Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.spec.04111996 'q �.�g_. �,� • x,�::�;,. � 4.:�y�',:.. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ��,��.`^`-° . ,.: AGENDA `• �., ''.�' THURSDAY.APRIL 11, 1996 (<:. : 10:00 AM SPECIAL MEETING CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING r Location: Board Room in Courthouse Agenda: Land Use Items Continued from April lOth Meeting : � i -- I " / ":i�'3r a:�; . / �<, ' . � � .:;„;: . � �� .- � �;i';t I'P�r�c�4 v .. � t::;:. :. -�G 9G �:"-. MINUTES `" r PITKIN COUNTY UOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS � '• ti. SPECIALMEETINC '�,; pPRIL I1.1996 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Ireland called the special meeting of the Board of County �. Commissioners[o order at 10:00 a.m. -r ['OMMISCION MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Mick Ireland,Bill Tuite and Jim True . • - COUGAR ANYON SUBDIVISION CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION 1041 ENVIRONMENTAI. HAZARD REVIFW GMOS EXEMPTION AND SPECIA4 R�VIEW FOR AFFORDABLE � wo�i¢►Nr nN�TC n�oTION TO CONTINUE TO JUNE 12 1996 i COUGAR CANYON REZONINC � Ellen Sassano,Staff Planner,proceeded with her presentation on this matter as ouNined in her � memorandum to the Board dated April I5,1996. A copy of this memorandum,with attachments, is attached hereto and made a part of lhis record as EXHIBIT"A" - Sassano reiterated the recommendation stated in her memorandum that the application be remanded back to the Planning and Zoning Commission with the benefit of not only Randy Cote's comments with regard [o wildlife,but comments from Ihe State Forest Service rela[ive to wildfire hazard,and the S[ate Geological Survey relative to geologic hazards,associated with the New revised Buildin�Envelope No.I. She would also like ro follow up witli Randy Cote ro speak with him and get more information on Buildina Envelope No.2. " , A discussion ensued with regard[o remanding the application back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Bruce Hazzard,representin�[he applicant,stated tha[clearly they have made a change in the application. However,it is a[hreshold question as to whether they have any further discussion on any detailed items of this or whe[her or not i[is a subsiantial change to the tune that it fits the language and the intent of the ordinance and the agreement behveen the Board and[he P&Z about remanding projects back to them. From Hie applicant's standpoint,Hazzard said there are several points he wants to make. One[hat the change is retlective of the portion of the discussion[hat occurted at the PRZ. With respect to the wildlife issue, since the P&Z hearing they have me[with Randy Co[e. Wha[Randy related to them is that with regazd to the proposed Lots 1 and 2,that definitely Lot I waz a problem and needed to be moved. His concem with Building Envelope No.2,was focused more on its relative location to the aspen grove that is located in the draw,and he wan[ed to no manipulation of that aspen grove whauoever. Therefore after several meetings�vith Randy Cote,it was concluded[hat if they would make a chanae and relocate ' Building Envelope No.One,over the rid�e line knowing that it was open to discussion about being remanded back to the P&Z. He referred[o an additional memorandum from Randy Cote that differs from the first memorandum he wrote. A copy of this memorandum is attached here[o and made a part of this record as EXHIBIT"B". Havard said they feel tha[the chan�e is reflec[ive of[he comments and discussion that ocwrted a[P&Z and the Further comments that they have between their o�vn wildlife biologist,and Randy Core. They think - I BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1 APRIL 11,1996 ' ((�••.:i' . � \7r7` � ... r ..i k:�; r�• � ;;':- that with Randy's letter that the change is consistent with the direct responses and the direct ` recommendations that he made to them prior to submitting this on March I. He said they would like to have Randy Cote attend a meeting to further discuss tliis issue, � W ith respect to makin�sure that Uiey have all the referral comments and all the cards on the table,Hazzard - said that the location they moved Building Envelope I lo was looked at by the Forest Service relative to '' wildFire issues. The new envelope I falls between the hvo envelopes that were looked at by the Forest Service so they feel comfortable that the conditions of approval from the�orest Service,relative ro wildfire,would be applied,but they would like ro hear From the Forest Service as well on that location. Witli respect to the geology, again,they spent time on the site looking at ail the property,and they feel that • the location they moved envelope I ro is no more but actually less impactive on I S percent slopes with no impact on 30 percent slopes. Again,he would defer to the State Geologic Survey for their commen[s on thac as well. He referced to a letter in the Board's packet from Rick Thomson,their wildlife consultant,and . . a comment letter from C.T.L.Thompson,[heir geotechnical engineer,relative ro[he new envelope I. Hazzard said their ar�ument would be that this is concepnial,but in their situation,because they only have five bts and five fairly well defined envelopes,ihat[he level of infonnation that Ihey have submitted at conceptual,in a lot oP instances,would be similar to what the Board would see at detailed submission. Also,any diswssion that takes place in their minds,at tlie Board level,will be carried over in the ' conditions of approval and taken back to P&Z for a full discussion at detailed submission,prior to them coming back to the Board for Detailed Submission and ultimately Final Plat if they get to tha[point. In addition,the conditions of approval that were attached to the P&Z packet,are the same that are included in the Board's packets,and there are only four or five that[he applicants would want any discussion on. The rest of ihe conditions are acceptable. With respect to[he remand back to the P&Z,he would like ro diswss[he threshald discussion about whether this is substantiaf enough to be remanded back to the P&Z. If it is determined that it is not substantial enough to go back to the P&Z,then the applicant is willing to continue the public hearing ro allow staff time to work wi[h them in more detail to get the referrals in so the Board has all[he infortnation in front of them. If the Board does not diink the matter has to go back to the P&Z then they would like to go Porward today with the general and background data,and then defer discussion specifically on wildlife and employee housing until such time as Randy Cote and Dave Tolen can be available to attend. Dave Myler,Attorney for Ihe applicant,said they agree that there is a basis for continuance,but he does not think a remand is warranted. Ellen Sassano said that her recollection is that the Planning Commission did not review any recommended conditions because of[heir recommendation of denial. Therefore,if the Board chooses to go forward at this time it would be cotnin�to them without a Planning Commission recommenda[ion. Commissioner True opened the hearing to public comment with respect to the issue of remanding die matter back to the P&Z. David Guthrie,a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission,said they al�vays support Randy Cote � and if he is comfortable with the proposed relocation of the building envelopes,then he does not diink they need to see it a�ain. If there is a remand,then he hopes they can review the matter q�ickly while[heir memories are fresh because diey have already spent a lot of time discussing the issues. Commissioner Ireland said he does not think Ihe matter needs[o be remanded back to the P&Z. However, he would like the Board to adopt a condition that there will be no commercial/aaricultural activity on this ranch. He does not want a situation,such as the Lary O,that allo�v�endemen fartners to shift that tas burden[o Iheir neighbors,businesses,e[a � BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIOIVERS 2 APRIL l l,1996 � `e' . , , . e .: � . .:i �. T ~. �' ':,. It was the consensus of Commission members that this matter does not need to be remanded back to P&Z. - . bu[there needs to be n continued hearing pending the varioud wnsultnnts being able to a[rend. i -i.. Sassano said with respect to the employee housing issue,it was the preference of the Housing Authority tha[housing be provided for each lot on each lot. Hotvever initially,st�ff thought[hat the bulk and areu ' . +, , _ requirements of the land use code basically precluded that. Having taken a second]ook of the code,she found a growNi management exemption which basically does allow such housing[o be provided on lots of this size. She said she just wants this to be clarified at this meetinp,and she will go into additional detail at a previous meeting. Dave Myler said the applicant is offering the 35 acre property with three alternative building sites as an ,r.