMMENT: ~ ~~±Gt~.'1" wl,ll ~ C2s.~ Two ~thi~15
j1Q~ ~oe~te ors ~ Sav~2 3 ~ at!'es U
(ii) SEWER (maximum 3 points) considering the ability of the sewer
system to serve the development, and if a public system, the
applicant's commitment to finance any system extensions or
treatment plan upgrading required to serve the development.
If a private system, considering the capacity and reliability
of the system being proposed.
COMMENT:
~ (Multiplier - 1)
~,
~ 51.70.;.:x,/ ~C,.S'YP.rvi S Tr, 3er,x-
1985 Score Sheet
Residential GMP Applications
Page 2
(iii) STORA DRAINAGE (maximum 3 points) considering the degree to
which the applicant proposes to retain surface runoff on the
development site. If the development requires use of the County's
drainage system, considering the commitment of the applicant
to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to
maintain the system over- the long term.
(Multiplier - 1)
c<L
(iv) FIRE PROTBCTION (maximum 3 points) considering the ability
of the appropriate Fire' Protection District to provide fire
protection according to its established response standards
without the necessity of establishing a new station, adding
equipment or personnel or making capital improvements. Considering
the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing
fire fighting flows. Considering the commitment of the applicant
to provide fire protection facilities which may be necessitated
by the project, including, but not limited to, fire hydrants
and water storage tanks.
~ ~ //(--Multiplier - 1) /-2®--
COMMENT: _ lhc~ di'~3..~n --c~ f,'Om PiS%'~i_c ia.-o ~ r~.,.i-~. /i,..~~fPAi.
(v) SCHOOL SYSTEM (maximum 3 points) considering theability of
the school system to accommodate additional students without
extensive busing and additional capital improvements."
~.,-
a~~ /«7
S~.c~ d~ ~ ~v ~,~ ~. 1~i e ~/- r~ ~n 3 n r7` ~ CO/srQt~:L~
_' _
1985 Score Sheet
Residential GMP Applications
Page 3
(vi) RECREATIONAL FACILITIES (maximum 3 points) considering the
availability and location of parks and other recreational
facilities (on and off site) and the ability of public facilities
to accommodate additional users without acquisition.of land or
making capital improvements.
(Multiplier - 1) vC/
COMMENT: b cA fl Of- )i , o~, ~
`c'~vrt/~ ~~O!// G~~ '. G(A'k'-,/a 1AQ~s~~ I^c1~rw f'nlY/.~~iJ O/nn..
/OvH ~ j'/~ i
(vii) ROAD SYSTEM (maximum 3 points) considering the ability of the
public road network to provide for the needs of the proposed
development within acceptable levels of safety, as defined
in 1982 Pitkin County Road Standards and Specificaitons. Con-
sidering the applicant's commitment to finance necessary road
system improvements attributable to the proposed development.
~~'~ r~~~~ /'~~~~- E~m>>N~~ r~ R%~..~~~~(Multiplier
4S C~tmmen~ / / f
COMMENT: _~~~ ~~/r.~'v<=c~r~.v fr, 7'~~~ GSG~,Crr
(viii)
- 3)
/7Pe/ ~~as.~ C'-c~5' c?r't' ~~'~~a3op~, ~
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE TRANSiCT SYSTEMS (maximum 3 points) considering
the proximity of the proposed development to existing transit
routes and trail systems, Considering the ability of the transit
system to accommodate 'the proposed development without the
need for additional facilities or route shifts. Considering
the commitment of the applicant to provide capital improvements
(i. e., bus shelter, trail connection spur) which enhance the
service of the public and private transit systems to the proposed
development.
(Multiplier - 3)
COMMENT:
~~
2. EFFECT IIPON THE EN4IRONMENT (maximum 21 points). The Commission
1985 Score Sheet
Residential GMP Applications
Page 5
(iv) NATORAL AND MAN-MADE HAZARDS (maximum 3 points) considering
the extent to which the proposed development is free from airport
flight hazards and natural hazards (including geolocjic hazards,
floodplains, steep slops, unstable soils, snow avalanche and
wildfire hazard areas).
(Multiplier - 3)
COMMENT: _ //Sv
Y
(v) VISIIAL VIILNERABILITY
to which the proposal
visual features of the
(maximum 3 points) considering ;the extent
waill leave unaltered the high quality
area.
(Multiplier - 3)
COMMENT:
v;
E'c~rn
(vi)
WILDLIFE HABITAT (maximum 3 points) considering the extent
to which (including dog control) the project accommodate existing
wildlife habitat including game winter range, migration routes,
calving areas, waterfowl habitat (winter and summer) and fisheries.
(Multiplier - 3)
c±
~~ ~~~
(vii) NATORAL
to wlzi-et
~o~~ .f'o~,s Ao7~ +he~-f 7n~- ~'S' 3d Gee p.-ov,`s~?7K wl,,'e.l~ s~a~t~5.
VEGETATION (ma{cimum 3 points) considering'the extent /
~Ai Tcevelopment will preserve unique natural vegetation
~~
~ Do..,er~,a c~yOS nr~a~l 6~ a6so/a{/~cl~ e~cpclupcPeoQ l{re~ ~, r~ea y
su6~?,L!`ud~d" r~s,'~et~~~a.~ Stiles ane{ ~t~Ua'I~-
ond l~MS ) (~ /+ ~ ~/
M•1rT .~Jx ~rpvia[~ +ar ~e- ~a~~kw`o!
i , n T i
L985 Score Sheet
Residential GMP Applications
Page 6
(especially trees)
e
on tl~e development site.
t
(Multiplier - 3)
COMMENT:
~~
3. RESOORCE CONSERVATION NBASDi.RES (maximum 6 points). The Commission
shall consider each application with respect to proposed use of
resource conservation meas~}res and shall rate each development by
assigning points according to the following schedule:
0 -- Indicates no conservation features.
1 -- Indicates standard conservation features.
2 -- Indicates outstanding conservation features.
The following features shall be rated accordingly:
(i) BNERGY CONSERVATION (maximum 2 points) considering the extent
to which the applicant proposes to employ passive and/or active
solar heating and cooling and thermal insulation measures beyond
those required by the Building Code.
Ts // (Mul~~tipli//er - 2)~//_
COMMENT: _//?~ ~y~/c~i~~ /~S Crr inner: ~~/r~~ yiT c^,/:lwrr«:.~ `1"I,o .
/ / `J
~/~ c~.""uea~,cr~>~'f~Y~ f~J rr Y7 ~ /~rin< c:on •~ i+- c~dn
rev~ /
~Xr C~,~/%?Si-~ l°-~~ ,!- i}~ ~ iY~e J.n7S 6 ~ aC J ~ ~/'P /~! sv
/~ ~
07~~ ~G t~+^ r_r ~ ~ "/t-S ilo ~'" /yvi°~ Gi~~c~ Ssr~ih ~!~ gj~~eiYr1:°~,
t / ~~ ~ / 7
rsi~r.i.~~rdr. asby~~7'.3 o n S i
(ii) WATER CONSERVATION/WASTEk'ATER REDSE (maximum 2 points) considering
'the extent to which the applicant proposes to employ water
.conservation devices and wastewater reuse systems.within the
development rather than standard plumbing facilities.
(Multiplier - 2) _~
:~r'~
(
w
,_
1985 Score Sheet
Residential GMP Applications
Paae 7
(iii) AG RICIILTDRAL LAND PRESERVATION (maximum 2 points) considering
the extent to which the design of the applicant's development
insures the preservation of agricultural lands including, but
not limited to, those which have been historically irrigated,
as identified on the "Pitkin County Historically Irrigated
Lands" map, available in the Planning Office, those used for
food production, hay, grains and other feed production and
those used for dry pasture and rangeland.
COMMENT:
(Multipllier -,/~3~~) // ..7~-
d
I
4. PROVISION OF LOW-, MODERAT}~-, AND MIDDLE-INCOME HOIISING (maximum
25 points). The Commission sh~ll consider to what extent each develop-
ment proposal will allevia a an identified critical shortage or
low-, moderate- or middle-income housing. Any applicant wishing
to receive points under this section shall specify, in the application,
the number of bedrooms withirn each unit within the proposed project,
and the method (as identified ~n Section 5-300.4) by which the applicant
will provide low-, moderate- rmiddle-income housing.
The Commission shall assign paints according to the following schedule
(as limited by the determinations made by the Board according to
the criteria outlined in the "sand Use Code):
(i) Low-Income Housing I~ Points
3 points for each 58 of the project
up to 308 of the total project 18
1 point for each 108 of the project
from 31 to 1008 of the total project 7
(ii) Moderate-Income Housing Points
2 points for each 58 of the project
up to 258 of the total project 10
1 point for each 158 of the project
from 25 to 1008 of the total project 5
(iii) Middle-Income Housing Points
1 point for each 58 of the project
up to 208 of the total project 4
1 point for each 208 of the project
from 21 to 1008 of the total project 4
In order to determine what 'percent of the project is 'devoted to
low-, moderate- and middle=-income housing, the Commission shall
compare the number of persons~to be housed by the project'as a whole
with the number of persons in°each of the low-, moderate- and middle-
income units (if any) using khe following criteria (with' no credit
being given for any unit nit meeting the most recently adopted
guidelines of the Pitkin Country Housing Authority, as adopted by the
t`'
~.:
1985 Score Sheet
Residential GMP Applications
Page 8
Board of County Commissioners:
Studio
One Bedroom
Two Bedroom
Three Bedroom (or larger)
Dormitory
1.25 residents
1.75 residents
2.25 residents
3.00 residents
By review of
Authority
the Housing
(Multiplier -(p' ) .~~
COMMENTS: 02 ~e'Xi /i?cr-~~~__LL~"r,.~S~- ~ S _ o~.~~?y t_, Gc_I~t~H,ti i
~~ // ,I/n `// l/ ~/. `
C~C~?^ ~a s-t? /~r.ii ~.. ~-JJ~ //f ~~- ~%l~ ~iw._~ rte- rs.._s~.~f-S
/~ ~ - /'
/i^oi~i ~fi"t~/ Gci3~:1~'./_/G lt_ 7-c'~i__ r~_L~'/__L/+''-eS R-C= - _~i+le~n~rc=
f i / ,
5. DEVELOPMENT BELOW ALLOWABLE DENSITY (maximum 25 points). The Commission
shall award points to any project which proposes to develop below
the (net) allowable density in the applicable zone district. "Net
allowable density" shall mean that density allowed in the appropriate
zone district reduced by any offset otherwise provided for in the
Pitkin County Land Use Code (e.g., Section 3-8. 8), exclusive of
the density associated with any deed-restricted housing which is
provided according to Sections 5-300.4(a)(3), (a)(4) or (a)(5) of
the Code. The applicant shall be required to provide a covenant
or other guarantee that the density reduction will be maintain for
the life of the project.
The Commission shall use the following formula in the award of points
under this section:
0-508 reduction = 1.0 point for each 5~ density reduction
(maximum 10 points)
51-808 reduction = 1.5 points for each.5~ density reduction
(maximum 9 points)
81-958 reduction = 2.0 paints for each 5& density reduction
(maximum 6 points)
(Multiplier - 1) ~/ Jr
COMMENT; ~~CC ~/~ i E'~Gf~~ /~? cn- /J
~.
1985 Score Sheet
Residential GMP Applications
Page 9
SQMMBB%
POINTS (with multiplier):
1. Availability of Public and Private Facilities and Services
2. Effect Upon the Environment
3. Resource Conservation Measures
4. Provision of Low-, Moderate- and Middle-Income Housing
5. Development Below Allowable Density
TOTAL
Name of Planning and Zoning Member:
21
8
/D
~7. S
$J~.S
PRE-APPLICA`PION CONFERENCE SOMMARY
PROJECT:
APPLICAN
REPRESENTATIVE' S PHONE: ~2 > ~~l
OWNERS NAME• ~~~~~ ~'~ (/vrc~r
SOMMARY
1. Type of Application: %(~~/ ~~n,~ ~'T-~-,c? / ~
2. Describe action/type of development being requested:
3. Areas in which Applicant has been requested to respond, types of
reports requested:
Policy Area/
Referral Agent comments
t
i
M - - _
~~GS`~c'N/
f
/~
n
~
r
I~~J
~
n
/rranv
Q~
/
//~~
~O~/`ncfo C~~Z/~~1`)~'~
4. Review is: Z Onl ) (CC/BOCC Only) (Pi~Zthen to CC/BOCC)
5_. Public Hearing: (YES (NO)
6. Did you to 1p~licant to submit
'
/ list of ADJA PROPERTY
(NO)
hi
(YE
)JO) Disclosure of
(YES
OWNERS? :
Owners
p:`
d t
t
t
li o submit:°3n ~°
~~"
'
~
~
7. reques
e
can
What fee was app ~
~
//
/
9
l~
C~ JL!N
/~'~~~ ~~a/+
/t'
8. Anticipated date of submission: ~
i/
LCYO LSO
U
ni
9. COMMENTS/DNIQDE CONCERNS: _f_~~ / ~l-~~'~a~~at // ~o>S~U/H,~( 6~///9/~~~
C r•
~ ~ a e o v a
~
m ~
r O
~ E
o, p, m r rt m
~ n ~
m n n~
rt a m o c k
rt G N A
O w c ~ 0
~ c n N c
E ~
N n m
~ n t+ w C
~ C N
a
o
r
r
£ ~
0
y .
