HomeMy WebLinkAboutschlumberger.major.plat.amendFIRST READING ON RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO GRANTING THE SCHLUMBERGER MAJOR
PLAT AMENDMENT FOR LOT 2, RIVER DIVIDE
SUBDIVISION
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners
Regular Meeting - January 12, 2005
Cindy Houben, Comn~uuity Development Director
Ezra Louthis, Planner
Schlumberger Major Plat Amendment for Lot 2,. River Divide Subdivision--Ist Reading
(public bearing)
SUMMARY: The Applicant is requesting a Subdivision Exemptioo for a Major Plat Ameudment to
enlarge the existing primary building envelope, create a landscape and in'igation envelope, establish an
accessory envelope for a barn aud CDU, and amend certain conditions of the original approval and
coveuants.
APPLICANT: Martin Schlumberger
REPRESENTATIVE: Same
LOCATION: Lot 2, River Divide Ranch Subdivision
ZONING/LOT SIZE: The property is zoned AFR-10 and contains approximately 25.9 acres.
BACKGROUND/EXISTING CONDITIONS: The property is Lot 2 of the River Divide Low hnpact
Subdivision (LIS), which contains two lots. Lot I is developed and is located on the southwest side of
Lower River Road and has fi-ontage on the Roaring Fork River. Lot 2 is located on the opposite side o£
Lower River Road extending up the hill to the north mid east away from the Road. The property received
LIS approval pursuant to BOCC Resolution Nos. 90-I 62 (General Submission), 91-113 (Final Plat) and
received a subsequent amendmeut for Lot 1 pursuant to P&Z Resolution No. PZ 93-18. Please see the
Application for Resolution Nos. 90-162 and 91-113.
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
Primary building envelope expansion: The Applicant is requesting to enlarge the existing primary
building envelope from 2 acres to 3 acres, with the proposed expansion located on the southwest side of the
existing envelope. As stated by the Applicmit, the intent for extending the building envelope is to allow for
enough room to orieut the residence to the north and west, away from the newly expanded Highway 82.
The proposed expansiou will extend iuto opeu pastureland while maintaining a 400' setback from Lower
River Road.
Accessory envelope for landscaping and irrigation: Tbe Applicant is requesting an accessory envelope
directly adjacent to the primary envelope to the east for the purpose of screening the residence with
landscaping and grading. Additionally the proposed accessory envelope would contain irrigation devices
including irrigation controls, valves, a pump station aud a head gate diversion box.
Agricultural Development Envelope: The Applicm~t is also requesting a new 4.6-acre agricultural
development envelope for the uorthem portiou of the property. The intended uses for the envelope would
be a Barn with an attached CDU, and to envelope pre-existing corrals for livestock, associated livestock
facilities and a parking/storage area.
Memorandum: Schlumberger Major Plat Amendment
January 12, 2005
Page 2
Amendments to conditions of original LIS approval and Covenants: In addition, the Applicant is
requesting to change conditions from the original approval, as well as some of the Covenants. It should be
noted that while Pitkin County did not sign offon the Covenauts, there is a condition of approval in the
Final Plat Resolution (Reso No. 91-113) which amends the Covenants to say, "Any amendments to the
covenants which contradict conditions of approval referenced in BOCC Resolution #90-162 shall be subject
to approval by the BOCC." The Applicant is requesting to amend a few covenants that cont?adict
conditions of#90-162. The requested amendments are listed below:
The Applicant is requesting that the 50' access easement delineated on the Final Plat on the
southeast portion of the property be removed.
The laaguage on the Final Plat regarding deed restricting the acreage ootside of the existing
envelopes against further development would be changed to allow for the proposed new
envelopes, as well as statlng that there would be no development outside the proposed new
envelopes.
Requested changes for Resolution No. 90-162:
a) Conditiou #la, which prohibits dogs, would be changed to allow for dogs to be
kenneled.
b) Condition # 12, which states that all development would be confined to the originally
approved envelopes and that the rest of the acreage would be deed restricted against
further development, would be changed to allow for the proposed envelope changes.
c) Condition # 13, which allows for a 2,500 sq. ft. barn with a CDU in it would be
changed to clarify that the square footage (2,500) which includes the barn and the CDU
would be exempt under current regulations as it pertains to current Rural Area
exemptions.
d) Condition # 18, which refers to Employee Dwelling Units, would be stricken and
replaced with language regarding current CDU regulations.
Requested changes to the Protective Covenants:
a) Article IIIa, which prohibits dogs, would be changed to allow for dogs to be kenneled.
b) Article lllc, which probibits vegetation to be removed outside of the originally
approved envelopes, would be amended to allow for the proposed new envelopes.
c) Article IV#2, which deals with nuisances and the neighborhood, would be eliminated
due to "ambiguous aud arbitrary" language.
d) Article VII#l, which deals with the Covenants running with land, would be eliminated.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: The following agency has been referred on this case.
· Zoning: Joanna Scl~affner, tile County Zoning Officer, commeoted on concerns about setback
requirements, among otber items. Ms. Schaffner's comments will be reflected throughout the
melllo and recommendations.
· Wildlife: The Wildlife Biologist's commeuts are attached.
Referral memos received have been attached for your reference.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Primary building envelope expansion: The proposed expansion oftbe principal envelope to tile south and
west toward Lower River Road still maintains a large visual buffer of 400' from the edge of the envelope to
Lower River Road itself. Staff understands the desire to orient the envelope differently to allow for the
Memorandum: Schlumberger Major Plat Amendment
January 12, 2005
Page 3
residence to face away from tile highway, and given the fact that tile envelope will still maintain a large
visual buffer fi'om the County Road and will not impact wildlife adversely, Staffand tbe P&Z recommend
that the expansion of the principal envelope be allowed.
Note: Staff was notified by a neighbor ora poteutial debris flow issue associated with the existing principal
envelope, and the proposed landscaping and irrigation envelope. Upon a site visit with the County
Engineer, it was determined that in fact the entire area is an alluvial fan, and there was a potential debris
flow situation. Staffthen requested of the Applicant an engineering report to address the situation and any
potential mitigation. The Applicant provided an engineering report, which was then referred to the
Colorado Geologic Survey for review (see attachmeuts C and D). The report esseutially states there is a
potential debris flow issue and that the proper mitigation is a 5-foot tall, u-shaped berm around the principal
residence. Since the principal residence is not yet designed or located, Staff recommeuds that prior to the
submittal of any building permits for the principal residence, the Applicant must submit a fiaal engineering
report that complies with the recommendations of the Yell and Associates, Inc. report and to the satisfaction
of the County Engineer.
Accessory envelope for landscaping and irrigation: The proposed landscape and irrigation envelope to
the east allows for the Applicant to make improvements outside of the principal envelope for irrigation
purposes, as well as screen the principal residence from neighboriug parcels while not limiting visual
corridors fi'om the County Road. Staffrecommends tbat the envelope be approved for landscaping aud
irrigation purposes only, based on the recommendations that Applicant's Engineering finn made regarding
potential debris flow (see attachment C). Additionally, the Applicant will be required to remove the
existing berm located to the east of the principal envelope adjacent to the ditch as part of the mitigation of
the potential debris flow. The purpose, as indicated in the geologic report and comments made by Yeb and
Associates, inc. is to properly mitigate for potential debris flow as recommended, and not threaten the
neighboring pamel with inappropriate mitigation.
Agricultural Development Envelope: The Applicm~t has proposed a new, 4.6-acre agriculturaI envelope to
be located on the northern portion of the property adjacent to critical wildlife habitat. A portion of the
proposed envelope is currently improved with existing corrals for horses and livestock, and graveled
parking/storage areas. The improvements are located outside of rely approved envelopes, and at one time
were the subject of a violation as established by the County. As noted in the neighbor's comments
(attachment B), the improve~nents were the subject of a lawsuit between Mr. Schlumberger aud the County
where the County had issued a permit in error for the corral, arena and associated improvements. The Court
ordered the improvements remain, but that the Mr. Scblumberger be subject to a revegetatiou plan
established through District Court Case No. 93CV97-3 (see attachment B). Staff is unclear whether the
revegetation requirements were met, and will request as a condition that the Applicaut provide
documentatiou regarding this issue.
With regard to the proximity of the proposed agricultural envelope to wildlife habitat, Staff~ in reviewing the
origina! approval docmnents, finds that the Colorado Department of Wildlife originally agreed to allow a
barn envelope in this Iocatiou, but would not allow for dogs to be located in the northern portion of the
parcel. Comments from tile County's Wildlife Biologist confirms that the agricultural envelope would be
appropriate in this location due to the fact that a large portion of the area is disturbed already, and it is not
critical habitat, but that any additioual structures be located below the Eli Cerise ditch (see attachment F).
However, Staff and the P&Z are concerned with the enormity of the proposed envelope, and recommend
that the envelope be scaled back to represent the existing disturbed areas (corrals, parking, etc.) as well as
the pasture land to the west of the ditch, which is suitable for the development ora barn with regard to
wildlife. Additionally, Staff and the P&Z recommend that the envelope be segregated into two sections: one
Memorandum: Schlumberger Major Plat Amendment
Jauuary 12, 2005
Page 4
beiuga development envelope specific to the dedication of the barn which shall be located to the west and
below the Eli Cerise ditch, and the rest being dedicated to non-structural development (i.e. corrals, parking
area, etc.). Staff is also concerned that it might not be appropriate to locate another unit of density adjacent
to the wildlife habitat and located within the barn adjacent to Mr. Theofauous's property, aad is
recommending that the CDU be located iii the principal envelope, either attached or detached from the
residence. The P&Z~ however, felt that because the Wildlife Biologist was not concerned with the location
of the CDU in the barn, that it would be appropriate to have the CDU in the barn. It should be noted that the
letter from Mr. Theofanoos, who lives on the property to the south of the agricultural envelope, was not
submitted to the P&Z.
Dogs should be prohibited in the agricultural envelope aod kenneled in the principal envelope as determined
by the CDOW's recommendation during the original LIS approval.
View of existing hnprovements facing west.
Amendments to conditions of original LIS approval and Covenants:
1. The Applicant requested that tbe 50' access easement indicated ou the Plat be vacated. The
Applicant, nor Staff was able to locate the recorded easetneut anywhere but ou the Plat, and due
to its language dedicating the easement to "the perpetual use of all utility companies", Staff and
P&Z recommend against the vacation of the easement as it would be extremely difficult to
obtain written approval from the utility compmlies. The Applicant has provided no proof that
the utility companies are in support of vacating the easement.
