HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.planning.246514103001, 246514103002DOCUMENT LAYOUT
THIS FILE MAY OR MAY NOT CONTAIN ALL OF THE INFORMATION
LISTED BELOW IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER
Summary Sheet
Resolution for the BOCC and/or P&Z
Ordinance for the BOCC and/or P&Z
Determination for the Hearing Officer
Administrative Determination
Staff Memo
Application
Public Notice, Acceptance Letter, Referral(s) Letter
Site Plan
Miscellaneous
Plat copies (11x17)
;,~ #344947 05/19/92 1 ^8 Fec 2.06 BK 678 FG 372
~,v Silvia Davis, Pith Cnty Clerl:, Doc x.00
,;;
,..~
RESOLIITION OF THE PITRIN COIINTY, COLORADO
BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS GRANTING
GENERAL SIIBMISSION APPROVAL TO ELMER HOLMES
FOR A FIFTY PERCENT DENSITY REDIICTION LOT SPLIT
ADJACENT TO THE ORCHARD ESTATES SIIBDZVISION
Resolution 92-L'S4
WHEREAS, Elmer Holmes, (hereinafter "Applicant") is the owner
of a parcel adjacent to the Orchard Estates Subdivision (more
specifically described in Exhibit "A") ahd has applied to Pitkin
County for a Fifty Percent Density Reduction Lot Split, 1041 Hazard
Review and General Submission approval pursuant to Section 4-6.2,
Section 5-400. and Section 6-3 of the Land Use Code; and
WHEREAS, the request creates two free market single family
lots from an approximately 54 acre parcel, which will be covenant
restricted against further subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the application was heard before the. Planning and
Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission") on February 4, 1992
at which time the Commission found the request to be in compliance
with the Land Use Code and recommends approval to the Board of
County Commissioners (hereinafter "Board"); and
WHEREAS, the Board considered the applicant's.. request at a
duly noticed public hearing on April 28, 1992, at which time
evidence and testimony was considered by the Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE 2T RESOLVED that the Board of County
Commissioners hereby grants Elmer .Holmes. General Submission
ZA w
#344947 05/19/92 ,'...5,:28 Rec $.C1V Rk: 678 PG 3T?--
Silvia Davis, F'it n Cnty Clerk., Doc $.00
Resolution No. 92-/~~
Page 2
approval for a Fifty Percent Density Reduction Lot Split subject
to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall by covenant restrict the subdivision
against further development or subdivision, beyond that of two
single family residence, two employee dwelling units (if
approved under Section 3-8.13 of the Land Use Code) and
customary accessory structures. Said restriction shall be
noted in the subdivision covenants and on the Final Plat.
Said restriction shall be recorded prior to issuance of any
building permits.
2. Sewage disposal systems for each Parcel shall be reviewed and
approved by the Environmental Health Department prior to
issuance of a building permit on each parcel.
3. At Final Plat, the applicant shall provide "will serve"
letters from utility entities providing service to the site.
4. All utility extensions shall be located underground within
access driveways or utility easements.
5. All residential accessory structures and development shall be
located within the building envelopes. Prior to issuance of
a building permit on either parcel, the Plat shall be amended
to show a building envelope and driveway (counted for a
maximum of 12' of width) not to exceed 2.65 acres on Parcel
A and 2.84 acres on Parcel B. The building envelopes may be
placed at the discretion of the applicant on each respective
parcel subject to required setbacks, as the entire property
is free from 1041 hazards. Hence, any request for a plat
amendment to place the building envelopes on the plat shall
be permitted via an administrative approval.
Agricultural structures or animal holding areas are permitted
outside of the designated building envelopes, but must be
located no closer than 100 feet from the southern Orchard
Estates Subdivision lot lines (Lots 19-22), if they contain
animals. Agricultural structures which do not contain animals
are permitted anywhere on the property.
6. A Final Plat shall be submitted which meets the approval of
the Planning Office, County Engineer and County Attorney,
prior to issuance of a building permit on either parcel.
7. A site specific foundation, grading, drainage and soils
engineering report shall be certified by an professional
engineer and submitted to the County Engineer to insure proper
foundation design, prior to issuance of a building permit.
ti.
'~ #344947 u5/19/92 :2B Rec ~.UU BK 678 PG 3
Silvia Davis,.Pi~ .n Cnty Clerk, boc ~,~7U '
Resolution No. 92-/5~
Page 3
8. At Final Plat, the applicant shall verify that the Orchard
Estates Water System lines are available to the property
boundary of the newly created parcels.
9. The following 1041 Hazard Review Warning and Disclaimer shall
be placed on the Plat:
"The provisions of these regulations do not in any way assure
or imply that areas outside of designated hazards will be free
from hazards, or that approved mitigation measures will
guarantee the safety of any property."
10. A driveway plan shall be submitted by the applicant and be
approved by the County Engineer prior to issuance of any
building permits. The County,Engineer shall consult the fire
marshall on the plan.
11. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant
shall provide a water storage tank of not less than 2 , 000
gallons with a Fire Department connection accessible by
roadway and near the residence on each parcel.
12. All material representations made by the Applicant in the
application and public meetings shall be adhered to and
considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended
by other conditions.
13. The applicant shall address the Park Dedication requirements
in Section 5-501.11 of the Code at Detailed/Final Plat
submission.
14. A lighting plan in compliance with the .requirements of the
Land Use Code, shall be submitted. prior to submission of a
building permit for each parcel.
APPROVED by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting on April 28, 1992.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Jame R. True, Chairman
Date _j ~i y ~9~~
l i
#344947 05/19/9 16: 2t' F2ec ~.~7c~ EtY 678 PG 375
Silvia Davis,. Pitkin ~ ~£y ClerF.~, Doc x.00
Resolution No. 92-~~
Page 4
ATTEST:
-i
Jeanette Jones,
Deputy Clerk and Recorder
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~i~
Tim Whitsitt
County At rney
~"z
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
~~ ' /o~YIC~-~
Suza a Ronc an,
County Planning Director
ruo.bocc.IdapGtholmu
~ #344941 05/19/9 1~8 Rec `~:6n BK. 678 FG 37
Silvia Davis, Pitk`` Cnty Clerk., Doc`'~.On
F E%HIBIT "A'~
Holmes Fifty Percent Density Reduction Lot Split
Legal Description:
CERTI FICATI_0_N_.OF DEDICATION AA'O OWNERSHIP
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT ELMER OAV10. HOLMES BEING THE OWNER
OF THAT CERTAIW TRACT OF LAND IN PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
A PARCEL OF LAN O..,SITU ATED IN' TRACT 63; TOWNSHIPB SOUTH, RANGE b7 WEST OF
THE 6tn. P. M., DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT BEING AP 2, SAID TRACT 63; W HENCE A 7924 BRASS CAP
FOUND IN~~PLACE (API, TRACT66 AND AP4,TRACT 67.~.ON THE SOUTHERLY UNEOF
SAID TRACT 63) BEARS SOUTH 00° 23~ EAST 264'9.83 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 00° 23~EAST 1194.95 FEET;
THENCE NORTH BI° 56~ WEST 734.77 FEET.;
THENCE SOUTH lO°44~ EAST 1588.62 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLYLINE OF SAIb TRACT 63;
THENCE NORTH 89°38~EAST 441.38 FEET ALONG THESOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT63
TO A 1924 BRASS CAP IN PLACE (BEING AP I, TRACT66 ANO AP 4,TRACT'67,
TOWNSHIP 8 SOUTH, RANGE 87 WEST OF THE6tn.P.tIJ AND ON THE SOUTHERLYLINE
OF SAI DTRACT 63;
THENCE NORTH 89°24~ EAST 1318.16 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE TOAP5,
OF SAID TRACT 63;
THENCE NORTH 00°49~WEST 1328.04 FEET ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID
TRACT 63 TO A 1924 BRASS CAP IN PLACE (BEING AP 2, TRACT 67 ANb AP4;~ TRACT G2,
5410 TOWNSHIP ANO RANGE) AND ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT 63;
THENCE NORTH OI°19~WEST 1318.20 FEET ALONG THE SAID EASTERLY LINE TO AP I
OF SAID TRACT 63;
THENCE SOUTH 89° 33~WEST 1286.58 FEET ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID
TRACT 83 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPT;
A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN SAID TRACT 63 DESCRIBED AS FOAL LOWSf
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EASTERLYCEN EOF SAI DTRACT 63 WHICH POINTIS
A BRASS CAP MARKED AP 4, TRACT 62 AND AP 2, TRACT 87 IN SA10 TOWNSHIP AND`RANG E;
THENCE NORTH01°l9~ WEST 640.20 FEET ALO N.G THE EAST LINE OF SAID TRACT 63 TO
THE TRUE POINT OFBEGINNING;
THENCE SOUTH 89°$3~WEST u43.00 FEET PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID
TRACT 63;
THENCE NORTH 01° 19~WE ST 678.00 FEET PARALLEL WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID
TRACT 63 TO THE NORTH LINE OF SA10 TRACT 63,
THENCE NORTH 89°33~EAST 643.00 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LINE OFSAID TRACT 63
TO API OF SAID TRACT 63;
THENCE SOUTH OI°19~EAST 678.00 FEET ALONG, THE EAST LINEOFSAiDTRACT 6370
THE TRUE POI NT OF BEGINNING..
ANO ALSO EXCEPT:
ORCHARD ESTATES UNIT ONE, ACCORDING TO THE PLATTHEREOF FILE IN PLAT
BOOK 4 AT PAGE 271.
#344947 GS/19/9^ i6:28 Fec ~.GG BK 678 PG 377
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnt~~71erk., Doc ~.GU ~?:
AND FUTHER EXCEPTING;
A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN TRACT 63, TOWNSHIP 8 SOUTH, RANGE 87 WEST OF THE 6tn.
PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, BEING A PART OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THAT DEED BETWEEN
ROBERT L. ANO GLORIA H. AR NO LJ? GRANTOR AND DA LY CONSTRUCTION, INC., GRANTEE,
RECORDED IN BOOK 249 AT PAGE 294, ALSO IN THE GEED BETWEEN DALY CONSTRUCTION,
INC., GRANTOR, AND ELMER DAVID HOLMES, GRANTEE, RECORDED IN BOOK471 AT PAGE 122,
BOTH DEEDS BEING RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE PITKIN COUNTY. CLERK AND RECORDER;
THE PARCEL IS MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE U. S. GOVERNMENT LANG OFFICE MONUMENT FOR AP I, TRACT 66,
AP 4 TRACT 67 AND ON THE SOUTH LINE OF TRACT 63, TOWNSHIP 8 SOUTH, RANGE 87
WEST OF THE 6tn. PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, SAID MONUMENT BEING A 1924 BRASS CAP
ON A I INCH PIPES THENCE SOUTH 89°38' WEST, 375.25 FEET TO THE TP,UE, POINT OF
BEGINNING, SA10 POINT IS EVIDENCED BY A 5/8 INCH STEEL BAR WITH A PL ASTIC CAP
MONUMENT, MARKED BUETTNER 13166; THENCE NORTH 10°52~44~~WEST, 1579.75 FEET,
ALONG A WIRE FENCE TO A 5/8 INCH STEEL BAR WITH A PLASTIC CAP MONUMENT,`"
MARKED BUETTNER 13166; THENCE NORTH 8156°WEST, 64.48 FEET, TO A 5/B INCH
STEEL BAR; THENCE SOUTH 10°44~ EAST, 1588.62 FEET TO A PLASTIC CAP MONUMENT,
MARKED JOHNSON LS 9018, BY A WIRE FENCE; THENCE ALONG THE WIRE FENCE
NORTH 89° 38~ EAST, 66.13 FEET TO THE POINT• OF BEGINNING.
RECOMMENDING GENERP;L'SIIBMISSION APPROVAL'4`O`TF~fE B"OARD "
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR`GENERAL SUBMISSION`APPROVAL
OF THE ELMER HOLMES FIFTY`PERCENT DENSITY` REDUCTI6Tt LOT`SPLTT
ADJACENT TO THE""ORCHARD" ESTAT!E8~ SUBDI'VTSION '
Resolution No. PZ-92-~
WHEREAS, Elmer Holmes .(hereinafter "Applicant") is the owner
of a parcel adjacent to the Orchard Estates Subdivision (more
specifically described in Exhibit "A") and has applied to Pitkin
County for a Fifty Percent Density Reduction Lot Split; 1041 Hazard
Review, and General Submission approval pursuant. Section 4-6.2,
Section 5-40A and Section 6-3 of the Land Use Code; and
WHEREAS, the request creates two free market single family
lots from an approximately 54 acre parcel, which will be covenant
restricted against,. further subdivision; and- -
WHEREAS, the application was heard before the Planning and
Zoning Commission (.hereinafter "Commission") on February 4, 1992
at which time the. Commission found the request to be in compliance.
with the Land Use Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT` RESOLVED by 'the Commission 'that it
hereby recommends approval of the Holmes Fifty Percent Density
Reduction Lot Split, 1041 Hazard Review, and General Submission
approval subject to the .following conditions:
1. The applicant shall by covenant restrict the subdivision
against further development or subdivision, beyond that of two
single family residence, two employee dwelling units and
customary accessory 'structures. Said restriction shall be
noted in the subdivision `covenants and on the Final Plat.
Resolution No. PZ-92-~
Page 2
Said restriction .shall be in place prior to issuance of any
building permits.
2. Sewage disposal systems for Parcels A and B shall be reviewed
and approved by the Environmental Health Department prior to
issuance of a building permit on each parcel.
3. At Final Plat, the applicant shall provide "will serve"
letters from utility entities providing service to the site.
4. All utility extensions shall be located underground within
access driveways or utility easements.
5. All residential accessory structures and development shall be _
located within the building envelopes. Prior to issuance of
a building permit on either parcel, the Plat shall be amended
to show a building envelope and driveway not to exceed 2.65
acres on Parcel A and 2.84 acres on Parcel B. Each .building
envelope may be placed anywhere on each respective parcel, as
the entire property is free from 1041 Hazards. Hence, this
plat amendment to place the building envelopes on the Plat
shall be a simple administrative approval.
Agricultural structures are permitted outside of the
designated building envelopes, and must be located no closer
than 100 feet from the southern Orchard Estates Subdivision
lot lines (Lots 19-22), if they contain animals. Agricultural
structures which do not contain animals are permitted anywhere
on the property.
6. A Final Plat shall be submitted which meets the approval of
the -Planning office, County Engineer and County Attorney,
prior to issuance of a building permit on either parcel.
7. A site specific foundation, grading, drainage and soils
engineering report shall be certified by an professional
engineer and submitted to the County Engineer to insure proper
foundation design, prior to issuance of a building permit.
8. At Final Plat, the applicant shall submit covenants and
subdivision improvements agreement which shall include costs
for the septic system, water system and road system.
9. The following 1041 Hazard Review Warning and Disclaimer shall
be placed on the Plat:
•'The provisions of these regulations do not in any way assure
or imply that areas outside of designated hazardswill be free
from hazards, or that approved mitigation measures will
guarantee the safety of any property."
( ,t,
~-. ~
Resolution No. PZ-92- VXJ
Page 3
10. A driveway plan shall. be submitted by the applicant and be
approved by the County Engineer prior to issuance of any
building permits. The County Engineer shall consult the fire
marshall on the plan.
11. The following items have been recommended by the Basalt Fire
Chief:
a. The placement of a water storage tank of not less than
2,000 gallons with a Fire Department connection
accessible by road way and near the residence shall be
provided on each parcel.
b. Roadway widths shall conform to Pitkin County standards
other than they shall be not less than twenty (20) foot
in width.
c. -Curve radius shall be no less than eighteen (18) foot.
12. The concern of the Environmental Health Department and the
Division of Water Resources over the provision of adequate
domestic water shall be resolved by the applicant, prior to
submission of Detailed/Final plat review.
13. All material. representations made by the Applicant in the
application and public meetings shall be adhered to and
considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended
by other conditions.
APPROVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its regular
meeting on February 4,.1992.
PITRIN COIINTY~' COLORP,DO PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION
B~ ~ %~~~~1~" ~
Jim Rese,rr, Chairman
Date %t• Z`~ • ~ Z-
ATTEST
.. ~~
Debbie Skehari,
Office Manager
~--~
Resolution No. PZ-92-~
Page 4
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
~.~
Tim Whitsitt, ~ Suzan a Konc an,
County Attor a County Planning Director
reso.pz.Iahpli[.hoimn
APR 28 '92 li 28 TOWN OF NOWMASS VILLAGE
~ SIC"brandf8xtransmittal+ttemo76;
~-.:
//~~ ~ •.. •~.ry v I .7~ GS S
Fd7fM 4Q • 5.. ... F~7(/
4 2 a
L
?,pril 28, 3.992
soard of County Commissioners, Pit)~fn County
attn. Mary Laokner, County .player •
I'AX 920-5197 .
SU83ECT: HG!LMES LOT SPLIT. AREA LIGHTING ,CONCERN.
pear Commissioners:
Since we may be unable~to•attend your meeting tgnight,
please accept this letter expressing a concern regardiY-g the
Holmes 1ct split. We owri Y;oi:._ 22 of Orchars2 Estates (302 Apple
Drive) aild will be directly affected by the project.
8ecaus¢ of the density reditotion, we support the project. We
also support comments made by ttie Orchard Estates Association
with regard to keeping the building envelopes to the south side _
of the property. However, I would appreciate your including the
.following condition in ¢our approval:
LIGHTING. Area lighting will be kept. as unobtrusive as
possible by directing lights downward and screening the
lights from view ir'- the, horizontal plane. Light bulbs shall
not be directly visili].e to surrounding home owners.
Some of, the area lights installed in the Fiorseshoe,l
subdivision in recent years spur this request. Whether tl
quartz-iodine or halogen lights or some ether new techno;
they'are so bright that we'cast shadows on. our evening w+
Orchard Estates. Looking in their direction is painful ai
blinding. Screening such lights will not diminish their ,
w~„~ , .
effect, but will preserve 'our ability to enjoy the evens
we appreciate your attention to this request.
