HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.bldg.264306300001 (2009)ACCESS DEVELOPMENTAPPLICATION
130S Galena Sheet � Aspen, CO � 81611 81611 n -� n� n
970-92g-5524 Fax 970.920-5439 Permit# 66(ol. -�C.C.J 1
75� www.asoenoitkin.com h—lba
/ VALID PERMIT MUST BE KEPT ON SITE AT ALL TIMES
Permit valid for one year unless otherwise specified.
1. Address of property to be accessed:
s> 110-11raN /t//pE
2. Legal descri tion of property to be accessed:
1-07 ,WiiO 5 N PIVIPW
3. Owner(s)'sName: ContactWF Nu bar: Mailing Address:
7.
N ✓ / ✓osWPI-f 9&7" G� N/�1Zr
4. ers Authorized Agent: �. A.Co'n�Sracvt/F-wiJumber:Mailing Address
04 V
N rnC/ 'tact/Fax
Number: MailinQA•',
5. Contractors Name: onggddram
57(lnlww 6510M
6. Architect or ngineer on Record: Contact/Fe"umber. Mailing A dress:
J f Ns�c/nG CtG 0¢' 03/ *N JY S�/T�itJ Cfie13CW�lL-to
7. Parcel ID number of property to be accessed:
Check http:/h N .aspenpitkin.com/depts/3/ or call the Pitkin County
24f, 063 -Q9 -&V1
Assessors Office at 970-920-5160 for the parcel ID number.
8. Property also known as' Provide a detailed map showing the location at legible scale)
9. Land use ePProval
10. Is t ere exisiting access?
. 1 ✓/1RAAArc&ilvrod�
11. For residences, IIs h nu ber and type of tlwellirg units
oNtd ;%t7✓✓�X!S -,5//uetE - l M/Gi Cw %
12. For commercial building, list the number/sq. ft. of budding(s).
Mr. uCItZ3&-6�
13. Type of material to be excavated or placed on property: 5''�WZ-
13a Material will be brought from: 12!�V 111f4!541tir, ti 13b. Is the material possibly contaminated? Yes No
13c Excavated material will be taken to: N /f
14. Description of work: /
0• GST Max depth
Total acreage or square footage of disturbance: out
:9 1QWW/OkSD
Total cubic yards of material moved: Max fill depth:
15. Will the project result in disturbance of a 1 acre of land? Yes No
15a. If you answered "Yes", submit a copy of your state Construction Stormwater Pennit or R -Factor waver. Information on this Permit is
available at: http:/lwww.odphe.state.ce.uslwq/PernitsUnit/stormwater/censtmetion.html.
16. Is any portion of the project already complete? 1W If yes, give reason and date(s) of prior construction activity.
17. Will the project disturb/result in removal of any vegetation? Yes No
17a. If you answered Wes" submit a revegetation plan, including a plant list with scientific names of species, planting schedule and method
of irrigation. The County's Revegetation Guidelines are available at: http://w..a�spjennpittkkin.com/depts]64/deptmain.cfm.
17b. How will you prevent the establishment of noxious weeds at the project? `�'�«-x•• �r'�
18. Will the project result in disturbance of any wetlands or riparian areas? Yes NO
iga. If you answered "Yes", submit a description of your revegetationlmlfigation plan, including a plant list with scientific names of species,
planting schedule and method of irrigation. Also submit a copy of your U.S. Arany Corps of Engineers Sec. 404 permit in connection
with any disturbance of "jurisdictional waters" of the U.S. Contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Grand Junction (970-243.1199)
for information on Sec. 404 permit requirements.
19. Will the project involve work in the Pitkin County Right of Way? Yes No
19a. If you answered "Yes" a County Right of Way Work Permit must be obtained prior to commencing work. Information on this permit is
Access 2008.)1s
Pitkin County 2-22-07
G� OCT .19 2009
0 O� l Community QevelOpment
20. Will the project disturb/involve work in the 100-year flood plain? Yes No
20a. If you answered "Yes" a County Floodplain Development Permit must be obtained prior to commencing work. Information on this
permit is available at: http://www.aspenpitkin.comldepts/12/water_res.cfm or by calling the Natural Rescourse Specialist at 970429-
2033.
Having carefully read the requirements, I (Applicant) hereby agree to the terms and conditions described within. This form is a permit
only when v " d by County staff. Work started without a permit will be subject to Pitkin County enforcement action and charged
double it fees.
21. SignAt.. of plican
21 a. Date:
/^y��r,,
2;. Signat a of22a.
P rty Ow s):
Date:
q-z 9 o
FOR STAFF USE ONLY DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS
LINE
23. Additional T= and Conditions of Peri[ (check all that apply):
At the time of issuance of this permit you are required to post $_ as financial security to ensure successful completion of
_
your revegetation plan. These monies will be held for two growing seasons from the date of completion of the pmject and will only be
released at that time if a site visit by Pitkin County Land Management confirms that successful revegetation has been accomplished.
Applicant is obligated to contact Pitkin County Land Management (970-920-5214) to schedule the required two-year she visit. The
monies will be forfeited if successful revegetation is not confirmed after two growing seasons, or if Applicant fails to timely schedule
the required site visit.
A Fugitive Dust Control Plan approved by the Environmental Health and Natural Resources Department is required.
Other:
There is a $540.00 permit flat fee due at submittal of permit application.
The following additional fees may be required to be paid prior to issuance of this permit:
County Engineer Referral Fee: 225
Additional Flat Fee for Applications Involving large Scale Undergrounding of Utilities & Earthmoving Projects: 225
You will also be invoiced by the Land Manager, Planning Engineer and Natural Resource Specialist for any review and follow up inspection time
exceeding 2 hours at a rate of $150/hr.
Date Permit
Permit Flat Fee (due at submittal): Check #
Application Received:
Additional Fees (due at issuance): Check #
TOTAL FEE (no refunds):
Date Permit Issued:
1 1, }+ I D1
23. Staff Comments: n.'e s Q�� IO Z�•� R't�
24. Approved by Pitkin County EnpT�!p�ee�r�� -1
& JO �
2aa. Date:
I O I
Z7 i0 1
1 kyev^ �;,r
25. Aeprpved by Pitkin County Land Mangger.
25a. Date:
26. App o it i n tannin Enginee
26a. Date:
III
u
b9
G
Access 2008.xis
L'�i u302
2-22-07
Z
LEGEND \ ` ,
EEIPitkin Coady Seed Ma
_ _ _ _ Limits of DlaWdxenca
0'30003
/ / /
i
Existing Contours
Contours. See Civil Grading Plan
`--- Existing PasWre
Proposed Grovel Ranch Entry Road, See Civil Plans
Limits of DiShebanta
PesWre Seed Mix in arses of ObWmelxCe
J
�[p11v CiplCma ro wiNL J
�~� mnErma,oER1u r�
/ / w OVOnaElEOs �
k / alai �/lO�E11AA!`iWO lOi / '
r �4 YMIIN�101-100!
ORAPWC'§CAFa
nRnm7Ay PAN VIER STA 1+00 -END
I urm)
t W -M) M1
IY ~
palm
WE
king
1. M WSINO fM1nA wionK n iEo p) nn o1mm. M
ma.om ooxiairt x�ona n ort (q rmr Ean
t M [NSIIN OpIkYO ML IIIOY M MEIL nII1Kr 61PM1ld A
xsio oraxmwo m awi. rt xu emi w�el�an •n,
unKr ars AaY ewaa awmwro.
1 M CMINM'101 fVLL tlNiMV MnAQ MniMUCiNN IYGI.TYn
1p Tn .YIFA ENM M Wn Ci fiK VIIS[I1lY. M O,MA.�CInI
T M YEPPI, Ohm wKL�IIIG 1YMOIi TE M]I1 CMYNi
4 .0 mnn®.wrwE ro a acs¢an.
a ai Ma ro c mmwxnn .EEa ro un mxemuc a
g9Nnµa. mr FEISD ro IIOIIN w PLK[ U"L pYNInF➢
uw xe¢ Ems xmrnay.
mcronE I_Imr mrtaw
.. oemxa'o-WT alxroix�
244, coxiaua
® .nisaam a�rwr
z
W
0
O
ca
8`n
8
WATSON DIVIDE
PROPOSED
1gOAD
;ACCESS
12
SITE
hcrtan
Iur
1. M WSINO fM1nA wionK n iEo p) nn o1mm. M
ma.om ooxiairt x�ona n ort (q rmr Ean
t M [NSIIN OpIkYO ML IIIOY M MEIL nII1Kr 61PM1ld A
xsio oraxmwo m awi. rt xu emi w�el�an •n,
unKr ars AaY ewaa awmwro.
1 M CMINM'101 fVLL tlNiMV MnAQ MniMUCiNN IYGI.TYn
1p Tn .YIFA ENM M Wn Ci fiK VIIS[I1lY. M O,MA.�CInI
T M YEPPI, Ohm wKL�IIIG 1YMOIi TE M]I1 CMYNi
4 .0 mnn®.wrwE ro a acs¢an.
a ai Ma ro c mmwxnn .EEa ro un mxemuc a
g9Nnµa. mr FEISD ro IIOIIN w PLK[ U"L pYNInF➢
uw xe¢ Ems xmrnay.
mcronE I_Imr mrtaw
.. oemxa'o-WT alxroix�
244, coxiaua
® .nisaam a�rwr
z
W
0
O
ca
8`n
M
October 19, 2009
Ms. Cathryn Berg
Page two of two
Aspen Village's application received BOCC approval in April, 1996 as
documented under BOCC Resolution No. 96.143 (see Exhibit'B"). The Vested
Property Rights were subsequently extended under Resolution No. 98-86 (see
Exhibit "C). Aspen Village later established a Conservation Easement for the
Ranch which preserves virtually all of the Ranch as perpetual open space with
the exception of the established development envelopes and accesses.
