The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutpitkin.planning.273512457003 (2009)DOCUMENT LAYOUT THIS FILE MAY OR MAY NOT CONTAIN ALL OF THE INFORMATION LISTED BELOW IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER Summary Sheet Resolution for the BOCC and /or P &Z Ordinance for the BOCC and /or P &Z Determination for the Hearing Officer Administrative Determination Staff Memo Application Public Notice, Acceptance Letter, Referral(s) Letter Site Plan Miscellaneous Plat(s) Parcel ID: 2735- 12 -4 -57 -003 Application Date: 10/26/09 Case No: P111 -09 Description: Little Cloud 3 LLC Minor Amendment to a Development Permit Planner: Mike Kraemer # Copies: 1 Allocated Hours: 3 Project Address: 24 LITTLE CLOUD TRL, ASPEN, CO 81611 % Over Hours: 3.6 Property Owner: LITTLE CLOUD 3 LLC Owner's REP: MITCH HAAS REP's Email: mhaas @sopris.net Address: 750 NE 7TH AVE Owner Phone: DANIA. FL 33004 Address: 201 N MILL ST, SUITE 108 REP's Phone: (970) 925 -7819 ASPEN. CO 81611 Referrals: Comments Due Date: Other Referrals Meetings: 7st Meeting: 2nd Meeting: Meeting Date: Review Body: admin Public Hearing? no Notice Date: Meeting Notes: 3rd Meeting: Approvals: BOCC Resolution #: P &Z Determination #: BOCC Ordinance #: HO Determination #: Admin Determination* 082-2010#575365 Other Information: VR Approval Date: Plat Recorded Date: VR Expires Date: Plat (Bk, PG): B95 P53 #575558 Remarks: No vesting Application Type: Minor Amendment to a Development Permit RECEPTION #: 575365,11/23/2010 at 11:24:59 AM, 1 OF 2, R $0.00 Doc Code ADMIN DECISION Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OF THE PITHIN COUNTY, COLORADO, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR GRANTING APPROVAL FOR THE LITTLE CLOUD 3 LLC MINOR AMENDMENT TO A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND MINOR PLAT AMENDMENT Administrative Decision No.� 2010 RECITALS Little Cloud 3 LLC (hereafter referred to as "Applicanf') has applied to the Community Development Director of Pitkin County, Colorado ( "Director ") for a minor amendment to a development permit and minor plat amendment for amendment of a previously approved building envelope for construction of a concrete pad for placement of a hot tub. The Applicant also desires to allow restructuring of landscaping of the lower parking area_ 1. The Lot is legally described as Lot 3, Little Cloud. The property is located at 24, Little Cloud Trail. PID#: 2735- 124-57 -003. 2. The Lot is approximately 13,569 square feet, is in the R -15 zone district, and is non - conforming in size. 3. The Lot is currently developed with a single family residence that has yet to receive a Certificate of Occupancy. The Detailed and Final Plat for the Little Cloud Subdivision was approved pursuant to BOCC Resolution No. 90 -120. Administrative Decision No. 91 -2007 amended the approved envelopes. 4. An objection letter was submitted on November 11, 2009, by the neighbor, stating discontent with the proposal. The Applicant issued a November 13, 2009 letter requesting to suspend processing of the application until issues with the neighbor could be resolved. On May 25, 2010, a Notice of Violation was issued for construction of floor area in the basement of the residence without a permit. On June 17, 2010 the Applicant asked to proceed with the proposal. However, the subject application was still in suspension until the Notice of Violation could be cured. On, November 11, 2010 a site visit revealed that the offending floor area was brought into compliance and the subject application could proceed. 5. Staff conducted a site visit on June 24, 2010. It appears that the hot tub and concrete pad have been installed prior to approval. 6. The Director finds that the Applicant has addressed Section 2- 20- 150(b) of the Code and has shown compliance with these standards. The amended envelope will not violate provisions in Chapter 7 of the Land Use Code. APPROVED by the Director, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Applicant shall adhere to all material representations made during the application process. 2. All conditions of previous approvals shall remain in effect 3. The Applicant shall submit for approval by the County Attorney and Community Development a plat amendment in accordance with Land Use Code Section 2- 30 -20(g) and Application Manual Section 2.1.12. The above referenced approvals shall be a condition precedent to finalization and recordation. Page I oft g2 -ZbI() APPROVED by the Director, this jio day of J)a,"a C > 2010. d ouben, Community Development Director PEN 2735 - 124 - 57-003 P111 -09 Page 2 oft ASPEN OFFICE 601 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone (970) 925 -1936 Facsimile (970) 925 -3008 GLENWOOD SPRINGS OFFICE The Denver Centre 420 Seventh Street, Suite 100 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Telephone (970) 947 -1936 Facsimile (970) 947 -1937 GAD RELD & HECHT, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Since 1975 www.garfieldhecht.com November 11, 2009 AVON OFFICE 0070 Benchmark Road Post Office Box 5450 Avon, Colorado 81620 Telephone (970) 949 -0707 Facsimile (970) 949 -1810 BASALT OFFICE River View Plaza 100 Elk Run Drive, Suite 220 Basalt, Colorado 81621 Telephone (970) 927 -1936 Facsimile (970) 927 -1939 RYAN L. PARDUE ASPEN OFFICE rpardue @garfieldhecht.com VIA E -M.XIL AND HAND DELIVERY Ms. Cindy Houben Director - Pitkin County Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Lot 3, Little Cloud — Minor Amendment to Development Permit Dear Ms. Houben: As you know, our law firm represents Terry and Cynthia Taylor ( "Taylors "), owners of Lot 1 in the Little Cloud Subdivision. We received from your office and reviewed a copy of Haas Land Planning, LLC's recent application, dated October 26, 2009, on behalf of Tom Lewis and Little Cloud 3, LLC ( "Applicant" and/or `LPI ") seeking an amendment to a development permit to allow for construction of a hot tub, patio and retaining walls ( "Hot Tub Development') in an unpermltted area of Little Cloud Lot 3. For the reasons set forth below the Taylors object to and oppose this amendment to current Lot 3 approc als. Summary of Taylors' Objections Lot 3's designated building envelope is established according to the Amended Plat for Lots 3 and 4 and Open Space of the Little Cloud Subdivision recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder in Book 85 at Pages 16 (attached as Exhibit "A "). Administrative Decision Vo. 91 -2007 (attached as Exhibit "B ") expanded Lot 3's original building envelope to permit "bruge netting, excavation and landscaping only. Other structures shal net en croach in to these areas (emphasis added). Applicant's 2009 Hot Tub Development request directly contravenes !1) this 2007 administrative decision, (2) the property's approvals, and (3) Little Cloud's Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, Assessments, Liens and Easements ("Declaration ") Section 4.4, Le, that "(a)ll development activities undertaken or executed on the Lots ... shall be constructed only within the designated Building Envelopes." Applicant seeks to obtain extra - envelope area for Hot I'ub Development. Applicant's - 'rational" to obtain this extra- envelope area is that the area 'ias beer. 'disturbed." This 0 fl (l 0 01 of 7 1 ® Printed on recycled paper GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. 000002 Ms. Cindy Houben November 11, 2009 Page 2 "rational" is unsupported in the Code and is a slippery slope for Pitkin County land use. Applicant should, in fact, restore and landscape this area. Background Regarding Lot 3 Development The Taylors object to additional amendments expanding Lot 3's original building envelope as amended. LPI has partially built a spec house of over 10,000 square feet. This square footage far exceeds floor area and house -size representations made during the 1990's approval processes (see Resolution No. 92 -217 of the Board of County Commissioners, attached as Exhibit "C," requiring that Lot 3's residence be limited to 6,000 square feet of floor area and a Letter, dated March 3, 1992, from Pitkin County Zoning Official Joanna S. Schaffner to John Tucker, attached as Exhibit "D," reinforcing the 6,000 square foot floor area requirement). LPI has taken full advantage of every conceivable "loop- hole" in its approvals by interchanging the meaning of words like "square footage," "floor area" and "living area" and by taking full advantage of changes in the land use code regarding these terms to build a far more massive project than the one represented to the County (see Letter, attached as Exhibit "E," dated April 10, 1992, from John R. Tucker III to the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners). The County never contemplated a 10,000 square foot house on Shadow Mountain. LPI's clever expansion of the home -size to 10,000 square feet is an insult to the prior land use process and the mountain. Community Development should not allow LPI to once again manipulate the approvals and violate the Declaration. LPI's related companies still own two other lots within Little Cloud. Community Development should enforce all prior conditions of approval and not expand upon them for amenities that should have been in the original house plans. Lot 3 contains a building envelope area of 13,569 square feet. LPI should not be permitted to develop outside of this area. The Lot 3 residence can accommodate the Hot Tub Development within its long - established envelope, and probably did in its original design. It is inconceivable that a spec house greater than 10,000 square feet is not designed to accommodate the Hot Tub Development within the designated envelope. Criteria for Review Community Development has thus far deemed the Hot Tub Development application a "minor" amendment to a development permit Pitkin County Land Use Code ( "Code ") Section 2 -20 -150 establishes the procedures and criteria for "minor" amendments to development applications. The Applicant's proposed amendment also contradicts several of the criteria, including the following: Is [the amendment] consistent with action(s) taken during previous development approvals for the property; LPI's Hot Tub Development directly contradicts Administrative Decision 91- 2007's prohibit of structures other than brugge netting, excavation and landscaping. 