HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.reg.11231993 �`,� ' . � . ' !, /",:r '_' p ' .�i. .��.
.�,(�' , '' + , ' , -.. A° � '.��* nr 3,. 4` `� ,.
.. �- t � �i: y.r ��;�� �� � � �J �'4�'e��ir
.., i 7, ,:, r �+ ��r�;t !�ryY'�`� '+ C i f ' ��.�,+ti'��4
',�j 1t ��i � . < -*x`�'� 4F t����� . , � �F'' c�` � —�{'.Yi�, t�...
,������� a� :`ay��µy�,�r r�i?� �,�,,1�� -.� 4 �i 'µ�� X}Uf�
R a;��' Saxl�' ,�,I lrk,!.
�T:��' .c
i� �i.
'y��', ..J,
PTTKIN COUN'I'Y COMMISSIONEIiS �'� ' _
- . REGULAR MEETING AGENDA '
,
.:��,;.,: .
TUi=.SDAY.NOVEMBER 23, ]993 t�''°*"�" :
r�:•
. i`..''�:,:..::,�.
2-4:30 PM SPECIAL MEETING �`;:�.%" '
Location: SO Conference Room 2' ;..
.i.,"..4
1. Agenda: Rural and Remote Code Amendments-lst Reading and Set
for Public Hearing, Cindy Houben ���'
5:00 PM REGLJLAR MEETING-District Courtroam �q
� PUBLIC COMMENT '''�k.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS �,�
ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO AGENDA �`k;�'`
CONSENT AGENDA
2. MINUTES --November 9 and November 10 'j�
3. Abatement Hearing, Carol Foote `
Resolution of Support for 35-Acre Subdivision Le�islation, Reid Haughey �':;�
Letter to Legislature Regarding Agricultural Exemptions, Reid Haughey '�`�.
" I ADMII�ITSTRATIVE PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. Revisions to Restaurant Ordinance,Nancy MacKenzie
5_ Valley Resource Management Intergovernmentat Agreement, Reid Haoghey R
6. Open Space and Trails Use Regulations, Mark Fuller
- 7. Rubin Purchase, Mark Fuller
8. Industrial Development Revenue Refunding Boods for Aspen Skiing Company, �
Tom Oken
{�
IAND USE PUBLIC HEARINGS
� 9. Hoffenberg Caretaker Dwelling Unit Review, Ellen Sassano
' 10. Johnson Caretaker Dwelling Unit Review, Rick Magill '
11. Barr Empioyee Dwelling Unit Review, Rick Magill
12. Bighorn Ridge Subdivision/PUD Detailed Submission, Ellen Sassano {To be ;
tabled to 12/14)
13. Guber L.ot Split General Submission & 1041 Hazard Review, Mary Lackner =�
(Tabled on 11/9) �. ��`
14. Pitkin County Solid Waste Center Rezonin�, Mary Iackner ! �,
�',:' � -
� I'
LAND USE AGTIONS
I5. 24 Hours of Aspen Temporary Use Permit, Rick Magill �, '�
ADMINISTRATIVE AGTiONS
��` 1.: `:
�'�1� � ,",
t;--'..:
� .
� _
�: _ J
,Y,.t, .
�--' . .
!qY �
_: ,
5�� .- . . , . .� N+.• -�
{�i#uiry f ��li , �,. -�Fi p 1�. � c ;�+r t e�i�� �� � . 7�k����•
�b.k � ��VMj�i ��R" . S�'�`,�Ui ��il� :r r�y;�%� ��. , .��nr + y �i.�
��:L7 '�� .-� C�' t ,_ . 'G_ ,��,� ( r�7'� .
:`s' '��` i �'•" .. • '�, ;�3���1 �.��: e �;
-�< . > '
��� {j� . � afi��. _�. „ ;.r , ' �.
. . . . �% . .. �r'. r .���.''.`' r s i
• {� � �. "�',i . . � S:
...a.�. >,;�,.�� L
... •,.
"�`:
j:,;�.��
. . � . r'i,%,�i
. � . - . � . � r�•� '�•��
. � . � . � �4�t,',- �
•- --- 9:00 PM ADJOURN ;s�.':_;. r;
��
.r A break will be taken at 7 pm. _
���� Ple�se note: All public hearings are noticed foc 5:00 pm.Actual times will vary. �'i��:'•-� ;'
, � yaz.;�:>,'�::.=.
_ � . . . '.�a::A^:;�.
'ft;;-
: I - . . .�;;j..�.�:.�.. .
. . . . . . L`'.:�_ ..
. � . � . . � � � F..��� .
. . � . � . � . ; ' `{5';
� � . . � . . . - . . i . .
/ '��-.
. . ' . . . . . ..�6}
� . . . � � .� . . �. . . �
. � . . . . . . . . . . � .�!.y 1
. . . � . � � . . . . . , '.#... '
_.___��� ' . . . . . � �. . . � ��� .
.� �;� . . � ' . . . � . . . i.
.,` � . . . . . .
_�. . �`ap . _ . . . . .
� Sp � � . . . . � - . li
5 . � � � . . � � - . �
� � . . � � . . . 1 Y`.. ' .
.. .(�j . . . . . � 1 yt_.
� . . . . . . . . . . . '�� �'
� �
� S . _ . . _ . . . .� "
� �
° . . . � � I��-.i�'i..
r � � � � . � � � � if! .
V
. y �. � � . .. � � . . � (�, �1�...
. � . . , . . . . � C� f 1
� . . . � � , � � i�
; � t r:
f
� -
� f . � . . w�",�..
. i . . � . . . . r
, . . � . . ';`\�t�:''.::..
..,_._.. ... :.:..�,�_ _..,�:..�,:.., v ...:..:.,:�. ..;.::::.; ... _. �. . >: _
_
'. . . � �...,_': ,_ �.:�:�.. . ,.,�.:.,::. .. . . �.;:,:r�. .._.�,.;. ..,;:. ,. . �-- _
. � . �. . • . ' � . . .... . . _.. � ., {�.
1 �1 � � . . �. . . ' . .� � .
. . . . . . � . . , . . . .
. ' . . . . . . . .. r " .
..(e�r:`y�. , , .
';��
t�
w,�,. .
M'
�'A� � .. � ... �r .�.�-,-, ... ; . . , ., .� ..;-...
. � 1 a "re�� yG4� rt � �+
...� �� t^�v�� . � ��- . ��r � � rn��a���a1.� �7�! �� � �iti�..: , J �R�•'t
x'F
' ���u t i� �+ckNa' r-C � �i m q �,,Y i,
•3'�t3A:. �.�.. 7+KH� i., � .`+.'� ��+++'�.` . � ` ,�_. '�•# :� �`y�`�''.:
.�,�. C� 'r{, - �„'k.-'2S''�,,,,t, �, 4t':J �'..,,,f iy� a., � �`�+e :8i F"^ ''���••,
s�� , .,..< :..w,Fuc �'�,��r '�ts,� , �j'�`,.
'�i^i�'•i: .
. }�/I�1/lU:+tiJ v 'l.•
/2-/°/i3 ;,,�'•,: .
'.�.
_i ;
_ �. r MINUTES ';�',. �
� .fi::-?-.
,:-� PITKIN CODNTY SOARD OF COTJNTY COMMISSIONER6
. } ,j:;.�r:�::
� REC,IILAR MEBTING ',' '! `.
ii' -
. °L.:�.,..�..:.. "
NOVEMBER 23, 1993 '��"� .
,.��,.
�
7'.
CALL TO ORDER: Vice-Chairman Bob Child called the meeting to order �`�?
at 5:00 p.m. �'�'
��',1
CO1�IIdIBSiON MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Child, Wayne Ethridge, Jim True •;,y�
" and Mick Ireland
i PUBLIC CoMMENT: Ellen Anderson, a resident of Aspen Village,
. I expressed her concern about the landfill issues. She said there
� is a lot of confusion as to exactly what is on the agenda tonight
for the landfill. Also, she could not get a good feeling from -
staff as to what time this is going to happen.
I Anderson said the Aspen Village residents are concerned that the �-��*x
commissioners are still considering putting a batch plant at the �i�
� landfill. She requested on behalf of the residents of Aspen
- ( Village, that a work session be scheduled with commission members
• to discuss the issues associated with the new proposed uses at the
; landfill site. '
� ;a
i �
Ethridge commented that it his intention to make a motion to table
discussion on the rezoning item because he thinks there are a lot �`
of unanswered questions and several questions raised that need to
be addressed in another work session which can hopefully be
scheduled at a time that is more convenient for Aspen Village. `,•,
Lynn and Bruce Mace appeared before the Board to thank the
Commissioners for a1Z their kindness this summer when their father
. died. She said they wanted to express their deepest gratitude in .
a public forum.
_ Ethridge commented that the ceremony the family chose was very
� uplifting and very appropriate for Stuart's life. ���
Jack Aatfield, appeared as a member of the Planning and Zoning E�'�"$
Commission, to request that the landfill matter be remanded back ���, �`"
to the P&2 for further consideration. '';f : ' ��-'
� ' ` .
�' Ethridge moved to place this item in adVance of the Consent Aqenda. �'��� i
With a second by True, the motion passed unanimously. �''
'''�
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMIS6IONERS 1 NOVEMBER 23� 1993 ;•'.:,�r�,j'.:
;�` _.�.
%: � J
. . �. .�,.,�.
. . . �. � .•..
' . . . ' . . .. . . � . . . . � ' .S. . .
E
::5�;�^.'�'�� . , �
tt;I .
,�1 i : - f r , . ,
..� , � . . .� � :.� ,6�� t f _t X° �,�,�4�{" t�'p�,7Y��1�r/L r. ti� w��p]��V .tl�y
: S �5,,.��tt . �jj r . � }� u
�} r t 'f � .a �7', r:,��y���•
'1�� � � h. � .yd�j ��1R '� 2�' _ �
i �:;��� ;�f�,w,r�,'�$' r ^�+'+ ! �" ?r '` :" �,..�.- y, !�i� .�+�y`� 'y �'.
'. � ..`� �'��• �' ...,,...i�+`S� y.. �'�tA�ll'i�.,�' . - �..� ?�'.•
::��t�i,-,
-�,.,
, ;:'y�' .t� .
. �
, ,�,:�'' .J.
Child commented that he will be attendinq a cCI meeting hext week ` � '.'"
_ _ and will be talking about Linda Power's proposed 35 acre `�`•�
subdivision bill which she is sponsoring. He said she has � t; • '
requested support from the individual, counties, �.;:�._.;
�.9;:.
Ethridqe moved to add this item to the agenda. True seconded the �
:r;,
• motion.
Ireland commented that he would like to do a letter on the �
agricultural exemption and he does support the 35 acre resolvtion. �
1�,.
Ethridge accepted this amen�ment to his motion. True accepted this �`
to his second. The motion passed unanimously. ;'i:;
: Ireland commented that he wanted to assure the pubZic that there
is no ongoing civil war between Pitkin County and the City of �`;y'�
Aspen. Also, time and time again, the Board hears that the land ';�!
use code is not being uniformly enforced, and the Soard is
addressing that. Finally, the City of Aspen and John Bennett has ��';
, ! assured him that they likewise agree that they are not having major
� difficulties with the Pitkin County Board of Commissioners, that
they are moving ahead on a lot of big joint projects and he thinks
the public needs to know that things are getting done.
� Child commented that on November 29th there will be a ribbon ����
� cutting ceremony for the Old Snowmass to Sasalt trail and that will :,'y'.��
be at the Basalt Fire Station and members of the pubZic are invited
to attend.
f PITRIN COIINTY SOLZA WASTE CENTER REZONZNG - HOTION TO TABLE -
� 4
� Ethridge commented that qiven the amount of time it is qoing to
take to resolve the issues, he would propose to table this matter
and continue indefinitely the public hearing.
--"- Child asked if there was anyone present who wished to comment on
this matter.
Jack Hatfield commented that if the Board can agree with the P&Z's
, position on the issue of public versus private and are comfortable ;
with having a public use area then he thinks it would be �
appropriate to qo ahead and pass this on second reading and move
forward to a specific site plan. But it is the private uses that
present the problem up there. 1� -
Ethridge noted that is still the issue, that there are still �it
unresolved questions. j. . ��.
� ��;.� .�7e
� There being no further public comment, Child closed the public ' � � =
comment section. � . �
Ethridge moved to table action on this item indefiniteZy and to � .
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISBIONERS 2 NOVEMBER 23� 1493 �
�.',.
�" '
- � ..Y
�' . ::
9
.a� �
•t:� - .
e.,Y
i • ` � ��f �,w-� ` l'�.{,....��" '7 n� 4 ��yl �'�7M i � ��l��
l' r �`p- r�f,' '�g��}� ,
�„ y �., . ? r { ,^{,saf'ie�� ,h�����Y �. �F�';.,"�'� �� ����� `'
� � 1 4a y�.
!,, ��� �y .. " ,:��Ft',��y.y��� 'rtl"il�,,:'��`wl"Z�E�.,�� `�`�.'. �' :„y�����y! fir.�=�Yr c,�,a .��'.�
. '�- • ' ���;i....4i.L'�:�,
r
:j�i�- •;
� . i.
I ;�`.; .•..
: :,-�:t
continue indefinitely the public hearinq on this issue on this
matter and also the Master Plan. With a second by Tsue, the motion "'i "
" � ' passed unanimously.
..'�..:
Child entertained a discussion of a remand to the Planning and �::?.%�..
� � Zoning Commission. �
r ':
It was agreed that there.will be a joint meeting scheduled prior '
( to a decision to remand it back to the P&Z. `�
ii:':•.: .
CONSENT AGENDA r>" .�
.,+ ,!
iAPPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 9 AND NOVEMBER 10 1993 ;`s;•.�.�
t'`
RESOLIITIONS APPROVING FIVE ABATEMENT PETTTIONS FOR PROPERTY TAX `' '
eR:
REPOND SUBMITTED BY LINDA LOESCHEN '1
, RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE PROPOSED 35 ACRE SUBDIVISION BILL SPONSORED BY LINDA POWERS �;,4;�
True moved approval of the Consent Agenda. Wit a secon y
Ethridqe, the motion passed unanimously. �;`
� - ' ADMINISTRATIVE PUBLIC HEARINGS
� ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE �18 TO CLARIFX SECTION 4 ARTZCLE 4-
5.2_ (g) RELATING TO CHARBROILERS INSTALLED AFTER APRIL 25 1992
' BIIT BEFORE JANUARY 1. 1993 - MOTION TO APPROVE - Reid Haughey
� commented that this item is a revision to the restaurant ordinance `���
which would modi£y the restaurant ordinances to take out the phrase '��'�
` that there are alternate devices to precipitators for PM-10 levels �
� ` within the mitigation strategies that are employed by restaurants.
This mattez was first heard on November 9 and is befoze the Board
at this time for second reading and public hearing.
Child opened the hearing to public comment. There being no t
comment, he closed the pub2ic hearing. #
-- Ethridge moved approval of the Ordinance on second readinq. With
a second by True, the motion passed unanimously.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH GARFIELD COUNTY TOWN OF SASALTs
CITY OF GLENWOOD SFRINGS EAGLE COIINTY CITY OF ASPEN TOAN OF
CARBONDALE TOWN OF NEf4 CASTLE TOWN OF PARACHIITE TOWN QF SILT `� ,
TOWN OF RIFLE TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE FOR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT -
MOTION TO APPROVE - Reid Haughey summaYized this item as second �
rea@ing and proposed final action on the intergovernmental
agreement. what this IGA does is establish valley resource t
management in an on-going coordinating role for resource recovery �'�
issues within the valley. He said there is a board of directozs, yF�
most•of whom are staff inembers from various organizations and *'}. .+�'=
represent multiple organizations. �,�:'� `�'�
�► �� � _
Child opened the hearing to public comment. There being no �
comment, he brought the matter back to the board for consideration. �, `
$OARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION£RS 3 NOVEMBER 23� 1993
i!`,
I... . Y
' . . � r. � . . . _{ .
0
:�;' ,
.f,'.`' . . �
:�+� .
�#,� sY.�; i �:` _ . i i r ,,.� p y:L�( ° ° �Tp� �r �'�tiz :Sr /��.� N$�
lt,'_ l42 . i .,�' J' . 11�,-{ +�`iY'��_T�`���J.�� "� i�,�y�7iY��✓.� � .t�^'"T'��'4
r
���� �� : : �µiLL�`�''"�"4 ii:;� '`�,.�`�?r��.i., y -j ' �,►� ,R�..rva" „f„C��° ,
. � ,. �i?3 ����' �.��i .:d�Wc . :•r. r�.�M'�' . . _ . . .. ��:F.'��'�'"` ?'�_�,fk�:'
"i.:
�. '�:�•i:; -; .
r- 1.
'�'' :�,
j .
` Ethridge moved approval of the Valley Resource Management
_..._-�-5 i%..'
� Interqovernmentai Aqreement as drafted. With a second by Tzue, the - ,
# motion passed unanimously. r=�`�•'"
�-'i
Ethridge commented that the life of the landfill is estimated at ���r� �
• � a minimum of 20 years and with recycling and a better effort with ���� ,;
composting, it is staff's belief that life can easily be doubled. �i�';,''::' •
,�t, . .
� ORbINANCE REPEALSNG TITLE IX OF THE PZTRIN COUNTY CODE AND RE- . -"
SNACTING OPEN SPAC$ AND TRAILS REGULATIONS - MOTION TO APPROVE - '''�� �`
���.;;`
Mark Fuller summarized this item as a second reading an public , ,7
ihearing on a proposed revision to the county code replacing the ^` ,
, existing trails regulations with a more comprehensive set of use �'
i regulations on open space trails. He proceeded to summarize the �.. �
�.•
proposed regulations incorporated in the ordinance. •�:rt
Child opened the hearing to public comment. There being no
comment, he brought it back to the Board for consideration.
' ITrue moved approval of the ordinance. With a second by Ethridge, , ,,,'
� the motion passed unanimously. ,
i
� VACANT LAND/FARM AND RANCH CONTRACT TO ACCEPT REAL ESTATE — MOTZON
TO APPROVE - Fuller proceeded to review the contents of this '�` .yt`
agreement. �i .
i
. John Ely, County Attorney, recommended that a change be made that �
( would allow the title insurance commitment po2icy provisions to be
excised and allow the county attorney's office to review title _
� documents on the pYOperty so they can at least determine, to the i '"
3 best that they can from the public records, whether there is
+
anything outstanding that would be suspicious in the title to the �
4 PrapertY• ��
s
� Child opened the hearing to public comment, There being no
s comment, he brought the matter back to the board for action. !
Ethridqe moved approval of the Rubin purchase subject to the
, amendment suggested by Sohn Ely. With a second by Ireland, the •
motion passed unanimously.
FIRST READING AND PUHLIC HEARING - RE$OLUTION AUTHORI2ING THE
ISSUANCE OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS FOR THE � �ia
ASPEN SRSING COMPANY PROJECT - MOTION TO APPROVE - Tom Oken �r-t
summarized this item as a first reading and public hearing on the �r°�� -`^
proposed resolutioa. In 1984 and 1986 Summit County issued private 'tr ��';
� activity bonds for the benefit of the Aspen Skiing Company, which �?' ' � `_
�.� used 28� of the proceeds for improvements to Breckenridge and 72� r� �
for improvements to Aspen Mountain and Snowmass for the gondola, r-� '
smowmaking, etc. Byu issuing these bonds, Summit County was •�'':.
extending its access to lower cost tax-exempt financing to the ,,;:� '
BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 4 NOVEMBER 23� 1993 �,;;��:;,,"
;},�'.. .
,; •; Y
�''
a
,x� � •
't:'.' .
�.�� .
���k: , , ;; �..� . � +a'•v �..
�. p� �yf5- (�, �r
.+�. � 1 Y. •��f.4 m'f'ib �,�t��'.���r*�� `lif++;-�. �i�• �i�� a��t.�:
' �' � . 1� Jr,.� .., `a* '. , .'ti; t L � y �j �a{ � �.. 1 .P�t, S
t�. ..��µ� C�'f I�x4 ���?t � � ' -. . � y a,7- +T,,�f��y'(':
� . '"6 �.��'�C ' .:x..E'�s���' ��'�:4cr.= .�.`� 1't� +���', ..� J� .
. � �;,i tZ.:
�.,
�Fr- -�.
� . � 'i..
_ '.7����� �'
Aspen Skiing Company. Summit County was not incurring debt itself � �
.--•-- or in any way guaranteeing the repayment of these bonds: that is
the sole responsibility of the Aspen Skiing Company. Fie said the , `
Aspen Skiing Company is now seeking to refund these bonds to extend ;-'���
their term. Summit County is reluctant to lend its name to the i .�.:`::
refunding, however, since Breckenridge is no longer owned by Aspen �-�;;. '`
. ' Skiing Company. So instead, the Skiing Company has asked Pitkin �'z`,.�':.:
County to act as the issuer for the refunding. �+
R;.`., -
Oken said although the bonds would be issued in the County�s name, . .'
there is really no liability of the County, it does not constitute :1;,;�
debt of the County that the total repayment obZiqation is with the
Skiing Company. �';"r
� Ethridge commented that he does not like industrial development ,
' revenue bonds that he thinks they are the most misused forms of ;,;t
bonding. However, on the other hand, there is no harm to the `YT
County, and it seems to be a goad will jesture as much as anything ";
else so he has no big concerns with it. •t:`�
;
� Child opened the hearing to public comment. There being no
comment, he closed the public hearing. :j�.