S' rely,
George Kr~ff
Patricia Rockwood...
ve
e are
y.
s in
~_
302 Apple Drive
Basalt, CO 81621
~~ -. ~ l ~ ro In ~ to ~~-
~~. ~a~ b~ ~ ~~ p ~ g .
~~P ~ ~ ~ 9
P-,
AGENDA STEM SUMMARY
TO: Board of County Commissioners
THRU: Reid Haughey, County Manager /d
Suzanne Konchan, County Planning Director Nv
RE: Holmes Density Reduction Lot Split, General Submission
and 1041 Hazard Review
FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner
REQUESTS The applicant is requesting approval for a Fifty Percent
Density Reduction Lot Split, General Submission, and 1041 Hazard
Review pursuant to Sections 4-6.2,"6-3 and 5-400 of the Land Use
Code.
SUMMARY: The Planning and Zoning Commission and Planning staff
recommend approval of the applicant's request with conditions.
APPLICANT.: Elmer D. Holmes.
APPLICANT'S. REPRESENTATIVE: Fred Peirce, Austin & Peirce.
LOCATION: The property is located immediately adjacent to the
Orchard Estates Subdivision, in Section 14, Township 8 South, Range
87 West of the 6th P.M.
ISSUES: The Board should consider the following:
1. The Division of Water Resources requires that the applicant
apply for exempt wells prior to the betaled/Final Plat review
by the Board, otherwise the parcel is not eligible for an
exempt well. The applicant has an option to tap onto the
Orchard Estates Subdivision water system and has submitted
information indicating that there is adequate flow to service
two additional residences.
2. The Orchard Estates Subdivision Homeowner's Association has
submitted comments recommending that all buildings be located
on the southern portion of the newly created lots to mitigate
potential impacts to views, privacy, odors and insects.
3. The location of the building envelopes on each newly created
parcel will be determined at a later date by the applicant.
Since no 1041 hazards affect the property, the applicant only
needs an Administrative approval from the Planning Director
to locate .the envelopes. The primary concern is that the
total .disturbance of the driveway and building envelope do not
exceed 2.65 acres on Parcel A and 2.84. acres on Parcel B, for
agricultural preservation compliance.
n
4. The applicant will need to address the Park Dedication
requirements of Section 5-501.11 of the Code prior to
Detailed/Final Plat review by the Board.
0PTION3: The Board may:
1. Approve the applicant's request.
2. Approve the applicant's request with conditions.
3. Deny the applicant's request.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission and the
Planning Office recommend Option 2.
n ~
To: Board of County Commissioners
Regular Meeting - April 28, 1992.
THRU: Reid Haughey, County Manager
Suzanne Konchan, County Planning Director ~'i5-L~
RE: Holmes Density Reduction Lot Split, General Submission
and 1041 Hazard Review
FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner
REgIIEST: The applicant is requesting approval of the following:
1. Fifty Percent Density Reduction Lot Split pursuant to
Section 4-6.2 of the Land Use Code;
2. General Submission Review pursuant to Section 6-3 of the
Code;
3. Wildlife 1041 Environmental Hazard Review pursuant to
Section 5-400 of the Code;
APPLICANT: Elmer D. Holmes.
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Fred Peirce, Austin & Peirce.
DESCRIPTION OF TEiE PROPOSALd The applicant is requesting a 50%
density lot split to create two single family `residential lots from
a fathering 54.8 acre parcel. The property is presently unimproved
except for some irrigation ditches, and has-been used recently and
historically as irrigated pasture. A copy of the application is
included with this memorandum.
LOCATION: The property is located immediately adjacent to the
Orchard Estates Subdivision. The ..parcel is located in
Township 8 South, Section 14, and Range 87 West of the 6th PM.
ZONING: The approximately 54.8 acre parcel is located within
the AF-1 zone district.
ACCESS: The property is accessed via the Orchard Estates
Subdivision interior road system, which is directly accessed
from Emma Road.
WATER: The applicant indicated he will either construct
individual wells on the parcels or' connect to the Orchard
Estates Subdivision water system.
SEWER: The applicant is proposing on-site septic systems for
sewage disposal.
r.~
REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS:
1. County Engineer- In a letter dated January 22, 1992, Bud Eylar
submitted the following comments:
"2 have reviewed the application and have the following
comments: 1) Since the site in question is so flat a drainage
plan needs to be .provided so that we can determine where the
flows will qo and that positive drainage will be provided away
from the building sites. 2) Drives shall meet all county
standards and shall be built up to a sufficient elevation so
that flooding does not. occur..."
2. Environmental Health Department- In a memo dated January 21,
1992 (Attachment 1) the Environmental_Health bepartment submitted
comments discussing sewage treatment and collection and adequate
provisions for water needs.' These comments are incorporated into
the General Submission section of this memorandum.
3. Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District- In a memo dated
January 20, 1992, (Attachment 2) Chief Thieving submitted comments
on the required water storage capacity and road'desgn standards
for fire protection purposes. The comments are discussed in more
detail ih the General Submission section of this memorandum.
4. Orchard Estates Homeowner's Association- In a letter dated
January 14, 1992, (Attachment 3) the following summarized comments
were submitted by Don Westerlind, President of the association.:
We would like to see that further development of this parcel
be restricted by a plat-note, deed or some other permanent
method.
There is some concern as to the. proximity of-the building
envelopes to the existing homes in Orchard Estates. For
several reasons, including View planes, privacy, odors and
insects, we feel that all structures and paddock areas be
located to the southerly portions of the parcels per the
attached map.
5. County Attorney- The Assistant County Attorney has reviewed
the case and is satisfied that the parcel was created legally, that
no merger has occurred and that the proposed development has shown
legal access.
6. Zoninq- In a memo from Joanna Schaffner dated December 24,
1991 the following summarized comments: were submitted:
No development is permitted on utility or irrigation
easements.
7. Division of Water Resources- In a letter dated January 7,
1992, (Attachment 4) John Schurer submitted comments addressing the
proposed water supply methods and the requirements to obtain legal
n
water for the new parcels. The comments are incorporated in to the
General Submission section of this memorandum.
8. Division of Wildlife- In a phone conversation on January 29,
1992 with Randy Cote, he confirmed that this parcel is not located
within any mapped or known wildlife habitat areas and that no
wildlife conditions are recommended.
PLANNING OFFICE COMMENTS:
The applicant is requesting a 50~ Density Reduction Lot Split, 1041
Hazard review, and General Submission review approvals. Each lot
of the two lot subdivision is proposed to have a single family
dwelling and customary accessory buildings. The proposed lot sizes
are to be 26 and 28 acres. The site is free from mapped or known
1041 Hazard Areas.
Applicable review requirements are discussed below.
SECTION 4-6 DENSITY_.REDUCTION LOT SPLIT
The division of a parcel of land into two single family lots, where
both parcels are restricted by covenant against further development
and the subdivision will result in not more than 5O percent of the
density permitted under current underlying zoning, may be permitted
provided the following criteria are met:
(i) The proposed lots created shall meet the following
definition of a single family lots
A single-family lot is a lot which may contain no more than
one principal dwelling unit. This lot may .also contain an
approved and legalized accessory dwelling unit which is deed-
restricted `with regard to `occupancy by' employees" bf the
community, as defined by the guidelines of the`ASpen/Ptkin
Housing Authority, and provided that said accessory unit shall
not count as a unit of density for'the purposes 'of the density
calculation herein.
(ii) The original parcel must either already contain one (1)
legal single-family house, or qualify fora growth management
exemption for a single-family house under the provisions of
Section 5-510.2; and
(iii) No illegal dwelling units shall exist on the property,
or illegal dwelling units shall `be legalized pursuant to
Section 3-8.13 (d) of the Land Use Code or otherwise. Any
dwelling unit unable to meet the criteria of Section 3-
8.13(d) or qualify for approval under these regulations, shall
be demolished as a condition: of approval and prior to issuance
of any building permit for a residence on a lot created. by the
lot split regulations.
Response: The applicant has indicated that he will place a
covenant on the approximately 54 acre property prohibiting further
development beyond the pehding request for approval for two single
family residential parcels. It is recommended that the covenant
and plat note prohibiting further development be in place prior to
issuance of a building permit on either lot.
The parcel is zoned AF-1 and contains approximately 54 acres. The
Land Use Code requires a total of 40 acres (net) in the AF-1 to
meet the 50o reduction standards for the lot split subdivision
exemption.
The density allowed on the property-is 5.4 DU's.
54.8 AC @ 1 DU/10 A = 5.4 DU's permitted
The applicant meets the requirement. for the 50s density reduction
lot split.
There are no illegal dwelling units in existence on the site.
Therefore, the request for a lot split meets the criteria of
Section 4-6.2 of the Code.
SECTION 5-400 ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD REVIEW
The site was located in mapped mule deer and elk winter range on
the 1987 DOW maps.' Newly adopted DOW maps have excluded this area
from any wildlife habitat, and this has been verified by Randy Cote
of the Division of Wildlife. These maps have `been adopted by the
BOCC. Mr. Cote did not feel any wildlife mitigation conditions are
necessary for the approval of this lot split.
SECTION 6-3 GENERAL SUBMISSION
In addition to the specific lot split criteria, the proposed
subdivision must comply with the policies and regulations of the
Code. Compliance with these. Sections is summarized below.
Section 2-i Conformance with. the Aspen Area General Plan-
The parcel is located within the Down Valley Comprehensive
Planning area and is identified as an area for Rural
Residential development.
Sections 2-4 and 5-100 Soil, Surficial Geologic
Characteristics and Radiation- The applicant has not
submitted any soils report indicating'' the stability or
suitability of the soils to accommodate the proposed
development. The applicant has indicated that they will
submit the appropriate foundation design documents prior to
building permit submission to meet the County's requirements.
There is some concern raised by the County Engineer that high
groundwater in this area could impact `foundation design.
sections 2-9 and 5-202 Road Design and Construction- .The
~'~"',~
applicant proposes to access each of the lots from'Apple
Drive, an Orchard Estates 'Subdivision Road. The private
driveway alignment has not yet been established, but will be
required to meet County Driveway standards.
Section 2-5 and 5-101 Drainage- The County Engineer has
requested that a drainage plan be submitted for the parcels
to determine how drainage flows will be altered, and that
positive drainage be designed around the building sites.
Staff recommends that this be made a condition of approval
prior to submission of a building permit on each parcel.
Sections 2-6 and 5-205 Adequate Provisions for Water. Needs-
The applicant has indicated a Yight to serve the project with
water provided by the Orchard Estates Homeowners Association.
There is also an indication that the parcels may develop a
water- supply with exempt .wells. There is not enough
information provided to evaluate the success of either method
of water supply. The Division of Water Resources (Attachment
4) has identified the options and requirements for the
applicant to obtain legal domestic water rights for the
proposed lot split. Staff recommends that these options be
reviewed by the applicant prior to submission of
Detailed/Final Plat review, as DWR discusses methods that are
available only prior to the lots being split.
Sections 2-7 and 5-200 Sewage"Treatment and Collection- The
applicant is proposing to construct on-site engineered systems
that meet the local Environmental Health regulations on each
parcel. The Environmental Health"Department is requesting a
site specific evaluation of the soil type and the soil
percolation rate to determine the final design of the sewage
disposal system, prior to building permit issuance on each
parcel. Moreover, as' a normal part of the on-site sewage
disposal system permit, a condition will be imposed which
requires that irrigation water be diverted from the areas in
which the sewage disposal systems are installed.
Sections 2-16 and 5-105 Scenic Quality- The proposed lot
split is located. between the Orchard Estates and the Double
K Subdivision off Emma Road. Orchard Estates is developed as
a 22 lot subdivision of one acre lots, with an approximately
4 acre open space parcel. Double K Subdivision is developed
as a 19 lot subdivision of two acre lots. The new parcels are
set back from Emma 'Road so development cannot occur
immediately adjacent to the roadside. One residence (with or
without a caretakerjemployee dwelling unit) on each of these
parcels will be significantly less dense than the°existing
development patterns in the area.
Sections 2-13 and 5-104 Compatibility with Agricultural Lands
and operations- The proposed lot split will preserve the
remainder of the parcel for future agricultural purposes.
Staff has concern that the site plan illustrates the 'proposed
building envelopes as containing the entire property,
excluding the setback areas. To be consistent with Policy 2-
13, preservation of at least 90$ of the acreage available for
irrigated lands is required. Staff believes that the maximum
sized building envelope and driveway disturbance should not
exceed 10 percent of the lot size. Therefore, Lot A should
be restricted to a total of 2.65 acres of development, and Lot
B should be restricted to a total of 2:84 acres of
development.
Sections 2-22 and 5-107 Water Resources Impacts- Due to the
comments submitted by the County Engineer and the
Environmental Health Department, there is concern by staff
that this policy of the County needs to be further addressed
by the applicant. Staff recommends that it be completed prior
to submission for Detailed/Final Plat review.
PUBLIC COMMENT
The Planning Office has received public comments from some of the
neighboring property owners within the Double K Subdivision. These
concerns primarily have to do with the undergrounding of utility
lines, the proposed water supply and whether there is adequate
water to service the two proposed parcels. There is concern in the
Double K Subdivision that additional wells in this area will
negatively impact. the Double K's ability to obtain water from their
wells. Staff has requested that the provision of water needs be
further addressed at betailed/Final plat submission, so that these
issues can be resolved.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION'
The Planning Commission heard the applicant's request on February
4, 1992 and recommends approval of the lot split. A copy of the
Planning Commission's resolution is attached to this memo.
SUMMARY
This memorandum reviews the applicant's request for a Density
Reduction Lot Split, 1041 Hazard and General Submission review.
In general, the application appears to be consistent with the
requirements of the Land Use Code. Two outstanding concerns of the
Planning Office include: 1) the size of the proposed building
envelopes, and 2j the proposed provision of domestic water needs.
Staff believes that the building envelope size recommendations made
under General Submission Section 2-13 and 5-104 be adhered to by
the applicant. This recommendation was upheld by the Planning and
Zoning Commission. The exact location of the building envelopes
and driveways may be identified on the plat prior to Detailed/Final
plat, given that the entire parcel is free from 1041 Hazard areas.
Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that a note
be placed on the plat that restricts the size,; of the disturbed area
E--~ ~ ;. . , ~, , „ i-~
w ~ ~
on Parcel A to be limited to 2..65 acres and Parcel B to be 2.84
acres. The Orchard Estates Homeowner's Association has recommended
that all structures and paddock areas be located on the southern
portion of the property.
The concern of the Double K Subdivision, Environmental Health
Department and the Division of Water Resources over the provision
of adequate domestic water shall be resolved by the applicant prior
to submission of Detailed/Final plat review.
Other than these issues, the application for a 50% Density
Reduction Lot Split, 1041 Hazard Review and General Submission meet
the requirements of the Land Use Code, if the following conditions
are adhered to by the applicant.
The applicant will need to address the Park Dedication requirements
of Section 5-501.11 of the Code at Detailed/Final Plat submission.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Office and the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommend approval of the applicant's request subject to the
following conditions:
1. The applicant shall by covenant restrict the subdivision
against further development or subdivision, beyond that of two
single family residence, two employee dwelling units and
customary accessory structures. Said restriction shall be
noted in the subdivision covenants and on the Final Plat.
Said restriction shall be recorded prior to issuance of any
building permits.
2. Sewage disposal systems for Parcels A and B shall be reviewed
and approved by the Environmental Health Department prior to
issuance of a building permit on each parcel.
3. At Final Plat, the applicant shall provide "will serve"
letters from utility entities providing service to the site.
4. All utility extensions shall be located underground within
access driveways or utility easements.
5. All residential accessory structures and development shall be
located within the building envelopes. Prior to issuance of
a building permit on either parcel, the Plat shall be amended
to show a building envelope and driveway not to exceed 2.65
acres on Parcel A and 2.84 acres on Parcel B. The building
envelopes may be placed at the discretion of the applicant on
each respective parcel subject to required setbacks, as the
entire property is free from 1041 hazards. Hence, any request
for a plat amendment to place the building envelopes on the
plat shall be permitted via an administrative approval.
Agricultural structures are permitted outside of the
designated building envelopes, but must be located no closer
than 100 feet from the southern Orchard Estates Subdivision
lot lines (Lots 19-22), if they contain animals. Agricultural
structures which do not contain animals are permitted anywhere
on the property.
6. A Final Plat shall be submitted which meets the approval of
the Planning Office, County Engineer and County Attorney,
prior to issuance of a building permit on either parcel.
7. A site specific foundation, grading, drainage and soils
engineering report shall be certified by an professional
engineer and submitted to the County Engineer to insure proper
foundation design, prior. to issuance of a building permit.
8. At Final Plat, the applicant shall submit covenants and
subdivision improvements agreement which shall include costs
for the septic system, water system and road system.
9. The following 1041 Hazard Review Warning and Disclaimer shall
be placed on the Plat:
"The provisions of these regulations do not in any way assure
or imply that areas outside of designated hazards will be free
from hazards, or that approved mitigation measures will
guarantee the safety of any property."
10. A driveway plan shall be submitted by the applicant and be
approved by the County Engineer prior to issuance of any
building permits. The County Engineer shall consult the fire
marshall on the plan.
11. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant
shall provide a water storage tank of not less than 2,000
gallons with a Fire Department connection accessible by
roadway and near the. residence on each parcel.
12. The concern of the Environmental Health Department and the
Division of Water Resources over the provision of adequate
domestic water shall be resolved by the applicant, prior to
submission of Detailed/Final plat review.
13. All material representations made by the Applicant in the
application and public meetings shall be adhered to and
considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended
by other conditions.
14. The applicant shall address the Park Dedication requirements
in Section 5-501.11 of the Code at Detailed/Final Plat
submission.
List of Attachments
1 - Environmental Health. Department referral letter. dated
January 21, 1992.
2 - Basalt & Rural Fire„Protection District referral letter
dated January 2b, 1992.
3 - Orchard Estates Homeowner's Association referral letter
dated January 14, 1992.
