The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutbocc.min.reg.04281985 „�. • . ' �. • � - Y L T ry ' . � S � ,. t Y f 17�"'�x : � � C. !�1 �..�,J J f � 1 ! .�:1; y� . . �r �i'i � ��f �tZ�1�i vx� �,/�o>Y�� .yd Qf�yk.�S } 1'�t'' r t`�,� a-�,�: i�f� {`'� �y7�1 ...✓�+��i+�eR ��Y��a��`��v�.. . • .. . riy<ti�`� ;r r ;;} ~ BOARD OF COUNTY CO!lKISSIONERS AGENDA ' %i 28 APRIL, 1986 :. � $:30 a.m. Executive Session - Litigation - Tom Smith, County �. M{ �< - Attorney � � ::•�� ADMINISTRATION �' - � � 9:30 Weed District Petition Acceptance - Jim Duke, Weed �'. � ` ' District Coordinator ; ..- � - ;rr� 10:00 Banner Associates Airport Entrance Project . Contract - Bud Eyl.ar, Public Works Director � LAND IIS& r�3' 10:30 Lazy Glen Dog Restriction Continued - Francis - Rrizmanich, Planning I1:00 Public Hearing - Newton 1041 Hazard Review-✓ Francis Rrizmanich �''"`'”- ;., ADMINISTRATION 'i�. ,� ',- . -8 11:Z5 Resolutions and Contracts r� � Minutes ' �' ,� Shore Lot Lfne Adjustment - Francis Rrizmanich �t. � Airport Air Show: Eisen Employment Contract - Ann a Bowman, Property Manager 1 Pitkin Portage Use & License Agreement - Ann � ` s..,�:,j Bowman t�� y Road & Bridge Snowplow Bid Award - Bruce , �� j Vande=qaw, Fleet Manager • �"� f=' Road & Bridqe Water Trnck Purchase Authorization- ��' Bruce Vandergaw y,,, �', 11:30 Owl Creek Club Massage Paclour License - Kim '� Whitestone, Deputy County Cletk ��" � ReBstone Flood Control Project Contract - Tom ` ' � Newland, Planning �;� ' Airport 8earing Officer Appointment - Tom Smith �' "� Financial Advisoxy Board Appointment - Helen F�� • �� Klanderud t � ,� Colorado State Forest Service Fire Suppression �. < Agreement - Dick Rienast, Sheciff � � ti�� ; `; . First Readina and set Public Aearina ��,�,;; Maple Lot Sale - Ann Bowman �- �-� 19 May, 1986 @ 10:00 a.m, t;; �-� ss:� First Readina 1985 Supplemental Approp=iations - Lynn Dunlop, �: � Hudget Analyst f� 12:00 0' t r Year and Firat u J in BOCC/FAB: Prio Q arter `� Financial Repocts - Tom Oken/Lynn Dunlop 7-"� (LUnch Provided) g� `- �'- l -rF ;. 1:30 p.m. Public Comment � 5 • � �' LAND OSB i�. 1; _ r : �� 1:45 ✓ Public Hearing - Aspen 8iqhlands Resort Lodge � i�,y GMP/General Submission - Francis Rrizmanich y;a:- � � ,�,,�� '� �� ,` Y� 'I � . ��.. . �r A " '� . . ... . � . _ ' . _:,..��.:�� ..�.uM.�r. . � �. :, - Yt.� . . � � � . � 1_. i�ry��+: t �i��r�'�y;.. �(�T1..�-..,, � � - i.r r :��r 4�t4 dt 7��.? , i�� .ti,.,. � , , ��y �`�F y�///PR-'� �ta��s � .:�r ;; :� +.i, r ° 1.:��' ;+•��y ��-.:• v .:�:�1:�� ..;q�i�� r 4.F`�` ��,� a r� "'.: _�.., � a � /' 'Y �..� � �� A'�• Ti P r �. . .. e . � ? ya�� 4 4 t�.h:.� (� y� 1r�:j'. . , ,t_.. . t�r�,. .�1....f.�:Ar. � __�.V.. 3'��Cd'+s4�� ...•i. . A ._:�'-'R . .4 x�.X� �11xL ..�F��yyy{ f �� . P"�' ,�AC7 i '. , . ...:g<i".,.. �� 4 f.�'� . :�- .:ri 7_ (.. 4:h•sr,.y_ � , . � `h` � I '4 r..�l_. �� ; a_; :,:,; i {s., '.. .., 1 �4 'r.;.. i PITICIN OOONTY �F� ; i� '; BOARD OF COt�II�lISSIOHERS �:�_ � A� 2 � ` �ULAR MEETING 28 APR i., 7 86 , ' � ! PRESENT: HELEN RLANDERIID, ROBERT BRAUDIS, ROBERT W CBILD, GEORGE MADSEN, ; THOMAS BLARE • _ --r t ________-- _ i . ,�; Weed Weed District Coozdinatoz Jim Duke introduced a petition '� ' ' Control requesting the formation of a weed conttol district in Pitkin - ' Petition County. The proposed district would be formed for the pu=pose of '' ; Accept controlling Canada, Plumeless and Musk Thistle, LeaEy Spurge and ��%` ' Houndstongue, five (5j different species of weeds that were j injurious to agricultural crops, trees, fruits and pasture. - � ; Participation in the petition process was limited to resident '°` N. ' ! landowners with 9reater than five (5? acres, Duke explained khat :' � there were eight hundred and eiqhty-two {882) landowners with parcels of greater than five (5) acres in size, three hundred and t ninety-two (392) of which wece fbund to be residents of pitki*., or ^1 ; adjacent counties, The petition process itself was limit�d to + Iandowners residing in Piticin or an adjacent County onl•r, twenty- g five percent (258) oE which must petition the Board ro i�rm �•�,;h �>�_ � a district; in the event this percentage was obtained, an election . i on the formation of the district would be scheduled. All landowners � s of greater than five (5) acres were eligible to part3cipate in , the election, whether zesident landowners or not, whereas landowners � with less than five (5) acres were ineligible. '� . ` Duke stated thaE ninety-eight (98) signatures from qualified �"� . -. 1 resident landowners were needed to schedule an election on the � proposed district; the pet�tions submitted for Soard review today ` �=�. • y contained one hundred and eight (108) signatures, a number that �` `. a ,; �� was greater than the twenty-five percent (258) requirement. On this � 5�� ,� basis, an election on the formation of a weed control district <<„•'c:``�-. •`' must be scheduled. Duke suggested that the following election � ' ; � schedule be established: all ballots would be mailed on 6 May, rf : ; 1986, and must be returned hy 16 Nlay, 1986. The ballots would be � ' � s counted on 19 May and, in the event of approval, the Board would ' a convene a special meeting on 20 May to declare the district ?'•:- estabZished, �., �, J Duke explained that the district would not be formed unless i 9 the BoarB found that two thirds of the ballots returned by the 16 q May deadline supported the formation of the district, and f u=ther, � � `�`� that those persons voting in favor of the district constituted f if ty peraent (508) or more of the privately owned ].and in the � district. .� Duke submitted a resolution approving a petition and setting `. � -� an election for the formation of the Pitkin County Weed District. 1 � '� The resolution included a statement of Land Ownership and proposed ��, ballot form, which would be sent to each qualified landowner. . � ,:,; . Commissioner's Meeting 28 April, 1986 - 1 � �' , , , ,:�,. '.�, - . , Y t. . � t �f.'�' i�i'' � 'g�"g�t .: d° ;.:�� . x '� �� ( .l�• 1:�..-- �F�• .._� „ ' : , F3 ��,�rg,` }.P' �fi'� n"x.; � �.r, e^ fY� i�1 �r� � y., ��.+: �7'�c r` ,�a f_.. ..��. �'1�FCGf�` '"i��.e "Gr��+ . �.5�� r-• y � '�? �� f q .Y �r 4f+.. `4z 1 , �. .•E' :;i�f� ty � , �, � �r t +�. �(��'hl. '�i a y'& �. � •^!Y � y� .a r i�'1- �� *� : �M�y, �1... � 1'r�l` (�. - ' � .. . . Ay .'7� ;��.' '� ?•� ;� . . '�{ . Y �� M � �h�,��r '... �� ..� �rY� `�� 7� r:, Duke recommended a roval of the resolution as submitted. `�`' PP �.:.;. �:_..• . Woody Creek resident Stanley Natal felt that the Board had ??; r �*..:� : ' the opportunity to either accept ot reject the petition today; in �,«„_ the event of rejection, the electioe would not be scheduled. d;�'::i � Natal was concerned with the following: `'��''%: a, the use of chemicals to control weed infestation, which i ' could result in adverse environmental impacts, including � water quality� animal life, and others € .) " b, the ballot procedure that would be followed for the > establishment of the dist=ict, and specifically, that ' landowners with less than five (5) acres were precluded "�� from voting ,� 'i c, the autho=ity of the weed distcich advisory board in . the event of distu ct formation, and specifically, the ; ability to levy taxes and assess costs ; . � Natal felt that the Board could, pursuant to the Home Rule � Charter, expand the statutory procedure for weed district formation - ! so that all County property ownera, regardless of acreage, could Y i patticipate. In the alternative, the Board could adopt a 6allot �? :::* � procedure whereby those property owners ineligible to vote on the ;_ • - district could not be taxed f oc weed control efforts. The ballot ; ��'� proced�re recommended by staff excluded participation by a number *� of residents, and it was not felt that the state legislature j intended to disenfranchise these people. � • 5 � Natal requested that the petition be made aveilable for ' �`� public inspection, to allow fo= a determination on its legitimacy. i'' ' � - :�.� He was concerned that the pcoposed district would result in .� another bureaucracy, and he felt that, pechapa, its formation '. ;��j would require court approval. ' ,��. with respect to the cost of weed control eEforts, it was i ' noted that staff estimates indicated a cost of between ten ($20) ' and seventeen dollars {$17) per acre. Natal was concerned, �i howevet, that actual control costs could approximate one thousand, ^� five hundred dollars ($1,500) per acre. There was concern that �_: . . the control program would be detecmined by the advisory board, ! � the cost for which would be assessed to the individual landowners 4`` � ; in the absence of landowner participation. � 1 Natal requested that the Board defer action on the petition, , �:;v, '� and schedule a two (2) or three (3) hour public hearing on the � pcoposed district to allow for public comment prior to the �:< � election. Finally, he questioned the need for a Weed District ' S� �n� Coordinator; it was felt that the Coanty Extension Agent could �.:,�-.:= have been used to assess the weed infestation issue instead. , , ,.-} Coanty Clerk Loretta Banner noted that the resolution �F submitted foc Board review today indicated that the weed district �. ballots would be counted in the Clerk's Office. She explained � that she would require explicit written instructions in the event f'' - the Clerk was to count the ballots, including the bas3s for ,'` qualifying/disqualifying participants, certification, the need ! • ; for judges/witnesses in counting, and others. � Rlanderud expressed some concern as to whether the signatures �l`.� , on the petition had been verified. County Attorney Tom Smith i� .�, explained that each signature was submitted by affidavit and � ,�! under oath, so that there was a presumption of legitimacy. He I`• . '� noted that the petiti�n would be made available to any interested , party, who may file an objection as to the legitimacy of any of ,'� the signatures. The proposed district could be challenged at any ; . . time up until the 20 Flay meeting. He also noted that the resolution ;� submitted for Board review today would not establish the proposed , ,y district, xather, it would simply schedule an eleation on the , Commissioner's Meet3ng 28 April, 1986 - 2 • , - r�! .�, _ r �. � , !i'i�'f,t�'_t:.<�taSt�i`�Ka y� , �,k` � , ie z �, - �K� ' '.� t�av� � . � : � � �ti �'�S�y3` eP� t�1 ti,� . � :. . � -t�. r.i � i_�, � 4 �}4'�➢ ` +�y , , �';r�'� � ;,, 5 � � r , � �, _ `�"�'- :;� `�; � �x� y r � .. � 7' +.- `e e ry �1t' ^„��r.i .- a a:w _. t �`S x�ry, 6i ."" • , t(�i°e{,� � .Y "��'5ti_.(I..��ti.�' \ �4,�• 1.�°{� f�:t� r�ilY � . .� �'� •_ ,.�y�''�j(�jL". �^apl, formation of the district. With respect to the counting of the �<', baliots by the Clerk, he noted that the resolution only indicated ° �� that the ballots woa7.d be counted in the Clerk's Office; it was not �`'R�'" indicated that the Clerk would actuall count the ballots herself. !'w �' � y ,-?'::::-.:.: . 5mith agreed to review a ballot counting ptoced�re prior to 16 May. �:-:: -::` - j_';;";rz'' : Smith explained that notice of today's hearing was not i''' ``�� ' published; there were no formal public heacing requirements for !�`.>"�� the proposed district, and the aceeptance of the petition was not �� considered an appropriate time for such. Smith explained that all � eligible landowners would receive notice of the 20 May, 1986, :? Board meeting, as final aotion on the proposed district would � ; occur at that time. . ! With respect to the request that the Board expand participation `�� r in the election pursuant to the Home 1zuZe Charter, Smith explained ;�� ; that the Chartec provided no such authority. The procedure � � implemented by staff was specifically established by state � statute, in which case Cha=ter , provisions were irrelevant. With h respect to environmental impacts, and specifically the use of ►' ' ' herbicides, he noted that there were very specific state and federal l . � quidelines on water quality and other environmental impacts, and _ •� that the service plan for the pcoposed distriet, in the event of �� '� formation, would be prepated in accordance with those guidelines, t � ..' ; i',�, . .. - � i Patty Cazlson suggested that alternative weed control methods !,. � �.-: � � f be considered in the service plan. She noted that pigs, goats and � geese all £ed o;� thistle, artd she suggested that property owners ; purchase these animals and share them to contro2 weed infestations. , ' Carlson fe3t that weeds could be oontcolled in a more ecologically 1 beneficiaZ £ashion, such as with the use of animals, and she felt ;'' , :xi that landowners should be provided the opportunity to use a , ` � '-J number of different control alternatives. 9 Duke explained that the draEt service glan for the pzoposed i district would tovide a number of weed control alternatives �' ' .', p � 1: �* including bioloqical, mechanical and chemical controls. Chemical , control was not mandatory, rather, this would be one (1) option jthat wou2d be avaiZa6le to landowners. i � • i Stuart Mace explained that he did not own any Zand, but that ��. : he has supervised the use of a large parcel for the past thirty- � nine (39) years; he was appeaiing today, then, as a non-landowner. �'' � Mace felt that the proposed weed district was irresponsible, in (�': �" � that it would attempt to provide a quick and easy solution to ��`' '`� � weed infestation. The infestation of thistles and othec noxious �"�� weeds was attributed ko faulty aqricultural pract3ces and ,.�, I.�Y � overgrazing, practices which the proposed district would not i ��„�:a�;;,. address. The use of hetbicides to conttol weed infestation was � considered a temporary solution, and there was conce=n that such � ,. '� would kill a number of beneficial plants in addition to weeds. t .� Mace felt that the landowners should collectively resolve the i, � ;'� ,�� issue by manually removing weeds, correcting agricultural practices ;' ,;;; and ovecgrazing. The formation of the proposed district was not � - ' ! consideted 6eneficial in that it would entice landowners to implement the easiest solution, that being herbicides, so that � ! the more environmentally appropriate solutions would be ignored. � ` Klandetud explained that the environmentally appropriate ;,�` , contcol mechanisms, including manual removal and addressing the cause of infestation, would be available and encouraged in the �, dratt service plan. She noted that these mechanisms were available �� at this time, in the absence of a district, but that landowners have failed to implement any control mechanism whatsoever. The :� County 'has been criticized Eor nat addressing the problem, and � the £ormation of a control district was intended to respond to . , this concern. " Smith explained that the action of the Board was limited ' � today to the review of the petition only; in the event the �i -- Commissionet's Meeting 28 April, 1966 - 3 � .,fi . fi} , � r � t � . ,'', �Z ,e4qs tL7MY..�*t�,��k�f �P��.. �t.� � .,,'' ;�);J. � ��.' ��., ` '.w �'•�•, 1. :.) I i�F P� iY ��f 5 s 4 �'}t Z�i c � ' -.:;. t , � :�� , • i � ysr �ty�}{�� ,^r �..� ^-� �. 7-., i .+.�y 1. +P`�. a . - y V �"i � J KF l, '.'Y q YI' .� t t;. sti1��, '{y'l i� f., t i� .,i �.: g �yi� J- ��q ... . ,. _ ...:�'S�. 6�.�I�.,'3.x�.��,c Slc�..�"��T:.T .-¢:.I��:a; ..."� �..iw..., r.��.,..-�. � . _ . ., � `1"' �' >,_. petition was found to be valid, an election must be scheduled. Today's hearing was not intended to provide for the xeview of the �?: service plan. Blake noted that the Board previously retained the services _ � oE the Colorado Coalition for Aliernatives to Pestic3des to J;p.