In 1998, Aspen Village sold the Ranch to Watson Divide Ranch, Inc., the current
owner of the property. Soon after acquiring the Ranch, the Owner completed a
series of studies intended to assess the existing ranch operation and to determine
what improvements are needed to get the Ranch up and running again.
The conclusions of these efforts were included in an application for minor
amendments to the prior development approvals which was filed in April of
2003. A request to relocate the development envelope for the agricultural
structures from a site near the mobile home park to a site near Watson Divide
Road was also included in this application. The Board of County Commissioners
granted approval to the minor amendments on June 25, 2003 under BOCC
Resolution No. 080-2003 (see Exhibit "D").
Additional land use approvals have been obtained for the Owners which are not
relevant to the current access permit request. Construction permits have
previously been obtained for the residence, the residential driveway and several
ponds on Parcel A. The residence, the driveway and the ponds are now
complete.
Additional documents which are included with this request include a Storm
Water Management Plan for the proposed installation prepared by Structural
Associates, the general contractor for the residence and related projects (see
Exhibit "E") and a proposed Fugitive Dust Plan prepared by Structural
Associates (see Exhibit "F"). A plan and profile of the proposed driveway
showing the drainage system, as prepared by Sopris Engineering and a
revegetation plan, prepared by DHM Design, Landscape Architects for the
project, are also included.
Please let me know if you need additional information regarding this permit
request.
000005
Joseph Wells Land Planning
Mailing Address: Post Office Box 4259, Aspen, Colorado 81612
Shipping Address: 188 Loge's Spring Road, Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: 970.925.8080 Facsimile: 970.925.8275
e-mail Address: joewellse'me.com
October 22, 2009
Catherine Berg
Planning Engineer
Pitkin County Community Development Dept
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Hand Delivered
Dear Catherine:
I just received the attached drawing from the engineers showing the silt fence
and the straw bales downhill of the culvert under the proposed access road. You
will note that the engineers are only showing silt fencing on the downhill side of
the excavation, which is really the only place that it will be effective. On the
sketch that I brought to you earlier today, I showed the silt fencing around the
entire perimeter because Structural Assoc. had represented that in their
stormwater report prepared in 2006 for submission with the earlier access permit
application. Since the silt fencing would not serve any useful purpose on the
uphill side of the excavation, I am requesting that you accept the engineer's
drawing as a substitute for my earlier sketch.
Pitkin County
OCT 22 2009
Community Developmem
OOOOOG
Joseph Wells Land Planning
Mailing Address: Post Office Box 4259, Aspen, Colorado 81612
Shipping Address: 188 Loge's Spring Road, Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: 970.925.8080 Facsimile: 970.925.8275
e-mail Address: joewells@me.com
October 22, 2009
Catherine Berg
Planning Engineer
Pitkin County Community Development Dept
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Hand Delivered
Dear Catherine:
Attached are my responses to the issues you raised yesterday:
1. "Address -talk with Debbie Weinant, 920-5525."
I spoke with Debbie about the address issue. Since there are very few
potential addresses on Watson Divide Road (most of the land on the east
side of the Divide is part of Watson Divide Ranch), she did not think that
it would be a problem to assign an appropriate address for this access
location.
2. "Drainage and erosion control, where will silt fence, etc. be located?
Attached is a sketch showing the location of the perimeter silt fence and
the location of straw bales intended to prevent the degradation of the
stormwater runoff as a result of the construction. These will remain in
place until such time as the area is revegetated.
3. "Construction Management Plan
I have completed the Construction Management Plan report form, which
is attached.
4. "Reveg Plan —
http:11www aspenvitkin co mlPortals101docslconiitu/Com o20DevBuildiliglreveg
etation-report-form. vdf '
Stephanie Kobald at DHM Design has completed the Revegetation report
form, which is attached.
000007
October 22, 2009
Catherine Berg
Page two of two
5. "How will the driveway work around the structure? This is important for
emergency access and the fire dept's ability to turn around at the building site.
The owners are presently working with the design team on revisions to
the layout of the ag buildings and access loop within the approved
Agricultural Outbuildings Development Envelope. The goal of that effort
is to reduce the amount of earthwork involved with these improvements
than would have been required under the project as previously proposed.
The owners are not proposing to move forward with permit requests and
any associated approvals which may be required for the structures within
the development envelope at the present time. They would, however, like
to get started on the portion of the driveway to the envelope, so that some
of that work can get underway prior to the onset of winter. Emergency
access to the site should not be required until such time as building permit
requests are re -filed for the agricultural buildings. At that time, it is our
intention to address the fire department's requirements for the structures.
Please let me know if you need additional information.
Joseph Wells
WATSON DIVIDE RANCHl
SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLC SCAM' ,,_2=.
CIVIL CONSULTANTS
502 MAIN STREET, S= A3
CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81823
(970) 704-0311 22152STEi.DWG 3AJ/06
�
�1jJ?
RESOLUTION OF THE ARD OF COUNTY COMh'i`I,SSION .S OF P£ITMq COU`T1`V,
CGLORAD0, GRANTING EXTENSION OF VESTED REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR
AS^E'N VILLAGE, INC. 1041 HAZARD REVIEW APPROVAL (RESOLUTION NO. 96-143)
FOR LOT A (SffvGLE FAMILY HOMESITE AND CARETAIMR DWELLING UNIT PARCEL)
& LOT B (RANCH PARCEL)
Resolution No. 98-2�
Aspen Village, Inc., hereafter "Applicant", has applied to the Pitkin County Board of County
Commissioners, hereafter `Board", to consider an extension of vested real property rights for Lots A
and B of the Aspen Village (Tire Conservation Fund), pursuant to Section 4-140.30 of the Land Use
Code.
2. The property received a Scenic Overlay Approval of the Single Family Homesite, Single Family
Parcel 1041 Hazard Review Approval, GMQS Exemption and Special Review Approval for a
Caretaker Unit; Conceptual Submission Approval for a Single Family Homesite Near Na__a
Divide; Special Review Approval for a Ranch Manager Employee Dwelling Unit on the Ranch
Parcel in 1996 pursuant to Resolution No. 96-143. The site plan was recorded in Book 41, Pages 38,
39 and 40.
3. Lots A and B are shown and described on the Aspen Village, Inc. 1041 Hazard Review Site Plan and
are included within the legal description set forth on Exhibit A in Resolution 96-143.
4. The Board heard this application at its regularly scheduled meeting on May 13, 1998, at which time
evidence and testimony were presented with respect to the application.
5. The Board determined that the proposed development meets the criteria established in Section 4-14030
f the Land Use Code, and therefore found the extension to be apF opriate.
NOW, TEMIZEFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners
ereby grants approval to Aspen Village, Inc. an extension to the vested property rights until April 1, 2002,
xr Lot A and Lot B subject to the following conditions:
The Applicant shall comply with the provision of the Board of County Commissioners
Resolution 96-143 unless otherwise replaced or amended by the conditions of this approval.
The Applicant shall comply with the amended Pitkin County fencing requirements on Lots A and
B. During fall and spring deer and elk migration periods, portions of the fence shall be taken
down on each side of Watson Divide Road to promote wildlife movement.
000010
The Applicant shall a • for and receive an access permit from. : County Engineer prior to the
issuance of any building permits. A variance from the Board of Adjustment may be required
prior to the issuance of an access permit
For any free market residential structure of 5,000 gross sgriare.feef or greater, the applicant shall
comply with Section 4.01.01(B) of the Pitkin County Road Management and Maintenance Plan,
which requires the applicant to provide construction trip and residential trip generation studies.
The applicant shall comply With this provision as it is in effect at the time of building permit
issuance to the satisfaction of the County Engineer_
Prior'to obtaining. a building permit for construction of any structure on the ranch manager
Property, the Applicant shall consult with the Aspen Village' Mobile Home Park Subdivision
Homeowners Association and propose appropriate mitigation for problems of dust, traffic, water
use impacts and smell from livestock-
,TICE OF
PUBLIC1 1 . 'lx1 1 a' ' p 1 1 • :1 1.
C
'ROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE 13TH DAY OF MAY, 1998.
ire Jones
.y Clerk and
LVED AS TO FORM:
I8-98
43464-90-128
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF ITKIN COUNTYOLORADO
Ororhea F "'
Date: —//- f LK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
z7.7
Cindy Houbdr,
Community Development Director
Itl1�l 11iI11 IIII I�111 I►lill III ��III II;�I IOII
D
00
, D 0 80:08p RESOLUTI DRVIS SILVI
00 0.80 N 0.00 PrTKIN COUNTY CC
000011
DA�,I�cB/90 P 11 F7 'i
�iTI UUUNTCL RF; 3 RECORDER
w
C , D0C
UCC
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN
COUNTY, COLORADO, VACATING THE ASPEN VILLAGE COMMONS
SUBDIVISION AND ASSOCIATED AFFORDABLE HOUSING; GRANTING SCENIC
OVERLAY APPROVAL OF THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMESITE, SINGLE FAMILY
PARCEL 1041 HAZARD REVIEW APPROVAL, GMQS EXEMPTION AND SPECIAL
REVIEW FOR CARETAKER UNIT; CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION APPROVAL FOR
A SINGLE FAMILY HOMESITE NEAR WATSON DIVIDE; SPECIAL REVIEW
APPROVAL FOR A RANCH MANAGER EMPLOYEE DWELLING UNIT ON TFIE
RANCH PARCEL
Resolution No. 96- / 1-/ 3
RECITALS
1. Aspen Village, Inc. has applied to Pitkin County for the following approvals: to
develop a single family homesite and caretaker unit near Watson Divide on the Single
Family Dwelling Parcel (Lot A) to vacate the Aspen Village Commons Subdivision
and associated affordable housing obligation and to develop an Employee Dwelling
Unit for a ranch manager on the Ranch Parcel (Lot B).
