The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutpitkin.planning.264502100006 (2)DOCUMENT LAYOUT THIS FILE MAY OR MAY NOT CONTAIN ALL OF THE INFORMATION LISTED BELOW IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER Summary Sheet Resolution for the BOCC and /or P &Z Ordinance for the BOCC and /or P &Z Determination for the Hearing Officer Administrative Determination Staff Memo Application Public Notice, Acceptance Letter, Referral(s) Letter Site Plan Miscellaneous Plat(s) M ..� PARCEL#) 2645- 021 -00 -006 DATE RCVD: 3/31/1988 000PIES:f CASENO P25A-88 CASE NAN "DeBoer 1041 Hazard Review Planners PROD ADDtt: 2730 Snowmass Creek Rd S -T -R 2 -9 -86 .. OWWAPP; DeBoer, Skyler ADRI crml PHN:l .. REq ADR C/Sr2 PHH ErnaAddr." ALLOCATEDHOURS . ,FEESDUE: FEESRCVD %OVER: REF DUE. MTG DATE 1= REV BODY " PH NOTicED DATE of FINAL ACTION; 2/21!1989 5/24/1988 JP&Z yes ' ' BOCC Rena. rNo No SOCC Ord: 9MARK$ no vesting no recorded maps PZ: 89 -09 #309690 HRG "OFF: I...._..�........., DSED: BY: HO ME L- CASE tYP: CASE TYPE CASE TYP3: CASEYYPC File Locaftr Hazard Review ADMIN r ` .�. r. PLAT (BKPG; ADMNI INDEX: r VR EXPIRES: CASE CASE tYP&: CASE TYPT: ...._...•_.__ Date $canned: 09/30/2010 " v CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET PITKIN COUNTY DATE RECEIVED: P C L ID CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE JI OU1XZSA-fTP STAFF �y MEMBER:: .C._ PROJECT NAME Project Address: APPLICANT: 6�v Applicant Addr ss: REPRESENTATIVE Representative PAID: YES,) NO AMOUNT: 1) TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: ✓ 2 STEP: Oo !161/ 2) IF 1 STEEP APPLICATION GOES TO: p &Z BOCC PUBLIC HEARING DATE: --tom— i i ^ � 3) PUBLIC NG IS P &Z BOCC N/A CA f I Y (J A DATE REFERRED: :�'0o INITIALS: %f ��•'' STAFF LEVEL: 1041 HAZARD REVIEW: DATE OF APPROVAL REFERR / ALS: ✓ Pbunty Atty !!!County Engr Housing Dir. Aspen Water f-ity Electric ✓ Envir. Hlth. � ty Mgr. iv. Wildlife Trails Dir. Aspen Consol S.D. _ Mtn. Bell Envir. Coordin. Holy Cross Electric Fire Marshall Snowmass Vill. FAA State Plan. Off. other: School District Rocky Mtn Gas State Hwy Dept (Glwd) (GrJtn) BYdq Zon /Inspt. <X. Colo Geo Survey-` /`loon US FS Div. Water Res. Other FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: INITIAL: County Atty _ County Engineer Building Dept. Housing Dir. Envir. Health Other: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: ?Iaw 1 ! - PZ p O 9� �� /� • 07319 0 �jOCL So, %2 -/67 p x•45 #346163 06/25/9 1 C'-� ,6 Rec $.00 Bk 681 PG 776 Silvia Davis, PitF::i,- Cnty Clerk, Doc $.UCH RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITRIN COUNTY, COLORADO GRANTING EXTENSION OF VESTED REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR THE DEBOER 1041 HAZARD APPROVAL Resolution 92 -,,v WHEREAS, Skyler Deboer (hereinafter "Applicant ") has applied to Pitkin County to consider an extension of vested real property rights pursuant to Section 6 -5.7 of the Land Use Code; and WHEREAS, the Board has considered a memorandum of the Aspen/ Pitkin County Planning Office dated May 12, 1992; WHEREAS, the Board considered the request at its regularly scheduled meeting of May 12, 1992. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners grants approval of the extension of vested real property rights for a period of three years, subject to the following conditions: 1. The project shall comply with all conditions contained in the Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution PZ- 89 -09, and the following condition shall be added: Any development within the "building out" parcel (above the 7,400' elevation contour) shall be subject to the provisions of Section 3- 1.13 of the Land Use Code. APPROVED by the Board of County Commissioners on the 12th day of May, 1992. OOA02 r, #346163 06/25/92 iu Rec s.00 BK.: 691 PS 777 Silvia Davis, Pitkir m y Clerk, Doc $-00 Q Resolution No. 92 - & Page 2 �/Deputy Cierk'and Recorder APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: suz6hne Ron •han, County Planning Director BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, PITRIN COUNTY, COLORADO BY t w.s-- g J es R. True, Chairman Da e L2 7 /42. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Tim Ahitsitt County Atto y rN 0 I #346163 06/25/92 10:56 Rec $.UO BK 6B1 PG 778 Silvia Davis, Pitk:i Cnty Clerk., Doc x.00 EXHIBIT A DeBoer 1041 Hazard Review A parcel of land situated in the C1 /2 NW1 14 the S1 /2 NP1 14 and the NC1 /4 SCL /4 of Section 2, Township 9 South, Range 86 West of the Sixth P.N., Pitki.n County, Colorado, said parcel being more fully described as follows: Beginning at the North 1/4 corner of said Section 2; thence S 00 °06'56" W, 1332.92 feet; thence N 89 °43'56" E. 2639.80 feet; thence S 00 "20'04" E, 1331.34 feet, thence S 00 °15'42" E, 693.00 feet; thence West 673.81 feet; thence N 59 °05'00" W, 763.28 feet; thence N 00 °04'24" E, 293.86 feet; thence North 607.20 feet; thence West 1865.26 feet; thence N 00 °12'23" W, 2049.93 feet; thence N 89 °48'19" E, 552.89 feet to the point of beginning. County of Pitkin, State of Colorado Mr 001100% led at o'clock_: _ M1 _LL: 587 oMFSSZ) aption No `1(� ` ( _ 800x SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY RECORDL RESOLUTION OF THE PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GRANTING 1041 HAZARD REVIEW APPROVAL TO SKYLER S. DEBOER Resolution No. PZ -89 -_Q� WHEREAS, Skyler S. DeBoer (hereinafter "Applicant ") has applied to the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission ") for 1041 Hazard Review approval to construct a residence on a 106 acre parcel of land (as described on Exhibit " A " attached) which contains mapped 1041 hazards, including critical deer and elk winter range, the floodplain and riparian habitat of Snowmass Creek and potentially unstable slopes; and WHEREAS, the Commission reviewed this application at a regularly scheduled and duly noticed public hearing on May 24, 1988, and February 21, 1989 at which time evidence and testimony was presented with respect to this application. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it hereby grants 1041 Hazard Review approval to the Applicant subject to the following conditions: 1) The Applicant shall submit a site plan for recording which meets the approval of the Planning Office and the County Attorney. 2) No improvements or development shall occur in the riparian stream channels of Snowmass Creek, except that activities related to irrigation, fish propagation and piscatorial uses of water (including ponds) shall be permitted provided that the Applicant complies with Section 5- 404.2(f) of the Pitkin County Land Use Code, in accordance with the future approval of specific plans by the County Planning Engineer. The Applicant shall also obtain a 404 permit from the Corps of Engineers if required by federal law, and a floodplain permit if required by Pitkin County in accordance with regulations in effect at the time specific plans are submitted. 00{)005 PonN 587 pas&$86 Resolution No. PZ -89 -C)q Page 2 3) Fences on the property shall not exceed 42 inches in height and 3 strands of wire; other fences not meeting this requirement shall be restricted to that area within the designated "building out - parcel" and shall not be placed above the 7,325 foot elevation contour. 4) The access bridge shall be designed to restrict canine access by utilizing a gate or other mechanism approved by the Colorado Division of Wildlife. 5) Grazing of livestock shall be prohibited outside of the designated "building out - parcel ". 6) Dogs shall be prohibited from this property. 7) The applicant has made a voluntary commitment to restrict development from the significant wildlife lands on the property. Protective covenants or conservation easements shall be dedicated in a manner acceptable to Pitkin County and the Colorado Division of Wildlife. 8) Development (including road construction) is prohibited on slopes which exceed 30 %. Engineered designs are required for development on slopes which exceed 15 %. 9) The recommendations of Dr. Lampiris shall be followed. These include: a. A site specific soils engineering study shall be performed to ensure proper foundation design. b. The homesite should avoid the minor drainages present on the site. C. The homesite shall be landscaped to ensure positive drainage away from the home. d. Perimeter drains shall be placed around the foundation. 10) No reliance shall be placed on this approval for subsequent additional development which may result in more substantial impacts. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on February 21, 1989. ~01;006 800K 587 a s.SS", Resolution No. PZ -89 -,Cq_ Page 3 ATTEST: q4finette Jones eputy County lerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: W, 4 Thoma Smith, County Attorney FXK:ds pzreso.deboer PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION By . P ter Dobrovolny, Ch rman APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Alan Richman, Planning Director 00,J607 587 w888 EXHIBIT A DeBoer 1041 Hazard Review A parcel of land situated in the 131/2 NW1 /4 the S1/2 NEl /4 and the NE1 /4 S61/4 of Section 2, Township 9 South, Range 86 West of the Sixth P.M., Pitkin County, Colorado, said parcel being more fully described as follows! Beginning at the North 1/4 corner of said Section 2; thence S 00 0 06'56" W, 1332.92 feet; thence N 89 0 43'56" E. 2639.80 feet; thence S 00 "20'04" E, 1331.34 feet, thence S 00 °15'42" E, 693.00 feet; thence West 673.81 feet; thence N 59 ° 05'00" W, 763.28 feet; thence N 00 °04'24" E, 293.86 feet; thence North 607.20 feet; thence West 1865.26 feet; thence N 00 °12'23" W, 2049.93 feet; thence N 89 ° 48'19" E, 552.89 feet to the point of beginning. County of Pitkin, State of Colorado MOM m_- TO: Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Francis Krizmanich, Planning Office RE: DeBoer 1041 Hazard Review DATE: February 21, 1989 APPLICANT: Skyler S. DeBoer ISSUE: On May 23, 1988, the Planning Commission reviewed the applicant's 1041 Hazard Review application to construct a single - family residence. The applicants property is 106 acres in size and is located on the south face of Williams Hill approximately 1/4 mile downstream from the Watson Divide bridge. At the July P &Z meeting the staff recommended prohibiting dogs on this property because of analysis by the Division of Wildlife which identifies the property as Winter Concentration Area, Severe Winter Range and Critical Habitat. After this meeting, the applicant requested an indefinite tabling of this application so that he could develop a proposal to allow dogs on the property in a manner that would minimize adverse wildlife impacts. Alan Schwartz, the applicant's representative, has submitted a proposal whereby dogs would be kenneled within the building outparcel and further controlled by an electronic "fence ". The staff agrees with the applicant, that an electronic fence can provide an effective control mechanism if properly used and maintained. Regardless of the effectiveness of this proposal, the staff remains concerned about impacts to wildlife on Williams Hill. We continue to recommend that dogs be prohibited in areas which contain or are adjacent to critical habitat areas. The applicant's letter and the previous letter from the Division of Wildlife are attached for your reference. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the Planning Commission direct the staff to draft a resolution which includes the prohibition of dogs in addition to all the previously agreed upon conditions of approval. In addition, we recommend that the Chairperson be instructed to sign the resolution. FXK:ds pzmemo.deboer 0071009 MYLER, STULLER & SCHWARTZ ATTORNEYS AT LAW DAVID J. MYLER SANDRA M. STULLER ALAN E. SCHWARTZ February 13, 1989 Francis Krizmanich Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 t., 106 S MILL STREET, SUITE 202 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 920 -1018 RE: Sky DeBoer Application for §1041 Hazard Review Approval Dear Francis: Following a continuance of several months, this matter is currently rescheduled for February 21 before the Planning Commission. The sole reason for the continuance was to allow Sky time to pursue a variety of ideas relative to containing dogs on his property. He now feels that he has a workable solution to present to the Planning Commission, and is anxious to move forward with his plans. As originally discussed, dogs will be kenneled on the property, within the building out - parcel. In addition, Sky is willing to install an invisible, electronic fence within the perimeter of the out - parcel. His research indicates that this is an extremely effective means of controlling dogs on private property; in fact, one of his neighbors has successfully installed one on their property. Finally, the bridge to be installed over Snowmass Creek will be designed in such a way as to restrict all access to dogs as requested by the Division of Wildlife. Sky has worked closel developing this proposal, Accordingly, he hopes that concerns in this regard. dispute, and look forward application. with Randy Cote and his neighbors in and has encountered no objections. it satisfies the Planning Commission's I don't recall any other issues in to finally reaching closure on this With thanks for your patience and help, I am, Very truly yours, MYLER ER & By: llt4 Alan Schw tZ AES:caw t 0V010 STATE OF COLORADO Roy Romer, Governor w DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER James B. Ruch, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297 -1192 May 9, 1988 Pitkin County Planners 130 So. Aspen, CO 81611 Attn: Francis Krizmanich RE: DeBoer 1041 Dear Francis: m REFER TO MAY I c The D.O.W. has always expressed deep concern for development on Williams Hill. It is probably the most important piece of Big Game winter range in Pitkin Co. The DeBoer parcel contains riparian, critical winter range and migration cooridors. I have had extensive conversations with Mr. deBoer about the development of this parcel. He has agreed to the following: _l. One single family residence with barn and corral area on a 6 -acre building area. 2. No disturbance in riparian zone (except bridge) 3. Dog restricted bridge access (probably a gate) 4. No fencing on remaining parcel except to exclude livestock on adjoining private lands. These will be restricted to 3 strand 42" heights. 5. No grazing of set aside acreage. 