Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.planning.264320406004 (2)DOCUMENT LAYOUT THIS FILE MAY OR MAY NOT CONTAIN ALL OF THE INFORMATION LISTED BELOW IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER Summary Sheet Resolution for the BOCC and /or P &Z Ordinance for the BOCC and /or P &Z Determination for the Hearing Officer Administrative Determination Staff Memo Application Public Notice, Acceptance Letter, Referral(s) Letter Site Plan Miscellaneous Plat(s) CASE NO I P CASE NAME: I Pearson Caretaker Dwelling Unit Planne VPROJ ADDR: 2038 Juniper Hill Dr Lot 13 Blk 7 Flg 1 Brush Creek Village OWN /APP: Pearson. Spencer ADRF C /S /Z:F PHI REP: I ADR:F— C /S /Z:F— PHI Email Addr: I ALLOCATED HOU FEES DUE: — FEES RC % OVER: REF: BY DUE: W NOTICED DATE OF FINAL ACTION: MTG DATE REV BODY PH No F— No No REMARKS I no vesting BOCC Reso: 93 -27 #354627 BOCC Ord: PZ: HRG OFF: CLOSED:— BY: HO INDEX: ADMIN PLAT RECORDE PLAT (BK,PG): n/a ADMIN INDEX: VR APPROVAL D TE:j VR EXPIRES:F CASE TYP: lCaretaker Dwelling Unit CASE TYPS: CASE TYP2: CASE TYP6: CASE TYP3: CASE TYP7: CASE TYP4: Location: Date Scanned: 2/17/2012 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET PITKIN COUNTY DATE RECEIVED: 12 23Z;92 DATE COMPLETE: 1 13!93 STAFF MEMBER: tff ti►� CASE # P168 -92 PARCEL ID# 2643 - 204 -06 -004 PROJECT NAME: Pearson Caretaker Dwelling unit Review Project Address: Lot 13 Block 7 1st Filing Brush Creek Village APPLICANT: Spencer Pearson Applicant Address: Box 3299 REPRESENTATIVE: Representative Address /Phone: Aspen CO 81611 9216-3843 --------------------------------------------- FEES: PLANNING $ 200.00 # APPS RECEIVED 10 ENGINEER $ # PLATS RECEIVED HOUSING $ ENV. HEALTH $ TOTAL $ DATE REFERRED: ?173 INITIALS: DATE DUE: 2 /o 73 --------------- - - - -- RESOLUTION #: DATE: PLAT OR SITE PLAN RECORDED AT BOOK FINAL ROUTING County Attorney Housing Open Space Bd. Other: FILED: DATE ROUTED: _County Engineer Envir. Health PAGE (S) INITIAL: ftv Zoning Applicant Revised 05/18/92 TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL: 1 STEP: 2 ST P: P &Z MEETING DATE PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO BOCC MEETING DATE 3 9 3 PUBLIC HEARING: S NO DRC MEETING DATE N 3 REFERRALS: WW Attorney Engineer _Aspen Consol S.D. _Rocky Mtn Nat Gas School District _ USFS (Carbondale) no Housing Cross USFS (Aspen) Iv*. Aspen Water _Holy _Aspen Fire _ Div. of Wildlife Envir.Hlth. _Basalt Fire _ BLM Manager Fire Snowmass Village Zoning _Carbondale _Div. Water Res. _ Caucus Airport Mgr. Sheriff _State Forest Ser. CO Geo.Survey Caucus Homeowners - v City P & Z _State Hwy Dept. _ Open Space Board Building Dept _Clean Air Board Other: DATE REFERRED: ?173 INITIALS: DATE DUE: 2 /o 73 --------------- - - - -- RESOLUTION #: DATE: PLAT OR SITE PLAN RECORDED AT BOOK FINAL ROUTING County Attorney Housing Open Space Bd. Other: FILED: DATE ROUTED: _County Engineer Envir. Health PAGE (S) INITIAL: ftv Zoning Applicant Revised 05/18/92 ? f f �5 3d"� .W�.� .�'.�[�;li:r;,' Ar �+,�. � 6� »'"_wi °• }': _.;f :iy,. ^• Y . -.. iinnr b . ti. t ' �R ' WV a . . , a, • r - V,� a'. � ..- V":r g3$gbc 03/0e/91 10:39 RecC1=-J EIDCC705 tG 418 5ilv.a Davis, '. RESOLUTION Or TEE BOARD OF COUNTY COKNISSIvMERS OF PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO, GRANTING APPROVAL TO THE PEARSON CARETAKER DNELIING UNIT Resolution NO. 9341 i;�D02 e.; '101a . - % I. Spencer Pearson hereinafter 'Applicant", has applied to the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, y hereinafter "Board", for approval of a caretaker dwelling unit pursuant to section 3- 8.13(c) of the Land use Code. � 2. The Applicant's lot is zoned AF -1 and is approximately 2.2 acres in size. GO i' d7. said parcel is described as Lot 11, Block 7, Brush Creek )" Village First Filing. • 4. The Applicants propose to dead restrict the caretaker dwelling unit pursuant to Ordinance 91 -11.� S. The Board heard this application at a regularly scheduled V - meeting on February 21, 1993, at which time avidence and testimony was presented with respect to this application. + e. The Board determined that the proposed employee unit swats the criteria aatabllehod in Section 3- 6.13(c) of the Land Use Coda. Now, TEEREFORE, a6 IT RESOLVED by the Board that it does hereby grant approval to the Pearson Caretaker Dwelling unit . • application subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a certificate Of occupancy for the the applicants shall. addition to the princiapl residence, record a caretaker deed restriction ml the proposed accessary dwelling unit pursuant to Section 3 -8.17 (a) (4) of the Coda (Ord. 91 -11). Before recording the deed restriction the t i;�D02 e.; '101a . - % .. knnnf � '. .. s *, is .0 - ",.a, (:�'i `� - ,, - .. _ •�, `,. #3y4627 03/08/93 10;39 Pec S -00 BV 705 PG 419 Silvia Da' ✓1S, patktn Cnty Clerl., Doc t.(�O Resolution No. 93417 Page 2 caretaker dwelling unit shall be inspected to ensure that it meets the life /safety standards of the Uniform Building Code. 2. Prior to recordation 3f a caretaker deed restriction, the existing well on the property shall be tested to ensure that water quality meets tae requirements of the Colorado Department of Health, unless the applicant decides not to utilize the well as a source of potable water. 3. If the existing well is utilized to provide domestic water for either the primary residence or the caretaker unit, the plumbing shall be connected in such a way as to keep the well system separate from the Brush Creek Village Community Water System. This separation shall be verified at final inspection and prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy fcr the addition to the primary residence. 