Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.reg.04021996 } ' .. �Y�:f��.. ':L��{:':.. :'..�i...' . . . [,..��.... PiTKIN COUN'I'Y COMMI3SIONERS �' � WORK SESSIOI�1 AGENDA , LOCATION: Board Room in Courthouse �� TUESDAY. APRIL 2 1996 10:00 AM SPECIAL MEETING -EXECLTTIVE SESSION Open Space Land Acquisitions, Jane Elien Hamilton Litigation and Land Acquisitions,John Ely � � AD]OURN SPECIAL MEETING- EXECLTTIVE SESSION 11:45 Snowmass Canyon Paving Project, Ralph Trapani • 12:00 LUNCH BREAK 1:30 PM �OUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT 1. Highway 82 Issues, Suzanne Konchan 2. Ground Transportation Booths, Lee Remmel 3. Memos of Interest BOCC OPEN DISCUSSION 4. Future Agendas/Agenda Requesis BOARD MEMBERSHIP REPORTS RFTA Housing Authority NWCCOG QQ Fund Ruedi Water& Power Colorado River Water Conservadon District Early Leaming Center Castle Maroon Creek Plan Healthy Mountain Commvnities Rural Resort Region 2:45 BRF_AIC �/ 3:00 SPECIAL MEETING -LOCATION: ASPEN FIRE DEPT CONFERENCE ROOM 1. lst Reading and Set for Public Hearing On April 16, Aspen Village � Subdivision Major Plat Amendment, Rezoning, GMQS F�cemption, Caretaker Dwelling Unit,Employee Dwelling Unit, Francis Krizmanich 2. Resolution Appointing Members to SupplemenYal DEIS Entrance to Aspen Citizen Task Force, Suzanne Konchan 5:00 PM ADJOURN �� �. . ,., � � � .,.; ,;:•,:.; tiuv<< <fs,,: `{P/� 'J t"-:�-. y—f�—r7� f;:.:... MINUTGS - . � �KIN COUNTY BOARD OF CO NTY OMMI SION R '`� .�. SPECIAL MEETING � APRIL 2,1996 CALL TO ORDER• Chairman True called the meeting Yo order at 3:10 p.m. in the Aspen Fire Department Conference Room. S'OMMISSIONER MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Ireland, Bill Tuite, Leslie Lamont and James True. COMN(iSSIONER MEMB�RS ABSENT: Wayne Ethridge. 1ST READING AND SFT FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON APRI 16, 1996 FOR ONE RESOLUTION AND ONE ORDINAIVCE-(1} RESOLUT[ON C'RANTING - APAROVAL TO ASPEN VIT,LA�E,,INC FOR THE A P N VI A MOBI FTOME PARK SUBDIViSiON;CONCEPTUAL SUQMISSION APPROVAL FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOMESITE NEAR WATSON DIVIDT• VACATION OF . THE ASPEN VILLA('E COMMONS SUBDiVISION AND ASSOCIATED taFFORDABLE HOUSING; SPECiAL REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A TtANCH MANAGER EMPIOYEE DWELLING UNIT• ANb (2) ORDINANGE � REZONING THE ASPEN VILLACE M08IL,E HOME PARK FROM SR ISPECIAL RESIDENTIALI TO MHP (MANUFACTURED HOME PARI{� - �IOTION TO ADOPT ON FIRST READING THE RE OLUTION AND ORDiNANC� AND SET FOR SECOND READiN AND PU6L[ H ARIN - Francis Krizmanich presented the issues as ouflined in his Agenda Item Summary dated April 2,1996. A copy of the Summary is attached hereto and made a part of the record as Exhibit`°A." Francis Krizmanich stated there was a request in the application to rezone the Aspen Quik Mart. Ttiey did not liave an actual development plan so Staff recotnmended that the Quik Mart continue to retain its non-conforniing status. Non- confonning is a lot less restrictive than it used to be. There are no provisions for amortization. Appiicant a(so requested a ranch mana�er's unit and Staff noted there is existing one illegal mobile home. It is located near tUe sewage lagoon parcel. Staff has recommended the location for the Ranch Manager's Unit would be tUe vacated PMH parcel. Chuck Vidal, a representative for the applicant, stated the Barios family were the originals owners of the property. They made an arrangement with the conservation fund. The Aspen Village Homeowners' Association, which is a non-profit organization, has been created. There ace 150 owners of the property. The�e are four banks par[icipating in - BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS I APRIL 2,1996 � �`,'• " � ' ,- ..i' , ;;� �,. funding of the property. Most of the 150 owners have met the bank criteria and have qualified. , ;., Cimck Vidal stated the people involved in the Conservation Fund are seasonat people, .