Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutadditional.exhibits ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT THE APRIL 13, 2006 PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL JOINT MEETING WITH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RE: LAND USE CODE REVISIONS EXHIBIT AGENDA ITEM EXHIBIT DATE NO. A Land Use Code Revised Agenda April 13, 2006 S Land Use Code - Civic and Memorandum from April 12, 2006 Institutional Uses Marty Pickett to the sacc & Cindy Houben C Land Use Code - Civic and Memorandum from April 12, 2006 Institutional Uses Tim Malloy to the sacc & Cindy Houben 0 Land Use Code - Expansion Memorandum from April 12, 2006 of Non-Conforming Uses Jody Edwards to Cindy Houben E Land Use Code - Section 9- Draft Language of Not Dated 50-30( e) Changes F Land Use Code - (Civic & Petition Not Dated Institutional Uses) G Land Use Code - Agricultural Information Not Dated Property Tax Classification submitted by Chairman Ireland regarding Lazy Glen Lot Taxes H Land Use Code - Agricultural Memorandum from April 10, 2006 Property Tax Classification John Ely to Cindy Houben Land Use Code - Proposed Memorandum from April 13, 2006 Revisions Marta Steinmetz to Cindy Houben, Lance Clarke, Suzanne Wolff and Ezra Louthis J Land Use Code - Proposed Letter from Carol Not Dated Revisions and Sob Jenkins to the sacc K Land Use Code - Proposed Letter from Cathy Not Dated Provision (Civic & Institutional Crum etal to Cindy Uses) Houben, P&Z and the sacc L Land Use Code Additional Various Dates correspondence , I . PITKIN COUNTY LAND USE CODE APRIL 2006 PUBLIC HEARINGS April 13 Aaenda (Revised Apri/13, 2006) EXHIBIT A. Open Public Hearing I B. Clarify the agenda and procedures C. Request for topics to be added by BOCC, P&Z and Public D. Discussion Topics I. Continued Topics from April 11th, 12th; And, topic from April 13th agenda 1. Expansion of Existing Non-Conforming Civic and Institutional Uses 2. Lapsing of Building Envelopes 3. Special Review Uses in the Rural Area 4. Agricultural Property Tax Classification E. Consent Items I. Moved from Apri/11 to April 13 at Staffs recommendation due to new material . Staff summary located in both "Memorandum" & "Addendum to Staff Memo" 1. TORs/Conservation Easements 2.Wildlife Habitat Areas - General Buffer Standards 3.Constrained Site TORs 4Violations, Enforcement and Penalties II. New items at Staffs recommendation in Addendum to staff memo 1.Historic Preservation 2.Site Grading, Earthmoving, Vegetation Removal, Grubbing & Clearing 3.Meadowood Growth Management Exemption 4.Board of Adjustment Variances 5.Transitional Provisions III. Moved from Apri/11 to April 13 at Board's/PZ recommendation 1.Multiple Uses/One Principal Use Per Parcel 2.Floor Area Limits for Substandard Sized Lots in Non-FAR Zones F. Discussion Topics requested for discussion by the public (in published text), not previously discussed 1. Definition of Nordic Ski Areas/Motorized Equipment 2. RS-G Zone District 3. Definition of Work Day 4. Tree Cutting 5. Minor Additions/Improvements to Residential Structures (with value of $5,000 or less under old Code) 6. IBC Definition of Subgrade Space vs. Old Building Code 7. Building Height ~ 'I G. Discussion Topics previously discussed at 1st reading I Requested by Public for Reconsideration (in published code text) 1. 4000 square foot basement exemption from Flnnr Ar"'3 C3lcbll~tion t:.~~ !ik1tdftlV/t't 2.5,750 GMQS Exemption in UGB 3. B-1 Zone District H. Additional public comment on the LUC or LUC as amended. j From: I Z> J!l Cindy Houben Marty Pickett [mpickett@rmi.org) Wednesday, April 12, 2006 7:27 PM Mick Ireland forward; Dorothea Farris forward; hatfield@rof.net; Patti Clapper forward; Michael Owsley Cc: Cindy Houben Subject: Draft Land Use Code Import~nce: High Sent: To: Dear Commissioners, As you weigh issues related to draft Land Use Code provisions governing Civic and Institutional Uses, please consider their wide-ranging effects on civic and institutional uses throughout the County. Because the draft Code no longer allows institutions in the Public zone, certain existing institutions will become nonconforming uses. Others may become nonconforming with future code changes. One example of an institution that will bc affected is Rocky Mountain Institute. It may be helpful to you to understand the history of how Rocky Mountain Institute became a nonconfonping use and why this provision is urgent and critical to RMI's ability to remain and possibly expand in Old Snowmass. Most importantly, RMI (and Windstar Foundation) are asking the BOCC to honor commitments made by a past board of commissioners. In ] 978, very tough anti-growth county commissioners approved 40,000 sq. ft. of office and related uses on the Windstar Property in return for Windstar's agreeing to maintain as open space 927 acres of the 957 -acre site. It was an explicit quid pro quo. Rather than rezoning the property, the County approved a special use permit. However, there was never a permanent dced restriction placed on the property to secure the nondevelopment commitment made by Windstar. In 1996, when this critical wildland and elk habitat was threatened with sale for development, RMI undertook a difficult but broadly supported public capital campaign, purchased a half interest in the property, and established a publicly accessible conservation easement on 927 acres - acreage on which up to 25 large single family homes could otherwise have been built. The County was instrumental in making this easement happen, contributed funds, and is the co-beneficiary along with A VLT. In the easement document, the County acknowledged that reconstruction of 25,000 sq.ft. and housing for 20. employees was consistent with that easement. The easement document also required that RMIlWindstar seek approvals through whatever code was current at the time of development. Before we sought approvals, we waited for the Snowmass/Capitol Caucus to complete its master plan to ensure our proposal was consistent - it was. We also met with A VL T and Open Space and Trails staff to ensure that they approved of our plans - they did. Then, when we submitted our application to the County over two years ago, we were advised by the staffto seek rezoning to the Public zone, consistent with the Deaf Camp zoning and the more recent approval for Sustainable Settings (which had a very similar application to ours, in the same zone, with fewer acres and more square footage). In September 2005, the Planning Commission suggested that we consider the proposed Institute zone that would be established under this new code. Last August, the Snowmass/Capitol Creek Caucus Board approved our proposal for 14,000 sq.ft. of office, 7,500 sq.ft. of housing [for 10 people max] and 3,700 sq.ft. of maintenance and Ag buildings. [Under the planned revisions to the Land Use Code, the housing will not be allowed.] 4/]3/2006 ~ In recent hearings, RMI opponents have successfully convinced the County to delete any provisions that would have allowed RMI to proceed to rezone the Windstar property as either Public OR Institutional. Meanwhile, the special use permit under which Windstar and RMI have been operating all these years has one minor noncompliance with the ] 979 special use permit - the number of cars allowed on the property at one time. The permit has an impractical limit on parking, considering the 40,000 sq. ft. first approved, expecting staff to be shuttled back and forth from theSnowmass Conoco station. Obviously, this alternative was never feasible. To add to our complications, the Code (as of the early 90's) no longer allows our use by special review in our existing zone. So, our only hope of being able to even continue to operate in our beloved and long-time home, Old Snowmass, is in jeopardy. Without the proposed Civic and Institutional provision, we have no ability to expand at all. RMI could potentially be forced off the property because of the recurring vehicle noncompliance because there is no other mechanism under which that can be amended. Thank you for taking the time to understand our predicament. We hope to remain in Old Snowmass as a good neighbor and continue to be an asset to this County with our important and breakthrough work. Having our think-and-do tank in such an inspirational place enhances our ability to fulfill RMl's mission. Respectfully submitted, Marty Pickett Executive Director Amory Lovins CEO 4/13/2006 j Cindy Houben EXHIBIT From: Tim Malloy (tgmalloymob@sopris.netj Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 8:14 PM To: Cindy Houben Cc: 'Marty Pickett' Subject: Expansion of Existing Non-conforming Civic or Institutional Uses Attachments: Draft Language of Changes to Section 9.doc j Z> .D 3 Hi Cindy. ThanR you for your efforts yesterday on the "Civic and Institutional" provision of the Draft Land Use Code and for fOlWarding our e-mail to the BOCC and Planning Commission for consideration. We appreciated the opportunity to comment at the meeting yesterday and we are grateful that everyone stayed to consider the issue, particularly since this item was at the end of a very long meeting. In response to the Planning Commission and Board's request for additional information and staff opinion on this issue, we wanted to provide you with some thoughts to consider as you prepare for the meeting on Thursday. The primary concem that we heard from the Planning Commission and Board members had to with whether this provision is written for a single property or user. However, we would point out that the proposed language included in the staff memo would apply to any existing non-conforming civic or institutional use in the County. The fact that there may be a small number of such uses at present does not limit the applicability of this provision in the future. It could also apply to civic or institutional uses that are currently conforming but are made non-conforming by some future action of the County. 'Consider the proposed change in the Public/Institutional zone district included in the Draft Code. If adopted, this provision would effect the Deaf Camp since the new P/I zone district would no (onger allow private institute uses in the Rural Areas of the County. This may maRe the Deaf Camp ineligible for future expansion. We would point out that it was a similar action, taRen by the County bacR in 1994, that created the problem RMI now faces at the Windstar property. As you Rnow, prior to 1994 a research office or institutional use was eligible for special review as a "use not listed" in the use provisions of the Code at that time. The Code was changed in 1994 to maRe uses not listed prohibited. But for that change, RMI and the Windstar Foundation could simply have applied for an amendment to the 1979 special use permit to seel=? relief from its non-conformity (parRing). A member of the Board also inquired about how the Snowmass-Capital CreeR Caucus Master Plan addressed non-conforming uses. The Master Plan does not specifically address non-conforming uses, but it does address Institutional Uses and includes the several poliCY statements which are applicable to this discussion. The first statement is the Institutional Uses Goal and the others are objectives and implementation measures. Endorse and support existing institutional uses within the Caucus area including their development or redevelopment so long as any proposed development or redevelopment is (a) consistent with prior land use approvals and the Goals and Objectives of this Master Plan and (b) continues to preserve any lands currently protected and preserved 1.4.1 Review the County's speCial review criteria and other applicable regulations to make sure they adequately address the impacts of the existing institutional uses and possible future changes. 4/13/2006 & 1.4.2 Ensure that any proposal for a new institutional use or expansion of an existing use beyond its current approvals is referred to the Caucus for review and recommendation as part of the County's land use review process. The following criteria would be used by the Caucus to evaluate and make recommendations to the County regarding proposals for new and expanded institutional uses and should be considered by the County in its review: i. Whether the proposed use is small in scale and fully compatible with the surrounding rural- residential or other land uses; ii. Whether the proposed use reduces the impacts of commuting (traffic, energy use, lights, noise) by allowing live/work or other home occupation situations; Ill. Whether the proposed use meets all of the criteria for "special review uses" in the Pitkin County Land Use Code; iv. Whether or not the proposed use is not-for-profit and in the public interest. 1.4.3 Any new institutional use proposed in the Caucus area would only receive endorsement from the Caucus if it preserved a large tract of unprotected open space (similar to Windstar). Such preservation alone would not guarantee Caucus endorsement but would be considered a key element by the Caucus. Implementation Measures: a. Recommend that the Pitkin County Land Use Code be amended to incorporate a provision requiring the preservation of open space in association with institutional uses in rural areas or through the purchase of TOR's. b. Recommend that the County study issues associated with institutional uses that would be subordinate to a principal ranch use, such as a school or camp and establish land use provisions to address these issues. 1.4.4 Any proposed change in institutional use by any current or future owner, whether the proposed change is in the nature or the scope of proposed activities, should be referred to the Caucus for review and recommendation regarding how each application complies with the Goals and Objectives of this Master Plan. As you can see, the Master Plan clearly expresses support for the continuation and expansion of existing institutional uses and contemplates changes to the Pitl:?in County Land Use Code to address the impacts of institutional uses and possible changes to them in the future. 4/13/2006 1 Its important to note that there are a significant number of institutional uses scattered throughout the County. Most of these uses provide an important an valued contribution to their surrounding community and the County. It is also true that most of these uses, including all three of the existing institutional uses in the Snowmass-Capital CreeR Caucus Area, represent an anomaly in the surrounding land use pattern. Given that the Draft Land Use Code now under review expresses a strong preference for limiting future civic and institutional uses to the Metro Areas, it seems clear that in order to honor the Snowmass-Capital CreeR Master Plan's support for the continued use and expansion of existing institutional uses, the Code will need to incorporate some provision(s) for addressing the issues associated with existing institutional uses which remain in the Rural Areas. We believe that the concept of allowing existing institutional uses to expand though the non- conforming use provisions of the Land Use Code, subject to special review approval. is an appropriate approach to addressing this issue. Accommodating anomalous and unusual circumstances is precisely the purpose of the non-conforming use section of any land use code. As you Rnow we have requested that the Staff, Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners consider additional language to allow existing legally established institutional uses to consolidate square footage from other properties within the same caucus planning area. We submitted a copy of this language to you in an e-mail from Marty PicRett for yesterday's meeting. However, that version did not include the language that requires all of the properties involved to be within the same Caucus area. Therefore, we have attached a revised version of this language. In addition, we received a an e-mail prepared by lody Edwards, dated April 12, 2006 in which lody expresses concerns regarding the concept of consolidation. In response to lody's comments we have also incorporated additional criteria for review of a request for consolidation. We also offer the following clarifications to some of lody's comments and questions as follows: lody expresses concern that consolidation of square footage could have a significant impact on the adjacent nearby neighbors instead of distributing those impacts throughout the valley. We believe the concern regarding is conc~rn is addressed by criteria 6 (a)(2) which requires that "the receiving site must be shown to be a superior location for the civic or institutional use, including the transferred square footage and 20% expansion, in terms of its carrying capacity or the ability to accommodate the civic or institutional use with minimal impacts on any adjacent property or on the surrounding Caucus Area. " We agree with lody that there are probably existing non-conforming uses in almost