HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.planning.264326203002 (2)DOCUMENT LAYOUT
THIS FILE MAY OR MAY NOT CONTAIN ALL OF THE INFORMATION
LISTED BELOW IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER
Summary Sheet
Resolution for the BOCC and/or P&Z
Ordinance for the BOCC and/or P&Z
Determination for the Hearing Officer
Administrative Determination
Staff Memo
Application
Public Notice, Acceptance Letter, Referral(s) Letter
Site Plan
Miscellaneous
Plat copies (11x17)
~ ~
CASffi.OAD SDMNARY SHEET
PITRIN COIINTY
DATE RECEIVED: 5 17 91
DATE COMPT•R'~'~- /
PROJECT NAME
PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
2643-262-03-002 P50-91
STAFF MEl~ER•
Project Address:- Lot 2 Starwood Ranch Lot SDlit 0 770 less/Prl~/
APPLICANT: ASPCOL Corporation N.O.
Applicant Address-
REPRESENTATIVS: Fred Peirce. Austin ~ Peirce
Representative Address/Phone: 600 Bast Hopkins Avenue. Suite 205
Aspen. CO 81611. 925-2600
AMODNT PAID: 51,022.00 NO.OF COPIES RBCSIVBD 5 PLAT: 5
TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: X 2 STEP:
P&Z MEETING DATE PDBLIC HEARING: YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
BOCC Meeting Date PDBLIC HEARING: YES NO
~~ ~ ' VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
Staff Level: 1041 Minor Hazard Review: Date of Approval
RE Attorney
Engineer
Housing
Aspen water
~~ Bnvir.Hlth.
Manager
Div.Wildlife
Caucus
~~Zoninq
Homeowners
Assn.
-Aspen Consol S.D.
_Mtn.Bell
_HOly Cross
-Aspen Fire
_Basalt Fire
_Carbondale Fire
_Div.Water Res.
-Airport Manager
_CO Geo.Survey
Sheriff
DATE REFERRED: ~ ~~° ~ q ~ INITIALS:
FINAL ROOTING:
County
Housing
Other:
FILE STATDS AND LOCATION:
DATE
-County Engineer
Envir. Health
_ School District
Rocky Mtn Nat Gas
State Hwy Dept
(Glwd) (GrJtn)
_ Snowmass Vill
_ IISFS (Carbondale)
_ IISFS (Aspen)
_ BLM
City PAZ
Other:
Zoning
,..,
1.,,,335755 US/~C/91 1 i : 14 Ftec,.,r. Ui_~ BFt 654 FG 643
Silvia Davis, Fit4rin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.UU
RESOLIITION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
OF PITRIN COIINTY, COLORADO, GRANTING THE ASPCOL CORPORATION
AN AMENDMENT TO RESOLIITION 89-72 TO PERMIT THE SECOND
1,200 BQIIARE FOOT EMPLOYEE DWELLING IINIT TO BE PLACED
IN A NEW BIIILDING ON THE PROPERTY
Resolution No. 91-2~
WHEREAS, the ASPCOL Corporation (hereinafter "Applicant") has
applied to Pitkin County to amend Resolution 89-72 which stipulates
that the applicant shall locate the two approved 1,200 square foot
employee dwelling units within existing structures on the property;
and
WHEREAS, the Applicant's request amends the plat filed in
Book 23 Page 25, which approved building envelope locations in the
Stanwood Ranch Lot Split; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners (hereinafter
"Board") considered the Applicant's request at a duly noticed
public meeting on June 25, 1991; and
WHEREAS, the relocated employee dwelling unit is proposed
approximately 200 feet to the South East of the historic cabin; and
WHEREAS, the historic cabin which was to house the unit was
in such disrepair the conversion to human occupation would be
extremely difficult; and
WHEREAS, the Board made the finding that no adverse impacts
should result from the Applicant's request.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County
Commissioners Commission hereby grants an amendment to the Stanwood
Ranch Lot Split Resolution 89-72 for the relocation of one 1,200
...
#~!,rii;~5 i~8/^2/91 11:14 Rec ~:~:~ Bk,' bS4 PG 644
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty C1erLr., Doc x.00
Resolution No. 91
Page 2
square foot employee dwelling unit subject to the following
conditions:
1. All conditions of Resolution 89-72 shall remain
conditions of approval.
2. A Preservation Plan for the historic log cabin shall be
submitted by August 15, 1991 to the Planning Office for
approval by the Planning Director. If this Plan is not
submitted to the Planning Office by this date, a "Stop
Work Order" may be served on the 1,200 square foot
employee dwelling unit. The Preservation Plan shall
include and specify the construction time frame, a
comprehensive drainage plan, and work to be conducted on
the historic structure. Plans shall be prepared by an
architect versed in historic preservation, except for the
drainage plan which shall be done by a licensed engineer.
Rehabilitation of the cabin shall be completed within 18
months from the date the employee dwelling unit building
permit is issued.
~. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the employee
dwelling unit, the Third Amended and Restated Plat of the
Starwood Ranch Lot Split shall be completed and recorded
with the Clerk and Recorder's Office.
The applicant shall note on the amended Plat that, "The
historic log building shall not have any residential
space, and shall be used solely as an accessory
structure."
5. All material representations made by the Applicant in
the application and public meetings shall be adhered to
and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise
amended by other conditions.
APPROVED by the Board of County Commissioners at it's regular
meeting on June 25, 1991.
BOARD OF CODNTY COMMI88IONERS
OF PITRIN COIINTY, COLORADO
By
Wayne Et ri ge, Chai man
Date ~ ~ ~.c.,/
. ,,
\./#33,°i75.~i ~~B/22/91 11:14 fFeL~$.Ot_~ BK 654 P6 645
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Cler4~, Doc $.Qp
Resolution No. 91-z~
Page 3
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
// /
Marg um,
P1 nnin ire or
reso.bocc.aspcol.amend3
AOODl1V1QT ~fi TA FOAM!
^3357~.`'r b8/~~/91 11:14 Rec ^ Ob BK 654 P6 646
• 3lilvia Davis, Pitk:in Cnty CY~rk, Doc ~.bb
E%HIBIT
Lots 1 and 2 of the Third Amended and Restated Plat of Starwood
Ranch Lot Split
.,
SPENCER F. SCHIFFER, P. C.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
PAflK CENTML BUILDING
ADMITTED TO COLORADO 215 SOUTH MONARCH, SUITE 203
TELEPHONE 1303) 925-906t
AND NEvV YORK BARS q$PEN, COLORADO Bt 61t
TELECOPIER (3031925-4043
July 27, 1992
Ms. Mary .Lackner
Aspen/Pitkih Planning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Aspcol
Dear Mary:
Thank you for providing me with the information regarding
Aspcol's development rights with respect to the caretaker units and
accessory buildings, etc.
As I explained, my client, Karl Parrish, is the owner of
Starwood Lot R-16 and is the lessee of the adjacent pasture tract,
P-16, which is contiguous to the Aspcol property. Mr. Parrish
informs me that he has never received written notification of any
land use applications with respect to Aspcol and has asked me to
specifically request on his behalf that notices of any such
applications be sent to me as his attorney and to the following
address:
Karl M. Parrish
780 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10017
Since Mr. Parrish's house is on Kessler Drive, he is directly
impacted by virtually anything that takes place on the Aspcol
t=i'Y'~ =Y Q11<i '^`1li'.4 ai"ili'yiy ili:6 L:O tinGir Wi1aL 'i5 beliiLj ~ jJ1 UIJV$iQ 111
the way of additional development at the earliest possible ti~ae.
He had expected the construction to have been completed more than
a year ago, but it appears to be continuing through this Summer as
well.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Very truly yours,
SPENCER,F~ SCHIFFER, P.C.
cc: Mr. Karl Parrish
SFS:shy
par~1727.1tr
F. Schiffer
`~~ MEMORANDUM
~ ~ ~
HAGMANYAW TO: Mary Lackner, Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
ARCHITECTS
LTD FROM: Bob Schiller __
210 SOUTH GALENA
ASPEN, COL02AD0 81611
3osiezs-za6~ DATE: January 16, 1992
RE: Trentaz Homestead
During preservation work on the existing building we are adding rafters to
supplement poles which were used to frame the roof of the original log portion.
These rafters are necessary to support snow loads due to increased insulation
and the greater friction of a shingle roof. The rafters are located inside the
building and so do not affect the historic appearance.
On the west gable end the roof overhangs approximately two feet with the
plank ends resting on a pole approximately 4" or 5" in diameter. This pole
spans about 12 feet and is woefully inadequate. To improve the situation with
the least impact on historic appearance, we propose to add a second pole of
similar size directly behind the existing one (see attached details). This will not
calculate out to support the load required by current codes but it seems to
provide the best balance between structure, appearance and construction
feasibility.
Please advise us whether this solution is acceptable under the conditions of
approval for this building.
Bob Schiller ~~~
Enclosure
cc: William Jordan
Randy Jacobson
Q
L'~
1
N
~„~
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO Mary Lackner CC Roxanne Eflin
From: Roxanne Eflin
Postmark: Jan 23,92 10:06 AM
Status: Previously read
Subject: Amendment to Trentaz Homestead Preservation Plan
Message:
Bob Schiller has asked approval to add additional supports to the
rafter ends of the cabin/structure for snow loading purposes. I find
that his design solution does not imact the character of the
structure significantly, and therefore, should be approved by staff.
Please feel free to let him know I have reviewed his amendment, and
have no problem with it. Any additional changes should continue to
come through us. Thanks.
----------=====X=====___-------
j
`~ October 14, 1991
RAGMAN YAW
ARCHITECT'S
LtD
2l0 SOUTH GALENA Ms. Mary Lackner, County Planner
AseEN,co~ow,ooa~eu As en/Pitkin Planning Office
307/925-2867 p
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Trentaz Homestead Preservation Plan
a.k.a. ASPCOL Log Building H.P.P.
Dear Ms. Lackner:
~~~6
During our meeting with Roxanne Eflin and you, the retaining walls needed
adjacent to this building were discussed. It was our intent to construct them of
railroad ties, similar to the existing garage.
In preparing drawings for Building Permit, the structural engineer has
determined that the tie backs needed for this would interfere with existing
foundations on the rear portion of the building. He recommends using
concrete retaining walls faced with natural stone salvaged from the original
foundations.
We have gone ahead and shown this on the permit drawings. Please contact
us if this is not satisfactory.
Very truly yours,
Bob Schiller
,.
ins Office
130
As 1611
(303) 9 920-5197
August 22, 1991
Mr. Bill Jordon, Esq.
730 E. Durant, Suite 200
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Trentaz Homestead Preservation Plan
Dear Mr. Jordon,
Attached you will find a copy of Roxanne Eflin's report regarding
the above mentioned project and the additional material needed for
approval of the plan. In addition to the issues identified by
Roxanne, a construction time frame for the proposed work needs to
be submitted to the Planning Office.
The Planning Office will not delay the issuance of a building
permit for the employee dwelling unit while you are preparing the
Preservation Plan.
If you have any further questions regarding additional submission
requirements or any other aspect of the project, please feel free
to contact me at 920-5090.
Sincerely,
Mary Lackner
Planner
cc: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer
Robert Schiller, Hagman Yaw Architects
recyNed paper
To: Mary Lackner, County Planner
From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer
Re: Preservation Plan - Historic Trentaz Homestead cabin
ASPCOL proposal
Date: August 20, 1991
The applicants have submitted a report referred to as the "ASPCOL
Log Building Historic Preservation Plan", which identifies methods
and materials they propose to utilize in preserving the historic
resource. The Planning Office has also received an engineering
report from Integrated Engineering Consultants, Inc. regarding the
adequacy of its structural elements.
