HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.planning.246533101008i
i
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
I
Determination for the Hearing Officer
Administrative Determination
Staff Memo
Applicafion
Public Notice, Acceptance Letter, Referral(s) Letter
Site Plan
Miscellaneous
Plat copies (11x17)
A
' I
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITHIN COUNTY,
COLORADO, GRANTING APPROVAL TO CHRIS AND BII2GTTTE NEWBERT FOR A
MINOR A~vIENDMENT TO A DEVELOPMENT PERNHT
Resolution No. 99 - ~vZ
RECTTALS
Chris and Birgitte Newbert ("Applicant") has applied to the Pitkin County Board of County
Commissioners ("BOCC") to amend Condition No. 5(a) from BOCC Resolution No. 91-134, which
currently prohibits dogs on the property, to allow for one (1) dog with a kennel restriction.
2. The property is addressed as O11 I Sopris Mountain Ranch Road and is described as Lot 28, Sopris
Mountain Ranch (Exhibit A).
3. The property is zoned RS-30 and contains approximately 35 acres.
4. The BOCC heard this application at a regulazly scheduled heazing on March 24, 1999, atwhich time
evidence and testimony were presented with respect to this application.
5. The BOCC finds the request is consistent with the Pitkin County Land Use Code. I
NOW THEREFORE BE TT RESOLVED by the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners _I!
that it does hereby grant a Minor Amendment to a Development Permit to Chris and Birgitte Newbert,
subject to the following conditions which shall run with the land and be binding on all successors in interest:
i
1. The Applicant shall adhere to all material repre~ntations made in the application and in the ',
public meetings: j
2. The Applicant shall comply with the provision of BOCC Resolution No. 91-134, unless
otherwise replaced or amended by the conditions of this approval.
3. Only one (1) kenneled dog is allowed on the property.
4. The dog shall be kept under positive control at all times. The dog shall not run loose outside
unless in a kennel
5. The kennel shall be constructed within the approved building envelope for the site. The kennel
shall be completely enclosed and be contiguous with the house.
6. The dog shall be fed. indoors. No pet food shall be outside at anytime.
APPROVED ON THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 1999.
_. _. _ _
~? _ = ..
Resolution No. 99-
Page 2 ~~
ATTEST:
iCYND~[ Q • ,DGh~
Depu Clerk an Recorder
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~--- -
John~FLu
Co my Attorney
Case #P127-98
PID #2465-331-01-008
~io3aass
BOCC OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
`_~ COUNTY, OLOR.4D0
Leslie I. Lamont,
Chair
Date: ~ _ ~ ~ ~/
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
'i
Cindy Houben,
Community Development Director
111111 1111(Illlll llif 111111111111111111lI Illll 1111 IIIC
430328 04/27/1999 11:29p RESO~UTi DpVIS 52LVI
2 of 3 R 0.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
/ .
E3CT?IBIT "A..
LEGAL DESCRIP?'20N
?ARCEL 28
A parcel of land being part of Lots 3 and 4, the E 1/2 of the SE 1/4 and the SE 1/4 of
the NE 1/4 of Section 33. Tcwnahip 8 South.. Range 87 West of the Sixth P^inc±pal
Meridian. Said parcel. is more fully described as follows;
Beginning at a point whence t_he Sout*~est corr~r of said Section 33 bears. South
45°03'48" West 3910.48 feet:
thence North 62°29' East 2092.00 feet:
'. thence South OS°30' East 680.00 feet:
thence South TO°04' West 460.00 feet:
° ~ t.
.thence South 71°47r West 209 48ffee't. _ _.
thence North 14°35' West 223.17 feet:
thence North 25°04' West 565.44 feef to the point of beginning.
COUNTY OF ?ITKZN.
STATE OF COLORADO
I111111I111i 111111 IIII Illl illllll.llll111111111IIII Ilii
430328 04/27/1999 51:298 RESOLUTI,DfiVIS STLVi
3 of 3 R 0.00 b 0.09'N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY C0:
'Eng.;
MEMORANDUM
TO: Boazd of County Commissioners
Regular Meeting -March 24; 1999
THRU: Cindy Houben, Community Development Director C
FROM: Tamara Pregl, Planner
RE: Newbert Minor Amendment to a Development Permit
SUMMARY: Pursuant to Resolution Nos. PZ-91-28 and BOCC Resolution No. 91-134, 1041 Hazard
Review and General Submission was granted to the Applicant for the construction of a single family home
on Lot 28 (and Lot 26), Sopris Mountain Ranch. The. Applicant is requesting to delete Condition #5(a) of
both Resolutions which prohibits dogs and replace it with provisions to allow for one (1) dog on Lot 28 with
a kennel restriction.
APPLICANT: Chris and Birgitte Newbert
LOCATION: The property is addressed as 0111 Sopris Mountain Ranch Road and is described as Lot 28,
Sopris Mountain Ranch.
ZONING/LOT SIZE: RS-30; approximately 35 acres.
BACKGROUND: The 1041 Hazard Review approval granted in 1991 to the Applicant was for Lots 26
and 28. The 1041 Hazard Site Plan for the Newbert property was recorded in Book 27, Page 58. At the
time of 1041 review, pursuant to Resolution No. PZ-91-28, the County Attorney's Office determined that
the lots had merged into one parcel with one development right and that further free-market residential
development on either of the lots would require GMQS allotments. The Applicant have since reconveyed
Lot 26 to the Mount Sopris Ranch Joint Venture No. 2. The Agreement of Reconveyance has been recorded
(Reception No. 332815). Legal documentation regarding this reconveyance can be seen in Attachment E.
STAFF'S COMMENTS: Pursuant to Section 3-200.80 of the Land Use Code the Community
Development Director may approve a minor amendment to a condition of a development permit, therefore
the applicant had submitted an application requesting the removal of the dog prohibition which is part of
their 1041 approval. As part of the application, the applicant requested thaf dogs be allowed on the_site with
a kennel restriction. The applicant has asserted that whenthey went through the 1041 process in 1991, they
were told at that time that because Lot 26 was included as part of the initial review and because of its
proximity to the elk calving area that the only way a 1041 approval would be granted is if a `no dog'
restriction would be imposed as a condition of approval. Since Lot 26 has been reconveyed, the applicant
has taken the position that no dog restriction should be removed as part of their 1041 approval and that the
only reason the dog prohibition was included as part of their application was because of this lot. Staff has
not received or found any documentation that indicates that the reason for the dog prohibition was because
of Lot 26.
It has been determined by staff that since this property is located adjacent to sensitive wildlife habitat and
since the Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOVi~ has indicated that this property and adjacent properties
receive substantial amount of elk use and some mule deer use, that the applicant's request should be
Newbert Minor Amendment To A Development Permit
BOCC: March 24, 1999
Page 2
determined by the Board of County Commissioners. Since staff has taken the position, the applicant has
amended their application to allow for a one dog limitation with a kennel restriction. This amendment is a
result of Kevin Wright's letter, of the DOW, dated November 17, 1998 (Attachment A), which states that "if
the County does decide to lift the restriction, I would strongly recommend only one dog with a kennel
restriction."
During the initial 1041 Hazazd Review of this property it was recommended by Kevin Wright that no dogs
shall be allowed on the property (Attachment A). According to Mr. Wright's letter the lot lies in elk
transitional range and adjacent to an elk calving area. Mr. Wright had indicated that there is some winter use
in lighter snow years as well as early and late winter. The lot also lies within elk and deer migration pattern
as elk and deer filter through the area on their way to the Crown.
Mr. Wright visited the site on November 16, 1998 at the request of the applicant to lift the dog prohibition
on the property.. Mr. Wright had submitted written comments to staff, as well as verbally explained his
concerns with regazd to lifting the dog restriction on this site. Mr. Wright's concern is that there is little to
no dog enforcement that occurswithin this subdivision and it does not take long for a dog to travel from one
property to another while transversing over wildlife habitat areas. In addition, Mr. Wright feels that lifting
the dog restriction on this site would set a precedent in the subdivision, encouraging other homeowners to
petition the County for dogs. The DOW has tried to be consistent with their recommendation against dogs
in this subdivision (which will be address later in this memorandum), however, Mr. Wright has indicated
that has been some oversight with some lots with regard to dog restriction and prohibition.
The applicant has asserted the Kevin Wright has not directly recommended against dogs on the subject
property and. that he states that "if the County does decided to lift the restriction, I would strongly
recommend only 1 dog with a kennel restriction." However, Mr. Wright has also indicated in his letter that
the subject property does lie amongst the lots that comprised the joint ventures. Mr. Wright had noted that
these lots went through the land use process in 1991 and as part of that process and mitigation for wildlife
agreed to a restriction of no dogs. As part of the joint ventures review, Mr. Wright had noted in his letter
dated August 21, 1991 that "Sopris Mountain Ranch lies within elk and. mule deer transitional range.
...Calving and fawning azeas are located along the upper reaches of the ranch and are located within the
apse habitat type and aspen/oakbrush/open meadow type found in the upper lots. These calving azeas extend
to the south of Dinkle Lake/Hay Park/ E. Sopris Creek area.. The ranch also lies within elk and mule deer
migration pattern as animals filter through the ranch on their way to the Crown and Light Hill...." As a
result, careful consideration was made with regards to development on the upper lots of the subdivision with
respect to wildlife habitat. Therefore, because of the sensitive wildlife nature of the upper portion of the
subdivision, dog prohibition was implemented on these 32+ lots and as note previously, the DOW has tried
to stay consistent with all other lots within this subdivision,
The applicant has asserted that there are four lots (23, 49, 50, 51) adjacent to the subject property, that are at
either the same distance or closer to mapped the elk production areas which allow dogs with a kennel
restriction. Upon further discussion with Kevin. Wright, Mr. Wright had indicated to staff that he
acknowledges an oversight with regards to Lot 23 and the allowance of one. dog with a kennel restriction.
However, with regards to Lot 49, as seen in his letter dated Decemberl4, 1994, Mr. Wright had indicated
that "If dogs aze allowed they be restricted to one dog with a kennel restriction.. The two lots adjacent (50,
51) are allowed to have dogs. The other adjacent lots submitted through the general partnership (35-37, 41-
i
~~ ,_
Newbert Minor Amendment To A Development Permit
BOCC: Mazch 24, 1999
Page 3
48), dogs are prohibited due to the proximity to potential elk calving areas. There is an aspen draw along the
southeast edge of the lot that could serve as a travel corridor to another aspen stands further south. If a dog
is allowed, the kennel restriction must be strictly adhered to." It is uncleaz to staff as to why the finally
condition of approval for Lot 49 allowed for one dog with a kennel restriction, however, as noted above in
Mr. Wright's comments, he did not encourage dogs on Lot 49, however, left the decision to staff.
With regards to Lot 50 and 51, these two lots were approved prior to the approval of the joint ventures
approvals, for approximately 321ots. As noted in a separately attached document which breakdowns. all of
the approvals for each property within the subdivision, 1041 approval for the joint ventures was granted in
1991, the approval for Lot 50 was granted in 1989 and the approval for Lot 51 was granted in 1990. No
letters from the Division of Wildlife (DOW) were submitted as part of these reviews, therefore, it may be
concluded that staff, at that time of review, implemented a dog restriction without the direction of the DOW.
However, since the 1991 approval of the joint ventures, there has been some consistency with regards to
the prohibition of dogs throughout this subdivision.
As part of staff s memorandum dated August 27, 1991, it was written that "according to the Division of
Wildlife, the proposed building envelope is within 2,000 feet from an elk calving area..." However,
according the Mr. Wright's letter dated July 23, 1990, the only distance represented in his letter was the
word "adjacent" not an actual measured distance. The Applicant has asserted that this measurement was
incorrect and that in fact the distances from elk calving aeeas is approximately''/z mile or more. The
applicant did hire Richard Thompson of Western Ecosystems, Inc. who has indicated that the building
envelope for Lot 28 is approximately 2,300 to 2,900 (0.43 to .55 miles) feet away from the closes{ outer
boundary. of the CDOW's elk production area which is well outside of the County's threshold. As noted in
Mr. Thompson letter, he did not visit the site and has indicated that the distance that he represented are from
the CDOW's map, which he noted that he "hereby invoke all the standard disclaimers associated with the
accuracy and use of the CDOW's Wildlife Resource Information System (WRIS) maps.
As depicted, it is difficult to determine the exact proximity the building envelope for Lot 28 is from mapped
wildlife habitat. In fact, the disclaimer on the CDOW maps that states "Care should be taken in interpreting
this map. Written documents accompany this map and should be referenced The areas portrayed here are
graphic representations ofphenomena that are d~cult to reduce to two dimensions. Anirraal distributions
are fluid, animal populations and their habitats are dynamic and either may vary from what is shown. The
data was gathered at a scale of I: 50000; discrepancies may become apparent at plots of larger scales. "
Due to possible discrepancies that may occur with the CDOW's map, the first pazagraph of Section 3-80-
080, Wildlife Habitat Areas, of the Land Use Code reads: "This section establishes land use standards of
wildlife habitat areas in addition to the general standards in Section 3-80-030.. The standards apply to
areas mapped by the Colorado Division of Wildlife on the County's adopted Wildlife Resource Information
System (1041 Wildlife maps) and to areas known to be wildlife habitat areas by the Division of Wildlife. In
all cases mapping will be field verifaed by the Colorado Divlslon of Wildlife or the Pitkin County Wildlife
Biologist "
STAFF RECONII~I)rNDATION: Staff recommends that the. applicant's request be denied to removed the
dog prohibition as part of the initial 1041 approval granted in 1991. Staff further recommends that the
Board consider the follow_ ing issues in determining whether the removal of this prohibition should be
allowed:
Newbert Minor Amendment To A Development Permit
BOCC: March 24, 1999
Page 4
• The DOW has indicated that the Sopris Mountain Ranch lies within elk and. mule deer transitional range
and that calving and fawning areas are located along the upper reaches of the ranch.
• As part of the 1991 1041 Hazard Review conducted for approximately 32 of the lot within the
subdivision, a restriction of "no dogs" was imposed as a result of the wildlife habitat throughout the
subdivision.
• The CDOW's WRIS maps come with a disclaimer that notes that discrepancies may occur and that
animal distributions are fluid, animal populations and their habitat aze dynamic and either may vary
from what is shown on the maps.
• The Land Use Code indicates that the. standards in Section 3-80-030 apply to aeeas mapped by the DOW
and to areas known to be wildlife habitat areas by the DOW and that in all cases field verification will be
conducted by the DOW or the Pitkin County Wildfire Biologist.
• Pursuant to Section 3-80-080(E) of the Land Use Code, dogs shall be prohibit dogs within '/< mile of
deer or elk production areas. Dogs shall be kenneled within Y~ mile of deer and elk production areas.
• Pursuant to Section 3-80-080(C) of the Land Use Code, dogs shall be kenneled within '/a mile of mule.
deer and elk migration corridors and patterns, except for working dogs when at work.
• The majority of the lots in the subdivision have prohibitions on dogs.
• There aze some inconsistencies throughout the subdivision with regards to dogs that the DOW is aware
of and have indicated were oversights. However, the general concern is that this application will set
precedence, encouraging other homeowners to petition the County for dogs. In addition, there is little to
no dog enforcement in this subdivision.
• Kevin Wright did note in his letter. dated. November 17, 1998 that "If the County does decide to lift the
restriction, I would strongly recommend only 1 dog with a kennel restriction."
• As represented by the applicant and Richard Thompson, consulting wildlife specialist, the building
envelope for Lot 28 is approximately 2,300 to 2,900 feet (.043 to .55 miles) from the closed outer
boundary of the CDOW's WRIS maps.
• There are four lots adjacent to the subject property that are either at the same distance or closer to
mapped elk production areas which allow dogs with a kennel restriction.
Considering the above issues, the Boazd may either:
• Determine that the applicant's request to removed the dog prohibition is warranted and the a one (1)
dog limit with a kennel restriction be implemented and direct staff to draft a resolution of approval
reflects this determination; or
• Determine that the applicant's request does not comply with the initial 1041 approval and that the
request will effect the sensitive wildlife habitat within the. Sopris Mountain Ranch Subdivision and
direct staff to draft a resolution of denial
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Colorado Division of Wildlife letters dated November 17, 1998 and July 23, 1990
B. Pitkin County Wildlife Biologist
C. Initial application submitted by the Applicant dated August 21, 1998
t^*:
Newbert Minor Amendment To A Development Permit
BOCC: March 24, 1999
Page 5
D. Letter from Applicant dated December 4, 1998 opposing staff s interpretation of the Land Use Code.
E. Legal documentation (dated August 19, 1998 and June 8, 1998) regarding the reconveyance of Lot 26.
F. Letter dated March 15, 1999 from the Applicant's attorney
G. Resolution No. 91-134 (and Resolution No. PZ-91-28)
carevm103/18/99
STATE OF COLORADO
Roy Romer, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES .. i
Attachment A
°o°~y11O"O•k
~~oo •' ~°
~ ~ew ;
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ,~,;)~
John W. Mumma, Director
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303) 297-1192 A.ti'rttV
COAar1UN~TY T
iesr 1991
OF MANRGING
11-17-98
Pitkin County Planning
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Newbert Minor Ammendment
Dear Tamara:
On 11-16-98 I went up to the Newbert parcel to see how it relates
to the upper portion of the ranch. Just around the bend and
immediately above the Newbert parcel is parcel 27. This parcel
had a substantial amount of elk use and some mule deer use.
Generally, the area receives only light winter use depending on
the winter. However, the aspen stands and areas of potential and
actual elk and mule deer production lie. along these, upper lots
and aspen stringers. It does not take a dog very long to travel
to these areas.
The Newbert lot lies amoungst the lots comprising the joint
ventures (although not included in their application). These
lots went through the land use process in 1991 and as part of
that process and mitigation for wildlife agreed to a restriction
of no dogs. In 1991, the Newbert parcel went through the process
and in their application agreed to no dogs (page 5 and page 9).
Dogs are a major problem with wildlife and dog restrictions help
minimize impacts to wildlife. Will lifting an agreed to
restriction lead to more requests by the joint venture lots to do
the same?
If the County does decide to lift the restriction, I would
strongly recommend only i dog with a kennel restriction.
Sinc rely,
~~
Kevin Wri ht
District i life Manager
Carbondal
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, James S. Lochhead, Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Arnold Salazar, Chair • Rebecca L. Frank, Vice Chair s Mark LeValley, Secrefary
Louis F. Swift, Member • Bernard L. Black, Member .
Chuck Lewis, Member • John Stulp, Member • James R. Long, Member
STATE OF COLORADO
Roy Romer, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL Rt..OURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EOUAI OPPORTUNITY EMP~OVER
Perry D. Olson, Director
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (3031297-2192
July 23, 1990
Pitltin County Planning
130 S. Galena
Aspen, C0 81611
Dear Ellen:
REFER TO
.. G~~ ~~D
o J
f ~ ~ v~v
~`~ OF y~
:`" ~ '.
On 7-12-90 I met with Mr. John Young for the Newbert 1041 review of lot
28 of the Pit. Sopris Ranch, West Sopris Creek (Claassen Ranch). The .lot
lies in elk transitional range and adjacent to an elk calving area.
There is some winter use in lighter snow ,y-ears as well as early and late
winter. It also lies within an ells and deer migration pattern as
elk/deer filter through the area on their way to the Crown.
~.
The following will minimize impacts to wildlife:
1. No dogs
2. Maintain native vegetation outside building envelope
3. All fencing be 42", 4 strand or less
4. All livestock/horse grazing be located in the common area at the
base of the ranch
Thankyou for the opportunity to comment
please give me a call.
Sincerely:
N` U~ ~%
Kevin Wright~~~'
District Wildlife Manager
Carbondale
cc:Wright
Young
File
_If ,you have any questions,
DEPARTMENT.OF NATURAL RESOURCES,Hamlet J. Barry, Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, William R. Hegberg, Chairman Dennis Luttrell,Vlce Chairman • Eldori W. Cooper _ecrFiar; "'.
Felix Chavez, Member . Rebecca L. Frank, Member • Gene B. Peterson, Member • George VanOen Berg, Member . Larry ~.4Wr,g h~. ~1e ~,j_
,, ~ ., m Attachment B
~PI°I•KIIN COU]WTY L~El~l7 ta!c~~Ci~ME1~T
MEMORANDUM
TO: Tamara Pregl, Pitkin County Community Development
FROM: Jonathan Lowsky, Pitkin County Wildlife Biologist
SUBJECT: NEWBERT MINOR AMENDMENT -PARCEL #2465-331-01-008
DATE: November 24, 1998
Based upon conversations with Kevin Wright of The Colorado Division of Wildlife; further
inspection of the site, and review of Board of County Commissioners Resolution number 91-134
and Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution number PZ-91-28 I_must recommend, against
allowing any dogs on the Newbert property.. This recommendation is based upon proximity of
elk calving habitat as well as the original intent to minimize wildlife impacts.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 920-5395.
76 SERVICE CENTER ROAD • ASPEN, CO • 81611
PHONE: 970/920-5395 •FAx: 970/920-5374
Attachment C
Chris Newbert ~ ~- - ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ I -
Marine Life Photography
PO. Box 2011
Basalt, Colorado 81621
USA
(970) 927-9789
(970) 927-9708 FAX
August 21, 7998
Dear Sirs and Madams,
esolu
The purpose of this letter is to request a Minor Amendment to R a tion PZ 91-28 item 5a. "No
dogs shall be allowed on site and Resolution 91-134 also item No dogs shall be allowed on
site" for our Lot 28 on Sopris Mountain Ranch, Basalt. We request Chat these resolutions be
amended to allow the keeping of dogs in a penned area within the building envelope.
This request is made in conjunction with the reconveyance of Lot 26 to the previous title holders.
The merger of Lots 28 and 26 created a single lot which contained wildlife sensitive areas existing
on Lot 26. With Lot 26 now reconveyed, our Lot 28 contains no speci5c wildlife sensitive areas
and the building envelop on Lot 28 in particular is greater than 1/4 mile from any wildlife sensitive
areas.
This requested amendment is in compliance with Land Use Code section 3-200.80 as follows:
A. The amendment must be a clarification or a technical correction. of a plat. Not applicable.
B . The amendment must not change the use of the proposed development between residential,
commercial and tourist accommodation uses. No change involved.
C. The amendment must be consistent with action taken during the review of the original
development and does not constitute a new land development activity. No new development
activity proposed.
D. The proposed activity does not:
1. Change the basic character of the approved use of land on which the activity occurs
including basic visual appearance and method of operation. Basic character unchanged.
2. Increase off-site impacts in the surrounding neighborhood. No off site impact.
3. Endanger the public health, safety or welfare. No danger to public health.
4. Violate any Land Use Code Standard. No violation of Land Use Code Standards.
5. Substantially increase the need for on-site parking or utilities, or affect affordable housing
generation; and
6. Increase the floor azea of the use by more than two percent or decrease the open space on
the site by more than three percent. No effect on parking, utilities, affordable housing,
floor area or open space.
Included with this letter of requesC is a copy of our Title Insurance, which includes the Legal
Description, along with a vicinity map. The physical address of the property is: Ol I 1 Sopris
Mountain Ranch Road, Basalt, Colorado, 81621. Additionally, I have included a copy of the
signed and notarized Special Warranty Deed reconveying Lot 26 to Mount Sopris Ranch Joint
Venture No. 2.
Also included with this letter is a copy of the Pre-application Conference Summary and our check
#41.22 in the amount of $460.00 as requested for Planning.
Sinc y,
Chn ewbert ~//~~
s
Sfit~l-04-1905 0119 P.01
' ;!'"'~ ~.. Attachment b
<.cl,rs'NeWi~-rr
urinet,efeph„cw,;n{~I7q _ __ •. ~'',;:,~
1'.d. &~x 201 t
13aeair, Co3~xad~~ R 16? 1
r,;;
USA
(970) 927.47fi9
(470)927.9708 FAX
Date: December 4, 149$ •
Ta: TamaraPregl 'Fax: '4205439
From: Chris Alewbert Fax:. (97@) .927-4708
bear Tamara, ~ , . . .