2. Lots A and B are as shown and described on the 1041 Hazard Review Site Plan and
are included within the legal description set forth on Exhibit "A" attached.
3. The application was reviewed by the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
at their regular meeting on February 20, 1996, and the Planning Commission
recommended approval with conditions.
4. The Board of County Commissioners reviewed the application at its regular meeting
on April. 2, 1996, and at the public hearing on April 16, 1996, which public hearing
was continued until April 23, 1996, at which time evidence and testimony was
presented with respect to this application.
5. The Board of County Commissioners found the application to be in general
compliance with the policies and regulations of the Land Use Code.
000012
PG 2 OF 49
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that thel Board of County Commissioners
hereby grants approval to Aspen Village, Inc. for scenic overlay approval of the single
family homesite, single family lot 1041 Hazard Review Approval, GMQS exemption and
special review for caretaker unit; conceptual submission approval for a single family
homesite near Watson Divide; special review approval for a ranch manager employee
dwelling unit on the Ranch Parcel subject to the following conditions:
A. The Single Family Homesite and Caretaker Unit Parcel -- Lot A_
1. The single family homesite and caretaker unit on the 554 acre Lot A is hereby
approved subject to the following conditions:
a. The single family dwelling and the caretaker unit shall be located within the
development envelope as the same is shown on the recorded site plan.
b. Pitkin County shall amend its 1041 Hazard map 'to more accurately depict the
critical habitat areas as it affects Lot A.
C. Driveway lighting shall be prohibited from the development envelope to the
Watson Divide Road.
d. ' No domestic dogs shall be allowed_
e. Compliance with all wildlife report recommendations as set forth in the
Wildlife Evaluation and Conservation Plan prepared by Richard W.
Thompson, dated August, 1995, attached hereto as Exhibit "B", as amended_
f. To mitigate geologic hazards, soils tests and an engineered foundation shall be
required to be submitted with the building permit application.
PA
k
g. Single family dwelling and caretaker unit shall be placed uphill of the existing
irrigation ditch and no structure or landscaping within the development
envelope shall interfere with the irrigation ditch easement within the envelope
or the ability to perform normal ditch maintenance activities.
h. Scenic Overlay approval shall be subject to the following conditions and
requirements:
• A portion of the building envelope shall be designated with a
maximum height limit not to exceed 15 feet.
• Use of earth tones or colors on the house. The roof shall be a
dark shade of gray or brown.
• Promote the use of natural building materials such as stone and
wood.
• Create soft, sloping and segmented forms when designing the
house and its roof.
• The roof shall comprise a minimum of 40% of the total new
area height of the structure. It shall have an overhang of a
minimum of Y-0" over 80% of the length of the eaves. Roof
ends shall be hipped.
• The roof shall have a minimum 30` and a maximum of 44°
pitch. Alternatively, earth sheltered roofing may be used.
• Use landscaping to help the house fit in with its surroundings_
• Non -reflective surfaces shall be used. Windows shall be
shaded.
• Exterior lighting shall be downlighting from concealed light
0001714
sources.
3
.3062 05/28/96 03 FIG 4 OF 49
i. Disturbance of Lot A shall be limited. All development activity will occur
within the designated development envelope and the leachfield of
approximately 60,000 sf., or such size as may: be approved by the
Aspen/Pitldn County Environmental Health Department, shall be located in the
area shown on the site plan. At least 60% of the driveway shall be along the
existing roadway from the Watson Divide Road to the development envelope_
The driveway shall be designed to minimum standards to meet fire protection
requirements. Any areas within the development envelope and leachfield
disturbed during construction, shall be.revegetated.
j. Maintain the agricultural activities and use of irrigation water on the property
as historically used and for landscaping within the development envelope. All
irrigated lands shall remain intact. All landscaping of the property shall take
place within the development envelope.
k. The following conditions shall also apply to the development envelope:
• Adequate mechanical support shall be provided for cut slopes.
• Adding water which may decrease slope stability shall be
avoided.
• Adding weight to the top of the slope shall be avoided.
• Disturbed slopes must be contoured so that they can be
revegetated.
• Steepening of existing slopes shall be avoided.
• Confine cuts, fills, grading and excavation to the minimum area
needed for construction.
® The removal of vegetation shall be minimized to within the
development envelope and leachfield area.
11
000015
9306
w
0 /28/96 017:-- PG 5 OF 45
Q Where existing vegetation is altered for utilities or access, the
disturbed area shall be revegetated wherever practical.
• To minimize impacts on wintering wildlife, no construction
activity shall take place outside of the dwelling structure from
December 1 through March 31 during any year, except that such
outside construction activity may take place during said period
during the first year of construction. Construction hours shall
be between the hours of 7:00 A.M_ and 7:00 P.M.
1. There will be no mesh or woven wire fences, on Lot A_ All fences on Lot A
shall be limited to a maximum of three (3) strands of wire or three (3) rails
and 42 inches in height_ During fall and spring deer and elk migration
periods, portions of fence shall be taken down to promote wildlife movement.
M. Brush, debris and non -ornamental vegetation shall be removed within a
minimum of 10 foot perimeter around the dwelling structure.
n. Vegetation shall be reduced to break up the vertical and horizontal continuity
of the fuels a minimum of a 30 foot perimeter around a structure built on flat
ground. (For greater slopes ref. CSFS Safety Zone chart, Page 13, Wildfire
Guidelines for Rural Homeowners).
o. Spacing between clumps of brush and vegetation within the 30 foot
perimeters shall be a minimum of two times the height of the fuel.
Maximum diameter of the clumps shall be two times the height of the
fuel. All measurements shall be from the edges of the crowns of the
fuel.
0 0010 16
5
X
)62 05/28/96 03:1 -OF 3 6 OF 49
p. All branches from trees and brush within the 30 foot perimeter shall be pruned
to height of 10 feet above the ground and removal of ladder fuel from around
trees and bush.
q. Tree crown separation within the 30 foot perimeters shall have a minimum of
10 feet between the edges of the crowns. This, does not apply to mature stands
of aspen trees where the above recommendation for removal of ladder fuels
has been complied with. In areas of aspen regeneration, the spacing guidelines
shall be followed.
r. All branches which extend over the roof eaves shall be trimmed and all
branches within fifteen (15) feet of the chimneys shall be removed.
s. The density of fuels within a 100 -foot perimeter,of the structures shall be
reduced where natural reduction has not already 'occurred.
t. All deadfall within the 100 -foot perimeter shall be removed.
U. The owner of Lot A shall be responsible for the continued maintenance of the
defensible space vegetation requirements.
V. The house and caretaker unit will be served by aseptic system. An area of
approximately 60,000 sf., or such area as may be, required by the Aspen/Pitkin
County Environmental Health Department, shall be provided for the leachfield.
This area shall be located on the site plan.
W. All utility lines will be placed underground and along the driveway alignment_
x. Approval of a weed management plan and performance guarantees prior to
issuance of any building permits.
Y- Execution and recording of a deed restriction for the Caretaker Dwelling Unit
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
no
000017
.i
9 Zb l3G/ 8i 6 4
F' [' oPG 7 CF 4
Z. Execution of an Avigation Easement with Pitkin County prior to the issuance
of any building permits.
B. The Ranch Parcel -- Lot B:
1. The ranch manager employee dwelling unit and agricultural outbuildings on Lot B is
hereby approved subject to the following conditions:
a. The ranch manager's employee dwelling unit and agricultural
outbuildings shall each be located within a 5,000 square foot building
envelope as shown and labeled on the site plan.
b. The ranch manager's employee dwelling unit shall be restricted to AH
guidelines adopted by the Aspen/Pitkin County Mousing Authority.
C. Should the ranch manager's employee dwelling unit not connect to the Aspen
Village Sewer System, approval of the individual sewage disposal system
permit for the dwelling unit shall be obtained from the Aspen/Pitkin
Environmental Health Department prior to the issuance of a building permit.
d. Should the ranch manager's employee dwelling unit not connect to the
Aspen Village domestic water system, the owner of the property shall
provide the required information by the Aspen/Pitkin Environmental
Health Department documenting that the location of the domestic water
well meets applicable setback requirements from the sewage disposal
system, and that the well can be placed within the building envelope.
e_ There will be no mesh or woven wire fences on Lot B. All fences on
Lot B shall be limited to a maximum of three (3) strands of wire or
IF/
0 00) J 18
OF 49
three (3) rails and 42 inches in height. During fall and spring deer and
elk migration periods, portions of the fence shall be taken down to
promote wildlife movement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of County
Commissioners hereby vacates the Aspen Village Commons Subdivision, including the PMH
Parcel as shown on the subdivision plat for Aspen Village Commons, and all obligations
relating thereto, specifically including but not limited to, the obligation to construct the deed
restricted units associated with both the "Aspen Village Commons" and "Aspen Village River
Homes" subdivisions in consideration of Aspen Village, Inc. causing the restriction of up to
eleven (11) Lots in the Aspen Village Mobile Home Park (Aspen Village Subdivision) to
Category restrictions at the time of recording theSubdivision Plat for Aspen Village and
Of- Iiv.-2w.4
placing RO Residential Guidelines under the �salutien No_ "961, I o adopted by the Board
of County Commissioners on the remainder of the lots in the Aspen Village Mobile Horne
Park.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE .:�3 DAY OF APRIL, 1996.
