Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
pitkin.planning.246532300003 (2)
DOCUMENT LAYOUT THIS FILE MAY OR MAY NOT CONTAIN ALL OF THE INFORMATION LISTED BELOW IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER Summary Sheet Resolution for the BOCC and/or P&Z Ordinance for the BOCC and/or P&Z Determination for the Hearing Officer Administrative Determination Staff Memo Application Public Notice, Acceptance Letter, Referral(s) Letter Site Plan Miscellaneous Plat copies (11x17) .- ,. .:., ~; ., #350658 il/1~/9~ 13:3 c x.00 Bt: 694 F•6 230 Silvia Davis, E'it4kin Gnty Clerk, Dac $:00 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COM1~12SSIONERS OF PITRIN COUNTY, COLORADO GRANTING DETAILED SUBMISSION AND FINAL PLAT APPROVAL TO'THE RESNICK SUBDIVSSION Resolution No. 92-,~y RECITALS 1. .Candice and Brad Resnick, hereinafter."Applicants", have applied to the Board of County Commissioners ,(hereinafter "Board") for Detailed Submission and -Final Plat approval pursuant to Sections 6-4 and 6-5 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code; and 2. The Resnick parcel is located at 5353 West Sopris Creek Road, more `specifically described in Exhibit "A'!; and 3. The parcel is zoned RS-30; and 4. The applicant proposes to subdivide 62 acres'of land into two 31 acre parcels; and 5. .The proposed subdivision has received the following approvals: a. Resolution No. PZ-91-48: Granting a Lot Line Adjustment and 1041 Hazard Review approval; b. BOCC Resolution No. 91-142: Granting General Submission approval; and c. BOCC Resolution No. 91-146: Awarding Residential GMQS Allotments for the Non-Metro Area; and; 6. The Planning and Zoning Commission heard the Detailed Submission request at a regularly scheduled meeting on June 16, 1992, at which time they forwarded a recommendation of conditional approval to the Board; and ~_ a. .,,~~ _..,..~ wu .,. N~,: , N m A"J A e F #350658 11/1</9~ 3:39 Fec 2.UU BK 69~F FG 2~ Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Cler4:, Doc $.UU Resolution #92-~ ! 7 Page 2 '. The Board considered. the application at a public hearing and determined that the application complies with Sections 6- 4 and 6-5 of the Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board that it hereby grants approval of the Resnick Subdivision Detailed Submission and. Final Plat subject to the following conditions.; 1) PrioY to recording of the final phat and covenants, the following revisions shall be made: Plat Revisions a. Existing and proposed utility line locations and easements shall be depicted on the plat. ~. The intermittent stream lying to the east of the building envelope on Lot A, and a 20 foot setback from said // stream, shall be clearly delineated on the plat. ,/C. The name of the Subdivision shall be shown on the Plat. /d. All existing improvements shall be delineated on the plat. ~. A building envelope shall be established for the existing development on Lot B. v~. Building envelope dimensions shall be added. ~,~. A fifteen foot wide easement, from centerline of Dinkle 1 Lake Road shall be dedicated to the County for use as y~~iyrC.~r~ public access to public lands. Said easement shall be ~/_ 1 rj~~~~y referenced on the plat. ~! Revisions to Covenants /a. Any amendments to the covenants which contradict conditions of approval referenc.eydL' in Resolution numbers PZ 91-48, BOCC 91-142 and 92 ~ shall be subject to approval by the Board of County Commissioners. !/ b. Covenants shall .address maintenance of the common driveway. 2. Water .supply and quality, and sewage system design and #35U658 il/1~/9C 13:39ec ~.UU Bf' 694 FG 232 w, _ ., , Siivia Davis, Fi,t4::in Cnty C1er4:,'`I1oc ~'~~5 Resolution #92-,~` 7 Page 3 location, shall be approved by the Environmental Health Department prior to building permit application. \3. The new residence shall be subject to air quality regulations `~ in effect at the time of building permit application. ~4. Prior to recordation of the Final Plat, the applicant shall \ submit a park dedication fee of $135.00. 1,v5. Prior to (or concurrent with). recordation of the Final Plat, the .applicant shall provide an agreement, acceptable to the County. Attorney, with. the Mt. SopriS Ditch owners, whereby the applicant agrees to relieve the 'Ditch owners of any responsibility for damage to "Lot A" of the development caused by the ditch, and to provide access to the ditch owners for maintenance. APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE 29TI-I DAY OF SEPTEMBER., 1992. J ette Jones puty County erk APPR A~jS TO FORM: < , ~~ Tim by ~ Ahitsit~, Count Att rney els reso resnick dsbocc BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PZTRIN COUNTY, COLORADO es R. T ue, Chairman. Hate ~~ z f~ APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Suz a Ron an, Coun y Planning Director JSC~~iJ~ lt~l7~'9 ~513,~~1~~JC~~ ~~~,~~~ cz~ S~~~,/a'~ ~x EXHIBIT A -- LEGAL DESCRIPTION Parcel A That part of the following described property lying with- in Tract 85 of Sections 31 and 32, and within Lots 26th pB Mand the SW :NC4. of Section 32, all in T. 8 5.,'R. 87 ca., Beginning at a point from whence the Southwest Corner of said Section 32 bears S. 00°05'34" W. 642.59 feet andN.89°58' 30" W. 1318.46 £eeE: thence N.00°05'34" E. 1991.09 feet; thence N. 00°08'00" E. 1407.08 feet, more or less to the centerline of. a county road known as the Dinkle Lake Road as constructed and in place; thence along the centerline of said Dinkle Lake Road the following courses and distances tothe`poht of beginning, 5. 32°37.36"W. 103.55feet; S. 24°52`25" td. 273.84 feet; S. 33°01'29" W.:. 196.06 feet; ' S. 23°42'46" W. 520.64 feet: ' S. 24°58'55" W. 365.21 £eet; S. 34°51'46" W. 3fi1.41 feet; S. 18°57'18" W. 268.56 feet; S~. 04°59'23" W. _ 169.12 feet; _ ~~--' ~- ~ ~ S. 13°43'06"'W. 180.96 feet; ' 5. 16°23'35" W. 206.14 feet; S. 33°41'47" W. 454.59 feet; S. OB°14'30" E: 405.60 feet; S. 26°10'18" W. 66.83 feet; S. 52°37'03" W, 159.73 feet; 5. 04°00'56" E. 48.61 feet; S. 74°39'17" E. 124.10 feet; - S. 57°09'47" E. 98.18 feet; S. 75°51'26" E. 106.99 feet; N. 54°41'01" E. 108.35 feet; N. 64°46'40" E. 100.77 feet; N. 89°27'37" E. 74.66 feet; 5. 69°52`00" E. 199.33 feet; N. 86°38'57" E. 239.25 feet; S. 83°59'27" E. 153.45 feet; 1 ~ N. 63°07'54" E. 151.04 feet; S. 87°52'57" E. 118.26 feet, more or less. TOGETHER WITH any and all water, water rights, ditch and - ditch rights appurtenant to the foregoing lands, and specifically including but without limitation .004 cubic foot of watez per se- cond of time out of Priority 123A decreed to the Buffalo Ditch in tea ter District No. 38, Stateo£ Colorado. Parcel B A parcel of land in the SW :SW; of Section 32and the SE~:SE: of Section 31, all in T. B S., R. S7 W., 6th P.N.., said parcel be- i:~g more particularly described as follows: Becinning at a brass cap set for the Southwest Corner of. said Section 32, thence 5.89°58'30" E. 659.23 feet; thence_N hence 00°04'13" E. 586.05 feet to the centerlineasf constructed and in e.long the centerline of said county road, place , the following courses and distances, N. 69052'00" W. 184.66 feet; 5. 89 27'37" W. 100.77 feet; S. 64°46'40" tq. S. 54°41'01" W, 108.35 feet; EXHIBIT A -- LEGAL DESCRIPTION andt BraddAto Resnick~andeCandaceeJn Barbara O'Neil. Ross, Grantor, Resnick, Grantees --Sage One: of Two Pages-- :. 3 :. :, ~F < - r~ I Z ~ z ~: 3~i sec ~. ~ 3 so~s~' ~ ~ ~~ ~i~~, ~~ ~~ ~3~ 4~,'t~~•~~; EXHIBIT A -- LEGAL DESCRIPTION ' ~ (Continued) Parcel D (Cont.) N. 75°51'26" S4. 106.99 feet; N. 57°09'47" W. 98.18 feet; N. 74°39'17" W. 111.00 feet; thence 5. 03°40'54" W. 467.52 feet along a fence; thence East 72.63 feet alongthe South line of Tract85 to a brass cap set for Angle Point (A. P.) No. 1 of Tzact.66,a11 in said Township and Range; thence East 17.08 feet along the South line ofsaid~ Tract 85 to a `point on theWestlne of said Section 32; thence 5.00°02.52" W. 184.73 feet tothepoint of beginning. TOGETHER WITH any and all water, water rights, ditch and ditch rights appurtenant to or connected withthe above-describ- ed lands. .... STATE OF COLORADO ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ i ~~ .^!" y .y,r ~~ F, ~ 1,, #350658 11 / YL92 13:39 Fec ~ UU BK: 694 r ~ 233 ,x ~~e" Silvia Davis Fitl<in Cnt Clerk Doc x.00 "`~.;~+~~ z~~h w'-•' .~~ Y ..~,._ . ,, u 3, . -_ t~~f s- .9. ~5~ d -~~ 0 bI7 N 0 ~~,,~ /' {~8•~°~ ~~C63°o'7 j'~ i53.y5 _, ~8 3d W.C. P.o.d. ~~: ~'. r% ~- _,(-~! t V 1. G ' ~ ..Z-==~Q l"= 20cS Spa. e,- ° 1 »~ i7 Y6 w 10&SS' 20 v I~ -;. __ -~_._ f•~ "' #35U~58 11 / 1~/4~ 13: 'i4 ~ ~. UCI ~BY..` b94 PG 234 ~~~ ~~ ~ szrsx>~wa7a.e4 Silesia Davis, Pitk:in City Clerk:, Doc $.OC~ ' '• I ( 533°0l'24'W 196.06' o 0 r 1 SR3°43'46"W Sxo.6Y 1 I ~.]~iaS.le (.ak Rno~) a (Y~c}.kiv.~ Gowt~JQ.onc( 6 (U.S. Fors{ S¢rv JZoo°.~ 3f i o ° SW~ytJW'J4 ° w Sec. 31 ~/ T. B S,, R.8 W. of }ke 6k1.2 X / P:M. i/ ii /~ I ii i ii ~ 1 S1Y•SB55"W vvv/~~'/ 36531' I Lr _ S3v5av6 W 366vt' /~~yLy MK2 • ~ in c / O-ix I 518'ST IB'W 26B.Se / • / ' I ~e~ ~ to wide.. dxtvO~uay ~n / 5t~~ ~ G ~ '° // ~ ~ 5 ~ S4'z3"w 169~17:~ 1 ~ 0 ~~ P r ~ I' ~Y/ I ~q~ SII 43b6W IBO.96' 1 ~~~/V 3~tC h.c.t II~~~ u Slc; ~95-W 2o6.1y' n / m ~ ~ t West // ro14.6,5' o °~ /~/ / oyy /~ Trac~ 85 b ~~~ /~~ O~ '"_`r 31.0 ~c~ /~~/ ' ~aG~85~o I ~~ ` , / ~ SaS w'3~r• 4osbo ~.. '\ exis{i~O b„~S/` ~~ ~•• ~~. ~ 'J . 4..::InM ^'I 526°lo'f8'W 66.83. - /~ ` / o J f ME. So9vis J7 ~kc(l as but~~~• S52'37 c3'W IS'a7$ / -'--'-`-_ 5o4°eao36'E 4861' / ... 587°557"E I18.2G .. ' p S~2T 37"E~. 7J.66' 30' W.C. 574°39'1TE 114J(1 ~., /~ .564°SiooG 199.33' ~ p SS 7A'47`L 9 .1a / JJJJJJ o.D. 'X64°v6'°ldE toa7T 0 3J63 o7 E 171.04' - S7S :S-i 26 E 1 6~9 ]154°NI'ol E 108.35 583°5417"E 153.v5 ~ -TAG°3857"E 23915' rt _- ~_ -- _- tam SW Cavv~e. r~ L ~ s _ ~ ~, I #3548>li U3/1~/9:i 1v v4 Rec ~"~~ v4 ak 706 F'G 120 - Silvia Davis, ~i""tF.in Cii£y G~i~rX~ Doc ~.C~O DECLARATION OF COVSNAN'PS RESNICR SQBDIVTSTON 't~- r THIS DE~r.sRAmION is made and effective this i - day of (,. T~;(,;, ,"199`~~;"by Brad A. and Candace J. Resnick (the "Declarant"). Declarant is the ownere1of Lots A and B, ResnickSubdivision, according to the plat thereof recorded' arch I9 ~/3 , 1992, in Pl t Book ~I at Page ~_ as Reception Number S 88d of the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado. Declarant declares that such property is subject to the covenants set forth in this Declaration It is the intent of the Declarant that all, present and'"' uture owners of Lots A and B, mortgagees; and other persons now or hereafter acquiring any interest in the property shall be subject to the covenants, conditions, restrictions, and easements established. by this Declaration, and that such covenants, conditions, restrictions Pnd easements., shall run with tyexproperty inorder~to promote and rotect the value, desirabilit , and attractiveness thereof. 1. The following wildfire mitigation measures shall be adhered to in the construction and occupancy of improvements on Lot B: a. All roofs will be kept clear of debris.,:... b. Oak brush shall be .thinned for a distance of thirty feet ( 30') from each ~Yiome. TYinning skiall~` result in patches of vegetation with ten feet. (10') spacing between the crowns of remaining patches. Dead vegetation within thirty feet (30') of the home shall be removed. All ,vegetation within 10 feet_(10') of the home shall be removed with the exception of low growing grasses and plants: c. Prior to issuance of, a Certificate of Occupancy, ~.., a the owner of Lot A shall `provide a'2,`000 gallon underground reservoir or a pond with at least a four foot (4') depth with a, dry hydrant. The pond shall be capable of providing not less than_2,000 gallons of water for fire flow. d. Firewood shall be stacked on a contour. away from buildings. e. At least one 10_,lb. AVC class fire extinguisher shall be placed in each structure. f. All power and telephone lines shall be underground. #354D8 / 15/93 15:54 Fec ~ ~ ~ c ~U t•, ~ "706 F'C 121 a Silvia Davis, F'itk:in Cnty Clerf::, boc ~.~~~? g. Roof materials shall be of a noncombustible material such as tile; met"al, or asphalt. h. The owner of Lot B„shall install a fully automatic . ..~. .~~..~ w. . residential sprinkling system in the home_on Lot 8 with a reserve water supply to be provided as .specified by the sprinkler contractor. 2. Development impacts on wildlife shall be mitigated on Lot B as follows: a. All dogs shall be kenneled. b. All fences shall be a maximum of forty two feet (42') in height, four-strand or less with a minimum kick. space of twelve. inches ,(12") from the top wire. c. Native vegetation. outside, of the building envelope shall be maintained. d. The owners shall adhere to a 20 foot (20') setback on the intermittent stream which lies to the east of the building envelope. No`"developmerit shall occur within the setback and .vegetation shall be preserved. _ .,, 3. No development. shall. occur on slopes exceeding fifteen percent (15~) in grade. 4. Prior to construction of a new home on Lot A, the following requirements shall be met: a. Sewage disposal system and water provision for the ` Lot shall be reviewed and.,, ,approved by the Environmental Health Department prior to issuance.. of a Building Permit.. b. The owner shall revegetate all areas disturbed by construction within. one, growing season of construction. c. Outside illumination shall comply with Pitkin County lighting regulations' in 'effect at_the time. of Building Permit issuance. d. All development, with the exception of the access drive improvements, shall be located within the building envelope as designated on the site .plan.. 2 #:°54881 °~ 15/93 l.~i: 54 F~ec ~2n: C~0 BFOb F'6 122 Silviz Davis F'itk:in' Cnty C1erF-~ Doc $,x~ " e. _Prior to issuance, of a building permit, the owner - shall obtain an access permt_ from the County Engineer's .office..' f. The owner shall comply with Pxtkin County air quality standards in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. g. The owner shall comply with the requirements of Holy Cross Electric Association ..for a looped service line to serve the property, and shall be required to pay the costs of installation thereof. 5. The owners' use and enjoyment_of their. property is subject to the terms of the access easement for use of the Dinkle Lake Road_ by the public, granted to the Board of County Commissioners of Pit 'n County, Colorado, and recorded at Book '~LJ(r~ Page ~ -- of the records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. 6. The owner of Lot A shall utilize solar assisted water heating, low consumption toilets, and thermal insulation in excess of building code requirements in construction of the residence. 7. The owners. of Lots A and B ,_shall bear equal responsibility for .the maintenance of the driveway serving both residences over'its entre'length, including the BLM road easement... from its intersection with the West Sopris Creek Road to the. existing improvements on Lot Bas shown on the recorded plat of the Resnick Subdivision. 8. Any amendments to these covenants which contradict conditions of approval referenced in Resolution numbers.PZ 9{-48, BOCC 91-142, and BOCC 92-,~~ shall be subject to approval by the Board of County Commissioners. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Declar t has duly °executed this Declaration this. i~~~-- day of ~'~:'d.- 1992. ~, ~. ~~ Candace `J. Re ck 3 ##3548s~1 b:,/35/93 SSc,54 Fec ~~t~.i~f~ E+k; 706 F'G 123 Silvia Davis, F'itk:in Cnty Clerk, Doc ~.U6 STATE OF COLORADO) ss. COUNTY OF PITRIN ) _ The fore oing Declaration} of Covenants was. acknowledged before me on this i~~"- day of (;~~~1<.~ -- ,1992, by Brad A. Resnick. Witness. my hand and seal. My commission expires: ~i~'~J'?-~- ~-. '',N~' --w~ ~'~. Cdr ~g10Jy0'~'~~ Notary Public ~~, x'10 e ~ :: ~ ~. ,f ~ f ;ey ~ .~° ...STATE OF COLORADO.) ••w•..w...+ ss. ~~ COUNTY, OF PITKIN ) The fore oing Declaration of-Covenants•was,acknowledged before ane on this ~~ "- day of ~ ~ ~-~ •- • - ,1992, by Candace J. Resnick. Witness my hand. and seal. My commission expires: "~ 1 C:\WP51\DOCB\RESNICR.COv 4 _ ., a c.ss, . ,.~~;^? ' ' #35488~~~/15/93 15:56 Fec ~25.UC:` 706 FG 124 _ Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc ~.tlC EASEMENT AGREEMENT THIS Easement_Agreement ("Agreement") is made this{~!"- day of ' , ~ ,,~,`___. , 1992, between Brad A. ,Resnick and Can ace J. Resnick,_("Grantor") and Pitkin County Board of `County' Commissioners ("Grantee"). RECITALS 1. Grantor owns certain, real property situated in Pitkin. County, Colorado described on Exhibit A"("Grantor's property"); 2. By Resolution No. 92-~, Grantee approved the Resnick. Subdivision, subject to conditions, including a condition requiring conveyance, of an easement for the Dinkle Lake Road where it traverses Grantor's. property; 3. By the execution of this_Agreement, Grantor desires to convey to Grantee a non-exclusive road easement for ingress and egress for the pub Pc pac yss the Dude '~~a'ke F~gad where it ... . _ .,. a ~ :~ ~. rv traverses Grantor's ro ert By execution o~ "tTiis Agreement,' Grantee desires to accept the easement as provided herein. 1. In consideration of the terms and conditions stated in this .Agreement, Grantor conveys to Grantee, its `stiYc°c`dsso="s"'and assigns, for use by the public, a perpetual, non-exclusive easement for the use of the Dinkle ,Lake Road described on the.. plat"of the ~, . Resnick Bubdiv_ison, recorded ~ at" Plat"`BoofC `~,j_ at Page Jam, for ingress and egress across Grantor's property for .the benefit of the Grantee. and the__general public; and for the construction, maintenance, and repair of the roadway across Grantor's property. 2. Grantor further conveys to Grantee, its.. assigns and successors a temporary, limited and non-exclusive right to enter ~- upon that portion of Grantor's property within the immediate vicinity'of the 'access easement, only to the extent necessary but in no event more than twenty-five feet, for. the. purpose of surveying, engineering and constructing the roadway by the Grantee pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.... TERMS AND CONDITIONS ,. 1. The road easement shall„be of perpetual duration and may ssignedbythe Grantee to the U.S. Fores~,,_6~rvice. be a, - _~~ _ ~~ n,~ _ _ ~. _ 2. Alignment and Leaal Descriation. The road easement shall..,, conform to the alignment described on the Resnick Subdivision Plat, recorded at Plat Book ~, Page ~ of the Records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.... . ~ #k.=54882 1`5/93 15: SE1 RLC S>.'~.Je CJI1 Bf06 F6 126 Silvia Davis, F'it4in Cnty Cierk,'Doc $.>C delivered to any party hereto or when mailed, postage prepaid, by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, to the following addresses: Grantor: Candace J. and Brad A. Resnick '5353 'test"Sopris Creek ,Road Basalt, CO 81621 Grantee: Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners c/o County Manager 530 East Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 IN WITNESS WHSRSOF,the parties understand and agree to perform and to be bound by each of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the effective date of which shall be the date first above written. GRA~R: /~~ l Brad A. Resnick ATTESTe ,i <-~ J, nette Jone G OR: Candace J. Resai ck GRANTEE BOARD OF COUNTY C ISSIONERS OF PITRIN COUNTY, ORADO By: ~oi.cz Jp,,_._ Chairman STATE OF COLORADO.) )ss. COUNTY OF PITRIN ) ^,. The foregoing was acknowledged before me"this day of { ~sj,, , 1992, by Brad A. Resnick,. Witness. my hand and official seal... My commission expires; '~~~~/"~.~ ~. 3 ~~... p.a wr.rvrr... ~. O~ , ........ O ~'•. ~ .. ~ •. ^: Ma.+YXJ . ~ .. ml n......kx.. v u. rv ti t xG .w _ir ..n *e u.xP~. ' ~ #35488 15!93 I5: SfJ Fief YGS. O~J DQp F~G 127 Silvia Davis, F•itk:in Cnty Clerk, D`oc S+.UC] " STATE. OF .COLORADO,) )ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) he foregoing was acknowledged before me this L'~~ day. of "-~,~,.. -- , 1992, by Candace. J. Resnick.... Witness_ my hand and official. seal, .,..<..,, My commission.'expires: `7~~I~S ~~o+a°~0''O ' ~'' :o ;~: 1 c; \wo51\DOCe\Reanlek.8as :. .. _. -,. ° Notary Public ; ~, :_ 1Q l~ ; . ~;' 4 .~_.. i. w .... ... <, ._~~_. .uu,. .,.,.., ~ ,w..~, #35488^ / 15/9'3 S5: SE] Fec 'St.°i. C~c? Li~06 FG i~~ Silvia ~is, Fitkin Cnty Cler~4, Doi .OU EXnIDIT A -= LEGAL DESCRIPTION t Parcel A That part of the following described property lying with- in Tract 85 of Sections"31 and 32, and within Lots 2, 7. 8 and the swkmak of Section 32, all `in T. 8 S. R. S`7 tr.,°6th P.H. Eeginning ac a point from whence the Southwest Corner of said Section 32 bears S. 00°05 '34" H. 642.59 feet and N. 89'58' 30^ W. 1318.46 feet; thence N. 00°05' 34" E. 1991.09 feef7 thence N. 00°08'00" E. 1407 .08 feet, more or less to tNe centerline of a county road known as the Dinkle Lak e Road as constructed and ` in place; thence along the cen terline said Dinkle Lake Road of the following courses and distances to the point of beginning, S. 32°37'36" W. 103.55 feet; S. 24°52'25" W. 273.84 feet; S. 33°01'29" W. 196.06 feet; S. 23°42'46" t4. 520.64 feet; ' S. 24°58'55" W. 365.21 feet; S. 34°51`46" W. 361.41 feet; S. 18°57'18" W. 268.56 feet; S. 04°59'•23" SV. 169.12 feet; _ ~5. 13°43'06" W...... 180.96 feet; S. 16°23'35" W. 206.14 feet; S. 33°41'47" W. 454.59 feets 5. 08°14'30" E:' ` 405.60 feet; S. 26°10'18" W. 66.83 feet: S. 52.37'03" ti. 159.73 feet; S. 04°00'56" E. 48.61 ' feet;' S. 7d°39.17" E. 124.10 feet; S. 57°09'47" E. 98.18 feet; S. 75°51'26" E. 106.99 feet; N. 54°41'01^ E. 108.35 feet; N. 64°46'40" E. 100.77 £'eet;° N. '89°27'37" E. 79.66 fee€; S. 69e52~00~ E. 199.33 fee e N. 86 38 57 E'. 239.35 t, _ fe S. 83°59'27" E. 153.45 feet; N. 63°07'54" E. 151.04 feeti S. 87°52'57" E. 119.26 'feet, more or l ess._ TOGETEIER S9ITii anyand all water, water rights, ditch and ditch rights appurtenant to the foregoing lands, and specifically including but without limitation .004 cubic foot of water per se- cond of time out of Priority 123A decreed £o t9e"Buffalo bitch in Water District No.38,State of Colorado.. --- i ~ ~~~. ...: C ~..~z ., ,. ,.~ ....o, , ' #354883 U3/15/93 15:57 Rec ~^O.UO ~t:~, d Silvia Davisy Pitk:in Cnty Clerk:, Doc ~. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ~ 129 THIS M6MORANDUM_,OF DNDERSTANDING is entered into .between <.