2. Staff and P&Z recommend that the language on tbe Plat be changed to reflect current envelope
language regarding development outside of an envelope: "No developlnent, including grading,
excavation, fill placement, berming, landscaping, entry or ranch gates, and vegetation
removal or disturbance shall occur outside of the approved building [and/or] development
envelope except for access, wildfire mitigatiou and limited agricultural activities including
livestock grazing, ditch and irrigation maintenance, reseeding of pastures and private
equestrian trails. Construction, stagiug, parking, utility and driveway extension and
maintenance shall occur within approved building envelope, or access driveway."
3. Requested changes for Resolution No. 90-162:
a) Staff and P&Z recommend that dogs be allowed iu the priucipal envelope, but they must be
kenneled, and that dogs not be allowed iii the agricultural envelope, based on the CDOW's
comments from the original review.
Memorandum: Schlumberger Major Plat Amendmeut
January 12, 2005
Page 5
b) Staff and P&Z recommend that the language regarding deed restricting against further
development be changed to reflect the current language regarding development and
envelopes (see above language in 3/2).
c) During the original review, the language in the condition regarding the square footage of
the bam/CDU was specific, and Staff recommends that the barn be exempted from the
calculation of floor area up to 2,500 sq. ft., but that due to potential wildlife and neighbor
concerns with locating the CDU in the baru, Staffrecommends that the CDU be built in
the principal envelope and be calculated as residential floor area. The P&Z recommends
that the CDU be allo~ved in the barn, and tbat will be reflected in the.conditions.
d) Staff and P&Z recommend that condition #18 regarding EDUs be stricken and replaced
by current Rural Area CDU language.
Requested changes to the Protective Covenants:
a) Staff and P&Z recommend that dogs be allowed in the principal envelope, but they must
be kenneled, and that dogs not be allowed in the agricultural envelope, based on the
CDOW's comments fi'om the original review.
b) Staff and the P&Z recommend that the language regarding deed restricting against
furtber development be changed to reflect the current language regarding development
and envelopes (see above language in #2).
c) In reviewing the original documents for the LIS, Staff found no indication of why this
Covenant was specifically included, and Staff and P&Z recommend to remove the
"Nuisance" Covenant, but maintain the General Provisions Covenant.
MAJOR PLAT AMENDMENT
Pursuant to Section 3-190-090, a subdivision exemption for a major plat amendment may be permitted
subject to compliauce with the following standards:
A. Amendments shall be consistent and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
Response: The proposed amendments are generally consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, in
that much of the area has been extensively developed since the time of the original subdivision. With
regard to the agricultural envelope, there are existing improvements located in the proposed envelope
area, and Staff and the P&Z feel that the development of a barn adjacent to the corrals and arena, but
below the ditch is appropriate. However, Staff feels that the development ora detached CDU in the barn
will cause greater impacts on the neighbor, Mr. Theofanous, and recommends against the location of the
CDU iii the barn. Mr. Theofanous has indicated he is against the proposed agricultural envelope in its
entirety.
Additional community impacts resulting from the amendment shall be completely mitigated by
the applicant.
Response: The enlargement of the existing principal envelope will have negligible impacts, and the
creation of a landscape and irrigation envelope will allow for the Applicant to screen the residence from
the adjacent property owners. The creation oftbe agricultural envelope will have negligible impacts, and
by allowing the barn to built in a separate envelope as located will lessen the visual impacts on the
County Road. The impacts are lessened because the barn would be located ill a natural swale, as well the
bulk will be less in the priucipal envelope, which is closer to the County Road.
C. The amendment must comply with the standards of this Code whichever are ap, olicable.
Memorandum: Schlumberger M~or Pla Amendment
January l2,2005
Page 6
Response: The proposed amendments comply with the standards of this Code.
D. In no case shall a major plat amendment be utilized to increase the number of lots on ct plat.
Response: No new lots are created.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the Board pass the
followiug motion, "to adopt the attached Resolution approving the Schlumberger Major Plat Amendment to
enlarge the principal building envelope, create a development envelope for irrigation and landscaping,
create a limited agricultural envelope, and amend certain conditions and Covenants and settiug 2''d Reading
for January 26, 2005."
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft Resolution
B. Neighbor Letter
C. Geologic Report
D. Colorado Geologic Survey Comments
E. Zoning Comments
F. Wildlife Comments
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO, GRANTING THE SCHLUMBERGER MAJOR PLAT AMENDMENT FOR LOT
2, RIVER DIVIDE SUBDIVISION
Resolution No. -2005
Recitals
Martiu Schlumberger "Applicaut', bas applied to the Pitkin County Board of County
Commissiouers, "BOCC", for a Major Plat Amendment to eolarge the existing primary building
envelope, create a landscape and irrigatiou envelope, establish an accessory envelope for a barn and
CDU, and amend certain coaditions of the original approval and covenants.
Tile lot is located on Lower River Road, and is more specifically described as Lot 2. River
Divide Subdivision.
Tile Plaaaing aud Zoning Commission heard this application at their regularly scheduled public
meetiog oil August 17, 2004, at which time they recommended approval by a vote of 4-0.
Tile Board heard the request oil Ist reading at their regularly scheduled and duly noticed public
bearing oil January 12, 2005, at which time evidence and testimony were presented with respect
to this application. Second reading will be held on January 26, 2005.
The Board fiuds that this application is consistent with the applicable Sections of the Pitkin
County Laod Use Code.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Pitkin County Board of County
Commissioners that it hereby grants approval to the Schlumberger Major Plat Amendment to enlarge the
principal buildiug envelope, create a development envelope for irrigation and laudscaping, create a limited
agricultural envelope, mid amend certain conditions and Covenants subject to tbe following conditions,
which shall ruu with the land and be binding oil all successors in interest:
1. Tile Applicant shall comply with the provisions of BOCC Resolution Nos. 90-162, and 91-113 unless
otherwise replaced or amended by tile conditions of this approval.
Tile Applicaot shall prepare all Amended Plat iu accordance with Pitkiu Couoty Laud Use Code
Sectioas 5-40 and 5-60-040, that indicates the enlarged principal building envelope, the development
envelope for irrigatiou and laodscaping, and a limited agricultural envelope.
3. The Applicaut shall adhere to all inaterial represeutations ~nade by the application or in public meetings.
4. The CDU shall be located in tile principal building envelope, either detached or attached to the
pri~nary residence.
5. Conditiou No. la of BOCC Resolutioa 90-162 shall read: "Dogs shall be prohibited in tile River
Divide Subdivision, except in tile principal envelope, where they shall be kenneled."
6. Condition No. 12 of BOCC Resolution 90-162 shall read: "No developmeot, including gradiug,
excavation, fill placement, berming, laudscaping, entry or ranch gates, and vegetation removal or
disturbance shall occur outside of the approved building [and/or] development envelope except for
access, wildfire mitigation and limited agricultural activities including livestock grazing, ditch and
Resolution No. -2005
Page 2
irrigation maiutenance, reSeediag of pastures and private equestrian trails. Construction, staging,
parking, utility and driveway extension and maintenance shall occur within approved building
envelope, or access driveway."
Condition No. 13 of BOCC Resolution 90-162 sbatl read: "A barn and CDU sball be allowed in the
principal envelope with a maximum square footage of 2,500 square feet exempt from the calculation
of floor area for Lot 2, River Divide Subdivision. In the event the Applicant chooses to build the
barn in the agricultural envelope, the CDU shall be located in the principal envelope and sball be
calculated as floor area, however, the baru shall be allowed to be 2,500 square feet exempt fi'om the
calculation of floor area."
8. Condition No. 18 of BOCC Resolution 90-162 shall read: "A CDU shall be allowed in the principal
envelope pursuant to the standards ill Code Section 9~110-041(C), Density Bonus for Caretaker
Dwelling Units ("CDU's")."
9. Article lIla of the River Divide Covenants shall read: "Dogs shall be probibited in the River Divide
Subdivision, except in the principal envelope, where they shall be kenneled."
10. Article Illc of the River Divide Covenants sball read: "No development, including grading,
excavation, fill placement, berming, landscaping, entry or ranch gates, and vegetation removal or
disturbance shall occur outside of the approved building [and/or] development envelope except for
access, wildfire mitigation and limited agricultural activities including livestock grazing, ditch and
irrigation maintenance, reseeding of pastures and private equestriml trails. Construction, staging,
parking, utility aud driveway extensiou and maintenance shall occur within approved building
envelope, or access driveway."
11. Prior to commencement of any eartbmoving or construction activity, the Applicants shall stake the
corners of the building envelope and install construction fencing around the perimeter oftbe building
envelope. Tbe fencing shall remain in place until issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. No
vegetation shall be damaged or removed outside the building envelope.
12. Prior to the submission of a buildiug or earthmoving permit, the Applicant shall submit a landscape
plan for the principal and associated envelopes for Lot 2, River Divide Subdivision.
13. All new fq~!Si.!:].g uot necessary for tbe retention of cattle 9r sheep
Existing fences must be brought into compliance with current fence standards: Wood fenciug shall
employ three rails or less, be the round or split rail type, shall not exceed 48 inches in beight above
ground level and 12 inches in width (top view), and sball have at least 18 inches between two oftbe
rails. Wire fencing shall consist of no more than 3 strands of smooth wire and shall not exceed 42
inches iu beigbt.
14~ Tile Applicant shall comply with tile 2001 Wildlife Protection Ordinance No. 010-2001 for waste
storage. Compliance with tbe condition sball be verified by Pitkin Couuty prior to issuance ora
certificate of occupancy.
~;~[~[~t3; prior to issuance ora building permit~ .Tbe implementation of this plan must result in
immediate effective screeuing. Consequnetly, trees used for this purpose must be a minimum of 8
Resolution No. -2005
Page 3
feet in height and must be evergreens (e.g., Engelmann spruce, ponderosa pine).
compliance with an approved plan. 5!ls¥!ld i~.sLr~q~li!'qcJ prior to
17. Prior to submission of any building permits, the Applicant shall remove tile berm located to tile east of
the principal envelope and adjacent to the Eli Cerise ditch to the satisfaction of the County Engineer.