7 O
w r• roc
~
~ m a
O N N
m rt
b n ro
O C S
~ w w
m rt rt
r• r• m
~ n
~
m
c
N
r '~~
~ I k l O hl
h I i~l I~PI I hi'I'°hl°
~i ~ ~°
zM
H
y
r•
r•
r•
th
ro
M
N
O
rt
0
c
to
N
fD
n
k
A
O
5
w
fD
n
c
a
rt
w
0
7
.~
r• r.
r•
~n n,~o an o•a
r~
n,
M
N
n
rt
C
ro
0
p
m
e~
G
c
r•
n
O
G
m
N
rt
a'w n,tp ao va
e
m a
N W
r
a~
N
mw
n 'C
C
r• O
n n,
m ro
G
O'
N
r•
n
zECZOE~
a r•r•aro a r•
r7 f+ N rt m rr n
c Q,c c c m
nHan nro
a w H a ~ p
~m
Ha m~
c
G
~
C
O G
-+
(
D 7l t
f
D t
O c
m
~w
a• no
rtr•nO O5
rtaO'3 N
r•rtr•a
O I--~ p,
7 w N
k x
a
N
a
n
O.
N
~ \ ~,
. ~~~~~
N
r
~~
~MWd
i~l°I~I~Io I~I~s
~:
i"IN~I"IwINI~ ~`~
;Irl MrF FhF4N~l
~ ~~~
~~ o
N H N O W N N
I~u I rl ~I~I~IN
1
wwwwwwN
~I~~I~IN~I~
N~
W
t
rozzrn~mv~~
c o m p r•rtm a
o•ao~noErt
r~o,n O ce n rp m
r• mo inn
OTC rtHh d
a+Nr•~non
rto~C rta
bNO W(D r•
n g w rt ~ o
r• rm rta
C ~ win
a KJ O (D
rt a o
m n
y N
n r-
a rt
G r•
U1 fD
r• m
rt
~7~I~~hl'I~
•F~~I~I~~I~I~
i H~i~ hi~l~
I'W~I°I~~I'I*
hl~l~l.~~~l°
w~rri-+rrr
~I~I~ININININI~I~
a
a
Q,
ro
n
r•
C
a
rt
a
a
r•
N
W
b
a
o~
H
H
~H
N
~~
~W
r
b~
~-
t
C
C
r
H
~ H
,. ~'d.,
H
C+7
"~
H
yO
t"
ro
~n
H
H
~~
~a y
m~a
pb{~lf y
HG
M
H
y
M
z°
y
ASPEN~PITKIN
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTI-1 GEPARTM~NT
M E M O R A N D U M
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Francis Krizmanich, Planning Office
Bob Nelson, Department of Environmental Health
August 19, 1986
RE: Jensen Residential GMP/General Submission/1041 Hazard
Review
This department has reviewed the recently forwarded general
submission application for compliance with Colorado Department of
Health Regulations, local requirements, and those specific
sections of the Pitkin County Land Use Code under our jurisdic-
tion. We present the following review comments for your consid-
eration regarding the referenced proposal:
1. WATER SUPPLY
Water is to be supplied from individual wells, one of which is
constructed on the property. The applicant has provided the
attached information which reports this well yield at 13.8
gallons per minute. This is a sufficient quantity for a single
family residence, and the geologic report indicates that a
similar well could be developed for the other homesite. Further,
Mr. Jensen had the developed well tested for bacteriological
quality on August 14, 1986 and the results meet established
standard for coliform organisms. However, there is no supporting
data or documents regarding the chemical quality of the source.
This should be done prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy if the this proposal is approved and residences
eventually constructed. In conc~~Sion, we anticipate that the
two wells will be a satisfactox`y sou~i~ce of drinking water, and
have no information which would lead us to other conclusions
about this project.
2. SEWAGE DISPOSAL
The application indicates that the wastewater will be disposed of
by means of individual septic systems and absorption fields. The
owner has requested our input regarding the construction of such
systems and we have completed several site visits in the last
year.
Our inspections and soil tests of Homesite #1 indicated that
observed in the general soil conditions correlated fairly well
with the reported typical characteristics of the area soil type,
130 8auth Gelene Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-2020
~.. .~
~ .i
Jensen GMP/1041 Review
August 19, 1986
Page 2
as indicated on the Soil Conservation Service maps (Soil Type 46D
- A clay loam and silty clay loam with slow permeability and a
high shrink-swell potential). Typically, this type of soil can
present some minor problems in the construction of a sewage
disposal system due to slow percolation rates. However, in this
case, the Chen and Associates subsurface study submitted to this
office in conjunction with a septic system permit application,
indicates that the specific soil within the building envelope of
Homesite #1 is more sandy than usually encountered within this
mapped unit. As a result of the sand content, the report
indicated that this particular soil "demonstrated only low to
minor swell potential after wetting". This was confirmed with the
measured rates of 35 minutes per inch with little swelling to
interfere and slow the rate of water absorption. It is the
conclusion of this department that a conventional septic system,
consisting of several hundred lineal feet of trench can be
constructed to meet County regulations. It is important to note
that the irrigation water must be intercepted and diverted away
from the absorption field of the sewage disposal system with
surface and subsurface interceptor drains in order to prevent
hydraulic loading and soil saturation and to insure proper
function.
We have also inspected Homesite #2, but have not conducted any
soil tests. The geologic report of Nick Lampiris, dated July 7,
1986, apparently addresses the lower building site. Lampiris
indicates that the soils should be permeable, but that a poten-
tial for high groundwater is anticipated, particularly during
irrigation. The reported typical characteristics of the area
soil type, as indicated on the Soil Conservation Service maps for
the lower homesite is Soil Type 56D-The Burnette-Libeg Associa-
tion. The Libeg portion of this soil, a loam to clay loam with
moderately rapid permeability and a moderate shrink-swell
potential, is by far the more suitable for septic system instal-
lation. Typically, this Libeg-typed soil, which appears to be
prevalent in the area of the building envelope, can be used
successfully for the construction of a sewage disposal system
which meets Pitkin County regulations. However, due to potential
water table problems which have been indicated in the Lampiris
report, and to the moderately slow and often erratic percolation
rates for those portions of the site which might consist of the
Burnette part of the associated soils, further site investigation
and soil testing is warranted. it is our opinion that a some
type of onsite wastewater disposal system can be developed, and
that more conventional septic systems most likely will be
permitted under county regulations if Libeg soils are present
adjacent to the home. Again, however, the control of the irriga-
tion water is critical to the operation of the sewage disposal
system during the Summer.
... ...
ti.-
Jensen GMP/1041 Review
August 19, 1986
Page 3
Further, water conservation methods, not suggested or indicated
as being employed in the submitted documents of the application,
could reduce the sewage disposal system size and are recommended.
There is no indication if any water-conserving fixtures are to be
provided or if other methods are to be utilized to conserve
groundwater.
3. WATER QUALITY IMPACTS
The development proposal is small and we agree with the conclu-
sions in the application that there will not be any resulting
adverse water quality impacts from the proposal. The applicant
has improved the erosion and reduced the amount of sediment added
to the Snowmass Creek drainage with ditch repairs, construction
of a pond, and a more conscientious application of irrigation
water.
4. AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
The development is in an area of the County where one fireplace
and an unlimited number of wood stoves are permitted. Limiting
each structure to one fireplace slightly exceeds these minimum
requirements of County air pollution regulations. Gravel, or
"construction materials" on the driveway should minimize the
amount of dust generated from the few vehicle trips anticipated.
We do request that the applicant obtain burning permits for the
agricultural operations and limit this burning in terms of
quantity and duration, and to times of the year when the pollu-
tion potential is minimized by weather conditions.
ROARING FORK ENERGY CENTER
FO. Box 9950 r__ = ~ /7
Aspen, Colorado 81611 ' ' ~ V ~ L/
13031 925-8885
is
~I f `', AUG - 5 I~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Francis Krizmanich, Planning Office
FROM: Steve Standi ford, Director
~/
RE: 1986 Down Valley Area County Residential GMP Competition Application
Review comments on energy related aspects of Jensen GMP/General Submission
INSULATION
The project requirement to achieve energy savings of 25o above the county's
minimum requirement is commendable. We assume this statement means the
project will, for example, increase the wall insulation R-values by 250.
It would help if the proposal would define the following: the various
R-values of the building envelope; the type of glazing; and other
building components that will lead to achieving their overall goal of
energy efficiency.
SOLAR ENERGY
The use of solar energy is not discussed in the proposal. We can
only guess what they are thinking both for passive solar design features
and/or any active solar devices.
WATER CONSERVATION
We would like to see a better definition of the type of showerheads, faucets,
and toilets that will be used. This would allow us to determine just how
efficiently the homes will use water. On page 8 under Water Resources
they state, "It is anticipated that each of the homes will be designed
to take advantage as much as possible of energy conservation features."
We would prefer the proposal to replace the word "anticipated" with
"required". The phrase, "as much as possible", also Lacks definition.
A Branch of the Colorado Office of Energy Conservation
TO: County Attorney
County Engineer
Housing Director
Environmental Heal th Dept.
Division of Wildlife
Environmental Coordinator
Colorado Geologic Survey
Division of Water Resources
Roaring Fork Energy Center
FROM: Francis Krizmanich, Planning Office
RE: 1986 Down Valley Area County Residential GMP Competi-
tion Application: Jensen GMP General Submission Maps
DATE: August 15, 1986
It was just dicovered that the maps with respect to the Jensen
Application were left out of the materials sent to you on July
11th. The comments on this case were requested no later than
August 15th. Please call our office and we will transcribe any
significant verbal comments you may have based on this additional
information.
Thank you.
RICHARD D. LAMM
GOVERNOR
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
?15 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING - 1313 SHERMAN STREET
_ DENVER, COLORADO 80203 PHONE (303) 866-2611
August 13, 1986
Mr. Francis Krizmanich
Pitkin County Planning
506 East Main
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Mr. Krizmanich:
RE: DOWN VALLEY RESIDENTIAL GMP, GEOLOGIC REVIEW
We have reviewed the materials submitted on the three proposals involved
in the Down Vally GMP Competition and the general and engineering geo-
logy of the three sites.
We concur with the general findings and conclusions found in the various
reports presented for the tracts and their respective development propo-
sals.
Of the recommendations offered by Nick Laupiris on the various sites,
all should be observed and incorporated into the detailed development
plans. We would like to reiterate the cautionary note he made concern-
ing the building setbacks from the steep slope of the river valley at
Aspen-Mass Ranch and the care required in locating the individual sep-
tic systems on this parcel.
The clustering concept causes the effective density of the four unre-
stricted units to be about 2-2.5 acre/unit. Additional consideration
needs to be given to the wells downslope of the proposed septic fields
and the potential for partially treated sewage to "daylight" on the steep
slope just below the proposed structures.
In summary, we feel that there are no geology-related problems associated
with any of the three proposals to render them infeasible, but careful
attention will be required to resolve the septic waste disposal issues on
the Aspen-Mass Ranch tract.
Yours very truly, //~_,
Jeffr L. ynes
Sr. Engineering Geologist
PI-87-0001
PI-87-0002
PI-87-0003
JOHN W.ROLD
DiR EGTOR
d1r:JLH-87-012 G E O L O G Y
STORY OFTHEPAST...KEYTOTHEFUTURE
MEMORANDUM
T0: Francis Brizmanich, Planning Office
FROM: Ton Newland, Planning Engineer
RE: Jensen GMP/General Submission
DATE: August 11, 1986
After reviewing the submission presented by Mr. Peterson on
behalf of the applicant, I would like to forward to you the
following comments:
GMP REVIEW
Storm Drainage: The applicant mentions the granting of a
construction license to the county as a means of solving the
potential storm drainage problem on Snowmass Creek Road (county
road #11). Perhaps the applicant could make more of a commitment
towards solving the potential drainage problem by installing the
drainage ditches along the county road.
Road System: Although the applicant has upgraded the access road
to Homesite #1, it does not conform to county standards at the
intersection with Snowmass Creek Road. In addition, the submis-
sion proposes an another driveway for the single additional free
market dwelling unit.
The submission does show where the roads to be used as driveways
currently exist on the property and mentions that they are
historic points of access. However, the submission does not show
"a road and access plan detailing road specifications, alignments
and relation to existing roadways" as requested by sub-section b-
203.1(a). Therefore, I cannot determine if the internal road
system will conform to county standards.
Agricultural Lands Preservation: It appears that the siting of
Homesite #2 goes against administrative guideline (a) listed in
sub-section 5-104.1 of the county land use code. This guideline
states that the proposed development must be placed in a manner
that will not cause the division of agricultural lands into small
parcels that will be hard to manage. Perhaps the Homesite #2
building envelope could be removed from the center if a 70 acre
irrigated meadow and placed on a corner of the lot, resulting in
less overall impact to the irrigated meadow.
Scenic Quality: The submission states that the two homesites will
have minimal visual impact from the Snowmass Creek Road. It does
not state that both sites, especially homesite #1, are very
visable from the Watson Divide Road.
1041 HAZARD REVIEW
Slopes over 30%: The proposed development will not use or cross
the steep slopes of the property with any form of construction.
