The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutbocc.min.reg.01271986 ;: ,�..: .. �,.:�.`,y: �� . � '��.�. _ , , . ' ' �� 5�1�'s�t "�F��ae �'r i � 'i �N a,y��`'�I!`'�� :�{�'ld ,t,z � a�� `��rfir �� . ,�;��...: ' � �. a ��. ... - - { _ .�� , � � � `9 � 'r . . . � 'Jf - .. , e8_'i�i��. � ..;�.:.� - � � � i; � � . ._...! � '�., � ' 4 ', ,. BOARD OF COQNTY CO[�!!lISSIONERS AGENDA ��'. Y,.,,___i �..,, -- i 27 JANOARY, 1986 '. i ;:;;j 9:00 a.m. Executive Session - Litigation/Negotiations - Tom � Smith, County Attorney/Gary Esary, Assistant �: • County Attorney ! , i "i'-� LAND QSB � ` T-� '�� 10:00 Public Hearing - County Zoning Map Update - Tom . ��x� Newland, Planning ?:b��3 - ,��:� 10:15 Weinglass Lot Line Adjustment - Francis Krizmanich, ,;� Planning • �4?� 10:45 Public t4eeting - Weinglass Employee Dwellinq Unit - � �;:';�+_ Francis Krizmanich y ;�� 11:15 Elk Mountain Lodge Subdivision Exemption for � Condominiumization - Francis Rrizmanich . ,t _: �;� 12:00 Lunch Break ? ,:J 1:30 p.m. Public Comment � i j -� 1:45 Managers Report/BOCC Comments �•. 1 ` ADMINISTRATION � �� 2:15 Aesolutions and Contracts �"` Z';.I Minutes ,� Airport Phase iI Special Review Amendment- i s� Francis Rrizmanich Elk Mountain Lodge Special Review - Ftancis Krizmanich =' `� Barnett Employee Dwelling Unit - Cindy Houben " � Courthouse Plaza Basement Lease Agreement -Jim Belfont, Facilities Manager '� '� Centennial Project - Partial Release of Easement- _ ,>� Tom Smith, County Attorney � : Aighlands Inn Liquor License: Notice of Hearing and 't ��` •� - Order to Show Cause - Kim Whi�estone/Tom Smith ,,;-� RFTA Vehicle Purchase Contract Award - Bruce Abel .� First Readina and set Public Hearing Pitco Code Amend/Emergency Adoption: Amend Building Permit Fee Schedule - Jim Wilson, Building - inspector 10 March, 1986 @ 9:30 a.m. "°, ;;:� 2:45 First Reading and set Public Hearing ��. °°�� . Amend Airport Rules & Reg's: Aircraft Fueling/ �` ' Minimum Standards for Commercial Activities- �` Dick Arnold 10 March, 1986 @ 10:00 a.m. s r�;,,,'� ,'�K-�:� WORR SESSION ,;a�;:,,,.i , `�;1="i 3:00 Merit System Discussion- John Eldert, County Manager s.a,;;�•.� •��?`">i ?'r �;i ia:�sr:::i S�Y+�� •�� . �1._: ^�t�.'.�'i . *�'7:,.��'`;) ,...:A j�::::...� -��`� - . �x� . . . �t` ya� ��y�/.� ,��- � t . 't^' . ' {�. �,f1 '1xr-y�.t,ni;",ai" 7'�A��'F Y C y�P� �.„+�r��'�7 : . . �.�3 � � ��$r��t .�'+7�'f9i#�'''�#�<� ' l�� '��...f@t��-.-�:� -i�iY. �; ' _.. �..'�, `�.,e'.iltr'�':�t�,.' . ;y � .._ �.; . i, . .. . . �=.,.� r . �� .�+-- . :� . ��._ :. l =--� ' . . i ;s`'.� pi�czp c�ou� =��:y? BO� OF CO!!IlISSIOABRS �� . :.;i�T.J ., ' RF.GULAIt NQ�ETTNG �7 JIi1�7L1ARY� 198b : =.�rij PRESENT: HELEN RLANDERUD, ROBERT BRAUDIS, ROBERT W CHILD� GEORGE MADSEN, ' ,,y. THOMAS BLAKE . �� ---°----- y~...j Public The Soard convened a public hearing to review four {9) zoninq "' Hearing: changes amending the official Pitkin County zoning Maps. Planning " � _%'� Zoeing Engineer Tom Newland submitted to the tecord the Planning Office - ' Map memo dated 27 January, 1986, zoning maps Cover Sheet One (1) , ••�� Sheets Eight (8), Eight A (8A), Nine (4) and Ten (10), and the : � :,� Land Use Code as amended to date. The County's official zoning maps were formally amended purauant to the following dociunents: -,;.'1 1. BOCC Resolution 84-138, which adopted the AF-SKI Zone ` Diatrict and rezoned the Aspen Mountain and Buttermilk j,_��r� Mounta3n Ski A=eas to AF-SRI. The lands so rezoned c��,..,j coincide with the boundariea of the two (2) subject ski . �;;�1 areas , >:-� 2. BOCC Resolution 85-2, which established zoning and ' ';�i rezoning of certain lands in the Snowmass, Capitol and t' �`"�� Brusk Creek valleys. The subject laads were sitnated in: � .. °.� a. Section Twenty-Fine (25), Township Ten (10) SoUth, � Ranqe Eight-six (86) West ' b. Sections One (1) and Two (2), Township Ten (10) �' South, Range Eight-six (86) West ; c. Section Two {2) , Township Ter► (10) South, Range � �'' Eight-six (8b) west 't 3. BOCC Resolution 85-55, which adopted the Scenic Foreground ;! Overl.ay Eor the State Highway 82 Corridor Master Pian - and the Roaring Fork East Neighbochood Plan. These two '- (2) Plans were adopted by Planning Commisaion resolutions �J' 65-2 and 85-8, respectively. The boundary for the Overlay ' `=! was not surveyed, rather, it was established on the '"r basis of natural features and some slte specific =eview `.i may be required F,�� 4. Town of Snowmass Village Resolukion 84-09, which ' annexed previously unincorporated lands that adjoined r;� the Town. The boundary of the annexed lands was surveyed ;, by the Town, and the zoning map changes a£fected as a _� result entirely relied upon this survey �I� Newland submitted the maps for Board review. He explained that j� the mapa reflected zoning changes authorized pureuant to the �� Commisaianer's Meeting 27 January, 1986 - 1 :! r: ;:, _��J'µ1;�� ' . �.,; f,�!�'r � x .. � r� { �y ��tieft.i%.�" .t t; �, i..n ,tf� �:�.�.,; � ��F J ''�-rs��,��y,�'� o�r� '�`"ti' ^f`' " � 1r r. � - Y3. x1- ,�''-':.,� �»(q .� � - �� t.3. '� ,� +3�5'y„��`"'aro t �1 n_-�3�'� '�� r� . ._ �y 7,-F �' dr� ) �Y'` s t_s�"�.��d .r„ � `f�`� s, � .��.h��". ' ... '.+ac4`c�a" �`•�:ti:�.��'`.zw:.�.fi3�`��.5..'s�.r�s.�,ut:. . ...'.:� �a-��'�'��. . �� .*.v'.::; resolutions identified above; in the event the maps were amended incozrectly, the =esolutions anthorizing the changes would i prevail. � ' �:: Rlanderud then opened the hearing for public comment; there �` � � being none, the hearing was closed. : - , Child move8 to adopt the updated zoning maps submitted for Board review to8ay, and to authorize their execution by the - Chair. Blake seconded and the motion passed nnanimously. -'.I . ---------- _� � • � � : ;;"�1 Weinglass Planner Francis Rrizmaniah i.ntzoduce8 the Weinglass - Moore ` `� Moore Lot Line Adjuatment, a request £or a subdivision exemption far ��`� Lot the purpose of adjusting a lot line between two (2) adjacent �•� : -:�`•=J Line parcels, App2lcants Leonard and Pepper Weinglass, the owners of F:.•, � ,;;�;�1 Adjust nine (9) acres of land situated in the White Horse Springs area `=-�;� on McLain Flats Road in the RS-20 Zone Distcict, have reguested . ��-! an exemption from the definition of subdivision for the purpose , • ` ::� of acquirinq eleven (11) acres from adjacent property owner James � _ E Moore. The eleven (11) acre purchase would provide the applicant _ _ with a total of twenty (20) acres, a size which would comply with . . ' the minimum lot size requiiements of the subject zone disttict. "';3 The application was submitted pursuant to Section 4-2.2(a)(2) ; of the Land IIse Code, whereby subdivision exemptions may be ' � granted for lot 13ne adjustments subject to the following � conditions: r "�° a, the adjustment would czeate c�o more than the otiginal �� ` 'j��>� nnmber of lots/parcels ,.-.:; b. the adjustment was not intended to, nor would it result ; ' `"1'1 in, the creation of a new lot/parcel substantially ```� diffetent in size or dimension for development or � f"�i resale purposes ' t.::::' • c, the resulting lots/parcels would conform to the minimum � • zone district requirements for area and width � _ } - d, existing nonconforming Iots/parcels would not increase � � in nonconformity ! e, compliance with regulatlons concecning amendments to � recorded plats �` � The applicant addressed the above criteria by indicating that `v � the adjustment would not cteate more than the original two (2) � parcels, was not intended to, not would it zesult in, the creation i of a new lot £or development/resale purposea, and would eliminate ; • ,{ the existing nonconformity of the Weinglass parcel so that both ; parcels would comply with mini.mum zone district requirements. Finally, the applicant agreed to comply with Code requirements by ;j filing an amended plat foL recordation. � � � Rrizmanich explained that the most critical limitation ` _':� concerning the application was identified in (b) above, whereby . � • ,�`;, an exemption conld not be granted for the purpose of creating a : ;,i lot for development or resale pucposes. Planning Office staff ,�.�1 disputed compliance with this condition as follows: :: .'3 1. the proposed adjustment would, in fact, create a parcel ;.