HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.reg.09091985 ' ,y,,�
,
r��''�
, „��I . �yy
. �*RY 3.�jt�-��� . ' �r�#: � :..�.L �.l� � .. i � . . `. ,�Si[i.'��
`,T.
80ARb OF COUNTY COMMISSIONEt25 AGENbA
9 5EPTEMBEtt, 1985
8:43 a.in. Executive 5ession - Litigation - Tom Smith, County Attorney/
Gary Esary. Assistant County Attorney
4AN6 US�
lO:Otl Public Hearing - Laay-o Ran�h riUb, GMt'/General Submisgicrn -
' Cindy Ftoui��n, �lanniny
1Z:(10 Lunrh dze�k
i:�t) p.m. publia �nmment
A9NINIS'PRI►7'ION
1:d5 RQ�dlutions �nd Coneraets
Col� Courss� Prop�rti�� b�teilc�8/�'inal P��t - Cfndy Houbon
A�p@n Highland� Skling Corp Lift R�pl�cem�ne - Ci�dy Houben
Solid Ntaste Center tlser �ces - Jim Adam�ki. Publie Asaeta Dir.
Pianning end zoning Commission Appoincm�nts
6AND USB
2s15 Columbin@ SEOeage Commerclal GMP ExE@naion - Cindy Nouben
a:as Mid-ConEln@nt Coal Annual Review - Hark Fuller, Environmental
Coordioator
WORK S6SSION
4
3:15 N. E. Richay L�nd UsQ Matter - Gary Beary
_
� �
�
�
. �
, a
.
�
# TUBS4AY, 10 S�PTEHB$R. 1985
;
+ 9:09 a.m. Public Hearin9 - Asp�n Highlands World CZass Resort General
� Su4mi$sian/Godge �MF Appe�l - Gindy Hauben lHeeting will
be held in the Roaring Fork Room at ths CQmmunity Cente�)
;
�
i
..,�';� W�Q[dBSPAY. 11 SBPT�HBBR. 1985
,:,�-«•i 9:�0 a.m. Special Meeting , Crystal River Country Sstates Improvement
.:xsz:�;�"-! District, Vote Canvass/Sond Award - Tom Oken. Finance
"�;x?z;:=:�a Director
:�.•`.-
��::,,.�-
:��;,Y
s �.
���� �•-
�'F"�e<"`_' .
dr�;
,P�•a
"�.�•::�i._,.�v
�"��'-..?r"� .
`. .=r
��`..
Y-
._'"'_.,...,.:, _��*,�,r-..�4« .o.s u,+»� . .._
" ' ��
. ...�.`�� ,i��"^si*i3dt� . _ ......__,. ..._ ;`'.� +w...1....«�...�.r s. "'�`� �`..��_ ` ��� � �� .
.2-. .....�>... _
�T�i� �
eo�� or oa�xtsaioKS�a
BE�uL�x ![EFTtt�li BBM'SM9gR t ona
PRSSENTs ROBERT W CHILD� N6LEN KLANDBRtJD, CElORGB KAOSBN� ROBERT BW1UDt3
Publlc Tht Board conveotd a public he�rfng to eonald�r the Lesy-O
g�acing: Ranch Puo, a growth manaqQment, q�neral •ubwlaslon and 10��
Lazy-O special ravtaw appitcet[on. Plannec Cindy Houben subRltt�d !o the
Ranch r�cord tAe Planning OEfic� aicma oE 9 Sept�ab�r, 985, th� ooaplate
PUD applicstion, ond th• Lnnd Uoe Codo •o �wen�ad to date. The
FlZing opplicant haa requlatod gen�ral �ubaitaslon/10�1 �ptciai ceview
'[�ro appcova2 and a qrowth �nanaqcmtne allocallon toc Lots Two (Z)
thcouqh Fiftoen �ii) ot th• POD. a ewt�ty-thsaa !2�) unit dwelop-
mcne to be locatod on a ona ehousand, Etv• hundred and sevanty-thc�a
11,57�1 acc� parcea o! la�d aieuatcd in eha Capttol Creak Vali�y.
The applicant bas propoeed a aubdtvlalon !o accoaa�odate tro (2)
existing al�gle tamily residances and to pcovtde toc thc cceation
of twenty-on• (231 nev oingle Eaul2y home sltaa, !or a lotal of
tree�ty-�hcoe (231 aepa�ats lotsr a!1 ot tbe �aw homa sites required
a GNP allocation vheceaa the tro (21 exteting c�stdeaaes did nat.
GenerAl eubmtasion approval foc Loes Sixteen (161 through Ykenty-two
(22> vas grant�d in octobar ot laet yaac and a GNA allocatton tor
theae seven t?) lota, eubsequently releerad to aa F11tng One (11.
vas awarded acco�dtngly. Thc application submttted to� noacd
�evie+r today, now roterrad to as Piling ltiro t2?, addseased the
Fourteen (14) �Cmaining lota identltted abovet 4ats One tl>
a�d 'lti+enty-thcee t23) contairted the Cvo (2} exiatlaq slagle
faAily ceaidences and vete not the subject of [eview. Nouban
explaiacd that, although the foutkeen !1�) lots addcesaed in the
applicatioa represenked the fina� tro thirda t2/3) of tbe propoaed
developmBnt. the e�tire project would be ravieved at this time.
Refersal come►ents were genetally suppostive� the ttouaing
Autbority addteased the employee housing requicements associated
xltb the project. the Division of water Resources ipdicated that
th�re was adsquate phy�ical vater aupply foc the development, and
the Colorado Geologic Survey concurred v3th the slope stability and
foundation recammendatfons oE Nick Lampiris. The Envisonmental
Coordinator addressed weed contcoi, vildlife impacts, and visua2
screening. The 8asalt and Rucal Fire Protectlon Distrfct addressed
the use of the substation parcel, adequate fite flovs, the vidth
. of the loop road for emergency vehicle access, and others. The
Environmental eealth Department addressed watec service and
sewage disposalj the water supply system was modified somewhat
_ since last year, particularly vith respect to previous commitments
concerning the Little Elk Creek Vilinge Subdivieion and the
-- - Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District. The modification
provided for the relocation of the one hundced thousand (100,000)
- gallon wate[ storage tank that would aerve Little Elk Creeki this
: change vould cequire an additional tank and pumping facilities
- so that the Subdiviaion could be served, and it was not indicated
= which party would be responsible for the cost of these additional
°...:.T'_
;��_,?;�.,., Commissioner's l4eeting 9 Septembec, 1985 - 1
�K������„u
� �,:
t i 1
���` .� � .- ��� ,�� _ '
. ... . FF��-��,++��s_�:.� _ .,.. .... ..._.. . � �-i�-....*i-er=��ri���:�7� s�....'1�� i�'. .ti,.�...,,� .
facilities. The Department also made site �pecific recoamiendations
with respect to sewage disposalr soil conditiona on certain lota,
for inatance, pcecluded standard individual sewage disposal
systems and more costly desiqns wou2d be necessary.
The Little Elk Creek Nomeowners Association was generally
suppoctive of ihe projectt the Aasociation requested assurancea,
however, that the modified water ayacem rould provide the LiC�le
EIk. Cceek Subdivisfon with the same level of aervice, and at no
additional coat to the Asaoeiation� as xas originally pcoposed in
the 198� application. The Snowmass/Capitol Creek Caucus identffied
various concerne with respect to development in che subjece
vaileyet vacloua Caucus members oppoasd thp pcoposed developmenC
as it was conaidered c�preaentative of an urban dtvelopmen�
uituated in a cucal valley.
'Cho Planning and Zoninq Commi�aion [�VI@M@t� the application
at i�a cegular meeting on 6 Auguse, I985, and cecoaa�nd�d qenecal
sub�iasion approval subjpct to the following tventy-three (231
aonditions:
1. requiremr�t foc paymenc 1n liou provieion foc Eouct�an
t141 low-incomr ea►pioy�e rasidents sh�ll be lndexad 1n
eccordance with khe Pitkln County Land Ose C�od� in
eEfect at the tlme of is�usnce oE the buliding p�cmit
tor each homeait� and beaed upon the rwenly-one t21)
hoa�sit�s. Payment oE tht p�ym�nt-in-ll�u provi�lon p�c
ho*�eiee ahall br mede at tho timo ot lssuance o[ tba
building p�r�it [oc oach homeolto
2. v�c!!lcntion of employaenc and incoma o( tha qualiEying
t�nant !o� the Ranch Ma�ager cowpltx shall be [urniihed
to the Nousirtg O!flca beforo execution oi a cantal
leaas undec low-incoa►t quldelinea
3. tho ovnecs of tha Ranch Ma�aqec complex obell be required
to supply the Hou�i�g Ottice vilh a copy o! the lessa
execnttd v3th a qualified ten�nt aach eix t6) montbst
thaceattec (oc upo� the c��e++ax ot !he leaae 1E tor a►
longo� peciod) tba Nou�stng Ot!!ce shall bo glven a oopy
ot the [eoeved leaae
{, the tenants o! the Raach Nanagat compl�x will ba
qualitied according to the Houaing Authority Qualification
Guidel3nes 3n place at the timo ot tho lsaua�ce oE the
ficst ner building pecait isaued to the Lazy-o eaneh
5. the recammendation oF Schmueser and Aasoclates in theic
reports as found in the 1985 Genecai Submission.
Appendices Eigbt t8), Nine I9I and Ten (10), shall be
made conditions of approval to be fully commttted to
a�d documented at the time of detailed submission
6. the propecty shall be deed restricted in perpetuity to
no additional development
7, the water supply system shall 6e built to the 1984
General Submission application representations and
proof of an adequate water supp2y shn�l be submitted
pd or to recordation of final plat
8. all utilities will be installed underground in appcopciate
" easements
9. the FTatec Court shall approve any wate[ augmentation
- plan prior to the recording of final plat
•.�-�.
- 10. tbe app2icant shall demonstrate at detailed submission
:�.,::.; :• compliance with the recommendations of the Basalt and
t ; Rural Fire Protection District regacding ISO and fire
._ .;�;�•.'.
;;�"��y;;i.: Commissioner's Meeting 9 September, 1985 - 2
:��a�� _
•�;�m:
;�C'�,„_.se.,�
, - �,:
� a
� - ��.�, � r,`� .,
:i.: �. .��� .. � 4 4 t ,�����r� � . �
flow standacds ag outlined in their lettecs to the
8lanoirtg Office dated 17 July, 1964 and 11 July, 1985.