every drainage of the Roaring ForR Valley which, due to their circumstances and acceptance within their surrounding communities, should be eligible for modest expansions. We also maRe room for lody's concern that there should be greater definition with regard to the area from which square footage can be transferred since the version of our suggested language did not include such limitation and lody did not have the benefit of Rnowing that we added a condition to address this issue at yesterdays meeting. The current attached language requires that all involved properties must be within the same Caucus Area. 4/13/2006 ~ Jody also raises the question of whether RMI (or presumably anyone wishing to taRe advantage of this provision) would be allowed to transfer square footage from residential structures or whether square footage could be transferred from another institutional property if that property were subsequently purchased. To the first question we would point to the language in the second sentence of 6(a) which limits the transfer to the "civic or institutional" square footage. However, to clarify this issue, the language in the attached version has been modified to read as follows: "Consolidation of floor area from non-contiguous parcels that are utilized for nonresidential civic or institutional functions by the same institutional entity may be permitted and the allowed expansion (20% of existing floor area) may be calculated based on the total existing civic or institutional square footage of the combined parcels if compliance with the following criteria can be demonstrated:" With respect to second question, regarding properties subsequently purchased, we believe that the potential for this occurring is extremely small and the 40 percent cap described in criteria number 7 below, together with the other criteria proposed in Section 9-50-30(e), would prevent this from creating a significant problem. Lastly, with respect to Jody's comment regarding unlimited expansion we believe that this issue would be addressed by the combined effect of the criteria in Section 9-50-30(e) (as contained in the attached versions) and the speCial review criteria and process which is required pursuant to Section 9- 50-30(e). However, we suggest that the following additional criteria be considered to further address this issue: 7) In no case shall the square footage transferred to any site exceed 40 percent of the civic or institutional square footage that exists on the receiving property at the time of the transfer. We are also providing some of the Rey numbers related to the Windstar property for your reference as follows: 1) The provision dealing with consolidating square footage from non-contiguous parcels results in a very small amount of additional square footage (600 square feet) within the Snowmass-Capital CreeR Caucus area as it relates to the RMI/Windstar situation; 2) The square footage numbers to Reep in mind are as follows: Existing institutional square footage on Windstar Site: B,700sf Amount of new square footage with 20% expansion (Windstar Site only): 1,740sf (for a total of 10,440sf) c 4/1312006 Amount of institutional square footage that would be extinguished at Amory's house: 3,000sf Total new square footage at Windstar with 20% expansion and transfer from Amory's house (calculating 20% increase on combined square footage): 5,340sf (for a total of 14,040sf) Representatives of RMI plan to attend the meeting tomorrow to answer any questions regarding this issue. Tim Tim Malloy, Principal TG Malloy Consulting, LLC 402 ParR Drive Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-0832 E-mail: tgmalloy@sopris.net 4/13/2006 o Cindy Houben From: Jody Edwards uee@kcelaw.net) Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:04 PM To: Cindy Houben Subject: Expansion of Nonconforming Uses } Z> J!l EXHIBIT JJ Hi Cindy- I apologize (and regret) that I was not able to attend the latter part of the BOCC Code hearings yesterday. I had a previously scheduled hearing at the City Council P & Z. Thank you for forwarding to mc the e-mail you received from Marty Pickett which is dated April 10,2006 at 4:32 p.m. - late in the afternoon the day before the BOCC was scheduled to consider the relevant language. First, I want to point out that this is not a beauty contest or a popularity contest. Many of the e-mails and other statements which were handed out at the meeting reference all ofthe wonderful things RMJ has done for the community and the world. While, personally, I whole-heartedly support RMI's endeavors and I consider many of the people involved with RMI to be friends, that is simply not the issue to be considered by the BOCC. The BOCC is adopting a new code for applicability to unknown partics and unknown properties into the indefinite future. I am glad to hear that nothing was approved on second reading on Tuesday, April 11, 2006, concerning Section 9-50-30(e). We reviewed the version of the proposed Land Use Code published on March 26, 2006 and set forth in the Staff Memorandum. We did note that the sentence concerning accumulation of floor area from non-contiguous properties owned by the same cntity was deleted. J was not concerned about this deletion, as J believe that sentence to be redundant. It is stated expressly and it is implied in the remainder of subsection (e) that only the existing, legally established, non-conforming floor area on the specific property on which the expansion or redevelopment is proposed to occur is to be counted whcn you are expanding that floor area by up to 20%. The phrase "the property" occurs six times and the phrase "the entire property" occurs one time in proposed subsection (e). In no instance does it state or imply that an applicant may consolidate the floor area from multiple properties or all properties or other properties or any other phrase which would imply or allow the cumulation and concentration of impacts from multiple properties onto one property. Additionally, I have several concerns about the concentration of impacts. ,\!hile the net overall impact on the entire valley may he unchanged, the traffic (including Fed Ex deliveries and employee trips), noise and visual impacts are all cO:lcentrated in one location having a significantly greater net impad on the adjacent and nearby neighbors instead of having those impacts disbursed throughout the valley and having a lesser total impact on anyone neighbor. 4/12/2006 L Page 2 of3 While RMI is viewing this solely in the context ofRMI, this is being proposed as a code change which will live in the code and be applicable to any institution. Therefore, we must be very careful and view this in the appropriate context. I note that this code section represents a sea-change in thinking. Generally speaking, and in every land use code up and down the valley and probably throughout the State, non-conforming uses are not allowed to be expanded. However, we recognize that there are certain non-conforming uses existing today in almost every drainage of the Roaring Fork Valley with which the residents of the respective valleys are now comfortable - provided that those non-conforming . uses do not unreasonably expand. Limited (20%) expansion of a non-conforming use itself is a revolutionary thought. But to pile on top of that and allow the cumulation and concentration of impacts from multiple areas (without adequate definition of any limitations from where those cumulations can occur) is a very scary thought. For example, in the original RMI application, they explained that they own several structures (mainly residential) in the valley. Would RMI be allowed to count the square footage from all of those disparate residential structures? If RMI was to purchase the Monastery property or the Deaf Camp property or any other property for that matter, would they be allowed to cumulate and concentrate the impacts from that additional square footage to the Windstar site? At first reading, this was discussed and, initially, Joe Krabacker proposed a 10-15% expansion to allow existing institutions to re-develop and meet their continuing needs provided there was no substantial impact on the neighborhood. Prior to the end of that hearing, that number was increased to 20% - primarily to allow institutions the flexibility to re-develop and remain at their current locations. If Marty's language is adopted or if the published language is interpreted to allow the cumulation and concentration of floor area, then you will be allowing an unlimited expansion of a non-conforming use - the 20% number becomes meaningless when you can combine an unlimited amount offioor area from an unlimited number of properties. This is way too open-ended. While many of us trust the existing institutions to do the right thing, we have no idea who or what will own these institutional properties in the future. If these future owners have the ability to buy up multiple properties and concentrate the impacts - we will have created a monster. By definition, the reason a use is "non-conforming" is because it is an inappropriate use in the zone district and it is inappropriate for the neighborhood. For the BOCC to knowingly adopt a code section that allows for an unlimited expansion of an inappropriate use is incomprehensible - and contrary to all of the principles driving the proposed code amendments. The truth is that ifproperty is properly zoned and zone districts are properly defined and you have a well-defined UGB, then expansion of institutional uses should occur in the UGB not in areas where the zoning dictates otherwise. Rural areas should be rural. Therefore, vve respectfully request that either the sentence which Herb drafted and was deleted concerning accumulation and concentration offioor area and impacts from non-contiguous parcels be added back to the language of subsection (e) or that it be acknowledged in the public hearing that the words "the property" mean the property on which the expansion of development is proposed to occur and those words do not mean multiple, other and additional properties. \"r I plan to be aHomorrow's hearing and would appreciate an opportunity to comment further on these issues before any [mal action is taken by the BOCC. Best regards, lady Joseph E. Edwards, III KLEIN, COTE & EDWARDS, LLC 201 North Mill Street, Ste. 203 Aspen, Colorado 8161 I Tele: (970) 925-8700 Fax: (970) 925-3977 Cell: (970) 948-4861 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message and all attachments may be legally confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender that you received the message in error, and then please delete this email and all copies. Thank you. )3 4/12/2006 i J!l Draft Language of Changes to Section 9-50-30(e) 4) The proposal for expansion or redevelopment of structures, including transferred square footage (see criteria 6( a)), shall be consistent with neighborhood master plans and shall not change the character of the immediately adjacent neighborhood nor significantly increase the impacts of the use on either the surrounding neighborhood or the master plan area; and 6) In no event shall there be: (a) Any increase in the floor area of more than a cumulative total of20% of the existing developed floor area of the civic or institutional use. Consolidation of floor area from non-contiguous parcels that are utilized for nomesidential civic or institutional functions by the same civic or institutional entity may be permitted and the allowed expansion (20% of existing floor area) may be calculated based on the total existir_g civic or institutional square footage of the combined parcels if compliance with the following criteria can be demonstrated: 1) Both the receiving parcel and all parcels from which square footage is to be transferred must meet the criteria in Section 9-50-30(e)(3) above; 2) The receiving site must be shown to be a superior location for the civic or institutional use, including the transferrcd square footage and 20% cxpansion, in terms of its carrying capacity or the ability to accommodate the civic or institutional use with minimal impacts on any adjacent property or on the sunounding Caucus Arca; 3) The parcel from which squarc footage is being transferred must relinquish existing approvals allowing the civic or institutional use and must deed restrict against any future civic or institutional use on that property; 4) Extinguishing the civic or institutional use on the parcel, from which square footage is being transfened (including its potential 20% expansion), must result in a reduction in impacts on adjacent properties and the surrounding Caucus Area; 5) The overall impacts of the civic or institutional use, once consolidated on the receiving site and including the 20 percent expansion, must be shown to be eq\lal to or less than the impacts ofthe separate sites on the sunounding Caucus Area; ,I \'[ 0-,,',l!,- c':i', >_ ,>.1 >L.: .,~c IY '" ,\--_,- 6) Thc properties involved must be within the same mater plan area ind, in nocase would transfer be a110wed from a property in a Metro Area to a property in a Rural Area; "f.) IIn no case sha1J the sq':lare footage transferred to any site exceed 40 percent of the civic or \institutional square footage that exists on the receiving property at the time of the transfer. I "- I \ \;, Cindy Houben, Planning Director Planning Commission Board of County Commissioners Pitkin County 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81612 ~ J!l Re: Proposed Land Use Code Provision Dear County Staff members, Planning Commission members, and Commissioners: We, the undersigned Pitkin County residents, encourage you to carefully consider the provision in the draft land use code relating to existing civic and institutional uses. Many of these entities have been great assets to our community for many years and we hope that they will be allowed to flourish. Their continuing viability is essential to Pitkin County's continued health as a balanced and economically diverse community. Please provide flexibility in the new code provision that could potentially affect all civic and institutional uses in the County in the years to come. We urge that you approve language that will allow existing entities (that could become nonconforming uses in the future) to expand, up to a cap of 20%, if they are in substantial compliance with the approvals under which they were legally created in the first place and if their expansion does not significantly increase the impacts on either the surrounding neighborhood or the master plan area. We also urge you to approve language that would allow an existing entity that may have two sites of operation in the same general vicinity, particularly in the same master plan area, to seek consolidation of their operations. This could potentially reduce overall impacts to the general area, compared to the two operations running in separate location, and would limit the dispersion of nonconforming uses. Thank you for your consideration of this important code provision and your foresight that may affect the viability of various civic and institutional uses in our future. Signature: Address: c~ hi'~~ / / 7'. /l. ,~.~~ ~ ~ (l ~ .Wu~i~~~ ,JoS- Gt;,-Ie..v6'd Co; S~"lSS f?Jt:,S-~ ;;'70 b 0 i-bi fL .tt I sk fX-'" C 0 PI b( ( I I 302 DeJoY\, C+ ':Basa I~ C, '8' it 2. ( .;;J-y 6'~ rf~1,. ,~h~ / .r-/cos-i Z<0 GcdL"~!J (}to! ~OU~ I ~Jb5'1 \3 / !!>/" [- ~ ........_..L....L ~'\. }) h~ ck'l-< J]A ,\ ,~J , \,,--'~l \....",,- ~~" \,,\-}.~.--- Address: lh'2(.~ C~ 9J/ ~~ ~rbS.~'-( , ~ ~/~J d cJI/iJAA (V ~Ad ~ 8 / ~, ,J.. ( if SitU ^ CL f' ! r &:wC( ~ f g /(2) 451 uI/!c7Y (1 345ALT c:g)/?Z( Gv).. ~re\A,. C_t \S~"-O\ ~\CoZ\ So~ rt{)r~~ CL1>IA~ ~ (~~ Sot( WM...J t1r. ~.sAL.Y g I ~ 1-/ ~ D. l~ q~ Pr--noon _ 4 1)" n (.102. j) ev~' ~ra Oo-'J'fju-. 1?(~2.1) 4-?"3 tJrU\ ~~a.lt, t/~2..1 453 (1 Jeer] ct ~8681t I '8/ft;ZI 9/0W'~(-1'\~ (bvt, V~~~&j- )~ f' 13 06 OR3" John McCormick 970 920 4719 p.1 Cindy Houben, Planning Director Planning Commission Board of County Commissioners Pitkin County 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81612 Re: Proposed Land Use Code Provision Dear County Staff members, Planning Commission members, and Commissioners: We, the Wldersigned Pitkin County residents, encourage you to carefully consider the provision in the draft land use code relating to existing civic and institutional uses. Many of these entities have been great assets to our community for many years and we hope that they will be allowed to flourish. Their continuing viability is essential to Pitkin County's continued health as a balanced and economically diverse community. Please provide flexibility in the new code provision that could potentially affect all civic and institutional uses in the County in the years to come. We urge that you approve language that will allow existing entities (that could become nonconforming uses in the future) to expand., up to a cap of20%, if they are in substantial compliance with the approvals under which they were legally created in the first place and if their expansion does not significantly increase the impacts on either the surrounding neighborhood or the master plan area We also urge you to approve language that would allow an existing entity that may have 1'.'10 sites of operation in the same general vicinity, particularly in the same master plan area, to seek consolidation of their operations. This could potentially reduce overall impacts to the general area, compared to the two operations running in separate locations, and would limit the dispersion of nonconforming uses. Thank you for your consideration of this important code provision and YOUT foresight that may affect the viability of various civic and institutional uses in our future. Signature: ~~~o~~"/- Address: ./?