HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.planning.246322400027 (2)DOCUMENT LAYOUT
THIS FILE MAY OR MAY NOT CONTAIN ALL OF THE INFORMATION
LISTED BELOW IN THE FOLLOWING_ORDER
Summary Sheet
Resolution for the BOCC and/or P&Z
Ordinance for the BOCC and/or P&Z
Determination for the Hearing Officer
Administrative Determination
Staff Memo
Application
Puhlic Notice, Acceptance Letter, Referral(s) Letter
Site Plan
Miscellaneous
Plat copies (llxl'n
., .. ,,.~.,,..e._,.,. _ .::..,
& General Submission P!,(~;~"~
:~ PHN~~
,-
.TLWYi.u ~. ~f' ._,~.
...'.':
'P4~?a.
^'?; ~
S6 0
F31sY9t~Y` l~Fi NDTNf~b DATE OFFlNALACTIQN: •••••_
No BOCC ReBO: 91-60 #334323 i
No
No ~~ BOCCOrd: ~~
PZ: 91-07 #334428
HRG OFF: ~-~"
4
~~~:3:
B26 P92 #334321 ~ ' ,~~~~ ~~ ~'r""~"~'-'~"""`
~=~~
E
+ ~~~
~:` 7/zo/oi .~ .
__ .._
F'Ne LoeeNon: FF Bax 96
8 January, 1996
Mr. Leonard M. Oates, Esq.
Oates, Hughes & Knezivich, P.C.
533 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Jelinek Crystal Island Ranch.
Dear Lennie:
Pitkin Count~o
You have requested an opinion as to whether or not a building permit may be
obtained to construct a single family residence on the above referenced. property. Based
upon your representations that. the property received approval. of a site specific
development plan on April 2, 1991, that since that time the property owner has acted
consistent with the approval to undertake and complete the approved development and
that work on the completion of the approved development has not lapsed for a significant
period of time, the property owner may continue to complete the approved development
consistent with the Pitkin County Code and the prior conditional approval. Once you
have recorded a deed restriction for the caretaker unit, you may obtain a building permit
for the single family home.
If you need any further clarification please contact me.
Sincerely,
Jo y
Pitkin County Attorney
co: Joanna Schaffner
JME/jch
j\ely\corresp\oates l.(tr
AdminisVation County Commissioners County Attorney Finance and Use Tax
530 E. Main, Suite 301 Suite 301 Suite 302 530 E. Main, Suite 201
Aspen, CO 81611 530 E. Main Sieet 530 E. Main Street Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 920-5200 Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 920-5220
FAX920-5198 (303) 920-5150 (303) 920-5190 Fax 920-5230
printed on recycled paper
Personnel
530 E. Main, Suite 202
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 920-5240
Fax: (303) 920-5230
~~ ~~
VA,NN RSSOCEATES
Planning Consultants
June 30, 1995
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Suzanne Konchan
County Community Development Director
Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Jelinek Vested Rights Status
Dear Suzanne:
The purpose of my letter is to request confirmation of the. County's position with
respect to Richard Jelinek's Crystal Island Ranch development approvals. I have
discussed the matter with Ellen Sassano, who suggested that I write to you regarding
Mr. Jelinek's request for a formal written response.
Background
On February 5, 1991, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted 1041 geologic,
wildfire and wildlife. hazard review approval for the construction of asingle-family
residence, caretaker unit, barn and guest house on the Jelinek property which is
located off Highway 133 in the Crystal River Valley (see Exhibit 1, P&Z Resolution
No. 91-07, attached hereto). General submission approval for the structures was
granted by the Board of County Commissioners on April 2, 1991 (see Exhibit 2,
BOCC Resolution No. 91-60). A 1041 hazard review site plan was.approved by the
Planning Office and is recorded in Book 26 at Page 92 in the Clerk and Recorder's
Office.
As approved, the guesthouse was to be located above. the. residence's garage, while
the caretaker unit was to be located in the barn. In a letter to Ellen Sassano. Hated
October 15, 1991 (see Exhibit 3), I requested permission to convert the second floor
of the barn to an additional free market dwelling unit which NIr. Jelinek proposed to
occupy until such time as his residence was constructed. As you may remember, you
concluded that the request would require BOCC review and approval. In the
alternative, you agreed that the previously approved caretaker unit could. be convert-
ed to a guesthouse in exchange for eliminating the guesthouse unit which was to be
230 East Hopkins Avenue • Aspen, Colorado Si 6~ 1 •303/925-6958.•. Fax 303/920-9310
~\
~_
Ms. Suzanne Konchan
June 30, 1995
Page 2
included in the single-family residence (see Exhibit 4, November 12, 1991, Vann
Associates letter).
The barn and guesthouse were completed in 1992, and substantial improvements have
been made to the property (e.g., roads, utilities, etc.) in anticipation of the single-
family residence's construction. Construction of the residence, however, has yet to
proceed, and Mr. Jelinek continues to occupy the guesthouse in accordance with the
conditions of his approval.
Vested Rights Status
Pursuant to BOCC Ordinance No. 95-6, Section 4-1402 of the Land. Use Regulations
was revised to clarify the term of vested property rights and the .expiration of
development approvals. The Ordinance states in part that."development approvals for
single family and .duplex dwelling units, and associated lots. and parcels, shall not expire".
The vested rights status of such approvals, however, expires within Three years from
the date of approval unless extended by the Board. Based on these provisions, Ellen
and I have concluded that Mr. Jelinek's development approvals remain in full force
and effect. His vested rights with respect to the approvals, however, arguably expired
in the fall of 1994, or three years after the receipt of BOCC approval.
The above notwithstanding, Ellen stated that the County Attorney has informed her
that commencement and. significant completion of construction is sufficient to perma-
nently vest one's development rights. As two principal components of the original
approval have been completed (i.e., the barn and guesthouse), Ellen was of the
opinion that the single-family residence could be constructed without further review..
and approval. In other words, Mr. Jelinek's reliance on his prior approvals, as
evidenced by the substantial investment which he has made. in his barn, guesthouse,
roads, utilities, etc., is sufficient to vest his right to construct the single-family
residence in perpetuity.
Obviously; future regulatory amendments of general applicability may apply to the
Jelinek property. For example, should the County enact a floor area limitation in the
RS-30 zone district, compliance would be required in the design and construction of
the Jelinek residence. The recent amendments to the 1041 hazard regulations, or any
future such amendments, however, would not apply, as Mr. Jelinek is entitled to
construct his residence pursuant to the terms and conditions of his original 1041
approval based on his construction activities to date.
I would appreciate it if you would review the attached materials with the County
Attorney and provide me with a written response regarding the vested rights status of
the Jelinek. approvals.
~:..,
'r h
Ms. Suzanhe Konchan
June 3Q 1995
Page 3
Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not
hesitate to call. Your timely attention to this matter be sincerely appreciated.
Yours truly,
SV:cwv
Attachments
cc: Ellen Sassano (w/attachments)
Leonard M. Oates, Esq.
Richard C. Jelinek
c:\bus\county.ltrUtr28195.sk 1
(" x%a _
54'x.-,~+'~
a
ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES
May 31, 1991
MAY 3 ! 1991
Ms. Ellen Sassano, Plahner Ut~ Jp €
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: CLARIFICATION OF OR MINOR AMENDMENT TO JELINEK 1041 APPROVAL
Dear Ellen,
As you know, Richard Jelinek is currently proceeding through a zoning plan check to
construct a barn on his 582 parcel of land on the Crystal Island Ranch. An issue has
arisen during the plan check which requires a clarification of one condition or, if you feel
it is appropriate, a minor amendment to that approval.
The condition in question is number 2a and reads as follows:
"Roof materials shall be of anon-combustible Underwriter Laboratory approved material."
The applicant recognizes the importance of this condition with respect to areas where
wildfire hazards are present. However, the only such lands proposed for development
on the parcel are those associated with the primary residence and not the barn. The
barn sits in an open meadow, adjacent to some cottonwood. trees. and a small stream.
The meadow is flat and does not cdhtain brush which could cause a wildfire. I can
provide you with a photograph of the meadow verifying these conditions if you so desire.
When this matter arose today, I reviewed the 1041 wildfire maps with Francis' Krizmanich.
It was Francis' conclusion that the proposed location for the barn is outside of any
mapped 1041 wildfire area. I ask, therefore, that you take orle of the following actions:
1. Provide direction to the Zoning Office that the condition need only apply to the
primary residence; or
2: Process a clarification or minor amendment to the language of the resolution to
add the words "for the primary residence and associated buildings adjacent to Lewis
Lake" after the words "roof coverings" in Condition 2a.
810 Midland Park Place Aspen, Colorado 81611-4122 303-925-7634
_.•
Ms. Ellen Sassano
May 31, 1991
Page 2
Your attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated.
Very truly yours,
ALAN RICH~MA^N PLANNING SERVICES_
~K~v `
Aian M. Richman, AiCP
cc: Joanna Schaffner
Aspen Design Group
u,_ . ~_,...:~ ..~ ~ ._.a..;. _..
#334z2~-{~ r /08/91 1G: 20 Fec ~°'""Ut~ BM; 650 FG 693
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty C~~rk, Doc $.00 "'
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, GRANTING
GE:':ERFiL SUBMISSION, CARETAKER UNIT AND GUEST HOUSE
APPROVAL TO THE JELINEK APPLICATION,
Resolution No. 91-,;~~
WHEREAS, Richard °Jelinek, hereinafter "Applicant", has
applied to the .Board of County Commissioners of Pitkn County,
Colorado, hereinafter "Board", for General Submission approval
for. the construction. of_ a_..sngle-family residence with.. an
attached garage containing a guest house on a metes .and bounds
parcel, pursuant to Sections 6-3 ..and 3-6 of the Pitkin County
Land Use Code; and
WfIENRF.AS, the applicant also requests approval of a caretaker
unit which is to be"located in a barn pursuant to Section 3-8.13
of the Code; and
WAF.RF.AS, the Applicant's parcelis zoned RS-30 PUD and
contains approximately 582 acres; and
wxFEtFAS, said parcel is a part of the Crystal Island. Ranch.
in the Crystal River Valley, located approximately four miles
south of Carbondale. in Sections 23 and 26, Township 8 South,
Range 88 West, more specifically described in Exhibit "A"; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission heard the
application at their regularly scheduled. meeting on February 5,
1991, at which time. they approved a 1041 Hazard. Review and.
recommended approval of the General Submission and Guest Unit;
and
X343<~ Q7~08/91 10: <<^•0 F:ec ~~~j Bt; 650 FG 694
ilvia Davis, Pit4:in Cnty C1~ r: Doc $. 00
. ~~~ ~o
Resolution No. 88-_
Page 2
::e: A
WHERE~IS, the Board heard this,.. application at their
regularly, scheduled meeting on April 2, 1990, at which time
evidence and. testimony was presented with respect to this
°application; and
WHEREAS, the Board finds that. the Applicants have complied
£ ..
with General Submission criteria, pursuant to Section 6-3 of .the
Land Use Code, and criteria for a Guest House and Caretaker Unit,
pursuant. to Sections 3-6 and 3-8.13, respectively.
,,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board that it does
hereby grant General Submission, Guest House and Caretaker Unit
approval to the Jelinek application subject to the following
conditions:
GEOhOGIC: „:
1. The applicant shall abide by recommendations made by
consulting geologist, Nick Lampiris in his letter of October
17, 1990 attached as Exhibit "B". The conditions are as
follows:
a. Prior to issuance of a building permit, soils
engineering studies shall be performed at the site
specific level to insure proper foundation design. All
aspects of the design of the home and -the surrounding
landscaping shall emphasize a positive flow of water
away from the homesite in all directions;
b. Berming 'around the east side of the: home shall be
provided to prevent material from reaching the homesite
during periods of high water flow. The berm shall be
approximately three feet in height above normal grade
and shall be constructed prior to issuance of a
Certificate of occupancy for the home.
c. Slopes steeper than 30% shall not be disturbed during
construction;
d. The driveway behind the home shall be .designed to aid
in the diversion of water or mud flows; and
#3343^3,~~r/O8/91 10:20 kec 0 BK 650 PG 695
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty C1~-rk, Doc $. 00
q/- ~O ~~ -
Resolution No. 99~-_
Page 3
e. The home shall be designed to preclude the accumulation
of radon gas.
WILDFIRE:'
2. The following wildfire mitigation measures shall. be adhered
- to and shall be placed as conditions of approval on .the 1p41
Site Plan:
a) Roof coverings shall be of a non-combustib~e Underwriter
Laboratory approved material.
b) Brush and debris kept at least ten feet away from the
base of the home; Dead branches, stumps and other potential
fuels will be removed for a distance of at leash 30 feet
from all proposed structures.
c) Stack firewood .uphill or on a contour away from
buildings. Keep fire fuels .away from stacked wood.
d) Place at least one l0-pound ABC-class fore extinguisher
in each structure. A 50-foot garden hose connected to the
hot water heater drain is useful in a £ire emergency inside
the house.
e) Power and utility lines shall be_nstalled' underground.
f) Tree branches within 15 feet of chimneys .will be
removed. Trees will be thinned to the extent necessary to
develop the homesite, but not to the extent that the home.
will be visible to wildlife.
g. Lewis Lake will be used as an external water. supply for
firefighting.
h. The access drive shall be improved to .meet County
standards. The road improvement design shall be reviewed and
approved by the County Engineer prior to issuance of a
building permit.
i. The applicant shall install an .approved fire suppression
system in all buildings, the design of which shall be
approved by the Carbondale Fire Marshal prior to issuance of
a building permit.
WILDLIFE:
3. Development impacts on wildlife shall be mitigated as
follows, and shall be placed as conditions of approval on
the 1041 Site Plan:
#3343:3 07/U8/91 1G: ~0 Rec ~qUO BY. 650 F'6 696 °~""+~
,~ ,~
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty .zrk, Doc x.00
~_
Resolution No. 9b-~~~
Page 4
a. The homesite shall be located as indicated on the
.submittal map: along the east side of Lewis .Lake at
'the base of the ridge, just south of a small ravine or
"gully.
b. Maintain. native .vegetation outside building envelope
and as much as possible within envelope'to help screen
home.
c. NO dogs shall be kept on the property. -""
d. Fencing be 42", 4 strand or less or 4,8" 3-rail wood...
fence. Property boundary fencing be discouraged.
e. No horse grazing shall be permitted along the riparian
area 'of Thomas Creek.
f. Eight foot .game damage fence :around. haystacks to
prevent depredation of hay.
g. All utilities shall be buried in the existing roadways.
h. The applicant shall remove all existing fencing on the
property.
i. No snowmobile use shall be allowed on the property from
December 1 through March 15, due to deer and. elk winter
range habitat conditions on-site.
j. No domestic fowl (including turkeys) unless. kept within
totally enclosed coup or yard (including a roof).
gxrrtzrzAT. SIIBMISSION:
4. The applicant shall revegetate areas disturbed by
construction within one growing season of construction.
5. The septic system designed for the site shall be reviewed
and approved by the Environmental Health Department prior to
issuance of a building permit.
6. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall
provide evidence that the water well(s) on site yield a
sufficient quantity of water and satisfactory quality to
provide for a primary residence, guest unit and caretaker
unit. Water well yield and water quality shall. be reviewed
and approved by the Environmental Health Department prior to
issuance of a building permit.
7. The applicant shall apply for and receive an earthmoving
permit from the County Engineer-prior to any upgrades to the
#334w3=Ci'/08/91 S0:^^<0 Fec U BY, 650 PG 697
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty C;rrk, Doc $. 00
.r .
Resolution No. 99-~-~Q
Page 5
existing access road. The earthmoving permit shall be
issued prior to issuance of a building permit.
8. The :'sccess road_ shall be improved to meet County driveway
standards. Improvements shall include, but .not be limited
to the following:
a. Grade improvements;
b. Provision of turnouts;
c. ,.Provision of ditches and culverts to control drainage
and erosion;
d. Provision of a four. inch .gravel surface;
9. The applicant shall join a road and bridge improvement
district if such a district is formed to repair or replace
the Thomas Bridge and/or Thomas Road, participation in which
shall be based on acreage or on a formula agreeable to the
residents of the neighborhood.
10. Construction vehicles shall. be .prohibited on the Thomas
Bridge until and unless the Bridge is improved to meet
County Road Standards.
CARETAP.EEt IINIT:
_, ..
11. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the primary
residence the following items shall be .provided to the
Housing Authority and copied to the Planning Office:
a. The Owner shall be required, (prior to issuance. of a
building permit for the barn) to execute a deed
restriction for ap~r'oval by the Housing office. The
restriction shall'state that the whit shall remain a
rental unit, not be condominiumzed, not be occupied by
owner or spouse", be limited to occupancy by persons and
their families who qualify as and have been found to be
employees of the community under such guidelines as may
be from time to time established _by the Housing
Authority, and be rented for terms of not. less than six
consecutive months.
b. Owner shall be required to qualify all prospective
tenants prior to occupancy of the unit with the Housing
Authority Office.
12. The existing caretaker unit .shall be rendered uninhabitable
or demolished prior to issuance of a building permit for the
primary residence.. If it is to be retained as an
uninhabitable accessory structure, a height variance for the
structure shall be required :prior to issuance of any
building permits on the site. However,, if said structure is
#3343,^i3 Uf/08/91 lU:3V 4"""~ S.GU $Y. 650 FG 698
Sihvia Davis, Pitkin Cn`•,r'Clerk.,"Doc $. 00
Resolution No. 96z~'[~~
Page 6
to be used as an agricultural outbuilding, such as a barn,.
and it does hot exceed 28'_in height to `the midpoint of the
roof, no variance shall be required.
GUEST HOIISE:
13. The guest house shall be located above the. garage within the
building envelope for the primary residence as designated on
the site plan.
t..„,.
14. Rental use or long term occupancy shall be prohibited in the
guest unit pursuant to Section 3-3.55 of the Pitkin County
Land Use Code.
GENERAL:
e.
15. The applicant shall prepare a site plan for recordation
which meets_ the approval of the. Planning Department and the
,County Attorney.
16. The guest unit is considered. a unit of density on the
property. In the event that the parcel is ever further
subdivided, no less than 60 acres shall be required to
provide the minimum lot. size required for the main residence
and the guest unit. __ ._
17. All material representations made in the. public hearing and
in the application shall be adhered to,
APPROVED by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting on April 2, 1991.
BOARD OF CgDNTY COMrffSSIONERS
' OF PITRIN COUNTY, COLORADO
By ~ / A _
. ~ Wayne ~ idge, C rman
e Jones
County,
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
#343<~ 07/08/91 16:;^^"w, Fec ~. C>0 HK 650 FG 699 A'" A
r8~lvia Davis, Fitkin :nty Clerk, boc $,tJO
Resolution No. ~9-~-~0~
Page 7
1
Timothy.' E ~ Wh'tsitt, Amy ~ argeruat;>
County ~Att~r.~ey Platuiing Director
ELS
RESO_JELINEK_BOCC
r,.
• #I334323 07/08/91 10~ ~'~tec ~. UO $Y. 650 PG 700 -j-^'~'~ ~g ~~ ~f~~~
.' 'Silvia Davis, Fit4an L`:nty Clerk,'boc`~.00" ?
ORDER N0: 00017850
The SW 1/4 of the NE
~ 1/4, the N 1/2 of, the
SE 1/4 of the NW '_/4
Range 88 West of-the
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
1/4 and the SE 1/4 of Section 23, the NE
SE 1/4, the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 and the
of Section 26 all in Township 8 South,
6th P.M.
Also that part of the NE 1/4 of_the NW 1/4 of said Section 26
and the SW 1/4 of said Section 23 lying easterly of the
following described line:
Beginning at a point on the North-South centerline of paid
Section 23 whence the N 1/4 corner of said Section 23 beers 5 00
degrees 00 minutes 40 seconds E 3665.36 feet more or less;
thence N 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds W 253.49 feet to a
rebar and cap marked LS 15710; thence S 93 degrees 19 minutes
58 seconds W 560.31 feet to a rebar and cap marked LS 15710;
thence S 10 degrees 31 mir;ctes 26 seconds W 166.04 feet to a
rebar and cao marked LS 15710; thence S 65 degrees 17 minutes
26 seconds.W 146.33 feet along the centerline of a gully;
thence S 69 degrees 04 minutes 07 seconds W 101.67 feet along a
gully; thence S 80 degrees 46 minutes 33 seconds W 58.90 feet
along a gully; thence S 32 degrees 58 minutes 53 seconds W
100.28 feet to a rebar and cap marked LS 15710; thence S 32
'degrees 58 minutes 53 seconds W 268.58 feet to rebar and cap
marked LS 15710; thence S 00 degrees 35 minutes 33 seconds W_
436.69 feet to a rebar and cap marked LS-1571.0; thence S 25
} degrees 38 minutes 21 seconds E 716.16 feet to 'a rebar and cap
marked LS 15710; thence S 48 degrees 09 .minutes 57 seconds W
96.21 feet to a rebar and cap marked LS 15710; thence N 85
degrees 47 minutes 46 seconds W 163.87 feet to a rebar and cap
marked LS 15710; thence S 12 degrees 22 minutes 20 seconds W
770.03 feet to a rebar and cap marked LS 15710; thence S 64
degrees 57 minutes 49 seconds W 89.35 feet more or less to. the
SW corner of said NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of said Section 26 whence
the N 1/4 corner of said Section 23 bears N 11 degrees 26
minutes 00 seconds E. 6710.10 feet.
County of Pitkin, State of Colorado
:~'1'E~!'<1.R'I' TITLE
GllA2ANTV COMPANY
#334428 h7/n9/5 ~"15:~9 Rec x.40 BY, bS0 PG
Silvia Davis, Pitk:in Cnty Cler•k'; Doc'$.0<~ \
RESOLDTION OF THE PITRIN COUNTY PLANNING AND„ZONING COMMISSION
GRANTING 1041 GEOLOGIC, WILDFIRE AND WILDLIFE HAZARD REVIEW
APPROVAL. AND RECOMI~NDING GENERAL SUBMISSION AND GIIEST HOUSE
APPROVAL TO THE JELINEK APPL~ICJATION
Resolution No. PZ-91-v~~
WHEREAS, Richard Jelinek, hereinafter "Applicant", has
applied to the Planning and Zoning Commission of Pitkin County,
Colorado, hereinafter "Commission", for 1041 Geologic, Wildfire
and Wildlife Hazard. approval for building envelopes for a single-
family residence, caretaker unit, barn and .guest house pursuant
to Section 5-400.2(a) (1, 3 and 4) of the Land_Use Code; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant's parcel is zoned RS-3o PUD and
contains approximately 582 acres; and
WHEREAS, said parcel is a part of the .Crystal Island Ranch
in the Crystal River Valley, located approximately four miles
south of Carbondale in Sections 23 and 26, Township 8 South,
Range 88 West, more specifically described in Exhibit "A"; and
WHEREAS, the Commission considered the Application at a duly
noticed public hearing at their regularly scheduled meeting on
February 5, 1991; and
WHEREAS, the Commission determined that the ;applicant can
adequately mitigate identified 1041,. hazards; and
WHEREAS, the Commission has determined that. said application
complies with Code criteria .for General Submission and a guest
house.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it
#33448 ~t79/91 1.x,:39 Rec $.~?~~ SF; PG 960
Silvia Davis, Pit4:in Cnty Clerk, Doc R.O~
Resolution No. PZ-91-~
Page 2
recommends approval of the Jelinek Guest House and General
Submission to the Board of County Commissioners.
BE IT F[JItTHEIi„ RESOLVED by the Commission that it does hereby
grant 1041 Geologic, Wildfire and Wildlife Hazard Review approval
to the Applicant subject to the following conditions:
GEOLOGIC-
1. The applicant shall abide by recommendations made by
consulting geologist, Nick Lampris in his letter of October
17, 1990 attached.. as Exhibit "B". The conditions are. as
follows:
a. Prior to issuance of a building permit, soils
engineering studies shall be performed at the site
specific level to insure proper foundation .design. All
aspects of the design of the home and.. the surrounding
landscaping shall emphasize a positive flow of water
away from the homesite in all directions;
b. Berming around the east side of the home shall be
provided to,prevent material from reaching the homesite
during periods of_ high water flow. The berm shall be
approximately three feet in .height above normal grade
and shall be constructed prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for the home.
c. Slopes steeper than 30% shall not be disturbed during
construction;
d. The driveway behind the. home shall be designed to aid
in the diversion of water or mud flows; and
e. The home shall be designed to preclude the accumulation
of radon gas.
WILDFIRE:
2. The followin wildfire miti ation measures sh,a1 on the 1041
g g
to and shall be placed as conditions of approv 11 be adhered
Site Plan:
a) Roof .coverings shall be of a non-combustible Underwriter
Laboratory approved material.
b) Brush and. debris kept at least ten feet away from the
base of-the home; Dead branches, stumps and other potential
:x
.. ,~ _ ~~~ ~ _ .~ ...wa, ,
#33445 071~FF'^'^//91 15:9 Fec x.00 Bt: 650 'x"61
Silvia Davi_,j Fitkin Cnty Clerl:, Doc $. .;
Resolution No. PZ-91-~
Page 3
fuels will be removed for a distance of at least 30 feet
from all proposed structures.
c) Stack firewood uphill or on a contour away from
buildings. Keep fire fuels away from stacked wood.
d) Place at least one 10-pound ABC-class fore extinguisher
in each structure.. A 50-.foot, garden. hose .connected to the
hot water heater drain is useful in a fire emergency inside
the house.
e) Power and utility lines shall be installed underground.
f) Tree branches within 15 feet of chimneys will be
removed. Trees will be thinned to the extent necessary to
develop the homesite, but not to the extent that" the home
will be visible to wildlife.
g. Lewis Lake will be used as an external. water supply for
firefighting.
h. The access drive shall be improved to meet County
standards. The road. improvement design shall be reviewed and
approved by the County Engineer prior to issuance of a.
building permit.
i. The applicant shall install_an approved fire suppression
system is all .buildings, the design of which shall be
.approved by the Carbondale Fire Marshal prior to issuance of
a building permit.
WILDLIFE:
3. Development impacts on wildlife shall be mitigated as
follows, and shall. be placed as conditions of approval on
the 1041 Site Plan:
a. The homesite shall. be located, as indicated on the
submittal map: along the east side of Lewis Lake at
the base of-,the ridge, just south of a small ravine or
gully.
b. Maintain native vegetation outside building envelope
and as much as possible within envelope to help screen
home.
c. NO dogs shall be kept on the property.
d. Fencing be 42", 4 strand or less or 48" 3-rail wood_
fence. Property boundary fencing be discouraged.
>. ~,
.~ w .~., ,_. > w.~~.. ,gin,. ~~~r~~... ~ ~,„~.~,~.9~.,. u~~.~
#~344~SOi,'~""/91 ive39 Fec $.Qh BK 650 962~~~~~~ ~~
Silvia Davies;"-PitFin Cnty Cler4;, Doc $.UU
Resolution No. P"L-91-0!I
Page 4
e. No horse grazing shall be permitted along the riparian
area of Thomas Creek.
f. Eight. foot. game damage fence around haystacks to
prevent depredation of hay.
g. All utilities shall: be buried in ,the existing roadways.
h. The. applicant shall remove ..all, existing fencing on the
property.
i. No snowmobile use shall be .allowed on the property from
December 1 through March 15, due to deer and elk winter,.
range habitat conditions. on-site.
j. No domestic fowl (including turkeys) unless kept within
totally enclosed coop or yard (including a roof).
GENERAL SIIBMISSION-
4. The applicant shall revegetate areas disturbed by
construction within one.. growing season of construction..
