The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutbocc.min.reg.06271989 �,�, � ' r.. .. ...... ,., . ..... _. _ � : .. .. ........... ... , �.:.�3 :. � - ., ' Mt �{ r '.1 �;G 7 S jM�ir� �''s' 3t`� fJ t �� t� ; . ? �,`,t��N�., ' , r � � .�`��.�. .��+�,�``„`�:��t��;.� �..��X . s!. ''. - . . tae�,,.. ��"+�.`",,. �r�an�r cr�currY aa�za�s ��t r�rn�x�n-__.... vis-trict cbcat :? '"r`;.:`..,. 7UFSOAY. JU21E 27� 1989 ` `�::.j. (kYed Crualey rsot presezttj �'� ;•: 1 5:30 PM I�7SLTC CL�T�f�3�lP a„- . � . � C�AGIIJOA 2. zasacky Te�ozary vse Pez,nit, r'rar�ci.s xrizmanich _ 2. First Reading, 1989 St�plemental Budget Rasalution, Lynn Dunlop IAt3D USE IAND USE HE90IU1TQIS � �. 1 .. IAt1D[JSE rI�S � " - 3. Mo�ultain View C�dominiwns Detailed St*!�+�s�ion Budd 7vicero � r:%,�� 4. Fax Subdivision � Y k�tmiption for flttly Developed IatxLs, Cindy Houben 5. Redstone Papcorn Wagan - Gayla Gr�ozy, FYancis I{rizmanich f6. Fimsgerx,y Resolution - Amerdinq the Iand Use Code, �n Sfiith i AJffiTC E�AlFII�S 7. ASPOOL(.bzg. S�ecial Review and Exnployee Dwelling Unit, Buddy Iuoero :j 8. Fi�uitex Longixxtise R:tailed Sukmission ar�d Final Plat, Cincly Ha�e.n - � 3. Ziegler Law I�act Stibdivision, Cizxiy Hwben ; 20. Aspen Va12ey Fiospital �SastPS Plan, Buddy 7�acem SRFAK � AdY�II21ISTRAIlON �r; � PC7BL,iC E�RI2JC� �; lI. Thixd Read'ux,�, Brush Creek Village Raad Restriction Ame�i�t, 'IYxit i Newlan3 � � 12. Resoluti� �orazily Amend.ing Article 32 of the Aisport Ste�ulations y; � �� to pennit Iimited curfew exe�tion for the Snc,wma_ss Balloon F�tival, Hrad Christ�ier � �IIliZC�S 1�t�D Q�S2ACI5 °. 13. Seowx3 R�.ir�g, Fast Aspen Mettc�politan District, Tim Y�itsitt t � 14. 1989 FAA k�titlem_nt FUnds Por Aispolt, Brad Clzristophex { .AL17U)I��I � i -_ 4 � PIFA5�NC7L�: AII,F[7HLIC F�ARIN6 ARE tX7PIC�Figt 5:30 PM. ACIUAL TIl�fES W1Id.VP.FtY. { �:;}.:t: ! � ;: � „��. < ,�a` ! �� ,_ �,� ;�; "'� ,�� .�' . � ., .,,: . -;.,.. �__.:.:: . .._^. ___ ___ .�--;,..+.�.�.,...r ►+ : 1 `� .... . .... ....:...._ ... . . ' . . . . _ . ` . , 4 ' - -:..:._„s✓�.'. .'.. ' ". ... �� t`-` �.�-.��.: . . ,. . ' +��fi:�.y�i . ' .. . - . ' av �.'."� _ � :�,y i .. "`'ii::;�"` , t . ` ` a L�' - :s;:. . . . . � . t . .d.,c.. ::},.�.;:.,�L-,.:.,. - . ,r��y*v, . . . :I'f'wT.7'�S`',� .,,;:.�',;�,ti<�:: . .. ;�.,�.;�., . y>.�.,r,r.. .. . . . .��"(� �� . � k.�;,� ,� " • ��'Sk��":. . . .... . ....... ... . .. . , .,.� �_. _ . . �'�, . _ . � ti: , ... ._ . .. .y� � K y�� r��v r-K ti�. �li, . . . u:�,. . t�.•:L .. :.. �;;{ '�k i �'��,�%'�� . ' . `��k�'•��SfI?:��=��..i�N'.�3.��."r�S�W�F�4iS"�":�.� , 6:�.� •.___ /4._ K�� '��G . `_� 1 Lr�t'` � . . )C.. �'�Si":xtt�f...�.�. . . P�II� Q�N.PY �2�RTSSTQ� HHUTAR 2�F1.' a AC�A____.. IJis'hcict aotst �_ ZT7FSL�AY. JLR� 27. 1989 '� �.i:' � (Fred Qzxaley not pro�„t� ?",,: t-.. . 5:30 PM POSCSC 02�3TL' �`•� p QNSENP AGFSII]A -- _"::, 1. ZasackY �'�4'��Y Use Permit, Francis Krizmanich #$. 2. First Reading, 1989 Supplemental Budqet R��olution, Lynn Dunlop (�: �� IAND USE 7AND DSE RF507UPZQ�S . ' - �. IAND i]SE IPH335 F: ,'.� 3. Mountain View Condominiw� Detailed SUksni.ssion, Buddy iuceiv �� `'�? 4. Fosc Subdivisf� Ex�tion for FUlly L�veloped Iands, CirKly HoubPn _�� 5. Redstone Popcorn Wagon - Gayla Gi.-�agory, Fkancis itrizmanich ",=a 6. F1t�ezge�x.y Resolution - Ame�ixig the Iard Use Ua1e, R�wn Smith '=.�:� A76I,'IC I� -� ' 7. ASRroL c:orp, special Review arxi II�loyee Dwelli.ng vnit, Buddy Iucem - .:i,��_� ;;7i 8. Fiunter Innghouse Detailed Slilmission aT�cl Final Plat, Cindy HWbP� , ' ;:�;,'n;•� 9. Ziegler Tpw Impact Subdivi.sion, Ci[rly Houben : ��. � 10. Aspe�s Valley Hospital Master Plan, Huddy Iucero � -r;::� ffi2E�AIC :�� AIY7IIlISPRA�TOTT RJELZC F�EAR� .-;`_� 11. Third Readiryg, Brush C�:eek Vil.lage Raad Restriction Amer�nt, 'Itnn , ,-+`� Newland . .';J� 12. Re.solution 4�mq�orarily A�ing Article 32 of the AiYport Regulations ;� to pe=mit limited curfew exemption for the Snowmass Balloon Festival, ' �ad Christc�aher I�S07ST1T�S AtID C�7ISti�GTS ' .;'� '�.,� 13. SeooQ�d Readirx,�. East Aspen Metivpolitan District, Tim Whitsitt , s� 14. 1.989 FAA getit7.�nent T�1u�ds for Aizport, Srad Christopher AIITWRN , �. :� � r • .�;i j PIE�SE NOPE: ALi,PUSLIC F�iRINGS AF�2J(7ISC�FL�2 5:30 PM. ACl[Il�L TII��S W1I�VARY. � `�.: <� � ��;, ::, �.;=�F.: _ � .f:. . ,':;' . cx.: `'� ,f:' :i;: , a � ;,��au,., ...,.. .�...._ :._.,..._�.: . ., _.,` . _._. _ _ __,,,� _ _ _ �. ,. . _ __, r- _�" . . - . . . ... . , r��.��r�:� 4 G ��''''`` S`�Es� F":' ( Y -�`�' 'r: ' ' � _ \ N . ' f � ,. �.''j:�F:�`• , ' . . . •+��."',��.+'� . . , . '.��_ .Rr:"' � .. , . ' t.t 'T�''�.,q`,-"'- . . ' :�{5:�s,',;%t� . : . � -.t'-;�%:,:.=4+'... .. ��.i��'ti:�. _J�F:i:�i��^ , , :G�.'rt'I�K. � a . - §r S- . ,'�:i'�' � „ '� . .. .. . .. � �w- • . . _• -.. ......_._ - � . jq�:. ��y��y �'��sj�.'t}.,1r, ,�'1 .� �a��.a:!'i.M�^,'s.�.�°Sl1��IV��`y��•dY;"�^��-�£,�}5,..�.. . ._a7 '�'.(-��,'�.��d�� .,;Il. ;�ba�v',_�'"��f!.'n.��' �5?��`�f� APPROVED A7� � �u��s) MINUTES MEETING PITKIN COUN'PY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMTSSIONERS REGQLAR MEETING � -, , JiTNE 27. 1989 Fx, r `; MEMHERS PRESENT: ChaiYman Colette Penne, Commissioners Herschel � Ross, Jim True and Wayne Ethridge CALL TO ORDBR: The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. PTJBLIC COYIl�EN'P: E.J. obermeyer appeared before the Board to �"; �EN �; '��'� voice opposition to a proposed emergency resolution amending an ' exemption from the Growth Management Quota System and other code #; �.��':� provisions pertaining to remodeling, restoration, reconstruction of replacement of any 2egally established structure. She stated, �� that she feels the resolution is unconstitutional and affects the �-3 rights and many advantages of a property owner in Pitkin County. ��7 Therefore, she asked that Commissioners reject the proposed 4:-� resolution. ,.� Ms. Obermeyer was advised that a property such as hers where there is an already subdivided lot with an existing structure ,;j;;� would not be affected by the resolution. It is intended to keep � properties with multiple small structures from having the right „,ti� to rebuild those as very large houses. CONSENT AGENDA' m � ',� APPROVAL OF MINLITES OE JUNE 13 1989 -,-�, `_'M' RE507UTION APPOINTING JOAN OSTWAI�D AND DAVID BROWN TO THE BOARb � =�V-.��``. OF AATUSTMENT ..`:{'� - „';4� ED ZASACKY APPLICATION TO RETATN ERISTING RESIAENCE DURING CONSTRIICTION OF NEW RESIDENCE - Francis Krizmanich, representing _ a the Planning Office, summarized this item by stating, that Mr. r;��"� Zasacky has applied for approval to keep his existing home as his � '� living quarters while he constructs a new residence on the same property ��'4 s + FIRST READING - 1989 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET RESOLUTION - Lynn + : . •r Dunlop, Budget Director, stated, that based on the discussion € � with Jim Adamski, Housing Director, at a work session yesterday, � it was agreed that a specific person would not be hired to handle r project coordination. Therefore, she would like to amend the E , '^.,.� resolution on first reading to strike the language and the +�,,,.�s accounting of that. �!� , � ✓ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1�' JONE 27, 1989 � �, 4.. +� +.o {. . i��. _ . _ '. . —=- %�. - "'' ` �" _ � � � - � ' ' ,;., . >ti�' A,��'; �� - �':��, _ :i�, r'��:=a�; . :�,..:�: . . ::,'''`�`_= ,� �► � �, - ._ ..� - ` � { '' . , _� 1 -�'r S =,�y� � tm�..'5� � �f �'t . . � 3 � ... � .�'��t��?��L� ��''� �t� .y� q�9 � f...�r.a'r�:a�. L9Y.w�;'�: tJ6l��:�?Ii��L�.c�i,�.:, I i'!2: .. _ ... . � �'; .:dWai1. �.�i�,3.,.4 �iu�. �tir'�v'�pxra�' cd�+ -,;r�. . . .,a.��l tt:, "��' .. _,.�. Commissioner Ross moved approvaz of the consent agenda. Commissioner True seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. MOUNTAIN VIEW CONDOMINIUMS PCTD DETAILD SUBMISSTON MOTION TO ' APPROVE - pA$SED WITH THI2EE YEA VOTES AND ONE ABSTENTION- Buddy �`:"' Lucero, representing the PZanniteg Office, summarized this item by �:;: stating, that the applicant, Ralph Braden 3s requesting approval ii'?'" for Detailed Submission for the Mountain View Condominiums, an K:_ . eight unit residential project. The applicant proposes six free '>,' • market units and remodeling one existing unit into moderate employee nnits on approximately one acre. ' =' � StafE recommends approval of the project subject to the applicant �'- � resolving all outstanding issues, and subject to the conditions ;' ` - � outlined in the Planning and Zoning Commission resolution. A copy of these conditions are made a part of this record as � �` � EXh7.2�i.t nAn §i ;•� ;:'`. `,� =t., Lucero stated, that with regard to Condition No. lo addressing ,':�� employee housing, in the original application the applicant had proposed to do two three bedroom units. However, due to the si2e ;'� of the lot being only one acre in size he would exceed the required lot area. Theretore, he went back to his original `� request of having one three bedroom and one-one bedroom, and this ; affects the pay in lieu which is indicated in the condition as ":?� 3.35. In talking with the applicant's representative Sunny Vann ^�•� and the housing authority the numbers will vary but he will ;.� provide the amount required as cash in lieu. Therefore, he ` suggested that the Condition read subject to the Housing =� Authority's approval. Sunny Vann, representing the applicant, stated, that with regard 3�� to the FAR of the project, it has gone up and down approximately 100 feet sevezal different times. Therefore, he is a reluctant ;g to get approval for the FAR that they have at this time because he knows that by the time the architect goes to the building `�' plans there will be minor change in them again. He requested ;;.� that there be an understanding that as long as they don't exceed � the maximum level they would not have to appear before the Board . _� again with an amendment. .-. It was agreed that a condition would be added establishing a � maximum FAR £or the project. Commissioner Ethridge stated, that because he was involved prior p ::;: _ . � to his election 'as a consultant on the project he would be � abstaining from voting on this matter. i Commissioner Ross moved to have staff draw up a resolution for �x�.��..=�� the Chairman's signature approving the Mountain View Condominiums ''.+;�'. PUD Detailed Submission. Commissioner True seconded, and the ;7v' � 2 ':, ;� .t BOARD OF COQNTY COMMISSIONERS JUNE 27, 1989 '. 'r: � =�, �r -.',�i E '�1 ` �r � ,.�. _��k , - :._=.a.:-�-y�� - �-.r:' ` �. - - ,\ - � l s�_= - . ;;:+'� '" . �.:eu„ -..a?�� -"�•.,;; �:t,�� . h�s'' . - ,;s! « . �;`,v.r:,,i. . y� 'xi�;.<}` +� r 7 ..,:, .. :. .. .... ......... . , Y,VT _ . .. . .:..........._ . .. .. . .. �... .�a;., . � �. . . 1�, "`�'�j(p[ �'a � y� r'; ,t - r ' A 9 � �'f �( y� y�+��}��{� .j !�e '' (� � 'y`y�r`"T4�.y,�4��.�-A..� �1 9rr(+)��;��[1yy�1.�l�tY� ��..'�`[( *F'�a -r�}'��`L'��,��Y�,ZA�y�k �Z� ,��,$.�"�-��a �' (Z.1 ..�� . � � �M..�-��.3T4�e. .. ��A�l�1��3,'uldS+�Y�:�et��J��Tl. a�}� ��?�.xr-:,wu...�hi';.a'�es.n.. ...��t":�4��`%�-?,�.�5�.._�,.`y motion passed with three yea votes with one abstention by Commissioner Ethridge. FOX SUBDIVISION EXEMpTION FOR FULLY DEVEIAPED LANDS - MOTTON TO APPROVE - PASSED IINANIMOIISLY - Ellen Sassano, representing the �- Planning offiae, summarized this item by stating, that the k.;, applicant, Patrick Pox is requesting approval of a Subdivision Exemption for Fully Developed Lands pursuant to Section 4- �, �- 2.2(a)(6) of the Land Use Code. He owns a 4.Z74 acre parcel on ti' which there are three dwellings. Two of the units are single - family and one is a dupl.ex. He wishes to demolish or remove �:a existing units and use development rights for said units to � subdivide the parcel into four lots. �4', -; Staff recommends approval of the Fox Subdivision Exemption for E�;. ,.;``� Fully Developed Lands subject to the conditions stated in the +_ Fi: ::�;, Planning office memorandum. Said conditions recommend approval • of three lots rather than four lots as re f`?• ��.:� quested by the applicant. '! '!'i Patrick Fox presented Commission members with a letter in support . • " a of his application. A copy of this letter is made a part of this �::� record as Exhibit "B°. _� — Chairman Penne introduced into the record ietters from some of ;,`::r� the adjacent landowners supporting the Planning Staff's r�';; recommendation with regard to Mr. Fox's application. A copy of `j`:�.�i these letters are made a part of this record as Exhibit °C". ';;';� A discussion ensued with regard to this matter. _ _�.� Commissioner Ethridge moved approval of staff's recommendation of two lots with a maximum size of 5,000 square feet on each of the �`�� two lots and subject to all other conditions reflected in staff's �:::� memo. Commissioner True seconded, and the motion passed ,`.:� unanimously. j_} REBSTONE POPCORN WAGON - MOTION TO DENY - PASSED UNANIMOIISLY- ,;;:_� Francis Krizmanich, representing the Planning Office, summarized this item by stating, that on September 27, 1988, the Board granted Special Review approval to Gayla Gregory for the - Picadilly Circus Popcorn Wagon in Redstone. The conditions of the approval were outlined in Resolution No. 88-98. The 2oning ,_y Department has received a complaint from the Redstone Historic r `�� Preservation Committee alleging a vio2ation of Condition No. 5 �:; . : , � which states: k p "The wagon shall be designed as presented at the July 27, � # 1987 public hearing to look like the osgood Parlour Car. �� I ` i,.-: Any changes to the wagon will be reviewed by the Planriing •"?� •� Office, if the Planning office finds the changes to be 4 �� substantial, such changes will be presented to the Board of � ��. S�r.( .:i 3 a BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS JUNE 27, 1989 ��I,: . ,� �-. `,�;� .� f. f�.�� - . �. . _ _ _ � - , . � � � ti�'�, ;;a-;:: � •:,:;; ';�:ti��z, � � - - ` �; ,.. ._, . . .._ . _ . . .... . _ . ,,. � � ,�, ;�° � ,� � y�, � . � �� rt . �� ,f'�'� 4 K �,•. ��,��, ' � .�ra �( M.:��. st#� �� ' � {�< <�f i�,�t-:,. ��,�r-_��4 . � '��+}[.�� A : . ��"34-��: � �5.��s��..f�s c..�t w.....?:s'[. ��' .v�r. ,r..._ ..5<!..�,-¢t, l��d ti.h_..�"-h-_,4,� County Commissioners for their consideration and approval. Curtains will not be required to be located on the windows of the wagon.�� Ae further stated, that the popcorn wagon placed this year 2�- _ appears to be different in design from last year's wagon. Cindy �i< Houben of the Planning Office, has determined that the current " wagon design does represent a substantial change from the design ��, which was a f' ` " pproved last year. � Chairman Penne proceeded to read into the record a Resolution of ' ' the Redstone Community Association. A copy of this resolution is -.'� made a part of this record as Exhibit "D^. f' Commissioner Ethridge commented, that he feels that Resolution �: -.;;i 88-98 which granted special review use for the popcorn wagon is '+: very specific, and he feels as far as the zoning enforcement is � �._:_� concerned staff was doing their job, following the process, and ;3' this is where the matter needs to be is before the Board at this ,,� t ime. _�� Gayla Gregory, owner of the popcorn wagon, stated, that as far as �� she knows the dimensions and color on the wagon are identical to ':�.:� what they were last year. She said they had to build a new wagon '? because the other one was not moveable any more. She presented .?�;1 Commission members with recent pictures of the new wagon. She �� said the dimensions of height, width, and length are exactly the :�,�'� same. ;;:� Chairman Penne stated, that the problem is the new wagon ,?�� resembles a sheepherder's chuck wagon. The wagon which was ' ��w � approved last year resembled the Osgood parlor car. A discussion ensued with regard to Ms. 6regory making � - :-;,� arrangements ta hook up to water and sewer. . ,`;::� Ms. Gregory stated, that they are in the process of communicating .'�� with the Redstone Water and Sewer Board about hooking up to water ..,� and sewer or not hooking up to water and sewer. ��' Eric Johnson, President of the Redstone Water and Sanitation � District, stated, that the district is not in the financial :,;� position to have existing commercial lots occupied by wagons which are not hooked into the system. Ae said the Mr. Hurley and ,� his attorney Mr. Klein have been notified of this, and was sent a 3.-;_. bill for a water and sewer tap and the monthly fee to bring the �.;>.:;..: ; wagon into compliance. The Redstone Water and Sanitation � ; District at this time " has not received those payments. � Therefore, he asked the Board to direct staff of the �' '`" E•.;;:�;;'. Environmental Health Department to red tag the Picadilly Popcorn �.;,> t Wagon on the basis of noncompliance with the District which is in � w � con�ormity with the Hoard of County Commissioners commitment to � j"' - 1 �t-. l `F at: ' 4 '=� BOARD OF COUN'PY COMMISSIONERS JUNE 27, 1989 ~ # .'� �. � r:� . . � . . . � . _: . � ,..- ' . - . ` . .. .__. __ _ . . `+^ � 7 _ ^\ _ . . ' 'y .i . ' �..F�..:::-'....�..�� . :iFr'C.:�::'si,"..',. . ..,�,,.``1,+;;;� .ysi'+•ir', � , {1�3, w . �,:1• ` _ ' . . ,�'^ . .. __. _._, . . . . _ . . ... _._ r2 . . - � . ' ._ .. . . . . ., tn�c7^c. ' � . ,. ...�. } 7 � ��,� �y�i'�'}�� t.f �` �_, � ys' 4��5 �+t�j�+�'� r i 1 v��p+ e9c��( ��5,, 5 � eK'�L�,�'�9��`��'�'Fy*�t fx��.�i.�r y t - � ��•��Tre�-,^ .. r V�. •�.. vdy +. �l��'6s.. � ,:yr�.. �xr s.>v.t.- lr.,i�[�f$.�'. .��N'tf.o:Ltt*�.3.M �. �-.•� +t. �S'.�,; �x.:{`� rt.l��»�5::` , ��i:. the Redstone Water and Sanitation District that they would help them enforce their rules and regulations. Bob Nelson, representing the Environmental Health Department, responded by stating, that there is nothing in the regulations which requires wagons, push carts, etc., to hook up to water and �, - : sanitation. In this particular case they did make a „:%' conscientious effort to reach a compromise between Ms. Gregory F" � and the water and sanitation district. The problem basically �- • s,.. . came down to one of the rules and regulations of the water and ti � sanitation district requiring both the water and sewer hook up. � i That put Ms. Gregory in the position of having to buy an easement across the existing road. There is a hydrant in the park next door to the wagon location, but the condition oF that easement to --� run a water service line to the park was that it not sezve that ��x ;�;:�� particular parcel. �,. �_i:�� With regard to the sewer, the 3�ine is fairly close and a tap t .,:.,� could be made easily. However, with regard to water, it would be '� very expensive and difficult to do. From a public heaith � ``��'Y`� standpoint, Ms. Gregory is complying with the criteria -`"�.� established for her water and sewer. �`�� Chairman Penne stated, that she feels there is some merit in not trying to work out the water and sewer problems at this meeting. :��'r� What needs to be focused on is whether or not there is a � �„� substantial change in the appearance of the wagon and a change in �:4�;�.�.� . „.',y the agreed upon conditions of the permit. rv:;'.�;� Commissioner Ross moved that the Soard find the Picadilly Circus Popcorn Wagon not in compliance with their Special Review Use a Permit. _ '� _=_�;-� Commissioner Ethridge seconded the motion with an amendment that the wagon is substantially structured differently from what was '>`�� approved last year. However, not to get into the speciSic issue ' :'-,-.� of the water and sewer issue because Resolution 88-98 does not deal with water and sanitation. .;:�:� � Commissioner xoss amended his motion to state that the Board has `�:;�r found that there have been substantial changes to the Wagon and .,�r the Board does not approve of the changes aacording to the 'a criteria of the Special Review Use Permit. '�'� A discussion ensued with regard to Ms. Gregory restoring the ' ;��,� original wagon, and whether or not she would have to come back ; - y,. ; before the Board for approval to operate the wagon. . , Tom Smith, County Attorney, responded by stating, that it is his � 4 understanding, that if she restores the originally approved wagon �' � `' in that location that i.t is approved. 2'` `� �� p.. l 5 t. `.�`� BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS JUNE 27, 1989 �. {_� �. ,,:� . : J" ,� . _ , . . _.___ _-- .�-- _ _ .... .. , . ;T _ � � .� - ,\ - ' r .;u,�"` . _ ' , . <+''_ c»'.i�<q'-".:'p� _ ;::�y'.:�" ��i'> � �ih w � . '1�!,:�`i�. . ` '� �.�, - ,. .._. . . .. ._ . . . .. .. � ...�.,�.� .. �r'��"��v�1�1'�YjY�'t�:".��`� w' ��•�f `.•�4'�� t,.;��e� '� �4 K... � �y �M,��; C�' ,�.� ;��,�,5 . t � y� � . ��. �� .t... .o.S'v ..f.e.,�i�1:i�', at�.24r,.Y.tr,CtKU..Y'�z`r. ..� �-ti . _._a„ et,l•i:'1"��n.lz"'.. r= _ Ae further stated, that she has a right to ask for approval of changes. He feels there should be some reasonable time identified to restore the original wagon to that location or cease aperations on the site. " Chai.rman Penne called for the vote on the motion that it has been " £ound tha.t there has been a substantial change to the wagon and k:.-'; • no approval will be qiven to that change. The motion passed �' ' unanimously. p:;_ A discussion ensued with regard to the time period of putting the • ? original structure back or to rebuild on which would comply with the original approval. : �' ..�.�'� Ii.� . Commissioner True moved to require the change in 30 days to meet �; � the requirements oE the original approval. Commissioner Ross � : .,.t seconded the motion. § :� ;;. Commissioner Ethridge suggested an amendment be made that the r.'. `:=� matter be placed on the July 25, and if the changes have not been made to the Board's satisfaction they will then direct that it be • `'"�� removed from tha site, Commissioner Tnze and Commissioner `�� Ethridge accepted the amendment and the motion passed =� unani.mously. ;;�� EPIERGENCY RESOLZITION AMENDING THE EXE'I+IPTION FROM THE GROWTFI - �, , MANAGEMBNT OIIOTA SYSTEM FOR THE REMODELING RESTORATION RECONSTRIICTION OR REPLACII�NT OF ANY LEGALLY ESTABLISHED j STRIICTORE - MOTION TO APPROVE - pASSED UNA�MOIISLY - Tom Smith, °'= County Attorney, summarized this item by stating, that the Board ;.<�.� has requested the preparation of an emergency resolution to close �,;-...; the loophole in the Growth Management Quota System which provides � ' for an exemption from the requirement for a GMP allotment for the -d� remodeling, restoration, reconstruction, or replacement of any �;`;� legally established structure. In numerous cases developers have � taken advantage of this provision in order to claim a GMP ;�;f exemption for the replacement of small or substandard housing � with large new residences. Such large new residences usually ',;::;� have substantial growth impacts above and beyond that associated _ with the existing structure, which impacts are not adequately '. �; addressed because of the availability of this exemption. :�,j Accordingly, the proposed emergency resolution pravides that in -� order to obtain a GMP exemption for the "restoration, „_� reconstruction, or replacement'� of any legally established ' t structure, there must be no change in use, addition of dwelling � � units, nor expansion of floor area. The current code provision j.::_ . t does not contain the limitations with respect to changing use or ` ; expansion of floor area, but merely provides that the exemption � is not available where additional dwelling units are establishsd. j:r,:i;;:: ;:j The "remodeling" of existing legally established structures f , :} presents a unique and complicated situation, and accordingly, the ,.�. i �:(�f' "� 6 '_`;� BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS JUNE 27, 1989 '�- - .� �,,; .,x •�: 'i'k' ♦ _c�:. . . � � . , ., . � . .. _. ,—_" . '_' . i • _ � r - } � � � �^i^':`` �';;!' ��s� �.....,*�+. r �`1:.;;�- ^ • - . � � �� . � . . . .. . -, .. ....... ..-�- � � .. � . . -� �o.:i•r'� yr.� .. ., � /�.7��p{]jJ�f� x x t i h�'. _ � � . } w�.�. [ C ' . - y �'V��`�+iJy�Q+�/'��5� �..5 t 1��'• .� y(� y, {'��,'��j* 7L �i L. �" . .. '..�. S' a� 9F� Y R� �' k fi 1 ��.x''�2,!i:��'1�?a��.�y�r.�' �.�i �.�ykS�yi�j..y k +� �,��yr,�� "' ='�4w � .S-. .a� �� 51�. ', �4.., -.i.t�Sf�.�.R'{Si}'�ira,r,re M.r-5., :a.,� . ,c3�..« �1r.�� r�,��.---- a��l�-��..eC`�.�._� .4.�F"�'_n s.' � .. exemption currently avaiZable in the Code for remodels is not recommended for change at this time. The GMP exemption for remodels daes not seem to have been abused by Iandowners or developers in the community, at least up to this point in time. � Given the potential for serious impacts, not on developers but on indivi.dual homeowners with ].egally established residential dwelling units, staf£ does not believe that an amendment to the Code with respect to remodels is appropriate at this time, but should be considered in more depth as part of the major Code overhaul that is underway. Iiowever, we have also included a limitation on the exemption for remodeling, restoration, reconstruction, or replacement of legally established residential -. . dwelling units to assure that the exemption is only available with respect to those existing homes which meet the definition of "dwelling unit" contained in the Code, which means that such existing units must have one kitchen, and bath facilities ' . physically separated from other rooms in the structure. -. ` He said that staff recommends approval of the emergency =�=�:''"= resolutiori. ,�•.<.*•., _ y� ;a � Chairman Benne opened the meeting to public comment. - :,;�:f - Gideon Kaufman, Jim Curtis Richard Comptom, and Sunny Vann were " - present to request a clarification from the county attorney with r';:;•- regard to some of the criteria in the resolution. =��;"'.'; A@iscussion ensued with regard to one of Mr. Kaufman's questions with respect to the issue of an application already approved. -= Smith stated, that the Board could decide that any application ''•_�.;,�. already approved will not be subject to this limitation. On the . - other hand technically speaking under law, there is no vested - � right in the absence of the acquisition of a building permit ; except for those developments subject to the new vested rights ;:,-; law which were the approvals after January 1, 1988, and those _{ would definitely be exempt. , Chairman Penne stated, that she feels that applications which are ��`�- already in and scheduled should not have to comply with the proposed legislation. _ Commi.ssioner True stated, that he is concerned about the madifications being made and he feels more discussion needs to - - take place before any resolution is approved. Therefore, he - would move to table the matter until July 11, 1989. The motion died for a lack of a second. Commissioner Ethridge moved to adopt the resolution but to exempt - ,.j applications that have been submitted and certified as complete < j prior to this date. Commissionez Ross seconded the motion. �`� 7 �. -" BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS JIINE 27, 1989 �. - ,� . =;.