�;,i substant3ally different 3n size and dimenaion. The �:';, purchase of the eleven (11) acre parcel would increase the aixe of the applicant's lot by greater than one '�:;;� hundred percent {100$) x.:., `��' 2. the adjustment was intended for development purposes. ��'; There wece two (2� cesidential dwellinq units on the �='a Commissionec's Meeting 27 January. 1986 - 2 i i'�; i.. ... - <;; � ':a i<_ �'rc:;'r', 'r;• ... •.. � S1 �X-F ��CZ'''�5'it"�.�; !.. '(�' s "�4,yL6 �t,."...; �rA!"�t ` �r!#��rl�p � " � f r !�.r f AG'P��'.*�..,� ,� > '�ry�d:l�'�3� � + i� ��_�Jt�l�.� ,_.�s,'t�„��'�.f;�� ,i3£�id .yi.�•'r' . +3 �i�..� ��y'� C��.�r;'�� t _ t'�' �i� k �p t, e v 4.�$1< , tN�c,s ; �' k'�{� .. tx.r�fi'V�"k ..t�'C�.�MM1�AM�Y fdi�!�?.a�S2��.� . . ��r��_..-,a:s�w.a. . ...��`�r�r*_ . sy�bject property at this time, in a zone diatrict that required a minimum of twenty (20) acres per dwelling. A ' building permit for the second residence was issued • last year on the basis that it was a replacement ' ---- residence; issuance was conditioned to the conversion � of the original residence to an agricultural outbuildin9 ; so that minimum zone district requirementa would '� continue to be complied with. A Certificate of Occupancy � for the second residence has been withheld pending compliance with this condition. The otiginal residence • • ; has not been converted, however; rather, the applicant . �;; intended to maintain the residence as a second dwelling ._^_� unit for employee housing. The subject property was a nonconforming parcel at this time, and an employee I;`.'� dwelling unit would be precluded on this basis alone; • :�., the adjustment was intended to make the parcel conforming, � so that an employee unit could be approved. �7 . '�a Rrizmanich explained that the lot line adjastment would, if • ` i approved, result itt a one hundred percent (1008) increase in ' ;� allowable density; this increase in density was defined as � �;.�� development, whether it consisted of an existing dwelling unit or ' ,_,� not. The adjustment was requested in this instance as a means of � �:,:;M circumventing both the zone d3strict and building permit � requirements. The Planning Office recommended denial of the � � application on the basis that it failed to comply with the I limitations identtfied in Section 4-2.2(a)(2) (B) of the Land pse Code. i „ r ' County Attorney Tom Smith eaplained that the Code criteria • `! recited above did not require denial of the application, rather, � ' the Board must review the criteria and make a determination as to � compliance, in addition, he noted that the application was � 3j submitted pursuant to the subdivision exemption process; in the ' "_? event the use of this process was denied, the applicant could ``-� follow the f ull subdivision pproval. t,' � process to obtain an a � ' � Herb Klein, an attorney representing the applicant, disputed _ the Planning Office recommendation of denial. Ae maintained that ` � the application entirely complied with all of the criteria cited � in Section 4-2.2(a)(2) of the Code, and that the applicant simply ' � desired to comply with the zone district requirements within ;. i which the property was situated. it was noted that zoning in the . � McLain Flats Road area was somewhat inconsistent; a parcel of � land situated two (2) lots away from the Weinglass parcel was . �: zoned AF-1, for instance, whereby a minimum lot size of only ten � � (10) acres per dwelling was required. The Weinglass parcel would ` nearly comply with minimum lot size requirements in the event it '' ' was zoned AF-1. Klein explained that, although the adjustment would increase � the size of the subject property, it was not intended for development or resale purposes; the resulting conformity of the ! parcel wou2d not, for instance, provide the applicant with the potential for further subdivision. The applicant desired to � � retain the original residence f or employee housinq purposes. Employee housing was not defined as development, however; employee � � housing units were approved pursuant to special review, for � � ''�4'� instance, and they were not subject to subdivision, growth �`.) management or any other type of review. In addition, an employee unit on any parcel would not result in an increase in density; - such units were not included in calculations when defining the ' density of a pcoperty, rather, they were defined as accessory . ?�?:; structures. .::.,, `"�� Klein displayed various photographs of the subject property reflecting the two (Z) residences; there was substantial vegetative ��' � screening of both dwelling units, so that visual impacts were not �`i�' a concern, all utilities and services were in place at this time, and there was an existing access road to serve the two (2) Commissioner's Meeting 27 January, 1966 - 3 � ,.i ;::4.Yi�P,� � - 'Y.�y}}._: � �1"'R'•r'n . ' �� zk.��y�y�.,.�'`}t�res'�� 'T'`�{ r ' ;L�I {r•: .��1 „!� f t,'� _ � t�..1`t� i?r�yU�cS?^.�,y,,�+''-a��hta`�5'��(,,y��.a.�� ' �`�F'� v i.�' � 6'�`�'�C� �a�r �S �7�!S y�r r S,�ri s'�'t y+�oY:�'r�. �� <� ?� r„23, ry3 �,y r w . � r �}'t � i�'��`�Z��j�� v � 1�'i�4T�t,� �*.;i . � !x4-i. s��¥z�j.t�?�e',k 'r�yl� . ,7. .. "£ ' �13L'�+iN9�� '�:�•~t � ., . ��.w�uoid.,. -�iJ�s}�Mtd"(r� ��!r.'..ke..F. V • .`'S;.°!K ::.��.. � c]wellings. The applicant was not requesting app�oval for any new 4 development, rather, the applicant desired to purchase su£ficient s .� land so that the exiatfng clevelopment would comply with the �f* ' underlying zone district requirements. �� ---- Klein concluded by aoting that the Code defined development as any construction or activity which changed the basic character/ ; use of the land. The ptope=ty was used f or sesidential and - aqricultural purposes at this time, uses which would not change `-i in the event of approval. Approval of the enployee unit would , actually enhance the agricultural use of the property, as it � ' would provide an on-site dwelling unit Eor the agricultural ;�:� opecation. The Mooce pcopecty contained three hundred and sixty ;_� (360) acres, so that the proposed adjustment would not result in �-a a nonconformity for either parcel. i ;:1 Rr3zmanich explained that a letter from adjacent property �.� a� owners Vivian and Bill Goodnough was received this morning in ;:;., snpport of the application. Support was provided on the basis . •;;� that the two (2) structu=ea wete exiating units, and as they were � ' screened from adjacent properties. � :;1 • ��y McLain Flats Road resident Carol Dopkin explained that she :-'; sold the subject property to Weinglass. Dopkin supported the � application as it would benefit boCh patties; although Moore ` maintained his property for agricultural purposes, he did so at a loss, and the sale would provide him with some financial benefit. _ � The eleven (11) acres to be purchased was relatively small, and + its acquisition by Weinglass would not change the nature of the F`` , ; atea. i � , �- �� Rlein notec3 that, as a condition of puxchase, Nfoore would f, require that the applicant maintain the eleven (lly acres f or � . ' : ` agricultural purposes. F �;; Applicant Pepper Weinglass explained that Moore has agreed I` �, to sell the subject property, both f oz agcicultural and privacy � �' purposes. The origfnal resfdence was a small log cabin, and its ' � continued existence would not offend any party. Weinglass stated that she required assistance on her ranch, as both she and her husband were frequently out o£ town. The applicants required on- site employee housing so that the ranch could be operated and maintained during their absence. Adjacent property owner Jim Moore was the owner of Lot ;1 z Twenty-Two (22) of the White Horse Springs Subdivision. He explained that approximately two (2) of the eleven (il) acres to ;�i be sold to Weinglass was fenced by the applicant approximately six (6) years ago, on the erLOneous understanding that it was part of the Weinglass parcel, He subsequently agreed to negotiate : • '• for its sale in an eff ort to provide the applicant with sufficient !> land to conduct a ranching operation. Child questioned the basis for denial as recommended by the .