Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.planning.264327400005 (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: 2643-27-4-00-005 Application Date: 11/3/09 Case No: P115-09 Description: Bond Activity Envelope Review, Special Review for a TDRs and Caretaker Planner: Suzanne Wolff Dwelling Unit # Copies: 2 Allocated Hours: 11 Project Address: 0 MCLAIN FLATS RD, ASPEN, CO 81611 % Over Hours: 3.2 Property Owner: BOND CHARLES FREDRICK REV TRUS Owner's REP: MITCH HAAS REP's Email: mhaas@sopris.net Address: 500 WILDCAT VIS Owner Phone: SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 Address: 201 N MILL ST, SUITE 108 REP's Phone: (970) 925-7819 ASPEN, CO 81611 Referrals: Comments Due Date: Other Referrals: Meetings: 1st Meeting: 2nd Meeting: 3rd Meeting: Meeting Date: 01119/2010 02/16/2010 Review Body: ho ho Public Hearing? yes Notice Date: 12/13/2009 Meeting Notes: Approvals: BOCC Resolution #: P&Z Determination #: BOCC Ordinance #: HO Determination #: 001-2010 #567318 Admin Determination #: Other Information: VR Approval Date: 02I16I2010 Plat Recorded Date: 04/16/2010 VR Expires Date: 02/16/2013 Plat (Bk, PG): B93 P73 #568630 Remarks: Application Type: Activity Envelope caretaker Dwelling Unit (CDU) TDR Review Minor Special Review RECEPTION#: 567318, 03103/2010 at 09:54:21 AM, ~ oP s, R $0.00 Doc Code DETERMINATION Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO DETERMINATION OF THE HEARING OFFICER OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, APPROVING THE CHARLES FREDERICK BOND REVOCABLE TRUST ACTIVITY ENVELOPE REVIEW, AND SPECIAL REVIEW AND GMQS EXEMPTION FOR A TDR RECEIVER SITE Determination No.~-2010 RECITALS 1) Charles Frederick Bond Revocable Trust (hereafter "Applicant") has applied to the Pitkin County Hearing Officer (hereafter "Hearing Officer") to establish activity envelopes to construct a single family residence and a detached garage or barn, and to establish the parcel as a TDR receiver site to accommodate up to 13,250 square feet of floor area, with the residence limited to 10,000 square feet of Floor area, plus 1,450 square feet of subgrade space and 1,800 square feet for a detached garage or barn. 2) "fhe property is located off of McLain Flats Road, is referred to as Amended Lot 20, Block I, White Horse Springs, and is more specifically described in F,xhibit A. 3) The property contains 6.63 acres and is a nonconforming size parcel in the RS-20 zone district. 4) The BOCC granted special review approval to separate Lots 20 and 21 pursuant to Resolution No. 77- 148 (separation of substandard size lots in platted subdivisions not approved by the County). The Planning Director approved an amendment to relocate the access easement across Lot 21 to Lot 20 from the northern to [he southern boundary of Lot 21 (approved 12/13/1991) and a lot line adjustment (Plat Book 38 at Page 96) to adjust the boundary between Lots 20 and 21 to coincide with the fence line. 5) 'The Bearing Officer granted 1041 hazard review and conceptual submission approval, and GMQS exemption and special review approval for a caretaker dwelling unit and a TDR receiver site for up to 13,250 square feet of floor area, pursuant to Determination No. 49-2006. The approval specified that the residence would be limited to 8,250 square feet, plus 2,500 square fee[ of subgrade space and a 2,500 square foot barn/caretaker dwelling unit. The vested rights expired on November 21, 2009. l'he Community Development Director approved an amendment to redistribute the floor area, pursuant to Administrative Decision No. 55-2007. This approval specified that the residence would be limited to 10,000 square feet of floor area, plus 1,450 square feet of subgrade space and 1,800 square feet for a detached garage and caretaker dwelling unit. 6) Pursuant to the 1977 lot separation, Lot 20 is a separately developable parcel that is exempt from growth management. ]thas not merged with any adjacent parcels. 7) "fhe Hearing Officer heard this application at a duly noticed public hearing on February 16, 2010, at which time evidence and testimony were presented with respect to this application. 8) The Hearing Officer finds that the proposed building and landscape envelopes are located on slopes of less than 30%, that the wildfire hazard is rated as low and can be mitigated, and that the property is not within any mapped wildlife habitat areas. Determination No~-2010 Page 2 9) 'The Hearing Officer further finds that it is appropriate to allow up to three TDRs with the floor area distributed consistent with the 2007 amended approval residence of up to 10,000 square fee[ of floor area, plus 1,450 square feet of subgrade space and a 1,800 square foot detached garage or barn. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEll by the Pitkin County Community Development Hearing Officer that approval is hereby granted for the E3ond Trust Activity Envelope Review and Special Review and GMQS Exemption for a TDR receiver site, subject to the following conditions, which shall run with the land and be binding on all successors in interest: The Applicants shall adhere to all conditions and material representations made in the application and public meetings except as amended herein. 2. Prior to submission of any building or other development permit applications, the Applicant shall be required [o submit for approval an application for Site Plan Review, pursuant to Secs. 2-30-20 and 7- 10-50 of the Code. The Site Plan Review application shall address the following, in addition to the other requirements specified above: A. Demonstrate compliance with the standards in Sec. 7-20-120.d for development within the Scenic View Protection Area and the rural character guidelines for building location in Sec. 7-20-120.e of the Code. B. Demonstrate that the site can accommodate an on-site wastewater treatment system (OWTS) that complies with the then current OWTS regulations. C. Submit a landscaping plan. 3. Prior to submission of the Site Plan Review application, the Applicant shall be required to submit for approval by the County Attorney and Community Development Director an Activity Envelope Plan in accordance with Land Use Code Section 2-30-20(g) and Application Manual Section 2.1.1. The above referenced approvals shall be a condition precedent to finalization and recordation. 4. The parcel is exempt from Growth Management for up to 5,750 square feet of Floor area. At building permit application for the new residence and outbuilding, the Applicant shall surrender up to three TDR Certificates and a copy of the deed(s) evidencing the Applicant's acquisition of the Certificates (if applicable), in order to develop an additional 7,500 square feet of floor area. Use of the TDRs shall be limited as follows: an additional 4,250 square feet of above grade floor area for the residence (up to a total of 10,000 square feet); 1,450 square feet of subgrade space for the residence; and 1,800 square feet of floor area for a detached garage or barn. 5. Prior to submission of an OWTS permit for the residence, the Applicant shall provide a letter of intent to serve the property with water from the White horse Springs Water and Sanitation District. 6. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the new residence, the Applicant shall: A. Obtain an OWTS permit from the Environmental Health and Natural Resources Department. E3. Obtain fireplace/woodstove permits from the Community Development Department, if necessary. C. Submit a drainage and erosion control plan for review and approval by the Planning Engineer. If site disturbance exceeds one (1) acre, The Applicant shall obtain a stormwater permit from the State of Colorado. D. Pay the applicable road and housing impact fees. E. Obtain adriveway/access permit from the Planning Engineer for the driveway to the residence. F. Submit a construction management plan for review and approval by the Planning Engineer. Determination No.Q_ ~_-20l0 Page 3 G. Submit a detailed revegetation plan for disturbed areas with appropriate seed mixes. The plan shall specify the native seed mix to be used, the rate at which it will be applied and the method of cover. H. Submit a landscaping and tree removal/mitigation plan. Prior to commencement of any earthmoving or construction activity, the Applicant shall stake the corners of the activity envelope and install construction fencing around [he perimeter of the activity envelope. The fencing shall remain in place until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the residence. 8. 'fhe Applicant shall comply with the following landscaping and wildfire defensible space mitigation standards: A. Structures shall be located at least 30' from the slope break to the southwest. B. Brush, debris, and non-ornamental vegetation shall be removed within a minimum 10' perimeter around all structures. C. No branches shall be within 15' of chimneys. D. No new conifers shall be planted within 15' of all structures. E. Grasses or low vegetation within 30' of all structures and 10' either side of the driveway shall be maintained at a height of 6" or less during the summer and tall months. F. No continuous profiles of shrubs or conifers are allowed within 10' of the driveway, but clumps of shrubs or conifers separated by I time the height of the fuel is permitted. Aspen trees are permitted within 10' of the driveway. G. The applicant shall be responsible for the continued maintenance of the defensible space vegetation requirements. 9. The Applicant shall comply with the following additional wildfire mitigation standards: A. Roofs shall be constructed with a Class A roof covering or a Class A assembly. Wood shake/shingle roof coverings are prohibited. Roofs with less than a 3: 12 pitch are not permitted unless they comply with the following: 1) All roof coverings shall be noncombustible materials and installed on a Class A roof assembly. 2) All roof coverings shall have a surface that shall facilitate the natural process of clearing the roof. 3) All roof designs shall facilitate the natural process of clearing roof debris. Protrusions above the roofline, such as parapets, shall be prohibited. 4) Roofs shall be installed as required by the adopted building code and shall have a minimum slope of 1:48. 5) All roof designs, coverings, or equivalent assemblies shall be specifically approved by the Fire Marshal prior to submittal of a building permit application. B. Vents shall be screened with corrosive resistant wire mesh with mesh Ya inch maximum. C. Roofs and gutters shall be kept clear of debris. D. Yards shall be kept clear of all litter, slash, and flammable debris. E. All flammable materials shall be stored on a parallel contour a minimum of 15 feet away from any structure. Weeds and grasses within the 10 foot perimeter shall be maintained to a height not more than 6 inches. G. Firewood/wood piles shall be stacked on a parallel contour a minimum of 15 feet away from the structure. H. Swimming pools shall be accessible to Fire Department vehicles, Determination No. ~-20J0 Page d I. Fences shall be kept clear of brush and debris. J. Wood fences shall not connect to the structure. K. Any outbuildings or additional structures shall adhere to the same standards as structures. L. Fuel tanks shall be installed underground with an approved container. M. Propane tanks shall be installed according to NFPA 48 standards and on a contour away from the structure with standard defensible space vegetation mitigation around any above- ground tank. Any wood enclosure around [he tank shall be constructed with materials approved for 2 hour fire- resistive construction on the exterior side of the walls. N. Each structure shall have a minimum of one 10 pound approved AQC fire extinguisher placed in a visible and accessible location. O. Addresses shall be clearly marked with 2 inch non-combustible letters and shall be visible and installed on anon-combustible post. P. Utility lines shall be buried within or along [he driveway or within [he activity envelope. 10. The Applicants shall comply with the following wildlife mitigation conditions: A. Fencing outside of [he activity envelope shall comply with the wildlife compatible fencing regulations in the Land Use Code. f3. Native vegetation shall be maintained outside of the activity envelope, except as may be necessary to implement the wildfire mitigation measures required elsewhere in this document. C. Weeds shall be controlled as per the Pitkin County Weed Management Plan. D. Provide waste storage that complies with the County's Wildlife Protection Ordinance. Verification of compliance shall be provided prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. E. Landscaping shall avoid nut, berry or fruit producing trees or shrubs. F. Contractors shall be prohibited from bringing dogs on-site during construction. 1 I . No development shall occur outside of the approved activity envelopes, with the exception of vegetation removal necessary to comply with the wildfire mitigation measures described above. 12. No structural development in excess of 30" above or below natural grade shall occur within the setbacks of the lot, with the exception of driveways and associated retaining walls of up to 6' above or below natural grade and fencing. Landscaping in the form of berms shall not exceed four feet from the most restrictive grade. Any development located within setbacks mandated by County zoning regulations that does not comply with these restrictions shall require a variance from the Board of Adjustment. Approval of an activity envelope within such setbacks does no[ assure approval of a variance. 13. The Applicant shall comply with all codes and requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection District, including but not limited to those codes and requirements relating to turning around of fire equipment, an approved fire sprinkler system and adequate water supply (minimum of 20,000 gallons, pending confirmation of proximity to the nearest fire hydrant). 14. Exterior lighting shall comply with the Pitkin County lighting standards in effect at the time of installation. 15. All areas disturbed by construction shall be revegetated to limit water consumption and additional runoff within one growing season after completion of construction. 16. Failure to comply with these conditions of approval may result in revocation of this permit or any subsequent permits related to this property. De[erminalion No.Q~-1010 Yage 5 17. Statutory vested rights for the approval contained herein are granted pursuant to [he Pitkin County Land Use Code and Colorado Statutes, subject to the exceptions set forth in Pitkin County Land Use Code, S 4-140 and C.RS, S 24-68-105. The statutory vested rights granted herein shall expire on February 16, 2013. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PUBLISHED IN THE ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY on the 13'x' day of December, 2009. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16°i day of February, 2010. PUBLISHEll AFTER ADOPT~ON FOR VESTED REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS in the Aspen Times Weekly on the ay ofi- , 2010. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING OFFICER OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO ATFGST: By James R. True, Hearing Officer ~JCYYIn~~ (~C;~9Cy~~~P,r Bonnie Waechtler, Administrative Assistant APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Ely, -~ '~ County AtLOrrtey,_.~~-'~ c ~-- __. Dale Z ~ 1 0 - ---- APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ~~~ 1 `~ ~~ Cindy Houben, Community Development Director PI IS-09;PID#t264327400005 l-IO o i - z_o 10 ~X ~~ ~•~ ~' Ar WARRANTY DEED TFDS DEED, made this Decembu 13, 2006, between Lmnard M. Wdngku of the Cowty of Pitkm and Stte of Coloradq gramm(e), and Charle FrederlckBond n Trasfee of the Charle Ftededgc Bond Revonbk Trnrt, dated November 30, ]999, n amended June 20, 2005 whose legal address is COKEM 865 Xeaium Lang North, Plymo¢fh, MN 554d1 HIBIT I~OG FGL. ~CO~O.0O of tlw County of Pitltk and State afColorndo, grmtee: W1TN%SS, Out the grmkr(s), for and in conidmation of TBN DOLLARS AND 00/100 sad oNer good and valuable considenfioq the rocdpt and sufficiency of which is heroby adnowledged, hn grmted, bazgai¢ed, sold end conveyed, and by Owe presents doe grmf bargain, sell, cmvry and conform rmk the grantees, rhea heir and naigus forevw, ram in teoaney k commonbm in joint emmcy, ell the real Imopetty, mgethe wiN improvement, if pt', situak, lylag apd being in the Comfy ofPitki¢ and Stork of Colorado, detm'hed n follows: A parcel of knd sitmled fn Sectlnn 27, Township 9 South, Rmge BS West otthe S'uth Principal Meridu¢, described as follows: Begf¢ning at • paint (A rehar sriOs pp LS. 20151) whmee the South %art corner of said Section hears Somh 19° 11' 34" %ut 2650.63 Tech, thaw North ffi° 24' 17" Wet 429.89 feet; throe North 5ffiA9 teen thence North 72° 23' 00° Bart 30289 feet; thence South 10° 39' 00" Frrt 160.71 feet; thane North 79° 21' 00" Eaat 9237feet; tbenee Smth ZO° 14' S5" Fast 585.88 feet; thmte South 77° OB' 35" Wert 140.13 feet to the point - o[ begiuaing mntaimag 288y77 Squsrc feet more or Ira. Also ICaown n Petal A, Good¢ough-11Lroo¢ Reek Auodate, Inc Lot Lke Adjusment Pkt recorded in Pkt Book38 et Page 9G a¢d Whik Hone Springs, Block 1, Lot 20, Pitkin County, Colorado. known by atroet and numbs n: Lot 2b Whlk Horse Springs, Aspen, CO SI637 TOGBTNEH with e0 sad smgdu the hereditnmmt and eppurtaaances theroumo belonging, or m mywlse aplxartinmg, and the roverden and rovetaima, re+"•~"d.r sad nmeindera, rent, issues and profits thereof and nlI the estate, right' title, hiterert, chdm and demand whaboevm of the grmtot(s), either in law ar equiry, of in and to the above bazgained premises, wkblk bereditemeeta and appmteomce; TO HAV% AND TO HOLD the acid premises above bazgakad end described, witlt the app "'-"•*"~., mto the gra¢kes, their hehs cad nsigu forova. The grmmNa), fm hiraself his hairs, and persoml ropreseoktives, does covenant, grant, bargain and ogee to and with the gramee, theu heir and asaigos, that afthe time of the~ensealing and delivery of these present, he k weB seised of the premise above conveyed, he good, surq perfed, absolum and indefenibk estte of i¢heritneq is kw, ID fee s'vopk, and he good right, full power end lawful mihority to grant, bazga[q sell and cravat' the ume m maooer and foml n moroaid, and that the same me free and dear'from ell formes and otter glut, bargains, atlas. lima, taxes, eaussment, eneumbraace and rostriction of whakver kind ar nature soevc, except those set forth la Exhibit ^A" atbehed hereto and made ^ pert of. Thor grantor(s) shall and wr'll WARRANT AND FORHVEIt DEFEND the above-bazgained premise in the quiet and peaceable possession of the gramce, thew hoiu and assign, against all and every peram ar persms lawfauy daiming the whole or my par[ therw£ The aingulm number shall include the plural, the plural the siagmaz, and the use of my grader shall be applicable m aR genders. ]N WITNBSS WH%REOF, the ganmr hu execukd this deed on the date ut forth above. ~~~~ Leonora M. Wet6 n STATB OF COlARADO } } u. COl1NTY OF Pitkin } The fomgoing insaumem wu acknowledged befaro me this Dexmber 13, 2006, by Leonard M. Weinglau. , My Commission expire: r(-+ ~ "a~ Witness my hmd nod official seal. sz _ ~_ ,rj `Flomry Public ~---- l~ljt.1~40 - MEMORANDUM TO: Jim'frue, Pitkin County Hearing Officer FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Senior Planner RE: Bond Trust Activity Envelope Review, Special Review and GMQS Exemption for TDRs DATE: .February 16, 2010 REQUEST: The Applicant originally requested approval to establish building and landscape envelopes to construct a single family residence, and to establish the parcel as a TDR receiver site to accommodate a residence of up to 15,000 square feet of floor area. In response to concerns raised by adjacent property owners, the Applicant has amended the request as follows (refer to 2/8/10 Mitch Haas letter): • Withdraw the special review request for a caretaker dwelling unit. • Request the use of up to three TDRs for a total of 13,250 square feet of floor area, limiting the residence to 10,000 square feet of floor area, plus 1,450 square feet of subgrade space and 1,800 square feet for a detached garage or barn (same as 2007 approval). APPLICANT: Charles Frederick Bond Revocable Trust REPRESENTATIVE: Mitch Haas LOCATION: McLain Flats Road; Amended Lot 20, Block 1, White Horse Springs ZONING: "fhe property contains 6.63 acres and is a nonconforming size parcel in the RS-20. BACKGROUND: The BOCC granted special review approval to separate Lots 20 and 21 pursuant to Resolution No. 77-148 (separation of substandard size lots in platted subdivisions not approved by the County). The Planning Director approved an amendment to relocate the access easement across Lot 21 to Lot 20 from the northern to the southern boundary of Lot 21 (approved 12/13/1991) and a lot line adjustment (Plat Book 38 at Page 96) to adjust the boundary between Lots 20 and 21 to coincide with the fence line. The Hearing Officer granted 1041 hazard review and conceptual submission approval, and GMQS exemption and special review approval for a caretaker dwelling unit and a TDR receiver site for up to 13,250 square feet of floor area, pursuant to Determination No. 49-2006. The approval specified that the residence would be limited [0 8,250 square feet, plus 2,500 square feet of subgrade space and a 2,500 square foot barn/caretaker dwelling unit. 'fhe vested rights expired on November 21, 2009. The Community Development Director approved an amendment to redistribute the floor area, pursuant to Administrative Decision No. 55-2007. This approval specified that the residence would be limited to 10,000 square feet of floor area, plus 1,450 square feet of subgrade space and 1,800 square feat for a detached garage and caretaker dwelling unit. NEIGHBOR COMMENTS: Letters from neighbors Leonard Weinglass and 1720 McLain Flats Road LLC are attached. The letters dated (/12/10 are addressed in the Applicant's amendment letter. A follow up letter from 1720 McLain Flats Road LLC dated 2/10/10 is also attached. ~~0~~~~ v-fi ~~ STAFF COMMENTS: The application is subject to a finding of compliance with the following provisions of the Land Use Code. GMOS/MERGER: Pursuant to the 1977 lot separation, Lot 20 is a separately developable parcel that is exempt from growth management. It has not merged with any adjacent parcels. ACTIVITY ENVELOPE REVIEW (7-10-50): Request for an Activity F,nvelopc approval must comply with the provisions and policies of Chapter Z "fhe Applicant is seeking Activity Envelope approval to replace the existing residence. Two Activity Envelopes are depicted on Attachment 6 to the application - one for the residence and associated disturbance/activity and one for landscaping. The envelopes are the same as the building and landscape envelopes that were approved in 2006. SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING (LUC SCC. 7-20-10): • Grading: All grading and fill placement will occur within the Activity Envelopes. • Clearing, Grubbing and Vegetation Removal: The Applicant states that all clearing, grubbing and vegetation removal will occur within Activity Envelopes I and 3. • Tree Removal and Mitigation: The applicant understands that trees with 6" or larger DBH that are removed within the Activity Envelopes must be replaced with total DBFI at least equal to the DBH removed. The Applicant notes that it is unlikely that any trees will need to be removed. • Protection of Natural Terrain: The Applicant agrees to comply. STEEP AND POTENTIALLY UNSTABLE SLOPES (LUC Sec. 7-20-20): The envelopes are located on slopes of less than 30%. WATER COURSES AND DRAINAGE (LUC Sec. 7-20-30): The Applicant will submit a conceptual drainage and erosion control plan at Site Plan Review. Historic drainage patterns will be maintained. WILDFIRE (LUC Sec. 7-20-60): In the 2006 application, F.ric Petterson rated the wildfire hazard as low. His recommendations for mitigation are included in the conditions of approval. The building envelope is set back 30' from the slope break, as recommended by Mr. Petterson. WILDLIFE. (LUC Sec. 7-20-70): The parcel is not within any mapped wildlife habitat areas. GMOS EXEMPTION FOR TDRS: The transfer of a single family dwelling development right to a separate parcel or "Receiver Site" within Pitkin County is exempt from GMQS pursuant to Section 9- 110-042 and is subject to the standards and criteria of Section 3-310 and to the special review criteria in Section 3-210. The Applicant proposes to utilize three TDRS for additional floor area up to 13,250 square feet. As noted above, the prior approval allowed for the use of three TDRS for up to 13,250 square feet of floor area: 8,250 square feet for the residence, plus 2,500 square feet of subgrade space and a 2,500 square foot barn/caretaker dwelling unit. A later administrative amendment redistributed the floor area: 10,000 square feet for the residence, plus 1,450 square feet of subgrade space and 1,800 square feet for a detached garage and caretaker dwelling unit. The current request mirrors the latter floor area distribution. SPECIAL REVIEW: Special Review approval is required to establish the property as a TDR Receiver Site, subject to compliance with the following standards. The Applicant proposes to utilize three TDRS Q~~~~~ for additional floor area up to 13,250 square feet of floor area: 10,000 square feet for the residence, plus 1,450 square feet of subgrade space and 1,800 square feet for a detached garage and/or barn. Staff would note that the Code was recently amended to require that a TDR receiver site only be reviewed at Site Plan and not at Activity Envelope; however, this application was submitted prior to the effective date of the code amendment. A. The special review use shall be consistent with the applicable County Master Plan. Response: The use of TDRs for additional floor area is not contemplated in the 1987 Down Valley Comprehensive Plan. The Rural Residential Development Guidelines in the Plan encourage clustering and minimization of visual impacts on scenic amenities or rural character; visual impacts and siting will be addressed at Site Plan Review. B. The special review use shall not conflict with any applicable sections of the Pitkin County Land Use Code, including the County Land Use Policies in Chapter 1. Response: "fhe proposed development does not conflict with the applicable provisions of the Code, as specified within this memorandum, or with [he County land use policies. C. The proposed development must not materially endanger the public health, safety or welfare. D. The proposed development must not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property. Response: Staff has no information that would indicate that the development would endanger the public health, safety or welfare. F.. The special review use shall be consistent with the intent of the Zone District in which it is proposed to be located. Response: The intent of the RS-20 zone district is to "Permit low density, single family residential development and customary accessory uses." F. The special review use shall be compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or shall enhance the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Residences in the surrounding area range in size from approximately 2,500 to over 15,000 square feet. Nearby parcels have been designated "fDR receiver sites in order [o develop up to and in excess of 15,000 square feet of floor area. G. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed special review use must be in harmony wish the surrounding area and minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, traffic generation, parking, trash, service delivery, airiwater pollution or other impacts on natural resources, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties. Response: Siting and design will be addressed during the site plan review ~~~JOJ K There must be adequate public facilities and services to serve the special review use, including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools. Response: The Aspen Fire Protection District will require adequate area for turning around of fire equipment, an approved fire sprinkler system and adequate water supply. The main residence will be served with water by White Horse Springs and an on-site wastewater disposal system. The additional floor area will not otherwise create additional impacts on public facilities and services. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Hearing Officer approve the Bond Trust Activity Envelope Review, and Special Review and GMQS Exemption for TDRs, subject to the attached Determination. Attachments A. Amendment to Application (2/8/10) B. 1720 McLain Flats Road LLC Letters(2/10/10 & (/12/10) C. Weinglass Letter and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants (1/12/10) Application and Site Plan provided separately ~~v~J04 DETERMINATION OF THE HEARING OFFICER OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, APPROVING THE CHARLES FREDERICK BOND REVOCABLE TRUST ACTIVITY ENVF,LOPE REVIEW, AND SPF,CIAL REVIEW AND GMQS EXEMPTION FOR A TDR RECEIVER SITE Determination No. -2010 RECITALS 1) Charles Frederick Bond Revocable Trust (hereafter "Applicant") has applied to the Pitkin County Hearing Officer (hereafter "Hearing Officer") to establish activity envelopes to construct a single family residence and a detached garage or barn, and to establish the parcel as a TDR receiver site to accommodate up to 13,250 square feet of floor area, with the residence limited to 10,000 square feet of floor area, plus 1,450 square feet of subgrade space and 1,800 square feet for a detached garage or barn. 2) 'fhe property is located off of McLain Flats Road, is referred to as Amended Lot 20, Block 1, White Horse Springs, and is more specifically described in Exhibit A. 3) The property contains 6.63 acres and is a nonconforming size parcel in the RS-20 zone district. 4) "fhe BOCC granted special review approval to separate Lots 20 and 21 pursuant to Resolution No. 77- 148 (separation of substandard size lots in platted subdivisions not approved by the County). The Planning Director approved an amendment to relocate the access easement across Lot 21 to Lot 20 from the nor[hem [o the southern boundary of Lot 21 (approved 12/13/1991) and a lot line adjustment (Plat Book 38 at Page 96) to adjust the boundary between Lots 20 and 21 to coincide with the fence line. 5) The Hearing Officer granted 1041 hazard review and conceptual submission approval, and GMQS exemption and special review approval for a caretaker dwelling unit and a TDR receiver site for up to 13,250 square feet of floor area, pursuant to Determination No. 49-2006. The approval specified that the residence would be limited to 8,250 square feet, plus 2,500 square feet of subgrade space and a 2,500 square foot barn/caretaker dwelling unit.'fhe vested rights expired on November 21, 2009. The Community Development Director approved an amendment [o redistribute the floor area, pursuant [o Administrative Decision No. 55-2007. This approval specified that the residence would be limited to 10,000 square feet of floor area, plus 1,450 square feet of subgrade space and 1,800 square feet for a detached garage and caretaker dwelling unit. 6) Pursuant to the 1977 lot separation, Lot 20 is a separately developable parcel that is exempt from growth management. It has not merged with any adjacent parcels. 7) The Hearing Officer heard this application at a duly noticed public hearing on February 16, 2010, at which time evidence and testimony were presented with respect to this application. 8) The Hearing Officer finds that the proposed building and landscape envelopes are located on slopes of less than 30%, that the wildfire hazard is rated as low and can be mitigated, and that the property is not within any mapped wildlife habitat areas. C~(~J05 Determination No. -2006 Page Z 9) The Hearing Officer further finds that it is appropriate to allow up to three TDRs with the floor area distributed consistent with Che 2007 amended approval: residence of up to 10,000 square feet of floor area, plus 1,450 square feet of subgrade space and a 1,800 square foot detached garage or barn. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Pitkin County Community Development Hearing Officer that approval is hereby granted for the Bond Trust Activity Envelope Review and Special Review and GMQS Exemption for a TDR receiver site, subject to the following conditions, which shall run with the land and be binding on all successors in interest: 1. The Applicants shall adhere to all conditions and material representations made in the application and public meetings except as amended herein. 2. Prior to submission of any building or other development permit applications, [he Applicant shall be required to submit for approval an application for Site Plan Review, pursuant to Secs. 2-30-20 and 7- 10-50 of the Code. The Site Plan Review application shall address the following, in addition to the other requirements specified above: A. Demonstrate compliance with the standards in Sec. 7-20-120.d for development within the Scenic View Protection Area and the rural character guidelines for building location in Sec. 7-20-120.e of the Code. B. Demonstrate that the site can accommodate an on-site wastewater treatment system (OWTS) that complies with the then current OWTS regulations. C. Submit a landscaping plan. 3. Prior to submission of the Site Plan Review application, the Applicant shall be required to submit for approval by the County Attorney and Community Development Director an Activity Envelope Plan in accordance with Land Use Code Section 2-30-20(g) and Application Manual Section 2.1.1.'fhe above referenced approvals shall be a condition precedent to finalization and recordation. 4. The parcel is exempt from Growth Management for up to 5,750 square feet of floor area. At building permit application for the new residence and outbuilding, the Applicant shall surrender up to three fUR Certificates and a copy of the deed(s) evidencing the Applicant's acquisition of the Certificates (if applicable), in order to develop an additional 7,500 square feet of Floor area. Use of the TDRs shall be limited as follows: an additional 4,250 square feet of above grade floor area for the residence (up to a total of 10,000 square feet); 1,450 square feet of subgrade space for the residence; and 1,800 square feet of floor area for a detached garage or barn. 5. Prior to submission of an OWTS permit for the residence, the Applicant shall provide a letter of intent to serve the property with water from the White Horse Springs Water and Sanitation District. 6. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the new residence, the Applicant shall: A. Obtain an OWTS permit from the Environmental Health and Natural Resources Department. B. Obtain fireplace/woodstove permits from the Community Development Department, if necessary. C. Submit a drainage and erosion control plan for review and approval by the Planning Engineer. If site disturbance exceeds one (1) acre, the Applicant shall obtain a stormwater permit from the State of Colorado. D. Pay the applicable road and housing impact fees. E. Obtain adriveway/access permit from the Planning Engineer for the driveway to the residence. F. Submit a construction management plan for review and approval by the Planning Engineer. t,L~.~JOG De[ermina~ion No. -2006 Page 3 G. Submit a detailed revegetation plan for disturbed areas with appropriate seed mixes. The plan shall specify the native seed mix to be used, the rate at which it will be applied and the method of cover. H. Submit a landscaping and tree removal/mitigation plan. Prior to commencement of any earthmoving or construction activity, the Applicant shall stake the corners of the activity envelope and install construction fencing around the perimeter of the activity envelope. The fencing shall remain in place until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the residence. 