HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.spec.09031996 _ �_,,,;,.
:.�; �, '.
i::�
f,.
PITHIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WORK SESSION AGENDA �,
Plaza One Conference Room
_�.
(George Krawzoff Not Present)
TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 3. ]996
10:00 AM EXECUTIVE SESSION
Litigation,John Ely
ADJOURN EXECUTIVE SESSION
11:45 West Buttermilk GID, Stephen Connor, Alan Marcus ..
12:OOLUNCH BREAK
(Jim True Not Present)
1:30 PM COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
1. Center for Conflict Resolution Request,Suzanne Konchan
2. Airport Cottonwood Tree Topping,Scott Smith
3. Independence Pass Foundation Update, Steve Anthony
4. Memos of Interest
• BOCC OPEN DISCUSSION
5. Future Agendas/Agenda Requests
BOARD MEMBERSHIP REPORTS {
RFI'A �
Housing Authority
NWCCOG
. QQ Fund
Ruedi Water & Power
Colorado River Water Conservation District
Early Learning Center
Healthy Mountain Communities
Rural Resort Region
2:45 BREAK
✓ 3:00 SPECIAL MEETING �
� 1. North Forty Subdivison Conceptual Submission: PUD Subdivision, Rezoning,
� �,.Q Optional Multi-Year Development Allotments, Scenic Foreground Overlay, GMQS
Exemptions,Condominium Conversions,Special Review,Areas Around Key Facilities,
and 1041 Hazard Review,Rick Magill (PN 7/20/96
� iJ 2. 2nd Reading and Public Hearing, 7-Star Contract Amendments, John Ely
5:00 PM ADJOURN SPECIAL MEETING
630 PM JOINT MEETING WITH TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE •
Location: Snowmass Council Chambers
Agenda: Use Tax �
. � +`�'
� • .
�
,;,
,�j�ti��,��-� l�'' `�``T�' �
�� �,
MINUTES
�
1.
PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS '
. .�
SPECIAL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 3,1996
,r
CALL TO ORDER:Vice Chairman Tuite called tlie meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.in the .
County Courthouse Plaza 1 BOCC Board Room. • '
COiVIiVIISSIQNEIi MEMBERS PRESENT: Con�missioners Micl�ael Ireland, Biil
Tuite and Leslie Lamont.
COMMISSIONER MGMBERS ABSENT• Commissioners True and Krawzoff.
FIRST R�ADING• NORTH FORTY SUBDIVISION CONCEPTUAI, �'
SIIRMiCSinN• PU SUBDiVISiON�REZONING,�PTIONAL MULTI-Y�AR
DFVELOPM NT ALLOTMENTS SCENIC FOREGROUND OVERLAY,GMOS
EXEMPTIONS,CONDOMINIUM'('ONVERSIONS SPECIAL REVIEW AREAS
� AROUND KEY FACiLITIES AND 1041 HAZARD REVIEW Rick Magill,County
Planner,stated the project is located across Highway 82 from the Airport. It is bordered ,
on the north by the RFTA bus barn facility,on the east by the Roaring Fork River,the
Aspen Consolidated Transition Sai�itation District plant,and the Aspen Airport Business � -
Center. Rick Magill continued to present the issues as outlined in his Agenda Item j
Summary. A copy of the Summary is made a part of tlie record and attached hereto as
E�hibit"A." Applicant is proposing access from two points. One access point would be
at Baltic Avenue which is one of the existing entrances to the Aspen Airport Business �
Centec The second access point would be the entrance now used by the RFTA bus Uarn �
facility,the Public Works Department,snow dump,etc. Applicants are proposiug water
be supplied from the City of Aspen and sewer facilities by tl�e Aspen Consolidated Sani-
- tatio�i District. The Growth Managemettt Commission unanimously found that the
project is exceptional as defined in the growth management section of our Land Use Code
and is therefore recommending that Uie Board grant tUe optional multi-year development
allohnents that are required for the project. The County P&Z also recommended
approval on the other issues such as PUD, subdivision, 1041, growth management
exemptions,etc. With respect to the general submission section of the Land Use Code, ,
5taff feels tlte project is generally consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plazi. The
commeroial component in the AACP is for the purpose of providing incentives for man-
aged strategic growtlt by providing for locally serving commercial and office uses. �
Applicant chose to eliminate the 27,000 square foot commercial component of the project
because of Staff's determination that it would not qualify for the Growth Management
Exemptia�for a"commercial activity with negligible growth impacts"as requested by
the Applicant. During the course of the GMC and P&Z reviews,it was determined that �', i
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIOIVERS I SEPTEMBER 03,1996
i . `\,
'
e
:i
�
��:.
Y,+y'�<
;.y.:.,
the Applicant could designate an "AH/Accessory Commercial pazcel" at detailed sub-
mission and that the appropriate level of commercia(uses would be determined through `� �ti,
GMQS and special review at that time. This would also leave the door open for tl�e pos- '
siUility of future B-2. Widi respect to AACP and transportation,Staff feels that the con- � '•
ceptual application was lacking with respect to transportation mitigation. For the sug�es- -�
tion of altematives, 5taff pointed out the applicant did submit to Staff a supplementai
traffic impact analysis. However,pursuant to P&Z discussion,Staff is recommending the _
applicant provide Staff a comprehensive transportation mitigation plan at detailed sub- �`. '
mission. This addresses all aspects of transportation including pedestrian, bicyc(e, i .r
vehiccdar,mass transit,and any altematives that could be available to tl�ose that will live .
or work there. The plan should a(so include daily vehicle trips to assess transit demand. .
The applicant did submit to Staff supplemental repods from Air Sciences, Inc. on air
quality and odor impaets primarily as it is associated with the RFTA facility. The Envi-
ronmental Healtl� Departntent reviewed the reporis and lias determined that they feel
there will be no air quality violations that are violations of local and federai law as a ,
result of placement of tl�is project near RFTA. They also stated tl�at the odor appears to
4;,.
be less of a nuisance than previously expected and the report compared some of tliose t
impacts to the Ruby Park Bus Facility. The EHD also pointed out that RFTA has
expanded beyond a use that was previously approved. RFTA was originally approved to ��'
_ pretty much contain all of its vehicles to be parked, serviced and idled inside. The y
demand on the facility lias increased greatly. For a number of years,there have been
busses outside id(ing.
Kemiy Osier of RFTA submitted a coiiple of comments. He essentially said tl�at the :,;i,:-
impact from the fumes will grow worse as tlie demand increases. He does acknowledge ry'
emissions will improve over time.
With respect to noise, the applicant has submitted a report prepared by Engineer
Dynamics to evaluate the acoustical impacts of primarily RFTA and the Airport. The
report stated the tr�c noise at all residential lots,as proposed,will comply with federal
law and standards. The aircraft noise,wliile clearly audible,is not necessarily obtrusive
and bus barn noise can be reduced via noise mitigation; i.e., a barrier of some kind
between RFTA and North Forty. Applicants have suggested several otUer altematives to f.
mitigate RFTA noise and impacts. One altemative is an approximate 20 foot liigh wall
along the boundary line between RFTA and North Forty. Another aftemative is some `�'
improvements iu the RFTA facility itself including another high wall, 12 to 16 feet,from
the RFTA bam out about 80 feet and a corresponding roof extension of 80 feet tliat would f� .
somewhat enclose the bus barn more and screen it physically from the North Forty side. I`
Another proposal is that RFTA could build a 100 foot turn around on tl�e other side of the !_
bLU barn wl�ich would eliminate or reduce the amount of traffic that parks and idles on the �
other side. Kenny Osier does acknowledge that expansion of tlie indoor parking,birn�s, i
and reversing the traffic flow via the new tum around will reduce IZPTA's impacts on the 1�
proposed neighborhood. He is not sure how it will be financed,whether applicant will '
pay for it or RFTA is somehow going to pay for it. The Environmental Health � ' ;
BOARD OF COUIVTY COMMISSIONERS 2 SEPTEMBER 03,1996 �'
i . �'� ..
—. .
,
�z'�!'
. _
y;..
: ��
Depariment agreed with Engineer Dynamics'conclusions. Mr.Tom Dunlop pointed ouY '
that careful consideration of the construction materials and design of the residential units '�f= '
wiU aid in mitigation of noise. The Airport Manager, Scott Smith, referred the EDI �:
report to the County's own noise consultants, Mcstre Greve Associates. They liave :� ;:
stated that the data diat was collected by Engineer Dynamics is really not adequate ro
come up with their particutar conctusion.They are recommending tliat additional moni-
toring of single event noise levels be conducted and Staff is going to recommend that
those studies be submitted at detailed submission to fuRher assess the impact of tlte ��`.°,
Airport on the project. Staff is also recommending that EDI assess the proposed alterna- `�
:.3'.Y.
tives as set forth by the applicants for mitigation between North Forty and the bus barn.
�: .
With respect to neigliborhood compatibility, Staff has been very consistent about
expressing concern on the appropriateness of Uiis site for high density residential
davefopment. It is surrounded by uses that could potentialiy degrade the quality of a -
(iving environment. Staff does acknowledge a need for AH housing and they have ,
recommended that conceptual be approved because Staff feels they need to explore
mitigatiort furtl�er. More information may lend to a level of com£ort with respect to the �'
acceptabiiity ofthe site for high densiry residential development. ;y.
With respect to rezoning,the appiicant is proposing rezoning from AFR-10 to AH2/PUD. �'�:
. AH2/PUD zoning allows the 100 percent RO kind of project. Staff feels it is generally 4
consistent with the AACP and the Land Use Code and consistent with the goats and �
objectives of the community to provide more affordable housing. `
�
c
As to scenic overlay,virtualty the entire project will be visible fran Highway 82. The ;r�:
applicants l�ave stated the commercial component (ocated ciosest to Highway 82 will i�.�
serve to screen the residential portion somewhat. The setback is 200 feet. Staff feels
tl�ere may be an acceptabie visual impact given the sunounding uses and if all the
appropriate criteria frotn the scenic section of the Code are applied, such as effective
landscaping,non-reflective roofs and lighting standards. :,•
C`
The CMC campus wilt require special review. Staff is suggesting that this take place at �
detailed submission. They will require all the programmatic details of that facility at that �
time. The accessory commercial has to go through special review. The applicants wi►1 •
come back at detailed with a proposa(for an acceptabte level of accessory commerciaL '!'
Staff supports the GMQS exemption for ihe CMC campus for an essential community
facility. Staff also supports an exemption for the residential portion of North Forty. The
applicants originally applied for GMQS exemption for a commercial portion. Now Staff ' '
lias conditioned it so that ti�ey can declare an appropriate level of commercial at detailed
submission and it will at that time go through speciai review and possibly GMQS >`
competition.
With respecY to the multi-yeaz development allotments,the Board is authorized to make
the optional mutti-year allotments based vpon a recommendation by the Growth
y. �
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3 SEPTEMBER 03,1996
/ �'`;,
' .� , .
.d- ,
•.i
�_� .,
:1,`;{;'
�: "
' Management Commission. The Growth Management Commission has deemed the project � -
to be exceptionaL The Growth Management Commission is suggesting that the units be ��= `
taken off the back. For example,it would leave 8 RO units per year,which is the current �`�
allocation,but instead of 8 bein�available for 22 years,they will just be available for l4 � ':;;;
years. Staff is in agreement with this particular way of accounting for the units because
RO uniYs are needed now for this particular development. Developers may need these RO i `
projects for future mixed use projects.
Commissioner Tuite wants to know what Kenny Osier envisions with regard to additional
buses. Staff will research this and come back with an answer. Commissioner Tuite also
expressed concern over the traffic light situation. He is concerned about traffic backing �'��. . .
up F
� .
. �
Commissioner Lamont also stated she wants more research done on pedestrian and traffic
internal flow which includes the kind of interface between the existing Aerport Business
Center and the new development.
i
Commissioner Ireland wants to know on the logarithmic averages for the noise, does it ; `
account for the fact that the average of 10 decibels and 20 decibels is really 17 decibels? �;'
Applicants will research this and get back to the Board. !7`�'
.�
Commissioner Tuite sYated he wants a dollar amount for the proposed changes to the �
� RFTA bus barn.
Richard Seedorf, architect, stated he designed the project to address ecological
boundaries, pedestrianization, and solar concerns. Circulation patterns are, to a large
extent,following the existing contours,stepping down. The lots are designed to maximize
the east/west sun exposure. He stated the commerciat area is below with the residential
� units above, much like Europe's developments. The houses step down which provides
acoustical mitigation. The architectural patterns will be reflective of intimacy of scale and ;
texture which is reflective of the west end.
t
John McBride stated the housing will accommodate different family sizes. Because it is a
lot program,while it might be termed an RO,categories 3,4 and RO househotds can be in
this development because you can buy a lot,build a house,and then expand in the future.
There will be less demand on transportation because of the close proximity of the houses
to Aspen.
Commissioner Ireland asked how will the development accommodate rail when rail comes .
'1
in 10 or 15 years? '
Tom Baker,a representative of North Forty,stated if the rail is installed on the north side ���•
of Highway 82,there is 113 feet of setback. Applicants stated they will come up with a '
design as to how loading and unloading of the rail system could occur, possibly near the ��;�
CMC area. They will also submit a design if the rail system is installed on the other side of
�• I.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 4 SEPTEMBER 03,199G ,i�
� �'`
i , .