6. Dogs will be kenneled or housed. This minimum of disturbance on a 106 acre parcel may have long term benefit to wildlife, guaranteeing for the future no further development. I will try to be at the P & Z hearing May 24. Sincerely, Rand ote District Wildlife Manager -Aspen RC /lmp DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Hamlet J. Barry, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, George VanDenBerg, Chairman . Robert L Freidenberger, Vice Chairman . William R. Hegberg, Secretary Eldon W. Cooper, Member . Rebecca L. Frank Member . Dennis Luttrell, Member . Gene B Peterson, Member . Larry M. Wright, Member 1(1011 RAT I -- �) � l J ��,�- �✓ -_ -�� rl \696/ i� �\� �� e ota� � ji �I =:i, �. -- •1]//9 x 130 735 6 zeoo _ office April 10, 1991 Mr. Alan Schwartz 106 South Mill Street Suite 202 Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Alan: You requested that I provide you with a determination as to whether or not the Skyler DeBoer property near Watson Divide is affected by the Scenic Overlay review. The Scenic Overlay was adopted by Ordinance 190 -7 (Book 631, Page 535). Section 3- 1.13(C)(4) of this ordinance exempts developments with designated building envelopes which were approved after January 1, 1988. The DeBoer project was approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. PZ -89 -09 (Book 587, Page 885), dated February 21, 1989. Mr. DeBoer's property is exempt from Scenic Overlay review (so long as he stays within the approved building envelope) because his development was approved after January 1, 1988. Sincerely, Francis X. Krizmanich Zoning Official 00 recycledpape, MYLER, STULLER & SCHWARTZ ATTORNEYS AT LAW DAVID J. MYLER SANDRA M. STULLER ALAN E. SCHWARTZ January 9, 1991 Francis Krizmanich Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 MOM 106 S. MILL STREET, SUITE 202 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 920 -1018 FAX 920 -0259 Re: Request to Amend Resolution No. PZ -89 -09 Skyler DeBoer 1041 Hazard Review Approval Dear Francis: On October 23, 1990, I wrote to you on behalf of the applicant, Skyler DeBoer, requesting an amendment to the above - referenced 1041 approval that would permit Mr. DeBoer to cross approximately 190 feet of slopes greater than 30% in order to access his proposed barn site. Since then I have had an opportunity to research this matter further, and as a result thereof, I am returning to you with a modified request. In order to refresh everyone's recollection of this matter, the property in question is located on Williams Hill, north and east of the Watson Divide Bridge over Snowmass Creek. The property is zoned RS -30 PUD, and totals 106.34 acres, of which 23.20 acres (21.81% of the total acreage) has been identified as the "building out - parcel," leaving 83.14 acres (78.19% of the total acreage) as open space. Within the "building out - parcel," only 6.86 acres consist of slopes less than 30 %, and are thus suitable for construction. The 6.86 developable acres are in turn distributed fairly evenly between two physically separate sites of approximately 3 acres each -- contemplating construction of a single family residence on one, and a barn on the other -- as depicted on the revised site plan dated January 7, 1991, and submitted herewith as Exhibit "A ". At the time of my October letter, I was under the impression that there were no tape recordings from the original public hearing on this matter before the Planning & Zoning Commission on May 24, 1988. As I subsequently related to you in a telephone conversation, however, the tapes were recently retrieved by the County Clerk's office, and I have since had an opportunity to review them. As they pertain to the subject of accessing the barn site, the tapes confirm Mr. DeBoer's recollection (as well as my own) as follows: That the subject of accessing the barn was discussed at various times during the course of the public hearing; that the Commissioners understood that accessing the 00:1014 MYLER, STULLER & SCHWARTZ Francis Krizmanich January 9, 1991 Page Two barn site would necessarily entail transversing slopes of 30% or more for a limited distance; that without some concession from the Commission on this point, Mr. DeBoer would be deprived not only of access to, but actual use of, the only other buildable portion of the property; and that, in acknowledgement thereof, it was conceded that Mr. DeBoer would be permitted to access the barn site, provided, of course, that County engineering standards were met. Unfortunately, and I believe unintentionally, the resolution that was adopted at the conclusion of the public hearing failed to explicitly incorporate that portion of the discussion which dealt with access to the barn site; rather, the Commission simply adopted the staff's recommendations, including "Condition No. 8 ", providing that: "Development (including road construction) is prohibited on slopes that exceed 308. Engineered designs are required for development on slopes which exceed 15 %." As reference to the site plan confirms, however, strict application of that condition effectively eliminates access to the barn site -- a result which, we believe, is not what the Commissioners intended. As Jim Reser repeatedly pointed out during the hearing, it is physically impossible to access that portion of the property without traversing slopes of 30% or greater. Moreover, the tapes bear out the fact that the other Commissioners present concurred in Mr. Reser's assessment that permitting access to the barn site under these circumstances would be acceptable. Accordingly, I would submit that the resolution which was adopted on this point was inconsistent with the Commission's deliberations, and should be modified in order to make it consistent with the discussion that was held. Having carefully reviewed the tape recording of the hearing, I am quite certain in my own mind that the Resolution as adopted does not accurately reflect the deliberations that occurred on the subject of barn access. Rather than take my word, however, I am writing to ask the Commissioners to review either the official tape recording or the certified transcript of the hearing, and to satisfy themselves with respect to this matter. If, after doing so, they concur with our conclusions, we would request in all fairness that the minutes from the May 24, 1988 public hearing and /or the adopted resolution be amended to reflect that access to the barn site shall, in fact, be permitted over 30% or greater slopes, along the alignment indicated on the revised site plan, subject to the condition that County engineering standards be adhered to. To lend further support to this request, I would note that Nick Lampiris, the applicant's consulting geologist, MYLER, STULLER & SCHWARTZ Francis Krizmanich January 9, 1991 Page Three has expressed his confidence that access to the barn "can he safely and efficiently designed as planned ", consistent with sound engineering practices and County standards. (See Mr. Lampiris' letter dated January H, 1991, submitted herewith as Exhibit "B ") . In conclusion, Mr. DeBoer feels that the action requested herein of the Commission is: (a) consistent with the spirit of the original approval, in that it is the only means by which the barn site is accessible; (b) fair and appropriate, given that it was the result originally intended by the Commission; (c) results from an unintentional oversight on the part of all those present at the original public hearing on this matter; (d) has little or no impact on the public at large, given the natural vegetation which screens the view of the property from the County road; and (e) can be safely and sensitively designed, engineered and installed. For all of these reasons, the applicant respectfully requests approval of the modification requested herein, and would appreciate any assistance you or the Planning Commission might offer in expediting this request. Very truly yours, MYLER, STULLER & SCHWARTZ By: E. war z AES:aja 06 /A1 cc: Suzanne Caskey Jim Reser n� _e Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D. CONSULTING GEOLOGIST 0793 VALLEY ROAD CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 (303) 9833600 (24 HOURS) Janu«ry Li, LT?1. 6 I t. : uwma Cr eoi ar /Access Dear Mr.' Schwartz. Exhibit "B" This letter t, in tended to supplement my lettor of November , t997, with respect to the present dr alignment to the iiarn site (see appropriate maps und(- separate cover). it is my understanding that the driveway after the second bridcle Will turn to the right (south) in the direction of the barn. The main driveway to the home will turn back to the north at the baoe of the moderate slope. The driveway to - the barn will straddles the slope transition until it reaches the shoulder of a ridge trending toward the creek. where a significant r_uk and fill design will. be e=mployed across this steeper portion of the alignment. it is my opinion that this driveway can be safely and efficiently designed as planned but that retaining walls will be nece =iary against slopes greater than 7_0% at the discretion of the civil engineer. I e>:pect that unconsolidated materials as described in my original letter will be involved. Grades along If there are contact me. both driveway segments appear to be moderate. further questlons, plea - do not hesltate to Sincerely, Nicholas l.,ampir f.;onst -ti t i ng Geologist w } it It ;31 �. ovn cttt nFICATE 0 OPY OF RECORD STATE- F COLORADO, County o f----- --- �? �K •--- ° ss. ---- •---------- 1 4• �!4 h .£ �' ��t ........... GAL f ----•-! J`- 1.C1.2 ,4 County Clerk and Recorder in and for said County, in the State aforesaid, do hereby certify that the forego'ng 's a full, true and correct f Oh?�ONi DL �y.E4 �-t °�. .j� o f 24 4 /f!1tQ. -. .. 1!L£Rl. ........ ' /uco k as the p „appears upon the records of my office. � fro may ?y �� Given under my hand and official seal, this........... day of ........................ ---- -- a .......... o'clock .... - -- °114. County C and �6c.. 1 PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT Of: May 24, 1988, Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Re: A Portion of Skyler DeBoer 1041 Hazard Review Application Transcribed by: Andy Aronson and Alan Schwartz (Myler, Stuller & Schwartz) Date: January 2, 1991 Jim Reser: JR Suzanne Caskey: SC Peter Guy PG Bill Meehan: BM Peter. Dobrovolny: PD Bob Pietrizak: BP Alan Schwartz: AS Skyler DeBoer: SD Kevin Patrick: KP Francis Krizmanich: FK I. SIDE 1 -- [HEARING COMMENCES AT 19.36; A PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS NOT TRANSCRIBED FROM THE RECORDED TAPES FROM 19.36 TO 43.00; BARN ACCESS DISCUSSION COMMENCES AT 43.001 JR Well, we've got . . . we've got a road across the 30% Slone between the two potential buil sites regardless, richt PD Right n JR Whether its a driveway to the be driveway to the barn. We've qot a whether its a across that. AS There's one potential for avoiding that, although I'm certainly not holding it out to anvbody here but, Mr. Biers, who owns the adjoining parcel of property to the vest, actually has a bridge across S=-nnass Creel: to access his parcel, and if Skye does wind up placing his home here where I've indicated it's almost certain that he will locate his home -- it would be most convenient and most efficient to access it from the existing bridge on Mr. Biers property. We don't have those k of arrangements with Mr. Biers. We've attempted to work something out with him and have thus far not been successful. But we're continuing in that effort because obviously we would like to save that expense and its just the most efficient wa^ to go. But we don't have any control over it. JR That means the road all the way down through here then. 90 131 9 KP There's one right now to about here. JR Switches back and goes back up to Irv's [Mr. Biers'] building site? KP I'm not sure . . . . ? (Mumbling.] JR So our choices then are either a bridge across here and a road down to here or no bridge across here but a road from here all the way through here. Is that correct SD Well, that's a possibility but not actually . AS It isn't a choice, because right now . . . . SD . . . the neighboring property which they denied easement to JR Well, my point is this: That we've got roads at least from here to here and potentially all the way through to Irv's AS Well, I guess that I would say that if we were able to work something out mutually and satisfactorily with Mr. Biers, which again, has been illusive, shall we say, thus far. It's not necessarily a sure thing that there would be anything connecting the house with where he intends to put the corral. There probably would not be a road. JR How are •;you going to get hav over there SD There's also a possibility that that may not be the barn site. I'm not sure of that in my own mind, but this might also be the barn site and this the house site. I was just trying to preserve this fle::'_bility. There may not be any driveway there at this point in time. ? But this is a non - conforming bridge . . . . JR It seems to me however, that in order for you to maintain that flexibility, that we have to consider that there's going to be a road there. Either to a house site or a barn AS That's fair. I think that certainly you should . . . you should consider and acknowledge that possibility, although in all probability, if he accesses the site as we are currently expecting that he will have to, which is to say, no luck with Biers, then the road will go immediately to this side and there won't be anything coming back to that portion of the site. 1 n�a0 O1 /A6 -1- SD Is there one other access possibility that would be precluded or . . . coming in from Watson Divide Road all the way across . . . . ? [Mumbled.] JR That would bother me. SD Me, too. I think that would scar the land. I would . . . I would hope that would not be an option. SC I was just trying to follow your questions. You were assuming that he would want to put the, his, the original, the house that he's asking for approval for now, doom there, instead of right . . . . AS Right there. SC JR SC )ok at anoth s [End of Side 1.1 II. SIDE 2 -- [COMMENCING AT 0.001 JR Well I see a road going to a barn BM Right JR Period. House or no house BM Yeah That's exactly right. You've got to have a road ra" here SC And that's what you're saving the barn would be down here vnnr hrniaa is nn hPre. and the barn's down here. . ? AS In all probability, that's correct. I guess that there's still the option of putting house and barn up here, ok? O1 /A6 -3- But other . . . I guess what I'm trying to rule out is, and I'm trying to see if I'm right, that if he's putting a barn down there, we need to talk, about it. If he's putting a house down there we need to talk about it when he comes back in for approval for another house. Which is to say, for the time being, no reason to consider any improvements here and hence no reason to construct a road to that portion of the site. Umm . . . . JR Well my presumption is though that you're asking for approval that would allow you to build a road through i you want. AS Sure Well we would contemplate being able to do that JR AS We would contemplate being able to do that, yeah [A PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS NOT TRANSCRIBED FROM THE RECORDED TAPES FROM 1.01 TO 5.20 DEALING WITH SPECIFICITY OF SITE PLAIT.] [HOUSE AND BARN SITE DISCUSSION RE- COMMENCES AT 5.20] BP What's the difference? I mean we've got 6 acres out of 100 and some acres, and they are very small acres. I mean most of the building sites that we have in this sort of area are 3 acres or so in size anyway, so I don't see . And he's limited to 6 acres out of 106 acres. Let's give him som flexibility, let's not design and site the house e..actly down to the last square inches Basically what you're going to have to do if you start making it smaller than these areas. These are rath small areas on a rather large site PG Bill and Bob have taken the tack that I guess I we prefer, and the question then becomes are the commitments preserve the building t the areas strong enough so that know what we're going to end up with In other words, nothing on 30% slopes, nothing on riparian zones, nothing above the elevation line. And, once we're sure that those are going to be absolutely adhered to, you go away and you got, you know, your bases covered. Urn. If that pretty much limits it to two sites then he's got the flexibility +n fin whatever he wants with the two sites so. . . PG I would take the tack just to insure that uh . . . your concerns were settled and uh, then go about your business. AS Randv has visited the site. fie understands how confined the two potential building locales are on the overall parcel. They're very contained. And even within the 3 acres, there are very prime spots. I mean it's clear to anyone really who visits the sites, uh, this is the site which are the prime building locales. I mean it's very clear. But we were thinking that, in terms of the site being in excess of �0 22 01 /A6 -4- 100 acres, if we confined ourselves to only two sites that met the criteria, that we were going to satisfy the Commission and the Board. SC I'm feeling as comfortable as I did when I read it and I think it's admirable that you have come up with a conservation easement. I need a little bit more reassurance. I need two things, I think., a little bit more reassurance from you about . . . what can and cannot be done then on that conservation easement and ummm, some othe reassurance from Jim because what I heard, what I . . . maybe I'm just reading his mind but I'm guessing that lie's reeling some discomfort about the road on that 30% slope, and you know more about roads than I do, so Jim I'd like to hea is that so? Is that what you were thinking JR That's not a primary concern, quite honestly. Although I think that I would be satisfied as far as buildinq sites are VVIIUCL IICLL I. iu ---- words, I've colored out stuff you can't do. If you colored in stuff you can do, then that would leave me, leave me a little more comfortable. And whether this site, for example, is bordered by the ditch or by the 100 year flood plain or what, I don't really care. But I'd like to have that outline just continued around and say that's the building site and this one sits by itself. Just like a building site. Then I'd be comfortable about that. AS No problem. JR AS JR Yeah. Ok, then. Enough said about that. . . [i1 PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS NOT TRANSCRIBED FROM THE RECORDED TAPES FROM 9.42 TO 35.07 DEALING WITH FENCES, KENNELS, RIPARIAN AREAS, BRIDGE ACCESS, AND WILDLIFE ISSUES.] [BARN ACCESS DISCUSSION RE- COMMENCES AT 34.071 4 s n c O1 /A6 -5- Well that's a given in our mind I ` P JP, Ok. BM Mr. Chairman. Before we move on. road to the second parcel over here you weren't worried about buildinq JR That's true. BM I'd like to hear more about that. The road's going to be at least 1000 feet long JR I don't see it that way, it looks more like 200 feet in that, well, no, I guess it's more like 400 feet. ? One inch is 300 feet. JR I thought it was 100 feet. AS Different scale. BM Oh. Different sca I take it back. It's 200 feet. I ? You got two or 300 feet. SD 200 or 300 feet across here. BM They changed scales. JR I can see that it's ov 308, but I' work . . . . SC And there's a condition that deals with that JP, Yeah, they have to meet County standards. BM Ok, that's fine. That's fine JR You guys want to go through the recommendations and write our conclusions on this matter? BP why don't we let the planning office sort of consolidate this thing? BM I don't think you've asked for comments from the general public, have you? 30 JUs4 O1 /A6 -6- You can drive a tractor on 308. I do it all the time. JR I have not, and it is a public hearing. Are there any comments from the public. Thank you . . . . Being met with a wall of silence, what's the pleasure of the Commission? BM I'd say let's go over the comments specifically. JR Well do you want to go through the thing, or do you want to direct Francis to prepare a memo generally along the discussions that we've had for approval at the next meeting? ? I think that would be the way to go. BM That's fine. JR I'll entertain a motion to that effect. FK Well: It's kind of a . I don't want to do that. [Laughter.] I want to get through some of this stuff. . . . BM (To Francis K): Well, if you have some specific questions in mind, bring them up. FK Well, ok, what about dogs? SD I thought . . . . FK You want me to write a resolution prohibiting dogs? Or a resolution for kenneling dogs? [A PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS NOT TRANSCRIBED FROM THE RECORDED TAPES FROM 40.31 TO 42.40 DEALING WITH DOGS ON THE PROPERTY.] [MOTION FOR APPROVAL COMMENCES AT 42.401 SC I'd like to make a motion. JR Please make a motion, Suzanne. SC Recommending that the Planning Commission grant 1041 hazard review approval to the applicant subject to the preparation of a 1041 plat noting the following conditions as the Planning Office has stated them. And I would expect an amendment from you doing the 5(d) . . . if you agree with US. JR My suggestion on 5(d), it would sale, within the riparian channel of Snowmass Creel Now which recommendations? PD Say what you said again. SC I'm essentially making a motion for approval if these conditions are met. �( t:5 01,/A6 -7- J JR The conditions from the Planning Office, right? BM There are a total of 12 conditions, Suzanne, right? SC Um -hum. AS Clarification, if I may. [A PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS NOT TRANSCRIBED FROM THE RECORDED TAPES FROM 43.56 TO 45.28 DEALING WITH RIPARIAN AREA ISSUES.] [MOTION FOR APPROVAL RE- COMMENCES AT 45.281 PD Let me second the motion so we can discuss this, ok? JR The motion has been moved and seconded. Is there any further discussion? BM Suzanne, I think we need clarification that there are 12 recommendations of the planning department, right? Of which number 12 has 5 parts. You mentioned an exemption on number 5, which is not a recommendation, its a note . . . . There's two different fives . . . . [A PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS NOT TRANSCRIBED FROM THE RECORDED TAPES FROM 45.50 OF SIDE 2 TO 2.00 OF SIDE 3 DEALING WITH RIPARIAN AREA ISSUES.] III. SIDE 3 -- [MOTION FOR APPROVAL RE- COMMENCES AT 2:001 JR I would, how ever, propose to amend the motion to inc'_ud ? That was going to be my question. ? Ok. JR That building sites be identified. That the approximate location of the road /drive be identified A note as to what areas may be fenced for grazing by the applicant's animals. I almost had the applicant grazing there. [Laughter.] JR And a note . . . And a note, umm, which will he available from the Planning Office, that states in effect that no reliance on this approval . . . umm, you say this much better than I do, Peter, you want . . . . 001 v� 01/A6 -8- JR The applicant should place no reliance on this approval for further approval, ummm, based on the critical wildlife, because of the critical wildlife management aspects, or something. PD Yeah. JR And that Hines approval, Francis, had one that we were satisfied with. PG The approval of this process should not give the applicant any reliance on further applications. JR Yeah. Something like that. Those are m1 proposed amendments to . . . . BM I'd say there's some difficulty in that, because of what we've just said. Recommendation number 2 says the riparian zone shall be left in its natural state. [A PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS NOT TRANSCRIBED FROM THE RECORDED TAPES FROM 3.40 TO 5.34 DEALING WITH RIPARIAN AREA AND DOG ISSUES.] [VOTE ON MOTION FOR APPROVAL COMMENCES AT 5:341 JR Further discussion? JR All in favor of the motion PD No. Just a minute here. We're not totally legal here yet. You requested an amendment to a . . . you needed a motion maker on the second amendment . . . . SC I concur. PD I do too. JR Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion? ALL I. JR Opposed? JR Passed 5 to zip with Bob . . . . [HEARING CONCLUDES AT 5.57] vv 0 1 /A6 -9- ...0 TO: Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Francis Krizmanich, Planning Office RE: DeBoer 1041 Hazard Review DATE: --------------------------------- May 23, 1988 --- -- -- ------ ------ ----- -- - -- -- APPLICANT: Skyler S. DeBoer. REQUEST: The Applicant is requesting 1041 Hazard Review approval to construct a single - family residence. The property is 106 acres in size and contains floodplain, wildlife and geologic hazards. The application is attached. ZONING: The property is zoned RS -30 PUD which requires a 30 acre minimum lot size. LOCATION: The property is located on Williams Hill, north and east of the Watson Divide bridge over Snowmass Creek. ISSUES AND CONCERNS: I. Referral Agency Comments: 1) Colorado Division of Wildlife - In a letter dated May 9, 1988 (attached), Randy Cote submitted the following comments: "The Division of Wildlife has always expressed deep concern for development on Williams Hill. It is probably the most important piece of Big Game winter range in Pitkin County. The DeBoer parcel contains riparian, critical winter range and migration corridors. I have had extensive conversations with Mr. DeBoer about the development of this parcel. He has agreed to the following: a. One single - family residence with barn and corral area on a 6 -acre building area. b. No disturbance in riparian zone (except bridge). C. Dog restricted bridge access (probably a gate). ' 12 8(� ' � l 'iIO d. No fencing on remaining parcel except to exclude livestock on adjoining private lands. These will be restricted to 3 strand 42" heights. e. No grazing of set aside acreage. f. Dogs will be kenneled or housed. This minimum of disturbance on a 106 acre parcel may have long -term benefit to wildlife, guaranteeing for the future no further development." 2) Environmental Health Department: In a memo dated May 16, 1988 (attached), Rick Bossingham submitted the following comments: o Sewage Treatment: An on -site sewage disposal system should be feasible on this site. An engineer designed system may be necessary for this site. o Water: The Applicant's geologist indicates that it should be possible to develop a well to serve the proposed residence. o Air Quality: If woodburning devices are proposed, they will be required to meet County regulations. 3) County Land Use Engineer: In a memo dated May 16, 1988 (attached), Tom Newland expressed concerns regarding the bridge and access road design. Tom recommends that a proposed culvert in the stream be eliminated in favor of a bridge. Tom also requests a bridge and access design which will mitigate riparian impact. A backwater analysis should also be performed. II. STAFF COMMENTS: The Applicant is requesting 1041 Hazard review approval to construct a single - family residence. The property is 106 acres in size and contains mapped 1041 concerns including the floodplain of Snowmass Creek, geologic hazards due to steep slopes and critical deer and elk winter range and migration corridors. In regard to geologic concerns, the Applicant has submitted a geologic report by Nicholas Lampiris which indicates that the proposed building area contains suitable sites for a single - family residence. The proposed building site appears to contain slopes in excess of 15 %. The Applicant should indicate the exact placement of the home and access drive; if either development impinges on slopes of 15% or greater, engineered designs should be required. Nicholas LampirisI recommendations should be followed. These recommendations 2 30 �IUTA @A include: 1) The homesite should be placed to avoid the minor drainage gullies which traverse the property. 2) The home should be landscaped to insure positive drainage flow away from it. 3) Site specific soils engineering studies should be performed to insure proper foundation design and future slope stability. 4) The potential for radon gas accumulation can be mitigated by creating adequate ventilation below the house as part of its design. In regard to impacts, Randy Cote has commented that this site contains critical winter range and migration corridors. In general, Randy's opinion is that Williams Hill is probably the most important winter range in the County. Randy recommends that the following restrictions be placed on the property to mitigate wildlife impacts: 1) One single - family residence with barn and corral area on a 6 -are building area. 2) No disturbance in riparian zone (except bridge). 3) Dog restricted bridge access (probably a gate). 4) No fencing on remaining parcel except to exclude livestock on adjoining private lands. These will be restricted to 3 strand 42" heights. 5) No grazing of set aside acreage. 6) Dogs will be kenneled or housed. In addition to Randy's recommendation, the Applicant has agreed to provide a protective covenant or conservation easement to all of the property except the proposed 6 acre "building site ". The terms of this proposal would be agreed upon between the Applicant, the Division of Wildlife and the County. The Applicant has further agreed that no improvements will be constructed: 1) Within any area covered by the aforementioned protective covenant /conservation easement (see attached map); 2) Upon slopes greater than thirty percent; 3 fl (I ,n^ "V v v J 1. 3) Above the 7325' elevation lines; 4) Within the streambed channels of Snowmass Creek. The Planning staff supports the recommendations of Randy Cote as well as the additional commitments made by the Applicant. The Planning staff has two concerns with the above recommendations. In regard to impacts to riparian habitat, the staff concurs with Randy, that no development other than the access road and bridge should be permitted i the riparian zone. The riparian zone should be delineated on the plat as the areas encompassed by the 100 year floodplain of Snowmass Creek. The 100 year floodplain should be clearly delineated on the site plan. The second staff concern relative to wildlife impacts is the recommended dog kennel restriction. The staff notes that the 1986 Oates 1041 review was approved for a single - family homesite on top of Watson Divide and included a prohibition against dogs. The staff recommends that dogs be similarly prohibited from this property. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant 1041 Hazard review approval to the Applicant subject to the preparation of a 1041 plat noting the following conditions: 1) The single - family residence and related structures including the barn and corral area shall be limited to the six acre building area delineated on the site plan. 2,) The riparian zone shall be left in its natural state with the exception that access and bridge development is permitted subject to the approval of the Planning Office and the County Engineer. The riparian zone shall be defined as that area within the confines of the 100 year floodplain of Snowmass Creek including the island between the stream channels. 3) The bridge design should restrict canine access by a gate or other feature approved by the Division of Wildlife. 4) No fencing shall be placed on the remainder of the property except to exclude livestock from adjoining lands. The fences shall be restricted to 3 strands of wire and a maximum height of 42 inches. 5) Grazing of livestock shall be prohibited on the restricted acreage. 6) Dogs shall be prohibited. 7) The voluntary restriction of the significant wildlife lands 4 �0 `iuo I I shall be in a manner acceptable to the Applicant, Division of Wildlife and the County. The applicant has committed that no improvements will be constructed within the areas covered by the protective covenant /conservation easement. 8) The Applicant shall delineate the 100 year floodplain of Snowmass Creek. Development other than access and bridge construction shall be excluded within the 100 year floodplain. No disturbance of the riparian vegetation is permitted within this zone. 9) No development will occur above the 7,325 foot elevation. 10) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the access and bridge design shall be approved by the County Engineer and the Planning Office. 11) Development including road construction is prohibited on slopes which exceed 30 %. Engineered designs are required for development on slopes which exceed 15 %. 12) The recommendations of Dr. Lampiris should be followed. These include: a) A site specific soils engineering study shall be performed to insure proper foundation design. b) The homesite should avoid the minor drainages present on the site. C) The homesite shall be landscaped to insure positive drainage away from the home. d) Perimeter drains should be placed around the foundation. e) The home should be designed to allow for the ventilation of radon gas. FK.DEBOER 5 nnn MEMORANDUM TO: Francis Krizmanich, Planning Office FROM: Tom Newland, Land Use Engineer RE: DeBoer Bridge Plans DATE: June 15, 1988 Schmeuser Gordon gineering concerns new, detailed pl proposed placement These documents, Eylar's office for Meyer, Inc., representing Mr. DeBoer on En- related to his 1041 review, has submitted ans and engineering studies related to the of a bridge to access the building site. dated June 9, 1988, were submitted to Bud review. Bud has informed me that he is satisfied with bridge plans and floodplain concerns presented by them. The bridge over the "main channel" and the culverting across the "overflow channel" of Snowmass Creek will not cause a backwater situation sufficient enough to affect upstream landowners. The proposed fill needed to cross the island between the two channel has sufficient freeboard to place the driving surface at least 18" above the 100 -year flows. The bridge itself is sufficiently design to conform with County standards. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has reviewed the proposed bridge work and has determined that the project can be constructed subject to nationwide general permit authorization. Attached is a copy of their letter to Mr. DeBoer. To conclude, this office is now satisfied that the proposed bridge conforms with County standards. However, plans for adjoining the driveway to the County Road and plans for spanning the small irrigation ditch between the County Road and the proposed bridge have not yet been submitted. These minor problems can be resolved by the applicant when he applies for an Encroachment Permit through this office. Please contact me if you have any questions. cc: Bud Eylar Dean Gordon 00 'x1)3 9 KEVIN L. PATRIGK, P.G. ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION KEVIN L. PATRICK RHONCAJ aAZIL March 7, 1988 Mr. Skyler S. DeBoer 800 E. Hyman Ave., ,$G Aspen, CC 81611 RE: Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 FWPCA Permit Dear Skye: 106 SOUTH MILL SUITE 200 ASPEN, COLORADO 91611 (303) 920 -102a Please find enclosed a self- explanatory correspondence dated March 1, 1988 providing you with a Nationwide General Permit Authorization to construct the bridge improvements for a river crossing for an access -way to your building site. In conjunction with the Permit obtained from the County of Pitkin by Dean Gordon, such would conclude the permitting process for the bridge. Should there be any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, KEVIN L. PATRICK, P.C. A Professional Corporation By: Ke : n ' L. Patrick KLP:gmo #30L47 cc w /enc: Alan E. Schwartz, Esq. Mr. Dean Gordon 30 �U�4 RERL/TO -�� 4TTENTIONOF .,. � 'ARTMENTOF THE ARMY „•. MAMENTO DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS 650 CAPITOL "ALL SACRAMENTO CALIFORNIA 95613 4794 March 1, 1988 Regulatory Section (N11 -187) Mr. Skyler S. DeBoer c/o Mr. Kevin Patrick, Esq. 106 South Mill Suite 200 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mr. DeBoer: J I ; AA 21988 I am responding to your Department of the army permit application dated January 20, 1988, submitted on your behalf by Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. This permit application requests authorization for construction of a crossing of Snowmass Creek near 01d Snowmass, in Pitkin County, Colorado. The Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, has issued a nationwide general permit allowing the discharge of dredged or fill material in "waters of the United States" in association with minor road crossings. Minor road crossing fills, including all attendant features both temporary and permanent that are part of a single and complete project for crossing of a non -tidal waterbody, are authorized subject to the enclosed special condi- tions and best management practices. The crossing must be culverted, bridged or otherwise designed to prevent the restric- tion of and to withstand expected high flows Discharges into any wetland adjacent to the waterbody must not exceed beyond one hundred (100) feet on either side of the ordinary high water mark of that waterbody. A minor road crossing fill is defined as a crossing that involves the discharge of less than two hundred (200) cubic yards of fill material below ordinary high water. Based upon the information submitted, we have determined that this project can be constructed subject to nationwide general permit authorization. Please be aware that this authorization is valid for a period of two (2) years. We have assigned :lumber N14 -187 to this project. Please reference this number in any correspondence submitted to this office concerning 33 5 v� 11 this project. Should you have questions, please feel free to contact Gary Davis of this office at telephone (303) 213 -1199. Sincerely, McNure Chief, Regulatory Unit 4 764 Ho izon Drive, Room 211 rrand. junction, Colorado 81506 -8719 Enclosure Copy Furnished: Mr. Dean Gordon, Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc., 1512 Grand Avenue, Suite 212, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 J ' JU INFORMATION PAPER NATI- !PJIDE GENERAL PERMIT NUMHE..; 4 MINOR ROAD CROSSING FILLS A nationwide general permit is a Department of the Army permit that is issued on a nationwide basis for a specific category of activities that are substantially similar and cause minimal environmental impacts. Nationwide permits are designed to allow the work to occur with little delay or paperwork. They are issued to satisfy the requirements of both Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, unless otherwise stated. An individual permit application is not required for an activity covered by a nationwide permit. The Corps of Engineers has issued a nationwide permit for minor road crossing fills including all attendant features both temporary and permanent that are part of a single and complete project for crossing of a non -tidal waterbody, provided: 1. The crossing is culverted, bridged or otherwise designed to withstand and prevent the restriction of expected high flows. 2. Any discharges into any wetlands adjacent to the waterbody do not extend beyond 100 feet on either side of the ordinary high water mark of that waterbody. A "minor road crossing fill" is defined as a crossing that involves the discharge of less than 200 cubic ay rds of fill material below the plane of ordinary high water. The enclosed special conditions must be followed in order for this nationwide permit to be valid. FOR MORE INFORMATION, WRITE TO THE GRAND JUNCTION REGULATORY OFFICE, U. S. ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SACRAMENTO DISTRICT, 764 HORIZON DRIVE, ROOM 211, GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 81506 -8719 OR TELEPHONE (303) 243 -1199. 1 Enclosure as stated 39 t1^7 INFORMATION PAPER N:""IONWIDE GENERAL PERMITS WESTERN COLORADO A. SPECIAL CONDITIONS. The following special conditions must be followed in order for the nationwide permits to be valid: 1. That any discharge of dredged or fill material will not occur in the proximity of a public water supply intake. 2. That any discharge of dredged or fill material will not occur in areas of concentrated shellfish production unless the discharge is directly related to a shellfish harvesting activity. 3. That the activity will not jeopardize a threatened or endangered species as identified under the Endangered Species Act, or destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat of such species. 4. That the movement of those waterbody (unless water). 5. That any consist of suitab amounts. activity shall not significantly disrupt the species of aquatic life indigenous to the the primary purpose of the fill is to impound discharge of dredged or fill material shall Le material free of toxic pollutants in toxic 6. That any structure or fill authorized shall be properly maintained. 7. That the activity will not occur in a component of the National Wild and Scenic River System; nor in a river officially designated by Congress as a "study river" for possible inclusion in the system, while the river is in an official study status. 8. That the activity shall not cause an unacceptable interference with navigation. 9. That, if the activity may adversely affect historic properties which the National Park Service has listed on, or determined eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic Places, the permittee will notify the district engineer. If the district engineer determines that such historic properties may be adversely affected, he will provide the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation an opportunity to comment on the effects on such historic properties or he will consider modification, suspension, or revocation in accordance with 33 CFR 325.7. Furthermore, that, if the permittee before or during prosecution of the work authorized, encounters a historic property that has not been listed on the National Register, but which may be eligible for listing in the National Register, he shall immediately notify the district engineer. 1 �.� :v.,$ 10. That the c truction or operation of the activity will not impair reserved '"i`ibal rights, including, .,,,,A not limited to, reserved water rights and treaty fishing and hunting rights. 11. That the activity will comply with regional conditions which may have been added by the division engineer (None have been added for western Colorado). 12. That the management practices listed below shall be followed to the maximum extent practicable. B. MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. In addition to the conditions specified above, the following management practices shall be followed, to the maximum extent practicable, in order to minimize the adverse effects of these discharges on the aquatic environment. Failure to comply with these practices may be cause for the district engineer to recommend, or the division engineer to take, discretionary authority to regulate the activity on an individual or regional basis. 1. Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States shall be avoided or minimized through the use of other practicable alternatives. 2. Discharges in spawning areas during spawning seasons shall be avoided. 3. Discharges shall not restrict or impede the movement of aquatic species indigenous to the waters or the passage of normal or expected high flows or cause the relocation of the water (unless the primary purpose of the fill is to impound waters.) 4. If the discharge creates an impoundment of water, adverse impacts on the aquatic system caused by the accelerated passage of water and /or the restriction of its flows shall be minimized. 5. Discharges in wetlands areas shall be avoided. 6. Heavy equipment working in wetlands shall be placed on mats. 7. Discharges into breeding areas for migratory waterfowl shall be avoided. 8. All temporary fills shall be removed in their entirety. C. FURTHER INFORMATION. 1. District engineers are authorized to determine if an activity complies with the terms and conditions of a nationwide permit unless that decision must be made by the division engineer. 2. Nationwide permits do not obviate the need to obtain 2 vim. other Federal, stag r local authorizations r—uired by law. 3. Nationwide permits do not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges. 4. Natiowide permits do not authorize any injury to the property or rights of others. 5. Nationwide permits do not authorize interference with any existing or proposed Federal project. FOR MORE - INFORMATION ON THE NATIONWIDE GENERAL PERMITS IN WESTERN COLORADO, WRITE TO THE GRAND JUNCTION REGULATORY OFFICE, U. S. ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SACRAMENTO DISTRICT, 764 HORIZON DRIVE, ROOM 211, GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 81506 -8719 OR TELEPHONE (303) 243 -1199. 3 v �v 'L'tU APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT OMB APPROVAL O. 0702 -0036 (33 CFR 325) Expires 30 June 1986 The Department of the army permit program is authorized by Section 10 of the River and Harbor AM of 1899, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 103 of the Marine, Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act. These laws require permits authorizing activities in or affecting navigable waters of the United States, the discharge of dredged or fill material into waten of the United States, and the transportation of dredged - naterial for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters. Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit. Information in this application is made a matter of public record t1vough issuance of a public notice. Disclosure of the information requested is voluntary; however, the data requested are necessary in order to communicate with the applicant and to evaluate the permit application. If necessary information is not provided, the permit application cannot be processed nor can a permit be issued. One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this application (see sample drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned. 1. APPLICATION NUMBER (To be autaned by Corps) 3. NAME, ADDRESS, AND TITLE OF AUTHORIZED AGENT Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. 1512 Grand Avenue, Suite 212 • Glenwood Springs, CO 31601 2. ..NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT Taleohone no, during business hour Skyler S. DeBoer A/C (Reridenee) c/o Kevin Patrick, Esq. A/C ( 303 ) 945 -1004 (office) 106 South dill, Suite 200 Statement of Authorization: I herebv designate and authorize Aspen, CO 81611 to act in my behalf as my Telephone no. during business hours agent In the proeeaamg of this permit application and to furniah, upon repuest, woplemengl Information in support of the appiiution. A/C ( 1 (Residence) SIGN E �APPta1CAN pqr A/C (3031 020 -1028 (office) P 4. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTIVITY �� ✓ 4a. ACTIVITY To construct a road and associated stream crossing to serve a residential homesite on Snowmass Creek. 4b. PURPOSE Access to homesite. ac, DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL There will be 7.5 cubic yards of excavation, 15 cubic yards of concrete installed and 19 cubic yards of fill placed below ordinary high water in the overflow channel on Snowmass Creek. 1� i =NG FORM 4345 Apr 83 EDITION OF 1 OCT 77 IS OBSOLETE (Proponent OAEN•CWO -N) .kr En S. NAMES'ANO ADDRESSES OF ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS, LESSEES, ETC., WHOSE PROPERTY ALSO ADJOINS THE WATERWAY Irving_.Biers - 925 Via Casitas,a;reenbrae, CA 94904 Robert N. Jensen - c/o Grizzly Landscaping 21905 West Highway 82, Aspen, CO 81611 Paul & Glennis Heck - P.O. Box 1111, Aspen, CO 81612 Robert B. Beattie - P.O. Box 66, Woody Creek, CO 81656 6. WATER "BODY- ANO LOCATION ON WATERSODY WHERE ACTIVITY EXISTS OR IS PROPOSED Snowmass Creek 7. LOCATION ON LAND WHERE ACTIVITY EXISTS OR IS PROPOSED ADDRESS: Approximately 5,500 feet upstream of the confluence of Snowmass Creek with _ Capitol _Creek._ STREET, ROAD, ROUTE OR OTHER DESCRIPTIVE LOCATION Pitkin County Colorado - Tax Assessors Description: (If known) COUNTY STATE ZIP CODE Map No. Subaiv. No. L_ot No. 2 95 _ 8 6 W Pitkin County LOCAL GOVERNING BODY WITH JURISDICTION OVER SITE Sec. Tvrp. Rge. 3. Is any portion of the activity for which autheryzauon O sought now complete? ❑ YES ® NO If answer is "Yes" give reasons, month and Year the activity was cbmplxtao. Indicate the existing.wark on the drawings, 3. Lin all approval. or cMlflutiona and denials received from other federal, interstate, iota or local agencies for any structures, construction, discharges or other activities described In this application. ISSUING AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL IDENTIFICATION NO. DATE OF APPLICATION DATE OF APPROVAL DATE OF DENIAL 10. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the.m.vitles described harem. I certify that I am familiar with the mformanan contained in this application, and that to the best of my knowledge and belief such information is true, camolats, and accurate. I further certify that I passasa the authority m undertake the proposed activities or I am acting as the duly authorized agent of the applicant. Gi'l /nom SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT ( ATE / SI / c,NA RE OF AGENT i D/ ATE The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the prop e' d activity applicant) or it may be signed by a duly authorized agent if the statement in Block 3 has been (flied out and signed. 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of The United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false,fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. Do not send a permit processing fee with this application. The appropriate fee will be assessed when a permit is issued. - tiJU L X4 i \,? e 7, y 8 (7 Fri B k ,. �� TE CAP - C �� CRE Fiv A " �\ 7271 y VICINITY Y MA DeBOER BRIDGE SCALE: Y 2000' •', ^ I: 3 . ............ . j x � I r Q` WI zt oy-AIN 'll i i I iii l� fill 1/, B On „ iI a a / r ..r i` 4 W a W $ m J � W i CERTIFICATE OF MAILING RE: DEBOER 1041 HAZARD REVIEW I hereby certify that on this 19th day of January, 1989, a true and correct copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was deposited in the United States mail, first -class postage prepaid, to the adjacent property owners as indicated on the attached list of adjacent property owners which was supplied to the Planning Office by the applicant in regard to the case named on the Public Notice. By: Debbie Skehan Administrative Assistant frm.mailing r 19 U s 1� PUBLIC NOTICE RE: DEBOER 1041 HAZARD REVIEW NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, February 21, 1989, at a meeting to begin at 9:00 A.M., before the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission, Commissioner's Meeting Room, 506 East Main Street, Aspen, CO to consider an application submitted by Skyler DeBoer, requesting 1041 Hazard Review approval for a single - family residence and a barn on 106.34 acres, more or less. The property is located on the west side of Snowmass Creek Road just downstream from Watson divide, more specifically located in Section 2, Township 9 South, Range 86 West. For further information, contact the Aspen / Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920- 5090. s /Peter Dobrovolny Chairman, Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Published in The Aspen Times on January 19, 1989. Pitkin County Invoice Number 42859. (� 'v a 1� --02,2- -Co -OC>4 T H Q �o&6 � C>� J-) 3o ic?