Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.planning.246734400027DOCUMENT 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: 2467- 344 -00 -027 •.� • DATE RCVD'. 8/6/1965 S COPIES: 'CASE CASE NAME: Rocky Mountain Institute Special Review Plann - - PROJ ADDR: 1739 Snowmass Crk Rd S -T -R Tract 82 34 -8 -86 D OWN /APP: Rocky Mountain Instl ADRF CIS14 PHN: REP: ADR:r C /SIZ:F PHN: Email Addr: ALLOCATED HOUR FEES DUE:F FEES RCVD: % OVER: REF: BY rDUE:F MTG DATE REV BODY PH NOTICED DATE OF FINAL ACTION: 9/1 711985 F57 OCC No F F— No O !REMARKS no vesting Covenants #277170 CLOSED: BY:F— BOCC Reso: BOCC Ord: PZ: HRG OFF: HO INDEX: ADMIN: PLAT RECORDED PLAT (BK,PG): n/a ADMIN INDEX: VR APPROVAL DATE: F VR EXPI RES:F CASE TYP: Special Review CASE TYP2: CASE TYP3: CASE TYP4: CASE TYP5: CASE TYP6: CASE TYP7: Date Scanned: 12/16/2011 File Location: a CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET PITRIN COUNTY DATE RECEIVED DATE RECEIVED PROJECT NAM APPLICANT: ors Applicant A REPRESENTATIVE: L", Representative Addr ETE: ne: Type of Application: L I. GMP /SUBDIV IS ION /PUD ( 4 step) General Submission Detailed Submission Final Plat II. SUBDIV IS ION /PUD (4 step) General Submission Detailed Submission / Final Plat ✓ III. SPECIAL REVIEW /REZONING (2 step) IV. SPECIAL REVIEW (1 step) Lmployee Dwelling Unit 1041 Hazard Review Other: V. SPECIAL APPROVAL (1 step) CASE NO. 35 STAFF: L 9.25 -81h4, ($2,930.00) ($1,900.00) ($ 730.00) ($1,750.00) ($1,470.00) ($ 730.00) ($tee." 4 (,260. 00 ($ 730.00) a ($ 730.00) (No Charge) P &Z BOCC MEETING DATE: �� \� PUBLIC HEARING: YES DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: REF , eRRALS : FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: uuCJul d-� -. 1 — & County A.tty _ Aspen Consol. S.D. School District County Engr _ Mtn. Bell _ Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas Housing Dir. _ Envir. Coordinator _ State Hwy Dept (Glenwd) _ Aspen Water _ Holy Cross Electric StateHwy Dept (Gr.Jtn) City Electric _ Fire Marshall Bldg: Zoning / Inspectn : z Envir. Hlth. _ Fire Chief Colo. Geologicsurvey County Mgr. Snowmass Village USFS Div. Wildlife FAA Div. Water Resources Mt Sopris Soil State Planning Off. Water Conservation Bd. Trails Dir. Other: Other: FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: --4 INITIA County Atty x County Engineer _ Building Dept. Housing Director Envir. Health _ Envir. Coordtr. Other: _ Other: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: uuCJul d-� -. 1 — & MEMORANDUM TO: Joanna Schaffner, Zoning Officer FROM: Tamara Pregl, Planner RE: Rocky Mountain Institute DATE: July 29, 1998 Lance Clarke and myself visited the Rock) Mountain Institute (RMI) site on June 19, 1998 to look at the area where the applicant would like to construct a 160 square foot laundry facility. This facility will be attached to an existing triples. We have determined that the proposed laundry facility will not create any additional 1041 hazard impacts, and is therefore, exempt from 1041 review pursuant to Section 3-80.20(A) of the Land Use Code. Staff initially determined that no further construction should commence on the RMI and Windstar sites until the Special Review that was granted be updated. Cindy Houben, Community Development Director, has spoken with Hunter Lovin who is aware of the circumstances surrounding the Special Review approval. However, it was resolved that the proposed laundry facility may be constructed prior to the Special Review update Therefore, the applicant may apply for a building permit for the laundry facility. The applicant has met with staff to determine what will be required to update their Special Review approval. cc: John Roberts u0GJU2 „ r BOOK 5Dffl RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, GRANTING SPECIAL REVIEW APPROVAL TO THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE Resolution No. 65- 136 WHEREAS, the Rocky Mountain Institute (hereinafter "Institute ") has made application with the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado (hereinafter "Board "), for a Special Review approval for the Rocky Mountain Institute appropriate technology research and demonstration center; and WHEREAS, on November 25, 1985, the Board held a public hearing to review said application; and i 2 WHEREAS, the Board reviewed said application pursuant to Section 3 -3 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code which provides for the Special Review of uses not listed in the Use Requirements Table; and WHEREAS, the Board makes the finding that this use is not listed in the Use Requirements of the Land Use Code and is unique in that it combines a residence, agricultural production and a research institute in one building; and k WHEREAS, the Board finds that this use has impacts no greater than a � single - family residence. NON, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board that it does hereby — grant approval of the Special Review for the Institute subject to the following conditions: 1. A ten foot (10 right -of -way along Lower Snowmass Creek Road shall be dedicated to the County for future road improvement needs. a. The5folPwing conditions for employee housing must be fulfilled: a< o Q' a.�- The -. loft area def fined as the fourth employee living area _ g2 mup either be certified as habitable by the Building De"rtment or another suitable area must be defined and C kIa approved by the County as an employee living area. W - N b applicant shall deed - restrict the employee housing i ccordance with the Pitkin County Housing Authority's d emp oyee housing occupancy and price guidelines. APPROVED by the Board at its regular meeting on December 9, 1985. "TT BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITEIN COUNTY ` i ` By _ County Chairperson Lew Scanlan, Deputy Clerk Tom Blake, „ e: A TO FORM: RECQIJ�NDED (POOR APPROVAL: AP , \ \ l,� 4 �(Y?1N JCS- / ( rib Y Thomas F. Smith, County Attorney Alan Richman, Planning and FK 15 Development Director cc r 0 1 � RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, GRANTING SPECIAL REVIEW APPROVAL TO THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE Resolution No. 85- 136 WHEREAS, the Rocky Mountain Institute (hereinafter "Institute ") has made application with the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado (hereinafter "Board "), for a Special Review approval for the Rocky Mountain Institute appropriate technology research and demonstration center; and WHEREAS, on November 25, 1985, the Board held a public hearing to review said application; and WHEREAS, the Board reviewed said application pursuant to Section 3 -3 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code which provides for the Special Review of uses not listed in the Use Requirements Table; and. WHEREAS, the Board makes the finding that this use is not listed in the Use Requirements of the Land Use Code and is unique in that it combines a residence, agricultural production and a research institute in one building; and WHEREAS, the Board finds that this use has impacts no greater than a single - family residence. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board that it does hereby grant approval of the Special Review for the Institute subject to the following conditions: 1. A ten foot (10 right -of -way along Lower Snowmass Creek Road shall be dedicated to the County for future road improvement needs. 2. The following conditions for employee housing must be fulfilled: a. The loft area defined as the fourth employee living area must either be certified as habitable by the Building Department or another suitable area must be defined and approved by the County as an employee living area. b. The applicant shall deed- restrict the employee housing in accordance with the Pitkin County Housing Authority's employee housing occupancy and price guidelines. APPROVED by the Board at its regular meeting on December 9, 1985. ATT E Lew Scanlan, Deputy County Clerk APP , Rfi , VED A )1::704—,1,—, M: n f�Gtr,,.L sE� l y -A Thomas F. Smith, County Attorney FK.15 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO By Tom Blake, Chairperson REED FOR APPROVAL: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director UUGi)U4 �f LOW2 COVENANTS COVENANTS I made this 29 `^ day of Ma. mot, AMORY LOVINS and HUNTER LOVINS of Old Snowmass, Colorado, (hereinafter "the Lovins"). W I T N E S S E T H WHEREAS, the Lovins are the owners of the following described real property situate in Pitkin County, Colorado: That part of Tract 82, Section 34, Township 8 South, Range 86 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, lying Easterly of the Westerly line of said Tract 82 and Westerly of a county road as constructed and in place described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the Westerly line of said Tract 82 whence Angle Point No. 3 of said Tract 82 (being the same as Angle Point No. 7 of Tract 80) bears South 01 0 18' East 416.58 feet; thence North 01 0 18' West 311.70 feet along the Westerly line of said Tract 82 (to a point whence Angle Point No. 1 of said Tract ASV ba i7u!'h Ci`io West 104.64 feet); thence South 87 East 347.74 -?t to a point on the Westerly line of said road; thence South 13 0 41' West 106.22 feet along the Westerly line of said road; thence South 26 0 07' West 226.26 feet along the Westerly line of said road; thence North 87 0 43' West 215.83 feet to a point on the Westerly line of said Tract 82, the point of beginning. TOGETHER with an easement 20 feet in width being 10 feet on each side of the following described center line; BEGINNING at a point on the Southerly line of the above described tract of land whence the Southeast Corner of the above described tract of land bears South 87 0 43' East 30.00 feet; thence South 28 0 52' West 19.00 feet; thence South 46 0 55' East 22.74 feet; thence North 59 0 12' East 20.00 feet more or less to a point on tha Westerly line of the above mentioned county road. County of Pitkin, State of Colorado (hereinafter referred to as the "Property "), and 1 VtjV� V5 2 W � � 2 U Q1 s W N 4 y C � U W �• O Z �i f '� TLiE S E N o. 'a 194, by �f LOW2 COVENANTS COVENANTS I made this 29 `^ day of Ma. mot, AMORY LOVINS and HUNTER LOVINS of Old Snowmass, Colorado, (hereinafter "the Lovins"). W I T N E S S E T H WHEREAS, the Lovins are the owners of the following described real property situate in Pitkin County, Colorado: That part of Tract 82, Section 34, Township 8 South, Range 86 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, lying Easterly of the Westerly line of said Tract 82 and Westerly of a county road as constructed and in place described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the Westerly line of said Tract 82 whence Angle Point No. 3 of said Tract 82 (being the same as Angle Point No. 7 of Tract 80) bears South 01 0 18' East 416.58 feet; thence North 01 0 18' West 311.70 feet along the Westerly line of said Tract 82 (to a point whence Angle Point No. 1 of said Tract ASV ba i7u!'h Ci`io West 104.64 feet); thence South 87 East 347.74 -?t to a point on the Westerly line of said road; thence South 13 0 41' West 106.22 feet along the Westerly line of said road; thence South 26 0 07' West 226.26 feet along the Westerly line of said road; thence North 87 0 43' West 215.83 feet to a point on the Westerly line of said Tract 82, the point of beginning. TOGETHER with an easement 20 feet in width being 10 feet on each side of the following described center line; BEGINNING at a point on the Southerly line of the above described tract of land whence the Southeast Corner of the above described tract of land bears South 87 0 43' East 30.00 feet; thence South 28 0 52' West 19.00 feet; thence South 46 0 55' East 22.74 feet; thence North 59 0 12' East 20.00 feet more or less to a point on tha Westerly line of the above mentioned county road. County of Pitkin, State of Colorado (hereinafter referred to as the "Property "), and 1 VtjV� V5 0 %.W 5:'S . :WHEREAS, the Property is the subject of a Special Review Approval granted by the Pitkin County Commissioners in accordance with the terms of Section 3 -3 of Title II of the Pitkin County Code, with respect to the activities of the Lovins and the Rocky Mountain Institute, and WHEREAS, one of the conditions of said approval was that the Property be deed restricted in accordance with the guidelines of the Housing Authority, and WHEREAS, the Lovins are desirous of memoralizing these restrictions in the form of these covenants. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the issuance of the Special Review Approval, the Lovins covenant as follows: 1. Covenant Regarding Employee Housing The four (4) employee living areas in the improvements on the Property, if utilized at all, shall be utilized for the housing of the employees of the Rocky Mountain Institute, or the Lovins, and shall not be condominiumized. The use and occupancy of the employee living areas shall be limited to housing for the employees of the Rocky Mountain Institute or the Lovins, in accordance with the moderate rental guidelines established by the Housing Authority of the City of Aspen and Pitkin County, or a successor thereto. All employees housed in the property shall also meet moderate income and occupancy eligibility requirements established and applied by the Housing Authority with respect to employee housing. 2. Verification of Employment and Delivery of Lease Verification of employment of person(s) living in the employee living areas, if utilized, shall be completed and filed U JUM 2 .We with the Housing Authority of the City of Aspen and Pitkin County ( "Housing Authority ") by the Lovins and /or the Rocky Mountain Institute and must be acceptable to the Housing Authority. A copy of that portion of any employment agreement which address the housing of an employee, shall be sent to the Housing Office so that a current file may be maintained on the property. 3. Term of Agreement No agreement executed for occupancy of the employee living area shall provide for a term of less than six (6) consecutive months, unless the employment of the employee by the Rocky Mountain Institute shall be terminated, in which case, the Lovins and the Rocky Mountain Institute shall have the right to terminate the right to occupy the living area. 4. Burden and Term of Covenants These covenants shall be deemed to run with the land as a burden thereof for the benefit of, and shall be specifically enforceable by, the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, the Housing Authority of the City of Aspen and Pitkin County, or the duly authorized designee of the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, by any appropriate legal action including but not limited to injunction, abatement, or eviction of non - complying residents during the period of the life of the last surviving member of the presently existing Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, plus twenty -one (21) years, or for a period of fifty (50) years from the date of recording hereof in the Pitkin County real property records, whichever period shall be less. Anything to the contrary herein llV i1UU I 3 3c.� "19 nn:_Si4 notwithstanding, these restrictions shall, however, lapse upon the change in use of the Property by any entity, or when the Special Review Approval for the use of the Property by the Rocky Mountain Institute and the Lovins is terminated in any manner whatsoever. 5. Notices. All notices, demands and communications hereunder shall be served or given to the respective parties at their respective addresses set forth below or as otherwise designated in the manner set forth herein. Any notice, demand or communication shall be given by personal service or certified mail, postage prepaid thereon and, unless sooner received, five (5) days after the date of certification. The addresses of the respective parties are as follows: Amory and Hunter Lovins Post Office Box 505 Snowmass, Colorado 81654 copy to: Brooke A. Peterson, Esq. Brooke A. Peterson, P.C. 315 E. Hyman Ave., Ste. 305 Aspen, CO 81611 Housing Authority of the City of Aspen and Pitkin County 0100 Lone Pine Road Aspen, Colorado 81611 6. Severability Each portion of these Covenants shall be deemed to be severable and if for any reason any portion or portions hereof are invalid or contrary to any existing or future law, such invalidity shall not affect the applicability or validity of any other provisions of these Covenants. 4 These Covenants, for all purposes, shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of Colorado. S. Attorneys' Fees Should any party hereunder be required to resort to legal or equitable process for the enforcement of any of the provisions of this document, the prevailing party shall be entitled to collect from the other party all of their reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses and court costs. 9. Amendments These Covenants may be modified only by written agreement signed by the Lovins and by the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have hereunto set their hands and seals on the date first above written. H N R LOVIN OV �� AMORY LOVIN STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing documen was acknowledged and me this 27 1! day of _II , �_ r , I t , 1.9_ by *M HUNTER LOVINS. ; My commission expires: 4 1 -1 3 -, Y7 V . Witness my hand and official seal. w©rfi*tY ;pore k n y " o, ; NS and 5 U G JU-9 7. Governing Law 9C H n T s ° These Covenants, for all purposes, shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of Colorado. S. Attorneys' Fees Should any party hereunder be required to resort to legal or equitable process for the enforcement of any of the provisions of this document, the prevailing party shall be entitled to collect from the other party all of their reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses and court costs. 9. Amendments These Covenants may be modified only by written agreement signed by the Lovins and by the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have hereunto set their hands and seals on the date first above written. H N R LOVIN OV �� AMORY LOVIN STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing documen was acknowledged and me this 27 1! day of _II , �_ r , I t , 1.9_ by *M HUNTER LOVINS. ; My commission expires: 4 1 -1 3 -, Y7 V . Witness my hand and official seal. w©rfi*tY ;pore k n y " o, ; NS and 5 U G JU-9 10 December 1989 Amy Margerum, Planning Director Pitkin County Planning Office City Hall, Galena Street Aspen CO 81611 Dear Ms. Margerum: This is to inform the Planning Office that Rocky Mountain Institute remains in full compliance with the terms of the County's Special Review Approval of December 1985. The parking area remains the same size and is being regularly maintained. There have been no instances in which RMI personnel have parked on the county road. However, there was one instance this Fall in which an RMI visitor parked on the county road. The vehicle was removed within thirty minutes. Steps were taken to ensure no repeat of this error. RMI maintains ownership of the adjoining parcel which contains six units, consisting of 12 bedrooms of employee housing. Thank you for your attention. With best s es, L. Hunter Lovins, Esq. President and Executive Director 1 3 9 5 N 0 W AT A S 5 C R E E K R O A D S N U B AT A 5 5 C o L U R A D 0 A 1 6 5 J 9 1 9 9 f303i 92' -3n51 92] -3128 VV�J J E U I 5 May 1989 Alan Richman, Planning Director Pitkin County Planning Office City Hall, Galena Street Aspen CO 81611 Dear Mr. Richman: MAY - g Phis is to inform the Planning Office that Rocky iviuuntain instimte remiains in full compliance with the terms of the County's Special Review Approval of December 1985. The parking area remains the same size and is being regularly maintained. There have been no instances in which RMI visitors or personnel have parked on the county road. Surpassing the housing requirements of the Special Review Approval, RMI maintains ownership of the adjoining parcel of land containing 12 bedrooms in two buildings -- all of which are dedicated to RMI employee housing. Thank you for your attention. With best wishes, L. Hunter Lovins, Esq. President and Executive Director N 0 45 AI A S S C R E E K R O A D. S N O W M A S S C O L O R A D O 8 1 0 5 4 - 9 1 9 9 (3031 92� -3R51 92 ) -312R Li J ) l 16 I O December 1987 Alan Richman, Planning Director Aspen and Pitkin County Planning Office City Hall, Galena Street Aspen CO 81611 Dear Mr. Richman: DEC 1 4 I-9,11 This is to inform the Planning Office that Rocky Mountain Institute remains in full compliance with the terms of the County's Special Review Approval of December 1985. Two concerns expressed by the County in the course of Special Review were parking and employee housing. It is worth noting that with regard to these concerns, RMI has made improvements which place it in a compliance position more favorable to County policy than at the time of approval. Parking: RMI has improved the condition of, and access to, parking without increasing the number of parking spaces. Employee Housing: At the time of approval, RMI represented that it was housing employees in six units (totaling 12 bedrooms) on land adjoining RMI. It was correctly noted during the approval process that RMI could not ensure its long- term ability to use that housing because it did not own the property. We are pleased to report that RMI now owns that adjoining land, ensuring its long -term use as housing (with pedestrian access to work) for RMI staff. The prior uses of the staff - housing parcel have not been changed. The agricultural condition of the associated 7 acres of previously neglected rough pasture has been improved, and we have undertaken weed control there. Thank you f� attention. With best wishes, L. Hunter Lovins, Esq. President and Executive Director 1 7 3 9 S N O W M A S S C R E E K R O A D. S NO W M A S 5. C O L O R A D 0 S 1 n 5 9 - 9 1 9 9 1.3031 92]- 3851,92 3128 u0G,.1z2 3a 25 November 1986 Pitkin County Planning Office Attn: Francis Krizmanich 130 S. Galena St. Aspen CO 81611 Dear Mr. Krizmanich: 'ttr IVk On 9 December 1985, the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners, in Resolution No. 85 -136, unanimously granted approval of the Special review by the Planning and Zoning Commission for Rocky Mountain Institute, subject to several conditions. The following status report is submitted to facilitate the yearly review of the Institute's compliance with the Board's conditions. 