5. The septic system designed for the site shall be reviewed
and approved by the Environmental Health Department prior to
issuance of a building permit.
6. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall
provide evidence that the water well(s) on site yield a
sufficient. quantity of water and satisfactory quality to
provide for a primary residence, guest unit and .caretaker
unit. Water well yield and water quality shall be reviewed
and approved by the Environmental Health Department prior to
issuance_of a.building permit.
7. The applicant shall .,apply for and. receive an earthmoving
permit from the County Engineer prior to any upgrades to the
existing access road. The earthmoving permit shall be
issued prior to issuance of a building permit..
8. The access road shall be improved to meet County driveway
standards. Improvements shall include, but not be limited
to the following:
a. Grade improvements;
b. Provision of turnouts,;
c. Provision of ditches and culverts to,control drainage
and erosion;
d. Provision of a four inch gravel surface;
9. The applicant shall join a road and bridge improvement
#3344s8 0'"~ 9/91 15 39 Rec 2.04
Silvia Davis, PitN:n Cnty Clerk,
Resolution No. PZ-91-~
Page 5
district if such a district is formed to repair or replace
saw ..
the Thomas Bridge and/or fihomas 12oad, participation in which
shall be based on_acreage or on a formula agreeable to the
residents of the neighborhood.
10. Construction vehicles shall be_ prohibited on the Thomas
Bridge until and unless the Bridge is improved to meet
County Road Standards.
UNIT'
11. Prior to issuance of, a building permit for the primary
residence the following items shall be provided to the
Housing Authority and copied to the Planning Office:
a. The Owner` shall be required, (prior to issuance of a
building. permit for" the barn) to execute a deed
restriction for approval by the Housing office. The
restriction .shall state that ,the unit shall remain a
rental unit, not be condominiumized, not be occupied by
owner or spouse, be limited to occupancy by persons and
their families who qualify as ahd have 'been found to be
employees of the community under such guidelines as may
be from' time to time established by the Housing
Authority, and be rented for terms of not less than .six...
consecutive months.
b. Owner shall ,be required to qualify all prospective
tenants prior to occupancy of the unit-with the Housing
Authority Office.
12. The existing caretaker unit shall be rendered uninhabitable ___
or demolished prior to issuance of a building permit for the
primary residence. If it is to be retained as an
uninhabitable accessory structure, a height variance for the
structure shall be required prior to issuance of any
building permits on the site. However, if said structure is
to be used as an agricultural outbuilding, such as a barn,
and it does not. exceed 28' in height to the midpoint of the
roof, no variance.: shall be required..
GUEST HOIISE'
13. The guest house shall be located above the garage within the
building envelope for the primary residence as designated on
the site plan.
14. Rental use or_long term occupancy shall be prohibited in the
guest unit .pursuant to Section 3-3.55 of the Pitkin County
Land Use Code.
,~~~ . .. ~ .,,. ~ b W ~ ... w w. _~ „k,...... w~. ~~ _.~ ~~:.~
#334428 O7/ri"~s91 15:39 Rec $. 40 BY. 650 ' 964'
_.,,,._.
` Silvia Davis, "~Pitk.in Cnty Clerk:, Doc ~.
Resolution_Ro. PZ__-91-~
Page 6
GENERAL:
15. The appldant shall. prepare a site. plan for recordation
which meets the, approval of the. Planning Department and the
County Attorney.
16. The guest unit is considered a unit of density on the
property. In the event that the _parcel is ever further
subdivided, rio less than 60" acres '"shall be required to
provide the minimum lot size required for the main residence
and the guest unit.
17. All material representations made in the public hearing and
in the application shall be adhered to.
APPROVED by the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission.
at its regular. meeting on February 5, 1991.
PITRIN
ZONING
ATTEST'
~~,,-,~~
Deborah Skelian,
Administrative Assistant
AND
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT'
Amy Iargerum,
P1 ing Director
.w ~,~ ~ .~ <_ ,,.,~ v.u~~....~:
a _,.
APPROVED AS TO FORM
#334428 r77/09/91 15:?O Rec ~.OC7 BY, 6~0 PG 966 ~-f-{{~j{~ w~"
Si-l via Davis, Pitkinty C1erF:, Doc ~.t~r] ~
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
~~
ORDER N0: 00017850
The SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 and the SE 1/4 of Section 23, the NE
1%4, the N_1/2 bf the 8c 3/4, the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 and the
SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 26_a11 in Township 8 South,
Range 88 West of the 6th P.M.
Also that part of the NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of said,Section 26
and the SW 1/4 of said Section 23 lying easterly of the
following described line:
Beginning at a point. on the North-South centerline of said
Section 23 whence the N 1/4 corner of said Section 23 bears S 00
degrees 00 minutes 40 seconds E 3665.36 feet more or less;
thence N 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds W 253.49`feet to a
rebar and cap marked LS 15710; thence S 43 degrees 19 minutes_
58 seconds W 560.31 feet to a rebar and cap marked t_S 15710;
thence S 10 degrees 31 minutes 26 seconds W 166.04 feet to a
rebar and cap marked LS 15710; thence S 65 degrees 17 minute's
26 seconds W 146.33 feet along the centerline of a gully;
thence S 69 degrees 04 minutes 07 seconds W 101.67 feet along a
gully; thence S 80 degrees 46 .minutes 33 seconds W 58.90 feet
along a gully; thehce S 32 degrees 58 minutes 53 seconds W
100.28 feet to a rebar and cap marked LS 15710; thence S 32
degrees 58 minutes 53 seconds W 268.58. feet to rebar and cap
marked LS 15710; thence S 00 de'9rees 35 minutes 33 seconds W
436.69 feet to a rebar and cap marked LS 1571,0; thence S 25
degrees 38 minutes 21 seconds E 716.16 feet to a rebar and cap
marked LS 15710; thence S 48 degrees 09 minutes ~`7~ sec~onds~W
96.21 feet to a rebar and cap marked LS 15710; thence N 85
degrees 47 minutes 46 seconds W 163.87 teet"to a rebar and cap
marked LS, 157.10; thence S 12 degrees 22 minutes 20 seconds W
770.03 feet to a rebar and„ c,ap marked LS 15710; thence S 64
degrees 57 minutes 49 seconds W 89.35 feet more or less to the
SW corner of said NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of said Section 26 whence
the N 1/4 corner of said Section 23 bears N 11 degrees 26
minutes 00 seconds E. 6710.10 feet.-
County of Pitkin, State of_Colorado _
~~
a h
~~
VANN ASSOCIATES, INC.
Planning Consultants
November 12, 1991
HAND pELIVERED
Ms. Suzanne Konchan
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Jelinek 1041 Hazard Review Approval
Dear Suzanne:
The purpose of this. letter is to confirm my understanding of
the Planning Office's position with regard to Mr. Jelinek's
proposed conversion of his approved caretaker's unit to a
guesthouse.
As we discussed last week, Mr. Jelinek received 1041 hazard
review and general submission approval earlier this year for
the construction of a single-family residence, a guesthouse,
a barn and a caretaker's unit on his Crystal Island Ranch
property. The guesthouse unit was to be located in the
residence's garage, while the caretaker's unit was to be
located above the barn. The barn `is presently under con-
struction, and is rapidly nearing completion.
In my letter of October 15, 1991, to Ellen Sassano, I
requested permission for Mr. Jelinek to convert the barn's
approved caretaker's unit to a second free market residential
unit. It was your position, however, that staff level
approval of the conversior. was not permitted under the Code,
and that BOCC approval would be required. In the alterna-
tive, you agreed that the previously approved caretaker's
unit could be converted to a guesthouse in exchange for
eliminating the guesthouse unit which was to be constructed
in the single-family residence's garage.
Based on the above understanding, Mr. Jelinek is proceeding
with the construction of a guesthouse unit above the barn.
Revised plans will be submitted to the Building Department as
may be required. As we discussed, the guesthouse unit will
be larger than the approved caretaker's unit, and will occupy
the entire second floor of the barn. The occupancy of the
~~ ~~~
,w~ ~
,,!
230 East Hopkins Avenue • Aspen, Colorado 81611 •303/925-6958
.~~
Ms. Suzanne Konchan
November 12, 199 1
Page 2
unit, however, will be restricted in compliance with the
conditions of the original guesthouse unit's approval.
As Mr. Jelinek's long term objective is to have two (2) free
market units, a new application will be submitted for general
submission approval to eliminate the guesthouse's occupancy
restriction. This application will also request 1041
approval of a new caretaker's unit and permission to convert
an existing structure to an office. No further construction,
however, is anticipated on the property until these approvals
are in place.
I would like to thank you again for assisting Mr. Jelinek in
achieving his development objectives. Should you have any
questions, or require further clarification, please do not
hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
VANN A~SOCIATES~ INC.
SV:cwv
cc: Richard Jelinek
Ellen Sassano
Joanna Schaffner
~~ ~ .~
VANN ASSOCIATES, INC.
Planning Consultants
October 15, 1991
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Ellen Sassano
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Jelinek 1041 Aazard`Review Approval
Dear Ellen:
On February 5, 1991, the Planning and Zoning Commission
granted 1041 hazard review approval to Richard Jelinek for
the construction of a single-family residence and barn on his
Crystal Island Ranch property. On April 2, 1991, the Board
of County Commissioners granted general submission approval
for the residence and for a caretaker unit which was to be
located in the barn. The BOCC also granted special review
approval for a so-called "guest house" unit to be located in
the residence's garage.
As we discussed last week, Mr. Jelinek recently purchased the
remainder of Ashley Carrithers adjacent property. Upon
further consideration, he has decided to relocate the
caretaker unit which was approved for the barn to a new site
elsewhere on the property. Permission to relocate the unit,
and to revise several other aspects of his prior approvals,
will be requested in a formal land use application to be
submitted later this month. In the interim, Mr. Jelinek
would like to convert the previously approved caretaker space
to a non-rEStricted dwelling unit.
The barn is presently under construction, and is rapidly
nearing completion. Mr. Jelinek proposes to convert the
second floor to a dwelling unit which he would occupy until
the construction of his new single-family residence. The
unit would be used for guest purposes upon completion of the
principal residence. The previously approved guest house
unit would no longer be required and would be eliminated from
the new residence's design.
As the growth management quota system does not apply to the
Crystal River Valley, no allocation for the barn unit is
required. The unit, however, would continue to be considered
230 East Hopkins Avenue • Aspen, Colorado 81611 •303/925-6958
~ D .
an additional unit of density for zoning purposes. As the
barn site has received 1041 approval, and general submission
and special review approval was granted for the original
guest house unit, no further land use approvals would appear
to be required.
It should be noted that quest houses will no longer be
subject to special review under the proposed new land use
code. Such uses will simply be considered an additional unit
of density, with no restrictions imposed as to use or
occupancy. This concept is consistent with Mr. Jelinek's
proposal, and represent a logical approach to addressing
zoning enforcement issues related to the occupancy of guest
houses.
As Mr. Jelinek wishes to complete the barn as quickly as
possible, I would appreciate it if you would consider his
request in as timely a manner as possible. Should you have
any questions, or require additional information, please do
not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
VANN A~OCIATEB~ INC.
AICP
SV:cwv
cc: Richard C. Jelinek
AGENDA ITElI SD1+Il~ARY
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Special Meeting - April 2, 1991
THRU: Reid Haughey, County Manager _ C.kx/
Amy Margerum, Planning Director C.ixJ
RE: Jelenik Caretaker unit, Guest Unit, 1041 Hazard _and
General Submission Review
FROM: Ellen Sassano, Planner
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTAT]:VSd Alan Richman
SUbIl4ARY: The Planning and Zoning Commission and the. Planning.
Office recommend approval of the request subject to conditions
shown in the attached memo.
REQUEST: The applicant proposes to construct a single family
residence with an attached garage containing a guest unit. In
addition the applicant proposes to build a barn which. is to
contain a caretaker unit. Specifically, the applicant is
requesting 'the following:
1. General Submission Review. pursuant. to_ Section 6-3 of the___
Code;
2. Geologic, Wildfire and Wildlife. Environmental Hazard Review_
pursuant to Section 5-400 of the Code;
3. Approval of a caretaker unit in a barn, pursuant to Section
3-8.13 (a) of the Code;
4. Special Review .approval for a guest unit which is to be
located within the .garage which is to be attached to the
primary residence, pursuant to Section 3-6 of the Code;
LOCATION: The, property is a part of the Crystal Island Ranch in
the Crystal .River Valley, approximately four miles south of
Carbondale; Sections 23 and 26, Town hip '8 South, Range 88 West;
ZONING: The site is approximately 582 acres in size and is zoned
RS-30 PUD
ISSUES: Most issues have been resolved to the satisfaction of
the Commission and `Staff in the Planning Commission review..
However, since the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting it has
come to the attention.. of the Planning Department that some
aspects of access to the site have. not been adequately addressed.
As a part of the General Submission Review., the applicant is
required to comply with the policies and regulations of the Code.
Section 5-202.1 of the Code stipulates that any application shall
..
show, where applicable,
That. any new. roadways or improvement or reconstruction _
of existing roadways are designed and constructed to
achieve suitable capacity, safety, level of 'service and
maintenance evels
The bridge and road to the site, are. privately owned. The..
applicant has obtained an easement for their use. It is the
p y g'~ ghbors that the
o inion of the ..,Count En ineer and some nei~~
existing Thomas .Bridge, over` which access is_gained, may not
provide adequate access to the Jelinek site because of current
disrepair. Staff has recommended„.that the ..,applicant provide
documentation that there is adequate access to the site prior to
issuance of a building permit. It is recommended that access. to,
the site be brought up to 1990 County Road standards to achieve
suitable.. capacity, safety, level of service. and maintenance
levels.
The applicant objects to the recommendation made by Staff because.
they feel that it .places an unfair burden on them to improve a
road and bridge which is not located on their property and which
is used by others in the neighborhood. It is reiterated that
Staff has not recommended that the.. applicant be fully responsible
for .improvements. Staff has requested that documentation of
adequate access, as approved by the County Engineer, be provided
before any additional building occurs.
Two other amendments.. have been made to the_applcation since the
initial review by the Commission. They are as follows;
1. The .applicant has. proposed that sprinkler systems within
each structure be accepted as a means of providing for fire
protection in lieu of,adequate emergency access. Staff will.
discuss this. proposal with the Fire_ Marshal and, provide a
recommendation at the meeting.
2. The existing (bandit) caretaker unit on site will be
rendered uninhabitable and a new caretaker unit, (upon
approval), will"be included in the barn. It will apparently
be too expensive to bring the existing unit up to UBC
standards... Staff notes that, if the existing structure is
to be converted to' use as an accessory structure, a height
variance will be necessary, as the structure exceeds .the
accessory height limit..
STAFF RECOlII+IE4TDATIONd The Planning and Zoning Commission and
Staff recommend that the Board approve the Jelinek application
for 1041 Hazard and General Submission review subject to
conditions shown in the Staff memo, attached..
~`"
MBlIORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
THRII: Reid Haughey, County Manager
Amy Margerum, Planning Director
FROM: Ellen Sassano, Planner
RE: Jelinek Caretaker Unit, Guest Unit, 1041 Hazard and
General Submission Review
DATE: April.2; 1991
REQUEST; The applicant .proposes to construct a single family
residence with an attached garage`contaning a guest unit. In
addition the applicant proposes to build a barn' which is to
contain a caretaker unit. Specifically, the applicant is
requesting the following:
1. General Submission Review pursuant to Section 6-3 of the
Code;
2. Geologic, Wildfire and Wildlife Environmental Hazard Review
pursuant to Section 5-400 of the Code;
3. Approval of a caretaker unit in a barn., pursuant to Section
3-8.13(a) of the Code;
4. Special Review approval for a guest house which is to be
located within the,. garage which is to be attached to the
primary residence, pursuant to Section 3-6 of the Code;
APPLICANT: Richard C. Jelinek
APPLICANT'S. REPRESENTATIVE: Alan M. Richman
LOCATION: The property is a part of--the Crystal Island Ranch in
the .Crystal `River' Valley; approximately four'`miles south of
Carbondale; Sections 23 and 26, Township 8`South; Range 88 West;
ZONING: The site is approximately 582 acres in size and is zoned
RS-30 PUD.
ACCESS: Access to the property is from State. Highway 133 onto
Thomas Creek Road, which is a private road. The applicant has
obtained a_forty foot right-of-way easement from Highway 133 onto
and through the Crystal Island Ranch all the way to the proposed
residence.
WATER:. The applicant proposes to drill an on site well to
provide water for domestid use. Lewis Lake, which is immediately
adjacent to the building area, will serve as an external water
supply for fire fighting.
'~ ,
SEWSR: Aseptic system is proposed for the property.
RRFRRRnT. AGENCY COMC4ENTS:......
i. County Land Use Engineer- Tom Newland submitted the following
comments in a memo dated_December 18; 1990'"(attachment-1):
Impacts on Road System: Traffic... ..generated from the_ proposed
development will access Thomas Creek Road a private road. There
will be no significant impact on the County road system as a
result of this proposed development.
Internal Road Design: The Site Development Plan shows an "Access
Road" to .the proposed building envelope which is an old farm road....
into the land. The roadway will need to conform with County
driveway standards and will need to have the necessary easements.
The easement should be at least,30' wide for access,purposes and
on slopes less than 30$. It is recommended that the applicant
apply for and receive an Earthmovng permit from this ..office
prior to any upgrade of .this existing access road.
Parking for Emplopee Dwelling Unit:. There should be one parking
space for each bedroom within. the unit.
Logical Extension of IItilities: It is,_ recommended that the..
applicant bury all utilities `(electric, phone) to the site as
proposed.
(Two additional memo have been submtted_by Mr. Newland. since the
Planning Commission review. They are included in the packet as
part of attachment 1. They both specifically address the state
of the Thomas Bridge, and the concern about safety associated
with the Bridge.)
2. Environmental Health Department- submitted the following
comments in a memo dated December 6 1990 (attachment 2):
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: Sections 2-~ and 5-200:
Sewage disposal for both the proposed residence and the
caretaker's unit must be addressed.. For the pYOposed residence
the applicant plans to construct an individual sewage disposal
system to dispose of wastewater. We agree with`Schmueser
Gordon Met'er's recommendations that the system be installed above
the house, and that it be carefully designed to preclude
contamination of Lewis Lake..- A site pecific soils evaluation,
including soil. percolation tests must be done in order to
determine the final system design: If any limitations eliminate
the possibility of installing a standard system, an engineer
designed system that still meets the County regulations should be
able to be constructed.
2
n r-y
This department has no records of ,an existing system for the
CaretakeY's unit. In 1988, in his response to a complaint about
the illegal structure, John Ostwald of the.. Aspen/Pitkin Regional
Building Department noted that there was: no plumbing in the
cabin. There was an outhouse and a bath house (grey water only).
._ ~~ __«,. eav ..
We do not know if these structures., are still in use, or if a
...,.
septic system has been installed since ,then, without a permit
from this office. If an individual sewage disposal system has
. ~~
been installed for the cabin, the applicant will need toapply to
this department for a permit for the system, and will need to
provide information on what the., system consists of, so that we
can determine whether or not the system is in compliance with the
regulations. If the _system is not in compliance with the
regulations it will need to be modified so,that it is. If a
septic system does not exist for the. cabin, one will need to be
constructed-.•-~We._would recommend separate systems .for the cabin
and the proposed residence due to ,the location of the lake._and -
the size of the proposed residence. Constructing two systems may
also be more feasible because"of the large distance between the
cabin and the proposed residence. Again, a site evaluation would
need to be done to determine the final design.
Control of irrigation water and drainage courses will likely be
important to sewage disposal system operation, and should be
addressed as an overall part of the final drainage plan.
The applicant proposes to build the barn on one side of the ditch
or the other. The barn and the corrals should be located so that
the potential for pollution of the ditch or settling pond waters
is minimized. The .applicant may wish to consider piping the
flows through the corral area_to preclude contamination.
There is no mention in the revised site. plan of whether or not
the proposed barn will be plumbed for water or toilet fixtures.
If such fixtures are to be installed, then the disposal of the
wastewater generated will need to be addressed. A site...
evaluation would again be necessary to determine system design.
The location of the ditch and the settling pond would be
important factors to consider in locating the system.
ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: Sections 2-6 and 5-205:
The applicant proposes to drill a riew well_for water for domestic..
use. There is no mention in the application of. what_the source
of water is for the existing cabin. We agree with the
applicant's consulting engineer's opinion that 'a 'physical water
supply is available. The engineer also states that a legal
supply is available. They anticipate that the quantity of water
from the well would be in excess of 15 gpm and that the quality
of the water would meet the Colorado Primary Drinking Water
Standards..
w ~, ~_. ..~. , _...
-Once the new well is developed, we would recommend that it ,be
tested to determine if its water quality parameters do meet the
requirements of the Colorado Department of Health. One important
consideration for the placement of the new well(s) is the
location of the new septic system(s).
There is no mention in the „revised srite plan of whether the
proposed barn will be supplied with potable water. The ..applicant
plans to drill a new well_(or wells) for the proposed residence
(and possibly the caretaker's unit). This well should be
adequate for providing water for the.. barn.
AIR QUALITY: Sections 2-17 and 5-106:
The new home is allowed one
device which may be either a'
woodburnng fireplace: Perlttts
these devices. The same is tru
has devices in excess of these`
these categories, the existing
code.
ed woodstove and a second
certified woodstove, or a`
quired from this office for
e caretakerunit, and if it
or not in compliance with
~s should be brought up to
The only additional air. quality comment we have on the amended
application/revised site .plan, is that we recommend the. applicant
commit to not installing any woodstove or fireplace in the barn,
as a condition of approval.
3. County Attorney- The County Attorney has reviewed the case,.
and-is satisfied that .the parcel was created legally and that no
merger has occurred..
4. Carbondale Fire .District.- In a telephone conversation with
the Carbondale. Fire Department, it was made clear that the
primary issue regarding wildfire mitigation is access to the..
site. It is recommended that the. applicant coordinate with the.
fire District in the design of improvements to he access road,..
The road should_be improved to accommodate emergency vehicles.
5. Division of Wildlife- Division of Wildlife comments are
wholly incorporated in the Wildlife review .section of this memo.
STAFF COliI~NTS
The applicant is proposing to construct a 4,500 to 5,000 square
foot single family home, a garage with a guest unit, and a barn
on a parcel of land which is approximately 582 acres in size.
The parcel is encumbered by wildlife -habitat, wildfire and
geologic hazards. The proposed building envelopes (house and
barn), are located on slopes of approximately 12$ grade, adjacent
to Lewis Lake.
4
The .applicant initially proposed to legali2e an existing
caretaker unit.,... which., was_, built adjacent 'to Lewis Lake,..
.~ _ti_,w., , .......
approximately six years ago (without County approval) by the
prior owner.. of the. property. The applicant proposed to bring the
unit into compliance with County Code requirements in order to_
provide housing for a ranch manager"for the property. Since the
Planning Commission review, the applicant has decided to
construct a new caretaker unit in the barn and to render the
existing unit .uninhabitable.
An .existing ranch. road is proposed to be the. permanent access to
the site. A portion of the road was recently subject to
improvements by the 'prior owner of the property. Further minor
improvements to the road are required for use'by construction
vehicle s and the applicant. Utilities are to ,be buried
underground along the driveway alignment.
Section 5-401 Geologic>-Hazards- The property is mapped as
containing potentially unstable slopes and avalanche hazard
areas.
Nicholas Larapiris, consulting geologist, submitted the following
recommendations in a letter dated October 17; 1990 (attachment 4)
.~ ~..
regarding the geologic hazards on the property.
1. The substantial distance .of the, proposed homesite from
the unstable slope and the relative low energy of the
flows and small 'size of the. incorporated debris
simplifies mitigation;
2. Creation of a berm of about three feet above .,grade
around the east side of the home is tha most important
mitigation technique to prevent material from reaching
the homesite during periods of high wafer flow;
3. Other mitigation techniques include conducting soils
engineering studies at the time of foundation design
(due to the potential for finding hydrocompactive soils
in the alluvial fan and because of the site's proximity
to the lakej; the creation of positive drainage away
from the home in all directions at the time of site
landscaping; and the proper design of the driveway
behind the home to aid in the diversion of water or mud
flows;
The applicant agrees to comply with Dr. Lampiris's recommended
mitigation procedures. Given compliance, geologic hazards can_be
adequately mitigated...
Section 5-404 Wildlife. Hazards- The property is located within
deer and elk winter range, contains deer winter concentration
areas and an elk migration pattern.
~~..~.
The Division of Wildlife submitted two letters dated November 26
and December 12, 1990 (attachment 5) with the following commentso
I visited the site with Alan Richman on 9/6J90. In order to
minimize wildlife impacts, I suggested the following which
they have incorporated and agreed to in their submittal;
1. Homesite be located as indicated on the submittal map:
along the east side of Lewis Lake at, the base of 'the
ridge, just south of a small ravine or gully.
2. Maintain native. vegetation outside building envelope
and as much as possible within envelope to help screen
home.
3. NO dogs.
4. Fencing be 42", 4 strand or less or 48" 3-rail wood
fence. Property boundary fencing be discouraged.
5. No horse grazing along riparian area of Thomas Creek.
6. Eight foot game damage fence around haystacks to
prevent depredation..
7. Utilities be buried in road, use existing road system.
In addition, I would encourage the following:
1. Removal... of any old fencing on property.
2. No snowmobile. use from December 1 through March 15.
3. No domestic fowl (including turkeys) unless kept within
totally enclosed coup or yard (includes roof). This
will prevent disease transmission from domestic fowl to
wild turkeys.
I have no problems with the Jelinek property revised site
plan which identifies the barn location. Its location will
be in a currently disturbed-area so its impact should be
minimal. as long as it can be screened by positioning it in
the trees as Mr. Richman as indicated.
If the property owner is interested in a conservation
easement ..for his remaining property, the Division of
Wildlife would support the concept and offer our assistance
in achieving the easement.
The applicant agrees to abide by all recommended mitigation
procedures. Staff strongly supports the concept of a conservation.
6
easement on the remainder of this ,,property. While the applicant
is interested in the concept, he is not prepared to commit to
such a measure at this point in time,
Section 5-403 Wildfire Hazards- The property is located within
a mapped severe wildfire hazard area,.
A telephone conversation with a Carbondale.. Fire District
spokesperson made it clear that the primary issue associated with
firefighting on this site is that of the access road, It is
imperative that the road be improved to accommodate emergency
vehicles. The applicant has. hired an engineer to oversee design
and. construction of improvements. Use _by emergency vehicles has
been considered in design of the improvements..
Staff recommends the following mitigation techniques in addition
to those already discussed, as a means of further protecting an
isolated rural area from an occurrence of wildfire:
a) Roof coverings shall be of a non-combustible Underwriter....
Laboratory approved material.
b) Brush and debris kept at least ten feet away from the
base of the home; Dead branches, stumps and other potential
fuels will be removed for a distance of at leasf 30 feet
from all proposed structures..,
c) Stack firewood uphill or on _a contour away from
buildings. Keep fire fuels away from stacked wood.
d) Place at least. one 10-pound ABC-class fore extinguisher
in each structure. A 50-foot garden hose connected to the.
hot water heater drain is useful in a fire emergency inside
the house..
e) Power and utility lines shall be installed underground.
f) Tree branches within 15 feet of chimneys will be
removed. Trees will be thinned to ,the extent necessary to
develop the homesite, but not to the extent that the home
will be visible to wildlife.
g. Lewis Lake .will be used as an external water supply for
firefighting.
The applicant agrees to abide by .recommendations made. by Staff
and. the Fire bistrct in order to mtigate`wildfre hazard in the
area.
