Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
pitkin.planning.273510101005 (4)
DOCUMENT LAYOUT THIS FILE MAY OR MAY NOT CONTAIN ALL OF THE INFORMATION LISTED BELOW IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER Summary Sheet Resolution for the BOCC and /or P &Z Ordinance for the BOCC and /or P &Z Determination for the Hearing Officer Administrative Determination Staff Memo Application Public Notice, Acceptance Letter, Referral(s) Letter Site Plan Miscellaneous Plat copies (11x17) Parcel ID: 2735- 10 -1 -01 -005 Application Date: 8/1/11 Case No: PO64 -11 Description: Lot 5 EP LLC Subdivision Exemption Minor Plat Amendment & Minor Planner: Lance Clarke Amendment to a Development Permit WITHDRAWN 12/2/2011 # Copies: 1 partial refund processed 12/14/2011 Allocated Hours: 6 Project Address: 360W EAGLE PINES DR, ASPEN, CO 81611 % Over Hours: 7.2 Property Owner: LOT 5 EP, LLC Address: 413 VINE ST ASPEN, CO 81611 Owner Phone: Owner's REP: BART JOHNSON REP's Email: jpfloating @comcast.net Referrals: ALL OTHER REFERRALS Comments Due Date: 09/09/2011 Address: 420 E MAIN ST, STE #210 ASPEN, CO 81611 Other Referrals: Eagle Pines HOA REP's Phone: (970) 544 -4602 Meetings: list Meeting: Meeting Date: Review Body admin Public Hearing? no Notice Date: Meeting Notes 2nd Meeting: 3rd Meeting: Approvals: BOCC Resolution #: P &Z Determination #: BOCC Ordinance #: HO Determination #: Admin Determination #: Other Information: VR Approval Date: VR Expires Date: Remarks Plat Recorded Date: Plat (Bk. PG): Application Type: Subdivision Exemption Minor Plat Amendment Minor Amendment to a Development Permit Lance Clarke From: J. Bart Johnson (Johnson @wcrlegal.coml Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 9:16 AM To: Lance Clarke Cc: Kerry Vickar; Chip Whipple (whip @rof.net) Subject: Lot 5, Eagle Pines Subdivision Attachments: image001 Jpg Lance, Per our conversation this morning, this email confirms that Lot 5 EP, LLC has elected to withdraw its applications for a Minor Amendment and Driveway Permit concerning a driveway spur for Lot 5 in the Eagle Pines Subdivision. As we discussed, I will follow up with you on Monday with regard to the application fees we submitted. Thanks. - -Bart WARS CAMPBELL RIVERA JOHNSON &VELASQUEZE J Bart Johnson Attorney at Law Main 970 -544 -7006 1 Direct 970 -544 -4602 1 Fax 866 -492 -0361 JOHNSON WCRLEGALCOM J WCRLEGAL.COM 420 EAST MAIN STREET SUITE 210 ASPEN COLORADO 81611 This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipients and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. Tax advice set forth herein is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to any other party any transaction or matter addressed herein. Email secured by Check Point of WAAS CAMPBELL RIVERA JOHNSON &VELASQUEZa J. Bart Johnson 970.544.4602 Johnson @wcrlegal.com September 27, 2011 Lance Clark Pitkin County Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Subdivision Exemption for a Minor Plat Amendment and Minor Amendment to a Development Permit for Lot 5, Eagle Pines Subdivision (Parcel ID No. 273510101005) Dear Lance: I am writing this letter on behalf of Lot 5 EP, LLC (the "Applicant ") in response to the letter to you from Herb Klein dated September 19, 2011. Mr. Klein represents Vince and Elaine Santucci. Changed Conditions Mr. Klein contends that the BOCC's decision on the Applicant's prior in the form of Resolution No. 81 -2010 should be diapositive because there are no changed conditions. As you are aware, one the of primary concerns the BOCC had when it originally considered this matter was that the Applicant had initially installed the driveway spur without County approval and had sought approval retroactively. The BOCC was very reluctant to bless this reversal of the application process. The Applicant has since covered the driveway spur connection with top soil and has revegetated the area and is seeking County approval prior to undertaking any further work. HOA Approval Mr. Klein makes much of the fact the approval letter of December 28, 2010 from the Eagle Pines Homeowners Association recites that "the Association is aware that Pitkin County has changed its initial findings and has approved the driveway spur ...." Mr. Klein contends the HOA was operating under a misunderstanding of the facts because the BOCC had partly ruled in favor of the Santuccis on their appeal. The HOA was fully aware of the circumstances when it approved the driveway spur in December 2010. You will recall that the BOCC's decision did not completely reverse the staffs administrative approval. Rather, the BOCC determined the driveway spur could remain if limited to emergency uses. When the Applicant went back to the HOA in December, the Applicant fully explained to the HOA that the initial administrative approval had been limited by the BOCC action and that the Applicant had revegetated the driveway spur and wanted to start the approval process over from scratch with both the HOA and the County. The HOA approval letter probably could have been written more 1350 SEVENTEENTH STREET SUITE 450 DENVER COLORADO 80202 m 720- 351 -4700 v 720 - 351 -4745 420 EAST MAIN STREET SUITE 210 ASPEN COLORADO 81611 . 970 -544 -7006 r 866- 492 -0361 WCRLEGAL.COM Lance Clark September 27, 2011 Page 2 clearly, but the conclusion itself is clear: the Applicant has received approval from the Eagle Pines Homeowners Association. Safety Concerns Mr. Klein takes issues with the Lot 5 Sight Distance Study submitted by the Applicant and in particular the assumed benchmark speed limits of 20 mph and 10 mph for vehicles travelling on, respectively, the non - exclusive driveway easement and the Lot 5 driveway spur. These speed assumptions and the report itself were approved by the County's Planning Engineer. Most importantly, the assumptions are valid. The non - exclusive driveway does not have a centerline or shoulders and is not designed for fast speeds. The driveway spur is a short, single -lane rear driveway and is not long enough to accelerate before reaching the intersection with the non - exclusive easement. I am also attaching pictures of the intersection from the perspective of a car sitting coming out of the driveway spur and looking left (toward the Santuccis' home and right (toward the Eagle Pines Drive cul -de -sac). These pictures show a safe intersection with obviously adequate site distances that are not impeded by vegetation or terrain features. You are also welcomed to make a site visit if you would like to evaluate the existing conditions for yourself. Prior County Approval for 360 Eagle Pines Drive To supplement the Abberdon Development Group driveway plan I previously submitted, I am attaching a copy of the issued building permit for Abberdon Development Group, as approved by the County's engineering and zoning departments. Other Properties The County has approved the two driveway cuts for the property located at 1310 West Buttermilk Drive. I have attached printouts from the County's building permit file showing the approved site plan and the final inspection approvals. It is also worth noting that even the prior version of the County's Asset Management Plan from 2006 included a general policy, though not a firm rule, discouraging more than more access point per property. I have included the relevant provisions from the 2006 AMP for your reference. As for the property located at 350 Eagle Park Drive, it was built in the early 1990s and unfortunately the approved site plans have not been preserved in the County's electronic records. But the property definitely includes two separate access points and was approved for a significant remodel within the last few years. There is nothing in the County's existing permit file for the property to indicate the County has had any issue with the two separate access points for this property. Not Two Access Points Finally, I feel obliged to reiterate once again that the Applicant's proposed driveway spur cannot be considered a second access point for Lot 5. The spur is wholly contained within the boundaries of Lot 5 and connects to a non - exclusive easement on Lot 5 that the Applicant has every right to use. Many properties in the County have circular driveways that are fully contained on their own lots and that allow for an in/out traffic pattern through a porte cochere or similar feature. This is the essence of what the Applicant is proposing. In addition, there is not a County asset at issue. Eagle Pines Drive is a private road maintained by the HOA. In fact, the nearest County road is Owl Creek Road because West 6uCa02 Lance Clark September 27, 2011 Page 3 Buttermilk Road is owned by a metropolitan district. Even if the Applicant's proposal is considered a request for a second access, this must be considered a unusual and special circumstance where there is no justification for adhering to the general County policy disfavoring second access points. So long as there is no health and safety issue (and there plainly is not), there is no reason not to approve the pending application. Thank you for your assistance with this application. Sincerely, J. Bart Johnson for WAAS CAMPBELL RIVERA JOHNSON & VELASQUEZ LLP List of Attachments Attachment A — Photos of Existing Condition Attachment B — Building Permit for Abberdon Development Group Attachment C — County Approvals for 1310 W. Buttermilk Drive Attachment D — Excerpt from 2006 Pitkin County Asset Management Plan uUi.�U3 ATTACHMENT A PHOTOS OF EXISTING CONDITION UULi j6,� GOCbU - 5 View from Proposed Spur Toward Santucci Residence LiUGiJU6 View from Proposed Spur Toward Eagle Pines Dr. Cul -De -Sac ATTACHMENT B BUILDING PERMIT FOR ABBERDON DEVELOPMENT GROUP uuC; :JU7 M.�rGIY ♦rl IMaly VVIYIIYIYIY/lI I ucvcLYrIVICIVI YCF'AI'i I IYICIV 1 General Aspen, CO 81611 PERMIT APPLICATION Permit 970/920 -5Gj0 920 -5448 Inspection line PITKIN COUNTY © ITY OF ASPE ❑ PERMIT No. App6can�acrnmp2t mbered spaces only / %if�/i'ir JOB = ORBS J LEGAL 2 ' LOT NO BLOCK TMCT OR SUBDIVISION (O SEE ATLACHEDSHEE ) DE S Ea le Pines recorded 9.2.90 Bk 24 pq93 DE OWNER I p 3 M. Pierson 200 Elk Par1 L � E55 POBox 4056, Telluride ZIP CO 81� (MI:P) —^i- FD +wl 1 -z s CONIAA MAR- ADDRESS PHONE u0ENSENO(q-TO) 4. Todd I:abermann 230 Park Ave., PO Box 1210, Basalt,CO 81621 FN ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER ECORD MAIL ADDRESS 2(11( PHONE 41 % t ICENSE NO MH 5 ' Barnett Schorr Architects (BSA) 303 Battery St, Seat a 98121 MS DESIGNER LMILADDRESS PHONE LICENSE NO 6. RF Same as above CLASS OF WORK 7. ENERG CODE FE USE TM ENSU ODE G.I.S. FEE R NEW 0 ADDITION 0 ALTERATION 0 REPAIR ❑ / / 3 C � USE OF BUILDING 8 • PLAN CH CK FEE PERMIT FEE I ZO CjFEE _ , / Residence y /(/ p } y VALUATION OF WORK 0C 9. SOUAAE FOOTAGE 10. Trce cone onPR ,, a°ep , �o °- L°c up area $ 3 0 C C' C C C. I J `3 N 1 1 . Is there food service in this building 0 YES_�RYO SU . `s um' °. msmn oe°. I t rV t M ✓` Na—, " a .` 12. Is LPG `��- used? ❑ vES�NO C t NO, OF 8E0 W Use Zone .(�I ,1 T lV Fes Senn R,uuso? Yes CINo 13. Parcel lD# 273 51 01 01 0 0 5 Flu DDE / Ilri 1 , L I G Alam Sy& Re°uvep4 oYes No 14. Remarks No. of Dwelling Unrte OFFSTREET PARKING SPACES - I✓ 'o- ��.�. �— C..rso Unc°veiaC S 4 J SPZONI ECIAL APPROVALS RMUIRED AUTHORIZED BY DA H.P.C. 