Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBocc Packet 01082014 River Rock CorporationMEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners Regular Meeting — January 8, 2014 THRU: Cindy Houben, Community Development Director FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Senior Planner RE: River Rock Corporation, Luzern Corporation and Basel Corporation Subdivision Exemption for Major Plat Amendment and Scenic View Protection Review REQUEST: The Applicant proposes to amend the prior approvals as follows: ➢ Major Plat Amendment to increase the allowable floor area based on the total lot area of the previously merged lots (Lot 0 and Lot 1). ➢ Amend the plat for Lots 1, 2 and 3 to reduce the size of the access easement. The access easement was combined with utilities, drainage and the landscape easement, which made it larger than needed. Reducing the size of the easement will increase the lot area on each lot and the allowable floor area. ➢ Obtain a new Scenic View Protection approval for the current house designs for Lots 1-3 (including the larger residence on Lot 1). The BOCC continued the application on October 23, November 6 and December 18, 2013, to give the Applicant an opportunity to resolve issues raised by the neighbor, Paula Douglass. The Applicant submitted a letter dated December 9, 2013, which provides an update to the BOCC and responds to the concerns raised by Mrs. Douglass. Mrs. Douglass submitted an email on December 11 requesting additional time to resolve the issues. The Applicant responded on December 12 with additional information regarding discussions with Mrs. Douglass. Both parties agreed to a continuance on December 18 to January 8. The Applicant has not yet reached an agreement with Mrs. Douglass, but is working with her to resolve the issues. Both parties are prepared to attend the January 8 hearing. Please bring the complete October 23 packet to the meeting. A request was made for staff to provide the prior approvals and plats/site plans; these documents are included in the application. The approvals are found as Attachments 3, 4, 7 and 12; the recorded plat is found as Attachment 9; and the 1041 site plan is found as Attachment 11. A plan showing the approved envelopes and footprints is attached. Additional graphic materials will be presented at the meeting. APPLICANTS: River Rock Corporation, Luzern Corporation and Basel Corporation REPRESENTATIVES: Glenn Horn and Bart Johnson LOCATION: The property is located on East Highway 82 between the highway and the Roaring Fork River, and is described as Lots 1-3, Block 4, Knollwood Subdivision. The Salvation Ditch traverses the property and the East Aspen Trail is located on the north side of the lots between the highway and the ditch. ZONING: The lots are zoned R-15 and contain 30,890; 16,780; and 17,114 square feet; respectively. The lots are within the Urban Growth Boundary. 000001 o ISSUES: As noted in the Applicant's December 9 letter, many of the issues raised in Mrs. Douglass' October 23 letter are private disputes and are not directly related to the current application. The one change proposed by the Applicant that is pertinent to the current review is to shift the footprint of the residence 5' to the west to increase the setback on the side adjacent to Mrs. Douglass' lot (resulting in a 15' setback, where 10' is required by the Code). The residence remains within the Activity Envelope that was previously approved by the BOCC. The other issues raised by staff and the Planning Commission are addressed in the October 23 staff memorandum (memo attached; complete packet provided separately). RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the BOCC approve the River Rock Corporation, Luzern Corporation and Basel Corporation Subdivision Exemption for Major Plat Amendment and Scenic View Protection Review, subject to the attached Resolution. Attachments A. Bart Johnson letter 12/9/13 B. Paula Douglass email 12/11/13 C. Bart Johnson email 12/12/13 D. 10/23 Staff Memorandum to BOCC E. Plan with approved envelopes and footprints (does NOT reflect the 5' shift of the footprint on Lot 3 that is proposed in the 12/9/13 letter) F. Art Daily letter 10/18/13 2 000002 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO APPROVING THE RIVER ROCK CORPORATION, LUZERN CORPORATION AND BASEL CORPORATION SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR MAJOR PLAT AMENDMENT AND SCENIC VIEW PROTECTION REVIEW Resolution No. -2014 RECITALS I. River Rock Corporation, Luzern Corporation and Basel Corporation ("Applicant") have applied to the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado ("BOCC") to amend the prior approvals as follows: A. Major Plat Amendment to increase the allowable floor area based on the total lot area of the previously merged lots. B. Amend the plat for Lots 1, 2 and 3 to reduce the size of the access easement. The access easement was combined with utilities, drainage and the landscape easement, which made it larger than needed. Reducing the size of the easement will increase the lot area on each lot and the allowable floor area. C. Obtain a new Scenic View Protection approval for the current house designs for Lots 1-3 (including the larger residence on Lot 1). 2. The property is located on East Highway 82 between the highway and the Roaring Fork River, and is described as Lots 1-3, Block 4, Knollwood Subdivision. The Salvation Ditch traverses the property and the East Aspen Trail is located on the north side of the lots between the highway and the ditch. 3. The lots are zoned R-15 and contain 30,890; 16,780; and 17,114 square feet, respectively. The lots are within the Urban Growth Boundary. 4. The County approved Block 4 of the Knollwood Subdivision in 1963 (Plat Book 1, Page 286). 5. The Hearing Officer denied an application on Lot 1 requesting 1041 hazard review, conceptual submission, scenic overlay and minor plat amendment approval for a single family residence and driveway, due to encroachments on slopes in excess 30% and 45%, pursuant to Determination No. 46-2006. The BOCC subsequently found and remediated the taking, pursuant to Resolution No. 140- 2006. Concurrently the Hearing Officer granted 1041 hazard review, conceptual submission, scenic overlay and minor plat amendment approval for single family residences and a driveway on Lots 2 and 3, pursuant to Determination No. 47-2006. These decisions approved the development of a common driveway that would provide access to all three lots across an easement that traverses Lot 4. The approval was granted under the pre-2006 Land Use Code, which permitted a 20' setback from the river. 