Purthermoce, the applicant ehall outline how the Fire
District is to d�nonstrate adeqaate funds ir► ordet to
have the substation parcel conveyed to the DistricC
11. as parc of detailed submiruion, the appiicani shall
include in the Subdivision Covenanta and the impcovementa
Aqreement a12 material commitments as made in the
General Submi�aion and GMP applicationa, as appcopriate
12. datail�d and fina� plats ghall deoignate building
envelopes for All tealEential, cecreational and agricul-
tural oue-building�a taking into consideration solec
ocientat�on, ecpnic quality (placea�et and height), in
ocder ta pcotect che scenic qua2fty of the ar�a
13, the Co�anission cesecve� the cight to ccview the aise
and location of agriculturel out-bulldings at detail�d
eubmis�ion in otdec to pcot�ct eh@ scQnic quelity oE
' ther area
1�. any voodburning dfvic�o beyond !ho ont C11 per bullding
pecmlt allowed to bt Lnstallad In th� oubdiviaion shall
bt c�rti[!ed es approv�d by !he Environmantal Hesith
D�p�rta�nt ot Piekin County, ae eht tfw of lssuanc� oE
oach bullding permit
1S. Th� Coarlsaion resecv�s tho right to c�vlw the •pprop-
rleten�so of the pcopoa�d tice aubstatlon et d�tailad
�ul�ni�sion
16. tb� approval !s subj�ct to tha caceipt o! a GNP quota
allocatio� fcom the eoacd o! Cou�ty Comn►i�sioasrs
17. th� applicant shall agrts that all casA payAents bt
, indexed and paid on a pcopoctionate baaia at tM ti�ae
ot iasuance o[ bulldiog persiea
3 18. detailed sub�alssion ahall claasly etale in th�Subdivision
Ia�psovemenla Agceement that the applicant ia providiog
!ha Little Blk Ccaek Village Subdivision (L6CV) vith
on� hundred peccent tl0ofl of tbe e�tice co�t oI tbe
intercoortect to the vatec systea as shown on the genesal
aubmission plats witb tbe exception oE only iitty percent
fSOt) of tbe cost of the intecconnect liaa frow the POD
property boundary to tha LEGV system. Tn addition, the
applicants muet verify that they can legally secve tbe
LBCV inte[connect system. The level of eervice to the
LEN �rill be the same ae was comeitted to in tbe 1984
Lasy-O Ranch PUD F111og One (1) GNP submissian
19. detailed submission shall coabine both the 1984 genecal
subaiasion appcoval for seven (7) units and the 1985
genesal submission approval for fourteen (14) units in
ocdes to adequately review the enti�e development at
one time
k
20. detailed submission shall address all of the concesns
- expressed by the County Environmental Coordinatoc in
his memo of 19 July, 1985
- 21. the applfcant shall eYplore the option of creating a
" separate parcel for the agricu2tural ranching operation
-. • such that it could be sold as a sepa rate pa rcel. The
'° - " I g Ehe various
applicant shall submit A report out inin
altecnative forms of ownership for the agricultural
- � parcel and the pros and cons for those ownership
�;�;��.;�. ; alternatives relative to preserving the agriwltural
,rr�:- ; viability of the parcel
` i
�mi`�:;I Commissioner's Meeting 9 September, 1985 - 3
'_� ,::'' ,?�
_. �����__a.
� _.. _ _ _..
�
-�:
:i�a.�_ �� � �.:
,t ^e., ti .. ,�r��-�+4��.. `��' ..` '�-� . -'
� ��- n <».- .. ' � ...,�_.,.... . � c t2 `��' .ri� -• -
, _. __ _.>._ K. . ..._.. �°' r����:�'_ ?t. *• ,._
22. lfmited qcazinq shall be allowed in the conservation
area so long as it is not a detriment to the carcyinq
capacity of the .,iiaii�e
23, the loop road will be closed year-cound with a locked
gate. The road ehall be gcave2ed �od built to Pitkin
County counicy access coad standacds irt tera,e oF wldth
In addition, the Commission recommended IO�I special revis�rappcova2
auDjert to the foliowing Eour (�1 coedition��
1. Otoloqic 1011 ea:ard ltrtri�r nhall be approved based on
the condition thae bufldinga located on Lota Six (6).
Sevpn (7) , ¢ight (8), Thictren (13) and Pifteen (15)
dhsl l be no leas than f if ty (SO 1 Eeet away f coa� ths
base of �he niopes in ocd�rc to stey away Eroa potantial
anow avalsnche areas
2. Mfldtit� IQ�1 easacd Rniw ahall b� epproved haigd on
th� condieions eha� e twenty-Elva (25) Eooe tirebresk
IIhall aucround tht honesiCOS, end that n�w piantinq around
tbe homeait�o whlch does not Confocm to good fi[e
protecllon pcacticea sheil bo prohlbit�d. Tht applicant
ahall commlt to tbose condltlons in !he protecriv•
Covenanes euba►lttad ae dototlad submliaioa
3. Miidlif• I0�1 a�sacd Ra�iNr •he12 bf approved bse�d on
the condition that there shall bo n locked geto locatfd
neac tha entcanca to eho pcop��ty ie otdec to keap
lraftic, ocbe� ehan em�rgency or c�ncd lraftle, otE eh�
loop coad
�. 20�1 �loodplaln aatacd Rm►t�v •hall bs apptov�d bas�d
on the condition that prlo� to conse�uction ai tAa L6N
interconnectio» Vatorline acroas Capltol Creek, the
applicant sha21 obtain a �0� pesmit !I requlred by the
Aroy Corps ot Enq4neocs. A capy ol thta ptrmit ahell ba
oubmitted to tha P2a�ning Oftice prior to any can8tructton
Ploally, !he Coaniasion allote�d all foucteen (it) uoita to the
second tilingi !be ten t101 unit allocatio� that was available
thls year was actually avarded to the developmeat, and the
Co�usission recommanded that four !11 additional units be allocated
!so• the 1986 Dovn Valley Resldentla2 Quota to allo++ for the
completion of the entica project.
Houben explained that tbe pown Yalley puota provided fo� an
Annual allocation of twenty-four {24) unitat certain development,
hovever, such as that �bfcb occurred on previously s�bdivided
lote, altbough exempt from gcowth aanagement campetition, was
deducted fro� the annual quota so khat tbLe number of units uas
not alvays available, On this basis, only teo (10) oE the tventy-
four (24) u�its vere available For allocation thia year. The
Commission recommended that four (4) units be borrowed fcom the
1986 Qaota so that a12 fourteen (14? lots constituting Filing 7tiro
(2) xould receive an allocation at this time.
' David �iseastein, an attorney representing the applicant,
explained that the Board was authorized to gcant an excess
allotment pursuant to Section 5-510.3(a) of the Land Use Code.
: � This particular Section indicated that the annual quota could be
exceeded by up to twenty percent (208) provided that any such
excess was deducted from subsequent quotas so that the total
_ level of construction did aot exceed the total quota dur3ng the
-_ pcevious five (5) year pesiod. Eisenstein noted that the annual
- � twenty-four (24) uait Dorn Valley Residential Quota would, over a
five (5) year perfod, provide for a total of one hundced and
•-;;~;��:_ �:: tWenty (120) units; construction in the Down Valley area during
_t.
f_• this same five (S) year period was less than the one hundred
� - Commisaioner's Meeting 9 September, 1985 - 4
���n:�*:: �
'� ...
. - �:
: �_
� ,�'` �'; ' ,,�.
. . � "� .. ... �. . .......» _. .'- ,. , • _.-r�""�r, 1.{., _ .. � .
and twenty (120) units aveil b1 e, so that th five 5 year guota
foc this a[ea has not been �ully util#zed. �isenat�i� maintained
that thia pecticular Section of the Cdde. whil� providing the
8oard xitb the authority to exceed tbe annual quota in a qiven
atea, did not require that excess units be deducted from subsequent
quotas if the five (5) yeac quota was qteater that the five (Sy
year lpvel of construc[ion. In this instance, there wag gcpatpr
quota than constcu�tion in the Down Valley area during thp past
Eive (5) yeacs, go that che Eour (4) additional units necessacy
to complete the alloca�ion for the entice proiect thlg yeac would
not tequire that they be bocrowed fcom next yrac'a quotat rethpr,
these Eouc (4) unite MeCp available at this time as the Eive (S)
year total quoEa for the Down Vailey area hes rtot been fully
uCilized. �isenn[e�n rcquested thae an excess alloretion of four
(�) unita b� awerde8 to the pcoject pursuant to Seatfon 5-SI0.3(a�
as it would not effprt gubsequent year's quotae.
Gideon Ke�Eman, an aecocney a2so repcesenting tht applicant,
explefned Ehat generai aubmiselon approval was gca�te8 to Eh•
@ntirt project last year purauant to Boacd Resolutioe 8�-i12s
although chet approvsi oxtended to the entfre project, th�ce vas
not auEEiclent allocation Eoc all tventy-one (21) lot�, and foc
thla reaaon tht Filinq 7vo f2) applicecfon was aubwitted toc
g�naral submission reviaw today. Kou�men not�d that eoard and
Planning Coe�a�is�ion raviw+ o! the appiicatlon l�st year, as v�12
es public lnput and commeots fcom wildlfEe experta, procipttated
eomt changes to the applicatlon. all ot vhich hsve cesult�d !n a
betetc projoct.
Jl�a Cucel�, a prtvota plaenar repceaenting tAe applteant,
explatnod tha! thece vere no aigniElcant chan9es betvaee !he 1984
and 1985 general submisoloo applicaltons, lie �oted ehee Lota
Sixtoen (16) through 7�+enty-two (221, the aeven t7) lots tbat
cecetved an alloc�tlon laet yea[, have not been alte�od L� any
taebion alace tha inEelal snbmisalont of ths [eaealni»g toucte�n
(1�1 locs, thera were rildli[e concecna as$actated wlth ooly Eouc
t�) oE thea�, and speciftcally uote 7wo (2I. Thraa (3). Four (�1
and Five (S?, and the site plan hos only been aa�endad with
ceopect to these fou� (�) 1ols. Dlviaion of wildlife stalf John
Sidel and Randy Coto conducted a aite inspoction o[ tba subjeet
ptope�ty in Qctober of �ast y@ar and, based o� thelc recoaimanda-
ttone, the han�esitcs on Gots Ztiro (2), Three ;3) and Fou� (1) wara
selocated and the location o€ Lot Five (5) vas modified. Tho
Divisiort indlcated that the cbanges effectuated vith respact to
these tour l4) lots would aecve to mitigate the wildlite impacta
associated with development in that acen, with the exceptlon of
the modificntio»s to these fqur t4? lots, there wese no other
chanqes between the 1984 and 1985 submissions other tban the
�eter supply systemr the applica�t pcoposed to re2ocate the one
hundred thousand (100,D00) gallon water supply tank that would
secve the Little Elk Creek village Subdivislon and modiLy the
fira florr standards originally pcoposed in the 1984 submission.
The relocation of the tank would necesaitate the instailation oE
another tank and associated pumping facilities, and there vas no
indication as to vhich party Would be responsible for the cost of
thist the Basalt and Rural Fire Pcotection nistrict cecommended
that the applicant maintain ISO standards as a minimum standacd
foc the entire water system. The applicant subsequently agreed to
, � bear tbe cost of tha additional water tank and associated pumpin9
facilities and to provide ISO standacds with respect to fire
flow, and the Planning Commission conditioaed its recommendation
of approval accocdingly.
Child then opened the hearing foc public comment; there
being none, the hearing was closed.
" Houben noted that, although there were no membecs of the
- . public in attendance at today's hearing, aIl adjacent property
- - ownets wece notified and a notice of the heacing aas published
_ in the gg�p Times
� = Commisaioner's Meeting 9 September, 1985 - 5
�.''`'
.�.�:
. ..E.� . - L, �
� �� �,� . . -,
.- . . � } � '[�+ �� �1._* t� .
. ' i�S�= . . _ `f` ... .. '� . . . �. _.
Kaufman noted that the Planninq Commiasion also conducted a
public hearing on the application, and he felt that moat of the
concerns associated with the development were resolved at that time.