18. Prior to submissiou ora building permit for the principal residence, tile Applicant shall submit a final
engineering report that complies with the recommendations of the Yeh and Associates, Inc. report and
to the satisfaction of the County Engiaeer.
19. Statutory vested rights for tile approval contained herein are granted pursuant to the Pitkin County
Land Use Code and Colorado Statutes, subject to the exceptions set forth in Pitkin County Land Use
Code, § 4-140 and C.R.S., § 24-68-105. The statutory vested rights granted herein shall expire oil
March 16, 2007.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PUBLISHED IN THE ASPEN TIMES on the 25th day of
September, 2004.
PUBLISHED AFTER ADOPTION FOR VESTED REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE ASPEN
TIMES WEEKLY ON
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at tile regular meeting and public hearing on the 12th day
of January, 2005.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED AFTER SECOND READING on the 26th day of January,
2005
ATTEST:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
Jeanette Jones
Depnty Clerk
Patti Kay-Clapper
Chair
Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Johu Ely,
County Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Cindy Houben,
Community Development Director
Case #091-04
PID #246725401002
HERBERT S. KLEIN
LANCE R. COTr~*
JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, III
MADHU B. KRISHNAMURTI
* also admitted in California
KLEIN, COTf: & EDWARDS, P.C.
hsklein@rof.net
cote~rof, net
jody@vanion.com
madhu@rof, net
Attorneys at Law
201 NORTH MILL STREET
SUITE 203
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
Telephone (970) 925-8700
Facsimile (970) 925-3977
January 5, 2005
Via Hand Deli. very
Ezra Louthis
Pitkin County Community Development Department
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Martin Schlumberger Application; Lot 2 River Divide Low Impact Subdivision
Dear Ezra:
As you know, this office represents Paul Theofanous. A part of the Schlumberger property
forms a "U" and Mr. Theofanous' property is located in the middle of the "U". Mr. Theofanous is
dramatically affected by the changes Mr. Schlumberger proposes for Lot 2, River Divide
Subdivision.
Northern Building Envelope
Originally, the River Divide Subdivision was granted as a "low impact" subdivision
there was to be no disturbance of the area north of Mr. Theofanous' property. According to the plat
and Resolutions of approval, ali improvements were restricted to the two-acre building envelope on
Lot 2 which is south of the Theofanous property and closer to the County road.
Sometime after Mr. Schlumberger obtained his low impact subdivision approval, he was able
to obtain a mistakenly issued earttunoving permit from the County. Mr. Schlumberger met with the
Commissioners and agreed to cease work in that area. Subsequently, he was mistakenly issued a
second permit for earthwork in the northern building area.- Mr. Schlumberger constructed a large
riding arena, a hay barn, several storage structures and a large flat parking and materials storage
area. There is even a mobile home/construction trailer and fueling station on the northern envelope
today. At the current time, it looks like a commercial and vehicle storage yard.
This was clearly a violation of several of the conditions specifically noted on the plat and
included in Resolutions 90-162 and 91-113 which granted the low impact subdivision approvals. It
was also a clear violation of the intent and purpose of low impact subdivisions. The County
Cormnissioners felt so strong about this violation of the approvals that the County filed a lawsuit
Ezra Louthis
January 5, 2005
Page 2
against Mr. Schlumberger to enforce the low impact subdivision approvals. See Pitkin County
District Court Case No. 93CV97~3.
Unfortunately, Mr. Schlumberger had spent a significant amoum of money in detrimental
reliance on the mistakenly issued permits. Consequently, the County entered a stipulation for
dismissal which included a Re-vegetation Agreement. In essence, the court allowed Mr.
Schlumberger to retain an area of 1.75 acres which was fenced and graded pursuant to the
mistakenly issued permit. Ali areas outside the fenced area were to be re-vegetated. The court's
order specifically requires that Mr. Schlumberger abide by the re-vegetation plan. The originally
excavated area was approximately 2.75 acres, and approximately 1 acre was to be re~vegetated and
reseeded. The court, the County and Mr. Schlumberger agreed to a maximum disturbance area of
1.75 acres. I have not been able to find any record of subsequent approvals for additional
disturbance on Lot 2.
The current application seeks an Agricultural Development Area of 4.598 acres, a 262%
increase in the size of the area allowed to be disturbed. It also seeks to add a barn and CDU in an
area that was never supposed to be disturbed in the first place. This was always supposed to be a
"low impact" subdivision which has grown incrementally through mistaken permits. It is impossible
to tel1 from the application and the maps submitted what the exact acreage is of the northern area
currently disturbed, but it sure appears to me to be greater than 1.75 acres.
For your reference, attached as Exhibit 1 is a copy of Resolution No. 93-81 which recites
some of the above history. Attached as Exhibit 2 is a copy of the Re-vegetation Agreement which is
signed by Mr. Schlumberger and under which he agrees to reclaim and re-vegetate one of the 2.75
acres which were at that time disturbed. Attached as Exhibit 3 are three photographs of some of the
development which currently exists on the northern disturbance area outside the fenced riding area.
Mr. Schlumberger should not be allowed to profit from and expand on his ill gotten northern
development area. Mr. Schlumberger has a history of ignoring County regulations to the detriment
of his neighbors and should not further profit from this behavior.
In light of the above, we request that the County deny the application to dramatically
increase the size and dramatically increase the uses and impacts of the northern disturbance area.
Further we request that the County require Mr. Schlumberger to confirm the acreage of the northern
disturbance area so that the County can confirm he is in compliance with the Court's Order. This
will bring the northern portion of Lot 2 more into conformance with the original intent of the low
impact subdivision and the Court's Order. The application is inconsistent with the original
approvals and significantly increases the traffic, noise and other impacts on Mr. Theofanous. It is
inconceivable to me that the County would be concerned enough about the disturbance in the
northern envelope to file litigation and then would now allow that same land owner to significantly
increase the uses and impacts in'that same area.
Berm on Southern Envelope
There is a significant debris flow channel from Arbaney Gulch to Lot 2. Recently, Mr.
Schlumberger .constructed an illegal berm without a permit in the building envelope on Lot 2. This
Ezra Louthis
January 5, 2005
Page 3
berm was red-tagged and the County has required the berm be removed. As currently constructed,
the illegal berm would deflect debris flow from Lot 2 onto Mr. Theofanous' property and directly
into his 100-year old home. We have reviewed the report prepared by Yeh & Associates, Inc., and
the report prepared by Wright Water Engineers, Inc., concerning the debris flow channel. The
solution proposed by Yeh & Associates for the construction of a protective berm is acceptable to Mr.
Theofanous provided that a site-specific plan be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of a
building permit and provided that it be confirmed at that time that the berm will retain all debris flow
on Lot 2 or pass the debris through Lot 2 toward the river and not displace the debris flow onto the
Theofanous property.
CDU
We are not opposed to the CDU on the property. However, we believe the intent of the low
impact subdivision approval should be honored and the CDU should be located in the primary
building envelope. The impacts of noise, traffic and activity from the CDU on Mr. Theofanous will
be significantly greater if the CDU is located in the barn on the northern disturbance area. We
request that, c6nsistent with the original low impact subdivision approvals, the CDU be limited to
the existing primary building envelope.
Conclusion
We respectfully request that you deny the application as it relates to changes to the northern
disturbance area, that you require Mr. Schlumberger provide mapping and area calculations for the
northern disturbance area, that you limit the CDU to primary building envelope, and that the plans
for a site specific debris flow berm be reviewed at the time of development of the primary envelope
to confirm that the flow will be retained on site or flow to the river and not on the Theofanous
property. I would appreciate it if you would include a copy of this letter and the exhibits that are
attached hereto in the packet for the Commissioners for the hearing. Please contact me if you have
any questions.
Sincerely,
Enclosures (Exhibits 1, 2 and 3)
cc: Paul Theofanous
n:\t heo fanous\ 1 ezra.doc
KLEIN, COTI~ & EDWARDS, P.C. /
,.pJa E. Edwards III r
~esolu~ion No. t3-~/
· JRN-05-2005 WED 01:19 PM FRX NO. P, 06
REVE=~TION PLaN FOR R~VER DIVIDg SUBDIVISION: LOT 2
E~RTHMOV~N~ PERMXT # 2-16 EM
Enclosed below is an outline detatlll~g the methods planned for
revegetation of %ha excavated area. This plan calls for seeding of
all excavated ar.am outside of the fenced area. To be more
specific, all out and fill areas w111 be revegetated including ~ha
perimeter areas up to the fencing.
Am shown on the origir~al permit, the excavated area is approximately
2.75 acres. Of this 2.75 acres approximately 1.0 acre wall be
ravegetated w~th the below plan.
STEPE COMPLETED: (These processes have been completed am
per the enclosed invoic~ from Ampen Eerthmoving LLC=
($ 42~5.00)
A. Removing & Stockpiling of topsoil.
Be
After completion of out & fill excavation, the
topsoil material has been applied uniformly and in
sufficient depth to support vegetative cover.
II. STEPS TO BE COMPLETED:
Seed bed shall be well ~ettled and firm but loose
enough to plant seed at seeding depth. The
eeedbed shall be reasonably free of weeds.
ExiSting stands of weeds that are present before
se~dtn~ will be controlled by application of
herbicides.
The rate of fertilizer applluation shall be no less
than 40 lbs. of nitro,an (N), and 40 lb~. of
phosphate (P205) per acre. Animal manures or similar
organf~ mater/al may be used to supply al/ or part of
%he specified nutrient~. The f~rtil~zer shall be
applied immediately prior to seeding, at the time of
seeding, or imm~dfa%ely following seeding, depending
on the type of fert~lizer and equipment used.
Received Time Jan. 5. ]:IgPM HDIA3Z31,1>I '~ S~J-t~nH'£~±~O Z~,:68 ~, zo d3s
~N-0~-2006 ~ED 01:20 PM F~X ~0, P, O?
Using the assumption that the site will be dryland,
and water not readily available! the seed mimture
will consist of pubescent wheatgrass R smooth brom~
mixture, applied at the rate of 30-3S lbs. per acre,
In the event that an irrigation system is applied to
this area, the seed mixture shall consist of: 20%
Manohar Smooth ~zome, 20% Potomac Orchard Grass, 20%
Linn Perennial Ryegras~, 20% Winter Rye, 10% Troy
Kentucky Bluograss, 5% Aleike Clover, and 5% Timothy.
(Applied at the same rate of 30-S5 lbs. per acre.)