~. e..,~., , ~ _.,,, ... ,~. ~ ~~, _. , Brad A. Resnick and Candace J. Resnick ("Promisors"), and"David R: Danciger and Terry Considine ("Promisees",) this day of x_1992. WHEREAS, Promisors are the owners of the,_property known as Lots A and B, Resnick Subdvisi n, according to the plat th reof recorded f'Y)arcGi I5" - 199, in plat book 3 / at page g/-/~ as reception number ~ ~~8~ of the records of the_Pitkin County Clerk .'and Recorder; and. .WHEREAS, condition number 5 of Resolution No. 92-~ of the Board of County Commissioners of Ptkin County`Colorado, granting Detailed Submission, approval for the Resnick Subdivision, requires. a Memorandum of Understanding between .the Mt. Sopris Ditch owners and the Resnicks, whereby the"Promisors agree"to hold the Ditch owners harmless from damage caused by the Ditch to development on Lot A and to provide access o the Ditch Company for maintenance thereof; and WHEREAS, there is no Mt. Sopris Ditch Company, but the right, title and interest_ in .and ,to the subject ditch and water adjudicated thereto are owned by David K. Danciger, owner of that certain real property in Garfield and Pitkin Counties. known as the. "Tybar Ranch," and Terry Considine, owner of. that certain real. property known as_the "Big Four Ranch;" and WHEREAS, Promisors and Promisees desire to enter into this agreement and agree to the terms and conditions. of this Memorandum of Understanding, which are for the benefit of all, parties. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the agreements set forth herein and other good and valuable consideration, it is mutually agreed as follows: 1., Promisors, on behalf of themselves, their agents, successors, and assigns, agree to release and hold Promisees, their agents, successors, and assigns, harmless from and against any and all liability, claims, suits, or causes of action for injury, damages, losses, expenses, and costs of any kind or nature "to development on Lot A, Resnick Subdivision, that may arise directly or indirectly out of the ownership, maintenance repair, improvement, replacement, or operation of the Mt. Sopris Ditch on or near said Lot A, provided "that Promisees, their agents, successors, and assigns shall otherwise fully comply with Colorado law with respect to such activities, including without limitation C.R.S. 37-84-1O1, et seq.; and further provided that such.. release shall not apply to the negligent actions of the Promisees, their agents, successors, and assigns, as to any injury, damages, losses, expenses and costs of any kind or nature to persons or property on Lot B, Resnick Subdivision, that"may arise directly or indirectly cw, x „.. i . ~, .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~,. ~. ,. ~.._..~ ~<w. #'i54883 ~71.°i%93 15:'S r F~ec ~2C~: (_`,p E~~ . Ob FG 131 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc ~.Ui~ `- State of Colorado) )ss County of Pitkin ) The foregoing Memorandum of Understanding was .acknowledged before me on this ~~day of ~: h~w~._..~- , 1992, by Brad A. Resnick. _ Witness my hand and seal. .,'o,~yoio~ ~, ,, _ _ ;~' •. o My commission expires: ~~~~~/~`~ ~O JIB®~ r"; . _. •- t -f ~`a. _ Notary Public ,~ :.. 1Lt }) 'W State of Colorado) )ss County of Pitkin j The foregoin Memorandum of Understanding was acknowledged before me on this ~ day of ~ _'t~;~~c `_- , 1992, by Candace J. Resnick, Witness my hand and seal. _ ,, My commission expires: '~/I v,/ >' ' ~ ~"''~~ State of Colorado) )ss County of Pitkin ) yo , Notary Public • • ~j~ ~~.r< bbl ^ N : ~~, The foregoing Memorandum of Understanding was acknowledged before me on this day of , 1992, by David R. Danciger. Witness my hand and seal. My commission expires: Notary Public 3 _- -~ _, tea„ ,_.,.. w , ~ . „ :._ ... ..... v.-x. .. .... ...:.:.:~ r #35488 :>3/ 15/93 15: Sr Fec $2ij, 0<~ Bk.' 706 PG 132 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.tJli State of Colorado) )ss County of Pitkin ) The--foregoing Memorandum of Understanding was acknowledged before me on this _ day of , 1992, by Terry Considine,. Witness my hand and seal. My commission expirese Notary Public 1 C:\WP51\DOCS\Rfi3NICR.MEM 4 ,- c ~ .,-- ,i TO: THRU: RE: FROM: Board of County Commissioners Reid Haughey, County Manager: Suzanne Konchan;' County Planning Director Resnick Ellen Sassano, Planner lion/Final Plat SIIMMARY: The Planning Commission and Staff recommend conditional approval of the Detailed Submission and F1na1 Plat. REQUEST: The_ second lot is undeveloped. actions 6- ~~~~ ` .,~ is There 'and the ..._ taQk ~22,S01titt 16n '3 J.~+14L~5~+ati,~~ uaaY~ r°±x~~.i «~> t> e ~ . Es°°`a e„ < 9~i~~ ~ F . APPLICANT: Candice and Brad Resnick LOCATION: 5353 West Sopris Creek Road; West Sopris Creek Road where it intersects with Dinkle Lake Road ZONING: The site is zoned RS-30. ISSUES: Park Dedication - Section 5-501.11, requires payment of a park dedicationfee based on the current market ;value of the land without ,improvements.- The. park dedication- fee.calcul.ation subml~tted by the applicant is based on a 1988 land appraisal*of t"fie property. ~, , s~ y p g he land appraisal, the applicant Rather than a costl u datin of tv.~,. requests that he be allowed to triple that tee based on the 1988. appraisal. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the applicants request, resulting in a fee of $135:00. Dinkle Lake Road Easement Dedication - Condition number 5 of the ~,.~, General Submission' aResolution (92-142) stipulates that the applicant shall provide an'~a'ce~ess easement for use of the Dinkle ., .. Lake Road by the public. A portion of this Forest .Service Road crosses the applicant's property. There is currently a discrepancy in the amount of land the applicant is willing to grant an easement for .and the amount of land the Forest Service has requested. In view of the applicant's inability to come to closure with the Forest Service on this issue,, the applicant requests acceptance of - l1C l.G ttcu .auua ... , - ~r~ws€~.+"s <. .r., ,~n ~.e e. -.i.. ,... N.~F,w yz _k ~.~. ~~c.,.,s*..k,,,..~,!vn.,:~az. ~w3aw.y~,.grer~b'.s~...z:aa:n,'~o-wuln v~n2.^iwa+~'er~ .: _. r ~,,,~ . ~ ~ _ r_~, an 8' easement (from centerline) by the County, without preclusion of a subsequent conveyance of the right-of-way to the Federal Government. Considering County policies regarding preservation of scenic and rural roads, the County Engineer, the. Planning Commission and the Planning Office. recommend County acceptance of a 15_foot easement from the center line of the.ROad. This issue is discussed in more _u... = :, t_,..., , ~ ,t . ~. n ., detail in the attached Staff memo."' Memorandum of Understanding between the Mt. Sopris Ditch Company No. 9 requires a memorandum"of understandngPe~ti+een tkie 9tcaused b1-142 d the Company andsthekResn cks t wlierebm the 2romissors at reeSopris Ditch Ditch Company harmless from damage to development _ y the ditch and to provide access 'to the ditch company for maintenance. .This condition is consistant with Sections 5-,501.,10 (c) and (d) of the Land"Use Code. John Ely notes that compliance with the Code may subject the County to litigation because of possible conflicts with State Statute The County Code does not omit negligence, and removes all liability from the Ditch Company for damages The Planning Commission believe's this is~ inconsistent with State _law andr forwards a recommendation to resoYve the apparent conflict T~etween ~he County Code and St to Statute at the Board level r~"~'1 The Count Attorney will comment on this issue at the meeting. STABF_RECOMMENDATION:,,y _„ .... . e,~ .. ~ .~ nal approval The Planning'Commission and Staff recommend conditio e and Final Plat of the Detailed Submission .. ~x :, ~- . TO: THRLT=: FROM: RE: MEMORANDIIM ~ Board of County Commissioners Reid Haughey, County Manager Suzanne Konchan; County Planning Director Ellen Sassano, Planning Office Resnick Subdivision - Detailed Submission/Final Plat DATE: September_29, 1992. SUMMARY: The Planning Commission. and Staff recommend conditional approval of the Detailed Submission and Final Plat., REgUEST: The applicant is requesting Detailed Submission and Final _._. .Plat approval of the Resnick Subdivision. pursuant to Secttions 6- 4 and _6-5 of the Land Use Codey The applicant proposes to ~,.. , subdivide a 62 acre parcel o~ land into two 3I aCrh`par"cels. There is an existing residence and outbuildings "on""one lot, and the second-lot is undeveloped. The proposed subdivision has received the following approvals: 1. Resolution No. PZ-91-48: Granting a Lot Line Adjustment and 1041 Hazard Review approval;" 2. BOCC Resolution No. 91-142': Granting Gdneral Submission. Subdivision approval; and '' 3. BOCC Resolution No. 91-146: Awarding One Residential GMQS Allotments for the project APPLICANT: Candice and Brad Resnick - - APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE:, Thomas Fenton Smith ~-- ZONING• RS-30 LOCATION 5353 's~t~~`3'`f''i's~°"~'~c~ek Road<,,= ;es4"~5opris Creek ,Road, ei`"e'~' it" znte"Y;-sectsy with Dixtk~,e` I,,ak'd ~2o'~a~ REFERRALS• 1. Zoning: Joanna Schaffner reviewed the Plat documents and made. .~ _ . ~ v_. . „~. ~ ....e. _~ ,, ~~.. ~. ,.. .--. the following comments: a. The protective covenants should stipulate that provisions reflecting Subdivision conditions of approval shall only be modified .with. the „approval of the Board of County Commissioners.. b. The Dinkle Lake Road Easement shall be indicated on the Final oraw~,...~^9ra'4e.,ay ?Li `+~+tw*-d&~a ~q <a xv =~r.4 a~a,aw+-kksk~abrd'n"~~`a6*~3kzka"s 5a+~s~s^r~`z. ~~,tJ:?° idth easement which would be in mo 0' from cen£erline, to accommodatg f the road. There is currently a d he applicant is willing to grant f land the Forest Service has regn o granting a 30'' easement becausj gill allow improvements to the r iecessary, and which may encourage ilso initially concerned that the as if not all places, less than Lntenance`and reconstruction an easement ror ana Lne a,«~u,.~ of Aconcerns that the easement d whcki they believe are not >re traffic. The applicant was iditional easement°width would _. _. size, therefoYe creating a lot Zdri`e:"This is, not a concern, public use are not' subtracted from overall lot size by the County. In view of the applicant's inability to come to ,closure with the Forest Service on this isysue, the applicant requests acceptance of . ,, ,m ,, . the 8' easement by'tYie County, without preclusion of_a subsequent conveyance of he right-of-way to the. Federal Government. Considering County policies regarding preservation of scenic and rural roads, the County Engineer recommends acceptance of an easement by the. County. The. County currently maintains., this segment of Dinkle Lake Road... by agreement with the_Forest Service. . ,... Based on the minimum"County"driveway easement requirement`~of`30 " feet (15' from centeY2ine),"and the minimum right-of-way width of 0' for a Class V Country Access or"Primitive Roadway, Mr. Eylar - ,ecommends that the County accept a' 15' easement from the plicant. This would accommodate an 8 16' total driving surface `°'a`~nd shoulders for maintenance Tfe driveway stahdar'd' is designed '_ _..,..,,, ~,.,,.~ , +~ a tinmPS~d~"f"~ie Class ~V road standard is the "iriinimum Tor ,any county r~au. • ~••~ ~-• - - - y p ~ ~ w,~_~ w ,„ ~Service~lands ~sAcceptance of the easementt bysthe Cou ss~to;Forest` q y my to ~ recludesubseuent conve ante o~~the easementfrom theyCoues not 'the Forest Service, if the Count so chooses. The Forest Service may also choose to go through condemnation proceedings to obtain ~fhe additional easement area. ._ _.. >.. The Planning Commission and Staff.,.recommend County acceptance of a 15 foot easement. from the center line of the Toad. Memorandum of Understanding between the Mt. Sopris Ditch gompany and the Resnicks- Condition number 2 of Resolution No. _91-142. requires a memorandum., of understanding between the,Mt,sopris Ditch Company and the Resnicks, whereby`£'h`e proinissors agree to hold the Ditch Company harmless from damage to development .caused by the ditch and to provide access to the ditch company for maintenance. This condition is pursuant to Sections 5=501:10 (c) and (d) of the Land Use Code. The agreement drafted py the applicant's. attorney, reflects the Colorado statutory requirement that ditch owners have an .obligation 3 . _ . &,...~ Mg e r r>S~ ~. .a,... .,~ ,,. , h , ax:x .ode ,tfi.v., rdn~. ~.;8 _..S_v~n».errasa~~° .. hdoerate the ditch so as not to inure theproperty to maintain a p through which the ditch passes. Colorado law provides that. ditch owners are liable for their negligence in operation or maintenance. The adjacent landowners hold that they should be absolved of all responsibility, including damages which may result from their negligent actions. Colorado law already provides that "any person .owning a water right...shall be entitled to a right of way `through the lands which lie between the point bf diversion'and the point of use...for the purpose of transporting water...(CRS37=86-102). In view of this statute., the applicant feels that the County's requirement fore an agreement between the parties is unnecess`"ary. Given the inability of the two landowners to, come to agreement regarding liability for damage caused by the ditcii;`Ehe applicant requests that the County delete the requirement for. a memorandum of understanding between the'Resnicks and the owners of the, ditch. They view this as a private matter, as to tahch`the Colorado`Laia° already adequately achieves what the County intended by requiring the agreement, and the parties have no~~ been able to reach an agreement in away which is consistent with Colorado aaw '.,Nro . The County Attorney has reviewed the County Code and State statutes as they relate to this case. and, determined the following: Land Use. Code Section 5-501.10 (c) and (d) require the applicant to provide access for".ditch owners°and a "hold harmless" agreement ._ s. for the benefit of the ditcki owner State statute 37-86-102 provides that a person with a water right may sue or condemn to obtain access to a ditch This is less restrictive than rights afforded to `the ditch `owner in the Code. State statute 37-84-102 provides, that ditch owners are liable for, injury to property due to negligence in operation or maintenance. The Code provides that the applicant can't seek damages from the- ---- -'ditch owner for damage to deve3opment.(unless, according to State statute, damages result from ditch owners negligence). The County Attorney recommends. that the applicant comply with County Code requirements to provide an„agreement with the Ditch owners, whereby the promissory agree to hold the Ditch Company' harmless from damage caused by the ditch and to provide access to the ditch company for maintenance. Joh$ Ely notes that compliance. with the Code may conflict with State statutes. ,The County Code does not omit negligence, and t„ ..., ~,~.~~ removes all liability fiom the Ditch_,Company for damages: Mr. Ely notes that the Code encourages agricultural use by seeking to keep liability for operating the ditch_at a constant. level for the ditch owner and not allow it to rise_dramatically withthe value of 4 w _.. .. _.... ,;~~ w..c .a ..XbSS..,aCd .N ~~~. ..,,.. m: ......c ,U.,„ ~. ,,,;t,„~ikAa, m.,eudv~~csa..,ww~-.Y~.. a~zus..aaa...&3.~~. ~,.~ t ..,~' '~ development. The Planning Commission believes that because ,this may be inconsistent with State law, theychose to allow the Board to resolve the apparent conflict between the County Code and State ~ Statute. Depending on the Board's determination, the condition of approval ` cotizld be worded in one,, of the fohl.owing two ways: L. Prior to (or concurrent with) recordation of the Final P1at,.the applicant shall record an agreement with the Mt. Sopris Ditch owners, wherebythe promissors agree toehold the Ditch owners harmless: from damage caused"by theditch"(unlesa'damaga is caused. by negligence on,fhe part of the ditch, owners) and to provide .access to the ditch owners for maintenance;. or 2. Prior to (or concurrent with) Yecordation of the Final P1at,,the applicant shall record an agreement with theMt. Sopris Ditch owners, whereby the promissors agree to hold the Ditch owners harmless .,from damage caused by the ditch ardto provide access tothe ditch owners for maintenance. The County Attorney will comment further on this issue at the meeting. SUMMARY .._______a,.a _e.>;~;nn~ +n the Plat and documents into compliance with County l.a~ conditions of ,approval. -With revisions, with Sections 6-4 and, 6-5 of the Code. ~venants will bring both l`U8`e Cgde regulations and the applcation_complies RECOMMENDATION .. _ , Staff recommends app~ov81 of the Resnick Subdivision Detailed,. Subdivision and Final Plat subject to the following conditions: 1) Prior to recording of the final plat .and covenants, the following revisions. shall be made: Plat Revisions "" a. Existing and proposed utility ,line locations and easements shall., be depicted on the plat. b. The intermittent stream lying to the east of the building envelope OTt Lot A, and a 26 foot setback from said stream, shall be clearly delineated on the plat'. c. The name of the Subdivision shall be shown.. on the Plat. d. All existing improvements shall be delineated on the plat. e. A building envelope shall be established £or the existing 5 ., .. .. y+aw sawb,a~= . ._~~,.... ~~ur~ rt-Yfi~rnk~~Is"~77~~tx~+s#7 ~;~~~~ ~~~°+'^~~~~E3+°a development on Lot B. f. Building envelope dimensions shall added. g; A fifteen foot wide easement, from centerline of Dinkle Lake Road shall be dedicated to the County for use as ...,.a .~ r ., _.,. p "' ~ nt shall be referencedeon the p~latc arids'. Said" easeme Revisions to Covenants.. a. Any amendments_ to the covenants _which contradict conditions of approval reference`d` in Resolution numbers _.. PZ 91-48, BOCC 91-142 and 92 shall be subject to approval by the Board of County Commissioners. b. Covenants ..shall address maintenance of ,the .common driveway. 2. Water supply and quality, and sewage' system. design and location, shall be "approved_ by the Environmental Health. Department prior to building .permit application. 3. The new residence shall be,subject to air quality Yegulations irt'effect at the time„of building permit application. 4. Prior to recordation of the Final Plat, the applicant shall submit,a park dedication fee ~of`$135.00. 5. Prior to (or concurrent with) recordation of the Final Plat, 9, _ 5 ~ p. , pp Ditch Ditch ownerst whereby th ~ promissory an ree to hold theSopris owners harmless from dama a caused b the ditch and to rovide access to the ditch owners for maintenance. els memo resnick dsfp 6 w,.r ...vn, ..,~*4„kka3: Y, . {. a,... ",^, ~~ie mi~..;rv ?S.i$kffi,e~4°^.~~",rwt°vP:tY32'sifia3'!~":n. GC3'8 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners THRU: Reid Haughey, County Manager Suzanne Konchan, County Blanning Director FROM: Ellen Sassano, Planning Office.. RE: Resnick Subdivision - Detailed Submission/Final Plat DATE: September 29, 1992 SUMMARY: The Planning Commission and Staff recommend conditional approval of the Detailed Submission and Final Plat 3......z.~~~ .... u,.~. . ,. ,. ., ~.... . w . , ... .~ x~~., ~ .M ~~ ., . d.a REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Detailed Submission and Final Plat approval of the Resnick Subdivision pursuant to. Sections 6- 4 and 6-5 of the Land Use Code. The applicant proposes to subdivide a 62 acre. parcel of land into two 31 acre parcels.. There is an existing residence and outbuildiigs"ori` one lot, and the second lot is undeveloped. ..The. proposed subdivision has received the following approvals: 1. Resolution No. PZ-91-48: Granting a Lot Line Adjustment and 1041 Hazard Review approval,•' 2. BOCC Resolution No. 91-142: Granting General Submission Subdivision approval; and 3. BOCC Resolution No. 91-146: Awarding One Residential GMQS Allotments for the project APPLICANT: Candice and Brad Resnick APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Thomas Fenton Smith ZONING: RS-30 LOCATION: 5353 West Sopris Creek Road; West Sopris Creek. Road where it intersects with Dinkle Lake Road REFERRALS: i. Zoning: Joanna Schaffner reviewed the Plat documents and made the following comments: a. The protective covenants should .stipulate that provisions reflecting Subdivision conditions of ,.approval ..shall only be modified .with., the,_ approval of the Board of .County Commissioners. b. The Dinkle Lake Road Easement shall be indicated on the Final s.. n~,.~~.~ , .i,. . ~ .~. Aa ~: ..~ ~, ... x.~~.n ";e.., s ..~ ~ ~.m ~ y«,~ kl .9 `F^ rct . `:. < 5 Plat. c. The proposed building envelope lies outside of all .required setbacks. The Zoning memo. of ,.May 14, 1992, is attached as Exhibit.. 1. 2. County Attorney: The County Attorney had no comments regarding the Plat documents. 3. Environmental Health~Department: Bob Nelson inaicares cnaL the applicant should be able ;to conform toTCo 5 ty reguTa`tions using either a conventional_septid system 'or an en sneered-designed on- site wastewater disposal system. Due to well permit restrictions, the disposal system must be a non-evaporative type. Mr. Nelson recommends that once the water well is developed, that the applicant provide documentation of the water 'upply"and quality prior to building permit_applicaton Tkie~new residence shall be subject to air quality regulations in effect at the time of building permit application. y ,_ to fullty omgl ewrth Ar• end x A ofmmends that the Plat be revised y p y pp the Land Use Code. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff has reviewed the Detailed Submission and Final Plat documents for compliance with conditions placed at general submission, and for compliance with the Land Use Code. Recommended revisions to the Plat and Covenants will bring both documents into compliance with these requirements. Recommended Plat andcovenant revisions are detailed in condition number below. Issues Park Dedication - Section 5-501.11 requires payment of a park dedication fee based on the current market value of the land without improvements. The. park dedication fee calculation submitted.: by the applicant is based on a 1988 land appraisal of the property. Rather than a costly updating of the land appraisal, the applicant has requested that he be allowed to triple the fee, based on fhe 1988 appraisal. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the applicants request, resulting in a fee of $135.00. Dinkle Lake Road Easement Dedication Condition number 5 of the General Submission `Resolution `("9`2-142)' stipulates that the applicant shall provide an `access easement for use of the Dinkle Lake Road by the public. A porton~of' this Forest Service Road crosses the ..,applicant's property. Half of th'e road' (from" centerline) crosses through the Resnick .property, and half crosses through the adjacent Turnbull property. The applicant is willing to provide an easement for the existing 8 feet of road area crossing the property. The Fores£ Service is requesting a variable 2 e+k..