1. Parking Lot This condition was not imposed by the Board of County Commissioners. However, compliance is reported because it was recommended by the Planning Office. The parking area has been regraded, regraveled, and the east boundary redefined with wooden curbs. In addition, the Institute has added a County- approved agricul- tural /storage building east of the main building, thus freeing two additional parking spaces which are about to be regraded and graveled on the driveway's north- west side. These improvements have produced parking space for ten or eleven vehicles. No parking is permitted or needed on Snowmass Creek Road. 2. Snowmass Creek Road Right -of -Way foot right -of -way along Snowmass Creek portion of land to be included in the notify us in due course. Amory and I are prepared to dedicate a ten - Road when the County indicates the specific dedication. We presume the roads staff will Employee Housing a. The loft area defined as the fourth employee living area has been certified as habitable by the County Building Department, which amended the Certi- ficate of Occupancy accordingly. b. Ile have deed - restricted the employee housing in accordance with the Pitkin County Housing Authority's guidelines. We are therefore in compliance with all conditions of The Special Use. If you have any further questions or suggestions, please give me or Amory a call. We deeply appreciate the courteous, professional, and expeditious handling of these matters by the Planning Department, and assure you of our continuing intention to cooperate with the County's planning regulations. Sincerely yours L. nter L ,��� ov �77 i p n � s � E } sq. }n PresidenX'R W EFxe 4 t i ) 5 IYlr #� T , A s . S , C O L O R A D O 81 6 5 J, 13 0 31 927 3 8 5 I, 9 2' -d 1 7 8 LHL:bw UU0 J A MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Francis Krizmanich, Planning Office RE: Rocky Mountain Institute Special Review DATE: November 25, 1985 REQUEST: This request is for special review approval of the Rocky Mountain Institute, which is an appropriate technology research and demonstration facility located within the home of Amory and Hunter Lovins. APPLICANT: Amory B. Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins LOCATION: 1739 Snowmass Creek Road. Located immediately south of the Gateway to Snowmass Subdivision on the north side of Snowmass Creek 1.75 miles south of State Highway 82. ACCESS: Via private drive onto Lower Snowmass Creek Road, County Road #11. WATER: Water is supplied by the Gateway Subdivision system. SEWER: Sewage is treated by an on -site septic system. ZONING: RS -30 PUD DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: This request before the Planning and Zoning Commission is for Special Review of the Rocky Mountain Insti- tute which is a non - profit research foundation concerned primarily with resource conservation. The current use of the property consists of an approximately 4,000 sq. ft. residence /greenhouse /research facility. Of the total floor area, approximately 1,000 sq. ft. of the building is devoted to the Rocky Mountain Institute research library and Office space, 2,000 sq. ft. is devoted to living area and 900 sq. ft. is a greenhouse which produces fruit, vegetables, herbs and fish. Amory and Hunter Lovins and one employee live full -time in the building. In addition to these three persons, the Institute employs approximately nine (9) other persons full and part -time. In addition to employees, an average of two visitors per day visit the Institute. The use does not meet the criteria of a home occupation (Section 20 -1) due to its having employees commuting from other locations. The use is not specifically listed in the use tables, and, therefore, accord- ing to Section 3 -3 of the Code, this use requires Special Review. REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: 1. Environmental Health: In a memo dated 8/27/85, Bob Nelson of the Environmental Health Department indicated that the yield of the well and distribution system are sufficient to provide an adequate quantity of water for any additional demands beyond those of a typical single - family residence. The on -site sewage disposal system is adequate for flows up to about 375 gallons per day and should continue to function properly, even with a staff of 8 -10 persons. The Department endorses most of the experimen- tal changes generally referenced in the application as being appropriate, if untried, technologies. The Department requests that any modifications to the wastewater disposal system be approved and permitted by them. 2. Planning Engineer: In a memo dated 9/12/85, Tom Newland expres- sed the following concerns. Visitor traffic is a potential Ujl,'J14 W I .. . . problem. while attending a caucus meeting of Snowmass /Capitol Creeks area residents on June 3, 1985, this point came up several times. The caucus agreed that institutional uses such as the Rocky Mountain Institute should be treated like commercial uses within the valley. They believed that future institutional uses should not be allowed and that existing institutional uses should be carefully reviewed on a yearly basis. The plat of the Institute grounds which was submitted with the application shows a driveway with no definite place to park vehicles. It is the Planning Engineer's opinion that parking on the grounds should be defined and enlarged so that it can accommodate all resident and visitor parking generated by the Institute. It is recommended that a parking lot be constructed on the Institute grounds that is capable of holding 15 to 20 cars at one time. Lower Snowmass Creek Road, County Road #11, is used as a direct access to the Institute. According to a recent County Road Analysis completed by the Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office, the portion of this road between the Institute and State Highway 82 is extremely overused. Although the surface is already paved, some major improvements, such as curve straightening and pavement widening, will need to occur in the near future. It is recom- mended that the Rocky Mountain Institute grant a 30 foot con- struction easement to the County for this future road work. 3. Housing Authority: In a telephone conversation on 10/17/85, Ann Bowman of the Housing Authority indicated that the Housing Board recommends approval of the Rocky Mountain Institute proposal. This approval is based on the Institute's commitment to deed - restrict the entire building for low to moderate income housing. This will incorporate four employees who will live at the Institute. This approval is based on deed restrictions as outlined in the conditions of approval for this proposal. 4. Public Comment: The Planning Department has received four letters in support of the Rocky Mountain Institute. There have been no negative comments received. It should be noted that at a June 3, 1985, caucus meeting of the Snowmass /Capitol Creeks residents, it was agreed that institutional uses such as Windstar and the Rocky Mountain Institute should be treated like commer- cial uses within the valley. Future commercial and institutional development should not be allowed and existing institutional uses should be reviewed on a yearly basis. STAFF COMMENTS: This proposal is unique in that it combines a residence, research facility and crop production within one building. A single - family dwelling and crop production are both uses specifical- ly permitted in the RS -30 zone under the Land Use Code (Sections 3 -3.1 and 3- 3.30). The permitted uses are instructive in that they provide guidelines for determining if other uses not listed in the Code are permissible within the Special Review procedure. Because the building is an integrated living, farming and work space as well as an experi- mental facility for testing and demonstrating new resource saving technologies, the Planning Staff has recommended this Special Review. In analyzing this proposal, the major question to be asked is whether the residence /institute has impacts equal to or greater than a single family home. The staff has identified the following potential impacts: 1. Visual - The Institute is housed within a building that is primarily a residence. The passive solar nature of the building incorporates a planted earth bermed roof which significantly reduces the visual impact of the building. The existing parking area also has a minimal visual impact because the topography of the site and the building location shields the parking area from the adjacent roadway and residences. 2 uuG0i5 % _-.. 2. Traffic Impacts - The Lower Snowmass Creek Road is presently operat- ing at or above its design capacity. The Institute does have the potential to generate adverse traffic impacts due to the number of people employed (12) and visitor traffic. Except for an Open House on August 12, 1984, when 600 people visited the Institute and many cars were parked on the road, the traffic impact has been minimal. Traffic impacts have been minimal due in large part to the fact that three employees live in the building, five employees live in the immediate neighborhood and normally don't drive to the Institute, two Aspen based employees do commute, however, they frequently carpool or take the bus and two Carbondale employees commute but they each work one day per week. Visitor traffic is randomly distributed and has averaged two per day. To minimize potential impacts, the applicants should require that employees car pool take the bus or walk to work. In addition, any new or replacement employees should be required to live within walking distance of the Institute. Visitors to the Institute should be limited to no more than two cars per day during normal working hours on weekdays to minimize roadway and neighborhood impacts. 3. Employee Housing - The Housing Authority Board has recommended approval of the Institute's employee commitment to deed restrict the building for employee housing for four employees. The applicants had committed to providing a fourth employee space in the loft within the building, however, an inspection of the building permit shows that the loft area is not habitable due to insufficient headroom. Another suitable area within the building must be designated as an employee living area to conform to the conditions of approval outlined by the Housing Authority. 4. Parking - The existing parking area does not seem adequate for more than 6 - 8 cars at one time, particularly during the winter months. Although the Planning Engineer had indicated in his referral letter that parking should be provided for 15 -20 cars, further site inspections and review of the proposal indicate that parking for twelve cars can sufficiently handle parking needs without creating adverse visual impacts. 5. Utilities - The number of residents and employees living and working in the building would normally create demands greater than a single - family home. Due to the design of the building which contains an exceptional level of energy conserving devices, including passive solar, earth berming, low -water using toilets and shower fixtures, the buildings occupants use less energy and water than a normal single family home. PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission and the Planning Office recommend that the Board approve this Special Review of the Rocky Mountain Institute subject to the following condi- tions: 1. That the parking lot on -site should be defined and enlarged to be capable of holding no more than 12 cars at one time. There shall be no parking permitted on Lower Snowmass Creek Road. 2. A 10 foot right-of-way along Lower Snowmass Creek Road should be dedicated to the County for future road improvement needs. 3. The following conditions for employee housing must be fulfilled. a. The loft area defined as the fourth employee living area must either be certified as habitable by the Building Depart- ment or another suitable area must be defined and approved by the Couinty as an employee living area. b. The applicant shall deed - restrict the empoyee housing in accordance with the Pitkin County Housing Authority's employee housing occupancy and price guidelines. FK.21 3 L G;:li6 M E M O R A N D U M TO: ALAN RICHMAN, PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM: JOHN F.LDERT, COUNTY MANAGER �_ RE: ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE DATE: 25 NOVEMBER, 1985 A few comments on the Rocky Mountain Institute application that is scheduled for special review before the BOCC this Monday. It is generally agreed that all parties support the Institute in its present location and that all desire to accommodate it somehow within the context of the Land Use Code. Although I share this goal, I have some concern with the method that has been proposed, and specifically the use of special review; my concern is in no way substantive, but rather the manner in which this particular use has been accommodated and whether or not a basis for precedent has been established as a result. The issue of precedent involves two (2) separate concerns: 1. the use proposed in the subject zone district, and the implications that may result from special review approval (both Windstar and the Monastery, for instance, have initiated what may be indicative of greater commercial activity in the area) 2. the allegation that the Building Department knowingly issued a building permit for the structure for the use that is now occurring on the property; an erroneous issuance by the Department has apparently been considered a sufficient basis to allow that use to continue, whether the use was legitimate or not A cursory review of the Code was conducted to assess the above issues on the following basis: the subject lot is a substandard sized, previously subdivided, mandatory PUD, RS -30 lot. The basis upon which the Building Department would issue a building permit to the Lovin's would appear to be as follows: A. a. Section 5 -510 imposes limitations on all development in the County, regardless of type, unless exempted b. 5- 510.2 exempts from growth management the construction of one (1) single family dwelling on a lot subdivided prior to the adoption of GMP c. 3 -3.1 identifies a single family dwelling of five (5) or less bedrooms as an allowed use in the RS -30 Zone d. 20 -1 defines, under "Dwelling, One Family" or single family, a detached principal building... used as a dwelling exclusively by one (1) family as an independent living unit" (emphasis added) e. Section 7 -2.2 allows for the development of one (1) single family dwelling unit on a substandard sized lot (unless 1041); no other use is allowed CONCLUSION: A building permit could only be issued, in the absence of growth management or any other required review, for an allowed use in the subject zone, in this instance, a single family dwelling unit as defined in Section 20 -1. Furthermore, the development of a substandard sized lot with anything other than a single family dwelling, as defined, would constitute a violation of the Code. I have to assume that the Building Department issued the Lovin's building permit on the basis that the property would be developed with a single family dwelling for exclusive use by the applicant; the building permit issued for the structure substan- tiates this in that the use for which the permit was issued was defined as a single family dwelling. Although the building plans may have reflected a library /office /loft area (it is the use of this area that is now in question), it does not necessarily follow that the applicant represented during building plan review that this area would be used as work space by anyone other than the applicant; it was probably not represented that the library/ office space would be used by employees, whether housed on site or not. Patsy Newbury reviewed the building plans for the structure and has stated, rather definitively, that no use other than an aES exclusive use by the applicant was represented. I am concerned that we are now attempting to discredit County staff in an attempt to justify the use of this property; I must assume that Building Department staff are sufficiently knowledgeable of the Code to _ distinguish between a residential use, as defined, and all other uses. I am inclined to support Patsy in this instance and must believe that, had the applicant represented that the structure would be used as a place of employment /residency for anyone other than the Lovin's, Patsy would have referred the applicant to the Planning Office for further review. This is a rather basic use distinction that most any staff is capable of assessing. Regardless of the sequence of events and the various allegations that have been made, I am confident that we can find some other solution to this issue. As a matter of policy, it would behoove us to generally support our staff in disputes with private applicants, not necessarily in this one instance but most particu- Larly for future disputes; although a definite staff error in any area should be acknowledged and addressed accordingly, a staff error should not be contrived in support of a use that can not otherwise be accommodated. I can't help but feel that our position UUG JilS would be markedly different if this dispute involved different parties (how would we have addressed a staffing dispute with the Wildcat applicant, for instance ?). We should make every attempt to move this issue outside of the "allegation arena" and into an objective Code review, and the onus should clearly be placed on the applicant and not the County. B. Miscellaneous Code Criter a. 3 -3.24 prohibits more than one (1) use in an individual building, even if complimentary and used to provide places of employment, in the RS -30 PUD Zone District. This prohibition is not applied to all zone districts, so it could be argued that this section contributes to the intent of the RS -30 zone in some way. Francis' memo clearly indicates that the structure accommodates three (3) uses: residential, research facility and crop production b. 3 -3.23 prohibits Professional Offices. It would appear that the definition of this use is somewhat discretionary; there must be some distinction, however, between a private office within a residence for use by an owner and an office, regardless of where located, used by employees C. 3- 7.2(d) prohibits variations in the use requirements of a zone district in which a PUD is located. Is the Institute defined as a PUP by virtue of its location in a PUD District, and if so, how does this requirement apply d. 3 -8.1 allows incidental boarding /rooming in all zone districts up to a maximum of four (4) persons. Should this regulation be identified up front and complied with as a condition of approval My concern with the above, in the event any of them are found to be applicable, is that they not be violated C. SPECIAL REVIEW The basis for special review in this instance would appear to be that the Institute use is not sufficiently defined elsewhere in the Code. In addition, it would appear that the use that is now occurring on the property is being defined as a single use, and that that use is further being defined as a residential use. My concerns with this approach are: a. as residential uses are allowed in the subject zone, what is the basis for special review? There would appear to be some inconsistency between the definition and the review procedure through which the application UU`,',j I has been processed b. if the Institute use is being defined as a residential use, what is the specific definition, and what are the implications for future development proposals C. Francis' memo indicated that the structure housed a combination of uses, namely residence /research /crop production. The memo further indicated that the Snowmass/ Capitol Creek Caucus requested that institutional uses such as the Institute be considered commercial uses that should be precluded within the subject valleys in future. If this is our intent, how does the use of the special review procedure achieve this goal? Special review is generally allowed if the use is not otherwise defined, compliance with Code policies and regulations is demonstrated, and impact mitigation occurs. It would appear that the use of special review may establish some precedent in this instance D. The cleanest approach would appear to be the creation of a new use; although the major disadvantage with this approach is that it would be universal, the advantage is that we establish the parameters. The new use could be identified as research or research /institutional, could require that it be accessory and complimentary to the principal use if not located in the commercial zones, be limited to non - commercial research uses if located in the non - commercial zones, perhaps establish a cap on employees generated and the percentage that must be housed on site, and be limited to the least dense residential zone districts so that higher density residential neighborhoods are not affected. The use itself, instead of being allowed, would be subject to special review so that policy compliance and impact mitigation must be demonstrated on a case by case basis. Although the definition must be generic, it could at the same time be limited, by definition, in its applicability so that the commercialization of our residential zones is not precipitated. The number of research facilities that would be complimentary to a residential use is probably limited, and there may very well be a genuine need for such a use classification regardless of this application; it is probably not unrealistic for us to anticipate that our home occupation regulations will require some expansion in future years. This approach could actually be construed as a generic expansion of the home occupation regulations, would entirely remove the "commercial" implication of the Institute application, would not be considered "spot zoning ", and should appease all parties. Your staff would have to assess the impacts of such a use prior to proposing, and it may necessitate some other minor amendments to the use table; in any event, a research use properly defined is probably one of the more benign uses to be located in the residential /agricultural districts. Finally, a new use would u�UiIL`J maintain the integrity of 3 -3.23 so that other multiple uses could still be precluded. If you feel that there is any merit to a new use category, the RMI application should be tabled on Monday (once public comment has been taken) pending a Code amendment process, which would only defer the special review (impact mitigation) component of this application for about ninety (90) days My concern, again, is limited to the method we are proposing to accommodate the Institute and does not concern the Institute itself. A land use application should be approved on its own merits, if the proposal is truly meritorious, and should neither rely on staff error nor a nebulous special review procedure as a basis for approval. If these issues have been thoroughly assessed and there is no other way in which to accommodate the Institute use, I would prefer that staff error be eliminated altogether as a basis for approval. UU6 j//1 1. No dogs allo''d. 2. Not necessary✓ o comply with wildlife. 