�` alternative to putting Uie housing on the site,but they are also prepared to fall back on diat if that is what the County would prefer. ' Sam Houston said he just wants ta point out,on behalf of the owner,that they will be willing to�vork with • the Counry and come up with something that is workable. Commissioner True sug,,rested[ha[a sire visit he scheduled prior to the next discussion on diis application. ! Commissioncr Ireland moved to continuc discussion and thc public hcaring on this mattcr to June 12,1996. With a second by Commissioner Tuite,the motion passed unanimously. KOUTSOUBOS LOT SPLIT-Francis Kriz�nanich,Staff Planner,proceeded with his presentation on this matter as outlined in his memorandum[o[he Board dated April 10,199G. A copy of[his ' memorandum,with attachments, is Attached herem and made a part of this record as EXHIBIT"C". Joe Edwards,representing the applicant,said the tanguage in the code says that they qualify for a GMP exemption for a single family dwelling unit. The code states that the fathering pazcel must either already contain one legal single family dwelling or it must qualify for a single family dwelling pursuant to 3- 1501(B). He proceeded with his arguments associated with this issue as ouNined on Page 3 of his letter to '' Francis Krizmanich da[ed September 28,1995. A copy of this letter is attached heret�and made a part of R� this record as EXHIBIT°D". Edwards explained that the theory when the GMP was adopted,was that people who have meres and bounds parcels should be able to build their house without having to run them through Ihe competi[ion process. So thaPs why,when the resolution was adopted back in 1978,that first exemption was put in there,that it had to be currenNy unimproved and be something that had been subdivided before lune of 1978;when the GMP resolution was adopted. He said they don't meet the currently unimproved prior ro 1978,bu[tl�ey do meet the o[her part being the 'g I�p�that says it has a house on it They are not trying to bt split the parcel[hat has the house on it into Rvo parcels. He reiterated that by languaee of the code, they think they are entiNed m an approval. Edwards noted[hat the eaisting house does quali(y for historic designation as per the hisrorical officec He dces no[have anything in writing but su�ested that would be forthcoming. Tuite asked if there would be any fuRher development on the parcel that houses[he historic house? Ireland said there is a new house proposed for the same parcel as the existing Wise house. However,the question is will the Wise house and historic shed stay exacdy as they are? Edwards there is something in the code about remodeling designared historic structures,but they would , have[o meet[he historic standards. i I30ARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3 APRIL 11,1996 i , . , 1�.��-- _ , 9 / R.i^ . .: fu�.ttr:'::�;' ::;•�. I�`�f�� Y. . �. �''�:=. With respect to the scenic review issue, Edwards said this is resolved because P&Z gave final scenic ' - . approval ro the home sites. He said what the P&Z wanted them to do was literally move the building �: .,. ' envelope down hill. He explained that they I�ave revised the access driveway different than shown on the 1, original plat. He presented a plat showing the driveway as proposed with the changes which would be on • the moro soutiierly parcel down near the fann house which would then came back alortg the creek and ' ' :,, come up for the more northerly parcel. ' Commissioner True asked Edwards if he recalled if die P&Z approved the scenic revie�v with that house size limitation. .% 'i:':. Edwards responded that�vhat they said was they agree to 7,500 wi[hout any further scenic review,and if they want to build a bipger structure then they would have m bring the architectural ptans,paint scheme -r � and roof materials for further review by the P&Z. A discussion ensued with regard to the house size. - Tuite referted to a letter,in the Board's packets,from the Town of Snowmass Village in which they recommend a total square foota�e of 7,500 square feet per lot However,he does not know if tha[includes the Wisehouse. Commisssioner Ireland said he could live with 7,500 square feet per lo[. LL John Ely,County Attomey,stated that Ihe final review by P&Z is only For scenic review that is not accompanied with any other review.However,this review is accompanied with quite a few other reviews ': - so the BOCC will have a word in this. As far as the area and bulk goes,there are no architecwral drawings of the structure so it is hard to evaWate that. i Krizmanich concurced with Ely's opinion,that the Board of County Commissioners do have final approval for the scenic overlay review because it is a combined application. Commissioner True asked what the Division of WildliFe's opinion is with respect to brin�ing the house �' . down in the lower part of Uie parcel? Edwards explained that Randy Cote mtd him that when there are atfalFa fields on ihe lower part then if draws the elk down and that i[is not healthy for the animals ro get acclimated ro eating this vegetation all the time,rather they are better off if they stay up in the oak brush in the more naturat feeding environment. So he was not at all concerned about any development here impacting them coming down in the fields. Commissioner True suggested at second reading that the applicanYs provide something in writing from the Division of Wildlife with respect to the proposed homesite. With respect ro the issue of the bridge,True asked the Board�vhether or not they would want to reloca[e Uie driveway and avoid the other bridge by requiring die lot split to be redrawn and located the one building envelope closer to d�e ot6er buiidiceg envelope? Commissioner Tuite voiced a concem that by doing that it would defeat the whole open space character of that meadow nnd the stream. Krizmanech said his recommendation is[o have one bridge serve hoth[he projec[s[hat way they can combine costs,minimize disruption,and they can enter onto an improved 8rush Creek Road. After a discussion�vith regard to this issue,it wns aareed that this matter will be discussed in conjunction .� with the nest matter reaarding the Cozy Point applicntion. i BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 4 APRIL 11,1996 / �,.�,. � . . •�i �'`.Y/;""� . .,. . Commissioner Ireland said he would like to discuss the issues of an agricultural operation. �. i. Joe Edwards stated that the property has an agricultural status at this time.There is a horse operation,they • have been haying the fields,they have irri�ation di[ches,they grow alfalfa,and Ihere are ulso cows on the �^ properiy. ''• Joe Krabncher said the Cozy Point property is already classified as residential not agricultural. Jce Edwards said he would have to research the issue of what there impacLS would be with respect to giving up their agricultural status and respond to that at second reading. 7 Edwards said he would like to discuss the road issue. He said that Bud Eylar su�,rested that the road ' impacts could be handled by a bike trail or perltaps a IeR tum lane. Ne argued thut there is nothing in the ' � land use code or in the road and bridge specifications that has a standard tha[says when you've got a • certain number of homes(in this case three)that you have to have a left tum lane. And the code says roads and driveways shall be designed and constructed in accordence with the Pitkin County Roads Standards and Specifications. It further states that[he Board shall review alI access points to subdivisions and � approve access. All subdivision access points and road designs must comply with the Pitkin County Roads S[andards and Specifications. So his point is that their access already complies with the Pitkin County Roads Standards and Specifications. He said the code further states that"Any road improvements diat a " development proposal is required to make,in pursuant to[he Roads Standards and Specifications,shall be �r assessed on a pro-rata basis considering the traffic to be generated by the development,in relation to the design capacity of the finished road. He nored ihat they have a desiga capacity of S,OOQ vehicles per day and they have three home sites which at a maximum,can be considered to generate seven car trips per ' home per day. i i Canmissioner Tuite explained that when you include the W ise house and tha[coupled with the Cozy Point i development,there would be five homes with a maximum of 35 trips per day on a busy road. � Edwards explained that through[hat particular area there is over!�0 feet of width of dedicated of public � `� easement and the road right now,occupies about 22 feet in width. So there is plenty af room to construc[a bike trail within the existin�granted easement. Atso,they did indicate that Ihey would rea�rtn that � easement as being utilized,not only for a raad or automobiles,but afso for bike trrils if somebody felt that was necessary,or even add to that width if somebody felt that was necessary. �. Chairman said one tradeoff,in addi[ion to that,may be the theory of combining the roads For both � developments. � I - ]oe Krabacher said when they met with Bud Eylar on the site with respec[ro[heir application,he didn't �' seem to have a bie concem about a left hand turn fane,given the fact that they were moving their entrance ; so far away from Highway 82. ,, 1oe Edwards s[ated that he would not have a problem with whatever solution is decided as long as they � only have to pay a pro-reta share. Krabacher said Cozy Point is also proposing to dedicate a bike path/pedestrian path along Highway 82 ` � which they are still willing ro do. He agrees that if there is some way to connect the�vhole thing it could reduce some of the traffic on Brush Creek Road. �' h � With respect ro the fishing easement,Jce Edwards said he thinks it is pretty clear,under Nolan and Dolan, l that those are not lawfu�eaactions,and nobody fishes[ha[stream any way. ]ohn Ely asked that this issue be deferred to second reading. � f• i BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 5 APRIL 11,1996 , r, . i ,t� • e i ::.:• ;u;F� i"'�`' r ... � , ,: ('(l7Y vn NT OT PLIT ON •PTUA SU[3MISSION -Fcancis Krizananich preceeded with his presentation regarding Niis application as oudined in his memorandwn to the Board dated April 10,199G. ' A copy of this memorandum is attached hereto and made a pa�of this record as EXHii3IT"E". �• .'