Titank you for your time. today a4d for your efforts in presenting this master a£ our
amendment. again at your upcomi~~ig staff meeting an Monday.. PoIIowang IS a sutnntary of
the paints I wish to make ~n our behalf:
L . At:earding to the recent 199? maps produced by the State Iivision of Wildlife, our
house site is m~er 1PL mile away from the nearest elk production: area, or arty odiet
area of wildlife concern indicated by the maps.
2. Section 3-80080 of the, land use code you copied forme "establishes iattd'use
standards for wildlife habitat ateas° and "`the standards apply to areas mapped by
the Colorado Division of Wildlife on the County's adopted QPIIdlife Resource
Information Syatem". 3'hus, this same wildlife map showing ous pause site .
over 112 mile away from tfie eiicproduction area is indeed the attthontattve '
document for applying the standards set forth ip the land tosg code.
3. Section 3-$0-t?80, par'. E. states that "an application shall be reviewed according to
the following standards:
2.' Prohibit dogs within vne~uatter mile of deer or elk production areas Keni><el .
dogs within one-half mile of deer or elk. production areas," (italics mints). =`
.,.
3 . Thus, according w this land use code establighing the standard bywhich such an " `
application shc~pld be judged, at aver I/2 mile from the elk gt9oductioit area as
demonstrated by rho accepted wildlife map, we are beyond even the area requiring '
the kenneling of dogs, much less the prohibttton of dogs.
4. Kevin Wright's letter of November I7 did not recammenti against the proposed.
amendment. in Fact, he has left the matter up to the connry. Isis concern was the
elk area on lot 27, which the maps demonstrate tr3 be over I/2 mile amay.fmin ottr ' .
house. Isis other' concetnwas whether granting vur amendmortt wilt"lBad tv similar"; ,
amendments filed lot othrrr lots on the upper part of the ranch. '•' '
I believe any such speculation on future appiicatians by other owners is trrelevantto'
the merits of our application, and that approval of ourapplication cannot be
{ withheld based do what other owners tray or may not do in rho future. Chit '
application must be jttdge{1 by the most recent maps produced by theState 1ivision '
W ildlife artd the land use codes, as provided by law. Fu»hermore, we cannot be
held to a unique and azbiiiury standard applied rnrl y to us, while not applied to all
residems of Pitkin, County. As taxpaying residents of Firkin County, we have the
same rights ac anyone else, and the county has an obligation to treat as equally:: '
Any future applicants for:similar amendments on other lots, should they occur,'
should be judged on theircotnpliance with the wiidhfe maps attd Iand use codes If,
they da not meet the adopted standards, then the application should be denied.
T~7TRL P.01
SRM1I-04-1900 0121
,P, ,~
P. 02
5. Aside from the distances in question being beyond those migimums established for .
both the prohibition or ke9sneling of dogs, our house is notgven visible ~tvm. theaa+elk,:
production area., and is separated from the ells pioduct"son area~ase oak knish,
wtueh absorbs virtue] ly aEl noise. This can. quickly be demonstrated4 by a visit to the '
site. The county has approved a building site on Lot 27 far closer to ~s habitat.than
we etc, that will inenta ly have far greater visible and audible impact on this aaea.
In addition, a ranch road which runs through and along this ptduction area. along
with an existing home also within ild mile. Any potential disturbance caused. by ~.
dogs at our house from over -172 mile away would pale in comparison to the itigrtlar
disturbances which already occur from the existing house or road, or from
development the county lr~s already approved-
6. I do eat believe the clause in the opening paragraph for motion
- use code; stating, "In all cases mapping will be field verified by
Division of Wild]ifee or the lsitkin County Wildlife l3iologisY" sul
existing maps prodaced by the 1ivision of Wildlife can be disco
Considerable time, effort and study goes into the cre,rtrori xsF the
maps are accepted by the county as rite star~ard of reference, tlv
demonstrated their faith in the,rmaps. Furthermore, Levin Wrigl
in his letter than he dispu>:es the accuracy of the maps. I don't b
the legal power of one indivrduai to unilaterally declare that the
Wildlife maps are invalid. A brief site visit cannotpossibly con+
which has previously beep determined by extensive field study.
Iat the
Ignored.
,, and if the
onr,ty has
Once stated
is vrthin
vision, of
sFs ai matter
Furthermore, tkte reaps, if they are eat valid, would have W be inaccurate by mare ~'
than t/4 mild to place us within the dgg pryhi6ition range of less dtan 1/A mile:. In "~,.,
fact, if we were to measare our house s,te accurately an fire map, it would show ~ ;
that the map would have to'be closer to 112 mile off w place as actually within the
dog prohtt+ition boundary.
? . The purpose of written codes and standards is to assure fairness and equal rights to
all citizens, and one purpose of government is to guarantee"and`prtil3ect the lights of
its citizens, We are not asking for special treatsiiant. We are simply asking for
equal treatment We are'asking onl y that the county apply the legal standadd .
provsded by the land use codes to our application for the amendment. If these',
standards are intended,to protect the wildlife, than they are surely based:oi3 a yalyd
criteria. We have demonstrated that, teased on Phis same criteria, airy dogs en' our
property,. especially any dogs cnntainect on our property, would be well outside the
impact distances defined by these standards.
Thank yo ryo consideratiar. ~ :s'~`::..
Sin ely, ;
ris Ne rt
ROBERT B. EMERSON
August 19, 1998
(970) 963-3700
~~~~
Ms. Debbie Quinn
Pitkin County Attorney's Office
530 East Main. Street, Suite 302
Aspen; C0 81611
Re: Chris Newbert/Lot 26, Mount Sopris Ranch
Dear Debbie:
FAX (970) 963-0985
This letter is to confirm the matters that we discussed in our meeting of August 14,
1998. In that meeting, you reviewed the Agreement to Reconvey recorded as Reception
No. 332815 of the Pitkin County records wherein Chris and Birgitte Newbert are
obligated to reconvey Parce126, Mount Sopris Ranch, to Mount Sopris Ranch Joint
Venture No. 2. The purpose of our conversation was to verify that such a proposed
conveyance would not be precluded under Pitkin County land use code provisions. You
have advised that no other procedural requirements are imposed by Pitkin County and
no other approvals are necessary for the proposed reconveyance to take place.
After reviewing this matter, you advised me that. the merger doctrine_as recognized and
enforced in Pitkin County does not preclude the Newberts from teconveying this land
since the tract is greater than 35 acres in size. No additional subdivision or other
approval from Pitkin County is required for such reconveyance. In addition, you have
advised that such reconveyance would not constitute a violation of Resolution No, 91-
134 or Resolution No. PZ-91-28 which approved the construction of asingle-family
home on Parcel 28. As such, the reconveyance of Parce126 is not in violation. of the
Pitkin County growth management quota nor as an attempt to circumvent. the growth
management quota. You have pointed out that there will be no development rights for
Parce126 if that parcel is reconveyed, and I have indicated that the deed of reconveyance
will provide that the transfer is subject to all matters of record including the provisions
of the cited resolutions which are of record,
.. ~
Ms. Debbie Quinn
August 19, 1998
Page 2
Please sign a copy of this letter and return it to me if the comments and conclusions
contained in this letter are accurate. Thanks for your help.
Sincerely,
-~
Robert B. Emerson
RBE/jc
cc: Chris Newbert
The comments and conclusions contained in this letter are accurate.
Date:
Debbie Quinn
Assistant Pitkin County Attorney
..- w,,. ~ti..M~ ,~_ ~, .__,~.
+ A
Ms. Debbie Quinn
August 19, 1998
Page 2
Please sign a copy of this letter and return it to me if the comments. and conclusions
contained in this letter are accurate. Thanks for your help.
Sincerely,
__`~
Robert B. Emerson
RBE/jc
cc: Chris Newbert
The comments and conclusions contained in this letter are accurate.
Date: ~`x- ~~
De bie Quinn
Assistant Pitkin County Attorney
RUG 14 '48 09~2~Rh1 PITKIN COUNTY RC1h1IN
P.1
a ~ .~^-:
~lt~Cl[I 'CQUi
r'hris Newbart
i4Xa:3tte Life .Photography
T.C"S. I3ox 2811
13asaia, C.alarado 51621
Re: i.ot 26, Soptds Mountain Lunch
1]ear iVlr. Nawbert:
w
'.... ,' j
..- -~
I`,''.
L have reviewed your letter of Apri15, 1998. A .suggest you obtain the services of
]~aur awn attatney to answer mast of the questiana in your letter. However, L can advise.
rou tfaat under sl:atfi ]nw, and as incorporated in our ctwn Land Use 4."ode, a conveysti°ic:~
~uhicb creates a parcel of land 35 acres or mare in size is not a suildiuisian. [have rRat
reviewed the records of any public aneetings which resulted in the approvals you hay+o
refem:nceci in your letter, and cannot tell whether. or not material. representations wets
::Wade by }'au during the approval process which world tesptt in a vidlstiora cf,yttur
candttions of. approval if you were to convey the property.' 12esalutiots No. 91,• 134 ~tearljr
indicates that you committed to na development on L,ot 2b for wildlife canservati~rt¢
purLtoses. Itt addition, Itesollatian No. PZ -91-28 indicates that unyfurther free market
residential development an .either I.at 26 or L.ot 28 world require It gro~vt:h m7anagen:lent
:~y ,tem allotment. Since L.ot 26 waa part of the property reviewed in conneczian u+itiT
:your application„ it is subject to the conditions of both these resalutiana, whether you own
;,ot 2!~ or srameone else owns L.ot 26.
l offer no opinion on the legality of your agreement to re-convey and again
saggest that you consult your awn attamey.
uincerely,
~)eborah t~uinn I
~~ssistant t~'ourety Attorney
F)q_llsr,
c:c' 1_ennie f7at:e4
IdtJplisc.r:arMc`when.hr -
AdYninistraiipn County Commlisloners .County AttoYney
530 E. Peain, Suite 101 Suite 3D1 Suite 342
asAen, C[7 8161 f 534 E. Main Street 530 [. Main Street
,97t))92Q-52D4 Asp&n, CO $16.11 ASpen, CbB'1b1!
r'"' vRnarco yu {^y^°~4-51~8 (9 701 9 2 0-5 1SD ~ (974192D-St94'
RlGSY:LlAf~~l'~Nn
Fincn[e enCl ~15t Tn.
~i 3i? £. lp air, >t~ ite 2 c
a~sper CC 3!? 1'1
i;974' 42L~5;2 t~
-` Attachment F
LAW OFFICES '
ROBERTB. EMERSON, P.C.
B6 SOUTH THIRD STREET ',
CARBONDALE. COLORADO 01623 '
(970) 963-3']00
ROBERT B. EMERSON FAX (970) 9630985
March 15, 1999
Ms. Cindy Houben
Director, Pitkin County Community Development HAND DELIVERED
1.30 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Newbert Application for Amendment of 1041 Permit, Lot 28
Dear Cindy:
I am writing this letter to outline the Newberts' request for amendment of the 1041
permit for their property, Lot 28, Sopris Mountain Ranch. I would request that a copy of
this letter be included in the packet of materials for consideration by the Board of
County Commissioners.
The Newberts' request is to amend the 1041 permit to allow one dog to be kept in a
kennel on their property. The request is being made due to changed circumstances from
those that existed when the original 1041 application was approved in 1991 and due to
an error by the Planning staff which incorrectly stated the distance from the building
envelope to the elk calving area.
In 1991, the County took the position that Lots 28 and 26 had merged into one lot by
virtue of a small common border (see Exhibit A which shows 1041 consideration for both
lots combined as one unit). Recently, the County has recognized that these are separate
lots and Lot 26 has been reconveyed by the Iv'ewberts to the prior owner (see Exhibit B,
a copy of the deed of reconveyance). The reconveyance of Lot 26 is important because
that lot extends much farther to the south and is much closer to the critical elk produc-
tion area than Lot 28 where the Newberts' house is located. In 1991, at the time the
original 1041 application was being considered, the Newberts were told that because Lot
26 was. included in the application and because of its proximity to the elk calving area,
the only way the 1041 application could be approved was with a "no dog" restriction.
Based on this, the Newberts, who at that time were living in Hawaii, agreed to this
restriction.
The second reason for.the requested amendment is that the staff report generated in
1991 in connection with the Newbert application contained an erroneous statement that
.~ I
Ms. Cindy Houben
March 15, 1999
Page 2
the building envelope on Lot 28 was within 2,000 feet of the closest elk production area
as mapped by the Division of Wildlife. As discussed below, this conclusion is incorrect,
and the building envelope is actually located one-half mile or more from the ells produc-
tion area. When the Newberts originally agreed to the no dog restriction, they were
acting under the incorrect assumption that the proposed building envelope would not
qualify for dog ownership under the Pitkin County Land Use Code.
The applicable sections of the_Code provide that no dogs are permitted for lots with
building envelopes within one-quarter mile (1,320 feet) of an elk production area (see §
3-80-080). If the building envelope is more than a quarter mile but less than a half mile
away, dogs are permitted if kenneled. If more than a half mile away, there are no
restrictions on dogs. Because the. Newberts' house is located one-half mile or more away
from the elk production area, their request for an amendment forone dog kenneled is
clearly within the standards set. forth in the Code and should be approved. The Planning
Department acluiowledged linear. distances from mapped critical wildlife habitat and the
applicable Cede provisions as the proper standard of judgment in their original Memo-
randum on the Newberts' 1041 review, when the staff report'stated, "Neither the Land
Use Code requirements or the Division of Wildlife comments suggests prohibition of
development on this site, due to the applicant's ability to meet the linear distance
requirements in the Code for the proposed building site."
In fact, 1041 applications for nearby lots the same distance or closer to the elk produc-
tion area have been approved allowing dogs with a kennel restriction. These lots include
Lots 23, 49, 50, and 51. Lot 23, immediately adjacent to the Newbert lot, was approved
for one kenneled dog in July, 1995. Lots 49 and 51 were both approved for kenneled
dogs. Lot 51 was approved in July, 1990, and Lot 50 in February, 1989. Lot 49 was
approved for. one kenneled dog in August, 1995. Both Lots 49 and 51 are closer to the
elk calving area than the Newbert lot. The recommendation from DOW for Lots 23 and....
49 (approved 1995) is virtually the same as for Newbert, i.e., any approval should be
limited to one kenneled dog. Other lots farther to the north also either allow dogs in a
kennel or without restriction. All of these lots are depicted with cross-hatched lines on
Exhibit C attached to this letter. A listing of the 1041 approvals allowing dogs in Sopris
Mountain Ranch is attached as Exhibit D.
The Newberts have retained. wildlife biologist Richard W. Thompson to review their
situation and comment on their eligibility for an amendment of their 1041 permit to
allow a kenneled dog. A copy of Mr. Thompson's letter is enclosed (Exhibit E). Mr.
Thompson expresses the opinion that the Newberts. are entitled under the Code to the
~: °I
Ms. Cindy Houben
Mazch 15, 1999
Page 3
requested amendment.. He notes that from his conversation with Kevin Wright of DOW,
that the DOW concerns are. not based on the. distance criteria in the Code between the
Newberts' building envelope -and the elk production area, but rather, are general
concerns that DOW has about free ranging dogs without taking into consideration the
fact that the Newberts meet Code criteria and other nearby similarly situated properties
have been permitted kenneled dogs. Indeed, DOW biologist Kevin Wright, in comment-
ing on this proposed amendment, never recommends against dogs. Instead, he states, "If
the County does decide to_lift the restriction, I would strongly recommend only 1 dog
with a kennel restriction." This identical language was used in his recommendations an
neighboring Lot 49, which was granted a limited dog allowance in 1995 (see Exhibits C
regazding DOW comments Lot 49 and F, the DOW Letter regarding the proposed
amendment).
Finally, the characteristics of the Newbert lot provide additional justification for the
requested amendment. There is a barrier formed by a hillside and a dense area of scrub
oak between the Newberts' house and the elk production area. Thus, there is a physical
barrier as well as a sound buffer separating their house from the,elk production area.
Similarly, elk migration corridors should. not. be a concern. The mapped areas are more
than one half mile away and the actual corridors used,by the elk are more than one mile
away. The Code provisions permit kenneled dogs within one quarter mile of migration
corridors.
Apparently, a question has been raised that since. the Newberts_"agreed" to a no dog
restriction as pan of their 1041 application in 1991, they are therefore now barred from
seeking to amend this restriction.. As mentioned above, the original 1041 application
included Lots 26 and 28. The staff report erroneously concludes that the building
envelope on Lot 28 is within 2,000 feet of the closest. elk production area. The Newberts
were told that the. application would not be approved unless they agreed to a no dog
restriction. Given the fact that Lot 26 has been reconyeyed and we now know that the
building envelope on Lot 28 is one-half mile or more from the elk calving area and is
well beyond the distance that would prohibit dog ownership under the Code, the
Newberts should not be automatically precluded from seeking an amendment of the
1041 permit to allow a kenneled dog. Any such "agreement" would have been based on
incorrect information and circumstances that have changed`. Their current application
should be judged solely on the standards of the Code, and the Newberts meet the Code
criteria for a kenneled dog.
_.. __ r
_:. _...
,.. i _.
Ms. Cindy Houben
March 15, 1999
Page 4
To summarize, the Newberts are not asking for a variance. or exception from the
application of the Pitkin County Land Use Code.. Rather, they are asking for an amend-
ment to conform to the changed circumstances from their original application, i.e.,
reconveyance of Lot 26 and correction of the staff report error regarding the distance
from the building envelope to the elk production area. Due to the fact that their request
specifically meets. or exceeds the standards in the Land Use Code and is consistent with
approvals of neighboring lots, it should be granted.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
Robert B. Emerson
RBE/jc
Enclosures
cc: Mr. and Mrs. Chris Ne bert
Tamara Preg~
~. ..,..NU ,.,..w,. .. ~...: w., .. ,..~~.... „ . , ;~.
~.
!04/ N,4ZAR0 RED/EW PLAT {ot, NEWBERT
A Parce/ of Land in Lots 3,4 G`5, SWi¢SE% , Sii9Wi4i E~SEi ~` SE%gNE;r
Section 33, Township 8 Bouth, /Zanye 87 West of the 6+'h princira/ Mcridi y,a
~« ,
~~
'
~
~
~
',
.~ ~
'
_
r
~
r
ar
'
+
_
ti j
~. '~ ' ,.
}~
` l ~ / ~ ~ ~ /
l4dN/TY MAP ~\
%•• In/Ae V(y
EXHIBIT A
~_ •-~
- SPECIAI. WARRANTY DEED ~ ~~ ~ "
THIS DEED, Made this i~~da of S~ 7~s..,,~t/ 19
NEWBERT and BIRGITTE W. NEWBERTYCoun of Pl(itkin, State o 8' between CHRIS '~,
f Colorado,
("Grantors"), and MOUNT SOPRIS RANCH JOINT VENTURE NO. 2, whose legal address
is c/o Norm Clasen, 0160 Spring Creek Road, Basalt, Colorado 81621, a Colorado Join[
Venture, consisting of James McGuckin, John Inman, Norm Clasen and Laura Clasen.
("Grantee"):
WITNESSETH, That the Grantors, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten "
Dollars ($10.00) and other goad and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency
of which is hereby acknowledged, have granted, bargained, sold and. conveyed, and by
these presents do grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm, unto the Grahtee; iu
successors and assigns forever, all the real property; together with improvements, if any,
siruate, lying and being in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, described as follows:
Descripdon Attached as Exhibit "A"
SUBJECT TO AND EXCEPTING: Real Property taxes for 1991 and subsequent
years, the terms and conditions of the documents listed in Exhibit "B", the effect of
which, among other things, is the elimination of development rights for the subject
property; and all other reservations, easements, covenanu and restricfions of record or
use and other documents of record which may affect title to the subject property.
~~ TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereto
belonging, or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainderand
remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof; and all the estate, right, ride, ineerest, claim
and demand whatsoever of the Grantors, either in law or equity, bf, in and to the above
bargained premises, with thehereditamentsand appurtenances;
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described
with the appurtenances, unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns forever: The
Grantors, for themselves, their heirs, and personal representatives or successors, do
covenant and agree that they shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the ,.., EXHIBIT B
above-bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the Grantee, their
successors and assigns, against all and every person or persons claiming the whole or any
part thereof, by, through or under the Grantors, subject to the exceptions to title set
forth above.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantors have executed this,deed on the date set
Eorth above.
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
COUNTY OF ~1/'' <.<~ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this // day of
`J4 r„-- "t.~ 1998 by Chris Newberrand Birgixte Newbert..
Witness my hand and official seal. y F O~ ~'•.~'
~y~ n . M~9 prQ `n
N .'
// Notary Public ~.~'••., :'
My commission expires: 6 i a" ~~/ Cpl ORpDo
PARCEL #26, SOPRIS DSOUNTAIN RANCH
A PARCEL OF LAND BEING PART OF LOTS 4 AND 5, THE SW'/a OF THE SE'/a AND THE
.,> ,.
S'/z OF THE SW'/< OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 8 SOUTH, RANGE 87 WEST OF THE 6"'
PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN. SAID PARCEL IS MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: '
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 33 WHENCE THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 33 BEARS NORTH 89 DEGREES 51'34"
WEST 2523.93 FEET; ~~
THENCE NORTH 6 DEGREES 26' WEST 1404.41 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 64 DEGREES 45' EAST 513.31 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 15 bEGREES 25' EAST 665.49 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 14 DEGREES 35' EAST 2333.89 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID
SECTION 33;
THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 51'34" WEST 1071.47 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 36.61 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
EXIiIBIT B (2)
COUNTY OF PITHIN, STATEOF COLORADO _. _
. _ _. ~~
I
BXHIBIT B
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY RESOLUTION NO. 91 134,
- _,T .,. .,v....,
RECORDED IN BOOK 661 AT PAGE 407.
.RESOLUTION OF THE PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NO.
PZ-91-28, RECORDED IN BOOK 655 AT PAGE 920 OF THE PITKIN COUNTY RECORDS.
. THE EFFECT OF INCLUSIONS IN ANY GENERAL OR SPECIFIC WATER CONSERVANCY, FIRE
PROTECTION, SOIL CONSERVATION OROTHER DISTRICT OR INCLUSION IN ANY WATER
SERVICEOR STREET IMPROVEMENT AREA.
" RIGHT OF PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE HIS ORE
THEREFROM SHOULD THE SAME BE FOUND TO PENETRATE OR I~T'I'ERSECT THE PREMISES
AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES_PATENT ,RECORDED November i7, 1893', IN BOOK 55
AT PAGE 42, RECORDED JANUARY 16, 1894IN BOOK"'S 5-AT PAGE 43, RECORDED '
SEPTEMBER 6; 1894 INBOOK 55 AT PAGE49, RECORDED JULY 20; 1896 IN HOOK SS
AT PAGE 69, RECORDED JANUARY 2, 1907 IN BOOK 55 ATPAGE 760, RECORDED APRIL
'24, 1923 IN BOOK 55 AT PAGE 278.
.-RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE.
UNITED STATES AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATE`S ~PATEN't~"R~2~OxRD~HD November 17, ~'
1893, IN BOOK 55 AT PAGE 42, JANUARY 16, 1894 ZN HOOK 55 'AT PAGE 43,APRIL
24, 1923 IN BOOK 55 AT PAGE 278, AUGUST 3, 1935 ZN BOOX 162 ATPAGE 436,
MAY 6,. 1935 IN BOOK 362 AT PAGE 420, JANUARY 12, 1937 IN HOOK 162 AT PAGE
524.
. ALL COAL AND OTHER MINERALS IN THE LANDS SO ENTERED AND PATENTED, TOGETHER
WITH THE RIGHT TO PROSPECT FOR,MINE AND REMOVE THE 'SAME PURSVANTTO THE '.
PROVISIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE ACT OF DECEMBER2.9,1916 (39 STAT.; 862)
AS RESERVED INTHE UNITED STATES PATENTS RECORDED MAY 6, 1935 IN BOOK Y62 "-
AT PAGE 420, RECORDED AUGUST.3,Y935IN BOOK~1'62 ~AT'PAGE 436,~ANDRECORDED
JANUARY 12, 1937 ZN BOOK 162 AT PAGE 524.