Ireland moved approval on first readinq and set for second reading
on December 14, 1993. With a second by Ethridge, the motion passed '�°
+ unanimously. �.•��
• � LANb USE PUBLZC HEARINGS
RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL TO THE HDFFENBERG CARETARER DWELLING
iJNIT AND AMENDING CONDITION #9D OF RESOLUTION NO. 90-76 - MOTION •i•
' To APPROVE - Ellen Sassano, planner, summarized this item as an
� application, submitted by Paul Hoffenberg, for approval of a �," "
i caretaker unit to be located above a detached garage on Lot 1 of
__.� the Feinsinger Lot Split. The proposed garage and caretaker unit r
� will be located in close proximity to the proposed primary '
residence within the approved building envelope for the lot. She �'
said staff recommends that the request be approved and that the
original lot split resolution be revised to reflect the change from
� attached to a primary residence to located within a legal
outbuilding. '
Ireland asked Mr. Hoffenberg what he would be using the unit for.
Hoffenberg replied that he would be using it for a caretaker. !�•
, Child opened the hearing to public comment. There being no u� ��;
comment, he brought the matter back to the board £or action. C+ �?,•t
� i _
Ireland moved approval of the resolution. With a second by True, �
the motion passed unanimously.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMI6SIONERS 5 NOVEMBER 23� 1943
�p?,
t�F'•_.���-�••.•� ;
�
T'
} ' v
. . . � , . � . . . : .' '- .
0
::r�� .
'k::. � ..
.u.F .
�F r.,,' , . .. ' . � � • �.. / . :r _..e�','�' ��y�,�(j''�:1'pf' u�r.� r 1w o� reu v' .
..�-� � ��.S.r.� t 4+�t�`�' f,�i'����t4 �'�s��x��u�'�� '�1Vil - ��9���1��
�1�i'� ` ,la, x"_},�Flky�� � �`,yqj��,,.5 .y 't.�. 'L� Sa , �.t-i��i�.�c..: .
,.l? _�� 'N` . �t'`?M,t�4�lf[^� 'f .75:� ��.�-.r''� �.. ` 4 �.. c�kt ��•`f+' f}4..
.�;1• ���'x: .:t.�.:ti .,.a..twt s'�4�.'��` .. .. � :�,c.�f ..... ��f;i 1.�k.�.
!�:;.J. .i.
, i
• '�:. ;`:,,
RESOLUTION GRANTINCi APPROVAL TO THE JOHN80N CARETAKER DWELLING UNIT
- - MOTION TO TABLE TO DECEMBER 14. 1993 - Rick Magill, planner, '
� summarized this item as an appl.ication, submitted by Mark and Raren
Johnson, to build a 685 square foot caretaker dwelling unit within �:`�-•'" '
a detached garage on a 16.4 acre site. The garage/caretaker �xnit
will be served by a dedicated septic system. Domestic water will �'�� r
be extended from the main residence. He proceeded to review the �;,.�' ..
history of creation of the Sky River Subdivision. He said the }�:••:�;� '
county attorney�s office and staff have reviewed the information -
and have determined that Lot 1, 2 and 4 continue to be part of the �;'j.,';.'
Oh Be Joyful Acre Subdivision. '
,.' ti 7
' Magill said one issue that has recently come to light which is the '�'` ,
provision of water to the Johnson property. He said staff became *�
aware of the water being provided by Gateway of Snowmass Mesa �
Subdivision to the Johnson property last Friday. He said he �'+_j,-
apologizes to the Gateway Homeowners Association for not referring
the application to them. He said water is a pretty critical issue �[.�;•
in the Gateway Subdivision, and in fact, their covenants limit
. development to one resident per lot.
" a.. .
Magill said the applicant has represented that a water line will
be extended for the proposed caretaker dwelling unit to the main
residence. He said the issue, as he sees it, is do the Johnsons
have rights to the additional water from the community system. The �.'�
Johnsons applied to the homeowners association for an additional ��� �.
tap, but he association denied the tap.
Suzanne Konchan, Planning Director, addressed the issue by
commenting that John Ely, County Attorney, and he is satisfied that _
the Gateway Subdivision is obligated ta provide them water for this
unit.
Y♦
John Ely commented that Tom Todd, Attorney for the Applicant, has
provided him with contract for water services which runs between
the Gateway Homeowner's Association and the applicant for water
services. And it seems to him that the Johnsons have every right
to expect to be able to service whatever residential development
they are allowed to have on theiz lot, under the Pitkin Count Land
� Use Code, and the Covenants of the Oh Be Joyful Subdivision. �
Another contract he looked at was a similar contract for water
service which runs between the Gateway Homeowner's Association and
the Johnson's predecessor's title to the property which also
� provides for supply of water service to the property. And that ;,�
document also contains no limitation as to one residential unit on �- .
. FC;:
that acre. Therefore, he concludes that the agreement runs between ,,. s°;'
the predecessors prior to the applicant and to the applicant �;`:.
directly to provide for water services to the extent allowed by the � � � � '
�: or restricted pursuant to the Oh Be Joyful Subdivision Covenants. a�� �
Under the subdivision covenants and pursuant to the County Code,
that the applicant's can come forward and ask £or a caretaker unit �`'
and expect that the unit be supplied from water from Gateway }"a
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 6 NOVEMBER 23� 1493 ���i',..�
�;
'�',
�_ •. J
.;`,
s
.T:.::-,.., -
e;i •
. 0
����.. r� G" �� ._ . . _ � � [ . ir. -� �:� �-. : : �- .- �� _
�.
� y� 1''.: ii' � ' ek,tt r�����,�`����,��1�� �" 3.� r�,���`�.
�i,,._ t. . _ �ta. '�,.m�,•�^ " � �� "�''X'"t{ 4 c . rd �� � W`F�„� r :�i,�.,`;�'�,���
.l���.���t •.tv . ��MYSS��� � Y.I���g^+' : . ; .,. t t� �u t� � �t,2.I.
�y.l, a�l" 9 f°A ,.:i�Yb[�� �>��.�=•� �J . t� �y . � ..
.,,�. u�
'���l.X:j
�i..
� -�.j� .�q.
;
� �y.� : .�
= . :�
' _ � Subdivision Homeowners Association. He said there is some question �J
as the adequacy of the water supply, however, from loaking at the �
� documents that have been supplied to the County from the applicant,
� it is his opinion that they have a legal and adequate water supply ��
� for the proposed caretaker unit. ;*-y_.. '•�,'
:�. :
� , Magill summarized tha� staff is reaommending approval given the ir.:,''.:
fact that there seems to be a binding agreement for Gateway to t .
supply water to the Johnsons. �#."�~ `
Joe Raczak and Bob Walker, appeared on behalf of the Gateway 7:,w
Homeowner's Association to voice the association's objection to
approval of the Johnson application due to the limited water rights � �.?
they the subdivision has. A copy of their letter addressing this
matter is made a part of this record as EICAIBIT ��A��. They also � - ,
requested that they be given the opportunity to have their legal ;
counsel to do some further research with regard to this issue. � �h
Tom Todd, representing the applicant, addressed the issue by �'�
. � �, .
. stating, that the main water lines for the subdivision cross their
property. Also, the well house and the pumping station for the
source of the water is on the Johnson's property and their next
door neighbor's property. He said about eight or ten years ago,
� Gateway approached those two property owners and in order to get ;,
? the easements for those water lines they told them they would give •
them free water taps to serve the residences on the properties. �;>��
' And what the county attorney and the planning office has is copies � �
' � of those agreements. A copy of these agreements are made a part
of this record as 8XHI8IT "H��.
Todd said there are no limitations on the number of residences or
dwelling units that can be served on those properties.
After a discussion it was agreed that the matter should be tabled
_. to allow the parties the opportunity to resolve the water issue. r
Child opened the hearing to public comment. There being no i+
comment, he entertained a motion to table the matter and continue
the public hearing.
Ethridqe moved tabiing action on the Johnson Caretaker Dweilinq '
Unit request and continue the public hearing until December 14,
1993. The purpose of the tabling is the inconsistency between
documents reqarding water supply and the Hoard�s need to have that
issue resolved before it comes back to the commission. With a :
,:
secon8 by Ireland, the motion passed unanimously. �
BIGHORN RIDGE SUBDIVISION/YIIb DETAILED 3UBMISSION - MOTION TO TABLE ��+. � �'
'�`i
� TO DECEMBER 14, 1993 � 1 � �
i
BOARD OF COLJNTY COMMISSIONERS 7 NOVEMBER 23� 1993
. . . . . � - . . .�..•�,. .
v
s
:.1�a�, . � �
���,:� .. . .
�?
,. . . �. � , '
}��) . . ' . . .� �'q�. . �
f �, •�. +' �� ��+}�{�.�,� .::��'{yi �, �' ;�}t ^ �q`�a'���w,�:'
. . ,:� � � , _ la...�� ^6>"`,-0a} � � ��r-t �� �=.�+,'� 4
, .1. . r'y ��'r �d�!p-��n' �x . ,�, 4 ��,. ' `a c�'ki n�(�..
} ,�. y�, N . "p�T �.- i
;��'�"�a�t. 'd. ' ���t!:��4°�r..�'o' iPn���,`,Y[--�'� :h,' g .. �q���. �`Y�� iS'',f,`,'� ,{y�.,,.
�ei' Av�Yd_ .t'V�7J[N����� .rY+.' �i�,.... ° ri���.r�
'a:;� .��
'y: '�.
:'��- :;,
RESOLUTION GRANTZN(i APPROVAL FOR THE PITRZN COUNTY SOLID WASTE
, _ CENTER MASTER PLAN FOR
RE$OLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL TO THE BARR EMPLOYEE DWELLING IINIT - iM':" '
MoTION To APPROVE - Rick Magill, planner, summari2ed tnis item as
an application, submitted by Gary and Norma Barr, for an employee �'Y. ,
dwelling unit pursuant to the bandit unit provision of the code. ;� �.' ,:_
He said the only issue to the board is does the unit need to be �`.�:� ^ '
rented to employees of Pitkin County or will Garfield County -
employees be acceptable @ue to the close proximity of the unit to ;'�F�..
i Garfield County. ;w': �
'�;�; '.r
Magill said this application requires board approval because the ''` ,
�'�_.
Iot does not comply with the minimum lot area per dwelling unit
requirements of the RS-30 zone district, however it is just seven 9
tenths of an acre shy of that 30 acre minimum. Also, the existing �+;p
'i unit exoeeds the maximum allowable, which is 15�0 square feet.
This particular unit, as it exists, is 2400 square feet. � i'�;•
Brooke Peterson, representing the applicant, commented that the
• property is right on the border of the two counties. And he would
like the board to consider whether or not they will be willing to
make a recommendation to the housing authority within the
resolution that they be allowed to rent it not only to residents �:-
of Pitkin County but Garfield County as well, because of its '�' J;�=a�'
j location. ���
. � It was the consensus of commission members that a recommendation
be made to the housing authority to allow that the unit be rented '
> to any employee of the Roaring Fork Valley. Y
�.t
�.
Child opened the hearing to public comment. There beinq no
comment, he brought the matter back to the Board for consideration. ��
True moved to approve the resolution qrantinq approval to the Harr
� employee dwellinq unit with the one amendmeat that the Board
`' recommend to the housing authority that Barr be allowed to rent the
unit to any employee of the Roaring Fork Valley. With a second
Ethridqe, the motion passed unanimously.
, BIGHORN RIDGE SUSBIVISION/PUD DETAZLED SUBMISSION - MOTION T� TABLE
TO DECEMBER 19, 1993
. Ethridge moved to table consideration on this item and continue the , �
public hearing until December i4, 1493. with a second by ireland, ��`.�
the motion passed unanimously. r•'2) ';:,
�.-
',i.; � ri_.
S t �
g� LAND USE ACTIONS �'P . I
�t
RESOLUTION GRANTING THE ASPEN SRIING COMPANY A TEMPORARY USE PERMZT 'r"
TO OPERATE THE GONDOLA FOR APPROXIMATELY I TO 2 2/1 HOURS ON THE :5;.� .
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMZSSIONERS 8 NOVEMBER 23� 1993 ��•;'t'..,,.
;1 �
�. .. .
i
. . �_ .. . . .. - .
6 r
�a; . '
!R:.:, -
c.-i
w�
� _ . __�. .���
'�f � � ,�:. . , ,_
�" 1��5 �1 �L:�- � : e�� ��a.
a " . , . �r i,K�p`� �'�� �1� y�� , ��{ �4 t
.... 1 1,:. . � a,t!� '^6s:�'[+'',,,�SM�'�'�,xi4 c��'�d' 4�'v��s�i hw� Rr �� �=r''t��
a.s�'�� a�! . `_v,��i��•�d' A . . .!..•1��� � ��.. r t _i �� EF',. �ak`i1a'y.�j 4i�'
�e ,r;tiy.. r .
� .A�a bAER4:.�' ,.ae� ��'�t LiY':•.
� •. �.+.
i..
:�:�;��.t�
v" 1..
.s", ,:�'
EVENING OF NOVEMBER 28 1993 AND FOR A CONTINU006 2� SOUR PERIOD , �
ON NOVEMBER 29 AND NOVEMBSR 30 1993. THIS TEMPORARY IISfi PERMZT �
AL80 INCLUD$8 THE OSE OF LITTLE NELL RUN FOR NIGHT SRIING ON
r
NOVEMBER 16, 1993 - MOTION TO APPROVE/ ,�':'
..r
True moved approval of the temporary use permit. With a second by :.�.z..•:
". , ireland with an amendment to allo�+ for anow-out days, the motion •�._,�.;
' passed unanimously. �,�.'.,
n1.-
CONTINUATION OF LAND USE PUSLIC HEARINGS �
�7.:;�.
RESOLUTION GRANTING FINAL PLAT I,OT SPLIT APPROVAL TO THE GUBSR �:�':
' FAMILY TRUST FOR A PARCEL OF LAND IN THE OWL CREER VALLEY - MOTIO13 7.°
� TO APPROVE �!�
RESOLUTION GRANTING 1041 CARETARER UNIT. AND GENERAL SUBMISSION ; ,3
! I APPROVALS TO LGP-�NI LTD JOAI LYNN TRUST AND ELIZABETH JILL TRIIST :�I.
FOR A PARCEL OF LAND IN THE OWL CREER VALLEY REFERRED TO AS LOT 1.
MANDALAY NORTH SUBDIVISION - MOTION TO APPROVE - Mary Lackner, #`:
planner, summarized this item as an appliaation, submitted by the
- Guber Family Trust, to request approval to divide a parcel
approximately 85 acres in size into two lots of about 42 acres in
size. She said the request is for a single family residence in the
location where there is a barn and approved dwelling unit on the
� parcel. There is also a request to have a caretaker unit to be '�^
located at the picnic site for lot 2. The applicant is also asking �,��i,'`T`
� that the existing employea dwelling unit on Lot 2 remain as a unit !
! on the site so the request would actually be for three voluntary
� units, two caretaker and one employee unit which currently exists
; and then two free-market homes for a total of five residences.
Lackner said the Planninq and Zoning Commission considered the �
applicant�s request on July 20th and August 3rd and forward a j'
recommendation of denial to the Board by a 3-2 vote (Edwards,
- Hatfield, Krazoff)/(Reser, Whipple) . "
The Commission cited that although the location of the proposed ;�
� development is not presently being used for elk calving, the
` additional disturbance of the proposed buildings, road and people
� in a mapped calving area is hot consistent with the Land Use Cade
and could preclude use of the area by calving elk in the future. •
Lackner proceeded to review the issues associated with the
application as follows: ��
�„�.
1. The Planning Commission recommends denial because of ���. ��'
a;�:
inconsistencies in the use of the land with the Code. They r;;�;
� believe there should be more done to protect wildlife habitat � � -
and that the property still has the potential to be used for '�. 1 I
elk calving habitat. �
�'
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 9 NOVEMBER 23� 1993 �;�;,
(,'ti..::.:
e
:x-:. .
;T__`- .
•,,-.y% .
� a ,
� , ` r ,� y
� �� . . ' ��� � �wksa�.~�.������j..Rt�g���y�':� �pl��tt� " i��'���l�'i
� . � �,iy,�t_ 4 trn�,. .'i� � �a`,+'r.'Q�R ✓ Y. v�� ,y �y,. � .�qr��'���'.
� ,�y 1�
�>'j;, � �4 '�`wYT}7'w, .4� ,�+�:'7:�!$��4` •n. �,,. '�' y f`� �yr'P„�' �u`.,
. - "'< :,�4:��(;t� ,�;'�d�•. . � t � :
�t tc:
'.;a
i�:y::' .t
I� M1
' �i:• ;•J.
� 2. The entire parcel is mapped as elk calving habitat. The 1041
- `- �� Hazard provisions of the Land Use Code prohibit development • ,, ,
in elk production areas. The Division oE Wildlife has
indicated that the proposed development wiZl not be ���:�,sd. .
` i detrimental to calving habitat because of the existing level ! ``.. =•.
of disturbance that already exists on the property. Staff s�'�:r '
believes that if the applicant's request is approved� the same I�';=..'
wildlife mitigatian measures of the adjacent Reservoir at West �. _ --.
, Buttermilk development need to be incorporated into this
project. This would a21ow continuity for enforcement of ��, , 'r
�: `.. .
wildlife conditions. t� ;,
I..
3. The applicant is requesting to construct a new access road to ����
the pond building. This access road will cross slopes in �
excess of thirty percent. However, this new road will a11ow
� � the existing looped access road to be alosed off during �1�
calving season. "��
, 4. The Planning Commission and staf£ would prefer the applicant '`�'
' . to provide a comprehensive development plan of his entire
holdings in the Owl Creek valley. This would allow the County
and the landowner to work to achieve the maximum amount of
clustering possible on sites outside critical wildlife habitat
areas. There may be a disadvantage in that this could prompt
the development of remaining portions of the Guber holdings :`..'r�
sooner than they might be pursued by the owner. Staff `Y�;'
� believes, however, that the benefits of achieving wildlife
conservation protection and appropriate clustering would far
s outweigh the risk of accelerated development.
r
5. It is the Planning Commission's and Planning O£fice's position
that any additional caretaker dwelling units should not be
permitted. The applicant has one existing approved employee +1�
dwelling unit on the property, and additional disturbance of Y
- ---- a caretaker units would be detrimental to wildlife habitat.
6. The applicant complies with the technical requirements foY a •F'
Lot Split, however several issues of GeneYal Submission raise
concern.
� �
Lackner proceeded with her presentation associated with the ',
application. A copy of this in written form is made a part of this -
record as EXHIBIT ��C��. -
Ethridge commented that in the Planning Commission discussion, it t��.
appears that part of their concern was the extensive road network. M.;
He asked the applicant's representatives if there are options to �� . ��-
eliminate some of the existing roads, for instance, the loop in the j.' , +�'�'a
� northwest corner? 1 "
I
We21s responded that one of the concerns of the wildlife expert,
Dan Bavarah in his analysis, was that the proposed caretaker site M :
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 10 NOVEMBER 23� 1993
�.; .• . .
ns
�, v
. . e ' � . . . .� .
�:a.:
•��e.� .. . � .
.��
_._..� ,�. _ �_
,�'j ��: . . . ., f._ �!'...� * :,t' � . :T r).� 4 P , w�.
�4^ � n.: � ' . � y � ;., . C �'����'n �Fj '0t�`��7,"�i�•i
., '� � 7 ��t l ,,,k,,, �la��,�''C � �.�.;c `" � r ,C�`x
.+�"�* �.; . �.�.. '�'.Y�u.�^ � a�`�. '�'��t �,'� � '1 �.' ��x ����t:"c'.
�� �C� �y' 'i M,y R�a '� i� �-�. � C. .2. '��� '.'� ��4�•;.
�5. ."ti-. � ��� �.�f' ' � ��i` . ,�xM6..i�°�':." .9.� . �xe.�:'"t 1,�YY�
�i�
�'� .t�
'�'�.
r� 'l.
..�Y'.'.. "
:J�
• li
� not be accessed by a certain section of the road, except on a
� seasonal basis. So in order to have a year-round access to that
site he argued for, and they agreed to, internalizing the roads.
j Ethridqe referred to Randy Cote's letter associated with the roads. �'���� �
A copy of this letter is made a part of this record as EXHIBIT ��D��. ;-�;�-'�';
i .F:
� A discussion ensued with regard to the additional caretaker unit +«�� .
4.:...::` .
and whether or not another unit of density would be allowed. �s�::�
� Joe Wells, representing the application presented their position ;�; �
��,<. .
on this matter. A copy of his letter addressing this issue is made '�'
a part of this record as EXHIBIT ��E�� �
�r ,
Konchan commented that she believes the code allows approval of a
caretaker unit, but a second employee unit has always been counted ;�;3
as a unit of density, and she thinks the language says you can have '��`
one other accessory unit, and not to allow two via a 50� density =
reduction lot split. "`°''
. ' Ethridge commented that a 6,000 square foot lot around the employee
unit and that would make that a conforming unit in the zone
district, but it would not restrict the rest of the property. It _
would zone that area around the existing unit PMH with a minimum
� lot size that is consistent. However, the Board has to see whether '"
they are comfortable making the leap that this is consistent with �;��
the philosophy of a lot split; if it is an exaction, that would �F
� make it consistent.
5
I� Wells commented that he thinks Wayne has described the perfect
solution in which they carve out a 6,000 square foot piece of land, �<
and they will still have plenty of land left for a 50� density
� reduction lot split. However, he does not know how that can be �t:
completed within the same time frame.
-- ° Ethridge commented that it would be taken out of this, but it would
` have to go through a separate process.
s Ireland commented that he thinks this can be approved conditioned
on the applicant's representation that they will apply in good �
' faith and process that application. '
Wells stated that one could argue that once the lot split is
platted, no further subdivision is permitted. So it really needs
to be done first. '`j�.