- .L.2.. /.!:::. - /..".1 J..-?z.......... ,{J S "a f ~ /G> C/ JZ- /.:;. ,,'" Rece i ved Time Apr. 13. 9: 28AM 1 FROM :JUDY HILL UNLIMITD FAX NO. :970 922 7077 Apr. 12 2006 06:10PM P2 Cindy Houben, Planning Director Planning Commission Board of County Commissioners Pitkin County 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81612 $&,n/1 T . I ~/.? Colle?!'he>.( '-'1 Jv4/-/;;1 ~ /-o/tJ(, /JfJ } Re: Proposed Land Use Code Provision Dear County Staff members, Planning Commission members, and Commissioners: We, the undersigned Pitkin County residents, encourage YOll to carefully consider the provision in the draft land use code relating to existing civic and institutional uses. Many of these entities have been great assets to our comnmriity for many years and we hope that r:hey will be allowed to flourish. Their continuing viability is essential to Pitkin County's continued health as a balanced and economiCally diverse community. , . Please provide flexibility in the new code provision that could potentially affect all civic and institutional uses in the County in the years to come. We urge that you approve language that will allow existing entities (thatcotlld become nonconforming uses in the future) to expand, up to a cap of 20%, if they are in substantial compliance with the approvals under which they were legally created in the firsr place and if their expansion does nat significantly increase the impacts on either the surrounding neighborhood or the master plan area. We also urge y.ou t.o approve language that. wauldallow an existing entity that may have two sites of .operation in the same general vicinity, particularly in the same master plan area, t.o seek c.onsolidation of their operations. This could potentially reduce overall impacts to the general area, compared to the two aperatians running in separate locatian, and would limit the dispersion of nonconforming uses. Thank you for your consideration of this important code provision and your foresight that may affect the viability.of variaus civic and institutional uses in .our future. Rece i vedTime Apr, 12. 6:47PM \t FROM :JUDY HILL UNLIMITD FAX NO. :970 922 7077 Apr. 12 2006 06:11PM P3 /"\ Q,.s~ Q Signature: . ) L f714"'/""", L ..... :is \ ~ (\ I ') ~ "'-'=' U2. ~ \ '-I../) 1\" JOeJI"- ~'". to \ >M~.~{ .l~:,:h r~ t~~ ~~~ ~<-'W"\\~ .. rk k M'~~~~ ~~~~ - -.C Received Time Apr. 12. 6:47PM '.?,tp1~~ ~t'k;v -4 Vlr4J1-dJ -~//z/Ij. , Pi 2- Address: I ~ I:> a. \ "-'< 0 ,,~ ~lf1.- SO-MI C<l~ q Joo~ ~ +IfJlM~ Av) ~7- ~Pe>V CD8tbl 1- ", t 4f . C;'PCV1/ Co ~U2~~V/N ~~(fl,giuU litl As~ \f; i\ ~-e ~ A~ LQ c~H611.. , Pl9 IIfM( (),II~ ,..., ~JA) llbll .\i<t ~1\~,~,^.\J\\\ '"'~ ". A~~'\~ l~ % \ 4. \ ( , \q !' .,-""""" '0'" W 2006-04-1314:25:23 (GMT) From: John Fullerton Cindy Houben, Planning Director Planning Commission Board of County Commissioners Pitkin County 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81612 Re: Proposed Land Use Code Provision Dear County Staff members, Planning Commission members, and Commissioners: We, the undersigned Pitkin County residents, encourage you to carefully consider the provision in the draft land use code relating to existing civic and institutional uses. Many of these entities have been great assets to our community for many years and we hope that they will be allowed to flourish. Their continuing viability is essential to Pitkin County's continued health as a balanced and economically diverse community. Please provide flexibility in the new code provision that could potentially affect all civic and institutional uses in the County in the years to come. We urge that you approve language that will allow existing entities (that could become nonconforming uses in the future) to expand, up to a cap of20%, if they are in substantial compliance with the approvals under which they were legally created in the first place and if their expansion does not significantly increase the impacts on either the surrounding neighborhood or the master plan area We also urge you to approve language that would allow an existing entity that may have two sites of operation in the same general vicinity, particularly in the same master plan area. to seek consolidation of their operations. This could potentially reduce overall impacts to the general area, compared to the two operations running in separate locations, and would limit the dispersion of nonconforming uses. Thank you for your consideration of this important code provision and your foresight that may affect the viability of various civic and institutional uses in our future. ~~. . :- . ~. Address: tf1S'KMuJf- ~ ,W g/~/I ---9 ~ -::> k.:-ct- )\-- A5f Q. ,_ CGD <g (Q rJ ~ A(Or 13 06 OS:11a NJ Partners +1-970-544-6427 (0.2 Cindy Houben, Planning Director Planning Commission Board of County Commissioners Pitkin County 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 8]612 Re: Proposed Land Use Code Provision Dear County Staff members, Planning Commission members, and Commissioners;~ We, the undersigned Pitkin County residents, encourage you to carefully consider the provision in the draft land use code relating to existing civic and institutional uses. Many of these entities have been great assets to our community for many years and we hope that they will be allowed to flourish. Their continuing viability is essential to Pitkin County's continued health as a balanced and economically diverse community. Please provide flexibility in the new code provision that could potentially affect all civic and institutional uses in the County in the years to come. We urge that you approve language that will alIow existing entities (that could become nonconforming uses in the future) to expand, up to a cap of 20%, if they are in substantial compliance with the approvals under which they were legally created in the first place and if their expansion does not significantly increase the impacts on either the surrounding neighborhood or the master plan area. We also urge you to approve language that would allow an existing entity that may have two sites of operation in the same general vicinity, particularly in the same master plan area, to seek consolidation of their operations. This could potentially reduce overall impacts to the general area, compared to the two operations running in separate location, and would limit the dispersion of nonconforming uses. Thank you for your consideration of this important code provision and your foresight that may affect the viability of various civic and institutional uses in our future. Signature: .--~ --- 1!5iA.J 'J~ Address: &)t 23 -fS-.c>>- ~ ../ V }\ R e c e i y e d Tim e A p r. 13. 8 : 59 AM lAPr 13 OS 09"'. NJ Partners +1-970-544-6427 p.l Cindy Houben, Planning Director Planning Commission Board of County Commissioners Pitkin County 130 S. Galena Aspen, C081612 Re: Proposed Land Use Code Provision Dear County Staff members, Planning Commission members, and Commissioners:, We, the undersigned Pitkin County residents, encourage you to carefully consider the provision in the draft land use code relating to existing civic and institutional uses. Many of these entities have been great assets to our community for many years and we hope that they will be allowed to flourish. Their continuing viability is essential to Pitkin County's continued health as a balanced and economically diverse community. Please provide flexibility in the new code provision that could potentially affect all civic and institutional uses in the County in the years to come. We urge that you approve language that will allow existing entities (that could become nonconforming uses in the future) to expand, up to a cap of 20%, if they are in substantial compliance with the approvals under which they were legally created in the first place and if their expansion does not significantly increase the impacts on either the surrounding neighborhood or the master plan area. We also urge you to approve language that would allow an existing entity that may have two sites of operation in the same general vicinity, particularly in the same master plan area, to seek consolidation of their operations. This could potentially reduce overall impacts to the general area, compared to the two operations running in separate location, and would limit the dispersion of nonconforming uses. Thank you for your consideration of this important code provision and your foresight that may affect the viability of various civic and institutional uses in our future. ~ . sX: ( , . 19 ature: , , , Address: '....... "--- 1)t ~ h.I~J"'J V'\ ~-'-( ~ '"L""t \?....I- ~c:, ~:> e.1.-'\ \ I ~ l ).~ '-4. c:; c., ~V" ) .. ) . ~\(P~\ \x. 1;~ Received Time Apr.13. 8:59AM Apr 13 OS 10:0Sa Henr~ T. La 573 449 7S52 p.2 Cindy Houben, Planning Director Planning Commission Board of County Commissioners Pitkin County 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81612 Re: Proposed Land Use Code Provision Dear County Staff members, Planning Commission members, and Commissioners: We, the undersigned Pitkin County residents, encourage you to carefully consider the provision in the draft land use code relating to existing civic and institutional uses. Many of these entities have been great assets to our community for many years and we hope that they will be allowed to flourish. Their continuing viability is essential to Pitkin County's continued health as a balanced and economically diverse community. Please provide flexibility in the new code provision that oould potentially affect all civic and institutional uses in the County in the years to come. We urge that you approve language that will allow existing entities (that could become nonconforming uses in the future) to expand, up to a cap of20%, if they are in substantial compliance with the approvals under which they were legally created in the first place and if their expansion does not significantly increase the impacts on either the surrounding neighborhood or the master plan area. We also urge you to approve language that would allow an existing entity that may have two sites of operation in the same general vicinity, particularly in the same master plan area, to seek consolidation of their operations. This could potentially reduce overall impacts to the general area, compared to the two operations running in separate location, and would limit the dispersion of nonconforming uses. Thank you for your consideration of this important code provision and your foresight that may affect the viability of various civic and institutional uses in our future. Signature: Address: J~T~~ tJcJ-../$ ~ 0 ~ ;j,..~~- v' 104/13/2005 08:51 970925E,219 SCHRAM~~ PAGE 01 " Cindy Houben, Planning Director Planning Commission Board of COl\nty Commissioners Pitkin County 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81612 Re: Proposed Land Use Code Provision Dear County Staff members, Planning Commission members, and Conunissioners: We, the undersigned Pitkin County residents, encourage you to carefully consider the provision in the draft land use code relating to existing civic and institutional uses. Many of these entities have been great assets to our community for many years and we hope that they will be allowed to flourish. Their continuing viability is essential to Pitkin County's continued health as a balanced and economically diverse community. Please provide flexibility in the new code provision that could potentially affect all civic and institutional uses in the County' in the years to come. We urge that you approve language that will allow existing entities (that could become nonconforming uses in the future) to expand, up to a cap of 20%, if they are in substantial compUance with the approvals under w,hich they were legally created in the first place and if their expansion does not significantly increase the impacts on either the surrounding neighborhood or the master plan area. We also urge you to approve language that would allow an existing entity that may have two sites of operation in the same general vicinity, particularly in the same master plan area, to seek consolidation of their operations. This could potentially reduce overall impacts to the g~neral area, compared to the two operations running in separate location, and would limit the dispersion of nonconforming uses. Thank you tor your consideration of this important code provision and your foresight that may affect the viability of various civic and institutional uses in our future. Signature: ,1~L~~~~_- -q f Address: 0/5"(3 A~;.. 4444 ~; ~_,&' tP/~// j)L\ R ec e i ve d T i me A p r, 13. 8: 06 AM Cindy Houben, Planning Director Planning Commission Board of County Commissioners Pitkin County 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81612 Re: Proposed Land Use Code Provision Dear County Staff members, Planning Commission members, and Commissioners: We, the undersigned Pitkin County residents, encourage you to carefully consider the provision in the draft land use code relating to existing civic and institutional uses. Many of these entities have been great assets to our community for many years and we hope that they will be allowed to flourish. Their continuing viability is essential to Pitkin County's continued health as a balanced and economically diverse community. Please provide flexibility in the new code provision that could potentially affect all civic and institutional uses in the County in the years to come. We urge that you approve language that will allow existing entities (that could become nonconforming uses in the future) to expand, up to a cap of 20%, if they are in substantial compliance with the approvals under which they were legally created in the first place and if their expansion does not significantly increase the impacts on either the surrounding neighborhood or the master plan area. We also urge you to approve language that would allow an existing entity that may have two sites of operation in the same general vicinity, particularly in the same master plan area, to seek consolidation of their operations. This could potentially reduce overall impacts to the general area, compared to the two operations running in separate location, and would limit the dispersion of nonconforming uses. Thank you for your consideration of this important code provision and your foresight that may affect the viability of various civic and institutional uses in our future. Signature: Address: Timothy McFlynn 5959 Snowmass Creek Road, Snowmass CO ~b ~APR 12 2006 ',59PH HUGHES AND WHITAKER 970-920-4241 f'. 1 / Cindy Houben, Planning Director Plaruring Commission Board of County Commissioners Pitkin County 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81612 Re: Proposed Land Use Code Provision Dear County staff members, Planning Commission members, and Commissioners: We, the undersigned Pitkin County residents, encourage you to carefully consider the provision in the draft land use code relating to existing civic and institutional uses. Many of these entities have been great assets to our community for many years and we hope that they will be allowed to flourish. Their continuing viability is essential to Pitkin County's continued health as a balanced and economically diverse community. Please provide flexibility in the new code provision that could potentially affect aU civic and institutional uses in the County in the years to come. We urge that you approve language that will allow existing entities (that could become nonconforming uses in the future) to expand, up to a cap of20%, if they are in substantial compliance with the approvals under which they were legally created in the first place and if their expansion does not significantly increase the impacts on either the surrounding neighborhood or the master plan area. We also urge you to approve language that would allow an existing entity that may have two sites of operation in the same general vicinity, particularly in the same master plan area, to seek consolidation of their operations. This could potentially reduce overall impacts to the general area, compared to the two operations running in separate location, and would limit the dispersion of nonconforming uses. Thank you for your consideration of this important code provision and your foresight that may affect the viability of various civic and institutional uses in our future. Signature: Address: '- ~ ~fX)'i o.b/--(2 .