-s F" ��`" �G l� h '�'�G I �T IC I J ASPEN /PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920 -5090 December 5, 1988 Alan Schwartz 106 South Mill Street, Suite 202 Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: DeBoer 1041 Hazard Review Dear Alan, The DeBoer application has been scheduled for review by the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing to begin at 9:00 AM on Tuesday, February 21, 1989. The Friday before the meeting date, we will call to inform you that a copy of the memo pertaining to your application is available at the Planning Office. A notice of public hearing shall be posted on a sign or signs placed on the subject parcel of land at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. It shall be the responsibility of the application to post such sign or signs (on forms supplied by the Planning office) which shall be no smaller than 30" x 40" and which shall be placed near each public or private right -of - way bordering the property and to remove said sign within one (1) week after the hearing. If you have any questions please contact the Planning Office. Sincerely, Debbie Skehan Administrative Assistant 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Francis Krizmanich, Planning Office FROM: Tom Newland, Planning Engineer RE: DeBoer Parcel Bridge Permit DATE: February 2, 1988 Attached for your review please find a copy of a memorandum dated February 2, to Bud Eylar. In this memorandum I respond to Bud's request to review bridge plans for the DeBoer parcel, located about 2 1/2 miles up Snowmass Creek from the Conaco. Although the bridge design appears conforming, I question the applicant's intent on this matter. The plans keep referring to a "residence" which does not currently exist. I would hate to issue a permit to Mr. DeBoer for bridge construction if his proposed building envelope has not been approved. I believe that it is situated on lands determined to be critical to wildlife by recent DOW mapping. Please review that attached memorandum and location map for further information. Call me when you have determined if Mr. Deboer will or will not require further review. / �/� ,l /��a,•/o� d e r Z /3�8e +Yt MEMORANDUM TO: Bud Eylar, Road and Bridge Project Engineer FROM: Tom Newland, Land Use Engineer RE: DeBoer Private Bridge Application DATE: February 2, 1988 I have reviewed the bridge plans developed by Schmeuser Gordon Meyer, Inc. for the applicant and have found them to apply to county standards and specifications concerning bridge construc- tion and work within the 100 -year floodplain. However, I would hate to see us approve a bridge for a dwelling unit that has not been approved. The plans refer to a "residen- ce" which has not been constructed. I believe that the proposed dwelling unit may be on lands determined a critical to wildlife by recent D.O.W. mapping. Therefore, the dwelling unit will need to go through 1041 review for building envelope placement. I will copy the planning office on this matter and ask them to respond as to the status of the DeBoer parcel. It is recommended that the permit for bridge construction not be granted until the planning office has responded to this situation. cc: Francis Krizmanich °00 T52 4_9 I I y -0400 eB CA EE > > �`> \ �• ` �J `? �-- I C �1 VICINITY MA DeBOER BRIDGE SCALE: 1" 2000' u3.i �iS3 ae� -M Jg Flit KEVIN L. PATRICK, P.G. ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PROFESSIONAL GORPORATION KEVIN L PATRICK RHONDA J BAZIL May 31, 1988 Mr. Francis Krizmanich Aspen /Pitkin County Planning Dept. 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Skyler DeBoer 1041 Hazard Review Dear Francis: 106 SOUTH MILL SUITE 200 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303)920-1028 At the meeting held May 24, 1988 you indicated that the Planning Office had not received a copy of the Plan and Profile prepared by Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. for the river crossing to be installed on the DeBoer property on Snowmass Creek. I am enclosing a copy of the Plan and Profile which was submitted to Mr. Bud Eylar in February of 1988. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, KEVIN L. PATRICK, P.C. A Professional Corporation By: e i L. Patrick KLP:gmo #91,56 enclosure cc: Mr. Skyler S. DeBoer Alan E. Schwartz, Esq. Mr. Ron Thompson KEVIN L. PATRICK, P.G. ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PROFESSIONAL GORPORATION KEVIN L PATRICK RHONDAJ BAZIL May 25, 1988 Mr. Francis X. Krizmanich Aspen /Pitkin County Planning Department 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CC 81611 RE: Skie S. DeBoer 1041 Hazard Review Application Dear Francis: 106 SOUTH MILL SUITE 200 ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 (303) 920 -1028 At the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of May 24th, the Applicant was requested to provide proposed language to you to assist in your preparing the text of a recommended Motion for the Commission dealing with activities in the riparian zone. Accordingly, I would like to propose the following language which addresses Note 5(d) on the Site Plan Map and Planning Staff Recommendation Nos. 2 and 8: "No improvements or development shall occur in the riparian stream channels of Snowmass Creek, except that activities related to irrigation, fish propogation and � uses of water (.including ponds) ._Avy - ��iscatorial - 3h�✓/ conducted provided that Applicant complies with eell applicable federal, state and local laws." .5 =4ze q I would appreciate order to answer the have any questions contact me. your thoughts on the proposed languac� i / y Commission's concerns. As always, should yo� or care to discuss these matters, please Very truly yours, KEVIN L. PATRICK, P.C. A Professional Corporation By K6 n L. Patrick KLP:gmo cc: Mr. Alan Mr. #28L55 Sklyer S. DeBoer E. Schwartz, Esq. Ron Thompson MAY ? 6 UOOvS(P CERTIFICATE OF MAILING 0 I, hereby certiry that on thirs�) 1 day of 19sb -, a true and correct copy of the attached No ice of Public Hearing was deposited in the United States mail, first -class postage prepaid, to the adjacent property owners ap 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 public notice. Nancy Caeti r v� 'r C U � v _I az;)� -OZ2- -DDS i i i� E x t 4 3z� iqs GIA� �c . (--"� t O �d fah � l7G q PUBLIC NOTICE RE: DEBOER 1041 HAZARD REVIEW NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 24, 1988, at a meeting to being at 9:00 A.M., before the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission, in the Commissioners' Meeting Room, Courthouse, 506 E. Main Street, Aspen, CO, to consider an application submitted by Skyler DeBoer, requesting 1041 Hazard Review for a single - family residence and a barn on 106.34 acres, more or less. The property is located on the west side of Snowmass Creek Road just downstream from Watson Divide, more specifically located in Section 2, Township 9 South, Range 86 West of the 6th PM. For further information, contact the Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925 -2020, ext. 222. s /Jim Reser Chairman, Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on April 21, 1988. Pitkin County Invoice NO. 39286 3 0 .' •' 9 ROY R. ROMER GOVERNOR JOHN W. ROLD DIRECTOR COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 715 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING - 1313 SHERMAN STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80203 PHONE (303) 866 -2611 MAY ?_ r May 16, 1988 Mr. Francis Krizmanicn Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mr. Krizmanich: RE: DE BOER 1041 REVIEW We have reviewed the materials submitted on this proposal and the general and engineering geology of the area. We are in concurrence with the findings and recommendations presented in the reports by Nick Lampiris and Dean Gordon and if the recommendations are followed, we have no objection to the approval of this application. Yours truly, Jeffrey L. Hynes Senior Engineering Geologist bcr:JLH -88 -071 3775/6 n %.' �. J� G E O L O G Y 4.0 STORY OF THE PAST... KEY TO THE FUTURE 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Francis Krizmanich, Planning Office FROM: Tom Newland, Land Use Engineer RE: DeBoer 1041 Hazard Review DATE: May 16, 1988 I have reviewed the application submitted and would like to forward the following comments to you: Impacts on County Road System: The addition of an access to one single - family house to the Snowmass Creek Road will have negligi- ble impact on the County road system. Internal Road System: The applicant proposes to cross two channels of Snowmass Creek and one irrigation ditch to access the proposed building site. I disagree with the applicant's claim that the north channel of Snowmass Creek is an "overflow" channel. The 1985 FEMA floodplain study shows the "Floodway" of Snowmass Creek in both channels as it crosses the subject parcel. On a recent site inspection with Francis Krizmanich (May 15), we notice steady flows in both channels. It is recommended that the applicant eliminate the culvert from the north channel in favor of a bridge with abutments and adequate free board to carry the 100 -year event. It is further recommended that the applicant present this office with a detailed roadwork plan showing: 1) How the driveway will negotiate the steep slopes evident along the Snowmass Creek roadside and the north side of the creek crossing, including cut and fill calculations; 2) How the driveway will be designed to pass the irrigation ditch along the toe of the steep slope near Snowmass Creek Road; 3) Demonstration that the roadwork is constructed above the 100 -year floodplain, showing in particular that the con- structed fill will have sufficient drainage devices so as to pass the 100 -year flood and the ability of the fill to withstand any impoundment; 4) That the driveway design will conform to adopted Pitkin County Driveway Standards; 5) That the bridges be designed by a certified engineer and have the ability to prevent blockage or backup of water in the drainage channels during peak water flows. This can be J ' J �y accomplished by conducting a that the creek crossing design owner upstream; backwater analysis to insure does not effect the property 6) It was apparent at the site inspection that the proposed bridge /road work will impact a substantial amount of wetland /riparian vegetation. The applicant should propose a mitigation plan for loss of this wetlands area, showing the amount of wetlands impacted and the proposed mitigation measures. It is recommended that the and approved by the County for wetlands concerns), at is unfortunate that the easement with the property crossing the creek has alr above requested submittals be reviewed Engineer (and the Division of WIldlife such time the work may commence. It landowner has not pursued an access owner imediately downstream. A bridge Cady been placed on this land. Scenic Impacts: The proposed building envelope is apparently located across Snowmass Creek from the County Road. There is a flat to mildly - sloping bench of land removed from the 100 -year floodplain that appears suitable for building. The heavy vegetation along the creek tends to hide this building site from the road. Geologic Concerns: The recommendations of Dr. Lampiris should be followed when placing the foundation of the dwelling unit: 1) All gullies present on the building site should be avoided; 2) The rear of the home should be landscaped to promote positive drainage of run -off around the building foundat- ion; 3) Perimeter drains around the foundation should be placed; 4) Adequate ventilation for radon gas mitigation should be placed within the home design. ASPEN *PITKIN ENVIROMMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTNT MEMORANDUM MAY 17 ' To: Francis Krismanich, Planning Office From: Rick Bossingham, Environmental Health Departmen�j Date: May 16, 1988 Re: DeBoer 1041 Hazard Review, Parcel ID# 2645- 021 -00 -006 The Aspen /Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the above - mentioned land use submittal under authority of the Pitkin County Code Title Ii, and has the following comments. SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: Sections 2 -7 and 5 -200 Nicholas Lampiris, Geologist, states in the application that a septic system with leach field may be possible in the permeable soils. The applicant should note that the sewage disposal system may have to be designed by a registered professional engineer to meet the Pitkin. County Regulations on Individual Sewage Disposal Systems ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: Sections 2 -6 and 5 -205 Q Nicholas Lampiris notes that a domestic water supply should be available. AIR QUALITY: Sections 2 -17 and 5 -106 The applicant does not mention wood - burning devices. Any installed must comply with applicable regulations. No significant air quality impact is expected from the proposal. NOISE: Section 2 -23 No adverse noise impacts are anticipated from this proposal. CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER LAWS: Section 2 -2 This proposal is not anticipated to be in violation of any other laws which fall under this department's authority. J0 ((11 i) 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81811 303/928 -2020 lo p it " EXHIBIT B Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D. CONSULTING GEOLOGIST 0554 HIGHWAY 82 CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 (303) 963-3600 1 7, 7 4 L- TW t .I rl,cj i)� !M ou % It f ( 41 F L - :I[i 1 ',.'.'!I Alt L I C J 1 'i:ll i,l;.l l - ••.: ':: t•_r '_I,dii "':• :`.; ": :'i ( "'?�� :. '!'PI'L =. ::.1 ��...;. o-.,_.,1 11 .:. -1 .., f„ - 1 ; : ., '�t.:' ,f'il : �i �t:., f�' - f I1 ., .. -� I ° �I " i i. i.. r -.•I : , i.- I" ".'._.i:�: .';a_i '. "I l: �i ,�', l '. :. ':OI i 7 ii r7 1 - i7I _ :'i..7 -.1 I .:. ... u'i r •' , :. i 'il''L•, .: �� 1: I ,. "i.'li'�L': it :. .Y(:' .I�I 1 , _ 't.:'1 , : 1.� I...:�1 f -. '.' I I u _. � ..� f -., li .: _.I '.a i. :�i 1 , .�,''�1: ,4.1 ('•r. „fl -{ '.'Ili ::, _.L •. ( -ili l 1. ;, -' i.i'. � I. 1 .7 , r. �1 F':1 �: I:;i. 1. i•:_ i!. -� : il..i :.;1 .. � 7 ;� r, +!}.. 1'ili L.' v , 1 (-• ,: i- .r - t :' �:. ,. 1..� 1- i�i '..i r' {J i , , , � : , -- '- i ., If T'I' {•- ^1111 , ...i @.':f:!; .., i7tj ,1t �.,:. :•; , ::Li U %' V ..., ,,, .: :. I: 1_ , i' I't'1 .�:• = '(•1• :.' Lr' 1'r I'.ni ': :ii'(' _ ::1 -, ,'! - ;• : ":r'., :if I' .; t ''['I. J {.'r :% .7' i.: !''J '�� 'Il! i 14.' i :•: ..'i:�. ..i i. ._ 'i,y 1 7IJ •l! : : ... i. IJ, li- i t ';, '. I_•., : - ._:.,r..! r' - i'4r � f. "'V7" :•411 -,.... I : i'1. -]II r', ..'..,; !. ' .''r: I i. t!'. f 1 C) {'Fr, r'1 {:•.Y.Y I'. - ! - i - .=1 I'Ir ! ..i l 1 ,'•' {.c ?I' .•.i, l P�: .. r P {� ! :1''. �1 ,r : l - _11 ..;r .Iln'�a',�" "1.i •' - !'; - 11 i { ' , . _ :'r f; f'! - . :. :'r + i,i 1.. yii :, _ - 1 - :., �, 1: '.. .;I I:r•• , 'I �1 �.�!r' " }•. � ''f " :'�� i'Il ?. i. 1,4•J ., ....,,. C�:. .�. E' - _� : . V ., IT, 1''I , a 5L I i ,. ,. -, ?li ..r n'11j(, } ri:.C t'r... I j :i V k!" u!rc ( 0 to col I. 10 Pon= A �P m -red Kv r oq�� "n w!wQ"A n A A nm lujinin T 1 1p. oc�u it- Uri - d or am a"n& on "C ont r , 7 )n I , r., J4 , r MMI W L no a I<tnl K M 2 mf 1 \ \ K 727 IN s gc V 'N Q9 Og Qal Q a 111111 \Qg "Ob Q'fa v I- 31) Qga k7, 0� 0 � rIKO �4 6155 � 5j� ;'' 1 ��I ' � v l r 702, )irk J AMI • Qal - V . - Qa - 1 'FA r 1 e00 Q 6508 2v- 110 It -- . " ( m s)% 7�� D7 0 ( _ K Q I 0 5\ F6, -D6 �> � ' V '}✓ (.9 "��= Y. , � I �6 1 j r �, L'r � , 'e z II rr '� � r I/xl (IM 17 D 9 V. UTnTm 0 SCNNUESEN GORDON hwWEN March 24, 1988 Alan Schwartz, Esq. Myler, Stuller & Schwartz, P.C. 106 South Mill, Syite 202 Aspen, CO 81611 RE: DeBoer 1041 Review Dear Alan: I.W. uvn L wJ Aspen, Colorado 81612 (303) 925 -6727 At your request, we have inspected the subject property and examined the following issues. Our conclusions are stated herein. Floodplain To receive an Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 FWPCA permit, we per- formed a floodplain study for the proposed DeBoer bridge across Snow- mass Creek. This permit was granted March 7, 1988 and assigned Number N14 -187. For a comparison, our floodplain study used the Flood Insur- ance Study for Pitkin County. Both studies concluded that the 100 -year event is confined to the Snowmass Creek streambed channels which flow around the island on the property. Given the fact that the applicant has agreed not to construct any improvements within these channels (other than the bridge accessing the property), the lowest point upon which any residence will be construc- ted is a minimum of fifteen feet (15 higher than the 100 -year flood event. Therefore, we have concluded that there will no floodplain impact on the proposed residential building site. slope The proposed building site is located in the southwest corner of the property on a south- facing hillside overlooking Snowmass Creek. This site is relatively flat and dry, with the vegetation consisting pri- marily of sagebrush and serviceberry. While there are slopes of over thirty percent (30 %) within the building out - parcel, the applicant has agreed not to construct any improvements upon such slopes. In the event that slopes of thirty percent are disturbed in the process of construction, we recommend implementation of the mitigation procedures as outlined in the Pitkin County Code. Sincerely, SCBMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. 