P.��,�Y
Ethridge said a condition could be added that the 6,000 square foot �, ��
area can be exempted from this lot split and becomes an island. �,. , �s�;;
He said in effect, they would be creating a subdivision but it is ti,': ( "
� in the context of this discussion as an exaction, he said they are �� ; �
simply trying ko make the process work. ;: '
�� •
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 11 NOVEMBER 23� 1993 ����
ti:�:'
:::°jc-� . .
�;�:... `
, ..:. .
i
.i,.
. ..._,_ . _ . . . .. r-. . . . . . . . . � ,__
9 �
.'�+ • •
'ic�c� -
�i •
..0 . . .. ��. � . . �.. � ..�.. . . ��.
� ,y
. ( y, � .,- .. , � . x.y,,� lr.1�'{ e �tJ{i"`� � �. ,,�..
J� (�'
� I, _ r � �l'?�r; Liyr'1o" �^-�+' 2 �f��;� `�"*'�°��..,4' �'� �Y'� t.�'
�i I '1+� �y+ 4 � ,�,i`�� ��" H �7" �•�'� " }i`�'.
`,� f . ��`s��,i a��"t ��`� ii�,.�� � t.. --.' 'r' •r� ���C Su 1 }4. '
��� '�' .�'' �t� ' t«f�t_ . .���9.4�:- �' �:��'L'�':
, ',..
�j�i�
.r
V± '1.
. _`y:.`;'�:,,
Lackner said what they done with the McCabe approval was they � '
circled out the arena apartment, which was part of the arena, and ,.
- " " � then contributed a 6,000 square foot of land outside of the arena '
I toward that unit. ��!�`i• -
i h��:::�. .
� .._..:. . "
� Ethridge said if there is a precedent for it that will be r�`
acceptable. ��'''� '
�.�.'.:,.:.r •
IEthridge reiterated that he still has concerns about the level of
, activity. He asked again, if there are roads that can be
eliminated and revegetated because Randy Cote's comment is ?•ea
inconsistent because he says "no Further vegetation manipulation
occur on any portion of the property, brush clearing, tree .��'7
cutting." He said you have clear brush and cut trees to put the �
new road in.
.,�..
, A discussion ensued with regard to this issue. '���
Wells commented that there is already an interior rough road `'�"
alignment across the dam at the present time. It has been a jeep
' . � road in the past. He said there would have to be some improvements
if they are going to be required to maintain the fire access, but
� none the less, there is an alignment there. He thinks when Randy .
said no further manipulation, he meant around the perimeter areas.
�:�
� Child and Ireland said that is they way they read Cote�s comments '��`�•'�
also.
' Ethridge said that the dilemMa is that the Planning and Zoning
Commission has reaommended a denial based on this issue, and he is
trying to make it work. '?'
Child asked if it would be appropriate to make approval of the road 3�
network contingent on what we see in the application that is coming
" in on December 21st.
u
Andy Hecht stated that he does not think those roads will affect
anything the Board sees tonight.
Ethridge commented that in terms of notice, he suggests a condition ;
' that this road plan is approved contingent upon review of any
additional development that comes in because the thinks the -
discussion on the 21st will involve some of those roadways.
Konchan commented that the Planning and Zoning Commission did have �
�!
; a very high level of concern about the amount of activity proposed r'�eC'
in this lot split; in an area of critical wildlife concern. She �f . fi.�'=
noted that staff is trying to arrange another informal P&Z/BOCC r�' , '�='
meeting before December 21st and if there is any benefit to hear �� ` !
� ' what there thoughts are on this there may be an opportunity to do �}-� - �
that and to hear this at the same time that the other Guber
application wi7�1 be before the Board. ��� �
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMTSSIONERS 12 NOVEMBER 23� 1993 �,�`'� �
��
', ._,
— .i,:
p ' .
i
.�;_.- . �
;'-�� •
�
�J , _ „ , � •, -
'�! � , � � tSI�Y �y� �y �j - .i[ ;K � (� .
.�. � .�1:.'.c ' �,11�� .'.a�,�,u,.r�w'�w��'�p�y,St;S �r.;J�;^ y.�ry�}+ #i2 '�'a��'�1'�1�1`E.�•
``�+. ` ta, vµk .�P��'" M y i i�. +,�f tr'�4i:.� �r�l, �i �
ri.t..."'.�� � t•s. r. 4 e n..� �`"''� ., .� ry:f�yst.i��
,. s�! .•.�'�s!j•.��'�,'���� ' s J.�'�� .�,,��.�,3` . '� �'r £..F' yt
• y y{�'.:
� -�f?= -:, .
'r� '�
f ;y', '.:;'
• .r,
_..-� - � Ethridge commented that Andy makes a point, these are separate '�`t:.
� applications and separate ownership, but he is not sold on the road ;j.•, '•
network, that is part of his concern, and part of the reason he can
go to the Planning and Commission and say "We decided to make this i.J'`�-" "
" work, and this is what we got in exchange." For instance, he would %;;:.:;,.;�:.
� be satisfied with the elimination of that northern most road coming i�'::i� .
, out of the pond because it is essentially a trade for the new road. ,:_ .;
. �.
� ;_.;.':. ,
Hecht suggested that iP the Board is inclined to approve the •
appli.cation with conditions they do have to come back at final plat ;�.�;
and if they determine there is a problem that they would like to y
appeal they would do that. But they would like to move along on •, 93
this application iP possible. � :.�;.
True asked if there are any other conditions that are at issue? .;�3
,:�r,
A discussion ensued with reqard to the maximum size of the
principal residence ott the seaond lot. .t,�`:
,
- j Hecht stated that they would be willing to limit the size to 7500
square feet,
Ireland asked that a condition be added that there be no commercial -
aqricultural activity on the premises. �-
T�:�
1 Hecht commented that he has no problem with such a condition. It I+� �.
- ( was agreed that a condition would be added to the resolution of
approval as suqgested.
A discussion ensued with regard to the conditions of approval. t,
Child suqgested a conclition that would prohibit constructioa on
slopes of 30$.
!Y
It was agreed that a condition wovld be added to the resolution o£
approval. ;!
Welis referred to Condition No. i and lanquaqe that asks them to
� amend the Division of Rildlife�s maps. He said they are happy to �
cooperate in any way they can, but he is not sure hov they can �
necessarily to that by themselves.
it was agreed that because the maps are the responsibility of state �
staff, that the condition wouid be eliminated.
Aelis referred to Condition No. 2(a). �
�'_
.a[r;=
� it was agreed that languaqe wouid be added to state that the � -
accessory buildings envelopes are not to exceed one and one half �
acre in size.
. i
BDARD OF COIINTY COMMZSSIONERS 13 NOVEMBER 23, 1993
�: :: :::_ :
��,:`,,',
�i
��` `,
v
. . ._ .. s . . . . .�,i. .
.��.ij.
;*(� .. . � . ..
i�� �
`: , .. .
; . f •, '
.. k,. � n, sr r�� r 3 r�{^�l�y r ;.✓ ti.a�+�f ,�e���y„ "�?.
{��,S �„ `.����y}'' r����� �!s�7',7E�'k'�C!`2 4- �a�' ��!}�
� ; �t 'yb ' NIa►��"�t���.� +��, , ��;�T,;�S,a��'.✓t a�'�� �A'Y�.�� � i�{A
..,�,.� +�,, �; t
�. ?n� �r;!'!T.'tl. .d. -�R I. �. .�,. ..d�' ' r��.4 � 1�, }j`it�
. . `�.]Y :�iMw fit� ��J�},�• . . . . ''.����!!� M1 F.
��t �.�;
..``
' :�`,�.- .��
• 'l..
. '.y'!'' .'
. j
_ , fiTells referred to Condition No. 2(b). He said they are proposing ,
a caretaker vnit on that site. They don�t envision havinq an
employee dwelling unit on the site just for a clarification.
• .f•.�:.
A discussion ensued with reqard to Coadition No. 4. ; :
',.";r '.
We12s said they wish to be able to keep horses� and they are not 't� `� '
sure that will be permitted under the lanquage there. '�.� -'
�,,
It was aqreed that the languaqe would be chanqed to read as �;��. .'
follows: �?
. :i
Nelis referred to Con83tion No. 6(a). He said that Mr. Guber wants ;��
to be able to run his snowmobiles on the roads durinq the winter.
However, they are comfortab2e with the prohibition against �
vehicnlar use durinq the criticai times. k�
, --,i,.
It was agreed that this condition would be discussed vrhen the issue �; ,:..
of the road trade off is dealt with.
A discussion ensued with regard to Condition No. 7 regarding the �
prohibition of doqs.
EthriBge moved a condition that would require kennelinq of dogs at
all times, unless they are on a leash. Also, q+uests and �;_`,�;�
contractors are prohibited from bring any doqs on the property. 'r`�:•`
At no time, shall the number of dogs exoeed two dogs on the entire '
� property. Ireland seconded the motion.
Staff was instructed to make the condition consistent throuqh out
the resolution where dogs are referenced. -_:
Child called the question. The motion failed with two yea votes
; by Ethridqe and Child and two nay votes by Zreland and True.
_. j
It was agreed that this issue will be discussed at a later time.
i Welis referred to Con@ition No. 8. He said he would like to
, discuss possible having a non profit agency come in.
�
2t was agreed that it is the County�s responsibility with regard �
to enforcement, but the condition will be amended to allow
reasonable access with notices (a qood'faith effort to notify the
property owner or caretaker if there is some cause prior to �
access) .
} �::
Lackner recommended that the condition be aritten into two #A,:
different conditions. One would be that the applicant shall grant �'=•�
�' access to the Division of Wildlife for monitorinq and make the next `,' � "
condition for the County to enforce with the noticing, �
Board members aqreed with this recommendation.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 14 NOVEMBER 23, 1993
G .
''t J
''.
e
'i:.;`:;'.a'. . .
�,>
�� • ,
� � r s �. f - ,
`+,9 _. � • , � ,. .
�: (t �yyv
� '� r �� � s �k :
. „ � +�J�S�� . ` k. �':b�,y�i � �.. � �'R�.t�-�h, 2����.�'�.eE.. L yAw`� •Ji ����t(,
.:�i� �` y��'1 . . :s,Mt�x �� �'4`�'ra�� ,: �Ft � �.��
r"�"�,. R�'"#'�j e°. -ra'�. '??�4^_`t' EJ '°",t;.�..t 6 :i � k � (��!.:
� ?.N"':.,�.�'4/�''.
�°
� '��'rJ •''i.
r
_�
.y'., "
_ t ,I r~
True moved to extend the meetinq to 9:30 p,m. With a second by
� Ethridqe, the motion passed unanimously.
r
Treland moved approval of this amettdment. Nith a second by �y^•`:;� -
`�� Ethridge, the motion passed unanimously.
:r;
A disaussion ansued with reqard to creatinq a brochure. 'Y''-�� '
:.'.-
sw,:.:`.`;, .
� It was agreed that Condition No. 12. would ramain and Condition No. 7`` ' ,
14 will be deleted.
;*`c�.
A discussion ensued �rith regard to Condition No. 3. :,�•t
Wayne sugqeste8 that the lanquage be changed to state that the '
applicant shall apply for PMH rezoninq for a 6,00o square foot '
minimum lot size for the employee dwellinq unit and that wonld in ',:v�
effect create the subdivision after the fact.
k ,^
. =t was agreed that at final plat, a date will be determined for
� j compliance with this condition.
f A discussion ensued with reqard to Condition No. 4.
I
! It was aqreed that the conditioa will be amended to state ��any new .,
� residentiai units.�► `''y�
.,��,:
. � r
A discussion ensued with reqard to Condition No. 5.
It was agreed that the language would be changeQ to read that ��the
applicant shall flaq the proposed realiqnment of the existinq paved
driveway.�� ?'
Neils asked that ConcYition No. e be cbanqed to read ��prior to
huildinq permit.��
It was agreed that this amendment would be acceptable. f,
A discussion ensued with reqard to Condition No. 9.
' It was agreed that because the road is a public road, that the ,
condition wili be e2iminated.
Further discussion ensued with regard to the remaining two issues
• previously discussed. !�
A discussion ensued with zegard to Condition No. 6 reqarding �� M-
snowmobiles on the pioperty. �} �{3'--
� ��=f
It was aqreed that 6(a) would be stricken and the lanquaqe in 6 �
i
would be chanqed to read ��Sxisting ranch roads may be used for
recreational purposes, exaept from May ist to July ist.��
BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 15 NOVEMBER 23� 1993 �
a:��.:',. .
� �'�,�-_�.
. . .. . . . . , — . . . .._ . . . . . .. , .�,
, i
♦
,µ<..
'�r; .
t}_ . �.
;�e
� . �
� .�,�__ m_______
c.�� a. . i. . y � j .
�� � r.Y'�F4ti L �t.� .. � . y � Y ��� .,,1r � l�� '!: �i�..i' �� -
` .�; :� ..� ' t ro... � < � A'�
r;,a., ,.1:•v . jria..N ,�d.�:+���'i �� � � �' 4�1
t� � 1 :
� ��i � . ..,�Sby���h�; :}�,.;�'��` ..�'+�;�k`�� . ��'j����i,r
i
:i�
. j:j;i' .t. .
3: i�
.;�.: ; _
.! :+:r�
��i:�-�
_ __ A discussion ensued with regard to the dog issue. ��;;�,. . s-
r'
ireland commented that he would be willing to change his vote on �'`�'"��
the former motion. '�' ��••
/. I �.
Ethridqe removed his original motioa. Chiid relnoved his second. L Y
The motion passed unanimously.
A discussion ensued with regard to the road issue. �`'�
x:w
Ethridge asked how the Board fe2t about elimination of the northern '�
i most segment of the internal road in consideration of a new access? `��
� ,
� Other members responded that it is not critical to them. •"''q
' ` True moved to approve the resolution with amendments and conditions •''•!�-
� as specified and discussed. With a second by Ireiand, the motioa �
� ; passed unanimousiy. ."� ,
' ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. '
�'
Re p ctfully submitt d, �
� �C�'G�X�IiLC/ / �r��• .
J, anette Jones -
_ � erk to the Board of County Commissioners
4
� ;
�
i
_.`� 'r,
� ;�
`l` �
i
. � � IS;����� _
' �
. I . . 'li, .. �
I �M,'i
-:i''�. „'�.
� ; 1� _
�, .+`j ;'';
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 16 NO{1EMBER 23� 1993 '•
� �4�i:i`'
. ;yF;_��":,}
...�.._+'"
i
";1;.
i
; �;;':;, .Y
; .;.:
� „�. ..
.. . . .. .. _........ ._._., . . �. ..
. . ....::....._. . :�..:-..:, . _. .. .. ._ . . ,, :.
�
` '
� ' � . . � . � � � .
:f3sa;' � � - ' , •
<fc-�,^°�. ' . .
;�g.
�..
��' � .
� . ,
��y� :►�x• ;� �� ' ,
'�� � a���,�.i� .. . '-�� 1l�,�, 'a..�,�..rW,r lf ��L�lif- � �i -�''tr� tr y�
t �!r : ; ��.
' .�,C�C' !{G : . �s�r+.ii,i i4dt',?�,' �,P�L:L.'����¢� � v'8�i'' -�� ' � ,�`� �,''
. . 1i' . .)p��� �9�..J. "4�^�l, r ��. {, {,���'�, @,�► }l�.
� � ,.. . ..�. ���� `'�,S _q� + y3- 'Cj`��i�('
i•�•.�� n �y ��i_a ���`:
t.
ars so��t��ro�vfi_: . : �z�xEE�� . � ,.�;,
' SUITE GI02 ''` �
t � -�:
:;�_;.
� ASPEN, CO 8I6X1 .,..r.�, �• ti,
- ----� L'C�r�tUFlu t , •• •
.1� •?;7 < <r.�' .i�
� :c:i
i �':+:..;� ' r:
, October 28, 2993 � .,: .
Oatr.:__;!.'33-�i.? - ---�--- ' ;
�=-� _'
' To: A11 Members of the Pitldn County Tsuilders Associadon 5u�:::�:�-�����SG�S!___.--- ,
' . .. H�l� ._. ____---- '. Yr"°
�..�::�:.'-�`:
Fzom:Bob Wa[ker, President � �r
'+?�. .
' ji\.,,�,�._�.�,'
The Pit16n County Buiiders Association was organized in 1989, ia part to respond to the 1�'� �
,�..,.:
, threat from the Pitldn County Commissioners to place dramakc restrictions on the size of houses �;:�`•
which could be built in the County. In response to the fantasac show of politica!slrength by the ` "
a-:
Pitlrin County Bailders Association,a citizen's task force was formed called u'�e P.A.R.(Floor Area �la
Ratio)Committee to study the situadon and come up with recommendatiuns for the Commissioners �,�
to follow with respect Yo the enactment of any reguiaGons conceming the size of homes. I was a
member of that committee and along with the other members spent over t�;o years(from 1990 to �,�z
1992)worldng towaz@s that end. ��.
• [ F;;
The task force issued a final report with recommendations, most of which were accepted
z and acted upon by the County Commissioners in 1992. However, the task force aiso made an
�j informai recommendation, which may not have been included in the finai report. That
recommendation was that any part of a house which is constructed be]ow the natural grade of a lot -
should�be inctuded in the calculatioa of the floor area for purposes of the fIoor azea raflo
� Iimitafions. The City of Aspen has excluded sub-grade space for some time and Uus provision ::j'?`
wou[d merely bring the County in line with the City, w5ich is particularly important in some � .
subdivisions such as Mountain Vatley, part of which is in the City and nart of which is in the
County.
� The Planning and Zonina Commission and the Board of County Commissioners accepted `
that recommendation and instructed the planning staff to draft langua�e to that effect so it could be �,�
`' formally adopted. Somehow that seemingly simple process has dra;ged on for almost a year now.
A straw vote at a recent mee6ng indicated that the Commissioners may now renege on their ��4
commitment to adopt Yhat measure. Worse yet,Wayne Ethridge has indicated a desire to re-open
the entire F.A.R.issue with a view towards Iimiting homes to oniy i000 sq. ft. regardless of the ''
' amount of land owned. That would be a slap in the face to the task force which worked so long
and hard and to you members of the buildina industry and this community,whose political activism �,
prevented the adoptioa of more stringent reoula6ons on building in the first place. '
. We need to rally to the cause once more by showing up in force at the next public hearing
on uus issue which is to be held on Wednesday, Novennbe�rd at 9 a.m. in the ��°
;: County Commissionzrs meeting room in the Coar use. �.
� g ��,
�. �,
�0,� G ��l� , ; _,
Robert R.Walker
- _ . _ _.. . . .- --.-.
_ .. ....._
_.._ ...-. � .:,
... .. . . . . . - . .. . . `.. . �
'� .. . . . �� ...�i,-.. �
:'.^-�`:.'- / '
.'I . '
'i::.� �. . - . - . - �� �� .. - . -
_ ,. ' . , . .r ! f,K�f�A4.tr 2r��,plY�elt7e.'i _.��t� y -t,f,�c �- i�'�..
' j: �. �• ( •.. ��:i4 s J�}��+�4�'��� . a.R�Y'4 '�,1�3`�i� ����PI�M }��:��:.
��'Cj .Hi-ra`"y �.rr . r � ly��r rY�r.� FJ"i ��+'i�,�}��y��,��`T��tt��� � � ���' r•
} � s
— ; �'. . �F fr��w��,.�� ��i�� �,'�{�~�r 2�r. . .....�il:i„�,'� Fi .�w � F r t..� ��
T _ , . -h..=: ...sr�,t4e_ S'� ,�'�t�.,�/k;.r: �'��.�" e =14 c.44 �,�.1.. cl���
- ��� ��.
�' .. �._ .��. ...... . ._._.. . • . .. . -'�.1 ._ .. � •� -`.
. . � . ea� ao"0�a 16 •:w.. ;� .,
,,: ti.
�_.i .t•��.
� S;C�71��A26E 1YYYI�Y 1LlYSC� ��� , i � ' .�'�.
0
Th1■ Aqraem�nt 1� msd� b�tv��n Cst�way o[ enovms�s M�u � $ �-^^- �
. 9ubdivision Prop�rty Ovn�r� A��ocietlon, Inc. ("Get�vsy") and � �
9�rthoud Beneorp, Ine. (�Berthoud"). This eontrect 1■ an 5� (�
eqr��m�nt to aupply e�rthoud vlth vei�r ��rvic� lram th� GeCwey of
�eter �yst�m. Barihoud ovns Lot 1, Ohl B�Joyful Acrs■ �
, � ;SubOivl�ion, vhieh Ss sAjeeent to the G�t�vay SubdSvi�ion vat�t
•�y�taA, enA Berthoud eqr�e� to thc talleving in bcturn for t�� � �e ,
•rlqht to tap 7.nto tha Getawey vet�r �y�tam snd to u�� 6ubdivlalor. � � r
} lvettr eupply. ,�r .
� � 1. Barthoud �h�ll b� ra�pon�ibl• Lor in�islling St�wet�r rL�' '...� �- ' � .
_ 1 • ,•servlc� 1Snu erM obtalning any neee��ery �on.mmis to it■ C= r-� 5��:.! . •
.��; �pr�ei��• fron th. Ceuvey vai.r fllt�clnq plent vhieh Sa loceied � "� . •`-
- -V�-; �?�ROn sn �eum�nt on th� •eid Lot 1. � .�/ � i;�•. '
t . N �l
� - M1. �!_ `, 2. B�rthoud �hsll be responeibl• fo[ Sn�tslli� a Roekvsll 'N � � � '•
- ,� �l'� �net�r nnd • Rockv�ll out�id• r�gisvt for�ech urvlc� loeatlon on
� �� Lot 1, OAI Be Jayful Aer�� Subdfvl�ion, rhich shGr� snd regl�ter� '� !