� - have affinity,and are motivated to work with everyone. The Aspen Valley Land Trust � has been participating with regard to the conservation easement. Tltis project represents no new development. The project more so represents a reduction in development potentiaL It represents a change in format and a potential change in ownership concepts. The appticants have fourteen tots that have been approved that are being extinguished in ' exchange for one lot on the top of Watson Divide. There are no increased impacts. They '?' are actually getting the Aspen Village Mobile Home Park into a format where those people that live there can finally resolve their home situation. ' Commissioner True went over the outstanding issues relative to tlie property. Quik Mart would be rezoned to B-2,which staff and the P&Z lias suggested not be done. Applicant stated this is not a major issue to them. Applicant stated with regard to the single family homesite, they are asreeable to tHe restrictions that are being discussed. With regard to the ranch manager's unit, in context of the mobile home park, it is " assumed it is an illegal unit. The isolated mobile home was not part of the park and was created as part of 1he other parcel. Applicant stated d�e employee living in the mobile home works both for the rancli and the mobile home park. The employee is prepared to buy the unit as everyone else. Applicant wants to leave the mobile home in place. Applicant wants to create an additional ranch manager's unit. Down tlie road,applicant �- sees the mobile home park and the ranch parcel being under different ownership and � different management. They do not feel this unit is illegal and tl�erefore not an issue relative to the point that has been brought up. Suza�me Konclian stated there is only one building envelope proposed on the 554 acres. She asked if all development is proposed within the enve(ope,for instance,out buildings, barns, agricultura! and whatever else is contemplated. Applicant stated there is a�e building envelope for a free-mazket unit on the Divide. In response to the wildlife concems,rather than have the ranch operation operate out of the envelope,applicant is asking for an additional ranch manager's unit down in the locaiion where ihe PMH is now. This would include tl�e outbuildings,i.e.,barns and maintenance buildings. Commissioner Lamont asked if the caretaker unit was going to be where the primary . residence is located. Applicant stated yes. Applicant stated in any case, tlie caretaker unit at the residence and the ranch manager's unit can never be sold off separately. They are not units to be able to get into the market place. They are integral with the property and go in tact with the property. Suzanne Konchan stated one of the units has to be deed .. restricted. It was agreed that this issue would be taken care of between first and second • reading. ; 60ARD OF COUNTY COMMISS(ONERS 2 APRIL 2,t996 , r.:. i `•��' � '.' ' r e >� �" . �"':.,_. Tim Whitsitt,representative of the Aspen Village Homeowner's Association,stated all of the nine-member board for the Homeowner's Association are in attendance and the four ti representatives from the Banks are also in attendance. All four banks(CNB,Norwest, Alpine,and Pitkin County Bank)have agreed to support the project in terms of interim �,. loans which will allow the Haneowner's Association to buy the park in gross and tlien pursue into a subdivision approval. The banks require the applicant has at least 134 of the 150 people that have home units io qualify for a loan. Right now, they have i38 homeowners qualified. T'he Board has asked the applicant to process this through the affordable housing subdivision exemption. Applicant has agreed to process the application under tlte affordable housing subdivision exemption. There are I50 units in the park. The I SOth unit has never really been a part of tlie park, It is dte maintenance . employee that does the ditch�vork. The unit is on land that is not in the park. But in the course of this transaction,he is considered part of the community. Applicant's proposal is to bring him in and have him part of the Aspen Villa�e Subdivision and approve his unit as the 150th unit in the park. It has never been previously approved. Because is being offered the right to buy his own unit,he may or may not through the future always ' be the maintenance employee for the ranch. This forces the Conservation Pund to say they need to make a provision for somebody that is going to run the ranch. The Board agrees this is no longer an issue. � Commissioner Ireland stated he would like to see timited lighting on the parceL Applicant stated he feels there are two big issues for the Board to deal with today. First is the eight PMH units that are associated with the subdivision that