'I L PARK DE TION ENVI 4p 1 PRESUBMMT APPUCAmON ACCE DH ISSUANCE \1� ENGINEERIN PARKS BY V BY BY v WATERY � •:�L'. r J l DATE a M, NOTICE ASPEN CONSOL S. DIST. ' S EPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELE ICAL, PLUMBING, HEATING, OTHER VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION MENT OF PITKIN CO USE TAX AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AT , ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED. NTHLY OR QU FLY R RNS WILL BE SUBM I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND DEPOSIT MEEH00 %OF %OF THE PERMIT VALUATION D KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED .5 AT ISSUANCE. A INALR O OTAL ACTUAL COST MUS WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT BE FILED WITHIN DA OF 8S7 IAL COMPLEnON OF DOES NOT P TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL TH PRO- WORK AND / OR SS NC OF THE C RRFICA OF 0 CUPANCY. VISIONS A O ER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CON R ON I OR TH ORM CE OF CONSTRUCTION. T IS MY RESPON IBILI O EXEMPT: OR NIZATION REVI APPR ED PLANS AND ANY COMMENTS THA AR ONTAIN THE ND S T HE STRUCTURE NO /OR PR JEC IS BUILT IN RE :STATE &P RKI CO Y RESA NO. CO E I APP CABLE CODES. / �/] J V ANY SES AND /ORCONSUMES NG TERIALS D R IN P COUNTY IS SUBJECT TO C P s S S O� PROPERTY LIENS CED ON THE OWNER'S AND /O CON - TRACTO R'S P HEN USE TAX IS NO �y o{ J tDATE1 I�D'GC1Lw) C G O ILJ�.T lT C b•I 1'6 I'^^" I^n°fi11S FORM IBA PERMIT ONLY WHEN VALIDATED WORK STARTED WITH OUT PERMIT WILL BE DOUBLE FEE - nergy Code Validation Plan Check Validation Zoning Validation Permit Validation 0.5 % Use Tax Dep Val' o P77VO ar Ago fZ1 L. WHITEfJLE COPY _ -_ CAN, ;Y - APPLICANT PINK - BUILDING DEPARTMENT '''GOLD-ASSESSOR` 6ull"j .S ATTACHMENT C COUNTY APPROVALS FOR 1310 W. BUTTERMILK DRIVE uUGiJU9 130 S. Galena St., 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 920 -5526 Fax (970) 920 -5439 DEVELOPMENT PERMIT Permit Administrative Fee (no refunds) $500.00 PERMIT # aow( _ aa06. va CHECK.# Permit valid for one year unless otherwise specified VALID PERNUT MUST BE KEPT ON SITE AT ALL TIMES Read 'instruction on the reverse side before 3 v l 1� �7 Property Owner's Narhe Li N oA 6e8-etl t'none _t r S • `t s i o _ rax Property Owner's Address 3o°t K- AAe1 C City/statelzip A< Legal description of property to be accessed 56E A'r'tAcrte O To 4 1- Located on the P ot+[� Side of Gets - Read # t-�e•s-r �•^ t also known as Road (provide a detailed map showing the location at Address of property to be accessed (Pitkin County staff will determine the address.) Parcel ID number of property to be accessed 2 X35 - 33 0b0 - 2 5 7 (Check w• m•.asoenpitkin.cam or Call the Pitkin County Assessor's ice at 920 -5160 for the parcel ID number.) C struction to be n on (Date)• S pmt L 0 iC L scale). c� on gi Is there existing access? `( Do other roadsl abut property? L. b For residential access, type/number dwelling units 01 W EZ ti For commercial, number /sq.ft. of business Special Attention: Applicants must go through a full review process with the County Community Development Department for utility installation for areas with more than a 30% slope. Included with this applications be the ollowing: XDriveway plan & profile p r Drainage plan w /County Rd. shot Ga P enct°s� -. Compliance with Land pprovals Board of Adjustment approval (if applicable) /J4 J, Specific site or vicinity map - C Access Easement Agreements (If applicable) N a- Plans must be stamped & signed by a civil engineer C Written proof of a license or agreement to cross RTA property (if applicable) eft Having carefully read the requirements below, I (Applicant) hereby agree to the terms and conditions described within. This form isa permit only �when valiid ff; ated by County sta n work started without a perm(ni�t will be charged double the fee. NAME: Li er Xki*ac a x NA 1"`t' itll �t a JY�1 DATE: tl3- °�•0l0 Staff comments: APPRO APPRO VED: DATE: � O Piton Conn Com nity Dev lopment VTD: 7 DATE: 6 Pitkin County Edgin joCJ10 �6es dw g i5 I of 2 ACCESS DRIVEWAY Laserfiche WebLink Laserfiche7 WebLmk Browse Search Template pitkin- comdev Owner - applicant Bedell Linda pitkm- comdev - Address 1310 W Buttermilk Rd pitkln- comdev - Parcel-Id 273503300025 GF- Parceld Parcel -id -Notes Planning -case -name Planning-case-number Determination - reso-ord Plat- book -page pttkm -wmdev - Subdivision Notes/Additional Plans in File Page 1 of 1 Help Logout My WebLmk {3 i� Page 34 of 146 Go lI L1 113 0 0 :.' 36.02% *r Pages 34 to 108 LFRecords > Pttivn County> Community Development> Building > Building Pennits> p,Wn bldg 273503300025 InapGListtnt sn"issol Crock List Pape: 19 4rrsN2909 9:41! 0QAM ce4IXTr Of p1me 4 Ie"Invil n Lhw`920-sm nyperltlpt schealoo, fm catlNrin Stheduiedta.ktH ti, 2809 Prel ty 0a421i PRek Try<: 9x SPEC INSPECTIr antes >lesse p: to left up rgtrz 1200 `. ACrtieoted 2- hccelktl ae tided_ 1- ReteLted_ rt -Pan auNN COrnptes t � >TaMSpaynn Fed S___- bk tut ` x rw,viw C - 0. - tu--e ka brie 5 1 l'- -6 rafx 6 re-'c-e3. G 1 ` pnj +1ItID9 !S C.saii Noot ontatt a. i i3 ^0 W el)1TERMLLK RD PAIfVBet0c. DAVID 1- 4MBERT CONSTRUCTIi o fei. BEDELL Ppge �9 Powered by Loserfmbe WebLmk versmn 7 n 5 Laserfiche is a registered trademark of CompuLnk Management Center, Inc V J : t s` 11 This ., is regrstered to Ciy of Aspen http: // apollo /weblink /DocView.aspx ?id= 122058 1/24/2011 Laserfiche WebLink- Page I of I Laserfichw Webbink Help Logont MyWebL,nk Browse Search fj jP] p age 33 of 146 Oo Relro Fee I 36 02% Pages 33 to 107 Template prtur-comdev LF'Records > Pitkin County > Communq Development > Building > Bunkling Permits > piton bldg 273503300025 Owner - applicant Bedell Linda I.,uhboh C�k List Isli 5 pitkin-comdev - Address �111C" 6:18:59AM COUNTY OF irryaN liniushau," LM120402 1310 W Buttermilk Rd IMpI Stwuis uo "taisin pirtun-cerridev - Pareel-id fs,had.W fo, 31. 208 273503300025 Pans, GF-Parcel-id 00422005PROK Twitz 6g2 PLANNING ENGINEER INSPECTION 7finar 12oc Parcel-id-Notes Nuiss Planning-case-name 51T�1 V5iT ;Izl�' Planning-case-number Determination -reso rd Plat -book -page pitkin-comelev - Subdivision Notes/Additional Plans in File qalems:AL I -An-cispod! 1 i Relro Fee I Aod. C�ft,tt 11,111,114o us"O Vonuict I MCI siliM I 5-0 W BUTTERI 37 1 4i ,, ' Contnsi:ltoo Okm t EeRt CONStRUCI)ON ta"Iftyr. MMU Pa 5 Po—ed by taserfche Webt-int, —siDn 7 0 5 Lasei-fiche is a registered tiademark of Coropu],O Management Cont., Inc This copy is registered to City of Aspen 60:11" r, L"-JiL— http: / /apollo /weblink7 /DoeV iew. aspx ?id= 122058 1/24/2011 Laserihche W ebLink Laserfichee L eoUnk Browse Search _ Template pitkln -mmdev LFR O rer-appll®nt Bedell Llnda pitkm- camdev-Addreas 1310 ye Buttarmllk Rd ptkrn- ComOev -Parcee i 273503300025 GF- Parcel -id Prued -,d-Notes pammmg -rase -name Plammng.a,mumber Geterminahon- reao-oN Plat -Look -page pltkln- comdev - Subdlmslon NotaslAtltllLOnal Plans m Na l ', �Help Logout My wetLirV Pe9e ll5 ol1K '" l 3602% ':f. pages 135 N 166 rcords a Prkm County> Commu May Oevelopmay I BuAdmq Bmlding Permee qWn Ndg 273503300025 A Pe- mdbYLarmmewmL,xverswevos lase vevg�sterM eomgmnx Mancgemenl C[ndr lrc 11.,y�a�giereredb cMIl yn uu6,J13 Yage 1 oT 1 http:// apollo /weblink /DocView.aspx ?id= 122058 1/24/2011 Laserfiche WebUnk Laserfichee WebLtnk Browse Search 4 Template Piker- mmdev O er-appheant Bedell Linda pdkinum lev- Address 1310 W Buttermilk Rd pitkin -comiI - Parcel -id 273503300025 GF- Parcel -A Parcal -d -Notes Planning -ease -name Planning -case- number Detemtmabon-reso -ord Plat- book -page piton- cvmdav - Subdimsion NoteatAddibcnal Plans in Ft. Help Logoul My WeELmk „AA N F 11 t Page 135 of loft '/ ♦'" 3802% Peges 136 to 146 LFRec & > P.p.. county > CommunM Oevelopmeia Bugeg > Building Permts > Paign Eldg 27350330003 '�j /. ^,1 Paddy lamtuh, W bbrk vs - )05. — rs e McPlsd PaNmaK of Cempuimk ati- mem Cmbr Inc Tnis wpy. re ru..Ib eery Ia p n 6 u C J i 4 Page 1 of 1 http: // apollo /weblink7 /DocView.aspx ?id= 122058 1/24/2011 Laserfiche WebLink taserfiche WebLink Browse Search r Template pilkin -mmaev Gwner-apphcanl Bedell Linda pitkin -mmtlev - Address 1310 W Bmismalk Rd pnkn.maev Pendell 273503300025 GF- Parcel -Ia Pa¢el -id-Notes Plammin'dase -name Planning -case- number Getermmat an- reso-ora Plat- book -page pakm- mmtlev - Subalnswn Notes /Additional Plans in File uLi C ai5 Help Logool My WebL.nk 1� Pene 79 oI1K; J`; 7(300 =, 3602% Pages 79 n 146 --P . .. - LFR.wraa> pill eapIty> camtn�nlry Development Ballemg> aauag > pnkln aee2z3so93000zs I 1 a a a a � il a. M u Gwreree Ey 1—is— w K.11-1.17 sLaueficre ne regst— Io-.-1el managsremea.mrI- Tnrsmpns r, ro cp maawn Page 1 of 1 http: // apollo /weblink7 /DoeView.aspx ?id= 122058 1/24/2011 ATTACHMENT D EXCERPT FROM 2006 PITKIN COUNTY ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN uuL, I')16 { � 7 � I I " JJ � Pitkin County Shop & Equipments. I r, Control Devices for Streets and H hg ways This may include the use of signs, flashers, barricades, and flaggers. In addition, the hours of work on or immediately adjacent to the County road may be restricted by the County due to peak hour traffic demands and other pertinent roadway operating restrictions. The County may require a traffic control plan. 1.51.08 DENIAL OF ACCESS DRIVEWAY DEVELOPMENT PERMIT A permit will not be issued in any case where the work as proposed by the applicant will not comply to the requirements contained herein, or if the proposed work is not consistent with land use or development policies currently adopted by the County. If it can be shown to the satisfaction of the County that compliance to requirements and conditions can be obtained by the construction of retaining structures, drainage devices, or by other means, the permit may be issued with the condition that such work be performed. As a general policy, the County does not allow more than one access per development per property. 1.51 .09 COMPLIANCE WITH PLANS AND REQUIREMENTS All permits issued hereunder shall be presumed to include the provision that the applicant, his/her agent, contractors or employees, shall carry out the proposed work in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and in compliance with all applicable requirements. If determined by the County Engineer that the conditions present do not conform to those stated in the permit or on the approved plans, work may be stopped until approval is obtained for a revised access plan, which will conform to the existing conditions. The County Engineer, or his/her designee must approve all modifications of the approved access plans in writing. Approvals which affect basic tract design or land use may require approval by the County Community Development Department. 1.51.10 AUTHORIZATION An approved access /driveway becomes an integral part of a property. Therefore, the County must be assured that access is approved by the surface rights owner of the land prior to permit issuance. The applicant shall submit proof that it has authority or permission to conduct work required to place the proposed access/driveway on the site(s) proposed. This documentation shall be submitted with the application for permit. The approval of an access /driveway development permit does not imply or grant any further development rights. 1.51.11 PROTECTION OF UTILITIES During work on the access /driveway, the applicant shall be responsible for the prevention of damage to public or private utilities or services. This responsibility is not confined to the limits of the work. 1.51.12 PROTECTION OF ADJACENT PROPERTY The applicant is responsible for the prevention of damage to adjacent property, and no person shall excavate or fill on land sufficiently close to the property line to endanger any adjoining public street or any adjacent property. 