~qUJ6'{ fbC'sJ '};~ Received Time Apr. 12. 6: 15PM .' Cindy Iloubcn, Planning Director Planning Commission Board of County Commissioners Pitkin County J 30 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81612 Re: Proposed Land Use Code Provision Dear County Staff members. Planning Commission members, ancl Commissioners: We, the undersigned Pitkin County residents, encourage you to carefully consider the provision in the draft land use code relating to existing civic and institutional uses. Many of these entities have been great assets to our community for many years and we hope that they will be al10wed to flourish. Their continuing \iabiIity is essential to Pitkin County's continued health as a balanced and economicillly diverse community. Please provide flexibility in the new code provision that could potentially affect all civic and institutional uses in the County in the years to come. We urge that you approve language that wil1 allow existing entities (that could become nonconfonning uses in the future) to expand, up to a cap 01'20%. irthey are in substantial compliance with the approvals under which they were legally created in the first place and if their expansion does not significantly incrcase the impacts on either the surrounding ncighborhood or the master plan area. We also urge you to approve language that would al1o\~ an existing entity that may have two sitcs of operation in the same general vicinity. parti~ularly in the same master plan area. to seek consolidation of their operations. This could potentially reduce overall impacts to the general area. compared to the two operations running in separate location, and would limit the dispersion of nonconforming uses. Thank you for your consideration of this important code provision and your foresight that may affect the viability of various civic and institutional uses in our future. Signature: ,-k'-''Lt- J Address: { r:; C I (? eM Sp ~ ~ , ') hc.\ I L d CVi:. /-" ~ 3j(J~ '-j /01i''N1 W , / ../ r ~\ (,i;J fv'.A ~ <;. '}1 ... 04/12/2005 15:03 ~ ,.,. I ASPEN APPRAISAL GROU 9709255045 Cindy Houben, Planning Director Planning Commission Board of County Commissioners Pitkin County 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81612 Re: Proposed Land Use Code Provision Dear County Staff members, Planning Commission members, and Commissioners: We, the undersigned Pitkin County residents, encourage you to carefully consider the provision in the draft land use code relating to existing civic and institutional uses. Many of these entities have been. great assets to our community for many years and we hope that they will be allowed to flourish. Their continuing viability is essential to Pitkin County's continued health as a balanced and economically diverse conununity. Please provide flexibility in the new code provision that could potentially affect all civic andinstitutiollal uses in the County in the years to come. We urge that you approve language that will allow existing entities (that could become nonconforming uses in the future) to expand, up to a cap of 20%, if they are in substantial compliance with the approvals under which they were legally created in the first place and if their ex.pansion does not significantly increase the impacts on either the surrounding neighborhood or the master plan area. We also urge you to approve language that would allow an existing entity that may have two sites of operation in the same general vicinity, particularly in the same master plan area, to seek consolidation of their operations. This could potentially reduce overall impacts to the general area, compared to the two operations running in separate location, and would limit the dispersion of nonconfonning uscs. . Thank you for your consideration of this important code provision and your foresight that may affect the viability of various civic and institutional uses in our future. Addres~: ta>~, *-1\W1N1 ~. Received Time Apr.12. 2:58PM PAGE 01 ~<( ~ MAR-19-1996 22:58 P.01/01 Cindy Houben, Plallning Director Planning Commission Board of County Commissioners Pitkin County 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81612 Re: Proposed Land Use Code Provision Dear County Staff members, Planning Commission members, and Commissioners: We, the undersigned Pitkin County residents, encourage you to carefully consider the provision in the draft land use code relating to existing civic and institutional uses. Many ofthese entities have been great assets to our community for many years and we hope that they will be allowed to flourish. Their continuing vitbility is essential to Pitkin County'!\ continued health as a balanced and economical~y diverse community. Please provide flexibility in the new code provision that could potentially affect all civic and institutional uses in the County in the years to come. We urge that you approve language that will allow existing entities (that could become nonconforming uses in the future) to expand, up to a cap of 20%, if they are in subs~antjal compliance with the approvals under which they were legally created in the fitst place and if their expansion does not significantly increase the impacts on either the surrounding neighborhood or the master plan area. We also urge you to approve language that would allow in existing entity that may have two sites of operation in the same general vicinity, particularly in the same master plan area, to seek consolidation of their operations. This could potentially reduce overall impacts to the general area, compared to the two operatiolls running in separate location, and would limit the dispersion of nonconforming uses. Thank you for your consideration of this impol1am code provision and your foresight that may affect the viability of various civic and institutional uses in our future. Signature: Addkss: Barbara Hurwitz 8240 County Road 115; GJenwood Springs, L~tVK> b~[d't>m~ - P8H ~u..~ ~\~ ~~ I/.A.e&~/ l2.~O SkLe-\d 0 1?J.,1 Sl:JoW!',I\D.$ \ \ C(';{') S'~tD~ G-.1>J I ~LOl'('Q.~ l({)()O-iJ,. ~~OWW3(( Cteek~.>rw~g I ~~ R e c e i ve d T i me A p r. 13. 11: 11 AM TOTAL P.01 Cindy Houben, Planning Director Planning Commission Board of County Commissioners Pitkin County 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81612 Re: Proposed Land Use Code Provision Dear County Staff members, Planning Commission meQlbers, and Commissioners: We, the undersigned Pitkin County residents, encourage! you to carefully consider the provision in the draft land use code relating to existing Civic and institutional uses. Many of these entities have been great assets to our community for many years and we hope that they will be allowed to flourish. Their continuing vikbility is essential to Pitkin County's continued health as a balanced and economi~ly diverse community. I Please provide flexibility in the new code provision that could potentially affect all civic and institutional uses in the County in the years to come. We urge that you approve language that will allow existing entities (that could bec(lme nonconforming uses in the future) to expand. up to a cap of200/o, if they are in su~tial compliance with the approvals under which they were legally created in the ~ place and iftbeir expansion does not significantly increase the impacts on either the ~unding neighborhood or the master plan area . We also urge you to approve language that would allow an existing entity that may have two sites of operation in the same general vicinity, particularly in the same master plan area, to seek consolidation of their operations. This could potentially reduce overall impacts to the general area. compared to the two operations running in separate location, and would limit the dispersion of nonconfonning uses. Thank you for your considemtion of this important code provision and your foresight that may affect the viability of various civic and institutional1\Jses in our future. Signature: Address: ~\""G.~O A\~"'b N \ ~~~-~ q2..~ <.{.O S '3 ~;:l~"S ~ \?-.d ~ r-S.l Co.el"~ I o~ rd €9OV#rc6#QL6 !UOJUY ppflul evf::O~ 90 f:~ Jdy 04/13/2006 10:54 97092B399 ST BENEDICT'S MONAST PAGE 02 Cindy Houben, Planning Director Planning Commission Board of County Commissioners Pitkin County 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81612 Re: Proposed Land Use Code Provision Dear County Staff members, Planning Commission m~bers, and Commissioners: We, the undersigned Pitkin County residents, encourage you to carefully consider the provision in the draft land use code relating to existing civic and institutional uses. Many of these entities have been great assets to our communitY for many years and we hope that they will be allowed to flourish. Their continuing viability is essential to Pitkin County's continued health as a balanced and economically diverse community. Please provide flexibility in the new code provision that could potentially affect all civic and institutional uses in the County in the years to come. We urge that you approve language that will allow existing entities (that could become nonconforming uses in the future) to expand, up to a cap of20%, if they are in substantial compliance with the approvals under which they were legally created in the first place and if their expansion does not significantly increase the impacts on either the surrounding neighborhood or the master plan area. We also urge you to approve language that would allow an existing entity that may have two sites of operation in the same general vicinity, particularly in the same master plan area, to seek consolidation of their operations. This could potentially reduce overall impacts to the general area, compared to the two operations running in separate location, and would limit the dispersion of nonconfonning uses. Thank you for your consideration of this important code provision and your foresight that may affect the viability of various civic and institutional uses in our future. Address: 57- 6<.f.'/Vlet:,l~rl<,ll1opJU/~g{J s:.(k:.~.Jn1;Q-5S SI~.~.~___ ()~ .5f:~~ .>>(.~,..u<<d-/ LS"I..' ,___'B/-V\.~ ~"-'~~L.;~4 ~~ . 8.1: tit LA" _L-<~_ /...~, /L,J.---- 5J. &'" d" ~ t 5 ~ J\ 04/13/2005 10:54 9709273399 \ ST BENEDICT'S MONAST PAGE 03 Address: /P/;J Mtn1~ -+<cP~~ J (--... ~ ~u IV (~ . ()\..o" ci-a.~ f?c{ oV" M.l n--"""'" [P I Z MA~i..,.7 ~J..J S...",.,~4..:f ~ I (j r 2- ~tc.-~.-t' L 7 I\d.. ,5 "'--/1 <oJ~~.s- IDt L 1i~7fl4.{ ~ Jo,-if- m1>>'\^l\~ .~c:\ S~ )v ! ROARING FORK LODGING NO. 249 APR. 13.2006 10: 16AM Cindy Rouben, Planning Director Planning Commission Board of County Commissioners Pitkin County 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81612 Re~ Proposed Land Use Code Provision Dear County Staff members, Planning Commission met Clbers, and Commissioners: . We, the undersigned Pitkin County residents, encourage you to carefully consider the provision. in the draft land use code relating to existing civic and institutional uses. ~any of these entities have been great assets to our communit:' for many years and we hope that they will be allowed to flourish. Their continuing vi :tbility is essential to Pitkin . County's continued health as a balanced and economically diverse community. : Please provide flexibility in the new code provision that ::ould potentially affect all divic and institutional uses in the County in the years to come. We urge that you approve: language that will allow existing entities (that could 00c( ,m.e nonconforming uses in ~e future) to expand, up to a cap of 20%, if they are in subsl antial compliance with the I approvals under which they were legally created in the fi rat place and if their expans~on does not significantly increase the impacts on eithet the sUrrounding neighborhood or the master plan area. We also urge you to approve language that would allow ~n existing entity that may Jave two sites of operation in the same general vicinity, panicll1arly in the same master plan area, to seek consolidation of their operations. This could potentially reduce overall impacts to the general area, compared to the two operatio'lS running in separate location, and would limit the dispersion of nonconforming uses. Thank you for your consideration of this important code provision and your foresight that m.ay affect the viability of various civic and institutional qses in our future. 71'@..!r I< tl....J,.JJI: ~-s~)~,..L lAuI.t ~ Addn ~ss: ~~~; \ I \ \ R e c e i ve d T i me A p r. 13. 11: 15 AM P. J~ Cindy Houhen, Planning Director Planning Commission Board or County Commissioners Pitkin County 130 S. Galena A!\pcn, CO 81612 Re: I~roposed land Use Code Provision Dear County Staff members, Planning Commission members, and Commi$sioncrs: We, the undersigoG'1l pitkin County residents, encoumge you to carefully consider the provision in the draft land use code relating to existing ~ivic and institutional u..'ies. Many oftltcse entities have been great assets to our Cl)mmunit~ /l,)( many years anrlwe hope that they will be allowed to flourish. Their continuing viability is essential to Pitkin County's continued health as a balaneed and economically diverse community. Please provide t1exibility in the new code provision that could potentially affect aU civic and institutional uses in the County in the years to come, We urge that you approve language that will allow existing entities (that could bt.wme nonconforming uses in the future) to expand, up to a cap of20%, if they arc in substantia! compliance with the approvals under which they were legally created in the first place and if their expansion 00cs not significantly increase tbe impacts on either the surrounding neighborhood Of the master plan area. We also urge you W approve language that \vould allow un existing entity that may have two sites ofoper.uion in the same general vicinit}', particularly in the same master plan area, to seck consolidation of their operations. This could potentially reduce overall impacts to the general area, compared to the two operatit)os running in separate location. and would limit the dispersion of noncon1'(ml1ing uses. llmnk you for your cnnsideration or this important code provision and your t()resight that may affect the viability of various civic and institutional uses in ollr future. Signature: .....-/ / ~~c'"4-.(...eL. .LL~Ju..,i-___ Address: CZb 2.. .,<;t~~~~a~~~lH-,e ;-4fA ;Lc. t::_..l!~~.J f!:TAj--d AflL - ~?r4 30\ Cindy Houben, Planning Director Planning Commission Board of County Commissioners Pitkin County 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81612 Re: Proposed Land Use Code Provision Dear County Staff members, Planning Commission members, and Commissioners: We, the undersigned Pitkin County residents, encourage you to carefully consider the provision in the draft land use code relating to existing civic and institutional uses. Many of these entities have been great assets to our community for many years and we hope that they will be allowed to flourish. Their continuing viability is essential to Pitkin County's continued health as a balanced and economicallly diverse community. I Please provide flexibility in the new code provision that could potentially affect all civic and institutional uses in the County in the years to come.! We urge that you approve language that will allow existing entities (that could bec6me nonconforming uses in the future) to expand, up to a cap of 20%, if they are in substantial compliance with the approvals under which they were legally created in the first place and if their expansion does not significantly increase the impacts on either the ~urrounding neighborhood or the master plan area. We also urge you to approve language that would allow an existing entity that may have two sites of operation in the same general vicinity, particularly in the same master plan area, to seek consolidation of their operations. This could potentially reduce overall impacts to the general area, compared to the two operations running in separate location, and would limit the dispersion of nonconforming uses. Thank you for your consideration of this important code provision and your foresight that may affect the viability of various civic and institutional uses in our future. Signature: (7 ~ L(1rJ/J--n~~Vu1~ ~,//' 2 \-\~v\0-^-___1 _J '!kt ^ 1\ ...". ~b~ ,) Address: S-o Z lAW,,,,, c.,.,r~ BM,,);!' ~f(2--) / IJIJ 'f ,f$Y..uu~~ ]d;-;U- 81 ~.;2./ I ()l~ <4 L"0'~ ,L..... ([2""",-II-;sf (, ~ l {J?UM\ C-f, -&~/!- Sih;2) De \l {'j V\ C + . 13cA, SCA; 1+ C)63 50?. jj Signature: \ ~ Address: ll.-~ . . ~ GDO\1.c I o l -3 5 P!Z-D7ftcTUtL ::.1 1510 t 1 _(cS . L(~~ c,kQ)'\ L \- ~s'YC(\Ce <lk , nl1 &~\I f, ...\' l Ii. /' > I }1.7~.'- ,..,1_ If 17 1,1) It I~ .-j- ~r c--- "t I -';j:)~ T\''f~: (~Y\ (--\. <,~ ( (,~ II I ..