has been developed across the road. One argument is that tl�e eight will not need to be built until there is a development proposed for the six lots. The six lots will not get developed if the eight � units are not developed. If nothing ever gets done, what you have done is wiped out anothez unit of free markei development on Yhe Aspen River Valley River Homes. The question is, it was an exaction for tHe free market development across the river. Why should the Boazd give it up? One of the answers is the park was offered to tenants who are emp[oyees and living in the County at a price far below the market value. Current free market appraisal for the park,as of last August,was 5.8 million dollars. This was offered to the park association for about 4.5 mi►lion dollars. Essentially what the conservation fund has done is already put a 13 mi[Iion into the empioyee housin�coffers by essentially allowing these residents to buy out their unit at below-tnarket values. P&Z accepted this argument as a good reason not to require construction of the eight PMH units. lf the Commissioners believe there is a need to satisfy the obligation somehow,the proposal suggested is that of the 150 owners,about 12 cannot qualify or purchase. The Association's option there is there will be approximately i l that will be on long-term land leasehold. The applicant would be willing to dedicate those to category price restrictions to extent titey are not purchased in order to satisfy the obligation. Commissioner Ireland stated the reason he would like to see some of the units restricted � is to preserve the opportunity for other people to get a foothold into the park. He also [iOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3 APRIL 2,1996 .;<n,� � y� � � � e .;� ' �Fj,.,:'��•�i. �._j�: .;'�'��� . F ' thinks die viability of the park as a living space would be enhanced by having some of the � ;.:' units for sale or for rent. He feets the associatiort should restrict some of these units to an entry-level restriction. ' '`� Applicant stated that tlie par[c is not anxious to see expansion. Atso,applicant stated the �. '�,. sewer system will not accommodate an extensive expansion of tlie park. If they were to � expand the park, it may involve substantial infrastructure increases that they are not particularly interested in and may not be able to easily finance. Also,it may be a money- � (osing pmposition for the applicant. ':r ' Commissioner Ireland stated the sewer system needs to be addressed. Applicant stated . t[�e Homeowners' Association is establisi�ing a solid capital fund for these kinds of _ • improvements. Tl�e intention is to have about$300,000.00 in working capital to address . issues like this. Ti�e sewer is a functioning system. It is approved by the state and has , been inspected. It is up to required staz�dards. The County and Environmental Health has given their okay. Commissioner Ireland stated some of the owners are interested in expanding their units by 30 percent. Wlten there is expansion,sometimes the extra space is rented out. This . places extra strain on the sewer systent. Applicant stated they woutd incorporate strict expansion regiilations. The Association feels it can handle what it has right now and they can repair the problems. However, when units are added on,they are getting into a situation they feel tl�ey might not be able to handle. ��= Commissioner Tuite asked Applicant if they would be opposed to the Board giving them approval of eight more units. It would not be a requirement but the option would be there. Applicant stated the Homeowners'Associaiion would not be opposed to this idea. With regard to the R.O.issue,applicant is asking for 100 percent of the park to go under . R.O.deed restriction. Under the R.O.guidetines,one of the concerns of the Park is the price appreciation counts. Applicant strongly requests tlie Commissioner to take a iook at the R.O. guidelines,particularly as they deal with a mobile home park conversion like this. It provides some real difficulties to the homeowners. They have difficulties intrusive to mobile homes. If you start working with price caps,you also start working with capital investment restrictions. A mobite home unit,afrer essentiapy 20 years,will need to be pulled off and completely replaced at the cost of close to what you had invested in the wiiole deal in the first place. Applicant