4 - Division of Water Resources referral letter dated January
7, 1992.
bocc.lotsplit.holmes
EXHIBIT A Pre. Application. Conference Summary
-- EXHIBIT B Warranty Deed,- Daly Construction to
Elmer D. Holmes (471/122)
EXHIBIT C Letter from. Applicant authorizing
Austin & Peirce to act as his
attorneys and agents with respect
to this application
EXHIBIT D List of Adjacent Property Owners
with Certifcation_from Pitkin County
Title, Inc.
EXHIBIT E Vicinity Map
EXHIBIT F Title Chains for Adjacent Properties
with copies of Deeds attached ,
prepared. by Pitkin_County Title, Inc..
EXHIBIT G Copy of Plat of Orchard Estates,
`
UniteOne with Road Dedication Zanguage
EXHIBIT H Warranty Deed - Arnold to Daly Construction
(249/294)
EXHIBIT I Holmes Lot_Split Plat
EXHIBIT J Well Agreement and Covenant ,.(442/724)
2 c:\wesi\aox~s\~x.asx
v ;
~ :.. I
AUSTIN & PEIItCE
Attorneys At Law ',
600 East Hopkins Avenue
Suite 205
Aspen, Colorado 81611
TelepAone (303) 925-2600
Ronald D. Austin FAX (303) 925-477Ai
}Yeda~kQ F. Feira January 9, 1992
R6oddn J. Buzil
HAND DELIVERED.,
Ms. Ellen Sassano
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Application For Density Reduction Lot. Split
and 1041 Review of`the Eolmes Lot Split
Dear Ellen:.
In res on
lease cons ase to Debbie Skehan's letiter of December 6, 1991,
er this ,letter an addition to the referenced
application, addressing the concerns raised liy`yoii throiig~i Debbie:
A. IRRIGATION
it is the ..applicant's intent.. to _convey the water rights
associated with the_ irrigation of each ,lot to their respective'..
purchasers, for the purpose of continued irrigation, should the new',
owners so desire. .The ditch that dels.vers water to Lot B crosses
Lot Aand the. plat reflect~an~easement"~there`~or ori'~ot"A~"~HH~ence"~
water will be available to each lot in the existing ditch delivery
system, which availability will not be affected by the proposed lot'
split.
B. VISUAL IMPACTS
As stated in the application in this matter, *he groposed lot
split will have minimal visual impact. Since the proposal is to
split a lot currently containing the right to build one single-'
family residence, the net result of this proposal would be to allow
the construction of one additional single-family residence on this;
58 acre parcel. In addition, the subject property is bordered on',
three sides. by the Orchard Estates Subdivision and, in fact, was'.
originally proposed as Phase II of the Orchard Estates Subdivision.
Likewise, the Double R Ranch Subdivision borders ,the property on
the east.. Considering the amount of residential development,
already existing in the area, the addition of two new single-family
houses, adjacent to both subdivisions, would not have a noticeable',
visual impact. In addition, the site is flat and located further
from Emma Road than either of the referenced subdiv>.sions and is
not skylined in any manner. In fact, directly to the south of tlie~,
AUSTIN & PEIRCE
Attorneys At Iaw ~,
Ms. Ellen Sassano
January 9, 1992.
Page 2
property, opposite the Emma Road, is a large ridge that will have
the further effect of diminishing the visual impact of this
proposed development. It 'will be considerably less visible from
the Emma Road. than the, two .referenced subdivisions i
If you have any further questions regarding this application
or anything contained in this letter, please do not hestate_to
give me a call.
Very truly yours,
AUSTIN & P
,.
BYs _
ederick F. Peirce
FFP/ls
cc: Mr. Elmer D. Holmes
~.
__
--- J ~~;
AusTIN, PEII2CE & SMTTx ~ ~ f 7 1992
Attorneys At Law '.
600 East Hopkins Avenue i
. ~ ,...,.
Suite 205
rsm,>va n. Au:n~ Aspen, Colorado 81611 Taupi;~ ~303> 9zs-zcoo '
Frederick P. Peirce FAX (303) 9253'720
Thomas Femm~ Smith
Rhonaa i. aaza March 13 , 19 9 2 '
Ms. Mary Lackner
Pitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Coloratio 81611
RE: Holmes Lot .Split
Dear Mary:
This letter is in response to the water supply comments '
contained in the January 21, 1992 memorandum from the Environmental,.,
Health Department and the letter of Mr. John Schurer dated January
7, 1992. Mr. Schurer's letter states that the Division of`F7ater
Resources has no objection to .the above referenced lots being
serviced by the Orchard Estates Subdivision well provided"th`atyan
..engineer certifies that the well produces a minimum of 9,900
gallons per day. I enclosing a certification from Enartech, Inc.
that the Orchard Estates Subdivision well has a capacity of 29,000
gallons per day and is therefore sufficient to service the
requirements of both the subdivision and the two lots in the Holmes
Lot Split. A copy of the results of the 24-hour pump test is also
enclosed which forms the basis for: the certification from Enartech,
Inc.
The Well_Agreement and Covenant between Orchard Estates Homes
Association and Daly Construction, Inc. covers the 'information
required by Section 5-205.2 of_the Pitkin County Code. I spoke
with Bob Nelson of the Environmental Health Department and he
believes that the Well Agreement"Vis~sufficient for a letter of
intent from the Homes Association.
Very truly yours,
AUSTIN, PEIRCE &"SMITH
By:~~ ~
Rhonda J.
RJB/hs
Enclosures
cc w/enc.: Mr. Elmer D. Holmes
Mr. Bob Nelson
vk.. , ~ s .~ ... ...., ...a,n» .x mwF» s»....,.w
ENARTECHInc. Consulting Engineers and Hydrologists
March 10, 1992
Ms. Rhonda Bazil ~~
Austin ,Pierce & Smith /®®A®~\
600 E. Hopkins Ave., Suite #205 ~®
Aspen, CO 81611 _
RE: Elmer D. Holmes Lot Split
Dear Rhonda,
This letter is to certify that the existing well that serves as the source. of water supply
for the Orchard Estates Subdivision has a„sufOcient capacity and quantity (yield) to
serve the needs of the residents of Orchazd Estates Unit One in addition to the two
proposed lots associated with ,the Elmer D Holmes Lot Split. This' conclusion is
based upon the results of a 24-hour well test performed by Aqua-Tec Systems, Inc.;
a copy of the well test results are enclosed. The well has a capacity of approximately
20 gallons per minute (29,000 gallons per day).
Sincerely,
ENARTECH, INC.
p
Peter Belau, P.E.
PB/des
Enclosure
P339-01 (P339_O1A)92
302 Eighth Street, Suite 325 P,O. Drawer i60 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 87602 (303J 945-2236
Pr-ttac h wt en's.. ,~-.
ASPEN*PITKIN
ENVI OIVMENTAL ~(EALTH DEPAR i MENT
.MEMORANDUM
To: Mary Lackner, Planning Office
From: Environmental Health Department
Date: January 21, 1992
Re: Holmes Density Reduction Lot__Split General Subr fission and
1041 Hazard Review
Parcel ID# 2465-141-00=004
_~. .. ,. v ~..,,,... ~ ...~ ~~ ..,., x,, sa ~. ~ a _„ ~. .~.~
--- _-
--- -=_== =_°_ -___ M
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 aomm`ents.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION Sections 2 7 and 5 200
,. r r.. ~ .r~~x~~^ o-*,.-,., ~ .ti , . q w. ~e
The applicant proposes to use individual, on-site systems for
wastewater disposal for each of the residences Our evaluation of
.,.,.
the parcel layout for septic locations and the possible adjacent
wells is based on the information provided in the Soil Conservation
Maps. The considerations for the placement of .the sewage disposal
systems on the property have included the provisions to meet the
setback requirements from the irrigation ditches that traverse the
property.
There are some design considerations for the. septic systems which
are based on soil types:' Lots are, located in„soil„type Xi1C and
is described as a well drained gravelly loam over sands and gravel.
The limiting factors on the installation of on-site sewage disposal
_ _ . w_. . ,_w_ ,4.,.
systems. for these„ proposed residences are the possible rapid
permeability, the large percentage of coarse .fragments, and the
potential for seasonally high ground water.
limitations noted above prey
septic system, it is still
engineer will meet County
consulting engineer designs
which can be utilized if nee
site limitations. Most of
within the adjacent Orchard
sewage disposal systems cony
1i'~S.ixrr~ia.v~,~uu~.iw+.aay._,Yc - .-
Ige,d~sposaL,,~,~systejns If any of the
dude the construction of a standard
likely that a system designed. by an
requirements. The most likely of
.would be _a Wisconsin Mound ,system,
essary, to overcome specific adverse',
w..«..,.
the on site sewage disposal systems
w... .
Estates Subdivision have„.conventional ,
As a normal part of the on-site sewage disposal system permit the ,
condition will be .imposed which requires the irrigation water be ~"a
diverted from the areas in which the sewage disposal systems are
installed.
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/920-6070
,.
The .applicant has indicate
provided by the Orchard Es
also an indication that the
'~ exempt wells. _`THe'r'e""is nod
the success of either met]
The Orchard, Estates system
23 lot subdivision. fihei
feet is in uses. Ws and
;system includes a 10,000 g
(two 5,000gallon iiiidergri
of these cisterns ensures,
household usage. The"chE
and storage capacity meet..
':water supply system fail
°storage capacity and..thE
difficult to evaluate thi
the system, not,knowng
subdivision water distrik
~'failedto provide a'lette
''~ the Orchard Estates, Homeo~
in Section 205`:2"of the 7
While iae have no' informat
fails to provide" the'"a
~' ~` "aeologist conclusions `'tkf
The _„
mand'i
~~' ` carbi
^~ "cjrou
nra ,,.~
O 1.i1C VVaa..l.ui j ,
.niori from"a '
lls are possb_'
~ar`ed„ to provi~
F..rv.
rs such as h
""~ in ~ heavy cc
s ' area . :°'~
lif
on_
find require
cation also.
groundwater
property.
'nt of'non-
end calcium
ins ' in the
.•_r' - - - .. .
s to adequately furnish water to the
a two wells, the deeper one at 125 ,a
nd~ 'ghat the 'drinking water supply
,storage capacity for the residences 9
steel storage tanks). The provision
rate°supples during periods of peak S
L and bacteriological''water'quality
•ado State'Regulations. However, the
feet current Pitkin County Codes for
tera 'for fire protection, It is
~uu..... ~__' i ~owrv ~..
fight to serve the project with"water
> Homeowners Association. There is_~
~els'may develop a water supply with
igh information provided to evaluate
f aYater supply.
well pumping rates or the
xtx.on lines. .Further, the'
w._~.~ _.. ~.
r of intent to service the
news Association, as define:
~~st.~
itkin 'County" Code.
t.~•. __.._____
by the proposed dev
nformation as a con
~-.
',"p~,'„
----
I
"I
I
~{ 3tac,~-+HU1~, 2
-,
~~ ~..
JAN ?_ 21992
BASALT AND RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT i
MEMO
DATE: January 20,-1992
70= Ellen Sassano, Planning Director
FROM: Ronald W. Thiering, Fire Chief
SUBJECT= Parcel ID #2465-141-00-004, Holmes Density Reduction,
.Lot Split
..., _~._. .. .. .. ... ... ..A~ .. .A.„+~
A review of the above .Parcel indicates the need or consideration
of the following item(s):
A. The placement of a water storage tank of not less than
2,000 gallons with a Fire Department connection acces-
Bible by road way and near the,. structure to be occu- ~
pied. ~~~ ,
B. Roadway widths shall conform to Pitkin County standards ~,(
other then they shall be not less than twenty (20 }. foot ~~~}"""
in width.
C. Curve radius shall be no less than eighteen (18) foot.
D. Although not Yequired, it is strongly recommended that
_ a Residential Automatic Sprinkler System be installed
in all residences and when practical, other buildings
on the same Property.
E. Roof materials of all structures shall be of a non-
combustible material approved by the Underwriters`
Laboratory.
y N D
m9
~yU
Foy
m~A
_n
~Ap
y
•Oym
;mW
A-
(N 89°
N89
°= me
Da
O ~° r
m
2y
m .°
2 ym
O m A
C
A
O m0 m
^! z _
O < ~ "!
m r O
{ o z
y m°
. ~
~
yND
mOV
,. .:
r
T
D p
mrm
im
4 ri '..
D
e
pp9
?m~
Wy
V• y
~~q
yp
OZ
ZO
_O
(!319.80'1 -°Z
'
~ Ih 39°38~<0"E)(3 T5:25)
_~_ __.. _ I3!B.I6
~,
_ N89°38'E 3T S.o t'
i
°
m
°'
1
!'
~i
~
1;
t
i
2
N
o_
p
z
O F~
C
-
m c
2 I
G m
m
me
\
Ny
mr
3y
i <
ym
a
~
-
j
y- O m
W o
m O
N p O
°°,
I L
c,
D
y
-~ I
O ~~
y 0 O_
a p
.T bb mp
...r-a ~. ~- u
N
p r r m
a p o _
r -1 m
p
D
m m z
m m
b
O
N 'y
_~_
O
COMMON CC7 FJR~E EN APEA w
. _.. u
- p d
~r F
y
r r r ~
O O O y N
y y y m
IV N G •n N
ymn ~ m p
my9 1 W P
_ m
mrs
2 ~
'
m
m :O /
y
N
f w m
p ~ r
mmD O
'WN y
N~ .-. D V
9my 2 O
iyp ~~ m
O r
.
n a a
az
p ma u
" EU • P
p
z
£ r
o
y
p
0
mm y a
as
„_ m
o <
m
(S B9°4 THIS"W)
EMMA
APPLE DRIVE
r r ~'
0 0 0
y y 4
m V m
ROAD
O
n
C Z
2 y
~ O
o rn
Z N
m y
N
r
I O N
D ~
m D.
D a
n ~
1-----r-~-- --A
If () ~
'~ r
y
:~~~/ b N
N ~~ { I
m ~I~ \_
W QOAD iD r
q r m n m° -
~~ p zz
y Way A Gm y ~oIA~n"~sP
m m m !n N m `n a
-N ONm ~. O N-
J//jO~Ny~m m
W
Na
NCO ~~ 11 '
ZR 9Y ~Y ~, l _'(
O
GOAD SO
a m OO•
a az-a '
u o-y-
f JmNr
~p y A
p ~
N BI° 58'µ.
623. 18
All structures and paddock
areas to be south of line..
A--- -A.
,. ,_, ,~z _._ ~ .,:_,..... ._ .. ..,I.. ,..,. v.aw
~,„, '^,
- - Ronald D. Austin
Fn;derickF. Peirce
Thomas Fenton Smith
Rhonda J. Bazil
~°' ~~ .
AUSTIN, PEIRCE & SMITH , _ FEB 2 5 ~ i .
Attorneys At Law ~ i j
G00 East Hopkins Avenne €~ ~ `~~` ~3~1:~
Suite 205 ~ a_~_.e_.~ :tt
Aspen, Colorado 81611 --- Telephone (303) 925-icon ~
...... FAX (303) 925-4720 '
February 25, 1992
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Mary Lackner
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Application for Density Reduction, Lot Split and 1041 ',
Review of the Holmes ..Lot. Split
Dear Mary:
Thank you for allowing me to review the proposed draft of the
Resolution of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission for
the referenced application. Based .upon my review of the draft
Resolution, I have'the following comments/suggestonse
1. In the third line of the first numbered. paragraph at the ',
bottom of paged (the first condition) I think the word "residence"
should be changed to "residences".
2. In numbered paragraph 2 at the top of page 2 of the
Resolution (the second condition) I would like you to consider ',
inserting the word "each" in front of the word "Parcels" in the
first line of that paragraph; changing the word "Parcels" to
"parcel" and deleting "A and B". The modified line of that.....
paragraph would then read "Sewage disposal systems for eac'r. parcel
shall be". The reason for this request is to try to make it clear',..
that each lot is treated separately; that it will not be necessary
to design, review and approve a sewage disposal system for Lot B in,
order to construct a residence on Zot A.
3. I would like. you to consider rewriting numbered
paragraph 5 on page 2 of the Resolution (the fifth condition) as
follows:
All accessory structures and development
shall be located within the building envelopes. Prior to
issuancei-- of a building permit on either ~~ parcel,
the P1fI„r„~ha,11 be amended to show a building envelope,
~~e~cvayot to exceed 2.65 acres on Parcel A and
~~ I'~ Gnu/~s w~!~ ~-~P~~ ~ r!x2r ~a ~rrl mr~' pr ~-o ~~? .
'lf %.Fl? .GOhS~~Gza~ !r{r..r'.1~Z'~.~?~7aa,Pa:~ ... ~,
._-.. ~s uc.~tv,.... , -.~ , ~ . ~_ a An .~t. t p.xu-.a. .!~m. w.u' a ~r ~. {s ~<.«...rc~=~i`~G
.~
AUSTIN, PEIRCE & SMITH
Attorneys At Law
Ms. Mary Lackner
February 25, 1992
Page 2
2 84 acres on Parcel B £ yf ~~,~~rot+tl~L~y~ ~~r r~
amendment ~~`z=g t~~f ps~~ the building envelopes on Y ~,;.
the plat shall be ~s~7.~+i administrative..
approval, ~I3tae~.`;~'~.a~,~~~~~c~t~a~:, ea ,h
hn ~lSt ~`v~Crt9n
The purpose of these changesis~to try to make it clear that
the planning office has no discretion to deny a proposed building
envelope location; that the sole purpose of the amendment. is to
place the building envelopes on the plat.
,i
4. With respect to paragraph. number 8 at the bottom of
page 2 (the. eighth condition) I question whether it_is necessary to
include the septic system and road system in the Covenants and
Subdivision Improvements Agreement, since these will be the
obligations of the purchasers of the. parcels. it will not be Mr.
Holmes' obligation to develop a septic system and a driveway system
in connection with the development of each parcel. Rather, each
purchaser will do so when they apply for building permits.
