Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.planning.264527201001 (2009)DOCUMENT LAYOUT THIS FILE MAY OR MAY NOT CONTAIN ALL OF THE INFORMATION LISTED BELOW IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER Summary Sheet Resolution for the BOCC and/or P&Z Ordinance for the BOCC and/or P&Z Determination for the Hearing Officer Administrative Determination Staff Memo Application Public Notice, Acceptance Letter, Referral(s) Letter Site Plan Miscellaneous Plat(s) Parcel ID: 2645-27-2-01-001 Application Date: 9/21/09 Case No: P101-09 Description: Sparks Minor Amendment to a Development Permit, Caretaker Dwelling Unit, Planner: Suzanne Wolff and Site Plan Review # Copies: 4 Project Address: 300 SHIELD O RD, SNOWMASS, CO 81654 Property Owner: SPARKS Owner's REP: ALAN RICHMAN REP's Email: arichman@sopris.net Referrals: ALL OTHER REFERRALS Comments Due Date: 01/27/2010 Address: 5010 ADDISON CIR ADDISON, TX 75001 Address: PO BOX 3613 ASPEN, CO 81612 Allocated Hours: 6 Over Hours: 6.4 Owner Phone: REP's Phone: (970) 920-1125 Other Referrals: Snowmass/Capitol Caucus 1/25/2010 Shield O Terrace HOA 2/1110 Housing 10/21/2009 Meetings: 1st Meeting: 2nd Meeting: 3rd Meeting: Meeting Date: Review Body: admin Public Hearing? no Notice Date: 10/04/2009 12/27/2009 Meeting Notes: Approvals: BOCC Resolution #: P&Z Determination #: BOCC Ordinance #: HO Determination #: Admin Determination #: 012-2010 #567986 Other Information: VR Approval Date: 02/26/2010 Plat Recorded Date: 04/07/2010 VR Expires Date: 02/26/2013 Plat (Bk, PG): B93 P66-68 #568365 Remarks: Application Type: Minor Amendment to a Development Permit caretaker Dwelling Unit (CDU) ADMINISTRATNE DECISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DHtECTOR OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, APPROVING THE SPARKS SITE PLAN REVIEW, MINOR AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, AND SPECIAL REVIEW FOR A CARETAKER DWELLING UNTT Administrative Decision No. ~-2010 RECITALS 1) Marc A. Sparks (hereafter "Applicant") has applied to the Community Development Director of Pitkin County (hereafter "Director") to obtain Site Plan review approval to construct asingle-family residence, a caretaker dwelling unit and associated residential development. The Applicant is also requesting approval to expand the previously approved building envelope at its southern end. 2) The property is located on Shield O Road, is referred to as Lot 21,Shield-O-Terraces, and is more specifically described in Exhibit A. 3) The parcel contains 4.005 acres and is anon-conforming size parcel in the RS-30 zone district. 4) The parcel is exempt from growth management up to 5,750 square feet of floor area since the parcel was created prior to June 12, 1978, pursuant to Sec. 6-30-100(a) of the Land Use Code ("Code"). 5) The Hearing Officer granted 1041 hazard review approval, pursuant to Determination No. 20-2004. The 1041 site plan was recorded in Plat Book 71 at Page 18. The BOCC reinstated the vested rights for three years (until July 11, 2010), pursuant to Resolution No. 061-2007. 6) The Director finds that the request complies with the applicable provisions of the Code, as follows A) The areas to be added to the envelope primarily contain slopes of less than 30% and do not encroach into any other constrained areas. B) The proposed development is consistent with the criteria for development within the Scenic Vies Protection Area and does not break a ridgeline. C) The caretaker dwelling unit complies with the applicable provisions of the Code. 7) The Director further finds that the proposed envelope amendments will not change the use of the proposed development or the basic character of the land, are consistent with action taken during the original review, do not increase off-site impacts or the allowable floor area, and will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare. APPROVED by the Director, subject to the following conditions, which shall run with the land and be binding on all successors in interest: 1. 'The Applicant shall adhere to all material representations made in the application and shall consider those representations to be conditions of approval, unless amended by other conditions. 2. 'The conditions of Hearing Officer Determination No. 20-2004 and BOCC Resolution No. 061-2007 shall remain in full force and effect, except as amended herein. O U 10 c 0 2 ~ 0 r 0 U N Q C (~ II Y o p a an U 00 ~, m ~ ~ ~ ~ o U 0 0 a w ~ d o ~ O Y Wovt~ ~ UM u.U'C ~o ~0-1Ei 3. Prior to submission of any future building permit applications, the Applicant shall be required to submit for approval by the County Attorney and Community Development a Site Plan with an amended Activity Envelope in accordance with Land Use Code Section 2-30-20(g) and Application Administrative Decision No. ~~-2010 Page 1 Manual Section 2.1.12. The above referenced approvals shall be a condition precedent to finalization and recordation of them. The Site Plan shall also incorporate the following changes: A. Shift the footprint of the "Main Cabin" so it does not extend beyond the boundary of the previously approved building envelope. Projections (cantilevered elements and roof/eaves) may extend up to 4' beyond that boundary. B. Depict any hardscape or landscape to be added to the east of the Main Cabin and within the Activity Envelope. C. Change "Building Envelope" to "Activity Envelope". 4. The parcel is exempt from Growth Management up to 5,750 square feet of floor area. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit application for the residence, the Applicant shall: A. Submit a drainage and erosion control plan for review and approval by the Planning Engineer. B. Submit a construction management plan for review and approval by the Planning Engineer showing the locations of staging, material storage and employee and construction traffic parking. C. Complete afireplace/woodstove registration form with [he Community Development Department, if necessary. D. Pay the applicable road and employee housing impact fees. E. Provide proof of an adequate water supply (in terms of quantity and availability) for domestic and fire protection purposes, and for irrigation purposes, if applicable. Any building permit application submittal shall include demonstration that the water supply is adequate for each dwelling unit for which a permit is requested (i.e., the principal residence and/or the CDU). F. Obtain an on-site wastewater treatment system (OWTS) construction permit. G. Submit a detailed revegetation plan for disturbed areas with appropriate seed mixes and a detailed landscaping plan. The plan(s) shall address irrigation to ensure the survival of the vegetation, since the well permit does not allow use of the well for irrigation. 6. The Applicant shall submit and obtain approval of an amendment to the previously approved access permit to the Planning Engineer, in order [o complete by July 1, 2010 additional drainage improvements at the bottom of the driveway to prevent surface drainage from a spring along the driveway from saturating the driveway surface. Areas disturbed by construction shall be re-vegetated within one growing season of the project's completion. No structural development in excess of 30" above or below natural grade shall occur within the setbacks of the lot, with the exception of driveways and associated retaining walls of up to 6' above or below natural grade and fencing. Landscaping in the form of berms shall not exceed four feet from the most restrictive grade. Any development located within setbacks mandated by County zoning regulations that does not comply with these restrictions shall require a variance from the Board of Adjustment. Approval of an activity envelope within such setbacks does not assure approval of a variance. 9. 'fhe Applicant shall comply with the applicable codes and requirements of the Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District, including but not limited to water supply and installation of an approved fire sprinkler system. Administrative Decision No. ~ a -2010 Page 3 --_._,. 10. The Applicant shall comply with all standards for development within Scenic View Protection Areas as represented in the application and approved in this Administrative Decision. The exterior of the residence shall utilize indigenous earth tone materials or colors and the roofs shall have anon- reflective color or composition. Reflective roof materials shall not be used unless the materials are treated prior to installation to eliminate reflection, with the exception of materials associated with solar or photovoltaic equipment. Driveway lighting is prohibited and all other lighting shall comply with the lighting code. 1 l . The caretaker dwelling unit shall be limited to no[ more than 1,000 net livable square feet. The kitchen shall contain a minimum of a two burner stove with at least a 5 cubic foot oven that can bake and broil, sink of at least 14"W X 16"D X 5.25"H, and at least a 53 cubic foot refrigerator and 0.73 cubic foot freezer. A minimum of two off-street parking spaces shall be provided for the unit. The caretaker dwelling unit must have separately accessible utilities. This does not preclude shared utilities. 12. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the caretaker dwelling unit, the Applicant shall obtain and the Housing Office shall record a caretaker dwelling unit deed restriction. Actual floor plans of the unit shall be submitted to the Housing Office with the deed restriction. The Housing Office may inspect the unit with 48-hours' notice to the owner. 13. No calculations for height, bulk, setback, size, floor area, or any other building and zoning requirements have been conducted. "these requirements will be considered at the time of building permit. Any structures represented in the application may not be permitted under building and zoning regulations. 14. Failure to comply with the conditions of this approval may result in revocation of this approval, or any subsequent permit(s) or approval(s) related [o this property, or vested rights associated with [his property. 15. Statutory vested rights for the approval contained herein are granted pursuant to the Pitkin County Land Use Code and Colorado Statutes, subject to the exceptions set forth in Pitkin County Land Use Code, § 2-20-170 and C.R.S., § 24-68-105. The statutory vested rights granted herein shall expire on ~Pbl~ UQ~ Z l~i 2013. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PUBLISHED IN THE ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY on the 27'h day of December, 2009. APPROVED by the Director, this 2~Cls day of , 2010. PUBLISHED AFTER ADOPT~ON FOR VESTED REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS in the Aspen Times Weekly on the ay of~~, 2010. ' cl~ Cin H uben, Community Development Director PID#264527201001;P101-09 RECEPTIONS: 543507, 10/24/2007 at 10:31:04 AM, 3 OF 3, Janice K. Voa Caudill, Pitkin County, CO I?- ZUIU EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 21, Being a tract of land situated in the Southeast il4 Southwest il4 and Lot 3 of Section 22, also in Lot 15 of Section 27, all in Township 9 South, Range 88 Wesl of the 8 P.M. lying Westerly of the center line of a 80 toot roadway easement, said tract being described as follows' Beginning at a point whence the re-located 1l4 corner, being the South 1l4 corner of said Section 22 bears N 60°14'26" East 584.65 feet; thence N 25°00'00" East 644.00 feet; thence S 63°26'25" East 374.55 feet to a point in the canter of said 80 foot roadway; thence S 13° 01'00" West 31.36 feet along the center line of said roadway; thence 5 22° 14'00" West i26.B4 feet along the center line of said roatlway; thence S 25°00'00" West 187.00 feet abng the center line of said roadway; thence S 60° 40'00" West 53.00 feet; thence S 49° 33'03" West 132.23 feet; thence S 67° 05'00" West 273.D0 feet to the Point of Beginning. 1¢~ ~cC~~suut max 3613 J~agbec, eo(azada 81612 December 8, 2009 Ms. Suzanne Wolff, Senior Planner r~ea.~uu~uy .Senc~i~ ;ate/~ax (9701820-1725 antcksxa+c@ca~iri¢.aet Pitkin County Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: SUPPLEMENT TO SPARKS APPLICATION FOR MINOR AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND CARETAKER DWELLING UNIT Dear Suzanne, On September 21, 2009 I submitted an application on behalf of Mr. Marc A. Sparks to amend the recorded 1041 site plan for his property, which is legally described as Lot 21, Shield O' Terraces and is located at 300 Shield O' Road in Snowmass. The property's Parcel ID# is 264527201001. The purpose of the minor amendment application is to adjust the lot's previously approved building envelope to include limited areas immediately surrounding the envelope that are also suitable for development. The application also includes a request for approval of a caretaker unit on the -ot. On November 12, 2009 you and I conducted a site visit to the property. We were joined at the site by representatives of the Snowmass-Capitol Creek Caucus and by a representative of the Homeowner's Association. Based on the results of that site visit and other discussions we have held, the County has determined that the applicant needs to supplement the original application to comply with the requirements of site plan review. This determination was made based on the language in the vested rights extension that was granted in 2007, which stated that the applicant would be subject to the Land Use Code in effect at the time of the vested rights extension. You have issued a new pre-application conference summary for this property, which is attached hereto as Exhibit #1. The sections of the Code which are identified in that form which were not previously addressed by the applicant are as follows: Sec. 7-20-10: Sec. 7-20-30: Sec. 7-20-120: Sec. 7-20-130: Sec. 7-30: Sec. 7-50: Site Preparation and Grading; Water Courses and Drainage; Scenic View Protection; Landscaping and Vegetation Protection; Roads; and Public Services and Utilities. 00t~001 ~~ z~ Ms. Suzanne Wolff December 8, 2009 Page Two This supplement to the original application is organized to provide responses to each of these sections. Please see the original application letter for a complete description of the property and for responses to the other sections cited in the pre-application form. Additional graphic materials are also being provided as a supplement to the site plan that was provided with the original application. The additional materials include two more detailed site plan drawings that illustrate the location of all development planned within the previously-proposed activity envelope. The site plans show that the applicant proposes to develop a small compound consisting of three structures, all to be located toward the southern tip of the activity envelope. The main house, which will contain approximately 3,535 sq. ft. of floor area, will be located closest to the tip of the envelope. The caretaker dwelling unit (approximately 605 sq. ff.) and the garage (approximately 1,385 sq. ft.) will be located behind the main residence, on either side of the auto court. The septic system will be located behind the CDU. Proposed landscaping (primarily Aspen and Conifer trees) to augment the existing vegetation on the site is also shown on these drawings. Based on direction provided at the site visit, the applicant has made every effort to contain the proposed structures within the eastern boundary (Snowmass Creek side) of the original building envelope. While the vast majority of the structures fall within this limit, the very southeastern corner of the CDU is proposed to protrude beyond this boundary. A slightly larger corner of the main residence also protrudes beyond this boundary, although both of these corners will be well within the limits of the proposed envelope. For the most part, the southern and eastern edges of the envelope will be used for patio areas and other at-grade activities. Other graphic materials provided with this supplement include proposed elevations of each of the structures, and an existing conditions photo and proposed conditions photo- simulation: These materials are discussed below, in the section responding to the scenic view protection standards. Site Preparation and Grading (Sec. 7-20-10) (a) Grading and Fill Placement. The applicant agrees that all grading and filling on- site will take place within the activity envelope depicted on the site plan. (b) Clearing, Grubbing and Vegetation Removal. The applicant agrees that all clearing, grubbing and vegetation removal will take place within the activity envelope depicted on the site plan. (c) Tree Removal and Mitigation. There are no trees within the activity envelope that are 6" or larger D.B.H. ~(~i'~02 Ms. Suzanne Wolff December 8, 2009 Page Three (d) Protection of Natural Terrain. The applicant agrees to follow those design and construction techniques that may be recommended by the County Planning Engineer or the Community Development Director to mitigate any physical or visual damage from the proposed development. This shall include, but not be limited to: • Revegetation of the areas disturbed by the re-development of this property. Revegetation will be completed during the first planting season after completion of the construction, using native vegetation. Additional detail on the proposed re- vegetation of the property is included in the landscape section below. • Removing and saving topsoil prior to grading or excavation, and replacing it following construction. • Installing any utilities that must be extended to the site within the existing driveway and avoiding making cuts along slopes wherever possible, to minimize damage to the natural environment and scenic quality. • Following the County's adopted erosion and sedimentation control and stormwater management standards. Sediment barriers will be placed on-site as necessary to control the impacts of soil disturbing activities (see further description of these practices in the section that follows below). • Employing appropriate weed