�`', � ; assess and implement non-chemical weed control efforts, including _ manual contcol; this program, which was implemented over a two i,•'"` (2) year peiiod, was not found to be very successful. He requested i that appointments to the adviso=y boatd for the proposed district � be representative of the entire County. ;.:��. . ` � Klanderuci note8 that various landowners were using herbicides �• f , at this time to control weeds; the weed district was pzoposed, in ,� pact, to address and controi existing herbicide usage. .; Braudis noted that there were a number of alternative - ! methods available to control weeds, and that the specific metho8s ;? that would be identified in the service plan have not been finalized. Ae encouraged public participation in identifying the j various control techniques that could be available within the . ` context of the service plan. Braudis noted that there was no � , � mechanism in place at this time by which to require offending , :_ _ � landowners to address weed infestation; the proposed district ` ; would enable the community to require mitigation, authority which - � was considered necessary to address the issue. �-'� � ' � t:; ,.'i Carlson expressed some concern that required weed control � } techniques may exceed a landowner's ability to pay for such services. Duke explained that there was a maximum annual limit on the cost that could be assessed to an individual landowner; that ;" �-1 limit was based on the assessed valuation of the subject parcel. ! �`�� It was anticipated that control efforts on isolated, mountainous ;•: , � ' \ .s�xj' parcels would not exceed a maximum cost of thirty dollars ($30) ;• ' :��7 per acre, an amount which would be reduced for more accessible '.•� �`, •, '_�5:� parcels. Costs would decrease by fifty percent (50$) during the ; .;:.� second year of operation, i:, . _ �,:i "� Natal requested that a revegetation plan be established along County roads, instead of the devegetation plan that would �, .: . =� occur in the event of district formation, It was noted that the County failed to reseed disturbed areas, an action which contributed �%' =:� to weed infestation. �' .: `� Smith stated that the formation of the proposed district ��, � would not limit the Board to any specific control technique. The ` , vacious control mechanisms available for weed contcol would be �� 'I reviewed within the context of the service plan, and was not the �: tl_. � subject of today's meeting. ,;� 1 , � �� Child suggested that membership on the advisory board foc the proposed district provide foz cross representation of the + �� entire communit - the membershi shou2d re resent various community �;I ' ° Y. �i interests, including Natal, Mace, and others. Child explained that �;` - � he was very concerned with the use herbicides, and he encovraged =` � a service plan that discouraged the use of this control technique. �`- �' : �. :� Duke requested support from all interested parties, as well � �<� as their participation in proposing control mechanisms other than herbicides. Braudis moved to approve the resolution, Madsen seconded and "��._/ the motion passed unanimously. ; ---------- � . �� Banner Publia Works Director Bud Eylat introdaced Amendments • Assoc Number One (1) and Two (2) to Pitkin County Coneultant Contract, � Conttact to be entered into between the Boa►d and Banner Associates, Inc. • �t� Amend: The Board entered into a Contract with Banner in February, 19a4, `�� Commissioner's Meeting 26 April, 1986 - 4 •, ;� ;'�,+�:• <.,,, . . 'y� � . • � - � 'C ' ' . �7F�y+' ��}4��1" i tFC �..�- E� .+ __ '� '�Sr.l�. � i .. �:i�r �_+�� ...i., '�L',� '�`ASLf�e�Y't"CSq A�t1 I:� � . � R i.. r ��r � t}p X �: •tr�'y3�,`b��l�`wc�� . r y�,� �a '�I � �I � � �' i'.`. qy��^ �+,.� '.� -. , � �_j-„ , j ''t ` 5 i�'�,d '.'� ' . � �' -�' q 91��`r� . : ' • '� . a ♦,�y. i �i C ` i Y� 'Y � ti y�t� �•�..7vti 1 M ..'T �i' d�J+� 4 i_P,,i,.. . i:4'14 ��?��F'.'A�M��N�. w:G+8P63 ..'.�![Mfwn.L�Y, ..�'�. . . ... k.'!_ �.x�i., "5,��'ti Airport to perform engineering and final design for the Airport Entrance - Entrance Project, at a total contract cost of forty-eight thousand dollars Project (S48,000) , in addition to the above, a similar contract was entered into with Design Workahop to design a landscaping plan �;` � for the airport facility at a total contract cost of twent two '"'�`� Y_ �;;.;`,.. _ thousand dollars ($22,000). The tasks identified in these two (2) i:•:: contracta were completed, and the vendors were paid accordingly. �';i:: �°" - Eylar explained that the Project was subsequently amended to � • '1 reduce its scope and, as a result, additional design, engineering ' - _ and construction work was required; Banner was retained to 1 . ; perf orm this additional work. In addition, County staff initiated ��:< � further change orders. The additional work associated with the reduction in the scope of the Project, and the change orders ' :;z� initiated by staff, resulted in additional billings of fifty- �P seven thousand, five hundre8 and forty-six dollars ($57,546). These a8ditional billings were not authorized in contract form, `-`� funding was not budgeted, and the County has not yet disbursed to �� the vendor. Staff reviewed and documented these additional �": charges and recommended that their payment be authorized. ry r Eylar explained that Amendment Number One (1) submitted for ` � Board review today would provide for construction inspection of � , _ � the final project at a total contract cost of forty-five thousand, ' seven hnndred and forty-three dollars ($45,743) . Amendment Number - � � - .� 7tvo (2) would provide for the relocation of an existing sewer f�, ,�_ - r line at a total co�tract cost of one thousand dollars ($1,000). � � I w� � Ae recommended approval of both Amendments so that work on the $ Project can proceed. ° �.:. ~ � Asset M3nager Jim Adamski introduced a revised Amendment � i Number One (1} for Board review. The following sentences in the 3 ' , . �'�q following sections were revised: _ ;;� �:', ,, Section 1 - Scope of Services: ; , . �_ ; ; ;� "The Con�ractor agrees to provide the professional � ° . � engineering services to complete the construction of , � the Project, including consultation, coordination, preconstruction conf erences and meetings, review ahop ! ` `� drawings, materials and construction acceptance sampling ' � and testing, c�nstruction observation and insFections, ! � _;� surveys and control staking, pYeparation of construction �� contractor's compliance requirements, contract !.� ' �� administration and such other engineering services as '; " ` ti� required and as may be directed by the County.° � ' �. � � Section 1.2 - Construction Engineering Services: i , : �.,L,,. '�;t.r,;:... :;� a. "The Contractors responsibilities herein are in � �;�'. -�~'i addition to those responsibilities set out in Article '; �� .,,.�`'� Nine (9) of the general conditions of the contract for �x �� construction." ;` ' ` ;'� h. "The Contractor shall not be responsible for the � ;-,,,. 9 techniques of construction or the safety precaations ; incidental thereto and will not be responsible for I' � : i Construction Contractor's failure to perform the ;:, '. construction work in accordance with the Contract �.- • Documents, but shall warrant against ne9ligence and f non-compliance by the Construction Contractor or the i• Contractor (not reported in writing to the County) !, ` � '�,. - against defects and deficiencies in the work performed i � by the Constrection Contractors, and may disapprove and ' ` `� shall so notify the County of any work failing to � ; � � conform with the Contract Documents." � , � Section 1-4 - Other Special Services: ' �, t '�'? c. "Additional or extended services during construction ? �~� Commissioner's Meetinq 28 April, 1986 - 5 '•. `I � .��;' . . ' Y F . � i;, t .,,7. K' . � 21 FC�fa6� 'ft �' - rs =t v-I� � � -. �Pi �t 5iy7;�'�`A �t'Ft� �qUx L�,� .� 7 §� �/ I -r tr.� t ' � 1 � 1f, � '�r y� � ia �> � a =� Yl �� F� �..tl ��`��t�� ~ j � &�y� •',�� tr��t�..~�� ,,t,,� �� l��i :.�yr''x,.,4Z: y .�e'� .,��`5 °:s;:°h.Ot�..�.t��-.UG. �.�.t�x�'.�.".:�.;, .F.t::f��,�'}�7.t`* . . . �i ��i i made necessary by (1) work damaged by £i=e oc other cause, (2) defective or incomplete work by the i Construction Contractor, (3) prolongation of the ` ' initial construction contract period that ia not the �: , � fault of the Contractor and (4) the Construction �`F..: Contractor's default under the Contzact Documents due �s.-•. - ' to delinquency or insolvency, shall be subject to ��'- ' negotiation between the County and the Contractor." �``` �.. 5ection 3.1 - Compensation: � ; "The County agrees to compensate the Coatractor for �" � , - E performance of this Amendment on the basis of the cost r` _ j plus a fixed fea method. The Contractot has estimated S that the wozk can be completed foz the cost and fees ,-�'} set out below, it is the intent of the parties to ;•� complete the Project f or the lowest possible cost '.4j consistent with professional engineering standards." � "�� Finally, Adamski noted that the vendo� was required to provide � mandatory insurance, including five hundred thousand dollars ; ($500,OU0} in Professional Errors and Omissions �nsurance. � Bannez Associates Vice-President Rsn Brotsky explained that � • -- + the vendor was reluctant to proceed with the taska identified in i the two (2) Amendments submitted for Board review today pending ' � payment of the additional billings. He requested some assurance �' that all previous invoices would be paid prior to proceeding with �:,�, * � the two (2) Amendments. « • � . �,' � Braudis expressed some concern with Amendment Numbex One ` (1), and specifically the travel and per diem costs; the Amendment ; - ;;4�:� identified a total of thirteen thousand and fifty dollars ($13,050) i • ; in such costs, or approximately th3rty percent (30$} of the total i:�.;" � �`= contract cost. j - � , �V� Brotsky explained that the travel and per diem costs originally i propoaed by the vendor were lower than what was identified in the ' Amendment; theae costs were subsequently increased by the Fedesal ! ' . � Aviation Administration. Srotsky agreed that the travel and per °1 diem costs were highez than necessacy, and it was not anticipated that the entire thirteen thousand dollar ($13,000) allocation a� would be usedj he stated that the vendor would only bill the "�, County for those costs actually incurred. ; � ,-�a €:'^.', Braudis suggested that, in the event the engineering services � '� for the airport project were compet3tively }�id, the travel and j'� ,� pec diem costs would likely not have been a component of the � � contract. �� l3 � ; � q ' y� Blake then moved to authorize the payment of fifty-seven �.� _ thousand, five hundred and forty-six dollars ($57,546) to Ba,-,aer ,r fi-. ;��1 Associates, re presentin g additional work associated with chan ges � - �s� and change orders for the Project. Braudis seconded. " ' `1 Klanderud expressed some concern that the original Banner � '� � contract, app=oned in February of 1984, was executed by the �." :?` , � former County Engineer who was now in the employ o£ the vendor. 4. •;: "�; Aclamski explained that staff has attempted to address the issue of participation by former County employees; the Amendments s �;j submitted for Board review today expressly excluded any services ' provided by the fozmer Engineec. " • ��,- - Brotsky explained that he did not solicit the former Engineer's '�� services during his tenure with the County, and that the Engineer ;- i,+: was onZy hired by Banner subsequent tio his resignation from the '• ' County, Bxotsky stated that BanneY has conaciously attempted to '� exclude the former Engineer from the Airport Entrance Project. �� Braudis noted that the cost of the Project has increased �;:1 '�� Commiesionet's tdeeting 28 April, 1986 - 6 , •� � �r;:" � ' Y • ♦ y .. . tiF,ety�s �t��+q,��5nj��; ^ .I� : . . + � . � � k e`�1+�1'� }f'y�t�l? �' K ii �JS �.+ � r l 1'4i,:. ,.� . � 3 4r�'� 7dr'.S"�.T-� � 1 -�r .r T�l4 � � r ... i �; � �Pyr,1,��y,"�,rys+;� r,�.. o:� � - � ° t � ;��'� z � "� '�r�: t-.r, � e . � � P d a� � L ��!r : !Y' 1,a+t:.� Y � .. _�( SLv. �•` � ht.�. ��t•� '��i"�� i 's�F��..'..�..�� ad'z: ._`a"(ys.:L..,__Lv .,l�ti-� �a.wA��' . U ti�.a�=° �<�'.• r,` substantially due to the changes to the scope of the Project as well as change orders initiated by staff; the original Contract '-l�`:�?-. amount of forty-eight thousand dollars ($48,000) has been increased i='�':` to greater than one hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($i50,000). i:�::::'::� Braudis explained that his primary concern involved the failute %;?:'_� of staff to communicate the cost overruns to the Board, and ;'; r . provide regular status updates on the total cost of the Project � + as it evolved, Ae did not feel that the Project shoald be deferred �� .i at this time on the basis of the overruns, however, and suggested �•' , that the Amendments be approved to allow the Proje�ct to proceed. i._ ` � Finance Director Tom Oken explained that costs incurred for i� `r�` ' the Project exceeded budget by one hundred and fourteen thousand ' ; dollars ($114,000), all of which occurred in the County's share � •; of the Project. He noted that Banner's services were primarily �r� limited to engineering, and that the Federal Aviation Administration 1� J has declared most of this to be ineligible for federal assistance. ; f The budget for the Airport improvement Project has been exceeded r by one hundred and fourteen thousand dollars ($114,000), and Oken � suggested that the Board =eview the long term financial plan for �' the facility in an attempt to address this issue. I � . ,„_ j Bylaz explained that Federal Aviatfon Administration � representatives Nance Earle and Ken xardison indicated that the � - _ { Administration would review the additional engineering work ��- • . i performed by Banner within the context of future airport projects; �,''>_ , i it may be possible, it was indicated, to recoup some oE these additional costs, although such was aot considered likely to ; occur Eor a number of years. The only engineexing services approved by the Administration were those identified in the original forty-eight thousand dollar ($48,000) Banner contract. �;! � £� �: � The motion initiated by Blake passed unanimously. `� �..:.. Eylar explained that the total contract cost identified in � ;s Amendment Number One (1) was a maximum cost; staff would encourage rt the vendor to accomplish the services at a reduced cost. He felt ! � that the fees identified in that document were reasonable, and he �', � recommended its approval. He noted that any changes to the ! - ; Amendment would require vendor and Federal Aviation Administration � approval, prior to Board approval. �• } : 3 Child expressed some concern with the labor and general F`' . � administrative overhead costs identified in Amendment Number One (1); the overhead costs of ten thousand, four hundred and seventy- ��` �� :� ,� seven dollars ($10.477) were felt to be unreasonably high. Eylar �,�:'~' - felt that the overhead costs identified in the Amendment were y i f reasonable; these costs were actually considered fairly low. ?� ,� �� i,: ;:,� Child suggested that the County reconsider an engineering ( `�! ,a staff position; a competent engineer could be hired as County [,;'�..,:.;; • staff to perf otm the engineering services necessary Eor County a ?� projects. A County Engineer staff position would elimfnate the ' $ need to contract for engineering services, and would be more cost C � : '-� effective. � :; R .. R. �; County Manager John Eldert suggested that a new County �:- e Engineer position be teviewed within the context of the long term � capital improvements plan; the need for an in-house Engineer � would depend on the capital projects authoiized by the Board in ;,� the next few years. ' � �:� Eylac explained that extensive engineering services were s �: required for some projects; the Federal Aviation ABministration, 4 for instance, required an on-site engineer througliout the duration ,,� of the Project. An in-house engineer would not be able to perform �' .� these tasks in conjunction with other duties. In addition, many � engineering service contraets required survey work and crews, Y �:+ which services would have to be contracted for, even with an in- � ' �a� house Engineer. • Commisaioner's Meeting 28 April, 1986 - 7 ! � , . .. �•� .'