6. The Applicant subsequently acquired "Lot 0", which is a remnant of the Benedict Estate located to the west of Lot 1, in order to provide a better access to the lots. The deed for "Lot 0" prohibited buildings or structures on the property, but allowed non-structural improvements, including driveways, irrigation ditch improvements and relocations, underground utilities, landscaping and berming, and storm water drainage and improvements. Pursuant to Resolution No. 016-2009, the BOCC approved the merger of "Lot 0" with Lot 1, the designation of easements and activity envelopes for the revised driveway entering from the west and the new house design for amended Lot 1. The BOCC also extended the vested rights until October 17, 2014. The Applicant agreed to 000003 Resolution No. -2014 Page 2 dedicate an easement to the City of Aspen for the trail across the property, to increase the setbacks from the river and to implement a riparian enhancement plan. The amended plat and 1041 site plan are recorded in Plat Book 96 at Pages 14-16. The 2009 merger of Lot 0 and Lot 1 via the "Minor Amendment" provision of the Code did not permit the floor area to be increased based on the additional lot area. 7. Pursuant to Administrative Decision No. 22-2011, the Applicant was permitted to develop the driveway and install utilities prior to pursuing a water service agreement with the City of Aspen. The installation of the driveway and utilities to the lots was completed in the fall of 2012. 8. The Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission considered the proposed application at a regularly scheduled meeting on August 6, 2012, and recommended approval by a vote of 4-2. 9. The BOCC considered this application at duly noticed public hearing on October 23, November 6 and December 18, 2013, and January 8, 2014, at which times evidence and testimony were presented with respect to the application. 10. The BOCC finds that the major plat amendment to increase the allowable floor area on Lot 1 based on the total iot area of the previously merged lots (Lot 0 and Lot 1) complies with Sec. 2-30-40(iX2) of the Land Use Code ("Code"): the additional floor area is consistent and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, will not create additional community impacts, and will result in an insubstantial change in the visual impact as seen from the highway. 11 The BOCC further finds that the minor plat amendment for Lots 1, 2 and 3 to reduce the size of the access easement to reflect the as -built driveway and thereby increase the lot area and floor area on each lot complies with Sec. 2-30-20(g)(5) of the Code: the amendment does not affect the degree of compliance with the standards of the Code; is being made to a recorded plat that has been approved by the County; and is consistent with representations made during the prior reviews. 12. The BOCC further finds that it is appropriate to limit the subgrade space on each lot to the footprint of the residence, including the garage (as represented), or 2,300 square feet, whichever is most restrictive, given the small size of the lots and the proximity to the river. 13. The BOCC further finds that the new designs for the residences on Lots 1, 2 and 3 within the previously approved building envelopes comply with the Scenic View Protection review criteria in Sec. 7-20-120 of the Code. The elevation of the lots is below the elevation of the highway, therefore, only the upper levels and roofs will be visible from the highway. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the BOCC that it does hereby approve the River Rock Corporation, Luzern Corporation and Basel Corporation Subdivision Exemption for Major Plat Amendment and Scenic View Protection Review, subject to the conditions set forth herein, which shall run with the land and be binding on all successors in interest. 1. The Applicant shall adhere to all material representations made in public hearings and in the application. 2. The conditions of BOCC Resolution Nos. 140-2006 and 016-2009 and Hearing Officer Determination No. 47-2006 shall remain in full force and effect, except as modified herein. 3. Prior to submission of any building permit applications, the Applicant shall submit for approval by the County Attorney and Community Development an amended plat with the revised "Access, Utility and Drainage Easement" and the "Utility, Drainage and Landscape Easement." The above referenced 000004 Resolution No. -2014 Page 3 approvals shall be a condition precedent to finalization and recordation. The amended plat shall include the lot area calculations for each lot, with the appropriate deductions for the areas below the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and the areas within the access easement. 4. The gross floor area on each of Lots 1, 2 and 3 shall be limited to the following: A. The area included in the measurement of floor area based on the Floor Area Ratio of 0.16; B. A maximum of 750 square feet of garage and carport space exempt from floor area; and C. 2,300 square feet of below grade space or the area below the footprint of the residence, whichever is most restrictive. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PUBLISHED IN THE ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY on the 19th day of September, 2013. APPROVED this day of , 2014. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO ATTEST: By Rob Ittner, Chairman Jeanette Jones, Clerk to the BOCC APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Cindy Houben Community Development Director P037-13 PID #273718401003/004/007 John Ely County Attorney 000005 WAAS CAMPBELL RIVERA JOHNSON &VELASQUEZ J. Bart Johnson 970.544.4602 johnson©wcrlegal.com December 9, 2013 Board of County Commissioners c/o Suzanne Wolff, AICP Pitkin County Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: P037-13; Application of River Rock Corp., Luzern Corp. and Basel Corp. regarding Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 4, Knollwood Subdivision (Parcel ID Nos. 273718401003/004/007) Dear Commissioners: I am writing to you on behalf of River Rock Corp., Luzern Corp. and Basel Corp., which are the applicants in this matter. You are scheduled to take up the applicants' matter on December 18. As you may recall, we agreed to continue your hearing of this matter on October 23, 2013 and then again on November 6, 2013 so that we could