Seeding will be by the broadcast method by hand or by
a portable mechanical spreader, The seedE will be
incorporated into the surface of the soil by
handra~ing or harrowing - not to eKc~ed a depth of
314".
The seeding shall take place in the fall of 1993, so
es tO take advantage of the cool weather conditions
end fall moisture.
The planted site will be protected from ~rampeling
and grazin~ until plants are well established. This
shall be accomplished by not ~razing until the fall,
of 1994.
8/9 · d
· 5~N-0~-200~ ~ED 0i:20 PM F~× NO. P, 08
In the e~ent the weather condition~ are not suitable to germinate
plan%lng, Martin Schlumberger will repeat the pre~z~ and us~ the
same revegetation plan in the zpring of 1994.
Please note that 200' of an existing old road shall also be planted
with the same method above.
With %he plantings of the out and fill areas, I believe this
wall mitigate the ~sual impactz.
submitted, /
~nclo~uz-e
Yeh and Associates, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering Consultants
Denver, CO 80222
Tel: (303) 781-9590
Fax: (303) 781-9583
170Mel Ray Road
Glenwood Springs, CO 8160l
Te1:(970) 384-1500
Fax(970)384-1501
6 December 2004
Mr. Martin Schlumberger
2550 Lower River Road
Snowmass, CO 61654
RE: Site-Specific Residential Protective Berm
2550 Lower River Road, Snowmass, Colorado
Conceptual design has been completed for a site-specific protective berm for a residence located
on the Martin Schlumberger property, located at 2550 Lower River Road in Pitkin County,
Colorado. The purpose of this conceptual design was to address the hydrological and debris flow
concerns of Pitkin County in the amendment of an existing permit for residential construction.
Upon investigation of the site and review of past and recent aerial photographs, it became
apparent that the natural drainage pattern from Arbaney Gulch was altered by berms constructed
on the Cherek property. The altered pattern directs the drainage pattern directly on to the
Schlumberger property. (Figures 1 and 2) A berm was recently constructed on the Schlumberger
property to divert this flow away from the Schlumberger property. Pitkin County red-tagged the
Schlumberger berm and requested a hydrology and debris flow analysis be conducted by
Schlumberger to determine an appropriate berm location and design.
On-site meetings were held with Pitkin County Community Development Department and the
Colorado Geological Survey. During this meeting it was indicated that a site-specific protective
berm may be the best solution to protect the future Schlumberger residence. In addition, it was
required by Pitkin County that the recently constructed berm on the Schlumberger property be
removed to allow the drainage to flow onto the Schlumberger property.
Wright Water Engineers, Inc., (VVWE) of Glenwood Springs was hired to perform a flooding
evaluation for Arbaney Gulch and to recommend a site-specific berm height for protection of the
future residence on the Schlumberger property. (Attachment 1) Yeh and Associates, Inc. (YA)
provided a bulking factor estimation for the flooding evaluation. (Attachment 2) The resulting depth
of flow for the design event would be about 1.9 feet as reported by WWE. The Federal Emergency
Management Agency requires a minimum residual freeboard of 3 feet for the 100-year flood for
riverine levees. The recommended berm height is a minimum of 5 feet.
Proposed Construction
The proposed structure on the Martin Schlumberger property is a single-family residence, however,
the precise location or configuration has not as yet been determined. With a site-specific protective
berm design, the concept would be to construct a berm that would divert potential flooding and
debris flow around the residential structure, while keeping the flows essentially limited to the
Schlumberger property, For the berm design, YA designers recommend subexcavation of several
feet, construction of a mechanically stabilized earth wall (MSE) with an attached 5-foot minimum
vertical armoied surface on the uphill side, and a 2:1 maximum slope on the downhill side. (Figure
3) Once the precise configuration and location of the residential structure is determined, the final
design of the extent and configuration of the protective berm can be completed.
Limitations
This conceptual design has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical
engineering practices in this area for use by the client on the 2550 Lower River Road, Snowmass,
CO property. Once the residential structure is designed and surveyed on the property, a final
design will need to address the design criteria for the site-specific residential protective berm. As
with all geotechnical designs, the designer should observe the construction to assure the
construction meets the design intent.
Sincerely,
Yeh and Associates, inc.
Joseph J. Kracum, PE
Senior Engineering Consultant
Site-Specific Residential Protective Berm Page 2 of 2
2550 Lower River Road, Snowmass, Colorado
1968 Aerial Photograph
Figure 1. IN Yehc.~,~and~,~..~ c~,~Ass°ciates' inc.
1968 Aerial Photograph
w/Recent Overlay
Figure 2. I~ Yeh~and~Associates,¢~,~ Inc.
S-foot High Protective Barrier
Schlumberger Property
2550 Lower River Road
Snowmass, Colorado
Mechanically Armored Face
Stabilized tied to
Earth Wall (MSE) MSE Reinforcement
Original Ground
Configuration of the wall around the residential structure will be in the
general shape of an arc. Proximity to residential structure, armoring,
revetment, material requirements, compaction, and other design criteria
will be based on specific location of residential structure in relationship
to the site and needs to be provided in final design.
Figure 3. !~1~ Yeh~.~and, n~.Associates~c~ Inc.
Wri,qht Water EnRineers, Inc.
818 Colorado Avenue, Suite 307, P.O. Box 219
Glenwood Spdngs, Colorado 81602
(970) 945-7755 TEL
(970) 945-9210 FAX
w',~v.wfightwater.com
e-mail: jkelly~rightwater.com
December 1, 2004
Via Facsimile & First Class Mail
Joseph J. Kracum, P.E.
Yeh and Associates, Inc.
170 Mel Ray Road
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Arbaney Gulch Flooding Evaluation
Dear Mr. Kracum:
Wright Water Engineers, Inc. (WWE) has complefed its evaluation of the flood flows in the
Arbaney Gulch drainage in Pitkin County. Martin Schlumberger owns the property located at the
end of the current channel alignment and wishes to build a house on the lot. The Pitkin County
Commissioners have required that a berm be constructed to protect the habitable structure from
flood and debris flows. Our scope of work included determining the appropriate flood flow and
corresponding height of the berm to protect the subject property. WWE conducted a site visit on
November 8, 2004 with you and Mr. Schlumberger to observe the drainage basin and existing
channel characteristics.
Arbaney Gulch has a drainage area of 3.42 square miles at the location where the current channel
intersects the Eli Cerise Ditch (Figure 1). The basin has a southwest exposure with elevations
ranging from 10,502 feet at Sloane Peak down to approximately 7,010 feet at the confluence of
Arbaney Gulch and the Roaring Fork River. The channel is confined to a steep canyon prior to
exiting onto an alluvial fan with more gradual slopes.
There is evidence that the channel across the alluvial fan has historically taken different flow
paths. Since the channel terminates at the irrigation ditch, it does not appear that a flooding
event has occurred since the establishment of the current alignment. Reconstruction of the
channel history was beyond WWE's scope of work.
Prior to exiting the canyon and below a 36-inch corrugated metal culvert, the main channel has a
splitter box that diverts half of the flow into an irrigation ditch. During a large flood event, flows
would exceed the capacity of the culvert and the splitter box would have a negligible effect on
the routing of the water. A berm has been constructed parallel to and southeast of the channel,
presumably to protect the adjacent home and property. This berm would likely bifurcate the
flows emerging from the canyon and force some of the floodwaters to the south. However,
WWE has conservatively assumed that the full flood flow would reach the end of the current
channel alignment above the Schlumberger property.
There are no streamflow gages on Arbaney Gulch or on any of the nearby drainages that could
serve a proxy. Therefore, WWE 'used regression equations developed by the U.S. Geological
DENVER DURANGO
(303) 480-1700 TEL (303) 480-1020 FAX (970) 2594411 TEL (970) 2594758 FAX
Joseph J. Kracum, P.E.
December 1, 2004
Page 2
Survey in Analysis of the Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in Colorado (WRIR 99-4190).
WWE selected the 100-year return period as the appropriate design flow for the berm.
Application of the regression equation to Arbaney Gulch yields a 100-year flood flow of 137
cubic feet per second (cfs), or approximately 40 cfs per square mile.
WWE calculated the 100-year flow for a gaged basin in the upper Fryingpan River basin and
found a unit flow of 38 cfs per square mile. The North Fork Fryingpan River drainage basin is at
a higher elevation and would be expected to have higher peak unit runoffs. Based on this
analysis, WWE considered the value determined for Arbaney Gulch to be reasonable, although
likely conservative.
Jonathan White of the Colorado Geological Survey has visited the site and opined that the
drainage basin has a good probability of generating a debris flow during a flooding event. Yeh
and Associates, Inc. provided WWE with a bulking factor of 2.0 for the drainage basin. The
bulking factor was applied to the 100-year peak flow to determine the level of the water and
debris flow. Consequently, a flow of 274 cfs was used to evaluate the recommended berm
height.
WWE obtained 10-foot topographic contours of the area from Pitkin County for the hydraulic
evaluation. The topography indicates that the alluvial fan would likely disperse the flows over a
wide area at a lower slope, thereby reducing the velocity and debris toad. However, given the
presence of a berm along the southern boundary of the channel and the chaotic nature of debris
flows, WWE assumed the flows would be confmed to a trapezoidal channel. The estimated
dimensions of the channel were a bottom width of 15 feet with 2-to-1 (horizontal to vertical) side
slopes. As shown in the attached worksheet, the resulting depth of flow for the design event
would be about 1.9 feet.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency requires a minimum residual freeboard of 3 feet
for the 100-year flood for riverine levees. WWE believes this is a prudent safety factor and
should be applied to the Schlumberger property berm. As a result, WWE recommends that the
berm be constructed to a height of 5 feet. Since WWE is not designing the berm, we have not
provided recommendations on armoring, revetment, compaction or other design criteria.
Very truly yours,
Attachments
WRIG~/~WATER ENGINEERS, INC.
By j ! a~tha~n M. K~e.~l(y,~.
