HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.reg.08111980} .•
-
00.
•.• .: cati` w�fCCibT .4A8,:..."E- !Fiftl ^Y'.S'k.�. sOVazesa. w. s.tw.....�,.�w.awh�,...�..em-
_
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MEETING AGENDA
August 11, 1980
ti
..
..
y,
9:45
/ Weed.Survey, MF
10:00
✓P.H. Proposed Code Changes, SMS
10:20
Redstone Blvd. Easement /Fire Hydrant at Community Center, PD
10:30
/P.H. Abacus Alternate Detailed Submission, JW
,
'
1O:45
Resolutions and Contracts
`/Mi utes
,y
F,
✓ asterplan Grant Acceptance DM
mpp A ent Contract for Budget 'Analysis, TO
Webster Tele Communications, JD
s
✓Petition to Home Rule Charter, Call Election, LB
c✓Proposed Charter Changes, SMS
BOCC Salary Increase
Sheriff Fees
€
Nominating Petition
✓UMTA Grant Amendment Approval, TO, GF
e
11:00
V/Pirst Readings and Set Public Hearings
Supplemental Budget Appropriation Tp
Non Conforming
Lodge Uses, RG 9/22/80 10 :00 a.m..
Bond Proceedings, SMS
11:15
v*Highlands Rezoning - Continued, RG, JH
11 :40
✓ Pomegranate Inn Management Request, LS
11:45
V Redstone Historical Preservation Committee Appointments, JV
12:00
\j1pnch Break
1.3`0
Appointment of'Three Members'to Election Committee, LB
1:45
,/Approval of Minority Business Enterprise Program, STS
1;50.\/
Saiance'of Funding, UCRCCB, GM
Z:.W
PP. Rea ofntment of P &Z Members, KS
2;15
✓ Executive Sessions, SMS
W
4 ;00
Joint Meeting
/Bus Washing Facility, PD
v/Paid Treasurer, RFECU, SS
�pen Space Advisory Bd, JV
olid Waste Regulation to Cover Trucks, TD
,/Communication Center Funding Request, NP
{/burnt Mountain Study Agreement, JW
ri. ,
N
PITKIN COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Regular Meeting August 11, 1980
PRESENT: Chairman Michael Kinsley, Robert W. Child, Joseph E. Edwards, Jr.
Weed Mark Fuller presented a request for funding of a weed survey to determine the extent
J� Control
Survey of the weed problem in the County, and the extent to which the public is interested in
dealing with the problem. Bill Wright, of CMC, would perform the survey for $1500,
which would include distributing questionnaires to residents of McLain Flats, Lower
rr
Commissioners Meeting
August 11, 1980 - 1
Woody Creek, and the Snowmass and Capitol Creek valleys, and determining the percentage
of the land area that has gone to weeds. Fuller hoped the study would be completed by
the first week in September, and said the Aspen Valley Improvement Association has in-
dicated they will make a contribution toward the cost of hiring Wright. Kinsley asked
if the study is really necessary, or if it is clear where the weed problem exists.
Fuller felt the study would approach the problem in an organized way, by involving the
landowners in the solution process. Some alternatives include forming a weed control
M
district, or setting up a voluntary system for controlling the problem. Stewart asked
if the study would also include recommendations for methods to kill weeds, including cost
estimates. He felt the solution to the problem is the most important aspect from the
r
County's standpoint. Fuller said the study would determine people's willingness to
participate in solving the weed problem. Child asked about the weed control measures
used in Garfield County. Fuller said theirs is a voluntary system, with a weed inspec-
tor hired by the county; landowners are then charged for treatments to their land,
and the county made the initial capital outlay for the equipment used to treat weeds.
That would be one alternative in this County, or a formal district could be established
with mil levy revenues to finance solutions to the problem. Kinsley asked how the weeds
would be killed. Fuller reported that the chemicals needed to kill thw weeds are highly
toxic, and are safe if used in a controlled, site - specific manner. Kinsley asked about
potential secondary effects. Fuller said that would depend on how the chemical is
used; the weed killers can have secondary effects on small animals. Child asked if the
survey would inform people of those potential effects. Fuller said the format for the
survey has not yet been determined; it could be as detailed as the Board felt necessary.
Wilton Jaffee Sr., representing the Aspen Valley Improvement Association (AVIA), said
if nothing is done to control the weeds, the poison hemlock and thistle will multiply
dramatically by next year; since the weeds have already gone to seed, cutting at this
point will not prevent recurrance of the problem next year. Jaffee said the weed problem
rr
Commissioners Meeting
August 11, 1980 - 1
Commissioners Meeting
Elam ,
August 11, 1980 - 2
has increased over the years, as the character of the land has changed from agricultural
use to real estate oriented use. He said fewer and fewer people understand weed control,
and landowners have allowed weeds to multiply on their property. Jaffee added that the
major cause of the problem is the County's failure to cut the weeds on the sides of
the roads. As the weeds become established, they eventually take over an entire area
and exclude the native species. In addition, poison hemlock is extremely toxic and is
a danger to animals and livestock.
Fuller said the study would be useful in identifying the potential scale of the pro-
blem, the risk associated with chemical weedkillers, the number of landowners who would
be willing to participate in weed control, and educating the public of the problem,
especially in the case of absentee landlords. Jaffee said AVIA would be willing to
contribute some funding, but he could not say how much.
Kinsley moved to allocate up to $1500 as a non - recurring expense to cover the cost of
the study, a part of which may be deferred by a contribution from AVIA. Child seconded
and the motion passed unanimously.
Public
The Board convened a public hearing to consider various amendments to the Land Use
^Hearing:
Code
Code. Sandra Stuller explained the first change would grant the Board of Adjustment
Amendments
authority to allow variances for functional windmills. The second change relates to
reversionary zoning, and states that any rezoning application filed in conjunction
with a PUD or subdivision application will not become final until subdivision or PUD
approval has been finalized. The third change would require that mobile homes be in-
spected prior to the closing of a sale; the Code currently requires inspection within
thirty days after sale. The last change concerns alternatives for recognizing PMH
housing units in the GMP scoring process. Three alternatives were forwarded to public
hearing: awarding PMH units at a ratio of 15% of the GNP housing points; awarding
points only for the number of units which could have been built under the existing
zoning; or awarding points only for the number of PMH units equal to the number of
free market units. The P & 2 recommended approval of the second alternative. Jim
Hamilton, Housing Director, disagreed with their recommendation, and felt GMP applica-
tions should receive credit for all PMH units. Karen Smith said a similar method has
been adopted by the City, and she agreed with Hamilton's recommendation. Smith noted,
however, that that would create an incentive for higher density, and if a large project
involved PMH units there would be a potential for allowing a substantial number of
free - market units. Smith felt those concerns could be mitigated by the Hoard's ability
to deny any PMH rezoning, and by the fact that any freemarket units would be phased by
Commissioners Meeting
Elam ,
August 11, 1980 - 2
'J ; the quota of new units allowed each year.
R
Child pointed out that the Board was trying to avoid a double bonus for PMH units,
which would occur by allowing extra density plus extra points under the GMP- scoring.
Hamilton said he did not feel developers would apply for the PMH zone if they don't
benefit from the units in the GMP procedure, since they can't make money on PMH units
alone. Stuller noted the P 6 Z felt a PMR unit should be viable through the density
bonus, so they recommended awarding points only for the units which would have been
allowed under the existing zoning. They recommended against awarding points for all
PMH units in a project. Hamilton added that the P & Z does not support exempting
PMH units from the yearly quota, and they are opposed to granting more units than the
zoning would permit.
Edwards said that, under PMH zoning, the developer benefits by using a small land
commitment to comply with the housing requirements, and by receiving a density bonus,
which affords economies of scale. He felt Hamilton's suggestion would provide an even
further bonus by resulting in a higher score for a GMP application. Smith felt that
Hamilton's suggestion would provide an additional incentive for PMH units, which the
Board would still have control over through the PMH rezoning process. Chil also pointed
out that land costs could be written off for a greater number of units, which would re-
duce the unit price. Stoller said that the Code presently states that PMH units can
satisfy the housing requirements of section 5.30 only if the overall density of the
free- market and PMH units does not exceed the existing zoning. She noted that the
Aspen Highlands GMP application states that the requirements of section 5.30 do not
apply because of their innovative method of solving their housing needs through the
provision of PMH units, since the PMH units cannot be used to satisfy section 5.30.