~ . J\u Cindy Houben, Planning Director Planning Commission Board of County Commissioners Pitkin County 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81612 Re: Proposed Land Use Code Provision Dear County Staff members, Planning Commission men(Ibers, and Commissioners: We, the undersigned Pitkin County residents, encourage you to carefully consider the provision in the draft land use code relating to existing civic and institutional uses. Many of these entities have been great assets to our community for many years and we hope that they will be allowed to flourish. Their continuing viability is essential to Pitkin County's continued health as a balanced and economical~y diverse community. Please provide flexibility in the new code provision that pould potentially affect all civic and institutional uses in the County in the years to come.! We urge that you approve language that will allow existing entities (that could becc me nonconforming uses in the future) to expand, up to a cap of 20%, if they are in subslantial compliance with the approvals under which they were legally created in the first place and if their expansion does not significantly increase the impacts on either the surrounding neighborhood or the master plan area. We also urge you to approve language that would allow tn existing entity that may have two sites of operation in the same general vicinity, partic(I1arIy in the same master plan area, to seek consolidation of their operations. This coul~ potentially reduce overall impacts to the general area, compared to the two operations running in separate location, and would limit the dispersion of nonconforming uses. Thank you for your consideration of this important code provision and your foresight that may affect the viability of various civic and institutional uses in our future. ~ Signal.,,, _ Cf' /~6IMlilj , taFr~ 11 ~ U i '1-.L"" Lit //;-1 .I\.../~ I ~~d. .. -/L))/ -u:~ Add~ess: SO (V. S:~";tII~ ,U(v. Vl4f,.stl'C:"'~ :!~ ~ vV rc- V\ C ff7.., 17 1S/'<1Mt- JS3' wr~ C/L..r7 l3~cd, II:S~ S(lvV .v-aSJ' e,f.....- p.! S t<{)W~C;.rs I J '-/ e d{s/L~d4 );;, / ~ de? / ;/2rC:77/ C,d -z / 1\ 1 2:. I K L.;./(~. (// / ~) L/,.--- . /,; ,u/ "JI \ f l)tc'\-t:.Y3-, {U I ? J ' C) ((p L I ::; 134/13/213135 09: 113 971392581354 ::: hoo! "";1- _m'hri"@y.hoo.,= YAHOO!~MAll ASPENAR1 MUSEUM PAGE 01 http://us.f3117 .mail.yahoo.comfym/ShowLetter'?box=Inbox&Msgld=. ,. ....t:""\ ;'.'~wt!'r~ ~ f!l". VUTSIPIE IN" F 'rint - Close Window'iTMl EXPORT Cindy Houben, Planning Director Planning Commission Board of County Commissioners Pitkin County 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81612 Re: Proposed land Use Code Provision I Dear County Staff members, Planning Commission members, and C~mmiSSioners: We, the undersigned Pitkin County residents, encourage you to care~"Y consider the provision in the draft land use code relating to existing oivic and institutional uses. Many of thes entities have been great assets to our community for many years and we hope that they will be allowed to fI ,Irish. Their continuing viability is essential to Pitkin County's continued health as a balanced and economically dt lerse community. Please provide flexibility in the new oode provision that could potentlall V affect all civic and institutional uses in the County in the years to come. We urge that you approve language that will allow existing entities (that could become nonconforming uses in the future) to expand, up to a cap of 2 )%, if they are in substantial compliance with the approvals under which they were legally created in the first plSlce and if their expansion does not significantly increase tne impacts on either the surrounding neighborhc lod or the master plan area. We also urge you to approve language that would allow an existing en ity that may have two sites of operation in the same general vicinity, particularly in the same master plan area, to seek consolidation of their operations. This could potentially reduce overall impacts to the general area, com~ ared to the two operations running in separate locations, and would limit the dispersion of nonconforming us es. Thank you for your consideration of this important code provision and lour foresight that may affect the viability of various civic and institutional uses in our future. Signature: Address: .~~ "'_D. '\SOl( "!z...,? f.:, ~ 'lZ.-l..GJr V'tLc.tO tt-\ 1) 6. As 'Pe:'Ar' U> '6! (" ( L ffiuj~ 21S ~_~ Or GtlllO- ~~J ~l),nJ.AJ co %\ u 2\ ~~~~~~ ~ CGI '1't~lA +- , I J<t lof2 Received Time Apr.13. 9:49AM 4/13/2006 9:00 AM Wdso:n 'tl')dV aW1l pwn.~ I+f\'i t - f21J ~oo~ Cindy Rouben, Planning Director Planning Commission Board of County Commissioners Pitkin County 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81612 Re: Ptoposed Land Use Code Provision Dear County Staff members, Planning Commission me mbers, and Commissioners: We, the undersigned Pitkin County residents, encourag ~ you to carefully consider the provision in the draft land use code relating to existing civic and institutional uses. Many of these entities have been great assets to our communLy for many years and we hope that they will be allowed to flourish, Their continuing '1iability is essential to Pitkin County's continued health as a balanced and economic*Uy diverse community. I Please provide flexibility in the new code provision that could potentially affect all civic and institutional uses in the County in the years to come, We urge that you approve language that will allow existing entities (that could become nonconforming uses in the future) to expand, up to a cap of 20%, if they are in sub~tantial compliance with the approvals under which they were legally created in the t1tst place and if their expansion does not significantly increase the impacts on either the surrounding neighborhood or the master plan area. We also urge you to approve language that would allow an existing entity that may have two sites of operation in the same general vicinity, particularly in the same master plan area, to seek consolidation of their operations. This cou~d potentially reduce overall impacts to the general area, compared to the two operations running in separate locations, and would limit the dispersion of nonconforming uses. Thank you for your consideration of this important code provision and your foresight that may affect the Viability of various civic and institutional uses in otlr future. ~ ~/jt Ad('ress; G4fell ~~lt r1..t5 ~n.~fl)ANudM~~ !<a-r-e" 8~~-\/p /1 (l(')rP.:.o>e $.5'P- t- '/IJ L 0 I /l1.fJel\l!Fi(!LJ (CI';ffb) flS e. I J~ ~ l"d 179L'ON LE810260L6 WdLl:21 9002'El'~d~ ~Apr 13 OS 12:15p i Doug Weiser 970-927-0957 p.1 Cindy Houben, Planning Director Planning Commission Board of County Commissioners Pitkin County 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81612 Re: Proposed Land Use Codc Provision Dear County Staff members, Planning Commission mel nbers, and Commissioners: We, the undersigned Pitkin County residents, encouragti you to carefully consider the provision in the draft land use code relating to existing (ivic and institutional uses. Many of these entities have been great assets to our communit.... for many years and we hope that they will be allowed to flourish. Their continuing vi lbility is essential to Pitkin County's continued health as a balanced and economicaly diverse community. Please provide as much flexibility as possible in the neVI code provision that could potentially affect all civic and institutional uses in the c~unty in the years to come. We highly recommend and strongly urge that you approve I guage that will allow existing entities that could become nonconforming uses to expan up to a cap of 20%, if they are in substantial compliance with the approvals under whic they were legally created in the first place and their expansion does not significantly incr ease the impacts of the use on either the surrounding neighborhood or the master plan a rea. We also urge you to approve language that would allow lm existing entity that may have two sites of operation in the same general vicinity, partic\llarly in the same master plan area, to seek consolidation of their operations. This could potentially reduce overall impacts to the general area, compared to the two operatio ns expanding by 20% each, and would limit the dispersion of nonconforming uses. Thank you for your consideration of this important code l'lrovision and your foresight that may affect the viability of various civic and institutional \ lses in our future. ~, (JlctJ 5;z Ow~tU5 l\~ Received Time Apr, 13. 12:10PM ::; 04/13/2006 11:32 ~ 9709254006 DAVID HLCKENHIRN PAGE 01 Cindy Houben, Planning Director Planning Commission Board of County Commissioners Pitkin County 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81612 Re: Proposed Land Use Code Provision Dear County Staff members, Planning Commission men lbers, and Commissioners: We, the undersigned Pitkin COWlty residents, encourage you to carefully consider the provision in the draft land use code relating to existing civic and institutional uses. Many of these entities have been great assets tQ our oommunity for many years and we hope that they will be allowed tQ flourish. Their continuing viE b.ility is CSilG4tia1 to Pitkin County's continued health as a balanced and economical I y diverse community. Please provide flex:ibility in the new oode pmvisioo tOIl I :wid ~ affed lIll civic and institutional uses in the County in the ye8S to come. We.. tMl,.. 8IJIlI'OV8 , r 3t ... will aIJow e:xisUD8 cntiCies (tba& oouId beco me nonconforming uses in the fUbn) to ~-1. up... alp of2O%,. iftbey are ill subst,ntiaI compliance with the appmvaIs -- wtaidl1lwy wac kpJJy ~...&4 . the fitst place ... if their ex~inI:l does not ~ ;"'.dI!I(." ~18 OIl atba'..II......~ 01''' master plan area. We also lIl"ge yoo tit -w-vwe~, _~ dull would. allow two sites of operatic:lIt ia the __ Ifo,....mtl YiQaic.y.. . ~ to ...... ... "~-'-DlIl of their ........ "''ow This ClDUId i...-.... tht:~... ()~ to die No BBd WUIIItlIintit the ~- . 11. of~~.... ex.. adity that may have in the __ -- I .. plan . y reduce overaU a '. in $q)aa.loadioos, l1tank you b)'OW Ctl(_j.L...... of this iInport8IIIl code ~ _ YOUI' foresight that may ... die viability ofvario- civic ... . ...... -' \ ill '* fuIure. ~ d:t-J IJI ~ 'I PC/) /t'J) a> e~J/ ~\ Recel ved Time Apr. 11,l J.2;J4P~Ll'4:.') Apr 13 06 11 :36a p.1 Cindy Rouben, Planning Director Planning Commission Board of County Commissioners Pitkin County 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81612 Re: Proposed Land Use Code Provision Dear County Staff members, Planning Commission m,mbers, and Commissioners: We, the undersigned Pitkin County residents, encoura$e you to carefully consider the provision in the draft land use code relating to existing civic and institutional uses. Many of these entities have been great assets to OUT commun ty for many years and we hope that they will be allowed to flourish. Their continuing' riability is essential to Pitkin County's continued health as a balanced and economi<: ally diverse community. Please provide fle,ability in tbe new code provision t could potentially affect aJl civic and institutional uses in the County in the years to co . We urge that you approve language that will allow existing entities (that could b me nonconforming uses in the future) to expand, up to a cap of20%. if they are in su stantial compliance with the approvals under which they were legally created in the st place and if their expansion does not significantly increase the impacts on either th surrounding neighborhood or the master plan area. We also urge you to approve language that would allo~ an existing entity that may have two sites of operation in the same general vicinity, Part~' arty in the same master plan area, to seek consolidation of their operations. This co d potentially reduce overall impacts to the general area, compared to the two ope :)I]S running in separate location, and would limit the dispersion of nonconforming uses. Thank you for your consideration of this important code provision and your foresight that may affect the viability of various civic and institutional uses in our future. Signature: Ad~ess: "3cJ.i Ld.t\Q ~Gu..A Q+e ~s.s ~ fp(t,. I 3e:> ~Fk ~ '" ~~.~ /OP E.~"1)2A,u Dr --o/i:2/9-4s;:fr1/~/, 1'00 (.~'C\ <)t ~...~f\ 't\;~~",- ~< bq t"c1o -;;..tz&..~ dd. l17'r""-, Cc SIC I( '71;I-;~~ JiL~&v'- \,\V XApr 13 06 01:14p :-. ::: Ro:!!;s Jacobs 970-927-3890 p.1 ~.:..::~ Cindy Houben, Planning Director Planning Commission Board of County Commissioners Pitkin County 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81612 ~.r ~. !i.: Re: Proposed Land Use Code Provision Dear County Staff members, Planning Commission menbers, and Commissioners; We, the undersigned Pitkin County residents, encourage you to carefully consider the provision in the draft land use code relating to existing civic and institutional uses. Many of these entities have been great assets to our communit~' for many years and we hope that they will be allowed to flourish. Their continuing vi lbility is essential to Pitkin County's continued health as a balanced and economica:,ly diverse conununity. Please provide flexibility in the new code provision that ;ould potentially affect all civic and institutional uses in the County in the years to come. We urge that you approve language that will allow existing entities (that could becc me nonconforming uses in the future) to expand, up to a cap of20%, if they are in substantial compliance with the approvals under which they were legally created in the fi:st place and iftheir expansion does not significantly increase the impacts on either the s lllTounding neighborhood or the master plan area. :,... We also urge you to approve language that would allow m existing entity that may have two sites of operation in the same general vicinity, particlLlarly in the same master plan area, to seek consolidation of their operations. This could potentially reduce overall impacts to the general area, compared to the two operatio 1S running in separate location, and would limit the dispersion of nonconforming uses. Thank you for your consideration of this important code 1- revision and your foresight that may affect the viability of various civic and institutional, ses in our future. Addri:Ss: If) ~);.V 4 , I'1L ~I~'k. 5Hdf/H AS'C; !f/srj ~- Sh't>"e."-'...:,.......;;:>'O- G e> K .A.-"'J ~) R e c e i v e d Tim e A p r, 13. 1 : 13 PM ~OM HARIJEY -= ::: PHONE NO. 970 920 ~306 Apr. 13 2006 02:20PM P1 Cindy Houben, Planning Director Planning Commission Board of County Commissioners Pitkin County 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81612 h__ 'rt-_____.J T A._....I1T,....... ,..,_~_ ~_..:....:......... u~ar LUUlllY ~U1U IIlt:JlIlJ(;fS, rUIlIUllIg \..-UlIllIIJ~~IUII 1110;;11 !lJI;;J~, AIIU ~VIUUlf~;)IVIJOOI". We, the undersigned Pitkin County residents, encourage you to carefully consider the provision in the draft land use code relating to existing ci vie and institutional uses. Many of these entities have been great assets to our community for many years and we hope that they will be allowed to flourish. Their continuing villbility is essential to Pitkin County's continued health as a balanced and economical:y diverse community. Please provide flexibility in the new code provision that I~ould potentially affect aU civic and institutional uses in the County in the years to come. We urge that you approve language that will allow existing entities (that could becc me nonconforming uses in the future) to expand, up to a cap of 20%, if they are in subst Ultial compliance with the approvals under which they were legally created in the fi.'"St place and if their expansion does not significantly increase the impacts on either the s ~rrounding neighborhood or the master plan area. We also urge you to approve language that would allow ~ n existing entity that may have two sites of operation in the same general vicinity, particularly in the same master plan area, to seek consolidation of their operations. This could potentially reduce overall i......"rllo""..t:'I F^ ,.J..Q ap.np.p<':I1 OT",:U.a ""t"\n\,,~~ti tn thp. twn nI\P.nttt\ r\~ nlnnin~ in ~p:n~~tf': lo~~t.ion~. "Ill~ "v""ltr,l J '.'_,1.. t.1.&,-" ...Jl""'t',,,,,...... ~i............. ...,r ,.^".,........I'..l'....... ......:.-b ........