Senior Water Res~ces Engineer
Normal Flow Analysis - Trapezoidal Channel
Project: Schlumberger Property
Channel ID: Arbane¥ Gulch
Desi.qn Information (Input)
Channel Invert Slope So = 0.0800 ft/fl
~hannel Manning's N N = 0.070
~ottom Width B = 15.0 ft
.eft Side Slope Z1 = 2.0 ft/ft
Right Side Slope 7_2 = 2.0 fl/ff
Freeboard Height F = 0.0 ff
Design Water Depth Y = 1.87 ff
~lormal Flow Condtion (Calculated)
)ischarge Q -- 276.5 cfs
:roude Number Fr = 1.11
=low Velocity V = 7.9 fps
--Iow Ama A = 35~0 sq ff
Fop Width T = 22.5 ff
~etted Perimeter P = 23.4 fl
-tydraulic Radius R = 1.5 ft
-lydraulic Depth D = 1.6 ff
?ecific Energy Es = 2.8 ff
~entroid of Flow Area Yo = 0.9 ff
Specific Force Fs = 6.1 kip
Flow Depth.xls, Normar 12/6/2004, 3:56 PM
FIGURE 1
Arbaney Gulch Drainage Basin Delineation
Township 8 S, Range 85 & 86 W of the 6th PM
Des. By: JAW
Ckd. By: JMKI
Scale: 1" = 2000'
11/30/04
041-155.000
Wright Water Engineers, Inc
818 Colorado Avenue, Suite 307
Glenwcod Springs, CO 81601
(970) 945-7755 TEL
(970) 945-9210 FAX
Yeh and Associates, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering Consultants
5700 East Evans Avenue
Denver, CO 80222
Tel: (303) 781-9590
Fax: (303) 781-9583
170 Mel Ray Road
Glenwood Springs, CO 8160l
Tel: (970) 3844 500
Fax: (970) 384-1501
20 November 2004
Mr. Martin Schlumberger
2550 Lower River Road
Snowmass, CO 61654
RE: Bulking Factor Estimation Study
2550 Lower River Road, Snowmass, Colorado
This study presents the bulking factor estimation for a basic debris flow analysis conducted for the
Arbaney Gulch channel at the Martin Schlumberger property, located at 2550 Lower River Road in
Pitkin County, Colorado. The purpose of this study was to estimate the potential bulking factor in
Arbaney Gulch for evaluation of the water surface elevation for the design of a protective barrier for
the Schlumberger property structures.
The estimation of the bulking factor was based upon review of existing geologic maps, aerial
photographs, relevant local hydrology and debds flow studies, and our experience.
Proposed Construction
The proposed structure on the Martin Schlumberger property is a single-family residence. Given
the proximity of the proposed structure on the alluvial fan, it has been determined that a berm
would be necessary to divert potential flooding and debris flow around the structure.
Site Characteristics
The Martin Schlumberger property is situated on an alluvial fan created by the drainage and debris
flow from Arbaney Gulch. Other residential structures of different property owners are also located
on this alluvial fan. Investigation of the aerial photographs of the area show that the alluvial fan was
created in different stages by different drainage channels on the fan. The most recent major
drainage channel can easily be seen both on the aerial photographs and in the field. Fairly large
trees can be seen along this drainage channel.
According to conversations, within the last fifteen years or so, berms were constructed on the
Cherek property between the Schlumberger property and the mouth of the Gulch. The berms were
constructed after a flooding event on the Cherek property, presumably constructed to divert future
flooding away from the Cherek property structures. The berms would divert flooding and debris
onto the Schlumberger property, away from the most recent drainage channel.
Arbaney Gulch exhibits moderately wooded to steep rock and soil side slopes. The drainage is
incised into the State Bridge formation, which consists of red to tan units of sandstone and
siitstone. The bedrock is overlain by a shallow overburden cover that generally thickens in the
bottom of the drainage. The overburden soil is typically gravelly sandy, silt to clayey sand.
Typically, forty to eighty percent of the overburden soil is smaller than the #200 standard sieve
size. Drainage basin characteristics can be found in the associated Hydrology Study on the
Schlumberger property.
Regionally, historic debris flows in western Colorado have been triggered by intense thunderstorm
rainfall from June through September. Debris flows can also be triggered by ve~j rapid snowpack
melting in the spring months.
Debris F/ow Potential
As the alluvial fan on which the proposed structure lies was created by flooding and debris flow, it
is natural to assume that there is a potential for future flooding and debris flows. With berms
constructed on the Cherek property, the most significant and most recent drainage channel has
been altered. VVhether the berms constructed on the Cherek property will actually divert flooding
and debris flow away from the Cherek structures and the most recent drainage channel is beyond
the scope of this study. Other older drainage channels on the alluvial fan are not well developed. A
future flood or debris flow could travel many paths once it exits Arbaney Gulch and reaches the
fan. These include the path of the most significant and most recent drainage channel, the diversion
of that channel, and other potential paths on the alluvial fan.
Flooding and debris flows from Arbaney Gulch can be exacerbated in a post-wildfire condition. In
studies of debris flow processes throughout western U.S. by Cannon and colleagues, it was
demonstrated that the great majority of fire-related debris flows initiate through a process of
progressive bulking of storm runoff with sediment eroded from both hill slopes and channels.
Additional studies may be required in the event of a fire in this basin.
Bulking Factor Estimation
Extensive hydrology and debris flow studies were conducted for the expansion of State Highway
82, Snowmass Canyon, immediately across the valley from the proposed construction. In those
studies, a bulking factor of 2.0 was used for drainage mitigation design. With the Arbaney Gulch
drainage basin being less steep and of slightly different materials than that studied for State
Highway 82, a conservative estimate for bulking factor the Arbaney Gulch basin is 1.8 to 2.0.
Bulking Factor Estimation Study Page 2 of 3
2550 Lower River Road, Snowmass, Colorado
References
California Department of Transportation, 2003, California Highway Design Manual
Cannon, Susan, 2003, Provisional Report, Post-Wildfire Landslide Hazards. United States
Geological Survey
ESA Geotechnical. 1983, Final Report - Drainage and Debris Control Plan for the City of
Glenwood Springs, Colorado: Prepared for the City of Glenwood Springs, Colorado.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 1971, Debris Control Structures - FHWA Hydrologic
Engineering Circular No. 9
HP Geotech, 1999, Phase I - Debris F/ow Hazard and Mitigation Strategies Study, Colorado
State Highway 82 - Snowmass Canyon, Pitkin County, Colorado: Prepared for Parsons
Transportation Group, Inc.
US Army Corps of Engineers, 1997, Flood Insurance Study Hydrology Volume, Glenwood
Springs, Garfield County, Colorado
Limitations
This study has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering
practices in this area for use by the client's hydrologist for design of the height and extent of a
protective berm for a residential structure located on the client's property. The determinations
made in this study are based upon review of geologic maps, aerial photographs, and relevant local
hydrology and debds flow studies.
Sincerely,
Yeh and Associates, Inc.
Roger Pihl, PG
Joseph Kracum
Bulking Factor Estimation Study
Page 3 of 3
2550 Lower River Road, Snowmass, Colorado
DEC-2g-ZO04 OZ:OSPM FROM-Colorado Gaololical Survey 303868Z4GI T-Z85 POOZ/OOZ F-SdT
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Depa~ment of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman $~reet. Room 715
Denvec Colomdo 80203
Ph0n¢ (303) 866-2611
FAX(303) 856-2451
STATE OF COLORADO_____
December 29, 2004
Mr: Ezra Louthis
Pitkin County Community Development
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Legal: WSWS30, TBS, R85W
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES
Re: Martin Schlumberger Protective Berm Ron~ld W, Ca~0ny
CGS Review No. PI-05-0003
Dear Mr_ Louthis,
In response to your request, Jon White and I visited the site on 10-28-04. I have reviewed the
materials submitted with the request. The property is located at 2550 Lower River Road on a
debris fan at the base of Arbaney Gulch.
Included with the submittal were a report on a protective berm by Yeh and Associates, Inc.
(i2-6-04), an Arbaney Gulch' Flooding Evaluation by Wright Water Engineers, Inc. (12-1-04),
and a Bulking Factor Estimation Study by Yeh and Associates, Inc. (11-20-04).
The reports included with this submittal are all based on good scientific findings and we concur
with the results. However, this is a very preliminary request for a berm that has not yet been
designed. Before we can recommend construction of the actual berm there are a few things
that should be considered.
1. Location of house and berm. The house location must first be determined in order to
properly locate the berm to deflect any potential runoff and debris that could impact the
residence. The desig0 height of the berm has been determined by Yeh and Associates,
Inc., but the location, specifically the angle to the main debris flow is key for the berm to
be effective.
2. Potential runoff downhill of berm. The area below the berm where the potential runoff
and debris will be directed should be addressed in the final design analysis. It should be
determined by a geotechnical engineer if the diversion of the debris flow/runoff will
adversely affect any other property downhill of the Schlumberger residence and if so, it
should be m. itigated.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. We would be happy to evaluate the
final berm design and location when that information becomes available. If you have any
further questions or concerns, please contact me at (303) 866-3350, or
and¥.qleason(~state.co.us
Sincerely,~._~..
Andy~l 'eason
Geologist- Colorado Geological Survey
Joanna Schaffner, 02:48 PM 7/26/2004, Schlumberger Major Plat Amendment Page i of 1
X-Sender: joannas~sam
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 14:48:32 -0600
To: Ezral~co.pitkin.co.us
From: Jomma Schaffner <jommas~ci.aspen.co.us>
Subject: Schlumberger Major Plat Amendmem
I have reviewed the above referenced application and offer the following comments.
1. Agricultural structures on this parcel are considered accessory to the principal use (residential) and
there£ore, cannot exceed the accessory height limit of 20 feet to the midpoint of the roof.
2. Ordinance 20-2004 limits agricultural structures on this site to a total of 1,536 sq ft exempt from
floor area.
3. Berms within setbacks cannot exceed 4 feet in height without approval from the Board of
Adjustment. Board of Adjustment approval is also required for grade changes in excess of 30 inches
above or below the natural grade when located within a required setbackl
4. Since it may be reasonably assumed that activity will occur between the envelopes, how is the area to
remain"uhdeveloped"?
5. It is not clear if the road between these envelopes already exists or is part of this application. If it
exists, does it comply with County and fire requirements to access the structures proposed for the
Ag Dev Env. An Access Permit may be required prior to issuance of any structures in the Ag Dev Env.