' ,
e ..
.:i
�;,.
¢:;�
rx� '
4
the highway to demanstrate pedestrian flow and unloading and loading areas. , �
Commissioner Lamont suggested a good location for the loading and unloading station `�.
might be right in the middle of the lighted intersection. ' . �`�
' ;;
John McBride stated they only have a contractual agreement from CMC to pay the same � �
amount as the existing business centec It is still in the preliminary concepwal stage right
now.
f.'-:.
Commissioner Ireland told the appiieants,just so nobody is surprised, that it is probably ; :,�`
goin�to be appropriate for the project to bear the cost of a lot of the RF'I'A mitigation.
Because it is a public investment, the County is�oing to protect it. He likes the idea of �
extending the roof and building a wa(1 for noise mitigation. Commissioner Ireland also
stated there is the possibility the bus barn will event�ally be used by the rail system.
Mr.McBride made the statement the e�ctra costs incurred for noise mitigation are going to �
have to be borne by the tots.
Commissioner Ireland wants a deed restriction written that informs people that there wili
be rail,bus,airport and soccer field noise and that these are existing uses.
John McBride stated with regard to the soccer field,North Forty will not have a lon$-term
' agreement with them.
Commissioner Lamont stated she would like to see a more general,open use for the field •
since it is a community park with a neighborhood around it. :
��-
John McBride stated he thinks at some point after the project is finished that the '
� Association will perhaps assume ownership and deal with the pazk on its own.
Rick Magill stated this is a 100 percent RO project. There is no criteria specific to RO
projects like this. The project did go through the growth management scoring procedure
for an exceptional project and the same criteria that is applied to a mixed AH development
is applied to RO. Cindy Houben stated the Board also has to make the finding that this is .
an exceptionat project. It is just a recommendation from the Growth Management
Commission.
Commissioner Tuite opened the meeting to public comment.
Curt Carpenter, an owner of one of the rowhouses in the Airport Business Center, is � ,
concer�ed about the density and increased traffic of the North Forty project. He said the
space relationships are quite different. Mr.Carpenter submitted a ietter from Judy Pearce,
the president of the AABC Rowhouse Homeowners Association. A copy of the tetter is
made a part of the record and attached hereto as Exhibit "B." The rowhouse ,
homeownars attending the meeting stated Mr. Carpenter is represenfing them in this
meeting. The Association's main concern is traffic. Mr. Carpenter stated it takes �.
+,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMLSSIONERS 5 SEPTEMBER 03,199G
/ . . � ����F,.''.
e
>�
��:;
�.•.:
,::
sometimes two traffic li�hts to�et out of the AABC onto Highway 82. Extra traffic wil( �
compound the problem. Mt. Carpenter also commenled the proposed wal] between `
RFTA and the project would be quite unattractive. Commissioner Tuite asked him if there . '=
was any impact from RFTA. Mr. Carpenter responded there is very little impact from ` �;
RFTA. He said they have more of an impact from the airport with regard to fumes.
Jonathan Teuscher, another rowhouse homeowner, commented with this project he is
afraid his property might become less desirable compared to a chance to buy a RO home.
He would like to see some sort of buffer left between their property and the project's
property. This might help them retain value. He also feels traffic will be a real prob►em. '�
Mr.Teuscher also wants to know what kind of parking is going to ba provided for the
soccer field? �
John McBride stated he hears their concerns and will work to correct some of the
problems. f
7amie Knowlton stated when they did a traffic analysis, the analyst said a lot of the
congestion did not necessarily result from the traffic coming out of the ABC but ihat a lot
of it was the down valley traffic. They concluded they could moderate the traffic and keep �
it at a level D just by changing the timing on the stop light.
Mr.Carpenter asked if there is some level of sound that is associated with the airport.
Mr. Scott Smith stated there is one guideline and it is a 65 day/night tevel which is the
average level. Mr. Smith stated where the development lies,the level would be between
55 and 60. �`"
Commissioner Ireland stated there is a noise leve!study be conducted right now with the
- hope of being able to cuRail some of the single event noise levels from the airport.
Rick Magi(1 stated the County does not have a sense yet as to what impact ihis
development will have on the schools. It will be addressed at detailed submission because
right now a new ordinance is being written to update the Code. Staff will notify applicants
and the Board as to how the ordinance will affect them with regard to the schoois.
With regard to conditions, Rick Magill stated light rail is addressed in #2C. In this
condition,it refers to"[ight rail." Commissioner Ireland said the word"lighY'should be
removed because some other form of rail might be used. Cindy Houben said the language
should refer to how a north side rail alignment and station would work or how a south � ,
side stop would be accommodated.
A discussion ensued regarding where a potential site might be for the light rail stations.
App(icants stated they will look at what the EIS is proposing for one side of the highway
but also show,if the track were located on the North Forty side,how they would integrate
�.
�. i
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 6 SEPTEMBER 03,199G
1�:
� , y
. r
,:,• •
:,
L...
.
•�� , ,.;� _ ,
� . , ,,. . , , ., _ . , ..: _ _,.. ... .
. . . �F
,`��',,. :
��
;_ ;,
a 5tation to fit the needs of their development the best. Applicants will be able to use part �.. ,
of the 113 foot setback to incorporate their plan. , ti,
The next condition is addressing RFTA mitigation. This is addressed in#2F.
Tom Baker stated wi[h regard to condition#C,total daily transit demand, applicants see
this project as having a benefit to the transportation system because they are putting 71 _
families up valley on the highest frequency transit corridor. Applicants want the Board to �',
take into consideration what the demand of half of those households are because they are `:�Y
saving RFTA rider miles. Rick Magill responded Staff agrees in theory with app(icants, -
but they do feel the total daily demand has to be calculated not on(y for residential,but for - �
commercial and CMC use and then if applicants wish to back a certain perceniage out, : �
then Staff will consider it at that time.
Applicants wanted clarification as to what area of study on plants and wildlife did Steve
Anthony request more of. Stafftold applicants they need more information on plants,but
wildlife animals are not excluded. The report submitted previously by applicants is not '"
sufficient information. �r'
�
�
Condition O(odor study)is requested because the project is close by the sanitation plant. i
Both Commissioners Lamont and Tuite feel the soccer field could be relocated to act as �
buffer between the RFTA bus barn and the houses. Applicants responded they did not �
consider moving the soccer field because it would be extremely expensive to relocate it. ,
Applicants also said the Planning Office told them they could not move it. Also, the ` -
people that use the soccer field]ike where it is►ocated now. App(icants afso feei it acts as
a good buffer between the commercial area and the residentia] area. Commissioner
Ireland concurred with Commissioners Lamont and Tuite that moving the soccer field is
an alternative. Commissioner Lamont reiterated she would like to see this park be a lot
more versatile park.She also stated parking needs to be looked at for the park. k
John McBride said when they come back to the Commissioners, they will address all of
the above concerns. �
At detailed submission,applicants will also address bicycle and pedestrian paths.
Commissioner T�ite commented he likes the idea of the commercial area being zoned as
B-2. He does not want the commercial area too big because of the traflic problem.
The Board has committed to address the RO restrictions on second reading.
Commissioner Tuite wants the full Board in attendance to hear the discussion. �`
The Board agreed another meeting on this issue wi11 be held on October 8, 1996 at 3:30
p.m.
i
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 7 SEPTEMBER 03,199G
i �•" ,.
� �
'r!
ii[!�`.�':',::
i
• Commissioner Ireland maved approv�l of the firs[ reading as zmended and set for •' '-
continucd second reading on Octobcr 8, 199G at 3:30 p.m. in tUc Plaza 1 BOCC Bo:�rd ,
mecting room and set for public hearing on Octobcr 23, 1996. With a sccond by �.
Commissioner Tuite,the motion passed unanimously. :,'; �
_�.
Commissioner Tuite asked that the rowhouse homeowners be notified of the meetings. �.
�:`..
�C(�ND READING• ORDINANCC AMENDiNG THE ADDENDUM TO THAT =
VACANT LAND CONTRACT TO i3UY AND SELL REAL ESTATE DATED.TANUARY
]� ���� BGTWECN PITKIN COUNTY AND THE SFVEN STAR PARTNGRSHIP• John ' `
Gly presented the issues as outlined in his Agenda Item Summary. A copy of the Summary is k` �v
made a part of the record and attached hereto as Exhibit°� Tlie amendments were to allow �` ' �
for the clean-up of the use and maintenance agreement and the conservation agreement tha[runs t. '
reeiprocally between Seven Star,Star Ranch and the County througli the Open Space and Traiis ,�
Board. Another issue is the reversionacy interest that the owners possess l�ursuant to the contract
and the fact that the owners can exercise the reversionary interest within 18 months of the
closing, which expires on September 8, 1996. Tlte owneis have the ability to c�ercisc a /
reversionary interest if t6ey do not receive a development approval Yo their liking, which
contemplates at least four different possible routes for access. The least favoi�ble route is a route ��,`�
across the Droste property up from Brush Creek. John Gly, County Attorney, and .lane Gllen �'•
Hainilton,Open Space and Trails,just had a conference with John Sullivan and iiis lttorney, a ,�
representative of tlie Seven Star ai�d Star Rancli,and discussed entering into these amendments
to tlie contract which will provide for the recordation of an amendment to the use and
maintenance agreement and an amendment to the conservation easement. These amendments are u
satisfactory to the Open Space and Trails Board. The amendments modify the contract to allow
for an extension of the right of reversion to the date of March 9, 1997 and allows for the
recordation of the amended easement agreement and maintenance and use agreement. It also
states t6e following in regnrds to tlie access: Snowmass Land Partners, Ltd., and Seven Star
Residential Partners,Ltd.shall pursue in good faith acknowledgment by[he Town that the Town
has no current land use jurisdiction over the Droste access described in an exhibit attached to tliis
amendment and dierefore the Town is not able to approve that location for access to the property
which is subject to the land use applications described in Pitkin County Ordinance No.95-2(the
ordinance which executed Uiis original contract)whicl�described the land use application.The
parties' final land use application sltall reference only three alternative accesses approximately
described in another exhibit attaci�ed hereto which will be numbered as l,2,and 3 alterna[ive
access routes.They will be over the Owl Creek Subdivision,over property which is o��,�ned by ! :
the Town of Snowmass Village, which route would approximate a path or direction over the �-
Snowmass Village facility that they have out on Owl Creek Road,and a third route which would
go up Hidden Valley in the vicinity of the old cemetery. Droste would not be part of their � -
request or part of the resolution which diey are seeking from Snowmass counciL Jane Ellen
Hamilton says the agreements really cleaned up the deal financially for Open Space. She siated
it�ets them out of maintenance obligations and a htige ittigation system burden that the original (�,
documents,for some reason,obligated the County to. It also confinns tl�at there will be limited E:`.
public access with development so it does not interfere with Mr. Sullivan's uses. Mr. Sullivan �`�;,
wants to inigate part of tl�e meadow tands that was in the deal originally. � '
�, �
130ARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 8 SEPTEMI3ER 03,199G ''
!"
� ,
� �
H.:•:.,.
��y;::�`�
,��..;.
P':
�1. '
� ,
Right now, he has water rights to irrigate 10 acres. He has to demonstrate that he has •
additiona(water rights to do any more irrigation. The agreement wili not ailow him to =`" �;�
extend cultivation of property which he cannot irrigate. This agreement protects the " •
County from any undefined costs of an irrigation system or a weed eradication program. ' �,. �
Also,Mr.Sullivan is allowed to hunt on the property.
i'
With regard to buildings on the property, the Town of Snowmass will allow two
residential structures but will not allow a barn structure to be built near Brush Creek Road
because they feel it is a visual intrusion into the valley. They will only approve a bam -., ,r. '
located up by the approved two residential sites. This will also be in the amendment. k ;
Commi s sioner Tuite o pened the meetin g to public comment. There was no public � ,
comment made. �
c'
Commissioner Lamont moved for approval of the second reading of the Ordinance :`.
�.
to Amend the Contract of Seven Star Partnership and to authorize signatures of �
John Ely,County Attorney;Jane Ellen Hamilton of Open Space; William Fales as {. .
Chairman of Open Space and Trails Board; and the BOCC Chairman. With a ''�;.
second by Commissioner Irel:tnd,thc motion passed unanimously. r
ADJOURNMENT; The meeting was adjourned by Vice Chairman Tuite at 525 p.m. '�
i
Respectfully submitted, '
Lyn e C rdova
Deputy County Clerk
, �.�.,.�� ----��-- »
JtCIvfES TRUE,CHAIRMAN t
�PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMNIISSIONERS
Date: /�T�lf?��I�
PCI,SGW\Vl00CC96/MirJ09-03-96.doc �
�.
i .
�
:)
rj i'
yi .
' + -_
i,i
I
i,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 9 SEPTEMBER 03,199G
,.iY
� �,�_�
/ . .
' , .
a _
.-i" '
,..i
� -- _ � .�....� _.
c/3-`/(r !}. ,�`,
�
MEMORANDLM "' `-
�
';fi°��
TO: Board of County Commissioners • ."':
Special Nleeting-September 3,1996 :?�' '
. �.
RE: North Forty Subdivision Conceptual Submission:PUD Subdivision,Rezoning, j `
Optional Multi-Year Development Allolments,Scenic Foreground Overlay,GMQS
Exemptions,Areas Around Key Facilities,and 1041 Hazard Review. -
THRU: Cindy Houben,Community Development Director . r
.� ;- .