attempt to resolve the concerns raised by Paula Douglass, who is the owner of the adjoining Lot 4 and who sent you a detailed written objection dated October 23, 2013. As of the writing of this letter, we have still not been able to reach an agreement with Mrs. Douglass. It has not been for lack of initiative on the applicants' part. On November 1, 2013 we sent Mrs. Douglass a written proposal regarding her concerns, including offers of monetary compensation on various issues. Except for a brief email saying she was not satisfied with the proposal, Mrs. Douglass has not yet responded. She has explained that she has been dealing with some family issues and has not had a chance to focus on this matter. While we sympathize with Mrs. Douglass regarding any personal issues she may be having, the applicants are not able to agree to further continue your consideration of this matter. Accordingly, the applicants plan to proceed with the hearing scheduled for December 18 even if the issues with Mrs. Douglass have not been resolved by that time. The applicants remain open to continuing the discussions with Mrs. Douglass and if we are able to resolve the disputed issues by December 18 we will let you know. As you prepare for your consideration of this matter, we thought it would be helpful to offer you a brief response to the issues Mrs. Douglass has raised. Many of the issues she has raised are 000006 L0OU06 1350 SEVENTEENTH STREET SUITE 450 DENVER COLORADO 80202 M 720-351-4700 F 720-351-4745 420 EAST MAIN STREET SUITE 210 ASPEN COLORADO 81611 M 970-544-7006 F 866-492-0361 WCRLEGAL.COM Board of County Commissioners December 9, 2013 Page 2 private legal issues that do not relate to the County's land use process. We do not believe it is appropriate to drag the Board into being a de facto arbitrator of these private disputes. Nonetheless, we do believe it is important to respond in some way. Before addressing the main issues raised by Mrs. Douglass, we also would like to bring your attention to one specific land use -related change to the application regarding Lot 3. In our meetings with Mrs. Douglass, she asked if the footprint for the home on Lot 3 could be relocated farther to the west. This is a change the applicants are prepared to offer. Exhibit A attached to this letter depicts an additional 5-foot shift to the west for the Lot 3 building footprint. This change would represent a 50% increase in the originally proposed 10-foot setback from Mrs. Douglass's property. Mrs. Douglass has raised six primary issues. Below we list these and offer a summary of our response. 1. Mrs. Douglass alleges the applicants have failed to provide the required public notices throughout the various application processes relating to the proposed development of their properties. The applicants dispute that they have failed to provide the proper notices. The applicants' land use consultant, Glenn Horn, has always mailed and/or posted the required notices for all land use considerations regarding the applicants' properties. With respect to Mrs. Douglass, these notices have been mailed to her address in Houston according to the Pitkin County Assessor's records. We understand her address on file with the Assessor was changed earlier this year, but Mrs. Douglass's active participation in the matter now before clearly demonstrates that she received adequate notice and has had an opportunity to be heard on the matter. 2. Mrs. Douglass alleges that the applicants trespassed on her property and failed to adequately protect her property from damage during the installation of the access road and infrastructure for the applicants ' properties. Mrs. Douglass neglects to mention that the applicants have an access easement from Highway 82 across her driveway for the benefit of their lots. This easement was granted and recorded in 1979 and was in place when Mrs. Douglass bought her property. A copy is attached to this letter as Exhibit B. This easement was intended by the original developer and the owner of Mrs. Douglass's property to be the sole means of access between Highway 82 and Lots 1, 2 and 3 (the applicants' lots). The applicants used this easement, as they were permitted to, for occasional construction access to the site. The applicants dispute the damage that Mrs. Douglass alleges was caused by this construction use. But we do not believe it is appropriate to drag the Board into such a Ov0007 Board of County Commissioners December 9, 2013 Page 3 damages dispute. More importantly, Mrs. Douglass also fails to acknowledge that the applicants acquired, at significant expense, additional land from the Benedict family on the west side of Lot 1 so that the primary access from Highway 82 into their project now comes from the other direction. There will be no further need to use the easement over Mrs. Douglass's property for construction access or regular vehicle access. Future use of the easement will be limited to emergency vehicles. This will dramatically reduce the impact on Mrs. Douglass that would have otherwise occurred if the easement over her Lot 4 had remained the sole access to and from Lots 1, 2 and 3. 3. Mrs. Douglass alleges the applicants failed to work with her on a comprehensive landscape plan based on the requirements of the Board of Adjustment pursuant to the minutes from its meeting of September 7, 2010. The applicants dispute this. The applicants' project manager, Tom Newland, developed a proposed landscape plan and forwarded it to Mr. and Mrs. Douglass for their review and received no comments in response. The County approved the landscape plan through the Earthmoving Permit submitted by Mr. Newland. In addition to full reclamation and revegetation of the disturbed areas on Lots 1, 2 and 3, the plan called for two conifer trees to be placed to help visually screen the new Salvation Ditch intake. These trees were purchased and placed in collaboration with Steve Kowalski, who Mrs. Douglass had designated as her landscape consultant regarding the project. In addition, the applicants went above and beyond the approved landscape plan by: (a) Planting Virginia Creeper along Ditch intake. This is a vine that visually from Lot 4. (b) Coloring the concrete of the new surrounding geology. The added costs to the project for the Virginia Creeper and tinted concrete was about the top of the concrete wall of the Salvation will grow over the concrete wall and shield it $3,000. Salvation Ditch intake to match the tone of the With respect to the gate that is currently in place between Lot 3 and Lot 4, this is a temporary gate to ensure that no visitor to the applicants' properties inadvertently uses Mrs. Douglass's driveway for access instead of the new driveway on the west side. When the home on Lot 3 is built, a permanent up -scaled gate that matches the design of the house will be installed. The gate will be locked and will be utilized only for emergency services; the primary access will be on the west side of Lot 1, which is as far as way as possible from Mrs. Douglass's property. UiOOQ3 Board of County Commissioners December 9, 2013 Page 4 In addition, in their proposal of November 1, 2013, the applicants offered to provide Mrs. Douglass with additional funds that Mrs. Douglass could use to provide supplemental landscaping between Lot 3 and Lot 4. 