ATTEST:
Jones
Clerk and
&PROVED AS TO FORM
hnEly
ounty o
n
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
By:
James R. True, Chairman c
514'-4L
Date
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT
Cindy Houben
Community Development Director
U.
I/
�]9_0072 05/22/96 t_l,- -�F' F,3 9 OF 49
EXHIBIT "A"
TO
RESOLUTION NO. 96- %
A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED SECTIONS 1, 2 AND 12 OF TOWNSHIP 9
SOUTH, RANGE 86 WEST OF THE 6th PRINCIPLE MERIDIAN AND SECTIONS 7
AND 8, TOWNSHIP 9 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6th PRINCIPAL
MERIDIAN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE EAST 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 1;
THENCE S 89° 59'42" W, 3742.68 FEET;
THENCE S 29° 30'21- W, 166.79 FEET;
THENCE S 37° 08' 11" W, 410.24 FEET;
THENCE N 76° 11' 39" W, 812.56 FEET;
THENCE S 53. 16'21- W, 323.79 FEET;
THENCE S 26° 54' 16" W, 127.90 FEET;
THENCE S 03" 27' 50" E, 325.44 FEET;
THENCE N 820 06'45" W, 180.18 FE)z,T;
THENCE N 16° 16' 12" W, 26.94 FEET;
THENCE 165.68 FEET ALONG A NON -TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING
A RADIUS OF 124.43 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 76' 17'25" AND A
CHORD OF WHICH BEARS N 540 24'53" W, 153.71 FEET;
THENCE S 87° 26' 19" W, 80.45 FEET;
THENCE 144.67 FEET ALONG A NON -TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING
A RADIUS OF 90.16 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 91' 56'05- AND A
CHORD WHICH BEARS S 410
28' 18" W, 129.64 FEET;
THENCE S 04" 29' 47" E, 106.53 FEET;
THENCE 65.44 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF
230.61 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 16- 15' 31- AND A CHORD WHICH
BEARS S 12' 37' 36" E, 65.22 FEET;
THENCE S 20" 45' 25" E, 29.17 FEET;
THENCE 73.78 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF
28.25 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 1490 38' 18" AND A CHORD WHICH
BEARS S 54' 03' 44" W, 54.53 FEET;
THENCE N 51' 07' 35" W, 49.23 FEET;
THENCE 61.12 FEET ALONG A NON -TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING
A RADIUS OF 115.54 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 30° 18'33" AND A
CHORD OF WHICH BEARS N 24° 43' 41" W, 60.41 FEET;
THENCE N 09° 34' 25" W, 210.91 FEET;
THENCE N01- 39'08" W, 121.71 FEET;
THENCE N 89' 43'08' W, 332.45 FEET;
THENCE S 280 30' 08" E, 1092.47 FEET;
THENCE S 51- 35'08" E, 200.60 FEET;
THENCE S 03° 01'52" W, 132.10 FEET;
THENCE S 410 36'08" E, 102.00 FEET;
THENCE N 75' 03'08" E, 142.45 FEET;
THENCE S 87° 18' 51" E, 22.16 FEET;
THENCE S 510 35' 08" E, 254.20 FEET;
0 i ;���
/28/96 0,;
7 PG 10 OF 49
THENCE S 070 14' 44" E, 2158.42 FEET;
THENCE S 39. 20'50- W, 661.80 FEET;
THENCE S 240 09'52" W, 355.48 FEET;
THENCE S 000 18'48" E, 1185.63 FEET;
THENCE N 63- 09'56" E, 562.10 FEET;
THENCE N 35- 20'56- E, 678.18 FEET;
THENCE N 390 51' 14" E, 69.90 FEET;
THENCE N 63 ` 02' 14" E, 254.97 FEET;
THENCE N 72 ° 19' 37" E, 577.52 FEET;
THENCE N 39 ° 51' 31 " E, 700.41 FEET;
THENCE N 76- 01'41" E, 663.19 FEET;
THENCE N 800 51'09" E, .563.90 FEET;
THENCE S 66' 02'39" E, 573.52 FEET;
THENCE N 85 ° 39' 41 " E, 897.65 FEET;
THENCE S 75° 40'27- E, 625.25 FEET;
THENCE N 03 ` 06' 45" W, 624.73 FEET;
THENCE N 89' 17'23- E, 2361.84 FEET;
THENCE N 36' 22'50" E, 978.53 FEET;
THENCE N 68' 46' 00" E, 184.10 FEET;
THENCE N 83 ° 41' 00" E, 71.40 FEET;
THENCE N 85- 19'00" E, 137.80 FEET -
THENCE THENCE N 72' 45' 00" E, 422.70 FEET'
THENCE S 86' 18'00" E, 119.70 FEET;
THENCE N 85- 49' 00" E, 268.80 FEET;
THENCE S 84' 41' 00" E, 117.30 FEET;
THENCE S 83' 23'00- E, 245.80 FEET;
THENCE N 80' 14' 00" E, 197.90 FEET;
THENCE N 83. 39' 00" E, 134.50 FEET;
THENCE N 78' 28' 00" E, 216.40 FEET;
THENCE N 83 ° 10' 00" E, 13030 FEET;
THENCE N 75' 46' 00" E, 155.60 FEET-
THENCE N 75" 59' 00" E, 78.40 FEET;
THENCE N 24 ° 20' 00" E, 196.89 FEET;
THENCE N 65' 53' 50" W 99.07 FEET;
THENCE N 650 53'50" W, 300.00 FEET;
THENCE N 65 ° 05' 32" W 297.69 FEET;
THENCE N 650 38'48" W, 299.66 FEET;
THENCE N 45` 29' 52" W, 297.06 FEET;
THENCE N 44' 31' 16" W, 324.18 FEET;
THENCE N 44' 42' 50" E, 199.47 FEET;
THENCE N 43' 01' 10" W, 1070.41 FEET;
THENCE S 44- 25'50" W, 20.40 FEET;
THENCE N 55. 21' 40" W, 293.50 FEET;
THENCE 232.60 FEET ALONG A NON -TANGENT CURVE TO
A RADIUS OF 1332.39 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10- '.00'
CHORD OF WHICH BEARS N 560 34' 10" W, 232.30 FEET
THENCE N 580 44'10" W, 173.37 FEET;
THENCE S 11' 59' 51" W, 90.43 FEET;
THENCE S 77° 32'38" W, 552.24 FEET;
THENCE N 74° 43' 03" W, 684.00 FEET;
THENCE N 60' 37'22" W, 228.50 FEET;
000021
THE LEFT, HAVING
08" AND A
Iasa�:
9G�6` 05/2'8/96
EP F'G 11 OF 49
THENCE N 46° 30' 52" W, 700.00 FEET;
THENCE S 52 ° 48' 51 " W, 31.78 FEET;
THENCE S 21 ° 06' 35" E, 21.98 FEET;
THENCE 40.56 FEET ALONG A NON -TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING
A RADIUS OF 197.25 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 11 ° 46' 55" AND A
CHORD OF WHICH BEARS S 19° 52' 34" W, 40.49 FEET;
THENCE S 29° 03' 29" W, 202.33 FEET;
THENCE 451.64 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF
427.82 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 60 ° 29' 11 " AND A CHORD WHICH
BEARS S 590 18' 04" W, 430.96 FEET;
THENCE S 89- 32' 40" W, 237.61 FEET;
THENCE N 62° 31' 42" W, 124.21 FEET;
THENCE N 61 ° 07' 58" W, 14.95 FEET;
THENCE 91.52 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF
81.11 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 64° 39' 00" AND A CHORD WHICH
BEARS S 86 ° 32' 32 " W, 86.74 FEET;
THENCE S 54' 13'02- W, 75.78 FEET;
THENCE 56.14 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF
169.27 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 19° 00'06' AND A CHORD WHICH
BEARS S 63' 43' 05" W, 55.88 FEET;
THENCE S 73° 13'02" W, 115.28 FEET;
THENCE S 16. 46'58- E, 215.00 FEET;
THENCE N 20' 44' 05" W, 215.00 FEET;
THENCE N 12° 06'52" E, 497.27 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING
CONTAINING 879.16 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITIKIN
COUNTY, COLORADO, APPROVING THE WATSON DIVIDE RANCH MINOR
AMENDMENT TO A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND AGRICULTURAL MASTER
PLAN
Resolution No.LQ-2003
RECITALS
1. Watson Divide Ranch, Inc. ("Applicant"), has applied to the Board of County
Commissioners of Pitkin County, (`BOCC"), pursuant to Section 3-200-080 of the Pitkin
County Land Use Code ("Code"), to relocate the Agricultural/Ranch Manager Envelope to
the North and West, and implement the Agricultural Master Plan for the entire Ranch.
2. The property is zoned RS -30 PUD and AFR-10 and contains 830+ acres.
3. The property is located on Watson Divide. The property is more specifically described as
Attachment A.