488592 -1 ® Printed on recycled paper GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. Ms. Cindy Houben November 11, 2009 Page 3 Community Development should enforce this clear, prior administrative decision and not allow piecemeal expansion of an already expanded spec house. LPI, as previously stated, has managed to far exceed representations made to the County during the 1990's approval process. With the extra 4,000 plus square feet of living area LPI has managed to construct, it is not conceivable that LPI now needs to build these amenities on this slope. The approval process is complete. There is no basis to re -open the process to allow for development and construction of the Hot Tub Development outside the established envelope. Applicant's Exhibit "1" clearly shows LPI's latent attempt to further expand the contemplated square footage and house size. [The amendment] (d)oes not change the basic character of the approved use of land on which the activity occurs, including basic visual appearance and method of operation; An amendment permitting additional development and expansion outside the original envelope would, by its very nature, change the character and use of this undeveloped area of land. The Hot Tub Development, intended to be placed farther up Shadow Mountain from Lot 3's current development, would be visible from the nearby public trails and open space now dedicated to the County. The Hot Tub Development should not be considered a "minor" amendment to a development permit as approvals are stretched far beyond the limitations represented and envisioned two decades ago. The Hot Tub Development is not just the addition of a hot tub. It would require encroachment outside the envelope and into established setbacks with yet more retaining walls. Because the Hot Tub Development encroaches into setbacks, LPI is required to apply for variance approval in accordance with Pitkin County Land Use Code Section 2 -40 -110. LPI has attempted to avoid this requirement because it is unable to demonstrate any hardship, such as unusual narrowness, shallowness, or shape of the property or unusual topographic conditions, necessary for variance approval. [The amendment] (d)oes not constitute a new land development activity; 1; UUJ Applicant claims that the proposed development is appropriate because "it will sit on a previously disturbed portion of the site." This area is outside the envelope and in setbacks. The area is also a steep slope. Applicant's position contravenes all notions of the prior, extensh e land -use process and resultant approvals. Disturbances have occurred throughout the Little Cloud Subdivision because of the Lot 3 construction activities, just as disturbances occur during any sizeable development. This fact does not create an "opportunity" to expand envelopes or expand upon land -use approvals. The disturbed areas must be restored. Again, it would indeed be a slippery slope to allow for the 488592 -1 ® Printed on recycled paper GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. Ms. Cindy Houben November 11, 2009 Page 4 expansion of approvals merely because an area is "disturbed" outside or even adjacent to an envelope. [The amendment] (d)oes not increase off -site impacts in the surrounding neighborhood; This amendment would certamly increase development and construction activities within the Little Cloud Subdivision and expand upon a 10,000 square foot residence that far exceeds the 6,000 square foot house -size clearly contemplated during the 1990's. Undeveloped land and common space within the Little Cloud subdivision should be preserved and existing set -backs and activity envelopes should be maintained. [The amendment] (d)oes not violate any Land Use Code standard; The proposed amendment does not meet the Land Use Code's "minor" amendment requirements and violates (1) Administrative Decision No. 91 -2007, (2) setback requirements, (3) property approvals, and (4) the Little Cloud Declaration. The Taylors object to re- opening the approval process to permit the Hot Tub Development especially by a "minor" amendment process. The Taylors request a denial of the application. Thank you. Very truly yours, Ryan L. Pardue Enclosures - Exhibits "A" — "E" with Hand Delivery Versions only. cc: Michael Kraemer (via e -mail and hand - delivery) Lance Clarke (via e -mail only) Ted D. Gardenswartz, Esq. (via e -mail only) 488592 -1 i V p Y ® Printed on recycled paper [j .1 �yV 000005 "h U I � N gg �� 9E i 2 a "i + � { j sk € q a � a a { it • 3� S S P� { � �� n �t � �.t li 9!& :: �Bl +3t=� � � •{ . { y a J' �� § *fix 4i i , g ! � e A 1 i { a {$ §K �B a @@ $S•3� S I F' �4 I i � ° ^• i porn \�) b C � .. 7 c � �4 ` ubC y` O v h � - y b �iI a b� z �4 0 4 O � b� C � m � vi U h ti" O ti rc oa8mm o� V/ i r I � RECEPTIORN: 542914, 10/09/2007 at 04:10;30 PM, 1 OF 2, R $0.00 Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO ADMEUSTRATI VE DECISI ON SUBDMSION E)WKMON FOR LO'M 3 AND 4 AN AREA OF THE LITRE CLOUD SUBDMSION/PUD Dedsloa No.Q) -2007 RECITALS I. LPI Aspen, Inc. C`Applicmd'), has applied to mmunity Devebpmad Director of Pitkin County, ( "Director's, pursuant to Sections 2130.20 and 2 -30-50 of the Phichr County Land Use Code ("Code"), to make minor modifications to the Little Cloud Subdivislon)PUD. 2. The Property is zoned R -15. 31 The Little Cloud SLbdivisionIPUD wes approved by BOCC Resolution No. 90 -120, 4. The Applicant submitted a complete application after July 6, 2006, therefore, the application is being considered pursuam to the 2006 Land Use Code, 5. The Director finds the request is consistent with the pitkin County Land Use Code, APPROVED by the Director, subject to the following conditions: I. The Applicant shall adhere to all material representations made during the application process. 2. The Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Board of County Commissioners Resolutions Nos, 89-18, 90.120 and 92 -217 unless otherwise replaced or amended by the conditions of this or said approvals. 3. Prior to submission of any future building permit applications, the Applicant shall be required to submit for approval by the County Attmrrey and Community Development an smmded Plat In accordance with Section 2.1.13 of the Pitkin County Land Use Application Manuel. The show referenced approvals shall be a condition precedent to finalization and recordation. 4. The draft plat shall be amended to state the specific limited purposes of the expanded activity envelope arses. 5. Prior to building permit application for either home the plans for the backfillkg and landscaping of the excavation areas around the existing building envelopes shall be submitted by the Applicant and approved by Community Development. 7. Building permit applications for each home will require adrainage and erosion control plan and a wnstruction management plan approved by the Planning Engineer. 0:10006 RECEPTION #: 542914, 10/09/2007 at 04:10:30 PM, 2 OF 2, Janice R. Von Caudill, Ditkin County, 00 9. Rataining walls greater than four fact in height Yball be supported by appropriate engineering NO reviewed and approved by the Planning Engineer. 9. The bruge net will require approval of a building permit and eatilnnoving permit. Submitted with the permits shall be a drainage and erosion control plaza, specific details regarding the height, materials, construction methods, areas of disturbance, location of the netllmreq as well "a landscape plan and other visual mitigation aspects to minimize the visual impact of the Fence. Noto- the no"enu my require a height variance. This approval dees not insure approval of any subsequentvariance. 10. At building permit submittal For the bruge net, tlta Applicant must present a definitive engineered final plan and analysis showing its adequacy for the required rockfail mitigation as stated in the 4th paragraph of the letter of July 2. 2007, from Colder Associates to the APPlicanL 11. Condition No. 4 (a) of Rosolmion No. 90 -120, relating to Building Sites 3 and 4 is amended to allow a staff approved binge net system In place of a 4' "stem wall". Foundation designs will be engineered substantially as described in the HP Qemeeh report of December 29, 2006, (Job No. 106094 1) in order to partially mitigate for the removal of the condition for the 4" stem walls. APPROVED by the Director, this 2k -day of 2007. C C ndy Houben, Community Development Director PD# 273513100004 PI04 -07 000007 .4 15 #346636 07/13/92 09:54 Rec $.00 SK 643 P6 119 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO GRANTING APPROVAL TO AMEND THE LITTLE CLOUD FINAL PLAT RESOLUTION (NO.90 -120) •s�. =,. Resolution'No. 92 -9/9 WHEREAS, John R. Tucker, Cottonwood Gardens Development �.,•'�' corporation, (hereinafter " Applicant"), has applied to the Board t of County Commissioners oP Pitkin Count Colorado, , (hereinafter "Board"), for approval to clarify and amend condition numbers 6 and t to of Resolution No. 90 -120, regarding house size limitations ! imposed or. residences within the Little Cloud Subdivision; and,° WHEREAS, the subject site is located south of the Aspen Ice Garden and west of Koch' Park on the lower slopes of Aspen Mountain, more specifically described in Exhibit " A " attached; and WHEREAS, the parcel is 'zoned* AF- i.above the 8040 elevation and ' R -15 PUD below the 8040 elevation and contains approximately 9.6 acres; and WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes to clarify and amend the conditions to stipulate that the 6 000 s P , quare_ foot house sizes limitation within the Subdivision shall refer to "living area" space rather than "floor area" as defined by the Land Use Code, for purposes of calculating building size on building plans; and WHEREAS, the conditions read as follows:. 