HomeMy WebLinkAboutadditional.exhibits ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT THE SEPTEMBER 10, 2003 PITKIN
COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' SPECIAL MEETING
EXHIBIT AGENDA ITEM EXHIBIT DATE
NO.
A Public Comment Letter from Glenn Rappaport 09-10-03
Architect, to BOCC re: Definition
of Dwelling Unit
B Morrow Wingo Junction Ranch Letter from Gary L. Beach to Cindy09-09-03
Subdivision/PUD conceptual Houben Re: Morrow 1041
Submission Application
10
03
Oliphant Notes for BOCC:
After a recent meeting with the planning office, on the subject of the definition of
Dwelling Unit and review of the current county policies which dea. l with the
interpretation of this definition, it was suggested by the staff, that I come and speak to the
Board of County Commissioners directly, in order to see if there was any interest in
having a meeting or wbrk session to discuss this matter in more detail.
It seems that from a design and use perspective and from an experiential as well as
sustainability perspective, we might all benefit by looking at the policies surrounding the
definition of Dwelling Unit, particularly as it relates to the idea of multiple detached
structures on single family parcels in Pitkin County.
· I believe that the policies regarding this issue are unnecessarily limiting, and that all of
the county's goals concerning the protection of wildlife, view planes, wild fire,
sustainability and life safety can remain intact, while offering a more interesting set of
experiences to the user
The idea of a residence being comprised of multiple small-scale structures is, of course,
not a new one, as we all know, many of our historic ranches and even more urban parcels
in and around the Aspen area have employed this strategy. Even in Basalt we have, in the
historic R-3 TN district encouraged a multiple structure approach as a way to create
better usability, and to promote the construction of buildings that are more in scale with
their surroundings.
As we all know, planning and zoning rules and regulations require feedback from time to
time in order to remain living, vital documents. It would be great to have the opportunity
to continue this discussion.
89/18/2883 89:13 19705,41998 WODEHOUSE BUILDERS
S~p ~0 03 08~3G~ ~0~ ~IS~E~ ~70
~-8~-8~ 14:87 FROM:
T0:83-B~7887
HOLLAND HILLS ETROPO ,ITAN DISTRICT
715 W. MAIN ~T. SUITE $Oa A$i~N,¢O $1511 ~70)~2~.3475
~i[kin Co~ Co~nuatt ~clopm~t ~ ~ F~ ~k
I. 30 5. G~n~ Sl~t
~en, Colorado 816 ! 1 ~'~' ~ ~YZ~
~, o ~* ~7~"
~: M~Fow 1041 A~ l~on ~' q~- ~Z7 ~" '
Dear Cindy:
[ have been i~o~ by o .c ofo~r dis~ct ~sfi~t~ ~at cons~liants for Bob Mo~ow ~tcd,
during a Pl~ing ~d ~r ng hca~n~ cha ~. MO~O~ h~ ~11 o~s~p of~c ~qt~ ~ghts in thc
Atcxis ~bany Dit~ ~d t ,c K~c~ Ditch, 1 w~ alio informed ~at [hg County h~ ~a~n ~c
that evidence m iuppo~ ~h [ cl~m m~ be m~ted by 6ther~ ¢[~11g ownc~htp in ~hese w~ fights.
~ile I ~o not ~tew if thi: is the posixio~ of the Cowry or i~ st~ I have ibc following info~atiou
~o sha~ with you. 5 :
:
Thc Holta~d H[lls Me~ [Jt~ ~s~rict is fl~e su~essor m interest to cenatn water rlgha
~om lohnny ~.B. HoagI~ I al~d ~dmark Univc~l ~nd ~fl Thnm~l' m the Hol]~ld ~il.rs
Subdivision Homeowner's lssoc;atlon, whld)water rishts ~oullt~d to riot' 1~9 'th~ 0.794 cubic
pe~ ~cond of the Al~s A ~an¢y Ditch ~d not 1~ 1 .~06 :cfi ia d3~K~mr~[t~,
amou~ were dct¢rmi~d 1 ) b~owned by ~, Ho~d i~d Mr. Ti~ro~ ~d ~n~, ~ ~ resulc.o~
Civil Action No 5473, Piti ~ Co~Iy Disc[ct Co~ and ~[ ~oluoon of ~a~ Caie Mr.
Miller, a~omey for bo~h ~ :h companies h~ ~o~ thcs~ own~ship .~ounts in ~e Ho]la~d Hills.