4. The Property received approval Vacating the Aspen Village Commons Subdivision and
Associated Affordable Housing; Granting Scenic Overlay Approval of the Single Family
Homesite, Single Family Parcel 1041 Hazard Review Approval, GMQS Exemption and
Special Review for a Caretaker Dwelling Unit; Conceptual Submission Approval for a
Single Family Homesite near Watson Divide; Special Review Approval for a Ranch
Manager Employee Dwelling Unit on the Ranch Parcel pursuant to BOCC Resolution No.
96-143. The Ranch then received an Extension of Vested Real Property Rights pursuant to
BOCC Resolution No. 98-86. Additionally, the Ranch received a Minor Amendment to a
Development Permit pursuant to BOCC Resolution No. 233-2002, which amended the roof
criteria.
I IIIA VIII IIIIII IIIIII (III VIII CO III VIII III ilii 0 Page:a9 of 13
0 2: 40P
SILMI DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY
000023
6. No development of any structures shall be allowed outside of the designated development
envelope for Parcels A and B, except for retaining structures necessary for the landslide
mitigation and for berms associated with the proposed ponds, as described in the
application.
7. At the time of submission of any building permits on Parcel B, the Applicant shall submit a
Landscape PIan for final review and approval by the Community Development Department.
8. Condition No. 2 of BOCC Resolution No. 98-86 shall be amended to read:
"The fencing requirements for Parcels A and B shall adhere to the Western
Ecosystems, Inc., report dated April 22, 2003 (see Attachment `B"), with the
exception of the fencing in Zones 10 and 15. The 'fencing in Zones 10 and I5 shalI
comply with Pitkin County Land Use Code Section 3-80-080(A)l 1, regarding
Wildlife friendly fencing."
9. At the time of submission of any building permits on Parcel B, the Applicant shall be
required to provide a timetable for the Wildlife Migration Corridor Enhancement as set forth
on Page 4, of the Western Ecosystems, Inc. report dated April 22, 2003 (see attachment
`B"). A bond shall be required for the completion of this project.
10. At the time of submission of any building permits on Parcel B, the Applicant shall be
required to provide a timetable for the Winter Range Enhancement as set forth on Page 5, of
the Western Ecosystems, Inc. report dated April 22, 2003 (see attachment `B"). A bond
shall be required for the completion of this project.
H. . Fruit -bearing trees and shrubs should be avoided in any landscaping due to the high level
of black bear activity in this area.
12. The Pitkin County Wildlife Biologist and the CDOW Aspen District Wildlife Manager
should be allowed access during fall and spring migration'', to ensure fences comply with
approved. design standards.
13. Dogs must be kenneled on Parcel B as per §3-80.80(C)(2) and §3-80.80(D)(2) of the
Pitkin County Land Use Code. Verification of a dog kennel, run, or other fenced area is
required prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
14. Prior to commencement of any earthmoving or construction activity, the Applicant shall
stake the corners of the building and development envelopes and install construction
fencing around the perimeter of the development envelopes. The fencing shall remain in
place until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the residence.
IEEIII EEIII IIlIII IIEIII II I IIElE illlll III EE!!I ILEI IIII 0
4869:26
/of 12: 40P
SILVIR DRVIS RITKIN COUNTY CO R 0.06 D '.0.60
000024
The BOCC generally finds that the request for the relocation of the envelope and
implementation of the Agricultural Master Plan is consistent with the requirements of the
Land Use Code.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Pitkin County Board of County
Commissioners that it does hereby approve the Watson Divide Minor Amendment to a
Development Permit to relocate the Agricultural/Ranch Manager Envelope to the North and West,
and implement the Agricultural Master Plan for the entire Ranch subject to the following
conditions:
The Applicants shall comply with the provisions of Board of County Commissioners'
Resolution Nos. 96-143, 98-86 and 233-2002, unless otherwise replaced or amended by the
conditions of this approval.
2. The Applicant shall prepare an amended 1041 Hazard Review Site Plan in accordance
with Land Use Code Sections 5-70-040, indicating the relocation of the
Agricultural/Ranch Manager development envelope. The 1041 Hazard Review Site Plan
shall also define all areas where agricultural improvements, such as irrigation ditches and
ponds, as well as non-native vegetation, including agricultural plantings, wetlands
vegetation around the ponds and vegetation manipulation for habitat enhancement may
occur. Native vegetation shall be maintained outside of such designated areas and the
designated development envelopes as per section 3-80-080 (A)3 of the Pitkin County
Land Use Code. The site plan shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department for approval and recording, prior to submission of any future building permit
applications. The Applicant may, however, submit an application for an earthmoving
permit for the ponds proposed adjacent to Zone 1, as illustrated on the Master Plan, prior to
the recording of the 1041 Hazard Review Site Plan.
The Applicant shall adhere to material representations made during the application process.
The Applicant shall be required to obtain an Earthmoving Permit for the represented holding
ponds, and any other major modifications to the irrigation ditches and streams. The
Earthmoving Permit will require Aspen Valley Land Trust approval.
5. The Applicant shall be required to obtain an Earthmoving Permit for the ground water
mitigation and landslide reconstruction work as represented in the CTL/Thompson Inc.
Report dated November 6, 2002 (see Exhibit F of the Waston Divide Ranch Application).
111111IIIlI111111111111i(IIIIIIIIlilllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIOe� g0 312:40P
IO IJOj�25 SILVIA DAVIS PI
3
APPROVED ANIS ADOPTED on the 25'' day of Rinc, 2003.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
John EI
County Attorney
PID# 264306300001 and 264501300012
P048-03
0010626
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
By
J k Hatfield, C rman
0�k
Date
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Indy Houben, Community Development
Director
IllillllIA illllilillllll1111lPMIN ilfllllllllllllllllllllll[II0 $�6�0 312:40P
SIL
�:' L 1�1L':� 07 3P GG 9 OF 49
ATTACHMENT
EXHIBIT "A"
TO
RESOLUTION NO. 96- / / -S
A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED SECTIONS 1, 2 AND 12 OF TOWNSHIP 9
SOUTH, RANGE 86 WEST OF THE 6th PRINCIPLE MERIDIAN AND SECTIONS 7
AND 8, TOWNSHIP 9 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6th PRINCIPAL
MERIDIAN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE EAST 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION I;
THENCE S 89° 59'42- W, 3742.68 FEET;
THENCE S 29 ° 30' 21 " W, 166.79 FEET;
THENCE S 37' 08' 11" W, 410.24 FEET;
THENCE N 76° 11' 39" W, 812.56 FEET;
THENCE S 53" 16' 21" W, 323.79 FEET;
THENCE S 26` 54' 16" W, 127.90 FEET;
THENCE S 03' 27' 50" E, 325.44 FEET;
THENCE N 82- 06'45- W, 180.18 FEET;
THENCE N 16° 16' 12" W, 26.94 FEET;
THENCE 165.68 FEET ALONG A NON -TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT,
A RADIUS OF 124.43 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 76' 1T 25" AND A
CHORD OF WHICH BEARS N 54" 24' 53" W, 153.71- FEET,
THENCE S 87" 26' 19" W, 80.45 FEET;
THENCE 144.67 FEET ALONG A NON -TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT,
A RADIUS OF 90.16 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 91' 56' 05" AND A
CHORD WHICH BEARS S 41" 28' 18" W, 129.64 FEET;
THENCE S 04` 29' 47" E, 106.53 FEET;
HAVING
HAVING
THENCE 65.44 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF
230.61 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 16° 15' 31AND A CHORD WHICH
BEARS S 12° 37' 36" E, 65.22 FEET;
THENCE S 20' 45' 25" E, 29.17 FEET;
THENCE 73.78 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF
28 25 FEET A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 149' 38' 18" AND A CHORD WHICH
BEARS S 54° 03' 44" W, 54.53 FEET;
THENCE N 51* 07'35" W, 49.23 FEET;
THENCE 61.12 FEST ALONG A NON -TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING
A RADIUS OF 115.54 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 30° 18' 33" AND A
CHORD OF WHICH BEARS N 24° 43' 41" W, 60.41 FEET;
THENCE N 09° 34' 25" W, 210.91 FEET;
THENCE N 01 ` 39' 08" W, 121.71 FEET;
THENCE N 89° 43' 08" W, 332.45 FEET;
THENCE S 28° 30'08- E, 1092.47 FEET;
THENCE S 51- 35' 08 " E, 200.60 FEET;
THENCE S 03° 01'52- W, 132.10 FEET;
THENCE S 41' 36' 08" E, 102.00 FEET;
THENCE N 75 ° 03' 08 " E, 142.45 FEET;
THENCE S 87' 18'51- E, 22.16 FEET;
THENCE S 510 35'08" E, 254.20 FEET;
000027 IMVY,DAVIS NMYCOUNTY IMN�dM'ItlV9
486926
Page: 5 of 13
08/14/2003 12:40P
D 0.00
a�/2819b _
PS 10 OF 49
THENCE S 07' 14' 44" E, 2158.42 FEET;
THENCE S 39" 20' 50" W 661.80 FEET;
THENCE S 24° 09' 52" W, 355.48 FEET;