.' Krizmanich said as before,the staff is recommending a left turn lane for this project regardless of the '� • location. Like Joe said they were at the site,but he dces not know for sure that Bud Eylar as been real particidarly clear with a strong recommendation one way or the other so he Ihinks we certainly need ro get clarification from the County Engineer as to a necessity for a left turn fane for botfi projecu. Krizmanich said for both projecis,Cindy Houben,indicated to him that Bob Kopp,a neighbor wsis concemed about both projects regarding potential contamination. '' ?' �.� Commissioner Ireland said Mr.Kopp's concern was thac he saw the Cozy Point application and what he ; _ . thought was being talked about was development across the road from him. He noted[hat Aspen Mass is located in the that area and when diey dug the wells,because the water drained on top of the shale,they did get water in the wells. However,when the ditch was not runnina there was no water in the wells. You could go down 180 feet and they were dry. He thinks Mc Kopp is cortect about that,but he does not think , this project is goittg ro drain Ihat way. Staff was asked to get back to Mr.Kopp to address his concerns. , Krizmanich continued that with respec[ro the scenic overlay review,staffdid not support granting scenic {.�� overlay because they did not have a specific building design,but as like KouESObous,the Planning f. Commission recommended a 7,500 square foot home size with the additional recommendation tha[if the i ' building size exceeds 7,500 square feet,it could�pon approval,dic[ate a further scenic overlay review. He Ihinks chis was addressed with Koutsoubos by proposing a cap Iimit of 7,500 square feet. � � i Jce Krabacher said that the plat has been substantially revised in that the building envelopes are much ` smaller. He proceeded to review their current proposal which moves the buildin�envelope 30 feet offthe � riparian area. He showed a combined alignmert that works with Koustsou6os propeRy which 4,r'- accommodates a straight shot into the one building envelope with another alignment which accommodates the road Ihat split off,and then there is a third one which is just on their property. Commissioner Irelund asked if the Open Space 8oard had ever talked to either of the property owners about�cquisitions of Ihese QropeRies or Qarts of these properties? k Krizmanich refened to a refettaV comment from Michelle Carline in the Board's packets�vhicfi indicated � tliat they have no interest in the property. . � Irelund said tha[Snowmass V illage however,does have an interes[in that property and there are funds for acquisition in that valley. Krabacher noted that their property is for sale. Ireland said if Snowmass V illage is interested in a purchase using part of the open space money and part of Iheir money,he would be willing to look at that. � Krabacher said he would be willing to sit down and discuss this matter. He thinks his clients are pretty � creative and maybe there could be some kind of det�V wfiere there is payment over time and possibly a part cash/part charitable contribution or somethino like that Commission members said they�vould be interested in talking about this,but they think ihe overall plan - needs to be looked at. i �- i BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS G APRIL 11,1996 i ' �;;" ' �. r t .,.� ';�;i�,'.y,i� Ii�, 4��'� ..`I;. . Krabacfier said they are hopeful that tl�eir application can be approved. Thcy have 145 acres,�nd they looked at possibly split[ing off 35 acres or something before[hey came through and decided to go wi[h �, this. He said that basically, they have got a difticult site because most of the property (I 10 acresJ is -%, wildlife,s[eep slope,etc.so they have bazically preserved all that. They have ircigated meadows,they ' have riparian,etc. So this¢raposal is the best they could come up with. The onty odser issues fie can think � . +. of,that Francis did not mention, was one the Irail dedication,which they are willing to do along Nie . . highway or maybr do�vn the hi11 a little 6iL The other issue was the cnretaker dwelling unit. There was a discussion at P&Z about thaL They originally proposed a detached caretaker dwelling unit. However the . P&Z said they would not be willing to go with detached. There�vas further discussion and then they - approved attached caretaker dwellin�units. He Iltinks their concem�vas wildlife impacts. Their view is that they created all the irriga[ed paztures down there so now everything migrates down to a man-made .r R condition. Krabacher said their wildlife expert came in and said that[he property could support and still be compa[ible " � with wildlife with two horses per irrigated acre. So they are proposing half of that,being one horse per � irrigated acre,which would be a maximum of 30 horses. Tl�erefore,they think it is a very pastoral setting, but they are not praposing smne sort of commercial operation. i Ireiand said he dces no[have a problem with horses on it. Cammissioner Tuite asked Joe if 6e was offering that this will be all Ihe development for the entire parcel for ever? }' i Krabacher responded that Ihis lot split does require sterili7ation of the remainder of the parcel. Discussion ensued with re�ard to a sUared driveway between the hvo properties. Krabacher said they don't necessarily need an easement,but they�vould be willing to split die cost 50/50 � or whatever for the portion they use to access their property and cross the bridge. 1.,; Commission members urged the applicants to consult on this issue. � " Staff was directed to contact the county engineer co see what the cost of a tum{ane or n slight widening in � that area to make it more safe would be. i True suggested that if both parties are sharing tlie cost of the bridge,under the theory of combining the ! driveway, that may be one�vay ro avoid the request for an eaaction for a tum lane. � Edwards and Krabacher concurred that between now and the next hearing[liey will discuss this matter. � CBainnan True opened the hearing to public comment. There being no comment,he entertained a motion to move bo[h applications fonvard to detailed submission scheduled for June 12th. Commissioncr Tuitc said Ite wants to make it dear to both applicant's representatives that he is looking Cor a cap of 7,500 squ�re foot homes period. Hc is not looking for them to go back to P&Z for sccnic review. ThercCorc lic wanls to hear�vhat thcir thoughts are nt second reading. Edwards said with rapect ro the caze[aker unit issue,the planning office opposed i[and PRZ felt like as ( long as it was in the structure,it didn't really matter. Krizmanich said he does not think Randy Cote�vould have a problem with this. He noted that staff does recommend prohibition of dogs,and fie thinks this is supported by Randy. However,[he appficant's wildlife consultant did not think prohibition was diat important. � r I BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 7 APRIL 1 t,1996 i f �;;�' � � . : , .. ��' ° - . ... , , . ,. , . , . .. ,., . , � . ..., .:. � �Y���:. F•,• �5;:: : :�2. Commissioncr Tuite moved approval for of first rcading of Conceptual Submission for t6e ` Koutsoubos application and set for second reading und public hcaring on June 12,1996. With a �'� second by Commissioner Ireland the motion passed unanimously. - . '� Commissioner Tuite moved approval of first res�ding of thc Cozy Point Ranch Conceptual Submission and to set for second reading and public hearing on June 12,1996. With a second by t . Commissioner lreland,thc motion passed unanimously. RFCALllT10N CRANTING A TEMPORARY USE PEE�MIT FOR THE USE OF BUMPS FOR THE MANDY BAR MITZVAH-MOTION TU APPROVE i`:Y• � Commissioner treland moved approval of t6e Resolution. Commissioner True seconded the motion. . Motion passed unanimously. . ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjoumed at I:00 p.m. ' f` R tfu{ly submi d, 1ea ette 11� �'. CI k to the Boasd of o nty Commissionen / � 1 ea��ue,Chairman �l C`L (i�i�li t 2- Board of County Cummissioners . �;� S " � I � BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 8 APRIL l l,1996 / , �`:. i , � � • ,,yx; . .� : ..s � y��-4G 'p� �:-�,.:: . �:��;- . J `�� ; AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY � �:` � TO: Board of County Commissioners `•> Reguiar Meeting-April 15,1946 • �� � �.� T�LU: Cindy Hoaben, Community Development Director� FROM: Ellen Sassano,Senior Planner RE: Cougar Canyon Subdivision Concepma] Submission, Rezoning, 1041 ':r.`� Environmental Hazard Review,GMQS Exemption and Special Review For .� ' Affordable Housing Units _ APPLICANT: Cozy Point Partners,LLC APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Bruce Hazzard,Design Workshop,Inc. REQLTEST:The applicant requests approval to rezone approximately 954 acres of tand from t2S-30 to RS-160,and to subdivide the parcel into five lots,each of which will contain 160 acres or more. Ptoposed buildino envelopes range in size from 1.5 to 2.5 acres,and � wil)contain all devetopment activities,including wells and septic systems.The request is subject to the following iand use reviews: 1. Rezoning 2. GMQS Exemption for single family dwelling units on lots created pursuant to RS- !- 16Q rezoning 3. Conceptual Subdivision 4. 1041 Environmenta]Hazard Review LOCATION:The parcel is located west of Highway 82,north of Brush Creek Road,above Cozy Point Ranch;in Sections 16,17,29 and 21;Township 9 South,Range 85 West. ACCESS: Access to the lou will be via Juniper Hills Drive off of Hi�hway 82. The applicant proposes to utilize and upgrade existino common roads on the property, and to exYend individual drives on contour to the building sites. ZOMNG: The pazcei is zoned RS-30 PLTD. WATER: Water for each lot will be provided via individual wells. SEPTIC:Individual septic sys[ems and leach fields located within the building envelopes are proposed to accommodate sewage disposal. , i . , r . �,'. � � � . .d' ':.