M~mpolit~ D[s~ct, i' ~
[n 1002 all wat~ dgh~ o~ ed by ~e Holland Hill~'Hbm~l~'s A~iation w~e convoyed to tho
Dis~g~t ~d since ~h~ fling, ~e Dis~iot h~ b=cn bi'Ica for ~ h~ paid t0 ~e ~exis Atb~cy
Company, a pro-r~ sh~. ~e costs offop~a~ng~ [h~ ditch.. Ihe s~e ~mo~t is'eqaal to ~c 25 6%
own~hip'offthe District i, that dEch. It is our und~iandlng ~st Mr, Mo~ow ow~is 1.3 ol~ of thc
AlCxi~ ~b~cy Di~oh.(ou~. )l ~;io~ 3.86 cfs).
Thc pis~c, ~,o 9=Xs the ~ ~t~ Dit~ Comply l pro-r~ta shar~ ofop~afing ooo~ equal' to ~e
Dismct'~ ~wn~hip in~ in the water rights oft~ ditch. M~. Mo~w ~ip~ars to own 2 953 cfa of
· e Kc~tcr Ditch (out of g,5, ' ' ' ' '
5 c~) as succ~or m ~flterm~ to SII~I ~d ~elen Be~'s owncrs~p
claims confined wi~in CA 3473. '~ '
Cons~uent]% d~p[t¢ ~e · ~e~ions of Mr. Mo~O~'s ~nsa]t~, it ~pp~l t~[Mr. Mo~o~ ow~
t'
Em;dl u~ ~}~D~)bcachre~ourc~.com
Lance Clarke, 09:36 AM 9/10/2003, Fwd: Morrow subdivision Page 1 of 1
From: "Mike Augello" <mikeaugello~wodehousebuilders.com>
To: "Lance Clarke" <lancec~ci.aspen.co.us>
Subject: Morrow subdivision
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 09:10:22 -0600
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0)
Importance: Normal
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
<NGBBiHMGBNLNMAIFOKFEIELCCDAA.mikeaugello~wodehousebuilders.com>
X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
I am writing because I am a homeowner in the Holland Hills subdivision. I
understand that the Morrow subdivision is going before the BOCC this
afternoon. 'I feel very strongly that the issue of ditch rights should not
be left for someone else to figure out in the future. The application that
we reviewed contained statements by the Owner/Applicant that they owned all
the ditch rights for both ditches. This statement must be withdrawn, or
modified. As you know, ditch water is crucial to the Holland Hills
subdivision, the Roaring Fork Club, and others downstream. I can picture
some time in the future when the subdivision is built out, and the new
homeowners refer to the statements in this application as proof of their
water rights. This could lead to an ugly legal battle. ! don't expect the
BOCC to sort out all the details of water rights during this application
review, but it should be a simple task to get the applicant to withdraw
their claim to 100% of the water in the ditches. I understand that the only
ditch water they need for approval is enough to irrigate historically
irrigated fields, which should be easy for them to show. Please refer to
the letter to Cindy Houben, from Holland Hills Metro District / Gary Beach,
which I am faxing to your office this morning.
Incidentally, the last time I walked the area, the thistles were thriving.
Please be sure to include noxious weed management in conditions of approval.
Printed for Suzanne Wolff <suzannew~co.pitkin.co.us> 9/10/2003
89/18t2883 89:13 19785, 41998 WODEHOUSE BUILDERS PAGE 82
HOLLAND I.Lf]~.,~ ~:~F.O'P'OM'['AN DISTRtC~
$.pproxim~teiy 33,68% o: :he Aim<is Al'baneyDitch and 30,98% ofth~K~t~ Ditch. ~ith~' oft~e
~re~nt ~ll O~ship ~lI~ Mr. Mo~w may~wn mo~ t~ thee ~nt~, we ~e aw~ that
· c:'= ~c numem~ ot~r :wm~ ~oi~d with th~ w~t~r fishts. ~e~ inc~ud~ but may not be
limited to the Ro~ug ~C k Club, ~ & Pat ~ranoff, Phll ~d ~Ieen Weid~ ~{~ B~a, ~c.,
Ollio Bod~, St~ Boothe nd lhe C~ F~ily.
~¢ Bo~ oCDire~t~ o '~e ~oll~d ~ills Metropoli~n Distri~ h~ dir~t~d me ~ p~vide this
~n~atlon to ~u in the ,merit of cladding a po~ible mlsS~em~t ~d pm~di~ you wi~.~
~po~unity to determine CMr, Mo~ow's claims of own~hip have any t~aa on. your land u~
~ool~enda~ons,
A ~l cl~iicaioa of o~ n~hi~ ~ ~ ~c~ed by $eett ~ll~r, attorney for bo~ ditch ~mp~fi~.
His numb'~r i~ 920-1~S, Should you i~avo ~y qu~tiOn$, ~l~e fe~] ~ee to c~l,
Di~~~