6. Attachad caretaker units must be included in the maximum residence size of 6,000 square feet. The size of caretaker units shall be in compliance with Housing Authority Guidelines in effect at the time of building permit issuance for said units. P. : - 000008 ! ' it lam' 4. A Q11. 0346636 07/13/92 04:54 Rec s.00 SK 683'P6 120 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 ; Resolution No. 92 -ILI Page 2 10. Homesite■ shall be limited to a maximum size of 6,000 square feet, including caretaker units, and shall not exceed the county height standard. . and; WHEREAS, the Pitkin county Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the request at a regularly scheduled meeting on May 5, 1992, at which time they recommended approval of the request, g recommending a condition amendment to limit residential square . . footage to a definition of "living area" as presented by the } applicant;.. .. aid WHEREAS, the Board reviewed the request at their regularly scheduled meeting on June 9, 1992, at which time evidence and testimony was presented with respect to the application. NOW, THEREFORE, BE' IT RESOLVED by the Board that it does n sz hereby grant approval of condition modifications which limit ,S residential floor area for Lots 1 and 2 to that represented on building plans submitted by the applicant at Detailed Submission. Residences on Lots 3 and 4 shall be limited to square feet * of total floor area, as calculated by the County. Condition Numbers - 6-and-10 shall -be- replaced by the following condition: - The primary residences (including attached 'caretaker units and garages) for Lots 1 and 2 of the Little cloud Subdivision shall be limited to 8,200 square feet ind 7,400 square feet of floor area, R respectively. Floor area shall be based on building plane submitted' to the Building Department for rsvie+r on February S. 1492. Height j for the residences on Lots 1 and 2 shall comply with County height regulations in effect on June 12, 1990 (date of Finil Plat approval). In the event that the 1990 height calculations are more or less restrictive than the current height calculations, height for -� residences on Lots 1 and 2 shall be calculated using the less restrictive calculation. t i i s F F i I t. 1: r. t { 000009 a i i ! t I I #346636 07/13/92 09s54 Rec s.00 9K 683 P6 121 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc s.00 Resolution No. 92 - Page 3 The primary residences (including attached caretaker units and garages) on Lots 3 and 4 of the subdivision shall be Limited to 6,000 square feet of floor area, as calculated by Pitkin County at the time of building permit issuance. Height for structures on Lots 3 and 4 shall comply with Pitkin County height regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance. The size of attached caretaker units eha11 be in comPLiance with Housing Authority Guidelines in effect at the time of building Perm issuance for said units. APPROVED by the Board at its regular meeting on June 9, 1992. A T T: anatte Jones eputy County lark APPROVED AS TO FORM: Timothy E. Y , County Atto 000010 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PIT=N COUNTY, COLORADO By �. J a R. True, Chairman Da 7/7 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: s County Phasing Director 1 1, I ! r 1 Mr. John Tucker Cottonwood Gardens Development Corp. 1102 Hancock Street Casa Grande, AZ 85222 Re: Building Permits for Lots i and 2, Little Cloud Subdivision Dear Mr. Tucker: A o ow from our phone co Y ersa e i earlien compliance week, onditions of Board County documentation to demonstrate that c are i received 6 w s Tone e lutio 90 -120 _ A c of this resoluti is enc osed for your information� / f 4 n i' Tiara copy r r same cr iteria as the _ Please be aware that the Planning Office does not review e of our review and therefore di . Regardless of what was different items are required at this stag y submitted and reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners, you are bound pr the conditions of Resolution 90 -120. Any subsequent changes to these conditions must be approved by the Commissioners. It is assumed by the Board that all proposed residences will comply with roues ee Your proposed building plans were not reviewed during the planning p Y Board or the Planning Office. • Building plans are reviewed when submitted to the Building Department only. to check o acement �m�an all conditions and requirements imposed mp o your As the County Zoning B ed by the my reSY JnSlb ;li County. Building permits for Lots 1-4 can not be issued until compliance with all conditions can be demonstrated.. Pursuant to Resolution 90 -120, please submit the following information. from West - Excavation Permit approved by the City StreetsaDf amen ha handled access roa Engineering Cooper. (Carolyn Herwick, 920 -5130) (Th Department.) approved by the County Engineering Department for each driveway. Also, Access Permit Revegetation and utility Plans need approval. (Bud Eylar, 920 -5206) Fugitive Dust Plan approved by the Environmental Health Department. 5070) (Dave Tolan, 920 -5050) Deed Restrictions for Employee 9 - �Dewdrepaper 00001 units, Lots 1 -4 axe Cassin, 920- You indicated to me that the above items have been done, however, in checlen9 with the respective departments, no approvals can be found. If you have copies of these approvals, please forward them to me. Pursuant to the requirements of the Building Department Checklist (copy enclosed), please submit the following information. These items are required of all parties building in Pitldn County. A certified, topographic survey. I reviewed the submitted topo /survey with Francis Krizmanich, and we both agree that it is not sufficient for building plan review. The survey should indicate all lot lines, the building envelope, the building footprint, two foot topographic intervals, and all other information typically associated with a survey. This survey including topography must be certified by a licensed surveyor, and cannot be more than one year old. ; the homes in this subdivision are limited to 6,000 square feet of floor area pursuant Also to Resolution e 90-1: 0. The Ietter from John Ely which you referenced, dated February 7, 1992, states, "However, as 'Ricker is bound by all representations made to the BOCC and County staff during the application and approval process, likewise it can be stated that the BOCC relied upon those representations m considering and acting upon its approval." Section 4.4 of the Detailed Submission Application states No unit, inclusive of C C it will h av e Use Code." eater than six thousand square feet as defined A preliminary review of your plans indicates that both houses exceed 6,000 square feet of floor area. If you dispute this fact, please forward to me your architects interpretation of how this limit has not been exceeded. All information should be received by me no later than March 20, 1992. Once I am in receipt of the above information, I will begin to review your plans. if I do not receive all required items by March 20, your plans will be rejected and returned to the Building Department. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (303) 920 5090. Sincerely, ( 01 0 Toanna S. Schaffner pitidn County Zoning Official encl. cc: Bud Eylar, County Engineering Dave Tolan, Housing Authority Lee Cassin, Environmental Health Department Francis M Kriz maniah, Zoning Office John Ely, County Attorney's Office Carolyn Herwick, Streets Department I �0000.z :OTTONWOOD HOMES, INC. :O TTONWOOD GARDENS DEVELOPMENT CORP. (602) 836 -7s31 April 10, 1992 Pitkin County Bonrd of County Commissioners PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION 506 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Little Cloud Planned Unit Development Dear Commissioners: As you know, the Little Cloud P.U.D. was approved in June of 1990 after two years of careful review by the public, the BOCC, the Aspen City Council and the Planning Commission of the County and City of Aspen. I voluntarily entered the County process under the P.U.D. provisions of the County Code rather than taking each homesite through individual 1041 review, since I felt the community and the subdivision could benefit from a comprehensive review of the subdivision application. In an attempt to address the architectural requirements of the P.U.D. process, I authorized my architect to prepare plans for the homes proposed as part of the subdivision. Detailed construction drawings were submitted for homesite #2, design development drawings were submitted for homesite # 1, and architectural concept sketches were submitted for homesites #3 and #4. These plans and the overall perspective drawing which accompanied the homesite plans were based on general architectural usage of the term "square footage" and "living area ", as measured from outside wall to outside wall, which 1 believed to be analogeous to the County's term "floor area" as defined in Section 20 -1 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code. When I again submitted the plans for permit review ( homesite 1 and 2) earlier this year, I was unpleasantly surprised to learn that the County, through the planning department, had adopted an internal memorandum which included items such as decks under overhangs and mechanical rooms in its measurement of "square footage". Since I had previously agreed to a very significant decrease in the potential size of the homes in the subdivision, the expansion of space to be counted as part of "square footage has severely impaired the economics of my subdivision. In my recent discussions with Tim %itsitt, he suggested that since "square footage" was not clearly defined by either myself or the County in terms of the P.U.D, that I request this clarification of interpretation. 