- Planning Office. Planning Dicector Alan Richman explained that _ . the csitical teview issue was the use of the subdivision exemption '- � procedure to create a parcel for development purposes. Although the , . applicat3on would ach3eve certain County goals, including the • conformity of the subject pzoperty, the provision of employee housinq, and the maintenance oE an agricultural opetation, it � nonetheless relied upon the lot line adjustment pcoceduse to establish conformity for development purposes. The Planning 1, Offfce entirely supported the concept represented in the application, but disputed the process by which it would be ; achieved. There were certain precedential lssues, f or instance, ; associated with its approval. The Planning Office recommended that the subdivision exemption pzocedure not be used for development purposes, and it was on this basis that the application should be i denied. � Commissioner's Meetin9 27 January, 1986 - 4 I ....._'_. .YIiXWMii .,. �� a�w.�.-��.. ._._ . ..._._ ��rnwuw .�"�'7w!'pl � . "`�rk'':= � .. � . . .rW�� e�'� �, .�:r .. � +' S.:, r. ,.. '� l- + J . J 4�- t�, � �G �� jr-�.��.y,R� pS1{� �� t t - t �� ij.�z�.�'`�tt7 �W�� r� t�c,d it� �,� yf 'i�4r;,`_=�'":��-�" s¢Y9` ; ��kk'i1� yy'e�ir ° .r,.��'o--.� :. _.... .av..t+a��Si2�r..fa.a:ti�.3'wy. -+..�. . :ti`� ��`�.:.a�'�w�� 9��".3`l.��'..d`:t'�'i�i� . � {t.-. -�.�. Braudie noted that the use of the subdivision exemption procedure was somewhat discretionary, an@ he indicated that the application could be found to comply with applicable criteria in this instance. The adjnatment wonld not a2tez the physfcal density of the subj ect pro ert ��'``' p y, as both residences were in �._: _,,,�,_ existence at this time; the issue of density should be reviewed, �� then, not in tetms of buildings but with respect to occupants. i� The adjustment would result in a larqer, conforming lot, and would contain the same number of structures as presently exiated. In addition, it would further the employee housing goals that • encourage the ptovision of such honsing on site and in various • - � locations throughout the community, , Rlanderud was also supportive of the cancept represented in t :; ,i the application. She was concerned, however, with the use of the ' � exemption procedure to achieve those goals, and the potential for ��=.•�_� ;`� precedent associated with approval. It was noted that the subject F ` ;i property was nonconforming at this time, and that the second 4,�� . . ,,� residence was constructed on the explicit condition that the �� original residence be removed oc converted to a nonresidential � :� � dwelling, such as a agricultural outbuilding. Denial of the use „ � � of the subdivisian exemption proceduxe would not entirely preclude �' ,�� the applicant from achieving an employee unit; such unf ts weze i apecial review uses in the RS-20 2one District if located within � ti an agricultural outbuilding, and the applicant could alwaya achieve . the purchase of the Moore acreage by complyinq with the subdivision t, � procedure, ; Blake expressed some concern with the replacement residence � r procedure. That procedure was explicit in allowing the occupancy � of an existing dwelling only pending the construction of a new • � ;,� residence, and that the existing dwelling must be remoned subsequent � to the construction of the new dwelling. There was concern that, ; subsequeat to building permit issuance for a replacement residence, . i� and subsequent to the construction of that residence, applicants ' may request variances from the terms and conditions required by �; that procedure. • �� Klanderud noted that, although there was support for the � _ ! concept represented in the application, the issue concerned the � ; use of a specific Code procedure and whether or not compliance �� cou2d be demonstrated. She noted that the purchase of eleven (ilj ; i acres, to be added to an existing nine (9) acre parcel, would ; significantly alter the size of the subject property. Regardless ' : of the intent of the purchase, the resulting parcel would be , � i substantially different in size, and on this basis the application �t was in violation of Code criteria, a �' Klein expiained that the new residence was constructed as a �,' replacement residence, and that the applicant did not intend to maintain the existing residence at the time of building permit issuance; it was only subsequent to the construction of the new ; ' residence that the applicant desired to retain the original � dwelling for employee housing. Rtein maintained that denial of �` the application at this time would be onerous, and that it would - 1 not result in any public benefit; the applicant has execvted an • � � � . , . option to purchase the eleven (11) acres from Moore, which contract � would expire within a speci£ied time period. To require that the <; applicant follow the fq21 subd3viaion procedure would defez ' �.i approval f or anothec year, would not result in any new information, iand would require a greater expenditure of £unds. The new residence was fully constructed at this time, and the applicant has requestec7 , �:� that a Certificate of Occupancg be issued; that Certificate would ,; not be issued pending reaolution of the status of the original ' •�j residence. Rlein felt that 5ection 4-2.2(a)(2) was a discretionary review process, and that compliance with that section has been �� demonstrated. � ;{ �� Klanderud noted that the planning Commission has initiated a � ':_; comprehensive review of agcicnitural lands within the context of �I �:; Commiasioner's Meeting 27 January, 1986 - 5 =i ., ;!. .., >•T�ewJ!?,�� . y�.,�rF'' ' �Y e �r x y`�.,r F f � *rt ��ti a:d�^ ' ' �,y�f,�<x��y �k,,v,�,��1 r„a��u �`i-� t.l�4r , }v 4�� n - _ �.:w�+i�G . ..5�`.i�:+. �l�;i..w.. �..4,_ ._. 'E. .,�%3�iL`tuJ�`'=`i0S3✓.i�w�iu17.P�H„DY"�.'�4LA��n�'. .-�. the Down Valley Master Plan. She felt that the review of Code policies cancerninq agricultural lands should be accomplished within that forum, and that it would be inappcopriate to g=ant an ; exception to a single applicant at this time. I.� 1�: Rlein maiatained that the adjustment would not chanqe the �j: basic use or activity o£ the aubject property; on this basis, the �� application could be distfn9uished from another lot split that ? was intended for development purposes. The approval of the application pursuant to the subdivision exemption pcocedures would - not, as a result, establish a precedent. ' ;:._; ! Child noted that the application woald further various • : � ,. { County goals and objectives, includinq agricultural policies, �_=i employee housinq, and the elimination of nonconforming lots. =�°� Denial ahou],d only occur in the event the adjustment was intended `-=-; for development oc cesale purposes; in this instance, it was not . "`�- felt that tlse additional acreage was intended for denelopment or . . resale, as it would not change the basic character or use of the o'� subject property. He expressed some concern, however, with the replacement residence procedure and the requirement that the . ';_=� original residence be converted to an agricultural outbuilding; •• � compliance with this requirement was considered unrealistic as the entire structure would have to be gutted. . . ,--;�;;a _;::;� Rlanderud noted that, although the use of the subdivision • =�°:; exemption procedure in this instance may appear to be appropriate given the specifica of the subject application, khe issue really � �-:=; concetned the use of this procedure on a generic basis. She again , ; suggested that the Soard consider the merits of the procedure � pzoposed, and the p=ecedent that may result in the event of . approval. ��'�:� Braudis then moved to approve the lot line adjustment, and • . � to table the Weinglass Employee Dwelling Unit Special Reniew . • � a lication scheduled for consideration immediatel af terwarda, ' �`j pending Planning Office review of compliance with employee ` `l dwelling regulations. Child seconded and the motion passed with , %''' opposition from Blake and Rlanderud. ',ii ' Rlein explained that the Contract enteted into between Weinglass and Moore for the purchase of the eleven (11) acres � expired this Fxiday; that contract was conditioned upon approval of both the lot line adjustment and the employee dwelling unit applications. Klein requested that the Weinglass Employee Dwelling • Unit application not be tabled, noting that all referrals commente ; have been obtained. { � ' Krizmanich explained that he has not had an opportunity to t�, , review the Employee Dwelling Onit appl3cation for compliance with I all applicable Code criteria, and that it has not been reviewed ; by the County Attorney or Planning Director. The unit should be � • reviewed for compliance with size and use requi=ements, amongst ' ; othecs. Braudis subsequently withdrew his motion, and Child and the _ ; remainder of the Board agreed. ' ' BXaudis then moved to approve the Weinglass - Moore Lot Line , . ;;'y Adjuatment application without condition. Child seconded and the <± motlon passed with opposition Erom Rlanderud. ;'� '� ---------- , '� �� Weinglass Braudis moved to table the Weinglass Employee Dwelling �nit ,:� Employee application to the subsequent regular meeting to allow for Dwell Plannin9 Office review of compliance. Child seconded. ;�:i Unit .:, Klanderud noted that a detached employee dwelling unit in '� the RS-20 zone District would requice a minimum of focty (40) i�i . C� Commissioner's Meeting 27 January, 1986 - 6 ,,i . a �i ^,;j��'�`. �;»�,:v �.