Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOCC.packet 06112014 - GOVT 33 LLCMEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners Regular Me�etii �Ommumty une It, 2014 THRU: Cindy Holi'be'n Development Director FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Senior Planner RE: GOVT 33 LLC Extension of Vested Rights SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 2 -20 -170, the Applicant is seeking a three year (or longer) extension of the vested right to construct a single family residence. The Applicant has constructed residences on two adjacent parcels over the last seven years, and asserts that the extension would give the neighbors a reprieve from more construction. Staff recommended denial of the request. As noted at the March 12 meeting, the Applicant submitted a complete building permit on March 27, 2012, prior to the expiration of the vested rights. The building permit was issued on March 27, 2013, and was due to expire on March 27, 2014. The Applicant obtained a building inspection on March 12, therefore, the permit is active for 180 days from that date. The BOCC continued the hearing on March 12, 2014 (minutes attached). The Applicant submitted an amended proposal on June 2, 2014 (attached) that is discussed below. A letter submitted by neighbor Peter >~ornell after the March 12 hearing is also attached. APPLICANT: GOVT 33 LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Mitch Haas LOCATION: 877 Spruce Street ZONING/LOT SIZE: The parcel contains 1.581 acres and is nonconforming in size in the TR -2 zone district. STAFF COMMENTS: UPDATED PROPOSAL: The Applicant has met with Open Space and Trails staff to discuss pursuing an open space subdivision exemption, in order to divide off the upper portions of the three parcels owned by the Applicant at the top of Spruce Street and convey those lands to the County for open space purposes. The properties are all adjacent to the Smuggler Mountain Open Space. Open Space staff is amenable to the proposal, and will be available at the meeting to respond to questions. The proposal has been forwarded to the neighbors for their review. If the BOCC is interested in the Applicant's proposal, then the Applicant is requesting that the BOCC give him two months to pursue the subdivision exemption. While the subdivision exemption would not be completed within two months (due to noticing requirements, etc.), mid - August would be the latest opportunity for the Applicant to re -start work to keep the permit alive, if necessary. Therefore, in August, the BOCC would either (1) deny the extension of vested rights (and the Applicant would act on I of to the building permit); (2) approve the extension of vested rights, subject to final approval of the subdivision exemption, or (3) continue the extension of vested rights for final approval concurrent with approval of the subdivision exemption. RECOMMENDATION: • If the BOCC is interested in the Applicant's proposal, staff recommends that the BOCC continue the request for an extension of vested rights to August 13, 2014. • If the BOCC is not interested in the Applicant's proposal, staff recommends that the BOCC adopt a "motion to deny the GOVT 33 LLC Extension of Vested Rights, subject to the attached Resolution." Attachments A. 3112114 BOCC Minutes B. 612114 Proposal from Applicant C. Peter Fornell letter a RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, DENYING THE GOVT 33 LLC EXTENSION OF VESTED REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS Resolution No. -2014 RECITALS GOVT 33 LLC ( "Applicant ") has applied to the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners ('BOCC ") to request a three year (or more) extension of the vested rights to construct a single family residence on the property. The Applicant requests that the extension allow for the development to continue to be governed by the Land Use Code ( "Code ") that was in effect at the time of the original approval (the 2000 Code). 2. The property is located at 877 Spruce Street, and is more specifically described in Exhibit A. 3. The property contains 1.581 acres and is nonconforming in the TR -2 zone district. 4. The Hearing Officer denied a request for 1041 Hazard Review and Conceptual Submission approval, pursuant to Determination No. 25 -2004, based on the finding that the entire parcel is encumbered by slopes in excess of 30 %, where development was prohibited by the Code. The BOCC then determined that the denial constituted a taking, and remediated the taking by granting approval for development of a single family residence, pursuant to Resolution No. 006 -2005. The BOCC subsequently extended the vested rights for seven years until April 13, 2012, pursuant to Resolution No. 044 -2005. A seven year extension was found to be appropriate, given the Applicant's commitment to limit the house size to 5,750 square feet. The 1041 Hazard Review Site Plan is recorded in Plat Book 73 at Page 73. 6. The Hearing Officer granted Scenic Overlay Review approval for a driveway to serve the GOVT 33 LLC parcel and the adjacent Smuggler C LLC parcel (888 Spruce Street), pursuant to Determination No. 15 -2004. The owner subsequently obtained an access permit and constructed the driveway. 7. The Hearing Officer granted Scenic View Protection Review approval for the residence, pursuant to Determination No. 2 -2012. The Board of Adjustment granted variances to the front and side yard setbacks, pursuant to Resolution No. 03-2012. 