000013 COTTONWOOD HOMES, INC. COTTONWOOD GARDENS DEVELOPMENT CORP. Letter to Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission April 10, 1992 – Page Two (602) 836 - 7531 There is no need to submit new documentation, since the plans already reviewed by the public and the review governmental agencies were based on my understanding of the County Code. All of the plans and visual presentations of the homes were based on homes which contained a maximum of 6,000 square feet of living area, as measured from within the surrounding exterior walls and exclusive of areas such as garages, mechanical, and storage rooms. While the Land Use Code does not specify a process to clarify the intent of language in a P.U.D., Mr. Whitsitt suggested a two-step approach which would involve one presentation before the Pitkin County Planning Commission and one presentation before the BOCC. This process is acceptable to me provided that I can get immediate access to agenda for both the P &Z and BOCC. I will appear before you on Wednesday, April 15, 1992, in accordance with Mr. Whitsitt's suggestion, to answer any questions you might have and to, hopefully, begin the process necessary to clarify the interpretation of the Little Cloud P.U.D. Specifically, through this clarification, I am requesting that the BOCC confirm a derurition of "living area" which is consistent with the designs previously reviewed in Detailed and Final Submission. This definition has been incorporated into the Little Cloud Covenants, Conditions and Restgrictioas and will be used as the governing parameter of maximum size limitation for Little Cloud P.U.D. homesites. It is my sincere wish that you will expedite the review of my request, since it does not involve a new application. Given the extensive delay already imposed by the review process, it is imperative that I be allowed to begin construction as early as possible in 1992- Sincerely, John R Tucker III President J RT:cbs 000014 Y �'Y i r ^— c*• L1 0 U1 Hi �Bjl °i� � Vie: m: l f , y1 a E!� v �� yl P � dd �` gy � UN lag �mC nqp � 99° 4iarei PiJm 3d °A ° duA fi H °g &3 — 8 ¢ A a Z 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 { 1 1 1� 1 dmp O C Q O � c ❑ Q U m m O x p m < N 2 Q m N 70, N � 4 C U 7 O � O 0 < O O O O p N N rp 0 N O p x � mss'❑ m � n m `❑ Q o a < m o p 3 � a 0 o � ❑ n a o � m m m 0 o w 3 Q 0 a s 0 n m X ❑ m 0 O W N U m A O ALPINE Design &Planning Landscape Architecture P 0 Box 048 Ma o CO 81612 tel 970 925 8585 f x 914.925 6SB4 This dwg supercedes cry and all previous dwgs. Little Cloud Lot 3 Aspen CO. �AN isy�aga%� ��d ox p •�a t €:'W :$ ¢8'y�ye 8,: 'fi s �'g LA NDSCAPE PLA Sad$ a °e ' && 37 s �i A B ° $ g , $ 3. r PZa �b:mQ�$$ ES`��Cq$$q�S a$�dad�aY�A�l a'z� °3;3b: a8z �29 1 p 3 p '.o g=�`'f @HIE p 6 p � 4 js.5 3 • 8 £FS 9 a "P Si: ay °� pg�4$ easg H jg gg -°? NN B 5 48�t�5 844 4.& ®�f4 a .a9$� °i' 33y.igggd�.57 ME z ?9 Yzo aE� '[a -H 4 �io c`x eEa?a4e y °'- �H'$a s o, _ Parking Renovation dg P-H M $ °�. B Y gy8a 3 = 5 3 33 E• y £:° a €a� a E° f 5 2 9 �, �a a ypa� a � ��a 34se a4 � 4 o�:c§' �is�a �6 $ 9vs � yfl� � as d n�E s' §c; se37 ?8 a d °a � 2pda3. g��aj Q U m m O x p m < N 2 Q m N 70, N � 4 C U 7 O � O 0 < O O O O p N N rp 0 N O p x � mss'❑ m � n m `❑ Q o a < m o p 3 � a 0 o � ❑ n a o � m m m 0 o w 3 Q 0 a s 0 n m X ❑ m 0 O W N U m A O ALPINE Design &Planning Landscape Architecture P 0 Box 048 Ma o CO 81612 tel 970 925 8585 f x 914.925 6SB4 This dwg supercedes cry and all previous dwgs. Little Cloud Lot 3 Aspen CO. �AN 9' ox <o LA NDSCAPE PLA 000 1 z N Parking Renovation at Gated Entry aa�v $8 w° � 8a ��'� as / %/ \• \• \ 7\ \ \ \`\ a s A 0-i R \N" I 1 1, CD lz� CD j /f y / \ CD CD 0 Cc CD oulla 1 \ CD y f J CD po , � 74 6 I � � � ., `,\•• � , � .` \ \ � - � .i ..% �--"� � �°y ��•• ,\, , .rte - =/ / / � c;. i HUN $y ` CoS et =.v $a t$sm5 at =aPJ^ Q i1, o . g Wi !, a� il eai'aP \ / 4 §ff ?�qZe qg ,9 °gv `s sa i'y p Ink 99 fi Fq a : 3 q $,25 �$ q 6gg4 °a,a.' qq a3 Y X=m _ua os' S5ff i Y °�q4 d3�aamd FC$n4A d �n5• 9_ a'� iYY�_ \ §S'i -a 8 a � g i°3� 6: 5a o d o 14H w i :$ 6 - iO iO o m 4, Him q ° 4 € N OS CD lz� CD j /f y / \ CD CD 0 Cc CD oulla 1 \ CD y f J CD po , � 74 6 I � � � ., `,\•• � , � .` \ \ � - � .i ..% �--"� � �°y ��•• ,\, , .rte - =/ / / \ � � 1 P i g r €e ao� i i rn n I o ALPINE Design &Planning Landscape Architecture PO Box 048 Aspen CO 81612 tel 9709256585 tex 9ID.925.8584 FEg W Y41° / \ o o a o d o \ � � 1 P i g r €e ao� i i rn n I o ALPINE Design &Planning Landscape Architecture PO Box 048 Aspen CO 81612 tel 9709256585 tex 9ID.925.8584 FEg W This dwg supercedes any and all previous dwgs. Little Cloud Lot 3 LA NDSCAPE PLA Aspen CO. Proposed Drive Layout (Verify all grading and drainage with licensed civil engineer) d ri; Y41° \ o o a o d o - iO iO o m N OS 3 2 a N ¢ Q? v � 0 +O a O O O This dwg supercedes any and all previous dwgs. Little Cloud Lot 3 LA NDSCAPE PLA Aspen CO. Proposed Drive Layout (Verify all grading and drainage with licensed civil engineer) d ri; i I // �� a�� 5 o o o 0 ` 0'0 1 4 �'O'0 4 a , ..sga �. C . Pt3.3po v • =gPY ¢ l ?`a fl a BeL °xa - a g 55 Sh $ 88_q sa z• El'- gz?m_e,nn 8 ^9 : g a53 �39G98a Yg a$a $� p99fl !� °p `a 's- €gi a 3 - :P'�l � $'3. a.'ir,. 3s 4''8 5 S n H \ $ y "9_�P 9il`ga�" _° a z S I r'I ®sin _ t a �° a % 5 . 3 s' R' � z �`e.'a•. 9e- �3¢t;v 3 %� tP= $a -s °$ ° " ! � ` a s ,rz l ¢IgT :a4 ; >ae�g de g- 5 @ vg•�S$z3a 5 Ye�3' °'$t a 9m _ m� t s _g =i „ es 3' ass is °g• =$a4 e ° $ m 3 p . i° to a•pi se:,.., q3 a 5 sat ms 'd _ M. °g��a�em�m. 3s _ 3ie3'6s�y % ss as=�s i g P'taQC ° a_s"'G s W ect�s5e gg� 19� sel;Potn i, �w 8s ° v3 3 g `a 01= \ _� .,. g °_ •I, a P P eel 1yai9°t1-, aM 3e'� r "xpH 1 _t' s aslt "= '1 as 'ad a n�li :w _ i 1 -4 - 1 A - 50 ` `� �' \\ ,, ;'g 3 'is@ �al'•s� 53 tr �l 8 a - - P °.� mR o8 5 g s d & p8 �\ . \ • \\° / , / '§ ?; $oa oe ° 3c at § s a � ?ve 4599 lj y v �/ / y� ji F Y 3 / I Sven g a<% 0 n I 6 0 ALPINE Design &Planning Landscape Architecture 1y \ Q r � ij1♦� aT`� ��a I € it e$ �fl e 3 / / / \ gs ICE S \ Y i \ it it i— a a i d a3aa� �� k s ft Hill � �� 6� �� Ht• � '�o �6® L N lag � s a k g 2 $ C e v . 2 This dwg supercedes any and all previous dwgs. Little Cloud Lot 3 Aspen CO. LA NDSCAPE PLA Planting Plan / / / r= a PO BOX9 B Ap RC081612 tBI9709256585 W970925858a 0 0 0 0 s �o m v a o N 9 m m v �s t7im m 9 0 ° 6L i 1 / cxonFnm ° Uhl m h.±< QM +3 < < 0 15 C>Z O 3 m P 3 6 0 N y n 3< N < P / 0 3 ro 0 3 / DQ rp 7DS � N N n 0 p .+30 r 0 �l l `CN P:3 ern n 9 -h m = L _ + ry 3 P T h w C 0 O C < P ro o M N % n n S - P h� 8 3 9. e ♦ 6 9 O / O / N / 6 n 20 / / 1pS N m \ a H if CD a I.r.1 N• , 1i] �g t2 if 0 I =� ` O w AM i 6 �% m 5 a / �2� 2 m � 7 j O m m \ �\_V- Jg " c'e / SR' / / II I . 7930 "gym °d ' o ¢c 9 m � m m 7930 /9 0 \ 3 0 � \ laN \ �1 VI ; g '� ��a I III -� 63 I 8 e I I . I I e 0 li am =v a Fo vi pA R -g - ,310 2 z 3 b 48 o -S&' o°�e Bp�000° II gm g_�ea�d ei 3a � � ° E� R fi a_3y go N.b - - '� g g 1 N - 3 g 6a �� v AO B ¢ ava= swans- , HPU -W- vdg'gF a id f a �8�$aav ° ;q�; sa og-7' s a-a�x `gym sad gv_'° ma B A °��ffi ��y��oaa 8 � �R2 ��Srtnaa �oa w dam Rm� a a te- as R- qq ` 91 4a °_ 3 ante 2 n G8� -d^ A � ' a aR 4a o'w g�$ d's 5 ' rfm 2' 8a 4 =ad 3 �M ALPINE m R evegetation Pla n N Revised Avalanche Not placeent/ m b m A 0> m Design &Planning LITTLE CLOUD SUBDIVISION As Revs :a App by City R3 E:5 rlh nz and County for species and tO r° m m o o O 1•• _ Landscape Architecture placement Z w 11 Avalanche Control Fence Replacement Revised yaard@las9.pt21,2909 proposed by Comer 0 0 n n n o on PO.BCa9W Aspen CO81612 te197092565B5 laa970.9256583 ^ Y ®sl T 3 �v mn F a p %12 : 'A 6S � 9 v° . H 36 tla �ID I 3: I I H I _ cxonFnm ° Uhl m h.±< QM +3 < < 0 15 C>Z O 3 m P 3 6 0 N y n 3< N < P / 0 3 ro 0 3 / DQ rp 7DS � N N n 0 p .+30 r 0 �l l `CN P:3 ern n 9 -h m = L _ + ry 3 P T h w C 0 O C < P ro o M N % n n S - P h� 8 3 9. e ♦ 6 9 O / O / N / 6 n 20 / / 1pS N m \ a H if CD a I.r.1 N• , 1i] �g t2 if 0 I =� ` O w AM i 6 �% m 5 a / �2� 2 m � 7 j O m m \ �\_V- Jg " c'e / SR' / / II I . 7930 "gym °d ' o ¢c 9 m � m m 7930 /9 0 \ 3 0 � \ laN \ �1 VI ; g '� ��a I III -� 63 I 8 e I I . I I e 0 li am =v a Fo vi pA R -g - ,310 2 z 3 b 48 o -S&' o°�e Bp�000° II gm g_�ea�d ei 3a � � ° E� R fi a_3y go N.b - - '� g g 1 N - 3 g 6a �� v AO B ¢ ava= swans- , HPU -W- vdg'gF a id f a �8�$aav ° ;q�; sa og-7' s a-a�x `gym sad gv_'° ma B A °��ffi ��y��oaa 8 � �R2 ��Srtnaa �oa w dam Rm� a a te- as R- qq ` 91 4a °_ 3 ante 2 n G8� -d^ A � ' a aR 4a o'w g�$ d's 5 ' rfm 2' 8a 4 =ad 3 �M ALPINE m R evegetation Pla n N Revised Avalanche Not placeent/ m b m A 0> m Design &Planning LITTLE CLOUD SUBDIVISION As Revs :a App by City R3 E:5 rlh nz and County for species and tO r° m m o o O 1•• _ Landscape Architecture placement Z w 11 Avalanche Control Fence Replacement Revised yaard@las9.pt21,2909 proposed by Comer 0 0 n n n o on PO.BCa9W Aspen CO81612 te197092565B5 laa970.9256583 HOLDINGS LLC LEWIS PROPERTY INVESTORS, INC. LPI RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC November 13, 2009 Mr. Lance Clarke Senior Planner Pitkin County Community Center 506 East Main Street Department C Aspen, Colorado Email: lancec @co.pitkin.us RE: Minor Use Application filed by Mitch Haas Dear Lance: To confirm our conversation of Wednesday in regards to the above application, I request that further processing of my application be suspended in order to allow me time to resolve the issues which my neighbors have regarding this application. My hope is to resolve all of their concerns and objections that were filed with Garfield and Hecht and that the complaint will be withdrawn. I will keep you posted as to my efforts regarding the status of this issue. Very truly yours, n n Thomas w b President W Cc: Ted Gardenswartz, Esq. Mitch Haas 750 NE 7th Axe.. Dania Beach, crida 33004 - Phone Fax: (954021-0130 NN NvXV.Ipih01dinP.COm 000020 PITKIN COUNTY NOTICE OF VIOLATION ❑ STOP WORK ORDER Date: S Violation loc & tosner /construction X CORRECTION NOTICE im ah ed if applicable Violation - Colorado State Statute and /or Counts Code Provision: Direction for cure: -1' r L l / 2.cJ .. U T) S? ' YV1A u tl� 0 iiie a f No coc Deadline for cure: Failure to stop work or correct the cause of this violation (as noted at top of page) within the time shown above may result to revocation of related county permits and/or a civil suit for an injunction, and/or fine, and/or a misdemeanor criminal prosecution. Pitkin County Code Enforcement Officer (or designee) Pitkin County Attorney's Office (or 1 970 - 920 -5190 (or 2 - ;1 0-5 / C/5-; ) White Copy - Recipient Yellow Copy - Staff Manila Copy - Leave where mtially posted Dw" 1 22008.200 mdeeendence Press a177 HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC October 26, 2009 Mr. Lance Clarke, Deputy Director Pitkin County Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Lot 3, Little Cloud (24 Little Cloud Trail; Parcel ID No. 2735 - 124 -57 -003) - Minor Amendment to a Development Permit Dear Lance: I represent Tom Lewis and Little Cloud 3, LLC, owner of Lot 3 in the Little Cloud Subdivision. The property's address is 24 Little Cloud Trail, Aspen, and it is located near the base of Shadow Mountain. The general location relative to the surrounding area is depicted on the vicinity map below. Vicinity Map -Lot 3, Little Cloud Subdivision The purpose of the proposed Minor Amendment is to allow for a hot tub to be placed in an area of the property where it currently would not be permitted due to a condition in Administrative Decision No. 91 -2007. That decision approved a minor plat amendment to the Little Cloud Subdivision /PUD and • 201 N. MILL STREET, SUITE 108 • ASPEN, COLORADO • 8161 1 • PHONE: (970) 925 -7819 • FAX: (970) 925 -7395 0000011. O� Z.