3. Incorporate Lampiris` recommendations. 4. Restrict the top of building envelopes to below the ridge. 5. No utility poles above the access road. Dan Levinson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. K & Y Partnership Jolene Vrchota of the Planning office addressed this non- conforming use. Dean Young is purchasing this property and has come to the Planning and Zoning Commission Board for recommenda tion for abatement for his property, which is located at the base of Gateway to Snowmass Subdivision. It's in an RS -30 Zone which does not allow four - plexes. Located on the property is also a conforming duplex. Referral comments have been received from several staff members who feel that some improvements are needed, but that there are not any life safety improvements that are necessary. Pat Dobie, County Engineer, noted that the private road is somewhat steep but doesn't feel that a hazard is created specifically by the residents of the fourplex. He can clarify that there is another road access on that property. Bob Nelson, Countv Sanitarian, has made inspections of both water supply and sewage disposal system and any problems that he has there will be dealt with under other regulations. Mark. Danielsen, Housing Director, recommended that there be a six month minimum lease placed on any rental of units in the four -plex. This is consistent with the way that the Board dealt with other residential buildings which were non - conforming uses in order to keep them in the long term housing supply. Jolene's recommendation was that the Board exempt this from the abatement procedures and that it be included under all the conditions provided under Article 7 of the Land Use Code. Peter Guy moved to approve the abatement of non - conforming use based on the stipulation that the four -plex remain as employee housing units within the guidelines. Dan Levinson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Mobile Home Code A letter from Dwight K. Shellman and Barbara Ornitz, Attorneys, dated August 31, 1979 was entered into the record. Members went through the memorandum prepared by Jolene Vrchota of the Planning office. The following changes were made: Section 10- 2.3(c)(4) delete from the entire sentence after "...at night ", and put in new sentence to read, "Any new lighting shall employ low intensity, low level fixtures and structures." 0 0GC -I12 C-, T 1 7 MO rid A flil., ll*'414t Of b 9, 1979 a C tmi-,t by t e F I I I t lie itrl ti-I t.(- a gradu#l, Sex. 4v# �!ktll 0-4 2 f Li' Ell P lit t 4T. 1) A aut#s 12 Im et " low tr Upen 1 O*rs of Detwer's qd the to t a. j %I shout the Iv de • e ::a iv I d us I 16; t 've I I 000023 rA tj Pop �.v t �d cv�+Afv MO rid A flil., ll*'414t Of b 9, 1979 a C tmi-,t by t e F I I I t lie I I 000023 rA tj Pop �.v t �d cv�+Afv MEMORANDUM 4 � 1 .! I Health TO: Cynthia M. Houben, Planning Office FROM: Bob Nelson, Department of Environmental DATE: August 27, 1985 RE: Rocky Mountain Institute - Special Review This department has evaluated the referenced proposal for compliance with Colorado Department of Health regulations, local regulations, and those requirements of the Pitkin County Land Use Code under our jurisdiction. We offer the following review comments for your consideration: 1. WATER SUPPLY Water to this structure is supplied from the Gateway to Snowmass Subdivision well which yields drinking water of acceptable quality after treatment. It is our opinion that the yield of the well and distribution system are sufficient to provide an adequate quantity of water for any additional demands beyond those of a typical single family residence. However, in light of the extensive water conservation features installed in this building, the demand for water has been minimized, to the extent that normal projections and standard engineering design calculations for water usage, as included in the Pitkin County Land Use Code no longer apply. There is no doubt but that the water supply system can provide the average projected daily demand of less than 175 gallons per day for this building. 2. SEWAGE DISPOSAL The existing onsite sewage disposal system is probably one of the more conventional aspects of this structure. It consists of a 1250 gallon septic tank and a seepage bed of approximately 1530 square feet. This system is adequate for flows up to about 375 gallons per day and should continue to function properly if other proposed modifications are never completed, even with a staff of 8 -10. Any further changes to the water treatment system, such as recycling grey water for subsurface irrigation are only expected to improve the operation and extend the life of the existing seepage bed longer. We endorse most of the experi- mental changes generally referenced in the application as being appropriate, if untried, technologies. We only request that any modifications to the wastewater disposal system be approved and permitted by this office. lJl) J24 J Ujj cm s i Y TO: Cindy Houbl5n, Planning Office FROM: Ann Bowman, Property Manager RE: Rocky Mountain Institute DATE: October 24, 1985 logy research and demonstration facility. N� ISSUE: The Rocky Mountain Institue is seeking Special Review approval to allow the existing uses of the home in Old Snowmass to continue as a non - profit, non - commercial appropriate techno- ACTION NEEDED: The Housing Authority recommends approval of the proposed deed restriction of the Institute for the three emp- loyees housed there and the additional employee who will be working at the Institute. The condition for approval is based on the following restrictions and the approval by the building department of the loft area: County Code deed restriction language 1. The Owner hereby covenants that the employee rental unit shall remain a rental unit and shall not be condominiumized. Use and occupancy of the employee rental unit shall be limited to housing for qualified employees in accordance with the moderated rental guidelines established by the Housing Authority of the City of Aspen and Pitkin County or a successor thereto. The Owner of the unit shall have the right to lease the units to qualified employees of his own selection. Such individual may be employed by the Owner, or employed in Aspen / Pitkin County, provided such persons fulfill the requirements of a qualified employee. "Qualified employee" as used herein shall mean any person currently residing in and employed in the City of Aspen or Pitkin County for a minimum average of 30 hours per week, nine months out of any twelve -month period, who shall meet moderate income and occupancy eligibility requirements estab- lished and applied by the Housing Authority with respect to employee housing. 2. Verification of employment of person(s) living in the employee rental unit shall be completed and filed with the Housing Authority Office by the Owner of the unit prior to occupancy thereof, and must be acceptable to the Housing Authori- ty. If the Owner does not rent the employee unit to a qualified employee the unit shall be made available for occupancy in accordance with the Housing Authority guidelines, provided the 1 OUGJLS S %_� ..r Owner shall have the right to approve any prospective tenant, which approval shall not be unreasonably delayed or withheld. 3. These covenants shall be deemed to run with the land as a burden thereof for the benefit of, and shall be specifically enforceable by, the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, the Housing Authority of the City of Aspen and Pitkin County, or the duly authorized designee of the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, by any appropriate legal action including but not limited to injunction, abatement, or eviction of non - complying tenants during the period of the life of the last surviving member of the presently existing Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, plus twenty -one years, or for a period of fifty years from the date of recording hereof in the Pitkin County real property records, whichever period shall be less. 4. No lease agreement executed for occupancy of the employee rental unit shall provide for a rental term of less than six consecutive months. 5. When a lease is signed with a tenant, a copy shall be sent to the Housing Office so that a current file may be maintained on each unit. UUGt)L //?1 COUnt7 Code deed rescrietion lanauaoe L ^_:Ie Owner hereby covenants that the emplo�, rental unit shall remain a rental unii, and shall not be condominiumized. Use and Occupancy of the employee rent�_1 unit shall be li:tited to housing for qualified employee:; in accorc;ance with the moderated rental guidelines -- tablisheci by the Housing Authority o= 'the City of Aspen and Pitkin County or a successor thereto. The Owner o_ c_he unit shall have the right to lease the units to qualifier, employees of his own selection. Such individual :lay be ef,iployed by the Owner, or e:aoj oyr-6 in Aspen /Pitkin Countv, provided such persons fulfill the require. eats of a - ivalified employee. "qualified employee" as used herein shall ire n any person currently residing in and employe(. in the City of Aspen or Pitkin County for a minimun average of 30 hours per week., nine months out of anv twelve-month perioc:, who shall meet I;foaerate income and occupancy eligibility re uirements estab- lisheu and applied by the Housing Authority with respect to employee :.dousing. 2. Verification of employment of person(s) living in the employee rental unit snall be completed and filea with the Housing Authority Office by the Owner of the unit prior to occupancv thereof, and must be acceptable to the Housinq Author ty. If the Owner does not rent the el.iplovee unit to a qualified emplovee the unit shall be made available for occupancy i.n accordance with the Housin, F_utnority quidelin_es, provided the Owner shall Nave the right to aoprove any prospective tenant, which a;)proval shall not be unree.so_iibiy delayed or withheld. 3. These covenants shall .x: seemed to run with the land as a burden thereof for the benerit of, anu be specifically enforceable by, the Hoare o_ County Conmissioners of Pitkin CO Un ty, the Ii0U5'1Rq Aut }lOYlty Of t. ?:: City Of F. S`- an(. Plt6 :.. 11 County, or the duly authorized designee of the P..oard of County Co^lraissioners of Pitkin County, by arri anc)roDr.iatc- local action including but not limited to injunction, abatement, or eviction o_` non- comt)Ivinq tenants during the period of the life of the last surviving ainnber of the presently ci:isting Board of COIIIitV Colunissioners o- Pitkin County, Colorado, plus twenty-one years, or for a peri.o6 of fifty years iron the date of recording hereof in the Pitkin County real property recorus, ;whichever period -hall be less. 4. No lease agreement executeu .'or occupancy of the employee rental unit shall - irov - °or a rental term Of less than sip: consecutive months. 5. i7hen lease is signed with a tenan °, . copy shall be sent to the Housing Office .'o ghat a current file nav be nairtained on each u_h_t. uUU:. Z TO: Cindy Houben, Planning Office PROM: Tom Newland, Planning Engineer RE: Rocky Mountain Institute - Special Review DATE: September 12, 1935 I have reviewed the application submitted by Amory Lovins and would like to forward the following convents to vou: On -site Parking - As the application states, visitor traffic is e. potential probler. Nhile attending a caucus meeting of Snowmass- /Capitol Creeks area residents on June 3, 1985, this point came up several times. The caucus agreed that institutional uses such as the rocky trountain Institute should be treated like commercial uses within the valle °he;7 believed that future institutional uses shoulC. not be allowed and that e.:i.sting institutional user should be carefully reviewed on a yearly basis. The plat of the Institute Grounds that . submitted', with the application shows a driveway with no definite place to park vehicles. It is . opinion that that 7irkirg on the grounds should be defined and enlarged so that it can accomodate all visitor and resic'ent par!:inc• venerates b­ the institute. ['r. Lovir.s clains to have par.l :ins; spaces for twelve vehicles, but I have tall ec' to People r:ho : -ay there is barer• enouoh room for six vehicles, especially in the winter months. With the Rocky I'ountFin Institute becor..ing popular through national media exposure, visitor use of the facilities is bound to increase. It is recommended that a parking lot be constructed on the institute grounds that is carahle of holOing 15 to 20 cars at a tine. County Road Impacts - Lovor Snowma.sn Creek Road, County Road is used as i;irect access to the ins According to a recent County Road Analysis completed by thr. Ashen /Pi.tk.in Planning Office, the portion of this road between the institute an(': the Fichwa_v 83 is extrer:ely overusee_ Although the surface is already navel some mR]OC :;unh as; curve Ltraighteninr, and pavement viInni_na, trill neeri to occur in the near future. Tt is therefore recomriendec! that the Pocky 'buntain Institute grant a 30' construction easer!ent to the county for this *f=uture road work.. liUla,.lL� MEMORANDUM To: Suzanne Caskey, Chair, County Planning 6 Zoning Commission From: Michael Kinsley, Rocky Mountain Institute 'VK Re: John McBride's memo of 29 October 1985 5 November 1985 Mr. McBride's memo, which we received yesterday, contains inaccuracies to which my colleagues and I feel obliged to respond. We hope that by doing so we can also clear up some factual misunderstandings which appear to linger in the minds of a few P&Z members. It is certainly appropriate for someone like Mr. McBride to comment on our Special Review application as a resident of the Snowmass /Capitol Creek Valley, although it would have been more useful had he raised his concerns with P&Z, and for that matter with us, before your hearing on 22 October. After all, we did beat the bushes for all comments, whether favorable or adverse. Seeking the widest possible public participation in your hearing, we voluntarily sent sum- maries of our application long ago to all landowners of record in the surround- ing six quarter- sections, to the Homeowner's Associations, to everyone (with a legible address) who came to the last Old Snowmass Caucus meeting on 3 June, and to everyone else we could think of who had been active in Old Snowmass affairs, including Mr. McBride. His comments at your hearing, and his memo of 29 October to you, were his first airing of views which he had never shared with us. Had he done so, we would have been able to correct the many errors of fact which underlie his position, thus avoiding unnecessary controversy and saving him possible embarrassment. However, Mr. McBride wrote to you not only as a resident of Old Snowmass but also "as the developer of the Airport Business Center (which I believe is affected by [RMI's] ... application), and as aln alternate] member of P&Z." Given Mr. McBride's major financial interest in the Airport Business Center - -the only business zoning in the unincorporated County outside of Redstone - -one must ques- tion the compatibility of these two roles and hence the propriety of his com- menting also as a member of P&Z. Mr. McBride has explicitly stated both to us and to others that his real concern is potential loss of revenue to the ABC. In these circumstances it is hard to see how he can avoid at least the appearance of a conflict of interest when he takes part in policy discussions so central to his principal business. Merely declaring his interest is a weak guarantee of his quasi - judicial disinterest in P&Z's decisionmaking. With that preface, let me address each of Mr. McBride's arguments in turn (quot- ing them in boldface): "...efforts... to alter the existing rules...." No such effort has been made by the Lovinses or by this organization. We support the County's land -use policy. It is indeed one of the reasons why the Lovinses, who have dedicated their whole professional careers to protecting environmental resources, decided to settle in Pitkin County. As will become clear below, our application, when assessed on the correct facts, does not distort existing rules and procedures, but uses them in exactly the way in which they were meant to be used - -to exer- ,0 1'/ ? 2 cise the County "V" discretion to examine and allow 1pecial Uses. Thus the Special Review process we are going through does not alter the rules; it applies them. "...the 'goodness' of the proposed project." We agree that the nature of the work at RMI, while material to the County's balancing of impacts against benefits, should not be a deciding factor. We have never asserted otherwise. The central fact in our submission, and we believe in P &Z's decision, is not that RMI is a community asset, but that our use looks and acts like a house Mr. McBride cannot be expected to be familiar with our actual impacts, however, since despite many invitations over the past three years, he has never to our knowledge set foot in our premises, though he drives past them every workday. "...we know that the project was built without ever having to pay for a build- ing permit." This is flatly wrong (for details and a copy of our receipts, please see our response to Ms. Newbury's memo of 11 October). The Lovinses in fact irrevocably paid to the County all the normal permit fees, totalling $2,188.50. Neither the fact that they paid nor Mr. McBride's erroneous state- ment that they did not pay is relevant to the submission. "Apparently some special arrangement was made between the Lovinses and the County Commissioners." This, too, is neither relevant nor correct. As is a matter of public record, no such arrangement with regard to permit fees has ever existed. The Lovinses prepaid all their fees like everyone else. The only "arrangement" was a completely separate fixed -price contract to perform a major review of the energy - related features of the County's building code. That con- tract was first proposed months after the Lovinses' building permit was issued and paid for, and was approved by the Commission on 3 January 1983, six months after that issuance. The Lovinses delivered the report to the County Commis- sioners, County Attorney, and Building Department on 31 December 1983, a year and a half after they had paid for their building permit. And the only thing "special" about that research contract was that the Lovinses donated to the County more than 90% of the time they spent fulfilling it. They were happy to do this as a public service to the place they regard as their home. "...the [Old Snowmass] caucus agreed that 'new commercial uses should not be allowed and existing legal commercial uses should be reviewed on an annual basis. "' Unfortunately, no formal record was made of the Caucus meeting of 3 June 1985 at St. Benedict's Monastery - -a meeting which dealt mainly with road repairs and weed control. However, as can be readily ascertained from the principals in that meeting, the quoted remarks, in the context of their supposed application to RMI, were not a consensus or conclusion of the Caucus; the quotation appears to come from Tom Newland's memory, not from the Caucus; and "commercial" was never defined. The Caucus's only consensus in this regard was a mere affirmation of its explicit and longstanding goal of preserving rural character. The Caucus never "agreed" or "believed" what Mr. Newland's memo said, and Messrs. Krizmanich's and McBride's memo repeated, it did. That is not just Mr. Lovins's recollection of the Caucus meeting; both Steve Child and Father Joseph have recalled exactly the same thing. As Father Joseph told Mr. Lovins just before your hearing, "there was no indication that a signi- ficant minority, let alone a majority," held the views which Mr. McBride tries M to impute to the"Caucus. This is of course consistent with your having received many letters supporting, but none opposing, our application, despite the near- universal notice we gave around the Old Snowmass Valley as described above. If there were significant (let alone majority) opposition to RMI's use, surely someone would have told you, and surely someone, at some time, would have com- plained to us. Nobody did either. What Mr. Newland may have been referring to is that specific concerns about the potential impacts, chiefly traffic, of "institutional" uses "like Windstar or the Lovins project" were expressed - -by only two people in passing, peripherally to a much wider discourse among the probably 80 -100 people present. (Our best recollection is that "institutional" uses were distinguished from "commercial" uses.) Those two people's tangential remarks about "institutional" uses were not the subject of general discussion, let alone of any decision: as Steve Child has remarked, "many people in Caucus say a lot of things you disagree with, but you let them go by." Had our activities actually been a subject for group discus- sion, we too would certainly have intervened, but they weren't, and we didn't. (In fact, Mr. Lovins spoke after the Caucus meeting with both the people who had expressed concern about the possible impacts of "institutional" uses. Both said that they were concerned with impacts, not with use classifications; were not familiar with RMI's actual impacts; and would have no problem with RMI's use if its impacts were in fact comparable to those of a house. Both were invited to visit RMI to see the impacts for themselves. Neither has done so. And neither, evidently, pursued the matter with the Planning Office or PSZ.) We have already agreed with Steve Child, as you and he suggested, to air these issues fully at a Caucus meeting to be called for this purpose, so that even those who did not respond to our earlier mass solicitation of their views can be fully informed and join in a full and frank discussion. If anyone in Old Snow - mass does have concerns about our impacts, we want to be the first to know. We plan to enlist the Caucus members as "monitors" to help us ensure strict compli- ance with the County's conditions - -and to make sure the Caucus knows that RMI is available as a community resource. "The project was built illegally. The Lovinses knew what they were building. The building department did not (see Patsy Newberry's [ memo dated October 11, 1985 to the Planning Department)." This contention that the Lovinses somehow deceived the County into granting them a building permit, then built something else or put it to a different use than they had sought consent for, is a central issue. But again, Mr. McBride has simply gotten his facts wrong. - First, Ms. Newbury's memo, though it discloses considerable confusion (please see our response of 5 November), nowhere suggests that the Lovinses made a building or a use different from what she and her colleagues at the Building Department expected. The only discrepancy she claims (we are unable to guess just what it might be) is between the description of the use in our submission to P&Z and in that same submission's attachments - - not between what the Lovinses did and what they had sought and gotten the Building Department's consent to do. - A plausible reason that Ms. Newbury didn't claim the Lovinses had misled the Building Department is that they didn't. To confirm this, one need not rely on anyone's recollection of (for instance) what the architect told the Building Department; one need only inspect the drawings submitted in May 1982 for the building permit. The relevant part of that floorplan, showing the east wing, is 4 attached. Its scale is one foot per grid square. The drawing clearly shows an open space of about 900 gross interior square feet, labelled "Library" and "Office," with extensive built -in bookshelves and work- counters, plus a loft of nearly 200 square feet. The drawing shows 81 linear feet of work - counters, corresponding (at the normal 5 feet per person) to more than 16 workplaces. It also explicitly shows 13 chairs at the counter, additional counterspace for 4 more people, and 2 additional chairs - -a total of 19, or about 22 counting the loft. Even using the more conservative guide of the counterspace alone - -16 workplaces downstairs plus several in the loft - -how could anyone reviewing such a drawing reasonably suppose that all those workplaces would be used solely by the occupants of two small bedrooms? - In fact, soil engineering during excavation required a change in elevations and hence in the layout of the workcounters. The net effect was to reduce the approved counterspace by 11%, to 72 linear feet, corresponding to 14 normal workplaces plus those in the loft. In fact, we have only 10 -12 workplaces down- stairs (2 -3 of which are temporary stations in the computer room under the loft), plus three small desks and a bed in the loft, for a total of about 13 -15 workplaces, of which 11 -12 can be considered permanent - -far fewer than the original drawings showed. As we stated, about half of these as -built spaces are actually in use on an average workday *. Thus, far from building and using more office -space than originally revealed to the County, as one of your members claimed, the Lovinses actually built and RMI actually uses less. Moreover, the Lovinses were perfectly open with everyone about RMI's planned use. On inspectors' frequent site visits during construction, Mr. Lovins fully described the purpose of the research library and handed out leaflets specifying RMI's planned use. A copy of that leaflet is in your record; besides the de- tailed plan drawings showing the 19 -22 workplaces described above, it states in the text: " Summary of the Lovins Research Center /Bioshelter /House Project an experimental multipurpose building [which] ... will house the nonprofit Rocky Mountain Institute.... [and] provide the Lovinses and their colleagues and students with living space and an indoor farm.... [The space includes] a library/ research center with a partial sleeping loft. The floor space [includes] ... 900 ft ... for the library...." During 1982 -83, the Lovinses gave away thousands of copies of that leaflet, including probably a thousand within the County. *The reason RMI has about twice as many permanent workplaces in its library as it typically has people working at them is that most staff aren't onsite most of the time: they work flexible hours, at home, or outside the County, keeping their papers on their own part of the work - counters meanwhile. Six safeguards prevent RMI's staff from expanding to fill the workspace theoretically availab- le. Four are internal constraints: our firmly stated intent not to exceed 12 FTEs (because a larger organization is too impersonal, unmanageable, and unpro- ductive); our limited funding; the fact that more than 7 -8 people onsite at once make the space noisy and crowded enough to drive others away; and the unusually paper - intensive nature of our work, which requires more than the usual amount of workspace per person (Mr. Lovins's counter -space alone takes up as much room as four interns'). The other two safeguards are external: P&Z's recommended condi- tion restricting total parking, and the Code's and Caucus's required annual review of RMI's actual impacts. UUU 1 c- 5 Any remaining dots about the Lovinses' full openness throughout their permit- ting and construction process should be dispelled by the local newspaper arti- cles which Mr. Peterson put into your record. Published during construction, many months before C.O. issuance on 9 January 1984, these prominent articles, prepared with the Lovinses' full cooperation, stated, for example, that: - "...it's a home, an office, and an indoor farm all under one roof. Once it is finished... it will be home for Hunter and Amory Lovins and will also house their nonprofit Rocky Mountain Institute which is concerned mainly with energy, water and agriculture." ( Aspen Times 2 -page feature, pp. 1- B /2 -B, 28 July 1983- -more than five months before the C.O. was issued) - "[The Lovinses] direct the Rocky Mountain Institute, which is building the Lovins Project [not quite a correct statement] in [the Old] Snowmass Valley. The Lovins Project, looking like a stone castle,... will be used as a home for the Lovinses and for research and study for the Rocky Mountain Institute." ( Aspen Times p. 17 -B, 25 August 1983) - "But can you raise a family in a research institute? That's just what the Lovinses plan to do....[T]he Lovinses are building their own home. Only they call it the Rocky Mountain Institute....Hunter explained how they separated the living quarters from the study /work area." ( Valley Journal full -page feature, p. 7, 8 September 1983) - "Founders of the Rocky Mountain Institute, a renewable energy experiment in Old Snowmass [again, a slight misnomer, but the intent is clear enough] .... In early 1983 [actually 19821 the couple established the Rocky Mountain Institute (also known locally as the Lovins Project), a nonprofit and educational founda- tion, to promote the sustainable use of ... resources. The Institute is also exploring the connections between energy, water, agriculture, national security and economics. The institute is housed in a castle -like energy efficient (solar heated) structure located in Gateway to Snowmass in Old Snowmass .... The struc- ture includes housing for the Lovinses [and] ... a study and library for the institute's work...." ( Aspen Times p. 8 -A, 8 December 1983.) - National publicity to similar effect appeared even earlier. The Western Airlines flight magazine, for example, stated in its November 1982 feature on the building -- somewhat overexpansively - -that "almost half of their 3,800- square- foot project [interior floorspace- -the County's 4,100 is the exterior area] is reserved for the couple's new think tank, the Rocky Mountain Institute...." The import of these news stories is unmistakable: though some journalists were not entirely clear that the Lovinses were building and financing the structure for RMI's use, rather than the reverse, all said that both would live and work there. And the articles' description of RMI's programs could leave no doubt that much more than a mom - and -pop shop would be at work in the building. Finally, the Lovinses' energy - related code review -- submitted to the Commission- ers, County Attorney, and Building Department before their C.O. was issued- - stated on its first page of text (p. 3): "From mid -1981 to the end of 1983... we have been owner - builders constructing a unique combination of home, indoor farm, and research center. The 4,000- square -foot building ... has had considerable publicity and more than 1,200 visitors." The biography (pp. 63 -64) cited on that page states: "[The Lovinses]...live in an experimental zero - energy house /bio- shelter /research center in Old Snowmass, Colorado, and donate space there to Rocky Mountain Institute. ** *The Institute currently [at 31 December 19831 has a staff, including consultants, of eight full -time and eleven part- time." 1joG363 M These illustrations verifying our submission's representation of the historical facts are just the ones we found first in a cursory check of our files. We have no doubt that a complete review of who knew what and when, in the unlikely event it should ever be needed, would turn up nobody in the County whom the Lovinses gave any cause, by act or omission, to misunderstand their exact intentions about RMI's use of the building, including its ultimate number of staff. Particularly disturbing to us is Mr. McBride's statement at the P&Z hearing that he had informed the Lovinses that the structure was illegal, impliedly while they were building it. Further, his memo to you implies that they then knew it was illegal. In fact, he did not so notify them - -his remarks at your 22 October 1985 hearing were the first adverse comment he had ever made to the Lovinses -- nor had they directly or indirectly solicited his investment in their construc- tion as he told P&Z. Further, if he thought the structure was illegal, why didn't he come forward before it was built and occupied? And if he, who has never visited the property, knew it was illegal, why didn't County officials know, who had reviewed the plans, presumably read the local newspapers, and had inspectors onsite every few weeks during a year and a half of construction? Is it logical that the Lovinses would have proceeded to build an illegal struc- ture in the way just described? The whole history of their interaction with on- site inspectors, other County officials, and the local and national press is a history not of concealment but of utter frankness. Is it logical, too, that having disclosed their planned use to the world, they went to the strain and risk of spending a half - million dollars- -ten times the assets with which they began building -- reliant upon that use but knowing it was illegal? It would re- quire stupidity of the highest order, not just to build an illegal structure in plain sight, a stone throw from Old Snowmass's main crossroads, but to show reporters and many hundreds of County residents around it, fully explaining its functions to all, throughout its construction. "The project was built on a non - conforming lot." This point is covered in our attached response to Ms. Newbury's memo. In brief, building a single - family house on that lot was and is perfectly legal. It is also important to recall that at the time of buying the land, seeking the building permit, building the structure, and occupying it - -in fact, until Mr. Drueding's visit on 5 September 1984 - -the Lovinses had been consistently (though apparently wrongly) advised, and hence sincerely believed, that a single - family house, embracing an allowable home occupation, was a sufficient land -use description of their planned use (submission, p. 3). What P&Z found on the record in its vote of 22 October 1985 was that their particular use, though not a home occupation, is a permissible Special Use on that lot. "Under the zoning the use is prohibited. The Lovinses are professionals.... Where they work is a professional office." Here Mr. McBride is confusing two sets of facts. There is no question as to the legality of the Lovinses' person- ally doing private consulting from their home. That activity is clearly a home occupation, and the Code allows anyone in the County to do exactly the same thing in their homes. It is therefore not at issue here: a legal home occupa- tion cannot be reclassified as an office, even if it involves work at a desk. On the other hand, the use for which we have sought Special Review approval is, as u u b kJ 64' 7 the County Attory and Planning Office have agreed, neither specifically allowed nor specifically prohibited in the Code. As a "use not listed" (53 -3), it is exactly what the Special Review process is meant to determine. "...whatever use it is it is a home occupation.... reatricted...to small scale." Our submission explains in detail what RMI's use is. It cannot legally be a home occupation because it employs people who do not live in the building (although most of them live next door and walk to work). It is precise- ly this point which was the subject of the County's September 1984 Notice of Zoning Violation, which in turn triggered our Special Review application. Mr. McBride is complaining here that RMI's use is what the County says it is not. As for scale, it is true that since only people who live in a home are allowed to work in it as a home occupation, the legal maximum size of a home occupation must impliedly be five (the number of unrelated adults allowed to live in a single - family house), or perhaps more if an entire large family did the work. Since RMI's work is evidently not a home occupation, that doesn't matter. What does matter is that the scale of RMI's actual activities and impacts is consist- ent with our residential neighborhood. Our submission shows this in detail, and every letter you have received from our neighbors concurs. "According to the code, the project would have to receive a GMP allotment before receiving Special Review approval...." Mr. Peterson explained in your hearing several of the reasons why that statement is legally wrong. The use which Mr. McBride cites is not the use which the Planning Office agrees defines our application. RMI's use is not specifically defined in the code and, as such, lies within the sole discretion of the County's policymakers. Mr. McBride's last four paragraphs touch on an important point: "...it will mean that anything is possible anywhere in the county...." That is the last thing that we want - -or that approving our application would cause. It is the Planning Office's judgement that this application is narrowly defined so as to mitigate its precedential scope. In fact and in law, approving our application will not even create a precedent for other activities strictly describable as a "nonprofit, noncommercial appropriate technology research and demonstration center with attached resident managers' quarters " -- because any such applica- tions, too, would rightly be subjected to the same rigorous process of public scrutiny as ours. If such a proposal did not have impacts low enough to fit within its zone's character and purposes, it would be properly rejected, just as ours would be. Suggesting that approving our application opens the floodgates to "anything... anywhere in the county" is akin to trying to drive a whole herd of camels through an aperture which barely accommodates a very specific variety of gnat. It is worth reiterating that the purpose of Special Review is to exercise dis- cretion, based on a careful examination of all the factual circumstances, in cases which under the Code are neither black nor white but some shade of gray. If the Code had no provision for discretion, it would be unworkable, because cases never contemplated by black- and -white draftsmanship would inevitably arise. The Code explicitly recognizes this when it refers to "uses not listed" and hence provides a procedure for examining such uses. The real world is full U U G , t] lj 8 of gray areas. It is complex and diverse enough that the people of Pitkin County have elected certain of their number to make choices accountably on their behalf. If no such judgment needed to be exercised, all choices could be made by feeding data into a computer programmed with the Code, and there would be no reason to have County Commissioners or a PSZ Commission. The Airport Business Center is a fine example of the need for discretionary reg- ulatory authority. Its purpose and situation are unique. Some of its uses, though originally arguable, were ultimately approved because, on the particular facts of the case, they seemed to make sense and to fulfill the County's goals. The Townhouses at the ABC, for example, are to our knowledge the only condos approved in the County since the GMP was implemented which have neither price controls nor a GMP allotment. A literal regulatory interpretation would have prohibited such development. We find it troublesome that Mr. McBride is seeking to ride simultaneously two horses -- private development and public policymaking- -which often travel in dif- ferent directions; yet we believe he is sincere. We do continue to be surprised that he would choose as the target of his displeasure a project which has already been built in good faith and with full disclosure, evidences minimal impact, has no broad precedential consequences, and is overwhelmingly supported by the community. As a private developer, Mr. McBride is entitled to seek and to get the proper exercise of the County's discretion - -just as we believe we are. We do not argue that his proposals were inappropriate or that they were not in the interest of the County; in fact, we admire much of the work he has done. But neither - -and this is the crux of our disagreement - -do we assert that his case should not be heard in the forum and under the procedures provided. Rather, we suggest that the Code is a generalized framework designed for, and requiring, interpretation by policymakers in the light of complex facts. What prevents any particular decision from opening unwanted floodgates of precedent, as Mr. McBride fears, is not just the thoughtfulness of people like you, but also the procedural rigor and the extensive formal criteria prescribed by the Code to govern the internal and public review supporting your interpretation. The Lovinses and I would be happy for you to share this memo, and our attached response to Ms. Newbury's memo, with other P&Z members, particularly those who had reservations about our application. However the members may judge our approval, we should at least like them to do so on valid factual grounds. attachment: floorplan drawing of east wing, per 5/82 Building Permit application utiGN -6 MIAZfol L\3 ill iin To: Suzanne Caskey, Chair, County Planning & Zoning Commission (cc: P. Newbury) From: Amory Lovins & Michael Kinsley, Rocky Mountain Institute Re: Patsy Newbury's memo of 11 October 1985 5 Nov km er 1985 Ms. Newbury's memo, of which we were unaware at the time of our hearing and got a copy only yesterday, contains inaccuracies which, if left uncorrected, could mislead readers and cloud the issues on which P &Z voted on 22 October. This memo clarifies the facts point by point. (1) We have again reviewed our submission and its attached literature (apparent- ly a reference to our Visitors' Guide and cannot find any inconsistency. We therefore cannot figure out what Ms. Newbury has in mind. If she'll kindly spe- cify any contradiction she sees, we'll be glad to clear it up. (2) The agricultural elements of the use are readily apparent upon inspection. Horses, pigs, and chickens are within a few feet of the driveway. The 900 -sq -ft greenhouse, detailed in the original plans, produces numerous edibles year - round, as do nine intensive vegetable beds in season. The Code does not require that agricultural products be sold. If it did, self - sufficient farms, many horse ranches, and the few llama ranches would be illegal. In fact, the Lovins- es have made no material sales of their produce, but eat it on the premises. They will not sell livestock for food, since this is prohibited by Code 43 -8.15. They are, however, interested in possible future crop sales, especially of kitchen herbs. (3) The parcel is a non - conforming lot in a subdivision which existed before the zoning. This is as represented in the submission and has never been in dispute. The question before the County is not whether any use is allowable on this lot but whether this particular use is allowable. The reason the building permit was for a single - family dwelling is that the Lovinses had been told RMI's use of the premises would be allowable as a home occupation, which is permitted in single - family dwellings in all zones. On that basis, there was no reason to call their use anything else or to seek consent for it by any means other than a standard building permit. As the submission states, nobody suggested to them that there was any problem with this interpretation until 5 September 1984, nearly ten months after issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. As the County Commissioners know, the Lovinses received no "relief" from permit fees, but paid them in full, to a total of $2,188.50. (A copy of the receipts for the basic plan -check and permit fees is attached; an additional $183.00 was paid to the Building Department for other permits and inspections.) Given that fact, the rest of Ms. Newbury's #3 is irrelevant. We add for clarification: - Bob Child proposed in fall 1982 that the Lovinses review the energy - related elements of the building code. His first idea was that they swap this work for a refund of the permit fees which they had paid months earlier in the normal way (nearly all in May -July 1982). Neither the Commission nor the Lovinses, how- ever, felt this was a good procedure. The Commission instead entered on 3 Janu- ary 1983 an independent consulting contract with the Lovinses for this analysis. Udc'M MM - For their state -of- the -art energy code review, probably the most detailed in the country, they were paid $2,020 in January 1984, after moving into their home. That fee was less than a tenth of the commercial value of their detailed technical report at their normal rates for nonprofit clients. They gladly donated the other 90 +Z of its value to the County (submission, p. 2n). - The Lovinses did not write an "Energy Code," but described many shortcom- ings of the existing code and suggested over a hundred ways to improve it. They offered the County a comprehensive menu of advanced energy- saving techniques and practical policy options, but did not try to rewrite the Code themselves. Con- trary to Ms. Newbury's implication - -which casts doubt on whether she has actual- ly studied the report - -their