THENCE S 006 18' 48" E, 1185.63 FEET;
THENCE N 63 ° 09' 56" E, 562.10 FEET;
THENCE N 35 ° 20' 56" E678.18 FEET;
HE
TNCE N 39° 51' 14" E' 69.90 FEET"
THENCE N 63' 02' 14" E, 254.97 FEET;
THENCE N 72° 19' 37" E,
THENCE N 39° 51' 31 577.52 FEET;
" E, 700.41 FEET;
THENCE N 76 ° 01' 4I " E, 663.19 FEET;
THENCE N 80° 51' 09" E, 563.90 FEET;
THENCE S 660 02'39" E, 573-52 THENCE N 95' 39' 41" E, 897.65 FEET;
THENCE S 75° 40'27' E, 625.25 FEET;
THENCE N 03' 06' 45" W 624.73 FEET;
THENCE N 89' 17'23- E, 2361.84 FEET'
THENCE N 36° 22' 50" E, 978.53 FEET
THENCE N 68" 46' O0" E, 184.10 FEET;
THENCE N 830 41'00n E, 71.40 FEET
THENCE N 85° 19' 00" E, 137.80 FEET;
THENCE N 72° 45' 00" E, 422.70 FEET;
THENCE S 86. 18' 00" E, 119.70 FEET;
THENCE N 85° 49' 00" E, 268.80 FEET;
THENCE S 84 41' 00" E, 117.30 FEET;
THENCE
THENCE N 80° 14 S 83 1423 00" E, 245.80 FEET;
THENCE 0 ' 00" E, 197.90 FEET;
00" E'
THENCE N 78Q 28' 134.50 FEET;
THENCE216.40 FEET;
THENCE 24 830 10' 00„ E, 130.30 HET;
75 59 QO E 155.66 FEET;
THENCE N 75 ° 59' 00" E, 78.40 FEET;
THENCE N 24` 20, 00" E, 196.89 FEET;
THENCE N 65° 53' 50" W 99.07 FEET;
THENCE N 65° 53' 50" W, 300.00 FEET;
THENCE N 650 05� 32" W, 297.69 FEET;
N 65THENCE N 45= 38 48" W, 299.66 FEET;
TH29' 52" W, 297.06 FEET;
THENCE N 440 31' 16" W, 324.18 FEET;
THENCE N 44 42, 50" E, 199.47 FEET;
.THENCE S 43 01 10" W, 1070.41 FEET;
THENCE N 45-45 °2211- 40" W' 93.5 FEET;
THENCE 232.6()
A RADIUS FEET ALONG3A NON -TANGENT CURVE
W 1332.39 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10°
THENCE CHORD OF ARS N 560 34' 10" W, 232.30 FEET;
THENCE g 588 ° 0 4CI3 BE"
E44' 10" W, 173.37 FEET;
THENCE 5 7l ° 59 51. W, 90.43 FEET;
THENCE THENCE552-24 FEET;
N 74, 43 03" W, 684.00 FEET;
N 60 37 22" W, 228.50 FEET;
tE
rLVIIA DAMS PITKIIN COUNTY co COUNTY CO R 0 00
f 323
TO THE LEFT, HAVING
00' 08" AND A
486926
Page: 6 of 13
08/14/2003 12:40P
0 0.00
?,S,kiS� QS/`8/9E
OF 49
THENCE N 460 30' 52" W, 700.00 FEET;
THENCE S 52° 48' 51" W, 31.78 FEET;
THENCE S 21- 06' 35" E, 21.98 FEET;
THENCE 40.56 FEET ALONG A NON -TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING
A RADIUS OF 197.25 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 11 ° 46' 55" AND A
CHORD OF WHICH BEARS S 190 52' 34" W, 40.49 FEET;
THENCE S 29° 03' 29" W, 202.33 FEET;
THENCE 451.64 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF
427.82 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 60' 29' 11" AND A CHORD WHICH
BEARS S 59° 18' 04" W, 430.96 FEET;
THENCE S 89' 32' 40" _ W, 237.61 FEET;
THENCE N 62' 31' 42" W, 124.21 FEET;
THENCE N 61' 07' 58" W, 14.95 FEET;
THENCE 91.52 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF
81.11 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 64° 39'00- AND A CHORD WHICH
BEARS S 86° 32' 32" W, 86.74 FEET;
THENCE S 54' 13'02- W, 75.78 FEET;
THENCE 56.14 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF
169.27 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 19° 00'06" AND A CHORD W141CH
BEARS S 63" 43' 05" W, 55.88 FEET;
THENCE S 73 ° 13' 02" W, 115.28 FEET;
THENCE S 160 46'58" E, 215.00 FEET;
THENCE N 20° 44' 05" W, 215.00 FEET;
THENCE N 12' 06'52- E, 497.27 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING
CONTAINING 879.16 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
E
sBaf. I NIIII IIID lIIIII IIIIII IIII VIII Ililll III VIII Ilii IIII a
4869263 12:40P
SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY C0 0.00
JJ) 0029
f _
Western Ecosystems, 9nc.
`Ecological C'onsultanL
90.5 Wew C'oac% —'Road, �Boul)er, C'O 80302
ATTACHMENT 4 j
(303) 442-6144
April 22, 2003 I IIIItKIN cr�lll��l 08/14/2003
8690 3 13
12:40a
CO R 0.00 0 0.00
Mr. Joe: Wells
Joseph 'Wells Land Planning
602 Midland Park Place
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Wildlife evaluation of the proposed Watson Divide Ranch Master Plan, Pitkin County,
Colorado_
Dear Joe;
Per your request, this letter addresses relevant, wildlife related issues] associated with the proposed
Watson 1Jivide Ranch Master Plan. As you know, I prepared the wildlife evaluation and consetvation
plan ('Thompson 1995) for the property that was part of the 1996 County approval (as Exhibit B of
Reso_ No. 96-143). The property has been vacant and agriculturally dormant for decades. The new
owners of the property want to reestablish and develop agricultural uses of the property in a manner
consistent with the terms of the Conservation Easement (Aspen Valley Land Trust 1998). Board of
County Commissioners (BOCC) approval of future conditions on the subject property required (Reso.
No. 96-143, Page 2, A, 1. e) compliance with all recommendations of Thompson (1995). Please
recognize, however, that Thompson's (1995) report emphasized preserving the wildlife values of the
property and did.not recognize all potential conflicts associated with restoring the property to a
working ranch. Nevertheless, the proposed restoration, habitation, and operation of the property
would be consistent with all wildlife related recommendations of Thompson (1995). However, some
Master Plan components require additional discussion to demonstrate the required consistency. Such
components are addressed below.
Figure 1 illustrates the proposed Master Plan and management zones:, Figure 2 illustrates components
within the relocated agricultural development envelope.
Relocation of the Agricultural Building Envelope
The Ranch Manager's Employee Unit Development Envelope and Agricultural Out Buildings
Envelope on Lot B are currently located in irrigated pasture on the eastern periphery of the lot
contiguous with the Aspen Village Trailer Park and a sewer treatment plant. Thompson (1995, Page
24, Para. 5) specified that the envelopes be located in the lower irrigated hayfield, but did not
recommend a specific location. However, it is likely.thatwildlife related recommendations during
undocumented discussions included locating the envelopes within existing human disturbance zones
along the eastern and northern flanks of the lower pasture to maximize habitat effectiveness of native
000030
a
926
Mr. Joe Wells III�Iil��llllflll�llfBl 1111 ON11111111111111111111 08/4/ 9 of 13
220 0012:40P
1
ApH 22, 2003
Page 2
habitats above the irrigated hayfields and of the non-native hayfields themselves. It is my
understanding that the existing envelopes were established in their present locations to facilitate
connections with the Aspen Village domestic water and sewage systems (BOCC Reso. No. 96-143,
Page 7, B, 1. c. and d.). However, these envelopes may be relocated within the lower irrigated hayfield
on Lot B with BOCC approval �Aseen:Y T Lid'I'rust 1998, Page 1, Para..D)r
The current Master Plan proposes combining the Ranch Manager's Employee Unit Development
Envelope and Agricultural Out Buildings Envelope and relocating it to the northwestern comer of the
lower irrigated hayfield (Fig. 1). This proposed location in a slight depression was selected partly to
minimize visual impact while locating the fatality, within Watson Divide Road's zone of disturbance.
�— —�,�-
txptl-rsat¢ee iiallita> ar ivgri# be cons6ttti£aiti4; inmpson's (19 siting i ecomftien tions.
Riparian vegetation, including, but not limited to, shrubs, amid -canopy (e.g., willow trees), and
narrowleaf cottonwoods (D. Carpenter, DHM Design, pers. comm) planted along a series of ponds
and an irrigation ditch to the southeast of the envelope, will partly screen facilities and activities within
the envelope from potential wildlife use within the remaining majority of the lower irrigated hayfield.
A possible inconsistency with the proposed envelope is that it is�7 2cFes, while the existing Ranch
Manager's Employee Unit Development EnvetopeinOQ_PP�ts1 ?'
d -.Agricultural Out Buildings
w"diri o
acres (1'lrornpson 1995). This is attributable to the proposed envelope eaten g to encompass en ass p p
shelters associated with each of 12 horse paddocks (Fig. 2). Such shelters are considered structural
developments, which were to be contained within the envelopes) (Thompson 1995). The discrepancy
is immaterial relative to preserving the property's conservation values, but it differs from what was
previously documented (Thompson 1995):
In addition, Thompson (1995, Page 26, 2.) recommended that.,
Any corral fencing for horses adjacent to the ranch manage? s/ employee's residence shall be
contained within the 5.0 acre development envelope.
The proposed horse paddocks (Fig. 2) represent corral fencing. If this fencing were included in Lot B's
proposed development envelope, it would total around 10 acres, also exceeding the 5.0 -acre envelope
previously considered This larger envelope would also be located entirely in non-native pasture, outside of
movement corridors, and outside of what should be designated as big game winter range (see Thompson
x.:..,,,...
1995, Pages 11-14),,As such, this _larger,.erirelbpe wools still be consistent with the original intent o
preserving rhe agricultural and wildlife consecmdgn,yalues on the ranch, though it would differ from the
size of the envelope previously consideced'(Mompson'2995).