4. Mrs. Douglass alleges that the applicants improperly constructed the new intake for the Salvation Ditch and that it resulted in flooding to Mrs. Douglass's property. This is another matter we do not believe the Board should be asked to arbitrate. But the applicants do dispute the allegation. The new intake for the section of the Salvation Ditch that now passes through an underground culvert on the applicants' lots was constructed based on engineering plans and specifications dictated and approved by the Salvation Ditch Company. The applicants were required to place a significant amount of money in escrow to secure the performance of the work according to the approved plans. Upon completion of the work, the Ditch Company then inspected the work to verify it conformed to the engineering plans and then authorized release of the escrow. A copy of the Ditch Company's approval of the work is attached to this letter as Exhibit C. Our own investigation has confirmed that the new intake was built to the engineer's specifications. The applicants' do not dispute that a flooding issue occurred on Mrs. Douglass's property this past summer and that in response the Ditch Company performed work on the ditch through her property that might be considered unsightly. But the Ditch Company, in communications with Tom Newland, told us that the flooding was not caused by the applicants' work but instead by the Ditch Company putting more water in the ditch than normal. The applicants have no control over the amount of water the Ditch Company puts in the Salvation Ditch or how the Ditch Company decides to maintain the ditch through other peoples' property. In addition, the applicants have a written agreement with the Ditch Company by which it agrees it is responsible for damages caused by the operation of the Salvation Ditch. Finally, in the spirit of trying to be neighborly, the applicants did offer to provide Mrs. Douglass with a budget for making landscaping improvements on her property to help screen and aesthetically enhance the new ditch work installed by the Ditch Company through her property. 5. Mrs. Douglass contends the applicants dug up utility lines serving her property and denied her service for 1 % years. This is another private issue not directly related to the public land use process that we do not believe the Board should be asked to arbitrate. But the applicants do feel compelled to offer a brief response. The applicants did not purposefully destroy the communication line running overhead from Highway 82 to Mrs. Douglass's house. This original overhead phone line was placed over Lot 3 without any easement. Since the line crossed directly over the building envelope of Lot 3, it had to be relocated. The applicants placed additional underground conduit 000009 Board of County Commissioners December 9, 2013 Page 5 to Lot 4 to provide a new phone and IT connection to Lot 4 at an expense of approximately $2,000. Tom Newland notified Mrs. Douglass's local representative when the overhead line was to be removed and indicated that they would have to work with Century Link to get the service re -installed using the newly placed conduit. This occurred during the spring off season when the house on Lot 4 was rarely inhabited. The interruption of service was thought to be minimal. It did not last for 11/2 years; service may have been out for 8 to 10 weeks at most due to the relocation of the line. Tom Newland does not believe this delay was the fault of the construction activities, but rather the fault of Century Link and/or the Douglasses in how the reconnection was coordinated. 6. Mrs. Douglass alleges the applicants are responsible for an illegal "taking" of her property by the City of Aspen without just compensation for the new East of Aspen bike trail and for the City's destruction of trees along the frontage of her property. It is true the applicants granted an easement to the City of Aspen along the front of Lots 1, 2 and 3 to facilitate construction of the new East of Aspen trail. But the applicants had nothing to with anything the City decided to do with the trail as it passed in front of Mrs. Douglass's property. As far as we know, the City did not illegally "take" any of Mrs. Douglass's property and only cut down vegetation with the Highway 82 right-of-way for the new trail as it passes in front of Mrs. Douglass's property. But even if the City engaged in illegal or improper conduct, the applicants had no role in it and should not be blamed. Mrs. Douglass's recourse is against the City of Aspen for any such infringements. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. We look forward to seeing you at the December 18 hearing. for WAAS CAMPBELL RIVERA JOHNSON & VELASQUEZ LLP cc: Mrs. Paula Douglass Ali Reza Rastegar Glenn Horn Tom Newland IA0010 EXHIBIT A 000011 F KNOLL WOOD LOTS OLOR ADC 8101 EXHIBIT B U06313 1.4J, - The undermigned, SCOTT B. Mar, - ne4rit 4, Bloch 4, thollwood CO/Grade, does hereby grant, Certain utility, access and road sass thee* certain Grant. of Massesat. dat Russ and Sally Mas• to R. 0. 5 !Irvin riscbtded in the Pitkin County records on May 30, 1979, copies of which are atkacbid'hireto and incorporated herein by refbrehei. Raid Grant, Ratification, and Endorsement and ideeptkfics is intended to effectuate said easements to the tall extent, and for all intents and purposes. as if said grants had been made by the undersigned. The undersigned does further ratify, accept and endorse that certain utility and encroachment easement granted by 0. B. Construction Co. recorded in the Pitkin County records on May 30, 1979, and that certain Utility and Road ASEfitenance Agreement between R. C. B. Construction Co. and Marvin Huss and Sally Huss and recorded May 1p, 1979. Hey, 31, 1979 • nN sr { 'GRANT or EAatttliNT !1�1 THIS GRANT 'or EASEMENT iS made this 1012/, day of 3 979 by and between • UNItVCN HIUSS and SALLY �Cons r ac A re Co .Sw qGVr HUSS ail. Grantors, and to� as Grantee WXTNBSSETH:' 1. Grant, Per Ten Dollars ($18.00) and other good, and valuable consideration which is hcaroby acknowledged, the Grantors have this day bargained and sold and by these presents do hereby grant, bargain, convey and deliver unto Grantee, his heirs, succeseorc and assigns the within described perma- nent road easement. 