1.51.13 FINANCIAL SECURITY AND OTHER SURETY BONDS Letters of credit or other financial assurances may be required by the County for work conducted under approved Access Driveway Development Permit. This financial assurance will be required where, in the discretion of the County Engineer or his/her representative, it would be necessary to guarantee enforcement of applicable requirements, including landscaping or earthmoving on steep slopes. Payment and Performance Bond, letter of credit or cash payment for an amount set by the County Engineer or his/her representative shall be provided and secured unto the County, and, if the work authorized by the permit is not completed as specified, any security shall be in default and the County shall recover on the security, provided notice of non - compliance is given in writing to the developer by the County Engineer or his/her representative. The surety executing any bond or deposit shall continue to be firmly bound under a continuing obligation for the payment of all necessary costs and expenses that may be incurred or expended by Pitkin County in causing any unsatisfactory work to be corrected or any unfinished work to be completed. In the event of default, the County shall have the right to go onto the premises to perform the required work. In the case of a cash deposit, said deposit or any unused portion thereof shall be refunded. Other securities other than a bond, such as cash payment or letters of credit, shall be approved by the County Attorney's Office prior to permit issuance. Ully .)J_ S� F F u C� KLEIN, COTE & EDWARDS, LLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW HERBERT S, KLEIN hskCalcelaw.net 201 NORTH MILL STREET, STE. 203 LANCE R. COTE, PC' Ircoa kcelaw net ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, 111, PC jeenkcclaw.net TELEPHONE: (970) 925 -8700 KENNETH E. CITRONII kTinonCkcelaw.nel FACSIMILE: (970) 925 -3977 MADHU B. KRISHNAMURTI mbk@kcelaw.net ivsmkcelaw.nel OF COUNSEL: JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR., PC joepnkcelaw.net • elw sdmiVed w c4r -.ie ^alw aemaiN m Naw Ynk and xusaawuna September 19,2011 DELIVERED VIA EMAIL Lance Clarke Assistant Community Development Director Pitkin County Community Development Dept. 130 S. Galena St. Third Fl. Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Application (the "Application ") for Administrative Review for Subdivision Exemption for Minor Plat Amendment and Minor Amendment to Development Permit for Lot 5, Eagle Pines Subdivision (Parcel ID# 273510101005). Dear Lance, I am writing on behalf of Vincent and Elaine Santucci, the owners of Lot 6, Eagle Pines Subdivision, to express their opposition to the above described Application. The Santuccis' property is adjacent to Lot 5 and its sole access is along the roadway onto which the Applicant proposes to develop a secondary access drive to its property. There are several reasons why the application should be denied. 1. Nothing has Chanced to Justify a Different Outcome An identical application was submitted last year, approved administratively and then appealed by the Santuccis. The appeal was granted by the Board of County Commissioners (`BOCC ") based on their finding that in granting the administrative approval, the "staff made an error." See Bocc Reso. 081 -2010. At the BOCC hearing it was pointed out that the County's 2008 Pitkin County Asset Management Plan states at Sectionl.39,13 "As a general policy the county does not allow more than one access per property." This was a significant issue in the BOCC's decision and we are not aware of any change in the County policy, nor is any such change asserted as a basis for this re- application. 2. HOA Approval The Applicant emphasizes that it now has the approval of the Eagle Pines Homeowners Association ( "HOA ") and this is a new fact that should justify an approval of their 14 y Vincent & Elaine Santucci September 19, 2011 Page 2 of 4 plan. The HOA's letter was from December 28, 2010, (See Attachment 4 to Application) and is based upon its finding that the application did not violate the Eagle Pines Covenants which require that all development comply with County regulations. The HOA had that belief because at that time, as the letter says: "the Association is aware that Pitkin County has changed it's initial findings and has approved the driveway spur and therefore, the members agree that the driveway spur appears to comply with Article VI, Section 11 of the Protective Covenants, which requires compliance with governmental regulations." (See Attachment 4, 4 paragraph). As we know, this was an incorrect basis for the HOA's approval. When the BOCC approved the appeal it was because the second driveway did not comply with County regulations and therefore, the HOA approval was not based on correct information and should not be given any consideration now, except that it is clear that since the access does not comply with County regulations, we must assume that the HOA would not be able to approve of it today. In any event, while it is always helpful in these kinds of matters to have an HOA approval if you are an applicant or a denial of an HOA approval if you are opposing an application, the real issue is one of compliance with County rules and policies. In fact, at the BOCC hearing on the appeal, several Board members emphasized that the HOA rules and whether or not there was an HOA approval were irrelevant and that only the County rules and policies would be given consideration in such a decision. Using that standard, the BOCC correctly approved the appeal. 3. Safety Con cerns. The Santuccis' concerns are legitimate and based upon safety, public policy, privacy, neighborhood compatibility, wildlife concerns and aesthetic issues. These are the same considerations that went into the County policy of not allowing more than one access per property. Their home is served by a platted and dedicated driveway easement shown on the Eagle Pines Plat and located within the westerly portion of Lot 5. The road is fairly narrow and the proposed new driveway intersects the driveway along a curve. The applicant has re- submitted a paper referred to as "Lot 5 Sight Distance Study" dated February 14, 2010. (Attachment E to Application). We note that it was prepared by the Applicant, who does not appear to be a traffic engineer or otherwise professionally certified to issue a report that the County should rely upon. The paper makes several assumptions that are obviously selected reach the desired conclusion. For example, the assumed speeds of vehicles (20 mph and 10 mph respectively) to which the stopping distance formula is applied are not realistic, but certainly convenient for the Applicant. We do not believe the paper should be given any weight whatsoever and that a report prepared by a qualified professional should be required. The Santuccis maintain that the addition of another access point will create safety issues that are not present today. I realize that the County staff engineer has agreed with the report's conclusion, but there is no indication that staff gave careful consideration to the assumed speeds stated in the paper from the Applicant. I would appreciate it if you could seek their input on this. r Eagle Pines is affected by elk and deer migration and calving areas and all natural vegetation is to remain undisturbed outside of the building envelope. This was previously violated the Applicant in going beyond the approved envelope with pools, waterfalls and plantings. The coup typically denies, all unnecessary developments or improvements that do not comply with County policies. Z Vincent & Elaine Santucci September 19, 2011 Page 3 of 4 4. This is a Real Second Access The application makes the point that this is not a second driveway onto a subdivision road because it is within the driveway easement that is located within a part of Lot 5. This is a specious argument. A second access remains an additional access regardless of whether it intersects with a shared access easement that is located on the lot owner's land or whether it is on a neighbors land or a public road. The County policy does not make such distinctions and if the Applicant's theory became the rule the County's policy of one access per parcel policy would become meaningless and gamed out of existence by developers manipulating the placement of driveways and access easements. 5. The County's Enforcement is Present and Ongoing The application points to two other properties in the area with secondary access driveways as examples of the County policy not being followed. First, it seems clear that the County does follow this policy when only two properties can be found that have more than one access point. Second, the two properties are somewhat unique. The property at 350 Eagle Park Drive is a 36 acre parcel that was not subject to the Eagle Pines HOA covenants when it was built. We do not know if it received County approval for the secondary access, but assuming it did not, then it is not a legitimate example of how the County applies its policy. If it did receive such an approval, it may be that since it was a large parcel and there was no HOA to object, it may have justified the secondary access in seeking County approval. In any event, we do not know how it came into being and the applicant has not provided any information that is helpful to the inquiry. The other property at 1350 W. Buttermilk Drive does not have two driveways. It has one entry area with two road cuts that are very close to each other. It appears that it may have been built this way because of the short distance between the house and the road which might compromise vehicular turning movements, thus necessitating the access design. Again, the applicant has not provided any information as to whether this was approved by the County. We do not believe that the two examples, without more information, should be given any weight whatsoever as an indication that the County policy has been waived or not enforced. 6. Alleged Prior Appro val. The Application states at the bottom of page 3, that the prior developer of the property proposed a similar spur. In a separate sentence it says that the prior developer received a building permit for its development but allowed it to lapse. It is our understanding that the proposed plans of the previous developer of lot 5, were prepared prior to 2008 and thus were before the 2008 Pitkin County Asset Management plan was in place. The Abberdon house plans, exterior materials and colors were approved by the HOA, however the driveway issue was at that time being discussed between the Santuccis and the Abberdon developers. Their intention was never to share the easement driveway, rather to reconfigure it into two separate driveways with a high berm, trees and landscaping to further separate the driveways. This issue was never resolved or concluded. Even so, the issue is whether or not this application complies with the County regulations and policies and clearly, it does not. 7. Standard of Review. and Good Cause Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the review standard to apply here must be carefully considered. In my review of the Feb. 12, 2010 Memorandum from Cari Anne Holcomb providing staff recommendations, I noticed that she Vincent & Elaine Santucci September 19, 2011 Page 4 of 4 simply said that "While the 2008 Pitkin County Asset Management Plan, `as a general policy... does not allow more than one access per property' it does not prohibit second driveways or access ways, as long as it meets Pitkin County standards and obtains the proper permits and approvals." This could be interpreted to mean that so long as engineering standards are met and a road access permit is obtained, one could have as many driveways as they wanted with no other policy considerations brought to bear on the decision. Perhaps this was part of the "error" that the BOCC found when approving the previous appeal. 