EXIiIBIT B
. AN UNDIVIDED 6 1/4 PERCENTROYALTY INTEREST OF ALL OIL,GAS AND bTHER
MINERALS PRODUCED AND SAVED 'FROM THE SUBJECT.. PROPERTY AS RESERVED BY"
CHARLES H. LOVE, JANET LOVEAND DOROTHY LOVEIN DEED `RECORDED'DECEMHER 31,
1956IN BOOK 178 ATPAGE436 ;'ANY AND ALL ASSIGNMENTSTHEREOF OR. INTERESTS
THEREIN..
AN UNDIVIDED 6 1/4 PERCENT ROYALTY INTEREST OF ALL OIL, GAS AND OTHER
MINERALS PRODUCED AND SAVED FROM THE SUBJECT :PROPERTY AS RESERVED BY ROBERT;
W. LONG IN DEEDRECORDEDAPRIL 17, 1961 IN BOOK 193 AT PAGE 479, ANYAND.
ALL ASSIGNMENTS THEREOF OR INTERESTS THEREIN,
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN A FORFEITURE OR REVERTER
CLAUSE, BUT OMITTING RESTRICTIONS, IF ANY, HASED ON RACE;COLOR, RELIGION,
OR NATIONAL ORIGIN, AS CONTAINED~IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED December 23, 1982,
IN HOOK 437 AT PAGE 748 AND AS AMENDED ZN INSTRUMENT RECORDED NOVEMBER 19,
1987, ZN BOOK 551 AT PAGE 259 AND AS AMENDED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED January
21, 1993, IN BOOK 710 AT PAGE 347AND AS AMENDED 2N INSTRUMENT RECORDED
January 21, 1993, IN BOOK 701 AT PAGE 408 AND AS AMENDED IN INSTRUMENT
RECORDED FEBRUARY 4, 1998 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 413234 AND ASAMENDEDIN
INSTRUMENT RECORDEDMARCH.9;1998. UNDER RECEPTION NO. 414335.
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN A FORFETTUREOR REVERTER
CLAUSE, BUT OMITTING RESTRICTZONS,IF ANY,BASED ONRACE,COLOR, RELIGION,
OR NATIONAL ORIGIN, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDEDJanuary 21, 1993,
IN BOOK 70 SAT PAGE523 ANDAS AMENDED IN INSTRUMENT"RECORDEDFebruary.03,
1993, IN BOOK 702 AT PAGE 733.
TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS, OBLIGATIONS, RESTRZCTZONSAND EFFECTS OF
CERTIFICATE OFINCORPORATION RECORDED MARCH 21, 1986 IN BOOK5O7 AT PAGE
688, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION RECORDED MARCH 21, 1986 INBOOK 507 AT PAGE '
689, AND BY-LAWS RECORDEDMARC$ 2Y; 1986 IN HOOK 507 ATPAGE 693, ALL '
BERTAINING TO THE SOPRIS MOUNTAIN RANCH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.' '
TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT RECORDED May21, 1991 IN BOOK
646 AT PAGE 657 .
y
` $~
k ;y `
w ~ rC ~ Y tI} ~\ I ~ I
L It G ~ ~ j ~ ~•F
a
;a r'-alf1- ~
"z
\ ~ I' ~ t /
I
~ / i
~~
`
9I
~
~ e
/
v Y
/^\ ~
i
I ,
N a
~ /
Y a+" \ x
,
1
I ~~
r
p Ku
t_pa ^
i~--
yp~ If v
~s~:a .~~~ 1 ay .~ k ~_~
g~~ r ~~ ` ~~ gg ~~ I ~
,
i v a.
~ r ~ ~
' e
L ~ a
i Y
?'
~ i
~M A
'
y '~ :
y
~.
L SS
i
.y u -..
-
o
S ~.
\
~
a .
~
~ j- I
{
I
\_
~
' ~
" S
~ b `
•
u
i ~ 3
b
<\ I r I ~ R
\, ~ ••
\~( 1 ~ ~ to
~ I I ~a ?~ ~ ~ I I^~ ~ "\ $~.
. \ v EXHIBIT C
` I 1 ~
l I
•~ I { \ 1 ~
`
~~ _
• ~ ,
a ~
I
a
1.
/u
r` y
Y G \ t .S~ li 1
I
\
\
~
\ 11
1
~
E
I ~. . "- ~
II ~ € I
`^ ~l
I~
~ ~
IS
' \ \ \
~.. \ ) I
a ~~ ~
i I a e
e o ~ `-
`
~~ `~ Ito. »
II
v ,
,$~
~
( I ~
l 'J
~
3 P
~ ~ ta~
~ g
~'
~ 1~S
~ R 11~
N I
~ I ri
r iI ;,
> ~ ~~ x
-- ~ ~.a
,~
> ~ :
.
~
.: J
~ ~ ~ .a~
~ `'./ / \`
.
.-i. ~ -
_.~~. ... ...
T^~ ..
_.. ........ ..
_
Cn
N ~O
~ ~
Ut
N ... N
W W
r
B
r z
°
~. d
O
tlG
O
O
CD
0.
~--~ O
O ~
7
(c
P-
B•
m
~ O ~ ~ ~ ~
W Vi U1 J ? ["'
.~ O O
_
d
~ d
~
~ ~
w
S
~
~
~ O
y
~
~
H
""
~
~
~
K
n
O.
N
~ N
J
w N
G
O O
N
0. N
0. Q
~
w w '~'
a
a. .
rn
~ ~
~
y
cc co
a. a.
'-3 C"7~~,bj z ~~~_.H ~'tixw~ o ~~s z a F~5
~ ~ ~ ~' tr ~ y
C
~ N ~•(Oi yQa ~ F 7. ti ~
G. ~.~ y ~Qa ~. .. ~y ~•
a ° ~ ° o
o' ~ t" a co F
p rn cow-, ?- o' a' o ~., ~ o~ n
c ,
~; C+ O. O cc ~
(°
c ~-- A ~
0. ~ O ~ ti ~ w ~ n cv n ~ o ~.
N y
_.
~ nay
° ~ ~
"~
~ n ' d ~~+ ~'^
" ~ a^~
W G 5
~ ~b
`.1 (c
~
a '~
"
~ ° ~ n cn .3
(
~' ~ Q•~v °
a°a F
y
°
° ~
rn ° v
Fo ~
~ ~
o . . csa
a °'
ti o x
° a
~ am y. a Boob „'"' ° ° o o ° ~ tea.
y S ,
w
.
C1. ~ p 7
0y ~ ~ ~ vwi .._. ~ i°e ~i' ° O ''~' ~ y pM~.
p
.
. ~ ~ ' ~
O
O
_
~ ~ ~ w Cc QC
r~y O
y p' ~.
~
' O
~ N
Qy = Q
~ ~
ti ~`!
y ~
C '7•r CD ~ ~ Q' ~
N R•`C ~
~ Cj .
. •
~ 7 a. ~" ~ ~ a- V
.~ r' ~ ~
O 'O M .7` ~ ~ (c ~.. c°o i ~ ~
.-.
•
~ ~ 7
y
~ G ~~~
~ ', ~~~ N ~~•
tlG
N .y ~.
N' .
O
~ ~ v
i d
O' C
w lD c
p
0. w
•
` w ~
~
~ a
7 < w O
i, w p
O ~ O
^ ^.,
`~ N~ ~ •- ~. ~ p• w " 0.N cD ,~. ~ O .+ w ry "ti '.'
'
N q' y ~ p y °
f1 '~ X ° ~ °
.b .~ N ~ Q ° y
O ; p 6
p
'd n O ~
d O
a' O
~
y Ai n ~ ~ ~
"
~ .
C ~
'
i p~
~ .;
TJ
`
y ~ w
G
G~•~
~ O y _ _ m
~ rn ~. N (~
~1 3 m O
J
O rte.
-s ..° O a ~. ~ ~ v ~ Q O 0.y^ y ~ 0. ~ ~ ~ y tlq
° O O
~ fT ~' 0.
~
~ CS .-.
~ C/~ N y-r
~ `G `G O D
_ (
O
=~ '„~ C
•~ 0.'~ O
M~ ti 6'~
'n ~O S ~ 77
a
'_ • ~ ~
~G
H
O pq ff0
~ . Q' w ~
0.
O h O O
~ ~ K O o'R7 "" l1
O ~y .~
y O n
~ """ w ,
-.
'" y
(D c
~< (
~, -.
. '.s" . O
n ~ ~
~ w
~
N
~ 'i
~
~ ~
~
~ ~
^
i
C ~
nn spa
•
~ ~
• ~ pq O O
OQ A
C ?- N ~ p ~. y .w.. a ~~ O
o ~•~ Qq °
° °= ~ y ~ ~" y
c ~,
,y O p .7
.y-. ~
_ _. ~ ~ .... ~ v i ..._, ` . ~.
H
O
w•..ve
°
0 0 0 r
~ y ~
^ ^. ^. d
o• n ~ O
O• O O
7 ~ ~ ~
• O
cD
Q
o~ coo ~ b coo ~ 'Tti'A' ~ Sew ~;'~ G)F.~ ~ m N~ o ~ ~~.oo•~ ~~c s~
v. ,~ H N X ~ (C u 3 n y C .~. ~ '~ ry R ~
'P ~ (] -^r'i 5 G N ~ N a (D C> ~ ~ ~ C N 'CG w 00 ^ N .-QO
^. S CD ^. a' ~7 ~7 '~ ~' ~ '-: ~T7 . ?i O ~ -~ O p -~ CJ ~` ,~'., v~ b ^+ C N
no `ooh o° cNOm~.co^o oacor. ° '~00::.~ `°?~~. 5'c.oco
~ ~ ^ O ^ ,.~ .~-. A v~
°~^ o-= o' Cyo.y,< 5=`0°0 ~ 9ti ° ^ ac~o °_~~ ~ ~~ y F ~ ~ °?"
m.d co ~ o Oo o ~ o ~3a o b ~•~ ~0°y0b`< `~ 5' ~ ~ ~ g: °-f° ~~
~ _
G. ~. O cSO ~ N 0.O cSC ~ :~ ~. ~ <^p O ~'.`G rRn n ~ [SO v_ j*",~ ~ O y
~. ° a w ~° r~ ~ ... F o o ~e . o a ~ coo ., ~c
~•y y ~ ° "° ~•m ~•~ ~ ~-~.SOO'F ~•~ ~~ 'a'im ~
,.~ r„ ^ v, g w ~e ., m „~ coo ~ ~ ~ o y o. rn ° ^ d ~• R. ~.
acy, ~y O vC-O o 0a y b7 cn dS9c'~•F X R y (co„ ,~ c"o " M cc
m co ~ co ~'~rn fir., ~. ~~-•,co m o-~.~ o ~;m
coo c° ~ ~ CD rn ~ ~ C° a0 ° c°o ~ ~ cD ti a ~ :o.. a ° w co 00
o F y ° ~ o ~•cSO td~ ~ c `<~. 'o -cDi.~ `R-'~ w ~F 5-m `e a0
~ CD w o =T co " y co o ~ C7 ~ ccDi °° _ ,~. ~~ ~_ ~ a0 o atr0
~ ~' n. co x < a~ ~~F a ° a '" B.~.cn CD o ~ aom
s o ~° 9 °~• °CD ~o~°
o-o ~--- R' a° F coo ~ co ° ° ~°~°, o E ~ ~,a.~ c
•0o eo ~
i '-
Western ecosystems, c~nc.
Ecological C,'onsultants
I
EXHIBIT E
905 YVest Coach .~oa~, ~aul~er, C'O 80302 ~303~ 4~2- 6144
March 11, 1999
Mr. Chris Newbert Fax and U.S. Mail Transmittal
P.O. Box 2001
Basalt, CO 81621
Re: Proposal to keep one dog on Lot 28, Sopris Mountain Ranch; Pitkin County, Colorado.
Dear Chris:
Addressed below, at yourrequest, are my thoughts regarding your proposal to keep one dog on your property,
Lot 28 of Sopris Mountain Ranch. As you know; I have not been on you property, but I am familiar with
the general area from my prior local studies. Furthermore, I am relying on your ability to fairly accurately
locate your building envelope and measure its distance from. the CDOW defined boundary of the adjacent elk
production area, as shown on the 1':2,000" USGS maps on file at the. County Planning Department. I have
also discussed your proposal with Mr. Kevin Wright, CDOW District Wildlife Manager.
My analysis is based on the following facts and the opinions provided me by you and the CDOW:
1. Your building envelope. is 2,300 to 2,900 feet (0.43 to O.SS mi.) away from the closest outer boundary of
the CDOW's elk production area. I hereby invoke all the standard disclaimers associated with the accuracy
and use of the CDOW's Wildlife Resource Information System (WRIS) maps.
2. While the County Code prohibits dogs at residences. within one-quarter mile of such elk production areas,
dogs are allowed at residences greater than one-quarter mile, but less than one-half mile from such calving
areas, provided they are kenneled (or, presumably, kept on a leash under positive control when outside or kept
in the home).
3. Wititer rznge, transitional rouge; migration pattern; and other wildlife ccnsiderztions associated with Lct
28 do not preclude dogs on Lot 28, according to the Code.
4. Properly controlled dogs present minimal conflicts with wildlife.
5. Some neighboring lots within Sopris Mountain Ranch were .permitted to have dogs, both prior to (i.e, in
1990), and after (i.e., 2 lots in 1995) Lot 28 was approved for development. Lot 28 is located more within the
interior of the development and actually further away from the designated production area than a lot (i.e., Lot
49) approved for dogs in 1995.
Other lots within Sopris Mountain Ranch were either prohibited from having dogs via 1041 review, or
voluntarily agreed (e.g., the joint venture) to prohibit dogs to avoid potential, additional wildlife impacts.
6. Lot 28 is presently prohibited from having dogs because (1) of an incorrect statement made by County Staff
(to the BOCC on June 4, 1991) indicating that the Lot 28 building envelope is less than 2,000 feet from the
edge of calving habitat, and attributing that statement to the CDO W, and (2) you apparently agreed to no dogs
during the lot approval process, due to Lots 26 and 28 being combined in that process. The CDOW's July
23, 1990 referral letter to the County provides no distances, and only uses the ambiguous term "adjacent" with
respect to Lof 28's proximity to the calving habitat. Furthermore, the threshold for prohibiting dogs at
;.. r ; ... i. ..,
Mr. Chris Newbert
March il, 1999
Page 2
residences adjacent to elk production areas in Pitkin Couhty is 1,320 feet (one-quarter mile). Since your
building envelope is 2,300 to 2,900 feet (0.43 to O.SSmi:) away from the closest outer boundary of the CDOW s
elk production azea, it is well outside the County threshold.
7. It is my understanding tha£you aze seeking approval to have one dog on Lot 28, which would be kept
inside and:. kenneled when outside,. if not, on a leash under your control, or that of your designated
.representative. You are aware of the adverse effects that free-ranging dogs can have on wildlife production
areas, winter ranges, and wildlife. using other sensitive habitats. You are also aware of where these designated
habitats' are on and adjacent to your property.
8. According to the Code, you should be permitted to have a dog on Lot 28, provided it is under positive
control at ali times when outside......
9. Based on my March 3 conversation with the CDOW, they concede that your home is beyond the one-
quarter mile distance precluding dogs. However, while they may recognitie that you appear to display the
awareness of the dog/wildlife issue and may be the type of responsible person that could be allowed to have
a dog in the vicinity of critical wildlife habitat, the CDOW still opposes a dog on your property;because (1)
there appears to be little or no enforcement of free-ranging dogs in the development (i.e, free-ranging dogs
are a problem), (2) the CDOW is trying to be consistent with the joint property owners who have prohibited
dogs to avoid potential wildlife impacts, (3) in the event that you sell your home; there is no guarantee that
the subsequent owner would. responsibly control their dog, and (4) the precedent that would be set,
encouraging other homeowners to petition the County for dog.
Assuming that the site-specific circumstances provided to me by all parties are accurate, an objective review
of your case by the County should allow you to keep a dog at your home; since you meet or exceed the Code
criteria for a kenneled dog. I would recommend that if a dog is approved at your home, that (1) the dog. be
kept under positive control at all times when not in the home, (2) never be allowed to run loose when outside,
unless in a kennel; (3) any keanel should be located within the designated building envelope, be contiguous
with the house, and be completely enclosed to preclude mountain lion access, and (4) that the dog should not
be fed outside (including on decks) to prevent predators and nuisance wildlife being attracted to the food..
Plcase call me if you have ary gnestions_
Sincerely,
~~
Richard W. Thompson
Certified Wildlife Biologist
Western Ecosystems, Inc.
RWT/s
STAtE Jf COLORAO(7
" floy'Romee,.6avemer
CEPARTMgM OF lIA71JNAL R ~.,CES. ....: °, , . . '.,! e
D~YISION QF 1N1LDLtFE
.~, 6nruv C~i%Rlnrriv Er.%a'4o
tl06p 9roeeM ,
r. e3
~Y ~ r
Darver. C~~:orado 902'~B 4nz ~ vHr :' '
TeiFphen~:(~.'.):57-t'f92 EXHIBIT F
l:t-3'/-98 -
Pltk.in +Zounty Planning
?.3 Q 3 . oa j end
~: Nestb®:~ Minor Ammendiaent
D®a~ Tamara:
on 1:1-1b-98 I weht up to the Newbert parcel to see how it relitites''
tG L!Se a EX
pp poxtion oY :the ranch. Just around the bend and'
i,umadiate:Ly above the Ne?ibert parcel i9 parcel Z7. 'Phfs.,pareal
had a substantial amount oY elk use.. and some mule deer, use:, `:
CeneisaLiy, the area reCej.ve5 only 11gC1t Winter use`aepending,Op
'the winter. However, the aspen stances and areas oT potentiate and
ac•GU3,1 ®lkan~i mule dear; production lie along these upper tots
an:: aspen stringers. 1t' does. not take a dog very long to tra~icl
tc t.h69& areffis.
7`he Neabert lot lies amoungst the lots comprising the 3oint
ventures falthou h not included -1n their a lication
lots, Went through the land use process in 1991 and as part ~Y
t3:ar pracess and :mitigation for wildlife agreed to R restrir_taoz
of axe dogs In 1991, the Newbert parce'1 went through the.process
and in :heir applications agreed to no dogs (page 5 and.rpage 3j:
volts errs a ma}or problem with wildlife and dog restrictions t~e:l?
minimize impacts to w11dl1iSa. Will lifting an agreed.ta
rerstrictior lead to morel requests by the joint venture lots''ta da.
the 5aR8`d
It.the County does decide to lift the restriction, Z would'
~trongly recommend only ~1 dog with a kennel rEStrictian_
sinc~reiy,
ISewin wri ht
District ~ life Manager
CarSxlndal
UEPAR7MENT OF NATUPAL PE90UAGE9, James S: laN+heea. E.ea.,pvu Oklc:or ~ :
~YlLUUFF ~OMMISSiOtV, Amokf Sniaut, Chtlr a Rebeeea L FrMk, vita Chslr. • Mark leVadey SrlCr!'tay I .. ~ ~ '
Loula F, Svrih. Mrmher ~ B~rt4teQ L. ~kCk MemCe ~ ~ ..: ~ ~ .
Cheek Leroie. Memtjer • John 5wip. MsmOe~ . Jemss R. ~. Mernb~r ' ` '' .. .:.
._
:=~336:~32 11/OS/9i 14:' ~ 0.00 FtK. 661 F•~ 407` Attachment G
,.
`•ySilvia Davis, F'itk:in ~niY'` Clerk, Doc ~.OO ~~
RESOLIITION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF PITRIN COiINTY,.COLORADO.GRANTING,...
GENERAL SIISMISSION APPROVAL TO,_CBItIS_AND BIR"GITTE NEWBERT
TO CONSTRIICT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON LOT 28
OF SOPRZS MOIINTAIN RANCH,
Resolution No. 91-~
WHEREAS, Chris and_Brgitte Newbert (hereinafter "Applicant")
have applied to Bitkin County for a 1045 Hazard Review approval to
construct a .single family residence.. in a wildlife and wildfire
p and Use Code; and
hazard area ursuant to Section 5-400,of_, he,L,___ _,,
WHEREAS, the property is located south of ,West $opris Creek
Road within the,S,opris Mountain Ranch_subdivision,which is more.
specifically described in Exhibit,_'!A"; and
pp o development on Lot
WHEREAS, the A licant has committed to n ._•
26 of Sopris Mountain Ranch for wildlife conservation purposes; and
WHEREAS, the Pitkin County .Planning and Zoning Commission
(hereinafter, "Commission") considered the. request at a duly
noticed public hearing on June_4, 1991, and granted. 1041 Hazard
Review approval and recommended General Submission_.approval to the
Board of County Commssioner's_(hereinafter "Board"); and
WHEREAS, the Board considered the request at a. duly noticed
public hearing on August 27, 1991 at which time it found the
Applicant's request to be_in_compliance with the_General Submission.,
requirements of the Land Use Code,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, _by the. Board of County
Commissioners that it hereby grants Chris and Birgitte Newbert
` ~?383^ 11/~>5/91 1 ~F:ec ~.c7U BY 661 FG 408
~• ?r~.lvia Davis, F'itk_.~ ,qty Clerk, Doc T~.O~?
,..~ ~=.~.d.. r ~ .;. , d
Resolution No. 91-~
Page 2 _.
General Submission approval to construct a single family home
subject to the following conditions:..
1. The applicant shall file a revised 1041,Aazard Review Map for
Planning and ZoningCommission chairman's signature, prior to
issuance of a buildingpermit. The~buildng envelope shall
be no larger than 2:5 acres",and contain all development
activity, except for the designated aocess.
2. The applicant shall mitigate wildfire hazards in the following
manners _.
a. 'The applicant shall provide: a water storage tank of no
less than two thousand, (2,000) gallon capacity be placed
on the property near the building site for. Fire Fighting
purposes...
b. Driveway(s) shall be no less, than twenty (20) foot in
width from the roadway to the building site.
c. The area of the building(s) shall be cleared of natural.',
growth, (pinon, conifer, sage and the like) to a minimum
of thirty (30), feet and fifty {50) feet from all
buildings wherever feasible, except for landscaping
purposes..
d. A non-reflective metal, the or asphalt roof shall be_,
placed on all buildings.
e. The applicant shall install_;a ,residential sprinkler
system and .automatic fire alarm system at the time of
construction. The Basalt Fire Marshall shall determine
if outbuildings, such as a detached' garage,`~shaTl"He'"
sprinklered.
f. The applicant shall abde_by the guidelines for wildfire
mitigation, as shown in the Colorado Forest Service
publication, "Wildfire Safety' Guidelines for F2ura1
Homeowners." They are as follows:
,,.
o An external water supply for fire fighting shall be
provided (small pond, cistern, well or hydrant)
o All roofs shall be,kept cleared. of .debris;
o` Firewood shall be stacked on'a contour away from
the. building;
o The base of buildings shall be kept clear of weeds
#338232 111c~°,/91 1/ 5^ ~iec 5.0~? B1: 661 F'G 409
' Salvia Davis, Pitk:. ~Aty Cler}:, Doc S.QO i
.~
Resolution No. 91-~
Page 3
and debris;
o At least one _ (1) ten-pound ABC-class fire
extinguisher. shall. be placed in each. structure;
o All power .and telephone lines shall. be underground
within the driveway.
3. The Environmental Health Department shall approve of water
well yield, provision for domestic supply, septic system
design and location prior to issuance of ',a building permit.
4. A domestic water supply with appropriate water rights granted
by the Division of Water Resources shall be established by the
applicant. prior to signature and recordation o'f a 1041 Hazard.
Review Plat for approval.
5. The follown conditions of the Diyision,of Wildlife shall be
g ~ ~, ., ..
adhered to by theapplicant:
a. No dogs shall be_allowed on site,.
b. Maintain native„vegetation outside building envelope.
c. All fencing shall be 42!' in height or less, and shall be
4 strand or less:
d. All livestock/horse grazing be located in the common area
at the base of the ranch., No;grazng shall be allowed
on this parcel.