14507 Gordon, P.E. �s t �9r 0NAL �1 '7167 OF CG% u J 1512 Grand Avenue, Suite 212 • Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 • (303) 945.1004 APPENDIX 8 Proje Number Date Submitted ection /Parse MAR 3 1 pitkin county LAND USE APPLICATION FO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT: VAME Skyler S. DeBoer 506 east main street aspen, colorado B1611 4DDRESS 800 Hyman Avenue, #G, Aspen, CO 81611 )HONE (0) 920 -1533 (H) 920 -17 VAME OF PROJECT Special Review Application (1041 Hazard Review) for s family residence on Snowmass Creek. 3 ROJECT LOCATION: lOn 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.) TOTAL AREA 106.34 acres, more or less PROPOSED USE(S) One single - family residence and related structure(s) e.g. barn. (approximate square footage for each) XISTING USE(S) unde veloped PRESENT ZONING OF SITE DESCRIPTION OF LAND USE PROPOSAL Applicant desires to construct one single - fa mily residence and related structure(s) on 106+ acre site. Applicant proposes that approximately 80% of the total site be covered b a rotective covenant an or conservation easement for the benefit of the Colorado Division of Wildlife. No improvements will be constructed (1) within any area covered by such protective covenant conservation easement; 2) upon slopes greater than thirty percent; (3) above the 7325' elevation line; or (4) within the streambed channels of Snowmass Cre TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING OFFICE TYPE OF APPLICATION: REZONING GROWTH MANAGEMENT P.U.D. SUBDIVISION SPECIAL REVIEW EXEMPTION HBUILDING PERMIT REVIEW H35-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 MYLER, STULLER & SCHWARTZ ATTORNEYS AT LAW DAVID J. MYLER SANDRA M. STULLER ALAN E. SCHWARTZ March 29, 1988 Francis Krizmanich Aspen / Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 106 S. MILL STREET, SUITE 202 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 920 -1018 RE: Skyler DeBoer - Special Review Application for single - family residential building permit approval on 106 + - acres located on Snowmass Creek (see proof of ownership and legal description attach hereto as Exhibit A) Dear Francis: This letter is intended to satisfy those portions of the Pitkin County Land Use Code related to areas and activities of state interest ( § §5 -400 et se g.) as they affect the above - referenced application. Where appropriate, I have attached as exhibits hereto the conclusions of those consultants who have assisted us in preparing this application. I. §5 -401 Geologic Hazard Areas: In response to this section, please see the attached report from Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D., consulting geologist, dated November 25, 1987 (Exhibit B). II. §5 -402 Floodplain Hazard Areas: In response to this section, please see the attached report from Schmueser, Gordon, Meyer, Inc., consulting engineers, dated March 21, 1988 (Exhibit C). III. §5 -404 Wildlife Habitat Area: Applicant has been advised that the subject property lies in critical winter range for deer and elk. At applicant's request, Mr. Randy Cote of the Colorado Division of Wildlife has visited the site, and has assessed the prospects of developing a single - family residence thereon. Mr. Cote has suggested that if certain protective measures are undertaken by applicant, the intrusion upon the wildlife habitat can be successfully mitigated. Specifically, Mr. Cote has noted that the upper end of the property lies in a major migration route for deer and elk, and that the river - bottom portion of the property is an important watershed for fish and wildlife. In response to Mr. Cote's �rt ,C .W I MYLER. STULLER & SCHWARTZ Francis Krizmanich March 29, 1988 Page Two concerns, applicant would note that the migration route is located on the highest portion of the property, well above the proposed building site. In order to ensure that this route is not disturbed, and to also ensure protection of the watershed area, applicant has agreed to subject a significant portion of the property to a protective covenant and /or conservation easement, the precise terms of which would be agreed upon among applicant, the Colorado Division of Wildlife, and Pitkin County. In addition, applicant has agreed that no improvements will be constructed 1. Within any area covered by the aforementioned protective covenant /conservation easement (see attached map); 2. Upon slopes greater than thirty percent; 3. Above the 7325` elevation line; 4. Within the streambed channels of Snowmass Creek. In closing, applicant stands ready to implement and abide by each of these conditions, and such other reasonable conditions as the County may impose. Speaking for Sky DeBoer, Nick Lampiris and Dean Gordon, I look forward to working with you and the County Planning Commission in the processing of this application. Very truly yours, MYLER, S U E SCHWARTZ Min S l tz AES:caw Enclosures �0 i� �n SCHMUESER GORDON March 24, 1988 Alan Schwartz, Esq. Myler, Stuller & Schwartz, P.C. 106 South Mill, Syite 202 Aspen, CO 81611 RE: DeBoer 1041 Review Dear Alan: EXrilt51'1' L r.w. wn 4 oa Aspen, Colorado 81612 (303) 925 -6727 At your request, we have inspected the subject property and examined the following issues. Our conclusions are stated herein. Floodplain To receive an Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 FWPCA permit, we per- formed a floodplain study for the proposed DeBoer bridge across Snow- mass Creek. This permit was granted March 7, 1988 and assigned Number N14 -187. For a comparison, our floodplain study used the Flood Insur- ance Study for Pitkin County. Both studies concluded that the 100 -year event is confined to the Snowmass Creek streambed channels which flow around the island on the property. Given the fact that the applicant has agreed not to construct any improvements within these channels (other than the bridge accessinq the property), the lowest point upon which any residence will be construc- ted is a minimum of fifteen feet (15') hiqher than the 100 -year flood event. Therefore, we have concluded that there will no floodplain impact on the proposed residential building site. Slopes The proposed building site is located in the southwest corner of the property on a south - facing hillside overlooking Snowmass Creek. This site is relatively flat and dry, with the vegetation consisting pri- marily of sagebrush and serviceberry. While there are slopes of over thirty percent (308) within the building out - parcel, the applicant has agreed not to construct any improvements upon such slopes. In the event that slopes of thirty percent are disturbed in the process of construction, we recommend implementation of the mitigation procedures as outlined in the Pitkin County Code. Sincerely, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. Ron Thompson Planning Engineer RT:lc/7167 Enclosure 1512 Grand Avenue, Suite 212 • Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 • (303) 945 -1004 r) v EXHIBIT E KEVIN L. PATRICK, P.G. ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION KEVIN L PATRICK RHONDAJ BAZIL March 22, 1988 Alan E. Schwartz, Esq. 106 S. Mill St., Suite 202 Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 FWPCA Permit Dear Alan: 106 SOUTH MILL SUITE 200 ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 (303) 920 -1028 Enclosed please find self - explanatory correspondence from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dated March 1, 1988 providing a Nationwide General Permit Authorization (No. N14 -187) to con- struct the bridge improvements and river crossing (Snowmass Creek) for an access way to the Skyler DeBoer building site. In conjunction with obtaining this Permit, an additional set of plans and specifications for this project was provided to Mr. Bud Eylar, Pitkin County Public Works Director for the County's review and approval of the same. Prior to closing of the property Mr. Eylar and Mr. Dean Gordon of Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. met and discussed the plans with the result that certain modifications to the plans have been made in response to the County's input. In this vein, I am enclosing my correspondence of January 22, 1988 to Mr. Eylar and Mr. Gordon's correspondence of February 17, 1988 again to Mr. Eylar for your files. Should you have any questions in this regard, please advise me. Very truly yours, KEVIN L. PATRICK, P.C. A Professional Corporation By: - Kevi L. Patrick KLP:gmo #46L13 cc: Mr. Skyler S. DeBoer Mr. Dean Gordon Q��ENT of ��w o ' z �G 1ht4 - ` � 4,F,U A ATTENTION OF y � , � 'PARTMENT OF THE ARMY SACRAMENTO DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS `.0 650 CAPITOL MALL SACRAMENTO CALIFORNIA 958144794 March 1, 1988 Regulatory Section (N14 -187) Mr. Skyler S. DeBoer c/o Mr. Kevin Patrick, Esq. 106 South Mill Suite 200 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mr. DeBoer: i l MAR 21988 �1 di :'Jul L. P `%„CK, P.C. I am responding to your Department of the Army permit application dated January 20, 1988, submitted on your behalf by Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. This permit application requests authorization for construction of a crossing of Snowmass Creek near Old Snowmass, in Pitkin County, Colorado. The Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, has issued a nationwide general permit allowing the discharge of dredged or fill material in "waters of the United States" in association with minor road crossings. Minor road crossing fills, including all attendant features both temporary and permanent that are part of a single and complete project for crossing of a non -tidal waterbody, are authorized subject to the enclosed special condi- tions and best management practices. The crossing must be culverted, bridged or otherwise designed to prevent the restric- tion of and to withstand expected high flows Discharges into any wetland adjacent to the waterbody must not exceed beyond one hundred (100) feet on either side of the ordinary high water mark of that waterbody. A minor road crossing fill is defined as a crossing that involves the discharge of less than two hundred (200) cubic yards of fill material below ordinary high water. Based upon the information submitted, we have determined that this project can be constructed subject to nationwide general permit authorization. Please be aware that this authorization is valid for a period of two (2) years. We have assigned Number N14 -187 to this project. Please reference this number in any correspondence submitted to this office concerning �5 this project. Should you have questions, please feel free to contact Gary Davis of this office at telephone (303) 243 -1199. Sincerely, Chief, Regulatory Unit 4 764 Ho izon Drive, Room 211 Grand unction, Colorado 81506 -8719 Enclosure Copy Furnished: Mr. Dean Gordon, Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc., 1512 Grand Avenue, Suite 212, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 INFORMATION PAPER NATIbeWIDE GENERAL PERMIT NUMBEN MINOR ROAD CROSSING FILLS A nationwide general permit is a Department of the Army permit that is issued on a nationwide basis for a specific category of activities that are substantially similar and cause minimal environmental impacts. Nationwide permits are designed to allow the work to occur with little delay or paperwork. They are issued to satisfy the requirements of both Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, unless otherwise stated. An individual permit application is not required for an activity covered by a nationwide permit. The Corps of Engineers has issued a nationwide permit for minor road crossing fills including all attendant features both temporary and permanent that are part of a single and complete project for crossing of a non -tidal waterbody, provided: 1. The crossing is culverted, bridged or otherwise designed to withstand and prevent the restriction of expected high flows. 2. Any discharges into any wetlands adjacent to the waterbody do not extend beyond 100 feet on either side of the ordinary high water mark of that waterbody. A "minor road crossing fill" is defined as a crossing that involves the discharge of less than 200 cubic ay rds of fill material below the plane of ordinary high water. The enclosed special conditions must be followed in order for this nationwide permit to be valid. FOR MORE INFORMATION, WRITE TO THE GRAND OFFICE, U. S. ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, HORIZON DRIVE, ROOM 211, GRAND JUNCTION, TELEPHONE (303) 243 -1199. 1 Enclosure as stated l JUNCTION REGULATORY SACRAMENTO DISTRICT, 764 COLORADO 81506 -8719 OR .0' to J0 . INFORMATION PAPER AWTIONWIDE GENERAL PERMITS �✓ WESTERN COLORADO A. SPECIAL CONDITIONS. The following special conditions must be followed in order for the nationwide permits to be valid: 1. That any discharge of dredged or fill material will not occur in the proximity of a public water supply intake. 2. That any discharge of dredged or fill material will not occur in areas of concentrated shellfish production unless the discharge is directly related to a shellfish harvesting activity. 3. That the activity will not jeopardize a threatened or endangered species as identified under the Endangered Species Act, or destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat of such species. 4. That the activity shall not significantly disrupt the movement of those species of aquatic life indigenous to the waterbody (unless the primary purpose of the fill is to impound water). 5. That any discharge of dredged or fill material shall consist of suitable material free of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts. 6. That any structure or fill authorized shall be properly maintained. 7. That the activity will not occur in a component of the National Wild and Scenic River System; nor in a river officially designated by Congress as a "study river" for possible inclusion in the system, while the river is in an official study status. 8. That the activity shall not cause an unacceptable interference with navigation. 9. That, if the activity may adversely affect historic properties which the National Park Service has listed on, or determined eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic Places, the permittee will notify the district engineer. If the district engineer determines that such historic properties may be adversely affected, he will provide the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation an opportunity to comment on the effects on such historic properties or he will consider modification, suspension, or revocation in accordance with 33 CFR 325.7. Furthermore, that, if the permittee before or during prosecution of the work authorized, encounters a historic property that has not been listed on the National Register, but which may be eligible for listing in the National Register, he shall immediately notify the district engineer. 1 10. That the cr ;truction or operation of-khe activity will not impair reserved '*#e+fibal tights, including, *,or not limited to, reserved water rights and treaty fishing and hunting rights. 11. That the activity will comply with regional conditions which may have been added by the division engineer (None have been added for western Colorado). 