1 doubt that such a simplistic standard of review is applicable. Otherwise, what is the point of having a policy statement if only engineering and a permit are needed to get multiple driveways? Certainly, there is more involved in the analysis. It would seem that some substantial and compelling justification should be demonstrated to allow the second driveway since it is contrary to the expressed policy of the County. However, the silence of the application to express any justification whatsoever for the request for the second driveway speaks volumes. There is no legitimate justification for the driveway. The owner simply wants it. We can only assume it is to make the house more marketable for sale. If the owner needs some kind of vehicular access to the rear side of the property, they could apply to the County for a change in the site plan to loop the driveway around the perimeter of the house and connect it to the front driveway, without entering the road easement. Such a plan would accommodate whatever the need may be, be consistent with the approved building envelope, maintain impacts on the property, avoid conflicts with the neighbor's use of the road easement and erosion of the County's policy. In conclusion, while my clients would like to get along with this neighbor, there has been little consideration of their concerns and no good reason for the request for the second driveway has been presented. While they wish these developers great success in their efforts to sell the property, they do not wish for their interests, or those of the public, to be sacrificed in doing so. I appreciate your consideration of our position on this matter. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or comments. Please also advise me immediately once you have rendered your decision. Very truly yours, KLEIN, COTA & EDWARDS, LLC By: Herbert S. Klein Li WAAS CAMPBELL RIVERA JOHNSON &.VELASQLIEZo J. Bart Johnson 970.544.4602 Johnson @wcrlegal.com August 1, 2011 Lance Clark Pitkin County Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Subdivision Exemption for a Minor Plat Amendment and Minor Amendment to a Development Permit for Lot 5, Eagle Pines Subdivision (Parcel ID No. 273510101005) Dear Lance: Lot 5 EP, LLC (the "Applicant ") is the owner of Lot 5, Eagle Pines Subdivision, located at 360 Eagle Pines Drive in unincorporated Pitkin County (the "Property" or "Lot 5 "). I previously submitted on behalf of the Applicant an Access Development Permit Application for a driveway spur located on the south side of the existing residence on the Property. This letter represents a supplemental application for a Subdivision Exemption for a Minor Plat Amendment and a Minor Amendment to a Development Permit. The Pre - Application Conference Summary for this application is included with this letter as Attachment L Per your instruction, I have used the Pre - Application Conference Summary originally issued by your department on January 5, 2010 as part of the original application process regarding this driveway request. Background The Property is located on a cul -de -sac at the end of Eagle Pines Drive in the Eagle Pines Subdivision. In fact, the cul -de -sac is located within the boundaries of the Property. Attachment A to this letter is a vicinity map of the Eagle Pines Subdivision with the boundary of the Property highlighted in black. The Property is approximately 8 acres in size and has been improved with a single - family residence and an attached caretaker dwelling unit. As you know, the driveway spur in question has already been constructed. The work occurred in the fall of 2009 and was originally done without a permit from the County. The Applicant then applied for an Access Development Permit on December 24, 2009. At around the same time, the Applicant also applied for a Minor Plat Amendment and a Minor Amendment to a Development Permit for the purpose of expanding the approved Activity Envelope for the Property to accommodate the new driveway spur and an unrelated water feature. The 1350 SEVENTEENTH STREET SUITE 450 DENVER COLORADO 80202 m 720- 351 -4700 F720-351-4745 r 1 1I I ^ I I^ q 420 EAST MAIN STREET SUITE 210 ASPEN COLORADO 81611 m 970 - 544 -7006 r 866- 492 -0361 WCRLEGAL COM .rl Jv1 Lance Clark August 1, 2011 Page 2 Community Development Department issued the Access Development Permit on January 7, 2010 and approved the Lot 5 EP Minor Plat Amendment and Site Plan pursuant to Administrative Determination No. 9 -2010 on February 18, 2010. A copy of the plan for the driveway spur (including a cross - section), as approved by your Department, is attached as Attachment B . Copies of the Administrative Determination and the Minor Plat Amendment and Site Plan are attached as Attachment C . Neighbors of the Property, Elain and Vincent Santucci, then appealed the Administrative Determination to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board issued its final decision on the appeal in the form of Resolution No. 81 -2010, which was recorded on August 12, 2010 at Reception No. 572586. This Resolution limited use of the driveway spur in question to emergency vehicles and gave the Applicant the option of either rendering the driveway spur inaccessible or obtaining approval of a gate to restrict access to emergency vehicles. However, member's of the Board also acknowledge in the public hearing that there was nothing to prevent Applicant from reinitiating the application process again in the future. Following the Board's decision, the Applicant elected to render the approved driveway spur inaccessible by covering approximately 31 feet of it with topsoil and a grass mix. The Applicant submitted a request to your office for this work on September 16, 2010 along with necessary CMP and earthmoving permit materials. This work was approved on September 20, 2010 and the work was done soon thereafter. The 31 -foot section of the driveway spur has remained covered. Important Considerations Association Approval As you may recall, one of the primary issues with the Applicant's initial proposal was the lack of approval from the Eagle Pines Homeowners Association. This issue has been addressed. Attachment D to this letter is a letter from the Association confirming that at their annual meeting held on December 27, 2010, the members in attendance voted unanimously to approve the south driveway spur on Lot 5. The letter is worth quoting in part because it addresses several issues that you may find important: The members agree that your presentation at the annual meeting and your written submissions and plans complies with the requirements of [the Protective Covenants for Eagle Pines]. The members also agree that you have adequatelv addressed the safety concerns expressed by vour neighbors and by members of the association, and that your landscaping, as installed, permits a prudent and acceptable line -of -sight .... The members also agree that their earlier decision was partially based on incorrect information regarding this driveway spur, and now accept that this driveway spur does not constitute a second connection to Eagle Pines' roadways but is a connection to an existing private driveway that has been in place for many years. (emphasis added) 0 000V2 Lance Clark August 1, 2011 Page 3 Safety Considerations When your department initially approved the proposed driveway spur, it concluded that sight -line and safety concerns had been adequately addressed by the design and location of the spur. As referenced above, the Homeowners Association now agrees. Your prior decision was based in part on a Sight Distance Study prepared by the Applicant and dated February 14, 2010. I am resubmitting a copy of this Sight Distance Study as Attachment E to this letter, along with an email from Catherine Berg to Cari Ann Holcomb stating that the "design outlined ... does comply with the County referenced AASHTO standards." Not a Second Access to the Propert y . During the course of the Board appeal process, some confusion arose over whether the proposed driveway spur conflicted with the provision in the Pitkin County Asset Management Plan that states, "As a general policy, the County does not allow more than one access per property." The driveway spur in question is not a second access to Lot 5. It is fully contained within Lot 5 and, as the Association notes in its approval letter, connects to an existing private driveway that has been in place for years. What's more, Eagle Pines Drive is not a County road. It is a private road owned and maintained by the Eagle Pines Homeowners Association. If the Association does not consider the driveway spur a second access into Lot 5, there is no reason for the County to reach a different conclusion. In addition, there are at least two examples in the surrounding neighborhood where the County has allowed true second points of access from a main road into a residential property. One of these is right in Eagle Pines at 350 Eagle Park Drive. This property has two separate driveways that each access straight into Eagle Park Drive. The second example is the relatively new home located at 1350 West Buttermilk Drive. This home has two prominent driveway cuts directly into West Buttermilk Drive. Attachment F to this letter includes aerial photographs of both of these properties. These two examples within the same area of the County as Lot 5 show that the County's "general policy" against more than one access to a property is weekly adhered to. More importantly, unlike these two stark examples, the proposal for Lot 5 does not entail a second cut into Eagle Pines Drive. Rather, the Applicant is creating a looped driveway entirely contained within its own property. The Property's access to Eagle Pines Drive is not changing at all. True, the Applicant's spur is connecting into an existing driveway that is shared with the neighbor, but this driveway is a non - exclusive easement and is intended for use by Lot 5 and the neighboring Lot 6. It would not be appropriate for the County to deny the Applicant its right to use this non - exclusive easement on its own property. Finally, it is worth noting that the prior developer of the Property, Abberdon Development Group LLC, proposed a very similar driveway spur as part of its intended construction on the Property. The proposed Abberdon spur is depicted on Attachment G to this letter. As we understand, Abberdon received a building permit for its proposed development but allowed the permit to expire after installing the septic system for the Property. ' The Protective Covenants for Eagle Pines Subdivision were recorded at Reception No. 330311 on February 14, 1991. Section 2, Article X is entitled "Grant of Access Easements Over Private Roads" and provides, "The Declarant hereby conveys to the Association, for the private use of the owners of the Lots being served thereby in the Eagle Pines Subdivision, a nonexclusive easement over and across the private road easements on the recorded plat of the Eagle Pines Subdivision" The easement to which the Applicant has connected the driveway spur is one of these platted nonexclusive easements, and it is located entirely on Lot 5. n, 0. J OUv Lance Clark August 1, 2011 Page 4 Activity Envelope Approval I believe it is worth pointing out that the Activity Envelope that has been approved for the proposed driveway spur remains in effect and is shown on the Lot 5 Minor Plat Amendment and Site Plan that was approved and recorded in 2010. It is included as part of Attachment C to this letter. Thus, there