I have reviewed the plan and find it to be acceptable, with the
exceptions and conditions as noted below. The plan should be
revised to indicate these conditions prior to the issuance of a
building permit:
1) A drainage plan has not yet been submitted to the
Planning Office for review and approval, which is a
condition of the preservation plan.
2) The removal and reconstruction of chimney should either
be a restoration to its original appearance or allow the
new projecting stove pipe to read as a functional element
(not enclosed), painted in a dark matte-finish
3) Complete exterior photo documentation of existing
conditions is required prior to any work beginning; one
set shall be submitted to the Planning Office
4) All original windows shall be preserved (not replaced)
unless severely deteriorated. Any replacement
(restoration) window shall match the historic profile as
closely as possible. All windows and trim shall be wood
and painted.
5) The mortar mix for foundation field stone veneer shall
include a high percentage of sand and lime.
6) Bubble skylights shall be either eliminated or replaced
with flat skylights of no larger dimensions.
1
7) The gable end treatment shall be restudied to determine
the original material and siding design. If original
material and design cannot be determined, salvaged board
and batten (as proposed) may be used.
In summary, any repair or alteration to this homestead site shall
be accomplished in the most sensitive and modest method possible,
in order to respect the vernacular and rural nature of the
homestead. National Park Service "Preservation Tech Notes" should
be referred to for technical guidance in rethinking and log
preservative materials
Modifications to this plan shall be submitted in advance for
Planning Office review and approval.
memo.aspcol.pres.plan
INTEGRA'("ED ENGINEERING ~.ONSULTANTS , Lrd.
z~s South Monarch Street Suite G1O2 Aspen,Colorado 8~6~~
(303 92S 593 FAX (303) gzs.76z7
July 24, 1991
Job # 91140
Mr. Bob Schiller
Hagman Yaw, Ltd.
510 East Hyman, Suite 21
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: ASPCOL Log Building
Pitkin County, Co
Dear Bob:
As per your request, Integrated Engineering Consultants,
Ltd. has conducted an inspection of the above project in order to
determine the adequacy of the structural elements.
The existing building is wood framed using both light and
heavy construction techniques. The foundation is a combination
of dry stack rubble stone and isolated concrete pads.
The inspection covered only those structural elements which
were readily visible and did not include concealed elements due
to the cost and disruption of exposing them.
Based on our visual inspection we conclude that the dry
stack ruble stone portion of the foundation is in a advanced
state of deterioration that has caused significant settlement in
specific areas.
We conclude that the existing building can be converted to
the proposed agricultural use by the addition of a new concrete
foundation with stone veneer to replicate the appearance of the
existing foundation. Minor interior framing modifications, which
do not affect its visual historic appearance, may also be needed
to maintain its structural integrity.
If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we
can be of any further service, please contact us.
~,.
ASPCOL Log Building
July 24, 1991
Page 2
Sincerely,
INTEGRATED ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, LTD.
~~ ~
Lawrence A. Doble, PE
President
,_..~
AGENDA ITEM BUMMARY
RE: ASPCOL Corporation Employee Dwelling Unit and Amendment
to Resolution 89-72
T0: Board of County Commissioners
Regular Meeting - June 25, 1991
THRU: Reid Haughey, County Manager
Amy Margerum, Planning Director
FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner
REgUEST: The applicant is requesting approval to amend Resolution
89-72. Specifically, the project proposes to convert an existing
historic log building into an agricultual building, and construct
a pre-approved 1,200 detached employee dwelling unit (that was to
occupy the existing log structure) in a new building envelope
approximately 200 feet to the southeast of the historic log
structure.
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of the
applicant's request with conditions as noted in the memorandum.
APPLICANT: ASPCOL Corporation.
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Fred Peirce and William Jordon.
LOCATION: Lot 2 of the Starwood Ranch Lot Split.
ISSUES: 1. Resolution 89-71, which granted approval of the
applicant's request for two 1,200 square foot unit,
specifically identified this unit within the
existing agricultural buildings on site.
2. The addition of the 1,200 square foot structure adds
additional bulk and mass to the property. The new
employee unit is, however, clustered with the
historic log cabin and caretaker's unit, to reduce
sprawl of buildings and preserve open space on the
property.
3. In consideration of the historic log cabin, the
applicant has agreed to preserve this historic
resource.
ALTERNATIVES: The Board of County Commissioners may:
1. Approve the applciant's request with conditions.
2. Deny the applicant's request.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners select alternative 1.
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Regular Meeting - June 25, 1991
THRU: Reid Haughey, County Manager
Amy Margerum, Planning Director
RE: ASPCOL Corporation Employee Dwelling Unit and Amendment
to Resolution 89-72
FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval to amend Resolution
89-72 (Attachment 1). Specifically, the project proposes to
convert an existing historic log building into an agricultural
building, and construct a pre-approved 1,200 detached employee
dwelling unit (that was to occupy the existing log structure) in
a new building envelope approximately 200 feet to the southeast of
the historic log structure.
APPLICANT: ASPCOL Corporation.
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE:
Attorneys at Law.
Fred Peirce and William Jordon,
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:
to this memorandum.
The application letter is attached
LOCATION: Lot 2 of the Starwood Ranch Lot Split.
ZONING: The 95 acre property is zoned RS-20 PUD.
ACCESS: Access to the lot is via Trentaz Drive to a private
driveway.
WATER: The applicant is proposing to connect this unit with
the Starwood Water System.
SEWER: The applicant has not discussed the proposed location
for design for a septic system.
REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS
1. County Attorney- In a message dated June 17, 1991, John Ely,
Assistant County Attorney submitted the following comments:
Any approval should keep with the terms of Resolution 89-72
as far as restrictions on the use of the new employee unit.
Use of the building for agricultural purposes is fine, however
the applicant should specify the exact type of agricultural
use he will be using the log cabin for. This is somewhat
extraneous but we have made a similar request of other
applicants in the past.
2. Environmental Health Department- In a memo dated June 14,
1991 (Attachment 2), the Environmental Health Department
submitted the following comments:
Sewaae Treatment- There is no indication of the means of
wastewater disposal in the application. The proposed
relocation unit will, in all likelihood require an engineered
on-site wastewater disposal system alternatives
evapotranspiration/absorption system as was done on the main
house.
A new septic system of similar design should be constructed
for the building to be converted to agricultural use. We will
not allow pumping systems to be reconnected to the unpermitted
existing sewer system of unknown construction.
Air Quality- There is no indication if the relocated unit is
to have a woodburing fireplace. It is our interpretation that
the detached employee residence is allowed a wood-burning
fireplace and a certified wood stove or gas-log fireplace.
In addition, there may be a fireplace or an existing non-
certified wood burning stove in the existing structure. It
is suggested that if the proposal is approved, that some more
restrictive limitation be requested from the applicant prior
to approval, and that this be made a part of the real property
records. If agreeable to the applicant and their
representatives, we suggest that the employee units be
restricted to gas-logs or gas appliances, if fireplaces are
contemplated at all.
STAFF COMMENTS
Background: The Starwood Ranch Agricultural Lot Split Final Plat
was approved by the Board of County Commissioners by Resolution 87-
106 for three free market units and two employee dwelling units.
Lot 2, the ASPCOL property, received approval for two free market
residential development rights and one employee dwelling unit.
There was a first amendment Subdivision Exemption (Resolution PZ-
89-11) for certain amendments to the recorded plat and Protective
Covenants for a lot line adjustment, correction of a survey error,
and other modifications of a private nature including a change in
the form of ownership.
Resolution 89-72 was passed by the Board of County Commissioners
as the second amendment and replat of the Starwood Ranch Lot Split,
which provided for the existence of one free-market, single family
residence and two detached employee dwelling units (each with a
maximum square footage of 1,200 square feet and three bedroom).
2
Both of these employee units are approved within existing
structures, one of which is a historic log building in disrepair
on a rubble foundation.
one of these employee dwelling units is complete and occupied. The
second unit, previously proposed to be placed within the historic
log building, has not been constructed. When the applicant began
work to renovate the existing unoccupied log structure, they
discovered several problems with upgrading the building for human
habitation. Hence, the applicant requested approval from the
Planning Office and the County Attorney to either remove the
existing log structure and replace it with a new building, or leave
the log structure in place and convert it into an agricultural
building, and relocate the employee unit next to the log building.
The County Attorney responded to the applicant and specified that
they are required to the County to amend Resolution 89-72.
Land Use Code Sections: Section 4-2.1(b) "Insubstantial Change to
a recorded plat" and Resolution 89-72, which refers to Section 3-
6 "Special Review permits" are applicable to this application.
Section 5-405.1(b)(4) is also related and discussed for the
historic significance of the Trentaz Homestead Cabin.
Resolution 59-72
Condition #1 of this Resolution specifies that "no additional
residential development shall be permitted on Lot 2, Starwood Ranch
Lot Split without special review approval." Since only relocation
of an approved residential space is being requested, no additional
residential development is proposed. Therefore, Special Review
approval is not necessary.
Section 4-2.1(b) Subdivision Exemption
Section 4-2.1(b) of the Land Use Code permits insubstantial changes
to a recorded plat to be approved by the Board if the request fully
conforms to all provisions of the Land Use Code. This application
and land use review is consistent with the provisions of the Land
Use Code.
Section 3-6 Special Review Permits
"Uses designated as special review uses in any zone district
or by any general regulation are contingent uses which may or
may not be appropriate in a particular location depending upon
the nature of the use, its relationship to surrounding land
uses, and its impacts with respect to environmental, social
and economic matters."
Response: Resolution 89-72 approved an additional 1,200 square
foot employee dwelling unit in exchange for eliminating the second
free-market development right on the property. This approval also
specified that the additional caretaker unit occupy the existing
old log structure on Lot 2.
Despite the additional 1,200 square foot structure proposed on the
property by this request, the unit will be clustered with other
"agricultural type" structures in the same general area on the
property (See attached map). The site plan for the employee
dwelling unit is compatible with County Policies and General
Regulations in keeping disturbance centrally located and preserving
a large expanse of open space on the property.
Three of the ten neighboring properties have submitted letters of
support for this proposed amendment. No letters opposing the
request have been received.
Section 5-405 Historic and Archaeological Resource Areas
The historic cabin, which Resolution 89-72 approved for the
location of the second employee dwelling unit, was not reviewed by
the Planning and Zoning Commission under the "1041 Regulations" as
development or activity to a known historic resource.
Section 5-405.1 (b) of the Land Use Code specifies that the
regulations apply to the following activities to known historic
structures,
(1) To any development or activity,...
(3) To any exterior alteration or remodeling of any existing
structure within the site, or to any addition thereto.
(4) To any demolition or destruction of structures or
buildings within the site.
Response: The Planning Office is requesting a Preservation Plan
for the rehabilitation of the historic log cabin. This plan shall
specify the time frame and work to be conducted on the historic
structure, and shall be done by an architect versed in historic
preservation. The Planning Office further recommends that
financial assurances be made with the County and approved by the
Planning Office for the rehabilitation of the cabin, within 18
months.
If the Preservation Plan does not meet the satisfaction of the
Planning Office for meeting the criteria of this Section or the
Policies and General Regulations addressing Historic Resources, the
Planning Office will request the applicant to apply for review by
the Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to Sections 2-12, 5-
103 and 5-405 of the Land Use Code.