�, . � _.}t�� . �,;�,r. , , � 1�r k t'd' r .7: �y'�yr� if:r 1� ��.�s�lr�.Gt � � � �h,tn �,, c., �`�y`�'� f �.��+'�� t �{t7i-.4.{a�t"t,/ t., +` `i,,,k� f.r�� t�,�'�r��i�� _ . '� �y��$ �`'S .��'a' �� y,��c.�r �J.iiylF•r}YdJ . '� �3 IT� �'� �Rfdnk_*:de• �'-.rG.py�e.�sbw��:ih'�`tif '�`.3ac�� {. ..,Zt p;' �.�H�H�:.+" acres of land, or twice the minimum lot size, The employee � dwelling unit could only be approved as an attached unit situated �;: within an agcicultutal outbu3lding. � The motion initiated by Braudis passed unanimously. _ � . - -°-° ; EIk Francis Rrizmanich introduced the EIk Mountain Lodge, a `=! Mountain request for an exemption from the definition of aubdivision for ' Lodge the purpose of condominiumization. The subject property contained , � _ fifty-five (55) acres of land situated on Castle Creek Road ;-�• ' . ;;:� approximately ten (10) miles south of the Maroon Creek Road =�z intersection in the AF-1 Zone Diatrict, and was awarded special =:�� and annual review apptoval for the reconstruction of the lodge �� facility during the previous regular meeting. The applicant '� � ' ., submitted for Board review today reqnested approval £or the '�,••. • .� condominiumization of the lodge facility pursuant to Section Four j;.� _ '_'; (4) af the Land use Code. _`; The applicant has agreed to condominium declaration covenants - '• „St limiting the use of the rooms as follows: % r i'-'r,'� :-�_� 1. an owner's personaZ ase of his unit during the December � ;:�-� 18th through March 20th high season shall not exceed � twenty-eight (28) consecutive days, except that such ''l limit may be exceeded on a space availability basis 2. an owner shall also be able to designate guests who can + " � occupy the unit during the December 18th through March , - �'':.:j 20th high season for no more than twenty-eight (28) • 1 consecutive days, except that such limits may be � exceeded on a space availability basis 1 3. an owner's total pecsonal use and his guest's use of , - his unit daring the necember 18th through March 20th �� high season shall not exceed forty-two (42) days, , .;'_°:� escept that such limits may be exceeded on a space ; availability basis 'a 4. an owner shall be prohibited fzom keeping his unit off � °I the short tecm market when he does not personally ' occupy the unit or it is not occupied by quests of the � ' owner, ptovided, however, units shall not be required � " � to be kept in the tourist market in the event that j there is insufficient demand to justify keeping such ; , units available :� f� ! 5. the condominium association shaZl provide the County ? ,� with an annual report of the owner's personal use or ; his guest�s nse of his unit during the high season � ; ; 6. the condominium association shall provide the following ; �` :1 on-site management and maintenance services at a •j minimum: � � a, front desk staffing seven (7) days a week from `� �;; 7:00 a.m, to 12:00 a,m, during the high season . � >I .`.;` b, 8:00 a.m, to 8:00 p.m, during the rest of the year ' .;:.a c. on-call maintenance service twenty-fout (24) hours �,:„ a day as well as basic maintenance of the gcounda • ,:� and common elements , ,'.;? 7. the condominlum association will demonatcate the • ��i . reservation service and marketing approach which are '�� employed to keep the unita in a general tourist market �;;� when they ace not 6eing used by the owner or his guests ,.,:� � Commissioner's Meetinq 27 January, 198b - 7 �'�:r i-, � . - ..�;'. :�' ��^r�� ' '��;;+�'�;. � �i=`�� .,-.. . ... . .... . ' �a�..��•.�:5Y.1��LN4ir.3?�•�•� '1Cd!3.7Wi2 e�i .�S'�l�t��t -��f i ., �lr Rrizmanich explained that the restrictions proposed abone were , eimilar to those required of the Highlands Inn applicant. The restrictions were intended to ensure that the lodge facilities would remain available to the tourist market. The Planning Office recommended approval oE the application subject to the seven (7) reatrictions recited above, and further, subject to the followinq '`;�j* � additional conditiona: '"�'"- 8. �he applicant shall submit the final condominium : '� declarations to the County Attorney for review and . approval 9, the applicant shall submit a condominium plat to the � �= •. . County Attocney for review and approval . Braudis expressed some concern wtth the definition of high `'�: � , seaeon, identified as that period between December 18th and March �: • 20th of each year. It was felt that demand for the use of the � � lodge may be equally great, if not greater, during the summer ��=y.�.'` `: ` months, and it was suggested that the definition of high season include the summer months. �5:• Blake expressed some concern with the use of the subdivision `� ' .. ' exemption procedure f or condominiumization purposes. He suggested • that the application may be required to comply with the full. subdiviaion procedure, and he requested that the planner review . the condominiumization approvals previously granted to the Highlands ';�� . Inn and the Inn at Aspen for consistency. He also expiessed some �'� � concern with the owner limitations proposed above; the restrictions �� may encourage the rental of the subject units, an action which " . may conflict with Securitles and Exchange Commission regulations ;� � concerning the sale of investments/mandatory rental of real ;.:,: ; property. He placed the applicant on formal notice that the z� • ' limitationa proposed may conflict with S.E.C. requirements, and �ti,. he indicated that the applicant would be responsible for addressing }�. such. 3 . i��: • County Attorney Tom Smith eapressed concern with some of the ;�ar.!' " limitations proposed, and specifically: ��' . 1, there was some concern with an owner's ability to ; „ eaceed the personal uae limitation on a space availability ��1 basie, as th i.s term was nok sufficiently def ined !(' 4. the ability to an owner to keep a unit off the short : � _. term market when there was insufficient demand to . justify keeping the unit available, was not clearly !- defined " _1 '' 7. with respect to the reservation and marketing approach j�;�l to be implemented by the applicant, it should be � , specified that the County would be able to make reasonable adjustments to that approach in the event the units •, . ; were not reasonably made available for occupancy ; ::. sraudis suggested that the condominium declarations be revised to specifically address the Elk Mountain Lodge, and not t� _ lodge condominiums on a generic basis; the declarations submitted � -• for Board review today, for instance, were identical to those prepared for the Highlands Inn, and it was not known whether the marketing plan for all condominiumized lodges would functfon in ' ' an identical manner. He felt that declarations should be prepared � to enaure that the lodge function and operate as a lodge ase; the manner by which an owner's personal use of a unit was controlled was not particularly important provided the facility operated as intended. Rlanderud noted that the individual nr►its were de£ined as lodge units, in which case there would be no kitchen facilities. An owner's personal use of a unit would be somewhat limited on Commissioner's Meeting 27 January, 1986 - 6 `>.y . .�� 'C:;:�� ' ' ., � . . . . ., . ';..:.iitfi''�YUla1�1.`�'�!."-.^f��"�Zt°.'�'Y�e'_.fica+tr.kti:t:;:� Y.N Y ' I�'."n ' I��.