8. The Applicant shall comply with the following landscaping and wildfire defensible space mitigation standards: A. Structures shall be located at least 30' from the slope break to the southwest. B. Brush, debris, and non-ornamental vegetation shall be removed within a minimum 10' perimeter around all structures. C. No branches shall be within 15' of chimneys. D. No new conifers shall be planted within 15' of all structures. E. Grasses or low vegetation within 30' of all structures and 10' either side of the driveway shall be maintained at a height of 6" or less during the summer and fall months. F. No continuous profiles of shrubs or conifers are allowed within 10' of the driveway, but clumps of shrubs or conifers separated by 1 time the height of the fuel is permitted. Aspen trees are permitted within 10' of the driveway. G. The applicant shall be responsible for the continued maintenance of the defensible space vegetation requirements. 9. The Applicant shall comply with the following additional wildfire mitigation standards: A. Roofs shall be constructed with a Class A roof covering or a Class A assembly. Wood shake/shingle roof coverings are prohibited. Roots with less than a 3: 12 pitch are not permitted unless they comply with the following: 1) All roof coverings shall be noncombustible materials and installed on a Class A roof assembly. 2) All roof coverings shall have a surface that shall facilitate the natural process of clearing the roof. 3) All roof designs shall facilitate the natural process of clearing roof debris. Protrusions above the roofline, such as parapets, shall be prohibited. 4) Roofs shall be installed as required by the adopted building code and shall have a minimum slope of I :48. 5) All roof designs, coverings, or equivalent assemblies shall be specifically approved by the Fire Marshal prior to submittal of a building permit application. [3. Vents shall be screened with corrosive resistant wire mesh with mesh '/a inch maximum. C. Roofs and gutters shall be kept clear of debris. D. Yards shall be kept clear of all litter, slash, and flammable debris. E. All flammable materials shall be stored on a parallel contour a minimum of 15 feet away from any structure. F. Weeds and grasses within the 10 foot perimeter shall be maintained to a height not more than 6 inches. G. Firewood/wood piles shall be stacked on a parallel contour a minimum of 15 feet away from the structure. H. Swimming pools shall be accessible to Fire Department vehicles, L~~~~7 Determination No. -2006 Page 4 1. Fences shall be kept clear of brush and debris. J. Wood fences shall not connect to the structure. K. Any outbuildings or additional structures shall adhere to the same standards as structures. L. Fuel tanks shall be installed underground with an approved container. M. Propane tanks shall be installed according to NFPA 48 standards and on a contour away from the structure with standard defensible space vegetation mitigation around any above- ground tank. Any wood enclosure around the tank shall be constructed with materials approved for 2 hour fire- resistive construction on the exterior side of the walls. N. Each structure shall have a minimum of one 10 pound approved ABC fire extinguisher placed in a visible and accessible location. O. Addresses shal 1 be clearly marked with 2 inch non-combustible letters and shall be visible and installed on anon-combustible post. P. Utility lines shall be buried within or along the driveway or within the activity envelope. 10. The Applicants shall comply with the following wildlife mitigation conditions: A. Fencing outside of the activity envelope shall comply with the wildlife compatible fencing regulations in the Land Use Code. B. Native vegetation shall be maintained outside of the activity envelope, except as may be necessary to implement the wildfire mitigation measures required elsewhere in This document. C. Weeds shall be controlled as per the Pitkin County Weed Management Plan. D. Provide waste storage that complies with the County's Wildlife Protection Ordinance. Verification of compliance shall be provided prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. E. Landscaping shall avoid nu[, berry or fruit producing trees or shrubs. F. Contractors shall be prohibited from bringing dogs on-site during construction. 1 1. No development shall occur outside of the approved activity envelopes, with the exception of vegetation removal necessary to comply with the wildfire mitigation measures described above. 12. No structural development in excess of 30" above or below natural grade shall occur within the setbacks of the lot, with the exception of driveways and associated retaining walls of up to 6' above or below natural grade and fencing. Landscaping in the form of berms shall not exceed four feet from the most restrictive grade. Any development located within setbacks mandated by County zoning regulations that does not comply with these restrictions shall require a variance from the Board of Adjustment. Approval of an activity envelope within such setbacks does not assure approval of a variance. 13. 'fhe Applicant shall comply with all codes and requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection District, including but not limited to those codes and requirements relating to turning around of fire equipment, an approved fire sprinkler system and adequate water supply (minimum of 20,000 gallons, pending confirmation of proximity to the nearest fire hydrant). 14. Exterior lighting shall comply with the Pitkin County lighting standards in effect at the time of installation. I5. All areas disturbed by construction shall be revegetated to limit water consumption and additional runoff within one growing season after completion of construction. 16. Failure to comply with these conditions of approval may result in revocation of this permit or any subsequent permits related to this property. "v ii tl~~O Determination No. -2006 Page .i 17. Statutory vested rights for the approval contained herein are granted pursuant to the Pitkin County Land Use Code and Colorado Statutes, subject to the exceptions set forth in Pitkin County Land Use Code, S 4-140 and C.RS, S 24-68-105. The statutory vested rights granted herein shall expire on February 16, 2013. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PUBLISHED IN THE ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY on the 131h day of December, 2009. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16'h day of February, 2010. PUBLISHED AFTER ADOPTION FOR VF,STED REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS in the AS~en_I'imes_Wcekly on the day of , 2010. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING OFFICER OF PITKIN COUNTY. COLORADO ATTEST: By James R.'frue, Hearing Officer Date Bonnie Waechtler, Administrative Assistant APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Ely, County Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ~G_LL~~ a ~' Gl~ vC~dy Houben, Community Development Director P115-09;PID#264327400005 :,~~~OJ HAAa LAND February 8, ZO10 Ms. Suzanne Wolff Pitkin County Seiuor Planner 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 8161 I PLANNING, LLC RE: Amendment of the Lot 20, White Horse Springs (aka Bond Trust) Land iJse Application Dear Suzanne: The above-captioned land use application was scheduled for review before the Pitkin County Hearing Officer on January 19, 2010, but the applicant chose to continue said review to February 16, 201.0, in light of comments submitted by neighbors. In response to the letters submitted by neighbors, the applicant has now chosen to amend the application to: 1) withdraw the Special Review request for a Caretaker Dwelling Unit (CDU) altogether; and 2) closely minor the request and restriction previously approved for the property pursuant to Administrative Determination No. 55-2007, effectively limiting the residence to 10,000 square feet of floor area, plus 1,450 square feet of subgrade space and 1.800 square feet for a detached garage and/or bam (not a CDU). This proposed amendment limits the total development on the property to not more than 11,800 square feet above grade, divided between two separate structures, and in a manner that has already been deemed appropriate by the County. '1-he previously approved limitations on the use of TDR for the subject site were volunteered by the applicant and were not imposed by staff or the hearing officer in response to any hazard- or scenic-related concerns. The applicant was already allowed to build 10,750 square feet above grade, (8,250 for the residence and 2,500 for the barn/CDU) under the original approvals to which no neighbors objected. The current proposal limits the residence to 10,000 square feet of floor area, plus 1,800 square feet for a detached garage and/or bam (not a CDU). This change will have little to no visual impacts as compared to what w•as already allowed. Whether this home is 8,250 square feet above grade or 10,000 square feet above grade, it will still be subject to Site Plan Keview and be fully consistent with other homes in the area. In response to the specific objections raised by neighbors, Haas Land Planning, LLC, contacted Ms. Sarah M. Oates, attorney for Mr. Leonard Weinglass. Mr. Weinglass was (and likely remains) opposed to an unrestricted approval to develop 15,000 square feet of above-grade improvements. The amended request no longer allows for development of 15,000 square feet of improvements, much less all such square footage above-grade and in one structure. As correctly noted by Ms. Oates, Mr. Weinglass maintains authority under a private agreement (Agreement), to which Pitkin County is not a party, to approve or reject any planned improvements or changes in the natural or improved condition of the subject property prior to 201 N M11._L STREET, :+1111 E. 108 ASPEN. C(~1 ORAf)O 816t i • PI-TONE: (970 S2E~-/;531 ra FAX: (970) 925-7395 l.u',~J10 Amendment ofApplication for Lot 20, White Horse Springs February 8, 2010 Page 2 of 4 commencement of such work. The intent of the Agreement was to allow Mr. Weinglass approval of the design of any improvements so as to allow Mr. Weinglass the ability to protect the view plane from his property across the Bond property. Mr. Bond hopes to amend the terms of the Agreement with Mr, Weinglass following the County's approval of this amended request in a manner that continues providing Mr. Weinglass with the authority and ability to protect his views while accommodating the potential for the floor area now proposed. Without trying to speak for Ms. Oates or Mr. Weinglass, it seems from speaking with Ms. Oates that this represents a potentially workable solution as Mr. Weinglass's concern centers aoound his views and not necessarily around the square footage. Again, this is a private matter to be resolved between the parties involved and should have no bearing on the County's review. Next, several concerns were raised in a letter from G. Steve Whipple, Manager of 1720 McLain Flats Road LLC, First, Mr. Whipple objects to the size and location of the proposed Activity Envelope. In response, it must be pointed out that: 1) the proposed Activity Envelope matches exactly with the Building Envelope that was approved in 2006, to which neither Mr. Whipple nor anybody else objected; 2) a substantial portion of the proposed Activity Envelope is limited to landscaping improvements only and cannot accommodate any buildings; and 3) Code Section 7-10-50(f) makes clear that, While it is preferable to obtain approval of an Activity Envelope as part of the Site Plan approval process, applicants who are not prepared to submit a Site Plan for a specific structure may request approval of an Activity Envelope separately. Prior to issuance of a Development Permit, the applicant shall be required to apply for and obtain approval of a Site Plan confirming that the proposed development is consistent with the defined Activity Envelope and with other standards in this Land Use Code not considered at [he time the Activity Envelope was defined. Mr. Whipple argues that the proposed Activity Envelope encompasses all of the irrigated land but fails to recognize that none of this lawn azea is used for food or crop production and, therefore, is not at all regulated under Code Section 7-20-90. He argues that the proposed Activity Envelope, exclusive of the Landscape Envelope, consumes all land with slopes of less than 30%, failing to recognize the significant setback provided from the top of such sloped areas. The applicant is maintaining flexibility in accordance with Section 7-10-50(c), which provides that an Activity Envelope "shall be large enough to accommodate the proposed principal use of the property and traditional permitted accessory structures, infrastructure (roads and septic systems), and uses..." Without yet knowing how a home will be designed and laid out, where the home and accessory structures will be situated, how/where access will be designed, where the septic systems will reside, and what traditionally permitted accessory uses might be accommodated, it would be impractical to reduce the size of the proposed Activity Envelope at this time, especially since it is not impacted by an .constrained areas. Artificially limiting the size of the proposed Activity Envelope prior to a Site Plan Review would be contrary with the terms and spirit of Code Section 7-10-50. s~'i~J11 Amendment of Application for Lol 20, White Horse .Springs February 8, 2010 Page 3 of4 Mr. Whipple's main concern relative to the size and location of the proposed Activity Envelope focuses on the potential for a house to be developed toward the south end of the Envelope at a base elevation significantly higher than his house; this is a concern relative only to the Scenic View Protection standards, which is a review that occurs at the time of Site Plan Review. As such, Mr. Whipple's objection to the size and location of the Activity Envelope is premature and may very well prove to be a non-issue when a design is proposed for Site Plan Review. Should Mr. Whipple object to development of a house toward the south end of the envelope, the time for such an objection would be if/when such a proposal is put forth. Accordingly, the applicant is not proposing any changes to the Activity Envelope. The second objection raised in the Whipple letter claims that it would be premature to approve the use of an additional TDR for floor area on the subject property without a complete Site Plan Review. In response to this objection, it must first be pointed out that the request, as amended herein, does not request any "additional" TDR beyond that which has already been approved by the County for the subject property and under the exact review standards now in effect. Next, the applicant applied in good faith and in reliance upon the Codes in effect at the time of submittal. Ordinance No. 024-2009, which amended the Code to require lots seeking additional floor area via the use oI' TDR to be reviewed through the Site Plan review process rather than the Activity Envelope review process was not in effect when the application was submitted and deemed complete. As such, and mainly for reasons of fairness, State law precludes application of Ordinance No. 024-2009 in the review of the subject application. That is, the rules applicable to the review of this application require that the concerns cited in Mr. Whipple's letter --- namely, that they do not yet know where the house will be located, whether the landscape plan will screen the development from their house and McLain Flats Road, what the lighting will look like, and how they might be affected by vehicular traffic and lights on the driveway --- be addressed only at the time of Site Plan Review. Moreover, the concerns listed in Mr. Whipple's letter are not at all a function of floor area but, rather, they relate only to the design and layout of such floor area. Accordingly, the request to reinstate previous approvals allowing the landing of up to three TDR on the subject property is not premature; rather, it is the objection which is premature. The third objection outlined in Mr. Whipple's letter focuses on the request to allow up to 15,000 square feet of floor area above grade and located entirely within a single house/structure. In response, the applicant has amended the request to eliminate the possibility of a single stmeture with 15,000 square feet of above grade floor area. The amended request closely matches the approval granted by the County in 2007, under the same Codes now in effect. Again, as amended, the current request limits the residence to 10,000 square feet of floor area, plus 1,450 square feet of subgrade space and 1,800 square feet for a detached garage and/or barn (not a CDU). This amendment limits the total development on the property to not more than 11,800 square feet above grade, divided between two separate stmetures, and in a manner that has L'~~~12 Amendment of Application,for Lor 20, White Horse Springs February 8, 2010 Page 4 of 4 already been deemed by the County under the currently applicable review standards to be appropriate. The proposed limitations, along with the fact that Site Plan Review will still be required prior to any permitting, assure consistency with development patterns in the surrounding neighborhood. For instance, Mr. Whipple's l..ot 21 of the White Horse Springs subdivision, situated between the subject parcel and McLain Flats Road, maintains a 10,750 square foot home developed as a single, above grade structure. Additionally, there are six (6) homes in the immediate vicinity with sizes ranging from 15,000 square feet up to 26,000 square feet. That said, any home built on the subject property subject to the proposed limitations will barely be visible from McLain Flats Road due [o substantial distance, topography, and the large home on Lot 21, as well as the row of evergreen trees between the subject site and Lot 21. 6t faitness, it must be noted that the development of Mr. Whipple's 10,750 square foot spec home made use of three (3) TDR and was carried out based only on a 1041 approved building envelope; it was never even subject to Activity Envelope Review, much less Site Plan Review. The owner of the subject property was never afforded a chance to review or otherwise consider Mr. Whipple's development plans or designs. To the contrary, Mr. \Yhipple will have ample opporturiity to review any proposed Site Plan Review application for development on the subject parcel. The final objection raised in Mr. Whipple's letter addresses the proposed inclusion of a Caretalwr Dwelling Unit (CDU) on the subject property. In response to this objection, the applicant hereby withdraws the request for Special Review approval to allow development of a CDU. The applicant does, however, reserve the right [o seek Special Review approval for a CDU at a later date and tinder the Code then in effect. If 1 can be of further assistance in any way, or if you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. You can reach me at 925-7819, or by email at mhaas~sopris.net. Yours truly, Haas Land Planning, LLC ii._•\ ~rl 11 ry 1 l i l Mitc~i Haas OwnerlManager George S. Whipple, Manager 1720 McLain Flats Road LLC 121 South Galena Street Suite 203 Aspen, Colorado 81611 February 10, 2010 James R. True Pitkin County Community Development Hearing Officer 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: White Horse Springs Lot 20, Block 2 Deaz Jim 1720 McLain Flats Road LLC is the owner of a 6.3 +/-acre property located immediately to the east of Lot 20, Block 2, White Horse Springs, a property which is owned by the Charles Frederick Bond Revocable Trust (hereinafter "Applicant"). We aze pleased with the changes made to the Applicant's application addressed in Mitch Haas' February 8, 20101etter, but have one remaining concern and two clarifications addressed below. Multiple Structures We continue to object to the approval of multiple structures on the Applicant's lot (house, garage and/or barn) in the absence of the submission of a complete Site Plan for review and consideration. The Activity Envelope approval should not specifically approve a detached structure(s). The Applicant may submit approval for accessory structures at a future date with a full Site Plan. It is not possible to determine the off-site impacts of multiple structures on our property and the views from the McLain Flats Road without reviewing a Site Plan. Clarifications The Applicant's February 8, 20101etter mistakenly states that our lot was granted approval for three Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) for additional floor azea. In fact, our lot received approval for two TDRs with an entitlement to build 10,750 squaze feet of floor azea. Additionally, the existing house contains only 9,784 square feet of floor area, not 10,750 squaze feet as suggested in the Applicant's letter. ~`.~1J14 Summary This letter expresses our concerns regazding the amended land use application. Please do not grant an approval for multiple structures as par[ of an Activity Envelope review. Thank you for considering out comments. We will attend the public hearing on Tuesday. Sincerely, / ~~Gti"~~f~,r ~ ~~ George S. Whipple, Manager 1720 McLain Flats LLC 2 Y~~'~~~5 MEMORANDUM TO: Jim True, Pitkin County Hearing Officer FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Senior Planner RE: Bond Trust Activity Envelope Review, Special Review and GMQS Exemption for TDRs DATE: January 19, 2010 REQUEST: The Applicant is requesting approval to establish building and landscape envelopes to construcYa single family residence, and to establish the parcel as a TDR receiver site to accommodate a residence of up to 15,000 square feet of floor area. The Applicant-also requested approval for a caretaker dwelling unit; however, due to an objection from an adjacent landowner, the Applicant has withdrawn the request for a caretaker dwelling unit. APPLICANT: Charles Frederick Bond Revocable Trust REPRESENTATIVE: Mitch Haas LOCATION: McLain Flats Road; Amendetl Lot 20, Block 1, White Horse Springs ZONING: The properly contains 6.63 acres and is a nonconforming size parcel in the RS-20 BACKGROUND: The BOCC granted special review approval to separate Lots 20 and 21 pursuant to Resolution No: 77-148 (separation of substandard size lots in platted subdivisions not approved by the County). The Planning Director approved an amendment to relocate the access easement across Lot 21 to Lot 20 from the northern to the southern boundary of Lot 21 (approved 12/13/1991) and a lot line adjustment (Plat Book 38 at Page 96) to adjust the boundary between Lots 20 and 21 to coincide with the fence Tine. The Hearing Officer granted 1041 hazard review and conceptual submission approval, and GMQS exemption and special review approval for a caretaker dwelling unit and a TDR receiver site for up to 13,250 square feet of floor area, pursuant to Determination No. 49-2006. The approval specified that the residence would be limited to 8,250 square feet, plus 2,500 square feet of subgrade space and a 2,500 square foot barn/caretaker dwelling unit. The vested rights expired on November 2 ], 2009. The Community Development Director approved an amendment to redistribute the floor area, pursuant to Administrative Decision No. 55-2007. This approval specified that the residence would be limited to 10,000 square feet of floor area, plus 1,450 square feet of subgrade space and 1,800 square feet for a detached garage and caretaker dwelling unit. NEIGHBOR COMMENTS: Letters from neighbors Leonard Weinglass and 1720 McLain Flats Road LLC are attached. Mr. Weinglass is concerned with potential impacts on his Viewplane. 1720 McLain Flats Road LLC is concerned with the size and location of the activity envelope, review of the TDR request at Activity Envelope rather than at Site Plan, and the distribution of the floor area, and objects to the caretaker dwelling unit [the Applicant subsequently withdrew the request for the CDU]. 0(~~1001 O-F ~ ~ STAFF COMMENTS: The application is subject to a finding of compliance with the following provisions of the Land Use Code. GMOS/MERGER: Pursuant to the 1977 lot sepazation, Lot 20 is a separately developable parcel that is exempt from growth management. It has not merged with any adjacent parcels. ACTIVITY ENVELOPE REVIEW (7-10.501: Request for an Activity Envelope approval must comply with the provisions and policies of Chapter 7. The Applicant is seeking Activity Envelope approval to replace the existing residence. Two Activity Envelopes are depicted on Attachment 6 to the application - one for the residence and associated disturbance/activity and one for landscaping. The envelopes are the same as the building and landscape envelopes that were approved in 2006. The neighbor, 1720 McLain Flats Road LLC, asserts that the proposed activity envelope is excessively large and should be reduced in size to minimize impacts an surrounding properties. As demonstrated below, the activity envelope avoids constrained areas. Staff believes that the Applicant's concern regazding the size of the envelope is more specific to the siting of structures within the envelope, which will be considered at Site Plan Review, SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING (LUC SeC. 7-20-10): • Grading: All grading and fill placement will occur within the Activity Envelopes. • Clearing, Grubbing and Vegetation Removal: The Applicant states that all clearing, grubbing and vegetation removal will occur within Activity Envelopes I and 3. • Tree Removal and mitigation: The applicant understands that trees with 6" or larger DBH that are removed within the Activity Envelopes must be replaced with total DBH at least equal to the DBH removed. The Applicant notes that it is unlikely that any trees will need to be removed. • Protection of Natural Terrain: The Applicant agrees to comply. STEEP AND POTENTIALLY UNSTABLE SLOPES (LUC Sec. 7-20-20): The envelopes are located on slopes of less than 30%. WATER COURSES AND DRADVAGE (LUC Sec. 7-20-30): The Applicant will submit a conceptual drainage and erosion control plan at Site Plan Review. Historic drainage patterns will be maintained. WILDFIRE (LUC Sec. 7-20-60): In the 2006 application, Eric Petterson rated the wildfire hazard as low. His recommendations for mitigation are included in the conditions of approval. The building envelope is set back 30' from the slope break, as recommended by Mr. Petterson. WILDLIFE (LUC Sec. 7-20.70): The parcel is not within any mapped wildlife habitat areas. GMOS EXEMPTION FOR TDRS: The transfer of a single family dwelling development right to a separate pazcel or "Receiver Site" within Pitkin County is exempt from GMQS pursuant to Section 9- 110-042 and is subject to the standards and criteria of Section 3-310 and to the special review criteria in Section 3-210. The Applicant proposes to utilize four TDRs for additional floor area up to 15,000 square feet. As noted above, the prior approval allowed for the use of three TDRs for up to 13,250 square feet of floor area: 8,250 square feet for the residence, plus 2,500 square feet of subgrade space and a 2,500 square foot barn/caretaker dwelling unit. A later administrative amendment redistributed the floor area: 10,000 nn~-;~ ~~~,JO square feet for the residence, plus 1,450 square feet of subgrade space and ],800 square feet for a detached gazage and caretaker dwelling unit. SPECIAL REVIEW: Special Review approval is required to establish the property as a TDR Receiver Site, subject to compliance with the following standards. The Applicant proposes to utilize four TDRs for additional floor area up to 15,000 square feet of floor area; this is one additional TDR, compared to the prior approval. th addition, the Applicant has not proposed to restrict the use of the floor area, as was specified in the prior approvals. Staff would note that the Code was recently amended to require that a TDR receiver site only be reviewed at Site Plan and not at Activity Envelope; however, this application was submitted prior to the effective date of the code amendment. A. The special review use shall be consistent with the applicable County Master Plan. Response: The use of TDRs for additional floor azea is not contemplated in the 1987 Down Valley Comprehensive Plan. The neighbor asserts that it is not possible to determine if the proposal is consistent with the Rural Residential Development Guidelines in the Plan, absent a site plan. The Guidelines encourage clustering and minimization of visual impacts on scenic amenities or rural character. Visual impacts and siting will be addressed at Site Plan Review. B. The special review use shall not conjict with any applicable sections of the Pitkin County Land Use Code, including the County Land Use Policies in Chapter 1. Response: The proposed development does not conflict with the applicable provisions of the Code, as specified within this memorandum, or with the County land use policies. C. The proposed development must not materially endanger the public health, safety or we fare. D. The proposed development must not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property. Response: Staff has no information that would indicate that the development would endanger the public health, safety or welfare. The neighbors have asserted that the siting of the structures could impact their viewplanes, which might affect the value of the adjacent properties. E The special review use shall be consistent with the intent of the Zone District in which it is proposed to be located. Response: The intent of the RS-20 zone district is to "Permit low density, single family residential development and customary accessory uses." The neighbor notes that the intent statement encourages clustering of development, preservation of open space the rural visual quality and character, and that consistency with the intent cannot be demonstrated absent a site plan. Visual impacts and siting will be addressed at Site Plan Review. F. The special review use shall be compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or shall enhance the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Residences in the surrounding area range in size from approximately 2,500 to over 15,000 square feet. Neazby parcels have been designated TDR receiver sites in order to develop up to and in excess Ju~.1J03 of 15,000 square feet of floor area. The neighbor asserts that the impact of the development on the character of the immediate area cannot be assessed absent a site plan. Staff does not disagree that compatibility can be better determined at Site Plan Review. G. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed special review use must be in harmony with the surrounding area and minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, traffic generation, parking, trash, service delivery, air/water pollution or other impacts on natural resources, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties. Response: Staff recognizes that it is difficult to demonstrate that the location, size, design and operating characteristics ofthe development are in harmony with the surrounding area when only an activity envelope is being reviewed. The Applicant has asked not to restrict the use of the floor area, as was previously proposed and reviewed. The use of three TDRs on the propeRy was supported by staff in 2006, in part because the Applicant specified that the house would be limited to 8,250 square Feet and that the other two TDRs would be used for subgrade space and a detached outbuilding. The use of one TDR solely for subgrade space was seen to lessen the visual impacts of the residence and the use of one TDR for a separate outbuilding was seen as a means to break up the mass of the development. H. There must be adequate public facilities and services to serve the special review use, including but no[ limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, frre protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools. Response: The Aspen Fire Protection District will require adequate area for turning around of fire equipment, an approved fire sprinkler system and adequate water supply. The main residence will be served with water by White Horse Springs and an on-site wastewater disposal system. The additional floor area will not otherwise create additional impacts on public facilities and services. Staff Summary: While the Code in effect at the time of this application does not require Site Plan Review concurrent with the special review to utilize TDRs for additional floor area, it is clear that the special review criteria are more appropriately addressed once a site plan has been prepared. However, staff recognizes that a previous approval was granted for the use of TDRs on this site, and would note that the neighbors did not oppose the application at that time. Therefore, staff suggests that it would be appropriate to allow development with three TDRs as originally approved in 2006, with the residence limited to 8,250 square feet, plus 2,500 square feet of subgrade space and a detached 2,500 square foot barn or garage. The neighbors have expressed concern with the 2007 Administrative Decision that redistributed the floor area to allow more above grade space in the residence, since they were not noticed that an amendment was being considered and subsequently approved. Therefore, staff has not proposed to utilize the 2007 floor area distribution. Site Plan Review will be required, and at that time, the Applicant could request the use of an additional TDR and/or request to reconfigure the floor area. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Hearing Officer approve the Bond Trust Activity Envelope Review, and Special Review and GMQS Exemption for TDRs, subject to the attached Determination. Attachments A. Weinglass Letter and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants B. 1720 McLain Flats Road LLC Letter 4 Il;?„!1 Uu iu~! DETERMINATION OF THE HEARING OFFICER OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF PI:TKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, APPROVING THE CHARLES FREDERICK BOND REVOCABLE TRUST ACTIVITY ENVELOPE REVIEW, AND SPECIAL REVIEW AND GMQS EXEMPTION FOR A TDR RECEIVER SITE Determination No. -2010 RECITALS 1) Charles Frederick Bond Revocable Trust (hereafter "Applicant") has applied to the Pitkin County Hearing Officer (hereafter "Hearing Officer") to establish activity envelopes to construct a single family residence, and to establish the pazcel as a TDR receiver site to accommodate a residence of up to 15,000 square feet of floor azea. 2) The property is located off of McLain Flats Road, is referred to as Amended Lot 20, Block 1, White Horse Springs, and is more specifically described in Exhibit A. 3) The property contains 6.63 acres and is a nonconforming size pazcel in the RS-20 zone district. 4) The BOCC granted special review approval to sepazate Lots 20 and 21 pursuant to Resolution No. 77-148 (sepazation of substandard size lots in platted subdivisions not approved by the County). The Planning Director approved an amendment to relocate the access easement across -Lot 21 to Lot 20 from the northern to the southern boundary of Lot 21 (approved 12/13/1991) and a lot line adjustment (Plat Book 38 at Page 96) to adjust the boundazy between Lots 20 and 21 to coincide with the fence line. 5) The Hearing Officer granted 1041 hazazd review and conceptual submission approval, and GMQS exemption and special review approval for a cazetaker dwelling unit and a TDR receiver site for up to 13,250 square feet of floor azea, pursuant to Determination No. 49-2006. The approval specified that the residence would be limited to 8,250 squaze feet, plus 2,500 square feet of subgrade space and a 2,500 squaze foot barn/cazetaker dwelling unit. The vested rights expired on November 21, 2009. The Community Development Director approved an amendment to redistribute the floor area, pursuant to Administrative Decision No. 55-2007. This approval specified that the residence would be limited to 10,000 square feet of floor area, plus 1,450 square feet of subgrade space and 1,800 squaze feet for a detached gazage and cazetaker dwelling unit. 6) Pursuant to the 1977 lot sepazation, Lot 20 is a sepazately developable pazcel that is exempt from growth management. It has not merged with any adjacent pazcels. 