does not feel they are going to see a major affordability problem here. Eie feels the property woutd operate at a different � level and at a slower appreciation rate versus otl�er properties around dte area. Commissioner True asked if a 20-year old mobile home is pulled off a lot, what is availabie to place on the lot,and if couverted to a stick-built unit,is a basement or second floor available in their covenants? � i30ARD OFCOUNTY COMMISSIONERS 4 APRIL 2,1996 lr; i , ' � . � � .,' �;�;.;�; :._,-.. Applicant stated tliere are proposed restrictions. Francis Krizmanicli stated tliere are ��.. some zoning limits. There is a maximum floor area For eacli lot of 30. 1'he lots range from 2,700 to 8,300 square feet. The smailest minimum FAR is a 1,000 square feet. You �' •• have up to 3,000 square feet on the largest lot. Square footage for storage structm•es 150 square feet on each lot. Maximum carport size is 400 square feet. (There is a restriction against garages.) Below grade space is allowed, not to exceed the footprint on the individual lot. The maximum allowable height sl�all be 12 feet for flat roofs and 14 feet for peaked roofs. Fourteen feet(measured at roof line midpoint)would give you to the peak of a roof 19 feet and you could actually create. Height for carports is 9 feet for flat roofs and 9 feet at midpoint for peak structures. Lot line setbacks are 10 feet on all sides. ' ' Carport/storage structures are one foot setbacks. Mr.Krizmanich stated these restrictions ' will be incorporated into the covenants and they should also be reflected as a variation for the mobile home park zoning restrictions. Applicant stated there is a requirement in the covenants that each of the lots be owner occupied and a prohibition against lot mergers. The guidelines for the covenants follow Housing Authority guidelines. There is a restriction on sliort-terni rentals. The R.O. guidelines will be Followed. App(icant is trying to set up a leave of absence provision. Francis Krizmanich stated R.O.zoning can be done totally above board with this project - and so can category 4 or any otlier category. Witli regard to resirictions,he feels there is a Code amendment problem. His recommendation is that the Board will have to pick restriction they want to apply but the applicants would still have to come in and go through a Code amendment process separate[y. It wouid probably only be the rise in the capital appreciation. Commissioner Tuite stated it would be easier to change the guidelines than a Code amendment. Commissioner True stated the fundamenia!issue is the no-cap issue and whether it has Yo be included in the guidelines to provide a mobile home pazk exception or manufactured home park exception or not. They have to see if the Board is interested in pursuing an RO.provision without the appreciation cap. Commissioner Ireland said he would like to do this but without delaying the project so that the people's financing is not in danger. He wants to approve the park with the current guidelines and then come back and amend them to protect the loan situation. Commissioner Tuite asked the bank representatives what the status is on the loan situation. The representatives stated Yhey have approval from institutions but tliey have a . few more requirements to go through from the Denver institutions. They have received permission to provide financing based upon appraisal of 139 zone now units. When tliey worked with the appraisers on these,they did not work with caps. They also received permission for 10 PMH units and on that they are laoking at PMH four. They are not , waiting upon the Board's decision. Conunissioner Tuite asked how much time is left in - the financing package. The fii�ancing package was set for April lSth with a 30-day window. ; 130ARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 5 APRIL 2,1996 � ,+y;•, } -. , . �•.,.,;., �:;"f`��;. ct;:� - -..,:. Commissioner Tuite reiterated the issues. He stated the banks have no restriction. The .