4. The applicant shell comply with all material representations made in the application, on the revised floor plan and in the public meetings. APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE 23rd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1993 a 4 r I v" 4 A E Ti a etta JOnee eputy Clark d Recorder APPROVED R$ TO P09N1 TSmeth9 E•An7�I3b1'' County Attorney , --1" 31j3J33 HOARD OF COUNTY COKKISGIONERs OF PITRIN COUNTY, COLORADO Rata8111 it CA "—an APPROVED A$ TO CONTENTI Bus& a ROAD ah, � County Planning Director AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY TO: Board of County Commissioners Regular Meeting - February 23, 1993 THRU: Reid Haughey, County Manager Suzanne Konchan, County Planning Director c-4- RE: Pearson Caretaker Dwelling Unit FROM: Tim Malloy, Senior Planner SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of the proposed caretaker dwelling unit subject to conditions shown in the attached memo and draft resolution. REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval to allow a portion of their existing home to be utilized as an accessory dwelling unit pursuant to Section 3-8.13(c). The unit is to be occupied by a member of the family (mother -in -law) as permitted in ordinance 91- 11. Currently this portion of the house is used to accommodate the Pearson family while they await the completion of remodeling work that is being done on the remainder of their home. The proposed unit will be deed restricted to "caretaker unit" status, following the competion of the remodel work on the principal dwelling unit. APPLICANT: Spencer Pearson APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Same LOCATION: Lot 13, Block 7, Brush Creek Village First Filing ZONING: AF -1, ten acre minimum lot size ISSUES: There are no unresolved issues related to the applicants request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed caretaker dwelling unit subject to conditions shown in the attached Planning office memorandum and draft resolution. m:.p�.cau UUUJU4 EM MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners Regular Meeting - February 23, 1993 THRU: Reid Haughey, County Manager Suzanne Konchan, County Planning Director FROM: Tim Malloy, Planning Office RE: Pearson Caretaker Dwelling Unit REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval to allow a portion of their existing home to be utilized as an accessory dwelling unit pursuant to Section 3-8.13(c). The unit is to be occupied by a member of the family (mother -in -law) as permitted in Ordinance 91- 11. Currently this portion of the house is used to accommodate the Pearson family while they await the completion of remodeling work that is being done on the remainder of their home. The proposed unit will be deed restricted to "caretaker unit" status, pursuant to Ordinance 91 -11. APPLICANT: Spencer Pearson APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Same LOCATION: Lot 13, Block 7, Brush Creek Village First Filing ZONING: AF -1, ten acre minimum lot size SITE DATA: The lot is approximately 2.2 acres in size, and is therefore, non - conforming as to area in the AF -1 zone. There is an existing home on the property. The existing residence includes five bedrooms one of which will be included within the caretaker unit. The applicants are in the process of remodeling their home and have received permits from the building department for the ongoing modifications (Permit 01990 -1569 and #1991 -1 -185). When completed, the remodeled home will be 5000 square feet in area. The portion of the house to be utilized as the caretaker dwelling unit already includes the necessary kitchen and bathroom facilities and will not need to be modified. The subject property has an existing on -site septic system that will serve the caretaker unit and the primary residence. The property is served by the Brush Creek Village subdivision community water system. However, due to additional tap fees required by the Brush Creek Village Homeowners Association, the applicant is considering utilizing an existing well to provide water for the proposed caretaker dwelling unit. REFERRAL COMMENTS: �iJvJU7 1) ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: The Environmental Health Department reviewed the application and offered the following comments: The existing on -site sewage treatment system has recently been upgraded and is adequate to serve the proposed caretaker dwelling unit and primary residence. However, the Environmental Health Department discourages the use of a garbage disposal or washing machine in the caretaker unit in order to extend the life of the absorption field. The existing structure currently receives its potable water supply from the Brush Creek Village Subdivision community water system. Serving the subject property with water provided from this municipal supply conforms with Section 2 -205 of the Pitkin County Code regarding the "logical extension of utilities ". However, the Applicant is considering serving the caretaker unit with water from an existing well on the property due to additional tap fees and costs. The Environmental Health Department views the well as an acceptable source of potable water though it is not as reliable as the community system. The Environmental Health Department requested written verification regarding the quality and quantity of the well supply in order to ensure that it meets the standards of the Colorado Department of Health. The EHD notes that previous tests of the well water met state standards. Written verification of water quality and quantity has been made a condition of approval and is included in the conditions in the draft resolution. The standard comments related to air quality and noise were also found in the Environmental Health Department's memo. A copy of the memo is attached for reference. 