1041 Summary
Wildfire and geologic hazards on site can be mitigated given
7
~ ~
compliance with recommended procedures. The applicant has worked.
with Kevin Wright in locating the building sites to have the
least amount of impact `possible to wildlife habitat and use of
the area. The site is not visible., from the galleys below the
lake and is well shielded from the ridge above the lake. These
are the two principal locations from which wildlife would see the.,,..
residence. Given_ siting and adherence to recommended mitigation
procedures, impacts to wildlife habitat .are mitigated to the
extent possible, given development.
Section 6-3 General Submission
Pertinent Policies and Regulations of the Land Use Code. which
have not already been addressed are discussed below._
Sections 2-5, 2-11 and 5-101, 5-102 Drainage and Erosion-
The geologic report states that all aspects of the design of
the home and the surrounding landscaping should emphasize a
positive flow of _water away "from the° homesite in all
directions. Drainage improvements need to be addressed
further by the soils engineer to insure that runoff for the
development site will not. exceed the runoff attributable.. to
the site in it's natural state. The principal development
issue with respect to drainage and eroson`control is the
need for ditches and culverts to be placed in the driveway.
The applicant agrees to adhere to recommendations made by
their consulting engineer regarding same. The County
Engineer.. concurs .with comments 4aade by' the 'consulting
engineer..
Sections 2-16 and 5-105 Scenic Quality- The existing ranch
road was located so as to follow the natural terrain to the
extent possible._ While the cuts from, certain sections of
the road are somewhat visible from the County Road at the
present time, it will not be necessary"to ''improve the road
in such a manner as to significantly increase the visibility
of these road cuts.
The proposed home is located such that it will not be
visible from surrounding properties or any County Roads.
Section 2-6 and 5-205 Adequate Provision for Water Needs-
The applicant proposes use of a well to provide water for
domestic water 'supply for the proposed residence. Should
the existing or a new `caretaker unit be,approved, water
provision for it's domestic supply will have to be addressed
prior to issuance of a building permit for the primary
residence.
Quantity and quality of the well water shall be reviewed and
approved by the Environmental Health Department prior to
issuance of a building permit.
8
Sections 2-7 and 5-200 Sewage Treatment and Collection- The.
consulting engineer's report indicates that in order. to
provide a septic system which will not discharge into Lewis
Lake, the applicant must place the System above tfie proposed
house, requiring pumping to occur. It is anticipated that
an engineered system wll'be required.
If an individual sewage disposal. system has. been installed...
for the existing cabin, (caretaker unit), the applicant will
need to apply to the Environmental Health bepartment for a
permit for the system, and will need to_provide information
on what the. system consists of,°s"o"that it can be determined
whether or not the system is in compliance with the County
regulations. If the system is not in compliance with the
regulations it wi1T need to be modified so that it is. If a
septic system does not exist for the cabin, one will need to
be constructed. The' Environmental Health Department
recommends separate systems for. the cabin and the,. proposed
residence due to the location of the lake and the size of
the proposed residence. Constructing two systems may also
be more feasible because: of the large distance between the:
cabin and the proposed residence.
Sections 2-8 and _5-201 _Impact on the Road System- The
County Engineer has determined that the addition"of a single
family residence and guest house will have insignificant
impacts to traffic on the County Road system. _HOwever, the
addition of development in this area may, according to the
County Engineer, impact the existing Thomas `Bridge,' which is
currently in disrepair. This issue will be further
discussed at the meeting.
Sections 2-9 and 5-202 Road Design and Construction- The
applicant agrees to improve the existing access road to meet
County standards, as recommended by the consulting engineer.
Improvements will include, 'but not be limited to the
following:
1. Grade improvements;
2. Provision of Turnouts;
3. Provision of ditches ..and culverts to ...control. drainage
and erosion;
4. Provision of a four. inch gravel surface;
Finally, the applicant will be required to .obtain an
earthmoving from the County 'Engineer's office prior to
issuance of a building permit..
Sections 2-10 and 5-203. Logical Extension of Utilities- The
applicant has indicated that utilities will be extended
underground to the residence. along the access road
alignment.
Section 2-13 and. 5-104 Compatibility with .Agricultural
Lands- The proposed homeste has not been used for
agricultural production and therefore po lands will be taken
out of agricultural production. A meadow in the vicinity of
the building site will remain open. Horses 'will be kept
within the meadow. Impacts on the agricultural aspects of
the remaining 600 acres will be minimal.
General Submission_Summary:
The application .generally complies with General Submission...
criteria. Issues relating to access will be discussed at the
meeting.
Section 3-8.13 - Caretaker IInit
(Please note .that since the Planning Commission review, the
applicant has decided to request approval of a caretaker unit
within the barn, rather than approval of tFe existing unit. The
criteria for 'review of the unit in the barn is, in this case, the
same criteria used to review the existing bandit unit.)
The applicant initially sought to make an existing "bandit"
caretaker unit, built after June 8, 1981, a legal dwelling. Since.
the Planning Commission review, the applicant has decided to
request approval of a caretaker unit within the barn., rather than
approval of the existing unit. The existing unit is to be
rendered uninhabitable.
According to Section 3-8.13(a) of the Code, the Board may permit
the construction of an attached dwelling unit, or a unit located
within an .agricultural building within the RS-30 zone district
under the following conditions and limitationsp
(1) Newly constructed employee units shall not have more
than one (S)` bedroom nor exceed five. hundred (500) square
feet of total floor area..,
(2) The total floor area of the principal and employee unit
shall not exceed the allowable FAR of the applicable none
district.
(3) There shall be provided one (1) off-street parking
space for each bedroom within the principal unit and one (1)
off-street parking space for each employee unit.
(4) The applicant shall by deed restriction or other
permanent commitment running with the land, guarantee that
the employee unit shall remain a rental unit; not be
condominiumzed; not be occupied by the owner or spouse; be
10
limited to_occupancy by not more than two (2) adults, and
related children, who qualify as (and. have been found by the
Housing Authority to be)` employees of the community under
such guidelines as may be from time"to time established by
said Authority; be rented for _termsnot less than six (6)
months.
(4) Units. within agricultural outbuildings shall be allowed
only when such buildings contain over_1,500 square feet and
it can be demonstrated that construction of the additional
dwelling unit will not interfere with the agricultural uses
of the building.
The unit is_to be restricted to 1 bedroom.and,_5,0.0 square feet in
size. The applicant agrees to provide parking as stipulated in
Criterion (3), above; and to deed restrict the units to resident
occupancy as required by the Housing Authority, prior to issuance
of a building permit. The barn is to be a'minimum of ,15,00 square
feet in size. The unit is to be occupied by a ranch manager.
The owner will be_ required to qualify all. prospective tenants_
prior to occupancy of the unit with the Housing Authority Office.
As the proposed unit complies with Code criteria, Staff
recommends.. approval, subject to compliance with ~Tousing Authority
requirements stated above.
It is recommended that the existing unit be rendered.
uninhabitable and used for storage, or be demolished .prior to
issuance of a building permit for the barn or house.' _ If it is
retained, a height variance for an accessory structure will. be
required, prior to issuance of a building permit on site.
Section 3-6 - _Special Review for. a Guest House' - The applicant
proposes to include a quest house of approximately 450 square
feet above the garage which is to be connected to the principal
residence. A guest house is considered to be a unit of density,
but in the. Crystal River area, it is not subject to Growth
Management competition. As the applicant has adequate acreage to
accommodate the additional unit, the unit may be approved subject
to .Special Review criteria. .Section 3-6 of the Land. Use Code,..
stipulates the following:
Uses designated-as special review uses in any zone district
or by any general regulation are contingent uses which may
or may not be appropriate in a particular location depending
on the nature`of the use, its relationship to surrounding
land uses, and its impact with respect to environmental,
social and economic matters, These uses may be approved by
the Board only upon a finding that the use is compatible
with the policies and regulations of the Code.
As the unit is to be located within the building envelope for the
11
primary residence, it is assumed that seryces will be shared and
that impacts of the .additional development will be similar to
those of the. primary residence, as discussed in the General
Submission section of this memo., ..The ,applicant will have to
„_,.
provide proof of an adequate water supply and design a septic.
system which will accommodate_.both units Water supply and septic
__.~. b......va,~~..,~
design will be subject to review and _approval by 'the
Environmental Health Department prior to issuance of a building
permit. Visual impact should be negligible. Road design should.
accommodate the additional unit. The _Division of Wa.ldhfe has
~,,.a ,_..~~ .
indicated that impacts to wildlife, given the development'already~
proposed, will`be negligible. Staff recommends',approval of the
guest house, making it clear that it is ,a unit.. of density for
which the applicant has adequate acreage o accommodate.
Section 3-3.55 of the_C,ode stipulates that rental use or long
term occupancy shall be prohibited in guest houses.
RECOMMENDATION'
Staff recommends that the
approval to the Board and
1041 Review subject to the
GEOIAGIC•
1. The .applicant shall abide by recommendations made by Nick
Lampirs in his letter of October 17; 19'90. They are as
follows•
a. Soils engineering studies shall be performed at the....
site specific level to insure. proper foundation design.
All aspects of the design of the home and the_
surrounding landscaping shall emphasize a positive flow
of water away from the homesites in all directions;
b, Bermng around. the east side of the home shall be
provided to prevent material from reaching the homesite
during periods of .high water flow. The berru shall be
approximately three feet_in height above normal grade.
c. Slopes steeper than 30~ shall not be disturbed during
construction;
d. The driveway behind the home shall be designed to aid
in the diversion of water or mud flows; and
e. The home shall be designed to preclude the accumulation
of radon gas....
WILDFIRE:
12
n r~
2. The following wildfire mitigation measures shall_be adhered
to and shall be placed as conditions of approval on the 1041
Site Plan:
a) Roof coverings shall be of a non-combustible Underwriter
Laboratory approved material.
b) Brush and debris kept at .least ten feet away from the
base of the home; `Dead branches, stumps and other potential
fuels will be removed for a distance of at Least 30 ,feet
.,. ..
from all proposed structures.
c) Stack firewood uphill or on a contour away from
buildings. Keep fire fuels away from stacked wood,.
d) Place at least one 10-pound ABC-class fore extinguisher
in each structure.' A 50-foot garden hose'"connected to the _
hot water heater drain is useful in a fire,„emergency inside.
the house.
e) Power and utility lines shall be installed underground.
f) Tree branches within 15 feet of chimneys will be
removed. Trees will be thinned to the extent necessary to
develop the homeste,-but not to the extent that. the home
will be visible to wildlife.
g. Lewis Lake will be used as an external water supply for
firefighting.
h. The access drive shall be improved to meet County
standards. The road improvement design shall be reviewed and
approved by the County Engineer prior to issuance of a
building permit.
i. The applicant shall install sprinklering systems in
residences, the design of which shall be'approved by the
Fire Marshal prior to issuance of a building permit..
WILDLIFE•
3. Development impacts on wildlife shall be mitigated as
follows, and shall be placed. as conditions... of approval on
the 1041 Site Plan:
a. Homesite be located as indicated on the submittal map:
along the east side of Lewis Lake at the base of ,the _
ridge, just south of a small ravine or gully.
b. Maintain native vegetation outside building envelope
and as much as possible within envelope to help screen
13
~'"
home.. _
c. NO dogs.
d. Fencing be 42", 4 strand or less or 48" 3-rail wood
fence... .Property boundary fencing be discouraged.
e. No horse grazing along riparian aFea of Thomas, Creek..
f. Eight foot game damage fence around haystacks to
prevent depredation.
g. Utilities be buried in road, use. existing road system.
h. Removal of any old fencing on property.
i. No snowmobile use from December.l through March 15.
j. No domestic fowl (including turkeys) unless kept within..
.totally enclosed coup or yard (includes roof).
GENERAL SUBMISSION•
4. The applicant shall revegetate areas. disturbed.. by
construction within one growing season of construction..
5. The septic system 'designed for the site shall be reviewed..
and approved by the Environmental Health Department prior to
issuance of a building permit.
6. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall
provide evidence that the water, well(s) on 'site yield a
sufficient .quantity of water, and satisfactory quality to
provide for a primary residence, guest unit and caretaker
unit. Water well yield and water quality shall be reviewed
and approved by the Environmental Health Department prior to
issuance. of a building permit.
7. The applicant shall apply for and receive an excavation. from
the County Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit.
8. The access road shall be improved to meet County driveway
standards. ..Improvements shall. include, but not"be limited
to the following:
a. Grade improvements;
b. Provision of turnouts;
c. Provision of ditches and culverts to control drainage
and erosion;
d. Provision of a four inch gravel surface;
9. The applicant shall provide documentation that there is
14
adequate access to the site, pursuant to Section 5-202.1(b)
of the Code and the 1990 County road standards, prior to
issuance of a building permit. Access shall be ,approved by
the County Engineer,
CARETAKER DNITt
l0. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the. primary
residence the following items` shall- beprovided to the
Housing Authority and copied to the Planning Office:
a. The Owner shall be required, (prior to issuance of a
building permit fore the barn). to execute a deed
..restriction for approval by the Housing office. The
restriction shall state that the unit shall remain a
rental unit, not be occupied by owner or spouse, be
limited to occupancy by persons and their families who
qualify as and have been found to be :.full-time
employees of _the agricultural operation under such
guidelines as may be from time to time established. by
the Housing'Authorty, and be rented for terms of not
less than six consecutive months:
b. Owner"shall be .required to qualify all prospective
tenants prior to occupancy of'the unit with the Housing
Authority Office.
11. .The existing .caretaker unit .shall
or demolished prior to issuance of
primary residence.. If it is
uninhabitable accessory structure,
structure shall be, required pr
building permits on the site.
GIIEST HOIISE:
be rendered uninhabitable
a building permit for the
to be retained as an
a height variance for the
for to issuance of any
12. The guest house shall be located above the garage within the
building envelope for the primary residence as designated on
the site plan.. _
12. Rental use or long term occupancy shall be prohibited. in .the
guest unit.
GFta~uAr.;
13. The applicant shall prepare a site plan for recordation
which meets `the approval""of the Planning Department and the
County Attorney.
14. The guest unit is considered a unit of density on the
property. In the event that the... parcel is ever further
subdivided, no less than 90 acres 'shall `be required to
provide the minimum. lot size required for the. main
15
.i i
residence, the. guest .unit and the detached caretaker unit.
15. All material representations made in the public hearing and
in the. application shall be adhered tq.
16
r
Q,"
W
rT~
/ 1 / / / / \ \ ~ ~ ~ % J
1 ~ ~
> /
I I I/ // // / i ~.. i
Y ~I .,.~
' \ / 1~ / / \
/ /~ / ~1 / /
,, ~ /~ 1 /
/ \ / II /
'! / ,' ~ / \ ~ I~
'~I~ 1' -- I. /' ~j \ rte./ /I ~ ,.
1 ~ \ \ \ \ ~ ~
\_ ®.. ..
__ ~ 1 I / ~ 1 Il \1\ \ `~
~
\ ~
\
/ 1 I 0 I
/ I \ \
I \
\ \ \ / / ~ e ~ ~ \ Iii
l
1
~ \
~
~ 1
r 1
1
, r \\ _
I
1w
.\ ~
1
\
J
I 1 ~ \1 ~/ \ 1 I/~I 1. ~ \ . \ \~3' `\~ I ~ ` \ _
1 / 1 ''\\~: \\\\~~1\ \~'.\ 11.
_ ) / ~ \ bs
Y////I 1 1.._I~ ~\... f~;,_~ // /f //~ _ \\~I\`.1 I ~ 111
/ i 1 \ ( / _ _ 1 ~1 illy. \\\\\\ I 1
/ I \ 1 1 I / I I l ~'.~ i _~ // III ~ \~\\ \ \\~
~ I ~ IJ / 1 I ~ ~ ' ~ ~ \ ~ ~
~ / ii l \ ~ I /1 1 II 1 \
.o. nv~wi ww.w ~ - i -
IdOD =TPPJS- ~ f ~ ~ 1 I 1 ~ - ~/ ~ / l / /
I I/. _\ 1 II \~ i //~
I I _/I / /~i/ i
// _ /~ /
I /~ \ /' r / I .' / ~ /
i
x
TO:
FROM:
RE:
n
MEMORANDUM..
Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
Ellen Sassano, Planner
Jelinek Caretaker Unit, Guest Unit, 1041 Hazard and
General Submission Review
DATE: February 5, 1991
REQUEST: The applicant proposes to construct a single family
residence with an attached., garage containing a guest unit. In
addition the applicant proposes to build a barn and gain approval
for an existing detached caretaker unit on site. Specifically,
the applicant is requesting the"following:
1. General Submission Review pursuant- to Section 6-3 of the
Code;
2. Geologic, Wildfire and Wildlife Environmental Hazard Review
pursuant to Section 5-400 of the Code;
3. Approval of an existing detached caretaker unit, constructed
ater June 8, 1981; pursuant to Section 3-8.13(b) of the
Code;
4. Special Review .approval for a guest unit which is to be
located within the building envelope for the primary
residence, pursuant to Section 3-6 of the Code;
APPLICANT: Richard C. Jelinek
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATI'VM`E A7.an M: Etchman~~
LOCATION: The property is a part of the Crystal Island Ranch in
the Crystal River Valley, approximately four miles south of
Carbondale; Sections 23 and 26, Township 8 South, Range 88 West;
ZONING: The site is approximately 582 acres in size and is zoned
RS-30 PUD.
ACCESS: Access to the property is from State Highway 133 onto
Thomas Creek Road, which is-a private Road, The applicant has
obtained a Porty foot right-of-way easement from Highway 133 onto
and through the Crystal Island Ranch all the way to the proposed
residence.
WATER: The applicant proposes to drill an on site well to
provide water for domestic use. Lewis Lake, which is immediately
adjacent to the building area, will serve as an external water
supply for fire fighting.
SEWER: Aseptic system is proposed for the property.
~±
REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS..
1. County Land IIse Engineer- Tom Newland submitted the following
comments in a memo dated 'December 18 1990 (attachment 1)
Impacts on Road System: Traffic.. generated from the proposed
development will access Thomas Creek Road a private road. There
will be no significant impact on the County road system as a
result of this proposed development.
Internal Road Design: The Site Development Plan shows an "Access
Road" to the proposed building envelope which is an old farm road
into° the land. The roadway will need to conform with County
driveway standards and will need to have the necessary. easements.
The easement should be at least 30' wide for access purposes and
on slopes less than 30$. It is recommended that the applicant
apply for and receive an Earthmoving permit from this office
prior to any upgrade of this existing access `road.
Parking for Employee Dwelling Unit: There should be one parking
space for each bedroom within the unit.
Logical Extension of Utilities: It is recommended that the
applicant bury all utilities (electric, phone) to the site as
proposed.
2. Environmental Health Department- submitted the following
comments in a memo dated December 6, 1990 (attachment 2):
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTIONi Sections 2-7 and 5-200:
Sewage disposal for both the proposed residence and the
caretaker's unit must be addressed. For the proposed residence
the applicant plans to construct an individual sewage disposal
system.-to dispose of wastewater. We agree with Schmueser
Gordon Meyer's recommendations that the system be installed above
the house, and that it be carefully designed to preclude
contamination of Lewis Lake. A site specific soils evaluation,
including soil percolation tests must be done in order to
determine the final system design. If any limitations eliminate
the possibility of installing a standard. system, an engineer
designed system that still meets the County regulations should be
able to be constructed.
This department has no records of an existing system for the
Caretaker's unit. In 1988, in his response to a complaint about
the illegal structure, John Ostwald of the Aspen/Pitkin Regional
Building Department noted that there was no plumbing in the
cabin. There was an outhouse. and a bath house (grey water only).
We do not. know if these structures are still in use, or if a
septic system has" been installed since then, without a permit
from this office. If an individual sewage disposal system has
2
~,
been installed for the cabin, the applicant will need to apply to
this department for a, permit for the system, and will need to
provide information on what the system `consists of, so that we
can determine whether or not the system is in compliance with the
regulations. If the system is not in compliance with. the
regulations it will need to be modified so that it is. If a
septic system does not exist for the cabin, one will need to be
constructed. We would recommend separate systems for the cabin
and the proposed residence due to the location. of the lake and
the size of the proposed residence. Constructing two systems may
also be more feasible because of the large distance' between the
cabin and the proposed residence. Again, a site evaluation would
need to be done to determine the final design.
Control of irrigation water and drainage courses will likely be
important to sewage disposal system operation, and should be
addressed as an overall part of the final drainage plan.
The applicant proposes to build the barn on one side of the ditch
or the other. The barn and the corrals should be located so that
the potential for pollution of the ditch or settling pond waters
is minimized. The applicant may wish tc consider piping the
flows through the corral area to preclude"contamination.
There is no mention in .the revised site plan of whether or not
the proposed barn will be plumbed for water or toilet fixtures.
If .such fixtures are to be installed, then the disposal of the
wastewater generated will need to be addressed. A site
evaluation would again be necessary to determine system design.
The location of the ditch and the settling 'pond would be
important factors to consider in locating the system.
ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER"TJEEDS• `8ections 2-6 and 5-205•
The applicant proposes to drill a new well for water for domestic
use. There is no mention in the application of what the source
of water is for the existing cabin. We agree with the
applicant's consulting engineer's opinion that a physical water
supply is available. The engineer also states that a legal
supply is available. They anticipate that the quantity of water
from the well would be in excess of 15 gpm and that the quality
of the water would meet the Colorado Primary Drinking Water
Standards.
Once the new'well`is developed, we would recommend that it be
tested to determine if its water quality parameters do meet the
re irements of the. Colorado Department of Health.
~ One important
consideration for the placement of the 'new welh('sj is the
location of the new septic system(s).
There is no' mention in the revised site plan of whether the
proposed barn will be supplied with potable water. The applicant
n
plans to drill a new well (or wells) for the proposed residence
(and possibly the caretaker's unit). This well should be
adequate for providing water for the barn.
AIR QUALITY: Sections 2-17 and 5-106•
The new home is allowed one certified woodstove and a second
device which may be either a second certified woodstove, or a
woodburning fireplace. Permits are required from this office for
these devices. The same is true of the caretaker unit, and if it
has devices in excess of these numbers, or'not incompliance with
these categories, the existing devices should be brought up to
code.
The only additional air quality comment we have on the amended
application/revised .site plan, is that we recommend the applicant
commit to not installing any woodstove or fireplace in the barn,
as a condition of approval.
9. County Attorney- The County Attorney has reviewed the case
and is satisfied that the parcel was created legally and that no
merger has occurred.
4. Carbondale Fire District - In a telephone conversation with
the Carbondale Fire Department, it was made clear that the
primary issue .regarding wildfire mitigation is access to the
site. It is recommended that the applicant coordinate with the
fire District in the design of improvements to the access road.
The road should be improved to accommodate emergency vehicles.
5. Division of Wildlife- Division of Wildlife comments are
wholly incorporated in the wildlife review section of this memo.
STAFF COI+114ENTS:
The applicant is proposing to construct a 4,500 to 5,000 square
foot single family home, a garage with a guest unit, and a barn
on a parcel of land which is approximately 582 acres in size.
The parcel is encumbered by wildlife habitat, wildfire and
geologic hazards. The proposed building- envelopes' (house and
barn), are located on slopes of approximately 12o grade, adjacent
to Lewis Lake.
The applicant also wishes to legalize an existing caretaker unit
which was built adjacent to Lewis Lake approximately six years
ago (without County approval) by the prior owner o'f the property.
The applicant proposes to bring the unit into compliance with
County Code requirements in order to provide housing for a ranch
manager for the property.
An existing ranch road is proposed to be the permanent access to
the site. A portion of the road was recently subject to
improvements by the prior owner of the.. property. Further minor
improvements to the road are required for use by construction
vehicles and the applicant. Utilities are' to be buried
underground along the driveway alignment.
Section 5-401 Geologic Hazards- .The property is mapped as
containing potentially unstable slopes and avalanche hazard
areas.
Nicholas Lampiris, consulting geologist, submitted the following
recommendations in a letter dated October 17 1990 (attachment 4)
regarding the geologic hazards on the property.
1. The substantial distance of the proposed homesite from
the unstable slope and the relative low energy of the
flows and small size of the incorporated debris
simplifies mitigation;
2. Oreation of a berm of about three feet above grade
around the east side of the home is the most important
mitigation technique to prevent material from reaching
the homesite during periods of high water flow;
3. Other mitigation techniques include conducting soils
engineering studies at the time of foundation design
.(due to'the potential for finding hydrocompac£ve soils
in the alluvial fan and because of the site's proximity
to the :3ake) the creation of-positive drainage away
from the home in all directions at the time of site
landscaping; `and the proper design of the driveway
behind the home to aid in the diversion of water or mud
flows;
The applicant agrees to comply with Dr. Lampiris's recommended
mitigation procedures. Given compliance, geologic hazards can be
adequately mitigated.
Section 5-404 Wildlife 'Hazards- The property is' located within
deer and elk winter range, contains deer winter concentration
areas and an elk migration pattern.
The Division of Wildlife submitted two letters dated`November 26
and December 12, 1990 (attachment 5) with the following comments:
2 visited the 'site with Alan Richman on 9/6/9b. 'Tn order to
minimize wildlife impacts, I suggested the following which
they have incorporated and agreed to in their submittal:
1. Homesite be located as indicated on the submittal map:
along the east side of Lewis Lake at the base of the
ridge, just south of a small ravine or gully.
5
~ ~ __
2. Maintain native vegetation outside building envelope.
and as much as possible within envelope to help screen
-home.
3. NO dogs.
4. Fencing be 42", 4 strand or less or 48" 3-rail wood
fence. Property boundary fencing be discouraged.
5. No horse grazing along riparian area of Thomas Creek.
6. Eight foot game damage' fence around haystacks to
prevent depredation.
-7. Utilities be buried in road, use existing road system.
In addition, I would encourage the following:
1. Removal of any old fencing on property.
2. No snowmobile use from December 1 through March 15.
3. No domestic fowl (including turkeys) unless kept within
totally enclosed coup or yard (includes roof). This
will prevent disease transmission from domestic fowl to
wild turkeys.
I have no problems with the Jelinek property revised site
plan which identifies the barn location. Its location will
be in a currently disturbed area so its impact should be
minimal as long as it_can be screened by positioning it in
the trees as Mr. Richman as indicated.
If the property owner is interested in a conservation
easement fore his remaining property, the Division of
Wildlife would support the concept and offer our assistance
in achieving the easement.
The applicant agrees to abide by all recommended mitigation
procedures._ Staff strongly supports the concept of"a conservation
easement on the remainder of this property. While the applicant
is interested in the concept, he is not prepared to commit to
such a measure at this point in time..
Section 5-403 Wildfire Hazards- The property is located within
a mapped severe wildfire hazard area.
A telephone conversation with a Carbondale Fire District
spokesperson'made it clear that the primary issue 'associated with
firefighting on this site is that of the access road. It is
imperative that the road be improved to accommodate emergency
vehicles. The applicant has hired an engineer to oversee design
6
and construction of improvements. Use by emergency vehicles has
been considered in design of the improvements.
Staff recommends the following mitigation techniques in addition
to those already discussed, as a means of further protecting an
isolated rural area from an occurrence of wildfire:
a) Roof coverings sha1T be of a non-combustible Underwriter
Laboratory approved material.
b) Brush and debris kept at least ten feet away from the
base of the home; Dead branches, stumps and other potential
fuels will be 'removed for a distance of at least 30 feet
from all proposed structures.
c) Stack firewood .uphill or on a contour away from
buildings. Keep fire fuels away from stacked wood.
d) Place at least one 10-pound ABC-class fore extinguisher
in each structure. A 50-foot garden hose connected to the
hot water heater drain is useful in a fire emergency inside
the house.
e) Power and utility lines shall be installed underground.
f) Tree branches within 15 feet of chimneys will be
removed. Trees will be thinned to the extent necessary to
develop the homesite, but not to the extent that the home
will be visible to wildlife.
g. Lewis Lake will be used as an external water supply for
firefighting.