Houben suqgested an amendment to the tenth condition of
spproval as follows:
10. the applicant uhall demonirrate at detailed submiasion
campliance wi�h the recommendationu of the eaealt and
Rural Pire Protection DiaCCfct r¢gacding ISO and Eire
flow atandarda, a commitment to beac the coat of a
• culvecc or celocation of the icrigation ditrh, and
domeatic water hookups on aubstation eite as outllned
in their letters to the Planning Of�ice dated 1� July,
1984 and 1] July, 1985. Furthermoce, the applicents
shall outline how the Fire Diatcici is to dtmonstrats
edequate fund. in order to heve the subatatlon pacc�l
conveycd to the Dlstcict
. The emendiaent wae propoe8d ag it would apcalflcelly idtntify the
respon�ibility oE !h� applicant with reaptce to the watoc ayataa
modifications.
Klaoderud notQd that �he Enviconmental Coocdinatoc, ln hii
ctEerral coaaanES, ccq uest@d ebat the applicenr clariEy the
meontng oE che •pctority hu�tiog lre�taon!• proposal. Houbon
explained thet thQ epplicont ha• pcoposad eo ostabli8h a sp�clEic
period oP tia►� when hunting oe the subjact pcoperty would be
allowed by subdlviaion ceaidenta ond their guestat thia proposel
has oot b�en ttnnllsed and vould be addresaed by the Divlslon o!
Hildlife at dttailod submleston.
Kaulman noted that the developmcnt ot the eubject pcoperty
es Proposed vould result tn aome wildlife impacta. The appiicant
retained the aecvices ot a p�ofeseional w11d11Fe txpe rt to asseea
those impocts, howevec, aod, as a result, the cciEical vlldllte
areas, lncluding migration corcidors, wece entirely avoided.
Diviaion ot M31d1iFe OEPice� Randy Cote ceviewed the site pZan
and indicaled that mitigation wos accomplished to the extent
possible. Kaufman explained that the profeasional expert cetatned
by the applicane, Bob Rosett, wae a Eormer Divislon oE wildl!!`e
Ofticer, and he suggested tbat he be retained by the County in
the eveni the vildlite regulations contained in the Land Use Code
were cevisod at some tuture date.
Rlande�ud ezpressed some concern with vacious coauoitments
made by the applicant durin9 general submission review last year,
and particulacly r�ith those concesning tcanspottatian and �oad
improvdaentsr it vas �oted, for instance, that none oi those
commitments vece cecited at this time. Jece wood, representing the
applicant, explained that the 1984 general submission application
pcovided for a ten thousand dollar (510,000) contribution to the
Roaring Fork Transic Agency in an effort to mitigate the transpoc-
tation tapacts of the development, a contribution vhich the
A9ency later refused; although the applicant no longer felt
committed to provide these funds, given the refusal, it �as still
willing to do so ptovided they were accepted by the Agency and
wece used to benefit the Snowmass Creek Valley. With respect to
` road impacts, the applicant agreed to contribute focty-two
thousand dollars (542,000) towards the improvement of lower
Snowmass Creek Road, a figure which was based on the level of use
of the Road generated by the subdivision. The applicant pcovided
this commitment in both the 1984 and 1985 general submissions.
Klanderud ezpressed some concern that the ten thousand
:. dollar ($10,000) transportation contribution may be limited to
. the Transit Agency. It rras felt that these funds were intended to
mitigate overall transportation impacts, which could include coad
� impacts; the impacts of the proposed development on the subject
' �
� ; Commissioner's Meeting 9 September, 1985 - 6
� .�
�€��:'
" �'�i
�
. �,.
�f 1
� � .� - ' . 'F _.. .�'! ...1'Jt ���"' ; ,
... ^�,: - �.�� , �t ,j;,
' � . _ � . :�at '.;,�Tqp ;e,,.s� f .
�, ..
- . .�. , ��.� .: a., . . .
>•
„ '_
. ., . . . ...._...." __.". _ _ ......—:-,.... r�7�..-_,.;.. .. .. ..�-�,.
acea would most likely affect the public coad syatem to a much
gceater eztent than the bus systea�, in which case these f unds
ahould be made available to address overall tcanspoctation
planning. Rlanderud no[ed that the 1984 9eneral submisslon Nas
cequired, as a condition of appcoval, co codify all material
commi�ments contained in both the genetal submisaion a»d GMP
applicationst the ten thausand dollar (510,000) contcibution vas
so contained, in which case it must be �o codified, Klandecud
suggested an additional condition of approvel whcreby these Eunds
would be made available to thp Hoacd for usp where it was conaidered
n�at appropciate to mitlgate thr overall tcansportation impacts
of �he dpvelopment. which usea would inrlude toad syatea� impacts.
Kaufman explained that the applicant would not obiect to
pcoviding these fundg Eor rnad imptnvement purpossea ac Eoc eome
other use �hat was coneidered more appropriatet tAe epplicant
desiced, howevec, that the subject funds be uatd to beneEit the
Snowcrass Creek area.
Child expresaed soae concecn wleh the rapabi2ity of the
water supply syatemj it uas not known, foc inatance, whetbQc
thero was sufffclent quanti�y and quality to meet ail of the
nrads of thc propoacd aubdivlsion as w�il as provlde Elre ptotectio�
s�cvices to the Little Eik Cceak V111sgQ Subdivlsion. Nood
•xplaia�d that two f2) tant hoteo woce dcillcd on the subjtcr
propecey loot yoar, ond tha! they produced ad�q uate oupply !o
eecve tho tw@nty-one (21I now loet propooed a8 well oe Littl� Eik
Cceck, He notod that the commitment to oacvo ther Lietle Eik Creek
Vlllage Subdivislon uaa limiead to a one bundred ebousand (100,0001
qal2on voter storaqe tankr tnse taclllty vaa ai�aply a atorago
Eacllity far uoe by the Subdiviaton during emecgerncy conditions,
and Mould �ot he usod on a ragular baoia. TAa appltcan! would
drill o thtrd vell some timo thls yeac.
tlad,an no�ed that cbo Plannlnq OtELce, duciog its r�view of
the appltcation, bad su99oated that the applicant explore the
possibility ot stliing the ra�ch iraccel thAt wou2d be creat�d aa
a coeule of the developae�tt the �anch parcel, vhicb conaleted of
appcoximately five hu�d[ed (500) acres, contained all o! !he
historlcally irrigated lands, a�d lts eole, vbich would pceclude
any developmaot, waa pcopoaed !n an etfort to p�eaerve and
maintaln its productivity. KauPman explaincd that, although tbe
applicant hae committad to pcesacve tbe agricuitural lands
contained in the canch pa[cel� the best method foc accompl3abing
this goal has not yet been determinedj the issue involved vhich
pacty should own the a�bject paccel and vas best capable of
preserving it. Tbe applicant has pcoposed to provide for the
pseeetvalion of tha agcicultural lands by establishing a special
assessment within the homeowners' association, such so that tbe .
association r+ould ovn and be cesponsible for maintaining the
subject parcel.
Klanderud noted that the ve�y basis for the subdiviaion was
to preserve the economic viability of the agricultural lands, and,
regardless of the method of ownecship, she expressed some voncern
with the mainte�aace of tbose 2andsf there was concern, for
instance, that, despite the method of ovnership, the canch parcel
could become entirely unpcoductive in the event the property was
, ' not properly maintained, thus defeating the very intent of the
subdivision. Kaufman eYplained that the applicant has agreed to
• dedicate sufficient water riqhts for the rnntiaued irrigation of
the historically irrigated lands. thus ensuring that the subject
lands would cemain agcicultu[ally productive. The issue that has
not yet �been resolved concerned which party would perform agricul-
tural maintenance so that the land would tculy remain productive.
Kaufman stated that this issue vould be reviewed in gceater depth
ak detailed submission.
_ Cuctis explained that the applicant would review various
j,;; _`_;. alternatives with respect to the ownership of the ranch paccel
-- - Commissianer's Pteeting 9 September, 1985 - 7
y;�`:�:",:°
�,.
� .x j .
-� .
- � ± t Y� � ����� �� f f':�
and a mpthod to ensure its maintenance. He fe1t that thece would
have to be some e�onomfc tncentive to pcovide fot the maintenance
of the ranch patcel, and the applicant would address thig isgue
as vell at de[ailed submisaion.
Child requested that the aPplicant pcovide d[awings of the
watet stotage tanks that would bpnefit the Little Blk Creek
Villag� SuDdivieion at detailed submission eo that ite visual
iropacts could be assess¢dt ft was suggested that the epplican[ be
reguired to provide thE9e as an additional condition oE approval.
He also noted thac the Enviranmental Heaith O�pa[tmen[, ln fts
ref¢rral comments on seuage dispoaal, indicated that those lo[s
that could uae goils 1n the meadow should be cequired to do aos
there was no pecallel requtcement, howevec, for revegetation.
Houben explained �he Department waa addresging the placea►Qnt of
aeptic tanks in the meadoW area� she egceed thet cevegetatfon
ahould be reguired in such an event end sugqeeted the following
addi[lonel condition of approval:
- the acaao where the aeptic ayntems ate to locattd sha11
' be revegetated
Chlld eiso quaationed the use oE che evo (2) exlseinq
r�eidentiel unite on the subject prope�Ey. Nood oxplalnQd ebat
the oxiscinq ranch managocs cesidence. Ldentilied as Lot 'l�+enty-
tbrea (231 and daetqnatQd �or amployee housinq, ++ould be cemoved
wlthln the week and aubsoquently ceplaced vleh e new ranch
managec dwolling. Tha oeh�r existing residence was altust�d oa
Lot On@ (1) and thia unlC would cemain es a lcae macket cesidenco.
The aubdivielon would pcovlde for a toeal ot tventy-two (22) fc�•
+aarket and one (2) employea bousing unLts, Eoc a total ol tr�nty-
three (21} lota.
Child sugqested tbae the appltcant conlact statE at Colocado
State university in ao efEo�t to address the uae oE the ranch
pascel and appropriate ccops. wood explained that the applicant
haa already expended gceater thao ona hundc�d thousand dollars
iSI00,000) io ditch artd irrigation lmpcovaments to the subiect
pare�l. The applicant has contacted va[loua groupo in an elioct
to addreas its best use� including CSU.
Child expressed eome concecn rith that co�dition oE appcoval
wbecetry the Plannlog Commisaion would xeserve the right to
ceviev the size aad location of agricultural out-buildinga in an
effort to protect the scenic quality oL the area. He cxp[eseed
some concecn that thie review may prevent the agr3cultural use oF
the cnnch pa�cel, on the basis of ecenie considerations, and he
suggeeted an amendment to the condition so that thi$ [eview vould
not pceclude reasonable agricultural ptactices.