5. Finally, with respect to paragraph 11, on page 3 of the
Resolution (the eleventh. condition) this is not stated as _a
_.~.
understandin utthat hearaara h 10 wasnntende' Also, it was my
q p g p d to deal with and
obviate the need for .inserting subparagraphs b and c of
paragraph 11. Hence, I would request that you"rewrite paragraph 11
to state that it shall be a condition of approval that .the plat
require placement of a water storage tank of not less than,2,000
gallons with a fire department connection accessible by roadway and
near the residence on each.. parcel, or that some other fire ',
protection mechanism acceptable to the Basalt Fire Chief be
implemented. Subparagraphs band c should be deleted.
After you have had a chance to review this letter, please feel.
free to give me a call with .any questions or comments. you may have
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to review this in advance and
hope that we can put together a finally acceptable resolution in ',
the near future.
Very truly yours,
AU§TIN, PEIRCE & SMITH
~~
By: ~'~ /~
Fr rick F. eirce
,%'~ ii
FFP/ls
cc: Mr. Elmer D. Holmes
(w/copy of draft Resolution)`
_ ...... ..:.. .. .~.'... v. .nu -, o -~ t. v-. v.:-Y~s Sn .)daaM wk.. pt fi. a.wxim~„~'$.
~-
,. - ~^, i
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
RE: Holmes Density Reduction Lot Split .and 1041 Hazard Review
DATE: February 4, 1992
FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner
,,
REQIIEST: The applicant is requesting approval of the following': "
L Fifty Percent Density Reduction_Lot_Split pursuant to
Section 4-6.2 of the Land Use Code;
2. General Submission Review pursuant to Section 6-3 of the
Code.
3. Wildlife 1041 Environmental Hazard Review pursuant to
._ . , ,
Section 5-400 of the Code;
APPLICANT: Elmer D. Holmes.
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVEe Fred Peirce, Austin & Peirce.
DESCRIPTZON_OF THE :PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting a 50%
~~~M.., ,~,_
density lot split to create two single family residential lots from
a fathering 54.8 acre parcel. The property is presently unimproved
except for some irrigation ditches, and has. been used. recently and
historically as irrigated pasture. A copy of the application is
included with this memorandum.
LOCATION: The property is located immediately adjacent to the,
Orchard Estates Subdivision. The_ parcel is located in
Township 8 South, Section 14, and Range 87 West of the 6th PM.'
ZONING: The approximately 54.8 acre parcel is located within,
the AF-1 zone district.
ACCESS: The property is accessed via the Orchard Estates
Subdivision .interior road, ystem, which is directly accessed
from Emma Road..
WATER: The applicant. has mentioned either constructing
individual wells on the parcels or connecting to the Orcfia`rd;
Estates Subdivision water system.
SEWER: The applicant is proposing on-site septic systems for'..
sewage disposal.
REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS:
1. County Engineer- In a letter dated January 22,.1992,, Bud Eylar
> ~~
J `.
submitted the following comments:.
"I have reviewed the application and have the following
comments: 1) Since the site in question is so flat a drainage
plan needs to be provided so _that we can determine where the.
flows will go and that positive drainage will be provided away
from the building sites. 2) Drives. shall meet all county
standards and shall be built up to a sufficient elevation so
that flooding does not occur:"
2. Environmental Health Department- In a memo dated January 21,
_ __~;
1992 (Attachment 1) the Environmental Health Department submitted
comments discussing sewage treatment and collection and adequate
provisions for water needs. These comments are incorporated into
the General Submission section of this memorandum.
„.
~..
3. Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District- In a memo dated
January 20, 1992, (Attachment '2) Chief Thierinq submitted the
comments on the required water storage capacity and road design
standards for fire protection purposes. The comments are discussed
in more detail in the General Submission section of this
memorandum.
4. Orchard Estates Homeowner's Association- In a letter dated.
.. ~ _ . ..
January 14, 1992, (Attachment 3) the following summarized comments
were submitted. by Don Westerlind, President. of the. association:
We would like to see that further development of this parcel ',
be restricted by a plat note, deed or some other, permanent
method.
There is some concern as to the proximity of the building
envelopes to the existing homes`n Orchard Estates. For
several reasons, including view planes, privacy, odors and',
insects, we feel that all structures and paddock areas be,
located to the. southerly portions of the parcels per the'.
attached map.
the case nandpist satisfied thatsthe parcel vitas created legally,1that
no merger has occurred andthat the proposed development has shown'.
legal access.
6. Zoning- In a memo from Joanna Schaffner dated. December 24,
1991 the following summarized comments were submitted:
No development is permitted on utility or irrigation'.
easements.
7. Division of Water Resources- In a letter dated January 7,
proposed wat resupply methods rand the requirements to~obtainnlegal'
2
. ' .,., ,. ~, M.., ..c ,... ,.mss.-, s. a..rw'. a .:.~...-.. ....., rck a.~..vs.u.,nus,~x.~my:,"sx.,w.,~~-. i..,,<%..k:+~C.d"vw"
water for the new parcels."The comments are incorporated in to the ',
General Submission section of this memorandum.
8. Division of Wildlife-, In a phone conversation on January 29,
1992 with Randy Cote, he confirmed that this parcel is not located
within any mapped or known wildlife ,habitat areas. and that no
wildlife conditions are recommended.
PLANNING OFFICB COMMENTS:
The applicant is requesting a 50~ Density Reduction Lot Split, 1041 '
Hazard review, and General Submission review approvals. Each lot
of the two lot subdivision is proposed to have a single family and
customary accessory buildings. The proposed lot sizes are to be
26 and 28 acres. The site is free_from,mapped or known 1041 Hazard
Areas.
Applicable review requirements are discussed below..
SECTION 4-6 DENSITY REDUCTION LOT SPLIT
_. .,
The division of a parcel of land.. into two. single family lots, where
both parcels are restricted by covenant against further development
and the subdivision will result in not more than 50 percent of the
density permitted under current underlying zoning, may be permitted
provided the following criteria are. met:
(i) The proposed lots created shall .,meet .the following
_.
definition of a single family lot:
A single-family lot is a lot which may contain no mo=e than ',
one principal dwelling unit. This lot may also contain an ,
approved and legalized accessory dwelling unit which_is deed-
restricted with regard to occupancy by employees 'of the
community, as defined by the guidelines of the .Aspen/Pitkin
Housing Authority, and provided that said accessory unit shall
not count as a unit of density for the purposes of the density
calculation herein. '
(ii) The original parcel must either already contain one (1)
legal single-family house, or qualify fora growth management
exemption for a single-family house under the provisions of
Section 5-510.2; and
(iii) No illegal dwelling units shall exist on the property,
or illegal dwelling units shall be legalized pursuant to
Section 3-8.13 (d) of the Land Use Code or otherwise. Any '
dwelling unit unable to meet the. criteria of Section 3-
8.13(d) or qualify for approval under these regulations, shall
be demolished as a condition of approval and prior to issuance'
of any building permit for a'residence_on a lot created by the'.
lot split regulations.
3
.. _ .~_~. ~ r-: a. .~J Vra'. Z... Fk. r. .... .e-: ..rv 6.. i' ..u .,.+ m
y ~ ~ . ~,
Response: The applicant has indicated that he„will deed restrict
.>.. .
the approximately 54 acre. property prohibiting furiher development"
beyond the pending request for approval for. two single family
residential parcels. It is recommended that a deed restriction and.,,.
plat note prohibiting further development be in place prior to
issuance of a building permit on either lot.
The parcel is zoned AF-1 and contains approximately 54 acres. The
Land Use Code requires a total of 40 acres (net) in the AF-1 to
meet the 50~ reduction standards for the lot split subdivision
exemption.
The density allowed on the property is 5.4 DU's.
54.8 AC @ 1 DU/10 A = 5.4 DU's permitted
The applicant meets the requirement for the 50~ density reduction
lot split.
There are no illegal dwelling units in existence on the site. ',
Therefore, the. request for a lot split meets the criteria of
Section 4-6.2 of the Code.
SECTION 5-400 ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD REVIEW-
__ m.U.. .,,.. ,~ . i
The site was located in mapped mule deer and elk winter range on
the 1987 DOW maps. Newly adopted DOW maps have excluded this area
from any wildlife habitat, and this has been verified by Randy Cote
of the Division of Wildlife,. .These maps have been adopted by the
BOCC. Mr. Cote did not feelany~wTdlfe mitigation conditions. are
necessary for the approval_of this lot. split,
SECTION 6-3 GENERAL SUBMISSION
In addition to the .specific lot split criteria, the proposed'
subdivision must comply with the policies and regulations of .the ',.
Code. Compliance with these. Sections is summarized below.
Section 2-1 Conformance with the Aspen Area General Plan-
The parcel is located within the Down Valley Comprehensive
Planning area and is identified. as an area for Rural
Residential development.
Sections 2-4 and 5-100 Soil, Surfcial Geologic
suitabilitytn of s the soplsr tona ac ommodate lcthe b1prop sed
building perm tr submission toameet the Cou ty'sm requirements ',
4
There is some concern ,raised by the County Engineer that high
.groundwater in this area could impact foundation design.
Sections 2-9 and 5-202 Road. Design and Construction- The '
applicant proposes to` access each of the lots from Apple
Drive, an Orchard Estates .Subdivision Road. The private
driveway alignment has not yet been established, but will be
required to meet County Driveway Standards.
section 2-5 and. 5,-101 Drainage- The .County Engineer has
requested that. a drainage plan be submitted for the parcels
to determine how. drainage flows will be altered, and that
positive drainage be designed around .the building sites.
Staff recommends that this be made a condition of ..approval
e _, ..
prior to submission of a building permit on each parcel.
Sections 2-6 and 5-205 Adequate Provisions for Water Needs-
The applicant has indicated aright to serve the project with
water provided by the Orchard Estates Homeowners Association.
There is also an indication that the parcels may develop a
water supply with exempt wells.' There is not enough
information provided to evaluate the success of either method
of water supply. The Division of water Resources~(Attachmen~'~
4) has identified the options and requirements for the
applicant to obtain legal domestic water rights for the
proposed lot split. Staff. recommends that these options be
reviewed by the applicant prior to submission of ',
Detailed/Final Plat .review, as DWR discusses methods that are
available only rp for to the lots being split.
Sections 2-7 and 5-200 Sewage Treatment and Collection- The
applicant is proposing to construct on-site engineered"systems
that meet the local Environmental Health regulations on each
parcel.. .The Environmental Health Department is requesting a
site specific evaluation of the soil type and the soil,
percolation rate to determine the Final design of the sewage
disposal system, prior to building permt'issuance on each.
parcel Also, as a normal part of the on-site sewage
disposal system permit a condition will be imposed which,
requires the irrigation water be diverted from the areas in
which the sewage disposal systems are installed.
Sections 2-16 and 5-105 Scenic
split is located between the Orc
K Subdivision off Emma Road. Orc
a 22 lot subdivision of one acre
4 acre open space parcel. Doubly
as a 19 lot subdivision of two acs
set back from Emma Road so
immediately adjacent to the road
without a caretaker/employee dwe:
uality- The proposed lot
Ord Estates and the Double
.~.. ,:.
parcels will be significantly less
is The new parcels are
elbpri~ent ~"cannot occur'
,. ~ ,
One residence with or
unit) on each of these
tense than the. existing
5
I
development patterns in the area.
Sections 2-13 and 5-104 Compatibility with Agricultural Lands
and operations- The proposed lot split will preserve the
remainder of the parcel for future agricultural purposes.
Staff has concern that.. the site plan illustrates the proposed
building envelopes, as containing the entire property,
excluding the setback areas. To _be_consistent with this
County policy, which specifies a preservation of at least 90%
of the acreage available for irrigated lands, staff believes
that the maximum sized building envelope and driveway '
disturbance should not exceed 10 percent of the lot size.
Therefore, Lot A should be restricted to a total of 2.65 acres
of development, and Lot B should be restricted to a total of
2.84 acres of development.
Sections 2-22 and 5-107 Water Resources Impacts- Due to the
comments submitted by the County Engineer and the
Environmental Health Department, there is_ concern by staff
that this policy of the County needs to be further addressed
by the applicant. Staff recommends that it be completed prior
to submission for Detailed/Final Plat review.
PUBLIC COMMENT
The Planning Office has received public comments from some of the
neighboring property owners within the Double K Subdivision. These
concerns primarily have to do with the undergrounding of utility
lines, the proposed water supply and whether there is adequate
water to service the two proposed`parcals. There is concern in the
Double K Subdivision that additional wells in this area will
negatively impact the Double R's ability to obtain water from their
wells. Staff has requested that the provision of water needs be
further addressed at Detailed/Final plat submission, so that these
issues can be resolved.
SIIMMARY
This memorandum reviewed the applicant's request for a Density
Reduction Lot Split, 1041 Hazard and General Submission review.
In general, the application appears to be consistent with the
requirements of the Land Use Code.. Two outstanding concerns of the ',
Planning office include; 1) the size of the proposed building '
envelopes, and 2) the proposed provision of domestic water .needs.
Staff believes that the building envelope size recommendations made
under General Submission Section 2-13 and 5-104 be adhered to by
the applicant. Staff will .not require the exact location of the
building envelopes and driveways be identified on the plat prior
to Detailed/Final plat,"because the entire parcel is free from 1041
Hazard areas. Staff will request that a note be placed on the plat
6
i
: i
e
that restricts the size of the disturbed area on Parcel A to be
limited to 2.65 acresand Parcel~$'to,be"`2:84 acres.The Orchard..
Estates Homeowner's Association has recbmmerided that all structures ~
and paddock areas be ,located oa the 'southe`rn portion of the
property. This is an issue the Planning and Zoning Commission may
wish to discuss in further. detail.
The concern of the Double K Subdivision, Environmental Health
Department and the Division of Water Resources over the provision
of adequate domestic-water shall be resolved by the applicant prior
to submission of Detailed/Final plat review.
Other than these issues, the application for a 50~ Density
Reduction Lot Split, 1041 Hazard Review and General Submission meet
.the .requirements of the Land Use,Cgde, if the following conditions
are adhered to by the applicant.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Office and the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommend approval of the applicant's request subject to the
following conditions:
1. The .applicant shall ..deed restrict the subdivision against
further development or subdivision. Said restriction shall
be noted in the subdivision covenants and.. on the Final Plat.
Said deed restriction shall be in place prior to issuance of
any building..,permits....
2. Sewage disposal systems for Parcels A and B shall be reviewed
and approved by the Environmental Health .Department prior to
issuance of a building permit on each parcel.
3. At Final Plat, the applicant shall provide "will serve"
letters from utility entities. providing service to the site.
4. All utility extensions shall be located underground within'
access driveways or utility easements.
5. All accessory structures and development shall be located
within the building envelopes. Prior to issuance of a
building permit on either property, the Plat shall be amended
to show a building envelope and driveway not to exceed 2.65',
acres on Parcel A and 2.84 acres on Parcel B.
6. prlOr to n u nce of a Cb i ding permit ona ther parcelrneyf'
7. A site specific foundation, grading, drainage and soils.
engineering report shall be certified by an professional'.
engineer and submitted to the, County Engineer to insure proper'
7
_~_ ; ,.,.... e. _., ~.~ ~ . A .,. ..... M. ., ..>...,
~,
foundation design, prior to issuance of a building permit.
8. At Final Plat, the applicant shall submit covenants and
subdivision improvements agreement which shall include costs
for the septic system, water system and road system.
9. The following 1041 Hazard Review Warning and Disclaimer shall
be placed on the Plato
"The provisions of these regulations do not in any way assure
or imply that areas outside of designated hazards will be free
from hazards, or that approved mitigation measures will
guarantee the safety `of any property."
10. A driveway plan shall be submitted by the applicant and be
approved by the County Engineer prior to issuance of any
building permits.
11. Prior to submission of Detailed/Final plat, the applicant
shall address the outstanding issues relative to Water
Resources Impacts.
12. The concern of the Double K Subdivision, Environmental Health
Department and the Division of Water Resources over the
provision of adequate domestic water shall be resolved by the
applicant, prior to .submission of Detailed/Final plat review.
13. All material representations made by the Applicant in the
application and public meetings shall be adhered to and
considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended
by .other conditions.
List of Attachments
1 - Environmental Health Department referral letter dated
January 21, 1992.
2 - Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District referral letter
... _..
dated January 20, 1992.
3 - Orchard Estates Homeowner's Association referral letter
dated January 14, 1992.
4 - Division of Water Resources referral letter dated January
7, 1992.
pz.lotsplit.holmes
8
i
,: ~ ..~
AN APPLICATION FOR DENSITY REDUCTION
LOT SPLIT AND 1041 REVIEW OF
THE.HOLMES LOT SPLIT
Application Submitted To: Pitkin County Planning Office
Applicant: Elmer D. Holmes
Submitted By: Austin & Peirce, Applicant's Attorneys and Agents
Dated: November 19, 1991
INTRODUCTION
The following application requests general submission approval
for a density reduction lot split pursuant to §4-6.2 of .the Pitkin
County Land Use Code for the property described below. Since the
property qualities for a growth management exemption under
§5-510.2(c) of the Pitkin County Land Use Code, this lot split is
exempt from compliance with the County's growth management
procedures. Additional .review requirements include 1041 Wildlife
Hazard Review. (See Pre-application Conference Summary, Exhibit
A).
This application is submitted pursuant to §4-6.2 of the Land
Use Code by Elmer D. Holmes, the owner of the subject property (see
Warranty Deed recorded in Book 471 at Paqe 122, Exhibit B). The
applicant's representative with respect to this application is
Austin & Peirce (see Authorization to Represent, Exhibit C). A
list of adjacent property owners is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
THE PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT
As the vicinity map attached hereto as Exhibit E shows, the
property is located just South of the Emma road. The property is
U-shaped and wraps around the South, East and West boundaries of
the adjacent Orchard Estates Subdivision. The Double K Ranch.