�. only thing the Board can do right now with what they have in place is a 4 percent cap. :�, He says the Board is saying they are willing not to do a 4 percent cap. The question is ' how do they get this closed in a such way they do not lose the financing and they stay . ' within the time line. Applicant stated the Banks are willing to work with a step process. The applicants are wil[ing to go forward and approve it the way it can now on the current time line and then have the Board consider amendments to the R.O.guidelines that would lift the cap. r� David Ritter stated the Homeowners' Association is paying about $2,000.00 a day in ; - interest. He feels the Board needs to compact as quickly as possible so they can�et the : • interim loans closed. Commissioner Lamont stated she had a problem with lifting die 4 percent cap but after ' today's discussion,she feels better about fifting the 4 percent cap. It was agreed the County needs to be a beneficiary of the covenants. _ Commissioner Lamont stated when a R.O.unit is sold,it needs to go through the Housing office. TI»s requirement should be reflected in the covenants. Commissioner iretand stated the Board could give direction to Staff to expeditiously review how we change the guidelines to remove the cap for this project and maybe this would give tl�e banks sufficient comfort so they can move forward. Tl�e banks agree this �- would be fine. Dave Ritter supporfs the removal of the cap from dtis project. Suzanne Konchan,County Manager,asked when they prepare an amendment to lift the appreciation cap requiremeiits,sIiould they aznend it to allow for larger above-grade and below-grade provisions or not? Commissioner Lamont wanted to know how many units are affected by this because the largest unit could be 2,500 square feet above grade,the R.O.guidelines right now allows 2,200 square units. Applicant stated there are[ess tl�azi 15 units that would be affected. . ' Commissioner Ireland asked applicant if this is a vital issue to the Association or is the Association willing to cut out a step in the process and just say it is 2,200 feet. , �- i BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 6 APRIL 2,1996 "'. r '. . . - ; e , .d" ,� ' � � �;� ,. Commissioner Trae stated he supports Bill Tuite's suggestion that the Board approve the extra lots They could create the deed-restricted iots but the Association may never use them. Commissioner also supports the proposal for the 10 or l2 units. �'� A discussion ensued regazding whether a�iything lower than Category 4 would work on � the deed-restricted anits. It was agreed that applicants would research this issue. As it stands now, Category 4 works well with regard to the financing end of it. Anything lower is questionable but will be researched. Commissioner Ireland moved to adopt on first rcading the ordinancc for rezoning the Aspen Valley Mobile Home Park fram SR to MHP and set for pnblic bearing _ and second reading on April 16,1996 at 5:30 p.m.. With a second by Commissioner , Lamont,thc motion passed unanimously. Commissioncr Ircland moved to adopt on £rst reading the resolution granting approval to Aspen Village, Inc. for conceptual and fina! plat submission approval for the Aspen Village Mobile Home Park Subdivision; concepfual submission approvxl for a singic family homesitc near Watson Aividc; vacation of the Aspen Vil(age Commons Su6division and associated affordable housing; special reviaw approval for a ranch man�ger employee dweliing unit und set for public hearing ' und second reading on April 16, 199G at 5:30 p.m. A second was made by Commissioner Tuite. Commissioner Lamont initiatcd a discussion nt fhis point. A discussion ensued regarding whether a drafr of the final plat should be submitted to the Commissioners for review to see where the location of the additional eight lots might be. � Francis Krizmanich stated he feels the 150th lot,the employee of the ranch and mobile 1�ome park's unit,should not be locaYed to the lagoon. Applicant stated a 5,000 squaze foot lot is designated on the plat for the empioyee/maintenance unit. Krizmanicli is suggesting it is not a good place to place a lot because it is near a sewage lagoon and a maintenance building and the highway. He feels the unit should be placed in the park along with tlie other owners. Commissioner Tuite a�rees with Mr. Krizmanich. He stated if this unit is going to be moved,it should be moved to where the eight other units will be built(if and when they aze built). On final plat,they wiIl ideniify location for nine units. To clarify the issues, Commissioner Ireland stated what the Board is trying to do is if everybody buys up in the park,that is fine. But if they do not,the uniYs not boughi will become restricted. Now if the Association,for convenience,wants to bring in somebody from the outside to buy a restricted a unit,this fine a1so. ! BOARD OF COUNTY COMMtSSIONERS 7 APR1L 2,1996 � i:--:..,.... \>. � , .