Nadsen then moved genecal submission appcoval of the applica-
tion subject to the twenty-three (23) geoecal submission and four
� (4) 1041 review conditions of the Planning and Zoning Commiasion
as amended belou:
10, the applicant shall demonstrate at detailed submission
comp2iance vith the recouwendations of the easalt and
� Rucal Ffre Protection District regacding ISO and fice
flo� standarda, a commitment to bear the cost of a
culvert or relocation of the irsigation ditch, and
domestic water hookups on the substntion site as outlined
!n their letters to the Planning Office dated 17 July,
1984. and 11 July, 1985. Furthermore, the applicants
shall outline hov the Fire District is to demonstcate
adequate funds in order to have the substation patcel
' conveyed to the District
" 13. The Planning Commission and the Board reserve the right
, ,; i to review the size aad location of agzicultural out-
-;-a a',,, f buildings at detailed submission in ordet to ptotect
;
�- Commissfoner's rleeting 9 September, 1985 - 8
1X ^`'�'�.�
, �,,
�
�h .,�.�� � ;';,�, �
`' �. K • �� f#-
� -
°� ,, , . ': . ,` .;. s , ` ,. , -,r� �' :R�ar:,.� :* ri, . .
the scenic quality of ihe area consistent with reasonable
agcfcn2tural operatlons
and subject to the fo2lowing additional qerteral submission
conditions:
24. the applicant shall, at detailed gubmi�siun and in
conjunciion rrith the Roaring Pock �'cansit Agpncy,
demonstra�e how the ten thousand dollac tS10,000)
commitment ta the Tcanait Agency will bp sptnc, rhp
Boacd oF Councy Commigsionprs shall d�tecmioe the most
appropriate use of �heae funds fur mitiqating the
overall tcanaportation lmpacts oi thc deve2apment
25. the appiicant ahall demonacrace, at de�alYsd submiasion.
che visvel lmpac�e oE zhe ane hundred thousand (100,0001
gallon wai@r gtorage tank and os8oclacQd wa�@c storaqo
facillties, ag well es any mitiqation �hat may be
neceasary
26. all areao where the atpttc uyut�ms ara to be located
ahall b� c�vcqet�ted
The motion diod Eor lack of a sQCOnd oa tba lasue of th• exceos
allocalion had not yot been ceaolved.
Klanderud auqgentod that th� allocation oE fouc (�) additional
units be nwacded to eht pcoject ae thla eim�, but ehat eheoe units
bc deduatad Erom th� 1986 Down Valloy quota. Sectlon 5-530.3 0!
eho Cod�, whl�e pcovid�nq Eoc the nvard ot excesa allotm�nta, did
»ot provido toc the carryovec of allotmonts that werE not ueilised
during pcevtous yearet u�like !he Lodge GMP. �hteb speeilically
autAorised the carryover of unused nllocations, the Residential
GMP proceJuce only p�ovided for tbe use of future allocatlo�s. tn
vhich case lt was �ot telt tAat tha tour i�J unit8 could br avarded
without beinq deducted From a subsequent yea�'s quota. In addilion.
it vao telt that tba Boacd ebould ex�rctae caution in avacdi�g
excees alloe�aanta, particularly as economic conditloas could
change in Euture yeare. rasulting in a eigolEica�t increaee
in development activlty. Sbe then moved to award an allotmant ot
ten (10) residential units to the Lazy-O Ranch PUD Eor the 1985
ooun vall�y Resid�ntial Gtovth Nanagement Compatltlon, and
furtAer, to a�eACd a� extess allotwant ot fouc (�) �Qaidential
unite to the projact subj�ct to the folloving conditione
1. the Eour l�I excess a1lot�nenC units so aaasded shall be
deducted fcoa the 1986 Doxn Valley Reeidential Gcovtb
Mana9e�ent available quota pucsuant to Section 5-510.3
oE the Land Use Code
The motioa also died foc lack of a second.
Child noted that the Boa�d, in reviewing a Residential
' G[owth Nanagement application last year, canducted a public
bearing, approven the application, and subsequently rescinded
tbat approval. Child noted that the rescission was based, io
_ part, on a sentiment amon9st some Boasd members that compliance
with County policies and regulations had not been fully demonstrated
duting the public hearing, that all of the information presented
during the heacing had not been fully assessed, and that action
was, perhaps, taken in haste. He noted that a substantial amount
of information was preaented during public hearings on gcowth
-- management applications, including material comuiitments made by
; an applicant, impact mitigatiort, lot and unit numbers and sizes,
.��...: ' and othera, and he felt that, as a matter of policy, the Board
- should not take action on yrowth management applfcations during
the actual hearing. Instead, the Boacd should be provided an
��=:`'`:-± opportunity to fully assess all of the infoc�ation presented by
• :�.1 reservinq action until a subsequent day or meeting. He suggested,
.,� � � then, that the Board defer action on the Lazy-O application
i'� i � Commissioner's lteeting 9 Septemher, 1985 - 9
�'" 3�._�
, ,y
� �
�:.
� t ,
-t ,� ;, � '��' �'� .i: '-
rtf � x�' t.'�,
. �� ' , . . r -�.= ., 't-s:rta
.: . _ �,. .�.
� �t
. ..._ , -:�.. �- . ., . .
. #. . .. z2 -. �a ,,, i��„ �I ± r
��+ $.i'iZ. - iat'ta'k ��ln �
. : Yy�t+ a.�w�r_. �....rv-r.�s..�_..^MwcL��..twr�.�. ,... .. ..-..is�.... ..� .._ ...
today, specifically to provide the Board with [he opportunity to
completely asaess the development propoaed, and reconvpne ducing
a sppcia2 meeting tomorrow ta congidet a motion.
Raufman expressed som¢ concern that action on the application
may be deferred. Ne rtoted that there �+as a substantial amount of
coetcovresy associated with the growth management appiicatiori
refecred to abovt, whereas Chere was no aunc �antcnversy with thp
Lazy-0 appiication as evldenced by the lack o# public comment.
Kaufman did not f�el that it would be fair to the applicant to
deEer actfon a� guggested, be did not feel chat thece was a n�ed
foc sucb a deFerral, and he quescione8 how guch an action cuuld
be juatificd.
K2andecud noted �hat rhe Lazy-O epplication was reviewed
over a two 12) year period whereas the review of the grnwth
manaqe�aent application referred �o ebove occurced all at onCe.
She Eelt thac there Nas eufEicien! ioformetion availabi@ to the
Boacd co act on the application a� this cime, tn which case a
deferrel xas ndt congidcred necessecy. She again �dve8 ta award en
allocment of ten t10) re+sld@nclel units !o the.Lazy-O Ranch PUD
Eoc the 1965 �ovn Yalley R�sidential Growth Managaiaent Compeeition,
And to oward en excess allotment oE Eonr (4) ceafdtnci�l wnfes co
ehe project aubj�ct to che Eoilowlnq coedttions
1. ehe four �1? exceaa o�]oemont unite w awncdtd aha!! be
daduated lrom tho 1986 oown Valiay Rtaidtntte! croweh
Mansqonen! availabia quoea purauan! to Section 5-510.3
ot thc Land vao Coda
Braudia scco�ded and tbo motion paased with oppoafCloa trom
Child.
Hodao� than ptOVQd to gta�t ganeral aubmisaion approval to
tbe applfcation aubjact to ths tveoty-stx t26) g�necal subwisaiar►
and [our (�) 3041 cevie� co�ditions, ail aa eontai»ed in bie
pcavious motlon. Klandecud aecoaded a�d the motton paaaed w1tA
opposition �coa� Child. Child explained that he oppoeed the
pcoject o� the basia ot incompatibility vtth the Snovmase/Capital
Creok maator plana a�d as thara was lneutticie�t capacily on
tba lowec portion of Snowmass Creek Road ca AccomAOdale the
davelopment.
Public Pub.lic wosks Afrectoc aud 8ylac p�ovided an update on tha
Coament McLaln Flats Road Aroject, noting that there vece three (3)
probiems that have deEerred its completion: the project cequired
that a number of ov�chead te2ephone pales and cables be relocated
and Mountain eel� va� still in Che pcocesa of doinq sot certain
praperty sights-of-way that vete necessacy for the project were
not estnblished prior to commencement of the pcojects Fioley
Constcuction, an Elam Construction subeontraetor, recently declaced
bankruptcy ces�lting in the termination of the pcojeet, Elam
s�bsequently initiated negotiations vith another subcontractar,
and this �arty �ould continue srock on the project as of tomarrow,
Elam vas ia the procesa af completing the paving of the Centennial
roads at this time, and has provided assurances that McLain Flats
Road will be paved once the Centennial paving pcoject was complete,
The revised project schedule vould ptovide f os the paving o#
Smith Hill by the end of this month, and of McLain Flats Road
immediately thereafter, and in no event later thaa 15 October.
' - Eylar noted that, althaugh weathet conditions, and particvlatly
- early snow, could affect this schedale, the ptoject would be
compl eted this year. He agreed to ptovide progress reports to
the Board every Monday hereafter.
,:�_T=_ -----
�,�� '. Rlanderud noted that Redstone Rancb Acres resident Chacles
a ,�- �
;.� ::;1 Commissionet's Meeting 9 September, 1585 — 14
,-.r�'+,,tr�`l,�':i
, . �.
;�,�"-�'� �. �`� •` .
.i'r � - �•� ,tv�t r s�,j
* �� . .a.� _,.. f- ._.�.�.. ._.... �«+vw��wE ro��li�:.T.�-€w..�, ._w��f�v. �Y.'� ��..��� . . .
Dcew recently contacted th� Soac b 1ette , coecetninq the
formation of the impcovement diatr��t �itttin t�at subdiviaion.
Dt�v alleged that he was unfairly excluded itam the 4oundacy of
thet distrlct, and indicated that he Would hold the Boacd liable
as a resvlt,
Eylar agcped to invpstigate the allegations and repoct to
thp Boacd by the gubaequent cegular meetinq.
Nads�n rated chat ehe Nordic Council has, between the �aonchs
c� �anuacy and Junr of chi$ year, fncurred expenses for thQ use
of County equipm�nt as follavs: ane hundred and sevrnty dollats
(S17D> in mailing expenaea and aixty-eiqht dollacs (5681 in xerox
expen�eg. He Ee1t that the County ghouid absorb theae expQnsse
and maved to do so. The matfon died foc lack of a second.
The r�maind�c oE the Board qQnerally agreed Chat the Cbunty
hes contribu�ed towacds eha �ff ortn nf �he tlordlc Council by
pcoviding oEEice npace Qt the coRUaunity center. tn adaitlon, the
payment ot the above mentloned oxpcoaes wouid dicecely conE!!et
vtth a �oard po2lcy prohibielnq easA conecibutions.
MadaQn expressed aome concoc� wtth vandors s�lling ui�d
turnleuce o» Steto Nighwsy 82. Thls type af sale violatad County
pallcloa and r�aulced t» cratfic bssards, and it was euqyastod
tha� tbe Board �equest that tAe Sh�rif! snforc� thos� policl�s.
Itlanclecud Eelt Ehat aat�ea conducted along t�e Nlgbway.
regardless of the pcoduct, havo become a secioua problem, and
psrtieularly those conducted accoss trom the golE coucse vendocs
along ebe Niqhway created aerlous cra[fic hasacda, and t�o�e vrra
a nuwAer of safety conaideratioos, and liabillty isaues, thot
should be addceased. Kla�derud suggreted thak the 9oard e�ti[�ly
rescind the regu3ation whereby the sale ot certoin products vos
allowod along the Highway.
• Coanty Hanages Jobn Eldert agreed to diacues the ieaue witb
both the Chief Eontng Otficial a�d the ShsrifP.
Herpel Cindy Houben introduced a reg uest. subiaikted by Redstona
Reaone cesidenta Hensy and Patcicia Hespel, to waive the one thousand,
Fee tbcee hundced and twenty do2lar (S1,320) Eee reguised fot thei�
=azoafng pcoposal. The Board recently agreed to sponsor a cezoning
of the Herpel pcope[ty on the basis tbat it may bave been ercon-
eously zoned. Houben did not teel that the application fee should
he waived as kbe Planning Office vould spend time revlewing the
app2ication and incur expenses accocdingly. In addition. Lt was
noted that the rezoning vould not result in an ovecall public
benefit, tather, it vould only serve to benefit the ownecs of the
subject pcoperty.