2) HOUSING: The Housing Office reviewed the applicants' revised plans and stated that, assuming the issue of floor area is resolved, they approve of the proposed caretaker unit. They note that a caretaker deed restriction must be recorded for the unit in accordance with Section 3- 8.13(a)(4) as amended by Ordinance 91 -11. The summary memo from the Housing Office is attached for reference. 3) ZONING: The Zoning Office points out that the applicants method for calculating net livable area is inaccurate. According to the Zoning Office, the proposed unit is 740 square feet in area, including the storage space locate on the lower floor of the structure. It is noted that the size of the unit could be reduced by 123.5 square feet if the storage area were separated from the rest of the caretaker unit by a permanent wall instead of a dead bolt as originally proposed by the applicant. The applicant has agreed to this condition N 4) 5) w 1..✓ and, therefore, the square footage of the unit (616.5) is well within the 700 square foot limit. COUNTY ENGINEER: The County engineer reviewed the applicants request and had no comments. BUILDING DEPARTMENT: The building department did not comment on the application. 6) BRUSH CREEK LANDOWNER Landowners Association caretaker unit. However, possibility for the use receives water, from the related to the potentia water system through c within the structure. S ASSOCIATION: has no objection they expressed con of a well inside a s community system. 1 for contamination ross connection of The Brush Creek to the proposed cern regarding the tructure that also There concern was of the community the water systems STAFF COMMENTS: Resolution 91 -11, amending Section 3 -8.13 of the Code, gives the Board the authority to approve a caretaker unit up to 700 square feet in size on non - conforming sized lots in the AF- 1 zone. Section 3- 8.13(c), as amended, allows caretaker units that are either attached to or within the principal residence provided that the unit meets the following conditions: i;JG�u7 1. The total floor are of the principal and caretaker unit shall not exceed the allowable FAR of the applicable zone district. Response: The AF -1 requirement, however area limit of 15,000 13. The total floor is approximately 50 square foot limit. T of bedrooms allowed than five bedrooms applicant's home has caretaker unit. zone there square area of district does not have an FAR is a County -wide residential floor feet as created by ordinance #90- the principal and caretaker units 00 square feet, well within the 15,000 he Land Use Code also limits the number by right to five. Residences with more require a special use permit. The five bedrooms including the one in the The proposed caretaker unit should have no significant impact on the surrounding neighborhood. The mass of the structure will not change so there will be no visual impact on the area. There would be a minor increase in traffic to and from the subject property. However, this should not create any significant traffic impact. The Brush Creek Landowners Association has indicated their support for caretaker units of 700 square feet or less. The proposed unit is less than 700 square feet (net livable) in size. 2. There shall be provided one (1) off street parking space for each bedroom within the principal unit and one (1) off - street parking space for each bedroom in the caretaker unit. Response: The subject property requires five parking stalls. The site plan submitted with the application indicates five parking stalls on the property not including the three stall garage. 3. The applicant shall record a "caretaker" deed restriction as described in section 3- 8.13(d)(3), as amended by Ordinance 91 -11. The applicant is aware of the deed restriction and has agreed to so restrict the proposed accessory dwelling unit. 4. The caretaker dwelling unit restriction may be removed by the property owner upon approval of the Board, subject to the requirement that the dwelling unit is removed or modified. If modified, the remaining improvements must no longer be capable of occupancy as a dwelling unit and must meet otherwise applicable Code requirements. Response: This requirement will apply if and when the applicants decide to eliminate the proposed caretaker dwelling unit. FINDING: With the provision of a solid wall between the lower level storage area and the rest of the caretaker unit, the proposed unit complies with Code criteria for a caretaker unit as described in Section 3- 8.13(c). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve the requested caretaker dwelling unit subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the second phase of remodeling of the principal dwelling unit, the applicants shall record a caretaker deed restriction on the proposed accessory dwelling unit pursuant to Section 3 -8.13 (a)(4) of the Code (Ord. 91 -11). 2. Prior to recordation of a caretaker deed restriction, the existing well on the property shall be tested to ensure that water quality meets the requirements of the Colorado Department of Health, unless the applicant decides not to utilize the well as a source of potable water. 3. Prior to recordation of caretaker deed restriction the proposed caretaker dwelling unit shall be inspected to ensure that it meets the life safety standards of the Uniform Building Code. 4 ��tu'JUj ITM M The applicant shall comply with all material representations made in the application, on the revised floor plan and'in the public meetings. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Letter of 2. Floor Plan 3. Memorandum 4. Memorandum 5. Memorandu m 6. Letter fr Application, Site Plan and warranty deed of proposed caretaker dwelling unit from the Environmental Health Department from the Zoning Office from the Housing Office fro the Brush Creek Landowners Association `w ASPEN *PITKIN 1../ ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT To: Tim Malloy, Planning Office From: Environmental Health Department Date: February 10, 1993 Re: Pearson Employee Dwelling Unit Review Parcel ID# 2643- 204 -06 -004 r�B 6s-,3 The Aspen / Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the above - mentioned land use submittal under authority of the Pitkin County Code, Title II, and has the following comments. SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: Sections 2 -7 and 5 -200: The application indicates that the means of wastewater disposal for the residence is an on -site septic system. According to the individual sewage disposal permit on file, the sewage is disposed of by an on -site septic tank system and absorption field. This 1991 application and permit on file indicate that the system was expanded with an additional grey water system. The additional system, coupled with an existing system, done in 1974, meets the County sewage regulations and is large enough in size for the five - bedroom structure. The two septic tanks installed in the system now have sufficient volume (2000 gallons) to accommodate both the main house and caretaker dwelling unit. We have attached the sewage disposal permit record. We would, in addition, discourage the use of a garbage disposal or washing machine in the caretaker unit to minimize the chance of premature absorption area failure. ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: Sections 2 -6 and 5 -205: The applicant's property is currently served with potable water from the Brush Creek Village Subdivision community water system. This system receives treated water from the Snowmass Water and Sanitation District. The large water storage tanks in the subdivision are supplied through a pipeline in the Brush Creek Road right -of -way. Serving the residence with water provided from this municipal supply conforms with Section 2 -205 of the Pitkin County Code. This section requires projects, as a part of the "logical extension" of utilities, to connect to an existing water system. The applicant, however, has NOT necessarily agreed to continue with the public water supply connection to the caretaker unit. During the Design Review Committee discussions, we learned that additional tap fees and costs may force the owner to reconnect to his existing well on the property and use it as a water supply for the caretaker UUU.Ji.O 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/920 -6070 Pearson Caretaker Dwelling Unit February 10, 1993 Page 2 unit. This certainly would not be as reliable as a source of water as the community system, but is still considered acceptable. Should the connection to the private well occur, this department would need additional information to review the water supply. The indication from the applicant is that the well yield is adequate (16 gpm) and that the chemical quality is acceptable. This is unusual for aquifers into the Mancos shale in the Brush Creek Village area. The shale is generally a poor geologic formation in which to develop a well water supply. Wells in this area tend to produce water that is highly mineralized with salinity, iron and sulfur. Yields are notoriously low, often less than two gallons per minute. Therefore, we have requested written verification from the applicant of the well water yield and the chemical and bacteriological quality of the water to make sure it meet the standards of the Colorado Department of Health Primary Drinking Water Regulations. Previous bacteriological tests done by the owner and this office did meet standards. AIR QUALITY: Sections 2 -17 and 5 -106: only that development is permitted which will not contribute significantly to degradation of air quality in Pitkin County. Typically, a single family home with a small caretaker unit does not constitute a significant source of air pollution. There is no information on fireplaces or woodstoves in this building, although the submitted floor plan does not show any woodburning devices in the caretaker unit. County regulations require the use of all available practical methods to reduce, prevent and control air pollution throughout the County. This would include minimizing woodburning and maximizing alternatives to single- occupancy vehicles. These items have not been directly addressed in the application. VU'UJii ASPEN *PITKIN rt/ ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OEPARTMENT Q" ,,,A� '(N INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT N (, O. 7/U (QyQ� TYPE OF PERMIT: ( )Initial Construction ( )Emergency Use or installation ( )Use Permit as a result of Sale ISSUED TO: Mailing ( )Repair WOrk.(P[awious Permit 1 .) �l Altecation of an existln stem, N v revious Permit 1 �_.j ( )others DATE OF ISSUE.. 7-2-21 / Home Phone -3 3 Business Phone�Z 5 p 2% C Agent )9c_m' Pomoyomly Phone 192-7-3369 Mailing Address Sewage Disposal System Work to be performed by 1� 2 This permit valid only for premises location by the [ loving legal do �c1.rrIp�ttions le , "/ 8%i � /Llfl%f; 1 L�lff LOT SIEE�.�2- /lt�G� . WATER SUPPLY AVERAGE PERCOLATION RATE This Individual Sewage Disposal Permit is granted with rreegard to the following usot '51fiec / /1 /'f /Ly Av 6I DEN�.