Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005727smugglerresultTO: THRU: FROM: RE: AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Board of Cotmty Conunissioners Regular Meeting - July 27, 2005 Cindy Houben+~ o~m°~t~m~lty Development Director Suzanne Wolff; Senior Plmmer* Smuggler Result 1041 Hazard Review, Conceptual Submission, Scenic Overlay Review, Special Review, GMQS Exemption and Request to Modify the County Road Maintenance Classification - Continued Public Hearing SUMMARY: The Applicant originally requested approval to establish a building envelope within which to construct a single family residence of up to 8,250 square feet of floor area. The Applicant is now requesting to establish the property as a TDR receiver site to obtain a development right to develop a maximum of 5,750 square feet of floor area. In addition, the Applicant is requesting to modify the road maintenance classification from "limited" to "low" for the portion of Smuggler Road from the Erck (fica Stanger) house to the new residence. The BOCC considered and continued the application on February 9 to give the Applicant an opportunity to amend the application to further address scenic impacts. At the Applicant's request, the BOCC then continued the application on March 9, April 13, May 11, May 25 and June 22. The Applicant intends to ask to continue the application again, and will provide an update at the meeting regarding their efforts to pursue alternatives to the development of the parcel. APPLICANT: Smuggler Ridge Associates LLC and Tulasi Wilkinson REPRESENTATIVES: Doug Dotson & Dave Myler ISSUES: TDR Receiver Site: The Applicant has withdrawn the request to utilize a second TDR to accommodate an additional 2,500 square feet of floor area on the site; therefore, the request is now limited to the use of one TDR for a total of 5,750 square feet of floor area. Staff continues to find that the request to designate the property as a TDR receiver site is not consistent with the special review criteria, as specified in the staff memo dated 2/9/05. Scenic Overlay: The Applicant has provided a new visualization analysis (dated March 26, 2005) based on the 5,750 square foot maximum. The Applicant has not prepared detailed architectural plans for the residence; the visualization analysis is based on a general footprint that is representative of the potential house size and from which a massing model was generated. The residence has been moved behind the ridgeline that was discussed in staff's original memo dated 2/9/05, as well as at the BOCC meeting on 2/9/05. This relocation addresses many of the concerns raised by staff with regard to compliance with the scenic overlay review criteria in the Code. Specifically, staffhad noted that the Applicant had not utilized the existing topography to screen the residence and "has not proposed to utilize the small northwest trending ridge as screening and has not fully utilized the flatter areas of the site (within the setback) in order to accommodate more of the development off of the ridge." The revised site plan moves the residence off of the ridge and into the fiat area. In addition, staff asserted that the development's height and bulk had not been designed to avoid, to the maximum extent possible, the visibility of buildings from the highway. "The Applicant has not limited the height of the portion of the structure on the ridge, set the structure back from the edge of the ridge, or limited potential cuts on the ridge to lower the grade." The revised models depict a one story element on the front (south) side of the residence, with a two story element limited to the back side of the residence. In addition, the Applicant notes that moving the residence off of the ridge provides additional room for landscaping on the south side of the residence to provide additional screening. Given the changes proposed by the Applicant, staff finds that the development complies with the scenic overlay criteria. Modification of County Road Maintenance Classification: The Applicant originally requested to change the maintenance classification from "limited" to "iow" of the portion of Smuggler Road from just beyond the Erck residence up to the switchback on Smuggler Road where the building envelope will be accessed (approximately 800 feet) to accommodate winter maintenance and other improvements. The Applicant now commits to improve the road to the minimum necessary, to "assume the responsibility for routine maintenance of the portion of Smuggler Mountain Road at issue here as well as snow removal," and to xvithdraw the reclassification request. Ho~vever, sub-section 3.05.01(A) of the Asset Management Plan states, "The plowing of snow, by the County or others, shall not be undertaken within limited service areas. Access to private properties and approved recreational attractions shall be gained via other means, such as snow cat, snowmobile, cross country skiing, snowshoe, or foot." Therefore, modification of the road maintenance classification is required if plowing is to occur. Public Works anticipates presenting the Asset Management Plan update to the BOCC in December. As stated in the 2/9/05 memo, Public Works has recommended that any service level changes be considered as part of this comprehensive review of the AMP. Preservation of Della & The Applicant is "prepared to preserve the 10 acre Della S Lode against any development if they are able to obtain a reasonable level of development approvals on the Result and Contraband." The Contraband application is currently pending (considered and continued by the Planning Commission on May 17, 2005). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial ofthe Smuggler Result 1041 Hazard Review, Conceptual Submission, Scenic Overlay, Special Review, GMQS Exemption and Modification of County Road Maintenance Classification, subject to the attached Resolution. Attaclmaents A. Dave Myler letter dated 3/1/05 B. Minutes of 2/9/05 BOCC meeting Visualization Analysis provided with the 4/13/05 packet 2 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COM34[ISSIONERS OF PITK[N COUNTY, COLORADO, DENYING THE SMIJGGLER RESULT 1041 HAZARD REVIEW, CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION, SPECIAL REVI~;W AND GMQS EXEM]PTION FOR A TDR RECEIVER SITE Resolution No. -2005 RECITALS Tulasi Wilkinson and Smuggler Ridge Associates LLC ("Applicant") applied to the Pitkin County Board of County Connnissioners ("BOCC") for approval to establish a building envelope within which to construct a single family residence. The Applicant originally requested to establish the property as a TDR receiver site to obtain a development right and additional floor area up to 8,250 square feet of floor area. The Applicant subsequently withdrew the request to utilize a second TDR to accommodate an additional 2,500 square feet of floor area on the site; therefore, the request is now limited to the use of one TDR for a total of 5,750 square feet of floor area. The parcel is located on Smuggler Road, and is more specifically described in Exhibit A. The parcel contains approximately 7 acres and is a non-conforming size parcel in the AFR-10 zone district. The originally patented Result mining claim merged over time with other surrounding mining claims under common ownership. The Result was then separated from the other claims as the result ora court ordered marital partition. The County recognizes the parcel as legally created, but it does not have a development right. This property is withiu the area that the BOCC recently rezoned to TR-2 (Transitional Residential-2). This application was deemed complete and was in the review process prior to the rezoning, and, therefore, is to be considered pursuant to the prior AFR-10 zoning. The BOCC considered this aPplication at duly noticed public hearings on February 9, March 9, April 13, May 1 I, May 25, June 22 and July 27, 2005, at which times evidence and testimony were presented with respect to this application. The BOCC finds that the development is not consistent with the special review criteria for a TDR receiver site based on the following: A. Development of a residence containing 5,750 square feet is not consistent with the intent of the adopted East of Aspen/Independence Pass Master Plan. While the master plan acknowledges the potential for residential development on Smuggler, the intent of the plan was clearly to encourage less density and less intensity, and to protect Smuggler as a visual resource and a more rural/primitive area than the urban areas belo~v. B. The property is outside of the Urban Growth Boundary and in the Rural Area, where higher densities and more urbm~ development are discouraged. C. The size and siting of the residence change the character of the area by creeping large residential development farther up the hillside and farther away from existing residential development, and are not compatible with the visual character of the surrounding area. The BOCC further finds that the proposed building and disturbance envelopes do not fully comply with the provisions of Section 3-80-050(C) of the Land Use Code, which prohibit development on slopes in Resolution No. -2005 Page 2 excess of 30%, except in specific cimmnstances. Specifically, while the disturbance envelope for the septic system is located on slopes of less than 30% on the lower bench, this area cannot be accessed or connected to the residence within the property boundaries without impacting slopes in excess of 30% and 45%. In addition, areas on the southwest and south sides of the building envelope and the disturbance envelope on the southwest side of the building envelope contain continuous slopes in excess of 30%. NOW TItEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners that it does hereby deny the Smuggler Result 1041 Hazard Review, Conceptaal Submission, Special Review and GMQS Exemption for a TDR Receiver Site. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PUBLISHED IN THE ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY on the 16th day of October, 2004. DENIED this 27~ day of July, 2005. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO ATTEST: Jeanette Jones Clerk to the BOCC APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Ely, County Attorney By¸ Patti Kay-Clapper, Chair Date APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Co~ranunity Development Director P160-04 PID#273707400042 D^wo J MYLER~ ROBYN J MYLER~ 23 ADMITTED IN CO, NYl, CT~ CHER ?-. VINCENT, PARALEGAL CONNIE A WOOD, LEGAL ASSISTANT THE MYLER LAW FIRM, P.C. A Colorado Professional Corporation 106 SOUTH MILL STREET SUITE 202 ASPEN, COLORADO 8161 I and 211 MIDLAND AVENUE SUITE 201 BASALT, COLORADO 81621 TELEPHONE (970! 920-10I g FACSIMILE (970) 920-4259 EMAILS dmyler~mylerlawpc.¢om rmyler~mylerlawpc.com cvincentOmylerlawpc.corn ewoodOmylerlawpc.com March 1, 2005 VIA EMAIL and U. S. MAlL Suzanne Wolff Pitkin County Community Development 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Smfig-gler; Reiult. Prop.e~ty ~ A, pplication fok ~J041-Hazard Review, Conceptual Su~ohsi~Si~fi, GMQs Ekempt'ion arid'M0di'fibhk'f$fi,:0f Couhty .Road Maintenance Classification Dear Suzanne: Smuggler Ridge Associates and l'ulasi Wilkinson (the "Applicants'5 filed the Land Use Applications referenced above which, if approved, would allow construction of a single-famil3 residence on the Result Lode containing up to 8,250 square feet of floor area On behalf of the Applicants. the request for additional floor area in the amount of 2,500 square feet through the use of a second TDR is hereby withdrawn. Applicants continue to request approvals necessary to construct a single-family residence containing up to 5:750 square feet. However~ in response to issues and concerns raised by staff and the BOCC, we propose the following modifications: 1. Smuggler Mountain Road Issues. As a condition of approval, Applicants will upgrade Smuggler Mountain Road above the point that County maintenance currently ends to the driveway serving the Result. We propose to meet with Bud Eylar to determine the level and extent of upgrades that will be necessary to provide a safe and adequate access for emergency vehicles (primarily a fire truck) and adequate drainage. It would be our objective to make the minimum upgrades necessary to achieve those objectives in order to pre,~etwe the rural, backcountry character of the road tO the greatest extent possible. Applicants and their successors will assume the responsibility for routine maintenance of the portion of Smuggler Mountain Road at issue here as well as sno~ removal. As a result, the request for a modification of the County's road maintenance classification i~ u,:n_~e~r~a:r~y and is hereby withdrawn. 2. ~C01~tgtcii6n ~Nnagem~nt}: ~is-~lic"an~s~wili.~'eFmiflit.ito work ~itla stafftc/develop a Construction Managembnt Plan intended t6 ~h{nirnize tfaf~c On Shnflggie~'Mountain Road duping THE MYLER LAW FIRM, P.C. SuzanneWolff March I, 2005 Page 2 construction. Deliveries will be minimized and scheduled to avoid the times of the day when Smuggler Mountain Road experiences the highest use by hikers and bikers. Applicants will also require contractors to shuttle construction workers from the Rio Grande parking lot, the Buttermilk parking lot, the County's parking lot at the airport or some other remote location. 3. Site Plan. In an eft'on to minimize the potential visual impacts of a residence on the Result, particularly when viewed from downtown Aspen, Applicants will present a modified Site Plan for consideration at our next meeting. By reducing house size, committing to construct a portion of the allowed floor area below-grade, and shifting the building envelope closer to the adjacent boundary with public lands (even though a variance will be required) and away from the ridge line, Applicants believe that the visual impact can be adequately mitigated. 4. Affordable Housing Impact Fee Applicants will consent to the voluntary payment of a Affordable Housing Impact Fee based upon the following table which was contained in a November 11, 2004 memorandum in support of an employee housing impact fee proposal: a. 2,000 - 2,999 sq.ft. $6,250.00 b. 3,000 - 3,999 sq.ft. $8,854.00 c. 4,000 - 4,999 sq.ft. $12,314.00 d. 5,000 - 5,750 sq.ft. $16,965.00 The voluntary Impact Fee will be payable upon issuance of a building permit. 