Smith pointed out that the maximum number of free - market units that could be built would
still be limited by the annual quota. Hamilton replied that PMH units would not count
against the annual quota, so each year the annual quota would be filled only with
free- market units; under the present system, half of the yearly quota consists of
restricted units. Smith explained that the only employee housing units that are exempt
from the quota are PMH units; other restricted units are still counted against the
quota. Kinsley did not feel that excluding PMH units from the quota should allow the
equivalent number of free - market units under the quota. Edwards said the issue is
whether the Board is willing to incur density increases to solve the employee housing
problem. Child moved adoption of the amendment with alternative three. Edwards said he
would prefer alternative two, since it was recommended by the P 6 Z, and would be
consistent with the requirements in section 5.30. Child's motion died for lack of a
Commissioners Meeting
August 11, 1980 - 3
y
j
second. Edwards moved adoption of the amendment with alternative two. Kinsley
seconded and the motion passed with opposition from Child.
The hearing was then opened to public comment on the amendments concerning wind-
mills, reversionary zoning, and mobile home inspections. Steve Mueller commented
that mobile homeowners went along with the adoption of the Mobile Home Code with the
understanding that inspections would be required after, rather than before, a sale. E
He felt it is the responsibility of the buyer to be aware of what they are purchasing, !
and added that the Board is singling out mobile homes, since these inspections are
not required for other housing units. Mrs. Phillips did not think it is fair to
saddle the buyer with the responsibility of an inspection, and said it would be more
appropriate to protect buyers by requiring inspections prior to sale. She added that
these inspections should apply to all homes and condominiums also. Kinsley noted
that, historically, many additions or alterations have been made to mobile homes
without inspections, which has resulted in some very unsafe units; he felt that
safety factor is more severe than that involved with homes or condominiums. There
r
being no further comment, the hearing was closed. Edwards moved approval of the three
amendments as drafted. Child seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Public The Board convened a public hearing to consider an alternative detailed submission
Bearing:
Abacus and subdivision exemption application for the Abacus Ranch (Frank) subdivision. Toe
Ranch
Alter- Wells, of the Planning Office, explained that the subdivision exemption application'
nate
Detailed would provide for the realignment of lot lines in filing one, which is provided for
Submission
in the "fully developed" exemption clause. The P S Z recommended approval of the
application, however their resolution of approval has not yet been signed. The
resolution is to be amended to add conditions concerning delineation of driveway
access, and provision of agricultural water.
Dean Moffatt, representing Mary Frank, presented maps of the new lot layout for
the subdivisions, which would create seven free - market lots for development, and
an eighth free - market lot with two existing homes. The non - development easement
will remain the same for filing one, and the building envelopes for each lot will be
indicated on the final plat. Moffatt stated that PMH units will be provided through
an existing duplex, and one large and one small apartment, for a total of four PMH
units.
Wells felt most of the changes requested in these applications relate to the location
of building sites, and would benefit the prospective buyer's cattle ranching operation.
Commissioners Meeting August 11, 1980 - 4
In this proposal, existing units would be used exclusively for PMH units; in the
previous applications, three PMH lots were to be offered. The first issue to be
resolved involves lot M -8, which now has two dwelling units. The Planning Office
feels the inclusion of one of those units constitutes an additional dwelling unit, and
suggested that an additional thirty acres be included in the total subdivision acreage
to compensate for that unit. In addition, no additional employee unit is being pro-
posed in conjunction with the additional dwelling unit. The P & Z recommended that,
if a lot split application is ever filed to separate the two homes, an additional
employee unit would have to be provided at that time. Kinsley felt in that instance,
one of the existing units should come under PMH controls.
Herb Klein, representing the applicant, said they would be willing to accept the
P & Z's recommendation, however he felt they should retain flexibility as to whether
or not an existing unit would have to be used to satisfy the housing requirement.
Wells stated that, in these applications, the applicant proposes to indicate a
tract of land near lot M -1 to satisfy the non - development easement included in pre-
vious submissions. The Planning Office notes that in previous filings a total of
266 acres was included in the agricultural or non - development easement, however this
revision includes only 230 acres. In addition, Wells did not feel the quality of the
land proposed to be included in the easement is equal to that of the earlier filings.
He pointed out that the Planning Office has not argued for easements beyond the 266
originally proposed to compensate for the additional dwelling unit now included on
the plat.
Klein disagreed that the acreage now proposed for easements is of a lesser quality
than that originally designated. In the earlier filings, 104 acres were designated
as common pasture, and the individual lot sizes were smaller; if the lots had been
made larger in those applications, the non - development easement acreage would have
remained the same. Klein felt the best areas for agricultural uses have been included
in the easement, and said the new easement boundaries are more appropriate than those
proposed in previous filings. Child said the latest arrangement leaves all of the
irrigated pastures as agricultural land, and he felt that is more important than the
number of acres included. Klein felt the best areas for agricultural uses have been
included in the easement, and said the new easement boundaries are more appropriate
than those proposed in previous filings. Child said the latest arranagement leaves
all of the irrigated pastures as agricultural land, and he felt that is more important
than the number of acres included.
Commissioners Meeting August 11, 1980 - 5
N
Wells stated that an additional issue is the preservation of agricultural water. It
was the Planning Office's position that water rights sufficient to continue the
agricultural operation would be restricted and run with the agricultural land. The
P 6 Z's recommendation is that the applicant will make available sufficient water to
maintain the irrigated areas. Klein said they would prefer a more general restriction,
since there are many different ways of providing water rights to the agricultural
operation. He did not feel it would be appropriate to prohibit the sale of the
water rights, since it may be possible to sell the water rights and lease them back
to the ranching operation. Klein said they would also prefer to avoid ascribing a
specific quantity of water to a parcel of land; that may jeopardize their water rights,
since they have more water than they need for the operation. In addition, one area
of the ranch is now experiencing some land sliding, and the applicant would like to dry
that area out. Klein said their intention is that the ranch owners would retain all
the water rights; the agricultural easements shown on the lots are in favor of the
ranch owner, not the homeowners' association. Edwards felt there should be some
commitment to apply the water rights to the agricultural land; if sale of the rights
were allowed, the ranchowner could substitute an inferior right for those now being
used. He said the ranchowner should be prohibited from the removal of rights sufficient
to irrigate the meadows. Klein said they would be willing to commit to providing
water sufficient to irrigate the meadows, but they do not want to be prohibited from
selling the water rights. Stuller suggested granting the County a right- of- first-
refusal on the rights, in the event the ranchowner ever wants to sell excess water.
Kinsley felt the Board's only obligation extends to domestic water, not agricultural
water. Edwards said that is not true, since the intent of the RS zone is to preserve
the agricultural viability of the land. Child suggested that, prior to the sale
of any rights, the Soil Conservation Service could make the determination that there
is excess water available. Edwards supported establishing a trust for the benefit of
the lot owners;: with the rights to be conveyed to the trust and managed by the ranch -
owner. Another solution would be to convey the rights to the lot owners and lease
them back to the ranchowner. Edwards was opposed to adopting generalized language,
and felt it is imperative that a mechanism be established at this point to provide
for the historical water rights or their equivalent. Klein felt it would be reasonable
to have any proposed sale analyzed at the time to determine the impact it would have.
He was opposed to conveying the rights to the lotowners, since the ranchowner would have
the greatest interest in preserving the agricultural water. He favored Child's
suggestion for review and approval by the Soil Conservation Service prior to any sale.
Commissioners Meeting
August 11, 1980 - 6
Kinsley said he does not want to put a lotowner in the position of having to defend
his or her water right. Klein suggested requiring approval by the Board of any pro-
7
posed sale; he said they would agree to an obligation to maintain the historically
1
irrigated area at the same duration and quality. Edwards said the same seniority i
of the rights should also be maintained, and the County should be reimbursed for the I
costs of any studies necessary with regard to a water sale proposal. Edwards said !
he is willing to be flexible with regard to future changes, but not at the expense
of the County or the lotowners. He supported establishment of a trust to maintain
the agricultural water, with a clause allowing revocation for any changes if they are
approved by the Board and the lotowners.
Wells said there was initially a problem with the driveway easement shown to lot
M -4, but that has now been revised and the present plat language is acceptable.
County Engineer Pat Dobie thinks driveways could be built along the alignment shown
without requiring switchbacks, although the grade will be up to 12 %. Klein noted that
the average grade is between 9 and 11 %, and the driveway will have southern exposure
so it should be no problem in the winter. Moffatt said lots M -3 and M -4 will have
a common driveway to a point of intersection along an easement previously approved
for filing three.
The Board considered the P. & Z's suggested language for lot M -8, which would require
provision of one employee unit if a lot split is ever approved for the two homesites.