4
SUMMARY
The applicant's request appears to be consistent with the
provisions of the Land Use Code if the applicant adheres to the
conditions recommended by the Planning Office for approval.
The Planning Office recommends the Board of County Commissioner's
approve the applicant's request subject to the following
conditions:
1. All conditions of Resolution 89-72 shall remain conditions of
approval.
2. A Preservation Plan for the historic log cabin shall be
submitted to the Planning Office for approval by the Planning
Director prior to issuance of a building permit for the
relocated 1,200 square foot employee dwelling unit. The
Preservation Plan shall include and specify the construction
time frame, a comprehensive drainage plan, and work to be
conducted on the historic structure. Plans shall be prepared
by an architect versed in historic preservation, except for
the drainage plan which shall be done by a licensed engineer.
Rehabilitation of the cabin shall be completed within 18
months from the approval of this Preservation Plan.
3. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the employee
dwelling unit, financial assurances shall be made by the
applicant and accepted by the County Attorney and Planning
Office for the rehabilitation of the historic cabin.
4. A Minor 1041 Hazard Review site plan shall be approved by the
Planning Director, prior to the issuance of a building permit
for the employee dwelling unit.
5. The applicant shall note on the revised Plat that "The
historic log building shall not have any residential space,
and shall be used solely as an accessory structure."
6. All material representations made by the Applicant in the
application and public meeting shall be adhered to and
considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended
by other conditions.
platamend.aspcol
5
~,
APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
NO. 89-72 GRANTING SPECIAL REVIEW
APPROVAL FOR AN ADDITIONAL
EMPLOYEE DWELLING UNIT
APPLICATION SUBMITTED TO: Pitkin County Planning Office
APPLICANT: ASPCOL Corporation, N.V.
BY: Austin & Peirce, its Agents and Attorneys
DATED: May 17, 1991
This is an application for special review approval of an
amendment to Board of County Commissioners Resolution No. 89-72
granting approval to the applicant to change the location of the
employee dwelling unit approved in said resolution.
The Property and Surrounding Environment. The property is
Lot 2, Stanwood Ranch Lot Split, consisting of approximately 95
acres. The property is surrounded by Stanwood Subdivision to the
south, Star Mountain Ranch to the east, Lot 1, Stanwood Ranch Lot
Split, the George Stranahan Ranch and Star Mesa Subdivision to the
north and the James E. Moore Ranch to the west. The surrounding
property varies from the relatively high density of Stanwood
Subdivision to the low density of the ranches to the relatively low
density of the Star Mesa Subdivision. The property is located in
the RS-20 zone, which generally requires 20 acre lots per
residence. Accompanying this application as Exhibit A is a
vicinity map for the property.
The second amended and restated plat of Stanwood Ranch Lot
Split and the existing approvals for Lot 2, Stanwood Ranch Lot
Split provide for the existence of one free-market, single-family
residence and two detached employee dwelling units, each with a
maximum square footage of 1200 square feet and three bedrooms.
Both of these employee units are approved for existing structures,
one of which is an extremely old, decrepit log building on a rubble
foundation. Accompanying this application as Exhibit B is a copy
of the Second Amended and Restated Plat of Stanwood Ranch Lot
Split.
Specific Request for Approval. On July 25, 1989, the Board
of County Commissioners passed Resolution 89-72 granting special
review approval to the applicant pursuant to Section 3-8.13 of the
Pitkin County Land Use Code to construct an additional employee
dwelling unit in the existing unoccupied log structure located on
the property. A copy of Resolution 89-72 is attached hereto as
Exhibit C. When applicant began work to renovate the existing
unoccupied log house for his approved employee dwelling unit, it
discovered several problems with upgrading the building for human
habitation. Hence, the applicant requested approval from the
Planning Office and the County Attorney's Office to either remove
the existing log structure and replace it with a new building, or
to leave the log building in place, convert it to an agricultural
building, and relocate the employee unit next to the log building.
On June 8, 1990, the County Attorney's Office wrote a letter
to applicant's attorney stating that the County would allow the
applicant to remove and replace the existing log structure with an
employee unit, subject to certain restrictions and a site
inspection by the County Building Inspector. In addition, the
letter stated a Planning Office preference to leave the building
standing, convert it to an agricultural building and relocate the
approved employee unit. However, it also stated that to relocate
the employee unit would require special review approval, since it
would constitute a change to the plat and approvals. A copy of the
County Attorney's letter is attached hereto as Exhibit D and a copy
of a letter from the Planning Office dated June 28, 1990 indicating
that the Building Inspector had inspected the building is attached
hereto as Exhibit E.
Based on the above, the specific request of this application
is for special review approval to convert the existing log building
into an agricultural building and to construct the approved
detached employee dwelling unit that was to occupy the existing log
structure within the building envelope, identified on Exhibit F.
The criteria of Section 3-8.13(b) applicable to this request
are as follows:
1) A deed restriction for this additional employee unit has
already been recorded stating that it shall not exceed
allowable square footage or number of bedrooms. A copy
of this deed restriction, recorded in book 599 at page
698 of the Pitkin County real property records is
attached hereto as Exhibit G.
2) The proposed location is just east of the existing log
cabin, across from the other existing employee unit and
close to two farm buildings already in existence. In
addition, it would not be any more visible from any other
property owner's perspective than the existing structures
surrounding the site. In connection herewith, the owner
of Lot 1, Stanwood Ranch Lot Split, has approved this
application. Hence, the proposal would have little
visual impact, consistent with the County's scenic
quality policies;
2
~.
3) Since the second employee dwelling unit has already been
approved, this application will have no additional impact
on density;
4) Since the second employee dwelling unit has already been
approved, the need for the unit has already been
established and approved by the Board of County
Commissioners;
5) The deed restrictions have already been executed and
placed of record and applicant has agreed to abide
thereby; and,
6) Public and private access, utilities and services are all
in existence and in place and are adequate for the site.
Likewise, the proposal is compatible with the
neighborhood (already approved) and meets the criteria of
the code.
List of Exhibits.
Exhibit A: Vicinity map, showing location of subject property
and surrounding properties;
Exhibit B: Copy of second amended and restated plat,
representing the current approved plat of the
property, recorded in Plat book 23 at page 25 of
the Pitkin county real property records;
Exhibit C: Copy of Resolution 89-72 recorded in Book 598 at
page 730 of the Pitkin County real property
records;
Exhibit D: Letter from Timothy E. Whitsitt, Assistant to
County Attorney to Frederick F. Peirce, dated June
8, 1990;
Exhibit E: Letter from Buddy Lucero, Zoning Officer, Pitkin
County Planning Office to Chris Bell, dated June
25, 1990;
Exhibit F: Drawing prepared by Design Workshop depicting the
existing detached employee dwelling unit, the
existing log building (to be converted to an
agricultural building) and the proposed building
envelope for the second detached employee dwelling
unit; and
Exhibit G: Copy of deed restriction recorded in Book 599 at
page 698 of the Pitkin County real property
records.
3
Exhibit H: Proposed third amended and restated Plat reflecting
the building envelope for the second employee
dwelling unit as proposed by this application.
Summary. The within application is consistent with the Planning
Office's request to achieve the preservation of the existing log
cabin as an agricultural building and allows the applicant to
construct its second approved detached employee dwelling unit in
close proximity to the existing employee unit and existing log
cabin. Hence, this application conforms to the County's criteria
for applications of this nature and the applicant requests that you
grant approval to relocate the detached employee dwelling unit to
the building envelope identified on Exhibit F and amend the Plat
accordingly, in accordance with Exhibit H.
Respectfully submitted,
AUSTIN &~~EIRCE, Attorneys and
Agents for the Applicant
~" "r ~ ..
Bye
Fr eri irce, Esq.
1 C:~WP5I~MEMOS~REQUEST.ASP
June 12, 1991
Board of County Commissioners
Pitkin County
Aspen CO 81611
Re: Aspcol Caretaker Application
Gentlemen:
My wife and I are building our residence next to and above the
Aspcol residence. I know that Aspcol has filed an application to
keep the old agricultural building rather than to replace it with
the already approved 1,200 square foot caretaker unit and to move
the site of the caretaker unit slightly to the southeast, or
towards our residence. In fact, we are probably the neighbor most
in line of sight of the new caretaker site because we are right
above it.
I have viewed the proposed site and plans and would like to
convey to your Board that we recommend ~proval of the Aspcol
application. //
ly,
9
7 ~~ /
ra w
June 11, 1991
Board of County Commissioners
Pitkin County
Aspen CO 81611
Gentlemen:
I own Lot 1, Stanwood Ranch Lot Split Subdivision, a two-lot
subdivision in which Aspcol Corporation is the other lot owner. I
am familiar with the Aspcol application to retain the log house and
to site the already approved 1200 square foot caretaker unit a few
yards to the east on the same side of the road as the log house.
I approve of this application and should it be granted, I have
agreed to sign the amended plat as a lot owner.
S~ erely,
Greg Ab~bg~t
... -.
.,,
June ?0, 1991
Board of County Commissioners
Pitkin County
Aspen CO 81611
Gentlemen:
We own property adjacent to the Aspcol property in Starwood
Ranch Lot Split, Pitkin County, Colorado. We approve of this
application and the site of the new caretaker unit.
Very truly yours,
INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS &
PROPERTY HOLDING COMPANY, N. V.
By:
~r;
F~~C(;~~IOfi NO ~ I -: ~r>c.~ "~ ~ G(~IDN ~~`) i',e~, 1'3C.1
SILVIA'DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY REI,`JttDER ` '
I2ESOLLITION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF PITKIN COUN'PY, COLORADO GRANTING SPECIAL REVIEW APPROVAL
FOR AN ADDITIONAL EMPIAYEE DWELLING UNIT
TO ASPCOL CORPORATION ATTACHMENT ~-
Resolution Na. 09- ~~-
WIiEREAS, ASPCOL Corporation, hereinafter "Applicant", has
applied to the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County,
Colorado, hereinafter "Board", for approval of an additional
employee dwelling unit pursuant to Section 3-8.13 of the Land Use
Code; and
WHEREAS, the Board Beard this application at a public
hearing held on June 27 and July 11, 1989 at which time evidence
and testimony was presented with respect to this application; and
WHEREAS, the Board finds that although the Code permits only
one such unit on a parcel of land, the Applicant has met the
requirements of Section 3-8.13 (b) and (d) of the Land Use Code
for an additional employee unit, because this approval is
conditioned upon the elimination of an approved free market
residential building site; and
WIiEREAS, the effect of this approval is to replace a free
market residential building site with a deed restricted caretaker
unit, and to reduce density on the property.
NOW, TISEREFORE, IIE IT RESOLVED, by the IIoard that it does
hereby grant approval of the additional caretaker unit requested
by Applicant to be located in the existing, unoccupied log
structure currently located on Lot 2, Starwood Ranch Lot Split,
,,~~H 5!~~ sasr 131
,~
,,,
Resolution No. 89-L
Page 2
subject to the following conditions:
1. The Applicant shall, by deed restriction and plat
amendment, eliminate Building site p2 so that Building
site ~3 is the only free market building site remaining
on Lot 2, Starwood Ranch Lot Split. further, no
additional residential development shall be permitted
on Lot 2, Starwood Ranch Lot Split without special
review approval.
2. The employee unit currently approved to be attached to
the agricultural building not to exceed 500 square feet
shall be deleted from the approvals for Lot 2, Starwood
Ranch Lot Split, and a deed restriction and plat
amendment to that effect shall be recorded.