-~, h, m. Mx, ~v 7.w8.#S„.i~,"~~k?°`+-,,"3:S'a"~~"Lbe.~±`. ". ,"..wxi +~~ . width easement which would be in most, if not all places, less than 30' from centerline, to accommodate maintenance and reconstruction of the road. There is currently a discrepancy in the amount bf land the applicant is willing to grant an easement for and. the amount of land the Forest Service has requested. The applicant is opgosed ~ ~. to granting a 30' easement because, of concerns that the easement d .,.. will allow improvements to the road which they 'believe are "not 0 necessary, and which may encourage more traffic. The applicant was also initially concerned that the additional easement width would be subtracted from the overall lot, size, therefore creating a lot" of less than 30 acres in the RS-3'0 Zone. This is not a concern, however, as easements granted for public use are note subtracted from overall lot size by the County. In view of the applicant's inability to come to closure.. with the Forest Service on this issue, the applicant requests acceptance of the 8' easement by the County, without preclusion of a subsequent conveyance of .the right-of-way to the Federal Government. Considering County policies regarding preservation of scenic and rural roads, the County Engineer recommends acceptance of an easement by the County. The County currently maintains this segment of Dinkle Lake Road„by agreement with the Forest Service. Based on the minimum County driveway easement requirement of 30 feet (15' from centerline), and the minimum right-of-way width of 30' for a Class V Country Access or Primitive ,Roadway, Mr. Eylar recommends that the County accept a 15' easement from the, applicant. This would accommodate an 8-16' total driving surface and shoulders for maintenance The driveway standard''is designed rt to serve from 1 to~8 homes and~t~ie"Class ~ road standard is the ,..,...~.,.__~ ~.N,~ ,.v,..<..., .. ti . _~_ minimum for any County road.. The Dinkle Lake Road does not' currently access private residences, but serves as access to Forest Service lands. Acceptance of the easement by the County does note preclude subsequent conveyance of the easement from the County to the Forest Service, if the County so chooses. The Forest Service may also choose to go through condemnation proceedings to obtain the additional easement area. The Planning Commission and Staff recommend County acceptance of a 15 foot easement from the center line of the 'Road. Memorandum of Understanding between the Mt. Sopris Ditch Company and the Resnicks- Condition number 2 of Resolution No. 91-142 requires a memorandum of understanding between the Mt.'Soprs Ditch Company and the Resnicks, whereby the promissory agree to hold the Ditch Company harmless from damage to development caused by the ditch and to provide access to the ditch company for maintenance. This condition is pursuant to Sections 5-501.10,(c) and (d) of the Land Use Code. The agreement drafted by the applicant's attorney, reflects the Colorado statutory requirement that ditch owners have an obligation ~~ ~,..a r~.~ ~ , ..~ h ...G~. .LS ...x".a.: u:«.,yuam.:mwv3v~vr3w k...~~ao-~n ~~am~tl~m~5r~x.+.~x~ia~c~ to maintain andoperate the ditch so as not to injure the property x ..w. ~, through which the ditch. passes. Colorado law provides that drtc owners are liable for their negligence in .operation or maintenance. The adjacent Tandowners`~holdthat theyshould be absolved of all responsibility, including damages''w`"hich may result from their negligent actions. Colorado law already provides that "any person' owning a water right...shall be entitled to aright of way through the lands which lie between the point of diversion and the point of use...for the purpose of transporting water...(CRS37=86=102). In view of this statute, the applicant feels that. the County's requirement for an agreement between the parties is unnecessary. Given the inability of the two landowners to come to agreement regarding liability for damage caused by the ditch, the applicant requests that the County delete the requirement for a memorandum of understanding between the Resnicks and„the owners of the ditch. • p , The view this asa rivate matter as to wh~ic~~' alread ade uatel achieves what the Count intended b re uiring theya reement and the arties have not beenhable tol reao Law g p ch an agreement in a way which i consistent with Colorado law. The County Attorney has reviewed the County Code and State statutes as they relate to this case and determined the following: Land Use Code Section 5-501.10 (c) and (d) require the applicant to provide access for ditch owners and a "hold harmless" agreement ~.. for the benefit of the ditch owners. State statute 37-86-102.. provides that a person with a water..-right may sue or' condemn to obtain access to a ;ditch. This is less restrictive than rights afforded to the ditch owner in the Code. State statute 37-84-102. provides that ditch owners are liable for. injury to property due to negligence in operation or maintenance. The Code provides that the applicant can't seek damages from the ditch owner for damage to development (unless, according to State statute, damages result from ditch owners negligence). The County Attorney recommends that the applicant comply with County Code requirements to provide ah agreement with the Ditch. owners, whereby the promissory. agree to hold the Ditch Company harmless from damage caused by the ditch and to provide access to the ditch company for maintenance... John Ely notes that compliance with. the Code may conflict with State statutes. The County Code does not omit negligence, and removes all liability from the'Ditch Company for damages. Mr. Ely notes that the`COde encourages agricultural use by seeking to keep liability for operating the ditch at a constant level for the ditch owner and not allow it to rise dramatically with the value of 4 ... ... ~...: t.,,+ m.M k~x•. ~,. .,. ir....~.~*.< s.a n,Faa n4N mrvbrwxi~.AiA:ww^i, n~i6';'~.6^;rm ~.P Z. xtZi .'~~~rzu-,+~"''", ~""',~ development. The Planning Commission believes that because this C may be inconsistent with State law, they chose to allow the Board to resolve the apparent conflict between the County Code and State Statute. Depending on the Board's determination, the condition of approval could be worded in one, of the following two ways: .. .. .. yr +...v vr. l r. S: ~.. ..:r'. ~ .. .:~. ' ...: :.... 1. Prior to (or concurrent with) recordation of the Final Plat, the applicant shall record an agreement with the Mt. Sopris Ditch owners, whereby the promissors agree to hold the Ditch owners harmless from damage caused by the ditch (unless damage is caused by negligence on"`the part of the ditch owners) and to provide .access to the ditch owners for maintenance; or 2. - Prior to (or concurrent with) recordation of the Final Plat, the applicant shall record an agreement with the Mt. Sopris Ditch owners, whereby the promissors agree to hold the Ditch owners harmless„from damage caused by the ditch and to provide access tothe ditch owners for maintenarice: "' "~ The County .Attorney will .comment further on this issue at the meeting. SUMMARY Recommended revisions to the Plat and Covenants will bring both documents into compliance with County Land Use Code regulations and conditions of approval. With revisions, the application complies with Sections 6-4 and 6-5 of the Code. RECOMMENDATION ... Staff recommends approval of the Resnick Subdivision Detailed Subdivision and Final Plat subject to the following conditions: i) Prior to recording of the final plat and. covenants, the following revisions shall be made:. Plat Revisions a. Existing and proposed utility line locations and easements shall be depicted on the plat. b. The intermittent ,stream dying to the east of the building envelope on -Lot A, and a 20 foot setback from said stream, shall be clearly delineated on the plat. c. The name. of the Subdivision shall be shown on the Plat.. d. All existing improvements. shall be delineated on the plat.. e. A building envelope shall be_established for the existing 5 N~. a , za. y:' ..ua~missa..,~,~,.:rosr~.rc s:a :.S ~..~ n...,r, _M nvi~Xa' m" 1 w.v.".~,~ ~.~ _. _. ..:_ .... .~ .~~.~~ ~. ...a~a .,. ,,,..~. ... ~.. development on Lot B. f. Building envelope dimensions. shall added. q. A fifteen foot wide easement, from centerline of Dinkle ~ Lake Road shall be dedicated tg the Couhty for use as public access to public lands.' Said easement shall be referenced on the plat. Revisions to Covenants a. Any amendments to the covenants which contradict conditions of .approval referenced in Resolution numbers. PZ 91-48, BOCC 91-142 and 92 ,_ shall be subject to approval by the Board of County Commissioners. b. Covenants shall address maintenance of the common driveway. 2. Water supply and quality, and sewage system design and location, shall' be approved_ by the Environmental Health Department prior to building permit application. 3. The new residence shall,be subject to air quality regulations in effect at the time of building permit application. 4. Prior to recordation of the Final Plat, the applicant shall submit a park dedication fee of~$13$.00. 5. Prior to_(or concurrent with) recordation of the Final Plat, the applicant shall record an, agreement with the Mt. soprs Ditch owners, whereby the promissors agree to hold the Ditch owners harmless from damage caused_by the ditch and to provide access to the ditch owners for maintenance. els memo resnick dsfp 6 _r ..,, -~ , ~o- f2P. .a. .#+S n.. xA4,,. .`_.w .x.n xk r4ls k4 6:^b'7 r~4Y"~5,. .a_t ,. 1Tw E~Yu ~~ant&Na.3.,an,LEY{ ... ,< . ,, ,~ ~ . ; - ~ .., , *~ ~ /" i , ~ X '~ ,~~ „,d~ ~ ~~ ! ~~ ~>~ rt y ~ / J _ .. +~.~ Syr ,.~ L 'Jr /'- <~ , ~i - 31 ~ ( r . 32 f ~ \ • • ~ • l ~ .YLes+~.ick S4 ~; , ~ ~~, l ~~~ r ~•. ~ ~, ~ ~ J- ~ '" \ `. t 118 ~ \\'~ ro'` ~ _ / ,\ 1 ~, i~ ~' ~ {53.5 ~ ~~ 6..~ '( ~~~~ "V ' '~ ~ ~~~ y ~ t/ ` ~~ u~ ~ 11 ~L .I~ ~- )c ~ ~ ~ ~r! ! ( _ ~~ ~~ ~ m ~ ~, O _ _~j,~ m _ - ~ 8 to ~ ~~ ., '~ ~ , ~ f , '- ~ ~-/ . ~- _ , ~. ~. ~ .~ ~,.~~ ~ r ' ,. o\ ~ ~ ~_ 53J-'3•i 36"W103•SS1..~}'2ov p < ~ ..~^... .. .. }..w. }' ", .. S~4"Sx SS'W 273.B~F' ,. ( 533°ol'2q"W 14GO6' 0 'e 7 ~ o 523°H3Y6"W SJ.o.WFP ~ ~ v. 4` 1~i.~kte C.okpp Rco~ b I (J2ctkir~ Gsuxu{ Road 6 8 (U.S. Foxes S¢+v eRoacQ 3f i o 0 5~^/~IvNW'/v ~ ..r Sec. 31 Sec. '32 Tas.,a.8 w.~.><keb~-P.M. // ii ii /~ SzYSe SSw 36s.11' 1 ~ ~~ o / S3Y•51'H6'W 361.41' 1 ~ 11 20' WtctC n~rece~2g5.. TCAR Ml¢1tt•I. •~Lr p / O-iv 518 5 T 18" W 26856 ~ \ I (-0•x'7 to wilt drivmun.{kn ~ si~~ ''~ O 'D d ~ \ Q. S ISQ'23 W ,49`17: ~ ~ i,'~ , ~p~~~ 51 i 43ov W ISa96 ~ N l.0~.4. I~ ~/ 31•ooC he •t 1 o ~ ~~~ m 516'35"w 2o6.ly' ^ es ~~ (o~q.65" 0 533"4P 7"W 459. ~~ ® //._ Traci 85~- _Lo~.~ ~i'~' ~.- -0~. at.oa-Bhc: ~~ i7 1 Io ///// ~ 'TYa.c~BS C 1 v' 'JQ914 "in~G ~(OS6o L. - .~ CXISttu~ 6u~ `/~xq~OO ~ . Loi• ~ ~ ( /.• 526 /o l8~ W 66.83'- ~a / ~ ME. So9ris J7~~tl as buC1~-Z___/~• 551°37o3'W 159.73' '~"'- 7 504°oo3(i E 4861' _,. ~. •. 587 5157"E 118.16 §`2T 3TC'. 7.66' ~ W c. 579°39't7F 124.1(1 - •~•'~", /~/} 569°SiooE t9R•33' ~ P.o.p, 557:.9471= q dC ~ J X64•Hb'4o'G ioa?7 o Jvb3o7 E iti 1.o4' 575'7ry 16 C 1 699 J-L54°4~ 71 E {08.35' .583°541-7"E !53.45 ~ ' -x~°3857"E z3q.a5' ~rc c ~ L,,,-SW 6v.~Q.rof~- Y{. g7 W. H-PP hhYY 't',o?l6 ~.c- w:: _ _ !K, o...,zr.;eza dw~trrc. ~i~~ ~ »:~+m.~hw,~.a.~suL~xrh°af~,.&&w.a~avant&'"a3~,~w+,".ik~ea[In"~cuu53~15~'e#&iE' 1~~~~~ ~ r o~ ~ M E M O R A N D U M TO: Ellen Sassano, County Planner. FROM:. Joanna S. Schaffner, County Zoning~ljSJ DATE:. May 14, 1992 RE: Resnick Subdivision Detailed Submission -_ „~ „s.. ~~.~„~... h eviewed the above referericedYapplicatc Final Plat i "offer the I ave r _ _ . following comments, ZONE: RS-30, thirty acre minimum lot size The applicant has listed conditions of approval pursuant to Resolution PZ-91-48 within the Subdivision Covenants. The Covenants should also state that these are c6iiditions of approval required by the County and c can approve changes to them. The Park Dedication ...fee of appraisal does not reflect tY .~~ .ww., a~iPars a'o ,bPi .08 ~ low. A 1988 ~di~~aea status of the parcel and therefore undervalues t e p~..N~~ty:~ A"new°"app"r"aisal should be required~andthe ParkDedication F'ee recalculated. _ w. ~:.. ~. ., The Dinkle Lake Road Easement shall be indicated on the Final Plat. The proposed building envelope lies outside of ...all required setbacks. ,,,: ..... .. r.Y.,.ns:N ~ ...v rv .. v v . . a a `~ . V 5 .w iv..9x~(.'..,n.~..,.a. ......a:r. +., vimm~.uix :3i.Fsk x'~S r ,.. ASPEN*PITKIN ~~~ ~~ Z ~TwwC nIT MEMORANDUM To: Ellen Sassano, Planning Office. From: Environmental Health Department Date: May 15, 1992. ~~ .,~ _ MAY 2 I P~~~ .e....___ m~. ~ ; __. Re: Resnick Subdivision Detailed Submission and Final Plat ,.,. _ . ,:.,. ._ J: _...~ _... ,, ,: Parcel ID#2465-323-00-003 The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the above-mentionedland use submittal"`underauthority of the Pitkin County Code, Title II, 'and h'as the following comments. SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: Sections 2 7 and 5 200. -_ .. ... .. .:,,:: n. . ~f ~'m w Y ..r .... "M:g • ~kJ .. fr ".P r `~' .'~. ~ , ~ .. ". F nnM ~ The plans are to install an individual sewage disposal system for the disposal of wastewater from the proposed residence on the additional lot to be created if the application is_approved. The general submission application stated that this„system will comply with the Pitkin County Regulations on Individual Sewage Disposal Systems. Our evaluation of the site, is based on our the conditions on the Resnick parcel where the criteria for suitable soils were buildin A soil ercolation test will still be y _isting met an 5 a conven Pg nal se tic s stem f rsn atoe Countssare ul' cfieck if the new buildin site will also be located in suitable soils. The applicant should be able to con e y g ations either with a conventional septic system or,'"'at worst, with an engineered-designed on-site wastewater disposal system 'that is a non-evaporative type due to the well permit restrictions on the well. ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: Sections 2-6 and 5-205: The applicant proposes to .drill a_ new well to provide water for domestic use. In looking at the experiences of neighboring property owners in developing wells and the _f act ...that there is already two adjudicated springs on the Resnick property we would anticipate that this well will be of sufficient water quantity and quality. We would suggest that the .applicant provide documentation o,f the. physical and legal water supply once developed and prior to building permit application. The apj~licant has already obtained a permit for drilling a new well. .Once the new well is developed, we would recommend that it be tested to determine 'if its water"qualityparameters do meet the requirements of the. Colorado Departinerit of Health. There was also an indication in the general submssion_application that the water would be disinfected by chlorination, if necessary. 130 South Galena Str¢¢t Aspen, Colorado 816'1'1 303/920-6070 recYdedOapei .s^.^ ,:.~... .,.,., .W~.~ww..^~:,,.saw..~a...`x.M~w~,~.';~~,.c>ry<.7k,~rm.~~~r', 1s,~+~es,"das'rfn.::#*:~A°~,. ,;:+. is ,.~! AIR OUALITY• Sections 2-17 and 5-106:_ The air pollution impacts from this proposal are expected to be minimal. due to the rural project setting and residential use. The applicant is allowed one conventional fire place and one certified wood stove per dwelling. .. MEMORANDIIM TO: Ellen Sassano FROM: John M. Ely, Assistant County Attorne~~ DATE: September 21, 1992 RE: Resnick Ditch Issue Code provision 5-501.10 states what requirements. subdivisions will be subjected to when the area of the subdivision is traversed by ~. an irragation ditch. Subsection-_(d) regires that access to the ditch be provided to the ditch owners by the developer. Typically there is already access for the ditch owners. by virtue of pre- existing easement. Subsection (c) requires a statement of understanding shall be executed relieving the ditch owners of any responsibility for damage to development caused by the ditch. or seepage problems from the ditch. The applicant's representative in this case has suggested that an access agreement is not necessary due to C.R.S. 37-86-102. This statute does not give access to a ditch over private property or a developed'subdivision to the ditch owners as our Code does, but rather it merely allows a ditch owner the ability to bring suit to establish access. The Code, in going farther than the statute, assures access to the ditch owner and seeks to avoid the necessity of access litigation. Applicant's representative also states. that. the requirement of a release of liability as stated in subsection (c) is illegal due to C.R.S. 37-84-101. This statute establishes liability to a ditch owner who allows flooding or seepage to damage the premises of another. The difference between, this statute and the Code is that .J ..;. the Code deals only with development of the subdivision. Applicant argues that the Code tries to reverse liability, on the contrary the Code seeks to encourage agriculture and ranch activities by not forcing a ditch owner to accept greater liability because another land owner is allowed to subdivide his property. The scenario the Code prevents is that of a delopement of ranch land. into "high end" residential use that is different from the historic use of the area and require the ditch owners to assume additional liability by virtue of the residential development being worth much more than the original property. The Code encourages agricultural use by seeking to keep liability for operating the ditch_at a constant level for the .ditch owner .and not allow it to rise dramatically with the value of development. Wiz, „~, ~. ~.-~<, i r vy 3~~.~_ ~< r~~ ~~®~~ ~~~j UPS "~" ~ _ IInited States Forest )rhiLe River Sopris Ranger District Department~of Service National P 0. Box 309 Agriculture Forest Carbondale, C0 81623 (~0~)96~-2266 ~::,~: ~~ ; -~ ~ g) ~ ~ ~ !: Reply: 5400 ,._ r _.~ ..,. ~`' `" `'° Date: April' 20, 1992 APR :2 2 ~2 ,~~ ~,..~ ~=~ r ~ x _ , Tom Smith a. ,e ~ ... .,..~: Austin, Pierce & Smith .-~'~~ _ _. - .,, . ,~z n ~,,.,, ~, . ,.. .,• , ~ a,v .. ..~ - ,:~ 1j 600 East Hopkins Ave. 1 Suite 205 Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mr. Smith: This is in reply to your letter of April 1, 1992, concerning your client Brad Resnick and the Dinkle Lake road. As we discussed in the field on March 16th, the Forest Service is_seeking a right of way easement which will allow us to maintain, and reconstruct where necessary, the Dinkle lake road to a "single lane with. turnout" standard. Please see the attached Road Management Design Worksheet. As noted in the design standards at the right hand side of the worksheet form, the travel surface of the. road would be,_12 feet,,. wide, with 3:1 cut and fill slopes, and intervisible turnouts for safety. The turnouts would be 10 feet wide (the "fu1T width 60~" oh the form means the 10 foot wide., part of the turnout would be 60 feet long, with tapers 35 feet long into the regular travel surface). As noted on the worksheet, these standards are intended to meet a design objective to provide for safety yet discourage growth in traffic volume. Because of the need for different widths of cut. or~filly(mostly cut) and turnouts, it would probably be more appropriate for the Fores*. Service to obtain a variable width easement, than to try and specify a uniform width throughout. Such a variable width easement would be in most if not all. places less than 30 feet from centerline. As we discussed on March 16th, we are willing to meet with your client and Mr. Turnbull in the field to identify a few areas where they would like to see us develop a conceptual design. We would then make a conceptual design for those segments which would give an indication of what,. total ,width would be needed for the "single lane with turnout" design.` As we discussed, we a're unable to spend substantial amounts of .money preparing a full engiheered design of the entire road, until we obtain easements.,. Caring (or the Lend end.5erving people FS•8200.28(7.82) - _. _.. a ..<. sc .., ..uz..... ,~... s: ,-., n.,: .._....~... .,,, ,.mow. .~. -.~ .: ax?LJ I hope this information is helpful, and look forward to continuing to work with you and Mr. Resnick. Sinl/c/erely,/J THOMAS A. KUEKES .Acting District. Ranger Enclosure _ cc: Ellen Sassano, Pitkin County Planning Dept. ~, „~ Caring for the Land end Serving People U~S FS-8200-28(7-82) . .. ~ .m2R me5ssv<a. ,.. rm gym, .... .N,~Itsm Ak ~+.. ,~ _~u¢-,.r ^u u~s^<.e ,C.~ar~rrxxv~Yl~Fs :. .. ~ L1 !a Ci ~ l •• w o l ~i O H ly a o E w o ~ C w w i H J tit ~• O O I to I I 4 ft '-. U w w OI (~ k .C - W Cp O N .-> N ¢ •J F N (n •O M .ti a~ M O W \ ). % O F m¢ J U '/. 4 4-' OI N U b q N H F 41 H N N 4 N b - W LL. W x N O :s q . ~ IiI 6: O N U1 as ~ ti O .tf N M M w . -.~ N r :.. ¢ 41 . / k. O 6 •• W N k ae b a k H i •.I ~ V 14 ~-I I m ` H W O> q O N W W l~ N .4-I 4 W U J ..... . O -I •. f w w M O F t w q O F N A N 5_ a o o O N ,C •• U b ip x Hb 3 ~ . W N d s. ~ I > .. .. M a+ N d k H F W q ¢ C7 3 H . L L C •! N ~ a N M I q O O ENO ~ ~ O ti o w Y .f O W (7 ~ 1 0 4 ' OI O N P (D k O N •• ` U ? •. H H N :. H :~ .y N 1. '. \O r-~ n: ,4.~ J ~ (.r ~' q to ~n U q N N •O V ~.ni N a •O N .r (N: 43 1 W '/ .J r'~ J U O W C'I V rJ ••+ W N k ++ q L L N C k N .q .. .. p u '. 4 F .- . 4; a U . . CC O q m U 4. 41 ~ t0 N q N N +1- 7 W ti O O L O N N O 7 ••I O % ;G H U . -1 ¢ L4 4' u WF 0. g L 0. ~ F N V N W q .I M P1 LG U 4 F H ~ P • ' ~ U ¢ .-. .-. .. Er i. ai m_ ..-. q q trJ .. H W O q q H ¢7 q O s N 5 W q 'v O ¢ ff G •ti .+ P H N M 'd Ul .O l` m w N C .I O N W F H N F H N W U 3 q w ~ m ¢ z a w a ~ ¢ >' a z ~ z U a N z w O n W F O U q N o M w a F q ¢ x F ++ ~ w ~ w '~ n ¢ x ~ q m m r~. q q ~ z ~~ o a ff 3 ~~ ~ "1 ~ a ~ 1I u l i 14 U. U l i l O ~ ~ U l9 1 I I U I. a. - a u s I N r, 4 EI q F y b0 _._ _. _ _ _ - ly - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ W 3 - _ - "~ .r N x . N .~(..+ p U N ' m .