2. Purpose and Benefited Lands. .Said easement shall be for purposes of access,. ingress and egress to and from, and for the benefit of the following described property of Grantee: • . • Lots 1,2,and 3 . Block 4 Knollwood Subdivision Pitkin County, Colorado 3. Burdened Property_ Said nayewnent shall be across And butden the following. property of Grantor: Lot 4 • ,Block 4 Knollwood Subdivision Pitkin County, Colorado 4. Desic'riptibn of Easement. The enc:em_nt granted herein is described as follows: A road and access easement 25' in width across Lot 4, Block 4, Knollwood Subdivision, Pitkin County, Colorado (Lot 4) in favor of Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block•4, Knollwood Subdivision, Pitkin County, Colorado (Lots 1, 2, and 3) . Said easement shall be located within that portion of Lot 4 located Northerly of a line between two points, the first point being 25 feet in a Southerly direction from the Northeasterly corner of Lot 4. along the Eastern boundary of Lot 4, and the second point being 45 foet in a Southerly direction from the. Northwesterly corner of Lot 4, all as • shown on that certain improvements • Survey of Lot 4 dated Hay, 1979 and • made by Alpine Surveys, James F. Reese-_, Surveyor. Within said afore -described Northerly portion of • Lot 4, the easement shall run from the Northern boundary of Lot 4, what, Lot 4 • abuts State Highway 82 and anentrance- way into Lot 4 currently exists, along an existing graded driveway supported by -ribbing. and thence to the common border between Lots 3 and 4. The location of such roadway le Shown on the above -referenced survey. ; 1 J(iL1Oi_5_ the forevoing Grant 40141 thin day of •, , 1979 for NARVIN 1IU$sS mIG W. 1CK, Attorney-i-fact. Witness ay 'haled and official seal. 'my commission expires: j0/93 EXHIBIT C 000017 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: mkiernan@sopris.net Mark, Everything on the project has been completed to my satisfaction. After meeting with Tom & Ali at the site we determined that Tom would cut a check to the Salvation ditch for $1500.00 for a protective grate at the entrance to the pipe.Once the check has been received I recommend that the funds held in escrow be released. Best regards, Michael Kiernan -- tomnO,sopris.net wrote: From: "Tom Newland" <tomn(aisooris.net> To: "Michael Kiernan" <mkiernanesopris.net>, <mehamilton(�hollandhart.com> Cc: <johnson@wcrlegal.com>, <alireza@rastegar.com> Subject: Request for Final Escrow Release - Knollwood Lots 1, 2 & 3 Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 13:38:30 -0600 Michael and Mark: Attached please find a request for release of the final escrow amount held for this project. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thanks . Tom Newland, Newland Project Resources, Inc. PO Box 4825, 417 Original Road Basalt, CO 82622 (970) 927-4645(0) (970) 628-9922(c) tomn( sopris.net Please consider the environment before printing this email. 1 O uO18 PO Box 4815 41 / i}nginal R.1eri, I Fi Basalt, CO 81621 Phnne (970) P27 4.'45 Far (970) 427 4' 91., G.rr1n: �,flri5n,•1 July 16, 2012 Michael Kiernan Mark Hamilton Salvation Ditch Company michael@beachresource.com RE: REQUEST FOR FINAL RELEASE OF ESCROW ACCOUNT KNOLLWOOD SUBDIVISIONS BLOCK 4, LOTS 1— 3 Dear Michael: Please accept this letter as our request to the Salvation Ditch Company for final release from the escrow account for the improvements to the Salvation Ditch as it passes through our property in the Knollwood Subdivision. We have asked for and received an interim release of $78, 045.27, which amounts to 90% of the total escrow amount of $86,716.96. The ditch has been running water for at least a month and a half and the improvements we have placed appear to be functioning properly. We met on site with Michael Kiernan yesterday and he confirmed this. As per the terms of the escrow agreement, we are now requesting release of the remaining 10% of the escrow amount or $8,668.69. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please contact me if you have any questions or requests for further information or documentation. Sincerely, Tom Newland, Owners Representative River Rock Corp L,tir.l1;.t1>l,:i ir;_; uin,rt { ..it.,.i3.1'3_ i`'ii;,•3«iIri,i._ •t_•I;It,,;3,ieb.. ;,.,,ia,.rMmcr,t 00019 Suzanne Wolff From: Paula Douglass Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 4:17 PM To: Suzanne Wolff Subject: RE: P037-13; Application of River Rock Corp., Luzern Corp. and Basel Corp. regarding Lots 1,2,and 3, Blcok 4, Knollwood Subdiviion (Parcel ID Nos. 273718401003/004/007) Dear Suzanne, I appreciate your returning my call. Since our meeting in late October, some progress has been made to date on resolving the issues; however, significant determinations still need to be made. As we discussed and as I have communicated with Bart Johnson, I have been immersed in dealing with the serious health issues involving my mother and my husband. I was therefore completely surprised when I received late afternoon on December 9th, a copy of his email to you, in anticipation of a December 18th BOCC meeting. When I called you the morning of December 9th, it was to inquire of the BOCC January 2014 meeting dates. Bart has known that I could not attend a meeting on December 18th since October 23. At that time, he stated he himself was unavailable to attend a hearing on December 18th. We decided if we were unable to complete resolution on or before then, the next BOCC meeting would be in January 2014. Obviously, the parties need additional time and I would respectfully request that the BOCC continue this matter until January 8th, 2014. It is my desire to reach resolution by then; however, if we are unable to do so, I will make arrangements to attend the meeting on January 8th, 2014. Very truly yours, Paula Douglass 6320 1 Suzanne Wolff From: J. Bart Johnson Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 7:23 AM To: Suzanne Wolff Cc: Paula Douglass