3. The Applicant shall be entitled to repair, renovate and
construct a detached employee dwelling unit in the
existing unoccupied log structure currently located on
Lot 2, Starwood Ranch Lot Split. The Applicant shall,
by deed restriction or other permanent commitment
running with the land, guarantee that the employee unit
granted herein shall remain a rental unit and not be
occupied by owner or spouse, be limited to occupancy by
persons and their families who qualify as (and leave
been found by the Ifousing Authority to be) full-time
employees of the agricultural operation or residential
operation under such guidelines as may be from time to
time established by said authority, and be rented for
terms not less than six months. Occupancy of: tl~e
employee unit shall be limited to a caretaker for tl~e
residence to be constructed on Lot 2, Starwood Ranch
Lot Split subject to the same restrictions as imposed
upon the occupancy of the ranch manager's unit set
forth in paragraph 1 of the Agreement recorded in Book
561 at Page 303 of the Pitkin County real property
records. If no caretaker is employed to inhabit such
employee unit, then this unit may be leased by the
Applicant to a qualified employee as defined in
paragraph 2 of said Agreement. If the Applicant fails
to so rent the unit, it sha].1 be available for
occupancy in accordance with Housing Authority
guidelines in accordance with the provisions set forth
in paragraph 2 of the referenced Agreement. The
detached unit shall not exceed a maximum of three (3)
bedrooms and 1,200 square feet of total floor area
unless the Pitkin County Code is amended to permit more
bedrooms or more square footage, provided, however,
that the maximum allowable square footage, provided,
however, that the maximum allowable square footage
~"' SOON 5J~ .P,~6E 1J!
Resolution No. 89-~,~
Page 3
shall not exceed 1,500 square feet. The deed
restriction shall be filed in a form acceptable to the
County Attorney.
APPROVED by the Board at its regular meeting on July 25,
1989.
ATTEST:
,-
;l
l ~1~'Gv~~~l~, ~;.,l~t~.,J
Jeanette Jones,''
Iieputy County ~lerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
- ~ -
Thomas F. Sm th,
county Attorney
BOARD OP COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
Colette Penne, Chairman
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Thomas M. Baker,
Interim Planning Director
MJL:das
boccreso.aspcol2
.~- ASPEN*PITKIN
ENVII~lSNMENTAL HEALTH ~EPAR~11nENTATTACHMENT ~-
MEMORANDUM j]
TO: Mary Lackner, Planning Department / //~
RE: ASPCOL Corp. Employee Dwelling Unit Review
Parcel I. D. # 2643-262-03-002
FROM: Department of Environmental Health
DATE: June 14, 1991
The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the
above-mentioned land use submittal under authority of the Pitkin
County Code, Title II, and has the following comments. The
submitted application does not present or address the sewage
disposal, water supply, or water quality controls.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: Sections 2-7 and 5-200:
There is no indication of the means of wastewater disposal in the
application. The proposed relocated unit will, in all likelihood
require an engineered on-site wastewater disposal system
alternatives evapotranspiration/absorption system as was done on
the main house.
Using the previous preliminary subsoil evaluations and studies
done for foundation design on the lot and home site, the general
soil conditions documented in the soil logs strongly correlate to
the reported characteristics of the area soil types indicated on
the Soil Conservation Service maps. It would appear that most of
the 95-acre lot is considered unsuitable for most conventional
septic tank-absorption systems. The best of the existing soils
is the predominate soil type on the lower portion of the
property, Type 156D. It is characterized as a loam topsoil
grading to silty clay loam and clay. These soils are described
as having a very slow permeability and a high shrink-swell
potential. In addition, there is an indication of a large amount
of runoff, which could saturate the area soils during the Spring
because of a perched water table on top of the shallow clay stone
bedrock evident in the area. Typically, all the types of soil
presents major difficulties in the construction and continued
operation of conventional septic tank-sewage disposal systems.
There should be sufficient area on the gently sloping land below
the building site. This area is available for the various types
of gravity-flow sewage systems. In all probability a system can
be designed which conforms to Pitkin County regulations.
A new septic system of similar design should be constructed for
the building to be converted to agricultural use. We will not
allow plumbing systems to be reconnected to the unpermitted
existing sewer system of unknown construction.
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611
303/92o-60~0
iery[IeOpape'
.~.
ASPCOL Corp. Employee Dwelling Unit Review
June 14, 1991
Page 2
ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: Sections 2-6 and 5-205:
The parcel, Lot 2 Stanwood Ranch, is served by the Stanwood
Subdivision water system and we understand that the 8" main is
already installed. The existing conditions meet the requirements
of the drinking water supply sections of the Land Use Code.
There should be no problems with the drinking water quantity or
quality for the existing structure or the relocated employee
dwelling unit. There are large water storage tanks in the
immediate vicinity and eight-inch water mains in the adjacent
road.
AIR QUALITY: Sections 2-17 and 5-106:
There is no indications if the relocated unit is to have a wood-
burning fireplace. It is our interpretation that the detached
employee residence is allowed a wood-burning fireplace and a
certified wood stove or gas-log fireplace. In addition, there
may be a fireplace or an existing non-certified wood burning
stove in the existing structure. It is suggested that if the
proposal is approved, that some more restrictive limitation be
requested from the applicant prior to approval, and that this be
made a part of the real property records. If agreeable to the
applicant and their representatives, we suggest that the employee
units be restricted to gas-logs or gas appliances, if fireplaces
are contemplated at all.
Water Quality Impacts - Section 2-22 and 5-107.2:
Care should be taken in future planning of the construction to
avoid the drainage areas. Sediment from disturbed areas around
the houses and driveways should be detained on the property and
revegetation efforts should be utilized to provide long term
runoff controls. The applicant has done this in the past. It is
important to continue, in these erosive soils, to limit the
amount of sedimentation discharged into adjoining irrigation
ditches and ponds during runoff.
Summary
It is our conclusion that, with a careful site plan and proper
engineering, there should be only be a minimal environmental
impacts resulting from the water demands, wastewater disposal,
and runoff from the relocated employee dwelling unit. Therefore,
we have no technical objections to approvals for the changes and
relocated site.
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO Joanna Schaffner TO Amy Margerum
CC Mary Lackner
From: Suzanne Konchan
Postmark: Aug 22,91 4:24 PM
Status: Previously read
Subject: ASPCOL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message:
Having reviewed the case file and discussed the history of this
project with Mary Lackner, I have determined that the principle use
of this site, namely 1 free market unit, was exchanged for rights to
a 2nd edu. Based on this arrangement we can define the 2nd edu as a
principle use and the "principle use" of this site, and may allow the
structure to be constructed to the 28~ limit. This interpretation is
further strengthened by Res. 89-72, which approved this edu.
Specifically it stated that this edu "is to replace a free market
residentual building site..."
----------=====X=====___-
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO Mary Lackner
From: John Ely
Postmark: Jun 17,91 10:52 AM
Subject: ASPCOL
Message:
I don't know if this is too late, but any approval should keep with
the terms of reso 89-72 as far as restrictions on the use of the new
employee unit Use of the building for agricultural purpose is fine
however the applicant should specify the exact type of
agricultural use he will be using the log cabin for , this is
somewhat extraneous but we have made a similar request of other
applicants in the past
----------=====x=====___-------
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO Mary Lackner
From: John Ely
Postmark: Jun 13,91
Status: Previously
Subject: aspcol
4:48 PM
read
Message:
I have not had a chance to finish looking at this app I
through it quick and appears to be ok i wanted to finish
but I may not get a chance to do it before Fri
did go
it totally
----------=====X=====___-------
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO Mary Lackner
From: Bob Nelson
Postmark: Jun 13,91 2:29 PM
Status: Previously read
Subject: Reply to: ASPCOL Corp.
-----------------------------------------------------
Reply text:
From Bob Nelson:
WE'LL SEE WHAT WE CAN DO, BUT WOULD MONDAY A. M. BE EARLY ENOUGH?
LET ME KNOW, AS I WON'T BE IN AT ALL ON FRIDAY (A TRIP TO THE
FRYINGPAN).
Preceding message:
From Mary Lackner:
This application has been pushed up on the Board's agenda. I realize
you were notified that referral comments are not due until June 21.
I need to complete my memo by this friday. If you cannot get
comments to me this week, please let me know, ASAP. Thanks.
----------=====X=====___-------
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO Mary Lackner
From: Joanna Schaffner
Postmark: Jun 12,91 2:33 PM
Status: Previously read
Subject: Reply to: ASPCOL Corp.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply text:
From Joanna Schaffner:
Sorry, I'm out of here.
Preceding message:
From Mary Lackner:
This application has been pushed up on the Board's agenda. I realize
you were notified that referral comments are not due until June 21.
I need to complete my memo by this friday. If you cannot get
comments to me this week, please let me know, ASAP. Thanks.
----------=====X=====___--
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO Joanna Schaffner
TO Bob Nelson
CC Mary Lackner
TO County Attorney
TO Yvonne Blocker
From: Mary Lackner
Postmark: Jun 12,91 1:54 PM
Status: Previously read
Subject: ASPCOL Corp.
Message:
This application has been pushed up on the Board's agenda. I realize
you were notified that referral comments are not due until June 21.
I need to complete my memo by this friday. If you cannot get
comments to me this week, please let me know, ASAP. Thanks.
----------=====X=====___-------
•~ ~~ `~ I
'` AUSTIN & PEIRCE
Attorneys At Law
600 East Hopkins Avenue
Suite 205
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Rondd D. Austin TekpEOne (30J) 925-2600
bleaertck e. Pekoe May 17 , 19 91 FAx (JOJ) vu-a~m
Rhoads J. ea:a
Ms. Cindy Houben
Pitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE:
Dear Cindy:
Accompanying this letter is a complete application for
amendment to Resolution 89-72 which grants special review approval
for an additional employee dwelling unit. The within application
is to change the location of the approved employee dwelling unit
and contains five copies of each of the following documents:
1) Copy of the Pre-Application Conference Summary sheet;
2) Application prepared by this office;
3) Copy of a vicinity map for the subject property,
prepared by Alpine Surveys, Inc.;
4) Copy of the Second Amended and Restated Plat for the
property recorded in plat book 23 at page 25 of the
Pitkin County real property records;
5) Copy of the deed recorded in book 584 at page 210
conveying the subject property to ASPCOL Corporation,
N.V.;
6) Copy of a drawing prepared by Design Workshop, Inc.
depicting the site of the new proposed building envelope
for the detached employee dwelling unit;
7) Copy of the consent from the Board of Directors of ASPCOL
Corporation, N.V. giving William R. Jordan, III and me
authority to act on its behalf with respect to the
subject property, including processing this application;
8) List of adjoining property owners prepared by Stewart
Title of Aspen, Inc.; and,
Employee Dwelling Unit
j...;
AUSTIN & PEIRCE
Attorneys At Law
Ms. Cindy Houben
May 17, 1991
Page 2
9) Copy of the proposed Third Amended and Restated Plat of
Starwood Ranch Lot Split, depicting the proposed building
envelope for the second detached employee dwelling unit.
Also enclosed are ten envelopes, fully addressed, for mailing
to adjacent property owners pursuant to the list of adjoining
landowners prepared by Stewart Title of Aspen; a check payable to
the Pitkin County Planning Office for the sum of $1022.00 to cover
the application fee we discussed on the telephone today; and, a
picture of the property showing the existing employee dwelling
unit; the existing log cabin that will be converted to an
agricultural building; and, the proposed building envelope for the
relocated employee dwelling unit.