Subdivision is adjacent to a portion of the Eastern boundary of they
subjec£ property. 'The remaining property surrounding the subject
property includes agricultural land .owned by the Fenders, the
Clarks and the Zordels. Attached hereto as Exhibit F are title.
chains to .the surrounding properties prepared by Pitkin County
Title Company. Vehicular access to the property is provided from',
the Emma Road and .Apple Drive, the latter being a road within thee,
Orchard Estates Subdivision that was dedicated as a public right-
of-way by the developer of Orchard Estates Subdivision (see copy of
Plat of Orchard Estates Subdivision with dedication language,
Exhibit G).
f~-a ~ i
The property was first conveyed to Daly Construction in 1970
as part of a larger parcel that also included Orchard Estates Unit
One. (See Warranty Deed, Exhibit G). The subject property
contains approximately 58 acres and is zoned AF-1. Since the
Orchard Estate Subdivision was legally created by Daly Construction
in 1972, the subject property has been in existence since then and
qualifies under §5-510.2(c) for a density reduction lot split under
§4-6.2. Likewise, the property exceeds the minimum lot area
requirement of the underlying zone district and, the applicant does
not own any of the adjoining property (see Exhibits D and E) so the
- Land Use Code merger doctrine does not apply. The property is
currently unimproved, relatively flat and has been used primarily
as irrigated pasture. Manmade improvements consist primarily of
irrigation ditches.
The following utilities are currently available to Orchard
Estates Subdivision and are, therefore, available to the subject
property: electricity, cable television and telephone.
PROPOSAL
The Applicant proposes to split the subject property into two
single-family lots, as defined in §4-6.2(B)(i), each of which will
contain between 26 and 28 acres and each of which will be
restricted by covenant against any further development. As the
Holmes Lot Split plat attached hereto is Exhibit I illustrates, Lot
B will be a rectangular parcel located to the East of Orchard
Estates and Lot A will be "L" shaped, bordering Orchard Estates on
the South and West. Proposed building envelopes and access to
those envelopes off Apple Drive are also shown on the proposed
plat.
Since the subject property consists of 58 acres and the
underlying zoning requires a minimum lot size. of 10 acres, the
theoretical maximum density is 5 lots, so the proposed result is
less than 50~ of the density permitted under current zoning.
Water service to the lots. will be provided by one of two
methods. The subject property may tap into the water system for
Orchard Estates Subdivision pursuant to the Well Agreement and
Covenant between Orchard Estates Homes Association and Daly
Construction, dated March 30, 1983 and recorded in Book 442 at Page
724 of the Pitkin County real property records. A copy of this
Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit. J. If the well that
supplies water to Orchard Estates does not produce sufficient water
rod"jGaa~. to supply the subject property too, then water will be provided by
exert wells"_far,._eaeh--lot... It is anticipated that sewer service
iw 11 be'Ty individual, engineered septic systems that will have to
be developed in accordance with building code regulations and
subject to the approval of the environmental health department.
The lots in the adjacent Orchard Estates Subdivision are all
serviced by individual septic systems, so it is anticipated that it
~„"" ii
will not be difficult to design and create systems for the subject ',
property. All available utilities will be extended to each lot
line through Apple Drive and will remain underground.
REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
This proposed lot split is subject to general submission and ',
1041 Wildlife Hazard review (see Exhibit A).
GENERAL SUBMISSION
Pursuant to §6-3 of the Land Use Code, the proposal must
comply with the policies (Article 2) and general regulations
(Article 5) of the code, to the extent they are applicable. Since
the proposal is for a density reduction lot split, any development
and density impact will be less. than .might otherwise be allowed
under the existing zoning. Hence, these code provisions will be
discussed in an abbreviated form below:.
1. §5-100 - Soil, Surficial Geologic Characteristics,
Radiation.
The construction of a residence in either of the proposed
building envelopes will be subject to building permit requirements,
including appropriate foundation for soil conditions, and the like.
Since the property is relatively flat and surrounded_by residential
development, it is unlikely there are any unusual soil or surficial
geologic characteristics. that need to be addressed in this
approval.
2. §5-101 - Drainage; §5-102 Erosion.
These provisions under the code address the need for drainage
plans for large scale projects, involving a substantial amount of
paving for roads and parking lots and various residential and other
structures. Again, given the nature of this application and the
relatively level site, these issues are better addressed at the
time a building permit is pulled.
3. §5-103 - Compatibility With Historic and Archaeologic '
Resources.
To the best of the applicant's knowledge, there are no,
historic or archaeologic resources affected by this application.
4. §5-104 - Compatibility with Agricultural Land and',
Operation.
The very nature. of this application, restricting the
development of 58 acres in the AE-1 Zone district to two lots helps'.
to preserve the agriculture nature of the property.
3
~. ~ .. , .. _, _ ~,v , ~ ~ ., ,~.. ~ ~.i~.~~~
... ~~~.~
5. §5-105 - Scenic Quality; §5-106 - Air Quality.
The proposal will have no significant impact on scenic or air
quality, considering its location, low density and the fact that it
is still subject to wood-burning regulations and the .like..
6. §5-107 - Water Resources Impact; §5-205 Adequate
Provision for Water Needs.
As discussed above, water is available to the subject property
by virtue of either the existing well sharing agreement or the
creation of new wells. The impact of this proposal on water
resources will be negligible.
7. §5-200 - Sewage Treatment and Collections.
Sewage will be handled by an on-site, engineered system, that
will have to meet environmental health and building code standards
when building permits are pulled. Solid trash removal is available
to the property.
8. §5-201 - Impacts on Road System; §5-202 - Road Design and
Construction.
Since the proposed density is so low, impacts on the existing
road system will be negligible and the only roads to be constructed
will be private driveways from Apple Drive to the actual location
of the residence. Actual driveway location will be determined when '
residences are located by owners of the lots.
9. §5-203 - Utilities.
As discussed, electricity, telephone and cable T.V. are
available to the property lot lines and any necessary easements
will be dedicated to allow access of utilities to the building
envelopes.
1041 WILDLIFE HAZARD REVIEW
The only 1041 hazard identified by the maps at the planning
office is wildlife. A telephone conservation with Randy Cote of
the Colorado Division of Wildlife regarding this project revealed,
that new maps currently being prepared may already have excluded'
this area from the wildlife hazard review area. This would make'
sense, since a good portion of the property is either sandwiched
between or adjacent to existing subdivisions. In any event, the
applicant will impose whatever mitigation mechanisms deemed.
necessary as a result of the Division of Wildlife's review.
While the applicant has attempted to address all relevant',
provisions of the Land-Use Code with respect to this application,
the applicant would. be pleased to provide such additional
4
;, ya...:a...~~sr~,~+s usw~,ro .,axn„a. w, .,.,.~ ~W ,. ..<.,ro. y c~ - ~.k MK v..sw: a~~ufv
information as may be required in the 6our~e°of the review of this
application.
SUMMARY
Pursuant to §4-6.2 of the Pitkin County Land Use .Code, the
applicant requests that you grant general submission approval of
the proposed Holmes Lot Split.
Dated: November 19, 1991
Respectfully submitted,
AUSTI & PEIRCE
C ~.
By:
Frederi c F. irce,
Attorney an ent for
Elmer D. Holmes
2 c:\wrsi\aot.t~s\ioal.arr
5
-r
c
GENERAL SUBMISSION - HOLMES LOT SPLIT
BXHIBIT LIST
EXHIBIT A Pre Application Conference Summary
EXHIBIT B Warranty Deed - Daly Construction to
Elmer D. Holmes (471/122)
EXHIBIT C Letter from Applicant authorizing
Austin & Peirce to act as his
attorneys and agents with respect '
to this application
EXHIBIT D List of Adjacent Property Owners
with Certification from Pitkin County
Title, Inc.
EXHIBIT E Vicinity Map
EXHIBIT F Title Chains for Adjacent Properties
with copies of Deeds attached
prepared by Pitkin County Title, Inc.
EXHIBIT G Copy of Plat of Orchard Estates
Unit One with Road Dedication Language
EXHIBIT H Warranty Deed - Arnold to Daly Construction
(249/294)
EXHIBIT 2 Holmes Lot Split Plat
EXHIBIT J Well Agreement and Covenant (442/724)
2 C:~WP5I~HOLMRS~EXHLLST
_ m
' „` ~
AUSTIN & pEIIiCE
Attorneys At Law
600 East Hopkins Avenue
Suite 205
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Tdep6one (30.1) 925-2600
Ronald D. Aastio FAX (309) 925-4720
F"de"`~F'pei'e` January 9, 1992
Rhonda J• Bazil
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Ellen Sassano
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office.
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 816.11.
RE: Application For Density Reduction Lot .Split
and 1041 Review of the Holmes Lot Split
Dear Ellen:
In response to Debbie Skehan's letter.. of December 6, 1991,
please consider ..this letter an addition to the referenced
application,addressing the concerns ra§ed~byyou t-`hrougki~I~ebYiie.`~
A. IRRIGATION
It is the applicant's intent to convey the water rights
associated with the irrigation of each lot to their respective
purchasers, for the purpose of continued.. irrigation, should the new
owners so desire. The ditch that delivers water to Lot B crosses
Lot A and the plat reflectsan easement therefor on Lot~A.~~"Hence;`
water will be available to each lot in the existing ditch delivery
system, which availability will not be affected by the proposed lot
split.
B. VISUAL IMPACTS.
As stated in the .application in this matter, the proposed lot.
split will have minimal visual impact. Since .the. proposal is to
split a lot currently containing. the right to build one single-
family residence, the net result of this proposal would be to allow,
the construction of one additional single-family residence on this,
58 acre parcel. In addition, the subject property is bordered on
three sides by the Orchard Estates Subdivision and, in fact, was
originally proposed as Phase II of the Orchard Estates Subdivision.,
Likewise, the Double. K Ranch Subdivision borders the property on
the east. Considering the amount of residential development'.
already existing in the area, the addition of two new single-family
houses, adjacent to both 'subdivisions, would not have a noticeable..
visual impact. In addition, the site is flat and located further,
from Emma Road than either of the referenced subdivisions and is
not skylined in any manner. In fact, directly to the south of the
AUSTIN & PEIRCE
Attorneys At Law
Ms. Ellen Sassano
January 9, 1992
Paqe 2
property, opposite the Emma Road, is a large ridge that will have
the further effect of diminishing the visual impact of this
proposed development. It will be considerably less visible from
the Emma Road than the two referenced subdivisions.
If you have any further questions regarding this application
or anything ccntained in .this letter, please do_not hesitate to
give me a call.
Very truly yours
AUSTIN & P E-
,,....-.
Byc
ederick F. Peirce
FFP/15
cc: Mr. Elmer D. Holmes
~~~~e~t 3
~ -
January 14, 1992
Ms. Ellen Sassano
Pitkin County Planning acid Zoning
(hand delivered)
Ms. Sassano,
With respect to .the application for the. Holmes Lot Split, the Orchard... Estates...
Homeowner's Association has the following concerrLS.
There is mention in the. proposal of further development being restricted by
covenant. We would like to see such restriction be in the form of a plat
note, by deed or some other more permanent method.
It is our understanding that access to Parcel A, will be from the west end of
Apple Drive and access to.Parcel B will proceed in an easterlyedirecton from
the 90 degree turn of Apple Drive. If this assumption is incorrect, or if the
land owner or planning staff. have .any problem with our other concerns as
stated above, please contact us at .your earliest .convenience....
only other concern is
The the proximity of the building envelopes to existing
.
homes in Orchard Estates. For several reasons, including view planes,
privacy, odors and insec ts, we 'fee1F t~Es`at' all _structures and paddock areas
should be located to the southerly Portions of the parcels per the attached
map.
Sincerely,
_' _
Don Westerlind, President
Orchard Estates Homeowner's Association
925-7007 (O), 927-3724 (H)
cc: Orchard .Estates homeowner's
.... uw~cl~ .« ,u,.._ . a~s€. ~ .. .....,~. ?,r..v-. A,,... „~,::...u~u~....~.s~-~v~v,~..~.lxxw~+;~~_a~r'~w.a:`
ROY ROMER
Governor
f~}}-at l~~.c~~
JERIS A. DANIELSON
State Engineer
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
1313 Sherman Street-Room 818
.Denver, Colorado 80203
(303) 866-3581
FAX (303]866-3589
January 7, 1992
Ms. Ellen Sassano, Planning Office
Pitkin County Planning Office
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
_.
Dear Ms. Sassano:
Re: Holmes Lot Split, 1041 Review
Sec. 14, T8S, R87W, 6th PM
W. Division 5, W. District 38
.. 'r. r ~ `a:; ;
.~~~ r ~. Int.,
~~`,~~ ~110~ ~~~~,
We have reviewed the above referenced proposal to split a 58 acre parcel into two lots. The
proposed water supply is to be from. the Orchard Estates Homes Association or on lot wells.
Although no information was provided by the applicant, it appears as though the Orchard Estates
alt mate spoin of diversionfor the Home Supply Ditch as decreed in Water Court Case number W-
1801.
The agreement between the Homes Association and Daly requires that prior to serving the
undeveloped property, a qualified engineer must evaluate the well and determine ,that it has
sufficient capacity to produce a minimum of 9,900 gallons per day. We have no objection to the
proposal with the Association as the water supplier contingent upon the applicant providing a copy
of the required engineer's report to the County prior to building permits being issued.
'"'",®
In regard to individual on lot wells as the water supply, this project is located adjacent to
Sopris Creek, a tributary of the Roaring Fork River, an overappropriated stream. In general new ~
well permits cannot be issued for lots of less than 35 acres, without a Water Court decreed plan for
augmentation. A domestic well permit for the 58 acre parcel will be available as the only well on
a parcel of 35 acres or more. The well permit must be obtained before the 58 acre parcel is spli~
Permit conditions will limit the rate of diversion to 15 gallons per minute and well use to'
fire protection, ordinary household purposes inside two single-family dwellings (if that use is
specified on the well permit application), the watering of domestic animals, and irrigation of up to
one acre of lawn and garden. If the applicant chooses to use a shared on lot well as the water
supply, then, in order to assure that a permanent water supply will be available on an equitable
basis to either lot, we recommend the following:
1. The well should be located on an outlot owned in common by all property owners
using the well. Access to the well and the right to establish and maintain a pipeline
should be provided by easements where necessary.
04~Cp~0
* ~*I
.K X876 ~
2. The well should be jointly owned by the lot owners.
I• . ~_,
~"
n e _:
r
'~,
Ms. Ellen Sassano
January 7, 1992
Page 2
3. Covenants and/or other mechanisms should establish,a lot owners association with
powers to make decisions concerning management. and operation of the well. A ~'
joint maintenance agreement is a required part of such an association.
If the above provisions are met, we can recommend approval of this proposal based on a
shared well.
As an alternative, after the property is split, the domestic permit can be surrendered and one
- *ihouse use well. permit can be obtained for each of the tv~o lots. 'The inhouse permits will limit
well use to household purposes inside one single family dwelling and the watering of domestic
animals only. No outside use for irrigation of lawn or garden will be permitted. Plat notes should
reflect these limitations on well use, if this alternative is selected. We have no objection to the
proposal based on individual inhouse use wells as the water supply.
If you have any questions please contact me.
Sincerely,
J~~ S~~ ~
>John Schurer, P.E.
Senior Water Resource Engineer
JS\holmes
cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer
Bruce DeBrine
Elmer D. Holmes
Joe Bergquist, Water Commissioner
P.O. Box 404
Snowmass, CO 81654
303-927-4234
.. _.. .,_ ,,.,, A~. .., ,.,.;. o;. .v ,<«ix, ., ,.:.,.6,-, ,.-~,s.::~..~.vwa,~Mo.a.wruattian~mn..i.:o-ara..,A.e~ya~+-x*+-~L S3idil:L
~. ~ ...
M E M O R A N D U M...
TO: Ellen Sassano, County Planning
FROM: Joanna Schaffner; County Zoning
DATE: December 24, 1991
RE: Holmes Density Reduction Lot Split General Submission
and 1041 Hazard Review _ __
I have reviewed the above .application and offer the following
comments.
ZONE: AF-1, ten acre minimum ,.lot size
SETBACKS:
Zot A - The proposed building envelope for Lot A lies within
the required l00 foot front yard setback and includes utility and
irrigation easements. Zoning Staff recommends that this envelope
be reduced to exclude any setbacks and easements.
Lot B - The proposed building envelope for Lot B lies within
the required l00 foot front yard setback. Zoning Staff recommends
that this envelope be reduced to exclude the setback.
The front yard for each lot is indicated; on the, attached Exhibit.
If the envelopes are not reduced, then Board of"Adjustment approval
will be required for development to occur within the setbacks. No
development is permitted on utility or irrigation easements:...
. __ .. _.. .. ~ ..~.. s. ~ ,_~. G. n rw . r,..t e . ~.. _~ Mr~+iwax-psrt~ws ~,u~,.~.e..?,.,.a:3 ,~...,~sa,,V:dx:€~^x,+3
,:~ rv o7- cA t 1318.18• ~ N89°38'E'-;' •375.25' '~»
1 ~'='ri --" ---
"' Inc 1~w ~ w.w 1~
p -1 1 ~ - 0 11
W y- r 11 11
m< r O 11 ..,,_ p~ 11
/ :m 11 QI• ~ y~ 1~
i0 1 ~ 11 N ~~ m<' 1; '
c c ~ o I I c m e z ~1
o z Z -r a 11
a' m c ~ Z. ~ m O _ 71
J _
c m ai ~° ~ ~ o,~ z 11
r o °s w O m Go it
9 2 OJi ~ U ~ ,1i r
m pf,. 10_. ~ , O '. ~1 Oi
1 y ~ ~W1 Z 11 D
' , ~~'I m
w N I 11
1 ., O. I p
~ :^ ~ :' S 8 9 2-3 ~ ^^yy ,, .,,, 5 96.72'- .. I I ~
W
o -~`
1 ~ ~.