do not appear to be any site planning objections or restrictions that would prevent re- approval of the Applicant's request application for Subdivision Exemption for a Minor Plat Amendment and a Minor Amendment to a Development Permit. Land Use Code Standards Attachment H to this letter addresses the approval standards of the Pitkin County Land Use Code that apply to this application. Your department also addressed these standards in connection with approving the prior Administrative Determination pursuant to the Memorandum of February 12, 2010 from Cari Anne Holcomb to Cindy Houben. A copy of this Memorandum is included with this letter as Attachment I . Conclusion The proposed driveway spur satisfies the County's standards and requirements. Your department has already approved this proposal once before. Given that the Eagle Pines Homeowners Association has now approved the proposed spur, there is no reason for your department to not approve it again. Thank you for your assistance with this application. Sincerely, J. Bart Johnson for WAAS CAMPBELL RIVERA JOHNSON & VELASQUEZ LLP List of Attachments Attachment A — Vicinity Map of Eagle Pines Subdivision Attachment B — Plan for Driveway Spur Attachment C — Administrative Determination and Minor Plat Amendment Attachment D — Approval Letter from Association Attachment E — Sight Distance Study Attachment F — Aerial Photos of Nearby Properties with Two Access Points Attachment G — Driveway Plan by Abberdon Development Group, LLC Attachment H — Land Use Code Standards Attachment I — Memorandum dated 2/12/2010 from Cari Anne Holcomb to Cindy Houben -� jiJV Vv Lance Clark August 1, 2011 Page 5 Attachment J — Pre - Application Conference Summary Attachment K — Owner Consent Attachment L — Agreement for Payment of Land Use Application Fees ��l Jv5 ATTACHMENT A VICNITY MAP OF EAGLE PINES SUBDIVISION I lk ATTACHMENT B PLAN FOR DRIVEWAY SPUR J l - - -- O V? # fill m o , 0 9 1 E 1 1; r 1 1 6 9 1 G1 = E ATTACHMENT C ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION AND MINOR PLAT AMENDMENT RECEPTIONO: 667101, 02H611010 at 01 :16:12 PM, I OF 2. R 50.00 Doe Code ADMIN DECISION Janke K. Vos Caudill, PM do County, CO ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION OF THE CORLMINNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR APPROVING THE LOT 5 EP LLC SVBDTVISIO -N EXEMPTION FOR A MINOR PLAT AMENDMENT AND MINOR AMENDMENT TO A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT Administrative Desermin dloo No.QQ 2010 1. Lot 5 EP, LLC (herealta. "Applicant') has applied to the Community Development Director of PWdn County, Colorado purswm to Sections 2- 20.150(b) and 2.30.200 of the Lad Use Code fix a Subdivision Exemption fbr a Minor Plat Amendment and a Minor Amendment m a Development Permit to amend a previously approved building envelope for landscaping and a second drivewayfaoeess in a platted BOCC subdivision. 2. 'N parcel is located at 360 Eagle Pine. Drive In the Eagle Pines Subdivision and is legally descn'bed as Lot 5. Eagle Pines Subdivision. The parcel is zoned AR -10 and contains 7.93t acres and is non- conforming in sin. 3. The subdivision was approved pursuant to Final Plot Resolution No. 90.12. with a find plat recorded at Book 24, Page 93. The subdivision approval established circular building envelopes for all the lots and does not incorporate most of the access/driveways on Individual parcels in the subdivision. A Building Permit was issued in 2007 to construct a residence and its accessory uses on die lot. The parcel obtained special review splu vat for s nretaker dwelling unit pusmaM to Admmistnoive Deserminetion No. 34- 2009. 4. The Director finds that the proposed amen lments comply with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Cade, and that the proposed amendments will not change the use of the proposed development or the bask character of the land, are consistent with action taken during the original review, do not increase off site impacts or the allowable floor area by more than five percent (5%J and will not endanger the public health, safely or wel fare. The areas proposed for development do not contain any constrained areas and comply with the She Plan criteria. Neither the Ion nor the existing residence can be seen 1Mm Nwy 62 or Owl Creek. 5. 'The Director fiviber finds that proposed Subdivision Exemption for a Minor Pit Amendment is consistent with the Cade: it increases or does not affect this degree of compliance with the standards of she Code. is being made to a recorded plat, and is consistent with representations made during the original review. TIM DIRECTOR DOES HEREBY APPROVE the Lot 5 EP, LLC request far a Subdivision Pxemption for a Mina Plat Amendment and a Mirror Amendment to a Development Permit subject to the following conditions which shall run with the land and be binding on all successors in interest: I. The Applicants shill adhere to all material representations made in the current or prior applications or in public meetings or hearings and shall consider those representations to be condtions of approval, unless amended by other conditions. 2. All conditions of BOCC Resolution No. 90-12 and Administrative Determination No. 34.2009 shall remain in fall force and effect, eseept as amended herein. Adminisndve Determination No. 9-2010 Page 2 of 2 3. No calculations for height, bugs, setback, sire, floor area or any other building and zoning requirements have been conducted. These requirements will be considered at the time of permit submittal. Any st xum tepteserted In the application might not be permitted under building and zoalmg regulations. 4. Within 60 days of the date of this Determination and prior to submittal of any further development permit submitnis, the Applicant shall be requited to submit for approve! by the County Attomey and Community Dovelopmem Department an Amended Subdivision Exemption Plat and Sift Plan in accordance with the requirements of the Lend Use Application Manual as outlined in sections 2.1.12 and 2.1.13. The above scfen noW approvals shall be a condition precedes: to finalization and recordation. The Mylar copy of the she plan shall be signed by the owner prior to submittal far recording Prim to submission the submitted plat shall incorporate the following changes: A. Add a title line identifying the type of review as follows: ",(&U !vlimsr Plat Amendment and She Plan 360 Eagle Pius Drive. Lot S. Eagle Pines Subdivision — Parcel ID0735- 101 -01-005" B. Draw the activity envelope around all development including both driveways/eewses. The scale of the activity envelope. site plan with boundaries of the parcel and aces shall be depicted no small than one (1) inch equals fifty (50) fat. C. Add a vicinity map at a scale of no smaller than one (1) inch equals two thousand ( 2 2000) feet and s size of 0 less than five (5) inches by five (5) inches. D. Add a "Community Development Director Signature bW. E. Add an "Owner Signature" block and the disclaimer stsdog, "Environmental hazard area exist that might affect the property. any improvemems and occupancy thereat:" 5. 'Failure to comply with the eood)dons of this approval may result in revocation of this approvai, or any subsequent permit(s) or approval(s) related to ckber or both of the piopenie; or vested don associated with either or both of the properties. APPROVED by the Director, this I day of Februmy, 2010. C'aappy!llloubet Community Development Director PIDS 273510101005 P005 -10 J 1 �B 2 Se G! x� pi R ! 9 0 0 i 0 0 V� N 4 A w HV W V �a z F, o 0 Z R Wy ly V O W W h q h� O W V 4 IJ b n �N N O O i o N 4 co m w U Q N � n .ol3 z R ! a a a tla 3 �R �e CF i S 3 4tl ids \ � / i y d tl �P ' 9= all R , H tl ,i � e& \ j` eo aR6 R Rl SR4 S Y ee E 1 i R Ia;R 'e2z�S�¢e¢(S[R�pI�3 g � 1 �g c i S4eild M C F R xBby SYg a: � �l ! fie 1 } � IR Ie18 e 3 t: Y 69 m ca re sna m'b� �Riiie'nIP^tl wn .y qae. Juu �_3 ATTACHMENT D APPROVAL LETTER FROM ASSOCIATION Eagle Pines Homeowners Association Mr. Kerry Vickar Lot 5 EP, LLC 413 Vine Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mr. Vickar: 711 EW Valley Road. Suite 103. Bua4 Cowado B 1621 Tel 970,273.3 100 Fax 970.797.1851 December 28, 2010 Re: Request for Approval of Driveway Spur As a follow -up to your request to the members of the Eagle Pines Homeowners at the December 27, 2010 annual meeting for reconsideration of their decision regarding the prior denial for a previously constructed driveway, I have the following decision and information to share with you. As you know, the members in attendance at the annual meeting listened to your presentation and were satisfied with your explanation and your acknowledgment that you did not follow procedure when constructing the driveway spur that connected to a previously constructed driveway upon Lot 5 of the Eagle Pines Subdivision, prior to receiving written approval from the Homeowners Association's Architectural Committee (see Eagle Pines Protective Covenants, Article IV, Section 2 and Article VII, Section 6). The members agree that your presentation at the annual meeting and your prior written submissions and plans complies with the requirements of Article IV. The members also agree that you have adequately and appropriately addressed the safety concerns expressed by your neighbors and by members of the association, and that your landscaping, as installed, permits a prudent and acceptable line-of-sight while maintaining the aesthetics of your property. The members also agree that their earlier decision was partially based on incorrect information regarding this driveway spur, and now accept that the driveway spur does not constitute a second connection to Eagle Pines' roadways but is a connection to an existing private driveway that has been in place for many years. Additionally, the Association is aware that Pitkin County has changed it's initial finding and has approved the driveway spur and therefore, the members agree that the driveway spur appears to comply with Article VI, Section 11, of the Protective Covenants, which requires compliance with governmental regulations. The members appreciate that you have followed the process required by the Covenants r, - 1 ry Page 2 and have addressed each previously stated concern of the members satisfactorily. Based on this new information, the members voted unanimously to approve your driveway spur as installed. It being understood by the members that until this matter was settled you voluntarily covered the driveway spur with soils and that if approved you plan to uncover the driveway spur. We would encourage you to ensure that the completed removal of soils continues to address the aesthetic concerns of the Association and is done in a complete and acceptable manner. Any questions regarding to the Association's remedial expectations should be directed to me. If you have any other questions or require additional information, please call me at your convenience. Regards, By — 4,� Gary L. Beaeh,, Manager ATTACHMENT E SIGHT DISTANCE STUDY .JU :j J_7 Lot 5 EP, LLC. 360 Eagle Pines Drive Aspen CQ 81611 February 14, 2010 Catherine Berg — Planning Engineer Pitkin County Community Development Re: Lot 5 Sight Distance study The developers of lot 5, Eagle Pines subdivision have been asked by Catherine Berg, Planning Engineer RPM County Community Development to prepare a 'Sight Distance" study for vehicles approaching the new access driveway spur which connects into the non exclusive easement for the ingress and egress of lot 6. The outline for performing this study is part of the AASHTO's "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets ", Section 1.18 