�� Y� "i $ ��. . - .. ... . � . � . � . . � .. , � . -�._ � � . • \ , � ::.Y''.�i. :eN�.� .. :i"Ia. • �E`.µ-�- . . � . ��,.^�� . � � , � . t �.1�r.. .. .,. .._ .... ... .... .. :.. � - . , a �- � . . . . . . . ..�l � � f - �'sS' - � 4;�� ... . .... _ ��,�`3�� ;g . �-� S�� f . .L ,�r t,,,� ,y� c vC'�V�SR�+��''�"a.��.}�iY.��.�r��S'.T �JI.�.�...a_. t� .wx�vi�'. .. Yr�Y��. .. . V'�.,dis�l�.dL�L.k��ta 13.t: 'R'h.¢�':..�. Brooke Peterson stated, that he would like to see a hardship exemption added i.e., calamity, etc. calamity, etc. Chairman Penne called for the vote, and the motion passed with three yea and one nay vote by Commissioner True. " AUNTER IANGIiOIISE DETAILED SUSMISSION AND FINAL PLAT• 1041 ' FIAODPLAIN REVIEW FZONING AND LOT LTNE 1�i17"tJSTMENT - MOTION TO �" APPROVE - PASSED WITH TFIREE YEA VO'TFS AND ONE ABSTENTION - Cindy Houben, representing the Planning Office, summarized this item by stating, that the applicants are requesting approval of five -i : additional units to be located at the Hunter Longhouse apartment complex. She stated that the applicants have submitted a1Z of the information which was requested of them with regard to the application. %: a Chairman Penne opened the hearing to public comment. i David Brown, architect for the project asked for a clarification , '� oE Condition Na. 4. n�'�;� Houben responded with a clariPication. ;��'� Chairman Penne closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ethridge stated, that he has been the land planner - •':-'':f;�.E for the Hunter Longhouse submission since its inception and due 4 : to his role as a consultant for this project he is withdrawing ,s�� himself as a voting member on this project. He thanked Pitkin County for donating the land for the site and paying for the bulk _ of removing the County's maintenance facility to make the project _';;?� happen with the result being substantially lower rents tor the occupants. --�E Commissioner Ross moved approval of the application. - Commissioner True seconded, and the motion passed with three yea `{ votes with one abstention by Commissioner Ethridge. # ZIEGLER IAW IMPACT SIISDIVISION - MOTION TO APPROVE - PASSED __�":;� UNANIMOUSLY - Cindy Houben stated, that this is a continued ;�r'"°;�, public hearing. At the last meeting this matter was tabled - ";,.� pending a site visit to the property. She presented Commission members with a revised map submitted by Jim curtis showing some ehanges to the area which will be deed restricted which now include the lake area of the site. � r A discussion ensued with regard to the matter, v'-:, � Commissioner Ethridge requested that the paroel which is proposed � to be dedicated to Snowmass Village carry a deed restriction for � = . + only employee housing or open space. a�.-s;.� � � :,;�., ='I .,! g Y BOARD OF COIINTY COMI�SSIONERS JUNg 27, l9gg r _ = y:� f "� "� �. Y . �'�� ., . :, _ � s `',. \ _ " . � , :;=' ' y:.i; ��t�i�:�"�y-�`�_�:�� , ��.�4rix�'n'i�.`i�c: . :},j T �sa::_ .;_�rt_;F . _ . ;;ii$> "a.°;`' � � . . � . . f � . . . �N� _ . .. ...�_ � s` ��.y 4�;'� . . . . .. ... 4 .. ..r . � �g � .. . � a[,yr�'.^ .� �� . ,�� ifs �$ ,��_� � �.��F .( ��( .j,t l' •' � . .i M j 7rJ t � Y ' 1 � f '. A...S'�' if+A��Y" �6�'� 1� G .. n��f.1,i.�1��4�... ��_`�"�5� � 1 .tk .,I'':�yi 1 P;teal�f+, ��"SF.�};a�s:#i:�:».;�x .. ._+� ,.' �'�t�s�`�•' :G,ts w�.�r�V��^... ( `?'.::� 7.' Curtis responded by stating, that the applicant is proposing to dedicate it at no cost to Snowmass. However, they have not proposed to impose any kind of deed restriction on the property. If that is something that Commission members want, they could do this. After a short discussion, it was agreed that it will be dedicated for ogen spaae or employee housing. Chairman Penne opened the hearing to public comment. There being none, she closed the public hearing. _ Commissioner Ross thanked the Ziegler family who has been a good neighbor to Snowmass Village 3nd allowed public use of their private lands for quite sometime and their sensitivity to the : concern about the pond are and agreeing to preserving it. ; i Chairman Penne reiterated Commissioner Ross's comments. She ' ;:;.I stated, that this is a perfect example of how the low impact -� sub@ivision really can get something for the community other than just Por the people who are buying the lots. _ � :� • -' °=: Commissioner Ross mwed approval of the Ziegler Low Impact - Subdivision and 1041 Hazard Review, and authorized staff to _;�;; prepare a resolution for the Chairman's signature_ Commissioner ' Ethridqe seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. , ._i ASPEN VAL7�Y HOSPITAL MASTER PI.AN - MOTION TO TASLE - PASSED �..� UNANIMOUSLY - Buddy Lucero summarized this item by stating, that the Aspen Valley Hospital Master Plan was published as a public �_?� hearing for this meeting. However, it was decided to delay - �:��:;� review of the Master Plan until the public hearing for the t� Service Plan on July 11, 1989, therefore, staff recommends '� tabling this item until July il, 1989. Commissioner Ross moved to table the matter until July li, 1989. `:i,`� Commissioner Ethridge seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. r� ASPCOL CORPORATION SPECIAL REVIEW FOR SINGLE-FAMILY HOIISE AND -� CARETAKER EMPIAYEE DWELLING UNIT - MOTION TO TABLE - PASSED ; � UNANIMOUSLY - Buddy Lucero, representing the Planning Office, - summarized this item by stating, that the applicant is requesting Special Review approval for a single-family house with fifteen +� bedrooms, pursuant to Section 3-6.4 of the land use code which ; requires that the application be forwarded to the Hoard for final ` `:� approval or denial. The applicant is also requestinq a Special �: • ._� Review approval for an additional employee unit for the property. �f_:.:: He stated, that there are three issues of concern, they are the -y i additional empI.oyee unit, the 15 bedrooms and the size of the w,� � house. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed these i��.: �'.`� 9 - , � BOARU OF COUN'PY COMMISSIONERS JUNE 27, 1989 �,,_� ,. ,'� � ' _�}� , . F , -��' . � � .;�., ' . � , � ( :`•,•;;::�x�;;•:, �� F: tey`;;:., ' ` , -::r''��:� � � ��: . . _ . . . . .. _ ,� ,;' „ � ,�,� ., n< .� > w � �, f �t,n�,.;, �. ,� c � ri �'y�� K s - 4 n:�.. � , . � •f' �t r.�( �� .r ' r. 1 Z"'91 'sf��.YS �0'�. yX �`.�M 7 - i^.� t �sy.7� �.�.. N\ ��f a� � t 4R . .i� ��,+.`�i' �� !�i Y 5�:1 � - - .� ��R•.R,'��,'.��'�'"JE27::'vk�33:F'.'.��XS�."��I'`.'��;•�`�nf':;�1+, �^� .��..r3p.�s�..._ .�E�rS�.'�.�:rxF�.!��:��:Py�.4y.''�".:x7 . requests at their May 16, June 6 and 13 raeetings. With regard to the additional caretaker unit, the Planning Commission and Planning staff recommends denial because the _ property has previous approval for two caretaker units and an additional caretaker unit is not allowed under County Land Use ''�� Code. �V.'' With regard to the request for Special Review for a single-family i�� house with fifteen bedrooms the Planning and Zoning Commission by i '_ a vote of three to two recommends to the Board approval subject ' � to the conditions outlined in the Planning and Zoning Commission `' ' � resolution. A copy of this resolution is made a part of this �"; record as Exhibit °E�. The Planning Commission finds that the �'• . applicant has demonstrated that an actual need exists and not the �°� f presumption of need £or the fifteen bedrooms requested. This was ;��. tibased on the unique requirement of the applicant's position as j' , ', � Ambassador, including staff and security needs, as well as the i 'r.-, size of the applicant's Pamily. P&Z also recommends that the y applicant shall purchase in accordance with repxesentations made to the Commissioners, the 35 acre lot bordering his property on ; the east, known as Lot 1, Star Mountain. This lot alonq with � remaining 95 acres of Lot 2, Starwood Ranch Lot split shall be i deed restricted from further residential development. This does } not include the two approved employee units. � Planning Staff does not concur with the Planning and 2oning +i Commission recommendation to the BOCC for approval of a fifteen bedroom home. Planning staff does concur that the applicant has " unique requirements at this time. Staff finds that the applicant ;; has not demonstrated an actual need for Pifteen bedrooms in a � sinqle family house. Staff finds that the applicant has approval � for one additional free-market unit and twa employee units on their property, along with the option to purchase one free market ' from the adjacent 35 acre parcel. These units could be used to � house staff and security. Staff also finds that the Ambassador's jimmediate family consists of eight members with a presumed need : of seven bedrooms as shown on the floor plans_ Staff recommended actual need for one additional bedroom £or staff and/or security. This was changed from the three additional bedrooms recommended <__ r to P&Z because of further review of actual need and the statement that the applicant intends to purchase the adjacent 35 acre lot. -,� The proposed house is approximately 55,000 square feet of usable space, i.e., living space, garage, deck, etc. The property for the house is within the RS-20 zone which has no floor area ratio. �� The applicant has provided information addressing the impacts of such a large house. ,`.��'=�"= :�.�...'::':`. As stated above, the RS-20 zone has no floor area ratio (FAR) � � - limits. Staff concurs with the CountY Land Use Engineer comments iy� ( in the attached memorandum that if the County is to control the ��_ _�' �c y: t �. :f.a,;, io =�;��: � BOARB OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS JIINE 27, 1989 •':v ," �' i `% � ,. ' t . �� _ ,_ .' .__ � � � � ;:;'�«; . ':�i;?- :',�`�s�r '� � . _ � >. �.,� :. . ..... ... _. . . . . �r , . ..__ _ .._ : , • . ..`! y'� -"f f��y'k`+M�1`�K ��'I'W.�' {•�',�ts'} �,'rs T q tiu.��'� i '� � • l� w .,� . 4 C��•'�$� ms .,�, �L � ` ' r �L � _ t±�:r: ,.c�v r:t:r�... . .t.d��u3!a:.��i.�Z_',.� �. .�.„��a, � _ M.s��.�. .. .:�t��:e s.i �.: ,i�#� ..� � �,� �n�. � d �ia+',�s, t�� ,;. size of single-fami2y dwellings restrictions must be established for those zones that do not have any FAR restrictions. He said it is understanding that this issue is being addressed in the present rewrite of the County Code. In regards to compatibility ". and relationship to surrounding land uses, a 55,000 plus sguare "'"" £oot house would have a hard time being compatible anywhere in �;>i:<� Pitkin County. ';�'•~ � +.: The Planning Commission and Planning staff recommend to the Board denial for an additional caretaker unit '-� The Planning Commission recommends approval for Special Review t• ` for a single�family house with fifteen bedrooms subject to the �; � conditions outlined in the Planning and Zoning Commisszon's resolution. .a �::.: He then proceeded to review with commission members staff �;;. �S referral comments, recommended conditions of approval and the ' <'� reasons for their findings with regard to this application. A �'` copy of these are made a part of this record as Exhibit "F". ; �1 _,.{ He said that based on these findings, the Planning staff � recommends approval for special review for a single-family house for eight bedrooms. :`"1 ;"-� Fred Pierce, with the ].aw firm of Austin, Jordon, Young and '':";� Pierce representing who represents the applicant proceeded with their presentation. He stated that he will be addressing the -,� issues and concerns raised by staff. However, at this time he would like to turn the floor over to t'he consultants who have �;�' worked on the project. �._b :+ Richard Shaw, from Design Workshop, proceeded to make a �°�>� presentation with regard to the visual impacts of the project ;,?,;,� using computer renderings, the Zandscape plan and the lighting • soheme which is proposed for this project. A copy of his written ,;� presentation is made a part of this record as �+xhibit "G". ,`� Doug Graybeal, from Hagman Yaw Architects, representing the applicant proceeded to review with Commission members the .° proposed floor plan of the building, and the approximate s quare •�� footage breakdown. A copy of the floor plans and the pzoposed N� square footage is made a part of this record as F.xt,;b;t nwn_ ^ Pierce proceeded to make a presentation to Commission members on ;:': �� behalf af their client. He referred to several letters and i'::'`; ' � memorandums submitted to the County Attorney's oFfice and F Planning Staff with regard to the application, the request for `� ; � additional bedrooms and addressing the issues and concerns raised � -) by staff. A copy of these documents are made a part of this � s.° ,� =; record as Exhibit "I" # ,� � F?;i,�r.P..... � ;� 11 ��: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS JUNE 27, 1989 ;'�� . .;,•'�j ,� � `��,"�;_. _ - V _ _ � � �:w��i.'. �\ } . . ' � ,. ,->a•:'�... . . . ,�+__�:;'':;::".� . , � . �'r�_ . '.Y•'ti�i...4•�"�:t' . . �?.� _ ��t' .��K, �:N1l-�c`' w . ' . ".S.'^'*- � . ;,. � , ,. }�� • . .. . „ ,-� r' . . .. . . _, .. .� ,.�.+: ' .,��.�' ��.-. �i'f- '�� .jr.i�:': X � j� ` , �s ��d�� '4* ' ! ^�`; .�. *�� y,.��.y��'1� ,j{�, ; '� .�.� ,{��yy,�s}�4 . .,��Mt�'S � s�('�' � �,� .��rA� � � +r��a::,.,..�'. ya.^(�a t�SGS�!"�'��5.�e�w�t�'P:�`��Y_'�:i.,�_?"m,� ��._�r..'�!'��.,�.:.,.. w• �S�.e,�✓t-i� -�,clt.n He stated, that with regard to social and economic criteria he suggested that for an example, its impact on taxes and necessary services and facilities what is being looked at is a revenue • generator for the County. In terms of the property taxes in accordance with their conversations with the County Assessor the F,._ . annual property tax on the property once developed will run �'. - between $87,000 and $107,000 per year. Also, the County has a �"' new materials use tax and a rough estimate from their contractor �. , is that the taxes paid to the County for constructing this will �".' run approximately $300,000, and the building permit fee alone will cost another $60,000. The�efore, in the first year or two _;;+ of existence of this building, the County will make approximately $500,000, and it will continue to make property tax revenues after that. Based upon those observations and what staff has ,.;,i stated in their memos, he feels that the Commission members will � find that the application is compatible with the environmental, " - social and economic characteristics of the area and policy and j+ "'_,� regulations of the code. `� He proceeded to address the issue of the immediate family and "�� their arguments which they feel would justify the need and `-'-� approval of the additional bedrooms. This issue is addressed in '�.`:`� the above referenced exhibits. He also, referred to other applications for over seven bedrooms - ;r:r� which were submitted and subsequently approved by the Board for w::.?^� other homes. „`� He then referred to letters from various homeowners in Starwood and throughout the community who support the project. A copy of these letters are made a part of this record as Exhibit 'Q^. t`�.�� He proceeded to address the issue of employee housing and their �::;,� arguments for approval of the additional employee unit. These .^,� are contained in the above referenced exhibits. . ',:+',� He stated, that with zegard to energy consumption, his client _ would like to benefit the community by contributing up to ,;',k; $100,000 toward a fund that would be used specifically to add energy conservation techniques to any existing or new public .''`� building or employee housing project. The purpose of that is to �? make energy consumption conservation something they contribute to - in a positive way to work for the county. With regard to . � employee housing this could be used to reduce utility costs for �'``� those employees. Another exaction they would propose in lieu of ;,;:� freezing up of the two particular sites would be to add to the +�::. � employee inventory within the county. Their client would be K willing to purchase a free market condominium in the range of �;- ,: �.:1 between $130,000 to $180,000, and deed restrict it to employee �`<';. I housing as a part of the employee housing inventory and then sale �` j it to a qualified employee approved by the Aousing Authority. �''` �,",I Also, they would offer to trade back a free market buildinq site �±w ` -� ' �:.: �`.l` 12 .i° '::J BOAI2D OF COUNrY COMMISSIONERS JIINE 27, 1989 "'` • x: .=3 �:� ;.7s ;.� . . s. ��• - _ ----_ — _ _ ��. - � `� . � :;;Y,,;, 'H! ..5a,? y,'. . � `;:S�1d_ • . ' . - , � ' ��i��. . . , ... . .. .. _ _. ._. ' .. - .�� d'.Fr,_=+ ��'�;�,a i s�,,��_.. �; �� 'k .s'��.�f� :;� + u�� ' ` �'.� �'� °� t .a.� � �. .�� .�, � � 't .., _��''�,'S i��t . r��t��N ..,��nS�s'F¢'��8%'"�.'1�'�.�.,,�,x..�tt�... � �`�Y T x.Y�, .�. '4l�� ...}' '"4��.+t'� .. v�L.. i, u w � �.a.4.b.-.�ca'�'�,'.k....� . . "s_t:.a ....,F in exchange for the deed restricted employee housing on a existing building. With respect to the restrictions in the P&Z resolution with regard to the lighting, they did not have the particular rendering which they have presented tonight. Therefore, they did not have the opportunity to see what the " residence would be like with the lighting plan as current2y proposed lit up. Mr. Pierce commented, that he mis-spoke himself with regard to j, the statement that they would be willing to purchase the free - � market unit and deed restrict it and sell it to a qualified employee. They would even be willing to go so far as to give - . that unit to the housing authority for it to add to its employee housing inventory for it to sell. . "'t-? Lucero stated, that even if the project was approved as the _ � applicant has presented it, someone in the future could still ' _� come back into GNfP and request a subdivision of the property. With regard to agricultural open space that will not change any .;�;;;.:._� be it one free market on it or two. With regard to the tax if ^�;s:'� they take a look at three houses as opposed to the one house it . -_;;<;� possibly could be close to the same_ In reference to the employee units, again staff wants to reiterate that they are ='`"p employees and they do have a free market lot or possibly two in � which the employees could stay. He feels it is important to look �$ down the road to see what happens to the parcel if the current � owner decides to sell it. ��`'� Chairman Penne opened the hearing to public comment. `� There were several neighbors from the Starwood Subdivision who ';�:� were present who expressed support of the application. ,�:x Paul Taddune, attorney for the Starwood Homeowners' Association, --;�.; stated that the Board has instructed him to state that they also support the application. .:�.� Suzanne Caskey, Vice-Chairman of the Planning and Zoning ;-��, Commission, read a letter into the record signed by herself and ' other two members (Jim Sreasted and Dwight Shellmanj in �_.-;� opposition of approval of the application and encouraged '=3� Commission members to disapprove it. A copy of this letter is made a part of this record as t?xhibit ��1C�- '� There were several people present who also were in opposition of the project because of the size, and the impacts upon the already { ' "`,,� severely strained county and the compatibility with the Iands ±��- ' - � uses ad'oinin it. "`�"` J g �;> iZ:;=' t:'�k�, Chairman Penne closed the pub2ic hearing. ��`� ';;;:� Tom Smith, County Attorney, stated there are a few code issues ..s:�.i��I 13 � BOARD OF COUNTY COMMTSSIONERS JUNE 27, 1989 { .� ,.�b � : �' . . _ � `j _ � . . - . ... � � . � _ '- ` �� ^�'-�.� � _ � - l� k, . `is^'+,'_ .'�+,i�:L • � . .;V�Y3yY . � ;y �,�;,z'' '� u; , _ . �� ` .... . . ,.. ... �� : : , � ��l+��v a •, � y, . � .: .. .. ..- � �� i�':�::�� y �y��l�!� r �J, �' . :.:Y tiyy�f`� �� -J'��,�{t�t 5[�''.vl'4y,, .4.jM.y.�t�� +� �,��(4�� 1°�'3y'� �j�ti�,.y��- ,�.� .�, `v . -M Yd�L �� , . .. ,�,S�,M`ir"��t. ,:e�./'Q�J�.x..� �3�....,if.k+C�.1`�FF�Wa�i.....rs., ..�,rti.. �7.w,..n��`;..._. .:�a,a�.S�J,vJ��fY _+n .. w . . which he would like to address. He referred to his memorandum of May 18, 1989 and proceeded to review it with Commission membera. A copy of this memorandum is made a part of this record as E�rhibit n(;,°. . � A discussion ensued by Commission members. � F.. Commissioner Ethridge stated, that he is concerned about the - impacts, the view from the ski area, the view from the air, the number of bedroams, bathrooms, the volume of the house, and the amount of resources which go into it, i.e., energy, etc. - i - He further stated, that the offerings from the applicant are _ generous and begin to deal with some of the impacts of the home. However, he is not sure that they go far enough that he would ;-j accept them in lieu of deed restricting the other two sites. 'r. � Also, he would 2ike to know what the BTU rating of all the sites � 1 are. He said that the easiest thing to do in this case is to say , =�,�1 no. However, he is not sure that is the appropriate change ;;;ry:;: because it points up to him the need to change the code. He '•':_-;'� feels the problem is not the 15 bedrooms but the volume of the -�:__:_:� house. In the future he will be pressing very hard for some `.;,� changes in the code to deal with this type of matter in the future. Based on the plan presented at this time, he is not �"�± willing to support it but he thinks a middle ground could be ,� reached. ,.,_� Commissioner True stated, that he agrees with some of what Commissioner Ethridge has said and other comments. However, he - -- has a couple of disagreements. He does now know if the Code ' °:�',:;':.j allows the Board to address at this point the scale issue. Also, '� he is not sure if i.t is better or worse to have one large structure on the property or whether two or three 10,000 or ,;,.;� 15,000 square foot homes in any better than one 55,000 square foot home. Also, he feels the applicant has made a generous �;"'§ offer to help mitigate some of the problems discussed. He said � that he does want to address the size issue in the £uture. � Commissioner Ross stated, that he feels that the P&Z is a volunteer board which has spent several hours on this matter, and - M1 =-� he could not support changing the lighting restrictions in their ��i resolution. He feels it is a good site as Par as not being in - too many people's view plains, and hopefully the landscaping will ' help the Starwood neighbors. However, he feels the lighting would be an impact. He has a concern with regard to a single ,� family house being of this size, and also the impacts on the F community and the employee qeneration. He agrees with the County r ,• � Attorney that if an extra employee unit is thrown in a precedent �; .� � would be set which would debate the questzon of a special review + . ,.� and make it unfair for the Board to turn down another employee in Y;� other parts of the county. Therefore, he could not support that � part of the proposal. ° �a.. s ,. 14 .:_``� BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS JUNE 27, 1989 '�: � � _-._ _ ---�— i y �'�'�� . . � . . � . .. y. . ' .. . � . . .. . . . . �. � . . ` , � �*:�.e'c";-:,y..:'t;1 . _`(";, �`s�,4r: - .. ' . e>Lj,.,' ;�SF,`,;' ,* ar' F �"� . . . . , .. ..� . ..J � �� S �� J r �Y��7 �� `+� "f� �as�lw�`.1�� _ ��+ `{ ry L �:"CF � � �' .�' a- , �`i S � dii.2 .tr�5 Y �� n ��{ `� .�a �` Af� ��y r 7 �.� rrt. �. � < < .r,,� 7 ��,� !i;!�'�� .��.'IS�:aC`�',r��`.��at�r��f7`.��.�.k_�.rc. ;,,�:,�' �'�`�;� ywti:�.,._ v,��<'��lro�,+, i^� r J� . _. fd�� rS� c ct �1._ a. r.•t��. Chairman Penne stated, that she does not feel that a 55,000 square foot house in a semi rural setting is within the realm of appropriateness. She feels the code is lacking with regard to this type of issue. Aowever, she feels that a solution can be ° _ worked out with the applicant and hopefully chanqe it something a YV little more livable for the community. In the section of the code that outlines how the Board should review this special �';, review it says that they should consider the environmental, social, and economic characteristics of the neighborhood, the , : area and the community in general, and a need has to be � established. She also has a concern about setting a new upper - � level precedent if a 55,000 square foot home is approved. Pierce commented, that with respect to the 26 bathrooms, he has �P: :=y been informed by the architect that it is a fact that it is a }� cultural and religious requirement that males and females not use � =%;•# the same bathroom. With respect to setting a precedent, he does , � not feel the code gives the opportunity to address size as a � criteria in terms of this particular review. `.-.� Commissioner Ethridge stated, that in fairness to the applicant, ;;� he would move to table the application to July 11, 1989 to give � him the chance to address the size of the structure vi.th the � number of bathrooms and the additional mitigation of impacts on :':?� the community in general. Co�issioner True seconded, and the ,.;;:� motzon passed unanimously. r% ,-� TEiIRD READING, BRIISH CREEK VILLAGE ROAD RESTRICTION AMENDMENT- ;; MOTTON TO APPROVE PASSED UNANIMOUSLY Tom Newland, '.'.'y representing the Engineering Department, summarized this item by ` stating, that the Brush Creek Homeowners' Association has '` :? requested that the County amend Resolution 87-54 that establishes .,:y.� weight restrictions on the public roads within the Brush Creek Village Subdivision. The Board has reviewed at first reading a >�� proposed resolution to that effect. However, the homeowners ,i_� association has requested further changes and modifications to >_:� the resolution since the March 28th meeting. He proceeded to ,:� review those changes with Board members. `'��' Commissioner Ross moved approval on third reading the Brush Creek •� Road Restriction Amendment. Commissioner True seconded, and the - motion passed unanimously. '"� SECOND READING - RESOLD'PION TEMPORARILY AMENDING ARTICLE 32 OF " ,i �`,? ' ` THE PTTRIN COUNTY AIRPORT REGULATIONS TO PERMTT LIMITED CURFEW • EXEMPTIONS FOR THE SNOWMASS BALIAON FESTIVAL - MOTION TO APPROVE � ; i - PASSED UNANIMOUSLY - Brad Christopher, Airport Manager, ,' � summarized this item by stating, that this item was a matter of �'-:::;;::. first readinq on June 13, 1989 and was approved by Commission <,'-k`: � members at that time. � ,,'a � €, : � � i.' � 15 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS JIINE 27, 1989 �� ,��: :.� f,. • .� '� ��:... . -..-... . -. , .... � � . - . � -.__ . . . ' ��• i, - \ '?ti` - -�:t: . c.3�.'„��i. ' _i�i+ ::�e'`V�% � � � . . r , �`' , . ... .. . ..... .. . .. �..r .. . .., ....� . .. . . . . l4�}•1 ` ::' , . . k .. ,` . ,. . i . . � '" . � r.. d ,' ,� � , � 4 q� �{ t�"w�s,�j�� } � � i��y�� '�.1 .. . �. ��-��:��+�'j�.�x��F ' y «if�,. :,�• , c�.�-� ,� t '^ ;��, ti x. � ,�s a{rl,. Jl S�'r�'a`�t� K z. . v� � _ :.`;3` . Y.`�� .., `�..