Ponds
Four sets of ponds are proposed on the property to retain water, to provide/ enhance wildlife habitats
(open water, wetlands, and riparian) not currently present, and for aesthetics. The ponds will increase
native vegetation and wildlife diversity. Ponds near Lot A's proposed home site were reduced in size
and reconfigured to be compatible with adjacent wildlife movements (Thompson 1995). Ponds were
J30331 q
Mr. Joe Wells
111111111 IIIIIIf1114g�� 03 12:40P
April 22, 2003 SILVIA DAVIS PLTKIN COUNTY CO R 0.00 D 0.00
Page 3
not addressed by Thompson (1995) or Aspen Valley Land Trust (1998), however they are considered
consistentwith the property's conservation values because ponds'are valid agricultural features and they
'Would enhance wildlife values. It is recommended that ponds located in pastures seasonally grazed by
domestic livestock should be fenced to exclude livestock from access to flankingwetlands/ riparian
habitats that would otherwise be destroyed.
Fencing
The Master Plan proposes five foot -six inch fencing in the riding arena, hot pen, and walker areas, all
located within the relocated agricultural development envelope (Fig. 2). Horse paddocks would be limited
to four foot -six inch fencing.
The fairly extensive horse paddock fencing and the barrier presented by other structures within the
proposed agricultural development envelope would not impair big game movements through the lower
irrigated pasture. Such movements do not occur now because of fencing barriers present on the Gerbaz
and Stutsman properties on the opposite (.e., north) side of the road (Thompson 1995). As such, this
encingwould not have a material adverse impact on the conservation values of the property s "open area"
and would be consistent with the conservation easement.
With respect to the above fencing within the agricultural development envelope, Thompson (1995, Page
26, 2., Sent 3) recommended, but did not require, that such fencing be compatible with wildlife
movements. While the County (BOCC Reso. 96-143, Page 2, A- 1. e) required compliance with this
recommendation, it initially superceded the Thompson's (1995) recommendation by requiring (BOCC -
Reso. 96-143, Pages 7-8, B. 1. e) that "all fences on Lot B shall be limited to a maximum of three (3)
strands ofwire or three (3) rads and 42 inches in height" However, in a later resolution (BOCC Reso. 98-
86, Para. 8 [2.D the County recognized that fencing to contain livestock on agticultural lands could exceed
recommended specifications for fencing compatible with wildlife movements. y�hj@ctpsopeCis:
4gsified.by the Assessor's Office as"agnea(hire"anT 'County- Ordinance 98-20; such-parce�s
,Zmay have fences of up to six feet in height without requiring a permit Therefore, the proposed fencing
within the agricultural development envelope would be consistent -with Thompson (1995) and County
policy-
The
oli
The Master Plan also proposes four foot -six inch pasture fencing to contain horses in Zones 11, 12, 13, 14,
and 17 (Fig. 2). While such agricultural fencingwould be allowed (pursuant to County Ordinance 98-20), it
would not be compatible with wildlife movements or with recommendations of Thompson (1995). The
issue then becomes to what extent the proposed fencing might significantly impair or interfere with wildlife
(specifically elk and deer) use of these areas or the larger property? Zone, 13 is the horse paddocks
described above and needs no further discussion. Pastures and hay fields in Zones 11, 12, and 17 would be
effectively isolated as grazing habitat by structures and fencing associated with the agricultural development
envelope and the Zone 13 horse paddocks. These areas did not receive much big game use because of
their location adjacent to disturbances associated with Watson Divide Road, existing residences and
fencing on the opposite side of the road, and Highway 82. If the agricultural development envelope and
horse paddocks are developed in their proposed locations, the proposed fencing in Zones 11, 12,. and 17
would have no material effect on big game foraging opportunities.
010032 ��
Mr. Joe Wells III�III ��III���II��I�I����I���II��I���I ill���I�III�I��I a869 0fif] 1,3
April 22, 2003 rN COUNTY CO a e ea a o.ae
Page 4
Proposed fencing in Zone 14 would be expected to reduce big game transitional range use of this hayfield,
which is more isolated from the disturbances identified above. The loss of this 11.6 acres of non -neve
habitat would be more than offset by the increased productivity resulting from the renovated hayfields and
pastures throughout the ranch. While such big game use of alfalfa -hayfields should not be encouraged,
.such use is part of the property's values that the Conservation Easement seeks to protect The fust
management priority of this hayfield should be to produce hay, with secondary uses of wildlife forage and
horse pasturing. The loss of this hayfield would not result in "a material adverse impact on the
Conservation Values of the Open Area of the Property" (Aspen Valley Land Trust 1998, Page 5, Para F).
Therefore, Zone 14's, wildlife restrictive fencing would not be inconsistent with terms of the Conservation
Easement However, when this zone is not in use outside the growing season it would be beneficial if big
game had access. It is recommended that the southwest and southeast sides of the Zone 14 fencing be
modified to a3oa+,&.l access. Fence modifications could include, but not be limited to, removing the
.top rails in the identified fence sections, removing all rails in every fifth section of fencing, and/or opening
I
in vM fifth section of fencing.
The Master Plan also proposes four foot -six inch pasture fencing to contain horses in Zones 10, 15, 16,
and 18 (P"lg. 2), however this fencing would have removable top rails on those sections specified below
;that, when removed, would make the fencing compatible with wildlife movements. The following fence
.sections would have removable top rails: Zones 10 and 15'— all sections; Zone 16 — south and west sides;
Zone 18 need not have removable top rails because it adjacent to Highway 82. It would probably be better
for deer and elk if they were restricted from Zone 18's pasture and more importantly, the temptation to
cross tate highway in this area The above sections of fencing shall have their top rails removed during the
spring and aU ;transitional range use periods; April 15 to June 1 and October 15 to December 1, dates
inclusive, respectively. Although elk also use these now abandoned Lot B hayfields during winter range
(Dec. 1 to April 15), after these hayfields are restored, managed (Le, cut), grazed as pasture, and then
-eovered_by snow, inadequate forage would remain to warrant leaving the top tails down over winter.
However, if individual zones or all of these zones are not needed for pasturing horses, the ranch manager
;should leave. the top rails down to facilitate whatever big game use might occur.
Another fencing proposed and to be retrofitted on the ranch would be compatible with recommendations
of ThompsoL ,(1995) and the County fencing policy.
Agricultural Uses
'Posed agricultural uses of the property (e.g., W2 Design 2003) are consistent with those anticipated
;4;by,71aompson (1995) and Aspen Valley Land Trust (1998).
.WrTdiife Migration Corridor Enhancement
'-'A portion of the property at the northern junction of Lots A and B is proposed for native habitat
restoration to enhance mountain shrub habitat values and big game migration through the eastern of
two CDOW-designated migration corridors crossing Watson Divide Road. Mountain shrub
reestablishment will increase winter range forage and better direct big game movements through the
migration corridor. Fencing modifications (Thompson 1995 and those developed as part of the Master
_ JUJ333 f!
April 22,20ells 03 IIIEIII llll �l�lllilll�illi 11111 lilt 111111111110 8//1640 26
Page:
Page 5
Plan PHM Design, pens. comm.)) will further enhance movements and decrease road -kill potential_
This measures goes beyond recommendations of Thompson (1995) to maintain wildlife conservation
values on the ranch. The approximately 15 -acre treatment area was selected because it contains most of
the specific movement routes within the existing migration corridor, it contains landforms directing
movements, it is topographically buffered from the agricultural development envelope, and native
habitats facilitating movements could be restored in this corridor. 'Although the primary road crossing
Points in this corridor are within hairpin curves where horizontal sight -distances are limited, road
design and conditions reduce vehicle speeds to velocities that are less likely to result in wildlife
mortality.
Native habitat restoration is proposed in two patches on opposite sides of Watson Divide Road. The
patch on the south side of the road follows the top a ridge, now a formerly irrigated meadow, that is
now used for migratory movements. The community to be restored on this relatively mesic, north -
facing slope, would be the same as that present on the contiguous slope to the east, dominated by
Garnbel's oak (Qisenzrrgamba&), servicebeny (Amelawhier abrif5&), and big sagebrush (A1temtrla tndentata).
Subdominant associates could include snowberry (iy)*boriwpff mtuM&folius), antelope bitterbrush (Purrbia
lridenPsrta), and chokecherry (Pruner asrg)ianur). While the County (BOCC Reso. 96-143, Page 4,
required that "all irrigated lands shall remain intact", this ridgeline is one of the least conducive areas of
the ranch to irrigate, the vast majority of irrigated lands on the property will be restored, and the
proposed treatment will restore important wildlife habitat
The xeric, south-facingpatch (north of the road) appears to have been historically cleared of sagebrush and
used as a dryland pasture. Scattered Rocky Mountain junipers (Jgniperur rmpuk=m) remain. Habitat
restoration in this patch would be more successful establishing sagebrush and native grasses.
Winter Range Enhancement
Most of the property supports native mountain shrub habitat that is important transitional and winter
range for the local big game population_ However, much of this habitat is decadent with reduced
forage values. The Master Pian proposes.to treat pacticulazlp decadent stands by selectively pruniris;
dormant shrubs in 5 -acre pate ;tn rryiWize this habitatand increae fo
iecomtnended that Vrge availability.Ii..;r;ecto&nn three, 5 -acre patches Before
regeneration monitoring by qualtfYed'B16ro51 st determines that such treatments, as modified, arei
achieving desired results. Depending upon how many treatments are implemented, such habitat
enhancement would compensate for reduced grazing opportunities on:: the Lot B hayfields.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the proposed Master Plan for Watson Divide Ranch would be
consistent with the intent of Thompson (1995), County policy, and the, intended preservation of
wildlife and agricultural conservation values on then property. Indeed, most of the Master Plan
lomponents discussed herein (e.g., ponds, riparian corridors, migration corridor and winter range
,nhancernent) surpass the recommendations of the conservation plan and would have a positive effect
)n the property's wildlife and other conservation values.