Kinsley felt if the homesites are split, one should be restricted to employee
housing. Klein pointed out that this amended application already provides more
dwelling units for employee housing, and calls for a decrease in the number of units
to be constructed. Kinsley said he does not want to create a situation where an
additional unit would be built through a lot split. Wells pointed out that these
applications still involve one more dwelling unit than the previous filings. Moffatt
said the previous filings called for eight new dwelling units, while this would
Involve only seven. Wells felt the matter centers around the units that were pre-
viously kept with the balance of the ranch; there is one more unit involved in this
application, which reduces the number of units kept with the fathering parcel, thereby
leaving a greater balance of land for future subdivision. Klein said that is not
true, since thirty acres were included in the amended application to compensate for
the additional unit. Kinsley felt if there is any further subdivision of lot M -8,
one of the units should be assigned as an employee unit with no construction of a free -
market unit allowed on either lot. Child agreed.
Meeting
August 11, 1980 - 7
Commissioners Meeting August 11, 1980 - 8
s
101TRAIRN in
q
.^!."'Y. ... -..�r d1` T i"r 'jlT'. �•_ ......i
\p
iY
T"FI'.y�, i.; 4 TKM¢"
. ,+'.L tua" i.' YI. R:. l:, la' �l�. r..:' V. ��' dli :'C.iL:- t��..�.Y'1uri..flwi+.. irk, 11WaY ✓'h+"l.el.Sk:,�YS:Mi7A1SL4�11 +r' -• S T•�".:..- Y]W.�'1':::l.w?1�5�••
1 '�.�
r
yq�
Wells pointed out that the proposed agricultural easements cover thirty acres less
r
t
'1
land than the previous filings, with covenants attached concerning the preservation of
agricultural uses. Klein said the easements were laid out based on the uses of the
land; if the Board wants 260 acres included in the easement the plat can be changed.
The Board supported inclusion of 260 acres.
Klein said one outstanding question concerns the existance of a County road through
the ranch; the prospective buyer has determined that there is a County -owned right-
of-way through the ranch, although it is not in use. He requested that the County
vacate the easement so there would be no problem in the future with public use of the
road. Edwards said he would first like to see where the rights -of -way are shown, as
it may be useable as a trail easement. Klein suggested abandoning the right -of -way,
with the exception of a width necessary to accommodate a trail easement. Chuck Brandt,
representing the prospective purchasers, said the road does not serve any other land
ownership, and stops in the middle of the ranch. Edwards said that issue could be
determined at final plat when the Board can review the survey.
Klein said it is his understanding that the Board's position toward lot M -8 is to
require that a PMH unit must be provided from the existing housing on the ranch if
the two homesites are ever split. Wells said that is incorrect; one of the two home-
sites would be restricted as a PMH unit. Klein said that, given that restriction,
the applicant would prefer to remove the Hex household from the application and leave
it with the fathering parcel. Wells said the alternative would be to allow a lot split
on parcel M -8, only if an existing unit elsewhere on the ranch acceptable to the
Housing Director is deed restricted to employee housing. Child said he would prefer
to see the Hex house and thirty acres removed from these applications. There being
no further comment, the hearing was closed.
Kinsley moved approval of the alternate detailed submission and subdivision exemption
applications with the following qualifications: - •acceptable language concerning pre-
servation of agricultural water rights will be approved by the Board; the Hex household
and thirty acres will be removed from these applications; the driveway access easements
will be delineated to the satisfaction of the County Engineer; non - development or agri-
cultural easements will be indicated which fairly reflect prior approvals for filings
one and three in terms of total acreage and type of terrain to which applied; the
four restricted housing units will be limited to the following income levels: two
duplex units and two - bedroom arena unit moderate, and the studio loft unit low; and
the applicant will agree to make the restricted units available to rent first to ranch
-
employees, in which case rental price restrictions would not apply. He noted the
Commissioners Meeting August 11, 1980 - 8
s
101TRAIRN in
t Board would investigate the issue of the County road right -of -way through the ranch.
Child seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
I I Airport Airport Manager Doug McCoy presented a resolution and grant agreement with the FAA j
Master 1
Plan for master plan funding. Child moved to authorize the Chairman to sign the resolution
Grant
and accept the grant agreement. Kinsley seconded and the motion passed with opposition
from Edwards,
Isbill McCoy then presented a contract with Isbill Associates for engineering work for
Engineering
Contract improvements to the Airport teardrop turnaround. He explained this is part of an ADAP
grant which has already been approved. Kinsley moved approval. Edwards seconded and
the motion passed unanimously.
Western John Dady, Translator Engineer, presented an agreement with Western Tele- Communica-
R Tele -Com-
munications bons, Inc., for the PBS station at the Sunlight facility. Dady noted that the
Agreement
translator system has been experiencing reception problems, and it would be possible to
purchase the other Denver channels from Western Tele-Communicat ions to improve reception.
Debe McDonald, of the Finance Office, noted that the contract paragraph relating to
unpaid charges provides for a substantial penalty to the County if they drop the con-
- T
tract. Dady said that is an FCC requirement, since they want to discourage temporary
use of the airways. Kinsley moved approval of the contract. Child seconded and the
motion passed unanimously.
Public The Board convened a public hearing onothe Aspen Highlands PMH rezoning application,
Hearing:
Highlands which was continued from the June 23, 1980 meeting. Ashley Anderson, representing the
PMH
Rezoning Highlands, noted the application was tabled on last consideration to allow for negotia-
tion to establish the unit prices. Today, the Board adopted a Code change which states
that rezonings shall not become finally approved without final subdivision or PUD
approval; at this point, the applicant is requesting an indication of the Board's
position so they can determine whether to proceed with a bond issuance for the project.
Stuller pointed out that the Code requires that PUD and subdivision applications be
processed simultaneously with PMH rezoning applications; that was not done in this
case. In considering a PMH rezoning application, the Board must determine the applica-
tion satisfies an established housing need, and that the adverse impacts of the in-
creased density have been mitigated. When the Board considered this matter previously,
the application was incomplete, so the second criterion could not be determined.
Commissioners Meeting August 11, 1980 - 9
N
� ;4
The Board continued the public hearing to review the completed application and to allow
for public comment. Anderson said their application is now complete, and everything
required for general submission has been presented to the Planning Office. Edwards
said hg has never had an opportunity to review the specific application. Anderson
said that is not the fault of the applicant, and the longer the Board delays action
on this matter the more difficult it will become to develop the units. Jim Wentzel,
of the Highlands, showed the Board plans for the twenty unit development, including
the drainage plan. Anderson stated the P & Z recommended rezoning to accommodate
thirteen units. The Highlands application has now gone through the GMP scoring
procedure for their free market lots; the P & Z indicated they would like to perform
a site inspection to see if there is a more appropriate location for the employee units,
however Anderson said they will not do that. As far as the applicant is concerned,
the P & Z's action is final. Stuller said these problems arose because the rezoning
application proceeded ahead of the PUD and subdivision applications. The P & Z is
now considering the subdivision and PUD applications and is having problems with the
proposal. Edwards said the review conducted for a rezoning is different than the
matters reviewed in a subdivision application. Gideon Kaufman commented that the in-
tention of the Code is to consider the entire picture, through the rezoning, subdivi-
sion and PUD applications; it is not valid to review the elements of the application
in a piecemeal fashion. Wentzel said the general submission application does not
contain any substantial changes from the rezoning application. Stoller said the
P & Z's duty is to direct their attention to the application before them; if they
want to do site planning for the applicant, the applicant can accept or reject their
recommendations. Kaufman commented that the applicant owns other property in the
area, and the PMH development could have been done in another location to mitigate
impacts; he felt it is appropriate for the P & Z to consider other sites for the
project. The hearing was opened to public comment.
Gideon Kaufman appeared to represent various property owners who reside near the
proposed development. He stated that there are places that are proper for the develop-
ment of employee housing, however this is not a suitable location. Richard Rudolph,
one of Kaufman's clients, was told at one time that his location is not an appropriate
one for employee housing. Kaufman stated the area is already developed with single -
family residences, and this project would change the character of the area. People
who purchased lots in the Aspen Highlands Subdivision were told by Whip Jones, owner
of the subdivision, that the area now involved in this application would be kept as
open space. Kaufman said this application is contradictory to the County's Land Use
Commissioners Meeting
August 11, 1980 - 10
Code and zoning maps, as the Master Plan designates this area as appropriate for
single - family development. He pointed out that La Chamonix condominiums, which are
very near this site,! have been faced with abatement, however they are only half the
size of this proposal. He did not feel this PER application meets the Code require-
ments for minimizing adverse social impacts, and establishing residential development
near existing density centers. Kaufman noted that all other PMH projects which have
been developed are surrounded by similar density; this is the first time a high
density project would be developed in an area now consisting of single - family develop-
ment. He felt the proposal is incompatible with the surrounding uses. Kaufman
pointed out that the project has not yet been approved, but the County is already
putting in a bus stop on Maroon Creek Road to serve the project. He continued that the
proposal does not meet the requirements of Article II of the Code concerning visual
impact and scenic quality. The development would involve a massive structure directly
adjacent to the Maroon Creek road, while a few hundred yards further all traffic is
stopped for the Maroon Bells bus system to preserve the scenic quality of the valley.