- ' 9 � r;. •:/ ':.i..:' 4.; . . ' � ^ f�` . Y,i:.. Commissioner True stated the point is the R.O.ability for the entire project is available ' for those residing in the park today. ti. Suzanne Konchan stated she would like to see Staff work with Tim and Chuck on - clarifying some of the condition language since there is not going to be a final ptat � provision. She wants to make sure the resolution can be a stand-aloite document,there is not references to third-party papers. She wants to make it as conciusive a document as possibie. She wants inctuded the County will be a beneficiary to the covenants, the manager's unit will have to resolve in terms of deed restriction,and they will include the � units that are not sold to residing owners by second reading being timited to the category 3 and to work on other category restrictions. , ` Commissioner Lamont stated her hope is tltat some of d�e deed restricted uniis be category 2 if it works. She woutd be amenable to a combination of categories. Applicant reiterated the concern that the tigliter restrictions might put them into a bind • with tlieir bank financing. A member of public asked about the B-2 zoning, Commissioner True stated it was discussed earlier iil the meeting. It was the consensus of Staff;the Board and P&Z that � given the lack of factual ctaims for that aud given the change regarding nou-conforming status, tUey decided not to rezone to B-2. The Planning Commission made the recommendation and it is in the Resolution. Francis Krizmanich said they were not comfortable looking at a complete B-2 rezoning with the description of potential uses. Ti�e non-conforming section is quite a bit different. If aaytUing burnt down or tkere was an accident,you might not be allowed to rebui(d. The new con-forming section of the Code allows you absolutely to rebuild your business if it is destroyed or if you decide to tear it down and go into a new building. It ailows to you to make minor changes to the structure leve]right now with Staff level approvaL It allows you to make substantial changes by applying for review before the County Commissioners. It is quite a bit different non-conforming use standard than the County had before. Staff and the Planning Cotnmission are uot totally against the B-2 rezoning. They had,in fact,approved a B-2 zoning for the OId Snowmass Conoco but they had a very specific development plan. It would take a very specific development plan here to support a B-2 zoning. This is why the Planning Commission recommended it stay the same for the time being. Tl�e same member of the public asked about the EPA requirements on gasotine tanks ai this point in time and wiil the existiug non-conforming use status allow them ro upgrade the tanks within the procedure. If tliey do not, then they have a problem. Francis Krizmanich said as far as he can tell,it is completely allowed to puli out the tanks and reptace ihem. � . ROARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIOIYERS 8 APRIL 2,1996 � i - ''s;,�. � . r ..., �.�t'; � In order for the Quik Mart to be rezoned,they would have to come up witit a plan and it _ � would have to be submitted to the Board for rezoning. , 'i. Tom Macy,who is with the conservation fund,thanked the Board for their cooperation � and endorsement of this two-year effort. The Homeowners have been terrific to work '.�• with. He also thanked the Bartos family for being generovs enoi�gh to enable a non-profit organization to come in and put these things together. . Commissioncr True called the qucstion on who atl�vas in favor of the resolution. The motion passed unanimously. .+.�enr rrriniv �PPOTNTING MEMBERS TO SUPPLEMGNTAL DRAFT EIS EIYTRANCE TO ASPEN CITIZEN TASK FORCE MOTiON TO APPROVE- - Suzanne Konchan stated there are some other citizens interested in serving on the Task Force. They are still in the process of contacting some of these people. Commissioner Tuitc moved to a�prove thc Resolution appointing members to the Supplemental Draft EIS Entrancc to Aspen Citizen Task Force. With a second by Commissioner Truc,the motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Tuite moved to adjourn the meeting. With a second by Commissioner Ireland,the motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT• The meeting adjoumed at 6:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, �',,A�./ L�ll'��G�'C/ r` LYNI�CORDOVA Deputy County Clerk �. �—�� ES TRUE,Chairman Board of County Commissioners LSClW\V/DOCC 96/Minl04-02-96.doc BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISStONERS 9 APRIL 2,1996 ' ,.. 