��" - � ,; �. , - ~ `�F �'«�'*,*�` ;�� t �L.t��i�5i��.��biy;+, ti...' �.fl'i� t �,.r ,�a � � ...i"` 1,-. � �57:•�:. � � o r i , �c.w�-�cqG.��e�"�, �ki �E" "` � _ � ,: r `:i t i r n. #u � ,r�."' '':'f �y�I�,,'� .�rCI'eJr� i.,�' ��. ��, � Kl '(�_I'�1 1'.' fll � V6' ':;'U.,r�9 . { e �.:!'a+ }P��'' y'+��y��,� 15 3�,�,�„ � �l �.,5. n ±�)j.r. � `}. ��. �.�f i�.�.`iyi:6l.d�^hf�::�t.�`. ~tL+'�. .. .-.. , r,..��i;�:: . _ �5 �i�.� y'hi ' �� ,. s�' �,. Blake then moved to authorize the Chair to execate Amendments ;:�:;��• Number One (1) and Two (2), the forme= at a total cost of forty- �`;?; • five thousand, seven hundred and forty-thcee dollars ($45,743) "`"�" sti. and the latter at a total cont=act cost of one thousand dollats ='�'." ` � (51,000) . Brandis seconded and the motion passed unan3mousiy. $ '' -------^-- �_..r'� r. `, ' Lazy Planner Francis xrizmanich introduced the Lazy Glen Mobile ?. '` ; Glen Home Park application, a petition to remove a ptevious condition �. ' Mobile of approval prohibiting dogs in the subject Park. The Board first � .:;}. ,_ 1 Home considered the application at its regular meeting on 24 February, C r � Paxk at which time action was deferred pending the submission of a �; Doq plan for the formation of a homeowner's association that included �. t Restrict adPquate doq control measures, Specifically, the appZicant was � required to: � � a, submit a plan for the formation of a Lazy Glen Mobile - Home Park homeowner's association identifying the following: � wy _ X 1. support and commitment from the residents to organize and operate an association � � _ � '{ 2, a method to fund dog control measures on a Iong i,_ `�.. •� term basis t . f> � 3. an effective dog control program that included � ' =egistration, effective monitoring techniques, a �� .`:' _ ¢ stringent enforcement plan, and sufficient penalties �'.�: ; ��'� for violations �.,•,.: . 0.r� k Rrizmanich explained that the residents of the Park have since s "`��; formec7 a Homeowner's Association, as well as developed a draft dog y.� -`:��-' control ordinance. The dcaft ordinance was referred to both the �`'�'� Division of Wildlife and Animal Controli Animal Control Officer '•a Lisa Russell reviewed and commented on the ordinance whereas the • = Division did not. Arizmanich explained that the Planning Office z` originaily recommended denial of the application on the basis of � �~ wildlife impacts, a recommendation which was still suppotted by - s:;- the Office. In the event the Board desired to allow dog ownership - in the Park, however, the Office indicated that the formation of -�-;� the Association and the impl�nentation of the proposed ordinance ,*k aou2d serve to control dogs. • d Lisa Russe2l explained that the ordinance would assess each � � dog owner an initial fifty do2lar ($50) ownership fee; this fee � �}-� = was based on the cost incurced by Animal Control. for a single � • F� visit to the Park. These fees would be used to reimburse Animal li;, .�^. Control in the event enforcement in the vicini�y of the Park ,{,,.� , � became necessary. The draft ordinance indicated that the fif ty 1,;'� dollar ($50) fee would be refunded �o those doq owners that did �� : :��'� not violate the ordinance within a per3od of one (1) year. � ; ,'�, Russell requested an amendment to the draft to indicate that, in . the event an owner was cited for a violation, the owner would �m lose the subject £ee; dog ownezs cited for v3olating the ordinance Y. Z: '>: ; would not be refunded. � ' '-�� g� ... Russell also noted that the draft ordinance established a �;�< series of warnings for violators. Verbal warnings, for instance, were made to dog owners Eor the first oftense, whereae an owner = �` would be assessed a fifteen dollat ($15) fine foz the second �� '' �r offense; in the event an owner refused to pay this fine, Anima2 �.,� Control would be contacted to remove the dog from the Park. ., �' Animal Control would be contacted immediately upon the third : S� offense, and the dog would be removed from the Park. Russell '; •�'�'� noted, howevet, that Animal Control wuld not remove a dog from ;.�� an owner, not initiate enforcement action aga3nst a violator, �,-� until the tbird off ense had occutred. Russell expressed some Commissioner's Meeting 28 April, 1986 - 8 �, �,�- �_ � � . f .. ��. r -[t�U1a��,tt�� .... i�S1 � 4 . � r '.,r 7�� k i�r.� i �i:? t`iF,�':. �'�.; 1 ;W�r �; c .. �p a��t rFr54'r'S. , r �, . � l" � .- 1 4� ��•i . . . . 1 5; '.,: .:� .�. . y a �� : .} Y i�{" t.�. d+:, , � ; .{ �r k ��`aF�w�"J `r h f : . ,�.� 'ys�.�e •-.- �� , '�t, r tie��_�,. ,,.. ..._....�S'n .r.. ...�..�. xS _ . .'1.?.•?.t�.� .s:..sx.. .�' .e�r:i s��k.# 1 . . . .t_ ..._ concern with the number of violations allowed before law enfo�cement ; action occurred, as well as the ability of the Department to ti initiate enforcement ducing that time period; she suggested that -; the homeowner's review this system to provide for more effective � control. She noted that Animal Control servi.ces in the County j were now limited to an on-call basis; officers responded to ! complaints on a time permitting basis only, and every effort was - � made to return tagged dogs to their owners, - Child questioned the fine provision contained in the draft ordinance. Russell explained that owners whose dogs were removed � from the Patk by Animal Control would be responsible for all - fines assessed by Animal Control; these fines would be the - responsibility of the individual owners and not the homeowner's association. ;.Q��. Lazy Glen resident Woody Capper explained that the homeowner's F j attempted to assume reaponsibility for violations in an effort to :: , ! minimize en�orcement by Animal Control; the fifty dollar ($50) �"�"^� � initial deposit for dog owners, a fifteen dollar ($15) annual dog registration fee, and the fifteen dollar ($15) fine for violators �, would be uaed to establish a fund to enable the homeowner's to i.mplement effective control measures. Animal Control would not be caZled antil the third offense occurred, at which time the dog would be removed from the Park. The homeowner's association did ' '` : ;� ; not desire dogs in the park. whose owners allowed three (3} - ._ violations, and the association desired that third time of£ende=s •� be permanently removed. � ` `, � � County Attorney iom S:n:th noted that the homeowner's � association would require the ability to enf orce the penalty provisions identified in the draft ordinance. He suqgested that, � in the event the Board desired ta amend the dog ownership ° z'�� -� restriction, such be conditioned to the recordation of Acticles ' • ,y�.t: } of Incorporation and Bylaws for the homeowner's association. ;' � .��_._ � Smith explained that he would assist the homeowner's in preparing , ;°`:}- these documents if needed. �:, � .. ; � Russell expressed some concern with the effectiveness of the � ,"�� draft ordinance on a long term basis; it was not known, for ?�.� instance, whether dog ownership would be reassessed in the event ; � a the proposed control measures were not effective and Animal „�:�� Control was respondinq to calls from the F.azy Glen area on a : ��'� frequent basis. t .��` p ppraised of the ;�.;� ;�,::,� Rlanderud ex lained that the Board must be a j,;:� effectiveres� of the draft ordinance, and she requested that , Anin�al Control update the Board regularly on its usefulness. She ;..' advised the homeowner's that, in the event the dog control �ti� � measures proposed were not effective, the Board cesezved the � � right to reconsider dog ownership in the Park in its entirety; Mt�t the Board reserved the right, for instance, to prohibit dog _ :-�� ownership in the Park once again. : ,:.�,,'�z� ;�� Capper explained that the initial fifty dollar ($50) ownership (,: � ", fee would be used to establish a seed fund specifically for G �;,j Animal Control services; in the event Animal Control was called � ` �; ;5 to provide services to the Pack, such as the removal of a dog, +.' .. � and the individual dog owner ref used to pay the costs associated 'y:.'� with such services, the fund would be used to rei.mburse Animal � Control. � Smith suggested that the Bylaws pcovide a specific mechanism i• for the collection of a11 dog ownership/registration fees, as , ' �i well as the ability of the homeownet's association to draw upon j, " those funds as needed. Lt�. ,� Russel� noted that, in addition to the homeowner's association . fees, all dog owners would be required to register their dogs �`�- with the County, County doq registration fees were assessed to .� � . �� Commissioner's Meeting 28 April, 1986 - 9 ;�; ��,� . � . � �. � ` ., ��'f1F1�2 c S��"��il�41R� r� � r:� � �5 f S, . � � . f ts.�_ i �. _ � a. , '��,54 � I a k r�m�r,��@�1� � : s'. .i � j �.�. '' i��9 t� }?� � � �� 0.� ��'-v �,�. '�� r t .. �Y i � . ., '"�y�, . '� '�� r . � "�c �/y4 tiy'.�s tY e.:i �'t� �`*"4- ''�+}`� ew. k"�i"` '.'� �`�' �' i ♦4�, S 7,i ��'...�`�'y ¢ ..�jt �` s.' � ,�� i;:. �� "�_'1 �'' �•.��i; _ .,y,?�Pffi�i--4' . , _ . ...4..,. C., ' '1'�,}� i all dog owners, at a range of between five {$5) and ten dollars ' ($10) pet dog. j a: � Capper noted that the Park was located in closer proximity � ; to Eagle Connty and the Alpine Animal Hospital. He asked if the t Park dogs could be registered in Eagle County in lieu of Pitkin. i�:'. - Russell stated that all Park dogs m�st be registered in Pitkin �; , � County; proof of vaccination would be accepted from any animal e - } hospital, however, in which case Alpine Animal. Hospital could be � used for this purpose. , 1, � Madsen expressed some concern that a fund be eatablished for � ,� animal control services rendered by the County. �� 4 Child requested that the Division of Wildlife comment on the ,, draft ordinance. He asked that Wildlife Officer Randy Cote be �ti;.�� contacted for a referral. Child also questioned fencing within � the Park and landscaping. a i Capper explained that dog ownership was a very emotional issue in the Park, and that this issne alone prec4pitated resident asupport for a homeowner's association. The association would ' -- - - address fencing standards for dog control pucposes, as well as .'� landscaping, once the dog control issue has been resolved. " � Child suggested that a fence be constructed between the pack � and the Highway, Capper explained that there was a fence along �' - �. the Highway that was owned and constructed by the Colorado ; . F Department oE Highways; that structure has detetiorated, and ± � actually fallen down, in many locations. Capper explained that he �;,;�,t � contacted the Department to =equest that the fenae be repaired; � ._ � the Department has so f ar refused to implement any repairs. �. S; . .'�"�r:� Rlanderud suggested that the Board require the applicant to �, :_L_ � ct comply with previous conditions of approval, including previous _ ; landscaping requirements, in the event the dog restriction was . � :�� removed. �.. �' � Capper explained that the residents of the Park have scheduled � �% a general clean-up in the Park this weekend, in an effort to ' ' <��K�`� impsove the visual quality of the area. B.F.I. has agreed to ; wn.;y:t.� �a provide a dumpster free of charge for the weekend, and Budweiser .';r�'�;.`"s has donated a keg of beer for the event. Ae requested that the ' Board waive the dump fee of one hundred and twenty-six dollars � j ($126) in acknowledgement o£ these effotts. � The Board ananimous).y agreed to instruct staff to dtaft a ; � "-� resolution amending the 1979 rezoning to eliminate the condition �-' Kc� � restricting dog ownership subject to the folTowing conditions: ��^ � .^�:�,;r,F.;� a. the applicants shall fortt� an official homeowner's " association which sha11 be responsible for formulating �� 3 :;r:� F and enforcing dog control in the Park. The Articles of '?��s::Y,a Incorporation and bylaws shall be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney ` ,°'� b. dogs must be licensed with Pitkin County Animal Control � `� . *{ and must also be reqistered with the homeowner's � :,�r:; ',�; N association �'� . � c. Each tcailer is allowed a maximum of one (1) dog. Any 1:� ' molaile homeowner currently in possession of more than � ,;�.� one {1) dog will be allowed to keep the additional doqs �, .,x�'i; but may not replace them upon loss . "`S'.-..:. ',� . ��;�5.,.`. d, the homeowner's association shall develop regulations, • .�'da;± :; fees and fines to control dogs. These regulations, fees �� and £ines shall be approved by the County Animal '�' Control Officer and County Attorney �� .. Commissioner's Meeting 28 April, 1986 - 10 `;i.r�'t, .�,.�w.�...�..��,. ,�y' - � ` f.' • � ." T�.M�ASFL�F��',�f�r�1�6�.�'. L�f?f � ��1 �.. `L"�' � �li. :.� - f -; t� .l � ��fx�Pt'b�.�f'��}Y�f .,�s i� .-�y N: 4 t�.:z+ r� �'} r.:, � , �, - L ��, c-+ r r�. F: � zi :' � i }r.'�' �r - x� :,,' �..,, �.r��r :�� t -6,, . �i y �S l... `-��'t 1.!_.. " � .:� � .._ ,'.��w ^.1y - 5 .t^ +� r y�S si'f' ayl✓ Y f�'�"� N � � �4," •�. ''�5 �'.'�... t�:i.�S1��4�. ��'� ;t '�.�... K , x. �r': :.,� .,�::ri #,. " 4��; e, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with aZ]. � previous conditions of approval � The Board a2so agreed to waive the dump fee of one hundred and I, - ?. twenty--six dollars ($126) for one (1) day, Saturday, 3 May, 1986, �._ in recognition of the residents efforts to improve the visual r - quality of the Park. i _ .. "? � No action was taken. (RlanBerud leaves) � : . . k ---------- p ' � Public The Board convened a ublic hear3ng to consider the Newton � � '�'" ', Hearing: 1041 Hazard =eview, a special review application. Francis Rrizmanich �, Hewton submitted to the record the Planning Office memo oE 28 April, �;;�.,� 1041 1986, the application, and the Land Ose Code as xmended to date. ,`,,-r�,r Hazard The applicant has requested special review appcoval to construct - � t Review a two thousand, eight hcuidred (2,800) square foot aingle family � cesidence on a four (4) acre parcel of land located along the 1� Roaring Fork River immediately west of the Little Texas Subdivision. y 1041 hazard ceview was required as the subject property was � sitnated within the floodplain and contained riparian vegetation. -- - : f The proposed home would be located entirely outside of the one hundred (100) year floodplain, although a portion of an outside g deck would encroach upon the floodplain. The subject pcoperty, located in the AF-1 Zone District, was a previously subdivided, �' � legally non-cottforming lot, so that a growth management allecat3on was not required. ' ;� Referral comments were generally supportive; the Enviconmental \_x;��;, „-� Health Department indicated that the subject propertp could � accommodate both a private well and an on-site sewage disposal `�=; 3 � system, as propoaed by the applicant; the Environmental Coordinator :��: # indicated that the proposed development would resu2t in nominal ,.�`�•:•; impacts on the riparian zone; the Planning Engineer indicated that the @eck could encroach upon the floodplain provided it was ;,_;,; ; - "° cantilevered and constructed at last one and one half (1.5) feet `�r`� above the one hundred (100) year flood level, and requested that a fishing easement be dedicated along the course of the River. ` � � Finally, the Engineer indicated that the applicant muat submit -4�, i driveway plans that conform to County standards prior to the :�`�:.,;;:� isauance of a buildinq permit. %�a�,.• + ''S_'`' 1 The planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the application � at its zegular meeting on 18 March, 1986, and recommended approval subject to the following conditions: " ' 1. that the total deck asea within the floodplain not ;:�=;' Ay>,��^ exceed one hundred (100) square feet .