recommendations have never even been considered for adoption, because they were explicitly not meant to be adopted as they stood, but rather to catalyze a public process which could help the County determine the purpose and content of a revised Code. The County has not yet begun such a process, nor has any County official commented on the report. We are now work- ing with local design professionals to try to start the public review and amend- ment recommendation phase which the report suggested. - It is not clear what "enforcement and cost impossibilities" Ms. Newbury is referring to, but the overwhelming majority of the measures suggested in the report have been successfully adopted by code officials and profitably used by "ordinary home builders" in other jurisdictions, and all the energy- saving meas- ures suggested are highly cost - effective. Again, we would be glad to address any specific issues which she or others might care to raise. (4) The Planning Office is satisfied that 12 parking spaces are adequate. So by your vote is P &Z, and so are we. The parking area was expanded and its border cleaned up several months ago; 12 -14 cars were in fact parked there on one unusual recent occasion on 3 October, the day before Ms. Newbury's observations (when a film crew was visiting). It would be physically impossible to park five cars "along the access" without blocking the driveway altogether, although what Ms. Newbury calls "access" we would probably call the lower part of the tapering parking area. A site inspection would confirm these statements. The Lovinses are happy to work with County planners on any further parking ad- justments required, although they don't expect anywhere near a dozen cars to park there. Only one RMI employee now regularly commutes downvalley on Highway 82, although he sometimes uses the bus. Of the balance of the staff, two car- pool from further up Snowmass Creek; two come from Carbondale less than once a week; and all the rest walk to work. Visitors are strongly urged to carpool, and most do. Some people wander in to see the interesting building. Such casual visitors seldom call ahead and hence cannot be controlled. All visitors would come to the building whether the research library and RMI were there or not. There are no material business visits to the building by RMI's consulting clients; such work is done by phone or on clients' premises out -of- state. (5) The IRS and the State of Colorado regard RMI as non - profit. Ms. Newbury may be unfamiliar with that term. The County, too, is a nonprofit entity, yet she gets paid. RMI is legally classed as a public charity - -a nonprofit educational and research foundation for the public benefit. Our employees' activities and our funding sources are all public information, much of which was provided in Attachment Two to our submission. Not all of a nonprofit group's income must be grants and donations; nor are non- profits prohibited from selling things. It is legal, and indeed officially en- couraged, for nonprofit groups to earn income. So long as their enterprise activities fulfill their tax - exempt purposes, such income is itself tax - exempt. The basic difference between non - profit and for - profit organizations is that nonprofits are not allowed to distribute profits to stockholders, but must plow back all the proceeds into their public- interest work. That is just what RMI does. A few percent of RMI's gross income is from selling our publications (a fraction of one percent comes from sales made on the premises). Two- thirds of RMI's 1985 gross income comes from consulting and research fees for providing out -of -state clients with analysis and advice -- nearly all by Mr. Lovins- -which advance RMI's goal of fostering the efficient and sustainable use of resources. 6) RMI averages 7.25 FTEs onsite, as we said at the hearing. Employees who work in Carbondale, Denver, Boulder, and San Francisco should be of no concern to Pitkin County. We are uncertain of the relevance of a comparison with the Air- port Business Center, where most employees commute and where only a few get housing provided by their employers. RMI voluntarily provides housing, within walking distance, for most of its employees. This goes far beyond the intent of County requirements, and reduces commuting on Highway 82 by about 100,000 pas- senger -miles per year below what it would be if, hypothetically, RMI were for instance at the ABC (which is not a practical option). (7) The questions here are answered by the Planning Office's memos. The Housing Authority is satisfied with our submission. In brief, the building is still a single - family dwelling; if the Commissioners approve the Special Review applica- tion as the Planning Office and P&Z have recommended, the use will be that of an Appropriate Technology Research and Demonstration Center with Attached Resident Managers' Quarters; 3 -4 employees live onsite; and four employee housing units will be deed - restricted to meet RMI's housing obligation. (In this connection, the Building Office has approved the agreed minor change we did -- shaving the corner of one beam - -to make the loft officially habitable, and has issued a revised C.O., which is attached, removing that restriction and correcting the number of bedrooms to two. The issue of whether we have four onsite housing units to deed - restrict is therefore resolved.) (8) To the extent that there is any seeming "contradiction " - -we see none - -this point is answered in #3 above. Is the Building Department suggesting that legally subdivided lots should not be built upon? In fact, Ms. Newbury's attached letter to Mr. Lovins on 26 October 1981, before the Lovinses bought the land, confirmed that the lot "is substandard in size in that RS -30 zone[;] ... however, a single family dwelling is allowed on the parcel if it meets all zoning setback and height requirements." attachments: receipts for building - permit fees revised Certificate of Occupancy Newbury letter to Lovins, 26 October 1981 No. 47717 PAP C�v/o3 County Treasurer's Office, Pitkin County, Colo. Aspen, Colo., 5 j' Errriurb of - 11 'A q � 3 0 __ __ - __ Account of -- $ , Yo. sv 19 DOLLARSI Credit to Fund. paZQL�1y CItG��(� — Treasurer P�C�C i� �l��rj zt 04�Sa B / ` Deputy No. 48 $ County Treasurer's Office, Pitkin County, Colo. 4 Aspen, Colo., r r 19 Nrrrivrb of �� 1 6- - ��li� LA RS Account of--_ - - - -f- l / c> Credit to " � Treasurer BY Deputy uUG't)40 tiftratr of Orrn am ASPEN *PITKIN Kim MUM REGIONAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT This Certificate issued pursuant to the requirements of Section 306 of the 1976 E dition of the Uniform Building Code. It certifies that at the date of issuance, the structure as described below was in compliance with the various resolutions and ordinances regulating building construction and use in this jurisdiction. New Use Classification Single Family Res. Bldg Permit 4950 Legal Description Tract 82 Seri- 34 Tnwn R RAngc R(,W, Gateraay t^ Building Address 17 Snowmass Creek Road Snowmass Owner of Building Amnry F Hiynter T nuinS Owner Address P.O. Box 505, Snowmass, CO 81654 Group R - 3 _ Type Construction III -N Use Zone RS -30 Pnn Description: Two - Bedrooms. Kitchen, 115 Rath Office w /T.oft, Utility Room, Greenhouse. Comments & Restriction: Greenhouse to be unhabitable because lack of electrical convenience receptacles. y� $ Date October 23, 1985 B tT & „1, ww lso 1 I Note: Any alteration or use change of these described premises or portion thereof without the written approval of the Building Official shall negate this C.O. and subject it to revocation. POST IN A CONSPICOUS PLACE Ut1Ci.l4i ASPEN46PITKINttEGIONAL BLIILDUS DEPARTMENT October 26, 1981 Amory B. Lovins c/o Ann Burrows Mason & Morse P.O.Box Q Aspen, CO 81612 Dear Mr— Lovins: n "" I li The tract of land purchased from the Eberhardts described at Book 222 pages 217 through 218 of the County Records lying in Tract 82, Section 34, Township 8 South Range 86 West of the 6th P.M. is a legally separated parcel. It is substandard in size in that RS -30 zone, however, a single family dwelling is allowed on the parcel if it meets all zoning setback and height requirements. It will also be necessary to talk to Bob Nelson in the Environmental Health Department and you will need to supply this office with proof of water (gallons per minute and potability), It appears any areas of local and public interest (1041 Hazard Areas) can be worked out without a review process. Sincerely, Pat Newbury Building Inspector 506 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 61611 303/925-5973 uuC :142 TO: Members of Pitkin County Planning and Zoning FROM: John P. McBride DATE: October 29, 1985 RE: Lovins' Proposal I write this memo as a resident of the Capital Creek Valley, as the developer of the Airport Business Center (which I believe is affected by this application), and as a member of P &Z. The purpose of it is to express my concern for the efforts that have been expanded to alter the existing rules for the Lovins' pro- posal and the long term effects that I believe that this kind of interpretation will have. Now, we all understand that there are unusual circumstances which surround this application. A great deal of the public hearing seemed to be focused on what might be considered peri- pheral issues. For a long time we addressed the "goodness" of the proposed project. Additionally, we know that the project was built without ever having to pay for a building permit. Apparently some special arrangement was made between the Lovins and the County Commissioners. Finally, there seemed to be some question as to whether the caucus approved the project which seemed to address cou uses in general and not specifically when the caucus agreed that "new commercial uses should not be allowed and existing legal commercial uses should be reviewed on an annual basis." Despite some of these hazy issues which seem to cloud the appli- cation there are, I believe, several very specific concrete issues which did not and which have not been addressed properly. They are as follows: 1) The project was built illegally. The Lovins knew what they were building. The Building Department did not (see Patsy Newberry's memo dated October 11, 1985 to the Planning Department). 2) The project was built on a non - conforming lot, According to the Code, Section II, Article 7 -2.1 only residences can be built on non - conforming lots. UuC:]43 AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER • 105 PACIFIC AVE. ASPEN COLORADO 81611 • 303 - 925 -2102 Members of Pit in County Planning and Zoning Page 2 October 29, 1985 . 3) Under the zoning the use is prohibited. The Lovins are professionals. They consult, they advise, they direct. They consider themselves professionals. While the home may be a showcase, where they work is in a professional office. To argue that their operation is not listed under the RS -30 is not true. 4) Even if by some stretch of the imagination, one could call this not a professional office, whatever use it is, it is a home occupation, and home occupations are specifically restricted throughout the County to a small scale. 5) According to the code, the project would have to receive a GMP allotment before receiving Special Review approval (see Section II, Paragraph 5- 510.4E.). This is only fair - Why should an applicant in a zone specifically established for professional offices and even research and development such as B -1 or B -2 (and on a legal sized lot) have to go through GMP, whereas an applicant on a non - conforming lot where the zoning did not allow the use, not have to go through this GMP process? To require it in a business zone and not in an agricultural zone would only encourage more and more people to move their businesses to the country. These seem to me to be specific reasons why this particular appli- cation should not be considered. If on the other hand, it is considered and approved, the consequences I believe are serious. Mainly, it will mean that anything is possible anywhere in the County and that by careful interpretation we can do almost anything under the code. In the long run, it is the code that suffers and is weakened. In some ways, it seems we are making a joke out of it and specific zoning may fall away to performance zoning - a form of zoning that has been proven to work poorly. If you think a little further about the guise under which this proposal may be approved, I think you will see that there are serious repercussions. We are being told that since their use is not specifically listed under the RS -30 zone (which I believe it is) that therefore it falls under Special Review, To me this means that every use in the B -1 or B -2 zones as well as in the I industrial zones, which incidentally are not listed in the rural zones, all become Special Review. This is nonsense. This was not the intention of the code. It is a questionable interpretation which is being used to justify one project, but which might seriously a 0061. 4 t Members of Pitkin County Planning & Zoning Page 3 October 29, 1985 damage the code in total. For starters, I can think of many businesses in the Business Center, in Aspen, and even some in Snowmass that might like to move into the rural areas to operate, if they had a place, and if they thought they could be approved under Special Review. How can we approve one and numerous others? Certainly the judgement in Special Review cannot be whether you like the business or whether it is profit or non - profit. Special Review, therefore, becomes a very clumsy tool. To me, the upshot of all this is that if the public want to approve this specific proposal badly enough, do it by a zone change or a variance or some method the twisting of the written regulations in the code. proper and acceptable method can be found, I do not in the best interest of the community as a whole to kind of exception as it is being attempted, officials they should apart from Unless a feel it is allow this UU1,j314 <._ MEMORANDUM V\ Date: October 11, 1985 TO: Francis. Planning Dept. FROM: Patsy Newbury, Zoning Official 'I►1 � _ ) SUBJECT: Lovin's RMI (1) The literature submitted seems to contradict some of the claims in the submission as far as use is concerned. (See Visitor's Guide) (2) I guess the agriculture use escapes me. Do they sell vegetables, herbs, fish, etc. (3) The building permit was for a single family dwelling on a substandard size lot. They received relief from building permits fees by writing an "Energy Code ", which we were unable to. =adopt because there were to many enforcement and cost impossibilities involved for ordinary home builders. (4) Parking continues to be a problem apparently. While doing inspections in the area I noted five (5) cars parked along the access as well as those in the parking provided on site on October 4, 1985. (5) If it is a nonprofit organization, who pays the help? What are employees doing? Funding? (6) It seems to me that the 10.75 employees is at least as many or more than most any business at the Airport Business Center employs. (7) Is this still a single family dwelling? Will many employees live on site ?? Will they be permitted additional housing? (8) Seems to contradict 3 -1.9 RS -30 PUD Resource Zone, (a)(1)(2)(3) Lot is considerably substandard in size (5)(c) for 30 acre parcel. PN /ar UJu',��t� MEMORANDUM TO: Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Francis Rrizmanich, Planning Office RE: Rocky Mountain Institute Special Review DATE: October 16, 1985 REQUEST: This request is for special review approval of the Rocky Mountain Institute, which is an appropriate technology research and demonstration facility located within the home of Amory and Hunter Lovins. APPLICANT: Amory B. Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins LOCATION: 1739 Snowmass Creek Road. Located immediately south of the Gateway to Snowmass Subdivision on the north side of Snowmass Creek 1.75 miles south of State Highway 82. ACCESS: Via private drive onto Lower Snowmass Creek Road, County Road #11. WATER: Water is supplied by the Gateway Subdivision system. SEVER: Sewage is treated by an on -site septic system. ZONING: RS -30 PDD DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: This request before the Planning and Zoning Commission is for Special Review of the Rocky Mountain Insti- tute which is a non - profit research foundation concerned primarily with resource conservation. The current use of the property consists of an approximately 4,000 sq. ft. residence /greenhouse /research facility. Of the total floor area, approximately 1,000 sq. ft. of the building is devoted to the Rocky Mountain Institute research library and Office space, 2,000 sq. ft. is devoted to living area and 900 sq. ft. is a greenhouse which produces fruit, vegetables, herbs and fish. Amory and Hunter Lovins and one employee live full -time in the building. In addition to these three persons, the Institute employs approximately nine (9) other persons full and part -time. In addition to employees, an average of two visitors per day visit the Institute. The use does not meet the criteria of a home occupation (Section 20 -1) due to its having employees commuting from other locations. The use is not specifically listed in the use tables, and, therefore, accord- ing to Section 3 -3 of the Code, this use requires Special Review. REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: 1. Environmental Health: In a memo dated 8/27/85, Bob Nelson of the Environmental Health Department indicated that the yield of the well and distribution system are sufficient to provide an adequate quantity of water for any additional demands beyond those of a typical single - family residence. The on -site sewage disposal system is adequate for flows up to about 375 gallons per day and should continue to function properly, even with a staff of 8 -10 persons. The Department endorses most of the experimen- tal changes generally referenced in the application as being appropriate, if untried, technologies. The Department requests that any modifications to the wastewater disposal system be approved and permitted by them. 2. Planning Engineer: In a memo dated 9/12/85, Tom Newland expres- sed the following concerns. Visitor traffic is a potential uUUt.147 I 1> probl em. While attending a caucus meeting of Snowmass /Capitol Creeks area residents on June 3, 1985, this point came up several times. The caucus agreed that institutional uses such as the Rocky Mountain Institute should be treated like commercial uses within the valley. They believed that future institutional uses should not be allowed and that existing institutional uses should be carefully reviewed on a yearly basis. The plat of the Institute grounds which was submitted with the application shows a driveway with no definite place to park vehicles. It is the Planning Engineer's opinion that parking on the grounds should be defined and enlarged so that it can accommodate all resident and visitor parking generated by the Institute. It is recommended that a parking lot be constructed on the Institute grounds that is capable of holding 15 to 20 cars at one time. Lower Snowmass Creek Road, County Road #11, is used as a direct access to the Institute. According to a recent County Road Analysis completed by the Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office, the portion of this road between the Institute and State Highway 82 is extremely overused. Although the surface is already paved, some major improvements, such as curve straightening and pavement widening, will need to occur in the near future. It is recom- mended that the Rocky Mountain Institute grant a 30 foot con- struction easement to the County for this future road work. 3. Housing Authority: In a telephone conversation on 10/17/85, Ann Bauman of the Housing Authority indicated that the Housing Board recommends approval of the Rocky Mountain Institute proposal. This approval is based on the Institute's commitment to deed - restrict the entire building for low to moderate income housing. This will incorporate four employees who will live at the Institute. This approval is based on deed restrictions as outlined in the conditions of approval for this proposal. 4. Public Convent: The Planning Department has received four letters in support of the Rocky Mountain Institute. There have been no negative comments received. It should be noted that at a June 3, 1985, caucus meeting of the Snowmass /Capitol Creeks residents, it was agreed that institutional uses such as Windstar and the Rocky Mountain Institute should be treated like commer- cial uses within the valley. Future commercial and institutional development should not be allowed and existing institutional uses should be reviewed on a yearly basis. STAFF COMMBMTS: This proposal is unique in that it combines a residence, research facility and crop production within one building. A single - family dwelling and crop production are both uses specifical- ly permitted under the Land Use Code (Sections 3 -3.1 and 3- 3.30). The permitted uses are instructive in that they provide guidelines for determining if other uses not listed in the Code are permissible within the Special Review procedure. Because the building is an integrated living, farming and work space as well as an experimental facility for testing and demonstrating new resource saving technolo- gies, the Planning Staff has recommended this Special Review. In analyzing this proposal, the major question to be asked is whether the residence /institute has impacts equal to or greater than a single family home. The staff has identified the following potential impacts: 1. Visual - The Institute is housed within a building that is primarily a residence. The passive solar nature of the building incorporates a planted earth bermed roof which significantly reduces the visual impact of the building. The existing parking area also has a minimal visual impact because the topography of the site and the building location shields the parking area from the adjacent roadway and residences. 