prevention techniques and complying with the applicable provisions of the 2006 Revised Pitkin County Weed Management Plan. Water Courses and Drainage (sec. 7-20-30) (b) Encroachment or Channeling. No encroachment or channeling activities are proposed by the applicant. (c) Drainage. The applicant agrees to provide a drainage report for the proposed development at the time of building permit submission and to follow the recommendations contained in the report. (d) Groundwater. No activities are proposed which would interfere with groundwater recharge or pollute groundwater. No contaminants will be introduced to groundwater as a result of this application. (e) Irrigated Areas. There are no irrigated areas on the property that would be affected by the proposed development. No impacts on irrigation practices will occur. ;1 ~~~; Ms. Suzanne Wolff December 8, 2009 Page Four (f) Irrigation Ditches. The will be no impacts to irrigation ditches as a result of the proposed development. (g) Sedimentation. The applicant will comply with the County's standards for controlling sedimentation. A plan will be prepared as part of the building permit application package that locates and describes the erosion and sedimentation control measures that will be installed during construction. Sediment barriers, to include straw bales, silt fences and similar filtering devices will be placed on-site as necessary. Disturbed areas will be re-vegetated no later than one growing season after completion of construction by applying native seed mixes and fertilizer to disturbed areas and mulching seeded areas with straw as necessary. (h) Water Quality. The property is not proximate to any protected water resources. (i) Efficient Water Use. The applicant will comply with this standard. Scenic View Protection Areas (Sec. 7-20-120) The standards of Section 7-20-120 of the Code are intended to "Minimize the visual impact of any new development (including expansions to existing structures) when viewed from designated road corridors, as well as to preserve the rural character of Rural Areas of the County". The adopted standards are not necessarily intended to make development invisible from these viewplanes but rather "To insure that new development is designed and located to compliment the natural landscape and the natural features within the public viewplane in order to achieve an aesthetically pleasing, rural atmosphere". The applicant has evaluated the visibility of this site from the surrounding area. This site is visible to a limited extent from Snowmass Creek Road, which is one of the public road corridors listed in Section 7-20-120. During the site visit it was pointed out that this site is visible from an area near Moon Run Ranch, which is approximately 1 mile past the intersection of Snowmass Creek Road and Shield-O Road. The applicant has taken photographs from this location and has prepared aphoto-simulation of the proposed development as it would appear from Snowmass Creek Road. This simulation and the building elevations that have also been prepared provide the basis for the following responses to the County's scenic view protection standards. The proposed development shall utilize existing topography and natural vegetation, such as ridges, hills and existing trees, to screen buildings to the maximum extent practicable. ~l~i~~~fc Ms. Suzanne Wolff December 8, 2009 Page Five Response: Existing topography below the site and the existing oak brush that rings the edge of the envelope hides much of the site from view from Snowmass Creek Road. 2. The proposed development shall avoid the location of structures within the Scenic View Protection Areas and shall avoid the location of structures within any Viewplane identified in the State Highway 82 Corridor Master Plan and Down Valley Comprehensive Plan, if possible. If location outside of the Scenic View Protection Area and defined viewplanes is not practicable, then the proposed development shall not be located on the highest ground or most visible portion of the site as viewed from those corridors listed above. Response: The photo taken from near Moon Run Ranch shows that this lot is within the Scenic View Protection Area as seen from Snowmass Creek Road, so location outside of this area is not possible. However, the proposed development is visible at a distance of about 1 mile from this portion of the road. Furthermore, the simulation shows that the residence will simply fit in amongst a series of other residences already developed within the Shield-O Subdivision, with several existing houses being located both below and above the proposed development. The applicant has not placed the development on the highest ground on the lot, as there are higher elevations on the lot than where the structures would be located. Unlike other houses within the subdivision, the house will not break the ridge as viewed from Snowmass Creek Road. The lot is not located within a designated Scenic Viewplane. 3. The proposed developments height and bulk shall be designed to avoid, to the maximum extent practicable, the visibility of buildings from those corridors listed above. This may include, but shall not be limited to, breaking the mass of the building down into a series of smaller forms, articulation of the building facades to avoid a wall or row effect, and staggering rooflines to avoid a long unbroken plane. Response: The height and bulk of the proposed development has been minimized by breaking the allowed floor area on the site into three separate structures, rather than proposing a single structure that would contain all of the proposed uses and square footage. This helps to avoid the creation of a wall or row effect along the eastern edge of the proposed building envelope. The elevations illustrate that the mass of each building has been broken into a series of smaller forms using several design techniques, including: • Using open decks, balconies, stairs, and overhangs to create a human scale for the buildings; and ~~1,~~ Ms. Suzanne Wolff December 8, 2009 Page Six Having roof forms and building elements that are staggered, and project in several different directions, to avoid creating a single wall form along the front facade. The elevations also identify the 28' height limit that applies to the main residence and the 20' height limit that applies to the two accessory structures. The elevations illustrate that the maximum height of the roof of the residence is generally less than 28' to the peak of the roof (where the Code would allow 28' as measured to the mid-point of the roof). The peak of the roof of the CDU measures 20' (again, the Code would allow 20' to the mid- point of the roof), so both of these structures are well below the height limit. The garage (which, given its proposed location, will be the least visible of the proposed structures) will comply with the 20' height limit as measured to the mid-point of the roof. 4. The proposed structure shall be placed so that it does not project above a ridgeline such that a structure silhouettes against the sky when viewed from those corridors listed above, unless there are no alternate building sites on the lot or parcel. Response: As shown on the photo-simulation, the proposed house will not break the ridgeline as viewed from Snowmass Creek Road. 5. The proposed development shall be designed to compliment the natural topography of the land through the use of techniques such as earth sheltered design, the use of natural materials and coloring, the use of low-reflectance materials, or clustering of structures on the least visible portions of the site. When a building is proposed near a ridgeline, then its form (particularly its roof form) shall replicate, parallel or compliment the natural form of the ridgeline so that it appears to be an element of the natural ridgeline. Response: The applicant agrees to use natural materials and materials that have colors that compliment the natural landscape. The south elevation of the residence labels the materials that will be used in each of the structures. These materials include weathered barn board siding, post and beam timbers, wood windows and doors, and stone veneer on the chimneys and base. The structures will have a corten metal roof, using a combination of rusted corrugated panels and low reflectance standing seam panels. The applicant has chosen colors for these materials that arise primarily from the natural shades found in the hillside. Because it can be difficult to precisely render these colors and materials in the proposed elevations, the applicant would agree to present the finally chosen materials and colors to the staff prior during the building permit review process. 6. The proposed development shall preserve natural vegetation and avoid development within irrigated meadows to the maximum extent practicable. ~,~t,~sjOEi v'--, :. Ms. Suzanne Wolff December 8, 2009 Page Seven Response: Vegetation has previously been removed within the limits of the proposed building envelope (the "grub line"). However, the natural vegetation surrounding the proposed building envelope (primarily oak brush and some Aspen trees) will be preserved. There are no irrigated meadows on the property. 7. The proposed development shall install utilities in locations and through procedures that minimize visual impacts to the maximum extent practicable. Response: Any utilities that must be extended to the site will be installed within the existing gravel driveway. 8. All satellite dishes in the proposed development shall be located to minimize visibility from those rights-of--way listed above and shall use earth tone colors and/or screening to minimize their visual impact. Response: If a satellite dish is installed it will be located to minimize its visibility and will use earth tone colors. The dish will be the small (Direct TV/Dish Network) type and will not be the larger, 3' diameter type of dish. 9. The proposed development shall not utilize earth moving and berms as the primary means of compliance with these regulations, but earth moving maybe utilized in conjunction with other techniques to comply with the standards of this section. Where earth moving techniques are necessary, man-made forms should be undulating and natural in appearance. Response: Earth moving and berms are not proposed as the means of complying with these regulations. 10. In the Rural Area only, development shall be located so that activities and development occur in at least one of the locations specified in subsection (f) as they may apply to the particular property. Response: None of the listed locations apply to this small lot in an older County subdivision. 11. The exteriorof all development shall be built or painted with indigenous earth tone materials or colors. Response: The applicant will comply with this requirement. For details, please see the response to standard #5, above. L~!~JD7 Ms. Suzanne Wolff December 8, 2009 Page Eight 12. All roofs shall have anon-reflective color or composition. Reflective roof materials shall not be used unless the materials are treated prior to installation to eliminate reflection, with the exception of materials associated with solar or photovoltaic equipment. Response: The applicant will comply with this requirement. For details, please see the response to standard #5, above. 13. Lands disturbed by earth moving or berms should be revegefated using native species that are already growing on or near the site. Topsoil shall be stockpiled and placed on disturbed areas. Irrigation shall be provided to the revegetated areas if it is necessary to ensure the survival of planted native species. Response: The applicant will comply with this requirement. 14. To the maximum extent practicable, roads and driveways shall be located to skirt the edge of avoid dividing meadows and pastures and to avoid major road cuts. Roads and driveways should take advantage of the screening potential of natural topography and existing vegetation. Existing roads and driveways shall be used where practical. To enhance screening, a row of trees maybe planted along the roads or driveways. To the maximum extent practicable, roads and driveways located around the edge of or in meadows shall be laid out with soft, curving edges and shall avoid straight line corridors that are incongruous with the natural setting. Response: The applicant will utilize the existing driveway into the property. Landscaping and Vegetation Protection (Sec. 7-20-130) The site plan depicts the landscaping that will be planted on the property. Given the severe wildfire hazard that is present below this property, the applicant has limited the proposed screening to clusters of Aspen trees and a limited number of Conifer trees. In addition, the disturbed areas of the site will be re-vegetated with native vegetation using the County's mountain meadow seed mix. Following are the applicant's responses to the standards in this section: (b) General Provisions Protection of Natural Vegetation. The applicant will preserve the natural vegetation on the site to the extent possible. Vegetation has previously been removed within the limits of the proposed building envelope (the "grub line"). However, the natural vegetation surrounding the proposed building envelope will be preserved. ~t;atltl0s Ms. Suzanne Wolff December 8, 2009 Page Nine 2. Conformance With Wildfire Regulations. The applicant will comply with the wildfire conditions previously applied to this property in Hearing Officer Determination No. 20-2004 (see Exhibit #4 of the original application package). 3. Berms. A berm is not proposed for this site. 4. Landscape Enclosures. Landscaping will not be used to enclose the lot's boundaries. 5. Visibility Clearance. No landscaping is proposed where it would inhibit the visibility of drivers. 6. Utility Easements. Landscaping will not be installed over a utility easement. 7. Financial Security. The applicant requests that no financial security be required for the planned landscaping. 8. Maintenance. The applicant agrees to maintain all installed landscaping in a healthy condition and to replace plants that do not survive. (c) Required Landscaping in Rural Areas 1. None of the purposes for which landscaping is required in the Rural Area apply to this property. 2. The applicant will cluster the shrubs and trees that are planted into natural groupings and will avoid planting in regularly spaced lines or rows. Roads, Driveways, Parking and Utilities (Sec. 7-30 and 7-50) The applicant does not plan any activities that would have significant impacts on the County's road network and agrees to pay the applicable County road impact fee. The applicant will use the driveway that was installed by the prior owner of this property. Parking on the site will comply with the adopted County standard of 2 spaces per dwelling unit and will comply with all applicable design standards. The site plan shows two parking spaces along the entry drive and there will be a two car garage on the site. As noted above, any utilities that must be extended to the site will be installed within the existing gravel driveway. Waterwill be supplied from the well that was previously installed on the site. ~"~. "~ 09 Ms. Suzanne Wolff December 8, 2009 Page Ten Sewage disposal will also occur on-site, within the area identified on the site plan for the planned system. A letter has been provided from All Service Septic (see Exhibit #2) describing the results of the analyses they have conducted in designing the proposed drain field. Conclusion I believe the above supplementary responses and the attached exhibits and graphic materials provide the information you require to process this application. If there is anything else you need, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES "~ Alan Richman, AICP fl~lJ1Q EXHIBIT #1 PITKIN COUNTY PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Suzanne Wolff DATE: 11/17/09 PHONE: (970)920-5093 E-MAIL: suzannewanco.pitkin.co.us LOCATION: Lot 21, Shield O Terrace PARCEL ID #s: 264527201001 ZONE: RS-30 LOT SIZE: 4.005 acres OWNERS/APPLICANTS: Marc Sparks REPRESENTATIVE: Alan Richman EMAIL: arichman@sopris.net Type of Application: Minor Amendment to Development Permit, Caretaker Dwelling Unit and Site Plan Review Description of Project/Development: The Applicant proposes to amend the building envelope and obtain approval for a caretaker dwelling unit. The Applicant is also requesting site plan review approval. The Hearing Officer granted 1041 hazard review approval pursuant to Determination No. 20-2004. The BOCC reinstated the vested rights, pursuant to Resolution No. 061-2007; the vested rights expire July 11, 2010. Land Use Code Sections to address in letter of requesUapplication: - 2-20-150.b: Minor Amendment to Development Permit - 2-30-20(g)(2): Activity Envelope and Site Plan Criteria for Approval - 2-30-30(h): Special Review criteria for caretaker dwelling unit; - 4-30-50(e)(1)(2): Caretaker Dwelling Unit - 6-30-40(c): GMOS Exemption for CDU - 7-20-10: Site Preparation and Grading - 7-20-30: Water Courses and Drainage - 7-20-120: Scenic View Protection Areas - 7-20-130: Landscaping and Vegetation Protection - 7-30: Roads, Driveways and Parking - 7-50: Public Service and Utilities Review by: Community Development Director Public Hearing: NO. However, notice is required via posting, mailing and publication. The Applicant shall post a public notice sign on the property at least 15 days prior to the date specified for the Administrative Decision pursuant to Sec. 2-20-100(a)(3) of the Land Use Code. In addition, the Applicant shall mail notice (by certified mail) to all owners within 300' of the property and mineral estate owners with the return address of the Community Development Department (form of notice to be obtained from the Community Development Department). The names and addresses shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County, as they appear no more than 60 days prior to the date of the public hearing. A property owner receiving the public notice shall have 2 weeks from the date the notice was postmarked to submit comments or objections to the Community Development Department. Staff will refer to: Snowmass/Capitol Caucus, Shield O Terrace HOA, Housing FEES: $2,253 (make check payable to "Pitkin County Treasurer') • $1,995 Planning flat fee (non-refundable; based on 8 hours of staff time; if staff review time exceeds 9.6 hours, the Applicant will be charged for additional time in excess of 8 hours at a rate of $249/hour) • $179 Housing • $54 Public Notice • $25 Clerk Technology Fee tr~t,J1I To apply, submit 4 copies of the following information, unless noted otherwise: 1. Letter of request, addressing (in detail) each of the provisions of the Pitkin County Land Use Code identified above and sufficient to demonstrate that all substantive review criteria have been met; 2. Copies of prior approvals; 3. 