-...... Thank you for your consideration of this important code Ilrovtsion and your foresight that may affect the viability of various civic and institutional lIses in our future. Signature: Addl ess: f- ~~ Ginni Galicin3{', PO Boll. 699, Aspen. CO 81612 1/ db 'F h- J Q k; a"tt'" Co 21' 1/ c. I Rece i ved Time Apr, 13, 1: 12PM ~~ , ~dIOl:l 'Sl'JdV eW1l pe^I'J,~ Cindy Houben, Planning Director Planning Commission Board of County Commissioners Pitkin County 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81612 Re: Proposed Land Use Code Provision Dear County Staff members, Planning Commission membc:rs, and Commissioners: We, the undersigned Pitkin County residents, encourage ycu to carefully consider the provision in the draft land use code relating to existing civk and institutional uses. Many of these entities have been great assets to our community fl,)r many years and we hope that they will be allowed to flourish. Their continuing viab lity is essential to Pitkin County's continued health as a balanced and economically diverse community. Please provide flexibility in the new code provision that could potentially affect all civic and institutional uses in the County in the years to come. Vre urge that you approve language that will allow existing entities (that could becon ,e nonconforming uses in the future) to expand, up to a cap of 20%, if they are in substalltial compliance with the approvals under which they were legalIy created in the fits l place and if their expansion does not sigDlficantly increase the impacts on either the sUlTounding neighborhood or the master plan area. We also urge you to approve language that would allow aI1 existing entity that may have two sites of operation in the same general vicinity, particularly in the same master plan area, to seek consolidation of their operations. This could] lotentially reduce overall impacts to the general area, compared to the two operation) running in separate location, and would limit the dispersion of nonconforming uses. Thank you for your consideration of this important code Plovision and your foresight that may affect the viability of various civic and institutional wes in our future. Signature: Addre ss: /r-- rrwkPj, ifro1laiwL< Ginni Galicinao, PO Box 699, Aspen, CO g 1612 1!1K..I<Ilft::R.lnwN DR. A-Sfi:~N CO rl6l { ld WdS~:Gl 900G ~l '~d~ 01>0ll>I>S0L6 'ON X~..:J ~r; ~~a : WO Cindy Houben, Planning Director Planning Commission Board of County Commissioners Pitkin County ] 30 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81612 Re: Proposed Land Use Code Provision Dear County Staff members, Planning Commission meJbers, and Commissioners: We, the undersigned Pitkin County residents, encourage ryou to carefully consider the provision in the draft land use code relating to existing civic and institutional uses. Many of these entities have been great assets to our community for many years and we hope that they will be allowed to flourish. Their continuing vi~ bility is essential to Pitkin County's continued health as a balanced and economically diverse community. Please provide flexibility in the new code provision that ,'ould potentially affect all civic and institutional uses in the County in the years to come. We urge that you approve language that will allow existing entities (that could become nonconforming uses in the future) to expand, up to a cap of 20%, if they are in substantial compliance with the approvals under which they were legally created in the fi~st place and if their expansion does not significantly increase the impacts on either the shrrounding neighborhood or the master plan area. We also urge you to approve language that would allow au existing entity that may have two sites of operation in the same general vicinity, partictlarly in the same master plan area, to seek consolidation of their operations. This could potentially reduce overall impacts to the general area, compared to the two operatio\1s running in separate location, and would limit the dispersion of nonconforming uses. Thank you for your consideration of this important code rrovision and your foresight that may affect the viability of various civic and institutional uses in our future. ... Addn ~ss: 3D ~.'v1;h ~ IULTN LvA.L.1 ~1'tJJJ,~S f6lft';l..1 r \ ( ~~J ( l'il D SruOWfVW\?S CeIL- FvJ - ~10~ q (I/:r At&- '/2.evy Xiu'1. ~/t >?,"~f)'J#tc~ Q202 (~~ Rvri ~- e(Ce~ ~ Cindy Houhen, Planning Director Planning Commission Board of County Commissioners Pitkin County 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81612 Re: Proposed Land Use Code Provision Dear County Staff members, Planning Commission me1l1bers, and Commissioners: We, tbe undersigned Pitkin County residents, encourage you to carefully consider the provision in tbe draft land use code relating to existing civic and institutional uses. Many of these entities have been great assets to our communit)' for many years and we hope that they will be allowed to flourish. Their continuing vi.~bility is essential to Pitkin County's continued health as a balanced and economicallY diverse community. Please provide flexibility in the new code provision that:ould potentially affect all civic and institutional uses in the County in the years to come.IWe urge that you approve language that will allow existing entities (that could becdne nonconforming uses in the future) to expand, up to a cap of 20%, if they are in substmtial compliance with the approvals under which they were legally created in the fi] 8t place and if their expansion does not significantly increase the impacts on either the shrrounding neighborhood or the master plan area. We also urge you to approve language that would allow 811 existing entity that may have two sites of operation in the same general vicinity, particL lady in the same master plan area, to seek consolidation of their operations. This could potentially reduce overall impacts to the general area, compared to the two operatiolts running in separate location, and would limit the dispersion of nonconforming uses. Thank you for your consideration of this important code provision and your foresight that may affect the viability of various civic and institutional mes in our future. ./ " ..~i['Pature~. i 'J) ((/~ . jflv Addn S8: , /~~ L~ !J/k I?d, 73~ {;; / l~ rit~ tctlW (\ LWA -- ~ DRAFT OF PROPOSED NEW LAND USE CODE PI<OVISION (e) Existing Civic and Institutional Uses Existing, legally established civic and institutional uses that are non-conforming shall be allowed to remain as non-conforming uses, and the BOCC may permit expansion and redevelopment of such uses by special review, subject tJ satisfaction of each of the following criteria: (3) At the time the use of the property was established such use must have been legally created and in substantial conformance \1 'ith the land use approvals granting such use (if any); and (4) The proposal for expansion or re-development 0 f structures, including transferred square footage (see criteria 6(a), shall be consist,:nt with neighborhood master plans and shall not change the character of the iIllmediately adjacent neighborhood nor significantly increase the impc cts of the use on either the surrounding neighborhood or the master plan area; and (5) The applicant has demonstrated that the expansicn ofre-development is the minimum development necessary to sustain the c peration and (6) In no event shall there be: (a) Any increase in the floor area of more than a I;umulative total of20% ofthe existing developed floor area of the civic or instit'utional use. Consolidation of floor area from non-contiguous Darcels that are utilized by the same civic or institutional entity may be permitte 1 and the allowed expansion ( 20% of existing floor area) 1 nay be calculated based on the total existing civic or institutional square footage of the combined parct:Is if compliance with the following criteria can be demonstrated: 1) Both the receiving parcel and all p lrcels from which square footage is to be transferred must meet the criteria in Section 9-50-30(e)(3) above. 2) The receiving site must be shown to be a superior location for the civic or institutional use, including the transferred square footage and 20% expansion, in terms of its carrying capacity or the ability to accommodate the civic or institutional use with minimal impacts on any adjacent property or on the surrounding Caucus Area; 3) The parcel from which square footage is being transferred must relinquish existing approvals allowing the civic or institutional use and must deed restrict against a.ny future civic or institutional use on that property; 4) Extinguishing the civic or institutio nal use on the parcel, from which square footage is being transferred (includillg its potential 20% expansion), must result in a reduction in impacts on adjacent p ~operties and the surrounding Caucus Area; 5) The overall impacts of the civic or institutional use, once consolidated on the receiving site and including thl: 20 percent expansion, must be a.I~' ~ lo. shown to be equal to or less than the impacts of the separate sites on the surrounding Caucus Area. 6) The properties involved must be within the same Caucus planning area and, in no case would transfer be allowed ~om a property in a Metro Area to a property in a Rural Area (7) The applicant shall prepare, and the Board shall lpprove after first receiving a recommendation from the P & Z, a site-specific naster plan for the property. The master plan shall include plans for the entire prol',erty and shall address, at a minimum, the following: Proposed revisions to tile site layout including architectural renderings, long term and constructJ on traffic impacts, immediate and long term employee limitations, change in th: daily, monthly, yearly and special event volume of activity on the property c nd permanent limitations on future development. L~~~ , EXHIBIT IQ - -0 f, Lazy Glen Lot Taxes :l. Typical tax on land only value of 5,000 sq ft. lot I q/ . - l Capitol Creek "ranch" parcels o ~ "," Purchase Price: $ 00,000 2005 Tax paid: $1,8 Purchase price: $945,000 2005 Tax paid: $1.84 These 2 and 4 acre ranches are not unusual in rural county areas The tax on the Lazy Glen mobile home lots with a valuation of about $22,OQO is 100 times the tax paid on the two small lots shown here. Source: Assessor's publi~ database v\~ '.. i D J!l MEMORANDUM DATE: RE: Cindy Houben, Director Communi y Development John Ely County Attorney April 10, 2006 Agricultural Property Tax Classific.ltion-Suggested Code Amendment TO: FROM: The problem this code amendment seeks to addnss is the continuing agricultural tax classification for properties that are not actively or pI actically engaged in agricultural production. The re-development of ranch properties in tl e County as well as the creation of large residential lots (35 acres) often results in pa'cels that are able to maintain agricultural tax classification at the same time the parc, Is are essentially and primarily used for second homes or at least residential purposes. The agricultural tax classification exists in the st lte statutes to help farmers and ranchers by lessening the property tax burden for agricultual properties. The state statutory scheme did not anticipate t Ie pattern of land use we are experiencing, which is the loss of large parcels to lux ury home development. As a consequence, properties that would not be recognizable as ranch land enjoy a sizable tax break. Up to this point, Pitkin County has dealt with t~s problem on an ad hoc basis, when properties are before the County for re-develop ent or development approvals. This has allowed for similar properties to experience dif erent treatment: not a desirable result. The status that triggers agricultural classifi ~ation is agricultural activity undertaken for a profit; commercial agriculture. Th ~ addition of a definition of commercial agriculture is proposed for Chapter 11. Commercial Agriculture. Any activity occurring 01 a property or the use of a property, including farming or ranching conllucted for profit, which would cause the property to be classified as agri ;ultural land as defined pursuant to Title 39, Colorado Revised Statues. There are several approaches to this land use ant l property taxation issue. First, prohibit commercial agriculture or limit it to special fe'riew in all zone districts in the County. Changes in statutory law which occurred in 20C 3 eliminated the ability of local governments to abate or amortize non-conforming uses, therefore, existing agricultural properties or uses would be unaffected by such a pn ,hibition. The creation of new agricultural properties, however, would not be allowed. As a reality, new agricultural \htll<.\) llkllllllll<.)l1\ \,'hl\ lh ~,)\111\\ \\\~'\\h\ 1',1.." j ~\ .. properties have essentially not been created for some ti1llie in Pitkin County. This approach would probably create too much anxiety among large pro perty owners. Another proposal for dealing with this issue has heen a function of a description of principal uses to be allowed on properties within given L one districts. If a property has or proposes a use, which is residential in character, then commercial agricultural activity would be prohibited. Confusion has resulted in this apploach where existing ranch land is approved with one or more residences that either hmse the owner or the workers associated with that property. Further, the issue of multi lie principal uses complicates this treatment. The best approach to this issue is to codify the ad hoc review that has been used in the past so that all properties are treated uniformly. Therefore, the development standards section of the code would be amended to add the followirlg language: Section 2-20-10(e). At the time a developrr ent approval, induding subdivision or PUD, is considered for any lot or Jarcel, an evaluation shall be conducted by the Community Development c ffice to determine if the resulting land use or character of the land is OJ' will be essentially and primarily residential, commercial, or other 'l.1se or character than agricultural. If the development approval will ~hange the primary and fundamental use of the property, or preclude its J.rimary and fundamental use, from being agricultural, then a covenant prohibiting commercial activity shall be required as a condition of that de,eiopment approval. Factors to be considered by Community Development when evaluating the resulting land use or character of tIe land shall include but not be limited to: the size of the property, the, aluation of the property and proposed improvements relative to the valuation of agricultural products produced on the property, the history of the property's use, the viability of any prospective agricultural use, the legal history of the property relative to subdivisions or other division~, the potential for future subdivision, and the type of historical agricultural Jse of the property. The covenant may be released by he Board of County Commissioners if the circumstances which cau ;ed the covenant to be required change. 6\) ..&. ......E,...' .L 'oJ..&.,L., Jeanette Jones EXHIBIT j-:1:. 1./-/3 -Of, From: Lance Clarke Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 8:53 AM To: Jeanette Jones Subject: FW: BOCC From: Marta Steinmetz [mailto:revmarta@sopris.net] Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 12:51 AM To: Cindy Houben; Lance Clarke; Suzanne Wolff; Ezra Louthis Subject: BOCC BOCC & Aspen City Council Aspen Colorado 4-12-06 Re: LUC Hearings on proposed revisions. Att: Jeanette Jones, I wish to have the following letter read into the record so that it will be reflected in the Minutes. My name is Marta Steinmetz. Pitkin County and Aspen have bllen my beloved home since 1954. I consider myself a local and full time resident, as I have rarely left the V~lIeY for more than 2 weeks per year, during the last 52 years. Although I have traveled throughout Europe and South America, many years I never ventured further than Glenwood Springs. When I first arrived in town, t e road to Glenwood was rough gravel; Aspen had only one paved street and only one or two law enforcement officers on duty at any given time. I believed, and still believe, I had found heaven on earth. I have observed, over the years, various new groups that would I come to town and discover the special and unique qualities offered by this beautiful area. Inevitably, every 10 {ears or so, the latest group of "nouveaux" locals would rally together and try to pull up the sidewalk fearing invasic n from the outside world. This resulted in the beginning of land use regulations and the gradual decline in the "livll and let live" philosophy that previously existed. Perhaps they were only trying to preserve the memories of th~.r youth and perpetuate the life style they each experienced during the time they collectively fell in love with Aspe . Or perhaps, and more likely, they were unwilling to share what they perceived as paradise with others. Whate er the reason, the Land Use Code and Growth Management evolved with a vengeance; each revision more restrictive than the one before it. These same people, whether they arrived 10, 20 30 or 40 years ago, have been forced to earn their livings from a tourist based economy, which presents a real dilemma to those Ivho wish to preserve their preferred vision of Aspen. Unfortunately, it is difficult to have our cake and eat it too. With successful marketing comes added tourism; with added tourism comes the need for more employees. Addi :ional employees have resulted in the inevitable; more people calling Aspen their "home." More residents reqllire additional housing, parking and other basic community services. To add insult to injury, we have provided sUl:h a great experience for tourists that many elect to buy second homes in our community every year. It would be difficult for any version of the Land Use Code to adequately address the legitimate concerns and issues prE'sented by such conflicting and diverse interests. 