6. The following conditions of the County Land Use. Engineer shall..
be adhered to_by the applicant:
a. The 1041 Hazard Review map shall be amended to include
the following note: "The provisions of the "10,41" land „'
_ _.
use regulations `do not in any way assure or imply that
lands designated as removed...from hazard „areas,,,.will be
free from hazards".
b. The applicant shall: receive_an Access,_permit from the,
County Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit.
c. All ranch roads used to access the. property, with the
exception of the driveway, shall meet Class, V Country'
Access .Standards, prior t6 the issuance a building'.
permit..
7. All material.. representations made by the applicant. in the
application and public meeting shall be adhered to and
#33223 11/05/91 14• ?. _`c x.60 &R 661 FG 410' ~
-.Si-a.via Davis, Pitb:n Gi y"~`C1erT<,`"boc~ ~.'Ci`!~ " " ` I ' Resolution No. 91-~1
Page 4
considered conditions of ,approval, unless otherwise amended
.:. ,_~~_
by other conditions.
APPROVED by the Board at its regular meeting on August 27,
1991.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF PITRZN COIINTY, COLORADO -
APPROVED AS TO FORMg APPROVED AS„TO CONTENT
Tim t Suzan Ronch n,
Count orney County Planning Director
reso.bocc,gs.newbert
I
~OMMONWEAI` '~^#338232 11/~J.°i/91 14:,,52 ~ x.00 6K 661 i'G 411
'YANDTITLEtNSURANCECOMr,..dY"_'Silvia Davis, Pitk:in C~ yerk, Doc ~:"00
ARe4tce Gowfbi?gtiCmawN
#336200 09/04/91 11:45 Fec #.00 $K 655 PG 924
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, 'Doc $.00
' POLZCY N0. 128-015328
CASE iQd. PCT-3622 '
F.SO4ZBIT "A" .
LEGAL DFSCRIPTZON
PARCEL 28
A parcel of land being part of Lots 3 and d, the E 1/2 of the SE 1/4 and the_SE 1/4 of _
the NE 1/4 of Section 33. Township B South. Range 8?West of the Sixth Principal
Meridian. Said parcel is more fully described as follows:
Hegitasing at a point whence the Southwest corner of said Section 33 bears South
45.03'48" West 3910.48 feet:
th~ce North 62.29' East 2092.00 feet:
` thence South OS'30' East. 680.00 feet;...
thence South TO.04' West 460.00 feet:
tike South 00'28' East 480.00 feet:
'thence South T1'4T' West 1209.48 feet:
thence North 14.35' West 223.17 feet:
thence North 25.04' West 565.44 feet to the point of ~g+*+'++ ~, _
CODNTY OP' PI'PKIAI.
STATE OF COLORADO
~~ '~+ 1 1 , 4~ SaC $' nu Bk b55 920
#336200 i;9r~' ,, Cher F:, Uoc ~., _ ..
y,; i :,i.a p~~/is, F'iti<in Cnty
.. .
RESOLtJTZON OF THE PITRIN COUNTY`PLANNING AND,.ZONING,COMMISSION
'GRANTING CHRIS AND BIRGITTE NEWBERT 1041 HAZARD REVIEW APPROVAL-
, _.. ..~~_y. _ _t ~ __ ~_._. ~~_~. _..__, .__..__
TO CONSTRIICT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON LOT 28"
OF SOPRIS MOUNTAIN RANCH"
ResolutioII No. P2-91-~
WHEREAS, Chris and Birgitte Newbert (hereinafter
"Applicants"), the owners of Lots 26 and 28 in Sopris Mountain
Ranch, which. is .more specifically described in Exhibit."A", has
applied to Pitkin County for a 1041 Wildlife 'and Wildfire Hazard
review to construct a single family house; and
WHEREAS, the County Attorney has determined that Lots 26_and
28 have.."merged"-into one parcel with_one development right, and
that any further free-market residential development on either of
these lots will require a Growth Management Quota System allotment;
and
WHEREAS; the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
(hereinafter, "Commission") considered the request at a duly
noticed public hearing on June 4, 1991; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVEff.by.the Commission that, it hereby.
grants Chris .and Birgitte Newbert Wildlife and Wildfire Hazard
Review approval and recommends General Submission approval to the
Board of County Commissioners to construct a single family home
subject to thefollowing conditions:.
1. The applicant shall file a revised 1041 Hazard Review Map for ',
Planning and Zoning Commission chairman's signature, prior to
issuance of a building permit. The building envelope shall
be no larger than 2.5 acres.
I
rt, ~ i
~, i~GS far ~~ +"~ 9t~: 655 °•r 921
Silvia Davisq F'~tk:in Cnty- Cl~rl.., Dac ~ ~'~-'
Resolution No. PZ-91- ~!~
Page 2
2. The applicant shall mitigate wildfire hazards 'in the following
manner:
a. The applicant shall provide. a water storage tank of no
less than two thousand .(.2,000) gallon capacity be placed
on the property near the building site for Fire Fighting
purposes.
b. Driveway(s) shall be no less than twenty (20) foot in
width from the ,roadway to the building site.
c. The area of the building(s) shall be cleared of natural
growth, (pinon., conifer, sage'and the like) to a minimum
of thirty (30), feet and fifty (50) 'feet from all
buildings wherever feasible, except for landscaping
purposes.
d. A metal roof shall be_placed on all. buildings.
e. The applicant shall install a residential sprinkler
system and automatic fire alarm system at the time of
construction. The Basalt Fire Marshall shall determine
if outbuildings, such as a detached garage, shall be
sprinklered.
f. The applicant shall abide by the gudelines'for wildfire
mitigation, as shown in .the Colorado Forest Service
publication, "Wildfire Safety Guidelines. for Rural
Homeowners." They are as follows:
o An external water supply Por fire fighting shall be
provided (small pond, cistern, well or'hydrant)
o All roofs shall be kept cleared of debris;
' o ~ Firewood. ,shall be stacked on a ~irontour `.away .from ~'
the building;
o The base of buildings shall be kept clear of weeds
and debris;
o At least one _ (1) ten-pound ABC-class fire
extinguisher shall be placed in each structure;
o Roof coverings shall-- be of a non-combustible
Underwriters Laboratory approved material;
o All power and telephone lines shall be underground
within the driveway.
#-•-~ uii ~}9/uc'`' .. 3: `~S_ Rec !~. cx~. BF'. b55 FD22 ~
3~ :,: c Da.•.>> _. 't~.ir~,Crity' Cler4.:,' )joy $.ci~i
Resolution No. PZ-91- d8
Page 3
3. The Environmental Health Department shall approve of water
well yield, provision for domestic supply, 'septic system
design and location prior to issuance of a building permit.
4. A domestic water supply with appropriate water rights granted
by the bivision of Water Resources shall be established by the...........
applicant prior to signature and recordation of a 1041 Hazard
Review Plat for approval.
5. The following conditions of the Division'of"Wildlife shall be
adhered to by the applicant:
a. No dogs shall be allowed on site.
b. Maintain native vegetation outside building envelope.
c. All fencing shall be 42" in height or less, and shall be l
4 strand or less:.. ,'
d. All livestock/horse .grazing be located in the common area
at the base of the'Yanch. No grazing shall be allowed
on this parcel.
6. The following conditions of the County Land Use Engineer shall
be adhered to. by the app`licarit: ',
a. The 1041 Hazard Review map shall be`amended to include ,';
'the following note: 'The provisions'of"the "1041" land ~ '°
use: regulations do not in any way assure or imply that
lands designated as removed from hazard areas will be
free from hazards".
b. The applicant shall receive an Access permit from the
County Engineer prior~to issuance of a building permit.
. .. -•
' •'c', ' ° •All .ranch roads used. to access "tile property; .with the• -'
exception. of the driveway, shall meet Class V Country
Access Standards, prior to the issuance a •`building
permit.
7. All material representations made ,by the applicant in the
application and public meeting shall `be adhered to and
considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended
by other'conditons.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on June
4, 1991.
,e:.
•~-:x6_t C: nq/n4/q~. t, ieC ~.i,c, Bk' 655 F'G I
Silvia.Davis, F'itE;in Cnty Cieri::, Doc ~.U4
Resolution No. PZ-91-o($ -
Page-4
PITRIN COUNTY P~I.~NNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION
,:
By= ~1 ~~/~' /
~i-m~ eser, Chairman
Date• ~ -. J i
ATTEST:
Debb a Skeh$n,
office aianager,_
APPROVED AS TO,FORM: APPROVED'Ag"`TO`CONTENT: --..
~. L.
Tim i si :. y argerum
County A to ney .. P1 nnq Dir for
reso.pz.1041.newbert
~'~ COi~IMONWEA~LTF~,
NAND TITLE lNSURANGE CbMPaNl~..~~~~ .:->. .
AReG.v[e GayibYGigs Canyxun
#..=:jo (ii1 09/i~4/91 11:<l.~i Rec 3.ti~~ Bk' 655 F'G 924
Si lvi.a Pav:is, Fi7-luun Cray. Cier4:. T~oc $.?:xj...
POLICY NO. 128-015328
1 CASE N0: PCT'-3622
1
z..2iIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PARCEL 28
A parcel of land being part of Lots 3 and 4, the E 1/2 of the SE 1/4 and the"SE 1/4 of
the NE i/4 of Section 33. Township 8 South Range `87 West of~the Sixth Principal ~'
_ _..._
Meridian. Said parcel is more'`fully 3escribed"'as"fol~.ows:"
Beginniru7 at a point whence the Southwest corner of said Seotion 33 bears South
45°03'48" West' 3910.48 feet:
thence North 62°29' East 2092.00 feet: '
thenre South 01°30' Fast 680.00 feet:'
thence South ZO°04' West 460.00 feet:
I thence South 00°28' East 480.00 feet:
_. _ thence South 71°4Z' West 1209:48 feet:
thence North 14°35' West 223.37 feetb
~ thence North 25°04' West` 565:44'feet to the point of begiiuzin4.
i
CO(A1TY OF PT_TICIN. _ ., .
STATE OF COLORI~DO _ _ ,
DATE: August 12, 1998
PROJECT: Newbert Minor Amendment to a Development Permit
LOCATION: Lot 28, Sopris Mountain Ranch
APPLICANT: Chris Newbert PHONE: 927-9789
PLANNER: Tamara Pregl PHONE: 920-5103
1. Type of Application: Minor Amendment to a Development Permit
2. Description of Project/Development: The applicant is requesting an minor amendment to
Resolution PZ-91-28 and Resolution 91-134 to allow for dogs.
3. Areas in which the Applicant has been requested to respond:
Land Use Code Sections
3-200.80 Minor Amendment to a Development Permit
4-40 Procedures
5-50 Submission Contents
4. Staff will refer the complete application to the following agencies:
a. County Attorney
b. Sopris Mountain Ranch Homeowners Association
c. Colorado Division of Wildlife
I, S. Review by: Administrative Review
p
i 6. Public Hearing? No
i
~ 7. Number of copies of the application and maps to be submittedi 4
8. What fee was the applicant requested to submit: $460 for Planning
9. Application fee and the agreement to pay form (2 copies) shall be submitted. with the complete
applications.
10. Fora complete application, please include the following in each packet:
a.'- Letter of request, addressing Code Sections listed above (under #3).;
b. Consent from owner(s) to process application and authorizing the representative (if applicable);
i
pert Minor Amendment to a Development Permit
August 12, 1998
Pace 2
c. Proof of ownership: From a title insurance company or attorney licensed in the State of
Colorado);
d. Parcel description: Street address, current legal description and vicinity map;
e. Letter regarding the reconveyance of Lot 26;
f. Copy of this pre-app form.
NOTE:
This preapplication conference summary is advisory in nature and not binding on the County. The
information provided in this summary is based on current zoning standards and staffs interpretations based
upon representations of the applicant. Additional information may be required upon complete review of the
application.
~-., f
ASPEN/PITKIN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Agreement for P~,yment of Pitkin County velo~ment A~$lication Fees
PITKIN COUNTY (hereinafter COUNTY) and ~' ~ R ~s /~/ ~-w ~i~ r2~-
(hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. APPLICANT has. submitted to COUNTY an application for ',
1~1 /.roR ~ay~~,.~+~m~kr ~ Y.c~s~,_~-~ iarf ~ ~ -~
-6c~LVTLV'Al -~~-1
(hereinafter, THE PROJECT). ~oR X06 s
z f TC /k L ~ Gt+, ~
APPLICANT understands and agrees that Pitkin County Resolution
9 .
No. A(r-52 establishes a fee structure for Planning applications -and the payment of
all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application ''
completeness.
3. APPLICANT and COUNTY agree that because of the size, nature or ',
scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain. the full..
extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and'
COUNTY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties to all APPLICANT to ',
make payment of an initial. deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be
billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT. agrees he will be ',
benefited by retaining greater cash. liquidity and will make additional payments '
upon notification by the COUNTY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. ',
COUNTY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its
full costs to process APPLICANT'S application.
4. COUNTY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for
COUNTY staff to complete processing or present. sufficient information to .the
Planning Commission and/or Board of County Commissioners to ..enable the
Planning Commission and/or Board of County Commissioners to make legally '
required findings for project approval, unless current billings are paid in full prior
to decision.
~.
~~; ~ ~ ~~
5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the.
COUNTY's waiver of .its right to collect full fees prior' to a determination of
application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount I
of $ which is for hours of Planning staff time, and if actual ',
recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional
monthly billings to COUNTY to reimburse the COUNTY for the processing of the
application mentioned above, including post approval review. Such periodic
payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further
agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of
processing.
PITKIN COUNTY
Cindy Houben
Community Development Director
APPLICANT
G \ s ~S/Ev~gi ~.
Prin am
~~,-~_.
Signature
Date:.. y /~ 1 ~ 9
Mailing Address:
~~ c5 ;a z ~ ~ O B' ~ (~ ~ .
g:~support\forms\agrpay.doc
2/19/98
~;, ~~
SOPRIS MOUNTAIN RANCH SUBDIVISION
_I
Dog restrictions and prohibitions: ',
Lots: 54 (collectively 2&54), 6, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 31, 32, 33,
34, 35, 36, 37, 41, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 52, 53, 41, 43 (now merged):
Sopris Mountain. Joint Ventures was granted 1041. Hazard Review and Boundary Line
Adjustment approvals pursuant to Resolution No. 91-171,
• Under Wildlife, condition 2(a)(7) states that "no dogs shall be allowed".
• The Supplemental Restrictive Covenants and Development Agreement for Sopris
Mountain Ranch recorded pursuant to Reception Number 353198 states under Article
III, Wildlife, 6, that "no dogs will be allowed to be kept on the participating parcels of
Sopris Mountain Ranch."
• DOW letter dated August 21, 1991 can be seen in Attachment 1.
Lot 1: Bean 1041 Hazard Review. was granted pursuant to BOCC Resolution No. 95-7. In
addition; an extension of vested rights was granted pursuant to Resolution No. 98-58.
• Condition 5(a) of Resolution No. 95-7 states that "There shall. be one a limit of one dog,
which shall be kenneled at all times. If a dog is present, the construction of a kennel is
required prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the main residence. Any
dogs. owned by construction workers or materials delivery personnel shall be restrained
on-site."
• Condition 2(A) of Resolution No. 98-58 states that "There shall be a one dog limit with a
kennel restriction.. The kennel shall be constructed before a certificate of occupancy is
issued. Any dogs owned by construction workers or materials delivery personnel shall be
restrained on-site.
• The Division of Wildlife letter for this property can be seen in Attachment 2.
Lot 3: Christen Minor 1041 Hazard Review was administratively approved on February 8, 1989.
An extension of vested property rights was administratively granted on January 13, 1994. On
February 27, 1997 a 1041 Hazard Review was approved by the Hearing Officer.
• Condition 3(a) of the administrative approval stated "dogs shall be kenneled and
leashed."
• Condition 7(a) of the Hearing Officer approval states that "dogs shall be kenneled and
leashed."
Lot 4: (Clasen 1041) 1041 Hazard Review was granted to the Clasen property administratively
on February 23, 1988. As part of the site plan, a condition of approval stated that "all dogs on the
property shall be kenneled". However, the first letter (dated January 8, 1987) from the DOW
states that dog should prohibited. It is unclear to staff why the DOW had changed their position
with regards to dogs on the site, however, in a letter dated December 16, 1987, DOW determined
that dogs should be allowed with a kennel restriction. Letters from the. DOW can. be seen in
Attachment 3.
Lot 5: Staff could not locate a 1041 Hazazd Review conducted. for this, site. The applicant has
asserted that this pazcel "constitutes the ranch headquarters as well as one of the older original
ranch houses. The development redates the 1041 requirements and there are hot restrictions".
Lot 7: Ensign 1041 Minor Hazard Review was granted on February 17, 1989 administratively.
• There were no conditions of approval. related to dogs.
~ f1 I
Lot 8: talisman 1041 Hazard Review was approved pursuant to P&Z Resolution No. PZ-92-11.
• Condition 8(a) states that "dogs shall be prohibited".
• DOW letter dated January 11, 1992 can be seen in Attachment 4.
Lot 9: Staff could not located a 1041 Hazard Review conducted for this site. The, applicant has
asserted that this lot "has the original ranch house and there are not existing dog restrictions."
Lot 11: Staff could not located a 1041. Hazazd Review conducted for this site. The applicant has
. .~.. ~ .
asserted that. this parcel "hosts the oldest of the new era houses"... and "No 1041's can be
located, and it may well have predated the need for such a review."
Lot 23: Wachtel 1041 Minor Hazard. Review was granted pursuant to BOCCResolution No. 95-
237.
• Condition 5(e) states that "Limit dogs to one; kennel restriction and kennel be
constructed before C.O. is issued."
• DOW letter dated September 24, 1994 can be seen in Attachment 5.
Lot 26 and 28: Newbert 1041 granted pursuant to P&Z Resolution No. PZ-91-28 and BOCC
Resolution No. 91-134.
• Condition 5(a) of both resolutions state that."No dogs shall be allowed on site.
Lot 27: Bean 1041 Hazard Review was granted pursuant to BOCC Resolution No. 95-8. An
extension of vested property rights was granted pursuant to BOCC Resolution No. 98-87.
• Condition 5(b) of Resolution No. 95-8 states that "dogs shall be prohibited".
• Condition 2(a) of Resolution No. 98-87 states "dogs are prohibited."
• DOW letters dated March 7, 1998 and June 16, 1994 can be seen in Attachment 6,
Lot 29: Wachtel 1041. Minor Hazard Review pursuant to BOCC Resolution No. 95-120.
• Condition 5(fj states that "dogs shall be prohibited on this site due to the proximity of elk
production azeas on the Ranch and critical. winter range on the Crown.
• DOW letter dated May 25, 1994 can be seen in Attachment Z
Lot 30: Staff could not located a 1041 Hazard Review conducted for this site....
Lot 38: Huffman 1041 Hazard Review was granted pursuant to BOCC Resolution No. 91-64.
• Condition 4(b) states that "no dogs shall be allowed on site.."
• DOW letter dated July 23, 1990 can be seen in Attachment 8.
Lot 39: Bean 1041 Hazard Review was granted pursuant to P&Z Resolution No. PZ-91-55 and
PZ-31-35. An extension of vested property rights was granted pursuant to BOCC Resolution No.
96-312.
• Condition 5(d) of PZ-91-35 & 55 states that "no dogs shall be allowed on site."
• DOW lettef dated Mazch 6, 1991 can be seen in Attachment 9.
Lot 42: Morgan 1041 Hazard Review was granted pursuant to BOCC Resolution No. 95-85.
• Condition 6(b) states that"no dogs shall be allowed on site."
• DOW letters dated Octoberl2, 1994 and April 14, 1992 can be seen in Attachment 10.
Lot 49: Fodor 1041 Hazazd Review wa$ granted pursuant to BOCC Resolution No. 95-116; An
extension of vested property rights was granted pursuant to BOCC Resolution No. 98-208, _
• Condition 5(c) of Resolution No. 95-116 states that"the property shall be limited to one
dog, with a kennel restriction,
• However, as noted in Kevin Wright's letter dated December 14, 1994 (Attachment 11),
Mr. Wright wrote "if dogs are allowed they be restricted to one dog with a kennel
restriction. The 2 lots adjacent (50, 51) are allowed to have dogs. The other adjacent lots
submitted through the general partnership (35-37, 41-48), dogs are prohibited due to the
proximity to potential elk calving areas. There is an aspen draw along the southeast edge
of the lot that could serve as a travel corridor to other aspen stands farther south. If a dog
is allowed, the kennel restriction must be strictly adhered to."
• Condition 7(c) of Resolution No. 98-208 states that."the property shall be limited to one
dog, with a kennel restriction. _ The kennel shall be constructed prior to the Certificate of
Occupancy."
Lot 50: Bonjour 1041 Hazazd Review was administratively granted on February 19,.1989.
• As part of this approval, a condition of approval was that all dogs shall be leashed or
kenneled.
Lot 51: Clasen 1.041 Minor Hazard Review was administratively approved July 2, 1990.
• A condition of approval stated that "dogs shall be kenneled and leashed."
• No letter was submitted by the DOW as part of this review.
Lots 31 & 32: Heller/Moss 1041 Hazard Review and Lot Line_A,djustment was granted pursuant
to BOCC Resolution No. 97-66. These two properties were part of the group 1041 Hazard
Review done for approximately 32 lots in the subdivision, A 1041 was. required for these two lots
in order to relocate the building envelopes.
• All conditions of Resolution No. 91-171 still were. still applicable unless they were
amended by conditions of Resolution No. 97-66
STATE OF COLORADO
Roy Romer, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EOVAL OPPOPTUNITV EMPLOYER
Perry D. Olson, Director
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303) 297-1192
August .21,1991
Pitkin County Planning
130 So. Galena
Aspen, Co 81611
Dear Cindy:
Attachment 1
REFER TO
~\ '
-.r OF
For Wii
For Pe
The following is my 1041 wildlife review for Sopris Mountain Ranch
along West Sopris Creek. I have met and looked over_some,_of the
sites with John Young; however, I have not been able to review lots '
12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, and 25. These are the lots
which will be accessed via a new road along the west side of the
ranch. I will be meeting with Mr. Young on August 27 to look at
these sites and access to them. Following this site visit, I will
update this review.
Sopris Mountain Ranch lies within elk and mule deer transitional
range. It does receive limited winter range use in light snow
years and early/late winter. Calving and fawning areas are located
along the upper reaches of the ranch and are located within the ',
aspen habitat type and aspen/oakbrush/open meadow type found in the
upper lots. This calving area extends to the south to the Dinkle J
Lake/Hay Park/ E. Sopris Creek area. The ranch also lies within.',
elk and mule deer migration pattern as`animals filter through the
ranch on their way to the Crown and Light Hill. An important
migration corridor lies along the west side of the ranch and BLM
property. This corridor... will .become. .increasing important as '
development occurs.. on the ranch ._
Lots 6, 52, 53 which lie north of the West Sopris Creek Road and on '
the Crown lie within elk and mule deer winter range as these lots ',
change aspect to a south/southeasterly aspect. They lie adjacent
to elk and_deer winter concentration area and elk critical. habitat.
Generally, the upper lots will impact wildlife more than`the lower ';
lots with possible disturbance to elk calving areas. Home
placement becomes more important in these upper lots. The concept
of clumping homesites will help minimize. and localize impact and
disturbance areas and create other areas which will be minimally
impacted. Clumping homesites will also benefit animal movement
through and around the ranch.
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Kenneth Salazar, Executive Director ~'
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, William R. Aegberg; Chairman • Eldon W. Cooper, Secretary • Felix Chavez, Member '.
Rebecca L. Frank, Member • Louis F. Swik, Member •6eorge VahDenBerg, Member • Larry M. Wright. Member '.
e"*a
I
August 21, 1991
I will address each lot as found on the site maps provided. In
addition, the following will help minimize impacts to wildlife: __
1. No dogs. '
2. All fencing, if needed, be confined to building envelope '
only. Fencing should be 42", 4-strand or less, with a '
12" kick space between 2 top strands. Rail fencing be '
48", 3-rail only. Fences currently on property be '
brought in compliance with fence recommendations as there '~
are some fences greater. than. 42" .height with 5 and 6
strands of wire.