�::':' .. this basis alone, as the lack of certain facilities would not . encourage long term occupancy. She felt that the declarations should specifically provtde for the avaflability of a unft when it was not used by an owner. Child suggested that the applicant be required to develop a marketing plan, which plan wonld be submitted for Board approval. ��,' ` - Rrizmanich explained that the application would be subject � to an annual review; in the event the subject units were not made available for tourist occupancy as intended, the macketing plan - could be revised accordingly each year. ' . Smith suggested an additional condition of approval whereby ' compliance with the condominium dec2aratians would be req�ired; , • the cond3tions of approval may be adjusted during the annual �>� review in the evet�t the intent of the approval was not complied ��; with. He also suggested that the summer high season be defined in - conditions one (1), two (2) and three (3). ,``; ` . '�;1 Cliff Burdick, an attorney representing the appl3cant, felt � .` � :;�ij that the high season was an acea-wide season that encompassed the _�:, winter months only. The availability of lodge units during the ' :,:� summer months was not as constcained as during the wintec high �• � ,�,,� season, in which case it was not felt that the definition should be amended. :�='�j Bcaudis noted that the EIk Mountain Lodge was the only lodge ,� facility in the Castle Creek Valley, and he felt that there may �,, be greater demand for occupancy during the summer months. He ' suggested that a summer high season be ineluded in the declazations, � and that it be defined as that period between 1 July and Labor � ��'" Day of each year. Kl.anderud again suggested that the declarakions address the ` non-use oE the unit by an owner, rather than its use; the occupancy . ;;`:i of the vnit by the owner was not considered particularly relevant, • rather, the declarations should be prepared in such a fashion as ' �::1:' ta ensure that the unit was available for occupancy during thase `"� times when it was not used by the owner. The unit should not, in • -- other words, remain vacant. � . Smith noted that lodge units were not defined as living ' _ units, as there would be no kitchen facilities, in which case full time occupancy by any person was impractical. The declarations need not address owner occupancy in this sense, rather, they should ensure that the unit be made available for tourist use for • � a minimum period of time each year. , Krizmanich suggested that the declarations simply limit the use of a unit by an owner and his gaests to a maximum of one ; hundred (100) days during each calendar year, and require that it „ be made available for occupancy during the cemainder of that year. The declarations should provide a maximum period of time . for an owner's use of his unit, regardless of the season. and mandate that ft be made avai2able for tourist occupancy for the �' remainder of the year, The Soard generally agreed with this approach. ':`•� Child expressed some concern with the on-site managemenf and +�`_=-+ maintenance services specified in condi tion six (6); it was not .�`:;:� felt that the Board should require front desk staffing during ' '�-� either the high season or the remainder of the year. The applfcant ' � should not be required to staff the front desk of the lodge in ':',•' the event there was insufficient demand to warrant its being open. ��^'� Rrizmanich suggested the following amendments to the `''`� aondominium declarations: •� 1, the deletion of this condition altogether ;�,�• ;� Commissioner's Meeting 27 January, 1986 - 9 .+ , . ..:T:�M' . � .-��,�,�-i� . ��^��FS{ . . " ��;,Y}�� . ,t t �- tf"�'� �, a" 's � s-� t � f�-- . ,._ 4�� r��.�"i.,�'�;f 5*s�%� � �,Ir,'. 'F .�,y�' s'�' ..,a::��.w.."'� '� 'h'� �'ir Jt'..i 5.� ��c �.5a�'� .:�ra� ��. `�x��;, ''r``K�.. ;,�':�.�:��,�_:�.�. �-- ._ . � ��:��` ,, �� ..t,, � 2. the deletion of this condition altogether 3. an owner's total personal use and the use of guests 4, designated by the owner during each calendar year shall � not exceed one hundred (100) days ; �� 4: an owner ahall be prohibited from keeping his unit off � ` the short-term market when he does not personally � _ �' occupy the unit or it is not occupied by guests o£ the ;:-� � owner • 5, the condominium association shall provide, at the -;_";:l request of the County, an annual report o£ the owner's personal use, his guest's use, and tourist use of the - unit � .i`^',,,' - ._;-•.;?:� ••��-:'., 6. the condominium association shall provide on-site =,a��=i maintenance service twenty-four (24) hours a day as � elements basic maintenance of the grounds and common ' �;;�;�; 7. the condominium association shall implement reasonable ' _� reservation services and marketing to keep the units in n,-� the general tourist market when they are not being used :,:�.� by the owner or guest :: i Blake moved to approve the application subject to the seven ;':� (7) conditions recommended by the Planning Office as amended ' � ;:. � above, conditions eight (8) and nine (9) previously recited, and _.. � subject to the following additional condition: • � "' a 10. verification of the use of the subdivision exemption �;;``� procedure for the purpose of condominiumization consiatent . �:.,,.;a with previous approvals; verification would be ; =i accomplished prior to the review of the resolution ; !' granting approvaZ � ��:?:/; Braudis seconded and the motion passed unanimously. . 1 ---------- � � -.,.� .`;:,,j Manager County Manager John Eldert introduced the Manager's Report, ! � Report Eldert esplained that he was contacted by the Board of County • Commissionera of San Miguel County, who requested an opportunity to meet with the Board, County Attorney, and various other staff. �; San Miguel County, and specifically the Telluride a=ea, has experienced rapid growth during the past few years, and the San " , Miguel Board has expressed an interest in Pitkin County's land use requlations, master plan efforts, revenue sources, and others. Eldert explained that a tentative meeting has been scheduled in Aapen for 13 and 14 February. � ' Eldert introduced a letter from the Colorado Department of '? � Health to Environmental Aealth Director Tom Dunlop, indicating -� that certain contractual obligations had not been performed. The ��._'. Environmental Aealth Department performed various state f unctions i - • -:,'� on a contract basis, and specifically health inspections of a number of community facilities, in exchange for state funding. �„;:; nunlop indicated that his department was unable to comply with all of its contractual obligations due to a significant increase in workload; that workload consisted primarily of work performed ;�-,, for the City of Aspen on its fireplace and amoking regulationa. ✓�;:;� Eldert esplained that noncompliance with the contract could • jeopardize state funding, and he suggested that the Board address �'.'�� the issue within the context of the Intergovernmental Agreement "'�� that governed the department; the cost of the supportin9 the ';.� department, for instance, was divided equally between the two (2) 3':,•i governments, and it may be appropriate to review this issue in ��,,I the event any one (1) entity required greater services than the i �.e`� Commissioner's Meeting 27 January, 1986 - 10 ..:t , ) ''.I 1 _, . .. ;:.�' . ::;!�� '��j�'� � . wV IP;•._y.1.'.r i . r� e : `9-.� .�: � . . .� .:.� . ��' '!.x �;� .�� o-g,.i�"µ t��.��l.�Y i ,,"riCt?f''P' x7��.r'..:. .. . . . . •��f..�:d: ��16..�d� •s�'..��i`w�116.�s�4�Pub1lteM h�.{3��..._.. . ..� ..:.. � . . .... . . . . '...'.. (� . other. Klanderud suggested that the Board a8dress the workload of : -j the Environmental Health Department during the joint work seseion scheduled for 17 February. j .. � BOCC Child explained that, during a Colorado River Water Conservancy I � Comment District meeting last week, a non-agenda item was introduced for � " '"�" . ' action whereby the offices of the District would be moved from . ! Glenwood Springs to 6rand Junction. The motion to relocate the i � offices failed as the members had no information upon which to ' �., I assess the issue. It was anticipated that the proposed relocation , would be conaidered on a future agenda. � �::-i In addition to the location of the District offices, water �' ,;";;3 sales from Green Mountain Reservoir were also addreased. Sales would be accomplished on a contract basis, and the Distcict has �i`� been conaidering a proposal whereby sales to ski areas would be � �_, prioritizedj this specific proposal was tabled pending further �' ' analysis. ' � ;�::�� ;:`:;� , . =a~J Child noted that the Public Industry Council recommended, at , :�f:Y�j its last meeting, that Colorado Mountain College attempt to � �;,;';� increase its revenues with the use of week long summer advancement ;f programs. He agreed to forward this recommendation to the College. � _J Child noted that the American Rivers Council would convene . `�''.