7) The Hearing Officer heard this application at a duly noticed public hearing on January 19, 2010, at which time evidence and testimony were presented with respect to this application. 0;;',05 Determination No. _-2006 Page 2 8) The Hearing Officer finds that the proposed building and landscape envelopes are located on slopes of less than 30%, that the wildfire hazard is rated as low and can be mitigated, and that the property is not within any mapped wildlife habitat areas. 9) The Heazing Officer further finds that it is not appropriate to gant approval for the use of up to four TDRs without any restriction on how the floor azea will be distributed at Activity Envelope Review, but that it is appropriate to allow up to three TDRs with the floor area distributed consistent with the 2006 approval: residence of up to 8,250 square feet, plus 2,500 square feet of subgrade space and a 2,500 square foot detached outbuilding. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Pitkin County Community Development Hearing Officer that approval is hereby granted for the Bond Trust Activity Envelope Review and Special Review and GMQS Exemption for a TDR receiver site, subject to the following conditions, which shall run with the land and be binding on all successors in interest: 1. The Applicants shall adhere to all conditions and material representations made in the application and public meetings except as amended herein. 2. Prior to submission of any building or other development permit applications, the Applicant shall be required to submit for approval an application for Site Plan Review, pursuant to Secs. 2-30-20 and 7- 10-50 of the Code. The Site Plan Review application shall address the following, in addition to the other requirements specified above: A. Demonstrate compliance with the standards in Sec. 7-20-120.d for development within the Scenic View Protection Area and the rural chazacter guidelines for building location in Sec. 7-20-120.e of the Code. B. Demonstrate that the site can accommodate an on-site wastewater treatment system (OWTS) that complies with the then current OWTS regulations. C. Submit a landscaping plan. 3. Prior to submission of the Site Plan Review application, the Applicant shall be required to submit for approval by the County Attorney and Community Development Director an Activity Envelope Plan in accordance with Land Use Code Section 2-30.20(g) and Application Manual Section 2.1.1. The above referenced approvals shall be a condition precedent to finalization and recordation. 4. The parcel is exempt from Growth Management for up to 5,750 square feet of floor area. At building permit application for the new residence and outbuilding, the Applicant shall surrender three TDR Certificates and a copy of the deed(s) evidencing the Applicant's acquisition of the Certificates (if applicable), in order to develop an additional 7,500 square feet of floor area. Use of the TDRs shall be limited as follows: an additional 2,500 square feet of above grade floor area for the residence (up to a total of 8,250 square feet); 2,500 square feet of subgrade space for the residence; and 2,500 square feet of floor azea for a detached outbuilding. 5. Prior to submission of an OWTS permit for the new residence, the Applicant shall provide a letter of intent to serve the property with water from the White Horse Springs Water and Sanitation District. 6. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the new residence, the Applicant shall: A. Obtain an OWTS permit from the Environmental Health and Natural Resources Department. B. Obtain fireplace/woodstove permits from the Community Development Department, if necessary. Q:~`i~~s Determination No. _-2006 Page 3 C. Submit a drainage and erosion control plan for review and approval by the Planning Engineer. If site disturbance exceeds one (1) acre, the Applicant shall obtain a stormwater permit from the State of Colorado. D. Pay the applicable road and housing impact fees. E. Obtain adriveway/access permit from the Planning Engineer for the driveway to the residence. F. Submit a construction management plan for review and approval by the Planning Engineer. G. Submit a detailed revegetation plan for disturbed areas with appropriate seed mixes. The plan shall specify the native seed mix to be used, the rate at which it will be applied and the method of cover. H. Submit a landscaping and tree removal/mitigation plan and a riparian restoration plan for Activity Envelope 3. 7. Prior to commencement of any earthmoving or construction activity, the Applicant shall stake the comers of the activity envelope and install construction fencing around the perimeter of the activity envelope. The fencing shall remain in place until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the residence. 8. The Applicant shall comply with the following landscaping and wildfire defensible space mitigation standards: A. Structures shall be located at least 30' from the slope break to the southwest. B. Brush, debris, and non-ornamental vegetation shall be removed within a minimum 10' perimeter around all structures. C. No branches shall be within 15' of chimneys. D. No new conifers shall be planted within 15' of all structures. E. Grasses or low vegetation within 30' of all structures and 10' either side of the driveway shall be maintained at a height of 6" or less during the summer and fall months. F. No continuous profiles of shrubs or conifers are allowed within 10' of the driveway, but clumps of shrubs or conifers sepazated by 1 time the height of the fuel is permitted. Aspen trees are permitted within 10' of the driveway. G. The applicant shall be responsible for the continued maintenance of the defensible space vegetation requirements. 9. The Applicant shall comply with the following additional wildfire mitigation standards: A. Roofs shall be constructed with a Class A roof covering or a Class A assembly. Wood shake/shingle roof coverings are prohibited. Roofs with less than a 3: 12 pitch are not permitted unless they comply with the following: 1) All roof coverings shall be nonwmbustible materials and installed on a Class A roof assembly. 2) All roof coverings shall have a surface that shall facilitate the natural process of clearing the roof. 3) All roof designs shall facilitate the natural process of clearing roof debris. Protrusions above the roofline, such as pazapets, shall be prohibited. 4) Roofs shall be installed as required by the adopted building code and shall have a minimum slope of 1:48. 5) All roof designs, coverings, or equivalent assemblies shall be specifically approved by the Fire Marshal prior to submittal of a building permit application. B. Vents shall be screened with corcosive resistant wire mesh with mesh'/. inch maximum. C. Roofs and gutters shall be kept clear of debris. D. Yards shall be kept clear of all litter, slash, and flammable debris. vi,1i~:S~7 Determination No. _-2006 Page 4 E. All flammable materials shall be stored on a parallel contour a minimum of 15 feet away from any structure. F. Weeds and grasses within the 10 foot perimeter shall be maintained to a height not more than 6 inches. G. Firewood/wood piles shall be stacked on a parallel contour a minimum of 15 feet away from the structure. H. Swimming pools shall be accessible to Fire Department vehicles, [. Fences shall be kept clear of brush and debris. J. Wood fences shall not connect to the structure. K. Any outbuildings or additional structures shall adhere to the same standards as structures. L. Fuel tanks shall be installed underground with an approved container. M. Propane tanks shall be installed according to NFPA 48 standards and on a contour away from the structure with standard defensible space vegetation mitigation around any above- ground tank. Any wood enclosure around the tank shall be constructed with materials approved for 2 hour fire- resistive construction on the exterior side of the walls. N. Each structure shall have a minimum of one 10 pound approved ABC fire extinguisher placed in a visible and accessible location. O. Addresses shal 1 be clearly marked with 2 inch non-combustible letters and shall be visible and installed on anon-combustible post. P. Utility lines shall be buried within or along the driveway or within the activity envelope. 10. The Applicants shall comply with the following wildlife mitigation conditions: A. Fencing outside of the activity envelope shall comply with the wildlife compatible fencing regulations in the Land Use Code. B. Native vegetation shall be maintained outside of the activity envelope, except as may be necessary to implement the wildfire mitigation measures required elsewhere in this document. C. Weeds shall be controlled as per the Pitkin County Weed Management Plan. D. Provide waste storage that complies with the County's Wildlife Protection Ordinance. Verification of compliance shall be provided prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. E. Landscaping shall avoid nut, berry or fruit producing trees or shrubs. F. Contractors shall be prohibited from bringing dogs on-site during construction. 11. No development shall occur outside of the approved activity envelopes, with the exception of vegetation removal necessary to comply with the wildfire mitigation measures described above. 12. No structural development in excess of 30" above or below natural grade shall occur within the setbacks of the lot, with the exception of driveways and associated retaining walls of up to 6' above or below natural grade and fencing. Landscaping in the form of berms shall not exceed four feet from the most restrictive grade. Any development located within setbacks mandated by County zoning regulations that does not comply with these restrictions shall require a variance from the Board of Adjustment. Approval of an activity envelope within such setbacks does not assure approval of a variance. 13. The Applicant shall comply with all codes and requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection District, including but not limited to those codes and requirements relating to turning around of fire equipment, an approved fire sprinkler system and adequate water supply (minimum of 20,000 gallons, pending confirmation of proximity to the nearest fire hydrant). (l~f i'~O8 Determination No. _-2006 Page S 14. Exterior lighting shall comply with the Pitkin County lighting standards in effect at the time of installation. 15. All areas disturbed by construction shall be revegetated to limit water consumption and additional runoff within one growing season after completion of construction. 16. Failure to comply with these conditions of approval may result in revocation of this permit or any subsequent permits related to this property. 17. Statutory vested rights for the approval contained herein are granted pursuant to the Pitkin County Land Use Code and Colorado Statutes, subject to the exceptions set forth in Pitkin County Land Use Code, S 4-140 and C.RS, S 24-68-105. The statutory vested rights granted herein shall expire on January 19, 2013. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PUBLISHED IN THE ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY on the 13`h day of December, 2009. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of January, 2010. PUBLISHED AFTER ADOPTION FOR VESTED REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS in the Aspen Times Weeklv on the _ day of , 2010. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING OFFICER OF PTCKIN COUNTY, COLORADO ATTEST: Bonnie Waechtler, Administrative Assistant APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Ely, County Attorney By James R. True, Hearing Officer Date APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Cindy Houben, Community Development Duector PI15-09;PID#264327400005 fZ°x:,~l Q n ~; LAW' OFFICES OF GATES, KNEZEVICH, GARDENSWARTZ 8, KELLY, P.C. PROFESSIONAL COkPORATiCN THIRD FLOOR. ASPEN PLAZA pUILpING 533 E. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO. 8151 t LEONARD M.OATES TELEPHONE (910) 920-t1p0 RICHARD A KNEZEVICH FACSIMILE (910) 92P1121 TED D. GARDENSWART2 DAVID B. KELLY A9ARIA MORROW OF COUNSEL. smo~oNglaw.wm JOHN T. KELLY STEPHEN R. CONNOR ANNE MARIE McPHEE WENDY C. FOSNEDT SARAH 61. PATES January 12, 2010 VIA U.S. MAIL Charles Frederick Bond Revocable Trust c/o Chazles Frederick Bond 3880 4`s Avenue East Shakopee, MN 55379 Re: Proposed Development of Lot 20, Block 1, White Horse Springs Dear Mr. Bond: .This firm represents Leonard Weinglass who recently received a public notice regarding a Pitkin County land use application for development of the above-referenced parcel. I am writing with respect to the Declazation of Restrictive Covenants (the "Agreement") executed between Mr. Weinglass and the Charles Frederick Bond Revocable Trust (the "Bond Trust"). As you aze aware, the Agreement contemplates a residence of up to ] 0,500 square feet of Floor Area, as defined in the Pitkin County Code, on the Bond Trust property (the "Property") and pursuant to the Agreement there are to be no improvements nor excavating, clearing or landscaping of the Property without the approval of Mr. Weinglass. Mr. Weinglass was only made awaze of a proposal for a residence with 15,000 square feet of Floor Area on the Property because of the public notice he received. Additionally, the Bond Trust sought and received an Administrative Approval from Pitkin County in June 2007 for an increase in above-grade Floor Area without communicating this to Mr. Weinglass. The intent of the Agreement was to ~Ilow Mr. Weinglass approval of the design of the residence on the Bond Trust property so that Mr. Weinglass can protect the view plane on his adjacent property once the Property has been developed. As the proposed development contemplates an additional 4,500 square feet of Floor Area from the original Agreement, including additional above-grade square footage within the same sized building envelope, it is our client's belief that his view plane will be compromised. ;, ~ , ~l 10 GATES, KNEZEVICH, GARI~ENSVJARTZ & KELLY P.C. Bond- Weinglass Restrictive Covenant January 12, 2010 Page;2 _ Even. if the Bond Trust receives approval for the additional Floor Area, Mr. einglass is not likely to approve the 15,000 square feet of above-grade improvements being reques ed by the Bond Trust. This is a material. increase.. in the size of the proposed improvements on the. P~ operty that were approved by the County at the time of the purchase of Lot 20 and at the time the Agree ent was entered into. We must notify you that Mr: Weinglass will seek a declaratory judgment and a injunction if the Bond Trust attempts to build .15,000 feef of improvements on Lot'20 without hid approval. Mr. Weinglass sold the Property to the Bond Trust with the expectation the Agreement wou~ d be honored. The Agreement between the Bond Trust and Mr. Weinglass contemplated a- Ouse with 8;009 square feet of above-grade Floor Area and 2,500 square free of-Floor Area located blow-grade along with a 2500 square foot. barn. With a proposal for 15,000 square feet of floor and no ~ uilding,envelope " amehdment, the height of the building will have to increase and Mr. Weinglass' ~'ew plan will be adversely impacted. Please contact me if you have any. questions. ' Sincerely,. : OATES,.KNEZEVICH,GARDENSWARTZ& LLY,,P.C. By Sazah M. Oates Cc: Leonard. Weinglass Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning, LLQ Pitkin County„c/o Suzanne Wolff, Senior Planner ~\ ~~kj~ll i ; x.. DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS TH1S DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS (the "Agreement") is made this 13 day of December, 2006, between LEONARD M. WENGLASS and CHARLES FREDERICK BOND, TRUSTEE OF THE CHARLES FREDERICK BOND REVOCABLE TRUST, DATED NOVEMBER 10, 1999, AS AMENDED IUNE 20, 2005 (the "Bond Trust"), Whereas, Weinglass is the owner of a certain parcel of land described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof (the "Weinglazs Property"); Whereas, the Bond TnJSt is the owner of an adjacent vacant parcel of land described on Exhibit B attached hereto and made a part hereof {the "Bond Property"); Whereas, .pursuant to Deurmination Na. 049-2006, dated November 21, 2006, recorded on December 1, 2006 az Reception No. 531713, Pitkin County, Colorado has grenud certain land ttse approvals with respect to the Bond Property, including approval of the construction of a single fatuity residence of up to 10,500 square feet of "Floor Area" (az such term is defined in the Pitkin County Land Use Code) which includes 2,500 square feet of below grade space, and a ban strocnue of up to 2,500 square feet of Floor Area, including a Caretaker Dwelling Unit (collectively, the "Land Use Approvals"). Whereas, the Bond Trust desires to develop the Bond Property pursuant to the Land Use Approvals; W7rereas, Weinglazs and the Bond Trust desire to provide for certain restrictions upon the Bond Tmst's development of the vacant Bond Property pursuant to the Land Use Approvals, as provided for herein. Now, therefore, For a good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Weinglazs and the Bond Trust hereby erter into this Agreement. 1. Restriction on Develooment of Bond Property Pursuant to 1041 Aoprovals. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, no improvements of arty kind or changes in the natural or improved condition of the Bond Property existing az of the dau hereof shall be erecud, altered or permitted to remain on the Bond •Property, nor shall any excavating, clearing or landscaping be done thereon unless approved by Weinglass az provided for herein and which approval must be obtained prior to the commencement of such work 2. Pre-Submittal Oblieatians of Areinelass. Prior to the Bond Trust's delivery of a "Submitrol" to Weinglazs as provided for herein, Weinglass shall make himself reasonably available to the Bond Tnsst and its architect, designers, planers. and consultants to discuss the Bond Tnut's proposed redevelopment of the Bond Property and to provide guidance and informal comment with respect to such matters. 3. 'tta . In order to obtain Weinglazs's approval of the Bond Twt's proposed redevelopment of the Bond Property pursuant to the Land Use Approvals, the Bond Trust shalt deliver to Weinglazs the following items (collectively, the "Submittal") for Weinglazs's review: (a) A site plan of the Bond Property at appropriau scale (but not less than t/l6' -1'A'7, showing the location of the building envelope, the landscaping envelope, the proposed residence and all buildings or other major structures, driveway and parking areas and a grading platy including existing and proposed topography, and a landscaping plan. ~oooaots3.ooc i z~Page 1 of 4 IIIIII~Nlllll~lnll~llIIIIIIIInIIN 5~2z a x:72 JPNICE K 405 LPUOILL PITKiN COUNTY CO R 21.00 0 0.00 cUi~~ia 11118111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIiI illl! BIII lil IINI Ilil 1111 5 9 ~~ e6 ea: tz COUNTY t0 R 21..00 -0 8.00 - (b) A roof plan and floor plans (at noless than %."=L'0"). ' (c) Exterior elevations (all)withboth existing and proposedgrade lines'a same scaleas floor plans. (d) A general indicatioh ofmaterials and colors. (ejA general depictioaof anyproposed accessory improvements. (f) Any other drawing, materials or samples reasonably requested by Wein' ass. 4. Review and Apnroval of Submittal. Upon the Bond Trust's delivery of t a Submittal, Weinglass will inform. the Bond Trust within twenty (2D) days of such submission whether~the Submittal is complete, or whether additional information is requested. If within twenty'(ZO) days a er delivery' 'of the Submittal to Weinglass, Weinglass has not advised the Bond Trust in writing that die submission is incomplete or does not require sribmission of additional' items to complete the'Submittal, s h Submittal ....shall tie deemed to be'complete. If pursuant to Weinglass's request additional informatio is provided, upon the Bond Trust's delivery of the additional items. to Weinglass Weinglass wiq inf~mt the Bond Trust within ten (l0} days of the delivery of such additional items whether the-Subnuital is complete. if within ten (I O}days after delivery of such additional infotmation to Weinglass, Weingiass ti not advised r the Bond Trust in writing that the submission is incomplete or does not require sufimissio of additiohal items to complete the Submittal, such Submittal shall be deemed to be complete. When all requirements bf a Submittal have been received by W,einglass and suc Submittal is deemed complete; Weinglass shah conduce a review of the Submittal and within thirty (3) days. hall deliver to the Bond Trust written ^otice of the results_of, the review. to the Bond Trust, setti g forth either a written appmvaLof the Submiffal or a written'rejection'of the Submittal, including the'b "s or bases of .such rejection. Any`remew of -a Submittal.. by Weinglass shall` be made in' good-faith and shall be ' conducted in afair andaeasonable manner.. in the event of Weinglass's delivery of a written rejection of the Submittal, the Bn d Trust may ' - either continue to pursue Weinglass's written approval of such Sutitnittal, or may elect tn' ithdraw'the Submittal;and submit anew Submittal, which new Submittal will liesubject to•all of the abo a pmvisans of this'Seciion 4. - - ~ ~ ^- In the event that Weinglass fails to take any action within thirty (30) days a$e Weinglass's receipt of a Submittal and the Submittal has-been deemed complete or certified in writing by` einglass as complete, all of such submitted development plans and matters provided for in the Sub 'ttal shall be deemed to be approved. Weinglass shall not unreasonably disapprove of any development) plans or any other aspect of a Submittal takthg into account the legitimate concerns of Weinglass fov viewplenes, screening and consistency of design and matenals with the surroundings. However, W~inglass may disapprove-any architectural and: site developmenrplans submitted to him which do not cdntain sufficient information for him to exercise thejudgment required of liim by this Agreement- 5. Heirs Successors and Assi¢ns. This Agreement shalt more to the benefit of an~ be binding upon We1RHla5S ner5nnallV and-the Bond Trttct and itc cnccecenre and aecaneve ihn mm~n.~ n£ rho. n.....d ~~i.1J13 6. Dwation. Each provision contained in this Agreement which is subject to the laws and rules sometimes referred to as the rule against perpetuities or the rule prohibiting unreasonable restraints on alienazion shall continue and remain in full force and effect for the period of thirty (30) years. Upon the completion of the construction of any improvements on the Bond Property which are approved by Weinglass as provided for herein, which completion is evidenced by a final, unconditional Certificate of Occupancy issued by the Pitkin County Building Departmem, this Agreement shall immediately thereafter terminate, and be of no further force or effect. 7. Notice. All notices hereunder shall be in writing, delivered to the addresses set forth immediately below, and shall be deemed to have been duly given on the date of personal delivery or three days after deposit in the Uaited States Mail, postage prepaid, certified or registered, and properly addressed to the mailing address of the parties az their addresses set forth in this Agmmrnt Any party, or any heir, successor or assign to a parry, may change its address for purposes of notice, by giving notice as provided above, and recording in the real property records of Pitkin County, Colorado a notice referencing this Agreement and the l al description of such party's property. Weinglass: C~ Go~enfw•Yl`'C t ~~Ir P~- ~ ~. ,~~ ~ /1 Bond Tmst: COKEM 865 Xenium Lane. North Plymouth, MN 55441 8. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple coumerparts, is writing or by leg}ble facsimile copy, each of which shall constitute an original, but all of which, taken together, shall constitute one and the same instrument 9. Miscellaneous. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreemera between the patties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior and contemporaneotu representations, understandings and agreements. No provision of this Agreement may be waived except in a writing executed by all of the patties hereto. The mle of strict construction shall not apply to this Agrcemem and this Agreement shall be given reasonable construction without conserving the Agreemem against the party who drafted it. (n the event of airy action or proceeding to enforce the provisionv of this Agreement, the prevailing party shalt be entitled to recover his, her or its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, in addition to any other relief to which he, she or it may be entitled. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have duly executed this Easements Agreement on the data set forth above. Dated: j Z~ /3 2006 Dated: 'I 2006 By: LSbarlEfFt'~erick Band, Trustee of the Charles Frederick Bond Revocable Trust, dated November !0, 1999, as amended June 20, 2005 roooootao.occ i I~Page 3 of 9 II~~~~II~'~~I~~~I~I~I~I u°a?~aefe ea:tz J(tlVILE N VOS CRIAILL P[TKIN COUNTY CO R 21.00 D 0.0E Q is~iJ1Y , li STATE OF COLORADO ) )s COUNTY OPPITKIN ~.~~ n The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me'this!3day of ~ ~~$y Leonard M.Weingtass. ~Q...' 't`gR~~l.~ b Witness my hand and seat Notary Public y ~' ' My Commission Expires: ~': (~ ` q` I I-U~ BLic,•oo ~ O • ... ~•~Q,P R COl STATEOFR/(INNCSJ'iA )~" ) ss COUNTY OF ~n~ui!rCrrJ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged $efore me this ~3 dog of 2066 by Charles .Frederick Bond, Trustee of the Charles Frederick Bond Revocable rust, dated: November 10, 1999, as amended June 20, 2f1Q5: ~~` _ Witness my hand and seal Notary Public My CommissionFxpires: '/-'3("~?° Ct1AD A. DWtNAL' Carmhsm 6shr 3A 7a14 532212 111111 IIIII Iillll 1111 iflfl~ l~~ 1111! 111111111111 1f11. ~ 29i3o 0 @0:12 toooaoiv:ooc i ztz age 4' of 4 ~~~Jfl15 G. Steve Wkipple, Manager 1720 McLain Flats Road LLC 121 South Galena Strcet Suite 203 Aspen, Colorado 81611 January 12, 2010 James R True Pitkin County Community Development Hearing Officer 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: White Horse Springs Lot 20, Block 2 1720 McLain Flats Road LLC is the owner of a 6.3 +1-acre property located immediately to the east of Lot 20, Block 2, White Horse Springs, a property which is owned by the Charles Frederick Bond Revocable Trust (hereinafter "Applicant"). The LLC has just completed building a new house on our property. We have reviewed the land use application for the Applicant's property and have several concerns outlined in this letter. BACKROUNID We acquired our lot at 1720 McLain Flats Road from Bill Goodnough in September of 2006. When we acquired the property there was a pending land use application which had been submitted by Bill Goodnough. The application was submitted under the Land Use Code in effect prior to Juty 6, 2006. Consequently, the application sought 1041 Hazard Review (not Activity Envelope and Site Plan Review), Special Review for a CDU, and Special Review approval for a Transferable Development Rights (T'DR) receiver site for two TDRs. We took over the Goodnough land use application which was ultimately approved by the Firkin County Hearing Officer on February 21, 2007 pursuant to Hearing Officer Determination # 06-2007. Attachmern 1 is a copy of our 1041 Hazard Review Site Plan which shows the approved building envelope. Attachment 2 is a copy of our amended Site Plan depicting the location of the recently developed house which contains approximately 9,175 square feet of floor area. We anticipate developing an additional 1,574 square feet of floor area for a barn and CDU. The vested property rights for this component of the land use approval shall expire on February 21, 2010. The two Attachments show that our house is located on the north end of the lot and the vast majority of our 6.3 +/- acre property is an undeveloped hay meadow. Uv !.J When we acquired our lot in 2006, we knew there was a pending land use application for the Applicant's lot which at the time was owned by Maroon Creek Associates Incorporated We reviewed the land use application and had no objection to the Maroon Creek Associates request for approval of two TDRs. The original application was approved by the Hearing Officer on November 21, 2006 pursuant to Hearing Officer Determination #049-2006. Our opinion regarding the TDR request was based upon the applicant's representation that the house would be limited to 8,250 square feet of floor area above grade, 2,500 square feet of floor area sub-grade and 2,500 square feet of floor area in abarn/caretaker dwelling unit (CDU). The prior owner, the Maroon Creek Associates Incorporated, also received approval for a CDU on November 21, 2006 pursuant to Hearing Officer Determination #049-2006. According to Section 2-40.20(cxl) of the Code, the Special Review approval for the CDU became null and void on November 21, 2009 because the special review use did not commence. Consequently, the applicant's current request for a CDU should be considered as an entirely new request When we received the public notice for the pending application submitted by the Applicant, we met with the Community Development Department staff and were surprised to learn that in June of 2007 the Community Development Director approved Adminshative Decision # 55-2007, granting the Applicant a Minor Amendment to a Development Permit. The Amendment provided for an additional 1,050 square feet of space to be built above grade rather than below grade. This amendment was moved without out knowledge because public notice was not required We would have offered comments and possibly objected to the Minor Amendment to a Development Permit if we had received a public notice. On October 28, 2009 the Board of County Commissioners approved Ordinance # 024- 2009 which amended various sections of the Pitkin County Land Use Code. The Ordinance was not effective until December 29, 2009, one month after it was published in the Aspen Times. The Ordinance amended Section 6-70.20(bxs) of the Code to require lots seeking additional floor area via the use of TDR's to be reviewed through the Site Plan review process rather than the Activity Envelope review process. The Applicant submitted the pending land use application seeking an additional TDR and the right to build all of the floor area above grade in either a house or a barn. The Applicant's request could result in the development of a house containing up to 6,750 square feet more above grade floor area (82 % larger) than we anticipated would be developed on the adjacent property based upon the original land use approval for the lot (November 2006 approval). The Applicant's current request could result in the development of a house containing more than 5,000 square feet more above grade floor area (50 % larger) than permitted pursuant to the Minor Amendment to a Development Permit (June 2007 approval). Since the adoption of the new Pitkin County Land Use Code in July of 2006, most Pitkin County land use applications seeking Special Review approval to develop additional 2 U'v +:1~ floor area have been approved pursuant to the Site Plan Review process, not the Activity Envelope Review process. In unique circumstances, when a property had virtually no neighbors in proximity or when a property is so heavily vegetated that it is not visible from public roads or neighboring properties, the County has approved Special Review requests for the use of TDRs for additional floor area. However the common practice of the Community Development Department staff was to advise applicants that it is preferable to seek approval for TDRs for additional floor area as part of the Site Plan Review process so neighboring property owners and the public at large could review a more detailed plan which conceptualized how a property would be developed. The staff and Board of County Commissioners formalized the common practice by adopting Ordinance # 242009 to amend the Land Use Code. Table 7-1 of the Code which appears below illustrates the additional Development Standards which are addressed during the Site Plan Review process as compared to the Activity Envelope Review process. The Development Standards considered as part of the Activity Envelope Review process are comparable to the 1041 Environmental Hazard Review standards of the Code in effect in July of 2006 when the original land use application was submitted for the subject site. With the adoption of the 2006 Code, the Coumy, neighbors and the general public expect an applicant to show what a project will look like before granting Special Review approval to use TDRs for additional floor area. The approval of the recent Land ~iJ'~18. Use Code amendment shows the Board of County Commissioners is now requiring an Applicant to do more to be entitled to use TDRs for additional floor area. The Aspen Sumner Corporation's land use application which was filed for a lot located in White Horse Springs on the other side of McLain Flats Road a few hundred feet to the south is an example of the scrutiny now required in this area in order to be able to develop a house containing 15,000 square feet of floor area. You may recall the multiple site visits and detailed Site Plan review process associated with Aspen Sumner Corporation Special Review request The Aspen Sumner Corporation's land use review process establishes the standard of review which neighbors in the area have come to expect prior to the County awarding additional TDRs for floor area purposes. The Applicant is seeking approval of an Activity Envelope which is identical to the Building Envelope approved in 2006 pursuant to the old Land Use Code. The previously approved Building Envelope was based upon old Code concepts and standards and was based exclusively upon hazard avoidance without consideration of the more qualitative Site Plan review standards listed in Table 7-l. All of the land on the lot with slopes of less than 30 percent was included in the Building Envelope (see Attachment 3). This type of site planning approach is no longer acceptable given the standards of the post July 2006 Land Use Code. With the adoption of the new Code, a neighbor and the general public is entitled to see a more refined Activity Envelope which is based upon the development of a site plan. Hazard avoidance alone is no longer the sole criteria for approving an Activity Envelope. According to Table 2-1 of the Land Use Code Special Review approvals for the "Use of a TDR Certificate for Additional Floor Area on a Lot/Parcel in the Rural Area Not Listed in Section 6-30-50 (b}(2)(a)" never lapse. In many ways, the Special Review approval to use TDRs for additional floor area is permanent. Given the higher level of review available to the Hearing Officer via the Site Plan Review Process as compared to the less intensive review required pursuant to the old Land Use Code, it would be alarming for the Hearing Officer to grant an approval that never lapses without the benefit of learning more about a project via the Site Plan Review process. OBJECTIONS TO LAND USE APPLICATION We have the following objections to the Special Review request 1. Size and Location of the Activity Envelope -The Activity Envelope which includes approximately three acres of land is too big. It encompasses all of the irrigated land on the property wiW slopes less than 30 percent with the exception of approximately one acre of land on the south side of the property which is designated as a landscape envelope. It is presumed that the landscape envelope is intended to screen the proposed home site from the Weinglass property located to the north 4 L ! J ~ J The topography of the proposed Activity Envelope increases in elevation by approximately 28' from a base elevation of 7,796' in the northwest corner of the Activity Envelope to 7,818' in the southeast comer of the Envelope. By comparison, Attachment 2 shows that the base floor elevation of our house is approximately 7,796'. We are very concerned given the flexibility of the proposed Activity Envelope, that a house could be developed toward the south end of the Envelope at a base elevation significantly higher than our house. If a house is located on the southern half of the proposed Activity Envelope, it would have significant impacts on our southern views of the Elk Mountains. Additionally, if the house is located on the southern portion of the site, it may have significant visuai impacts from McLain Flats Road because there will be no land mass behind the structure to reduce the visual impacK. 