3. Maintain native vegetation outside building envelope.
4. Maintain minimum 100' buffer zone along all creeks.. ',
5. All horse grazing be confne3 to lower lot pastures. ',
6. All utilities be .buried in' road for ..any new road)
construction. '
7. Any trail riding within lot open space common areas of
upper lots be restricted from May 15-June 21.
Lot ~ Lot Review
Map #1:
Lot 53 - Move envelope south with building site below 7900.
elevation (locate in lower half of envelope. '
Lot 52 - move envelope to southwest corner of lot or to mid-
location of lot. This would help screen home from uphill
winter range.
Lot 6 - Homesite be placed below powerline.
Lot 12- Will inspect site on 8/27/91.
Lot lo- Open space, polo field.
Lot 14- No comment.
Map #2: These lots and sites will be inspected on 8/27/91
Map #3: Lot 2 - No comment as mapped.
Lot 31-34 - No comment as mapped.
Map#4: Lot 35 - No comment as mapped.
Lot 36 - No comment as mapped
Lot 37 -_No comment as mapped
Lots 41 - 48 have calving areas on lot
Lot 41 - Envelope has been clumped with Bean parcel lot
39. Envelope and homesite .placement be
located°as far north as possible on south side.
of road ..(north half of current envelope).
2
August 21, 1991
Lot 43 -
Lot 44 -
Lots 45 -
Lot 48-
Roof line of home be no higher than ridge to
west which overlooks envelope..
Building envelope and homeste be located back
from edge of draw." Use natural vegetation to
screen home from draw.
Move building envelope to northeast corner of
lot in order to clump disturbance with Lots
45, 46, 47, 48. This would also maintain a no
disturbance corridor in„the .aspen consistent
with Lots 4i, 43.
47- These lots are located, within an aspen
stand and elk calving area. Situ inspection
revealed tracks,'droppings, grazing/feeding.
By clumping these lots, site disturbance will
be confined. Remaining aspen stand to south
will be left undisturbed. A buffer zone with
native vegetation should be maintained along
the creek in Lot 45. Lot 41 building envelope
should be tucked in at tow of ridge and aspen;
no home placement in Herron Meadow. Elk may
move along east edge of ranch and Lots 46, 47
to access lower meadows. This may still occur
if homesites are clumped as indicated.
.Maintain buffer zone'on east edge of building
envelope and use native vegetation to_ screen
home from Herron Meadow and draw.
Lot 15 Map - no comment as mapped.
In addition to the above comment, the upper lots of the ranch
contain good bear habitat with dense stands of oakbrush,
serviceberry, and chokecherry. Homeowners should be made aware of
possible conflicts with bears such as garbage and bird feeders..
Sin.
Kevin Wricb~
District Wildlife
Carbondale
Manager
KW/lmp
Attachment
STATE OF COLORADO _ ~ ` ~ ~` `." """"°`
Roy Romer, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURC£$
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN ECUAI OPPONT1NnY EMPIOYEN
Perry D. Olson. Director
8080 Broadway
Denver. Colorado 80216
Telephone: (3031 297.7192
6-16-94-
Pitkin County Planning
130 S. Galena
Aspen, C0 81611
Dear Ellen:
For Ll
For
Bean's Lot l of Sopris Mountain Ranch, lies within elk and mule
_.,
deer transitional range. It does receive some winter use in
light snow years and early/late winter. It also lies within a
migration pattern as animals filtzr their way through the Ranch
to the Crown and_Light Hi11.
Wildlife impacts can be minmized,,by:
1. Homesite be placed at toe of knoll so home is located, on
south side of knoll. This can also be accomplished by
moving building envelope south approximately 75' to `just on
the downhill side of the top of the knoll.
2. All fencing be 42", 4 strand or less with a 12" kick
space between the top 2 strands. Any rail fencing be the
round type, 48" 3 rail or less with at least 18° between 2
of the. rails.
3. Limit to 1 dog with kennel restriction. Kennel be
constructed before the CO is issued
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. if you have any
questions, please give me _a call.
Kevin Wr t
District ildlife Manager
Carbondale
Sinc ely,
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Kenneth Salazar, Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, William R. Hegberg, Member • Eldon W. Cooper, Chairman • Felix Chavez, Member •,.Rebecca L. Frank, Member
,.,,.
_.
Louis F. Swift, Member • George Van0en8erg, Member • Larry M. Wnght, Member • Thomas M. Eve, Member ',
ii
I
sTATEOFCO~oRnoo ~~ ~°ttachment 3 ~,
Roy Romer, Governor REFER ro:
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, `alAR9~o
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
James B. Rueh, Director
8080 Broadway 3`1~y~ '.
Denver, Colorado 80218 '~'OF`~
Telephone: (303) 297.1192
December 16, 1987
Pitkin Co. Planners
Attn: Cindy ..
130 So. Galena
Aspen, CO 816.1
RE: Clasen-W. Sopris Creek
Dear Ci_rdy:
Per our conversation on Dec. 15. This is to confirm the D.O.W.'s
request for a kennal restriction on dogs and a 42" height
restriction on fencing.
We're requesting these restrictions because of the. properties'
proximity to winter ranges, calving areas and migration
corridors.
Sinc e ,
~G l~.e-'
ndy ote
Area Wildlife Manager - Aspen
1429 Grand Ave:, #3
G12nwood Spgs., CO 81601.
RC/lmp
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL AESOURCES,.Dennis Donald, Acting Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION; Rebecca L. Frank Chairman .George VanDenBerg, Vice Chairman .Robert L. Freidenberger, Secretary
Eldon W. Cooper, Member .'William R. Hegberg, Member. Dennis Luttrell, Member. Gene. B. Peterson, Member .Larry M. Wright, Fvlember
r.;7.ASE OF COLORADO
Richard U. Larn m, c;overnor '~' ~ ~ '
DEPARTMENT OF Nl1TURAL RESOURCES ~ u
oivisior~ or- wi~~~tr--~ ~~y .~i~~t
b
James A. nuch, Director >l 7-n~+
6060 Broadway ~ ~'~'°~"
Denver, Colorado 6n218
Telephone: (303) 297.1192
January 8, 1987
TO: Pitkin County Planners
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO ~ 81611 ',
FROr}: R. cote, crow
REF: Parcel 4, Sopris Mt. Ranch--Clasen 1041.
This parcel is located in good spring-fall transitional. range.:
Most use occurs during green up and before snow depth forces t}e
animals to lower range. I
I would expect deer fawning to occur: randomly throughout the parcel,
and summer deer use to be common.
I would recommend no .dogs and. that.
t})an 3 strands of wire.
cc: Norm Clasen
P.O, Bor. 4230
Aspen, CO 81612
ull fencing be 42", with no more
r
i
nE'P~T)T 1.11~NT (1F tlP.1i 1fUi nb~r!i (nr:p,^., hwL(i L 1:-1~h^s F•~ru(i• ^. nirr~(or • WILftL1FF Cr )11 R11SSI(~tl, linl<~ihy 1Y. ~chua r, (!th~innan
James i. Smith, \rir.. (:pninn ~n • ni~•trnnr I';vnlhi ;q ~nr:rrlnry n Onnnld A. Ferns nrin r, 1.inm hnr • Rnh^nr•a (_, Fmnk, t.innthnr
Rr!i~^rl I . Irnldnnb^runr, tJ nntl,nr • ,lnhn I ny, r.lmnbar • Genrga Va v1)ennerq, t.trmhar
,. ... I_
,. ; >., Attachmenf~~~ " ~~~~~ _
~; , y :. .
~f ~
STATE OF COLORADO REFER TO
Roy Romer, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF, WILD LIFE ~
AN EOVAL OPPORTUNITYEMPLOYER .~
Perry b. Olson, Director ~; 5'J.`.
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80276
Telephone: (303) 297-1192 ....
January 11, 1992
Pitkin County Planning
130 So. Galena
Aspen, Co 81611
Dear Ellen:
For i~Idlife-
For People
On 1/9/92 I inspected Mr. talisman's Parcel.8 of the Sopris Mountain
Ranch along West Sopris Creek. This lot as we1L as the Ranch lies
within elk and mule deer transitional range and receives limited
winter range use in light snow years, mainly early and late winter.
There is no calving located on this parcel. the ranch lies within
elk and mule deer. migration pattern as animals filter through the ~
ranch on their way to. the Crown. Very few tracks and sign were
observed on this parcel. There is a riparian area along the creek
in the eastern edge of the lot.
Placement of the homesite in the. eastern edge of the lot will
follow the concept of impact areas developed for the Joint
Ventures application.
Wildlife impacts will be minimal if:
1. Maintain riparian area with. no construction past or into the ',
aspen/willow type along the creek.
2. Placement of home on west side of designated envelope.
3. All. dogs be kenneled. ',
4. All fencing be 42", 4 strand or less with a 12" kick space ',
between top 2 wires. (Rail fencing be 48", 3 rail or less).
5. All horse grazing be located to the lower pasture `areas"of the
ranch already designated for grazing. If grazing will occur
on this parcel, no grazing within riparian area.
If you have any questions., .please give me a call.
Sincere~jy,_
vin Wrigh~
District Wildlife Manager
Carbondale
KW/lmp
DEPARTMENT OFNATURAL RESOURCES. Kenneth Salazar, ExecutivebiPedtor
WILDLIFE COMMfSSION, William R. Hegberg, Chairman • Eldon W. Cooper, Secretary • Felix Chavez, Member '.
Rebecca L. Frank, Member • Louis F. Swift. Member • George VanDenBerg, Membe(• Larry M. Wright, Member
Attachment 5
~, .,.a,:. ,.. -~RE'FE~~'"Y"O.o-.W ~~. .~ 2,
STATE OF COLORADO
Roy Romer, Governor ~
OURCF~S O O
DEPARTMENT OF NATURALRES„ „~ ,, ,_ ,.
G ~~ O
0
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EQUAL OPPOFTU NITY EMPLOYER ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ a.
Perry D. Olson, Director ~ ~ ~ .,„ ry ~ ~ ~~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ 1,'qy
6060 Broadway
Denver; Colorado 80216 ON ~F
Telephone: (303) 297-1192
For Wi1d1ife-
For People
9-24-94
Pitkin County Planning
130 S.. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Tim:'
On 9-22-94 I met with Ms. Erin Fernade2 for a 1041 site
inspection of the Mt. Wachtel Ltd. Lot 23 of Sopris Mountain
Ranch. The parcel lies within elk transitional range and
receives some winter. range use. in light snow years and early/late
winter. It also lies within an elk/mule deer migration pattern
as animals filter through the ranch on their way to the Crown.
Black bear also .inhabit the area. .Impacts should be minimal due
to the building envelope's location adjacent the main ranch road
and across from. an irrigated field and with the following
recommendations.
The following will minimize impacts to wildlife:
1. Move .building envelope north toward the road and. out of
the oakbrush. Ms. Fernandez stated the envelope was going
to be moved north and he oakbrush edge would become. the new
southern boundary.
2. Maintain native vegetation outside building envelope
3. Any fencing be 42", 4 strand or less with a 12"
kickspace between the top 2 strands: Any 'rail fencing be
48", 3 rail or less with at least 18" between 2 of the rails
4. Limit dogs to l; kennel restriction and kennel be
constructed before C.O. is issued -
5. All utilities be buried
6. All horses be confined to lower common pastures of the
Ranch
7. All garbage be kept in approved (North American Bear '
Society specifications) bear proof garbage containers.
Ms. Fernandez requested that I mail this review to you with a
copy to her since I have not received one from Pitkn County as
of this date. If you have any questions, please give me a call. ',
rr
WI DLIF ECOMMIS ~~ 1 Wil~a m RR Htegberg, MemberR•AEldon W. Cooper, Cha'emanal Felix ChavezV Memberor• Rebecca L. Frank, Memtier
Louis F. Swift, Member • George VanDenBerg, Member • Larry M. Wright, Memtier • Thomas M. Eve, Member '.
~*~,, Attachmentw6t ,..
'~
STATE OF COLORADO REFER ro
Roy Romer, Governor WAS 1 1 199 p~~
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AyrcNi r; i KIN GO~"`i00
DIVISION O F WILDLIFE ccraMUNiTVDEVELOPME ,r• //_~/"J{/~~~`\ .
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNfiY EMPLOYER ~ ~ ~~\ (yj
John Mumma, Director SP ~,~~
6060 6roadway
Denve4 Colorado 80216 ~~'oF~'
Telephone: 1303) 297-1192
For Wildlife- '
For People
3-7-98
Pitkin County Community Development
130 S. Galena
.Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Tamara:
I will refer you to the BOCC resolution contained in_the
application and my original 6-16-94 letter for the Dantine/Bean
extension of vested rights for 'Lot 27 Sopris Mountain Ranch.,. I
have no other recommendations other than, the :applicant be
provided a copy of the 3 brochures I've included to help educate
the applicant on, wildlife/human conflicts,...
If you have'any questions, please give me a call.
Since ely,
i' <
Kevin Wrig it
District WlIil
Carbondale~/
ife Manager
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, JemesS.Lochhead, Executive Director ~~
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Arnold Salazar, Chairman • Rebecca L. Frank, Vice-Chairman • Mark CeValley, Secretary
Jesse Langston Boyd, Jr., Member • Chuck Lewis, Member • James Long, Member '
loins F. Swift, Member •John Stulp, Member
STATE OF COLORADO
Roy Romer, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURC^cS
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE:
AN EQUAL OPPORTU NITYE MPIOYER ~ ~'~
Perry D. Olson, Director
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303) 297-1192 ,
6-I6-94
Pitkin County Planning
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Ellen:
~'""°~
REFER TO: "',
p1ANgd
G~~O
Bean's Lot 27 of Sopris_Mountain Ranch lies within elk and mule_
deer transitional range. It does receive winter range use in
light snow years and early/late winter. EIk calving generally
lies further south. Black bear inhabit the area also.
Wildlife impacts can beminimizedby:
1. Moving building envelope north where its southern.
boundary would be across from road switchback. There is a
big oakbrush which is currently flagged iff this vicinity and
John Young said he had that point surveyed and marked: "This
would probably be homesite location.. This places the home
close to the road and at the very north end of the aspen
stand...
2. Maintain native vegetation outside building envelope. ~!
3. No dogs
4. Any fencing be 42", 4 strand or less with a 12" kick.
space between the top 2 strands. Any rail. fencing be the
round. type, 48" 3 rail or less with at least 18" between 2
of the rails
5. All horse grazing be confined to the lower common Ranch
pastures.
-6. All garbage be kept in bear proof garbage containers ',
approved by the DOW or North American Bear Society ''
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.. If you have any
questions, please give me a call.
Since ly, '
Kevin Wr
District Wildlife Manager - ',
Carbondale
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Hamlet J. Barry, Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, George VanDenBerg, Chairman • Rotiert L Freidehberger, Vice Chairman • Witliam R. Hegberg, Secretary `'
Eldon W. Cooper, Member • Rebecca L Frank Member • Dennis Luttrell, Member . Gene & Peterson, Member . Larry M. Wrig ht, Iv~ember
.___ _._
,~ At~achment~~ ~
STATE OF COLORADO REPE}tb~°~''~ "~
Roy Romer, Governor '
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES C~~\O
DIVISION OF WLLDLIFE
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Peery D. Olson,Director
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colbrado 80276
Telephone: (303) 297-1192
5-25-94
Pitkin County Planning
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Tim:
- % 7
The Wachtel Lot 29 of Sbpris Mountain Ranch lies within elk ~
transitional range aril receives some winter range use in Light
snow years and early/late winter. It also. lies within an
elk/mule deer migration pattern as animals filter through the
Ranch on their way to the Crown and Light Hill. In addition,
black bear inhabit the area.
The following will help minimize impacts to wildlife: ',
1. Move building envelope east 100' from west end point of -
current driveway'in order to preserve riparian corridor.
This will remove building envelope from. riparian corridor ',
and. prevent any "hangover" of buildings into the riparian ',
corridor. The driveway currently ends in a small turn ',
around area on the break of "the 'hill. ',
_..
2. All garbage be kept in bear proof garbage containers.
3. Maintain native vegetation outside building envelope.
4. Any fencing around building envelope'be'42", 4'strand or
..less, with a 12" kickspace between the top 2"strands. Rail
fencing be the round rail type, 48" 3 rail or_less with at
.least 18" between 2 of the rails.
5. All horses be confined to lower common pastures of the
Ranch
6. No dogs to be consistent with the Joint Ventures
submission and due to the proximity of elk production areas
on the Ranch and critical winter range area on the 'Crown.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
questions, please give me a call.
Since ely,
2`
Kevin Wrig
If you have any
District W 1 ife Manager
Carbondale~~
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Kenneth Salazar, Executive Director ~I,
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, William R. Hegberg, Member • Eldon: W: Cooper, Chairmari • Felix Chavez, Member • Rebecca L Frain K, Member
Louis F. Swift, Member • George VanDenBerg, Member • Larry M. Wright, Member •. Thomas M Eve, Member
STATE OF GOLUrtaUU
Roy Romer, GOVexOOr REFER t0:
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL REJRCES
DIVISION OF WI~D`LIFE ~ ~ " "`~' `~~~~°(!~
tr ,
AN EQUAL OPPOPTUn!ITY Eta FIO'!EP
Perry D. Olson, Dlreetor 5j 1Oy
6060 Broadway °N OF `~
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303) 297-1192
.July z3, ls!)o Attachment
Pitkin County F'tanni.ng
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CU R1611
Uear Mary:
On 7-L2-90 I met. wi.l;h Flr. Jo}ut Young for the F17affman 1011. rec-iAw of lot.
38 of the Flt.. Sopris Rangh, 1Jest, Sopr.is Creelt (Claassen Ranch). The 1nt
).)e§ in ei.it traosiCiimn.l. range anti adjacent iid an 'eklt cal.vin~ area.
There is snmc~ urink.er use in l fighter snow ,y-ears as well. as earl r anTk laf E~
winter. ].t aJ.so ) fie.^, wi t,hin an e.l.h/deer inkgrnt.i.on pat: tern n.s elh/rlenr
filter through thn ;area on t.hei.r way to the Ci'cnan. llufl'man seLecLr•i( ;>
huildi.ng cave--lope on P,he nr>rl.hwnst. s.isle of the subr)i.v).sion rom.] .in a ',
meadora surrounded by small. aspen and oaltbrush. T'he road splits Lh~ IoP.',
'}'he following will m)n)mize impacts to wildlife:
1 . Homes i t e ] oca t.ed Et) ong the edge o C t.hr' tnr'nrlr,ta ma i n t ai it i n~*
native ce~et.at.ion I,o act as a screen-
2. No doffs
3. All. fenc)ng be -12", ~l strand or. less
4. Al.l 1.ivestoch/horsc_ grazing be located )u L.Ire common nrnn at, i.hr'
kiase of I;he rani:h
T'hankyou far- the opport.un.iCy to comment. Tf y4u l~acc ~nr <luesl,)r>na,
p.l.e'>:tse g).ve mn n r•al 1. _
Si.r,c,?r.P1v:
Kevin Weigh
District Wi.l.d.}.i.fe Nana.ger
Carbondale
cc: Wright
Young
F,kle
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Hamlet d Barry, Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, George Van DenBerg, Chairman . Rbbert L Freidenberger, Vice, Chairman .' William.R. Hegberg, Secret2ry
Idon W. Cooper, Member • Rebecca L. Frank Member .Dennis Luttrell, Member • Gene B. Peterson, Member . Larry M. Wright, Member
'.
i
~,,.. ;, Attachment 9
.,~~~.
STATE OF COLORADO
Roy Romer, Governor aEPea 10
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EO UAI OPPORTUNITY EM PL OVER
Perry D. Olson, Director
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303)297.1192
March 6. 1991
Pitkin County Planning
130 So. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Mary:
C.pW R9po
`V OF'r~
Randv Cote, DWM Aspeh,-and I have'triet several times with Mr. John
Young regarding a wildlife review for S4r. Robert Beah's Lot 39 pf
Sopris Mountain Ranch.;. The. lot lies. within elk transitional
range and receives some winter use in lighter snow years. It also
contains mapped elk calving areas along the upber part_of the tot
and aspen stringer along the west end of the lqt. There is an_open
meadow and.. knob in the .upper portion of the lot that receives _sub-
stantial amount of use by elk. Mr; Bean briginally wahted to place
his homein this meadow, which is the highest point on the lot and a
driveway in the aspen stand. Through conversations with Mr. Bean
and Mr. Young, I requested that they move the hgmesite and drive as ~
these were the 2 most. sensitive areas on the 7bt for wildlife._
The following will minimize impacts to wildlife.
1. .Home be placed below meadow and knob. by an isolated group of
spruce trees. Roofline of home be below the knob and meadow
located above homesite.
2. Driveway be placed in Oakbrush, out of aspen stringer.
3. No dogs
4. All fencing be 42", 4-strand or less.'
5. Maintain native vegetation outside building envelope.
6. All livestock/horse grazing be lbcated in common area at
base of ranch. No horse grazing within aspen stand;
If you have any questions
opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
~ l.tJiLc.~lti,~
Kevin Wright
DWM-Carbondale
please give me a call. Thank you for
the
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Hamlet J..Barry, Executive Director ',
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, George VanDeriBerg, Chairman • Robert L. Freidenberger, Vice Chairman • William R. Hegberg, Secretary
Eldon W. Cooper, Member • Rebecca L Frank Member . Dennis Luttiell, Member . Gene 8. Peterson, Member • Larry M. Wright, Member
DDW Glnwd Spg; TE_ No.SUS-Y4:,-C561 ren' :;~~5 lu:;Ub No.uui r.us,
~ .
~: Aftachmen~~fi~~_
~..~ v
.~ .. ~ ~, ,
sTAre of cowaauo R~eR`TO ~
Ray Romer, Governor
DEPARTR1EAfT OP tiAT'iIRA~ RESOVRGE$ `a1~8RJjO
a~ll~Sl~~i O~ ~TILD~.iFE d .
M1 EOUM. OPPORRkIItt EMPLOYIh ~ ~ ~r ~ '.
Prrry 0. Olson, DRaefor Q
6060 Broedvm/`
Denver, CaoreOe 30213 ~~ OB~
TNephorra t3ay za7-11az ForWrltl7~Jr- ',
ForPeoyle
10-12-94
Pitkin County Funning
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO S1S11
Dear Tim:
I refer you to my 4-14-94 letter regarding the Morgan parcel 42
of sopris Mountain Ranc'a. Mr. Horgan's new proposal moved the
cabin to one'af 2"sites Mandy Cote and I identified as least
impactive to wildlife.
i maintain my original recomate~datians as outlined in tha 4-1~-94
letter to minimize impacts to wildlife. In adrlitan, the
foilawing additional recommendations will help minimize",impacts:
1. Ail garbage be kept in bear proof garbage containers as
outlined by ti]e Amer"icon Bear Society
2. A7.1 Horses and grazing be confined to ttte lover common
pastures aY the Ranch
3. Revegetate existing drive and homasite oIiCB cabin is;
remcyed _ _.
If you have any questions, please give me a call.
Distri t iidlife Haragez
Carbon 'e
DEPART MEM Oh IYAIURAt RESOURCES. Kenneth Salazar, Ezeeutfve OlrectOr _'' i ~...
WILDLIFE COMMI$$1pN, Wii6am A. Hegperg, M9mb3r • Eidon W. Cooper, Chairman • Felix Chavez, Member • Rebecca L, FrenK. M3mt~ef .
,.._ I.:
Louix F. Swift. Memher • Gea$e VenDOnBorg, Member • Larry M, Wrght, Member= ThOma. M: Eve, Memtier
i
~'±
•STATE OF COLORADO
RoY Romer, Gavemor.
DEPARTMENT OF'NATUF)I
DIVISION, OF
AN EgIK QypRNN1TY EKIPIOYER
Psm a Ouorl. Olroctot-~
pamrar, Colorado 80218
TNePROReo (3Q3)297-t 192
April 14, 1992"
_,r~~
For Wtldl(Je-
For People
Pitkin County Planning
130 So. Galena
Aspen, Co 81611. .
Dear Mary:
Morgan's Parcel 42, Mt. Sopris Ranch, W. Sopris Creek lies adja~cel
to a mapped elk production area.,_IIpon site inspection, the pa
andcabin do lie"within an elk~production~area.