Printed for Ezra Louthis <ezral~co.pitkin.co.us> 8/12/2004
PITKIN COUNTY WILDLIFE PROGRAM
TO: Ezra Louthis, Community Development
FROM: Jonathan Lowsky, Wildlife Biologist
SUBJECT: Schlumberger 1041 Hazard Review
DATE: August 26, 2004
The northeast portion of the Schlumberger Property above the Eli Cerise ditch is within mule
deer and elk winter range, severe winter range, and critical habitat. The Colorado Division of
Wildlife and County Staff have made a concerted effort to limit development in this area to
below the Cerise Ditch. The result is a fairly effective buffer between the human activity and the
critical mule deer and elk habitat. Consequently, wintering animals would benefit if
development of the upper (eastern) portion of the Schlumberger property were limited to
agricultural structures below (west of) the Cerise ditch.
Given the above, the following conditions should be applied minimize impacts to wildlife:
1. The applicant must comply with all of the General Stm~dards as described in §3-80.80(A) of
the Land Use Code.
2. Dogs must be prohibited above the Eli Cerise Ditch as per §3-80.080(B)(5) of the Land Use
Code.
3. Dogs must be kenneled on the property below the above the Eli Cerise Ditch as per §3-
80.080(C)(2) of the Land Use Code.
4. The 2001 Wildlife Protection Ordinance (# 010 - 200I) requires installation and use of
approved bear-proof trash containers or that trash is kept indoors until the day of pick-up.
This property is adjacent to a very active black bear fall feeding re'ea. Accordingly, a bear-
proof trash structure in a centralized location is highly recommended.
5. All new fencing not necessary for the retention of cattle or sheep, outside the building
envelopes must comply with Sections 3-80.80(A)(10) and 3-80.80(A)(11) of the Pitkin
County Land Use Code. Existing fences must be brought into compliance with current fence
standards: Wood fencing shall employ three rails or less, be the round or split rail type, shall
not exceed 48 inches in height above ground level and 12 inches in width (top view), and
shall have at least I8 inches between two of the rails. Wire fencing shall consist of no more
thau 3 strands of smooth wire and shall not exceed 42 inches in height.
Vegetational screening between the building envelope and the critical habitat to the east and
north is required to minimize the effects of increased human activity on wintering mule deer
and elk. This screening must be implemented according to a landscape plan submitted to and
approved by the County prior to issuance ora building permit. The implementation of this
76 SERVICE CENTER ROAD · ASPEN, CO · 81611
PHONE: 970.920.5395 · FAX: 970.920.5374
plan must result in immediate effective screening. Cpnsequnetly, trees used for this purpose
must be a minimum of 8 feet in height and nmst be evergreens (e.g., Engelmann spruce,
ponderosa pine). Verification of compliance with an approved plan should be required prior
to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
7. Fruit-bearing trees and sln'ubs should be avoided in any landscaping due to the high level of
black bear activity in this area.
8. An orange safety fence is required around building sites to prevent any unnecessary
vegetation disturbance during construction.
9. Native vegetation must be maintained outside all building envelopes as per Section 3-
80.80(A)(3).
10. Any areas permanently impacted by construction or construction related activities must be
nfitigated at a 1.5:1 ratio immediately adjacent to or as close as possible to the impacted area
according to a revegetation and mitigation plan submitted by the applicant and approved by
the Wildlife Biologist prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy as per §3-80.80(A)(4) of
the Pitkin County Land Use Code.
1 I. Any areas disturbed outside the building envelope must be revegetated with native plants
according to a revegeta;fion plan submitted by the applicant and approved by the County prior
to issuance ora certificate of occupancy. This plan must contain the following elements:
a. The name of the project;
b. The name, address and phone number of the person preparing the Revegetation
Plan;
c. The nmne, address and phone number of the person(s) responsible for executing
the plan;
d. If applicable, the availability of irrigation water and, if available, the amount of
water, the name of the ditch company and the method of delivering water to the
site;
e. A brief narrative describing the plan{ing and seeding methods;
f. A description by common and scientific name of the species of plants to be used,
seed ratios and source, and container size or caliper measurement of plants to be
installed;
g. A drawing of the site with the location of plants to be installed shown clearly.
Major Plat Amendment for Martin Schlumberger: Lot 2 River Divide Subdivision
5/18/04
I respectfully submit an application for a major plat Amendment for River Divide Subdivision-
Lot 2 located at 2527 Lower River Road, Snowmass., CO
I am requesting two new envelopes and one re-adjustment of an existing envelope
Note that the configuration of the lot lends itself to different placements of buildings. I am also
requesting modifications to the recorded resolutions #90-162 and the protective covenants:
record # 341413.
Below are the requested Envelopes:
1. Agricultural Development Envelope:
I would like to develop an agricultural envelope consisting of a barn/caretaker site and all
environmental factors affecting animal husbandry. I will use this area for feeding, watering,
equipment storage, and livestock facilities.
2. Homesite Envelope:
I would like to increase the size allocation of the existing homesite envelope by one acre
to the south for the following reasons: With the construction of the elevated 4 lane highway
in the Snowmass Canyon area it has become most apparent that the sighting ora house should
be towards the northeast - therefore putting the highway lights and noise to the back of the
structure. By increasing the size of the envelope, it will allow more distance from the
northeast boundary of the property. I therefore need to move the barn to a different area on
the property (ag development envelope) so it's not located in the front yard.
3. Irrigation Landscape Envelope:
On the east side of the property I would like to designate an irrigation landscape envelope.
In this envelope are the irrigation controls, valves, pump station and head gate diversion box
out of the Eli Cerise Ditch. In this envelope I plan to develop a visual landscape screen with
trees, berms and pasture grasses. (Note that this will be vegetation approved by Mr. Lowsky)
Items to address per Pitkin County Pre-Application Conference Summary date 4/21/04:
1. The clause that states "all of the acreage outside of the building envelopes contained within
each lot shall be deed restricted against further development" should be amended to read
"that no development shall take place outside of the proposed ag/barn envelope, the homesite
envelope and the irrigation landscape envelope."
2. The above requested envelopes are compliant with the surrounding areas that support barns,
landscaping, ponds, and large homesite envelopes. Reference: Harper:, Pilsbury,
Eroncig,(Lots l&2 of the Murray Low Impact Subdivision), Pneumatic Scales Corp./Barry-
Wehmiller Co.( Aspen River Valley Ranch, LotB).
3. There shall be no community changes or impacts with the above requested
building envelope changes, no increase in FAR.
5. There is currently the building permit application submitted for the bam/cdu and I am
looking to change the location of it into a new envelope, and to keep and allow the 2500 sq.
ft. size of the building to be constructed. At the time of the low impact subdivision - the
2500. Sq ft. max limit was given and a much smaller barn was compromised for that of
which was originally planned. Considering the Woody Creek area, a 2500 sq. ft. exemption
is reasonable. (RE: protective covenants Article V - #2.)
6. No new roads are being built.
7. Note: discussion was held with Mr. Lowsky that he did not want a barn located
above the ditch.
8. Changes requested to the recorded resolutions and final plat amendment #1.
Request that the 50' utility easement alongside the southwest portion of the property line
be deleted as it serves no beneficial purpose to the lot.
Resolution # 90-162:
- Under item #la: Impact to Wildlife: Change to read dogs shall be permitted if
kenneled.
- Item # 13: Note of clarification that the caretaker/bm unit shall be excluded and
exempt from the FAR.
- Item # 18 - to be stricken in it's entirety and restated to be compliant with the
current codes and employee housing regulation pertaining to the caretaker
unit.
Protective Covenants:
- Article III c: Vegetation outside Building Envelopes:
- For clarification to note: all grounds below the historic irrigation ditches
have been farmed therefore there is no natural vegetation that
exists. The natural vegetation exists on the steeper part of the north and
northeast portion of Lot 2 know as the area above the Holy Cross power
line easement. This area will remain natural vegetation.
Article IV: # 2 Nuisances
- Request to strike this clause in it's entirety: as the wording is to ambiguous
and arbitral.
- Article VII: #1 General Provisions - Request to strike in it's entirety: because of
the ambiguous wording and intent. All issues of the covenants i.e.:
articles I, II, III, IV, V and VI detail the covenants in full respectively.
Respectfully Submitted,
Martin Schlumberger
Applicant: Martin Schlumberger
Address Location: 2527 Lower River Road, Snowmass, CO 81654
Legal Description: River Divide Subdivision, Lot 2
Parcel # 2467254010002
Parcel was created by a low inpact subdivision, zoned AFl0, land consists of irrigated fields and
rough hillsides.
Listing of Adjacent Property Owners to 2527 Lower River Road:
1. Paul Theofanous
2. Chuck Cherfick
(Andrew Moffat)
2489 Lower River Road,
2353 Lower River Road,
Parcel# 246725400005
Parcd# R009080
3. Upchurch 2520 Lower River Road, Parcel# R009184
· ./V.a D~.,vl=, Pztk. in Cnty Cl~k, Doc ~.00
,{Vi~'Davin~ Pitkin Cn~y Cl~r.k~ Doc $,00
~So~ION OF ~ ~ OF CO~ CO~I~IONE~ OF PITKIN
~ENE~ EUBHIsSION ~D 1041 ~Z~ ~IEW ~PROV~ TO ~E
S~L~E~ER ~W ~A~ SUBDIVISION
Resolution No. 90/~ ~
~ Harttn Schl~erger, hereinafter "Applicant., has
applied to the Board of co~ty Commisalonera of Pitkim County,
Colorado, hereinafter "Board-, for approval of a Caretaker Unit~
General Submiseio~ approval of a Low Impact Subdivision and 1041
Hazard Review for Wildlife a~d Floodplain~ and
~I~, the Property is approxima~ely 39.12 acres, zoned
AF-i~ and
I~8, the parcel is known as Lot 5, located tm the Aspen
River Valley R~ch on Lower River Road, in Section 25 and 36
Township 8 South, Range 86 West, .more specifically deacribed in
Exhibit "A" attached; and
WHERF2%S, this proposal is to create a Low Impact Subdivision
of two free-market lots and one attached caretaker unit pursuant
to Sections 4-6.1 and 3-8.13 of the Pitkin County Land Uae Code;
and
W~EREAS, the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning commission
heard this application at a regularly scheduled meeting on
October 16, 1990, at which time evidence and testimony was
presentsd with respect te this application~ and
WHEREAs, the Commission recommended approval of the req~est~
and
WHEREAS, the Board heard this application at a regularly
scheduled public hearing on December 4, 1990, at which time
evidence and testimony was presented with respect to this
application~ and
WHEREAS, the Board finds that the Applicants have mitigated
the wildlife habitat impact to the extent possible and that the
Subdivision is low impact £n nature as it relates to wildlife:
and
WHEREAS, the Board finds that the Applicants have complied
with the ~eneral Submission criteria for a Low Impact SUbdivision
and mitigated 1041 Hazards for Wildlife and Floodplain; amd
WHEREAS, th~ Board fin~s that the proposal is in compliance
with Code Section 3-8.13, relative to caretaker units.