4/13/2006 5 I L.l6'"' .::... VJ. .:- Like it or not, growth is a reality in any thriving tourist based economy. Regulation of growth is critical, but must be carefully crafted to address the rights of current residents that are blessed with the ownership of real property in Pitkin County, residents who have not chosen to or have been unable to purchase real property, as well as those folks from all over the country and world who will choose to own property in our County in the future. This third group, the future property owners, is the only group that does not stand to lose as a result of the changes to the present Land Use Code. Commissioners, please remember that no matter what version of the Land Use Code is enacted, they will still come, they will still purchase whatever is available; growth cannot be avoided. It is time to acknowledge that the County's periodic reduction of our property values in the name of growth management will not bring back "Paradise Lost". Nor will it prevent future growth. Only the evolution of our collective social conscience, as it relates to the highest, best and most equitable use of land, will lead to effective growth management. Eventually, and without any further regulation by the County, the 15,000 square foot mammoth trophy homes will be torn down and replaced with several smaller, more energy efficient homes; or renovated into three or four luxury condominiums. Each of these new units will no doubt sell for many, many times the current price of the mammoth single family resident. Demand will drive supply. And they will continue to come. I am appealing to the Board of County Commissioners to consider who and what they are impacting by enacting the latest installment of the Land Use Code. Why must the County regulate growth by taking away our residents' precious property rights? Why can't the County consider providing incentives to our citizens and future citizens to build in a more environmentally friendly manner? 1. Growth management should be voluntary and should be acknowledged and rewarded. Tax credits, TDRs and other monetary and social incentives could be offered to property owners willing to restrict the size and location of structures on their property. 2. Alternatively, if the County believes the imposition of restrictive land use regulations on current property owners are imperative in order to manage future growth, the County must grandfather existing owners in perpetuity and possibly their immediate transferees for a period of time. In other words, the current owner of a parcel of land could build under the now existing land use code for as long as they own the property. In the event the current owner elects to sell the property, in order to avail themselves of the provisions of the current land use code they may sell to a new owner within a three to five year period to a new owner who could build under the former regulations within that time frame. This would provide all current property owners with the ability to maximize their property values, which for many of us constitute our life savings, if they choose to. The implementation of the proposed Land Use Code under any other scenario would truly amount to a taking of real property without just compensation. It is time to let Aspen and Pitkin County evolve gracefully while maintaining a high quality of life for its residents. I encourage the Board of County Commissioners and the Aspen City Council to respect the property rights of all concerned, by considering the overall impact of the proposed revisions to the Land Use Code on the many residents who would suffer serious financial impacts as a result. Those of us who work for a living appreciate your taking the time to listen. Thank you Marta Steinmetz PO Box 325 Aspen Co 81612 4/13/2006 ~11 EXHIBIT . j:r- t./ -/3 - 0" . ~ . fJ..:"l/.... A (lJr-vvo. ,"n_ .. ... . ~:~/! '~M"~rLdL~/~;~~~____=._ . r f<-I(!J 'l_ . . ('/rf!!/n_._______ 6 ;W c:to 72Qc~'i;~~-- (~7~~cgi.:1jb~_._ ._~_. .. -.--. ,. -. -.-- ~ . .--- .-~-. .- '._._---_.~..__._.- . ..- -=~- .1li~~:JnJti~~tt;:Z, ~--~ __n_ ....m - 1 J.I./C_ t:l.dR..m.{)j)fX'M-l. .:iz(g~.' --- .----.-----.- . -~_dtL-~t.n-Cb.-~-@!. . ~ . -------..-.-.--.--.-......-- ______n_~--.n..--. _.n_u 7;'--.. n._._..____ _u_ .u.______u____... __..__..____. _ . .. -- - ~~ cgaO'&.~..;:tz.~1f-dft.~ .. ...------.-- - - ~q~ LfIL-~-)....l~~/~~ . .=......-..~~na!~~~/~~ .- ... . _~hdQn Iv. j~--n_-.------n . . .....-Mi..~ ___n~"'- _~_~@J?.5~n - - .U_____n_._ -;;;;;;:J__k-_//ULdv --122ft diAL ~r:doL. ~. n. . .---'-'~-~--1---@-'- !)JtiliL.-j~ _n._ ~~~d-9fi~, . ... .... Uk i~~bio0Iiitfri#-L~iftifJ~~..Il!!-1t-;-, . pm f----. --. fAy ~uu.kl1l#-.~~._.._ --- ..- ,,{1 .. ..... J / ~ s!J ..... sU~~UaL +~aqo~ dLE:EO 90 El ~O~ . . . 1 . d LEv6 E26 OL6 ~4/13/06 THU 10,28 FAX 070 825 453' AIKI WORKS 141001 FCVf q 2.D ~ '54-39 Cindy Houben, Planning Director Planning Commission Board of County Commissioners Pitkin County 130 S_ Galena Aspen, CO 81612 EXHIBIT I K 1.("/3-01. Re: Proposed Land Use Code Provision Dear County Staff members, Planning Commission members, and Commissioners: We, the undersigned Pitkin County residents, encourage tou to carefully consider the provision in the draft land use code relating to existing citic and institutional uses. Many of these entities have been great assets to our community :for many years and we hope that they will be allowed to flourish. Their continuing vi$illty is essential to Pitkin County's continued health as a balanced and economica~ diverse community. Please provide flexibility in the new code provision that dould potentially affect all civic and institutional uses in the County in the years to come. We urge that you approve language that will allow existing entities (that could become nonconforming uses in the future) to expand, up to a cap of 20%, if they are in substantial compliance with the approvals under which they were legally created in the first place and if their expansion does not significantly increase the impacts on either the slJl1"ounding neighborhood or the master plan area. We also urge you to approve language that would allow l ill existing entity that may have two sites of operation in the same general vicinity, partie Ilarly in the same master plan area, to seek consolidation of their operations. This coul, potentially reduce overall impacts to the general area, compared to the two operati( ns running in separate location, and would limit the dispersion of nonconforming uses. Thank you for your consideration oftms important code provision and your foresight that may affect the viability of various civic and institutional USes in our future. Address: c.o..--Hu.t CKt.uM qql ~ A~ As~w ~(foq - ~ ( ~CWvle-1 O-~ ttletf\J'e ) jl) Cindy Houben i :l EXHIBIT L Y-/J-r; f, . From: Sent: To: Cc: Mark Polite [mbp@seagateprop.com) Thursday, April 13, 2006 B:51 AM Robert E. Kendig; Cindy Houben; Ellen Sassan,) Fkwallison@aol.com; kevinpward@mac.com; s lrah2350@aol.com; george.records@midfirst.com; whitmarvin@msll.com; Mark Polite; gib@sopris.net; Daniel Holtz RE: Revised Code 9-50-30(e) Non Conforming :;ivic and Institutional U.ses Subject: Cindy and Ellen: We are vehemently opposed to this last minute proposal by RMI. The fact that ANY expansion of a non-conforming use is even being considered by the P&Z and the BOCC for this rural and agricultural area is uni1ue from a land planning prospective. The proposal that they, or any other non-conforming use, be allowed to transfer development rights within the Caucus Area in order to ci~cumvent the proposed 20% growth limi t (of current on site FAR) should be opposed and fou<Jht by nearly every neighbor in the Snowmass/Capitol Creek Caucus area. Certainly the 1;0+ neighbors who signed the statement presented at the first and second readings wou:.d oppose this proposal. This is, and should remain, a rural and agricultural area, not a <:ommercial/institutional area. As P&Z Alternate John Howard said at the first reading.. "zone it like you mean it". If you want to adhere to the wishes of the majority of the ~;M/CC Caucus area residents, do not encourage the expansion of non-conforming commercial, institutional uses in this area. Please share these comments with every member of the P&Z and the BOCC. Thank you, Mark Polite 2316 Snowmass Creek Road Old Snowmass, CO 81654 -----Original Message----- From: Robert E. Kendig [mailto:rkendig@garfieldhecht.com] Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 6:48 AM To: cindyh@co.pitkin.co.us Suhject: Revised Code 9-50-30(e) Non Conforming Civic and, Institutional Uses Cindy, I am sure you are swamped currently but I understand that material changes to the above revised Code section were discussed on Tuesday and tabled until Thursday and I would appreciate the opportunity to comment on those proposed changes. I represent the Polite family, long time property owners in the Snowrnass Creek Vdlley whose property is directly across the road from RMI. Members ot the faniily provided [)Ublic comment on this portion of the Draft Code at First Readinq but were not able to attend Tuesday's meeting. Unfortunate2.y Marty pickett's :.etter advocating this further amendment on hehalf of RMI was only delivered to you at the very last minute. We wen, unaware of it's existence or would have been at the prior meeting to address the issue! presented. Much of the discussion of this area of the Code seems to 1 ave occurred in the context of P.MI's rather significant expan"'ion plans rather than in te e context of a neutral application of the Code to sit~ations that may arise in tee future involving as yet unknown parties. This seems unfortunate in that RMI is a jCopular institution. The issue now, ~owever, is not RMI but the expansion of non-conforming uses throughout the County. As revised on first reading, section 9-50-30(e) allows motest expansion of leqally existiIlq non-conforming uses under limited circumstances. That, in and of itself, is a major change. The existing Code allows essentially no expansion and for good reason. Non-conforming uses are uses that are concrary to the 1 5) requirements of the Code and as such, must legally be allowed to continue because they predated the applicable zoning, but should not be allowed to expand. The proposed amendment as approved on first reading allows a very limit€d exception, carefully controlled. At the same time, it caps expansion in an objective way. without objective limits on expansion of development that is already non-conforming, those properties could continue to seek further expansion that would be contrary to the purposes of the Code. The proposed RMI amendment is completely unlimited in the amount of expansion a given non- conforming property could seek. RMI, for example, owns several properties in the Sno-Cap Caucus area (as of two years ago when they first applied to expand they represented that they owned 5 buildings in the area not including the buildings on the Windstar property) . The proposed amendment would allow an applicant to use existing, legally created Floor Area, or perhaps even build more and then transfer that Floor Area to increase the size of their proposed expansion of the non-conforming use. At the same time, the same Floor Area, already transferred would remain legal on the sending parcel subject only to not being used for civic or institutional uses. The sent Floor Area would remain available for use for anything else. As written, the proposal allows doubling the Floor Area of one of two non contiguous parcels, and increasing that total by 20% on that parcel all without any reduction of the allowable Floor Area on the sending parcel. Floor Area is not transferred but instead "created" simply by virtue of the fact that the Institutional owner owns more than one parcel. Presumably that institutional owner could buy any number of other tracts, create Floor Area to send and then sell the parcel for development for another purpose. For example, RMI would, as the proposal is written, be permitted to more than triple its square footage and then add 20% on to that despite being an acknowledged non-conforming use. In addition, other than civic and 'institutional use, there would be no limit on the use of the "sending" parcel which, in the case of RMI would be free market properties available for any development allowed by the code (except civic or institutional) including any allowable increase in square footage.. As proposed, there is no limit to the amount of Floor Area that could be transferred to one parcel from an unlimited number of parcels now owned or later acquired. Further, the use of Floor Area from other parcels has no meaningful impact on the development of those "sending" parcels. The net effect is a potentially unlimited amount of development of non-conforming parcels with no consequences on the development potenU al of the other "sending " parcels. What is proposed is a sort of do it yourself free and unlimited TDR for non-conforming institutional user. The proposed concept turns the idea of a non-conforming use completely upside down. Rather than limiting expansion of what, by definition, is a use that is contrary to the goals of the Code, it confers on those properties the potential for expansion beyond that available to conforming neighbors. The proposal completely eliminates the meaningful objective limit imposed by the Board on first reading. Anyone who has watched the public hearings on the revised Code must have been struck with the clear desire and intent of preservinq the rural characte~ of pitkin County and particularly outside of Urban Growth Boundaries. The RMI proposal is directly contrary to that aim. I will be attending the public hearing on Thursday and would appreciate the opportunity to expand on these comments or present them to the Commissioners for the first time if there is insufficient time to get these comments to them. Thanks Bob Robert E. Kendig Garfield & Hecht, P.C. 601 E.Hyrnan Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 970-925-1936 970-920-4433(fax) rkendig@garfieldhecht.com 2 ~~ Cindy Houben From: Sent: To: Subject: Rober! E. Kendig [rkendig@garfieldhecht.com] Thursday, April 13, 2006 7:48 AM Cindy Houben Revised Code 9-50-30(e) Non Conforming Civic and Institutional Uses Cindy, I am sure you are swamped currently but I understand that material changes to the above revised Code section were discussed on Tuesday and tablei until Thursday and I would appreciate the opportunity to comment on those proposed :hanges. I represent the Polite family, long time property owners in the SnOWIDass Creek lalley whose property is directly across the road from RMI. Members of the family provided public comment on this portion of the Draft Code at First Reading but were not able to attond Tuesday's meeting. Unfortunately Marty Pickett's letter advocating this fur:her amendment on behalf of RMI was only delivered to you at the very last minute. We we-e unaware of it's existence or would have been at the prior meeting to address the issu,~s presented. Much of the discussion of this area of the Code seems to have occurred in the context of RMI's rather significant expansion plans rather than in "fhe context of a neutral ~pplication of the Code to situations that may arise in the future involving as yet unknown parties. This seems unfortunate in that RMI is a popular institution. The issue now, however, is not RMI but the expansion of non'::conforming uses throughout the County. As revised on first reading, section 9-50-30(e) allows modest expansion of legally existing non-conforming uses under limited circumstances. That, in and of itself, is a major change. The existing Code allows essentially no eXl'ansion and for good reason. Non- conforming uses are uses that are contrary to the requin,ments of the Code and as such, must legally be allowed to continue because they predateu the applicable zoning, but should not be allowed to expand. The proposed amendment is approved on first reading allows a very limited exception, carefulJy controlled. At the same time, it caps expansion in an objective way. Without objective limits on expansicn of development that is already non-conforming, those propert:.es could continue to seek Jurther expansion that would be contrary to the purposes of the Code. The proposed RMI amendment is completely unlimited in thE amount of expansion a given non- conforming property could seek. RMI, for example, owns sEveral properties in the Sno-Cap Caucus area (as of two years ago when they first applied to expand they represented that they owned 5 buildings in the area not including the buiJdings on the Windstar property) . The proposed amendment would allow an applicant to use e~isting, legally created Floor Area, or perhaps even build more and then transfer that Floor Area to increase the size of their proposed expansion of the non-conforming use. At tte same time, the same Floor Area, already transferred would remain legal on the sending parcel subject only to not being used for civic or institutional, uses. The sellt Floor Area would remain available for use for anything else. As written, the proposal allows doubling the Floor Area of one of two non contiguous parcels, and increasing that total by 20% on that parcel all without any reduction of the allowable Flcor Area on the sending parc~l. Floor Area is not transferred but instead "created" simply by virtue of the fact that t'-,e Institutional owner owns more than olle parcel. Presumably that institutional owner coul:i buy any number of other tracts, create Floor Area to send and then sell the parcel for development for another purpose. For example, RMI would, as the proposal is written, be pecmitted to more than triple its square footage and then add 20% on to that despite being ,n acknowledged non-conforming use. In addition, oth~r than civic and institutional use, there would be no limit on the use of the "sending" parcel which, in the case of RMI wOUlLd be free market properties available for any development allowed by the code (except civic or institutional) including any allowable increase in square footage.. As p'oposed, there is no limit to the amount of Floor Area that could be transferred to one par,:el from an unlimited number of ~arcels now owned or later acquired. Further, the use of .'loor Area from other parcels has no meaningful impact on the development of those "sending' parcels. The net effect is a potentially unlimited amount of development of non-confonring parcels with no consequences on the development potential of the other "sending" parcEels. What is proposed is a sort of do it yourself free and unlimited TOR for non-conformillg institutional user. The proposed concept turns the idea of a non-conforming u:;e completely upside down. Rather than limiting expansion of what, by definition, is a use that is contrary TO ~he goals of the Code, it confers on those properties the potential fOl expansion beyond that avaiJabJe to conforming neighbors. The proposal completely eliminates the meaningful objective limit imposed by the Board on ::irsl: reading. 