The access road to homesite #1 does cross these steep slopes, but
is a pre-existing access already in place.
RICHARD D. LAMM
Governor
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
1313 Sherman Street-Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
(303)866-3581
August 8, 1986
Mr. Francis Krizmanich
Pitkin County Planning Office
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
JERIS A. DANIELSON
State Engineer
-----, ~
ws i a gees 11~1i
Re: Jensen GMP
Sec. 2, 3, & 11, T9S, R86W
Dear Mr. Krizmanich:
We have reviewed the above referenced proposal for two single-family
homes and one employee home on 269 acres. The proposed source of water supply
would be individual wells. The applicants already have constructed one well
for homesite 1, permit no. 141404.
Permit no. 141404 was issued allowing one well on 35.1 acres. The 35.1
acres identified on the permit appears to be apart of the 269 acres. The
permit area includes homesite 1.
In accordance with statute, a domestic well permit presently can be
issued on other tracts of 35 acres or more wholly owned by the applicant.
Since the property includes 269 acres, sufficient domestic well permits are
presently available for the proposed development and we recommend approval.
Please note that we will not issue a well permit for any part of a tract
denoted by another well permit.
Sincerely,
Hal D. Simpson, P.E.
Deputy State Engineer
NDS/JRH:ma/8160H
cc: Steve Lautenschlager
pitkin county
506 east main street
~ir~- ^^~^~ado 61611
MEMORANDUM ~ ~ 2 9
T0: FRANCIS KRIZMA~
,f
FROM: MARK FULLER j
4v
RE: DOWNVALLEY GMP APPLICATIONS
DATE: 7/24/86
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
.l.) Jensen
The division of this property into two and the concurrent
proportional division of the water rights thereon may create
difficulty in future irrigation. Any approvals must be condi-
tioned on full and regular continued irrigation according to
historic practices. The application makes no commitment as to
how the second house will be provided water. The 25 gallon-pec-
minute production from the existing well on Homesite One is
probably adequate for two houses and such dual use would elimin-
ate the need for new well development and consequent development
of an augmentation plan and possible loss of irrigated land.
This water supply plan should be proposed as a condition of
approval. It is also possible that the existing pond on the
property could be used as an augmentation structure. I would also
recommend that vegetative screening around the residences and
ranch buildings and a dog prohibition be added as conditions in
order to maximize protection of adjacent wildlife migration
routes.
2. River Road Ranch
There do not seem to be any major concerns regarding the
development of this property with the possible exception of
wildlife impacts. Although the property is clearly not within
critical elk or deer habitat, adjacent habitats have become
stressed in recent years due to road and residential development
elsewhere in the valley, thus justifying wildlife protection
measures in adjacent areas. Therefore, dogs should be prohibited
from this development to assure the continued usefulness of
adjacent habitats. Also given the weed-infested nature of the
River Road area, the developer should commit to a weed control
effort by pledging to either contract for weed control with the
County or a private contractor or by demonstrating a willingness
and ability to control weeds on his property prior to and follow-
>: s
MF TO FK
GMP APPLICATIONS
JULY 28, 1986
PAGE 2
ing construction.
3. Aspen Mass Group
Given the visual vulnerability of this site it is critical
that any development be strictly controlled in terms of building
size and height. Although the on-site geography and vegetation
offer some protection, the home sites will be visible from
Highway 8'2 and elsewhere in the valley and both a specific
building height limitation and improved screening from the
highway side should be conditions of approval. This is particula-
rly true of the agricultural outbuildings as they tend to have a
more monolithic design and subsequently higher visual impact.
The undeveloped portions of this property, particularly the
area nearest the Smith Hill Road that were recently filled, are
weed infested and do not appear to be well-maintained. The
developer has provided assurances that these areas will be
rehabilitated in the future and should also specify seed mixtur-
es, maintenance plans, a commitment to treat weed infestations,
and assurance that the property has adequate water rights to keep
this area irrigated as well as other pasturelands.
The application does not indicate how much land might be lost
from irrigation as a result of the transfer of existing irrigat-
ion water rights to domestic well uses. This is important not
only in assuring that there is adequate water to the subdivision
but also in confirming that existing irrigation uses can be
continued. The application also does not state where the proposed
storage tank will be located and the potential impact of this
structure.
The application makes mention of pedestrian and equestrian
trials. It should be clarified that these trail(s) will be open
and available to the public at such time as the County wishes,
that is, when and if a connecting trail is available to the south
and east. In the meantime, the applicant should make the trail
from their property to the Smith Bridge available to the public
as an alternative access to the Rio Grande Trail and True Smith
Park.
4. Hunter Creek Townhomes
The applicant states that the proposed development will
improve the air quality of the site. The replacement of the
existing single-family residence with seven woodburning devices
plus the added auto-generated air pollution contradicts this
assertion and indicates that this development will contribute to
air quality problems in the Smuggler area and in the metro area
in general.
The applicant asserts that a trail easement will be provided
to allow for Hunter Creek access with the exception of a 150 foot
section. The deletion of this section may effectively negate the
value of the easement and this issue should be resolved before
MF TO FK
GMP APPLICATIONS
JULY 28, 1986
PAGE 3
any value is attached to the proposed easement.
It should also be noted that this development, while it may not
in itself cause any severe environmental problems, will add to
the congestion and loss of open space that has recently characte-
rized the Smuggler area.
--
ij} ~s~L~ti\!f'
-~
V ~~ E
M E M O R A N D U M ~ 2 9 ~pp~ I j ~
wvq ~; ~;~
T0: FRANCIS RRIZMANICH, PLANNING OFFICE
~J
FROM: ANN BOWMAN, PROPERTY MANAGER
RE: JENSEN GMP/GENERAL SUBMISSION
DATE: JULY 20, 1986
ISSUE: Is the proposed employee housing proposal adequate for the
projects needs?
BACKGROUND: The project is proposed on a 269 acre parcel
located along Snowmass Creek Road in Old Snowmass.
The property is contiguous to the windstar
property on the west and north sides ( a parcel in
Sections 2, 3 and 11, T 9 S, R 86 W of the 6th
P.M.). The applicant is requesting a 3 unit
allocation from the Down Valley quota. The
project is to consist of 2 free market units and
will provide for 2 emp. by cash-in-lieu.
The applicants represents that there will be 3.0
residents for the homesite. The applicant is
proposing 2.0 as the employee commitment and will
house 2.0 employees at the moderate income level
for the project. The applicant is proposing to
satisfy this commitment by a cash payment of
twenty six thousand three hundred dollars-
(526,300.00) to be paid in equal proportions at
the time of the issuance of a residential building
permit for each unit. The payment amount shall be
adjusted to the moderate income cash in lieu of
guidelines in effect at the time or payment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff agrees
the employee generation,
monies owed. The moderate
currently 513,300 (2 emp.
moderate income therefor
should be 526,600 instead
applicant does go on to
will be adjusted to mod
issuance of building pe
staff recommendation is tc
as proposed.
with the computation of
not the computation of
income guidelines are
x 13,300 = 526,600) for
the proposed payment
of 26,300. However the
say the payment amount
'rate income at time of
:mit and therefore the
approve the application
ACTION NEEDED: Approval of staff recommendation.
ASPSN-MASS SOBDIVISION GNP/GSNSRAL SOBMISSION/1041 HAZARD
REVIEW/SCSNIC POREGRODND OVERLAY
The project is a 40.97 acre parcel and is situated on
the east side of State Highway 82 between Brush Creek
Road and the Smith Hill Road. The applicant, Aspen-
Mass Group, proposes to develop four single family
units, a barn, stable and outdoor arena with a Ranch
Manager's unit. Therefore, the applicant is requesting
a five (5) unit allocation consisting of 4 new free
market units and 1 employee unit.
The quota avalable this year is as follows:
Metro Area 10 units (9 requested for allotment)
Doan Valley Area 12 units (10 requested for allotment)
Please review these application and return your draft referral
comments to Francis Krizmanich no later than August 4th. We have
scheduled a referral agency meeting to discuss the project and
the draft comments on Wednesday, August 13, 1986, 1:00 PM in the
City Conference Room. Final comments are due no later than
August 15th.
Thank you.
M.20
./ ~'
NEMORANDDM
TO: County Attorney
County Engineer
Housing Director
Environmental Health Dept.
Division of Wildlife
Environmental Coordinator
Colorado Geologic Survey*
Division of Water Resources
Roaring Fork Energy Center
FROM: Francis Rrizmanich, Planning Office
RE: 1986 Down Valley Area County Residential GMP Competi-
tion Application:
Jensen GAiP/General Submission
The River Road Ranch Residential GMP/General Submission
Aspen Mass Ranch GMP/General Submission
DATE : J my 11, 1986
Attached for your review are the three (3) 1986 Down Valley Area
County Residential GMP Competition Applications. Following is a
brief description of the Applicant's requests:
JENSEN GlIP/GENERAL SIIBlIISSION/1041 HAZARD REVIEW
The project is proposed on a 269 acre parcel located
along Snow mass Creek Road in Old Snow mass. The
property is contiguous to the windstar property on the
west and north sides (a parcel in Sections 2, 3 and 11,
T 9 S, R 86 W of the 6th P.M.) . The applicant is
requesting a 3 unit allocation from the Down Valley
quota. The project is to consist of 2 free market
units and 1 employee unit.
THE RIVER ROAD RANCH RESIDENTIAL GMP/GENERAL SDgr1ISSION/1041
HAZARD REVIEW
The project is proposed on a 20.81 acre parcel located
at Tracts 70 and 72, Sections 25 and 26, T 8 S, R 86 W
of the 6th P.M (1637 River Road). The applicant, River
Road. Ranch Company, proposes to contract a single-
family residence together with a detailed farm building
containing a deed restricted employee housing unit.
Therefore, the applicant is requesting two (2) unit
allocation to consist of 1 free market unit and 1
employee unit.
.~.
LAW OFFICES
BROOKE A. PETERSON
APROFES SIONALCORPORATION
315 EAST HVMAN AVENUE
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
13031 925-8166
July 8, 1986
HAND DELIVERED
Mr. Francis Krizmanich
Pitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Francis,
.1
8
Re: Jensen G.M.P. Application
I enclose herewith twenty one (21) copies of Nicholas
Lampiris' report regarding Homesite Number Two (2). This report
is referenced in my Growth Management Plan Application and is
submitted in order to clarify that application and the 1041
review application. It is therefore appropriately submitted at
this time pursuant to Section 5-510.7 (7) of Article 5 of Title
II of the Pitkin County Land Use Code.
Please contar_t me if you have any questions.
Yours very truly,
ARPOOEess~na/Z CoNp~ration
By:
BAP:krk
.' Qet~gson
cc: Robert Jensen
! ~-
~.,,.
Nicholas Lampiris, PhD
CONSULTING GEOLOGIST
P.O. BOX 10935
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
(30319633600 925b020 ASPEN OF FICE
July 7, 1986
5rooke Peterson
315 E. Hyman Suite 315
Aspen, CO. 81611
F:E: Snowmass Cree4r., 1041 Study
Dear Mr. Peterson:
I have completed my geologic investigation of Lot 12 of the
Jensen property in the Snowmass Creek valley. The
roughly triangular shaped lot is approximately 70 acres along
the west side of the Snowmass Creek Foad. This is within the
SE 1/4 of Sec. 2, T 9 S, ft S5 W of the Sixth P. M., within the
Woody Creek 7 1/2 minute quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado.
None of the property goes beyond the base of the steep
hillside to the west. The building site as shown on the
accompanying map is near the west central portion of the lot.
The topography of the proposed site consists of irrigated
pasture interspersed with groves of scrub oak:. The site is
quite flat and is more than BO feet away from the base of the
steep hillside. There are no existing structures on this
site.
The geology of the site consists of surficial deposits of
glacio-fluvial origin of Quaternary age. This is in the form
of poorly sorted silts, sands and gravels on a terrace above
the present level of Snowmass Creek. :Underlying this
material, perhaps 50 to 100 feet below the surface, is the
Cretaceous age Mancos Shale which in this general area dips
approximately 15 degrees to the south. There are no other
geologic structures which could adversely affect this site.
The building site as depicted is far enough away from the
base of the steep hill to the west so:as not to be affected
by any gravity related phenomena there. There are no
significant gullies on that hillside which could have an
affect on the building site. This is;an excellent site for
the development of a single family dwelling, but high ground
water conditions should be expected, especially during
irrigation season. It will still 6e necessary to have a
soils engineering study prepared to insure proper foundation
design and to protect against potential high ground water
conditions.
e
<.d
July 7, 1986
Snowmass Cree4: 1041 Study
Fage Two
Access to the site should be easily attainable off the
Snowmass Creek Road on grade to the site, but several
culverts may be necessary because of the irrigation system in
place. Water far domestic use should be available through
the drilling of a well to a depth of perhaps lUU feet. Waste
disposal should be available through the construction of a
septic system with accompanying leach field in these
permeable soils. Once again, the complicating factor may be
the potential for high ground water, the Fitkin County
Sanitation Engineer should be consulted for his specific
recommendations. Flease contact me if you have further
questions.
Sinc ~elyi,
•,.~ ti~~
Nicholas Lampi~`is'
Consulting Geologist
encl.