Randy Cote, DWM Aspen, and I inspected this parcel several years
ago when. Mr. Morgan expressed his interest in building A meeting
was set with Mr. Morgan but was never held Mr "Norm Clasen told
Mr. Cote that Morgan"wanted to buildsa ~.og caba.n with,no~utilities
which would be occupied during a f`ew saner"°and fall months `:2ir. ~
Cote informed Mr. Clasen of the •1041 process, that the area Mr.
Morgan wished to build did lie withihyan elk calving area, and a
specific site., plan needed to be presented before official comment.
The calving area in; question extends onto U.S. Forest Service i
property. Construction of this one cabin may not have severe
impacts to the calving area. HoweveY,'one has to consider the ~
county as a whole, its goals, and look at what .the cumulative
impacts will be if development is allowed.. within elk, production
-areas countywide. Continued development within production areas
combined with loss_of winter range will have negative impacts on
t..~ .:.~.,. v__ ..
this elk population.
i
Many elk are. opportunistic and calve in different areas each year
.... ~ ~ ~,~_~. emu. _.
as suggested by Mr. Rosette.."However, others show strong~fide,lity
` to particular calving areas each year. Constructon,or disturbance
within .these areas could negatively impact the elk population as
indicated in Idaho by Hompland (1982).
i
DEPARTMEIJT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Kenneth Salaxar,,ExeeutNe Dkector
..:... WILDLIFE COMMISSION, NfilBam R. Hogberg. Member•Etdon W Cooper, Chaimwn • Fe11z.Chavoz, Membei = Retieeea L Fradk Memb•
Louis F. Swig, Member -George VanOenBerg, Member • Larry M.: Wright, Member • Thomas M. Eve. Membec
., f' ::~ Y ~. :.,..
.rt17QChMP~Z ~
REFER TO
APR. 17 19~`L~"~~
Page Two
April 14, 1992 -
Pitkin County Planning
' Impacts 'to wildlife may be minimized by: '
1. Move building site to northwest corner of property at end of
the improved subdivision road "Clump this site adjacent to
.the building envelope defined of lot 43. This maintains the
philosophy outlined in the General Partnership submission by
clumping disturbanceM. ,This will move the cabin off of .the
~.
bench which lies in close pro"x~imity to a drainage, clwnps the
disturbance with lot 43, and minimizes the disturbance within
the calving.. area.
.. ~ 2. No dogs
. 3. No fencing
4. Reduce building envelope to 2.5 acres, similar to the
Partnership.: submission..
_.._
If you have any questions, please give me a call.
Since ely,
~N'~ '?
Kevin Wright
District Wildlife Hanager
Carbondale ~
KW/hnp
xc Cote
,.
,.
i
j
'i
I
..
~. ..
.ice. t _
.. .. ... .:~..a v. ~. ..: '.~ .. ..
f::
.~.~ ::: :~..-. .u e. ..:- 4 .. 1
axi_~!
... . ,..,., , ... ,.. ...r.I .~.....
~+ atfachment 11
.., ~w.~
STATE OP COLORADO ~ ""'"~i°"~ RE'I`-Ea'r0". I
Roy Romer, Governor' _ ~ ~~'
DEPARTMENT OF NA7URALRESOURCES,.
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EOUAI OPPORTUNITY EMPIOVER
Perry D. Olson, Director
6060 Broadway
Deliver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303) 297-1192
12-14-94
Pitkin County Planning
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Ellen:
For l
For
The Fodor Lot 49 of Sopris Mountain Ranch lies within elk/mule
deer transitional range and receives some winter range use in
light snow years and early/late winter. On 12=14-94 the parcel
showed only old signs of elk use as the snow was deep and the
animals had migrated through. The parcel lies within a
migrational pattern as elk/mule deer filter their way through the
-ranch on their way to the Crown:" Black bear inhabit the area and
may feed throughout the oakbrush on the lot.
The proposed building envelope appears to be the best site in
order to minimize wildlife impacts as it is adjacent to the road
and clumped with the home on Lot 51. '~
The following should. minimize impacts to wildlife:
1. Maintain building envelope location
2. Maintain native vegetation outside building envelope.
Maintain as much oakbrush within the building envelope as
possible.
3. If-dogs are allowed they be restricted to 1 dog with a
kennel restriction. The 2 lots adjacent (50, 51) are
allowed to have dogs. The other adjacent lots submitted
through the general partnership (35-37, 41-48), dogs are
prohibited due to the proximity to potential elk calving I
'areas. There is an aspen draw along the southeast edge of ',
the lot that could serve as'a travel corridor to `other aspen
stands farther south. If a dog'is allowed, the kennel
restriction must be strictly adhered to.
4. All garbage be kept in approved (North American Bear
Society .specifications) bear proof garbage containers.
5. All horses be confined to the lower common pastures of
the Ranch
6. Any fencing be confined to the building envelope and be
42", 4 strand or less-with a Y2" kickspace between the top 2
strands. Rail fencing 'be 3 rail or less with at least 18"
between 2 of the rails.
i
I
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Kenneth Salazar,Exeputive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, William R. Hegberg, Member • Eldon W. Cooper, Chairman • Feliz Chavez, Member • Rebecca L Franik, Member
Louis F. Swift, Member • George Van DenBerg, Member • Larry M. Wright, Member • Thomas M. Eve, Member
Thank you for .the.. opportunity to comment.
questions, please give me a call.
Sinc ely,
Kevin Wr' t
District Wildlife. Manager
Carbondale
If you have any
j
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners. ',
Regular Meeting -February24, 1999
THRUh Cindy Houben, Community Development Director
FROM: Tamara Pregl, Planner.
RE: Newbert Minor Amendment to a Development Permit
REQUEST: The Applicant is requesting that the Board continue this item. to March 24, 1999.
APPLICANT: Chris Newbert
LOCATION: The property is address as 0111 Sopris Mountain Ranch Road and is described as Lot 28,
Sopris Mountain Ranch.
REPRESENTATIVE: Robert B. Emerson
~^°~ ~ I
To: Debbie Quinn <debbieq@ci.aspen.co.us>
From: Tamara Pregl <tamarap@co.pitkin.co.us>
Subject: Re: NeuberE minor plat amendment
Cc:
Bcc:
X-Attachments:
No, I really don't want to meet with Bob Emerson again. I don't understand why we can't just
go to the BOCC for their determination on this.. Howeyer, if Cindy feels differently I am more
that willing to do this administratively.
At 10:35 AM 3/2/99 -0700, you wrote:
>Tamara,
>I saw Kevin's letter at Bob's office, and it didn't seem that strong to me.
>But, do you want to meet with Emerson and see his additional information? I
>won't be here for the 24th anyway:
>dq
>At 01:33 PM 3/1/99 -0700, you wrote:
»Debbie,
»The reason we have decided to kick this to the BOCC is that under Section
»3-80-080, Wildlife, the first paragraph reads:
>>
»'This section established land use standards for wildlife habitat area in
»additioh to the general standards in Section 3-80.030. The standards apply
»to areas mapped by the Colorado Division of Wildlife on the County's adopted
»Wildlife Resource Information System (1041 Wildlife maps) and to areas known
»to be wildlife habitat areas by the Division of Wildlife. WALL CASES
»MAPPING V1/ILL BE FIELD VERIFIED by the Colorado Division of Wildlife or the
»Pitkin County Wildlife Biologist."
»Kevin Wright has made a determination that. dogs should not be allowed on the
»site and it is my understanding that he made this. representation to Bob
»Emerson and Chris Newbert when they met with him. However, Kevin did note
»in this letter that if the County does allow dogs on the site, then only
»one dog should be allowed with a kennel restriction. In addition, as part
»of the original review, the applicants (Newberts) had represented (both at ',
»the meetingfor the 1041 and in their application) that they would not have
»dogs on the property. Kevin feels that they should be held to this ',
»representation. As for dogs being allowed on the other property adjacent to
»nr at a cmm~arahle rlistance_ T rniess Kevin wnidri haves to ancwar to that
~_
I
»question. I have not idea why he is taking such a strong stance on this ',
request. (If this goes forward to the BOCCI will make a fair
»representation and provide the BOCC with all the facts.) However, since
»Kevin is our referral person for the DOW for this area, Cindy and I felt
»that is should be kicked to the BOCC for their determination. Cindy felt
uncomfortable admnistrdtyelyspproving this request.
»FYI, Kevin will not be at the meeting. He has a conflict. And trying to
»reschedule it would result in this application going to the BOCC in June
»sometime. If it is felt that Kevin should be at the meeting, please let me
»know so that I can work with the applicant and in finding a date that would
»work for everyone.
»Kevin did mention that he is comfortable with Jonathan being that the
»meeting and representing the DOW feeling on this matter, however, Jonathan
»does not feel as strongly about this as Kevin.
»Tamara
»At 12:24 PM 3/1/99 -0700, you wrote:
»>All,
>I met with Bob Emerson on this. matter today, he had previously talked to
»>Cindy. since his meeting with Cindy, his client researched 1041 approvals in
»>the area and found that lots situated at a distance comparable to his have
»>been permitted kenneled_dogs- and he has a map that shows the locations in a
»>very convincing and graphic fashion. These approvals include Wachtel, Lot
»>23, 1995; Hogan, Lot 51, 1990; Fodor/Lowe, Lot 49, 1995; Bonjour, Lot 50,
> 1989.
»>In reading section 3-80-080E, if he can meet the standards for distance from
»>production areas, which it appears he can, what discretion`is there to deny?
»>If there is none, why take it to the BOCC? I know this needs to wait for
»>Cindy's return, but thought we could be thinking about it. Emerson is
»>willing to meet with everyone to explain his additional information.
»>Debbie
»>
»>
»>
>
Chris Newbert - ~ ~ ~- ~ - ~, -- -
Marine Life Photography
P.O. Box 2011
Basalt, Colorado 81621
USA
(970)927.9789
(970) 927-9708 FAX
September 21, 1998
Dear Tamara,
Enclosed are five sets. of application materials for the amendment to our 1041, along with our
check for $460.
We are about to leave for two months out of the country. We very much wish to see this
application procede during our absence. Therefore, I would be greatly appreciative if you would
look through the appliation contents at this Cime and let me know if any additional materials will be
required, or if I have done anything incorrectly, so that I may correct any problems before our
departure.
Finally, when this matter is completed, would you kindly forward a copy of the results to our
attorney:
Robert Emerson
86 South Third St.
Carbondale, CO 81623
Thank you very much.
Sinc ely,
Chris Newbert
~,/ ~_
Chris Newbert ~ "
--
Marine Life Photography
P.O. Box 2011
Basalt, Colorado 81621
USA
(970) 927-9789
(970) 927-9708 FAX
September 25, 1998
Dear Tamara,
Here is the payment form which I believe you requested. Sorry for overlooking this previously.
Also, please note that the Special Warranty Deed of reconveyance of Lot 26 was recorded as
Reception No. 421927 of the records of Pitkin County.
Thank you.
Sinc ely,
hr~s ewbert
- ~-
ISSUED BY
COMMONWEALTH POLICY NUMBER.
tAt~u TmE irrsu~u,~rcE cortenirr ~ _ 12 8 - 015 3 2 8
A Refwttce Cadt~ Hokfmgs Comparry
OWNER'S POLICY OF .TITLE INSURANCE „
SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE, THE EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE CONTAINED IN SCHEDULE B
AND THE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS, COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Pennsylvania ~~'
corporation, herein called the Company, insures, as of Date of Policy shown~in ScheduleA, against loss or damage, not exceeding the Amount
of Insurance stated in Schedule A, sustained or incurred by the insured byreason oF.
1. Title [o the estate or interest described in Schedule A being vested other than as stated therein;
2. Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on the, title; ~'~.
3. Unmarketabi]ity of the title;
4. Lack of a right of access to and from the land,
The Company will also pay the costs, attorneys' fees and expenses incurred m defense of the title, as insured, but only to [he extent provided
in the Conditions and Stipulations. ',
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, COMMONWEALTH LAND TTTLE INSURANCE COMPANY has caused its corporate name and seal to be
hereunto affixed by its duly authorized officers, the Policy to become valid when countersigned by an authorized officer or agent of the '.
Company.
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
Attest:
~~~~~~
SeQetary ~ ~
By. /~~
~/
President
EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE.
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay Toss or damage, costs, attorneys'
fees or expenses which arise by reason oC
1. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations)
restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating to (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land; (ii) thecharacter, dimensions or location of
any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (iii) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or ~',
any parcel of which the land is or was. a part; or (iv) environmental protection, or [he effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or',
governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting'.
from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has bcen recorded in the public records. at Date of Policy. ""
(b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a'.
defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date'
of Policy. ..
2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public rewrds at Date of Policy, but not excluding
from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without,
knowledge.
3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters:
(a) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by [he insured claimanq
(b) not known to [he Company, not recorded in the public records at Dale of Policy, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed.
in writing [o the Company by [he insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy;
(c) resulting in no lass or damage to the insured claimant;
(d) attaching or seated subsequent to Date of Policy; or ',
(e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained iC the insured claimant had paid value for the estate or interest insured'
by this policy. '',
NM 1 '
ALTA Owner's Policy (10-21-87) Valid Only If Schedule A, B and Cover Are Attached
Face Page
Form 114t-2 ...ORIGINAL
~' °~~ COMMONWFALT;~ .
IANDTITLE INSURAIJCE COMPAt.~r' '~ - ~ ~ °'
A Reface Grary Nd~ings ComW~ri
SCHEDJLE A-OWNER'S POLICY
CASE NUMBER DATE OF POLICY AMOUNT OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER
PCT-3622 7/26/89 @ 3:05 P.M. S 140.000.00 728-015328
1. NAME OF INSURED:
CHRIS NEWBERT
2. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND_HEREIN AND WHICH IS COVERID BY THIS POLICY IS:
IN FEE. SIMPLE
3. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST REE'ERRED_TO HEREIN„28 AT DATE OF POLICY VESTED IN:
CHRIS NEWBERT
4. THE LAND REET:F2RED TO IN THIS POLICY IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
PLEASE REFER TO EHIiIBIT "A" ATTACHED F~tETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF.
i
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE. INC. ',
601 E. HOPKINS AVE.
tersi Authorized Agent ASPEN.. COLORADO 81611 ',
(303) 925-1766
'THE POLICY NUMBER SHOWN ON THIS SCHEDULE MUST AGREE WITH '!'HE PREPRINTED NUMBER ON THE
COVER SF~ET. „
'. POLICY N0. 128-015328
' CASE N0. PCT-3622
` EXHIBIT "A"
.LEGAL DESCRIPTION
' PARCEL 28
A parcel of land being part of Lots 3 and 4, the E 1/2 of the SE 1/4 and .the SE 1/4 of
'
the NE 1/4 of Section 33. Township 8 South. Range tfie 53xth Principal
S7 West pf
Meridian. Said parcel is more fully described as follows:....,
Beginning at a point whence the. Southwest corner of said Section 33 bears South i
45°03'48" West 3910.48 feet:
'~ thence North 62°29' East 2092.00 feet:
~. thence. South O1°30' East 680.00 feet; ~ '
thence South 70°04' West 460.00 feet:
thence South 00°2$' East 480.00 feet:
.thence South 71°47' West 1209.48 feet:
thence North 14°35' West 223.17 feet:
thence North 25°04' West 565.44 feet tb the ,point of beginning.
COUNTY OF PITKIN.
.
STATE OF COLORADO
;~ _
SCf~JT ULE B-OVII~IERS
CASE NUMBER DATE OF POLICY POLICY NUMBER
PCT-3622 7/26/89 (5 3c05 P.M 128-015328
THIS POLICY DOES NOT INSURE AGAINST LOSS OR DAMAGE BY REASON.. OF THE FOLLAWING:
d .
1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records.,
2. Easements. or claims of easements, not shoHm by the public records.
3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area. encroachments, and any
facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which
are not shoran by the public records.
4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor, or material, heretofore or hereto-
after furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records.
5. Unpatented mining claims, reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authoriz-
ing the issuance thereof; water rights, claims or title to water.
6. Taxes for the year 1989 .not yet due or payable.
?. The right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract ,and remove his ore
therefrom. should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby
granted as reserved in United States Patents recorded iri Book 55 at Pages 42, 43, 49
and 69 and in Book 55 at Page 160 and in~Book 55'at Page"2`78: ~
8. Rights and Mineral Rights as reserved ir} United States Patents recorded in BookI162
at Page436, Book 162 at Page 420 and inBook~162 at Page 524.
~ Y ~ of
9. R~ rd,of wa and Easements for Ditches, Pi lines and Public Roadvmys appearing
10. Reservations of Mineral Royalty interests appearing in Book 178 at Page 436, Book
193 at Page 479 and in Book 333, at Page 317.
11. Terms. conditions. restrictions obligations and provisions of Restrictive Covenants
' and Amendmesrts thereto recorded in~Book 380 at Page 244: Book 406 at Page 106, Book
437 at Page 743. Book 442 at Page 820, Book 551 at Page 259, Hook 509 at Page 200,
Book 508 at Page 373 Book 519 at Page 960, Book 531 at Page 327 and Book 450 at ',Page
12, Book 551 at Page 259.:
I
` 12. Terms. conditions, restrictions and obligations as set forth in Articles of
Incorporation of the Sopris Mountain Ranch Homeoaaners Association recorded in .,Book
;: 507 at Page 6879: and By-Latas recorded. in Bogk 507 at, Page 693.
', 13. Deed of Trust from CHRIS NEiaBERT,
- To the Public Trustee of pitkin Caunty .
} For the use of MOUNT SOPRIS RANCH JOINT VENIVRE N0. 2
To secure S55,000.00
i Dated JULY 25. 1989 ~
~ Recorded JUDY' 26. 198 IN BOOt{ 597 AT PAGE 979
~ Reception No. 313594 ~
EXCEPTIONS NUMBF~2ED NO1~ ARE FiERE$Y OMITTED.
s .s-.z~,...rr.'. y'.,m ... -
7. pET'ERMOIATION, EXTENT OF LU1BILtT~ COINSURANCE.
This`policy is a oontraM of indemnity against actual monetartyy lossor
damage sustained or incurred by the insured daimon[ who has sutTered loss
or damage by reason of matters insured against by This policy and only [o
the extent herein described.
(a) The liability of the Company under this policy shall not exceedahe
least oL
(i) the Amount of Insurance stated m Schedule A; or, '
(ii) the difference betwcen the value of the insured estate or interest as
insured and the value of the insured estafe or interest subject tb the 8efect,
lien br encumbrance insured against by this policy.
(b) In the event the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A at the
Date of Polioy is lass than 80 percent of the value of the insured estafe o"r
interest or the full consideration paid for the land, whicfiever is less, or if
subsequent to the Date of Policy an improvement is erected on the land
which increases the value of the insured estate or interest by at least 20
percent over the Amoun( of Insurance'sfated in ~Sche~ule A, then. this
Polioy is subject to the following: ~ "
(i) where no subsequent improvement has been made, as to any partial
loss, the Company shall only pay the losspro rata id the proportion that
f t Date of Polic bears to the total value of the
,_ .
(CaprNl
(ti) Whcn liabiht and scat of loa a bas been dcfwitel
fixed to aaordana wrth the.,c`Coadmom and $apulations. the loos olr
damage shall be payable with days thereaher. y
13. SUBROGATION UPON PAYMENT OR SETTLEMENT. ~.
., (a) The Companyps Right of Subrogation. ~, p ,y ~ 's
Whenever the Com an shall have settled and id a claim under thi
policy, aft right of subrogation shall vest td the om an unaffected by
any act of the insured clmmant.
...The Companyshall be subrogated to and be entitled to all rights and
remedies which the insured claimant would have had against any person dr
property in respect to the claim had this policy not been issued. ~Iyf
requested by the Company, the insured blaimant shall transfer to th
m grdetyt II rrgfect the nigh of~subroga6onT heni suPedpdaiman~t shag
n sured claimant and to use the name of the insured claimant m arty
transaction or litigation inJolvitig`tltese nghts or retmediesthe name of the
if a payment oi?`accbtint of a claim does not fully cover the loss of Itie
insured claimant; the Company shall be subrogated to these rights and
remedies in the proportion which the Company's payment bears to the
the amount o insurance a y .whole amount of the loss
insured estate or interest at Date of Policy; or
(ii) where a subsequent improvement has been made, as to any panial
loss, the Company shall only pay the Ions pro rata in the proportion that
120 percent of the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A bears to the
sum of the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A.and the amount
expended for the improvemenC` °'" "" "' ~'
The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to costs, attorneys' fees
and expenses for which the Company is liable under this policy, and shall
only apply to that portion of any loss which exceeds, in the aggregate, 10
percent of the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A
(c) The Company will pay only those costs, attorneys' fees and expenses
incurred in accordance with Section 4 of these Conditions and Stipulations
8. APPORTIONMENT.
If the land described in Schedule A consists of two or more parcels
which are not used as a siriglesite, anda losais establishedaffectingg one or
more of the parcels but not all, the loss shill be coinputeri andseitled on a
pro rata basis as if the amount of insurance under this policy was divided
pro ram as to the value on Date oC Policy of each separate parcel to the
whole, exclusive of any improvements-made subsequent to Date pf Policy,
unless a liability or value has otherwise been agreed upon as to each parcel
by the Company and the insured at [he time of the issuance of this policy
and shown by an express statement or byaii endorsement attached [p this
policy.
9. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.
(a) If the Company establishes the title, or removes [he alleged defect,
lien or ehcumbrance, or cures the lack oC x. nigh[ ofaccess to or from the
land, or cures the claim of unmarketability of title, all as insured, in a
reasonably diligent manner by any irieihod, including litigation and the
completion of any appeals therefrom, it shall have fully performed its
obligations with respcet to that matter and shall riot be liable for any loss
or damage caused thereby.
(b) In the event of any litigation, including litigation by the Company
or with the Company's consent, the Company shall have no liability for
loss or damage until there has been a final deternifnat~ggby a court of
competem junsdiction, and disposition of`all appeals thereftdm, adverse to
the title as insured.
(c) The Company shall not be liable for loss or damage to any insured
for liability voluntarily assumed by the insured in settling any claim or suit
without the prior written consent of the Company.
10. REDUCTION OF INSURANCE; REDUCTION OR TERMINATION
OF LIABILITY.
All payments under this policy, except payments made for costs,
attorneys' fees and expenses, shall reduce the amount of the insurance pro
mnto.
11. LIABILITY NONCUMULATIVE.
It is expressly understood that the amount of insurance under this policy
shall be reduced by any amount the Company may pay under any policy
insuring a mortgage to which exception is taken in Schedule B or to which
the insured has agreed, assumed, or taken subject, or which is hereafter
executed by an insured and which is a charge or lien on [he estate or
interest described or referred to in Schedule A, and the amounrso paid shall
be deemed a payment under [his policy to the insured owner.
12. PAYMENT OF LOSS.
If loss should result from ahy act of the insuredclaimant, as stated
atiove, that act stiall not void this policy, but the Company,in that event,
shall be iequiied to pay only ifial pan of any lossesinsured against by this
policy which shall exceed the amount, if any, lost to the Company by
reason of the im airmen[ b the insured plaimant of the Com an 's n
. p' y. ~ .. P Y Sht
of subrogation. ',
(b) The Company's Rights Against Non-insured Obligors. '
The Company's right of subrogation against non-insured obligors shall
exist and shall include, without lidmprtatipn, [he rights of the insured [o
notwnhstandin an terms or con itions contained m those mstrumen
wh ch provide gor subrogationhnghts by reason of thi Upoliry, or bond`s
14,.ARBITRATION ~ __ _...
may oemanc arouraum p a •-• -- ~ --- ---
of the Amencan Arbnragon Assoaation Arbitrable matters inay include,
but are not limitep to, any cdn"frove"`rsjP'b'~daim 6etivced the Company and
the insured arising out of or relating to this policy, any service of the
Company in connection with its issuance or the breach of a policy
proy~ston or other obligation. All arbitrable matters when the Amountlof
Insurance is $1000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either {he
Company or the insured: All arbitrable matters `when the Amount '~of
lnsutance is m excess of S[,000;06b shall bit arbitrated only when agreed', tb
by both the Company and the insured Arbitratipd pursuant to this policy
and under the Rules m effect on the date the demand for arbitration is
made or, at [he. option of tlieinstired, the Rules ih effect at Date gfPolidy
shall be binding"u on the parties. The award may include attorneys fees
only if the taws of the state m which [he_land is located permit a tour[, [o
award attorneys' fees to a prevailing party. Judgment upon the award
rendered by the Arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court having
.jurisdiction [hereof. '.