� :,-,, _ . _ � �,�;�,:;; - x.. rT�� ' . ,..i:; BACICGROUND: , • 1n 1987, pursuant to Resolution No. 87-80, che Boazd of Counry Commissioners • ~~ approved the Cozy Point Ridge low impact subdivision creating four tots on the uQper �. �, portion of the applicant's patcel. The low impact subdivision regulations in effect at that • time did not preclude furtfier development of the fathering parcel in accordance with subdivision and GyIQS provisions of the Land iTse Code. Accordingly,the applicant is now requesting further subdivision of the fathering parcel. _ r • The Planning Commission reviewed this application on Ocrober 17 and December 19, . 1995. The Commission recommended denial of the appiication, based on the . - applicant's unwillingness to relocate the buildino envelopes on Sites #1 and #2 as . recommended by the Division of Wildlife. ftandy Cote recommended that sites#1 and #2 be relocated to the southeast of a sma11 rid�e iocated between building sites 2 and 3 [o further cluster the homes. The incent of the recommendation was to provide a more open and buffered wildlife movement corridor, minimizing the influence of development on local and migratory deer and elk movements ttuough Cougar Canyon Ranch, and to avoid potential calving habitat, The Planning Commission initially recommended tabling of the application,in order to allow the appiican[to modify the - Plan to address wildlife concems expressed by Mr. Cote. However, the app]icant indicated that they were �ot willing to relocate the envefopes to a more clastered configuration, feeling that they had adequately addressed wildlife concerns and that fuRher clustering would have too great an impact on the market value of the Lots, ISSUES �' Issues relating to the case are summarized in this memorandum. However,a Planning Commission memo containing a comple[e project anaiysis is attached for refarence. 1. Revised Plan -On March 1, 1996,the applicant submitted a revised sice plan[o the Planning O�ce with a letier requesting that the revised plan be presented to the Board of County Commissioners. T4e Plan identifies a relocated,more clustered location for buildin�site#1.In addition to addressing wildlife concems,the reiocated envelope also . eliminates road improvements which wou(d have been required for access to the original Site#1 in areas exceeding 30%in grade. No changes have been made to the building envelope on Site#2.The applicant indicates that the revised plan is the result of several meetin�s with Randy Cote and Rick Thompson(che applicant's consulting wildlife biolo�ist). . Staff has requested mare detailed information on the relocated envelope with respect to topography and a geolo�ic analysis to detemune whcther debris flow and/or steep or unstable slopes must be addressed on this site. Upon receipt of this information,Staff will refer[he application to the Colorado Geologic Survey for review. In addition,the revised plan has been refecred to the Division of Wildlife and the State Forest Service for formal _ ; , ' . . . 1 . . � . , � ,, '; ,,�;. �;,. ���;,;:.; :;�,�::, �•r;;i: ti 4j�: � t:�: G;i�' comments on wildfire and wiidlife issues associated with the relocated building site. While the applicant suggested that Mc Cote be present at the BOCC meeting to respond to any comments that the applicant's wildlife biologist may have,Mr.Cote wiil be unable to attend '`: the meeting due to a previously scheduled vacation. :,;; 2. Affordabie Housin¢ To satisfy affordable housing requirements,the applicant ociginally proposed to provide Category 2 Housing on each of the five proposed lou,as the Housing Authority has expressed a preference for the provision of housing on-site as opposed to a cash-in-lieu payment. As bulk and area restrictions of the RS-30 Zone District do not allow for a second unit of density on these lots,Staff indicated that an altemative to housing on-site would have to be provided. Several options,includina buy- downs and altemative building sites were discussed during[he Planning Commission meeting. Since the Planning Commission meeting,Staff has ideatified a Section in the Land Use Code which stipulates that a fully deed-restricted affordable housing unit may be allowed on any parcel,subject to Special Review,including parcels which do not meet the minimum lot area per dwelling unit requirements. The applicant has been made aware of this Code provision. Assuming that the issue of building envelope location for Sites#L and#2 can be resolved, it is ussumed that the applicant wili fall back to their original proposal to provide affordable housinD mitigation on-site. RECOMMENDATION Staff tecommends that the application be remanded back to the Planning Commission for review of the revised building envelope and access drive,with the benefit of all referral ' comments,including those of Mr.Cote. � _ 3 � • t• ^ . , , e i:^':i`:^ � • ' • �_, !" -,.� ��' . ��......w - ...... vr�. �� S _ wu�n •W y�aw`.., r .._�..;..........�.. . "...�_.�..._...�........�.. ..... . . . ._. _ . .... ." " �__�I f(� �_� STATE OF COWFiADO �jl�t' � , Hoy Romer,Govemor ' . DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES �,0 �p - DIVISION OF WILDLIFE � � `ti. AN E�UAL OPPONTUNfiY EMPLOYEfl y � Perry 0.Olaon,DIreUa �ID 0 .� '�.�' eaeo eroaewar NpFV�~ Demer,Coforado 80276 '. Telephone:(303)297-1192 For YV'rldljje- October 10, 1995 ForPeople � Ellen Sassano Community Development 130 S. Galena ;�r�� Aspen, CO 81611 ;� RE: Cougar Canyon 1041 After reviewing the application and our site visit, I have � the following comments. � The wildlife analysis done by Rick Thompson is very complete and all of his mitigation should be included in the final resolution. The specific sites that he looked at were selected by � the proponent and not necessarily selected from a wildliEe point of view. � I would like the sites clumped more around the base of lots 3,4, and 5b. The elimination of 1,2, and 5a would provide a much - larger movement and feeding corridor to provide a level of security that may otherwise be lost by intrusion into these areas. There appears to be multiple possible sites within the ,_ 3,4,5b cluster to accommodate 2 more homesites. Thank you for this opportunity to comment and feel free to contact me if further clarification is needed. Sincerely, � iC'�'�-� �� Randy Cote, Wild�life Manager Colorado Division of Wildlife�. i DEPAFiTMENT OF NATURAL RESOUACES.Kenneth Salazar.Executive Directar WILDLIFE COMMISSION,William R.Hegberg,Member • EIOOn W.Cooper,Member - Felix Chavez,Member• Rebecca l.F�a�k,Mflmber Louis F.Swift Secretary • George VanDenBerg,Chalrman � Amold Salazar.Member •Thomas M.Eve,Vice Chairman ��:_ � , . � . � _ . �:.i ...L�rnr+�isY��r�.�rinwlMYia\..i..�✓�+a.�a�.�..vJ.. ...r...Ir........�.......�.....�.�.�.�ul+t��u...�_..f.�..��.w�.uv+uY�.'a�i111r.i�Jn� �aYJU a'MIY�r�4�r'NU�., � i. 1 , _ . .. . —..._._...�.__.' —_._._� _,. wMWU 11 �� F '�. • �- ' "' • . . `-L �� / � �( 1G �: :': . �, AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY � R. TO: Board of County Commissioners � . ' ''� Regulaz Meeting-April 10,1496 THROUGH: Cindy Houben,Community Development Director �/ FAOM: Francis X.Krizmanich,Deputy Directoc . RE• Koutsoubos Lot Split-First Reading of Conceptua!Submission - ' ISSUE: The applicant reqvests Conceptua!Sumbission approval for a 50%Density Reduction Lot Split pursuant to Section 3-150:50 of the Land Use Code. APPLICANT: Ted A.Koutsoubos LOCATION: The propecty is Icoated on the south side of Bcush Creek Road, approximately 1/2 mile from the intersection with Highway 82. Vicinity maps are . included in the application. ZODIING: The property is zoned AFR-10. SUMMARY: This application was reviewed by the Planning Commission on June 20 and December 19,1995. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this � _ application subject to conditions. A draft resofution of approvat containing the Ptanning Commission's recommendations is attached to this Agenda Item Summary. The staff has recommended denial of this application because it is our opinion that the application dces no:Fulty comply with the standazds and p�licies contained in the Land Use Code for the following reasons: -�---• 1. Access to the project is via private drive(s)onto Brush Creek Road. Brush Creak Road current2y operates over capacity. It has been the staff position that the Land Use Code requires this project to provide a road improvement plan to upgrade Brush , Creek Road to serve the additional traffic volume(Section 3-1107(F}). Based on this standard the staff has recommended thai this applicant combine access with the adjoining Cozy Point Lot Split and that a left turn lane be required on Btush Creek • Road at the applicant's expense. 2. The applicant has not committed to provide a fishing easement along Bnish Creek as required by the Code. 3. The Planning staff opinion is that this project creates unnacceptable visual impacts from Brush Creek Road. Despite the Planning Commission recommendation to � . . ' .. , ,. . ���..�w.........w..:�:�_...u.�.v..�.�,..........w.....�......_r.....'...... -�ya.�.�::�s'aL:YWn� ��.••• .�._���.�.�..sr.�:.>��a.�...�_..w.�i�a.su..".—___ i..u...-.• ••f�.�w14v'i�..u:\4wl'.:..G�eiLM'nn�.uk.i� ? , � �,��;�,. �;,. ' °3;'. approve the proposed bnilding envelopes(with modifications)with homes of up to ''� �� 7,500 square feet,the Staff beIieves that better sites exis� Further,the staf£does not , suppod granting Scenic Review approval to homes of this size with no reference to �,, detailed architerctura2 plans. - ..�; . 