Kaufman said the proposal violates section 3 -8 of the Code, concerning road setbacks;
the building would be thirty feet from the road, while the minimum setback requirement
is 100 feet. Kaufman said the applicant owns other property that is more appropriate
for this type of development which would not require rezoning; he felt the Board
should refuse to grant this rezoning to force the applicant to choose a more appro-
priate site. He concluded that the development should be put where it is best suited,
not in a site which involves maximum impact.
Stuller stated that the setback requirements in section 3.82 prevail over the bulk
requirements for a zone, and are applicable in all zoned areas. Vrchota said a re-
zoning procedure should also include review of any changes in the area which would
make the rezoning appropriate. She pointed out that Article II of the Code also in-
cludes a policy establishing the need for employee housing. The matter of the appro-
priateness of another parcel for the development is extraneous in this rezoning process.
Leonard Oates, representing Kaleta Danen, an adjacent property owner, agreed with
the concerns voiced by Kaufman. He felt the project is inappropriate based on the way
the neighborhood has been built out, and based on the previous desires of the developer.
Oates added that there are more appropriate places for this development.
Anderson replied that, without any rezoning, the Highlands could build twelve
employee units plus eight free - market lots, based on the allowable density for the
entire parcel. He explained they are not applying for the maximum density under PMH.
The applicant was encouraged by the Planning Office to build more PMH units, since the
Commissioners Meeting August 11, 1980 - 11
t'
Commissioners Meeting
August 11, 1980 - 12
units are needed. Anderson said the application includes twenty units because that
iii
number fits sensibly on the site. As for the contention that other parcels may be
more appropriate, Anderson said it was his understanding that the PMH area had to be
contiguous to the area to be developed with free - market units. Stuller said two
separate parcels cannot be used for a PUD filing. Anderson pointed out that the topo-
graphy of the site provides a steep drop -off between the single - family homes and the
PMH project. He felt this location is the most appropriate one for employee housing,
and is segregated from the neighboring residents as much as possible. Anderson said
wherever an employee housing development is proposed the neighbors will object.
Kinsley asked if the proposed development plan would violate the highway setback
requirements. Stuller said it would, and building permits would not issue unless a
variance is obtained. Kaufman said the Board would then be approving a development*
without knowing whether a variance could be approved. Edwards added approval would
create a need for a variance. Kinsley asked if the density could be transferred from
a non - contiguous parcel. Stuller said it could not. Anderson said changing the
site of the units would also create problems because changes; to GMP applications are
prohibited. Richard Rudolph commented that he would not object to the development
if it were moved toward the Highlands Lodge. Kaufman felt that relocation would
mitigate the concerns of his other clients also. Kinsley moved to table the matter,
pending an investigation of the setback requirement, and to continue the public
hearing to August 25, 1980 at 10:00. Edwards seconded and the motion passed unani-
mously.
Bowman Pat Dobie presented a request by Doug Bowman, who recently purchased the Redstone
Road
Easement Country Store, for vacation of an additional portion of the County road easement along
Vacation
Request Redstone Boulevard. The Board previously approved vacation of a portion of the
right -of -way on which the Store is located; Bowman is now asking for vacation of all
or a portion of the remaining easement. The easement extends along the Bowman
property forty feet past his property line and then ends. Dobie stated the County
received a deed to the easement, and there was some compensation involved, although
the amount is unknown. He felt the County should reserve a right -of -way approximately
twenty feet short of the existing easement as it crosses Bowman's land. He estimated
the value of that twenty foot strip at $15,000 to $20,000. If the remainder of the
easement is sold to Bowman, the County would still hold approximately a sixty foot
easement, which would allow for two traffic lanes, two parallel parking lanes, and
two sidewalks. Stuller asked why Bowman was not aware of this easement. Dobie replied
Commissioners Meeting
August 11, 1980 - 12
IN
5 Hunter
Longhouse
Fire
Hydrant
it was not indicated on his title commitment. Stuller said Bowman can then be reim-
bursed for the cost by the title insurance company. Kinsley favored selling Bowman
twenty feet of the easement at market value. Edwards was opposed to selling the ease-
ment. He noted that the sale of the easement would accommodate Bowman's proposed
apartment project, which he felt is inappropriate. Edwards did not think the County
should aid in that development by selling their easement. In addition, he said in
the future the County may wish to develop a bike path along their easement. Kinsley
said to deny the easement vacation is to, in effect, deny the apartment project without
considering it. Stuller explained that if there is any possibility the County will
ever need the twenty foot strip, they will have to buy it back The only reason for
selling the easement is if there is no possible future need for the land. Edwards
added that every time the Board has vacated or sold property they have eventually
regretted it. The Board agreed to keep the existing easement.
---- - - -- --
Pat Dobie noted that when the.-Hunter Longhouse project was approved, the County
agreed to install a fire hydrant which would also run to the benefit of the Community
Center. Dobie has arrived at an agreement whereby the City will pay $2000 for the water
line extension to the property line, Hunter Longhouse will pay $2000 for the materials
and installation of a fire line and hydrant, and the County will purchase the hydrant
for $800. Kinsley asked what commitment was made by the County in the Hunter Long-
house approval. Stuller replied that the resolution of approval states the County
will pay for the installation of a fire hydrant. Dobie pointed out that bot1[ the
City and Hunter Longhouse will benefit by this arrangement, since the City's intention
is to loop their water line and Hunter Longhouse will get water service. Kinsley
declared a possible conflict of interest, since he may be a renter in Hunter Longhouse
and the cost of the installation may affect future rents. Child and Edwards agreed
to authorize the funding of $800 to purchase the hydrant.
Dunlop Curt Stewart presented an employment contract with Lynn Dunlop covering her services
Employment
Contract as budget analyst. The Board approved the additional position at their last meeting.
Child moved approval. Kinsley seconded and the motion passed with opposition from
Edwards.
Minutes Kinsley moved approval of the minutes of July 14, July 17, and July 28, 1980.
Child seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Commissioners Meeting August 11, 1980 - 13
s -
BCharter County Clerk Loretta Banner reported that two petitions have been submitted to the
�4 Amendment
Ballot Clerk's Office to include questions on the November general election ballot. She has
Questions
certified the petitions, and requested that the Board adopt a resolution placing the
0
questions on the ballot.
Dick Fenton, representing the petition circulators, reported that a recent editorial
in the Aspen Times concerning the two questions is incorrect; the effect of these
questions would not be to roll back taxes to the level of December of 1979, but to
accept the tax rates of 1980 since they were adopted in 1979. Child asked if revenue
bond issues would require voter approval also. Fenton replied that bond issuances
would require voter approval if they rely on future tax revenues, however they would
not require voter approval if they do not rely on any County revenues. Child moved
approval of the resolution. Kinsley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Election Loretta Banner reported that three vacancies exist on the Election Commission, and
Commission
Appointments applications for reappointment have been received from Michael Wampler and Pat Fallin,
and an application for appointment was submitted by Ellen Anderson. Kinsley moved to
appoint Fallin, Wampler and Anderson, with their terms to expire August 15, 1982.
Child seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
BOCC
Salary
Increases
Charter
Amendment:
Sheriff's
Fees
Charter
Amendment:
Petition
Signatures
Kinsley presented a resolution placing a question on the November general election
ballot to increase the salary of the Commissioners to $18,600, which is equal to a
6% compounded increase. Child was opposed to the proposal. Stuller noted that two
other ballot issues relate to salary increases for the Board: one would allow the
Board to adopt cost of living increases by resolution if they do not apply to Board -
members in office, and the other would allow voter approved increases to affect the
Commissioners in office. Edwards moved approval of the resolution, with the effective
date of the increase to be January 1, 1981. Kinsley seconded and the motion passed
with opposition from Child.