� Lot 3, Little Cloud —Minor Amendment Application October 26, 2009 Page 2 expanded the Activity Envelopes on Lots 3 and 4, and the open space. The Detailed Submission and Final Plat approval for the Little Cloud Subdivision /PUD was granted pursuant to BOCC Resolution No. 90 -120. As mentioned above, a Minor Plat Amendment involving the expansion of the Activity Envelopes of Lots 3 and 4 and the open space was approved pursuant to Administrative Decision No. 91 -2007. Condition #6 of that decision reads as follows: "The purpose of the expanded envelopes is for the bruge netting, excavation and landscaping only. Other structures shall not encroach into these areas." This condition must be amended so that the applicant is able to situate a hot tub in the far NW corner of this expanded envelope on Lot 3. This area has previously been disturbed by excavating, installing the soil nails for slope stabilization, and then backfilling. Pursuant to Section 2- 20- 150(b) of the Code, a minor amendment to any development permit is one that the Community Development Director determines to meet the nine (9) criteria cited below. Each applicable criterion is provided below in indented and italicized print, and each is followed by a response demonstrating consistency and /or compliance therewith, as applicable. (1) [The amendment] Is consistent with action(s) taken during previous development approvals for the property; and The previous approvals allowed for the disturbance of these particular slopes for the bruge netting, the soil nail walls, excavation, and landscaping. (2) [The amendment] Does not change the use of the proposed development between residential, commercial and tourist accommodation uses; and The residential use of the property will not change as a result of the proposed amendment. (3) [The amendment] Does not change the basic character of the approved use of land on which the activity occurs, including basic visual appearance and method of operation; and The original approvals included a building envelope for residential structures. Since that time a relatively large home has been built on the property. This hot tub will be situated on previously disturbed area behind the home and will not be visible from the surrounding properties. Therefore, the proposed amendment is fully consistent with and does not change the basic character 0 00002 Lot 3, Little Cloud —Minor Amendment Application October 26, 2009 Page 3 envisioned with the originally approved uses, including the basic visual appearance and method of operation. (4) [The amendment] Does not constitute a new land development activity, and As mentioned above, the previous approvals allowed for a single - family home on the subject property. The addition of a hot tub does not constitute a new land development activity, especially since it will sit on a previously disturbed portion of the site. . (5) [The amendment] Does not increase off -site impacts in the surrounding neighborhood; and The amendment will have no off -site impacts in the surrounding neighborhood. The hot tub will be located behind the single family home, out of view from the neighboring homes. (6) [The amendment] Does not endanger the public health, safety or welfare; and The amendment will in no way endanger the public health, safety or welfare. In fact, the bruge netting that is in place above /on the property already protects the area proposed for the hot tub. (7) [The amendment] Does not violate any Land Use Code standard; and The amendment is fully consistent with all Land Use Code standards. (8) [The amendment] Does not substantially increase the need for on -site parking or utilities, or affect affordable housing generation; and The proposed amendment will have no impacts relative to the need for on -site parking or utilities, nor will it in any way affect affordable housing generation. (9) [The amendment] Does not increase the floor area off the use by more than five (5) percent or decrease the open space on the site by more than five (5) percent. The amendment will not increase or otherwise affect "floor area," as defined by Pitkin County. 0 Lot 3, Little Cloud — MinorAmendment Application October 26, 2009 Page 4 It is respectfully requested that you approve this application for Minor Amendment to a Development Permit (Condition #6 of Administrative Decision No. 91- 2007), to make clear that the proposed hot tub may be located in the area indicated on the attached plans. It is hoped that this application and the requests contained herein can be approved in a timely manner. Should you have any questions or require any additional information, please contact Haas Land Planning, LLC. Very truly yours, Haas Land Planning, LLC Mitch aas Owner /Manager Attachments/Exhibits: 1: Proposed Location for Hot Tub on Lot 3, Little Cloud 2: Pre - Application Conference Summary 3: Proof of Little Cloud 3, LLC Ownership for Lot 3 4: Executed Letter of Authorization for Haas Land Planning, LLC and Galambos Architects to represent the Owners/ Applicants 5: Executed Pitkin County Application Fee Agreement 6: Administrative Decision No. 91 -2007 7: BOCC Resolution No. 90 -120 I It9L - (;- e- Ylk, rA- I L o Ul 0 1 5) EXHIBIT 0, Y, \ \ i._ \.,.! 0 at : uj' a i 7 4 D 0 r ..� ul, J06 � -P Z PITKIN COUNTY PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY LOCATION: 24 Little Cloud Trail PID# 2735- 124 -57 -003 OWNERS: Little Cloud 3 LLC ZONE: R -15 REPRESENTATIVE: Tom Lewis EMAIL and PHONE: TLewis@lpiholdings.com 305.710.2668 DATE: October 5, 2009 PLANNER: Mike Kraemer, 920.5482 Type of Application: Minor Amendment to a Development Permit. Description of Project/Development: The Applicant is requesting approval to amend a previously approved building envelope for construction of a hot tub. Land Use Code Sections to be addressed in letter of request (application): Sec. 2 -20 -150: Minor Amendment to a Development Permit Staff will refer the application to the following agencies: None. Review by: Community Development Director Public Hearing: No. FEES: $773 (make check payable to " Pitkin County Treasurer ") Planning Office flat fee: $748 (non - refundable; based on 3 hours of staff time. If staff review time exceeds 3.6 hours, the Applicant will be charged for additional time above 3hours at a rate of $249/hour) o Web Technology Fee: $25 To apply, submit 1 cony (unbound) of the following information, unless noted otherwise: 1. Summary letter explaining the request, providing background on prior approvals and permits, and addressing compliance with the Code sections listed above. 2. 11" by 17" and 24" by 36" amended Site Plan as designated in Section 2. 1.1 and 2.1.12 of the Pitkin County Land Use Application Manual; 3. Previous Land Use Approvals (if applicable); 4. Proof of ownership of subject property; 5. Parcel description, including legal description and vicinity map; 6. Total fee for review of the application; 7. Signed fee agreement (1 copy); 8. Consent from owner(s) to process application and authorizing the representative (1 copy) 9. Copies of this pre -app form NOTES ➢ PLEASE SUBMIT ONE UNBOUND AND ONE -SIDED COPY OF YOUR COMPLETE APPLICATION. PLEASE SUBMIT TWO -SIDED COPIES OFALL REMAINING COPIES OF YOUR APPLICATION (IF POSSIBLE). THE PARCEL IDs SHOULD BE INCLUDED ONALL DOCUMENTS INCLUDED IN YOUR APPLICATION. ➢ ALL MAPS SHALL BE FOLDED. ➢ This pre-application conference summary is advisory in nature and not binding on the County. The information provided in this summary is based on current zoning standards and staffs interpretations based upon representations of the applicant. Additional information may be required upon a complete review of the application. ➢ The Pitkin County Land Use Code and Application Manual is available on -line at htto:// www. aspenpitkin .con✓depts /7lplannine.cfm 0° ?arcel Detail Pitkin County Assessor /Treasurer Parcel Detail Information Assessor/Treasurer Property Search I Assessor Subset Query I Assessor Sales Search Clerk & Recorder Reception Search Basic Building Characteristics I Tax Information Parcel Detail I Value Detail I Sales Detail I Residential/Commercial Improvement Detail Land Detail I Photographs Tax Area I Account Nu I Parcel Number 2008 Mill Levy 008 R013140 273512457003 Owner Name and Address LITTLE CLOUD 3 LLC 750 NE 7TH AVE DANIA BEACH, FL 33004 Legal Description Subdivision: LITTLE CLOUD Lot: 3 Location Physical Address: 24 LITTLE CLOUD TRL ASPEN Subdivision: LITTLE CLOUD Land Acres: 0 Land Sq Ft: 13,569 2009 Property Tax Valuation Information Sale Date: 1/3/2008 Sale Price: 3,000,000 U::;jv09 ittp:// www. pitkinassessor .org/assessor/Parcel .asp ?AccountNumber= RO13140 10/22/2005 Actual Value Assessed Value Land: 2,400,000 191,040 Improvements: 350,00011 27,860 Total: 2,750,000 1 218,900 Sale Date: 1/3/2008 Sale Price: 3,000,000 U::;jv09 ittp:// www. pitkinassessor .org/assessor/Parcel .asp ?AccountNumber= RO13140 10/22/2005 ?arcel Detail Basic Building Characteristics Number of Residential Buildings: 0 Number of Comm/Ind Buildings: 0 No Building Records Found Tax Information No Tax Records Found Ton of Page Assessor Database Search Options I Treasurer Database Search Options Pitkin County Home Page Page 2 of Fhe Pitkin County Assessor and Treasurer's Offices make every effort to collect and maintain accurate data. However, 3ood Turns Software and the Pitkin County Assessor and Treasurer's Offices are unable to warrant any of the information ierein contained. �opyright © 2008 Good Turns Software. All Rights Reserved. database & Web Design by Good Turns Software ittp:// www. pitkinassessor .org /assessor/Parcel .asp ?AccountNumber= R013140 10/22/2005 EXHIBIT October 22, 2009 Pitkin County Community Development Dept. 