" - ���� mey b� purcheacd trom Catevny at it• coK. Thau mat.ra and �"
.reql�tac� uiust E� Snatell�A pCior to wt�r h�lnq r..pp11�C to th� '�.
u
;• �premLee. `p�,,
� ��'� � � 7, consideration tor thla contraet L th�gr�at by Borthoud t:,_?
LO �7 'o[ e�rlsln �a�emmt■ for s vdY locaotlon, und�rground p1p�11na ,;.y-
end beckfIUnh dreineqa �zacuted ■lmultenwusly vlth thls eontraet, • �
d. Betthoud egrea� thet tha querGrly billing ayatem employed ,
by Get�wey �hall ba eppliee6le to thL Meter �arvice, end Bsrthoud �
. eqree� to tAe ��cvlce chsrga ret� o[ �.SOI p�r querGr Lor �
� outatsnCing dellnqu�nt emounte due. Bazthoud furtA�r agres� ihet ' -
it �hsll 6e raspon�ibla [or vetet sysiem maint�n�ne� chetge�,
� veter ry�tem us�g� cherga�, claricel eharqa� and �p�eLl 1
� ac�es�msnt chsrg�s attrlbutsDl• to vater ey�t�a lmprovam�nt■ on =
the sefn� besis ea oiher veter setvlca ueers vlthln Getewey I
) Subd/vislon.
S. Harthoud eqr�e� to pe� aase��m�nts levSaE by Gst�vey, -
' vhleh es�a��menia shell be prorsied to eaeh vater �ervlea location ( , .
as dotetmined 6y th� Boerd ot Diractor� cf tha Gp:�wey to Snovmee■ .
Maae SubdSvlsion Prnp�rty Ovn.rs 7.s�oeiation, Znc. on e unl[orm �
� basie vith othar uaars vlthin eatevey Subdivi�ion.
�
6. If 8srthou� �hell fe11, ettar dewa�W, to pay any
� assessment laviad 6y Get�vey, tAan 1! �he11 hev� a llcn, Lrom end �t
sfter �he time ot notice ot auch Ceilure to pey is r�cordsd in th�
� � olfica of tha Clarlc end Racordet o[ Pitkin County, Colorado,
against aech property beinq supplled vster eervice by the
� Asaocietion for the emount due snd un�aid, plus lnterest from the t
deta of demend toz peymunt at ha rat� o[ el�hteen patcent (18t) �
per ennum, plus ell coet� end expenees o[ colleeting any unpeld
- aseessments, lncluding reseonabla ettorney's [ees. I r,, .
7. This 21en mey b. toreclosad in tbe msnncr provided by lew � �
1n Coloredo Lor toraclosura ot Oced� of Tsu�t snd mr.=LqageR.
, 8. ThL obligstion to pey asoumant� i� alw a p�rROnei ��
obligetion of Bert�oud er.G its suecasaor� !n intereet. Thi■
perFOnal ebliqetion is tor eoaescments to tha deta ot closSnq ot a
` aele of tha property. Thi■ obllgetion enA tha veter service .:.'c
p:ovision by Cetavay ehnll Snure to al: !uture owncrs of this � �, '
Froperty until the eontrect is mutuelIy termtne:ed. ,;�r�•
,e_y.
Y
. 9. Bertheud egrees to join in any prnposed [uture apecial
dlaerict chat vill provlde vater, roea end/or aewer secvice to I.o[
lr Ohl Pe Joyful Acrea. ?his diettic[ shell incluCe properCies `�� ..�'
edjacent to G�te�ay to Snovmeue Mese Subdivislon. '" • ���'
� t .
+ 10, Berthoud shall eubmit its englneeting plane to the eateva•�
Hoard fur nppcoval 01 tAe tap lnto the mein Veter llne. R `+•
{•,
17. The rig�ts unCez thls contrect ere esslgneble by � i�� � `��_'
;� Be[thoud only Sn coejunCtlon vlth.tno sale enu comeyenee o[ ��� � '
ovnerahlp in:crests Sn Lotn 1, Oh! He Jeyful l�eres, nnd the rig�ts �z;i.•, �
unQer thc wnerac[ shall tnure ko t�e beneCit of its hetrs, �°- -
'
successors and assigns.
��1r..1 ,.i.
�� • .
�f„-�
r /` �p �,
, ',���: :��::.�� �f7.� 4: � �r'L.. •:��' ��, � i�l�'6ar'i.93_'8l �. � �� - .
, . _,
_._..��...,._.�,.�..-.,..�-�..�r;.-..,.�...ir--'r..e+sar�tt+�ei�r.�rfxcr/i.,r�':^.�'!�,^7'S�!"..'�'•r..., .. ..a.,�-„'a'� � .
_'�
, ,,., .
� f , r' `y
s:;:
,+�y n ` � , � , , , � �, j' ° ,� ,�� q� * ,
'�, t ���i��r (�� �' `.t� �''
` 1,�' ':� r s �dl+ +96 s�`:,.erS,�{�����'f(i� it�' '� ti �'f �.
�.., ,��_-4 . _ �� u` ��'+�'�'`,4 ,� :�.. ,�`� 5�.���� ��~ -� �:� ��;��y>�,;:
.E;�,�i� ;�, • •;�•�,k'''��,� ���!` .�1c�'s�� _, �_ . . . �
ti s , �n"! ,s`�.3;�,�,�. �,a `•„�S v�Y
. a ""_'"'."_" -�,_
.. r .
• � ,_ _ -.t _�.r_.�- �,_ ~L.�.�_ �_.._ „��` I:: ;`:�3.
' eaa 56(1!� 17 1 { .y', :,,
- •- {�;;.:: �.
,
-'�- �_ I Thu�Aon� •nd •l9n�d thl�,��aey ot(��f�. 19-y• � f
�r i 7.
SEATHOUD MNCORP� INC. Gl�TL7111Y TO NOMlNd!ML'9A ' �
SUEUIVZ9ION PPOPLRTY ONNLRS j�' , . ..
. ASSOCIATSON� ZNC. ���?'� �• .
,Y, ��, �/ ( �%; 1a:
�_. ,,.:� 7 �..� ,cca _i.
I'n•:,,�..:r
� .
� . Addr��� ot Prop�rtyi �+?' i.7. :; �
i �t .
i `'=' ;'�
� i W�cription ot Prop�rty��� � • �.:• •
I ; �r�, 0/i:'QdJ�Y�r-+��BairisraJ� �a�.✓ ��+,vry Le pr,; . .
; � .
; : l .,
r�:
.
-.:�,-
jqt.b�rthoud.ve
� ' .
` i �
f 1 �1
� � 7
� �. � '�����.
. , � ;
� � . . .. . '4 .
.. � � . .. . • ��' .
. �
; t.
�
1 j�
� 'f.l��"
� , ' � � . �I ,.1St
i �� ry
� !s
' � i�:
6�;';
. 7�''.
: � � ' .�.'."i
� ' - . f;f'� �
(
� : : 1�¢'�� I
�'��
�i. � i
f!� � ���
'��K4 ' . �"!
�"!r . • � '° � < �
� �.�,;� . •� �,� ,
..,' s � '�,� �: �
- µ� L rz g_ .• 3,ey :;ar�,,E. • ,• � -
- �,.K a.::i��r.da.� . ..rn..n++.�"a.'.^•�n'�';r,' r . v
._.,._ 1
— � .�.•�.- .
e �
. . '
r`r� .,
. '�= '
;'^? �
; . •., ,
�-�.�.� � ..,. ' . . '.� ""�y.�v � `'�AY'� -:.) y�4; �t' , �
k '~. yy jq+.�
l' f�!�atr 7�T��y -� { 1�. v a .1� i� ti�[.I.'.
� 1.. ✓ � ' ^F-a��°� fY,4��Y��'�`l .t-k 1'� f�'`'t""�' �;;�" ,�s�91 � �
+s.of.f-. f�• �_ L K .��,� .s��'`ti�}`'+��+,i�i�i� � ���i�yy'j`'u t K x i ��� '
;�[, �� ��� . .. ����,}��7, ,� �o+��"?�: + . . � ` r�� i4�}''� tr: �
. , . '.
. ., :_>. ....r�.�_ ,'��..- . �. �..t 4.�� .,,� .�,'.
- .�:
' ;..
CONTBACT FOR HATEI�AND AOAD SEAVICe$ '�'�::; ,
This Agreement ie mnde betvicen GsCeway o£ Snovma�e Hesa Subdivision �..-
, Property owners Aasoeintion, Inc. ("Gateway") a�d Hask K. Johnaon end Knren H. :Y;: '�'
Johneon ("Johneons"). Thie contract ia nn egrecment to supply Johnsons with '` �
Watec uerviee fCOm the Catoaay aetur ayetem. Johnaons o.m the ro eTt deeeribed r
P P Y �+-� :
ns Lot 1, Ohl Sc Joyful Acrea Subdiviaion, Pitkin County, Colorndo, vhich
aurrounds tho Cntaway Subdlvioion Nater Syatem and Eaeemenc. .7ohnmons agrce to
tho following in zatuin fot thc right to tnp lnto the Cateway wnter aystem and �.;, •'
to use Subdivinion water eupply end xoads: , �, �
1, .lohneonu ahall be reaponeible for inetalling tbeir water service lina :'`?
and obtaining any neceoeary eesementa to their premiaee £rom thm m�in Catewny '
Water line, .lohnsone aiso a�ree to install a manhole at the connection to the !:
CnCeway's main line with a ahut off valvc in chat manhole and a preseure ; 3
regulntion velve, `r
2, Johnsons heve obtained a Relocntion Easement from Catewny in order to �`'�
reroute the main water line for Gateway. The rclocation ia desitad by Johnsons
" for aite planning the location of his home. Johnsone agcea to maintein theiY
residence line from the main line tap to their residence. Cateway shall maintuin
the main line.
3. .lohneons shall be reeponsible fo[ lnstelling a Rockwell mater end a ���
Rockwell outside register for the service locatlon on their propezty, which metar ''�''�
� and regiater muet be installed prior to water being suppliad to the premiaes,
4. Johnsone e[ate that they Bhall gain access to thelr property fxom
Snowmssa Creek Road, and shall not uae Cateway Road for ncceea or for any other _
servicee. Gatewey shall not bill Johnsons for rond maintenanee aervicea ao long -
as this circumstanCe continues. Should Johnsons use Gnteway Road in the future �
for ncceas or servicee to thel.r property, Johnsone agrae to pay aaeesamants foC
road maintennnce. Johnoona elso egree, if naceseery, to grent an eneemene to
�- Gateway for accesa to the aubdivision on Geteway Road from Snowmane Creek Road
to the bordere of Cateway Subdlvision.
�.'�
5. The condideration for this eontract has been paid by Johneons'
predeceeaore in intereat.
6. .lohnsone egtee that the quarterly billing eystem uaed by Gateway shall
be applicable to this Water and road service, and Johnsons agrea to the servlcc
chaz'ga zace of 4.50! per quarter for outatanding delinquent nmounte due. �;
Johnsons furthet Agree that they shall be responsible £ot water syotem •(`
rnaintenence chatges, water system usage chezgee, elericnl chaYges and epecial �': ,,
assessment chnrgee attributable to water eystem improvaments on the eamn basis �?i :"-
as other Nater sorvice users w�.thin Cnteway Subdivieion. Road maintenence and i.�' , ^
� speciul esaessmen�s for duat control ahall be nssassed only if Johnsnns uce �i. �
Cateway Road Syaterne, •'
• 7, JohnsonB agree to pny aesessmentA levied by Gateway, which nseeesments :;+
chall be piorated to each water service location as determined by the Board of �, ,
Directors of the Gatevay to Snowmaes Meea Subdivision Property Ownors ?�>
l,..
Associatlon, Inc, on a uniForm basis with other users within Gntewey Subdivinion. '_
. ���,
8. If Johnsono ahall fa17.,'after demand, to pay any nssessmont levicd by � ,
Cateway, then it shall have a lien, from end after the time of noCicn o£ such
- failure to pny ie recordod in the officc of the Glerk and Recorde of Pitkin
���.,�� r�l___.,.. ,.�s�.,er r�,e r-��,�rry beinc ^_upplied weter service by the
Aasociation for the amount due and unpeid, plur intetest fcom Che date of demand
for payment at the rate of eighteen (189) percent per ennum, plus all coets nnd .
expensea of collect�ng any unpaid assesoments, including reasonnble attorneys'
Fec�.
9, Thie lien mAy be forecloacd in the mannar proviJed by lnw in Colorndo �
for forecloSULa of Dcede of Tiust nnd Hortgagco,
10. Thio obligatlon to pny essnssments is also o personal obligntion of ,
Johnsons and their succeosora in inCerest, ThLs personal obligntion is for ,
1
� � t
� J ' .
1'..�` -r� ( J... .' . . .. !. .�� . . .':� .:.'' ' . ..�
4� h �y ' ..� r . .. .
.J 1 �,y
� � t,, l. � .. I �T� ll��j��`� , µ�.�' r ���� ������� �� }��'�'��I/�""
+� y�,c�.t .�+ A N 4�;����� • � d�\�.
.���TC� � ^.f.+��:r s����„� y'� .. .�e:A����v��� �" �� ti � y �`�,,�c+ti
,��,� � :�C .a+k�MGe_F�:+� , �{• ,� �. �:b''��
. f'_�d�.,�,• '.:w�:.;��.3...
- . �� ; - -
. . `;��;, .��
, ", .,�.,
asaeosmenta to the date of elooiag oE a eale of the property. Thia obligaeion �'� "
and Chn wster end rosd ocrvics ptovioion by Cateway eha21 inure Co all futura ''''•; +, ,
____ ownpra of thls proporty until the contract ie mutuslly torminntcd. �.
e 11. Johnsona agree ta be included in any proposed futura apccial dl.atrict `
.� boundariea, vhich diatrl.et aill provide water-sad�se++ar service to �ohnaons' /f/� ,f� '
property. Johnsona reserve the zight to vote on a21 imQrovem'ent proposals in � . �t'.�'.� .
any dimtrict £ormed or propaeed. � �'-j�';r "
12. �ohttsons ahell reviow hie water tap conacruction pinn With John `����'•- �
Sruegger, Prseidant of Cateway� for approvnl (303-927•3249). `��� � .
��,.
. �:.c: ..
13. The tlghts under this contract ara asaignebla by .7ohneons anly in �;F• w
con�unetion w�.th the eale end conveyanca of theLc property under thie contraet, '"='`,.
!;' ,9
and the righte uader this contYact 8ha11 inure to the benefLt of their heits, ;i� :
� succeasoza and aemigne. � '
' 14. This contract ie fot the oupply of domeatic water only. Johneoae ��Yk, t
agree that Chey shall usa Gateway waCer for domeatic uee only, end not for -
irzigation or any other purpoeee, Domeetic use ia defined ae normnl 1n•house „t,-;
• : usee plus watering a landacnped aren immedi8tely aurrounding the rasidence, said
arae not to exceed 2,OQ0 square feet. •
15. Johnaono granC to Catewny a Right of First Refus'nl�to purchaee their �1�
Water rights in the future, should Getewey need additional wnter zights to assuxe
adequats water oupply to the propertiea it ■ervices. r.:.�
:;i�,-
. • f ,
Thue done end aigned thie day of , 1990.
� '
� CAiEWAY OF SNOUHASS M�SA f
� 5UBDIVISION PROY6RTY OSJNERS �.
ASSOCIATFbN, INC.
_. c.
—'
;.
F •
`` , By:
� Herk Jo on President
�
� r�
� ���y!>�,/�\/.�"'��1�'' _
Kar�n M. Johnsori �
, �.
�4,
'y #�,;
J
�$ Addreae of Property: �yOD Snowmsse Creek Road "'' ��`
9nowmasa, Colorado 81654 � �
!
�:� �� ��I i��:.
. �:1�:. i. .
:iic'
F'.,,,
1.vp.r����t�vi�.Joh �'��". � �
. Z ,
,-�
'#:., . .. . ' t i.. �� .. . . . - ,:
! . . . . . .r. �� ,�:1:{� ° �r.a T s�5i' ♦ Y .
��;,i �,t� � � ��� ���
`i' �', . ' . I.it�,t t'�kTd��,Te' .�� �gg��'''}'f`�"����r�� ��J�lr'
i���� ..h..��'�'�e"<}' �� .p���;" ,f er e:l'3��.�'F�;`a�•� . ��'c.�L ��t",t.i
� � ��'y' µ*7N`.�r,r .:��'. '1.��. . �°'� 9fuii.4G 4�l ry .
.���i.. v.a:• ���� s't���� .��v�Yrt�►c..._���i���A�iS�A*cr�iY�l'�1# s f�•"e. f'��t1,�4:'.
i..
(� ( ? ,�:'y.'. .c'.
5'::hiE OF COLORAUb ) �� �y� "'� 1�•� �� 1.��� :", i.
. , )BO. � S� V.c� �1/lS .'y`rl _
/ ,. � :�, .
• COUN2Y OF PITKIN ) ' • �?`f'��N CN�.,J��Qcc,�� '.,� •, • -
4R�1.AIT"dF EAeEMEN2 /'f]jJY�' 3 I:�{�C1�Y��9(7 :� ,
� U �r- `
iH
THIS RElACATION EA9LH$NT, made this�day of ��Gff , 199U, ''''r �
between Hark K. Johnaon nnd Karen H. Johnson, Crnntore, and Gntewa� of Snowmnao �' �;_
Nesa Subdivision Pro ert Owner's Aosociation Inc., a not-for• rofitcor oration ��.`•,.^ '
P Y � P P �,,_.
organSzod and oxieting undcr and Uy virtuo of the lnwo of che Statc of Colarado, "'
aucceseor in intereet of Gnteway of Snowmass Development Compnny, whooc legal �;��..
addiesa is P.O. Box 211, Snowmaea, Colorado, 81654, Pitkin Gounty, Colorndo, `
;%:a r
Crantee. ,;;. •
,_�
u.: . .
!�
CIT �:_;{,�i,.
•:,.i:
1. On Januery 18, 1486, Grnntora' predcceaeor-ln-lnLCreot granted n Wnter �':
, Line EneemOnt to Crnntee herein, whlch Easement wes described and recorded in
' Book 556� Pngc 418, Pitkin County Clerk and Rocotdar's Office.
i •
2. Tho Crantore ara dnsiroue of altering n portlon of the Youting of khe
� same xater 1Lna aasement For pucposeu of locating his residence nn n portion of
thc curzent rouCe of the wateC line. ;;��
' ;,�,
3, T'he Crentors, for and in consideration of the aum o£ Ten and no/100 � �
- Dollnrs ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration to tha Grantors in
i hnnd paid by ci�e CrenCae, �he receiPt whereof is hereby acknowledged, have
' granted bargalned, aold and conveyad, and by tk�ese presenta, do grant, batgain,
oell and convey and tonfitm unto the Graneee, its heirs end assigne foravcr, all
tha following desezibed easements of land, oLtuaCe, lying and being in Pltkitt
i County, to ait: � !�
. ��
s 4ACATION OF i7ATSRLINE EASEHEHT
� The vecation descziption ia for a portion of a waterline easement withln
• "Purcel I" deacribed in Book 556, Pago 418, Pitkih County Clerk Pnd RecoLd�Y'9
Office being J0.00 feat in width, 15,00 feet on each side of the eenterllne of
� the exiating easement, situeted within a portion of Section 34, Township 8 South, �
Aange 86 West of the 6C}� Princlpal 1letidinn, the centcrlino being more
pazClcularly deacribed as followa:
Beginning at a Point whence angle poLnt l70. 7 of Tract 81 b¢ers 5.27'42' (��
24" E. a diatanca of 1014,�7 feet. Tlience ulong 6ALd existing waterlinc f;:;�.
described in Sook 556� Page 418, N. 67'S7'48"W, a distunce of 74.75 fect to tha I��} �u,
Point of Terminu9. •x�.: , s^;•;
� �s� � "
BELOCATEU VA ERLIN� EIi56t�NT p'��' �
i`'.
t'
The Easement is for the construction, operation and mnintenanca o£ a w.� .
weterline casement lying end being 30,U0 feet in width, 15,00 feat on each �ida
oE the centezline of sald Easement, situate withicl e portion of Section 34, �•''',r �
Sownship 8 South� Rnnge 86 West, of the 6th Principal Meridian, thc centerliRa `.
beiag moro pnrticulerly described ao follows: s
1���� -
Saginztng et a Point wher.n_ e.ngle point No. 7 of TraeC B1 bears '
� S.27•41'24"E. of a dietence o£ 1014.17 £eet� this Point being the r `
existing een�eriine uc a wacarline eaoement flescribeu af�i�iu "Pc.c6i
I", Book 556, Paga 418 oE tl�e !'itkin County Clerk end Recordera's •
Office; thence depnrting the previously daseribed centorline
S.66'33'02"W. a diatance of 49.62 feet; thence N.64'33'16"W, a �
disCance of 29.46 feet; thencc N.13'10'08"W. a distance o� 10.00 �
fect to tho centerline of nn existing watorline described in eaid
Aook 521, Fage 601 the Point of Terminua. � '
Tfiis ralocated waterline eaoemenC is moro fully drawn anJ deacribed on
tba attached Er.hibit "A" to thie Grant of Eaaement,
1
"•1 :
y�y e J 1i♦M py,
� 4
r„ i� . .. ��f�� ���i,)����T�'�� +�`��,f�{i 1����t( �w�����a y..