NL/clk
---~ .,
Nicholas Lampiris, PhD
CONSULTING GEOLOGIST
V.O. BOX 10935
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
(303(%3-3600 9256020 ASPEN OFFICE
July 7, 1986
Prooke Peterson
315 E. Hyman Suite 305
Aspen, CO. 61611
kE: Snowmass Creek, 1041 Study
Dear Mr. Peterson:
•
I have completed my geologic investigation of Lot 12 of the
Jensen property in the Snowmass Creek valley. The
roughly triangular shaped lot is approximately 70 acres along
the west side of the Snowmass Creek Food. This is within the
SE 1/4 of Sec. 2, T 9 S, k 85 W of the Sixth P. M., within the
Woody Creek 7 i/2 minute quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado.
None of the property goes beyond the base of the steep
hillside to the west. The building site as shown on the
accompanying map is near the west central portion of the lot.
The topography of the proposed site consists of irrigated
pasture interspersed with groves of scrub oak:, The site is
quite flat and is more than 80 feet away from the base of the
steep hillside. There are no existing structures on this
site.
The geology of the site consists of surficial deposits of
glacio-fluvial origin of Quaternary age. This is in the farm
of poorly sorted silts, sands and gravels on a terrace above
the present level of Snowmass Creek. .Underlying this
material, perhaps 50 to 100 fleet below the surface, is the
Cretaceous age Mancos Shale which in this general area dips
approximately 15 degrees to the south. There are no other
geologic structures which could adversely affect this site.
The building site as depicted is far enough away from the
base of the steep hill to the west so: as not to be affected
by any gravity related phenomena there. There are no
significant gullies on that hillside which could have an
affect on the building site. This is',an excellent site for
the development of a single family dwelling, but high ground
water conditions should be expected, especially during
irrigation season. It will still be necessary to have a
soils engineering study prepared to insure proper foundation
design and to protect against potential high ground water
conditions.
,~,
,.<._
Nicholas Lampiris, PhD
CONSULTING GEOLOGIST
P.O. BO% 10935
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
(303) %3.3600 9256020 ASPEN OFFICE
July 7, 1986
Erook:e Peterson
315 E. Hyman Suite 315
Aspen, CO. 81611
REs Snowmass Creep, 1141 Study
Dear Mr. Peterson:
I have completed my geologic investigation of Lot 12 of the
Jensen property in the Snowmass Creek valley. The
roughly triangular shaped lot is approximately 70 acres along
the west side of the Snowmass Creek Road. This is within the
SE 1/4 of Sec. 2, T 9 S, R 85 W of the Sixth P. M., within the
Woody Creek 7 1/2 minute quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado.
None of the property goes beyond the base of the steep
hillside to the west. The building site as shown on the
accompanying map is near the west central portion of the lot.
The topography of the proposed site consists o4 irrigated
pasture interspersed with groves of scrub oak. The site is
quite flat and is more than 80 feet away from the base of the
steep hillside. There are no er.isting structures on this
site.
The geology of the site consists of surficial deposits of
glacio-fluvial origin of Quaternary age. This is in the form
of poorly sorted silts, sands and gravels on a terrace above
the present level of Snowmass Creek. .Underlying this
material, perhaps 50 to 100 feet below the surface, is the
Cretaceous age Mancos Shale which in this general area dips
approximately 15 degrees to the south. There are no other
geologic structures which could adversely affect this site.
The building site as depicted is far enough away from the
base of the steep hill to the west so us not to be affected
by any gravity related phenomena there. There are no
significant gullies on that hillside which could have an
affect on the .building site. This is an excellent site for
the development of a single family dwelling, but high ground
water conditions should be expected, especially during
irrigation season. It will still be necessary to have a
soils engineering study prepared to insure proper foundation
design and to protect against potential high ground water
conditions.
@., s
July 7, 1986
Snowmass Cree4; 1041 Study
Fage Two
Access to the site should be easily attainable off the
Snowmass Creek Foad on grade to the site, Gut several
culverts may be necessary because of the irrigation system in
place. Water for domestic use should be available through
the drilling of a well to a depth of perhaps i~?~~ feet. tJaste
disposal should be available through the construction of a
septic system with accompanying leach field in these
permeable soils. Once again, the complicating factor may be
the potential for high ground water; the Fitkin County
Sanitation Engineer should be consulted for his specific
recommendations. Flease contact me if you have further
questions.
Sincerely,
i
t~. _~~~;.. '~ •y
Nicholas ~ampir`is'
Consulting Geologist
encl.
NL/clk
~,
LAW OFFICES
BROOKE A. PETERSON
A PROFESSIO NALCORPO RATION
315 EAST HUMAN AVENUE
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
~~
13031 9 2 5-87 6 6
HAND DELIVERED
Mr. Francis Krizmanich
Pitkin County Planning
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
July 7, 1986 II))
1, .~r - 7 iy~.
1
Office `
Re: Jensen G.M.P Application
Dear Francis,
I enclose with this letter twenty one (21) copies of two
maps of the Jensen property showing the proposed two building
sites as prepared by Alpine Surveys, and certified by that
office. I had them prepare an entirely new map because the
clarity on the topographical map was terrible when they tried to
crowd all the information onto one map. To the best of my
knowledge, the maps are identical except that the one shows the
topography and surrounding land uses.
Please advise me immediately if I have not complied with
the requests contained in Alan Richman's letter of June 20, 1986
or if any additional information is needed. Both my client and I
would like to see the review process for the down-valley
residential growth management application accelerated as much as
possible so that Mr. Jensen might even be able to build this
year if he is granted his allotments.
Yours very truly,
BROOKE~f ~ETER~O~G, ion
A Pro ass nal rpora
By:
BAP:krk
er
Enclosure
__ ~
`- Nicholas Lampiris, PhD
CONSULTING GEOLOGIST
P.O. BOX 10935
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
(303)9633600 9256020 ASPEN OFFICE
July 7, 1986
broake Peterson
315 E. Hyman Suite 305
Aspen, CO. 81611
RE: Snowmass Cree4~, 1~?41 Study
Dear Mr. Peterson:
I have completed my geologic investigation of Lot 12 of the
Jensen property in the Snowmass Creek valley. The
roughly triangular shaped lot is approximately 7U acres along
the west side of the Snowmass Creek Road. This is within the
SE 1/4 of Sec. 2, T 9 S, R 85 W of the Si;<th P.M., within the
Woody Creek 7 1/2 minute quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado.
None of the property goes beyond the base of the steep
hillside to the west. The building site as shown on the
accompanying map is near the west central portion of the lot.
The topography of the proposed site consists of irrigated
pasture interspersed with graves of scrub oak. The site is
quite flat and is more than BO feet away from the base of the
steep hillside. There are no existing structures on this
site.
The geology of the site consists of surficial deposits of
glacio-fluvial origin of Quaternary age. This is in the form
of poorly sorted silts, sands and gravels on a terrace above
the present level of Snowmass Creek. ,Underlying this
material, perhaps 50 to 100 feet below the surface, is the
Cretaceous age Mancos Shale which in this general area dips
approximately 15 degrees to the south There are no other
geologic structures which could adversely affect this site.
The building site as depicted is far enough away from the
base of the steep hill to the west sofas not to be affected
by any gravity related phenomena there. There are no
significant gullies on that hillside which could have an
affect on the building site. This isjan excellent site for
the development of a single family dwelling, but high ground
water conditions should be e:<pected, especially during
irrigation season. It will still be necessary to have a
soils engineering study prepared to insure proper foundation
design and to protect against potential high groLlnd water
conditions.
<.__
Aspen/Pitki
130 soufh"'g;
aspen, co10
June 20, 1986
t-?r. Brooke Peterson
315 F,. Hyman Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Brooke:
Wing Office
treet
31611
The purpose of this letter is to outline for you the deficiencies
in your Jenson Gt7P application. Until these deficiencies are
rectified, there will be no referral or public review of this
project.
Since your application either does not propose subdivision: or
involves parcels in excess of 35 acres, the reauiremer~t f-or your
project is that your maps include those items specified ir.
Section 6-3.2 of the Code. All maps must be prepared to the
standards of Section 6-3.3(c) of the Code, with proper certifica-
tions and accurate information depicted on a site survey.
The Code permits you to technically clarify your submission,
provided that you may not change any commitment from your Gt4P
application. Further, the Code requires that G[^P applications
be processed in a specific time frame. Therefore, I swill give
you three weeks, or until July 10, 1986 to submit this information.
Failure to do so will result in your entire application being
rejected by this office pursuant to Section 5-510.4(b).
I would suggest that you contact Francis Y.rizmanich upon receipt
of this letter so that you and he may go ever its contents. I
will also be available to assist you.
Sincerely,
Alan Richman
Planning and Development Director
AR:nec
cc: Francis Krizmanich
..,
June 70, 1986
6!r. Brooke Peterson
315 E. Hyman Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Brooke:
The purpose of this letter is to outline for you the deficiencies
in your Jenson GMP application. Until these deficiencies are
rectified, there will be no referral or public revi~a of this
project.
Since your application either does not propose subdivision, or
involves parcels in excess of 35 acres, the requirement for your
project is that your maps include those items specified in
Section 6-3.2 of the Code, All maps must be prepared to the
standards of Section 6-3 .3 (c) of the Code, with proper certifica-
tions and accurate information depicted on a site survey.
The Code permits you to technically clarify your submission,
provided that you may not change any commitment from your GP9P
application. Further, the Code requires that GMP applications
be processed in a specific time frame. Therefore, I will give
you three weeks, or until July 10, 1986 to submit this information.
Failure to do so will result in your entire application being
rejected by this office pursuant to Section 5-510.4(b).
I would suggest that you contact Francis Krizmanich upon receipt
of this letter so that you and he may go ever its contents. I
will also be available to assist you.
Sincerely,
Alan Richman
Planning and Development Director
AR:nec
cc: Francis Krizmanich
..
r
r
r
r
i
r
r
r
a
r
Su
By
`i
PITKIN COUNTY
GROWTH
MANAGEMENT
PROPOSAL
FOR ROAERT N. JENSEN
ASPEN, COLORADO
June 1, 1986
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
PROPOSAL FOR
I. ROBERT N. JENSEN
General Description of Project.
'~ This is an application for three (3) 1986 Growth
Management Plan Down Valley Allotments pursuant to the land use
regulations of Pitkin County, Colorado. There will be two (2)
free market units and one (1) employee unit. Mr. Jensen is
seeking an allocation for two (2) free market residential units
to be built upon the two hundred sixty nine (269) acres of '
property located along Snowmass Creek Road in Old Snowmass,'
,.
Colorado. It is zoned RS-30. The property is contiguous to the'
Winds tar property on the west and north sides and to property
,,
.. owned by Sno Path Ltd. and Harald Pabst on the south side. It
"' consists of two parcels of land physically separated by a slope.
'~ The upper portion is approximately two hundred (200) acres in
size and the lower portion is seventy (70) acres in size.
The applicant has already upgraded the private access road
a to Homesite One located upon the upper part of the property.
This road has been in existence in excess of thirty (30) years.
The access to Homesite Two will be directly from Snowmass Creek
,. Road, upon another road having been in existence for thirty (30)
years. Both access roads have been totally revegetated.
~.
Both Homesites One and Two have been selected so to
preserve as much as possible the existing vegetations of the
2
~.
property, as well as the agricultural nature. Indeed, Homesite
One has already been improved by the addition of numerous trees
~,
and foliage. A pond has already been built upon the lower
A portion of the property which as an enhancement not only to the
aesthetic nature of the property but which will also serve to
catch excess surface runoff and which also increases wildlife
h3blt3t.
As was stated, the property is agricultural in nature and
the two (2) acres reduction for both of the homesites will reduce
the irrigated acreage by less than one tenth (1/10) of one
percent.
In addition, the applicant is willing to covenant that
~' there will be no further development of the property for free
market residences, thereby reducing the density upon the property
from a potential of eight (8) units to two (2) units.
All of the utilities to both sites will be undergrounded.
Each site will be served by its own private well and septic
"" system designed and constructed in accordance with the standard
required by Pitkin County and the State of Colorado.
3
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROPOSAL
CRITERIA
A. Availability of Public and Private Facilities.
I. Water.
The two homesites will be serviced by private individual
wells. A well has already been developed on Home Site One and it
'" ,has a gallonage of twenty five (25) gallons per minute,
w ' definitely adequate for a single family home. In addition, both
homesites will have use of a proportionate and appropriate share
of the existing water rights associated with the property as a
whole, which, according to historical consumption, are in excess
of the water needed for agricultural use. It is anticipated that..
' all the approximately one hundred thirty five (135) acres of
historically irrigated lands, except the two used for the
homesites, will continue to be irrigated as a result of this
1 development. The historically irrigated lands are basically one
.+ half (1/2) the entirety of the property. The other one half
(1/2) is utilized for grazing.
II. Sewer.
Each of the homesites will have an individual sewage and
w septic system. These systems will be designed in accordance with
,. the regulations of Pitkin County and the State of Colorado, with
the assistance of Robert Nelson of the Pitkin County
Environmental Health Department. The individual system for each
homesite shall be determined prior to the issuance of an
individual building permit for the homesite based on the specific
4
,„ site and home design.
3 ~ This property in question is no*_ located in any
i
'~ ~ metropolitan sanitation district.