2. Pre-Mature Natare of Special Review Request for Additional Floor Area As noted, in the previous section of this letter, it is pre-mature to approve the use of an additional TDR for floor on this property without a complete Site Plan Review. We have no idea: • Where the house will be located; • Whether the landscape plan will screen the developme~ from our house and McLain Flats Road; • What the lighting will look like; and • How we will be affected by vehicular traiflc and lights on the driveway. Despite these questions, the Applicant seeks approval for the use of a TDR for additional floor area. The approval will never lapse. 3. Major Redistribution of Floor Area As noted above, we did not object to the 20061and use approval primarily because the above grade floor area is the proposed house was limited to 8,250 square feet. We were surprised and disappoimed to recently learn that the maximum potential above grade floor area of the house was increased by 1,750 square feet, without us being notified and given the opportunity to comment, and without the preparation of a site plan. We consider the 2007 amendment to the land use approval to be a major change to the land use entitlement, not a minor amendment. The Applicant is now seeking the capability to potentially build 15,000 square feet of floor area above guide located entirely within a house. There is no floor area required to be allocated to a bam/CDU. As noted above, this represents a potential increase in the above grade floor area located in the house by 6,750 square feet or 82 percent. This is a major change to the potential distribution of floor area on the property which is unacceptable to us, especially without a complete site plan to evaluate. Ut, ! 1LU 4. Caretaker Dwelling Unit Section 2-40-20 (b) of the Code indicates that procedures for Special Review are identified in Table 2-1 of the Code. Table 2-1 suggests that CDU's may be approved by the County staff, not the Hearing Officer. Section 2-40-20 (f), Additional Special Review procedures for Caretaker Dwelling Units indicate that if any objections to the Special Review application are received, the Community Development Department will "continue the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners." We object to the CDU Special Review because the Applicant has not submitted a site plan indicating the proposed location of the structure. We request that the Special Review public hearing for the CDU be continued to a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to this Code section. Non-Compliance with the Land Use Code Attachme~ 4 demonstrates non-compliance of the proposed land use application with the Land Use Code standards. Summary and Requests We request that you take the following actions in response to the Applicant's land use application. Our requests are based upon the information presented in this letter and the application's non-compliance with the Land Use Code standards as elabon-Yed upon in Attachment 4. 1. Reduce the Size of the Proposed Activity Envelope The proposed Activity Envelope should be reduced in size and be limited to the northern end of the lot. The Envelope should be approximately the same size as our Building Envelope. Refer to Attachments 1, 2 and 3 which depict our approved Building Envelope and the Applicant's proposed Activity Envelope. The southern limit of the proposed Activity Envelope should be located approximately 200 feet to the south of the pn'viously approved Landscape Envelope. This would locate the proposed Activity Envelope below the 7,808' contour line. It will be necessary and acceptable to us to establish an extension of tbe Activity Envelope to the south to accommodate a driveway. If possible, the driveway should be aligned to minimize the negative impacts of vehicular lights to our property. 2. Deny the Request for a TDR for Additional Floor Area The applicants Special Review request to be designated as a receiver site for additional floor area pursuant to the acquisition of a TDR should be denied 6 ti Li 1 J pending a complete Site Plan review process that demonstrates compliance with the LandUse Code. 3. Land Use Approvals Should Revert to Conditions of 2006 Approval As noted previously, we did not object to the 2006 hmd use approval because it was clear that the house would be limited to 8,250 square feet of floor area above grade. 2,500 square feet of below grade floor area and 2,500 square feet of floor area dedicated to a bam/CDU. Although we were uncomfortable with not knowing where the structures would be located at the time, Site Plan review was not required. We can accept the allocation of the TDRs pursuant to the 2006 conditions provided that the Activity Envelope is reduced in size as outlined in item # 1 above. Any re-allocation of floor area as approved pursuant to the Minor Amendment to a Development pemrit (for which we received no public notice) should be based upon a complete Site Plan review. 4. Objection to Caretaker Dwelling Unit (CDU) We object to the Special Review request to approve a CDU on the site absent the presentation of a site plan depicting the location of the bam/CDU. The Special Review request for a CDU should be considered by the Board of County Commissioners at a public hearing in compliance with Section 2-40-20 (f) of the Land Use Code. Thank you for considering our comments. We will attend the public hearing on Tuesday, January 19"'. Sincerely, 1720 McLain Flats LLC G. Steve Whipple, Manager L L _ _ VICINITY MAP ~ ~ ~ ~ I~' 1720 MCLAIN FLATS ROAD LLC 1041. HAZARD REVIEW SITE PLAN / PARCEL ID: 264327400004 \ ro .00DY EAEEN AMENDED LOT 21, BLOCK - 1 ' ~ CDT z, iVIIITE HORSE SPRINGS V~ PITKIN COUNTY. COLORADO ~-.`~ i. 1 T ~, ....N ~ ~ `, \ \ I ~ ~ 1.y„~..<... I\ j \ ~~j,~ltN P7„4TS ROAD `, (COUNT)" R_-~. 17• - ~ .. ~.. ~._.._ S13'37'04'E ra a••°" <O.r .. _ j/'` 91.76' +~'` ~~~~ .-~-,' *~ _ / --~ \~ \ I ~~ ENVEL~E 11 I \\~ \\ I \ ~ z j \~ \ ~ \ \ \ \ \ 1 \ \ I' \ \ ~ ~ ,~ \ \ \ 1 \ 1 \ \ ~ \ \ \ \ I x l • \ ~~ S20'14'SS'E p7.. ~~ x~ AL»KNt RRC w ]ewr N79'21'00'E ~ - aavES oR < isx 42.37' Ii~W~vsa acvES is] < a~ aovES >oR < ns (NO aares Nac rDIRO ro N DTER •s10 REBM I i I I la! awn.., NnRDE ,Ix~r AMY t ~ (`' ~'' „ ; NO783: i) ~]DAE ocawRnw: • QRTAN nlavax NND'R As All(ND[D wT r. N.coc ~. wx NORM SvANCS. woN uunTr, oaauoo. ACONIDIM: ro THE aomrouwl-NARDa CnEUI ANRN]Am wr uR: ADAISnNRT A[COROED N SODN >s a vAa a AMD N:Nc YO[ Sf[ClICALLY ~ AS I0.{GSS: ~ 1RACT d lA1D 911wxD N IDTS 13 AND 1) K fECiION ]). TOWSMR R SDYM. RAMN: tl KST a. M 6AI vim. NTNN CNN1tt COWNOD DESCPoRED AS RIDIIIAMD AT A PDNT (AA'!M NID W LS 30W1) MR:NC[ THE a011TMFA5T E4RIeR a sAO sECRSrI ssARS slaaR'oo'E eeaoD T[Er U Na s pESAa) AND SMRt'N'E ]16a.~a N']T; TItNEL MMI'i'N1^N ND.II. NNT; 111NR NY]Ya'Kt aALSi iHi: TIpCE 31MY30'E N.13 RT: NOIfE SMM'134 AMN IEFT: - •ori N7s'mt Nf1.06 rar: wlwcz SfTM'331' aaa.N N7iT wact rUCIfa6~R Naa wir, eelri sTS-n'oo-w azsT iaT ro THE vaMr~a eEaMNRIC. ]) CCIITODR NTOtVAL la 1RV (~ IRCf. a) THIS tal NATAM RENC9 RM6 gMllTm A8 TN['cOSDM01lEN LWt NA]MID RMY NNNIIJIT A NFARND OIIflJI D[TAISMNATASI N0. DE-]pal..11[ IIN11'OITY RAE ACOIINm RAOM SDaNIpgM ON Ot0~1 A. ]001 K A10 11CLYII MR RDAD LLC. SI[T£ HARE. YAMADNt. • NNUxs R]ND N DEECRIEp. b sErTC NMMN[ w RaRU rol[ ~ TEJERIOME RISER ® Num snxAl ',~ ERr: N,TRIAMT .~ rAxR 1MLNE --.~-~ •~ ~ yppp'1'All4. BURV6YiNG ~v ~ ~• boeMle Co. E16Z.9 „N,,,a„~.....~,........ ssna t v 1. ~; ;';~3 ~ ATTACHMENT ~+ PARCEL ID: 264327400004 FIRST AMENDED 1720 MCLAIN FLATS ROAD LLC 1041 HAZARD REVIEW SITE PLAN ` f ~ ( T~ J L (1< AMENDED LOT 21, BLOCK 1 WHITE HORSE SPRINGS PITKIN COUNTY , COLORADO PROPOSED LANDSCAPING ENVELOPES ~~LAIN Fj,ATS ROAD (COUNTY ROAD) AxEenruam LAHOBfAPNG - Ex+EioPE , Teti' ,roto ACCE88/uiltlfY IANMCAPYIO = EMBCVE TECO i noe naE TTSA LDT n -r ~ ?-~ J -' j'~'~ - - --- ~_~ -~~-- ~\ \ _ i \`' j ~\~ 11' 11 II ( I 1 I I ~mNEWAr HoIME 1 / i / ~ I t1 ~~ I ~ I \ I ~ I I I ~ ~ I ~ ( 1L ~ I I eunaND I FM~F10M 1 ~ ~ I i / ,I l ~~ / / 1 % ~~i .~ ~~~~ . \~~ l + Y~PC LS/~50151 D E.nePaB N AND L5/ ZSSAT \\ tANDHCARNO eR.ELaPE L0~' 2> 274~~AG NOTE „ALL SLOPES IN THE AMENDED ULNDBCAPE ENVELOPE ARE 8.16%. 2)CONTOUR INIERVALI8 TWO (2)FEET `-~'I~I - x e wu 6 Awour Nc°x~u x ~ I % / r PROgEO PASTURE C FENCE l REBAR AND RPC W ZSPQ PURPOSE lIS6flR8TAME181E0811E PLANAMElAT6 TIE 811E PLAN RECOROW AT P0.9P101. td1 HAZARD REVIEW WAVER WPLICAN1ACIdONLEaiES TINTIERHE HABSEEN WFOREED BY PR111N CWNTY ~ T!E E%IBTENCE OF td1 ENVIRONLENTAL NAZARDAREAB TINT MIONTAFFECTTIE PROPERTY. ANY RippIELEMB. AND TIE IRE ANO OCCLAANCV THEREOF. THE PRCNLBKINBOFTHE PDIW COWRY RHiUWTK1N8 DO NOT d ANY WAYAB%AE OR ILPLYTHATARFAS OLRSIDE OF DEBNRLLTm NAZARDAREAH WSL EE FREE FlION IIAltRDS, DRTINT APPROVED NRKNTgN LIFMUREB WRL(NIARANIEETE BAFETYOF ANY PRJPERIY. OVMER/APPUGNf: PRR1N COUNTY COMMUNRY DEVELAPMENT DIRECTDR APPROVAL THIBFIRBTAMENOED td1 HAZARD REVIEW SRE PLAN NA88EEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED BYTHE PILgN COUNh'COMAta+m pEVELOPMENT aRECfORTHlB_DAv of aLEJECT TO AOMIMSDNTNE pETENMWAT10N N0. RELSRecEPna+NO. LEGAL OEBCRIPfION: ACERTAE! PROPERLY KNOwN ABAMENDED LOf Zt, BLOCK 1, WHREHORBE BPRWGS, vmcrc+eoLdrr, muARO, AccoRaNG TD THE ooooNOUOwLNROON cREEtc /~Dy~lEB LOT L8E ADJUBTLEM RECORDED W BOOK 98 AT PAGE M AND BER16 AgRE APECIFIGILr DEBCRIBEDA6 FOLLOWS: 1, TINE tdt IIAT.tRO RENEW WABOMNTEDA8 THE'DODNOLAIH 1d1 HAZARD REVIEW PLNISUANf ro HENIINO OFFICER DETEILMIINTION N0.OBSODI. THE PROPERTY WA4 ACWELED FR01A p00DNWOM ON eEPIEMBER 8.30088V 1Tl0 MOWN FLITS ROAD LLC, SIEVE WHIFFLE. MANAGER. VICINITY MAP ro uAnr I1 LEGEND: ro axaWMBP Q 2/T CALIPER. ASPEN TREES (DECIWOUS) AMENDED LOT N ® 10'/10' HEIGHT, CONIFER 7REE3 (EVERGREEN ) scucll•-w' a w u 1u ,m To ro ASPEN LV't zu wrttrR HORSE S1'LwC1NCiS 1041 HAL ARD REVIEW SITE PLAN . roof! ar u . a wl H w s wlw s 1, 3 p y yl ~ ~ 1/ Y~ • rr[Y M w'1~ s t IY1Niff rMM. f!1~ tl 1 1 [ M . N 1f U . /~~J'/C~ . A~A~f7fl1Y•, p 1y ~yf~ ~~f 11 g1 ~~ ~~1 p RfR ~aRYfr ~,.~ . . ' M.4Nr ir.fR Y. R. N. 11.r rsf I . rwR ur I j '~ L/0!110 /ND IIOTit LOT 22 /~ / ~ ~ %~~~~ ~ / o -n-frw ~-/nrff.alfY o ulwlwfrrfelfl- ~a1 ' '' 'l ~, wuwti .. M MLA ....... ............... .._.... e f flrrnff • ...... / .. Q ff~1f1 CIIpL ~' ;i rlfl. M rlrY lR fl / \ . , ~ IRpif1 Ivi rT O~fl ..: }~ Yfl~ '. , ,• `'t. ': . ~` • n~~1-wlf fug, uft i'i *t ~• .._ ~•' . .. I• i \ )~ R1l r1~1~~ ~ ~1~ .. 1 f' Iw ' A M~ 4. Y fiY~I ~wf LANDSCAPB ~.': `s..._s . r.--": ., t ~ LADED' LOT ~2 0 °7:$',51.".:."' DU LDI G / VB e D \\ f~ ~ M ..*, r' A17ENDED LtiT $3 U,f'~I CeYIT~•F:i. ~~ ._ ~ LQT' 1 8 O ~O Y~ s T, K '! r s ~A ` o i10i•iLECBND M1f- Iffl MMM FY••K LLOO 1 fM-II~IN fffc w.u swlfs afvn -gfi{I/ /f10f1-1 W~!/11- tl-I4~ ~)-`f~-LL -~I li~f Q~'"1 Y~'ff'• YLLOi-~ffll~YffD /fOYN ~OOt-WC/ •Y LEGAL DB.SCItiPT10N flb~lff ff. Mkt I. 1111/!!!1! RNIY - ai1r~5l~nfw M.MUpi 9617'51` ' ` \ rf/f~x . A/Ptll /lllg6Y BIO1N~//, 1110. i1-1ff1--ii4fP/1{ rfl•, r>M1.wu SNtfT ~/ or ! ~ "°` 1 .' ' ~~ . J ~L.,. l~yi ~:s'e''' ~ i .A~ •LCIN!'fT. YA! 3~;: ~ N } ~~~ f ~:` ~. r: ~'.1 .~ at ~ ~ {: ~ ` i.n ' iy: ~1- p 7 . 4y. }' .`.R' ' -_., .t ~ ' ^;_ ~ - ~:. ::: , , `i~ is ' ~ . ~~~r '..ti .' ' :~ . '' }i t ,, ...` r..' .~'.. ~'.' . j...~, . T. :~ . ~-. . ' ~'t , ,jet :. ' .' .. '^ ` , ~~ : ~ ~ .. 3... .? ._ . ;, . ~®UOL:5 Attachment 4 Non-Compliance with the Land Use Code The Land Use Code standards and Master Plan excerpts are italicized followed by our comments. Some standards aad Master Plan excerpts are bolded for emphasis. Activity Envelope and Site Plan Review Standards The Activity Envelope and Site Plan Review process (Section 7-10-50) includes the following standards. (a) The Site Plan process incorporates an "Activity Envelope"approach in which the County staff works with the applicant to determine which portions of the site (tf any) would permit the proposed activity or development to be conducted in compliance with this Land Use Code and in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan for the area In general, this process will involve both a determination of f) which portions of the site are not available for development because of the existence of Constrained Areas, and (ii) of the remaining portions of the site, which areas would accommodate the activity or development so as to mitrimize inywcts on surrounding properties, maximize compliance with the requirements of the development standards in this Chapter 7, and maximize compliance with the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives. (b) In general, the defined Activity Envelope for development of primary uses skaU be large enougk to accommodate tke Proposed Principal use of tke property and traditional pernutied accessory structures, injraslrudure (roads and septic systems), and uses, but should not be significantly larger titan tke area needed jor suck structures. In the case of a site with few Constrained Areas, the defied Activity Envelope may include more than one potential building site for a new single family home. The defined Activity Envelope may include non-contiguous areas (including separate areas for septic fields, landscaping driveways to public roads, mitigation measures required in connection with arty provision of this Chapter 7, and/or areas to be disturbed only during construction on the property -including stagi»g areas and materials storage areas). Construction of trails will not require an Activity Envelope analysis except as required by Sec. 7-20-50. The Applicant's proposal is not yet ready for considerarion because a site phm has not been prepared Given the submission, it is not possible to determine if the impacts on 31nT'OUndlilg properhe3 have been minimi~eci, The proposed Activity Envelope is excessively large and does not comply with the preceding standard. The Envelope should be comparably sized to our Building Envelope. Refer to Attachments 1, 2 and 3. ~ ~ 009~1~6 Special Review for a TDR Receiver Site and Caretaker Dwelling Unit (Section 2-30- 30) This section of the letter provides a detailed explanation of the non-compliance of both Special Review uses with the 1'itldn County Land Use Code. Section 2-30-30 of the Code lists the Special Review standards. The Applicant's land use application does not comply with the certain standards identified below. (a) .The special review use shall be consistent with the applicable County Master Plan. According to the 2003 Overview of the Pitlun County Master Plan (p.5) the 1987 Pitlrin County Down Valley Comprehensive Plan is to be used to evaluate the proposed Special Review uses for the subject site. The proposed Special Review Uses as proposed by the Applicant are inconsistent with the Plan as explained below. The subject site is designated Rural Residential (RR) on the Down Valley Comprehensive Plan: Future Land Use Map (Map IV.i) "It is the community goal to preserve the Host character of the district to the greatest extent possible by enhancing visual quality, agricultural operations and wildlife habitat while permitting isolated, carefully sited, low density residential development consistent with existing zone district4" (p. 103). The location of the proposed Special Review use may detract from the rural character of the area. The applicant has not presented a Site Plan, so it is not possible to determine if the proposed development will be consistent with the land use pattern recommended for the RR District. The Activity Envelope is not carefiilly sited; rather it simply avoids steep slopes. All the land on the property with slopes less than 30 percent is included in the Activity Envelope. Figure IV.1 of the Plan lists "Rural Residential and AgriculturaUWildlife Reserve District Ikvelopment Guidelines." The Guidelines are supposed to be used to guide development in the RR District. The proposed site plan and Special Review uses are inconsistent with the following Guidelines. "The performance guidelines associated with the Land Use Map are intended to assist developers of new residencies within the district" (p.110). 1 a Developments should be designed to minimize the disruption of land from its natural state. Clustering is eaeouraged where appropriate to minimize the anwunt of load disrepted from roads, water and sewn facilities sad accessory structures. It is not possible to determine if the Applicant's proposal is consistent with this guideline. The proposed Activity Envelope is so big, it will allow for a non-clustered site plan. ~0~)~Z~ 2a Development should be plamred to minimize visual impacts on scenic amenities or rural character ojthe area It is not possible to determine consistency with this guideline absent a site plan. (b) The Special review use shall not conflict with arty applicable sections of the Pitkin County Land use Policies in Chapter 1. The proposed TDR request and CDU maybe in conflict with the following Land Use Policies. A site plan needs to be prepared. RURAL DEVELOPMENT (SECTION 1-60-70) When proposing future development outside of Urban Growth Boundaries, the following elements should be considered: (c) Pitkin County seeks to preserve its natural, rural scenery and natural landmarks for the benefit of its residents and the continued viability of its resort economy. (c) New development should be compatible with and not fundamentally change the character of airy neighborhood or area. The proposed bam/CDU and house locations may damage the rural scenery and fundamentally change the character of the neighborhood. A site plan needs to be prepared in order to demonstrate that the development is consisted with this policy. COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS (SECTION 1~0-150) It is the policy of the County to insure land use proposals are compatible with existing neighborhoods. To this enc>, the County will provide notification of pending land use applications to the c~'ected adjoining property owners, homeowners associations and neighborhood caucus groups when appropriate. SCENIC QUALITY (SECTION 1~0-230) It is the policy of the County that its rtaturel, rural scenery be prtstrved jar tke beneftt of its residents and the co»tim~ed viability of its resort economy. Undergrounding of utility lines is supported where and when appropriate to minimize visual impact. The natural rural scenery of the McLain Flats area from our property may be damaged by the proposed Special Review uses. A site plan needs to be submitted to determine if the Applicant's proposal is consistent with this policy. c. The proposed development must not materially endanger the public health, safety or welfare. nn~~~~~$ The proposed development complies with this standard. d The proposed development must not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting properly (emphasis added). The viewplane from our property of the mountains to the south may be impacted by the location of the proposed Special Review uses. A site plan needs to be prepared to demonstrate consistency of the application with this policy. e. The special review use shall be consistent with the intent of the zone district in which it is proposed to be located The subject site is located in the RS-20 (Resource) wne district. The General Intent of the District is as follows. 1. Permit low density, single family residential development and customary accessory uses while recognizing that natural hazards, wildlife areas, limited utility services, roads, schools, and/or other facilities may constitute constraints on the realization on the realization ofzoned density; 2. Discourage sprawl; 3. Encourage clustering ojdevelopnrent, preservation ojopcn space and promotion of e.,~'icient utility services. 4. Preserve agricultural operations and environmental resources. S. Preser-ec the rural visual quality and character while pernuning carefully sited low density development The proposed special review uses maybe innon-compliance with the intent of the RS-20 wne. A site plan needs to be prepared to demonstrate compliance with these Code standards. It ispre-mature to approve any Special Review land use abeam a site plan f. The special review use shall be conymtible witk the character of the inunediote vicinity of tke parcel proposed jar development and surrounding land uses, or shall enhance the miaaure of complimentary uses and activities in the inuxediote vicinity of the parcel proposed jar development (emphasis added). The location of the proposed Special Review use may be incompatible with the character of the immediate area pending the preparation of a site plan. g. The location, siu, dtsign and operafheg charadirictics ojtheProposed ~~ review use must be in karnrony with the surrounding area and mittitnize adverse effee/s, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular ebcu/ation, trojjie generation, parkin trash, service delivery, air/water pollution or other impacts on natural resources, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties. ti ~Ut~Ui~J The proposed Special Review may not be in harmony with the surrounding area and may not minimize the visual impacts on the neighboring property. A site plan needs to be prepared to demonstrate compliance with this Special Review standard. h. There must be adequate public facilities and services to serve the special review use, including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools. The Applicant should be capable of complying with this standard. (d) New Water Rights (1) "If a proposed activity or development is not required to connect to a public water system pursuant to subsection (d) below and proposes to rely upon use of newly appropriated water rights or the change of existing water rights, adequate evidence of water rights availability shall be required Such evidence shall demonstrate adequate water rights to meet needs for domestic water, irrigation water as applicable, and water for fire protection purposes. (T) Regardless of whether a property is located in a subdivision or is a metes and bounds parcel, all applicants for building permits for dwellings shall be required to show proof of adequate water supply (in terms of both quantity and availability) for domestic and fire protection purposes, and for irrigation purposes, if applicable. Such evidence may include a well permit and pump test. In arty area of the County with mapped surface or groundwater depletion/recharge issues as spawn on the adopted Pitkin County Hydrologic Systems Analysis Study Area Maps, the County may require an applicant to provide additional information (e.g., a hydrogeologic analysis, pumping data from »earby wells) sufficient to demonstrate the adequacy of the property s water supply. " The applicant must demonstrate that there is a legal domestic water right to serve the proposed CDU. This should not be a problem because the property is served by the White Horse Springs Water District i. The proposed special review use must comply with arty additional standards or requirements stated for such use in Sec. 4-30 and/or Sec. 2-40-20. As noted in the letter, Section 2-40-20 (b) of the Code indicates that procedures for Special Review are identified in Table 2-1 of the Code. Table 2-1 suggests that CDU's may be approved by the County staff, not the Hearing Officer. Section 2-40-20 (f), Additional Special Review Procedures for Caretaker Dwelling Units, suggests that if any objections to the Special Review application are received, the Community Development Department will "continue the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners." We request that the Special Review public hearing for the CDU be continued to a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to this Code section. OO~J03O j. if a Special Review Use ceases or its permitted time period ends, all uses and structures must immediately be brought into conformance with the underlying zone district regulations. If cessation of operation is due to demolition or destruction through airy manner not willfully accomplished by the owner, uses/structures maybe restored as of right pursuant to Sec. 9-30-70 of the Land Use Code. This Code standard is not applicable to the land use application at this time. 6 nn0031 L~GNARD Ni. OAI ES RICHARD A KNEZENCH T[C D. ~ARDENSWARTL pAVIU B. KELLY MARIA MORRO`N t;F COUNSEL JOHN T. KELLV STEPHEN R. CONNOR ANNt !dAfilE McR:rfEE W f NDY G FOSNEOT SARAH M.OATEJ ~ aW pFFiCES OF OATES, KNEZEVTCH, GARDLNSWARTZ &> KELLY, P.C. VROFESSIONAL CORFORAiION THIRD GLOOR. ASPCN NLALA 6UR DING rwi3 E. 4C1PK W 5 A\-ENUc ASPS N, COIORApq 9?>11 January 12,2010 Charles Frederick Bond Revocable Trust c/o Charles Frederick Bond 3880 4`h Avenue East Shakopee, MN 55379 Re: Proposed Development of Lot 20, Block 1, White Horse Springs Dear Mr. Bond: fcLEi~HDNE 19]0) 920.1906 FACSIA11L6 (Wb19Gtr1121 s wokGlBw can VIA U.S. MAIL This firm represents Leonard Weinglass who recently received a public notice regarding a Pitkin County land use application for development of the above-referenced parcel. I am writing with respect to the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants (the "Agreement") executed between Mr. Weinglass and the Charles Frederick Bond Revocable Trust (the "Bond Trust"). As you are aware, the Agreement contemplates a residence of up to 10,500 square feet of Floor Area, as defined in the Pitkin County Code, on the Bond Trust property (the "Property") and pursuant to the Agreement there are to be no improvements nor excavating, clearing or landscaping of the Property without the approval of Mr. Weinglass. Mr. Weinglass was only made aware of a proposal for a residence with 15,000 square feet of Floor Area on the Property because of the public notice he received. Additionally, the Bond Trust sought and received an Administrative Approval from Pitkin County in June 2007 for an increase in above-grade Floor Area without communicating this to Mr. Weinglass. The intent of the Agreement was to Allow Mr. Weinglass approval of the design of the residence on the Bond Trust property so that Mr. Weinglass can protect the view plane on his adjacent property once the Property has been developed. As the proposed development contemplates an additional 4,500 square feet of Floor Area from the original Agreement, including additional above-grade square footage within the same sized building envelope, it is our client's belief that his view plane will be compromised. oo~oo~ c~-~as GATES, KNLZEVICA, CiARDENSWART7_ & KELLY P.C. Bond -Weinglass Restrictive Covenant January 12, 2010 Page 2 Even if the Bond Trust receives approval for the. additional Floor Area, Mr. Weinglass is not likely to approve the 15,000 square feet of above-grade improvements being requested by the. Bond Trust. This is a material increase in the size of the proposed improvements on the Property that were approved by the-County at the time of the purchase of Lot 20 and at the time the Agreement was entered into. We must notify you that Mr. Weinglass will seek a declaratory judgment and an injunction if the Bond Trust attempts to build 15,000 feet of improvements on Lot 20 without his. approval. Mr. Weinglass sold the Property to the Bond Trust with the expectation the Agreement would be honored, The Agreement between the Bond Trust and Mr. Weinglass contemplated a house with 8,000 square feet of above-grade Floor Area and 2,500 square free of Floor Area located below-grade along with a 2500 square foot barn. With a proposal for 15;000 square feet of floor and no building envelope amendment, the height of the building will have to increase and Mr. Weinglass's view plan will be adversely impacted. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely,. GATES, KNEZEVICH, GARDENSWARTZ & KELLY, P.C. Sarcih M. Oates Sarah M. Cc: Leonard Weinglass Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning, LLC Pitkin County, c/o Suzanne Wolff, Senior Planner DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS THIS DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS (the "Agreement") is made this 13 day of December, 2006, between LEONARD M. WEIPIGLASS and CHARLES FREDERICK BOND, TRUSTEE OF THE CHARLES FREDERICK BOND REVOCABLE TRUST, DATED NOVEMBER 10, 1999, AS AMENDED JUNE 20, 2005 (the "Bond Trust"). Whereas, Weingfass is the owner of a certain parcel of land described on Exhibit A anached hereto and made a part hereof (the "Weingfass Property"); iVhereas, the Bond Trost is the owner of an adjacent vacant parcel of land described on Exhibit B attached hereto and made a part hereof (the "Bond Property"); Whereas, pursuant to Determination No. 049 X006, dated November 2l, 2006, recorded on December 1, 2006 as Reception No. 531713. Pitkin County, Colorado has granted certain land use approvals with respect to the Bond Property, including approval of the construction of a single family residence of up to 10.00 square fee[ of "Floor Area" (as such term is defined in the Pitkin County Land Use Code) which includes 2,500 square feet of below grade space, and a bam structure of up to 2,500 square feet of Floor Area, including a Caretaker Dwelling Unit (collectively, the "Land Use Approvals"), Whereas, the Bond Trust desires to develop the Bond Property pursuant to the Land Use Approvals; Whereas, Weingfass and the Bond Trust desire to provide for certain testrictiotts upon the Bond Trust's development of the vacant Bond Property pursuant to the Land Use Approvals, as provided for herein. ,Now, therefore, for a good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Weingfass and the Bond Trust hereby enter into this Agreement. 1. Restriction on Development of Bond Property Pursuant to 1041 Approvals. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, no improvements of any kind or changes in the natural or improved condition of the Bond Property existing as of the date hereof shall be erected. altered, or permitted to remain on the Bond Property, nor shall any excavating, clearing or landscaping be done thereon unless approved by Weingfass as provided for herein and which approval must be obtained prior to the commencement of such work. 2. Pre-Submittal Oblieations of Weinefass. Prior to the Bond Trust's delivery of a "Submittal" to Weingfass as provided for herein, Weingfass shall make himself reasonably available [o the Bond TnLSt and its architect, designers, planners, and consultants to discuss the Bond Trust's proposed redevelopment of the Bond Property and to provide guidance and informal comment with respect to such matters. 3. Submittal. (n order to obtain Weinglass's approval of the Bond Trust's proposed redevelopment of the Bond Property pursuant to the Land Use Approvals, the Bond Trust shall deliver to Weingfass the following items (collectively, the "Submittal") for Weinglass's review: {a) A site plan of the Bond Property at appropriate scale (but not less than 1/l6' - 1'-0"), showing the location of the building envelope, the landscaping envelope, the proposed residence and all buildings or other major structures, driveway and parking areas and a grading plan, including existing and proposed topography, and a landscaping plan. (00040733. DOC i z(Page 1 of 9 IIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII~illlllilllllllllllllllllll 5~22a e 03:12 JPNICc' K VOS CRUOiLL P[TKIN COUNTY CO R 21.00 D 0.00 ~~OOQ3 IllllllllllllllllllilltllllNIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlIIIIIIIilll059~?0 0003:t2 (b) A roof plan and floor plans (at no less than'/."=t'0"). {c) Exterior elevations {all) with both existing and proposed grade lines at same scale as floor plans. (d) A general indication of materials and colors. (e) A general depiction of any proposed accessory improvements. (f) Any other drawing, materials or samples reasonably requested by Weinglass. 4. Review and Approval of Submittal. Upon the Bond Trust's delivery of the Submittal, Weinglass will inform the Bond Trust within twenty {2D) days of such submission whether the Submittal is complete, or whether additional information is requested, If within twenty (20) days after delivery of the Submittal to Weinglass, Weinglass has not advised the Bond Trust in writing that the submission is incomplete or does not require submission pf additional items to complete the Submittal, such Submittal shall be deemed to be complete..lf pursuant to Weinplass's request, additional information is provided, upon the Bond Trust's delivery of the additional items to Weinglass, Weinglass will inform the Bond Trust within ten (10} days of the delivery of such additional items whether the Submittal is complete. if within ten{10} days after delivery of such additional information to Weinglass, Weinglass has not advised the Bond Trust in writing that the submission is incomplete or does not require submission of additional items to complete the Submittal, such Submittal shalt be deemed to be complete. When all requirements of a Submittal have been received by Weinglass and such Submittal is deemed complete, Weinglass shall conduct a review of the Submittal and within thirty (30) days, shall deliver to the Bond Trust written notice of the results of the review to the Bond Trust, setting forth either a written approval of the Submittal or a written rejection of the Submittal, including the basis or bases of such rejection. Any review of a Submittal by Weinglassshall be made in good faith and shall be conducted in a fair and reasonable manner. In the event ot" Weinglass's delivery of a written rejection of the Submittal, the Bond Trust may either continue to pursue Weinglass's written approval of such Submittal,ormay elect towithdraw the Submittal and submit a new Submittal, which new Submittal. will be subject to al] of the above provisions of this Sebtian 4. In the event that Weinglass fails to take any action within thirty (;0) days after Weinglass's receipt of a Submittal and the Submittal has been deemed complete or certified in writing by Weingtass as complete, all of such submitted development plans and matters provided. forin the Submittal shall be deemed to be approved_ Weinglass shalt not unreasonably disapprove of any development plans or any other aspect of a Submittal, taking into account the legitimate concerns. of Weinglass for viewplanes, screening and consistency of design and materials with the .surroundings. However, Weinglass may disapprove any architectural and site development plans submitted to him which do not contain sufficient information for him to exercise thejudgment required of him by this Agreement. 5. Heirs. Successors and Assiens. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding. upon Weinglass personalty and the Bond Trust and its successors and assigns. as the owner of the Bond Property. This Agreement shall be deemed a covenant running with the land for the use artd benefit of. Weinglass personally, and as a burden upon the Bond Property. Icccaa~ss.ooc i ziPage 2 of 4' 93 t.p'19 U % 6. oration. Each provision contained in this Agreement which is subject to the laws and rules sometimes referred to as the rule against perpetuities or the rule prohibiting unreasonable restraints on alienation shall continue and remain in full force and effect for the period of thirty (30) years. Upon the completion of the construction of any improvemenss on the Bond Property which aze approved by Weinglass as provided for herein, which completion is evidenced by a final, unconditional Certificate of Occupancy issued by the Pitkin County Building Department, this Agreement shall immediately thereafter terminate, and be of no further force or effect. 