of the 2006 AMP. Sight distance is the length of roadway visible to a driver. The type of sight distance that will be addressed In this submission Is "Intersection sight distance" since the new access spur of lot 5 intersects the access easement of lot 6 at an angle approximately ninety degrees creating a "T' intersection. A °T intersection is divided into three areas between each leg known as quadrants. Sight triangles are the specified areas along an intersection's approach legs and across the Included comers. Approach sight triangles provide the diver of a vehicle approaching an intersection an unobstructed view of any conflicting vehicles or pedestrians. These triangular areas should be large enough that drivers can see approaching vehicles and pedestrians in sufficient time to slow or stop and avoid a crash. In this particular situation we chose to look at a vehicle approaching from lot 6 as it might encounter a vehicle trying to exit from lot 5's new access driveway. It has been brought to our attention that the neighboring property owners consider this new access to be a safety hazard. There are two considerations here. One is to evaluate the ability of the driver of Lot 6 to see and avoid an accident with the vehicle turning onto the Lot 6 easement. Two is to evaluate the ability of the driver of Lot 5 to see and avoid an accident with the vehicle approaching from Lot 6. We chose to ignore the approach of any vehicle approaching from the cu4de -sac toward either lot because the visibility is almost Infinite. The recommended stopping sight distance as determined by the AASHTO for a vehicle traveling at 20mph is 90 feel. This speed we determined as the maximum for a vehicle traveling from Lot 6 entering and traversing Lot 5. A speed in excess of 20mph would be considered extreme and negligent. � ur1r.....wr 1nt. t 00 -.: .Z n Yvuebr )00. , r Diagram ( ) X(R) = 90 feet - Recommended Sight Distance X(M) = 120 feel - Measured Sight Distance X(M) > X(R) The measured Sight Distance is 120 feet which is more than the recommended Sight Distance of 90 feet. Sight Distance by this approach is adequate. This means Ihal a vehicle leaving Lot 6 traveling through Lot 5 would be able to see and react with enough time to avoid a collision with a vehicle approaching the intersection from the new access spur on Lot 5. PA The second diagram represents the Sight Distance of a car approaching Lot 6 easement from the new driveway spur on Lot 5. After testing the speed and distance at the point a driver could first see a vehicle approaching from Lot 6 it was determined that a reasonable speed; given the incline and short distance a vehicle would be traveling at approximately 10 mph. The distance to the easement at a point when a driver would first be able to see a car approaching from Lot 6 is approximately 60 feet. The recommended Sight Distance for a vehicle traveling at 10 mph had to be extrapolated from Table 4.2 since given speed values only went as low as 20 mph. A reasonable figure to represent Stopping Sight Distance is 55 feel. e� b•4elrlw q lr lw•S•• J X(R) = 55 feel - Recommended Sight Distance X(M) = 60 feet - Measured Sight Distance X(M) > X(R) Diagram (2) 7 The measured Sight Distance is 60 feet which is more than the recommended Sight Distance of 55 feet. Sight Distance by this approach is adequate. This means that a vehicle leaving Lot 5 from the access spur would be able to see and react with enough time to avoid a collision with a vehicle approaching the intersection from Lot 6. In conclusion the new access spur adequately provides the required Intersection Sight Distance using the recommended formulas developed by the AASHTO and adopted by Pitkin County. The access spur does not impinge upon the safely and drivabilily of the Lot 6 easement. 7 1100 ?_1 View from cul -de -sac towards Lot 6 Car shows where access spur starts View from lot 6 showing the access spur Respect/uaysubmMed, Ralph U. Whipple Managing Partner Lot 5 EP, I.I.C. r'2 Page 1 of 1 Carl Anne Holcomb From: Catherine Berg Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 201010:28 AM To: Cad Anne Holcomb Subject- Lot 5 Eagle Pines Cad Anne, After reviewing the letter from Lot 5 EP, LLC, dated February 14, 2010,1 believe that the second access onto Lot 5 does compy with Pitkin County standards. On page 3 of the letter there is a reference to 'Table CT and I am not dear on which table this is In reference to, however I believe that the design ou8ined in the referenced letter does comply with the County referenced AASHTO standards. Thank you, Catherine Berg Palloq En9Mae, PAVn Camrr Owvwndy DevewffAd W. 970.379.ef99 Ph"; 970.429.2790 CaftftOwgilliwaliftcam • 09t)U16 2/17/201a J tiV2, .W a A dot w � t or Ilk 0000''5 ATTACHMENT G DRIVEWAY PLAN BY ABBERDON DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC Ili 'J tJ L J te a-, z � �p a ti � a n7 O 'y i cqE � a � r F oZ €° s'xrw Drama. Q umn °r wv vw x � � L y Z�T�r Tia V / I 'r /A 1 / F lA J ' Imo. ATTACHMENT H LAND USE CODE STANDARDS RESPONSE REGARDING APPLICABLE LAND USE CODE STANDARDS Subdivision Exemptions For Minor Plat Amendments (Subsection 2- 30- 20(x)(5)) (a) It is necessary to correct an inadvertent surveying error to a recorded plat that has been approved by Pitkin County, where the error was not intended to circumvent the provisions of this Land Use Code, the correction increases or does not substantially affect the degree of compliance with the standards of this Land Use Code; and the revised final plat will comply with the final plat standards of Pitkin County Land Use Application Manual; or Response The proposed amendment will not substantially affect the compliance of the Property or the proposed development with the standards of the Land Use Code. The driveway spur improves traffic circulation for the Property, especially in light of the Caretaker Dwelling Unit that has been constructed toward the rear of the home with County approval (Administrative Determination No. 34- 2009). The Minor Plat Amendment, which has already been approved and recorded, complies with the Land Use Application Manual. (b) The amendment increases or does not affect the degree of compliance with the standards of this Land Use Code; and the amendment is being made to a recorded plat that has been approved by Pitkin County; and the amendment is consistent with representations made during the conceptual and detailed subdivision reviews whichever is applicable. Response The amendment to the approved development envelope for a the driveway spur does not does not affect the degree of compliance with the standards of the Land Use Code and is consistent with the representations made during the conceptual and detailed subdivision reviews. There is no information in the original subdivision reviews for Eagle Pines to indicate that a driveway spur like the one proposed by the Applicant would not be permitted. In fact, the original developer of the Property (Abberdon Development Group LLC) proposed a similar driveway spur to provide better access to a rear motor court. As we understand it, Abberdon received a building permit for its proposed construction. Minor Amendment to a Development Permit (Subsection 2- 20- 150(b)) A minor amendment to any development application or permit is one that meets the following criteria, as determined by the Communitv Development Director: (1) Is consistent with actions) taken during previous development approvals for the property; and Response The proposal is consistent with previous actions taken for the Property. The The Planning Engineer, the County Engineer and the Fire Department have all signed off on the additional access /driveway along Eagle Pines Drive. The second access /driveway meets the necessary regulations and requirements for design, engineering and safety pursuant to the Land Use Code and the Access Management Plan. The landscaping is also consistent with previous approvals for the parcel. (A0009818 / I) JF27 1 ° ° l 4 'S' ���v _ 9 , (2) Does not change the use of the proposed development between residential, commercial and tourist accommodation uses; and Response The proposal does not change the use of the proposed development. It will remain a residential use. (3) Does not change the basic character of the approved use of land on which the activity occurs, including basic visual appearance and method of operation; and Response Approval of this proposal will not change the basic character or method of operation of the approved land use of the land, which is single - family residential in the AR -10 zone district. The existing residence and its basic character is not affected by the proposed driveway spur. The spur will merely facilitate vehicular circulation and provide better access to the approved CDU, along with improved emergency access to the rear of the residence. (4) Does not constitute a new land development activity; and Response The proposed driveway spur does not constitute a new land development activity. (5) Does not increase off-site impacts in the surrounding neighborhood; and Response The proposed driveway spur will not create any off -site impacts. The spur is located entirely on the Property. It does tie into an access easement on the Property that is used by one of the neighbors, but this easement is a non - exclusive easement that the Applicant has every right to use. (6) Does not endanger the public health, safety or welfare; and Response The proposed driveway spur will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare. During the original application process, a question was raised about whether appropriate sight- distances would be maintained. This issue was addressed with a sight- distance study submitted by the Applicant. This study has been resubmitted as part of this renewed application. (7) Does not violate any Land Use Code standard; and Response The proposed driveway spur does not violate any standards contained in the County's Land Use Code. (8) Does not substantially increase the need for on -site parking or utilities, or affect affordable housing generation; and Response The proposed driveway spur has no affect on on -site parking, utilities or affordable housing generation. (9) Does not increase the floor area of the use by more titan five (5) percent or decrease the open space on the site by more than five (5) percent. {A0009818 /1E Response The proposed driveway spur has no affect on the floor area. It will not violate the County's open space standards or decrease open space by more than 5 %. Steep and Potentially Unstable Slopes (Subsection 7- 20 -20) The portion of the Property in which the proposed driveway spur is located has gentle slopes that are well under 10% in grade. It does not affect any steep slopes or potentially unstable slopes. Landscaping and Vegetation Protection (7 -20 -130) Protection of Natural Vegetation Response No new landscaping is proposed in the area of the driveway spur. If re- approved, the portion of the driveway spur that has been covered with a native grass mixture will be uncovered. Any disturbance along the edge of the driveway spur will be re- vegetated with native grasses. Conformance with Wildfire Regulations Response The parcel shall comply with all wildfire regulation provisions as outlined in previous approvals. Nothing will be done to affect this compliance. Landscape Enclosures Response Nothing is being proposed to mark or enclose the boundary of the Property or privatize an otherwise public view plane. Visibility Clearance Response No landscaping shall be installed within the intersection of the driveway with a public road. All existing