�.
',�-. - '
FRONI: Rick Magiil,Planning Office � .
;, . .
,;,,.
;;;
APPLICANT: John McBride ��
APPLIC��iT'S REPRESENTATIVES: James Knowlton,Tom Baker,Richazd Seedorf �� "
• , �%
REQLlEST:The Applicant is requesting County approval of: ',�
' • the creation of 71 Resident Occupied lots; '
• a 100,000 square foot campus for Colorado Mountain College(CMC);
• accessory commercial uses;
• an intemal open space and trails system. -
The Applicant has characterized the project as an,oppornu�aty to create"a new Aspen town site",
with detached single-family residences in proper propomon to the size of the lots.The pmposal will
allow individual lot owners the opportunity to build their own residences, according to detailed
azchitectural and cons�uction guidelines.
BACKGROiJND:The Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission first reviewed the North
Forty applicarion on November 7,1995.At that meeting,the P&Z agreed with the Planning Staff's
recommendation to table fiuther revie�v of the application until such time as the Applicant could
provide additional information.on the noise, air quality and traffic impacts associated with the
project.The tabling of the review also allowed the County the opportunity to finally approve the ,
ne�v AH2/PUD zone district(the zone the Applicant is applying for).The information requested by
Staff was received in it's entirety by the Community Development Departinent on Apol 2, 1996 , •
(see attached reports). The Applicant's proposal originally included the conversion of 40 �
apartmenu in the Ar1BC to Cate�ory 4 in an attempt to comply with the requirements of the AH- �
2/PUD zone district. At a June 4, 1996 meeting of the Gtowth Vlanagement Commission, the � '�
Applicant revised the proposal to 100% Resident Occupied lots (allowed in AH-2). The �:.,
Commission met on June 6th for the purpose of discussing several threshold issues,specifically,the ='�
� , ' ,
i`r.
, '.:
�•a
- �
. ,
�'
... , ' .
,
..,� .
„
g<<
�{V
6
f.' . .
implications of the commercial component of the development and the implications of a 100%
Resident Occupied project.On July 17,1996 the Growth Management Commission detemvned ihe -
project to be"Exceptional"and recommended that Optional Mulri-Year Development Allotments +��- `�,
be approved by the BOCC for the North Forty pmject.On July 35, 1996,the County Planning and. ' '�
Zoning Corrunission reviewed the project with respect to the remaining issues of Subdivision, `-' ���, ,
Rezoning, GMQS Exemptions, Scenic Overlay, Areas Around Key Facilities, and 1041 Hazard
Review.The P&Z d'uected Staff to forwazd a recommendation of approval subject to the conditions ��� .
in the attached resolution.
LOCATION: The 21 acre parcel is located across Highway 82 from the Aspen/Pitkin County -�..;..
Airport and is adjacent to the AABC. � {�;:'"
� .
ZONI�'G: The subject property is currently zoned AP'R-10;ten acre minimum lot size. `�' .
�;
WATER/SEWER: The Applicant intends to have the City of Aspen Water Departrnent provide
domestic water for the project. The Applicant is in the process of obtainu�g a water service
agreement from the City for the provision of water.They also propose to dispose of was[ewater by y
connecting to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District central collection system.
ACCESS: Access to the project is proposed at two poinu from Highway 82.One access is through �'y,
the existing northem entrance.to the AABC and the second is proposed for the e:cisting access to k,�
� the Roaring Fork Transit Agency (RFTA), Pitkin County Public Works, and the Aspen _
Consolidated Sanitarion District (ACSD) facility, across &om the enaance to the Aspen Base
Operarion,at the north end of the project a
SITE DATA:The subject property is a metes and bounds parcel containing appro�timately 21.4 �'
acres. The property is located approximately 2 miles from the City of Aspen,as measured along
� Highway 82.The site is bordered on the north by ihe ACSD facility and the Roaring Fork River.
The eastem boundary of the property abuu the Ar�.BC. State Highway 82 is located to the south
and the RFTA bus maintenance facility is immediately to the west of the project site.The property's
terrain generally consists of rolling topography with slopes of 0-10 percent.The e;ctreme northem 4
ponion of the subject property(down toward the River)contains siopes in escess of 40 percent. ��.
The site is comprised of vegetation consisting of sagebrush,various other shrubs,and grasses and �.
forbs typical of this aspect and elevation.The subject property is currently unimproved,although �'
John McBride has ailowed the site to be used for a community soccer &eld, managed by local !;,
soccer progr�uns,for a number of years.
i
PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicant proposes to create 71 single-family lots and consuuct the
necessary roads and infras�uctiue to serve the residential development.The R.O. lots vary from � -
3,000 to 6,000 square feet in size.The project also includes an intemal pedesuian/bikeway system
which would connect to the e:dsting County trails system.The Applicant has indicated that up to '
�,.
three small parks will be built within the project, in addition to the preservation of the existing
�
2 y i
. i.:
, , ,
:
-.:
-l�A.� ..�':�I- .. . . , +�
��1::':
t:'�y`•
." `
`i'.�,':.:!
• soccer field.The Applicant ori�inaily proposed approximately 27,000 square feet of commercial
space, essentially an extension of the AABC,in the southeast corner of the subject property,in � _
addition to a smaller commerciat component "accessory" to ihe.resideniial development. The ',_ .,.
Applicant chose to eliminate the 27,000 square foot commercial component of the project because � �,,
of StafPs determination that it would nof qualify for the Growth Management Exemption for a ' _
"Commercial Activity with Negligible Growth Impacts"as requested by the Applicant During the ''.
course of the GMC and PBcZ reviews, it was determined fl�at the Applicant could designate an
"AH/Accessory Commercial parcel" at Detailed Submission and that the appropriate level of
commercial uses would be determined through GMQS and Special Review at ffiat time. ;�,'�;.
Colorado Mountain College has recently put approximately 100,000 square feet of land under � :r
con�act for purchase in the westem portion of the subject property for the purpose of relocating it's
Aspen campus. A letter from Robert H. Spulhler, Vice President of CMC, to John McBride ' '
expresses a"desire to become part of your esgansion of the Aspen Airport Business Center".The
letter goes on to say that CMC would like to relocate the Aspen campus in the ne:rt three or four '
y�, '
REFERRAL COMMENTS: The following is a]ist of referral agencies that were sent copies of
the application.The agencies with the asterisk after them have not made specific comments on the �
application.The referral memos.are attached for reference. • ��
• :,
- l. Connty Attomey* '
2. County Engineer _
3. Environmental Aealth Deparnnent
4. Zoning Office
5. County Sheriff" '.#r
6. Housing Office
� 7. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
3. Rocky Mountain Natural Gas
9. Holy Cross Electnic
10. Aspen Fire Marshall
1 I. Aspen School District*
12. Roaring Fork Ttansit Agency '
li. Counry Land Management
14. Airport Manager
15. Ciry Plazuring and Zoning Commission
16. Aspen Water Deparhnent
17. Colorado Depazvnent of Transporration*
18. Open Space Board ,
19. Division of Wildlife
20. State Division of Water Resources
3 i '
��;;
i �i � � � •1,���y��� .
1'
--• �
�
: -�" ,
•>i
6C:�:
�;,';,`
��
W ,
STAFF DISCUSSION: Staff discussion will be divided into nine sections as follows: ' -..
. ;�, .�
• General Submission Compliance(policies and regulations) �. , '`:
• Rezoning to AH/2 :'. -
�.
• Planned Unit Developmenu
• I041 Environmental Hazard Review
• Scenic Foreground Overlay
• Uses Allowed by Special Review �q `?
• (Development in)Areas Arotuid Key Faciliries ,;`:,Y.�`
• Gmwth Management Quota System Exemptiorrs
• Optional Multi-Year Development Allotrnents(Scoring) �, ,
GENERAL SUBMISSION : Staff will review this application with respect to the applicable �
guidelines established in Article?of the Pitkin Counry Land Use Code.
Section 2-�0-Com�liance with the Aspen Area Ge�P*^�plan•The Aspen Area General Plan is i,
comprised of several documents. In the azea of the subject property there aze rivo plans which
govem deve]opment activity.The first is the Aspen Area Community Plan{AACP).This plan y�?!'
can be described as the document•which sets the overall tone for development within the Aspen
�.r
Metro Area.The second document is the State FIighway 82 Corridor Nlaster Plan.The project's �1
. comp►iance with these documenu is reviewed in the following paragraphs.
A�gen Areu Community Plan(�C�P� . � �
�
- The A?,CP is divided into several action plans as well as a section devoted to"Community Vision"
or"Chazacter".The project's compliance with the appropriate pmvisions of the AACP is discussed
. as follows:
L. Character- The AACP is a character based plan. The Plan includes Development Features I.
,�z.
designed by the community to"maintain and create places and opportunities for social interaction
and lifestyle diversity".
Staff response:The proposed residential development would provide long-tean working residents "y
the opportunity to build,own and maintain their own homes and to perhaps become a permanent f:
part of the social fabric of the community.
�i
2. Growth- The Growth Action Plan for the AACP recommends a projected peak buildout of j..
30,000 persons (inclusive of permanent and visitor population). The projected buildout of the ; •
individual Neighborhood Planning Areas(NpA), based upon e.�cisting zoaing,were combined for �
the projected peak buildout for the entire metro azea.The AACP did not recommend downzoning �;•
to achieve peak buildout.Instead,the AACP incorporates a combinarion of open space preservation {�
,:
}
,
4 l_ �. ' _
�
!
� ' '., ,
-- � ,
a
.�" .
..i
. :��t.(;'�:
;{*3
and density increases for affordable housing to achieve the peak population goals. Annual�owth �
quotas for specific types of development are utiIized to acEueve ultimate community baiance which
is a critical element of the AACP. ;�'� `�
. ti.
For puiposes of simplifying the analysis process and to provide information on a neighborhood � '•
level, the Aspen Metro Area was divided into various planning areas, The subject property is - :•
located within the"Highway 82 Corridor Neighborhood Planning Area", �
Staff response:'Che proposed project complies with the AACP in that it wi1I increase densities for
affordable housing,over that currently allowed under e.cisting zoning,to achieve peak population ' "`:r
goals,Staff would point out,however,[hat this project wiIl result in tt�e reducrion of the open space �i��
which currently e.�cists on the subject property,even if it were developed under existing wning(two •�r' - �
single-family residences}.The proposal does preserve the e,cisting playing freld and indicates that •
there will be some additional open space/pazks within the residential development which comp[y
with the open space requirements of the AH 2/PUD zone district. ��:�
3.Housing-The intent of the Housing Action Plan is to create a housing environment which is ��t
dispersed,appropriatety scaled to the neighborhoods,and affordable.The Action Plan gces on to �=.
� state that housing shouid emphasize qualiry construction and design,even though that this emphasis •'��,;�
necessarily increases costs and lessens production. ��.,�'
+�
� Staff response:T'he Applicant propases the creation af 71 single-family RO lou,along with some � ,
accessory commercial space.This is generally consistent with the policy in the Housing Action
Plan that promotes a"micro cotnmunity"on lazge acreage to accommodate permanent residents,
and the recommendation that future housing be family-oriented.The proposed developmeni will be
surrounded by uses that can be described as light indushial (RFT'A, ACSD, AABC, Highway �i
82/Aitport).A[though thete aze some existing multi-famiiy residenrial wuts in the AABC,there is
. not an e.risting "neighborhood" in the tradiUonal residential sense.The issue of the scale of the
pmject relative to existing neighborhoods may be irrelevant in this case.The issue of compatibility
with e;�isting uses will_be discussed later in this memo.
Staff believes that it is cieazly the intent of the AACP Housing Action plan to provide quality �
affordable housing,even though costs may be increased and production may be decreased. Staff
feels that,in otder to provide quality aff'ordable housing opportunities for the community,carefui x
consideration must be applied to site design and planning at the outse[of a project.Only through
sensitive site ptanning and design can any project hope to achieve a primary goal of the AACP,
which is,to provide permanent quality affordable housing for those that wish to live,and perhaps
raise families,in the Aspen Me�o area.
�� •
, ,,.
The Housing Action Plan of the AACP designated the subject property as a Potential Site for
Affordable Housing.Converse(y,the Transportation Acuon Plan of the AA.CP points out that the
AABC area could be considered for a permanent impound lot and stomge parking facility. ��
5 �f' �
.-.t.
t, [.
_.i
„y
.
i ��
, ♦ .
e
_,
�;:,"
�;:', .
r,
The AACP recommends that"25-50 units be added at McBride(subject property),above the uniu r'" �'•
aitowed by current zoning°(2).This project is proposing appro.rimately 30 percent more units on ~"
this site than recommended by the AACP.Staff feels that the increased density may be appropriate �� "'.
in ttus case,based on the articulated vision of the r1ACP.
l `..