4. This Lot Split applicadon includes approximatcly 66 acres in the AFR-10 zone district. A 35.45 acre pazce!was split from this properry somedme during the 1990's. • The staff oQittion is that the intent of the Lot Split provision is to alIow a one time � split of a property that existed in the same conftgucation and ownership since June 12, 1978(the beginning of GMQS). The applicant does not agree with this intetpretation ' by staff and believes that the 66 acre pazcel is the"fathering pazcel"required in the Code. ` The staff opinion is that the reference to"fathering parcel"in the Code Section 3- 150.50(C)(as aumbered in the reprinted code)means the origina(parcel as it existed prior to June 12,1978. In fact,the"old"Code Section 4-6(b)(5)(B)stated,"The original parcel must already contain one(1)lega!single-family or qaalify for a a owth management exemption under the provisions of Section 5-510.2." The tercn "fathering pazcel"replaced"original parcel"to reflect the locai temunology. The staff notes that a 35 acre parcel was split off of this property subsequent to 7une 12, - 1978. It has been the staPf opinion that the 35 acre parcel could be recombined with the present property to reccreate the original 120 acre fathering pazcel. Withoat the tota]acreage as existed prior to June 12, 1978(120 acres),the staff opinion is[hat this property does not qualify for a Lot Split, 5. Attached is a letter from the Town of Snowmass Vitlage outlining objections to the existing proposai and a request that the Pitkin County Open 5pace Boazd consider acquisition of the pazcel. RECOMNfENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the Board approve Conceptual Submission subject to the attached resoCution. The Planning staff dces not agree with the Planning Commission's recommendation for the reasons outiined in this Agenda Item Summary. �"- ' 2 •,:•a..:�.._.. i . �„ . � � a' y:�. a •`I _______��,,.�,.,,,�,, � _ I , SEF'-28-1'395 16=59 � ��l� � • y-lr-�i b "(�N i'., � . � . uwan+r.p ; HYT..L,EDWARDS,EDVJARDS&ADKISON,LLC. , �,�.P,.�.B„�,� �:. s�a.tiw s�xs�am�m► �avae+nNS cn�••o.•,,,mea � IA04w7 c x7(L 'IE[BTttdNS � . ��+'�H H.P.DWnADY 77t T-G f47b'19di-Xm 1�TFRf1 S I;�i7ARIIi II[,P•G P� 77iQ1[AS l_ADCtSQ;I (f1UJ 9613CS1 September 29, 1995 � Francis Rrismani.ch Pitkin County Cca�tuaity OeveloExnent Departm�ent 530 5outh Galena Street Aspen, Colorado Bio'll Re: Soutsoubos L�rt Sp2it Deaz Prancis� . I have reviewed the Jnne 2a, 1995 memo ta Lhe P1�_�g and Zoaing Comrmission which raised certain iasues eoncerning t_`se above apoiication. This letter provides additional info�tion on ±hose 3seues which are responded tn ia'the order in�hich thay are rai.sed in the memorandum. ReferTal Conmoents - j� 1. Airort. Applicant �rould aqree to enter intn the aviation ••� easesosnt as reco�nended. �� 2, Asnen Pire P=otection District. ApplicaAt aou].d. agree to install the tuznaronnds for the fira equipment at the end of Lhe access xnads and would agree to install aa antomatic fire apriaklar system in any resic3eace Which Qaceeds 5,000 square feet. � 3. Environmeata7. Heaith aepartment. The loeation of �he exi.stinq :rell and the septic syatem for tha old f�-mhouse will be added to the exiszing conditi.ons map. App2ieaat wi.Il comply with the setback limitations between wella and Beptic systems aad Brnsh Creek when r.he systms aze installed fer Che new z'esidences. Applicant suggeets a condition of approval be that well aad segtic systems be located and peaaitted prior to a bnilding pe�it for a new residence. HoWever, neither the new well nor the septic systema caa be 1ccaLed i:ntil �e building envelope lucations are approved. I am enclosiag well test infozmntion for the eacistinq well cor.ducted in June 297?. Th� eati.stinq well water is being re- tested and we will. pravide copies of the test rasulta as eoon as ,. available. It has been in use for 20 yeaxe ae the water eupply for . i -. / �, - � , . :. SEP-23-1995 19-�3GJ !-EEA LA41 OFFiCES P.EI3 �;;:+'.::�.•'. �'.,� �.. `, Prsacis Rri.amanich September 28, 1495 � `;� Page 2 , �. the fexmhouse aad is obvians].y adaqnate for quality and quantity, AppZicant wuuld agree to a caasts,v,c�ion period fuqitive dust air - quality mi.tigation pZaa *aith reill Temeats for frequent watering of • the canatr�ction site and dust snppzessiaa and r�oval of mnd fzom .`r xhe pubiic roads. Hmaevpx, twa ainqle family residences on 66 , - acres in a rural area will not contribute Bigai.ficant2y to any degradatioa oE ais qualir� in Pitkia County and no furthes ' mitiqatian 3s reqni=ed or justified under the air qual.ity � raqulati.ons. � 4. 8oninq Denar`.�c>�t. No fvrthez response. ' � 5. Caunt� �nen Svace and Trails. The appli.cant's predeceasor in title qranted the Boazd o£ County Coimncissioners an BO foot oride easement for roadway purposes June 19, 2967 recorded ia Book 227 at r Page �09. Theze ia also a correspondi�q 60 foot wide ri.ght-of-�ray easement aet forth i.a the plat of Brush Creek vi.lZage reearded in , Book 3 at Page 63. The 80 foot wide easement is adeqnate ta cantain not onI.y the es:,stinq paved road but couid also contain a bike path. Tf t2� County desires additianal language to authorize the present 80 foot wide easement co be used for the specific puz�ose .of a bikevvay, applicant wvuld supplement Che easemeat grent. : 6. Historic Prese.nration. T2xe appiiaant has req�teated the � O Histnric presexvaCion Officer desiqaate the Wei.se fa�house constructed in 1913 as a h3.storic dwalliuq unit. Fie are advised that the 8istoric preaervati.on off3cer aclmawledges t.aia fermkoBSe has value as a his�nrical dwelling nai.t and that an appropriate resolutian wi11 be presented to the BOCC for action. Lot 1 wonld qnali£y for the �iQS ex�aption for a naw single £amily pnrsuant to S 3-150I{�) and 5 5-SU1(Sj. t7o alterations are centemp2ated for the faaahonse a.Lthongh it may be =efnr3sished and. any app.ticable regulations undar g 3-806 will be comp2ied w3th. A one acre building eavelope area is added to the plat foz the exiating farmhause. � 7_ Coforado Forest 6errice. Applicant wi.11 camply with applicable regulatiaas. 8, Colorado �i•rision of Water Resovrces. We hsve requestad the � � State �ngineer's offica to xecoaaider the det�ination ts�at Lot 1 �rould not be issued a permit. Suah a detanainativn fails to gi.va credence to the statntnry presamption of � 37-92-602 3(b)(II){Aj C.R.S. that a well fer a singZe family .in-house use on a parcel smallez than 35 acres is nat a material injury to vested riqhts. See letter to Deathridge attached_ i ,�- � . , .,, Sk-P-29-1995 17:9'd F�EER LAW 4FF10E5 P.04 x�' A: � ` �LAI1C1$ Kl'16�[dI11C21 can September 28, 1995 Paqe 3 , . However, applicant will proceed to obtain augmentation water so that the new well can alsa serve a caretaker unit. The Basalt water Consezvancy Distritt has augmeatation suater for eale ouL ofi Ruedi Reservoir water and Apglicant has spQl.ied £or inclusion -_ �ithin the distrirt and for aa augmentation contract. See attached Y letter $nd application tn Paul Bassone. Althongh applicant expecta � to abtain such auqmentati.oa contract, i£ for some reason it is nat . abtained, then applicant uill nse the existing well on Lot Z whics nan be used for up to t'iree residences. Therefore, suchaaell could ' be used for bath of the two aew residences and the e�tietinq � farmhouse. Howe��er, this wou2d p.r�clude any caretaker units. Alter.iatively, agplicant can driil a new weil for ane sinqle familp in-houae use only under the st.3tutori pz�sumption refa.�nced abave. Aa administrative apQeal process ia available in the ataze engineer's af£iae ehould they nat reverse the prioz detP+�*��nRtion. By one of these means, the svell pmblem will be resolved. Applicant snggests a coaditian that he pmvide evidence of the resolutio�n to the mater suFplp i.ssae grior to build,i.nq pes�ait. �� 9. Calorado Geoloaieal_Suzvev. No further ;-esponse. p],ann;nq Staff Comm�ents `p Fiftv oercent densit�. reduction: " A. No further com�ments. 8. No fur`_hes a�nts. C. Section 3-25D3 dnes not require a parcel involved in a 5a$ censity reduction lot aplit ta have existed prior Lo Jane 1Z, 1478- Conveyances in e�ocess of 35 aores are exempt from snhdivision and can ba c=eated at any time. The �_'remeat ia S 3-15D3(C) ia ttwt ei.thez the £athering parcel already contai.n one leqal sinqle fami.ly dwelling uni.t (which applicanta parcel doee coatain) ar qnat3.iy Eor a GHQS eaemption under § 3-1541(S). Siace the fathering pas�el .in this case aL-eady eontaias a legal sinqle�family dWelliag uait� it does not have to meet the secaad standard, i.e., it daes aot have to qualify for a t�SQS exe�ption uader § 3-1501(B). If the fathering parcel aas tuti.mproved and did not aLready kave a leqal dweilinq unit, t6en in ozdar to qualify such parcel for a C�'fQS ' exemptinn, it saould have to be on a parcal created before June 12, 19�8 gursuaat to § 3-I507.(S). How�ever, siace this fathering pax�ei meets the first part ot the eriteria oE S 3-1503(C), i.a., it already contains a legal singla-familg dwelling nnit, then it is aot required to be on a fathering pa�ccel created hefore Juae 12, 1978. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to a siagle Esmily daelling unit exempt from ��_' on each lot created by a loL split -_ i . ,� . + �:. SP-2E-199� 1':c� HEEA lHW QFFlCE3 ?.OS `' .: ' 7 �, _ Francis Kri-G**p��ch Septemher 28, 2945 ' Page 4 "`• � purauant to S 3-1501(D). Further, S 3-1501(P} provides faz one additional ai.nqle Eamil.y dwelling nnit GMP eaemption on a lot containing a historic dwellinq unit as an alteraa.tive to the demoiitian and rep2ac�aent of the existinq leqal hi.stosic dFrallinq unit. Lot Z contains a historic dwellinq uait bei.nq the 1913 - farmhouse and one additionat Q� ezemption ia allv�+ed for new r ' construction on the same Iot. � Standards IArt±cle III1 � !1 2. Air OuaZity. Sec�ian 3-6D2 reqnires that a developaaent not be a direct or indirect svuroe of ai.r pollution undes Bederal and State reguiatioas aad caraaly �rith Title III A'sr Pollution � regulations. A siaqZe family house located on these large lat parcels is not a d.isect or indixect source of air pollnti.an and there are no provisiona of the Air Yollution Requlations that �aonld be vi�laLad bv constxuction of the reszdences. It is stretching credulitp to sap that these tvao residences would contribute significant.ty (or even measurablyj to air quality degregation in Fi�'c:.a County. The applicant wqald agree ta provide a fuqitive _ dust plan during the canst�nction peri.od to be appraved �rior tn the is3uance o# the buildinq permit. Applicant sub�i.ts that developmant at this Low density does nat justify further �:� quality canditions. � 3. Scenic Overlav-Sectioa 3-604. xt is noted at the outset that . applicant•s homesites ara located exacLly vhere indicated they sh»uIn be located by tha Down vai2ey Comprehensiva Plan Future Land Use Map. T'hat plan Ied to adoption af the sceai,c averlay criteria. Thie ten differeat scanic criteria as auplied to a:cy particalar piece oi prpperty, are freqnently comsadictory. For exaiapla, the Paragraph 5 csiteria discouraqas develaQment in tYce most visibl.e portion of the sita as vie•aed trom the public rights of .vay, and Paragraph 6 enconrages dev�eloponent at the greatest distance posaible from the rights of way. In this particular appliration, the houaes are� located as far axay fz�arm the ziqiit of �ap ae possible (withont intrudinq into the 1D41 hazazd and wildliEe areas) but at the same time, they are perhags more visible from Lhe rights of vay than if they �rere loeated closer ta Bru6h Creelc Road at a loWer elevation than the road and thus, Less visible fxvm a passing ve�licle. Tt therefore hecomea a subjxti.ve evaluation as to �hich criteria sheuld be qiv+en the greater effect. Sowever� it wauld seem appropri.ate to gi.ve greatest weiqht to the ciLeria which - cause the developmeat ta confDxm to the oawn valley Compsehesssive Plan. ia deaiing vith r.Aa specific criteria fonad at g 3-604(E) in the order ia which raised, the app2icant s�muld note �th,e follooring: �-� Critaria No. 1 reqnises utiliainq existing tapography and vegc:tation to screen the buildings. The building envalope on 1 � ,� , '�-. . . ...------- i,,`:�:�::>. SEr—ZS-1`d95 17��J2 FEEA LfaW UFFICE3 P.06 R.��. Pranc ia icri,smanich = �ti September 28, 1995 • . - Paqe 5 ; Lot 2, is located in a small vslley makinq it lesa obvious from both the sonthuQest aad the northeast aloag 8rash Cxeek than weuld he Che case if it rrere set out iato the meadoa. This uses the - topography and the hillsides, both northeast and sauthwest of the Lot 2 building sita to partially screen the buil.ding from trafEic '' * along Srush Creek. of course, whan the traffic i.a substaatially . directly opposite the kYUildiag, those hills vould not screen it. , • i� Criteria Na. 2 encourages use of the natural topography and � aschitectural technicues snch as earth ahelter desiga, natural materials and colorinq and clustering an the least visible partions af t`�e aite. Applicant has not yet developed azchitectural . dravinqs becanse the type and shape o£ the building will, in part, be deter.ained lyy its location and buildinq ertvelopea have not been � detezmined. Hrnaevps, applicant rnould sugqest a conditioa for a ' aubaequent revie�► hy P&Z on the issue of use of apprapriate '�' ��chitectural £eatures prior ta obtaining a building pezm.it. The agplicaat envisions bnildi.ngs similar to the photographs in the � application scith earth tone colors and raofs slopinq on dll four M� sidea to diminish the apparent bul.k and mass of the building. The �� lxation of the b¢ildinq eave.Lope on Lot 1 was seleczed to cluster - rPith the proposed building sitas on t.he Cozy Point propertp to the noxth_ Ths suqgestioa that all the huildinga i,a this agplicat�.on be cluatered toqether is contradictory to the qoal to not impac� the existing histarical sLructare. The coa�enta by the Historic " Presexvation Officer n�ted that the preseat sit3ng protects tlte integrity of the historical fazmhouse, ea a halax�ciag of qoals is appropziata. � '� Criteria No. 3 is an arciz.i.tectural criteria, i.e, whethar ir7� height aad bu2k have beea �ninimized. As the architecLUral desfqna � hnve not heen developed, applicant would snggest a condition r. raqniring review of the heiqht aad bulk of the final designs prior ° to building pe=mit. It is the applicant's iatention tu have an architectural treatment that Would iategrate xith and disappeaz iata the landfozm as opposed to architecture that would boldlp contrast or atand ont. The applicant has dete*-b�*+ed that the scale of the photographic renderings in Fim�re 10 appears excesaively larqe. For esample, the uridth of the sid�e valley on Lat 2 aioag � th� d.iteh is appmximate2y 400 feet. 8 l0,OQ0 sm,+�T9 foat building ; wioald only ba 1D0 #eet �ride or appsoximatelp o:te-fou=tfl that � distance whereas Cho drawings ia Figare 10 show the v3dt'� of the ,' " build3ng occupyinq almost three-faurths of that width and thereso=e appear disproportionat�ly lazge. � .�:�. �- Csiteria 1Po. 4 encourages not breaking a ridgeline which this ''(0 application comp2iee rrfth. r. �;�'F• � � �•y �,_ / . .� , • s . ':I �, SEfi28-1995 1 i�02 1£Efi Lf+LI OFFICE� F.Q? _ �:; Francis Rriamanich • September 28, 1995 Page 6 ti, � Criteria Pa. S encourages that developmeat not be p).aced in ' �' the most visible portion of a site. Placing the house on Lat 2 up the gully partially scrseaed by the hi2lsides is an atte,mcgt to use the topoqraphy to sezeen the davelogment fsam the puhlic right of aay as much as �easit�le and so that it is mast viaible onlp when • directly oppoaite the bui2dings. Clusterinq Lot 1 bnilding site � with the Coap Poistt aites aas to leave more visible open areas. � Criteria No. 6 en�courages lxating the buildings the gxeatest : _ � diatance possible from the public rights of way, which has been ' done ia this appli.catior3. Thep aze as far away fram ttie x-oad aa possible wit.hout infrinqing osx 1041 azeas. Criteria DTV. 7 eacourages preservatian of the natural �� oegetation and to the maximum extent, avo.idinq irriqated meadoors. Ho vegetation woul.d be di.sturbed svithin the proposed buildiag sites aa it zs only grssses and the building site on Lot Z is not within the i..-.rigated meadcm. The bui.ld3,ng site on LoC 1 is .i�ediata].y belaw the ixrigation ditch and doea take about oae-thi.rd of an acre of the meadow, but the st:emQt S,s to take the min»TM�m amount. Critaria No. 8 has to do with est�rnal lightinq aad applicant � will mi.nimize the lighting oa the aor+�._h. ax�d �rast sides. Criteria No_ 9 co�acerns iand farms and ear'-..h moving. No ZI significant earth moving or beaas are used .in this develapaaent. �� Criteria No. 10 saggests develogmeat avaid ths sceaic viewnlane and aomp.Ly vvi.th the compreheasive plan. The current design campY.ies with LY�e Down Valley Comprehensive Plan which recommenda that znrai r�sidentia2 hc�esites be locatsd on the southeant side of Srush C.,--eek arhere they axe naw sited. The Putnre Land Use Map shows rural residentia]. development exactly where aQQlicant's bu.i.Zding emeloves are located. However, Lhe entire propezty ia xithin the sceaic vievplane and ix cannot be avoi.ded. Th0 suqqestion was made tbat applicant agree tv a reduciioa in floor area. $awever, the criteria for sceaic werlay inclnde anSy ,_ a revisv of height aad bulk, i.e. architectural desiga form, and rloes not cantain anp auttwrity to modi£y F,hat is alloved bp riqht by zoaing. The sllowed uses and dimeasional standarda of Sectian 3-+S define t,he floor area allowed by right. The Code sets forth specific proctdures ta amead those zoninq provisinns but a sceni.c review procesa is not the �aethod. A review of height aad bulk ia sceni.c reviea is a revfew of the means by which the flaor area alloaed by right by zoninq has been utilized in tha desiqn of a structure. The Dowa Vallep Comprehensive Plan, on page seven, stated that Lhe purpose was to alioca �property owners ta realize an ecoce,omic return on their land as alterr�ativae to full scale subdivisions." ; � �-, . � • � .:.. _ SEF-23-1995 17��J3 FEFr�I LAW OFFICE3 P.OB...'.---- �::'. " �.f.,� z:�:� .t.�;l�; '�� l":i. : �,.. Francis Xrismanich • � September Z8. 1945 '`• Page 7 .� Resnonse to General Submission Lssues .,� 1. water Resaurces and Drainaa�. The developmeat vill. not altet ` `% the historic flaw pattern c£ B=ush Creek. whi7.e. the hisLOric irriqation of the meadaws aas by sheet flow, it is probahle the izrigation system will be modified to nse a more eff.cient � r sprinkler syatem. Sheet flow or flond irriqatiQn could be maiatai.ned by iastalliaq a second feeder ditch below the acCess - soaa. Ditchi.aq and culverts would protect the access roada fx�oa[ . grvunduater. The meadaw lancl is approxi�aately 16 acres. The £ootprint of the house oa Lot 1 is a masimmn (presuming a one-staLy atrncture) o# 15,004 square feet (i/3 acre) and the area o� the .. ac^ess dr�ve�ray is 11,OOQ sqnare feet. Therefore, tYte developonent desiqn preservea a toCal of 9b$ of the exi.sting maadows. � 2. Sedimentation. The access dri�es aze located at 15d to 200 ;1• � feet fram Hruah Czeek aad as they axe not proposed to be paved, any , rain water falling on the =oadaays will filtes into the gzoundaatez. A raad with four inches o� mad hase is eztremely �� stable once oaetted aad rolled. Road hase provides for l:.ttle *'��noff because it is porous. Any runoEf that does� occur, is.miao� � " and the meadow 2�etweea the roads and the ereek grovide sufficient ` grasses aad catchsaent to ahsord such rnnoff and prevent any � measurab2e additional sedimentation of Srush Creek. 