. ? The Board generally agreed that Hecpel would be required to
_ remit the subject fee upon submiasion oE the application; in the
event the Herpel pcoperty vas erroneously zoned by the Couoty,
the fee would be rebated.
Golf lladsen moved to approve a resolution gcanting detailed and
' Course final plat approval to the Golf Course Properties lot split.
- Propecty Child seconded and the motion passed with an abstention from
-- Klandetud.
:,��:. ----------
�L; _ Commissioner's bteeting 9 September, 1985 - 11
- �i
_ . � ��..- _ $����4 �.��� �� t�'�� .
�`� k +�, ? ,�'�,i.a>!i._Y' �«,.
, •
-
� , .. .: _.
, � , , • _ �` - ,, . :,r.. :- . . -
Aspen Hadsen moved tv approve a resolution granting 8pproval of a
Highland$ special revi�t request for the rpplacement and upgtading of lifts
Lift on the Aspe� Etfqhlands Skf tiountain. Braudis seconded and the
Replace motion passed unanimously.
5olid Publfc Aamet$ Directoc Jim Adamski introduced a reoolution
Waste eatablishing new user fees foc the Solid Nagte Center, a tvo
Cencer hundred and twenty-ftve (225i acre slte owned by the City of
Fee Ag�en end the County nnd locaced eppcoximately seven and one half
Inccease (7.5) milps weat oE town an 3tsee Nighway 82. The facility, in
exlstence slnce 1974 and direc[ly managed by tha County eince
thet time, has experiencQd four !4� user fee rate incrrenea
durEng its sfxteen (26) yeaca of aperation. The reaolutlon
suMnittgd for Board revie++ today would incccese user fee• egain
ap�rifically to aovec incceaaed operating costst ehe cout of
operating the Eacility has inrreasad by appcoximetely eighteen
percent (18f) annuelly since 197� whereas revenues have only
. increased by epproxfd�ntely tMirteen percent (13�� each yeac. Tn
' the abaence of e caet lncreast at if�is time, the facilily would
operate at a d�Eicit aext yoar and a suEfictsnt raa�rvt to
pcovid� Eor ita raplacement would noe be established. Adamsk!
explalned ehat ateEE waa tn tho procesa oE praparing a Sanitary
Landl111 Menogement and OpQtetiono Plan Eoc tht Eacility, to
addr@ss ehe use of tho Eacility a� well as ita ceplacmaenlr ehe
Alan wou3d be svellablo no ]�cec tban Octob�r ol n�xe y�ar. !lo
reco�menrled appcovol ot eho resolutlon as sub�aitted.
Child noted that the caBOlutlon would establieh a teo on tho
basis o! cubic yac�st ic vas no! known vhy the fees vec• to be
�,tabllsbed on tbts basia when tAe�e vas a scale at !he taailtty.
Adameki explained that eho scalo wae no� operaelve at thia li�e
as tt requt�ed a paved scaa to lunction proparly. The scala aroa
would be paved �ext year in conjunctlon virh the �enovation ot
the e�tiy roadt pendt�g compl�tion oE this p�oject, a cubic yacd
�ee waa neccseacy,
Braudis moved to approve the re�olution, Rlandecud secoadad
; and the wotion passed unanimously.
Rlande�ud ooted that the County has adopted, as tha basis
tor its land use segulaeiona, a policy vhereby grovtb in tbe
community must pay for its iapacts. As growth has cectainly
resulted in impacts on the aolid vaste center, she aug9ested that
tbe Dlcector revtew the appropriateness of aasessing n solid
waste ceoter fee Lor all lend use a ppsovalsr fees eo collected
could be used, Eor in6tance, to mitigate the impacts ot nev
development by p[epa�ing for a replacement facility.
Plannin9 Klanderad moved to appoint Jim Resec artd Petec Dob[ovolny,
' Zonin9 both alternate membecs on the Planning and Zoning Commission, as
Comm cegular members to the Commission. The appointments would fill
App't th� vacancies created by the cesi9nation of Clark Smyth and ltike
Otte, both of whose tecros expired in Harch of 1988. eraudis
� seconded and the motion passed uaanimously.
Madsen moved to appoint John McBride and Deborah Knowlton as
alternate members to the Planning and Zoning Commission, to fill
the Reser and Dobcovolny tecros; the tecros would expire in Macch
• of 1988 and !larch of 1987, respectively. Braudis seconded and the
motion passed unanimously.
' ----------
�t _, ;
_ Columbine Cindy Houben introduced the Colnmbine Storage Center, Inc.
''.� ,"j Storage application, a cequest for the extension of a Commercial Gl1P
- i
:;K,":�•,�; Commissioner's Meeting 9 September, 1985 - 12
e,�•���:`;=i
':
' ��.
� 'F'... - � J. '
, •:, F - �� � ..
f., �
� .� � .:"�� + ',.. �-.s.. , , '`, _�l ,1� . '
�:�, . -tE' \' y . 't �r'�1
� - � _ . - � . _ � . ,. . . �. . .�s � . i..s��i.�w� �''- Y.,r . , - .
GMP allocation for a ten thousand, eight hundced and focty (10,840)
Extpnd square foot buildfng to be conatructed on Lot Nine (9) 8, Block
Fiva (5? of the Airport Business Center. The subject proppcty xas
ovnpd by John McBride and was leased to the Phoenix Ski Corporation,
who received the allocation noted in August of 1983; the building
was neve[ const�ucted, horrevec, and the subject ptope[ty was now
under leaee to Columbfne Sioraqe. The applicant has rpquested an
extenaion of the allocation as the subject pcoperty r►ag cecently
leased and as there xas not sufficient time to conatruct the
buildfnq beEore the allocation expireds the Board actually
avacded the alloration to the pco3ect bR 11 october, 1983 and,
parguant tn Cade cequirempnts, a bul2dfng permft must be applied
Eor within two (2i years fcom the datt of an award. The app2fcant
hag aryrled to conatcuct the facility consistent with the comrnitmenta
and condic�ona assnciated with the Phoenix approval excep[ foc
; one (1?t the Corporation aqreed to incocporate solac heat in the
but2dinq, a cortunitmt�t which was not considered applicable to
atorage unfts es they wece not heat@d.
Nouben explained that GMP Bxtenslone can be qrentsd pucsunnt
to Section 5-510.8 oE the Cod� provided thece was diligence !e
pursuing the dovalo�ment and thece was just causo. In this
lnsta�ce, thQ tand loeae for the subject pcoperty ha� beee
• rhonqtd wletf rospoct to leaaeea and ehe app]lcant has agreod to
abide with thc condiaions oE opprovu! aaBOCiatcd wlth the oi]oca-
tioe, all o[ whJ�cb was constdocod juat cauue. The P2anninq Ofltce
c�commended ehat the exlansion be gce�ted Eo[ a o�t (1) yaer
pesiod, !o expira on 11 October, 1986. Houben eeted that two
l2) spoclfic ia�d use reviow lasue� would b� a![acted aa a teault
oE th� change !n projecta, thoar boinq eht numbot oE omployees
genecat�d by ehe pcoiect and pa rking rrqul�e+aeotst the applican! '
would 1Lkely request tbat tbeae is4ues ba �econaid�red r�sxt
yeac.
Nadeen moved to g�ant the oxtension ot the allocaeton foc
the subjec! propesty tor a one tl) yoar pe�lod, ko axplce on 1�
Qctobct, 1986. praudte aeconded.
Klandecud axpressed somc concecn aa to whethec the applieant
hod executed a leaee For the subject prope�Cy as oE this tia►e.
� Columbine Slocaga w+ner 0111 Octman� explained that he bas not
yet entered into a lease aqceamo�t vlth NcBride pending an
extensio� oF the allocati�n.
Rlanderud 6uggested that the exteneian �equest be submitted
by McBttde, as owner of the subject propertyi in the absence of
such a �equest, a lease should be enteced into with Columbine
Stocage, prior to granting the extension. so that the use of the
subject property vas established.
Madsen tben withdrew his motion and Braudis agreed.
Madsen then moved to table the applicatio� to the subaequent
cegular meeting pending the submissioo of a request by the
property o++ner oc an executed lease agreement between the two (2)
parties. Braudls seconded and the motioa passed unaoimously.
Mid- Environmental Coordinatoc Mack Fuller introdueed the Hid-
� Continent Continent Resources opecation for annual review. The Board
� 1lnaua2 conducted an annual review of the opeiation of the facility,
� Reviev located in the Crystal River Valley across fcom the Redstone
totansite, for informational purposes and in an effoct to update
� both County staff and the public on the status of the operation
- ' and its impacts. Fuiler noted that the five (5) year special
� � review permit issued foc the operation would expire next year, at
_-- ` � which time the formal review and renewal of the permit would be
. -{ considered durin+g a public bearing.
- '�1
� � Commissioner's t•feeting 9 September� 1985 - 13
•:',�
�
. . _�
� _ ."tts. — . .._.-.._... . ... . ...����.c_...,.�r—rmn,s�SUt+TT. �'.`ce+liL. _ .Jr_'-�. .+.�..a w �F...
Savage Coal 5ervice operations manager Ron Wood discussed
the coal haulinq opetation, wood noted tt►at, during the annual
ceview last year, Cryatal River Valley residents expressed
concern w#th three (3) specific facets of the operation, thoae
befng coal spillage on the highway, noise fmpacts and speedinq.
Savaqe cesponded to those cancerns as Eollovs:
2. coal spillage: the company has been in the process of
developing a closed coal haul trailer so that the
Carpaulfns could be eliminated. The company has tested
a number of closed trailer� built by a va[fety of
ma»ufacturere, and was tencing one �1) additfonal model
thi� veeks a decision un the purchase of � ap�ciEic
model wouid be made in the near fucure. The purchaee of
coveced tcailern, ubich cost appcoximatply fifty
thousand dollacs {550,0001 each, Monld entice2y control
duae and spillege. Tha eompany utilizes thlrteen �13)
trailers per shfft and ronducts tvo (2) ahiEts dai2y,
' Eor a total of twenty-six (26i tripss operatioae were
limited to five (5) daye eath week. The tarps wece
tedegigned last yeac eo provide Ear grsater eftectiveness
pendinq the purchaae of tbe closed t�ailers. Finelly. a
truck washing facility was undec construclion in
Carbondale, to be completed by 15 October oE thia year
2. aoiae impactss the compeny hae pucchaaed Elitee» (1S)
now tractors eince ehe annual hearfng last y�sr, and
haa inatcueted its drlveca not to jake bteak in certala
areas alonq the hlgt�way. The nev tcactoca wece much
qul�eer than the pcevioua models
3. spoedirtg: tha company adontQd o apeod anfoccoment poliry
io Octobec o! last yaar and aJviaed all drivers accordinq-
ly. The policy, vbicb requiced complianca vlth posted '
+apeed li�aita, p�ovided �oc the pariodic cadar monito[ing
o! all d�iveca eod dtsciplinacy action in thc event oE
non-coaapliance
wood noted that ehe company hos �ot received any complaints thie
yaar with cespact to the abovo. Me oleo noted that the company
waa ceeently eeleet�d by the Colocado Motor Cacciecs' Jlseoeiation
• tat a f]eet satety avard on the basts ot sa[eky acbiovementa ancl
' flaet upgrading.
Mid-Contine»t Rceourc�s environmental Coord3nalor poug
9owman provided a siide pceeentation on mine 3a+provement pcojecta.