Subject: RE: P037-13; Application of River Rock Corp., Luzern Corp. and Basel Corp. regarding Lots 1,2,and 3, Blcok 4, Knollwood Subdiviion (Parcel ID Nos. 273718401003/004/007) Attachments: Nov. 4 Email.pdf; Nov. 21 Email.pdf Suzanne, I have had an opportunity to discuss the hearing date issue with my client. The applicants cannot support a further extension of the hearing date and respectfully request that the Board consider the application as scheduled on December 18. This does not mean that the applicants aren't willing to continue the discussions with Mrs. Douglass both before and after the hearing. Most all of her concerns relate to matters that don't require the involvement of the BOCC to resolve and we believe it would be better that the BOCC not be asked to become a de facto arbitrator of private disputes. A final decision from the BOCC, whatever it may be, would not prevent the applicants and Mrs. Douglass from continuing to work on a resolution of the issues she has raised. Please consider the following: - On November 1, we submitted a written proposal to Mrs. Douglass in an effort to move toward a negotiated resolution of what we understood to be her main areas of concern. - On November 2, Mrs. Douglass sent us an email saying she was greatly disappointed and found the proposal grossly inadequate, but did not offer any details. On November 3, we sent a follow up email to Mrs. Douglass asking if we could expect a more detailed response from her and letting her know we were available to discuss the issues on Monday, November 4. - On November 4, Mrs. Douglass sent an email in response saying she would not be able to respond until later that week. Later on November 4, we sent Mrs. Douglass a follow up email letting her know that we would reschedule the BOCC hearing to December 18 and saying, "By then, we will all know whether we have a resolution or whether we will just have to agree to disagree and proceed without a resolution." We received no response or objection to the December 18 date. On November 21, we sent another email to Mrs. Douglass asking if we could expect to receive any response from her so we could continue our efforts to reach a resolution by the December 18 meeting. Again, we received no substantive response and no objection to the December 18 date. Copies of the email chains referenced above are included with this letter. We still have not received any substantive response to our November 1 proposal from Mrs. Douglass. We understand that Mrs. Douglass may be having personal issues that make it difficult for her to give this matter her full attention. But we also know from Mrs. Douglass's October 23 correspondence to the BOCC that she knows the applicants have vested property rights that expire in the fall of 2014. Continued delay of this matter keeps the applicants' project in limbo and works in Mrs. Douglass's favor, whether or not that is her intent. At some point the applicants deserve to have their application heard on the merits and acted upon. We believe we are at that point. 0uO21 Sincerely, --Bart From: Suzanne Wolff [mailto:Suzanne.Wolff(aco.pitkin.co.us] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 4:26 PM To: J. Bart Johnson Subject: FW: P037-13; Application of River Rock Corp., Luzern Corp. and Basel Corp. regarding Lots 1,2,and 3, Blcok 4, Knollwood Subdiviion (Parcel ID Nos. 273718401003/004/007) I will include this in the packet. Do you want to provide a response? If so, I would need it first thing tomorrow. From: Paula Douglass [mailto:ptdouglass@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 4:17 PM To: Suzanne Wolff Subject: RE: P037-13; Application of River Rock Corp., Luzern Corp. and Basel Corp. regarding Lots 1,2,and 3, Blcok 4, Knollwood Subdiviion (Parcel ID Nos. 273718401003/004/007) Dear Suzanne, I appreciate your returning my call. Since our meeting in late October, some progress has been made to date on resolving the issues; however, significant determinations still need to be made. As we discussed and as I have communicated with Bart Johnson, I have been immersed in dealing with the serious health issues involving my mother and my husband. I was therefore completely surprised when 1 received late afternoon on December 9th, a copy of his email to you, in anticipation of a December 18th BOCC meeting. When I called you the morning of December 9th, it was to inquire of the BOCC January 2014 meeting dates. Bart has known that I could not attend a meeting on December 18th since October 23. At that time, he stated he himself was unavailable to attend a hearing on December 18th. We decided if we were unable to complete resolution on or before then, the next BOCC meeting would be in January 2014. Obviously, the parties need additional time and I would respectfully request that the BOCC continue this matter until January 8th, 2014. It is my desire to reach resolution by then; however, if we are unable to do so, I will make arrangements to attend the meeting on January 8th, 2014. Very truly yours, Paula Douglass U 1U22 2 J. Bart Johnson From: J. Bart Johnson Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 1:31 PM To: 'Paula Douglass' Subject: RE: Knollwood proposal Thanks Paula. We will let Suzanne Wolff and the Board know that the hearing on Wednesday will need to be further continued per our agreed approach. I believe that leaves us with December 18 as the rescheduled date. I was originally not going to be available on this date, but I have been able to make some scheduling changes. By then, we will all know whether we have a resolution or whether we will just have to agree to disagree and proceed without a resolution. --Bart From: Paula Douglass (mailto:ptdouglass@gmail.comj Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 11:36 AM To: J. Bart Johnson Subject: Re: Knollwood proposal Hi Bart, I am not sure if you recall that I had prior commitments all of this week, which made it impossible for me to get to Aspen on the 6th. On top of those meetings, my husband's health has become a serious issue after developing an infection late last week. I will respond to your questions and do hope we can resolve the issues but I cannot do so until later this week. Sincerely, Paula On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 10:20 PM, J. Bart Johnson <johnson4 wcrlegal.com> wrote: Paula, [ am just checking in again to see if we can expect to hear back from you with some more detail on the concerns you believe we are ignoring. Ali and I are both available on