�/ .. Nuaber oft Bedrooms Lofts_ Garbage Dis� alpoossals_ Dishwashers Clothes Washers CALCULATED AVERAGE DAILY WASTE LOAD /, 7 O UALLONS. THE NATURE OF THE SYSTEM INCLUDED UNDER THIS PERMIT: I / 12,s0 (SA Lwd %AtJk_/k x of Tank or Treatment Units SO 77e JAA%K Tank Capacity /o6GI- Callon Minimum "hod of Final Disposals Gp_Ey l�u�TE,� SEEPi�C- PAD Absorptloa Area � Square Feet Minimum script ion (including brand name, if any) of other equipment or appurtnaneosr 900 8ZACxc0 A i E,e SE'S T6111 Cher Conditions or Specificationst �2`rC�E2 %2y /.SCWe LINE 7O SEPTiC AAJ< TC SE16MlTD ��i9�S /9.vD CeIFiC'i4Ti0/t/ (��J C � LAJI��4Y, ALL LA�z y &ASil�f / W?s 491) S&4 STAGES REQUIRING INyySPECTION BY THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT: ( )Before Excavation p )Upon completion of excavation and prior to placement of gravel ( Before covering distribution `/ ' \ 1 //, system of absorption field W Prior to beckfill of any component ( Other, Speeifys -tl ,Q Plans and specifications of the proposed sewage disposal system have been reviewed and are considered satisfactory. Permission is hereby granted to the owner or his agent to perform the work Indicated above in accordance with the Pitkin County Individual Sevage Disposal Re.mlations in affect on the date of issue. In addition to general provisions act forth on the reverse hereef, this Permit is oubjeet to the following additional terns and eonditionst � —/v K Asp�niFftklR gnvifonmental APPROVED FOR ISSUE BY (title) Haal6hCef The above iniivldual acvago disposal system installed by 4as txtn inspected for use by a representative of the Aspen 1'it to Envlronm—nta Ilea t, OaPartmont. The awnuc assumes a reslronsibility in case of failure or inadequacy of thisse_wa /ge disposal system. Complete as -built drawing attachad. DATE 01',,F,INAL INSPECTION / BY: F � CG� TITLE ✓1%�dNM`n/r'11-1 AtTIt ©F`le: —,C_ bufu'jj.2 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 8'161'1 303/920 -6070 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Tim Malloy, County Planner FROM: Joanna S. Schaffner, County Zoning DATE: January 26, 1993 RE: Pearson Caretaker Dwelling Unit Review Parcel ID# 2643 - 204 -06 -004 I have reviewed the above referenced application and offer the following comments. ZONE: AF -1, ten acre minimum lot size The applicant's method for determining net livable area is inaccurate. The Net Livable area of this proposed unit is 740 square feet. This area includes the kitchen, living area, bath and stairs on the upper level, and the bedroom, bath, storage, and stairs on the lower level. NOTE: The storage area on the lower level can only be excluded from net livable area if access is from outside the unit. A "dead - bolt" as offered by the applicant is not sufficient. A total of 123.5 square feet may be subtracted from the total of 740 square feet net livable, if the applicant provides a solid wall instead of a dead -bolt. uu3jj_3 MEMORANDUM \ iM� TO: Tim Malloy, Planning Office FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office DATE: February 8, 1993 RE: Pearson Special Review for a Caretaker Dwelling Unit After reviewing the above - referenced application, the Housing Office approves the requested caretaker dwelling unit once the discrepancy of the floor area is resolved with Zoning. The Housing Office will also require net liveable square footage of the unit for the deed restriction. Once the above issues are resolved, the conditions listed below have been met, and this will satisfy the Housing office requirements. The conditions listed below are regulated by Ordinance 91 -11, as stated in the application: (a) Caretaker Units: The planning Director may permit one caretaker dwelling unit attached to a single family home (hereinafter "principal dwelling') on any lot which conforms to the minimum lot area requirements within the R -6, R -15, R30, AF -1, AF -2, RS -20, RS-30 and RS -160 zone districts under the following conditions and limitations: (1) Attached caretaker units shall not exceed seven hundred square feet of floor area, except that caretaker units in the R -6 and R -15 shall be limited to four hundred square feet of floor area. (2) The total floor area of the principal and caretaker unit shall not exceed the allowable FAR of the applicable zone district. (3) There shall be provided one (1) off - street parking space for each bedroom within the principal unit and one (1) off - street parking space for each bedroom in the caretaker unit. (4) The applicant shall by deed restriction or other permanent commitment running with the land, guarantee that the caretaker unit shall not be required to be rented; not be condominiumized or sold; not be occupied by the owner or spouse; be limited to occupancy by not more than two (2) adults, and related children, who qualify as (and have been found by the Housing Office to be) employees of the community under such guidelines as may be from time to time established by said Authority; be rented for terms not less than six (6) months if rented. The caretaker dwelling may be occupied by members of the immediate family even though they may not qualify as employees of the community. 'Immediate Family' shall mean a person related by blood or marriage who is a first cousin (or closer relative) and his or her children. A deed restriction must be recorded by the applicant pursuant to building permit approval. A copy of this deed restriction can be obtained through the Housing office. Once the signatures of the owner(s) have been notarized, the document can be taken to the Housing Office, along with a $5 fee per page for recording purposes (with the check being made out to the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder), and the Housing office will record the document. \word \work \pearson.ref E t7U�'J11J 2/10103 12:40:41 FROM: JAMES P. CROWLEY Papa 2 of 2 BRDSH CREEK LANDOWNERS ASSOCIATION P.O. Box 4323 AsPEN. CO 81612 Mr. Tim Malloy Aspen /Pitkin Planning and Zoning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Tim: The Brush Creek Landowners Association has no objection to the application filed by Spencer Pearson for a Caretaker Unit. The Board of Directors position in regard to