`�«{kr�� r �,iM..: Commissioner Ross moved to temporaril.y amend Artic2e 32 of the Pitkin County airport regulations to permit limited curfew exemption for the Snowmass Bal2oon Festival. Commissioner True secon3ed, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLDTION APPROVING THE SERVICE pI,AN OF TH� pROPOSED EAST ASPEN METROYOLITAN DIS T� - MOTION TO APPROVE - PASSED IINANIMOIISLY- Tim Whitsitt, Assistant County Attorney, summarized this item by ;�` stating, that this is a second reading regarding the East Aspen Metropolitan District Sexvice Plan approval by resolution of the Board of County Commissioners. -t : -- , Commissioner Ethridge moved approval of the formation of the East Aspen 2Setropolitan District Service Plan. Commissi�ner Ross seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. . � RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE OFFER OF A FEDERAL AVIATYON • --,'; ADMINISTRATION ATRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANT TO ASSIST IN THE i ,,'� FUNDING OF 1989 ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY AIRPORT CAPITAL IMP120VEMhYIJTS t M � ,,,�;`� - MOTION TO APPROVE - PASSED IINAnIMOIISLY - Brad Chxistopher, ' -*�s.?: Airport Manager, summarized this item by stating, that Pitkin -;.,r� County is entitled to $940,641 for fiscal year 1989 for federal airport development assistance frora the Federal l�viation ��-�'��T Administration. In May, 1989 Pitkin County applied to the FAA `� '� for these entitlement funds for the following projects: �':;=;;,�; rehabilitate Parallel Taxiway - $450,000, install lighted wind cone and segmented circle - $12,000, acquire snow plvw/broom ,.,'� $213,892, acquire land - $364,749. -z.=:,:�' The k'AA has presented the "Grant Agreement" for Pitkin County�s �"^ aacegtance of the federal funds for the above identified 1989 projects. .�r��! �`� . .;,,� Commissioner Rass moved to accept the entitlement funds. � =._.; Commissioner True seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. '�� ` •� Ai�.TOURN[�NT: The meeting was adjour:�ed at 10:30 p.m. ��"V>� Re ect£ully su itted, �.a�.: ; .=� ", eanette Jon s, Recording Secretary ,.� Board of County Colomissioners ,� �,. `� � ,' a<: ; 1� �: �.� BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS JUNE 27� 1989 r.', �; '"��`..s� ::v _,�� `�,=�:a - . . �� . •.. . . �...-_-��._� -.s--�-- _ . . .:�. . .�, . .. ; . . � . . �'� ' ..` �..-. . . � � � _ .. .. . �. . }� � :.�� ` i . . .. ._ .. . � ��'� . . ' . ' . r r t..° ' s>,a;�', , . r2�., - ..t*,_ _ . . . {�� '=Y:: ::�C`;'i��?N4-�,•+'t .��:;•j�,� 4��.,`�'4�:: � .::��•_..y-. . . �'��.: A''.'�,�y'i}th . w � ♦. � � ;�� ... ..... . . . .. . : ,,.. . - C'' . . .. . . .� � . � .. 'P. . :' �.i w '+�''� ff a ;1�; T S�y��K *4i ��t�"�� 4y ,,rYyk.�1.".Yi`.�i�r t�:?.7!kt.,.�.1le�:t , iFl.�:. .�� S`S.'l�dt�' ,c .. ��"�� , � �d:i:TFX. .., �.', . � 9 Mountain View Condominiums Detailed Submission � 2 �i �?-:c � , 1. The applicant shall prouide letters of service ��'w` � commitment from Rocky Mountain Natural Gas, Electric , o G Company and U. S. West. _ - O U•C i • U�� :i. o Y x 2. No wood burning device will be incorporated in this ,°. �a p ° proj ect. ` . o � y t �;: m �; 3. All gas log devices sha11 be approved by the a � w Environmental Health Department. � _ =:`'t' 4. Al2 construction work and ultimate use of property �. shall comply to the Aspen Municipal Code for noise `' _ abatement. k: .`��,�' r. 5. The applicant shall receive all permits required prior ;;=:� to removal of soil along with submitting an acceptable F water wash and fugitive dust plan that controls and ` manages water and dust to the Environmental Health -:�� Department prior to building permit. � �'^� 6. Contact shall be maintained by the applicant with the �'-_�:� EPA for changes that may occur concerning remedies for the contaminated properties, and report to the County �,(,v;'� Environmental Health Department regarding this issue. r 7. Any access, destruction or alteration of the existing 4 '� inch pipe monitoring well located in the existing ;;`_� parking lot shall be coordinated through the EPA. Y, �.� 8. The applioant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's Rules and Regulations. ":;;':'� 9. The app].icant shall provide a protective covenant, that ;`�-:;� runs with land, stating that the water and sewer service Iine and appurtenances are to be installed, repaired, and maintained by the owner and that any ' changes from what is represented on the approved site ,�� plan require written authori2ation from the District. ,y�,�� 10. Employee Housing: a. The applicant shall meet its employee obligation : by providing 1-3 bedroom and 1-1 bedroom on site `� employee h.ousing sales units and a cash-in-lieu s k'� -� payment for 3.35 employees; �t i� � b. The sales units shall be provided in acaordance with the Employee Guidelines in effect at the time �`�'';'; of construction and shall be indexed to the ��y"`' .� Jl moderate income category of said guidelines. The 5 � saZes units shall be conveyed by the applicant to ,, , °_� {: ` .� ��•. � � - : ' �. ...:,. ;. • _�,,,...i„� � _. .. . ,- - r ;i - � 4 � � - -- �'-�~'I �. . S! .�i � , +\ 1c/ ::�. , ' i ' f� - ' ��,F � ..a.`�a_�.+�` . . . . � '��k;:y: �; S,' .:.r�.;::�� " .li:�=.:-.T NX: . . :\�ri�(i;':�Y?` " yZj^�4_ ..✓f�-�;'1F^ . .:.,�•P?�- ♦ . .�'w1=�� `?t T}M,�1�-'n . \ � � ' . . � ��., , ..__ ... . . .._.. . . . _. , � _ . � ,.. . , ' --- `'� , , . ,. , , , y( . t , ;��,�' w .• " !��.�`?�..��.�J�� I��F;;'.��;:.a,., f � :=�;h" .�,-�'�r`" ��..��(e+��""' ��''�".F� . . .� � fi�,4,�4��a . w -.-4�t - u:y _ . � _ , � �!" ,i,; �� ' �b.';7tv. �:-.;,;:_�:. x.F:,,'�'. ♦ ;u>, the Housing Authority and them offered to q�xalified residents; c. The payment-in-lieu for 3.35 employees shall be made at the time of issuance oE a Buildinq Permit for any portion of the proposed development and indexed to the current Employee Housing Guidelines t;;' Low Income Cateqory. t��:�� ::: - �' : 11. The applicant's engineer shall review the land use code e'... and return to the County Land Use Engineer with a �� _.,.� design for a properly si'zed retention facility. " � r 12. The applicant shall provide internal sidewalk and curbs „'::� accessible for handicapped use. 'r �'; .::'.� 13. The applicant shall incorporate energy conservatian in k.,. the remodel of the two employee units as required by �: _ •� the Code(s). � `''�`";x� �*b 14. The applicant shall grant an easement across the r • • -�,;� southern portion of the property for a pedestrian trail ;:i:;� as shown on the site plan. �� 15. The a licant shall rovide a � pp p $1,500.00 cash ;:,° contribution to the County for general trail '�,-(� improvements in the Smuggler area as stated in the ye General Submission application. � . »'-;:� 16. A sidewalk connection between the internal sidewalk and i;;i':i�� the sidewalk along fihe public street sha21 be provided. �:..�;• 17. All material representations in the application sha1Z .r�� be adhered to. ':��.' 18. Priar to the issuance of any permits, the applicant �'��;z shall provide a Subdivision Improvements Agreement that '�`w`�; addresses costs related to water, sewer, landscaping, "-'� `= retention pond and any additional cost relating to EPA ,;=.i�::� s,:x; �; improvements. The Subdivision Improvements Agreement ��.;;5 shall be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney k:^''� and Planning Staff. ,� � `_;i:� 19. Low level lighting shall be provided along the pedestrian trail and screened for trail use only. �:i '- i: � 'i �S�I I <',.;J " 1.` •�:�t-•-��: . .:�{:::r"� .. _T,: r. G + . l F,,-y;1. 1 .....,..._.. ... ... ._... ... . . .....�'._ ....:.�...�. .,........,.... .._ .....:._:..- . ... . {'F�� . .4 . ^ .. . _ .:_..� _ .. .. . �..��•. . }+�}��', .. . . , . . . ` " �. . �a;^ yf1:� '.r;°i�'?}•Y5' � ' f . Y 4 � ' \ z�s-5 C'�s{ ��.`�� . :.:r:�c,;;�._i_� _ � . ,��e •; ��i��`�'' � A� ' • ' ` k: � � ' . . :, . _.. �� - <.� - � � � � a ,.; •�:r � � �; • � • / ��'°!� a;-•"� *._�,�j.a?;r,«.:{g'>`'�� V+'� Ssz�r� (A non-profil fou�dation for the educatlon,resenrch _ ��:4.�.g� . _ }unding,prototype development r�nd solutlon implcmentalion oi nonntmospheric polfuting onergy systems that do not consume atomosphoric oxygen or deplete upper atmospheric ozone.) �w��.� su�vav�a�.— es Ae� �� e��s a-��s� � :., AflRONAOFFICE COLORADOpFFICE ;=�-';� I AUSTRALIAOFFlCE QemetrluaWeg�et �. MMNFOUNDATIONOEFIGE,-.;�j ' PrafesaorYutlBrown ExecutiveDirectw PeV{ckFox ��--'� � 0( � � ExecuUveDlrector _ 200CopcordD�lve Cheirmenotthe8aar�'�`�,� 21tAWundaROed Sedone,Arizona 86336 8oz 1467 �%--� cs ConcoM West 2138 . (gpY)p9p-p7/t Aapen,Colorado8161,�f-.M`�_4� F` NSW,Auatralla � + FAX:(602)282-5564 7els:(303)923-C979 �,�`=: ��A� OMIea:7361274 FAX:Sameflnstructbo_' `t,� �� La6:649-5265 June 27, 1989 - o � i �.> :;' FpX:(o2)r.�33s3 m �> -- TO: Pitkin County Planning � Zoning o V: _, Pitkin County Board Of County Commissioners From the P & Z STAFF RECOt41ENDATION it has been acknowledged that I have 3 lawful dwe111nBs existins upon mY 4.174 acres. I contend that I - should be allosred a minimum oi three TransYerable Buildin8 Development Rights for theoe three lawful dwellines to be erected on three aew1Y -` 4 created lot� oi approximately l.4 acres each. F3owever, I have been withered docm to a realization to be happY c+ith tsao, if that even be approved by the Commissioners. • From eeveral late conversations With the P dc Z stafP it ha� become - apparant thet the County Attorney, Tom Smith, is attemptinB to squelch, -;"•� sabotage and `86' my lawful application for my Subdivision Exemption. For what probable pre,�udice reason I do not know. It has been brought to - my attention that he plana to tell the Commissioners that there be a risk of possible auit trom another party whose appllcatlon Por additional footage was denied. z So the Commissloners Pully understand . what Mr. Smith may be ' attempting to do, I would like Lhem to ba aware, that there is no analogy collation ahat-so-ever, betWeen the two applicatioas brought for approval by the Commlesioners using totallY d�fferent codes. What Mr. Smith ia - trying to make similar, is not, because the applications are brought befora the Commissioners by totally difterent code�. There are absolutelY no grounds Por anOther aHBrieved party using an entirelY ' '� different code to assert claim. T� COt49ISSIOti�iS 8AY8 NO LITIGATION DOflN SIDB BY TH6 APPROVAL OF !IY APPLICATION_ Now, pertainine to my requesc Yor approval oY Tranaferable Buildiag Davelopment Rights upon newlY created Lots for FULLY DEVELOPED LANDS. I assert that I should be allowed a minimum of three Lots wlth Building i �� Rights for my three lawful ezistinH daellings. I balieve I started work % - on my applicstion with the Planning & Zoning Department 1n 1988, uell before the new County Commissloners took of4lce. My application in all fairness should be revieNed by the Comml�sioner� in this lieht as existing prior to any neW RESOLUTION that may be approved. Particularly, ' if this RESOLOTION is the result oY a last minute aqueeze into the agenda set to restrict the square footage of existing County Codes for '". Subdivision Exemptlons oi FullY DevPloped Landa. In my particular '�r' ' case, thia request for approvnl oY this type ot Subdiv±sion Exemptlon ;c•v does not efiect the quota for the Grocrth ManaHement Plan �ince it is a •�;; ,; trade oPf ior the removal, demolition or mer8ing with remodeling to current building standards. It is a baaic up6rade o! what already z, :;� exists. •= '�� IY You erc to allow n RAM ROD RESOLUTION, that waa aot on the <:,� ori81na1 agenda tor thi� daY, eYlect my applicatlon approval by `,:=:� restricting my square footaBe per dwe111n8 per Lot Split per Building � =i� Right, or, allow Mr. Smith to pre�udice Your decieion, you will in lact, ''-"' be v�olating mY righta arented by the 14th. AMENDMENT oi THE �\ i4:: ,� CONSTITUTION OF THE O.S., by not a1loWiag me EQOAL PROTECTION OF TAE LAWS ;•� oP the time. a.v, .� GAW, GOVII2NMENT AND JUSTICE must be applied and enPorced EQUALLY to be '�; LAW. When Lt isn't, !t ceaaee to 6e LAW, and becomea PERVERSION. Whdt `:`:'"�; ahall 1t be?7?? Re Pu y p;'� �=;�!' Patrick Fox--Applicantee _ '� � r , ... .. ... . ......_. ..' ��...: . . - . +�5.��' T 4i�'�� ... 'ji - r'��.�5 _ .yy�t ,�� t r�' � � ��s�t. �� s 7 � j{�� r�� '. ` i_ y. � u�?� r•R:' . j�'f'"71'1'�Cf�:.�1�Y�:� .� ._ '�57�� . ..._ . �� .v..� ��u�! � 1 � G��1 .�_"��3x�.�'ii �.. '�� " ,...e..�`,S`��.�� t.��,._ .�., ' BOARD OF C0.C(lPvii�4'R'S PITKIN COUNTY PuClic Hearint�Exhibits Oate:_ ��—��"'�q Subject; �x -- ii /� '-� . . ��-�--� :�;" - �-_: l� ,:..`. ; June 27, 1989 JUN j 7� :�-:' � . ' Patty and Jim Fox �;�`� P.O. Box 187 '.'. r : Woody Creek, CO 81656 rti Colette Penne, County Commissioner • ' 130 So. Galena Street �:,, Aspen, CO 81611 t ;-� Dear Colette, �. �:?;. ' We are landowners adjacent to Patrick Fox's 4-acre parcel in ,_ - Woody Creek and are writing in support of ihe recommendation that Ellen Sassano will be making to the BOCC today regarding the ,,._� "Foxtrot Subdivision," a redevelopment of that parcel. `;:V� The recommendation of the Planning Office is for two 2-acre _ _:� parcels. This is the minimum size of other lots in the area and • wouid be compatible with the neighborhood. All existing �"�� buildings are to be demolished and one single family dwelling is :`� to be built on each lot. Any other subdivision (of three or four ''"�� lots, for example, which was the original proposal) would be strongly opposed by ourselves and other neighboring property owners and would negatively impact our area. -,f� We heard of Patrick's appiication for a subdivision exemption � through Ellen Sassano on Thursday, June 22, when she happened to °_�� come by for clarification of property boundaries. It seems - ,y totally inequitable to us that this proposal, which would have a '-� tremendous impact on our neighborhood, could be granted without notifying adjacent landowners. We hope this obvious oversight on � the part of the Planning Office and/or Land Use Code will be y `'� promptly corrected. �.-� ;r� Respect lly, � h� ' tty an Jim Fo�xL� , . ,I ;� ` , -i � tx�. ;;=p� k� + �, ;� `r;`� ;:`: ,�;;- �: � ,i �: �:� � - - --.... - -- .. ,-: -;-------��-- �`,,�r,,V . _. . .� , . ... _ �-;.--�"�=-� . ' -,. ,ka.;.F,,�,n . ,;54;-;�;r,`�;� , i�ii". �:�� . _ . . '�:�.;4 e(S�' . , ' . �1 � �. t��w ,.'„ � ' - . ' ��q��.:f1..`. � - - ��ti'.'. .. . . • . ' ,�C�.r Sj.�^ah Yw� � � �� h , �x,�.,;:' '��r��; �.�.. • :�,.y,.,�:�. �� - �f �� ;:�-�� ,� � -,4.�.fi;'3:. '�:.'��+'.. r . _ ,_.__ ;x�r , �r(y �d Y .1�J�R e� �t{' * ,,,�•a �' 1��S�� i� "!,`"p' .� ��1��F, , � �:�rRi•.�"��v',��SFl��r�HC��S�6..,:�,F. .k:63'- . ._ `�":_; . _ . , _ ... �..-.�� [C'': � � �/ � �� j '.:_ . ..;" , June 26, 1989 �,j 'I � =:. f�� I Ju��! � 7. ': � �.. _ ti �;1) - ��L___________JV ,. �� '``''D Ms.Colette Penne ' Pitkin County Commissioner � � Pitkin County Courthouse :� Aspen,CO 816f 1 �` :�.f " "`' Re: Patrick Fox Subdivision Exemption App(ication 7 -�. �``� Dear Colette: �. :_� As nearly adjacent iandowners of Patrick Fox(one Iot away},we would like to let you know that we concur with the Planning Office's recommendation to subdivide his land � into no more than two,two-acre lots with one single family dwelling unit per lot. Since " . �4.` �� the immediate neighborhood is mostly made up of two-acre, lots any higher density :�� would be inappropriate. --�-'} In addition we would urge you to change fhe redevelopment provisions of the Land :::!�� -s. a Use Code which currently ailow someone to subdivide without going through the `' �� required subdivision pr�cedure. =�;:�j Thank you for your consideration. �� Sincerely, �.,�� /� / �.� � �� .� V _�.;� - �_� `� . Suzy and Bob Sterling � `�� Box 280 ��G;�' '',:� Woody Creek,CO 81656 °y p �:�� ;� !. -`f� �.. =:e.Y�`:e� �� r ��`�,�-.—__ .__Y ._. ....... .... . _.._ .. "�'��_ , ___ . fr'��• .' � . Zi;s�'A..,.w'*�� .... - � . - � . -..:1,%_r,!�_�;- - 1�•�'±��:Ti`� - � � �.4,r1.�:��... .. . . _ '�5:?t':.` . . • , ( . {•�.i.`{en j�,_ � . . . .. �'�� . k��('�� .: . . �.+i1�.4.',L�, - '- 'P;��;._�a;k�%}� - � �� . .i..�l,'�,:2R.;`,�; . . �.,...•:��e.,'� . . J!S�= ��''1 . :.�t`aA.�t Y ' �. . �_��'� � _ . , In�r� • ' . ... . �..... . . .., . ...- .- V ..� ��.cKSCSa��f.��tt�141:(�;:. j':'. � i� • Ik, w ��_ � RESQLUTION OF THE REDSTONE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION To: Board of County of Commissioners Re: Picadilly Circus Popcorn Wagon � .= WHEREAS, the 8oard of Covnty of Commissioners on September 17, , 1988, approved by special review an outdoor eatinq and drinkina ;+`: establishment called the "Picadilly Circus Popcorn Wagon°, while �- rejecting as insufficient the recommendation of the Ristoric "` - Preservation Commission that it be denied; 4� ,��`y WHEREAS, the Board then and there conditioned a , pproval upon all �' material representatiorts of the applicant to be adhered to � ' including the deaign to look like the "Osgood Parlour Car", to � xy require the permittee to seek to hook vp to Nater and sewer -_;:� systems, and other conditions; p�. ' �i :-.::_;z��' WHEREAS, the permittee has failed to apply for utility hook-ups � and has will£ully substituted a dissimilar wagons f'� WHEREAS, these violations have been called to the attention of ;-�::� the Chief of Enforcement for Pitkin County who has expressed ,;,,-,�� irdifference artd declined to enforce the Commissioners� conditions; WHEREAS, this organization believes it to be Che duty of the Board and appointed staff to enforce the law impartially and to '`:3n;�r.�: avoid the devisiveness and unpleasantries of requiring individual ,_q citizens to sign formal complaints for patent violations; '''`� NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEDs a'-?• - That the Redsto�e Community Association cespectfully urges _,^� the Board of County Commissioners to review the conditions attendant vpon the granting of the application, to determine . whether permittee is in compliance. to strictly enforce all '`'~�� conditions thereof, and to apply all sartctio�s including the :=,;.�.� revocation of the permit. '�;;� Adopted unanimously by the Board of the Redstone Community "%":':� Association this 20th day of June, 1989. ,y �F �':Y .�.-.� � �� : Preside t y�„__. : : � ' � -' ��/�} � / BOARD OF C0.CdMM'R'S ��4 " '� ��'Y"<'.St��l /�/??i'tll��z. PITKIN CQUNTY �'�: ; t; secretary Public Nearing Exhibits ?��,� ;.� Date: L-S 7—�'y' �.y . Subject:.�a � � ;'� Exh.PJo. `.�Q_� ,: _:<;:� . . . .. �: �: �, _.,_. . ___ ..___..._ __._...__.__ ._ _ _ _ _ ��„_,�„__,_ . . , �j � � -� .,-• � .,'- , xn , �. ... . ...-�.... ' r�`; -ay:: - .y,r k f�`' - . .' . . . •:{`.:y � � ti�"'it�^!• . (' . �:;iN�� • ' � . �� r- . , � '�i'yh. � ' l�� f . . ';` ijN . .,#•. ....;��; 4+x; , • :�iS�� . � � ��:1.�,�t.-:- ` . '.v;. .. f .. q Y�� Y i i t� G�Y �:'C �.�7�("�, h. ��C��. . . '" � � �" � .. � �'�, 4f- ^ �S'��y�..�:�`N� }� ' �'��1.1 �. �`� �;4'' ��.;'�'�... �a7� 'Y. ' ` �t`f .. f�;, .�+e,� . . . -,�t�tC��:i'Li.'�."sBEY�'�SG=��;l�v�b'E��:"��,,�t��F�iC.4.t^li,...._... �o�-..��> .. . �"�H�J.'�� r. .`V.�k"y �.:` � . _ } - � _ � . , � . �� `" RESOLUTION �F THE BOARD OF COTJNTY COMMlSSIONERS a ' ��c �y OF PITRIN COUNTY, COIARADO, GRF�NTING FINAL PLAT p7w ` '' '�.: UO c ApPROVAL TO STARWOOD F2ANCFI FOR AN AGRICULTUItAL IAT SPLIT �i� � O�'� � Q �� .. ,l Y= Resolution No. V7 -�GG �"•�"-' O�"'U O d=- . ��.',.' . a � `` ._� z r'.' - m y a � � : cy � �[ ° � "' WHEREILS, Stan.�ood Ranch, Inc. has applied to the Board of _.: County Commissioners (hereinafter "SOard") fc� Final Plat �j,:' ' approval of an Agricultural Lot Split for 3 free market and 2 >'-:� < . employee units; and �:�-. 'a.`� wHEREAS, the Board granted General Submission approval of �;�: � ' :�;� this application on January 28, 1985, by the adoption of Resolu- ;� tion 85-5; and . -;:�� Wf�REAS, at a regularly scheduled public hearing on October `:�� 27, 1986, the Board granted Detailed Submission approval of this , , ..i :'a�� application by the adoption of Resolution 86-109; and ,„� WI�REAS, the Board reviewed the Final Plat submission on November 2S, 1987_; and £ound that the Final Plat conforms to the :.� ...�; ' nrior approvals for the proposed lot split. � ,,`� NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board that it does - hereby grant Final Plat apnroval to the applicant subject to the t _:;;� • r� �cllocaing can��tions: l. ` � 1) The aaplicant shall cor,�ply t,-ith the geologic, soils and . � hyc_ologic recor..nendations o� the Chen Report (Job No. `:� 4164c4) . � 2) Fences erected for agricultural purposes nay be erected ',,1- : between Lots 1 anci 2. ��:`:r'�.. 1 � , _. � + 3) Tne Final Plat Covenants and Improvements Agreemer,� �= .�i ; shzll have the approval of the County Attorney and :;.,�..' � Planning Office prior to the Board of County Commis- ":i'-;,?�r`;_` sioners signature and the final plat recording thereof. °" � }�� :�. '� 4) The applicant shall pay to Pitkin County, 2.5% of the - j I�., <:;� : :� .., , _____...... .... . : �__-_—,�-� � _...._ _._ .._ _.. -•:- _-__._ ----- '",-'`w�..i�' . 4 . _ - V�'].,'��.fr1„_. '-;a::�..s:"„�;:r . ' " . .ik� � . .. . . '>�.y''``:?`i`. � . _ ` ��•Y:':,'.�� _ . . " . .. ;:F,n== _ � . ,�. :�i��'s-;�� . � � ' - . :�^+�r', .. � . . a"S:.q;tPe�� ,,,;,�. '';�.:rw�.',s`'t` :.�,�f��.� ' �zx:�.►�-� • r�y _ - • ��' ` ;h_ '�, `teXi:' � i,-. _ .. .. . .. ......._�__ , , ... ... . . . . . .. . . . . � .. . � .. .. , . u ' , . ' . . �� - � v ��'.A�:,. ��u.c r A��,�� 4. , '. . , . . ::� ' ��'�'.-�r.}�� '1�. �� € a� �`. ..st.w��1�1��31:��^k1�N1h�.e�..., t�� ,. .,.�_ cw.�;�.� �• . N ca., �-t"ti;. .� � r, � �, �y`�'='. �,, R=soluti.on No. 87-� ' Page 2 ' costs of improving the Trentaz Drive, McLain Flats Road Intersection at such time as the County completes said improveme`.�s, and requests payment, '�» �'e:t'" _ •:-,-:�-�__,.. _ . . . . _.. . . �;.i;;::.:� ' 5) The free market units shall have no more than one � _ fireplace. The employee units shall be limited to certified clean burning stoves or fireplaces inserts. �.5;. .-4 6) The applicant shall by deed restriction or other _ permanent commitment running with the land, guarantee � that the employee unit(s) shall remain rental unit(s) not be occupied by owner or spouse, be limited to ',,,;� occupancy by persons and their families who qualify as (and have been found by the Housing Authority to be) � full-ti,me employees of the agricultura2 operation under � "� . such guidelines as may be from time to time established �- '� by said Authority, and be rented for terms not 2ess than sir. (6) months. Detached unit(s) shall not exceed � ` three (3) bedrooms or twelve hundre@ (1,200) sguare `''� , feet of total floor area. The units pzoposed within :!;r! the agricultural building shall not exceed 500 square � feet. The deed restrictions shall be filed in a form ,,,.� acceptable to the County Attorney. `}z%� APPROV'ED by the Board at its regular meeting on December 25, '�`_� ,-� 1987. ` �-�„�+ BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS r� OF PSTE;_TN COITh'TY, CO7ARAD0 �-,� • '"; ;r;:.� . . By \ C c?I L' �L G U,-c.[.l,C. - Ge6rge!t.adsen, Chairman ATTEST: .:� ' `�`;� � ( ' anette Jone Deputy ` "-k ounty Clerk� � APPROVED AS SO FaRM: APPROVED AS TO CONT£2.'T: � _:� �� !�-� ��D `..`� Thomas F. Smith, County Alan Richman, Planning and �=;.�•_., � Attozney Development Director '° .. ��1,� =-� FIC.STARWOODRESO ,.0 ' r�a�-. � . _;.� . ' :!�: �� . '� .,...... ---____. _�_........ , _._�.._. _ _.._._. __ 3 �: .,._..::_:. . � �... _._- .. . ,`Y f T�'{�. � . n a.�� . . ... . 1��h �`l�' , . � . � � • - � . �`�",�,i��.a}C:��. . ... '":.��Yv�',i�1'k�n�.: � '�a�'._l:5'FF.::� :i:...q.r�?. .� � . 'Fi',.,{';5j, - `�� '- ;.F;^'_�f.i',: . � .y.,,,v�i�F- :R��'r-Y'.::. . , ' ' . • .F��4,�y ' ' . . . .�� -. . �y� �. :."1�aJ°�'`�' . . :;�.;-��u.°`. ��'}'-� . "e P'+�A � ��y t`y�i:#w. . , ` �.��. �:',ri�T�� -"C!'.:. . � - �,�'' . + . , ., ..... - ,. � iN �� :� ��f �u��'�. `�+��;rt �fo-� � f f+�x�� s13'" °�, } k , q�,i a �fj �ral�„iv, k;f�'ur�`k'l,rx �; 1 t��' A� � �l�j' �rS �t: +._' � t``r 5 .+ei v c +t "�`" � r M , x t ' ;�„��:d.� ��y`�.b�t- S��q�'k �1:�' t *� }�`'xy � � v,� �� r' "�..�'.�'�� ;��:��°��'�'.��'�:'�,: �:;��.. �'�-�: .r �r �,c;-.,.:� . _ .. BOARD�F�0.COM^A'R'S NITI(1N CO(:P+17Y i�ublic hearing Cxhihits , oato; 4�� L9 a - suojeor SPCOt- � . - ,�... . ��:,. Exi1.r��o �. _ ,: � i ,` -- : 4 : �� j a � •, i . ,:: i _ i , ,� � , ,. � .. . .. - ! _ �.. ', " � �� - :� �' �� .. � . .: . . f .� r.�. �`• + .::: :. :-� ... ... � . . ... .. . .':.:.I'. . '�..�.-" ........�. � . �.t �:�•�.. . ...: . . ..i,��-�..... . � . I. ggFF.ttunr. COZ+Il�fENTS: A. County Attorney: Tom Smith provided the following comments �=.-} for the additional employee unit and the Special Review for �,_;i single-family residence with fifteen bedrooms. (Comments :� submitted for May 16, 1989 P&Z meeting.) , Y:�� Additional Employee Unit: %.'•';:� 1. Please check the prior approval of the Starwood Ranch lot split as it relates to the approval of caretaker units. It is my recollection, without having reviewed the £ile, that �"-t� the approval of one detached twelve hundred square ,foot ' '- employee unit and an additional five hundred square foot 'r"i unit in an agricultural outbuilding on Lot 2 were approved t as the full complement of available caretaker units on both - '1;:� Lots 1 and 2. Accordingly, the present request may be ;:;,� contrary to the prior approvals, - 2. It is also my understanding that the two hoases presently >.;� situated on the property were represented in the application �; as the buildings to be utilized for the approved caretaker ° units. If this is correct, then again, the application is 'J� inconsistent with the prior approval. 3. Section 3-8.13 of the Pitkin County Land Use does not permit ?� the construction of two detached twelve hundred square foot -� caretaker units on one paYCel of land. Subsection (b), provides that the Board of County Commissioners may permit � the constructzon of "one (2) residential dwelling unit," and � `: the single detached employee dwelling unit available has 't��j, already been approved. Approval of an additional unit would +� � be contrary to the Code. "' i.° ,i. ?. j� 2 - ±; "-',� >� __-__ __ . .._.. _ . _... . . . ....... ._. __ _ ---._ . ___...__._ ----- _:.. ��t>�r.��.... . ..._.._._,.. - . c rK�� 4��.. -- � . ::,,��'T-r,_� ' �.i:r .f�..� . . -�'�;i�:'c- . ' . � � . _ _ �,.5.�.4 Y,.iS£_.= � . . ''}.^�rfv�.'f.:-.:-.� . . ' � � . �:'?;vS 1�.c � . ,.��<k_::z.:. i_c�4.�%�K`J, ' Ts'��✓.f�.i��l �•'!i t�;;�.��!Ir�`1^1^,' . . . ��+� w . �ir3;.. �:��:r�, � � ,. . . ., . _,. _ . ..^}r��. � . � , � . _ . . ti �4.r r,x,c�'►Y'� u��y��'4sr��'�'. "�..Tj�P��;'n tit�'`1;y$,{�,4}} . � ' _�. ', .,S f., T��"i115 ..�''"'" ,�� '� � �,y''..ijR1(�9�_. 'r�L _�3'i� t�,�y, (t' t�; ;)� . � �Z u � . , _ � �J�'3�.$��}�M►ti�:,��r.��Pi�:tc..5b�,.��. .�Myi '��'1�Y� . -. ,��3+��,� number of bedrooms and the number of occupants calculated - based thereon. 