The applicant agrees to abide by recommendations made-by Staff
and the Fire District in_order to°mitigate wildfire hazard in the
area.
1041 Summary
Wildfire and .geologic hazards on site can be mitigated given
compliance with recommended procedures. The applicant has worked
with Kevin Wright in locating the building sites to have the
least amount of impact possible to wildlife habitat and use of
the area. The site is not visible from the balleys below the
lake and is well shielded from the ridge above the lake. These
are the two principal locations from which wildlife would see the
residence. Given siting and adherence to recommended mitigation
procedures, impacts to wildlife habitat are mitigated to the
extent possible, given development.
Section 6-3 General Submission
7
Pertinent .Policies and Regulations of the Land Use Code which
have not already been addressed are discussed below.
Sections 2-5, 2-11 and 5-101, 5-102 Drainage and Erosion-
The geologic report states that all aspects of the design of
the home and the surrounding landscaping should emphasize a
positive flow of water away from the homesite in all
directions. Drainage improvements need to be addressed
further by the soils engineer to insure that runoff for the
development site will not exceed the runoff 'attributable to
the site in it's natural state. The principal development
issue with respect to drainage and erosion control is the
need for ditches and culverts to be placed in the driveway.
The applicant. agrees to adhere to recommendations made by
their consulting- engineer regarding same. The County
Engineer concurs with comments .made by the consulting
engineer..
Sections 2-16 and 5-105 Scenic.Quality- The existing ranch
road was located so'as to follow the natural terrain to the
extent possible. While the cuts from certain sections of
the road are somewhat visible from. the County Road at the
present time, it will not be necessary to improve the road
in such a manner as to significantly increase the visibility
of these road cuts.
The proposed home is located such that it will not be
.._
visible from"surrounding properties or any County Roads.
Section 2-6 and 5-205 Adequate Provision for Water Needs-
The applicant proposes use' of a well to provide water for
domestic water supply for the proposed residence. Should
the existing caretaker unit be approved, water 'provision for
it's domestic supply will have to be addressed prior to
issuance of a building permit for the primary residence.
Quantity and quality of the well water shall be reviewed and
approved by the Environmental Health "Department prior to
issuance of a building permit.
Sections 2-7 and 5-200 Sewage Treatment and Collection- The
consulting engineer's report indicates that in order to
provide a septic system which will not discharge into Lewis
Lake, the applicant must place the system above the proposed
house, requiring pumping to occur. It is anticipated that
an engineered system will be required.
If an individual sewage disposal system has been installed
for the existing cabin, (caretaker unit), the applicant will
need to apply to the Environmental Health Department for a
permit for the system, and will need to provide information
on what the system consists of, so that it can be determined
8
~"*,
- _ ' ~ ,
whether or not the. system is in compliance with the County
regulations. If the system is not in compliance with the
regulations it will need to be modified so that it is. If a
septic system does not exisb for the cabin, one will need to
be constructed. The Environmental Health Department
recommends separate systems for the cabin and the proposed
residence. due to the location of the lake and the size of
the proposed residence. Constructing two systems may also
be more feasible because of the large distance between the
cabin and the proposed residence.
Sections 2-S and 5-201 Impact on the Road System- The
County Engineer has 'determined that `the addition of a single
family residence and guest house will have insignificant
impacts to traffic on the County Road system.
Sections 2-9 and 5-202 Road Design and Construction- The
applicant agrees to improve the existing access road to meet
County standards, as recommended by the consulting 'engineer.
Improvements will include, but not be limited to the
following:
1. Grade improvements;
2. Provision. of turnouts;
3. Provision of ditches and culgerts to control drainage
and erosion;
4. Provision of a four inch gravel surface;
Finally, the applicant will be required to obtain an
earthmoving from the County Eigneer's office prior to
issuance of a building permit.
Sections 2-10 and 5-203 Logical Extension of utilities- The
applicant.. has indicated that utilities will be extended
-underground to the residence along the access road
alignment.
Section 2-13 and 5-104 Compatibility .with Agricultural
Lands- The proposed. homesite has not been used for
agricultural production and therefore no lands will be taken
out of agricultural:-production. A meadow in the vicinity of
the. building site will remain open. Horses will be kept
within the meadow. Impacts on the agricultural aspects of
the remaining 600 acres will be minimal.
General Submission Summary:
The application generally complies -with General Submission
criteria.
Section 3-8.13 - Caretaker Unit
'~ ~
The applicant seeks to make an existing unit, built after June 8,
1981, a legal dwelling. As the unit was constructed after June
8, 1981, the applicant requests approval of` the unit as if it
were a "new" unit. The unit .serves as housing for the ranch
caretaker. According to Section 3-8.13 (b) of the Code, The Board
may permit the construction of one detached dwelling unit within
the RS-30 zone district under .the following conditions and
limitations:
Criteria: Such units shall not exceed 3 bedrooms or twelve
:hundred square feet of total floor area:
Response: The existing unit contains one bedroom and is less
thaw-.1,000 square feet in size. (An exact measurement is not
available).
Criterias Detached units shall be sited consistent with the
County's scenic quality policy and take into consideration
the visual impact upon existing. residences.
Response: The unit is only visible from the applicant's
proposed homesite and private lands owned by the seller. It
should be noted that wildlife have adapted to the existing
unit and it appears to have had little impact on them,
according to Kevin Wright.
Criteria: The. Resulting density
per-dwelling unit requirements of
Response: The resulting density
for the subject property. A total
in the. underlying zone district
unit.
shall meet the minimum lot-
Section 3-2.
is far below that allowed
of sixty acres is required
to accommodate the second
Criteria: The current use of the property constitutes a bona
fide agricultural operation and a need is clearly
demonstrated for the fiousing of employees who are employed
full time on-site.
Response: The property is currently assessed as agricultural
land. The applicant contends that, given the large size of
the parcel, it is important to have a ranch manager on-site
to maintain the property. The applicant intends to have the
current occupant of the unit, who is presently a full time
employee of the ranch, remain in the unit as the ranch
manager, or, should he decide to leave, to offer it to
another employee of the community who will be the ranch
manager.
Criteria: The applicant shall, by deed"restriction or other
permanent commitment running with the land, guarantee that
the employee unit shall remain a rental unit not to be
occupied by the owner or spouse, be limited to occupancy by
10
persons and their families who qualify as (and have been
found by tYie housing authority to be)fUll time employees of
the agricultural operation under such guidelines as may be
from time to time 'established by said authority, and be
rented for terms of not less than six months.
Responses" The applicant agrees to so restrict the unit.
The Housing Authority has provided the following comments
regarding the caretaker unit:
Staff requires additional information as to the exact net
liveable square footage of this unit for determination of
..approval for 3-8.13-(b)(2).
.Staff further requires prior to issuance of a building
permit for the main residence, that a building permit be
approved and issued by the Building Department for the
existing unit to .meet all standards of UBC Code.
The Owner shall be required prior to issuance of a building
permit for the maim residence, to execute a deed restriction
for approval by the Housing office to state that the unit
shall remain a rental unit, not be occupied by owner or
spouse, be limited to occupancy by persons and their
families who qualify as and have been found to be full-time
employees of the .agricultural operation under such
guidelines as may be from time to time established by the
Housing Authority, and be rented for terms of not less than.
six consecutive months.
Owner will be required to qualify all prospective tenants
prior to occupancy of the unit with the Housing Authority
Office.
As the unit complies with. Code _criteria, Staff recommends
approval, subject to compliance .with Housing' Authority
requirements stated above.
The applicant has indicated that it is conceivable that it will
not be feasible to bring the existing unit up to Uniform Building
Code standards. If this is the case, it is recommended that the
unit be rendered.,. uninhabitable .and used for storage, or be
demolished.
In the event that the applicant-chooses not to bring the unit up
to UBC standards, `the applicant has requested that he be allowed
to locate a caretaker unit in the proposed barn instead. The
Code criteria for the location of a caretaker unit in the barn is
the same, as that already reviewed..
The applicant has designated a building envelope for a barn site
11
~' ~ ~.. ,... K _ ~~.. , _ ,
in close proximity to the proposed residence. Staff is not
opposed to a caretaker unit in the barn if it is determined that
the existing unit cannot be brought up to Code. It is
recommended that the applicant make the determination for the
caretaker unit location prior to issuance 'of a building permit
for the. proposed primary residence. In the event that the
existing unit is not 'to be retained as a residence, it is
recommended that it be rendered uninhabitable or demolished prior
to issuance of the building permit for the. primary residence or
the barn.
Section 3-6 - Special Review for a Guest Unit - The applicant
proposes to include`a guest unit of approximately 450 square feet
above the garage which is to be connected to the principal
residence. A guest .house is considered to be a unit of density,
but in the Crystal River area, it is not subject to Growth
Management competition. As the .applicant has adequate acreage to
accommodate the additional unit, the unit may be approved subject
to Special Review'"Criteria. Section 3-6 of the Land Use' Code
stipulates the following:
Uses designated as special review uses in any zone district
or by any general regulation are contingent uses which may
or may not be appropriate in a particular location depending
on the nature of the, use, its relationship to surrounding
land uses, and its impact with respect to environmental,
social and economic .matters. These uses may 'be approved by
the .Board only upon a finding that the use is compatible
with the policies and regulations of the Code.
As the unit is to be located within the building envelope for the
primary residence,'it is assumed that services will be shared and
that impacts of the additional development will be similar to
those of the primary residence, as discussed in the General
Submission section of this memo. The applicant will have to
provide proof of an adequate water supply and design a septic
system which will accommodate both units. Water supply and septic
design will be subject to review and approval by the
Environmental Health Department prior to issuance of a building
permit. Visual impact should be negligible. Road design should
accommodate the additional unit. The Division of Wildlife has
indicated that impacts to wildlife, given the development already
proposed, will be negligible. Staff recommends approval of the
guest house, making it clear that it is a unit of density for
which the applicant has adequate acreage to accommodate.
Section 3-3.55 of the Code stipulates that rental use or long
term occupancy shall be prohibited in guest houses.
RECObIl~SENDATION:
12
,~
Staff recommends that the Commission recommend General Submission
approval to the Board and that the Commission approve"the Jelinek
1041 Review subject to the following conditions:
GEOLOGIC:
1. The applicant shall abide by recommendations made by Nick
Lampiris in his letter of October 17, 1990. They are as
follows:
a. Soils engineering studies shall. be_ performed at the
site specific level to insure proper foundation design.
All aspects of the design of the home and the
surrounding landscaping shall emphasize a positive flow
of water away`Prom the homesites in all directions;
b. Berming around the east side of the '.home shall be
provided to prevent material from reaching the homesite
during periods of high water flow. The berm shall be
approximately three feet. in height above normal grade..
c. Slopes steeper than_30~ shall not be disturbed during
construction;
d. The driveway behind the home shall be designed to aid
in the diversion of--water or mud flows; 'and
e. The home shall be designed to preclude the accumulation
of radon gas.
WILDFIREc
2. The following wildfire mitigation measures shall be adhered
to and shall be placed as conditions of approval on the 1041
Site Plan:
a) Roof coverings shall be of a non-combustible Underwriter
Laboratory approved material.
b) Brush and debris kept at least ten feet away from. the
base. of the home; Dead branches, stumps and other potential
fuels will be removed for a distance of at least 30 feet
from all proposed structures.
c) Stack firewood uphill or on a contour `away from
buildings. Keep fire fuels away from stacked wood.
d) Place at least one 10-pound ABC-class fore extinguisher
in each strecture. A 50-foof garden hose connected to the
hot water heater drain is useful in afire emergency inside
the house.
13
e) Power and utility lines shall be installed underground.
f) Tree branches within 15 feet of chimneys will be
removed. Trees will be thinned to the extent necessary to
develop the homesite, but not to the extent that the home
will be visible to wildlife.
g. Lewis Lake will be used as an external water supply for
firefighting.
h. The access drive shall be improved to meet County
standards.. The road improvement design shall be reviewed and
approved by the County Engineer Prior to issuance of a
building permit.
WILDLIFE:
3. Development impacts on wildlife shall be mitigated as
follows, and-shall be placed as conditions of approval on
the 1041 Site Plan:
a. Homesite be located as indicated on the submittal map:
along the east side of Lewis Lake at the base of the
ridge, just south of a small ravine or gully.
b. Maintain native vegetation outside building envelope
and as much as possible within envelope to help screen
home.
c. NO dogs.
d. Fencing be 42", 4 strand or less or 48" 3-rail wood
fence. Property boundary fencing be discouraged.
e. No horse grazing along riparian. area of Thomas Creek.
f. Eight foot game damage fence around haystacks to
prevent depredation.
g. Utilities be buried-in road, use existing road system.
h. Removal of any old fencing on property.
i. No snowmobile use from December 1 through March 15.
j. No domestic fowl {including turkeys) unless kept within
totally enclosed coup or yard (includes roof).
GENERAL SUBMISSION:.
4. The applicant shall revegetate areas disturbed by
construction within one. .growing season of construction.
14
~~, , ;
5. The septic system designed for the site shall be reviewed
and approved by the Environmental Health Department prior to
issuance of a building permit.
6. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall
provide evidence that the water well(s) on site yield a
sufficient quantity of water and satisfactory quality to
provide for a primary residence, guest unit and caretaker
unit... Water well yield and water quality `shall be reviewed
and approved by .the Environmental Health Department prior to
issuance of a building permit.
7. The applicant shall apply for and receive an excavation from
the County Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit.
8. The access road shall be. improved to meet County driveway
standards. Improvements shall include, but not be limited
to the"following:
a. Grade improvements;
b. Provision of turnouts;
c. Provision of ditches and culverts to control drainage
and erosion;
d. Provision of a four inch gravel surface;'
CARETAKER UNIT......
9. Prior to issuance"'of a buildi
residence the following <items
Housing Authority and copied to
information shall be required
caretaker unit or a caretaker
specified);
ng permit for the primary
shall be provided. to the
the Planning Office: (This
for either the existing
unit in the barn, unless
a. The applicant shall provide the exact net liveable
square footage of the existing caretaker unit.
b. A building permit shall be .approved and issued by the
Building Department for the existing unit which shall
meet all standards of USC `COde:``w"`
c. The Owner shall be required prior to execute a deed
restriction for approval by the Housing office. The
restriction shall state that the unit shall remain a
rental unit,. .not be occupied by owner or spouse, be
limited to occupancy by persons and their families who
qualify as and have. been found to be full-time
employees of the agricultural .operation under such
guidelines as may be from time to time established by
the Housing Authority, and be rented for terms of not
less than six consecutive months.
15
k,
__ ,
d. Owner shall be required to qualify all prospective
tenants prior to occupancy of the unit with the Housing
Authority Office.
9. In the event that the applicant retains the existing
caretaker unit as a habitable structure, a building envelope
shall be designated on the site plan to include said
structure and outbuildings associated with it.
10. In the event that the existing caretaker unit is not to be
retained as a habitable structure, it shall be rendered
uninhabitable or demolished prior to issuance of a building
permit for the primary residence.
GUEST HOUSE:
11. The .quest unit shall be located above the garage within the
building envelope for the primary residence as designated on
the site plan.
12. Rental use or long term occupancy shall be prohibited in the
guest unit.
GENERAL:
13. The applicant shall prepare a site plan for recordation
which meets the approval of the Planning Department and the
County Attorney.
14. The guest unit is considered a unit of density on the
property. In the event that the parcel is ever further
subdivided, no less than 90 acres shall be required to
provide the minimum lot size required for the main
residence, the quest unit and the detached .caretaker unit.
15. All material representations made in the public hearing and
in the application shall be adhered to.
16
~.. ~.
"
r~MORAxnuri
To 5 noun' z~;tto"`rrl"e¢>'
Assistant to the County Manager
Housing Office
Environmental Health Department
Division of Wildlife,'Revin Wright
Carbondale Fire Department
Zoning Administration
FROM: Ellen Sassano, Planning Office
RE: Jelinek 1041 Hazard Review, General Submission &
Employee."Dwelling Unit
Parcel ID# 2463-224-00-027
DATEt. October 25, 19"9:0
Attached _,. ---
is an application from Alan Richman on behalf of Richard
Jelinek requesting 1041 `Hazard- Review, General submission and
Employee Dwellin Unit a
g pproval for a 582+ acre " """~`"'
":parcel in the
Crystal River Valley.
Please return your comments to me no later than December lo,
1990: "Thank you:
~'"'+~
P ;
MEMORANDUM
TO: ELLEN SASSANO, PLANNING OFFICE
~~L! ~ ~ r. ~Mn
FROM: TEMPLE L. GLASSIER, ENGINEERING OFFICE /~
THRII: TOM NEWLAND, ASSSSTANT TO THE `COUNP3t'~I+~A'N`AGEt °-~ ~~ /
DATE: JANUARY 11, 1991 v
RE: JELINER 1041 HAZARD REVIEW, "GE:NFt72A7.' SUBMISSION AND "
EMPIAYEE DWELLING UNIT` __
PARCEL IDS 2463-224-00-027
I have reviewed the information submitted and feel that all
suggestions and..information given in my referral of Dehember 18,
1990 still pertains.
Plat: It is recommended that a property description and 1041
Hazard Review 'language be placed on the Plat.
Drainage: Dr. Lampiris' recommendations should be followed.
There should be positive drainage away for the site in all
directions.
Impacts on Road System: Traffic generated from the .proposed
development will access Thomas Creek Road a private road. There
will be no significant impact on the County road system as a
result of this proposed development. However, we are 'getting a
significant amount of applications for development that will be
using the Thomas road and the Thomas bridge. Thomas bridge
appears to be unsafe, as one of the three piers supporting it has
collapsed. With the increase in traffic on this bridge mandated
by increased development, it is recommended that the applicant
commit to joining any future improvement district formed to
repair this bridge. It is further. recommended that heavy truck
traffic required to construct this development be re-routed to
avoid use of this. bridge.
Internal Road Design: The Site Development Plan shows an "Access
Road" to the proposed building envelope which is an old farm road
into the land. The roadway will need to conform with County
driveway standards and will need to have the necessary easements.
The easement should be at least 30'"wide for access purposes and
cross over slopes less than 30%. It is recommended that the
applicant apply for and receive an Earthmoving permit from this
office prior to any upgrade of this existing access road.
Parking for Employee Dwelling Unit: There should be one parking
space for each bedroom within the unit.
Logical Extension of utilities: It is recommended that the
applicant bury all utilities (electric, phone) to the site as'
proposed.
r MY t
MEMORANDUM ;APB ~ ~ ,~~)
TO: ELLEN SASSANO, PLANNING OFFICE HIV
~..
FROM: TEMPLE GLASSIER; ENGINEERING"OFFICE
THRU: TOM NEWLAND, ASSISTANT TO 'TAE COUNTY 'MANAGER".~
RE: JELINER 1041 IiAZARD'REVIEW, GENERAL SUBMISSION AND
EMPLOYEE DWELLING UNIT
PARCEL ID# 2463-224-00-027
DATE: DECEMBER 18, 1990
I have reviewed the information submitted and would like to
forward the following comments to you:
Plat: It is recommended that a property description and 1041
Hazard Review language be placed on the Plata
Drainage: Dr. Lampiris' recommendations should be followed.
There should be positive drainage away for the site in all
directions.
Impacts on Road System: Traffic generated from the- proposed
development will access Thomas Creek Road a private road. There
will be no significant impact on the County road system as a
result of this proposed development.
Internal Road Design: The. Site Development Plan shows an "Access
Road" to the proposed building envelope which is an old farm road
into the land. The roadway will need to conform with County
driveway standards and will need to have the necessary easements.
The easement should be at least 30T wide for access purposes and
on slopes less than 30%. It is recommended that the applicant
apply for and receive an Earthmoving permit from this office
prior to any upgrade of this existing access road.
Parking for Employee Dwelling Unit: There should be one parking'
space for each bedroom within the unit.
Logical Extension of Utilities: It is recommended that the
applicant bury all utilities (electric, phone) to the site as
proposed.
tlg:referal:jelinek
.,.~ ~`'
ASPEN*PITKIN rr ,
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH bEPART 'ENT DEC - C ~~
MEMORANDUM
To: Ellen Sassano, Planning Office
From: Environmental Health Department
Date: December 6, 1990
Re: Jelinek 1041 Hazard Review, General Submission &
Employee Dwelling Unit
Parcel ID# 2463-224-00-017
The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the
above-mentioned land use submittal under authority of the Pitkin
County Code, Title II, and has the following comments.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: Sections 2-7 and 5-200:
Sewage disposal for both the proposed residence and the
caretaker's unit must be addressed. For the proposed residence
the applicant plans to construct an individual sewage disposal
system to dispose of wastewater. In the application, the
applicant commits to installing a system which will meet the
Limiting factors for the installation of such a system on this
site include possible rapid permeability, the proximity to Lewis
Lake and other water features such as irrigation ditches, and
drainage patterns on the site. We agree with Schmueser Gordon
Meyer's recommendations that the system be installed above the
house, and that it be carefully designed to preclude
contamination of Lewis Lake. A site specific soils evaluation,
including soil percolation tests must be done in order to
determine the final system design. If any of these limitations
eliminate the possibility of installing a standard system, an
engineer designed system that still meets the County regulations
should be able to be constructed.
This department has no records of an existing system for the
Caretaker's unit. In 1988, in his response to a complaint about
the illegal structure, John Ostwald of the Aspen/Pitkin Regional
Building Department noted that there was no plumbing in the
cabin. There was an outhouse and a bath. house (grey water only).
We do not know if these structures are still in use, or if a
septic system has been installed since then, without a permit
from this office. If an individual sewage disposal system has
been installed for the cabin, the applicant will need to apply to
this department for a permit for the system, and will need to
provide information on what the system consists of, so that we
can determine whether or not the system is in compliance with the
regulations. If the system is not in compliance with the
regulations it will need to be modified so that it is. If a
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 6'16'11 303/920-6070
~>>::
Jelinek.1041
December 6, 1990
Page 2
septic system does not-exist for the cabin, one Will need to be
constructed. We would recommend separate' systems for the cabin
and the proposed residence due to the "location of the lake and
the size of the proposed residence. Constructing two systems may
also be more feasible because of the large distance between the
cabin and the proposed residence. Again, a"site evaluation would
need to be done to determine the final design.
Control of irrigation water and drainage courses will likely be
important to sewage disposal system operation, and should be
addressed as an overall part of the final drainage plan.
ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS• Sections 2-6 and 5-205`
The applicant proposes to drill a new well for wa
G~ use. There is no mention in the application of
of water is .for the existing cabin. We
applicant's consulting engineer's opinion that a
supply is available. The engineer also state
supply is available. They anticipate that the
from the well would be in excess of 15 qpm and
of the water would meet the Colora3o Primary
Standards.
Once the new well is developed, we would recommend that it be
tested to determine if its water quality parameters do meet the
requirements of the Colorado Department of Health. One important
consideration for the. placement of the new well(s) is the
location of the new`septi.c system(s).
AIR QUALITY: Sections 2-17 and 5-106•
The-.:new home is allowed one certified woodstove and a second'
~ti device which may be either a second certified woodstove, or a
woodburning fireplace. Permits are required from this office for
these devices. The same is true of the caretaker unit, and if it
has devices in excess of these numbers., or not in compliance with
these categories, the existing devices should be brought up to
code.
The applicant is urged to install compact fluorescent lighting'
inside and outside the new house, in order to reduce air
pollution caused by electricity generation. Low-flow plumbing
fiirtures are also recommended for this reason. °In a house of.
such large size, these devices are especially important.
NOISEa Section 2-23
Construction noise can be expected to have an adverse impact on
the neighborhood. However, once the project is done there is not
ter for domestic
What the source
agree `with the
physical Water
s that a legal
quantity of water
that the quality
Drinking Water
;.
Jelinek.1041
December 6, 1990
Page 3
expected to be noise generated louder than that generated in a
residential use.
However, should complaints be received this office will use
Title 25 Article 12 CRS 1973 - Noise Abatement, as the governing
document in the investigation.
CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWSe Section 2-2
None that are enforced by this department.
CONTAMINATED SOILS•
The applicant is advised to contact this office for comment
should mine waste, waste rock or mine dumps be encountered during
the excavation phase of the project. Disposal of such materials
off-site is discouraged due to the possibility of excessive heavy
metals being present in the soil.
This is not a requirement, but simply a request based on past
experience in dealing with mine waste and possible negative
impacts to humans.
~` ~y/Ail
~. ~ ~ f '~ ~ 'lam jai
L~r. 1 `~ '~~ ~~Y Y1
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
STATE OF COLORADO oEC z I ~~
Roy Romer, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Perry D. Olson, Director
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303) 297-1192
December 12, 1990
Pitkin County Planning
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Ellen:
Ihave no problems, with the Jelinek property revised site plan which '
identifies the barn location: Tts location will be in a currently
disturbed area so .its impact should be minimal as long as it can be
screened by positioning it in the trees as Mr. Richman has indicated.
If you have any questions, please, et me know.
Kevin Wrig
District Wildlife Manager
Carbondale
Si~ely:
~`-
s
- ~, ~~w" `3 ~ ". ~ n "
,.--
I ,, e
--,
,~ 0 x., :_- ~.,• ~
I
s
i
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Hamlet J:Barry, Ezeciitive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, George Van DenBerg, Chairmah• Robert L: Freldenberger, Vice Chairman . William R. Hegberg; Secretary
Eldon W. Cooper, Member . Rebecca L. Frank, Member • Dennis Luthell, Member • Gene B. Petersori, Member .'Larry M. Wright, Member ~ .m
STATE OF COLORADO
Roy Romer, Governor
DEPARTMENT OP NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITYEMPLOVER
Perry D. Olson, Director
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303)297-7192
November 26, 1990
Pitkin Co. Planning
130 So. Galena
Aspen, CO 87.611
Dear Ellen:
c. ~
NOV 3 0 ~
The Jelinek property located on Cr,y-stal Island Ranch lies within
deer and elk winter range as well as containing some deer winter
concentration areas. There is also an elk migration pattern across'
Crystal Island Ranch.
I visited the site with Alan Richman on 9/6/90. In order to
minimize wildlife impaots I suggested the following which they have
incorporated and agreed to in their submittal:
L. Homesite be located as indicated on the submittal map: along
the east side. of Lewis lake aY, the base of the`i•idge, just south of
a small ravine or gulley.
2. 'Maintain native vegetation outside building-envelope and as much
as possible within envt~lope to help screen home.
3. NO dogs.
4. Fencing be 42", 4 strand or less or 48" 3-rail wood fence.
Property boundary fencing be discouraged.
5. No horse grazing along riparian area of Thomas Creek.
6. 8 ft. game damage fence around haystacks to prevent depredation.
7. Utilities be buried'in road, use existing road system.
In addition, I would encourage the following:
1. Pemoval :,f a^.y old fencing on property.
2. No snowmobile use from Dec. 1 - March 15.
3. No domestic fowl (including turkeys) un]ess'7iept within tof.ally
enclosed coup or ,yard (includes. roof). This will`pr.event disease
transmission from domestic fowl to wild turkeys.
DEPARTMEN7 OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Hamlet J. Barry, Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, William R. Hegberg, Chairman • Dennis Luttrell, Vice Chairman • Eldori W. Cooper; Secretary
Felix Chavez, Member • Rebecca L. Frank, Member • Gene B. Peterson, Member • George Van Den Berg, Member • Larry M. Wright, Member
.. ~ ~ ~ ..