III. Storm Drainage.
The applicant has already spent considerable funds in
~, improving the extensive system of irrigation ditches upon his
. ', property and in correcting erosion problems. He has corrected a
major erosion point of the Walker Wonder Ditch by regrading and
w revegetating the same. This area was potentially dangerous and a
major source of erosion, as well as a hazard to wildlife,
y ~ livestock and humans.
In addition, the applicant has already constructed a pond'
upon the property which will also help to collect surface runoff
and he has granted a Construction License to Pitkin County along
Snow mass Creek Road for the widening of the drainage ditches upon
A his property so as to prevent surface runoff upon the Snowmass
M
Creek Road.
Finally, each of the individual homes will be engineered
and landscaped so as to control surface runoff near the
residence.
7 IV. Fire Protection.
The development is on the Basalt Eire Protection District
.. and will be serviced by that District. In addition, there is a
fire station at Gerbazdale, approximately three (3) miles away
from the property. It will also be served by any fire substation
constructed in accordance with the approvals previously given to
the Lazy 0 project. This new substation will drastically
5
x decrease the response time to the property. Each house will be
~ designed, if appropriate, with firebreaks in mind, and each home
will also have individual fire alarm systems in accordance with
Pitkin County regulations.
V. Schools.
„, The property is located in the Roaring Fork School
District and will be served by the schools located in Basalt,
Colorado. It is believed that these schools are operating at
under capacity at the present time, but in any event, these two
(2) additional homesites shall have minimal impact upon these
systems. The applicant agrees to contribute one hundred fifty
a dollars ($150.00) per homesite to the Roaring Fork School
District's Capital Improvement District, which is believed to be
the fair monetary deduction required under Senate Bill 35.
v VI. Recreational Facilities.
The low density will preserve the majority of the terrain
,.
for agricultural purposes. The usage of the property as in the
b past for recreational riding will continue. The closest existing.
park is believed to be the public parks in Basalt, Colorado, if
one excludes the Bureau of Land Management and National Forest
,. Lands located in the Snowmass Creek Valley.
VII. Road Systems.
The driveways to the homesites will be constructed out of
materials which minimize air pollution. In addition, the
existing road to Homesite One has already been stabilized and
improved. It is estimated that there will be minimal impacts
upon the Snowmass Creek Road by the addition of the two (2)
6
~.
homesites and that the number of trips in and out of the Snowmass
Creek Valley will be approximately four (4) per day. As is
~,
obvious, all parking will be on site.
The applicant has by the Construction License previously
s granted to Pitkin County contributed to the improvement of the
Snowmass Creek Road by permitting for the widening of the road
~^ and for improved ditches to handle maintenance and runoff. That
license is attached hereto as Exhibit Number One. this
construction license represents a major contribution to the
a
increased safety of the Snowmass Creek Road.
„ The applicant has already improved the entrance from
.. Homesite One to the Snowmass Creek Road by altering the changes ,
of entrance, which has increased visibility on the Snowmass Creek
Road.
The applicant will commit to join a road improvement
district if one is formed in the future.
The closest public transportation is at the Old Snowmass
Conoco. There is currently a park and ride facility at this
location.
It is clear that the decreased density of this development
will be an automobile disincentive in the Snowmass Creek Valley.
B. EFFECT UPON THE ENVIRONMENT.
I. Air Pollution.
It is anticipated that each of the homes will have no more
.,
than one fire place. These will comply with the regulations of
Pitkin County.
Dust will be reduced by the construction materials
7
utilized upon the driveways and by the proper application of
j agricultural methods.
II. Water Resources.
This low density project will not reduce or pollute
.surface and ground water supplies. As has already been stated,
.. the applicant has made significant improvements to the property
~' in regrade, and rechanneling existing irrigation ditches, in
correcting major erosion problems, and in constructing a pond
upon the property. In addition, he has granted the
v aforementioned Construction License to Pitkin County for the
improvement of drainage along the Snowmass Creek Road.
It is anticipated that each of the homes will be designe d
to take advantage as much as possible of energy conservation
features.
III. Open Space.
The low density of this development will serve to protect
the agricultural area in general. This will be a major
contribution to open space and to the preservations of the rural
nature of the Snowmass Creek Valley. Approximately ninety nine
(99~) percent of the property will remain as open space and in
agricultural usage. The applicant agrees to deed restrict all of
the property against further free market residential development,
resulting in a homesite approximately two hundred (200) acres
(Homesite one) and a homesite of approximately seventy (70) acres
(Homesite Two), given the natural topography of the land.
8
q ~ IV. Natural and Man Made Hazards.
The property is not the airport flight hazards area. The
~ homesites have been picked so as to eliminate any conflict with
potential geological hazacds. Neither of them are, to the best
of the applicant's knowledge, upon any slope, or within a flood
plane or wet area, or upon a snow avalanche hazard area. In
.addition, they are not within a wildfire hazard area.
Dr. Nicholas Lampiris has already commented in a letter
previously submitted to Pitkin County, that Homesite Number One
is not in any geologic hazard area. Similar information will be
obtained for Homesite Two.
The soils report prepared by Chen and Associates
w
furthermore demonstrates the suitability of the property for the
single family residential construction which is proposed.
' As has been previously stated, the applicant has expended
considerable sums for the correction of natural hazards upon the
property by improving irrigation ditches, correcting erosion
y problems and improving the already existing road system upon the
property.
V. Visual Vulnerability.
The applicant is committed by the decreased density upon
this property to the preservation of the visual character of the
,~
property. The homesites have been chosen to minimize their
visibility from the Snowmass Creek Road and from surrounding
areas. Homesite One is in an area of low visual vulnerability as
is defined by the 1041 review maps in Pitkin County Planning
9
Office. Homesir_e Two is in an area of moderate visual
w vulnerability as defined by those same maps, but has been
selected to take advantage of existing trees and vegetation which
'will effectively screen the residence from the Snowmass Creek
Road. The homes will be designed so as to effectively blend with
the natural features of the property.
j In addition, landscaping will be done at each homesite to
K further blend the home with its environment. The planting shall
.. be of native trees and vegetation, so as to provide additional
visual screening.
VI. Wildlife Habitat.
The applicant desires to protect and enhance this area as ',
a wildlife habitat. In seeking to do so, both homesites have
.. been verbally approved by Randal Cote of the Division of Wildlife
"" 'and will have minimal impact upon the deer and elk populations.
All dogs will be required to be kept in fenced areas.
,.
The preservation of approximately ninety nine (99$)
percent of the property in its current state as the reduction in
density, will assist in mitigating any impacts upon wildlife. In
addition, the property will be covenanted against any usage of
vehicles thereupon off of existing roads except for agricultural
purposes.
The aforementioned corrections of the hazards upon the
property, and the construction of the pond, will also improve the
habitat for wildlife upon the property.
VII. Natural Vegetation.
. The two homesites have been planned so as to preserve the
property's natural vegetation and existing character. The usage
10
~.
of existing roads for the driveways will minimize vegetation
I
disturbance. The irrigated lands will continue to be irrigated.
After each home is built, care will be taken to revegetate
the area, as has already been done around existing irrigation
> ditches.
C. RESOURCE CONSERVATION MEASURES.
I. Energy Conservation.
The property will be convenanted so as to require
residential construction which will insure a twenty five (25$)
I! percent energy savings above the minimum requirements of the
County's Energy and Conservation and Thermal Insulation Standard.,
a The individual buildings will be designed so as to fulfill they
~
requirement of this covenant.
II. Water Conservation and Waste Water Reuse.
~, The use of native plants will require small quantities of
~* water on the site. In addition, improved erosion control, and
improved irrigation techniques will serve to conserve water upon
the property.
y III. Agricultural Lands Preservation.
Of the approximately one hundred thirty five (135) acres
of historically irrigated property, ninety nine (99~) percent
will continue to be irrigated. This represents a minimal one
a
(18) percent reduction of the irrigated lands due to construction
of the roads, homesites and additional buildings. The remaining
pasture land will continue to be used as pasture for horses and
COWS.
11
w
w
., _:.
D. PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE AND MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING.
I. Employee Housing.
There will be 3.0 residents for each homesite. The
applicants employee commitment will be 2.0 employees at the
moderate income level for the project. This commitment will be
satisfied by a cash payment of twenty six thousand three hundred
dollars ($26,300.00) to be paid in equal proportions at the time
of the issuance of a residential building permit for each unit.
The payment amount shall be adjusted to the moderate income cash
in lieu of guidelines in effect at the time of payment.
E. DEVELOPMENT BELOW ALLOWABLE DENSITY.
I. Density Reduction.
This property is presently zoned RS-30, allowing one unity,
for each thirty (30) acres of property. It is believed that
there is no density reduction for slopes over forty five (45~)
percent upon this property.
The net zoning density is eight (8) units for two hundred
sixty nine (269) acres. The density reduction is therefore
calculated as follows:
Net Allowable Density = 8 units
Proposed Density = 2 units
A Unit Density Reduction = 6 units
~« Density Reduction = 75 percent
G.M.P. Points:
0 - 502 Reduction = 1 pt/58 reduction = 10 pts.
T 51 - 78~ Reduction = 1.5 pt/5`f reduction = 6 pts.
~.
Total G.M.P. Points = 16 pts.
12
,. ~.
F. 1041 REVIEW APPLICATION.
The applicant wished by this reference to incorporate his
Fi
presently pending 1041 review application for Homesite One and to
request the same 1041 review for Homesite Two. It is believed
that Homesite Two is not located in any geologic hazard area but
,~
this will be clarified by Dr. Lampiris.
m The applicant has already referenced a commitment to
dealing with wildlife habitat by his discussions with Randal Cote
and by the mitigation efforts explained in the proceeding section
of the G.M.P. application.
G. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE.
It is anticipated that construction will be commenced upon
Homesite One as soon as all approvals have been received and a
building permit has been issued. It is anticipated that the
w construction upon Homesite Two will not begin at least before
the 1987 building season.
x
w H. LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS.
According to the records of Pitkin County, the following
entities own property adjacent to the applicant's property:
Roy Brill Key
Post Office Box 263
Snowmass, Colorado 81654
Paul and Glennis Beck
~, Past Office Box 111
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Sno Path, Ltd.
~ c/o H. Nicholas Pabst, Managing Partner
., c/o Corporate Reports Wisconsin, Inc.
302 North Jackson Street
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
13
~»
..
Windstar Foundation
Post Office Box 286
Snowmass, Colorado 81654
Harald Pabst
Post office Box 1304
Carefree, Arizona 85377, or
c/o Pabst Farms, Inc.
'" 35303 West Pabst Road
i Oconomowoc, Wisconsin 53066
'i
I. DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP.
By his signature hereon, Brooke A. Peterson, Esquire,
hereby certifies to Pitkin County that, based upon his
",,examination of the records of Pitkin County, the property in
question is owned by Robert N. Jensen, the applicant.
14
.„ ,
CONSTRUCTION LICENSE
s
IN CONSIDERATION of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and
r
other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, ROBERT N. JENSEN,
A
(hereinafter "Licensor"), does hereby grant to THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN, COLORADO as the
governing body of Pitkin County, Colorado (hereinafter
"Licensee"), and on its behalf a construction license to use any
portions of Licensor's real property described in Exhibit A
=x
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which.
lie within fifty (50) feet of either side of the centerline of
the Snowmass Creek Road as the same is in place. The property
burdened by the construction License shall hereafter be referred
to as the "Licensed Area".
x
Said Construction License is for the purpose of permitting
Licensee to utilize the Licensed Area for the surveying, widening
.and upgrading of the Snowmass Creek Road, including barrow
ditches, and the sloping of said land between the edges of the
(shoulder of the road and the remainder of Licensor's real
property, to a total width not to exceed thirty (30) feet on
either side of the centerline of the Snowmass Creek Road as now'
in place after completion. Nothing contained herein shall be'
:
!I construed to permit the Licensee to rearrange the basic alignment
~i
j of the Snowmass Creek Road so as to place the Snowmass Creek Road
i
I; and related structures solely within Licensor's property when the
1
,i
s3 me era not now located theyein. No structures other than those
heceinabove provided for shall be erected, constructed or placed
!! upon the Licensed Area by the County.
Following the completion of the surveying of the Snowmass
!~
ij Creek Road and immediately following a determination by Licensee
i;
~ or its employees of the work to be performed upon Licensor's
property within Licensed Araa, Licensee shall present its plans
for the proposed work involving the Licensed Area to Licensor for
!I approval and Licensor shall have fifteen (15) days in which to
!! approve or disapprove the proposed work.
j This Construction License shall terminate upon the earlier
~; to occur of five (5) years after the date of the full execution
!~
~of this Construction License, or completion of the foregoing,
construction work relating to the Snowmass Creek Road.
~i '
Licensee shall be responsible for, and shall at its
expense promptly replace, repair, and restore to Licensor's
i
I Satisfaction any landscaping, fences, ditches, or other;
i!
~limprovements which may be damaged or destroyed as a result of its
fuse of this license or its exercise of the rights herein
!I provided.
II
ii Upon completion of the widening and upgrading work on the
,I
'iSnowmass Creek Road, providing Licensee has complied fully with
~i
ii the provisions of this Construction License, Licensor shall
~I~
j convey to Pitkin County by Quit Claim deed those portions of the
'I
Licensed Area upon which the Snowmass Creek Road has been widened
j and barrow ditches constructed.