24" by 36" Site Plan as designated in Section 2.1.12 of the Pitkin County Land Use Application Manual; 4. Scenic View Protection Exhibits as designated in Section 2.1.12 of the Application Manual 5. Engineering report addressing road design, water supply, wastewater disposal and other utilities and public services. 6. Consent from the owner of the property for the representative to process the application and represent the owner (1 copy); 7. Disclosure and proof of ownership of the property, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company or attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property and all mortgagees, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting use and development of the parcel and proof of the owner's right to use the land for the purposes identified in the development application. 8. Street address (if any) and parcel description, including legal description, and 8-1/2"x 11"vicinity map locating the subject property within Pitkin County; 9. Executed Pitkin County Community Development Agreement for Payment of Land Use Application Fees (1 copy) (form attached); 10. List of adjacent property owners and mineral estate owners (1 copy); and 11. This Pre-Application Conference Summary Sheet. NOTES: - PLEASE SUBMIT ONE UNBOUND AND ONE-SIDED COPY OF YOUR COMPLETE APPLICATION. PLEASE SUBMIT TWO-SIDED COPIES OF ALL REMAINING COPIES OF YOUR APPLICATION (IF POSSIBLE). - ALL MAPS SHALL BE FOLDED. - This pre-application 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 staff's interpretations based upon representations of the applicant. Additional information maybe required upon a complete review of fhe application. lJu~J1G EXHIBIT #2 ~ PO Box 2844 Glenwood Springs, C0 81602 ~~Ilvl Ph970-618.5033 ` t Fax303-216-2796 November Sei 2009 Gathers Home Builders, At: Mark Doherty 530 Basalt Avenue Basalt, CO 81621 Subsurface Investigation and Percolation Report 300 Shield-O Road Pitkin County, Colorado Mark, Project No. 1662 ALL SERVICE septic, LLC, performed a subsurface investigation and percolation test for the subject property, on October 27a' 2009. The test was performed in accordance with Pitkin County Regulations. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND STRUCTURES The subject property is located in a residential area where Onsite Wastewater Systems (OWS) and wells are necessary. The property is currently vacant, with the exception of a drilled well. The slope at the area of the percolation holes slopes approximately 5% to the northeast, and vegetation consists of native grasses and scrub oak. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AND CONCLUSIONS The subsurface was investigated by digging one profile pit and three percolation holes. The materials in the profile hole consisted of 1-foot of sandy clay root zone, underlain by clayey sand with scattered boulders to the maximum depth explored of 8 feet. Groundwater or bedrock was not encountered. Percolation rates ranged from 20 minutes per inch (MPI) to 27 MPI, with an average rate of 17 MPI. A conventional drain field having 780 SF may be installed at the subject site. Reductions in drain field sizing may be utilized with the installation of graveness chambers. LIMITS: Results are based on field investigations and data provided by the client. If soil conditions encountered are different from conditions described in report, ALL SERVICE septic, LLC should be notified Please call with questions. ALL SERVICE septic, LLC Timothy R. Petz 3 copies i§ ~~ s"+113 G:I~°l14 ~ i9' S9 .q•. ~ ?;~ m n~6/,R ... -+=54? 044 W S57 0422~~` ~ SPARKS SITE PLAN ~ ~ LOT 21 OF THE SHIELD-O-TERRACES SUBDIVISION ~0 0 •~ ~ ~~~ ~~ 9 PARCEL ID.y 2 6 452 7201 001 Tan 4.h?. ~ COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO _ 3,~ ~~ ~--- i,_~ 4 y -- ~• ~ C~= L9• .. OJT E~ a° n ~ 0~ ~ ~ ~ l ~ - s ' 4G' JI i - .`_,• ~ Na TF NI US m•` ~_ a ~ 3 ~- Ap~RpXIU4P EXI ;?ING GRJ6 LIVE ~ ~ ~`~ ~~°a A PPK SnF ~ ~ REVEL GMF T % o ' ENV ~OP~ j ~ ~ U.i AC f n ~ ~ ~/ ~ ~ y° J ~~ REB AR 6:C ~,F p~0pO5~n ~ANnSCAPING ~ ~ ~ '~' ~ ~ ~ - L s 24303 ~~~ J NEwcoNIPERrREE i ~' , '` z: 3 , _ = ~ -. y 6- ea z < a • .j NEW YJECIDlKh151F.t;E k_ ~ 1 / c--t' 9 •.a k 1 w <~ ~ Q ~: ~ ia• 1h -_~~~ ~ ~ 'r sr r~oFC , _ ~r ) ,, ' o EUI_JIV ENTFL'J~E ~ - I ~~ ~ ( SS c14 ~.h ~ ~ ~' . ~ ~( 0 76 A f Q - f rE O~ s ~ / L.' t ~ /,: i \ I/ 100' 61MIf LINE PROM EXI59NG -{` ~ '~ „~ - .~ 'S (~ ~ :; I . WELL f0 SEGtic LEPGN P~LJ ~,~, i ~ _. ~ ~E 1 ~ / i I J .~; 4~ya.p / t , r • .i yon errs9 ea. ss9a '', vJl9 ye I 9elonE~o 61611 lel 9)0.9j1.t9C6 pr. 9)9.911.t91t I~ TPLW Yiff,MgrYx TIMBER CREEK WEST 'IOO sn.na-o a99a Snowmass, Colorado SITE PLAN ;~( I'-a m OIR nNaW Jp OYr Wwxw ew Al .1 =~:;_. .~~~: C ~~~~J ~ PrtO°fJSE~- E ILDING EfJe'E' 0 .53 $"4 ~F.t r -r, ac.t 100 lIM1^I'IMEPrOME~SANGwt6l~ f'~Op05~n I.ANnSCAPING 1 ~`~ NEWLONIFER ~E _ i I new r~arnaus ~~ 4 i U ~ I r zs ~. P ~„ I FLA~ASTO~r pl~~!~A~ ~~ ~CK~TE "~ ___ ._. _ r ~Li~~LKrh'A r- ---- -- --- I - -- sra~~~~cs,rs- - __ _ - _ - ~ n JvFI.~ - LirJE ~ crm~~ ~ ~~.~~roNrrr - - _ 1, ~r , ~ an ~ ~~~.~~~~ ~~ h~~ ~.r • ;~ __ / P OP. _n~~ ric NvE ~. ~\ 1 I ~. ~ ~ \ ' l~ ~~ a~a~ li ~ ~ ~ I ~_' ~ I~ III (. SYiT~h~' ~".. _ ~' ~ 1 r ~ ` --. J~ r 7 ~ ~ r ~ 4-_1 -- - r _~ r I a ~,i '~~ (/JVnP~E ._ ~~ ~1-P'I a^ ~ i r r i 1~:A18m ~ ~,~ 1 ra~,x.a n~ u.mavI~-as.vax ~ a ~~avrex &sls l~A F _ / / /~ - CiM1'A ISL. 'Vl'.V ~A'f T /.J> I ~-M ~ / 1 ~ r , r ~a ~ :,, i /~ ~ 7 \ ', . ~~, .~ ~~ ~~> ~ t~ ~ i L ~ r~ ~ Xy j3 M1fi ~ '~ _ Y ~ ~~'~r \ 3 ~ J // /`f ' ~, ~ ( '~; I~ ~} ',~ '~ ~..~. ~ ~~ ~ , ,~ ~.; ~ ~ ~ ~` ~ , ~.-1 . r ~ ~ ~, I ~ ~ , ...;~ ~ ~ ~r ~ ~\: /' -EY.I: ZING B IL61NI E vELU E VC CRI ~I dC 5 RUB G K3 O F AIV. °E Ct C(`F~F/r ~_G NISI G ri'~i ST~ T HIV I ~ ~~ , ~I~oI r-iv ~ P= I II / ~ ~ ~ MAJti ~P(5M ~, __ - ~ Gr ~171h F~EJk 4-s ~c 'v , ,; - _ ~~~ , 1 fYYHJR -Y.W1J.,¢ j~ ~ I ~ ~ aa.v nr~-ocwie2 I 1 f ' - + - _ ~' wr I 4~ --~ ~ '--~ ' I ~'F ~ v >- "x ~ ~ ~~ i < _ n j ~~~,, ~, S.t__j _,,~w,_l ~:. r- ~ y r x~"" ~~~; £.,,: o ~a l L E p rr a xo. von r111eYe I E9 !1615 11~ 910 9D {9G6 r .91o.9n.e9sY TIMBER CREE WEST wo sn.ne-o a9.a Sno9rmms, Colorods s,n r~~rd I7 -J xn alxvcY ~. rem w.wa ey Al .2 T (Y~E:1 61L ~~ c ~iNR 4"G~ftu r~ti4. loot' ~ a ~,~Nvn~a , p 16syr, 1~ r6er~{ Bw"9 woos w~Nbavn 1 Gc~ '~1^hl~ VGNE~. pe6E ~-{ ~<Gl'?~ ~'vAh1 .Q M n U~~~~~1~ S~~rION _u~~„~ uocT~ I/5~,~ i,,o' o- of oc~'d~E~ ~~ 2t~O )~ r -- - 2Z~d~ y70NL GrT~D „_ ~~ i 0 ~'~IQI~f p;,(~pF- ~rf'`~ 7C'~b S,P, µtiT~ lc10 9 F ~ TbTXI, F1,o~(~ P~ `Ln ~ ~ Ov~N ~~.~~ ~;~~ I ~ ~I~G~ ~ G,~;,~Mp~TIG D~~~I C~iJ ~ Mir/~F-~I~T, iN . Ck~Tt~K~f~ pw~wa~1G IAN IT G~+~l ~ `~N65r ~l,~Vh7ioN houTH ~~vaTiO~l O~~J17 ~~ ueib~ a ~~- 5ro~ie ~cNC~ Z u CORfE}1 M7fy, (^~PU :aC~uGA?Cp t "nl*Ni W~,hT}~faG 6~+Y-+~~ G; {ts,T t ~iEPr~ Tirt! W'J~fi WfNV~WS $ GP ~~ ~u~v~r~~~~ No1~TN G~ E~E~k`(lON hvo~ ~L~u -- - _ - - _---- 9'-- r.._~-__~.~._.._ E 9~ _ _ - _ . Iz -.-~ ~ ti ~ - -- - - - --- ~ _ _~ ~.. _ i- -. ~-. - ---- - _~ ~ - 'ti -~- - - - --- - _ -~-= ~~~/~~~~~~y bN 11_ r~ _. '-_.-. --~'-~ --~4 I ~o~ N31GHf LIMrf C~RTEN METi-4 ~P _ ~ tl ~ y tv' i ~ ~~ i 11~ i wF,ardrJ~l+ ~rw Wrv-C - T _-- A _ ~ i I ~ ii. a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I / _ _ hToHE YEuEB R - -- - - ~ 2 ,~ ~! ~.- - -rm U..w;e - ~, ,,.Ha ~ ~ i ii _ - r~ ~~+~ - ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ _ _ .. ~ ,. ~a~%r FjL~Vk'Tlr~.a ~p'>"~d ~;.~Vlk'fION (~{~~UI~~„ii G/'!:~Y~- r>vP..l __._ X51 h.f - ~F ~^£GN ,~~ ~~%% t,y9Uh 6. - - iU!~L bP.,t7 ~Jd ~ Noy 1~,7~% !-(~ G'7 µ~~~~~~ 09- ~I`~L~ ~ ~ ~+~~'~ ~~~ ~-~ ~~~~ ~' ~~ ~ i~1G ~~~~1~,~~~~ V~i~al~ ~ ~~F-r M~Nbi.~.-~'~iLf.~~`~Ci'~, '~L. _ -_ ___ _ __ __-~z.. _ _ - -. . T_ _ -__._~I iII o~~~ols ~- _ ~:.4 6, F, ~ tiodR- ,awfJ• ~ .~t~ i ~ F, ~`, ,~ ~` ~ : ~- y ~. r~ q ,- w _ 1 Jam' ~. -_~_r: ~~~~f~1~ ~~; ,. ;.. ~ ~: ~}j'e ~:~,. • 1. ~ ~ y1'L4 {y , rs~ i ~ ~- 7 ',Y i e _~ r ~ ~ . "i .. P~1r.. v'iA .. Dhr-tn talron alnnn Cnnwmacc f:rapk Rnarl in tl~p vir+initvnf IlAnnn ~ , r~ ..,~. i , 1 x 1 ~ , Q~~n Rer~nl~ " { ,4 ~ Photo simulation along Snowmass Creek Road in the vicinity of Moon Run Ranch PITHIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AGREEMENT FOR PAYMENT OF LAND USE APPLICATION FEES PITKIN COUNTY (hereinafter COUNTY) and Marc A. sharks (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to COUNTY an application for Minor Amendment to a Development Permit (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that Pitkin County Ordinance No. 022-2006 establishes a fee structure for land use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. The fee structure is based on the County's policy that development shall pay, in full, the cost of development review in Pitkin County. Fees have been set to be consistent and fair to the public and to reflect the expense incurred in providing such services to the public. 3. APPLICANT and COUNTY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it may not be possible at the time of application to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. 4. APPLICANT and COUNTY agree that fees charged for the processing of land use applications shall accumulate if an application includes more than one type of land use review. 5. 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. 6. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the COUNTY'S waiver of its right to collect full fees priojj t gdetermination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay a base fee in the amount of $9~~which is based on~°hours of staff time, and if actual time spent by staff to process the application exceeds the average number of hours by more than 20%, then the COUNTY will bill the APPLICANT quarterly for the additional time spent. 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. PITHIN COUNTY Ciudy Houben Community Development Director APPLICANT Marc A. Sparks Print Name / Mailing Addr~e`ss: 5010 Addison Circle Addison. TX 75001 o~~-~~~. ~3~ ~Q~ ,~ccCusca.~a 'fl'ax 3613 ~4aju+c. (~olaaada 8!672 September 21, 2009 ~ea.~urur~y .Sezaite~ ,- , ~/sa.ce/~ax ~g7o)s2o-772s as~cluxakr~co~~c..Iret Ms. Suzanne Wolff, Senior Planner Pitkin County Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: SPARKS APPLICATION FOR MINOR AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND CARETAKER DWELLING UNIT Dear Suzanne, This is an application to amend the recorded 1041 site plan for the Sparks property, which is legally described as Lot 21, Shield O' Terraces and is located at 300 Shield O' Road in Snowmass. The Parcel ID# for the property is 264527201001. The purpose of this minor amendment is to adjust the lot's previously approved building envelope to include limited areas immediately surrounding the envelope that are also suitable for development. The applicant also requests approval of a caretaker unit on the lot. The application is being submitted by the owner of the property, Mr. Marc A. Sparks (hereinafter, "the applicant"). A legal description and proof of ownership of the property is provided in the Warranty Deed, attached hereto as Exhibit #1. The applicant is being represented by Alan Richman Planning Services for purposes of this application. A letter from the applicant confirming this arrangement is attached as Exhibit #2. I held apre-application conference with you prior to the submission of this application. The Pre-Application Conference Summary you issued (see Exhibit #3) states that the review procedures applicable to the proposed development are as follows: Minor Amendment to a Development Permit, pursuant to Code Section 2-20-150 (b); Special Review for a Caretaker Dwelling Unit, pursuant to Code Section 2-30-30 (h); Use Standards for a Caretaker Dwelling Unit, pursuant to Code Section 4-30-50 (e); and GMQS Exemption for a Caretaker Dwelling Unit, pursuant to Code Section 6-30-40 (c). ~' ,. J~UOQ2 Ms. Suzanne Wolff September 21, 2009 Page Two The following sections of this application identify the provisions of the Land Use Code applicable to these procedures and provide responses to the applicable County standards. First, however, a brief description of the property and an explanation of the purpose of the proposed amendment are presented below. Property Description The subject property is a nearly rectangular-shaped parcel of land located along the lower reaches of Shield O' Road. The property is 4.005 acres in size. It zoned RS-30, a zone district with a 30 acre minimum lot size, making this asubstandard-size lot of record. The property was granted 1041 Hazard Review approval by the Hearing Officer pursuant to Hearing Officer Determination 20-2004 (see Exhibit #4). The 1041 site plan for the property is recorded in Plat Book 71 at Page 18. Subsequent to obtaining this approval, the prior owner, Mr. Tom Whiddon, constructed the driveway into the property, installed the well, and made other associated improvements: The free market residence contemplated in the original approval has not yet been built. In 2007, the Board of County Commissioners reinstated the property's vested rights for three years (until July 11, 2010), pursuant to Resolution 061-2007 (see Exhibit #5). More recently, Mr. Whiddon sold the property to Mr. Sparks, who intends to complete the development of the property. As is shown on the proposed site plan, the majority of the property consists of slopes that are in excess of 30%. However, the northwest corner of the lot is considerably flatter that the remainder of the lot, with slopes that are generally less than 30%. This is the portion of the property where the designated building envelope is located. A careful review of the designated building envelope illustrates that the northwestern corner of the envelope is actually designated as an accessory building envelope, with a reference to note #7 on the site plan. That note states that the edge of the envelope corresponds to a distance of 275 feet from the closest roof comer of the house on one of the adjacent lots. This restriction was adopted during the public hearings held in 2004, in response to comments provided by the adjacent neighbor, who objected to having a structure any closer than that distance from her existing house. Since that condition was written the house on that lot has been demolished. Nevertheless, the applicant has no interest in re-visiting that issue, given the lengthy negotiations that went into the imposition of that restriction on the development of this lot. Q oOQ~" •.. . Ms. Suzanne Wolff September 21, 2009 Page Three Proposed Site Plan Amendment The applicant has evaluated the designated building envelope on the recorded site plan in the hope of creating a plan that would fit within the envelope. The applicant has-found that the irregular shape of the designated building envelope and the natural features of the lot make it somewhat difficult to complete the development he contemplates within the boundaries of the envelope. The applicant is working with an architect to design a small residential compound that would be comprised of three structures, including a main house that would be approximately 3,000 sq. ft. in size, a detached garage behind the house, and a small caretaker dwelling unit. The applicant would prefer to locate these structures towards the front (southwest) portion of the envelope, where the envelope projects forward with a narrow "finger". There are several reasons for placing the house in this location. First, the views from this portion of the lot toward the Snowmass Ski Area are unimpeded. Second, it is possible to hear the sound of water flowing in Snowmass Creek along the valley floor from this location, but this sound is not audible from the rear portion of the building envelope. Finally, there is a stand of oak brush toward the rear (northeast) portion of the envelope that the applicant would like to preserve, provided he can set back a sufficient distance from the brush to achieve the required level of defensible space. The issue the applicant is trying to grapple with is that the front portion of the building envelope is quite confined, with a width of just about 60' that narrows to less than 30' at the tip of the finger. Therefore, every foot of additional width that the applicant might be able to obtain helps to make a livable house and outdoor deck that much more feasible. When the original envelope was drawn the prior owner had anticipated putting much of the house in the middle of the envelope, with some of the house projecting forward toward the front of the envelope. However, when the restriction was placed on the use of the northwestern corner of the envelope, this design became more difficult, making it important to utilize the land at the front of the envelope. A close examination of the slope analysis provided on the site plan shows that there are some slivers of land around the finger of the envelope that also have slopes less than 30%. The applicant proposes to extend the envelope to include these areas immediately around the envelope. The site plan depicts the new envelope that would be established in comparison to the approved envelope. It shows that the new envelope would extend mostly above and slightly below the limits of the approved envelope by a distance that ranges from just 2' where the extension begins, to approximately 20' at the southern tip of the envelope. Some of the extension is into areas with slopes that are 15% to 30% but there are also areas proposed to be added to the envelope with slopes greater than 30%. 