-:;;��; � 2. the deck sha22 be cantileve=ed such that the bottom of �: the deck shall be no less than one and one half (1.5) � '� �_ i feet above the one hundred (100) year flood level " � 3, that the deck area at no place intrude more than six .':'�� ` (6} feet into the floodplain . I 4. riparian vegetation outside of the building envelope � ''',• � shall not be disturbed urtless approval is granted by '1��-�, ' the Environmental Cooidinator \; � ' S. the applicant shall submit dtiveway plans to the County ' '. .r;;.e Plarening Engineer that meet County standards priot to .�, .��:; the issuance of a building permit a�r � ' 6. the applicant shall grant a fishing easement that . ;��i,:� � extends five (5) feet from the hiqh water mark on the -:� `. '�- '? applicants property ��r�.. ; r4; ti ' 7, the applicant shall record a property survey that � , Commissioner's Meeting 28 April, 1986 - 11 ��.� � . . Y t,. . ,. J � �Z �'E � ;�f4 �f��5' Y .F-�� .. .. J4` 7 1 1�'x�" .. ,{ ��' It�• j t"�. �� Evt,�l��1��5��Y�t' �^` ��: y �3 '� . .� r :�� aSl;�i r `� � ➢F �� '�,Tc�° �y�l'�. . . � g�t � �� r , ty �tk`�. i �.' �� ` .': 1 y ��j:��; � �F. s • . � '�_�� F f � �� .�B� ,. � j`� � r .4c.•�..1��.�L�.�.�Ykc�',�z�.�Y.f;�O",'�E�ucY, ..�' w�v .�.,�`�3.. .�..•" �..w+� �. �' delineates the building envelope and one hundred (100) ! yeac floodplain boundary. The plat shall meet the , ; approval of the County Attorney and Planning Office and - j shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a building `. ; permit for the pcoposed residence �'.; � + Braudis then opened the hearing for public comment; there 5' - . ..j being none, the hearing was closed. Y - � ' f County Attorney Tom Smith requested that the final condition oE approval be amended to indicate that the applicant would � record a site plan, in lieu of a property survey, to be approved � by the Attorney and Plann3ng Office. , Madsen moved to approve the applicatfon subject to the seven ` #,y'� {7) cond3.tions of the Planning Commission as amended below: '� 7, the applicant shall reco=d a site plan that delineates � �'� the building envelope and one hundred (100) year � � floodplain boundary. The site plan shall. meet the appcoval of the County Attotney and Planning Office and r shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a bnilding , 3 peLmit for the proposed tesidence _�-<•_t 4 '� Blake seconded. (Rlanderud returns) _ ; � 3 • ,_ . � Applicant Rick Newton explained that he desired to construct c� .� an access driveway along the course of an existing wagon road; ` that road traversed slopes of approximately fifteen percent (15$) �` � in some locations. He expressed some concern with the fi£th ' condition of app=oval, whereby the applicant must comply with County � drfveway standar@s, as it was not known whether the existing , �'��' i wagon road could comply with those standards. He noted that the � ,;'�_s=; driveway standards were generally iatended to provide for fire ;,y'�?i{} truck access, and he requested an oppoctunity to contact the Fire ;z -: � District to assess the need for a driveway consistent with - a .� adopted standards. ;`°.� Krizmanich explained that the applicant has not submitted a � � . ; grading plan for the proposed access road, in which case the ° " ( Planninq Engineer was unable to comment on the use of the existing � ' ��;� wagon road, He noted, however. that the applicant must comply ;;,;.,.�. with adopted driveway standards. �� S-= Child expressed some concern with the driveway standards, as ;yx`� it was not known whether those standards were qreater than what - ; a was necessary, He suggested that, in the enent the fifth condition ,"t,-`� = of appcoval was too restrictive, and provided there was concurrence 'ir.. 3 from the Fi=e Distcict, the applicant tequest fucther Boatd . s, review and, pechaps, an amendment to the condition. The Board :«� generally agreed to reconsi8er the fifth condition of approval in $ �`-.;;� the event the driveway standard requited was not necessary to L"� comply with Fire District requirements. ,'�� - • -'a The motion initiated by Madsen passed with an abstention � °' �?�? from Rlanderud. �'` ..�,j, '�. •.ip�� F.. • ..i`�i l' ) ii." � Shore Madsen moved to approve a resolution granting subdivisioa f Lot exemption for a lot line adjustment to the Estate of Noah Joben �. Line Shore. Braudis seconded and the motion passed unanimously. `�. " = ---------- • -.x, ��-"� Airport Property Manage= Ann Bowman introduced an Agreement to be ' a ,�� Air- entered into between the Baard and Kim Brachet Eisen. The Agreement � �� Show would retain the services of Eisen to coordinate the Airshow, Nc :. scheduled foc 5 July, 1986. Bowman expZained that Eisen has i� '1�;�,�,� conducted the Airshow ducing the past three (3) years. In addition, �• `�'s�% . Commissioner's Meeting 28 April, 1986 - 12 - � : : � :�^.. , Y v . .; f. � .. �,e��+�v.t�f��`�f�r�. ,�+St ri • v . { '4Ea}}�y"�*�-� 4 `.}' �"r � �..:'� i�} . 5`�k,�7: < �� ... . 1'i � s: 'yi !'_' ..- . �" ��Gr 8C-gs��'i -� #n . r �'./ .�."; ~�.�t�p�r�� !�� .." �< r� ti �J' { il' � 'i ��' ��h ' L. '� J�.. � �1 �F: t3. � '.��i . r.' •r ,[( ` ' ��:y ,t-�'.. `.S�.lYJ,. { i' .nl�i!}`• h1 � . �'' � �' �sT . . .~��'�i '.•4 7� •L rf,�t,��t. •,�t�.�.,��.j ; ��.c . r_t�'f�.'..t�� +a"��.'�!. . .. ..�,�a:�c.=,� . .h�:, i��. ' �....��§!'. �F� . . ,r.''i,. . �'�i � funds were appropr3ated ie the 1986 badget for the event, Bowman "� k;•:`.:... recommended approval of the Agreement as submftted. - �- :,a: Rlanderud expressed some concern with the ability of airport `=��,�`-�=' staff to manage the airshow this year, particularly as there was '�`'�`�` . no airport manager at this time. Bowman explained that Asset �� `a Manager Jim Adamski was �he project manager for the event an8 r:;r��:; ' - that he would manage the show. Tn addition, Eisen has coordina�ed � °;�; the event for the past twa (2) years, On this basis, it was felt that there was sufficient staff to run the event in the absence i'' of an airport manager, ' Child expressed some concern that adequate insurance be (' �� ` ' obtained for the event. Assistant County Attotney Gary Esary x explained that the event would be 3nsured under the Aix rt � . ' �f., general liability policy. � ` y Alanderud requested that staff address the traffic impacts r� >' associated with the airshow, particularly given traffic problems b experienced during the past few years, It was suggested that � public transportation be encouraged and that the Sheriff's Off3ce f � better coordinate the enent. Bowman agreed to contact the Sheriff q and the Roaring Fork Transit Agency in an eff ort to address -- traffic impacts, _ - � Braudis then moved to authorize the Chair to execute the _ - , a Agreement. Child seconded and the motion passed unanimously. ; � ° ---------- ;; . , k ?. Pitkin Ann Bowman introduced a Use and License Agreement to be �� Portage entered into between the Board and Pitkin Portage, Inc. The �i � . -+ Agree Agreement would provide for the use of the Airpart property 6y t '� Pikkin Portage, a providez of baggage handling and skycap services ? �� :- , �� to airline passengers, for a period of three (3) years at an � ` ';; :� annual cost of two thousand, five hundred do2lars ($2,500), i „ Bowman recommended approval oE the Agreement as submitted. # _ w A Braudis noted that the Agreement would provide the company a non-exclasive license to operate at the airport £acility. As the �� g company was not granted an exclusive right to provide baggage �- .' ' services in the airport, it was not known whether the Board couZd '� entertain other license agteements with other baggage handlers. �� Esary explained that all commercial activity at the airport would require Board approval, in which aase the Boazd could considec �� ' ' a services that would be provided by other baggage handlers. The �,�;;-'� .'} Agreement submitted for Board review today did not anticipate ' additional baggage vendors at the airport facility. ✓ � � .. `,� Pitkin Portage representative Brian B2anchard requested an ; �y��,,, -: opportunity to compete with other baggage handling vendocs at the i�a,,;: , .�;� airport; in the event another vendor expressed an interest in � S� .r using the Airport facility, for instance, Pitkin Portage would ,� f ,� '� attempt to better the service and fees to be provided by that �' - �:r ..y;;;�!'.:rz�: � Ve11C30r. � i ' Madsen augqested that the Board so23cit comments on the '�" r� baggage handling service provided by Pitkin Pottage on both a �•` � � quarterly and annual basis, j�. ,. �. Esary svggested two (2) minor amendments to Agreement as follows: • ��l - , z r. ` 5. Compensation: the four (4) quarterly payment dates should :�, be advanced by one {1) day to pxovide foc payment by � ' � the company on 31 �uly, 31 Octobet, 31 January and 30 �' April of each year {� �. �: '�c� 10. Compliance with all Laws and Regulations; the last � '?�� sentence in this paragraph should be amended to indicate ' � �ti� _. - Commissioner's Meeting 28 April, 1986 - 13 k _ . :.Rr. . , r .�:.. - , Y L' � ' �'��,�,"`Yt�.��t'Y:��..:, �'kp�� y . �� ,.. 1�f�• �r-' r In �� } y �,�7" } c � �. �. r r_.` 1 � ,. +' �` ,P'�jZ`r� •�� .e � ,,; < �, ` '� .1.� � k'•. �� .��cw " f � - , , f,y f� ,!:;�� ;r 1�rs��u �it�.'�.".4; ",�w�P, rq.��.,..�.�16'��..,.'�.:i�!'tia�y,i�a5 � ,.r �..!.CF�i��. . '+' �. .�-? . -� — . . . ,- _ ��, that the company would agree to submit any reports/ information regarding its operations that the County's Airport Management requests "' �:. Braudis moved to authorize the Chair to execute the Agreement a subject to the two (2) minor amendments indicated above. Blake � _ seconded and the motion passed unanimously. ._; �. c�''�: ' ----°---- j:` . � Road/ Fleet Manager Bruce Vandergaw requested authorization to e� , ,± Bridge purchase a water truck Eor the Road and Bridqe Department pursuant a}` ; Water to state bidding procedures. Rocky Mountain International Truck f" ' Truck in Denver was the recipient of this years state award, and the �' Purchase dealer has a vehicle that complied with the County's specifications. -� The truck would be delivered to the County by 1 June of this ; � yeat. Vandergaw explained that sixty thousand dollars ($60,000) in funds were budgeted for the purchase of a water/flusher truck ';<.� this year; the vehicle to be de3.ivered by Rocky Mountain International would cost sixty-four thousand, eight hundred and �_ thirty-two dollars ($64,832) , or approximately four thousand _ dollars ($4,000) greater than budget. There were sufficient ' � additional funds within the Department's budqet to accommodate � h the cost overrun. .:_ _ ;; _� Vandergaw explained that the Procurement Code did not � y ' ;; specifically addcess capital purchases from state bid; in addition, �. . _ y competitive bidding to obtain the new truck would have deferred i ..� � its purchase until late this fall. It was on this basis that the ' �' �:, � use of the state bid procedure was justified. �.,'�r � Blake moved to authorize an expenditure of aixty-four ; - � thousand, eight hundred and thirty-two dollars ($64,8':;3) for the ,',, �, � purchase of a water truck from Rocky Mountain IntE•rnational , ,� pursuant to state bid. Child seconded and the motion passed ' _.;. unanimously, 't� i . . ..Y,�, �.�� e.. µ , I `: ` Road/ Bruce Vandergaw intsoduced a Contract Agraement for the � Bridge purchase of one (1) tandem drive truck with snowplow, snow wing , ' Snowplow and combination dump body/material spreader with air dryer and (. ' ;i Purchase AM/FM radio options, to be entered into between the Board and j' . � _ -� Aanson Equipment, Inc. Eighty-five thousand dollars ($85,000) in � • � fands were budgeted last yeaz for the vet►icle; competitive bids were recently solicited and the Hanson Equipment bid of eighty- �'�',�� - � two thousand, five hundred and seventy-four dollars {$82,574) was �"i �'� p.. -0; the lowest bid received. Vandergaw recommended approval of the `� 5- Agreement as submitted. ;�.:. `t , : � Blake moved to authorize the Chair to execute the Agreement, �j �; Child seconded and the motion passed unanimously. � . � q �.. � ! � ��___ �Fi 1 : � �_' t: Grand The Board convened a public hearing to consider the Grand '� � = Champion Champions of Aspen, Inc. application, a reguest for a massage :: � ; Club parlour license f or the Owl Creek Club located at 21591 State �•, - Massage Highway 82 in Aspen. Deputy County Clerk Rim Whitestone introduced � ; Parlour the application, the first massage parlour license to be issued � ; License by the Board. The Board was authorized by statute (C.R.S. 12- . 48.5-104j to license massage parlours and to establish a fee • � structure for such applications not to exceed the structure 1 adopted for liquor licenses. The County Attorney has determined ; � that the licensing procedure for massage parlours was identical to that establiahed for liquor licenses; that procedure was utilized in reviewing the license submitted for Board review +� today. Whitestone recommended that the Boacd adopt a fee stcucture �t f Commissioner's Meeting 28 April, 1966 - 14 ,; .'q� ' , . ;� �: . . � �4Stf:�"'��Fe"�''S'-�i �'w., 4� � r ' �'l-'' . .� .i �. 7�.2'-.. :; ry � { �-..�� -: �t �t�{.�tA��Y tr,� 4tii`� t�� . a f1 �` 1+ i��i r i.�� ..��:�r �+, y �v� . "g'i,�` �Z c 4'. ( � i .y � },x � j �,. tL� 4� q�e�y.'��.d`'�.�c.a {��. � ��'�' � r.X :'U7 �1s'�:; rC��i�. `� tyr ,�.. :"t � t5 a f� ,. ? 9a.z-t �!.E:.'��Ne�i��`.Me. � ��. :''+a�k�+;s�:,.'f.i, . . 4bt.. �s for massage parioura that assessed a three hundred and fifty � dollar ($350) fee for initial applications, and a one hundred and ; fifty dollar ($150) annual renewal fee; this structure was ;�,, ' identical to that assessed for liquor licenses. In addition, ahe i recommended that the Board £ormally adopt a licensing procedure �'�� . � for massage parlouts that was ident3cal to that adopted for 4 liquor licenses. �:: . . . , -�j Blake moved to establish and adopt a massage patlour license ' ' procedure and fee stracture as recommended by Whitestone. Braudis ,. � seconded and the motion passed unanimously. i :;t whitestone then introduced the application pursuant to the £ormal hearing requirements, Referral comments were generally ��'� suppottive, the premises were posted, and public notice published ,.Ag�� in the Asoen '�,ymes. Whitestone cecommended approval of the �;,j license w3thouC condition. . '�'i�-'�� Rlanderud then openec3 the hearing for public comment. Rick • � Dewitt, an attorney representing the applicant, requested approval i of the license. He also indicated concurrence wi�h the licensing , ;•i procedure and fee structure adopted by the Board. �} Klanderud asked for additional comments; there being none, �' the hearing was closed. ;;} - _ z � ., � Braudis then moved to waiv� the formal hearing requi:ements ; '�' - -� given the limited public comment, and zo approve the license ? 1 without condition. Child seconded and the motion passed ananimously. �� . i ---------- ��'� : Redstone Planning Engineer Tom Newland introduced an Aqreement to be � - -��` 's Floo3 entered into between the Board and Basalt Construction for Phase � ��:'".� Control One (1? of the Redstone Flood Control Project. The Ptojec� ' :'�: '-� Project consisted af stream channel improvements near the confluence of - , Phase Coal Creek and the Crystal River, for which an Army Corps of ; ;: ,..# One Engineecs 404 Permit has been obtained. Newl.and explained that � ' the Agreement would authorize the expenditure of six thousand, ::s eight hundred and eighty-four dollars ($6,884), the funds for which .., ``"'+ would be obtained from Road and Bridge Department contingency s ;��;� f unds, Sr Y+' ; '�i� Blake moved to authocize the Chair to execute the Agreement, ':" �"�--� Braudis seconded and the motion passed unanimously. '� ,:;;! '.d; ::i ---------- 4.