The law of the si[us of the land shall apply to an arbitration under [he
TiBe Insurance Arbitration Rules.
A copy of the Rules may be obtained from the Company upon request.
15. LIABILITY LIMITED TO THIS POLICY; POLICY ENTIRE
CONTRACT.
(a) This policy together with all endorsements, if any, attached hereto
by the Company is the entire policy and contract between the insured and
the Company. In interpreting any provision of this policy, [his policy shall
be construed as a who e. g B
(b) Any claim of loss of damage, whether or not based on ne li ende,
and which arises out of the status of the title to the estate or interest
covered hereby or by any action asserting such claim,~shall be restricted to
this policy. '
(c) No amendment of or endorsement [q this policy can be made
except by a writing endorsed hereon or attached hereto signed by enher,the
President, a Vice President, the Secretary, an Assistant Secretary,' or
validating officer or authorized signatoryof the Company.
16. SEVERABILITY. '
In the event any provision of the policy is held invalid or unenforceable
under applicable law, the policy shall be deemed not to include that provi-
sion and all other provisions shall remain in full force and effect. '~
17. NOTICES, WHERE SENT. ',
All notices required to be given [he Company and any statemenF in
writing required to be furnished the Company shall include the number of
[his policy and shall be addressed to Commonwealth Land Title Insur'~nee
Company, Eight Penn Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2[98.
(a) No payment shall be made without producing this policy for
endorsement oC the payment unless the policy has been lost or destroyed, in
which case proof of loss or destruction shall be furnished to the satisfaction
of the Company.
NM 1
American Land Title Association Owner's Policy (10-2487)
Cover Pag<
Form 1141-3
Valid Only If Face Page, Schedules A and B Are Attached
i
,w„wp~. .... ... ..... ... .. ~„I
.. _. -.... , ...-..:- ,.~. , gyn. oa> m a, , Su „2 ..,a. ,,. ,.. .. .:,..,. .H~ ,,..,-w= a. ,..,. A~-.,.-a,..:~
~w~
B6 SOUTH THIRD STREET
CARBONDALE. COLORADO 01623
(970) 963-3700
ROBERT B. EMERSON
March 15, 1999
FAX (970) 963-0905
Ms. Cindy Houben
Director, Pitkin County Community Development HAND DELIVERED
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Newbert Application for Amendment of 1041 Permit, Lot 28
Dear Cindy:
I am writing this letter to outline the Newberts' request for amendment of the 1041
permit for their properly, Lot 28, Sopris Mountain Ranch. I would request that a copy of
this letter be included in the packet of materials for consideration by the Board of
County Commissioners.
The Newberts' request is to amend the 1041 permit to allow one dog to be kept in a
kennel on their properly. The request is being made due to changed circumstances from
those that existed when the original 1041 application was approved in 1991 and due to
an error by the Planning staff which incorrectly stated the distance from the building
envelope to the elk calving area.
In 1991, the County took the position that Lots 28 and 26 had merged into one lot by
virtue of a small common border (see Exhibit A which shows 1041 consideration for both
lots combined as one unit). Recently, the County has recognized that these are separate
lots and Lot 26 has been reconveyed by the Newberts to the prior owner (see Exhibit B,
a copy of the deed of reconveyance). The reconveyance of Lot 26 is important because
that lot extends much farther to the south and is much closer to the critical elk produc-
tion area than Lot 28 where the Newberts' house is located. In 1991, at the time the
original 1041 application was being considered, the Newberts were told that because Lot
26 was included in the application and because of its proximity to the elk calving area,
the only way the 1041 application could be approved was with a "no dog" restriction.
Based on this, the Newberts, who at that time were living in Hawaii, agreed to this
restriction.
The second reason for.the requested amendment is that the staff report generated in
1991 in connection with the Newbert application contained an erroneous statement that
__
.~~'~S '33~ ~ ~f- ~~ ~
LAW OFFICES
ROBERT B. EMERSON. P. C.
_~ i
Ms. Cindy Houben
March 15, 1999
Page 2
the building envelope on Lot 28 was within 2,000 feet of the closest elk production area
as mapped by the Division of Wildlife. As discussed below, this conclusion is incorrect,
and the building envelope is actually located one-half mile or more from the elk produc-
tion azea. When the Newberts originally agreed to the no dog restriction, they were
acting under the incorrect assumption that the proposed building envelope would not
qualify for dog ownership under the Pitkin County Land Use Code.
T'he applicable sections of the Code provide that no dogs aze permitted for lots with
building envelopes within one-quarter mile (1,320 feet) of an elk production area (see §
3-80-080). If the building envelope is more than a quarter mile but less than a half mile
away, dogs are permitted if kenneled. If more than a half mile away, there aze no
restrictions on dogs. Because the Newberts' house is located one-half mile or more away
from the elk production area, their request for an amendment for one dog kenneled is
clearly within the standards set forth in the Code and should be approved. The Planning
Department acknowledged linear distances from mapped critical wildlife habitat and the
applicable Code provisions as the proper standard of judgment in their original Memo-
randum on the Newberts' 1041 review, when the staff report stated, "Neither the Land
Use Code requirements or the Division of Wildlife comments suggests prohibition of
development on this site, due to the applicant's ability to meet the linear distance
requirements in the Code for the proposed building site."
In fact„ 1041 applications for neazby lots the same distance or closer to the elk produc-
tion area have been approved allowing dogs with a kennel restriction. These lots include
Lots 23, 49, 50, and 51. Lot 23, immediately adjacem to the Newbert lot, was approved
for one kenteled dog in July, 1995. Lots 49 and 51 were both approved for kenneled
dogs. Lot 51 was approved in July, 1990, and Lot 50 in February, 1989. Lot 49 was
approved for one kenneled dog in Augttst, 1995. Both Lots 49 and 51 are closer to the
elk calving area than the Newbert lot. The recommendation from DOW for Lots 23 and
49 (approved 1995) is virtually the same as for Newbert, i.e., any approval should be
limited to ene kenneled dog. Other lots farther to the north also either allow dogs in a
kennel or without restriction. All of these lots are depicted with cross-hatched lines on
Exhibit C attached to this letter. A listing of the 1041 approvals allowing dogs in Sopris
Mountain Ranch is attached as Exhibit D.
The Newberts have retained wildlife biologist Richard W. Thompson to review their
situation and comment on their eligibility for an amendment of their 1041 permit to
allow a kenneled dog. A copy of Mr. Thompson's letter is enclosed (Exhibit E). Mr.
Thompson expresses the opinion that the Newberts are entitled under the Code to the
Ms. Cindy Houben
March 15, 1999
Page 3
requested amendment. He notes that from his conversation with Kevin Wright of DOW,
that the DOW concerns are not based on the distance criteria in the Code between the
Newberts' building envelope and the elk production area, but rather, are general
concerns that DOW has about free ranging dogs without taking into consideration the
fact that the Newberts meet Code criteria and other nearby similarly situated properties
have been permitted kenneled dogs. Indeed, DOW biologist Kevin Wright, in comment-
ing on this proposed amendment, never recommends against dogs. Instead, he states, "If
the County does decide to lift the restriction, I would strongly recommend only 1 dog
with a kennel restriction." This identical language was used in his recommendations on
neighboring Lot 49, which was granted a limited dog allowance in 1995 (see Exhibits C
regarding DOW comments Lot 49 and F, the DOW Letter regarding the proposed
amendment).
Finally, the characteristics of the Newbert lot provide additional justification for the
requested amendment. There is a barrier formed. by a hillside and a dense area of scrub
oak between the Newberts' house and the elk production area. Thus, there is a physical
barrier as well as a sound buffer separating their house from the elk production area.
Similarly, elk migration corridors should not be a concern. The mapped areas are more
than one half mile away and the actual corridors used by the elk are more than one mile
away. The Code provisions permit kenneled dogs within one quarter mile of migration
corridors.
Apparently, a question has been raised that since the Newberts "agreed" to a no dog
restriction as part of their 1041 application in 1991, they are therefore now barred from
seeking to amend this restriction. As mentioned above, the original 1041 application
included Lots 26 and 28. The staff report erroneously concludes that the building
envelope on Lot 28 is within 2,000 feet of the closest elk production area. The Newberts
were told that the application would not be approved unless they agreed to a no dog
restriction. Given the fact that Lot 26 has been reconveyed and we now know that the
building envelope on Lot 28 is one-half mile or more from the elk calving area and is
well beyond the distance that would prohibit dog ownership under the Code, the
Newberts should not be .automatically precluded from seeking an amendment of the
1041 permit to allow a kenneled. dog. Any such "agreement" would have been based on
incorrect information and circumstances that have changed. Their current application
should be judged solely on the standards of the Code, and the Newberts meet the Code
criteria for a kenneled dog.
. ~.. ~. y~ .,,:~.. ., ., ~-~ ,~_,,.,,.,~
To summarize, the Newberts are not asking for a variance or exception from the
application of the Pitkin County Land Use Code. Rather, they are asking for an amend-
ment to conform to the changed circumstances from their original application, i.e.,
reconveyance of Lot 26 and correction of the staff report error regarding the distance
from the building envelope to the elk production area. Due to the fact that their request
specifically meets or exceeds the standards in the Land Use Code and is consistent with
approvals of neighboring lots, it should be granted.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Siinc2er~ely,
/~. -/ :/ ~
Robert B. Emerson
RBE/jc
Enclosures
cc: Mr. and Mrs. Chris Newbert
Tamara Preg~
~, .
!04/ H,4ZARD RED/EW PLAT {or NEWBERT
A Parce/ of Land in Lots 3,4 ~5, SW i4 SE%q , SizSW%q, E~SEr ~` SE%qNE;.~.
5'ectign 33, Township B South, ,2anye 87 Wcst of the 6~h Princiual Mcrrdi yn
G
/1~' I
•
.~.t
.i 4
~ ; ~ I
_1
.
.~ ~
.
; _;_(~.~
!~/G/N/TY MAP
n•• irk
EXEiIBIT A
"±
. EED
SPECIAL WARRAN'T'Y D ..
;' I .
THIS DEED, Made this //day of Sgt 1998, between CHRIS
NEWBERT and BIRGITTE W. NEW,BERT, Coun of Pitkin, State of Colorado, ~ is ..
("Grantors"), and MOUNT SOPRISRANCH JOINT VENTURE NO 2whose legal address '.
is c/o Norm Clasen, 0160 Spring Creek Road; Basalt, CoTota~o 81621, a Colorado Joint
Venture, consisting of James McGuckih; John Inman, Norm Clasen and Laura Clasen
("Grantee"):
WITNESSETH, That the Grantors, for and in consideration. of the sum of Ten ' i
Dollars ($10.00) and ocher good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency
of which is hereby acknowledged, have granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by ~.
these presents do grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm, unto the Grantee, its
successors and assigns forever, all the real property, together with improvements, if any,
situate, lying and being in the County of Pitkin, State ofColoxado, described as follows: i
Description Attached as Exhibit "A" ~~
SUBJECT TO AND EXCEPTING: Real Property taxes for 1991 and. subsequent '.
years, the terms and conditions of the documents listed in Exhibit `B", the effect of
which, among other things, is the eliminationpf development rights for the subject
property, and all othef reservations, easements, covenants and restrictions of record or
use and othef documents of record which may affect title to the subject property.
TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereto
belonging, or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainder and i
remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof;"and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim
and demand whatsoever of the Grantors, either in lawor equity, of, inand to the above
bargained premises, with the hereditaments and appurtenances•,.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said,premises above bargained and described
with the appurtenances, unto the Grantee, its successors. and assigns forever. The
Grantors, for themselves, their heirs, and personal representatives or successors, do
covenant and agree that they shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the . ",EXHIBIT B. (1',
above-bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the Grantee, their
successors and assigns, against all and every person or personsclaiming the whole or any
part thereof, by, through or under the Grantors, subject to the exceptions to title set
forth above. _ ',
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantors have. executed this deed on the date sec
forth above.
STATE OF COLORADO )
/ ss.
COUNTY OF ~7~' ct~ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this // day of
7~~ g,-- %c-~ 1998 by Chris Newbert and Birgitte Newbert.
Witness my hand and official seal.
~" ~® J
9 `
o~
,MF,~,nJ'e
/// No[ary ~.
My commission expires: 6// y/~~~
_..
~` (-~ '
' ', .... I
~~
EXIIIBTT A ~~'.:
PARCEL #26, SOPRIS h10UNTAIN RANCH
I ..
A PARCEL OF LAND BEING PART OF LOTS 4 AND 5, THE SW'/a OF THE SE'/a AND THE ' ~
Si/z OF THE SW'/a OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 8 SOUTH, RANGE 87 WEST OF THE 6'"
PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN. SAID PARCEL IS MORE FULLY DESCRIBED. AS FOLLOWS; '
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 33 WHENCE THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAIDSECTION 33 BEARS NORTH 89DEG1fEES 51'34" ~ ~ ~
WEST 2523.93 FEET; ~ ~ _ ~ ~~
THENCE NORTH 6 DEGREES 26' WEST 1404.41 FEET; '
31 FEET;.
THENCE NORTH 64 DEGREES 45' EAST 513. ~~
THENCE NORTH 15 DEGREES 25' EAST 665.49 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 14 DEGREES 35' EAST 2333.89 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID i
SECTION 33; '
THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 51'34" WEST 1071.47 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING. .. ...
SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 36.61 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
EXHIBIT B~ ~2)
COUNTY OF PITIQN, STATE OF COLORADO
._
~""~
EXHIBIT B -
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY RESOLUTION NO. 91-134, ~.
RECORDED IN BOOK 661 AT PAGE 407.
RESOLUTION OF THE PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NO
PZ-91-28, RECORDED IN BOOK 655 AT PAGE 920 OF'TFiE P1T1II~7""COl5NT1~ ~2ECORDS:`" ~ ~ ~ ""~'" "` ` "
- c i, ,.
. THE EFFECT OF INCLUSIONS IN ANY GENERAL„OR SPECIFIC WATER CONSERVANCY, FIRE
PROTECTION, SOIL CONSERVATION OR OTFIER~~DISTRICT OR INCLUSION~~~IN~"ANY WATER
SERVICE OR STREET IMPROVEMENT AREA..
. RIGHT OF PROPRIETOR OF A VEINOR LODE ,TO .EXTRACT AND REMOVE HI,S ORE
THEREFROM SHOULD THE SAME BEFOL7ND TO PENETRATE OR I~TTEREECT THE PREMISES
AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATESPATENT RECORDED November 17, 1893, TN BOOK 55 ~ ~~~ ~~"
..a
AT PAGE 42, RECORDED JANUARY16, 1894 'IN BOOK"~~S~A`~'~PAGE 43, `R~COIYDED
SEPTEMBER 6, 1894 IN BOOK 55 AT PAGE 49, RECORDED JULY 20, 1896 IN BOOK 55
AT PAGE 69, RECORDED JANUARY 2, 1907 IN BOOK55 AT PAGE 160,' RECORDEDAPRIL
24, 1923 IN BOOK 55 AT PAGE .278.
. RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED BY THE.AUTHORITY OF THE ',.,~
UNITED STATES AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED~November 17,
1893, IN BOOK 55 AT PAGE 42JANUARY16, 18942N BOOK55 AT PAGE 43,' APRIL
24, 1923 IN BOOK 55 ATPAGE 278, AUGUST 3, 1935 IN BOOK 762 ATPAGE 436,
MAY 6, 1935 IN BOOK 162ATPAG$420, JANUARY12, 1937 IN BOOK 162 AT PAGE
524. ~.....:.
. ALL COAL AND OTHER MINERALS IN THE LANDS SO ENTERED AND PATENTED, TOGETHER
WITH THE RIGHT TO PROSPECT FOR, MINE AND REMOVE THE SAME PURSUANT TOTHE
PROVISIONS AND LIMITATIONS OFTHE ACT OF DECEMBER _29, 1916 (39 STAT.,862)
' AS RESERVED ZN THE UNITED STATES PATENTS RECORDEDsMAY 6, 1935 INBOOK 162
AT PAGE 420, RECORDED AUGUSTS, 1935 IN BOOK 162 AT~hAGE 436, AND 'RECORDED' ~~
JANUARY 12, 1937 IN BOOK 162 AT PAGE 524.
EXHIBIT B (:
. AN UNDIVIDED 6 1/4 PERCENT ROYALTY INTEREST OF ALL OIL, GASANDbTHER
MINERALS PRODUCED ANDSAVED _FROM THE SUBJECT YITOpERTY AB RESERVED BY ~ i
CHARLES H. LOVE, JANET LOVE AND DOROTHY LOVE I1S DEED RECORDED`DECEMBER, 31,
1956 IN BOOK 178 ATPAGE 436,-ANYANDALL ASSIGNMENTS THEREOF OR INTERESTS
THEREIN.
AN UNDIVIDED 6 1/4 PERCENT ROYALTY INTEREST OF ALL OIL, GAS AND OTHER
MINERALS PRODUCED AND SAVED FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTYAS RESERVED BY ROBERT
W. LONG IN DEED RECORDED APRI L'17, 1961 IN BOOK 193 AT'PAGE~~479, ANY AND ~
ALL ASSIGNMENTS THEREOF OR INTERESTS THEREIN...
i
-.RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN A FORFEITURE OR REVERTER
CLAUSE, BUT OMITTING RESTRICTIONS; IF ANY, BASED ON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, '.
OR NATIONAL ORIGIN, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED December 23;1982; ~,
IN BOOK 437 AT PAGE 748 ANDAS AMENDED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED 'NOVEMBER 19, ~
1987, IN BOOK 551 AT. PAGE 259 AND A3 AMENDED Yis YNSTRt7MENT RECORDED Januazy'~
21, 1993, IN BOOK 910AT PAGE347 ANDAS AMENDED"IN TNSTRUM_ENT RECORDED
January 21, 1993, INBOOK701 FIT PAGE`"408 AND CAB AMENDED IfT ~"TN~S'2T2T7MEN'T i
RECORDED FEBRUARY 4, 1998 UNDER RECEPTION N0 ., 413234 AND AS AMENDED IN
INSTRUMENT RECORDED MARCH 9, 1998 UNDER RECEPTION N0. 414335. ~
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, WHICH DONOT CONTAIN A FORFEITURE ORREVERTER
CLAUSE, BUT OMITTINGRESTRICTIONS; TF ANY; BASED ON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION,
OR NATIONAL ORIGIN, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED January"21;°1993,
IN BOOK 701 AT PAGE 523 ANDAS AMENDED IN INSTRUMENT ~RECORDEDFebruary.03,
1993, IN BOOK 702 ATPAGE 733.
TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS, OBLIGATIONS, RESTRICTIONS ANDEFFECTff OF
CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION RECORDED MARCH 21, 1986 IN BOOK507 ATPAGE
688, ARTICLES OFINCORPORATION RECORDED MARCH 21; 1986 IN BOOK 507 AT PAGE
689, AND BY-LAWS RECORDEDMARCH21, 1986 IN BOOK 507 AT PAGEfi 93, ALL
PERTAINING TO THE SOPRISMOUNTAIN RANCH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION..
.TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT RECORDED May 21, 1991 IN BOOK ~'
646 AT PAGE 657.
$a ~~- ,
x~ `:ix° ~, I I
r
1 It
/ h~ .a7
~ V~^\ ~~ J
~
~~ ~-, n-
1 ~ ~ ~
' p
~
~
'~ ~ e ~
cn Q t
~'
~ p ,. a`f ~ ~ )p
. "~f ~
~ ~ f ~
~ ~ 3~
~;
~, ~ ~o Y
G
~~„~,~ ~~~~ s \~ 1,/ a~
,oQ ,.
p
-
3,P, M
~3
.~C3
a .
S
i I
~(
~ b
3
3
~.3=~ /1 pp
ky 1 y Z
nix 4' ~ "` w .-'.3 k:
M ~ ,
~
r j~ . \ t '
- -
"a'~i i r / ~~
~
~ ~ f ~
a
q ~ 0 T
Y
~ ~ ~ ~M
~ ~ ~ y
SZ
q 1 C
.~ ~~
y ~~
V ~
> N ~ ~„ ;
V 4\
~' ~ b
`~ L
> ~•
~~
.~
~ ~°
b L I f l y ~ t
~ ~
_~ ,a
i ~ ~ g ~ t i :1 1 ~~
~ ~.
j~l I ~`i ;, w ~~~
~ ~N /i~
o
1 ~
^V
M`
\~', i~ EXEiIBIT C
i~ ~ ,ate ~~ f ~
~~~ t I
li~l~~~ ~ `~ ~
~ I. Q $~
:.
~J,.
a
~ ~ ~i ~ Y ~
y `
~- / ~ ` SAS
s ~ j t
,.. r.1i T~= n' V.
' _ .~ Il a
~. ~p ~ U ~ 1"
i ( \\ i > 3 ~
.~,
h /
......... ;__.,. .. ... ._ .-_ -. u
W
C""
O
tl4
O
CD
7
N
(D
a
r
~.
0.
OyOQ
T.
CD
CD
0.
y
N
O
d
O
O4
y
b ~~
~ ~ d
~, ~ a
~~~
O ~. ~.
ti N
. a.
m
. ~ °:
R
n O. y.
m, o
(~D 7 ``'
~~ C
fD ^- ~'
o °' °
p; ~
~ ~
w
y M T. `
O tc
~ C ~
N ?~• ?~
~ ~ N
N '. t'
o ~ `D
`~ ~ ~
C C
n. ~
r~~;, ~
~' ~ y0 N aV
S ,n
O ~ y.a~
T
o ~ ~ c°c
~ (~~v, o
O ~ n C/1
~~.~~.
~a~o~
:? C" c. a o
~_
~ M
~.x~ ~ ~.
~~
^."ctn`~
yy~ G a>
~ ~ N ~ n
~~°.r
~~~~ y~
•~~
~ ; h ~ ~'
~~~~.
~~~c~
n ~ (D 7.'
~. ~i
c~D ~ y P.
y 7
G•`C ~ C
o.~r'. ~e cc
~ O~ ~
N~ G O
Q ~ ~ H
c~c ~
~ C y
W p .-.
~+ a.
W
z
.-~
0
W
d
N
O/
(D
O
O
fD
a
7
a
S
(D
a
.N-~
d
O
Cf4
a'
N
O
O
CD
P.
a
~,
O
a
~~ ~.H
~ O ~ 5
O y (9
cD ~ O p
0.~ ~•ti'
~ _ o
a ~ ~ o
~ O y y
~' ~ Cb
R. c~c ~ R.
~ ~~
C?1 a m ~.
.°~'~ a
~~n
v~ ~ r' N
<. ~ a'
O ~' ~ii m
o'er
~Rx
o ~
'"' c. ~
~o<
a.~ =°
0
5. °c'
p. N
~ ~, O
O N
~"h
% b
m o
f ~.
.r~
~: O
OV O^.
~ N
x
aa~ ~ ~
,»
~ ~ ~ ~
°%•~D-nc ao
C7 G r°. ~ ~•
O O O O
~.~~ O
m ao ~d ~ ~
~.~,0 ~ o
coo Uq• ~. o 'a
•O-•
~ ~ .,'xa
(D ~ ?_~ ~
aye
y r y ^f
a~ ~ ~:m
~ p w O
~ F o a-
m~~,~u~
(o C P. O
~ d P> w P~
~ p, .~. ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .
~ ~ ~ ~ ~'
O
d (~~ ~ ~
~' ~ ~ ~
~ ~
O ~'
~-n
i
o~
~ O
a- (D
O ~
(~D .-r
a O.
7 y
.O-
?~..
0.