4. Commercial/Itetait- The intent of the commerciaUrerail action plan is to provide incentives for
managed strategic growth by locally serving commercial and office uses,and small lodges. _ �
,'� :
Staf�response: This Acdon Plan specificalty refers to revising zone dis�icts to encovrage local- �i �
oriented commercial development at the Airport Business Center. The recently approved AH-2 �-. • '
�
wne dish-ict allows commercial uses accessory to the housing development by Special Review. �
The Land Use Code defines an accessory use or structure to be a use or structure that is naturaily
and normally incidental to,subordinate to,and devoted primarily to the principal use or struciure of '`
the premises;does not change ttie basic character.of the premises,as determined by it's principal �
use or shucture;is subordinate in area,e:ctent and purpose to the principal use or structure served;
contributes io the comfort, convenience or necessity of the occupanu of the pzincipal use or s=;�
s�ucture served,etc.The defuution goes on to state that accessory buildings or sRuctures shall not �'
be provided with kitchen or bath facilities sufiicient to render them suitable for permanent �+
. residential occupation. . �
Staff maintains that commercial uses such as a small post office,day care facility,and convenience
mazket should be considered accessory to the proposed residential development.The componenu
of the proposed Community Health Facility have not been completely described at this writing,yet
Staff would assume that this facility may include a Health Club open to the public.This type of
commerciai use should not be considered to be accessory to the principal use.
5. Open Space/Recreation aad Environment-The intent of the OSRE action plan is to preserve
and enhance tlie natural beaury of the area. The action plan recommends developing a stimulating,
active and supportive environment that betters the lives of everyone,preserves our natura[resources ?
and provides opportunities for all to enjoy and to further the p owth and development of outdoor
recreation.
Staff response: Although the proposed residentiaUcommercial dces not necessarity preserve or �
enhance the natural beauty of�the area, the subject properry's location between two e:tisting '
industrial uses does not necessarily make it a top prioriry in terms of it's open space value.The
proposed con�ections to trails is consistent with the intent of the OSRE action plan. � �
6. Transportation-The intent of the AACP Tcansportation Action Plan is to provide a balanced, '�
integrated tiansportation system for residents,visitors,and commuters that reduces congestion and ��
pollution. The goal outlined in the Transportation Action Plan is to move from an auto-dominated ��l
y ;
f;4 �
6
,,�
� ;..
i
a
�
,t'
�7, �
�,I .
rid'^ . .
transportation system to a balanced system which l'units auto use while increasing mobility via "
ttansit,carpooling,pedestrian and bicycle modes. The Action Plan recommends items that would I `
make die use of the single-occupant vehicle less convenient while developing more amactive ' .
transportarion altemauves. , %
Staff Response:Although the Applicant states that"reducing the dominance of the antomobile"and ��.
providing�ansportation altematives is a primary goal of the project,the application provides little
information regarding transit service or altematives.The possibility of extending light rail or any ,
another form of altemative transportation to service the proposed development should be � � .r
considered by the ApplicanY at Detailed Submission. ' .k ;
� ':.�°. . -
The application does not include,nor does RFTA seem to propose,the installation of a new bus .
stop or expanded transit service for the North Forty developmenG There are currently two bvs stops
in the unmediate area.One serves the AABC and the.Airport pazk and ride and the other,located at ,:;�
the RFTA Bus Maintenance Facility(BMF),serves the BIvIF and Aspen Aviation across Highway
82.RFTA has requested"an estimate of total daily h�ansit demand by the development...in order to �'`�
assess the impacu on�ansit vehicle and operational needs".T1us additiona!information will allow �, '
RFTA to prepare an accurate estimate of the financial impacu of the proposed development on the
operating and capital needs of the .4gency. 3taff recommends that the Applicant provide an �''
estimate of the total daily transit demand by the development at Detailed Submission. n�
� State Higl wav 82 Corridor Master Plan: �'
The State Highway 82 Corridor Masier Plan includes a Future Land Use Plan which depicts how
Pitkin County's goals and objectives for the Highway 82 Comdor might be achieved.The central �;
portion of the North Foriy properry is mapped as Open SpacelRecreationaUParks(OSRP),while the -
reaz of the pazcel is designated as Commercial. The Master Plan cleazly did not contemptate the
subject property for the proposed high density residential use,while]ow intensity commercial uses
were considered. Staff acknowledges that the demand for affordable housing has substantially
increased(and availabiliry of buildable land in the metro area has decreased)since the adoption of
the Highway 82 Master Plan, and that the priorities o£rhe communiry are now more accurately ' `
reflected in the AACP.
ection 2-70-Conformance with Other Laws•
The application does not fully address compliance with other laws.The subject property is located � '
within a non-attainment azea for PM-10 as designated by the Federal Environmental Protection '
Agency under authoriry of the Federal Clean A,ir Act The State of Colorndo,in concert with local -
govemment,has prepazed an implementation plan for the Aspen Area.11us State Implementation
Plan(SIP) is desig�ed to achieve attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for �
PM-10.According to the 3IP,local govemment has the ob(igation to enforce the control measures �'�'
ideatified in tl2e Aspea Element of the implementation plan."in the event that the regulated parties *�.
�
:�
i
7 l,
f�
, ;
�<�
� �
.
s
.
"?r:.
�f1�:'.
�:'i�
,".a i
�,..
fail to carry out their obligations,the state Air Pollution Control Division has the authority to take ' `�
• action which will require the imp(ementation of the con�ol measutes".The air quatity issues are �� `•,
discussed later in t(tis memotandum. .�'�
Y. •:J
The proposed project is not expected to violate any other federal,state or local laws.
SecHon 2-80-lYatural and Man-made Aazard and Resovrce Areas
The issues related to tivs policy will be discussed later in this memo under the secdon tifled 1041 :;:„r- '
Hazard Review. k.:
� r�. .
Section�-90-Soil�nd Surficial Geoloeic Characteristics and Radiation �� .
The issues related to ttus policy will be discussed later in this memo under the section titted 1041 �.'
Hazard Review. ,_
1_
� �
Sections 2-100-Drainaee
�. .
The County Engineer has reviewed the information submitted relative to site drainage and has ��
requested that the Applicant provide: s�
1.)A comprehensive drainage plan addressing calculations of sub-basin azeas,flows,sizing '
. of culverts,detention basin sizing,drainage of parking lots,clean outs,and grit coilectors
for pazking lots.
�
2.)An ezosion control plan which addresses emsion con�ol methods during site grading -
and individual home cons�uction.This plan should also address the methods employed to
assure the zero release of fines into the Roaring Fork 12iver.
Staff recommends that tlus additional information be provided at detailed submission. : ��
.�
SecNons 2-170-Water Provision
Section 5-205 of the Land Use Code requires an applicant to demonstrate an adequate water supply
in temns of quality,quanrity,pressure,and dependability of supply.The Applicant proposes to serve
the project with water from the City of Aspen Water Depaz�nent.The Applicant contends that they
have a contractual right to water service from the City. The City of Aspen has pmvided the �
Applicant with a Capacity to Serve Letter, which is attached to this memo. The City has also `�� �
indicated that ttse will re wre a Ci a roved water service a eement rior to rovidin the � "��
Y 9 � LY-PP gT P P g
Applicant with a"commiunent to serve"the proposed project. ;ti
��
���'
�
e `,`.
..�..
'i
/ ��•�..
� ' .
� " .
,,
t
(���,�+!�� �1 4 .
$F; ?\
� . .
IS:S'! . .
h•+"
The Applicant has a[so indicated that as an altemative in the event they are unable to obtain water ' `',
from the City, they have adequate raw water rights to develop an independent water system. '.`r.;� �;,
Section 5-205.1 of the Land Use Code states that where it is determitted that there is a public water �
system accessible to the proposed use the proposed use shall connect or provide for future :..` � -
connecdon to such system.This is consistent with the concept of the[ogicaI extension of utiliries �� -
and the desue to eliminate unnecessary duplication of utility facilives. j:�.
The information submitted by the Applicant has been deemed to be adequate.for purposes of -
general submission review. Prior to acceptance of an application for detailed submission, the ' .
Applicant must provide detailed plans for the private water system or a commitment to provide � '�
water from the City of Aspen. k�"
:z: .
., .
�ections�-180-Sewgge Treatment and llection �
r';;
Wastewater for the project is intended to be handled by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation Dis�ict
(ACSD).Staff has received a refetra!memo from ACSD indicating that the Disuict has sufficient `=�
�eatment capacity to serve the project at this time and that they should be able to ptovide service r
for the project provided the applicant commits to fund a proportionate shaze of any needed �'
collection system improvements.T'he ACSD has also requested that the collecrion system for the
pmject either be designed by the pistricYs engineer or that the Applicant deposit funds with the �i
District to cover the expense of having the District engineer review the system.The District also
requires that the collection system be located within the right-of-way for the subdivision road '
system and that the systecre comply wiih the District's tine specifications and other rules and
regulations. •
,3 '
Sections 2-19U-Imnacts on Road SycYQm
The Pitkin Counry Land Use Code requires that an Applicant show the following with respect to
h�ansportation and'unpacts to roads:
a)T'hat the nature and amount of haffic likely to be generated by the proposal could be
accommodated by existing and planned madways without significant de�adation of the
physical condition or levels of service and safety,and
b)That the nature and amount of h�affic likely to be generated would not require significant
capital costs to upgrade_e:cisting roadways or associated siructures to preserve existing
physical condirion and levels of service and safery.
It is not yet clear to Staff if any improvements to eacisting roads will be necessary to serve the
proposed development.Staff recommends that this issue be revisited at detailed submission after ��
Staff and referral agents have more informarion on the project. i'��
�;.
9 �• i
:.,.:�
i ' ';,
-. .
F
I
�`z;`;;�
;,.
t.::;;�;
,.�:.,;.
,,
' The Land Use Code states that any upgrades to existing roads necessary to serve the project not '� `�
requue significant capital expenditures by the County. 4. �.
' ti,
Sections 2-200-Raad Desigm and Construction ?�r' -;r
The Project includes new roads to serve the proposed residential lots.
In this secrion we will focus on compliance with the following criteria for Section 5-202 in the "
Land Use Code. .:f r.�
a)That any new roadways and associated structures included in the�roposal have been,or ;� ,
can be,designed and built to bear a logical relationship to existing and platted roads and to .
provide suitable service to the ultimate land use of their secvice areas, regazdless of the � :
specific short term needs of the proposal.
Response:The proposed roadway system is essentially comprised of a series of loop roads �
which feed into Baltic Avenue and the road which services the Bus Bam. The County
Engineer and RFTA have pointed out that the proposed westem access may not be a viable 'r
secondary access to the North Forty development geven site constraints and e:cisting heavy- '
vehicle h�affic.There are also safeN concerns with mi:cing large vehiculaz traffic(trucks and ��
�+
buses)with residentiai traffic at this intersecrion. :
- :l
b) That any new roadways or improvement or reconstruction of existing roadways aze i,
desiened and consavcted to achieve suitable capaciry, safery, level of service and
maintenance levels. �
Response: The proposed roadways appear to be of adequate width and capacity for the
- number of trips the Project will likely generate, although constniction details will be
required at Detailed Submission in order to fully assess the roads with respect to accepted �'
roadway standards and the potential given(a)above of removing or relocating one of[he
proposed accesses to the site.
c)That all capital costs for new roadway systems and any improvements d'uectly assignable
to the needs generated by the proposal are paid by those who would benefit from the �
pr°p°sal. �
� i
Response: The Subdivision Improvements Agreement shall require that the Applicant �,
commit to fund all of the roadway impmvemenu contained in the application. �� •
i
d) That the schedufe for the County acceptance and maintenance for new and upgraded k�
roadways or related structures provides for a waiting period after such improvemenu are
made or for an adequate financial guarantee to ensure that the public wili not be forced to ±{ �.
�
,
�• i
lo
i
i ,, �
• �
a
.,,
_ ._ :, .
._, ��� _
t '`?``;:
F•,.
,-`
bear the cost of maintaining or correcting inadequately designed or consnvcted y��' _,
improvements. ;:� 1,
Response:This can be incorporated into the Subdivision Improvements Agreement when �. ''"
that document is prepared. ' `'
� `
Section 2-230-Tra�portation _
This issue was discussed in the AACP section of this memo. '"""
�� �
Sections 2-210-Loeical xtension of UtiliNes • '``' '
o ._-.
�;, .
The Applicant indicates that elechic and telephone service and natural gas service is available to the
site and that adequate capacity is available to serve the proposed project.
The criteria in the Land Use Code with respect to utiliry e,ctensions are intended to ensure that �,��
utility extensions aze dotte in a manner which is cost e�ic3ent and will not require abnormal �:•
consrivction or maintenance and will not create a demand in excess of the local utility pmviders �',�
ability to serve.The adjacent AABC development is currendy served by all utilities. �4
�4
The proposed project is consistent with the other Code criteria relative to the extension of utilities. i
Sections 2110-Erosig�
,�
The County Engneer wiil require a comprehensive Drainage and Erosion Con�ol plan at Detailed
Submission.
. Sections 2-250-Compatibility with Historical and Archaeulogical Resources ;
There aze no known lustoric or archeological resources on the site or in the immediate vicinity.
�
SecNon�-Z20-imp�.cts on Tares and Management of Necessary Services and Facilities
�
The Applicant states in the application that"there is no anticipated cost to the County for the
expanded use of these facilities or services,e:ccept reconfiguration of the access to Highway 82,
which can be tirned with established State Highway 82 improvement plans."�I'ypically,costs such
�
as these are bome by the Applicant,rather than the County. .�
�� :€,
A fiscal impact analysis of the entire project which addresses the issues of road and intersection
improvements,impacu on RFTA service,and all other necessary improvemenis and services will ' �
�be required at Detailed Submission. y��
�... ,
?S7.`�V I
11 i,}..