` i
;j 2
l
In no event, however, shall
r Licensor be re wired to conve
q y, or mny the Lir_Ansee take, any
portion of the Licansor's pcoperty in excess of thirty (30) feet
•
in any direction from the centerline of the Snowmass Creek Road
as presently in place.
THIS AGREEMENT shall be binding upon and inure to the
benefit of the parties hereto and their successors and assigns.
In the event of sny litigation hereunder the prevailing party
shall be entitled to collect its reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs. Nothing h=rein contained shall be deemed to restrict
Licensor in the use or ownership of the Licensed Area herein
granted, except ss sny us? may be inconsistent with the rights
granted hereunder. This license may be amended or modified only.
by s writing executed by the parties hereto, their successors or!
assigns.
„< ~ I
_,
_ i
3
,~ EXECUTED this /"S _ day of /yt'hIL. 19`l6.
~~1~fi tit ~.~,,,~,., -
~" ROBERT M. JE EN
-.
n
..
I
,~ (SEAL
'; ATT
.. Lew Scanlan
Deputy Clerk & Recorder
,,
a
A
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMTSSIONERS
OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN, COLORADO
/ /
By • ~~_;~
Helen a in landerud ~~
~ Chairwoman
'.~ STATE OF COLORADO )
i', )
ss.
~~ COUNTY OF PITKIN ) I
~'
The foregoing document was acknowledged and sworn tc before
' me this ~5 day of April, 1986, by ROBERT N. JENSEN.
My commission expires:
i' Witness my hand and
official seal.
~~
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing docume~~t was acknowledged and sworn to before)
me this _ / day of ~~, 1986, by Helen Kalin Klanderud,!
;'Chairwoman of the COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THF, COUNTY OF PITKIN,
i! COLORADO.
'~ ii My commission expires: $-`/-8 ~
~ Witness my hand and
it official sell.
i
ii
~I otary Pub~i~M~
I
it 4
i~
i
I~
'1 E%HIB17 A "
LCGAL OESC RI PT ION;
A PARCEL OF ].AND SITUATED IN SECTIONS 2, 3 AND 11,
TOWNSHIP 9 SOUTH, RANGE 86 WEST OF THE SSXTH PRINCIPAL
/g RI DIAN, NORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: -
' BEGINNING AT A POINT WHENCE THE NORTHWEST CORNEA OF
SAID SECTION 2 (A BM55 CAP FOUND IN PLACE) BEARS
N 0]•01'13" N 18]1.65 FEETr
THENCE 5 19'27' E ]97.00 FEET;
THENCE 5 IJ•27' E 181.10 FEET;
THENCE S 18.27' E 90.00 FEET;
,y THENCE S 79.08' E 177.20 FEET;
7HENCE S 73.51' E 116.6] FEET;
THENCE S 57.00' E 110.67 FEET:
°~ THENCE 5 16.77' E 65.00 FEET;
THENCE S 17.11' E BIB.11 FEET;
THENCE 5 31.17'11' E 2152.35 FEET;
THENCE S 58.01'30' E )71.20 FEET; '
.~. THCNCE 5 06.56'27" N 2)1.76 FEET;
THENCE 5 27.29'29' W 110.91 FEET:
;~ THENCE S 20.01'58" N 103.05 FEET;
THENCE S 01'22'16" W 629.61 FEET:
THENCE S 06.26'12" E 773.77 FEET;
' THENCE 5 18•)8' E 136.00 FEET;
THENCE N 86'78'37' E 917.11 FEET)
'~' THENCE EA57 211.]7 FEET;
THENCE 5 89.57'11^ E 971.78 FEET TO THE CENTERI,I NE OF
SNOWMASS CREEK ROAD;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE THE FOLLOW2NG
," COURSES AND DISTANCES:
622.39 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF
]100.00 FEET (THE CHORD OF w'FIICH BEARS N 12.59'53^ W
^ 611.12 FEET); 733,20 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING
A RADIUS OF 1175.00 FEET (THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS
N 21.05'00" M 772.08 FEET); N 12.57'75" H 356.99 FEET;
N 12•)8'01' W 197.21 FEET, 192.97 FEET ALONG A CURVE
TO THE AIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 298.20 FEET (THE CHORD
OF MHICH HEARS N 05.51'19' E 189.62 FEET),
ar N 21'26']8^ E 719.05 FEET, 177.18 FEET ALONG A CURVE
TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 108.92 FEET (7'HE CHORD
OF WHICH BEAIi$ N 12.01'57' E 175.79 FEET),
N 00.22'52' W 2061.87 FEET, 2]2.26 FEET ALONG A CURVE
TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 227,77 FEET (THE CHORD
OF WHICH BEARS N 27.13'77" M 201,30 FEET),
N 55.01'22' N 60.00 FEET:
-. THENCE DEPARTING FROM SAID CENTERLINE, H 21.18'29' E
727.50 FEET;
-w THENCE N 00.26' E 323.96 FEET:
THENCE N 00.25'15" E 615.69 Fi.%T;
THENCE S 89.55'07' W 172.15 F.':ET;
THENCE S 11.00' W 988.60 FEET:
THENCE S 68.26'07" M 1082.22 F'r:ET;
~ THENCE N 13.17'10" W
1219.17 IFFY;
THENCE 5 00.00')7' E 61].87 FEET;
THENCE N 71.17'00" W JB8.28 FEET;
THENCE N 71.75' W )08.60 FEET?
w THENCE N 51.79' W 151.80 FEET;
THENCE N 11.51' W 558.10 FEET;
7HENCE N 18'51' W 277,20 FEET;
THENCE 5 ]1.77' W 215.09 FEET 7'O T71E POINT OF DEGINNIIJ G,
w CONTAINING 280-00 ACRESur MO RE
Nicholas Lampiris, PhD
CONSVLTING GEOLOGIST
P.O. BO% 10935
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
1303) %33600 925L020 ASPEN OFFICE
April 14, 1986
Broo4::e Peterson
"' 'lv E. Hyman
Suite X115
Aspen, CO. 81611
RE: Jensen Property/Driveway
Dear Mr. Peterson:
I have viewed the driveway accessing the upper meadow where
the Jensen improvements are. The driveway is cut in
G!uaternary age glacio-fluvial terrace deposits which consist
of poorly sorted and poorly graded clays, silts, sands,
., gravels and cobbles.
n Although the driveway is a little steep, approaching eight to
ten percent grade in one stretch, it is well constrl_lcted with
~ a ood base. There is no evidence of slum
9 ping or other
instability at this time on the cut han4: side of the road.
w The underlying bedrock: in this area is the Cretaceous age
Mancos Shale which dips approximately twenty degrees to the
" south, or generally into the hillside. On balance, this is a
,~ positive factor, but the eroded surface of the shale beneath
the glacial deposits probably slopes into the valley. This,
., in conjunction with an irrigation ditch which crosses the
hillside above the steeper part of the access road, could
cause instability and potential failures along the road cut.
This potential, of course, would be magnified if the ditch
itself were to fail.
My recommendations are to irrigate this section of the
pasture on the terrace above the road caref1.111y, and to leave
water in this particular ditch for as short a period of time
as possible. Obviously, the ditch should be well maintained
so as to keep the potential for failure at a minimum. In the
fall, after the irrigation season is over, this portion of
"' the ditch 'above the road should be made to catr_h and carry as
little spring runoff as possible. Despite possibly decades
"' of irrigation at this site, I saw no significant signs of
., instability along the access road and expect little trouble
with mass wasting, especially if the above recommendations
are followed. Please contact me if there are further
questions,
Sincerely,
_~• ~ ,
~` Nicholas Lampiris
N1/r_lk: Consulting Geologist
~.
LAW OFFICES
BROOKE A. PETERSON
APROFES SIGNAL CORPORATION
315 EAST HUMAN AVENUE
ASPEN. COLORA00 81611
13031 925~B 166
April 17, 1986
Mr. Francis Krizmanich
Pitkin County Planning office
., 130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: 1041 Review Jensen Parcel
~ Dear Francis,
On behalf of my client, Robert N. Jensen, please allow
this letter to serve as his application pursuant to Section 5-
400, et.seq. of Title II of the Pitkin County Regulations for
., 1041 Review for his construction of a single family residence
within a building envelope approximately one and one-half (1.5)
^~ acres in size located within his property located in Old
Snow mass, Colorado.
At the present time Mr. Jensen owns approximately two
hundred sixty eight (268) acres of land. ['7e have been given an
opinion by Thomas Smith, Pitkin County Attorney, that Mr. Jensen
must receive 1041 Review Approval, prior to the issuance of a
building permit. The land on which Mr. Jensen intends to build
his home has already been improved by the construction of a
horse barn and hay barn, for which no building permit review is
required. Mr. Jensen intends to build his residence in
conformance with the construction patterns established by the
construction of these two buildings.
~"" ~~' With res ect to the wildlife concerns which
p you expressed
at our pre-application conference on April 9, 1986. Mr. Jensen
had extensive discussions with Randy Cote of the Division of
Wildlife, prior to the construction of the hay barn and of the
horse barn, even though no such discussions or approval from the
Division of Wildlife were necessary. Mr. Jensen would not have
chosen the house site in question without Mr. Cote's approval of
the location of the barns and the house. In reviewing the maps
in the Planning Office, I found that the building envelope is
,~ not within the big game critical winter range or the big game
normal winter ranges as defined by Section 5-404.2. The
building envelope is in an area of flat topography and grass
vegetation, thereby meeting the criteria discussed in Section 5-
'" 404.2 (b)(2).
,~
Mr. Francis Krizmanich
April 17, 19£36
Page Two
You will find enclosed herewith, a copy of a repoct
"' issued by Nicholas Lampiris, consulting Geologist, cegarding the
driveway to the property, wherein he indicates that the driveway
is stable, well constructed and indicates that there is no
evidence of slumping or other instabilities at this time on the
driveway. I would add that Mr. Jensen has already taken
A significant steps to clean and repair all of the ditches on the
property in order to minimize any potential for ditch failure.
It is clear that no development will be conducted as to subject
.. the users of the area which would subject occupants to ha2ardous
conditions, nor would any condition be worsened or created which
~+ would affect other developments, or which would require the
County to expend any funds, the criteria set forth in Section S-
401.2(b). No new use will be made of any potentially unstable
slope as the driveway has been in use for over thirty (30)
years, nor will there be any cutting into the slope, adding
water to the slope, the adding of weight to the top of the
slope, removal of vegetation or over steeping of any slope, the
~` criteria set forth in Section 5-401.2(f).
Based upon our pre-application conference, Z believe that
the disruption of wildlife and potential geological hazards were
the only concerns expressed by yourself with regard to this
application. I furthermore believe that discussions with Randy
Cote and a review of Mr. Lampiris' letter will be adequate to
address these concerns.
As soon as it is completed, I will submit a topographical
map of the property in question showing the location of the
proposed one and one-half (1.5) acre building envelope in
relation to existing improvements, and the driveway. You will
a find enclosed Mr. Jensen's application fee in the amount of
eight hundred dollars ($800.00), and his check for one hundred
ninety dollars ($190.00) to the Colorado Geologic Survey.
w
Finally, you will find the completed Land Use Application
.. form enclosed.
`° Please allow this letter to serve as my certification
that Mr. Jensen is in fact the owner of the property in
question. I represented him in his purchase of the property,
,+ and know it to be titled in his name. I will also represent, and
the map demonstrates, that the driveway is located wholly within
Mr. Jensen's property.
,...
Mr. Francis Kcizmanich
April 17, 1986
Page Three
The water for the house will come from a domestic well
which has already been drilled upon the property. The septic
system will be designed to meet County requirements, with input
from Bob Nelson.
Thank you for your time and consideration in reviewing
this application. Please contact me if you have any questions
or comments.
BAP:jms
Enclosures
cc: Robert N. Jensen
Yours very truly,
r
APPENDIX B
Project Number
Section/Parcel
Date Submitted
pitkin county
506 east mam street
LAND USE APPLICATION aspen, Colorado 81611
r
a
.,
W
d
r
r
TO 3E COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT:
NAME Fbbert N. Jensen
S c/o Brooke A. Peterson, 315 East 1-_yman Aspen Colorado
PHONE 925-8166
OF PROJECT G.M_.P. Application and 1041 Review
ROJECT LOCATION: (On attached sheet, locate on zoning map, showing boundaries of any
natural hazard and resource areas, any other special regulatory
districts, Section 5, Land Use Code; and locate on appropriate CSU/
ERA Maps any areas not covered by the above.)