-�1 f'� . 1.. f{�x. .�y f� ..�a � �y�;i t ��� a t�� �'�ru�I 1� �r .S c{� t��q��(
.�:.( ��- •� �t /.i�MS� r1�. �, 'w1 .�L+�{��.G p� i C F��
� �,.�:: �,. "` ;;��i_�` � � 'f'.�,��i{ti > � �'��
.�'�•h ..`�.?►r.- .� :t-�l�N t"« ;��il'.�:
' . i•'
�' . � Y�adV` lL�� �u���� �O .r-' .t''l, �
_ � ;y'' -
Conditiona of Crnnt of EescmonC: � '' �-r'
1. Thio easement is grnnted to Catewey of 9nowmnaa Neea Subdivinion
Propotty Ownor's Asaociation to ralocnte thc oxiasing wataz line, This
.,.� relocation Ss done for thc convenience af Grnntors, nt Lheir aXpetinn, oo that
they may conatzucC a home op a deeiraA builJing nnvelopa, and ao thaC thcy may
remove the weter lina frcm the exiatiag toute to nn alternate route. GtAntora ��?"
agrce to conatruct the nev wnter lino to maintain the curtent Water prceoure end
' volume from Ctantee'■ Meter Well to the Subdiviaion end other water uaera. `�±:;,•' '� •
+ C[antor ehall assSgn to Crahtae A two-year Wnatcanty covating matetials nnd '�.'' ;
wotkmnnehip whSch Grantoze ah�ll obtxin £rom Crantors� contrnctor apon "�}�:
; completion of tha watoz line relocation work, `
� �'s'?r
i 2, Intsrconnoction of the rclocated wntexlitte wit11 the exieting •�;:.`
waterline shall bs accomplishnd in no more thnn aix hours. Snid eix houre shall
1 bn betweon the houre of 10:00 o'clock a.m. and 4:00 o'clock p,m., ond shnll not ��?
be op a Saturday or Sundey, In additlon, the contraetor shall give the water '•`��'
syatem proaLdent a mtnimum of 48 hours pzior notice before tho intprconnection
work.
l..�i
j 3. ihe exiating tcicphone cAble (which ia a aignal cable for the waCer
� eyatam) ed�ncenC to the exlsting wnter2lne, ahall also be relocated ed�acent to ?��
the relocated waterline. The oplicing of this cable shall be eccompliehed
� during tho same time petlod ae the waterline interconnaction mentiotted above.
: i,l.;re
' 4. Ctantors grant to Crantee ah easemenC as deacrlbod above for the ��!'�
_ operetion, maincennace and repair of the vatar aervlae 21ne to Crantee'e weter
vell and supply. Thls grant Ls aubject to any othcr prior recorded instrumenCS.
5, GranCOrs rcaerve thc ziglit to grant additLonal eanements on end
acroas the eaaement granted herein, provided euch additional uses do not
, Sntcrfcre with Crnntee's facilities. � �
6. Grantee doea heCeby vacate and surrender any end all itttereste it +
_ _ :,� ."
may hnve in Chn £ocmer BASCment locatlan granted to CYdltt@8 exc�pe aa needed to .
secvica the new touCing of tha aasement As ehown ott Exhibit "A".
i.'�
7. CranCee agrces Co maintain tite aurfaCe of the main casement route
' in a clean and sanitary condition, to resCore the aurface to ica former
eondition in the event oE any excuvation or other activity neceeaary to opernte, '
, maintain or repalr Grantee's water line, ot any of ite fnciliCisn; and to
maintain its facilitics in the easement in n safe manner. Crnntea also agrees
. Co mnintaia and aezvice Cbe facilitlea within the zeloeated eection a£ thie ,^
easament. ? �
Fr�':1 rys..�
8. Crantee shall not kecp, leave or parmit mnchlnnry, metariale, � ��'?°
equLpment or auppliea on or nbout thn eaeemattt, except when acCively involved z �='
� �.;� �
!n maintennnce or zepair ectivitiea. i+ll watoY lines and other facilitios ehall g•� �4
be installcd 6eneath the auzfaco of the oasement. In the ovent of any �'"
disturbance of Cite surface of the ensement foz maintenance, the euCface ahn1L �`'
ba revegeCatad Wieh gzassee or othor ground covet similar to the murrounding �'.;:�
vogetation. Crantee shall not remove any trees from the easement, oxcept with
written coneent of thc Crantors. .,;:,:..'
9. Tltis ensement aha�l ba perpetunl and nonexclusivc, Grantore
reaorve the right to go on und upon the oasement with motor vehicles or �r1 .•,
otlierwise, to peature livestocl: thor=on, to r.rect fenceo, build roada, to
lendscaoe or atherwise improve t2tc ensamottC ao long as aucl� aotivities do not � �
incerfera wich Crantee'a faciliti.es.
10. Gruntee agrcco tv moke no clnim agalnst Grantore for any cliango of
quantity or quality in Crantee'a wnter nupply or !n tho ab111ty oE Cruntee's .
We11 to produce sdcquute snd acceptah2o wxter unlass nny auch changn is
astabliehed to be due to the nagligent activiCy of Grantors undcrtnken on the
rclocnted eaecmunt pnrcel. '
.
11. Thie agreement nhall be binding upon and Snuro to the benePit of tt�e
heirs, auccossoTe nnd usslgna of the pnrties and ahnll be conotrued in ,
gccordnnce with Cho laws o# the State of Golorado. The rights of the Crantee ,
2
� r .
� � � r .
,kr`a��r 3's^' �p ; +,�
_... � - , ' �. 1:��.: � .. ��i., IT� ,.. }..r'{M�k ��'�}tC'{ �� �!�4��►.�1+1kfF �. ��s�i,ty t`�r��� ��.�:
��' .� x�/.�+y�wk � �s �y'�.j��nw Y�` r"Tr}{1� 1.��y`�s ��4 .�t�t�s■i�' t���,.
� �� � ,- " � y�'I��1y`.W`.�;, i.� i���`�IL ,� ��' �'ry��`��e.�y� •�T� /]^ � yti�'�
� .•{�' . T`.:i�i�r`�R y :..�+�w`Vl'C�� ..:�: _ .IL�hS*�,.l���j�`�l�l� �.: � ..l
�s�74 �Y
Y•:t..i�..
L'��-
' ' R � (° �1 �``�-�f'J 7 '?:;- �`:.
>•. �.
shall noC bn anmigned to eny pernon ot entity othor tl�nn ona wlth the anme ' "
' � tighta nnd obligationm for providiiig watcr ae1'vlce to Cateway of SnowmnAS Heae '�.''�, +,„
Subdivieion, except with the cooeent of Grentor. ' -
12. Grantors irravocably and foraver waivc, relinquiah, quit cleim, end
releasa unto Ctantee ■ny righe, title� intoYeet or clnim Crantore may hnve ;°
egainst Crnntee in conneCtion with the conatruction or pincement of the weter ':
line or ite appurtenant facilitiea outaide of the wator line eASemcnte I.00AtCd ":Y�'
on Grantora' property. �.:
:�. _
:a � .
13. If thie agreement becomas the eub,�ect of litigation to reeolve 6 '.'7' � '
clnim of breach of thie eoacment agrecmenC� chc pacty found Co ba in breeCh or �3"
otherwlse in de£ault ehell pay thn ronsonable attorney's fees, cxpeneee and ;'�! +
courC coeto of tha non-breachln art Ie ia further a reed thnt urisdiction "`'
8 P Y. 8 � i;�:
and venue sliall be eolely proper in Fltkin County, Colorado nnd the Colorndo law ,+
ahall a 1 �7
PP Y�
! • �'-t
'i 7pCgTllEA with all and singulaC the heredltament and npputCehance■ therato •cr
belonging, oz in anywlse appertainLng, and the revvrsion ahd revereions,
remainder and remainders, rente, lsaues nnd profits thercof; and ell the eetate, ��'-
• right, title, interest, claim and demand wltiateoever of the Crantoz, either in
law oc equity, of, Ln and to the above bargainad premimes, with tha
hereditameets nnd rppurtennncee. ':'•
I 40 1IAV8 AND TO YOS� the said pzomisea above bergained and describad, with
j the eppurtenances� unto the Gtantee, ite heiro and assigns forevcY. And tho '
? Grnntor, fot himeelf, hie helrs, exeeutors, end adminiatratore, dooa covenent, �;i�
grnnt, bargain, and agree to and with Che Grantee, its heira and aseigne, thnt
" at the time of the ensealing and delivery of theae presenta, he ie wall oeized
of the premiscs above Conveyed, is of good, mure� per£ect, abaolute and
indefeasible eatate of inheritsnco, in law, in Eee simple, anA hae good right,
' full power and leWful authoCity to grant, bergain, sell and convey the eamc !n -
manner and form as aforesaid, and that the same sre froe end c1eaC from ali
, former nnd other grante, bergains, sRles, liens, taxea, asaessments end ?��
encumbtances of WhAtevet kind oc ne►tuTe, EXCEPT: U,S. Patent raservntlonx and
' exceptions of record, other easements, rights-of-wny and encumbrances of record, > `�
if any, and governmentsl rulee and regulstiona; �.
. the above bargained pzemiaea in the quiet and penceable poaseBSlon of ihe
Crantee� its heirs and assigna againsC +�11 nnd every peYson or peYaone lawfully •
claiming or to clnim the whole or eny pnrt thareof, the Ctantor shall and will
WARitANT AND FOAEVER DEFEND, The singular number ehall includc the plural, tlte
' plural the einguler, and the uso of any gonder shall be applicable Co ell �
gendcr. �(�
.,,
.�.,::
IN KITNESB WlIEREOF, the Grantor has hercunto saC his hand and aeal the �; �;�;,'
dny and yenr first above written, �, �;i
� ' F . � .
GATEWAY OF 5t70WMASS MESA '��� !
SUBDIVISION FROPBRTY �,
OWNE ASSOCIATION, INC, - Gzantce ;.;�
n � .l,.l,
� . ��� ny: :.,... .
Na�r/k �pn on - Crantor reeldent �'.
( � °
c�� � / 1/ ���
. .ij> a�T✓
K en M. oh eon - Crantor � +'
S Ai'E OF �Cel��u� i
CALIFO�RN�t� )ea.
COUNTY o� PfZQty�x`����'r .
v"�
of �hu forego�ing Crant of Eaeement wae ecknowledged beEore me thie � dey
)'�)l7•C-JI � , 1990 by Mark .Tohneon.and Karen M� Johneon.
Witness my hnnd end off cinl seel, � �
Hy Commiemion Expirca;�.')��H3 �
� �� �
� ''`� orcian��sen� Notnty blic �
;'�=` 'w.{'�` FFI.ICiTAS J.PFRRY•
`�`�'r 7ffi1t IIOU::YPIAfil.lr,-CLLIfOAdIA 3
��, •J PflRIC'f 1L uFfICF'W
?��^va�;%� insnuceiescounn
�!'`-,. tdy Cmnmi;:ion G�.Sc�l.7.1993
T
\�'�'• �J 4 ; : -� .
fj 1 4 j A1 .:. .. �b�}� !� :I�. \...:. J
,+,L�K�,"��td t�A�t�w.� �r �'�,i ' ,i:�� t GL l�t�'.�'4/ "!'���rt,,. � / .' .�,.�1� ���„' ����' » l����
�,ri� ,��:��,.� 7 1 �tTJJ�lr��� ,�� r t . � 7
� �. .. ..,,�.. .Wiis. :(11� � ._ ' .',.'�lit��'+�����&� ��iift.: . . :�....«,......:�TZ . . �tik .
^' Y� ...
. .�t�� �n3i�'
i - : , �� � �.�1{ r�r7 P��e y�� :�: ��;
, .
. � , . , . r" a'3
� STAT� OF COLARADO ) '�,y'��•' ''"
f )�a. �`� `��>%
-- --�-1 COUNTY OF FIYKIN . ) � � .�',-�
Th foCCgoing Crsnt of Er cm nt vas acknowLedgad beforn mo thfa � day :f r•
�`"� of � , 1940 by� • , President ! �
I� £or Cs.�eway of SnoWmnes He9n Subdivieion Froperty 0 'a Aasociation, Ine. k �
. � .
. I Witnea+ my hand and of ic nl eal. �''�`
�a u� , , �`.
�� My Commieeioa Expires;��,- !jt�;;t:;�,�
. i . �Ft"'••��
Norary Pu lic �ri �c
��1�ae.y)oh.... '
. . ����t4
� .� �� :� �r, �;.
, : ��;.......,, ., • �.
'.� '��:'��liln�`.'�- � �'�.~�
. 'i
. `�; _f_•_�_ _• ! . . .
'/`/ •1` . . - . - ..[�i
, � ' r�..JV r�o . . 'r
' . .��'I.^• ... .�. . . . . ' � . .
• . � . � . . N� . .
. . . . . ,��,�:
L
�
� � � • . . . � , ' .
......_'.-_�� . . � ' . . � . . � .�e.,• '� ,
�� � . . . . . . 1 �.
.�t!
'r
.\. � � ' . . . ;
. .. �. , � � � � �
I
! _ _
. i
. y;.
i � . ��. 1.
i ;;,.
. � � . � �i.� '�';'
.{�. .���l.
•I
j � . . . � . . , . � .I I .
� i
; �;tr:.,
� , t,�.
� � � � . . . r;�'.
f f,J�,�.
f
;.�:.
. � ' � ''�.(:�.:� .
i ' . .
!• �
\ �
i 4
.�
;"�,a
, . , , , ,
', � ., , :• '
ry� 2{ +h-{� �n,Jr ♦: ��q.�
. � � ���+��k,:� . ' .� � i.. �r.,.� '�..�,..r'�'_�� t:��,'i"������Jr� w��� Ct���ya��;;
ti��k. 1 �'.fi�,4.,<�i , v�?''�3�'�tf�1�5ti,: . ��k'�• � � #v�,•�� A�1.•
•l�Mr �`t a:�' � .�a""�s".�.� .v�"�-,�:d_��i�flv :"."�i,i.:..•_ , � �* 4'1 �t�i,,,� ��iU ..
. ' `��"
� � ��� , ti�� � � 7 � ����"/� :;;: ���ti.
. CzG � / . '
• S rZ*+�o 'y:.''•:�~,.
7�y�• y z . - .
13'E ' o �" '
15J.22' , � 'Tco�oa '�,c
c
_ . - Zc� �,t� ,
h��~~F�B� 'I�`
� ��� ".t:::..?-.
�
� , :
• gg � ;.:.;.>.:r�..
o ° 'r'
> N� PB�g t�_.':
y � o� ��gn �P.:.i•:7..
. �! �� }�. b7C ����I- � u�'�� . .�
� �
t1j � Z O� �InGjf+l , �1�.;� .
C
N �'�
+,� h �� �f . .: �:�
, l
f �^� �I�i ��J m �:j{�j � .
sryxry o p�ppp��� bLl� - / �_^_--_ �y�
� 1i� ��� i
���� � �� � �I��" .r��!� i�/"�-_—, r
;
�,�` � I11� � �/ � _.-� i ; ,/ / /• r� �``
� � a � �" � > >�'l� i�� .jll / ��f-'j� �% :���� . .
��1 � l��l.�'��c 1\1 1 I ' / � � �' � ��.
� 7 r �/r; sk � � �,�\Z 1 � ��,�; ;.`,,' �� 1 �.
�� , ir,X ,, � �` , . .� � � ._�,�!.�-�= ��,�
� , �}( %i'. � � ��\ .,� • � � .� �
- �� �"� ��,/�/,� i i �/) � >;\1�� 'I I l � 1 1 �
� '( .Y ' � i ��• ' � �' i / � � I I I I � ._
; \�, �'� �,,!� .� / • �; / ; / � � I � ; ll � 11
r� ��/��; ; , !�l � ; � � ��� �J ! �:�
��. � !
_� ; � �,/�,�!�J��/.�" ' � :�'"f',i ' -' ; 1-� — 7--�_�.�._.__�._._.---. ,,:`"
� � a.z .' ' �. -��— —� �
� ; ��j, . ; �^ � i •4BD.06% j_� -�- _y.__`------•---
�' I � .�( '�' d"s � . � �• ;��-1- -�'�-- — ---------------•
� \ i � I ;f:.- � � - l 1
, �, � t ; �• , � ' ,
� �,� 'j' /1�.=� w�, � _ , , ., � ���``J�, % � I� !I � � .
, r ,+ � D~ � , � W' � N G��� / � II l ! � �I .
1 S O N � pZ
� , � �1. �,��/°� A � ,' a ��� , / I , r�►n� ( ;'�
a� I 1 O1 : N Z+
� r a•
' � �"� !��.�I�, �� ! � � 1 � i /� �'���.,��� �\ / / /� ��� � �:�� �.:
5 ry 1 1 ,m oi ,/ / � 'i�{z � ! � / � + ��S ;r<'.
� w �/ � �� � �."% �. � �Z o�� � � / F/ � 1,: ,�
� ,�1% / � / i� �n� / �� {� I
� �� �I� � � � ,' � � � � �� / �, / � � i �#..' .
�. , �_ ;1 I ' l � ' i / I� � � �'� .
� � /
( ,i i � ! ' � i � �� / ` ' / $/ � � ���+ .
����y � I� � � � I I � j '� � � 1 � ,� .� � � / i '?`
; � � ;i�� � 1 ;. i , . � , I /
������ ' ; 11 �� �� j � I ' j ' I l i %��i � � � .
;, �� � � �� I ! / i / � . j `'; :. .
�
� . ��1Cqi y � � � !• ./ � ,� � / � , �
�e��� .. �� �� . �� , � / i � I `,f J . / .,. , ..
� 1
q� �� � �I�' �n �� /.��i � �
h��F�� �� ..� �, � � ��\ I �
���y�� �� °�� � ` � �� � .
a
'y� 51 � �� ' '
�O`'^o� �i � r�z U C �� � , .
v r�p '�1 ��7�. 1 M p p QipA . .
`��? � '�vJpo . �q'D
� �� �wv� C
�.o! ;,�;� .
� �
� k . �� �
� .
m� , R
T
� //�� �\
�V.I1 /� /'�T� / !
...._.. I......._.r._........
u ..
`k� � .�� � i: ' :i_ � � : ', x,?,.
1 a ��� y-; Y . i 1 ! . '� i ` � �"' •!`' 'eJ ryJFd'�' yF
. , � �, 1 �ti,� �1� ��x'. ''t4-r}�v r '� 4 - '" {� fr 't�''4'
��t. ,t•11M. ��.� .� J� , '�f µ x '7 �t,�
.�pl�ty .',th . n.a6�9EfC'7���' 'Si4p�. ������.rG:�r« ,�..... ,Gt •:�,''
�"a.
�::',`�1.�'.�
�;..
` � C�ARU OF CCi.G''..i:'�'S y�;� •;,
P{'1'��I�l E'.�,it:��i': r" ti.
� �� --s n���.:.. �.�.,,i�,;r ;_,.:»�e. ,�y• :'� ..
MEMORANDIIlI —���.;�_3-�;3...___ -�':
� �alE:_-.. - _ ;,i �. '
- -� " � TO: Board of County Commissioners ��. s. u!?.G--"`��----• ' ;
_/_�_
•Ub;:c,_._C.7_. �';i ,
Regular Meeting - November 23, 1993 /r !1 . •:, ;•
C .-•---
- • k:c•. _...._. ' :.-:3.-.:... ._
THRU: Reid Haughey, County Manager k �'`'�^
Suzanne Konchan Count Plannin Director �' '�'``
� Y 4 !i�;:;,
I RE: Guber Lot Split, 1041 Hazard Review, Caretaker Dwelling
� Unit and General Submission .�
� FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner � �
--------------------------------------= ?�t
_-____----�---------------------------------------------------
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting the following:
� 1. Fifty PeYCent Density Reduction Lot Split pursuant to ���
Section 4-6.2 of the Land Use Code;
2. General Submission Review pursuant to Section 6-3 of the 'k'`'
• . Code: .
3. Geologic and Wild2ife 1042 Hazard Review pursuant to �'
� Section 5-400 of the Code; and
p ,,
N:n..
� 4. Detached caretaker Dwelling Unit for each lot pursuant ;4�
to Section 3-8.13 of the Code. "'�.•"
� ( APPLICANT: The Guber Family Trust.
i
APPLICANT�S REPRESENTATIVE: Joe Wells, Land Planning and Andy
; Hecht, Garfield & Hecht. -�
,
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to create �� .
two 42.6 acre parcels with approximately one acre principal
residence building envelopes and one half acre accessory building ;
envelopes on each parcel. A new access road is proposed from the `•
existing residence to the pond accessory building. A copy of the �'
application is included with this memorandum. �';
` LoCATION: The property is located in the Owl Creek Valley,
in Section 9, Township 20 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M.
This site is adjacent to the Gerald Hines property, LPG-ONI -
parcel, and USFS lands. -
. ZONING: The 85.3 acre parcel is zoned AF-1. �.
ACCESS: The parcel is accessed via the Mandalay Ranch private i�.;�
�:. �.
access easement from Owl Creek Road. ;;;,, _
� , WATER: The parcel is proposed to be served by a domestic �
weZl.
SEPTIC: The new parcel will be served by a standard septic I `' i '�
;
t,`' �
.t:,.:.
. ' ����`�;!�,�`L�
. . ....._... . --�s:-..•:' V
._._..,.... .._.... . . . . . ..... .... .