12. That the management practices listed below shall be followed to the maximum extent practicable. B. MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. In addition to the conditions specified above, the following management practices shall be followed, to the maximum extent practicable, in order to minimize the adverse effects of these discharges on the aquatic environment. Failure to comply with these practices may be cause for the district engineer to recommend, or the division engineer to take, discretionary authority to regulate the activity on an individual or regional basis. 1. Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States shall be avoided or minimized through the use of other practicable alternatives. 2. Discharges in spawning areas during spawning seasons shall be avoided. 3. Discharges shall not restrict or impede the movement of aquatic species indigenous to the waters or the passage of normal or expected high flows or cause the relocation of the water (unless the primary purpose of the fill is to impound waters.) 4. If the discharge creates an impoundment of water, adverse impacts on the aquatic system caused by the accelerated passage of water and /or the restriction of its flows shall be minimized. 5. Discharges in wetlands areas shall be avoided. 6. Heavy equipment working in wetlands shall be placed on mats. 7. Discharges into breeding areas for migratory waterfowl shall be avoided. 8. All temporary fills shall be removed in their entirety. C. FURTHER INFORMATION. 1. District engineers are authorized to determine if an activity complies with the terms and conditions of a nationwide permit unless that decision must be made by the divisioh engineer. 2. Nationwide permits do not obviate the need to obtain VA other Federal, stag --or local authorizations reQuired by law. or rr 3. Nationwide permits do not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges. 4. Natiowide permits do not authorize any injury to the property or rights of others. 5. Nationwide permits do not authorize interference with any existing or proposed Federal project. FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THE NATIONWIDE GENERAL PERMITS IN WESTERN COLORADO, WRITE TO THE GRAND JUNCTION REGULATORY OFFICE, U. S. ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SACRAMENTO DISTRICT, 764 HORIZON DRIVE, ROOM 211, GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 81506 -8719 OR TELEPHONE (303) 243 -1199. 3 !0 ti -X90 Imo, i. xl/ �. KEVIN L. PATRICK, P.G. ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION KEVIN L PATRICK RHONOA J 6AZIL January 22, 1988 Mr. Bud Eylar Public Works Director of Pitkin County 506 E. Main Street Aspen, CC 81611 106 SOUTH MILL SUITE 200 ASPEN, COLORADO 61611 (303) 9204026 RE: Access Bridge Permit; County Bridge Access 1041 and U.S. Corps of Engineers 404 Permit Application for Private Bridge Dear Mr. Eylar: At the request of Dean Gordon, and on behalf of Mr. Skyler DeBoer, I am enclosing for your review and consideration the plans and specifications for a private bridge crossing of Snowmass Creek for a residential lot presently under contract by Mr. DeBoer. Also enclosed is an excerpt to the Purchase Contract indicating written consent of the now owner, Key Media, Inc., to the application. Additionally, for information purposes only, I am enclosing a copy of the permit application (2404 RWPCA) submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. We are submitting these plans for your approval as it is the clients desire to construct the bridge prior to the run -off this year, if possible. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Dean Gordon of Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. (945- 1004), or me. Very truly yours, KEVIN L. PATRICK, P.C. A Professional Corporation Im KLP:gmo #3L53 cc w /enc: cc w/o enc: Mr. Skyler DeBoer Mr. Dean Gordon Ronald Garfield, Esq. Alan E. Schwartz, Esq. N / SCNMUESER GORL AWER February 17, 1488 Mr. Bud Eviar, Public Works Director Pitkin County 530 East Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 PE: DeBoer Driveway Access Permit Dear Bud: 1r Grand Avenue, Suite 212 GiGn' Springs, Colorado 81601 (303)` -1004 CONSULTING ENGINEERS & ^r,�r+r�` rl I relayed your verbal approval of the bridge crossing concept to Mr. DeBoer. Be wishes me to express his appreciation for reviewing this in a timely manner so that the closing of the property could proceed today with this issue resolved. We understand that we will still submit to you final construction draw- ings for the issuance of the formal access permit. Final horizontal and vertical alignments will be submitted at that time and will be con- sistent with the information submitted to your office to date. Thank you aoain for your prompt consideration of the access permit. Sincerely, W. don, F.E. ident ec /yl Sk � Skyler DeBoer -Kevin Patrick, Esq. Yl jY.1��N aflM 1'uur.IYN N'1y Key Box a Erill lea � o:duotAvrlNSS , e o r ..,•Im •d Pitkin n V . Reoepttoll Abe 219760 -- mm37 - mu 671 NY. a4 WAY /A.YTT 11Y.r11 —NYwl rwm. N, ae. u• w.... nl,.. rvl ........,. +...nl w....nYa ( It1 - ric�R THIN Ur.►: MYdr inn d Yr..r Nolalbsr m79 wwwn Helen 1.. 01t A/KM listen Ogden KCoy, C•g, McCoy Cecelia A. Spear laid .tosellh E. r See Widbit 'IN' attached homto led illcorpornted herein by this reforence. wa INWRr N Now 81 In li II N.•IM.�. rl. rllw`I N11,I I,rlllllx•Y NIA � �� .ryrMYnm n.,.w.T1. .11.11111. Y.N rnn y11,ynA wnYUtxr Ih.' hw rAlbmlxnb uul p'p.Nnunn. th.reunl. Implications. Of In any win nrrnwn nuA nn rr +uln.. n•nmlMLO Ynd n•mnbNrn. nob, bY.w.,.nd prvnd IMnN; Ynd .ry lM rxur. nYln. mtrn.l..IYlm uxl dl•mxnA rhxlnyvrr..f lhr.xxl p.rt tell .r the nM 4YYL tlIMr In her N qullG "f. urYnA b.11r Yl.nr lmrnumxl l... .Ylr.•.." I. Lrl rdnnmrnl urxl uypnnrn.m•rY. i 1111IA%r.. A \I1 TO 1111110 f lu• .uul pl l'n11..4 ulna' Imnnlnrd .".14. ` 11.1. with IM YpyurtmYw.. Yob IM uN II I °rly ufnx•nrulul lnu 1, hi/ Lru.nul Y.n.n. finruv A.IIIWOihI,W.I lee ..htn IY.O I•nn.lur than .••I yes hro.,rarul.n •.nml mlrnlnlNnylNn. dY YI YIr1.I YIx1 yYr,•p l•, yll•I YIIII IIIY yxI rr,ll .'IYInYnI, I hnI YI llx•bnw of lln•rnrru I y uflLr •.0 and lwtl, hl/ be,", Ywle01., luM nuA A.In nY.d lbrw per..' "1. they are rr11 w1.rA of llr pnmM.YM'r. YunrrYr.l. xurf n + +1, nor. w•r L•rl, YLnrnur YnJ url.•f.•Yn1dY mmtr n1 ullu•nbnrr. ul 1".'0 NO nmp1Y,YM hY awd IIYIII, (1111 '.OW, MINI IYY'rll y111I4•YIIY la YI. 1111 I...... n.. 1, YMr r....... IIM /YIIN III n1YI111Yr Ynd fr. Y. YrrlrywN, YM i Ihxl IIx. YnIM' xl.. rlr. xnn I•h'xr nr,lrr .n r,rr rx., r 1 ..u,Y. .r xrn.. I Y.. x.N.. IY. «..... +.mYlll. ........ l • rl•I YIINI xI r1YI11Y1•n +•Ir1, rr t, x I hereto Ntld 11too atd herein is ref a set forth !n 15'hibit "g" attached try this reference. II II ud lhr xl +nrlxlr.xnlnl pnnMw••In ll.rqurl YlW lw.n•YhlY pu.r..Y....I IM.axI .11 his Invb rlb,I nrwYII.. YY +I1V1+tl.lul:..f 1 y 40. /— hob; un l..... lll......... flhr.md tun de +nl Y1 +'nm..11+'rem.lYwhdlrrl AN), fIjNrVK a "r unp.0 amuxuN w.n WA NNANI , INU1'uNr,VNX UKY /Np. 1 \Nn \Y.0tYN11 Y.NIIII /'. Ihr ruul l..rt tee nu ru.r poll lm Ve .....nta wl their hxrul / xu.l.ru: Un' U.Yllrxr Lea W.nr Y.eb r. II WYU..d.W.uL +l up.1 lY L. fl. +lmllx' P..rrw I. I f6r � " L. � 1 1 C.S. McCoy lone I,1 .�_ INI:Ai.I ismI ( ^ r 1/1 3 * o ...l Wnlr • ►, NIM nrU n.r6.n.1 mass uxl xIn1Y /I •d..r.A, N IM wynd Il.rt NIT \I:nY1.Tll, 1'hYl am .xlA lma 4e mll«`nnl yYn.fw.M In r.nexlerV bn ertM.nwM tat dollars and other PPM aid valuable coaLderat tan -------------------- WL"" L.tlw .Nxl lmrl te/ .d n.. LnllMa mllxnd pnA hllM.udlwrl y .ftM .r•n.M port. the "lot rlu•rw•luhrM.y. onrr..rn nut xl NxnlnlYr.l. Myq p.ulyd.lmrrnlrlwl. rdd Yndrlmr...d, end hr thew a peo," IIY YI x111, I.xl Yllln..,•Il. fall \rl.1 ... "nflrm, Y111rr II1r+n 1,I lNr Of the wY.nd p. his Imo. nut m•rn. Gm.....'Itln LA.•wuv dr•fnl +ul L.I nr•m I .hit. I xflxnd w".t.. IrinY.nd being n.d Pltkln Yrxl yo.a NlNl .. .dx. wu: r� t� 1 A A y �II � I l V I .. r....... ,.. IhAN'NU.II m379 � t672 o. T INUN01 I , � PK S TATE Or CALIFORNIA COUMYOF 1 1 p :^as�r..�a - — E.bn IM. W uuOrtWnM.. Nau� Nllk M .W Aer rW ohm . NSW7.w+wd cK1&k P J2— .nl - L — en -- . offs b IN W 1 S INaI. re_N[ L .....+4 E b I'm "No WMl ow M.e.wd#w j � 1 7 • •r. .1 NY ' ONN STANND .� 41M • CAUFO III h v d OON..LONPi� swl.. � r "..iiNM Mob . Mk of L u a . � 1 i I I A y �II � I l V I .. r....... ,.. IhAN'NU.II m379 � t672 o. T INUN01 I , � PK S TATE Or CALIFORNIA COUMYOF 1 1 p :^as�r..�a - — E.bn IM. W uuOrtWnM.. Nau� Nllk M .W Aer rW ohm . NSW7.w+wd cK1&k P J2— .nl - L — en -- . offs b IN W 1 S INaI. re_N[ L .....+4 E b I'm "No WMl ow M.e.wd#w P.Pb/ W rn. wrrNm N Vy W GM W MI. •r. .1 NY ' ONN STANND .� 41M • CAUFO III h v d OON..LONPi� swl.. r "..iiNM Mob . Mk of ..uul..4.x.awwa.lq 6L AI. 3�ON I .....r . 4u' rv•• Ixl.4j..p.r.1.4.4.r4,rpxr. ' q l uq p•. ul.. e.q I ....xl uul pun ..m .g1,ip p..yr pu. lan k m wnpu Ixn n. •� .0 minl.•pnn 4nnrp�ll lni..npp.., 41... p44..... ........ rngl l °�ALq. M.ul p4.......lw or..ryl.r. rrp... .... .a ...... .... ••l I "•III .q4+ 4wxnn .nlw 44.,.41 .r.11 ..1 . .14 ..IU4ixr.l fll.r4...4x1 ..il. Vryl p•Inn ....nl up In x.. mpr aVrIN .411 nl' \Ipunr Ix. 44 puv n. ul'O•,I . u44� n' •i -- iloWif1' lob 1u131VI.. li • l i I y Exit I it IT A em 379 15: - 71) A CERTAIN WARRANTY DEED 9ADF BETWEEN NEI CN OCOEN MC COY A /K /A HEi.Ex I,. OGIN'N, C.S. MC COY. CF.C►t.lA ANN SPEAt ANn ROY ERILL KEY ON NOYI7111F.R . 1979. v AXCIA. A A 0u1.r1 .d LwJ ull „it.•,I PI 'L ;I�� t l 1, IS 1u..nh lP 9 Rb� Wuat f tlit-Muat ..I ILr el6 I'.M. .ubl IUc Nk4 ul ell. r,M. ,111 1. I'l1Y lu Illunl Y, lulor.ulu and LIJ ey wura (,fly Jrarr lbuJ •• f.11"61 If.•V.1nu l.y at d pulnt .'•ruu• Ilm nul tln•.,a( .unu•r ul .,.Id aa.tlUn 1 baara N 119'52'24 t 14. to Iort: I L.o". S, 11:'tt'l11" I '111. Sh Irrl: I L. nrI. S. 01'211'10" W 1111.: ,1. " t.l; 1 l.onrn• L II' Of, 11190. 44f , 1 It II.......11 h, rlr td. uI lbo lllc runt; Il.u. .• N. 6I - Sp4�' W. 2114.91 fo.'t .IIunM an I 1,m lbarly VII Pu I 11,.•I.o dol" IIIM an I.1 PIIIII I I.I,II. ,1 11'14 1 I06.4') Ic"ty 1 hrn, .• 11 41 W tN. hu Ioul; I l...... N 05 ° SS'UU" W 49 :h Lct; I I,, I,. t N 16'44'UO" W 101. Uh IvvI; , tln.nc. N 49'Ib'OU" W 2U.09 (.v.I, I 11,...... 11 11'47'UO" W. I. h. N II•cl: Ila v N 11'111'0(1" R 441. IU II•ct; II „u.c U 117'11' t' :1). PI I, vI, 1 .......• 9 'fit '0O" 1 11, ll•. Iv,I 1 I., I,e N 117 u'UU" W 114. 7 Ioa; U..•...o 11 01'01 "11" W 121. 11 foul; III, 1,.c b III .'S9 1 10.11 (v.l; Iluv..•e N UU °I8 - uu" 1 2h1.22 Iv9l, I LI•nca N 11'S4'Oil F I81.19 1".!L Un•ncu N IS'1Y'UU" W 151.51 (cot; I I ...... I. 6 h1'41'UO" k 184.04 1. 11 I ...... I.S'U4'00" 1 1Ub 111 frog: if I. 6: I. IIS 5 1L"t l it. ... . SIPS 7'1X1" I 1'11.54 1.."t I Urn. 1 . N 24'59'OU" F. 1 /9.111 fovt; t bond• N 11'1111'0 Y' 14.41 f""t; Ibrm I . N IS'U6'00" W 'S.111 IIIYI; if..•oyr N (11'41'110" W. '1).71 feat; Ilu•u.I. N I ;'Ib'00" W INS. 15 11..t; I Urn... N :'1'41'01)' 1. 56.15 III-t; I hrnrl. ll I / ° 11'110" 1:',1.57 Irul; Iln•m ,• N 04';7'14" W 111. IN II'1!t; ! 1 ..•... I . II tln'11'14" k 1!1'1.µt 11--t to A.P. 1 1 1.1,1 82 "It" anYr 1,a A.Y. 75 5 tract uuld No, IIn! 14, - ! 111, nrr •, (10 . 47'4U" P 1'A'1. 15 Ircl, f I ...... t - 1. 44'50'UO" W 21U U0 lout: It IUen. t• 1U' WOO " X 111.17 Ivcl; I II. It . t . h 00'47'40" I 1:1.24 1na1 to [Ur Pulut of UuXlnnlnµ. ; I AM, I I 11 A I NM tho ` NI', and tlw MI.Ir SE of SIIrt IUll 2. 1 In.nnlllP Y bunt U, Nmlvo Nh W'ut III the nth 1' M., I'Itkln County, Colorado, uld Parcel Loll.µ w•nr IuIly J.'Y[(tL•J "a lull...: - 1 11. µI nn 6 , 1, ;II IUo om 111 1 , .,.I nor .1 Ha I It,,I I.1, , I h.w .• , llll'tlb'}h" W 111:.4' Iool; IIu.1l.c H n'1'41'tn" 1 16 I`I. 1,U Irrt: Ill, n. .011 "10'04" I. 11)1.14 11,.1; 110'1', '41" 1691.U11 Icvl, IU.rn,r W h /1.111 Ioul; brulr N '19'17'•'11(1" W /61. 1" Irol; N U( 1 1 .91.1m furl: N 6111.111 11,1-1 ; Urn,r W IHht.:h Irrt; I h, m,• N 01)'1. W :II ,4. Ircl; '! H'I'411'I'I° , 'I ,!.11'1 trrl 1. 1 I I',J UI .I UI K IIO I1,14 . All b1 11. A.unly .I 1 Yln, blulr .,I " 01,00 Ss- On I. i wm379 15u674 TO A CERTAIN WARRANTY DEED KADE nI:TWFF.N HrLFN L. OGDEN A /K /A HELEN OGDCN MCC07, C. S. NCCOY, CRCF.LIA A. SPEAR, JOSEPH SPEAR AND ROY DRILL KEY ON NOVF1 , 1979. I, RlghlB w olatms of 1,11 tlu.4 in Lniuur.Blon net xhuwn by the public n.cn1 „s. l anomenI 111 cla II* of raxt,mi•nlx, not shown by tilt public 1, cord n. I. Di net up.Inr Iv,, :0nf I lets ul L,uudary Ilnes, ehurt.nle in area cnct 0a01mcnl61, and any facts which ., correct survey and lnsper. tion of the premisen ,uuld d1sclose and whtch art not shown by Lhu public ........ rdn. 4. Any 1 wu, nr right to a ltell, bur sarvices, labor or matorls. Lhoretufrre •,r heicifter futnishod, Impnsud by law and riot shown by the publ id records. 5. Urfectn, Ilens, encumbrancnu, adverse claims or other matters, 11 alit', crn,I,'d, first appoat lnq In the public rucordn or attaching hubet,yuant ;u Uul uffcctivu data hert,of but prior to the date 010 proposed innured acquiroa of itcnr,l for value the estate Or Litt-lout of mut U3nye thereon covered by this Commitment. 0. The rlyht of n proorivLOr of a vein or lode to extract and 101mrVe hill Oil.- therefrom, should it”' xntnr he found to ponetcato uI utlorxvel III prt,mines, an rc'o•t vrd in united Utnteu Patent "vein dud lu honk 55 at pd,10 314. 7 The right of the proprietor of a vain or lode to extract and rvmuvu [its urn therefrom, should the same be found to penutrate or intersect the promises, as reserved in United States Patent Iveordud in Hook 55 at page 320. R. The right of the proprietor of a voin or lode to extract and rrv'nlove his oln therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or Intcruuct the promises and riyht way for ditchou or canals Cunsu ueted by the authority of the United States as renrrved in United States Patent recorded in (look 55 at page 27n. '1. Riglit of way for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States an rvurrvod rn united States Patent rocordud rn honk 55 at pogo 541. 10. Rights of way an yranted to llnuntatn Statu l'olophonu and Telcyldph company an net forth In Instrument recorded January 22, 19?u In Dook 151 at page 41. Rtyhtn of way for County Ro.ul. Ji1 "1UR 17, RI'ntr 11-1 which da not contain a .orfotturu or rovorter cl.nlne, but omitting restrictions, if any, based on race, color, ruligiun or national uriyrn, as contained in inntrumnnt recorded June 15, 1971 in hook 276 at pagu 912. 11, 1411 1 11 t - of -wdy casement granted Dnly Cress Floctrin Assnclation, Inc, as But filth in Instrument rncordod September 5, 1978 In Rook 154 at 11,1,10 380. 