TAL AREA 270+ acres
ISTING USE(S) Pgricultural Lands titilized for grazing and hay production
ROPOSED USE(S) 2 single family residences and continuted agricultural use
approximate square
ootage for each)
T ZONING OF SITE ~-30
PTION OF LAND USE PROPOSAL Application for
3 1936 G.P^. P. Ixxan Valley Building Fllotments, for 2 single family residences and
one employee unit (which shall be fulfilled by a cash payment) and appropriate
1041 Peview for each homesite
BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING OFFICE
TYPE OF APPLICATION: REZONING GROWTH MANAGEMENT
P.U.D. SUBDIVISION
SPECIAL REVIEW EXEMPTION
BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW 35-acre + SUBDIVISION
,~ REVIEW PHASE: PRE-APPLICATION DATE COMPLETED
GENERAL SUBMISSION P.C. ACTION DATE
BOARD ACTION DATE
DETAILED SUBMISSION P.C. ACTION DATE
`" BOARD ACTION DATE
FINAL PLAT BOARD ACTION DATE
~ ~_ ~ _ ~y~y_ _
_ _ 1 _
l ~ /~
__ ~~y _
~l ~ ~ ~~i
V, .~ gv I
/~ ~~O
_ ~ '/
f 1 ~~~ ~~--~--- ~
I ~ S ; ~ , ~~ ~ w Ioo -~ 26 ~ ~N'~~,4 .. ~ 25~~ ~
C ~~w
4
^ eoop ~ o o 1~A ~ f -~ ~. ~~ ~ 1 'ko ,1 v i ~
~~~~- i ~ ~i /~ r! \ ~~ \ ~ _ 011'':4 \~1':
~ glp0
_~
I / i ~ ~
~~~ ~ I` ~ ~ -- ~ ~. ~
~, .. . r.- ~ ~ ~
~ it l~/ ~1 ~
a~ '.~ ~ ~ 1 i~ 1~
1
e h e
y.a ~ ~ ~ r
33 _ -~ - ~~ ~ _ . ~ I~~~ti-
34 ~ r~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~.
.. i - ~~ -- ;~~~ ~~i" ~ i, c
(`/~`~ ~ i l ~l~ ~ ~ ~i ~,
~~ ) ~ 1\ ~~~Fn 1 - \ `I\ '. _ l ~ , it r `~ 1 ~~ ~ J\ ~~
~~ ~~. it ~~ ~ .~~
w ; ~'; ~ I1 ~ ~i 8600 - ~ 1 1~-Ir
! ~ _
m ^ 1
A ~ A~.
O~ 1
iif
l.l~~~r f~~: ~ ~ _ ~~ ~~~\ __ A A
O
w ~ i~ ~ \/ - ]BOO T'
~y ° '-- ~ rt
0
4 ~~ ~ ~~~
"~l
~~^
~a~,~t1,1 ~ 3 a«<~ ~ao'a _
~r ~ .
iwmcso~ ~dQ
Na qq S ~~_
`C~`E~,
o ~ ~
•( ~ ~~ v° 1 HON( rtEa2 ~
t ~ ~~ W IMO Q .~ ~~' moo
~~ _
sr9R ~ "*-
~ r
SS
/~ ''~~~~~AAF~~~- \~ A Suo P ~ o
~~ ~ ~ ,~,~ f {'~RotE
_ ~ ~ V-~oo~ ~'~,
0
~ ~,
_ r-~-~ !~ ~ eaLoe,i3T b o R p , ~ ,
_ \ ` ~ '-~
~'. \ ~,•~\ \ ~ ~...., ~ ~_`` I ~e~_ ..- _,_ J'~-~_ ~/~% - /~~.~~. ~\ ~ ~`~--sue ~ \ _ ~~ \ /
_ ~;' ~
_ i A ~ ~ ~ ,,ha~f ~
- - - `fr-- ~ ~ _ ~.
__.-
S ~
I
~' p ~~
~8 ~ ~ ~Z ~~~, - ~ 25~-j
Pt 19 ~ ~ 1 ~ e ~ ~
Po ~`
~ ~ ~ / _ `.~ ~ ~,1 I
~ .~ ~
~ t \\/
.. ~'H~/ 1 .. ` 'YOB ~ / i~ `Y':c ~ Bcpp ~I`~~~ 1 ~\~~j
~l. ~ ~ ~ V > ) ~ l
33 X34 v~ ~ ~'~ =~ ~ `~
~ ~'1 \ y
~ ~ ~~ ~~ 1
`) \ ~ n
' 1 ~l/ ~ / ~ ` •~ ~ ~ ~\ ' ` ~ 8600-. ~'
l
J
~ ~ 1~
`~ ~t~ ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ;°~_
.. ~ ~ }
r;~r ~ ~ .
,gp~~.
4 ~ ,; o ~~ ~ ~ AGRa~~,.a7croa.AL ~ --~~. ~`~ ,,.
~,,Ilt ~ 3 ~ ~ ~
~'"' ~ ~ Watson ide
A ~ ~..
~,~~ \ ~ , ~
a ~~
,w
++~.+~~-~ z <; ~
S ~ ~ ~n :~-, ~~ ., =
~' ~ ~ S/ ~ ~ ~ ~ sk o-P,arJ~ ~ '~z
y -_ .~/_ __ - ~4~.W11~'D ~l~. ~tE517E "1.~ <TD ~.~. _. ~ ,.
~~ ~ ~ gGRK~ATJR~~ ~~
/~ 1 ~- ' RGRic c7L ~ ~
,. ~ R ` ~ l
o
~ UU r
~ ; ~
~ ~. ,,~ ~
~,_ .~vwo~~~ t.~ ~ erlp,~ 1 1~ r i o
g ~ ~~10 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~~I ~~ ~ j ~ ~ "./~ 12
.~ ~
~~~
~~ S ~ - ,~1t6 R 1 vt Tv.¢~L~ ~ ,~, ~
- ~ ~~ _ - _ -~ ~~'~EN ~ C' O ERT~
~~,~ 1 -
~ ~ p ~' ~S-Ac-,~c U
~~ ~ ~ .
~; ~ - - , , _
Y
'~ V V ~ - ~ - __~~ OL ~ ~ ~Z
~ \, A ~
tif~oN In i~ ~' ~ i. °~. ~ ~~ r
--._ ~ - ~ ~'-x ~ ~ _ ~ ~~-'
-- ~.-
~ _r
~ _), ,~
~- ~ ~,.
$ ~ _~ ~ ~ ~'~---- ~ ,zoo ~~ ~ ~~ _ F i~ ~ h._ + Z 5
_ -~ ~.
r ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ d
~-
~ ~ -, ..~, /' ~ .rf
1 j ~l ~ ~~
m _ .~~> ~~~ , ~ ~ -~ ~~,_~
fi
~. ~ \ .1 ~
r t~ -~ - ~ .~,1 ._ ..
~ ~ _
rte, ,~ i
-_ -,
~. ~ ~
1=~
t~ - . ,.
,. ra_-
2 ~ ~_
3 .,
' ~ - Watsor C~`w'ide
'~/~~, _ ~ .. _ f
~ }~YTDMGA[c
~}J'~To~r 7 '. C~SRCVG fK7~ps.
StW+cA,TF~ ~ O --~~''
5 ~ ~`. ~ HONIr~Y13~ ~, '" ~ ~~~
0 ~ ~ 1bMoSt7~ r~ ~ ,~_ ~~~
~ _. 7
a. ~ '. ~ASTVR~^. J ~ -
% .
-. ~~ 10 ~ i ~ ~ 1
~ ,
~i
--~ i r ~ ~
~, - ~~ ~- ~J~N~i~ l~' C'I~O~FJZ~,
~ ~. -
__i -
«(l~, ~ ~~__ v~ L- ~l_ --~ ~~~.'~i_ ~.~ ~ ~, ~ --sue-~ ~ ~~ ~
~\
-1 ` L - ~ - .. f ;.
= `'°o ~ ~
i.-
~~ ~~roa ~ 26 ~ ,
~~ r
~ % ~~eo°~ ~, 0 1_ J ~~~ ~ soo\ ~
_~\e.~o-. _-_ ~ ~~ ~~ _ i = ~ s ~ Cam' -'~ - -
~4. ~ ~ ~/ ~.` ,~.-
5 ~ _„ (_ ~~
~,~ ia~~ ~ ~ ~ ~`, .moo ~ r. _ e<oa
1 ~ ~34 ~~ ~\~~-~;~ X35 _ `,
~~- ~~~JJJ 111 ,~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ '~
~ ~~°°~ ~ ~~ i Qom', `~
i ~ _ ~~
~ _ ~ ~ ~_'~V ~~~ ~~~
~.~
_ --~
~, o \ ~ ' ~ r..\.
1. if ll, \. _ A o ~ ~~
o I
~~ ~ ~ ~ \ Watson~pjd~de
// I
~~
3' ''
l~ ~ ~ ~ f1~„16SME g Q ~ ~.
~. ~ ~% 2 ~
~~ ~ ~
L~ ~`
i i ~ ~ ~ -
~i
1 '~ i
i ~~ -
. u~
- r ~ ~ ~ ..
t -,r --, eoo~~~ L./ f ~ -, ? ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i
v~ ~ ~ - ,t .
~ fro _ ~~ z ~~
~,
..,~ 5 `~ ti,~~ ~ ~-~ ~ J~N~~N ~ Pt~OPERT,Y
-.~- ,oo ~~ ~ ~ /
i .- ~`i ~
J
'` ~ V \~~
~l ~ T r_
~ _, '~~ _ h~_ __-~ -"2~~ ~ ~ /'
. "-,,.,~_ J _ ~' ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ -
~~. ~ ~
,. ~~ ~ ~ ~.~_~ - _~, ~ _'- S..J ~ ~ ~
' ~~~~ z '.. ~.~
,~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~ -~' ~ zoo 26 ~ -~ ~' h_- ~ ~ ~ 25 \.
`\
° ~ ~,
-'-ham `\ ~ ~ .~ ~a, ~ ,~-.i ~ r ez~ iV i~~ ~~ ~
~ rasa / "° '~~- ~
~ 1~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ , ~ ~ ~.
~~ 1
~~
1 ,, ~ ~ ~
~~ i ~ ~ ~_ `! ~ - ~ ~ /\ ,\ r
\ l
,~ ti~ ~
7 \
r ~a~ ~ ~ -
_., ~;
~ ~ ~ L ~ - -~
0
i ~ _,. ~~
~~_
. ,.~ ~- _ ~A "-~ ~~ , -._ _q~
- ~ ~ ~,
;_
-~
~,
z ~ ;_
3 ~:
~~~ ;Wason Dv%ide
~.
~ ~ ,_ , _ \
t ~_
,;~ ~~ ~ HOM~5 rt6 ~~~
/~ ,.
1
~- ~ i . _ ..
p i ;-~_
~, - _ ~~ ~ t~ ~~1,,
s
J.- ,; ~
M ~ ~
+~ ~~ ~ -
_ _ .
'~ ~ - ~ `~ ,
~, ~,10 ' ` - ~1 ,_
`"" ~ ~ ~ J~NS~N' P OPFRTY
~, W ~~D[-t ~'E ~Y1'1-~Ra~eY -
~~tTl~S_ _'.. _._
° - - - .,- - 1d _ ' ' = Tc5 _.. ~,~_ ~ ~ ~. r , \ tip,
_ - ~~- -
~.
+ ~._ ~ _ ~'
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~--.rte- ~o~ l ~ Z~ ~~\
~ ~ ~_ ~ __ _ J ~.. ~ ,.
., ~ .~
1-~ ~ ~~ ~~
n i~ ~ ~ 1 1_
C~
/ ~ -\ ~
`ti i ~~ - - ;~ ~~ -~\ 1.
p/~ I \J \,
~i i \ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ - __ ~/ ~ ., .,1
i_ (/~
_ ~V
_ o o ~ ~ 1A ~~ ( ors ~ ~~ ~ A
r ~ ~~ .
~, I r ~' , ~~ i ~~ ~ . _ ~
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
_ ~v
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
v ~ ~ -,
C, I ' \ ~ ~, ~ ~~ ~-'
~. ~ _
'~ ,j , _ v ~ _i \~l ~~~~__ ~,. ~.
ti'
_~ \
. ,_ '~ T_ ~ _. _
~.
~-~, ~ '
~ .`
err ~,~ -.. ~ ~ '~~ ~..~ i ~ ... ~J
~,
V• 1 ~t ~, ~~~~ : _o~~
_ J 1
. ~ ~ ~ V - ~\ Watson p~lide
~ ~ ~
- ° ~ NOM651TF~ ~' Z tl ~Pf~q~ I G 11'~
~~
ra ,~ ~ Q `~~ ~ V ~ - ~O"
Low ~ v -
V~SVAL __
- _,/ W~Ne~A$!G~ tram ~re*~j. ~" ~ _ A-_~
-% ~ i -
-' - I w~, ~ I r-
~. ~ , ~ -
,- ~. _
~ r' ~ - ~ ~~ ~~ ~ / _ ' , ~ -,
~. ~ X10 1 ~ i f ~kl'. ~ .I7_
a ~ i ~
`" " ~ 'J!EN5~1~'~~C'RO~ERT~
. ;
,_
_ _ ~ ~ - {- V CG~t:E~T Y MAP ~! ~a.
'~;' ~,~Rt~A 5 ~Q~' IT~~R L-~~
vDN£R ~,13~,G~TY~~ ~ _ ,H _
i
i
.w
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
W
i
r
-_
M E M O R A N D U M
T0: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: THOMAS FENTON SMITH ~~~~~
J J-=J
SUBJECT: JENSEN PROPERTY-GMP EXTENSION REQUEST
DATE: MAY 30, 1986
MAY?n~~; ,
--___ 11 ~~
The deadline for residential growth management applications
for the down valley area is June 1, 1986. Brooke Peterson may
appear before you on behalf of Robert Jensen to request an
extension of this deadline. This memorandum is being provided to
you for background regarding this issue. Over the past six weeks
or so I have been dealing with Chuck Vidal and Brooke Peterson on
behalf of Mr. Jensen regarding the applicability of certain Code
provisions, including subdivision, 1041, and other issues. The
primary focus of our discussions were in regards to the applica-
bility of the merger rule to this property, and the necessity for
a subdivision application. In conjunction with these discus-
sions, the question arose regarding the applicability of growth
management requirements to Mr. Jensen's property.