. . . .. 4 . . ' _ . �`� ..
'
:f;:TZ:. . �
.t�- , ,
�ri
,w.,� ; •_w
1 ,Y :� , a.��-; .: . .. , , . , `... ..
��C. ti� � . . ' ' f . �����9������( �., � y_ ie � ���,.
♦ t ` ♦ t
� . ��� � .Y . r� ' 1 �rJ�� k,y'� '� �# � � ,'�,r , � ��,�( �:•
,'�',���' •,� : � �. ��'& � �,, a`�'" ��,,,` -,,.. y` ^,,, �'�, � f��'
-�y�-� g�K.��c� . 'M�.iu: . � �Yty�'..':
. -:,� ,�th a'�::
,� ..
i,- .:
� ;.
�
� ,,�; ,�y
- � system. • �
� � REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: The Planning Office has received �
comments from the following referral agencies. These comments are � ���` `
'' incorporated into the memorandum and are included as attachments � ,�' ,��'
in the following order. -+ .r��`
1. Aspen Fire Protection District - July 14, 1993 -
2. Colorado State Forest Service - May 28, 1993 �
3. Colorado Geologic Survey - May 25, 1993 .'
4. Colorado Division of Water Resources - June 24, 1993 i,y.
5. County EngineeY - July 24, 1993 -
6. County Zoning - June 16, 1993 ���
7. Division of Wildlife - June ZS, I993 ,.
8. Environmental Health Department - April 26 & May 26, 1993 F
9. Open Space and Trails - June 17, 1993 �::�
' � 10. Sheriff - July 8, 1993 '•+�,
11. United States Forest Service - July 14, 1993 �
' f,!.:
, ; EXISTING CONDITIONS: Guber Family Trust and a related holding of
- LPG-ONI owh a total of 722 acres. The proposed lot split will �
� divide the 85 acre holding hy the Guber Family Trust. Existing $;
conditions on the subject parcel include:
� 1. Single family residence on a knoll on the northern ?'��
� portion of the parcel. The residence was constructed in ��J•�
the early 1980's. •
� 2. A detached barn approximately 1,000 feet to the south of
the residence which contains an approved employee
;;
dwelling unit (Reso 87-79) . .•
_ 3. An agricultural building located beside the lower pond.
4. An outdoor tennis court facility. (1990 approval for a
--' covered facilityj.
� 5. A picnic area overlooking the existing tennis court. '.�
, 6. A paved access,driveway and several gravel access roads �
throughout Lhe property. (Please note, all access roads '
on the parcel are not shown on the applicant�s site _
plan.j
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION COMMENTS: The Commission debated ��
' the applicant's request on July 20th and August 3rd. As a result
v::
of the July 20th meeting, the Commission requested more specific � . ��,�t;
information from the applicant on certain aspects of the `' a�;•
t'.�
� application. These issues included information on house sizes, � '
building envelope sizes, a dog prohibition, limitation on use of t ;
the looped access road, restricting the entire 85 acre property to
one caretaker unit and a "trade-off" of allowing one more caretaker � :'
2
�[,-
G. . :•:, •
� ' . �:''. '� J
k
, . .._... . ... . .. - .. ... .. . . _. . . .1. ..
- •4 ,
•
,;:.;��� . `
tks: '
n,�A.
f•� I ' . _ � ,r ;_ ., .:
�
� . ` A° p�` ;1`�d * �x� >t� �c atp i'
.�.�. , � ll�t:s i.s�r.iv R,,{r ��rs�L `,$�1;,��,`tTl�' �� �' �,•.
", ' ' n+�5��ti�<� d y'��`'F.��at ..-+.�a;y� ,� � � ' ��. ��l!.
;cCf'.r'��f� i .its. t<-s1t:i� ;1g°.� �+�M1/„ 4 � ,�i� 1C"
., t •� ' _ ..'.,y-.�K,Y�+�f�'� .�',. "� �s�,,. r s .,v.: .
�� IT.. � f�.}r
%�:�. . ' ��`,tun ��t L'��:
'i..
��;; •�.
i.
�y'• -
: . ��
t ' .
_ unit if the agricultural building on LPG-ONI parcel is removed. �
� The Commission discussed conditions of approval for the project,
then voted 3-2 (Edwards, Hatfield, Krazoff)/(Reser, Whipple) to
deny the applicant's request. �:�:=:?, �
PLANLiING OFFICE COMMENTSS !�',''`:?'•�'
The threshold issue of this application is whether development is '�±•;;�'�,:- •
proposed within an elk production area. The 1041 hazard review `?::+' "
provisions of the Land Use Code prohibit development in these 1''=• •�
areas. The secondary issues are whether the project can comply ��+� Y
: with the requirements of the Land Use Code for Fifty Percent ax;
Density Reduction Lot Split subdivision review, 1041 Hazard Review �i
(geologicj, Caretaker Dwelling Unit and General Submission review. �r
section 5-400 Environmental Hazard Review �yk . .�
The site is encumbered by slopes in excess of thirty percent, '
. mapped elk production area and low wildfire hazard. Each of these �t'�.`'
- hazard areas are discussed below:
Wildlife habitat- The entire parcel is located in a mapped elk :;:
production habitat and critical habitat areas. The Land Use Code
discusses development within calving areas in Section 5-4o4.2(d)
as follows: "��
���'.
(1) Calving areas shall be left in their present natural state � '
i without further development.
(2) Auman activity and use of such areas shall be prohibited
during periods of calving activity as established by the
_ Division of Wildlife.
�. .
The Code also mentions development within proximity to Big Game
- - Critical Winter Range in Section 5-404.2(a):
(1) No residential, commercial industrial or hiah imvact '"
" recreational develovment, aaricultural use other than native
� pasture oQen pit mineral extraction or construation of roads
shall be Dermitted in such areas_ '• ,
(6) Harmful or disturbing impacts (permanent occupancy, dogs,
noise and other physical disturbances) shall be minimized in
a development or activity occurring within one (1/2) mile of �
elk critical winter range and within one quarter (1/4) mile i{'
of deer and bighorn sheep critical winter ranqe. Appropriate ?° h
measures may include covenants prohibitinq or restricting ��' ?��`�
dogs, restricting dogs to controlled agriculture-related use, �';� `�'-:F
� and fences provided and maintained by the development. �
I � . '
As stated above, the threshold issue is the designation of habitat, �
and the Land Use Code's prohibition against any development within
3 � �y
'
�`�'
�, •
I " Y
' > `'.`. .
��_
+::�%�. •
'fe.-.-�:.i:.:. . .
s.i
;
�f � ,•< . ' , ,� _;, ': -
. . f .� � �4 ` „y'� s�r�� i �sG � �y �
. , ({ k 4. . 'r! ���7i �'•riv t ?������� �•�, '��� F t�q'�r+l�.
a <. i'ti � 6a °' M � L ,� "� k , ; �d ti:�
.G��t y�'1 ',��i, '�,� `'�=�.` :,,� ��'.+r,��sr ,,. �± ��^�- �"' �Y� �'i"�.i 7�`'4'
' -e° K .:�.i;.�c• �!d!!•�fiA4!1'`' '..'+' �J'..
wY, Zt�•,
i..
;��i� ;
'i,.
.�y:1;•'f•
calving areas. ' �.
iDivisi,on of Wildlife officer Randy Cote has reviewed the '
� applicant's proposal and has determined that the areas proposed for
' development are no longer used for calving due to disturbance from 1:``�,`� '
existing development both on and off the property. Mr. Cote's :•
submitted the following comments on June 18, 1993: �^�`�. '
�C;•.jr.
� "The lot split proposed for this property will have little f?:��� "
� additional impact on wildlife. To insure that more impacts
will not occur I would suggest the following: }�;�
1. A common drive which is in place.remain the access for :'9;r
both properties. ,
2. That the employee/accessory envelope for Lot 1 remain :';'j �
small and access to this site be primarily across the �y�
, i dam, other roads to the site be qated.
i.�:
3. All roads that traverse the property be restricted in '
use, except the primary drive, to the principal envelopes �
and the accessory arms off that primary road.
{;•
4. Dogs be kenneled at all times. Perhaps a severe fine '
system ala Wildcat. r� :
�?�'.4
5. No further vegetation manipulation occur on any portion �� .
_ � of the property, i.e. brush alearing, tree cutting, etc.°
Staff does not agree with the Division of Wildlife in that dogs
� should be allowed on the property, even if they are kenneled.
Staff and the Commission recommend a dog prohibition based on the
� critical habitat section of the Code ,and consistency with past �
�� .
County policy. 4
The applicant has retained Dan Baharav who has prepared a wildlife
',,
6 analysis on the property. Mr. Baharav believes that the proposed ,l,
t lot split will not create any additional or new disturbance on
wildlife habitat. This is based on the Einding that the proposed
�, � homesites and accessory building envelopes are located within areas
� which are already subject to human disturbance. To minimize human •
impact on wildlife adjacent to the project, Mr. Baharav has
' suggested that the following measures be incorporated into the
project:
1. Create and maintain four new small ponds south of the t;�`
human use envelope. These ponds are anticipated to be � ;;"
used by elk during parturition and nursing periods and �%. .�¢'i-;:�
� � by other small animal species. The ponds should not be
, created by heavy machinery. � ,.; j
2. Regulate human activities outside the human use envelope f
4 1`;
�
�
:t' . .
s
,_a�
,,t.._`-.. . � .
;?.f
���� ., . ' , . . -.. �i-. ... . ' . -
• Z. � . � �''5+7��}r'' ,���T�:L���'��'" F; �a�'
,r ' i�t" +�ws-'N-_t !� r -$ i k�,�,. � �ay,�ti,'
,}4�t •[!, ' . ,.-,iM'�`'•'N��`�.�[�,,{ ::i`� ��'�' M �:]q.K .�`�7��'+��:�.�..�. ��rt�� O��(..
i�+• . ti. .��_� . x��` �f. �t�•.
, �J�L�;`
i -�j:Q�_ .r
�i.
i _�y�.•; ._
_ � during mid-May though the end of June. Hiking, biking _ � j.f"
_.- • and similar uses shall be avoided during this period. �
-,� 3. Create an educational program for people residing within -'{-;zs.
� the human-use envelope to facilitate understanding of the
/ . ecological merit of the habitat adjacent to the envelope. ��:-+:.�:.'�
F�
4. Dogs should be contained at all times, or walked with a ��.��,:;..�.: .
leash. i=.;':
;�:. .
5. The dense forest vegetation habitat adjacent and outside ;�y, ;�
the subject human-use envelope should be left undisturbed I�z�?
to serve as an effective buffer between human-use and l%;;'�?
wildlife use areas. a: ,
�.
The applicant has proposed that instead of kenneling dogs, an �;��
` invisible fence may be installed in the area of the building ' '•'�
envelopes. It has been the County's position that invisible
fencing is not a substitute for kenneling dogs because of the �?''
• ipotential failures inherent in these systems. They are only
� effective if special collars are on the animal at all times,
� batteries are charged, and dogs do not escape and become trapped
outside the fence. Clearly when dog restrictions are appropriate
and critical to protection of wildlife habitat, fenced kennels are
a much more effective and reliable mitigation measure. ,�';�
;,�,
The applicant has added that any new fences proposed on either { •
- parcel will comply with the 42" height restriction. Due to the
calving habitat throughout the parcel, staff does not recommend any
additional fencing to be permitted on either parael, as they are
an obstruction to young elk. .�.
�. Staff believes Mr. Baharav's comments begin to address wildlife �.'
conditions needed on the property, but should be expanded to
._ incorporate the conditions placed on the adjacent Aines
subdivision. The applicant's site is located immediately adjacent
to the Reservoir at West Buttermilk's 300 acre wildlife :�
conservation easement. The Open Space and Trails Board has
recommended that a wildlife conservation easement be obtained from
� the Guber Family Trust on the lands located outside of the human �
influence areas for the long term protection of wildlife habitat. '
The linkage of a wildlife conservation easement from the most
critical section of the Reservoir parcel should be extended into
the critical sections of the Guber parcel. ,� -
Staff is concerned with size of the proposed building and accessory
buildin envelo es. The rinci al buildin envelo es are ro osed ��� ,.
9 P P P 4 P P P d} . �_�
to be approximately 41,500 square feet in size (just less than one I,+-, ��_r;
� acre) and the accessory building envelopes are approximately 22,600 § G '
, square feet (just over 1/2 acre) . For comparison purposes, the ;1' �
Reservoir at West Buttermilk has proposed homesite envelopes to be
approximately 1/4 acre in size, or 11,000 square feet. These �� ;
�:
5
i;.
I'`,-'_
I
.s•.:
.
- � ,
_a; .
�t.: - . - '
;�..
�#� ., . . . . _ f. /�"..:� .':.. ..;. .. . .• ..:
. . � �.IY�j,�.' . . �.:. f ��1:, ' +ik-s•,tii' Y 7`�!"�'.Y �A.y��L`f� .F,�T�h Y L 1� ii� .....F ���},��'��
T�f � ti , �d��{���,�y1��l- ;�}!�� �� ` �t � .`x � �Jl,j t
Mf +'f } - tA'�1 F i��y�{ �'7}�fi/��* J � }i '�i�f4.
.,4r:. f � . ^.i�4t%=�.M�a� ;tds��•-�'����:�.ta..,:?'.. . i a .�}� ..
. � +��''V�ti.'
�..
��i� .i,
� 'L,
y
. ry.•',,i:j .
homesites include the principal residence and all accessory uses -
_ _ on each parcel. Staff is concerned that the zone of disturbance
� of the existing structures will be increased, native vegetation +
�i disturbance will occur, and there will be a proliferation of '
. r� accessory buildings and uses within mapped elk production and �
critical habitat areas if the proponents request is granted. The
IPlanning Commission believed that building envelopes of one acre ��'�°' �
� could be appropriate on this parcel.
�
� The Planning Office has learned that on several occasions a dog �. ;
belonging to the applicant has been running loose and has been seen
� up to 1/2 mile from the main house. Such activity by dogs cause ' �
a significant impact to elk use in the Owl Creek Valley. ;.l7
Moreover, a significant amount of natural vegetation has been
cleared on the parcel to create a new meadow area. Such clearing �.; '
as taken this portion of the property out of use for elk ' ��{
production. Staff believes that effective and en£orceable wildlife �+t"r
conditions will be necessary on this property should the
applicant's request be approved. This should specifically include �.�
' , access permission granted to Pitkin County and the DOW for wildlife �� �
• � mitigation monitoring and enforcement. .
� The threshold issue is habitat designation. Should the Board ��
determine that the proposed envelopes are located in areas which
� are no longer considered designated elk production habitat, an ..;
' approval may be qranted. However, the Land Use Code does not �`•�`�
,ai'.•
define elk production areas on whether they are currently being .
_ � used, but rather as a classification of suitable habitat.
. Staff believes there are two alternatives available to the Board.
Consistent with other 35 acre+ holdings in sensitive wildlife areas
(Droste, Sopris Mountain Ranch, and Tabeguache), staff recommends �'�
that the County request that a comprehensive plan for the entire
Guber Family Trust and LPG-ONI holdings be submitted prior to
action on this request. This would allow the County and the
- = landowner to work to achieve the maximum amount of clustering
possible on sites outside critical wildlife habitat areas. While �;
there may be a disadvantage in that this could prompt the
development of remaining portions of the Guber holdings sooner than
, they miqht be pursued by the owner, staff believes tha� the
benefits of achieving wildlife conservation protection and
appropriate clustering would far outweigh the risk of accelerated
development. Moreover, a comprehensive approval could include "
, phasing requirements that accamplish build-out at a modified pace.
i
If allowed to be developed in a piecemeal fashion, the elk herd
would almost certainly suffer greater losses. Clearly, the Guber ��;
holdings include some of the most critical lands affecting the �� ��''
� ultimate survival of the Maroon Bells - Snowmass Wilderness elk ! ,� �=:
herd. The County has been urged by many groups to analyze this �
corridor in a comprehensive fashion, rather than focus simply on
on-site habitat issues. This could be most effectively
6
,.. . ,. .4,
a
�i.:,_ .. . •
,v_i
.�......� ,�
,} , _ ' _ , , ' ,
� r . � x y.r
b �7 ��l' p��T�, .'kJ7.r^ 5y� w ' ��,
._, � � '1'� .. : '•��r.��� `6.v'�+t F'�I��J�C ��,j'. �-.,v'i���,t`'n�, �i x .��,��}���� ���
,'���� � . � ..�.;Yka��'`T���r�'�' .a �. ra�����,��'.'t� L1 �'�l",r�f'.-,�1."`,•.' 4 � . � -���n���.:
,.� �
_ Su�i� y,i�1.�;�
1, ,.
t:q, .c�
-i.
. -� Ii•, ',r,•
accomplished through a comprehensive plan for the property.
--- " If forced to provide a recommendation on this application in
isolation, staff would note that the area of the existing residence
and barn/employee dwelling unit are areas of previously approved �,,�`s:'
development which have disrupted wildlife habitat. Therefore, the
Code provision stating, "calving areas shall be left in their ���'�
present natural state without further development" could permit
modified primary envelopes (which contain the existing residence
� and barn/employee dwelling unit) to be approved for a lot split .
application. The envelopes should be restricted to a size equal �:'�',
with those approved under the adjacent approval, but no "further ` �
development" would be permitted. The adjacent site was developed ,:�?�
at approximately the same overall density as proposed under this "
lot split. Therefore, a limitation of the principal building • '
envelopes to 1/4 acre in size with all accessory structures �� '
included within this envelope should be the maximum disturbance y�
allowed. �
fT,.-�
Staff also recommends that at a maximum, only one parcel be
' . permitted to have a caretaker unit to accommodate a ranch manager
for the two parcels. However, no lots on the adjacent Hines site
f were allowed to apply for or receive approval for
caretaker/employee dwelling units at all. Such restrictions reduce
human disturbance in the elk production area. Staff further :
recommends that the wildlife mitigation measures recommended by the ;:���`
Reservoir at West Buttermilk subdivision be imposed on these
' parcels. These measures should be modified as necessary to apply
� � to this site and include such measures as a dog prohibition,
maintaining undergrowth for song bird and small animal habitat,
prohibiting use of trails on the property during calving season,
limiting hours of construction and the dedication of a conservation
easement across the most critical sections of the property. �-
Geoloqic Hazards- There are thirty percent slopes on the property a
-.-- which the applicant has indicated will be avoided in the
designation of the building envelopes on the Final Plat. The `;,
existing access road crosses steep slopes and the entire parcel is
underlying with mancos shale. A new access road to the pond
accessory building is proposed to cross slopes in excess of thirty y
` nercent, to avoid usage of an existing driveway which crosses elk •
calving area. The applicant has retained Nick Lampiris for a
geologic report in which the following recommendations are made:
"...Site 4--This s•ite is at the picnic site overlooking the
main house. New construction should be planned with a setback �,�
from the steep edges to be determined by a soils engineer when ��
the stud the robable swellin soils for £oundation desi n. � ��",
Y Y P 9 4 1�. .Y,;;.
� � � '
There are no serious geologic hazards associated with this � �
development, but the general comments are very important to '
have a trouble free project. Soils engineering is crucial for i;
7
. r„��::�.:.
. �..'i.'- :. J .
. . .... . ... . ` .,... � - . . •I ... .
. � '.
0 '
;�� �
,�._._`�.':�'". _ .
y��
� �1 �.� . .. � '.... . .. ..
o '�.I � :. !, �. � . . ...
�.. � � ,r f f'^" .F�+�.�` '1 v -.
. y �9� n � u .Y��Y
t�,� � 5: '�g
.. � 7,' 7 II�, ��, � i �i p� M�'
L�s�t��� ���� �T���;} "�e,�'��«'�134�f` '� 1 iV� W. Y �' � i AJ4�,���'.
. . ;s�, � ',�p�t� ��F i:� ���t'.��" �a ,�,` .��;� .
_ . �-.a b- ,-,ar.i'iLt a°`s � .
ri.�.'.�� s:flu� `�'u��
. __.. ,;��.:=
�a�,_ �;
. �.
,'..•,;.{'
_ any new structure to insure proper foundation design. Each '
" new home should be designed to the specifications of Seismic i
Zone II of the Uniform Building Code due to the proximity of
, two faults, even though there is no evidence that there has , �y:.:';?- :
been recent movement on either. None of the home sites • `'�•
appears to straddle a fault. !`.;"�`r��'
� .L.:�i��,_�:�:
� Drainage design is important for each site....The homes should �;; :�- -
f be designed to preclude the accumulation of radon gas." ''."•� � ;
� The applicant has also retained Schmueser Gordon Meyer who have Y'"�.,�
� addressed some engineering concerns on the property. This report t'�
I is also included in the application materials submitted by the "+�Yt
applicant. �:� �
, ek.,
The Colorado Geologic, Survey (CGS) has reviewed the applicant's �!;��
proposal, Mr. Lampiris's and Mr. Gordon's reports. It is the CGS's
position that the geologic constraints of the parcel are adequately R,•;
identified, and recommended mitigation measures identified in these
• reports should be followed by the applicant. Staff believes that
construction across steep slopes is not consistent with the
j standards of the Code, if another access alignment is available.
j However, the alternative access is a perimeter road which would
; create much more disturbance to wildlife habitat if used year
! round. The applicant's proposal is to centralize the road '�����
+ disturbance in the most congested portion of the property and close "'��'�
,
� the perimeter access road during calving season. It is with this �
� tradeoff that staff believes the applicant's proposal is consistent
; with the requirements of the Land Use Code if the recommendations
of Mr. Lampiris and Mr. Gordon are incorporated into the conditions
of approval. •�
; Wildfire Hazards- The property is located in a mapped low wildfire 9:
� hazard area. Although the Land Use Code does not require
---; mitigation for properties rated as low hazard, the State Forest
Service and Sheriff's office have submitted referral comments for
;
this property. �°
The only issue raised by these referral agencies is with the main
access road to the homesites. This road contains sections in �
excess of 16�, widths of 12-15 feet and has several sharp curves.