,~ ,I o ~
z 11 ~ r
~ ~ COMMON GREEN AREA w 11 m
c 1° 11•. y y
> a z -; ` t 1 w
~'
f'1 O N' ~- ~ ~ 11 w e-I ~ S D ~
n r r •'°
A ~ O !,?s ~ ~ Q j- m D m
.. C ~erw. r. r r O y 11 J yQ V PI m
n i O ~ 1 m ~j~ in onWi m ~ O
1+1 ~ z N N ~ {p N 1.11 ~' N~ °~ m
y y ~ 11 ) w
h /G//
0 11
N' Co it F
OJ A
__"--- w m APPLE DRIVE ~Y~Oo
A N i Z~ 9~
~ N ~
m °D ~''4 Oo n p z a 6`0
'r m ' 00.
)h r r r r a, ~. .. .. ..
W $ N W
N 'p0 ~ y'. ~ V ~ {N° VD1AJ
O
o ~ ~ m
o m
O '.
A
m r ~
O ,"0
1 n
C =
. A 2 ~ D
T
J ~ ~ ~ rv».
-i
w m n ' ~ .,
-~ ~ o n c ~ ~
r, N -{- -i- r -{--I"o
_ -° S
(S89°47~15~~W1 `. (843.00) w ~ y ~5 y
S 89° 33~ W ~ .643.00 (d ..L !~-~
• P fl
, ~ C~
_ .:.. ._ _
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO Mary Lackner CC Stan Berryman
CC bud
From: Bud Eylar
Postmark: Jan. 22,92 4:08 PM
Status: Previously read
Subject: Holmes Density reduction/1041
Message: ,., _ _ .
Mary, I have reviewed the ,application and have the following
comments: 1) Since the site in question is so flat, a drainage plan
needs to be provided so that we can determine where the flows willgo
and that positive drainage will be provdedR~away from tuTie~"liuilding
sites. 2) Drives shall meet all„county standards .and shall be built
up to a sufficient elevation so that flooding does not occur.
--- ----==-====X=====___-------
TO Mary Lackner
From: John Ely
Postmark: Jan 22,92 4:31 PM
Status: Previously read
Subject: Reply to: Holmes
,~
-------
Reply text:
From John Ely:
This application is ok on the legal issues of ownership, access or
merger. I dont see any other issues, if you have a question let me
know.
Preceding message:
From Mary Lackner:
I have taken this case from Ellen and will be happy to accept any
comments you have for this density reduotion~Tot split, 1041 'and
general submission. Lam preparing this memo. this week, so let me
know if you have comments.. Thanks
-------=-======X=====__=-------
ers (memo~~~~. i~t no ~~ t-- ~i
1
Environmental gealth,(memo: es no ) ~ h-~' ~ '^
--
- .~
_~
. -_ i
Building Department; (memo: yes no) ,_
.,.. n
_Housinq Authority:
Attorney: (memo:
: es no )
(memo
. ..
y ,
_., av., s-_,t .r
,, .x a ~,
,,.. ,~~ ~ ,.~. .,.._, au
yes no )
_ a<A-.. n..- xrv .~ m..m.~ Xis w.v<Y xY. ui •~ N aX..~...W tTG@ .ti~K 3. .'z.A+B... N»TU MSR t~~+h'-
General Comments: _...,.
,; ~ .,
m , . ~ ,. .., . ; a. ~.
..
_. <: ., ~.~ ~.,.. ..~, ~ ..~.u.: ,~ _.61_ .<<: 9
i
AUSTIN & PEIRCE
Aaomeys At Law
c Q~oS~- ill I -CG 'Gb`f
600 East Hopkins Avenue
Suite 205 ~14 °] ~ c1 ~
.Aspen, Colorado 816ll
Romld D. Anson
Frederick F. Peirce Telephone (303) 925-26110
FAX (303) 925-4720
November 19 , 19 91
~~ ~ ~~
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Ellen Sassano
Pitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Application for Density Reduction Lot Split and 1041
Review of the Holmes Lot_Split
Dear Ellen:
Accompanying this letter is a.complete application for density
reduction "lot.. split and 1041 review of .the Holmes Lot ,Split. I
have enclosed eight copies of within application, prepared by this
office, each of which includes copies of the following documents:
fh/1. Pre-Application_Conference Summary Sheet;
Q ~. Warranty Deed conveying the subject property from Daly
Construction to Elmer D. Holmes recorded >_n Book 471 at
Page 122 of the Pitkin County"`real property records;
C ~. Letter .from Elmer D. Holmes authorizing Austin & Peirce
to act on his behalf with respect to'this application;
n ~. List of adjacent property owners with certification from
Pitkin County Title, Inc.;-
~ ~f. Vicinity map for the subject property prepared by Louis
Buettner;
~ ,6. Title chains for all adjacent properties, with copies of
deeds attached, prepared by Pitkin County Title, Inc.;
(r ~. Plat of Orchard Estates Unit One, an adjacent.
subdivision, reflecting access to the subject property by'
dedication of the roads within the subdivision to the i
public; ,
~.( ,8'. Warranty Deed conveying the subject property from Arnold
to Daly Construction recorded in Book 249 at Page 294 of
the .Pitkin County real property records •,
~ 9. Plat of the Holmes,Lot Split reflecting the proposed
_. . v.,..~~,w. F ~. ...~.. _ .,~. ... ~. _,_ , ~ .,.w , ~, r~,.b:~ i , ~„.,~,:.a
/.....
.... I
AUSTIN & PEIRCE
Attorneys At Law
Ms. Ellen Sassano
November 19, 1991
Page 2
lots, building envelopes and access easements; and,
~ 10. Well Agreement and .Covenant reflecting the subject
property's right to water from the Orchard Estates water
system.
Also enclosed are 37 envelopes, with mailing labels attached,
for mailing to adjacent property owners pursuant to the list of
adjoining property owners prepared by Pitkin County Title, Inc. and
a check payable to the Pitkin County Planning Office for the sum of
$1,934.00 to cover the application fee as set forth in the Pre-
Application Summary sheet.
This application is submitted pursuant to §4-6.2 of the Pitkin
County Land Use. Code to_split a 50+ acre parcel with a legal
building right in the AF-1 zone district into .two parcels
containing approximately 26 acres each.
Please feel free to give me a call. with any questions or
comments you may have regarding the enclosed application after you
have had the opportunity to review it. As soon a, you have
certified the application as complete and have set a hearing date,
please let me know so that we can calendar the hearing date and
post the property accordingly.
Sincerely,
RCE
___„ ~ „ ~
..
,..,~
_....
r.- '`ice, /..._~.-- -- _
Freder' k F;~,Peirce
FFP/hs
Enclosures
3 C:~WPSI~LERTEAS~SASSANO
~ r „~
FJXa~~, r~V't"y r, - ~. .. .,y ., i ~k. •H ,a. f,,. aey.. .e ~~;.
•..^J'., - L_1: r. ~ ......._..w .a~.Y1.'rY ww•K" ~ - , i • •.e'twdl~L ~. ~ aYm~YRmrr
` r
.,Wr ~ ~+,~.a
::. ~.,;.. .. r w .',~: u ~ ,», .a ~.
s flerrYUeh Nt.__.~. ..._ _.. ~._ Re...p1. ,.
_ jj~
,, ~/ ~ -
... _..._ r1d1 .......
~; - _
w.«a.aetrp
7111b Dssu Wd. thu t~ ~ det of W .• ~ ,S /'. ':
Ipb4.Mtwrh DALY CO'ISIEUCIION, INC. ~
N !'
!~.- ~ ~
~~ 'I eeupwNtse duly erHnped end •ruUnp under end Yr •gturcftM lp.e of rJ. it {]1 ~
P~ 'li
I 1M Suped Colorrdo wthrnraput,ena 61.MSR DAVID P.OldtlS,', ~y
i. ~ Jr. ~' r'~~I
'~ whweMtaWrewm 4124 Noreh 61rd Strafe (boulder, cniorrdo !0101)-+ ~= s~~
~ ~~ ~~
_ ~.+ ~ eftM Counq of boulder _._ rM ttrla ed Co foredo ~ !
.. ~ i{ eftM eeeend p.n:
tYltNtaeRTN,rhutMuldpot, sftMnM part, WrrMlneondderel ,^oftMeumef Eibbt] ~l
2housaad and uo/!00 (580,000.00) ----------------•---------'---~''---DOLLARn,
u 1M old peep of IM not port In 4eM peld by a hr . dd pr1 ] +f Me errand part, tM realpl wMrwf 1.
Me.-y unfvu.! dM erYns•ledeed, hu panted, bert•irod, eeld eM ronreyr ~ rtd Yy tMw pnwnt, dwe (tent,
Mrtaln. ,rD. eenwr eM goofs n la the eeld pant' of th. ereond p u ~: hie ty~~;tAll'6drna I!
hnpn dlNtM fAlwlnr deeenYrd Wt upreel of tahd,Hmu(.IylnteM bN.yt n M 'I
Caunq of Pltkln and SUe•ef ColorWo, le wtt: -
Ar moo toll] dereribed So bxhibtt A, ^ttached hcnto
S1AiE ObGG(ENFi1T FEE
nuc 7 ;9aa
n
n
a
TOOtTXRR with eU eM elatular lM Mredltamenu eM eppur4nnnrea tMrwnte MNntiap er in en{rriw ~)
epMrtnlMpt, and 1M rerenlon er nnnlMa, ume~ndrr,, renu, law. a eM preflu tl,emil end e4 tM „tat., n~ht,
line, Inunet, Brim rM d.mt.M whnteoePr of eM eald perq of tM 0nt port, eitMr In le. er pulyr, of, Ip wd b the
rM.e•-eryelrod premlen, wliti :M Mredlumenb and pppurNnenew ` ~'
~, TO RAVR ANOtO BOLD t:nuYpnm4eeeMr•MretnlMd.nddNerfMd,wlth iln appu~eq~nlwe, m.4 eh+:~ d L.
pet ] aflhe wpMrert, kie ~Y~9SRd~i~jwe Hrerer.AndtM eeid a ]
Conatruetiom, Ioc. ~ i
pane attn. neat pu , i...lr.
and la euet~ueet.dwe prmmt,pent. Yetaaln mde4v, to end wllhthe old pet] nftM e.,rndp•a.
bia anAQ~PtR36upy,lMtattlutime at the enwdlntend ddlrn reftMupreunt,ItbreD
wlaW of tM pram W a aMve eonrer.d, a of a aa.ni wee, perfect, aMol~ta aM Indef~u:hle utaM of I,Mrlant+, In
law, in Aellwpw, eM hu feed r{aht, hill power a .d lerful wtheellr to pang bert~ln, ull rpd eenwY eM eameie
manror eM form efaaeeeW. ew l Mot tM w^me ere /r+. •nd rleu nom aD former eM other trartt. Mtteiro, ~iiMe,
IIeM.ture. nerumenm end lerumhnnrn ofwhaar+ Ylnd er netua wafer a%eept tM 11en for
f .M ., «~ .,^,. ~ r.,
ad valorem taxes for the ]ear~1984, U.S: ~atrnt"~naertratlonr and ~xcrptiohr aad
euarnt+ and rights of va] o[ a public or privac• nature, incletdlnb ribhta of re
for tM Moor Supply Ditch and rxtaoeicnr, and cM t .rmt, covamanG and obliptlom'
of Wll Abrremeat and Cotrenant nerr l~l In book 442 rt ~pq~ 724
eM tM eWwM wined nmeuawlntMeuMteM p~.~-nbb peurdon a/theuld pert ] ettM saond p.rt
' hia ~~~~,~aiultne.etefnat ell and.•rry perwnar petwMlawtully elelmin-or to<lelm thrrMN
~ rarer pr•'Mreof,tY+~fd pu tJ et thenntpuLMll end will NAa&ANT AND N.k6VCR DC-F,NO.
• IN NttNRaf nmitRO-,'rM old putt' eftM notputAu<mwdiu rorpreb name bht h-rwnm ruhrerlhrd I
`.'by lu ~~~, MdhMnt.eM lawtp+rau udto L~hrreunte efnred.uarted Et' nn
.• gq.tM7y and rearnnt ehsw writtep. i~
~i:ti !~
C- ~~ja~~ ... , 1LY CONS CTiON. INC. ,~
u L DI l] w.. s.v ~.. _,_... A. _~.
i ... . tftVIIVQ~~ ~ oma. I. Day "_"~~~"ll~ i..:w...' ~~
t~........`. . •fYAT[O
' u.
~..
~'n
u•
.;,.
3
Y~+,
i
X01
'rr.
t'~
3
`,I___Cwneraf rtt~ ti
~ i
~~ TM frrra.letlnetrument rueeherwWted bfor. m. Mir ~-.-5- dq of 4't`v~ ~.
Ir 84 . Y~ YhOYr J. Dal] ee proeidentaM ~~ '
i' Judith Dal] u Setntar.d li { ,
r tar9erntNn. ~
!I Dal].Conrtruttioo, Inc. d
'4 M7 rolaNalr .mmtwbnerpiree!,(y Curd;li:wo:l L,p!fu 1daf:4 ~, IliS ~I °,,
` i, ....- .......~,+r a..,..m.' Mnewr~m b.t,i nrid ofDNN UpL i. ..,. i ,.,
y 1 <.
! EXHIBIT B - -;.0'-"-t-~'~`~`-~.-f'rirnn; li .
____ ~._
. w...zs.,iE,.,.,a~'*.te<,...,,i€~~....nud¢.Mi%n'c.S.~<rm.+~r~tiun a..a~.~;b. ~nm'sr~!~,+~n...r+s~h; d,mo`~
,a,F,
~~ ~,
.~u .- _ ~.,, . ,.
~~
,.' , ~ ', &~ 471 n.>~tZ3
.. ; ~ C
~~F.
fi.
~ ~~..w~~ ~ - 4~
I+
v ~~x a~. ~ ~w.e
Y' . .
q ;1!.y t n
' d^, L[OAL 11tsCtitTlOMt ,r
«": '' • a
tc ~ ~ ~ "' A Nteal h! lot+r ~ ttw/ad !n Tract {l. T~ ~ah!/ t t>1ttA. Itan-a {7 +~ ~'
~. r lMat e! t-a {t- T. N., duer!!N ti tollowt ~ {~(#`M
! ~.. '"
., titOlNNINC rat ~ plat -eia{ A! 2. uid Tract dl, MNaee a 1121 -rau „ ,;
rt ~ tta/ fo.ad is /lace (dT 1, Tract d6 and A/ A, Tnct {7 an tAa ~,+
t foat-atllr'1!w of uid Tract dl) -ura tooth 00' !7' tut 26d9.d3 lull
r tAtata LoetA 00. 23'~[aat 11~+:lS laati , ,'
''•~ ~ tluaa Nort4 {1• Sd' Mist 71+J7 laafi '
tMaca ioat6 10' d~• Wt 1S{l:62 last to chs footAarlp liaa o! uid
~"' - Trot dli ,
~. ''..
~ .'y..,,
,'' ~ r
r ,.
~ y
,y,, , d .
r ~!°
(1
4.r
"R".
"t„
.r
~~'~ C
," ~
a
tAaaea Nott4 t9. 3{' Gat Anl.:'t [sat ~loas tAa douthsrly lfaa o! uid
1Yact i3 to ~ 1f2{~As ca;.`"!e' flue (-slnt At 1, Tnet 66 and A? 3. "
Tract 67. 7eratA!{ { tooth. Raaaa p Nue o! tAe 6tA -. M.) aad"on t-a ~ ,y~
toatAarlT 31a of uid Tract d)i
tAaara Nereh »• I+' isa1,131t.1{ tut •loiK uid {eatbarly 1laa to ~ ~~~
Ar s at ..la rrut {lt'
tAaaea Ibtt6 00' d9' Wst 1724 04 teat a}eo{ eM Eutsrl~ 1lns o! uid
. x ,~„,
Tract {1 to a112{ -sa~a u/ !±"trliai (Milo{ Art 2,~Tr""tat t7 sad AT L. ~,
Tract ~2. uid TwmiAip and lrnta) and eu tAa Laatlr line of uid
Tract {7: ~ ~ r~.
tAsaeo MortA 01. 1{' t[~at 1SI0.10 l~at stool tba said Easterly lfn~ to
..
dT 1 e! said Tract i7
tAsMa {outA {9. 11' Vut 12{6:St lent ~lon{ eM Morebesly line o! '
said tract {3 to the TO1NT 01 OtC1NNIN0~'..
l3XCVtt
A pretl et las/ •lewud fu ratd Tarr {1 bacr!-ad a lollwst
iatlaalas at a plat on the Eusterl) ling o! told Treet 61 tdpich petal !s
a braes u/ sarkad AT 4. 7raet 62 aa1 AT 2. Trset.q 1n uid TatrnsAl/ aad
Raadei
tAenee North Ol• ]9' Rest6+0.:0 legit dont the tact 2ias o! said Tract 61
to the TLOE TOINT 0- 1LO11cM11:C;
eMnea Tooth {!' 11' Ysst 6U.OQ fact pora11s1 vitA Mr Noreb 1lna o!
uid Tract dlt
throes MertR O1 11 Ysat d7H.00 tut /an1lsl vltA tAe tau 1lna of
uid Tract {3 to ehs MoitA IfnR'oI"irid Trot dli
tMau NortA q• 11' oast df1.OG tit almi~'Me Moreh lint o1 uid Traci q
~- AT 1 et said tree!"4~i
tAaaea loath 01. 19' tas/ L/l.DO tee ales{ eM Lst llns e! ral0 Tract dl
u tbs ttw /OI11T Of 1101NNINC
ANO A1.d0 LLCCMs .
OtCW1tD LSSATES ONIT Q'16, accordlnt to the -Lt thersot filed to ?let
took ~ ac H{s 271.
t'!ekla CeontT, londo~
ronteinlnq S8 accer, moxas:ir lose
~.%
~`
~ 'A!
r y:
~~,
.,,i: ' ~c
":>
,Hr
„,
~ ,
Elmer D. Holmes
4324 North 63rd Street
Boulder, Colorado 80301
October 2, 1991
Ellen Sassano
Deputy Planner
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Elmer D. Holmes Lot Split and 1041 Review
Dear Ellen:
The law firm of Austin & Peirce is hereby authorized to
represent me in my Lot Split and 1041 Review process.