Monday to put more work into this effort. I don't know whether we will be able to address all of your concerns, but we are willing to continue the dialogue if you are. Thanks. --Bart 6uuU23 i From: Paula Douglass [mailto:ptdouglassagmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 9:46 AM To: J. Bart Johnson Subject: Re: Knollwood proposal Bart, I have read your memorandum and am greatly disappointed in the suggestions made. We are far apart and disagree on many items. The limited pecuniary offer to address some of our concerns detailed in our BOCC presentation, while others have been ignored, is grossly inadequate. If there is to be resolution by November 5, the owners need to address the very real concerns we specifically conveyed on September 23. Yours truly, Paula Douglass Sent from my iPad On Nov 1, 2013, at 5:36 PM, "J. Bart Johnson" <iohnson(l wcrleaal.com> wrote: Paula, Based on our meetings last week, we have done some follow up and have prepared a memorandum to help move the conversation forward. I am also attaching a site plan showing the proposed relocation of the home on Lot 3, as described in the memorandum. if we can reach a final understanding on the overall terms, I can convert the terms into a formal agreement very quickly. I will be working this weekend and will be checking emails. My cell phone number is 970-379-9561. Thanks very much. Sincerely, UUuU24 2 --Bart Johnson <image003.jpg> J Bart Johnson Attorney at Law Main 970-544-7006 Direct 970-544-4602 Fax 866-492-0361 JOHNSONOWCRLEGAL.COM WCRLEGAL.COM 420 EAST MAIN STREET SUITE 210 ASPEN COLORADO 81611 This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipients and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. Tax advice set forth herein is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to any other party any transaction or matter addressed herein. <Memorandum to Paula Douglass 11.1.2013 (JBJ003 l ).pdf> <ARA Site Plan 11-1-13.pdf5 <image003.jpg> 000025 3 J. Bait Johnson From: J. Bart Johnson Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 3:52 PM To: 'Paula Douglass' Cc: 'Alireza Rastegar' Subject: RE: Knollwood proposal Paula, I am checking in. I thought we would have heard from you by now with a more specific response to the proposal we submitted to you back on November 1. Can we can expect to receive something so that we can continue in our efforts to reach a resolution before the December 18 meeting? Sincerely, --Bart From: Paula Douglass [mailto:Dtdouglass gmaii.cam] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 11:36 AM To: J, Bart Johnson Subject: Re: Knollwood proposal Hi Bart, I am not sure if you recall that I had prior commitments all of this week, which made it impossible for me to get to Aspen on the 6th. On top of those meetings, my husband's health has become a serious issue after developing an infection late last week. I will respond to your questions and do hope we can resolve the issues but I cannot do so until later this week. Sincerely, Paula On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 10:20 PM, J. Bart Johnson <johnson@a,wcrlegal.com> wrote: Paula, I am just checking in again to see if we can expect to hear back from you with some more detail on the concerns you believe we are ignoring. Ali and I are both available on Monday to put more work into this effort. I don't know whether we will be able to address all of your concerns, but we are willing to continue the dialogue if you are. Thanks. 1 600026 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners Regular Meeting — October 23, 2013 THRU: Cindy Hb'u en, Community Development Director FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Senior Planner RE: River Rock Corporation, Luzern Corporation and Basel Corporation Subdivision Exemption for Major Plat Amendment and Scenic View Protection Review REQUEST: The Applicant proposes to amend the prior approvals as follows: > Major Plat Amendment to increase the allowable floor area based on the total lot area of the previously merged lots (Lot 0 and Lot 1). ➢ Amend the plat for Lots 1, 2 and 3 to reduce the size of the access easement. The access easement was combined with utilities, drainage and the landscape easement, which made it larger than needed. Reducing the size of the easement will increase the lot area on each lot and the allowable floor area. > Obtain a new Scenic View Protection approval for the current house designs for Lots 1-3 (including the larger residence on Lot 1). The Planning and Zoning Commission considered the application on August 6, 2013, and recommended approval by a vote of 4-2. The August 6 staff memorandum and minutes are attached for reference. Only issues raised during or subsequent to the Planning Commission hearing are addressed below. APPLICANTS: River Rock Corporation, Luzern Corporation and Basel Corporation REPRESENTATIVES: Glenn Horn and Bart Johnson LOCATION: The property is located on East Highway 82 between the highway and the Roaring Fork River, and is described as Lots 1-3, Block 4, Knollwood Subdivision. The Salvation Ditch traverses the property and the East Aspen Trail is located on the north side of the lots between the highway and the ditch. ZONING: The lots are zoned R-15 and contain 30,890; 16,780; and 17,114 square feet, respectively. The lots are within the Urban Growth Boundary. ISSUES: LOT 1 FLOOR AREA INCREASE: In the 2009 application and approval, the Applicant acknowledged that there was only one development right associated with the merged Lot 1, which would be exercised with the development of the residence on Lot 1. The Applicant agreed at that time to calculate the floor area for development on Lot I based solely on the lot area of the original Lot 1 and not including the lot area of Lot 0 in order to comply with the criteria for a "Minor Amendment." CJ6021 000001 or{C� The Applicant now proposes a Major Plat Amendment to increase the allowable floor area on Lot l based on the total lot area of the merged lots. The original deed for Lot 0 contains a covenant that prohibits buildings or structures on Lot 0, but allows non-structural improvements, including driveways, irrigation ditch improvements and relocations, underground utilities, landscaping and berming, and storm water drainage and improvements. The original deed did not provide for the use of the lot area to calculate floor area, but allowed the deed covenant to be amended. The Agreement to Amend Deed Covenant (and subsequent amendments) is attached and allows for the