In the case of an emergency where evacuation of the area were -
necessary, a traffic problem could arise between outgoing residents
and incoming emergency vehicles. The Planning Office has forwarded ��
these comments to the Aspen Fire Protection District who have taken 1{`
a fire truck to the property and do not believe any access ;�t �;
improvements are necessary. f r,}+�
t. +r.z;�t
� section 3-a.13 Caretaker Dwellinq Onits � I
I
The applicant is proposing to construct a caretaker dwelling unit �' ,
on each parcel. The caretaker dwelling unit proposed for Lot 1 is �� �
8 '`
, � ``'
j:.;':
, f v
a
;e�� . •
�,r
� � . . ,; . .� �.;., �C� � t�L'; ��j i'r?+ ti��� � � .�q :
., � 1 „ , q�a' ^^�.o:✓� t ��.!� `t§',a: � "'� �. �1.��r.
) � •�y ' L11. �fi � < . rM ? :t R F � .. 'a� �� .y 1 pp { !-�.:�
�{���'� A' .~�MY���rISS r� �i'v'•e �'14��� � � .�f � l� . �7� .,
. � . .ti�.� ., ..�'" ..�,`I'L(k,.�:'.
'i..
;a ry.l :
,i.
f � .;r',.' -
� � �.li
� to be located within the existing pond building. The Lot 2 � �
{ caretaker unit is
_. proposed within a new bui2ding to be located at ,
� the picnic site. The applicant has an existing employee dwelling
unit, on proposed Lot 2, which the applicant would like to maintain
i ��.�:.':'- .
,; in addition to the new caretaker units.
- ::�.:
I Section 3-8.13(h) of the Land Use Code specifies: '����;
,�: .;:;
s{..,;_�.".
"The provisions of this regulation are for the purpose of �?:=° '
providing one voluntary unit on a legally created property in x • �
the County. Any unit granted under this provision of the Code !�,�,t
� shall not be used for �itigation of employee housing �?�;y,7
requirement established elsewhere ia this Code.°
•ii�
The applicant's request is for a new caretaker unit on Lot 2, in
a@dition to the existing employee dwelling unit, is inconsistent �y�
� with this section of the Code. The applicant is seeking a � �r
determination from the Board that the existing employee dwelling (� �'
unit be a "required" unit as part of the proposed lot split, ``'��
, therefore permitting a voluntary unit on the same parcel. Staff �
- believes this interpretation is not based on any Code provi.sion and
cannot be support by the Board. Specifically, 50� densi.ty '
reduction lot splits do not "require" housing mitigation. '
Moreover, it is clear that only one caretaker or employee dwelling
unit may he permitted per legal lot. Therefore, staff recommends i'',�
that the existing employee dwelling unit be converted to a PMH "�#�'�
affordable dwelling unit and fully deed restricted in order to � �
_ s accommodate the proposed caretaker units.
It is the Planning Commission's and Planning Office's position that
any additional caretaker dwelling units should not be permitted.
The applicant has one existing approved employee dwe2ling unit on e
the property, and additional density and disturbance of two ,��
caretaker units would be detrimental to wildlife habitat. '�
s
s Section 4-6 Density Reduction Lot Split
� The division of a parcel of land into two single family lots, where
; both parcels are restricted by covenant against further development
, I and the snbdivision will result in not more than 50 percent of the ' ,
density permitted under current underlying zoning, may be permitEed
provided the following criteria are met: -
{ij The proposed lots created shall meet the following
definition of a single family lot: �rJ1��
�`''.�- V �.
A single Family lot is a lot which may contain no more than =?i . �,'':
; one princi.pal dwelling unit. This lot may also contain an � �'`'�
approved and leqalized accessory dwelling unit vhich is deed ';. , �
�: d� i
restricted with regard to occupanay by employees of the �;.
community, as defined by the guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin .��?,,
Housing Authority, and provided that said accessory unit shall ,�,� .
9 :;';.
� .�
r ,., .
i
.,,
e
::"'ri';' •
.�i_ , � .
e,7
^�� ^ i..
_ �.. �- . �. !. � : �, j � �1-�yg��a 1,�. T r.°U vtr��� • � ya�p
. .. � � ,�L.'�; . � �'+�::, � -.11�� ,n4,yr� �,1+��''�''F` yr�� �-� J .:d�i��
2m ,�,! - {�y, �-�G • .i•�,(.�: ° 4
�,,�7�} � .-!�wyMy�'h":`'{�'f. le,d ��"'.•.�,I,'.�.�;�t,q„ �- �-� � ��✓fi't�.�-�. .
{ :�' -:.+� :t,.��e��IS4�' , 1��=�: •f!^,., .;f,y�.
p:,v,�.��;�j l�i',
"i:,
. -'��:r;;'.c� .
?� 'L•
�� -.r`' '�:�y
� not count as a unit of density for the purposes of the density , ' -
----1 calculation herein. '��`•�" ✓
s
(iij The original parcel must either already contain one (1j `�=
� leqal single-femily house, or qualify for a growth management d•'`i7' -
exemption for a sing�e-family hoase uncler the provisions of
' � Section 5-51o.Z; and 'r,
i
�iii No ille al dwelling units shall exist on the pro ert , ��`'=:"% •
...� g p 1, -,�€ ; .
or illegal dwelling units shall be legalized pursuant to .
Section 3-8.13(d) of the Land Use Code or otherwise. Any !'�;�,�r
dwelling unit unable to meet the criteria of Section 3-8.13 .�:�;'
I (d) or qualify for approval under these regulations, shall be ; .r
demolished as a condition of approval and prior to issuance ;�° ,
of any building permit for a residence on a lot created by the
, lot split regulations_ ° ��
��r
Response: The applicant has indicated that he wi11 deed restrict ';
the 85 acre parcel, prohibiting further development beyond the .E,c;
• pending request for approval of two single family residences, two
� caretaker dwellinq vnits and customary accessory structures. It
is recommended that a deed restriction and plat note prohibiting •
further development be in place prior to issuance of a building �:�
� permit on either lot.
� A reduction in permitted density is required whenever more than 30� ;;;��
of the total land area is encumbered by slopes of 45 percent and j' ,
- 1 greater. Approximately four acres, or less than five percent, of
the total property is enaumbered by steep slopes. Therefore, no
density reduction is required on this parcel.
�.
Section 6-3 General Submission �
The following General Regulations (Article 5) and Policies (Article ��
_ 2) of the Land Use Code are applicable to the applicant's proposal. '<
Section 2-3 Natural and Man-Made Hazard and Resource Areas- The `#,
applicant is proposing to build within an elk calving area and on
Mancos Shale soils. Sections 2-3.4 and 2-3.6 of this policy
` specifically state:
� It is the policy of the County to prevent the construction of
any improvement or the operation of any use which may:
' 2-3.4 Be unduly destructive to identified natural resources f�"
of the County;
M,;
C-
2-3_6 Cause immediate or foreseeable material danger to �� �;
� significant wildlife habitat or which would endanger a - � ``
wildlife species. F
Staff believes that development on other portions af the Guber
I . :
io
`( .,.
i '
- '�•`..
9
� !
i�.����� - .
,�'-'_ .. - _ .
.��
__ � � .
,}� � � . :.. .. , , . � .,°.r �:,< < -,kL ,Yy�ys; y at
1 k''' r7 �� �� � � ?' . r !'p'���,1.''"�._ y,�t'�[y ti� �y �'{3.1j� +��' .
f„� 1� ,� � � .� 7 3� s� �.,
.N a . r '1:'� , •. .�,��, ��f y asar����c JS C G7F� �i...`�4 Y� ,t t s s 5 �:.
..,S- S4�i .� .a, � 4S :..
� � x r ,� � �r le�:"{�. p'''4�-F �.`"` ,. . �:. V' '.L ��, �� S� ,.�'ti�
�.�'�� �, •,���.:�' �i`...F�i�, , �.e"�i.�- _ :F.� v, _�;�i 1.1;
,..
' ' .,:
`�j�T::
?� 'l.
. .�y:j:•�,I
-� Family Trust and LPG-ONI holdings could be designed to avoid -
hazards and proximity to wildlife habitat, if a comprehensive '
� planning approach was pursued. .��` r
�.
Staff believes that this request could only be found consistent
with this golicy if enforceable and effective wildlife miti ation '�' 'r� '
' CJ •r::; :'.
. j measures are employed (including those adopted for the adjacent :.'-.,,_:
� Reservoir subdivision) and if buildin envelo e sizes were reatl ��r •� _^
� 4 P 4 Y .a;:,.,
� reduced. Nonetheless, this policy could be better achieved through ;:. .
clustered homesites located outside hazard areas. �;;ti; ;�
� ''Y �
6ections 2-5 and 5-101 Drainage- The applicant's qeologist has ��>-�i:;�
identified drainage as a potential issue with the location of new ,=t�
structures. The recommendations of Nick Lampiris shall be followed
by the applicant to comply with this policy. ���
Sections 2-6 and 5-205 Adequate Provision for Water Needs- The -
applicant indicates that water is currently provided by two wells.
One existing well serves the principal residence and the employee
� dwelling unit, and fills a 10,000 gallon underground water storage '
- J tank. The second well serves the accessory building next to the ±
I pond. The Division of Water Resources indicates that only one
domestic well permit has been issued for the property.
� '
� Sections 2-7 and 5-20o Sewaqe Treatment and Collection- The septic �:;i�
� system for the accessory building at the pond was constructed �
without County approvals. The Environmental Health Department has
;. requested that the applicant apply for the necessary permits and t' ;
obtain inspections on this system, prior to use. The applicant's
consulting engineer has recommended that a new septic system be =
4 constructed for the new free market residence, and that a site ; ���
percolation test be conducted prior to construction to determine
final design. ��
Sections 2-9 and 5-202 Road Desiqn and ConstLVCtion- The access
-' road to the homesites does not conform to County requirements for �;�
' grade, radius and width in several areas. The Aspen Fire
Protection District has requested that the upper portion of the
existing driveway be redesigned to accommodate fire vehicles. The
`� County Engineer has recommended that the existing access road be •
upgraded to meet County standards. -
The Engineer has also indicated that owl Creek Road is presently
carrying substantially more than 800 cars per day and that each r'�
additional trip has a detrimental effect upon the capacity/level ��,,,�.
of service of Owl Creek Road. +4 z��.
�.
n-;�:
To minimize impacts to wildlife the Division of Wildlife has �4f,� ' � '
� recommended that the upper loop road not be used during calving ;'{' , 1
periods (May 1 to July 1) . This road should be locked and gated, �i �;.
and prohibited from all use. The Planning Commission had ;y~;:
difficulty determining who would be responsible for enforcing the '.�•;�
11 '=�::.
n•�r..,'.: �.
i
�' `
• :. �: ;`+....
''`'
_ ` . .. . ... . :. . . .-
e �
'z_^ . " .
.°1y
, �
��1: ��. -, �- '�:: .. .. �%.. � / r t���. ��j�� ' r�+� � yU� . ._}fi *���i
i ' `,s li�� ' �a�,y�"'t ,tj'S�•k7 �t�`r� �%� V. � t,l�������
��C�y- " a��,j,�� ��4. 'e l°��ti, ar� * iY��L � �A '��'4� '3.�
'. :31?�.i• T.f�� !;G .. �c l�Iw��r�''f 1s:w�,'�Et� Sn� �4FIY��.,� �/y � '��`-'
I+ ���
�k4� v;1'T^' ._iN1 �S .. .: �k.:
`�o.
J�:j� .t
� r�y:.. ti,.
locked gate, as the DOW does not have the resources for enforcement �-��
of this condition as well as most of the wildlife conditions. The
-� " ' applicant has proposed to construat an alternative access road to
the accessory building envelope on the pond. This access road will '�:�:�i-
be constructed below the main residence and cross the dam to access
the existing pond structuze. ,"'?�.�
I ';`
� Sections 2-10 and 5-203 Loqical Extension of Utilities- The °��;.:.:�%�- •
applicant has proposed to place utilities underground. Staff ?'" '
recommends that utilities be placed under existing roads to � � �
minimize vegetation disturbance. F�sv
� 1',',.
Section 2-22 Water Resources Impacts- There are wet boqgy areas ,;�4�'
throughout the property which provide important recharge areas for ;�;>
j wildlife resouYCes and water quality. �_,•. �
�ti�-
Policy 2-22 states,
...that no land use be initiated which would adversely affect "`��
the quantity, quality, or accessibility of the County's water .
' , resources;...or would result in...£urther destruction of
wildlife habitat...It is also the policy of the County to
maintain an natural vegetative buffer along its surface waters
such that the surface and groundwaters of the area are not
encroached upon by land uses or other human activities which ';�:w
could cause deterioration of water quality er impair the ;r�-•"
natural treatment processes provided by meadaws and wetlands. ` '
' � The applicant is proposing to construct four small ponds to improve
9 wildlife habitat on the property. The Division of Water Resources
` has indicated in their referral letter that, "...If the ponds will
'; intercept ground water, they will require well permits and a plan
for augmentation in order to replace the evaporative losses Y
introduced to the stream system." Should the applicant's request
be approved, staff recommends that this be made a condition of '�n��
-� approval.
Seotion 2-24 Compatibility with Adjacent or Nearby Public Lands-
A portion of the parcel is immediately adjacent to National Forest
Service Lands which are proposed for ski area expansion by the .
' Aspen Skiing Campany. A copy of the USFS concerns regarding this
development are included as Attachment 11.
i
' SuMMARY: The significant issue associated with this application `tii
� is the potential negative impacts to "critical" wildlife resources ' ��
by the applicant's proposal. The Division of Wildlife and the F�`•;; ,.:
applicant's wildlife consultant have determined that additional i; r,;'-'
wildlife impacts from the proposed project should be minimal, � �:�
because development is proposed within areas which are no longer ?�;�, i
°� used for eIk production. The Land Use Code does not define elk # �- �.
production areas on whether they are currently being used but as �`.
a classification of habitat. :�.i�
12 •�:�;.
1�`,t
4
. . � t'. .'� '
�.
. . . . .�. . .. � . . . . � .. .
Q �
!=Y� � '
. .t'-'...':��. �
�.s
_.. �. � �.�._, v -�---��-- �.. � �
a� , � . r � .. ��
.3, �' � � , 1 ... � � �yI � r tsi < .M�':
� .i�.�. � yT�! ��S,i,� wI.L��1M�f 4��.R '.� .y,�,y�r,'� l�.
�•a� j ,h• '� x .`� « . �+f r� . . 4 x:' ,�."Y�"�i.
���C '{!� .. �M�$:��•r rj,{�.:����E���,�!-,`: . :.� . �� �^f y���:, :
�f ...w��- ��.�' . . . ... .. . . . n" ��1�-i'
�c�
.�;�,j'T�
M: �i.
.. � 'i,` •.J.t.�.
.i �
- Staff strongly supports a comprehensive planning approach to the '-
entire Guber holdings be required by the Board. This will allow .�
a more appropriate clustering plan to be adopted outside critical 9
wi.ldlife habitat areas, and prevents existing zones of disturbance ;,,,;,::,:�'•:
�� � from being increased. "� `r
I,
If the County decides to approve this request, staff's recommends `
- that only the areas proposed for primary envelopes, including the
�.��
existing residence and barn/employee dwel2ing unit, be allowed. �
Moreover, these envelopes should be greatly reduced in size. This ' �i
allows general compliance with the Code provision stating, "calving �`�+:p
i areas shall be left in their present natural state without further �
development". The Planning Office sugqests a limitation of the
principa2 buildittg envelopes to 1/4 acre in size with all accessory
� x
structures included within this envelope. Staff and the Commission ,Kr
� i also recommends that no additional caretaker units be approved and -
that the existing employee dwelling unit for the ranch manager be .:�,�'-,
'>I shared between the two parcels. We further recommends that the
wi2dlife mitigation measures recommended by the Reservoir at West
' Buttermilk subdivision be imposed on these parcels, as applicable.
RECOMMENDATIONS: The Planning Commission recommends denial of the
applicant's request. Prior to their vote of denial the following
i conditions of approval were reviewed by the Commission: i;;�T?`
i �
; 1. The applicant shall amend the adopted 2041 wildlife maps to
. r remove the development area from elk production areas as
; indicated on the W12IS maps. The applicant shall file an
; application and receive approval prior to Final Plat approval.
:�
f 2. To mitigate potential impacts to wildlife habitat on the
j property the applicant shall: �
� a. Locate all structures (including accessory buildings) and
� restrict habitat modifications to the principal building `,.
� envelope. The principal building envelopes shall be
� reduced to one in size.
i �
, ; b. The pond accessory building may be used to accommodate •
! the existing caretaker/employee dwelling unit on Lot 1.
1 c. The applicant shall incorporate all applicable wildlife -
; mitigation measures recommended for the adjoining
� Reservoir at West Buttermilk property into this �?,�
subdivision so as to obtain continuity between the ���� '^`
properties for wildlife conditions and preservation � ��:
; - �
measures. �f - �
1
�� 1. Vegetative clearing shall be restricted to what is ��'�
required to establish horizontal and vertical sight- �`'
distances along roads and to reduce wildfire �'•:;S '
;�;:
13 �•_:i4:
,'
� `Y,.�-: . v
.�,.'
j '.
.. . . . . . . . .. . .. ._. .4 . .
0
;}c .
a�.%
;k,y t� .i t ' ,� f � � r ;
L_ .. . . � - � � ': �. 4 t� ,�O � � v R�
��� �i(r C .A - ti +l�;
� `. � � � v _ r� } J� .n.b Y���^�'1 � l
' ' .LI�. �'"��`4 "'�r'��;y ��"�'�t �:�7���
a� ^.� .„!.a ��;� .. , .d� .
� � : ��* '�'���`i*�l5�' '�';�lll.ia:��=:5 if"�t a f,<y,�
, ,,�,.�.,
��,..
:�:,� .,;
�y
'i•�� ':�
' potential. Shoulders of the roads could be ;.,: " .Ty
_ - ; revegetated with vegetation palatable to big game. .'.`••-
Any other vegetation manipulation including, but not ;;?, '
limited to, thinning, clearing or other forms of •�=:`;
ve etation disru tion, outside of the estab2ished �"'`�"�� ';
9 P i ': '-:
building envelopes shall be approved by the County :?,..�'.�,.°.:�
• under a wildlife enhancement program. �r,:;^;;;:..
2. The applicant shall delineate all areas outside of �`
the building envelopes and the primary access road �`, �
� as Protected Wildlife Habitat on the final plat. i� i
All human access by residents, c,�tests, employees,
I� contractors, etc. shall be prohibited from entering ��?.?
the designated Protected Wildlife Habitat areas
between May lst and July lst, annually. This
restriction shall be placed on the final plat. :����
y
3. Perimeter fencing of the parcel shall be removed or �.:
shall be compatible with wildlife movements, as �;''r
. � approved by the Division of Wildlife. The only
' internal fencing permitted is around the existing �
pasture (to be delineated on the final plat) and .
privacy fences within the building envelopes. '�
4. Domestic livestock grazing may be permitted only as �'•�•
� necessary for wildlife-oriented habitat management, .;+'��
; and only as authorized by the County, with Division r •
� of Wildlife concurrence.
! 5. All roads on the property, other than the primaxy
access road, shall be locked and gated from May lst
to July ist, annually. These roads shall also be
� gated to restrict vehicular use other than for �:
- � occasionaZ property maintenance, during the �
' remainder of the year. �
__,
� 6. There shall be no new recreational (hiking, mountain
S bike, nordic skiing, equestrian, snowmobiling, etc.)
trails developed on the property. Existing ranch
� � roads may be used for recreational purposes, with s
the following seasonal restrictions:
a. Snowmobile(s} use shall be prohibited
throughout the lot split to reduce disturbance
to wintering wildlife, except as needed for
� � nordic trail maintenance and safety ;,
! considerations by the authorized ranch J, `'''
p2rsonnel. � m��
� ' �$,, �
' 7. Homeowners and caretakers are prohibited from having �( ; 1'
� dogs and from bringing dogs, or allowing those of
their guests, from entering the property. All dogs j
� `� ,
14 `
i�:::t'
� �
�;��-
i �''1`;:
I::
;
r I'• �
__ . _.. .. ,.
_ .__. _ . . �'
e
�tir�.. ,
cu::: -
.°1,!
. _
� ' �` ':.t� J. f
� �
� ��� P .V: .� ., ! r�, f : . .
h� ':.'. C. r + ' � i(' ..f,JT' � y
, f j�ix�. `- ��t' �� .•AL ����.
- �' r, r i4�5; .��. ,
.,, , � , ..'
�S�e i� . � � � �
,�d�� TR-� 'W . .,'•�j�k!"�y��y'� )�.:��4;. ;,.�': �..S';:° �� n^ti91.��4..
a�r' � � .> fit ;i�y,� r + (7��,
�' "�I��`.�. .. ._ _ . ..:�..���L '�:=
w
;'i .
� �'Y�� .l'� .
.. _� � '�y,/.• �,-�r%
are prohibited on the lot split property. �.'?,-�
-- ' Contractors shall be prohibited from bringing their �,,';•, '
dogs on-site, even if doqs are kept within vehicles. '
:-�
�-� 8. The applicant shall grant access to the Division of
Wildlife and the County to enforce the conditions �����Y�
Irs::^.:.•...