7. Notice. All notices hereunder shall be in writing, delivered to the addresses set forth immediately below, and shall be deemed to have been duly given on the date of personal delivery or three days after deposit in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, certified or registered, and properly addressed to the mailing address of the parties at their addresses set forth in this Agreement Any party, or any heir, successor or assign to a patty, may change its address for purposes of notice, by giving notice as provided above, and recording in the real property records of Pitkin County, Colorado a notice referencing this AgreemC~t and the legal description of such party's property. 4.~. t.,cl /<c/1./ /7 Weinglass: ~/ ( Gq ~e.,,{~v~.1`C r ~C~~y r~- ~ Aye v rl Bond Trust: COKEM 86i Xenium Lane. North Plymouth, MN 55441 8. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, in writing or by legible facsimile copy, each of which shall constitute an original, but all of which, taken together, shall constitute one and the same instrument. 9. Miscellaneous. This Agreement consritutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subjec[ matter hereof and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous represen[ations, understandings and agreemenss. No provision of this Agreement may be waived except in a writing executed by all of the patties hereto. The rule of strict construction shall not apply to this Agreemen[ and this Agreemen[ shall be given reasonable construction without construing the Agreement agaitut the party who drafted it. [n the event of any action or proceeding to enforce the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing patty shall be entitled [o recover his, her or its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, in addition to any other relief to which he, she or it may be entitled. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have duly executed this Easements Agreement on the date set forth above. i ~ Dated: I7J l,3 2006 ~ Le d M. Weinglas Dated: '1 2006 By: ~~G~ lSttarlesFr~erick Bond, Trustee of the Charles Frederick Bond Revocable Trust, dated November 10, 1999, as amended June 20, 2005 rcooaot~o.occ ~ ttPage 3 of 4 IIIINIIIIIIlIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIillllllllilllllllliill 5qz? 08 0a:tz JPNlGE K Ve$ CPUOILL PITKIN COUNrV CO R Z3 .00 D O.N t~' r 4~ STATE OF COLORADO ss COUNTY OF P[TKIN ) ~r;~ The foregoing instrument was aclmowtedged beford me this ! 3day of. ~. _ l3~~ Leonard M.Weinglass. ~ 1'4/x' ~Q'~~ ~' Witness my hand and seal ~7 " Notary Public y~ A My Commission Expires: '7` ~ ~'U1 7~,(~BL`G STATE OF /t/(INN CSdiA ) ss COUNTY OF ~ (n) ) The foregoing insWment was acknowledged before me this ~3 day of ~ ~ ~= " , 2066 by Chazles Frederick Band, Trustee of the Charles Frederick Band Revocable Trust, dated November 10, 1999, as amended June 20, 2005. ~~ Witness my hand and seal ~„~\J--"1~ Notary Public My Commission Expires: ~`3/ ~~° ' C}iW A DW[NAL Notary PubYc AAhK~estte CmmgmEw4fs 3120111 I~'lII VIII IIIIIII~II 1~IfN t~II~II~I IIt ~~III III If~I.~ 9~D 0 003:12 _~. dRNICc K VOS CRUCILL PITKLNCOUNT R 21 ,ooaao~».xc ~ zlPage 4 of 4 G. Steve Whipple, Manager 1720 McLain Flats Road LLC 121 South Galena Street Suite 203 Aspen, Colorado 81611 January 12, 2010 James R. True Pitkin County Community Development Hearing Officer 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: White Horse Springs Lot 20, Block 2 1720 McLain Flats Road LLC is the owner of a 6.3 +/-acre property located immediately to the east of Lot 20, Block 2, White Horse Springs, a property which is owned by the Charles Frederick Bond Revocable Trust (hereinafter "Applicant"). The LLC has just completed building a new house on our property. We have reviewed the land use application for the Applicant's property and have several concerns outlined in this letter. BACKROUND We acquired our lot at 1720 McLain Flats Road from Bill Goodnough in September of 2006. When we acquired the property there was a pending land use application which had been submitted by Bill Goodnough. The application was submitted under the Land Use Code in effect prior to July 6, 2006. Consequently, the application sought 1041 Hazard Review (not Activity Envelope and Site Plan Review), Special Review for a CDU, and Special Review approval for a Transferable Development Rights (TDR) receiver site for two TDRs. We took over the Goodnough land use application which was ultimately approved by the Pitkin County Hearing Officer on February 21, 2007 pursuant to Hearing Officer Determination # 06-2007. Attachment 1 is a copy of our 1041 Hazard Review Site Plan which shows the approved building envelope. Attachment 2 is a copy of our amended Site Plan depicting the locafion of the recently developed house which contains approximately 9,175 square feet of floor area. We anticipate developing an additional 1,574 square feet of floor area for a barn and CDU. The vested property rights for this component of the land use approval shall expire on February 21, 2010. The two Attachments show that our house is located on the north end of the lot and the vast majority of our 63 +/- acre property is an undeveloped hay meadow. v",~i~~7 When we acquired our lot in 2006, we knew there was a pending land use application for the Applicant's lot which at the time was owned by Maroon Creek Associates Incorporated. We reviewed the land use application and had no objection to the Maroon Creek Associates request for approval of two TDRs. The original application was approved by the Hearing Officer on November 21, 2006 pursuant to Hearing Officer Determination #049-2006. Our opinion regazding the TDR request was based upon the applicant's representation that the house would be limited to 8,250 square feet of floor area above grade, 2,500 square feet of floor azea sub-grade and 2,500 squaze feet of floor area in a barn/cazetaker dwelling unit (CDU). The prior owner, the Maroon Creek Associates Incorporated, also received approval for a CDU on November 21, 2006 pursuant to Hearing Officer Determination # 049-2006. According to Section 2-40-20(c)(1) of the Code, the Special Review approval for the CDU became null and void on November 21, 2009 because the special review use did not commence. Consequently, the applicant's current request for a CDU should be considered as an entirely new request. When we received the public notice for the pending application submitted by the Applicant, we met with the Community Development Department staff and were surprised to learn that in June of 2007 the Community Development Director approved Adminstrative Decision # 55-2007, granting the Applicant a Minor Amendment to a Development Permit. The Amendment provided for an additional 1,050 squaze feet of space to be built above grade rather than below grade. This amendment was approved without our knowledge because public notice was not required. We would have offered comments and possibly objected to the Minor Amendment to a Development Permit if we had received a public notice. On October 28, 2009 the Board of County Commissioners approved Ordinance # 024- 2009 which amended vazious sections of the Pitkin County Land Use Code. The Ordinance was not effective until December 29, 2009, one month after it was published in the Aspen Times. The Ordinance amended Section 6-70-20(b)(s) of the Code to require lots seeking additional floor azea via the use of TDR's to be reviewed through the Site Plan review process rather than the Activity Envelope review process. The Applicant submitted the pending land use application seeking an additional TDR and the right to build all of the floor azea above grade in either a house or a barn. The Applicant's request could result in the development of a house containing up to 6,750 square feet more above grade floor azea (82 %lazger) than we anticipated would be developed on the adjacent property based upon the original land use approval for the lot (November 2006 approval). The Applicant's current request could result in the development of a house containing more than 5,000 square feet more above grade floor azea (50 %lazger) than permitted pursuant to the Minor Amendment to a Development Permit (June 2007 approval). Since the adoption of the new Pitkin County Land Use Code in July of 2006, most Pitkin County land use applications seeking Special Review approval to develop additional ~~~.1~fl~ 2 floor area have been approved pursuant to the Site Plan Review process, not the Activity Envelope Review process. In unique circumstances, when a property had virtually no neighbors in proximity or when a property is so heavily vegetated that it is not visible from public roads or neighboring properties, the County has approved Special Review requests for the use of TDRs for additional floor area However the common practice of the Community Development Department staff was to advise applicants that it is preferable to seek approval for TDRs for additional floor area as part of the Site Plan Review process so neighboring property owners and the public at lazge could review a more detailed plan which conceptualized how a property would be developed. The staff and Board of County Commissioners formalized the common practice by adopting Ordinance # 24-2009 to amend the Land Use Code. Table 7-1 of the Code which appears below illustrates the additional Development Standazds which are addressed during the Site Plan Review process as compared to the Activity Envelope Review process. Development Standard .• . Site Pian H no prior approval of Aetiv Enveb a -. Activity Envebpe H done prior to full Site Plan review Site Pre aration and Gradin X X Stee and Potential) Unstable Slo s X X Water Courses and Drainage Channels; Areas Sub'ect to Erosion X X Flood lain Hazards X X Geolo is Hazards X X Wildfire Hazards X X Wildlife Habitat Areas X X River and Stream Corridors and Wetlands X X Irri ated Lands for Food or Cro Production X X Historic Preservation X X Archeol ical Resources X X Scenic View Protection X landsca in and Ve elation Protection X Li htin X Solar Access X Roads, Drivewa s, and Parkin X Trails X Public Services and Utilities X Water Su I and Distribution S stems X Sewa a Treatment and Collection X Si ns X The Development Standazds considered as part of the Activity Envelope Review process are comparable to the 1041 Environmental Hazard Review standazds of the Code in effect in July of 2006 when the original land use application was submitted for the subject site. With the adoption of the 2006 Code, the County, neighbors and the general public expect an applicant to show what a project will look like before granting Special Review approval to use TDRs for additional floor azea The approval of the recent Land Use Code amendment shows the Board of County Commissioners is now requiring an Applicant to do more to be entitled to use TDRs for additional floor azea. The Aspen Sumner Corporation's land use application which was filed for a lot located in White Horse Springs on the other side of McLain Flats Road a few hundred feet to the south is an example of the scrutiny now required in this azea in order to be able to develop a house containing 15,000 square feet of floor azea. You may recall the multiple site visits and detailed Site Plan review process associated with Aspen Sumner Corporation Special Review request. The Aspen Sumner Corporation's land use review process establishes the standard of review which neighbors in the azea have come to expect prior to the County awazding additional TDRs for floor azea purposes. The Applicant is sceking approval of an Activity Envelope which is identical to the Building Envelope approved in 2006 pursuant to the old Land Use Code. The previously approved Building Envelope was based upon old Code concepts and standazds and was based exclusively upon hazard avoidance without consideration of the more qualitative Site Plan review standazds listed in Table 7-1. All of the land on the lot with slopes of less than 30 percent was included in the Building Envelope (see Attachment 3). This type of site planning approach is no longer acceptable given the standazds of the post July 2006 Land Use Code. With the adoption of the new Code, a neighbor and the general public is entitled to sce a more refined Activity Envelope which is based upon the development of a site plan. Hazazd avoidance alone is no longer the sole criteria for approving an Activity Envelope. According to Table 2-1 of the Land Use Code Special Review approvals for the "Use of a TDR Certificate for Additional Floor Area on a Lot/Pareel in the Rural Area Not Listed in Section 6-30-50 (b)(2)(a)" never lapse. In many ways, the Special Review approval to use TDRs for additional floor area is permanent. Given the higher level of review available to the Hearing Officer via the Site Plan Review Process as compared to the less intensive review required pursuant to the old Land Use Code, it would be alarming for the Hearing Officer to grant an approval that never lapses without the benefit of learning more about a project via the Site Plan Review process. OBJECTIONS TO LAND USE APPLICATION We have the following objections to the Special Review request. 1. Size and Location of the Activity Envelope -The Activity Envelope which includes approximately three acres of land is too big. It enwmpasses all of the irrigated land on the property with slopes less than 30 percent with the exception of approximately one acre of land on the south side of the property which is designated as a landscape envelope. It is presumed that the landscape envelope is intended to screen the proposed home site from the Weinglass property located to the north. .s~'.i~l~ 4 The topography of the proposed Activity Envelope increases in elevation by approximately 28' from a base elevation of 7,796' in the northwest corner of the Activity Envelope to 7,818' in the southeast corner of the Envelope. By comparison, Attachment 2 shows that the base floor elevation of our house is approximately 7,796'. We aze very concerned given the flexibility of the proposed Activity Envelope, that a house could be developed towazd the south end of the Envelope at a base elevation significantly higher than our house. If a house is located on the southern half of the proposed Activity Envelope, it would have significant impacts on our southern views of the Elk Mountains. Additionally, if the house is located on the southern portion of the site, it may have significant visual impacts from McLain Flats Road because there will be no land mass behind the structure to reduce the visual impact. 2. Pre-Mature Nature of Special Review Request for Additional Floor Area As noted, in the previous section of this letter, it ispre-mature to approve the use of an additional TDR for floor on this property without a complete Site Plan Review. We have no idea: • Where the house will be located; • Whether the landscape plan will screen the development from our house and McLain Flats Road; • What the lighting will look like; and • How we will be affected by vehiculaz traffic and lights on the driveway. Despite these questions, the Applicant seeks approval for the use of a TDR for additional floor azea. The approval will never lapse. 3. Major Redistribution of Floor Area As noted above, we did not object to the 2006 land use approval primarily because the above grade floor azea in the proposed house was limited to 8,250 squaze feet. We were surprised and disappointed to recently leazn that the maximum potential above grade floor area of the house was increased by 1,750 square feet, without us being notified and given the opportunity to comment, and without the preparation of a site plan. We consider the 2007 amendment to the land use approval to be a major change to the land use entitlement, not a minor amendment. The Applicant is now seeking the capability to potentially build 15,000 squaze feet of floor area above grade located entirely within a house. There is no floor area required to be allocated to a barn/CDU. As noted above, this represents a potential increase in the above grade floor azea located in the house by 6,750 square feet or 82 percent. This is a major change to the potential distribution of floor azea on the property which is unacceptable to us, especially without a complete site plan to evaluate. `:,'~~1 4. Caretaker Dwelling Unit Section 2-40-20 (b) of the Code indicates that procedures for Special Review aze identified in Table 2-1 of the Code. Table 2-1 suggests that CDU's may be approved by the County staff, not the Hearing Officer. Section 2-40-20 (f), Additional Special Review Procedures for Cazetaker Dwelling Units indicate that if any objections to the Special Review application are received, the Community Development Department will "continue the public hearing before the Boazd of County Commissioners." We object to the CDU Special Review because the Applicant has not submitted a site plan indicating the proposed location of the structure. We request that the Special Review public hearing for the CDU be continued to a hearing before the Boazd of County Commissioners pursuant to this Code section. Non-Compliance with the Land Use Code Attachment 4 demonstrates non-compliance of the proposed land use application with the Land Use Code standazds. Summary and Requests We request that you take the following actions in response to the Applicant's land use application. Our requests aze based upon the information presented in this letter and the application's non-compliance with the Land Use Code standazds as elaborated upon in Attachment 4. 1. Reduce the Size of the Proposed Activity Envelope The proposed Activity Envelope should be reduced in size and be limited to the northern end of the lot. The Envelope should be approximately the same size as our Building Envelope. Refer to Attachments 1, 2 and 3 which depict our approved Building Envelope and the Applicant's proposed Activity Envelope. The southern limit of the proposed Activity Envelope should be located approximately 200 feet to the south of the previously approved Landscape Envelope. This would locate the proposed Activity Envelope below the 7,808' contour line. It will be necessary and acceptable to us to establish an extension of the Activity Envelope to the south to accommodate a driveway. If possible, the driveway should be aligned to minimize the negative impacts of vehicular lights to our property. 2. Deny the Request for a TDR for Additional Floor Area The applicants Special Review request to be designated as a receiver site for additional floor area pursuant to the acquisition of a TDR should be denied ~:~1~1Z 6 pending a complete Site Plan review process that demonstrates compliance with the Land Use Code. 3. Land Use Approvals Should Revert to Conditions of 2006 Approval As noted previously, we did not object to the 2006 land use approval because it was clear that the house would be limited to 8,250 square feet of floor azea above grade. 2,500 square feet of below grade floor azea and 2,500 square feet of floor area dedicated to a bam/CDU. Although we were uncomfortable with not knowing where the structures would be located at the time, Site Plan review was not required. We can accept the allocation of the TDRs porcnant to the 2006 conditions provided that the Activity Envelope is reduced in size as outlined in item # 1 above. Any re-allocation of floor azea as approved pursuant to the Minor Amendment to a Development permit (for which we received no public notice) should be based upon a complete Site Plan review. 4. Objection to Caretaker Dwelling Unit (CDU) We object to the Special Review request to approve a CDU on the site absent the presentation of a site plan depicting the location of the bam/CDU. The Special Review request for a CDU should be considered by the Boazd of County Commissioners at a public hearing in compliance with Section 2-40-20 (f) of the Land Use Code. 'T'hank you for considering our comments. We will attend the public hearing on Tuesday, January 19a'. Sincerely, 1720 McLain Flats LLC J G. Steve Whipple, Manager 7 ~~~~aJ13 ~ ~ yyyy a °o ~$R 3Y ~.` d sy~ SE3 ~ b~. $~ rv Y $~R n~ ~"e 3 $~" - @ i 3 P k.ge8[;!~ ~ T ~~ " ~9 r ~ b GR a Yn ~ ;r i=;ilieB ~ °gg€ nj o e~a ;,~; s aR e ~ ~ a ®:a f .~n~epYS. $ sy'Syp ng¢~ zq $ey~ 96 ~ @ ~2 g ~ l ~3~bdxd ~~9~ Q ~~O~ ~'.a a ~ ig4~ s= 3. _.. ._~ r ~~.~ ~ 3 ~bi~iy~ ~=°R4 p ~ H~°m _ a i s I®~ zg ~ ~2pp~pep e.. ~ Fb[~3~~ e~'8 15 ~ zo4u°~ " i$'sk Ka ~ pF~cSz~Bc ° °~"g 3 3 F ~~Y:~n = azzar '~ R~ ~~ ° n ii ~. ~ k8. ~ ~~ EE gblgEY .y Y~'$$b8^°°~R Y Sy~g•y ~ £ ~ 8..hg9~~ ~ ~ T n nb °~e° 9 &BCe~ ~- ..I RR~.,^.^ ~ ~ .1~R , ~ g ~ ~~€~8ka ~ ~~^ L46 1ggk~ loos a 33~kK n~ gpp,"sntlq:q g~ggq~p~~r `~ STrggg~ ~ n e ~ ~qak.~~@R@s~z,59 $ fr` ~yoaa a6: ~:~ ~ ytl«~; °<~2~aA?!2Y&Y$2'~ § a~ 9; ® e O is ~9~tlYbSf ~ ~:n9 s°g i:~" S `F' 21i~ M ®: oe .-. ~; ~ 3 3~3's ~` s E~ ®i y Se fE =•SE`O.LC~„~`g ~e N ~--+i-+r--+ _ _ - _ - _ g _-_____ _I ®. (y I.. Ajae 1 ° I aY 1 x # ~ ~ ~ I 1 s - S r r I ~~ a na a ~ I ~ N 1 N C O Z q ~ ~ ~ I v ti ~ 1 xm4o q. ~ __ ~ _;~~ I /~ i~ O ~ W ~: ~ _ - / / 1 ~, O ~ ~ / _- V ~W ~ I / ~' N O / / /_-_/ __ N WF~ ~ I ( / / ~ -- r~- ~ ti F \ / _ - 1 ~ Q a c 1 1 1~I I // /~~ ~ ~ 1~1 F a ~ \ I L / ~ ~ c ~1\yN1-~+~' ; w ~~~ 1 1 ~ ~~ ~ ,. /il m! ~~ 1`~-1 hey z`@Y O ~ IS,13YI ~ .. ~p3 s (e .~~ F-e. ~ IGI}611:}! I I 5 I ~ I ~ss'+i 1 \ \~ \ I I I / r' - 1- k I \ \ \i\ \ \ 1. -~. 4~z r r 1 \ ~ ,LO'BRE 3•bO~E&2LN- a `~ sg _ a e- ~ 4 O ~~ yW6 S~ L, :: I. i ~ 1 t _~ ._._.L.._ ~~ a ~o 0 0 w U s a ~~~ ~~~ g°=~~~ ,~,,~ : , Z ~~o~g~ Q 4_ax . ~.Y~ys J ~' a ~a ~o¢~=~ ~tl~.~5~ W j° ~G~~°ei s o z73 jd B „ x~ ~ 4`o4u,e ~g4L i4 lA 2 a 39 ~:a~bY 6 w_ w ~g w ~~ ~ _ ~~9 ~ xd N °3o N~ Q Y (n ~~> a3w J ~ ~ ~ ~ Z r m a O .r W ~ ~ ~ O ~ p N w v _ r ~ ~ aU~p~ 1- J ~ = a ~ w w Z ~ z ~ LL Q w = a A O ~ ~ ° a ao ~ ~, F e V `^ 4 i 1J ~ U LL Z a U ~~~ yet N ~~~ g.w ~i ~~; ~~ -_ a ~~ g §~~m °~ ~p~p ~$ ~3~g ~~ ~" '~c~tc g~~~ :; ~~ 2~rerrre € aa:a; E i.wp„.as s$x 3 F:~a ~ ~_~i~IlYY~z~. 3 , ~ App; i ~~ ~v e o ~. I ~ ~~ /~ V N a Z U e ~- M a s --- --- =--~_. I ,_ „ _ _~~__ _ ~~ 1 w _ _ ~ 1 1 i _ i _ ~ A I ~~ ~ /-~~ jUUU ~ g~ ~~ TN ~ g ~ ~\ +'Y P ~~ o . __ , 3 $ ~ __, ;~ $s s ~ g.~ Bq~ c i :~~.i~~J M~ U z a a W F h W W c4 B f x C i 9 p~1 i =~ ~~ '~ ., ' , a ~.i~`ay :P~i Mai94_ ~~pc. .. ° e 3 tt3~ a~ /j 9 $~ W ' x I.' 73 :a 3 v y a y~ 0 t ap :g ~° ! ~'~ p iy pi gg »~I~= Q: + ~SYI.~ /: ~P eo.~sa e o Y a ?- .~ `o p :ii 3 ~ ~, 6 p~ p . _ = ~ i r ~e5 ~ S~ $S. .. _~ C p. p -iA N ~~I~ s~'- . ~ C :ip~ ~ '~ , ~1:~p' . o i- pk ~ ~ ~~3~P y =i. d ~ i3 i~-~ I Y ~ s es/,=I e r9i w .l 0 . ~ .Di° J i,itY tJS/~ GaVx~Y 4o AD P'••9" /i' ~ t ~J~IE Attachment 4 Non-Compliance with the Land Use Code The Land Use Code standads and Master Plan excerpts aze italicized followed by our comments. Some standads and Master Plan excerpts aze bolded for emphasis. Activity Envelope and Site Plan Review Standards The Activity Envelope and Site Plan Review process (Section 7-10-50) includes the following standazds. (a) The Site Plan process incorporates an "Activity Envelope" approach in which the County staff works with the applicant to determine which portions of the site (if any) would permit the proposed activity or development to be conducted in compliance with this Land Use Code and in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan for the area. In general, this process will involve both a determination of (i) which portions of the site are not available for development because of the existence of Constrained Areas, and (ii) of the remaining portions of the site, which areas would accommodate the activity or development so as to minimize impacts on surrounding properties, maximize compliance with the requirements of the development standards in this Chapter 7, and maximize compliance with the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives. (b) In general, the defined Activity Envelope for development of primary uses shall be large enough to accommodate the proposed principal use of the properly and traditional permitted accessory structures, infrastructure (roads and septic systems), and uses, but should not be significantly larger than the area needed for such structures. In the case of a site with few Constrained Areas, the defined Activity Envelope may include more than one potential building site for a new single family home. The defined Activity Envelope may include non-contiguous areas (including separate areas for septic fields, landscaping, driveways to public roads, mitigation measures required in connection with any provision of this Chapter 7, and/or areas to be disturbed only during construction on the property -including staging areas and materials storage areas). Construction of trails will not require an Activity Envelope analysis except as required by Sec. 7-20-50. The Applicant's proposal is not yet ready for consideration because a site plan has not been prepared. Given the submission, it is not possible to determine if the impacts on surrounding properties have been minimized. The proposed Activity Envelope is excessively lazge and does not comply with the preceding standard. The Envelope should be comparably sized to our Building Envelope. Refer to Attachments 1, 2 and 3. 1 ~~~i;)17 Special Review for a TDR Receiver Site and Caretaker Dwelling Unit (Section 2-30- 30) This section of the letter provides a detailed explanation of the non-compliance of both Special Review uses with the Pitkin County Land Use Code. Section 2-30-30 of the Code lists the Special Review standards. The Applicant's land use application does not comply with the certain standards identified below. (a) The special review use shall be consistent with the applicable County Master Platt. According to the 2003 Overview of the Pitkin County Master Plan (p.5) the 1987 Pitkin County Down Valley Comprehensive Plan is to be used to evaluate the proposed Special Review uses for the subject site. The proposed Special Review Uses as proposed by the Applicant are inconsistent with the Plan as explained below. The subject site is designated Rural Residential (RR) on the Down Valley Comprehensive Plan: Future Land Use Map (Map N.1) "It is the community goal to preserve the rural character of the district to the greatest extent possible by enhancing visual quality, agricultural operations and wildlife habitat while permitting isolated, carefully sited, low density residential development consistent with existing zone districts" (p. 103). The location of the proposed Special Review use may detract from the rural character of the area. The applicant has not presented a Site Plan, so it is not possible to determine if the proposed development will be consistent with the land use pattern recommended for the RR District. The Activity Envelope is not carefully sited; rather it simply avoids steep slopes. All the land on the property with slopes less than 30 percent is included in the Activity Envelope. Figure N.1 of the Plan lists "Rural Residential and AgriculturaWVildlife Reserve District Development Guidelines." The Guidelines are supposed to be used to guide development in the RR District. The proposed site plan and Special Review uses are inconsistent with the following Guidelines. "The performance guidelines associated with the Land Use Map are intended to assist developers of new residencies within the district" (p.110). 1 a. Developments should be designed to minimize the disruption of land from its natural state. Clustering is encouraged where appropriate to minimize the amount of land disrupted from roads, water and sewer facilities and accessory structures. It is not possible to determine if the Applicant's proposal is consistent with this guideline. The proposed Activity Envelope is so big, it will allow for a non-clustered site plan. ~~y~~1J18 2a. Development should be planned to minimize visual impacts on scenic amenities or rural character of the area. It is not possible to determine consistency with this guideline absent a site plan. (b) The Special review use shall not conflict with any applicable sections of the Pitkin County Land use Policies in Chapter I. The proposed TDR request and CDU may be in conflict with the following Land Use Policies. A site plan needs to be prepared. RURAL DEVELOPMENT (SECTION 1-60-70) When proposing future development outside of Urban Growth Boundaries, the following elements should be considered.• (c) Pitkin County seeks to preserve its natural, rural scenery and natural landmarks for the benefit of its residents and the continued viability of its resort economy. (c) New development should be compatible with and not fundamentally change the character of arty neighborhood or area. The proposed barn/CDU and house locations may damage the rural scenery and fundamentally change the character of the neighborhood. A site plan needs to be prepared in order to demonstrate that the development is consistent with this policy. COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS (SECTION 1-60-150) It is the policy of the County to insure land use proposals are compatible with existing neighborhoods. To this end, the County will provide notification of pending land use applications to the affected adjoining property owners, homeowners associations and neighborhood caucus groups when appropriate. SCENIC QUALITY (SECTION 1-60-230) It is the policy of the County that its natural, rural scenery be preserved for the benefit of its residents and the continued viability of its resort economy. Undergrounding of utility lines is supported where and when appropriate to minimize visual impact. The natural Waal scenery of the McLain Flats area from our property may be damaged by the proposed Special Review uses. A site plan needs to be submitted to determine if the Applicant's proposal is consistent with this policy. c. The proposed development must not materially endanger the public health, safety or welfare. ~~uJi~ The proposed development complies with this standazd. d. The proposed development must not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting properly (emphasis added). The viewplane from our property of the mountains to the south may be impacted by the location of the proposed Special Review uses. A site plan needs to be prepazed to demonstrate consistency of the application with this policy. e. The special review use shall be consistent with the intent of the zone district in which it is proposed to be located The subject site is located in the RS-20 (Resource) zone district. The General Intent of the District is as follows. 1. Permit low density, single family residential development and customary accessory uses while recognizing that natural hazards, wildlife areas, limited utility services, roads, schools, and/or other facilities may constitute constraints on the realization on the realization ofzoned density; 2. Discourage sprawl; 3. Encourage clustering of development, preservation of open space and promotion of efficient utility services. 4. Preserve agricultural operations and environmental resources. 5. Preserve the rural visual quality and character while permitting carefully sited low density development The proposed special review uses may be in non-compliance with the intent of the RS-20 zone. A site plan needs to be prepared to demonstrate compliance with these Code standazds. It is pre-mature to approve any Special Review land use absent a site plan. f. The special review use shall be compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed jor development and surrounding land uses, or shall enhance the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development (emphasis added). The location of the proposed Special Review use may be incompatible with the character of the immediate azea pending the prepazation of a site plan. g. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed special review use must be in harmony with the surrounding area and minimize adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, traJJtc generation, parking, trash, service delivery, air/water pollution or other impacts on natural resources, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties. 4 ~) .~`.i~v The proposed Special Review may not be in harmony with the surrounding area and may not minimize the visual impacts on the neighboring property. A site plan needs to be prepazed to demonstrate compliance with this Special Review standazd. h. There must be adequate public facilities and services to serve the special review use, including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools. The Applicant should be capable of complying with this standazd. (d) New Water Rights (1) "If a proposed activity or development is not required to connect to a public water system pursuant to subsection (d) below and proposes to rely upon use of newly appropriated water rights or the change of existing water rights, adequate evidence of water rights availability shall be required. Such evidence shall demonstrate adequate water rights to meet needs for domestic water, irrigation water as applicable, and water for fire protection purposes. (2) Regardless of whether a property is located in a subdivision or is a metes and bounds parcel, all applicants for building permits for dwellings shall be required to show proof of adequate water supply (in terms of both quantity and availability) for domestic and fire protection purposes, and for irrigation purposes, if applicable. Such evidence may include a well permit and pump test. In any area of the County with mapped surface or groundwater depletion/recharge issues as shown on the adopted Pitktn County Hydrologic Systems Analysis Study Area Maps, the County may require an applicant to provide additional information (e.g., a hydrogeologic analysis, pumping data from nearby wells) sufficient to demonstrate the adequacy of the property s water supply. " The applicant must demonstrate that there is a legal domestic water right to serve the proposed CDU. This should not be a problem because the property is served by the White Horse Springs Water District. i. The proposed special review use must comply with any additional standards or requirements stated for such use in Sec. 4-30 and/or Sec. 2-40-20. As noted in the letter, Section 2-40-20 (b) of the Code indicates that procedures for Special Review aze identified in Table 2-1 of the Code. Table 2-1 suggests that CDU's may be approved by the County staff, not the Hearing Officer. Section 2-40-20 (f), Additional Special Review Procedures for Caretaker Dwelling Units, suggests that if any objections to the Special Review application are received, the Community Development Department will "continue the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners." We request that the Special Review public hearing for the CDU be continued to a hearing before the Boazd of County Commissioners pursuant to this Code section. 5 uY.-i~i)G1 j. If a Special Review Use ceases or its permitted time period ends, all uses and structures must immediately be brought into conformance with the underlying zone district regulations. If cessation of operation is due to demolition or destruction through any manner not willfully accomplished by the owner, uses/structures may be restored as of right pursuant to Sec. 9-30-70 of the Land Use Code. This Code standard is not applicable to the land use application at this time. 6 ~~li~L2 C:J C` C~ ; r.~ ` L~ 23'00'E 388.07_ _,~ y N72' _ ~ 1 ~ w ~~ ,. V ~..T.1 I,: p e I ! //40 /~y/ ~r`/ II I\ \I II II I ). t>:>:~ }~ • ~ I }~• c f. I 1, '~ ~ ~ ~ Ilil~l~ a~ I° y 1 ~~~~ m _ ~ ~~' ~~ II ~~~j b I/y _ _ _•- ~~- ~ ~ ~ ~ -- i ~ ~ / yi '. / i / v ~~ ~~ ~~ ~. N _.-/ / ~ 1 i / I I ~I. ~ mI ~s I ~~ ~~ I ~ ~ I~ I I ~ o o ~ ~ ~ 1 I ~ ~ - x I N M „ M ~ I ~ I L~~~ i N ~~ -~ p ~..~. 3~ 33 .45' g~ as S7T08'35'W :~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ .~ ¢~ '; m ~~sa i ~~ gF ^ Y ~ fl$ ~ g"c ~~#~ ~~~ ~ ~ 76~~ :.8~ x ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ m' ~h > ~ ~ r~ ~w m C j~o ^~ Apo y „~S RA~~ ~F> '~ ~_ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~ 0 gg ~ `~ ~3~ ~~~ ;fig ~ ~~ ~ ~ :~ if O e ~~~ ~A~ #g~®~ i R ~ a iL d ~ w ~~~N ` hh~~~ ~'~~ F{S~Arn g Y ~ ~~N~~~~n'k'~S~~R ~~~~R _ ~ ~ ~Q7 s'~~ "sax="#gd~~ ~~ ~§~~ o_ ~~g~ ~ ~~d~~~dd a; ~~ ~~'» o ~ ~~g ~ °~ Rb ~a F~~ ~ a zDi ~ 6 ~ X ~ F ~~ f~~l ~a ~~~~ 8 sN s~ ~~~o gggg;3~ g_ 3 N g ~ o FR~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ a N '~ ~ n ~, ~ S A ! ~' W ~~~~ - o~ $~ ~~~ N €Y -_~ ~~ gig O ® ~~ ~p O ~> os~ O ~" '3` n ? ~ 4] N ~,s'~ „c„" ~ ~, a .erg M~~~ °~ n z ~.. O N a 'a~~0~ ~~~b ~~b ~' n N Optr~ _`yC t? ~ O o b :" '„ ~'~° Z o ° ~ ~ a b b c~ C „./ :.:.~ r•~ N~ ~~~ p $5~j y ~( N m~~ R~ m~> 4O m '° m m E N > Om _ ~ 1~ OM N ° J-.- ~UO / \ \ 1 ! - ; e ~-- =1 ; i , ~ ~~~ 1\ \ 1 O ' i~ 1\~ i ~'I I I 1 I ~ I II 1 I I j~ e°` °~ i `-~Y. 1 1 1 1 1 1 < z ; I 1 ~c i ; II \I \\ ppy 1 111111. I Ip ~ ^ m2' o ~ ~;'\ ~I \1 ~ j '1~I ~I III~~~~ R $R `rJ ~' ~ I i -'~~ ~~ i -/ o I\ 1' I j l 1 II I I I I ~ ~~$ •` o ~Is yl 1\ \~\` ~ 11 it I I I IIII~. °~ _~ a~ ~~\II ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ 1 I II m z p~ N~e^'d> \~ ____-'~--___~ I /~ 11 III I i III ~ ~ I I I I a w~~a \__J i ,\\I 11 ~ /III ~/Y~ T ~N~z> I I~, 11 ~ _- •~~ I I I I1 1 11 '1 ' 1 a~° .\ \ / ,111 II \NI~, opoOB[ I r~ ~ I I ~ III I I J~~)), m I , O mJ ii ~1,1 \\ ~ ~1\\ // ilii I I;d 1~ n ~ D ~,I I I II I .\ 11 iii ' i % ~~' % 1'111 ": a dl 1 \` \~~-__-_\~ -~ , ~ `/'-%~ ~ 111,',1\ ~ - ~ +oeG I \ ~_\ _ / I ~~ ~ a m'zc _ /~ // 1 1~r n~ b ~ Y 0 I i ' = ~ p -I S 6 m 1 / //~_--~ - i / cT ~ O 1 / Z m ~ / __-~ , x ~ /y O ° Zlel _____ / ~~ / % I O x ~ ~ ~ I ~ 0 118G ------ ' ~ -~ 8 po / _ T 7 II ~i / //y`v'J ` l ~i/ / / ~ y m o ` 0 ~ T ~~ O / 9 D i' i ~ v /~ m ~ a I ~ // // I oD i v U, \ I ~~ ~~ qLS w ~ mo ~ 1 r, ~ t\ ~ ~/ I o c~ T m Ul x, \= \ ~ \\ ~ .. \\ ( ~X, o ADO ~ m m xyx -xl -x \y~ xy-x. x x x~ ~ cz a'mm m ~ ~ z2z o ~ m o ~°° _ ___ ___ ~ ~~ m m c U $m i S77'OB'35"d m 338.45' m ~ m ° r m n~ a o m a ~ y > a2 p ~ m ug rn 4 v m ~ O ~\ ~D94 1y~~mOmDm D; _D mOm-1 y O 9 OL° 9 Y~ ~ncx mmmmmz o o~N9° m <a ; gR~ Aga g c F o0ay~ mm°p_OT ~ y ~(y) pO my ~ ~'y~o°mn ~va-i a i Cm 22222ZZm 00 TR2a F p T Z IllayC°~ y V ;_C~ Tn TTT TI°~T~ ?~T (~ >p yq >4 ~(1 Z yyy p =oya mZwwam2Y'~O~~u~ ~NSZ m ° xN o 9T ~p~L(2fn0~> ~ 27°ii m nS"~ $~U',~g~$~~w>m~`mm€ F~~° ~ ~ ~~ ~ D~gA~i~ o OP"~ N pp ~3 .. ° _8 OTO «~ ~ m ~ ~ O°Zmm~g32 a pi m ° ogz~ FmmmmmmFmy~ ~~ am5~2 0 om~o p op~'~.°i qP°~b <_ oy Yw+ ~ goof t~~'o-°~mg'g~i ~ ,i ~.ry ~ Q~og ; ;OZyi ~i~~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ni°F ~gG&SmS_~~m~ 9o aye= z~~ i u ~~~^gmVamymy ma TDl m4i mT~mm T~~ ~'p L2 Q;0 ~O2 ~ ° m(q F.9~T2 D S~ ~° g _ ~°zmoN "~`~m'mi"~"~~^~'~' mo as j~z-~~~' i~~ v ~ mF<gag~ A 'g~ ~ C) s 'L Z ~ o.. N~ ~U mczi~ m°m~ m 5 FF~,g~mm z D ~ qq iyy~ i °> F ~o ~m ~ Fmcm$~i ~ ~ ^m~H m oy co Rio °4yoF $ S c'~mo am z N ~ yq z o ~~ rmgm ~ "' ~o ~°n°. o~mp ~ ''"' ~~mmz,~~ m D y D ~ppo~ o ~~ om gom mab v ~ ~<Ta~m E A m ~- QQ° z z A ° ~- Fz o N gO S~ ~°coO 3~ m m~yz T~ pi IV V A<gC z y~ OZ ~O°t ~-p1~ 'p~ n Q ~O°y p .i0 "O ~J~ yL~ am a !n Cm~; ~A YT y pp >> mg O ~~ A~ m0~ pvi~ b ~a ~'°pm N n c mm $00 - O o~o ~ipG? ~ ~~ ~~ °m om ~ m ~~ o `s o "~ Pi O Z~ m,~~ ~ A 0 n 2 m '~N I CJ ~" ~W ~ ^ ~i ~ ~ y y - ~. 4 g 1 n 6 3 . . 1°~ i ~ R Y r a o ,~ a , b x i Y n~o~y D p .. o ,e i---~ m c~ i ~ i /_i`!i~ t at ~,, ~, a ti z v na v b' H wr ez W {7 r y on 'e Y W q I ~ a $jd a X o. \ s ~ S. ,\` ... ' •~ } . ..... _.. ,. G~ $i ~ . :. h .: ' .....: .~' ~~ r O H N N 4 ~ ~// ~ pn~ '~ a by~~~o ,,i ~°' a~j0'A i-/ ~ ~1,n . ~ a.oY ty~1~ H w w N C ,. M ~s M r a ~ ~ > ps:=re x ~ ~ ! r 6 "~Rii~ ai !'° ~ s. -66 o ..... c-a ~a : ~ ~: e ~ m g tn a : ~. --- a. ~ : ~~r ~ e N - p `,a 6 H ~~ ~Z ~ x ~~ C ~. j ~ ~ ," iii . . 9_ 6 ~ CY Z ~t- ! ~ i ~ r ~ ~ j S ~ I ~~ C _Z R - 6~ : ~_ 6 S ~'~ ` > cl. I~ 3 ~~ G'~6 E~,s :~ =g i' e ® D~ ~ w o0 y„ f' •isS ~ N ~ .7 0! r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; :Y Q7 ~ ~ f.a o r 'x ~ ~: ^ ~ ~ ~ 6 w r C ti c k. U. L5 CP3 F `~ 'c pp~ Yf 5 ~ P T a'p g ~ ew ~ a •Y~ ~~ ~ g t'. t ~ ~~ .. '~ fa7 C f~1 -r ry r z a C7 2 I~ Lat20, Stoc1:~I (Mcl.awv ~lat~Ro~adi) ~,4N f1~~LIG,4T"ION FOR: ACTIVITY ~NV~LO~"f R~VI~11, CMQS ~x~M~'TIONS, -,4N~ S~"fCl~l L R~VI~U -,4~ROVftLS TO ~ST~IBLISfif T}f~ ~R.O~'fRTY ,4S fl TDR R~C~IV~R SITE -,4N~ FOR ~,4 Chi.( SuBMiTTfD ~Y ~~~ ~.~~~ ~~~~~.~~~~ ~~.C 201 N. MILL STR~~T, Si,IITf 108 ~1Sf fN, COLOR~,41~0 81611 (970) 925-7819 faw (970) 925 -7395 wau+.a~C~~opv~i.~ vet Naven~,iler, 2009 ~f~U~0~1 ~~ ~~,. PID No.2643-274-00-005 AN APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF AN ACTIVITY ENVELOPE, GMQS EXEMPTIONS, AND SPECIAL REVIEW APPROVAL TO ESTABLISH THE PROPERTY AS A TDR SITE AND FOR A CDU FOR LOT 20, BLOCK 1, WHITE HORSE SPRINGS Submitted by: Charles Frederick Bond Revocable Trust 3880 4+~ Avenue East Shakopee, MN 55379 (763)545-4500 Prepared by: HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC Planning Consultant 201 North Mill Street, Suite 108 Aspen, CO 81611 Phone: (970) 925-7819 Fax: (970) 925-7395 Email: mhaas®sopris.net PID No. 2643-27400-005 i 1(~ ~~ (~ ~_~ u .r. 'v LOT 20, BLOCK 1, WHITE HORSE SPRINGS TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................1 II. NEIGHBORHOOD AND SUBJECT PROPERTY ......................................3 III. THE PROPOSAL ...............................................................................5 IV. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS ..................................................................8 A. Activity Envelope .........................................................................8 B. Rural Character, Environmental Protection and Natural Hazards........10 1. Site Preparation and Grading ............................ 2. Steep and Potentially Unstable Slopes ................. 3. Water Course and Drainage ............................ 4. Geologic Hazards .......................................... 5. Wildfire Hazards ...................................................... 6. Wildlife Habitat ............................................ 7. Scenic View Protection/Rural Character Guidelir .....................10 .....................10 .....................11 ....................12 ......................12 ......................12 ~es ..................15 C. Approvals for the Single Family Home, TDR Receiver Site, and CDU...15 1. Special Review for CDU and Development Utilizing TDR...........16 2. TDR ................................................................................19 3. GMQS Exemption for CDU ..................................................20 4. GMQS Exemption for Development Using TDR ......................21 5. GMQS Exemption for Pre-Existing Lots .................................21 Exhibits Exhibit 1: Proof of Ownership Exhibit 2: Letter of Authorization for Haas Land Planning, LLC to Represent the Applicant Exhibit 3: Pre-Application Conference Summary Exhibit 4: Wildfire Hazard Review by Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc. Exhibit 5: Hearing Officer Determination No. 49-2006 Exhibit 6: Administrative Decision No. 55-2007 Exhibit 7: Executed Agreement to Pay Form Exhibit 8: Adjacent Property Owners' Mailing Addresses of Record PID No.2643-274-00-005 ,.. ~~s~J"J03 I. INTRODUCTION This application requests approvals for: • Activity Envelope Review; • Special Review approval to establish the subject property as a receiver site for up to four (4) transferable development rights (TDR) for additional floor area; • Special Review approval for a CDU; and, • GMQS Exemptions for a) the development of asingle-family home on a pre- 1978 parcel, b) use of TDR, and c) a CDU. The subject property is Amended Lot 20, Block 1, White Horse Springs Ranch Lots & Tracts (Plat Book 5 at Page 66). It is a 6.63 acre (288,977 square feet), RS-20 zoned lot, and its Parcel Identification Number is 2643-274-00-005. The property lies outside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), in Pitkin County's designated Rural Area. It is accessed directly from McLain Flats Road via a platted (see Goodnough-Maroon Creek Associates, Inc. Lot Line Adjustment Plat recorded in Plat Book 38 at Page 96) thirty (30) foot roadway easement serving only the subject site. Its general location relative to the surrounding area is depicted on the vicinity map below. ~w~wm ~;, day rc ~~ ~ . a x +~~ ~~ ', ~ ~~\~, ~ i'`,, '~ ~~~- ~a "SSC/~R Fd ,,h~ ~~ `.~ ~4sh"~. ~* ~~,,~ a ~.,~ ~ , ~ ~ ~~ R .g, c} ~ ~~ •SFFF Mc x D•Ia OMFFN~YFFO wTNeMw Vicinity Map -Lot 20, Whlte Horse Springs (~ Lot 20, White Horse Springs (Pazcel No.2643-274-00-005) Page ii L'Jv Ult This application is submitted pursuant to the following sections of the Pitkin County Land Use Code (the Code): 2-30-20(8)(3), Activity Envelope Criteria for Approval; 7-10-50, Activity Envelope; 7-10-60, Priorities for Locating Activity Development; 7-20, Rural Character, Environmental Protection, and Natural Hazards; 2-30-30(h), Special Review for TDR Receiver Site and CDU; 2- 40-20(f), Additional Special Review Procedures for CDU; 4-30-50(e), Caretaker Dwelling Units; 6-30-40, GMQS Exemption for CDU; 6-30-50, GMQS Exemption for Development Using TDR; and 6-30-100(a), GMQS Exemption for a Lot or Parcel Legally Created Before June 12,1978. The application is submitted by Charles Frederick Bond, Trustee of the Charles Frederick Bond Revocable Trust (hereinafter "the applicant"), owner of the subject property. Proof of the applicant's ownership is provided in Exhibit 1. Authorization for Haas Land Planning, LLC, (HLP) to represent the property owner for this application is provided in Exhibit 2. Apre-application conference summary is included herewith as Exhibit 3. A wildfire review assessment prepared by Eric Petterson of Rocky Mountain Ecological Services (RMES) is attached as Exhibit 4. Hearing Officer Determination No. 49-2006, which granted 1041 Hazard Review approval, as well as Special Review and GMQS Exemptions, is attached as Exhibit 5. Administrative Decision No. 55-2007, granting a minor amendment to the Hearing Officer's Determination is attached as Exhibit 6. An executed application fee agreement and a list of adjacent property owners with their mailing addresses of record and are attached as Exhibits 7 and 8, respectively. This application is divided into four sections. This Section I is a brief introduction to the application, while Section II furnishes an overview of the neighborhood and subject property (existing conditions). The proposed development is detailed in Section III, while Section IV identifies the relevant review criteria of the Code and provides responses demonstrating compliance and/or consistency with each standard, as applicable. For the reviewer's convenience, all pertinent supporting documents are provided in the various exhibits to the application. While the applicant has attempted to address all relevant provisions of the Code and provide sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation, questions may arise which require further information and/or clarification. Upon request, the applicant will provide such additional information as may be required in the course of the review. Lot 20, White Horse Springs (Pazcel No. 2643-274-00-005) ~;t~,~t,p5 ~~ II. THE NEIGHBORHOOD & SUBJECT PROPERTY (Existing Conditions) The subject property is Amended Lot 20, Block 1, White Horse Springs Ranch Lots & Tracts (Plat Book 5 at Page 66). It is a 6.63 acre (288,977 square feet), RS-20 zoned lot, and its Parcel Identification Number is 2643-274-00-005. The property lies outside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), in Pitkin County's designated Rural Area. It is accessed directly from McLain Flats Road (County Road 19) via a platted (see Goodnough-Maroon Creek Associates, Inc. Lot Line Adjustment Plat recorded in Plat Book 38 at Page 96) thirty (30) foot roadway easement serving only the subject site. The property is vacant (undeveloped), and located between three developed lots (Lots 19, 21 and 22) in White Horse Springs. Water service will be provided by the White Horse Springs private system, and sewage will be accommodated via ISDS. There is a fire hydrant located on the southern edge of the property. The vast majority of the property is an irrigated lawn, although the southwesterly corner of the property drops off into a steep, scrub-covered slope. With the exception of the sloped area, the only vegetation on the property is a double-planted row of evergreen trees. The steep slopes on the property are easily avoided. Given the essentially flat, irrigated and unvegetated nature of the property as well as its location, it is not affected by wildlife habitat. For similar reasons, the wildfire hazard is rated as "Low Hazard: Grass." Since the subject property has an area of 6.63 acres, it is a nonconforming lot of record in the RS-20 zone district. As such, Section 6-50-010, Development Permitted on Substandard Size Lots or Parcels, limits the subject property's development potential to a single-family dwelling unit and accessory uses/structures. In other words, all other types of development that might otherwise be permitted in the RS-20 zone district are effectively precluded. The subject property was originally created in 1977 with the platting of the White Horse Springs Ranch Lots & Tracts (Book 5, Page 66). Pitkin County approved the Goodnough-Maroon Creek Associates Lot Line Adjustment (Plat Book 38, Page 96) on January 9, 1996. In considering approval of the lot line adjustment, the County was satisfied that the parcels were created prior to 1978 and that neither had merged with any adjacent parcels. No adjacent properties are or have been under common ownership. The lots in White Horse Springs Ranch (the Subdivision) range in size, anywhere from just under three acres up to almost sixteen acres. The subject lot is fairly average in size relative to the rest of the Subdivision, and located toward Lot 20, White Horse Springs (Parcel No. 2643-274-00-005) ~L~su~b the north end of the Subdivision. The lot affords views of virtually the entire Elk Range. Generally speaking, the neighborhood in which the subject property is located is substantially built out. Homes exist on the adjacent parcels to the north, south, and east. Most lots in the area are developed with homes ranging from large to very large in size. Homes in the area tend to be set back off McLain Flats Road for privacy and orientated toward the south/southeast-facing views. Most properties include horse facilities including stables/barns, corrals, and power-irrigated pastures. The homes are, for the most part, relatively spread out and tend to be built into or on top of slopes to take advantage of the views. This property has already received 1041 Hazard Review approval, as well as a GMQS Exemption and Special Review Approval for a Caretaker Dwelling Unit and a TDR Receiver Site pursuant to Hearing Officer Determination No. 49- 2006 (See Exhibit 5). The vested rights for these approvals expire on November 21, 2009. The applicant subsequently requested and received approval for a minor amendment to the determination which allowed for the reallocation of the additional floor area that would result from the purchase of three (3) TDR (see Administrative Decision No. 55-2007 attached as Exhibit 6). This minor amendment did not extend the vested rights. The applicant is now reapplying for essentially the same approvals granted in 2006, but for a larger final maximum size and under the Code that has since been adopted. Lot 20, White Horse Springs (Parcel No. 2643-274-00-005) Page 4 i~~Js~~~ III. THE PROPOSAL This application requests approvals for: • Activity Envelope Review; • Special Review approval to establish the subject property as a receiver site for up to four (4) transferable development rights (TDR) for additional floor area; • Special Review approval for a CDU; and, • GMQS Exemptions for a) the development of asingle-family home on a pre- 1978 parcel, b) use of TDR, and c) development of a CDU. The applicant has already received 1041 Hazard Review approval (see Exhibit 5) for designation of a building envelope to accommodate the development of asingle-family residence and a detached barn containing a caretaker dwelling unit (CDU). The approved building envelope was delineated to avoid all slopes in excess of thirty percent and provided a minimum setback of thirty feet from areas of wildfire hazard. The applicant also received approval establishing the subject property as a receiver site for three (3) transferable development rights (TDR) for additional floor area. This approval enabled development of a residence with up to 8,250 square feet of floor area and another 2,500 square feet of subgrade space; the other 2,500 square foot TDR was to be used for development of a barn with a CDU. As previously mentioned, the applicant subsequently requested and received approval for a minor amendment to the determination which allowed for the reallocation of the additional floor area that resulted from the purchase of three (3) TDR (see Exhibit 6); the re-allocated floor area allowed for 10,000 square feet of above grade floor area, 1,450 square feet of subgrade space, and 1,800 square feet of floor area for a detached garage and caretaker dwelling unit. Presently, the applicant is seeking approval for an Activity Envelope that is exactly the same as the building envelope that was approved via the 1041 Hazard Review. Additionally, the applicant is seeking the same GMQS Exemptions and Special Review approvals that were granted via Hearing Officer Determination No. 49-2006 which allowed for the development of a single family residence and detached CDU, and established the property as a TDR receiver site. The previous approval allowed for a total development of up to 13,250 square feet of residential floor area. However, at this time the applicant is applying for the ability to build up to 15,000 square feet of total floor area, which creates the need for one additional TDR, for a total of four (4) TDR. This additional floor area may be used for either the single family residence or for a barn. Since this parcel is less than 20 acres any barn that the applicant may want Lot 20, White Horse Springs (Parcel No. 2643-274-00-005) Page 5 to build in the future would not be exempt from GMQS and would count as floor area. The only type of geologic hazard known to affect the subject property is the steep slopes that exist on the southwest corner of the lot. The existing building envelope approval (via 1041 review) and the requested Activity Envelope contain only slopes of less than thirty percent (30%) Specific care was taken to ensure avoidance of slopes in excess of 30%, and to provide for a sufficient setback from such slopes to mitigate any potential wildfire hazards (see the RMES report attached as Exhibit 4). There are no mapped or otherwise regulated wildlife habitat types affecting the property, nor is the site known to be affected by floodplains, wetlands, riparian areas, or historical or archaeological resources. Moreover, the boundaries of the Activity Envelope will ensure a minimal impact development with complete mitigation. Prior to development, the proposed Activity Envelope will be augmented with a Site Plan Review detailing the parameters for development of the single-family home, the attached or detached CDU/garage and/or barn, as applicable. From a wildfire hazards standpoint, RMES visited this site in May of 2006 and found the property to have a Low Wildfire Hazard Rating, due to slopes being less than 20% with discontinuous fuels. However, RMES notes in the Exhibit 4 report that, "a slope exceeding 20 % with continuous fuels exists to the west of the lot." Therefore, RMES recommended that the house be at least thirty feet from this slope break where oak brush and high hazard fuels exist. The development of the single-family residence and the CDU require growth management exemptions. Since this lot was legally created prior to June 12,1978 the applicant is entitled to a GMQS exemption for up to 5,750 square feet of residential floor area pursuant to Section 6-30-100(a) of the Code. The applicant is also seeking approval to establish the subject property as a receiver site for. up to four (4) transferable development rights (TDR) for additional floor area. The single-family home plus CDU/garage/barn will result in a total area of not more than 15,000 square feet, creating the need for the additional TDR. This request also requires approval to use the growth management incentive for development that utilizes transferable development rights (TDR) pursuant to Section 6-30-50 which, in turn, necessitates special review approval and a finding of consistency with the provisions of Section 2-30-30(h). Similarly, enabling development of a CDU also requires special review approval pursuant to Section 2-30-30(h). Lot 20, White Horse Springs (Pazcel No.2643-274-00-005) Page 6 t GC~.i;'0:~ Section 7-20-120 establishes Scenic View Protection areas that are proximate to and most visible from specific roads in the County, including McLain Flats Road. The standards of Section 7-20-120 are designed to minimize the visual impact of new development, including expansions to existing structures, as well as to preserve the rural character of all Rural Areas of the County. Since the current proposal only involves designation of an Activity Envelope, Scenic Review for the eventual development of asingle-family residence and customary accessory structures will take place at the time of Site Plan approval for such development. That said, any home that is built on this property will barely be visible from McLain Flats Road due to substantial distance, topography, and the large home on Lot 21 of the White Horse Springs Subdivision, as well as the row of evergreen trees between the subject site and Lot 21. Lot 2Q, White Horse Springs (Pazcel No. 2643-274-00-005) Page 7 %~s.~~10 I 90" ~0 $'iWi Cp1£OURS _ VICINITY MAP ~L~1'?11 II, ®'~" ~ ® WIFE g `IC ~ ~! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (T i~~ >I l~? ~ ~ ~ ~ / ll Try ESL G .~ 1~ ~ II8 ;E ~ II lE W ~ g R][° L ~'' ]L A 1~T AIIENDEO LOi ]0 RL OLN 1, WH iE MO0.5E SFRIry05 M1 PAPCEL OF lE5ORE3 iUOFE~1E Xbi 6CPP AC ~P ALTMERIOIAH9SOU]X• RAX6E S]AE OOtMOMPA-O COHiA IN IXG ]EE 9]] 50. Fi. •/~ 16.55 AL0.E9 1 PAPCEI 10 N0. 36<3-3]<-00-005 VACANT LAXO LOT 22 W309 E Ni~40 I P \\ b j3~1) Op'E / / /' .... ` ... } ]0151, POB NfEXDFD LOi R ~ \ v x I \\ 0 ~ ~ ~' '~ 3 1.3H WE ~ \ ~ } V LANIISCAPE ~~ ENVELOPE. 3s ~. T~sp3] RNA RPE~~LOPf ~ QJ 'B NO PMf ).5' UiILI iY 'NS b1EXR SEE uT NmEs AMExDZrn Loa z o ' ~ a S b] ACpEb •/- , ~~ BU LOI 10~ G ~ \ AMENDED LET 21 VE PE " \> \m \ \/ , A~ 30' 'd \ ~\ l •l 4N 4 Q m $ I\~ ~ x r 1 \ (] O \\ LeGBND AND NO]'88 ' O FOOIID SURYEY XOXIXEXi RS DESCRIIEp C vilLl)v RDI@s As DESa1REO ¢' Dr u1n raE '. ~'~ RWD OR XIPE FEIN£ CFI FIRE NYORPNT BWVEY CONIRR IXSEAIM FEXCE4 MO3 9XOW ® RRPEA EAI@1 rmE Ixw^~nAilM er: nTTO"~,~• Tens WARANn cwo, Ixc. XD v Doles] wiFn: xY Ia, lam ).5' UTILITY EASEIEN3 IS 5ND11N OX 3Yf NHIpEO RWIpRpY BETPRENLDT6 30 ANp 31, µ AFTORNEY 9NWL0 REYI EI tN l6 INTFER IF M13IH WRPEGT. \\ /' ^~~~ ~ ~\ ' I ' ~ ~ F :.ucN{ ~ i~ ~ Pa~•'-~ N 33.31'I)~N H3B. 39' ~ Iw ~ B~9Eti OX LLWNiY 6 1 ~4. 30151 RE ~BRR, IOB ANI~EryryOEp LOi 30 nN0 EXMAF`~PAPCEL ~•~,, LOT 18 Y \J_ \ SWTHEASi COp NER HFti tCH B] • iOOMNNNSHl1 B 80UTX pµOE es. l{ESi pf THE mF PPINDQPAL nEJllglµ 141J G L 0 HA A35 CAP IN PLACE ~ pI STUPBEO 0 S HBPT 1 OP 1 SLOPE LHGHND UYFP 1301 SLOPES P--s-~R--C SLMEB 1 300 LiN-5-0111 ® FPM COUNTY 4. 9. uaL NAx[aD aavns ~Alvax PL KNIT ACRNMLEPHS l1Ui IE /5NE Iy5 BEEN LNFORIED Ry PIiR IN C4U111Y OF THE EXISFFNCE OF 10$i FMI RO`IENRN. 1LAZM0 APE/.6 TW.i ~q1T AFFECT THE PAOPERIY µM XPpOVEIEHi$ XD TIE VSE µ0 CWPANCV 1X[PEBF. TIE PRCVI IW9 OF ME PITR IN CWNLL' REWLATIONS 00 NDi IX AXP NALY A95UPE OR~XP LY3TµHM1T AppFgAB OIIYSfM OF CE910NhTED M iIDAI~CXAPEMUPEIFNFILE FWARµ EF ilE SKTEV 1pF Nf/ ppPERTY. PBi[IN COVNip NBA8BN0 OEE6C8[ AEEIOVAL iX14 IOiI NAL.AO PEVI ESI EITB PLµ NA6 BEEN REVI£yE0 µ0 AP PROVED BY iXE PI M IH C04NTY IEARIXO OGiICEP TNIfi ~ OAY OG 30m, PMMNI i0 FFM IHO OFFICER OETEµINAiION Xp. pEWll_pE0 A6 RECEPi IOH N0. JAMES iPIIE, iIiNIN COUNTY RIHB OFF ICED C1B[[ AND [BCOIDBI ACCBPTANC[ MI5 1011 X.VApD PEV IEY 61iE FfAN NAE BEEN [ACpCIE PLED WPFIL INO I THE KFI<F OF ME [TERN AHO RFNRpERIXEPLAiN00d{'. R~Ai IME _~A~19 PECEPT~OM ~. 900,6 CLERK ANO RENRDEP. LEGAL DESCRIPTION NEXDEP l01 90, GLOP. 1, RN ILE NORSE SPA IWp PMCEL OF LARD SIiWTJ 1M B6CSIW ]l TgNSMIP 9 $W FN AANFE b3 REST OF 61F PRINCIPAL IERUO IAN, FI iNIN CWN1Y C0.0AADp, @RG IEfp AR F0.ltR8: RH3I W IXO AT A POINT 1 A RE~BM M11X qp L 8 301511 IRENCE TIE e~W*NEMi CORMEP Cf BAIO SELLI ON RFM9 5IR• 11 SA E ZRSA.63 iYEXCF N I3' 3S OWp' E EO$.SB FEF}: 151ETEME 5 )O ~' CO• E X3.31 PFF~~FFE{FF{E l1!. iIEXCE'6 T OS' ]5" IEI 310 ES FEET ~iO iNE PO Hi K BEOIXNI NO IXNiA IH W 3 d~B]I SWME FEET MRE Oq LE35 S LWAFEYOF <MORA00. iIENLE X G3' ]~ I)' N 3R.IRFEFii 1XFXCE IpRM Sd3~Xp GEET: RR EPµFD SY R SPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS, INC. 310 EOUTX OLLEMA ~BTREPP ASPFN, COL4RA00 SIOiI , RXpXE/FA% IWOI 835-1515 GATE Jpb Oro0 15399M IV. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS The applicable review standards of the Code are addressed in this section of the application and in the following order: A) Activity Envelope (§2-30-20(g)(3); §7-10-50; and, §7-10-60); B) Rural Character, Environmental Protection, and Natural Hazards (§7-20): 1. Site Preparation and Grading (§7-20-10); 2. Steep and Potentially Unstable Slopes (§7-20-20); 3. Water Course and Drainage (§7-20-30); 4. Geologic Hazards (§7-20-50); 5. Wildfire Hazard (§7-20-60); 6. Wildlife Habitat Areas (§7-20-70); 7. Scenic View Protection Areas and Rural Character Guidelines for Building Location (§7-20-120(d) and (e)); C) Approvals for the Remodel/Addition, a TDR Receiver Site, and a CDU: 1. Special Review for a CDU and Development Utilizing TDR (§2-30-30(h)); 2. Transfer of Development Rights (§6-70); 3. GMQS Exemption for a CDU (§6-30-40); 4. GMQS Exemption for Development Utilizing TDR (§6-30-50); and, 5. GMQS Exemption for Pre-Existing Lots (§6-30-100(a)). A. Activity Envelope (Sections 2-30-20(8)(3) & 7-10-50) Under Section 2-30-20(g)(3) of the Code, An application for designation of an Activity Envelope shall be approved if it complies with the standards and criteria established in Sec. 7-10-50. If the applicant chooses to apply for definition of an Activity Envelope separately from approval of a Site Plan, the Activity Envelope shall be designed to accommodate the largest home and related septic field possible on the site pursuant to Table 5-1 after the use of TDRs or a GMQS allocation to increase house size. In this case, the applicant is applying for designation of an Activity Envelope to build up to 15,000 square feet of floor area which will be split between asingle-family home and the CDU/Garage/Barn, within the Aspen Urban Growth Boundary. The property is zoned RS-20 (Resource-20 Acre), and intended for low density, single-family residential development and customary accessory uses. Table 5.1A of the Code governs house size and maximum floor Lot 20, White Horse Springs (Pazcel No. 2643-274-00-005) Page 8 area in the Rural Zone Districts, and gives the gross floor area allowed after GMQS allocation or TDR purchase as 15,000 square feet in the RS-20 Zone District. The applicant is currently seeking designation of an Activity Envelope, without Site Plan Approval, as allowed in Sections 2-30-20(g)(3) and 7-10-50(f) of the Code. An application for Site Plan Review will be submitted at a later date. It is understood that prior to the issuance of a Development Permit for the home, the applicant will be required to submit an application for and gain approval of a Site Plan confirming that the proposed development is consistent with the defined Activity Envelope and with other standards of the Land Use Code not being addressed at this time. In order for designation of an Activity Envelope to be approved, the standards and criteria of Section 7-10-50 must be followed. The proposed Activity Envelope assures avoidance of "Constrained Areas' which, according to Section 7-10-50, include: (i) Areas of Statewide Interest listed in C.R.S. 24-65.1-101 et. seq.), (ii) steep and potentially unstable slopes, (iii) water courses, drainage channels, and areas subject to erosion, (iv) floodplain hazard areas, (v) geological hazard areas, (vi) severe or low to moderate wildfire hazard areas, (vii) wildlife habitat areas, (viii) river and stream corridors and wetlands (ix) irrigated lands for food or crop production, (x) historic preservation areas, and (xi) archeological resource areas. All "Constrained Areas' on the subject property will be avoided, as addressed later in this application. This development will seek to minimize impacts on surrounding properties, maximize compliance with the requirements of the development standards in Chapter 7 of the Code, and maximize compliance with the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives. After the Activity Envelope is defined and the Site Plan is approved, all applicable local, state and federal permits will be obtained prior to any clearing, grading, grubbing, or earthmoving that exceeds fifty (50) cubic yards, or changes in the natural drainage of the site. The natural grade, topography, vegetation and drainage of areas outside the activity envelope will not be disturbed, except as specifically permitted by the Code. Prior to any development activity on the parcel, the boundaries of the activity envelope will be identified with construction fencing, and such fencing will remain in place until development has been completed. Lot 20, White Horse Springs (Parcel No. 2643-274-00-005) rage y When the property contains "Constrained Areas;' Section 7-10-60 of the Code sets priorities for locating activity or development. In this instance, the only "constrained area' on the property involves the steep slopes on the southwest corner of the property, and the Activity Envelope has been delineated to ensure avoidance of those slopes in excess of 30%, and to provide for a sufficient setback from such slopes to mitigate any potential wildfire hazards. Additionally, Section 7-10-60 goes on to state that, "because the full impacts of a proposed development or activity can only be determined at the time of Site Plan review, this review will normally not occur if the applicant requests approval of an Activity Envelope alone, but will be reserved until submission of a Site Plan." Since this application is only seeking approval of the Activity Envelope, scenic review does not need to occur at this time. B. Rural Character Environmental Protection, and Natural Hazards (Section 7-201 1. Site Preparation and Grading, Section 7-20-10 The proposed Activity Envelope ensures consistency with the requirements of Section 7-20-10. In accordance with Section 7-20-10(a) and (b), all grading and fill placement, as well as any clearing or grubbing of land and any removal of vegetation (except removal of noxious weeds), will take place within the defined Activity Envelope, and all grading and fill placement exceeding 50 cubic yards will be defined and indicated at the time of Site Plan Review. Compliance with the requirements of this Section and Section 7-20-130 will be documented at the time of Site Plan Review. Section 7-20-10(c) governs tree removal and mitigation. The applicant understands that each tree with six (6) inches or larger diameter at breast height (D.B.H.) that is removed within the Activity Envelope shall be replaced with one (1) or more trees with total D.B.H. at least equal to the caliper(s) of the tree(s) removed, unless the tree(s) are diseased, or required to be removed pursuant to the provisions of Section 7-20-60. All revegetation shall also comply with the Pitkin County Revegetation Guidelines. Since the vast majority of the property is an irrigated lawn it is unlikely that any trees will need to be removed. The applicant will use care to protect the natural terrain and other natural features of the landscape within the Activity Envelope, per Section 7-20-10(d). 2. Steep and Potentially Unstable Slopes, Section 7-20-20 Section 7-20-20 of the Code provides standards for the review of development proposed on steep and potentially unstable slopes. Subsection (d) Lot 20, White Horse Springs (Pazcel No. 2643-274-00-005) ~J~?1li of 7-20-20 of the Code states, that development is permitted on slopes with less than a thirty (30) percent gradient. There are no continuous slopes in excess of thirty (30) percent within the proposed Activity Envelope. The only continuous and potentially unstable slopes on the subject property are located outside of and at least thirty (30) feet from the proposed Activity Envelope. Slopes in the proposed Activity Envelope range entirely between 0% and 30%. Specific care has been taken to ensure avoidance of slopes in excess of 30%, and to provide a sufficient setback from such slopes as to mitigate against potential wildfire hazards. 3. Water Courses and Drainage, Section 7-20-30 A conceptual drainage and erosion control plan will be provided at the time of Site Plan Review, and a final drainage and erosion control plan will be submitted at the time of building permit application. The proposed development of the site will demonstrate maintenance of historic drainage patterns to reasonably preserve the natural character of the site and to prevent property damage. The flow of natural water courses will not be impeded, and adequate drainage will be provided for all low points. On-site treatment of storm water will be designed to detain and allow infiltration of runoff prior to discharge to any water body. All erosion related impacts associated with development of the property will be minimized and addressed as part of the site plan and building permit applications. Erosion control will be accomplished by minimizing disturbance to natural vegetation and soil cover, ensuring that all cuts and fills are adequately designed and revegetated, and providing for protection of vegetation from fire. Runoff volumes and peaks within the development site and in areas affected by runoff from the development site will not exceed the runoff levels attributable to the undeveloped site as determined by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado. The drainage related improvements discussed in the previous paragraph will also aid in minimizing erosion. The development will not affect irrigation of any agricultural lands, and it will not adversely affect the exercise of any existing and decreed irrigation water right. Flood irrigation is not and will not be practiced on the subject property. Sedimentation controls will be implemented before and throughout development, and there will be no run-off into any water body, wetlands, or riparian area. Finally, use and development of the property will comply with all state and federal statutes and regulations concerning the protection and enhancement of water quality, and will be consistent with maintenance of the Stream Lot 2Q White Horse Springs (Pazcel No. 2643-274-00-005) t~~.~J15 Classifications for the Roaring Fork River watershed, as identified in Section 208 of the Roaring Fork Watershed Management Plan, while emphasizing the most efficient use of water. This development shall not result in the introduction of any contaminants to groundwater, or interfere with any recharge area or aquifer. No building will be constructed immediately downhill of a ditch unless such a ditch can be placed in a culvert, lined, or otherwise treated to avoid leakage of water downhill towards the building. 4. Geologic Hazards, Sec. 7-20-50 Section 7-20-50 of the Code identifies development standards applicable to specific geologic hazard areas, including avalanche areas, landslide areas, rock fall areas, alluvial fans, talus slopes, Mancos Shale, faults, expansive soil and rock, and ground subsistence. None of these geologic hazards are known to exist on the property. 