Now, ]7~IEI~EFORE, BE IT RESOL%-ED by t~e Board that it does
hereby grant approval of an attached caretaker unit, general
Submission and 1041 Hazard Review approval to the Applicant
subject to the following conditions:
1) Impacts to wildlife habitat shall be mitigated in 'the
followlng manner:
Dogs shall be prohibited.
~ b9 Native vegetation shall be maintained outside of
building envelopes.
All fencing shall 'be 42" or less in height, and 4
strand or less. An exception may be made for corral or
hay protection areas, as approved by the Division of
Wildlife.
Vegetation within 30 feet 6f the Roaring Fork River
Bank shall be maintained in its current state. No
vegetative manipulation whatsoever shall be allowed in
this area.
,.2,) No building shall occur within the 100 year floodplain as
delineated on the Plat. A minimum 20 foot setback from the
River shall be delineated on the Plat.
Prior to Final Plat review before the Board, the Applicant
shall work with the County Engineer to determine the best
alignment for the driveway on the southern lot. If the
final alignment crosses any slopes exceeding 15%, the
Applicant shall submit a geologic report prior to Final Plat
review by the Board. '
4)
Prior to construction 'of driveways, the Applicant shall
apply for and receive an encroachment pel-mit from the County
Engineer's Office.
5)
Prior to Final Plat review before tfie Board of County
Commissioners, the Applicant shall provide copies of all
access easements, including the D&R~ Railroad' crossing
easement. ~
Prior to approval of Final Plat, the Applicant stiall receive
approval fo~ one to three household-use-only well permits
from the Colorado state Division of Water Resources, If
only one well is permitted, the Applicant shall provide
plans to the ~nvironmentsl Healt~ Department for the design
of a water-supply, storage and distribution system.
Prior to issuance of a buiiding permit, sewage dlsposel
system designs shall meet the Pltkin County Regulations on
Individual Sewage Disposal Systems to the satisfaction of
the Environmental Health Department.
Development on lots shall comply with applicable Pitkin
County Air Quality. regulatlons governing wood burning
devicss in effect at the time cf building permit issuance.
The Applicant shall provide some for~ of dust suppressant
for driveways in orde~ ko minimize air pollution generated
from vehicle trips to and from the residences in the
subdivision. Said suppressant shall meet the approval of
the Environmental Health Department prior to issuance of a
building per, it.
10) The Applicant shall submit protective covenants at the time
of. Final Plat ~ubmittal. Said covenants shall address
maintenance of~rrigation ditches, w "
ater rights, fences and
wildlife mitigation restrictions, (see condition #1).
11) Prior to issuance of a building permit, ail utility
connections to both lots shall be placed underground along
the access roads to said Lots.
eselution
Page 4
All of the acreage outside of the building envelopes
contained within each lot shall be deed restricted against
further development. A note to this effect shall be placed
on the Plat. Said building envelopes shall be designated on
the Final Plat. Building Envelope "C" shall be removed from
the F~nal Plat. All development, including accessory
struotures~ shall t~e ~la~ within D~i~in~ oI~pe~ as
d~signated on the Plat, .... ... --~-- _
The building envelope o.n the lot to the north of River Road
shall be limited to two acres in size. A barn shall be
allowed within this envelope. Said barn shall be limited to
a maximum size of 2,300 square feet, inclusive of a
caretaker unit.
%4) The following note shall be added to both the F~nal PletI
The Denver and Rio Gran~e Railroad Right-of-Way on this site
may be actively used for trahsportation purposes.
15) The Applicant shall submit a plat for recording which meets
the apprc,al of the Planning Department, the County Engineer
and the County Attorney.
16) All material representations made by the Applicant in the
application and at the public meeting shall be adhered to
unless otherwime amended by other conditions and reviewed by
the Planning and zoning Commission and/or Board of .County
Commlsslonere. .
The Applicant shall grant a fisherman's easement to Pitkin
County along the Roaring Fork River as it passes through the
subject property. Said easement shall be a non-exclus.ive
easement granted to the public at large for the purpose of
fishing. Said easement shall extend to five (5) feet above
tbs high water mark on the property along the bank of the
said river. Said easement shall be recorded concurrently
with this Resolution.
The Applicant shell deed restrict the employee unit with the
~ousing Authority prior to issuance of a building permit for
the unit. The following, as pst Section 3-8.13 (a) (4) of the
Land Uss Code zhall apply:
The employee unit shall remain a rental unit~
not be condominiumlzed;, not be occupied by
the OWner or spouse~ be limited to occupancy
by not more than two (2) adults, and related
children, who qualify as (end have besn found
by the Housing Authority to be) employees of
the community under such guidelines as may be
from time 'to time established by said
/v~a Dsv~ ~tk~n ~mty ~lm~k~ Dc:
./
Resolution No. 90-/~-~
Page ~
Authority! be rented for terms not less than
six (6) months.
APPROVED by the Board at its regular meeting on December 4,
1990.
BOARD OF COUNTY CO~MISSIONERS
OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
.J~shet~e Jenes~Y '
~eputy Clerk ~Recorder
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Tl~o~y ~. ~hitsitt, %./
CoUnty A~ney .
els
rase_schlumberger_lis
Herschel Roes, Chairman
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Amy //
Plan~ng Director
Jt~689 09/25/91 10:50 Rec $ O0 BK ~57 P8 ~_~.9
8ilvia D~vis~ Pitkin Cnty Cierk, Ooc $.00
f~6767 09/24/91 16:08 Rec $,00 BK 6~? PO 4~
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clspk, Doc S.O0
RE~OL~ZO~ OP ~ BO~ OP CO~y CO~B~ZON~
OF PZTKIN ~0~, ~OLO~O ~ZNG PZ~ P~T APPROV~
TO ~B B~G~ LOW X~CT B~DI~BZON ~ RZV~ DXVIDR
S~DZFXSZON
WH~nS, Martin Schlumberger, (hereinafter "Applicant"), has
applied to the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County,
Colorado, (hereinafter "Board"), for Final Plat approval for a Low
Impact 8uhdlvislon, pursuant to Plain County Land Use Code Section
6-5; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant*s parcel is zoned AF-1 and contains
approximately 39.12 acres; and
WHBRfAB, the parcel is known as Lot 5, located in the Aspen
River Valley Ranch on Lower River Road, in Section 25 and 36
Townehip 8 South, Range 86 West, more specifically described in
Exhibit "A" attached~ and
NNBR~8, this proposal is to create a Low Impact Subdivision
of two free-market lots pursuant to Sections 4-6.1 of the Pitkin
County Land Use Code~ and
NNBHBAB, the Board granted General Submission approval for
the application at a regularly scheduled meeting on December 4,
1990; and
~H~, the Board reviewed the Fins1 Plat application st
their regularly scheduled meeting on August 2?, 1991, at which time
evidence and testimony was presented with respect to the
application; and
#JJ~8~ 0~/2~/~1 10:50 Rec $.00 BK &~? PG 2~0
Silvia .Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clepk, Doc $.00
Resolution No. 91-/_~i
Page 2
~ilvia Davis~ Pitkin Cnty Olerk~ Doc $.00
WHEREAS, the Board finds that the Applicants have complied
with Pitkin County Land Use Code Final Plat criteria for a Low
Impact Subdivision.
NON, TI[BRBFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board that it does
hereby grant Final Plat approval to the Schlumberger Low Impact
Subdivision subject to the following conditions:
l)
Prior to signature of the Final Plat by the Board Chairperson
and recording of the covenanter the following revisions shall
be made:
a. The fishing easement shall be ~oted on t~he Plat by
book and page;
h. The 100 year floodplain elevation, as established by a
professional engineer, shall b e clearly delineated on the
plat;
c. Property lines separating the parcels shall be more
clearly defined.
d. Highway 82 is shown on the pla~ as 80 feet wide. The
applicant shall clearly identify the Highway right-of-
way.
e. Delineate and identify ~he irrigation ditch on Lot 2.
f. If, as represente~ on the General Submission Plan
Exhibit, there is a 50 foot access easement on portions
of the southeastern and eastern property boundary of Lot
2, the easement shall be delineated on the Plat.
g. The driveway for Lot 2 shall be delineated on the Plat.
h. Temporary access pe~:mits which have been issued for well
drilling are reflected on the plat. The applicant shall
obtain residential access permits prior to issuance of
a building permit. The plat shall reflect the
residential, rather than temporary permits.
#~89 09/2J/~! 10:50 Re¢ $.00 BK &~? PG 2~S
SilMia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clepk, Doc $.00
aesolution No. 91-_~
Page 3
Revisions to Covenants
a. Article V
bo
Paragraph ] - Amend to read, "All structures, except
fencing, shall be constructed within the building
envelopes as shown on the plat of the subdivision."
Paragraph 2 - Add a sentence which stipulates that the
barn on lot 2 shall be limited to a maximum floor area
of 2,500 square feet, inclusive of a caretaker unit.
Pursuant to Section 4-6.1(D)(iii)f. of the Land Use Code,
the applicant "shall make provisions to insure historic
access to ditches (and) headgates..." Provisions shall
be referenced in the Covenants.
Any amendments to the covenants which contradict
conditions of approval referenced in Board of County
commissioner Resolution ~90-162 shall be subject to
approval by the Board of County Commissioners.