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Lot 3, Little Cloud Subdivision (PID# 2735 - 124 -57 -003) Minor Amendment to a Development Permit. To whom it may concern: As owner of the above referenced property, I hereby authorize Haas Land Planning, LLC (HLP) and Galambos Architects ( GALAMBOS) to act as my designated and authorized representatives for the preparation, submittal and processing of an application for the approvals listed above, as well as, any incidental approvals associated therewith. HLP and GALAMBOS are also authorized to represent us in meetings with Pitkin County staff, the Hearing Officer, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Board of County Commissioners. Should you have any need to contact me during the course of your review, please do so through Haas Land Planning, LLC, whose address and telephone number are included in the application. Yours truly, Sr. Little Cloud 3, LLC 750 NE 7h Ave Dania Beach, FL 33004 PID# 2735 - 124-57 -003 u . UU 1 3 l EXHIBIT 5 PITKIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT — AGREEMENT FOR PAYMENT OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FEES PITKIN COUNTY (hereinafter COUNTY) and Little Cloud 3, LLC (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to COUNTY an application to establish a Minor Amendment to a Development Permit on Lot 3, Little Cloud Subdivision located at 24 Little Cloud Trail, Aspen (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that Pitkin County Ordinance No. 058 -2001 establishes a fee structure for Planning applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and COUNTY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and COUNTY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties for APPLICANT to make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the COUNTY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. COUNTY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT's application. 4. COUNTY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for COUNTY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or Board of County Commissioners to enable the Planning Commission and/or Board of County Commissioners to make legally required findings for project approval, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the COUNTY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of 773 * which is for 3 hours of staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to COUNTY to reimburse the COUNTY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing. PITKIN COUNTY Cindy Houben Community Development Director *$748 = Planning Flat Fee; and $25 = Web Technology Fee. APPLICANT: 4S om Lewi .Litt loud 3, LLC 4 Date: G W,04 7 z Mailing Address: 750 NE 7 th Ave Dania Beach, FL 33004 PID# 2735 - 12457 -003 g J j RECEPTION#: 542914, 10/09/2007 at 04:10:30 PM, 1 OF 2, R $0.00 Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO EXHIBIT ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF PITRTN COUNTY, COLORADO, APPROVING THE LPI ASPEN, INC. MINOR PLAT AMENDMENT AND SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR LOTS 3 AND 4 AND THE OPEN SPACE AREA OF THE LITTLE CLOUD SUBDMSION/PUD Decision No. q 1 007 RECITALS I . LPI Aspen, Inc. ( "Applicant"), has applied to the Community Development Director of Pitkin County, ( "Director "), pursuant to Sections 2 -30 -20 and 2 -30 -50 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code ( "Code "), to make minor modifications to the Little Cloud Subdivision/PUD. 2. The property is zoned R -15. 3. The Little Cloud Subdivision/PUD was approved by BOCC Resolution No. 90 -120. 4. The Applicant submitted a complete application after July 6, 2006, therefore, the application is being considered pursuant to the 2006 Land Use Code, 5. The Director finds the request is consistent with the Pitkin County Land Use Code. APPROVED by the Director, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Applicant shall adhere to all material representations made during the application process. 2. The Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Board of County Commissioners Resolutions Nos. 89-19, and 92 -217 unless otherwise replaced or amended by the conditions of this or said approvals. 3. Prior to submission of any future building permit applications, the Applicant shall be required to submit for approval by the County Attorney and Community Development an amended Plat in accordance with Section 2.1.13 of the Pitkin County Land Use Application Manual. The above referenced approvals shall be a condition precedent to finalization and recordation. 4. The draft plat shall be amended to state the specific limited purposes of the expanded activity envelope areas. 5. Prior to building permit application for either home the plans for the backfilling and landscaping of the excavation areas around the existing building envelopes shall be submitted by the Applicant and approved by Community Development. 6. The purpose of the expanded envelopes is for the bruge netting, excavation and landscaping only. Other structures shall not encroach in to these areas. 7. Building permit applications for each home will require a drainage and erosion control plan and a construction management plan approved by the Planning Engineer. V �ijJ13 RECEPTION #: 542914, 10/09/2007 at 04:10:30 PM, 2 OF 2, Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO 8. Retaining walls greater than four feet in height shall be supported by appropriate engineering and reviewed and approved by the Planning Engineer. 9. The binge net will require approval of a building permit and earthmoving permit. Submitted with the permits shall be a drainage and erosion control plan, specific details regarding the height, materials, construction methods, areas of disturbance, location of the ne/fence, as well as a landscape plan and other visual mitigation aspects to minimize the visual impact of the fence. Note - the net/fence may require a height variance. This approval does not insure approval of any subsequent variance. 10. At building permit submittal for the bruge net, the Applicant must present a definitive engineered final plan and analysis showing its adequacy for the required rockfall mitigation as stated in the 4th paragraph of the letter of July 2, 2007, from Golder Associates to the Applicant. 11. Condition No. 4 (a) of Resolution No. 90 -120, relating to Building Sites 3 and 4 is amended to allow a staff approved bruge net system in place of a 4' "stem wall ". Foundation designs will be engineered substantially as described in the HP Geotech report of December 29, 2006, (Job No. 106094 1) in order to partially mitigate for the removal of the condition for the 4" stem walls. APP ROVED OVED by the Director, this 2day of , 2007. 9 ;R itn 4 mm,,Ct� Cindy Houben, Community Development Director PM# 273513100004 P 104 -07 J t 1 I liUtJ I .`• �' ��' ��i. �;'�t "�.�i1h�e:a�i7G7G�'� -`7N i,2*_7 , .ss•.'u x829195 11/26/90 1.5:r•,2 Rea $.00 BK 634 PG 656 Silvia Davis, PitkLn Cn`.y Clnrkl, floc $.0(! f RESOLUTION OF THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS i GRANTING DETAILED SUBMISSION AND FINAL PLAT APPROVAL TO ' THE LITTLE CLOUD SUBDIVISIIOP N /UD Resolution No. 90_ A WHEREAS, John Tucker and Cottonwood Gardens Development I j Corporation, hereinafter "Applicants ", have applied to the Pitkin c County Board of County Commissioners, hereinafter "Board ", for 'e approval for Detailed Submission and Final Plat for The Little Cloud Subdivision /PUD, pursuant to Sections 6 -4 and F -5 of Land ,y r' Use code; and r p WHEREAS, the applicants re proposing a PUD for four lots containing four single fami y ho es:With four attached caretaker _r. c units; and @ WHEREAS, the Applicant parcel is zoned R -15 PUD below the 8040 elevation line and AF -1 above the 8040 line and contains 9, approximately 9.6 acres; and WHEREAS, said parcel is located south of the Ice Garden and west of Koch Park on the lower slopes of Shadow Mountain, more specifically described in Exhibit "A "; and WHEREAS, the PUD received General Submission approval from the Board of County Commissioners on January 24, 1989 pursuant to Resolution number 89 -18; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered the ' Application at a duly noticed public. hearing at their regularly p scheduled meeting on March 20, 1990, at which time they i recommended approval of the Detailed Submission; and x �i i A .. �1_ k ; . Aa2. S.` i�. 1tEX' 14MV .1.4]Lk_iT.Yii61SP A aru-r ;L ) 2 Fer_ 3.0 HK. 634 PG 657 - ilvia Davis, Oi•_!::!n Cnty Cler! :, Doc 3 .lets � ± .: •..