3. Flood Plain. The flow from 3rush Creek at Snowmasa Village is ' `�� S� diverted by the Snowmass pater & Sanitation District. Floods have % not heen a concarn along Brush ^_reek. 3rush Creek has iacised . itsel£ deeply into the valley floor. A 10� year flood would not reach eiqht feet ahave na�nal watar level according to Nick Lampiris. The pzoposed bu3ldings sites are approximately 5Q Eeet � above the elevation of Srnsh Creek and there is no flood danger. , .L 4. Avalanche. Ro Eurther comment. : � � 5- Potent�,allv Unatable Slooes. No further caoa�ent. , � `s` 6. Wildfire. Po further co�mnent. y;, 7. Wildlife Habl.tat. Ho fuxther ca�aeat. 3;;) g_ p+�a�ian and saet2and Areas. The p=oposed developmeat will not , � int:ude into theae areas. ,j•`' 9. Stardard� for Areas Around n;,-„nrt. No further respoase. � i^. 3-.) 10. Exteasion of Dtilities. No furcher =espons2. , C� 11. Wat�r Supx�lv. See reply to well issues ahove. , i ;:;, � . � , . ,d. . •,. __._ ._ _ �..,. - - , , °E�-2£-1995 1^�4� FEEA lAbl OrFI�:ES . . —P.C9._...__�, `�.. ." u;.,.' . G Fzancis Srismani.ch ',� -�, September 28, 1995 ' ti, Page 8 - :'. � 3 y 12. ewa e. TYt,e applicant cri12 comvZv with all the aQt3acks �-� . wells and streams thzt are required for sevtic svstems. It is not feasible to locate either the vells or the sentic syst�s uati.l there has been a detenainaLian oE the bnilding site lacatioa. 35 ls. xoads. Secr.i.on 3-1107(F) disconrages develo�ents rihieh '� �r ^generaze traftic volvmes in escess o# existinq xvad capacitiea• vichout a road improvemeat plan, This development aai11 not • • "qenerate traffi.a vrsI.umes in excesa of the eaisting znad . capaeities.• The assnomed daily rsxg get�eration from Table 1 0£ the Pi�'cin Count� �oad Standards �rith atzonq transit assmoea this deoalop�sent will qenerate 4 car trips per day trom each of the , sir.g2e fami.2y resi�ences. The R2T� bus stop is one-na1.f mi.Ie f_am the dri•reway, or a 10 minu�a ara]..;e. Z£ pou asanme no traneit then aeven txips pes day az� pr2dict2d. This diminutive addition o� ttafEic rrill nnt cause any aeasurable decrease iu the capacity oE exusla Cxeek Road. 9rush Crea:c Road agera�as i.n a�tess of ita canaaity usually onl.� for shcr� perioda r:arin� the saintsr when akiing ends and txaffic bac;cs up ra*_nrainq to lodqinq areas in Asnea. The spolicants predecasaor ia titls grsnted aa 80 foot � • accese easemenC aloag Srush Creek vkiich is the specified aasement j for a Ciasa II3�. Main Callector with up to 5.�U0 v�e�cle ge� day � ca�aci.tp. Such a road nses 56 feet for paving, shouldets and � banking so there is room for a sevea foo� bike path and no additional ded�cations should be necessaxy to make whatever improvements that County ulti.mately dete*+�+�*+Pa to make tc the Sruah ; � Cr2ek road. Gi�en the eztsemelY lvw usaqe of the drivevay for 1 three siag.Le-family residencea, constructi.nn of a left turn lane is ` not required by aay criteria in the Co�nty road Standards and � Specifications. � �'`� The f.ishing easemP�t under S 3-1305 appears to be unwasranted. The 3� recant IInited States Supxeme Court case of tJelan v. CitLV of �'icard, 114 S.Ct. 2304 (V.S. Sup. Crt. 1944) halds that a ded.ication may noz be required far a tsail under aut�division or buflding development applicatiaas unleas elie tzail is actua3ly made neceasary as a result o3 and ia order to serve tf►e parCicular deveioomeat i.a question. That is obviously not the case for a p�o�s2d pu:,lic £ishinq eaaemeat. In addition, because of water " di�ersions by Snoomiass idater 6 Sanitation District and the nature af ths st�-eam, Brustt Creek dves rtot have fi.sh. Fnrther, suc�s a five foot ea9�nt .00uld impact upon the riparisn axeas in , violati�n of S 3-8U8{G) and contraxy a tixe reco�neadatzon ot the vildlife expert that this �-ba !�e g.�serrad ta prot�ct the al;c herd when they seek water. j 14. Caretakez DwelSinq IInits. 3-1511. The memo recited. that t3� 1�'� ataf# did not support caretaker units due to the cioae n=oximity of wildlife habi.taL-. Hovever, caretalcex u..its are a no cast way Eor i . �� .. ' . .,.� ''.^y.• .�:I: .... . ' . ... ' . . . r . . . . . � r . .. . .. . . . ^ �. s�ze-i?gs i�:9a I-EEA L.ALI OFFICES P.lE . --•- �'"r'��#':; ' Y,:..!,�. . . �{':`�(4. . a,,l:•: �:� Prancis Itrismanich September 2B, 1995 .� Paqe 9 i, . -;; Pitkin County to provide needed reatal houaing uni.ts for empl�y�ees. f`aretaker units also gmvide a secarity ben�efit for the non- reaident aecond ha�eavnsr. The addition of caretaket nn3ts contaiaed wi,ttsin the eiagle family structure vonld create no measurabie additional impact oa the wi2d2f�e. Evett vith caretaker nai.ts we are proposing Iess deasity tdan allocred by zaaing. verY tzuiy gours. HI�LL. EDRARfl5. ELyWBRDS G SUN, L.L.C. �' \ � xos�' Bdtaarde,• Jr, ,�2/ljs x�utswnoe�xx��,.oi i '- I � _ . ���, . ` ,��. � � . . . :.�'� . .f; . • :..:� - ' � .. ._. � � - .....,.-.._..ti. ..�,. ...,...,' ...N wr,.:r: . . ^J-tt-qL, � �j�$, '�r �� �;;;�> AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY _ ;.;,. �. To: Boazd of County Commissioners , .;, Regular Meeting-April 10,1996 .1.,.:�;. � . , Through: Cindy Houben,Community Development Director�� �`:.. From: Francis X.Krizmanich,Deputy Director �= r. `. Re: Cozy Point Lot Split-Conceptual Submission-First Reading � ' r. .� ;- -r: . ISSUE: The applicant requesu Conceptual Submission approval for a 50%Density ' Reduction Lot Split pusuant to Section 3-150.50 of the Land Use Code. r:�: APPLICANT: Cozy Point,L.P. LOCATION: The property is located on tGe south side of Brush Creek Road,at the � intersection with Highway 82. Vicinity maps are included in the application. ''�;� . � • � - ZOriING: The properry is zoned AFR-10. 5+ � SU�IMARY: This app(ication was reviewed by the Planning Commission on June 6, � Sep[ember 13,1995,and February 6,1996. The Planning Commission and staff recommended approval of this application subject to conditions. A drafi resolu[ion of ;�; '` approval containing the Planning Commission's recommendations is attached to this - Agenda Item Summary. The application and previous memos are also attached. In general,the staff is pleased by the cooperative response from the appIicant in addressing issues rzi�ed at the previous meeting. The following staff comments are numbered to conespond to the issues as numbered in the attached letter from Joe Krabacher. � ,: l. ACCess to the project: The appiieant has provided three aiternative access routes to the proposed lots. The proposed access utilizes either a shared access with the Koutsoubos Lot Split or a sepazaie entrance adjacent to iG The staff agrees with the • applicant that a shared access is the prefeaed alternative. At ttus coneptuai stage of revicw,the staff is satisfied that thesc'altematives will provide an acceptable solution. 1• The staff notes that these al[ernadves have not been reviewed by the Counry Engineer; �� • therefore,we cannot recommend approvai of any one altemative until his review. � 2. Roads: The applicant's opinion is that a left tum lane on Brush Creek Road is not �' necessary for this proposal. The staff prefers to defer a final recommendation on this �' issue un[il the County Engineer has received this latest access proposal. At this time the �'`, stafF continues to recommend that a left tum lane be required. � - ��� � �:. „� � � . `-`. - ` . , ' � ., I � ♦ �i,fT:{�;: . �'••_ 3. Pitkin County Airport: The applicant agrees to enter into an aviation easement as �`' . requested by the Pitkin County Airport. , �. 4. Fire Proteciion: The aQplicant agrees to comply with the recommendadons of the , - Aspen Fire Protection District. The staff notes that we also recommend that thc applicant � �' comply with the Colorado State Forest Service's standard defensible space guidelines. 5. Environmental Health: A. Water. At this time,it appears[hat the applicant will be able to comply '' � with wa[er service requirements. ' B. Air Quality: The applicant agrees to submit an air quality atitigation plan � ' as recommended by the Environmental Health Department. C. Septic System: It appears likely ihat the applicant can design a system � . '� which compiies with Environmental Health Department standards. 6. 2oning: The applicant will revise building envelopes to comply with zoning . reqvirements. . 7. 3cenic: The applicant has provided architecturai standards in[ended to mitigate the visual impact of the proposed development. In addition,the applicant has indicated that azchitectural renderings will be provided at the meeting. The staff did not recommend Scenic Overlay approval because we did not review the �� azchitectural renderings nor have we had adequate time to consider the effect of the proposed architecmral standazds. The staff notes that the Koutsonbos Lot Split adjacent to this properry proposed similar(if less detailed)restricdons on home design. In that review,f�'ie Planaing Commission accepted the proposed architectural standards based on a home size rastriction of 7,500 square feet. The Planning Comtnission also recommended approvat of this application subject to those same restrictions pitcs additional commitments made by[he applicant, including a 28 foot height limit. 1041 Hazards: The staff concurs with ail of the applicant's responses regarding 1041 � Hazards,including the wildlife proteciion measures recommended by Rick Thompson, the wildlife consultant. • SUMMARY: It is the staff opinion that the applicant has su6stantially complied with the requiremenu for Conceptual Review approval of the proposed Lot 5plit. The staff and Planning Commission recommend approval of this application subject to the conditions � outlined in the Zesolutian. � -_ ,, _ _ �f� . � , � . :S' ..i .. ��. . . . . �; _, ����':�, �':`,i_,` , PTI'KIN COUIVTY COMMISSIONERS '�; AGENDA . - , ..� TUFSDAY.APRIL 16. 1996 10:00 AM WORK SESSION CANCELLED '' � 5:30 PM SPECIAL MEETING PUBLIC HEARING . ' L,ocation: 3rd Flooy Courthouse Plaza Agenda: 1. 2nd Reading, Aspen Village Subdivision Major Plat Amendment, Rezoning, GMQS Exemption, Caretaker Dwelling Unit, Employee Dwelling Unit, Francis Krizmanich (To be continued to Apri1 23 at 530 pm in Plaza One) r ADJOURN SPECIAL MEETING WEDNFSDAY.APRIL 17. 