Stuller presented a resolution placing a proposed Charter amendment on the November
ballot to allow the Board of Commissioners to establish the Sheriff's fees by resolu-
tion. Child moved approval. Kinsley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Stuller presented a resolution placing a proposed Charter amendment on the November
ballot to clarify the requirements for persons signing candidates' petitions. She
stated that, after meeting with members of the Home Rule Charter Commission, it was
Commissioners Meeting
August 11, 1980 - 14
41
their concensu Ana oo 4uacion process oe as
open as possible; this amendment would eliminate any possible conflicting statutory
requirements, with the exception of the requirement that all signers must be qualified
electors. The Election Commission supports the proposed amendment. Child moved approval
of the resolution. Kinsley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Bus Curt Stewart reported that when an UMTA grant for the purchase of new buses was
System approved, the local matching requirement was satisfied through providing County -owned
Module
Purchase land; however, it has now been determined that that land was
paid for by the FAA,
so it cannot be used to satisfy the matching requirement. Instead, the County will
spend $38,000 on equipment for the bus system, rather than repaying that amount to
UMTA. The funds will go for the purchase of one bus module, which can be used as a
spare when other engines are broken down. Kinsley moved approval of the grant amend-
ment. Child seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Budget The Board considered a supplemental budget appropriation resolution on first reading.
Appro-
priations Debe McDonald, of the Finance Office, stated the resolution
goes to fund repeater costs,
hiring of a budget analyst, bus system repairs, the Community Center fire hydrant, bus
system radios, and to correct a mistaken coding reference for the Building Inspections
Department. The resolution also appropriates revenues for a senior citizens' icemaker,
Maroon Bells bus system, and an UMTA bus system grant. McCoy has requested an addition
of $8700, to cover preliminary engineering services Isbill & Associates performed for
the installation of runway lights. McDonald explained that in 1978 the Board approved
a preliminary FAA grant application for runway lights, and Isbill indicated if they
received the Airport master plan study contract they would incorporate their runway
lights services in that study. Since they were not awarded the master plan contract,
they have now submitted a bill for $8700. The Board tabled action on McCoy's request
pending a determination as to any commitment they may have made to Isbill. Kinsley
moved approval on first reading. Child seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Lodge Kinsley moved approval on first reading of a Code amendment to provide for a lodge
Preserva-
tion preservation clause, and to set the amendment for public hearing on September 22, 1980,
Clause '
' at 10:00 a.m. Edwards seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Jail Kinsley moved approval on first reading of a $2,250,000 general obligation bond
Bond
Issue issuance for the law enforcement facility. Edwards seconded and the motion passed
Commissioners Meeting August 11, 1980 - 15
unanimously.
Pomegranate Deputy County Clerk Liz Stewart presented a manager's registration application for
Inn Manager's
Registration the Pomegranate Inn liquor license. She reported that Robert P. Brock will now manage
the premises, and the application and local record check are complete. Kinsley moved
approval. Child seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Redstone The Board considered appointment of members to the Redstone Historic Preservation
Historic
Preserve -- Commission. Kinsley moved appointment of George Whipple, William Jochems, Jeff
tion
Commission Bier, Ruth Chacto and LuAnn Nathan as regular members, and Brenda Arneson and Bill
Roberts as alternate members. He stated he tried to spread membership between home-
owners and renters, men and women, and members and non - members of the Redstone His-
torical Society. The members will serve for two year terms. Child seconded and
1
the motion passed unanimously.
iMtn. Rivers
Community Center Director Gene Marsh reported that both the Mountain Rivers Detox
Detox and
UCRCCB
!Funding
'Requests
Center and the Upper Colorado River Community Center Board (UCRCCB) have experienced
fires in their facilities. She requested that the Board approve forwarding the total
contribution amount budgeted to each agency, rather than advancing funds on a "per
client" basis, as is required in the funding contract.
Bruce Christensen, of UCRCCB, reported that their insurance will cover most of the
losses they suffered as a result of the fire. Their major problem now is raising
funds so rebuilding can start before they receive the insurance reimbursement. He
i
reported they have established an Aspen center for children, and have been awarded a
$150,000 energy impact grant to be used in their building project.
Michael Connelly, of Mountain Rivers, reported they have received an insurance
settlement and purchased a new building. They now need funds for start -up costs for
the new facility. He felt their services will be more accessible to Pitkin County
I
residents with their new location in Glenwood Springs, rather than New Castle.
Kinsley asked whether inclusion of a detox center in the County's law enforcement
facility would affect Mountain Rivers. Connelly replied that they now, provide ser-
vices both as a detox center and a half -way house. If the County received State fund-
ing for the detox facility it would become a part of Mountain Rivers, and the Glenwood
facility could then serve as a rehabilitation facility for this area.
Kinsley moved that the per client restriction be lifted from the 1980 funding con-
tracts for Mountain Rivers and UCRCCB, and the contract amounts be paid as budgeted.
Child seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Commissioners Meeting August 11, 1980 - 16
1
!Minority
Assistant County Manager Brian Stafford presented a minority business enterprises
•:y
Business
Affirmative
affirmative action program. He explained this plan is necessary in the event federal
Action
Program
funds are received, to assure that minority business enterprises are encouraged to
participate in any contract work. Kinsley moved approval. Edwards seconded and the
motion passed unanimously.
P & Z
Kinsley moved to reappoint the following P & Z members to terms which will expire
Reappoint -
ments
August 15, 1982: Murray Pope (regular member), Dottie Fox (regular member), J.R.
McCarthy (alternate member), and Tom Blake (alternate member). Edwards seconded
and the motion passed unanimously.
The joint City Council - Commissioners meeting was convened. Councilmembers present
included Mayor Berman Edel, Tom Isaac, Susan Michael, Chick Collins, and George
Parry.
Bus
Pat Dobie presented cost estimates for a bus washer facility to be constructed at
Washing
Facility
the County shop. The cost for equipment and installation of a fully- automatic washer
would be $99,166. The cost for a more portable washing facility would be $10,600.
Duane Fengel, City Transportation Director, pointed out that if the more expensive
equipment is installed and the bus facility is later moved to a new bus barn, the
washing equipment could be retained at the shop and used for police and sheriff's
cars and Road and Bridge equipment. He noted that the washing equipment that would
be included in the new bus facility could be used only for the Transportation depart-
ments. Dobie said one other option would be not to purchase any washing. equipment
now, and to use the car wash at the Airport Business Center until the bus barn is
built. Kinsley pointed out that the present Road and Bridge location is short -term,
and he did not feel it would be cost effective to install the more expensive facility
since many of the improvements could not be relocated. Wayne Chapman said the
washing equipment itself could be relocated, but the building improvements could not
be moved. Parry asked if the washing building could be used for another purpose after
the new bus facility is constructed. Dobie replied that only $1500 is being spent
for construction of the building; most of the installation costs are for drainage and
power improvements. Lois Butterbaugh stated the City has budgeted $52,000 for the
washing facility this year. Fengel said the County has maintained for years-that-the
Road and Bridge facility is temporary, however the shop is still there. He felt if
Commissioners Meeting August 11, 1980 - 17.
r,
x.
the washing facility remains at the shop facility it will be used. Parry asked how long
the County can use the Road and Bridge facility at the airport. Curt Stewart replied
that two years ago the FAA requested that the County relocate the shop; the airport
Master Plan update will be completed at the end of this year, and he felt at that time
the FAA would become more insistent about their request. He added that, if the more
expensive facility is built now, it will be constructed with 100% local funding. In
two years, when the bus barn is built, UMTA will fund 80% of the cost of two washers.
He felt the less expensive alternative is more sensible. Chapman said with the por-
table washing facility the City buses could be washed only once a week. Child said
he would be uncomfortable with the $99,000 washer, given the fact it would only be j
a short term solution. Michael felt the cleanliness of the buses is a real problem, j
given the resort atmosphere, and she felt the problem should be solved this winter.
i
Chapman said the problem appears to be more severe for the City than the County.
i
Isaac felt the more expensive solution is inappropriate for a two -year period. Fengel
noted that, with a fully- automated washer, one staffinember can clean the interior of
the buses as the exterior is being washed. Parry did not think the bus facility would
be completed for at least three years. Stewart said it is conceivable the bus barn
could be completed by the end of the next construction year. Michael did not support
relying on completion of the bus barn in two years, and felt the City should approach
the problem on their own.
Isaac moved approval of the second alternative with an equal cost split between the
City and County. Collins seconded. Kinsley said based on a 50 -50 split, the County
would pay $5300; however, he felt funding should be on the basis of the number of
vehicles in the City and County fleets, which would result in the County funding $3074
and the City paying $7526. Isaac said an equal cost split is equitable if the County
also uses the facility for other County vehicles. Stewart predicted that there would
not be time to use the washer for both buses and other vehicles. Edel felt the Council
and Commissioners should vote on the issue separately. Chapman agreed to return to the
Council with proposals for their consideration.
lCredit The Council and Commissioners again considered a request by the Roaring Fork Employees'
Union
ITreasurer's Credit Union (RFECU) for funding for a part -time Treasurer's position. Lynn Dunlop,
'Position
president of the RPECU, appeared to answer questions raised at the previous discussion.