'..
y
;i.-..
I t
/ .
� � ,
. .
.N�
__- -
- . �.�,�.�a
��_�;�w.�;:
�;;.:
�.:.;
• Sec' 2-260=$ouci� "`
The intent of the North For[y proposal is generally consistent with the County's policy to"assure `1 `�•
the existeace of a supply of desirable and affordabte housing for persons empioyed in Piticin ' • ~°
Couniy... necessary for a balanced community",The housing issues are dioroughly discussed in � ��. .
the Rezoning,and GMQS Allotments sections of this memorandum.
Sections 2-i20-Scenic Qyali
�
The site is located within the mapped Scenic Foreground Overlay(discussed in a later section).The �'`:r
property is outside the Scenic View Plane as idenrified within the Highway 82 Corridor Vtaster .
Plan. . -
Policy 2-16 of the Land Use Code states that it is the poiicy of the Counry to preserve the nativai
appearance of mountain slopes,to m;,,;mize adverse visual impacts of roads,to controi the use of ,
natural azeas,to preserve and create scenic views of the surrounding mountains from public places,
and to achieve visual qua(ity within areas of e:cisting and future development by prohibiting or
screening unsightty uses or structures.
�,.
F
The proposed development will substantially alter to the visual character of this area.Virlually the �
entire North Forty development will be visible from Highway 82.There is a"bluff"between the �r
� highway and the deve[opment that may provide some visua[relief in the southeastem portion of the �
project(in the area proposed for future commercial space).The location of the CMC campus may !
also provide some screening of the residences nearest the Irighway. y�
f
�:'
- Sectians 2-i30-Air Quafity '� °
�;
The Applicant has provided supplemental informarion on air quality and odor impacts,prepared by
Air Sciences,Inc.(attached).The report submStted includes,but is not limited to,a comparison of
the R.FTA Bus Bam facilities and the Rubey Park bas station in downtown Aspen. y
�'
The EHD reviewed the Air Sciences report and feels that the results of the report indicates less of a `
nuisance odor problem than might have been expected.Lee Cassin believes that the concentrations k
of criteria pollutants aze very unlikely to exceed any standards and that the site's proximity to •
RFTA does not appear to be obviously worse than many other places in Pitkin County and Aspen .
where residences are neaz such facilities as Rubey Pazk and Highway 82.
The first Environmental Health Department refeira!states that"prior to detailed submission,the
Applicant must provide a PM-10 mitigation program containing specific enforceable control ' '
measures to be approved by the EHD. The plan must include documentation showing that the
proposed mitigation measures will fiilly mitigate or offset al PM-10 increases caused by the project ,
�
iz r, �
,.,J . . '..�
' / ��.�..;.. .
� a - �
�-1, ,
,:ii ,
�.i`:�.
�,"
�T' '�'i,
�,�.... "`�.:.
in the non-attainment area. demonstrate that they have"enforceable cotnmihnents to prevent any �,. ;: `
increase in PM-10." -
;ry;;._
12FTA's first tefenal comments acknowledge that"without funding ro enlarge indoor bus storage, �
this problem(eshaust fumes)will only grow worse as demand for bus service increases".Ken Osier � "� _
goes on to state that"As technology improves and older equipment is replaced,e:chaust emissioas '
from RFTA buses will improve.However,much af RFTA's older equipment isn't scheduled for �
replacement for several years,and then only if funding is available". _
The EHD and Staff recommend that the Appiicant be required to commit to mitigate a.�y i�crease � ' Y �
in PM-10 and to work with the EHD to establish verifiable and enforceable measures to acc�.,:plish '�.�
this objective. '" ' �
' ;:: �
Section�-270 Eperw Gonservation
The intent of tivs policy is to encourage features in�any development proposal which will conserve �
energy resources and min�mize the consumption of energy,The Applicant commits to using low �?�t
tlow water conserving devices and to design shvctures to take advantage of passive solar energy. �;.
Also,no woodbuming devices will be pernutted in the affordable housing units and the free-mazket �
'-,,
units will comply with Counry regulations regarding woodbucning devices. The Applicant also �,..f'
commits to several other energy conserving measures which aze listed on pages in the original ��
application.Staff believes that the Applicant may meet the requirements of the Code with respect to
�
. energy conservation. Siaff will refer the Detailed application to the Aspen/Piticin Counry Building
Department for an assessment of the projeci relative to the recently adopted energy code.
Section 2 fi0 CompaNbility With Eristing Adjacent NeigE�orhoods `��
'['his policy requires ti�at the Applicant consult with the local neighborhood caucus regazding the ;;�
compatibility of the uses proposed and comptiance with adopted neighborhood goals and
objecaves.Tl�e subject property is located ouuide of designated caucus azeas.
Staff has consistendy espressed concem over the appropriateness of the site for high density
residential development. The site is surrounded by existing uses that may degrade a quality
residential living environment The potential adverse impacts associated with the RFTA Bus �
Maintenance Facility,the County Public Works facilities,the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport,and the
Aspen rlirport Business Center have been discussed in other sections of this memo.Staff maintains
that theses issues continue to be of concem to t6e Community Development Department, while
acknowledging the fact that housing on the North Forry site may be appropriate if innovative
mitigaiion measures aze applied to accomplish the goal of providing more affordable housing units , a; '
in the me�o azea
.�:'.
SPctions� 140- Water Resource impacts �'
13 �'r �
S. :.
Li
'i
J :,
,'
i . �
� " '
�,�
:>: --
;1*
! �
� `.::�:`,
f,' .
`,
Section 5-107 of tiie Code is intended to conh�ol the impacts of development on surface wazer '
quality,irrigated areas,groundwater resources.streamflows,water supply,and riparian areas.The �" `'�
�..
subject propecty does not include any wetlands or other significant surface water resources.The � �
:Y.. .
drainage for the project can be designed to protect against any degradation in surface water quality. '�
Staff sees no significant issues with respect water resources other than those discassed under the -_
adequate provision of water needs and tiie drainage and erosion control discussions earlier in this �
memo.
Section 2-150-Noise
The Applicant has submitted a supplemental report prepazed by Engineered Dynamics that •
addresses the noise issues in detail(attached).The report's fmdings are stunmarized as follows: '
1. Traf�c noise at all residential lots on the site either now or after buiid out of the commercial .
portion of the site will comply with both the FHWA/CDOT acceptability criteria Therefore,no
noise mitigation is required for iraffic noise.
. 4��
2. Aircraft noise on ihe site while clearly audible is not significantly obtrusive.Since the site is ;
outside the Ldn 65 contour there are currently no County,State or Federal ordinances or laws that
- apply to aucraft noise.Pitkin County airport is currently in the process of developing Single-Eveni �
Level criteria as part of FAR Part 161, however ihe date when these criteria will 6e ready for j
implementation is unlmown. �
• �.
3. Bus Bam noise can be effectivety reduced to below the 50 db(A)Nighttime residenrial limit
by the installation of a noise barrier as described in Secrion 5.�of the report.The noise barrier can � +
be an earthen becm,concrete wall,a combination of earchen berm and concreYe wall,a commercial ,
building,or ihe back side of a residential rowhouse building.The actual conshvciion of the barrier
is not as important as the height of the barrier.
The Applicant submitted a drawing which indicates"four{4) altematives to mirigate acoustical
encroachment"(attached). One altemative is described as a 20 foot high wall along the northern
property line with a bean to soften the appearance of the wall on the project side.The Applicant has
suggested three altematives on the RFTA property to mitigate noise produced by buses. Those
"altematives" include: a 12-16 foot wall extending from the e:cisting RFTA Bam out 80 feet to
block sounds from buses in the warm up area;an 80 foot roof and wall e:ctension which would
enclose 16 additional buses and;a.100 foot tum around area in the norrheast comer of ihe RFTA
property which would allow buses to use the northem side of the Bus$am facilities and eliminate
the need for pazking buses along the Nortli Forty side.
RFTA points out that the"expansion of indoor parking,larger berms,and reversing the traff'ic flow
azound the Bus Bam will help reduce RFTA's impacu on ihe North Forty", however, public
` •.
I
14
/ ,.;F
, ���'`
- .
'
..i'
:i
. _ ,.�.., ,�.�..�
,, �:'`;;'�.
• funding is not available and"the cost of any improvemenu may have to be bome by the developec `- .
for lack of any other options." Kenny Osier goes on to say that unless funding sources can be ��
identified to purchase modem vehicles(less polluting),the areas uound the RFTA facilities may be '";
undesirable for residential development. RFTA outlines the problems facing the transit agency ' �;
today and states that as the valley grows,developezs and govemment alike must be held responsible
for the impacts of growth.Mr.Osier has submitted a number of recommendations that have been
incorporated into this review.
It is not clear to Staff whether ail or some of the proposed mitigation would be required. The
Applicant's engineer indicates that,"as the site plan is fiu�ther developed and economic alternarives 'r
are investigated, EDI shall evaluate the acoustical chazacteristics of the specific designs". Staff , .
tends to believe that a well designed wall or other such barrier along the common property line is _
the most practical and acceptable altemative.Staff recommends that the suggested"alternatives"be
assessed by EDI and the results submitted at Detailed Submission.
The Environntental Health Depamnent agrees with the conclusions made by EDI. Tom Dunlop
also submits that careful attention to design and conshuction of the buiidings closest to the Bus
Bam can fiuther reduce noise from outside sources.Added insulation and building material choices
will aid in noise miugation.Mr.Dunlop adds that"It will be difficult to declaze that the proposed
remedies will solve all noise associ�ted problems,but the options discussed will certainly help".
- The first referral to the EHD indicated that noise during conshvction cannot exceed ma�cimum
' permissible sound level standards, and consuucrion cannot occur accept between the hours of 7
A.v1.and 10 P.M.
�
The Airport Manager referred the EDI report to Mestre Greve Associates (Noise Consultants).-
Airport staff s position,based on Mestre Greves comments,is that the data collected by EDI is not
- adequate to support the report's conclusion that"Aircraft noise on the site while cleariy audible is
not significandy obtrusive."Mestre Greve clearly recommends addirional monitoring and states in
their letter that "the limited number of single event data presented in the report (no corporate
departures)is not sufficient to adequately describe the single event noise levels on the project site".
Airport staff recommends that the Applicant be required to conduct additional noise monitoring in
order to collect data in a sufficient amount to clearly demonstrate the single event aircraft noise
impacu at the site. Planning staff concurs with this recommendation and will sugoest that the
additional data be submitted with the Detailed Submission application.
REZONING:Currently,the property is zoned AFR-10;ten acre minimum lot size.The Applicant •
is requesting the rezoning to Affordable Housing(AI-F2/PUD).This zone dishict allows for a 100%
Resident Occupied pmject as now proposed by the Applicant
i
15
, 4
� , �'�
• r
e
-,�
. _ ,�.� __ __ _ �,,..�.
.; 'tl..
F r:
The Pitkin County Land Use Code requires all requests for rezoning to be considered in terms of "
how well they comply with the existing policies and regtilations of the Code,as well as how the •.
proposed rewning complies with ail applicable comprehensive plans.Colorado land use law also �`�
establishes a two-dered review for rezonings depending on whether the proposed rezoning is ,�, .
deemed to comply with the applicable comprehensive plan(s). If the rezoning complies, then •
presumably it is consistent with the goals and objectives of the community and need only meet the
additional test that it promotes the geneial welfaze of the community. If,however,the rezoning
conflicu with the comprehensive plan,then the Applicant must show either(a)that an error was
made in establishing the current zoning or(b)that there has been a change in the conditions of the .
neighborhood that supports the requested rezoning.
The project's compliance with the policies and regulations of the Code and the applicable •
comprehensive plans has been discussed at length earlier in this memo.The conclusion of the
Staff is that the ApQlicant's proposal is generally consistent with the Aspen Area Community
Plan and the Land Use Code.
PUD REQUIREMENTS:
The Applicant is requesting that the proposed project be reviewed under the Planned Unit
Development(PUD)section of the Land Use Code.The PUD section of the Code is another tool
for regulating land use and development,as aze zone districu and performance standards.These
tools aze intended to accomplish the goals and objectives of the community as they relate to
development.'Ihe PUD functions as an overlay to the existing zoning.That is,the requirements of
the underiying aone district aze considered the basis from which alterations may be allowed,
providing those variations accomplish the pucposes of the PUD and facilitate better compliance �
with the policies and regulations of the Code than would have been achieved without the variarions.
� The proposed minimum lot size of 3,000 square feet meets the AHZ zone district's minimum lot
azea requirements for detached residential dwellings. Minimum lot widths, setbacks, heights,
minimum open space per unit and minimum distance between buildings aze determined according
to the PUD revie�v criteria,as described below.
PUD Review riteria
Section 3-170 sets out the criteria for allowing variations from strict adherence to the area and bullc
requirements as defined in Secrion 3�}0.The intent of the PUD section is to facilitate compliance
wiih the policies and regulations of the Code.There aze five specific purposes listed under Section
3-170.10,which read as follows: '
a) Promoting flexibility in [he type, design, and siting of structures to preserve and take
advantage of the site's unique,natival,resource or scenic features and to avoid or mitigate
any ha�ardous azeas.
`
I
16
/
,'
� ' .
:
-;.