0084 Ms. Suzanne Wolff September 21, 2009 Page Four The surveyor has studied these areas and determined that slopes in this area measure approximately 33%. The applicant recognizes that a slope of 33% slightly exceeds the Code limit. However, the applicant requests the inclusion of these areas for two reasons. First, their inclusion will make this portion of the envelope significantly more usable for the residential compound, with the width of the finger of the envelope ranging from 80' to 60'. Second, when the applicant purchased this lot it had already begun to be developed, with piles of rocks and other disturbed material left in place from when the prior owner built the driveway and installed the well within the designated building envelope. To help the owner to be able to understand the lot and to design a house that would fit on it, the owner asked his contractor to clear the envelope, following the boundaries laid out on the site plan. However, as the surveyor has since verified, the contractor went several feet beyond the boundary on the uphill side and around the front of the envelope, clearing along the very bottom of the slope. Therefore, the applicant requests approval to include this area in the envelope, since it has been disturbed and the slopes that were previously just over 30% (and are shown as such on the site plan) are now actually less than 30%. Minor Amendment to a Development Permit Staff has determined that the proposed changes to the site plan can be processed as a minor amendment to a development permit. Section 2-20-150 (b) of the Code authorizes the Community Development Director to grant a minor amendment to a development permit. This section states that a minor amendment shall meet the following criteria: 1. Is consistent with action(s) taken during previous development approvals for the property. Response: The proposed envelope would have the same basic configuration as the approved envelope except for the fact that its lower portion would be slightly wider. In all other respects the amendment would not change the originally-granted approval. As shown on the proposed site plan, the total area of the envelope would increase by approximately 5,100 sq. ft., from approximately 28,700 sq. ft. to 33,800 sq. ft. If the County felt it would be meaningful, the applicant would be willing to remove a corresponding area from the approved envelope to keep its total area approximately the same as today. For example, the applicant would agree to remove the northeast corner of the envelope, which is covered with oak brush and has slopes that are just under 30%. 2. Does not change the use of the proposed development between residential, commercial and tourist accommodation uses. Response: No change in use is proposed. tlt1~~(,~~ .. Ms. Suzanne Wolff September 21, 2009 Page Five 3. Does not change the basic character of the approved use of land on which the activity occurs including basic visual appearance and method of operation. Response: The proposed amendment will not change the basic character of the land use approval granted to the property. It merely adds some limited slivers of land to the approved envelope. The envelope is essentially not visible from Snowmass Creek Road. 4. Does not constitute a new land development activity. Response: The proposed amendment does not constitute a new land development activity. Rather, it is a minor change to an approved development activity. 5. Does not increase off-site impacts in the surrounding neighborhood. 6. Does not endanger the public health, safety, or welfare. Response: The proposed changes to the envelope will not increase off-site impacts nor will they endanger the public health, safety or welfare. 7. Does not violate any Land Use Code standard. Response: The proposed amendment does not violate any Code standard, although it would authorize limited development to occur on slopes that were previously slightly more than 30%. However, the applicant believes that this development may be permitted by Section 7-20-20 (c) (2), "Parcels With Some Areas of Less Than 30% Slopes". The approved envelope has an irregular shape and is relatively limited in size (it is approximately 2/3 of an acre). When it was originally drawn it contained a wide area in its northern (upper) reaches that would have been a feasible spot for the house to be built. However, in the original approval the northwest corner of the lot was limited to accessory uses only, leaving a poorly configured area that would be difficult to develop. Moreover, this portion of the lot is still largely covered with oak brush and the applicant would hope to keep that vegetation intact for screening and the wildlife benefits it provides. Considering all of these factors (and because it is the most desirable portion of the envelope in which to build) the applicant wants to cluster the three proposed structures into the lower portion of the envelope. However, because of the limited width of this area, it is not possible to place all of the floor area allowed on this property in this location. It should be noted that the applicant does not propose to develop the full 5,750 sq. ft. of floor area allowed on this parcel (an exact total will be provided at the time of building permit review). But the lesser amount of floor area planned does not fit entirely within this area. Therefore, the applicant requests this amendment of the envelope onto the slopes that were previously slightly in excess of 30% to allow the permitted floor area to be built. O Q~(Q Ms. Suzanne Wolff September 21, 2009 Page Six The applicant hereby agrees to submit a report from an engineer or a geologist prior to building permit review demonstrating that the site can be engineered such that there will be no hazard posed by amending the envelope in the manner shown, as required by Sec. 7-20-20 (c)(1)(a). The applicant also agrees to comply with the provisions of Sec. 7-20- 20 (c)(1)(b) of the Code which ensure that a disturbed slope remains stable. 8. Does not substantially increase the need for on-site parking or utilities, or affect affordable housing generation. 9. .Does not increase the floor area of the use by more than five percent (5%) or decrease the open space on the site by more than five percent (5%). Response: The proposal has no impacts on the need for parking, utilities or affordable housing, and does not change floor area or open space calculations on the site. Use Standards for Caretaker Dwelling Unit According to Section 4-30-50 (e) (1) and (2) of the Code, a caretaker dwelling unit (CDU) may be developed in the RS-30 zone district, pursuant to the following use standards: (a) It is attached to a single family home. Response: The applicant proposes that the CDU be detached from the main residence (although it will be located in a cluster approximately 20' to 30' from the residence). Section 4-30-50 (e) (2) allows a CDU to be detached from the main residence if it complies with the special review procedures and standards of the Code. A response to the standards of special review (Section 2-30-30 [h] [2]) is provided below. (b) The lot or parcel on which it is located conforms to the minimum lot area requirements for each dwelling in the zone district in which the caretaker dwelling unit is located. Response: The subject property does not conform to the 30 acre minimum lot area requirement of the RS-30 zone district. Section 4-30-50 (e) (2) allows a CDU to be developed on a substandard lot if it complies with the special review procedures and standards of the Code. A response to the standards of special review (Section 2-30-30 [h] [2]) is provided below. (c) The caretaker dwelling unit shall not exceed one thousand (1,000) net livable square feet on lots or parcels that are thirty thousand (30,000) square feet or greater in lot area, and seven hundred (700) net livable square feet on lots or parcels that are less than thirty thousand (30,000) square feet in lot area. Ms. Suzanne Wolff September 21, 2009 Page Seven Response: As shown on the attached floor plan, the CDU will contain considerably less than 1,000 sq. ft. of net livable area. (d) The @oor area of the caretaker unit shall be included in the total allowed floor area for the lot or parcel of land. Response: There is not presently a floor area limitation in the RS-30 zone district. However, the floor area of the caretaker unit will count towards the 5,750 sq. ft. of floor area that is allowed to be developed on this property exempt from GMQS. (e) Two (2) off-street parking spaces shall be provided for each caretaker unit. Response: The applicanf will provide at least two off-street parking spaces for the caretaker unit. (f) The applicant shall, by deed restriction or other permanent commitment running with the land, guarantee that the caretaker dwelling unit: 1. Shall not be required to be rented; 2. Shall not be sold or otherwise conveyed or separated from the original parcel regardless of the ultimate form of ownership of the caretaker unit; 3. Shall be limited to occupancy by (i) not more than two adults and related children who qualify as (and have been found by the Housing Authority to be) employees of the community under such guidelines as may be from time to time established, or (ii) ;members of the owner's immediate family even though they may not qualify as employees of the community. 4. Shall be rented for terms not less than six (6) months if rented. Response: The applicant will file such a deed restriction following the County's approval of this application. (g) The caretaker dwelling unit restriction may be removed by the property owner upon approval of the Community Development Director, subject to the requirement that the dwelling is removed or modified. If modified, the remaining improvements must no longer be capable of occupancy as a Dwelling Unit and must otherwise meet applicable Code requirements. Response: The applicant agrees to abide by this limitation. 4 Ms. Suzanne Wolff September 21, 2009 Page Eight GMQS Exemption for Caretaker Dwelling Unit Section 6-30-40 (c) of the Code authorizes a GMQS exemption for a caretaker dwelling unit pursuant to the following provisions: One (1) Caretaker Dwelling Unit ("CDU') may be exempted from Growth Management on any lot or parcel located in a zone district in which a CDU is an allowed use, a use allowed by special review, or a use allowed as part of a master plan, as shown in Table 4- 1. Response: A CDU is a use allowed by special review in the RS-30 zone district. The CDU maybe allowed even if the lot or parcel is substandard in size and the resulting development on the lot or parcel would not conform to the underlying zone district's minimum parcel size for each dwelling unit, subject to the standards in Sec. 4-30-50 (e). Response: The parcel is substandard in size so a response to the standards of Section 4-30-50 (e) has been provided below. The CDU may be either attached to asingle-family dwelling unit ('principal dwelling') or other use or may be detached from the principal dwelling or other allowed use if it complies with the standards in Sec. 4-30-50 (e). Response: Since the CDU is to be detached from the principal dwelling, a response to the standards of Section 4-30-50 (e) has been provided. Special Review for Caretaker Dwelling Unit Development of a caretaker unit requires special review approval from the County. The standards for special review are listed in Section 2-30-30 (h) (2) of the Land Use Code. The applicants' responses to these standards are as follows: (a) The special review use shall be consistent with the applicable County Master Plan. Response: The applicable Master Plans for this property are the Down Valley Comprehensive Plan (DVCP) and the Snowmass/Capitol Creek Valleys Master Plan. The DVCP designates this area as "Rural Residential". The Rural Residential land use category is intended for low density residential development that is consistent with existing zoning. When applied to existing residential subdivisions in the down valley area, such as Shield O', this designation is intended to recognize previously-developed subdivisions that are comprised of substandard size lots as permitted uses. Q ~,~ ;, Ms. Suzanne Wolff September 21, 2009 Page Nine Shield O' Terraces and Shield O' Mesa are typical of many other older rural subdivisions in that they are housing concentrations at a density that exceeds surrounding agricultural and resource areas. The DVCP permitted these densities to continue because services had been provided to these areas and because they provide benefits to the community in terms of housing that is attainable by working residents. Development of a caretaker unit on this property would conform to these underlying principles of the DVCP. The Snowmass/Capitol Creek Valleys Master Plan does not speak in much depth to caretaker dwelling units. Objective 1.2.1 of the Master Plan does support "on-site employee housing by special review". The Future Land Use Map recognizes the Shield O' neighborhood as "Low Density Residential" which lists caretaker dwelling units as a use intended for that land use district. (bJ The special review use shall not conflict with any applicable sections of the Pitkin County Land Use Code, including the County Land Use Policies in Chapter 1. Response: To the best of the applicant's knowledge, the proposed development will not conflict with any of the adopted standards or policies of the County Land Use Code. (c) The proposed development must not materially endanger the public health, safety or welfare. (d) The proposed development must not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property. Response: The development of the proposed caretaker unit will not have any negative impacts on the public health, safety, or welfare, nor will it adversely affect the value of any adjoining property. (e) The special review use shall be consistent with the intent of the Zone District in which it is proposed to be located. Response: The stated intent of the RS-30 zone district is to "permit low density, single- family residential development and customary accessory uses". A caretaker dwelling unit is a customary accessory use in Pitkin County's rural residential neighborhoods. (t) The special review use shall be compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or shall enhance the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. .. Ms. Suzanne Wolff September 21, 2009 Page Ten Response: The proposed caretaker unit will be consistent with the character of the surrounding area, which is entirely residential. There are residences of varying sizes located within the surrounding neighborhood, some of which contain caretaker dwelling units and similar accessory uses. (g) The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed special review use must be in harmony with the surrounding area and minimize adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, traffic generation, parking, trash, service delivery, air/water pollution or other impacts on natural resources, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties. Response: The caretaker unit will not create significant impacts on the surrounding properties. The 570 sq. ft. unit will be part of a residential compound that is clustered into the front portion of the building envelope, at a considerable distance from any neighboring lot. Because of the topography in the area, this location is essentially not visible from Snowmass Creek Road. A drawing depicting the south elevation of the CDU has been provided, illustrating that it will be a simple, one story cabin-style structure, designed to be compatible with the other structures planned for the site. The floor plan shows that this will be a one bedroom, one bath unit. This small caretaker unit will have minimal consequences in terms of vehicle circulation or traffic generation and will not alter the requirements for trash pick-up or service delivery to the property. No particular impacts on natural resources or pollution-causing activities are anticipated from the CDU. (h) There must be adequate public facilities and services to serve the special review use, including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools. Response: There are adequate public facilities and services available in this neighborhood to serve the proposed development of a caretaker unit on this property. Potable water is supplied to this property from the on site well and sewage disposal will be handled by an on-site wastewater disposal system. This system will be designed to accommodate the needs of both the caretaker unit and the main house. The proposed caretaker unit should not place any significant demands on other public facilities and services, including fire protection, solid waste, parks, police, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools. ~_ .: _, .. Ms. Suzanne Wolff September 21, 2009 Page Eleven (i) The proposed special review use must comply with any additional standards or requirements stated for such use in Sec. 4-30 and/or Sec. 2-40-20. Response: A response to the standards of Sec. 4-30 is provided in Section IV of this application booklet. Conclusion I believe the above responses provide the information you require to process this application. If there is anything else you need, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, A`L~AN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES ~ r`~ Alan Richman, AICP Q~~~~~~ EXHIBITS ~.,: .