4. The foregoing does not, however, preclude you from � - . considering the size of the structure proposed when ;:� evaluating its environmental impacts. The fact that there is no PAR limitation in this zone district does not mean that size is not a proper consideration in evaluatinq special review applications, as indicated in the broad criteria identified above for such approval. The size of the proposed structure may very well be a significant ; � consideration in determining the impacts of the proposed use - ._ in its proposed location on adjacent land uses. � ^ >, ; � 5. The applicant represents that the Code otherwise permits �:; -�;.;i,� twenty-two bedrooms on the property. This is inaccurate and ' not a proper consideration for the County. In particular, Z �� `_;=� would note that at least twelve of these units are units + only allowed by special review, which begs the very question - :,�y� posed by this application. While it is correct that the two free market dwelling units might contain five bedrooms each ��,f for a total of ten bedrooms, the additional twelve units are _ � allowed only by special review, if at all. Please note that '_;�;�� • Section 3-8.13 does not permit four caretaker units as suggested by the applicant, but only one caretaker unit on `�.;y%,`� each property. � 6. The applicant suggests in its application that under Section 3-6.4, an applicant with a large family related by blood or - "` . marriage could likely increase the total Prom twenty-two -i�?�`� bedrooms to a substantially larger number. The applicant "; � may be assuming a different definition of "related by blood or marriage" than I believe was intended by the Code. The _~.J:� Code should be properly interpreted to include within this - definition immediate family members, and not extended �.,�j family. Any other interpretation would do the Code grave '`" injustice. In any case, this section only creates a _'�';� presumption, and is not binding upon the County in the presence of evidence to the contrary. While such a "need" .,,:=:;; might exist in the case of a primary residence, the County i,:?'=' may wish. to consider whether such need can be shown to exist - in the case of a vacation home. Finally, to the extent that ;� the applicant wishes to rely upon this presumption as - creating a basis for the grant of the application, I suqgest E. that a documentation of the identity and family �` relationships of those who will occupy the residence be x ; _�� provided to the County. , � K,: ;:: '.r,;i In response to a letter from Austin, Jordan, Young & Peirce dated ;� �,.�! `i May 10, 1989 (attached) the County Attorney had the following ` ; comments: �+�' ,,� n;�A';, 4 � . a :'� ;:=�:a _ �:Y.J� . .. ._...__..... _ . _--. .._. __.._ . . . ....... _.. .-.,..—�— _ . _ . . ..... . . . � � ..._._.._,.. . . '_ `^,fyH�1Y' . 4 . . �..,3��:.� . • c�f:``�µ:_ ' . :�'-;'c,. . . � , ,�: . i. j;'j;s"., � . "k'.i?--i _. . . -.'i{�' .*' `� .��. 1 - _ r:fl- �'i c ��V�� . . "•T °t`: ` �� . .__.. ._ � :, _.... ..... _ , �;.. ,� , � . .. � . ...:;46.95��'�.�;��.io.��E,��`:1C5�94N3S.,a.�:r�^...�.......... .�.. . .�,:. ..�63r.sa»i..Y�l'A�r��'��4 i'�d;...kS7:�.{A��Ii.YYMH�Fj �f M�' t�' � �:;i� k�'�;�rte?. 1. The rebuttable presumption of the Code provision Section 3.6-4(b) applies to those family members "living together as a family unit," not all those related.by blood or marriage. 2. The fact that family members may "visit or travel" with the ' apglicant as stated in the memorandum, even for extended • periods of time, does not constitute compliance with the �:'::�•� _ requirement of "living together as a single housekeeping -`" -�` .:�•4:;_:-::;" unit." If this were so, any Pit:cin County homeowner would r`.�j"�,• be entitled to claim any family member, however distant, as justification for an additional bedroom if that person ri��s' �• occasionally vacations in Pitkin County and stays with the 1,;�,°�� .'' , , resident family member. - 3. The County should require the applicant to identify those p.�, family members who constitute the applicant's permanent t';�'',:. household, along with an identification of the nature ot the _ . relationships. Those who merely visit or travel with the v�ti"" ` applicant do not meet the Code's requirements. As stated in ' m rior memorandum not all those re].ated b blood or `''� � Y P . Y ; 1.'•. marriage may qualify under the Code in any event. ` r'" � i� 4. The suggestion that security details and staff comprise part � ' of "an independent living unit" as that term is used in the cofle is absurd unless such persons do not have families or k homes of their own. In any event, the maximum number of unrelated persons "living together as a single housekeeping E _ ,.� unit" who qualify as a "Pamily" under the Code is five. F' This includes all related and unrelated persons living i � together. The applicant cannat therefore, take advantage of _� this alternative definition of "family" unless the group of � persons to be residing in the house does not exceed 5, in � which case no more than five bedrooms are necessary. � 5. I must emphasize that even if the applicant claims a right to approval under the Code based on a large family, if unrelated persons are to live there also, the maximum number `� who� qualify as family are five. ' ':� 6. Whi2'e the cases cited by the applzcant suggest a broad interpretation of the wosd "family," each case applies such i broad interpretation to persons "living together as a single ' `' housekeeping unit.�� Visiting or travelling with the !_ a applicant does not qualzfy an individual as part of a � "single housekeeping unit." 7. While the applicant may or may not be entitled to approval � of this application under the broad criteria for special � review of section 3-6.4, the information zeceived by the County to date does not justify approval based upon the ��` ` rebuttable presumption identified in Section 3-6.4(b). ��>,;rc � 5 F ..��t.. `� :;��`�. �� _;±`� •� 1 .. _. __... _. _. _ _ � �;� : _ -�- :. ; . �.:t�c-� ` �•---' x. 4 - °� ,'.' � �.�.X.k+ � . .n:?i.:-`. . . t ( ..�i�,;:;° � � ' 1 '�;` q'�.��if�� - , ';�i�t:;;`y,�.�.� . -' ,'F��' . . .��a xn.��'�, � , 3��F� ' , '' ,� �"' ' `.. . ,.. .. _.;. . ..... _ . . .. � r ,.. _..._ , r: �,�,��>�,��;•�I+i��ca^::��4,`� � � � � � .�'. - � . , ' . . ... . . • .a....�.a.,as.Ft.Ic�k6d,G�:.f'a �,�•y _ . �;��......, :t,e�lww._.�#___,.... .... . ,� � . �,�•.'..��: In response to a letter from Austin, Jordan, Young & Peirce dated - May 18, 1989 (attached) the County Attorney had the following comments: "I have reviewed thP May 16, 1989, letter fTOm William R. Jordan to the P&Z on the above subject. Based upon the application, the _ evidence introduced at the P&Z hearing, nd this letter, I have ;t � the following comments and recommendations: �_i:;=, k_.. 1. The question of "need" contained in Section 3-6.4 of the ��.� - Code is in addition to the other special review criteria of � � Section 3-6.1. All of these requirements must be met. _ �'�� 2. In the original application, reliance on the presumption of .; need was based upon the statement that it was "absolutely �' � vital" for government and security personneZ to occugy seven �. :;,,� bedrooms on the premises. By deduction, then, the Y;,. application was based upon a presumption of need for eight � -"^,� bedrooms for family members, Now the applicant states that �`S the residence "will be occupied solely by Ambassador Bandar - and his family,"' (even though the appZicant has stated that �' ';�:�� personnel will reside on the premises on a space � -�:� • availability basis) . these inconsistencies have not been explained to my satisfaction. It would appear that the �.`;:=� facts are being manipulated to fit the requirements for "presumption of need" contained in the Code, the applicant _ i;�__,' having been informed that the presumption does not apply `,� when related and unrelated persons to be living upon the premises exceed five. "�� 3. Under these circumstances I do not believe that the s� presumvtion of a need foz fifteen bedrooms applies. However, this does not mean that the evidence does not demonstrate that an actual need exists for the fifteen -,j bedrooms requested. In my opinion the evidence more ''`=�` directly supports a finding that actual need has been , ;� demonstrated than that the presumption of need is • app].icable. This finding could be based upon the unique :.`:;;:_- requirements of the applicant's position as Ambassador, '==-':� � including staff and security needs, as well as the size of �;=`�x-; the applicant's family. This determination is, however, a --'�.;`'� matter within the sound discretion of the P&Z and the Board. B, County Enqineer: Bud Eylar, County Engineer provided the following comments: (COmments for May 16, 1989 P&Z meeting.) .� 1. Care will have to be exercised an the foundation designs, ,� but the soils and geology reports are so extensive that I � ; don't imagine this will be a problem. v a`?' � � 2. The traffic analysis was a bit hard to follow and I'm not ,, sure that I agree wfth all the assumptions. However, if the �y, j 6 r' ; r, 3 x`j . r.: � 1; �� y � -._...._... " '_ _ __.. . ... . ._.. . -�. _--._ � . .._ .. __..._ .... . ��.�+�°-'" . _.._._._. � . . � . �_ .__ � :-. �. 4 � 4 - .:�3_�i , . t:'t;�' ;"!:-' � . • ��,��: = �.'+,a;7^ . F - ( �.':T.,?.i ' ._ .{�;'2:�A4:�,:; - . • . . � . ;,F..3> .ti �� h �' i�.r, . .�y.�:.: ��"_ r.�'i�.,� :'"f.:4.� , '�`�tin` �. . . .:��i ii';.'��.� .�p�;.. C � � . �A'Y�;}�C,' � _ ' . . �, _ ; �p �(� p� ,. �r. ,�3 -.,� . .. '� . .._,.. ..__ __... ....... .. . _ � . ... . '` .�.sm�.v;��.Y$3�Y°iSt..�a.:iern'7L1'�'t�'!d1CS i.: `h��'�';�,-. � �;.';;,;. Y`r.. . � � �"�� traffic is off by a factor of 2 times, the amount oP traffic increase on McLain Flats Road will be insignificant. The few additional vehicle trips to Aspen's core area will not make the parking problem any worse since the parking garage will be coming on line in advance of this construction. 3. There are some questions about the drainage study. First, ��'- it references 20� slopes as maximum, but the soil investi ation makes reference to 30� to 60� slopes in some �,',^,'- areas. g Obviously, this discrepancy needs to be resolved. `'"` �• . . Depending upon whose slope figures are correct, it may be i.� _ necessary to re-do all of the calculations pertaining to runoff retention areas, etc. It would be nice to know what - method was used for these calculations. The study and >;"� design should be stamped by a registered engineer. t'. (Additional information was provided and reviewed by the `; County Land Use Engineer.} �;-. "� �f . Land Use Engitteer, Tom Newland, had further comments regarding r, :;�� the development as follows: :�'� f'. ' � ;:� Drainage: The drainage analysis appears to be complete, but has not been conducted by a certified engineer. It is recommended � 'that the applicant submit the report to a professional engineer for review and certification. ,'`� Sceriic Quality: It appears that the applicant has taken adequate ;'_„� measures to reduce the visual vulnerability of the development with a 10-point visual impact mitigation plan. The outdoor t,;:�} lighting plan submitted conforms to County standards as described �s in Subsection 5-502.1 of the Land Use Code. Aowever, I am unab2e :v;j to find a description of the proposed roofing the applicant ti_� wishes to use. If said roofing is metallic, it should be painted or otherwise surfaced to eZiminate any unsightly solar �,�::,; reflection. ,-:,;r� Impact on Road system: I concur with Bud Eylar's analysis of the _ .9 � traffic study. Please keep in mind that the County Code requires ;{ the applicant to suJimit traffic studies based on the worst case, :� maximum trip generation scenario. The traffic study sites _.;_� � several "average" trip generation figures that do not confirm j,� with these requirements. (For example, the report states that � the caretaker units will generate 2 average daily trips. These � figures shouZd actually be 7 trips per day based on County Road � Standards.) If the assumptions within the traffic study are ' true, the impact of the development to the County and State road � systems will be insignificant. McLain Flats Road and True Smith " Road have been recently upgraded by the County, and the traffic ,S ';� on State Highway 82 is already well overcapacity. � { I recall that the Starwood Ranch subdivision committed to � , ! contributing to improvements of the Trentaz Gulch/McLain Flats � �. :` � �.., :�.,-. °�... � 7 k..'��,. ��"' f. _� :�f' � �,,ti _.__._ _.._. _._.... _... _ _._ �'•' ..__. --... ._.. _.�r-`,'.�� . � - . .. �. .�� - :'j'i�7:" . . .' f . � � � . -- �::i't�i �:G.,ty ='�;`�: . . ' '�.ti�`, �y;� _ . __ ( � $ , , t,�_�r:_�! , .. �''�. '"4''"^fu _s��. - a � oC'; •^*4,�'•�;,:T,:.� :�t�� a .. . .�w�i' ;•'�t,i�T� r . � .i-`...' 7i-' '` _:i''"' ,. "t� . . .,.. _ �'�� 1 -. .. �., y ,�c'` � ; 'y . � � r:pf��_�i�.rs�r��L��4�p..�....� .' t,}��(. � � 5 � {�Y �(C � � ' . .tlS+l1i�:.,..l.[r.,.r�...�7�. ,. . ...... � .. . .......�T..`�.�.'w.«..,�...4�•�1( ��i•.a �,t �: �,.�t'..:� . Road intersection when originally approved. At that time a - determination was made by the County as to fair compensation between the Starwood Subdivision and the Starwood Ranch Subdivision. However, �this determination was based on the placement of two modezately sized houses on the subdivision lots. Therefore, the cost sharing of these improvements must be re- ' allocated based on this extraordinary proposal. i; �" Internal Road Design: The internal road network conforms to �° ; County standards for the amount of traffic generated. Off-street �: ;�. . parking does not appear to be addressed within the proposal. As n r. mentioned in the submission, 22 total bedrooms will be placed on - � the lot. Therefore, 22 off-street parking spaces must be placed _� within the desiqn. It is recommended that the app2icant submit a detailed parkinq plan showing the location and size of these 22 spaces. ,� Other: The immense size of the proposed structure is hard to ;;'.,,; . comprehend. For example, the master bedroom living area alone is �.;,�, 'a in excess. of 2000 square feet. Going from the master bedroom to ;!''•, •. ; the Children #6 bedroom requires a walk of over 210 feet. Tt is ,_i apparent that the move towards larger and larger buildings seen � � on the west side of Aspen last year is beginning to creep out � 'into the County. If the County wishes to control this trend, it � is strongly suggested that F.A.R. restrictions be established for � zone districts such as the RS-2o and AF-1. F �- - ..� .� C. Aspen Fire Protection District: Wayne Vandemark, Fire !. Marshall provided the following comments: F i -:i A response to the project site was made via Fire Department j apparatus. Driving at pzedicted response speed, arrival was � 15 minutes from the Fire Station. The driving and weather conditions were ideal. �; i ' i� It must be remembered that presuming there was a fire when �, ' 4 the. •call was made, flashover would occur between six and ' eight minutes after the discovery of the fire. Flashover is t t �. a condition whereby all contents of a fire room are giving t. � off flammable gases thus the entire room is involved in i � fire. Approximate2y ten minutes later the Fire Department `c � will arrive. It is this response time that warrants this �'�� office to strongly recommend the installatfon of a 4' � residential sprinkler system. +�' j � . i The system will activate the sprinkler head in the fire room � which will prevent the build up of toxic gases and l:�' � eliminating any further fire damage, With the proposed fire � •. hydrant (S'� main) the required fire flow still would not be { obtained. This is another reason why a sprinkler system �;� :' ? should be considered. ��',?'xiq�' � 8 �a. �` � :::�'�;: i L � •f• ' ..,. .. ... ..... .. - - . .... .. : ._...__ . ....___..__._....__. . .. _... .._._..... .. . -_..,__......+�'� ��:. ;. —,w �..... ----� �. . � � :'� - . �-. ..._� ..F .1�:;''• . . �. : . " . -:3'Yw� . � :5::_ .. � . . '.�a"':, . . ' ' , •::S:E,_ ' ,. .�.�'��-`'�i:�� . . '�.�n. ,�#,.' - 4 V;'_' ^•7.'- ' . %';�'^,",��{? p .-6�}�_.f � , . . -"��r; s •� '�^��:.� ,� �� :. .,.. ... . _..... _ . _ . . _,... ti; . _.. (. . t r t�"1,p �'r f��' s a��q+�" ;�,,�'v��`�',,�l,�r µ q i^,fiir��i'�,n� �7 .;. � t �8. S �'j�y�;y'�-y�.'.�•gFi�p/�/i-�`�7��'� 4 �`��y�� : W iq��;��(]Y�.�4h/�f4', i^' r'allii ��.�*ie��., „Y� s . .� �,t j��•_ �. ,•��. �!�'R`��I�..x��...'. �.:ID{f�t�r.Ai{��'�w4'W':1'�`t.��..M, ,..J�1 .�i.�.'�'.L�J'.hc4 .. , ..'� ��:t �ka , . �':3#�St �: D. Envi.ronmental Health Department: Bob Nelson provided the ' following summary in his memorandum of May 4, 2989: It is our conclusion that, with a-.��careful site plan and .:".�;" proper engineering, there should be only minimal environmental impacts resulting from the water demands, �� wastewater disposal, and runoff. Therefore, we have no technical objections to approva].s for the site. �':.., , E. Starwood Residents: In a lettez dated May 4, 1989, Ms. ( Ethe1 Towne, adjacent property owner expressed concern regarding `' . the visibility of the proposed structure. Mr. Charles B. Israel �'.... in a letter dated April 20, 1989 states "that the open space � gained by one building FAR exceeds the damage o£ having many bedrooms and staff rooms in a single, grivate residence." Mr. 'n a letter dated A ril 26, 1989 is �.'" � g Russell Scott, Jr., M.D. 1 P F:�;. , thrilled to see such low density on Lot 2. All letters are `1::�. ° ,€ attached: � rI•. = Staff received a phone call from Attorney, Paul Taddune, who q indicated that he was representing a homeowner who was concerhed � 'with possible traffic on Trentaz Drive. i �_�2 Staff did not receive any comments back from Starwood Homeowners i - ,-� Association, 2oning Department or the Sheriff's Department. Staff was advised by the latter two that they had no comments. j . II. STAFF CoM1�1TS: The applicant is requesting approval for ;� two (2) items. The first is approval for an additional detached employee unit, 1,200 square feet with 3 bedrooms. The second a item is a single-fami2y dwelling of more than five bedrooms, j pursuant to Section 3-3.1(b) of the County Land Use Code. `:�� Planning staff provides the following comments regarding these :� two requests. • A. Additional Employee Unit: Planning staff concurs with the ', ,� County Attorneys comments and findings. They are as follows: : l r� 1. Resolution 87-106 for the Starwood Ranch Lot Split approved � � the full• complement of employee units as one 1,200 square 3 feet unit and one 500 square foot unit within a barn along � with two free-market units for a total of four units on Lot � j 2 and one free-market unit on Lot 1. Approval of an d additional employee unit would be contrary to Resolution 87- � 106 approval. � 2. The County Land Use Code does not permit the construction of ? two detached twelve hundred square foot caretaker units on ` � i one parcel of land. The Starwood Ranch Lot 2 was granted � two employee units- one twelve hundred square foot care.taker :.�;`^;! ..y.`., 9 ' '�.`. ;..� ��: y'� •� __- �----.__._._.._.._ ._. _.. __ _. _.> �� _'S-''� - ,.�..-.�+.,. � . ,�,i�.;,;;Y;\!'s-. . - ` ' . , . .�:-.-z.:i: r _ .. y5� s:1�, . = . � , t . �'>:`:. . • . . �. � .,�k��w` -- . . ..��,tii.4'e_':;, . , r � ��tk�::..+i' � � . :.C-dxr,.:�;;;�_';.� . .r�,+''�� i;!, `;,.i�;,� . 1: . �'�:�i`�:.. . . . � "''J;;ti:�' �:�4 �<':;-� � �� • � _ � . . . ,.. ..... .. _ ' r,� ; . . �. �)'��k s 3. �.��.�� v�: �,�� E�','s�>, � '.. � n. .. � � . � ��,�Frl^5�_7�� u��t jr��"t t �lj � � � .,{� �r '�i�11S'�;w x�.• .ti "�`fa,�'"s.��4 a� � � ��'$' �µ' .l36>.�E � ��r i��j �;�._) . ... . b�.:�� "yt��. � "6'ut+�.. _� j�y��S � �� . . '_ :��_qyv��'�`:'�'� �u"fl�S.�.r�,dif]$i`i�.if ei,1Lt��{.:�4�Y'�i�c{.:..��.� ��r'.Y.+r.�.�.� . .....xi'$d'r4d.k."�� 4 44 ' 1 " i ci t *` �aS�M1._ ..�("ser.. unit and one five hundred square foot unit within an - agricultural out building. To approve an additional � employee unit would be contrary to the Code. �"f';;'" ��:':; . Based on the previous finding, staff and the Planning and Zoning �j.':' - Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners denial �'`; _ for an additional employee unit for Lot 2 of the Starwood Ranch. � a B. Special Review for a Single-£amily Dwelling of more than Five " :� Bedrooms: The applicant is requesting to develop one of the two free-market units on Lot 2 with more than 5 bedrooms. The �'� -� development requested will consist of 15 bedrooms within an � . � � enclosed space of approximately 43,055 square feet (s.f.) and a total usable space of approximately 55,00o s.f. with an above ��y `'. 1 grade footprint of approximately 16,300 s.f. Although there is ;� no floor area ratio within a RS-2o zone, staff requested that the � a applicant address the General Submission criteria. Because this ��'•' �'� is a Special Review request sufficient information was needed to '= review a project of this size for it's impact. The applicant has � provided sufficient, information that shows impact caused by the 6 development of this structure, such as drainage, water, sewer, soil, etc. can be mitigated with proper planning and engineering. '�� • Staff has received letters and phone calls from adjacent property - i owners concerned about the size, visual impact and compatibility .� with the existing neighborhood (Starwood Subdivision) . As stated ,� above, the RS-2o zone has no floor area ratio (FAR) limits. "'° Staff concurs with the County Land Use Engineer that if the �y`� County is to control the size of single-family dwellings, p restrictions must be established for those zones that do not have i any FAR restrictions. It is my understanding that this issue is �� being addressed in the present rewrite of the County Code. In ';�� reviewing the visual analysis map and report along with visiting the site, staff finds that there will be some private residences . ';-_i to the south that will see this proposed structure. Staff also receivecl letters and phone calls from adjacent residents who are � happy to see the low density and open space remain on the 95 acre '7 property .with this proposal. The proposed residence will be ti� difficult to see by Highway 82 or the public because of its location •and the private and secure Starwood access road. The ,,,,� only neighborhood adjacent to the proposed residence is the Starwood Subdivision. These 2 to 4 acre lots consist of 10,000 � to 15,000+ square feet homes. The percentage of existing FAR for [ , ,:� the Starwood Subdivision lots is greater than the FAR for Lot 2 of Starwood Ranch, but this still does not hide the size of this r proposed structure. The applicant could scale down the structure � and achieve the desired needs along with being less visible and ' " cor.ipatible with the adjacent properties In regards to energy :�;�,'?��"4. � efficiency it would take less energy to maintain a small house of � ,. 10,00o to 15,000 square feet than a 55,000 square foot house �,., based on maintenance alone. Attached is a lighting plan map and -.,�M� � report. All along the drive and all around the house outdoor I ' _ .., t�d :. lighting is placed. The lighting may conform to County I 10 �;,: ;`j ;� 1_ . ____-__�_-- _ ______ .__. _ __ . __ �. _ _ _ _:..�, � �s=:-=- :�- - ,;:;:;_:,�'�:;.,:,�;: _- , ` _,�,^: ��.;,h�;{;; . ;,;+:; y` -�'::s�, . ,=S-;i.�µ v� .t�.. - � ��' :_ ... ,_.., . _.._. _ � � . ._ .. ... .. . :... _.___.. ,. ' .. . . . .8 r . U � ..'13 ,��p'y�$,�.Y.�:' (��{y .c��fS yL i { . �� .{,,'�� r4(.�'`ti��j��j��J��a'.t.i'F��•�-�,� `ty f 1�'�}t5� ,-� � �,�' 'a�'�bdk � T YTIiU y.�7� Y�� t f � �- i ,lN'� Y �6� � y .. "�k�"'w c 4��'�7��yrs �prry��T t i. k��C,a _ +,4�� N .t�1�N* S/��.� ��ni�v'��jJ�{ :�,�p•��Ff J � r ��i , �: i' � - '+lp '.,��la� ._f..��i3rP.��!�":.fi:.lL.�Y��1...'"�3.12:- +_:� ��.�r_.1!I'z�.:.:.:n..._.. _�.w�1'�{�Ni.W:4�Yp.�w'ti��7 �.�, standards, but it will be very visible to the adjacent neighborhood and possibly Highway 82. The outdoor lighting should be lessened in the amount and location. The Planning � Commission resolution addresses the outdoor lighting concerns. �' • Theze are some conditions that need to be addressed further as �.;�-' ' noted in the referral comments. The P&Z resolution addresses '�' �''=,: these conditions. Attached in a letter dated April 5, 1989, in which the applicant addresses the General Submission criteria. � "'' The technical report that accompanies this letter will be '�,�� ''' available at the Planning and Zoning Commission's meeting. - Staff finds that the applicant has addressed the General - - � Submission criteria for impact of size of structure sufficiently. In regards to compatibility and relationship to surrounding land ti� ,.� uses, a 55,000 plus square foot house would have a hard time `�,; .•. being compatible anywhere in Pitkin County. �:: : C� : Section 3-6.4 of the Land Use Code establishes review criteria � ' ��. and presumption for Special Review single-family houses. „r , 1. Review Criteria: Sinqle-family dwelling applications will i,_$ be reviewed to ensure conformance with the definition of , single-£amily dwelling and limitations on occupancy. �� Staff Response: In reviewing the attached house plans staff � finds that the applfcation conforms with the definition of a sing.2e-family dwelling unit. A dwelling unit is defined as a ,,_;�„;� single unit.... providing complete, fndependent living facilities =a for one (1} or more persons, including permanent provision for ;_',_� living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation. No dwelling unit shall have more than one (1) kitchen per unit. The floor plans show only 1 kitchen on the second floor along with ;;�_� independent living £acilities, sleeping, eating and sanitation. ;;,•,::� 2. Presumption: A £amily composed of six (6) or more persons , ;`� related by blood or marriage shall be presumed-to have a � need for a number of bedrooms equivalent to the number of persons in the family; provided, however, that this ;,..r . presumption is rebuttable, and evidence to the contrary may " be presented. �''�� .._ �``�';s Staff Response: The application does not mention the individual _ .,;� owner or famYly, but a corporation called ASPCOL. The applicant • provided additional information for the second P&Z meeting � explainirzg the following: � "The Applicant is the record title holder for a family � -- that consists o£ eight persons in the core family � { (husband, wife and six children) and a family of �, ' q persons related by blood and marriage of 43 persons, '� , incZuding brothers, sisters and parents. The head of � � " -,� the household is a government ambassador to the United „ '`�'' States from a foreign country who, because of the ��yr : � 11 �;�.� �: .� s { �+: '-:;;� ; 1 . ;. � ` _� .. .. . .._ . ,. .. . . . ._.._.._......... . . ....,_-:::�—��.-°---. . . . ... .. . ,. ' --�_i�l� - � �- . � . L"(�:3.'�'ti::r_ ` . .f' ;eT^� :,}:.-. .'.#:x: - "' _ - ( k`M 'ii\:<y:�:':.•� , ' ' ,':.�:'.}�.�.;. . `�..'E..^:�;4:.�_',�::: ..r7'.,.' . ?..=1:�:�;�.. . . �.`'_yJ_ :i^�..r.__�: . i :;.'L'x` ' , •;,,;;;'.;� ,� .a� ':.�::::; ,: �;': , . . .. :, . ' ;�fid��r w',�ti�� '''�,� ;-1.+�" :' - q ro �.��4�� ;;� � ,�,`�, ,S�'4°�'t . sa��4 . ; p� ; t 7'.� �4 lY{�.,�� t� �i� � } 4 t.) _ �.�. �,;�tiY�',¢�,af i'4:Y. � ist ��ni'� ftg�M1 }� l� �Y , �y,;,�{��,��-j�,1ri4��.�a�,�,�,�'� {;�f 5��;,�yT yF:r � -.�, r�'23��,+�'f�._'Y .. . 7:i�'��. �}� � ��''��?'..r"h!�L�i.,..�:�Y..�ae`.�t'2s$.�,r..rti�e�.4x.1.k.�'fc.�t�,'t'm�3+E. .��t +.«xc..e�rt�'�ia..�r.a� �8.�.d n_kt�6N'!��Y}S��i��:. nature of his position, requires that he be accompanied � ' at all times by government assistants, personal staff and security personnel numbering as many as ten to fifteen persons. It is absolutely vital for government ;3 " and security purpos�� that these persons be housed in '�` ' the same residence structure that he occupies. Seven '.d,-,. of the fiPteen bedrooms are quarters for security and �'.' - employees who must accompany the head of the household. The fact that these people must be housed in the - residence has the benefit to the community of avoiding the need and eliminating the impact of shuttling people „ �`� back and forth between the residence and hotel rooms in � . Aspen. Additionally, family members related by blood G. or marriage often accompany the head of the household. F : � Thus, the need for fifteen bedrooms. ��,: k�: ;:t This residence will be owned as a vacation residence �.`'' '�,� and thus will not be occupied an a regular basis. • Occupancy will be sporadic and of limited duration each time. Thus, there will be less impact upon the surrounding neighborhood, the environment, the roads "-a and the like, than would exist by virtue of a single- i�'.� • � family residence occupied as a residence full time." ;._� The application states that seven of the fifteen bedrooms will be ^� used to quarter staff (security and employees) , Section 3-8.13 � of the County Code permits employee dwelling units within the RS- "`i� 20 zone to be located attached or within a single-family dwelling ' ' or within an agriculturaZ outbuilding of not more than five hundred (500) square feet of total flooz area. This section also ,-;`'� provides for the construction of one (1) employee residence not to exceed three (3) bedrooms or twelve hundred (1,200) square `�� Peet of total floor area. The applicant has received prior ,:�,� approval .through Resolution 87-106 for Lot 2 of the Starwood � Ranch for two employee uhits. These employee units were 1-500 'i:� square foot unit within an agriculturaZ outbuilding and 2-Z,200 square foot unit. The request for seven (7) employee units ?_:'s� within a single-family home is contrary to the prior approval {Resolution 87-106) and to the County Land Use Code. �"� Plaaning Sta.ff concurs with the County Attorney that the presumption of a need for fifteen bedrooms may not apply under the circumstances presented in the Applicant�s May 16, 1.989 letter. However, actual need may exist for additional bedrooms. �':"- � Attached is a June 1, 1989 letter from the applicant explaining � , � in detail the unique requirements of the applicant's position as � : Ambassador, for actual need for the number of bedrooms requested. [:� In summary, the letter states that ��the applicant is a foreign 4 ': � Ambassador and a member of a royal family requiring security for � ,�. � himself and for this family. In addition, the Ambassador travels ,.r..�`;:: with personal staff, including housekeeping and kitchen staff for �.+.�1� `. i`' ��; j 12 µ ;;. _E {. ..� ' � .;� •. . � _ _ _ _ _._._ .r... �-c. .._.. _ . . . . .. .Y , . � ... � . ' .,�`:.!"i= _ . ' . `:Sif...r4'.'`,L't'. . . ,�'�~. _ ' � � � '}.: f.::2��:��j,...f�J. . ..T' « ,�rt;��..: . .,y.-�:r,;e's,i'_` . .:':4= ':%S r:4�y � � �Sp�+�� • . . '.'_i:�'Y�"i � -... ..... . . . _ . . ,... _ _ ° �k ... 'k - � .A Y�1 � ps��7( �.�tf��{�'C��°t'k�.t�s�t'L'�,-�'��'}��•y�t3 }ti��.�Y�. �!r��{'��,i�Fv7��nµ��1'"1��.�,.�"'tUy r2,�. .�'�" �A:��i'I�`r�'1�3".�yN��'k7�ij�.��y�5y��'•�}��dyE1, '�� M �!�9tk�� `��,�t, �!t. > ! �r�! t�+. �i a � ��_ � � �`:�`��:1L�.....t_�C.�Sl�....�r.3...�cn.:..�'.:�f{y'�Fr�nEish.yli�s..,1._...:.:i�y .�iTa.%.��._.., . . . .��:'Sl3Y7i:�� . '+. iy'.. .. t• the family and security personnel and child care staff for his children. These staff inembers are all security cleared and, for security purposes, it is preferable to house staff at the residence. ' �° The total number of staff and security with whom the Ambassador � � tzavels on a regular basis is 15 and of that number approximately C` ,,:� ': 10 would be housed in the Pitkin County residence depending upon -- the number o£ family members traveling with the Ambassador at any u� ' � given time." �' ' Planhing staff finds that there exists a presumption of actual need do to the applicant's position as a foreign Ambassador and � the security needed for himself and for his family for personal �x protection. � _?'::� @'.. Planhing staff agrees that it would be preferable to house the � .-';;_� staff at the residence, but finds that there are two (2j approved � employee.units with up to four (4) bedrooms and one (1) free- ,: yy�� market unit with up to five (5) bedrooms on the applicant's property. There is the potential of an additional five {5) -'-<.� bedrooms if the adjacent Lot 1 of Star Mountain is purchased as ., stated in the applicant�s letter of May 31, 1989. A majority of �:'F.;j �the .staff could be located within these additional units that are - ? located on the property. There may be a need for staff/security � VT'� to be within the Ambassador's house. The applicant states that • the immediate family consists of his wife and six children. The floor plan shows a need of seven (7) bedrooms for the family. �'"� The applicant states that they prefer 10 staff and security - members stay within the house. Planning staff finds that actual need exists, but the amount of bedrooms (15} seems excessive and directed by the existing floor plan. With the information _ provided by the applicant, it is still difficult to determine the number of bedrooms equivalent to the number of persons for actual =-�=`� need beyond the immediate family. StafP recommends that the ;'.;�-j house not exceed eight (8) bedrooms. Staff recommends one (1) � additional bedroom for actual need with regards to , staff/security. Tf the residence was smaller in size it may be " easier to provide security for it's residents and be more energy ��: efficient"and compatible with the adjacent -properties. Staff -:"' ? recommendation is based on the following findings. :<:'� Findings x - 1. The Ambassador's immediate family consists of eight (8) d ^~� members with a presumed need of seven (7) bedrooms. ;; . , 2. The applicant has an actual need at this time for one � ; � additional bedroom for staff and/or security for �?� ' himself and his family, do to his position as a foreign ' ,3 Ambassador, k • �':�, , '_:`._� y�.�:. ��`, 13 �l, ' , � ,h� .,+� �`. ,::L.( ; j _ _..-� _ ..... . �,..-�. ___._ ; _ __. ..__ _ _�- :r. t.. • -° � �:3r:- � �(-k..'` _c . ::?:;a ,.5..:.i:e';.'.p? . . ._f''- t E= �: tiyT::.:.A.�,� . . , . ..�:�':;:;��'!i„:�: . . . '`c:;":;�:,::, � . .Y'Stl'-r,Z�..�,.i .'F.y,s, f^.. . . .:'��:,Sr��:.�t" .'��µM�' _ . 'Y'y��i` + w . :.1.�` „'.'-' � . . . "•:t'!� „�++4.1"j .. . .. . .- _' .. .... ..—.. _.`�, '.... ``� .:� Y.t �^��rn.F; � �'�,Y.J�I. s � �+� �"�6M�� .�”�4 � ' } � �r`�� , �. , x�, `,. � �b�' �c,�.�,�4=��r �'�; �` �� k �' �'��'�� "�'�. ��ti �z�, . � +.+�a�`'��- t,,�i�..�.��'1?��'.s�_-s.�''.cu+:;�'��.,��.:-..�' �,.�`„��<:�_ ...: _ �; a.. �� t ! 3. The applicant's property has approval for two (2) employee units, one (1) free-market unit and has made i representations to purchase the adjacent 35 acre lot • with one (1) free market unit in which staff and ` security may reside. �;•_ � �. � 4. The applicant has not shown an actual need or presumed need for eight (8) additional bedrooms in the main �`�� residence. �; , � 5. To provide additional employee housing within the :,,,,� single-family home is contrary to prior approval and to � ; the County Land Use Code. - � STAFF RECOMPIENDATION: I. Additional P.mployee Unit: Based on the previous finding, � �%:"` P2anning staff recommends denial for an additional employee unit �;' ,_:��; for Lot � of the Starwood Ranch Lot Split. },{i II. Five or More Bedrooms: Based on the previous finding, ;��`� Planning staff recommends denial for fifteen (15) bedrooms. - +However, staff could support an approval of up to eight (8) ;`.-t^� bedrooms based on the previous finding. , ""' MJL:das „�~Y� boccmemo.aspcol ;x�;: i�.�;fj � . � i Note: It is recruested that the apolicant/aaent be oresent at `� the hearing_, . � ' �:� , ;_.;� •'�� -� - . i �.- :4�:�� "� `i . F:�:-�;�'_ - �� \.: :.:'.:�'� ':.'-.*;y.. �y�:: �r. _::1 - .��- 14 .c: � , .� :�� r�,r-. .._.._..._,_ ...___�_ _..._... ____�._.,_._..-----. .___...._ .__.__.....,._z-,_,..,...�s... .. __._�.— ------�-- . _.... _ . . F-�i.��. ' � ' _ �. <<�.v*,: _ � " .�'� 4�:��: .7;Xt}'_��..�.� • � `:.�� :.y'f . . . . . . :�v'{.s�9s�.t'i�< � . . �.:s�'. .. . . t mr��S� � � . . . . . -:t:7:'L:l:?:-' . . , { ' . �'� yt , ' . . . . . C! . �!�yt�_' � . .:fy:�.-.—'�/�s.�i`.' .. � . � � � ., - . 1�1n4.'_ . H r,�,f y �-'+ , . .. � ��',�'�, .�s�y . � �x :: .,�,��e;j �:�,� ,: ;.��' ` s . . "trr��sn, :�:'_.<. h . _. . _..... . ._ .. . .. .�.. "� ` " ,r -�`��'"��s��y y+� �� , '� + , � c a, � �q�} �'q,� n . r�� 'L�ri�..S . � ��y��'�� .��a��l�l�.]&➢�",ll'l1G/m.,:�.W'Y�Si•-... . .+wT�-�6'l�Nv'�G ..., i•��•ti�."/ . . . y�� ,� n� • _ . r P'- -F Y.��Z.r ��-V_';.. . , � � . �• �. � DESIGN WORKSHOP,INC. �LANCSCAPE ARCHITECTUHEt �lANO PUN!l1NG•URBAN DESIGN � BOARD OF C0.COMM'R'S , PITKiN COUNTY PuGiic MQaring Exhibits <. Date: ' �.�._. ��'`� - �f., May 10,1989 Sf�L:O�. �� Subjact: �''A - Exh.r�a. "'G" , . ��.� � y-'. Mr.Tom Newland !'` - ` t Pitldn County Engineer =-� 530 E.Main - Aspen,Colorado 81211 ,� Dcar Tom, :ti This letter is to clarify several staff review comments in the Drainage Plan for Lot 2 of � � Stanvood Ranch. Our report incorrecdy idenrified the steep slopes as 20%instead of the �`-,�•, I - �� 50%n. This was a typing error and did noc affect the calculations. � ;. �. ;# The second print was a description of the drainage method used. Please find enclosed the .,� : methodology and calcularions. SCS TR-55 is the documented source. _�t� '� Please also find enclosed a letter from Schmueser Gordon Meyer with a professiona! ;_� engineer stamp. They are the engineer for the project and will complete detailed design. .;� If your have any other quescions,please don't hesitate to call. Bestregards, � DESTGN WORKSHOP,INC. �:� .<.,YT,� . . � By: G U�/� aw �- 'chard Shaw,Principal RS/mks -. � : 'i � ,-� � :.-� � �3��• � �ix:��`y. � ' .:,;. ,,.-,�=:` ;;;., ,;� � - :,.�;'� � 7t0 EAS7 DURANT STAEET ASPEN,fALOAAD081611 303925•8354 � OENYER ASPEN pNOENIX � -.--'T--_....._.....r .... �.._............_. ... ' . ..... ..._:....., '" .._:........_........._.. . � �-1C'm�T"..'_""___. .,..__..� . ..._........ .___ ..... ..._. _ . . _,. . " , ,- . . ;.._.... �_:.�__. �� . . .,,_ , . . ' -_ - . . M�'..-.: . t k��z. �� ._._ ' �� z _. , �;,. . ":i� .�.'� . �r, .,�- : � . � . Zy�}�� . � ` Y�y.:,��_ - . ' ' . . ''�{��V� . . . . ' . .' . b'.��ti:�M i�'. . � . :-.,r!6::�[c`.��_,r�,x: - - �`��rk..�i-. � .•'T'T`4�'. ~ � r" . . ''"�.'��Y . . ��. :� +� � ,� �r ,.,xr:::E, . . r. - . . � . i j� a �� - - . ,, . ..._.. .� .�;;v� 5'' �t'1r�. ��; '� ��`r�'' + , . � •i 4,..(M�� ,� �? ( �1,• s '�'L �J�',�� . . .Y'� ; � �t�A�� h ri l �i�f� 11` } } /�,{ `�'� � �`� :�ti i13 15.�,� e '�' a r s . , :il��.,t'E�e�� .r3'�.{� .��:li�i`,��+Y�� *��w�S"H.t.�'F�x}'.%.�eYS' ' .��4��OFt�.. W' f `. �'Lf :��/[�� c c � 5-105 SCENIC QUALITY ' �4' � '"''i' - . a. CSU Visual Resource Map �i�;>:��:.' ;?2.':. ? The Visual Analysis Map, Sheet 1, shows the CSU area of - high visual vulnerability as it affects Starwood Ranch Lot #2. Half of the building envelope falls within the ~ � area of high visual vulnerability and most of the � proposed building is in this zone. � _ Areas of high visual vulnerability are• defined by factors which include 1) slopes over thirty percent, 2) � = � major ridgelines. 3) moderate slopes with sparse � : � vegetation and 4) high value foreground. 1�!.. � r.,..... � In Starwood Ranch Lot #2 the second and third reasons are the most relevant, although the ridgeline is not seen from a "major" public view corridor. The � 1� ridgeline can be seen from County Road 18 to Lenado and ( � also appears as a ridge to four neighbors on North k. • Starwood Drive. In the latter case, the ridgeline is � � below the skyline as there are higher hills beyond. .� �. Many of the neighboring homes are also located in the :.� area of high visual vulnerability. Careful measures �. _� will be taken to minimize visual impact of the E; building. These are outlined in the following section. ';� b. Visual Impact Mitigation Plan. � ,-� (NOte that Sections 1 to 7 are referenced to Section 5- � 105 of the Pitkin County Code and are directed more , � towards public facilities than residences) . 1 '� 1&2. See Section 5.105 - Erosion for discussion on i:, revegetation of natural materials and topsoil � stockpiling. 1 �~� � 3. Weeds..will be controlled when necessary with ;-y herbicide. Close to the house they will be _-� � controlled by hand. _�; i . e 7` { f `^��.�jl'��-. .`�z�° 5 . ';Y;,P:i:.,`��;' i •.....,..,;k y,� � ��''`;?;1f.. i .;;'��t ., � i.: •r� .�� F r � � IF 1 . 1 _ � .._...'_."'" "_"" _'.. .....__. . ......... .. _.._...... ._.�.�.._._ ...............__...,.._...... ......_.. _......._-.__ ._.....`......._..__._. .._.. .. . � �._..__ . - � . ' f��.�.. � � . . � ._�� ... ... � a • . ��d x vy'j.L�,M.!�y,�. . . . � ' . _::yt�i. � . . . `:,y:;�� =_ � . � �- � , ti� , 'y"t,'.s`ti'i;,'; � . . . � :.y.iN$�`;ti'Si .. . . • , , � �. :. YY '� �,�.�.+¢�'�':� .,,t�,.,�i,iv:^,{r,,.� , :•,,'�•�,h�� ;�yt�l� . . t . ��t ;;� s �YS..�::Ni„ � . .'."iE�:.: k:.. ._ .»_ ._ ._._.. ... . . .. ,. :... . _.._ . ,�� . . _ ,. _ ; .. .../ . , . � , . . � Ar�s� �M° 'j'4[ �C L!r�..) 4 1. �t!,J r ��j� i`�1��!�.��• 1� �.�#LjY;'f!s��C .. .-.. � ,4 fw ��.y..j.'`�S��1� � �:.. ...n ,� ( S . ��y�rt.�h�S��.m`.��r 1 , .�_"'Y�.,.`"�le+�..�'.eA'...�. ��`��'..!+.�s.t"s4c4r;''�},:nci`��i��E..`'�.:�....t:..,a`e'� �.�.��.��" a.,�{.��3r�'13�.�"�€' ,'�� +�e":5��'3f . �'`'= � l 4. Water and sewer pipes and the septic field will be located to minimize site damage. Construction mitigation methods of topsoil stockpiling and ' minimizing the disturbed area will be applied as - described above. The disturbed area will be ��- . primarily open meadow of less than 15� slopes It �r^=. will be revegetated. 5. Scenic views from the site are shown on the Visual �`l S Analysis Map at control point A, The most ;i.' - : .� impressive (primary) views are in the direction of ;�; east through south through west towards the Elk tt Range. This is also the optimum sun orientation. �.. ':f,� Secondary views are towards the reservoir and the red clitfs. The house is sited to take advantage �''. of these views, although neighboring homes are � seen in the primary view plane. n. - �S' �� :,� The neighbox'ing homes orient towards the primary views in the opposite direction to the proposed ';--� house. The proposed house is in the secondary , viewplane of the neighbors. `~.� The only other viewshed that may be disrupted by . ';',� the proposed building is from sections of the � Lenado Road (between miles 3 and 3.5 as measured '�*"i'�.� from the turn off County Road 27A) and residences on that road_ The road is over 1/2 mile distant -- from the site, therefore the house will be in the _ . middleground view. To minimize intrusion on the � ridge2ine, the house will be notched into the - ' slope and screened by mature aspen and fir trees. �'�� 6. New road construction is limited to the hause's ;�_'?� driveway which does not obscure views. -`�':� 7. Theze will be satellite reception and other -;+{� transmission devices. These will conform to Pitkin County Regulations and shall not extend �'"'� ovex ten feet above the maximum height limit. -�:`3 8. The architectural character of the house is intended to blend with the natural surroundings. � .,"� The folZowing description source is Hagman Yaw, Inc„ ArchitecCs. � i : -� The house will have a natural stone base, log � � '° � columns and some wood siding. Colors will be : natural earth and vegetation tones like light y�{ = greys and dark browns_ The wood shingle roof has y;._;.y;r:� :,�-� overhangs of 4 to 6 feet which to some extent wil]. '''a'��. limit reflection from glazed areas. ��f �': � �' �. � .f. '�-'l� 7 , ._:... ---_ _ ___._ _ .. _ _. _ _ _ _ _- - _ _ ,_,. #t��e � _ __,__�—�— � � ``��_^t°_: ` �;ry :�;;` - ,.ti.;: , _ - . � < �` _; • , r� �,�„ �s��:;;°'<°. '.Y'-Mf,S�!N.'�.1, . . . �:}r.:��v:;f;e.:';� ' ,. i:�Z,�°.:°' �•`�a'�:�::"'.�"'f.r�� . , :....�4"�i. �:r`y'.�",ii . ' . ;��.T3� ` � � ' . . ._._._. - w n _. u ��+... � _. . .._ .,- A . I . ,r � � Y'- ,�*�� X �t� �;„ . . �+'��n�,,`,�{�� } �i`�� . y�� 1�6i�� F�/.� }-�� ; W 4o- L x �y. �� .��xr �Y � 1� r,A � k"�f'�� ,�} �r � y� . � �t t -ri'S �"L i) �i a ' , .. +M��`;+t�i��.�m"��.�"� .{��c .__�� .,;� . - � . x:":e'�:d�'S,. tn.. ni .i..,... iGi'"r , ` � . The height of the house will not exceed Pitkin c.`•" County regulations which are 2B' from natural ��" ` , ground level in this zone. It is three stories �.;.=:,- high, with the first floor below grout,d level so '� that effectively only two stories are perceived. f;^."_. 9. The landscape concept for the site is to create a � � : natural setting for the building. The amount of ' ;rt� landscaping will be equivalent to the scale of the building in size and quantity. Immediately adjacent to and enclosed by the !";'� building there will be an enriched space with :j;� intense planting of flowers and shzubs. Outside F';-'' areas will be planted with native grasses and � �: _ ,.,:-.� wildflower mix to blend with the indigenous `��'.�`. vegetation. '�`� Mature coniferous and deciduous tree masses will `'?.� be planted to create a setting and screen the � • house. Views out will be preserved. � ''� Along the access road and driveway there will be �ix:"� irrigated tree masses. All plant materials outside the enriched space `� will be selected as per Pitkin County Landscape ,';w Guidel ines. �* '"# The irrigation period will be from the first week •,a��" in May to the third week in October. The intense � ^� zones will receive 1 1/4"/week. The native zone and the access road area will be irrigated with an automatic underground sprinkler system at a rate. .'.:5� of .Z"/week. � 10. The outdoor lighting is described in detail on the �-'�;; Lighting Plan, Sheet 4. There are four zones: 1) b � High intensity lighting immediately adjacent to :'it the bui].ding; 2) Selective landscape lighting to � accent plant materials; 3) Security lighting and ;; ... '� 4) Driveway lighting. Al2 lighting will conform `� to Pitkin County standards. Security lighting will be pzovided adjacent to the building as � :� required. - i � `-:�a�,,� ,.� , � 5 �� 1 Y 1` M1 ).' . _�.::� t ��.. � � ,�� . . .f • r+� �........_.._ �.......�:._ _. .__..__'_...... _. ....._�__..._......___'.._._ _...._. ...._........ ._.._..._._......__' ......_.._ .. _ . ...,."_._... . _�� . - :- . .�_ ..._. .. ...... t.��'.4.iy\N: .... . . " , - . �.:a..�:,_''` ' .3�,s;_. iy��;sr1-; . . � . �`�t;;: .� . -�y-� � . ' . .. L �'i' � - �( . -�.ti"t.L.,�{��•C•'1:� , � ' , ::,1'.��S��C:.j: .. . - � . . . :f.�i,L'�,:.: . . . :y,,::;��:.�' . ,=�"R"-_!�y . ':S.k'we1-'r��<,: . _ ��s;'•,, Ni�� fA':: . . •:_�:i�u�X.� . � 'yt��"- . ' yc�.a�_ . . fi��^}m� 'a •:.�i± ` '��' . . . . ;"Cr:; r'. ;: � . : . . ` ��" �. . 4 :'fi .�i�.�.cvta�I4�'�sf�f x�'��f' {iSyl��. i� � �g :(5i'a7' �l'�Z x �,3eS'+"��,'��r� q'�F�� n��3l.�fr� �y�N�M ''. . ,- �'.,'�„�x''�,'Pb�7��•t ��}'� �if�� ' _:,Ca`� �l�i;.�.._ 'y<�k.:..' .. . . r..,��'47",3,�i.lvs ,�� t(.0- ` -: � � , � �. `y��.. :..�'5.�.147x,:�t,ua3c3�,��..;1$�:.v<:J,4.±..t. eS' ��5�'� . $ . n � �� 'Z x = J�� F� a �� r � �� s� ��o��- � ��5 U "�o� �� s��- �� "'�� °q" ' s�a R ZQ' z �__"-� �� 3�� ;�� F°'� �+ � �qo°o • . • ��a4�V°-�� "'v� i �-�� '�� I�N O. a a�" _ ¢¢-- .� 3� z ��° F�'° ��Z� •� �3z� � '�' e� H C7 �;',., �5�� F �;� � °_ ��° �� Z ''~`.,. ❑. 5� �nt. z o � s3�r ' �� "s�� O"a ►- _ �;�.;.:,,, . �L�o �. m� � �s� YS � 3i-�— S = " ' � Z �°�ct.s�'��s�g $arq`�,t°�i-°�� o ,�_ �� Zs� � _ - - 4 i�� 3 r � � � J LoN � . W -��_°r � � ��v��3 8��`� R�3�m. � a�..�o¢ �rt i�-�a�i S _ ...- . � A��o. ' - r--_'� �" "'1 � � v i i �-- —i � � i � � R � 'aon� .� . ` W � O t � O I � �vJ � i O J g (/] �on�_ ". . � ` -� �.___� ` �1 l___ �'.. . —� --- . /i �. .:1 ;.� /� ii; :'; ca I �� ,1_\ �••;', ,.� G�rQ / , I'' 'r %% � rI ._. ^:� � �r� � �� / 1 l // ;� ��'� �/� // �; \�( �� I �/� �'� ' � :� . �t�� -/� ,,, �r m ��, � - i '� �r �O1 :;� ��/ � - y .::.;. s �� , � � ��:/.� L . �'�� /� i � �j /.�i�� i _- i�� / �� _ � t��-•ni5�i: ',� �/�j � �� /�/:;;::=��`;::;:�:'.'�Y) / ,// = �� , .;:::��; / / �',�.' � :<;}�::_::�� :� � _ �' �:.�:�:=x'�� '�� / ;``;�:`-=``';'`.j.::.:::::,�. � , � � /�« �`� ._`:;:`:;:..,:,.:�:.v::. � � � / /� :,� � 1 ,, �: a�=w:::;.�:,:.:�w�� a � � I ►��-�-�--� � , ��i ' � l �� \•�� ,''�<�.�;;;�::;;:� � -- � � ( � �1 ._..... "��/�' � ::.� �- � �� :�:�:Y.:.-:.�,� _ ,, ,,� / ,� � _ ::: , � , -- �:�:�};�:�:'. , , - � � �':.:;�.��=�:r;.,::;*�. - / ► , � � ::::�::::�:.��: � :�:;;�z��,;=;:�:;-;-�;::,�:,::�� ,./ . :t{� � �, , ,: -�.�:::�:::�-.�� , �/ . � � 0�,� y...:u..J�:: :.:..�.; �� r, �, - � �� . � ,� �� , � �� \ �l ,.`' M� ` �_... / /�,�r .� ,_ � \��;'' �� /'��I ��I ' � � � \< r� � O ��%�' ��I I 1 � � � : ; `'�4 �� "i!.�`—�' I ; � � � � _?—.�� --=_�_' .-;' ; ; ,; � ' �� :� � ---['~ � �`� _ %''�i.4—.-- ,� y�� ` .� �� \ \ "`� .�_— , i � �'.,.,��:=. � `� O ~�—�� `� �\ \ \ r �, / k,{". \ \\ ��-�-��-�-' °: � k�{` � \ .�_ � , _::.� � \ \ \ _ �----- s=- � % '� ��\ � ----� � � . � �� \ � � �� _ ._�..._....�.�,-�.— ;. . - _ _.. ._ . '��... 4 `:�:;��;��_:<= s;.=��_�,� - -- . � � ��`:�>,_:;;: � _ :.<,: , - 1.-c� �-�.'.,.;.i. �- �.;,';��; ..•.'-.::, . .:7:ri:,:;' ,`>iNi ,'�'„?�: ` . . ��,n=. 7.$ v ._t( 'i�:;. � . .'cR;:"�:.. �' �. � ;: � . . �, . . . .., . . . . . _ � . �„_, , . '�,�t��, � iq r. � ��F��i' ��(�``ti ��7qS � �� .� �c)� .��• t � �r kl y��4d b}45�'.� fy�� t� ��1� . 7 q ' Y' �{'�'}� ..Y� K� i��t� t f Y.?..p1N�l( ��'� S f. �.1� 's. � �A 7 i�F��„i. � .. .'{ �� a : o-- �'�q�,#c�l� :4I'y, i�u'L�i` �+4) � � taY+(.,�yYl� L� i �.. . �:.k "�e�`.\. +ti. .if�4'I\M.��'�i',d. jCV >f � : 'i � }��rt�`_ �:t;'a' ;�a.�w'�(� `j�.,'�M1+' i -. „ .�+ri .a��i.�L�M 3,W . ��. �d�.r ��{ � . .\ �\ \ � .'... .. .i�.:.,.:-.��:... Z4r:.�_.,fiir'�,��iiy �.+ i (�:�f�;"rsT�v .. ��4r, . �� \ _�_\ \\ ,�;�r/. �� ` '—�_ �U... :!Sn �� . . ��\ � '`\,`��J,`� `\, '`\ ` � \ � �� l�'' ` \ � .• _ __ I - , .�_ ` `\ , `� \ �^ \' ._ . 1 \ti �y \\�� ` .\ �`w� �� \\� /'��`, �� 1� � .. \\i� � . ?�' � . �� l `� .`�u ��\ �� " ��\ ._. � �, �, .�a\ �.. - -1 ,,... , �'�� o�� ..._ �'� -�_� , ,� . �,,� .� � �,o , � � � � �j� �,�,� �� o, � ---•---= '� - / % i/%,f:%/�"°QE%/ j`� 1`., .�2 .,-��` . ��\.; `�`_ "-- - '- _ ---i .�;,� .Uj-N.�- i ,.!'� • ; _ • ,:, .:_ _ /�� .� _--_- �t. /� o�.� , .� �;` � . � --. - _ �_.:a . -�i �:o ` � • �• a \-;� ;� -"- ./ ,d , / // ,, Y � �-\ � � / ' ' • .� �� ' � .� _ - � \` ` / :/ _ '�� '�/f '.�`L•� r ) � — ``\`. ``,;`' K �, . ,1/�� i ; /", ,i� t� \��/i. � /� ; :/;� �°y i �: � '� �. ' ��,% /r / � ' ' � k'�`` '� � �� f � y,� �::�. OP. ;� � : ; � .� l. , � P � F , \ ' ..0� - �i j i;: c s� �.�,� -- � � :� f \ \ �� \. + _=a�- :\�`{ � �' � . :r�. �, .. - �.:.\�\ ,''. �� -� � �' � �� '�\ �� _ . �ti, _ ��z�.� . - .:d `—�'.="'�---___--�� .l``" \\O\�\ �� „_-� . • 3 y°: �.•~�� , . ,:k \`��'_"�'�� ` � , _ -_ .��. � =`� x3q�8'.� '. , � /� v �� -.� y =>-,1�,� � .��_�—� \. :�-- , � '.'.� ;' / ,G y�� . // i� i/'/�. ! _f,�1/� � � ' � I �// y I l __�`' �� - _,�:�..--'�"-- %! � \ �/� - ,��- '-.---'__--'=--'`i. !i t � .- =��x� � \�� -`_�, i�` .� � a-:=r� � '� � ' � .;------,�_-.`°-'-=2 y z 5; ��i-'' '� ►�r, , . ..r ��. (� _____-4—� ; :., U . '•s 1 ! f _N: '�'� _ '_ � / �'�_:`•^� r�'//'�� e(� �: :.�:; �� ' Jj �=� �--=%'` %:=�� Y >... p � f�-^—L.--===- ii --�� r a: . � �� ,..� ,�__�-�!% \ Q o a: = - -� /��- ---____��"� '-� . ��'�- � / ---�_` �,- - � ,� -_—��J� ��, � >, � -=;____�" � � f�; -.' 1,� � / �� /r� �` x Q . `, � � � ' / �i�==�-`�\� Ey ,; �:i' � f ( ,{ ,• ,� � _._ \\� q cn _ ..,-j j; �� `\� 1 � M� � � �� /�jc�.��' `�'!�� . \ I � l �s � \. , \,1 1 � 1' ��j �� __^i� . . . � �� ,�\y '' � ` I � � ��'i- .�� ' ;s 11 � �� I � /� �J I�I �1,%/r�" -. -- �� ^� �r . ', ,.'' f(� � � �!'/ �I�1� I��l�,�-_�"_`_- '�'• ��C ' s.' � .�. �;��. , , <� j� ,t•., `•`�" '•�;,�,: ? ,F i �� s I�� I � ��.i%-, �;��,�. _= _ ; a �� :i .'`� '�'�� '� � ��'�`"��%�; \�' ; ' ''� r ' ' u. s 1 i j �� fi s J.1 , , ` .,,,`� o►' �rr ,/r_,.%r%/ri,� ' _ �� ;:� _ } `�? `,��.. . � ��•, 3 �, ''i ' � ; • i -z ° s;s G�� ,::3i� � i � ` ,: , { :�, ., s;: ,,-, ,�/,./� � 1�, � �� 11i, �� ,�,'� ,,,� _ _w �� ; .y o ; t t � --! �'-� ��,� � ;i` �J �, 1� `'� `'_ C7 � " ; � � ��.., •� '� � ,f �'�� '��i� ' , _,, , ' `�`' ` � � Q � � � �-%�=--' li�-�! „ , \ '' � .: . �, � t �� . �. _ , .t.-i' :�, - � ` � � , . 1�� .. ..,.,._ . ._ � . . . . , . : . . .. � � _,yS � r,�r�vv.. •t• 4"�"i-l+ } . :d, `�� f�P ��:`J� �. 1`�� .. . ; .. ,. r � . �.`t��'�"�� .r ��.:�}' � �� r,A, +j'=�(y ��`,�. ��1{�r � M�� y 4��i��.��N��yy�(� 's�, ��•�� •'bx ^�6dW ��'1�M ,:�� l� ;�a q,6}1�. . . M L';i,"�`..��ti._ , ,��"s �.N � °aC�TS<... "�+s'�.uti�f.,•�".`aF�if'+.�.�� :� �'�j�L�i'�-� I . I � � � L ' I i � � MEMORANDUM � . BOARD 4F C0. ,,�19t�i'R'S •�= [tAGMANYAw ! • PITKtiI COUWTY :`;;.:,, , ARCHtTECTS � Pu�lic Hearing Eanibits `-"�'•::-<,:' To: Fred Peirce G .�,-. : .. 210SOUfHGAIENA ! D�iB: G��.7�d�__ � ' ' � ASPEN.COLORAD081611 ' �°v9=5'Zas� From: Dou Gra beal g y Subiact:�S�CeL � i ,, N „ ;_`: - i Date: 31 March 1989 E�<�� . � i �'' — i ' Re: ASPCOL, N.V. ; i �'-:�'�:.� .. 1 iPer your request we have calculated the approximate square ti j � footage of the above project per the attached plans. The � ; approximate square footage breakdown is as follows: � . a Building Footprint ��'� ' '`' � Above grade 16,300 s_f. � Under grade (landscape above) 7,300 s.f. s + Totaf Square Footage f . I Covered, Useable Outdoor Space q � (Porte Cdchere, Arcade & i Overhangs) 4,075 s.f. ,: ;� � Decks (Main E Upper Level) 4,065 s.f. ' ' Garage 3,850 s.f. � ' � Living Space 41,330 s.f. � � ( Stairs E Dumbwaiters 1,725 s.f. � � i � Enciosed Space , � � Living Space 41,330 s.f. � Stairs S Dumbwaiters 1,725 s.f. `� Total (not including garage) 43,055.s.f. '' , . . tr. � 1 . � I ;� . f i - � ' _ I � 1 � } � � �� ;:~�°� ' -:�:n.�i�;:.. i � j -s�.: � � � i'... .%'. t i �J' x..-. I � � �.. ,j I • ' ''.; � � � _ ' I � , � :a _.__.---- ---- -- ____... ... ..__..._. ...__. _,.._.. ---------_..�__ ...:_..._ �... ._.. ... ___. _.. ,p,,.�-,�. - _. .y� ��,. - , . .�� f� :�� . :`s„ ,-�.� . �. ;y ;-�._ ��a;�:�;��'`': � �a::q t�,n,r:i?.?.� � . ' '4}:-i� . � . � . �Z;•. .:?i��S'Kj�, ' _. ' . . . .. ::y��!~;"`'! , � �, `+"�".�t: ,. , .- . ��^,i- `�X�•'�,.'�;�t:_ , . . � � � . . � - � i��Y ` ��,.. _. _. ..... . . _ . . _..._ »: . . _ •,: _ i , � ,- ,, ,7t r�_ s, S1q'�i�r�� y {r d .L� ct ,'"'4�'�!' L�y( y��c c1�t �.'��tt�Pt1{��, f��Y'.. .. -�->. 4"� �y-�S4.�C'1 �'��?'��-5`2..� � }�St�r, re 1' T1 . ) r.�,, a R�' L43 l p, 7K�t M �K t 1` �lC�.E"�>.__..a.�:��.�.r.'si��G�Y.2..r�.t�tcl��+r..:'�..i.�.�_��.'�«�y�s.,�.. .....'�C��.f.r��. �.�...f�1,1 .. � �s<.i+��.:� . I , , � \ � .... 1 . '_" oia'cdc .e,ssaoo�� ,,,,ny .+ori .-_.._._..... ._:._: ,.. 3:__.._... _.. ........_.._: ...fg.^ .;�,� , . z �` .'Z i'�� ' i :�I.R :�. � ""!° `,?� 3 ��3Y ��=: � OZ � �� //�, t�€ '�^ � �T � �Q / \ / ::. C �F�' � � ` t�... � �� 7 y • - �. Q �i °''°� .i : � ,i:i _� N ��n � "�iJ �, �'y. ' �•N: . . z _ic`� Y �...... t. .. Z ,/� �� \��-_ � �'••!Y \ u _ �:. .. � ��a�;,� FY .�\;;' �� I �, ��'�� g a .�\,i �: -�.� V I� � ' �A 1� �j, ' � Q .�"�` _isl�\,.€(i�l—___J �� ;�;�� ,'�'':' � Z °�� ;/ 7''�\�'�` �� 'rI j�i � '! . �i: W . a�' ��. �g! '�� # . Y 1: � � f/�� . �y`, Q a ;:� g�k8� l"=��eF ��t '.r-I� �\--LCf' `�J � :�:� `~" ^#�"��'g 3�e F�t �,�� A�S ��.•'� � y"ti8 �y ' ��P� �� i A�s °��-.1.�:��/ '�: { +� ?� � Fa ` ! g �j•. � ��), , ,,1�` . ,�a ��° t—/, .,4 / k N � " '�•p- �,' O , --_�,,.•� I �e '; � t t '�,'- O ':a .a 4.7.Cfi I �' � g$ �� f...�� \: +� } ' 3 � �..I '`40+5` .9� ''n'° O� Y'- �;�, Q ' .. � _ � L_�� :./ �° ct � " . �_a � �� __-__\ \ � �,�,� � � , ��—°_ l k � SS �� ;::� n �� , � � �� . .__.... ;. . �I w s� .��r�� / � ��Ei _��t � 2 S f� �� '\ ��t•t 3 .\ �;p ;:1 . Oo �; 3s I \ . ��t ~ ��R �� r ?Ist, �� J � ��z � � �_ � : � ' } � -s �;� ��; �_ . �'� �,_ �at a�� ` � "�5� �•; 4$; . �'� t :�E � Si.\ 276 • . , � � � $ 4 �tf � � -. ;� .LaCti .OL LZ .Z1'Y[i .PY''�OI.1 .. �� S J�FIDM1�CM10.f1fM7.K.{:.(DH '_�_.: ?.OP.Y.4TJ�i ( i [;i °� � qa ' . . __ _.._' -._ .'_� . .._ _ -. �� . �- . . . . �1 r .: r � �� '3 W. � . i � � ^_ � °C �! 3 �� : "�= o : //'� � � f "�� [�/ � =�j =z �� :: .".�S ;V./ Z �O��Z WZ 1 �: Q S. �/." N� W r. � a �i �-� :.�:_� : ,� ; -_._ .___ _ __...__..___.._. _ .. ..., _ .. ._ ._ . _.:..._�A-�—. _ __ . __ ___ . ....._ . _-- 7�"� ' - .L..f93�. � . . . . +;y 4: - _ . . � . . :•.:J,J.°`.`,i,' '.y�'°_.`'�� ' ., ' -::i=�'- � . � f �"".. ?'i'ii`.`- . � � . y� 3` ta , ,.t;�t:;;,' . :�tir:iu;,x:s � . N..4 ;:Fs«-�s;`+;�'? , �l�{'.��:�.yt.��A. • . �;��t»�i;`' fii{Y: "��, . . � `�`�,;:z�� ~ V R�.. ... ....:..� . �:.�. ....... .... ... ' � .... ... . :�.. �. .:. � .... �.. - - . . . ....:-_••_ . Glf.�'Yf. . • - .. .. _ . µ. � . � ... r�� i 41 d��t+'� ,�� J �.�±'j,�b � z¢ti ! ��.�-.��A� a , , 'm t`�91 �.,. ► ° � 4:r'� �� .� �' f�.y'��.(�,'o �,I l#3V4�4ii�'t . �.5�.„� ��t.� '�r• � � i�j +I :o'', % f.�,�, t�s .� r M�1'+ �� r �M� � A��`.' k '4 6 d! 3 3� Y - ., �d�i:'�u..�.L:. ��s.. �.':.�r.�.� �^6�� : �� a�E . .., ....<a��'4Y K .�M.SA�:.li,.i A•�: � � � � � 1—" ' -- ---- �1� i, �`.:t� "�-�._ .. .--� , .�__.- � � � � .: � 7 ' � \ � : \ i.�',. '/'J ;_'__._�`_i 4.. LY 1 \��\ ['.��'" � 8 � �� : ; l^ _ _ a �� _ � ♦ �—,___�—,� `;. ,� :�-==-�`� I �: � � � :. _ � ! ' �i1 r� � J � ; ;� /i � 'g yi _9` � y,.. � '� s 1 � ` i i� '� �'w i: . � t; ;a / r _. t B ��_ -.- �[ d J�)i �� :..� ' �` .6 oi�t8 '�' � q 'd?: ti :`�' �.`s .�. �, d ) �� 3 , ?:_�'- �i; 1�.. � : .�'a. . w.e"y_ . � : . H F? 'i �(-,ti �ns j# ;j ' . 7 � � � ..';�:''�.j � ' ' ± `, 7 }'-� �Jh - � ay: } y�•. R 5:� . , � , I 35+ r �`L ��T� '��At i " ,�, s .! �>� �� '7' \ � �:� �}! I :i- `..�<',�� l '�� 7 � rv: i \. \\ � � , ::i ,i,a�-- - �� ^ � � 5' � 7( - ,� �}3 f .:;� �� ;�! J �r. �e �:;, �.i ° t ` ;;� � '� ai i ?� : /� 9S-'�, 1 ��$ y ,:� :��: � : �a c `� e � - '� �\ w i � i _ •:� � - ' t `\,i� ��^ { ...,� , --------=1 r� �. . . :� � ' �. � � r � �g._:: ,_� . � ' _..� � �y.= :.,� �'-� � c��. �.� « -, �,. ':,'� .. E-- C� � �Y�.: O � �r O `;1 •� .� ..-- � t��. � i Gr t ; . �1:� \ ,'_ .�;� .. �. �.f �^�• .._______�._.._._ ,. ,.,. � --- _ . . -.-,:�— �:4 .. _ . # . 'tr`:', -`��`,`_ ' - :.�i;- ', - " r �� : � . .:�:.;,",•.t_�:= . � • . . ��nr�,� � • �,".."g 4 �i)♦ ' . .:.�'RH.�. ��r::.+: � . .��.N'rl 4Sr. ' � . :�t� 1: .',it'3�'�=" � . . ;+ ',N_;.. . � � „�� t ,� ,t: �� , � n, �. ,� 'g� �4: `�'%•F:�i';�;\i��ry�� , j` ,��•. � ^� e � '(,�. `!. � •`y (�--'-,jy.��t\,.y,. �1�?!��G-l�+ . :'c;.\ ,��pi�l�,t,;:,jo;�/' -t -A t�''°��(,``�y,��t`. :�}: '+ '��(t>.�', '- •1:1 t' 'vi' �14Yti•i �{��!"`t�;� :`�e'93.�,•�1:. _! .i±a�=, I�E,��bN.r (;` :,� c;.�,,�..;y; � '4�i �, �%�?:,t�� . � �� -`..'y� ,� � .�`�•_ ,;: � (��:;„=`_` ,� �fi �� y�i�..i .� i' t`� +� .=�+f;'::<;�•�',��HI�. :�� II +, �H��7�.:�1��I�I� M1)�� ,�. \ r�'� %{;��i:yy�.vw' •�'�N� �.y,�\ �` �� -^-y a_ _ .��.�_,..�'G'�. �� Si � 4 a'��,�� j� �s��,��.s...�.. �.� �� . ,� ��11,('' �� ^ ?��a�-i�:�� /J �''F I ..��'I:i.?� ,�~e��s�`...\��. f17+��j •r ��"� � �/��~��r7`��P �?� �\ i I q -�!'"'/1 va\ �.'��T� � ,L��-��n�►r'%I_�*i� .�l�i: r ,�, '�� + _�� : 4��.�� .,.,� . L '� �� . �r �—� z '�� w r � p �E ��, f”, , "�� I1� � Fi � °'�• .r !.�;_ .�.,,n�c. ci� ��'�!��.i: �i�,_:iti,�T�1.�� .. y�`. �� ,�� ;A_., , .. , -� ,s�.��t�aE �� ;Yti q _ i ' 'aj �' ` h'` ..�t I-I�I,�, ' '+ /��'�:�:.8:�.:�•":::....y,� : �::�,� If1 1s�p3l'Ij�y^y�`y�� a '�I1 �.. :��! t�7�, !� 'YC�� a:;,L:� ;V _.;c d.s li sk�'t �:, ��;�::;,I;j�E.�„,��;;��,� ;,. `.J r a �s. _. 1�'�'i�.�' ��^�'J �i,;.�::�� . . ;�� 4 t:,�l;��; 1 ,�q�.r__ :�M, 11 _Z y}.-.I..�� .� ��, �'' ' �l'w�:��I . 1 ��' �:.. f' I�� rl-i'��P�".'� �I��l F,,:f!;�.; },;�I:..�:��ri;��. ,� . ��:-..`. , r�� a�"��E��;' , -,;��;"�°y �.. .�.�t� �l1� �4 $ ��. �, ti� Jp� 4»7� iryti4 j.�� ' � \�J1��XI `��.\1ll r f,`',�'.�`��f ..�i�'�e �77'l11,1�' -�'w�=.•.�:'.€•�\�\��'t=: �� 1 14r��.^��_�.��'l� '/'� .•y N ��:� „�~� �� i1' v jz w �4 �`�•,�jg�� 3� --;\:ly. .:i''i:�� •UI�I� � r'"r_d==ea.�.' ::�q..= ! �H��;�wY J`�ii'.�'�'� a�� <a\i9�G'?;'•''j. .rl � ?e�:r.�;•'•��. � r'�ci;..i_�r ��" ��♦ ,�'!;�.��,�-,�'c��\��`� I'�!�i'l�fy .`��, , � �A:�% � �y �`� �y�1 .` \ti � �'��`� 'i c\� . s. �v��}� � ,.�� ..d � � . �' !�� s��. �.r,. ;: '<�:�►i: .,' `�•c„r.�; y;� � � --... , . ... .. . . . r . .,,....�.- _ . -a;+, � . µ� �u. v��^�� '„4�ti 3 sy q �, � ' . � '-'� .....,/.,�.KA`d�irr<:v#..tai��.:15��.�.�...._.... - ... , ..._. .«eY:,.�l..i....'t.,s.4T!1.rit1.�:'su�r��._�,,�.�a:ti'�lii:ia�3+�$rri�i'��;1'�w�<<'.�,;, . ��lr�i r'( � �;''�,�:;'�. � �.,.4, . . -��vu..�;� ��. AUSTIN,JORDAN,YOUNG&PEIRCE AnaneY�Al Law �°°�"`H�,�"�A�� FiaAF1[1�F GB.E8#diJi+�� . s��«zos F�frKfN no�.w n.n�,;o Aspen,Colorado 81611 pi�hpG��oarifi�l�dal��o��925�eoo wrn�.m rc f«a.o�u 9�#A�91b11,1 � GnY A.Yaun� l., .�.��7�lh . . � Fredenct F.Peirce ��4t+�� ,:;" ;,,;e,�i;:-:_.. T�e D.�.��,..� r�MOxrsmvri �El��±:t:��,L - N _�_ [ � .. �'��y.,�'�, y�....Z DATE: MARCH 14, 1989 �-----_ TO: BUDDY LUCERO, ASPEN/PITICIN PLANNING OFFICE - r: . ! FROM: FREDERICK F. PEIRCE, �'�" ` AUSTIN, JORDAN, YOUNG & PEIRCE �:;-::, RE: ASPCOL CORPDRATION SPECIAL REVIEW APPLICATION FOR 'ti'-� ' � ADDITIONAL BEDROOMS i `_�:;,.,, .. . . �`.�..r':'' . ; � Pursuant to our recent telephone conversation, I have pzepared this Memo to facilitate a discussion regarding those items ; which Aspcol Corporation nee@s to address for the referenced j application pursuant to the letter dated March 6, 1989, from Cindy Houben. As you know, Section S-1 of the Land Use Code is broken j down into five divisions. This Memo will recite the first four � divisions, together with each division's subsections, and will address the criteria that appear to be appropriate for the � referenced application. With respect to nivision Five - Other. it � appears that none of the criteria contained therein apply to this review. i � DIVISION 1 RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL iSection 5-100. , Soil, Surticial GeologicaZ Characteristics � Radiation. � � According to the policy provisions of the Code, the �• purpose of a review under Section 5-100 is to be suze that any '' � \�+_Q improvements are designed and located in such a manner as to avoid '. 1 �� their being susceptible to radiation hazards or to structural i.`�- �{U'• damage or failure resulting from soil and surficial geological �, characteristics. Since the building envelopes have already been I �j�` approved in the lot split process that took place prior to this r',� j application, it would appear that the general characteristics and � i concerns that should be addressed by this section of the Code have � been signed off on by the County. In terms of site specific soil � stndies, we have obtained a soils report from Chen-Northern, Inc., 3 '_ Soils Engineers for purposes of designing the foundation for the r-' '' proposed structure. We will submit a copy of this soils ze ort as :x.•.;..,:'. � part o£ the application, if desired, in order to comp y witt this �5%` ; �� section of the Code. . -��' I/ .'.iC,Er.�. i {.r;. 1 . � F ��y' i _'�,y: � ' `4W_ — ._ _.___._�_... .._..,.... .. ... . . .. . _._. .. . _. � _ � '{ t;. . . . ....... . . _ "�� ., . . . . '.,. . t'... �.-� �xi�.�.. • � - . _._ . . .it.r' 7`_ ... <:V.i,'_ . .. � `:y,::�,::';�- :;:,,:.�:',�;.::.-. - t'; " , ' - .;-;'- � -t�:�:�.:,.� . . :�hi.;:� � . ii2i�':,,,Y�;;•:3:� . . �;,l,.�,.^,.r t•K�:. � �a"�i:_ .'r'�.:'��:^�`.^ � ' _ . `:,�i�n `.`.�x\/•�,y1�, � + . ; �� . r-� , , . . . . _... .. - � ..� � � i 1�p ��'74:L�.�P��{� ,-�q :� ...�,tl''<<�t�. . `: .iiMe:;t�+�i�.l�i4a:h�,.;.guui�lia�t:i�.�...,;.�s�,�.. . �� .. .�.rN-�ww.y.,�'Wr.`'•'L�f�''��."�hL``T:��;'��''''.a!��:�C_.��s�+�� 1:�.'. . �1 i _:a�....t�:.• �,M'�i.rc;�:i7f i:1";x��. . � � AUSTIN,rORDAN,YOUNG&PEIRCE Attorneys At I.aw . v.J�� S i� �s `��-);� vc-:.!Jr`�v�.r�E.�� s�. i o �l s"�sy 1=T..` TH�s �5�L,��,� ) ) Section 5-101. Drainage. �::'t{::.,_-: According to the Code, the purpose of requiring a �..a, - :;r,�.:.::,,.. drainage plan for a submission under this section is to promote the ,�.;+;z_�;.:, policy of preserving the integrity of existing and natural drainage �i.�� _' patterns. Although it appears that this requirement is primarily � �'- for �ar�ca�P �PVe�o.pments that entail a significant amount of � � paving for roaas, par ing ots, and various residential and other ' _ structures, we have requested that the landscape architect for the �, project prepare a drainage plan to show that the policies of the Code will be complied with. In connection herewith, Design i�� Workshop is the landscape architect and they will prepare a �•,_Y•.. '' drainage plan in conjunction with the proposed structure and � , landscape design. We will assume that such a pZan will be ;'� : suffici.ent for purposes of this section, unless you advi.se ; , otherwise.' ' r'<" _'. Section 5-102. Erosion. ,j Again, through Design Workshop, the applicant will submit� e� � a statement in accordance with Section 5-102, stating that the proposed development will not cause any erosion problems, 'Tf the • Planning Of£ice will require any additional information, please inform me now. Section 5-103. Compatibility with Historic and Archaeologic Resources. To the best ot our knowledge, there are no historic or " archeological resources that are affected by this application. If there were, they certainly must have been addressed at the lot split application, such that building within the building envelopes already approved by the County should be sufficient to comply with , this section. If this is not the case, please let us know as soon as possible. +, � Section 5-104. Compatibility with Agricultural Lands and Opera- i tion. • � i � Presumably this criteria, which is to further the policy of preserving the economic viability of agricultural lands and �� operations within Pitkin County, has been addressed already in the lot split application for the Starwood Ranch Lot Split. In that approval process, the County required that a certain percentage of � . the property be designated as ag=icultural open space and in fact - the p].at is be.ing amended to reflect that open space. In addition, the covenants that are being proposed to be adopted along with the � '�-; , � plat reflect that the land shall remain as agricultural lands and _: '„��;,,: such will be the case. Hence, unless you advise otherwise, it ` yfi `�� . _ '_`� n t.� � 2 A�+�.;�'; a.: ' t, 1 --._...,e..--. _ .: . .�r�fi__, __ . __. .... __ .__ _. _ _ - - , - --- :.,i� �i:''�':;.i;c��;;.,... • . . . .:•'F;.#�.,��'..��. _ ... . . ".'x..,:ir.._.. . :<i a..ti.:q;.. , `.:Y:' - ,::i'��,�'.':.. . �: _ �\'i . f -.:F_�'.- • . .. L'Y;e . � . . . ' ;-L` �.�., .'��e`''Li-�:�;,ti!_•'�: 4 { ��3� , ''•r,}F :;ie�s1. « . �f;'�'� .•.t ��i�= � r . . . , . ____...�....._.�..� ___.__...__ _.� � �- - ��. �; �: :... _.._. .... x�� _. ��.y�j �a , � �y-�f.u�i��y�+t��5`��f'i].5 t'^-r"l^4Cr �Ra({ t Sl�`P.�� _ �Y;�S.:`��'e'H'a ��y��'��1��,�,r'�i.�r:6 re�r .. ..,..w� �e'��r�Fl f� 1�FR�u�`�nt�W�c�i�� . �� a� .,`' (,e1t��?'�,.�. �,�x:��s�:',.�!. � � � AUSTIN,JORDAN,YdUNG&PEIRCE Anomeys As i.aw appears there is no need to address this particular section of the : Code for purposes of this application. � '_ . e7' _ Section 5-105. Scenic Quality. �`y� As the Code states, the purpose of a review under this i��.. section is to preserve the scenic quality of the County for the '�' , : benefits of its residents and of the continued viability of a . - � recreation economy which is dependent upon the quality of its rural � . . and natural setting. As with the previous section, it seems that �'' this particular issue would have been addressed at the plat stage �', '.: when the building envelopes were designated. in fact, the proposed ' building envelope for the proposed residence is located such that [� � jit will be visible only to a few of the immediately surrounding ��`•; neighbors and, of course, from the air. It wil.l not be visible ; a,��.. : _ from any of the public roads in Pitkin County. Therefore, unless ' r��' > you indzcate otherwise, this particular aspect of Section 5-1 of � the Code wil]. not be a@dressed in the referenced application. Section 5-106. Air Quali'Ey. � The purpose of this seetion oE the Code is to make sure ' that the development will not significantly contribute to the ,i degradation of the County's air quality. It requires the submis- � sion of a report on air quality impact prepared or reviewed by a � zecognized authority on air pollution. Again, considezing that �� this is just a single family residence with a scale 2azger than most that you have seen in the past, the question arises whether ,i a report by an air pollution expert is necessary in this case. The � , residence will comply with all code provisions regarding fireplaces j and wood-burning stoves and the like. If you feel it zs necessary � to have some sort of "expert opi.nion," let's discuss the specifics � of what you require so that we can comply. ' � ISection 5-107. Water Resources Tmpacts. i Again, the water resources impacts section of the Code � seems to address. large-scale developments where independent sources t�. of water� will be necessary, anticipating water court rulings and � the like. In this case, the property has various water rights � � associated with it, all of which were identified at the lot split :� + applicat3.on process. In addition, the subject property is entitled I to four water taps to hook up to the Staxwood itanch water district. i Hence, all the water that has been used historically for irrigat- � ion use, will be available therefor and Starwood Water will be � ` ' � available for domestic use. If you need more detail regarding the �,�.`,,,,;;,� � , water, please identify what detail you need so that we can put that Y" toqether for you. '"�'`� 5p•� :��• � , :- i ' �� ; �j\�� o>" 3 �A` ; h -,i '.. '\`�` ' , 'y�l �� ., �: ; �,.,r� ��,� o\, � , � : f �„{� .��i , �'�° �} r�� ; �' .r��rf�°'�..,�` ,. :,�, - _. . __ . . _ __ _ ..^�, , , • --- ,�� _.__. �' • -.•�... .. z�;`;''.�,,; _ . ,.j�i?.=;:•`�-s:; . �.,`R�::.i::'.� � � ' - i � :"y;. • `�S{L X� - .rl�,'y�nh` � . r'.;:; '';�i�. :;::s:n5;+1 . ' . Kr.:,� , 'zi:�- „ , �,..:�� '� ..�'"- � _ t. �r' .. . . , . ... - ^ rR :3 7 . . � ��,3, 2 fl 1 i�� V 1L� �t�y'tt��'� ? . . ., . . . � .. ,�,a � ..i �f FY'+�.�j�� 'k��t.JfP<-' �di � �1�� . 7+ �'t 't� _ � � e � i � � '�. .�.. '� . .- W � �r�� .�v'��i�sr,�-� j � �� y�� ,r�°.��,$��;$�waki:iti5�.�?"�'��x�;.�:J��w��...�..:....,�« ��,�.Yrr�._ _��L�,i+"3`o�f` 'i�H I:t°..JP ... . . � � AUSTIN,70RDAN,YOUNG &PEIRCE Attomeys At I.aw DIV�SION 2 - FISCAL AND SERVICES/FACILITIES IMPACT AND DESIGN F��,. Section 5-200. Sewage Treatment and Collection. �;_ ' �;;: The applicant has retained Schmueser, Gordon, Meyer & Associates as engineers to design the sewage disposal and treatment �/�� ' , for the proposed residence and upon completion, that report will � ;' i be available as part of this application for your review and �,. _` ' comment by the Aealth Dept. � �_ : e,_ ,; Section 5-2D1. Impacts on Road System. �z' � � �. ��`U Since this is a single family residence that, although �„ ' Q\ ��large, will be occupied for short periods of time throughout the � `i�^� ,(��i� „ course of the year, its impacts on the roads will be minimal. In �\ 9��` fact, by housing staff on site, the project will have less of an .:.�� (�Y� impact on roads and traffic than if the necessary staff were housed _ �`� �,L off site and transported to the house on a regular basis. The `'"'`� '� applicant will submit a statement addressing the impact on roads � �� \ system stating the actual expected use and therefore indicating the r�'��;Q expected amount of traffic on the roads. Unless you specifically �'�(1V require it, however, the applicant will not have a report prepared `!:� ��/.��by a traffic engineering specialist regarding traffic details, ;�°;_�:� �Q �since this is not a development in the subdivision sense. ._:,� �r. /1{1(1' Sec�.ion 5-202. Road Design and Construction. r,-;.� r J� � •, � �4" �V nA� This section deals with the design and construction of �j 1�new roads, which should have been addressed at the plat application i�,'V•� y_ii� stage. The only road that will be constructed is the driveway to . Y�`�yQ- the proposed residence, so there should be no need to address any ,^� ��`'' of the submission requirements under this section. Please advise - if you feel.differently. ;vi -� Section 5-203. Logical Extension of Utilities. ' The criteria involved in this section also have been �:'� addressed in the lot split application. Utilities are available � to the property and have been provided by the predecessor to Aspcol Corporation for the lot split. Any utilities for the proposed ,,� residence will come from the extensions that already exist on the :� property. Hence, it would seem that this particular section need � not be addressed in the referenced application. "'='` � :., a,>rr -�� . Section 5-204. Tmpact on Taxes and Management of Necessary .i� ; Services and Facilities. ,`��. -.� �_:" :� >��;r 4 ��. � .�_� . ..1 -- -- - ___,..._ ___._.__ _ ___ _ _ ._.y-- _. _.._ .. ,.. r .. .._... _ ._ . ._ � �,; . i ! .K s rl��' � ,_ • . �+t�M`ai;�t''. � . ai+'^p�� . . � -�' ( � �.� 1 1 • . :�;tis' .:��^F.,�i. . n+ ""3'�� C�:.!1� ,' ..ti7;��e.': , `�Y'?r:�$t.ti:- . . ' ,.._..y:`.�„ . ' '�`Y�_� '�.4�Nr;� � � •!,:_a._::.,, . _ . ,..__._. ' � �:, r `i4 ��',}� �i ��'��t`' � �z+��y'F 1 , � � /F�E��j'�S`� t�`;�'''r �'l. �� +1i# 1 �`. � r'4'k4r -,� "� ,,»�� ' y +�,�L�.��" b#c��T��{,,�� : � ��y.sA�'' . V�°Aa�,;,' �' t �, �A� �, . A �'�.�}:.�: ) a l Sar'....Aft��E�rSk�s...�L� .� ��',y�..�Cs+".+ �(�>N�'��ti:��. ��,iY :.i L i� . \ � � AUSTIN,JORDAN,YOUNG &PEIRCE Attomeys At L.aw This section of the Code seems to be geared toward much °�` _ more extensive development that would create burdens on the County services in terms of additional burdens on schools and the like. �'"'`� � Again, since this is just a single family residence, it will not �'"' ; have the impact of social services costs associated with a ��"` subdivision or PUD development. In fact, by virtue of the property ' taxes this residence will generate for the County as opposed to the - minimum impact its use will have on County services, this project ..j will be a revenue-generator. Therefore, unless you have any '""'• specific concerns that you think this application should address hereunder, we will not be addressing any concerns under this � section. � ,':� Section 5-205. Adequate Provision for Water Needs. ,� ., ; This section also appears to be specifically designed to �� :'.� protect the public from having a developer develop a subdivision or PUD type project without adequate water for the type of :iy development proposed. In this case; the development is just fo ;,} a�residence and therefore this section would not appear to apply. _ # '� DZVISION TfiREE - SOCIAL ;y� . Section 5-300. Housing. rb:�� Again, this seems to be addressing a larger development that involves employee generation for the community. This 'Tt� particular project will have employees to caretake the house and the ranch living on the,property. Hence, it will provide housing ``� for all employees that it generates and that housing will be on :`� site. In fact, by separate application, the applicant has � requested approval to supply additional on-site employee housing. �.j DIVISIOPi FOIIR - AREAS AND ACTIVI2'IES OF LOCAI, AND STATE INT�REST. ;'_� All of the concerns having to do with areas of local and '<" ` state interest '�would appear to be items that were addressed, if - - applicable, at the lot split stage of the approval process. The � lot has been created, the building envelopes have been designated i and the area for open space has been delineated. Presumably, all � of these criteria set forth in this division four were addressed at that time and need not be addressed again, just for the � construction a building on one of the building envelopes. If there ,.";� are any specific criteria that you believe we need to address y '��1� � irrespective of this, please help me identify them specifically. y:.;� ,•::�',. ; :;��'�:.: i � ^ N .� � �G 5 � �: � �'•' � � E � _ __�._.,_� _ _. . _ . _.. � ��,,...�. __._. ._._..__... .____ _ .. _- .. _ :.�, � _.; y ' ,'`=rr"- , - �? �.: ,'f t� `si'"- ' -, � .,�:: , ..F;Y^'= - ' • . . ' . . ,..r.'�1��.;,::. ;�_��,��µft, . . �i'R ";'r;<- .;�^`'�:}!�T�� sx;;��ti . . - .:•/��`F ` r� ::�s7;�';'c- .. . .... _ ` , . �.. . _ . . - �' . .� -.�q•� aq. c�,orcr�'�t� `!�u��'tr T � 1!;.4 w.�. �� . . . : �.t tf {��T ' �y�!= °L9 4 (. ,�'.�5 d��'r��,�', � `� �,.� ��1J�y `� 1 w:.: ; �'��t � ��2,��1'��.,»�4*a`"�, �r��l�i�y .aa, }f��g a�q.l�ylu�,�,�i. .�� F.1,� {7�' Si'�4X�� .� +:1k ��.�j� 5�,. a. �3-4• . "��:�ECnk4:Ja�'`�d�. ta'rSt�+�,:+��1:.�;:.n..�'.:3si'r��.�:�f..�f��j.:t. „d�..�`�!t i..3J.�..J-hv.,.r�...._ 4..-. � � AUSTIN,JORDAN,YOUNG&PETRCE � Amm�q:Atl�w � ' 600 Eut Hopkint Avenue . $uile 20S ...�'� �{. Rrn+�d D.Ausdn Aspen,Cobrado 81611 ra�onw��(�o�)vzs•xr�o i. �_ FAX(70))925•A7]0 �;i'.:.::.�. Williun R)mdsn IR n'-.:. � Grq A.Youn� g - � � FrederietF.Pe'vice SUPPLEMENT TO APPLICATION 4-.��- TedD.Gudeasw.�, FOR SPECIAL REVIEW APPROVAL , OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE _ ;:1 APPLICATION SUBMITTED TO: Pitkin Gounty Planning Office � ! � .. APPLICANT: ASPCOL Corporation, N.V. :� � BY: Austin, Jordan, Young & Peirce, Its Agents and Attorneys 1`�- L>,: ..`a S'';:`, �.j DATED: April 5, 1989 �, .. L •,.� � �4 In accordance with Cindy's letter of Ma=ch 6, 1989, my ';y memorandum to Buddy o£ March 14, 1989 and the discussions amonq �;t � Buddy, Ron Austin and myself on March 16, 1989, I have compiled - ,_,� reports and information to complete the zeferenced application. , Submitted with this memorandum are various reports and :;';'� drawings/plans for your review. The provisions of this memorandum are keyed into the sections of the Land Use Code that we determined � still needed additional attention during our March 16th meeting/ Those items that we determined did not require further attention ,�� are not discussed in this letter. '� DIVISION I RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL .°`7 1. Section 5-100 - Soil, Surficial Geological Characteris- ,'� tics, Radiation `; � . � .� Accompanying this amended application are eight copies ; � of a "Subsoil Study for Foundation Design Proposed Residence �; and Guest House, Lot 2, Starwood Ranch, Pitkin County, �`" Colorado"',.prepared by Chen-Noxthern, Inc. on Februaxy 24, `: 1989. The applicant will rely upon this study, as well as �� the results of any additional testing accomplished by Chen- ? Northern, Inc„ in designinq and constructing the residence _ � � to make sure all soil and surficial geologic characteristics � � are dealt with in an appropriate manner. The report reflects a no gealogic hazards or soil characteristics that would cause � any undue problems in constructing the proposed residence. � � '< � 2. Section 5-lOZ - Drainage, Section 5-102 - Erosion and ,�.,�,.r `- y Section 5-105 - Scenic Quality '�,�,":�Y.�.' .;:nj`�(„''�'. � In order `to addzess these concerns as referenced in r��;,�'.:. Cindy's letter and in our further discussions with Buddy, '� i, .�,: � , . ._ _ __ �-,�r."��' _.....-- - __._._.... _ ._ --_ :C'. �'5-:� .. .� . �i`'-�:;1 T` . . . �K � �,` - '.Y•:n:. �, , _ - � _ :'��^'_�. _ . . .. i�Yi;i�.n .. :.�2 iF.��^ti;4"�._. i��:y^..:. �:�::�!.;:: .. �>4�i._. ..-._ " �a:C=4'.!i`,9=�+�.as). RnirFf`-� . . :'�''��!'.,�� ' _ 1` ._�NYi��. f . ri�� M' � ,� ?y;,x v� . ,: �n . . . � ' - L - ... . � . . . . r � .. _.. . .... _ . � � � �4 r � Y ��}�}��nl��„'�.�y�{f c ;� h�y�.�,}SY`s��t'f. �,. ,"�, � � .�p��ti1��3 N' u,�'t�Al��,tl, Y w ��'� ,!fi�� .d,�'�a��"` i'�y p�r i� `y a '�; � M,c;� .~ F.. .��.+��-�';��'.t�.�La�.`C��:+�iNS��. 'E,�.-��.�.. �N�u':7�a.�-=.:dC��1=� '7:�.w j'' t ,..:1.�...'. � � ' AUSTIN,JORDAN,YOUNG&PEIRCE auomey:wc t$W '�.::•� t: - Design Workshop, Inc. has prepared a report discussing the __ t � � . , location and charactexistics of the drainage basin and �,-':°'- submitting a proposed drainage plan. Accompanying Design Workshop's report are two drawings, showing the drainage basin �, '_,: '__', and the drainage plan, respectively. 1 Also included in the report of Design Workshop is an erosion plan discussing the erosion potential of the site and � the proposed development, as well as the proposed plan for , � controlling potential erosion. � � .,, � With respect to the Scenic Quality aspects of the /_r;�,;`, .) submittal, Design Workshop has prepared a visuaZ analysis and � a lig1iting plan, as well as a report discussing the visual � 1 impacts and lighting. � � I have enclosed eight copies af Design Workshop's report ; � ' and plans for your use in reuiewing this application. j �i 3. Section 5-104 -Compatibility with Agricultaral Lands and ;':� Operations � '.. � Although we determined in our meeting that the criteria i� to be addressed under this section already have been covered by the lot split application and approval, it is worthwhile <.;� to reiterate that the residence will be constructed complete- ly within the bui.lding envelope designated on the lot split �;;� plat and that the remaining "agricultural open space" shall J remain in agricultural use, for the boarding, raising and i � breeding of horses and hay operation, consistent with its historic use. ' . E; 4. Section 5-106 - Air Quality _._ '� � '`� For purposes of this section, please be advised that the �� proposed structure and use of the pzoperty will comply with j all code provisions pertaining to air quality, including the � allowed number o£ wood burning stoves or fireplaces, and the alike. - � 5. Section 5-107 - Water Resources Impact and _ + Section 5-205 - Adequate Provision for Water Needs i � ' � ' _.. ; Accompanying this letter are eiqht copies of a letter .�?: i from Kevin Patrick, Esq. discussing the various sources of � :' water available to the proposed residence at Lot 2, Starwood ,.; "t Y;��.::��-��:�. ' 2 - 'Y" � ,a �� r:r� � '�^: � . . � _..____ __. _ _ ,_ _ ----. _ _._---_ __ . Y , � .#�.-- - _ �`�f.:.��4i:i� . . . . ,.S,y`.4?;F;,";��, . . .:'}'a• ilf'.�•.��. 7, -•.4'p:�.. � � � � �rS:'�i'k,Y.� i , . . .�� i � . . . . • ' . :.�J{.�i5`�0.::-i�T: . '•NyT�;l'�.'��•' • . • { 't ..;ri`VCS j�l:', . `�..•�: w • � ��;?� '��';��;� ,S � . . . n� ._..... ... . .. .. ...:.... . ...... � � ��. . � .. . ' . �.` �� . � a � ;� r R �,.r TM�.�.. ,x . .. . ti �,� ��py �'�.y�},-��S��Z�i�� "� {i �� -1,.� ��M e � „P3�h� �;, r� }1r' �. �� d Y � . .� � a�, �� l;�s t'd �} '+�y��'�; ��r� �1'�`�� ,t y� �, t �� :;��•r'��'�":e�.��r�yj�J. �.t�� i�fHixi� �F •, '� ��'.,��'"�'�' 3..� ��',r �!y,(,j��; Y`'t�l�.i,;� � 7Si� ��.�ata..w�i'4�....s,:,.°fs�S�s,..,r..� ...t::, s„ ,.. �..nr t�'t,��rT5�7P[ 'S_ �+.� � �-. F , � � EYUSTIN,70RDAN,YOUNG&PEII2CE Anoiaeys At Iaw :�ti:,_ :.e - � . Y�.:.;-�., � ! Ranch Lot Split. As you can see, it is Kevin's opinion, as �� well as the opinion of his consulting engineers and ' hydrologists, Enartech, Inc., that the guantity and qua].ity ` o£ water available to the property is more than sufficient to (� ' supply the demands of the property and proposed residence. f� ' 4: . � I also have enclosed copies of the assignment from � Starwood Ranch, Inc. to Aspcol of the right to four (4) � Stanuood Water District Water Taps. � DIVISION II FZSCAL AND SERVICES/FACILITIES IMPACT AND DESIGN t!� 2:. t:.�:';`> �. 1. Section 5-200 - Sewage Treatment and Collection � � '� Schmueser, Gozdon, Myer, Inc. has done tests on the site o# the proposed residence and has determined that one of three � , alternatives for sewage treatment systems wii.l work for the : project. The final design will be determined when additional � percolation tests can be performed this spring. Obviously, the tinaJ. design will be created in conjunction with the � .j Pitkin County Environmental Health Department and/or the � Colorado Department of Health. Eight copies of Schmueser's � report are enclosed for your review and information. S With respect to solid trash removal, we have consulted ;� with BFI regarding the referenced project and they have � I indicated that a two cubic yard dumpster/container would be j� sufficient fqr trash collection. BFI collects from Starwood = i once per week and would have no problem including the proposed y • � residence in its route. 1 j2. Section 5-201 - Impacts on Road System I � To address the concerns discussed in this part of the � i Code, the ,applicant hired Robert Felsburg of Felsburg, Holt !'" � & Ullevig to review the potential road impacts of the proposed 1 development. Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig are civil engineers who ''� specialize in transportation. Accompanying this letter are � eight copies of Mr. Felsburg's report. - J \�. i As you can see, Mr. Felsburg determined the potential i trip generation of the residence, as proposed, as well as the .'';�:-::::;>::: � potential trip generation of certain alternatives. The G�-?:.,:;:;•:' alternatives studied by Mr. Felsburg include: 1) building a .'s'':??".4;t.; f smaller house for the applicant's use and housing all the :�� •.. ; necessary staff currently proposed to be housed on-site in , � . .J.l..,..�Ft.. 3 :�3,' � a � ` _ '.�: � f . � 'aT•. r . ..... .._.,__ . ...__._ . _ - . .__ ...... � .��r . ... _.... ......... ._ ........... .. ._..... . . .. .....__.,._,__.,,n,�•_- . .. . . . .. . ... . ; 'h;�_ . . . . . ':s_ti.�,�:�'. . . � . . �`:��:T.4a`.4C�� . - . � . �t6: �',L . 1 � ..ti'•`-^•1:': � . . . . � ..�iii�.'.: . ' . ' , i^iu� •t•:�i`. tiL rx �h t ', " ,��3:..�� . ':s��s;' �. � . �'r4".:,'2"� . . . k�f�`- ,� "�� . .... _.._ _ ` . r.. .._ _.. . . . v i��. r� �, .. . Y.�:Y �f��" �� y� *�i,�� 3�� t �S � �4 tl` b�,�g��;p,t�g��Jttf x`� . ,r�. �'�y'� �� vqr�� x� �';;�r��i 1 � ya� � . �'�` '¢�� .,I ��n� yyy+r . . .. r..��-�.}r-.. ��.�,,�;��r�;��'� �`�M�.. .:,�'.�•}•__.��,.Sax'•.s�..:•�i'�t..�._�c'�1t�V1��"-° `' . �' -'�'"'��,' - .. � �� A.USTIN,rORDAN,YOUNG&PETRCE Anomeys At I,aw �:; town; 2) having the proposed residence occupied by a large �,-. £amily on a full-time, year round basis; 3) and, building two �. - five-bedroom, single family houses on the two existing building envelopes, which would not have required special - � rev9.ew, and occupying them with two families. - :'`F � . ` ' The conclusions Mr. Felsburg draws indicates that the �., impacts of the residence, as proposed, are actually less than fi the impacts of developinq two five-bedroom houses and �� <..'"r;� occupying them with one family in each. In addition, the � ' impacts of the current proposal would only be for �t. � approximatelp eight (8) weeks per year. Finally, Mr. Felsburg �.' concludes that any of the proposed impacts are negligible in terms �of the traffic capacity of the existing roads. No new � ;=�'� roads nor improvements to existing roads would be necessary. ,:_;� ;•;.-;� 3. Section 5-204 - Impact on Taxes and Management of Necessary Services and Facilities '��.;i� Although we agreed that there were no impacts under this section that needed to be addressed in this submission, it '�'°'4?:� may vezy well be that this project wili actually be a revenue generator for the county. Consider the amount of property taxes, including school district taxes, that this property �-��.�� will generate and compare that with the minimal impacts on �.'_`�� roads and other services as a result of such low occupancy and the fact that no children will use the school system. x::>1 ' DIVISION III - SOCIAL ,�t� 1. Section 5-300 - Housing This project will not create any new emQloyee generation ,r''�,i':�� . :�;e^,; for the county that needs to be housed off site. The property '`:�{ curXently houses a ranch manager in employee housing that will : �;� remain on '+the property. In addition, the applicant has proposed to add a second employee unit to house a full-time ;,,:j house caretaker on site. All other employees will be F. � temporary, will travel with the applicant and will be housed i Ion-site, to the extent possible. Hence, provided the employee � , ',�i housing application is approved, the project will house all � ,� :.� county employees on-site. � ,° , -: MZSCELLANEOUS ' µ"'�'' Y Xti.� � �� ti : ,� Also included with this amended application is a revised � :. � t.` ..i 4 � � �; t:� _ _,�� , ,� • , r:; _ _ _...._ . _._ _ _ _ _ . _. . , _ ._._. _._ . __ _.�.. ___._,_ __.... __. �_:. .. �,.ct�ft'•- - 'i�l�.s~ " " �".`�,`S� _ . . . . _ t ..FS, � .. i.'�j�': � . '�ylnr,:•i�,::" � � . .. :..L:,::� � . . �—.:`i';�::t., r��w,W"ti'l• �.�.�'i;; i�+.,;. � . ;;r�e'� - '{3��.' � � _ ��.5.:,47,� 1. . � F�k„f, . . ?�7�.',�'.�' �!I . � . `,t�:; � �M ) . . ... � .. . . . .•..�-,_.uy a �� ' �' w i � r--�.s' ' til+��t.� ',; `c �r y� �� r�°�� ,�, .� � e , � �`- ,.' ,A ' �� .it' �l44°[ �. ' . o"R' n ��' t �7�' .`, � ��Y. S �. �+4 ,'�y��p,��.�� .�`��• � ��°x5'��i�r ._...� � w s...y � P 4�„�_ Y M '�r a�.. 9i _ '�e.. :�d�y��t.�11" `r 1�'��F{� � � �, AUSTIN,JORDAN,YOUNG&PEIRCE Attomtys At Law . �•, ' i t �;; � " F.,':,•'-: i set o£ plans for the residence. The revised set o£ plans � reflects the discussion with Huddy where he indicated that ; there was some concern that there were more than fifteen -- -`j bedrooms. As it now stands, only the bedrooms have bathrooms ,; " � with a tub or shower and there are fifteen of them. �. >,. i With respect to the concern raised by the two level � � kitchen, the floor plans now reflect that. the kitchen will be on the lower level, connected to a food warming/service area -+ that is on the main level, adjacent to the hreakfast and �. ' _ dining areas. The food warming/service area will not be a k�'. '�= kitchen pursuant to the Code. ?;�. ;!.`'_� Also enclosed herewith is a copy of a memorandum from Doug Graybeal at Hagman-Yaw Architects re£lecting the squaze ;,;.:�� footage calculation for the residence. As you can see, the ;.;�� total living space, stairs and dumbwaiter comprise 43,055 - square feet. �.•+^` Respectively submitted, `�n� Cl �1 r� AUSTIN, JOR , YOUNG �CE �.;' �'�'�� / / ` " � - $y:�-i FreCerick F. � rce FFP:kls ' , cc: Aspcol Corp., N.V. ��; ASPCOL�SUPLMT.APP +`;.::� - , :`I ::�, � . . � �:1 �Y � '>1 �t �° ` _:� . `�,��° � �: 5 �;� ' =�4 ��..,l.. .. l fa _.... _ ......__.._. , _._.....-. .........�..� ........'. ' '?15` .._.._...__.._�. ._._. ..._.�....._.._.. ....�......._.._.__... .__._ .. _ }�..�--... __.-�_�._ '. '_ �. . ' . ' . �t�,,�,�`j. .. . . .. .. .. . S'h ti4v'f::M"� . . ' � � . .. . .y i�' . } F., i �y'' . y� ^�''?.':� . ( . . �•Ij :�.��Y:_ � . .. y �"�:�r��y'::. . � . . . '.'ry�;�?;�`�,'~�_`'=< ' •�r�;�'"''� ,��;'�:• ��t�:;'`= Y..c t„'Y;� .��•t ' « • � �� 'v . . � . � �C'i.i:. . : _._. . . :. . r ��iiiy'y'y'... c r c� ]� �[' 1�1 ..._._ ' rr ry .. ' 7 Y h'J'"f�t��7��f�� t ^Py'^�1�+�,��Y� • �p;s� }�SyaH' b�i� '� 1�l�kr} ��f� w , �'�h�i syr�,�. t.� �S��a,t N �tY, a � . " - �M �..�'��,.* ` ,rt��f�*eAtn�{�1��1�.��,��e;:i.�k..�.,:��1_..�-.1.5��.r:;`,w eS�e.`.__ � �� ... ��. . � e,�3�„ . - � � c c . ,�-,_- APPLICATION EOR SPECTAL R�VIEW APPROVAL `s'� ' OF ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEE UNIT <.. �'•!' �. � APPLICATION SUBMITTED TO: Pitkin County Planninq Office :� APPLICANT: ASPCOL CORPORATION, N.V. ;`' `s' � BY: Austin, Jordan, Young & Peirce, Its Agents and Attorneys i; ;:, ,�.� DATED: March 13, 2489 �� . :.; ------------------°--°--°--------°-------------------------- ;i' `' :i This is an application for Special Review Approval pursuant :?� to Section 3-8.13(b) or (d) of the Pitkin County Land Use Code, wherein applicant is requesting the approval for an existing :3 building to be an additional on-site employee unit. i �=� The Property and Surroun@inq Environment. The Property is ::"� Lot 2, Stanaood Ranch Lot Split, consisting of approximatelp 95 '�z'� acres. The final plat of Staxwood Ranch Lot Splzt provides for two f primary, free-market single-family residences on Lot 2. The { Property is surrounded by Starwood Subdivision to the south, Star ::'j Mountain Ranch to the east, Lot 1 Starwood Ranch Lot Split, the '"•i George Stranahan Ranch and Star Mesa Subdivision to the north and `="i the James E. Moore Ranch to the west. As you know, Starwood Sub- - division consists of many large homes on tracts of land ranging ?��-� from two to five acres. The surrounding property varies from the � relatively high density of Starwood Subdivision to the low density ;-.,.j of the ranches, to the relatively low density of the Star Mesa • Subdivision_ The Property is located in the RS-20 Zone, which allows one single-£amily residence on each twenty acre lot. The • obvious social and economic characteristics of this entire area are - that of vexy expensive, very large homes, most of which fall within the multi-million dollar price range. Accompanying this applica- ;� tion as Eachibit A is the vicini.ty map and as Exhibit B is an � improvement survey. + F I Applicant has filed a separate Special Review Application � ( requesting special review approval tor greater than 5 h�drooms in � � the primary single-family residence to be constructed on the �,,_ � � property. The existing approvals for Lot 2, Starwood Ranch Lot Split, provides for the existence of one detached employee unit `�+ ' with a maximum square footage of 1,200 square feet and three :;;�y��,: .j , . bedrooms and an additional 500 square foot employee unit within an ;:'-:+:i=;_ i existing agricultural building on the property. '°'"-;:' :;4 ,r. � t '.� �� . �� .... ...... . . . ...... ...... ......_.. . - . .. .. �.. . . .. . . ... . ....... ... ..._ . . �,sS- �..._... ..........._.._ ..... ._. .... . S svaa9YF' a. .' . +-.}1= 4t:� - • � ��' � .iY�l}T,'?-��:� ' . ' .. � . - . ��n.4� _ ?SJ:�"":,_. ;%}1�:•.a . rwtryi�.••ii _ . � Y ti'��.+ ..l�4�� . . 'Fy,.r.:i:: ,;x�'!,x.. � . ,y �:{y � . . . r ' . . , �. � ,:. .......__ .__.. , . . _ .. .:......_..__.. .. .. . , . � . ., h.. - i , � � i`� :�y+�� r 5: ,,vv��,,,,�, .ija'M S � .' � . ��y,-{„ �� t� �'�. •�+ Y . . . � v �.�.r�r� �V�y�Y��l'�''�°��.:!F'��1;y,'�.;i::{^L,"��, .� �lt�1 �� 'M �t•�R� ��4 ,��#} {��E�4�� ! �l !�!��'��`��'Sf�`t� f:l5a�r s'Y�'�'1 F�F�'4 L1 "q` df 5�,y,��,� h 5 1,�; { �,�,,� � .. � �'.�+P�4i37!SR.�Yk'.':a. �iL�i�L�..3`:f{'"�Y. 1li'.h.��Pw�Shi�:,�Y•.. s. a CZSz.�►.:�^eL+�r.�.�:. 4 e� A: . �_�t`,�. �. �i.. . ' i� � t SDecific Reguest £or Approva2. Exhibit B identifies two E�.�- ' single-story wood frame_houses presently situated on the property. �;�,, . The smaller of these hbuses is occupied by the ranch manager as an '`''-^-: em lo ee unit and will be used to alif as the a roved detached � P Y 4u Y PP i�: employee hoasing unit not to exceed 1,200 square feet and three .;'• bedrooms. It is the desire of the applicant to have approved the second house as an additional separate employee unit not to exceed ;_::`.a 1,200 square feet and three bedrooms. This separate employee unit would be used to house the caretakers for the property. The i-�. applicant is wilZing to give up the 500 square foot employee unit i�. . _;� within an existing building if that would aid in the approval of � , this application. The lazger house exceeds 1,200 square feet in �j ' �.;:, size but can be reduced to comp2y with the code. � _ y,;� The criteria of Section 13-8.13 (b) applicable to this request �'�` '•�� are as follows: �-9 (1) It is agreed that the unit would not exceed 1,200 sguare ':._� teet and three bedrooms; a .� (2) Since the unit already exists, its location is - '��"'� predetermined. With respect to visual impact, it would not be ,;�� visihle from any other property owners' perspective, and would only be visible from the other employee unit; ;�'`_.� (3) The zesulting density meets the minimum 1ot-per-dwelling ,�:_� unit requirement of Section 3-2. There would be two free market ;;; j residences and two employee units on 95 acres; � >:s,.� (4) This property is part of the historical Stern Ranch. The ',`�') property i,s still being run as a ranch, hence the need for the �� othez employee unit for the ranch manager. It is a fu1Z-time ;-�,� operation in conjunction with the Stern Ranch. The operation includes the raising of hay and alfalfa, the zaising of horses and ' the grazing of cattle. The unoccupied part of the land is ;i=� ir=igated and maintained in its identical historical character. �''�'i Therefore, it complies with the requirement that it constitute a bona fide agzicultural operation; .>�i , : � (5) The applicant agrees to comply with the deed restriction ' ' � requirements; p (6) With respect to the avaiZability of public and private � - access, utilities and services, all are in existence and in place � ,;.� and are adequate. The benefits of on-site employee housing with � . , = respect to reducing the impact on the roads in Pitkin County are � � �; -:� obvious. This application certainly supports the policy of � ' -; � , �j ru•. creating more employee housing in Pitki.n County, r�w. �'':•. t�:�,?'xa' :� < .��; z � '�: �, :�; _'.`� ..: .. _ .�.._. _...�_ _.. _. ^_. _ .. _ _ _ _ .. _ _. . �j�, . .. .. � .. '�iiy;`_ •- � .. �4'- r��^ y . � � t_ i�5v: � � . . 'F'aa._•�.:+ � ' .. •:4!t i��-G'.4'?�'i:� . �:_,��\,Y �.��y.�:: .. _;,T T'"'-'. „`;.�,;jzG^_`..,�. :_i....q.'.. '��l::� ' . . ��1�r. � . �J:^tl:' � � . �•'f.%�(:.::�.! . . 1,.: .: . , _ . . .. . .. �' � . � ' , ' .L �� ."� � :t,�� ryi �i��'S� 'Fl �+11 ( .-.Pt: t . rC"i' � � L . .i ' � �, 4��` .. iy!� �. � .�� . .�..�,� W_ s ��1f�y(�j��. .,*�•� r��a`}�. �'s a� ��44�.� .��i":'JL6M�::�l��i1��.��4i�'C'e�i�-:��.-�i..dC:. y��1r.-..:, _. . . .. ��'F{4�i. � � :•.awi:� .;' y,., Su�narv. It is obvious that a residence of this nature �'''�;,-; ' requires employees<"as caretakers of the ranch and to provide � '="`, security, in the event that adequate on-site facilities are not ��`,�-` available, then the applicant has no choice but to hire employees ,'�``'�?` who live elsewhere. It is certainly within the general policies "','� , ; for employee housing of Pitkin County and within the parameters of ' good planning to allow this additional employee unit. ; � � Respectfully submitted, - AUSTIN,��pAN, YOUNG & PEIRCE, �' � Attorneys, an'd`Agents for �'; � Applicant�'�� ::,,:.,, � � � `' � � �_l- -', /� ! ` � ' �;� BY. • � k . � Ronald D. Austin �i� � . William R. Jbzdan III ; `� Frederick F. Peirce ,� .. ? '' ,�� Aspcol�Applicat.AEU ' � � ,� � .,.� 4 � `�_ � ' M � � _ . �, _ .� f ?� . ' i - � {`� � .'� : i ;, � ` # . �_� � �, ��,., :.;r; �'��,` � 4'�i: � �;4i�'4.�...' •� . . �'W K.�: � 3 F� •r �i .� � �__ ._.____. .__�^._____. ._._ �...,_.._ ___ . . ,-r---�--:. ._ _ _...�.._ ------- __ _. r,��, .� _ , _ � �, __ . �� " ,�,�� . _ � �� ,� ,��. •. � i z� �..`t��'�a•�. . . . .. . - ' � � . . � 1}� -;r":ti�,' . . , � . . Y�~Giy'=1!^�.:. � ., - . . � � +Cg ��ti�,- � � �,��,` �� ..J'y 4 . . . . . ;£'.sF��",�i?q��7f� . . � . '��n'��:i ;�.?��,:�! • :�e t .�� ` �r ' �- jy=`.t' � ' :�3+;-:.F. . __. ..� .� ". _. . ,._. _:._ _ _ ` r. � � �� . � �. � . � . u _„Y x� �: K y '+ ��i�z �,tt ' '?y`i_'>r �� . � � �'�C .�� fr �. �T� �4r� � � f� (N'{ � �.:y, �` .•.' G � ,.,� �. a,�`�� ,�,.��1�X��:,'G�ra��'��+�il�� j �� `}�tf t . . �. � ifN� ay�} �y��y�. �'�,:� l�.�t,� ?nj..rt.:.i . 4R'� ��3?.•w..._.. ... . ..7��"�+L.�.� .� .L� . .S-i.e... . ',:.��:�F��4P'�.'Abyl�ptL'1��J_JCf.a:.�.ti...x.H "'�.'Wf.. 1 ;:, _ � � ME MO RAN`D .UM . ��,`. - . �;s �5,,.,..,. '-j Tp: BUDDY LUCERO/TOM SMITH FROM- Austin, Jordan, Young & Peirce -.� DATE: May 8, 19 8 9 ��,,'.�.. - � ,s QE: Aspcol Corporation, Application For Special Review Approval '' ° For Additional Bedrooms `'�j ;:� � �:�� The purpose of this memorandum is to address one of the ' - legal issues raised by the Pitkin County Land Use Code in `:;� connection with the referenced application, specifically, the ��! definitions of family and single family dwelling as used in §20-1 1 of the Code and how they relate to the special review criteria set �i forth in §3-6.4(b) of the Code. -.� As you know, §20-1 of the Code defines family as follows: ' ';rl An individual, or two or more persons related ! by blood or marriage, or a group of not to . :;� exceed five (5) persons, living together as a ' ;,� single housekeeping unit. The�same section of the Code defines the term "dwelling, � _ one family":as: Y - A detached principal building other than a 3+ -,�� mobile home designed for or used as a �•� ;� dwelling exclusively by one family as an independent living unit. I( In our opinion, the clear intent of these two definitions, � " ' when taken together, is to assure that a group of related � '� � individuals re ardless of the size when livin to ether as a `�'�`Y'=`'�- 9 4 te�, 1 single housekeeping unit, be allowed�to reside under one roof, in '� � ;, � a "dwelling, one family". Indeed, these provisions even provide , ��' � for up to five totally unrelated parties to live together as a �� ?w: � "family" if they comprise "an independent living unit." ,i-w'_;;, �. i " �'�, � ! Hence, when considering the special review criteria set - "''' ! forth in § 3-6.4 of the Code in the instant case, the sole �; consideration is whether the application will conform with the i< � "definitions of single family dwelling and ,limitations on F � _ { _.----...__,..- ,�,""r'"-- ; _ .,^I�':'•.: „ \' �-- ' F � � � 3`* _�':,' _,..1..^. f �_•�k Y' ' ' . }V '^'S.:t-. � . , .. .�`:s::'�,�._ " . ' �-�1��.::.�;�'.,:; ' - ' :�'��F!'4i�-'� . ,..'�1-'',:'�..a .':��..Ci��ir3�� -y�kLry.:Wfi::. �;`*,i'�;' . :,�:•;}e.; � . - ,,.3-... � . ..��i''{:=: � - �sa.�f;;b+ _ '�ix"'=i � ' . J:�S:� ` s�� 'r:. _ . . . ., . .... _ � � ' . `r� �'��4yr� ��. , C . y�, � ry .� r t�,� � r:-fr��F"��L �`�'t',,3},�y�ii N„�� '3 � �-� . !$� ��': tl6��`rr� 19 4 3� : �� i� �k��!��'- 1�`��, r�r,�;y;:��.��/X24ii rtYe��S�i � �!:`l` NNNi�aaa a'�� . ,..,,y( ;�. �.�[�,`$�..Y X,fy, 1l�� 1: �� y.,�, �' L� �y�7Ity,��S, � r �s t �" •7��T `4 i A1 s{�'(�'£'bF�• {��f t L� Y�y[ .:lytti ��J•"�TY..�. � �! .{"+F'�njh f �t� �V� Sl, i� .'�,'1�.. ��£�'�.'7��;��''`��fsu�N1�'�..._..�. .�.:L1.i1.�"i.:..:'�c.�"'lEF'1�.ra6T . � -sir . s^�4�`., . , �` `i occupancy." As part of this consideration, § 3-6.4(b) creates a � " rebuttable presumption that the applicant needs the same number of �"'= bedrooms as` number of persons in the family, related by blood or �:.,.. marriage. �'.- These definitions and review criteria are flexible, and - rightfully so, as living arrangements among different families and � groups of individuals are as varied and diverse as the number of families and individuals in existence. In the case of the �;: applicant, these dif£erences are highlighted by the fact that he � z is from a different culture, a member of a royal family, a '_'_ ::�,� governmental official and his country's Ambassador to this country. � r �:_;;� In the culture of the applicant, large families are ��' commonplace and the applicant is no exceptiqn, having over 40 brothers and sisters, as well as his parents, his wife's parents, �_:.� his wife and their six children. Often, various metnbers of this ,`--y immediate family, together with their awn family members, will ,:;,.� visit or travel .with the applicant for extended periods of time. Consequently, he has a clear and definite need for a large number of bedrooms in his homes. if �=: The above need is compounded by the applicant's status and �:�;-:� o£ficial position as a member of his country's royal family and as his country's Ambassador to the United States. This position requires that he have not just one, but two security details in _ attendance at all times, one from his country and one from the United States. In essence, these security details and the staff � the app.ticant employs to care for his family members and security � _,:.'� comprise an independent living unit as that term is used in the ,...N Code. .,,;a ::.i.'' The case law addressing the question of what consti.tutes � a family within the meaning of a zoning regulation supports the - conclusion that the referenced application conforms with the ,:;.;� definitions'� of a single family dwelling and. limitations on ' occupancy. In the Colorado case of Hesslinu v. City of Broomfield, �e°� 563 P.2d 12 (Co],o. 1977), a married couple lived with six retarded .,:�) children, who were not related by bload or marriaqe, nor had they been legally adopted. In effect, they were acting as surrogate ~�� parents for the children. The city's zoning ordinance defined � family as "an individual or two or more persons related by blood � or marriage or an unrelated group of not more than three persons � � ; living together in a dwelling unit." In Hesslinv, the court stated . - I that zoning is intended to control "types" of housing and living, �`;:..;r;,>�; not genetzc or intimate and internal fami2y relations of human ` �"�<° � beings. It went on to note that implicit in the definitions of �;;'v'-`�;- family is the maintenance of a single housekeeping unit. Just as ,��s 1 the court in Hesslincr determined that the six unrelated retarded ` ' ,�� children compromised a family, so do the applicant's relatives and '�{, security/staff comprise a family. �, .� Other cases out of Ohio support a broad interpretation of the definition of family and reject a narrow definition. in :-`:1 - 2 - :� _ -_;:,,�,;r�„_ . ._... . . ._. . . .. . _ . ;+�.` . ,..-j:i�"`-_'- . _ 1 ..i:r:��. � . . '''t`.r:; . _ ,,a':� . .�0r"( y�� . � ~'.::x :;�''�,•- � � . � . S' . . ....... . _ .. : :... ...... r:� _„ .,. . _ ' t . f�r��'� ,�,y�� sq ��„1�13�'S �,� � �._ 1�4�P i a ry�yti,�,:£` �` F�'.�� ,�r ,#a ia tt F''. 7 �d�}� ]�J� �' '� T 4 � ) w �'�i 5'� 14. t��k,.6i »,',6y S � t �� . l �,��.� �:ll i�N��`��s��t� �t��,��i€ r {y�z � � � �t '�j�""r,. f�.�1.. „��,'i�"�•h "N�� *�T . . .t�� t'_R'•') _ . �W � :�Ns �A-��r..a,..�iY(�t�,�'_�ig° t 'i--1 .-� . ��L.;�:�'aaa... "...A��{��e�?�I��l� *' t . •�4 ...�a.M.K1eAkN�,E'�:'�w i4s:�_�,�... � =1.�-� r . . � � Fliotsos v City of Younastown, case number 81-CA-123 (Slip !=:- _ Opinion, Ohio App. 1983) the Court noted that a resolution seeking h,. . to define the terms "family" narrowly would unconstitutionally j;•�-: intrude upon an individual's right to choose the family living -'�- ' arranqement best suited to him and his loved ones. The Court, k`;` " therefore, adopted a broad definition of the term family implying � that family means one or more persons living as a single ' housekeepinq unit, whether or not related to each other by birth `-:i or marriage, as distinguished from a group occupying a boarding ;; house, lodging house, motel, hotel, or fraternity. Fliotsos is i consistent with Saunders v Clark Countv Zonincx Department, 421 �; •� N.E.2d 152 (Ohio App. 1981) in which the Court held that because � '� zoning regulations are in derogation of the common law and deprive :? ;.;;_� a private property owner of certain uses of his land, such '�= resolutions are ordinarily construed in favor of the property �'` owner. Th� Saunders Court further noted that "[r]estrictions on ,."� the use of real property by ordinance, resolution or statute must _,.� be strictly construed, and the scope of the restrictions cannot be extended to include limitations not clearly prescribed. The ''��1 definitions of family in the Pitkin County Code is clearly broad, 'f • including all family members related by blood or marriage, and to more strictly construe it would fly in the face of these constitu- tional. principles. *^T�.� Finally, in Citv of White Plains v. Ferraioli, 313 N.E.2d ;.,;� 756 (N.Y. 1974) the Court defined family as "one or more persons ir�� limited to the spouse, parents, grandparents, grandchildren, sons, �'j daughters, brothers or sisters of the owner or the tenant or the `•� m.i owner's spouse or tenant's spouse living together as a single .`-+Ji • housekeeping unit with kitchen facilities. � � ,.;;,.� It is important to remember tnat the term family means ;_�� something different to peop2e of the same culture, much less to :,-;,� people of different cultures. In this case, although the -'_ applicant's�£amily may be larger and more closely knit than those . with which::we, as Westerners, are familiar, they should not be -:�` penalized therefor. The Code, as it currently is written, recognizes and- allows for the need to provide a flexible description of�' family foz just such individual and Cultural differences. Considering the extent of the applicant's family, as ` defined by the Pitkin County Land Use Code and supporting case law, d "; the application complies with the standards set forth in § 3-6.4 � ? of the Code and it should not be denied on that basis. � The applicant recognizes that the size of the proposed � � residence has become an issue, although in our opinion it should f not be of overriding concezn in deciding whether to grant or deny �' ` .::� � �.„�' the xeferenced application since the applicant has satisfactorily �,!!'`•« -� addressed all of the anticipated environmental, social and A,;��'"� economical impacts of the proposal, and since there is no Floor 2 `.1 Area Ratio in the RS-20 zone district. Aowever, we will work with �' ';; [� the County in further alleviatinq any such impacts to whatever ' extent possibTe. � �=� - 3 - � �-':J '`� . :,_�.. ,:;,�;r,.., -_.._ . � �:r.-- ` ( °�',":::;,;;;:,: • L _:! • � 4� { r � -�rS,.. - p :��•,.s�-. � . ,z= :�rr�`T. ,� ef . s+ ' ��r� . . � .. . _ , .. ......-. : ' 4 .. .. . . . . , . � � 3 M}�. �y.tn'�Y.h��. �'A� ��L.��s��'1.. ��Ft+�" 3'��"�}r* Y `�, �t t 4�e . . . . .�"�4��.,.?��,.��',�x�,+L��..il'4�J�t�.�c.�+;E': . . Sf �.��fl��.'r�+"m 4US'x'+. . ��c�'1�'�",f'�+�+� . d�� :.'S'��.p �� i.3t:... d�. titl�ri.-�ii��a��`,��l��k�''b'Xf .> � ,v;• FSf !� � � � , AUSTIN,JORDAI�I,YOLTNG &PEIRCE : n�o��,..0 L.. .600 Esst Hopkins Aveme Suite 203 xo�.ia o,no:a� Aspen,Colorado 816 t i Td��.n��po»v�s.3aoo � � FAX(303192SJ710 ��`'� Witli�m R lmdm ill r�`.: � GnyA.Younf . ' r•��t r•.r�;,« ,. �l� . Ted Q.GardenswuLL _ - ; May 16, 1489 - , � --._ 4, ; �` ,'.`'::;� � ? Pitkin County Planning & Zoning Commission � '`*- 130 S. Galena Street �. Aspen, C0.81611 s '.:;Ts . _r Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners :�j 506 E. Main Street : <«';I� Aspen, CO S 1611 Re: ASYCOL CORPORATION, t3.V. - Special Review �`�'y;'' . Application Eor Additional Bedrooms __ '�`„`'� Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: The undersigned, William R. Jordan III, is the duly - - authorized agent and attorney-in-fact of ASPCOL CORPORATION, N.V., and as such is authorized to make the following representations to ' the Pitkin County Planning Office, Planning and Zoning Commission ::-?.,,� and Board of Countg Commissioners on its behalf in connection with .,� the reEerenced application. 1. ASPCOL CORPORATTON, N.V. is a Netherland Antilles Corporation that is wholly owned by HRH Prince Bandar bin Sultan ;y�;� bin Abdulaziz, who is also his Country's (Saudi Arabia) ambassador ;��•�� to the United States. "':� • =� 2. The residence which is the subject of the referenced special review application will be occupied solely by Ambassador � Handar and his family. 3. For secuzity reasons arising out of his governmental � status, the undersigned is not at liberty to specifically itemize � . � all the names of Ambassador Bandar's family. However, the un dersigne d is a t li ber ty to r e p s e s e n t t o y o u t h a t t h e A m b a s s a d o r's � family includes Che Ambassador, his wife and their six children; �r ; his 25 brothers and sisters; his wife's 9 brothers and sisters; his !,.y�,, parents and his wife's parents, not to mention numerous nieces, ;'�;:: nephews and cousins.. ;,;�' r. ;',^� 4. Ambassador Bandar maintains residences in Saudi Arabia, �. ' the Washington, D.C. area and elsewhere, and often several members >r,� K'.. < .. . .._-_.�. .. ....... 7L�>-. . a :.� ....... .. .._. . ._. ... ..�`.,.n�.�- .. . . . . ........ . ...-�....'_ _... ... . ._. .. . �. �f�...�..:.... . ._. . _ - .. ...:....� . '�:.>;`wr"f�'. ` ' _ . . `zkeril`,�.4e'. . 4 �? i'_�,:+'" . _ - ' :.t;,.. - � • . _ , a ' . ..G?'j`^`�yi��',. . . . � �s�-,�''��x7%•:t� :.;.�, ;.�Tiie.:7..:?�`t�, � .' .,`T t..,. i�:'Q:_ :r$_.: ^:;[.�' ti. . . `�.��.e� ` . . ' ' �� .;Y�.,:,.- 7 , _�.;. . � r.. z, r � _.._ _ . .. .... . ��r ' ` 2 �" .v��n ' �, �xV�'sa1i� y�y�,, ,, ''j�i ..,. ��y� ' .. � i 5lt:; +._ ,�:. �y::rb�.r Y ��0"��'�� Y'.`Dr '�.tir*1��i�;"' rt� �$ a t?� 92 r �t ✓, h�, �' � Cr W , s 3':�' 4 . 3ti*+�,.�YL'4 � 4�� a �y� �at �t��I� �,�R��yt�t.}�,�y{� F� �rr��t�. ;der,r S:rt1�i! � � r, . t'`4f7+y�''.�7�A'F.�i'w.�.{�?E:�i'JF3.{'c��sS��"!'Ar q t --�''S"''�� ;� �.�� . -�'�ii�. "��ui,�:�.j ' '�5.r+ex??�; u_.,.. .x.. �l1n.r.h.:�:1a-: � �,.,,, �= ` � � who travel with a visitor (e.g. staff and security personnel). _ Hence, under our interpretation, it is not contrary to the Code to �*- house our client's staff ani. security personnel on site, and if f" ' allowed, the need exists as set forth in the attached letter from +"' Mr. Jordan. Our understanding is that this is consistent with your �' h:' interpretation, which explains your request for this additional ;:; , ; information. ` ' We believe we have shown a need for the additianal bedrooms requested in this app].ication to house staff and security i�• � based upon the special circumstances surrounding the applicant, and e` _'_,� that such is consistent with the Code. In addition, it is '�a��' important for you to recognize that we believe the applicant fits � within the criteria of the Code granting us the presumption that �S we need the number of bedrooms requested based upon the number of �� ` family members related by blood and by marriage. Nevertheless, you ' �t� should feel free to emphasize the need based upon security and `=`�� staff personnel requirements if that suits your purpose. ��"� Obviously, if you do not determine that the need exists for family ?s:;� and staff and security purposes, we will continue to emphasize the _ need based upon the presumption in the Code. �-�;1 SUBDItIISION RIGHTS �`'�i 4i�'j I would like to clarify a misunderstanding that arose -,'.j at the meeting on May 16, I989. During that meeting Cindy Houben ,;±;;� and Tom Smith indicated that they believed that Lot 2, Starwood �.?>:� Ranch Lot Split was prohibited from further subdivision by virtue of its lot split approval. I have reviewed the Code an'd the ,;`� relevant lot split approval documents and find no such prohibition. �;J_.� As you will recall, the lot split procedure was an � agricultural lot split, not a SOg density reduction lot split, so there is no automatic prohibition against further subdivision of the lot. Likewise, nothing in the specific approval resolutions ,,a,d prohibits further subdivision. Hence, additional density on the :r_� site, either by virtue of a GMP subdivision application or 35 acre .� subdivision, is, not prohibited. Notwithstanding this fact, the .:� applicant would`be willing to deed restrict the property against any further subdivision as part of this approval process. � r3 4:: ( ADDITIONAL TRADEOPF � � � . Considering the applicant's willingness to deed restrict � r � I:� the lot from any additional subdivision, this proposal is clearly : for a lesser density than is otherwise permitted on this 95 acre �._�,;.;� lot. As a further consideration in this application, the applicant � ��, has infonned us that he would be willing to deed restrict the 2 : `� number of bedrooms to be constructed on the second free market �. �,_x. .�.. •4 � ^ ��: L !�� ,� ,r� ',_`.�` F. ::..':1 ;a_�?i . . . ..... - 4F:.}�I!(•.._......... .. ..:....... . .....:.�...� . . . .. . .. ........ ... . . . .. . .. .. . .. . . .._. .. ...... . . .. . .. {�r� F . . "i=.`a�`.� � � . ;Svi—' "�=is�- . - � '�,.�,F3f' . . . .%;k;i.;r , . . .-Y" � . ' � � . . '�+�.,�A' � . . a.'cTY,v�F.°�;i�- . . :��:'.r�,-.`{�,' . %<.: ,c r° 1 �� ..!S ru`� �. '!:�'..;�j� � � .. y as,♦��. � . . .k�_a'�';$ � � . .,�;,�'. , ... _ . .'. . Y r iri:��y� ��y�'t}'`'1 r i�'x v':fi `�� y{ y,1:1� . /,, y� ��' nr•�p��;r�,'��Y;�p#FS�?�"'y�' ��s�� .i �. + ` U4y ;. � �.�t -.�A �' 13�R F�', ��}'`r� � ). • � W" j,�i��Xt��'�a{�ya �1�e+.h �� a�� .w 1r �1A -.�s pd� i�,yY' T 4' � ,q v�, r�� R. �°� � � � y j ' �(� � ' t 5� +� y �•,k i�•6 r �q.,��F�,Y; �•, ,'"��';��.�:� �� ._ �� f �` � • � , '� �� .. , �. ' � � . R : i+ ' building site to three (3) bedrooms, with a size not to exceed r�' ��,' � 6,000 square feet. �- ; In addition, as mentioned at the May I6, 1989 meeting, the �?� - applicant has an option on the 35 acre lot bordering his property -- j on the East, known as Lot 1, Star Mountain. This lot currently contains the right to construct a free market residence � (unrestricted by floor area ratio) without obtaining GMP or other ��.. review approvals. The app2icant would be willing to deed restrict ` that parcel to prohibit the construction of any building on that '� parcel at all, in connection with the approval of this application. ; -j:� strrn�aitY 4 i� '-�:x"N� Pursuant to your request, I believe this memorandum and the ' =�? attached letter provide sufficient evidence of the need the � ="s:;,� applicant has for 15 bedrooms on Lot 2, Starwood Ranch Lot Split :F+� based upon his family and unique staff and security requirements ,.,�� and there is nothing in the Co@e to prohibit housing such staff and _ security in the residence. In the event you do not agree with this ,Y;� analysis, then the need is still clear2y presumed by Section 3- 6.4(b) of the Code and suffici.ent evidence to support the need � based upon family has been presented. - In addition, the applicant has expressed a willingness to '�'x: preclude any potential increase in density in the ].ot by offering to deed restrict the lot from any further subdivision, which ' prohibition is not currently in place. Furthermore, he is willinq _��V=� to reduce the potential density by offering to limit the number of bedrooms on the second building site and to deed restrict the adjoining parcel against any development at all. Hopefully this memo and the attached letter have provided '�. you with sufficient information to analyze the proposed application '`��`..jj and recommend approval. If you need anything further, please do X;�� " _. not hesitate to give me a call. '� �:'.; `'� � +�: ;i �.�4� . .1 t� ASPCOL�MEMO.LUC �,�:,. 1. . r_.' _ 3 F�' <::� ;'a. ,� + , , . . _ _ . . _.. __ _. _ . __.,_._.. .: _._. ..�__... __ .`F=.>i.`'` ... ' . . - '"�-�.,.—,,�;'y;. � . ;�:H�,�.,'.,,:^'I. . .. .t`:-:;:'•:�:•'�',',:+ . ( 1� � 1 �}f•� r ��r:A%;�� .. . . • . :� �'ti':�F.G�,.' . •��.��!.i' . , . "i��,y"h'r:��'�`� �t��!4'. •>..�..�.'i^ .}��v�� _ , 34,.. t�;;'�F? � � ,;:� � r -. . �. _ ' _. y .lr.'.s{yarrti�ci�E�s'�'ti8�."�A.r�3fiE�.t . ,u►i::- . . . .. ,�i+.`.^-�`�r�� . � �� _ � ,.K�5r..�i• J��:i:,,!r ' . �%'�1:.'•i�,' •MEMBFR OFINESFfiNS fYIANp�I NEfMp1N ��E.AI.RAM S7REET • ' ASPEN.CO61fili � ' 8u5.f3Rt1925b750 ' � � - JOSHUASASLOVE ' THE ASPEN BROKERS �� ' LTD. "�'�;' - °-�z;�: .lune 27, 1989 Bt�ARQ OF C0.GQP.§tn R'S ':��';� � Pi1�K�N fGl!�lTY '•;:��.-_ Public Neari�g i=xh'sbits �� G-��-&9 � Date: n S �,:. d Pitkln County Commissioners 5��rt: 2��L Clty of Aspen Court House „ ,� Aspen, CO 8iS11 �;;��.N0. � � � �.;,,, �a Gentiemen: _� ;�.;; , ,r.,,>, '`' I have Ilved ln this valley for thirteen years, am a cUrrent ,� resident pf Starwood and my property Is contiguous to the � � Starwood Ranch and contempiated development. The proposal of the Ambassador's residence In Starwood has come under a good � deal of flre during the last few months and I wanted to go on t; record as supporting this proposed proJect. �, �; _ � . 1'� Starwood has historlcally been the place In Aspen for speclal, or unique structures and I see no reason why it should not continue to be so. I am firmly and unequlvocally In favor of � this home taktng Its place among the other distlnctive homes in i� Starwood. = We ail should feel much better about having a single resldence �,r� set hack on the property as opposed to many residences breaklhg up the agricuitural fields of the Starwoad Ranch. •� ' �-�. �"� Slnce ely �` ;: ��,`,,� . . ;, Joshua Saslove 5` Broker �� '�� i� `V,j J S:c r s '� I rt . . �"� � 1 .. . � �k��::.�.1.-.;. :;-� :;y�i:�:'�. � n ;.� � , �l . i �4 4'` .� 1� : +1 �' �� ';i,� An Independently Owned and Operaled Member o�Coldwell Banker Resitlenlial A�liliales,Inc. ,��.,�r -.__. _... ------_�- _____�_ _ . .. .. ._... i ,.._ _.._,. . . ._____------ - . __ ��;,.�� . �"'��-- �E�"� � � ��..�'.�' _ . t f�rsh�`�+r . " . y4�-.`�� . �;..��.; £`t?�`,. . x:��.r s;:•a;. ,;; ,�?��;,�*: - ' . P l. � $�. ��v" .. . . . ' . " ;.:�..�1'y}�'a`_:. c'`�"�_�.�y . , . �k:.. ;�s^,l':. . �^� {�p� :r�'R`�!i�,w . , . :�'r e r 1��Y'q� ` � . , r�4 ' �L l� a ,.y:k+`, ,i" r r,t � ��rf ` _ r ��. ,x+�.;'�'t 'v � �f.j� `�r � .. � .. �{ . . * ' ; r�iir ,... v��•.�i��P4��+Yb�::. � !� � ��. .. .. ._ - '�. r.� .n�'�.. j 1...Y: �1f�.'6�' �- �J ��: 1 � 3y ' � !1,_., June 27, 1989 �-` Joshua Saslove � ' _,�,,;X Coldwell Banker The Aspen Brokers Ltd. _ � 720 E. Durant Avenue � Aspen, CO 816I.1 �, z� . i - �:5;4ti::T ;,�, Dear Joshua, 7; �l� we have heard of the contemplated Bandar residence in ��. -•�' Starwood. As Starwood property owners, we are in total ' `•�>,�= favor of such a proposed structure and endorse the concept -'�`,� of such a dwelling. It would be much more appealing to have one imposing structure of quality as opposed to many `�.'°e� different designs dotting the landscape. _ . �`s=`�. In fact, we I.00k forward to getting to know our new `A��• neighbor. ,�.y+e,�. ��.*;� _ _- Best regards, "L�z ��h - �� .:_ . , :. -. "T�� George and E11en Hodor ,,,;�1 0558 N. Starwood Drive Aspen, CO 81611 �4-^_):C Y ��-, � � �i � . . '��i. .!•:�' .;y};��. � r�•.�h �a��'i:. � `�f .�•tx.-�_�}- �'.• �y�� - �'��i!';?�.. .�t" 3..�.rxz..:,�.,.�k3.�..�:i:4's t-:n.J.c.«:ii�. ..xi....�. ... -rSa.,�.e . . .. ,.. . _ ,rpw � . .«. L...�tr Kn, e � � � ip.�� . . . ` . . " . ( � - . . . . . . � . . ��'y - � � � . t � . . _ � . .. .. . ��L�r� . . .. . . . . . . . . . �. . . h� ��i[�M�� ' .. ' . . f' . k�',��r tt:� '�'7�st'-,.,�•; ' ' ' '`r.u' • �� '�F�R'°'�:� . . . ... . r.� ,. . . , _ ._ .. . ',.4°��y': - .�' �,`i r i�: ' ^ { :� � � ' � xi",S�i � � . �.. " -. ..._ .... _. -. ..,,__,._ _ . ... .. . . � . _ , . . , .. � s:. �.; ,. � � ' � , st}�. , : r ::;, � ',h{�� cf �R — s �,r�}��r .j,.. ��°� � ,..y� :<r-} ys.: +' x i i,�y; {j�� J+�� ry t�` �.�;�r� r . �i� J��.,, _ ��t y � • ..-. • ,„_.�i�.v�A'�;3fA�.ta:7.��i�.�fdY..�.[[�!l�jt��i._�u��!�... - . r �JS�-.i .:.. �T. ..,.J—...__._-`1G•=�s ,.� i . y�Ai81rv.:, '1 • t��'- .i� ti',_ , Y't - � 437 W. Smuggler Aspen, CO 81611 �`•:�� ,.ti;- June 27, 1989 , ,: s: � �.,'.' `a Pitkin County Commissioners � 'fi; Pitkin Countg Courthouse , T � Aspen, Colorado 81611 ' •,� bear County Commissioners: r� �� As a 2ong time resident of Pitkin County, I would like to express to you my opinion that the Aspcol application be approved. ��; I also believe this to he the opinion of most Pitkin County � , :� residents. The Starwood area is where large homes should be # located. A large home on ninety-five acres is a great trade off �7�" to the County for such low @ensity. Sincer-ely, 1� / � �� ----�� , �. S. Marcus Finkle :; ^•� �'� SME/s '.'� :,. .'.� � ,, �_ y � , ;::.�. a � : ;:� ' �`. :.� �:, ,�.� } '��:�: „�,.,,.. >;''r�•:': �� . �~I;`�9 �.,: . '..:� , ��r,�r. n�,:. `� 4: 1'T ,. .�_�._ .. __ _..__._._M. '_".___ ._ .....___...__. _.____._ �� ,/� . ._._...... ._._ y �•- ` '-`�._ .�:sr �..... . ;. . ��- _ . ... - :. .. � �� - . ."'__'.... �._.�...... . ........�:, - t,c�.��. . . � . . � . . _.. ; .��,�o, . . -. . 't��' .r. f�` �•;�; ,�, ,. r��:� -.. ,. . s �� rx.��. , ��M1 ._ � � ;: .�r�.,�,�''; � � . 7.�K�1�.. - . . . .. . . •3,y„1_-1r . . . .. � . 5��;^�1•. � , .. s :��`� . , - �� `�� ` " . , y ��,, . " _ � h,: . . . . �_ � .. l , t ��. , ". .. - " -�..d ..�,i ��t�} it''f, �}�' '4`q�-;,�tz�+,; �,j� �� r�,,�.� `rr �qy� �{Y�p}��' � ,�� . ,{�e Y^�� `� �� <r ra'"'"%3+��; . ��"��:J9iM'• . �{j�� ' ..�r� �; ; � y��""�;� ,,ty,.f +w.��.�. . �.' . ._W�•..�:.� _. . kNn�... . �..'. . .. n. _�.�(Si.± ,bj.. k"., June 26, 1989 ��r��'�j _ �'� �'` � t5 - �'��;il D SUN 2 l 1�39 ,'') �, :_ � __ Ms. Colette Penne County Commissioner �:� � ; Pitkin County `' — �:;' . ? 506 E. Main Street .=<`;4 Aspen, Co 81611 ,� Dear Ms. Penne: =-�`± As per my conversation with Ellen Sassano in the Planning '�'' _ Office, we agree with her recommendation regarding the q:'' � Patricl: Fox application. That being that subdividing his � '�. four acres into two, two acre lots with building rights of i one dcaelling per lot would maintain the character of the ��'�`� neighborhood as well as the established density of the area. ..-pJ ��'�`�; Thank ou ver much. •;:4`� y Y y��.j1 :�,� �'rR.Y:� Sincerely, -�:� �C.Of' C/L"�c�-�'�-C ._:;�t� - Alfred and Valerie Braun ,�?;X�, 0041 Rainbow Lane Woody Creek, Colorado 81656 _ _ '. :`a �=� - _ � '�' r � � �-� ;"� -;,3 'i?'='�:C: :� �Y: ��.. . :�_'.'1F�.S.. � . '.�;��:.. �� F , :��`.� F�� l.Y 'fi�. � ...tkaX •..:��.� rv-::_�i . _a.. . , _ .... w��.�..._.. ......_.__ . . ...�... k. ..-. .. ...n..,J y . .�.w . ..� ��'-� ... .:::::. - ... ::�:: � .j'��Wb: � . ' �'- - .,. .. ..�::.',..'. f Y'"; � � ��"�� ,.... • . �S��J. ' - . . . . . . . } �"� . . " . . . i '*.r . . .. . (.. � �1Y{.,J �. �`i`-?�v . . . , � 4 . . � , . � � - 'R A'�• _ - ' . . ' � � .. �� . . � � � � � � � . aa��T��4?� . � � . ... . �� 4. S /` f.� i 1�� L;�.�� . :��.� , , a. ..... . . .. ..._._ -. .��: d . .�-�. � � �t' i ry��S +� i ut l�j �u ��`r ti �� . � � �� . �� +,� �� . � K� i.�•_��' ��s ��•f',�.`'�- ��Y�� , � • q+�� 7, +,k" '° �_ . d' `�ts ;i ` q. li� �y * ".. , � �(�?��4�n �`u!r+�`.. .... .. �. .. � . . . ... . '�'c�'.'�,�F .... � ��ZiG":'w� . _ .._ ..x:' rw_._,.,.p•'�4.�,, '- r Co`'C�`eu�� ..� � June 27, 1909 - �r�nr�n oF co.cor�a��R�s The Board of Gounty Commissioners I'ITK{MCOUNTY or Pitkln County, Colorado f'utilicHt�aringExnibits ' Pitkin Count Courthouse � • Aspen, CO 81611 �'�'n�"""".��-� k:(,.• . ;`-:ltl;;•.ut..�..�s��__ Re: Bandar Speciai Review Application. �.,�_ �'� �� ' :t� i'AiI. .�. ��+.'::�. ' Dear Commissioners: , ; ��''�: The undersigned are members of the Pitkin County Planning And Zoning Commission who participated in one or more of the Planning " -- _,1 and Zoning Commission hearings regarding this application. j' At the time of Planning and Zoning Commission action on this .� application, Suzanne Caskey ta regular member) dnd James Breasted (acting as a voting alternate) voted against the approval of this "� application for the reasons stated below. Uwight Shellman <an i� � alternate who was not entitled to vote at this particular meeting) �?: also stated that he joined in the position of Casky and Breasted, '"��•``. i, t� :. and would have voted against the application had he been entitled t. :� to vote. � 'ri;-� �; ;�',,� We wish you to know that we continue our opposition to this .ti'� application, and hope that the Boa.rd of County Commissioners will �: _ disapprove it. ..,°� k' ,:�:� We believe that the applicant has whotly failed to meet the most ,�] fundamental requirement of our tand use code, namely tha.t the `� proposed development is not compatible with the land uses in the ; {, areas adjacent to it. �; ,'.� � i. Size alone disqualifies. lt fails this test from the '�.;{ j:: 1 standpoint of sheer size and scope aione: ;:: k` .'�':,� a. It is many times the size of the average size of similar ' residencas tha.t surround it. i k' b. It is several times the size of the largest residences in the adja.cent a.rea.s. �. � �`�? i; ;�j 2. Use disqualifies. Uhile the size and scope of the project `. ,;� alone is sufficient to require denial, it also fails from a use i; t: standpoint: I � a. The suggestion that Prince Bandar will use it on[y i ,,� occasionally, misses the point. It is in fact a fortress to � � , :i be owned by a corporation of unknown proxies, readily �} -� •-;.1 saleable to anyone by transfer of stock, or issuance of a �l., ;' .- •� ' stock proxy. ` k��r: i {k� ;� b. While allegedly for the occasional use of royalty, their � _� guests and retainers and body guards, the size of the staff G ' ..•.� � i'. '�+''}� E .;� ' ,',ii? �,� r n5� -- --'._._._ _ -_ _ _ .--.....______ .__ _._.._.._.. -�r,, »...�. _....__.---. . , `�',+.��,.fi��f,�, . . ...�"1•Fi�+f;�:.. . . iy�;��;�-.=� . �p•:�-'�a.,..- . . �'�'�:Ly`. - . �^�'e 4i�'`F�: . . ' t . �..G'c�:`.::.':. .�y�tY�.�� . :��:�i S:•f�D.. � . . ' . . ��` ..��_. .. . . . ,_�'��.tiY . . v'��'.`1/Gir."_� . . " . _.,..��.. .��r . . :rY��^A�:�}• . . ;:�':��!r?:t: � . . �n�.-�C`��n- .:�-`t�pD�i��•::.� . . -r��-4f"µ « . � ,P.,��"�-.S�iE}.. � ��iS4.°��, � � + . � x _ . _. .. _ . � r� ... _.._.. .... . .. . � ..' .. . . . ... ,. '� .. . . . �� , � .� . ._, .....-- . ,. � . . . . . . �7��}��'�.F �i� [t[ �, �', 6 �� y . . ; ��, � ��.,� � .. ./�'371��11FLiY��'3;li`�,:�.TKii�-L:.+wi ` i.�"a��3�.PiS�''f1�.. . � %.�W,�tik��(7G'9��. ' a �t rl�,y,��r�.� . � . i}+` :� . � I • tihat will be required to maintain and defend the premises on a year round basis will equai or exceed the impacts of the number of Cmaximum 5 bedroom) singfe family residences which would ordinarily be constructed as of right on the same land for true single family use c. The plan layout details clearly imply that guests and ' tamily wil! use it much like a private hotel, or for short term lodging of guests and their retainers. Once the �'�s '_ development has been constructed and occupied 6y the corporation's employees, there is little real ability to ��''"° provide any real control over private hoEel, todge or country �"`" club types of uses of the facility --now or in the future. ��': � These types of uses are not permitted in the zone. In our ii,: , :�,� view, if it iooks iike a duck, it is a duck, in spite of assurances to the contrary. �. �i In our view, the proposed use of the land is less consistent-- M` ; ;, iong and short term--than development of allowed single family residences. � ,. ,.'�� 3. Collateral considerations. While we believe that the above ��'�.. basic incompatibility of the proposed developme�t's size and � �"'�7 scope, or use is completely sufficient to deny the application, we 'V'�I would atso like to point out the following collateral %°.�:� considerations: . - a. That the impacts upon the severely constrained county and ' "�J`*:+ private road access to the site wiil be excessive, both - during and after construction. . 4..T..:.'1 . ' . . � T ` b. Similariy, the proposal in our view represents a low point �;�� , in the wastefui, conspicuous, tasteless and excessive ;�; ,� consumption of building, energy and personnal resources, and community infrastructure, before, during and after construction. � ; � c. Like similar ostentatious and tastetess displays of wealth, we ara likely to see the entire edifice and grounds �4Y� illuminated, so as to become another major visual intrusion UPOT1 the western night. H '� � c. The excessive security embellishments raise additional questions concerning not only the security of the environs, but aiso whether the special risks presented by the alleged �`,� owners may not necessitate additiona! security intrusions in ',! the future, eg: helicopter access, flight path adjustments, � resident bodyguard contingents and special potice expenses. � - .i . ' For the above reasons we recommend denial of this application �' ��-; �ncondit'onally. �� / .' �r��.st<� J�� u. �t�.-�---- ///1/)�y,��—��'A(�.� �� + � �.l��.� '\/ • " ,f ' <.;_.;i' 3 ��;�--�, � Suzanne Caskey� Jim Breasted Dwight Sh9liman �, ,� �`TF ti.l s•' J 4��^l.,`� I�• .]'• � . ...... .....__'__...._' .____......� . .............._...... ._......_ . _.. . . ..... .......__............ � i. _"_... _ . . . ,__�.. .., ... or-.+ T'�S'(—r� � " �" . . . . '�`2.^�s..cs-� . .... � . ., � :.;:S:"t=�`�:i;: . .. .S�'',.�i;i��.::;, . . �� " . , � � .. %'i;i � � ,Fr.,�/�:.'... , . . - . �'•s�:.♦,.'�;�. � . ' . z .i r� :• M ,��u...1�4.• , . � . .�.:�:;', ' .��,F�`'�Y�. y�� .':x=`a.. �.. ,�>�', ` � . ��' ... _ .._ , ._ _ . . .. . _._ _ � , . . . �, ' ' � � • `:tk' 3`r�� i-"J . '• :; ' ��4. ' � � �{ }i :.'q,+y��$�� t;.^�.: -. .��. , �L-F �.i°��'��y� x. ;ycY 'f�''ny.� . �,'3��+�i . "�! ��ii ..�. � ti��{�� . - ...� �,.�..... . c t�.,t -F. � ,rr7 r ,� �:�r� '.�C�... '.h. �a�s-'��`� n�.a �x. .�` �-r'.. � �aan oF co.ro�,��,�r�t�s PITKIN CODUTY PuClic Nearing Exni�its ' MEIdORANDUM , Date: G-s7—p'9 . TO: BUDDY LUCERO • g�hjgg�; /k5 PGOL ��" • /I�� 4.'. �.. � FROM: TOM SMITH _�' V� EXl1.N�. �_ ;;;. " �^�:. DATE: MAY 18, 1989 � - RE: APSCOL CORPORATION - SPECIAL REVIEW APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL BEDROOMS -- -'.� I have reviewed the May 16, 1989, letter from William R. Jordan to the P&Z on the above subject. Based upon the application, the ° evidence introduced at the P&Z hearing, and this letter, I have �� the following comments and recommendations: ;,� 1;:: ,�� 1. The question of "need" contained in Section 3-6.4 of the ��• , � Code is in addition to the other special review criteria of Section 3-6.1. All of these requirements must be met. � ;y 2. In the original application, reliance on the presumption -�i :of need was based upon the statement that it was "absolutely vital" for government and security personnel to occupy seven :� bedrooms on the premises. By deduction, then, the application :�; was .based upon a presumption of need for eight bedrooms for � family members. Now the applicant states that the residence `�� "will be occupied solely by Ambassador Bandar and his family," ,� (even though the applicant has stated that personnel will reside on the premises on a space availability basis) . These inconsistencies have not been explained to my satisfaction. It ''i would appear that the facts are being manipulated to fit the `;':V� zequirements for "presumption of need" contained in the Code, the applicant having been informed that the presumption does not -?s;� apply when related and unrelated persons to be living upon the premises exceed five. +;;� 3. Under these circumstances I do not believe that the „!r�.� presumntibn of a need for fifteen bedrooms applies. However, this does not mean that the evidence does not demonstrate that an • !..� actual need exists for the fifteen bedrooms requested. In my opinion the evidence more directly supports a finding that actual � need has been demonstrated than that the presumption of need is '� applicable. This finding could be based upon the unique � requirements of the applicant's position as ambassador, including staff and security needs, as well as the size of the applicant's family. This determination is, however, a matter within the sound discretion of the P&Z and the Board. � �:: TFS/h£s ;,;�:;'<� cc: Frederick F. Peirce, Esq. = +'•� ts5.534 ;i,��.'i� �..�' �� F. ,?:-� s�>+ . ---..... _ _. _. _ _ _ x.,, .,., _..__.._. ,,_ _ - :.�' _ `;sir":�_��_ .. . . ' :::F;�_ - , � _.��::�;.��_;;i � . • � . . ''.. , :::�?`,,•,v';. . �;,5.:' '>�tt."�' - �:d.;�'"�i.'�. :.t,n,��:'�:� � c . a�i�li��Y ''t � � '` � . .