+ q Ll >. .y ~ n ~ ! ' '" ~ ~ ¢ O , i,: IH q I~ o a ' ~ o H . i :, x U U ~ a ~ ~ W 6 ' ¢ V ~ a U 6 a N F - _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. N H i U3 % F :~ - kI ~ H P: O :: W I p ¢ H - O U O 6 w s . . ._ p. _ _ . . . W . . _ . . . _ _, _ _ .. _ _ . . . . ~ i 1 H Q' N ~ F '~ • O f] x iJ X 1 F II I /1 H . .] & HN Q ¢ v ~ F m % o w w w w o o C a . I N ~ S N s N > U > U W . m q U - _ _ , q H a w F N . > M W E i . .. p. - - . . . . ~. . . . . . . . . . _. ~ ... _. ~ ~. _ _ .._ a 4~ N O I + . W H / N F I(\ M O F a Y a q ¢ N •r ~ U n n: P> ly ~ ". f.1 -. vi t 'v+ > U e x % 4 4 W 4 c) n >~ m id ~ q n, H 4 ~ i. ~ 4: N ty N O ¢ F a - 6 0 H F 3 I x H w w Y ¢ .D N U ¢ N F F ~ F g N U In _ -- . . . . . _ - . ._ _ . ~ _ - _ _. . _ . % . - .. - _ . _ _ . _ O O F a F _.. -. x _W ., N .3 . -I U f`.1 r a N h % .. O H J r x i~ ~[ 0. ~ m U F q 6 a y F' w F O .' L N O K x w ¢ > N N % H 6 >. W U 4 w F F 4 N m H' q H F [~ a W .. HH> N D W N O q >+ F N H d O U H };; W U 4 a ~ o 0 F q ~ ~ a N .3 . E W m r i O I k. H H O m O O N _ . s~ m H O N ~ U \ ~ ~ U N F Y .a-1 W L W N N F o N O N 0 O % ti I -l a CI I W ' . L N +. f 6 ° `+~.' i c~ > d w 2 t ~ ~+ fi3 N In ¢ i n: m c) m ' W _. U H F ¢ W a w W o H x o v Y z ~ q a W 4 N > v v r d F N N H W i '.7 ¢ H H ~ I H W F ~ %• H ~ H N S F X ~ H m J ¢ ( il I . i N O . W Y N ~1 w H "J. L IYr El N W M W (~ ...' .1 :f. 1~ P. q q H O j I (e N H q t> {4 1. (1. i ((i .f H H LI ({ . . _ _ . . ~..~ _~.~. _ - - - ~ -- .. - q 4 I ¢ L >. w z 1~ N F o U ~ W U d1 / - ~ N % I y N .. N L. ¢ h: Iy it -I N N 9 I ~ ..1 N N W 3 3 4l N W H ;~ / ~ O O H N ¢ m I ; H O n: m m _ _ _ _ . __ _ _ . L _ 4 . a _ x _ 0 . 0 __ 4 . F _ F _ _. .. _. . _ .._. _ . - ..- . _ .. _ _. . . _ _. :: ~ ax ^...v~~.. n, ... ~.:r:. . .. ,.. ., :«.: . _,,..,.;nsx .,.,. •ams:. .: ..,. .rc.m..+w.aau.c:~, %~ €~ __ +, YLA1 - MVTIVIY TV AYYKVVi'i - rAaarrL vr~eu~aanvvaua - naaeaa .vuoauaav, :..~ representing the Planning Office, summarized this item as an application, submitted by Candice and Brad Resnicek for Detailed Submission and Final Plat approval of the Resnick Subdivision. .pursuant to Sections 6-4 and 6-5 of the Land Use Code. The applicant proposes to subdivide a 62 acre parcel. of land into two 31 acre parcels. There is an existing residence and outbuildings on one lot, and the second lot is undeveloped. The project received General Submission and '1041 Hazard Review approval from the Board pursuant to Resolution., 91-142 and a GMQS allotment {I pursuant to Resolution 91-146. Sassano proceeded to review the issues as follows: Dinkle Lake Road Easement Dedication - Condition number 5 of the General. Submission Resolution (92-142) stipulates that the applicant shall provide an access easement for use of the Dinkle Lake Road by the public. A portion of this .Forest Service Road crosses the applicant's property. There is currently a discrepancy in the amount of land the applicant is willing to grant an easement for and the amount of wand the Forest Service has requested. In view of the applicant's. inability to come to closure with. the Forest Service on this issue, the applicant requests acceptance of ah 8' easement (from centerlne)'by the County, without preclusion of a subsequent conveyance of the right-of-way to the Federal Government.. Considering County policies regarding preservation of scenic and rural roads, the County Engineer, the Planning Commission and the Planning Office recommend County acceptance of a i5 foot easement from the center line of the Road, and the applicant is in agreement with this recommendation. Memorandum of Understanding between the Mt. Soprs Ditch Company and the Resnicks- Condition number 2 of Resolutiofl No. 91-142 requires a memorandum of understanding between the Mt. Sopris Ditch Company and the Resnicks, whereby the promissors agree to hold the Ditch Company harmless from. damage to development caused by the ditch and to provide access to the ditch. company 'for maintenance. This condition is consistant with Sections 5-50.1.10. (c) and (d) of the Land Use Code.. John Ely notes that compliance with the Code may subject the County to litigation because of possible conflicts with State Statute The County Code does omit negligence, and removes all liability from the Ditch Company for damages. The Planning Commission believes this is inconsistent with State law and forwards a recommendation to resolve the apparent conflict between the. County Code and State Statute at the Board level. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. 10 SEPTEMBER 29, 1992 „s ~_q~c+ c _ ~ e.. ., ..,,,~r John Ely referred to a memorandum from him which is included in the packet regarding the ditch issue. A copy of this memo is made a' part of this record as EXHIBIT " " Tim Whitsitt addressed the i it is a Board decision whe~ option two as far as ndem indemnifies the ditch owe idemnifies the flitch owners negligence of the ditch owni the County Code. Number statute. sue by stating, that in their opinion, her it wants to accept option one or. fying the dtch~'own'ers."'Option two ers from all damage. Option one except if 'ttie damage is caused. by the ~.yr. r. Number two follows the requires of .one follows ,more closely the state Ely suggested a change in language in Condition No. 5 which states "the applicant agrees to relieve the, ditch owners of any responsibility for damage to the development caused_by the ditch." He sai8 this is the exact language from the code. Tom Smith, representing the applicant proceeded to address the two' issues that staff raised with the Board..,, With regard to the road issue, Dinkle_Lake Road is on the border of the property. It does not. serve as access to the property and any development resulting from approval of the application will not impact the road because it does not provide access of any kind to the property. Originally it was unclear and he thinks it probably still is, as to whether. it should be deemed a County road or a Forest Service Road. There is no recorded easement agreement right of way or any other documentation of the road as best he could ..., tell. When they filed the .application they agreed to a dedication' of that portion of the road which traverses the,Resnick property and a survey. disclosed that the gravel surface of the road is a variable width of approximately 12 to 16 feet depending upon the location. And they agreed-that since their property went to the centerline they would dedicate that portion of the. gravel surface to the County or he Forest Service whoever is deemed the appropriate recipient of that easement._ They were then directed to negotiate with the Forest Service since .the road does not provide accesstoany private development. He ieferred to~a letter~~~ ~~ :dated April 20, 1992'from the U.S. Forest Service to ,him regarding this negotiation. A copy of this letter is made apart of this record as EXHIBIT " "" ". He said the Forest Service would not. agree to anything less than a total of 60 feet or from centerline 30 feet on their sideof theroad. This seemed unreasonable to them in ..,,, view of the new current use of that road and anticipated ttie'future` use of that road. Therefore, the`Plannng and`Zoning Commission agreed to recommend to the Board that the County accept a 15 foot easement from the center line of the road, and if the Board wants that they will do it, but they feel it-makes more sense to dedicate the eight feet that represents the existing road in place consistent with County classified primitive road standards which BOARD OF COUNTY. COMMISSIONERS 11 SEPTEMBER 29~ 1992 r~ show a design capacity less than 25 vehicles, per day, and a suggested speed of 15 mph, U.S. Forest Service Roads only. Commissioner Ross moved to extend the meeting hour to 9:30 p.m. With a second by Commissioner Ethridge, the motion passed unanimously. Smith continued by addressing the issue of the ditch. He said he _ does not think it is fair to_place the burden on them that they are 1 not meeting the conditions of the approval if the other. property '. owners refuse to sign an agreement. They are happy to present to the County and to the landowners an agreement'. that meets the requirements as to the substance of the agreement, but they should not be held hostage to their refusal to_sign such an agreement. Therefore, they would request that change regardless of which option the Board choose to follow as to the. substance of that condition. He pointed out that as to the ,existing house on the property, which is relatively close to the ditch, they are not dealing with a hypathetical issue. The ditch has overflowed in the,,, past and has threatened the residents of the existing house. The new house is totally unaffected by the ditch and does not in any way affect the ditch because of the_new propobed building envelope. Under state law, ditch owners are responsible for maintaining ditches in good repair and they are liable for their negligence in failing to do so. What they are asking the Board to do, is not create a situation where the, neighbors can allow the ditch to overflow and waive at them and say "tough luck, we'are not liable". And the language that they were submitted by staff, would require them to release the owners of ,the ditch of any responsibility for any damage regardless of gross negligence or anything else. A discussion ensued with .regard to the ditch issue. John Ely stated that state statute supposes that ordinances and resolutions and so forth that are adopted by legislative bodies such as the Board of County Commissioners, are legal. And if there is a conflict the two should be read, to find„a harmony between the code and the state statute. The way he reads the state .statute, is that if damage results from the ditch to ,the. premises of another, the ditch .owners is liable for whatever damage occurs. The County Code comes along and says, that as a condition of subdivision, we want you to relieve the ditch owners for liability to the development that is allowed as a result of subdivision. Therefore, the existing house is not being talked about, but the granted development as a result of the subdivision approval. Crowley suggested that language be added to Lot A holds them harmless. Smith commented that is made clear in the resolution.. they will accept that compromise. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 12 SEPTEMBER 29, 1992 -~, ~ , ~„a., ,,.., ~ , , ..... ~ ~ Ely commented that was the suggestion he made before the discussion started, to change paragraph 5 in the memorandum.. Smith continued that the only other comment he has is that in this provision, that instead of language stating that "the applicant shall record an agreement"; he requested that. the language read "the applicant shall provide an agreement, acceptable. to the the. County Attorney" vrith the understanding that if they oan't get the ditch owners.. to agree then they are not hel8 responsible. Ely commented that the thrust of the code is to provide for that release. Mr. Resnick addressed the road issue by stating, that the reason why they came to the conclusion of offering the County the easement is because they have a lot of faith in the, County's commitment in trying to preserve the rural character of the portions of the County that are rural ,in character today. They made every effort _. to make an agreement with the Forest Service__but they were unsuccessful because they did not want to preserve the rural character. Ethridge suggested a language change in Item i (f) to read "building envelope dimensions shall ba added." Commissioner Ross moved .approval of the Resolution Granting Detailed Submission and Final Plat ,:approval to the Resnick. amended With a second by Subdivision as conditioned an8 ._.,._. commissioner True, the motion passe8 unanimously. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 13 SEPTEMBER_29, 1992 .... M~~~~N.,.. :. a. ., _ ~ .. ~• G- lie,-~ A G E N D A ~ PITKIN COUNTY PLAN_N LNG tuvu GVN llvb ~.vruna.oo.w.v June 16, 1992; Tuesday 9:00 A.M. REGULAR MEETING COMMISSIONERS MEETING, ROOM, COURTHnUSE ~ _ ~, ~ , I. COMMENTS Commissioners Planning Staff Public II. MINUTES A. May 19, 1992 B. June _2, 1992 III. NEW BUSINESS A. Resnick Subdivision Detailed Submission & Final Plat, Ellen. Sassano _ ~ ~~~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~' ~~_~ B. Wildcat Ranch Final Plat Amemdment, Randy Stouder C. Pitkin County Landfill.. Special Review, Mary Lackner IV. ADJOURN _.~_.., ~~.,.. c,ir~-,rt,. ~ ,.~, .. <.t.a.,+,,.t:.,.m..r.ww~~. ~bsa..a ,urva:';wn, ZbC.~aYa'R'<°~ =.5 ,, ~~ MEMORANDIIM TO: Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission... FROM: Debbie Skehan, Office Manager DATE: June 10, 1992 ~ RE: Upcoming Agendas .. .<..~. ~, ~ ,. .a „ . ,>. 4„ .,. . Regular Meeting - Juiy 7th Stone Scenic Overlay (PH) (RS) McNamara 1041 Haz. Rev. & Gen Sub. (RS) Powell Density Reduction Lot Split & 1041 H.R. (ES) Aspen Highlands Resort Lodge GMQS Scoring (ML) Lunch .with Long Range P&Z Regular Meeting - July 21st Castle Creek Investors 1041, Gen. Sub. & Subdivision Exemption (ES) White Banks AlabasteY Mine Special Review (ES) Regular Meeting - August 4th St. Benedicts Monastery Special Review (RS) Aspen Valley Hospital Special Review (ES) Regular Meeting - August 18th GMQS Metro Residential Scoring Benedict Stillwater Ranch Pfeifer Subdivision Special Meeting - August 25th GMQS Non-Metro Residental Scoring Moon 'Run Ranch McCloskey West Parcel Benedict Hunter Creek Reservoir at West Buttermilk Regular Meeting -September 8th Crystal Farm Special Review (ML) Sandunes Lot Split General Submission (ES) Crystal Springs Coal Special Review (RS) p.nex .,. ~ ~. ~. , . , .i<_ ~ t, .,w.:~ ,....,,, h~..~,~~e,,,, MEMORANDUM TO; Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Ellen Sassano,"Planning Office RE: Resnick Subdivision - Detailed Submission/Final Plat DATE: June T6, 1992 BACKGROUND REQUESTd The applicant is requesting Detailed Submission and Final Plat approval of the"Resnick Subdivision pursuant to sections 6- 4 and 6-5 of the Land Use Code. The .applicant proposes to subdivide a 62`acre parcel of land into two 31 acre parcels. There is an existing residence and outbuildings on one lot, and the second lot is undeveloped. The proposed subdivision"has received the following approvals: 1. Resolution No. PZ-91-46: Forwarding the 1991 Non-Metro Area Residential GMQS scores to the BOCC 2. Resolution No. PZ-91=48: Granting a Lot Line Adjustment and 1041 Hazard Review approval; 3. BOCC Resolution No. 91-142: Granting General Submission approval; and 4. BOCC Resolution No. 91-146: Awarding Residential GMQS Allotments for the Non=Metro'Area ` APPLICANT: Candice and Brad Resnick APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVEd Thomas Fenton Smith ZONINGC RS-30 LOCATION: 53`53 We`§t Sopris Creek Road; West Sopris Creek Road where it intersects with Dinkle Lake Road REFERRALS: i. Zoning: Joanna Schaffner reviewed the Plat documents and made the. following comments: a. The protective covenants should stipulate. that provisions reflecting Subdivision conditions of approval shall only be modified 'with '`the approval of the Board of County Commissioners. b. The park dedication fee must be re-calculated based- on a current--land appraisal. c. The Dinkle Lake Road Ea§ement shall`be indicated on the~Final Plat. 1 r d. The proposed building envelope lies outside of all required setbacks. The Zoning memo of May 14, 1992, is attached as Exhibit 1. 2. County Attorney: The County Attorney had no comments regarding the Plat documents. 3. Environmental Health Department: In a memo attached as Exhibit 2, Bob Nelson indicates that the applicant should be able to conform to County regulations using either a conventional septic system or an engineered-designed on-site wastewater disposal system that is a non-evaporative type due to the. well permit restrictions on the well. Mr. Nelson recommends that once the water well is developed that the. applicant provide documentation ,of the water supply and quality prior to building permit application. The. new residence shall be subject to air quality regulations in effect at the time of building permit application.. 4. County Engineer: Mr. Eylar recommends that the Plat be revised to fully comply with Appendix A of the Land .Use Code. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff has reviewed the Detailed Submission and Final Plat documents for compliance with conditions placed at general submission and for compliance with the Land Use Code. Recommended r,eyisions~to the Plat and'Coverants will bring both documents nto_compliance with. ~.w., .~. ~., . County Land Use Code regulations and conditions of, .,approval.. Recommended Plat and covenant revisions are detailed in condition ~~ number 1 below. .d,; ~~`F~'~'~z -~ i~ ~a ~l o~" '~~~~`d'i_ W/~r~~G~~.,~t_ '~aL..L~'t/r7~--'~ J~'`'~~.. A?S'~,..'C. 2."~V Pr,~ ~" ~`~ Park Dedication - The park dedication fee calculation submitted by the applicant is based on a 1988 land appraisal of the property. Staff recommends that prior to reCOrdatiog of the Final Plat, the applicant submit the fee; based on a current apprai~,y pursuant to Section 5-501.11 of the Land Use Code. S~v~d ~e a.r Vey-~F-~is~it.~} oi-- /unvd a¢ dLc~~~~so+~« Dinkle Lake Road Easement Dedication - Condition number 5 of the ~? „~ General Submission Resolution (92-142) stipulates that the~,~~~© applicant shall provide an access easement for use of the Dinkle{,ty ~~~~ Lake Road by the public. A portion. of this Forest Service Road .J crosses the applicant's property. Half of the road (from ~ centerline) crosses through the Resnick property, and half crosses ~.~,w-.~.( through the adjacent Turnbull property. The applicant is willing w~>,_ to provide an easement for the existing 8 feet of right-of-way v~~~ ~(- crossing the property. The Forest'Service is requesting a variable ~,,~ _ width easement which would be in most, if not all places, less-than 30' from centerline to accommodate maintenance and reconstruction of the road. There is currently a discrepancy in the amoun£ of land ~~~I s~- 2 the applicant is willing to grant an easement for and the amount of land the Forest Service has requested. The applicant is opposed to granting a 30' easement because of concerns that the easement will allow improvements to the.. road which he feels 'are not necessary and which may encourage'more`traffic. The applicant was also initially concerned that the additional easement width would be subtracted from the overall lot size, therefore creating a lot of less than 30 acres in the RS-30 Zone. This is not a concern, however, as easements granted for public use are not subtracted from overall lot size.. by the County. In view of the applicant's inability to come to closure with the Foresf Service on this issue, the applicant requests acceptance of the 8' easement by the County, without preclusion of a subsequent conveyance of the right-of-way to the Federal Government. Considering County policies regarding preservation of scenic and rural roads, the County Engineer recommends acceptance of an easement by the County. The County currently maintains this segment-of Dinkle Lake Road by agreement with the Forest Service. Based on the minimum County driveway easement requirement of 30 feet (15' from centerline), Mr. Eylar recommends that the County ,accept a- 15' easement from the. applicant to accommodate an 8-16' driving surface and shoulders for maintenance. The driveway standard is designed to serve from 1 to 8 homes. The Dinkle Lake Road does not currently access private residences, but serves as '~R..: access to Forest Service lands. Acceptance of the easement by the pointy does not preclude subsequent conveyance of the easement from „' the County to the Forest Service, if the County so chooses. The Forest 'Service may also choose to go through condemnation proceedings to obtain the additional easement area. Memorandum o~ and the Resn provide access" to Condition is pizrsuan Use Code. betvteen the M 5-501': ris Ditch Company ution No 91-142 d~,,..~.~.~ .o_„.,„ .~_. _ ~.. The agreement drafted by the `applicant's attorney, reflects the Colorado statutory 'requirement that ditch owners have an obligation to maintain and operate the ditch so as not to injure the property through which the ditch passes. Colorado law provides that ditch owners are liable for their negligence in operation or maintenance. The adjacent landowners hold that they should be absolved'of all responsibility, including damages which may result from their negligent actions. Colorado law already provides that "any person owning a water right...shall`be entitled to'a right of way through the lands which 3 f lie between the .point of diversion and the point of use...for the purpose of_transportinq water...(CRS37-86-102). In view of this statute, the applicant feels that the County's requirement for an agreement between the parties is unnecessary. Given the inability of the two landowners to come to agreement regarding liability for damage caused by the ditch, the applicant requests that the, County delete the requirement for a memorandum of understanding between the Resnicks and the owners of the ditch. They view this as a private matter, as to which the Colorado Law already adequately achieves what the County intended by requiring the agreement, and the parties have not been able to reach an agreement in a way which is consistent with Colorado law. The County Attorney has reviewed the County Code and State statutes as they relate to this case and determined the following: Land Use Code Section 5-501.10, (c) and (d) require the applicant to provide access for ditch owners and a "hold harmless" agreement for the benefit of the ditch owners. State statute 37-86-102 provides that a person with a water right may sue or condemn to obtain access to a ditch. This is less, restrictive than rights afforded to the-ditch owner in the Code. State statute 37-84-102 provides that„ditch owners are liable for injury to property due to negligence in operation or''maintenance. ~, ., The Code provides that the applicant can't seek damages from the ditch owner for damage to development (unless, according to State statute, damages result from ditch. owners negligence). The County Attorney recommends that the. applicant comply with County Code requirements to provide an agreement with .the Ditch owners, whereby the promissory agree to hold the Ditch Company harmless from damage caused by the ditch (unless damage is caused by negligence on the part of the ditch. owners) and to provide access to the ditch company for maintenance. SUMMARY Recommended revisions to the Plat and Covenants will bring both documents into compliance with County Land Use `Code regulations and conditions of approval. The applicant has, given revisions, complied with_Sections 6-4 and 6-5 of the Code. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Resnick Subdivision Detailed Subdivision and Final Plat subject to the following conditions: 1) Prior to recording of the final plat and covenants, the following revisions shall be made: 4 ' ` .2 ~ ~jy`1 Ev'e' G~~ , ~ wvk(,~~, 1~ Plat Revisions a. Existing and proposed utility line locations and.. easements shall be depicted on the plat. b. The intermittent stream lying to the east of the building envelope on Lot A, and a 20 foot setback from said stream, shall be clearly delineated on the plat. c. The name of the Subdivision shall be shown on the Plat a d. All existing improvements shall be delineated on the plat. e. A building envelope shall be established for the existing .development on Lot B. f. Building envelope dimensions shall added. g. A fifteen foot wide easement (from centerline of Dinkle Lake Road) shall be dedicated to the County for use as public access to public lands. Said easement shall be referenced on the plat. Revisions to Covenants a. Any amendments to the covenants which contradict conditions of approval referenced in Resolution numbers PZ 91-48 and 91-142 shall be subject to approval by the Board of County Commissioners. b. Covenants. shall address maintenance of the' common driveway. 2. Water supply and quality and sewage system design and location shall be approved by the Environmental Health Department prior to building permit application. 3. The new residence shall be subject to air quality regulations in effec, at the time of building permit application. ~qy~,/ ~~ ~~ ~~ "~" tai FJ e t^.~`~ ~~ ZL R- - .,! 4. Prior to recordation off he Final Plat,~the appl cant shall - submit a park dedication fee, base3'on~-~+~- ~ -rte»~ of `~ ~~~U~ ~ the applicant's property pursuant to Section 5-501.11 of the ~~c ~i~~-' (Land Use Code'. -p ~ y~ '+~',"~~,~,~ .~, {, ~ ~~~ ~~C sr~"cwi 1 ~"~ ~Y ~ ~~ ~ l Z ca Liu ~cd. • ~,.-E~ 4.~'.p~'~,'!/'~^?S (~~yyyy ~~r'~e,4L,.EV.~ 5~~ ~~ '~C / Ph 5. Prior t (or concurrent with) recordation of the `Final Plat, a-u.c-{-- ~,,rryy~~t,~;w/ the .applicant shall record an agreement with the Mt. Sopris GGG~~- ~'~~~~ _ Ditch owners, whereby the promissory agree to hold the Ditch //, ~ owners harmless from damage caused~by theditch (~a,~ac~e- -C~p( ~(~-Y.~cd li _.. __.~..., .. is caused by negligence on the part of the ditch"owners)'and ~,0~(i ~~~`~a(o ~2 v'~~'-~,~,~ `~„~~ Gnu,-~~ ~~~d,~z,s a~cw~~ comes 1 ~V V '-7Y/' ~J ~ I (~-Fl- ~ '9 ~i{.}1-?~~Q ~i`I't~D ~^'f-e-U G`>c c,~'~- ~ ~/-Q~ ~~ ~ to provide access to the ditch owners for maintenance. els memo resnick dsfp 6 Subject: Resnick Message: 5-501.10 (c)&(d) require both .access for ditch owners. and a "hold harmless" for the benefit of the ditch owners from the applicant. I dont see any reason in this case for not obtaining both. 37-86-102 provides that a person with a water right"may"sue br"condemn to obtain access t a ditch. This is less than what is afforded in .the Code. 37-84-102 provides that ditch owners are liable for injury to property. The Code provides that_the applicant'carit'seek damages from ditch owner for damage to developments, two different concerns. ----X=====---------- _~~.. ~ii~ w, ~ t, w, .. _., ..~ ~ a~~u,~w.u~, ,y,. ,~. ..o v.+.~d~. ~ , _., ROY ROMER Governor ./"> . ~~O C ~~ ~,~ ~. ,. FQ'i ~ O JERIS A. DANIELSON ti O State Engineer * ~~ ~ Ig~6 ~ OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 1313 Sherman Street-Room 816 Denver, Colorado 80203 (303)866-3581 FAX [303] 866-3589 September 12, 1991 Ms. Ellen Sassano Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street F~spen, CO 81611 RE: Resnick Non-Metro Residential GMQS, #P61-91 Section 32, T8S, R87W, 6TH PM Water Division 5, Water District 38 Dear Ellen: StiJ i 6 ;~yl ~! We have reviewed the above referenced proposal to subdivide a 62 acre tract into two 31 acre lots. The parcel is located near the intersection of West Sopris Creek Road and Dinkle Lake Road. An existing house is located on the property and the applicant plans to construct an additional single-family home. The proposed water supply for the new residence is to connect to the existing well (Permit Number 106525-A). The applicant is also proposing to construct a pond and fill it using decreed springs (Case No. 88CW477, Rulings 1 and 2). Upon approval by the County for this subdivision, the owner of the existing well must amend Permit Number 106525-A to allow domestic use of the well for up to three single-family dwellings. Currently, the permit allows domestic use in one single-family dwelling. Imgation will be limited to a total of one (1) acre of home gardens and lawns amongst all dwellings. The pond may be filled using the decreed springs, as long as the pond is using water in-priority. Based on this, we can recommend approval of this application. Sincerely, ~ J dy T.~ appington Water Resources Engineer JTS(f)/clf:resnick cc: OrlynBell, Division Engineer Joe Bergquist, Water Commissioner Bruce DeBrine .. _ ~ a , _v ,., .~~ . ,~ ems,,.... _., , a_, .__ w.^_,.,.w Aus~rnv, PFSxcE ~ S1vnTx, p ~. Attorneys At Law 600 East Hopkins Avenve Suite 7A5 Rnnma n new Aspen, Colorado 81611 Frcdericlc F. Peirce Thomas Femm~ Smith Rhonda J. Bazil February 22, 1993 r- __i +~) r F M` fiF w .. `~``! r~S 2 2 ~gc;~ ~, FNC (303) 925-4720 RAND DELIVERY Ms. Ellen Sassano Assistant Planner City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Resnick Subdivision -.Final Plat Documents Dear Ellen: The Resnicks are prepared to proceed to recordation of the final plat documents for the Resnick Subdivision. Accordingly, I have enclosed herewith for your review and approval the following documents: 1. Declaration of Covenants, Resnick Subdivision; 2. Easement Agreement (Dinkle Lake Road); 3. Memorandum of Understanding (Mt. Sopris Ditch); and 4. Mylars for Subdivsion.Exemption for Lot Line Adjustment (two sheets) and mylars for Subdivision Plat and 1041., Site Plan (two sheets). The above documents have been executed by the Resnicks and notarized. I have also included the Resnick's check in the amount of $135.00 for the. park dedication fee. These documents should meet the requirements of Resolution No. PZ-91-48 and Resolution No. 92-384 of the BOCC, which embodied the conditions of approval for both the lot line adjustment and subdivision/GMP approval. You may recall that you previously .a ,a~dN.,: nza ~..t~. ..... w. o-<,. ,~, At_nsw. u._.~a_ro,c.. :; a.,.~-++1 m x,L ':Vf~:a:,~k'Ya',' AUSTIN, PEIRCE & SMITH, P.C. Attorneys At Law Ms. Ellen Sassano February 22, 1993 Page 2 reviewed and approved the content of these documents. Please let me know if you require any further changes or additional information, and what the recording fees are. Very truly yours, AUSTIN, PEIRCE & SMITH, P.C. By: ~~ Thomas nton Smith TFS/smg Enclosures cc: Candy and Brad Resnick ~~_ ~ ~ ~ ,., . ~<.; ~.~ ~ ;, ~ 5 > __. a* AUSTIN, PEIRCE & SMITH ~~~~ Attorneys At law"°'"`-- 600 East Hopkins Avenue - -°_-----`- Suite 205 Ronald D. Austin ASPfn, COIOCHdO 81611 'Rlephone (303) 925-2600 Poederick F. Pence FAX (303) 925-0720 Thomas Fenton smith October 7, 1992 Rhonda 1. Bazil - John M. Ely, Esquire 530 East Man,Street, Suite I Aspen, Colorado .81611 Ms. Ellen Sassano, Assistant Planner 130 South Galena Street: Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Resnick Subdivision - Final Plat Documents Dear John and Ellen: Enclosed for your review please find the following proposed documents: 1. Declaration of Covenants, Resnick Subdivision;. 2. Easement Agreement (Dinkle Lake Road); and 3. Memorandum. of Understanding (Mt. Sopris Ditch). I have previously forwarded an amended, plat to Ellen for review and comment. As the Resnicks are anxious to proceed with recordation of the plat as'soon as'possible, I would appreciate your review and comment on these documents. I am available for a meeting to discuss _these matters if necessary. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, AUSTIN, PEIRCE & SMITH ~-----^ By. ~ ~ Thomas Fenton Smith TFS/smg Enclosures cc: Brad A. and Candace J. Resnick _. 4 _, 1~USTIN, PEIRCE & SMITH I - - - Attorneys At Law y 600 East Hopkins Avenue _,. Suite 205 Ronala v. Anson Aspen, Colorado 81611 FreAerick R Peirce Thomas Fetnon Smith Rhomla 1. Bazil August 31, 1992 c~~a~~ ~~_' 1 pus 3 + ~ 1; .i! 1llephone (303)975-2fi00 FAX (303) 925d77A NIs. Ellen Sassano Assistant Planner City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado. 81611 RE: Resnick Subdivision -Revised Declaration of Covenants Dear Ellen: Enclosed please find a revised set. of covenants which are intended to address the requirements for revisions approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Please let me know if these revisions meet. your requirements or if additional amendments are necessary. Very truly yours, AUSTIN, PEIRCE & SMITH,.. By: ~'~ Thomas .Fenton Smith TFS/smg Enclosure 4 C:~WP5I~LETTEES~SA35ANO.TF3 a: m a, .. , i{{: ~:£ ..,~ ,,,,. .a ... ,. ., ~ ~, Ana r ~ a i ~ .,.... a . ax.. e, , s,. ::.„,a TO Ellen Sassano From: John Ely Postmark: Oct 09,92 11:37 AM Subject: Resnick Message: The easement for the road and Memo of understanding are ok with me ; if the covenants cover every thing to your satisfaction. let Smith know that it all may be recorded..Thanks ----------=====X=====___------- "'; ,. Aus~rn~t, PEixxcE & S1vntTx Attorneys At Law 600 East Hopkins Avenue Suite 205 pe r- rash, c )ms-z6oo Ronald D. Austin As n, Colorado 81611 _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3pg Fmderick P. Peitee TF'^e, ` ~ "='~ s ~ ~~'4~' ~- Q s )pAX Cdo3) 925720 Thomas Fenton Smith ;"'~~ ~ ~' .Rhonda l: Raxi~ April 30, 1992 ~ ,- ~. ~ - 4 ~~°~ r`-f ._.:. " - Ms. Ellen Sassano -"'"" Pitkin County Planner 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RS: Resnick Subdivision - Mt. Sopris Ditch Dear Ellen• As you may recall, condition number 2 of Resolution 91-142 of the Board of County Commissioners, granting general' submission approval for the Resnick Subdivision, requires a memorandum of understanding between the Mt. Sopris Ditch Company and the Resnicks, whereby the promissors agree to hold the Ditch Company harmless from damage caused by the ditch and to provide access to the Ditch Company for maintenance thereof. By letter dated, March 17, 1992, I submitted to you a revised memorandum of understanding to address this requirement. The revised agreement reflects the statutory requirement that ditch owners have an obligation to maintain and operate the ditch so as not to injure the property through which the ditch passes. Colorado law provides that. ditch owners are liable for their negligence in operation or maintenance. (See, e.g. CRS '37-84- 101.) Unfortunately, we have not been able to come to agreement with the landowners involved, who take the position that £hey be absolved of all responsibility, including damages which may result from their negligent actions. Colorado law already provides that "any person owning a water right §hall be .entitled to a right of way through the lands which lie between the point of diversion and the point of use. . for the purpose of transporting water ." (CRS 37-8b-102). In view of this .statute, the County's requirement for. an agreement between the parties appears to be unnecessary. Considering the circumstances identified above, and also considering the fact that the proposed subdivision does not in any way affect the. operations of .the Mt. Sopris Ditch so as to justify a requirement for such an agreement, we hereby request that the County delete the requirement for a memorandum of understanding between the Resnicks and. the owners of the water in the Mt. Sopris Ditch. We view this as a private matter, as to which Colorado law already adequately achieves what the County intended by requiring .,,-,~ ~ .~ a -, w ... Z AUSTIN, PEIRCE & SMITH ~,PR ~ ~ ~' Attorneys At Law ., 600 Fast Hopkins Avenue Suite 205 Ronald D. Austin Aspen, Colorado 81611 u~phone ~~) 925.2600 FrcAerick P. Peirce _.. FAX (303) 925-0720 Thames Fenton Smith Apri1°'2 9 , 19 9 2 Rhonda,. Bazil Ms. Ellen Sassano Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Resnick Detailed Submission and Final Plat Application Dear Ellen: Enclosed for your information is a letter ,dated,. April 20, 1992, from Thomas A. Kuekus, Aspen District Ranger, to me regarding the easement for the Dinkle Lake,. .Road. which we have previously n , .-., discussed. As you can see from the letter, and despite lengthy negotiations over an extensive period. of time, we still have no identification of the specific needs of the Forest.. Service for a road easement as it traverses the Resnick property. in the original application, we .recognized that a public right-of-way of approximately 8' exists over the Resnick property. We took this position even though a deed, dedication, or easement do not exist. We need not have done so, but we recognized that public use by prescription probably exists, even though such rights do not actually come into existence until a .court decree is rendered. We calculated .lot size, based upon an 8' right-of-way over the Resnick property, and reduced the lot area accordingly. (See page 6 of Resnick Land Use Application). No GMP points or other benefits were requested with respect to the Dinkle Lake Road in this application. However, the applicants agreed to abide by the following condition contained in the approval: "At final plat the applicants shall provide an access easement for use of the`Dinkle Lake Road by the public. There is currently no ..• ~_ ~ '~ E~USTIN, PEII2CE & SMITH Attorneys At Law Ms. Ellen Sassano April 29, 1992 Page 2 final determination as to whether this road is a County or Forest Service roadF~~~ The application shall coordinate with the County and the Forest Service and provide an easement to the appropriate entity." We have been consistent in maintaining that we would dedicate an 8' easement which would address that portion of the traveled surface of the load to its centerline, which forms the boundary of the Resnick property. We are aware`of no .regulation which requires any dedication at all, much less an easement of any specific width. Since the proposed development does not impact the use of the Dinkle Lake Road at all, an exaction requiring a dedication cannot be justified. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the applicants agreed to accept the condition in recognition of the. public use of the road. However, this dedication was always proposed as an easement of 8' to the centerline of the road.. in view of our inability to come to closure with the_Forest Service os this issue, we'hereby request that Pitkin County accept the 8' easement for us to_comply with the requirement. of General Submission. In doing so, we do not wish to preclude the .Forest Service from obtaining the easements which are deemed necessary, and the County is free to negotiate with the Forest Service for a subsequent conveyance to the federal.. government of the right-of- way. However, we do not think it is fair or appropriate for this application to be held hostage to the indecision. of the Forest Service where what was proposed was in an effort to be a good citizen and resolve an ancillary issue not related to the land use. application itself. Please let me know as soon as a date is set for the P & Z hearing and what conditions you are recommending. In the meantime, _~. .. ~- A x„.. -~ .~. ~~,,: - -- Ms. Ellen Sassano April 29, 1992 Page 3 please feel free to call me to discuss this or any other issues regarding this application. Very truly yours, AUSTIN, PEIRCE & SMITH. By: Thomas Fenton Smith. TFS/dd Enclosure cc: Brad and Candy Resnick Timothy E. Whitsitt, Esq. Thomas A. Ruekes - AUSTIN, ISEIRCE & SMITH Attorneys At Law 600 Fast Hopkins Avenue Suite 205 Ronnld D. Austin ASpCII, Colorado 81611 Frederick F Pence Thnmas Featon srohh April 29, 1992 Rhonda 1. Bevil 1llephone (303) 925-2600 FAX (303) 9254720 Ms. Ellen Sassano Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Resnick Detailed Submission and Final Plat Application Dear Ellen: Enclosed for your information is a letter dated April 20, 1992, from Thomas A. Kuekus, Aspen District Ranger, to me regarding the. easement .for. the Dinkl,e Lake Road which we have .previously discussed. As you can see from the letter, and despite lengthy negotiations over an extensive period of time, we still have no identification of the specific needs of the .Forest Service for a road easelttent as it traverses the; Resnick property. In the original application, we recognized that a public right-of-way of approximately B' exists over the Resnick property. We took this position even though a deed, dedication, or easement do not exist. We need not have done_so, but we'recognized that public use by prescription probably exists, even though such rights do not actually come into existence until a court decree is rendered. We calculated lot size based upon an 8' right-of-way over the Resnick property, and reduced the lot area accordingly. (See page 6 of Resnick Land_ Use Application). No GMP points or other benefits were requested with respect to the Dnkle Lake Road in this application. However, the applicants agreed to abide by the following condition contained in the approval: "At final plat the applicants shall provide an access easement for use of the Dinkle Lake Road by the public. There is. currently no n. a,. -4~.. .. .. ,.,m.. M~a as ..., ~<+i"an .~s~ final determination as to whether, this, road is a County or Forest Service road. The application shall.. coordinate with the County and the Forest Service and provide an easement to the appropriate entity." We have been consistent in maintaining that we would dedicate an 8' easement which would address that portion of the traveled surface of the road to its centerline, which forms the boundary of the Resnick property. We are aware of no 'regulation which requires any dedication at all, much less an easement of ..,any specific width. Since the proposed development does not impact the use of the Dinkle Lake Road, at all, an exaction requiring a dedication cannot be justified. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the applicants agreed to accept the condition in recognition of the public use of the,_road. However, this dedication was always proposed as an easement. of 8' to the centerline of the road. In view of our inability to come to closure with the, Forest Service on this issue, we hereby request that Pitkin County accept the 8' easement for us to complg with the requirement of General Submission. In doing so, we do not wish to preclude the Forest Service from obtaining the easements which are. deemed necessary, and the County is free to negotiate with the Forest Service"for a subsequent conveyance to the federal government of the right-of- way. However, we do no£ think it is fair or appropriate for this application to be held hostage to the indecision of the. Forest Service where what was proposed was in an effort to be a good citizen and resolve an ancillary issue not related to the land use application itself. Please let me know as soon as a date is set for the P & Z hearing and what conditions. you are recommending. In the meantime, »_ _ . ,. f~q, v_ ... , ..~, .. ~ . _„ r.~. ~., ~ ~.... _..~ .~,w3.~~.x please feel free to call me to discuss this or any other issues. regarding this application. Very truly yours, AUSTIN, PEIRCE & SMITH.... Bye Thomas Fenton Smith TFS/dd Enclosure cc: Brad and Candy Resnick .Timothy E. Whitsitt, Esq. Thomas A. Kuekes .. n ... 6~Lr ,.. _. i..; ..F ~ .r ss,.me. _ ........ .. .r Y. vW~~J t'`"" , . Ronald D. Ausfin Frederick F Peime Thomas Fenton Smith Rhonda 1. Bazil J Aus~rnv, pEII2CE & SMrrx ~r ~ i 71992 ~ , Attorneys At Law - - 600 East Hopkins Avenue t~ °~_"~,,,,_._.. ~, ,. ' Suite ?AS ' ~. ,.. Aspen, Colorado 81611 ~W~'icle~lto~e(io3>e2s~uoo` "~ -'" PAX (303) 9254720 March 17, 1992 BAND DELIVERED. Ms. Ellen Sassano Aspen\Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen® CO 81611 RE: Resnick Subdivision Dear Ellen: The Memorandum of Understanding regarding the Mt. Sopris Ditch included with our Detailed Submission and Final Plat application last week was submitted in error. That agreement did not have the approval of the Resnicks. Y am submitting herewith a substitute. agreement for inclusion with our application. This agreement is being transmitted simultaneously to Messrs. Danciger and Considine for their consideration. I shall notify you of their response as soon as Y hear from them. The agreement has been amended in several respects to more accurately reflect Colorado law. Basically, ditch owners have an obligation to maintain and operate the t3itch_so as_not to_njure the property through which the ditch passes. Colorado law provides that ditch owners are liable for their negligence in operation or maintenance. We do not believe it is necessary or appropriate for Pitkin County or the individuals involved to retXuire more thah the statutes and case law provide for. Very truly yours, AUSTIN, PEIRCE & SMITH By: Thomas nton Smith 6 C:\WP51\LETTERS\RESNICK Ms. Ellen Sassano March 17, 1992.. _ Page 2 TFS/hs Enclosure ca: Brad A. Resnick Timothy E. Whitsitt, Esq. 6 C:\WP51\LETTERS\RESNICK dm .. , ~„ .~. e_ _._.. .... .,.. _.. _. ~~ ~ ._ MEMORANDUM OF IINDERSTANDING THIS MEMORANDUM OF IINDERSTANDING is entered ,..into between Brad A. Resnick and. Candace 'J. Resnick (".Promisors"), and David R. Danciqer and .Terry Considine ("Promisees.") this day of 1992. WHEREAS, Promisors are the owners of the property known as Lots A and B, Resnick Subdivision, according to:the plat thereof ..recorded , 1992, in plat book at page as reception number of the records of the Pitkin County Clerk and .Recorder; and, WHEREAS, condition number 2 of Resolution No. 91-142. of the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, granting General Submission approval for the .Resnick Subdivision, .requires a Memorandum of Understanding between the Mt. Sopris Ditch Company and the Resnicks, whereby the Promisors agree to hold the Ditch Company harmless from .damage caused by the Ditch and to provide access to the Ditch Company for maintenance. thereof; and WHEREAS, there is no Mt. Sopris Ditch Company, but the right, title and interest in and to the subject ditch and water adjudicated thereto are owned by David R. Danciqer, owner of that certain real property in Garfield and Pitkin Counties known as the "Tybar Ranch," and Terry Considine, owner of that .certain real property known as the "Big Four Ranch;" and WHEREAS, Promisors and Promisees desire to enter into. this agreement and agree to the terms and conditions of this Memorandum of Understanding, which are for the benefit of all parties. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the agreements set forth herein and other. good and valuable consideration, it is mutually agreed as follows: 1. Promisors, on behalf of themselves, their agents, successors, and assigns, agree to release and hold Promisees, their agents, successors, and assigns, harmless from and against any and all liability, claims, suits, or causes of action for injury, damages, losses, expenses, and costs of any kind or nature to persons or property, on Lots A and B, Resnick Subdivision, that may arise directly or indirectly out gf the ownership, maintenance repair, improvement, replacement, or operation of the Mt. Sopris Ditch on or near said Lots A and B, provided that Promisees, their agents, successors, and assigns fully comply with Colorado law with respect to such activities, including without limitation C.R.S. 37- 84-101, et seq.; and further provided that such release shall not apply to the negligent actions of the Promisees, their agents, successors, and assigns. „ .,,. _ _. _.,.,, . , ~, ~ ._ ..... , a,~ ~~,n . ~ ~ 2. Promisors hereby confirm. the perpetual non-exclusive easement of Promisees for, the purpose of the maintenance, repair, improvement,`replacement, and operation of the Mt. Sopris Ditch as constructed in place across the above described Lots A and B. Promisors further grant Promisees the limited right of reasonable access to the ditch in order to exercise their rights set forth herein in accordance with normal and necessary practices. 3. .Promisors .agree to notify Promisees as soon as practicable if any problems occur in connection with the ditch and its integrity that come to their attention. Promisees agree to take whatever action is reasonably necessary to prevent damage to Promisors property based upon such notice. If Promisees fail to take such action, Promisors shall ..take whatever action is reasonably necessary to protect their property. 4. Promisees hereby consent to the. approval of the Resnick Subdivision as submitted to the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado. 5. The covenants made herein shall run with the land and shall be binding on and shall inure to the benefit of the parties to this Memorandum of Understanding, their respective heirs, successors, and assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Promisors and Promisees have duly executed this Memorandum of Understanding. PROMISORS: Brad A. Resnick PROMISEES: David K. Danciger Candace J. Resnick Terry Considine 2 _..~., ...,~ ..W _ ~..~ rw r„ State of Colorado) )ss County of Pitkin ) The foregoing Memorandum of Understanding was acknowledged before me on this day of , 1992, by Brad A. Resnick. Witness my hand and seal. My commission expires: _ Notary State of Colorado) )ss County of Pitkin ) The foregoing Memorandum of Understanding was acknowledged before me on this day of 1992, by Candace J. Resnick. Witness my hand and seal. My commission expires: Notary Public State of Colorado) )ss County of Pitkin ) The foregoing Memorandum of Understanding was acknowledged before me on this day of , 1992, by David K. Danciger. Witness my hand and seal. My commission expires: _ Notary Public 3 a State of Colorado) )ss County of Pitkin ) The foregoing Memorandum of Understanding was acknowledged before me on this day of 1992, -by Terry Considine. Witness my hand and seal. My commission expires: _ Notary Public 1 C:~WP5I~DOCS~RE527ICR. MEM 4 ~. ~ Ronald D. Austin Fn~eerick F. Peinx Thomas Fenton SmiN Rhonda 1. Bazil AUSTIN, PEII2CE & SMITH Attorneys At Law G00 East Hopkins Avenue Suite 205 Aspen, Colorado 81611 March ll, 1992 Ms. Ellen Sassano Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office. 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 7lhyhone (303) 925-26(10 FAX (303) 925720 .~: 'r MAR 12 1992 { RE: Resnick Land Use Application - Request for Detailed Submission and Final Plat Approval Dear Ellen: Enclosed herewith please find the application of Brad and Candy Resnick for Detailed Submission and Final Plat approval. I have included herewith (8) copies of the Application and the Exhibits attached thereto, pursuant to our discussion. Please call if you believe that any additional information is necessary for this matter to be placed before the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. Also, please inform me of the date that this. matter will be scheduled for consideration by the P & Z. Thank you for your consideration. TFS/dd Enclosures Very truly yours, AUSTIN, PEIRCE & SMITH _. v~ _. By: Ci'l.~ Thomas Fenton Smith cc: Brad and Candy Resnick 5353 W. Sopris Creek Road.. Basalt, CO 81621 1 C:~WPSI~LETTERS~SASSAN0.309 DUSTIN, PEIItCE & SMITH Attorneys At Law ... _. Ms. E11erI Sassano April 30, 1992 Page 2 the memorandum of understanding, and we have not been able to reach. agreement in a way that is consistent with Colorado law. We are prepared to discuss this issue, as well as the issue regarding the Dinkle Lake Road, at the development review committee __ meeting now scheduled for May 7, 1992, at 2:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers. Please let me_know if, you require any additional information on either of these issues at .the .time of that meeting. Very truly yours, AUSTIN, PEIR-CE & SMITH. By: ty~~-- Thomas Fenton Smith TFS/aja ec: Brad and Candy Resnick Timothy E. Whitsitt, Esq. Arthur B. Ferguson, Esq. 4 C:~WP51~LE7TEFS~AESAICE.IPS ,~ ..--.„ RESNICK LAND USE APPLICATION Request for Detailed Submission and Final.. Plat Approval INTRODUCTION Pursuant to §6-4 and 6-5 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code, this Application for Detailed Submission and Final Plat Approval of the Resnick Land Use Application is hereby submitted. The prior appovals of this Application are as follows:. 1. Resolution No. PZ-91-46: Forwarding the 1991 Non-Metro Area Residential GMQS scores to"the BOCC; 2. Resolution No. PZ-91-48e .Granting a Lot Line Adjustment and 1041 Hazard Review approval; 3. Resolution No. 91-142: Granting General Submission approval; and 4. Resolution No. 91-146: Awarding Residential GMQS Allotments for the Non-Metro Area. Copies of the above-referenced Resolutions are attached hereto as Exhibits 1 through 4. COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The conditions of approval placed upon this application by the Planning and Zoning Commission (Resolution No. PZ-91-48, Exhibit 2) and by the Board of County Commissioners (Resolution No. 919-142, Exhibit 3), are substantially the same. The manner of compliance with these conditions is demonstrated as follows: 1041 HAZARD REVIEW The conditions of 1041 Hazard Review approval are contained in Resolution No. PZ-91-48. Conditions 1 through 4 are met by inclusion of such limitations within the Restrictive Covenants proposed for this subdivision, attached hereto as Exhibit 5. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT A Subdivision Exemption Plat for Lot Line Adjustment approval is submitted herewith as Exhibit 6. This Plat will be recorded. upon Detailed Submission and Final Plat ..approval. A note is included on the Subdivision Exemption Plat reflecting condition number 1, i.e., that the Turnbull property shall be based on the acreage of such property prior to the approval of the Lot Line Adjustment. .. _,.:,. . ~...:,,.. ti~~ ._.:., ...., .a.r;,~,_.~~. ~ u..~.,. "", ~. _, _-:- GENERAL SUBMISSION Conditions 1 through 7 of General Submission approval are met by inclusion of such limitations as requirements in the Restrictive Covenants for this subdivision. Holy Cross Electric Association states ..that they have no requirements now, but will assess the landowner„for looped service when utilities are extended to the new lot. Accordingly, a provision reflecting this requirement` is in the Restrictive Covenants. GENERAL CONDITIONS.. Condition number 1 of the General Conditions is satisfied by the submittal herewith` of the Restrictive Covenants of the Subdivision, Exhibit 5. General Condition number 2 is met by the submittal herewith of a Memorandum of Understanding .among David K. Danciger, Terry Considine, and the Resnicks; in which the Resncks agree to hold them harmless from damage caused by the ditch and to provide access to the ditch for maintenance thereof. Thies Memorandum of Understanding is attached hereto as Exhibit 7. There is no Mt. Sopris Ditch Company, and the ditch rights are owned by Messrs. banciger and Considine. The agreement has been approved by Mr. Danciger, and we are awaiting approval by Mr. Considine.. General Condition number 3 is satisfied by the submittal herewith of a Park Dedication fee of $49.08, calculated in accordance with my letter of June 3, 1991, to the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Department, and approved by the Planning Department. The letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 8, along with a check for $49.08. General Conditions numbers 4 and 6, are, satisfied by the inclusion of such limitations in the Restrictive Covenants for the Subdivision. General Condition number 5 is satisfied by the provision of an Easement for the Dinkle Lake Road which will be included as Exhibit 9. I am informed by Bud Eylar' and Tom Kuekes that this is considered a Forest Service road, and accordingly the easement goes to the U.S.F.S. We are currently negotiating with the Forest Service and shall submit the easement in the near future. PLAT DOCUMENTS The following plat documents are submitted_ for approval herewith, in accordance with the requirements of the conditions of General Submission approval in §6-4 and §6-5 of the Pitkn County Land Use Code: x ...~ 1. Subdivision .Exemption Plat, (Exhibit 6) and 2. Growth Management, Subdivision Plat "and 1041 Site Plan (Exhibit 10). These plat documents incorporate the conditions of approval and also satisfy the conditions of §6-4 and §6-5 of the Land Use i Code . 'I CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing, the applicants, Brad and Candy Resnick, hereby request Detailed Submission and Final Plat approval for the Resnick Land Use .Application, to subdivide the 62-acre parcel into two 31-acre lots, one of which is°already improved for a single-family residence. Respectfully submitted this ~ day of ~~ , 1992. AUSTIN, PEIRCE & SMITH C.._- By: T s Fenton Smith, # 463 600 E. Hopkins Ave. Suite 205 Aspen, CO .81611 (303) 925-2600 cc: Candace J. and Brad A. Resnick Doca\Reanick. App 1 C:\WP51\DOCS\RESRIC%.APP 3 RESNICR LAND USE APPLICATION EXHIBIT LIST 1. Resolution PZ-91-46 2. Resolution PZ-91-48 3. Resolution No. 91-142 4. Resolution No. 91-146 5. Restrictive Covenants 6. Subdivision Exemption Plate-for Lot Line Adjustment 7. Memorandum of Understanding (Mt. Sopris Ditch) 8. Park Dedication Fee 9. Dinkle Lake Road Easement 10. GMP, Subdivision Plat and 1041 Site Plan Dacs~Reanlek.Exh _s , ~. E~C~ITB ~ ~ ~,~ M i r RESOLUTION OF THE PITRIN COUNTY PLANNING ,.,AND ZONING COMMISSION ~, FORWARDING THE 1991,. NON-METRO AREA RESIDENTIAL GMQS SCORES -~ ~.~ ~.U«sa to ~ ~. ~r?w ~ ~ :.,.... TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY, COMMISSIONERS OF PITRIN COIINTY~ COLORADO . _. ~..... a.._. ~~~ _ ,_ ~ w ~. ,~ .,.,. ,; s u~, ..~,,.. Resolution PZ-91-~{6 WHEREAS, on August 20, 1991, the Pitkin County Blanning Commission, hereinafter "Commission", reviewed six_ (6) 1991 Non-Metro: Area.. residential GMQS applications. These applications are as followse West Buttermilk Pfister_.Tract,2 West Buttermilk Pfister Tract 3 West Buttermilk.Pfister Tract 4 .West Buttermilk Pfister Tract 5 Ross Resnick - WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed each, application relative to the applicable sections of the County Code (Section_5-510); and NHEREAS, there are seven,. (7) residential.. allotments available, for 1991 in the Non-Metro Area; and WHEREAS, all of the applications .received scores above the minimum threshold of 43 points. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,. by the Pitkin.. County Planning and Zoning Commission that.. it does hereby forward the following scores for the 1991 Residential GMQS for the Non-Metro Area:.. West Buttermilk Pfister,_Tract 2 55 West Buttermilk Pfister_Tract 3 58 ' West Buttermilk Pfster,Tract 4 48 West Buttermilk Pfister. Tract 5 53 I~ Ross 68 Resnick 5? All projects therefore exceeded the minimum threshold of 43points. APPROVED by the Pitkin_County Planning and Zoning Commission at its regular scheduled meeting August 20, 1991. PITKIN COUNTY P NING AND ZONING COMMISS d BY _ ~~ Jim r, Chairman ATTEST: Deborah Skehanl Administrative Assistant APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS,TO„CONTENT: Tim Whitsi t Am' L. argerum County Att n y P nni Director PITRIN COUNTY NON-METRO RESIDENTIAL GMP ALLOCATION ....~. ~w .,. ,. ~~ , .< . _ TALLY SHEET PROJECT NAME; West Buttermilk Pfister Tract 2 DATE: August 20, 1991 • 1 2 3 4 5 MOLT: TOTAL " P&2 VOTING MEMBERS J.R. R:M. S.W. A: Availability of Public and Private Facilities and Services i. ~~Water 1 1 1 1 1 ii. Sewer 1_ 1 _1 1 _l iii. Storm Drainage 1 1 1 1 1 iv. Fire .Protection .. 0 0 0 1 0` • v. School System , 1 _~ 1 1 1. vi. Road System 1 1 1 3 3 Minimum Threshold (7) 7 B. Effect Upon the Environment i. Air 1 1 1 3 3 ii. Water Resources 1 1 1 3 3., iii. Hazards and Natural Vegetation 1 1 1 3 3 iv. Energy Conservation 2 2 2 3 6 Minimum Threshold(12) 15 C. Consistency with Community Goa ls i. ii. iii. iv. v. D. Employee Housing Provision 1. ii. iii. 13 13 13 1 1 1 Minimum Threshold (8) E. Bonus Points Minimum Threshold (43) TOTAL POINTSc 13 13 55 open Space 1 1 1 4 4 Agricultural Land Preservation 0 0 0 4 0 Visual Impacts 1 1 1 4 4 Wildlife Habitat 1 1 1 4 4 Development Below -° Allowable Density 8 8 8 1 8 Minimum Threshold(16) 20 Low Moderate Middle ~?""~ ' j ,~ PITRIN COUNTY NON-METRO RESIDENTIAL GMP ALLOCATION TALLY SHEET PROJECT NAME: Nest Buttermilk Pfister Tract 3 DATE: Aucust 20, 1991 1 2 3 4 5 MIILT. TOTAL P&Z VOTING MEMBERS J.R. R.M. S.W. w A. Availability of Public and Private Facilities and Services ~. i. Water 1 1 1 1 1 _ ii. Sewer 1 1 1 ~ 1 iii. Storm :Drainage T 1 1 1 " 1 iv. Fire Protection 1 1 1 1 1 v. School System 1 1 1 1 ~_ ' vi. Road System 1 1 1 3 3 Minimum Threshold. (7) 8 B. Effect Upon the Environment i. Air 1 1 1 3 : 3 ii. Water Resources 1 1 1 3. 3 iii. Hazards and Natural Vegetation 1 1 1 3 3 iv. Energy Conservation 2 2 2 3 6 "Minimum Threshold(12) 15 C. Consistency with Community Goa ls i. Open Space 1 1 1 4 4 ii. Agricultural Land Preservation 0 -0 0 4 0 iii. Visual Impacts 1 1 1 4 4' iv. Wildlife Habitat 1 1 1 4 4 v. Development Below -Allowable Density l0 10 10 1 10 Minimum Threshold(16) 22 D. Employee Housing Provision i. Low 13 13 13 1 13 ii. Moderate 1 iii. Middle 1 Minimum Threshold (8) 13 E. Bonus Points Minimum Threshold (43) TOTAL POINT S: 58 ., u,....~,.u ... .. . ........: PROJECT NAME: West Buttermilk Pfister Tract 4 ~.._., ,,..._..Y.. DATE: AucLust 20, 1991. 1 .,.,. r: ..,~.~.~;.,~..n_..~., .,.~ .,. 1 2 3 4 5 MULT. TOTAL P8Z VOTING MEMBERS J.R. R.M. S.W. A. Availability of Public and Private Facilities and Services i. ~~Water 1 1 1 1 1 ii. Sewer 1 1 1 1' 1 iii. Storm Drainage 1 1 1 1 1 iv. Fire Protection 0 0 0 1 b _, . v. School System 1 1 1 1 1 vi. Road System 1 1 1 3 3 Minimum Threshold (7) 7 B. Effect Upon the Environment i. Air 1 1 1 3 3 ii. Water Resources 1 1 1 3 3 iii. Hazards and Natural Vegetation 1 1 1 3 _3 iv. Energy Conservation 1 1 1 3 3 Minimum Threshold(12) 12 C. Consistency with Community Goals i. Open Space 1 1 1 4 4 ii. Agricultural Land Preservation 0 0 0 4 0 iii. Visual Impacts 0 0 0 4 0 iv. Wildlife Habitat 1 1 1 4 4 v. Development Below Allowable Density 8 8 8 1 8 _ Minimum Threshold(16) 16 D. Employee Housing Provision 1. Low 13 13 13 1 13 ii. Moderate 1 _ iii. Middle .1 Minimum Threshold (8) 13 E. Bonus Points Minimum Threshold_ (43) TOTAL POINTSs 48 ,y ..... ,. >. ,. .. ... _._ .c i ~ ~. ~ PITRIN COt7NTY:NON-METRO RESIDENTIAL .. . GMP ALLOCATION ~., . w ..,...._,,.. , . TALLY. SHEET ~ PROJECT NAME: West Buttermilk Pfister Tract 5 DATE: August 20, 1991 1 2 3 4 5 MOLT. TOTAL P&2 VOTING MEMBERS J.R. R.M. S.W. A. Availability of Public !I, and Private Facilities ;, and Services i. `Water 1 1 1 1 1 ii. Sewer 1 1 1 1 1, _ iii. Storm Drainage 1 1 1 1 1 i iv. Fire Protection 1 1 1 1' l,. v. School System 1 1 1 1 1 vi. Road System 1 1 1 3 3 Minimum Threshold.. (7) 8 B. Effect Upon the Environment i. Air 1 _1 _ 1 3 3 ii. Water Resources 1 1 1 3 3 iii. Hazards and Natural Vegetation 1 1 1 3 3 iv. Energy Conservation 1 1 1 3 3 Minimum Threshold(12) 12 C. Consistency with Community Goals i. Open Space 1 1 1 4 4 ii. Agricultural Land Preservation 0 0 0 4 0 iii. Visual Impacts 1 1 1 4 4 iv. Wildlife Habitat .,.. 1 1 1 4 4 v. Development Below Allowable Density 8 8 8 1 8 Minimum Threshold(16) 20 D. Employee Housing Provision 1. Low 13 13 13 1 13 ii. Moderate' 1 iii. Middle 1 Minimum Threshold (8) 13 E. Bonus Points Minimum Threshold (43) TOTAL POINTS: 53 E h PITRIN COUNTY NON-METRO ,RfiBIDENTIAL ,,, n~..~ , : GMP ALLOCATION .,.... o~.... ,..~ . . TALLY SHEET ~ PROJECT NAME: Ross st DATE: Au ~ 20, 199120, 1991 1 2 3 4 5 MULT. TOTAL P&2 VOTING MEMBERS D.G. J.R. B.N. A. Availability of Public and Private Facilities and Services i. ~"Water 1 1 1 1 1 ii. Sewer 1. 1 1 1 1_ iii. Storm Drainage 1 1 1 1' "1 " s iv. Fire Protection 1 1 1 1, 1 v. School System 1 1 1 1 S"' vi. Road System 1 1 1 3 3 Minimum Threshold,. (7) 8 ~ B. Effect Upon the.. Environment,. i. Air 2 2 2 3 6 ii. Water Resources 2 2 ' " 2 3 6, iii. Hazards and Natural Vegetation 1 1 1 3 3 iv. Energy Conservation 2 2 2 3` 6.. Minimum Threshold(12) 21 C. Consistency with Community Goa ls i. Open Space 1 1 1 4 4 ii. Agricultural Land Preservation 2 2 2 4 8 iii. Visual Impacts 2 2 2 4 8 iv. Wildlife Habitat 1 1 1 4 4 v. Development Below Allowable Density 11 11 11 1 11 I Minimum Threshold(16) 31 1 D. Employee Housing Provision . i. Low 8 8 8 1 8 ii. Moderate 1_ iii. .Middle 1 Minimum Threshold (8) 8 E. Bonus Points I Minimum Threshold (43) TOTAL POINTSd 68 i _i . :~~~ ~ ~ ~ w _ ., PITKIN COIINTY NON-METRO RESIDENTIAL GMP ALLOCATION a ~, ~~~.~~.n. TALLY SSEET~ ' PROJECT NAME: Resnick DATE: August 20, 1991 r.. ., .~, d._ ..w ....«aa~ rt. ,. a.. ,.J _ .~.. .u...,. .. ,tee 1 2 3 t 4 5 MULT. TOTAL P&Z VOTING MEMBERS D.G. J.R. S.W. A. Availability of Public and Private Facilities and Services i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. '`Water Sewer Storm Drainage Fire Protection School System Road System 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 " 1. _ 1_ 1 1 1 3 ~ _ _1~_. 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 1~ 1 1 1 1 1 1' i ~ _ 3_ 3 Minimum Threshold (7) 8 B. Effect .:Upon the Environment ' i. Air 1 1 1' 3 3 ii. Water Resources 1 1 1' 3 3` iii. Hazards 'and Natural ' Vegetation 1 1 1' 3 3 iv. Energy Conservation 2 2 2' 3' 6' a Minimum Threshold(12) 15 C. Consistency with Community Goals i. Open Space 1 1 1 4 4 ii. Agricultural Land ' Preservation 1 1 1 4 4 iii. Visual Impacts 2 2 2' 4 8 iv. Wildlife Habitat 1 1 1=_ 4" 4 v. Development Below Allowable Density 0 0 0'" 1 0 Minimum Threshold( b) 20 D. Employee Housing Provision_ i i. Low 8 8 8' 1 8 ii. Moderate - 1 iii. Middle ~ 1 E: Bonus Points Minimum .Threshold (43) TOTAL inimum Threshold"(8) 8 ~OINTS: 51 r. 337984 its/3is/91 1^:IS Rec 5;.is0 Fk: 660 F•C; 418 ~ ESC~IIBIT ,"iivia Davy=,. F'it Cnty Cler{:, Doc_~.isci ~ I M=.. RESOLIITION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY_COMMISSIONERS OF PITRIN COUNTY, COLORADO GRANTING GENERAL SUBMISSION APPROVAL TO THE RESNICR SIIBDZVISION Resolution No. 91-~~ WHEREAS, Candice and Brad Resnick_(hereinafter "Applicants") have applied to the.BOard of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, 1. Colorado, (hereinafter "Board") for General Submission approval of a two lot subdivision pursuant to Sections 4-l and 6-3 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code; and ' WHEREAS, the Resnick parcel is located. at 5353 West Sopris Creek Road, more specifically described. in Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, the parcel is zoned RS=30; and WHEREAS, the applicant. proposes to subdivide a 62 acre parcel of land into two 31 acre parcelsand WHEREAS, there is an existing residence and outbuildings on lot B, and lot A is undeveloped; and WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled public hearing on August 20, 1991, the Planning and Zoninq Commission granted 1041 Geologic, Wildfire and Wildlife Hazard approval for. the undeveloped lot; and WHEREAS, the Commission also granted approval of a lot line , adjustment between the Resnick and Turnbull parcels; and WHEREAS, the Commission recommended General Submission approval of the subdivision to the Board; and WHEREAS,. the Commisiion scored the .application in the 1991 growth management competition and determined that the proposed subdivision meets overall and individual. minimum thresholds; and WHEREAS, the Commission recommended that. the proposed -_~- a ;t,~yl J~: ~ F~ec 2 t~i~ ~S{ 660 PC 419 Silvia Davis, Fir{~rntY C]erE., Doc ~ t~cr ,:~" ~~.r. `~ subdivision receive one growth management allocation; and WHEREAS, the Board reviewed the application at a duly noticed public hearing on October 29, 1991, at which evidence and testimony .was presented with respect to this application; and .WHEREAS, the Board. finds that the.. Applicants have complied with Code criteria for General Submission and Subdivision. NOW, TREREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board that it does.. hereby grant General Submission approval to the Applicant subject to the following conditions: GENERAL SUBMISSION 1. A sewage disposal system and water provision for the site shall be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health Department prior to issuance of a building 'permit. + 2. The applicant shall revegetate all areas disturbed_ by construction within one. growing season of construction.. 3. Outside illumination shall comply with Pitkin County Lighting regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 4. All development, with the exception of the access. drive _,_ improvements, shall be located within the building envelope as designated on the Site Plan, 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall obtain an access permit from the County Engineer's Office. 6. The applicant shall comply with Pitkin County air quality standards in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 7. At Final Plat the applicant shall submit a utility plan to be reviewed by Holy "Cross'Slectrc Association for.. approval of` a ".looped" service line. GENERAL L At Final Plat the applicant shall submit subdivsion_ covenants. 