Pitkin Co.-Ylanni.ng
Page Two
[November 29, 1990
If"the property owner i.s interested in a conservation easement for his
remaining property, the Division Of Wildlife would support the concept.
and offer our assistance i.n achievi.ng the easement.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If ,you have an,v questions,
please give me a call.
Sincerely,
~~~~~
Kevin Wright
District Wildlife Manager-Carbondale
KW/lmp
~x~.~.~
4~
. ,.1.. .r' ;' / ~. ~. '
Nicholas L~mpiris Ph.D.
CONSULTING GEOLOGIST
0793 VALLEY ROAD -
CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81b23 ~ -
(303)9633600 (24 HOURS)
F'71. ;3.i1 I"i ,. !": i. t7 }t tP:?. r'F, i11: (.:::P-•
.1.Ct:LEL €ii:;::...;{: t-!.';t};::;I"i I"ve4r,.
~7 sn f 1... ~i~:. ~ ... \,_-. ;.: ct{. ~.I. Li 1. :'~F't ra i~i<:?.i-!C11
1 1'i::7.'+ : f:rt!:: .I ;:I r:: ('.! flly C, i'-.::i.; C.,..'7. t. 7.IiVF.. °_.'k. 7. i~,\~.. :..;` S' .:- j:]L.l 1)(.:>Cxw-.. f::i-(~
L?(.]+. 'ii :. '.:i. 7. a. t r;s(! r:`.1 1'!li" t i
17t .::>.! h r t. I I'I:~ <.i t c ian 1 hr Ira(]s
4~f, i. ['!I };.',.. .::)ti I 1'ly 1.,1 .'. I _<•( ,.,i t. I:-{E- !atta !. s,i] l.t] _ t 1 t. 7.
n
I:,,... ? I't ;' 1.. Iran ;:,c
>] i•lr:. f:]F k'tz;= (r v<,iai.i
r\'. Vr.it t f I Er \! ~ .; .,..rt tii(;I a. J[.l ~i.c t, :,- r i
.aF.•C . .... ~ i:i J n (t Zii3 6~ ~ C..;'f {.111?
c: :. :: 1'F .;'!, r tii }. :7.11 Fy.'t` f..: U"i_]pnri tt ~£~? i ~.>' f!17. rlf.ti ^~ .
's t;r• I ~ ~ .
l t.. f:!t.rltt : {:.r~ L ;; r,} rl?r:vrl .l l+ tar.~t =•.i r;l-)arias a, .l 1 , /] <=.:1 ;.::tl";
SS t_U'•7•.. ^r..1.'a r.J Ey}(;% I:]V 'i,: Y"F•i.~5ii .~iiSa C: i7`!.?Y'f3r.:1 1:]Y nH{71\/e? Q!'-J.ci S,:=S. !=7n
f,:....i'k./iro`'.;i'. {.! Iltii.i'1f1 (.1t4~.,ti Ilt:'JY"S ''fi'"Grr? ,h~' B,=IS~ <,I'1C1 rC::a-'fri5 v 'f.?. r':
'': liii i. I
~, .>..- F.i] .:.11[? .a t. '!:: t?. (inl_t [, ~L.Ci Cr]i'l L.(?53 ~s'I'.. C"frY i"L C-r. 1..i `
x'l.cit+>!=, r .ri t:t :.:. =:?n nn Y.]o`Ft -;iclra~ u( t'.ti ~sti'r:.ilc,;:c <an<i r?l:io`. ~.i_..
"Itr:er:: z`+ =>, 7c<~L7 t._ ad ,'a<.= ]lill <-,
i t a~~: t ri f kl c t rtvt 1 _,ir 2., ;1
rrc:)cirar tk i7 ,,, :, r r.=;~ tau,:it-• i;tl -: ra ?c}ic r~i~l.i v -nhcr tlln v ll !.cy i `~
~•?ra7.1 t::] }:!-.;> et<].;'1- r:];" t_.ttr? t;'_nv;.~1r]nt:=_.
? r'. .. ,. `t'I C., {_., ~',. Lei' 'f. !"ti I i:. f:' [ C'.!7<.a 5':S Ci~1• f..I <'' '- ~t ~ }:. ES ., i1 (:IS.,
r~
to ']\,::~r u'r!a 1. a:,:~. n<.; f-e r L)tt<t ..rr..~ :lt •r :`-. .
f: .'.. (.r?l 1. ..:f ,.,Ir : : t:.j}.t I': :(q.t!:C,AII { ,
;,
f;i } h. ,.r'<_ <t..tt.,., i I ~-.r:M1 rr l c, r-i. .,'}
':I'f? ! t ,r :x:i. [ t .:,., I scJ tnCa r 9..i;? i ?.nd .~I :._ I,, rralak'i r Il. t,. r.<~zr :,O
': .'i?::I ~(, ~ t3{:: I 1: (: i:: <i 1: I':. L.i :I. J F:.13 I l: ['. <: ( ,-t1"rt r'(?\ I ::?t'i l:}'d {:. I'. g...
<.!1~17 t159 C] i..:?f:i• .:I :4\':. 7.1 f.??. I'1 ti£?!-3f'°iI'(..~ 'r r17fP {:.!l r.' f'~n (tl E?I"}{'i. t. Il-'+':
F .:..'r7 ( ..:. i ...:.
...i~:es~ ': ,..ar t I :~.'; <u1t I~I;ts)c u~ c:,h,a1 t.ir;rir.l I. t r..,~ .,.
?.. r"Q'.' 1 Sd ~. to i Y': ~ '::.i ,JI'r':11:1 1 J `,.' f::! I. )I]7. 1': (,) LIf'fl ('..}.Y }:. i:] 'I:. tl( r rl ....ta.. Ia LI'I".
! il: d:LS 'r' C].f. I t' :::i:'f1 , I. ;:'i-i. I ii :_a":~ ': ~ 'i'. I'i1 a `r Lii'. .11 ik). !f.)!'1 ( ~. \.t. ,...
,..1...YI:.
? t::cr!.ain a:: ±:!.- t,.t'.:. rira`-? []; +.tlra Yi I(itir:rF ate. (lll 111.,
PI :. J. .1.x.1 ' '?:. , !t,::? r. '. .. ;:.'if r `cla c7 ;;
,.x(! 3. :rI f(7!...7 r, ~.) trlr t77- t'. f.3
~ __ ~
Ir i:'.'1 4.1 to i:::t tl-". 1:`r f?i ,:!<, ,~
Ica r~ cl 1 r i:l E t tnu::~r'll
I c.! E.<i.l }.-~ ari I ia:'.I .:n:1 <ItS>nlf.i rtcl{ 7r-'f
E I,l- 1)r t]I 1 E!f}1 k(,a ''.tt fSi -
.. 1 ( F.Ptr I as :u.,,.3 i_I,r ~t ,! J .1 f: t s +:.t}ca
...; ...it '.. rrt:1 f l t .. rs ',t:v"n I r.., ,:,r- .c„ I
~. .. ~ t. - ci :.: ,t _ :t s'>i. .., 1. E..It:: t... .:atEz
r rr: - Si t.. ~..:;-'y rU. )rJ-I". <3ft9' 1"tf.. !:?F". ., r, rr P.(~.
r ;:'r, i.l t, rl.e! It, r.i.^ ri .,..' i.ht;{ iln ,,I ::r r- i.:; r-:Yt }'lv:i. !->•,
I-... i7.,, J'I. "tfa ~ .. ,., j. `. U;:?1. 1. ';._;.,~ $'. ',f0 #:.I'1 I <'::?
t : If I}r^ l 'ip
I - 11 iti. r.r i rel... ,:~ }L:il)1 fJ f1 L3't. ¢] i 1hi r f j C:,r
r .,,. :.r:f'lt ;rr:! r „I :);a. c It r f<;. il,r~ nt.r',,' ~ -'.i <n ~. ,i^ IJ't r::r
1:: to '! .: r..l r..-,.I) r ! f..r t I, !~ do L I E'ri: a t}'-. iri'I ~ ir'i 71 : "ta.! .:I. •.
Is n:!,. I ,t- ;tJi. 1 ?)I1 r t ,:!I-xl .a r .:r:J7 . a <>htxt!.,a L7c t)::L_.rol rr ,,J ,;,,{: '
t 1 Sl :arJ frC , i'i E::: 1, ,.I. 'C. r., 3.Lat-f 7 "f:)fit 'C)LII't-I t
', .: C.: t i L;I ~ r,.-~.,. r,'I ~ 1-:', I 1~ ?'!. :i. IJ. 74:J t:Y.' tr`rfl,"f. t t.dYl (t }:"f. z f.: <_r I ~
I t ;: ear' i ' ;... !' is .rr, :l I- t:+, i l !. ;::il f:, t':i.'t '!. :L ~r {.:L..At`11tt1.:,
r
...,,.:r'~ 2i...L. U: t '. :i :1. 3.. :' tl l' I1:.`CI C'^. 3N1:3 ~~ ,."'afn 'fl I,t. R4:: tf7 '1. ~1.
,.! G7r r f t ail ; rra •7 " I}r
r !, •. r, , r'' rcz EI I ~ is ,> .in IJt~ cE,a~ r 1
1'<..i'-t_ ,.I-, :-i, Ilr' nr..u:J. I"tu 't-,-rn t)I rtt.i-. .r
t rP', t,:x t:..tt J.< 11 t E31 tlt:. t
L1:: ': r' ,rti.l. '.:
r :. ! t ,::1 ,.. 7 I I }i _., r 1., tl,~r E>i~ci rt E-;
I ~ ;,:, I :...~ , ,. ,,., t ;.,
, ... 1 I 1. I. _t t 1 !rt { c., tit -I, ; }t
t!h I t t.. , `' ::'9 3 ,.;i ,.~ r ~~: 1 m wz> } tt.: nnl_7<.rt} zrti
, E , ;. ~ t ,:: tc .tJ J i ti i..,:• I h t ,, .^ r} t-I}f? +;C I u, =ti I r. usti~_c I a' ;: ,
~..
i I1 .. r,:, ,'} V..,':i ,Y, -1 ':t1 , t'i,.l{:. i ! ~' c~; , ]. f:Lf Y ,,,,i7r@IT! )r, _! l't: 7.t 15 C'1' T_hF.?.
i '. 1 _.:: ~; , _... .';:v -,ir ;, I'.:,- I 1 r;;i Fiir, )I ltf-^c; 't..~i.!l.cl l.ii:• .cf.rl i. t.ir•a:-~r.!.
I ...~: ;.
... ... 7 ,.:t v ,: ,,.; :, .i't ri'. rr: ,t.l r....:. ~: .-. _c a tt J. <~t 6: r• is-n ~h:.iie:~
,~ ,^sc a I ri;!v:•. J:'i:, ,.. :. t, ;.'.rJ !.1t. ,-Iallr !( I:'a'., <.L `i7. z t_';"it I}:.rtt-~;: :I:..
!, ssrLa:I IE-,:rrL t:rs~. ':.i. L..t!s:^ .,n tat-1. ito-! ttrun:~= :i. I ...:~E tl/o~~t.,,
;l `:.. ,'r.';!'! .::<.; rri a- L!:)V.^- t Elra. r,rrri l
x t 1 c:. .lcl I C ...
1f 7 ;: , {a1 rr, :_.'r...t ,:. r'1 11. ~- -'! - lil.:}:. 1:7:1.1 ~,
,: ~i c .,
.. rl . r..::^- t , a ::-I ,'~st L..:. .7: ,,. :.,rii r r.: 1 ay ~, cf 1 .afu::lli~i t. '.t i::. ,. `J?.!.{:
I ~ I;:-:( •fl i::i :'li:i '. t:. :i. t: .ft (:)„I ~ 13:?~ d .I ? ".'r, :>a r,i .,
! f, .ISx !rl LJS tl ',Itlr't It:• t-JLIEI rtl:::r
::L1. 1. I ;.:": :1 :i lti ,,: : ,d > t_, ::i~ ?i I::!L::' O!1 '-..~ I-;
r x:! n1d .}r ::I
1 '.r::: i.:} (:I ':.::c'l t~ !:~F I llt.;..t:> to ~Fr, L{lt:l:.. t , :..t:i.t. r ; ,.
• I ~ .. - ,
~~~; ~ ~~
hI~_r;l",E:~l.ta'; l...::i.mlci:i.r'i.ss
_t!r, ll,l i„:ir" ~ ::,fail. h),.:3t.:
SCNMUESEq GORL°1'Y{EYER INC. 10G~+;,rend AV0002, SUlfe 2-E
Gli `god Springs, Colorado 81601
(303) 945=1004 (303) 925E501
Fax (303) 945-5948 ,
DCtOber 11 , 1994 CONSULTIAG~ENGINEERS & SURYEYOgS *~ ` ~ -. '"
Mr. Alan Richman, AICP ~,c~~a'~ E
1015 E. Hyman, Suite 5
Aspen, Co. 81611
AE: Jelinek 1041
Dear Alan:
Per your request we have investigated several engineering aspects
related to the Jelinek parcel in Pitkin County. Mr. Jelinek owns
582 acres at the base of Mt. Sopris in the Crystal Aiver Valley.
The acreage is predominately pinyon, Juniper and oak brush. A 5
acre building envelope at Lewls `Lake is the area thaE'will be
subJect to development.
Access Drivewa
The access driveway From the Thomas Creek Road to Zewis Lake,
appears for the most part to be an old ranch road. The platform is
generally twelve feet wide, with grades of less than 10~ and a dirt
surface. A forty foot access easement has been secured from
adJoining properties to Mr Jelinek's parcel.
Overall, the entire driveway will need general. grading to provide a
level driving surface. Some .turnouts should be provided at
convenient locations so that two vehicles may pass:' The driveway is
in need oF'ditches and culverts to control drainage and erosion. It
is also suggested a four inch gravel surface be laid to provide safe
all weather access.
Specifically, the driveway has some aspects which do not meet Gountiy
standards at its lower end. Above the polo Field, the grade runs
16~ for about five hundred Feet. Lowering this grade to 12% would
be feasible, but may require some minor work outside the forty'Foot
easement. Just past this area, at the irrigation ditch, the grade
climbs to 20~ for a short distance to gain the elevation of the
ditch. This grade can be corrected by placing additional fill. For
seventy five. feet the driving surface is only about nine feet with
the irrigation ditch on one side and a steep drop-off on the other.
It is suggested that the ditch be culderted here for an additional
seventy-five feet and that fill be placed on the downhill side to
.lessen the drop-off: Once you cross the irrigaticn ditch, the
driveway switchbacks with a 20 ft. radius. This"switchback needs to
be a minimum of 50 feet to allow access by trucks and fire vehicles.
The hillside above the switchbank has been scarred already and
eroded, so it appears. the switchbank could be widened and the
hillside stabilized. The last specific improvement is at the
Junction of another ranch road, where the driveway intersects at
90°. A curve would facilitate vehicle movement and could easily be
accomplished.
October 11, 1990
Mr. Alan Richman
Page 2
Just before reaching Lewis Lake, a new driveway will need to be
constructed to reach the homesite on the east rifle of the lake. '
This driveway will be located so as not to cross the meadow or
interrupt the view toward Mt. Sopris. We visualize this driveway
passing below a existing settling pond and entering the oak brush.
Some minor new construction will occur in the oak brush until' once
again, an old ranch road can be utilized for the final part of 'the
driveway to the house.
Erosion & Drainage
As stated in the previous section, the driveway will require ditcnes
and culverts to control drainage and erosion. The hillside at the
ditch will need to be stabilized and revegetated once the driveway
work. is complete.
The homesite is on a sloping bench of about 12%. A legal ditch
crosses the upper portion of the homesite capturing a maJority of
the natural runoff. A natural drainage channel spills debris during
periods of heavy precipitation at the north end of the homesite and
Dr. Lampiris has addressed this issue. It'is our opinion that all
drainage and erosion concerns can be adequately dealt' with by
Following recommendations'put Fortn.
Physical and Legal Water Supplv
It is our professional .opinion that there is both a physical and
legal water supply available for this residence and a parcel of this
size. The property includes Thomas Creek, a mayor drainage from ME.
Sopris and Lewis Lake. Based on our experience in this area, we
would anticipate the ability to construct a groundwater well in the
alluvial materials of Lewis Lake whoh is a part of the Thomas Creek
basin. We would further anticipate that the quantity of water from
the well would be in excess of 15 gpm; water quality is expected to
meet all Colorado Primary Drinking Water Standards.
From a legal standpoint, the Jelinek parcel is in excess of 25
acres. Under Colorado .Water Laws, the parcel is able to be seTVed
by an exempt well. The exempt well process presumes no in,~ury to
any vested water rights in the basin and would be granted for 'this
parcel under administrative action by the State Engineering OfFoe.
Septic Suitability
Because of the desire of Mr. Jelinek.. to build his home overlooking
Lewis Lake, it is our opinion that the septic system will need to be j
~" above the house and will necessitate pumping. The soils are sandy
and gravelly and we anticipate the perc test to show that an
,.
October 11, 1990
Mr. Alan Richman
Page 3
engineered septic system will be required. An important
consideration will be insuring no septic groundwater be allowed to
enter Lewis Lake. Another consideration will be the location of the
well in relationship to this engineered ~septio system 'because the
septic system may be higher than .the house.
We hope this adequately addresses Pitkin County's concerns regarding
this property. If we can be o£ further assistance, please do not
hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
SCHMUESEA GORDON MEYER, INC.
Ron Thompson }
RT/,1a90218
r~oRrrmvM
TO: E11en Sassano, Planning Office
FROM: Tom Newland
RE: Cumulative Impacts of Development. on Thomas Road (and
Bridge)
DATE: March 20, 1991
This is to further discuss and define for you 'my concerns
regarding the impacts of proposed future development on what is
known as the Thomas Road and Bridge, located. in northern Pitkn
County on the Crystal River.
Two recent development proposals, the Jelnick and the Lien 1041
Hazard Review and. General Submissions, have caused my concern.
Thomas Road and bridge are private facilities which service low-
density, single family residences along the Crystal River. The
Caruthers Ranch is undergoing subdivision via the 35=acre state
procedures which effectively by-pass county land use regulations.
This puts the County in the unfortunate position of reviewing
development proposals on these. 35-acre tracts on a case-by-case
basis.
As mentioned above, the Thomas Road and Bridge are private
facilities which are not maintained or inventoried by the County.`
Because the County does not maintain records on the bridge, or
includes it within regular bridge inspections, I can only
speculate as to he ability of this structure to adequately carry
residential, construction and emergency vehicle traffic.
However, having some experience with bridge construction, I have
serious concerns about the current ability of the bridge to carry
heavy truck traffic and the ability of the bridge to safely
handle any type of traffic.. in the future. One of the piers of
the bridge is missing, and the other two piers appear to be
eroding under the abrasive action of the river current. I have
been told, by long-time residents of the valley that the Thomas
Bridge was completely underwater during the flood of 1956 and
that water. was lapping at the bridge deck during the 1984 flood
event (these. two years were the last significant flooding events
recorded). The 1985 FEMA floodplain study shows a significant
backwater problem associated with the bridge during 50- and 100-
year flood. events.
once again, it is .unfortunate that these concerns have surfaced
through the review of two separate development proposals which
will use the Thomas Road and Bridge for primary access; through
normal land use 'procedures the problem could be addressed prior
to approval of the subdivision. However I feel that the County
must protect itself against the future but unknown impacts this
proposed development may place on this access route. I recommend
that the planning office consider requiring the. applicants to
conduct the. following work regarding the Thomas Road; and Bridge:
1) Have a licensed civil engineer conduct load capacity tests
on the Bridge. County bridge standards require a minimum H-
15 Design Loading Structural Capacity for bridges carrying
25 to 250 vehicles per. day. In addition,""the minimum
roadway width for traffic levels over this bridge is 20-
feet. I don't believe that the Thomas Bridge will conform
to either of these standards. If' the load capacity study
shows that the bridge is not capable of carrying passenger
vehicles, improvements to the bridge must be placed. If it
is found that the bridge is capable of carrying passenger
cars and light trucks, but is unable to safely carry heavy
trucks and emergency vehicles, I am willing to consider
modifying the county bridge standards accordingly if the
applicants can provide an alternate access '.for these heavy
vehicles. This alternative access must connect to a county
road or state highway and must be constructed to provide
safe, all-weather access.
2) Thomas Road is a one-lane, graveled road with minimal
drainage improvements. i am unable to determine what County
standard Thomas Road should conform 'to as no information
regarding the number of dwelling units currently accessed by
the road was submitted by either applicant. If the road
services. 8 or less resendences, the road may conform to
Driveway standards, provided that improvements to the road
as per Section 2.25 of the County Road Standards are placed.
If the road services more than 8 dwelling units, it should
be improved to Class V Country Access standards. It is
recommended that a licensed civil engineer conduct a traffic
analysis for the road and offer recommendations and plans
that would bring the road into conformance 'with applicable
standards.
I hope this memorandum better defines my concern's regarding the
Thomas Road and Bridge. Please contact me if you have any
questions.
-, ~ F _,-<_._.
., ~ _ .. 3
DEC 121990
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ellen Sassano, Planning Office
FROM: Yvonne blocker, Housing
DATE: December 8, 1990
RE: Jelinek 1041 and Caretaker Unit
Parcel ID# 2463-224-00-027
~.
SUMMARY: Applicant requests approval to construct a 4,500 to 5,000
sq, ft. five bedroom principal residence and improve an existing
~~.~_
driveway pursuant to Pitkih County Code Section 5-401, 5-403, an
5-404 and approval to legalize an existing dwelling unit on the`>.
property for the resident caretaker pursuant to Pitkin County Code
3-8.13 (b).
APPLICANT: Richard C. Jelinek
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Alan Richmond
LOCATION: Located in the_Crystal River Valley approximately
four miles from Carbondale.
ZONING: RS-30 (PUD)
REQUEST: Applicant requests approval to legalize an existing
dwelling unit for occupancy of the current caretaker.
Section 3-8.13 (b) permits the construction of one residential
dwelling unit either attached or detached within the AF-1, RS-20
and RS-30 zones districts.
Pitkin County Code usually "legalizes" existing structures on
Section 3-8.13 (d) for which this unit will not meet the
requirements of being in existence prior to June 8, 1981, as this
unit was built approximately six years ago by the previous owner.
Section 3-8.13 (b) allows the approval-of an existing structure in
effect that all conditions of that section of the code are met.
Section 3-8.13(b) allows the construction of an employee unit under
the following conditions and limitations:
1. Such. units shall not. exceed three_ (3) bedrooms or twelve
hundred (1,200) square feet of total floor area.
Applicant's representative states the existing unit contains one
bedroom and can not provide actual net livable square footage but
does determine the square footage to be 1,000 square feet.
~ ~ f t
- n`f 1 ..
2. Detached units shall be sited consistent with the County~s
Scenic Quality Policy and take into consideration the visual impact
upon existing residences.
3. The resulting density shall meet the minimum lot-per-dwelling
unit requirements of Section 3-2.
4. The current use of the subject property constitutes a bona
fide agricultural operation and a need is clearly demonstrated for
the housing of employees which are employed full time on-site.
5. The applicant shall, by deed restriction or other permanent
commitment running with the land, guarantee that the employee unit
shall remain a'rental unit,_not be occupied by owner or spouse, be
limited to occupancy by persons and their families who qualify as
(and have been found to be)'full-time employees of the agricultural
operation under such guidelines as may be from time to time
established by said Authority, and be rented for terms not less
than six consecutive months.
Staff contacted the Building Department to request building plans
for the unit to calculate the square footage of the structure.
Building Department was unable to obtain any information of a
permit being issued for. the. development of this unit.
Housing contacted Francis Krizmanich, Chief Zoning Official who
substantiates that this unit is an illegal structure with no permit
in place.
Zoning and Housing request that prior to approval of the unit, a
building permit be applied for by the Owner to validate the net
livable square footage of this unit and require that .the existing
unit meet all standards of UBC code.
""- t STAFF RECOMMENDATIONi Staff requires additional information as
j _to the exact net livable square footage of this unit for
determination of approval for 3.8.13-(b)(2).
Staff further`requres prior to issuance of a building permit for
the main residence, that a building permit be approved and issued
>' by the Building-Department for the existing unit to meet all
~ standards of UBC Code.
_,
j The Owner shall be required prior to issuance of a building permit
~ --for the main residence, to executed a deed restriction for approval
by the Housing office to state that the unit shall remain a rental
unit, not be occupied by owner or spouse, be limited to occupancy
by persons and their families who qualify as and have been found to
be full-time employees of the agricultural operation under such
guidelines as may be from time to time established by the Housing
?,~ Authority, and be rented for terms of not less than six consecutive
~r'"months. i
~.
u ~.. ~:; ,~,. ;. _, .,, .,
... ~
~_ ,~
I j
p
Owner will be required to qualify all prospective tenants prior to
~~ occupancy of the unit with the Housing Authority Office..
,_..v--_-~ ,
.~
..w~^+Y. za-Mt+..,:a. xwi..x .,ri r,.~~#+F^4ni-0..+b3^t~eriu°
ASPEN*PITKIN
ENVIRONMENTAL "Ii~ALTH DEPART11hENT
MEMORANDUM
To: E11en Sassano, Planning Office
From: Environmental Health Department
Date: January 11, 1991
Re: Jelinek 1041 Hazard Review, General Submission and
Employee Dwelling Unite
Parcel ID # 2463-224-00-027
(Revised site plan)
---- ____ ____
The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the
above-mentioned land. use submittal under authority of the Pitkin
County Code, Title II, and has the following comments.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: Sections 2-7 and 5-200:C,((--
The applicant proposes to build the barn on one side of thVe ditch
or the other. The barn and the corrals should be located so that
the potential for pollution of £he ditch or "settling pond waters
is minimized. The applicant may wish to consider piping the
flows through the corral area to preclude contamination.
There is no mention in the revised site plan of whether or not
the proposed barn will be plumbed for water or toilet fixtures.
If such fixtures are to be installed, then the disposal of the
wastewater generated will need to be addressed. A site..
evaluation would again be necessary to determine system design.
The location of the ditch and the settling pond would be
important factors to consider in locating the system. Please.
refer to our memo dated December 6, 1990 for further comments
regarding wastewater disposal for this parcel.
ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: Sections 2-6 and 5-205:(~'~-'
There is no mention in the revised site. plan of whether the
proposed barn will be supplied with potable water. The .,applicant
plans to drill a new well. (or wells) for the proposed residence
and ossibl the caretaker s unit This well should b
( q p P g~ ), g_ g e
ode uate for rovidin water for the barn. Please refer to ou
r
memo dated December 6 1990 for further comments re ardin water
for this parcel.
AIR OUALZTY• Sections 2-17 and 5-106:
The only additional air _quality comment
application/revised site plan, is that we
commit to not installing any woodstove or
as a condition of approval.
'130 SoutM1 Galena 5treat Aspen, Colorado 8'16'1'1
we have on, the amended
- pp t
recommend the a lica
fireplace in the barn,
303/920-500
,~,rv;.
.,ti;51 mx u ..vs Yes>. VF.Y Y`.4.cia5 .«sw. 'ti MMem4vu~ a~~Xr+[rd ~+.a
NOISE: Section 2 230
No other comments beyond those made in the original submittal. 1
______ _._.....,......,..:,,,.: c,carmv r.nwc• Sart_ion 2-2 ~~
None that are enforced by this: office.
CONTAMINATED SOILS: jP
pp untered `du`ring
should mine waste,wasteerock or mine dumps~be enco for ,comment
the excavation phase of the project: Disposal of_such materials
off-site is discouraged due to the possibility of excessive heavy
metals being present in the soil.