2 uuU,11�3 R 2. Traffic Impacts - The Lower Snowmass Creek Road is presently operating at or above its design capacity. The Institute does have the potential to generate adverse traffic impacts due to the number of people employed (12) and visitor traffic. Except for an Open House on August 12, 1984, when 600 people visited the Institute and many cars were parked on the road, the traffic impact has been minimal. Traffic impacts have been minimal due in large part to the fact that three employees live in the building, five employees live in the immediate neighborhood and normally don't drive to the Institute, two Aspen based employees do commute, however, they frequently carpool or take the bus and two Carbondale employees commute but they each work one day per week. Visitor traffic is randomly distributed and has averaged two per day. To minimize potential impacts, the applicants should require that employees car pool take the bus or walk to work. In addition, any new or replacement employees should be required to live within walking distance of the Institute. Visitors to the Institute should be limited to no more than two cars per day during normal working hours on weekdays to minimize roadway and neighborhood impacts. Employee Housing - The Housing Authority Board has recommended approval of the Institutes employee commitment to deed restrict the building for employee housing for four employees. The applicants had committed to providing a fourth employee space in the loft within the building, however, an inspection of the building permit shows that the loft area is not habitable due to insufficient headroom. Another suitable area within the building must be designated as an employee living area to conform to the conditions of approval outlined by the Housing Authority. 4. Parking - The existing parking area does not seem adequate for more than 6 - 8 cars at one time, particularly during the winter months. Although the Planning Engineer had indicated in his referral letter that parking should be provided for 15 -20 cars, further site inspections and review of the proposal indicate that parking for twelve cars can sufficiently handle parking needs without creating adverse visual impacts. 5. Utilities - The number of residents and employees living and working in the building would normally create demands greater than a single - family home. Due to the design of the building which contains an exceptional level of energy conserving devices, including passive solar, earth berming, low -water using toilets and shower fixtures, the buildings occupants use less energy and water than a normal single family home. PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATIONS: The staff recommends that you recommend that the Board approve this Special Review of the Rocky Mountain Institute subject to the following conditions: 1. The parking lot on -site should be defined and enlarged to be capable of holding at least 12 cars at one time. 2. A 30 foot construction easement should be dedicated to the County for future road improvement needs. 3. Any modifications to the approved wastewater treatment system should be approved and permitted by the Environmental Health Department. 4. No more than two visitor vehicles, in addition to staff vehicles, should be permitted on -site at one time. Institute visitation hours should be set between the hours of 9 to 5 weekdays so as not to disrupt the adjacent residential area. Any new or replacement employees shall be required to live within walking or bicycling distance of the Institute or they must commute with the current Aspen /Carbondale employees or take the bus. 3 UUl; 5. The following conditions for employee housing must be fulfilled: a. The loft area defined as the fourth employee living area must either be certified as habitable by the Building Department or another suitable area must be defined and approved by the County as an employee living area. b. The applicant shall deed restriction the employee housing in accordance with the Pitkin County Housing Authority's employee housing occupancy and price guidelines. FK . 2 4 Ulu MEMORANDUM Date: TO: Francis. Planning Dept. FROM: Patsy Newbury, Zoning Official SUBJECT: Lovin's RMI M October 11, 1985 (1) The literature submitted seems to contradict some of the claims in the submission as far as use is concerned. (See Visitor's Guide) (2) I guess the agriculture use escapes me. Do they sell vegetables, herbs, fish, etc. (3) The building permit was for a single family dwelling on a substandard size lot. They received relief from building permits fees by writing an "Energy Code ", which we were unable to adopt because there were to many enforcement and cost impossibilities involved for ordinary home builders. (4) Parking continues to be a problem apparently. While doing inspections in the area I noted five (5) cars parked along the access as well as those in the parking provided on site on October 4, 1985. (5) If it is a nonprofit organization, who pays the help? What are employees doing? Funding? (6) It seems to me that the 10.75 employees is at least as many or more than most any business at the Airport Business Center employs. (7) Is this still a single family dwelling? Will many employees live on site ?? Will they be permitted additional housing? (8) Seems to contradict 3 -1.9 RS -30 PUD Resource Zone, (a)(1)(2)(3) Lot is considerably substandard in size (5)(c) for 30 acre parcel. PN /ar U (i G;:i�Z I - MEMORANDUM TO: Pitkin County Board of County Commissioner Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission John Eldert, County Manager FROM: Glenn Horn and Tom Newland, Planning Office RE: Snowmass /Capitol Creeks Caucus Meeting DATE: June 4, 1985 The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize the June 3, 1985 caucus meeting for the Snowmass /Capitol Creek Valley Planning Area. This is the first of five caucus meetings the planning office will attend in order to gain new perspectives from residents about the valleys they live in. Due to the new computer program the Planning Office now uses for creating mailing lists, the 7:00 p.m. meeting at the St. Benedict's Monastery was attended by nearly 60 people. This represents about 208 of the 300 properties contacted. Bob Child, valley resident and County Commissioner, was also present for the meeting. The purpose of the gathering was to establish community planning priorities and to provide a public forum in which specific neighborhood concerns could be voiced. Commissioner Bob Child opened the meeting with a brief explanation of the Down Valley Comprehensive Master Plan, which this caucus is a part of. Dottie For. and Murray Pope led in to the general discussion by reviewing the goals and objectives stated in the existing master plan for the area (see attachment) that was adopted in 1973. After a quick run through this document, Murray led the group through each goal, seeking public comment and approval of each point. As mentioned above, the caucus meeting was very well attended. The group of residents broke into three distinct groups. The esta- blished, "large" ranches were represented by Ray Light, David Christen- sen„ Dwight Maurin, Walt Wieban, John McBride and Steve Child. The second group was made up of sma31 landowners /residents such as Sue Helm. The final group was made up of residents who live in subdivisions such as Gateway and Little Elk Creek. A complete list of everyone who attended the meeting is attached. As Murray Pone started the public comment, differing opinions held by those in attendance began to surface. The following issues will have a strong influence on the formation of the Snowmass /Capitol Master Plan. uuGJ52 I- o Air and Water Quality. Woodburning use and restrictions an issue within this caucus. Residents want to see a monitoring system that will detect any increase in water and air pollutants that occurs in the valley. Catalytic conversion of woodburni -ng exhausts to reduce airborn pollution was also discussed. o County Road System. This issue raised a majority of comments at the meeting. Residents immediately expressed their dissatisfaction with the county roads of the valley and especially the new Snowmass Creek bridge. They complained about the poor maintenance the road system receives in the Snowmass /Capitol area, something the taxpayers of the community feel should be corrected. Most residents stronqly favored an upgrading of the road system, improving the transportation arteries for safety reasons rather than convenience. However, some of the caucus members want to see Watson Divide road improved to open another entrance to the valley, shortening travel time to Aspen. o Preservation of Agricultural Lands. This was perhaps the most important part of the caucus meeting for the working ranchers. These established ranchers do not like the way their civil liberties are being "abused" by current county land use policies. Mr. Weiban expressed the desire to start a serious investigation into various ways of keeping agricultural lands intact without infringing on the ranchers development rights. The Future Conservancy, Farmland Trust, and programs dealing with the transfer of develop- ment rights are examples of different ways to preserve working ranches from subdivision. The Planning Office representatives told the group that during the second phase of the Master Plan process, the County will be analyzing alternative future land use patterns. o Commercial /Institutional Uses. The caucus agreed that Institutional uses such as Windstar and RMI should be treated like commercial uses within the valley. Future commercial and institutional development should not be allowed, and existing institutional land uses should be reviewed on a yearly basis. o Campground Area Development. The caucus agreed that expansion by Snowmass Village into the upper Snowmass Creek Valley should be discouraged in any way possible. The residents felt that the future land use plan should echo this feeling, and that the county should pursue some type of commitment with Snowmass Village to prevent this from happening. o Weed Control. This topic was brought up after the discussion was opened to general comment. Weed control was not listed as a problem in the 1973 master plan, but it has surfaced in the last few years as a matter of great concern to the caucus members. Canadian thistle is infesting the irrigated fields and meadows of the valley, destroying the beauty and useability of these agri- cultural lands. The caucus majority urged the county to develop u(i C;i ")3 �Y M an effective weed control program that can solve this problem as soon as possible. 0 1041 Hazard Maps. Residents expressed concern over the general nature of the 1041 hazard maps. Some people objected to the maps because a burden is placed upon land use applicants to either refute the maps or develop more detailed mapping. The Planning Office representatives explained that the County would have to make a major expenditure to update and improve the maps but that such a request could become a part of the County budget process. LI u r l GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE SNOWMASS/CAPITOL CREEK CAUCUS The overriding goal is the preservation of the existing visual, spatial and natural rural characteristics of the valleys, with the continuance of agriculture and ranching while maintaining the present low density permanent population. General Continuance of natural wildlife and vegetation patterns, stream flows, and physiographic features of the land. Maintain high levels of air and water quality. Maintain roads for safety and accessibility. Gravel Watson Divide road and Snowmass Creek road from end of pavement to bridge near Campground. No development should occur at Campground. No additional access to Snowmass Creek road from any possible development at Wildcat. Agriculture Create incentives to increase the capability of owners of agri= cultural lands to maintain the'.-bulk of their land for agricultural use. Investigate all possible ways to save these lands, such as the purchase or transfer of development rights or conservation easements. Preserve water rights with agricultural lard. Prevent trespassing on agricultural lands. Wildlife R {esources Protect the big game migration corridor between summer range in the Haystack area and winter range in the lower parts of the valleys. No building should occur in any riparian zone on either side of streams. Maintain and protect the minimum stream flows. State "1041" classification maps should tie updated and more detaP,led. u jUJb rc Pe 'F� 2)(4 Z F- s-Pr,4 61 (r (2- I �0��. v , V �.,/ V (• i' • i �- A ..i � L. \ �. � l V`.� A lUl � \..l, � A � 1 �1 nI I Sh�WVv�ASS S h a N, �� �i� ( / ��✓1�(�� S 3erle.,c -rs 5d6wnr,�s /.iT1ti 1, .I ,I r No do,r 4n-> Al _ S'vz -VY fox L 77 Illsoi 3ZV As ?/w/ /Cl TO : FROM: Alan Richman, PIanning,Office Richard Grice, Planning Office Gary Esary, Assistant.County Attor DATE: October 4, 1984 RE: Lovins Abatement Notice / I met with Brooke Peterson,, ,attorney for the Lovins, on October 2 to discuss the referenced matter:, According to Brooke, he was advised not 'even to submit a special,' review application because special review uses weren't permitted " on non conforming lots. I cW t'find a; reference to this prohi bition in the LUC, although the analysis is consistent with, what) , I know our policy to have been. Anyway, I think it would be 'useful 'to have a pre - application conference with you, Richard, Brooke, Bill Drueding and myself to sort this out a little more. I would be hard ,for me to advise that an application not be accepted until it is tendered. H'e've seen some pretty imaginative interpretations from applicants', over the'years. Brooke has acknowledged' that•'this pre- application conference is not a reliance event, but an ',opportunity to brainstorm and come up with an application that has the best chance of success (com- pliance with the LUC) when,reviewed'by the decision - making bodies.. October 11 is my best meeting day. GSE:cd cc: Brooke Peterson, Esq. / Bill Drueding, Zoning Enforcement Officer✓ f iV,N 4 uUC i� MEMORANDUM TO: Patsy Newbury, Chief Zoning Official FROM: Bill Drueding, Zoning Enforcement Officer RE: Amory & Hunter Lovins Home, Citizen Complaint ULO DATE: September 6, 1984 Last week I received a request to handle a citizen complaint through John Eldert that the above home was possibly violating zoning laws. It was my feeling that the August 16, 1984 Aspen Times article may have prompted this complaint. The article tends to indicate that the building is being used as more than a residence. The area is zoned R -S 30 PUD. At 10:50 AM on August 5, 1984, I met the Lovins at their residence. I introduced myself, explained the nature of my business, and requested that they answer' questions regarding the newspaper article. They both readily agreed to answer all questions. Amory related the following. He and Hunter own the building. It is their two bedroom home containing kitchen, living area, and library. They built it with ther own money and help from volunteers. They donate space in the library to Rocky Mountain Institute. RMI did not contribute money to the construction of the home. RMI in a typical day, has three people working in the library, using the office equipment and phones. Amory reiterated numerous times that RMI is a non - profit organization. In regards to visitors to the residence; they do not house visitors, it's not a lodging facility. Friends may stay, but that's all. The 2300 visitors mentioned in one of the articles is over a two year period. Visitors come to observe the energy aspects of the house, and are sold a $1.00 self guided tour pamphlet. The $1.00 covers the cost of printing the pamphlet. Otherwise, nothing is sold off the premises, and there are no kick -backs from manufacturers whose goods are recommended as energy efficient. Amory does use the residence as his home occupation. He does consulting trips, writing and mail orders. Very few consulting clients come to the residence. I told him that this appeared to fit the home occupation code. There is no outside advertising, enough parking, etc. However, I felt RMI was in violation as the definition of a home occupation requires that, "...each use must be conducted entirely within the dwelling and carried on by the inhabitants living there, and no others." The other conditionsof a home occupation seem to be being met. Amory argued that since RMI was a non - profit organization, they were not considered a "commercial use ", as the Home Occupation definition requires. I told him I disagreed, but would get a reading on this question from higher ups. Amory went on that at least two commissioners were aware of their method of operation as well as other staff members, and no one ever said anything. I had no answer for that, other than this area is residential. u�Gr. - MEMO, Lovins home, (Con't.) I explained that I was on a fact finding visit, and appreciated his candidness. I was going to write this report and pass it on for others to sort out any gray area involved. Amory said he would wait to hear from us and that if a neighbor had a complaint, he would be happy to meet with them to tour the residence and the RMI operations. I thanked the Lovins for their cooperation. Enclosed is some of their literature supplied to me. I have yellow lined what I feel are important passages. Copies: jr John Eldert, City Manager County Attorney Planning Department Recorded at 4:25 P.N. Oct 30, 1979 Loretta BAnner Recorder Reception No: 2131'73 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, m378 rac;476 EXEMPTING A NON- CONFORMING FOUR -PLEX FROM THE ABATEMENT PROVISIONS OF THE PITKIN COUNTY LAND USE CODE Resolution No. 79 -1Af a v I WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, with the a of Its Resolution No. 78 -23, has established a procedure for the consideration of applications for exemption from (or increased amortization periods with respect to) the abatement provisions of the Pitkin County Land Use Code, and WHEREAS, an application for exemption from abatement has been received from K and Y Partnership for a non - conforming fourplex called Gateway to Snowmass Apartments, and WHEREAS, subsequent to the receipt of a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Board did, on October 9, 1979, after proper notice had been given, conduct A public hearing on the application, and WHEREAS, upon reviewing the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Com i :sion and Pitkin County Planning Office, referral comments, and testimony and comments of the applicant, the Board determined that: 1. This use currently and in the recent past provided a supply of long -term rental housing available to local employees. 2. It does not contain hazardous building and electrical violations. 3. The water system is adequate at present and potential sewage olsposal system Problem can be handled through the County's Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE! IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, pursuant to the provisions of Section 7 -1.11 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code, that the Gateway to Snowmass Apartments be exempted from the abatement provision of Section 7 -1.9 of the Pitkin County land Use Code + conditioned upon the applicant committing to leasing the apartments for not less r than six-month lease periods. { ) UUGAI ' }... 1 >w..x,. iarti,+.,, 3ed?5 }:skaei.:�.h�•4vdffY'�r,.iSdw'k °{ice. - .;'.l:.ivtd �7' "'� mm378 iut477 P , A �K Y � '{ y 7WCj.. „„ tea .YT 1 $c'r r 5 r i. y UUJ02 1 x BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED. that the County Attorney shall initiate proceedings for ,batewnt in the event that the Applicant shell violate the continuing condition herein imposed. Approved by the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, at its regular meeting held October 22, 1979. BOARD OF OFF PITKINCOOUNTY. COLORADO T T I F By "r n a 0 i a � f 6jbV tFh CounAttorney _2_ I BEFORE THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL REVIEW by Amory B. Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins Box 505, 1739 Snowmass Creek Road Old Snowmass CO 81654 927 -4633 In their personal capacities and as founding Directors of Rocky Mountain Institute Drawer 248, 1739 Snowmass Creek Road Old Snowmass CO 81654 927 -3851 2 August 1985 THIS APPLICATION SEEKS SPECIAL REVIEW APPROVAL OF AN EXISTING LAND -USE: THE OPERATION OF A NONPROFIT AND NONCOMMERCIAL APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEMON- STRATION FACILITY AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS IN AN RS -30 P.U.D. ZONE. THE APPLICATION DE- SCRIBES THE USE AND ITS HISTORY; ITS IMPACTS, WITH EMPHASIS ON HOUSING AND TRAFFIC; AND WHY THE USE IS FULLY CONSISTENT WITH BOTH THE PURPOSE OF THE RESOURCE ZONE ANn THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA. Background We are analysts, authors, lecturers, and international consultants on en- ergy and resource policy. Our backgrounds are summarized in Attachment One. For many years we worked nomadically in over fifteen countries. On deciding in 1981 to settle down in the United States, we conducted a careful national search and chose to make our permanent home in the Roaring Fork Valley, because this area ideally com- bines a desirable and well - protected environment with the infrastructure we need in order to work effectively. In November 1981 we bought a 2.1 -acre, previously subdivided lot just south of the Gateway to Snowmass Mesa development, immediately north of Snowmass Creek and the T- junction, 1.75 miles south of Route 82. (The survey is included with this applica- tion.) Our neighborhood has a variety of land -uses: agriculture on two sides, the Gate- way development on one, vacant hilly land on the fourth, a "grandfathered" contract- ing business three houses away, and the Windstar Foundation a third of a mile to the southeast. Over the winter of 1981 -82 we worked with local architects to design a building which would fit the site and these surroundings, and which would integrate several functions, each important to its overall purpose and each dependent on the others. The pattern of uses for which the resulting multipurpose building was designed from the start is unique in Pitkin County and possibly in the world: The full use of a specially built wing of the building, and the shared use of most of the rest, is donated to a nonprofit research foundation at which we work with colleagues to continue and expand our longstanding research on resource a � conservation. 