5. Wildfire Hazards, Sec. 7-20-60 Development is allowed in low to moderate wildfire hazard areas, if such development complies with the development standards of Section 7-20-60(c). These standards may be varied upon recommendation by a wildfire expert. Mr. Eric Petterson of Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc. (RMES), assessed the wildfire hazard of the property in May of 2006 and assigned a rating of "Low Hazard: Grass' (see Exhibit 4). Conditions of the property havbe not changed since then. In accordance with Mr. Pettersori s recommendations, the proposed Activity Envelope provides a thirty (30) foot setback from the slope break where oak brush and high hazards fuels exist below. All of the wildfire mitigation recommendations outlined by RMES will be followed by the applicant. 6. Wildlife Habitat Areas, Sec. 7-20-70 The property is free of active, field-verified bighorn sheep, elk and mule deer winter range, severe winter range, winter concentration areas, migration corridors, and production areas. No legally protected, sensitive, or economically important wildlife species will be affected by the proposed development. Likewise, no habitat for plant or animal species listed as threatened or endangered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service will be affected by the proposed development. Additionally, no habitat for plant or animal species listed by the State of Colorado as rare, threatened, endangered or of State special concern will be affected. Lot 20, White Horse Springs (Parcel No.2643-274-00-005) Page 12 ~~~J~l~i No naturally occurring jurisdictional wetlands will be affected by this development. Accordingly, development within the proposed activity envelope will not be detrimental to wildlife habitat. Since the property is not affected by any specifically regulated habitat types, this portion of this application responds only to the General Standards of Section 7-20-70(c). The review standards of Section 7-20-70(c) are provided below in italicized text, with each standard immediately followed by a response. 1. When existing native vegetation must be altered within the Activity Envelope, the applicant may be required to prepare a habitat mitigation plan acceptable to the County. Such mitigation plan may substitute (in a nearby area on the subject property) vegetation equal in type and quantity to that being removed to mitigate effects on wildlife species. Should there be no opportunity on the property for habitat mifigation or restoration, off-site mitigation benefiting the same species may be required, or financial mitigation may be paid into a County habitat mitigation fund should such a fund be established in the future. There is no vegetation other than lawn within the proposed building Activity Envelope. As such vegetation removal is of no concern. Future landscaping will be comprised of appropriate species. Furthermore, the applicant will erect safety fencing around the envelope during construction so as to prevent inadvertent impacts. In the unlikely event that the County and the DOW feel that financial mitigation would be warranted or appropriate, the applicant agrees to cooperate. 2. Manipulation of vegetation outside of the Activity Envelope is prohibited. There will be no manipulation of any vegetation outside of the Activity Envelope, as except as required to mitigate wildfire hazards and manage noxious weeds. 3. Mesh or woven wire fences are prohibited outside the Activity Envelope. 4. Wood rail fencing shall employ three (3) rails or less, be the round or split rail type, shall not exceed fifty four (54) inches in height above ground level, and twelve (12) inches in width (top view), and shall have at least eighteen (18) inches between the lower two (2) rails. 5. Wire fencing must be three (3) strands or less. The top wire should be a twelve- point five (12.5) gauge twisted barbless type at a maximum height of forty-tzuo (42) inches. The middle strands (which may be barbed) should be located a minimum twelve (12) inches apart and from the top wire preventing entanglement when mule deer jump over. The bottom strand should be sixteen (16) inches from the ground. Any fences deemed necessary will meet or exceed Pitkin County and CDOW wildlife standards. Lot 20, White Horse Springs (Parcel No. 2643-274-00-005) Page l'u {~ J 1 6. Tall overly mature trees and standing dead trees (snags) should be retained at the rate of two (2) to five (5) per acre whenever possible as nesting and perching habitat. This standard is understood by the applicant, and will be followed to the extent possible in light of wildfire and other hazard mitigation requirements. 7. In areas of high black bear activity, fruit bearing trees and shrubs shall be prohibited within the Activity Envelope. This does not include pre-existing native trees and shrubs. No fruit bearing trees and shrubs will be included in the landscaping. 8. Development shall be clustered to the maximum extent possible to minimize impact on wildlife. All development will occur in the approved Activity Envelope only. 9. Access shall be provided to the Colorado Division of Wildlife for trapping, tagging, studying, or otherwise managing wildlife. Access will be provided to CDOW with reasonable notice given to the applicant. 10. Trash/garbage shall be kept in an approved bear resistant container or enclosure. All refuse containers will meet or exceed the Wildlife Proof Refuse Container/Dumpster Enclosure Standards described in Pitkin County C7dinance Number 010-2001 and the 2004 amendment thereto. 11, Bird feeders, including hummingbird feeders, shall be hung away from any deck or window, and be at least ten (10) feet from the ground suspended between two (2) trees or posts. All seed feeders shall include a seed catchment pan to catch discarded seed. This standard will be followed. 12. Horse grains, pellets, and cookies shall be stored in bear resistant containers. Any and all of the above mentioned items will be stored indoors or in bear resistant containers. 13. Pet food shall not be left outside. Lot 20, White Horse Springs (Parcel No. 2643-274-00-005) 4 is 'u lj u 1 O Pet food will not be left outside, and pets will not be fed outside. 7. Scenic View Protection and Rural Character Guidelines for Building Location, Sec. 7-20-120(d) and (e) Section 7-20-120 establishes Scenic View Protection areas that are proximate to and most visible from specific roads in the County, including McLain Flats Road. The standards of Section 7-20-120 are designed to minimize the visual impact of new development, including expansions to existing structures, as well as to preserve the rural character of all Rural Areas of the County. All developments in Rural Areas are subject to additional guidelines that must be followed, pursuant to Section 7-20-120(e) of the Code. Development in Rural Areas should be located so that activities and development occur in one or a combination of the following locations as they may apply to the particular property: (1) at the edge of an open meadow or pasture; (2) behind an existing stand of vegetation; (3) behind or built into a change in natural topography; or (4) within a pasture or meadow, clustered in the form of a ranch compound, or adjacent to or integrated into an existing ranch compound. Since the applicant is only seeking Activity Envelope approval at this time, compliance with the standards of these sections will be fully demonstrated at the time of Site Plan Review, as required. That said, any home that is built on this property will barely be visible from McLain Flats Road due to substantial distance, topography, and the large home on Lot 21 of the White Horse Springs Subdivision, as well as the row of evergreen trees between the subject site and Lot 21. C. Approvals for the Single-Family Home, TDR Receiver Site, and a CDU/Barn Development of asingle-family residence on the subject site requires a growth management exemption. The proposal to include a CDU requires special review and growth management exemption approvals. Since the applicant intends to enable development of up to 15,000 total square feet of floor area through the use of TDR, special review and growth management incentive approvals are required. All of these requirements are addressed below. Lot 20, White Horse Springs (Parcel No. 2643-274-00-005) Page 15 ~~ ~J J 19 1. Special Review for a CDU and Development Utilizing TDR, Section 2-30-30(h) The applicant is seeking approval to establish the subject property as a receiver site for up to four (4) TDR for additional floor area. The TDR will enable a single-family residence and development of a CDU, garage +/or barn for a total of up to 15,000 square feet of floor area. Pursuant to the RS-20 zoning provisions and Sections 4-30-50(e) and 6-70- 20(b), special review is required to allow a CDU and to establish a TDR receiver site located outside the Rural/Remote Zone District. While the subject property is not located within the Rural/Remote Zone District it is located within the Rural Area of Pitkin County and is zoned RS-20. TDR receiver sites and CDU are both allowed in the zone district, provided special review approval is obtained pursuant to Section 2-30-30(h). Section 2-30-30(h) of the Code establishes the criteria for approval of special review uses. This application for special review approval to develop a CDU and establish a TDR receiver site complies with all of the following standards, as demonstrated below: (a) The special review use shall be consistent with the applicable County Master Plan. In terms of general consistency with County Master Plans, TDR allow the transfer of development rights from areas the County desires to protect to areas that have been deemed more appropriate for residential development. In practice, the County has repeatedly facilitated the transfer of development rights from the Rural/Remote Zone District or from constrained sites. The applicant is proposing to land up to four (4) TDR on a property located within the RS-20 zone district and ensure the preservation of properties deemed less suitable for development. This is fully consistent with County goals and objectives. Furthermore, the underlying zoning allows, by right, single-family residential development of up to 15,000 square feet of floor area; that potential will be divided amongst asingle-family residence, a CDU and/or a barn. (b) The special review use shall not conflict with any applicable sections of the Pitkin County Land Use Code, including the County Land Use Policies in Chapter 1. The County Land Use Policies contained in Chapter 1 of the Code state that, "The dominant policy of Pitkin County is to conserue and protect from further degradation the present natural environment and its resources." The proposed activity envelope, along with the eventual conditions of the Site Plan Review approval and the commitments provided in the foregoing portions of this Lot 20, White Horse Springs (Parcel No.2643-274-00-005) Page r'.i,(~`1`~~ i, ., :~ L application, will ensure that the development of this site will promote this "dominant policy." The proposed special review uses do not conflict with any applicable sections of the Code. (c) The proposed development must not materially endanger the public health, safety or welfare. The development proposed on the subject property will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare. The single-family home and out buildings will be located within an approved Activity Envelope. The inclusion of a CDU and the use of TDR for the additional square footage will not materially endanger the public health, safety or welfare. (d) The proposed development must not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property. The County has approved numerous TDR receiver sites and CDU in the recent past, and many in the immediate area of the subject site; no such approval or development has ever been demonstrated to injure, let alone substantially injure, the value of adjoining or abutting property. The development proposed on the subject property will not injure the value of adjoining or abutting properties. (e) The special review use shall be consistent zaith the intent of the zone district in which it is proposed to be located. The proposed Special Review Uses (a CDU and a TDR receiver site) will be located in the County's RS-20 zone district. The proposed development is fully consistent with the intent of the RS-20 zone district, and the transfer of a development rights off Rural/Remote or constrained properties is completely consistent with the intent of that zone. Only one single-family residence plus CDU, garage +/or barn and customary accessory uses are proposed at a density consistent with the zoning. Environmental hazards have been avoided and/or mitigated, as appropriate. (~ The special review use shall be compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or shall enhance the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. Generally speaking, the neighborhood in which the subject property is located is exurban/rural in character. Horse pastures and facilities, large homes, and expansive views dominate the landscape. Many of the properties in the surrounding area have primary structures and out buildings; many have been Lot 20, White Horse Springs (Pazcel No.2643-274-00-005) 4+f ~) developed with CDU and square footages similar to that proposed. The proposed development follows these patterns while preserving most of the property as open space. The proposed development is wholly consistent with the character of the area. For instance, Lot 21 of the White Horse Springs subdivision which is situated between this lot and McLain Flats Road has a 13,250 square foot home on it. Additionally, there are 6 homes in the immediate vicinity with sizes ranging from 15,000 square feet up to 26,000 square feet. Also, please refer to the responses provided for the previous standards and those associated with Scenic Review. (g) The locarion, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed special review use must be in harmony with the surrounding area and minimize adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, traffic generation, parking, trash, service delivery, air/water pollution or other impacts on natural resources, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properries. Given the immediate environs and development patterns, the location, size and design of the special review use requested herein is in complete harmony with the surrounding area. The proposal envisions aloes-density, single-family residential development with a house size that is consistent with neighboring homes. The activity envelope ensures an ability to maintain open space in a functional manner while avoiding or mitigating all environmental hazards, as appropriate. Due to distance, existing vegetation, topography, and the new home that has been built between the proposed residence and the road, this development will be barely visible from McLain Flats Road. The impacts of a CDU and increased floor area on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties will be negligible. That is, the additional square footage and its use in the manner proposed herein will not result in any significantly different impacts on/to pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations or odor than is the case with the existing development or any of the surrounding properties. Parking needs of the site will be provided for within the activity envelope and will meet County requirements with respect to amount and configuration. Trash will be stored in compliant bear-proof containers. Service delivery will be no different than any single-family home in the area or elsewhere. Finally, ample separation exists between the home site and neighboring properties to ensure minimization of noise, vibration or odor impacts. (h) There must be adequate public facilities and services to serve the special review use, including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire Lot 20, White Horse Springs (Parcel No. 2643-274-00-005) Page 18 ~~~:~~22 protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools. There are already adequate public facilities and services to serve the single-family residence and accessory structures, and the additional floor area gained from the TDR, as the surrounding area is already largely developed to its limits. Roads, electric, gas, and telephone lines are already in place for the White Horse Springs Subdivision and no significant enlargement of services and facilities will be required to accommodate the negligible difference in demand presented by the Special Review uses. Also, it is not expected that the additional square footage to the home gained through the use of TDR and the development of a CDU will result in undue impacts to parks, police, hospitals, or schools. (i) The proposed special review use must comply with any additional standards or requirements stated for such use in Sec. 4-30 and/or Sec. 2-40-20. The applicant understands that there are additional standards and public notice requirements for the CDU. The applicant will comply with the requirements of Section 4-30-50, and that compliance is discussed in Subsection 3 below. 2. Transfer of Development Rights, Section 6-70 The provisions of Section 6-70 of the Code address the use of TDR. With regard to the establishment of a TDR receiver site, the Code requires special review approval and a finding of consistency with the standards and criteria of Sections 6-70-20(b) and 6-70-40(b). The standards for special review approval are addressed above. Section 3-40-90(d) of the Code governs TDR in the RS-20 zone district and states that, TDRs may be purchased and used in the RS-20 zone district for the purpose of increasing the maximum size of an existing dwelling within the limits on final maximum floor area established in Table 5.1, pursuant to Sections 6-70 and 2-40-30, and as set forth in Table 2-1. Section 6-70-20(b) of the Code defines eligible "Receiving Sites" as: Where the owner of a lot or parcel in the RS-35, RS-30, RS-20, AR-10, AR-2, R-30, R-15, R-15A, or R-6 zone districts desires to build a house larger than the base maximum house size permissible under Table 5-1, a TDR may be used to increase the permitted floor area up to the final maximum size specified in Table 5-1. Lot 2Q White Horse Springs (Parcel No.2643-274-00-005) Page u~~J~3 The subject property is eligible for development of asingle-family home in excess of 5,750 square feet of floor area through the use of TDR as it is located in the RS-20 zone district in Pitkin County. Table 5-1 of the Code lists the maximum permitted gross floor area in the RS-20 zone district as 15,000 square feet after GMQS allocation and/or TDR purchase. The applicant proposes to purchase up to four (4) TDR from a permitted "Sending Site' located in Pitkin County. It is understood that each TDR purchased will be worth 2,500 square feet of floor area. The four (4) TDR will be used to allow an addition to the floor area of the home allowed by right (5,750 square feet), as well as up to 1,000 square feet of net livable area for a CDU, for a total of 15,000 square feet of floor area. Any barns and/ or accessory structures would also count against this limit. Finally, Section 6-70-40(b) of the Code outlines the criteria for receiving sites and states that, "TDR from any Sending Site in the County may be used on any Receiving Site in the County, except as limited by Table 6-12 and the provisions of this section." TDR may be used to increase base maximum floor area, "regardless of the number of TDRs purchased, no structure on any Receiving Site shall be permitted to exceed the maximum size for structures in the zone district shown in Table 5-1." The Section goes on to state that, "Additional floor area shall not be available to any Receiving Site where the underlying zone district contains a floor area ratio restriction that would not permit the square footage of floor area sought, or where a prior development approval limited the square footage allowed, and there was no provision for the use of TDRs to exceed the allowed square footage." No prior development approvals applicable to the proposed receiver site limit its ability to use TDR. The RS-20 zoning does not contain a floor area ratio restriction for this location. Thus, there are no limitations applicable to the subject property that would run counter to the request made herein. The special review criteria contained in Section 2-30-30(h) have been specifically addressed above. 3. GMQS Exemption for a CDU, Section 6-30-40(c) The applicant is seeking a GMQS exemption for one CDU, either detached from or attached to the primary residence pursuant to Section 6-30-40(c) of the Code, which states that, One (1) Caretaker Dwelling Unit ("CDU") may be exempted from Growth Management on any lot or parcel located in a zone district in which a CDU is an allowed use, a use allowed by special review, or a use allowed as part of a master plan, as shown in Table 4-1. The CDU may be either attached to a single family dwelling unit ("principal dwelling") or other use or may be detached from the e ~ Lot 20, White Horse S rin s Pazcel No. 2643-274-00-005 Page 20 iiu~J l~?(t P g I ) principal dwelling or other allowed use if it complies with the standards in Sec. 4- 30-50(e). The proposed CDU is located in the RS-20 zone district and, as mentioned above, is allowed by special review. The CDU will comply with the standards of Section 4-30-50(c) through (g) as follows: the CDU will not exceed one thousand (1,000) net livable square feet; the floor area of the caretaker unit will be included in the total allowed floor area for the lot or parcel of land; at least one (1) off- street parking space will be provided for the CDU; the applicant will deed restrict the CDU in a manner which makes clear that it will not be required to be rented, will not be sold or otherwise conveyed or separated from the original parcel, and will be limited to occupancy by not more than two (2) adults, and related children, who have been found by the Housing Office to qualify as employees of the community or members of the owner's immediate family, even though they may not qualify as employees of the community; the CDU will be rented for terms not less than six (6) months if rented; and the CDU restriction may be removed by the property owner upon approval of the Community Development Director, subject to the requirement that the dwelling be removed or modified in a manner that renders the unit incapable of occupancy as a dwelling unit. 4. GMQS Exemption for Development Using TDR, Section 6-30-50 TDR may provide an exemption from GMQS if they comply with the standards of Section 6-30-50 of the Code. Additional floor area (up to the maximum permitted by Table 5-1) on lots or parcels in the Rural Area may be exempted from GMQS through the use of TDR. Accordingly, this application requests approval to use the growth management exemption for development utilizing up to four (4) TDR for a combined total of 9,250 square feet of floor area in addition to the 5,750 square feet of floor area allowed by right (total not to exceed 15,000 square feet). Such an approval requires a finding of consistency with both the criteria for the use of TDR and the criteria for special review (Sections 6-70-40(b) and 2-30-30(h)(2), respectively, as addressed above). 5. GMQS Exemption for Pre-Existing Lots, Section 6-30-100(a) According to Section 6-30-100(a) of the Code, The development of residential floor area on a lot or parcel legally created before June 12, 1978, may be exempted from Growth Management. This GMQS exemption may be used to develop one single family dwelling unit and accessory structures that count as floor area, subject to compliance with all other applicable provisions of this Land Use Code and the _ Lot 2Q White Horse Springs (Parcel No.2643-274-00-005) Page 21 v 'u~ (j ~ L 'J following additional standards: (1)If the lot or parcel is not improved with any structures that count as floor area, then the applicant may develop up to the base maximum size permitted by Table 5-1 on the lot or parcel that is exempt from Growth Management. The subject property is a vacant lot in the White Horse Springs Subdivision. It was originally created in 1977 with the platting of the White Horse Springs Ranch Lots & Tracts (Book 5, Page 66). Pitkin County also approved the Goodnough-Maroon Creek Associates Lot Line Adjustment (Plat Book 38, Page 96) on January 9, 1996. In considering approval of the lot line adjustment, the County was satisfied that the parcels were created prior to 1978. There is ample precedent that the parcels of the White Horse Springs Ranch Lots & Tracts are considered by Pitkin County to be valid pre-1978 parcels. This exemption provides for development of up to 5,750 square feet of floor area, and use of the growth management incentive for development utilizing TDR (addressed above) will provide for additional floor area. Lot 20, White Horse Springs (Pazcel No. 2643-274-00-005) i.!~!~II~Z~i EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Proof of Ownership Exhibit 2: Letter of Authorization for Haas Land Planning, LLC to Represent the Applicant Exhibit 3: Pre-Application Conference Summary Exhibit 4: Wildfire Hazard Review by Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc. Exhibit 5: Hearing Officer Determination No. 49-2006 Exhibit 6: Administrative Decision No. 55-2007 Exhibit 7: Executed Agreement to Pay Form Exhibit 8: Adjacent Property Owners' Mailing Addresses of Record PID No. 2643-27400-005 ~t1)~7 EXHIBIT WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED, made Ibis December 13, 2006, betwew Lwnerd M. Weioglan of the CotmTy of Piddn end State of Colorado, gramm(e), wd Charles Prederiek Bond u Trustee o[the Charles Fredericlt Bond Revocable Trust, dated November 10,1999, as emended June 20, 2005 whose legal addrns is COKEM 863 %enlum Leae, North, Plymouth, MN 55441 ~OC FG'C S~~O.UO ofthe County ofPitkin wd State of Colorado, grmkea: WITNESS, that the grankt(s), tin and in couidention of TEN DOLLARS AND OOR00 and other good and valuable couldaration, dse receipt and suEbcieucy of which is hereby acknowledged, hu grwted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these prawb doe gwf bargain, sell, convey and confirm unk the gnnte<s, then heha and asslgm forever, not in knmrry in common bm injoint twenty, dl the real property. mgetha with iayuovanents, if any, situate, lying and being in the County ofPitkin wd Smn of Colorado, dnrn'bed u Yollows: A parcel of land situeled In Swtkn 27, Township 9 South, Range 84 West of [he Sirth Principal Merid"un, described as follows: Beginning at s po[nt (A rater with up L.S. 20151) whence the South East wrner oLeid SeMion hen South 49° 11' 34" Eut 2654.63 tech, thuce North 82° 24' 17" Wnt 429.89 feet; thecce North 582A9 feet; theses North 72° 23' 00" EaN 302P9 (eeq thence South 10° 39' 00" East 160.71 feel; thwce North 79° 21' 00" Euf 4237Icet,• thence South 20° 11' .55" East S85JI8 feet; thwce South 77° O8' 35" Went 140.13 feet to the point of begirding containing 288,977 Squsre feet more or Ina. Ato Known es Parcel A, Gcedoough•Merwn Creek Associates, Inc. Lot LNe Adjustmwt Pkt ranrded in Plat Bwk38 at Page 9G and While Hone Springs, Block 1, Lot 20, Pltkin County, Colondo. also known by street and number as: Lot ZD While Herne Springs, Aspen, CO 81631 TOGETHER wids all wd smgulm the hercditamwh wd appurtenances thereunto belonging, m in wYwlu appeatmiring wd We reversion end reversions, remainder wd rcmalndvs, rests, issues and profits therwf and all the carte, right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever of rho grantor(s), eithm hr lees or equiTy, o; in wd to the above bargained pnrnisn, withthn ]xreditmanta and apputtwwax; TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premise above bargained end dncribed, with the eppurtwacen, tmto the grantee, their hairs ahd usigm forover. The grwmr(s), for himself Ids hews, wd personal reprccenttives, don wvenam, gran; bargain and ogee m and with the gramws, their heir and anigu, that of the Ome of the-enseaiing and delivery of these present, he t well caved of the premises above wnvryed, ins good, sun, ported absolute wd indefeasible eskte of inheriknce, in law, in fee simple, wd hu good right full power and lawful authority to gent bargain, ull and cwveY the same m mwoa and form u aforesaid, wd that the same are free mdclear'from all former and other grdnb, bargains, sales, liens, tun, essesarnwt, meumbnnce wd restriction of whakver kind or nature aceva, except those ut forth Ir ffihibit "A" attnehW hereto wd made s pert ot. The grantor(s) shall wd will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEF7?ID toe above-bargained premier in the quill and peaceable possession of the grwtoes, their hairs and assigns, agains[ all and every person of persws lawfully claiming the whole m any part thereof The sngular number shall include the plural, the plural the singular, and the use of wy gwda shall be eppliwble m all genders. IN WTTNESS WHEREOF, the gwtor bas exwukd Wis deed w the date set forth above. ~~~~~ Leonard M. Wel(rglsaa STATB OF COLORADO } %+. CO[JN7Y OF Piddn } Tha foregoing Imtmmem wu acknowledged beforo me this Decanter 13, 2006, by Lwnard M. Weinglm. ?arcel Detail Pitkin County Assessor/Treasurer Parcel Detail Information Assessor/Treasurer Property Search ~ Assessor Subset Ouery ~ Assessor Sales Search Clerk & Recorder Rece~fion Search Basic Buildine Characteristics ~ Tax Information Parcel Detail ~ Value Detail ~ Sales Detail ~ Residential/Commercial Improvement Detail Land Detail ~ Photoeravhs Tax Area Account Number Parcel Number 2008 Mill Levy 009 R006257 264327400005 Page 1 of Owner Name and Address BOND CHARLES FREDRICK REV TRUST I~865 XENIUM LN N I PLYMOUTH, MN 55441 Legal Description Subdivision: WHITE HORSE SPRINGS Block: 1 Lot: 20 Section: 27 Township: 9 Range: 85 TRACT OF LAND IN LOTS 15 & 17 OF SEC 27-9-85. DESC AS FOLLOWS BEG AT A PT WH THE SE COR OF SAID SEC 27 BEARS S 49 DEG 11'34"E 2654.63 FT TH N 82 DEG 24' 17"W 429.89 Location Physical Address: MCLAIN FLATS RD ASPEN Subdivision: WHITE HORSE SPRINGS Land Acres: 0 Land Sq Ft: 0 Section Township Ran e 27 9 85 2009 Property Tax Valuation Information Gt~~~29 tttp://www.pitkinassessor.org/assessor/Parcel.asp?AccountNumbei=R006257 11/3/2005 ?azcel Detail Actual Value II Assessed Value Land: Total: Sale Date: 12/13/2006 Sale Price: 6,500,000 Basic Building Characteristics Number of Residential Buildings: 0 Number of Comm/Ind Buildings: 0 No Building Records Found Tax Information No Tax Records Found Page 2 of Too of Paee Assessor Database Search Options ~ Treasurer Database Search Options Pitkin County Home Page Che 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 Sofrwaze. ~,~~~30 ittp://www.pitkinassessor.org/assessor/Pazcel.asp?AccountNumber=R006257 11 /3/2005 EXHIBIT - r_ October 15, 2009 Pitkin County Community Development Dept. 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Lot 20. Block 1, White Horse Springs (PID# 2643-274-00-005) Designation of Activity Envelope, GMQS Exemptions and Special Review for TDR Receiver Site and CDU. To whom it may concern: As owner of the above referenced property, I hereby authorize Haas Land Planning, LLC (HLP) 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 is also authorized to represent me 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. Y 1 s rederick Bond COKaM International, ltd. 3880 4th Aoenue East Shakopee, MN 55379 PID# 2643-274-00-005 ~~~~?3 i EXHIBIT - t~ PITKIN COUNTY PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Suzanne Wolff DATE: 10/29/09 PHONE: (970) 920-5093 E-MAIL: suzannew(o7co.oitkin.co.us LOCATION: Lot 20 White Horse Springs PID# 264327400005 ~' lgr~~s }1"eC'/ r-~c~~ (~ncl QQv "7rus~, ZONE/SIZE: RS-20/6.63 ac APPLICANT: Chuck Bond REPRESENTATIVE: Mitch Haas EMAIL: mhaas@sopris.net Type of Application: Activity Envelope Review and Special Review for TDRs and CDU Description of Project/Development: The Applicant proposes to establish an activity envelope to construct a single family residence and CDU. The Applicant is also requesting approval to utilize TDRs for additional floor area. The Hearing Officer granted approval pursuant to Determination No. 049-2006; the vested rights expire 11/21/09, so the Applicant is seeking a new approval. • 2-30-20(g)(2): Activity Envelope Criteria for Approval; • 2-30-30(h): Special Review Criteria for TDR Receiver Site &CDU; • 4-30-50(e)(1)(2): Caretaker Dwelling Unit • 6-30-40(c): GMOS Exemption for CDU • 6-30-50(b)(2): GMQS Exemption for Additional Floor Area using TDRs • 7-10-50: Activity Envelope; • 7-20-10: Site Preparation and Grading; • 7-20-20: Steep and Potentially Unstable Slopes; • 7-20-30: Water Courses and Drainage; • 7-20-60: Wildfire Hazard -Low Wildfire Hazard Area; • 7-20-70: Wildlife Habitat: No mapped habitat Review by: Hearing Officer Public Hearing: YES. The applicant shall post a public notice sign on the property at least 15 days prior to the hearing and shall mail notice to all property owners within 300' at least 30 prior to the hearing with the return address of the Community Development Department (copy of the notice to be obtained from the Community Development Department). The names and addresses shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appear no more than 60 days prior to the date of the public hearing. FEES: $2,874 (make check payable to "Pitkin County Treasurer") • $2,795 Planning Office flat fee: (non-refundable; based on 11 hours of staff time. If staff review time exceeds 13.2 hours, the Applicant will be charged for additional time above 11 hours at a rate of $249/hour) $54 Public Notice: $25 Web Technology Fee: Fees for the Hearing Officer will be billed separately. i~l.~~32 To apply, submit 2 copies 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. 24" by 36" and 11" by 17" Activity Envelope Plan as designated in Section 2.1.1 of the Pitkin County Land Use Application Manual 3. Parcel description, including legal description and vicinity map 4. Total fee for review of the application 5. Signed fee agreement (1 copy) 6. Consent from owner(s) to process application and authorizing the representative (1 copy) 7. List of all adjacent property owners and mineral estate owners (1 copy) 8. Copies of this pre-app form NOTES: - PLEASE SUBMIT ONE UNBOUND AND ONE-SIDED COPY OF YOUR COMPLETE APPLICATION. PLEASE SUBMITTWO-SIDED COPIES OF ALL REMAINING COPIES OF YOUR APPLICATION (IF POSSIBLE). THE PARCEL IDs SHOULD BE INCLUDED ON ALL 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 staff's interpretations based upon representations of the applicant. Additional information maybe required upon a complete review of the application. i,~ l,~'l 3 3 EXHIBIT ~_ PLANNING May 16, 2006 Mitch Haas, AICP Haas Land Planning 201 N. Mill St., Suite 108 Aspen CO, 81611 RE: Lot 20, White Horse Springs- 1041 Wildfire Hazard Review Dear Mr. Haas Please submit this letter with your application to Pitkin County I visited Lot 20 in the White Horse Springs Subdivision in Pitkin County, on May 11, 2006 with Mr. Mitch Haas, the owner's representative. Mr. Haas is preparing a 1041 site review for establishment of a building envelope on the parcel. The Lot and around them are considered "Low Hazard: Grass", due to the fact that the slopes appears less than 20% and the fuels appeared discontinuous and very mesic. A slope exceeding 20% with continuous fuels exists to the west of the Lot. The Conditions of Approval relating to Sec. 3-80-070, Wildfire Hazard Areas, for the provision of Defensible Space surrounding development (including main residence and any outbuildings) for low wildfire hazard areas include: I. Vegetation 1. House must be at least 30' from the slope break where oakbrush and high hazard fuels exist. 2. Brush, debris, and non- ornamentalvegetation shall be removed within a minimum ten- foot (10') perimeter around all structures. 3. No branches shall be within 15' of chimneys. 