5. Preservation of Della S. As discussed in some detail at our initial meeting, Applicants are'prepared to preserve the ten acre Della S Lode against any development if they are able to obtain a reasonable level of development approvals on the Result and the Contraband. As all parties are aware, an application for development on the Contraband is currently pending. As with the Result, Applicants intend to amend that application to reduce the permissible size of a residence on the ten acre Contraband Lode to 5,750 square Iket. At our next meeting, Applicants will present additional information describing the benefits to the community which result from preservation of the Della S. Justification for Requested Floor Area Even without the foregoing commitments, Applicants believe that a residence of 5,750 square feet on the Result is reasonable, consistent with the East of Aspen Master Plan and even consistent with the recently adopted TR-2 Zone District. In support of this conclusion, please consider the following: 1. As confirmed by stafl; neither the East of Aspen Master Plan nor the TR-2 Zone District preclude residential development on the Result. In fact, those regulations contemplate and assume that some level of development on the Result is appropriate. THE MYLER LAW FIRM, P.C. Suzanne Wolff March 1,2005 Page 3 2. At 5,750 square feet, a residence on the Result will be substantially smaller than the residences which are immediately below and slightly to the east (7,300 and 8,600 square feet, respectively), thus, resulting in a less intense use and facilitating the transition objectives of the Master Plan and TR-2 Zone District. 3. The TR-2 Zone District regulations recognize vested rights, including those associated with a pending application for development approval such as the one in question here. This language was inserted in order that projects would be considered "conforming" up to approved square footage despite being re-zoned to TR-2. There is no reason to reserve conforming use status if it would be inappropriate to approve homes larger than what the TR-2 Zone District would otherwise allow. 4. Visual impacts can and will be adequately mitigated. 5. Construction impacts can and will be adequately managed. 6,./.,~ Consist~ent. w!th the,spi~ito£the[ne~,T~,2 regulations development potential from a more sen.sifiv¢: area..Q~'.Sm,~tggler Mountain (the Della S) will be transferred to the Result (and Contraband), justifying an increase in house size. 7. Applicants are committed to preserving the rurai character of the Smuggler Mountain Road while providing the minimum level of upgrade required to assure emergency access. Applicants will relieve the County of the fiscal burdens that would otherwise be associated with extending maintenance and snow plowing beyond the current limit. Based upon the foregoing, as well as the information to be submitted at our next meeting, Applicants respectivelY request approval of this amended Application with such conditions as are reasonably required to implement Applicants' mitigation Commitments. ! would appreciate it if you will provide copies 0fthe letter to the Board of County Commissioners in advance of the meeting scheduled for March 9, 2005. Very truly yours, B y-: ~ ~ David J. Myler cc:" PaulZako_~z}ch,(Via Erhail) ~ ,~:. ,:. '~- '~:4 ~, ~ ~: '; ~' :,~¥, ~ ~:'~ , ' Peter ~omas for Tukasi Wikinson (Yia Bmai[).:- ?:' ~:;~ ~ ~' q: ?.: ~.~,, y. -, ........ / Doug Dotson (Via Facsimile) SMUGGLER RESULT 1041 HAZARD REVIEW~ CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION; SPECIAL REVIEW AND GMQS EXEMPTION FOR A TDR RECEIVED SITE STAFF PERSON: SUZANNE WOLFF - APPLICANT: SMUGGLER RIDGE ASSOCIATES LLC (contract purchaser) AND TULASI WILKINSON (owner) MOTION TO CONTINUE TO MARCH 09~ 2005 Ms. Wolff began her presentation as shown in her memorandum to the board. Said memorandum can be found in the meeting packet. During Ms. Wolffs presentation it was discovered and announced that the applicant does have a well permit from the State for ordinary household purposes only inside a single family dwelling and shall not be Used outside the house for any purpose. Commissioner Farris asked for the size of the building site on this 7-acre site. Mr. Dotson responded that it was about 12-13,000 square feet Dave Myler, legal representative for the applicant introduced Paul Rakovich, contract purchaser and Fred Cook. Doug Dotson, planner for the,applicant started with his part of the applicant's presentation. His letter responding to staff and agency comments dated January 11, 2005 can be found in the meeting packet. Mr. Dotson submitted a map to explain their thought of restricting any development or part of the house on the affected ridge to a one-story section of the house. Their goal then would be to pull the two-story section of the house back beyond the ridge and starts dropping down. They have no intention of lowering any of this area of the ridge. He thought that there might have been a concern that pulling that down exposes more of the house. That's not their intent. Mr. Myler proceeded with his part of the presentation regarding the house size of 8,250 square feet which staff believes is too large. Mr. Myler said they are prepared to offer, in the form of an a~:eement, a proposal to pay an af~brdable housing impact fee based upon the formulas as set forth in the