Based upon a significant misunderstanding betraen myself and
Mr. Jensen's representatives, I had concluded that Mr. Jensen's
property was exempt from growth management requirements in order
to obtain a building permit for a new residence on his property.
The source of the error is unclear, but in any event I believed
that the property constituted a previously subdivided lot, exempt
from growth management because of the date of subdivision. It
was subsequently brought to my attention by the Planning Office
that in fact the subdivision did not occur until 1984, and that
the property was therefore subject to a growth management
requirement.
In the meantime, the applicant had initiated a 1041 special
review application. Upon review of this application by the
Planning Office, and communication to me from the Planning Office
regarding the issue of the date of subdivision, I had further
discussions with Mr. Jensen's representatives, and it was in fact
determined that the property would require growth management
allotment in order for an additional building permit to be
issued. I informed them of the error in my opinion, and of the
need for a GMP a'_iotment prior to the issuance of a building
permit. This information was communicated to them on May 29,
1986.
Based upon this misunderstanding, and the late date at which
we have been able to iron out this problem, it will be difficult
~~~.
or impossible for Mr. Jensen to submit a GMP application within
the June 1 deadline. Accordingly, the applicant may appear
before you today to request an extension of the GMP deadline.
It is my position that Mr. Jensen has established a reason-
able basis for this request, and I would recommend that the
extension be granted. Of course, this recommendation is made
without knowledge as to its potential impact upon any other
prospective GMP applicant. For this reason, I would suggest that
any extension request be as limited in time as possible, so that
all of this year's GMP applicants can receive timely review.
TFS:mk
cc: Alan Richman
Francis Krizmanich
Brooke Peterson
BOCC.mem
-,._}
Pitkin county
street
~y?~~)
May 29, 1986
Brooke A. Peterson, Esquire
315 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Jensen Property
Dear Brooke:
By letter to you dated May 1, 1986, I indicated my opinion that
property owned by Robert N. Jensen in the Snowmass Creek area,
consisting of a 15.24 acre parcel and a 260 acre parcel, comprise
two separate parcels of the size and description noted above, and
that the 15.24 acre and the 260 acre parcel were not considered
to be contiguous or merged parcels for purposes of the Pitkin
County Land Use Code.
I also indicated to you that a growth management allotment was
not a necessary prerequisite to the issuance of a building permit
on the larger parcel because it was a previously subdivided lot.
My conclusion that this was a previously subdivided lot is in
error and represents a misunderstanding of the facts presented to
me at the time of the issuance of my opinion letter. It was my
understanding at that time that the 260 acre parcel conveyed by
Sno Path, Ltd., to Mr. Jensen was created prior to June 12, 1978,
as a separate parcel of land. It has now been made clear to me
that this 260 acre parcel, conveyed in 1984 to Mr. Jensen, was
part of a larger tract of land when this conveyance was made.
Accordingly, even though the creation of the parcel was exempt
from subdivision, the Pitkin County Land Use Code specifies that
the issuance of a building permit for this parcel cannot occur
without a GMP allotment as provided in the Land Use Code. This
is because the parcel was created after the exemption deadline of
June 12, 1978.
Brooke A. Peterson, Esquire
May 29, 1876
Page Two
I apologize for the misunderstanding regarding this issue.
Very truly yours,
U~"'_
Thomas Fenton Smith
Pitkin County Attorney
TFS:mk
cc: Glenn Horn
Francis Krizmanich
C.A. Vidal
brooke.let
LAW OFFICES
BROOKE A. PETERSON
A PROFES 510 NALCORPORA TION
315 EAST HVMAN AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
13031 925-8166
May 23, 1986
HAND DELIVERED
Mr. Francis Krizmanich
Pitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Jensen 1041 Review
Application
Dear Francis,
Pursuant to Janet's request, the following is a list of
the landowners with property adjacent to that owned by Robert
Jensen. This list has been compiled from the records of Pitkin
County. The landowners are:
Anthony R. George
Post Office Box 9707
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Roy Brill Key
Post Office Box 263
Snowmass, Colorado 81654
Paul and Glennis Beck
Post Office Box 111
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Sno Path, Ltd.
c/o H. Nicholas Pabst, Managing Partner
c/o Corporate Report Wisconsin, Inc.
302 North Jackson Street
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
Windstar Foundation
Post Office Box 286
Snowmass, Colorado 81654
Harald Pabst
Post Office Box 1304
Carefree, Arizona 85377, or
Harald Pabst
c/o Pabst Farm, Inc.
35303 West Pabst Road
Oconomowoc, Wisconsin 53066
Mr. Francis Krizmanich
May 23, 1986
Page Two
Armand Bartos
330 West 42nd Street
New York, New York 10036
I have also enclosed addressed, stamped envelopes to
these individuals for the delivery of the appropriate notice of
the hearing on June 17, 1986.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Yours very trul
BROOK' A. ~E~TERSON,I
A Pr fess' 1~ Coro ration
sy!
. Pet~$son
BAP:krk
cc: Robert Jensen
POBLIC NOTICE
RE: JENSEN 1041 HASl1RD REVIEW
Parcel ID #2645-101-00-011
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVffii that a public hearing will be held on
June 17, 1986, at a meeting to begin at 9:00 A. M. before the
Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission in the Commis-
sioners' Meeting Room, 506 E. Main Street, Aspen, Colorado,
requesting 1041 Hazard Review with respect to the construction of
a single-family dwelling unit in a designated geologic hazard and
wildlife concerns area, located at what was formerly known as the
Pabst Property, 4000 Snowmass Creek Road, Snowmass, Colorado (Lot
2, Township 9 South, Range 86 West and Township 8 South, Range 86
West, 9th P. M., County of Pitkin).
For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-
2020, ext. 222.
e/c„~~,,.,e rank ~
Chairperson, Pit kin County
Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on May B, 1986.
Pitkin County Invoice No.
N.3
.,...
LAW OFFICES
BROOKE A. PETERSON
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
315 EAST HVMAN AVENUE
ASPEN. COLO RA00 81611
13031 9 2 5-816 6
May 6, 1986
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Mr. Jeffrey Hynes
Colorado Geologic Survey
1313 Sherman Street
Room 175
Denver, Colorado 80203
,.~
Re: Jensen/Pitkin County
1041 Review
Dear Mr. Hynes,
Thank you very much for taking the time to talk to me. I
also appreciate your willingness to help by having your comments
to Pitkin County on or before May 27, 1986.
I have enclosed a full set of the application package.
Please feel free to contact Francis Krizmanich or Janet
Weinstein at 925-2020 with your comments or questions.
Thank you for your assistance. I will be glad to return
the favor, if possible.
Yours very truly,
BRO E A. ~E ER ON,
A rofes i n 1 C rporation
rson
BAP:jms
Enclosure
cc: Pitkin County Planning Office
~.
I hereby certify that on this ~ ~ day of ,
198, a true and correct copy of the attached Notic f Public
Hearing was deposited in the United States mail, f' st-class
postage prepaid, to the adjacent property owners as indicated on
the attached list of adjacent property owners which was supplied
to the Planning Office by the applicant in regard to the case
named on the aforementioned public notice.
net Lyn Raczak
~..
Brooke Peterson
X15 E. Hyman
Suite 'OS
Aspen, CO. 81611
Nicholas Lampiris, PhD
CONSULTING GEOLOGIST
P.O. BOX 10935
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
1303)%3-3600 925b020 ASPEN OFFICE
April 14, 1986
FE: Jensen Property/Driveway
Dear Mr. Peterson:
I have viewed the driveway accessing the upper meadow where
the Jensen improvements are. The driveway is cut in
Quaternary age glacio-fluvial terrace deposits which consist
of poorly sorted and poorly graded clays, silts, sands,
gravels and cobbles.
Although the driveway is a little steep, approaching eight to
ten percent grade in one stretch, it is well constructed with
a good base. There is no evidence of slumping or other
instability at this time on the cut bank side of the road.
The underlying bedrock in this area is the Cretaceous age
Mancos Shale which dips approximately twenty degrees to the
south, or generally into the hillside. On balance, this is a
positive factor, but the eroded surface of the shale beneath
the glacial deposits probably slopes into the valley. This,
in conjunction with an irrigation ditch which crosses the
hillside above the steeper part of the access road, could
cause instability and potential failures along the road cut.
This potential, of course, would be magnified if the ditch
itself were to fail.
My recommendations are to irrigate this section of the
pasture on the terrace above the road carefully, and to leave
water in this particular ditch for as short a period of time
as possible. Obviously, the ditch should be well maintained
so as to keep the potential for failure at a minimum. In the
fall, after the irrigation season is over, this portion of
the ditch above the road should be made to catch and carry as
little spring runoff as possible. Despite possibly decades
of irrigation at this site, I saw no significant signs of
instability along the access road and expect little trouble
with mass wasting, especially if the above recommendations
are followed. Please contact me if there are further
questions.
Ski ncerel y-,//~
Ni ho~ Lampe
N1/clk Consulting Geologist
~5 /~ 'y lG~ 5
~~. //~+ I ' p r
~. ~~L.c..~ c[..~ ply-.ye, eM,.,/.7tv WY.. i' 'Yhv-~n TP~V~ rv/.<r~ M
G 'Y~Gw ~50g~ ~" ~~)~•~„y ~lJ~ _""G r~gln~rt~.ewtil
~ ~ ~~ ~ /~
_..- ,
//~~ L P-r z . 5
~.~- ~ ~ /; (A i /~l 20 vi Cap f"( ~- I ? W/ICII ~,S I S It ~ '
P -S /~
~.ceKy - Re~on),~~
R~JpI~~ GMC(A,'Ip~ifp~
~5 a.-c a pro`~_
~~~ Su.dw~ ~~s~b~ fi ~ezonirit` ~ Restr /`IQUei( ar~"~'~Q,l F"M U~ 07- s o~
_. U i l~ ~r~ a ~ Ziw~T I~IWt Af~
~Gf'ly „G~t,•,,~, 1' l7cv'u'„' Sit ~ - .3 TG ~ , A~S~av~1~,~r) I
~0 ve..~~ SWGG'c~Cii ' ~G Cpr~~,7~~ 1, ~~ l
V' rl'T~ ~ 1^us'L~~~
~~ ~~
/<slit/' ~isdL
~h~ ~ i t '~a, y ~
,~,.ie~~ ~~S ok
s~~
~,
,~o~ga
~-
Z
~~ ~
,~ ._--a.~ ;..nom...;,..
A"~EN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICf --
. _ 130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81811>~~~
(303) 925-2020
LAND USE APPLICATION FEES
City
00113 - 63721 - 47331 - 52100
- 63722 - 47332
- 63723 - 47333
-63724 - 47341
- 63725 - 47342
- 63726 - 47343
- 63727 - 47350
-63728 - 47360
REFERRAL FEES:
00125 -63730 - 47360
00123 -63730 -47380
00115 -63730 - 47360
County
00113
00125
00123
00113
00113
- 63711 - 47331
- 63712 - 47332
-63713 - 47333
- 63714 - 47341
-63715 - 47342
- 63716 - 47343
- 63717 - 47350
- 6371 a - 47360
REFERRAL FEES:
- 63730 - 47380
-63730 - 47380
- 63731 - 09000
- 63732 - 09000
- 52100
- 52100
- 52100
- 52100
- 52100
- 52100
- 52100
52100
52100
52100
- 52200
- 52200
- 52200
- 52200
- 52200
- 52200
- 52200
- 52200
- 52200
- 52200
- 52200
- 52200
GMP/CONCEPTUAL
GMP/PRELIMINARY
GMP/FINAL
SUB/CONCEPTUAL
SUB/PRELIMINARY
SUB/FINAL
ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS
ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
HOUSING
ENGINEERING
SUB-TOTAL
GMP/GENERAL
GMP/DETAILED
GMP/FINAL
SUB/GENERAL
SUB/DETAILED
SUB/FINAL
ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS
ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
HOUSING
ENVIRONMENTAL COORD.
ENGINEERING
SUB-TOTAL
PLANNING OFFICE SALES
00113 - 63061 - 09000 - 52200 COUNTY CODE
-63063 - 09000 - 52200 ALMANAC
- 83062 - 09000 -00000 COMP. PLAN
-63066 - 09000 - 00000 COPY FEES
- 63069 -09000 - OTHER
r
` "~ SUB-TOTAL
.. ~ ,_
Name
Address:
Check n '~ t
Additional Billing: -~-
~D
'~.
~~~ ~.
L?
:~~J~
t ~ 5 "'~
`~, _~ ~yi~'X`.~ , lZTi
TOTAL ~ ~ ~, ~~" ~ 'v
Phone
Project: _ - : ' . / i'
~ -~T
C f1~ f
Date: l ~ '''r ~ .
H of Hours: