The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutpitkin.planning.264506401001, 264307101003DOCUMENT LAYOUT THIS FILE MAY OR MAY NOT CONTAIN ALL OF THE INFORMATION LISTED BELOW IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER Summary Sheet Resolution for the BOCC and /or P &Z Ordinance for the BOCC and /or P &Z Determination for the Hearing Officer Administrative Determination Staff Memo Application Public Notice, Acceptance Letter, Referral(s) Letter Site Plan Miscellaneous Plat(s) a(04s -CR 01-CX)2N PARCEL ID:I2645- 064 -01- 00126 DATE RCVD: 2/17/2004'' # COPIES:[� CASE NO[ P017 -04 CASE NAME:l Light Property Caretaker Dwelling Unit & Subdivision Exemption for a Major Planners Ezra Louthis PROJ ADDR: 1501 Rose Spur Ln 1709 Rose Spur Ln Lots D & C McCabe Ranch 9 OWN /APP: Light, Diane G. ADRJBox 620 C /S /Z:IBasalt, CO 81621 '.'pHNi REP: Pry Yaw c/o Cottle Graybe ADR: rox 529 C /S /Z: Basalt, CO 81621 PHN: 927 -4925//8° Email Addr. F_ ALLOCATED HOURS• FEES DUE: $2125 FEES RCVD: $2125 #16578 % OVER 8.4 REF:I 3/31/2004 BYIJ. Taylor D DUE: 4/23/2004 _N MTG DATE REV BODY. PH NOTICED DATE OF FINAL ACTION: P & T�O r PI CL-4 0 "Y' " Mill f 1� IIII �II II I II Page: 3 09/07 /20¢�4 09:23 SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 0.00 u 0.00 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PFTJCIN COUNTY, COLORADO, APPROVING THE LIGHT /TOBEY MAJOR PLAT AMENDMENT TO ALLO W DETACHED CARETAKER DWELLING UNITS WTTHTN AN ACCESSORY /AGRICULTURAL BUILDING ON TRACTS C & D, MCCABE RANCH SUBDIVISION Resolution No. /�Y -2004 RECITALS 1. Jim and Diane Light (Tract D), and William Tobey (Tract C) ( "Applicants "), have applied to the Board of County Commissioners ofPitkin County, ( "BOCC "), for a Major Plat Amendment and Special Review to allow detached Caretaker Dwelling Units (CDUs) within accessory/agricultural buildings on Tract C & D, McCabe Ranch Subdivision. 2. The properties are zoned RS -30 PUD and contain 30.76 (Light) and 31.51 acres (Tobey). 3. The properties are located in the McCabe Ranch Subdivision and are more specifically described as Tracts C (Tobey) & D (Light), McCabe Ranch Subdivision. 4. The Planning and Zoning Commission heard the Light application at their regularly scheduled public meeting on May I8. 2004, at which time they recommended approval by a vote of 2 -0. The Planning and Zoning Commission heard the Tobey application at their regularly scheduled public meeting on June 1, 2004, at which time they recommended approval by a vote of 3 -I 5. The Board heard the request on I" Reading at their regularly scheduled and duly noticed public hearing on July 28, 2004, at which time evidence and testimony were presented with respect to this application. Second Reading was held on August 11, 2004. 6. McCabe Ranch received Final Plat approval pursuant to Board -of County Commissioners' Resolution No. 94 -33. 7. The BOCC finds that the request to allow a detached CDU within an accessory/agricultural building is generally consistent with the requirements of the Land Use Code. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners that it does hereby approve the Light/Tobey Major Plat Amendment and Special Review to allow a detached Caretaker Dwelling Unit within an accessory/agricultural building subject to the following conditions: The Applicants shall adhere to all material representations made during the application process and at the public hearing. 2. The Applicants shall comply with the provisions of Board of County Commissioners' Resolution Nos. 93 -132 and 94-33 unless otherwise replaced or amended by the conditions of this approval. Tract D shall also comply with the provisions of BOCC Resolution No. 073 -2003. 3. In the event the Applicant for Tract C, McCabe Ranch Subdivision chooses to construct a CDU, detached from the principal residence, and attached to the bam/accessmy structure, the barn envelope shall be relocated from its originally approved location. The northwestern edge of the relocated barn envelope shall be no closer to the northwestern property line than the northwestern edge of the principal envelope (In other words, the barn envelope shall be no closer to Mr. McBride's property line than the principal envelope if die Applicant chooses to build the CDU in the barn). The n00001 c� 9 -8.04 000 kk4,✓v . tom. L, \G" ( 3. -� --,� C'� �L,4 oy ill I i I IIll111,1� 5 I i lt III �a 23, SILVIA OPVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 0.00 0 0.00 - Applicant shall be required to submit an amended Plat for Tract C to show the barn envelope relocation in accordance with Code Sections 5 -40 and 5 -60 -040. The Applicant shall have 90 days from the date of approval to elect to build the CDU attached to the barn /accessory structure. In the event the Applicant chooses not to build the CDU attached to the barn/accessory structure, the Applicant shall maintain the existing barn envelope per the original approval, and a CDU can be attached to the principal residence only. 4. Condition number 5 in Resolution Nos. 93 -132 and 94-33 shall be amended to read: "The T Applicant is allowed to provide Caretaker Dwelling Units (CDUs) pursuant to Section 9-110-041(c), only if such units are attached to the main residence. CDUs located attached to barn/accessory structures within an approved barn envelope shall be allowed on Tracts C & D, McCabe Ranch Subdivision." 5. The proposed CDU shall contain less than 700 net livable square feet. 6. The kitchen shall contain at least a two burner stove with oven, standard sink, and at least a 6- cubic foot refrigerator plus freezer. 7. One off- street parking space shall be provided for the unit. 8. A deed restriction for the caretaker dwelling unit shall be recorded prior to issuance of a Building Permit for the caretaker dwelling unit. 9. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the caretaker dwelling unit, a site visit shall be conducted by the Housing Office. 10: Floor plaits of the caretaker dwelling unit shall be provided to the Housing Office prior to building permit approval. ]I. The applicant shall, by deed restriction or other permanent commitment running with the land, guarantee that rite caretaker unit shall not be required to be rented; not be sold or otherwise conveyed or separated from the original parcel regardless of the ultimate fomt of ownership of the caretaker unit; be limited to occupancy by not more than two adults and related children, who qualify as (and have been found by the Housing Authority to be) employees of the community under such guidelines as may be from time to time established by said authority; be rented for terms not less than six months if rented. The caretaker dwelling unit may be occupied by members of the immediate family (as defined in Section 8 -1), even though they may not qualify as employees of the community. , 12. The caretaker dwelling unit restriction may be removed by the propeM, owner upon approval of the Community Development Director, subject to the requirement that the dwelling is removed or modified. If modified, the remaining improvements must no longer be capable of occupancy as a dwelling unit and must meet otherwise applicable Code requirements. 13. The approved building envelope and accessory/barn envelope shall not be relocated without review and approval by the BOCC at a Public Hearing. 000002 r 090 3 09/07/2004 09:231 0 0.00 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PUBLISHED IN THE ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY on the 28" day of June,2004. A FIRST READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 28TH DAY OF JULY 2004. ADOPTED AT SECOND READING ON AUGUST 11, 2004. PUBLISHED AFTER ADOPTION IN THE ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY ON Jones County APPROVED AS TO FORM: BOARD OF COUNTY COIYLMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO ' Dorothea Farris, Chair Date: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: John Cind aou en, ttorney Community Development Director P017 -04 & P068 -04 PfD# 264506401001 (Tract D) & 264507101003 (Tract C) 0000V Ll MEMORANDUM TO: Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners Regular Meeng ti— August 11,2004 THRU: Cindy Houbede, onul iunily Development Director FROM: Ezra Louthis, Planner RE: Light Major Plat Amendment and Special Review for a Detached CDU -2" `1 Reading SUMMARY: The Applicants request a subdivision exemption for a Major Plat amendment to amend conditions in the Detailed Submission Resolution and the Final Plat Resolution that restrict Caretaker Dwelling Units from being detached in the McCabe Ranch Subdivision. BOCC Resolution No. 93 -132 (Detailed) and Resolution No. 94 -33 (Final flat) both state for lots in the Subdivision: "The Applicant is allowed to provide caretaker /employee dwelling units pursuant to Section 3 -8.13, only if such units are attached to the main residence. No free standing caretaker or employee dwelling units shall be allowed." The Applicants propose to build a CDU within a barn /accessory structure on Tract D. The Applicants are also requesting Special Review Approval for a Caretaker Dwelling Unit (CDU). APPLICANT: Janes and Diane Light REPRESENTATIVE: Larry Yaw LOCATION: Tract D, McCabe Ranch Subdivision ZONING /LOT SIZE: The property is zoned RS -30 PUD and contains approximately 30.76 acres. BACKGROUND /EXISTING CONDITIONS: The BOCC voted 2 -1 (one member abstained) to approve the Applicants' request to allow CDUs to be attached to the barn /accessory building, and detached from the primary residence. 'file Board requested that the Applicants work with the adjacent property owner (Mr. McBride) in order to come to a suitable resolution for the location of an accessory building/barn with a CDU in it for both the Applicants and Mr. McBride. The Board also requested that the amendment apply to not only Tract D. but also to the remaining 2 Tracts. As part of the request, a number of conditions would apply to the accessory building/barn with a CDU in it, which included a specific setback from Mr. McBride's property line, proximity to primary residence, height restrictions and landscaping, although no specifications were discussed per each condition. Mr. McBride is accepting of the Lights' application to locate the CDU in the accessory building/barn, which has pre - existing height limitations (from a previous amendment to move the envelope), is located approximately 30 -50' from the primary residence, and is approximately 525' from Mr. McBride's property line. At this point Staff has been unable to come up with general standards acceptable to the parties that would be applicable to all Tracts in the Subdivision. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board adopt the following motion, "to approve the 2nd Reading of the Light Major Plat Amendment" subject to the conditions in the attached resolution. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft Resolution 000004 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, APPROVING THE LIGHT MAJOR PLAT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A DETACHED CARETAKER DWELLING UNIT WITHIN AN ACCESSORY /AGRICULTURAL BUILDING ON TRACT D, McCABE RANCH SUBDIVISION Resolution No. -2004 RECITALS 1. Jim and Diane Light ( "Applicant "), have applied to the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, ( "BOCC "), for a Major Plat Amendment and Special Review to allow a detached Caretaker Dwelling Unit (CDU) within an accessory/agricultural building on Tract D, McCabe Ranch Subdivision. 2. The property is zoned RS -30 PUD and contains 30.76 acres. 3. The property is located in the McCabe Ranch Subdivision and is more specifically described as Tract D, McCabe Ranch. 4. The Planning and Zoning Commission heard this application at their regularly scheduled public meeting on May 18, 2004, at which time they recommended approval by a vote of 2 -0. 5. The Board heard the request on I` Reading at their regularly scheduled and duly noticed public hearing on July 28, 2004, at which time evidence and testimony were presented with respect to this application. Second Reading was held on August 11, 2004. 6. McCabe Ranch received Final Plat approval pursuant to Board of County Commissioners' Resolution No. 94 -33. 7. The BOCC finds that the request to allow a detached CDU within an accessory /agricultural building is generally consistent with the requirements of the Laid Use Code. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners that it does hereby approve the Light Major Plat Amendment and Special Review to allow a detached Caretaker Dwelling Unit within an accessory /agricultural building subject to the following conditions: I . The Applicants shall adhere to all material representations made during the application process and at the public hearing. 2. The Applicants shall comply with the provisions of Board of County Commissioners' Resolution Nos. 93 -132, 94 -33 and 073 -2003, unless otherwise replaced or amended by the conditions of this approval. , 3. Condition number 5 in Resolution Nos. 93 -132 and 94 -33 shall be amended to read: "The Applicant is allowed to provide caretaker /emplovee dwelling units pursuant to Section 9 -1 10- 041(c), only if such units are attached to the main residence. No free standing caretaker or entployce dwelling units shall be allowed except on Tract D, McCabe Ranch Subdivision." 4. The proposed CDU shall contain less than 700 net livable square feet. 000005 • • 5. The kitchen shall contain at least a two buiner stove with oven, standard sink, and at least a 6- cubic foot refrigerator plus freezer. 6. One off- street parking space shall be provided for the unit. 7. A deed restriction for the caretaker dwelling unit shall be recorded prior to issuance of a Building Permit for the caretaker dwelling unit. 8. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the caretaker dwelling unit, a site visit shall be conducted by the Housing Office. 9. Floor plans of the caretaker dwelling unit shall be provided to the Housing Office prior to building permit approval. 10. The applicant shall, by deed restriction or other permanent commitment running with the land, guarantee that the caretaker unit shall not be required to be rented; not be sold or otherwise conveyed or separated from the original parcel regardless of the ultimate form of ownership of the caretaker unit; be limited to occupancy by not more than two adults and related children, who quality as (and have been found by the Housing Authority to be) employees of the community under such guidelines as may be from time to time established by said authority; be rented for terms not less than six months if rented. The caretaker dwelling unit may be occupied by members of the immediate family (as defined in Section 8 -11, even though they may not qualify as employees of the community. 11. The caretaker dwelling unit restriction may be removed by the property, owner upon approval of the Community Development Director, subject to the requirement that the dwelling is removed or modified. If modified, the remaining improvements must no longer be capable of occupancy as a dwelling unit and must meet otherwise applicable Code requirements. 12. The approved building envelope and accessory /barn envelope shall not be relocated without review and approval by the BOCC at a Public Hearing. ooO 06 • s NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PUBLISHED IN THE ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY on the 281h day of June, 2004. FIRST READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 28TH DAY OF JULY 2004. ADOPTED AT SECOND READING ON AUGUST 11, 2004. PUBLISHED AFTER ADOPTION IN THE ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY ON ATTEST: Jeanette Jones Deputy County Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Ely, Countv Attornev P017 -04 PID# 264506401001 000007 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Dorothea Farris, Chair Date: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Ci ouben, Community Development Director E MEMORANDUM TO: Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners Regular Meeting — ,//July 28, 2004 THRU: Cindy Hou�;' Ou ity Development Director FROM: Ezra Louthis, Planner 0 RE: Light Major Plat Amendment and Special Review for a Detached CDU - -I" Reading (public hearing) SUMMARY: The Applicants request a subdivision exemption for a major plat amendment to amend conditions in the Detailed Submission Resolution and the Final Plat Resolution that restrict Caretaker Dwelling Units from being detached in the McCabe Ranch Subdivision. BOCC Resolution No. 93 -132 (Detailed) and Resolution No. 94 -33 (Final Plat) both state for lots in the Subdivision: "The Applicant is allowed to provide caretaker /employee dwelling units pursuant to Section 3 -8.13, only if such units are attached to the main residence. No free standing caretaker or employee dwelling units shall be allowed." The Applicants propose to build a CDU within a barn /accessory structure on Tract D. The Applicants are also requesting Special Review Approval for a Caretaker Dwelling Unit (CDU). APPLICANT: James and Diane Light REPRESENTATIVE: Larry Yaw LOCATION: Tract D, McCabe Ranch Subdivision ZONING /LOT SIZE: The property is zoned RS -30 PUD and contains approximately 30.76 acres. BACKGROUND /EXISTING CONDITIONS: The property is part of the McCabe Ranch Low Impact Subdivision, which received Final Plat Approval in March of 1994. As part of the approval, each lot received a residence envelope and a barn envelope, in which to construct structures. In June of 2003, the Applicants applied to relocate the barn envelope 50 feet to the NW in order to save an existing stand of old - growth Oak trees (BOCC Resolution No. 073 - 2003). The Applicants worked closely with their neighbors and the McCabe Ranch Architectural Committee to satisfy everyone's concerns. The BOCC approved the amendment with conditions that would limit the height of structures in the barn envelope, but there was no discussion of allowing a CDU in the accessory structure. The barn is approximately 28' from the existing principal residence. Now the Applicants wish to build a CDU within the structure proposed for the barn envelope. In reviewing the Staff memos for the McCabe Ranch Subdivision, the rationale for not allowing detached CDUs was not clearly evident. During General Submission to the BOCC, the P &Z Commission made a recommendation that CDUs be either attached to the principle residence, or that they be attached to an approved agricultural outbuilding (Staff Memo to BOCC, August 4, 1992). At General Submission, the BOCC made the determination based on a number of concerns, including the detached CDU issue, that the McCabe Ranch LIS go to Detailed to resolve the issues. In the Staff memo to the BOCC for Detailed Submission, dated July 27, 1993 (Attachment "G "), regarding detached CDU's: "The impetus for this requirement was to reduce the land disturbance required for additional detached structures to preserve such lands for agricultural purposes." The BOCC approved 000000 Memorandum: Light Major POAmendment and Special Review for a CDO July 28, 2004 Detailed Submission on July 27, 1993 with the condition to allow CDUs only to be attached to the principle residence. Staff was unable to obtain any information as to the reasoning behind not allowing the CDUs to be attached to an approved agricultural structure. The Applicants' proposal is to place the CDU within the proposed barn /accessory building, and thus there is no additional structure for the detached CDU. The BOCC approved Final Plat with the condition not to allow detached CDUs. REFERRAL COMMENTS: The following agencies have been referred on this case 1. Housing Office 2. Snowmass /Capitol Caucus: The Snowmass /Capitol Caucus commented on the Light request to allow a detached CDU on Tract D, and at the time of that request, voted to approve the detached CDU. In the referral letter for Tobey requesting a detached CDU on Tract C, the Caucus recommended that the request be denied, and that the Light referral was a mistake due to oversight. The Caucus's concern is that a detached CDU will not be used as a CDU, and that there is potential for the detached CDU to become a second unit and incur a lot split. Comments of the agencies listed above are referred to as necessary in the appropriate sections of this memo. Referral memos received have been attached for your reference. MAJOR PLAT AMENDMENT Pursuant to Section 3- 190.190, a subdivision exemption for a major plat amendment may be permitted subject to compliance with the following standards: A. Amendments shall be consistent and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Response:. The proposed amendment to allow a detached CDU on Tract D (Light) to be located in a barn /accessory structure was supported by the McCabe Ranch Architectural Committee. The proposed CDU would be located in a barn /accessory structure that has yet to be built, but will be located within the approved barn envelope. Detached CDUs are common in the Snowmass /Capitol Planning Area, however there are no detached CDUs on adjacent parcels. Although the Resolutions of Approval for McCabe Ranch Subdivision do not allow the development of detached CDUs, the Covenants for the Subdivision state in Paragraph 6.1(b), that a caretaker house be allowed, "unless otherwise approved by local authorities and the architectural committee, if a caretaker house, it shall be attached to or within either the principal dwelling house or an approved outbuilding." This language suggests that there was some consideration by the homeowners that CDUs be allowed to be detached if they were located in an approved outbuilding. B. Additional connnunitt, impacts resultingfrorn the amendment shall be completely nutigated by the applicant. Response: The McCabe Ranch Subdivision allows for CDU's to be attached,'and being that the proposed CDU is to be located within a barn /accessory structure near the primary residence, there are limited additional impacts resulting from the amendment. In speaking with the adjacent property owner, Mr. McBride, he voiced concern that placing a CDU within an agricultural building would result in greater visual impact to his property, for example, lighting at night. The proposed detached CDU on Tract D is approximately 28' from the main house, and is required to fulfill the landscaping for screening 0000® Memorandum: Light Major PfAmendment and Special Review for a CDO July 28, 2004 purposes to mitigate visual impacts required by the original subdivision approval. It appears to Staff that visual impacts in this case are mitigated. C. The amendment mrust comply with the standards of this Code whichever are applicahle. Response: The proposed amendment shall comply with Section 3 -190 -190, Major Plat Amendment, and 9- 1 10- 041(C), Density Bonus for Caretaker Dwelling Units in the Rural Area. Compliance with this Code Section will be reflected in the Resolution. D. In no case shall a major plat amendment be utilised to increase the number of lots on a plat. Response: No new lots are created. CARETAKER DWELLING UNIT SPECIAL REVIEW (SECTION 3 -210): A. The special review use shall consider the applicable County Master Plan. Response: The Snowmass /Capitol Creek Master Plan supports "on -site employee housing through Special Review." The parcel is located within the future land use development area designated "Very Low Density Residential', which supports the development of CDUs, but the Master Plan does not speak to whether the CDUs are to be detached or attached. The Snowmass /Capitol Caucus in their final letter regarding this specific request stated that they are not in support of detached CDUs, however, they are currently discussing whether or not this will be their consistent recommendation in all cases (see Attachment "F). In any event, they are not in support of this specific request based on the consistency with the original approval. B. The special review use shall not conflict with any applicable sections of the Pitkin County land Use Code, including the County Land Use Policies in Article 2. Response: The use is consistent with the Pitkin County Land Use Code and the Land Use Policies. C. The special review use shall be consistent with the intent of the Zone District in which it is proposed to be located Response: The intent of the RS -30 PUD zone district is in part "to permit low density, single family residential development and customary accessory uses, while recognizing natural hazards, wildlife areas, limited utility service, roads or schools and other facilities may constitute a constraint precluding the realization of zoned density." The County considers a CDU to be accessory to a principal residence. The parcel is conforming in size and it is within an established subdivision that was created before the current zoning was enacted. D. The special review use shall he compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land user, or shall enhance the anixiure of complimentary uses and activities in the innnediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development Response: The proposed CDU will be located within a barn /accessory building adjacent to the existing primary residence. The McCabe Ranch architectural committee is in support of the proposed use, however there is some concern by the adjacent neighbor (Mr. McBride) that due to the proximity of the 000010 Memorandum: Light Major PfAmendment and Special Review for a CA July 28, 2004 proposed detached CDU to his property, there will be increased impacts on his property (e.g. light Pollution due to greater usage). As per increasing the mixture of complimentary uses, CDUs are allowed to be attached to a principal residence in accordance with the original approvals, but allowing detached CDUs might create a greater incentive to build them. E. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed special review use must be in harniony with the surrounding area and minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, traffic generation, parking, trash, service delivery, adrhvater pollution or other impacts on natural resources, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties. Response: Although the impacts of the proposed CDU are minimal because it will be located in a barn /accessory building adjacent to the residence, there is concern by the adjacent property owner that a precedent will be set for other Tracts in McCabe by allowing the CDU in an accessory building, and that the impacts of detached CDUs within an accessory building will be greater than the impacts of an accessory /agricultural building on its own. Based on the information available, the impetus for not allowing CDUs to be detached within McCabe Ranch was to limit land disturbance (based on Staff Memos to the Board), and it appears that land disturbance is going to occur within the barn envelope regardless. F. There must be adequate public facilities and services to serve the special review use, including bill not limited to roads, potable water, server, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and inedical services, drainage sysletns, and schools. Response: There are existing services to the primary residence, and the proposed CDU will be located adjacent to the residence. The septic system will have to be expanded in order to accommodate the new structure and CDU, and they will be required to obtain a permit from Environmental Health. G. An application for a special review use must demonstrate to the Board of County Commissioners that the proposed development will not a. Materially endanger the public health, safety or welfare; and b. Substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property. Response: Staff has no information that would indicate that the development would injure the value of adjacent properties, or endanger the public health, safety or welfare. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION COMMENTS /HISTORY: The Planning and Zoning Commission (P &Z) voted 2 -0 (1 member had to recuse himself) to approve the Applicants' proposal to put a detached CDU within an approved accessory /agricultural building. At the time of the P &Z's recommendation the Snowmass /Capitol Caucus had sent a letter of support in favor of the Applicants' request, and there had been no negative comments from neighbors (see Caucus letter Attachment "E "). At the following P &Z meeting (June 1, 2004), there was a request from Tract C, McCabe Ranch for an almost identical proposal to place a detached CDU within an accessory /agricultural building. The Snowmass /Capitol Caucus sent a letter recommending denial (see Attachment "F "). The Caucus had apparently made a mistake on the Light request, and recommended denial of any detached CDUs, particularly within McCabe Ranch. The P &Z determined that because the impetus for not having detached CDUs was land preservation, there would be no difference if the CDU was in the accessory /agricultural building. 000011 Memorandum: Light Major PIPAmendment and Special Review for a CDP July 28, 2004 Page 5 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the Board pass the following motion, "to approve the Light Major Plat Amendment and Special Review for a detached Caretaker Dwelling Unit within an accessory /agricultural building on I" Reading" subject to the following conditions, and setting 2,d Reading for August 11, 2004." ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft Resolution B. Resolution No. 93 -132 C. Resolution No. 94 -33 D. Housing Office Comments E. Snowmass /Capitol Comments 91 F. Snowmass /Capitol Comments #2 G. Staff Memo for Detailed July 27, 1993 H. Staff Memo to P &Z May 8, 2004 I. John McBride's Letter 000012 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, APPROVING THE LIGHT MAJOR PLAT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A DETACHED CARETAKER DWELLING UNIT WITHIN AN ACCESSORY /AGRICULTURAL BUILDING ON TRACT D, McCABE RANCH SUBDIVISION Resolution No. -2004 RECITALS I . Jim and Diane Light ( "Applicant "), have applied to the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, ( "BOCC "), for a Major Plat Amendment and Special Review to allow a detached Caretaker Dwelling Unit (CDU) within an accessory/agricultural building on Tract D, McCabe Ranch Subdivision. 2. The property is zoned RS -30 PUD and contains 30.76 acres. 3. The property is located in the McCabe Ranch Subdivision and is more specifically described as Tract D, McCabe Ranch. 4. The Planning and Zoning Commission heard this application at their regularly scheduled public meeting on May 18, 2004, at which time they recommended approval by a vote of 2 -0. 5. The Board heard the request on I" Reading at their regularly scheduled and duly noticed public hearing on July 28, 2004, at which time evidence and testimony were presented with respect to this application. Second Reading will be held on August 11, 2004. 6. McCabe Ranch received Final Plat approval pursuant to Board of County Commissioners' Resolution No. 94 -33. The BOCC finds that the request to allow a detached CDU within an accessory /agricultural building is generally consistent with the requirements of the Land Use Code. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners that it does hereby approve the Light Major Plat Amendment and Special Review to allow a detached Caretaker Dwelling Unit within an accessory /agricultural building subject to the following conditions: 1. The Applicants shall adhere to all material representations made during the application process and at the public hearing. 2. The Applicants shall comply with the provisions of Board of County Commissioners' Resolution Nos. 93 -132, 94 -33 and 073 -2003, unless otherwise replaced or amended by the conditions of this approval. 3. Condition number 5 in Resolution Nos. 93 -132 and 94 -33 shall be amended to read: "The Applicant is allowed to provide caretaker /employee dwelling units pursuant to Section 9-110-04 1 (c), only if such units are attached to the main residence. No free standing caretaker or employee dwelling units shall be allowed except on Tract D, McCabe Ranch Subdivision." 4. The proposed CDU shall contain less than 700 net livable square feet. 000013 E E 5. The kitchen shall contain at least a two burner stove with oven, standard sink, and at least a 6- cubic foot refrigerator plus freezer. 6. One off - street parking space shall be provided for the unit. 7. A deed restriction for the caretaker dwelling unit shall be recorded prior to issuance of a Building Permit for the caretaker dwelling unit. 8. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the caretaker dwelling unit, a site visit shall be conducted by the Housing Office. 9. Floor plans of the caretaker dwelling unit shall be provided to the Housing Office prior to building permit approval. 10. The applicant shall, by deed restriction or other permanent commitment running with the land, guarantee that the caretaker unit shall not be required to be rented; not be sold or otherwise conveyed or separated from the original parcel regardless of the ultimate form of ownership of the caretaker unit; be limited to occupancy by not more than two adults and related children, who qualify as (and have been found by the Housing Authority to be) employees of the community under such guidelines as may be from time to time established by said authority; be rented for terms not less than six months if rented. The caretaker dwelling unit may be occupied by members of the immediate family (as defined in Section 8 -1), even though they may not qualify as employees of the community. IL The caretaker dwelling unit restriction may be removed by the property owner upon approval of the Community Development Director, subject to the requirement that the dwelling is removed or modified. If modified, the remaining improvements must no longer be capable of occupancy as a dwelling unit and must meet otherwise applicable Code requirements. 0 Ll NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PUBLISHED IN THE ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY on the 28 °i day of June, 2004. FIRST READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 28TH DAY OF JULY 2004. ADOPTED AT SECOND READING ON AUGUST 11, 2004. PUBLISHED AFTER ADOPTION IN THE ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY ON ATTEST: .Ieanette Jones Deputy County Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Ely, County Attorney P017 -04 PID# 264506401001 000015 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Dorothea Farris, Chair Date: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: 1(15 Cin y Houben, Community Development Director NOV 15 193 10:23AM PITKI'" or TY -RDMIN • P,2 ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO GRANTING DETAILED SUBMISSION APPROVAL FOR THE MCCABE RANCH LOW IMPACT SUBDIVISION Resolution P 93-_Z: 2- RECITALS 1. Mr. Harry A. Collins, Trustee of the Harry Anthony Collins and Judith Allen Collins Revocable Trust Agreement, hereinafter "Applicant ", has applied to Pitkin County to request Detailed submission approval for a Low Impact Subdivision. "2. The Applicant's parcel is located within Township 9, Section 7 and 8 and Range 86 West of the 6th P.M. and is more specifically described in Exhibit "A ". 3. The proposed development creates a fathering parcel of 95 acres (which contains six dwelling units), a 177 acre non -. development easement and four free- market parcels each containing approximately 30 acres in size. 4. A concurrent PMH rezoning request for five existing dwelling units was approved by the Board on October 12, 1993 pursuant to ordinance 093 -1 5. The Applicant's request was considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission, hereinafter "Commission ", on June 8, 1993, at which time the Commission recommended denial of the Applicant's request to the Board of County Commissioners, hereinafter "Board ". The Commission's reasons for denial are 00001 .l 6 tF r EXHIBIT 1 l7 U f NOV 15 199 10 :23AM PITKI, 0 T ADMIN • P.3 Resolution # 93y Page 2 detailed on PZ- Reso -93 -JI. 6. The Applicant's request was considered by the Hoard of County Commissioners, hereinafter "Board', at a duly noticed public hearing on July 27, 1993 at which time the Board has found that the application meets the requirement of the Land Use Code, if the recommended conditions are adhered to by the Applicant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado that it hereby grants Detailed Submission approval for the McCabe Ranch Low Impact subdivision subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the following for PMH rezoning of five dwelling units a. The applicant shall comply with the Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Office Affordable Housing Guidelines for each of the five PMH dwelling units, b: Prior to Final Plat submission the applicant shall have all deed restricted units inspected by the Building Department. Any - deficiencies which- the Building Department identifies shall be corrected prior to signature of the Final Plat, if cost for compliance is excessive, the applicant may replace or demolish PMH Unit A., (Note: The duplex on Tract 9 J.H. McCabe Tracts and PMH Units B and C may be replaced, but shall not be permanently removed.) a. PMH Units A shall be restricted to Category 12' guidelines. PMH Unit B shall be restricted to Category #1 guidelines. PMH Unit C and the duplex units shall be restricted to Category #3. d. All residents in the duplex units, PMH units A, B and C shall be qualified by the Housing Office, prior to execution of lease agreements with tenants. 2. All utilities shall be placed underground within new or existing right -of -ways or easements. JJOO17 NOY 15 '93 10 :23AM PITKIr OTY RAMIN -, P.4 Resolution 93_/31 --� Page 3 3. The recommendations of Nick Lampiris report dated October 10, 1992 shall be 'followed by the applicant. 4. Dogs shall be prohibited on the newly created lots. This requirement shall be included in the protective covenants. 5. The applicant is allowed to provide caretaker /employee dwelling units pursuant to Section 3 -8.13, only if such units are - attached to the main residence. No free standing caretaker or employee dwelling units shall be permitted. 6. The following recommandat ions of the Basalt and Rural Fire ,Protection District memo dated May 7; 1992 shall be adhered to by the applicant: a. The roof material shall be of a non - combustible material including metal, tile or asphalt; or, Class B Certi- Guard Red Label Shakes and shingles utilizing Class B construction techniques (1/21, minimum solid sheathing or better). b. .Residential structures shall have an automatic residential sprinkler system installed. 7. The wildfire recommendations of the .Colorado State Forest Service 'letter dated January 20, 1992 shall be adhered to by the applicant, with the exception of the 30 foot required road width and the dual or looped access road. However; turnouts, etc., shall be maintained as components of the access plan. 8. The wildfire recommendations of -the Sheriff's Office memo dated-January`30, 1992 " shall -be .adhered to 1y the " applicant. 9. The applicant shall provide financial assurances prior to the issuance of a building permit on' each' lot for the costs of landscaping as illustrated in the March 17, 1993 approved landscaping plan. This requirement shall also be identified in the protective covenants. 10:" All material representations made by the applicant in the application and public meetings shall be adhered to unless amended by other conditions. 11. At Final Plat, the 'applicant shall submit the Water Court Decree on the new augmentation plan for review by the Division of Water Resources. 12. The applicant "shall address the Park Dedication Fee requirements of section 5- 501.11 at Final Plat., 00001.11) NOY 15 '93 19!24AM PITKIt' OTY ADMIN • P.5 Resolution Page 4 APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE 27th DAY OF JULY, 1993. ATTEST= BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTYr COLORADO By A Gf/'•�j —K� Je t a Jonos, D Bill T=te, Chairman D utp Clerk a Recorder ate• !/ -.2 3 APPROVED AS TO FORD: TIME Whi ar tt, County Attor rrt20.boco.1ie.d®.macabe 00001(r APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Bus a Konoh n, counley Planning Director r, 368612 B -746 F -C' W/O5/94 03:UlF FG 1 ( REC DOC SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CLERK: a RECORDtn. 0.00 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF,PITRIN COUNTY, COLORADO GRANTING FINAL PLAT APPROVAL . FOR THE MCCABE RANCH LOA IMPACT SUBDIVISION Resolution # 313 v t1 TACHIVIENT 1. RECITALS 1. Mr. Harry, A., Collins, Trustee of the Harry Anthony Collins and Judith Allen Collins Revocable Trust Agreement, hereinafter "Applicant ", has applied to Pitkin County to request Final Plat approval for a Low Impact Subdivision. 2. The Applicant's parcel is located within Township 9, Section 7 and 8 and Range 86 West of the 6th P.M. and is more specifically described in Exhibit "A ". 3. The proposed development creates a fathering parcel of 95 acres (which contains six dwelling units) , a 177 acre non - development easement and four free - market parcels each containing approximately 30 acres in size. 4. " -A concurrent PMH -. rezoning request for five existing dwelling units was approved by the Board on October 12, 1993' pursuant to Ordinance #93 -20. 5. The Board'found that the on -going lot line dispute between John McBride'and'the McCabe Low Impact Subdivision (Harry A. Collins) shall not effect the disposition of this application, as it is a private matter. The- application complies with the acreage requirements for the Low Impact Subdivision, regardless of the outcome of the lot -line 00UO2f. 36e612 B -746 F- ' 04/05/94 O3:52F PG 2 J Resolution # 94 -S3 Page 2 dispute. 6. The Board found that the issue of available water rights for this development had been resolved pursuant to the approval of General and Detailed Submission for the McCabe Low Impact Subdivision. The Water Rights Decree, as an order entered in Case No. 92CW297, duly executed on December 23, 1992; confirms the resolution of this issue'. 7. The Applicant's request was considered by the Board of County Commissioners., hereinafter "Board ", at a duly noticed public hearing on March 15, 1994 at which time the Board has found that the application meets the requirement of the Land Use Code, if the recommended conditions are adhered to by the Applicant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado that it hereby grants Final Plat approval for the McCabe Ranch Low Impact Subdivision subject to the following conditions: 1. The existing PMH Units shall comply with the requirements of the Aspen Pitkin Regional Building Department. Prior to the signature of the Final Plat, the Applicant shall submit a Subdivision Improvements Agreement to the Planning Office which describes how and when the Applicant will comply with the requirements of the Building Department (see Exhibit B). 2. The roof material shall be of a non - combustible material including metal, tile or asphalt; or, Class B Certi -Guard Red Label shakes and shingles utilizing Class B construction techniques (1/2" minimum solid sheathing or better). This condition shall be included in the protective covenants and as a note on the Final Plat. 3. Deed restrictions for the PMH Units shall be signed and recorded prior to the issuance of building permits for residences on Lots. u000 ?1 366612 B-746 F -577 A/94 03-:52P r6 3 Resolution # 94 -� Page 3 OF f • 4. The recommendations of Nick Lampiris included in reports dated January 5, 1993 and October 10, 1992 shall be followed by the Applicant and included as notes on the Final Plat. 5. The Applicant is allowed to provide caretaker /employee dwelling units pursuant to Section 3 -8.13, only if such units are attached to, the main residence. No free standing caretaker or employee dwelling units shall be allowed. 6. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and public meetings shall be adhered to unless amended by other conditions. _ APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 1994. ATTEST: Jea tte Jones, Dep�y Clerk an Recorder YYY r ' APPROVED AS TO FORM: Tim Ahitsitt, County Attorney- . ✓�. reso- mccabe- finalplat -bocc 0 JJ0?2 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITRIN COUNTY, COLORADO By: Gam. Robert A. Child, Chairman Date APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: '9-uzanno RonchBn, Count j Planning Director TO: FROM: DATE: RE: E MEMORANDUM Ezra Louthis, Community Development Department Cindy Christensen, Housing Office March 22, 2004 P r--. fie`, -,.-- C ELI d: 1'vi i1Vi�IF 1 LIGHT PROPERTY REVIEW FOR AN ATTACHED CARETAKER DWELLING UNIT Parcel ID No. 2645- 064 -01 -001; P017 -04 ISSUE: The applicant is requesting approval to construct a caretaker dwelling unit to be located in an attached single -bay garage. BACKGROUND: According to Section 9- 110.041 C2, Detached Caretaker Dwelling Units, the Community Development Director may permit a Caretaker Dwelling Unit up to 700 net livable square feet on a lot in the R030, AFR -2, AFR -10, RS -20, RS -30 and RS -160 zones, and any other zone districts where caretaker dwelling units are listed as a Special Review use, unless there is a timely objection pursuant to Subsection 9- 150 -40, in which case the application will be considered by the BOCC which may approve or deny the application. The Community Development Director may permit Caretaker Dwelling Units up to 400 net livable square feet on any lot or parcel of land in the R -6, R -15 and R -15A zone districts, and any other zone district which caretaker dwelling units are listed as Special Review use, unless there is a timely objection pursuant to Subsection 9- 150-40, in which case the application will be considered by the BOCC which may approve or deny the application. All such units may be attached to, or within, the principal dwelling; within a property approved outbuilding, or detached. All such units may be approved under the following conditions and limitations: a. The floor area of the caretaker unit shall_ be included in the total allowed floor area for the lot or parcel of land. b. There shall be provided one off - street parking'space for each bedroom within the principal dwelling and one off - street parking space for each bedroom in the caretaker unit. c. The applicant shall, by deed restriction or other permanent commitment running with the land, guarantee that the caretaker unit shall not be required to be rented; not be sold or otherwise conveyed or separated from the original parcel regardless of the ultimate form of ownership of the caretaker unit; be limited to occupancy by not more than two adults and related children, who qualify as (and have been found by the Housing Authority to be) employees of the community under such guidelines as may be from time to time established by said authority; be rented for terms not less than six months if rented. The caretaker dwelling unit may be occupied by members of the immediate family (as defined in Section 8-1), even though they may not qualify as employees of the community. U , 0023 9 d. The caretaker dwelling unit restriction may be removed by the property owner upon approval of the Community Development Director, subject to the requirement that the dwelling is removed or modified. If modified, the remaining improvements must no longer be capable of occupancy as a dwelling unit and must meet otherwise applicable Code requirements. The provisions of this regulation are for the purpose of providing a voluntary unit (or units) on a legally created property in the County. Any unit granted under this provision of the Code shall not be used for mitigation of employee housing requirements as established elsewhere in this Code. Due to the location of the unit, below grade, there is a concern that there may not be enough natural light going into the unit. The unit MUST meet the requirement for natural light as stated in the International Building Code currently be used by the Community Development Department. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request under the following conditions: 1. The unit is less than 700 net livable square feet. 2. Conditions a through d stated above are met. 3. The kitchen contains at least a two -burner stove with oven, standard sink, and at least a 6- cubic foot refrigerator plus freezer. 4. The deed restriction shall be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit. 5. The unit meets the requirement of natural light under the International Building Code. 6. Upon completion of the unit, but prior to Certificate of Occupancy, staff may conduct an inspection of the unit for compliance. 000024 9 AT 9 ACHN/IIE_N T 4E 9 Snowmass Capitol Creek Caucus Box 507 Snowmass CO 81654 23 April 2004 Ezra Louthis Pitkin County Community Development 130 S Galena. Aspen CO 81611 Re: Light Property CDU & Subdivision Exemption At its regular monthly meeting, the Snowmass Capitol Creek Caucus Board of Directors considered the proposed caretaker -unit location near the home of the Light family in the McCabe Ranch subdivision. Issues regarding this proposal have been resolved to the mutual satisfaction of a neighbor and the Light family. -The Board is entirely satisfied with that resolution. On April 19, the Caucus Board voted unanimously to support this application. Our thanks to the BOCC and planning office for the opportunity to comment on this matter. Sincerely, Michael Kinsley Chair Board of Directors Snowmass Capitol Creek Caucus 000025 5/27/2000 11 AM FROM.: Fax 20: 1 970 9205439 FAGE:.00 OF 002 Wr+owmass,/ Capitol Creek Cauc4 Box 507 Snowmass CO 81654 25 May 2(Xott1 Ezra Loulhis Aiticin County Community ? Develn men# `. — P i�.d ir��i' J'`� T 330 5 Galena 51)km CO 4'1511 Re: Tobey and fight CDU issues Dear -Mr. l.cruthis This is to clarify the apparentinconsistency bch,�een the Caucus Board's comments, cm the Light and Tobey applications. In short, we made a mistake. The Li<gltapptiMtion was considered summarily by our Board along with a too lull agenda and we did not fully understand the implications of application. Jnstzad, we hurriedly fix-used our attention entirely on the visibility and location of the Barn, not the fact that the Barn was to include a CUU. Our misunderstanding is entirely our mistake and no fault of the applicant,' whose- letter to the county makes clear that the applicati4 n included a CDU. Cher error in the Light mattur does not diminish our Firm position that all CUlls in this subdivision must be attached to the primary residencas, a condition of thc: original subdivision approval that increases the probabilih, that the CDU will be. used for the purpose it was originally intpndcd. In contrast, a detached unit may evolve, over time, into a second primary residence, For which some future BOCC may alIow a lot split anticipating 'no additional impact. ", Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully: Michaol Kinsley chair 0 -00026 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners` Regular-Meeting -.July 27, 1993 THRU: Reid Haughey, County Manager Suzanne Konchan, County Planning Director RE: McCabe Ranch Low Impact Subdivision Detailed Submission and PMH Rezoning FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner REQUEST: The applicant has received General Submission approval for a five (5) lot Low Impact Subdivision pursuant to Sections 4- 6.1 Low Impact Subdivision, 5 -400 1041 Hazard Review and 6 -3 General Submission of the Land Use.Code. Due to the outstanding issues at General Submission, the applicant was required to apply for a Detailed Submission review on this project. The applicant is requesting PMH rezoning for three existing dwelling units. The applicant is also seeking Board approval for detached caretaker dwelling units on each of the newly created homesites. APPLICANT: Harry, Anthony Collins, Trustee of the Harry Anthony Collins and Judith Allen Collins Revocable Trust Agreement. APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Herbert Klein, Attorney at Law. BACKGROUND: The applicant purchased the J.H'. McCabe Ranch (in the Capital Creek area) in 1980, when he acquired it from Mary Frank who referred' to the ranch as the Abacus Ranch. In 1980, 292 acres of the ranch were subdivided into 10 lots. The remaining portion of the Ranch is now under Detailed Submission review for Low Impact Subdivision with a permanent restriction against further development or subdivision. On August 26, 1992, pursuant to BOCC Resolution No. 92 -317, General Submission approval was granted. The primary issues of debate during the General Submission review by the BOCC included: • Impacts to adjacent proper • New "estate" access road residential uses; • Concepts of clustering vs. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: . The subdivide 392 acres as follows: 000027 ty owners; to separate ranch uses from linear development. applicant's proposal is to 1) a fathering parcel of 95 acres (which contains 3 PMH units, the existing ranch manager's unit, the owner's residence, and a replacement of a mobile home with a residence) for a total of six dwelling units. generally consistent with the provisions of the Low Impact Subdivision regulations. STAFF COMMENTS Conditions of General Submission approval (Board of County Commissioners Resolution 92 -317) are generally the primary issues to be reviewed in Detailed Submission applications. The applicant is required to submit a Subdivision Improvements Agreement, Protective Covenants, park dedication fee information, and a water augmentation plan, and. to resolve the outstanding issues of Detailed Submission at Final Plat review. . The review for compliance with conditions of BOCC Resolution 92 -317 follows. 1. The barn site and home site on Lot D shall be relocated so as to avoid slopes of 30% and greater, prior to Detailed Submission. Response: The barn site has been relocated to the south to avoid steep slopes. 2. All utilities shall be placed underground within new or existing right -of -ways or easements. Response: The applicant agrees to comply with this condition and has identified the utility right -of -ways on the Utility Plan. Staff recommends that this item remain a condition of Detailed Submission approval. .3. The recommendations of Nick Lampiris dated October lo, 1991 shall be followed'by the applicant. A new report shall be submitted for the relocated homesites to 'be reviewed as part of Detailed Submission. Response: The applicant has obtained a new evaluation from Nicholas Lampiris dated January 5, 1993, which finds that the new homesites are_as.suitable or more suitable than the original sites., The recommendations of the October 10, 1991 report still need to be followed by the applicant. They will remain a condition of Detailed Submission approval. 4. Dogs shall be prohibited on the newly created lots. This requirement shall be included in the protective rotective Response: The applicant has agreed to this condition and will submit protective covenants at Final Plat. The County will be party to the covenants, so as to obtain input if the covenants are changed or modified at a later date. This will remain a condition of approval. S. The applicant is allowed to provide caretaker /employee dwelling units pursuant to Section 3 -8.13, only if such units are• attached to the main residence. No free 000020 • 0 standing caretaker or employee dwelling units shall be permitted. Detailed Submission review shall include public hearing publication for detached (attached to a legally approved accessory structure) caretaker unit approval on each site, should the applicant wish to obtain such approval. Response: The applicant has applied for detached caretaker dwelling units for each of the newly created free market parcels. Moreover, the applicant has asked that the requirement for caretaker units to be located within a legally established accessory structure be dropped. The impetus for this requirement was to reduce the land disturbance required for additional detached structures to preserve such lands for agricultural purposes. The building envelopes are proposed to be one acre or less and the barn envelopes are 7854 square feet. ' 6. The recommendations of the Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District memo dated May 7, 1992 shall be adhered to by the applicant. Response: This letter recommends that all buildings be sprinklered and roofing material be non - combustible Underwriters Laboratory approved. The applicant has stated that the Protective Covenants will_reguire all residences to be sprinklered. The roof material requirement will also be followed by the applicant and shall be included in the Protective Covenants. 7. The wildfire recommendations of the Colorado State Forest Service letter dated January 20, 1992 shall be adhered to by the applicant. Response: The State Forest Service (SFS) has recommended thinning and clearing of vegetation within 100 feet of the proposed homesites. The applicant has agreed to meet these requirements. This will remain a condition of Detailed Submission approval. The ______applicant does not..intend to comply with the SFS recommendation dual access and a'30 to 34 foot road width; however, the applicant will meet the County access standard of 16 feet road width, in addition to shoulders, passing areas and turnouts. This compromise was agreed upon during General Submission review. 8. The wildfire recommendations of the Sheriff's Office memo dated January 30, 1992 shall be adhered to by the applicant. Response: In an April 16, 1993, memo from the Sheriff's Office, it appears that the applicant has agreed to meet the January 30, 1992 wildfire recommendations. The applicant has indicated these comments will be incorporated into the Protective Covenants at Final Plat. Staff recommends that this remain a condition of approval. 9• A detailed landscaping plan for screening homesites B, 00UO2`% 0 w MEMORANDUM A. — TO: Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Ezra Louthis, Planner S RE: Light Major Plat Amendment and Special Review for a Caretaker Dwelling Unit DATE: May 18, 2004 SUMMARY: The Applicants request a subdivision exemption for a major plat amendment to amend conditions in the Detailed Submission Resolution and the Final Plat Resolution that restricts Caretaker Dwelling Units from being detached in the McCabe Ranch Subdivision. BOCC Resolution No. 93 -132 (Detailed) and Resolution No. 94 -33 (Final Plat) both state for lots in the Subdivision: "The Applicant is allowed to provide caretaker /employee dwelling units pursuant to Section 3 -8.13, only if such units are attached to the main residence. No free standing caretaker or employee dwelling units shall be allowed." The Applicants propose to build a CDU within a barn /accessory structure on Tract D. The Applicants are also requesting Special Review Approval for a Caretaker Dwelling Unit (CDU). APPLICANT: James and Diane Light REPRESENTATIVE: Larry Yaw LOCATION: Tract D, McCabe Ranch Subdivision ZONING/LOT SIZE: The property is zoned RS -30 PUT) and contains approximately' 0.76 acres. BACKGROUND/EXISTING CONDITIONS: The property is part of the McCabe Ranch Low Impact Subdivision, which received Final Plat Approval in March of 1994. As part of the approval, each lot received a residence envelope and a barn envelope, in which to construct structures. In June of 2003, the Applicants applied to relocate the barn envelope 50 feet to the NW in order to save an existing stand of old - growth Oak trees. The Applicants worked closely with their neighbors and the McCabe Ranch Architectural Committee to satisfy everyone's concerns. The BOCC approved the amendment with conditions that would limit the height of structures in the barn envelope. Now the Applicants wish to build a CDU within the structure proposed for the barn envelope. hi reviewing the Staff memos for the McCabe Ranch Subdivision, the rationale for not allowing detached CDU's was apparent. As noted in the Staff memo to the BOCC for Detailed Submission dated July 27, 1993, regarding detached CDU's: "The impetus for this requirement was to reduce the land disturbance required for additional detached structures to preserve such lands for agricultural purposes." The Applicants' proposal is to place the CDU within the proposed barn /accessory building, and thus there is no additional structure for the detached CDU. REFERRAL COMMENTS: The following agencies have been referred on this case. 1. Housing Office 2. Snowmass /Capitol Caucus Comments of the agencies listed above are referred to as necessary in the appropriate sections of this memo. Referral memos received have been attached for your reference. 000030 Memorandum: Light Major Plafmendment and Special Review for a CDLO May 4, 2004 Paee 2 MAJOR PLAT AMENDMENT Pursuant to Section 3- 190.190, a subdivision exemption for a major plat amendment may be permitted subject to compliance with the following standards: A. Amendments shall be consistent and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Response: The proposed amendment to allow a detached CDU to be located in a barn /accessory structure was supported by both the Snowmass /Capitol Caucus and the McCabe Ranch Architectural Committee. The proposed CDU would be located in an approved barn /accessory structure that has yet to be built, but will be located within the approved barn envelope. CDU's are common in the Snowmass /Capitol Planning Area. Although the Resolutions of Approval for McCabe Ranch Subdivision do not allow the development of detached CDU's, the Covenants for the Subdivision state in Paragraph 6.1(b), that a caretaker house be allowed, "unless otherwise approved by local authorities and the architectural committee, if a caretaker house, it shall be attached to or within either the principal dwelling house or an approved outbuilding." This language suggests that there was some consideration by the homeowners that CDU's be allowed to be detached if they were located in an approved outbuilding. B. Additional community impacts resulting from the amendment shall be completely mitigated by the applicant. Response: The McCabe Ranch Subdivision allows for CDU's to be attached, and being that the proposed CDU is to be located within a barn /accessory structure near the primary residence, there are no additional impacts resulting from the amendment. C. The amendment must comply with the standards of this Code whichever are applicable. Response: The proposed amendment shall comply with Section 9- 110- 041(C), Density Bonus for Caretaker Dwelling Units in the Rural area. Compliance with this Code Section will be reflected in the Resolution. - D. In no case shall a major plat amendment be utilized to increase the number of lots on a plat. Response: No new lots are created. CARETAKER DWELLING UNIT SPECIAL REVIEW (SECTION 3 -210)• A The special review use shall consider the applicable County Alaster Plan. Response: The Snowmass /Capitol Creek Master Plan supports "on -site employee housing through Special Review." B. The special review use shall not conflict with anv applicable sections of the Pitkin County land Use Code, including the County Land Use Policies in Article 2. Response: The use is consistent with the Pitkin County Land Use Code and the Land Use Policies. 000031 Memorandum: Light Major Pla inendment and Special Review for a CDO May 4, 2004 Page 3 C. The special review use shall be consistent with the intent of the Zone District in which it is proposed to be located. Response: The intent of the RS -30 PUD zone district is in part "to permit low density, single family residential development and customary accessory uses, while recognizing natural hazards, wildlife areas, limited utility service, roads or schools and other facilities may constitute a constraint precluding the realization of zoned density." The County considers a CDU to be accessory to a principal residence. The parcel is conforming in size and it is within an established subdivision that was created,before the current zoning was enacted. D. The special review use shall be compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses or shall enhance the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The proposed CDU will be located within a barn/accessory building adjacent to the existing primary residence. The McCabe Ranch architectural committee and the Snowmass /Capitol Creek Caucus have written letters of support for the proposal. E. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed special review use must be in harmony with the surrounding area and minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, traffic generation, parking hash, service delivery, air /water pollution or other impacts on natural resources, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties. i Response: The impacts of the proposed CDU are minimal because it will be located in a barn /accessory building adjacent to the residence. F. There must be adequate public facilities and services to serve the special review use, including but not limited to roads, potable water, server, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools Response: There are existing services to the primary residence, and the proposed CDU will be located adjacent to the residence. The septic system will have to be expanded in order to accommodate the new structure and CDU, and they will be required to obtain a permit from Environmental Health. G. An application for a special review use must demonstrate to the Board of County Commissioners that the proposed development will not: a. Materially endanger the public health, safety or welfare; and b. Substantially injure the value of adjoinitrg or abutting property. Response: Staff has no information that would indicate that the development would injure the value of adjacent properties, or endanger the public health, safety or welfare. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Light Major Plat Amendment and Special Review for a Caretaker Dwelling Unit, subject to the following conditions: : 000032 Memorandum: Light Major Plat Amendment and Special Review for a CDU� May 4, 2004 Page 4 1. The Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Resolution Nos. 93 -132, 94 -33 and 73 -2003 unless otherwise replaced or amended by the conditions of this approval. 2. Condition number 5 in Resolution Nos. 93 -132 and 94 -33 shall be amended to read: "The Applicant is allowed to provide caretaker /employee dwelling units pursuant to Section 9- 110- 041(c), only if such units are attached to the main residence. No free standing caretaker or employee dwelling units shall be allowed except on Tract D, McCabe Ranch Subdivision." 3. All material representations made by the applicants in the application or in public meetings. 4. The proposed CDU shall contain less than 700 net livable square feet. 5. The kitchen shall contain at least a two burner stove with oven, standard sink, and at least a 6 -cubic foot refrigerator plus freezer. 6. One off - street parking space shall be provided for the unit. 7. The unit meets the requirement of natural light under the International Building Code. 8. The applicant shall, by deed restriction or other permanent commitment running with the land, guarantee that the caretaker unit shall not be required to be rented; not be sold or otherwise conveyed or separated from the original parcel regardless of the ultimate form of ownership of the caretaker unit; be limited to occupancy by not more than two adults and related children, who qualify as (and have been found by the Housing Authority to be) employees of the community under such guidelines as may be from time to time established by said authority, be rented for terms not less than six months if rented. The caretaker dwelling unit may be occupied by members of the immediate family (as defined in Section 8 -1), even though they may not qualify as employees of the community. 9. The caretaker dwelling unit restriction may be removed by the property owner upon approval of the Community Development Director, subject to the requirement that the dwelling is removed or modified. If modified, the remaining improvements must no longer be capable of occupancy as a dwelling unit and must meet otherwise applicable Code requirements. 10. Upon completion of the unit, but prior to Certificate of Occupancy, staff may conduct an inspection of the unit for compliance. ATTACHMENTS: A. Resolution No. 93 -132 B. Resolution No. 94 -33 C. Housing Office Comments D. Snowmass /Capitol Comments 000033 9 TO:., Board of County Commissioners FROM: John McBride DATE: June 21, 2004 RE: 3 McCabe Requests to Change Previous Approvals As the adjacent ranch, our family generally opposes the changes requested by owners of the McCabe Ranch. We wish the applicants would stick to the conditions previous commissioners approved and the buyers agreed to. Incrementally, this ranch is becoming "Starwood West" with huge houses on 30 -40 acres and not a ranch at all. While we try to be understanding, one innocuous approval always seems to lead to another. And the resultant total, ironically, makes it harder for us and others to keep ranching and for you to acquire ever more expensive easements. The specific changes asked for are on Lots B,C, & D of McCabe's so- called low impact subdivision: Lights (D) want to move their barn envelope and convert the future barn to an ADU and studio. - Tobey's (C) want to convert their future barn to a living unit. - Chase's (B) want to move their barn envelope closer to our property line. With regards to the Light's proposal, we did approve by written agreement the adjustment of their bam.envelope to protect a stand of scrub oak. We were not told then nor did we ever approve,their later change from barn to living unit. The P &Z believed we had approved this. They were misled. The Tobey's asked for conversion approval based on the precedent set by the Lights. Their proposed barn/living unit is like a large house which it probably will become. It is next to our property line and highly visible. The Chase's do not plan to put an ADU in their barn/garage. However, they want to move the envelope closer to our property line as the barn envelope includes an irrigation ditch. 000034 ASPEN BUSINESS CENTER • 303 E • ASPEN, CO 81611 • 970- 925 -2102 • FAX 970 - 925 -2104 We would like to explore just moving the ditch east and if that is not possible 3 conditions to the change. As you know, our family is working with Dale to secure a conservation easement on the bulk of the ranch and we are drafting 25 year covenants for parcels for our kids. But every day it is becoming more difficult to achieve what we, you, and the caucus wants. The higher the value of adjacent lots the higher the cost of a conservation easement. One of the above McCabe lots just sold for more than the whole McCabe Ranch was bought for 20 + years ago. That impacts the conservation easement appraiAal and the tax on the transfer of other property to our children. Andlinger's estate to the south is a problem. So are higher and higher priced lots in section 36. The clash between local living and migrant investing is starting to grow in what was a simple ranching and residential valley. A further example of this some of you may recall: In the early 80's, Bubby Light and I petitioned the county, to vacate East Sopris Creek Road. The County concurred and the old roadway was finally vacated subject to one condition: If the density on our ranch ever exceeded one house per 500 acres, we would not be considered a ranch and the public right -of -way could be reestablished! Now, you are repeatedly advised by the representative of McCabe that they are a model working ranch and that even though their density is approximately 40 acres per home they need more development to make the ranch work better!! How can we remedy these contradictions. We're supposed to keep our density below/house /500 acres, while theirs is more than ten times ours ?!! P.S. If you want. I can fill you in on the history of McCabe's Low Impact approval and related conditions, as I have all the records. OU103D AUG -11 -2004 WED 10:42 AM FAX N0. P. .01 AUG -03 -04 TUE 08:32 AM FAX N0, P. 03 - Memorandum To: Pilkin County Prom; John McBride Date: August 3, 2004 Re! McCabe Rnn[h/parcC] D- Dianne and Jim I i It 'Ill is confirms our approval of the proposal by Dianne and Jim Light to locale a Caretaker Dwelling Unit within the Parcel D Bam Envelopes. Our approval is conditioned upon ant! understanding with the ROCC regarding this as a precedent for McCabe Ranch Parcels C and D, i.e. a CDU Ail] be permitted in any bun envelope which is located uo closer fiv Light G4+ the western property line (adjacent to the McBride property) Sinccrol �I�ZVN I� N�Lvn {1C9� (iYlti�i?'' John eBride C5 Aj �� io�. g•it•o� -1 �IibaJ 666 �b tddl 1 1 a �r e � �, di � � l 4.d 000036 Aug. 3. 2004 12:21PM LIPKIN WARNP DESIGN / � 1 / / O� N 0 rP // I mm 5>7Q7-Q) I / > I M 7Z O ar�N ri / z� mg zo-<�o a o � m� y I 7° phmc�s 4D N rnm :� m O r Ong m C) O � m03 mm 1� e r rp I � 705 08' N.), 0622, J. 2 3ClJ337 N53�713'11 "E bill & Anne Yobey Kooidence `�- Tract. C, McCabe Kanch 5ubdiviolon, —� 5nowmae5 Colorado f MC ?ABE RANCH TRACT? P.O. Box 8129 La Jolla, CA 92038 Tel. (858) 481 -7767 Fax (858) 481 -3274 February 12, 2004 Ms. Rose Ann Sullivan Pitkin County Planning Staff 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Dianne G Light, Owner, McCabe Ranch Parcel - Barn Expansion Dear Ms. Sullivan: On behalf of the McCabe Ranch Architectural Committee, I wish to provide support for the current application by Dianne G. Light to build within the Relocated "Barn Envelope ". Specifically, I recognize and approve the construction of a Caretaker Dwelling Unit within the Relocated Barn Envelope and the other accessory uses. As you are probably aware, Dianne and Jim Light went to considerable effort and expense to move of the original "Barn Envelope" in order to save the nearby gambel oaks, which are probably 100 to 150 years old and provide much visual protection of the current residence and proposed building. Their plan has been officially approved by Pitkin County. As part of that process, they reviewed the preliminary plans with me and the McCabe Ranch Architectural Review Board, as well as the adjacent property owners, John and Laurie McBride, who supported this proposed move. I understand from Jim Light that he discussed with the McBrides, and secured their oral approval, to move the CDU out of the "Residence Envelope" (the envelope containing their current residence) and into the "Relocated Barn Envelope ". Without this approval, the Lights would be able to build the CDU within the Residence Envelope on the northwest side of the residence which would likely have some significant visual effect from portions of the McBride's property. As part of this agreement, the Lights agreed to limit the height of the structures the "new" portion (closest to the McBrides) of the Relocated Barn Envelope. As an overview, the McCabe Ranch Architectural Board members (as well as all of the property owners) are very concerned about visual impacts of all structures and we are increasing our requirements for landscaping around all new structures. At the appropriate time in the design process, the Lights will be required to submit their architectural and landscaping plans to the ARB for approval. Sincerely, Harry Colli , President cc: Jim Light, Larry Yaw O00 0 I� TO: Pitkin County Planning & P &Z The Snowmass /Capital Creek Caucus FROM: John McBride & the McBride Family DATE: May 24, 2004 RE: Light's Barn Envelope Move and ADU 0 You apparently have been told by Jim Light and /or his representative that the McBrides approved Light's application for moving their barn envelope closer to their house and putting an ADU in the barn. This is not true. We only approved, by letter, the movement of the barn envelope 50' to protect an old clump of scrub oak. And we endorsed new lower height restrictions at that time. Nothing else. We never saw or heard of an aplication for an ADU in the barn. And we would never have approved it, if we had. The lots overlooking our ranch were approved as low impact. The house sites have to be set back over 200' from the lip of the valley below. Any ADUs have to be in the main house. Dogs are not allowed and homeowners have to comply with the County's landscape plan. These requirements took many months and were finally agreed upon by the Applicants, the BOCC, Planning, The P &Z and ourselves, the neighboring ranch. We see no reason to make any changes except minor adjustments, like tree protection. To purport that we approved more is a lie. Free standing ADU's are not minor. 00003'? ASPEN BUSINESS CENTER • 303 E • ASPEN, CO 81611 • 970 - 925 -2102 • FAX 970 - 925 -2104 FROM :ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE • FAX NO. :9709274510 61 26 2004 10:46AM P1 Snowmass Capitol Creek Caucus Box 507 Snowmass CO 81654 23 April 2004 Ezra L,outhis Pitkin County Community Development 130 S Galena Aspen CO 81611 Re: Light Property CDU & Subdivision Exemption At its regular monthly meeting, the Snowmass Capitol Creek Caucus Board of Directors considered the proposed caretaker -unit location near the home of the Light family in the McCabe Ranch subdivision. Issues regarding this proposal have been resolved to the mutual satisfaction of a neighbor and the Light family. The Board is entirely satisfied with that resolution. On April 19, the Caucus Board voted unanimously to support thus application. Our thanks to the I3OCC and planning office for the opportunity to comment on this matter, Sincerely, Michae7lCinsley Chair Board of Directors Snowmass Capitol Creek Caucus 000040 COTTLE GRAYBEAL YAW architects February 6, 2004 Ms. Rose Ann Sullivan Planning Technician Community Development Department 130 S Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Dianne G. Light Parcel McCabe Ranch, Pitkin County Parcel I.D.# 264506401001 Dear Rose Ann: 0 1N3NI;. !udr omaii l8 6007 7 T ?Vyy Thank you for meeting with me recently at our pre application conference for the above referenced project. This letter and the attached documentation are submitted to initiate the Approval Process for a detached CDU on the designated Barn Envelope within the subject property. The property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Jim Light, have for some time contemplated a single structure combining a 700 sq. ft. caretaker unit (CDU), an attached single bay garage for the CDU, and an attached accessory building combining workshop and horse stable functions. Last year, with the objective of accomplishing this in such a way as to permit attachment of the CDU to the primary residence by means of covered walkway, we initiated the process of minor subdivision amendment to relocate the Barn Envelope closer to the existing primary residence. All publicly noticed neighbors, including the home owners, approved the Barn Envelope relocation, with one exception, that being Mr. John McBride, whose property adjoins the McCabe Ranch Subdivision to the immediate west of the Light property. Following negotiations, the Lights and Mr. McBride agreed on an alternate Barn Envelope relocation, with restrictions on building height, etc. The Agreement reconciled Mr. McBride's visual issues, the use of existing oak brush screening to other neighboring parcels, and the required fire safety (fuel) zone around the new Barn Envelope. I am enclosing a copy of that Agreement for your files. CJ �J U 0 41 ASPEN Post Off¢e Rnx 529 Ba,aIt, CO 81621 wwwcgyarchrtccts com Id 970 927 4925 fax 970 927 8578 email aspen0cgyarchrtects com ASPEN TELLURIDE VAIL • 0 We subsequently completed the Minor Subdivision Amendment Approvals for the agreed upon Barn Envelope relocation and recently completed formal Public Recordation of that Envelope. Because of its distance from the primary residence, it is not possible to construct an attached CDU. Further, the existing house is located, within a dimmished (moon shaped) building envelope of less land area than the typical McCabe Ranch residential building Envelopes (see attached Site Plan) and thus does not have space within the envelope to "attach" a CDU. Consistent with the Intent of the Subdivision, from both a County and Subdivision Covenant stand point, our plan proposes to consolidate the allowed accessory building and the CDU by attachment, resulting in appearance of a single structure of one story in height within the approved Barn Envelope. This avoids the "detachment sprawl' contemplated by the CDU attachment provision of the code and will result in an over all building size considerably less in both square footage and height than physically permitted of an accessory building within the relocated Barn Envelope. In terms of visual impact, the proposed location has both a hillside background and is surrounded by 14 to 18 ft. high oak clusters that, even after prescribed fire zone clearing, will provide screening from all neighboring parcels. The total approximate size of the proposed building from an FAR standpoint is approximately 1625 sq. ft. as comprised of the following components: Caretaker unit 750 sq. ft. Caretaker Garage 225 sq. ft. Accessory Use (Workshop) 650 sq. ft. TOTAL 1625 sq. ft. I have attached a Schematic Plan of the consolidated building within the relocated Barn Envelope. Architectural exterior elevation drawings are not available, but building height/ 9 ft. high west roof eve and 14 ft. high max above existing grade) is governed by the Light/ McBride Agreement, copy attached. To initiate this application, we submit the following information as outlined in your pre application summary of 1/30/04 along with the application review fee in the amount of $2.125.00: Letter of Request Consent Letter from Dianne G. Light, as Owner, authorizing Cottle Graybeal Yaw Architects to process the application on her behalf. Site Plan locating the proposed CDU within the previously approved Barn Envelope. Because the amended plat is a fairly easy compliance issue, but because documentation at this time is an expensive burden, we prefer to prepare the plat amendment following the necessary P &Z, BOCC Approvals, which can be made subject to formal plat amendment submission and recordation. r y u, ,0 2 4. Proposed floor plan within the Barn Envelope: see floor plan, attached. 5. Parcel street address: 1501 Rose Spur road, McCabe Ranch Legal description: see Bam Envelope relocation plan, attached. Location Map: See vicinity map, attached. 6. Disclosure and proof of Ownership: see Enclosed (12 copies) of Title Insurance document. 7. Other than McCabe Ranch Subdivision documentation, the only other previous land use approval is the aforementioned Minor Subdivision Amendment for the Barn Envelope relocation. I believe you already have copies of the recorded document in your files. 8. Copy of the Pre- Application Conference Summary Sheet are attached. 9. Check is in the amount of $2,125.00 for Land Use Application Fees. No payment agreement was sent with the pre - application documents. 10. List of all adjacent property owners and mineral estate owners. 13 copies attached. I will be out of the country and unavailable between February 16 and March 8. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call Jim Light or his assistant Denise at 923 -4500. Thanks. Res ectfully Sub ittted-,` Vx) Larry Yaw F IA Principal cc: David Mylar Jim Light ,��0343 0 COTTLE GRAYBEAL YAW architects March 11, 2004 Ms. Rose Amt Sullivan Planning Technician Pitco Community Development 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Dianne G. Light Parcel McCabe Ranch, Pitkin County PID# 2645- 064 -01 -001 Case P017 -04 Dear Rose Ann, I am in receipt of your letter of 18 February in response to the application sent to you on 6 February in behalf of the Light property, McCabe Ranch. Thank you for your review of the submission. This letter and the attached documentation are submitted to supplement the earlier submission in accordance with, and in the order of your comments of the 18 February letter. Compliance with Major Plat Amendment Criteria, Sub Section 3- 190 -090 A. Amendments shall be consistent and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The neighborhood defined by McCabe Ranch consists of subdivided residential land parcels of 35 acres or more, each comprised of a building envelope for a primary single - family residence and a separate "barn" envelope, which anticipates construction of an accessory building. The design "theme" of McCabe Ranch is that of rural Western ranch vernacular, which is administered by an architectural review board, Harry A. Collins, President, president. The recently approved "Barn" envelope relocation, which anticipates combining an accessory use with a detached caretaker was approved by both adjacent property Owner John McBride and the architectural review board. I have attached 14 copies of a February 12 letter from Harry A. Collins, President of the McCabe Ranch ARB approving the specifics of the submission in the context of compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood; the physical architectural result being a single, low structure identical to that anticipated by the provisions of an accessory building. B. Additional community impacts resultingfrom the amendment shall be completely mitigated by the applicant. 0 00' U J 4 4 ASPEN Post Office Box 529 Basalt, CO 81621 www cgyarehiteets eom te1970927 +925 fax 970 927 8570 email aspen&gyarchnects.com ASPEN TELLURIDE VAIL The applicant agrees to the responsibility of mitigating additional community impacts in the unlikely event they require mitigation. Among those we are aware of are: the architectural and landscape requirements required by the McCabe Ranch ARB; compliance with the height criteria denoted in the John McBride Agreement, compliance with Pitco accessory building criteria, creation of appropriate fire zones around the new construction which meet or exceed both Pitco regulations as well as homeowner insurance company requirements. C. The amendment must comply with the standards of this code, whichever are applicable. Applicant agrees to comply with applicable standards of the code. Assuming Pitco approval of combining accessory uses with a detached 700 sq. ft. caretaker unit into a single structure. D. In no case shall a major plat amendment be utilized to increase the number of lots on a plat. Its proposed the amendment will create no additional lots, in fact utilizes only the approved, existing barn envelope. 2. Compliance with Special Review Criteria sub section 3- 210 -020 A. The special review use shall consider the applicable CountyMasterPlan. The light parcel is part of the McCabe Ranch approved and recorded under the criteria of the County Master Plan. The specifics of the application have been approved by the McCabe Ranch ABR and are not in conflict with the conceptual premise for the County Master Plan. B. The Special Review use shall not conflict with the Pitkin County Land Use Code, including Land Use policies in Article 2. The Special Review process has been appropriately established to deal with the issue outlined in this application and, to the best of our knowledge is not in conflict with the Land Use Code of policies as defined in Article 2. C. The Special Review use shall be consistent with the intent of the Zone District in which it is proposed to be located. Both the accessory building use and the CDU are permitted uses within the current zoning that regulates the McCabe Ranch development. The primary issue is that of securing Special Use Approval of a detached CDU of 700 sq. ft. max which is combined in a single structure with accessory shop use adhering to the height, bulk, and location provisions for accessory buildings. D. The special review use shall be compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land use and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. -00 U-045 0 The uses proposed in the submission (accessory use /grounds workshop and 700 sq. ft. CDU) are both approved by zoning use and by the McCabe Ranch Architectural Review Board. See letter of 18 Feb from Harry Collins, President of McCabe Ranch ARB. Also a Letter of Agreement between James Light (applicant) and neighboring property owner John McBride approved the combined uses with criteria height restrictions. E. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed special review use must be in harmony with the surrounding area and minimize adverse impacts including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash service delivery, air water pollution and other impacts or natural resources, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties. See response to Special Review Standard D. Further, the proposed use being a combined accessory use and residential (CDU) is compatible with and creates no unanticipated impact on surrounding land uses. The McCabe Ranch Architectural Review Board regulates architectural design compatibility. Following special review approval, detailed architectural and landscape design documents will be submitted to the McCabe Ranch ARB in accordance with their submission requirements. F. There must be acleguate public facilities and services to serve the special review use, including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid wastes, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical serves, hospital and medical services, drainage systems and schools. The special review is located within the McCabe Ranch Subdivision with all services in place. Further, the special review use is located on Parcel D upon which a primary single- family residence has been previously developed with all support services. The only service required of the Special Review Use will be an expansion of the existing septic system to accommodate the proposed 700 sq. ft. CDU. G. An application for special review must demonstrate to the BOCC that the proposed development will not: 1. Materially endanger public health, safety or welfare and; 2. Substantially injure the value of adjoining or abating property. The proposed use is consistent with approved uses on the McCabe Ranch Subdivision and will not in any manner materially endanger public health safety or welfare. Further an Agreement between adjacent (abutting) property owner, John McBride and James light, applicant, accounts for any and all potential devaluation of property value resulting from the proposed special review use within the relocated barn envelope. Compliance with Criteria in Sub - Section 9- 110- 041(c) (2) (a) the floor area of the caretaker unit shall be included in the total floor urea for the lot or parcel of land. 000046 0 0 The proposed CDU will conform to the 700 sq. ft. net livable criteria and the FAR of the CDU will be included in the total allowed floor area for the lot. b. There shall be provided one off street parking space for each bedroom: within the principal dwelling and one off street parking space for each bedroom in the caretaker unit. The existing principal SFR is already in compliance with parking criteria. The proposed CDU (one bedroom) will comply with one parking space per bedroom. See attached floor plan. c. The applicant shall by deed restriction or other permanent commitment running with the land, guarantee that the caretaker unit shall not be required to be rented; not be sold or otherwise conveyed or separated from the original parcel regardless of the ultimate form of ownership of the caretaker unit; be limited to occupancy by not more than two (2) adults, and related children, who qualms as (and have been found by the Housing Authority to be) employees of the community under such guidelines as may be from time to time established by said authority; be rented for terms not less than six (6) months if rented. The caretaker dwelling may be occupied by members of the immediate family (as defined in Section 8 -1), even though they may not qualms as employees of the community. The applicant agrees to the above provisions, and will, by form acceptable to Pitco, submit executed documentation in compliance with the provisions of the article. 2. Consent form from applicant/legal Owner of the property to process application and authorizing the representative to act on behalf of applicant/owner. • 12 copies provided herein. 3. Site plan locating the proposed CDU within the previously approved barn envelope. • 14 Copies provided herein. 4. Floor and elevation plans for the CDU. • 14 copies of floor plan provided herein. 5. Street address and parcel description and 8' /s by 11 vicinity map • 14 copies provided herein. • The physical address of the Light property (parcel D, McCabe Ranch) is: 1501 Rose Spar Road, McCabe Ranch, Basalt, CO 81621. 6. Disclosure and proof of ownership with requirements of sub- section 5-60 - 020(D). • 12 Copies (each of title insurance policies for James W. Light (6/11 Owner) and Dianne G. Light (5/11 Owner) provided herein. 7. Copies of all prior land use approvals • Waived by Pitco CDP letter, 18 February. 00 ,04 7 0 0 8. Copy of pre - application conference summary sheet • 14 copies are submitted herein. Payment has been previously submitted. 9. Executed copy of Pitco Community Development Agreement for payment of Land Use Application fees. • 2 copies each for James W. Light and Dianne G. Light provided herein. 10. List of all adjacent property owners and mineral estate owners. • 13 copies provided herein. H. Light /McBride Agreement • 13 copies provided herein Also please find all text information in digital format. Thank you for your continued review of this submission. Please feel free to call if you have any questions whatsoever or require additional clarification. Ver truly yours, Larry Y , F IA Principal cc: Jim Light David Mylar 000043 PITKIN COUNTY r =�`' • PRE- APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Rose Ann Sullivan DATE: 1/30/04 PHONE: (970) 920 -5482 EMAIL: roseanns(aco.pitkin.co.us PROJECT: Light Property CDU and Subdivision ZONE /ACRES: RS- 30130.76 acres Exemption for a Major Plat Amendment LOCATION: 1501 Rose Spur Ln, Snowmass Lot D, McCabe Ranch Low Impact Subdivision PARCEL ID #: 2645- 064 -01 -001 APPLICANT: Diane G. Light 5/11 PO Box 620 Basalt, CO 81621 REPRESENTATIVE: Cottle Graybeal Yaw Architects PHONE: (970) 927 -4925 228 Midland Ave. FAX: (970) 927 -8578 PO Box 529 Basalt, CO 81621 EMAIL: Iyaw(acgyarchitects.com (Larry Yaw) 1. Type of Application: Subdivision Exemption for a Major Plat Amendment and Special Review for a Detached Caretaker Dwelling Unit ( "CDU "). 2. Description of Project/Development: Applicant proposes to build a CDU that would be detached from the main residence, but attached to an accessory structure (either a stable or workshop). The CDU (and accessory structure) would be located in the barn envelope established under BOCC Res. No. 073- 2003 (Reception No. 484592) (Minor Plat Amendment recorded at Book 67, Page 71). The CDU would be no more than 700 sq. ft. BOCC Res. No. 92 -317, granting General Submission approval for the subdivision (Reception No. 351543) stated (at Par. 5) that: applicant is allowed to provide caretaker /employee dwelling units ... only if such units are attached to the main residence. No free standing caretaker ... dwelling units shall be permitted. Detailed Submission review shall include public hearing publication for detached (attached to a legally approved accessory structure) caretaker unit approval on each site, should the applicant wish to obtain such approval. In the Detailed Submission application for the subdivision the applicant requested approval for detached caretaker units. However, when the grant of Detailed Submission approval was issued, the condition remained unchanged: applicant is allowed to provide caretaker /employee dwelling units ... only if such units are attached to the main residence. No free standing caretaker or employee dwelling units are' rmitted. BOCC Res. No. 93 -132 (Reception N . 364183), Par. 5. BOCC Res. No. 94 -33 (Reception No. 368612), granting final plat approval for the subdivision, at Par. 5, stated: u0u049 ^•;n 1. �2 y; lj Applicant iFallowed to provide caretaker /employee Ag units ... only if such units are attached to the main residence. No free standing caretaker ... dwelling units shall be allowed. The Protective Covenants that were filed for the Subdivision (Reception No. 369477) at that time, at Par. 6.1(b), state that a caretaker house is permitted, if approved under the zoning regulations, but "unless otherwise approved by local governmental authorities and the Architectural Committee, if a caretaker house, it shall be attached to or within either the principal dwelling house or an approved outbuilding." Applicant previously submitted an application for a detached CDU in July of 2000 (P98 -00). This previous application was abandoned. A letter from the Planner assigned to the matter cites BOCC Res. No. 93 -132 as an issue with respect to the proposed CDU. 3. Pitkin County Land Use Code Issues: Subsec. 3.190 -090: Major Plat Amendments. • Sec. 3 -210: Special Review (for a Caretaker Dwelling Unit). • Subsec. 9- 110- 041(C)(2): Density Bonus for Caretaker Dwelling Units ( "CDUs °) (Detached Caretaker Dwelling Units). 4. Review By: Two -Step Review — P &Z and BOCC. Public Hearing? YES — at BOCC. A public notice sign shall be posted on the property at least 15 days prior to the hearing. The applicant shall mail notices to all adjacent property owners at least 30 days prior to the hearing with the return address of the Community Development Department (a copy of notice shall be obtained from the Community Development Department). The names and addresses shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County, as they appeared no more than 60 days prior to the date of the public hearing. See Sec. 4 -90 for specifics on notice requirements. 5. Staff Will Refer Application To: Pitkin County Housing Department, Snowmass /Capitol Caucus. 6. FEE: $2,125 (make check payable to "Pitkin County Treasurer "). The Fee includes a $1,470 Planning Flat Fee which is non - refundable and based on 7 hours of staff time; if staff review time exceeds 8.4 hours, the applicant will be charged for time in excess of 7 hours at a rate of $210 per hour. The Fee also includes a $25 Public Notice /Publication Fee, a $310 County Clerk Fee, and a $320 Referral Fee for the Housing Department. 7. To apply, submit the Total Fee specified above and 14 copies of the following documents, unless otherwise noted (please use double -sided copies when possible): 1. Letter of request, addressing the provisions of the Pitkin County Land Use Code listed above; 2. Consent from applicant/legal owner of the property to process application and authorizing the representative to act on behalf of the applicantlowner (12 copies); 3. Proposed amended plat prepared in accordance with the requirements of Subsecs. 5-40 -020 and 5-40 -050 and site plan locating the proposed CDU within the previously - approved barn envelope; 4. Floor and elevation plans for the CDU (if available); 2 000050 M, �. ..:riw i• �ji) 5. Street address *parcel description, including legal lesion, and &1/2 "x 11" vicinity map locating the subject property within Pitkin County; 6. Disclosure and proof of ownership complying with the requirements of Subsection 5- 60- 020(D) (12 copies); 7. Copies of all prior land use approvals; B. Copy of this Pre - Application Conference Summary Sheet; 9. Executed copy of Pitkin County Community Development Agreement for Payment of Land Use Application Fees form (2 copies); and 10. List of all adjacent property owners and mineral estate owners (13 copies). NOTES: u In addition to paper copies, all text documents must be submitted in digital format, unless they have previously been recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk & Recorder's Office. Acceptable digital formats for text documents (in order of preference) are: (1) (doc), (2) (pdf), and (3) (wpd) or (.rto. Applicant must also submit a list of any application materials not submitted in digital format that have previously been recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk & Recorder's Office and provide the Book and Page and Reception Numbers, as applicable, for all such material. If you wish to submit any pictures/photographs digitally, please submit them in (jpeg) format. u This Pre - Application Conference Summary Sheet is advisory in nature and not binding on the County. The information provided in this Summary Sheet is based on current zoning standards and the staff's interpretations based upon representations of the applicants and/or their representative. Additional information may be required upon a complete review of the application. u The Pitkin County Land Use Code is available on -line at www.aspenpitkin.com. 000051 CANTA RANA RANCH LP COLLINS HARRY C/O PO BOX 8129 LA JOLLA, CA 92038 PITKIN EXCHANGE HOLDINGS OF ASPEN 601 E HOPKINS ASPEN, CO 81611 000052 =5/.D G Gh JH MCCABE RANCH PO BOX 8129 LA JOLLA, CA 92038 -8129 TOBEY WILLIAM R JR TRUSTEE 1420 N LAKE SHORE DR #IA CHICAGO, IL 60610 -6682 a MCBRIDE JOHN P 303E AABC ASPEN, CO 81611 f iFNT 0 9 SCHEDULE A- OWNER'S POLICY CASE NUMBER DATE OF POLICY AMOUNT OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER PCT11448 01/21/97 @ 3:26 P.M. $ 565,000.00 1312 -74359 1. NAME OF INSURED: JAMES W. LIGHT 2. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND HEREIN AND WHICH IS COVERED BY THIS POLICY IS: IN FEE SIMPLE 3. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST REFERRED TO HEREIN IS AT DATE OF POLICY VESTED IN: JAMES W. LIGHT 4. THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS POLICY IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A 6 /11TH UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN TRACT D, McCABE RANCH, according to the Plat thereof recorded April 28, 1994 in Plat Book 34 at Page 37. PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. 601 E. HOPKINS AVE. ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (970) 925- 1766/(970)- 925 -6527 FAX THE POLICY NUMBER SHOWN ON THIS SCHEDULE MUST AGREE WITH THE PREPRINTED NUMBER ON THE COVER SHEET. v0 CIO 53 �4 9 0 SCHEDULE B- OWNERS CASE NUMBER DATE OF POLICY POLICY NUMBER PCT11448 01/21/97 @ 3:26 P.M. 1312 -74359 THIS POLICY DOES NOT INSURE AGAINST LOSS OR DAMAGE BY REASON OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, enchroachments, any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor, or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Water rights, claims or title to water. 6. Taxes for the year 1997 not yet due or payable. 7. Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract or remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted as reserved in United States Patent recorded February 15, 1939 in Book 55 at Page 327. 8. An undivided one -half of all oil, gas and other minerals in the subject lands, as set forth in instrument recorded April 14, 1960 in Book 190 at Page 322, and any and all assignments thereof. 9. Easement and right of way for an electric transmission or distribution line or system, as granted to Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc., in instruments recorded March 22, 1988 in Book 559 at Page 554 and February 6, 1992 in Book 668 at Page 723, as they may affect the subject property. 10. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and all matters as set forth in Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners recorded December 7, 1992 in Book 696 at Page 639 and re- recorded January 20, 1993 in Book 701 at Page 218 as Resolution No. 92 -317. 11. Easement and right of way for access and utilities as set forth in Dedication of Easement recorded March 24, 1994 in Book 745 at Page 626. 12. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and all matters as set forth in Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners recorded April 5, 1994 in Book 746 at Page 575 as Resolution No. 94 -33. 13. Those terms, conditions, provisions, obligations, easements, restrictions, assessments and all matters as set forth in Declaration of Protective Covenants for McCabe Ranch Subdivision recorded April 28, 1994 in Book 748 at Page 909. (Continued) 000054 r • • POLICY NO. 1312 -74359 CASE NO. PCT11448 SCHEDULE B- OWNERS --EXCEPTIONS—CONTINUED- 14. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and all matters as set forth in Subdivision Improvements Agreement recorded April 28, 1994 in Book 748 at Page 936. 15. Easements, rights of way and all matters as disclosed on Plat of subject property recorded April 28, 1994 in Plat Book 34 at Page 37. 16. All matters as set forth in Trench, Conduit, and Vault Agreement granted to Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc., recorded July 11, 1994 in Book 755 at Page 52. 17. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Dedication of Easement recorded January 05, 1995 in Book 771 at Page 214. 18. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Water .Use Agreement recorded January 05, 1995 in Book 771 at Page 224. 19. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Restrictive Covenant recorded January 05, 1995 in Book 771 at Page 231. EXCEPTIONS NUMBERED NONE ARE HEREBY OMITTED. J <00055 FE3.24.2004 2:07PM PIT *COUNTY TITLE SL%r By: iGi7 �.u_�< a __ 401(55a 01/21/1997 03726P P6 1 OF 3 REC boC NOT SILVIR DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CLERK 6 RECORDER 16.00 56.30 NAR27 = MMM T Q V NO. 6554c5.P. 7 - 'O,fr� .Csb.sD TF323 Ds8D, made this /Sr. day of January, 1997, between Harry Anthony Collins, Trustee the '1'ruSLee ") of the Harry`t dated Collins and Judith Allan Collins Revocable Tru9t Agreement dated August a, 19'76, as Restated December 16, 1981, as Amended July 1 1983, as Amended November 26, 19e9, Grantor, and James W.( Light, whose address is P.O Box $000, snowmaso Village, CO 181615, Grantee, wSTNES38T6, that the Grantor for and in consideration of the sum of Five lAsadred and Sixcypive Thousand Dollars and ao cents ($565,000.00), the receipt and auff1cieacy of which is hereby &a);aOwledged, has graaLed, bargained, cold and eolnveyed and by these prsa=nte does grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm, unto -he real the Grantee, their vements' if any, aituato, all and being inethe together with improvb County of Pitkin and 8tste of Colorado de"cr ad as Eo11oNa: A 6 /lath Undivided =merest in Tract D, McCabe Ranch, according to the plat thereof recorded April 28, 1994; in plat sock 34 at Page 37 in the records of the County of vitkin, star& of Colorado, together with all easements and right" of way appurten=r thereto: TOGp_THER w:LuL all and singular the hereditaments and, appurtenances thereto belonging," or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion and reveraions, remainder and remaindaas, rents, Issues and profits thereof, and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand whataoever of the Grantor, either in law O= equity, of, in and to the above bargained promises, with the hereditamante and appurteaancse•1 To gXVB AND To HOLD the said promises above bargained and described, with the appurtenances, unto the Grantee, their heirs and assigns forever. And t3+0 Grantor, for itself, its heirs, personal raprar:eanntdata agree to auccessors d with Cho oranteeea, their heiovre std grant, , that aaaigne, that ac the 9t ma of the enaeallag and dellveTy ofq Y.heee presents, it is well , absolute the and Indefeasible ble onescxyte has of power good, sure, Perfect, li good Inheritance 3n law, is fee simple, and ah 11 and convey t nl ame in end lawful authority to grant, bargain, manner and form as aforesaid, and that the same are free and clear from all former and other grants, bargains, sales, lieAs, taxes, asaag "meets, encumbrances and restrictions Of whataverl kind or nature evaver, except for taxes and �aC=icumgor, the for 7yearn1997 property taxes and any special taxing and subsequent years; raaervation" and exceptions contained in United States patent recorded ,in Book gas at Page 3aminena edilided one-half Interest in and to all ail, 4 or under =aid lands, or any pare thorcof and the right of ingress and 000056 FEB-24-2004 2:08PM PIT fo COUNTY TITLE • N0.6554 P. 8 401058 01/21/1997 03126G PG 2 OF 3 egrasa to drill and explore far sad remove the same and to use so much at the surface as may be necessary for that purpose withou- damage to the houses or improvements as reserved in deed recorded in Book 190 at page 322, and any and all assignments thereof; easement and right Of way for an electric transmission or distribution Inc., line or system, as granted to Holy Cross 81oct7ie and int Book 668 at saga m723s terms,ed onditioas9 provisions, Obligations, and all matters an set forth in the Resolution of the Boaree at rded is tookaa701.at D geo219 ns Resolution No. 929317and easement and right Of way foe access and utilities as set forth in Dedication Of EaSement recorded in Book 74S at Page 626; terms, oonditions, obligations, provisions and all matters as set forth in the geeolu.ion of the Hoard at County Cnmmisaionere, No- 94 -33, recorded in Book 7445 at Page 575; terms, conditions, provisions, obligations, easements, restrictions, assesameats and all matters as tot forth in the Declaration of Protective Covenants Ranch subdivision recorded in Book 748 at Page 909; all matters as Get forth in Tranch, Conduit, and Vault Agreement granted to Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc., =&corded in Book 755 at'. Page 32; terms, conditions, pra"isiens, obligations and all matters am set Borth in subdivision Improvements Agreement recorded in Book 748 at page 936; easements, rights or way and all matters as disclosed in Plat Sock 34 at Page 371 easement and right of way for eQuest =ion, cross country skiing and hiking uses, as set forth in Dedication of Easement recorded in Book 771 &t Page 214; that certain water t;me Agreement and rights contained therein recorded in Hook 771 at Page 224; terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Restrictive Covenant recorded in Bock 771 at Page 231: terms, conditions, rights, and obligations pertaining to landacapi-ug set forth in warranty Deed recorded in Book 771 at Page 218; and that certain water Use Agreement and rights 0contained therein recorded at Reception NO. are to documents redo a the real property records at Pitkin County, Colorado. The Grantor shall and v111 WARRANT AND VOREVER DBBBND the above- hargai=6d promises in the quiet ana peaceable e all and every at the Grantee, their heirs and assigns, ag rq p O= persons lawfully claiming the whole or any part thereof. The singular number shall include the plural, the plural the singular, and the use of any gender shall be applicable to all genders. Notwithstanding the foregoing. Grantee recognizes and acknowledges that the 'trustee is executing this warranty Dead in his capacity as trustee for the Grantor, and not in a personal eapaeit . In the event of any breach of any of arantor's warranties Contained herein, Grantee, for themselves and their successors and assigns, hereby agrees that the Trustee shall Dot be -2- 000057 EE2. 24. 2004 2:08PM PIT16 COUNTY TITLE NO. 6554 ?. 9 401058 01/21/1997 03:26P Pr 3 OF 3 hold pe-�allyliable for any such breach and that'Orantee shall only pursue chair remedies for any Such breach against the Qraater. IN WTtMSS pHEREOP, the Grantor bee executed this deed on the d�ee set forth abo-C. HARRY ANTb;ONy COLLINS, TR95TfiTi OF TSs ALLEN ADCOLLINS �LRE'VOCABLE TRUST y DATZD AWUST 4, 2.976, AS =STATED DROMMEM 16, 1981, AS u„MMED L-SY 1, 1983. AS AMMMED NOVRD M 76, 1984 By --===== hoax ° in°e, Txustae marry STATE OF CALI70=1A � 66. COONTT OFS-t1p1lg0 ) �S day of Sa3uasy, 19971 before me, a aatary B`%bl7 -c Oa OZ eared Aarry Anthony collies, is said for saw tats, personally ABP personally known to me or proved to me an the b Anthony Co111na tai' 3 evidence to be the Trustee under the bare- nt dated August 4, Edith Allen Celline Revocable 1991, T steg9 ceded ,7uly 1. 19x3, as 1976, as ReetateQ December 2.6, to me to be tae Person who Amended November 26, 1984, and known Trust therein executed the withLn is aorumer_t�ons babel or. t executed the same. named, and acknowledged W:LtnePs my hand and officis my c- iasion expires: � N arY COMMA ° cw.s - MAR n. '1+ww� fA.tb1L \i -��P -- -3- 000056" • Dianne G. and James W. Light 1501 Rose Spur P.O. Box 116 Snowmass, CO 81654 March 8, 2004 Ms. Rose Ann Sullivan Pitkin County Development Re: McCabe Ranch Parcel D /James and Dianne Light Dear Rose Ann: This letter confirms that Larry Yaw, of Cottle Graybeal Yaw Architects, is our authorized representative for the planning and approval process of our McCabe Ranch Parcel D project. Sincerely, / Ja es W. Light Cc: Larry Yaw 00005% i PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920 -5526 FAX# (970) 920 -5439 June 3, 2004 Mr. Larry Yaw Cottle Graybeal Yaw Architects P.O. Box 529 Basalt, CO 81621 Re: Light Property CDU & Subdivision Exemption for a Major Plat Amendment (PID 2645- 064 -01 -001; Case P01704) Dear Mr. Yaw: This application has been scheduled for review at a public hearing/0 Reading by the Board of County Commissioners on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 at a meeting to begin at 2:00 P.M. in the Rio Grande Conference Room (former Youth Center Building), Aspen. Second Reading has been scheduled for Wednesday, August 11, 2004. The Friday before each meeting date, a copy of the memo pertaining to the application is available at the Planning Office. Please note that it is your responsibility to post a public notice sign on the property at least fifteen days prior to the hearing (and remove it within one week after) and to mail notice to all adjacent property owners and mineral estate owners'at least 30 days prior to the hearing with the return address of the Community Development Department (copy of notice to be mailed to you by the Community Development Department). The names and addresses shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than 60 days prior to the date of the public hearing. Please submit the enclosed Affidavit of Notice by Posting & Mailing as proof of compliance with the Code at the hearing. If you have any questions, please call the planner assigned to your case, Ezra Louthis at 920 -5092. Sincerely, Janis Taylor Administrative Assistant Encl: Af davit 0;0060 0 0 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: That the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, will consider the following Resolution at the Board's regular meeting on July 28, 2004 at 2:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as the conduct of business allows, Rio Grande Conference Room, 455 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, at which time and place all members of the public may appear and be heard: RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, APPROVING THE LIGHT MAJOR PLAT AMENDMENT AND SPECIAL REVIEW FOR A CARETAKER DWELLING UNIT TO ALLOW A DETACHED CDU ON TRACT D, McCABE RANCH SUBDIVISION (Case P017 -04) The property is legally described as Tract D, McCabe Ranch Subdivision, Pitkin County, Colorado.. The State Parcel Identification number is 2645- 064 -01 -001. Copies of the proposed Resolution are available for public inspection during regular business hours in the Office of the Clerk and Recorder, 530 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611. For more information, phone Ezra Louthis, at (970) 920 -5092 Jeanette Jones, Deputy County Clerk Published in The Aspen Times Weekly on June 26, 2004. Pitkin County Account 002.02 Public Private 000061 RQ :� 0 PITKIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone (970) 920 -5526 FAX (970) 920 -5439 MEMORANDUM TO: Housing Snowmass /Capitol Creek Caucus FROM: -Ezra Louthis, Community Development Department RE: Light Property CDU & Subdivision Exemption for a Major Plat Amendment (2645- 064 -01 -001; P017 -04) DATE: March 31, 2004 Attached for your review and comments are materials for an application submitted by Pitkin County. The Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission will review the application on Tuesday, May 18, 2004. Please return your comments to me by Friday, April 23, 2004. PLEASE RETURN APPLICATION MATERIALS TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IF YOU HAVE NO FURTHER NEED OF THEM. Thank you. 4J,-1062 /I 0 0 PITKIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920- 5526/FAX #'(970) 920 -5439 March 31, 2004 Mr. Larry Yaw Cottle Graybeal Yaw Architects P.O. Box 529 Basalt, CO 81621 Re: Light Property CDU & Subdivision Exemption for a Major Plat Amendment .(2645- 064- 01- 001;P017 -04) Dear Mr. Yaw: The Planning staff has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that this application is complete. After a more detailed review of the submittal information, additional information specific to the application may be requested in order to adequately review and process the application. The planner in charge of the review will request the information from you directly. This application has been scheduled for review by the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m, in Plaza One Conference Room, 530 E. Main St., Aspen. Should this date be inconvenient for you please contact me within 3 working days of the date of this letter. After that the agenda date will be considered final and changes to the schedule or tabling of the application will only be allowed for unavoidable technical problems. If you have any questions, please call Ezra Louthis, the planner assigned to your case, at 920 -5092. Sincerely, Janis Taylor Administrative Assistant Ll 0 PITKIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920 -5526 FAX# (970) 920 -5439 February 18, 2004 Mr. Larry Yaw Cottle Graybeal Yaw Architects P.O. Box 529 Basalt, CO 81621 Re: Light Property CDU & Subdivision Exemption for a Major Plat Amendment (PH) 2645 - 064-01 -001; Case P017 -04) Dear Mr.Yaw: The Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that this application is incomplete. For ease of reference, we have reproduced the submission requirements from the 1/30/04 Pre - Application Conference Summary Sheet below and noted the missing items. In a number of instances, we simply did not receive sufficient copies of documents for referrals, the P &Z and the BOCC. To apply, submit the Total Fee specified above and 14 copies of the following documents, unless otherwise noted (please use double -sided copies when possible): 1. Letter of request, addressing the provisions of the Pitkin County Land Use Code listed above [The cover letter submitted with the application does not specifically address the Land Use Code Subsections cited in the 1/30/04 Pre - Application Conference Summary Sheet, although it does provide some very helpful background information. Applicant should address why the proposal complies with (i) each of the 4 standards for a major plat amendment in Subsec. 3- 190 -090, (ii) each of the Special Review criteria in Subsec. 3 -210- 020, and (iii) each of the criteria in Subsec. 9- 110- 041(C)(2). In responding to these provisions, please note that the Land Use Code only allows CDUs up to 700 net livable sq. ft.; at one point in the cover letter a 750 sq. ft. CDU has been identified. 14 copies of this document are required.] 2. Consent from applicant/legal owner of the property to process application and authorizing the representative to act on behalfofthe applicant /owner (12 copies) ]Only 1 copy was provided; 14 are needed.] 3. Proposed amended plat prepared in accordance with the requirements of Subsecs. 5 -40 -020 and 5 -40 -050 and site plan locating the proposed CDU within the previously- approved barn envelope [The requirement for a draft of the actual amended plat can be waived at the present time. However, 13 additional copies of the site plan are required.] 4. Floor and elevation plans for the CD (tf available) [Only I copy was submitted; 14 are needed] iJU0064 5. Street address and parcel description, including legal description, and 8 -112'k 11 " vicinity map locating the subject property within Pitkin County [Only I copy was suhnutted; 14 are required. 6 Disclosure and proofof ownership complying with the requirements of Subsection 5- 60- 020(D) (12 copies) [The paperwork provided does not satisfy the requirements of Subsec. 5-60 - 020(D) (which requires a current certificate of title): ... a current certificate from a title insurance company or attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting use and development of the parcel and proof of the owner's right to use the land for the purposes identified in the development application. The County Assessor's online records note "5/11" after Diane Light's name as owner. If Ms. Light is not the sole owner of the property, then an additional letter of authorization of the representative will be required from the other owner(s) of record (see #2 above).] 7. Copies of all prior land use approvals [This requirement can be waived at the present time, based upon the representation made in the cover letter.] 8. Copy of this Pre - Application Conference Summary Sheet ]Only I copy was provided; 14 are required.] 9. ,Executed copy of Pitkin County Community Development Agreement for Payment of Land Use Application Fees form (2 copies) [A copy of this form is available online. We have also enclosed a copy for your use.] and 10. List of all adjacent property owners and mineral estate owners (13 copies). Additionally, as noted in the Pre- Application Conference Summary Sheet: In addition to paper copies, all text documents must be submitted in digital format, unless th' v have previously been recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk & Recorder's Office. Acceptable digital formats for text documents (in order of preference) are: (1) (doc), (2) (pdf, and (3) (upd) or (rtff). Applicant must also submit a list of any application materials not submitted in digital format that have previously been recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk & Recorder's Office and provide the Book and Page and Reception Numbers, as applicable, for all such material. Ifyou wish to submit any pictures /photographs digitally, please submit them in ()peg) formuat. [No digital submission was received.] Finally, the cover letter referenced an Agreement between the Lights and Mr. McBride that was supposed to be enclosed with the application. This Agreement was not in the package we received. (Copy of Agreement enclosed.) ,J,' 1065 0 0 After a more detailed review of the submittal information, additional information specific to the application may be requested in order to adequately review and process the application. The planner in charge of the review will request the information from you directly. If you have any questions; please call Rose Ann Sullivan, the planner assigned to your case, at 920 -5482 . Sincerely, Janis Taylor Administrative Assistant Enclosure (Agreement to Pay Form) Cc: James Light 'rl00O6 PITKIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AGREEMENT FOR PAYMENT OF LAND USE APPLICATION FEES PITKIN COUNTY (hereinafter "COUNTY ") and (hereinafter "APPLICANT ") AGREE AS FOLLOWS: APPLICANT has submitted to COUNTY an application for the "PROJECT ") 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that Pitkin County Ordinance No. 32 -2002 establishes a fee structure for land use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. The fee structure is based on the COUNTY'S policy that development shall pay, in full, the cost of development review in the COUNTY. Fees have been set to be consistent and fair to the public and to reflect the expense incurred in providing such services to the public. 3. APPLICANT and COUNTY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed PROJECT, it may not be possible at the time of application to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. 4. APPLICANT and COUNTY agree that fees charged for the processing of land use applications shall accumulate if an application includes more than one type of land use review. 5. COUNTY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for COUNTY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and /or Board of County Commissioners to enable the Planning Commission and /or Board of County Commissioners to make legally required findings for project approval, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 6. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the COUNTY'S waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness. APPLICANT shall pay a base fee in the amount of $ which is based on — hours of staff time, and if actual time spent by staff to process the application exceeds the average number of hours by more than 20 %, then the COUNTY will bill the APPLICANT quarterly for the additional time spent. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing. PITKIN COUNTY ( "APPLICANT ") By: Cindy Houben Community Development Director Print Name and Title (if applicable) Date: Mailing Address: 1n? 16578 C&WNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTIOT 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920 -5526 Pitkin County Other Fees: 155 Use Tax 165 Copy Performance Deposit 185 Park Dedication 186 Parking Cash in Lie;) ,J IS GIS Requirements B1202 Road Impact Fee B1203 School Impact Fee _ x TOTAL NAME: ADDRESS /PROJECT: )-- c^.. C PHONE: rr -rFrux r � - CASE /PERMIT #: # OF COPIES: DATE: ?- -� it 4 < INITIAL: ) T?. Land Use: 172 Board of Adjustment 159 County Land Use Code 173 Deposit 174 Flat Fee 162 Zoning and Sign 165 Public Notice 160 Planning Enforcement Referral Fees: RB115 Access Permit 1210 Airport LUCO1 County Clerk .211 County Engineer 194'�F,riuwronmental Health 203 Historic 198 Housing 190 Land Management 209 Redstone HPC 206 Wildlife Officer Building Fees: 170 Board of Appeals 13�' Building Code Sales 105 Building Permit 100 Contractor License 120 Electrical Permit 195 Energy Code Review 115 Mechanical Permit 150 Plan Check 110 Plumbing Permit 130 Reinspection 151 Aspen Sanitation 152 AVFD Fire Marshal Other Fees: 155 Use Tax 165 Copy Performance Deposit 185 Park Dedication 186 Parking Cash in Lie;) ,J IS GIS Requirements B1202 Road Impact Fee B1203 School Impact Fee _ x TOTAL NAME: ADDRESS /PROJECT: )-- c^.. C PHONE: rr -rFrux r � - CASE /PERMIT #: # OF COPIES: DATE: ?- -� it 4 < INITIAL: ) T?.