033334 /2
Il lll��ill��lllill�ll llll�l X11111 IIIIE III�I ll�fl 14/22003 12 40P
13 of 3
Mr. Joe Wells 08//
PrTKIN COUNTY CO R 0 00 0 0,00
April 22, 2003
Page 6
Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Richard W. Thompson
Certified Wildlife Biologist
Western Ecosystems, Inc.
RWT/s
Attachments
C:\...\Watson Dieide R��\00.7103 Mnstec Plan Ltt to J Wells
Literature Cited:
Aspen Valley Land Trust. 1998. Deed of conservation easement, Aspen Valley Land Trust (Aspen
Village). Aspen Valley Land Trust, Aspen CO.
Thompson, R.W. 1995. Wildlife evaluation and conservation plan for the Aspen Village property, Pitkin
County, Colorado. Western Ecosystems, Inc. Boulder, CO. 35 pp.
W2 Design. 2003. Wheeler Ranch Report. W2 Design, Ranch Management Consultants. Aspen, CO.
Mar. 14. 6 pp.
0303335
/3
r3 11 his
C;�a PoU2�.3
WATSON DIVIDE RANCH Pitkin County, Colorado
AMENDED 1041 HAZARD REVIEW SITE PLAN tssus DAT: November 14, 2005
RevisedISSUE : wemeber 7, 2005
Index of Sheets
SHEET 1 - Certificates and Legal Descriptions
SHEET 2 - Amended 1041 Hazard Review Site Plan
SHEET 3 - Relocated Agricultural Building and Ranch
Managers Residence Development Envelope
SHEET 4 - Fencing Standards
Acceptance for Recording:
This amended 1041 Hazard Review Site Plan of Watson Divide Ranch has
been accepted for filing in the clflim of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin
1un , Cot do, this `'-�.' f - day of - Av_vµAy 2005 in Plat Book
at Page as Reception No. 519??.?"
Cork and Rpcorder 1
1041 Environmental Hazard Waiver:
1041 environmental hazard areas ei that might affect the property, any
improvements, and the use and occupancy thereof.
Thoma§ R. Wheeler
Watson Divide Ranch, Inc
030036
LEGAL OESCWnOH- WATSON OMOE RANCH
LOT A
_.v.a q/. Y n.l>•Y• r. Y. Y YY _m. Mw•u• I. W.>I
�_./ 4 /Y >/w -Y- r. M Y �W ve . uM-/I• I. YI.0
J b1/
�Y.a wY r .Y�"vn%r •a.`�./`a +u"�'r_: Y. vmYIJ A. .
M W.Y do
I YY/
•lf'W 4 Y
/Y Ge+p Y IYYe 4sYt
I DA')I• 1. ,b:u Mi
Y -ROI
Y•1>•Y• I. Y
Board of County Commissioners Approval:
LOT a:
W
Yeeu_ � � /. N.s.Y . fnee. u.e. u _•. w •e..0
.>•Y•D• L Y N a
Y9•Y•• /. M
Y®I Yw•11• M Y
� L W
tl- 4 Y.Y tiu
ai-N- I. Yl
This Amended 1041 Hazard Review Site Plan of Watson Divide Ranch has
been reviewed and approved by the Pitkin County Board of County
Commissioners on the 25th day of June, 2003. Approval of this Amended
1041 Hazard Review Site Plan is subject to the terms and conditions of
Resolution No. 080, Series of 2003 of the Pitkin County Board of County
Commissioners recorded as Reception No. 486926, in the records of the
Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County.
Chairpe
Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners zi
611
VICINITY MAP R NOT TO SCALE.
eel �rr-T A _L A
%J ILL I 1 V1 -T
l'I''ll II II II II VIII"VIII IIrII 519972 ..,
N
ca
2
� e:
I
000037
DEVELOPMENT ENVELOPE
HAY/ PASTURE Incudes Zone i NATIVE HABITAT RESTORATION AREA
DEVELOPMENT ENVELOPE
Includes Zone ND DEVELOPMENT ENVELOPE I POND DEVELOPMENT ENVELOPE
—I--\
\
HAY/ PASTURE
�.N, DEVELOPMENT ENVELOPE 3
Incudes Zones 3 and e
z0NE6
TNNpN
SITE (Shown on Bode 41,
page 40)
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING —
AND DEVELOPMENT
ENVELOPE (See 1041
Hazed Review and
Candaker and Employee
Dwelling Unit $ita Plan, Plat
Boric 41 at pages 38 through
40)
WINTER RANGE—
ENHANCEMENT AREA
! EVIi 4JPMENT ENVELOPE 4 C
Indudes`,Zones 4,5,7 and 8 ZONE 5
ZONEt l\� webnPa4ue
187..
POND DEVELOPMENT ENVELOPE
NATIVE HABITAT
RESTORATION AREA
i
ZaNEe
LOT A I LOT B
AMENDED 1041 HAZARD REVIEW SITE PLAN
WATSON DIVIDE RANCH Land in Sections 6 and 7 T.9s., R.85W and Sections 1, 2 and 12,19S., R. 86W of The 6TH P.M.
Pitkin County, Colorado November 7, 2005
/
AGRICULTURAL OUT BUILDINGS AND RAN
MANAGER RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT
ENVELOPE Sae Sheet 3
ZONE P
2/ Nq.I
FE2mreP,
Flex Pa55¢As
ZONE
DEVELOPMENT ENVELOPE
ZONE IS-
1111va NryPA�N
�nxceg66m
® 0 M.5 IlS 6R 1006
IIIIII uu NOI'3'�a�p�pIRTryryIIH
��YNIII��I,I�IIW 519972
8. wa
SHEET 2 of 4
HAYI PASTURE
zaNE i
DEVELOPMENT ENVELOPE5
Inckdes zones 9 Roto 18
MNEterVIL11-
5,4A ,Ne`11e,b
Wmm„
® 0 M.5 IlS 6R 1006
IIIIII uu NOI'3'�a�p�pIRTryryIIH
��YNIII��I,I�IIW 519972
8. wa
SHEET 2 of 4
ly OubL4 q�.r
nso esel O /
ouwoo.wwre
1ea�Myn�w,g e J
fto
vaWren
a
'-I .��..anw"ivq.H 6reN 4iw.q
eam
' O Tw_ MM 9Y/M fiY4
qAsn1 �f .
Vol
Rantl�Roml /
/
PJmIN •pt /vL
O�WiM9+aN Per2n
1Mrrpm Re64]e xa
OeMbplent Etxe4Fe '•
SJ bs /
D
0 25 50 100 200
SCALE: F'-50'-0•
osnorrwEwrREsiowcE
72
UMN�OWIII�IININPWW WIBG�I ew.99aw
000038
AMENDED 1041 HAZARD REVIEW SITE PLAN
WATSON DIVIDE RANCH
1220 WATSON DIVIDE ROAD
SNOWMASS. COLORADO
SBO Mpel $v. $cite 1'O
MrorcF xran:
2Sp@
.i®BEs�nax
wreseomn,e.,e. mcB
CUOmmYa fnwme 8!Bt]
�.�
Pnt: YA4BA
ONrt?
��/fin
��yy��,
M. ���
Fn: rNrster®
REUSE OF DOCUMENT
� ��
b
rnr mee.:.� s s. Rm.y
waiiMiyvsn
as �n�� .a �a�
9lEf Nle
3 4
�Iyq N� nYluf
tlY N /MOy40e.
of
72
UMN�OWIII�IININPWW WIBG�I ew.99aw
000038
2
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING—
AND DEVELOPMENT
ENVELOPE (See 1041
Hazard Review and
Caretaker and Employee
Dwelfing Unit Site Plan, Plat
Book 41 at pages 38 through
40)
31 \
31 n \
ibm6Yr �
ZONES
133 a Ny
mom is
ZONES
\/ \ ZONE
� t1a]bwieW����
\wavo+pmelllm
v
I
1
ZONE It
� wam,eN
I
1
LOT A
AMENDED 1041 HAZARD REVIEW SITE PLAN - FENCING STANDARDS
G 471 P /g
AGRICULTURAL OUT BUILDINGS AND RANCH
MANAGER RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT
ENVELOPE Sea Sheet 2 for Fencing Standards
ZONE 1)
3eae XryMea
nulmnwe eilerWn
rZOME,3
LOT B
I.Ao elbr.rm
wawaninto
emnaa.onam
2X)N to
.. mom manna
finew
lAasW/-MI6
N�blrt YgN4n /
We. iNe relmnemm4 for tenantable fencing may m managed (when regwred) by onwwg the top rat of w[h bang or by erarzaly _
ramming so" On somen of Ni boding or by ommng gem a at kasl 15 he in wdh wary 1011 maters br He dumim aIN
WATSON DIVIDE RANCH Land in Sections 6 and 7 T9S., R.85W and Sections 1, 2 and 12,19S., R. 86W of the 6TH P.M.
® o
lens 33s an loos
.waain seas r•3x
NORTH
000039 Pitkin County, Colorado November 7, 2005=15972 SHEET 4of4