When the Credit Union was formed three years ago, the City, County and Hospital agreed
to contribute manpower, computer time, office space, and use of the telephone; no
specific dollar amount was assigned to those contributions. The original concept of
d '
Commissioners Meeting August 11, 1980 - 18
the Credit Union was that it could be operated on a volunteer basis by the Treasurer
and loan committee. It was soon determined that the Treasurer was carrying the majority
of the responsibilities, so Assistant Treasurer positions were created to decrease the
time commitment necessary from the Treasurer. Dunlop reported that the Treasurer's
position has rotated since inception to employees of either the City, County or Hospital,
but, due to the level of expertise necessary to handle the duties, the Credit Union
feels a permanent position is warranted. The job description for the position was
reviewed by the personnel departments, and the $900 per month salary level was agreed
upon. Dunlop stated the Credit Union can afford to pay only $50 per month toward
that salary cost because they are trying to keep the savings interest at a maximum rate,
keep as large a debt reserve as possible, and are now obligated to pay on -going com-
puter programming expenses. She continued that the Board of Directors has tried
to establish a conservative fiscal policy in operating the Credit Union, and thus far
less than one percent of the total assets have gone to bad debts. She pointed out
that, based on a $3600 per year contribution per entity, that expense would represent
less than one percent of the total 1979 City employee benefit budget. Determining
the point at which the Credit Union will become self - sufficient is very difficult,
given the variables involved. Dunlop noted the RFECU has good growth potential,
and stated that, as other employer entities become involved in the Credit Union, the
dollar amount of the City, County and Hospital contributions will decrease. She did
not feel the Credit Union could actively pursue membership by other entities until
the Treasurer's position is assured. Edel noted that the Town of Snowmass Village
also participates in the Credit Union, and asked if they have been asked to contribute.
to the cost of the position. Dunlop said they have not. She noted the Hospital Board
has already approved the $300 per month request.
Glenn Scott, Hospital Administrator, commented that the RFECU has provided a good
benefit to employees, since the Hospital tries to avoid any pay advances. He added
that it is a real problem to lose 50% of one employee's time to the Treasurer's duties,
and felt it would be more equitable to share the expense three ways to hire a Treasurer.
Lois Butterbaugh commented that the Council and Commissioners initially directed the
staff to look into the feasibility of creating a Credit Union to serve new employees
who could not qualify for loans at local banks. She stated she has been very impressed
with the volunteer efforts thus far, and she felt the Credit Union provides a benefit
in drawing together employees of the three entities. Isaac said the City did not
budget for this expense. Butterbaugh pointed out that each entity is already paying
for the position through employee time. Chapman added that if a paid position is not
Commissioners Meeting
August 11, 1980 - 19
1
established, the City or County would be next in line for providing the Treasurer's h #�
function through an existing employee. Brian Stafford commented that the Credit Union's
benefits exceed financial services alone by bringing employees together. He added that
the First National Bank now has a minimum loan limit of $1000, whereas employees can f
easily obtain much smaller loans through the Credit Union.
i
Michael moved that the City and County each allocate $300 per month for the Treasurer's
position, that the Credit Union pursue donations for salary funding from Snowmass
Village and the Aspen Sanitation District and actively seek other members, and present
a report on their activities at the end of the year. Child seconded the motion and
requested an amendment requiring that the Credit Union fund $150 per month of the salary
cost. Dunlop felt $100 would be the maximum contribution the Credit Union could afford.
Michael amended her motion to add that the staff will determine the amount of the
Credit Union contribution for the salary costs. The motion passed unanimously.
Open Jolene Vrchota stated there are five vacancies on the Open Space Advisory Board.
Space
Advisory She recommended that Jon Mulford and George Stranahan be reappointed as regular mem-
Board
bers, Fritz Benedict and Ben Rawlins be reappointed as alternate members, Jim Breasted
be appointed as a regular, rather than alternate, member, and Ivar Eidsmo be appointed
as a new alternate member representing Trout Unlimited. Isaac moved approval of the {
appointments. Child seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Covering
Trash
Trucks
i
Sanitarian Tom Dunlop reported that problems have been experienced with trucks hauling
trash to the dump without covering the trash, which results in litter along the high-
way. He noted the City has adopted an ordinance requiring covering of trash trucks
in the City limits, however that is difficult to enforce since both the driver and
vehicle must be identified before any action can be taken. He suggested adopting a
policy of not allowing trucks into the dump if they are not covered. He added that if
the regulation is adopted, all contractors in the County will be notified and given
two weeks to comply with the rule. Parry said if an uncovered truck is turned away
at the dump, the problem will only increase, since the driver will either double their
trip or dump the trash elsewhere. He suggested instead that the violators be fined
when they arrive at the dump. Edwards felt it would be more efficient to charge a
higher rate for uncovered trucks, rather than going through a court violation procedure.
Kinsley moved to adopt a $20 charge for uncovered trucks entering the dump. Child
seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Commissioners Meeting
August 11, 1980 - 20
Aspen Nick Pasquerella reported that the Communications Center has purchased a new console,
Mtn.
Repeater and $2000 in work has been done on the Red Mountain repeater site. A new building
Costs
has been constructed for the Aspen Mountain repeater, and he requested the City and
County fund the $2000'cost of moving the repeater into the new facility. Chapman said
the City can cover that cost within their current budget. Stewart asked why that
moving cost was not included in the original cost estimate for the new building.
Pasquerella replied that some of the costs were included in the estimate, however
some of the funds budgeted in 1979 were returned to the General Fund at the end of
the year so they could not be used for moving expenses. Kinsley moved to split the
$2000 cost equally between the City and County. Child seconded and the motion passed
unanimously.
Burnt Dave Myler, Attorney for the Town of Snowmass Village, reported that the Board of
Mountain
Joint Trustees has recently adopted a joint resolution regarding the Burnt Mountain Ski
Agreement
Area, and presented the resolution to the City and County for approval. The State
Division of Planning has also indicated they will support the resolution. Isaac asked
if the Skiing Corporation has agreed to the terms of the resolution. Myler replied they
have. The Forest Service has not yet made a firm commitment to sign Addendum 2 to
the resolution. Isaac pointed out that the work program contained in the resolution
refers to the possibility of a major transportation corridor along Owl Creek; he
thought that concept had been dropped. Myler said the Trustees wanted to include that
alignment in the consideration.
Ron Garfield, representing Little Annie Ski Area, stated this resolution indirectly
affects their application, and they support it. He noted that the Forest Service
Addendum states that if a recommendation for Burnt Mountain can be completed by a
certain date, that recommendation will then be included in the Little Annie ES. He
asked what that cutoff date would be. Myler said that date has not yet been determined.
Their intention is that if the data on Burnt Mountain is not submitted by that date,
they would not be obligated to include it in the Little Annie ES. Garfield said their
concern is that that provision will not result in a delay for the Little Annie review
process. Myler said the intent was not to delay Little Annie, but to make the Burnt
Mountain information available if it is completed in time.
Edwards stated the County has a fundamental problem with the way the Burnt Mountain
application is proceeding. He stated the County, by virtue of the Little Annie agree-
ment, had a contractual understanding with the Forest Service that ski area applications
Commissioners Meeting
August 11, 1980 - 21
r
1Y}'�T F��F2 `�I�....�'.'_�ii�, ut.." '/'- '.TU(N, i�, F � ��,�
,Y�'r�•.r
l
t
rd
would proceed through an alternative analysis under the joint review process, which
;
L.
would consider the question of additional ski areas as a whole, rather than in a piece-
1
meal fashion. Subsequent to that agreement, the Forest Service has reneged on the
agreement and now indicates that Burnt Mountain will be considered not as an alternative,
but as an already permitted area. Edwards said it appears that this is not open for
discussion with the Forest Service, and it seems that as soon as the NEPA requirements
have been met Burnt Mountain will be developed. He stated the Forest Service has
breached their agreement with the County, and this joint resolution is outside the joint
review process. Edwards expressed concern that when the studies indicated in this
resolution have been completed, the Forest Service will indicate that the NEPA require-
ments have been met and finalize the Burnt Mountain permit without considering Little
Annie as an alternative. He stated the County is not willing to participate in a
process they see as subversion and a breach of contract by the Forest Service. The
Board wants to look at the County -wide impacts of the proposal, and does not feel
the application can be considered without properly analyzing the alternatives as pro-
mised. Kinsley said the Board has not finally decided not to sign the joint resolution,
although they do not support it. Child said the Board would first like the time to
investigate the matter to see if the County's concerns can be handled, and to allow the
3
Planning Office an opportunity to review the resolution. Edwards pointed out that, if
the County signed the resolution, the argument could be made in court that, by doing
so, the County waived their claim that this is not the proper way to proceed. Michael
asked if the County is discussing the possibility of suing the Forest Service. Kinsley
said that would be a last resort. Isaac felt it is important that a decision be reached
by the next meeting. The Board agreed.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted, APPROVED:
Liz Stewart, Deputy County Clerk Chairman Michael Kittsley
Bert W. Child
ose E -wards, Jr.
i
Commissioners Meeting August 11, 1980 - 22
?� .. �. F.