11, Any tax, aaxmument, fees or cllaryon by reason of the Inclusion of subject proporty in Olt, Sopris Soil Consetvation DIRtrict 11111 pasrlt and Rural fire Protection District. >iecordid ai 2:48 o'clo( " M, Jan.9,1974 - '.Reception # 164791, Peg"" E. Mikli dr, Recorder WARRANTY DEED a :.......... . . I rt JAN - 9 1974 s._ .Jb 79 soas283 PAG(254 ? - HELEN L. OGDEN and CECELIA A. SPEAR, whose addresses are at Tulsa, Oklahoma, for the consideration of One Hundred Seventeen Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy -Five and 00 /100 Dollars, ($117,775.00), in hand paid, hereby sell and convey to IRVING BIERS, whose address 1s P.O. Box 248, Snowmass, County of Pitkin and State of Colorado, the following real property in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, to wit: h.. A tract cf land situated in the NWaNWa of Section 2, Township 9 South, Range 86 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Pitkin County, Colorado, being more gully described as follows: Beginning at a brass cap marked "AP -5, TR -83" on the North Lire of said Section 2 whence the Northwest corner of said Section 2 bears S 89" 47'35" W. 1333.01 feet; thence N 89 0 48 1 19" E. 769.00 feet; thence S 00 0 12'23" E. 2049.93 feet; thence West 769.00 feet; thence N 00 0 12 1 23" W. 2047.186 feet to the point of beginning, con- taining 36.165 acres more or less. Excepted from the above said parcel is a 60 -foot road easement being 30 feet on each side of the following described centerline: Beginning at a point on the centerline of said road whence the northwest corner of said Section 2 bears N 46 0 56 1 48" W. 2791.61 feet; thence N 55 0 36 1 46" W. 447.92 feet; thence N 64 0 38'51" W. 203.42 feet; thence N 53 0 18'36" W. 272.81 feet; containing 1.163 acres, more or less. The above - described tract containing 35.002 acres net, more or less. Along with: (a) .70 C.F.S. of water from the Williams Ditch No. 4 (Ditch No. 37A), which water is derived from an appropriation of 4.0 C.F.S. from Snowmass Creek with priority No. 63A, and (b) .35 C.F.S. of water from the Williams Spring, Ditch No. 1 (Ditch No. 517), derived from an ap- propriation of 1.5 C.F.S. under date of October 11, 1957. With dll its appurtenances, and warrant the title to t'-,e same, y� ,}p subiect to: (a) Patent reservations recorded '_n Boo'., 55 at Paqe ar 541. (b) Right -of -way to Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Co., recorded in Book 151 at Page 43. (c) Right -of -way for existing County Road. (d) Taxes for the year 1973, payable in 1974, and taxes for subsequent years. (e) Any tax, assessment, fees - ..r charges by reason of the inclusion of the property in the ;-fount Sopris Soil Conserva- tion District and the Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District. Page 912. (f) Restrictive covenants recordea in Book 276 at SIGNED this day of December, 1973. ocnENT �- - -- C! . < i Ci f__ - ` •- CF.CELI ?. STATE OF OKLAHOi%fA j COUNTY OF ) SS; The foregoing instrument day of Dccomber, SPEAR. ' %y Coaunission o:<oi res r,y nand ru.tl of c"11 _ -- --- �A ; DAVID 1. MYLER SANDRA M.STULLER ALAN E. SCHWARTZ March 29, 1988 Francis Krizmanich Aspen / Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 EXHIBIT D 106 S. MILL STREET, SUITE 202 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 920 -1018 RE: Skyler DeBoer - Special Review Application for single - family residential building permit approval on approximately 106 acres located in Snowmass Creek (see legal description attached to formal application form) Dear Francis: By this letter I am attesting to the fact that the above - referenced property constitutes a legally subdivided building site, created in 1974 in compliance with the subdivision requirements of the Pitkin County Land Use Code. As further confirmation of that fact, I am attaching hereto as "Exhibit D -1" a memorandum from Patsy Newbury, dated December 23, 1987, addressing this issue. If you require any further information on this subject, please feel free to call. Very truly yours, MYLER, STULLER & SCHWARTZ B y F11 Attq � raa� M�in ff. , chw `z AES:caw Enclosure 2M MYLER, STULLER & SCHWARTZ ATTORNEYS AT LAW U V1: i)Qn ASPEN *PITKIN F&=-GIONAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT EXHIBIT D -1 M B M O R A N D U M TO: Francis Krizmanich, Planning Department FROM: Patsy Newbury, Acting Zoning Official RE: Bill Key — Key Media Property DATE: December 23, 1987 The property described as 106.134 acres is a parcel located in the E 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of the SW 1/2 NE 1/4 on the NE 1/4 of SE 1/4 of Section 2, Township 9 South, Range 86 West of the 6th principal meridian in Pitkin County Colorado. This now belongs to Key Media Inc. and is a parcel of the Ogden property which was created in 1974 (see deeds enclosed) by the sale of property to Irving Biers and therefore would not require a growth management allocation. The deed is recorded in Pitkin County records at book 283, page 254. I am also enclosing a copy of the Biers subdivision exemp- tion review along with maps to show the location of the subject property. PN:lo bkkmp.pn cc: Garfield and Hecht 601 E. Hyman Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 offices: 517 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 91811 303/925 -5973 IF mail address: 508 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81811 1- April 4, 1988 Alan Schwartz 106 S. Mill Street, Suite 202 Aspen, CO 81611 RE: DeBoer 1041 Hazard Review Dear Alan: This letter is in regard to the application that was submitted to this office on March 31, 1988. We find this application to be incomplete and will need the following information: o Chain of Title on property to demonstrate that property has not merged; o Letter from Certified Engineer; and o Seven additional copies of application. If you have any questions regarding this, please do not hesitate to contact the Planning Office. Thank you. Sincerely, Nancy Caeti Administrative Assistant NEC:slf PRE APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PROJECT: APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Alan REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE: ? Zn— /0/7 OWNERS NAME: 1. Type of Application: G,4F 11, 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 /"71 -, : l- Ear / pp �IK ( a 4. Review is: (P &Z Only) (CC /BOCC Only) (P &Z then to CC /BC) 5. Public Hearing: �� (NO) 6. Did you to pplicant to submit list of ADJA$5 PROPERTY OWNERS? YE (NO) Disclosure of Ownership: ES :(NO) 7. What fee was applicant requested to submit: Vz; /-- 8. Anticipated date of submission: / 9. COKMENNTS /UNIIQUE CONCERNS: & Z alp 7 /5S/.(E'S 7 �OA DIG /Gti /� 7 e /�20�q /�G U P� GC / � . c d A o gl�l3 �G5 OPIPA lit �L+K� r/ O � zV UUOUI)2 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: DEBOER 1041 HAZARD REVIEW NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 24, 1988, at a meeting to being at 9:00 A.M., before the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission, in the Commissioners' Meeting Room, Courthouse, 506 E. Main Street, Aspen, CO, to consider an application submitted by Skyler DeBoer, requesting 1041 Hazard Review for a single - family residence and a barn on 106.34 acres, more or less. The property is located on the west side of Snowmass Creek Road just downstream from Watson Divide, more specifically located in Section 2, Township 9 South, Range 86 West of the 6th PM. For further information, contact the Aspen / Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925 -2020, ext. 222. s /Jim Reser Chairman, Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on April 21, 1988. Pitkin County Invoice NO. 39286 0 U0,0Q a TO: County Attorney County Engineer Environmental Health Colorado Division of Wildlife Colorado Geologic Survey* Army Corp. of Engineers FROM: Francis Krizmanich, Planning Office RE: DeBoer 1041 Hazard Review DATE: April 18, 1988 Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Alan Schwartz, on behalf of his client, Skyler DeBoer, requesting 1041 Hazard Review for a single - family residence and a barn on 106.34 acres, more or less. The property is located on Snowmass Creek. Please review this material and return your comments no later than May 16, 1988 in order for this office to have adequate time to prepare for its presentation before P &Z. Thank you. Utz ,o0' A?VEN /PITRIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, 00 81611 (303 925 -2020 Date: / �'ks This is to inform you that the Planning office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. we have determined that your application IS N@W complete. Additional items required include: Disclosure of Ownership (one copy only needed) Adjacent Property Owners List /Envelopes /Postace (one Copy) - Additional copies of entire application Authorization by owner for representative to submit applica- tion Response to list of items (attached /below) demonstrating compliance with the applicable policies and regulations of the Code, or other specific materials A check in the amount of $ A. Your application i complete and we have sch duled it for review by the �t! on 1)1�A We will call you if we need any additional information prior to that date. Several days prior to your hearing, we will call and make available a copy of the memorandum. Please note that it IS NOT your responsibility to post your property with a sign, which we can provide you for a $3.00 fee. B. Your application is incomplete, we have not scheduled it review at this time. When we receive the materials we have requested, we will place you on the next available agenda. If you have any questions, please call the planner assigned to your case. Sincerely, ASPEN /PI IN PLANNING OFFICE �u': Dear (&&L t.wr.r I PUBLIC NOTICE RE: DEBOER 1041 HAZARD REVIEW NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC that the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission approved the site specific development plan for the DeBoer 1041 Hazard Review by Resolution No. PZ -89 -09 on February 21, 1989. The property is vested for a period of three years from the date of approval. For further information, contact the Aspen / Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, 920 -5090. s /Suzanne Caskev, Chairperson Planning and Zoning Commission Published in The Aspen Times on April 5, 1990. Pitkin County Purchase Order No. ASPEN /PITKIN PLANNING OFFluE rr 130 South Galena Street As Aspen, Colorado 81611 fJf'i_lN (303) 925 -2020 �+ LAND USE APPLICATION FEES r /r City 00113 -63721 -47331 GMP /CONCEPTUAL -63722 -47332 GMP /PRELIMINARY -63723 -47333 GMP /FINAL -63724 -47341 SUB /CONCEPTUAL ! -63725 -47342 SUB /PRELIMINARY -63726 -47343 SUB /FINAL -63727 -47350 ALL 2 -STEP APPLICATIONS -63728 -47360 ALL 1 -STEP APPLICATIONS/ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS REFERRAL FEES. 00125 -63730 -47380 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00123 -63730 -47380 HOUSING 00115 -63730 -47380 ENGINEERING SUB -TOTAL County 00113 -63711 -47431 GMP /GENERAL -63712 -47432 GMP /DETAILED -63713 -47433 GMP /FINAL -63714 -47441 SUB /GENERAL -63715 -47442 SUB /DETAILED -63716 -47443 SUB /FINAL {_ -63717 -47450 ALL 2 -STEP APPLICATIONS -63718 -47460 ALL 1 -STEP APPLICATIONS/ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS ! REFERRAL FEES: 00125 -63730 -47480 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ` 00123 -63730 -47480 HOUSING 00113 -63731 -47480 ENVIRONMENTAL COORD. 00113 -63732 -47480 ENGINEERING yi7 ��✓ ! SUB -TOTAL Y ?' - = `�' U ✓ �) PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00113 -63061 -09000 COUNTY CODE -63062 -09000 COMP PLAN 1 -63066 - 09000 COPY FEES 919 - 09000 OTHER , � , . a SUB-TOTAL _ TOTAL r , � Name i / V' l �- .� / Phone: _ Addres .>? N Project: Chocks 7f L t k5�7' _ Date — Additional Billing. __ s of Hours .,()u (DO (D 4 ,t 41 L x NI 11, .,()u (DO (D 4 ,t 41 L x i t L, ij 16.98 Acres 7890 1900 1820 7830 7840 7850 71360 1870 1910 1920 1930 ( Proposed Residence z3ac. Approved / Existing Driveway and Bridges v ltwo 0 0 782 m 1000 190 10 MWO HON) N W:) 8050 80GO 8010 8080 8090 8 100 8090 8080 80/0 8060 '7;3.195 Acres 80150 8040 80,30 8020 4 GREG MOZIAN 4 LAM)scm Ajtcm 11S S, Sp! ln g Ytrcel Aspen, CO 81611 1303 9?.5 8963 DeBoer Residence 1,j Date: scale; Drawn Hy: 8010 W f 11, V I U, 8 0 Z I I 18000 �, 1\\ P N90 0 661.165 Acres , .u�„� j � � 79£3Q Slopes Gicater Hian 30 7910 �1 Slopes Less 'Than 30 1`960 79W rop osed i,; i i i g Vegetation 7940 Barn Site 4 NN 1920 T 1900 1890 7880 MIN) 1850 IWO YI 78811 MA) 1880 1890 1900 1910 /9N) /W() 7910 1900 0390 7880 4 GREG MOZIAN 4 LAM)scm Ajtcm 11S S, Sp! ln g Ytrcel Aspen, CO 81611 1303 9?.5 8963 DeBoer Residence 1,j Date: scale; Drawn Hy: Revised: W f 11, 8 0 Z C CREG IVROMAN ,I ANDSCMIE A �wm t�c x �iuc Aspen, Co MG11 f 30 9?,!) 8963 DeBoer Residence P% �I .I bo .,, ( ' ,, X.AP AA i 06 Br � s;r 1A v l�# t , - t I ru u A ra s 1 \? n\ I YA I P I i I i r I §t rr / i I �(, 1��+t N�,,.ud4 ,r @7r "hJi. air. #li �IS1;,lh,VU7,>4M,ae,r, lvrpl,�ti.�r1 P1 4: #�G ct4tdn,,,r f I,,,, I A, f pi nt - ,u,,,,,, �l 7,rf« �, s,su,ls, 7r „flnJtl:k, hiltllitu�7fvhv « §�,ual h�ISlt " Ili^' �l�u�s§ if" �,§ 61u9 �t�hli>', f!¢ Aptliluu” �61M�kiM' B�x',h�,lusl,Piul�u'�fl9t,�i�!�1 4 ' f r ,SR Fifis 11N v�p i 01 .0 #gyp mr i lq II s I r - 1: 77 l: {: 77 8 I 2 ... p _ , r I Y .§ .: § . J ,fiO.:f . a _ hill 1 1 I 1 I t ys pV °� �.� w�t , r1 _ d.. .., n �� r --- Z ... .. . e ll AA A" g A .p «A �'".� °I P p rt�.kn �y'��r§ s p k / � 1' n FE a S�. s lPh _,i- /i,S P i f ¢ ` IV A 17 § i i ...,,..,_ p. {p .Wgp( .. 9 . g�) y : „ -'... yq,p�y'.y q? )•:r.. l..e r .. ... ° _._ , _, i. i...._..q � 1_ I _.. _.. .�..�A W F� f� Nt:oB�JA'.'W�✓ i,�:fp,h��.. b"M',5 +96 fn:B.N��..- I'.� ,.. \ F �. 9 �.. �..., y '� ,..... � .§ ` , � p 11 � � 4 .ura,S6 . :::.. I . , � ,': k ; I 7 I.I i lf PoNo' ��,�” p o � P� ✓BVd t R u "N f :.. l I N Cdr , Y �m ��' ,ma��r�T t " �r ° rat °flea* W111nJ CI "IAFKnA, , !:ldia"nkle � �" �AvfB �9� I 1 p 5 r', s u ^ •,,, � � � I I ,. � r o'" ,� 09 as "x �. n ' 1 i " IA a 9 `�1 I e b �r�rf:. ,n�A� �n g rc„ � a ;6. �.. I � p � ,r oa l tin`"i'liplau�flt( ks pnW"du "�d'aw.., r anG d i 1 Pa" "arr' — M wPW „p GO RDON p VM1n" ii �, INC N §1.,. f9WO(H) SPRING11 ( 4..)p. Vn `A t i '/ MA (30V', V, 94",5 W0 .. ntl r h r r 1 �.P �w V r ;1 4 n n z n k^'' uw o ,i �4t t ,. B" I:rvatGp 5p � 1' Y�woJ m r , f !1 f Y r r II + pPt➢ r m, 4n /° B , s @� P Bmw a.. x.'..+;: ° r N f 11 f4 f � Y RAY rd44119 I I t 1, Sr 1 .. 1 1� ,Ei) f�E1 1 I %(A 14 1 ^ �Id low )t s1 .. 7 n { �, I` '� U. A ° r N f 11 f4 f � Y RAY rd44119 I I t ..,,. .:.., V efr�; /� + : /l Ill A t / Vil ➢IV \, }y1 \I{o V\y1 :P41+\ Y4 +IIIIV 1;11/+\ r:+ Y! '!P I,YI 111 \\1+11111 'Y1' "1"011 .=.:u5 4 + ...` V V it /I+ /....,. vl t+ is ,.. ll\ 1 iv ..., v ,/1 V ?'. \Y _.. 111Itk11V�U..nel 111+ \ \111 Ilo-,. /Y11 1//!£/111 \l +l 1 +itl i \ fu.:1,G . L..1,4�RI \ II RA11 M1. L. M. t l it Ivil i..L.1 1 I1R 11..... :1:yfifl /llli 111 fAld tnl6alyy�l,v WVII "IN )1 , ,n,9Miihrydvd 1Gr1 PPI1 YdWIpWiP h'du ihl ul4 +9(M NMIR44A LMIW 17EfiIWRtlt1WI�I ANh @4u1NtIl eWO@ IVgttuhitl AYW d' @IPM11P'Rquvll iry ps +X+U UIR?WUfWi.I I +INU ^ryll lti+ 3nl forll u111 :,ti 14Altn l ^mk lm /5.1 an�m Nnum rtfi aI :LISP n nu nA IT q 1 i +n 1 v rl rll A °ti;fi` ,n fidF �kN dj /41 qN a tv' \ 11 e� n I v 2' m'. w Pl� ....... ld:' /�I °dd CAI DIAX x R:• (a h �P s ,✓ j y 1N I I 1 .1 i "1.. �I I I NH p lut ",a T'w:0 'k (41 v ': ur ", : "!I i?n r /)+ r " T!ua Ihf Pa IMIPFUJM,tlIO iP!1 / /nIMYO( @Ip Ylllltl OW�IWPPMIp19'IM11M hNINII IWIM\". pIPIM4YIlN1 'A' +'itlNliNpXVWdiTAI IfliNYyIA'ATOIIMP prv: n ! sr'a I I 1 M V' ' I V I V IMh ,Ip.pIf 1M41aP1eN MMNI,:n911NNIRfW111111fV 111991 +N011u ktl+11 rql IA11MAf /N 1. ,IP .. � � ,., �� ... : � l ! 1..: rl.rr.' h,.! aO:IM!:IIINIt I?4MII111411X!IlM4 fMIIIIIRNrvRIII IW/X4IRMMLp RNIW. ,...,, :... �� V a\., IA4 f1.,1 111anlpl. IN11.@ lMILIpVIM10NIIINMYIAM(M „ \3FWPpI MYMMMIfNII IWNWA 4.L.Vff P.Y1Vf 'IXINNMOIO:MPofiMNIMIIfI %fM.IA' 144' MIIOWVIWIW6NN9M: MfIINAYgNWRN#' IMUMRpIlyY49tlIRWWONWIWIWY !Nti'WMttRV VryµpgIMMG1IMM�NIiW"VIYWM'MMl lliwM' M@ WRpWANFi' M5VIN @IIIIW(IIAMIMWIhVMIAVpIM:W44rt IVI la11tlIN 111Y,M61Nfl19 N111M1 ➢f. pi.IvI S4 /pl ANp41YW YPM^+I ISV III %tp)ApA. LAI p,PWI01tiMM1l llablal WINXI&dAIWI MdRMII MnWNM'RI,. J../u0. it FlVtfUVI 1.... I nR11 LtN1. fi111MM,W1IAY I dip:.11 :.:i ...... . .u.. + + + %..V :e .:. +` ; ;I I` 1 1l\ '.Y t t f II II I(5!'A / ` +I V \ 11! kl) 1 +.,' \ \'itl Il l`Y (V+ f ":' ° ° 11 ".1' \I III .1 kM'I /IJ I\I`11N +x +!: fi11 v \I1 /+ sI111I.Il :11! /:+I:VV., 1 11 V V+..III+ n + : m'. w Pl� ....... ld:' /�I °dd CAI DIAX x R:• (a h �P s ,✓ j y 1N I I 1 .1 i "1.. �I I I NH p lut ",a T'w:0 'k (41 v ': ur ", : "!I i?n r /)+ r " T!ua Ihf Pa IMIPFUJM,tlIO iP!1 / /nIMYO( @Ip Ylllltl OW�IWPPMIp19'IM11M hNINII IWIM\". pIPIM4YIlN1 'A' +'itlNliNpXVWdiTAI IfliNYyIA'ATOIIMP prv: n ! sr'a I I 1 M V' ' I V I V IMh ,Ip.pIf 1M41aP1eN MMNI,:n911NNIRfW111111fV 111991 +N011u ktl+11 rql IA11MAf /N 1. ,IP .. � � ,., �� ... : � l ! 1..: rl.rr.' h,.! aO:IM!:IIINIt I?4MII111411X!IlM4 fMIIIIIRNrvRIII IW/X4IRMMLp RNIW. ,...,, :... �� V a\., IA4 f1.,1 111anlpl. IN11.@ lMILIpVIM10NIIINMYIAM(M „ \3FWPpI MYMMMIfNII IWNWA 4.L.Vff P.Y1Vf 'IXINNMOIO:MPofiMNIMIIfI %fM.IA' 144' MIIOWVIWIW6NN9M: MfIINAYgNWRN#' IMUMRpIlyY49tlIRWWONWIWIWY !Nti'WMttRV VryµpgIMMG1IMM�NIiW"VIYWM'MMl lliwM' M@ WRpWANFi' M5VIN @IIIIW(IIAMIMWIhVMIAVpIM:W44rt IVI la11tlIN 111Y,M61Nfl19 N111M1 ➢f. pi.IvI S4 /pl ANp41YW YPM^+I ISV III %tp)ApA. LAI p,PWI01tiMM1l llablal WINXI&dAIWI MdRMII MnWNM'RI,. J../u0. it FlVtfUVI 1.... I nR11 LtN1. fi111MM,W1IAY I dip:.11 I I NH p lut ",a T'w:0 'k (41 v ': ur ", : "!I i?n r /)+ r " T!ua Ihf Pa IMIPFUJM,tlIO iP!1 / /nIMYO( @Ip Ylllltl OW�IWPPMIp19'IM11M hNINII IWIM\". pIPIM4YIlN1 'A' +'itlNliNpXVWdiTAI IfliNYyIA'ATOIIMP prv: n ! sr'a I I 1 M V' ' I V I V IMh ,Ip.pIf 1M41aP1eN MMNI,:n911NNIRfW111111fV 111991 +N011u ktl+11 rql IA11MAf /N 1. ,IP .. � � ,., �� ... : � l ! 1..: rl.rr.' h,.! aO:IM!:IIINIt I?4MII111411X!IlM4 fMIIIIIRNrvRIII IW/X4IRMMLp RNIW. ,...,, :... �� V a\., IA4 f1.,1 111anlpl. IN11.@ lMILIpVIM10NIIINMYIAM(M „ \3FWPpI MYMMMIfNII IWNWA 4.L.Vff P.Y1Vf 'IXINNMOIO:MPofiMNIMIIfI %fM.IA' 144' MIIOWVIWIW6NN9M: MfIINAYgNWRN#' IMUMRpIlyY49tlIRWWONWIWIWY !Nti'WMttRV VryµpgIMMG1IMM�NIiW"VIYWM'MMl lliwM' M@ WRpWANFi' M5VIN @IIIIW(IIAMIMWIhVMIAVpIM:W44rt IVI la11tlIN 111Y,M61Nfl19 N111M1 ➢f. pi.IvI S4 /pl ANp41YW YPM^+I ISV III %tp)ApA. LAI p,PWI01tiMM1l llablal WINXI&dAIWI MdRMII MnWNM'RI,. J../u0. it FlVtfUVI 1.... I nR11 LtN1. fi111MM,W1IAY I dip:.11 7( Cl f 4h ��:- !