This is not a requirement, but simply a request based on past
experience in dealing with mine waste and possible negative
impacts to humans.. _
GI ENWOOOSPRING515 MI 4562/NW
X09 3 + ~ (`ARQONOALE l9 MI ~]] ~;1RBONDACfi '1z
~'OS - - _ , -s ., ,~~-_. •. ~ I ~ r r ~ ~~~
/~%~% ~. ~,rcoo Ir/ _ ~ i ~ i, tat ~p~~I. ~ ~`) 11 \-1~, ~ ~ / ~~-'~~~/~(J',_.,
Al I ~ / A t
/~, ; ~~ ~ it I J i / ~ ~ \ p~~~,IMI / / ~,, 11 / goo p ` /`olC~~ ~(
~~ r~ / ill ~ ,~ / ,~~ 4~: ~ ~ , ;/ ~~.
i -i'~ /I/ i iii I i~ ij 1( u ~ 3s i f I ii
~~' ! ) :. U ii ~ it n I \ S __ ,` I ii /__'_1
~U ~ lid S ~~II ~~~~ li ~ II I ~i I A~ 1 ~ ~~~ Q ~ _ I ~ 6652 _r
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' i ~ ~~~ ~'~~' _. ~ ~. I~ 6n ~ ~ iii ~ ~ /~' . ~~ ~~ ~ "'FFF~ ~n 7 r
~_ ~ I
\ ) _
/ ~ `1~ ~\~ ..I~ - -- ° ~ l~lJ__ ~INUEFINITE - BO NDAlt1~lm -L--
6 ~: I I o
K ~/~~ i
IJ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ... i i ~ II U.;~ I p00 ~ ~ ~ ~ I
,, o , L, ~ , I ", _ 1_
~~j ~~ J, I ~~ Iv ~ I ~ , „ I I = 6 ~.,
/ J V ) ~ / ~ ~ l ~ ~ ~ ~u ~' _ ii '. ~1/I ~
~ ~ ~ u~l \~ ~ ) ~ ~ ~ 1 „ ~ „u~~lJ ~ 5578 ~; ~ i r cJ
~~ ul ~ ,l
~ u ,,
I ~~ °
u f 41
n _
J
( ~ ~~ ~
~~r'./ .'/~ ' ~ '~I'~' / ~ r~i'~i!\ ,r!'~ \1 ~ r rig ~ '~,;, I r ~ )~+ I / \)\ J` X21•
., w
,/ ii ~ ~_ o!~ L,~ ,~ ~a3, A li : % ~ ~Ro,~`q'~9(s~ ! r~`~ ~ ~ -` ~IL((~ [1 ~.
i~ lL~
~~a6 >
0 1? I ~~c.X ~ ~ir22 6 ~:- ~ u`1~~ ~ ~ ~ I ~~~
~ ~ ~ ~ (( ~~ ~ ~t A / i ' V ) ~~
~ r~~_~'~1. I V.. hl ~A~. {i ~ ~. I~~ ~;ir~lf~1~' (~\VA~ ~~C <~ ~ o ~\I o
r .I
e ~~~v~,
~. m° , ti ~ ~ dal iii v~~\ttv\)v\~yy ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ I ii ~ r ao'~ \ ~ 71Z~ ~A `I A\) ,~~- l
~ ~i ~ i // r~ II / 0 it \a`~~''j r ~~~ ~/ ~\I !. ? ' ~ i ~ ~~'"~1~\ \ \ (I / ~ ~ ~... f
i ~._ ~ ~ I ~I ~ ~ ! ~ A. ~: ~ I J\~~AtJ 0
-!~< ~I ~I \ r ~~ -
~i +6 ~' ~ ~~~~~~~ ~ __
~,~„ - I, ~~ -- -- Q ~ ~,-~1 <<~~ lay - ~~ ~~! t ~~t ~~ ~~;;
~ __
A \ i~ I N ~ he ~~4 ~ ~ 1 ~~ ~ 1
~y i
i
~-~/~ - I r Jae i ilii , ~
\ i ;
(\ ~.
Z8 _>. ~' I I~lo it u~ ( ,f' ~ ~/ ~ ~-1~~I ~.
~r` /p~ tbrullF J' ~ I IJt 'f 7 ~1 i~ ~ ~ S r( ~-%~ 26 / ~~- / ~ ~~~~~~ ~1 _
~'\,~ Kljiy 'r~~ i~ ~ \iilY tX ~ n =fair ~ is ~ ~~ ~~: ,/ L ~' / ~ -' ~ ~ ~ i l ~~.\~`' ~ ~,i~\
i iai,.i ~_ i ~ ~ ~' ~~
1 ~ -- (~ iii/;! .~~ ( ~ ~ ~~ (~ ~, _ -r
g
~~~~,~~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ I~ 631 ~~ l~~L ~~~17 ~ I~ ~ ~!~/ ~ ~~~~~ 4t <6?1 ~ ~~ :.~-~
I~~
E r l 1 ~'- ~ 1~ ~~ ~
~ ~ 11) NI ~ ~ ell°~~~} J ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \i ~~~~ 6po ~ / /l
J i ~ l ~ ~ t
~ ~~~ ~ \ , 7 ~ \~ ~ / J/it l4 /Ir7J i ~_ I 1 1 ~1 I \p lZ!( ~ ~ / J/ ~ ~ J ` ~ \\ 1.!
~/~ V II ~„ ~~`~ 1i'~ ~I~~~`~I~ ~ iI (\ jV I ~l ) ~~~Cr~~ V~l~j~ ~f I~f l y ~
~)'r ,N°~'. ~ ~~ iii \ 0~1 Ji C2„ ~~1( I~~~I ~ _ ~ -~~ ! ~~)~~~~~ o~
~, ~ ~ ~~ n ~ ~~, ~ ~%aa~l~ ~ ~r~ ~ i I ~, ib~s 1' ~-. i~ .. ~noo~ i ~:. ~ r.:o( ll A
~~' t n `~ l . ,tlr,, .. i =r ' '~ `` I" ~
_.._ _.... _ .. .. . _. ...~... _.. mk .. ,. .«..wdr.~
D ~ c~ c~ ce~t~,
rl
,~
APR 2 219~I
j~~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ellen Sassano, Planning Office
FROM: Alan. Richman Planning Services ~,
SUBJECT: Deed Restrictionsfor Jelinek Caretaker Unit
DATE: April 22, 1991
Lennie Oates and I are in the process of submitting a draft deed
restriction to Yvonne`Blocker at the Housing Office for.. the Jelinek.
caretaker unit. In reviewing the 'Housing Office memo., from which
the Planning Office recommendation was developed, I realize the
wrong section was cited for the type of unit which the .applicant
finally chose to build. Yvonne's referral memo and the Planning
Office recommendation refer to Section 3-'8.13 ~ (b) of~"~Yie`~Lari7 ~Jse
Code, which permits detached units.. of up to 1,200 square feet in
support of agricultural operations. As you recall, we decided to
build a unit of no more than 500 square feet, to be located within
the proposed barn. This type of unit. is .authorized. by Section 3-
8.13 (a) of the Land Use Code..
I would appreciate it if when_,you draft the Jelinek resolution, you
correct Condition l0, to eliminate the requirement that the unit be
occupied by employees of the agricultural operation. Instead, the
condition should require the unit to be occupied by qualified
employees of the community. All of the other requirements stated
in the condition remain operative.
When drafting the resolution, please also recall the conversation
I held with Francis Krizmanich with regard to Condition 11. He has
informed me that no variance is required .for the existing unit, if
it is used as an agricultural building ohly. We 'agree to so
restrict its use, and request the condition be drafted accordingly.
Thank you very much for your attention to these matters. Please
let me know if any other questions. arise. as you draft the
resolution.
cc: Lennie Oates
I
Y
1075 East Hyman Avenue SuRe 5 Aspen, Colorado 81511.4722, ~'~''~b'74
January 16, 1991
Ms. Ellen Sassano, Planner
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: JELINEK 1041 APPLICATION
Dear Ellen,
During the last several weeks, Richard Jelinek has been
proposed house with his architectsr ,..While in virtually i
emerging is being designed consistent with the commits
made in our application, there is ohe change vrhich we
Mr. Jelinek intends to build_a garage within the propose
to the principal residence. The architects have mformec
of approximately 450 square feet above the garagge wh
inhabitable area. Mr. Jelinek finds this to be an ideal
•'. fi wrn~R vtY.'1"
occupied by his father and other family members w~'f'io_
therefore, request special review approval for a guest uni
will be located above the garage.
the floor plans for his
s, the home which is
building envelope, connected
can
,square
unit, to be
time We,
By locating the guest unit within a structure already planned for the site, within the original
building envelope, vve ensure it will have negligible impacts on the prdperty. The unit will
create no additional impacts on wildlife, nor will any geologic hazard be posed to it. It
will not. be visible from surrounding residences. It will be served... by the same water.
supply system, septic system and roads serving the principal residence. We_believe if
will be compatible with its surroundings in alt respects.
While the Code requires us to apply for the guest unit as a second principal use of the
site, in fact, it will only be occupied by Mr. Jelinek's family, in conjunction with and .not
separate from the principal residence. Since the public hearjng for a special review use
does not occur until the BOCC hearing, we anticipate there will be no delay caused for
our project due to this relatively minor change to our development program.
An up-to-date. floor plan for he residence. and garage will be providedto you in the next
few days for use during your review of the project.
r~*,
Ms. Ellen Sassano
January 16, 1991
Page 2
There is one other matter we need to bring to your attention. In reviewing the referral.
memos submitted to the Planning Office by the Environmental .Health Department and
Housing Office, we see it is likely to be Pitkin County's position that in order for the
existing caretaker unit to be legalized, it will have to brought up to building and health
code standards. This condition is certainly not surprising to us. However, because. of
,,, .~.u
the very unusual type of construction techrngues used in this. structure, the architect„
informs us this may prove to be economically infeasible. It is the. applicant's intention to
make all reasonable efforts to bring the structure into compliance with. applicable County
codes, including providing it a legal and safe water supply and sewage uisposal system
and meeting all reasonably applied building codes.
Should it not. prove feasible to meet. the County's requirements, the applicant will make
the unit uninhabitable, to the satisfaction of Ptkm „County. Mr. Jelinek asks permission
to keep the building in place, to be used for storage, because its classic ,design is a very
positive aesthetic addition to the property.
If the existing unit cannot be made. inhabitable, the applicant requests permission. to_
instead construct a new employee dwelling unit withih the proposed barn, pursuant to
Section 3-8.13 (a) of the Land Use Code. This location ,has ,been chosen m order to
minimize the impacts of our project on wildlife_arid other Courity environmental concerns.
The unit will meet all of the critena of Section 3 8.13 (a) of the Land Use Code, as follows:.
(1) The unit will be a one bedroom unit containing no more than 500 square feet.
(2) The proposed structures will. meet any applicable FAR limitation for this property.
(3) One parking space will be provided for each bedroom in the principal unit, guest
uhif and employee dwelling unit.
(4) The unit will be deed restricted according to Housing Authority requirements.
(5) The barn will contain approximately 3,000. square feet, of which only 500 square
feet will be used for the caretaker unit Substantial room will remain for horse
storage and other agricultural functions'te occur .
We believe that. the. proposals we have made are in keeping with the exceptional
character of this property and are further evidence of the sensitive manner in which it will
be used by the applicant. It is our intention to,_continue to respond positively to~requests~~
..~...
made by Pitkin County, in order to conform with. applicable codes..
I
Ms. Ellen Sassano
January 16, 1991
Page 3
Please let me know if there is anything else you require during your review of our
submission.
Very truly yours,
ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES , _.
/~,~ ~ ~~
J U V
Alan M. Richman, AICP
w, au ~,_ v„ab~_,.. ~ ,. ~ ,~.a~,~~~
1015 East fiyman Avenue Suite 5 , Aspen, Colorado
December 4, 1990
Ms. Ellen Sassano
Aspen/Pitkih County Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Golorado 81611
RE: JELINEK 1041. APPLICATION REVISION
Dear Ellen,
Enclosed please find three copies of a revised site. plan depicting the Jelinek property at
the Crystal Island Ranch. Two of the. copies are being provided to you for distribution
~.-
to the Colorado Division of 1ildlife and the County Engineer and one copy is for your
review. .Although we had previously decided h could distribute the revisions, I felt the
documents would not be considered "official" unless referred through the Plaririing Office:
.There are two factors which,entered mto"our decision t~submit a revised site plan..First,
the prior owner of the property, Ashley Carrithers, recently provicfecJ`usYwith an aerial.
photo of the property, which allowed us to more accurately locate several features near
Lewis Lake. We have, therefore, revised the site_plan to more accurately locate the
settling pond and the existing driveways in the vicinity of Lewis. Lake. Please let me know.
if you would like to see the. aerial photo at any time during your review of this project.
Second, Mr. Jelinek .has... engaged an architect to .begin preparing drawings for the
proposed home. Ih conjunction with establishing the development program for the home,
Mr. Jelinek has decided to build a barn of approximately 50' by 60' for his horses. The
revised site plan, therefore, identifies: a proposed building envelope for the barn.
The site plan shows a relatively large envelope for the barn, to preserve some design
flexibility on this 582 acre parcel. The area designated is on both sides of a small, mah-
madeditch that emerges from apre-existing settling pond on the property. The applicant
intends to locate the barn on one side of the. ditch or the other in such as manner as to
not disrupt its flow and not impact its quality in any way.
In looking back at my notes from the site visit I took with Kevin Wright, District Wildlife
Manager, he indicated he .probably could approve a barn if jt were' located„ in a well
screened location. The envelope shown on the site plan. represents a location which we
believe will address Mr. Wright's concerns. The anticipated barn site within the envelope
is tucked into a large grove of trees and is not visible from the ridge along which Mr.
Wright indicated that wildlife traverse the property.
„a. ,~,_.:... _ .r.nb„w ux„ o*n ';vx,n „v,+~. ,. s« r,..swx.wLva ~.n.;,.U,v.,u ~a»+a=1:1~ u
.!.~... x. wxwax'
4*""~ ~
Ms. Ellen Sassano
December. 4, 1990
Page 2
The applicant hereby commits to keeping the barn location out of the open meadow and
to screening it, by tucking it into. the existing trees. All other_ representations .and
commitments of the original applicant remain in effect for this revision.
Please let me know if there is anything else you require with regard to the proposed barn
or with respect to any other aspect of the 1041 application... Please also let me know
when you would like to make a site visit to the property. The applicant informs me that
n.
_ access to the property by 4 wheel drive vehicle is quite easy at this time: of year and has
provided me with the combination to the lock should the main gate be locked again.
Very truly yours,
ALAN M. RICHMAN, PLANNING SERVICES
Alan M. Richman, AICP
.. . ,.~..~n. ~;_ ..~V. ~~ ...r.~ ~~~,a~~~~.~..Em2. ~.~n. r~.s~M~~:~:.~,.
L PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Introduction
~-
The applicant, Richard C. Jelinek, record owner. of a parcel of land containing
approximately 582 acres (more fully described in the warranty deed, attached hereto as
Appendix A) requests approval of the following land use actionsby Pitkin County:
k:..
., 1. Permission to construct a principal residence and improve an existing driveway on
lands designated for review on the "1041" Geologic Hazard, Wildfire Hazard and Wildlife
maps, pursuant to Sections 5-401, 5-403 and 5-404 of the Pitkin'Courity Land Use Code.
2. Permission to legalize an existing dwelling unit on the property as'a caretaker unit
in conjunction with an agricultural operation, pursuant to Section 3-8.13 (b) of the Pitkin
~^^ County Land Use Code.
A letter has been provided by the applicant (attached hereto as 6chibit B)
-authorizing Alan M. Richman Planning Services to submit this application on his behalf.
The application which follows is organized to respond specifically to the Land Use
Code criteria for 1041 review and caretaker unit approval The application also addresses
the provisioris of General Submission (Section 6-3.2 of the Pitkin County land Use Code)
and those general regulations identified as, being pertinent to the project in the pre-
application meeting between Alah Richman and Ellen Sassano on September 11, 1990.
.. t M .,...~.~ s.4
We have addressed these Code requirements despite the fact that the property contains
,,, in excess of 35 acres and is therefore not subject to subdivision review py Pitkin County.
B. Site Summary
,~ The applicant has maintained a residence in Pitkin County for many years. The
applicant recently purchased the subject property from Ashley and Virginia Carrithers,
,,, owners of the Crystal Island Ranch; of which this property is a part. The property is
~ ° located in the Crystal River Valley, approximately four (4) miles from Carbondale, and is
`"" zored RS-30 (PUD). A vicinity map; showing the property's general location, and a site
~-± plan and property survey showing the property boundaries. and proposed building
envelope are attached hereto. _
r* The property consists entirely of agricultural lands which have most recently been
.,, used for grazing and as horse pasture. The property contains woodlands, pasture lands
and scrub vegetation, predominantly pinyon, juniper and oak brush... )t is crossed by
~'"^ Thomas Creek and includes a portion of a private lake .known as Lewis Lake. The
applicant intends to maintain the agricultural and. open space character of the property
and to protect its critical environmental features.
r„
~.
x
Access~to the property ~is from State Highway 133, onto ThomasCreek Road,
which is a private road. The applicant has obtained a forty foot right-of-way easement
~" from Highway 133 onto and through the. Crystal Island Ranch all the way to the proposed
• - residence. The easement is referenced on the warranty deed from Carrithers,to Jelinek,
attached hereto as Exhibit A and on the owner's Title Insurance Policy, attached hereto
as Exhibit C.
~ An existing ranch road, as depicted on the attached site plan is proposed to be
the permaneht access to the site. A portion of the road was recently subject to minor
improvements. by the prior owner of the property. Since further minor improvements to
a.., this road are required for construction vehicles and the .applicant's use, we request that
r . the road also be granted 1041 approval. New utilities will be buried underground along
the existirg driveway through the property and therefore do not require 1041 approval.
The applicant proposes to build a five bedroom :residence, using logs and other
rustic, natural materials, containing approximately 4,500 to 5,000 square"feet. The
~^^ proposed building envelope is located. on gently sloping lands of approximately twelve
percent (12%) grade, adjacent to Lewis Lake, as designated on the attached site plan.
As described more fully in the materials which follow, this site has been identified by Kevin
^^^ Wright of the Division of Wildlife as being of least impact to wildlife found on the property.
. , - It has also been found, by Dr. Nicholas Lampiris, to be safe for development, provided
certain routine site planning measures are employed.
The applicant .also wishes to legalize an existing caretaker unit, which was built
adjacent to Lewis Lake approximately six (6j yearn ago by the prior owner of the.
"'" property. The applicant is willing to take those steps necessary to bring the unit. into
.compliance with County Code. requirements in order to provide housing for a ranch
-,,,~ manager for the property.
IL 1041 REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
..
A. Section 5-401: Geologic Hazard Areas
The lands in the vicinity of the proposed building envelope are ~iden'tified on the
r ~ Colorado State University Geologic Hazard maps as being subject to potentially unstable
'"' slopes and avalanche hazard. On-site investigation reveals, however, that the more
pertinent hazard to the proposed homesite arises from a gently west sloping alluvial fan
f and the historic debris flow onto the site.
A site visit was conducted on October 4, 1990 by Dr. Nicholas Lampiris, consulting
~ ' geologist, to study the potential for these hazards to impact the proposed development.
Dr. Lampiris issued a geologic report analyzing' the situation and recommending
appropriate mitigation techniques which the applicant agrees to follow. While a complete
copy of his report is attached as Exhibit D, a summary of his findings is as follows:
~,
~€ : 2
~,,.
,~
_~
a 1. The identified geologic concerns can be mitigated and should not pose problems
,.., to development of the site. Mitigation requirements are simplified by the substantial
" ` distance of the proposed homesite from the unstable slope and the relative low energy
of the flows and small size of the incorporated debris.
b*- t.
2. Creation of a berm of about three feet above grade around the east side, of the
home is the most important mitigation technique to prevent material from reaching the
~, homesite during periods of high water flow.
~: _ ,
3. The other mitigation techniques recommended by Dr. Lampiris include conducting
~^,, soils engineering studies at the time of foundation design. (due to the potential for finding
s ~ hydrocompactive soils in the alluvial fan and because of the site's proximity to the lake);
the creation of positive drainage away from the home in all directions "at the time of site
~*. landscaping; and the proper ..design of the driveway behind the home "to' aid in the
diversion of water or mud flows.
""' The applicant concurs with these recommendations and agrees to follow same. in the
developmeht of the proposed homesite.
^""~ B. Section 5-403: Wildfire Hazard Areas
„,,,
The applicant's proposed homesite lies within an area that is designated on the
~' 'Colorado State University Wildfire Hazard Area Map as potentially being subject to wildfire
... .
._,~
hazard. The applicaht's proposed homesite is not, however, located on a hillside. having
,~ a slope of thirty percent (30%) or greater. Therefore, according to the. Colorado State
Forest Service publications entitled Wildfu~e safety for Rura[ Homeowners and Fuelbreak Guidelines
"" for Forested .subdivisions, a fuelbreak will.. not be required for this property. Instead, the
~,~„ following mitigation techniques should adequately address this potential hazard:
Roof. materials for the proposed home will be of a noncombustible Underwriter
,.- Laboratory approved material
* Tree branches hanging within 15 feet of chimneys will be removed. Trees will be
~^+ thinned, to the extent necessary to develop the homesite, but not to the extent that the
. ', 'home will be visible to wildlife (see discussion of wildlife issues below).
~^; * Brush and debris will. be kept at least ten (10) feet away from the base of the
""'~ home. Dead branches, stumps and other potential fuels will be removed for a distance
of at least thirty (30) feet from all proposed structures.
* Lewis Lake will be used as an external water supply for firefighting.
~^ * The driveway to the site will be improved. to permit emergency vehicle access. The
~- existing driveway already provides a simple firebreak adjacent to the. home.
~ 3
-».,,,
!~^
-- - Firewood will be stacked uphill or on a contour away from buildings.
* Power lines and telephone lines will be installed underground.
~ . <...
„~, C. Section 5-404: Wildlife_Habdat_Areas
~.
, The applicant's property is crossed by lands designated on the adopted County
Wildlife maps as Elk and Deer Winter Range and Deer Winter Concentration Area. A
migration oorridor is not mapped, but State Wildlife Officials believe there, may be a
migration Youte in the general .vicinity of the proposed homesite.
f. > .
A site visit was conduced on September 6,1990 with Kevin Wright of the Colorado
Division of Wildlife: Mr. Wright had previously evaluated potential .development sites on
~ the entire Crystal Island Ranch, at the request of Mr. and Mrs. Carrithers. He indicated
that the site. chosen for development by the applicant was the preferred development site
on this parcel from the standpoint of impact on wildlife. The site is not. visible from the
"`" valleys below the lake and is well shielded from the, ridge above the lake, which are tre
two principal locations from which wildlife would see the residence Mr Wright made the
~,w_, ~~ _,.. ..... ~.
following additional recommendations, which the applicant agrees to follow:
~';
1. ~~ Existing vegetation should be retained to the maximum extent possible, to "screen`
the home.
~.,,
2. Horses may be kept in the meadow near the lake, provided the number is kept to
~ approximately five or six and wood, fences are kept to no more than 48" in height
- and contain no more than 3 strands. Horses should not be permitted to graze
' ~ along the batiks of Thomas Creek. The applicant must put an 8' wire mesh fence
*~~,, around haystacks to prevenf game from damaging hay. A barn can also be built
in this area, provided Mr. Wright is given a chance to commenf.on its location.
'~--~ 3. Dogs shall be prohibited from the property.
,~- .
III. GENERAL SUBMISSfON REQUIREMENTS
l~ The following general regulations of the Pitkin_County Land Use Code were identified as
being relevant to the proposed development.. Responses are provided., taking into
account the extremely low density of the development proposal and the large parcel size.
A. Section 5-101/5-102: Drainage and Erosion
r-*
According to Ron Thompson of Schmueser Gordon Meyer (SGM), Consulting
Engineers, the principal development issue with respect to drainage and erosion control
~'"' is the need for ditches and culverts to be placed in the driveway. The applicant agrees
~, to follow the Engineer's recommendations to minimize runoff from the road surface.
.,
1 4
,^'+ _
___w,.y..n,_arm,.r+~.?~,~t5uax,~'m","ws~.,c„e.<~Y.w.~?rr,nae:~-U.~Ws~NS~u£~4~sihcY~i{4ba~'t~>.n,:
-.,
"~
~ ..; ~:
_.
A full copy of the Engineer's report is included in this application as Exhibit E.
~ C. Section 5-104: Compatibility with Agricultural Lands
~,
„~, Since the applicant is only proposing the development of a single'residence on a
F . parcel of land containing nearly 600 acres, "impacts on the agricultural aspects of the
r ' property should be minimal. The proposed homesite is located on a relatively flat,
~., wooded site adjacent to Lewis Lake. The proposed homesite has not been used for
agriculturai production and therefore nolands will be taken out ofagricultui•al production
~.a
A wooden fence will be place arouhd the meadow adjacert to the lake and horses will
-be kept within this meadow, maintaining its current appearance and `providing it with a
beneficial use for the first time in many years. The final stretch of the driveway to the
~+ homesite will skirt this meadow, avoiding both the visual and agricultural impacts of road
development.
"-^ D. _ Section 5-1.05: Scenic Quality
The applicant has taken special care to preserve the exceptional scenic quality of
t'° the, site. In particular, the residence has been located td avoid visibility from any
~, surrounding property and to take advantage of the extraordinary views toward Mount
Sopris. Furthermore, the applicant will place all utilities subgrade, within the existing `
?"' ranch road, eliminating the possibility of ahyextensions being visible from Highway 133.
~,
The existing ranch road was located so as to follow the natural terrain to the
'`"' maximum extent possible. While the cuts from certain sections of the road are somewhat j
visible at the present time, it will not be necessary to improve the road in such a manner' I~
~~ as to significantly increase the. visibility of these road cuts.
s 3 .< ;.... :~. M . ,.
~. -
*•° E. Section 5-106: Air Quality
~.,
Given the extreme low density of the proposed development, the applicant believes ~
that the project's impacts on air quality will be insubstantial. The applicant commits to ';~
',~.; compliance with all applicable Pitkin County requirements for wood burnirig devices." The ~
.applicant will mairitain the existing ranch road to minimize dust generation.
~*. F. Section 5-200: Sewage Treatment and Collection
,..
The report from SGM indicates that ih order to provide aseptic system which will
~* not discharge into Lewis take, the applicant must place the system above the house,
~" " requiring pumping to occur. Since. the soils in the area are sandy and gravelly, they
anticipate that the percolation test will shove that an engineered system is required. The
^"^ applicant hereby commits to installing a system which will meet the standards of the
&„ Aspen/Pitkin Couhty Environmental Health bepartment.
5
i
,~
` G. Section 5-201: Impacts on Road System
,~,~,
s " Inasmuch as the applicant is building a single house on an relatively large parcel
`~° of lahd, the applicartbelieves that the,impacts of this develdpment on the County road
~,. -system will be negligible.
k. ~ .. ~..
The applicant has obtained a forty foot access easement from State Highway 133
,.• across private roads and lands all the way to the homesite, as indicated. on the warranty
deed included in this application as Exhibit A and the owner's Title Insurance ,Policy,
attached hereto as Exhibit C.
r H. Section 5-202: Road Design and Construction
~* SGM performed a field investigation of the adequacy of the existing driveway to
accommodate the proposed homesite,.. In general, they find the existing road surface to
be of adequate width. and grade for the proposed use. However, they also recommend
~"'"; that several specific improvements be made to the road, as discussed in greater detail
in their report, included in this application as Exhibit E.