1980 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PUBLIC HEARING EXHIBITS
August 11 Frank Abacus Subdivision A Memorandum Dated July 3, 1980 from Joe Wells,
Alternate Detailed Planner,to Planning and Zoning Commssion
Subm�ssion
E � � E EE r �
, � �� �
,,,v ..e,r ,,;� -� „ e= -..,, ...�5 ,.E'i "Ni,�_„ .�, , '�,,. ��, _ �,,,, EEo „,
� 9
��
„ i
.�,. . � �_„ - s..,, - . ,_ ,
' - , �i; .. °;. = ,{.,, �.. - _,_ ,,.�,
a
22
' � i'.il. (,G.::.i'it':i
}ii.iA C0.
. ifc -�� biL�
, MEMORANDUM EXHIBfT
T0: Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Comnission �:��5��c : �
T:-ri. l�o.• _�jf
FROM: Joe•We71s, Planning Office _
• RE: Frank (Abacus) Subdivision Alternate Detailed Submission
DATE: July 3, 1980
This application has been filed by representatives of Mary Frank, who received �
detailed submission approval for Frank Subdivision Filing #3 last year. This
application anticipates sale of the ranch to prospective buyers who plan to i
conduct a cattle ranching operation; their requirem�nts are somewhat dif- ;
. ferent than those for the previous horse rancF�ing operation. This applica- �
tion is intended to better acco�nodate tf�e buyers' ranching abjectives. i
The Comnissioners have approved a procedure whereby,by subdivision exemption
(for fully developed parc�ls), consideration can be given to revising the lot
lines for Filing #1, which--Nas approved but.wh•ich remains under ownership by !
Mary Frank, An alternate plan for Filing #3 can be reviewed as an alternate
detailed submission, The exemption request i5 considered only by the Com- �
missioners; both P & Z and Correni.ssioners consider the detailed submission. �
Prior approvals for Filing #1 and #3 would remain in effect unless this pro-
posed revised plan receives final approval and is recorded by the owner. �
Flling #1 was the only subdivision approved under RS-160 zoning. Four
lots of 1 acre each were created within a 160 acre parcel and a non-develop- j
ment easement was placed on the balance with the exception of approximately
6 acres of land encumbered by access and road easements. Three of the lots �
� were developed and the fourth was a building site. There was no employee
housing requirement at the time. �
Filing #3 created 4 free market building sites and 3 restricted building i
sites, One of the existing units was required to be restricted to provide
the fourth unit, According to our records, the detailed submission for
Filing #3 included 129,4 acres in lots and 110.6 acres in cortmon pasture --
a total of 240 acres, Necessary road easements were included in those +
figures. . � !
Both the non-development easement and the common pasture were created to E
assure that land within the subdivision would continue to be used by the
existing ranching operation. We believe that the final plats for the alter- F;
nate submission should reflect prior approvals, both in regard to total
acreage, and type of terrain to wfiich it is applied. We see little benefit, �
for instance, in applying the non-development easement designation to the ;�
24 acre parcel along the western edge of the property, since in our recol- ;I
lection it is •not present7y a part of the ranching operation and further ' ��
is protected from development pressure barring Code revision because of its �
location across the migration route for wildlife to critical winter range. •
Guest house on Lot M8 �
Lot #M8 as proposed is a 41 acre parcel which includes the existing Clough
residence and the Hex house, previously on separate lots under Filing #1.
The Hex house is envisioned as a guest house for this lot. This proposal �I
presents two difficulties: �
� . �
' 1. 6uest houses can receive special review approval only if adequate �
provisions are made to prohibit rental use or }ong-term occupancy. ;
It must be a bona fi'de guest house. There is no information in
the application to indicate that this is the case. !
2. Guest houses are considered a dwelling unit; by Code, then, an J
application must include provision of 30 acres of land within the �
• subdivision in order to accommodate the proposed additional dwel- {
' ' ling unit. This application envisions the same n.umber of, princi- �
i
�
' I
I
� � I
Meaw: Frank Subdivisian Alternate Detailed Submission
' . � Jjuly 3, 1980
Page Two
I
; pal residences as are included in the previous two filiags and pro-
� . poses inclusion of identical acreage. Our position is that the
guest house requires tfie inclusion of 30 additional acres or the
' eTimination of one of the fwee market lots. .
�
We s�ggest, therefore, that the P & Z has severai options:
' 1. Amend the consideration before you to inc'lude action on Special
Review use for the guest house conditioning any approval on provision
of adequate language on the final piat to prevent long-term resi-
dency in the guest house and further requiring that 30 additional
acres 6e included within the subdivision.
2. Require the elimination of one free market lot and the creation of a
� • new lot for the Hex house•similar to Filing #1 and maintain the
assignment of 240 acres to the Subdivision.
3. Deny the request for approval of the alternate plan.
Road Netwark . -
We continue to be concerned about acceptable private driveway access to the
lots on the upper 6ench. 7his problem is made more difficult by the add'i-
tian of Lot M4. This lot is absent the flatter gullies up to the upper
bench which can perhaps function as access routes. At Lot M4 the flattest
slope is in excess of 2�X, It is clear that driveway access could only be
provided on-site by building a series of switchbacks up the 100 foot face,
which for the most part is in excess of 30%.
In the past, we have relied on representations that driveways would be
` built to County standard; those standards, however, are inadequate to pre-
vent the highly visible damage that v�ould be required to provide access tn
Lo't M4. We still favor accessing these lots by way of the southern gully
in the area of Lot M1.
Covenants '
While covenants generally serve as conditions between private parties and
therefore have no effect over County regulations, it is probably not in
the applicant's or future owners' interest to have language in the cove-
nants which is either inconsistent with County regulations or which would
not be allowed without an amendment of the regulations. Therefore, we woutd
like to cite some cases where tf►at occurs:
1. Article II discusses the Non-Developrt�nt Easement, stating that � ;
"development shall be allowed to the extent permitted by local
. zoning ordinances a5 amended or adopted from time to time." The
County Attorney feels that in order to be consistent with the i
Regulation applying at the time of Subdivision approval, the lan- .
. , guage should acknowledge that further development is precluded
without County approval. !
2. Article V, Section 5 states that "Dogs may be permitted if kept ��
pursuant to a dog contro1 p1an approved by the Co7orado Depart- �
ment of Wildlife or the Pitkin County Board of County Comnissioners." :I
• To be consistent with Commissioner approval, it should read t�hat
"Ownership of dogs is not allowed pending submission to and appro- :�
•`� , val by the Board of County Commissioners of a dog control plan !
' approved by the Colorado Division of Wildlife." i
3. Article VI states that one guest house or servant •hause is allowed ;
on each lot; it shou7d be made clear that this would be subject ;
to County zoning regulations in effect at this time. i
4. Article VII again refers to the Non-Develop�nt Easement and should
� be consis.tent with the first point above.
�
. i
_. . . . __ _ _._
Memo: Frank Subdivision Alternate Detailed Submission
, � July 3, 1980 •
- • Page Three " .
Nous;ng ,
The Housing Director recommends that the two existing units located within
other ranch structures be restricted to low income tenants because of their
limited desirability and because of their traditional use to house low
income employees of the ranch. The two units�in the'existing duplex cur-
rently provide housing for moderate income tenants and therefore should '
remain within this income category in the Housing Department's opinion.
Sale of the duplex units is requested if not used to house ranch employees. �
' From a safety standpoint, a means of egress should be provided from the
loft in Unit II. � '
Water and Sewer
The County Sanitarian comments that the water system continues to appear
. adequate and that while some lots may require more expensive engineered
. sewage systems, that in general the alternative plan is more acceptable
fran a disposal standpoint than previous plans.
Geology and Soils
Colorado Geologic Survey has no objections to approval if previous recnm- �
mendations by the Survey and Lincoln-Devore are followed.
The Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District recommends the development of
a revegetation plan and an irrigation pTan.
Wildlife
The bivision of Wildlife does nat feel that tfie proposed alterations of the
site plan will adversely affect wildlife provided ti�at previous conditions
-- of approval are adhered to.