��..: - ' i . "� Airport County Attorney Tom Smith introduced discussion on the �#`�' � � Hearing appointment of an airport hearing officer to address violations � ; ; a� Officer of the Airpoct Rules and Regulations. Article Fifty (50), Title App't Four (IV) of the Pitkin County Code provided for the enforcement �� ,,,;�:� of the Airport Regulations, such as violations of the airport �> °"� curfew, by an airport hearing officer. In addit:ion, an ac�judicatory � �' hearing procedure was adopted in November of 1985 to assure due � ;�" .'; process and proper guidance of enforcement actions. Smith explained ' " ,;�; that interest in the hearing officer position, a non-paid position, ' •R , was solicited in the esn n �mes and that two (2y applications were •'•"s received; Lance Weber, a Snowmass Village Deputy Marshall and �� + pr3or manager of Aspen Base Operation, and Brooke Peterson, a . "" local attorney also serving as the Municipal Judge, both applied for the position. Smith requested that the Board review the �}, �'� appbications and select one (1) individual foz the position. • :�,;, Braudis noted that Weber has been very involved in airport a; issues for the past several years, both in his prioc position as ��p,-'� a Deputy Sheriff and as the Aspen Base manager. He r�commended , �,� that the Board appoint Weber to the airport manager position. '�a�. Rlandecud req�ested additional nominations for the position, �a� Commissioner's Meeting 28 April, 1966 - 15 �.� . �, �,Yi' ' . . . Y • f � �t. .. 1 1.� �, • . 7 ��pX"'I��gry./ C 'fa8»1;�n�xf Ga,. tr- r >r + .,-1 r ,.I [ 1 r_. ;, � �-,� �:, . . 'E`,l .��1i:�l.�jR�4 jL�'F `��) t. . 5 4 r� �. f I .'�I ��.� i� �T 1 "� c �'B¢�ny, 2�t s �..� ?ar �� . f C t; �' � � �.:.. . .. frNFS~„ ti�. `Zt;..'d;.�.>_ �`;�r�;;"�l""..�s;�ii.�.��>'�.:�n, . .. .w?,r .... _a�..t��..:.,. .�t:4,1 . ..3� "�,�. r�.� . ��:t ��`'. and there were none. ;' Blake stated that Peterson was currently employed by him and that, on this basis, he would abstain from the appointment. j;,. �,,: . Braudis then moved to appoint weber as the Pitkin County �'�� Airport Officer for a term of two (2) years, to expire on 1 ` - March, 1988. Child seconded and the motion passed with an abstention �°-ti f from Blake as noted. ��" �.,. , � ' ---------- � _• �� " ti . FAB Braudis moved to appoint Michael Herron to a two (2) year �i: " App't term as an aiternate member to the Financial Advisory Eoard; the � N term that would expire on 1 Niarch, 1988. Child seconded and the " motion passed unanimously. ,��'� ----------- �_-}� Colo Sheriff Dick Rienast introduced an In3tial Attack Aircraft � State Agreement for Wildfire Suppression for Calendar Year 1986, to be � Forest entered into between the Board and the Colorado State Forest � Service Service. The County was obligated by statnte, through the Shetiff, ; � Fire to initiate brush and wildfire suppression activities that � ' occurred on state and private lands situated outside of a recogaized - "- :; fire protection district. There were a few remote areas within the County that were not situated within any of the three (3) i: :' " _� fire protection districts serving the County and, qiven their ' � . : remoteness, fites in these areas were gene=ally suppressed by ;. , ^ � airctaft; the Sheziff was responsible for fire suppzession in ? these remote areas at this time, the costs for which were entirely � �: ` absorbed by the County until the fire reached sufficient size and ,`�� ' r proportion to qualify for state emergency fire funds. S a�;� ,�� n The Agreement submitted for Board review today would distribute -� the cost of initial aircraft fire suppr2ssio: activities between � .;�'� the County and the State Fotest Service or. a sliding scale basis. 'r$.a The aircraft suppression program was actually a trial program ��'�; that was intended to encourage aggressivr, S.ni`cial attack in an s ^:• •`.;� effort to prevent larger, more costly, �ites; the Sheriff would � evaluate the need for, and authorize the u�c �.,f fire aircraft on �� a case by case basis. Rienast recommencie@ �hat the Agreement be approved as it would enhafice the County's ability to respond to .,�,� wildfires while Leducing the potential financial impacts of such tires. �� •'_ Finance Airector Tom Oken noted that, in the event of � �� appcoval, the Sheriff would be authorized to expend funds for 3 ��; �� fire suppression activities. The She=iff wauld be zequired to � comply with adopted County policies, including the Procurenent � it �� Code, in the event of expendituze. It was noted that a maximum �, t� expenditure of four thousand, three hundred and twelve dollars +; ($4,312) would be incurred for airtankers, whereas as maximum of a�� one thousand, eight hundred dollars ($1,800) would be incurred :� for helitanks. : '1 � _� Braudis moved to authorize the Chair to execute the Agreement, � R Blake seconded and the motion passed unanimously. � - . . . :�,� i:� .. ' s �� . :r. ;: 5 1ST Property Manager Ann Bowman introduced on first reading an '� , ` �-� Read: ocdinance authorizing the sale of the certain =eal p=opecty owned Maple by Pitkin County. The ordinance would authorize the sale of a Property County-owned parcel of land containing approximately fourteen ' thousand, six hundred (14,600) square feet situated adjacent to ; �': the Maple property and Gibson Avenue, to James Mickey, Mickey has a � ,a .,� submitted an offer to purchase the subject property consistent ! with the sale price, subject to the following conditions: ' �� ' .`ti� � ,. �i Commissioner's Meeting 28 April, 1986 - 16 ; '�`!� .. . ,, I,� � .';�' - . �Y `, . . . ` . . J �s'i�'j vL�f. .t y� .... . ��.' S �'v. . � �. ,c: � .,��fa�ufle5t'y�=yy;Sy��4aYii'�� ';J}r � E, t .r. . 7 tJl . r'� .,�:•i , : ,::' a�' :-�. � ° '�.��ds s �,, s �, ,'�{' ' ` •t � �k1: �?t` � (�; �s Y'�"�r��T �."�-.� ,...:.E�.�� I..T.{� f'� . h.��, i?�.��..e�10��5<.�.. �. .� . . � �t 6 �I' '.tJ.J �R.. .�wr�� x�.-1.5. � .Se •.,.$.. iY1 ��,•� 5 '1 '�yt�Z F a� � ; 1. that a susvey be accomplished ;,-; ,:: 2. that title inaurance be provided 3. that a lot line adjustment be approved ��,?-:: � f-;,: ' The above three (3) conditions were to be completed by the seller j � prior to closing. � 1 Bowman ex lained that the sale of the sub'ect �"'�r'' _ p � property was . + submitted pursuant to Home Rule Charter requirements, whereby the € �<�� .1 disposal of County property could only be approved pursuant to �.` ! ordinance. � i � Child moved first reading approval of the ordinance and to � � � set a public hearing for 19 May, 1986, at 10:00 a.m. Braudis ,..� seconded and the motion passed unanimously. �� .. if _--------- ? . I Impound Assistant County Attorney Gary Esary introduced a resolution � Towed reaffirming the County's procedure for providing notices of 3 Vehicle impoundment of removed (towed) vehicles and an opportunity for } Process a hearing regarding removal and towinq and storage fees assessed. � The resolution, which was prepared simply to confirm adopted � _ administrative procedures concerning vehicles removed/towed from ' County property, identified a specific notice procedure f or + <'� .,' impounded vehicles, charges for release, and a detailed procedure q. .,, . 1 for hearings on removed vehicles. Esary noted that twenty (20) ? �� ' ��.� vehicles have been towed from the airport property as of today's , .' .. � date, fo= which an expense of one thousand, thirty dollars % •� ($1,030) has been incurred. All fees assessed for towing, removal, j storage and impoundment were established by the independent ' � towing contractors. Esary recommended that the Board inclnde the � x`� resolution on the agenda and subsequently vote on its approval. �'j ,T;� Blake moved to add the resolution to today's agenda, Braudis '�?'� seconded and the motion passed unanimously. r. ;� Blake moved to approve the resolution as submitted. Child �i seconded and the motion passed unanimously. , , : ,._,. '.� ---------- , �;Wi Public The Soard convened a public hearing to consider the Aspen : ,:� Hearing: Highlands Resort, a Lodge GMP, 9eneral submission, rezoning, P[TD ?.. Aspen overlay and Mountain Master Plan revision application submitted -,^� High- by the Aspen Highlands Skiing Corporation. Planner Francis �.:';.".'^ lands Rrizmanich submitted to the record the Planning Office memo of 28 ' `� Resort April, 1986, the complete application, all referral comments, the i' �:�.Ii Planning and zoning Commission record, a letter from Rosann � , `. - � Stegall dated 28 April, 1986, the 1966 Aspen Area General Plan as 3;� ,�< .� amended to date, and the Land Use Code as amended to date. The {;� ,� � 7 applicant has tequested. approval to develop twenty-four and two '''1 tenths (24.2) acres of land located at the base of the Aspen ` ,s� Highlands Skiing area as follows: �l ' ,� �: 1. a new hotel facility containing two hundred and fifty }� (250} guest rooms; the subject rooms would consist of '+; two hundzed (200) basic hotel rooms and fifty (50) y•i suites a ... � ' 2. an additional fif ty (50) guest rooms would be constructed �;� in a separate structure to be developed as "cottage" '�1,�_: units. The hotel and "cottage" units would result in a • l� • total of three hundred (300) rooms, for a total of two ` hundred and ten thousand (210,000) square feet �;� i ��, 3. a resta urant, coff ee shop, dining rooms, lounges, ; banquet/meeting rooma, bars/lounges, hotel administrative ,' • � •�'� offices and suppozt areas, for a total of one hundred v�� and six thousand, four hundred and sixty-five (106,465) ' ��+� Commissioner's Meeting 28 April, 1986 - 17 `� , �� , Y �. � t � ;n . . yP� �pr "*�" <r i�� r.. h : �:-.� r " j :{[ i°`�.�. ,�; � �., +..: � ��T (.3�T�Sh�Y'tfi'4�ri ��;�lj � . y � Ty . 5 �At+F��i r r �-�,ir ..;•� --� 1.a+F'i � f�CS � Sl o } � tL . � �� { i �xk �. �1��qy"�',�aa��Y� ,n' A �•� t 3 ,+ �y' �y�' .At 1. '�'" .�S ��' -�,.'�, •' y`r �.4�"" ..�'�� ' � ��"' X Wtw: •:'t - . . "._:, ,Y�.�.�rAt. �'�fi..�A:..'�l'HtiTfl..:r.'.. ca,Y4l''_ � :�'... r_._. _ '}�- '7�k;ti � square feet _ �_ ... , 4. a separate base lodge facility that would include a =': ` four hundred (400) seat dining area, bar� lockers, ski �``'' area administrative offices, a ski rental shop and ;=>;;'.,: � support facilities, for a total of thirty-six thousand, � - ; three hundred and forty (36,340) square feet �r-�� r'!;,_ j5. a total of nine hundred (900) parking spaces, to be �.''V ; constructed in two (2) separate phases, for a total of -' � one hundred and ninety-two thousand (142,U00) squate I'�, , -� feet. Seven hundred (700) parking spaces would be � ; � constr ucted concusrently with the hotel, would be �°` , ! located in two (2) underground parking lots, and would � be available to both hotel guests and day sk3ers. The ;�,� remaining two hundred (200) spacea would be constructed ; in future years either on or off site in response to increased use of the ski area ; :�i � �� 6. recreational amenities, including commetcialjretail I shops, tennis courts, a pool, detention pond/lake, and ° upqrades to the ski mountain. The commercial/retail ,' f shops alone would approximate ten thousand (10,U0U) � ,Y_� � square feet, and would be subject to the commercial i development quota system � . _ s:::,> v.. _ � ' { 7. the applicaat has agreed to satisfy the employee '. . •� housing requirements for one hundred and eighty-three ��. '} (183) employees, or one hundred percent (1008) of the 7 employees generated by the project. The housing ;,';,�� requirements would be satisfied with on site housing E and the payment in lieu provision. The numbez of ��.'.� emp2oyees genetated by khe proposed development were � ,� based on two (2) sepasate uses, the hotel use and the �:;•, .- r':�+ cammercial use; the specific number of employees r• �� attributed to each use has not been yet been , distinguished. The applicant has nonetheless agreed to , house all employees attributed to the entire project, i _- ,'°� or those generated by both the hotel and commercial uses t `�� 8. the rezoning of two and one tenths (2,1) acres of AF-1 �� land to AR-1. The subject pzoperty contained R-30, AF-1 and AR-1 zoned lands; the rezoning would neither increase nor decrease the existing zoning designation � for the subject peoperty, rather, it would redefine the �'�'' -' boundaries of the zones by moving some of the AR-1 F � ~ ��l zoning fzom the ski slope and replacing it with AF-1. �� • l The proposed rezoning would not result in any FAR or I �_,,�.._ ','� density increase on the hotel parcel `„ s,�._; °y� � ,.:' J 9. the rezoning of the entire property with a PIID Overlay Er �-; �•) designation, This would provide the applicant with � � ; •' greater design flexibility, including variances. The l+ applicant has tequested a thirteen (13) foot height � variance for the new hotel, so that twa and eight t � - � tenths percent (2.88) of the entire project would I ,'; exceed the height limitation, as well as FAR and �� parking variances � ` • � . � ,- `5 The ross - g project area would contain three hundred and sixty-two . thousand, eight hundred and five (362,605) square feet; sixty- • seven thousand, two hundred and forty-three (67,243) square feet , �� ' consisted of floor area exemptions, resulting in two hundred and "� ninety-five thousand, five hundred and sixty-two (295,562) square ��. s� feet of applicable project area. � . � The application was reviewed by the refexral agencies and ! � Staff dS f ol�aws: � '� Commissionec's Meeting 28 Apcil, 1906 - 18 � ; � _ � .�. .*�, . . ' , Y L' r ... f �'i,k'i.�`c� �.*ti.-�� • �t � ,. ..Jg _ y .��c � ' i ..i-' �� " �. � ` �d��( ��.�i�f� '� ��'�'�t 'r < �� . r .:,i 51 +L��y. i.� �� .. �'d S7�C P��MC'd�''t-Y''r}� `�F+a �; k�� p � -<^ i t �a 4F5� f.�, �:.��' •4 � ��: A1�„1 � i,:�.n r...�..�.F.��.��..�..*.s_��.ITJ�•.�� JH ~ �`�yµ �'.� , ��,� �I: - ._.Cin':�.�� _ � . . � . . _._ !w �C?k:r7 �ti, �q} a. conformance with the Mountain Master Plan: the various � aki area improvements proposed in the 1985 Master Plan ! revision were generally found to be appropriate ; j. i b, use of the site: the hotel building would be a massive �._� � structure with a building footprint approximately five �.�: - hundred (500) feet in length; a single story retail s':; ± building would be located at the transit plaza; the k� =' t base lodge would be situated at the top of the transit � plaza tutnaround; a thirty (3U) unit employee dormitory � would be located on the western end of the site near � � ! the maintenance building; the fifty (50) "cottage" type ; units would be located in eleven (11) separate buildings � on the eastern end of the site. The use of the subject j site was felt to be generally appropriate except as � �� follows: the "cottage" units should be entirely eliminated ,:...t as multi-family units were not allowed in the subject = zone district `,ry� , .� c. land use compatibility: the ptoposed development, and specifically the "cottage" units, would cesult in � ,i significant impacts on the adjacent Highlands Subdivision, �� including noise, lighting, privacy and visual impacts. �. The proposed "cottage" units did not constitute an . <"� adequate transitional/buffer area between adjacent ': _ � uses; as a result, they were not found to be compatible j�' with adjacent land uses F ` �.� d. PUD variances: a request for a ten thousand (10,000) �'' s square foot R-30 FAR variance was found to be ; 's inappropriate and should be denied. Various height ; a�� variances, including a variance of up to thirteen (13) ; feet for the restaurant portion of the new hotel, were :r;;; � generally found to be appzopriate. The height variances, ��•� which would apply to less than three percent (38) of ;. ``±`""�� the hotel building, would mitigate ta some extent the �� :: "`'=`Y ':� visual impacts of the hotel structure � .";� e. rezoning: the rezoning, which would exchange two and , ,.`� . .� one tenths (2.1) acres of AR-1 land located on the 1 • � mountain slope for an equal amount of AF-1 land located .��F�- within the buildable area of the subject propecty, was ;,� �� found to be appropriate as it would remove some AR land from the slopes where visibility was a greater concern �,. f. traff ic impacts: the general snbmzssion agplication -' "'? addressed road impact� by providing a cash contribution � � � towards future improvements to Maroon Creek Road. (� . .