8. The Applicant submitted a complete building permit on March 27, 2012, prior to the expiration of the vested rights. The building permit was issued on March 27, 2013, and will expire on March 27, 2014 unless a building inspection is obtained prior to that date in order to keep the permit active. The BOCC considered the application at regular meetings on March 12 and June 11, 2014, at which times evidence and testimony were presented with respect to this application. Resolution No. -2014 Page 2 10. The BOCC finds that the Applicant has had nine years to proceed with the development approved in 2005. During that time the property was rezoned from AR -10 to TR -1, which limits the intensity and scale of development to small sized buildings and structures. 11. The BOCC finds that the needs of the County would not be served by granting an extension of vested rights that would allow for the development to continue to be governed by the Code that was in effect at the time of the original approval (the 2000 Code), as requested by the Applicant, and that the needs of the County would only be served by an extension of the vested rights, if the Applicant was required to comply with the current TR -1 zoning of the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners that it does hereby deny the GOVT 33 LLC Extension of Vested Rights. DENIED on the 11 `h day of June, 2014. ATTEST: Jeanette Jones, Deputy Clerk and Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Ely, County Attorney Case 4PO09 -14 PID 273707100040 Ll BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Robert A. Ittner, Jr., Chair Date: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: an4 Houben, Community Development Director The Board of County Commissioners shall be notified by their staff at the next scheduled Work Session or Regular Meeting of any violations that staff finds of these terms and conditions. N E. Commissioner Richards informed the applicant that the owner of this business has stantial investments already here and that he could lose the ability to operate the bus ss in the way it was intended if these stipulations and conditions are not lived up to. Commissioner wman seconded the motion. Motion passed 4 to 0 with Commissioners Itt r, Richards, Owsley and Newman voting aye and Commissioner Child not present. 14- ne A1atennae — MOTION TO Staff: Mike Kraemer, Planner Applicant: Burkholder Investments L Nerizon Wireless Representative: Brad Johnson, Consult t for Verizon Wireless Action: Commissioner Newman moved to prove the Resolution Granting Approval for the Burkholder Investments LTDIVerizon ireless Special Review for Building Mounted Cellular Telephone Antennae. Com ' sioner Owsley seconded the motion. Motion passed 4 to 0 with Commissioners Ittner, ichards, Owsley and Newman voting aye and Commissioner Child not present. LAND USE ACTIONS: F ding of Resolution Denying the GOVT 33 LLC Extension of Vested Real ert Ri hts — MOTION TO CONTINUE TO MAY 14 2014 ff: Suzanne Wolff, Senior Planner licant: GOVT 33 LLC Representative: Mitch Haas First Action: Commissioner Owsley moved to approve the Extension of Vested Real Property Rights for GOVT 33, LLC for three years (with the contribution of $106,000.00 towards the Spruce Street improvements). Commissioner Richards seconded the motion. Motion FAILED 2 -2 with Commissioners Richards and Ittner voting aye and Commissioners Owsley and Newman voting nay and Commissioner Child not present. Second Action: Commissioner Ittner moved to continue the Reading of Resolution Denying the GOVT 33 LLC Extension of Vested Real Property Rights for one year. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Third Action: Commissioner Ittner moved to continue the Reading of Resolution Denying the GOVT 33 LLC to April 9, 2014, MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 5 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 12, 2014 Fourth Action: Commissioner Richards moved to continue the Reading of Resolution Denying the GOVT 33, LLC to May 14, 2014. Commissioner Ittner seconded the motion. Motion passed 4 to 0 with Commissioners Ittner, Richards, Owsley and Newman voting aye and Commissioner Child not present. There was n ADJOURNMENT: Discussion held today. Action: Commissioner Newm djourned the Regular Meeting at 3:45 PM. Commissioner Richards seconded motion. Motion passed 4 to 0 with Commissioners Ittner, Richards, Owsley Newman voting aye and Commissioner Child not present. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 6 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 12, 2014 u Suzanne Wolff From: Mitch Haas Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 4:26 PM To: Suzanne Wolff; Gary Tennenbaum (gary.tennenbaum @pitkincounty.com); Matt Adeletti; Dale Will Cc: Shaun Kennedy; Robert G. Sinclair (rob @rgsarchitecture.com); Warren Lichtenstein Subject: Gov't Lot 33 "Proposal" Relative to Vested Rights Extension Attachments: OS Donation Map- llxl7.pdf; Untitled attachment 00238.htm Dear Suzanne, Gary, Matt and Dale: Please consider this email as an update to our proposal and request for an extension of the vested rights associated with Gov't Lot 33. As a follow -up to our conversations and site visit, I've spoken with my client, Warren Lichtenstein, and he is glad to pursue asking the BOCC for our Gov't Lot 33 vested rights