This application is submitted pursuant to Section 3-8.13 of
the Pitkin County Land Use Code at the request/suggestion of the
Pitkin County Planning Office and the Pitkin County Attorney's
Office, and is for the purpose of allowing the applicant to amend
it's approval for a second detached employee dwelling unit to
relocate the dwelling unit to the building envelope depicted in the
application.
Please feel free to give me a call with any questions or
comments you may have regarding the enclosed application after you
have had the opportunity to review it. As soon as you have
certified the application as complete and have set a hearing date,
please let me know so that we can calendar the hearing date and
post the property accordingly.
Sincerely,
AUSTIN & PF~fRCE
By _" / _ .,
`ed~iic` F. Peir e
FFP/lk
Enclosure
cc: William R. Jordan, III, Esq.
AMENI~Ef7 /Wb RESTAfEb I'l~T OF
LC7T SPI...IT
r!olerl-I
5c~1..~. ~ I" • 2Oa~'
t`1ZE1'Akt/17 13H '
f~1.PINE SURl~1=.Y5, ING.
"": d. f30;C 1730
/~~~I'I'J~I, GOLOP./V~ £'~1Co12
vIGINtT`i Mr'~1'
-~~ vi A f~ ,l7 _ 17 ?_
WILLIAM R. JORDAN III
ATTORNEY AT LAW
730 E. DURANT. SUITE 200
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
303-925-I 214
303925-5847 IF AX)
September 5, 1990
Ms. Cindy Houben
Pitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Aspcol Corporation, N.V.; Application for Amendment to
Resolution to the Board of County Commissioners No. 89-
72 Granting Special Review Approval for an Additional
Dear Cindy:
Enclosed please find Corporate Resolution granting me the
authority to act on behalf of Aspcol Corporation, N.V. Fred Peirce
of Austin & Peirce is authorized to represent the corporation in
this application.
Sincerely,
~~ ~
illiam R. Jord III ~
WRJ/jcs
Enclosure
' ~ 1
~:N~
CERTIFICATE OF MANAGING DIRECTOR
OF ASPCOL CORPORATION N.V.
I, Frederick G. Dutton, do hereby certify that I am Managing
Director and Counsel of ASPCOL CORPORATION N.V. ("Corporation"),
a Netherland Antilles corporation, and as such Managing Director,
I have access to all original records of the Corporation. I do
further certify that the Resolutions attached hereto as Exhibit A
were duly adopted on August 1, 1990 by the Board of Directors of
the Corporation by unanimous written consent of all of the members
of the Board of Directors pursuant to the Netherland Antilles
Corporation Act; and that I am one of the duly authorized and
proper officers of the Corporation to issue certified copies of its
records on its behalf.
I further certify that the person designated below as
authorized agent and attorney in fact of the Corporation has been
duly authorized to act on behalf of the Corporation for the
purposes set forth in Exhibit A, and that the following is the
genuine signature of the said authorized agent.
Name Sionature
William R. Jordan III ~,. V ` - ~~
~ / .
EXECUTED this ~~ day of ~V`a`'~'f ~ 1990.
Frederick G. Dutton.
Managing Director, U.S.
c
~.,,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA) SS:
Subscribed and sworn to before me by the said Frederick G.
Dutton, Ma/nIaging Director of ASPCOL CORPORATION N.V. on the TN
day of ~Ha~sto rT 1990.
Witness my hand and seal.
My commission expires: My Commission )ixpires Aprif 14, 1992
Y[~G{~/ ~GGGG
Notary Public
f
2
~~
EXHIBIT A
UNANIMOUS WRITTEN CONSENT OF
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
ASPCOL CORPORATION N.V.
The undersigned, constituting all of the Directors of ASPCOL
CORPORATION N.V. (the "Corporation"), a Netherland Antilles
corporation, acting pursuant to the Netherland Antilles Corporation
Act, consent by this writing, which may be executed in multiple
counterparts, to take the following actions and to adopt the
following resolutions hereinafter set forth with the same force and
effect as if said resolutions were duly adopted by unanimous vote
of the Directors of the Corporation in a meeting thereof duly and
regularly called for those purposes, to wit:
WHEREAS, the Corporation owns that certain tract of land ~
known as Lot 2, Starwood Ranch, located in Pitkin County,
Colorado (the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Corporation desires to document in writing
the authority of William R. Jordan III to act on the
Corporation's behalf regarding matters in Pitkin County,
Colorado;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that, William R. Jordan
III is hereby authorized as the Corporation's agent,
representative and attorney-in-fact to act on behalf of
the Corporation regarding all matters transpiring in
Pitkin County, Colorado, specifically; but not exclusive-
ly, relative to (1) banking matters (2) matters relative
to the Property (3) matters relative to Stanwood Ranch
Homeowners Association including voting on matters before
said homeowners association on behalf of the Corporation
(4) matters relative to Stanwood Homeowners Association
including voting on matters before said homeowners
association on behalf of the Corporation (5) matters
relative to Stanwood Water District including voting on
matters before said District on behalf of the Corporation
and (6) matters relative to governmental authorities.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that William R. Jordan III as autho-
rized agent and attorney-in-fact shall have the authority
on behalf of the Corporation to open and close bank
accounts, to pay bills for construction and development
r~
and maintenance of the Property and to write checks,
deposit monies, accept monies and take such acts as are
reasonable and proper to protect the Corporation's
interests in the Property, its development and mainte-
nance.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being all of the Direc-
tors of ASPCOL CORPORATION
resolutions this i~ day of
N.v., hereby adopt the foregoing
~..nrV~.S~ 1990.
` /(, ~i
Frederick G. Dutton
~ ~ ~~~
Nancy H. Dutton
c
c
2
' ~' "' eaoH 5~4 PasE~1fl
GENERAL WARRANTY DEED
STARWOOD RANCH, INC., a Texas Corporation, whose address is
P.O. Box 53137, Houston, Texas 77052, for the consideration of Ten
Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, in hand
paid, hereby sells and conveys to ASPCOL CORPORATION, N.V., whose
.street address is c/o Austin, Jordan, Young & Peirce, 600 E. Hopkins
Ave., Suite 205, Aspen, Colorado 81611, the following real property
in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, to wit:
Lot 2, Starwood Ranch Lot Split, according to the plat
thereof recorded February 16, 1988 in Plat Book 20 at Page
64 as Reception No. 297468
~'O
with all its appurtenances, and warrants the title to the same,
except for general taxes for 1989 and thereafter payable in 1990 and
thereafter; and subject to right of the proprietor of a vein or lode
to extract and remove his ore therefrom, as reserved in United States
Patent recorded in Book 55 at Page 201 and recorded in Book 55 at
Page 48 and recorded in Book 55 at Page 582 and recorded in Book 162
at Page 191; Right of way for ditches or canals as reserved in United
States Patent recorded in Book 55 at Page 201 and recorded in Hook 55
at Page 48 and recorded in Book 55 at Page 582 and recorded in Book
162 at Page 191; terms, conditions and obligations of Trentaz Corral
Spring Collection System and Storage Tank decree as set forth in
instrument recorded in Book 263 at Page 350; all terms, provisions,
conditions, and obligations set forth in that certain Agreement
recorded in Book 402 at Page 761; Agreement; Agreement regarding
private roads recorded in Book 294 at Page 124; easement recorded in
Plat Book 6 at Page 61; terms, agreements, provisions, conditions,
and obligations as set forth in Deed recorded in Book 419 at Page
347; terms, conditions, stipulations, and obligations of Protective
Covenants as set forth in that certain Contract recorded in Book 402
at Page 766 and as amended by instrument recorded in Book 479 at Page
610, Second Resolution of Amendment recorded in Book 557 at Page 76;
terms, conditions, provisions, and obligations as set forth in
Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County,
recorded in Book 481 at Page 780; utility easements recorded in Book
265 at Page 980, in Book 493 at Page 144, in Book 494 at Page 227, in
Book 496 at Page 886 and in Book 506 at Page 167; terms, conditions,
obligations and restrictions as set forth in Resolution of the Board
of County Commissioners recorded in Book 521 at Page 588; terms,
conditions, obligations, and provisions of Subdivision Improvements
Agreement recorded in Book 557 at Page 94; terms, conditions,
obligations and provisions of Occupancy Deed Restriction and
Agreement for caretaker Employee Dwelling Unit recorded in Book 561
at Page 301; easements and rights-of-way, common areas, sites,
dedication of right of way for Utility Purposes
~ W
w c~,r O
I i, .J1VJ 2 31989 ! x <
~ ~ ~0 ~.~ ~ j ~ ~ o -
i _,
F .~_ c' ~ ~ ~ N N
r~.~
~,~
conk 584 ~~~E~11
all as shown and depicted on plat recorded in Plat Book 20 at Page
64; ~erpetual, non-exclusive easement recorded in Book 578 at Page
846. ALL REFERENCES BEING TO THE REAL PROPERTY RECORDS OF PITKIN
COUNTY, COLORADO.
Signed this `3"~ day of ~ n.~v~ , 1989.
STARWOOD NCH ., a Texas
corpor t' n /,'
By By G(/ ~~2~t-
J o hom son, Pres dent rr' W. Anderson, Secretary
STATE OF TEXAS )
)ss.
COUNTY OF HARRIS )
The regoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of cu 1989, by J. Scott Thompson as
President, and Jerry Anderson as Secretary of Starwood Ranch,
Inc., a Texas corporation. ~~
~.~... p.N.w
Witness my hand and official seal. .`'~~tY,.,{1,..,.Sy~`•-
My commission expires: ~>> ~ ; y ~'~
~~. ~~ ~~
x.r x:,1,1? ~ ' } ~:' ~~ -
i ,' r ~
+I '" (~ PLr~Nc~.~"ci rlT^.'a, N Ly Pub11C e~ "'~•~j~P
a' 1.77 Ccui;nis;ir,;t exFir!m; 30~5~42 ,~""•~n~~nn~~. P,`,`
n.
LEG1.36 ~~,,~
*and subject to that certain Agreement of Amendments between Starwood
Ranch, Inc. and Greg Abbott, dated January 23, 1989, a copy of which
is attached hereto as Exhibit A and the original counterparts of which
will be recorded in the real property records of Pitkin County, Colorado.
STARWOOD RANCH, INC.
B y ,~ C_ ._
Thomas C. Thompso , Chairman of the
Board of Director
-2-
:.:' :: _ ,
r•
AGREEMENT OF AMENDMENT
SOON 50 4 PAGE~~~
,,~~xHI5 AGREEMENT OF AMENDMENT, made and entered into this
~r`tday of January, 1989, by and between STARWOOD RANCH, INC.,
a Texas corporation ("Seller"), and GREG ABBOTT ("Purchaser'),
W I T N E S S .E T H:
WHEREAS, Seller and.Purchaser are all of the parties to that
certain Vacant Land Contract to Buy and Sell Real Estate dated
October 12, 1988 (and a September 21, 1988 Letter attached as
Exhibit A to said Contract}, which Contract was recorded November
17, 1988 in Book 578 at page 794 of the Pitkin County, Colorado
real property records (hereafter the ^Contract and Letter"); and
WHEREAS, Seller and Purchaser and Stewart Title of Aspen,
Inc. ("Escrow Agent") are all of the parties to certain Escrow
instructions dated Novembez 17, 1988, pursuant to which Seller
escrowed with Escrow Agent the sum of $200,000.00 as security for
Seller's full performance of its various past-closing obligations
to Purchaser under the Contract and Letter. Said Escrow Instruc-
tions are hereby incorporated in this Agreement of Amendment by
this reference; and
WHEREAS, Seller and Purchaser desire by this instrument to
amend the Contract and Letter, and the Escrow Instructions, in
several respects, and to agree upon certain ancillary matters.