landscaping shall be maintained to keep visibility corridors clear. Required Landscaping in Rural Areas Response All disturbed areas caused by uncovering the previously approved driveway spur will be re- vegetated using native grasses. (A0009818 / 1 ) j 'i v ATTACHMENTI MEMORANDUM DATED 2/12/2010 FROM CARI ANNE HOLCOMB TO CINDY HOUBEN ul uf�7177�IT03I TO: Cindy Houben, Community Development Director FROM: Cari Anne Holcomb, Planner DATE: February 12, 2010 RE: Lot 5 EP LLC - Subdivision Exemption for a Minor Plat Amendment and Minor Amendment to a Development Permit SUMMARY: The Applicant is requesting approval for a subdivision exemption for a minor plat amendment and a minor amendment to a development permit to amend a previously approved building envelope for a newly constructed residence in a platted BOCC subdivision for landscaping and a second driveway /access envelope. The development was installed without the appropriate permits which must be obtained to cure the violation. An Access Permit was issued on January 8, 2010; the issuance was conditional based on obtaining this land use approval. APPLICANT: Lot 5 EP, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: John Devine LOCATION: 360 Eagle Pines Drive, Eagle Pines Subdivision Lot 5; PID #2735- 101 -01 -005 ZONING/LOT SIZES: The parcel is zoned AR -10 and according to the Assessor's office is approximately 7.93± acres and thus non - conforming in size. BACKGROUND: The subdivision was approved pursuant to a Final Plat Resolution 90 -12 with a final plat recorded at Book 24, Page 93. The subdivision approval established building envelopes for all the lots. A Building Permit was issued in 2007 for an approximately 11,500 square foot house on the subject lot. The parcel received approval for a caretaker dwelling unit pursuant to Administrative Determination No. 34 -2009. The Certificate of Occupancy is dependent upon the notice of violation on the parcel being remedied. The building envelopes approved for the Final Plat in the Eagle Pines Subdivision are circular and do not include most access /driveways on individual parcels in the subdivision. The Applicant is asking to amend the envelope to encompass development which was installed outside the approved envelope. The amendments are in two areas —one to the south for a water feature and to the south west for the second driveway /access. While the 2008 Pitkin County Asset Management Plan, "as a general policy,... does not allow more than one access per property" it does not prohibit second driveways or access ways, as long as it meets Pitkin County standards and obtains the proper permits and approvals. The Applicant must therefore amend both the subdivision plat and the development permit in order to obtain approval for the second access /driveway and the water feature. REFERRAL COMMENTS: The Applicant was required to submit a Sight- Distance Report to ensure the second driveway /access complies with Pitkin County standards and the referenced AASHTO standards. The Planning Engineer reviewed the sight- distance report and driveway; the second driveway does comply with all the necessary standards. Pending this land use approval, an Access Permit was 1 �v��3 Pagel of issued. The permit was approved by the County Engineer, the Planning Engineer and the Aspen Fire District. The Application was referred to the Eagle Pines HOA which objects to the second driveway /access. Development within the Eagle Pines Subdivision is subject to an architectural committee's approval. The second access road/driveway was denied by the HOA on December 30, 2009. Their comments are attached for review. It is important to note that the County's review process is separate from that of the Home Owner's Association. While the County encourages neighborhoods to review development and associated impacts and highly encourages individuals to work with their respective HOA's (as demonstrated by the reminder included in the Notice of Violation issued in this matter), the County reviews and approves development based on the County's standards and regulations. These are considered separate standards and regulations from those of the HOA. Enforcement of HOA standards is not within the realm of the County, but lies instead in the steps detailed in their individual covenants. In this instance, the development meets the County's standards, regulations and codes and although built prior to obtaining approval, the Applicant has satisfied the necessary County permits /approvals to cure the Notice of Violation and comply with the Land Use Code. The County encourages the property owners on Lot 5 to continue to work with the Eagle Pines HOA in order to resolve this matter, overcome the objections presented by their neighbors and obtain HOA approval for this development. NEIGHBOR CONCERNS: Two letters were received from individual home owners within the Eagle Pines subdivision. Both neighbors voiced concern that the Applicant has not satisfied the Eagle Pines HOA rules. The neighbor on the adjoining lot, Lot 6, shares an access easement with Lot 5. Concerns about sight- distance safety have been raised. These issues were addressed and answered by the Sight - Distance report and confirmed by the Planning Engineer. Subdivision Exemption for Minor Plat Amendments Subsection 2- 30 -20(g) (5) of the Land Use Code authorizes a minor plat amendment to be approved if: (5) (a) It is necessary to correct an inadvertent surveying error to a recorded plat that has been approved by Pitkin County, where the error was not intended to circumvent the provisions of this Land Use Code, the correction increases or does not substantially affect the degree of compliance with the standards of this Land Use Code; and the revised final plat will comply with the final plat standards of Pitkin County Land Use Application Manual; or Response: The proposed amendment will not substantially affect the compliance of the lot or the proposed development with the standards of the Land Use Code. The revised plat will amend the exemption plat approved by the County and recorded at Book 24 Page 94. The revised plat will be conditioned to be in compliance with the Land Use Application Manual. (b) The amendment increases or does not affect the degree of compliance with the standards of this Land Use Code; and the amendment is being made to a recorded plat that has been approved by Pitkin County; and the amendment is consistent with representations made during the conceptual and detailed subdivision reviews whichever is applicable. Response: The request to amend the approved envelope for landscaping and a second access /driveway will amend the recorded plat approved by Pitkin County and does not affect the degree of compliance with the standards of the Code and is consistent with the representations made during the conceptual and detailed subdivision reviews. n Page 2 of 5 Minor Amendment to a Development Permit. Subsection 2- 20- 150(b) of the Land Use Code authorizes a minor amendment to any development application or permit that meets the following criteria, as determined by the Community Development Director: 1. Is consistent with actions) taken duringprevious development approvals for the property; and Response: The proposal is consistent with previous actions taken for the property. The Planning Engineer, the County Engineer and the Fire Department have all signed off on the additional access /driveway along Eagle Pines Drive. The second access /driveway meets the necessary regulations and requirements for design, engineering and safety pursuant to the Land Use Code and the Access Management Plan. The landscaping is also consistent with previous approvals for the parcel. 2. Does not change the use of the proposed development between residential, commercial and tourist accommodation uses; and Response: The proposal does not change the use of the proposed development. 3. Does not change the basic character of the approved use of land on which the activity occurs, including basic visual appearance and method of operation; and Response: Approval of this proposal will not change the basic character or method of operation of the approved land use of the land which is single family residential in the AR -10 zone district. 1. Does not constitute a new land development activity; and Response: The proposal does not constitute a new development activity. 2. Does not increase off -site impacts in the surrounding neighborhood, and Response: The proposal will not increase off -site impacts on the neighborhood. 3. Does not endanger the public health, safety or welfare; and Response: The proposal will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare. 4. Does not violate any Land Use Code standard, and Response: The proposal does not violate any Land Use Code Standard. 5. Does not substantially increase the need for on -site parking or utilities, or affect affordable housing generation; and Response: The proposal does not affect parking, utilities or affordable housing generation. 6 Does not increase the floor area of the use by more than five (5) percent or decrease the open space on the site by more than five (5) percent. Response: The request will not violate this requirement. Steep and Potentially Unstable Slopes Land Use Code Sec. 7 -20 -20 addresses standards for development on potentially unstable slopes; Response: The Applicant did not submit a detailed slope analysis with the application. According to topographical information provided in a building permit site plan (a copy of which is now included in the application) and the soils report for the parcel, the following information was found: TO 1 0 0 3 5 Page 3 of 5 The parcel slopes moderately down to the east at grades of 5% to 10% in the proposed location of the access drive and water feature. East of the existing building envelope, the lot slopes steeply down to the east at grades of 30% to 50 %. The proposed access /driveway and water/landscape feature have been placed so as to avoid the constrained areas. Landscapine and Vegetation Protection: Land Use Code Sec. 7 -20 -130 addresses standards for landscaping and the protection of native vegetation the following of which apply to the proposed development: Protection of Natural Vegetation Response: Although the proposed water feature is outside the originally approved envelope, it is still located very close to the residence. Disruption of the native vegetation shall be limited and all species planted around the water feature shall maintain a low profile. Additionally, the Applicant has agreed to limit all installed plant species to those that would occur naturally on the site and those as listed in the Pitkin County Landscape Guideline and as described in the Eagle Pines Subdivision Protective Covenants. No landscaping is proposed in the area of the second access /driveway. 2. Conformance with Wildfire Regulations Response: The parcel shall comply with all wildfire regulation provisions as outlined in previous approvals. 3. Landscape Enclosures Response: None of the proposed landscaping shall be used to mark or enclose the boundary of the parcel or privatize an otherwise public view plane. 4. Visibility Clearance Response: No landscaping shall be installed within the intersection of the driveway with a public road. All existing landscaping shall be maintained to keep visibility corridors clear. 