~ .:a u~11~~3 WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED, made this 24 day of October, 2007, Between JOHN THOMAS WHIDDON and. DENISE S. WHIDDON of the County of COLLIN, State of TEXAS, GRANTOR, AND MARC A. SPARKS, GRANTEE whose legal address is :5010 ADDISON CIRCLE, ADDISTON, TX 75001, of the Count' of DALLAS ,State of TEXAS WITNESSETH, That for and in consideration of the sum of ten dollars and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledgeq Ne grantor has granted, bargained, sold antl conveyed, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell and convey antl confirm unto the grantee, his heirs and assigns forever, not in tenancy in common Dut in joint tenancy, with right of survivorship, all the real properly together with improvements, if any, situate and lying and being in the County of PITKIN, State of COLORADO, described as follows: See Attached Exhibit "A" TOGETHER with all and singular the heredilaments and appurtenances thereto belonging, or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof, and all the estate, right, tRle, interest claim and demand whatsoever of the grantor either in law or equity, of, in and to the above bargained Dremises, with the hereditaments and appurtenances. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and describe4 with the appurtenances, unto the grantee, Dis heirs and assigns forever. And the Grantor, for himseH, his heirs and assigns, does covenant, grant, bargain, and agree to and with the Grantee, his heirs and assigns, that at the Dme of Ne ensealing and delivery of these presents, he is well seized of the premises above conveyed, has good, sure, perfect, absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance, in law, in fee simple, and has good right full power and lawful authority b grant bargain, sell and convey the same in manner and form as aforesaid, and That the same are free and clear from all former and other grants, bargains, sales, liens, taxes, assessments, encumbrances and resbictions of whatever kind or nature soever, except Nose matters as set forty on Exhibit "A" attached hereto end incorporated herein by reference. The grantor shall and will .WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND Ne above bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the grantee, his heirs and assigns, against all and every person or persons lawfulry claiming the whole or any part Nereot. The singular number shall include Ne plural, the plural Ne singular, and Ne use of gender shall be applicable to all genders. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the grantor has executed this deed on the tlale set forth above. SIGNATURES ON PAGE 2 Retum to: Gr4.. tl ~Q{~~l~x SIGNATURE PAGE TO WARRANTY DEED TO JOINT TENANTS Page 2 r ~- J HN TH MAS WHIDDON STATE OF_ 1flCQS 1 /;, i r ss COUNTY OF l U 1 l1 [l_j ~~~~~ ~~~ DENISE S. WHIDDON The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this~tlay of U -~' ~ UG 2007, by JOHN THOMAS WHIDDON and DENISE S. WHIDDON. II '',, WITNESS my band and official seal ~//y.. Q}'~ j //~j/~ Notary ublic ~ ~"'"~~ my commission expires:~~/~ 1 ~ 1 ` ~~ PCT21664L2 EXHIBIT #2 Ms. Suzanne Wolff, Senior Planner Pitkin County Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: SPARKS MINOR AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT PERMIT Dear Ms. Wolff, I hereby authorize Alan Richman Planning Services to act as my designated representative with respect to the land use application being submitted to your office for a minor amendment to the approved building envelope for my property, which is located at 300 Shield O' Road in Snowmass. Mr. Richman is authorized to submit a land use application for a minor amendment to a development permit for the property. He is also authorized to represent us in meetings with Pitkin County staff and the County's review bodies. Should you have any need to contact us during the course of your review of this application, please do so through Alan Richman Planning Services, whose address and telephone number are included in the land use application, or you may contact me directly. Sincere Marc A. Sparks Timber Creek Capital, LP 5010 Addison Circle Addison, Texas 75001 972-387-4840 ,~ ;; -~~~~~, 1~~;', , . EXHIBIT #3 PITKIN COUNTY PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Suzanne Wolff PHONE: (970) 920-5093 LOCATION: Lot 21, Shield O Terrace ~~ ~~~~~ 0 ~~ PARCEL ID #s: 264527201001 OWNERS/APPLICANTS: Marc Sparks REPRESENTATIVE: Alan Richman DATE: 9/3/09 E-MAIL: suzannewCa~co.oitkin.co.us ZONE: RS-30 LOT SIZE: 4.005 acres EMAIL: arichman@sopris.net Type of Application: Minor Amendment to Development Permit & Caretaker Dwelling Unit Description of Project/Development: The Applicant proposes to amend the building envelope and obtain approval for a caretaker dwelling unit. The Hearing Officer granted 1041 hazard review approval pursuant to Determination No. 20-2004. The BOCC reinstated the vested rights, pursuant to Resolution No. 061-2007; the vested rights expire July 11, 2010. Land Use Code Sections to address in letter of request/application: - 2-20-150.b: Minor Amendment to Development Permit - 2-30-30(h): Special Review criteria for caretaker dwelling unit; - 4-30-50(e)(1)(2): Caretaker Dwelling Unit - 6-30-40(c): GMQS Exemption for CDU Review by: Community Development Director Public Hearing: NO. However, notice is required via posting and mailing. The Applicant shall post a public notice sign on the property at least 15 days prior to the date specified for the Administrative Decision pursuant to Sec. 2-20-100(a)(3) of the Land Use Code. In addition, the Applicant shall mail notice (by certified mail) to all adjacent property owners and mineral estate owners with the return address of the Community Development Department (form of notice to be obtained from the Community Development Department). The names and addresses shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County, as they appear no more than 60 days prior to the date of the public hearing. A property owner receiving the public notice shall have 2 weeks from the date the notice was postmarked to submit comments or objections to the Community Development Department. Staff will refer to: Snowmass/Capitol Caucus, Shield O Terrace HOA, Housing FEES: $1,700 (make check payable to "Pitkin County Trgasurer") • $1,496 Planning flat fee (non-refundable; based on,8 ours of staff tir ~e; if staff review time exceeds 3.6 hours, the Applicant will be charged for additional time in excess of~'PI'ours at a rate of $249/hour) • $179 Housing • $25 Clerk Technology Fee To apply, submit 4 copies of the following information, unless noted otherwise: 1. Letter of request, addressing (in detail) each of the provisions of the Pitkin County Land Use Code identified above and sufficient to demonstrate that all substantive review criteria have been met; 2. Copies of prior approvals; 3. Consent from the owner of the property for the representative to process the application and represent the owner (1 copy); Q(~.~ 17 4. Disclosure and proof of ownership of the property, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company or attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property and all mortgagees, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting use and development of the parcel and proof of the owner's right to use the land for the purposes identified in the development application. 5. Street address (if any) and parcel description, including legal description, and 8-1/2"x 11"vicinity map locating the subject property within Pitkin County; 6. Executed Pitkin County Community Development Agreement for Payment of Land Use Application Fees (1 copy) (form attached); 7. List of adjacent property owners and mineral estate owners (1 copy); and 8. This Pre-Application Conference Summary Sheet. NOTES: - PLEASE SUBMIT ONE UNBOUND AND ONE-SIDED COPY OF YOUR COMPLETE APPLICATION. PLEASE SUBMIT TWO-SIDED COPIES OF ALL REMAINING COPIES OF YOUR APPLICATION (IF POSSIBLE). - ALL MAPS SHALL BE FOLDED. - This pre-application 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 staff's interpretations based upon representations of the applicant. Additional information maybe required upon a complete review of the application. `~~~l~lg :a: ~:_ EXHIBIT #4 I IIIIII IIIII IIIIII IIII 1111111 IIII IIIIII III IIIII IIII IIII O 0 ~gD 0 0062.13P DETERMINATION OF THE HEARING OFFICER OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, APPROVING THE WHIDDON 1041 HAZARD REVIEW Determination No.~-2004 RECTTALS 1. John and Denise Whiddon (hereafter "Applicants") have applied to the Pitkin County Hearing Officer (hereafter "Hearing Officer") for 1041 Hazard Review approval to establish a building' envelope and access envelope for the construction of asingle-family residence. 2. The property is Lot 21, Shield-O-Terraces, and is more specifically described as Exhibit "A". 3. The property is zoned RS-30 PUD and contains 4.005 acres. 4. The Hearing Officer heard this application at a public hearing on January 27, 2004, at which time evidence and testimony were presented with respect to this application. The Hearing Officer ~ s found at that time that because the property was in the same ownership with the owner of Lot 20, Shield-O Terraces, for a period of approximately 3 yeazs, the property is then merged and could not S be developed. 5. Subsequently, the Applicants appealed to the Board of County Commissioners ("BOCC"), at which time the BOCC denied the appeal and granted a Subdivision Exemption to divide Lots 20 and 21, and grant a development right to Lot 21 pursuant to BOCC Resolution No. 70-2004. 6. Subsequently the Hearing Officer heard the 1041 application at a public heazing on June 15, 2004, at which time evidence and testimony were presented with respect to this application. The Hearing Officer finds that the proposal is in compliance with the applicable Standards of the Pitkin County Land Use Code. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Pitkin County Hearing Officer that approval is hereby granted to the Whiddon 1041 Hazard Review subject to the following conditions, which shall run with the land and be binding on all successors in interest: ~~~~1~ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 099 z 04 iO:IZR SILVIR DRVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 0.00 D 0.00 Hearing Officer Determination No.~-2004 I IIIIII IIII IIIIII III IIIIIIII I II VIII) ( II II IIII IIII a 499p 0 0062: 13P Page 2 1. The Applicants shall adhere to all conditions and material representations made in the application and public meetings except as amended herein. 2. Prior to submittal for any building permits, the Applicants shall record a 24 X 36 inch mylar 1041 Hazard Review Site Plan in accordance with Sections 5-70-040 of the Land Use Code. A building envelope shall be depicted on the site plan encompassing all proposed development. Community Development shall approve the site plan prior to recordation. 3. The Applicants shall comply with the following landscaping and wildfire defensible space mitigation standards as can be accomplished within the boundaries of the property: A. Brush, debris, and non-ornamental vegetation shall be removed within a minimum 10 foot perimeter around the structure. B. Vegetation shall be reduced to break up the vertical and horizontal continuity of the fuels a minimum of a 70 foot perimeter around the structure. C. Spacing between clumps of brush and vegetation within the 30 foot perimeters shall be a minimum of tluee times the height of the fuel. Maximum diameter of the clumps shall be .two times the height of the fuel. All measurements shall be from the edges of the crowns of the fuel D. All branches from trees and brush within the 30 foot perimeter shall be pruned to a height of 10 feet above the ground and ladder fuels from around trees and brush shall be removed. E. Tree crown separation within the 30 foot perimeters shall have a minimum of 20 feet between the edges of the crowns, except for Aspen trees. However, no Aspen trees may be within 10 feet of proposed tree structures. New or installed coniferous trees may not be within 20 feet (as measured from the edge of the crown) of proposed structures. F. Al l branches which extend over the roof eaves shall be trilmned and all branches within I S feet of the chimneys shall be removed. G. The density of fuels within a 100 foot perimeter of the structure shall be reduced. H. From the 30 foot perimeter around the house, out to the 70 foot perimeter, brush and shrubs shall be thinned to 2 times the height of the fuels. For sagebrush, thin stands to 4 times the height of the fuel I. All thinned oak brush, serviceberry or chokecherry stumps must be painted with Garlon® (or equivalent) herbicide to prevent aggressive re-sprouting. J. All deadfall within the ] 00 foot perimeter shall be removed. K. The applicant shall be responsible for the continued maintenance of the defensible space vegetation requirements. 4. The Applicants shall comply with the following additional wildfire mitigation standazds: A. Roofing: ] . Roofing: New roofs shall have a class A roof covering and a class A assembly roof system. Wood shake/shingle roof coverings and flat roofs (up to a 3:12) pitch are prohibited unless they comply with the following: i) All roof coverings shall be non-combustible Class A materials as defined in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) 1997 Section ] 504 (wood shake/shingle roof coverings are prohibited) and installed on a Class A roof assembly. ii) All roof coverings shall have a surface that shall facilitate the natural process of clearing the roof. ~..~ ~fl IIIIII III I IIIIII IIII (IIII VIII IIIIIiI III VIII IIII IIII 499 z a4 ie: t=A SILVIR DRVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 0.00 D 0.00 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIItIIIIIIIIII~IIIIIIIII~IIIIIIIIIIlI04995m e06z.taa Hearing Officer Determination No.~ -2004 Page 3 iii) All roof designs shall facilitate the natural process of clearing roof debris. Protrusions above the roofline, such as parapets, shall be prohibited. iv) Roofs shall be installed as required by tJBC 1997 Chapter 15 and shall have a minimum slope of 1:48. v) All roof designs, coverings or equivalent assemblies shall be specifically approved by the Basalt Fire Marshall prior to submittal of a building permit application. vi) Vents shall be screened with corrosive resistant wire mesh with mesh'/< inch maxtmum. B. Vegetation within the 10-foot perimeter shall be maintained to a height not more than six inches, or if ornamental, shall be irrigated and kept free of dead materials. G Roofs and gutters shall be kept clear of debris. D. Yards shall be kept cleaz of a]I litter, slash, and flammable debris. E. All flammable materials shall be stored on a parallel contour a minimum of 15 feet away from any structure. F. Weeds and grasses within the 10 foot perimeter shall be maintained to a height not more than 6 inches. G. Firewood/wood piles shall be stacked on a parallel contour a minimum of 15 feet away from the structure. H. Swimming pools shall be accessible to Fire Department vehicles. I. Fences shall be kept clear of brush and debris. J. Wood fences shall not connect to the structure. K. Any outbuildings or additional structures shall adhere to the same standards as structures. L. Fuel tanks shall be installed underground with an approved container. M. Propane tanks shall be installed according to NFPA 48 standazds and on a contour away from the structure with standard defensible space vegetation mitigation azound any above- ground tank. Any wood enclosure around the tank shall be constructed with materials approved for 2 hour fire-resistive construction on the exterior side of the walls. N. Each structure shall have a minimum of one ] 0 pound approved ABC fire extinguisher placed in a visible and accessible location. O. Addresses shall be clearly marked with 2 inch non-combustible letters and shall be visible and installed on anon-combustible post. P. New utility lines shall be buried. Q. Access: 1. Thin shrubs (oak, chokecherry, serviceberry) to 3 titnes height along the driveway. No shrubs or confers are allowed within 10' of the driveway. Aspen trees are permitted within ] 0 feet of the driveway, but must be pruned to 10' above the ground. Sagebrush must be thinned to 4 times height, and may not be within 10' of other larger shrubs. 2. Low vegetation shall be kept mowed to less than 6" within 10' on either side of driveway. 3. A turnaround pad shall have a minimum of 35' drivable surface inside turning radius at end of driveway. 4. Driveway shall enter the roadway at aninety-degree angle for the first 25' of the driveway. 5. No development, including grading, excavation, fill placement, berming, landscaping, entry or ranch gates, and vegetation removal or disturbance shall occur outside of the approved building [and/or] developmenUaccess envelope except for access and wildfire mitigation. Construction, ,~~~aLa I IIII I VIII IIIIII II VIII VIII IIIIIII II VIII (III IIII 499 z0e4 i0: tza SILVIR DPVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 0.00 D 0.00 IIIIIIIIIII IIIII II IIIIII I I IIIIIIIII IIII III IIII 0 995004 12:13P SILVIR DRVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 0.00 D 0.00 Hearing Officer Determination No.~-2004 Page 4 staging, parking, utility and driveway extension and maintenance shall occur within approved building, or access driveway. No construction staging shall occur on Shield-O Road. The primary building envelope's northwestern border shall be no closer than 275' from the southeast comer of the existing neighbor's house located on Lot 43 of Shield-O-Terraces. 6. The Applicants shall comply with the mitigation standards for development on steep slopes A. Adequate mechanical support shall be provided for cut slopes. B. Adding water, which may decrease slope stability, shall be avoided. C. Adding weight to the top of the slope shall be avoided. D. Disturbed slopes must be contoured so that they can be revegetated. E. Steepening of existing slopes shall be avoided. F. Confine cuts, fills grading and excavation to the minimum area needed or construction. 