Now, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual cove-
nants and agreements sat forth herein and for other good and
valuable considerations, the receipt and sufficiency of which are
hereby acknowledged, Seller and Purchaser agree that the Contract
and Letter, and the Escrow Instructions,-are hereby amended in
the following zespects:
1. Site No_ 2 Relocation. The parties are about to submit
to Pitkin County a proposed Restated and Amended Plat of Starwood•
Ranch Lot Split, as contemplated by the Contract and Letter and
the Escrow Instructions. Instead of simply moving inward the
northwesterly boundary of Building Site No. 2, however, the
parties agree to make every reasonable effort to relocate Site
No. 2 entirely to the new location depicted on attached
Schedule A, or to some other location that is mutually acceptable
to all parties. If the County will not allow this relocation,
Site No. 2 wilt remain in its present location and the north-
westerly boundary will be moved inward on the Restated and
Amended Plat as originally agreed.
2. Road Realignment. If the .County approves the reloca-
tion of Site No. 2 as set forth in Paragraph 1 above, the parties
eunH 584 - °°;E`~1~j
E,~,
,.
agree that the northerly portion of the common access road across
Lot 2 will be realigned along the route generally depicted and
described on attached Schedule A as "realigned access road^. The
cost of such road relocation shall be borne by Seller, and Seller
agrees to accomplish the construction and graveling of the new
part of the road, to the Lot 1 boundary, and to the Purchaser's
reasonable satisfaction, prior to September 1, 1989. If the
County does not approve the relocation of Site No. 2, the exist-
ing physical alignment of the common access road shall remain
unchanged, and the Restated and Amended Plat shall dedicate that
present alig~tment.
3. Special Review Support. Seller.(or its successor in
interest in the record ownership of Lot 2) intends to submit to
Pitkin County a Special Review application for approval for con-
struction of up to 15 bedrooms in the single-family residence to
be constructed on Site No. 3 on Lot 2. Purchaser hereby agrees
to assist Seller or its successor in every reasonable manner (as
may be requested by Seller or its successor) in connection with
such Special Review process. Specifically, but without limita-
tion, Purchaser agrees to write letters to Pitkin County, as
requested by Seller's or it~successor's attorneys, encouraging
Pitkin County to grant the request for additional bedrooms.
4. Reduction of Escrow. In the event the County approves
the relocation of Site No. 2 as set forth in Paragraph 1 above,
upon the recording in the Pitkin County records of the fully-
executed Restated and Amended Plat and the Restated and Amended
Covenants for Starwood Ranch Lot Split, Purchaser agrees to
authorize and instruct Escrow Agent to release immediately to
Seller from the 'Funds' previously deposlted with Escrow Agent
pursuant to the Escrow Instructions, all of such Funds (including
accrued interest) except the sum of $100,000.00, which sum shall
remain in escrow subject to the Escrow Instructions, and less any
unreimbursed legal expenses, which shall be paid by Escrow Agent
directly to Purchaser.
5. In all other respects, the Contract and Letter and the
Escrow Instructions shall remain unmodified hereby and in full
force and effect.
6. This Agreement of Amendment may be executed in several
counterparts, in which case all such counterparts together shall
constitute one and the same instrument, and shall be binding on
all of the parties hereto notwithstanding that all parties are
not signatory to the original or to the same counterpart or that
their signatures do not appear on ,the same signature page.
-2-
'• ~" eook 584 Pa`s 14
7. This Agreement of Amendment shall be binding upon and
inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and thelr respective
heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns forever
in the record ownership of Lots 1 and 2, respectively, Stanwood
Ranch Lot Split, and shall be recorded in the Pitkin County zeal
property records.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their
hands and seals the day and year first above written.
Seller: Stanwood Ranch, Inc.,
a Texas corporation
By: ~~~C
Its:.~~~~ .E .1its~.p.td-Y~-- --
Purchaser:
Greg Abbott
STATE OF TEXAS )
ss.
COUNTY OF HARRIS )
The foregoing Agreement of Amendment was acknowledged before
me this ~-_ day of ~~~~/y~~~{y~/~~` ~ 198 , byf
'~~.u~ ~ ~' U-' r4 n as ~ r:r 1) ~~ ~YP c.c1P„ ~of Stanwood ~~ ,.,
Ranch, inc., a Texas corporation.
witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: -
Notary Public
'J E:y Ccre.~i:.icc °:a:es lG i•^2 ~
.. ~ ~,
STATE OF )
ss.
COUNTY OE )
cook 5~~ P?GE~'1J
The foregoing Agreement of Amendment was acknowledged before
me this day of , 1989, by Greg Abbott.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
Acknowledgment by Escrow Agent
The undersigned Escrow Agent hereby recites and acknowledges
that it has read the foregoing Agreement of Amendment, and agrees
to continue to perform its responsibilities under the Escrow
instructions as so amended.
Dated: January vZ~ , 1989.
' Escrow Agent: Stewart Title of'~AJspen, c.
9y: ~l~-1 ~l~-''mil
zts • ~sc.es~ 6 ~ ,e~
.
-4-
.... _.. .
,:..:
. • - ' ~,
jl_
w~
III I ~
..I Z.
.,. „~
~ o
III ~Ii~e zQ
h: j/ ~: • Fi
~lij . ~ ~ I
Ilil ~
a
' ~
d{( i
a~~;
CFr ?
ai'
°~
s
~i
~.
°~ I
,71at1 ;r ~3~1~AA1
.
°5§11" ~F 4ic"i8.~
5.+,•731 i~ a^ft.°;St~
078 ~ °~l+taElx~t ~
f.s't~5 K~;f,ii; s
i~ 1 7r E QY~ 21~
E
~6s g ~; ii 3~F B3i
~~~~ E~ ! tE ~~f
.~
~15~f ~ 1° si~.
S1f15 1 "°I^i x
~t ~ SFS.
J5?6xi ~1
F ~ jYY3 ~
S1~ 3
1 :~~ ~ ~I a
~ ~ E~tT ~
~~ i ~
~ I~ 37 ~
~~
P
P
n
t
"
~,. \t
n
~ .~q ~
.`~, `\
,5J •
•~~ l
1;~)
~..,i
;!ii
,;:;
!' -'.,
euuN 5~~~u~'~1b
~ ~ ~
t \ \
I
!t 0
.,~~J
°
\\` ' _ 1,
,~ \ `~• /
- ~~. f
1\ Y~• ~~
t , I ~ ~ ~\
Vii:: , ~ :...~=
,, . .
i~
:.
r
k~
_~
Z
a
i''
~~; _~
5°
" ~ i
s SE
.,
N
a
G
P
a
i
~.
~,
at ^ 1'~ i ':
33ii~~ 169;~ ~yy°;~;a tg;r't;:
~1~~II ~,_~ ~ ?:987° ~ t]'i~l
7S1 4- 1~
7;" o 't~ .n ~a
99 r{ Q a 6 j ~ "~I_
V d ~aj~ 37v Div l~ 6
_ pia ; .! 0 37~,~ ~ ~
~ ~1~ , ~@@i 7: ~t~~i ~ I
4 I I E 93~ ° ~~i=e 8 31.
I I ~, SFy~ n j~!ia i'.
~I rf I ~ S °17m ia~j" ' '
6 I i I f tai t,tlei ~I ;
I1 I LaAa `•s`~~ F
6 ! d , .a;~
to ~ ~ ;1° (';f ~ I
i 1t1 I 1 s~~ :'~~i5 ~ 7
t~ II yc. iAi j i
i 1ii •'".ail
11 ~ ~'.I ~'i2ii1 ~~~ ~11f55E c.f 73f7~ ER2 ~" ~ 7
M1 9 ~^ O
Sl i~ W :s:i$ , E ?.S f 3,t ~~s~~ ~ f o f
r ': , ~'i11 ~5, i~F*'4F ]5ti iSaf da}j ~ /
i•I~f `4 ~~ i p7A i.' tt~ Y~91 ~ 70
t. "I I~. ~ t • i ;:jii~ 3; ~ `t,9f i5~ 1715 °•~fS st
t~ S i I a s ;'t+.,, ~f ~~~~~"x ii ~~Ei'SIE ~ Z
~ :t ' I ; i iir•] t: ~tJ q5 t'i T't~ (is, r-
' Ie ait to 'Si9E~:~ t•xa .. 0
• ! i j,1 • i.ii 91 lilt::? 5{a :i7`• i'7s
".-
i .+.-.~
1~ . i .•,,I, Er =iey .. 7'3
I i 1 11 t
,~ ..' '. '
~, _,~
$miCflly nl Lrm l,aCl
STEWART TITLE
OF ASPE N,IN C.
602 E. HVMAN • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • (303) 925-35]]
April "lll, 1991
Anst.in & Pi.err_e
6n0 F,. Hopkins Ave.
Aspen, c0 H1611
Attn: Fred. Vierce
Re: Onr Order No. 2750AI1 Update No. 2, Adjacant Owners ~f (,nt
2, Sta rr•~ood Ranch Lef: Spl i_t .
Dear Ri r,
Attached is th? updated list of property ntanars a~ljar-ent to
the shove referenced.
Although we believe the farts stated are true, th~G letter
i_s not to bP cnnstrtted as an abstract of ti.t.le, nor an nlrinion
cf i-itle, nor a guaranty of title, and it is understood and
agreed that Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc., n?i.ther aGSnmes; nrrr
will be charged 1.`ith any fi_nancia] ohligati,ons or liahilii-y
whatever nn any statement r_r,ntai_ned herein.
If T can he of further assistance, please give me a call.
S Gi n d{'e1rr~~?~~JlC~y~,~ ,`J7(~1,v/~/.c,~
Haz?1 T. Herwi~k
9`itle Fsaminar
.~,
Tnternational TnvastmPnts
Property Holding Company
C/Ct William R. ,Tordan, TT7
700 E. Durant, Suites 200
±~ AGF~en, Cr) 81 ril l
Leslie H. and Rt.h?1 'T'Owne
Rox 4075
Aspen, Cn 01(12
,Tack Kati
0180 109 Roacl
Glenwood Springs, rn 8].501
Thomas A. Moore
Rax ].26
Woody creek, r'n fl1 Fi5F
reorge Stranahan
Trust Real Estates Department
245 Snmmi_t Street
7'n].edo, OH 43F~03
~~,
Wi_]l.iam 7~iff
700 South Orean R1vd.
Manalar~an, PT, "1 4 f,7
Greg Ahboth
fl00 fifth Ave.
Ne°w York, NY 10021
Starwood Homeo~.~n ers Association
P.O. Rox 1138
Mercer Island, W~ gC040
.Tames E. Moore
}tox 707
Aspen, Cn R1512.
The Durham family Trust
C/O Ralph ~ T?cry T,. nnrham
2800 PaGeo DPl Mar
Palos Verdes EstaF~>s, rA x10274
~ a
~_ ,
EXHIBIT D
Pit kin Count
June 8, 1990
Frederick F. Peirce, Esq.
Austin & Peirce
600 E. Hopkins, Suite 205
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: ASPCOL Employee Unit Approval
Dear Fred:
I am in receipt of your correspondence in this matter dated May
14, 1990. After having reviewed that correspondence, the tapes
of the July 11, 1989, public hearing which concerned this
approval, and discussing this matter with the Commissioners and
Planning staff, I have formulated an answer to the question you
posed therein as to the employee unit approval.