draft ordinance now being circulated for approval. It would result in $44,000.00. The Result, which is legally subdivided right now, is not required to provide any affbrdable housing mitigation. The applicants will be paying a road impact fee, Mr. Myler stated. They xvill be improving the road in advance of construction. With regard to future maintenance, he said that if it came down to approval or denial they would agree to plow the road from where the County currently ends or where the plowing currently ends. But, in all fairness, he added, he thinks that if they are paying impact fees and taxes and there can be an agreement on the house size, the County should pick up the plowing obligation. It was further added by Mr. Myler that the applicants are willing to fix the road to the level discussed. Temple Glassier, County Project Manager was quick to respond that fixing the road to the level discussed was at the fire department's level, not at the County level. Mr. Myler also commented on sterilization of further development of the Della S mining claim with is about 10-acres and is bisected by the County Road. It is adjacent to a 35- acre piece owned by the County. Part of it is in the Transition Zone and part of it is in rural/remote. Ms. Glassier addressed the Access Management Plan currently being worked on with regard to various service levels provided or not provided by the County. After further discussion, particularly on the road maintenance, the Commissioners had several comments. Commissioner Hatfield said that he thinks 5750 square feet is more appropriate in this area. Commissioner Ireland said that he can't support 8250 on this site. And, that the road impact fee is really restricted to capitol improvements, but not maintenance. He said that he doesn't feel this is a County windfall as far as a road impact fee. And, he said that he doesn't believe that a wider, smoother road is ali that beneficial. He said that he doesn't want to see the character of that road changed. One of Commissioner Farris' concerns was with regard to Wilk Wilkinson's letter in the meeting packet. She said that Mr. Wilkinson had stated he did not have a problem with this house as long as the various conditions stated in his letter had already been met. She needs to know whether or not all of those conditions have been met or will be met. Chairperson Kay-Clapper opened the hearing to public comment. Hearing none, she closed the public hearing. Mr. Myler asked what was an appropriate house size on this property? Mr. Ely responded that the property was subject to a rezoning that the board affected about two weeks ago that showed a zoning change of 2500 with a possible augmentation of 3500 square feet. Chairperson Kay-Clapper stated that because the Contraband and the Result applications were in and complete prior to that, they are not subject to that at this point. They would be, she continued, if this application would be denied and had to be brought back. A discussion ensued on this issue. Commissioner Hatfield said then that today's question is what is the board's vision for that house size based upon what was adopted two weeks ago. commissioner Hatfield moved to enter Executive Session at 5:15 PM. Commissioner Farris seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. The board returned to their regular meeting at 5:24 PM. Mr. Myler added that the applicants' expectations have always been that they would do whatever upgrades the County would require to the road whether it's the full super- highway approach or something more rural as Commissioner Ireland suggested. If the snowplowing is an issue, they will plow the snow. He said it wouldn't make or break their project. He doesn't see that as a reason for denial. Commissioner Hatfield said that he isn't sure if the criteria of the Code says the County can put a lot of weight on the Access Management Plan, but we understand where that's at and where it has to go. But, he continued, to him that's a huge issue. To him the two most important issues before the board are scenic overlay and special review criteria of the Code. Commissioner Hatfield moved to deny per the resolution before the board. Commissioner Farris seconded the motion. Mr. Myler would like to suggest a continuation in order to come back with more creative ideas regarding visual impacts. Commissioner Ireland said that he believes in giving an applicant another chance to amend their presentation. Commissioner Farris stated that scenic quality and size are major issues but the continuation needs to also include what is being protected by this application being a TDR landing site and whether or not this site should be a TDR landing site. Commissioner Hatfield withdrew his motion and Commissioner Farris withdrew her second. Commissioner Hatfield then moved to continue this application to March 09, 2005. Commissioner Ireland seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.