2)
Prior to issuance of e building permit, it shall be found that
the applicant has complied with all conditions of Resolution
No. 90-162, attached as Exhibit
APPROVED by the Board at its reqular meeting on August 27,
19 91' Chairman Wayne Ethridge voting
Commis..,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,~er Ross voa.~F(~'~
Commissiorer True voting ~'(~
Comrmssione~ Tuite voting
Commissioner Crowley voting
nstta ~on~,
ut~ ~ount~ ~lark
~i~o~h~ ~. ~hit~ittb/
Count~ A~nsy
BOARD OF ~OUNTY ~OMMZBBIONRRB
OF PZTKIN ~OUNTY# COLO~DO
Wiyne ~thrid~e, Chain
ats
#55&~89 09/25/~1 10:50 R~c $.00 BK ~5~ PS 2~2
Silvia Davis~ PiPkin Cnty Clepk, Doc $.00
LOW Y~]~CT SUBDZVZSI'ON ~ RZVER DZVTDE SUBD~VZSZON
LNGI~ DESC~tIPTXONt
A Parcel of Land being part of Tract 69 and 84 and being located
in Sections 25 and 36, Township 8 South, Range 86 West of the 6th
Principal Meridian. Said Parcel is more fully described as
follows~
Beginning at a point (being A.P. 9 of Tract 69);
thence South 89 de~rees 36'84" East 1301.44 feet to A.P. 8 of said
Tract 69;
thence South 00 degrees
said Tract 69;
thence South 70 degrees
thence North 78 degrees
thence North 69 degrees
thence South 77 degrees
thence South 25 degrees
thence South 45 degrees
thence South 72 degrees
thence South 09 degrees
thence South 49 degrees
thence North 00 degrees
thence North 50 degrees
thence North 33 degrees
thence North ~3 degrees
Tract 69;
thence South 00 degrees
beginning.
COUNTY OF PITNIN,
STATE OF COLOI~ADO.
ALSO KNOWN AS:
Colorado
16'24" West 253.59 feet along line 8-7 of
26~58" West
42~11" West
47~20" West
00'07" West
18~12" East
21'06" East
07~34" East
23~35" Wast
00~00" West
42~19" West
00'00" Eas~
657.59 feet
616.09 feet
263.72 feet
234.47 feet
229.41 feet
273.08 feet
227.06 feet
419.80 feet
1898.37 feet
720.37 feet
1505.89 feet
00~00" West 593.48 feet
12~15" East 711.64 feet to line 1-9 of ~aid
23~46" East 160.00 f~et tot he poil~t of
Lot 5, Aspen River Valley Ranch, Pitkin County,
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Do= $.00
PROTECTIVE COVENANTS
O_~F
RIVER DIVIDE SUBDIVISION
KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That
WHEREAS, J. MARTIN SCHLUMBERGER (the "Declarant"), is the
owner of real property situated in Pitkin County, Colorado, being
Lots i and 2 described on the Plat of the RIVER DIVIDE SUBDIVISION
(the "Subdivision"), recorded in Plat Book ~ , Page .~ of the
Pitkin County Plat records; and
WHEREAS, as a part of the land use approval granted
permitting the creation of the Subdivision, the Board of County
Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado (the "BOCC") has required
that certain restrictive covenants be imposed on the Subdivision as
covenants running with the land, and a burden thereon and benefit
thereto.
NOW THEREFORE, the Declarant hereby publishes, acknowledges,
declares, and agrees with, to, and for the benefit of the BOCC and
all persons who may hereafter purchase and from time to time hold
and own either Lots i and 2 of the Subdivision, that he owns and
holds .the above-described lots subject to the following
restrictions, covenants, and conditions, all of which shall be
deemed to run with the land and to inure to the benefit of and be
binding upon the owners at any time of any of the lots, their
heirs, personal representatives, successors, and assigns, to-wit:
ARTICLE I - PURPOSE OF COVENANTS
~eneral Requirements. The purpose of these covenants is to
set forth general requirements of the BOCC and supplemented by the
Declarant which will help guide the development, planning, and
maintenance of' Lots i and 2 of the Subdivision as a carefully
protected and highly desirable, rural, residential area.
ARTICLE II - NO FURTHER SUBDIVISION
Restriction AGainst Smaller Lots. Both Lots 1 and 2 on the
recorded plat shall not be further subdivided into smaller lots or
conveyed or encumbered in any less than the full dimensions as
shown on the recorded plat. Conveyances or dedications of
easements for utilities shall be permitted.
#~4141~ 02/07'/~2:1.1~2 Rec $25.00 BI< 6&8 PG 87':~
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00
ARTICLE III - WILDLIFE
a. Prohibition &qalnst Dog~. The keeping of dogs within
the Subdivision shall be prohibited at all times.
b. Fenoinq Limitations. All fencing other than screen
fencing around the residential dwelling unit shall comply with the
Division of Wildlife standards for wildlife fencing as now
promulgated, which provides that fencing shall not exceed 42" in
height and have a 12" kick space between the upper two strands,
except corrals and hay storage protection fencing as shall be
approved by the State of Colorado Division of Wildlife. Fencing
may be 4-strand or iess, smooth wire or split rail or other fencing
approved by the State of Colorado Division of Wildlife.
c, Veaetation Outside Buildina Envelome~. Vegetation
outside the building envelope of the respective lots as designated
on the recorded plat of the Subdivisions,:shall be maintained in
its natural state as much as possible. Nothing herein shall
prohibit new plantings and wildlife habitat enhancement within the
Subdivision.
d. Veqetation Alonq River. All vegetation on Lot i of
the Subdivision within thirty (30) feet of the high water line of
the Roaring Fork River shall remain in its current state and no
manipulation thereof shall be allowed in that area.
ARTICLE IV - L~%ND USE RESTRICTION~
1. Residential Use Only. Lots 1 and 2 shall be used only
for residential purposes. No lands within the Subdivision shall be
occupied for or used for any commercial or business purpose, except
ranching or as permitted as a home occupation in accordance with
the Pitkin County Land Use Code.
2. Nuisances. No noxious or offensive activity shall be
carried on upon any lot, nor shall any-thing be done thereon which
may be or may become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood.
-.~3. Yard and Trash Restriction~. Each lot shall be kept free
of rubbish, trash, litter and abandoned or obsolete vehicles,
equipment or other property. Ail clothes lines, equipment, service
areas, wood piles, or storage areas on any lot shall be kept
attractively screened by adequate planting or fencing so as to
prevent an undesirable view from neighboring lots and streets and
access roads. Garbage and other waste shall not be kept, except in
sanitary containers. Ail incinerators shall be kept in a clean and
sanitary condition.
2
#~4141~ 02/07/~2 11:~2 Rec $25.00 BK &&l~ F*B lB?4
Silvim Dmvis, P~tk'in Cnty Clef. k, Doc $.00
4. Roads. There are no common roadways serving either Lot 1
or Lot 2. The owners of each lot shall be responsible for the
maintenance and repair of roadways or driveways serving such lot.
5. Pitkin County ADDrovals. All owners of both Lots 1 and
2 shall adhere to the requirements set forth by the BOCC in
granting low impact subdivision approval for the Subdivision, as
set forth in Resolution 9 ! - ~1~ , adopted on the ~1%k day of
6. Restriotio~ ~qainst ~urther Oevelopme~. Zn accordance
with the provisions of Section ~-6.1(c)(ii) of the ~itkin County
Land ~se Code, the land area of both Lots i and 2 outside of the
building envelopes as designated on the recorded plat are hereby
restricted against further development.
ARTICLE V - BUILDING COVENANTR
.1. Buildin~ Envelopes. All structures, except fencing,
shall be constructed within the building envelopes as shown on the
plat of the Subdivision.
2. N,,mher and size of Buildlngs. No building shall be
erected, altered, placed, or permitted to remain on any lot other
than one slngle-family dwelling, a barn, agricultural related
structures, and a private garage. The barn approved for
construction on Lot 2 shall be limited to a maximum floor area of
2,500 square feet, inclusive of a caretaker unit therein.
3. ~on Time. The exterior of all structures must be
completed within twelve (12) months from the date of commencement
of construction.
ARTICLE VI - IRRIGATION DITCHER
1. Easements for historic access to irrigation ditches and
headgates within the Subdivision are hereby ratified and confirmed.
ARTICLE VII - GENEI~AL PROVISIONR
1. Covenants Run with the Land. These covenants run with
the land of which the Subdivision is comprised and shall be binding
upon and inure to the benefit of successive persons, their heirs
and assigns, owning or claiming any interest therein for a period
of the lives of the Declarant and the present members of the BOCC,
their now living issue plus twenty-one (21) years, after which time
said covenants shall be automatically extended for successive
periods of ten (10) years unless, by the consent of the then-owners
3
#~4141~ 02/07/c~2 11:.52 Rec $25.c~0 BK 6&8 PG 875
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clef. k, Doc $.00
of both Lots i and 2 of the Subdivision, with the consent of the
BOCC, these covenants shall be amended or terminated.
2. Enforcement. The covenants, restrictions and conditions
contained in these protective covenants amy be enforced at any time
by the owner or owners of each lot in the Subdivision and/or the
BOCC, and its authorized agents. These covenants shall be
enforceable by proceedings for prohibitive or mandatory injunction
or by an action for damages or expenses of maintenance. In any
action to enforce any covenant, restriction or condition contained
in'these restrictive convents, the prevailing party or parties
shall be awarded reasonable attorneys' fees and costs by the court
having jurisdiction. No violation or breach of these restrictive
covenants and no action to enforce the same shall defeat, render
invalid or impair the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust taken
in good faith and for value, or the title or interest of the holder
thereof, or the title acquired by any purchaser upon foreclosure of
any such mortgage or deed of trust.
3. Existinq Covenant-. These restrictive covenants shall be
supplemental of the existing covenants affecting all of the
'properties in Aspen River Valley Ranch as recorded in Book 375 at
Page 636 and amended in Book 561 at Page 643 of the records of
Pitkin County, Colorado.
4. Any provision of this Declaration, or any amendment,
hereto which contradicts at approval of the Subdivision referenced
in Resolution #90-162 of the Board of Pitkin county Commissioners
shall be subject to the approval of that Board.
5. Severabili___~. Invalidity of any of these covenants or
failure to enforce the same shall in no event be deemed a waiver of'
the right to enforce or effect any of the other provisions hereof.
6. Paraqraph Headings. The paragraph headings in this
instrument are for convenience only and shall not be constituted to
be a part of the covenants contained herein.
/N~NESSWHEREOF, the Declarant has executed this instrument
thi~2~~ day Of ~/0~/~ , 199-1.
J.F }/aYrtin S~n~lumburger - ~
4
~J4141J 02/07/c~2 11:J2 Rec $25.00 BK 668 PG 8?6
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Ciepk, Doc $.00
Subscribed and sworn to before me thie ~0~ day
~o~m~ , 1991 by J. Martin Schlumberger.
Witness my hand and official seal
My commission expires:
Notary
of
5
;RACT 84
5ECIION 25
T
6 9