Thece were thirty-ftve (35) 8adimeat ponds on the subjact propacty
at thi� time. and a new refuse coaveyoc belt was secently completed
to provide for the clean aad e!f icient disposa2 of coal refuse,
Tbe new coal conveyoc system was neacing completionr a twin bore
tunnel has been dri2led f�to the mountain to a depth oE rtine
thousand (9,000) feet at this t£ms, and dri121ng was continuing
nt a rate of 6etyeen forty (40) and ��fty 150) feet dailys it was
apticipated that the Number One (1) mine vould be accessed by
January of 1986, and that the tunnel would be completed by next
summer. Tbis new system would convey all of the coal removed fcom
this mine to the load out faci2ity by conveyor belt, thus el3mina-
tin9 all of the haul trucks used for tbis mine. There were
approximately fif ty (50) yea�s of coal reserve on the subject
< property.
' 9owman explained that there vas two hundred and fifty
" percent 1250i) of normal snowpack on the property during the 1984
Winter season, all of vhich melted during a seventeen (17) day
period in Hay of this year due to unusually wasm spring conditiona.
The resulting runoff was significant, and caused sediment ponds
to overf2ow, impeded culve�ts, and others. The company vas Iater
- cited for various violations by the Mined Land Reclamation
Division, and a hearing has been scheduled befose the Division on
�5:;;,_ ,. -� 24 September. The company spent approximately two hcuidred thousand
_4'
�5 Commissioner's Heeting 9 Septembe�, 1985 - 14
-f
, � ��:
i7^' t,� . 'Y..+ -
'Fe � Fa�.. ._. �Y., t� .,�u xTj�� � Y ���/ . �
'b+a '� ft i
. - �� � YS � � �� .,� tV��y,�'��r � ` �w, .
S- =�fca , - . � � * "�.,� .. �'`�� �..�
dollars ;$200,000) to cotrect these violatio�s an8 achieved such
within the period of time specifi�d by the Uivi�ions in dddicion,
the company speat anoiher eight hundred thousand dollara (S800,0001
in permanertt 3mpcoveaients to ensure that su»off conditione would
not resule in any fucthpc violationg. 8owman explaine8 rhat
a2most all of the company's mines �xceeded Diviglon atandacds,
and t6at the hearing was qeneraliy limited td tt►e violationg
noeed abovc.
Fuller explained that he contact�d the �iviaion to discuss
thp basfs Eor th� heacingt the biviaion agre�d that corr�ctive
mea�ures wpr� loplesaenEed by the company and that tMe violasions
wQra not an on-going pcoblem. He fel� that both Mid-Coatinenc and
' the Divieion conscientioualy address�d the issue. and he did not
feQl that ths long Cerm rlosuce oE the a�int, cecourae wAich was
available to the Divigion, vao apptopriate qiv@n tha QxtQnt oE
� �ha violationa and thQ coinpany'a timQly s�sponsQ.
CASId augqeacad tha� PuliQC etc�nd tho nivision hoartnq in
Denv�c� the hearing was sch�duled Eor Tueoday. 2� Septemb�r, •t
1�00 p.m. Alchough th�ce vai concern with the vlolations and the
� cesulting envicomae�tal ia�pscli, it was Eelt lhat th� co+apany Md
proaeptiy la�plo�aonted co�r�ctive �aoasures. lncluaing long C�r�a
�itiqatton tschn�ques. It wss no! telt ehat the lonq lsctn closute
oE the mtne would ben�tlt <lther the company oc th• romaunity,
and on thia basis it wai auggtsead the[ Paller attrnd tht heacing.
Pullec �gre�d to d[ait a lattec ro ehe Dlvision !e wpport
ot t11d-ConeJn�nt'i snvlrono►ental lmpact attocts. !oc ravi�w
during the aubsp uent r�gular mooting.
Cbtld expceased appr�eiation, on bahalf ot tha entico eoard,
eo Sav�ge Coal Service toc �eaponding to �estdent wocerna end to
N1d-Continene Reaoucees Eoc ita enviro�uaental impact �itiqatton
techniquea.
Thece baing �o furlhac buatneos, th� �►eetiag was adjoucned.
i
1
. �
�
f
- , �
`
�:,i
..,�''K�e�
�t y� V�
�.�'_�
Ky�f
4X,: .
'.1.�S.;r �,�`�
�;3,7
'g�,w_'<`°�j .
:�. 3��1
.�..3-t
!���,,h--�..��_�::�..,.
np"'�J+�-;'•.� .
�� �
�,�
a.���9
��'»i�
'�r?�� Commissionec's Meeting 9 September, 1985 - 15
�., .,
f
__,...LL...�„,.«n�.,,��.„.�.,..
1985 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PUBLIC HEARING EXHIBITS
September 9 Lazy-O PUD General And A Memorandum Dated September 9, 1985 from Cindy Houben,
GMP Submission(Lots 2-15) Planner,to Board of County Commissioners Note: Minutes
refer to application,but unable to locate e�ibit at time of final
com ilation of record
33
*fE MORAN DU M
EX lBIT
T0: IIoard of County Comnissioners �• . . ± A
-'�,',. t'o.
FROt4: Cindy flouben, Planning Off ice �
RE: Lazy-O PUD General and Gt7P Submission (Lots 2-15)
DATG: September 9, 1985 �
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
REQUEST: Approval General Submission and G[IP Application for Lots 2- �
15 of the Lazy-O P.anch PUD.
APPLICANT: Lazy-O Cattle Company
LOCATION: Sections 4 , 5, 7, 8, Township 9 South, Range 86 West;
located in the Capitol Creek area at the junction of SnoF�mass Creek
Road and Capitol Creek Road.
ACCESS: Proposed off oi Snoe�mass Creek Road and Capitol Creek Road.
SEWAGE: Proposed individual sewage dispo�al systems.
WATER: Pr000sed central water system.
ZONING: RS-30
SITE DATA: Th� site is approxinately 1,573 acres in size; the
proposal is to develop fourteen (14) net•� homesite� of approximately
five (5) acres each. The remaining area is to be maintained as
agricultural property and wi131ife areas. Please note that this
submission is approximately 2/3 of the total proposed project to
develop 21 netv home sites and additional .facilities, with the
remainder having been granted general submission and GElP approval in
1984.
HISTORY: The Lazy-O PUD received General Submission approval in 1984
(Resolution No. 84-112) . This apprcval was based on representations
made by the applicant and additional conditions imposed by the
Planning Commission and BO CC. Seven residential developnent alloca-
tions were granted in 1984 tor Filing 1 of the development (LOts 16-
22) . The applicant caas reguired to submit a General Submission
application for the remainina portion of the development, since it did
not receive growth managenent allocations f or the entire 19II4 General
Subnission. The applicatior. before you toc�ay is for General Submis-
sion and G�1P approval for the remaining fourteen (14) lots. The
application itself has not changed significantly since its 1984 � �
submittal. The representations made in this submittal are made based
on the entire twenty-three (23) unit development and do not proportion
out the commitments based on only 2/3 of the entire development. G[•1P
scorina and General Submission review is based on the development as a
whol e.
REFERRI�L AGENCY COMMENTS:
1. Housing Authority: In a memo c3ated 6/24/85, the Housinq Author-
ity �tated that thcy approve!1 the Gene�ral Submission since no
changes have been made concerninR the emrloyee hou�in� conditions
as imposed at the tir.ie oi the 19£�n Gencral Submission.
2. Environmental Health: in a ncmo dated 7-15-05, Pob Plcl�on of thc
. L•'nvironi�cntal Itcalth net�artr.icnt noint� out thc lolloti�in�;
conccr ri:,:
a) Water Supply - All rr.cor.;rocndations mad"c in the Schmcu�er &
A:::�ociaL-a:; enc:i.necrin:t rcr�ort ot Anril 29, 19t:5 ^.t�ould h�.
L'ollowr.d. "11 tc�t ��cll 'in thc vicinity aL thc r�anch hou::c
�:.,, _ . __ �_.p_�___ ___. .. .
should be develaped prior to final pl�t in order to
ascertain the exact quantity and quality of water yielded
from the Dakota Sandstone formation."
The applicant has made modifications to the water supply
system which eff ect the commitments made at 1984 General
Submission to thc Little Elk Creek Village and Basalt and
Rural Fire Protection District. The 100,000 gallon water
tank which was to serve LECV has been relocated. This
change dictates the need for an additional tank and pumping
facilitie� to service LE CV. Mr. Nelson points out that
there is no indication in the application who is responsible
for the cost of the additional tank and components to the
water system. On August 6th at the meeting before the
Planning Commission, the applicants represented that their
intention is to service the entire development with the
proposed 1984 water system. The Planning Commi ssion nade
this a condition of approval, thereby aleviating the
concerns of the LECV homeowners regarding the water system.
b) Sewage Disposal - Lots that can use soils in the meadow
(146D soils) should do so. Lots unable to place systems in
these soils will require more costly designs (see specifics
in meno) . .
All recommendations made in the engineerinq reports done for
the develoFnnent should be made conditions of approval on the
a
j f i na 1 pl at.
3. Environmental. Coordinator; in a memo dated 7/19/85 t�fark Fuller
points out the following concerns regarding the General Sub-
mission: •
. a? The protective covenants to be submitted with Detailed
Submission should include guidelines for the design of .
structures with regard to compatibility with surrounding
area anc} existing conditions.
b) Plantings to be done f or visual screening and wildlif e
. enhancement should be completed prior to the issuance of
building permits for Lots 5 and 13. This should be included
in the Subdivision Improvements Agreement submitted with
Detailed Submission.
c) Weed Control - The Subdivision Improvements Agreement
submitted with Detailed Submission should commit to a
specific �veed control program with implementation time-
lines. At such time as a weed control district is f ormed
for that area Lazy-O shall commit to joining that district.
, d) t9ildlife - Detailed Submittal should define the dates (June
15 through Oct. 1 and Dec. 15 through April 15) for non-
mitigation periods of the year.- In addition, Mr. Fuller
feels that the Division of t7ildlife and applicant should
clarify the meaning of "priority hunting treatment." He
questions who will administer the wildlife ea�ement as well
as notes that the Division of �aildlife or ASES shoul� be
granted access not only for purposes of follo�a up s-tudy but
in order to evaluate the impacts of the entire development.
Therefore, the•�e agencies should have access to .the entire
property.
4. Colorado Geological Survey - In a memo dated 7-10-05, the CGS
concurred c�ith nr. LamPiri�' recor.unendations concerninn buildinq
sitca and the nced ior c?etailcd lounc'.ution invc�ti�,tion�. In
acldition, thcy continuc to �dvi�c carefnl concideration to slorr_
st::Uilicy a;:;��cl-s oi indiviclual :�c��tic cy:,tcr.is.
S. Division of F�ater Resources: In a lettcr cl��tec3 7-11.-t;5 ttic
t>ivi siun oi t•l�:tec Rc:,c�urcc:: iioCc� t1�Mt tlicrc ie udc�;u.�t�� pl�y:;ical
2
_ .. _ ..., �.
water �upply for the development and that they havc no major
objection:, to the proposed development. Thcy recommend, however,
that final plat approval be M�ithheld until the proposed aug-
mentation plan is approved. .
6. Basalt and Rural Fire Ptotection District: In a memo dated
7/11/85, the Lk�salt and Rural Fire Protection District made thc
following comments:
1. They would like the substation parcel conveyed prior to
final plat. Procedurally, this cannot be accomplished,
however, it is important' that the Fire District and the
County be given assurances that the parcel will be conveyed
to the Fire Department. This can be done by making a
condition of approval at Detailed Submissi.on that the
applicants provide a list outlining exactly how the Basalt
and Rural Fire Protection District must "demonstrate"
reasonable proof of adequate funds to construct the substa-
ti on.