Thank you.
Sincerely
/~ -
mer D. Holmes
4 C:~WP51~L8TT&RS~HOLMES.LOT
--- EXEiIBIT C
F.-Y ,~ ~.: .~ ~,.. .. ~ .., - i
. ~ _ .,.
PITKIN'COUNTY TITLE, Ina P` I
Title Insurance Company
Vincent J. Higens 601 E. Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Christina M. Davis
President (303) 925-1766 • (303) 925-6527 FAX Vice President,
ADJACENT OWNER'S STATEMENT
Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance. Agent in the State of
Colorado hereby certifies the following list is a current list of adjacent property
owner's within three hundred feet of the property owned by Elmer David Holmes, as obtained
from the most current Pitkin County Assessors Tax Rolls.
NAMES AND ADRE5SES BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PLEASE REFER TO LIST ATTACHED HERE70 AND MAbE A PART HEREOF.
'~'~..--.,a-~-. +..;1~.+0-.~' r% ). ~'~~C..C._ Vii.. ~ Y
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE
EXHIBIT D
M. ~,.,,. sufE~4~s-~a.k..~~M~~.~.~m m._a,.ha 2eaa,t ..~.'~~~5~5:~~3SN
TITLE CHAIN SUBJECT PARCEL _
ROBERT L. ARNOLD AND GLORIA H. ARNOLDx
DALY CONSTRUCTION
WARRANTY DEED,7/6/70 BOOK"249 AT'BAGE 294
i
ELMER`DAVID HOLMES
WARRANTY DEED _8/7/84 BOOK 471 AT PAGE 122
v?.~?S-
4 ,~. 4.
'c ~i.m r a ~C;« oM1M°k ~ Y,1y „ryiYYf "r~, ~ ~.~ ...
~ t N ~. a H.a'bFY k~° ,C ~' e _. ~
1b6MpUun hw `l~~l~~ ... - ~`C4L`Sp`.~.~wfli~~C~l«....,•~...,.,.sfrtel'Rcr
,
~ ,..y,,~..,..n
e~ ~~yyvaruw~.,
.~
,~ ~ ~ , ~,.G.~ ~~ 3 h ~ Q
, . i
~~~ X2.,4
~~
~
~~
~ ~
.
~~
,
., .
'
.. ,
~~y
Ctn~"
~ LieY, 7t8e tNa
- .Z~ ' des K ~
"' .19 7C ,bH~x"
r
W
s a
~ ~
y...
,. a~,},a~.e~~~ r
MaK MMiWe11{e `~ .. ,.... .. ,
' JV~ ~ lea ROBERT L. ARNOLD and CIARIA H. ARNOLD ~r~..-.
4~.~--~...r _ .. i
rww..' j
.tel...:. Cuaab et Garfielrl , ead8up d Cbiorede, of tM 11rot M.t. aaA }~
,._„ .,;
(~
DRLY CONSTRUCYION, INC.
„m, • M-penetsa dW~erpnbM aM ea6tlne M1dei aW bT dm>• et tae i..r'"~d'tra tSUte of Colorado
(I
f
et tM roved Jr~i ° {
~
,
wtrfsgfsra. ta.t ta...w oardes eK tae n.at y.rt, ter wd >e eaulderotSen et xae e°ax ed "~
TEN DOLLARS AND OTHER VALTii\BLE COtiSIDERAT20N ---~--~~~-~~_-- ~,`
o ,.
. M qe aay ysios et tM tGtt ~
yatt i4 MeW paid bq ihi aa1R ri*rl7 ed eba f°eond part, {ae rs~rtyt wheroof b i1
leroap twafeaed aed atkoewtednd, as fronted, barfirltxd, .a;d apd tee~e7rw and AT tae.e proseots de
R+et aarfala. ee4 roaro7 and eegtitft, aata tea qW YartY cf tfie +aaendY-rk IU eareeaYm'e sad ani4ae lerewM,
aR.et tla tew.inf duermaa et paeryl of load awe, iTl+[ and aoint k tea "
~
CounbofPiOkin ~~nnditstie~"`C°lori3e
'feiiltd
,
.,
. . ,,
A parcel of land situated in Tract 63,`Tp. 8 5., R. 87 W., 1
6th P.M., being more particularly described by enetes'anil ,1
botmds as follows.:.. - ;
o '
Beginning at a point beirg AP 2, 7'raet 63 wherce'a '~
1924 brass' cap found ir. nI$co 'CAP"'T, Tract'66 a:;d "
AP 4, TYaat 67 on the Se,:4heriy"line of'Tr"art 63
Tp. 8 S., R~ $7 W.; 6th F.Xi.) beard 5. Ocl°2°" E. ~.
2644.83 Stet; thtTZtCf! "S: 'CG°2'3' E`.
3i?{4'.'95 "".•.~t.; ?'
,
thence N. 81.56 + W. 73•i .': 9 '!"ottt:' thcnoC 5 : J„«L, ~.
1588.62 feet try" the+ ~o'u~'",~^`z;y'"117e of'avid Txnr: 'd3;
' thence N: 89°38° E~ 44i.38'Fect along tho'4out,"x:'15+ +r
lino oP ..^.aid Traet`63 to ;x...1924 :,rasa rat in ,s~nro
Cbeing 7tP 1, Traet,.66 and Slip 4, ~Tt•$rt d'7, T.+. 5 S., ~"
R. 87 ir'., 6th'P.2A.) and o:r •.h~ SoUtl:erly lir.-a >>f said '
Tract 63; hence N: S9°2Y< E. 1318.16 fx:et`alo:: '
the Southerly line of said Tr.2ct 63 to rA.c^ 5 or saiti '
Tract 6.; thonee N;OOai;at'fi. I378it:4~f'e~+!alanl t?~e
Easterly line of'a.aid r~~cti' 63 ra a 1~+:4 lirt~s c.: a`"i~ ~ ~
place (b~cing Ae'` 2, _:racY'67~. rc~d ~i,$~.~.d, ''"r3ot"62, T.~ 8 5.~..
R. 67 W. ~ 6th it;;k J and ian tT*.c~' `yiatsC`erly°liri4 0?` s:ed
Tract 63J thenets N: Ol°13'~~i. 1~3.8:2J ~c.ct"~rle+:;a "f.a
Eas'tbrly line of'safd .s:~"`~"Tr"3"~i':ti* 1 of ~n~a`d :r3ct 63;_
~ thonce 3. 89°33e 5~7. 128~.~9~ °~zt~ ~lv"!cj't'h<~~"~orzh'eay
line of said Traix't '63 to tnra point of L~egi.^...inp,
containing 99.399 acrbs, :aq"c or Ic~ss: '
.,
Toget. er with any and aTl dita'x and fret. r ricks `+. io..~.n.-, ta,
need upon ar in conaecczon v:':lt t:e abr+e dcscfb.~a ~rcyourty
~ reserving, however, to't;:e pz~xt'ie*a of 2.hc :irxt''~;~art 2.51
C.F.S, from the tome 5u3aly Ditch.
t i
}' n.:' ..
s
~Ia~R} _bdR
p
tt
~~ a^ r u . ~, ~« ,s!°'e jai, x„~'+~ ~,,.~ L ir~ V wwt (rW A
i,.. .n,.xau,..~Mw3,r aRt+aYa.. x~
ua slate
p
1
{
X.
t
,mrs.
w,
8
wr
b°~
1
1
' ~
a ~ }
~
4
jj
i t %.
~
~ ~
~
d c ~ ..
i
t
,
t ,
! eL >
t[o" ~
tlvd a.
C
i
. y
4
~ `
~ : y
,
~
F
~
o ~ - l~
~:
_
v
u p
x:
~1
it
1. ... S
f ..
~
,
~: ~ ,
~i iw.
f,
.rr-
TO.'.tTIR:R w',:h nll ar~9 slnGUfar tAe f:erer+ .nxa^ta aM ag9rcrtanartres tAen:nta tw;nn;..n}!. or fn anpwdae
agArrtat....r~, and t::r ttr'rraion and rtwtwisn , rvro>ix..°.,r. acrd tetm7ndasY. rrnta, Stouts am: Are!tc ihexel: and xA
,.
th. rsmU`. rid@t, t.t"r, intetret, eAlm aw( dwm>n 7 w: rt*o'rer oS the a¢i?~ fatTi ~~ ' et tho fn't gaff. tlllfer is
}ev ar e.;,.p, n!,'tn and :rt thr abon hariCSIn,a.f ,nrr;n:+.`ti •iilt tM ltm'.itarnMYa ate aggNr!rttattre '.. ,..
TC TIAVF. A\:1 T{) ITC[.Ii thr Wald prr mkrrr e`ante har„alned"aYM dearrRxd, anal Wr aAAurtenantta unto tIN
said gnrty of thetx+rM gart Slit naxrtnrsnrs and e..i.^mx'.+xrze Xad~ihe~isSd" ...
a.'.
R6Ii$iY': L, riRti0L6 8.^.e:,.C„IARTA,.H. AR.a`OLD
°..ir: r..: a,.yrs :,r. [ narnirtaTrnt~en, de rav ,.z.*..
w rnr po W to aa;rtrrm*n and ncc;nnit, that nt thr iSds
a. ti M`r;: nvizrd n{ flay Artmfsr+ s4u;ra r'P.re;•
..! irr -'.`.rsr, f:~.Jav, yn !n aGnAFr, and hmVC t;nnd
a^sF, rx:aeY :Fo vamr Fn ffinnner aM fan,1 m!area&7nt,~
' Mhr g.~ka, tar~afrca, mfrs, lirrtn, taxrt, x~.-s.tur `;+
c::cc ;t and subject to 19'Jb ~.;c
;atnn esorvatlons a d rxce~yci
ti~
°:a
v±.
i t Ix
"j ~~.
':. x ,
y,m:y. YC9 uC the ftrvt gaM. tar Uy`r" x.VCSr LhC'ir
. yra-, I+atys?n sn+i a~rat to and txh x}r Wald pa;^.y of the
~t. .. " .,,. ~.
q
d
sae°Yrs~nta and r?gycs o: way I '
t tits ox t ~~ _°or L::a
.a..
t1r
f'use
:M.~za~"~w..~':'.nwd~.`Sw: 3~".":"~tw'v"_'r,: s~~~.~''»~'...«'y~"'~`",.:~'li'4~~y
a .~ ' RaevPh°n N< -~`~
Rs
rd.d at aea
~ rdtr
n
..~,. a rfarR Sf
~ .rte
1'Nts Dean, 1t.at tha L.- c d.7.tr p ~ y~ s r
~ RM'tr dtf~^~tM~
tfgb,hetwnn DALY CO'iSTRCCTtDN; INC. `
d
.^
~
;~ .n
~ aenperatbn dell erranised and e%inti 7
..,
oaendar,Mb Wrturthhe lave et' : ~•
i V -
" . iA
- {
ehe MateK Colorado dtheDre: part. and ELMERDAVID tIDLMES "'"" ' ~f
~ A
.Aeaeln~taddrew4 6326 North"d~rd Street~(Bca:der, C~tlo"ra"~o ~030~) osc
x
a
= t
n
~
eftM Cwrngof Botader ^ndStraot Colorado "' d ^'
?
ettM seeoed part:
i) ..
'~
IS 1IRNraE6TB.That the uTd'earev"M tA. h..t ,... r...x :..., a_L. _ t=c__
7 '-0
r.-.~9y..s r ~~ .
8
P;'
~ ~E
~S Ij
~j~
D
~{. to tAr sold yare7 dtM lSnt partMhend pmd hr c~et id' rt s "'."° '. ..•.
i w '9 o`t the retomj parE the rterTpt ~"iereorie~
j~ Mreh7 centered aMaekrrawledaed,wu.ranted Anrra~irted wld and eonreye7 • fd fib"tliee+prnenta don rraak
' Mrpiw. tie$ eairy'andt,rrtft•s .rt W"LM sud~Dar~t~J` .. •"' bt'tFe ieeond ~D+rk his ~jsdRni
tereer.atl ertMfetlo~iri~deaetrbed'lot ` oryfrcel oftand. «ituite,T7{nraNd~e7nRin thf
f I Canna et Pitkia and Stag o/Calorado to wld
r ,~
Ir M sore fallq described" Sn siltibt A; `at'tachei2~ hereEo -, ~~ ~ _ a. _
a ..
1j srA~ ou~a-~r~r ~
}~ _ ti~1G 7 ,984
~'it~u~rw~~+~ri,str c~--
(~ 'PORBtHBE eaih aD and si ,••;'••'~_ - "..A+ ~~•- az--.a..zsraw..t tc-<~ .,,ex.n~.'.:s..n~,*~.
It irjnitnr "Nis }i.ie~~Cath~nta inil~nppartenanen t6ireunte MleMlnr ar M anr+elr.
~.sr eQ c7w ms atei
ahsee Dahained premises, eru+r he An~editamtvf~',ird~appartendtN; .:
408AYKAttD7iC ROLD"ta-ui`dprereise~a~eiibirr' ntd en$desen ` .'..•~:'>s, .. n. ,~.:.,,, ,:, ,;
gp~prHpgg g lied. with tAei acte aitn,,tmtotM ~~
a pare y etthe,eceM part, his irtplira ~,itn, rern..r. Artd the nud D~y
n ~ Coastraetion, Inca
c --
n ~ part? oftheGntpu ,:> i:.ei
and ib saettanrn,don eofenoaAntgpnnt, AarrNn and ,ar,e teats aith the uid Bart v .,t.a..._._., ~.
i! reized otthe ~~f~Fi ~R~fi,iRU.that.
'+, ( premi,n shove totneled,. u of • pw1
' b. in tee Nnepht, arts has stied rirlrk ulI power ar
mamier and form aforesaid, ac f that the rant are
Nem.enmr aeaennienn and ineam6rarµws efwMt
I.ad valorem tares for the year l3gK;"
Ir. ~aeaieuts sad rights of nay of a piii
~-• ...•. remran rn [nequrn ana pesr~ahiaptdiMa«ien~
..hie ~ ~n~
afaiane_ ae,nne .tt ....!.».. vd:_ _.: _:
nature, including rights of way+~
covhnaata`attd o611gationa~~
st page "~2d' ~~'
.. _- ^°•~- ~. rvra name sow nrvreun[e uaetrihed
"..
~~' • Preeideot.rnd is tweporneaestto TxfierroetowfYfieE; itteatedtij~Tfi~"
tAe2afaM fear asst shove t.Mtten.
.'~~~.
:°.ai~~-~T .,t Drky ._._._.._.:.:ALY r,ONS CttONt_INC..:. .. i~.
_ ~~
w+w.es.s I!
••.;,, ;:aTATCO ~ omac 1. 6ai'v a ~ r..aw.,r
,.. ,
Tfrrxeaatnrimvanient raaeknowledited Aeforemeth;«' ~...4 e,y of Qw~7'+r7- ~j
+~tp gb .1"i~ Thomas J. Dalj ., PreeiaeMaM ~'
Judith Daly „ .. ....., 4etretarr a• ~!
t,. Daly Conatraetion, tae. ... ... ~ ,eeevoratien. if
t ~ X~ notarial r •mrtriuion expire,
u .y Ci. .:»*.G,: aXp Jei Mrilt~i ~y ta'.~> >.a.. , I; .. ~~
~. Witnervm7 hand stidaKttal,ea*
n t 1... i
.
T:
r~acw~ aanae ~7
.~. ..-,
,~
1.
128.16 feet'aloea raid Southerili 11u
~ `' tract r ~ qid 7'amsTity an~'AeuAe) ani"ea t1K-Sisterly line eF uld
~ ~~ ~ ~
~ ~z
ri
s . . ~ 2~ Ems"" ~c1t.~.~„ ~ ~.p»P, ~.,E~ ....: "~ ~ x,Cu,~~a~x ~a ru~~
theetse larch 01 I9 Vest 132Q. fee a2oda the
i
E
` ~ ""'" '~ °°
"`
~ sa
d
asterly 11ne t6
'
wr 3 ei uid' !tact 63 `~" ~~
`
,~ " thence Roeth a9. 33' Nest II86S8 feetlens tli'1loxeherly'"Tine"et'"~~;'~~~'~ ~u~" ~"~`~
""
"
"
.,~xw~r~' sold iliaet 63 to eht lOYM7`
bf'
a~`.~11f1i1U
~
~, ~t '~,1~ ~, "' , rte,
AH, ,~
,. .~ ~ r~ k 4 *A "~ `D~~Y' k hTa 4r~ .Mf f$4`R"YVkYk.'Mr ur'4,i ~/: ~eaVi#'h ~^# .y~~
~
M 1 of 3'iad sttwceb ir+ rald i`rut 6~2 d
i
d
~ „
escr
be
as foliews
`
., ~... :~ .: .. ., 'fMare "... v bbrt`.a'.F- ~u m.~w u< ~ w:MF ~ b~a'~r'"hµ #KrrM.~ J~SU ra,.? `~" s' G...m?±s.~
>k~aaiaaiL a'pplni ain the lriatrr2f"`C~lne o!" uid Tract k3
hl
h
`
'i :..
~f.
='. v
e
point
i
. -a braai ~ IYr1ld AP ~~ Tract ~'~ aM~ Ap 1. 'lt~tt ~~~M-~a~er°~aw,ahly and „ .. ~.. a-
""`
gr
,.~ ~. thence ltorth'01. 19' Cestl60 tp fret aloha the East 1lne of ui~'Tra
63 ~ ~ ~~~ ~
h
'
'
ct
w t
e TRUE y0178
OF
itECiR3~C,
^
" s~~~n
`
thex
N• 23' !test
f a footl+
bE3:00 feet parallel with the Nert9"li`ne'ef "' ~ t~'
sa
d tract 63; ~
~
-• „~i
thence Mostfi 01' 19' Nest 61'8 f10 feet piYa23e3 frith the last 1lnr of ~
uid !tact 63 to the North line of said"Tr~et 63" ~~
theaee North R9' 33' East 6,f3w00 feet alooa the North line of utd Tract 63
" `
. to wt I of uid Tract
63. r
s
thence SootU01' 19' East 6%R.~tl feet al'oea the 'fast 1liie~ef sai~"7rset d1`""'~
"_„ "" ~r
to the true yolxi oy 8E6INNlNG; ~~
.p ~
AND X130 »Tt
,
_
ORCBAlt6 ESTATES U1q')t 6!t aieording t0 the Plat thereot~ff~d"~!n'"flati ~'
' .: . ~ ~ ~
' ~r
~
leoR i st
la~e 37;:
s,..,~
yitkic County, . foredo, _
~.a. ... .. ~.„ .."
containing 58 acres; more 6r 1~ss. `,~M r.