The position of the Board Members, reinforced by my own reading
of the hearing tapes, is that this question was at all times
presented to them as one of allowance of a use within the
existing log structure. This position is followed precisely by
the wording of the approval itself. At the same time, the Board
does not feel that the structure per se is essential to the
integrity of the approval, under certain conditions.
You have represented to me that the structure is simply in such a
state of disrepair and so unsound. that remodeling or
reccrctructicn for hxaar, habitation is not feasible. For this
reason, your client wishes to construct a new employee dwelling
structure upon this location, after demolition of the existing
structure. The Board would consider such an action to be within
the parameters of its approval upon the following conditions:
(1) ASPCOL permits a
confirm your representations
structure,
County Building Inspector to
as to the condition of the
(2) You agree to reconstruct the employee dwelling on
the same site, no larger than 1200 square feet, in a style
which would match fairly closely the exterior appearance of
the existing building (preferably using the actual existing
Administration
530 E. Main, 3rd Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 920-5200
FAX 920-5198
County Commissioners County Atlorney
Suite B Suite I
506 E. Main Street 530 E. Main Street
Aspen, CO 61611 Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 920-5150 (303) 920-5190
Personnel and Finance
Suite F
530 E. Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 920-5220
Road and Bridge
Fleet Management
20210 W. Highway 82
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 920-5390
printed on recYCled paper
Frederick F. Peirce, Esq.
June 8, 1990
Page 2
logs for the reconstruction), and
(3) If it is not feasible to re-use any of the
existing log structure in the reconstructed unit, you agree
to disassemble it so as to preserve it as best as possible
for removal and reconstruction on another site for Historic
Preservation purposes. Neither the removal or
reconstruction in that event would be the responsibility of
ASPCOL.
As an alternative to the above, the Board has also indicated that
it would be willing to consider an application from you to amend
yo~zr employee u:.it approval in such a way that the existing
structure is converted permanently to an agricultural
outbuilding, and the second employee unit be approved for
construction upon an alternate site on these lands. This
alternative is preferred by the Planning Staff since it assures
the preservation of the existing structure. For that reason,
Planning has committed to me that they would give their support
to such an amendment, should you pursue it before the Board.
I hope this letter has been instructive as to this issue. Should
you have any further questions or problems, please do not
hesitate to give me a call.
Ve ul o
Ti thy E. Whitsitt
Asti an County Attorney
cc: Board of County Commissioners
Reid Haughey
Amy Margerum
Roxann Lli lIl
Buddy Lucero
tew.bandar
,, ~ - i EXHIBIT E
;9 /~Q An
1.
i
Sl~~ '~ '~
Aspen/PitkinP~l
130 south ga
1.. :. ~
June 28, 1990 aspen;°color
. ~'~"
Mr. Chris H. Bell
SundtCorp
P.O. Box 7935
Aspen, CO 81612
RE: ASPCOL EMPLOYEE UNIT APPROVAL
Dear Mr. Bell:
ning Office
.~~~treet
~~~ 81611
This letter is to follow-up on our site visit of June 25, 1990
on the existing log structure located on the Starwood Ranch
(ASPCOL parcel). It has been the Planning Office's understanding
that ASPCOL was to reconstruct the existing log structure into an
employee dwelling unit. After inspecting the log structure the
County Building Inspector and the Planning Office find that
significant upgrade would be required for human habitation.
Planning Director, Amy Margerum, has indicated to me that the
Planning Office would give their support to an amendment to the
existing ASPCOL resolution and plat. This support is for the
preservation of the log structure and relocation of the employee
dwelling unit. Attached is a memorandum from the Planning office
Historic Preservation officer regarding the preservation/
restoration of the log structure. I would recommend that you
meet with a County Planner for a preapplication conference for
amendment of the existing resolution and plat for relocation of
the employee unit. If you have any questions regarding the
above, do not hesitate to contact me at 920-5090.
Sincerely,
~~
Buddy Ludo
Zoning Officer
BL/clc
attachment
cc: Board of County Commissioners
Reid Haughey
Amy Margerum
Tim Whitsitt
Gary Lyman
Francis Krizmanich
Roxanne Eflin
Recorded at ~ ~ ~~- o'clork~ - M~ ~~ / ~~~ I _
~ ~ ,,,. .- n ~ -,.
ft~:CeptI0I1 No - EXEIIBIT G BOOIf ~Jy PAGt'~j`~
SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY RECORDER
OCCUPANCY DEED RESTRICTION AND AGREEMENT
CARETAKER
AFFORDABLE RESIDENT DAELLING UNIT
THIS OCCUPANCY DEED RESTRICTION AND AGREEMENT (the
"Agreement") is made and entered into this /~/ day of, 19;~i
by and between ASPCOL Corporation, N.V. (hereinafter referred to
as " Owner"), and the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority, a
Colorado corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Authority")
organized pursuant to the Colorado County Housing Authority laws,
as set forth in C.R.S. Section 29-4-501, et.seq., and/or the Board
of County Commissioners of Pitkin County; Colorado, and/or the City
Council of Aspen, Colorado.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Owner owns real property more specifically described
on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein ("Real
Property"), which Real Property shall contain a single family
dwelling ("Free Market Unit"), a detached single family employee
unit for Ranch Manager's housing, as governed by the employee unit
agreement recorded in Book 561, Pages 303-306, of the Pitkin County
Real Property Records, ("Ranch Manager's Unit") and a detached
single family caretaker affordable resident unit ("Affordable
Resident Unit"), as granted by Resolution 89-72, recorded in Book
598, Pages 730-734, of the Pitkin County Real Property Records.
For purposes of this agreement, the Free Market Unit, the
Affordable Resident Unit, the Ranch Manager's Unit, the Real
Property and all the appurtenances, improvements and fixtures
associated therewith shall hereinafter be referred to as the
"Property"; and
WHEREAS, this Agreement imposes certain covenants upon the
Property which restrict the use and occupancy of the Affordable
Resident Unit to residents and their families who are either
employed by the Owner or who are residents of Pitkin County and
fall within the Housing Authority rental price guidelines and
resident qualification guidelines established and indexed by the
Authority on an annual basis.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the sum of Ten ($10.00)
dollars and other good and valuable consideration, paid to the
Authority by the owner, the receipt and sufficiency for which is
hereby acknowledged, it is agreed by the parties hereto as follows:
Owner hereby covenants that the Affordable Resident Unit
described above shall at all times remain a rental unit
and shall not be condominiumized.
2. The use and occupancy of the Affordable Resident Unit,
described above, shall henceforth be limited exclusively
to housing for individuals who are employed in Pitkin
County and who meet the definition of "qualified
employees in Pitkin County" as that term is defined by
600K ~~~ PAG~~~
the Housing Authority Guidelines established and indexed
from time to time. Owner shall have the right to lease
the Affordable Resident Unit to a "qualified employee of
Pitkin County" of his own selection. Such individual
may be an employee of the Owner, or employed
as a resident caretaker, provided such person fulfills
the requirement of a qualified resident.
Written verification of employment of persons proposed
to reside in the Affordable Resident Unit shall be
completed and filed with the Housing Authority Office by
the Owner of the Affordable Resident Unit prior to
occupancy thereof, and must be acceptable to the Housing
Authority.
If the Owner does not rent the Affordable Resident Unit
to a "qualified employee of Pitkin County" the unit shall
be made available for occupancy in accordance with the
Housing Authority Guidelines, provided the Owner shall
have the right to approve any prospective tenant, which
approval shall not be unreasonably delayed or withheld.
5. The Affordable Resident Unit shall not be vacant for any
unreasonable period of time between leases.
6. The Affordable Resident Unit is limited to occupancy by
not more than two adults and related children. Resident
adults must qualify as, and have been found by the
Housing Authority to be, residents of the community and
residents thereof as referred to above.
Lease agreements executed for occupancy of the Affordable
Resident Unit shall provide for rental terms of not less
than six consecutive months.
This Agreement shall constitute covenants running with
the Real Property as a burden thereon for the benefit of,
and shall be specifically enforceable by, the Housing
Authority, the Board of County Commissioners of the
County of Pitkin, and their respective successors as
applicable, by any appropriate legal action including,
but not limited to, injunction, abatement, or eviction
of non-complying tenants, for the period of fifty years
from the date of recording hereof in the Pitkin County
real property records.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
instrument on the day and year above first written.
OWNER(S): MAILING ADDRESS:
ASPCOL Cor oration N.V. c/o William Jordan
730 E. Durant, #200
By: lu~/~ 1+17 Aspen, CO 81611
Fr derick G. Dutton
Managing Director
BOOK ~J~ .9~6: f ~0
1~~ s~r ~ e.+ 0~ l.. o I u-h-~.~
-~E-~' )
ss.
--EAH•td~'~--e~P- )
~~ The foregoQing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of ~v~7in,3 ( 19~~, by Frederick G. Dutton,
JJ Managing Director of ASPCOL Corporation, N.V.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
Notary blic
My Commisciort ses Oalober l~, 1989
ACCEPTANCE BY THE HOUSING AUTHORITY
The foregoing agreement and its terms are accepted by The
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority.
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND PITKIN COUN'FY~ COLORADO
BY:
f~YYIiSSlfY14 c IJG~c/~a^"'
Mail' g Address: 130 South Ga ena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
:3'
ti ,.
~`•3r ~ '~~Lf)I~ADO )
S '~~,'~1' 1.~ s s
~~~~~~~
..
%7p' ~,,.••~•. The fAo~regoing instrument as acknowledged before me this
''y ~ ,,o`~ n 4^~ ~LS"T, 19 rf'J, by ~ ~ C
_. nui,un,~~~~`'
Witness my hand and of icial seal.
My commission expires: y/~y/q3
~3o S 6
~,av., /~// y
~ 0 8 No ar Public
REV. 5/3/89
DRl
eooK 5~~ ~~ (~1~
OCCUPANCY DEED RESTRICTION AGREEMENT
CARETAKER
AFFORDABLE RESIDENT DWELLING UNIT
REAL PROPERTY
LOT 2, STARWOOD RANCH LOT SPLIT
PURSUANT TO SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED PLAT
EXHIBIT A
. (- ~i~. (' i,
4 '~ ~83'~t'=k7L1
PRL'11°APPLICATION CONF/E~RENCE SU~N1L`k~RY A p
PROJECT: ~~~QC',~: 1`~L.U'tCt-~i 1-/~l"1'}-a~L~}~-~e~ _,-Z) l\~ d ~~C)~
• ~~~4~~e1 ~~~-'1~,~
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: ~~~ UD ~1~-!"~-C.
REPRESENTATIVE'S} PHOfNE: J" c7~UU
OWNER'S NAME : 1 ~II~CX QL i
SUMMARY
1. Type of Application: n.V'Y~~(!~~-i~!Yfr-r•,:~i ~i~
2. Describe action/type of development heir
requested•
,J
O
1 C_t1^4`Y~=l- ~-~~51---, ,~•n-~~.-~~-~1~ -~D O_L,-.~:~t
IY~~
C4~ u~~
`` __ (~ '-J
3. Areas is which Applicant has been requested to respond,
types of reports requested:
Policy Area/
Referral Age(n/t
S` ~ <~'rti Y~^"V!~~l
( ~ q 1
l~r~,1-~c r1(,_~~~-
4. Review is: (P&Z Only) (CC Only) (P&Z then to CC)
~
5. Public Fieari}~c~:
~
-I
1 ~ _
(YES) NO)
4
E 1
c
~~ar~e
=l
(~
~,c_~
u n ~~ •
{ ~, ,.
u~-.-rL; 5 { 6 c ~;1€,~C .