...-T'v��a.._
Y ti,
�'�;.
k,-,,i.'•-
�:;'
'.i':
t' �' . .
b) Encouraging more efficient use of land and public streets, utilities, and �ovemmental � `�•
services.
1,
,"-;
c) Preserving open space for the benefit of residenu of developments as well as the t
community in general.
d) Achieving a compatible land use relationship with surrounding areas. �'.�..
,`;,� �
e) Promoting greater variety in the type,design,and siting of bwldings and thereby improving
the character and quality of new development. , -
,�amman�of P� •
The purpose of tjie PUD is to allow variations in the shict compliance of the area and bulk T
requirements of the Code in order to facilitate better compliance with the policies and regulations of
the Code. The proposal may require variations to the minimum lot size, setbacks, and height `
requirements of the Code.In exchange the project preserves recreational open space(soccer field) �''
which will benefit both residents of the development and the community as a whole and by �;
allowing smaller lots for this project it also makes it more practical to achieve the County's policy �
regazding the provision of affordable housing. The specific variations that may be required by the
- project will be fully assessed at Detailed Submission. �'
�
1041 HAZAIiDS �.
k',
''�.
Slopes:The subject property contains slopes in escess of 30 percent in the extreme northeastem
portion.The portion of the site proposed for deveiopment will not encroach on slopes in escess of
� 15 perccnt. _
�e
Wildlife:The subject property does not include any mapped wildlife habitat.
Wildfire:The property is mapped as low wildfire hazard.The site consists of sagebrush,various
shrubs and grasses and does not pose a wildfire threat. •
f:�
Staff recommends that the area of steep slopes in the northeastem portion of the pmperty remain t;
undeveloped and that these la�ds are protected from disturbance via a condition of approval and/or ly
protective covenant of the subdivision. �..
SCEi�iIC FOREGROiTND OVERLAY: Section 3-60 of the Land Use Code establishes the ��,
following review criteria for development within scenic overlay areas: ,
' `�.
�.
� .
,
� � I .
17
�
�
� ';'
. �
e
.d" , •
�,�
� E-:.r*,:;
�'' _.'
(1) Whether the development has utilized e.risting topography and natural
vegetaHon,such as ridges and hills to screen buildings to the maximum eztent �'.�,
possible. � �
; ..j
Response: The project will utilize the existing bluffs adjacent to Highway 82 to screen a small
portion of the development Staff would point out that there is little in the way of topography or
existing vegetation that will effectively screen the majority of the project as it will be perceived
from Highway 82 and surrounding properties. .
Y "
(2} Whether the development has been designed to complement the natuml •
topography of the land, iacluding, whenever possible and appropriate, the � '
utilization of innovative architectural techniques such as earth sheltered �
design, natural materials and coloring, non-reflectability and clustering of
structures on the least visible portians of the site.
Response: The Applicant believes that the proposed location of the CMC building will serve to
screen some of the residentia(development.Staff will recommend that the Applicant be required to
utilize non-reflective,natiu�al materials and coloring for exterior building materials for the entire �
project.
(3) Whether the developmenYs height and buik has been designed to avoid,to the
ma�cimum extent possible, the visibility of buildings from the highway and
public viewplanes.
Response: The height and bulk of the residences aze described in the proposed Protective ±"
covenants for ihe development.The dimensions listed would appeaz to meet County standazds.Ihe
height of the CMC building and the accessory commercial buildings are not specifically listed in
the application,although it is represented that they will be limited to one story.
(4) The proposed structure shall be placed so it does not break a ridgeline,unless
there are no alternate building sites on the lot.
Response:N/A
(� Whether the proposed development has avoided the location of uses on the
highest ground or most visible portion of the site as viewed from State
Highway 82 and public right-of-ways,identified in Section(B)(1).
Response: The project site is approximately 100 feet lower in elevation across the entire parcel
than Highway 82. It would appeaz to Staff that the bulk of the residential development will be
visible over the top of the proposed CMC building and any future commercial buildings located
closest to the highway.
i
, lg
� � ,`
• �
�
,
�;`;`.
t::;�i,�
(� Whether the development has been Iocated outsidc of the designated Scenic : '
Overlay, or on a suitable site at the greatest distance possible £rom State �':
Aighway 82 and iden�ed ridgelines. ' :;
Response:The entire properry is located in the Scenic Foreground Overlay area
('� Whether the development has been landscaped in accordance with the adopted ���'
State Highway 82 Corridor landscape guidelines and 6as preserved natural
.:;r.
vegeta6on, to the mazimum eatent possible, including the avoidance of
development within irrigated meadows. Existing vegetation shall be . .
maintained to the maximum eatent possible,while using eaisting vegetarion to .
screen development. A landscaping ptan shail be submitted by t6e Applic�nt
and approved by the Pianning and Zoning Commission.
Response: Staff feels that some additionai h�ee plancings in key viewpianes will serve to further
buffer the visual impacts associated with the developmeat, as they relate to Highway 32. Staff
recommends that a detailed landscape plan be submitted to che Community Development i'.
Department at Detailed Submissioa, which indicates landscaping treaIInents which serve to
screenlsoften the vie�v of the buildings from Highway 82.
(8) Whether the developmenNs eaterior lighting has been designed in such a
manner that light sources,such as facade and landscape lighting,wilI not be
seen from public right-of-ways as iden�ed in Sectiou(B)(1). In addition,an
applicafion shall be coasistent with the (ighting regularions identified in the 5�==
Pitkin Couuty Land Use Code.
Response:.Exterior lighting was addressed in the proposed Protecdve Covenants,yet the lighting
of CMC, the pazking lot(s), roads, and the cortunercial buildings has not been addressed. Staff
recommends that all lighting comply with the lighting regulations of the Land Use Code, to be
demonstrated at detailed submission.
(9) Landforms and earth moving shall senerally not be acceptable as the sole
measure of compliance with these plan. Tfiese methods may be acceptable
when utilized as one of several methods to complement and enhance
developmeut,rather than as the single device for screening development from
view from the State Highway 82 Corridor and as mapped.
Response:The Applicant may be proposing a 20 foot high wall for the purpose of mitigating the
.negative effecu of the RFTA bus bam facility to the west of the project site.Prel'uninary desigvs
show that the wall will be bernted on the North Forty-side to improve the aesthetics, Staff is not
i
19
/
,1
� r
�:.i
�..
�'
�,,:
sure what the visual effects of the wall will be from highway,but it is possible that the wall will be
mostly hidden by existing and proposed s�uctures,landforms,and vegetation.
(10) Whet6er the development has been designed so as to avoid,to the maximum `: :
e�tent possible,any Scenic Viewptane identified on the adopted State Highway
82 Corridor Master Plan and Down Valley Comprehensive Plan.
Response:No such Scenic Viewplane applies to this property.
(11) Ia the case where 1041 Hazard Areas may 6e in conflict with preservation of
scenic areas, the Baard acknowledges that 1041 issues take precedence over
. scenic concems. These issues shall be reviewed on a case by case basis.
Response: 'the proposed development will not create any such conflicts.There are no significant
1041 Hazard issues associated with the project.
Scenic Overlay Summary: Provided that earth tone colored materials aze used on the facades,
non-reflective roof materials are used,landscaping is implemented.and County lighting standards
are adhered to,the project may have an acceptable visual impact on surrounding areas in light of
the nature of a residentiaUcommercial development of this size.
SPECIAL REVIEW USES: The proposed project includes rivo activities which require Special
Review under the AH2 zone district.One is the CMC campus and other is the proposed accessory
commercial uses.As the progammatic details of the CMC campus aze not yet available and the
appropriate level of accessory commercial uses have yet to be determined,Staff recommends that
these uses be reviewed under Special Review/GMQS criteria at Detailed Submission.
AREAS AROUND KEY FACILITIES:
Airport-All or a portion of the property is within the Airport High Hazard Zone(AP-I�as defuied
on the Counry 1041 Hazard maps.The Applicant has an Avigation Easement with the County,as
documented in the application.The concems of the Aitport Manager on the project's proximity to
the airport aze documented in the November 7,1995 Staff memo to the P&Z(attached).
Aspen Consolidated Sanitution District Facilities- The ACSD treatment facility, located
immediately to the north of the project site,has been able to mitigate odors from the facility in the
past, but it is a potentially serious issue. The ACSD is willing to add addirional odor control '
measures,at the Applicant's expense.The ACSD also points out that run-off from the initial AABC
development has been a problem for them in the past and recommends[hat run-off from the Norrh
Forty project should be mitigated on-site. Staff recommends that the Applicant work with the
ACSD for the purpose of defining what odor miugation might be reasonably required and that a
�
20
� . ,:'
+ ,
....
���`� _ _ . . , _ . ..
iL''.4,• "
ptan for odor mitigateon be submitted at Detailed Submission.The County Engineer wilI require
that a drainage and erosion control ptan be submitted ai Detailed Submission,as stated previously.
�
ti,
GROWTIi iVIANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM EY�vIPTIONS: The Applicant originally
applied for three different GVIQS Exemptions. Staff detemuned that the Appiicants request for s � '� ,
GVIQS Exemprion for Commercial Developments with Negligible Growth Impacts could not be
applied to all of the originally proposed commercial space.The Applicant subsequently withdre�v
apprmcimately 27,000 square feei of commercial from their application, prior to the fust P&Z
review. Staff supports the GMQS exemprion for the CMC campus as an Essential Community
Facility and acknowledges that the North Forty project is esempt from GMQS scoring and :r'
competiuon.It is innportant to poznt out, however, ttiat the projeci must meet the criteria for an
`excegtional"project,which is the same as the GMQS criteria,in order to obtain optiona!mutti- �
year devefopment allotments,as described below. '
OPTIONAL MLTI.TI-YEAR AEVELOPMENT ALLOTMENTS FOR"EYCEPTIONAL"
PROJECTS: Land Use Code Secuon 3-16030(B)states that the Board of County Commissioners
sha11 be authorized to make optional multi-year allotments available to "exceptional" projects.
$ecause the award of optional multi-year allotments may result in fewer allotments being available
in subsequent yeazs,the use of these optional allorinents shall be reserved for exceptional projects
which show particulaz sensitivity•to the community and it's needs. Ihe Code requires that the
' Community Development Director review the application and recommend a score in each of four
categories to the Growth Management Corrunission for rheir consideration.T'he Commission ihen
scores the project and forwazds said scores,and any recommendations for the award of optional
mul6-year ailotments,to the Boazd of County Commissioners and the City Council.
!
Scoring:Possible scores for each criterion range from zero,the lowest possible score,to five,the
� highest possible score.A score of zero shall be awarded to projecu thaY actually concribute nothing
to the articulated vision and may,in fact,move the community further away from it's stated�oals.
A score of three indicates that a Qroject will move the community closer towazd attainment of stated
visions and make a positive contribution towazd the implementation of articulated goals.A score of
five indicates that a project demonstrates an eaLCeptional sensirivity to stated visions of the
communiry and will result in significant movement toward implementation of those goals.
The Code states that"No growth management allocations shall be awazded to projects that do not
receive a fmal average score of at least three points for each of the growth management scoring
criteria of Sections 3-160.50 C.1;C2,C3,and C.4."
Scoring Criteria:The four following community-based scoring criteria are intended to encourage • �
unaginative,innovative,and fle:cibie approaches to advancing the visions of Aspen area residents.
1. Revitalizing the permanent community
21
. 'I�_',r,`" .
, �
a '
. ,
�
These are a variety of ways in which a project might address the goal of revitalizing the !��'
permanent comtnunity,including,but not limited to the following:
�..
a providing high-quality,on-site,affordable housing for pem�anent residents; .�
, .�.
Sta.ff response:The North Forty proposal has the potential to provide on-site Resident Occupied
housing for the community. With respect to the issue of quaiity,Staff has consistentty expressed
concem over the appropriateness of the site for high density residential development.The site is
surrounded by e:cisting uses ihat may degrade a quality residenual living environment. The
potential advetse impacts associated with the RFTA Bus Maintenance Facility,the County Public :''
Works facilities, the Aspen/Pitkin County Aitport, and the Aspen rlirport Business Center have
been discussed in other sections of the Staff memo. It is difficu(t to detemvne how"affordabie" ' �
these RO lots will be after all the iafrastructuie and associated costs are figured into the equation, �
yet che potential for a small community that is somewhat based on the ability to pay(size/type of
home)is an atriactive proposition.
b. providing site appropriate mixing of free-mazket and affordable housing for
efficient provision of services such as transit and discourages site planning
that isolates af£ordable housing and free-market units;
. Staff response: The proposa4 to deed-restrict to 100% RO with no free-market component
elimina[es the probtem of isolating free-mazket from affordable housing,as theoretically,al]of the
housing will be affordable.Staff fee[s that a primary purpose of the�,I-I zone district is to promote
social balauce within the community and the unfortunate result of eliminating the free-market and
category housing is that it wilI Iessen the potential for"across the board"social balance within the �+�
development - •
c. providing a housing package consistent with the Housing Authority Guidelines with
an emphasis on family-oriented housing.where and when appropriate;
Staff response:The Applicant has represented that the proposal for 100%RO will be consistent
with the Housing Authority Guidelines.The development will provide an opportunity for family-
oriented affordable housing.
d. creating affordabie dwelling units throuu�h buy�owns or conversion of&ee-
marke[tuuts;and�
Staff response:There will be no buy-downs or conversion of free-mazket units associated with the
development �
e. providing"locally serving commercial space/businesses".