1 ,1 Anyone who has watched the public hearings on the revised Code must have been struck with the clear desire and intent Df preserving the rural character of Pitkin County and particularly outside of Urban Growth Boundaries. The RMI proposal is directly contrary to that aim. .1 will be attending the public hearing on Thursday and would appreciate the opportunity to expand on these comments or present them to the Commissioners for the first time if there is insufficient time to get these comments to them. Thanks Bob Robert E. Kendig Garfield & Hecht, P.C. 601 E.Hyrnan Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 970-925-1936 970-920-4433(fax) rkendig@garfieldhecht.com 2 7~ Cindy Houben From: Kristina Hurrell [kristina@spafarLcom] Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 9:22 AM To: Cindy Houben Subject: RMI Dear Cindy, I am emailing you regarding the proposed expansion meeting for RMI m~eting today, We would like to go on record that we are opposed to any further expam.ion plans for RMJ. Although we value what RMI are doing in the world, we feel that any expansions would be detrimental to rural Old Snowmass. Kristina and Robert Krakovitz 94 Elk Range Dr. Old Snowmass (Gateway) 4/13/2006 71 .L U.S"'" .L V.L ..l Cindy Houben From: TDanis314@aol.com Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 7:50 AM To: Cindy Houben Subject: No Subject I am totally appalled andaposed to the new language potentially RMI to expand more in Old Snowmmass Valley. I live almost across road, Our area is defined as rural. How does that fit with RMI commercial developmen. They belong in Basalt or Carbondale or Aspen commercial district and could support restuarants and other in structure in place. 4111/200() ~\) 96 Little Elk Creek Avenue Snowmass CO 81654 April 13, 2006 Cindy Houben, Planning Director Planning Commission Board of County Commissioners Pitkin County 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81612 Re: Proposed Land Use Code Provision ~-~.. . Dear County Staff members, Planning Commission mem'ben., and Commissioners: We, the undersigned Pitkin County residents, are extremely wncemed about an apparent attempt to insert a rather radical change into the new land us(: code at what amounts to the twelfth hour. With such short notice, neither of us can be at today's 2PM hearing on this provision, but we are writing because we hope our voice; will be heard. Weare adamantly opposed to this proposed provision and urge you not to include it in the fmal draft of the new Land Use Code. Thank you. ! Bruce ;. Andd Laura W. Anderson & I Please do not include this provision in the new land use code: DRAFT OF PROPOSED NEW LAND USE CODE PROVISION (e) Existing Civic and Institutional Uses Existing, legally established civic and institutional uses that are non-conforming shall be allowed to remain as non-conforming uses, and the BOCC may permit expansion and redevelopment of such uses by special review, subject to satisfaction of each of the following criteria: (3) At the time the use of the property was established such use must have been legally created and in substantial conformance with the land use approvals " granting such use (if any); and (4) The proposal for expansion or re-development of structures, including transferred square footage (see criteria 6(a), shall be consistent with neighborhood master plans and shall not change the character of the immediately adjacent neighborhood nor significantly increase the impacts of the use on either the surrounding neighborhood or the master plan area; and (5) The applicant has demonstrated that the expansion ofre-devclopment is the minimum development necessary to sustain the operation and (6) In no event shall there be: (a) Any increase in the floor area of more than a cumulative total of20% of the existing developed floor area of the civic or institutional use. Consolidation of floor area from non-contiguous parcels that are utilized by the same civic or institutional entity may be permitted and the allowed expansion ( 20% of existing floor area) may be calculated based on the total existing civic or institutional square footage of the combined parcels if compliance with the following criteria can be demonstrated: I) Both the receiving parcel and all parcels from which square . footage is to be transferred must meet the criteria in Section 9-50-30(e)(3) above. 2) The receiving site must be shown to be a superior location for the civic or institutional use, including the transferred square footage and 20% expansion, in terms of its carrying capacity or the ability to accommodate the civic or institutional use with minimal impacts on any adjacent property or on the surrounding Caucus Area; 3) The parcel from which square footage is being transferred must relinquish existing approvals allowing the civic or institutional use and must deed restrict against any future "dvic or institutional use on that property; 4) Extinguislllng the civic or institutional use on the parcel, from which square footage is being transferred (including its potential 20% expansion), ~v must result in a reduction in impacts on adjacent pr~perties and the surrounding Caucus Area; I 5) The overall impacts of the civic or itistitutional use, once consolidated on the receiving site and including the 20 percent expansion, must be shown to be equal to or less than the impacts of the ~eparate sites on the surrounding Caucus Area. i 6) The properties involved must be witl in the same Caucus planning area and, in no case would transfer be allowed from a property in a Metro Area to a property in a Rural Area (7) The applicant shall prepare, and the Board shall app .ove after fIrst receiving a recommendation from the P & Z, a site-specifIc ma~ter plan for the property. The master plan shall include plans for the entire propert y and shall address, at a minimum, the following: Proposed revisions to the site layout including architectural renderings, long term and construction p-affIc impacts, immediate and long term employee limitations, change in the dlWy, montWy, yearly and special event volume of activity on the property and permanent limitations on future development. (0) Cindy Houben From: Chelsea Congdon [chels@firstlightfilms.tv] Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 8:58 PM To: Cindy Houben Subject: P&Z hearing Thursday Hi Cindy - I how are you? Lots of work for you these days... I may not be able to attend the P&Z hearing tomorrow (Thursday), but I understand that late on Monday, RMI submitted comments requesting a change in the 20% growth cap for existing non- conforming uses (Section 9-50-30(e). Their language would anow the existing floor area from a combination of separate properties, all owned by the single entity, .0 be totaled together in calculating the allowed 20% expansion. lady Edwards' letter to you makes the correct argument... it would be ludicrous for the County to go to this length to improve the cDde (and you have done so!) to protect the resources of the Country, control the rate of growth, and protect th,: quality of life here, and then allow this loophole to make it into the final language. I refer you to his letter and concur with is statements. I am a big fan ofRMI's, and a friend of many who work there. But this issue is about protecting the long-term rural and residential character and values ofthe Old Sno'~mass and other rural parts of the county. The original language and interpretation of Section 9- 50- 3 OC e) is the correct one. RMI and any other existing non-conforrrring use should have to limit its expansion to 20% of the existing floor area of the propertylbuilding to be expanded, nothing m'Jre. Thanks, Chelsea Congdon Brundige 1755 Snowmass Creek Rd. Snowmass, CO 81654 (970) 927-1667 4/13/2006 ~~ Cindy Houben From: Sent: To: Subject: James Brundige Obrun@sopris.net] Wednesday, April 12, 2006 9:22 PM Cindy Houben RMI rules interpretation I strongly support Jody Edward's letter pointing out that allowing RMI to add all it's property together to calculate an expansion totally undermines the spirit of the proposed regulations. If the BOCC does not want the 20% expansion cap on non-conforming uses, it should write the code that way, not create a possibly infinite loophole. If the BOCC does want this cap, which I endorse, it should apply to the property considered for redevelopment, not all properties owned by the same entity. James Brundige \n~ Ellen Sassano From: Sent: To: Lance Clarke Thursday, April 13, 2006 10:32 AM Ellen Sassano Subject: FW: (no subject) I'm forwarding 10 you as I can't print From: RubyAmicon@aol.com [mailto:RubyAmicon@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 10:25 AM To: Cindy Houben; Lance Clarke Subject: (no subject) Dear Cindy and Lance, As a property owner on Redstone Blvd. , the 50 foot setback from ;treams does not work with our lot sizes nor does this work with the density regulation that we all carre on agrrement upon in the last few years.. We would hope you would exempt Redstone Blvd. from this regulation. Thanks for your time, Kim and Billy Amicon The Crystal Club Cafe 467 Redstone Blvd Redstone, CO 970-963-9515 4/13/2006 f~ Cindy Houben From: Sent: To: Subject: Robert E. Kendig [rkendig@garfieldhecht.com] Thursday, April 13, 2006 10:48 AM Cindy Houben Marty Pickett's email of 7:30 last night Cindy, I just received Marty Pickett's email of last night relating her version of the history of the property. I would appreciate your passing the following responsive comments on to the Commissioners: As stated in the Staff Memo submitted to the Board prior to First Reading of the revised Land Use Code, it is "innappropriate" to discuss the details of a particular case outside the proper review forum of that case. Nevertheless, RMI continues to argue the merits of it's particular plan for expansion in a rural area in the context of what should be a general discussion of the proposed new code as it applies to all landowners in pitkin County. Marty pickett's email to the Board yesterday evening is only the latest such action. I write on behalf of the Polite family, long time landowners on SnOWIDass Creek directly accross from RMI. We very strongly disagree with the factual assertions made in Marty's letter and would be happy to debate their accuracy in the proper forum. Whether, and to what extent the current Board should even consider almost thirty year old land use approvals relating to a specific property is not at issue presently. Whether RMI has ever been in compliance, substantial or otherwise, with existing almost thirty year old approvals is not at issue presently. We disagree that the property was in danger of development in 1996. We disagree that RMI has generally been in compliance with existing approvals. Indeed, the impetus for the RMI rezoning effort two years ago was County staff concern as early as 1996 that their use exceeded both the scope and nature of those contemplated by existing approvals. This much cart easily be seen from the briefest examination of the County records relating to the property. To debate the merits of those claims would not, as Staff has pointed out, be appropriate at this time. For that reason we request the the Board ignore any such approach and address the issues without reference to particular properties Thank you. Robert E. Kendig Garfield & Hecht, P.C. 601 E.Hyman Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 970-925-l936 970-920-4433(fax) rkendig@garfieldhecht.com 1 \01 Cindy Houben From: Edwin Glickman [edwinc@sopris,net] Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 10: 17 AM To: Cindy Houben Subject: RMI Dear Cindy, It is almost unbelievable at this late state, without notice, that there shoJd be an attempt to reinterpret the manner in which limited growth is allowed. On behalf of the 100-150 residents VI ho have previously recorded their objections to this kind of expansion, I wish to reiterate our position and call upon the Planning and Zoning Board to maintain the original allowance for limited growth for the RMI property. Sincerely, Edwin C. Glickman 4/13/2006 ~~ Cindy Houben From: RubyAmicon@aol.com Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 10:25 AM To: Cindy Houben; Lance Clarke Subject: (no sUbject) Dear Cindy and Lance, As a property owner on Redstone Blvd. , the 50 foot setback from streams does not work with our lot sizes nor does this work with the density regulation that we all came on agrrement upon in the last few years.. We would hope you would exempt Redstone Blvd. from this regulation. Thanks for your time, Kim and Billy Amicon The Crystal Club Cafe 467 Redstone Blvd Redstone, CO 970-963-9515 4/13/2006 ~\ Lance Clarke From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Peter Martin [pmartin@rof.net] Thursday, April 13, 2006 11: 15 AM Mick Ireland forward; Dorothea Farris forward; Patti Clapper forward; Jack Hatfield Peter W. Thomas; Lance Clarke Fwd: Stream Setbacks & 1,000 Feet Exemption You need an exception for VC!VR in historic Redstone as ,)lder buildings will be replaced and Redstone is a stream side village. And for what it I S worth, th,= 1,000 square foot exempti'lD was a compromise and sort of an agreement when the BOCC went from 15,000 to 5,750 severa.. years ago. I haven't been attending and am hesitant to comment but ':hese two concepts are within my experience so I forward them to you. Thanks for all you:" work. Pm > Sent: Wednesday, April 12, :2006 10:11 AM > To: Lance Clarke > Cc: Cindy Houben > Subject: Stream Setbacks > > It's probably too late to comment but I do question whether this is > going too far. Heck, I think - as you know - that the Village of > Redstone - is a very special place and most of the devE:lopment is > close to the Crystal. What will you do when it comes to "re- > development" of the Crystal Club, etc. ???? Just wonc,:ering. Do > appreciate how difficult all of this is. Regards, > Peter 1 10 Cindy Houben From: Kevin Ward [kevinpward@mac.com] Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 10:56 AM To: Cindy Houben Subject: TDanis 314 @AOL.com Please read statement from those that cannot ge there that we are opposed to new language. Don't they get we don't want commercial in district. I am surprised by Sue Helm who was so irrated about anything changing her end of the valley. You can let her know she is clearly speaking for what bothers her neighborhood only. ----- 4/13/2006 ~\