7. The Applicants shall obtain an access permit from the County Engineer prior to commencement of construction for the driveway. Prior to the issuance of the access permit, the Applicants shall provide an engineered plan for the retaining wall for review and approval by the County Engineer and Community Development. The access shall comply with the standards set forth in the Pitkin County Assets Management Plan. Prior to submission of any new building permits for new development, the Applicants shall submit a mitigation report from an engineer or geologist licensed in the State of Colorado. The report shall demonstrate that the site can be engineered in such a way that there is no hazard posed, and shall show UIe area of disturbed slopes, any re-grading required and the size and location of all mitigation devices. Any new development shall be conditioned upon compliance with the report. 9. Prior to application for building permit the applicant shall provide for review to the County Engineer a trip generation and construction trip generation study for any free market residential structure exceeding 5,000 square feet. Atraffic-engineering consultant hired by the applicant and pre-approved by the County Engineer shall develop this study. 10. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 022-2000, the Applicants are subject to the Fair Share Requirements and shall pay a road impact fee. 1 ].Prior to commencement of any earthmoving or construction activity, the Applicants shall stake the corners of the building envelope and install construction fencing around the perimeter of the building envelope. The fencing shall remain in place until issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. No vegetation shall be damaged or removed outside the building envelope. 12. A Drainage and Erosion Control Plan shall be submitted by the Applicant and approved by the County Engineer prior to building permit submission. 13. Any areas disturbed outside the building envelope must be revegetated with native vegetation according to a revegetation plan submitted by the Applicant and approved by the County prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. (IIIIIIIIIII IIIIII IIII IIIII IIII IIIIII III IIIII IIII IIII e a 99 z0ea0 e: tzR ~~W~i`L7 ..... 499531 anon No. u?2004 I Illili VIII 111111 IIII 1111111 IIII IIIIiI III VIII IIII IIII 0 07909D 0 0012:13P Hearing Officer Determm _ sn Page 5 14. The Applicant shall comply with the 2001 Wildlife Protection Ordinance No. 010-2001 for waste storage. Compliance with the condition shall be verified by the Pitkin County W ildlife Biologist prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. ] 5. Fencing outside the building envelope must comply with §3-80-080(A)(10) and §3-80- 080(A)(11) ofthe Land Use Code. 16. Floor area shall be limited to 5,750 square feet exempt from growth management. 17. Prior to submission of a building permit, the Applicant shall satisfy the Shield O' Terraces Home Owner's Association with regazd to road assessments. 18. The Applicant shall not plow snow onto Shield-O Road, or store snow within the Shield-O Road right-of--way. 19. The Applicant shall provide a landscape plan for review and approval by Community Development. The plan shall depict how the applicant will mitigate headlight impacts on the neighboring parcel (Lot 43), provided that it is understood that the applicant's ability to plant new vegetation is limited by the wildfire mitigation requirements set forth iu paragraph Number 4 of this Determination. 20. The allowed uses for the separate "accessory development envelope" located in the northwest corner of the parcel shall be limited to landscaping, grading, septic systems, sub-grade water tanks and access. Above grade improvements are prohibited. 21. The Applicant shall not raise the existing grade within the building envelope for development of the primary residence or other structures 22. The Applicant steal] provide an onsite water tank for fire mitigation, as required by the Basalt Fire District. 23. Statutory vested rights for the approval contained herein are granted pursuant to the Pitkin County Land Use Code and Colorado Statutes, subject to the exceptions set forth in Pitkin County Land Use Code, § 4-140 and C.R.S., § 24-68-105. The statutory vested rights granted herein shall expire on June 15, 2007. PUBLISHED AFTER ADOPTION FOR VESTED REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN TAE ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY ON Ju,~,~At L01 ZQO~- ®®~tJG~ IhInII~~I~W;~VV~IIM~~III 499721 Page: 5 of 7 07/16/2004 10:12n D 0.00 k~i , IIIIIII VIII IIIIII IIII IIIIIII IIII IIIIII III VIII IIII IIII 9 07g0/2000012:13P Heazing Officer Determination No.~-2004 Page 6 NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING PUBLISHED IN THE ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY ON THEa.Sth DAY OF MAY 2004. APPROVED ON THE 15th DAY OF JUNE, 2004. ATTEST: HEARING OFFICER OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO r 7 Janis Tay or, ~.dafines R. True, Adminis tive Assistant /`~ Hearing Officer Date: S b ~- APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: John ly, ~ Cindy ouben, County Attorney Community Development Director Case #P12'L-03 PID# 264527201001 IIIIIII VIII IIIIII IIIIII~IIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII~IIIIIIOa 9g z0 a ie:tza . oe vo~t7~rt ~a pt of IaAC} eityAted i.A tha ! .Te aft ~glarterl of the ~Southwe s( - ter .and •~pt 3 of ,$ectiot~ ~2, '~gWRSh-ip .i Seuth~ Range 86 Weft of the p.~l„ lying Westerly ^P-the centerline o~ a 6q fgot roadway,-a5 " tructed and in pla~sr de~cribed.as follflwe~ nning at a point ixi t1}e gp{itex o€ rigid.roadWHY Whence the South ter Corner of Sa~.~ ,9 actigi3 2Z bee;fie 9 :?D'+3d~36'~ W 11~43~, 63 #CeC; oe s SD°RO'DD~~ $ 53."~1 feet a~.ogg the ~entep-qi Baid roadway; ee 9 3eP 16'00^ W }96,pS €eet along the, cetitex~.o~ said roadway, .ce 9 17°41~DD'~ W ag2,66.~pet along the'ceTlter~of said rotsdway;~ - - ce~5 27°36'DDI' W 264,86•~eet along the•caAt~r of eRid roadWayT ~ - ee 9 13P01'DD'i W 2S6.6q €set a1oAg the oenteX~of said roadway; -ca N 63°29'25x H ?58.65. feet; - - .ee_N 00°0}'25'~ H ~D6.77. €9et7 I - _ _ ca N 02R43r35'~ $ ~69.Sp €'eetl , - ce N 77,"41~2D'~ $ }.6},74 feet: oe N 49°0945° 8 192.98 fsptt - ~ _ ca N 56°5621° $ 228-. 77 feet Eo.a poiTlt in the centnF of said _ way, the point of. beginning, "TY OB PITKZN, 9TA~'T OBCDIaDRADO. ....... _._ _.~ _. - _ _.. __._ _ IIIIIIIlI~IIIIIIII IIIIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlII~~IIIIII~I 494803 01.3 P - SILVIR DRVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 0.00 D 0.00 1 ~ 499721 i IIIIII VIII IIIIII IIII VIII VIII IIIIIII III VIII IIII IIII 0 079 16/02 00 00 0: 12R 5 , t~Uti~,Ja .. EXHIBIT #5 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMNIISSIONERS OF PITIQN COUNTY, COLORADO, APPROVING THE WHIDDON REQUEST FOR A REINSTATEMENT OF VESTED RIGHTS Resolution No.~-2007 RECITALS 1. Tom and Denise Whiddon ("Applicants"), have applied to the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado ("BOCC") pursuant to Section 2-20-170(d} of the Pitkin County Land Use Code ("Code', for a reinstatement of vested rights for Hearing Officer Detetmination No. 20-2004. 2. The property is Lot 21, Shield O' Terraces, and is more specifically described in Exhibit A. 3. The property is coned RS-30 PUD, and contains 4.005 acres. 4. The Hearing Officer denied the request for 1041 hazard review approval for this property on January 27, 2004, finding that the property had merged with Lot 20. The Hearing Officer's denial was appealed to the BOCC, where the BOCC denied the appeal, and granted a subdivision exemption to divide Lots 20 and 21, and grant a development right to Lot 21 pursuant to BOCC Resolution No. 70-2004. A 1041 hazard review was then resubmitted to the Hearing Officer, which was approved pursuant to Determination No. 20-2004. 5. The BOCC heard this application at a public meeting on July 1 I, 2007, at which time evidence and testimony were presented with respect to this application. 6. The BOCC finds that the request for a reinstatement of vested ruts complies with Standazds of the Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners that they hereby approve the Whiddon request for a reinstatement of vested rights subject to the following conditions, which shall run with the land and be binding on all successors in interest. 1. The Applicant shall be subject to the 2006 Pitkin County Land Use Code, as amended, in effect as of the date of this approval. 2. The Applicant shall comply with Heazing Officer Determination No.20-2004. 3. Housing, road and other applicable impact fees shall be calculated at time of building permit. 4. Statutory vested rights for the approval contained herein are granted pursuant to the Pitkin County Land Use Code and Colorado Statutes, subject to the exceptions set forth in Pitkin County Land Use Code, § 2-20-170 and C.R.S., § 24-68-105. The statutory vested rights granted herein shall expire on July ] 1, 2010. RECEPTION#: 540387, 07/27/2007 at 11:11:41 AM, t of 3, R 50.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO ~~ 6t.t-2oo7 PUBLISILED AFTER ADOPTION FOR VESTED REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS in the Aspen Times Weekly on the ~"±~ day of, 2007. APPROVED on the 11th day of July, 2007. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PTI'IQN COUNTY, C ORADO By ichael Owsley Chair Date~~7~ APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: '--- - c i' John Ely, IG Iloy tloUDefl, Community Development Director County Attorney PID# 264527201001 P060-07 ~U~J7'.7 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Q EXHIBIT A A TRACT OF LAND SITUATHD IN TAH SOUTHBAST 1/4 SOUTHW83T 1/4 AND LOT 3 OF SECTION 22, ALSO IN LOT 15 OF SECTION 27, ALL IN TOWNSHIP 9 80UTH, RANGE 86 WEST OP THH SIYTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN LYING WESTERLY OF TH$ CENTBRLINS OF A 60 FOOT ROADWAY, SAID TRACT HEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POZNT WHHNCE TAE RE-LOCATED 1/4 CORNHR, BEING THE SOUTH 1/4 CORNER OP SAID SECTION 22 HHARS NORTH 60 DEGREES 14' 28" EAST 594.65 FEET; THENCB NORTH 25 DEGREES 00' 00" EAST 644.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 63 DEGREES 20' 25" EAST 314.55 PERT TO A POINT IN TH8 CENTER OP SAID 60 FOOT ROADWAYi THENCE SOUTH 13' DEGREBS O1' 00" WEST 31.36 FEET ALONG THS CBNTER LINE OF SAID ROADWAY; TRENCH SOUTH 22 DEGREES 19' DO" WEST 126.94 PEET ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF SAZD ROADWAY? THENCB SOUTH 25 DEGREES 00' 00" WEST 107.00 PEET ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF SAID ROADWAYt TRENCH SOUTH 60 DEGREES 40' 00" WEST 53.00 FHHT; THENCE SOUTH 49 DEGREES 33' 03" WEST 132.23 FEHTt THENCE SOUTH 87 DEGREES 05' 00" WEST 273.D0 FEET TO THE POINT OP BEGINNING. COUNTY OP PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. f 1 OOUJ2~''`~~ C~ J J CV OOUJ30 „v-~xy .. ~'i~'~ 0 a~ x o ~ h~ ~r .. ,~ _` Y M #[ PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to the general public that on February 26, 2010, the Pitkin County Community Development Director granted approval for the Approving the Sparks Minor Amendment to a Development Permit, Caretaker Dwelling Unit, and Site Plan Review (Case P101-09; Deter. #12-2010). The property is located at 300 Shield-O Road and is legally described as Lot 21, Shield O Terrace Subdivision. The State Parcel Identification Number for the property is 2645-272-01-001. This site-specific development plan grants a vested property right pursuant to Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes. S/Cindy Houben Community Development Director Pitkin County, Colorado Published in the Asoen Times Weeklv, on March 21, 2010. PUBLIC NOTICE RE: Sparks Minor Amendment to a Development Permit, Caretaker Dwelling Unit, and Site Plan Review (Case P101-09) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that an application has been submitted by Marc A. Sparks (5010 Addison Circle, Addison, TX 75001) to obtain site plan review approval for a single family residence, caretaker dwelling unit and garage, to amend the building envelope, and to obtain approval for a caretaker dwelling unit. The property is located at 300 Shield-O Road and is legally described as Lot 21, Shield O Terrace Subdivision. The State Parcel Identification Number for the property is 2645-272-01-001. The application is available for public inspection in the Pitkin County Community Development Department, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 81611. For further information, contact Suzanne Wolff at (970) 920-5093. Published in the Aspen Times Weekly on December 27, 2009. Attention Adjacent Property Owners A property owner receiving this public notice who wishes to submit comments or an objection shall submit those to the Pitkin County Community Development, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611, by January 27, 2010. If any objections to the development application are received the Community Development Department shall continue the application to a public hearing before the Hearing Officer. PUBLIC NOTICE RE: Sparks Minor Amendment to a Development Permit and Caretaker Dwelling Unit (Case P101-09) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that an application has been submitted by Mazc A. Sparks (5010 Addison Circle, Addison, TX 75001) to request an amendment to a building envelope and obtain approval for a caretaker dwelling unit. The property is located at 300 Shield-O Road and is legally described as Lot 21, Shield O Terrace Subdivision. The State Parcel Identification Number for the property is 2645-272-01- 001. The application is available for public inspection in the Pitkin County Community Development Department, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 81611. For further information, contact Suzanne Wolff at (970) 920-5093. Attention Adiacent Prouerty Owners A property owner receiving this public notice who wishes to submit comments or an objection shall submit those to the Pitkin County Community Development, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611, by November 4, 2009. If any objections to the development application are received the Community Development Department shall continue the application to a public hearing before the Hearing Officer. County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE & } ss. MAILING PURSUANT TO State of Colorado } PITKIN COUNTY LAND USE CODE SECTION 2-20-100 I, l` ~~ t^-u ~~~+-,ti ,being or representing an Applicant to the Pitkin County Development Permit, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 2-20-100 of the Pitkin County Land Use Regulations in the following manner: By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by certified, postage prepaid U.S. Mail at least 2 weeks prior to the public comment deadline t all owners of property adjacent to the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on , 2009 (which is 15 days prior to the deadline of , 2009). The names and addresses of the adjacent property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than 60 days prior to the public comment. 2. By posting a sign in a cons icuous lace on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) on the , 2009, which is at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public comment deadline. A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. vw.tic SP^~k,t Applicant's name (Attach photograph here) ~~ Signature Signed before me this~(~ day of (-r'<, 200`26yF1fci~ ~'vt,7rut ~~~~' ?~ WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL ,~~ t`r~ My commission expires: ~f 1~~~%~~- ±y.."j~0~;" J s~ ~~ n L C~~~~-r , Notary Public /~~%C~1 ~ Notary Public's Signature G tG4t~i~t1 ~ , ... 4 :.:w _ '`~ s'k w~~a?b~nii t~ .~ .~ ~ ~ ,. M1 .. ~- ~' ~+'~ .~ ~. PORTO:.A VALLEY CA 940;8. ~ CHICAGO IL 60611:, ~ '. Y x~4j ?~1 _ ~i, ..., .~, o Postage S x•44 CO 8 o Pos~age $ 54.44 ~ ~ ~ Certified FEe 52, ~~ ,,,~ ~~ O CErtified Fee $2,gQ Q ~ Posima ~ Return Receipt Fee 54 44 h l ue erk ~ 0 Retum RECeipt Fee ~J (~ - ~'\` ~ ~ Hera ~ (Endorsement Required) ¢ a (~ O (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee ~ ~ p ~' Restricted Delivery Fee 54.44 ~ ~ p (Endorsement Requiretl) O (c'ndorsemem Requirad) ~ ~Q .D '~ J o- 53.24 16(19 S ~ Total Posta e 8 Fees 53.24 19! 9 ~ Total Postage 8 Fees ~ Q p 5 ~ _ ~^ Sent Ta 1 Q p- Sent TO { i~ ~ p p ~.~!~l )'t\Kft Wtx~t(.Ca\- 7.A.l...s pr. ~ -7 tl1At/x Q R~\ In O Siieei. ApCNo.;..._""........'-"'`"Y"~~._~..._... ......................__..__... O Street,AACNO.;........................(.~.............i~...._.................. M1 or POBaxNO. ~ `~'~ ~V 5. _~.~2....... F~ or POBOxNO. \`U ~. Qe~A..tlA.d 't X40 CiN Siafe, ZIP+4 `'9r~^`~S ~~`I ~~ ~"JL~ CAN State, ZIP+4 l~`` ~L ~J~(' :rr ri. ` 'l :rr rr. ~ Q" ~ m .n ~ 5iVOWHA55 CO r- ~ Postage 0 ~ Certified fe0 ~ ~ Retum Feceipt Fee (Endorsement Required) O Restricted Delivery Fee O (Entlarsement Required) ~ Total Postage 8 Fees O ~ Sent TO 5h~ o ~i O Street, Apt. Na.; M1 ar PO BOx NO. S , .n CCK;g SNO6li+ S ~ Postage O Certified Fee O O Return Receipui ed ent Req ) O (Endorsem ~ Re=_tricted Delive ui etl ment Req ) ~ (Endorse .~ 0-' Total Postage & Fees O ~. Sent io ~~ ~ p .......... 'i N'"o.; ~~ 5reet, AA (` or PO Box No. _ ~ ~ i. . .. ~ LIITIET4H Cp~80124 a i" `-~~ i s ~ , ~,. r~ ~ Postage 0 s 54.44 0528 Certified Fee $ , ~ ~ ~ 52 ~ ~~ ~ p Return Receipt Fee ~ (Endorsement Requiretl) 54.00 ~q Postma t Hera ~~ i. ^ Restricted Delivery Fee p (Endorsement Required) ~~.~ ~' ~O \ .~ '7 d ~ Total Postage 8 Fees $ 53.24 /1 . ~~SQ p- sentm s~OQ _020 QEO LLC. ~ Slieef, i7Pi lJa.; ~-~~~-p~~ ~ ~ 2 M1 orPO BCx NO. 1', Ka LU(.e,.,'~' ~~~~_~_"/`~"• crry, State, nP+a ~ ~h~. Uk~O S ~ A~s,~ /_ Gam. f Lam( M1 ~. m ~ ~. ~ t~EH,,i~ILLS ~'A r- ~ Postage $ O O CErtified Fee ~ ~ Return Receipt Fee O (Endorsement Requiretl) Restncletl Delivery Fee O (Endorsement Requiretl) ..~ ~ Total Postage 8 Fees J- Sent TO qq p p ~JL O ............................. $beet, APr. No.; T f'- d or PO Bez No. r 50.44 0528 Sz,e4 s (e ~ ' ( 54,00 .. Pos ~~, Here Q t 50.00 ". '`~' 53.24 \~ 9/24091 W 1t-S ~1 E :~xZ~$ ........