- ~°"' The applicant commits to accomplishing the recommended_mprovements such
k that the driveway's grade meets County standards. The applicant will also provide
turnouts at convenient locations to allow two vehicles to pass. Ditches. and culverts will
be provided to control drainage and erosion and a~four rich`gra3el surface will be applied
' . to provide safe, all weather access.
L Section 5-203: Logical. Extension of Utilities
,,,.,,, The only utility to be provided to the site will be electricity, which will be brought
; from Thomas Creek Road to ,the homesite underground by Holy Cross Electric
Association. The costs of the extension will be borne ,by the applicant and will not place
~-~, a financial burden on other users of the system, nor open up new lands for development
' ' ih a premature manner.
'-~ J. Section 5-205: Adequate Provision for„Water Needs
It is the professional opinion of SGM_that there is both. a physical and legal water
supply available to the proposed residence. Based on their experience in the area, they
ahticipate the ability to construct a groundwater well in the alluvial materials of Lewis Lake.
They further anticipate that the quaritity of water from the well will be in excess of 15 GPM
~"' and that its quality vvill meet aII Colorado primary drinking water standards. Finally, they
~a
"~ ~ -note that due to the parcel's size, it qualifies for an exempt well, which would be granted
for the proposed home under administrative: action by the State Engineer's Office.
r*a
a" 6
.. .:~.,:; .w.r yex.awK.S~„m. +. a.+v:e,~,xim-WNaenw.a<a:,:,»~an uw¢xMm=..urM,6VS.e.,za.. ~s 3~wle ex,~.Y,,,. ',"sk~~~"~'w/~`~'`vwie",~M~~~F
~.,,
K. Section 6-3.2: General Submission
s,
r ; A copy of the owner's Title Insurance Policy is attached hereto as Exhibit C. The .
°` ' names and addresses of all adjacent owners have been provided, both in list form as
,~, Exhibit F, and on the stamped, addressed envelopes which accompany this submission.
~ Other mapped and written descriptions of the proposal's compliance with the criteria of
,..
the Land. Use 'Code are contained in the body of this application.
) ; ~ IV. REQUIREMENTS TO LEGALIZE EXfSTING CARETAKER UNIT
r*. Typically, requests to legalize existing caretaker units .are heard pursuant to Section 3-
:8.13 (c) of the Pitkin County Land Use Code.. The applicant is not applying to legalize
the unit pursuant to this section, since the unit was built after June 8, 1981.
The caretaker unit was not constructetl by the applicant; but instead was built ,by the prior
owner of the property. The applicant recognizes that the unit serves a vital function as
"""""^ housing for a resident of the community, who is also the ranch caretaker., The applicant
therefore seeks to make the unit a legal dwelling, meeting all applicable Pitkin County
~.,
Codes, by requesting approval as if for a new unit.
t According to Section 3-8.13 (b) of the Pitkin County Land Use Code, the Board of County
Commissioners may permit the construction of one detached residential dwelling unit
within the RS-30 PUD zone district, under the following conditions and limitations.
Criteria: Such units shall not exceed three. (3) bedrooms or twelve. hundred
.. - (1,200) square feet of total floor area.
~,,,,,, Response: The existing unit contains only one bedroom. An exact measurement
of the size of the unit is unavailable, but the occupant, who was also the builder,
' ' estimates that it cohtains less than 1,000 square feet.
a~-.
Criteria: Detached units shall be sited consistent with the County's scenic
quality policy and take into consideration the visual impact upon existing residences.
.-, Response: The unit is located adjacent to Lewis Lake and is only visible from the
applicant's property and private lands owned by the seller.. It is situated to take
advantage of spectacular views toward Mount Sopris. It is extremely rustic in character,
consistent vwth its location and the style of buildings ihtended for the lake. It should als®
~w
be noted that Kevin Wright of t~fie Col`or`atlo Division of Wildlife stated, during his site visit,
~ + that wildlife have adapted to the existing unit and their continuing presence oh the ranch
indicate it has very little impact on them.
"""" Criteria: The resulting density shall meet the minimum lot-per-dwelling unit
requirements of .Section 3-2.
K
T#e
L ...
p _
Response: The resulting density is far below that allowed .for the subject
;..g, property.
~,
Criteria: The current use of the property constitutes a bona fide agricultural
,~, operation and a need is clearly demonstrated for the housing of employees who are
~ ~ employed full-time on the site.
,w
,~ Response: The County Assessor's office has. indicated to us that the property
is currently assessed as agricultural land. Given the large size of the parcel, it is
important for a ranch manager to be available on-site to maintain .the property. The
applicant intends to have the current occupant of the unit, who is presently afull-time
employee of the ranch, remain in the unit as the ranch manager or should he decide to
leave, to oiler if to another employee of the community who will be the ranch manager.
~,"' Criteria: The applicant shall, by deed restriction or other permanent
commitment running with the. land, guarantee thafthe employee unit shall remain a rental
'"""'` unit, not be occupied by the owner or spouse, be limited to occupancy by persons and
their families who qualify as (and have been found, by the Housing Authority to be) full-
time employees of the agricultural operation under such guidelines as may be from time-
~'"~ to-time established by said Authority, and be rented for terms of not less than six (6)
months. ~ t ~(\ (k' ~ ~* ~/,t:~•-
a ~° Response~The applicant agrees to so restrict the unit. ~'' ~'~~"~-~"~
~;
V. CONCLUSION
r-a
K ` The applicant has responded to all criteria of the Pitkin County Land Use Code applicable
,,,,,., to the project, pursuant to direction given by the Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office.
Sufficient evidence has been provided of the project's compliance'vvith said criteria and
the applicant has made commitments in order to insure that his proposed homesite will
~ mitigate all development impacts.
~"
' Requests by any reviewing agency for additional information, or clarification of the
`-• statements made herein will be responded to by the applicant in a timely manner.
~:
~*
;.
~, -
g
~ r 4;~ _
.,- /
"~ PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
;,
~~
~"" ORDER N0: 00017850
The 5W 1/4 of the NE 1/4 and the SE 1/4 of Section 23, the NE
~ 1/q, the N 1/2 o'f the SE 1/4, the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 and the
~sr" SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 26 all in Township 8 South,
,. Rahge 88 West of the 6th P.M.
",~, Also that part of the NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of saidof5~he~Ot1 26
is and the SbJ 1/4 of said Section 23 lying easterly
following described line:
~~
Beginning at a point on the North-South centerline of said
.decrees 00 mhnutest40 secondsoEn3665f36afeetemorenor3less;s S 00
' ~`' thence N 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds W 253.49 feet o a
,~„* 9
---re'oar and cap marked LS 15710; thence 5 43 degrees 19 minutes
r,~~ 5$ seconds W 560.31 feet to a rebar and cap marke d. l_S 15710;
thence S 10 degrees 31 minutes 26hencenSs6t5 degreesfl7tminutes
rebar and cap marked LS 15710 the centerline of a gully;
26 seconds W 146.33 feet along
"^*° thence S 69 degrees 04 reest46 minutesn33 seconds7Wf58t901feeta
gully; thence StheneegS 32 degrees 58 minutes 53 seconds W
along a gully; thence S 32
100.28 feet to a rebar and cap marked LS 15710;
degrees 58 minutesthencecSn00 degrees835eminutese33rsecondspW
marked LS 15710; marked LS 15710; thence S 25
436.69 feet to a rebar and cap
~'""~ degrees 38 minutesthencecSn48 degrees609eminutes 57bsecondscWp
marked LS 15710; marked LS 15710; thence N 85
.96.21 feet to a rebar and cap
6!,,~ degrees 47 minutesthencecSnl2 deg6ee8722eminutes 20bsecondscWp
marked LS 15710; thence S 64
770.03 feet to a rebar and cap marked LS 15710;
'~,,, degrees 57 minutes 49 seconds W 89.35 feet more or less to the
gW corner of said NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of said Section 26 whence
the N 1/4 corner of said Section 23 bears N 11 degrees 26
minutes 00 seconds E. 6710.10 feet.
,.,~n„
County of Pitkin, State of Colorado
~?
~;
~ ~>
....... . .....:. .. ~:~, ,.,m..n..- t A.sae?hvt,-.c1.-a~«,..;.~sw..,w:~m5.v, t u+,ec ~.zwmpx:a.,xtiez aN~.35zarswsa;:.^.'~.r~w:a:'.nulnv6~w$~`esti'mb
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER
October 11, 1990
Mr. Alan Richman, AICP
1015 E. Hyman, Suite 5
Aspen, Co. 81611
AE: Jelinek 1041
Dear Alan:
1001 Grand Avenue, Suite 2-E
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
(303) 945-1004 (303) 925-6501
Fax (303) 945.5948
CONSULTING ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS
'E,c~•.a.'~ E.
Per your request we have investigated several engineering aspects
related to the Jelinek parcel in Pitkin County. Mr. Jelinek owns
582 acres at the base of Mt. Sbpris in the Crystal Aiver Valley.
The acreage is predominately pinyon, Juniper and oak brush. A 5
acre building envelope at Lewis Lake is the .area that will. be
subJect to development.
Access Driveway
The access driveway from the Thomas Greek Aoad to .Lewis,. Lake,
appears for the most part to be an old ranch road. The platform is
generally twelve feet wide, with grades of less than 10~ and a dirt
surface. A forty foot access easement has been secured from
adJoining properties to Mr. Jelinek's parcel.
Overall, the entire driveway will need general grading to provide a
level driving surface. Some turnouts should be provided at
convenient locations so that two vehicles may pass. The driveway is
in need of ditches and culverts to control drainage and erosion. It
is also suggested a four inch gravel surface be'laid to provide safe
all weather access.
Specifically, the driveway has some aspects which do not meet County
standards at its lower end. Above the polo Field, the grade runs
16% for about five hundred feet. .,Lowering this grade to 12~ would
be feasible, but may require some minor work outside the forty foot
easement. Just past this area, at the irrigation ditch, the grade
climbs to 20% for a short distance to gain the elevation of the
ditch. This grade can be corrected by placing additional. fill. For
seventy five feet the driving surface is only about nine feet with
the irrigation ditch on one side and a steep drop-off on the other.
It is suggested that the ditch be culverted here for an'additional
seventy-five feet and that fill be placed on the downhill side to
lessen the drop-off. Once you cross the irrigation ditch, the
driveway switchbacks with a 20 ft. radius. This switchback needs to
be a minimum of 50 feet to allow access by trucks and fire vehicles.
The hillside above the switchbank has been scarred already and
eroded, so it appears the switchbank could be widened and the
hillside stabilized. The last specific improvement is at the
Junction of another ranch road, where the driveway intersects at
90°. A curve would facilitate vehicle movement and could easily be
accomplished.
October 11, 1990
,~ Mr. Alan Richman
Page 2
Just before reaching Lewis Lake, a new driveway will need to be
y constructed to reach the homesite on the east side of the lake. '
This driveway wi1T be located so as not to cross the meadow or
^ interrupt the view toward Mt. Sopris. We visualize this driveway
passing below a existing settling pond and entering the oak brush.
Some minor 'new construction will occur in the oak brush until once
~... .
-~_ again, an old ranch road cah be utilized for the. final part of the
~, ~ driveway to the house.
Erosion & Drainage
~_
As stated in the previous section, the driveway will require ditches
ahd culverts to control drainage and erosioh. The hillside at the
ditcri will need to be stabilized and revegetated once the driveway
work is complete...
The homesite is on a sloping bench of about 12~. A legal ditch
crosses the upper portion. of the homesite capturing a majority of
the natural runoff. A natural drainage channel spills debris during
periods of heavy precipitation at the north end of the homesite and
,~ Dr. Lampiris has addressed this issue. It is our opinion that all
drainage and erosion concerns can be adequately dealt with by
following recommendations put forth.
_ Physical and Legal Water Supply
J It is our professional opinion that there is both a physical and
_
y legal water supply available for this residence and a parcel of this
size. The property includes Thomas Creek, a mayor drainage from Mt.
Sopris and Lewis Lake. Based on our experience in this area, we
would anticipate the ability to construct a groundwater well in the
alluvial materials of Lewis Lake which is a part of the Thomas Creek
~, ~ basin. We would further anticipate that the quantity of water from
_ the well would be in excess of 15 gpm; water quality is expected to
~ ~ meet all Colorado Primary Drinking Water Standards.
,.
From a legal standpoint, the Jelinek parcel is in excess. of 25
"' acres. Under Colorado Water Laws, the parcel is able to be served
by an exempt well. The exempt well process presumes no in,~ury to
~~ any vested water rights in the basin and would be granted for this
-- parcel under administrative action by the State Engineering Office.
Y
Septic Suitability '
~ il' Because of the desire of Mr. Jelinek to build his home overlooking
~.. Lewis Lake, it is our opinion that the septic system will need to be
above the house and will necessitate pumping. The soils are sandy
~,,, ~
K- and gravelly and we anticipate the perc teat to show that an
F
~1
{ A
R'..:'.
~-,
4.,,
~x~,&;~ F
~' Oates, Hughes & Kenezevich, P.C. _ ,
" 533 E. Hopkins Ave.
Aspen, CO 81611
Attn: leoriard M. Oates _ -
~:
RE: Surrounding property owners of the Richard Je1iriek description on
~" the enclpsed Exhibit "A".
a-
Si r. _
A search of the records of this office and those of the Assessor and
Treasurer of Pitkin County, Cplorado reveals the following owners
,,,,~., surrounding the above described.
Ashley K. Carrithers aka Ashley Carrithers and Virginia Neary-Carrithers.
PO Box 278
°" Carbondale, CO 81623
6`
.Bureau of Land Management
r, Address Unknown
r Denver, CO
Although we believe the facts stated are true, this letter is
not to be construed as an abstract of title, nor an opinion of
c' title, nor a guaranty of title, and it is understood and agreed
that Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc., neither assumes, nor will be
charged with any financial obligations or liability whatever on
.i ,;'any statement contained herein.
r+ r
Autho ized Signa ure
Stewart Title of Aspen, Inca
602 E. Hyman
~r Aspen, CO 81511
P`r 303-925-3577
Y '
Santtily ofContr¢ct k~"1--u~x.
STEWART~TITLE ~` ~ ~ ~ ~`
• ~ ~.
OF ASPE N, IN C.
602 E. HVMAN• ASPEN, COLORADO 81611•(303) 925357]
October 31, 1990
Oates, Hughes & Knezevich, P.C.
533 E. Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, C0 81611
Attn: Leonard M. Oates
Re: Creation of property and conveyance to Richard Jelinek
Board of Planning and Zoning Commission
Based upon a search o£ the appropriate real estate
records of Pitkin County, Colorado, Stewart Title of Aspen
hereby certifies that at no time since January 1, 1972 has
any tract of land been incorporated into the .property described
on Exhibit "A" attached hereto, nor does the conveyance 'of said
property to the above named create any parcel less that 35
acres adjacent to or surroundinq'said property.
Although we believe the facts stated are true; this letter
is not to be construed as an abstract of title, nor an`Qpinion
of title, nor a guaranty 'of title, and it is understood and
agreed that Stewart Title of Aspen, Znc., neither assumes, nor
will be charged with any financial obligations''or liability
whatever on any statement contained herein.'`
Sinc ely,
Hazel I. Herwick
Title Examiner
..x ~«c ~ +'v' arw vs+ek /..' x"s ~, :~* ar ~.. r ...< r ,-.., ry„,., `"''u-a ;kay m. r. :'aC3
~~.
..
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
ORDER NO: 00017946
EXHIBIT "A"
The SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 and the SE 1/4 of Section 23, the NE
1/4, the N 1/2 of the SE 1/4, the NE 1/4 of the SW l/4 and the
SE 1/4 of the. NW 1/4 0£ Section 26 all in Township 8 South,
Range 88 West of the 6th P.M.
Also that part of the NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of said Section 26
and the SW 1/4 of said Section 23 lying easterly of the
following described line:
Beginning at a point on the North-South centerline of said
Section 23 whence the N 1/4 corner of said Section 23 bears S 00
degrees 00 minutes 40 seconds E 3665.36 feet more or less;
thence N 90 degrees 00 minutes OO seconds W 25.3.49 feet to a
rebar and cap marked LS 15710; thence S 43 degrees 19 minutes
58 seconds W 560.31 feet to a rebar and cap marked LS 15710;
thence S 10 degrees 31 minutes 26 seconds W 166.04 feet to a
rebar and cap marked L5 15710; thence S 65 degrees 17 minutes
26 seconds W 146.33 feet along the centerline o£ a gully;
thence S 69 degrees 04 minutes 07 seconds W 101.67 feet along a
gully; thence S 80 degrees 46 minutes 33 seconds W 58.90 feet
along a gully; thence S 32 degrees 58 minutes 53 seconds W
100.28 feet to a rebar and cap marked LS 15710; thence S 32
degrees 58 minutes 53 seconds W 268.58 feet to rebar and cap
marked LS 15710; thence S 00 degrees 35 minutes 33 seconds W
436.69 feet to a rebar and cap marked LS 15710; thence S 25
degrees 38"minutes 21 seconds E 716.16 feet to a rebar and cap
marked LS 15710; thence S 48 degrees 09 minutes B7 seconds W
96.21 feet to a rebar and cap marked LS 15710; `thence N 85
degrees 47 minutes 46 seconds W 163.87 feet to a rebar and cap
marked LS 15710; thence S 12 degrees 22 minutes 20 seconds W
770.03 feet to a rebar and cap marked LS 15710; thence S 64
degrees 57 minutes 49 seconds W 89.35 feet more or less to the
SW corner of said NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of said Section 26 whence
the N 1/4 corner of said Section 23 bears N 11 degrees 26
minutes 00 seconds E. 6710.10 feet.
County of Pitkin, State of Colorado
G{ENWOOU SPRINGS l5 Ml
OS 4561 / NW
j?~9 ~U" I~]O CARRONU LE l.9 M!. ?]j BONDALEJ ~2
T~
U ~~
~, I , „ , ; ;, " ~ ~ ;,
- ,.
1~g //~~~' ~ ~,~,~/~ / I 10 a' ~ 1' ~n~ / ~ t)J ~1 ~ I ~ °~ ~~'
~C , i ~' , ril V ' ii i ~' a ~ae ~-~' I ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ ~ ~,
Jl l I ;' ~~~ I ~ 'rr ~ ' ~ ~ u o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. . ~ ~~ ~ // ~
l ~. 1 P v ~~ II - ff II / r V.p ':
I -{//
~ ~ ! ~~ ~0V - __ --__ Il !~ 1 _- ~ ~r ~_-- _~ -~ _i~L
~_~+_. ~ ~_i a ?~/I u. _ ~~ ___ ° / jr t_- I [NUEEINhE _ BO INDA6 ~ ~I / /_ _~
~~~--~ ~ o~ ~ I - m
~ i~ r ~ - I u
~- ~~' ~
n
,, ~ I ~ , ~ ~I j i ~~; - %/I
n
I
.I ~ ~ ~ : ul ~a . 1 ~'~
1c J c I ul~ n ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~
~ ZV i~J~' it (~ ~~ 1~1 1 ~~ IJ ~II ~' ~~o p~ Il~ '~ ~~ ~~ / ~~~ ~ ~~:~.~~~~-. C
~I~II >i! ~::, ~ ~ II ~ =1 a -•'~~i ~~~<~_ ~-. ~
H I o U \
~ ~ I ~ II ~ ~~] ~~ Z
n / r- I
/i ry ~~ F~ 4 ~~ ~i I~ ~ 'L Jam-, ~ J ~ LI +
ii n iV_. o / i 11 fsJ,~ ~(/~// /~ / ~ o ~~~ ~~ i ~ i` ~`
~ n II 4 1 ~ II // ~ f ~ / ~' r ~ / 1 // ~ ~ ~ ~
n /i
1 i ii v/ r '-~I I ~~ / iii .~/i- I ~ C `, A :. 1 A I D ~
~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~' Igo ~ ~ ~' ' ~~ ~~, ~ ~~~ ~~ ,,1U~~f~;11~~ ~, ~~(~ ~~~,~ ~ //~o~~~l ~~ r ,,,~~~~,
l ~ I. eo . ~t~` ~ i
~ ~_ ; ;, !, ,; - / "gin ;; ;A U;V~I`0 ~~~~/~ ~, ~1'V ~ ~' ~g1'HC. ,K ~~. ~ ~ ,', AA,~~
,A.; :. IP+/ --- .~~_ (( ~ r.0. ~ ~ .-F-_~. ~ --~ ~-.-
i ~ ~ 1 ,~ ~ ~ ~~a ~, ~r ~~ ~ ~ ~ 1
' gyp,, ~
df ~ _ l ~ ~
~~
i,~ J 6/oQ ~~ij`~oo a~ ~ a ~ ~ ~~r ~- ~ 1 1 ~ ~ if > ~ "~ ~~~`~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C
/ I , ~ ~~A~ 11i ~ ~ _-Q' lip /,n /~ ~I~lc I ~ ~~ '~'~ /^--\,l --~ ,ter- ~ ~.A 1~-~
,~
I f; Grut/, z / {- _-- I ~a S ~7 jn/ > ~ S ~~~ 26 r ~(`1.~~~-.J ~~ ~ ~ ~C
p rV ~ (}MOB II( ~! _ fib r~~r Gra el ~ ~ ~ /~ ~ \, ~~ ~ ~ y0 l ~~. /~ l / ~ VA. ~~
J , i ~ rll Pils 2 ~[ ~ I / /A ~ i ~ / ~,
ooh/ ley ~ ;I_ ~ ;,,r ~?„__ 11~ l l ~, (\~ ; s> ~ ~ ~~ < ~ , ~ ~ )~ ~~ ~ ~I ~-
r
~^ r
I ~ ir~~~ ~ brll .C" ~ I 1C /... ~_
: ~
~]~ ~ )i/ ~, , _ ~ 1 > it ~ ~ 1~ a % ~ a
r ~ ~ ~ II I 11 ~ ~ "\, ) \~ - ~ I
/ ~0 ~ /~ ~ / if 1 `/ f r i ~ ~ r l~~~l ~ ~ ~ '" l ~ ~ t
~i
1 ,\ S ~ ~ ~~. ° fl ~ ~s~~a 4r ~ I(r ~~~~~~ _~~ i~~- / ~~ )V ~V~1 ~ )~ o ~ I ~~.
' ~ . ~ '! A I ii, ~/ /~<K~ ~~%fq (iI ~~ i>.d¢s t_.i ~~~7noo~-.... '.J fri~<~'ie-.io(~ V ir(~ III
n~ !
~""~ ~~-r
Foreground Overall approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission
to build a single family house with a wildlife and geologic
hazard area. The Planning .Office and Planning and Zoning
Commission. recommend GerieraT Submission approval.
There are no outstanding issues relative to General .Submission,
if the applicant follows the recommended conditions. A copy of
these conditions are made a part of this record as EXfiIBIT ^A^.
A discussion ensued with regard to this application.
Chairman Ethridge referred to staff's memorandum regarding the
wildlife issue. He said .the staff report indicates that the
visual impacts have been minimized. He asked if there was
another referral from DOW regarding the effect of this residence
on the migration corridor.
Lackner responded, that Randy Cote did not submit a written
referral however, there was discussion at length at the P&Z level
about the revised site plan, and his concerns have basically been
solved by the revised site plan. Therefore, the visual impact on
the elk migration has been eliminated_by the revised proposal.
She proceeded to review the proposed site plan with Commissioner
members.
Chairman Ethridge opened the hearing to public comment.
Joe Wells representing Joy Smith, an adjoining neighbor,
submitted a letter stating that she how no objection to the
proposal and thinks it should be approved. However she is
concerned about the statement by Randy Cote £hat the proposal
might 'alter the migration onto her property, and that approval of
this proposal might somehow lessen her development rights on her
property. Therefore, she asked him to attend the hearing and
submit a letter to that effect for the record. A copy of this
letter is made a part of this record as EXIiIBIT ^B^.
Chairman Ethridge closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Ross moved approval of the Hansen General Submission
with conditions. With a second from Commissioner Crowley, the.
motion passed unanimously.
T)TlCl1T TITTf1V TTriTfllvTV.. `t:ar ~i.~rv.. w~.......~...-... ~~~ ___-- __-
HA%O RII nNll GT`~TL'T)T T_ CTTQVTCCTfw'"Tfbc>rS.ira ^..... v~imriY: m..-_i".a..~.. r.~..-...,. ... ~~-._.._-
.vac irra A1V1J V1YE iyAY vvrs - Cnairman Ethridge opened the
hearing on the application.
Ellen Sassano, representing the Planning office, summarized this
as an application submitted by Richard C. Jelinek to construct a
single family residence, caretaker unit and a guest house on the
site. She said the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this
BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 2 APRIL 2, 1991
~`° _ „ .
application and approved the 1041 Geologic, Wildfire and Wildlife
Hazard Review on site.
The property is approximately 582 acres in size, is zoned RS=30
PUD and is part of the Crystal Island Ranch in the Crystal River
Valley. The bulk of the ranch is owned_by Leslie Carithers.
Sassano proceeded to review the General Submission issues. A
copy of these are made a part of this record as EXIiIBIT ^C°
One of the issues that has come up is use of the bridge and the
existing road. She referred to the County 'Engineer's opinion
which states that the bridge is in a state of disrepair. A copy
bf his memo is made a part of this record as EXIiIBIT ^D^. -She
said the applicant has done a load study since their initial P&Z
.review which indicates that the bridge is safe to carry regular
vehicular access, i.e, trucks but is not currently safe to carry
emergency vehicles or construction vehicles. A copy of this
report is made a part of this record as EXFIIBIT ^E°.
Sassano said the applicant has agreed to use an alternative
access road for construction vehicles rather than using the
bridge, which is apparently unsafe. That--road crosses adjacent
property owners lands, and the. applicant has represented, that
they have a verbal agreement to use that road for construction
traffic in lieu of using the bridge. However, on wet days or
days when irrigation floods -that road, it is not passable.
Therefore, the applicant has said,-that if the road is flooded or
wet, construction: will. not occur.
Another .concern that staff had was emergency vehicle access. She
said the site is up towards the top of the ranch and staff had a
concern that emergency access could not currently be
accommodated. Therefore, staff has asked that the applicant
provide some documentation that there is adequate access up to
the building envelope including emergency-access.
The applicant has since worked with the Carbondale Fire
Department. The fire marshall has indicated, that if the
applicant is willing to install an automatic sprinkler system in
all .the residential spaces in .the buildings, that fire protection
will be somewhat adequately addressed: However, until the bridge
is improved, a fire truck still cannot Dross the bridge, and
while the. sprinkler system is a good fire protection measure
there are no assurances, that if a fire were to occur, that the
spinkler system would be adequate to control it. It was his
impression, that is was a good measure but a large fire. truck
could not get up to the site. Some of the smaller trucks may be
able to get up but there is a question as to whether their
capacity is adequate to put out a fire.
Also, staff has heard from neighbors who are very concerned that
BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 3 APRIL 2, 1991
r, r~
this is additional. development in an area where the bridge is
unsafe, and they are concerned that additional development will
continue to occur.` Initially staff recommended that the
applicant be required to join a'road improvement district, in the
event one is formed. However, the public has made some request
that the applicant be required to improve the bridge if they plane
to continue to develop in this area, and the applicant has
indicated that they feel that is an unfair burden given that they
are not the only people using the bridge, it has been in
disrepair foY years 'but they are willing to join in an
improvement district. The staff is not concerned about who does
the improvement but wants to be assured that before more building
occurs, there is a safe situation. there, She proceeded to go
though the other general submission items referenced in the above
general~submissionl criteriap with the except%n eof the issue toe
f
the access road.