� its annual meeting in Washington D.C. sometime this spring, to ' :.;,� consider the denelopment of a national watec policy. Child requested : that the Board authorize the forwarding of the County's adopted � water policy to the Council. The Board unanimously agreed. : 'r �:� Madsen noted that S.B. 28, recently introduced Senate . r: ' :'_:;� legislation, would provide for an increase in the salaries of , � `�`�� "°i� county elected officials. Colorado Counties, Inc, has requested comments from member counties on the proposed legislation. :i� Madsen also noted that additional legislation has been . ^ introduced, including bills that address water policies, Hiqhway ` `-� IIser Tax Funds, and others, and he suggested that the Board review . -�;-' these issues during a future work session. " ------°-- - Minutes The minutes of 25 November, 1985, were reviewed and approved ' as submitted. '" ..�`..-; ---------- ' �1� "j . ` ! Elk Francis Krizmanich fntroduced a resolution granting annual j Mountain review and special review approval to the Elk Mountain Lodge. The j Lodge application was reviewed during the previous regular meeting and � approved subject to twenty-three (23) conditions of approval. ' . `� Krizmanich explained that the applicant has requested some minor i . ! amencfinents as follows: , ' � - that the specific alignment of the unpaved trail _ ;°,_� easement be mutually agreed upon by the applicant and ;... ._ . ,: .� the Engineer, and that motorized vehicles be precluded .; . r;;';'q - the condition that required the housing of all employees �,':'":� indicated that an annual ceview would occur to examine `:.:��3 the number of beds and employees. The applicant requested . =:�;;:; an amendment to indicate that the annual examination of �":?:;� beds and employees was for the purpose of ensuring that ,.;;;� there were sufficient beds to house all employees on site -,-;.., =;,::; - with respect to both the trail and fisherperaon's '`�' , easements, the applicant has requested that the County �;,;Yi indemnify the applicant for their use :�':```: ',�;`.'i Commissioner's Meeting 27 January, 1986 - 11 , j .t..i - -••r� . ..:,..t,....' ' � . .�� , 1 .�✓y� '�.��S'r [ ;yr`4 � ' ' n� 'M r/t 9'i,{`N'C,a' '^ F.c�x,,,�(.�ro.r ar�aryl��w'v.c2�t� t �;�! ♦��:Stn0�5x�i��L��,�: � � 41 c1�b`�A ,c_.':M fv��`y�*•!v �� s�., ,.:. _ 'a:...: ...�i .. . . . +t Lt'S�Y ''L:eck �, s=..�s 4`- ' , � - finally, the autho=ization for the Planning Director to � approve minor site changes ahould be eapanded to ' indicate that changes in both style and configucation �.• , �t> � Rrizmanich explained that the County was not able to indemnify �, , any party, in which case khe concern with the use of the trail . and fisherperson easements could not be addressed in this fashion. "-" Insteac7, the County should agree to provide adequate insurance i for the two i2) trails, and to provide evidence of same to the � applicant. This method was agreed to by the agplicant. Rcizmanich `='i recommended approval o£ the resolution subject to the followinq . "i amended conditions: � �i� 5. the Elk Mountain Lodqe shall be required to house all ��1 employees. At the present time, Eour (4� employee . "' housing un:its providing a minimum of eight (8) beds `-�-� shall be deed covenanted to the low-income price and • '�il size guidelittes of the AspenjPitkin Housing Authority. � �.�� In the £uture, the number of beds and employees will be ✓`� reexamined at the annual review for the purpose of , ensuring that there are sufficient beds to house all :,{ employees on aite } - ,i . ��t'� 10. an unpaved trail easement ahall be dedicated to Pitktn `?� County in a location mutually satisfactory to the ;;,I County Engineer and the applicant. The use of motor veh3cles shall be prohibited escept as necessacy £or reasonable maintenance thereof. The granting of suah � ! easement is expressly aonditioned on the County providing ; ! i adequate insurance as reasonabZe required by the ;`: . ;:;� applicant to insure against any loss or damage occasioned � :• by public use oE such easement, and furnishing the • "':,:� applicant with a Certificate of Znaurance evidencing that such insutance has been obtained �� `;;;I ld. the ptoperty ehall be deed covenanted to allow for � . � unlimited day £isherperson accesa within the water !' ��, course, and the owner may limit the type of bait uaed. � �:� 5uch agreement is expressly conditioned upon the County .:., providing adequate insurance as reasonably requfred by t' j the applicant to insure against any loss or damage I _. ; occasioned by pablic use of said aacess and furnishing the applicant with a Certificate of Insurance evidencing i that such insurance has been obtained ! ; ; 15. in future, minor site changes, inciuding, but not � � limited to, changes in the style and configuration of the j�� project, which will result in neither an increase in � the number of bedrooms nor the total occupancy of the ; i lodge, may be submitted to and approved by the Planning i Director ' � i: ! Madsen move to approve the resolution subject to the amendments �, • recited above, elake seconded and the motion passed nnanimously. + i - .. Sarnett Madsen moved to approve a resolution granting approval to � Employee the Barnett Employee Dwelling Dnit. Braudis seconded and the Dwell motion pasaed with opposition Erom Child. . Courthouse Fac3lities Manaqer Jim Belfont introduced a Commercial Lease Plaza to be entered into between the Boa=d and C.M. Clark for the Basement basement of the Coutthouse Plaza Building. The leasing oE this Lease space was apptoved last year during the review o£ the 1986 budget; twenty-nine thousand, five hundred dollars ($29,500) in funds were approptiated for the lease of the basement, and Commisaioner's Meeting 27 January, 1986 - 12 r°::"�;;:,.,. ,:;;`�`�''. ��=:' �. �.:� , �;��`'' -q �t�' . � � .. .:.� � � � n.3' �.��t � '�t Aw*.�' S � x # s aSH�tti 2. �. Ar 3.tj,�'� �F��'�}�. �� a S; f,�..tf 1� "Tr,`` .. ...... o.�:*'ic3'i7'��,:.� :�,_+:::�,..�ed�.i,a:'...;ara:Y. . . . .. .iw'i;}r�•y_��c t�2 �� y �� •-. �'c�srg'�•--��. �� l , another twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) in funds were budgeted � to remodel the facility, The Lease aubmitted for Board review today � .-� would provide for the use of the basement at an annual coat of . �� thirty thousand dollars ($30,000), and for a period of three (3) ' years. A speci£ic plan for the use of the basement has not yet f .'-j been prepared; anticipated uses included the law library for the f . � court system, storage epace, and the posaible relocation of the i . "" i Data Processing center. A specific plan for the uae of the �:; basement would be submitted for Board approval when prepared. ".:��i Child expressed some concern with the level of funding , � . • established to remodel the basement, an amount which was conaidered . ; somewhat excessine, and he also questfoned the provision of � ' . janitorial services. Belfont explained all lessees were responsible _°-: ;� for providing janitorial sernices, and that the landlord only `='=='i provided such services in the common areas of the building. This � -��"_'. ;;,.�:� provision was consistent with all leases executed for the Plaza , �.:;;.r� building, including the Finance Office and Attorneg. • ;r ;� ; � i Braudis noted that, in the event the basement area was used , -�--'� to accommodate the Data Processing Center, the cost of that space � . :;:';� should be shared equally by the City and the County. • �'!`� Assistant County Attorney Gary Esary explained that the cost ' �:°;;;� of the lease has not been negotiated between the parties; the � '-_�;,;;.i annual cost identified in the Lease was requested by the landlord '-:=t';.� and was not the subject of staff negotiations. The Board may desire to pursue negotiations in the event the cost was a concern. In `:.