+...... j. ~\~l5 ` rt J~Z 3 w o m Q~ i N o o //~y/~~~N L'I~N~f ~C ~!o • ¢ u 0 0 N '~ i; o 0 ,YI` o ~o O ~~ ~ .~ ~~~ ~~ S LI'7 0 a 0 O o .n o- 0 o- ~~ o 0 r ~_ i~ s. z~ ~a4 M ~-- V N ~ .^J ~ m ~~O co a> U ~ m ~ a~ ~ m ~ ~ .~ ~ c °~ m 3 ~~N qs 1 ~ _ r9l3 Z 3 W ('p S' i? 7 %:~ "_ ¢10 -+ g ,^.:- i O n G ~a o z ~ ~ - ~~ ~ u - c ti - ~ a ~- ~- _ >><x u z s? > ~ = "JWUtl Iu'r ~ -=' .. J w i:! yL~C!:9 C GNY X49 r?4' Cd- ~ ~iK U3 3 e- i- C~G•t c _ L'll~6 ~~~~ 0 ,r J 'tl ., cw ~i County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE & } ss. MAILING PURSUANT TO State of Colorado } PITHIN COUNTY LAND USE CODE SECTION 2-20-100 I !~L 1M Qis~~.,,,~,~ ,being or representing an Applicant to the Pitkin County Development Permit, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 2-20-100 of the Pitkin County Land Use Regulations in the following manner: 2. By posting a sign in a cons icuous lace on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) on the ~ ~ , 2010, which is at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public comment deadline. A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. ~L 5 Qah~F > Applicant's name Signature (Attach photograph here) Signed before me this ~ ~ may of ~ Cc-tu. 2010by p 10.vt (~:GVt~n-tGLY1 --- ,:~~~..P ~ B<~C ~.:-. N t ~' PN EY ; o WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL /~. My commission expires: ~SlgTE OF G~~o 1 ~/1 1~+PP_ll~Fr Notary Public // '// (~'l~~(. Gi. Notary Public's Signature ~~ l~ ~ PUBLIC NOTICE RE: Sparks Minor Amendment to a Development Permit, Caretaker Dwelling Unit, and Site Plan Review (Case P101-09) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that an application has been submitted by Mazc A. Spazks (5010 Addison Circle, Addison, TX 75001) to obtain site plan review approval for a single family residence, caretaker dwelling unit and garage, to amend the building envelope, and to obtain approval for a caretaker dwelling unit. The property is located at 300 Shield-O Road and is legally described as Lot 21, Shield O Terrace Subdivision. The State Pazcel Identification Number for the property is 2645-272-01-001. The application is available for public inspection in the Pitkin County Community Development Department, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 81611. For further information, contact Suzanne Wolff at (970) 920-5093. Published in the Aspen Times Weekly on December 27, 2009. Attention Adiacent Property Owners A property owner receiving this public notice who wishes to submit comments or an objection shall submit those to the Pitkin County Community Development, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611, by January 27, 2010. If any objections to the development application are received the Community Development Department shall continue the application to a public hearing before the Hearing Officer. 2. Easy Peel® Labels i _.. • ~ Bend along line to ~ ~ AVERYO s16o® Use Avery® Template 5160® ~ Feed Paper expose Pop-Up EdgeT'" ~ j HOLLIDAY SUSAN P QUAL RESIDENCE HOLMES STEWART IAHMAN BRIMM MICHAL ANN TRUST HOLMES SANDRA JEAN 262 WILDWOOD LN C/O SUSAN P HOLLIDAY 0644 SHIELDO RD ASPEN, CO 81611 110 E DELAWARE APT 1904 SNOWMASS, CO 81654 CHICAGO, IL 60611 KRAUNZ JEFFREY T & KIMBERLY S LOWE HENRY T REV TRUST MJC HAWKS NEST LLC 487 SHIELD O RD 911 CRESTLAND AVE PO BOX 115 SNOWMASS, CO 81654 COLUMBIA, MO 65201 GLEN MILLS, PA 19342 SHATZ SALLIE DEAN SMITH V HAWLEY JR TRUST I SNOWMASS LOT 22 LLC 68 BLUE SAGE LN 1 SAN JOSE PLACE #7 314 S GALENA ST #200 SNOW MASS, CO 81654-9143 JACKSONVILLE, FL 32257 ASPEN, CO 81611 STONYWOOD TRUST TILLMAN MARVIN A WALKER-BRINSON CHRISTINA C/O LOWE HENRY I p0 BOX 427 4 LONGSPUR 370-17TH ST STE 4950 PALISADE, CO 81525-0427 PORTOLA VALLEY, CA 94028 DENVER, CO 80202 Etiquettes faciles ~ peter ; • Repliez ~ la hachure afin de ; www.avery.com ; Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 5160® j chargement reveler le rebord Pop•UpTM j 1-600-GO-AVERY i ~i a~ ~y .y b ' b m ~' OD r ... O O ~~ 0 ..0 S j C O W Q .0 ~ y ~ ~ m ~' o ~ ~ °ov o m m~ o rID 2 0 u rngo 0 ~~ ~ o -' D ~ ~ -~ r C7 ^' ~~ n _ •. > s ~ ~, .~ _ o .' - q ~ A Ln m - ~ t o D m -N ~ ©ccn ~~ 8 (J __ o ZA m7z I _ !O ~; N;;~ - -iD-I R ~~i° `~' ~ [ - Ok0 ; ~ 3 r lF ~ImtA ° ' - ~ oom ~ _ Or A Z m ~ " D O m ~ ~ N ~ ~ A A ~ ~ O = O K = Cl t O p - ~ v = ~ -- ~ C o o ? n c. a ~'~ c~ O ` ~ o~ ~m~ N. [:~OO~Z~ai-0 IJ 4 ~ ~ w~ i .~n~LO A i A °O ° o y (D '7 n ~ m h J ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ J l Q) N• n+ min ~~ W~i~ ..w I+H ~(il O~ NC? i? M~ 31 _ ~ C . ~ _ ~ o G! M z ~: = m :.. ~ ti µV3 ~~ ~JTfS rAD~ -~ -~ E UI Fi PJ r -~ ]S r frl 0 fZ~iO D-i k: O6'i-1 t7 ti30 -~mmma < n. m c x.z -~ ~ r. m V r, ~; a aj f+W z:~ c -I G~ 4n ~~ ~~ Q W W r d ~~~ z~x ~W~ ~m~ ~(AD D~ Cn ~ r nmm OZO ~° D ~ Z (T A A w ...~~g - =.6 _ ~_ ~ t ~. 4,' ~ y C ~~ nan o s i i a n K _._.~ January 5, 2010 Mr. Alan Richman 201 N Mill St Ste 107 Aspen, Colorado 81611 PINNACLE DESIGN CONSULTING GROUP, INt^ 0805 Buckpoint Road Carbondale, CO 87623 (970) 963-2170 Office (970) 704-021 S Fax RE: LOT 21, SHIELD-O-TERRACES SUBDIVISION GRADING, DRAINAGE, DRIVEWAY DESIGN, AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN U ~} Dear Alan; The following is a summary of our findings and recommendations as related to the grading, drainage, driveway design, and erosion control plans; designed for the residential development proposed on Lot 21 of the Shield-O-Terraces Subdivision, in unincorporated Pitkin County, Colorado. The 4.005 acre Lot is located at 300 Shield-O Drive in Snowmass, Colorado. The proposed development will include asingle-family residence, a CDIJ caretaker unit, and a detached garage. Existing grades within the building envelope and proposed driveway area range from between zero (0) and thirty (30) percent. Generally, the Lot slopes from northwest to southeast and includes vegetation consisting mostly of native grasses, oak brush, and serviceberry. A comprehensive soils report for the Lot has been. completed within the building envelope. Based on this report, soils include a topsoil layer between two (2) and four (4) feet thick, consisting of clayey silt with sand and gravel; overlying a gravel layer; which includes clay, sand, cobbles, and boulders. The soil percolation study, conducted by Alt Service Septic in 2009, suggests that local soil conditions aze sufficiently free draining to utilize drywells as a means of mitigating increased storm water runoff, generated from the developed azeas. GRADING. DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN The proposed grading and drainage improvements include the extension of an existing driveway to provide vehicular access for the development. Portions of the proposed driveway will include grades up to a maximum of twelve (12) percent. The associated cut and fill slopes have been design to be no greater than 2:1 horizontal to vertical in order to minimize soil erosion. January 5, 2010 Mr. Alan Richman Page 2 of 4 PINNACLE DESIGN CONSULTING GROUP. INC. A comprehensive grading and drainage design has been developed to provide adequate drainage around the proposed residential structures. The plan routes storm water across the site via the use of surface swales and area drains. In addition, roof water will be collected and conveyed to a subsurface, drainage system and will be piped to proposed drywell locations. The grading and drainage plan also includes the use of boulder landscape walls and concrete retaining walls to minimize site grading disturbance. A new fifteen (15) inch culvert pipe has been provided to convey surface water under the proposed emergency, fire truck turnaround area and into the driveway Swale, located west of the new driveway extension. Storm water from this Swale will ultimately be muted to the existing roadside swale located on the west side of Shield-O Drive. Foundation drywells have also been proposed to collect seasonally high ground water from the foundation drain system(s). EROSION CONTROL Due to the disturbance proposed on the Lot, special care should be taken to minimize the impact of storm water runoff on down-gradient receiving areas. Existing slopes should be retained to the extent possible with mechanical retaining walls as provided on the plan and, if required, should not be constructed steeper in gradient than a 1.5:1 horizontal to vertical unless retained. In addition, all excavations should be planned to minimize, to the extent possible, damage to surrounding vegetation. Slopes steeper than 2:1 horizontal to vertical should be revegetated with erosion control blankets as soon as possible after excavations have occurred. in addition, silt fence should be erected on the down- gradient side of all disturbed aeeas (See Plan Sheets C 1 through C3). There aze no known major drainage basins on the property, which require special mitigation measures. However, an existing spring has been encountered along a portion of the existing access drive. This natural spring, based on our recent site observations, will require additional drainage improvements in order to prevent surface drainage from saturating the existing driveway surface. It is our opinion that this surface water can be collected with a French Drain system, installed adjacent to the bottom of the existing boulder wall. The drain can be routed to the Shield-O Drive, roadside Swale with minimal down-gradient impacts. We will conduct a comprehensive analysis of this surface water condition and better assess the problem area(s), once the snow has melted. 3anuary 5, 2010 Mr. Alan Richman Page 3 of 4 PINNACLE DESIGN CONSULTING GROUP, INC. MAINTENANCE Catch-basins should be checked for debris buildup on an annual basis. Any encountered debris should be removed as required to ensure that facilities are working properly. Drywells should be checked annually during construction and on an every other year basis after construction, to ensure that they are functioning as designed and to check for debris buildup. If debris and silt are encountered, it should be removed via pumping or other mechanical means. Temporary silt fence should remain in place until all areas on the Lot aze completely revegetated. Positive drainage should be constructed away from the building foundation in accordance with the grading and drainage plan and final soils report. 2. Surface water should be routed into a series of drywells consisting of two (2) 48- inch diameter drywells, and one (1) 60-inch diameter drywell. Drywell placement should be as shown on the grading, drainage and erosion control plan (See Sheet C 1 for locations). 3. Foundation drainage should be diverted into two (2) separate concrete drywells; including one (1) that is 48-inches in diameter and one (1) that is 60.inches in diameter. 4. New improvements shall maintain historic offsite flow patterns. 5. Erosion control measures recommended above should be strictly followed. 6. Seed mixtures and fertilizer shall be applied by spraying them on 3:1 or steeper gradient slopes in the form of an aqueous mixture. Seeding mixtures and application rates shall be in accordance with the final specifications on the landscape plan. All seeded areas shall be mulched, as a separate process, with straw at a rate of 1.5 tonsJacre. Straw will be applied in a uniform manner using standazd straw blowing equipment. Areas not accessible will be mulched by hand. Mulched areas not covered by an erosion control blanket, shall be secured by an approved tackifier. 3 January 5, 2010 Mr. Alan Richman Page 4 of 4 PINNACLE DESIGN CONSULTING GROUP. INC. 8. Maintenance for drainage facilities should be in accordance with the aforementioned maintenance section. 9. Vehicle mud tracking onto Shield-O Road should be avoided by careful construction management practices during the project excavation phase. Please feel free to give me a call if you have any questions. r, PE '~ DESIGN CONSULTING GROUP, INC. heb:HEB Enclosures: Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control and Driveway Plans (Sheets Cl through C3) U PITHIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920-5526 FAX# (970) 920-5439 December 14, 2009 Alan Richman PO Box 3613 Aspen, CO 81612 azichman(cusonris.net Re: Spazks Minor Amendment to a Development Permit, Caretaker Dwelling Unit, and Site Plan Review (PID#2645-272-01-001; Case# P101-09) Dear Mr. Richman: The Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that this application is complete. After a more detailed review of the submittal information, additional information specific to the application may be requested in order to adequately review and process the application. The planner in charge of the review will request the information from you directly. Please note that it is your responsibility to mail notice by U.S. Mail to all property owners within 300' of the subject properly with the return address of the Community Development Department (copy of notice will be mailed to you by the Community Development Department) by (15 days out) January 12, 2010. The names and addresses shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than 60 days prior to the mailing. Please submit the enclosed Affidavit of Notice by Mailing and a photograph of the posted sign as proof of compliance with the Code. A property owner receiving the public notice who wishes to submit comments or objections to the Community Development by (30 days out) 27`" day of January, 2010. If any objections to the development application aze received by this date, the Community Development Department shall continue the application to a public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 2 . By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the neazest public way) on the 12`" day of January, 2010, which is at least fifteen (15) days prior to the (30 day out) January 27, 2010. This must be submitted prior to any approvals being granted. If you have questions, please call Suzanne Wolff, the planner assigned to your case, at 920-5093. Sincerely, Bonnie Waechtler Administrative Assistant PITHIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920-5526 FAX# (970) 920-5439 September 24, 2009 Alan Richman PO Box 3613 Aspen, CO 81612 arichman@sopris.net Re: Sparks Minor Amendment to a Development Permit and Caretaker Dwelling Unit (PID#2645-272-01-001; Case# P101-09) Deaz Mr. Richman: The Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that this application is complete. Afrer a more detailed review of the submittal information, additional information specific to the application may be requested in order to adequately review and process the application. The planner in charge of the review will request the information from you directly. Please note that it is your responsibility to mail notice by certified U.S. Mail to all property owners within 300' of the subject property with the return address of the Community Development Department (copy of notice will be mailed to you by the Community Development Department) by (15 days out) October 2Q, 2009. The names and addresses shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeazed no more than 60 days prior to the mailing. Please submit the enclosed Affidavit of Notice by Mailing and a photograph of the posted sign as proof of compliance with the Code. A property owner receiving the public notice who wishes to submit comments or objections to the Community Development by (30 days out) 4'h day of November, 2009. If any objections to the development application are received by this date, the Community Development Department shall continue the application to a public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 2 . By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the neazest public way) on the 20`h day of October, 2009, which is at least fifreen (15) days prior to the (30 day out) November 4`h, 2009. This must be submitted prior to any approvals being granted. If you have questions, please call Suzanne Wolff, the planner assigned to your case, at 920-5093. Sincerely, Bonnie Waechtler Administrative Assistant Encl: Affidavit Code Section 2-20-100 PITHIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920-5526 FAX# (970) 920-5439 MEMORANDUM To: Snowmass/Capitol Creek Caucus Shield O Terrace Homeowners Association Pitkin County Housing FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Community Development Department Suzanne.wolff(c~co.pitkiu.co.us Re: Sparks Minor Amendment to a Development Permit, Caretaker Dwelling Unit, and Site Plan Review (PID 2645-272-O1-001; Case P101-09) DATE: December 14, 2009 Attached for your review and comments are materials for an application submitted by Marc A. Spazks. The Pitkin County Community Development Director will review the application. Please return your comments to me by Wednesday, January 27, 2010. http://www.asnenpitkin.com/Portals/0/flocs/county/Com%20Dev/Plannin~/Land Use An plications/P 101 09~n.ndf If you require a paper copy of this application contact Bonnie Waechtler at bonnie.waechtler(a~co.nitkin.co.us or 920-5109. Thank you. of PITHIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 South Gatena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920-5526 FAX# (970) 920-5439 MEMORANDUM To: Snowmass/Capitol Caucus Shield O Terrace Homeowners Association Pitkin County Housing FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Community Development Department Suzatme. wolff(a)co.pitkin. co. us Re: Sparks Minor Amendment to a Development Permit and Caretaker Dwelling Unit (PID 2645-272-O1-001; Case P101-09) DATE: September 24, 2009 Attached for your review and comments are materials for an application submitted by Marc A. Sparks. The Pitkin County Community Development Director will review the application. Please return your comments to me by Wednesday, November 4, 2009. PLEASE RETURN APPLICATION MATERIALS TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IF YOU HAVE NO FURTHER NEED OF THEM. ON OCTOBER IsT, 2009 PITKIN COUNTY INTENDS TO GO PAPERLESS WITH ALL FUTURE LAND USE REFERRALS. WE WILL BE SENDING OUT LETTERS TO OBTAIN UP TO DATE CONTACT INFORMATION. PLEASE CHECK OUT THE LINK BELOW FOR THIS LAND USE CASE REFERRAL. http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/county/Com%20Dey/Planning/Land Use Ap plications/P101 09 app.pdf If you require a paper copy of this application contact Bonnie Waechtler at bonnie.waechtler(u?co.pitkin.co.us or 920-5109. MEMORANDUM TO: Suzanne Wolff, Community Development Department FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office DATE: October 21, 2009 RE: Sparks Minor Amendment and Special Review for a Detached CDU Parcel ID No. 2645-272-O1-001; P101-09 ISSUE: The applicant is seeking approval for a detached caretaker dwelling unit. CARETAKER DWELLING UNIT: According to Section 4-30-50(e)(1), CDU as Permitted Accessory Use, in the RS-160, RS-35, RS-30, RS-20, AR-10, AR-2, R-30, RO15, R-15A and R-6 zone districts one CDU shall be a permitted accessory use provided that: 1. It is attached to asingle-family home (the principal dwelling). The cazetaker dwelling unit shall not exceed 1000 net livable square feet on lots or pazcels that are 30,000 square feet or greater in lot area, and 700 net livable square feet on lots or pazcels that are less than 30,000 square feet in lot area. 3. The floor area of the caretaker unit shall be included in the total allowed floor azea for the lot or pazcel of land. 4. One off-street pazking space shall be provided for each caretaker dwelling unit 5. The applicant shall, by deed restriction or other permanent commitment running with the land, guazantee that the caretaker unit: a. shall not be required to be rented; b. not be sold or otherwise conveyed or separated from the original pazcel regazdless of the ultimate form of ownership of the cazetaker unit; c. be limited to occupancy by not more than two adults and related children, who qualify as (and have been found by the Housing Authority to be) employees of the community under such guidelines as may be from time to time established, or by members of the owner's immediate family even though they may not qualify as employees of the community; d. shall be rented for terms no less than six months if rented. 