3 - We and one or two colleagues live in the building as its resident managers. We also grow much of our food indoors in an experimental year -round "bio- shelter." u�Liab3 2 - The building is among the most resource - efficient anywhere; tests and refines new resource- saving measures; and serves as a public model of conservation. We incorporated the nonprofit group, Rocky Mountain Institute, in Colorado in April 1982. In the same summer we obtained a building permit and began a year and a half of construction, developing and testing novel techniques in both design and building. The Institute and we moved into the new building in January 1983, and have continu- ously occupied it since then, conducting both practical research using the building it- self and policy research inside it. Rocky Mountain Institute is a public charity. Its research and educational programs foster the efficient, sustainable use of resources and seek to build global security. In particular, RMI explores the connections between energy, water, agriculture, security, and economic development. The Institute's 1985 budget is $380,000, banked in Basalt and essentially all spent locally. About half is earned by offsite consulting for electric utilities and allied industries on more efficient investment strategies; about a third comes from foundation grants and research contracts (such as one from the State of Colorado for our Economic Renewal Project in Carbondale), and the rest is privately donated. RMI's largest single grant, from the Hewlett Foundation, is of a type previ- ously made only to the six top U.S. university energy /environment departments, such as those as Berkeley and Princeton. Attachment Two describes RMI's purpose, pro- grams, governance, and staff. The Institute serves the local community more or less daily by responding to requests for advice, talks, use of its extensive library, and vis- its from local schools, government bodies, businesses, and individuals. Essentially all of this work for the community is done without charge'. In a typical year, RMI staff produce one or two books, several dozen papers, a couple of dozen broadcasts, and about 200 lectures and seminars, and thus deliver information on resource efficiency to many millions of people. __'�`fhe building in which this work is done occupies some 4,000 square feet, of which roughly 3,000 square feet will soon be restored to pasturage by earth - sheltering and planting the flat roof. The building functionally integrates the several intimately re- lated functions mentioned above. Of the total floorspace, the Institute's wing - -a re- search library with work- counters -- occupies about 1,017 square feet, including a small loft and a computer room beneath it. An adjacent 900 - square -foot experimental green- house produces semitropical fruits, vegetables, flowers, herbs, and fish year- round. On the other side of the greenhouse, shared living space, including the building's only kitchen, occupies about 1,200 square feet. Attached living quarters for the building's managers, consisting of two small bedrooms and a bathroom, take up about 800 square feet; we occupy one room and another employee occupies the other bedroom. These quarters, too, test and demonstrate a wide range of resource - conserving technologies. None of the funds donated to RMI was used to build the facility, and for tax purposes the ownership of the orooerty remains in the names of Amory and Hunter LOyins so it is and will remain liable to local taxes. The building is not only an integrated work- ing, farming, and living space but also an experimental facility for testing and demon- strating new resource - saving technologies, and the Internal Revenue Service has orally consented to our treating it as such. The building's combination of beauty with resource efficiency makes it (as Professor Donald Aitken, past Chairman of the American Solar Energy Society, recently re- marked) "one of the most unusual [structures] ever built in the United States." Superin- - In our private capacities, we conducted a detailed review of energy - related County codes in 1983, making more than 100 recommendations for improvement. Over 90% of the cwt of this consultancy was donated to the County. 00CC16+ 3 sulation and passive solar gain eliminate the building's heat requirement: at 7,100' ele- vation it has no conventional heating system. (Its two woodstoves are for esthetics, and aren't needed for backup.) Superefficient lights and appliances reduce electrical de- mand to only five to ten percent of the normal amount, while efficient toilets and showers cut water use by two- thirds: electric bills are currently $28 a month, of which domestic uses total $9 or less, and about half of that demand is for the waterfall pump. Direct construction costs totalled about $130 /sq ft - -a fairly moderate level for such high - quality custom construction. The net extra cost of the energy- saving meas- ures, however, totalled only about $1.50 /sq ft, and was repaid by the fuel and power savings in the first ten months. Largely because of its resource efficiency, the building has attracted media attention, including 60 Minutes and Newsweek features. Its techno- logies and design features are readily transferable to smaller, simpler, cheaper build- ings: a building need not look or cost like ours in order to work like ours. Zoning history Our lot, zoned RS -30 P.U.D., is nonconforming and hence has a single - family dwelling as a Permitted Use; but from the start we designed the building for the Institute's purposes along with our own, intending to staff RMI with some people living in the building and some living elsewhere. From the earliest stages of design, therefore, well before obtaining a building permit, we and our architect informally consulted various County officials to ensure that this proposed multipurpose but non- commercial use would be proper in our zone. We were given to understand that it would be legal if we observed certain conditions which we did. Not until September 1984, nearly ten months after our Certificate of Occupancy was issued and occupany begun, was the argument unexpectedly made that our use was technically inappropri- ate in the Resource Zone. This application will sho why we believe it is in fact an appropriate use, particularly in the Resource Zone TT he County Attorney has agreed hat we are entitled to seek approval of this use on our nonconforming lot by Special � Review. By agreement with the Planning Office - -which has very kindly allowed the use to continue meanwhile - -we now seek that approval by Special Review. We mention this history to explain that we are seeking approval of a use that is al- ready going on, rather than before starting it, only because of a good -faith misunder- standing. Before, during, and after our construction, we were completely candid with, the County about RMI's use. Numerous County officials were aware of it and told us �r or apparen eve d r that becaus that a nd is noncommercial, it would be °` gee e a_aur -zeBe: The Building Office, for example, knew of the inters a purposes of the building through discussions both when we sought our Building Permit and during inspectors' site visits, but did not tell us we should talk to the Planning Office. The joint noncommercial use of the building was even described in a consultancy report (on updating the County's energy - related codes) which we submitted to the Board of County Commissioners via the County Attorney before our Certificate of Occupancy was issued. - The conditions of which we were advised were: no change in residential character, RMI not to use more than half of the floorspace, nc outdoor signs, only incidental sales from the premises, no exterior storage, no public nuisance, and no onstmet parking. We thought these conditions fair and reasonable. We have complied with them scrupulously, with the exception of a traffic incident on a single day. That occasion was RMI's 12 August 1984 Openhouse, held to accommo- date the many local people who had expressed interest in seeing the building and hearing about RMI's work. Some 600- 600 people attended during the course of the day. Both written and oral invitations had asked visitors not to drive to the site, but to park at the Old Snowmass Conoco and take the shuttle which we provided. Most visitors, however, ig- nored this request and drove to the site, creating a temporary traffic nuisance which we were unable to prevent. At its peak there were probably SO can parked on Snowmen Creek Road. For this reason neither we nor RMI contemplate further such public events. uuo�:�b5 4 We recognize, however, that our land -use must conform to the Land Use Code not only in intention but also in legal detail. We strongly support the Code, and welcome this Opportunity to show, through an open public process, that a nonprofit, noncommercial, appropriate- technology research and demonstration facility (incorporating attached living quarters for its principals) is compatible with the purposes of the Resource Zone and with the residential character of our neighborhood. We shall show in particular that the present use is compatible with all the goals of the RS -30 P.U.D. Resource Zone (Title II - -Land Use Code, section 3- 1.9[a]), and strongly supports three of those goals: "4) To aid in the preservation of environmental resources. 5) To maintain the rural lifestyle as a human resource. 6) To preserve the option of using land areas for agricultural purposes by maintain- ing irrigated lands for present and future food production." In addition, we shall show that a passerby would have no reason to think from any outward sign that our building is anything but an ordinary single - family dwelling, al- beit an esthetically unusual one. Indeed, we shall now explain how the building pro- vides more benefits, yet has fewer impacts, than an ordinary house. Uses carried on in the building The principal use of the building is researching, de- veloping, and demonstrating appropriate technologies to conserve resources. The build- ing itself has captured international attention as a -tool to help people envision how a resource - efficient future can be practically achieved in a way consistent with a high quality of life. Functionally, RMI's staff do officework: research in the large library (most of which is our own professional library) housed in the specially equipped east wing, correspondence, telephoning, writing, and filing. RMI's use of the east wing is nonexclusive, as we also maintain personal offices there from which we do certain writing and consulting on our own account. RMI staff have lunch in the living space across the greenhouse from the research center. We share that living space (and the greenhouse, whose plants we maintain) with other RMI staff, and share the small bed- room wing with one of them. As we have explained, these uses are integral and closely interrelated: indeed, one of the building's main design goals is to show the synergistic benefits of combining workplace dwelling, and farm under a single r of. Visitors from all over the world ave come to see the building an average rate of two per day sinc construction began in mid-1982 They would, of course, continue to come whether RMI were there or not; their goal is to see the building, not the Insti- tute. Helping visitors find out what the best energy- saving buys are and where to get them, however, is an important part of RMI's educational mission and of our own life's work. We and our colleagues therefore give free tours (generally of the whole building) to visitors, answer their questions, and give or sell them a 16 -page Visitor's Guide and Where -to- Get -It list of technologies (Attachment 3). RMI is developing addi- tional educational materials for visitors. Most visitors come a few at a time, in one or at most two cars; tours by larger groups are both rare and discouraged, so as not to disrupt the neighborhood or our own lives and work. RMI gives or sells some other publications both to visitors and by mail, but this is a minor, incidental activity which provides only a few percent of RMI's income, and is not the reason people visit the building. RMI's consulting services are normally provid- ed on clients' premises. RMI does not sponsor classes, workshops, conferences, or other public events on our premises. If RMI were to hold conferences in the future, they would be at commercial centers or at the nearby Windstar Foundation. For these factu- al reasons and because RMI's research and educational work are not- for - profit, we be- UUL,It�b s✓: lieve RMI's land -use is properly considered noncommercial, and hence not encompassed by the definition of Home Occupation. As we shall now show, all of the uses of our research and demonstration center have combined resource and offsite impacts comparable to or less than those of an ordinary single - family dwelling. After that we shall show the unusual benefits which the present use provides to the County. - 't� Emplovee housine The two of us are founders, Directors, and principal officers of Rocky Mountain Institute. We and another senior RMI staff member live in the at- tached west wing of the building, which we propose should be considered a Resident Manager's Quarters within and integral to the primary Special Use of a Nonprofit, Noncommercial Appropriate Technology Research and Demonstration Facility RMI's obligation: The research library is a 1,017- square -foot office. The Code requires that a professional office house 3.9 employees for every 1,000 square feet. RMI's em- ployee housing obligation, therefore, is 3.96. RMI's commitment: The living area of the building is 3,080 sq. ft, including a 900 - square -foot greenhouse. Two bedrooms house three people, and the loft can house another. With over 3,000 sq. ft. for four people, the non - office portion of the building falls well within the county's minimum 500- sq. -ft.- per - person requirement. RMi wi ll deed - restrict these four units to employee housing,- sa- tizify its employee housin> tgatrnn . - Traffic and transportation might appear to be potentially the most sensitive issue sur- rounding RMI's land -use. Indeed, it was presumably to prevent developments of a com- mercial character, and their associated road traffic, from sprouting in residential zones that the definition of Home Occupation prohibits nonresident employees. But if that prohibition was meant as an oblique surrogate for traffic concerns, it is counter- productive in cases such as ours, for it unintentionally prohibits people from walking, bicycling, skiing, etc. to work in others' homes in their own neighborhoods - -as most of RMI's staff do. Such a prohibition of low- impact means of travelling to work is direct- ly contrary to the County's Policy #2- 19 - - "to promote non- motorized transportation alternatives" and "reduce the number of vehicle trips per day." While RMI's use, being noncommercial, does not fal und er the definition of Home O ccupatio n, we believe the. same principle should. - apply: that the County should encourage uses which, other t fogs etng equal, promote nonmotorized transportation and reduce vehicular traffic. L Our use does exactly that. In fact, we believe that Rocky Mountain Institute's opera- tion in a residential area is responsible for a significant net reduction in traffic on Route 82, because RMI takes more commuters off the road than it adds, and even those whon it adds travel in th / p ppostte direction to normal comm t afffi � This cot elusion follows from the facts that ? 1. hree of RMI's senior staff live in our building. The building's proper functioning and our occupancy are intimately related. Knowledgeable people must live in the building to tend the plants and fish in the greenhouse; to contribute their own heat to the building's heat balance; to ensure normal operation through opening and closing doors, windows, etc. so that measured performance will realistically represent that of a building in typical use; to monitor that performance; to provide regular maintenance and security; and to attend to visitors, who frequently arrive outside working hours. 3 f 5' , 2- 'r � C 0 2. Five additional full- or part -time R t Graf live one or two minutes' walk awa comeonoot, and wor part y at home. 3. RMI's provision of employment for these people in or near their homes in Old Snowmass means that they, or others who would otherwise occupy their dwellings, do not have to commute to Aspen to work. 4. RN I'c rwn Acnrn-haced employees generally carpool or take the bus, and they work flexible hours (including some work at home), so they seldom drive at rush hour. Even when they do drive, they travel against the prevailing traffic on Route 82, going downvalley in the morning and upvalley in the evening. 5• work at RMI no more than one day a week each. Their two weekly round trips, in phase with the Route 82 traffic, are RMI's sole contribu- tion to traffic congestion, and extend no further upvalley than the Old Snowmass Conoco. 6. In sum, therefore, RMI's provision of employment in Old Snowmass adds only one or two cars commuting on Route 82 (but against the traffic), plus two rounds trips a week upvalley from Carbondale. The total traffic added, both with and against the Route 82 traffic (assuming that RMI's two Aspen -based employees drive more and car- pool less than they actually do), is less than 2.0 cars' worth (1.6 round trips between Old Snowmass and Aspen plus 0.4 between Old Snowmass and Carbondale). But at the same time, RMI's work in Old Snowmass subtracts 8.5 commuters who would otherwise drive daily, with the rush -hour traffic, between Old Snowmass and Aspen. RMI's being based in Old Snowmass is therefore responsible for at least minus 6.5 net commuter cars' being on Route 82. Even if RMI were to add several more Aspen -based employees (it currently has no intention of adding any), RMI would still be a substantial generator of "negamiles " - -net commuter trips avoided. A complete assessment, of course, must include traffic generation other than commut- ing to and from work - -for example, our private use of our own pickup truck. Since we shop for our extended household mainly in Basalt, the two of us together average only about one upvalley and one or two downvalley round trips each week. We have a typi- cal number of visits by UPS and various servicepeople, but by local standards our pri- vate entertaining also gives rise to a smaller- than - typical amount of social traffic. RMI staff's taking some of their meals together reduces their travel to shop for food. Their travel for other social and personal purposes is below average, since they often carpool with each other; and in any event such nonbusiness travel is not generated by RMI nor associated with RMI's being on our premises. We understand that according to the Planning Department's survey data, the typical Snowmass Creek residence generates about 6.5 round trips to Aspen per day. In contrast, all the activities carried on at our premises and for which this Special Review ap- proval is sought, plus nonbusiness travel by everyone living in our building, amount to at most about 2 gross, or about minus 6.5 net, round trips per day. The land -uses on our premises, therefore, are responsible for avoiding (net) on the order of 3,250 round trips per year which would otherwise occur in an average residence. Avoiding that travel saves each year about 6,100 gallons of gasoline, the emission of various air pollutants, and the addition of some 100,000+ vehicle -miles of highway wear and accident risk. We believe, therefore, that RMI's provision of year- round, low- impact employment downvalley, a short walk away from where three - fifths of its employees live, signifi- cantly decreases Countywide traffic impacts by carrying out the County's policy of substituting walking and other nonmotorized modes of travel for car commuting, espe- cially on Route 82. Of course, Special Review must consider not only County -wide but also local traffic impacts. For the reason given above - -the predominance of foot over car travel - -we be- UL)L) J 0 3 7 lieve the net car traffic for which RMI's employees are collectively responsible within the Old Snowmass Valley is considerably less than would otherwise occur through the upvalley commuting of a similar number of Old Snowmass residents not employed here. RMI's secretary picks up and deposits mail as she commutes - -often doing the Old Snowmass part on foot - -and thus even avoids the normal daily trip to the Old Snowmass Post Office. Visitor traffic poses a potential problem, but so far (with the sole exception of the Openhouse described in note 2 above) it has not been an actual problem; nor do we expect or will we allow it to become one. Visitors are randomly distributed throughout the daylight hours, including weekends. Some call ahead to set a convenient time, but about half just show up. Many come to us after a visit to Windstar or St. Benedict's Monastery, or by word of mouth. Since RMI does not display its presence by any out- ward sign or notice as those two institutions do, it receives fewer visits from the gen- eral public than they tend to. It is again important to note that since virtually all our visitors come to see the building itself, not RML we would receive just as many visitors even if RMI were not headquartered in the building. All visitors and staff park in our own driveway, whose extended p arking area at the top can accommnd to approximate a d ozen vehicles with ease and twenty at a pinch. Ordinarily, however, it contains two to four. There is no need for or use of on- street parking. The steep bank where our land rises from Snowmass Creek Road shields parked cars (and much of the building itself) from most of the adjacent road. �1 We have added screening trees and shrubs which as they mature will farther limit those views. As far as we know, parking by staff and visitors has also not created a nuisance for the neighbors with whom we share the foot of our driveway; neither we nor RMI have received complaints about our operations. / In summary, we believe that the average number of vehicles parked at our premises is I \I about the same as at many single - family dwellings hereabouts, and that the amount of net traffic for which all activities on our premises are responsible, including our pri- vate use, is less than that generated by a typical downvalley single - family dwelling: indeed, in net terms it is negative. If RMI's headquarters were instead at, say, the Air - port Business Center (assuming that were practical and affordable), RMI would gener- ate far more rush -hour commuter traffic than it does now, while the flow of visitors attracted to our building by its intrinsic technical and architectural interest would remain just the same. Potential expansion Some years from now we may wish to add a bedroom or studio (but not more research space) to our present two small bedrooms. Plans for this were outlined in drawings submitted to the County, and the form of such an addition would preserve esthetic continuity. Similarly, there is a possibility of