=;y addition, he noted that a remodel plan has not been prepared for ' •i the use of the subject space; the landlord must agree to whatever ' i 1 improvements would occur, and the ownership of those impronements "' upon termination ahould be agreed to by the parties, all o€ which - _- ! must be accomplished prior to execution. '� Finance Director Tom Oken expressed some concern with the ' �`�' term of the Lease, particularly in the event the Data Processing _ center was to be relocated into the basement; a three (3) year " term to house the new computer system was not considered sufficient. ;'.:�';_ - Blake then moved to authorize the Chair to execute the Lease subject to the following conditions: a, that a three (3) year option to =enew at the same base - cost, or two thousand, five hundred dollars monthly, be provided to the County - b. the inclusion of a clause governing the use, ownership, � . .- and maintenance of all improvements, alterations, ' fixtures and trade, to be approved by the County , Attotney prior to execution i . � Madsen seconded and the motion passed with opposition from Child, • � ---------- i ' i -.iCentennial County Attorney Tom Smith introduced a Partial Release of j:�' � Easement Easement to be entered into between the Board and the Centennial- .._.. Release Aspen II Limited Partnership. Buildings G, F and S of the Centennial ' Project encroached upon the sixty (60) foot right-of-way easement . .. � � dedicatecl to the County; the encroachment only occurred at the �"'�• top of the buildings, where overhangs extended into the easement. :.!�-:�{ The applicant has requested, through attorney Joe Edwards, that '_;;� the Board grant a partial release of that portion of the easement `�' ` upon which the buildings encroached, The requested was reviewed z:''=`! by the Public Works Director, who noted that the buildings ��-.'�� encroached upon air space only and not on the ground, The Director � indicated that the partial release would not affect any of the ' � County's commitments or improvements with respect to the Project. ;=,��,:; Madsen moved to authorize the Chair to execute the Partial 'L.^,I °.-`.i Commissioner's Meeting 27 January, 1986 - 13 '_ � ;;;:I _.,� ' :1'::i, . � _ .:'M^�3�j .. . .��;� F,;,r.it%f;'". � i:,r, ,. "°��'. , , .. , , � � �,rx't7'" t:-.,.,.-� �.,.:.�: .�,,�,�.�& .,;t�:., . .......d -:r:,..::�....�._: _ . . � ��-.tic_-�t'n.v.� .:,. � _ n},�"'s�i.?t?^.hG�".;tiW.Td.�Q�� ,� ��..� {�"� . �",.. ., f.�_';� , Release, Blake seconded and the motion passed ananimously. I Child suggested that the applicant agree to indemnify the County for any commitment/improvement that may, as a result of ; the release, result in damaqe. Smith explained that the County ; was insured for such fnstances. ` �'*�t; ��- ---------- �`-` � Highlands Tom Smith introduced a Notice of hearing and Qrder to Show -j Inn Cause, addressed to the Matrix Ski Corp and Jan N. Hunt. The -' Liquor County received a report on 23 December of last year that liquor ` License may have been sold at the Highlands Inn in the absence of a . � � Nokice liquoc license. The notice would formally advise the owner of the . � Inn, the Matrix Ski Corp., of a Board hearing on the alleged °,=j violation. The Ski Corp, has submitted an application for the �_: \,;� renewal o£ its liquor license for the Highlands Inn facility; , . evidence of moral character and the probability of compliance ?:=:; with applicable laws and cegulations were leqitimate concerns in _ �:+xi any determination to issue a Iiquor Iicenae. In this iastance, , • '`'� the Notice would provide the applicant with an opportunity to ' ,�`� address the allegations prior to tenewal. • ;:�� Madsen moved to authorize the Chair to execute the Notice, • ' - Child seconded and the motion passed unanimoasly. .;:; 'i'1 ---------- ' RFTA Roaring Fork Transit Agency General Manaqer Bruce Abel i Vehicle introduced a request to authorize the purchase of two (2) ' Acquire Supervisory vehicles for the Agency. The Agency identified an . appropriation of twenty-six thousand dollars ($26,000) f or the • � - purchase of the two (2) vehicles in its 1966 budget, which was ` , �;:; reviewed and approved by the Board in Decembet of last year. Bids for the vehicles, both of which were Jeep Cherokees, were recently ;..�� solicited pursuant to state bid, and a total price of twenty-one : ;:,-� thousand, five hundred and ninety-foar dollars ($21,594) was • ' .-, received; the •dealer which provide this price overestimated state �`<: � <;� participation, however, and the vehicles could not be delivered • . �;;;-.� for a period of between eight (B) and ten (10) weeks. As a . result, the Agency resolicited bids, and the Glenwood Springs ...� ficm of Berthod Motors submitted a total price of twenty-four thousand, six hundrec3 and eleven dollars ($24,611) . Although this ' `�--) price was approximately three thousand dollars ($3,000) higher � ! than state bid, Berthod would provide options that were not ` '• included in the state bid response; those options included a � I.arger fuel tank, a rear window wiper, a clock, and cloth seats •; instead of vinyl. The difference between the two (2) bids, if the :�. cost of the options was provided for, would be eight hundzed and y "� sixty-seven ($867) dollacs. In addition, Becthod was able to < ; deliver the vehicles immediately. ':l ` ; Abel explained that Board approval of the expenditure was ;�I required as the purchase of the vehicles wouZd be accomplished • with OMTA funds; Pitkin County was the grant recipient for UMTA �' ,� at this time, in which case all OMTA funded expenditures required .-.:j Board approval, - -_.i �� Madsen moved to accept the Berthod Motors bid of twenty-four �':�; thousand, six hundred and eleven dollars ($24.611) , and to *':��, authorize the expenditute of an fdentical amonnt o£ funds for the • • ;:�::�,'_3 supervisory vehicle purchase. Braudis seconded and the motion ; ;j passed unanimously. `<_;,..; ;J ---------- �':"i 1ST Chief Building Inspector Jim Wilson introduced on first ' Read: reading a resolution amenc]ing the Building Permit E'ee Schedule Pitco established in Sectfon 2-5, Title VII, of the Pitkin County Code, : Code and declaring that an emergency exists with respect to the r=�.'�:�':-� i ' Commissioner's Meeting 27 January, 1986 - 14 ;_,� � � ,:.� . � � ��:y: ;' �.,�.kj- . . ��,�:;. , .•r:'�� . - ., x` .'d .... �.....ii:...:!sr:;,.�:a_ �a a., .�_.. . �. �•'9�.��r�u�aA��. '��'4'��rt ,qv. , M1':. Amend adoption of said fees. The resolution would ac]opt the following � fee structure for the Building Department: TOTAL VALUATION FEE ` $1.00 to $500.00 $15.00 �,'., ---- $501.00 to $$2,000.00 $I5.00 for thefirst$500.00 ! ' pl us $2.00 f or each addt'1 j $100.00 -'�, $2,001.00 to $25,000.00 $45.00 fo= the firat . $2,000.00, and $9.00 for ? , --`:-i each addt'1 $1,000.00 _;--;;1 '»-? $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 $252.00 for the firet '��;;:=� $25,000.00 plus $6.50 for ` each addt'1 $1,000.00 I%+�' � $50,001.00 to $100,000.00 $414.50 for the first -"r�i $50,000.00 plus $4.50 for • '��;;"s� each addt'1 $1,000.00 , � .�A�'� $100,001.00 to $500,000.00 $639.50 for the first . �'';"A" $100,000.00 plus $5.00 ��=�7 for each addt'1 $1,000.00 � .�''T"�l $500,001.00 and up $1,139.50 for the first `-'�"� $200,000.00 plus $6.00 for ' s.• .� , each addt'1 $1,000.00 i ?'' � In addition, a fee of thirty dollara ($30) per hour would be assessed for all inspections outside of normal business hours, all ~ U:j reinspectione, and all other inapections for which no fee was :I established. Finally, a fee of thirty-five dollars ($35) per hour ,:`;� would be assessed for additional plan reviews required by chanqes, � _ ' additions or revisions to approved plans. Wilson explained that t: the building permit fees have not been increased since July of k -.=� 1981, when total department expenditures amounted to two hnndred . :�=�;.i and ei9hty-eight thousand, twenty-four dollars ($288,024) ; the ' '� approved 1986 budget for the department was three hundred and • '°� seventy-nine thousand, five hundred and twenty-four dollars ` �� ($379,524) , or an increase of thirty-two gercent (328) . The ' ?"