Sassano proceeded with the caretaker unit. and the .,guest house
part of her memo. A copy of this is made a part of this record
as EXHIBIT °F^. She said the applicant has met all the criteria
for the caretaker. With regard to the guest house, the applicant
has to have at least 60 acres to accommodate the unit. Obviously
with 582 acres the applicant has more than enough acres to
accommodate the guest house. Also, staff has looked at the
impacts and given the size of the parcel, the impacts of the
guest house seem to be mitigatable. Therefore, staff has
recommended approval of the guest house making it clear, that in
the event the property is ever subdivided further, that the guest
house be considered a unit of density.
Staff is recommending approval with conditions as shown in the
memo given some resolution of the access issue.. A copy of these
conditions are made a part of this record as EXHIBIT ^G^.
Chairman Ethridge asked what the wildlife concerns associated
with this parcel.
Kevin Wright, representing the Division of Wildlife, stated that
they visited the site and selected the proposed building site
because it will be the least impacted to wildlife. Also, the
guest house attached to the main house is the 'best thing for
wildlife as opposed to creating a new building envelope for that
structure.
A discussion ensued. with regard to the application. Commission
members expressed some confusion.,withregard to the bridge and
the access easement.
Alan Richman, representing the applicant, proceeded to review
their application. He said-the parcel is a very large parcel, E
and the applicant is proposing to develop in what they would
BOARD OF COIIN'PY CONII+fISSIONERS 4 APRIL 2, 1991
consider to be a very minimal. In choosing the building
envelopes, the building locations and the size of the units, they
have taken an_approach to"minimize the impacts to the greatest
extent possible. With regard to the caretaker unit, they could
have chosen to build a 1200 foot unit detached from and separate
from the other buildings. They have chosen instead to locate a
500 square foot unit inside a barn.
With regard to the recommended conditions by the referral
agencies, Planning or Zoning Commission or the Planning Office
associated with the 1041 issues, they have no `problem with any of
those conditions.
With regard to the access issue, that did not arise at all at the
Planning and Zoning Commission review. The access issue has
arisen since the Planning and Zoning Commission's review. That
is why it has come before the board in a somewhat confused
manner. He said. when they originally approached the County to
talk about this development and a single family house, they
specifically asked the County Engineer if there was a, problem
with the bridge or the road, and if there was going to be a
requirement, due to the building of a single family house,
that the County would impose to improve the bridge. He said Tome
Newland told him specifically no. Therefore, their application
did not address the need to improve that bridge. We recognize
that there are problems with the road and. the bridge because they
went out in the last month with some of the neighbors, they had a
study done by a licensed engineer. And the results of that study
are rather clear. and have been discussed with County staff.
In essence what the engineering report says, is that the bridge
is capable of handling a load of about five or five and one half
tons which is adequate for passenger vehicles but which is not
adequate for construction vehicles or a fire truck, and they
understand this situation. What they have done in recognition of
this fact is to try and make some `other commitments to address
what they felt were their potential impacts on that bridge on the
road.
With regard to the construction vehicle impacts, they approached
their neighbors who own land along the road that does not cross
the Crystal River seeking their permission to use that road for
construction vehicles, and all six owners gave that approval.
However, they did not want to see it become an all-winter access.
He said if the road is to be construction vehicle access only,
all risks in using it is theirs. He said they commit that they
will not bring construction vehicles across the bridge.
With regard to fire trucks, he spoke with the Carbondale fire
chief, to see if hey could alleviate the problem and not need to
bring the fire truck across the bridge. The fire chief told him
that the most reliable system in his opinion, is a residential
BOARD OF COIINTY COMI~IISSIONER.S 5 APRIL 2, 1991
~~~
sprinkler system. They have talked to their architect about this
and he concurred, and said that they could do this. Therefore;
they are willing to commit to doing this:.
With regard to both the road and bridge, they clearly see the
need to bring them up to County standards, and they recognize
that. They are willing to join a road improvement district and
pay their proportionate share. If there are addtional'homes to
come into the subdivision they would hope that condition be
placed on every single potential user of the'road and bridge.
But to place the entire burden on them seems unreasonable.
Rita Herbert, a resident in the area, voiced her concerns with
regard to the proposed development, and some of the problems
which Mr. Carithers, who owns and is dividing and selling the
ranch has created, and the future problems which the residents in
the area will have if the County does not do something now. She
urged that no approvals or permits be given until the road until
Mr. Carithers addresses and finds solutions to the problems. She
suggested, that maybe a conservation easement could be negotiated
with Mr. Carithers to help make restitution for all his land
abuses before approving building permits.
There were several other members of the public who expressed the
same concerns.
Ken Wilson stated, that he has been associated with the ranch for
several years, and did not. see a_. problem with any types of
vehicles using the bridge for access to the property.
Steve Conner, Architect for the proposed development, asked that
what Mr. Carithers had. done in the past not be confused with what
Mr. Jelinek is proposing to do. He said Mr. Jelinek is
approaching this in a very responsible way in all levels.
With regard to the=fire protection, he can in fact design a
sprinkling system which will be sufficient for fire control
purposes:.
A discussion ensued with regard to a deed restriction of the
parcel.
Commissioner Ross asked if Mr. Carithers had,. been investigating a
conservation easement.
Lenny Oates, attorney for the applicant stated, that they have
looked at it and he is very seriously considering it but, not as
a condition to the approva L He said he 'does not feel a deed
restriction is appropriate because the property is zoned RS-30
PUD and if that is taken away not it would be depriving him of
the value of the property for any economic purposes in the
future. He is entitled to resubdivide the property if he does so
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 6 APRIL 2, 1991
in accordance with the requirements of law or -for purposes of
granting a conservation. easement.
Further discussion ensued with regard to this .issue and any
future subdivision of the property.
Tim Whitsitt, County Attorney, said, that under the County
regulations, the Board can in fact say, "until you resolve this
problem as to the adequacy of the access we're going to turn you
down." But he thinks the .applicant's position is, that may not
be an enforceable regulation by the County, that is a subdivision
regulation, and they are exempt from that kind of regulation
under Senate Bill 35. The County has always taken the position,
that it can force it on general submission as well as on
subdivisions.
.Oates said that as per the closing package, a limit of eight
parcels is the limitation on ..the property which Mr. Jelinek
bought. In reviewing the County Roads and Standards with respect
to bridges, the standards are not there that the County can
impose- them a requirement to provide what is considered by the
County to be adequate access, without specific written standards
and delegate that responsibility to the "County Engineer to say
that. he thinks, under these circumstances, that access is
adequate. He reiterated, that the County does not have the
standards in the code to impose on them..
Further discussion ensued ..with regard to the bridge and road
issue.
Commissioner Crowley suggested that the. bridge be dedicated to
the County and then the County will pursue federal money to
upgrade the. bridge. He said to do this the County would need the
cooperation of everybody in the neighborhood. He thinks that way
the bridge will be County owned, maintained, state arid'federal
funded,- and the 20 percent share of it, which normally comes out
of taxpayer money, could be paid for future development that is
going in there.
Chairman Ethridge said that he thinks there are two issues which
need to be resolved at this meeting. One is the status of the
bridge and the other, from the homeowners standpoint, their
rights needs to be established. He feels uncomfortable leaving
it with a fair share. to be worked out in the future given the
complexity of the access issue because there does not seem to be
any fair share formula available.
Commissioner Ross expressed a concern, that if an accident
happens on the bridge, and the bridge is owned by Mr. Carithers
and there is some kind of vague possibly legally provable
~ "`Yes`2riptive ownership who will be responsible for repairing the
~ W"bridge. He thinks there needs to be some type of liability on
BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 7 APRIL 2, 1991
'the part of Mr. Jelinek that if in any of his construction
activities, that the bridge is substantially damaged, he is going
`to have to be responsible for it.
,.y
Richman responded, that seems totally reasonable with them, that
-if they violate their commitment not to use the bridge, then they
w will be responsible.
~C"ommissioner Crowley suggested, that language be added to the
conditions of approval that states "no construction activity will
die allowed to occur on the site unless it was up the alternate
_. access or across a new bridge that meet the County standards that
was safe for the delivery of construction materials."
Sassano proceeded to review the conditions of approval.
A discussion ensued with regard to Condition 2 (i). It was
agreed that it should be amended to read "the applicant shall
install and approved fire suppression system in all buildings,
y~ the design of which shall be approved by the Carbondale Fire
Chief prior to issuance of a building permit."
A discussion ensued with regard to an additional condition
addressing the road improvement district.
A discussion ensued with regard to construction traffic on the
bridge.
~-
' It was .agreed that the condition would read "construction
vehicles hall be prohibited on the existing bridge
Chairman Ethridge stated, that he is not comfortable acting on
this submission at this time until the bridge and the general
access to the site issues have been resolved. He said he would
like to wait until Mr. Carithers returns and more information is
provided. He asked if this matter should be tabled pending more
information.
A discussion ensued with regard to the issues of concern and
whether the matter should be tabled or not until some of the
issues are resolved.
Commissioner Tute stated; that just to make a motion to table;
and not have any clear direction or even acceptance. of direction
by the applicant he thinks is equivalent to a denial at this
stage. He asked the applicant if they willing to come back with
a plan for the bridge, access and the fire issues, then a motion
can be made to table.
Richman stated, that if they need to go back and come up with a
plan as a basis for using their land, and it is a requirement for
them to sit down with the neighborhood, all of who already have
BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 8 APRIL 2, 1991
.use of their land, he is not sure what they have got in terms of
the practical effect. He "said the practical effect of that
requirement that they must buy the neighborhood a mew bridge.
They don't have use of their land at this .point in time. They
have 600 acres and they have no use of their land. There is an
existing bridge situation that is in some people's mind,
substandard. That situation is not of their making, that
situation is an existing situation, and ye£ they have no use of
their land. The practical effect of the direction which is being
suggested is to use their land they buy a bridge. He asked who
else will chip in.
Chairman Ethridge stated, that if there is evidence of an unsafe
situation, and the Board acts on an application knowing full well
there is an unsafe situation, they have not upheld their
obligation to protect the public, health, safety and welfare. As
far as use of the property is .concerned he thinks all members of
the Board are trying to get them' to that point but' there is a
fundamental issue of safe access. `Until these issues are
resolved he can not in good faith approve the application but he
would like to ive them the t 't t
~ g oppor uni y o come back with the
~~ answers.
~
~~ i
~ Comm
ssioner Ross recommended approval of the application with
v~
~~~ the additional conditions recognizing the suggested fire
~~' ~Z __
sYi3~'e'~'s,~on sys~'em, and requiring the applicant toX loin a future
~
k~ (~ u
.
bridgeT`and rba~"° improvement` distrie~`"bu`se~' on"acr'eaye
anii~e
~~~~ ,
- ,." .~
present bridge not_to be :used for construction vehicle`purpo"ses.
~~ With a second by Commissioner Crowley.
'~~ ~ Sassano stated that she had another amendment to a condition
which shewould like to make. IInder he caretaker unit
section ~~
'~ .
No. li. The second sentence of'the condition should read ^if the
existing caretaker unit is to be retained as an uninhabital
accessory structure, an application for height variance for the
r
structure shall be submitted to the Board of Adjustment prior to
issuance of any building permits on the site. Prior to
Certificate of Occupancy issuance on site documentation of a
..,
`" '' ~
hei ht variance shall be
g provided or the exsting'caretaker unit
shall be demolished.^ d
Commissioners Ross and Crowley accepted this amendment to their
motion of approval.. The motion passed with four yea votes 'hy
Commissioners Ross, True, Crowley and Tuite and one na vote b
Commissioner Ethridge. Y Y
CONSIDERATION OF RAJX GMOS EXENII~'PION AND 1041 `AAZARD REVIEW ~I
V/~T T/~1T TI. T7AT ~.f wa.....a.. ...a ~,~~(~l'~.~~~`.~.....a. ._ _.
Commissioner Crowley moved to table this matter to June 11, 1991.
With a second by Commissioner True, the motion passed
unanimously. ,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 9 APRIL 2, 1991
CARB(DALE FIRE PROTECTION
300 Meadowood Drive
Carbondale., Colorado 81623
(303) 963-2491
May 16. 1991
Ellen 5assano
Pitkin County Planning
506 Main St.
Aspen. Colorad.a 81.611.
MAY ~ 01991
i
;~
10
Re: Richard Jel.inek residence
Dear Ellen.
I would. like to offer the following comments to you regarding
fire protection far the Jelinek house to be built an Thomas Raad
in Pitkin County. I have met with Mr. Jelinek's bui.ldinq
cantractar. Mr. Paul Rasmussen and. Bane ever the following items
with him,.
The Thomas road bridge i.s inadequate far fire tr~.zcks and should
be replaced.
Water supply far fire pratection far the residence is limited to
the water carried on the Carbondale fire trucks or 5500 gallons.
Dua to the size of the praposed residence I would suggest that a
20,000 gallon cistern be installed on the property between the
house and the barn adjacent to the driveway, The cistern should
a. l.l.ow fo.r year round access for the fire trucks and be installed
according to National. Fire Protection Assar,iati.on standards fpr
ra.arai water supply.
The private .road access to the residence appears to be adequate
- according to the plans T have seen. The Carbondale fire trucks
require a id ft. wide access and any c..ulvarts ar bridges an the
private access should. be capable of supporting a 56.000 lb. fire
truck,
Response time to the residence" will be appraximately 10-15
minutes when the bridge is replaced.. Presently the fire trucks
must respond to the area via a secondary access that extends the
response time to 70-25 minutes. The secondary access is not a
year around access, depending on weather and raad conditi.ans.
If you have any gvest.ions feel free to contact me at 963-2491.
Sincerely
i~ -
Ron Leach
Carbondale & Rural Fire Proter_.tion District
Chief
CARB~DALE FIRE PROTECTION D
300 Meadowood Drive
Carbondale, Colorado 81623
(303) 963-2491
May 12, 1991.
Ellen Cassano
Pitkin County Planning
'' 506 Main St.
Aspen Colo. 81623
Re: Fire Protection to Thomas Road
Dear E11en,
MAY L 01991
I would like to offer the following comments tp yo,.a regarding
fire protection to t.hP }properties ea>t of the Crystal Ri.uer on
Thomas Road and located, i.n Pitlcin Coi.inty.
On April 24th I attended a local homeowners meeting held at. Doug
and Cami L.ien's residence on Thomas Road. I discussed with the
homeowners at, that time the condi.tior, of the Thomas Raad bride
across the Crystal .River, and it's effer.,t on fire protection.
The present, bridge will net accomrnoda.te the weight of the
Carbondale fire trucks, the heaviest of which i.s a three, a.x1e
tanker truck weighing 56„OOO lbs, The other Carbondale fire
trucks weigh 33,000, 30,000. and 3,000 1bs, respectively.
Currently the fire department's policy is to only use the bride
for the smallest, fire trur.,k. The remaining trunks will respond
Via a ser_.ondary access t.ha is limited to a neighboring private
bridge and road sci.ath of the Thomas Road area, It should also be
noted that the access is not year round, depending an the
weather. Response time to the Thomas Road area utilizing this
access is approximately 20 to 25 minutes from the Carbondale fire
station.
The bridge is too narrow. A 7.4 foot wide bridge is needed to
adequately accommodate the fire trucks, along with an improved
guardrail system for safety.
The in-compatibility of the bridge with the Carbondale f.i,re
trunks ronstitut.es a fire hazard. for the properties on Thomas
Road, I would strongly suggest that this bridge be replaced.
If I can be of any help t.c your office or to the homeowners in
the planning process for a new bridge please d.o not hPSi.tate to
call a.t 963-2491,
Sincerely.
4_J'- " ~
Ron Leach
Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District
Chief
~~
I
J
~""~
9
Page 2
May 12, 1991.
Re: Fire protection to Thomas Road
cc:
Doua & Cami Lien
353 North Thomas Road
Carbondale;. Colorado 81623
Ashley Carrithers
860 Thomas Road
Carbondale, Colorado 81623
Richard Jelinek
c/o Paul Rasmussen
Box 4036
Aspen Colorado 81612
Bob Pattillo
Pattillo Associates
715 Grand Ave
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81623
_.. _ ~„> r ...
~ENI o. , :> i~
~ VA1!1/~r ~~ 1~~ ~
o``"F,' ` United States Department of the Interior s
~%~.~
^~ BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
~..ti3,~~^° GLENWOOD SPRINGS RESOURCE AREA ~ ~
50629 HIGHWAY 6'AND 24
P.O. BOX 1009
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602
December 10, 1990
Ms. Ellen Sassano, Planner
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office -
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, Colo. 81611
Dear Ms. Sassano:
We have reviexed the Lien General Submission for Parcel
ID#~ 2463-224-00-027 and have no comments on it. It appears to be
xell separated from Public Lands and xith the agreed to proposals
betxeen the proponent and the Colorado Division of Wildlife, 2
feel the any impacts to Public Lands would be insignificant.
Sincerely,
Michael S. Mottice
Area I4anager
IN REPLY REFER i0:
1785
(7-162>
DEC 121990
• #332659 ~~S/14/91^c5~~ Fec ~ ~•~~~~ ~~• 6Wb °
,. ~ .; Doc ~. 00
' " " Silvia Davis, Pit a Cnty Clerk, '
~:. ; ,
OCCUPANCY DEED"REB"PRICTION AND~A~REEMEN~'" `'
CARETAKER
EMPLOYEE DWELLING.iJNIT
THIS OCCUPANCY DEED RESTRICTIbN D AGREEMENT (thee
"Agreement" ) is made and entered into this l~"f'v; day of /' y ~ ,
1991 by and between :'RICHARD JELINEK `('herei of-ter referred to as
"Owner") , and the ASPENJPITKTN COUNR'Y`• I~iD"[7SY27~ "~1~J'~'~Ib~"T'~Ya; a~"'~olorado
corporation organized pursuant to the Colorado County`Housing
Authority laws, as set forth in C R.S. §29=4-561';' et seq:
..._. _ ,,
(hereinafter referre3 t0 as_ ttie "'l~uthorty")",
W I T N E S S E"T Hs
WHEREAS,: Owner proposes to construct an approximately 500
square foot dwelling unit (the "Employee; Dwelling Unit")"on which
is to be located within the., proposed barn on the real. property (the
"Real Property")described as follows: ;,
Described in Exhibit "A". _,
WHEREAS," this Agreement imposes certain covenants upon the
Employee Dwelling Unit which restrict the Use and Occupancy`of the
Employee Dwelling Unit to Qualified Employees and their families
who fall within the Authorty~s "moderate income rental guidelines"
established and indexed by the Authority on an annual basis.
NOW; THEREFORE, in consideration of the sum of Ten ($10.00)
Dollars and other good and valuable consideration. paid by the
Authority to the Owner, the receipt and' sufficiency of which are
hereby acknowledged, it is agreed by the parties hereto as follows:
L The Owner hereby covenants that the Employee Dwelling
Unit described above shall at all times remain a rental
unit and shall not be condominiumized: Use and occupancy
k. ~ ..~.
of the Employee Dwelling Unit stall lie limited to housing
for Qualified Employees." The Owner shall have the'rght
to lease the Employee Dwelling Unit to a Qualified
.Employee of his own selection. Such individual may be an
employee of the Owner, or employed as a resident
caretaker, provided such person fulfills the requirements
of a Qualified'Employee. "Qualified Employee" as used
herein shall mean`any`person residing in and employed in
Bitkin County for a minimum average of 30 hours per week,
nine months out of any twelve-month period. The unit
shall not be occupied_by the owner or spouse, except as
provided for in paragraph 6 of these Covenants.
2. Verification of employment of person(s) living in the
Employee Dwelling Unit shall be completed and filed with
the Authority Office by the. Owner of the Employee
Dwelling Unit prior to occupancy thereof, and must be
acceptable to the Authority. '
,.. .,a .. , ,.,
,~ ~..w .N .. , .,.,,f...., . .:, ~...,.. ...; ~.
~.333G59 05/14/91 ]~4o5C~ F~ec ~,^_5.~a0 E~FC 646 FG_
. Silvia Davis, Fit, i Cnty C1erlt, Doc x.00
STATE OF 1'GGS,ypT..5 ) .
ss._
COUNTY OF ~' v tl /L )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this.~"~
day of ~YJ~q-+~ , 1991 by Rich'~rd Jelinek
Witness:. my hand and official seal
My commission expires: 3-/S 93
" OFFICIAL. SEAL
CAROL A. CHAVEZ _~~ ~, ~ ~,2
NOTARY PUBLIC. STATE OF ILLINOIS Notary' Public
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 3%15!93
3
i
. _, ..,. ,mot. <.. .~-..,. .:,
#33CS59 ~~;;/ 14/91 14: Sij iec X25. cip i~K: 646 ' F'G 311
~„ ~-' ", Silvia Davis, Fit Cnty Cler4 , Doc $. 00
u
- s
~z„ ..,,...-, ~~ ...t ~ , i
The SWVi of theNEyi and the SEt/~ of Section 23, the NE'1y the NYz
of the SEY,, the NE'/. of the SWy and the SEYi of the NWS~ of
Section 26, all in Township 8`Soutli; Range `CVest of the 6th P.M,
. Also that part of the NE'(, of the NWS4 of said~S~ection 26 and the
SW~/, of said Section 23 lying easterly of the following descn'bed line:
Beginning at a point on the north-south centerline of said Section 23
whence the N'/. corner of said Section 23 bears 5. 00°00'40`' E.
366536 feet more or less; thence N. 90°00'00" W. 253:49 CeeC'to~ a
rebar and cap marked IS 15710; thence S 43°19'5$"x W: 5'60.31 feet "
to a'rebar and cap marked IS 15710; thence S. 10°31'26" W. 166.04
feet. to a rebar and cap marked LS` 15710; thence S. 65°1726" W.
146.33 feet along the centerline of a gully; thence S. 69°04'07" W.
lO1.G7 Ceet along a gufly; thence S. 80°46'33" W. x$.90 feet along a
gully; thence S. 32°58'53" W. 100.28 Ceet to a rebar and cap marked
i i°„1v^; tL-er~:.e V. 34 SU JJ" L`a~:'258..~`i8' fEBt w a~ teu8r ari: ~,aY
marked 1S 15710; thence S. 00°35'33" W. 436.69 feet to a rebar and
' cap marked LS 15710; thence S. 25°38'21" E. 716:16 feet to a rebar
and c~~p marked LS 15710; thence S. 48°09.57" W. 9G21`fee`t to a
rebar and :cap marked 1S 15710; "thence N. 85'4746" W 163.87 feet
to a rebar and cap marked IS 15710; thence S. 12°22'20" W, 770.03
feet to a rebar and cap-marked LS 15710; thence S. 64°5749" W.
89.35 feet more. or less to .the SW comer of said NEY of the NWS4
of said Section ZG whence the N'/ corner,oE said Section 23 bears N.
11°26'00" E. 6`~1~0~10 feet..,
The entire parcel containing 582 acres more or less
Exhibit "A"
f
of
4
l.i 1~/~ ~l ~ ' a it ~ ~~. ~ i 2 r. u b ~ ~ b L e~ ~ ~ ~~ !Y t <Y~
' j
~ ~ 1
_ _ _ _ _
A _ l _ _ _
~^ ~ ~ _. ,~....~y
~ ~. i ~ ~~-
3 \ ~ _ i _ ~ I~ ~ ~ E ~
t
_ - ~ 2oC - / . ~ / A _. (i ~ _ l 1~-
~• ~ t '.
` -5 _
i t
\~
~ ~ 4 _ ~
~ k
~ - ~ ,~
~.
,r
i
/ ~ ~ 1 ,. `I
I
- 5 / `
~ ~ ~ / / ~ -
- ~ ~~ ~~ t i - ~ ~ ~
~" ~ / ~ ~
~ ~ ~ (t., ~
- _ ,~ , , ,> >t~ ~ ,~;;~~-, r
~~_ = ` ,a ~ ~ ~- ~ ~- ~ , _ t ~~ _ _ ~ _ 1
_-
(/ ~~ - f F ~~ ~r t ~ ~ ~
~. ~ //~~ _
~ ~ ~ ~'' " / -I' ~ ~ _ ~ / ~ i ~ ~ ~ _ t
~ - "r ~ ~~ - .a r_s / t / ~ l ~ ~ ~ _ /
~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~
~ LA3 .£
3 -3
'vd `' E ° -~ - -i
t+ S _~ tk F y~ ~llr.jt
T- f
~i ) r.~a=:s3 y
~' z F ~ Z¢
~ ~ ~ ~ - ~~
' , _l
.P fi /~
j~ Kf
k ~_ ~ ~
t
ai _ _ ~
~ - --}
4r"CY!1rv30~p
/
I \ lcV
/ ~
\ ~ I I
~
- .~ - /
/
/ \
\ ~ I ~
i /
~.
Y ~
~ /
I
~ \
-
~ _ _
~
6A• f E t 9EA 4Ei~
' - -~
3YY£YDR'5 P AiE i
~ l
-e $N ri t h r. tr - 5
Fa. q• i i ~£ t ..v R 3
.l hT?a '
^r. C o ^s 0.~ _ ..~_.,_ ~
T`a / t 6s' 26 X ~ ~ ., 3 ~~y C Pn h' G C 9JW S A "-T.V."
oB --. Y CeM Iv. ^` h uG:v`o` $? - 3irw.xs<~s,~a ve.. 6h
-~/
/~~ ~=y k a-.. [h Y'Y Y :~ F!
1 t :ki 'fi
-:: S 3 CJ 4f 3s .. 6 1- 1 J - , y E ..S. .c.. .~-c-' ,
,
^
t `
e
» _~_ e,aa..., v. /~
, ~~
f
G 8~ ~` 3
253K N 4 5 C C 4 t N d T
4,. S
I
E 8 Y 45 H ~ 3 Y '~ 5 6 'I _.a~s ~E ~TECxUr 4 '+J
t
8 i@ S 5~f 5 -3 eu i G
G
sp c L 3 h c 3 58 Y- cE.644 tl
-
~ ~ 3 „~, y. A'te.. `= we y ry a wme. ercs
.. _ . „u e^o CONPr"F^NE Or fiFP.iJVni ~~~
365( s'at k l5
J'"fw 5833..'
?-~
y
5 O:T l 6 -. e` S J: - ii: a ps R- y Z rvt .-~.
43 lI9 t - - - s, kaa 21C A t C H
2Ati\i4 pN3
A
Vf
M1 9F t l e ~ C 'C M G '.3-Se
~
5387 ro n+v p x 8Y~ z22oY o ~
r
ZO
NG
~ S-) 9 R 1if_ a c ~.,n:
-
rex e-.. 5 E es. r. :a- z ~
S<.t
_z4 ..~~.-~ - x..s6' :?Y me E~ na fire ,.a .,.
§ ega_._ac.:.,
1
wwh0?.e~ si, _.;; 3 ~ 1'x :. y_ c
n ex4`-JG.Y'it S1v: 95J'33
rsN 5 `E O~'e.
~ ~~Y
x
.s..a C C'K.^_^3 8 5.3'x o~IeES. E.Tb
~~
~`i~
scu~uesE~z co~a~~ ~~~ rF~; r.«c.
Y'I CR F'+1 AE"4•'E, >itIJE 2-E
.FJ'.YL>:IG S'$ - 5. CCt?h'~:J 3i 6y.'
/SD3? 843 i v4
#5~ G'dLv,°.~.3'~ (3G3) 853-5727
t11... L..;~i Y~r~
a ~zE
lCt~( fiA~'A;~f1 uF:
1
i~~ !IF
T i
~_
~`s
~~
y,
~~~