O
Oq
o °
~ '~ z
v~ ,
~ap co
~ ~
°- o a °c
..+, o
~' -~
~
. ~o o
O
. .,
0.
~ o
~
r" ^+ "~ ~'
-
o „
0
°
o
c
o o
E
~~~,
'v ~ a by
0.
~ ~,~
~
< O
~
~
£ ~, ~
~~~
ay
a~CD
b
o' ~
o
•
ti O N
• a~ -
y
T
'
O 'q
O ,.n,~
N N ~
'~ ~ ",
.O-
< w
_
~'. ti w
~.. ~.
.~ r
_
O
~ I
~
O
U4
~ f
-r
^~
,~,
7
O
CD
f1.
a o~~
C y
O ¢bq "L3
Oy ~ ~ n
~ ~~_=
0
~ ~°y
'b O
b (p y n
aaa.
d
o .,, 5'
7 oc~~co
H ~ y
~ ~ b
~: a ~.
~ ~ ~I
~ a ~-
~ a c
a. l7 ., ~
C7 c5o o
a Oy w
~ ~ 7..~
C f^QOq
w
~ O ~
b ~ O
J'
~ ~ N
~ 3 O
tlq ~ O
O H
~ r-i y
N
m
H
d
,.,w. a...:e~ .~ _~ ,~_ ._ ...., _.. _i ... ,.....
.. _ _ _
• ' ;,-
~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~
0 0 o C'
~ ~ rn ~.
N ~ ~_
.~.. r ~. a
f~-r ems-' ~ °
O ° O ~
~ `~ rZ '~"
CD
'~
.:S
a
off ~ ~ b ~ ~ x°' ~ ]'mow m ~ ~~ ~ ti~ Nm o ate- ~C.w-~ a'c a>
„ ~ ~. ~ A ~ .Y r. W ti "O ~ ~ N N
~ p n p co ~• p a`- o ~- ~ .~. ~ ,ti"-.' `=1 ~. w o ~' CD ~ ~ ,~., d p ~ ~^ p ~ A ~ ~
m ~' ~.C = ~. .01. ry ~ N ~ ~ ~ O p ~ (fie ~ ~ ~ e0o~ e0~9 O ~ ~ ° N O•do N
cgc~ ","~ `~~ x5.~o mo'-,t" ~_°~ ~ocau °~?»°~' .°aaco.~
o ~~ ° ~ aK ~* o^~+ti ~Am~
.P-.'b N O 0 O ~ p P~ ° b '~ CD lV Q°4 'd '~' CD ~- C~~~. ~ fD ~ v~
~,`< ~ ~ c~c~.~'a-•°~O w°- cocoa "~•~~°_. ::r.E
a~ o ~ s N°:o coo ~ ~.~~ ~o o ° °=`~ y y m ~ 9.< ~' ~ `° m
.:' 'O b ti N ~ C n .O-., < y i H R O ~' o.y A+ A~ ~ y ~ y'i7 .-s
y y O O tro `n M O n N y O O ~~~. P. ~ ems. N `" fv ~: ~.'rJ ~~
^ ~, o ~, • m o' ~ ~ ee a u 5' e~0q ~' a a' as c ~.d w
coo "p' y c ~ F a' rt m ~ ~ ~D'b~''~ ~T cc C O ~ a~ac ~ o• p- d ~D•a ~.
p„ Q ~A ~ N ~/ a ° ° '+ ~ y O ~D ~ ~ r'~v r^Y ~ '~. e`Yi 'r,~ f~ ~ CAD ~' n7 CD
N p m Py' ~, a sr^' ~ C F ~i' .~' ¢u ~ m O ~< R n n ~ f ~° ^
~p a' N ~' ti O N O O~ '~ O ~ O O A y ... ,~ ~ w '+~, y O n
.y ti -Aj' ~. O ~ NOS-. n (- O N n N n V4 ^ ,.., W 0'0 `< ''~ ~. OQ ~ A0~
~° ~a• ~• a,~F•~c ° ~; ~., o F ~ 5-an a m
tv ti ~ co o• w° a~ ~, N"~ ~-~ s.+ ~' C ~'p. co co m ~ A ,-
o M
Eo °5' as ~ca-r°' tioo ~, tr,r. a ~ "~y
... o ~c~ a ~ ~ r~ ti
5'
Western ecosystems, c~/nc. EXEIIBIT E
ecological G'onsultants
905 WesE (,'oath .~oa~, ~3ouher, C'~ 80302 ~303~ 442- 6144
March 11, 1999
i
Mr. Chris Newbert Fax and U.S. Mail Transmittal
P.O. Box 2001
Basalt, CO 81621.
Re: Proposal to keep one dog on Lot 28, Sopris Mountain Ranch, Pitltin County, Colorado. '
Dear Chris:
Addressed below, at your request, are'my thoughts regarding your proposal to keep one dog on your property, '
Lot 28 of Sopris Mountain Ranch. As you knows I have not been on your property, but I am familiar with'
the general area from my prior local studies. Furthermore, I am relying on your ability to fairly accurately
locate your building envelope and measure its distance from the CDOW-defined boundary of the adjacent elk '
production area, as showtt on the 1':2;000" USES maps on file at the County Planning Department. I have '
also discussed your proposal with Mr. Kevin Wright, CDOW District. Wildlife Manager.
My analysis is based on the following facts and the opinions provided me by you and the CDOW:
1. Your building envelope is 2,300 to 2,900 feet (0.43 to 0.55 mi.) away from the closest outer boundary of
the CDOW's elk production area. I hereby invoke all the standard disclaimers associated. with. the accuracy
and use of the CDOW's Wildlife Resource Information System (WRIS) maps.
2. While the County Code prohibits dogs at residences within one-quarter mile of such elk production areas,
dogs are allowed at residences greater than one-quarter mile, but less than one-half mile from such calving
areas, provided they are kenneled (or; presumably, kept on a leash under positive control when outside or kept
in the home).
3. Winier rznge, transitional renge; migration Yatt~•rn and other wildlifcconstdcrations associated wit:; Lci ',
28 do not preclude dogs on Lot 28, according to the Code. ',
4. Properly controlled dogs present minimal conflicts with wildlife.
5. Some neighboring lots within Sopris Mountain Ranch were permitted to have dogs, both prior to (i.e., in
1990), and after (i.e, 2 lots in 1995) Lot 28 was approved for development. Lot 28 is located more within the ',
interior of the development and actually further away from the designated production area than a lot (i.e., Lot
49) approved for dogs in 1995.
Other lots within Sopris Mountain Ranch were either prohibited from having dogs via 1041 review, or ',
voluntarily agreed (e.g., the joint venture) to prohibit dogs to avoid potential, additional wildlife impacts.
6. Lot 28 is presently prohibited from having dogs because (i) of an incorrect statement made by County Staff
(to the BOCC on June 4, 1991) indicating that the Lot 28 building envelope is less than 2;000 feet from the
edge of calving habitat, and attributing that statement to the CDOW, and (2) you apparently agreed to no dogs
during the lot approval process, due to Lots 26 and 28 being combined in that process. The CDOW's July
23, 1990 referral letter to the County provides no distances, and only uses the ambiguous term "adjacent" with
respect to Lot 28's proximity to the calving habitat. Furthermore, the threshold for prohibiting dogs at
Mr. Chris Newbert
March 11, 1999
Page 2
residences adjacent to elk production areas in Pitkin County is 1,320 feet (one-quarter mile). Since your '
building envelope is 2,300 to 2,900 feet (0.43 to O.SSmi.) away from the closest outer boundary of the CDOW's
" elk production area, it is well outside the County threshold.
7. It is my understanding that you are seeking approval to have one dog on Lot 28, which would be kept '
inside and kenneled when outside, if not on a leash. under your. control, or that of your designated
representative. You are aware of the adverse effects that free-ranging. dogs can have on wildlife production
areas, winter ranges, and wildlife using other sensitive habitats. You are also aware of where these designated
habitats aze on and adjacent to youf property.
8. According to the Code, you should be permitted to have a dog on Lot 28, provided it is under positive
control at ali times when outside.
9. Based on my March 3 conversation with the CDOW, they concede that your home is beyond the one-
quarter mile distance precluding dogs. However, while they may recognize that you appear to display the
awareness of the doghvildlife issue and may be the type of responsible person that could be allowed to have
a dog in the vicinity of critical wildlffe habitat, the CDOW still opposes a dog on your property, because (1)
there appears to be little or no enforcement of free-ranging dogs in the development (i.e, free-ranging dogs '
are a problem), (2) the CDOW is trying to be consistent with the joint property owners who have prohibited
dogs to avoid potential wildlife impacts, (3) in the event that you sell your home, there is no guarantee that
the subsequent owner would responsibly control their dog, and (4) the precedent that would be set,
encouraging other homeowners to petition the County for dogs.
Assuming that the site-specific circumstances provided to me by all parties are accurate, an objective review
of your case by the County should allow you to keep a dog at your home, since you meet or exceed the Code
criteria for a kenneled dog. I would recommend that if a dog is approved at youfhome, that (1) the dog be
kept under positive control at all times when not in the home, (2) never be allowed to iun loose when outside,
unless in a kennel, (3) any kennel should be located within the designated building envelope, be contiguous
with the house, andbe completelyenclosed to preclude mountain lion access, and (4) that the dog should not
be fed outside (including on decks) to prevent predators and nuisance wildlife being attracted to the food.
Please.call me if you have aryquestions.
Sincerely,
~~
Richard W. Thompson
Certified Wildlife. Biologist
Western Ecosystems, Inc.
RWT/s
FEB-26-1999 16 53 NEWBERT 8 LJILMS P.r03
S7AiE ~f COLORAOQ
CEPARTRIENT OF MATUgAL RESOUflCBS „ ": ~ R'~*
D~!VISI4N QF WILDL{FE , J~.:~• , ,
1oh~~ W. M.uauft3, CNtFC:7r ' . , .
6080 9~vedn;ry J1ap ~~~
Oerver. C~xorado 902 . e ~~ T
Telq~phcnz: (7A':) i'~7.7192 EXEiIBIT F '~:-'.•~n. ~.vsr
11-1'!-9$
PJ.tk.in +Zounty Planning
?.3C~ a^^. GS!Efla
Agp®;e, r_e7 81ti1i `;. !.:.:.. ,
~;: NeWbezt Minoz Ammendment
i
D®as Tamara:
On 1:1-15-48 I went up to the Newbert parcel to see how .it relates`
to tae upper portion of the: ranch. Just around the bend and:
immadiate:Ly above the Newbert parcel is parcel 27. `fiA.'~a,parcel
nad a s3ubetantiai amount or elk use and some mule Geer use.
Cens:-aity, the area receives only light winter use aepending,.on
'the winter.. Howov®r, the aspen stands and areas or pot'entia~'ana
SCJ~tuA.l ®lk and mule deer; production lie along t2lese upper lots
ftnN asp,an stringers. It does not take a dog very long to tra*icl
tc 'these areas..
Ttae Newbert lot lies amoungst the lots comprising the joint
vFnture4 (although eot included in their application). 'rheso
lots. went through the laird use process in 1991 and as pair vY
tL.9*. process ahd ±teitigat;ion L'or wildlife agreed to arestrirtloa
of 17q dogs. in 1991, Lhe Newbert'parce'l went through the .process
and in their application: agreed to no dogs (page 5 and,paga y),
6oy>a are a 'major pzobl®m with wildlite end dog restrictions t~e;l,~
ma.nimize impacts to wildlila. Wi11 lifting an agreed. to
rer3trictlar. lead to more =equests'by'tte joint venture lots 'to' do.
the saRa"'
~ str~neiy ecommvnd onlyde to liYt the restriction, Z would'
5 1 dog with a kennel Yestricton.; ~ ~ ~..
S1ncJareiy, ~..
1Sev2n wri ht
District ~ life Manager
Cnrlx,ndal
~.
i
DEPARTMENT OF NA7UFAL RE90UflGE9, James 8. tochhee6, Eucupva Olrecax
sYIIUUFF OOMM19510N, Amolq SeRUar, Choir • gep~e ~, FreMt, Vlpp Crreir ~ Mark l~Va6sy, Saareray'. ' .. ~- ~ '
I.oule F. $vrih,M~m6•r • 9antrd L 0fat:lt,~MsmCer ....
'' Chuc+a legie. MornDOr • Johrt StAp, MN*Der . Jsm~s R. LoeO, MamE~r ~ . ' ': ~ ..: ~~'.. ~ '
i
~~~ `~' SPECIAL WARRANTY DL ~
_, ,,. m.vux ,.W.dra_x, ax~~,r, ...w .,. ,.. .:x
_~: ~ . .
I
~' THIS DEED, Made this i~~day of S~ 7~i..,.~/, 1998, between CHRIS
NEWBERT and BIRGITTE W. NEWBERT, Coun of Pitkin, State of Colorado,
~: ("Grantors"), and MOUNT SOPRIS RANCH. JOINT VENTURE NO, 2, whose legal address
is c/o Norm Clasen, 0160 Spring Creek Road, Basalt, Colorado 81'621; a Colorado Joint
Venture, consisting of James McGuckin, John Inman, Norm Clasen and Laura,Clasen 4
("Grantee")
WITNESSETH, That the Grantors, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten,..
Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency
of which is hereby acknowledged, have granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by
these presents do grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm, unto the. Grantee, its
successors and assigns forever, all the real property, together with improvements, if any,
situate, lying and being in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, described as follows:
Description Attached as Exhibit "A" _
SUBJECT TO AND EXCEPTING: Real Property taxes for 1991 and subsequent
years, the terms and conditions of the documents listed m Exhtbrt "B", the effect of
which, among other things, is the elimination of development'°rigjits for the subject
property, and all other reservations, easements, covenants and restrictions of record ors
use and other documents of record which. may affect title to the subject property.
TOGETHER with all.and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances theretq
belonging, or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainder and
remainders, rents, issues and,profits thereof; and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim
and demand whatsoever of the Grantors, either in law or equity, of, in and to the above
bargained premises, with the hereditaments and appurtenances,
~ TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described
with the appurtenances, unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns forever. The
Grantors, for themselves, their heirs, and personal representatives or successors, do
covenant and agree that they shall and will WARRANT AND FOuREVER DEFEND the
above-bargained premises in the, quiet and peaceable possession of the Grantee, their
successors and assigns, against all and every person or persons claiming the whole or any
part thereof, by, through or under the Grantors, subject to the exceptions to title set
forth above. ',
IN WTTNESS WHEREOF, the Grantors have executed this deed on the date set
forth above.
STATE OF COLORADO )
// ss.
COUNTY OF r71~i' ~ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /~ day of
J`rl ,--G~~ 1998 by Chris Newbert and Birgitte Newbert.
~-, ,
Witness. my hand and official seal. _ _
Fy~~~o~
Notary Public T •••
My commission expires: ~~~~0/ ~~CORPO<
i /.
a '•
EXHIBIT A
PARCEL #26,- SOPRIS NOUNTAIN RANCH
A PARCEL OF LAND BEING PART OF LOTS 4 AND 5, THE SWi/a OF THE SEi/a AND THE
.. ~.u. i
~.a.
S~/z OF THE SW'/a OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP' 8'SOIJTH, RANGE'87 WEST OF THE 6'"
PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN. ~ SAID PARCEL IS,MORE FULLY DESCRIBED. AS FOLLOWS:
i
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 33 WHENCE THh
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAIDSECTION 33 BEARS NORTI 89~EGRE~S'S1'34" ~
WEST 2523.93 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 6 DEGREES 26' WEST 1404.41 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 64 DEGREES 45' EAST 513 31 FEET,
THENCE NORTH 15 DEGREES 25' EAST 665 49~FEET, _, ~ ~ ~ ~~
THENCE SOUTH 14 DEGREES 35' EAST 2333 89FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAITi
SECTION 33; .. .... ,,... , ... ~ ...~ . ~ ~ ... a.. .. ~ ~~. , ,.. _.
THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 51'34" WEST 1071.47 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 36.61 ACRES MORE OR LESS M I
COUNTY OF PITHIN, STATE OF COLORADO
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY RESOLUTION N0. 91-134>
RECORDED IN BOOK 661 AT PAGE 407.
RESOLUTION OF THE PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NO
PZ-91-28, RECORDED IN BOOK 655 AT PAGE. 920 OF THE PITKIN COUNTY RECORD.
. THE EFFECT OF INCLUSIONS IN ANY GENERAL OR SPECIFIC WATER CONSERVANCY, FIR:
PROTECTION, SOIL CONSERVATION OR OTHER DISTRICT OR ,INCLUSION IN ANY, WATER w
SERVICE OR STREET IMPROVEMENT AREA.
. RIGHT OF PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE HIS ORE
THEREFROM SHOULD THE SAME BE FOUND TO PENETRATE~OR INTERSECT~THE PR~MISES
~.. r
AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT~RECORDED~November 17, 1893, IN~~ OOK 55'~
AT PAGE 42, RECORDED JANUARY 16, 1894 IN BOOK 55 AT PAGE 43, RECORDED
SEPTEMBER 6, 1894 IN BOOK 55 AT PAGE 49, RECORDED JULY 20, 1896 IN BOOK 55
AT PAGE 69, RECORDED JANUARY 2, 1907 IN BOOK 55 AT PAGE 160, RECORDED APRI
24, 1923 IN BOOK 55 AT-PAGE 278.
. RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED BY THE, AUTHORITY OF THE
UNITED STATES AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED November 17,
1893, IN BOOK 55 AT PAGE 42, JANUARY 16, 1894 IN BOOK 55 AT PAGE 43; APRIL
24, 1923 IN BOOK 55 AT PAGE 278, AUGUST 3, 1935 IN BOOK 162 AT PAGEI436,
MAY 6, 1935 IN BOOK 162 AT PAGE 420, JANUARY 12, 1937 IN BOOK 162 AT PAGE
524.
. ALL COAL AND OTHER MINERALS IN THE LANDS SO ENTERED AND PATENTED, TOGETHEE
WITH THE RIGHT TO PROSPECT FOR, MINE AND`REMOVE`THE SAME PURSUANT TO THE
PROVISIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE ACT OF DECEMBER.29, 1916.(39 STAT'., 862)
AS RESERVED ZN THE UNITED STATES PATENTS RECORbEDrMAY 6, 1935 IN BOOK 162
AT PAGE 420, RECORDED AUGUST 3, 1935 IN BOOK 162 AT PAGE 436, AND RECORDEL
JANUARY 12, 1937 IN BOOK 162 AT .PAGE 524.
AN UNDIVIDED 6 1/4 PERCENT ROYALTY INTEREST, OF ALL OIL, GAS AND OTHER
MINERALS PRODUCEDAND SAVEDFROM THE SUBJECT ,PROPERTY_:AS_RESERVED BY
CHARLES H. LOVE, JANET ZOVE AND DOROTHY LO~/E IN DEED RECORDED DECEMBER 31,
1956 IN BOOK 178 AT PAGE 436, ANY AND ALL ASSIGNMENTS THEREOF_OR IN~PEREST
THEREIN.
.. _ ..
AN UNDIVIDED 6 1/4 PERCENT ROYALTY INTEREST OF ALL OIL, GAS AND OTHER
MINERALS PRODUCED. AND SAVED FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTYy„AS RESERVED BY ROBEF.
W. LONG IN DEED RECORDED APRIL 17, 1961-SN BOOK 193 AT PAGE 479, ANY AND
ALL ASSIGNMENTS THEREOF OR .INTERESTS THEREIN.,...,
,,
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN A FORFEITURE OR REVERTER
CLAUSE, BUT OMITTING RESTRICTIONS, IF ANY, BASED ON RACE, COLOR, RE~i,IGION,
OR NATIONAL ORIGIN, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED becember 23, 1982,
IN BOOK 437 AT PAGE 748 AND AS AMENDED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED NOVEM~BER,19,
..1987, IN BOOK 551 AT PAGE 259 AND AS AMENDED IN'INSTRUMENT RECORDED1 Januar
21, 1993, IN BOOK 710 AT PAGE 347 AND AS AMENDED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED
January 21, 1993, IN`BOOK 701 AT PAGE 408 AND A5 AMENDED IN INSTRUMENT
RECORDED FEBRUARY 4, 1998 UNDER RECEPTION NO,. 413234 AND, AS AMENDED IN
INSTRUMENT RECORDED_MARCH 9, 1998 UNDER RECEPTION N0. 414335.
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, WHICH D6 NOT CONTAIN A FORFEITURE OR REVERTER
CLAUSE, BUT OMITTING RESTRICTIONS, IF ANY, BASED ON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION,
OR NATIONAL ORIGIN, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT_RECORDED January 21,'' 1993,
IN BOOK 701 AT PAGE 523 AND AS AMENDED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED February 03,
1993, IN BOOK 702 AT PAGE 733.
TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS, OBLIGATIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND EFFECTS OF
CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION RECORDED MARCH 21, 1986 IN BOOK 507 A'I~ PAGE
688, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION RECORDED MARCH 21, 1986 IN BOOK 507~AT PAGE
689, AND BY-LAWS RECORDED MARCH 2:1, 1986 IN BOOK'S07 AT PAGE 693, ALL
PERTAINING TO THE SOPRIS MOUNTAIN RANCH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. _
TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT RECORDED May 21, 1991 IN BOC
646 AT PAGE :6.57.
i
. •P M fik.wn^~ac'i .--~~45We .': rerl~*~^° '4.i~fi+.. ~ ..~ ~ -
^' ~ ~
... „~..~... .x .. >~~_,. .
ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT '
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(970) 920=509b FAX# (970) 920-5439
December 9, 1998
Chris Newbert
P.O. Box 2011
Basalt, CO 81621
Re: Newbert Minor Amendment
Case #Pi27-98
Dear Chris,
We have. scheduled this application for review by the Board of County Commissioners on
Wednesday, Febnzary 24, 1999 at a meeting to begin at 3:00 P: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 copy of the memo pertaining to the application is available at the Community
Development Department.
If you have any questions, please call Tamara Pregl ;the planner assigned to your case, at 920-
5103.
~y
v
._.
Tenley Tay or ~
Administra ve Assistant
cc: Robert Emerson
,.w
~~ . ,.~_.
ASPEN/PITHIN
COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone (970) 920-5090 FAX (970) 920=5439
MEMORANDUM....
TO:
FROM:
RE:
County Attorney
County Wildlife Biologist
CO Division of Wildlife
Sopris Mt. Ranch HOA
Tamara Pregl, Community Development Department
Newbert Minor Amendment
Parcel#2465-331-O1-008
DATE: September 23, 1998
Attached fof your. review. and. comments is an application submitted by Chris Newbert. The Pitkin
County Community Development Director will review this application.
Please return your comments to me no later than October 21, 1998.
Thank you.
..~~ _n~~ ,. ~._ ~ ,. ~ ...
s`s Permit _ ~ n,.~ .... .._„
',
1~»~w
~Y
~fy~ngineer _
!-«.wa .. "er+v. ..r-~.....".'.,~vl s. .W. +M : x...w X"T^ a a.n^:Te+x _....
~onmental HeaIf71
1.~1J
1`15
150 "'"°'"
110'
130
151
l'K9" ._
~`.
Management /"
~ of Appeals ~ . ^."-
mg Co~e`Salea ~., ` ,~`.a ":
?rig"(Senn °~ -° :. .. ~.,:.,, ~N.M,.°
'ac os_'icense """" ,
-ical Permit
K i+nnm ywanx/wJVrM%N4Hiu1/w,avWU4":+rv°+smw°y. _ ~_
ariical~~'erinl~"""~
_..~;~.~~ ._~ :~w
heck ~ .-~««.,~.~
N,
~mg"Perm~r" """" ' f
., ;
pection
__ i _ _.
S'aiii aeon ' ,,. . w., ~ .~
~u~. N„,
'rE ~S al ,,,~i,«,«.,w..~...w.,~w,:o.nu.,.~*~«aa.w~sr*m ... i
'P`ees: w~ _ '~
ax
.. ,~ ,. .. is ~...._.~: ._,,..;..N:.:.,,.~,-«a..,,;~ _....
daps .w
mance Deposit 7"^1
~ec7icaton °°'
~,
ng Casfi m Irieu
,,,..'
..i ~" ~;.
:TC