� of this resolution. ��;-`,F_._,
f:
- 9. All cats shall be kept within residences and be ��
,:�.,.
prohibited from roaming free. Cats shall not be fed �; �
outside.
t`�r
10. Residences shall be prohibited from maintaining any
,'I livestock on-site. Horses shall be stabled within :.
; the approved building envelopes. Horse pasture
, shall be limited to the existing fenced pasture (as ,�:��_
delineated on the Final Plat) . .�
' t,�;.
' 11. The following measures should be implemented to
+-:.;
, reduce potential bear problems: •
a. There shall be no dumps associated with the �;
development.
,�'a^:�.
b. Residential garbage shall be placed in a bear- ;���
proof dumpster or individual bear-proof trash F .
� containers.
c. Residents shall be discouraged from usi.ng a
F compost pile for gardens.
t •;
d. Homeowners should be educated about bear and �• .
other local wildlife via a homeqwner's
� brochure.
�
i 12. All residents and perspective residents should ��,
� receive a homeowner's brochure which details
N information concerning human safety in lion country.
' fi 13. With the exception of bird feeders, the feeding, � ,
• baiting, salting, or other means of attracting
! wildlife to individual yards or facilities will be
prohibited. �.
. 14. As discussed in items C.11.d. and C.12, a
homeowner's brochure that discussed tips on living ��� '+
with wildlife, what impacts are, and ways of ,�,
minimizing impacts should be made available for all ' i` F
�' residents and guests of the lot split. The y_ ��.
applicant may wish to share tha production costs of �K; "
sach brochure with the neighboring The Reservoir at `;, .,
West Buttermilk subdivision. Such a brochure would :;;3 ;; �
: IS:, i'
i 15 �.,.;� ..i
i.;7u";
1 �,�
�� Y
. .;�,'.,,_ .'
. . . ____... ..._. .. . ... .. . . . . . . . . _ ....,, .. .. ...... .. _ .._ ... _ _. .�. .�„ �:
�
� �
.�.;;�7' '
tY:'. _. • . .
;t?�Y
<-r
a; J
�i 'w} .� � ...
t s '���.��MZ1�J1 .. :.�Y `::i, , f ..�� ,�. ���'it / �.. ��ti; b : ` .'.
� �' � n.p.� c . i Ir �.�' n�
�"�,p . .. �4. ��� � r� �' . l�y
i � . :k'.�r .. • .,.f.Nn i71 �'� �~4.�! � ¢��� �r.� {� �'�' ti4
• ��t' N4 . ����'�� ,c � .'_ .... i{ r'.� j, �''.
. , .
' ! • �: � +.!(���.�II. I!°�.'� s �.� �14. W �t ��
�S y�. �•p���
! . ., . . .�T �:. ":+.ilt .aW2'�t.:. .lt.'-q�0lM7" �i�S.t
� �. -�
. �. . ....... .. � . .:,�� �n-
.y, .'-". . .�: . .. ,.:._ ..„... ....... .. .
i.
3 :d.�'� ��:
• v 1.
— � .`r.:',�':+'r
discuss, at least, the following subjects: �;.�,_~ �
~ a. The perspective of the wildlife community. t%:.;, s
Residents have moved into wildlife habitat. �s �
-F They have already caused some degree of direct :
y,��: and indirect habitat losses by their purchase I .;�r �
� +I and are further exacerbating the demand for � .;
additional developments in the area. While �� ,
•,�j . many potential impacts have been avoided, �.':'' :
minimized, or mitigsted, there has been a
� permanent habitat loss fhat wildlife will have � q
. � to adjust to. Residents will be educated about ��,:��i
what planning went into the design of the
development to accommodate the future needs of ��
�, ; wildlife and what they must do to insure that ;
; this wildlife use continues. ���
�'�.
� :
I b. Residents should be educated that they have <
certain responsibilities and demands that go �;''
. along with living in this situation.
c. Landscaping- what looks nice and what will not �:
be eaten by deer and elk. The Division of
Wildlife is not liable for game damage for °.
r^,:
landscaping. �:+�:�
;�,,
{ d. Fencing- why the development is restricted in � �
- S the amount, location and type of fencing that
� can be installed.
� e. Building envelopes- what they are, why all :
� structures must be contained within them, and ' .
: why vegetation manipulation outside these areas
� �
- is prohibited.
� ;'
f. Pets- why they are prohibited and what their
impacts to wildlife are and vice versa. ?'
' g. Bears and mountain lions- as described in
. . conditions 11 and 12. '� ,
!�
h. Predators- what species are in the area, what
' they eat and don't eat and safety
! considerations for small children. '�i�
. N.
i. Impacts- what they are and how to minimize ` M;
them. �'
,_` .�:
� ! j. Feeding wildlife- the do's and don'ts. ; �
I ;• I
k. The etiquette of watching and photographing
wildlife. � -
F ''
, 16 ��','i.
F`-
1 ` :•+..
i:�;'.
`,`.
i _.._ . _._...._ ..__..__ , ..
_. _ . _. _
9
. /
���• .
�<:T:.� .
:.{1,.Y .� ' � .
:��.
u �
, �•,
�+A,� , ��,. i a : � . . �`�'., �r r . r ' .� -i' _ �.
l, ';1'�r '� .• ` ti � „'�� ���+':�� � .'nJ7p�' �.0 �, . . �T
' �.'�• . '_ �� �ix '�$}% �'�1.�4. ���,� � �w ' . �• ��'Vy�:
�t�+��� •,1, - � ei y�;� ^.� f��'f; �.v�S.���� _'n '3y�`t�a± ..��i..���
tY:�; a� '��k�' :'°'�� '��' '�laYY tJ., "�r�t..�1t�S� .
.:�"�=�.4�� �i'
� ti; 'r•
i :{;15•t�
' i• 'l.
j
� .�y�'�� '�.,�
1. Dealing with nuisance wildlife species, such �•��:, �
'" �� as skunks, bats, weassels, woodpeckers,
landscape eating deer, etc. .:�:�
9r
%�� m. Avoiding deer on highways. ' � .~
;�.: `:x'.
. . ^r:,:e':,'�:..
� n. Recreational activities including horses and j;t;�:._,.
their im acts on wildlife. �`�-•
P �r;.•
o. Seasonal use restrictions- why residents and �j,�k'.
guest cannot hike though the Protected Wildlife
Habitat to look for newborn elk. ;%��
� d. Dogs shall be prohibited on the parcels. �.; �
! � e. The applicant may construct four ponds as recommended in °'��:'��!
Mr. Baharav's report dated Apri1 15, 1993. (Exhibit "B")
<k,
f. No construction activities, except interior building work � �
� - between 0900 and 1600 hours, may take place on the
property from May lst to July lst, annually.
:�.
g. The upper loop road shall be locked, gated and prohibited "
from any use from May ist to July ist, annually. The '�
location of gates shall be shown on the Final Plat. ,';;��
� h. Through Covenants and Plat notes, lot purchasers shall r
be made aware that elk production areas exist on the
� property and the effects of human disturbance on these
areas. Draft covenants shall be reviewed and approved
i prior to Final Plat approval. {
� 3. The applicant shall deed restrict the subdivision against �!
further development or subdivision, beyond that of two single 4
—� family residences, one existinq caretaker/employee dwelling
unit (which may be transferred to the pond building) and
j customary accessory buildings. Said restriction shall be
� noted in the subdivision covenants and on the Final Plat.
'� Said deed restriction shall be in place at the time the Final ;
i Plat is recorded. •
i
4. The applicant shall meet the recommendations of the Aspen Fire
Protection District for sprinklering and access improvements. �
� 5. The applicant shall flag the proposed driveway realignment for
review and approval by the County Engineer, Fire District and �?�, . ��
Planning Office, prior to issuance of any building permits. 4, �_.
� 6. All utilities shall be placed underground within approved `• I
driveway(s). ��� '
� 17 �
�.t�:.
� - b-;,`•`i�'..
�F :�� 'S.��.
�
�. .
� .
. ..� . . . . . . . .. . . .. . _._.. ...... . .. ..�..�.
� .. .. . . . . .. - ., . . . . . . � .•..
9
� .
.�'7, .
;,�:. -
aT,
��1 � 1..�F• i . . '_ J . � . , _.-,. .'.. . .,:,.
p ��-. .. � ._ '�✓ ,Y � , - . � , .
.`it . ` � �� � "��� � n `i ���t���:
• �v . . -?'' k ,>�'t�i�1 .w4„a.`�- m J�� 'e
d� ..�` �y' .��1�i � t t� MS s � � t4
� ���': �� ?i?' "�,�M'SM��� ,?yg�t��"'��§�'' �� � � �� � �i..- .�,.� �':
�r.�'�.` . 6lRllat:: �`�"�`.�}���
..'W;..;��+�:r'
. i�;���.��
i� 'l.
.���"�•�:r'
; 7. Prior to submission of any building permits, the applicant ` "
____ shall meet the requirements of the Environmental Health :`+:,-�
" � Department for water needs, septic system and air quality. �;y • '.
8. A domestic water su 1 with a g g r r
;. , pp y ppropriate water ri hts ranted ,F;;:`•i' '
� by the Division of Water Resources shall be established by the
: . applicant prior to signature and recordation of the Final ������ ,
Plat. ��=
�:
'a+�.:
nr..,':•'''�
9. The following conditions of the County Engineer shall be
adhered ta by the applicant: �f��'�
a. The applScant shall agree to join a road improvement x��l
district far improvements to Owl Creek Road should one
ever be formed. , '
t�:.'�. ..,�.
b. A licenced engineer shall submit an erosion and drainage •���
t,:_
control plan consistent with County regulations for
" approval by the County Engineer, prior to submission of ..f,�';
, any permits for new construction.
10. The applicant shall follow the recommendations of Nick
Lampiris report dated March 30, 1993 (attached as Exhibit "C")
for constzuction of the access road to the pond building.
grading design shall be certified by a ;;'�
( li. Foundation and �-�
� professional engineer who shall review soils engineering j�I..
studies at a site specific level to insure property foundation
design.
c
6 12. The applicant shall revegetate all areas disturbed by
construction within one growing season of construction. �
; Revegetation provisions shall be included in the Subdivision
� Improvements Agreement with associated financial assurances.
-"�� 13. No development, including vegetation removal, is permiEted
outside of the approved building envelopes. �,;,
! 14. The following I041 Hazard Review Warning and Disclaimer shall
, be placed on the Plat: �
"The provisions of these regulations do not in any way assure
or imply that areas outside of designated hazards will be free
from hazards, or that approved mitigation measure will , �
quarantee the safety of any property."
15. All material representations made by the applicant in the �� �'��+'
application and public meeting shall be adhered to and .:i, -�,'`�`..,,�
�y considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended ' i -
by other conditions. �� ' �
r
18 �l�
�i'''�`� ,
f
_ — . _.... _ �
1.
,
�';;' .
,.k�: � .. . ..
.�e
:�� �
... j. 1 .j � 'rW, i 11'` � ti♦, r f ��"� �,.L'(. > x;��„� y-. �p
�� ' � ��� ���'i�x�. + �••��� �'�`� q, r� h���- � ��6�•7
n
L�r,`�`� s �.�,�� ��� c� > i' 4, ,. y
�
A� .._ :-_<.��i .. ,.;`'"s,�� ., '• ' ��•` -a� . :� P��� '�d�S�.
DOW Glnwd Spgs 7EL N0.303-945-0561 � �un �ss�.yo �.�,v rvu.vv� ���� � -•��';'-•:,,�'ti'��'
/47y1/c'�t�y�i � ;�_r',; ,�� .
STATE OF COLOMOO Re�q TO
poy Rom�y qovernor • F '�:�=
DEPARTMENT OF NATURltI.RESOURCES `p1AR.1dp -.y'+; �.j.
- . _ . DIVISION OF WILDLIFE d ' -.'�
ANlGU�I OPP01171MIIY WMOKR � ',�;.,-.
perry 0.OIsoA,Ok�Mw � � �. . . i�
. � 60E0 arosdway :j�.:� .
Wiwe4 Cobndo A021e ��D�r� :.:�,,.•.. r.
Te�q,nen•:(awl so��noa LiiF�'tii OF i;I.l':}'ri:i:i it'; �'vc,
;6 i:�.�;i '.�'i:•i�y For�ldl�J'e-
,, , . ._ .,.;�r.: . ForRroplc ; �.:
�411��t�ck++er U �, ._// �3-�_.3._.r-. �F . _
��
t „�.� i7;
P+�;.. �,,,.�,,fl�►�� ::�,,, ,; _ ._G_�4 -- .
..:., __ :
h��� ; �
.. ,, r.. _..--- �`�'�
. , _..... _._.__.__..
il� 4
� r ��
� � C�ow .. 3�t
o.,� ,�
Z�
ia.
��',�
�C! �v78E. tt '��
I � ��C1°.�0� tOr �'{1`r Wa�� �t�1Q. ��iT�-Q. �;�^.
- ►k�e l0�-5 1;i- t���h�.� rxe�e. ti �s
i �cl��e�.t iw.,�,o�c#� q�. w•ldt.�"�. To �ns.►re "^�C` '
I � 'i�
� � w�� � ocr-vr- S u�n.►lc� sti4��• -�(� �o\to..a�.o� w���•Sa,�to.s . ".
. f ;. a... Govv��..�,�.- e�ri� W k cS,.�,5 w. �10��.�.. r�w« ��.a. cic�ces5 `,��
� �,. �jp-4-c� �,�p�.o.�'.es. 1 � .
�+ 2.. �� 1`�e... "'"'S�/OaCGeSSOC.� Q.�+V3ttO�Q, �r �o� � '�b'� .
; 5,�,\� G+-$ c�u,v� � �-t.�s Sr1-e b� pr.v�..�•� ocae�s ��.
aRaxh� (9�+a-r toods �o -I-(.Q- st{tic. b2- yc��'�ec� . `
' 3. fti t rt�o�c9 s i�-}- �ra,�erse �-�¢. p m�ex��-y �aa t�s�+�•��. �+'�xa_ ±t'
,A,�cQp}. tt.o._ pr,�••� dr,�e ��o � pn�nc�pal 2•�►ve.iopes a..3. �`
. +{„�, octce�'e►� aon�' �4`�.�- p�n•ra� re�ad,
q. p��s 6Q_k.o.wtial�ol �- a_\\ i,.,.es. u.1-h�ps � S.e,,ee,e.�c
; S,�g�.�., o�.l�.. �,.t.�tc�,�r • � :
� �g No i',,�++�e�- J.25.��.�,,a,. Tnah�pu 1c.Y-,e.. cccur' on 4i%ry��'",,.
' G7 'i"�aQ- �fb?C.r-{�+t !Q �?lv511 C.,�Qcafy.n�/�E� G'tl��v.� ¢�-., , ..
i
�`I � '� �..
: ��:.
i � ° ��f•`��'(
;�� 1:
OEPARTMEN7 OF NATURAL RESOURCbS.Kenneth Saiazer,ExecutHe Dlreclor �
NILDLIfE COMMISS�ON,WlOfam R.Negbery,Membar• Eldon W.Coopo�.Membar• FeNz Chavez,Membar• Rebeccn G Frank,Mambc 'i ;
Louis F,SJWtt,Secretary=(3earge VanOen9erg,Chairman• Amald Salaznr,Mamber• Thomes M.Eve,Vka Chelrman ?r.�::
R 'r.
9 •
� .. . . .. .. . �,.5 .
���µ.;.' . . '
`L+�.I .. , . '
�� .
~'�`y, e t ��S� t t. ..., ' .. <. ^
.`� � ��� . . f � . .�, ���. L , ... -�... �
� e �P,v. �tQ�
•j k',, , :r i� 1 t t n a-Y 3�''Aa
,T . ",i,' ISj,� 'n,�`��.����t� � 1.�� �1/R�i
! ta,y��",� ° `�.�4 �hx ,�, 14
�. .. . �. . .��f .±.�,�' �d«!�, �� �,�si�����44��fi ,,� , _�r"r.:. 1 , c� :r� C t�.
. .�. . . "*'a r.�4�.: y �°d � �a v ":
i• -'.ti ,,,�'4'�'',
�w
i -
I "!1�T� '�.
� v� �l.
___._ Joseph Wells t'ir;�!;i�Crt i;::.ti:.i�!i•'rl;t:i F S �`y,:��'•'y>
;-�i!�!,!"{�i.f:.ii'f �
, ;<<.
;�. . .�-.ri��;a f:•:�st!�!s. . ;.
J Josa�hWells.AlcP L;ic '// 23.-.�3 ._�: ..'.� . r
• ! tand PUnning and Design �} .� ,
� :�1.+.,;,; Ira�34.."-' • '`• --
� /f��� 1 s':L:'.;r::�.
November 17, 1993 � "�'c•. _._..._...._..._......_..._ .r ;.:.
��..:
� Ms.Mary i.ackner ��.'�`
YY'C
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 1
13d South Galena ��, ^� •
Aspen,Colorado 81611
�:•:,�'�
� � Re:Guber FamiIy Trust Lot Split ApplicaHon V'Yr.
. � ..k,�'
Dear Mary: �
:,
I am writing to follow up on our recent telephane coni•ersations regarding
the lot split application for the Guber Family Trust property. As we discussed, �±:-:
I beleive that our application as filed on April 15 is rnnsistent with what the ��t,Y�
' applicant is presently proposing with one exception. The April 15 application �
requested approval of two lots with approval for a principal residence,a
caretaker unit and permitted accessory structures on each lot. The applicant is
now requesting approval to maintain(or rebuild,if the applicant wishes) the _�.
exisring deed-restricted unit within the principal envelope on Parcel 2,in
addition to the caretaker unit within the accessory envelope on that parcel. I !��"
--- suggested Yhat that could be accomplished under the provisions of Ordinance
91-11 but you responded that the language of Section 3-8.13(h}prohibits the
+ creation of two deed-restricted units on one parcel under the provisions of
� � that particular secrion of the code. The relevant language is as fol]ows:
� ;
� "(h) The provisions of this regulation are for the purpose of providing one ;
voluntary unit on a�egally created property in the County..."
We discussed several alternative solutions,aIl of which seem to us to be a
little complicated. After discussing this with Andy Hecht,we would like to �.
suggest the following solution. The language of the code suggests that only :•C ,�:.;
one voluntary unit may be provided under this provision. It would not,in �1`- `
� our opinion,prohibit the BOCC from requireng that we provide an employee 't' '��.�
dwelling unit as a condition of approval of the lot split application. The �� `; ��
applicant has the right to withdraw the deed-restriction on the existing
volantarily deed-restricted employee unit as long as the unit ceases to be a ''- ` ,
�
(i0?1lidlmJ i':vk Plx.r � .?^;';`.���
As�xr,tid��-uk�KIGI l " ::�:i�'.>..
TekmluzK�.1Q11)?iJqk;O '
Pa��irniie f{(NI 9?i�R?ii .
�:.
, . .. � . . . .... � �� v
. . . . .. . _ ,,... � ... . .. .... _ . ' ..
• .6. .
�.�xtJ.� � � .
''[�c .. . � . . . •
:AryI
i 1 1
� ,
��f� �.: .�n . e .
,�' r d ' S��i{+ L'=r'�r -: ::t; ra;; i/ . � t � ' _".` .;.
Z,.� ,J`J2���/�`.;� .`< � wu .,4 t �fk�.4 '"J 'J °it� y� '*"' Y,�
�rrz r �.: ,. �..o ��T K'a�� �.� t • •
` � �a, xj,�. �j � y ' � 'ti
_ � ... � :�� � �ty�lN,v.` yc �t"�r���'.;'�F�y}� .�2�-, d F x.,r�� t-��
. . . . . . .•�,•s, . . :,:4.���!`'�P'i } �. �:
� •,.'�a�.•�� . .::�:."r��
; . :,;
, ;.,.
�"� •
, 5��;��.a•
.. ~S
" � � ' ,, � : ..
Ms.Mary Lackner ' �.''
- - November 17, 1993 ��`•�'.
Page two ';j'.Y i.:
f.. r'
�,,,�� • dwelling unit The applicant would not object to the BOCC requiring that this :
: unit be maintained as a condition of the lot split approval. + -•'�
� :
-- One other issue which is not discussed in our application but which has rnme n�,:.��� .�
- up in subsequent rnnversations is the Applicant's willingness to limit square � �:.'
footage below that presently permitted in the AF-1 zone. We will be prepazed �: '�
to discuss that issue with the BOCC at the hearing. ���
� .
^u-:
•�j If you need any additional informa[ion,please contact me at your earliest � ;..
�� convenience. �,�
�rt�'-
,
:
..�:,�..,
� '�
'Sincerely, .---�7, � � �
•� . :. � .
1��� .
`'� �-----_— . "�, •
�� oseph Wells,AICP `�
�/su • .
cc: Andy Hecht
. . . � ��R•. .
1
�4
. _ . � . . . �� ..,
.1 . � . . . 'I. .
1 _
�
J;
- � � . . �+ -k..
. . � �. �� . �'
. � � � . � � � ��'r
�-�:'�-�_.
! ��' !t�'
� � ,, .��
�..�.: '`�•
i t I
;
� ��
, .v � .
� . i
r S s,
' �k r
� � . ��.. a�.
f•t"';
____---`.�.:..<:V:. ,.; .. :.... _.._.____ _ . ____ _ _
, �
�� ,
,.., ._
__ ._..____._v_..------__
, }�
�, ,._.
s
` . , .
� . :
�:� i �
..N. . � � � . � " �
��!y�.. , . - .
',�k.