use of the lot area of Lot 0 to calculate the floor area for amended Lot 1, if approved by the County. If the amendment is approved and the Applicant is allowed to utilize the entire lot area of combined Lot 0/Lot 1, then allowable floor area on amended Lot 1 would increase from 1,860 to 3,900 square feet. Staff and the Planning Commission supported the request to amend the approval and allow the floor area of 3,900 square feet based on the total lot area, but did not support the allowance of all the allowable exempt floor area that would be associated with the lot (see discussion below). FLOOR AREA EXEMPTIONS ON LOTS 1, 2 AND 3: In the application, the Applicant only specified the allowable floor area based on the 0.16 FAR, and did not make any representations regarding the use of the below grade and garage exemptions from floor area that are available to lots in the UGB. The owner would like to be able to develop exempt basement space if possible; soil studies have not been performed to make that determination. Given the small size of the lots and the proximity of the houses to the river (ranging from approximately 32' to 45' from the high water line), staff recommended that the lots not be eligible for the below grade space exemption (4,000 square feet). Staff supported the use of the garage exemption on each lot (750 square feet). The Applicant objected to staffs recommendation and asserted that it was arbitrary to limit the subgrade space, particularly on Lots 2 and 3, since the Applicant was only requesting a minor amendment on those lots based on the easements. The Planning Commission discussed the floor area allowed under the current approvals versus what is being requested, and the potential to limit the subgrade space to something less than the 4,000 square feet provided by the Code, given the small size of the lots and the proximity to the river. The Planning Commission recommended, and the Applicant agreed, to limit the subgrade space on each lot to the footprint of the residence, including the garage (as represented), or 2,300 square feet, whichever is most restrictive. This recommendation is reflected in the attached Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the BOCC approve the River Rock Corporation, Luzern Corporation and Basel Corporation Subdivision Exemption for Major Plat Amendment and Scenic View Protection Review, subject to the attached Resolution. duuQ28 2 000002 CXLS CereGI TATNLIN 3 000029 KNOLLWOOD SUBDIVISION LOTS 1,2 & 3, BLOCK 4 • r `7 —j I LOT 1 r f Building- . J { 1 1 1 �•r- f S717S.WAIPR RAN(7i SU111 1VISJON/P.if_[]. wr 47, � flair fmi 10.4r vry u•s Wit! ,1•1ff oRpOS HOLLAND&HARL October 18, 2013 Arthur C. Daily Phone (970) 925-3476 Fax (970) 925-9367 ADaiiy@hollandhart.com Suzanne Wolff Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Request for Major Plat Amendment by River Rock Corp. regarding Lot 1, Block 4, Knollwood Subdivision Dear Suzanne: I represent Nicolas Benedict, Marie Benedict Gordon and Charlotte Benedict Metcalfe (the "Benedicts''), who are the children of Fritz and Fabi Benedict. Back in 2007, the Benedicts sold to River Rock Corp.'s affiliate the land that has been added into Lot 1, Block 4 of the Knollwood Subdivision. As I believe the County is aware, as part of this original sale River Rock Corp. agreed that it would not build any vertical improvements on the Benedict land or use the Benedict land to increase the floor area permitted on Lot 1, unless such restrictions were subsequently modified by agreement of the parties. Since the time of the original conveyance, the Benedicts and River Rock Corp. have agreed that the floor area restriction can be amended to a degree if River Rock Corp. pays certain additional consideration to the Benedicts and obtains the necessary County approvals. I understand that Bart Johnson has sent you a copy of the revised agreement between the Benedicts and River Rock Corp. I am writing this letter to let you and the Board of County Commissioners know that the Benedicts support River Rock Corp.'s pending application to add floor area to Lot 1 by taking some credit for the land area gained from the Benedict parcel. We have reviewed the design changes to the proposed home and believe that the home, even with the added floor area, is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and will not have any adverse impacts on surrounding properties. The Benedicts take seriously the legacy of their parents' stewardship in this area of the community. With this in mind, we believe it's worth pointing out that the prohibition on any vertical development of the Benedict land acquired by River Rock Corp. is to remain in effect. Thank you for your continuing consideration in this matter. Very trul Arthur C. 7 aily for Holland & Hart LLP Holland & Hart LIP Attorneys at Law Phone (970) 975-3476 Fax (970) 925-9367 www.hollandhart.com 600 East Main Street, Suite 104 Aspen, CO 81611-1991 Aspen Ilmgs Boise Boulder Carson City Cheyenne Colorado Springs Denver Denver Tech Center Jackson Hole Las Vegas Reno Salt Lake City Santa Fe Washington, D C 60003(i BOCC REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 08, 2014 CONTINUED READING AND PUBLIC HEARING OF RESOLUTION APPROVING THE RIVER ROCK CORPORATION, LUZERN CORPORATION AND BASEL CORPORATION SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR MAJOR PLAT AMENDMENT AND SCENIC VIEW PROTECTION REVIEW — MOTION TO APPROVE, AS AMENDED Staff: Suzanne Wolff, Senior Planner Applicants: River Rock Corporation, Luzern Corporation, and Basel Corporation Representatives: Glenn Horn and Bart Johnson Email from Paula Douglass, neighbor, withdrawing her objections to the above application. This was submitted by staff at beginning of hearing. Suzanne Wolff From: Ptdouglass Sent: C Wednesday, January 08, 2014 11:50 AM To: WOLFF SUZANNE; suzanne.wolff@pitkincounty.com Cc: J. Johnson Bart Subject: BOCC hearing re: Knollwood Lots 1,2 and 3 Dear Suzanne, > I am pleased to advise that we have reached agreement with the owners > of Lots 1, 2 and 3. I am satisfied with the terms of the agreement > and withdraw our objections to their application to the Board of > County Commissioners. You are authorized to inform the Board that our > existing concerns have been addressed and that the applicants are > authorized with the hearing today, although I will not be in > attendance. I am most grateful for all of your help with this effort and look forward to seeing you soon. With all best wishes for a Happy New Year, Paula • 1