_
~
`~
6. Did you al,l\applicant to submit list of
YES) (NO) Disclosure of Owners
OWNERS? ADJACEN PROPERTY
hip: YES (NO)
(
¢~r ~ ~ ,0 0
`
7. What fee was app licant requested to submit : ~c5~~ -1- ~~~
-~-~~
'
8.
Anticipated date
of submission: ~/
~
OY-41/'V C~. _3...C ._..
~~"CL
•-9. COMMENTS/UNIQUE RNS:
CONC
~
Comments
(, .,+
1
a.
,4''°„
Aspen/PitkiriYPl'anning Office
130 s~: ~. treet
June 28, 1990 aspen, Colorado 81611
Mr. Chris
SundtCorp
P.O. Box
Aspen, CO
H. Bell
7935
81612
RE: ASPCOL EMPLOYEE UNIT APPROVAL
Dear Mr. Bell•
This letter is to follow-up on our site visit of June 25, 1990
on the existing- log structure located on the Starwood Ranch
(ASPCOL parcel). It has been the Planning Office's understanding
that ASPCOL was to reconstruct the existing log structure into an
employee dwelling unit. After inspecting the log structure the
County Building Inspector and the Planning. Office find that
significant upgrade would be required for human habitation.
Planning Director, Amy Margerum, has indicated to me that the
Planning Office would give their support to an amendment to the
existing ASPCOL resolution and plat. This support is for the
preservation of the log structure and relocation of the employee
dwelling unit. Attached is a memorandum from the Planning Office
Historic Preservation Officer regarding the preservation/
restoration of the log structure. I would recommend that you
meet with a~ County Planner for a preapplication conference for
amendment of the existing resolution and plat for relocation of
the employee unit. If you have any questions regarding the
above, do not hesitate to contact me at 920-5090.
Sincerey,
~~~~~
Buddy Luce o ~-
Zoning Officer
BLjcic
attachment
cc: Board of County Commissioners
Reid Haughey
Amv Margerum
Tim Whits.itt
Gary Lyman
Roxanne F.flin
MEMORANDUM
To: Buddy Lucero, Zoning Department
cc: Amy Margerum, Planning Director
Gary Lyman, Building Department
From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner
Re: Preservation/restoration of historic resource at Bandar
property
Date: June 25, 1990
As today's site visit clearly demonstrated, the preservation of
the Trentaz homestead cabin on the Bandar parcel falls within the
County code provisions in Section 5-405.1(aj(4) and
5-405.1(b)(4). This memo summarizes the consensus reached by
myself as County Preservation Planner and Gary Lyman, Chief
Building Inspector.
1) The log structure is the most important, and oldest,
historic resource on the parcel, dating from c.1920
when the Trentaz family homesteaded and farmed the
area. Z personally met with Art Trentaz a few months
ago when researching the history of the property. (He
now resides on Lake Avenue in Aspen.)
The preservation of the log cabin is essential in terms
of the protection and preservation of Pitkin County's
heritage. It represents vernacular residential
architecture typical of c. 1910-1930 farming and
ranching history in Pitkin•Coun£y. Square-notched logs
and construction against and into the hillside were
fairly typical. The structure shows signs of deferred
maintenance which should be arrested immediately.
2) The later non-compatible additions should be removed.
They do not enhance the historic. or architectural
integrity of the log structure, and appear to be of
sub-quality structural design.
3) The most compatible use for the log structure appears
to be fOr sY~rarre, as onnosed to a rasidPntia7 nse
~shich ~rould reguire. significant U3C updating. 1'he
alternative of a separate detached affordable dwelling
unit is preferred in this case. Its design should be
subordinate to, yet compatible with, the log cabin and
surrounding conte>a_
~) Due to the potential for character desr_ruct~on by an
x »
°.
individual or firm not sensitive or skilled in the
preservation pf historic log cabins, I strongly
recommend review and sign-off by staff of restoration
plans prior to the issuance of a building permit for
the cabin. A restoration plan should be submitted for
review, consisting of (no less than) complete
elevations and site plan, materials and detailed notes
on partial demolition, shoring and foundation repair,
site drainage methods, exterior material preservation,
and other work description as necessary.
Attached is a copy of the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for Rehabilitation, of which #1, 2, 3, 5, and
6 apply particularly in this case. Also attached (for
reference) is a copy of the National Park Service "Tech
Notes -. Exterior Woodwork $3", addressing the repair
and selective replacement of deteriorated log crowns.
5) The surrounding site should be disturbed as little as
possible, and left "natural".
In summary, the preservation and restoration of the Trentaz
homestead cabin is an exciting and important activity which the
County should actively support. I recommend the Planning and
Zoning Department support the construction of a detached dwelling
unit, and the restoration of the log structure as proposed above.
Further, I share Gary Lyman's interest in the correct 'approach to
restoration and partial demolition, and look forward to assisting
in plan check and consultation prior to the completion of working
drawing and restoration plan .finalization.
Yee s
APPENDI7C II
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation
1. Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a property
which requires minimal alteration of the building, structure, or site and its
environment, or to use the property for its originally intended purpose.
2. The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure, site or
its environment shall not be destroyed. 17ie removal or alteration of any historic
material or distinctive architectural features should to avoided when possible.
3. All buildings, structures, and sites shall be recognized ss products of their own
time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier
appearance shall be discouraged.
4. Changes which may have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the
history and development of a building, structure, or site and its environment.
These changes- may have acquired significance in their own right, and this
significance shall be recognized and respected.
S. Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship which
characterize a building, structure, or site shall be treated with sensitivity.
6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced,
wherever possible. Lt the event replacement is necessary, the new material should
match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture, and
other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features
should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic,
physical, or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the
availability of different architectural elements from other buildings or structures.
7. The surface cleaning of structures shall be undertaken with the gentlest means
possible- Sandblasting and other cleaning methods that will damage the historic
building materials shall not be undertaken.
8. Every reasonable effort shall be made to oratect and preserve archeological
resources affected by, or adjacent to, any project-
9. Contemporary design [or alterations and additions to existing properties shall not
be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant
historical, architectural, or cultural material, and such design is compatible with
the size, scale, color, material, and character of the property, neighborhood, or
environment.
10. LVhenever possible, new additions or alterations to struc Lures shall be done in such
v n:nnn~~r that if such ridditions o: altcrati~^~. v:^r^ to b^ r~mwed in U~c future.
;in. ~s:;cnUaL Conn and intr_~; it}' u; t`~,e s'ructur•.t ~.+~~~ul,l b~.~ nni~epaired.
r"
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
RE: ASPCOL CORPORATION EMPLOYEE DWELLING UNIT
I hereby certify that on this 10th day of June, 1991, a true
and correct copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was
deposited in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid,
to the adjacent property owners as indicated on the attached list
of adjacent property owners which was supplied to the Aspen/Pitkin
Planning Office by the applicant in regard to the case named on the
Public Notice.
By: Debbie Skehan
Office Manager
frm.mailing
s
/ /
NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
RE: ASPCOL CORPORATION EMPLOYEE DWELLING IINIT
NOTICE IS HEREFY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, June 25, 191 at a meeting to begin at 5:30 pm before the
Board of County Co~unissioners, District Courtroom, 506 East Main
Street, Aspen to consider an application submitted by ASPCOL Corp.
requesting an amendment to their Employee Dwelling Unit approval;
Resolution No. 89-72. The current approval is for a 1,200 s.f.
employee dwelling unit to be constructed within an existing log
structure located on Lot 2, Starwood Ranch Lot Split. The
applicants request approval to construct the employee dwelling unit
separate from the log structure and to convert the log structure
to an agricultural building.
For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 South Galena St., Aspen, CO (303) 920-5090.
~Wavne Ethridge, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
Starwood Homeowners Asso.
P. O. Box 1138
Mercer Island, WA 98040
Greg Abbott
800 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10021
William Ziff
200 South Ocean Blvd.
Manalapan, FL 33462
George Stranahan
Trust Real Estate Department
245 Summit Street
Toledo, OH 43603
Thomas A. Moore
Boc 126
Woody Creek, CO 81656
Jack Katz
0180 109 Road
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Leslie H. and Ethel Towne
Box 4875
Aspen, CO 81612
International Investments
Property Holding Company
c/o William R. Jordan III
700 E. Durant, Suite 200
Aspen, CO 81611
The Durham Family Trust
c/o Ralph & Terry L. Durham
2800 Paseo Del Mar
Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274
James E. Moore
Box 707
Aspen, CO 81612
ASPEN/PITRIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone 920-5090 FAX 920-5197
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: County Attorney
Housing Director
Environmental Health Department
Zoning Administration
FROM: Mary Lackner, Planning Office
RE: ASPCOL Corp. Employee Dwelling Unit
Parcel ID# 2643-262-03-002
DATE: May 30, 1991
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted
by ASPCOL Corporation requesting an amendment to their Employee
Dwelling Unit approval.
Please return your comments to me no later than June 21, 1991.
Thank you.
6 }
ASPEN/PITRIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-5090 FAX# (303) 920-5197
May 30, 1991
Fred Peirce
Austin & Peirce
600 East Hopkins Avenue, Suite 205
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: ASPCOL Corp. Employee Dwelling Unit
Dear Fred,
This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its
preliminary review of the captioned application. We have
determined that this application is complete.
We have scheduled this application for review by the Board of
County Commissioners on Tuesday, July 9, 1991 at a meeting to
begin at 5:30 PM. The Friday before the meeting date, we will
call to inform you that a copy of the memo pertaining to the
application is available at the Planning Office.
If you have any questions, please call Mary Lackner, the planner
assigned to your case.
Sincerely,
Debbie Skehan,
Office Manager
_.. ~~~.~~=
i l c n: SK
~~~
- -
-.
' -
~ ~' ~ Y
pp
~
4. M
`ASPEN/PITKM PLANNING
OFFICE`~ ,
130 South Galena StreeT ~ ~`~„
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-5090
LAND USE APPLICATION FEES
cuy
00113 -63250-134 .GMP/CONCEPTUAL
-63270-136 GMP/FINAL
-63280-137 SUB/CONCEPTUAL
-63300-139 SUB/FINAL
-63310-140 ALL 2STEP APPLICATIONS
-63320.141 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
REFERRAL FEES:
00125 E3340-205 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
00123 -63340-190 HOUSING
00115 -63340.163 ENGINEERING
SUBTOTAL
County
00113 63160-126 GMP/GENERAL
-63170-127 GMP/DETAILED
-63180-128 GMP/FINAL
-63190-129 SU&GENERAL
-63200.130 SUB/DETAILED
-63210-131 SU&FINAL
X3220-132 ALL 2STEP APPLICATIONS
-63230-133 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/ `~\a
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS _
-63450-146 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
REFERRAL FEES:
00725 -63340-205 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH `:~ ~ 00
00123 X3340-190 HOUSING
00113 -63360.143 ENGINEERING ~_ q~
PUINNING OFFICE SALES
00113 X3080-122 CITY/COUNTY CODE
-63090-123 COMP. PLAN
E3140.124 COPY FEES
-69000-145 OTHER
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL 3~ ~ 6CS
Name: A==-,c r-.6L_ c:,-,/~:. gv~lr: Phone: -'~"~" - <;,a-sr:~:
Address: Q, , , ;b „. •, ~ . .._ ~.
P
ro
j
ect: 1 _ -- , a _. t
-
7
-
~
Check # ~-, -• --::~.~~ .Date: _ ~...I ~ 1 ; `..., 1.
Addifional billing: ~dHay~v