' Fire Protection
Basalt Fire District states that the water storage system for fire protection
is as approved previousiy and that approval should be conditioned upon main-
tenance of adequate emergency access.
. ;
. �
� • 1
`
. • �
[
.�
�.
k. , , .... • • . . . . _ . . -
�{
'
The Aspea Times �`�
,.
._::� �-;;> co. co:::.;�it�;; �
Box E r��;tzri co. �
�._' ?'c Noaring T.;:iiiblL3 !
Aspen, Colorado . ��f�
� �.o
.��v,,��t . d
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF COLORADO ) COP�/ Of NOtIC@
) ss.
County of Pitkin ) .
W i l l i am H. Dunaway _����.�. ^�pn��`�
I� , do solemnly sw•ear that � ' �` '
'�; PUDI1C.NO'RQi.:�,lISIiSBY.�VBN'
Publisher •��'�'� °�
I am the of THE ASPEN TIMES; ��� .��::���
that the same is a weekly newspaper prinled, in whole or in part, P'� °°�°O�l.�i°N�11;19s0-,"
�t 1QOD�f�f:asm�daa�n'Roam,_.
and published in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, and has ';Wtkia:Gimtj;C�ouii,606 8 1Win
a general circulation thecein; that said newspaper has been pub- A��a�O���«�
;`�:Lo t�i Pltkio Camty Iwnd .
lished continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Pitliin, [7M Cod�":l'llfls II�bt th�PWciqCa�
for a period of more than fifty-two conseculive weeks next prior �C�� ' •:.
to the tirst publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisc- ;} 1'� �y '�
'�iapwl���nt oft�weaod
ment; that said newspaper has been addmitted to the United States 'Mebaeaef8�dion1�18tsritladn0owe'=
mails as secand-class matter under the provisions ot the Act of • �°��������O'
or Y�rdiip npm.t6�.ow�re�9f.+�h praP.. :
March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, and that said news• �rtj,��oMd in tbi�.,8�eciao;Wa.
paper is a weekly newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal �9�7�'0�'r�O�f°��'�
notices and advertisements with the meaning of the laws of the °O�'����0°oraMr��av�.
1..1980,mqpe�pr lr b�eao�idw�d.In=.
State of Colorado. dud�dwitbint�d�6�dtl000t�oMrarp
d��fa�.far f�p�rpas o(t6i��tian�n::.
' w�miltipo�id�dtL�t 1�wm��n Amc-"
That the annexed legal notice or advertisement �vas pubiished tlm�l,th�t i�.+ud far fL�PomP�s�
in the regular and entire issue of every number of said weekiy "�0�'p0r'"��OO'� _
2.� datir�d�f� .
� 1 �.�'.�a,�..�.oc or.�:t�c
newspaper for the period of. consecutive insertions; and f�°«�06�•�4�)�°'wd�
that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said "R�doie��nd�y�1 nvfew�ppHe�- .
tias wLich u�oi�in o�uedim wkh•
PUDarwbdi�l�iea�tI�n my�b�eon-;..
newspaper dated June 2 A.D., 19$� and that :iidMrd'iYqM Wov.•off��"!P p"��a[t6.
the laat publication of said notice was in the issue of said news- ���°O"�'°�°��
.��..00ias or.p.aa b..ta..p�tian
:�hdlh��dm4npaaAwl ald',
paper dated June 26 A.D., 19.�Q ��+����+��F�- .'
'' :8.�11�bib. Co��.'-'�. .
",'7���1�nd reor�ar�ot9�etion-
- ;6�bW.6W(1K/Utotwd:"Priortoth�sdad
� / " •S�mobiM ham�uak:d': , :. ` `
s 4.(ill�/P1fIt Udb
;; 7b�ddidan di ww.pvapyp6 to 8a-
;�tiaa6d10.6W(21�1 W»�
%1116eof o�uotts(��d�r rwb or notd
SubscrIbed and sworn to betore me,.a notary public in and for , .��p�r�m�w�ot 1�[�nt�'�H�P�"'
• ;Zm� aodQamotp�osu�ottoNe-.
;`tlm 6-610 my'brnL�d an fa�.pomb.
the County of PItkin, State of Colorado, this ,day of -.:und�rfLi�w�6wetlanN)ifpro►Wdinom-
�
�jm�etioo"w�it6 md�i�dnPm�nt'[or.wbkh a
A.D., 19_. ' �x��dditio.����h��1 p1�o_�i��m��-
;h 6 w1U, b��d�fdlawio�dhew-
-. tl�
�: I.�wa1d tL�PlIXmib afa eatio�I16'�o
uFIM O1Q ��dLbb fa�lo�in�
Notary Public `� 2.�Iw�poiot��r tart�namti�eof
•;�haun�unib wfiieA oould hn�s b�buiB
`,imd�r'af�fioi�odri�(aeluds d�nity af-
My commission expires :fard.dol.ybYiw.ondPllHaooios):or'.
;: 9.{iw(i!�pofinh aalrfoet6s aumbtof,
[wtelcbd 6w�ins mib squ�llia`t6'e
' pumbta[O�m�rkdunib:ie�thanumbsr
? �that w�ould 6Rw Men.tequirad to s�tidY�.
� •8�etian6a00:. ' � _
r .. ltirfb�rintaem�tianonthspropo�edoode
�; ���m�dmiat�i�irafl�bL�tfbsoiiaotthe•
,.��Y .��y���� : i;
:':.ISO$Mlw�.A�a tY26-2020)dneini.;
�uLr b�d�MQr. ,
. B6ARD OF COUNTY�MlQBBIONERB'-
R7iQN COUNTY,COI�01tAD0".
. er.N�tirl K�oder.�.
- -.:.Chalem�a...:
�•.PublWwd fq t6�A�p�u:Tims Jmi R8,".
; 1 -
�The Aspea Times
;����.�.:.:;� cr�
Box E ;':�'�]�.c IJc�rlr.;; ;_ .
: Aspen, Colorado ^-�o • ���� ' $
. , . .. ..........1.�.
� :,�,u,��t . �6�C��......��.r1C�i
�
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF COLORADO ) COP�/ Of NOtlt@
) as.
County of Pitkin ) ,
I, W i 1 7 i am R� �,1tY18W8�_ do solemNy sw�ear that �y{��/�Qf '�
..l+�,.,_: �.. .
I am the Publisher of THE ASPEN TIMES; ����������(���•.
8u6mi�k�i� �iMwF... .
that the same is a weekly newspaper pr3nled, in whole or in part, N�Effi�1f�8Vl�lfii��
and published in the County af Pitkin. State of Colorado, and has �������°����.�
Cauotr.BoadatCcaoR�C�eri�aarnan `
a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been pub- llbed�r,Ap�u�t,ll,lYp at I�O Ari'in
lished continuously and nninterruptedly in said County of Pitliin, �C°�Oef��"���+°��
for a :P'iN�i°Cou°q�Cauth°°r'606�'lt�i°'
period of more than fifty-tu�o consecutive weeks next prior Mp�etito eao�id�r an d�taiMd,
to the first au6mi�ion'fQt6� �iitiiil�lo-,
, publication of the annexed legal notice or advertise- P'�� �::,4,6i ,
ment; that said newspaper has been addmitted to the United States ' a�"i°�'��C�wk;V�
' Ho�rd wtll d�o oae�id�r�' ,��iw
mails as second-class matter under the provisions of the Act of �pplie�tionfaranadd[tioad���i�'i�it:>�
March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, and that said news• i°�p����OO���''
.Fae fiat�r iofdrm�tiao�mctaek�.
paper is a weekly newspaper duly qualFfied for publishing legal nin�016es,1809(3�;�
s
notices and advertisements with the meaning of the laws of the �?�•r:y `•=�-•`- ' �••�' ' '
Sfate of Colorado. � � � „i
. `.- . ,�f �Y�-�C
�I�O� (�����j,;��_y'..
. . �pY�lld 70�f A/�w�Yi1�° 4
Thgt the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published igep; ;, , �,,.,
in the regular and entire issue of every number of said weekly � - . �� --�
newspaper for the period of 1 consecutiva insertions; and
that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said
newspaper dated '7Uly 1� A.D., 19$Q, and that
the last publication of said notice was in the issue af said news- �
paper dated �TUl�/ 10 A.D., 19�.
/
�� �
Subscribed and sworn to betore me,.a nofary public i and for
the County of Pitkin, State o[ Colorado, this �4 .day of
� A.D., 191.�.v
��.,r�L. c7(1�4 p—�l�v�►v��a�
Notary Public �—
riy commission expires �–Z�� v