I �'
1
. 22
/ ` . ' (":'�4 �
l;
. �y..,::�.
-� .
.a. .
' �w;�:::
{�;;�::;;:'�.
Staff response: The proposal will provide some limited commercial space, accessory to the �;_ ':���
, residential developmeni,that will serve locally serving businesses. . �
•;� �
Recommended score:3 ti,
2. Providing hansportation altematives �y .
i.�..
These are a variety of ways in which a project might address the goal of pmviding
h�ansportation altematives,inctuding,but not limited to the following: -
a reducing the need for private vehicles as a form of transportation; ''�'?''
k.�
b. facilitating and encouraging year-round pedesh-ian u�ansportation; � "
j:.: '.
c. helping to implement a valley-wide mass h�ansit system; �:�
� .,
F
d. providing needed improvements ta fhe RFTA system;
f
e. increasing the number of available transportation choices; y':�
f. creating a tess congested downtown core; ��'.
. ,�
. g. helping to implement the h�ansportation policies of the AACP and the Aspen �.'i
- to Snowmass transportation plan; '
h. altering land use pattems to accommodate and contrihute to a more efficient
and effective transit system;
i. + creating,improving,or expanding public commuter trails,walkways or
bil:e�vay facilities that are consistent with the goals of the AACP and s
associated plans,such as the pedestrian/bikeway plan; -
j. locating developments near hansit facilities; �
k. providin�on-�oing transportation to and from the airport,ski azeas and
shopping areas;
1. providing on-going employee hansportation services such as van pools or '
buses at no cost to employees;
� .
� m. providing bicycle pazking,showers and lockers for�uests and employees; �
��1`}
23 �� , '•
�e�. ,
,;�
�
i . �;�,��� .
. ' .
a
,.i �
,>
.<� ..
"�'x ,�-. , ;,.; , : �
� ,,.,.._ . ...__. . ......,. .
, .. . ,�
�e�'�
F: �r;
. �
'� -
n. providing secure bicycie storage for guests and employees. r;� .,.,
ti.
Staff response:Although the Applicant states that"reducing the dominence of the automobile"and ;.'�.� -�
providing iranspottation alternatives is a primary goal of the project,the application provides little .�'''
information regarding transit service or altemarives to the use of private vehicles. The Applicant t:+�..
has not proposed to contribute to improvements to the transit system,in fact,the Applicant believes
that RFTA should beaz a large portion of the cost of mirigating the adverse impacts of the Bus Bam ��;°:
facility.The Applicant has suggested that the trails system be integrated with e.�isting trails in order
to faciliYate pedestrian and bicycle use, although the Applicant has not committed to fund ��� r
improvements and/or new tiails. The Applicant has not proposed any on-going �ansportation k'"�
alternatives for employees and/or residents of the development The development is located on an � �
existing transit system and[here are bus stops at either end of the development off of Highway 82. ; �
�� .
Recommended score:3 �•
�;
s
3. Promoting environmentally sustainable development �
�;r�,
These are a variety of ways in which a project might address the goal of promoting
envuonmentalty sustainable development,inciuding,but not limited to the foilowing: �`
. �,�
a. orienting building sites,s�eets and other project features in order to
maximize potential for use of solar energy and other renewable energy
resources;
b. protecting and preserving esisting trees and other mahue vegetation during
. and after the conshuction process; -
- c. using fe�ver or cleaner woad-buitvng devices than allowed by law; ,
�i•
d, removing or replacing existing dirty wood-bvrning devices;
�
e. increasing community access to natural and open space areas; a�
� I�,
f, pro�noting communiiy recycling efforts; '
;
i
g, landscaping with"low-water-use plant materials and using chemical-free
tandscape maintenance techniques; , .
h. employing me�sures that reduce PM-10 levels in the non-attainment area;
��
i. preserving and efficiently using environmental resources during all phases � ,
of development,including types of materials used and future energy and � -
,.
i �. � _
r-
24
i � ,'?
—.. �
a
;i" ,
-,i
v . T•�,';,,.
�;{:-,-
A°"�:;;`. :
,. .; �:.
� material needs of the projecT; • ; `•
j. completely avoiding"1041"hazard areas and ridgeiine development; '`�.
1.
k. enhancing existing wild(ife habitat; ��..��,�
1. avoiding 8040 Greenline issues;
m. completely avoiding Stream Margin Review issues;
7 .:
Staff response:The proposed design of the subdivision appears to respond to the site in a way that •
will allow for the efficient use of solaz energy.The proposal may increase the public's ability to - -
access open space by improving and building new trail cocuiections.The application did not address •
the issues of low-water-use landscaping,recycling,or preservation of e:asting vegetarion except on
the steep portions of the parcel.The Applicant did not propose specific measures that would reduce
PNf-101evels in the non-attainment area,other than.the use of e:cisting transit facilities.The project
wiil avoid 1041 hazard areas and ridgefine development.
Recommended score: 3
4. Maintaining design quality,historic compatibility,and community
- character
These are a variety of ways in which a project might address the�oai of maintaining
design quality,historic compatibiliry,and communiry chazacter,including,but not limited
to the following: �
� a. restoring struchues listed in[he inventory of historic suuctures;
b. improving and mainiaining the appearance and function of alleys for
commercial,office and residential uses;
c. ensuring design compatibility with existing buildings in the vicinity of the
proposed project,in tenns of scale,massing,building materials,feneshation,
other azchitecturnl features and open space;
d, including porches or other"pedestrian friendly"features;
e. retaining and promoting eclectic and varietal businesses along main su�eet '
that maintain arid enhance the special character of the lustoric districr,
f. ensuring the site's usability for social activities.
-.
25 �
� •
-' r. .
i . � '{'��;�}�.. .
1 '.
"� t
..�
� :v..
1`��'�'
�,.�;�;:...�.
:1
i%
Staff response:The Applicant has included proposed Restrictive Covenants(attached)which begin �,�,, .,
to address how this new community might develop it's own distinct character.The iniroducrion to ti,
the Covenants describe the project as a"new Aspen town site,comprised of detached single-family ;;�.�• �
homes,where the size of the house is in the proper proportion ro the size of the loP'.The Covenanu '' '
outiine specific design and azchitectural guidelines to assure the developer's vision.The Applicant �
i``
has also described some general characterisrics of the development, which include alleys, front
porches,appropriately scaled streets,small detached gazages,informal social gathering places,and -
enhanced pedestriazi/bike trails. '.
.;.r
Staff feels that the proposed site plan and design guidelines possess many qualities,and viewed by k '
themseives without considerafion to other issues, should be considered to be an admirable �E� �
conceptual vision for a new residentiat community. r' �
,.;:
Recommended score:5
Summarv of Growth Management Commission Findinas �
\
The GMC unanimously(12-0)determined that the North Forty project is an"Exceptional"project '.�
as defined in the Land Use Code. The Commission recommends that the Board of County ��I
Commissioners approve the ApplicanYs request for Optional Muiti-Yeaz Development Allotments. �
- Some of the comments from the GMC scoring sessions are attached for reference. �i
The Commission determined that the multi-yeaz allo�►ents for the 71 R.O.units should be taken
"off the back"which would leave 8 R.O.units available for each of the next 14 years(the current __
base allotment per yeaz is 8 units)with no R.O.units available after the 14th yeaz.Staff agrees with
this accounting method because we believe that affordable housing should to be provided for the
community as soon as possible, and that developers will likely need R0. units for mixed(free-
' market,Category,&R.O.)AH projects in the near future. ;
STAFF SUMMARY:Staff has consistently expressed concem over the appropriateness of the site
for high density residential development.The site is surrounded by existing uses that may degrade a
qualiry residential living environment. The potential adverse impacts associated with the RFTA
Bus Maintenance Facility,the County Public Works facilities,the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport,the
City Snow Dump,and the Aspen Airport Business Center have been discussed in other secrions of
this memo. Staff mainiains that these issues continue to be of concern to the Community �
Development Deparhnent,while acknowledging the fact that housing on the North Foriy site may
be appropriate if innovative mirigation measures, and specific azchitectural and constivction r ,
guidelines,are applied to accomplish the community's gaal of providing more affordable housing �'
units in the me�o azea.
���
�.,
,
�� , I..,.
26
,'�
i
� . ,,,
.
a
.:.�
�`�
r;'
,;>.,.
��
STAFF SUMMARY:Staff has consistently expressed�oncem over the appropriateness of the site _
for tugh density residential development.The site is surrounded by existing uses that may degrade a ?' .,
:�:,_ .
quality residential living environment. The potential adve[se impacts associated with the RFTA .
Bus Maintenance Facility,the County Public Works facilities,the.�spen/Pitkin County Airport,ihe � �
City Snow Dump,and the Aspen Aitport Business Center have been described in other sections of �' '
dus memo. Staff maintains that these issues continue to be of concern to the Community y.'�..
Development Department,while acknowledging the fact that housing on the North Forty site may
be appropriate if innovative mitigation measures, and specific architectwal and construction =
guidelines,are applied to accomplish the community's goal of providing more affordable housing
units in the me�o area. ' *
'k -
RECOMIV�NDATION: Staff is recommending approva!of the lst Reading of the Nocth Forry '� '
Concertual Subm;ssion,subject to the following conditions: �!; �
l. The Applicant shal]adhere to all material representations in the application and in the
public meetings.
<.t
2. At Detailed Submission,the Applicant shall provide the following new and supplemental �,-,.
• information: •4.',
a. A Subdivision Im rovements A ement,in a form that is �
p gre agreeable to the County
- Attorney,which addresses all public improvements associated with the project, i
including but not limited to,roads,alleys,utilities,lighting,trails,landscaping,
revegetation and signing,the cost of which shall be bome by the Applicant
�
b. A Construction Management Pian which includes,but is not limited to,the
management of conshvction tr�c,a fugitive dust contro(plan,the staging of
� construction equipment and materiats,hours of conshvction,and public notification
plans for road closures or any other public inconveniences during construction. ;
c. A comprehensive Transportation Mitigation Plan which addresses the measures to
be used to offset the transportation related impacu of the development,including i
but not limited to,pedestrian,bicyc(e,vehicular,and mass iransit.The Plan shall
include an estimate of the Total Daily Trapsit Demand of the project at buildout,in
order to assess the impacts of the development on RFTA uansit vehicte and
operational needs.The Plan shal!address the future potential for light rail service
to the development and any other�ansportation altematives that may be urilized by :;�
residents and/or employees.
d. A comprehensive drainage and erosion control plan that includes,but is not limited �
' to,a basin area study which encompasses the subject property and adjacent ;•�•
properties. �.�
a�`
, , i
27 t`�
��',
�.�
j
, ''� „
.-. �
e
.:�
_... � ., ...
, . ,,_ .. .
._ _ . �.. �
�;`•
� ,. .
,
e. Detailed plans for a private water service system or written commitrnent from the �. � .
City of Aspen to provide water service for the project. � � -
` , �.�
f. A Fiscal Impacts Analysis that addresses the issues of road and intersection
improvements,mitigation of transportation impacts,and a!1 other necessary 'i:
improvements and services for the entire project. �
f:"•<.
I:_;7. ':
g. A PM-10 mitigation progracn containing speci&c,enforceable control measures
approved by the Environmental Health Depamnent.The plan must include �
documentation showing that the pmposed mitigation will fiilly mitigate or offset all `
PM-10 increases caused by the project. � �
h. Conshuction details on all proposed roadways and alleys to measure conformance t
with County Roadway Standazds and Specifications.
i. A report from the Applicant's consultant on the effectiveness of the proposed �.
altematives(walls and landscaping)fat mitigating the adverse legal impacts of the
RFTA Bus Bam. �'
�
j. Additional data.on Single-Event Aircraft Noise that more clearly demonshates the .��j
. ,,
]evel of these events in relation to the project site. "
�
k. A detailed Landscaping and Planting Plan which includes,but is not Iiauted to, ;`
providing screening/softening of the project from surrounding properties and + �,
Highway 82,provisions for pleasant outdoor public space,and the revegetataon of
azeas disturbed during construction.
1. Provisions for fire protection for the development,to be approved by the Aspen Fire �'S
Protection District.
m. A reporc which addresses noise reduction techniques and materiats that may be
utilized in the construcrion andlor siting of residential dwelling units. � �'
�;�
n. A Biological Inventory of the site to detemune if there aze any rare,threatened,or �'
endangered species on the subject groperty,to be approved by the County Land y
' Management Department. �� ,
o. A pian which addresses the methods and techniques that may be necessary to ��
. mitigate odors from the Aspen Consolidated Sazritation Dis�ict�eahnent plant
;
p. Revised Resuictive Covenants which include,but aze not limited to,provisions to $� -
� i
28
� '.
. i': .
i . ' ? '
. ' .,
, .
.a' ,
:..
�'t$ y
�•!:?1;�
T����.•."'.t'•�:�'��r.
S�".....'.
insure the design quality,historic compatibility,and community character of the ; ,: " '
project,and insure conformance with other County regulations. -
:�.;._ .�
q. The tlpplicant shall provide documentation regarding the measures to be apptied to � � �'
assure the continued affordabiliry of the project in the ne.rt 5 to 10 years. `� �.�'�
3. The Applicant shall submit a Detailed Submission application for the North Forty � � .
project to the Community Development Departrnent within one year of Conceptual
Submission approvat by the Boazd of County Commissioners.