� Although traffic impacts would require further review ��L: at the detailed submission stage, it was felt that the �, ' - � cash contribution proposed by the applicant could, on a � �. �;� conceptual level, mitigate the traffic impacts associated ' �� with the proposed development ! �s�� `� g, parking/circulation/access: the application addressed ! �w� the parking facilities necessary to accommodate the ` ;`� proposed development. The County Engineer made various ( _ recommendations to improve circulation and access � . ,.4 � "� h. employee housing: the Housing Authority indicated that r ��:�� a total of two hundred and sixty-seven (267) employees ` - would be generated by the proposed develo pment; as there were eighty-f our (84) existinq employees, the l', project would generate a total of one hundred and '' ,� eighty-three (183) new employees requiring housing, The �"_;�. applicant agreed to provide thirty (30) on site units, ? ., ��3 and to utilize the cash in lieu provision to satisfy ; 1� the housing requirements for the remaining one hundred i ' �-�'? and fifty-three (153) ?�• idt �� ' `�� Commissioner's Meeting 28 April, 1986 - 19 ' ,; :�� .A.. _ �. � 4�� . . � � . Y f � _ �"ern�a�r''t �r'.�6'.' 4 ,� }r;. �, f��•:. S rr� � t 3 �� . .. J � ., �- ;�i �IhSCa� � ��.t 1c x �� .,.�., 't$ � ?ar�4 i'*. a * .: ��.S��T�dfi��'�!-��Y'�i�'�it�.:'` � ��1 i?}a� �� y� � �i i �.yf. r fr y; : '_ ��F� ��„ s::� �,� r{, �' .,x....r �.. � ... ' � 9` t��+' � :�y, � t �' �.� � � k , . ... . ._ '� .5;f ��,�.+�,�9k3_� �l ?'..�7."r. �r ?':: , `�. rt.i 5 I 7 ^ 7"a�.'N. �R�: � i-',5 l '�n.'w � j9 *a.v„r::.4.. . r�. ��i i. services: water service would be provided by the City of Aspen, and septic services by the Aspen Consolidated ,;, .' Sanitation District �. �. � j. environmentalimpacts: the Environmental Health Department "`'� � � i addressed air and water quality impacts, as well as �'.;;` ; noise impacts �-:;.. �F_.. k, growth impacts: the applicant has specifically requeated �� the at✓ard of the sixty (60) lodge units available from � prior �ompetitions, and the twenty (20) units available �� this year, for a total of eighty (80). The applicant ): � has not yet requested an allocation of additional units . , , and this issue has not yet been assessed by staff. An ,.'�� award of eighty (80) units, to be constructed as the first phase of the proposed development, would be consistent with adopted growth policies �"4� The Planning Office concluded by noting that the Aspen '� Hi hlands base area was a ' develo ent and PPropriate for some level of touzist pm , particularZy in a resort complex configuration. - � Although the application submitted for Board review today , represented an improvement over that submitted last year, the � - • ,� project nonetheless had substantial problems as follows: ' _ f 3 1. the "cottage" units would result in significant impacts ,,� on adjacent residential properties and should be � ^ � � eliminated from the site plan altogether ;,' a.•; g �. .. _ - � 2. the hotel building was out of character with any other : structure in the County given its mass and length, it + . x�.�� was suggested that it be separated into at least two ��.i (2j separate buildings to comply with scenic quality and land use compatibflity policies, as well as provide � � '�'�� :Eor the phasing of the project � 3. although the traffic analysis submitted by the applicant `.� appeared to be adequate, there was some concern that it e did not thoroughly assess traffic impacts associated ,K�;..,� with increased ski area visitation and base area ` redevelopment. It was suggested that the applicant and Planning Office staff reassess the traffic generation .� factors and prepare a further analysis at detailed `" submission ' � �: � t 4. the a Iicant has not coordinated the ro �^j pP p posed development j � -�:•i with the Highlands Inn project, a one hundred and � �, � eighty (180) unit lodge also located in the base area �„'' � and now in the process of redesign. The concurrent �- � �, construction of these two (2) projects would result in � ' _ dramatic impacts on the neighborhood, lending greater �'��`'�°� i�� credence ta the need for phased construction � ra � `'r• The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and scored the -� application at its tegular meeting on 4 March. The Commission �; recommended general submission, PUD and rezoning approval subject �} ? to thirty (30) conditions of record. Finally, the Commission I 3 recommended that the applicant be awarded the twenty (20) units � �� available in the 1986 lodge quota competition, and that no � � `- '"� previous nor f uture allocations be made; additional allocations � should not be considered due to the failure of the applicant to justify a multi-year allocation. i` '. l''., Krizmanich explained that the Planning Office concurred with t the recommendation of the Planning Commission. The Office recommended, however, an additional condition of approval as ' � follows: � �� ; 't � 31, the applicant shall submit a cequest for multi-year GMP j' � ''�� allocations within ten (10) days of today's hearing. ' r,+� - � Commiasioner's Meeting 28 April, 1986 - 20 � " ;�fi� • . y ' . � . �. �,�5^'fS<' . . M� VFi�C�1�.��i/t��4f�+..>�1 {r, `1 ` .,M ,r.: �ti Y-� �� _• � .�f �.�� r:. � '.'.��.. �YCN�Z��,�.i�'�.i�R �ir' t 7. It � i � �:J �} �� 1 � � r... �*�-�t�+'�� : .,c �t f,' ,' t:�f ��'. .,� JT,. � r . .:J 6 '� �� . {'.i ,. � rTsi yl, LiaL ,� 9r. � ,� . .o�'♦ � #�" �� r� ,k� . }f�.. .�!�y 3�i6�,.._ _ , !$� ' � :�...�..� �1�,'45oi�.....-� . . . k ` t tiv a� rw�'��; ��41 ��/' ♦ ,Z^�� . ) �... �•.••,, ' The Planning Off ice shall schedule a hearing for 27 - =•: May, 1986, to review the multi-year alSocation request `�J �� ' i,; Wes Li ht an attorne ce resentin the a plicant, noted for f ,� r 4 . Y P 9 P = - the record that a petition containing two hundred and seventy ! (270) signatures in suppoxt of the proposed development was ! r ' submitted to the record during Planning Commission review of the i:; application. The applicant has worked closely with Planning �';, �.` Office staff, and conducted a preapplication conference with the Planning Coramission. Light provided a bcief history of the ' - subject area; the ski atea was purchased, and has been owned by I`,•::.`;. .. ��;,: the applicant, since the 2950's. The subject area was downzoned +; in 1974, at which time its density was reduced; the subject area � was nonetheless maintained and zoned foc Iodge development. The .y subject area was the only property in the County, except for the l Crystal River Valley, that was zoned for lodging. Lodqe development r� in the Hfghlands base area was, theref ore, considered a suitable � and desired use of the subject property. The base area development and the ski area improvements were both necessary, and were (�._ submitted within the context of a single application to provide • for concurrent approval. The pcoposed development would be � entirely self-contained and would result in a number of benefits; � - the proposed hotel would house skiers in the base area, alleviating the need for transportation, and the mountain improvements would � �� ,:: " upgrade an area that was well below capacity at this time. � The applicant implemented a development approach that �'. resulted in a project that was below the allowable density of the subject property, that fully mitigated all impacts, and that � �; resulted in substantial improvements to the Maroon Creek area as ' .,� weil as the Aspen area in generai. Light felt that the proposed ;; ; ,,� development complied with the Land Use Code, and that it actually � I represented the type of development the Code required. He reqaested =� general submission, PUn and rezoning approval, the award of the E, � -� 1986 Lodge GMP allocation, and, pursuant to Section 5-510.7(6j of �; ' the Code, the award of the nnused Lodge GMP units available � during the years 1983 through 1985. Light noted that the Planning �'.:. `° ; Commission recommended apgroval of the app2ication subject to � � various conditions of record; the applicant concurxed with almost all of those conditions. � Raul Gawrys addressed the various changes made to the site � plan subsequent to the 1985 submission. Access from Glen Dee Road �� . j has been entirely eliminated; the "cottage" units were relocated � up to one hundred and fifty (1501 an@ two hundzed (200) feet away �'�,: •` 1 from adjacent properties, and a buffer area containing landscaping ";' ' � and tennis courts has been proposed instead; the entrance to the �.;;':�1;' .� new hotel has been revised in an effort to p=ovide direct access i �: � to the Highlands Inn; the transit plaza has been relocated to the center of the site to provide better access to both lodges; the , i,k: . -? height variances xequested last year represented. thirteen (13$) � o£ the project, whereas less than three percent (38) was requested , - :;.� this year; the building footprint has been revised to entirely � + eliminate a seventy-five (75} foot wing proposed last year; the new hotel, which was redesigned in an effort to improve visual ,� impacts, has been somewhat separated so that it would appear, in � •.� same instances, as a one (1) story st=ucture with a second story � r link. ` Child questioned the ownership of the "cottage" units. Gawrys explained that all of the unita would be owned by the \;- p hotel,; the "cottage" uni�s would not be privately owned, and all ` `�, guests would check in through the hotel. '��' Child expressed some concern with the size of the proposed ; hotel, and asked if there was a comparable structare in the area. ? � Gawrys explained that the proposed hotel would be comparable in ; ' size to Woodrun Place in Snowmass Village; that structure resulted . �'g in much greater visual impacts, however, as it was located on a ' �� plateau and contained f ive (5) or six (6) stories. in addition, � Commissioner's Meeting 28 April, 1986 - 21 � '� ...�,.,....�.�. _... r ..,, . - � �'�: . , Y i . Y i ` , .�Q! �� g` a's" �'c-. ' r F � I ' �` � : � '' ; -. � �Q � T Ed' ��i�r.�"��' � �:�. �r �� 1 . � � � r .� �a ; �-�'��. .:c � ,�63 y v,°!.N�,�t i.- � . c � t, , `� � " � i�•. - �i �]�{�r T_,r ti� � � . � .:� }1r r �k"� � � � c y r�_f \ l i.L�!. r ".1�F � 1`[`a!+t� /�yT�:sE� ��',��;�� .�� :' f . �7;i .Y� . ,n :.;...�� .�.x r ��R�.af(al.y��t.i,.��_ � 4aR�✓..:± .��Ow... .r �,�rrr.,' . . . ... ,A� �"Y��: Woodrun Place was not particularly articulate in its design, and contained a number of extreme vertical facades. The applicant has 7•.� attempted to avoid that type of design on the subject property. �<.;: Child questioned the pillow count in the proposed hotel. � ` - Gawrys explained that the new hotel would contain two and one �� ,, . half (2.5) pillows per room, for a total of five hundred (500) �;z: i pillows. i., - ' Light addressed the "cottage" units and their designation by j � .; the Planning Office as multi-family units. Light noted that, �. . ? although multi-family units were ptohibited in the subject zone ;/, district, the "cottages" units would be fully integrated into the r ; hotel facility. The "cottage" units were felt to be consistent ,.y� with the definition of hotel, motel, and lodge rooms as defined -;� in the Code, as they would be available for occupancy by �uests i on a permanent basis. Light did not feel that the "cottage" units �-� constituted multi-family units, in which case they would not be � prohibited in the subject zone district. j Light then addressed the conditions of approval recommended � by the Planning Commission. The applicant concurred with all of �` the conditions except as follows: � _ t 2. the R-30 FAR variance would result in more open space for _ _ " f the County and adjacent properties by allowinq the r developer Yo consolidate density elsewhere on the site, ;:`" . �� r In the absence of the variance, the R-30 property would �� be available for residential development. The applicant �.`,' � requested that this condition be deleted as there was ; � no prohibition against tranaferring density within a � `. ��4 single site, and as the variance would result in the ; • ,�ry dedication of permanent open space � ; r� S :`�='1 5, the application consisted of a complete resort package, � .;�- �.��:'i and the applicant was never advised that a Commercial :;�� GMP allocation may be necessary. The commetcial uses - proposed in the development were ancillary to the hotel x '`:�- ' ''� use. The submission requirements for commercial and �;,j lodqe development were identical, and it was not considered appropriate to segment the development into � �� two (2) separate competitive processes. The applicant E' _ <<4� entirely addressed all impacts associated with the `� entire project, so that a sepatate review for the commercial uses alone was considered to be redundant a .'''. ;; 6. the one hundred thousand dollar ($lOQ,000) cash i ��` - j contribution towards improvements to Maroon Creek Road �' ,�':� � was consideted appropriate; it was not felt that the 1€ ,4�;:' ,,;r� applicant should be required to pay his "fair shace" of ��f��: the road improvements as recommended by the Planning � �.>'� Commission as it was not known what level of f unding �f - � would be required as a result. The applicant would `i :`.� requested an amendment to this condition to indicate ' > :� that the applicant would pay his "Pair share" of the � � � '; Maroon Creek Road improvements, not to exceed one ;�> :''! hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) :: i � ' ` 7, the applfcant requested an amendment to this condition � to indicate that the two hundred (200) additional 4� parking spaces to be ptovided in Phase Two (2) "shall be able to be provided on site". The need for these \,- '. additional spaces would be triggered by the capacity ` and use of the subject ski area s�. ; : `°' 10. the visual connection/pedestrian access between the �� transit plaza and the Highlands Inn has been accomplished, . k ._ in which case this �edition was felt to be superfluous :� _ ��,`� 13. water attorney John Musick has reviewed the water ^t'� , ' -- Commissioner's Meeting 28 April, 1986 - 22 � _. . v _ -- � _- .�{,- . `' �.. ... 1 V°r.i {�' .l�i'�$��"vk "l\5 , `� . . . � t ,v�y , Ej w 'Xx�.� e +'� ,� s � 0�r.. T te _ r _ .'.. e'ILF�"7�"y�p�.�� . f�- ,. . � .., . '.�: s � � i� '� - . �,U �M.V''• � ."-y �?...! .. '' r �..f �i''v�` N, �,r: :,�._�) I°� � `�r F ,{ry� ��p1 ��j -. . •"' t Y.� ��4 � .1.: �.. .* •. _ •. p _�,. ,.._ -..._ _ . ... �:.:r.-�e�.,_ti4 1�,•,_:i.4� I�.X.�iL<�'�s'�r•...Jr3nY�' . ,'�.Y F .;.�'=*,:,�., . . �M,,f, t��. ' _ b.�hL�,�; ;;�. � �c. �. system requirements, including the issue of water F:•';•'' rights; the applicant has already conveyed water rights ' to the City of Aspen and had the right to use those ;;:�i;;;_ rights, The applicant would reguest an amendment to the ��' '°�� , aecond sentence of this condition to indicate that °in `'ir--:�' . the event additional water rights are required, the `� r applicant shall work with the City of Aspen to arrange ;�°:;^?'