1" � ' � � . n -', ��'4"�::.: Z,'.' ._. • 't_y-qb �::.; AG;ENDA ITEM SUMMARY ` TO: Pitkin County Board of Courny Commissioners � �',�, First Reading-April 2,1996 � , .�. FROM: Francis X.I{rizmanich,Deputy Director of County Caseload THROUGH: Cindy Houben,Community Development birector•;��,�.--°�� i2E: Aspen Village,Inc.,Subdivision,Rezoning,Conceptual Review,Special Review >r ISSiJES: This is the first reading of a rezoning ordinance and resolution for Aspen Village,Inc. ' This application requests multiple land use approvals for an approximately 879-acre property which includes the Aspen Village Mobile Home Park,ttte Quik Mart and the ranch land extending from highway 82 to the top of Watson Divide. This application includes the requests out[ined beIow(Please see the attached P&Z memorandum for more specific details on each issue): 1. Vacate the existin�14-unit subdivision and the PMH parcel and create a ranch parcel with a � ranch-manager unit and ranch outbuildings. 2. Develop a single-family homesite with a caretaker unit on the 554-acre parcel. The proposed homesite has been selected bazed on review of all important 1041 issues,particularly wildlife,combined with the need for t[ie creation of a property that would attract a conservation buyer and future land manager. The proposal also includes preservation of the � � parcel as open space by placing it under a cortservation easemenL 3. The Mobile Home Park will be rezoned,subdivided and sold to the Aspen Village Homeowner's Association(Association)who wili seil the lots to individ¢al homeowners. The expansion parcel will be conveyed to the Association subject to an open space/recreation conservation easement. The sewer lagoons wili be included in the mobile home pazk parcel and a half-acre water tank pazcel will be conveyed to the Association. The gas station and store will remain a commercial parcel. This application was submited prior to the recent amendment to the AH sections of the Iand • use code. These amendments were not presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Based on the new code amendments,the BOCC has the ability to a[low the subdivision to be I00%R.O. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended a restriction to Category 4, • primarily based on the applicant's request to eliminate 8 category units which are required as a result of an approval on a portion of the property. The applicants represent�tives have indicated that the Homeowners have concerns regarding the current R.4.guidelines. Thus,the agplicants may propose a code amendment creating a -. i 1 . '�',. - , . .�� .;; .+�:&..• � .......`��4.�. ,.. . ' :... • �. , �tro;'�tl��.. �� v� , ;�'... . ".y-r;`�;''� . :.._•C)`.'�i1`.'�.': . ;'. ,.`yc:.. A'.� speci�c RO catagory for the MHP zone district. If this occurs,additionai time will be �"'��� � required to process such an amendment once an application is submitted. . _ ` ' _, 4. Rezone and subdivide the Aspen Qaik Mart from AFR-10 to B-2. ' '!: �, j. S. The end results wi]I be as fotlows: 5543 acre-single-family parcel with a conservation easement • �—;;:_ 275.4 acre-ranch parcel with a conservation easement `;r 4' 33.7 acre-I50-unit mobile home pazk ; '- • 13.7 acre-expansion/open space pazcel . 0.5 acre-water tank parcel i.4 acre-gas station and store � f' $79 acres Total LOCATION: The properiy is located on the southwest side of the intersection of FIighway 82 and Watson Divide Road. RECOMME��TDATION: The Planning Commission reviewed this application on Februaty 2D, _ I996 and recommended approval subject to conditions with thc exception that the Commission• �`" did not recommend rezoning of the Asgen Quik Mart from AFR-LO to B-2 becaase a specific development pian was not included in iher proposal. The staff agrees with the Planning Commission and has drafted an ordinance and a resolution today to set a public hearing for April 16,1996. The ordinance and resolution,including conditions of approval,are attached. � -_ i 2 � ' �. � , `,. , � , e ' ,ca. � .. . , . .ti: ' • '��