,r r,.
4• The"AH/Accessory Commercial"parcel shall be designated on the Detailed/Final Plat. ��-�
GMQS and Special Review approvals shafl be required prior to any development of the �__. - "
__ . _.__..._.__AH/Accessory•Comrnercial parecl.Tlia�pplicant shall have die option to request a - F.. •
rezoning to B-2,in associauon with the GMQS and Special Review application,for a r;
portion of the AH/Accessory Commercial parcel.The GMQS and Special Review shall ��,..
determine the appropriate level of AH/Accessory uses and whether or not the B-2 rezoning
5.
and it's associated uses are appropriate for the pazcel.The Applicant shall also have the �
oprion of urilizing the curtently contemplated AH Overlay zone district via a rezoning �; "
request,should the new zone be appropriate for the North Forty project. �`��J�
ATTACI�IIENTS: .�•
j
I. Acousticai Study
2. Traffic Impact Analysis
3. Air Quality�Sc Odor Study
4. November 7,1995 Staff inemo to P&Z w/attacEunenu
5. June 6,1996 Staffmemo to GMC w/attachments
� .6. GMC comments from scoring sessions
.:�
.�
i '
r,� .
��.
;
�� '
29 F . �
' . �
� i '1'�''..
� �
.
:s�
xy
�
i ��` '
z''..
S
�-31�
September 3, 1996 , -
�
Pitkin County Gommission J ti�
Planning and Zoning Department �
Dear Commissioners
The AABC Rowhouse Homeowners Association(RO homeowners for some 20 years)would �j��`?
]ike to go on record as having the following concerns relative to the proposed North 40 ;. ,`-
RO development: r
(1)the spatial changes inherent in this high-density project will impact our quality of life; " _
(2) the increased traffic and parking problems from 71 families, as well as the other �
numerous components (CMC campus,soccer field,post office,etc.)will add to the already �
� heavy traffic flow currently experienced;
(3)the noise and dust from years of heavy construction(which prevailing winds will bring �
to our homes 5rst), even with a 2-year buildout, will be a problem.
We have met with John McBride and Jamie Knowlton. They acknowledge that both ,;.
Rowhouse Homeowners a�td eventual North 40 residents will benefit if some form of `'`'
r
buffer zone is established between the nearest North 40 homes and the Rowhouses. In �
order to help alleviate some of the tremendous impact of the North 40 project on q
• Rowhouse Homeowners'investments and quality of life,and to soften the visual impact �
of the Rowhouses on North 40 owners,we suggest the following possible solutions. These �
ideas, and others not included here, have only been discussed with Mr. McBride, and
have not been decided upon. They are that: �
C�. .:
;,
(1) the developer eliminate the two lots closest to the Rowhouses, and.establish, ��
. landscape, and maintain this area as open space;
(2)any roads or pedestrian zones established in the aforementioned open space areas be
deemed"pedestrian only",meaning NO motor vehicles, with the exception of emergency
vehicles only, to be allowed; `
(3)the developer deed, lease, or sell 10' of land to the Rowhouse Homeowners. �
The above concessions by Mr. McBride will serve to reduce some of the impact of the ��
North 40 to Rowhouse Homeowners. By selling,deeding,or leasing land to the Rowhouse
Homeowners, the F.A.R. ratio for our hones would be improved to the degree that '
Rowhouse Homeowners would be able to make certain improvements to the north side �'
of our units. These improvements would then lessen the visual impact of the Rowhouses
for the North 40 residents. , .
Respectfully su�mitted,
�/ li
�r _�� !
Ju yr�Pe�a'ce (
Pnesident, A.ABC Rowhouse Homewners Association '
i
lp •
/ , ,,.
1 � .
,
. ..
�>.
� .... .�... ...... .... . .� . . .�_. ... .... �
�r.
; �' 9-3-9�
AGENDA 17'EM SUMMARY
�..
MEETING AGENDA DATE: August 28,1996 . '•._�
AGENDA ITEM TiTLE: Authorizing the County Attorney to Amend the
Addendum to the Vacant Land Contract to Buy and Sel1 Real Estate Between Pit};in
County and the Seven 5tar Partnership �.'��
STAFF RESPONSIBLE: John Ely ��z
DESCRIPCION OF 1SSUE: The Addendum to That Vacant Land Contract to • '
Buy and 5e11 Real Estate Uetween Pititin County and the Seven Star Partnership which : -
was executed on Janua►y I9,1995,provides that Seven Star shall Ue entitted to re-enter
the Pcoperty purchased by Pitkin County and title revert to Seven Star in the event that
notice of intent ta re-enter is given to Pitkin County wi#hin 13 months of closing if no '.
final action on Seven Star's land use application is taken by either Pitkin County or the
Town of Snowmass Village. Pitkin County pu�chased the Seven Star property on !:
February 3,1995,setting the 18 month deadlii�e at September S,1996. Seven Star is in ;:�`,
the land use review process with the Town of Snowmass Village for approval of a two
lot subdivision and annesation into the Town. Concepriial approval is pending and if
granted,the application wilf proceed for finat review. This cannot be accomplisl�ed
within in the 18 month cleadline attd 5even Star Partnership has requested a six month �'�
extension in which to coinply with the provisions of the Addenducn.
:
�
� i,.
;
�
�.�:
. �;,
;� � i
?!.;;
, x
,�. ,' .
, �
�
e -
;;
._-_____�._..__.____....__ �f { .;
., �'.T
� ' ���� ����� ���� . `
�
. �...
,• �3�;�c .
' Aspen,Culor�dcr .
. �
PKOOI� OI.� 1'U13LIC�1,'.I.'IUN
s�rnr�or coc,ozznuo� _
)ss. Co�,y c�f Nolicc .
County of Pitkin ) . •
1,Arrd,y Slaar.,do solemnly Swe�r Ihal I am lhe I:dllur �nceoFruuucHe�uuric n��«��n�i.�u��m�,PPU�,ne�.m
In Cldet ot 7[1G ASPGtJ'1'IM 1�5.��tA���1L•SillllP�S i1 W CCl:�y' PLEASE TAKE NO710E:That/he Board ol �wmpkled wltMn Ihc lE mattA 11me perbd
news a er dnled,ln,wliole or In ad,nnd wblislicd In c�°^�r com��..io�«,a ruki�co���r, �nK�n�ai^m�"m�^°�"�;^^e
P P P P 1 eAw�wo,�n<o�a�i��au�nw�me��m� l Ponuant�o Pan�aph 5 0l�he Adtlendum
ll�e Cotmiy o[l'ilkln,Slale o[Colorado,nnd has ti gencrnl blbwing OrAbunw at lOUp m.on SePtember �o rn.�v����..�e c�«.«io e�r a�a s�n
�,1996 N the eoard ot Counry Commisslonen Real Fsntq Serm Sur Pannenh(p mus�arv<
dreulation lherein;��18�6:1�C�IICIVS�l:1��C��t1$�ll•Ch �1lIV- MeelingRoom.530EastMalnStreN.Aspen, dleeolltsinlmlloreacaWrelhePropertyby
,Iished eonlLiuousl and uiiinlerru leell in s�Id Co�ml ���aatla 81611,�t whlcA Ilme anJ P��ce dl s��«mn�.a,ivss.oK�u.��o n�ai aKiem�
Y P Y Y mem6ers ol the pu6lfc mey apprar and be hu 6em rrntlnnf on�he land use appilc�tlon
o[I'ilkln,(or n perbd oE more Il��n fitly-ltivo consecuUvc nw.m .��muaa�am�T�ao�s�..m�+:nu.c�io.
� weeks nexl prior lo lhe[Irsl puUlicaUon o(Il�e annexed 'W08DWANCEOF7HEBOARDOFCOUIYfY nu`P'°'i<a:�mo us`",��'i��fim�:n
COMMLSSIONFR40FPfi7(IfiCOUNTY. N�a
• legal nollce or ndverllse�nenl;Umi s�ld newspn��cr h�s �'�r°����o�"�.°D.�.�pN°D��°o �o`�amPi«�nh��,°�n�wP��s:�a:�w«
been admllled lo lhe Unlled Slales�n�lls as secmid clnss SFFYI.ftEU.FSTA7EDATEDIANUARYl9,1995, Ilnal appmval lrom tM Town ol5nowmass
se-rwv�rrrxiN cowm�wn rrie vma`a,�
. , matter under ll�e provlsfotis of lhe Acl of March J, 1D7°, sevrxscurrerrrnmsrov s. i�om<r ior,n�uo.�a o�co���r
or an ameCtd�henl5 lheieo(�8�1CI IIIII Si1ICI I7ClV$�il 1C1'IS il C.ommhqonen ro gnnt such an rxtenslon al
y � � Serin 1996 time;the Addendum to Tha�Va<ant Land
a tiveeWy newspaper duty quali(ied for publishin�;Irrnl o�ai���.— co�o-,«co a�r•�a s.n e�ai e.�.«m�,�n�
noUces and ndverlisements w11h lhe nicanin�,uf Ihc I�ws �,pnJuwaryl9,I995,�Ia�c�myanaea Hrn��i,�TMqtFFUIt�BEROPDAINm,tlullhe
of llie5lale o[Color�do, mm+��e�aiea�,ndwMnc«�n�im em,.a nt Cuunly Comml�sioneri n�..nr
Buy antl5dl Real Fs�aeaM Addmdum lo Thal uthorlxea the County Atlomry�o neyo�late
. � . Vaeant LanA Contrut ro Buy and Sell Real 1M1e amendmmt ol IM1e Addendue to TAat
1'liat llie amiexed le �1 noUce or adverlisemeul tv�s iu��- E*�'rc aor the�rccnu�ol anv�axxaatdy 20o Vxant Laad ConVact to euy and Shc Real
s � aeres ol proD«�Y along BrusA Creet Road Estate to e:tend the deadline unul March e,
. lisl�ed ln Ihe regular and enUre Issae uf evcry wunUer u( �«^m°^�Y k^°�'^"N°x^'°'s��.wMn.�e 1996,for Serm 54r Partndship m��.�rukm
m rc hdyr desalbed as•vatl o!land dtuaied CeuMy nalee ol Its)ntem�o rcaequtre the .
� saldweeWynewspa�erfortheperfodo[ �COIISCCII- MSQtbns29,70.31aaJ8P.TO�msNp95auN, p�operty,wllhmyrnnNtlonswhlchtheBwtl
live InSerUans;and 1at0t'��IC�+fS� )U�7��C��1U11 O�S�If�Ilf)��fC �nse 35 West ol lhe 6lh Prinelpal MerWlan. deema approprlale
. � The Counry Durchased theMM�Y Irom Seven Cople af the meke Ordkw�xe xe avalWbk
. ., W 5 ��p 1 II�iC —�SSIIC O� S[I�(� I1CtV5 1�1Cf (�.l�Ct) StarParinenhlponFebruary4��5;�nd �or publlc Inspeellon at the Clerk and
� � 2.ParagnpA 5 0l the Addendum to Thal Recorder's OIIIC4�nette Jona,at 530 Easl
�,�^ .� � /�.U.�Y9��p �Ill�(�lil((�IC�0.^.�'�U�7- Vacant f.�d Cantwcl to 8uy and Sell Real Maln Stree[.Aspen,Colorado 8t611.dudng
�=V Fstale prmides th�l the Selkr('Seven Star7 re�uYr busl�ws Iqurs.
�Iealiou o sald noqee was in lhe issue of 5:1I[��ICWC r1���• ahall be mU�led lo reenter the Pra �r "'
� � P°� Pu611e�In The Aspen'11mes on August 2�,
claled A.D.,19 g,�o purchased Ay PW:IO Caunty md utk rcvat m 1996.
_ seller 1n tne event 4�u noUCe ol Inlrnl lo rr.
mter Is Qlven to the Buyer CP��W��A�Y7 �
wfWn 18 months of cbsl�If m Nnal+ctbn w�
Sevm Star s land me app�leatlan I�pkm by
d�her Mttln Counly or Ihe Tawn o15noMmau
Vlllage;and
� :.2 i � 3.Seven Siu mtaed into ne¢otiatlom wuh _
tAe Twn ol S�wwmus VlOage to delmntne tAe .
' Town'a inlerol fn Wnaidering an anntAtlon �
- equat lor lhe ranainder o(the Seven S�ar ��
Subseri ed and sworn lu bc[ore me, � uol�ry p�nMinconneetloRwlchmapplleatbnbra ;
ublic In nnd for llie Cou d o(Cilkhi,Slalc o[Gulurndu, ��'o lot subdlwsion.The To.�as�o�u.
P Y vm.e�i:oo�ia�m¢m�cA�«re�.i r�.oMe
on 21�Is d�y of ; US' A.1).,J 9�Sa . u�u ue.��iovmmi�avu�aim�io.m�se��n �.
i Sur Ranch and if apDroved.tAe Seven Sdr � .
� Partnttshlp may proeeed wltA an apd��tion
/����+�-� br a 11na1 p4nned u�lt development revlew. �
Nolnry I'ub c
M�commisslon cxpires�1—�($- �
��
. • i}
+
_ . `,y. , �� � ' �
., , r }
,
, � �-. �
�
:, �