<,:` for the conveyance of water tights to mitigate increased water demands generated by the project", all of which would occur prior to detaile8 submission s' 14. the Environmental Health Department recommended that -} - the proposed incinerator be entirely el3minated from , the project; the Boacd should determine whether it � desired to provide the Planning Commission with the ' opportunity to reinstate the incinerator at detailed �: � � submission �� . j 16. the need f or additional traff ic analysis was felt to be � vague. The applicant would request that staff specify ; ; the type of additional analysis desired � � Rlanderud then opened the hearing for public comment. '� �- -- Barbara Convisor, a sixteen (16) resident of Maroon Creek Road, �� expressed some concern with the seventeenth r.ondition of approval ! : recommended by the Planning Commission; that condition required ( • the applicant to limit outside amplif ied noise to between the j 3 hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:09 p.m. Convisor explained that the �: ` Maroon Creek Valley was a very fragile valley, and that noise � carried easily to adjacent properties. She =equested an amendment ; to this condition to limit ar-.plified noise to between the hours a; of 10:00 a,m. and 4:00 p.m. She reguested that the fncinerator be �� . �ntirely deleted fron� cue project. With respect to parking, it ,, i; was noted that there were insufficient parking facilities in the � ��, base area at this time, and she expressed wncern with the number t `' _� of parking spaces p=oposed by the applicant. With respect to road � i.mpacts, she disputed the one hundred and sixty thousand dollar � - ; ($160,000) cost to improve Maroon Creek Road estimated by staff, ; particularly as there was very iimited room to construct shoulders ��. . � along certain poztions of the Road. It was felt that the cost to � ; construct eight (8) foot shoulders anc3 a two (2) inch overlay , • � along the crourse of the Road would exceed the cost estimated by staff, in which case the onE hundced thousand dollar ($100,000) �.: . � cantribution offered by the applicant may not be sufficient. . } Dick Rudolph, a fifteen (15) year resident of the Aspen �'��;,•�.. ,' �� Aighlands Subdivision, was also concerned with outside amplified `, t;- noise and he too requested that it be iimited to between the �" �':. � hours of 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m, and that outside paging systems �`. and piped muaic be prohibited. He felt that the cash contribution r ;t :� .=:j;"�;t:�:`: oEfeced by the applicant for road improvements was very inadequate, _ s; and he =eguested that the cost to improve Ntaroon Creek Road be r� reevaluated and the contributions from the two (2) lod9es in the "� � �� ;�,� base area reassessed. Parking facilities in the base area were ? . F veLy inadequate at this time, and there was some concern that the _ applicant would only provide seven hundred (700) spaces during � R_ 4 phase one (1); he requested that parking generation figuzes be -� entirel.y r�assessed to ensure sufficient impact miti9ation. �. Finally, Rudolgh noted that Glen Dee Drive traversed his property; °� he requested that it be relocated off of his progerty and onto ; . . the applicant's property, particularly given the location of the "cottage" units, \,,� , Pat bobie, a ptivate engineer representing the applicant, � noted that the Rudolph property was situated within an established � road improvement district. It was not known, then, whether the , � Board had jurisdiction to relocate the subject road as requested. ,� County Attorney Tom Smith agreed to research the issue to � , • s�i� determine whether the Board could initiate the xelocation of Glen �� - Commissionet's Meeting 28 April, 1986 - 23 :� � -� -C�.�� . - � . . t '� , .. � �$ -�J `°Q.'�; ,. ,r ' . . ��.e` f� `' �� ` -�. ��T .L. �._ ati-�c. ,; � � a,.. �., c ..,:e eAei: �'�� y y 4 �r 'i„""' �, y �� 7 �-� ' , , � �t�a'�,,l��m' ,�� h �i ; � v�f'��.��.� y� � �'� t ?'��. ��.i .� .:,,a� .� q� � � y� � ., v : �•3�,. ,y�t��'�j�'s ,, . . .-� . -..s.�.��4:..�i....'�isi.y�tS.e'lis.Mri��i.��1��..,��.�'f'. :.��i�.�..'�y'DY�a.."_ �. �air`�Si�Ui,�NF�i'� Dee Road off of the Rudolph pcoperty. Rudolph noted that he owned water rights associated with ;= . runoff in the subject area. Ae explained that he would reconstruct :;' a pond on his property this summer, for which those water rights <<•,'. . • would be necessary, and he requested that the applicant not divezt those rights to some other use, i�i� � - Red Butte Drive resident Marty Keller supported the � _ ; application; the development proposed was consideced necessary to � enhance the competitiveness of the resort. Ae noted that the � subject ski area was the only locally owned ski area, and he � requested that the application be approved. � -�' Planning and Zoning Commission member Suzanne Caskey expressed :..,� strong concern with the "cottages"; although approved by the • (:9 Commission, she was concerned that these units would require � ";�; additional service leveZs resulting in noise, lighting and air • �•`; quality impacts, all of which would adversely affect adjacent ~:� properties. The proposed "cottage" units, each of which would � approximate one thousand, two hundred (1,200) square feet in � size, would together approximate sixty thousand (60,000) square ; feet, a size equal to Aspen Valley Hospital. With respect to the . . - i transit plaza, she noted that the applicant had indicated that � this facility may be used for summer concerts and other similar ; �: ` • � uses, events which could result in significant noise impacts on Maroon Creek valley residents. The hotel itself, the f ootprint ° �� for which would approximate five hundred (500) feet, was a �., massive structure that would result �n isignificant adverse visual !:` , impacts. With respect to traffic impacts, it was noted that there were two (2) locations along Maroon Creek Road where the guard z�'��...{ rails were falling into a ravine; there was very little room to ! , expand the Road in this these areas, and it was anticipated that � �" � significant enqineering would be required to improve the Road as �''•� recommended. She suggested that these issues be reassessed to .c:, ; ensure adequate impact mitigation. ::��y Cask.ey noted that, although the subject area was the only ' area zoned for lodge development at this time, it was not the " only appropriate location for such development. The Planning `N� Commission recently completed the Highway 82 Corridor Master Plan ; ,; which indicated that the Tiehack area could be a suitable location � ;, foc lodge development. She noted that, although the development !. . proposed was less than the allowable density, it nonetheless t:� crammed a substantial amount of density into a small area. . ��'� - ; Development below allowable density did not mean that the density � Y >� proposed was appropriate f or the site; in this instance, it was } j felt that the density proposed was inappropriate due to the size, {� ' configuration and topo9raphy of the subject property. With i � respect to the transfer of density associated with the R-30 �, t. i variance request, it was noted that a program to transfer a;� development rights between parcels was not in effect; although �' ,�� this type of transfer was not prohibited by the Code, neithet was k it allowed. Caskey concluded by notinq that the application 4-� �`:' ' �`� submitted for Board review today was better than the previous { �i.. submission. She did not feel, however, that the Board should I ; . t assess the proposed development on the basis of a prior submission, � '_�: rather, it was felt that it should be reviewed as an entirely new project on the basis of consistency with the Code. '� Rlanderud asked for additional comments; there being none, the hearing was closed. She then asked for additional comments \:: ' from the applicant. . ; �„- Light responded to comments concerning the adequacy of the existing parking facilitiesf he attributed this in part to snow . :�i storage which occurred in the parking lot area. The parking , � ' proposed by the applicant would be largely located underground, - • '%� in which case snow storage would not be limit its availability, . �*9 and the applicant further designated additional parking facilities �� - Commissioner's Meeting 28 April, 1986 - 24 �? •e� ';�^' ' . T 1._ �� t��`��s 4 •C�i h i JS t . ':7�-`, ,��. �'. �'SL1�1A .?f� 1�� y S � ! '.;.-1 ,k� ...;.� ,� . , 4��{{V{{�'�'IF��vi+nutLF..-� L . „ . �.�. � x ._� � `!., i . ' ...:��.Y . e�'�s Y `�♦'(,[,�I�Y. �r:�� .�� !��+ f(� .. 1`vI'. F �p � � f ��{� � �d� � � .�.� � ' V = al�-V �� .. �� ,•�t �� ..�,� 9 �,��y�,�y�� ♦ �.�'fQ� � � L n>qt� rr1 a�4 � �,f:�.�uu�,,��L,5�16.. . �� ,J'�Y�.^�� f+uM a.�..f_..: .31. .. .,f.� t ir,!�'�[." +'-�Jr��+�.4f' �� - �'N�. . : . .�_.;.-; ..�' ' containing two hundr°d (200) additional parking spaces. The ; = ' applicant maintained that the seven hundred (700} parking spaces �'°�� that would be provided in phase one (1) would be sufficient, � ,�,, particularly given the auto disincentive progtam to be implemented �`, � hy the applicant. With zespect to the transfer of density associated );',;;;�;�.;;;'° - with the R-30 variance, Liqht noted that there was no prohibition ; r ..: against such a transfer at this time; the variance was considered .';�_ - appCOpriate as it would benefit all narties. With respect to the �;, �� i road impacts, Light noted that the project wovld generate �::;' substantial public revenues, including £ouc hundred thousand i ` dollars ($400,000) in construction material sales taxes, two (�•' -`p.� ' hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars ($275,000) in building i�' ': permit fees, one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) in annual � °' retail sales faxes, six hundred and four thousand dollars ($604,000) �}�� in water tap fees, thcee hundred and fifteen thousand dollars , ($315,000) in septic system tap fees, eleven thousand dollars ��; ($11,000) in annual sewage revenues, fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) annually for the Aspen Resort Association, and others, •' for a total. of one million, six hundred and ninety-four thousand 'f � dollars ($1,694,000) in publlc revenues. The applican� has ' further committed to an additional one hundred thousand dollar Y ($100,000) cash contcibution towards road improvements. Light . -�== noted that the project would gene=ate substantial revenues, and °� that it was located in an area where services already existed. In ' -? the event additional coad improvement £unds were found to be - - necessary, he suqgested that a portion of these public revenues be used for that pucpose. � Smith recommended that the Board not allocate any lodge units until the 27 Niay meeting; the general submission application ; for the Pomegranate Inn was scheduled for review that day and, as •'•;' . ' ' that project met the threseold in competitive scoring, any fk ? allocation of lodge units should be deferred pending a determination !�. '� q on the eligibility of the Inn for an allocation. The Aspen ; Highlands Resort application was only eligible for the twenty 4� ; (20) units available this year given its ranking by the Planning is • i Commission. • i: Light explained that the applicant did not expect to ceceive a�� ' future years allocations at today's hearing; khe applicant assumed that the pcior years allocation wece available, however, � given that they were carried over from previous years. Light felt �� that both the 1966 and the prior yeacs allocations should be �;' � •. awacded to the highest scoring application this year, in this �k'� ;_ .,,: s... ; . instance the Aighlands Resort. �.•�.;,� ,: ` l,_ ; Klanderud questioned the FAR variance. Krizmanich explained r u i that, in the event the variance was not granted, the applicant � � � would be required to reduce the dens3ty of the proposed development j 4 � ', >� by ten thousand (10,000) square feet; this reduction would be �:,�;'.,;;��. .� necessary to conform with the requirements of the AR-1 zone �, � district, k1"'�> :` � Smith explained that the subject property was situated �� r within three (3) sepacate zone districts, each of which had z � different area and bulk requirements. In the event the Board � } desired to transfer density from one (1) district to another, as � indicated by the applicant, Smith requested such be accomp2lshed '• pursuant to the PUD variance provisions in lieu of a rezoning. � '.- ' � � Light explained that there was little inducement for the � '�,`� applicant to leave the R-30 lands in the project in the absence ;, of a density transfer. in addition, it would be ditficult for the � applicant to deeign a detailed submission application unless a y. decision was made on the density issue. It was noted that the R- � 30 Zand could accommodate one (1) sixteen thousand (16,000) ' square foot residence. A . '�� Smith noted that the application was scored by the Planning A Commission, in pazt on the basfs that the R-30 lands wonld be , Commissioner's Meeting 28 April, 1986 -- 25 •' � ':`M 'r4, - Y [•' �ir1E9 '� f� - .. � �.. ':I�.` .�� } ,�,I . . 1 i�} �' t K^q. J y . .) .. �, f td �� ,�.�i9' rC5 � S . 7 1 ly�� / '� � k =,{.��.. s. �er�"�it�� + = 3 <: r i . �.4'�'.'3:�� `'��:� �..�";, . . _ �,. i r: a. .. t ? . :.-,a. �.�:,'��'�.t.'_°�'�.-�� - . . ,ef� '��'�S'',.�js�"`,1 ,j �`%'i .'`v ,r.�y:_ a ��,A r dedicated as open space; there was a very strong inducement that the R-30 lands remain as open space, then, as the ecore we�1d otherwise be reduced. In addition, the PUD overlay, through which ' the applicant requested height and other variances, applied to � the entire property, so that the applicant could not remove the R-30 land from the project. ;,:�__:' - Blake requested that the R-30 lands remain as dedicated open �r";,'. . space, .- . ��1�.'. Rfchman noted that Lhe applicant has failed to ptovide - detailed drawings justifying the need fot the variance; as a result, the Board had no basis upon which to grant the vatiance. ;,? , r.� Klanderud questioned the basis for a commercial GMP allocation; R� it was felt that, in the event the commercial nses proposed in , the application were truly accessory to the hotel use, a separate Commercial GMP application should not be required. . �;�� Ktizmanich explained that the possible need for a Commercial ' GMP allocation was discussed during Planning Commission review of the application, so that the applicant was previously advised of the issue. The application should be reviewed to determine tbe °� basis for the commercial space proposed. The site plan included, � __ for instance, a separate ten thousand (10,000) square foot retail `� building; it has not yet been determined, however, whether the � ' - retail facility cvas truly ancillary to the hotel use or whether l,..: _ the hotel could function without it. Rrizman3ch noted that the � �•� appzoval of the commercial space without determining the need for 4` - growth management review could pl.ace other commercial applicants at a disadvantage, and he suggested that the Planning Office be '� � � provided the opportunity to assess the issue. � x�� Richman explained that an assessment of the commercial uses � . ;%�:? proposed in the app],ication woald occur at detailed submission. � �� There were some existing commercial uses on the subject propert , Y "�=� which uses could be replaced in the absence of growth management '`~.� review, and there were other uses that were clearly accessory to # •,;-s the hotel use for which a commercial allocation was not necessary. ;. " : "' s The Planning OEfice would audit the existing uses on the subject property to vetify the amount of commercial space that could be r::j repl.aced by right, and the agplication would then be reviewed to i .. �;��' determine which uses were accessory to the principal use, Richman noted that it would be fairly simple to pcepare a Commercial GMP � ., ,,� application in the event such an allocation was needed. ;..� Rlanderud questioned the basis for the number of parking j spaces to be provided by the applicant. Krizmanich explained that ti;� ! the applfcant proposed to construct seven hundred and thicty 1 (730) parking spaces on site in conjunction with the new hotel, � ', and two hundred (200) additional spaces in future if needed. A 1� total of nine hundred and thirty (930) parking spaces was necessary �� +3�: to comply with Code criteria; this number was determined on the � ' ``•i basis that a parking variance was granted so that seven tenths � � ,`' ,;;'� (.7) spaces per lodge unit would be allowed in lieu of one (1) ' > . ; • space per anit. The Planning Office recommended that the applicant ��`:'?:::�:- '`;; provide nine hundred and four (904) parking spaces on site, f.