5. Required Landscaping in Rural Areas Response: The proposed landscaping shall meet the requirements as required. All disturbed areas on the site will be re- vegetated using native plant species as part of the re- vegetation plan. Landscape treatments will be clustered into groupings, not installed in regularly spaced lines or rows. Water: In the Amended PUD General, Detailed and Final Submission Approval, pursuant to BOCC Resolution No. 89 -87, condition of approval 1.I.1 -e and II.a -b, required the Applicant at the time, to demonstrate proof of legal water supply for the subdivision as well as restrictive covenants for the amount of water used for watering lawns (irrigation). Prior to recordation of the Amended Subdivision Plat and the Amended Site Plan, the current Applicant shall also demonstrate compliance for the proof of legal water supply to supply the water feature. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Director approve the Lot 5 EP LLC Subdivision Exemption for Minor Plat Amendment and Minor Amendment to a Development Permit subject to the conditions in attached Administrative Determination. Page 4of5 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Determination 2. Sight- Distance Report 3. Planning Engineer's Comments 4. Eagle Pines HOA Comments 5. Neighbor Comments 6. Applicant's Response Comments 3 :` ` 7 Page 5of5 L ATTACHMENTJ PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PITKIN COUN PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PID #: 2735- 101 -01 -005 LOCATION: 360 Eagle Pines Dr, Eagle Pines Subdivision, Lot 5 ZONE: AR -10 SIZE: 7.93 Acres OWNERS: Lot 5 EP LLC REPRESENTATIVE: John Devine PHONE & EMAIL: 970.343 -9080 jpfloating (a)comcast. net DATE: January 5, 2010 PLANNER: Cari Anne Holcomb, 970.920.5092 Type of Application: Subdivision Exemption for a Minor Plat Amendment, Minor Amendment to a Development Permit Description of Project/Development: The Applicant seeks approval to amend the approved building envelope to include a second entrance and a landscape envelope for a newly constructed residence in a platted BOCC approved subdivision. Land Use Code Sections to be addressed in letter of request (application): Sec. 2- 30- 20(g)(5): Subdivision Exemption for Minor Plat Amendments; Sec. 2- 20- 150(b): Minor Amendment to a Development Permit; Sec. 7- 20 -20: Steep and Potentially Unstable Slopes; Sec. 7 -20 -130: Landscaping and Vegetation Protection Staff will refer the application to the following agencies: Eagle Pines HOA Review by: Community Development Director Public Hearing: No. FEES: $ 1,521 (Make check payable to " Pitkin County Treasurer") • Planning Office flat fee: $1,496 (non - refundable; based on 6 total hours of staff time (3 hours for a Minor Plat Amendment and 3 hours for a Minor Amendment to a Development Permit). If staff review time exceeds 7.2 hours, the Applicant will be charged for additional time above 6 hours at a rate of $312 /hour) o Web Technology Fee: $25 To apply, submit 1 copy of the following information: 1. Summary letter explaining the request, providing background on prior approvals and permits, and addressing each of the provisions of the Pitkin County Land Use Code identified above in sufficient detail to demonstrate that all substantive review criteria have been met. Summarize existing conditions, current uses and proposed future uses or expansions as described in Section 1.1 through 1.8 of the Pitkin County Land Use Application Manual. \.2. 24" by 36" and 11" by 17" Subdivision Exemption Plan as designated in Section 2.1.13. 3. 24" x 36" and 11" by 17" Amended Activity Envelope and Site Plan as designated in Sections 2.1 and 2.1.12 of the Pitkin County Land Use Application Manual; \A Street address (if any) and parcel description, including legal description, and 8 -1/2 "x 11" vicinity map locating the subject property within Pitkin County; \5. Copies of all resolutions, ordinances and approvals including any recorded drawings for the parcel; ',6. Proof of ownership of subject property as designated in Section 1.3 of the Pitkin County Land Use Application Manual; N �_7. Consent from all owners to process application and authorizing the representative; \ 8. Total fee for review of the application; �J. Executed Pitkin County Community Development Agreement for Payment of Land Use Application Fees Agreement; 000An 9 � N '�' 10. A copy of this Pre - Application Conference Summary Sheet form. NOTES • PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR APPLICATION UNBOUND AND AS A ONE -SIDED DOCUMENT. THIS COPY SHOULD HAVE NO DOCUMENTS LARGER THAN 11 by 17 - AND ONE SET OF 24'X ' • THE PARCEL IDs SHOULD BE INCLUDED ON ALL DOCUMENTS INCLUDED IN YOUR APPLICATION. • ALL MAPS SHALL BE FOLDED. • The Land Use Code is available on -line at http / /www.aspenpitkin.comldeptsl7ll • The Land Use Application manual is available on -line at ➢ This pre- application conference summary is advisory in nature and not binding on the County. The information provided in this summary is based on current zoning standards and staffs interpretations based upon representations of the applicant. Additional information may be required upon a complete review of the application. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Determination 2. Sight- Distance Report 3. Planning Engineer's Comments 4. Eagle Pines HOA Comments 5. Neighbor Comments 6. Applicant's Response Comments Page 5 of 5 !17L0�1 ATTACHMENT K OWNER CONSENT _J Ul J Q LOT 5 EP, LLC Pitkin County Community Development 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Lot 5, Eagle Pines Subdivision (Parcel # 2735- 101 -01 -005) To Whom it May Concern, Lot 5 EP, LLC hereby authorizes J. Bart Johnson of the firm Waas Campbell Rivera Johnson & Velasquez LLP to act as its authorized representative for the preparation, submittal and processing of one or more applications as required for a driveway spur on Lot 5 of the Eagle Pines Subdivision, including without limitation a Minor Plat Amendment, a Minor Amendment to a Development Permit and an Access Development Permit Application . In connection with this authorization we are providing you with the following required information: Applicant's Information: Lot 5 EP, LLC c/o Waas Campbell Rivera Johnson & Velasquez LLP Attn: Bart Johnson 420 E. Main St., Ste. 210 Aspen, CO 81611 Ph: 970 -544 -4602 Representative Information: Bart Johnson Waas Campbell Rivera Johnson & Velasquez LLP 420 E. Main St., Ste. 210 Aspen, CO 81611 Ph: 970 -544 -4602 Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Sincerely, Lot 5 EP, LLC B• Autho ' ed Representative (A0007428/ t ) ,gd73SJ0101005' ATTACHMENT L AGREEMENT FOR PAYMENT OF LAND USE APPLICATION FEES JtjLV #a735 /010 f onC PITKIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AGREEMENT FOR PAYMENT OF LAND USE APPLICATION FEES PITKIN COUNTY (hereinafter COUNTY) and L o 4 S' 6: P L L- (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to COUNTY an application for /I'1 i hn . Ptf I- ArrUr%,Ame V I Miapi Ange4lnn � 4y Dar. PPumi (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that Pitkin County Ordinance No. 030 -2009 establishes a fee structure for land use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. The fee structure is based on the County's policy that development shall pay, in full, the cost of development review in Pitkin County. Fees have been set to be consistent and fair to the public and to reflect the expense incurred in providing such services to the public. 3. APPLICANT and COUNTY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it may not be possible at the time of application to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. 4. APPLICANT and COUNTY agree that fees charged for the processing of land use applications shall accumulate if an application includes more than one type of land use review. 5. COUNTY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for COUNTY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and /or Board of County Commissioners to enable the Planning Commission and/or Board of County Commissioners to make legally required findings for project approval, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 6. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the COUNTY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay a base fee in the amount of $ i q46 which is based on _(� hours of staff time, and if actual time spent by staff to process the application exceeds the average number of hours by more than 20 %, then the COUNTY will bill the APPLICANT quarterly for the additional time spent. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing. PITKIN COUNTY APPLICANT 6 LLC, Cindy Houben Community Development Director Effective 01/26/2010 G:county \admin \f'onns \agreement to pay Print Name c, gna rre Date: Mailing Address: 72 E, MKin -0, t f tie ks !elk 11 PITKIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920 -5526 FAX4 (970) 920 -5439 August 16, 2011 Bart Johnson 420 East Main Street, Suite #210 Aspen, CO 81611 jpfloatine a comcast.net Re: Lot 5 EP LLC Subdivision Exemption Minor Plat Amendment & Minor Amendment to a Development Permit (CASE P064 -11; PID 2735- 101 -01 -005) Dear Mr. Johnson: The Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that this application is complete. After a more detailed review of the submittal information, additional information specific to the application may be requested in order to adequately review and process the application. The planner in charge of the review will request the information from you directly. If you have any questions, please call Lance Clarke, the planner assigned to your case, at 920 -5452. Sincerely, Bonnie Waechtler Administrative Assistant PITKIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920 -5526 FAX# (970) 920 -5439 ,%111 % [I]T_7 \U I iyi To: Eagle Pines Homeowners Association FROM: Lance Clarke, Community Development Department Lance.clarkeg Re: Lot 5 EP LLC Subdivision Exemption Minor Plat Amendment & Minor Amendment to a Development Permit (PID 2735- 101 -01 -005; Case P064 -11) DATE: August 16, 2011 Attached for your review and comments are materials for an application submitted by Lot 5 EP LLC. The Pitkin County Community Development Director will review the application. Please return your comments to me by Friday, September 9, 2011. http: /hvww.aspenpitkin.com/ Portals /0 /does /county /Com %20Dcv /Planning /Land Use An plications /P064 11 app.pdf T If you require a paper copy of this application contact Bonnie Waechtler at bonnie .waechtlerEa:',co.pitkin.co.us or 920 -5109. Thank you. i PITKIN COUNTY CHECK REQUISITION (Invoice Created in Eden by Com Dev) (Please attach any appropriate papers) DATE: December 15, 2011 AMOUNT: $897.00 CHARGE ACCT NUMBER: B 002.00.37001 PAYMENT MADE TO: WAAS Campbell Rivera Johnson Vendor 033203 420 E Main St Suite 210 Aspen, CO 81611 REASON: Withdrawn application 0064.2011.PLAN. Ok to refund $872 out of $1,521 based on hours worked. DEPT. HEAD APPROVAL: (�'/�� C "((t DATE: la (PLEASE SIGN AND DATE) REFUND FEE DETAIL (corn dev use): • Planning Flat Fee 002.02.00000.63342 • Clerk Tech Fee 001.10.00000.63130 872.00 25.00 [jz PITKIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Permit Receipt RECEIPT NUMBER 00031246 Name: WAAS Campbell Rivera Johnson.. Date:8l112011 �tn- Project Address: 360 W EAGLE PINES DR r Type: check # 7689 ^ V Permit Number Fee Description Amount 0064.2011.PLAN PP- Flat Fee 1,496.00 0064.2011.PLAN PP- Clerk Tech Fee 25.00 — 2 Total: 1,521.00 �S U� � PITKIN CUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELt ;�MENT Permit Receipt RECEIPT NUMBER 00031246 Name: WAAS Campbell Rivera Johnson.. Project Address: 360W EAGLE PINES DR Type: check # 7889 Permit Number 0064.2011. P LAN 0064 2011. PLAN Fee Description PP- Flat Fee PP- Clerk Tech Fee Total: Date:8 /1 /2011 Amount 1,49600 25.00 1,521 00