"
~ ~ ;x ~ ~~~
+.:
on the
rs"
:, .; ,
w ~ ,.,..
. ; .')
r :.:, •°
N
WELL 4GREEMt'NT A`tU (:OVF.NANT +^ <;- ~J1
j C m
C 11~ -,,.
nP fa
W :V
THL5 AGREEMENT is madn this .:~C''t, day o[ ,~'l1~(!~1 ~
19A3 by and between ORCHARD ESTATES Hr'ME5 ASSOi'IATION,'a ^.olorado ',
e
non-profit corporation ("Associ.atlon") and 04LY CUNSTRUCTtON, INC.,
a Colorado Corporation ("Daly").
W 1 't N E S S F. T H:
~r.
WHEREAS. Daly platted and devrlh)~~d the subdivision known as
Orchard Estates Unit One and In conripctioh Cherewith diverted 05
c.f.S. of its irrig~*.ion wa*.er rights Crom Home supply Ditch, pri-
ority No. 179 to domestic use drilaina 2 domestic water weals and
conatructinq a domrstlc water system as a part thcrooC to provide
domestic water to the resldnntiat un[ts (n Orchard Estates
Unit Ones and
WHEREAS, Daly Ls lntormnd by thn Aa-nciatlon that Well No. 1
is currently Inoperable due to lowering of ground water table and
that Well No. 2 currently provides the domestic water Cor Orchard
Estates; and
WHEREAS, Daly intended that the above-described water system
xould not only serve Orchard Estates Unit One but an addition to
said subdivision to be known as Orchard Esta"tes Writ. Two ("Daly
Property"), shown As the unshaded arc•i on the subdlvlslon plat for
Orchard Estakas Unit One recor~lra In Plat Book 4 at page 271 of the
office of the Clerk and R^cor~lnr for Pitkin County, Colorado; and
1 ~
w_,~~. .,., . , ,
~ EXHIBIT J
~~. n.
_. „
~S.K~-~`
a~, ".
~ ~
~'
r ' ~.
r. "h'rt
:` , .,v=.h , .. ,.r x «..:'2 . Sri wi w.5a. r"-~q,ir.+r-~.K.Y.Y..r..-iw. r...... , ra .~ .. w.
'' ~
p .~
F ~~
A."~~
~'3.. ~
k ~ ~ ., - ~ 442
725 ~
, r.
t
~ i
~ " "~
~~ F '. i 4' f
~i
WHEREAS, Daly has agreed to convey to the Association a por-
!
.
lion of its domestic water and well rights appurtenant. to Oaly Well
o
r
N
N
. 1
nd Daly Well
o. 2, together with all pumps, tank a, and
other well apparatus end_.improvementa appurtenant to or used in
,
cohnection with acid welln, including the
well houses and
.
WHEREAS, as a condition of such conveyance. Daly desires to
~~ enter into a well sharing acrecment providing for the use and main-
'~
c'
i' tenence of the well improvements by both parties subject to the
~r provistons heretnaEter set Torth.
h
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration o[ the conveyance of said
e
domestic wale[. well rights and well Improvemtnts by Daly to the
,'f Assoca ation and the agreements made heceln, the parties covenant
t
and agree as follows:.
~ r, ~
1. Daly Election to Use Wellts). At such time as Daly, oc
k
*Y its successor in interest. wishes to utilize the Daly Property for
+ ~ residential purposes, Daly may elect to use a portion of the water
~ !'
~S produced by Bald well(s) for thr. benefit of the Daly Property.
. o
z
c
z
j Daly shall provide written notir.e to the Association of such intent
:~
( ._.
1 Y and shall have the right to use said well impcovementaj provided,
however, that the amount of water, if any, that Daly shall be
~` entitled to use shall be! dependent upon said well(s) being deter-
, ~:
."x mined to have sufficient capacity and the water source having suE-
{.) ;. ,~ .
'~"
~ ficient quantity, heceln de H ned to be a minimum of ISO gallons of
y
I'
,
water per day per lot or a daily minimum~of 9,900 gallons, to ,
i
f
J , ;,,
t'.
-2-
•:.
i "
;
y~
~
l
Y
~
~n
t., ~.
"a;
~; engineer sntlstactor~ to 6hrh the As^>or.iatlnn and Doly, tfia cost of
~ j
j. which shall°be borneZ~by Daly.
•
2. .Use of WeI'l~sj•.
,,,
A. rn cne rvnnr it is detr.rmn~J chit srid wrli(s) end
,.
watec source have or, with spnclfic upgrading rtrasures, could havr
u
the capacity and wat~•r n,r:.jntir.y, respectively, to provide an
.,
~,
adevuate amnnnt of dom^~tic eater ns d~flned in Par3gcaph 1, above,
to the cumber of existing rrsidrntial units wlEhin Orchard Estates
Unit One as well as the r,,mbc~ of future residential units desig- ~
noted by Oaly to be construr.trd on the Drriy Property, Daly shall br
responsible for the instail~tton and implementation of all
upgrading measures crcommtnBrd by the engineer tncludieg but not
limited to drilling the existing wrll(sl dreper.'providing larger ' ~
pumps, rte. and for providing .ddition.+l storage tank(s) of suEfi- ~
cient size tc provide water storage and del lvcry{,capacity for
domestic household use and Eirr fightihq ncrtds for all of the rest-
drntial units drsigna2rd by Daly to be coiseructed on the Daly
;~:t„•
property. Daly shall also br responsible for the construction of
t
any water treatment or other facilltie~ rcgolted by any governmen-
_. '
tai entity in order. to expand and,br utgradr the same to serve the..
Oaly Property and sht,il comply with all app?icablr governmental ~
rules and regulations relating to domer,t:lc aatcr supplies. 411
,
,
~.
i
.$
•+~
' ~ ~ yy
~
~ tie ~ ~
~~ :~ ~ .~~~•
'
~ ~
.
oa(4421~:721 t~':..
,.
,:
e
~~
,.
..
r'A< Mater treatmrtnt, ster;5n~ nhd cl(nttibution !rr.ilities shall b~ flrsC
~?
-
r
~'
rFFrove9 by tL•c Association, w~~ich r+pptCVal rhall not be
r
p
.unreasonably withheld.° Daly at,?11 lave the right to interrupt the
~~ use of the systcr supplying domrstlr water to Orchard Estates Unit ,
4
''One Eor the purposes r^t forth hcrAin fnr such reasonable p~rlods ~,'
F d
l 4
an
at such reasonable t
mrs as shall be agreed upon with the
;
'1
l" ,
Association.
~
e± 9. La y ~(7gCC^5 t0 C~StKiCt it. Stl^,^. nE all MaL^C SharCd
l~
,ti y,
with the Association,undcr thi.=. Zgrcemeht to household purp~>sc~
r
t,
~; only and shall not pt^rmit such w,tec to be used for irrigation
4:
~.~~ a
{k
f
u .. i..
purposes whatsoever.` .
~~ 3. Operation zed Minor taintenance and Repair Costs.
}.
'.~ A. (1) "Oper.+tion ^osts" shall be defined as utility
- `
:i
r
costs Eor .:
operation oE. the w•~I1 pump.
~.
w
~' (2) ~'Mihor Ma)ntcnancn and Rcpslr" shall be defined
r..,
as mainte nance or repairs costing undor 5100.00.
q •
~
L
1~ 9. Prior
yt.e°Drly's use nE the we11C51~ all operation 1
~,
s: and minor maintenance and repair rests oC the, well(s) shall be
,
borne by the AssoeiaLlon.
4
?? C. After Daly's use r! .b,. welltc) commences,
i
k
operation
costs shall br dividnd•betwecn the Association and Daly
;
:
;;~ accordi.ng to the amouhC of water used 6y aaCh.
Yrivoicea for sbch
:) fr
,
i
: operation costs shah. be presented to Daly whri`shall within thirty
~ u
;, (30) days of thaic recciE>~ reirhurse the Association in full. 4'
i
;,
-a-
~
~
y~~y `
,,
a „ `` '` ~ J a t. y, f R-.~:rr4.~~'Y>riP+y j~wG,b"?+Rt'Y MM~i/ti+ ~ o.iA.a•'~.ripro ..
~ w , y
'`'~
r
~ 1 a
l°
t ~ a~
p
' ~` ~~nK442 i,+:728
1,
h
y
k D. Aftcx Ba]•'s urr• aC the wr•SI151 rcmmAnees, miner
f
raintenanee and repair c•usts f.^c the aryl mry br cuthorized by the
Association wlthout`?-onruftatidi~ nr r•onsrnt of Daly, i+~d Drly shall
f
-elmburse the A s oria!ion for Its share, based .upon the amount of
water used by Daly,_e?. r.uct minor maintcnan~c and, cepaTr casts: tJa
i ,:
y more than ten separrt~ nxc,~rnditurc^ under S200.O0 each may be
authorized in any oc^ yrrr,r by tJ7e 'saociation without consuitation f -
~~and consent of Daly:
~ ~'
b
l ..
4. Mnior Mainten ^~ .end !;ep.~ir Costs.'
- -- ,rf.
F
~ n. "Major Mair,tor:anc=~ and prrsir" skfrll h^'dcfined as
' meiutrnar,ce or repairs cost in ::100.00 or more.
z t3. Prior to Co.ly's use of khc aeil(sl, all major main-
y
i tenance and repair casts shall hr barns by the Association.
C. After Daly'r, us^ of th^ well(s) commences., major 1
~ mainteranee or repairs shall be wthocizrd Ly the parties only upon ~
'C" mutual consent excepr .,.,;,t emrraency major~repeirs may be autho-
' 1~
}
razed by the Association lhclrr,~ndc+nt ly cc avoid dlscuptTon of ~.
'~ ser•rice to thr. iesiAenrlal units Ire Orrhnrd 8stntes.
D. After Dalv's use of the we 11(sl commences, major ~ ~
maintenance and repair costs authorized purr>a~nt to prragraph ~(C)
above shall b~ dlvldad hetwcrn rl~.~^ pactlrs br.rd upon their E
i
rnapectlve use.
-s-
i
Y
}..~.. ..M~ n
i_
y'
::
q
w S
~
-i
t
=Sf
y
TTTVVV ,rv ~
3 '
5."t r i
,
i
., ,.
..
~„
;, .
~ .A.,
e .,.
,
~
1
`
~ ~,
~
'
`,
~ ~~~ 442 ~ ~~i i2~ •
.,
~; .~,
i. Water Gin^s~ M~t~C In;to!I'rti:rr•.
- - - -
',
A. Each pE7rt~i agrce.~ that rack ini3ividual:y b^ars all
F .
costs of constructiro, cprrat,i•xa nn3 m7intainin•~ my and all water
lines necessary to rtclivcr water from tt.r wel: to the property of
each party. the `sscci,~tir,n rh~11 '3r:n, any ~as~:~+~nFs or rights-
oY-way necessary for ec~r..-rrucfion of w=tar lines from the will to
deliver water *.o the ISa1y property.
e. The panic: 7gree chat each sh.?11 irrst+ll a£ their
own expense separate watrr meters to mcnsucc thr amount of carter ,.
\° utilized by the resid~ncra witFiin OCChard Esters-s Unit One e.~d the
~:.
residences within the 0a:y ptnp!.rty resprctivelyt
- 6. Enforcement'of !~eimhursement .ind nilocirtion o[ Costs.
If, after Daly's use of the wr4tl(s) com~,~ncns, either one of the ~
' ~
parties should default, by LYtlure to p~+y or to reimburse t`t~ other
.party foe valid and authnrized operation, maintehbnce, and repair °°
. 1
' costs of the well(s) within ~g days of 6(lling far such cost, then
the defaulting party's right, title sod iritr,rest in the well(s) may
be terminated as follows:
A. The noR-d~f7ialtirig party shall. give notice of +.
default to the dcEaultin~ party by registetej miail sent to the ~
address set forth in paral••aph 4, hnlnw, nr such'nthcr address as
,. 1
may be provided in weitln~; ,
'
9. If the it.~l
+i.rltin~ p~~rty f^i2r: to ~ut~ such dr.fault
by payment of the sums dtir, pluZ irtrrest at 1 1/73 pmt month from
-+,~
~+~
a
~'
~ • ,
a .o~~~~'~XIN'1M~1'1M'W9M"hr ke.»wtlM:M11F. :.~, •..
aL~~" ~ ~ ~
~4
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ao~4~2 )~~173U x„ „~:
. ~ ,~:
, . „ ,..
~.+ ,; z _
~ „
,.
,~~ '"''the dale of the ortginal invclcn, withlr 90 days. of rcccipt of the
. Notice of DeEeult, t.h~n all such party's right, r.itle, and ir•'.errs
t
t .
~ i ,, !n and to the wet] shall tr.cminate, and thr'.i i,her~unor, become
~ ~ - vested in the non~d~faulEing pnKt.y,
z
7. Cessatidr+ of Uso. The par tins ra:ec that if the physical
- ~ '
-- r
'`;~ source of supply uf'wator far the subject uellls) falls toe
•~ minimum of 450 gallons at water per day per residential unit in 4
~~ Orchard Estates Unt'One, the Association shall eo notify Daly and
~ shall have the .right, to restrict the amount of water oc completely
cut-oEf the supply of water to the naly'pcouerty, at its election.
,1 8. No Liability. The part+~s agrr,a that the Association
;f shall not be responsible in any way for any consPquenc a that
result from a failure of well equipment located in Orchard Estates
' Unit One or Ecom a-lack of w:,t~r to satiety all patties. 'LL
9. Conveyartcc of Title. in ronsiclcratioo of the mutual
covenants and agreements made herein, [•aly agrees to execute and
!
j
.
' ~
;' t .
deliver, simultaneousl} with the execution and delivery of this ~
,'
~ inseramont, a quit claim deed to the Association conveying the
i~ ~ '
domestic water syst•.m descr+u~J Lc:..l.. e~~yj~c~ to tea rroviticr.a of
=r thib Agreement. ,
10. Notice and Invoices.
~
A. NOt
i C!`R h~`CeUnd<•C tD file ~ASSOC i;lt ion shall be ~.
i provided in writing to the following address +
~~ i O[¢h~rd F.Stal ~S flames AS50CintlOrt
+ Box 854
, t3as
ilt, Cr.lorado 81521
F
~ `
t
j
;H
.Y
~
.(
y~r
~ .
'~ ~ . S
{
'
B. Notir_es h+•rrundoc to Daly ahn11 be provided In
wricing to the follnwirn! ~~ldress:
5302 Vi.^>t~ RiCa ~tr~rt
Paradise Vrlley, :Arizona 85253
Notice of chan~3e ~( adlress of the parr.les may be given by
written notice to It?e zddresses sF,ted herein.
11. Covenants Running With the Land. The parties t:ereto
Intend that the cov~r.,vnta cnht*+lncd herein sh;~ll constitute a
benefit to and a burden upon the Association and Daly ornpcrties to
which ChC well (8) [~ appurtonaht and which are aerved by wrtera
produced freT thr• wo•llls) r'nd intand that the same bene(ita and
burrens shall run with the lead, •,nless and until the rights ano
obi igations of the 'own!+rs ~+f am of the tracis, under this covenant
and agreement, are terminate+.i as provided herr.ln, in which evert
neit:er the benefit nor tl+c burden cf any covenant herein shall
ext^nd to an7 successor in tittc of such terminated owner.
i
4
,.,.
fi `~
This agreement shali_inure to the benetit_of the succ~ssoi5~:.. ,'
1 and assigns of the parties. ~:
,. ~ , , . .
~'~~ ORCHAFD ESTA2ES N ES ~SSOCIATt~fri',
,?
.~
FLU; ~\~' 6ilfl~ ~~--- ~~
Ryt _
Jan er C. Uarrinylo , Ir^stent '~ s
k D..",Lc ~NS'1'RUCTIUN~ Ili ~, !' ~'
~,.. ,;. ~
,a ~ ~ ,
r. Thomas J. Daly, Pces1 en :, m +' •
~ ^ . ~'-
. _ ~~.
_8_
!~ i
!
5
1
.j
d~ - ,
~ ,-.
~. ,~ _ ,:
y 0.
t, ., ~ ,y*..,,
'. I ~~,
+. ~ ~"
~..
~.~~ 412 ~ ~..'13L
STATE Of COLOR^.IIU 1
COUtiTY OF PITRIN )
i~ The focnnoiny insrrum~nt v,+s m:•knowledged bef~rc mr• this
day of `~ ~~ ,` _.~_._, 19y + by Janvcr ~_. betrington, a
President of CR:.N:1R[) ES`I42•t5 HUt1C5 A;50CIATICN.
Witness iay ~h.~nd and oEf ici.~l seal.
My commission ~x~ir~^:
` ~ / j
C __ l
N -~Pnbt It ~'. J .. .
STATE. OF C~iLORADO ) , ' p`
COUNTY GF PITRIN ~ ..s
}~ The Loregoir:g"instrument was a.Knowledg~d betorc me thCs
3- "day of 1~ ~ , , . 198,x, by Thomas J. [1aly, as
President o£ br,LY CUNSTRV~~TI~N, INC.
Witness my har,~3 grid ot[iciel s^r.3.
'1y commissign cxpira-: •~ ~
_ r ;
~ , ,• , ~ ~
+~: , ;~
,,,
,.
.~
Address: 4 c, "ri f'..:, , ~,',~ ~ .~ .
~~y~,. ~ .,. 1 'c ,r
>` r..
_3_