2. The Fire District points out that the applicant has agreed
to bear the cost of treatment of the irrigation channel on
the substation site (Agreement per the 1984 General Submis-
sion) . This should f urther be agreed to by the a pplicant at
this time.
3. The applicant agrees to provide the necessary hookups to the
property line for the substation. The Fire Department
points out that this should also include the necessar.y
donestic water hookups.
4. The Fire District is concerned about the chanaes in the •
water supply system (changes between 1984 and 1985 General
and Gt4P Subnissions) with regard to fire flows. They
question fire flows for specific lots. "The district
continues to recommend ISO as a minimum for fire flows and
the complete water system, and recommend that the system be
engineered to meet ISO standards as had been done in the
1989 Gt•1P and General Submi ssion. " At the August 6th
meeting, the applicant agreed to orovide the proposed 1984
level of water service.
5. Due to the relocation of the augmentation pond, well and
tank, the substation parcel should be provided with a
hydrant on-site.
6. The 1984 Submission refers to the road as a 20 foot wide
road. The 1985 submission refers to it as 18 feet with 2
foot shoulders. The Fire District recommends that the
road be 20 f.eet wide with 2 foot shoulders for emergency
vehicles. .
7. The District further recommend:, that the loop road be gravel
• and be maintainec3 year-round to allow year-road emergency
access. --
8. The Fire District further states that they have no desire to
be included in the Ilomeowners Association or be a part of
the 'PUD development.
PUBLIC O�MMENT: '
1. Little Elk Creek Homeowners Association - In a memo dated
7/24/E35, the Ilomeovrner� A.^:oci�tion er.nre�;ed concern over the
changes m.:dc fror.i tt�c 1S£34 Gencral Subr.ii�sion to the 19L'5 Cencral
and net�ilecl ::uh;ii�sion rc�crc'.inc+ thc ��;:tr.r sv::ter�. Thc mc�r�o
identil icc L•hc ch:inac:; n:�icic tuiQ tl�e a;sociit`eci ir:�.�cL•^ c�n tLc:
Lca�ibil.ity oL' I,ittic I;lk Crccl: Vi2l.aqc evcr rc�lizina ��n
unaracacd �•�1tcr sy�tcm. In ::ui;��:arv,, thc Ror.icot�iy^r:: Ar.::ociati�n
woulcl liE:c ascur�ncc^ that ttic c:��•elo;�:u�nt bc rc.�uirccl to acr.et:C
. 3
and commit to cost� a��ociated with the newly propo�ed water
sy�tem component� and thct thc levcl of scrvicc �ropo�ed in thc
1989 Submi��ion will remain the :,ame at no additional cost to
LECV. At the Augu�t 6th meeting, the applicants agreed to the
proposed 19E34 level of service.
2. Snowmass/Capitol Creek Caucus - The Snowma�s/Capitol Creek Caucu�
requested thnt a copy of their recently adopted goals and
objective� be attached to this memo (�ee attachment) . Several
members of the caucus were present at the August 6th Planning
Commission meeting voicing their objection to the development
proposal with re�ards to its urban amenities in a currently rural
area. .
STAFF COMN�NTS:
1. prior to the Augu�t 6th Planning Commission meeting, the Planning
Office shared the concerns voiced by the Fire District and the
LECV homeowners regarding the change in the water supply system
and how it hac3 been substantially changed since the 1984 General
Submission. However, the applicants assured the Planninq
Conmission that the intention was to keep the proposed 1984 r�ater
supply design. The Planning Commission made this rep=esentation
a condition of approval. Therefore, the items of concern
regardinq the proposed 1985 water supply plan have not been
outlined in this meno. .
2. The apolication states that a sufficient anount of water rights
will be covenanted in order to continue the irrigation of
the Historically Irriqated Lands. The amourt of t•�ater needed to
irrigate this land should be identified and comr�itted to at the
time of Detailed Submission. .
. 3. The Planning Office is concerned that the irrigated ranch land
remain as productive land. The applicants' pronosal is that the
homeo��ners association will be responsible for continuing
agricultural activities on the ranch land. The Planning Office
feels that the possibility of selling the .ranch parcel as a
separate parcel with no developnent rights other than agriculture
should be explored. It is our opinion that single o�vnership of
the irrigated ranch lands could reduce the chance of losing the
productivity of the parcel since a single owner wouid have more
of a vested interest in the ranch than a homeowners association.
PIe feel that this would not change the concept of the FtJD since
the intention is to maintain the agricultural parcel anyway.
This idea could feasibly work under the existing land use
requlations. The total Lazy-0 PUD parcel is 1575 acres including
496 acres of Historically Irrigated Land. Thus, the ninimum lot
Size requirement for one unit per 30 acres could $till be met if
the ranching parcel r�ere sold separately (creating a density of
a pproxinately �IG.B acres per unit) .
4. Access points shoul� be defined for the fishing easement on
Capitol Creek and signage of the easement should be committed to
at the tine of Detailed Subnission.
5. The 1984 General Submission ref ers to the loop road beinq 20 fect
wide. The 1�E5 Subnission refer� to the road as 18 feet wide
with 2 foot shoulders. The Planning Commission and PlanninR
Office �upports the rasalt and Fural Fire Protection District
request to maintain the 20 foot width r�ith 2 foot shoulders for
emergency vehicular use. ,
6. 1041 Concerns: nt the Plannir.n Comr.�i.:,ion mcetinc* en T.ucru_t 6th,
. the F�l:inrina ('oi.;;ri:-^ior recor.u�enc:ed aprroval ot all thc 10�41
issuc^ ot conccrn t:�ith thc conditians a� c�utlined in the conili-
tionc oi ri;�! rvv�.l iounci ;it t;ic unci oi tL•i:; r�r:r.io.
a. Geoloe�ic Concerns - S117CL' the 1�t.4 ;uu.iittal, L•he anT:lic�;nL:.
�]uVU L�J(�� ::CVGCC�l. Clli:lic'C:� liL1L CG ciQ01(i(i14 :.;L'UUlC.^. l�011it �71/
' 4 •
l�ick Lampzris and ba�ed on the referrals of the Color��do
Genloqic Survey. Ra�d on those studie�, Elomesite #2 ha�
been relocated to mitigate possible concerns for an inactive
landslide area on thc western portion of the property. A� a •
re�ult of this relocation, there are no homesites located in
geoloaic hazard areas (,ee application Tor Dr. Lampiri�'
updated report) . Dr. Lampiris' report outlines several
recomnendations for development, all of which the applicants
comnit to follow (page 30, General 5ubmission application) .
An additional condition of approval noted in Dr. Lampiris'
. letter of 5/22/E5 submitted ���ith the application states that
buildinas located on Lots 6, 7, 13 and 15 shall be no less
than 50 feet at•�ay from the base of the slopes in order to
stay away from potential snow avalanche areas. Building
envelopes presented at Detailed Submission should reflect
this distance limitation. Based on the technical informa-
tion submitted with the apolication, and the developer's
a�illingness to follov� all recommendations of Dr. Lampiris,
the Planning Office recommends approval of the 1041 Special
P.eview for Geologic Hazards.
b. Wildfire - No development is located dicectly r�ithin
wildfire hazard areas, however, the• applicant commits to
mitigate potential wildfire problems tiy requiring a 25 foot
firebreak to surround the homesites. Thi s shall be a
conmitr�ent made in the Subdivision Covenants. In addition,
these covenants shall prohibit new plantings around hone-
sites which do not conform to good firE protection prac-
tices. The Planning Office recor.unends anproval of the
. Special P.eview L-or t•7ildfire 1041 concerns oiith 'the condition
that the above representations are adequately committed to
- at the time of Detailed Subr�ission.
c. Floodplain - The site �contains 100 year floodplain concerns �
around Capitol Creek. No development is propcsed within the
floodplain with the exception of the construction of the
LECV interconnection water line which will be buried
underground. The actual cvaterline 4�i11 nat pose any
• floodplain hazard, however, the construction phase should be
carefully monitored so as not to cause a substantial
increase in sedimentation or erosion (see 5-400.2(a) (G) ) .
The applicant states that the streambed will be revegetat-
ed. 1lnother proposed activity within the floodplain is the
fishermen's easenent. There are no 1091 concerns associated
with this activity. The Planning Office recor:unends approval
of the 1041 floodplain hazards special review with the
condition that prior to construction of the interconnection
waterline across the flooc.plain, the anplicant shall obtain
a �104 permit if required by the Army Corp. of Engineers and
that a copy of this permit shall be submitted to the
Planning Office prior to any construction.
c;. Wildlife - The 10�11 wildlife concerns related to the Lazy-O
developnent have been identified as deer and elk migration
corricors. Lots 2, 3, 4 and 12 have been relocated and Lot
5 has been shifted in order to comply with the Divi�ion of
Ylildlife concerns expressed when the 1Rt3� General Submission
was reviee�ed. Lots 2, 3 and 4 have bcen relocated in order
to mitic7ate ntigration corridor concern�. Lot 12 h4s becn
relocated in order to mitigate the visual ir.sr.acts associated
with the fecding area in the upper alf�lfa ficld.
'Phe looG rwd l�a.^, been ciee.ign�ted a� a limitec', r.ccec� r.irt
ro�:cl bct��cen I.,ot� 1 aiid 5 in orcic•r to mitinatc ir:�::.ict� un
a:i1i'.l.i.i:c c]urinc� t}ic r:ii�rciY.ion �:c�rioci:: oi L-lic S•car. 'i'l�ic
rc��c? a�ill i�c i,locl:c(t t>v : c,::tc nc�:r L•l�a cnLrt:i�cc oL Li�c
t•rorrrL•v cicrinq thc mi.c�r::t-ion ::ca�.on�. Itowcvcr, it ^.hall !�c
. avc�ilahlc L"UC C'RICCt•CI1C`� Li.rr acccc� �nci rcc+:rc'.ir.�� or•�:r.; -
tion^. P.c:nciy CoLe ui l:hc I�ivi�ion ol' S:ildliic i»c�icc:t��cl
� �
over the phone that thc developers had mitigated all the
concern:: that the Division of l�lildliPc had and that they
havc no furthcr comment�.
The Fire District has a:,ked that the road be graveled and
maintained year-round. The Planning Commission made a
recomncndation that the loop road be closed year round with
a locked gate and that the road be graveled and built to
cover County "County Road" access road standards in terms of
width.
7. Growth Managenent Allocation - The 1985 dor�n valley
residential available quota is 10 units. The Planning
Commission and Plannin9 Office supports the allocation of
the entire fourteen (I4) units being requested by this
General Submission application for the followirig reasons.
a. The growth rate dor�n Valley has not been substantial
enough to e�;ceed the available grocath manager�ent
quota. Down valley growth in 1984 was below the
allowed quota (14 units with the quota being 24) . Data
to mid-year 1985 would indicate that a similar growth
trend is occurring this year.
b. Since 1978, only one aFproved allocation for dorrn
valley has actually been constructed. Three major
development� have been approved including nine (9)
units for the L•Ihite Star Ranch; 20 units for the Owl
Creek PUD and 45 units for Aspen Vi11aRe, however, none
of these have been constructed. t�7e believe that these
projects t•rill phase themselves due to the constraints
of the marketplace and its. ability to ab�orb these
devel opment s.
c. It is a hardship for the applicants to be force to
apply for a 3rd year and there does not appear to be
any public benefit from such a requirement.
d. F3ased on the merits of .the proposal and due to the
complexity of reviewing a project which makes commit-
ments based on an entire development proposal yet cahich
is approved on a phased basis, the Planning Office
recommends that the Planning Commission approve the
full allocation of fourteen (14) units by "borrowing"
four (4) units from the 1956 quota, which will be
offset prior to next year's conpetition.