these units is that, so long as they are under 700 square feet, we will not object to them. Units exceeding 700 square feet, however, are felt to be out of character with the neighborhood and tend to present problems to the roads and water system. The Brush Creek Village Water District has reminded Mr. Pearson that the addition of a second kitchen will require the payment of an additional tap fee. He has also been informed that the District has a real problem (the potential for cross connection) with the use of a well inside a structure receiving water service from the District. Should you have any questions, please call me at 923 -4372. Sincerely, /s/ James P. Crowley James P. Crowley President utJ6 A P E A R S O N Ms. Ellen Sassano Pitkin County Planning Department Aspen, CO 81612 December 22, 1992 0 Re: Pearson Residence Caretaker Application, Pitkin County, AF -1 zone, 2.2 acre, Lot 13, Block 7, First Filing, Brush Creek Village Dear Ellen: I want to convert a portion of my existing residence to use as a caretaker unit in accordance with the terms of Section 3 -8.13 (as amended by Ord. 91 -11) of the Pitkin County Code. In reviewing Ordinance 91- 11(c), I find that my proposed caretaker unit fulfills the criteria: - under 700 square feet - non - conforming size lots - attached or within the principal residence My home in Brush Creek Village is 2.2 acres zoned nonconforming AF -1. My wife and I have lived on this property for 8 years and we have been expanding our home over the last two years and hope to finish that expansion in 1993. It seems that no sooner did our home start expanding than my wife started expanding and we now have a child due in March. My mother -in -law is coming to live with us and I want to convert a portion of our home into a caretaker unit for her. The expansion that we have been doing has been in two parts: Building Permits #1990 -1569 and #1991 -1 -185. The first part of that expansion is complete with a CO and when we complete the second in 1993 we will have a single structure five (5) bedroom house of 5,000 square feet. The area of our home that we want to convert to a caretaker unit is 687 square feet containing one bedroom with separate living, dining, and kitchen area and two baths. We live in this part of our home presently while we await completion of the entire project. ,.. 1-. I have included a site plan for our property that shows the existing and approved structures on our property. The proposed caretaker unit is highlighted. Five parking spaces as well as the driveway access for my property are also shown on the site plan. Please note that the caretaker unit I am applying for requires no new structure and no external change in the existing and approved home on this site. The well that has served my property for eight years will continue to serve the caretaker unit. A black water /grey water septic system is already in place and approved by Environmental Health to serve the five bedrooms of the complete structure which includes the proposed caretaker unit. As proof of ownership I have included a copy of my Title Insurance Policy. I would like to point out that Section 10 of the Protective Covenants for Brush Creek Village (attached), specifically allows "One guest or servant house" for each property in our subdivision. Given that all properties within Brush Creek Village have the mutual right to a caretaker unit under our covenants and given that my proposed caretaker unit fits the criteria of Ordinance 91 -11 at Section (c), I request that the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners approve my application for this unit. Thank you for your time and for creating this worthwhile piece of legislation. Sincerely, / pencer G. earson List of Attachments: 1 - Site Plan 2- Copy of Title Insurance Policy 3- Protective Covenants of Brush Creek Village 4- Personal Check for $200 Jt 'UjJ-, YI �i s,'fc P /arm - n �,jk p n /y�t�c .'k.y I�rra s %Y�$�OCr sLt.�c fde ei' — IMN/SE EIEVATO 100' -0" = SITE E(EVAfly III' Existing Contours -1' interval — Finish Contours - 2' interval .. v SAFECO t- D. No. 10/13 -OP N° 000366 POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE SAFECO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF TRACY TITLE LTD. 601 East Hyman Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE, THE EXCEPTIONS CONTAINED IN SCHEDULE B AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS HEREOF, SAFECO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a California corporation, herein called the Company, insures, as of Date of Policy shown in Schedule A, against loss or damage, not exceeding the amount of insurance stated in Schedule A, and costs, attorneys's fees and expenses which the Company may become obligated to pay here- under., sustained or incurred by the insured by reason of 1. Title to the estate or interest described in Schedule A being vested otherwise than as stated therein; 2. Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on such title; 3. Lack of a right of access to and from the land; or 4. Unmarketability of such title. In Witness Whereof, SAFECO Title Insurance Company has caused this policy to be signed and sealed by its duly authorized officers as of Date of Policy shown in Schedule A. r' Secretary President ALTA OWNER'S POLICY FORM 6 - 1970 (Amended 10- 17 -70) GSP -219 (Rev. 7.81) iJ��,JL i Agent File No. SP-83-1789 Amount of Insurance. S I ; 8,000.00 1. Name of Insured: Premium 5398.50 Date of Policy: JUNE 16, 1983 AT 12:01 PM SPENCER G. PEARSON 2. The estate or interest in the land described herein and which is covered by this policy is. IN FEE, SIMPLE 3. The estate or interest referred to herein "is at Date of Policy vested in SPENCER G. PEARSON 4. The land referred to in this policy is described as follows LOT 13, BLOCK 7 BRUSH CREEK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO .f 7 P E A R S O N Ms. Ellen Sassano Pitkin County Planning Department Aspen, CO 81612 January 18,1993 0 Re: Pearson Residence Caretaker Application, Pitkin County Ord. 91 -11. Dear Ellen: JAN 1 9 1093 This letter and accompanying drawings is in response to your request for additional information concerning floor plans for my proposed caretaker unit as well as clarification of the total number of bedrooms. First, a clarification of the total number of bedrooms. Five bedrooms have already been approved for my home and none of them are changing. I am not building anything new. There will be a total of five (5) bedrooms on the entire property just as approved. Those five bedrooms are exactly the same five bedrooms whether or not the caretaker unit is approved. The only thing that would change is the title of the people who will sleep in them!! In other words, one of those five bedrooms would now be called a "caretaker bedroom ". The attached floor plan shows that "caretaker bedroom" and it appears on the "Lower Floor Plan ". The other four bedrooms will remain in the balance of the house just where they were. There would still be just five (5) bedrooms on the property. Nothing has changed. Having clarified the number of bedrooms let's see if I can clarify the floor plans. The attached floor plans are a zerox copy from the approved building plans (1990 Permit #1569) for that portion of my home. Referring to the site plan I enclosed with my application you can see the relation of this two story caretaker unit to the whole home and its connection to the home via a common area that also serves as an energy efficient airlock entry. -I U U'I C- y_ I have attached a page with some calculations footage of the areas under consideration. The this two story structure is 870 square feet. I airlock entry in these calculations because it is shared with the rest of my home. CM to show the square gross square footage of have not included the a common area I have highlighted two areas on this floor plan. The first area is the stairwell with a total of 40.03 square feet. The other area is the storage area on the lower floor with a total of143.08 square feet. I think it is reasonable that a stairwell should only be counted once because it isn't really on both floors. As for the storage area, I propose to deadbolt off the bedroom access door to this storage area so that the only access will be from outside where it can be used by the entire property. If we subtract these two areas from the total gross square footage, then 682.22 square feet will remain for the proposed caretaker unit. Had Ordinance 91 -11 existed when I was building this portion of my residence and had I known my wife was going to get pregnant and that I would need a caretaker unit for my mother -in -law, I might have designed my entire home differently. Instead I find myself trying to make an existing structure fit the criteria of the ordinance after the fact. Given that, I have attempted in the fairest way possible to conform to Ordinance 91 -11 (c). I hope the information I have presented in this letter was helpful. Please contact me if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, i y ncer G. Pearson 6uC,j,23 9 ry rn E a � O o= r m N - K xx v� U U O 0 0 0 0 4 � I E P I 0 � U W v E O P y LU Q O � N s � U m W vi N T Z N S/ s i E - ,L T .(1 l p _ _ r �Ir In OSOZ '- I � v v 0 0 0 N b v G d _ O• d � C C T O - I I� n i b F W p C7 W rn LO � Q V � J W W � Z Ci sOc Z ., v 1 _ _ r �Ir In OSOZ '- I � v v 0 0 0 N b v G d _ O• d � C C T O - I I� n i b (7 r o I M .- rn U O y N � L � 7 - L .1 Z ., v J a �. � v m o u v �i J o a ZI o o u o �I � _ F o 0 N LLI o - v Z v _ O,o _J' U LL, Z w (7 r o I M .- rn uduJ /§ �$ƒ � ƒƒ a k -a- �Q a / \Lij k{ ? } o a2{- �f { � -- ? - >, - -- — - — y � $ ƒ • L ` j z�? _L. 2 � % ( qki -� i7 o «2 / \J'2§£ 0 � �CO � �■ tm �___ �$ƒ � ƒƒ a k -a- �Q a / \Lij k{ ? } o a2{- �f { � -- ? - >, - -- — - — y � $ ƒ • L ` j z�? _L. 2 � % ( qki MEMORANDUM r TO: Pearson Caretaker Dwelling Unit File FROM: Debbie DuBord RE: Applicant's Complaint DATE: February 8, 1993 Mrs. Pearson came to the office today. Her husband Spencer did not feel that they should have to bear the expense of mailing the public notices return receipt requested. I got a copy of Ord. 91- 11 and showed her where it stated that this is the applicants responsibility. I told her that she could put our return address on the green return card and then we would get them directly. I also told her that mailing the notices return receipt requested was actually to their benefit because we would have proof in the file that the adjacent property owners where notified in the case of any complaints from them after the fact. Her husband also wanted us to know that he was unhappy about having to buy a whole roll of film to take 1 picture of the posted sign. I said that I was sure that he could find other uses for the rest of the film. Mrs. Pearson asked if they could bring the picture to the hearing and I said yes. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE SUMMARY SHEET Date: Chairperson: Case Name: nfin Agent /Representative: REFERRAL COMMENTS SUMMARY: City Engineer: (memo forthcoming: yes no ) County Engineer: (memo : yes no ) Fire Department: (memo: yes no ) Parks Department: (memo: yes no ) Building Department: (memo: yes no ) Housing Authority: (memo: yes no ) Attorney: (memo: yes no ) other: General Comments: L ,jv +)L m c O o coM c G LL C P 293 717 750 Receipt for Certified Mail ® No Insurance Coverage Prr o, , a,IEE Do not use for Internat,ont !See Reverse) U;.1*23 m O 0 ^7 F O LL C m 0 O p M E n LL 0 N 293,717 751 Receipt for Certified Mail I IF. No Insurance Coverage Provided ,11 Do not use for International Mail (See P.aversej P 293 7117 749 Receipt for Certified Mail NO Insurance Coverage Provided EEP -E Do not use for International Mail (See Reverse) m m c O 0 CIO M E LL N a P 293 717. 