1996 5:30 PM RUEDI WATER AND POWER AUTHORITY BOARD MEETING {'� I.ocation: Basalt High School i TI-IURSDAY,APRIL 18. 1996 • 8:30 AM TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ' Location: City Hall 4:30 PM TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN MEETING I.ocation: City Hall , � � � , Y � . • ,<' • , � . _ . ; :�' , -.: f�:. , .' t • � ' � � 'o _ . .-... , :r , ... �.. L _ .. , , .. . �: . , .. �. . .,.(.. :.,':. . . , ,....,. . . ...... . -. ... �TI?/�IZO(/E"� '.`rf��x,-: �G->`y� �.�,` ., `_,;.i,%... , '`,.: V;�i•, `y:s' . MINUTES � PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF C UNTY GOMMISSIONERS �: cPF('IAL.MEETINC ' ." ��'' APRIL 16,.].496 ('pL1.TO ORDER• Chairman True called the mceting to arder at 530 p.m. �r rnn�nnicClAN MFMRF.RS PRESRNT: Commissioners Jim True,Leslie Lamont and Mick � , Ireland - S�H'COhD READING RECOLUTION APPROViNC ASPEN VILLAGE SUBDIVIS►ON MAJOR P1 AT AMENDMENT. EZONINC.GMQ�_F.XEMCfiON GARETAKF.R DWELLING UNIT. , cn o nvcc Dl`JELLING UNIT MOT10N TO TABLF TO APR(L 23 194G Commissioner treland moved to continue this matter to Apri123,1996. With a second by Commissioner Lamont,thc motion passed unanimously. �4DJOURNMENT• The meeting was adjoumed at 5:30 p.m. Resp�fully submitted, ; e�y 9 /����� / �L'YWIMi � / `�'l.+�Y Je ette.lones Ct k the Boar�d—o�Co--un—ty——C—ommissioners �` ] es R.T ue,Chairm� n 6oard of Counry Commissioners t � f BOARD OF COUNTY COMM(SS[ONERS I Apri116,1996 i `.'.;"?' l � � � ' . �+a , •:.. ; C� r<°''' r ��:. ��� �M��� � '..rr::;�. ���� �.• . rs��x c ` Aspen,Col{�raclo . ~� ,.�• I'ROOP Oi� 1'U�LICATION � srnl�s or cor.o�nDO� � )ss. Ca��y of Nolice v � County o[Pitkin ) " I,Ai�dy Sfane,do solemnly swenr Ui�l 1 am llie F.4ilor • � in Chiet o[THG ASPGN'fIMES:lhat lhe smne ie a wcckly newspaper prinled,in,whoie or in part,and pi�blished i�� rueucrrottcE lhe Counly of Ptlkin,S(ale o(Colorndo,and L�s a gcncral NewsrEranuaceumrvuion►wors rur AMFNDIAEMI',REZOMf/G.GMQS FXEMPTION, circulalion tlierein;lhat said newsp�per has been'IIIV- p��j{py/Q,�COflffANOflNI'LOYEE lished continuousl and wiinterru.tedl In s�id Counl DWF]LHGIAATND710E15HERFDYGNENthot Y P Y Y a publk Iwring WH 6e IMd on TuesdaY.APrll of Pilkin,tor a period o[more thnn fi(ly-lwo eonseeutive �4 1996 at a speeW meNln/to 6egfn at 5:30 pn Delm�Ihe Bovd ul Coumy Commic:lonen, weeks next prlor to the[irst publicalion o[thc annexed Dhvkt Cwnroom,SU6 E Maln St.Aspen�o lega)nolice or adverlisemen(;Ihat snicl ncws n icr h�s os�dv.n appllca�im�ubmlued 4y Aspen been admilled!o lhe Ilniled Slates nwils ns seen id clnss �"�k„�`������btlowmgipprovalr. �.�nawim�n rnw�rc�� matter ander the rovisions o[Uie Act of M1rch 3, lII79, `:""""'"`''�'""". P �a�x,,,ro a�i�w.�w x�m�o��i,y • or an amendments Ihereof,and thal said neivs � cr is n R�NM'�odevclopasl�ryl<IarMiyrcsltlenee. y r�r .Rezone end su6tlIW11eAspen VIIXuQe Moblle a weekly newspaper duly qualified[or pi�bliehing Icg�l HmxYark nolices and�dvertisements wilt�t(ic meanin O((I7C�8W5 •Nezone and su�divlde Asyen Qulk Mart o(lhe Slale o[Colorado. �' n+.«�.rn�P,o��nY�,io�,�m�way �uwthvesi slde d�tie In�eruc�bn ol H � 62 end W�1san DlvMleltwd and b ddcWN m Sectlon 1.2 md IR ol Tovm+hip 8 South,Rangc CIIIIt Ul¢flllllC%0d IOg�I IIOIICB OI'.1(IV C(�I50I11C0�W 15�111U- ��y�h�9 So tRPRan`e BS Wat o11h 6 A lished in Ihe regular and entire Issuc of evcry uuui6cr uC r.w.Fo.i��mn Mm�muw��o�un v�w�i. �` KrlwanleA at the bpenJPltkln Cammunity said weekly newspaper(or lhe period o[�_co»secn- n��,,,��,aP,n,�,�s,o�no.sioa ' live inserlions;and lhal lhe(irst ublication o(said noiice aP�0.T(ue,Chalr p swdo�c«mbcmmw�sw�w as in lhe issuc of said ne�vs��aper d:ited Wbllshd�nTheA�prnTmaMuch18,1996. " (� A.p.,]4g(� �nd lh�f Ihc I�sl pnU- linlio� [said nolice was in lhc issuc u[s�icl ncivspnper d ed_��A.D.,19�_. � 1 1 � Subecrib d and sworn lo be[ore mc, a nnlary public in nd[or!he Counly of Piikin,Sl�le o[Coloi:ido, on lh3s d�y of A.17.,19°�_. . � . Notary Pub ic Mycommissianexpires "�{-�� �. `_ .,✓ ,. :J �. � C> _ ' t� �-`-,, =� i �... . � �� , �.e5*,r;��. / �»,.i,_' . � / s .:i ' �` . � . � �;: . 5 ':�.: ��� �!#�!R!� �����lf , . if��Y L �. Aspen,Colcarado ;, � I'KUOP Ol� i'UL�LICA'T10N s�rnz-c or co�o�nDO� )ss. Cn��y of Nolicc � � Counly o!Pitkin } , . I,Ar�dy Stone,do solemnly swe�r Ihat!nui the f�.diii�r _ rpnceoerueucx�ur+c in Chfel of 77�C ASPEN 1'IM[iS:lhat lhe s��ne Is a�vcckl PLEA3E TABE N077CE Th�l t�c Bwrd of S' �:-Counry Comml�doners ol Pltkln County: newspnpet pdnled,in,whole or in part,and publish,��l hi cw�:,�w��wwa�.�h��ou�,n�o�m�.M�: the Couul o[[�ilkin 5lale of Colorado �nd has n Citl`I'�I t�hc eoerdb speNal weellny onTuezdry. y � i s Apr11.16.i996 u5-70 P.M..Pllkln County circulafion therein;lttat said news a er has been �ub- c«�t�G.°k'"��""'°°'a�E"`"'"" ' � P ( Slreel,Asp<n,at whlcA�Ime antl D�a<e alI' I�S�IE(�COt1�lIlUOLLS��'8I1()U11117�C'fC4���CC��Y�It&11[�Cf)Illlly � �memberf o1lAe puD4cmay appnr and be of PitWn,tor a period o[more Ih�n G[ty-hvo canxecullve �pgqNANCEOF7HE90ARbOFCOUMY weeks next rlor lo the fitsE uMication o[Ilic onnexed CaMMI5410NER5 ov P7KlN courm. P P CAIARADO�R�ONINC THE 15PFN VILLACE lega(nottce or adverlisemeni�(I11F Si1ICI lICWSi):i'7C1'J1i19 M08ILE HOME PAPK FROM SR(SPECIAL - 0.ESIOEN7IAL)TO MHP(MA[1UFACTIIRFU • been admittec!to ll�e Uniled Slales maifs nF semnd ctase xo�r,wq. maller under Lhe provisions of liie Act of Marcl�3, 1�79� ���p��cant.Aspen Vi�l�ye�na.h�i or any amendments thereof,ancl tlial sald ncrv.pi�irr is� �pplKd Iw��sonina apprwd.br lAe Aspeo Vqie;e MoWk Home Pa�k a weekly newspaper duly qunlified[or publ(xhing ic�al ZTheMOOUeNnmePUbulegallydescAbM notices and advertisements wilh lhe mcanin of Ihc Im�•s �AtOtt'A"aptched• G a�nu Moik•�n+•avau�a m�,.�mi o[lhe State of Cotorndo. i.o� se cso«�,� e�:w�a�uq�a MHP �e pj pmmt Imo�cnmPllence w�h new land '1'hat lhe annexed le al nolice or�ctvetlisemeul was n�b- S ( "i�rnu�pa+�mq.,,.e.n�anruKr�m� � lished in lhe regular and enlire isstrc ot evcr nu+nbcr o[ ca.o�r�•Ani�anG Zon�uB Commkslon�� lntlr IWY¢hedWed weeuMt on Febwry said weekly newsp�per tor lhe period of consecu- za,�sv`� ltve insertions;a�td lhat lhe firsl ublicalion ot said m�tice s.Tne P�����nQ anO 2oamt�omnlssloa P �a w�u��xa�ms���� w�s ln lhe issue o[ said newspaper d:�led wm.�w��..���ara��� �,SQ__._.__A.D.,19�(� :lt!(I Illiil(I1C I851�70V- 6.�'�fhe eoard al County CommWlonera rtWCwed tM1b�PO��b^at a WEYe AaAn¢on lica fon o[said ttolice was ln lhe lssue uLFaid�u�vspil'1C1' April t6,1996,�t whlch 11we eMdence�nG dal d�� �a A.D.,19�b _. �uu�r...Q.�,ua�,m t�v��o mu wn��� 7.'rn.ao.re ot tomir commww�s�i,a. 1An the D�oposM n:oN�p(k Cons�stlM wlth aUOptedCwnb'WlkleiaudMartvPlMi. � Coples ot t6e praPo:ed OrOlnanee sre - av�11Wh(or publle M�penloo during regWer buYnesa hours M the Wlce ol�h����o . Recorda.5�0 Fast MNn Sued AsMa 8161 l.Phooe(B7�9263180 . SuUscrib:d and sworn !o before nw, a iwlar '°"""'°�•°e°°�'�'°'YCkn Y r�cwn�amn.��n��M��s,isx. public 1n•nd(or Ihe Cou ily o[Pilkin,Slatc o[Cvlo�:�do, on Ilils � day o[ �A.U.,19 g�. � Nolory Pubilc My conunission expires ^��$'_ �� — . , �' < T. . ���' '., �.�:�.�,' . r . . . �,��:.�.�. ... --� � , e . � /� �7j'.i.4:.i.,i . �.,�•,y;'..• . �.�.�,r: S:�-' E��� ���� � s �.�.,.�`�'.� :,�:'. � � ��I�1 �1qX 1.5 ��,�� .�� A:;�mn,Coloradc� ti� �y�..' . J i�izoor c�i� i�u��ICn�i�loN == � �_� STATE Of COLORADO j _ )ss. Co��y u(Nulicc `.�.::Y. : COUIl�y Of�(l�(Ill � - t f•� j. ' I,Andy Slonc,do soiemnly swear Uiat 1�m lhc lidilor k • in Chief of TIiB ASPGN'[iMCiS:ths+t t(ie same Is a wi�ckly t newspaper prlttled,fn,whole ot in par(,anct publlshed in t� llte Counly of I'ilkin,Slatc o[Colorado,�nd has�gcucr�l 1 •:: circulalion lheteln;lltat said newspnper lias been�1UI1• NO77CEOFPUB7JCHEAN�N� F PLEASE TAKE NOTCE Thn the BaarA ol lislied eonlinnously and uninlerrupledly In s�id Com�ly Counry Commisslonera ot Pltktn eonRey. of Pilkin,for a erlod ot more Ihan fi(t -ltvo mnsecuUve co�o..aa. �m �o�:ia�, �n� iouo,.ma � P y Rnolutloa al the BoarB�rc9u�u meeUn{on � weeks next prlor lo lhe first puUlication of lLc nunexed Tudd.y,Aprll 16,199fi at 590 P.M.,PItkM Couvq CaurtAOU�G DLtAcI Courtroom,`+ob ��'�� leg�l nolice or advertisemenl��I18I 51I<I JiCWA�i��)C!'M�9 East M��n Strcc6 Aspen.�t whlch time and y. been admilted lo lhe Uniled Stntes mails as second class v�"ei°n1pDef°""°pubu`�"•r'P°`�` �, .oa x n�.e: maller under the provisfons o[lhe Act of March 3, tQ79, RFSOLV�70N OF THE BOARD OF COUNIY COMMiS510NER5 OP PRKIN COUNTY, N� � • or atty amendments lhereo(,and llial s�id netvsp�per ts� co�owwo.crsMmNC�rr�o�.�.T4�o'' a weekl news � er dul nali[fed for mU1lsLin fc,al �W�E'��•�R���U�L�Fl� • Y P•P Y9 1 B C PUTSU6M4SS�ON�PPROVw�0.TH6A�PF�'� � nolices and ndverlisemenls wiUi lhe meaning vf Uu I�ws v�u.�cewoenExo►+er�x�csueurvmon; ot Ute Slale of ColoraAo. s�i,�c e M�v Ho�e H�a ATSON COMalf17'LS UBDNISION A[iD ASS�CUTRA 7�18((�18 ilIlI1CX0C{�fgdl IIO��CC OC 1(.�V8f�i5CI11CO(W:IS��UV- AFFORDABLE NOUSING;SPECIAL REVfEW - APPROVAL FOR A RANCH AfANAGER lished in lhe regular and enlire issac o(evcry nantUcr u( �ri.ovramvFUmcunn'• said weekl news a er for lhe ertod o( � coiu:CClf- CoD�e�ol the D�opoaed Resolutlon are Y P P P .wi.w�ro�voak m ro�a�e�a.w� � live insedions;and lhal lhc[irsl publicalion of sald nnitcc n�u^�+.^°""'"�•.�"°d`"°r"'�""a RKOra�..sao e,n�wsve«�+nM:c�b�^ w,�s �i�n,ll�e issue o! said ne�vspaper dalcd e1611.PMne(97UI92&51l� F1Ai11 l�__A.D.,l9 (� and lh:�l Ihc lasl +ub- • �""""�°�"'�`P���a��� �` � PuWbhedln7lxASpm77maApA6,t9%. ticalton o[safdiiolSce was ln Ihe lssuc ot satd new,pn�•cr . r" dat d ��(t� (p A.U.,19�_. T�—�°l � �: Subscribe and sworn !o be[ore �ne, a nolary " public in a tor lhe Counly of Citkin,Sl�lc o[Colo�:�do, on lhfs�_day o[ .I�.,19 g�. . ,s 9 � . � Nolary Pubilc My mmmisston expires q-9-R� � � ,I. • f ,. n .� — � " ` � t <" '�' �.� � . i `' .ij' , i t . 1•' , w ' , .