In summary, the General Submission application has only chanaed since
1984 in the areas noted above. The major concern regerding the water
supply system has been resolved by the applicants connitment to the
1984 �rater supply plan. As v�as determined last year, the proposal i�
consistent with the intents and purposes of the F-30 PUD zone district
re�ulations. On a conceptual level the proposal addresses the
requirements of the Code and in :,everal areas goes above and beyond
Code rec�uirements, such as supplying thc adjacent neighborhood with an
additional water supply, donation of � parcel of ground for a fire
substation, reduction in allo�•�able density by 56�, 50" gceater than
the required road improvement contribution, pre�ervation of aRricul-
tural land� ancl contribution of funds to mas� transit (RFT11) znd the
School District.
PLA21t1ING COltEfISSION RECOt•]l�NDATION: The Planninc� Comriission recor.�-
mcnc:� a�_:�roval of Gencral Subni�::ion for Lo�s 2-15 ot the Lazy-O n�n
subject to the iollo�•rin� conditions:
1. P.cnuirernent Lor thc r,:��r:��nt in lieu provi�ion for fourtr•cn
( 1 4) lou-inco�ae ctr.r,loyr�c� rc�:;idcnt-:: e.liall. i;c ii;de>sc! i ii
accorci::ncc wich Lho I'it.l:ir. Cc�u::tv T,and U:;c ('ocii: in eLtccl• :L•
l•!ic t•iric of ie.r.iiancc oi` L•l�c builc:inci ��cr�ait: Lc,[ e�:cl�
l:rr:���:::ifa ��nc) I:�.::,eci uj>c>n Li�c t�.:unl��-onc (?1) iiomr:r,iLc:;.
�
Paynent of thc payment-in-licu provision per homesite �hall
be madc at thc time o[ issuancc of the building permit
for each homc�itc.
2. Verification of employnent and income of the qualifying
tenant for the Ranch �,anaaer complex shall be furni�hed to
the llousing Office beiore er.ecution of a rental lease under
low-incone guidelines.
3. The orrners of the F.anch 1".anager conplex shall be required to
supply the ilousing Office with a copy of the lease executed
with a qualificd tenant each six (6y months thereafter (or
upon the rener�zl of the lease if for a longer• period) the
[lousing Office shall be given a copy of the renewed lease.
4. The tenants of the P,anch t7anager complex will� be qualified
according to the Flonsing Authority �ualification Guidelines
in place at the time of the issuance of the first new
building permit issued to the Lazy-O Ranch.
5. The recommendation of Schmueser and Associates in their
reports as found in the 19£35 General Submission, Appendices
8, 9 and 10 shall be made conditions of approval to be fully
committed to and documented at .the tine of detailed submis-
�ion.
6. The property .,hall be deed-restricted in perpetuity to no
additional develo�nent.
7. The water supuly system shall be built to the 1°84 General
� Subnission application representations and proof of an
ade uate water s
q upply shall be submitted prior to recorda-
tion of Final Plat.
8. All utilities will be installed underground in appropriate
ea seme nt s.
9. The t•7ater Court shall approve any_ water augmentation plan
prior to the recording of Final Plat.
10. The applicant shall demonstrate at Detailed Submission
compliance with the recommendations of the Basalt and Rural
Fire Protection District regarding ISO and fire flow
standatds as outlined in their letters to the Planning
Office dated 7/17/84 and 7/11/85. Furthermore, the appli-
' cants �ha11. outline how the Fire District is to demonstrate
adequate funds in order to have the substation parcel
conveyed to the District.
11. As part of Detai].ed Submission, the applicant shall include
in the Subdivision Covenants and the Improvements Agreement
all n,aterial cor�nitments made in the General submission •
and�Gt•9P applicatin, a� appropriate.
12. Detailed and Final Plats shall 8esignate building envelopes
ror all residential, recreational and agricultural out-
buildinas. taY.inc, into consideration solar orientation,
scenic quality (placenent and height� , in order to protect
the scenic quality of the area.
13. The Comnission reserves thc right to review the size and
loeation of .:c�ricul�ucal out-huildinnc at I?et��ilecl Subn:i�-
::ion in ordcr to protect the �cenic c�uality of L-he area.
1,. Ai�y �:�oodt-�urni�i� c'.evicc_: LN�yo�d thc onc Pcr buildinq Fxrrnit
rz]lo�:ed to be incL•��).lcc3 ir, thc �:nbdivi„ion :.hall be ccri:i-
. 1:i^<i .., i;;;�rorc:ri I�; t:'.c l::�vircr:aenl-cl Ccal tit I':;l,::rt.r.iciit uL
Fitki.n CounL•y, ,al- �!�c Pi.�.;i: �r i:;�u�nce ol c..ch t�ui1�'inc;
Fxrr:it.
7 •
15. The Commis�ion rescrves the right to revicw the aP�ropriate-
ne�� of thc F�ropo.,ed fire substation at Detailed SuUmis�ion.
16. The approval is subject to the receipt of a Gt4P quota
allocation from the 13oard of County Commissioners.
17. The applicant shall agree that all cash payment� be indexed
and paid on a proportionate basis at the time of issuance of
building pernits.
18. Detailed Submission shall clearly state in the Subdivision
Znprovement� Agreer�ent that the applicant is providing I,CCV
will 100 percent of the entire cost of th2 interconnect to
the water system as shown on the General Submission Plats
r�ith the exception of only 50 percent of the co,,t of the
interconnect line from the PUD property boundary to the LECV
system. In addition, the ap��licants mnst verify that they
can leqally serve the LECV interconnect system. The level
o€ service to the LCCV will be the same as was committed to
in the 1984 Lazy-O AJD Filing Plo. 1 GMP submission.
19. Detailed Subnission shall combine both the 198�1 General
Submission approval for seven (7) units and the 1985 General
Submission approval for fourteen (14) units in order to
adequately review the entire deve2opment at one time.
20. Detailed Submission shall address all of the concerns
er.gressed by the County Environmental Coordinator in his
nemo of July 19, 1°85 .
21. That the applicant shall er.plore the option of creating a
separate parcel for the agricultural ranching oneration such
• that it could be sold as a separate parcel. The applicant
shall submit a report outlining the various alternative
forms of ownership for the agricultural �rcel and the pros
and cons for those ownership alternatives relative to
preservi�ng the agricultural viability of the garcel.
22. Limited grazing shall be alloc•ied in the conservation area so
. long as it is not a detriment to the carrying capacity of
the wildlife.
23. The loop road c�ill be closed year-round with a locked gate.
The road shall be graveled and built to county country
access road standards in terms of the width.
In addition, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the 1041
special review items with the following conditions:
1. Geologic 1041 Hazard Review shall be approved based on the
condition thet buildinas located on Lots 6, 7, 8, 13 and 15
shall be no less than fifty (50) fect ac•�ay irom the base of
the sloged in orcler to stay away from potential sno��
avalanche areas.
2. Wildfire 1041 Hazard Review shall be approved lk�sed on the
conditions that a twenty-five (25) foot firebrea{: shall
surroui:d thc honc�ites and new pl�nting arour,�( hone�ite�
which do not cor.fom to nood fire nrotection gractice �liall
be prohibitec3.• The aPrlicunt shall conr.iit to the�e concli-
tions fn the Protective Covenants submitted at Detailed
Submi:,::icn.
3. Wildfire 1041 llazard Review �lizll L:c arproved k>a::ec's on tl�e
con�:ition Cliat i•l;t•rc ::l�ail bc a locl:ec a�:�e luc�iteci ncar Ll;c
en*_r.�nr.c oi: thc nro�:crt�� in ordcr tc, �:ec�:� traffic, ol-,ic•r
'ill:l[l �.':.�itCir_�ilC�' GC' 1;..1�:c':l t:C::11.14� 01�1: �11(: i0U1� CC::C�.
4. 1041 rloodplain Ilazard Review :�hall. bc arr�ravacl I�:�:.��e', on ll�e
cc>>;<:iL'i.v1': L't�,!L I.�rior. L� c:un::lruc.tion oc t:Lc 1.iiCV inCc�r—
� _ .
connection waterlinc across Capitol Creek, the applicant
shall obtain u 404 permit if required by the Army Corp. of
�nc7in%�crs. A copy of this permit shall be submitted to the
Planning Office prior to any construction.
CI�.51 •
9 • . . • , •
. . •
, The Aspea Times
' . Z, - . . .. ....'A: .�
QOX E . • -, C^�.
Aspen, Colorado P' _/�._�.-�5_...
r• . _ . .C���. �,.'.�?
PROOF OF PUBLOCATION
STATE OF COLORADO ) COF7�/ of Notice
) ss.
County af Pitkin )
I, W i.l l:am R. Dunaway �o solemnly s��eer that
P u b 1 i s h e r ;- msMOwwouM
I am the of TIiE ASPEN TIME5; �:�yy,0 p��G�P SllB1d1S3iOt�w�
that the same is a weekly newspaper printed, in ahole or in part, iwlN�z����' b�►e
NOTICE IS iiSltEBY GtY�9����
and published in the County of Pitkin, Slate of Colorado, and has �.�M waue�n�moas��Co
�befWelbeBo�tddCountRoom.��'°
a genera! circulation therein; that said newspaper has been pub- ��,�o„ea Neeunt
oolaado.W tauider lhe General
lished continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Pitliin, ��`"'.,,�.lat.av���•�'��z�'a°,
for a geriod of more than fift�••t«•o consecutive w•eeks next prior PUn.'lu�•p�k'�a'p1°°0"' or�i4
ue{4 and 2 unib d re�ip��ceview•
to the first publication of the annexed 1ega1 noticc or advertise- �uue����
Abobbeca �2thstWlreview�
ment; tbat said newspaper has been addmitted to lhe United States ,d;,,`ge,,,t,e;e�.s.,a.,..iwt�r�t"b'e'r'°"d
ei
mails as second•class matter under the provisions of the Act of �P�'�i,��;bi�.�re,ne.��w"��og
A4arch 3, 1879, or any amendmenls thereof, and that said new�5- Fm furU�e*►n��COp��°euNi
pp'we,190 8 Gs1w�A���816t1 I�0918Z5�
paQer is a weekly newspaper duly qualified for pubtishing legal �o2o,at22�- �,�B��„�,.n
notices and advertisements w�ith the meaning o[ the laws of the Boe�d.arcw+���y�"1°+�0"°'O�
piticin Camt1.C��°�°
State of Colorado. �`���^�N15me�Augw►8;1886:
�b
That the annexed Iegal notice or advertisement ��•as published
in the regular and entire issue of every number o[ said weekly
newspaper tor the period of 1 consecutive. insertions; and
that the first publication of said notice aas in the issue of said
newspaper dated AuCJuSt 8 A.D., 1H 85 and that
the last publication of said notice was i� the issue of said news•
paper dated A.D., 19_
�
,�'���tT�/ ��•��'�
Subscribed and sworn to betore me, a notary publ� a d for
the ounty of Pitkin, State o[ Colorado, this �,.day of
A.D., 19�
Notar Public
riy commission expires C