`:;,:. Rrizmanich noted that the applicant mast plan to provide the ( additional two hundred (200) spaces on site, as an off site i ',;� intercept lot may not be available. s ;� Klanderud expressed some concern with the packing issue; although a s�f�icient nrunber of spaces should be provided in the base area, to accommodate hotel guests as we11 as day skiers, it , �� was felt that mass transit should be encouraged as well. There �+ was some concern that the provision of too many parking spaces "� may serve as a disincentive for mass transit. Rlanderud also { _ a�� qaestioned the basis for the thirteenth conditlon of approval, � whereby the applicant was required to comply with City water �:�'� system requirementa; there was concern, for instance, that County � , , "�� Commisaionec's Meeting 28 April, 1986 - 26 G,� .',r.. - , Y �, (,' . i. �,A �taC�sa�?�B.:G�.i f � �I� �i� r � f..,`_� T..�t y '�f ' � � .. , ..� �. x��'M"?'� 'i� :.. / 'T . ..�� k>:� :i' �'�: -1. y {„ a i> �r,�,a. ��$f".1� r' �. � � � �. . ( � ' _!- . a i� ` ! �'�x' ,s� a4�-`�'�' t"' h -�r e ` � ; 4,: � t� � u �,' � p�. .+Y;, '� ,. 'C� J F '� \ i�` r :`11 ; /i.. '�� j.�2 ... i. �'4 2t#• lF��i�}c � -1 \ � � �. � 'S ��L'��.� . .-!z . . . 6.a�.r.�1¢�.i. c�s ! _ �; w�..w.?P17bJ..... .. ... .C..�U",a'1,.4�5.'��:' ` land use applicants were required to comply with City water ?- policies. j' � Smith ex lained that a licants were re uired � P pp q , putsuant to an existing Code policy, to connect with the City water system �., --�- . whenever possible. Cr:;-,? ,';;},;, Light explained that the applicant has already entered into an agreement with the City with respect to the water system; the �= applicant has conveyed certain water rights to the City, has V ? agreed to share certain other water tights, and has an established ��} . , right to use and carry water through the City water system. The � �' applicant neither proposed nor desired a private water system for � i the project, Light anticipated that the City may request additional .:� water rights; for this reason he requested an amendment to the condition to indicate that the applicant will work with the City ;.� Attorney in the event additional water was required by the ::� project beyond what has already been conveyed to the City. ; Light then addressed the outside amplified noise issue, He � noted that the Planning Commission limited such to between the �L ' � hours of 8:00 a.m, and 8:00 p.m, given the possibility for �r,� cultural events, particularly during the summer months. He did +,. • -=- � not feel that a 4:00 p.m. limit was reasonable during the :summer �, :�._ months on this basis. 4..� •, - _ _ ; i, • Aspen Highlands Skiing Corporation Vice-president George Lloyd, representinq the applicant, explained that the ski lifts * i commenced operation at 9:00 a.m., in which case the 10:00 a,m. - ` limft proposed by adjacent property owners would not function; in ' ! addition, many of the ski race functions commenced at 9:00 a.m. ' - ,�� Lloyd also felt that the 4:00 p.m, limit was unreasonable during ;;�-;. - ' � the summer months, as Ballet West may schedule events on the site 1 . � during the late afternoon hours. � �'� . The Board generally agreed to limit outside amplified noise ' �� to between the hours of 9:00 a.m, and 8:00 p.m. ! ' ;;} .f Klanderud noted that the Stegall �etter expressed concern i -I with the use pf a flume as an equestrian trail; specifically, ` Stegall requested that such not be desiqnated as a trail as it �: } traversed a number of private parcels. Rlanderud noted that this �� issue would be addressed at detailed submiasion, as identified in �. . • � condition twenty-five (25) of the Planning Commi�sion. l. ; Klanderud also questioned the road impacts associated w�.th � + a �; the proposed development. Krizmanich suggested that an independent, � �1 i thfrd party traffic consultant be retained to resolve the traffic '+` ti 1 impact issue; an independent analysis would establish a verifiable u ;�j cost to improve Maroon Creek Road as well as that portion of the 1i �' ° � cost that cauld be attrfbuted to the applicant. ' <i ; a Blake expressed concern that the traffic impact analysis was � ' '.� limited in scope to Maroon Creek Road; the intersection of the - Road and Highway 82 would be adversely affected by the pcoposed r ��:-. development as well. Blake felt that aignificant intezsection ; _j improvements would be necessary as a result of the project, and !;, _ ; he suggested that grade separation improvements be addressed. ( _ I ' 'i Light suggested that the Board allocate property tax cevenues to improve Maroon Creek Road and the intetsection. The traffic impact analysis prepare� by the applicant indicated that a one `�.� hundred thoesand dollar ($100,000) contribution would offset the `� impacts of the proj ect. �•• Dobie explained that the applicant generated twenty-eight y percent (288) of the uae of the Road at this time, an amount F which would increase by ten percent (108) at full build out of � the subject property; full build out was defined as the construction �� of the new hotel as well as increases in ski area capacity. � r'1 - Commissioner's Meeting 28 April, 1986 - 27 �il :y' �g. �..,� �� .�.�1t� Fy c''i ' ._ � . :' , .. i�V E �� ' � � h � } f.1 } ,.. � �`r . . +t 1 . . �. .+� '�}f' r i Y' ^+ . , �- T s C t; ;.� },�y �; �^ Y,::'� 4 : ��. a p'��(� a S� �yp� 7`y � � � , .��4 `7�;1I� 1�d�p, ��'�j'� VJ 4't :��iA� •_T�� ('; ' �� 1 �Yw��i.7� ..�"'� ..�t�s." _' _.....y �h�'� � . � �-j! .r_ ._, a .ur�„Xi� �.�" + �G ' ^.�m_.,> . t .�k '�. �� ,,��r; �.,; Blake noted that condition six (6) of the Planning Commission indicated that the applicant would commit to its fair share of the Maroon Creek Road improvements; a specific dollar amount was t,Y�:`:. . , ttot referenced, rather, this would be determined at detailed � submission. He suggested that this condition be amended only to ( fnclude, within the context of the improvements for which the � r`-� � applicant aould be responsible, grade sepacation at the intecsection of the Road and Highway 82. � n � � t3adsen requested that the applicant consider the use of the � , Roaring Fock 2ransit Agency to provide public transportation to � ':Y. . I the subject property; it was not felt that the applicant owned a ;. � sufficient number of buses at this time to adequately service the f '�� ski area, and there was concern that the public may be deterred �j from using public transportation given the various transportation : systems that serviced the subject area. Madsen also suggested ! ^'i that the applicant cooperate in any program that attempted to � link Aspen Mountain and/or Buttermilk Mountain with the Aspen � Highlands Ski area; linkage could be established, for instance, r wfth ski trai].s, li£ts, and others. I - � Rlanderud questioned the various Mountain Master Plan � revisions proposed by the appllcant; the specific revisions were �, , j not made available for Board review today and were not addressed � .' ,j by the Planning Office, in which case it was not felt that Board E.:; :T .- � action on the Master Plan could occur. ; • i Krizmanich exp7.ained that the Mastez Plan revisions were not i,:;; . � sp�cifically addressed as it was anticipated tnat such would i;:•;' occur in canjunction with the rezoniag of the mountain to AF-SRi. . � '�`� The Planning Office recommended that the Master PZan revisions be ! x`�`�`��'� reviewed subsequent to the apptoval of the base area development; :,?:� the base azea cou18 change, for instance, changes which may r°:� affect the Master Plan. The Mastet Plan revisiona wouid be � ,.��y reviewed at detailed submission. � j ��•3 Smith noted that a ski area master glaa, without an AP'-SRI ; rezoning, would not ptovide the applicant with any development � ' ""� approval; each individual mountain improvement would require F�;�� special review approval. ry� i,y*� Braudis guestioaed the wnstruction schedule fot the lift ; . "��`'� replacement; it was indicated, for instance, that lift construction '. would commence in 1987 and be finished in 1988, and there was '� -� ';� some conce=n that such may intertupt the winter season. ; ., ' '� Lloyd explained that all lift impcovements consisted of lift � �� i�� replacements only. Construction would be limited to the summer F .��. • months only, so that the winter season would not be affected. �� ' Child asked if the application had been teferred to the City � .; ,,,y,� PZanning Commission. Krizmanich explained that the City Planning ��; . and Zoning Commission Zid review the application; the Commission + . !�; was primarily concerned with the traffic impacts associated with a r� the project, and requested that an auto disincentive prograra be "R, . implemented. �.;: -� Child expressed concern with the constraction impacts of the ''�� project, and he suggested the following additional condition of -1 _ n ' approval: � , "the applicant shall work with County staff prior to commencing � •�; construction to address potential tempo=ary consttuction ' - ` impacts, including noise, fugitive duat, traffic, and others" `: .�� ,� The cundition would serve to warn the applicant that a planning � �' sess ion wou Z d be necessary to ensute c o n s t r u c t i o n i m p a c t m i t i g a t i o n. �Y��'�+,1�:, Child questioned whether there was a relationship between Commissioner's Meeting 28 Apzil, 1986 - 28 � :� � . _ . - _.__._ �.` , ' , r � ... _ '?'�itl'�:i ��i;r(k .•ii(L ..�- r . t.� � 1 •, t� ...!�• 1 `,'I 4! �$�ju�^�*��1f(�� ntt'�.)�axfa . �. .+r, .� j .< ; 'S;�..�f � �l. �� . � �,�t . 4 �.,. ��.1�s'�k..�A�1 f,.. �� r- t-..k f_� �. , ;t �ri..,��-� 4 � ', '� ��.. .rt,,;+�� . -,�. . .'.. .� ., � ' _ ....��: p 6 � l � � -r 4y k.. ��.,M .. Y ,y p�.'y. e.._ t...�� '. :4n.��" , __'w:e.�� ' . n� ,s�.,.:f.e:��;.• . ._ ... ._.r!_.�..:'' ��.. �S ;�. �;^. i r the ski area capacity and the hotel capacity in the base area. ; Rrizmanich explained that there was no defined relationship at =,?, ` . this time, although there were much fewer beds in the base area `�_ : than ski area ca acit There would be concern in the event the ��"' lodge capacity exceed d ski area capacity, j� � ��' Braudis suggested the Board consider, as a condition of �`�"=_� ' - � a coval that the a licant continue to pass to �''��,�� pp , pp provide a season ,local employees. ; '� � � � Lloyd explained that the applicant serviced primarily local ! � residents, and that it would continue to offer a season pass to . � '` �', residents. E : . ! �. -; Light did not feel that the provision of a season pass was % ' j associated with a land use approval, and he requested that the � �� project not be conditioned accordingly. *�� The Board generally agreed not to address the season pass _ . � isaue within the context of a candition of approval. � � i .. Blake again requested that the R-30 lands remain dedicated � i open space; the Planning Commission recommended, pursuant to its � - second condition, that the R-30 FAR allowance be denied. Blake � noted that the Commission reviewed this issue in depth, and he �` � - . � supported that condition as submitted. ''�::'.;_ � `` ;;;� , Smith noted that the applicant received site design points j`� ` � for dedicating the R-30 land as open space; in the event this �:�> land was developed, such would constitute a substantial change to !`�:�: p a GMP application. �4i The Board generally agreed to deny the R-30 FAR vaciance, so � >� that this land would remain as dedicated open space. :� i`�, :�vr, Madsen then moved to ir.struct the Planning Office to prepare ` y;i a resolution granting general submission approval to the PUD and i ., ,,� rezoning applications of the Aspen Highlands Resort subject to r: the thirty (30j conditfons ot the Planning and Zoning Commission , .. : ae amended below: 4 •�� , <...'. T� 6, the applicant shall commit to its "fair share" of the i,:.` impcovements to Maroon C=eek Road, which may include a �• . .� grade separated interchange at the State Highway 82 , intersection, as dictated by the scale of the project F.=_�•,. =,j in relationship to the costs of upgrading the Road to y4;'' _ ��? meet expected traffic volume. At detailed submission, � ��; ' the specif ic dollar amount shall be committed to and said amount shall be approved by the Board, considering t`' � the advice of a �° y"� �'�'� County Professional engineer rep=esenting the � �,�Y ' � i � � 7, the two hundred (200) parking spaces identified in the �T .�' +>� application as "Phase Two (2)" shall be able to be provided on site. The provision and phasing oE the � ,I� spaces shall be finalized� at detailed submission. � ,, Construction of the spaces may be phased based on a t. � := , "triggering" mechanism to be identified by the applicant j" "" and approved by the County _ �` : �.+ j .-., :'- 13. the applicant shall meet with the City of Aspen to i , determine water system requitements, shall commit to ''� ' the cost of relocating the twenty-seven (27) inch raw ' � �.� water main if it is below a proposed structure and y, sha12 provide an easement for the line when its final • y location is determined. The City of Aapen attorney ;+ � shall make a determination regarding the need for the : , } � applicant to dedicate water rights to the City to " � ,'°� offset the increased water demands generated by this . • ?��, project, which need shall be resolved prior to detailed �� Commisaioner's Meeting 28 Apri2, 1986 - 29 ' .� .'�.,• .'4�'. . ' ' ' � . . �;� F� . • ' . •'l:` 1 � y.t�,,�� . C ,. . .. � '1 Pfi � , �,Y° Fh� ��',,�J��i'F�N �P�Jji+9f �lr t�ii � .,, f t�4� t ','t� '3� .}f�' N�r�,ri..... �.M1,ti.�(.,7 't�i�•: R�, a� .J �. �eM' ,�„ (��.' � y, �1��:�. �*.:�f'i..' . � �T `r'1k4'n `� -•-`4 � ..�y)4�h,i�7 i}" �T' t .r > �( � ��K�J"` �`,Sn N�j 1/�� t� p� . )�'ly��u,�q��y('>�A� � M j� •� �'rSt � .. s i�:.�n�,�:r-.� 1 f>I�.�:�S� ._�3:. u� .�._s .p�,NS�' ..Le'-.,d.-a•. . r� '�' . . ._ , . _ . - snbmission, In the event that additional water is �' required, the applioant shall work with the City of !�: Aapen to make arrangementa for the conveyance of water rights � t: �. 17. the applicant shall limit outside amplified noise such i�'' �� that it may only occur between the hours of 9:00 a.m. ��..: and 8:00 p.m. ry' t 20, the Planning Commission recommends rezoning of the ; _ ' ` � mountain to AF-SKi, which sha11 be initiated by the ti � applicant at the detailed submission stage. In the � event that a reasonable effort is made to Zink Aspen Highlands to Aspen Mountain and/or suttermilk Mountain by ski trai7.s and/or Iifts, Aspen Highlands will �r.�� cooperate in this progcam r " and subject to the followinq additional conditions: . . :...k.�.''6" . . 31, the applicant shall consfder the consolidation of transit services with the Roaring Fork Transit Agency � to provide adequate public transportation Eo the Aspen �•` Highlands base area ,_ � - 32. the applicant shall meet with Planning Office staff and ' Y� neighbors to develop a plan to mitigate construction j'� impacts prior to detailed submission �, � �';: � Blake seconded. + ' � � • i Smith noted for the record that the motion was simply an i .. � -1- instruction that staff p pproval; the � ' , . pre are a resolution of a � .. � �4� � motion did not constitute a final decision on the application, �, . rather, such would occur during t he ren iew of the resolation. The s,,�; resolution would be reviewed during the subsequent regular ; , �,.•'.� meeting, at which time it could be approved, amended or denied. , ; ,'*' The motion initiated by Madsen passed unanimously. �t•• 5=� Rlanderud noted for the record that the allotment of the �i` �,:•Y Lodge GMP unita would be reviewed by the Board during its requ2ar ' �,�,� meeting on 27 May. ;�r P �:� �• .�Y.: �.-.��`��`�� . �. .. � . There being no fnrther bnsiness, the meeting was adjourned. � �, �3�' ---------- �� ' � k�; � a �.�� _ty� ��j`�3 �E: .�r_d � . � . . . . �+ '. ; . . . . � . . . .�� . . . . . .-.t�� . . . � . � � . ` 4;': ' _ y,.,�.T�� . . . . . . ' � 1 . . � . . � . . � . � 9.:��.. �� . . . . . . . �;: .1. ; z � .. �'.:: .� � � . � I. � . ��;, - l: +& � t. �� Commissioner's Meetinq 28 Apr11, 1986 - 30 � ..;'� �:i i _ r , id