extension (we're asking for a permanent vested right) in exchange for completing a subdivision exemption that would create three new open space parcels, in essence to enable our separating out all lands above his building envelopes on each of his three parcels for an unrestricted and permanent donation of these lands to Pitkin County OST for passive uses. To be clear, Warren has agreed to donate the lands for the vested rights with no other conditions or restrictions on how OST might use and manage the lands in the future provided such use and management is always carried out in accordance with OST's typical philosophy, rules, vision and management practices for passive use lands. In other words, these parcels would be treated no differently than would any other passive use OST parcel. The county would receive the open space land donations on a permanent basis and without restrictions, and Warren would preserve his existing development right permanently and subject only to the restrictions that are outlined in his previous approvals (Activity Envelope, Scenic Review, and Board of Adjustment) as well as any additional restrictions that might be duly adopted by the County as rules of general applicability. I envision going back to the BOCC on June 11 to ask that they "bless" the concept and grant us a 2 -month stay on the vested rights associated with the active building permit to demonstrate that we are diligently pursuing the open space subdivision and donation. At the end of the two months, we would check back in with the BOCC to show that the Open Space and Trails Board supports the donations and that we are diligently pursuing the subdivision exemption to make it happen. Assuming the OST Board is supportive, at the time of the two month check -in with the BOCC, they would grant another stay on the building permit expiration to allow us time to complete the subdivision exemption process or, better yet, they would formally agree that simultaneous with final approval, plat recordation for the subdivision and completion of the donation of the lands to PitCo OST, we would start a new and permanent vested rights period. If, on the other hand, we learn during those 2 months that the OST Board is not supportive for whatever reason, and the BOCC no longer wants to pursue the open space donation, then the BOCC could simply deny the vested rights extension and we'd be forced to immediately act on the building permit and pursue completion of the approved development. Anything longer than this 2 -month timeframe would leave us at risk of losing the necessary amount of time to complete the next phase of construction before the ground freezes, thereby jeopardizing our active building permit and associated rights. Basically, we cannot afford to drag the process and any uncertainty out past the middle of August. That about outlines the basics of the plan/deal as I see it. Of course, we'd want you (Gary, Matt or Dale) at the BOCC on June ll to explain the "public benefit" and, hopefully, your desire for the BOCC to accept this deal -- or at least a memo from you to this effect. I think it would also be prudent for Gary, Matt or Dale, as a PitCo OST representative, to explain to the BOCC why you'd prefer the land donation to a conservation easement as I suspect they'd ask this question. Finally, I also suspect the BOCC would ask why the land donation provides an important public benefit given that the land areas to be donated are above /outside of the approved activity envelopes and cannot be developed anyway. I could provide responses to these questions, but I am certain the responses would carry a good deal more weight coming from you guys than they would coming from me. Lastly, I worked with Bridgette at the GIS Department to put together the attached map. Please have a look at it and let me know if you feet it conveys the concept well enough in relation to all of your other /surrounding open space parcels. If you think I should be showing something additional or differently, by all means, please let me know. The land areas shown are estimates and would be made more precise with surveying work to be done in association with a subdivision application. On all three parcels, I will build in adequate setbacks from the back of the developed area to the open space donation parcel. On Gov't 33, I'll need the subdivision to incorporate some rear yard setback variance provision to accommodate development in the envelope and also to accommodate the soil nails that would eventually extend into the open space donation parcel/hillside above (but underground). Otherwise, I could slide that boundary line 25 or so feet (horizontally) further up the hillside to provide the needed setback and soil nailing capability, If all this setback stuff seems too complicated, I could — as an alternative — simply ask as part of the subdivision process that the top of the donated open space pieces still be considered the rear yard/rear property line for each of 777, Gov't 33 and Smuggler C with respect to each's setback requirements. Please get back to me at your earliest convenience with any thoughts. Many thanks! Best regards, Mitch Mitch Haas Haas Land Planning, LLC 420 East Main Street, Suite 10 -B Aspen, CO 81611 Phone: (970) 925 -7819 Email. mitch @hJpaspen.com APlease consider the environment before printing this email ? 2 c r Z C7 yv 1 C� C4"A c7) N-) KIN 'VI\ i p C � V � VAC! to