6. The cazetaker dwelling unit restriction may be removed by the property owner upon approval of the Community Development Director, subject to the requirement that the dwelling is removed or modified. If modified, the remaining improvements must no longer be capable of occupancy as a dwelling unit and must meet otherwise applicable Code requirements. ~~2 7. The provisions of this regulation are for the purpose of providing a voluntary cazetaker dwelling unit on a legally created lot or pazcel in the County. Any unit approved under this provision shall not be used for mitigation of employee housing requirements as established elsewhere in the Land Use Code. The unit is proposed as a detached Caretaker Dwelling Unit; therefore, Section 4-30-50(e)(2), allows for a detached CDU under a special review. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recormnends approval of this request under the following conditions: 1. Conditions 1 through 6 stated above are met. 2. The kitchen contains at a minimum a two-burner stove with oven, standard sink, and a refrigerator plus freezer. The oven must be able to bake and broil and be at least 5 cubic feet; the sink must measure at least 14"WX16"DX5.25"H; refrigerator must be at least 5.3 cubic feet and include at least a .73 cubic foot freezer. 3. A deed restriction shall be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. Upon completion of the unit, but prior to Certificate of Occupancy, staff may conduct an inspection of the unit for compliance. 2 Yi Kevin Michelson 707 Shield-O Rd. Snowmass, Colorado 81654 February 1, 2010 Pitkin County Community Development Department Attn: Suzanne Wolff 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Sparks Application for Minor Amendment to Development Permit and Caretaker Dwelling Unit Suzanne, I would like to provide the following comments regarding the land use application submitted by Marc Sparks (Applicant). Erosion Control: Existing Driveway As stated in the Grading, Drainage, Driveway Design, and Erosion control plan performed by Pinnacle Design Consulting Group, Inc. (PDCG), a natural spring exists along a portion of the existing access drive. PDCG further stated that the spring may be mitigated with a French drain system installed adjacent to the bottom of the existing boulder wall, although a comprehensive analysis of the surface water condition would need to be conducted once the snow has melted. I would like to see a condition added to the approval requiring the applicant to obtain said comprehensive analysis and resolve this drainage issue by the spring of 2010. If a date would be more appropriate, I would suggest July 1, 2010. This problem has been ongoing since the summer of 2008. The Shield 0 Terraces Homeowners Association informed Mr. Sparks of the issue in November of 2008, and the problem has yet to be resolved. Proposed Landscaping: Irrigation The applicant has submitted a site plan with proposed landscaping of a number of new conifer and deciduous trees. (50+conifer trees and 10+ deciduous trees) This site currently contains little to no trees within the development area. I am very concerned as to how these proposed trees will be irrigated. Most all well permits issued in the recent past specifically state that the ground water shall not be used for irrigation or other purposes. I would assume that the well permit issued for this property has a similar restriction. I would like to better understand how all of the proposed landscaping will survive without the use of ground water, or for the applicant to submit a revised landscape plan that would not require the use of ground water for irrigation. r li' T-i Building Envelope: As stated within the application, the proposed structures protrude beyond the original building envelope. Specifically, these protrusions occur on the eastern side of the site. The eastern side of the site is very close to a grade exceeding 30% and very visible from Shield-0 road and Snowmass Creek road. I would like to see a condition added to the approval requiring all structures to lie within the existing envelope as shown on the 1041 site plan pursuant determination 20-2004 in Plat Book 71 at Page 18. Please feel free to contact me with any further questions or comments. Regards, Kevin Michelson Treasurer Shield 0 Terraces Homeowners Association 707 Shield-0 Rd. Snowmass, CO 81654 (970)923-5818 kevinm (iapeakvisions. net Z Page 1 of 1 Suzanne Wolff From: Eric Hansen (ekl2hansen@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 9:28 AM To: michael vernon Cc: 'Kevin Michelson'; Suzanne Wolff; 'Hawley Smith'; 'Joy Hartman'; 'Mark Regan'; 'Tom DiCecco' Subject: Re: Sparks Application for Minor Amendment to Development Permit and Caretaker Dwelling Unit Suzanne, I am strongly in agreement with Kevin's letter; especially the item on landscaping. Water is scarce here and wells are drying up on a regular basis. F,ric Hansen 3 zi9izo l o Page 1 of 1 Suzanne Wolff From: Mark Regan [mregan@reganconst.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 8:29 AM To: kevinm@peakvisions.net; Suzanne Wolff Cc: ek12hansen@earthlink.net; vhsjr@bellsouth.net; joysan@sopris.net mregan@sopris.net mvernon@sopris.net; tomdicecco@comcast.net Subject: Re: Sparks Application for Minor Amendment to Development Permit and Caretaker Dwelling Unit I am in agreement with Kevin Michelson's comments on the Spark's land use application Board member Mark Regan Mark Regan From: Kevin Michelson To: 'Suzanne Wolff Cc: Eric Hansen ;Hawley Smith ;Joy Hartman ;Kevin Michelson ;Mark Regan ;Michael Vernon ;Tom DiCecco Sent: Mon Feb O1 21:23:43 2010 Subject: Sparks Application for Minor Amendment to Development Permit and Caretaker Dwelling Unit Suzanne, I have provided comments for the Sparks Land Use Application below and attached. I have copied the board members of the Shield 0 Terraces Homeowners Association in this email with the hope that they may send an email to you agreeing with my comments. Contact me with any questions. Regards, Kevin Kevin Michelson 707 Shield-0 Rd. Snowmass, CO 81654 (970)-923-5818 home (970)-948-6659 cell kevinm@ peakvisions. net 2/3/2010 Page 1 of 1 Suzanne Wolff From: michael vernon [mvernon@sopris.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 5:22 PM To: 'Kevin Michelson'; Suzanne Wolff Cc: 'Eric Hansen'; 'Hawley Smith'; 'Joy Hartman'; 'Mark Regan'; 'Tom DiCecco' Subject: RE: Sparks Application for Minor Amendment to Development Permit and Caretaker Dwelling Unit To All: I am in agreement with Kevin Michelson's letter Michael Vernon, President Shield O Terraces Homeowners Association i. ~.: lk, ~ t-,. tt a 'v .... ~c~ ~. ..3z cat i. ~noE JeC~ _~ ,. ~ . < rd L ~ ~ ' t ~ ~ ~ _ .,ail ~ ~ ry iawfG r: ;<Cd F~ 'R es. Michael A. Vernon CPA President ~ mvernon@sopris.net Add me to your address C 100 Elk Run Drive, Suite 103 Basalt, CO 81621 tel: 970-927-6800 fax: 970-927-1022 mobile: 970-948-8871 C/.3nt a srgnah+re From: Kevin Michelson [mailto:kevinm@peakvisions.net] Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 9:24 PM To: 'Suzanne Wolff Cc: Eric Hansen; Hawley Smith; Joy Hartman; Kevin Michelson; Mark Regan; Michael Vernon; Tom DiCecco Subject: Sparks Application for Minor Amendment to Development Permit and Caretaker Dwelling Unit Suzanne, I have provided comments for the Sparks Land Use Application below and attached. I have copied the board members of the Shield 0 Terraces Homeowners Association in this email with the hope that they may send an email to you agreeing with my comments. Contact me with any questions. Regards, Kevin Kevin Michelson 707 Shield-O Rd. Snowmass, CO 81654 (970)-923-5818 home (970]-948-6659 cell kevinm@ peakvisipns. net 2/3/2010 Kevin Michelson 707 Shield-O Rd. Snowmass, Colorado 81654 November 2, 2009 Pitkin County Community Development Department Attn: Suzanne Wolff 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Sparks Application for Minor Amendment to Development Permit and Caretaker Dwelling Unit Suzanne, I would like to provide the following comments regarding the land use application submitted by Marc Sparks (Applicant). Activity Envelope: Existing Topography The applicant has explained that the topography on the uphill side of the site has been modified since the previous 1041 approval such that the grades are now actually less than 30%. I would like to see an updated survey of the property specific to the existing topography/slopes within the proposed building envelope. Activity Envelope: Site Plan The applicant has explained a design exists to create a small residential compound comprising of three structures, a 3,000 SF house, a garage, and a detached CDD. As a result of the design, the applicant is requesting a wider activity envelope including grades greaterthan 30%to accommodate the foot print of the three structures. In order to better understand the basis for the wider envelope, I would like to see a site plan demonstrating the location and size of the foot prints of each structure as well as the various other site improvements such as the driveway, Onsite Wastewater Treatment System, water storage tank for fire control. Please feel free to contact us with any further questions or comments. Regards, Kevin Michelson Treasurer Shield 0 Terraces Homeowners Association 707 Shield-0 Rd. Snowmass, CO 81654 (970)923-5818 kevinmCdpeakvisions.net Page 1 of 1 Suzanne Wolff --_ ___._ From: Tom DiCecco, Manager, MJC Hawk's Nest, LLC [tomdicecco@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 7:24 AM To: Suzanne Wolff Subject: Sparks Request For Amendment to Development Permit 10/16/09 "Suzanne WolfF' <suzannew@co.pitkin.co.us> RE: Sparks Application 300 Shield-O Road Shield-O Terraces Lot 21 PID:2645-272-01-001 Dear Ms. Wolff: As owner of the adjacent property, I am fully familiar with the Sparks property. Be advised that I personally support the Sparks application for Amendment. Tom DiCecco, Manager MJC Hawk's Nest, LLC 610-459-4938 cc: Mark Sparks, SOTHA Board, Emily Smith (SCCC Board) 10/22/2009 ~~ ~a robert mehall ARCHITECT memorandum to: Suzanne Wolff from: Bob Mehall date: 07 January 10 re: Timber Creek West 300 Sheild-O Road Snowmass, Pitkin County, Colorado As requested, here is a list of the Floor Area for the three buildings: CDU Main Floor 606.1 s.f 606.1 s.f. Office/Garase Main Floor 857.2 s.f. Upper Floor 524.9 s.f. Building Total 1,382.1 s.f. 1,382.1 s.f. Main House Lower Floor 660.2 s.f. Main Floor 2,521.6 s.f. Upper Floor 353.8 s.f. Building Total 3,535.6 s.f. 3,535.6 s.f. Total Floor Area 5.523.8 s.f. post office box 5506 Snowmass village Colorado 81615 tel: 970.923.8946 fax: 970.923.8948 SNOWMASS-CAPITOL CREEK CAUCUS P.O. Box 507 SNOWMASS, COLORADO 81654 Suzanne Wolff January 25, 2010 Aspen Pitkin County Community Development 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 8161 I Re: Sparks Site Plan and CDU Dear Suzanne: The board of the Snowmass/ Capitol Creek Caucus reviewed the Sparks application again at our January meeting. We still feel the same way about the application after having looked at the drawings submitted with the Site Plan. We voted unanimously to approve the application, but are still concerned about Che location of the CDU. We don't think there is any par[ of our Master Plan which this application contradicts, since the house and CDU probably will not break the ridgeline view from Snowmass Creek Road. So we do not want to make this a condition of our approval, but more of a neighborly suggestion to the applicant. We feel that a better location for the CDU would be against the uphill edge of the building envelope, either connected to or next to the garage. This would lessen the visual impacts of the building from other parcels and roads. A CDU does not need to be sited so it has optimum views like the house has. Putting the CDU more in line with the garage and house would also improve the view from the house site of Sally Schatz. Thanks for letting us look at the additional materials and the chance to comment again on this application. Sincerely, Steve Child Land Use Committee Snowmass Capitol Creek Caucus ~-I Bec. 1. 2009 10:14AM SREC No. 8951 P. 2 SNOWMASS-CAPITOL CREEK CAUCUS P.O. BOx 507 SNOWMASS, COLORADO 81654 Suzanne Wolff November 30, 2009 Aspen Pitkin County Community Development 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Sparks Minor Amendment and CDU Dear Suzanne: Tt was very helpful for our Land Use Committee to view this site with you, the planner, architect, and Kevin Michaelson from Shield O last week. Our Caucus group felt that expanding the building envelope into the already disturbed area was not a big concern. However, while the building envelope is big enough to accommodate the house, gazage, and CDU, a better location for the CDU would be against the uphill edge of the building envelope, either connected to or near the garage. This would lessen the visual impacts of the building from other parcels and roads. A CDU really does not need to be sited so it has optimum views. Putting the CDU more in line with the garage and house would also improve the view from the house site of Sally Schatz. We would approve this application, and the CDU, subject to where it is sited. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this application. SlACere]y, Steve Child Land Use Committee Snowmass Capitol Creek Caucus Nov. 6. 2009 12:36PM SREC SNOWMASS-CAPITOL CREEK CAUCUS P.O. Box 507 SNOWMASS, COLORADO 81654 Suzanne Wolff November 4, 2009 Aspen Pitkin County Community Development 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Spazks Minor Amendment and CDU Dear Suzanne: No. 8592 P. 2 The Snowmass/Capitol Creek Caucus board recently reviewed the application to revise the land use application on the Sparks lot at 300 Shield-O Road, It is not possible for us to tell what the plan for the land is without a site plan showing where the proposed house, CDU, and gazage are proposed to go. We also need to do a site inspection of the property, since the size of the buildable portion of the lot is so constrained by Ume steep slopes and the proximity to the neighboring house. We request that a decision on this application be delayed until we can take a closer look at it with all the information available. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this application. Sincerely, Steve Child Land Use Committee Snovvmass/Capitol Creek Caucus PITKIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I~'~ Invoice Submitted To: Alan Richman PO Box 3613 Aspen, CO 81612 March 10, 2010 Original Mail Date: March 10, 2009 In Reference To: Fees Due for additional Planning Hours on Sparks Minor Amendment to a Development Permit, Site Plan, and Caretaker Dwelling Unit (Case P101-09;PID 2645-272-01-001) Flat Fee 3 hr $249. Please make check payable to "Pitkin County Treasurer" Total Due: $747. Please remit check to: Pitkin County Community Development 130 S. Galena Street, 3`d Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Attn: Bonnie Waechtter PITKIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Permit Receipt RECEIPT NUMBER 00029063 Name: Marc A Sparks Operating 1 Date:3/26/2010 Project Address: 300 SHIELD O RD Type: check # 3872 Permit Number Fee Description 0101.2009.PLAN PP- Planning Hrly Fee 1 Total: Amount 747.00 747.00 C~ ~ Name: Project Address Type: Permit Number PITKIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Permit Receipt RECEIPT NUMBER 00028629 Marc A Sparks Operating 1 Date:12/9/2009 300 SHIELD O RD check # 3570 0101.2009.PLAN 0101.2009.PLAN Fee Description PP- Flat Fee PP- Public Notice Fee Total: Amount 499.00 54.00 553.00 PITKIN 6,,,,~UNTY COMMUNITY DEVEL4,,,tMENT Permit Receipt RECEIPT NUMBER 00028284 Name: Marc Sparks Date:9/21/2009 Project Address: NO ADDRESS ASSIGNED Type: check # 3371 Permit Number Fee Description 0101.2009.PLAN PP- Flat Fee 0101.2009.PLAN PP- Clerk Tech Fee 0101.2009.PLAN PP- Housing Referral Fee Total: Amount 1,496.00 25.00 179.00 1.700.00