a small addition at or near the east end of the building to house the farm animals mentioned below Neither of these possible additions (which might total perhaps 1,000 square feet or so) is re- lated to RMI's use of the building; both would be for our personal use as our family grows, and are well below this zone's legal quota of five bedrooms plus agricultural outbuildings. In fact, since we do not intend to come anywhere near the permitted five bedrooms, hence the family size and number of vehicles to which we are entitled, we are already restricting the potential for future increases in private traffic in our 'We have recently added a 120 - square -foot detached shed south of the building to house pigs, chickens, and rabbits. We would probably move this to and incorporate it into any larger livestock shelter which we later put up east of the building. lo ll ` 0 s neighborhood. Our likely maximum is two eventual family cars, not the 5+ which a large family could readily accrue. Scenic quality Our consistent use of native Dakota sandstone, natural colors, rounded building forms, and earth berming already makes the building inconspicuous from most angles. An adobe - finished garden wall and numerous trees further soften its sil- houette. The largely completed landscaping (chiefly with native dryland species) will at maturity mean that the structure, in the language of the Land Use Code's section 3- 1.9(e)(r), will "present minimal visual impacts on the scenic amenities of the rural area." We have stabilized the west slope above the building with rocked terraces, and are well along with native revegetation. The steepest third of our land (a shale- and - juniper hillside with trees up to 900+ years old) will be left wild but for a small footpath, dis- creetly flagstoned to prevent erosion. The building itself occupies about one -half of one percent of our land area, and its earth - sheltered roof will be planted to pasturage. Aericultural uses A principal aim of our land -use has from the start been to develop and demonstrate better ways to "maintain the rural lifestyle as a human resource" and to "preserve the option of using land areas for agricultural purposes by maintaining ir- rigated lands for present and future food production" (3- 1.9[5,61). All but a few percent of our land is and will remain agricultural. We have initially planted our south and east meadows to oats, rye, alfalfa, barley, and native grasses as a cover crop. It will remain in pasturage. Any irrigation required will use either fil- tered graywater (for which we have plumbed separately and for the use of which the Sanitarian, Bob Nelson, would seek experimental consent), or our water right from a disused ditch which runs through our land and whose broken headgate we have of- fered to help our neighbors repair. In the years ahead we also hope to graze several horses and a goat or sheep, along with the few smaller farm animals which we now have; the property is already surrounded by an attractive four -rail natural fence for this purpose. Our proposed experimental irrigation system, by using wastewater and its nutrient values for productive agriculture, would help others who want to join the growing trend towards home food production - -a source whose annual value in the United States already exceeds that of the entire agricultural produce of California. Indoors, our experimental integrated agriculture /aquaculture system irrigates and fertilizes crops with nutrient -rich fishtank water, aerated by the waterfall at the back of the greenhouse. This system, using biological pest control, will provide valuable information about opportunities for low- impact, high- density, high -value winter agri- culture in the Valley. (And not just winter: many of our vegetables are thriving better indoors than outdoors even in summer.) Since our 900 - square -foot growing space is excellent for such crops as citrus and papayas year- round - -our superefficient green- house glazings made it possible to germinate seeds in two days in early January - -we are testing innovative ways to produce edible fish, tropical fruits, and restaurant herbs indoors with no supplementary heating. This program will seek ways for local farmers and ranchers to improve their winter cashflow while bringing more beauty and better health into their homes. Until the filters and drip system are installed, graywater is joining blaekwater in an oversized leaehfield on the southeast side of our property. ULJGJ I iJ e1 RMI's policy research also directly supports local agriculture, mainly through seeking greater marketing opportunities for local produce (such as range beef) as part of our Economic Renewal Project, and by developing a least -cost water strategy for the Roar- ing Fork Valley. RMI's survey of water efficiency opportunities has already shown how the City of Aspen can save millions of dollars in water - development capital while improving reliability in low -water years and avoiding the need to build proposed dams on Castle and Maroon Creeks. Water and waste Our building demonstrates exceptional water efficiency. Its two toi- lets use 1.06 and 0.79 gallons per flush instead of the usual 3.5 to 5 -- resulting in an immediate forty - percent saving on total household water use - -and may later be modi- fied to flush with graywater. There are four showerheads, using respectively about 2.4, 1.9, 0.5, and 0.5 gallons per minute compared with the usual 4 to 7 gpm. Other fixtures are correspondingly efficient. Our total water use, drawn from the Gateway subdivi- sion system, is about 60,000 gallons per year. That is about a third less than the Gate- way average for much smaller buildings with lower occupancy, and is less than half the Aspen average. Per unit of floorspace, we are already saving upwards of two - thirds of normal consumption compared with neighboring homes, and expect this sav- ing to increase when we install the graywater irrigation system. Yet within that water budget we maintain extensive plantings both inside the greenhouse and around the house. RMI's water research emphasizes, not only local opportunities, but also how the use of water - efficient technologies in thirsty areas like the Front Range can lessen calls on Western Slope water. In the future we may generate biogas for cooking, either from the existing septic tank or from a small digester in the planned "crittery," thus eliminating our small use of propane. We are cooperating with Sanitarian Bob Nelson to ensure that future aspects of our waste system will generate helpful information for him and will qualify for experimental status. We are also working with him in using our nearly completed out- door solar- heated hot tub - -which uses ozonation rather than the usual chlorination so as to protect local water quality - -to generate disinfection data useful for his regula- tion of existing spas. Enerev impacts In economic terms, our building is a 0.7- barrel - per -day "oil well ": it generates about $19 per day worth of saved energy, or $7,100 worth per year. The en- ergy- saving measures, having already paid for themselves in the first ten months, will pay off the entire construction cost (at officially projected energy prices) in about forty years. For comparison, an ordinary building the size of ours, built to County Code, would consume each year about 23 cords of pinon, or 4,700 gallons of propane, or 82,000 kW -h of electricity, or some combination of these, just for space heating - -a drain, except in the case of locally cut wood, of about $3,200 to $5,600 per year out of the local economy. Our house, in contrast, has a heating bill of approximately zero With an active solar water- heating system whose quasi- seasonal storage should virtu- ally eliminate the need for backup, we are also saving about 600 gallons ($400 worth) of propane per year. For uses other than space and water heating, too, our daylighting and state -of- the -art lights and appliances - -such as a refrigerator which saves about 95% of normal consumption - -save upwards of 45,000 kW -h of electricity each year, 'We used about half a cord of softwood last winter to compensate for the cold air let in by keeping the greenhouse hatch -doors open to bring in about 300 wheelbarrow -loads of subfreezing soil and rock. But under normal winter conditions with the hatch shut, the two woodstoves aren't needed -- demonstrating that heat -tight homebuilding is an effective way to reduce or eliminate woodemoke pollution. U+jUt i 1 v. E worth about $3,100. Generating that much electricity would cause Colorado -Ute to burn about 23 tons of coal per year, releasing about 300 pounds of sulfur. Compared with a typically inefficient all- electric home the same size, ours saves annu- ally about 137,000 kW -h, worth over $9,300, and thus avoids the burning of 71 tons of coal and the emission of about half a ton of sulfur. Compared to local all- electric buildings, therefore, ours will save coal equivalent to its own volume approximately every twenty years. In more commonplace terms, the total energy use of our building is little more than $300 worth of electricity per year (two- thirds of it for office equipment), plus $20 worth of propane for cooking. Further refinements will decrease even these figures somewhat. Ultimately we expect to install solar cells and become a net exporter of pollution -free electricity to Holy Cross, demonstrating at the request of Colorado -Ute a new type of two -way electrical interchange. Officials of these two utilities as well as of Public Service Company of Colorado, Colorado PUC Commissioners, and many other utility officers and regulators have al- ready visited our premises to see and discuss these innovations. We have also agreed to cooperate with the University of Colorado, the National Association of Homebuilders Research Foundation, and the Electric Power Research Institute in detailed monitoring of our building's energy performance. The favorable energy impacts of our building, however, are not confined to its own savings. Our demonstration of the many technologies and design principles which have made this performance possible (summarized in Attachment Three) - -most of them equally applicable to ordinary tract homes - -has already helped many local designers and builders to improve the efficiency of their buildings, both in and out of Pitkin County. It has also helped to raise the sophistication of local homebuyers, appraisers, financiers, and businesspeople. This spinoff effect is far larger than our direct energy savings. It extends not only to Pitkin County and downvalley communities but also to the nation and beyond, since our visitors have included senior business and govern- ment officials from around the world. Millions more people have learned about the building's principles and performance through the mass media. Summary and conclusions On a small, previously subdivided lot of little distinction, we have both conserved scarce resources directly and established a unique resource - conservation research and demonstration center of local value and global repute. Far from introducing development of a commercial character into a rural, residential area, our building, despite its unusual uses, looks like a house and acts like a house - -only better, for it produces lower impacts than the single - family dwelling which is a Per- mitted Use on that lot. This low intensity of development, the highly efficient use of resources which our building demonstrates, and the extensive research and demonstra- tion activities carried on within it all manifest the purposes of the Resource Zone, es- pecially purpose 3- 1.9(a)(4)-- "to aid in the preservation of environmental resources." This central aim of learning to live more lightly on the earth is precisely that which Rocky Mountain Institute researches and fosters, within a building which exemplifies RMI's and, we believe, Pitkin County's goals. Indeed, we see the building as a unique tool to help people to experience resource efficiency in a concrete, practical, attrac- tive, and widely transferrable form. In addition, the present use contributes to the housing stock by the "clustering" and "orderly development pattern" which are among the Resource Zone's purposes, main- �;JI.�jI� %%� w taining present densities while preserving open space. By research and example, it di- rectly supports the protection of agricultural land and rural lifestyle. And it has vir- tually no adverse impacts on adjacent uses, but helps neighboring landowners to de- crease their present and planned resource impacts. We therefore believe it would be appropriate, and we hereby respectfully request, that Pitkin County approve, as a Special Use not otherwise allowed" of our land situated at 1739 Snowmass Creek Road, the continued operation there of a nonprofit, noncom- mercial Appropriate Technology Research and Demonstration Center, integrally associ- ated with which as a secondary use would be connected Resident Manager's Quarters deed - restricted as employee housing. Since we expect this integrated use and its impacts to remain essentially unchanged for the indefinite future, we also believe it would avoid unnecessary paperwork if the County either waived, or decreased the frequency of, the annual certification of compliance normally required for Special Uses under 3 -6.3. Naturally, we shall continue to comply with the conditions we are already strictly observing, and in particular to honor in letter and spirit the requirement that Rocky Mountain Institute's use of the premises not change the residential character of the premises or of the area. l � AMORY B. LOVINS L. HUNTER LOVINS y cpu,m No Recorded n "'dr,k _ M 1 ccor c!500N 526 PAGED M 284725 WARRANTY DEED _ MILTON J. McMENAMIN AND ANN—MARIE M M N MIN PITKIN CM B ANNR wh.rse addre,.ls 3211 OAK GROVE, ROSSMOOR, pp "County of ORANGE , State of DEC 30 L 50 fp /99 CALIFORNIA 90720 , for the consideration of TEN AND NO/ 100 ($10 . 00) -- dollars, in hand paid, hereby sell(s) and convey(s) to ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE, A COLORADO NON — PROFIT CORPORATION, �I whose legal address. is C/O AMORY LOVINS, P. O. DRAWER 248, SNOWMASS, County of PITKIN , and Statc of COLORADO 81654 the following real property in the County of PITKIN , and State of Colorado, to wit. AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF BY THIS REFERENCE. , ' - ATE DOCUMENTARY DEC 3 01986 ( also known by street and ncmber as with all Its appurtenances and warrant(s) the title to the same, subject to THOSE MATTERS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO AND INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE. Signed this 96 day of DECEMBER . 19 86 I ON J M STATE Of` t�XX [a a �as. County of KEN I'he foregome instrument was acknowledged before me this ,3� day of DECEMBER . 19 86 by MILTON J. Mc nIANDT AND ANN —MARIE N P�IF.TIANSN, by Lbtwlas P. Allen, as their attoz tey in fact. bly commission expires s 17 jG Ll Witn my hand and official seal. *If n, Denier, usen "City and ' v I N4 R%, Re 1785. w3RR.1Y DFEDIS eForm a,dRW NWahma. 512, w Nh Arc "_',, M"— I,,, 233N ILN M mow✓ �.✓ POOH 526 ?.,cr Exhibit "A" ThaL dart of TracLs 81 and 82 in Section 34, Township 8 South, Range 86 West of Lhe 6th Principal Meridian described as follows: Beginning at Angle Point No. 6 of said Tract 81; thence North O1 °18'00" West 103.36 feet along the Easterly line of said Tract 81; thence South 87 °43'00" Fast 129.70 feet to a point in the center of a 20 foot road easement; thence 102.88 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 311.32 feet, the chord of which bears: North 10 °06'59" East 102.41 feet; thence North 89 °57'59" West 299.45 feet to a point on the Easterly line of Gateway of Snowmass Mesa Subdivision, First Filing; thence North 01 °04'11" West 215.76 feet along said Subdivision line; thence North 07 0 57'23" West 192.80 feet along said Subdivision line; thence North 89 0 48'58" East 222.00 feet; thence South 39 ° 25'01" East 317.42 feet to a point in the center of a 20 -foot road easement; thence North 32 0 13'02" East 268.60 feet along the center line of said road easement to a point on the Westerly right -of -way line of a County Road; thence South 13 °59'00" East 237.95 feet along said right -of -way line; thence South 02 0 27'00" West 251.53 feet along said right -of -way line; thence South 22 0 31'00" West 151.83 .`feet along said right -of -way line; thence South 13 0 41'00" West 87.04 feet along said right -of -way line; thence North 87 0 43'00" West 347.74 feet to a point on the Westerly line oi. said Tract No. 82; thence North 01 0 18'00" West 104.64 feet along said tract line to Angle Point No. 6 of said Tract No. 81, to the point of beginning. TOGE`Jltlat WITH a non - exclusive easement f.or ingress, egree and utility installation 20 feet in width, being 10.feet on each of the following described centerline; Beginning at a point on the Westerly right -of -way line of the existing County Road, from whence Angle Point No.6 of said Tract 81 bears South 32 West 701.56 feet, more or less; thence South 32 0 13 1 02" West 330 feet, more or less to the Northerly line of the above - described parcel of land herein conveyed and the point of terminus. County of Pitkin, St e f Colorado U Li Lit) L , LJ Pox 526 mGE825 EXHIBIT "B" General unpaid taxes and assessments for 1986 and subsequent years payable in 1987 and subsequent years; the effect of inclusions in any general or specific water conservancy, fire protection, soil conservation or other district or inclusion in any water service or street improvement area; the right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract or remove his ore thereform, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises as reserved in the following United States Patents: For said Tract 81, recorded October 14, 1904 in Book 55 at Page 511 and for said Tract 82, recorded July 29, 1935 in Book 55 at Page 314; right of way for road along the Easterly 10 feet of the subject property, as shown on the map of the Old Snowmass Condominiums recorded in Plat Book 10 at Page 81; an easement and right to enter upon lands as granted to Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc., and described in documents recorded November 5, 1969 in Book 244 at Pages 351 and 352; a right -of -way easement for maintenance of Williams Ditch No. 3, as reserved in instrument recorded January 5, 1970 in Book 245 at Page 750, and in Book 248 at Page 643; restrictions which do not contain a forfeiture or reverter clause, as contained in instrument recorded January 5, 1970 in Book 245 at Page 742; a non - exclusive easement for ingress and egress and utilities 20 feet in width as set forth in instrument recorded in Book 254 at Page 110; easements as set forth in Deeds recorded September 9, 1975 in Book 295 at Page 484 and in Book 295 at Page 486; terms, conditions and obligations as set forth in Snowmass Creek Associates, Limited Partnership Agreement recorded June 4, 1975 in Book 299 at Page 411; terms, conditions and obligations as set forth in Condominium Declaration recorded December 16, 1980 in Book 401 at Page 507; any and all easements and rights of way as shown on the Map of the Old Snowmass Condominiums recorded December 16, 1980 in Plat Book 10 at Page 81; and right of way of existing powerline, all *in the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County Colorado. Z* Clow nCofs W. v L/ u0O %) i 6 NBC Fn IND I . 5°33n P � C � OU\D ( . N 8a° 46 58 ° E 22e 00' ktiC 7 p Ls`33. I / W C SET I I X90 EASEMENT T � J/ IU 3 - OK276 PAGE 739 / N / A I \ C\ b 20.00' EASEM \ 'E' N / *UTILITY B ROAD) 1 ` BOOK 24l PAGE 4PC z r 2r / r m 1 1 'F' In ~ \1\ 15o LOO AC.' / BC SET N29 °5552 ° A \ �� 1 g B "' \ I ' I E 4'ACCESS B UTILIT JO AC« 1 EASEMENT _ S OS N.C. 7 ' E \ ) I ,71 71' \ All R8C f J 10 15 UTILITY EASEMENT l "L's'.. '-�•� � � I / 9 29 PAGE 484 I0 / I I 4 (% 3 I 6.39' .561. ,y \ I 2! 30 ,.00 Act - I [ /O \ f B..OK N t.� UI 10000 DFCK; 17 � zz 2 BUILDING B I 012 ujiTS I 10021.` Ana z— Ct- n54'S4'5S"W' 0 °12 °3802� u ' � / C . 7.34 R =311.32 �rA I g i LOJ 4Cf 3C LDJNO RBC iOJND F ^A'ER' I / C ;317 — L 5. 3317 PCLE 1056.917 _ W \ f` Rac SET N63 57'59"W 299.45 % f..5'AOCESS a l _ 11T11.ITT EASEMENT / 1 ° PLifNNIF cli 1•a07.60 L =Its 00 .� 07 I 0 Th's R= 311.32 R =31132 W p 1 L: 10LE2' iN CH= N.16 °2e('I ° E, of the C14-M0`06 WC' I 169.36' - I day of t' 10241 I 1 .00 ACf S 87 ° 43 1 07"E 129 RISC FJJND -' P3.tE 1.4' _ _ R8C ;l L e3317 PO_E t 5 8 LS 3317 sa S' BOARD O I Hx This ve C) i0 �. -�„ e / ari7rove C IODAC, ED O ° ail BOOK 27 -� dec?icat N — W " - PAGE 7 3y 1 / 0 that Pi 10,010.3'5 m -after c AP "6 10,011.24 _ 10,128.183 M accorda TI, 11„ BRASS GAP 10,103.93 4_ Pitkin IN PLACE ry Cam C iOUnJ AP i J AC `- underta -17 ' LS 3 TR. iO OOOO OOU i " " Count 2 LC^ UILDING A (D PLEV / waste le 10 ' W DUFLEK t WDOD PATIO'S SCUTH 1 ETJRY p'.< ' RBC SEC ON EACH SILE C) C I UN'T I 1I CF EACH PALACE. C ` p SEPTIC iANn .S ;ES 351 6 Ill m V 9,95• 13 O ° O 10,101.750 E 757.A Zj ', 45 F.: tE ?4 O Z RAC FOUND ° LS•3317 e 11.: GOOK %45- 750 ROC e 3 3.317' W _ R �— LY //L 0 J � .- FYi C('JriLL� CO -JS r C4<T¢/J I - r�GrJN U/+T.ON U //✓/G'1✓S /Or.I_ %\ LAC /- Ti 1 K'L /✓ •�G ACENJr' Crl '� • /'ouNGL4 s/o�/ PcA.l. V r i I P ti o ­ 10 rE BUUNOAL}/ SNV..Jn/ Hl T/4d'H /✓ F.eo1.f /vrAr' P.CEr•'AG6 Ar4�!!/ 16 97 A h Jul Y O a � pOG t Z B\IT Fm ASPEN /PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE ti 130 South Galena Street �l �O� Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925 -2020 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES City 00113 63721 63722 -47331 .52100 GMP /CONCEPTUAL 63723 - 47332 . 52100 GMP /PRELIMINARY 63724 - 47333 - 52100 GMP /FINAL 63725 - 47341 - 52100 SUB /CONCEPTUAL 63726 - 47342 - 52100 SUB /PRELIMINARY 63727 - 47343 - 52100 SUB /FINAL 63728 - 47350 - 52100 EXCEPT /EXEMPTION 63729 - 47350 - 52100 REZONING - 47360 - 52100 SPECIAL REVIEW County SUB -TOTAL 00113 - 63711 - 47331 - 52200 GMP /GENERAL 63712 63713 - 47332 - 52200 GMP /OETAILEO - 63714 47333 - 52200 GMP /FINAL - 63715 47341 - 52200 SUB /GENERAL -41342 63716 - 52200 SUB /DETAILED - 63717 - 47343 - 47350 52200 SUB /FINAL 63718 - - 47350 - 52200 52200 SPECIAL REVIEW 63719 47360 - 52200 REZONING SPECIAL APPROVAL PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00113 - 63061 - 09000 - 52200 63063 - 09000 52200 63062 - 09000 - 00000 63066 - 09000 00000 63069 09000 SUB -TOTAL COUNTY CODE ALMANAC GMP COPY FEES OTHER UJI. 8 Name:_ Address : Check No. Additional Billing:---------- SUB -TOTAL TOTAL Phone: Project:�r — 'Date: No, of Hniv.