2. At Final Plat a statement of understanding shall be executed relieving ditch gwners of any responsibility for damage to development _caused by the Mount Sopris ditch or seepage problems resulting from the ditch. Access to the ditch shall be provided by the applicant to the ditch owners. #~33r984 Lii/..jtj/91 115 Rec 'b. 00 Pk: 660 F'G 420 ';Sit via .Davis, Fitr:. _. Cnty Cier~4::; Doc x.00 3. At_Final Plat the. applicant shall. pay a park dedication fee based on the County park dedication fee formula in_effect at the time of Final Plata 4. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall pay to the Pitkin County Finance'Director the equivalent of 1.0 low income employee indexed to the housing guidelines in effect at issuance: of a building permit.. 5. At Final Plat the, applicant shall provide an access easement for use of the I)inkle Lake Road. by the public. There is currently no final determination as to whether this road is a County or Forest Service Road. The .applicant shall coordinate with the County and the Forest.. Service and provide an easement to the appropriate entity. 5. The applicant shall utilize solar assisted water heating, low _. consumption toilets and thermal, insulation in' excess of building code requirements in construction of the residence. '7. All representations made. by the applicant in the. application and in public meetings shall be adhered to. APPROVED by the Board at its regular meeting on October 29, 1991. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITRIN COUNTY, COLORADO By G ~ _ Wayne Ethridge, hairman ATT~EST:_ _ ^ /~~~y_ tte and Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ~- Timo by E. Whitsitt, County A rney Plann Dir ctor ~T %~'~• ~~ ~ ~~airman 4~ayne Ethridge voting Commissioner Ross voting -~=- Commissioner True voting ~4/t-~ Commissioner Tune voting ' /L Commissioner Crowley voting ~!{ r >:inwisr7`~_` • r I _. , RESOLUTION OF THE PITRIN COiTNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GRANTINGA LOT LINE,ADJITSTMENT AND,. 1041 GEOLOGIC AND WILDFIRE HAZARD REVIEW APPROVAL TO THE RESNICR APPLICATION,,.,. _ Resolution No. FZ 9,1,-~ WHEREAS, Candice and Brad Resnick, hereinafter "Applicants", have applied to the Planning and Zoning Commission of Pitkin County, Colorado, hereinafter "Commission",..for _.a Lot Line. Adjustment and 1041 Geologic and Wildfire Hazard„approval pursuant to Sections 4-2.2(a)(2) and 5-400 of the Land Use Code; and WHEREAS, the Resnick parcel is located at_,5353 West Sopris Creek Road, more specifically described in Exhibit "A"; and AHEREAS, the parcel is zoned RS-30; and WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to subdivide a 62 acre parcel of land into two 31 acre parcels; and RHEREAS, there is an existing residence and.outbuildings on one lot, and the second lot is undeveloped; .and WHEREAS, only one new lot_ and building envelope will be established as a result of the subdivision; and ,~ WHEREAS, the undeveloped lot is encumbered by slopes exceeding 30~, potential avalanche areas and wildfire hazards; and WHEREAS, the site is outside of any mapped wildlife areas but. is within 1/2 mile of an elk migration corridor and near an elk.. productionarea; and AHEREAB, in 1989, ten acres_of and owned_by the Resnicks were illegally conveyed to the Turnbulls {adjacent property owners); and „~.,,. a AHEREAB, the applicants are requesting a lot line adjustment• in order to bring this transaction_nto compliance with the Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoninq Commission heard. the application at a duly noticed regularly scheduled meeting on August 20 1991; and WHEREAS, the Commission, determined,,,.that the .,applicant can adequately mitigate identified 1041 hazards,; and WHEREAS,` the Commission determined. that said „application complies with Lot Line Adjustment criteria in the Land, Use Code; and 'WHEREAS, the Commissionforwarded a Growth Management score of 51 (meeting overall and individual minimum thresholds) to the Board; and WIiEREAB, the Commission recommended that .thg. proposed subdivision receive one growth management allocation; and WHEREAS, the Commission determined. that .the application complies with Subdivision and General_Submission criteria in the Code. NOW, THEREFORE,-BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it recommends approval of the Resnick Subdivision General„.Submission to the Board of County Commissioners.. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Commission that it does hereby grant a lot line adjustment and 1041 Geologic and Wildfire Hazard ,_ Review approval to the Applicants subject to the .following conditions: 1041 HAZARD REVIEW . .~F.u ... ~. L The applicant acknowledges that he has been informed by Pitkin County of the .existence"of "1041 hazard areas" that might .,.,~ , ~, ,..... _._n,~.. effect the .property and any improvements, and the use and occupancy thereof. 2. The following wildfire mitigation measures shall be adhered to: a. All roofs will be kept cleared of debris b. Oak brush shall be thinned for a digtance of 30 feet from the home. Thinning 'shall result in patches of vegetation ,,, within 10 foot spacing between the crowns of remaining patches. Dead vegetation within 30 feet of the home shall, be removed. All vegetation within 10 feet of the home_ shall. be removed with the exception of low growing grasses and plants. c. The applicant shall provide a 2,000 'gallon 'underground water reservoir or a, pond with at least a 4 foot depth with a dry hydrant. The .pond shall be capable of providing no less" than 2,000 gallons of water for fireflow; d. Firewood shall be stacked on a ,contour ,,away from building(s).` e. At least one ten pound ABC class fire extinguisher shall be placed in each structure: f. All power and telephone lines shall be.undergrounded. . g. Roof materials shall be of non-combustible materials such as tile, metal or asphalt. h. 'The applicant shall install a fully automatic residential sprinkler system with a reserve water supply to be provided as_specifed by the sprinkler contractor. 3. Development impacts on wildlife shall be mitigated as follows:. a. All dogs shall be kenneled. b. All fences are to be a maximum of 42' in height, 4 strand or less with a minimum kick space of 12" from the top wire. c. Native vegetation outside of the building envelope shall be maintained. r d. The applicant shall place a" 20 foot setback on the intermittent stream which lies to-the east of the ~~ building envelope. The setback shall be reflected on, the __ Final Plat. No development shall occur within the setback and vegeta£ion shall be preserved. 4. No development shall occur on slopes exceeding 15$ in grade. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 1. Development density potential of the Turnbull property shall be based on the acreage 'of the Turnbull property prior to the boundary adjustment.. 2. }~ subdivision exemption plat shall 'be recorded upon final approval. GENERAL SUBMISSION .._. 1. A sewage disposal system and water provision for the site shall be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health Department prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. The• applicant shall revegetate all .areas disturbed by construction within one growing season of construction. 3. Outside illumination shall comply .with Pitkin County Lighting regulations in effect at the. time of. building permit issuance. 4. All development, with the exception of the access drive improvements, shall be located within the building envelope as designated on the Site Plan. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall obtain an access permit from the County "Engneer's'Office. 6. The applicant shall comply faith Pitkin County air quality standards in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 7. At Final Plat the applicant shall submit a utility plan to be reviewed by Holy 'Cross Electric Association for approval of a "looped" service line. GENERAL 1. At Final Plat the. applicant shall submit subdivision covenants.' 2. At Final Plat a,statement of understanding shall be executed relieving ditch owners. of any responsibility for damage to development caused by the Mount Sopris ditch or seepage ..problems resulting from the ditch. Access to the ditch shall be provided by the applicant to the ditch owners. 3. At Final Plat the applicant shall pay a park dedication fee - based on the County park dedication fee formula in effect at the time of Final Plat. 4. Prior to issuance of any building permits., the applicant shall . pay to the Pitkin County Finance Director. the .equivalent of • 1.0 low income employee indexed to the housing guidelines in effect at issuance of a building permit. 5. At Final Plat the applicant shall_provide_an access easement for .use of _the Dnkle Lake Road_by the public.. There is currently no final determination as to whether this road is a County or Forest Service,,, Road.,,. The applicant. shall coordinate with"the County and-the Forest Service and provide an easement to the. appropriate entity. 6. The applicant shall utilize solar assisted water heating, low ' consumption toilets and thermal insulation in excess of _..w,_ , building code requirements in construction of the residence.. 7. All representations made by the applicant in the application and in public meetings shall be adhered to. 18. All material representations made in the. public hearing and in the application shall be adhered to. APPROVED by the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission at its regular meeting on August. 20, 1991. PITRIN COIINTY>'pLANNING AND ZONING~COMMISSION Yim Reser, Chairman ATTEST~T: ~~ Q 0.y pA/'(4L~-fl N/C~Ji ~n~~ Deborah Skehan,.. r Administrative Assistant APPR AS TO O A~PIPROVED AS[~TO_/CONTENT: . ~. ~ ~ A.G~iut~D 7 /~(iYl2~- Timo h E. Whtsit Su nne Ro chart, Cozen y t rney Deputy Director ELS RESO resnick 1041 4 EXHIBIT h - ~. ,. ,.. . ,r. ~.~u. ;~, ., ~ .. -._.~. 'TZON ... Parcel A That part of the Following describedproperty lying with- in Tract 85 of Sections 31 and 32, and within Lots 2, 7, 8 and the SW:N[4'~ o£ Section 32 , all in. T. 8 5 R. 87 TQ:; 6th:P.M. Beginning ac a pointfrom whence the Southwest Corner of said Section32 bears 5.00°05'34" W. 642.59 feet and N: 89°58' 30"W. 1318.46 feet; thence N. 00°05'34"`"E. 1991':09~feet7 thence N. 00°08'00" E. 1407.08feet, more or'less to the centerline of acounty road knownasthe Dinkle Lake Road as constructed and ,. inplace; thence along the centerline of saicC~Di:nkle Y:ake'ROad 'the following courses and distances to the point of :beginning, S. 32°37'36" S0.' 103.SS~feet; S. 24°52'25" W. 273.84feet; S. 33°01'29" W. 196.06 feet; S. 23°42'46"W: 520.69 feet: S. 29°58'55" W. 365.21 feet; 5.34°51'96"W. 361.41 feet; S. 18°57'18" W."" 2fi8:56 feet; S. 04°59'23" t4. ...169.12 feet;.... S. 13°43'Ofi" W:... 180:96 feet- S. 16°23' 35" W. 206.14 feet; S. 33°41' 47" W: 454.59 feeE; - S. 08°14'30" E: 905.60 feet, S. 26°10'18"W.66:83 feet; S. 52°37'03"W. 159.73 feet; S. 04°00'56" E. 48.61feet S. 74°39'17" E. 124.10 feet; S. 57°09'47" E. 96.18 feet; S. 75°51'26" E. 106.99 feet; N. 54°41'01"E. 109.35 fee£; N. 64°46'40" E. 100.77 feet; N.89°27'37" E. 74.66 feet; S. 69°52'00" E. 199.33 feet; N. 86°38'57" E. 239.25 feet; S. 83°59'27" E. 153.45 feet: N. 63°07'54" E. 151:04. feet; S. 87°52'57" E. 118:26 feet, more or Tess TOGETHER WITH any and allwater, water rights, ditch and ditch rights appurtenant to the foregoing lands, and specifically including but without limitation.004 cubic foot of water perse- cond of time out of Priority 123A decreed to the.Buffalo~Ditch in Water bistrict No. 38, 'State of Colorado. ParcelB Aparcel of land in the $W.SW: of Section 32 andphe SEISE: `said a of Section 31,a11 inT: 8 5.,I2. 87 W:,6th P.M., p~~rcel-be-. ing more particularly described as .follows Beginning at a bzass capset forthe SoythwestCorner of said Section 32, thence S. 89°58'30" E. 659.23„feet; thence N. 00°04'13" E:586.05 feet to thecenterline of a countyroad;'~~thence along the centerline of .said county road, as constructed and in place, the following courses and distances, N. 69°52'00" W. 183.16 feet; S. 89°27'37" W.. 74.66 feet; S. 64°46'40"1V. 100.77feet; S. 59°41'01" W". 108.35 feet; EXHIBIT A -- LEGAL i)ESCRIPTIONattached to Warranty Deed between :_, ,M Barbara O'Neil.ROSS,grantor, and Siad"A:'Ytesnick and Candace J. Resnick, grantees --Page Dne: bf Two Pages-- EXHIBIT A -- LEGALDESCRIPTION ' (Continued) .Parcel D (Cont. ).. N. 75°51'26" W. 106.99 £eet; N. 57°09'47" S~L 98.18 feet; - N. 74°39'17" N. 111.00 feet; - thence S.03°40'59" W. 467.52 feet along a fence; thence East ". 72.fi3 feet along the Southline~of-Tract BSto ahrass capset for Angle Point (A.P.) N6.1 of Tract 86, all in said~TOwnship and Range'thenceEast 17.08 feet along theSouth Line of-said• Tract 85 to a point on the best line of said. Section 32; thence S. b0°02'52°W. 189.73'.feet to thepoint ofbeginning. ~; TOGETHER SgITH any and all water, water rights, ditch and - ditch rightsappurtenant to or connected withthe above-describ- ed lands. _..... _.. STATE OF COLORADO -. .. __Paae '^wo of "'wo Pages--~ .,.. ~.. x ,. ~._ rws #336306 11/C.~B/91 C~9 Fec $.~>O RE 661 FG 632 t"`, EXHIBIT ~?ilvi•a Davis, Fitki .nty Clerk:, Doc $.bU 4 RESOLUTION OFTHE BOARD OF,COUNTY,,COMMISSIONERS ` ~~ OF PTTRIN ¢OUNTY~COLORADO AWARDING RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ~. MANAGEMENT QUOTA_SYSTEM ALLOTMENTS FOR,THE,,NON METRO AREA APPLICATIONS AS FORWARDED BY THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO. 91-~ WHEREAS, Arthur Pfister"submitted four separate residential Growth Management Quota ,System (GMQS) applications. fox one (1) residential unit each for the West Buttermilk. Pfister Tracts 2, 3, ~~ ~~; ~.... _. b ... ,,..~._ 4 and 5 which are described wthinExhibitq A and WHEREAS, Frank and Pamela Ross submitted a 1991 residential .. ..m w.~~.~, ,~ _• _.,,_, .., Growth Management Quota System application for one_,(1) single family dwelling unit for the Ross property which is described ' within exhibit "B"; and WHEREAS, Candice. and Brad'Resnick submitted a 1991 ,residential .~_ w e,. Growth Management Quota System application for one.. (1) single family dwelling unit for the Resnick property which is described within exhibit "C"; and WHEREAS, `the Board of County Commissioners understands.. that the Planning an Zoning Commission reviewed, the,aboye applications. fer 1991 Non-Metro Area Residential GMQS applications and"scored them as follows• West Buttermilk Pfister Tract 2 55 i West Buttermilk .Pfister Tract 3 58__ I West Buttermilk Pfister Tract 4 _ 48 West Buttermilk Pfister Tract 5 53 ~, Ross 68 ', Resnick • 51 ~- and AHEREAS, the Board_of County Commissioners recognized that there are seven (7) residential allotments available_.for 1991, in ,__, _ ~I the Non-Metro area and there are a total of six units under application, all of which scored above the minimum threshold of 43 { points. #338306 i i /C~$/91 : 46 Fec ~. Ci0 Bt` 66f F'G 63~ ,~ ~. Silvia Davis, Fit.~n Cnty Cler4r., Doc ~.bC~ ' NOW, THEREFORE, BE ZT RESOLVED by the Board of County ' Commissioners that the 1991_GMQS Non-Metro allotment of the seven units will be awarded to the above listed_applica ions for the Non- Metro Area Residential GMQS competition. APPROVED by the Board at its. regular meeting on October 29, 1991. BOARD OF COVNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKZN COVNTY, COLORADO By Wayne thrdge, Ch 'rman Date /O.2~1.91 Je'a:nette Jones,,!/ D,,eputy County erk APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Timoth hitsrtt, Suz ne S. Ron han, County At~ ney County Planning Director Chairman Wayne Ethridge voting ~_ Commissioner Ross vohng r~~t' Commissioner TNa VOtIDg / ~l. Commissioner Tuite voting Carnmissioner Crowley voting S ~K n _ j;~; _ .. .. ~~~~~~ EXHIBIT- ~A~ f ' #3383G6 11/08/91 C>9:46 Fec ~.UO PK 6E,1 f7G 634 ~ tSilvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.4C2 ~.I ~~~ ..~~~.~ . ~., . v - t~~~a ~~ A ` SF~ ~~w.m ...w ~. i (~ ~ 9 ~ 4] N ~ i; _ ~ ._ e , ~ / f ya r^_ - ~ , 6 9 N s -~ . i _ ' ~. 9 i ~ 9 t o y t Sgt ~ ~ > D t`<y!~ .=B' g - I ,m ~r ^ff U :~/~ E ~~ p ' 3 t(1 7 ' : 2 ~.. ~ ~ jr. aj: ~ ; ~ y .°"^ r } , 8 lr ~ E • B n ' ~ A 4 M t• ~ j Lam.. a S~Y+S9 TD _ et ~ 6~i E.Y qy Rti 5 , ~~•: e ! N i £ / ' t' ~R t ik z . M 1.'~' .. n. d...u `- ~ e i S i ~~ ~~ N. w r- i ro v T~ 2 t 'b! Zip' ii i : •S t °h ~ F q : . 3 5, ~ i„5 . y~S ;; _ ' ]4 r~ 3 ii.~~ ~I IY ~~. I i ~" + ' 2 i . , c Sf I ~ ! . s i -` .. a~s = Y a = ~~4 a ~"'S T 33 it i3 ~ s +2aF ~ pF u 1 p~YR_-_• •+_: i ; I ~I .R rl i.Y^~p~± ,~ : r :C C Y i f S `` i l F ~ + ~ . I i l \~ ~ ~~~~ ,i `\\~=g ,-3- : -~~ / i° iR L~ l a~ ~ N S y I C :gI ~ a ~ T ~99g99g .~{, a S .C ~: .p ~- ]ol F F P: S+nm jaa~~g 'i 9 ~9' N i A a. i q SS 4,y~a ~ ~ - ~ P a L m,~ ~ ... ,„ ~ ., ~ ~, ~ ,~ #338346 i1/G8/91 49:Ftec x.44 BK " •'"• 661 FG 635 S~lv~a Davis, Pitb:in' ity Cler•k:, boc ~.~4 i~ __ X369 ::.., 5U6 EXHIBIT A -- LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Continued) _. .. .. Parcel B (Cont.) - N. 75°51'26" t9. 106.99 feet; N. 57°09'97" ta• 98.18£eet; N. 79°39,'17" ca. 111.OOfeet; thence S. 03°40'54" W.467.52 feet along a fence; thence East 72.63 feet along the South line of Tract BS to a brass :;.ap set £or Angle Point (A.P.)'No. 1 of Tract 86, all in said Township and Range; thence East 17,08 feet along the South line of said" Tract 85 to a point on the West line of said Section 32; thence S. 00°02'52" W. 184.73 feet to the point of beginning. TOGETHER WITH any and all water, water rights, ditch and ditch rights appurtenant to orconnected with the above-describ- ed lands. ___....... STATE OF COLORADO !`I'Yt tT1TV nc nrmv rw~ I a i ~: ~'.: ;t;f ':. . . #~:383~76 11/UB/91 C~9 Fiec ~.4C.i BK 661 F•G 636 Silvia Davis, Fit4:i ,'nty Clerk, Doc ~.qC~ ;,v„,, Exhibit ~~~~~ Ross Legal Description: A tract of land situate in Tract 64, Township 8 South, Ranqe 87 41est of the 6th P.M. being more particularly described as follows:° Beginning at a point on the East line of said Tract 64 whence AP 1 of said Tract 64 bears N O1 degree `45'04" West 2121.10 feet; thence S O1 degree 45'04" East 504.55' feet to AP 6 of Tract 64; thence S 89 degrees `19'42" West 1305.64 feet fo'AF 5 of said Tract 64; thence S 89 degrees 59'44" West 367.09 feet along fhe south line of said Tract 64; thence 1.) N 41 degrees 56'57" E 1059.92 feet; thence 2) N 43 degrees 27'47" W 493.85 feet; thence" 3j N 45 degrees 32'17" E 779.91 feet; thence 4j S 37 degrees. 34'54" E 385.17 feet; thence' 5) S 40 degrees 53'43" E 287.79 feet; thence` f..j S 18 degrees 29'04" E 383.57 feet; thence 7) S 28 degrees 41'11" E 311:35 feet; thence 8) S 69 degrees 54'01" E 39.82 feet to the point of beginning, containing 36.223 acres more of less. #338306 11 /C78/91 U6 Rec ~. <nj FlF: 661 PO 637 ', ~ ~ ~ . ~~' ',w` ~ ~~ ~S`ilvia Davis, F'itk: 'CnEy Clerk, Doc ffi:OU 36~ 5~5 EXHIBIT "C" Parcel A That part of the following described property lyingwith- in Tract 85 of Sections 31 and 32, and within Lots 2 ,7,6 and the SW :7419; of Section 32, all in T.. 8.S., R. 87 t4. , 6th P.M. Beginningat a point from whence the Southwest Corner of said Section32 bears"S. 00°05'34"W. 692.39 feet ahd N. 89°58' 30" W. 1318.46 f eet; thence N. 00°05'34" E."1991.09~f eet;thence N. 00°08'.0 O" E. 140 T:08 feet', more or less to the cen terline of" a county road known as the DinkleLake Road as constzuctedahd in place; thence along the centerline of said Dinkle LakeROad the following courses and distance s'to thepoint of'beginnng, S. 32°37'36".W. 103.58 feet; S. 29°52'25" W. 273.84 feet; 5. 33°01'29" SV 196.06 feet;' S. 23°42'96" W. °520:64 feet; 5. 24°58'55"W. 365.21`feet; S. 39°51'46" t9. 3fi1.91 feet; " S. 18°57'18" W. 268:56feet; S. 04°59'23" S4: 169:12 feet; _ S. 13°43'06" W. ~ 180.96 feet; S. 16°23'35"td. 206.14feet; S. 33°91'47" W. 954.59feet; S. O8°14'30"E. 405.60feet; S. 26°10'18" W: 66:83 feet; S. 52°37'03" S9. 159.73 feet; S. 09°00'56" E. 46.61feet; S. 79°39'17" E. 129.10 feet; S. 57°09'47" E: 96.18 feet; S. 75°51'26" E. 106.99 feet; N. 54°41'01" E. 108.35 feet; N. 64°46'40" E. 100.77 feet; •l N. 89°27'37" E.' 74.66 feet; •~: S. 69°52'00"E. 199:33`feet; ,i,." N. 86°38'57" F.: 239.25 feet; .'_'-' S. 83°59'27" E."- "153.45 feet; N. 63°07'54" E. 151.04 feet; ,'~' S. 87°52'57" E. 118.26 feet, more .... .. or less. TOGETHER S4ITH any and all. water , waterrights, ditch and ditch rights appurtenant to the foregoing lands, and specifically including but without limitation .004 cubicfoot ofwaterperse-' ' confl of time out of Priority 12BA decreed to the Buffalo. Ditch in Water District No. 36 ,State of Colorado. Parcel B A parcel of landin the 5'r77sSW~ of Section 32..and the SE :SE: ! of Section 31, all in T. 8 5:,R. 87 W., 6th P.M. ,saidparcel be- ing more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a brass cap set for the Southwest Corner of said Section 32, thence 5.89°58'30° E. 659. 23 feet; thence N. I ~., _ 00°09'13" E. 586.OSfeetto the centerline of a county road; thence along the centerline of said countyroad, as constructed and in place, the following courses and distances, N. 69°52'00" W. 183.16feet; , S. 69°27'37" 79. 74.66 feet; ' S. 64°46'40" 47. 100.77 feet; S. 54°41'01" W.106.35 feet; ~ ,. EXHIBIT A -- LEGAL DESCRIPTION zi`ttachedto WarYantyDeed between ~~; ~. ~.~:~ Barbara O'Neil Ross, grantor, and Brad A. Resnickand Candace J. Resnick, grantees .,. --Page One: o° 1'wo Pages-- L,..r- , . _ ,-_ _~ " ~ ~ EXNTBIT Y..G .:9K .. ~ ... ~ ~ WtYY ... .., , ..... ... .:. .. w=~i ~ S ~. ~au ~ .. DECLARATION OF COVENANTS RESNICK SUBDIVISION This Declaration is made and effective this day of 1992, by Brad A. and Candace J. Resnick (the "Declarant^), Declarant is the owner of Lots A and B, Resnick Subdivision, according to the plat thereof recorded 1992, in plat book at page as reception number of the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado. Declarant declares that such property is subject to `the covenants set forth in this"Declaration. I£ is the intent of the Declarant that all present and future owners of Lots A and B, mortgagees., and other persons now or hereafter acquiring any interest in the .property shall be subject to the covenants, conditions, restrictions, and easements established by this Declaration, and that such covenants, conditions, restrictions and easements shall run with the property in order to promote and protect the value, desirability, and attractiveness thereof. 1. The following wildfire` mitigation `measures shall be adhered to in the con§tructon and occupancy of improvements on Lot B: a. All roofs will be kept clear of debris: b. Oak brush shall be thinned for a distance of thirty feet. (30') from each home`. Thinning shall result in patches of vegetation with ten feet (10'J spacing between the crowns of remaining patches. Dead vegetation within thirty feet (30') of the home shall be removed: All vegetation within 10 feet (10') df the home shall be removed with the exception of .low growing grasses and plants. c. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the owner of Lot B shall provide a 2,000 gallon underground reservoir-or a pond with at least a 4' depth with a dry hydrant. The pond shall be capable of providing not less than 2,000 gallons of water for fire flow. d. Firewood shall be stacked on' a contour away from buildings. e. At least one 10 lb. AVC class fire extinguisher shall be placed in each structure. "' f. All power and. telephone-lines shall be underground. g. Roof materials shall be of a noncombustible material such as tile, metal, or asphalt. --~ h. _ The owner of Lot B shall install a fully automated residential sprinkling system in the home on Lot B with a reserve water supply to be provided as specified by the sprinkler contractor. 2. Development impacts on wildlife shall be mitigated on Lot B as follows: _ _ _ a. All dogs shall be kenneled. b. All. fences shall_be,a maximum of 42' in height, 4- ...strand or .less with a minimum kick space of 12" from the top wire. c. Native vegetation outside of the building envelope shall be maintained. d. The owners shall adhere to a 20-foot setback on the intermittent stream which.--lies to the east of the building envelope. No development shall occur ..within the setback and vegetation shall be preserved. 3. No development shall occur on slopes exceeding 15$ in grade. 4. Pri or to construction of a new home on Lot B, the - following requirements shall be met: a. Sewage disposal system and water provision for the Lot shall be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health Department prior to issuance of a Building Permit. b. The owner shall revegetate all areas disturbed by construction within one growing.... season of construction. ° c. Outside illumination shall comply with Pitkn County lighting regulations. in effect at the time of Building Permit 'issuance. d. All development, with the-exception of the access drive improvements, shall be located within the building envelope as designated on the site plan. e. Prior to issuance of a building permit, 'the owner shall obtain an access `permit from' the County" Engineer's office. 2 ~-. .~~ ,< ~~. ~,.~.~.r.~ ... - ~ .rc_~,: _ - ~,_ f. The owner shall comply with Pitkin County air quality standards in effect a£ the time of Building Permit issuance. g. The owner° shall comply with the requirements of Holy Cross "Ele6tric Association' for a looped service line to serve the property, and shall be required to pay the costs. of installation thereof.. 5. The owners' use `and enjoyment of their property is subject to the terms of the access easement for use of the tinkle Lake Road by the public, granted'to the U.S. Forest Service and recorded at book - page of the.. records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. 6. The owner of Lot B shall utilize solar assisted water heating, low consumption toilets, and thermal insulation in excess` of building node requirements in construction'gf the residence. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Declarant has duly executed this Declaration this day of 1992. Brad A. Resnick Candace J. Resnick State of Colorado) )ss County of Pitkin ) The foregoing Declaration: of Covenants was acknowledged before me on this day of 1992, by Brad A. Resnick. Witness my hand and seal. My commission expires: .Notary Public 3 ~~~ ~~ ,..., x~ ti,_ ti... ~ ~. u r,n ~;~ x~ .., - ... EXHIBIT ` L _ MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into between Brad A. and Candace. J. Resnick ("Promisors"), and David K. Danciger and Terry Considine ("Promisees") this day of 1992. WHEREAS, Promisors are the owners of the property known as Lots A and B, Resnick Subdivision, according to the plat thereof recorded 1992, in plat book at page as reception number df the records of the Pitkin County Clerk ,and Recorder; and WHEREAS, condition number 2 of Resolution No. 91-142 of the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, granting. General Submission approval for the Resnick Subdivision, requires the execution of a Memorandum of Understanding between the "Mt. Sopris Ditch Company" and the Promisors, whereby the Promisors agree to hold the "Mt. Sopris Ditch Company" harmless from damage caused by the subject ditch .and to provide access to the "Mt. Sopris Ditch Company" for maintenance purposes; and WHEREAS, there is no "Mt. Sopris Ditch Company," but the right, title and interest in and to the subject ditch and water adjudicated thereto are owned by David Danciger, owner of that certain real property in Garfield and Pitkin Counties known as the "Tybar Ranch," and Terry Considine, owner of that certain real property in Garfield County known as the "Big Four Ranch"; and WHEREAS, Promisors and Promisees desire to enter into this agreement and agree to the terms and conditions of this Memorandum of Understanding which are for the benefit of all parties. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the agreements set forth herein and other good and valuable consideration, it is mutually .agreed as follows: 1. Promisors, on behalf of themselves, their agents, successors, and assigns, agree to release, indemnify, and hold Promisees, their agents, successors, and. assigns, harmless from and against any and all liability, olaims, suits, or causes of action for injury, damages, losses, expenses (including without limitation attorney's fees), and costs of any kind or nature whether foreseeable or unforeseeable to persons or property on Lots A and B, Resnick Subdivision, that may arise directly or indirectly out of the ownership, maintenance, repair, improvement, replacement or operation of the Mt. Sopris Ditch on or near said Lots A and B, whether the injury, damage, losses, expenses, or costs arise from the ..negligence of Promisees or from some other cause. 2. Promisors hereby confirm the perpetual non-exclusive easement of Promisees for the purpose of the"maintenance, repair, mprovement, replacement, and operation of the Mt. Sopris Ditch `._ _.- as constructed in place across the above described Lots A and B. Promisors. further grant Promisees the limited right of reasonable access to the ditch-in order to exercise its rights set forth herein in accordance with normal and necessary practices. 3. Promisors agree to notify Promisees as soon as practicable. if any problems occur in connection with the ditch and its integrity that come to their 'attention. 4. Promisees hereby consent to the approval of the Resnick Subdivision as submitted to the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado. 5. The covenants made herein shall run with the land and shall be binding on and shall inure to the benefit of the parties to this agreement, their respective heirs, successors, and assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Promisor and Promisees have duly executed this Memorandum of Understanding. PROMISOR: PROMISEE: Brad A. Resnick David Danciger Candace J. ResnickTerry Considine STATE OF COLORADO ) SS. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1992, by Brad A. Resnick. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public .STATE OF COLORADO ) COUNTY OF PITKIN ) SS. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1992, by Candace J. Resmick. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public STATE OF COLORADO ) COUNTY OF PITKIN ) SS. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1992, by David Dancger. .Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public STATE. OF COLORADO ) SS. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1992, by Terry Considine. Witness my hand. and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public ASPEN 8847 EXHIBIt ~~ F ~ ~ R ` 'I'iiOMAS h~NTON SMITII ATTORNEY AT LAW -.b_..c~_ _..J __. _..__. " 320 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 5 - ASPEN; COLORADO 616^ AREA CODE 303 .. TELEPHONE 925-5004 TELECOPIER 9253442 June 3, 19.91 Aspen/Pitkin Planning Department 130 S. Galena. Aspen, Co 81611 Re: Resnick Land Use Application - Park Dedication Fee Dear Madam or Sir: As the above referenced land use application includes a request for subdivision approval, the requirements of Section 5- 501.11 must be addressed. This issue is raised at page 18 of the application, but at the time the document"was prepared the appraisal had not been located. As you know, this information is necessary in order to calculate the required park dedication fee. The most recent appraisal of the property has been found and accordingly this issue is now addressed in this letter. The formula for assessing park dedication fees is specified at Section 5-501.11 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code. That formula, as applicable to this request, is as follows: 1 (Single-family home requested) x 4 (3-bedrooms = 4.0 residents) x 0.0105 acres x.43,560 square feet/acre = a dedication of 1,829.52 square feet. The 1988 appraisal report of the property shows the estimated value of the land without site improvements as $72,500.00. 'Since the site consists of 62.034 acres, the value of the property per acre is $1,168.71. Translating this into value per sgtaare foot, the market value of the land per square foot is $0.027. 1829.52 square feet (dedication requirement) x $0.027 (market value of land per square foot) _ $49.08 in dedication fees. I recognize that there has been some appreciation in the value of the property since 'the 1988 appraisal. Accordingly, some increase in the applicable park dedication fee should be addressed as this application proceeds. Please contact me to discuss this issue in greater detail, or if you need any other information regarding this application. Thank you for your cooperation. Ver\{y/~'/'///,/,,,truly Yo s" e~CX":-~ cc: xhe Reanicka Thomas.Fenton mith C~-t~C9GL'lsT x'O~t. COT'LPL~7`lAN i PI n: Site boundaries' - Proof of Ownership Existing Structures (including # of stones, use, etc) ' _ Letter from Owner letting Watercourses, drainages, streams, creeks, floodplain, etc. agent represent them Topography/contours at scale with site _ En4elopes of adjacent Existing easements (purpose, width, etc) property owners Proposed easements _ Survey w/legal description Building envelope Access driveway .. _,; ~. _ Vegetation (canopies) ---~ - - - - . _ Adjacent roads (including widths) _ Site size {acreage) _ Slopes + 15%-30% _ Vicinity Maps Floor plans maybe required and date of construction Type of Application: ~'7~ ~~~~ '~~la~ Location: ~i~,'~`~a t~9~ ~r,Y~„ e~~y~, i Engineer/Surveryor. Site Size: Comp Plan Area: Zoning: ~ yzr~ Applicant/owner:,~~ ~.:+.µ Scenic Overlay Mapping:. t~ Address: ti~~~ W ,S~~rls ~roaa . p~-_ 6 Phone: ( ) Adjacent Ownership List: ~~ Public Notice Date: Representative:~~s.~ ~w~t.-- Site Photos Address: Phone: _(_-) ~ Z -7. to c~ a Other comments: a ~~,> w, _ r DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE '"""" ++~^, SUMMARY SHEET`. Date: "J ~ Chairperson: ~~ Case Name• v :, :; REFERRAL COMMENTS SUMMARYe _ City Engineer: (memo forthcoming: yes no ) ~. a ., _... .,~ ,. ~., , _ .,..... <.. Cou~~}}ty Engineer,: (memo yes no ) --~~r~, ~- Pis-r,,r,c °~s ~,,,~~}- _f211 ~0 oa (- r~ ~-- -nl mod- ~` Parks Department: (memo: yes no other: Generals Com~aents:_ ~1 aU V~~yr~~,,,^ ~,~,,/ ~aj,~,,-,,~~ is _ ~y ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone 920-5090 FAX 920-5197 MEMORANDUM TO: County Attorney County Engineer Environmental Health Department Zoning Administration FROM: Ellen Sassano, Planning Office RE: Resnick Subdivision Detailed Submission and Final Plat DATE: March 30, 1992 Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Brad and Candy Resnick requesting Detailed Submission and Final Plat approval for the Resnick Subdivision. Please return. your comments to me no later than May 8, 1992. Thank you. Development Review Committee. is scheduled for May 7, 1992. ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING Ol"r,CE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920-5090. FAX# (303) 920-5197 March 27, 1992 Tom Smith Austin, Peirce & Smith 600 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Resnick Subdivision Detailed Submission and Final Plat Case #P33-92 Dear Tom, The Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that .this application is complete. Ellen has asked that you provide an addendum to the covenants or an improvements maintenance agreement to address who is responsible for common improvements and/or areas. Will there be a homeowners association? Also, if we do not receive the Dinkle Lake Road agreement by May 16, 1992, we will have to push the Planning Commission agenda date forward. This application has been scheduled for review by the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, June 16, 1992 at a meeting to begin at 9:00 a.m. Should this date be inconvenient for .you please contact me within 3 working days of the date of this letter. After that the agenda date will be considered final and changes to the schedule or tabling of the application will only be allowed for unavoidable technical problems. The Friday before the meeting date, we will call to inform you that a Dopy of the memo pertaining to the application is available at the Planning Office. All applications are now being scheduled for the Development Review Committee (DRC). The DRC is a committee of referral agencies which meet with Planning and the applicant early in the process to discuss the application. This case is scheduled for May 7, 1992 at 2:00 p.m., City Hall, City Council Chambers. Please note that it is your responsibility to post the subject property with a sign within 15 days of the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners and to remove it from the property within one week following the hearing. Please contact me at 920-5093 one week following the Planning Commission meeting for the hearing date. Please submit a photo of the posted sign as proof of compliance with the Code prior to the hearing. If you have any questions, please call Ellen Sassano the planner assigned to your case. Sincerely, Debbie Skehan, Office Manager ppz.no~h ~"~"'-' J1734. VU TYPE OF APPLICATION: P&Z MEETING DATE STAFF APPROVAL: G / ~ 1 STEP: 2 STEP: X ~ /6 9 a PUBLIC HEARIN BOCC MEETING DATE . G: YES NO ....:; PUBLIC HEARING DRC MEETING DATE ~- oZ : ES REFERRALS: _____ _________ ~_ Attorney ~ eY -Aspen Consol S.D. R School District - Housin 5 ocky Mtn Nat .Gas - Holy Cross USFS (Carbondale) Aspen Water ~ Envir Hlth - -Aspen Fire a USFS. (Aspen) Div. of Wildlife _ . . T -B salt Fire BLM Zonine 5 -Carbondale Fire Di W Snowmass Village Airport Mgr. - v. ater Res. State Forest Sera Caucus Sheriff Cit P & Z - -CO Geo.Survey Caucus Homeowners y -State Hwy Dept. Other: _ i i_ DATE REFERREDc RESOLUTION #: °C Z' ~ ~ `~ PLAT OR SITE PLAN RECORDED AT B< INITIALS.. ~_ ~fL S/V / / Ol ..;: DATE. ll7(~ ~~f ~/ FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED. ! ~ ~~~ INI County Attorney -County Engineer .Housing _Envir. Health Other: ?AGE =~ __-___ 'IAL ~ ~.J Zoning - Applicant °; Revised 1/30/92 `_ 1 a' +u+ RESN/CK/ TURIVBULL SU80/i/lS/OlV EXEMPT/ON (Lot Line Adustmentl PlTKiN COUNTY, COLORADO eeaulcaa nl pam r. unn ana w lp K8M N.L NY Re PN63CWf5, tout T4waa R. o[n LUll a~W Xox .a, nd turn Wll pel og rote wue rs[l of oll tint aea properly de¢c riha sa fol lwa: t. 8 3 X. 88 V ueupa as: se ua sv V4 $e c[lon 34: 8 1/2 n8 I/4 and 58 I/{ S ece ton 95: E 1/Z $e<[lon ]6: 6 1/$, sY t/4° S 1/2 YY L/4 a[tl Y8 1/5 XV 1/4 T. 9 S. N. 66 Y. L[h Y.N. Sect by t: [¢ 1 aM R aM SC l/4 $81/4 8e<t tan l2: Lo[ 1 (NE 1/4 N¢ 1:{) T. 9 5 0.. g] V. fi[F P.X. 8ecuon a [ 3] (or pal ly mscrtFre as Lo[ i o[ Sectlao )) aM L o[a 11 aea 141 i. 8 5 0.. 8] Y.. a{F Y BecY lap 29: Lot 1 aM tIn NV L/4 SY 1/{ Se a1m ]0: Lo[e ], 0, 9, 10 aM tl, p8 1/4 SY 1/4 avd [Iw X i/2 58 1/4 5 c[lon JV aM 3i: et 81 (otl8t nailY da aerued m MY 1/6 XB 1/4, xa ve sv vd aae Loce 1 and z of s~non all $ex[ton 29, I0, )1, I2: T ct 00 (or5g3 pal ly d0 ¢c tt Led ve [Ine SV 1/4 6Y 1/4 of Sect ton 29aand [he 3 1/2 58 1/4 ana 88 I/4 $Y 1/4 of Se c[San JO) sect bn Ii: c S, 6, ], 0 a•d 9, T [ 02 (pt l8l nel ly Jv ee [Iled a [ i of[Se ct ton 11 ), itac[ 03[(v ti gi vally aaec t tEea ee Lo[ 4 of $ect loo 31) ao1 it a[[ 04 (o[tglval ly devae toed av [I:e SV t/6 tl8 1/4, S8 1/{ XY 1/{. XY 1/4 SE 1/4 and ME 1/4 8V 1/4 of xa mn 3U Seu ion ]I aW 32: iM[ pa a[ of Trxt g5 (oylgl pally ae ¢c riled ae tl 1/3 S8 l/4 eN ie 1/4 $E 1/4 of S'e ec tov Il and [Le MI 1/4 $V I/{ of Settton 33) lYl ng ¢ou[h am ro¢[ ]f avl 0[a ndathel $Y I/6 tNY al/4 lyl y Re 0.whd. se n[lon 32: inert wYt oe Lat. x. v awl evi re¢[ of [I:e av nt<t Sloe of the Bi ok la lake Rond. the aLove-ileac ri Led pa ccela of lend coa[ata 1500 act ee mte oe lee e. Cw ntY M Yttkl n, 8 ate of CotorsJ O: a]s A pat[ ( d 1 5 (4 6V I/4 f ec[b, 32 aryl t w ~C 1/4 s[ 1/4 of satin 3 u a - w 4 a r.x., .a 2a wr=el IPma aaa park 1 1 - me - f 12 4eean - - c s n,e.[ m[ner of aa.d s==oon 3x ,~n..e tlY°,8 JB 6 4s9 23 f I 00 U4'I3" C. 586 OS fee[ I flc alona [le erll ve of vIJ awn[Y t eJ an ~ I r[1- of a .[Y c [ t ewnl rvr[a.J anJ : e. M nl lorl erg a oraes ntl dl atop aev, 1 ]4 fib l 9 1 ] L ; ]1 S U8 5 t - ~ T ]$J 2 149Y q ) 9 [ 1~~ J ) 1 OU f tM1e n¢e Ean[ ]2 4) £e vt alv g y U 5 4a1 52 ( 1 g fence, [ for A 81e Pol [ IA P.) x I of rc n 1 S Ati'a ~.f3 ~1y~ ^.3LT' [ - [ a5 h leat am ~ file L .: r ¢t o pe i e - L p ~ renc< [ a ivrm a ,m va ¢a i u s- [na[ro - a a the NYAC nh: of a~a 10 5 xan[ lx ' e .I a r u o 0 of Msa[nl ry, cMtalni n9 9. Yd a res. ]3 f [ to [Iw 156 ' p . a v i_ a. v0 02 X I LY .1 Pl'(LI WOC vJ tlw x 1 Lavv 1 i 1 -J [IC*/ nYUll SoLJ tv to to[ t 4 Ilv 0.rv ,tYV 1 Ytt :. f Ga la tad ~ 19l] 0 n ~ my nl 8aeanle 1 . _ . ~ l ~n ~i rte'- i ,o=a ~' u 1 xm was rnfntnll wore 1.. 2 WL nw awhrr ,w ea, qqq l nR 'I.mca w , • iYe Inr r mfn[n ,e u,l. [[f~2 oar nl (f~L~. a YennnlaJ . in y n p Ly rhnaaa N .m n a .u ..w n .a1a mr[mml. / VIfx53J MT IN 4 Xy a ..era ln., =ere : q//3~ y ~ J ~ h.,s .: L(f RK ar9 Pub Llc NdrE' . lu, re app rnr anh01 v1a,a .°r ,.[her mvewUP nt nr t•a [oa.l~r¢ vwrtr ll•a a~,a n]~= to an,ll m na¢; xr.d na xaa :[x t=ape [ 3M ap pr or a{ gr x-d ly Y¢eol of ,o ov p2-91-48. rl ulr r awB ranlr - _ r nrc. h.w A mk a ca maa 1. .a11,cX ~: c LStlM2" n ,04 u.n.n vl ~~1 [Lot real op. Y e [fled aatl lv llu rv. rl:n[ p a an er m:d n n= .r irf.~ ritmx T t tlS ne s~iiio J 12 ~~I [ 2•°],a0 axJ rllw tSY 1/4 N 1/< a[ Sett loo )2, n u Wo,rce tm SouU Ues[ Cotner of uid Seaton l2 Loan -mEry; at a poEUt Ic' vaW°OS'J4" v 441.59 het aM n. 89'58 `JO' V. IJ I8.e6 6xeq teenm x. 110 °u 3']4" E, lY`)I .U9 feu[, [ n. p0°W'00 e. 1{U 1.U8 feet, ® or leas [o tlw rune o! d n[y loud Yv or IM pink to Laka oad a e[W end plat Ilw~ al oog ntM c er111 of sattl p(N.le LakeYXOad [Iw fotlwtx8 pout nxl dla lances [ [ryeo pol of of 1e81na1 o6, s. 32°J]'l4 V. n103.55 feet; :. 24 °SE']S" V. 2IJ.04 feet: :. ]3'UI'29' V. 194.06 fee[: t. 2]°62'66' V. 330.44 fev<i S. ]4 °Stl'S5" Y. J45.2L feet: t. )4°SI'VL" Y. 3LL .{1 fee[; . I8°5)'18" Y. 260.34 tea[: . 04'59'2)- V. 169.12 [ce t: ll'I3'Oa' V 0.9a [a l4 "2 J']s' V. 206. t{ fe o[: .i. ]J°41'6]' N. 45{.59 fee[: 4.30' C 905.40 fee[: :. 26'30`10" Y L4.BJ feet: S. J2°3]'OJ' N. 1J9.]J fee[, acuB•w" e. 4a.63 foot, t. ]4')Y'1]" a 1(4.10 fc n[: ti. S)'W'4]" t. 98.18 fee[: ti. ]5°51'24 L 104.99 feet: x. S4'{1'01' 8. 108.]3 £n et: n. 45 °4L'40- C. 100.)] fee[: Y'L!']I' S ]{.46 feet: 5. 49°R'00' & 199.JJ fceG Y. Y6°JB'J]' C. 3)9.25 (e e[: ti. tl)°59'2]- ¢. ISI .{5 [e e[: Y. 43 °U]'Sf" C. ISI.04 fee[: a. YI°5E'S]' E. IItl.26 f t° rn or laa¢. '!Le aLOVr Jvar flMJ [r vc[ of la:tl to vt afire 42.034 ere rta wfi n[ 1 a 1J o , plo [!d aM avlJlvl JeJ the e [ a[J lu r[ J thv Ya ¢n lck/i u[[tlWl Snbdl vleto, A an yt loo 1[`u u.n con tr 1 Lt at, aE acnlnraao. u, sr La,.en[w [ 1=~ oar r 2" 1 Ti _. e.Y., la gr: Sun. pY w+Ywa ) B(: ra. CWNSY OY JIYN~X- ) [if ax'ate lucWm.at Savi ry¢ Bank. aeln9 Ne eortgi9 eo o tlrt apove d 3a M, Le e4y eonsen[z to tLe t=i=er sM vonda[ama o£ Nle nuldlvtaaoa plat./ /// J Y „/Q4rGGlS Y~(_ M[at Cevbeva ee[vacinq 9e[ B3n.COevt [ga Bank _=° [w[ r ee lam . a a tL iv p of Yha[ . 1 f Co3o ratlo - ax la ]d :J { 1 - k/ Mull SnLJi vis loo aeay[ J, Jvd lca[c xd + w, Mr AaY s a p a J lova[lon .ual [he I alvrva < vey of av ld pto y 4y a L y a . a ¢mn a.r peon. 40 xnLal d wn ,n.a nr txn I aal. .., , [ b Y ~i~ ~y e n r a t Iluva .~, ay ham am seal tL r lvva. ~kbpy ~ - a_ 6 /,[~~0~,~ ~ [^~'- / )t'='l~ ~ ' .Sj~II SYJ Y Li lc oae. % ~tr%i ~k0~ ~. . '~6'°gg~ s {. ~f 1 ~ ^ 4~d < 'ap b Irt 1 kl (4 Y le ahd 1 a 3 ' ~ J- f A.uZ 1991 d - 4)eCt 1 ala a. ,g J L 1 8 G 1 41 eewl 3 s'L ,\ ~ J Sn CI h m d~' f Yt41n C C loradn I ~~__ t ,r 8~(L a Marep v R '~j8 ' za . °L~k la eanocr ela pater +LV. eT .iya ~h Ttt oral nc R u[ I L/' :Loll Su Wav lg to y[ L 'cup N C ) I` )A wl y alofM C lu- of C[ ! G1[rk n Bec voile[ of Y3 [et ~ / mY ul >~ A.O.• IY911: Plat BoW 8 ~ _ - recephq 6 3Sa874 ' o < A. F {RcsvYicklTurrSot]~11 .ub):iuksioY't A PA CEL Of UND IN SEQiiD ~ g~ 31 A,.. R. ~T N., 1 cr DNS Jq ~~ xD 36, T. 3 yx E£i loq ~n~c ~ S., R 8. ~t_..1'd ~ECid~ ~ SYDNEY LlNCICOME (LS.{4!/fJ ] ..a wled Bed Mfo re me [L le !/? daY nf-~}4_/p'v,.:_ /9 . a... .. Ya».. c. Vf1 ~R~~i~'~N ~.~IVAG~~~/tti ~'ll~l~ll//~`~Q/V PlTKfN CQ~INTY, ,~ o , ._ A~ _, . -.~ ai-.. , ,z .~ .. .. _`+ _. / .;.. i - .... ~ `i/. e ~_Cu f ~ 4..ji c s-~ ,z ,. I z34 .. ~Y~' 1_/ ~ N _~ • y_ ~ _. ), ~` I. ' . '-J i {:'.; ~. ~~ i _: i. ~, ~: i ;-~~ l ..,-.x.... .}.wr v~ 9 -`%=c= <"__ -t>~ /L 3~.oob A<.*- PL~II` ~rr~' C~LORA~O Itl~f .~I~~ PL~fV - Fi'~ ~~`l~r~ jU~vr`~%~~'/Li~~J _- -~ >~ ~~_>,~ .._ e._ . o~ > 8~ v:. L ~ ; .. - n c u;la „ m¢. 55 n 5 4 9 i~ li ii / ~j ~ ~~~ \/ 1 ~-. N'-.rote -2=.-.~..-_ Seaia-{=20G 1 1. -0 4 }lid 2_.~~ _ - ti _ n ^aed l l f o :~~ ~/ ~ >.~ ~ ~ ~~ ~_.. - TtE ivcyK~~Mn OFT~PoSY }FbUMTMNSL MM1~MM~YM-Y M{LLZIE ~ NRY TWRAq,M ov15yM. aF 0~~'FY~'60tSkYFYA4Wi ww-{F FfSa'fame N^*±aVi, ,A ... Yflf'(TFPIN£D MTMTwi MF/h-sVSwYl6a~.wi4.f.TM~f~+g{YC64iY1M<.. ~~ %~.. _- uG h. Zas __ ~.0{¢5 _ ~ --+^~ ~~ ~ - ,T 3S528iW. '-R a e~ ve 4 ,2 C ~ ._ ~~F..-'. c ~~ ~. (? A 1 3!.C 9-Bri4C,3~ E~ # _ SJ, ~~, . i~ f /~a / k i~'t ~ t ~'" 4. T~LLL!O~Y.f~FN~~E.l.cl ,~ DD 1 V k. ~ i i /' / h '~ E ~ `r a-- ,~ ~. ~ _ '~ ~ ~ r ~. ~ S z• t'= cc'c' ~~~~ r~ 1 / N.~jT' ~ G'cati K1 ti /~ ' ~. YC2W.ke~>c i .. SAY. ~ ~~~. ^`~ -. ~/i(. _. r~ ~~- __ o E~ :5. TO i ..,e ~ :~ ; ~.,o F" e~.~. s Fa e B tt d x ~ _ e mac, m arc S ~~ e ~ v~z6 .. a~ _. GStiJW~:i J~ - !oNt s~Z f x _` S :.___ ~u: ~ liY tlfe ~ ~ CYG, t 'f .s i ~=COM3 S ~. ~ ~ ~ `~ o ~n~ ~r (I S-: fj __ -- __~ p '. r,r -- ~: `~ ~. ^`~. ~' b