�;..ly Resolution No. 90 -12� Page 2 WHEREAS, the Board considered the Detailed Submission and Final Plat approval a regularly scheduled meetings on May 15 and June 12, 1990; and WHEREAS, the Board discussed the possibility of maintaining the historic Midland right -of -way as an open transportation corridor on this site; and `F WHEREAS, it was determined that the applicant could not be required to maintain the historic right -of -way as an open 4f corridor due to the fact that said corridor is not presently shown on the Transpartation Element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: ant: WHEREAS, the Board determined that said application K adequately addressed criteria in Sections 6 -4 (Detailed Submission) and 6 -5 )Final Plat) of the code. ;;- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board does hereby grant Detailed submission and Final Plat approval to the Little Cloud Subdivision subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall obtain an earthmoving permit from the County Engineer's. office prior to initiation of } construction of the subdivision access road. 2) Prior to initiation of construction of the subdi.ision access road, the applicant shall obtain access or ~� street cut permits required by the City of Aspen it Engineering Department. 3) The access road shall not be heated. 4) The applicant shall adhere to recommendations made by Nick Lampiris -in his letter, which is attached as Exhibit "B ". They are as follows. The applicant's building permit application shall be required to address a -f below. IMT Resolution No. 90 - za ) Page 3 a) The rear walls of homes on all lots shall be - designed to act as retaining walls as follows: Building Site #4 : If toe of hill is cut at all, rear retaining wall is to protrude at least four feet above finished grade with no doors or windows on the uphill facing side below four feet above finished grade. Building Site $3 : If toe of hill is cut at all, rear retaining wall is to protrude at least four feet above finished grade with no doors and windows on the uphill facing side below four feet r.j above finished grade. Buildingt Site 42 : A stem w..11 shall be designed to protrude at least 6 feet above finished grade. :+ Doors and windows on the uphill side shall only be M above the stem wall. j Building site 01 : A stem wall shall be designed to ' protrude at least six feet above finished grade. Doors and windows on the uphill side shall only be above the stem wall. b) Site specific soils studies shall be conducted on all lots and incorporated into foundation design. C) Landscaping shall be designed to direct drainage positively around the building sites d)' on Lot 2, a small berm /trench feature shall be designed around the rear of the home to protect against snow slides and rockfall. The berm p -rtion of this feature shall be piled and compacted to at least 85% Proctor^ Density against a stem wall designed to protrude zt least six feet above finished grade. Doors and windows shall only ba at the second level. of the home on the rear side. e) The depression caused, in part by the railroad bed on Lot 1 shall be well drained to prevent ponding on the site. f) Foundations on all sites shall conform to the Seismic Zone II criteria of the Uniform Building Code. 5) The applicant shall submit a fugitive dust plan prior °h 1 '1 322195 11/26/90 15:02 Rec 4.00 BK 634 PG 658 Si!via Gavi v. Pi tL: i: Gi «.; C1 er G -]c T.iui Resolution No. 90 - za ) Page 3 a) The rear walls of homes on all lots shall be - designed to act as retaining walls as follows: Building Site #4 : If toe of hill is cut at all, rear retaining wall is to protrude at least four feet above finished grade with no doors or windows on the uphill facing side below four feet above finished grade. Building Site $3 : If toe of hill is cut at all, rear retaining wall is to protrude at least four feet above finished grade with no doors and windows on the uphill facing side below four feet r.j above finished grade. Buildingt Site 42 : A stem w..11 shall be designed to protrude at least 6 feet above finished grade. :+ Doors and windows on the uphill side shall only be M above the stem wall. j Building site 01 : A stem wall shall be designed to ' protrude at least six feet above finished grade. Doors and windows on the uphill side shall only be above the stem wall. b) Site specific soils studies shall be conducted on all lots and incorporated into foundation design. C) Landscaping shall be designed to direct drainage positively around the building sites d)' on Lot 2, a small berm /trench feature shall be designed around the rear of the home to protect against snow slides and rockfall. The berm p -rtion of this feature shall be piled and compacted to at least 85% Proctor^ Density against a stem wall designed to protrude zt least six feet above finished grade. Doors and windows shall only ba at the second level. of the home on the rear side. e) The depression caused, in part by the railroad bed on Lot 1 shall be well drained to prevent ponding on the site. f) Foundations on all sites shall conform to the Seismic Zone II criteria of the Uniform Building Code. 5) The applicant shall submit a fugitive dust plan prior °h 1 M me: x A ri 5 ;5.Lti.`frti:i:zir i ti ° » ^mac t.00 W 634 PG 639 ! SSA ^_b /�n i 1 J� . ei'_•:l.a n,v'_s, Pit;,•r r, Cler.i:., noc qk -00 Resolution No. 90- LO Page 4 to the issuance of a building permit. 6) All caretaker units shall be deed restricted with the Housing Authority prior to issuance of a building permit. Attached caretaker units. must be included in the maximum residence size of 6,000 square feet. The size of caretaker units shall be in compliance with Housing Authority Guidelines' in effect at the time of building permit issuance for said units. 7) The applicant shall comply with County Air Quality standards in effect at. the time of 'issuance of a building permit. 8) The applicant shall work with the Envircnmental Health 14) Aspen Consolidated sanitation District shall review and approve of sewer line extEnsion design prior to Final Plat recording. 15) All representations made in the landscaping submission and proposed covenants, specifically regarding building materials, plant materials, revegetation and design, Department to determine the best procedure for handling any potentially toxic substances found on site. specific soils testing for toxic substances shall be .f conducted on Lot 2 prior to issuance of a building ".i permit. 9) All residences shall be equipped with residential sprinkler systems approved by the Aspen Fire Protection District. 10) Homesites shall be limited to a maximum size of 6,000 .. square feet, including caretaker units, and shall not exceed the County height standard. ' 11) The applicant shall comply with. all recommendations made by Dean Gordon in his letter of July 6, 1989, attached as Exhibit "B °. 12) All areas on site disturbed by construction shall be revegetated within o:,e growing season of construction. i 13) All utility line extensions shall be buried. Plans for utility cuts shall be reviewrd and approved by the County - Engineer -prior to issuance of an excavation permit. A revegetation plan for said cuts shall be approved by the Engineer concurrently. Trenches shall be revegetated within one growing season of construction. 14) Aspen Consolidated sanitation District shall review and approve of sewer line extEnsion design prior to Final Plat recording. 15) All representations made in the landscaping submission and proposed covenants, specifically regarding building materials, plant materials, revegetation and design, Resolution. No. 9 - Z9_0 Page 5 shall be adhered to and represented in the Final Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions Agreement. 16) The Subdivision Improvements Agreement and the Public Trail Easement shall meet the approval of the County Attorney prior to recording of the Final Plat. The County may choose an at -grade crossing for the trail where it is proposed to intersect with the Subdivision Access Road, or a grade- separated crossing, depending on County needs and funds at the time of ,available construction. 17) Setback variances shall be specified on the Final Plat prior to recording. 18) Covenants for the proposed Little Cloud Subdivision shall incorporate visual design guidelines similar to those proposed in the Pfister Golf course application. 19) The County recognizes that there is established access E for road and utilities to Lots 1 & 2, as designated on the Plat. Accordingly, the County Attorney is satisfied that Lots 1 & 2 may be sold and developed. However, a controversy exists between the applicant and e Wolftone Corporation regarding access for road and utilities to Lots 3 & 4 as designated on the Plat. It is the opinion of the County Attorney that the controversy must be resolved by either further agre emZ+nE' of the parties, or by the Courts. Accordingly, Lots 3 & 4 may not be offered for sale, sold or developed until such time as the County Attorney approves access for road utilities to Lots 3 & i 7 4. {,{ 20) No development shall occur until the Final Plat and t Resolution of Approval are recorded. Prior to recording i- of the Final Plat, the Improvements Agreement, Trail 7 Easement, Covenants, and Conditions and Restrictions Agreement are to be approved.by the Planning Office, County Engineer and Attorney. Said documents are to be recorded concurrently with the Plat. 21) All 'material representations made in the application shall be adhered to. 7 APPROVED by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting on June 12, 1990. 'i � .i l cUU19 17 -9105 1 .1/ 2 46/90 15:0 Rec $.lii,l BK 634 FG 660 �„�._ Da.vis r Mp,..}., Doc $.,ri'i g'i2g!BS 11/26/90 15:02 Rec •6.00 SK. 634 PG 661 Silvia Dav:s, Fitt^ n Cn�y Cler4:. Doc Resolution No. 90 - Page 6 v HOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION OF PITEIN COUNTY, COLORADO By Herschel Ross, Chairman .:l i i H ATTEST: Aos - a nette - jq4ds, eputy Co y Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: T �� Z . Timo by E. hitsitt, County A ey J ' V i ij APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Amyl arge Pi ing ector M ' JJ �� t aa - � t!;w.11; .!:,� k�}}}} l ^ C. ,�I� i r. t.• ".o. s, .. w y: ,,��,� �� }.6.�C�..,. .w'�Y f" �r$!i''� �: r; Hi:ly�• ..'!��►`' ' ,,,... - .��I�n ( 1�v' MC' ".