752 Receipt for Certified Mail B Go not ',.ea I r I11:;rn3oa131 Brad (See Re.erI n, C //�56 eo /z/- III � 1�C�` ✓, /, Ce'd rlNA au /,- 026, �$s'P C.{ Pn,rage -Z $ dy E 0 C, 0 w CO 197Pr1 r' --'- is ---,2 a ° P 293 7117 749 Receipt for Certified Mail NO Insurance Coverage Provided EEP -E Do not use for International Mail (See Reverse) m m c O 0 CIO M E LL N a P 293 717. 752 Receipt for Certified Mail B Go not ',.ea I r I11:;rn3oa131 Brad (See Re.erI n, C //�56 eo /z/- III � F,iu' Pn,rage -Z .er1le�..e ��- c E 0 SPr�.a Del, .�.. F w CO Femrr Peraml 5 o.ui �" j c'v`Ihom. 5 GalenGelr. ere Sewn d,swol Sn,,ng ;o whom, Cate ann :,::rse =- .. t•edr =s �C 2 Poelm�rl or Gaes 3(Ep ,o aEw!sod 6elsaa raioi ( �6;.i�no �S wee urnl..y rJ �;an;;a•g ca 'cc4na of Vo sOy YF ay u:nle� Y P"I��,ISa}f sae n,.:. �i:,a IpnaCc n0' zS a6e�,n, i a =.3) . G~-7 =n < :N pu[ I11u;, )asJanaa aaS) IieW leuogecialul Jo) asn Sou oC ier + +E �3a.n F cid a6e18w3 a3uelnsu) ON F,lJN P9l111a90 ao} idlanaa Bht ?U. E62$d T 0 3 4 a C C c UijC,)) Is your URN m u T N N 3 ]m W c 00 io io � D D � a O � N n y 3 3 � m m N P 0 'o E G O 3 m f/1 1 m C Z rr m m Z Is your N ] m N a M O 4DDRESS completed on the reverse side! V ,SRS D 68 m memo Fmrn Ei- rv` m 3 c 3 E3 '3 N » A g 37 'm E7 '3 \ O m m e q �� r1 z f 3 r^ m m 0 a- ❑ ❑ ❑� d ° m K m m (n D n 3 m = Q J C = ? �< ❑❑❑ O N N d ry F ``1\ w 6 N �m p a \ m n m o z d O N O N m N % O N � R Thank you for using Return Receipt Service. completed on the reverse side? Is your RETURN ADDRESS completed on the reverse side 3 ..N nnm 3 �DC Dam " 3 » 0 0 2 m = m 3 3 °?3 D0cZ 3 m o - moo cz ci M 9 m mo m a » 33Z 4 D m3 ^2 'n3 N3.. D a 3 < d mJ" 3� w m o a W 00 'm c " �� �^ 3? 3'^m� A ¢ n ❑❑❑ Fa and F ° a rn 3 -a m nno 3 m m � m J-1 m � c m O C � 7 9 3a < F 33 3 4 ,w Is your RETURN ADDRESS completed on the reverse side Is your RETURN ADDRESS completed on the reverse side 3 ..N cn 3 m M D0cZ 3 m o O N m mo m a » 33Z G� Z] -- p :Ed D a 1" �� d mJ" 3� ❑ ❑ 5 o n W 00 'm c " �� �^ 3? 3'^m� A ¢ n ❑❑❑ Fa and m m a m? rn ` m -a m nno 3 J-1 m O ,m.. N0 \\\p 9 3a 3 4 ,w Z 3� m o l �A \ \� o o m q m D m 'f J\ 2t, m n A m m a m y O ao 0 m F m ^3 = o m m N � n 7 � - � x p using Return Receipt Service. O m C] 9 m e n 0. 3 m c �a�N� a � N r N G D 1n m� m 3 m nm O 0 N O_ N P Ca n� m J ❑❑ ❑Q ^ d m C "D m m dQ 3 O m = T n�D O N Is your RETURN ADDRESS completed on the reverse side e. 3. .. N N 3 m M y d m o O N m mo O G� Z] -- p :Ed to 1 a 1" �� d mJ" 3� ❑ ❑ 5 o n aD d< me q D O3 u- ¢ n ❑❑❑ Fa and m m a m? rn ` m -a m nno 3 m O ,m.. N0 \\\p 9 3 4 ,w O O — Z 3� m o �.. \ nm D m a m y O ao 0 m F m ^3 = o m m N � n n S - Thank you for using Return Receipt Service. Is your RETURN ADDRESS completed on the reverse side Thank you for using Return Receipt Service e. 3. .. N N w<�Fh D3T nnm m o ur m D moo =v =339°32 a�3o N o 0 M O00 m �. �A� D m33o 33i H- � 6 q D O3 u- � n N Fa and ` m -a m nno 3 N0 \\\p ,w 3 m n 3� m o �.. \ m 3 ao 0 m F m ^3 = o m n S v ❑❑Q m O d D O m C] 9 m e n 0. 3 m c �a�N� a � N r N G D 1n m� m 3 m w O O 0 N O_ N P Ca F' y OL m m KM n5 3 O m = T O N N N n N A J >• 3 a �_ n m- Z D m o 0 m c m < N s o ^ a Thank you for using Return Receipt Service SENDER: 'y • Complete item, richer 2 for additional services m • Complete item ,rid 4a & b. • Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can m return this card to you. is • Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back if space does not permit. V• Write "Return Receipt Requested" on the madpiece below the article number • The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the datri Cdelivered m 3. Article Addressed to: 4a. Art E [4b Ser v �J'� %� �Q �i/I�� L� //A- /�t� %S Reg, -ISO wish to receive the fol ag services (for an extra 4; O fee): '� 1. ❑ Addressee's Address N H 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery •d Consult postmaster for fee. m Certified ❑ Express Mail ❑ Insured ❑ COD ❑ Return 7. Date of Delivery J C` VEB 11 1993 ¢ 5. Signature IAddrBssee) B. Addressee's Address (Only 3 � and fee is paid) F- cc b. Signature (Agent) 0 0 % Fb Form 3811, December 1991 *U.S.GPO:1992� 3 -402 DOMESTIC RETURN iJ:J I+ -31 z e ceipt for se `o 0 0 requested Y c w f ASPEN /PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street �// co Aspen, Colorado 81611 d (303) 920 -5090 ( { LAND USE APPLICATION FEES CITY: - 63250 -134 - 63270 -136 - 63280 -137 - 63300 -139 - 63310 -140 - 63320 -141 - 63330 -150 -63432 -157 -63432 -157 - 00100;00000 -31070 ".1201( HISTORIC PRESERVATION: - 63335 -151 - 63336 -152 - 63337 -153 - 63338 -154 - 63339 -155 1010P12WA - 63160 -126 - 63170 -127 - 63180 -128 - 63190 -129 - 63200 -130 - 63210 -131 - 63220 -132 - 63230 -133 - 63240 -149 -63450 -146 - 63235 -148 REFERRAL FEES: - 63360 -143 00115 - 63340 -163 00123 - 63340 -190 00125 - 63340 -205 PLANNING OFFICE SALES: - 63080 -122 69000 145 203- Zoy 66 —d GMP /Conceptual GMP /Final SUB /Conceptual SUB /Final All -2 Step Applications All 1 Step Applications Staff Approval Zoning Plan Check Sign Permit Use Tax for Sign Permits Exemption Minor Major Devel. Signd. Devel. Demolition GMP /General GMP /Detailed GMP /Final SUB /General SUB /Detailed SUB /Final All 2 Step Applications All 1 Step Applications Staff Approval Board of Adjustment Zoning Plan Check Engineering - County Engineering - City Housing Environmental Health County Code Other 'Co Fees) uuu, -j - - PY TOTTAL Lbo Ica Name: ��-'r Phone: 5-58q—? 3 I Address: Project: p-Q- 0�t.1. wv k" A t.� it Check tY: I Date: No of Copies: P4 I I � I m