4. Conifers may remain, but all setbacks will begin from the outer crown of the conifers. No new conifers can be planted within 15' of the structure. 5. Mow grasses to less than 6" within 30' of the structures during the summer and fall months. 0222 BOBCAT LANE REDSTONE COLORADO 81623 PHONE/FAX: (970) 963-2190 CELL: (970) 309-4454 EMAIL: ERIC.PETTERSON@STARBAND.NET ~~iJ~?3 i.at 20 Wbite Horse Saner- 1041 Wildfire Hazard Review May 16 2006 6. The property owner shall be responsible for the continued maintenance of the defensible space vegetation requirements. The following Structural Design and Construction Standards are required for construction of a main house and any outbuildings: II. Projections Any parch or deck or projection shall be void of vegetation below it, and areas below such projections shall be protected from accumulation of vegetation materials by placement of a vegetation barrier covered with rocks or gravel, or by coverage with concrete or stone. If vegetation does not grow under projections, then only annual cleaning of debris is required. Pillars or columns shall be of non- flammable materials, or if wood, made out of heavy log construction. III. Foundations and Stilt Construction 1. Foundations, skirting and crawl space openings shall be fully enclosed. IV. Roofing 1. Any new roofs shall be constructed with a Class A roof covering (see IBC Section 1505.2) or a Class A assembly. Shake shingle roofs are prohibited. 2. Vents shall be screened with corrosive resistant wire mesh, with mesh '/;' maximum on any new or existing roofs. V. Maintenance 1. Roofs and gutters shall be kept clear of debris. 2. Yards shall be kept clear of all littler, slash and flammable debris. 3. All flammable materials (including firewood) shall be stored on a parallel contour a minimum of 30' from any structure, or within a separate structure. 4. Litter and other flammable materials (including brooms, newspaper, old wood, flammable mulches, etc.) shall not be left adjacent to any structure. VI. Miscellaneous 1. Fences shall be kept clear of brush and debris, and must have at least a 3" gap between the fence and the main structure. Non-flammable, or treated wood fencing material is recommended within 30' of the house. Fences shall be kept clear of vegetation. 2. Any outbuildings or additional structures shall adhere to the same standards as the main house. 3. Each structure shall have a minimum of one ten-pound ABC fire extinguisher. 4. Addresses shall be clearly marked with 2" non-combustible letters and shall be visible at the primary point of access from the public or common access road and installed on anon-combustible surface. 5. Fuel or propane tanks shall be installed underground with an approved container. ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC ~i~tJ`~3 Z.ot 20 Wbite Horre S~rznrr- 1041 Wire Hagard Review t~fav 16 2006 VII. Access 1. No continuous profiles of shrubs or conifers are allowed within 10' of the driveways, but clumps separated by 1 time the height of the fuel is permitted. Aspen are permitted within 10' of the driveway. 2. Low vegetation (grasses, fortis and low shrubs) shall be kept mowed to less than 6" within 10' of either side of the driveway. VIII. Water Supply 1. All structures greater than 5,000 square feet in size shall be required to install in- house sprinkler systems that meet the standards of the local fire protection district and the IBC. At building permit submittal, the local fire protection district may require smaller structures to be sprinkled due to hazard considerations, emergency access difficulties and lack of proximity to fire protection services. IX. Utilities 1. Utility lines shall be buried. X. Review Process 1. All development shall be reviewed for compliance with this section. The above standards have been- modified from the Pitkin County Code 3-80-070 Wildfire Hazard Areas, for the situation at the property. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on this property. Please feel free to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, oivv~Hdv~ M E9c Eric Petterson p ~M~~ Eal9~kY 99Mw~ ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SER~IICES, INC rc..cW3 ~~~ OM: dlC0.05.18 ~ 8:19MW Eric Petterson Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc. 3 IW~II~_O,yY~ENI EXHIBIT ~- 531713 Pages: I of 6 12/01/2006 l1:S4i o e.e0 DETERMINATION OF THE HEARING OFFICER OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, APPROVING THE MAROON CREEK ASSOCIATES INC. 1041 HAZARD REVIEW, CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION, SPECIAL REVIEW AND GMQS EXEMPTION FOR A TDR RECEIVER SITE AND A CARETAKER DWELLING UNIT Determination NoQ~-2006 RECITALS I) Maroon Creek Associates (hereafter "Applicant") has applied to the Pitkin County Hearing Officer (hereafter "Hearing Officer") to establish building and landscape envelopes to construct a single family residence, and to establish the parcel as a TDR receiver site to accommodate a residence of up to 10,750 square feet of floor area, of which 2,500 squaze feet would be utilized for subgrade space only, and a barn of up to 2,500 squaze feet of floor area. In addition, the Applicant is requesting approval for a cazetaker dwelling unit. 2) The property is located off of McLain Flats Road, is referred to as Amended Lot 20, Block 1, White Horse Springs, and is more specifically described in Exhibit A. 3) The property contains 6.63 acres and is a nonconforming size parcel in the RS-20. 4) The BOCC granted special review approval to separate Lots 20 and 21 pursuant to Resolution No. 77-148 (separation of substandard size lots in platted subdivisions not approved by the County). The Planning Director approved an amendment to relocate the access easement across Lot 21 to Lot 20 from the northern to the southern boundary of Lot 21 (approved 12/13/199]) and a lot line adjustment (Plat Book 38 at Page 96) to adjust the boundary between Lots 20 and 21 to coincide with the fence line. 5) Pursuant to the 1977 lot sepazation, Lot 20 is a separately developable parcel that is exempt from growth management. It has not merged with any adjacent pazcels. 6) The Applicant submitted a complete application prior to July 6, 2006, therefore, the application is being considered pursuant to the 1994 Land Use Code, as amended. 7) The Hearing Officer heard this application at a duly noticed public hearing on November 21, 2006, at which time evidence and testimony were presented with respect to this application. 8) The Hearing Officer finds that the proposed building and landscape envelopes are located on slopes of less than 30%, that the wildfire hazard is rated as low and can be mitigated, and that the property is not within any mapped wildlife habitat areas. 9) The I-tearing Officer further finds that the requests to utilize a TDR for additional floor area and to construct a caretaker dwelling unit are consistent with the special review criteria, and that the proposed development otherwise complies with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Pitkin County Community Development Hearing Officer that approval is hereby granted for the Maroon Creek Associates Inc. 1041 Hazard ~u°J3'l DQ~Q ~ ination No~ Z006 IVIII VIII IIIIII IIIIIIIIIIVIII IIIIIIIIII VIIIIIII IIIIe 5 01 20 ee t:54i Review, Conceptual Submission, Special Review and GMQS Exemption for a TDR receiver site and a Caretaker Dwelling Unit, subject to the following conditions, which shall run with the land and be binding on all successors in interest: 1. The Applicants shall adhere to all conditions and material representations made in the application and public meetings except as amended herein. 2. Prior to submission of any building or other development permit applications, the Applicant shall be required to submit for approval by the County Attorney and Community Development a 1041 Hazard Review Site Plan in accordance with Land Use Code Section 5-70-040, which shall depict the building and access envelopes. The above referenced approvals shall be a condition precedent to finalization and recordation. 3. Prior to submission of a septic permit for the new residence, the Applicant shall provide a letter of intent to serve the property with water from the White Horse Springs Water and Sanitation District. 4. A[ building permit application for the new residence and barn/caretaker dwelling unit, the Applicant shall surrender three TDR Certificates and a copy of the deed(s) evidencing the Applicant's acquisition of the Certificates (if applicable), in order to develop an additional 7,500 square feet of Floor area. Use of the TDRs shall be limited as follows: an additional 2,500 square feet of above grade floor area for the residence (up to a total of 8,250 square feet); 2,500 square feet of subgmde space for the residence; and 2,500 square feet of floor area for a barn and caretaker dwelling unit. 5. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the new residence, the Applicant shall: A. Obtain a septic system permit(s) from the Environmental Health and Natural Resources Department. The sewage disposal system(s) must be designed by a registered professional engineer and shall be located within the approved building envelope. B. Obtain fireplace/woodstove permits from the Community Development Department, if necessary. C. Submit a drainage and erosion control plan for review and approval by the Planning Engineer. D. Pay the applicable road and housing impact fees. E. Obtain adriveway/access permit from the Planning Engineer for the driveway to the residence. F. Submit a Construction Management plan for review and approval by the Planning Engineer. The Plan shall address employee traffic and parking, construction vehicles, staging and deliveries. 6. Prior to commencement of any earthmoving or construction activity, the Applicant shall stake the corners of the building envelope and install construction fencing around the perimeter of the building envelope. The fencing shall remain in place until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the residence. 7. The Applicant shall comply with the following landscaping and wildfire defensible space mitigation standards: A. Structures shall be located at least 30' from the slope break to the southwest. B. Brush, debris, and non-ornamental vegetation shall be removed within a minimum 10' perimeter around all structures. C. No branches shall be within I S' of chimneys. D. No new conifers shall be planted within 15' of all structures. E. Grasses or low vegetation within 30' of all structures and 10' either side of the driveway shall be maintained at a height of 6" or less during the summer and fall months. Page 3 ination NoO~-2006 i IIIIII Vlll IIIIIIIIII VIII IuII Illilll III VIII Ilil Illl 5 01 2008 11:341 JRNICE K VOS CPUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 0.00 D 0.00 F. No continuous profiles of shrubs or conifers are allowed within l0' of the driveway, but clumps of shrubs or conifers separated by 1 time the height of the fuel is permitted. Aspen trees are permitted within 10' of the driveway. G. The applicant shall be responsible for the continued maintenance of the defensible space vegetation requirements. 8. The Applicant shall comply with the following additional wildfire mitigation standards: A. Roofs shall be constructed with a Class A roof covering or a Class A assembly. Wood shake/shingle roof coverings are prohibited. Roofs with less than a 3: 12 pitch are not permitted unless they comply with the following: 1) All roof coverings shall be noncombustible materials and installed on a Class A roof assembly. 2) All roof coverings shall have a surface that shall facilitate the natural process of clearing the roof. 3) All roof designs shall facilitate the natural process of clearing roof debris. Protrusions above the roofline, such as parapets, shall be prohibited. 4) Roofs shall be installed as required by the adopted building code and shall have a minimum slope of 1:48. 5) All roof designs, coverings, or equivalent assemblies shall be specifically approved by the Fire Marshal prior to submittal of a building permit application. B. Vents shall be screened with corrosive resistant wire mesh with mesh '/a inch maximum. C. Roofs and gutters shall be kept clear of debris. D. Yards shall be kept clear of all litter, slash, and flammable debris. E. All flammable materials shall be stored on a parallel contour a minimum of 15 feet away from any structure. F. Weeds and grasses within the 10 foot perimeter shall be maintained to a height not more than 6 inches. G. Firewood/wood piles shall be stacked on a parallel contour a minimum of 15 feet away from the structure. H. Swimming pools shall be accessible to Fire Department vehicles, 1. Fences shall be kept clear of brush and debris. J. Wood fences shall not connect to the structure. K. Any outbuildings or additional structures shall adhere to the same standards as structures. L. Fuel tanks shall be installed underground with an approved container. M. Propane tanks shall be installed according to NFPA 48 standards and on a contour away from the structure with standard defensible space vegetation mitigation around any above- ground tank. Any wood enclosure around the tank shall be constructed with materials approved for 2 hour fire- resistive construction on the exterior side of the walls. N. Each structure shall have a minimum of one 10 pound approved A8C fire extinguisher placed in a visible and accessible location. O. Addresses shat 1 be clearly marked with 2 inch non-combustible letters and shall be visible and installed on anon-combustible post. P. Utility lines shall be buried within or along the driveway or the building envelope. 9. The Applicants shall comply with the following wildlife mitigation conditions: A. Fencing outside of the building envelope shall comply with the wildlife compatible fencing regulations in the Land Use Code. B. Native vegetation shall be maintained outside of the building envelope, except as may be necessary to implement the wildtre mitigation measures required elsewhere in this document. f ^~ Page4rnarronNo.~Q--2006 I~III~~~II~IIIIIII~IIII~IIII~II~~~I~~IIII~~IIIIIIIII~II 5 0~ zeee it:sar 0.00 0 0.00 C. Weeds shall be controlled as per the Pitkin County Weed Management Plan. D. Provide waste storage that complies with the County's Wildlife Protection Ordinance. Verification of compliance shall be provided prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. E. Landscaping shall avoid nut, berry or fruit producing trees or shrubs. I0. No development, including grading, excavation, fill placement, berming, landscaping, entry or ranch gates, septic system, well and vegetation removal or disturbance shall occur outside of the approved building or landscape envelopes, unless otherwise specified in this document, such as necessary wildfire mitigation. Construction, staging, parking, utility and driveway extension and maintenance shall occur within the approved building or landscape envelopes. 1 I. The Applicant shall comply with all codes and requirements of [he Aspen Fire Protection District, including but not limited to those codes and requirements relating to taming around of fire equipment, an approved fire sprinkler system and adequate water supply (minimum of 20,000 gallons, pending confirmation of proximity to the nearest fire hydrant). 12. Exterior lighting shall comply with the Pitkin County lighting standards in effect at the time of installation. 13. All areas disturbed by construction shall be revegetated to limit water consumption and additional runoff within one growing season after completion of construction. 14. The caretaker dwelling unit shall be limited to 1,000 net livable square feet. The kitchen shall contain a minimum of a two burner stove with at least a 5 cubic foot oven that can bake and broil, sink of at least 14"W X I ti"D X 5.25"H, and at least a 5.3 cubic foot refrigerator and 0.73 cubic foot freezer. A minimum of one off-street parking space shall be provided for the unit. The Applicant shall provide one off-street parking space for each bedroom in the caretaker unit. The caretaker dwelling unit must have 'separately accessible utilities. This does not preclude shared utilities. 15. Prior to submission of any building permits for the caretaker unit, the Applicant shall obtain and the Housing Office shall record a caretaker dwelling unit deed restriction. Actual floor plans of the unit shall be submitted to the Housing Office with the deed restriction. 16. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the caretaker dwelling unit, the Housing Office may inspect the unit. ] 7. Failure to comply with these conditions of approval may result in revocation of this permit or any subsequent permits related to this property. I8. Statutory vested rights for the approval contained herein are granted pursuant to the Pitkin County Land Use Code and Colorado Statutes, subject to the exceptions se[ forth in Pitkin County Land Use Code, S 4-140 and C.RS, S 24-68-105. The statutory vested rights granted herein shall expire on November 21, 2009. ~1.~'?40 Page 5 tnalion No. 2006 IIIIIIIIIIB IIIIIIIIIIIVIII VIIIIIIIIII III VIIIIIIIIIIIB s 61D 0.0061 :67i NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PUBLISHED IN THE ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY on the I5'" day of October, 2006. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2 ] s' day of November, 2006. PUBLISHED AFTER ADOPTION FOR VESTED REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS in the Aspen Times Weeks on the ~ day ofl~__, 2006. AT"fEST: ~cmnto ~ t~i0(,~i Bonnie Waechtler, Administrative Assistant APPROVED AS TO FORM: ..~_ ~~--_;.. John Ely, County Attorney P0158-O6;PID#264327400005 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING OFFICER OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO James R. True, Hearing Officer Date i z> !~ APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Cin y` d Houben,~ .~C~' Community Development Director ;,;,~t~41 V1r~ - Sao o~q-soCt~ ~ ~X~ub~d-~ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII~IIIIIII~IIIIIIIIIIIIRIIIIII°5 0~ x00e6i:sat A Parcel of Land Situated in Section 27, township 9 South Range 85 West of the 6th P.M. described as follows: Beginning at a Point (a rehar with CAP L.S. 20151) whence the Southeast Corner otsaid Section bears South 49°11;34" East 2654.63 feet; thence North 82°24'17" West 429.89 feet; thence North 582.49 feet; thence North 72°23'00" East 302.89 feet; thence South 10°39'00" East 160.71 feet; thence North 79°21'00" East 42.37 feet; ,thence South 20°14'55" East SS5.8S feet; thence South 77°08'35" West 140.13 feet to the point of beginning, pitkia County, Colorado ADO ~uwn as Parcel A, Goodnoogh_Marron Creek Associates, Inc. Lot Line Adjustment Plat recorded in Plat Book 38 at Page 96, ALTA Commitment -Schedule A This cotnminnrnt ¢ invalid unless the insuring Provisions end Schedule A end B are attached. 3/30!2006 ~~U`.)42 EXHIBIT ~- ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DHtECTOR OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, APPROVING A MINOR AMENDMENT TO HEARING OFFICER DETERMINATION N0.49-2006 FOR THE CHARLES FREDERICK BOND REVOCABLE TRUST Administrative Decision No.~2007 RECITALS 1) Chazles Frederick Bond, Trustee of the Charles Frederick Bond Revocable Trust (hereafter "Applicant") has applied to the Pitkin County Community Development Director (hereafter "Director") to amend the prior approval to reallocate the 7,500 square feet of additional floor area associated with the three TDRs approved for use on the site. 2) Condition #4 of Hearing Officer Determination No. 49-2006 limits use of the TDRs as follows: an additiona12,500 square feet of above grade floor area for the residence (up to a total of 8,250 square feet); 2,500 square feet of subgrade space for the residence; and 2,500 square feet of floor area for a barn and caretaker dwelling unit. This condition memorialized the representations made by the Applicant regarding use of the additional floor area. The Applicant is requesting to amend condition #4 to limit the use of the TDRs as follows: an additional 4,250 square feet of above grade floor area for the residence (up to a total of 10,000 square feet); 1,450 square feet of subgrade space for the residence; and 1,800 square feet of floor area for a detached garage and caretaker dwelling unit. 3) The property is located off of McLain Flats Road, is referred to as Amended Lot 20, Block 1, White Horse Springs, and is more specifically described in Exhibit A. 4) The property contains 6.63 acres and is a nonconforming size parcel in the RS-20 zone district. 5) The BOCC granted special review approval to separate Lots 20 and 21 pursuant to Resolution No. 77- 148 (separation of substandard size lots in platted subdivisions not approved by the County). The Planning Director approved an amendment to relocate the access easement across Lot 21 to Lot 20 from the northern to the southern boundary of Lot 21 (approved 12/13/1991) and a lot line adjustment (Pat Book 38 at Page 96) to adjust the boundary between Lots 20 and 21 to coincide with the fence line. 6) Pursuant to the 1977 lot separation, Lo[ 20 is a separately developable parcel that is exempt frorjt growth management. It has not merged with any adjacent parcels. 7) The Hearing Officer granted 1041 hazard review, conceptual submission, special review and GMQ$ exemption for a TDR receiver site and a caretaker dwelling unit, pursuant to Determination No. 49-Z~Q06. 8) The Director finds that the request to reallocate the floor area associated with the TDRs for additi naI floor area complies with the criteria in Sec. 2-20-1 SO.b of the Code: it does not change the use of the proposed development or the basic character of the approved use, does not increase off-site impact's, does not endanger the public health, safety or welfare, and does not increase the floor area. ' NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT APPROVED by the Pitkin County Community Development Director [hat approval is hereby granted for a minor amendment to Hearing Officer Determination No. 49- 2006, subject to the following conditions, which shall run with the land and be binding on all successors in interest: RECEPTIONk: 538992, 08/15/2007 at 03:45:26 PM, 7 OF 3, R $0.00 Doc Code ADMIN DECISION Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO u~U~;43 Administrative Decision No.~-2007 Page 2 1. All conditions of Hearing Officer Determination No. 49-2006 shall remain in full force and effect, except as amended herein. 2. The Applicants shall adhere to all conditions and material representations made in the application and public meetings except as amended herein. 3. Condition #4 of Determination No. 49-2006 shall be replaced with the following: At building permit application for the new residence and barn/cazetaker dwelling unit, the Applicant shall surrender three TDR Certificates and a copy of the deed(s) evidencing the Applicant's acquisition of the Certificates (if applicable), in order to develop an additional 7,500 square feet of floor area. Use of the TDRs shall be limited as follows: an additional 4,250 square feet of above grade floor area for the residence (up to a total of 10,000 square feet); 1,450 square fee[ of subgrade space for the residence; and 1,800 square feet of floor azea for a detached garage and caretaker dwelling unit. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ~ day of~_, 2007. ~~,_~ c~~~l.~ C~y~Houben, Community Development Director P0050-07;PID#264327400005 WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED, made this December 13, 2006, between Lmnard M. Weingian of the County of Pltldn and Stem of Colorado, grantor(s), and Chorlce Prederkk Bond u Trustee of the Charles Fredericir Bond Revetable Trust, dated November 10,1999, as emended June 20, 2005 whose legal address is COKEM 863 %enium La¢q North, Plymouth, MN 55441 IOC FaC. $~O~.OC~ ofthe County of Pitkin end Stale of Colorado, graomes: WITNESS, that the granmr(s), fw end in conideration of TEN DOLLARS AND 00!100 and other good and valuable coosiderafioa, We receipt and sufficiedcy of which is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these prose¢ce does grant, bargain, ull, convry a¢d confirm unm the grameea, theirhein and assign forever, not rn tenanry in common bra injomt tenancy, all Me real property, together with improvements, if any, situate, lying and being in the Cotmry of Pitk(n and State of Colwedo, dcem'bed u fo0ows: A parcel o[ land situated f¢ Section 27, Townhip 9 South, Range 64 West ot[he Sirth Principal Meridian, described ea follows: Begi¢¢ing et a point (A re6u with cap L.S. 20151) whmee the South East eoroer otseid Seetlon hwn South 49° 11' 34" Eut 2654.63 feep thence NorN 82° 24' 17" Wcet d39.89 feet; the¢ee North 582A9 feat; thence North 72° 23' 00" Ent 30289 feet; them South 10° 39' 00" East 160.71 tell; thence North 79° 21' 00" Eut 42.37 feet: thence South 20° 14' .55" Eact 585.88 IeU; thnce South 77° 08' 35^ West 140.13 feet to the point o[ begirding conhi¢i¢g 288,977 Squarn feet more or less. Also Know¢ es Parcel A, Goodnough•Maroon Creek As+ociates, Ina Lot Line Adjustment Piet recorded in Plat Book 38 at Page 9G end White Horse Springs, Block 1, Lot E0, Pidtin County, Co]ondo. also known by atreU end number as: Lot ZO W hlte Hone Springs, Aspen, CO 81611 TOGETHER wide all ud smgulaz Ne heroditammts and appurtenmces thereunto belonging, w m an3'wise appeadaining and the reversion and reversions, romemder s¢d nmalndets, rents, issues and profda thereof; and nll the estate, right, thle, i¢mrest, clavn and demand whatsoever of the grantor(s), either ht law or egWry, of in and tr the above hazgained pm¢isce, with the heroditamence and appurtenances; TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premisce above bazgamed end described, with the eppuctenanca, unto the grantees, their heirs and usign forever. The grantor(s), fw himself his heir, and perso¢d represenmdves, does covenant, grant, bargain and agree to and with the grantees, their heirs end assign, that otthe time of the ensealing and delivery of these presence, be k well seized afihe premises above convryed, has good, sure, pmfect, absolute and indefeasible cetate of iohedrance, in law, m fee simple, a~ hu good right, full power end ]awful authwiry to grant, bargain, sell and convry the same in rnannu and form u efwaaid, a¢d that the same rare free end clam Tmm all Cotmer and othm gra¢ts, bargain-+, sales, lien, taxes, aueesmence, enwmbrucce and restriction of whatever kind rr Hamra saevm, except those xt forth 1n Exhibit "A"attached hereto and made a pert of. The grantor(s) shall end will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the above-bargained premises in the quill and peaceable posseulan of the gramees, their hews and assign, against all and every person or persons lawfulry claiming the whole or any part therbof The singutaz number shall include the plural, the plural the singular, and the ne of any gender shed be applicable to aR ge¢ders. IN WTTNESS WHEREOF, the grmmr hu execukd this deed on the date sU forth above. ~~~~ Leonard M. WU6®(as1 STATE OF COLORADO ) sa. COUNTY OF Pitldn } The foregoing instrumem was acknowledged before me this Decenber 13, 2006, by Leonard M. Weinglau. My Commission expires: C(-~ ~'a, ~ f1A 3 Witness ~hend and afticial seal ~,•• ~ -_ TA ~! ~ _ ~.~0 qj_~,.0 `iVOrary Public ~ "`~ 9~.'•.,, BL , F OF COCOA ~:~ n 'E PITHIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AGREEMENT FOR PAYMENT OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FEES PITKIN COUNTY (hereinafter COUNTY) and Charles Frederick Bond (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: APPLICANT has submitted to COUNTY ivision located on McLain Flats Road (hereinafter, THE 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 pard m 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 detennination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of ~lwhich is for 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. PITHIN COUNTY Cindy Houben Community Development Director APPLICANT: Charles Fr e ' Signature: Date: ~ o ~ ZB~ 6 °I Mailing Address: COKr;M Internat~Onal~ ~td. 3880 4th Avenue East Shakopee, MN 55379 PID# 2643-27400-005 ~~;;~)n~=Ei LOT 20, BLOCK 1, WHITE HORSE SPRINGS-ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS 1720 MCLAIN FLATS ROAD LLC 121 S GALENA ST STE 203 ASPEN, CO 81611 MCLAIN FLATS LLC 218 MAIN ST #762 KIRKLAND, WA 98033 K & R PROPERTIES OF ASPEN LLC 15852 N 81ST STREET SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85260 WEINGLASS LEONARD M PO BOX 11509 ASPEN, CO 81612 MOORE FAMILY RANCH PROPERTIES LLC BOX 126 WOODY CREEK, CO 81656 PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to the general public that on February 16, 2010, the Hearing Officer of Pitkin County granted approval for the Bond Activity Envelope Review, Special Review for a TDRs and Cazetaker Dwelling Unit (Determination No. 01-2010; Case No. P115-09). The property is located on McLain Flats Road, is referred to as Amended Lot 20, Block 1, White Horse Springs Ranch, and is legally described as a parcel of land situated in Section 27, township 9 South, Range 85 West of the 6`" P.M. The State Pazcel Identification Number for the property is 2643-274-00-005. This site-specific development plan grants a vested property right pursuant to Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes. s/James True Hearing Officer Pitkin County, Colorado Published in the Aspen Times Weekly, on February 28, 2010. PUBLIC NOTICE RE: Charles Frederick Bond Revocable Trust Activity Envelope Review, GMQS Exemptions, and Special Review for TDRs and a CDU (Case P115-09) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, January 19, 2010 to begin at 3:00 P.M., or as soon thereafter as the conduct of business allows, at the Pitkin County Library Meeting Room, 102 North Mill Street, Aspen, before the Pitkin County Hearing Officer, to consider an application submitted by the Charles Frederick Bond Revocable Trust (500 Wildcat Vista, Snowmass Village, CO 81615) requesting to establish an activity envelope within which to construct a residence and accessory structures, and requesting special review approval and GMQS exemptions to designate the property as a receiver site for up to 4 TDRs and to construct a caretaker dwelling unit. The property is located on McLain Flats Road, is referred to as Amended Lot 20, Block 1, White Horse Springs Ranch, and is legally described as a parcel of land situated in Section 27, township 9 South, Range 85 West of the 6`h P.M. The State Parcel Identification Number for the property is 2643-274-00-005. The application is available for public inspection in the Community Development Department, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 81611. For further information, contact Suzanne Wolff at (970) 920-5093. s/James True Pitkin County Hearing Officer Published in The Aspen Times Weekly on December 13, 2009. Attention Applicant/Representative: It is your responsibility to do the following: 1. Mail this Public Notice to all property owners within 300' and mineral estate owners at least 30 days prior to the hearing with the return address of the Community Development Department. The names and addresses shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than 60 days prior to the date of the public hearing 2. Submit the Affidavit of Notice (Code Section 2-20.100) by Posting & Mailing (previously sent to you with your applicant letter) as proof of compliance with the Code at the hearing. 3. Pick up Public Notice sign from the Pitkin County Community Development Department, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, CO (970) 920.5526 4. Post the Public Notice sign on the property at least fifteen days (15) prior to the hearing 5. Remove the Public Notice sign within one week after hearing date County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE & } ss. MAILING PURSUANT TO State of Colorado } PITHIN COUNTY LAND USE CODE SECTION 2-20-100 I, ~ 1 T rT3r15 ,being or representing an Applicant to the Pitkin County D velopment Permit, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 2-20-100 of the Pitkin County Land Use Regulations in the following manner: By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class, postage prepaid U.S. Mail at least 30 days prior to the public hearing to all owne of property within 300' to the subject property, as indicated on the attached 1'st, on the day of ,, 20~ (which is 33days prior to the public hearing date of I 4 Iv .The names and addresses of the adjacent property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeazed no more than 60 days prior to the public heazing. 2. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class, postage prepaid U.S. Mail at least 30 days prior to the public hearing to the owner(s) of the mineral estate underneath the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the day of , 201_ (which is _ days prior to the public hearing date of ~. The names and addresses of the mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeazed no more than 60 days prior to the public hearing. 3. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) on the o~oZ day of Ct~, 20Dp, which is at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A photograph of the posted sign is attached lf~reto. M oJ~tf~ ~~~>REJoCA81 ~` I'I TCtI of tr 2osr ~ Applicant's name Signature 5~ • Co~~~Nor~ ~I~~ ~~~ (^~ ~+~aro of ?oSfso J~Gr.I J Signed before me this~day of.~-~-~-?.t~.c~.u1~ 201Dby /i~-~~w ~~c~zs O WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: J`~//~{~2yi3~ .,,...,~ qtr ;°o ~ Notary Public ~a P~l~ ~4 ~''i,G~ w o G Notary Public's Signature ..... TAT E OE 0~~ Z PITHIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920-5526 FAX# (970) 920-5439 November 16, 2009 Mitch Haas 201 North Mill Street, Suite 108 Aspen, CO 81611 mhaas(cilsooris net Re: Bond Activity Envelope Review, Special Review for a TDRs and Caretaker Dwelling Unit (PID 2643-274-00-005; Case P115-09) Dear Mr. Hass: 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. We have scheduled this application for review at a public hearing by the Pitkin County Hearing Officer on Tuesday, January 19, 2010, at a meeting to begin at 3:00 p.m. in the Pitkin County Library Meeting Room, 102 North Mill Street, Aspen, Colorado. Should this date be inconvenient for you, please contact me within 3 working days of the date of this letter. After that the agenda date will be considered final and changes to the schedule or tabling of the application will only be allowed for unavoidable technical problems. The Friday before the meeting date, we will call to inform you that a copy of the memo pertaining to the application is available at the Planning Office. Please be aware that the Hearing Officer will be billed at $175 per hour. Please note that it is your responsibility to post a public notice sign on the property at least 15 days prior to the hearing (and remove it within one week after) and to mail notice to all property owners and mineral estate owners within 300' of the subject property at least 30 days prior to the hearing with the return address of the Community Development Department (copy of notice will be mailed to you by the Community Development Department). The names and addresses shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than 60 days prior to the date of the public hearing. Please submit the enclosed Affidavit of Notice by Posting & Mailing as proof of compliance with the Code at the hearing. If you have any questions, please call Suzanne Wolff, the planner assigned to your case, at 920-5093. Sincerely, Bonnie Waechtler Administrative Assistant Encl: Affidavit (Code Section 2-20-100) PITKIN OwUNTY COMMUNITY DEVEL(.,,,,1MENT Permit Receipt RECEIPT NUMBER 00028500 Name: Charles F Bond Date:11/3/2009 Project Address: 0 MCLAIN FLATS RD Type: check # 9942 Permit Number 0115.2009. PLAN 0115.2009. P LAN 0115.2009. PLAN Fee Description PP- Flat Fee PP-Clerk Tech Fee PP- Public Notice Fee Amount 2,795.00 25.00 54.00 2, 874.00