� 634 ^r 662 'RY441TAT •A.. LEGAL DESCRIPTION - LITTLE CLOUD SUBDIVISION: The Little Cloud Subdivision is approximately 9.6 acres, more or less, of land In Pitkin County. Colorado, which is comprised of lands also known as part of the Copperopolis Lode U.S.H.S. #1759; the Upper Sibley Lode and the Lower Sibley Lode which are parts of the Sibley Lode U.S.M.S. #9606; and part of the Mollie G Lode, U.S.M.S. # 7557. It is legally described as follows: Copperopolis Lode, Mineral Survey No. 1759, situate in Township 10 South, Range West of 6th P.H., excepting therefrom that portion lying within the Pride of Aspen, Mineral Survey No. 7364 and the Hun:::rs Pride, Mineral Survey No. 1760, and excepting the upper (sou portion of the Copperopolis rode, Mineral Survey No. 1759 whicu lies west of the west side line of the Pride of Aspen, Mineral Survey No. 7364, between corners No. 3 and 4 of the Pride of Aspen; and, Sibley Lode, M:neral Survey No.- 9606, according to the United States •:: .j Patent which is recorded in the records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder in Book 175 at Page 227, except for the portion thereof '•� which is described in the Deed recorded in the records of the Firkin C6unfy CIark and Raeerdar in Book 268 At Page 488;. W, i The entire portion of the Mollie G. Lode, Mineral Survey No. 7577, lying and being situated in Section 12, Township 10 South, Range B5 West of the 6th P.M., as shown in the Bureau of Land Management Plat approved February 14, 1980 and recorded in the records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder in Book 524 at Page 552. G %n1CK'RKEGA.LCS (11102190 - GAw) 1 W . M3.' .° 11 /26 /9n 15: n2 Rec S.00 SK 634 PG 667 Silvia Davis, Pit! in Cnty Cler Doc t•.Oq Nicholas Lampirls, Ph.D. CONSULTING GEOLOGIST 0783 VALLEY ROAD CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81823 M 9"MW 194 NOURSI Jurle 13. 1990 S `I '1 .a 1 i Wavne cthridGc- Pi1 801; F3L: P Iran CO 3.1.612 RE: :.'01 west cuoper Dear Wayne: �tari►a �: �Itf�'l,6G�IflPt'It9aN,�r -aLam� ou - 81 Thi, letter is intended to clarify a portion n-f my 1ptter on thm eroprrty of June 6, M38. It cancer•ns . the reaulr frr nit•her a 4 or 6 faot stem wall a:: the rear of twc Of the planned homes. _ My intenL i', to restrict zone of weakness, such as windows, anly from 1- .hat 4 at- G fnot wall. not ahov'7 that level an the raer sidfi of t:w hor9ar,. Sorry 4or thf- t.r. 'nuity. Sincer ^ly, 1(;Ia _� Nicholas i_amoiris cansuitin_n' G�_.Olagizt i�� / A - i kal!'Jl " ::...4 �. .. � !•-. '. �'�+^' yy +,. a• <`Ij 'i. ., .. .+�.:ii. y►1lMrr' 7od0.1 C.'1'�k X1 '4 .a ?'1- :' VIM 634 - 664 Nicholas Lampirls, Ph.D. CONSULTING OEOLOOIe' 05U HIGHWAY 62 CARSONDALS, COLORA70 61621 pam90.7J9W Wavne Ethridge P. 6. Pox 33963 Aspen CO 91612 RE:: 201 (Jest Cooper Dear Mr. Ethridge: I have completed my geologic investigation for purposes of House Pill 1041 of four sites within the above referenced project. The developable area lies south of the Colorado '< Midland right -of -way on the south side of the Town of Aspen between First and Third Street. This is within the Aspen 7 1/2 minute quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado. The topography of the lower portion of the property consists of the steep, northeastern- sloping hillside at the base of Shadow Mountain where it merges with the artificial berm whi', ch is the Colorado & Midland right -of -way. Toward the ssoutheas: there is a long, linear depression between the base of the mountain and the old railroad bed. There is a prominent bench at the base of the Copperopolis claim approximately 70 feet above the base of the depression and west df it. Most of the hillside is covered with canifers up to 10 to 12 inches in diameter. There are a number of limestone and dolomite blocks scattered along_ the hillside and its base with a well develcoed foot path system all al000 the .hillside toward the base of the cliffs above. There are several mine dumps, indicating previous mine workings, in this area. The geology of the site consists of colluvialand talus - material which has been derived over the centuries from the carbonate and sandstone outcrops above. This material ranges_ from clays, silts, and sands to angular rocks and boulders. No outcrops were visible within the area proposed for development. The sandstone and carbonate units on the mountainside above the site are mcstlV the faulted Leadville Limestone, Mani.tcu Dolomite, and Sawatch Gluart_ite Of Pal eazoic age. Eecause of 'the comp lexi ty of the geol opy of the site, it is difficult to ascertain what unit or LInits underlie the proposed development site, but is probably the Belden Shale or one of the previously mentioned units. Test holes drilled nn the Sibley Load Mining Claim from 197 lJ Ce IJ ;j G •) n . - • -" ." , . n:' ., r.F 'i: ' 11 634 663 . I i S 'r 1 f . r indicate that no bedrock was encountered to at least v death of 14 1/2 feet. The general setting of this geologic sequence of Paleozoic rocks is that of the steeply dipping, even overturned, west limb of a north -south trendinq syncline 0 Aspen Mountain. The Castle Creek fault _one passes i•rst west of the subject area. Although each of the four sites will be discussed separately, there are three types of geologic hazards which may be a factor an the project site: 1. steep and potentially unstable slopes -. Pockfall zones Snow slides Building site #4 is at the west end of the development at the West edge of a natural bench which should provide a suitable site for development. Very little hillside cutting will be necessary, and rockfall and snow slide hazard is at a minimum because of the general topography and the thick cover of conifers on the hillside above the site. Nevertheless, especially if the toe of the hill is going to be cut at all the rear wall of the home should act as a retaining wall to tnis hillside and protrude at least four feet above finished grade with no doors or windows on this uphill - facing side. Site specific soils engineering will be necessary as well as positive.drainage around the site. i Buiidding site #3 is at the narrawer southeast end of this br-_•nch. Because of this, more of a hillside cut will be necessary. Even though the hillside is somewhat oentltr here tnan elsewhere. it. is very important that the rear wall rTct as a retaininq wall to replace the material e;:cavated, ir.e same conditions and mitigative recommendations for the previously described site will also pertain here. In addition, I believe that it is important to conduct a factor { of safety analysis on the hillside where the toe will be removed. Building site #2 - is on a bench formed by old tailings -- workings out of the Alabama Tunnel. The tailings have been in place for a long time and should be fairly stable, but saute specific_ moils engineering will be necessary. The rear oi_ the homesite should be landscaped so as to direct any drainage around the rear of the site. This site is ssomewhat• more open to small snow slides and minor rocwFall than the previnus two: therefore. 1 recommend that a small berm /trench f;? =.Lure be desioned around the rear of the home in order to protect against these two hazards. The berm portion of ?his feature should he piled and compacted to at least 857. Proctor I { 1 . ,.. ,�.:. .. 634 c..: 666 Density against a stem wall designed to protrude at least 6 feet above finished grade. Doors and windows should be only at the second level of the home on the rear side. Site specific soils engineering will be required. Building site #1 is an an essentially flat site at the base of the hillside at the east end of a linear depression caused in part by the railroad tied. This site is susceptible to r;mali snow slides and rack fall. The recommendations for the previously described site will all apply here with the additional recommendation that the depression be well— drained so bhat ponding will not adversely affect the site. It is my understanding that municipal water and waste disposal systems are available, Access to site #1 will be easy because of its low level and proximity to the streets of Aspen., but sites #2 through #4 will need to be engineered 'I along a fairly steep, but relatively stable, hillside. There are no geologic conditions which will act to make this design any more difficult than elsewhere in the County where hillside roads must be built. An additional recommendation is that the finished homes be designed with adequate ventilation at lower levels to minimize the accumulation of radon gas, even though it is not certain that it is being emitted in the area. There are faults in this area, but they are millions of years old, and I am not aware of any movement along them in recent years. I recommend that the Uniform Building code be followed as it pertains to Seismic Zone 11. I believe that these sites can all be developed as indicated If the preceding recommendations are followed. In addition. I believe that it is important that I be present during the stakino of each building sit& and the suggested landscaping features, because they are so important to the project. if there are further questions,, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely-, �I Y4L �I�i2✓�'Ij�ily� Nicholas L.ampiri•_ Consultinq Geologist f ' 5 PITKIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920 -5526 FAX# (970) 920 -5439 October 30, 2009 Mitch Haas 201 North Mill Street, Suite #108 Aspen, CO 81611 mhaas @sopris.net Re: Little Cloud 3 LLC Minor Amendment to a Development Permit (CASE P111 -09; PID 2735- 124 -57 -003) Dear Mr. Haas: The Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that this application is complete. After a more detailed review of the submittal information, additional information specific to the application may be requested in order to adequately review and process the application. The planner in charge of the review will request the information from you directly. If you have any questions, please call Mike Kraemer, the planner assigned to your case, at 920 -5482. Sincerely, Bonnie Waechtler Administrative Assistant PITKIN C,,_,JNTY COMMUNITY DEVELC,.,4MENT Permit Receipt RECEIPT NUMBER 00028462 Name: Thomas E. Lewis Date:10/26/2009 Project Address: 24 LITTLE CLOUD TRL Type: check # 110087 Permit Number Fee Description Amount 0111.2009.PLAN PP- Flat Fee 748.00 0111.2009.PLAN PP- Clerk Tech Fee 25.00 Total: 773.00