�� Building Department has always been self-supporting, in that it i must generate sufficient revenues to meet ita expenaes, and the fee scheduled was adopted accordingly; in the absence of a fee � increase as requested, it would become necessary to achieve � <; significant service level reductions. . " "' � Wilson explained that the fees proposed above would be : ;;� identical to those established in the new Unif orm Building Code ; � for projects with valuations up to one hundred thousand dollars : , ($100,000) ; the fees proposed would represent a substantial increase over the existing fees, as they were always lower than ;: _� � the UBC schedule. All other remaining fees were increased by the ! � ;'.I base rate of two hundred and sixty-nine dollars and fifty cents -,I ($269.50). `; �;z : '. I Wilson explained that the fee schedule proposed was generally �; consistent with Suilding Code fees. Ae noted that Department � � i revenues last year were less than projected; although the Department ',`ti`:i has experienced a general reduction in activity, the revenue • - decrease was attributed primarily to the failure of the Aapen Mountain Lodge project. He recommended approval of the f ees as � ;;-'�'; submitted. .f-;;:j Rlanderud expressed some concecn that the fee increase for the ��'�' g projects was less than that assessed for the .,.,� hi her valuation =,;=.�`i lower valuation projects. She also expressed some concern that an :;��:i increase in fees was proposed even though there was been a ;s;':i '' � Commissioner's Meeting 27 January, 1986 - 15 :_� ; ; ;- . ,.:�, . `Pti�'F�l�. . .��f , "vY . _ ♦. p�. :� � �ei ' ..'-_r ..... ,. ....,.. _. . . .�.��+.�_4�1�^�.�."� �y,�'*tkk� f i;� ��iY'!�.`',.��.`'�.�( 4 • 4 decrease in activity; the County Code, of which the Uniform • Building Code was a component, was implemente8 on the basis that new growth would pay for itself, and there was some concern that, • ' in this instance, despite a decrease in activity, a f ee increase was proposed. ,: r; Slake expressed some concecn with the eta�fing level of the � _„�_ - - - Buildinq Department and fluctuations in activity; payroll expenses r ' were incurred last year for the enti.re Department even though there was a decrease in workload, There was some queation as to � ` whether the staf£ing level of the Department was greate= than was ' needed to provide services. . Wilson exglained that the nepartment experienced workload ; - fluctuations on a seasonal basis coincident with the building . -;':?;} season. The exieting staff level was considered both appropriate =====. and necessary to accommodate workload activity on an annual � �'�=-'-'�� basis. He anticipated a very busy year in 1966 based on a number �;�=;:�:� of conve=sations he has had with local architects, contractors, � , . '_q;;�, and others. ;,,'_:! • ' Klanderud suggested that the Board review various service ' � departments for consistency with the policy that they operate on =-':? a self-sustaining basis; it may not, for instance, be realistic , ,:;;;;::� to expect certain departments, and particularly those that N,;`:r� expe=ience fluctuations in workloa8, to continue to operate on ; this basis. ::; j County Manager John Eldert suggeated that the Environmental ;;;:� � Health and Building Departments be housed in a single location � and their respective staff ccoss-trainedj unde= such an instance, ;; ) Buildzng Department staff could, during those periods when • warkload activity decreased, assist the Environmental Health ' Department in completing its workload. Environmental Health � Dicector Tom Dunlop has indicated that his staff was unable to ,"�:� complete all of its caseload at this time, and particularly �;-;� certain state mandated inspections; the caseload activity of the _ ;:;� two (2} departments could be reviewed on a compiehensive basis in • `'��;` an effo�t to ac3dress seasonal fluctuations. Eldert explained L_:;.��_;:� � ;;.:.� that, in such an event, the zoning component of the Suilding • ' -,� Department should be transferred to the Planning Office, 'r.- Child asked if the department zetained outalde services to .,i assist in the review of large projects, such as the Aspen Mountain � �� Lodge project. Wilson explained that outside services were , - +' retained for the lar9er projects, and that the fee schedule -'! proposed would provide funds for such. '`' :.,.., . �i� ;-j Child suggested that the Department establish an additional billing systern in an effozt to address outside servicea; the ; Department would assess a basic fee Eor each project, and all fees � incurred as a result of outside secvices would be billed directly � ; to the applicant. ; The Board generally agceed to conduct a work sesaion to � review the operation of the suilding Department, including '• = staffing, caseload activity and fluctuations, the Eee system necessacy to support such, and the potentiai for a merger with • - . - the Environmental Aealth Department. v°�; Braudis noted that the fees proposed were more egalitarian :��:;>1 than the exiating fee structure. Although a number of iesues 'ti�� should be resolved, he noted that the subject feea have not been ' :,�1 increased during tbe past five (5) years, and he suggested that ;Y::,j the resolution be approned at this time. J ;�;`;I Blake then moved first reading approval of the resolution, ,,,_?`� and to set a public hearing for Monday, 10 March, 1986, at 10:00 '.`,_� a.m. subject to the following conditions: ;�',.�, Commissionec's Meeting 27 January, 1986 - 16 :ti ,',.�, � _ ;,, . � ,�i.aL�tiM;!�'.- . �£':�r7;� , . . . . . , . � �r .� .. � ... ..., . .. _.� . . . �� . . . :.�?�t t,�c•, ,fi�' �.�s�+�?�:v c,�Fj � ��.: rti� �.��!.1 ��. ��4j-:�'+�58L�U4/te14�4Jt�tsY` I::: �: I. that a review of t6e staff compT.iment and expenditurea be accompliahed prior to the public hearing 2. that a merger between the Environmental Health and Building Departments be reviewed prior to the publ3c hearing � Braudis seconded. f, ' �..�_ � Madsen expressed some concern with the fee increases proposed for the lower valuation projects; these projects would experience the greatest percentage of increase, and it was snggested that � _ the fee increase necessary to support the operations of the bepartment be more evenly distributed. `-:�� Wilson explained that the valuation of a project was not •'' always relevant to the cost incurred by the bepartment; substantial • :�`-�t review costs could be incurred for many of the smaller projects. ''"`� Child noted that there were a number oE social impacts �,.ii::� associated with some of the larger projecta; the Centennial • ' ?�_::`� Project, fot instance, resulted in substantial social impacta on "'� the neighborhood within which it was constructed. It was suggested � ;:Y,� that it may be appropr3ate to assess the fee structure for the • � _ Department within this context. `;'A;� Finance Director Tom Oken explained that the Uniform Building ��;;l:� Code fee schedule subsidized the smaller, lower valuation projects, and that this was inherent in ita structure, He expressed concern, -::f however, that a fee increase was proposed at a time when c�rowth ,` itself has decreased, and he suggested that this issue be reviewed. � , 'r � I The motion initiated by Blake £ailed with opposition fcom � . ,,...� Child, Madsen and Rlanderud, all of whom requested revisions to � ' the fee schedule prior to approval. Klanderud requested that the �;�;� Department identify its 1986 projected revenues fn the absence of , � any fee increase; this information would assiat in analyzinq the • ;i tteed to increase fees in the absence of any increase in growth. _;.._:;:� Madsen and Child both requested that the fees proposed for the � :;{ smaller, lower valuation projects be decreased. - _i � 1St County Attorney Tom Smith introduced on first reading a � Read: resolution amending the pitkin County Airport Fueling Regulations � Airport and establishtng Minimum Standards for Commercial Activities at _ '. Reg's the Pitkin County Airport. The resolution would formally amend � Amend the Airport Rules and Requlations by defining all fueling activities, including retail and self-fueling activities, and by establishing minimum standards for all commeccial activity at the -'� airport facility. Smith explained that there was only one (1) full service, fixed ' base operator authorized to engage in retail fuel sales at the -� airport at this time, that being Aspen Base Operation. Other ; i airport concessionaires, however, such as the vharter operators, iwere authorized to self-fuel their own aircraft, The amendment 'I submitted for $oard review today would amend Article Five {5) of : _ the Airport Regulations by amending Sections Twelve (12) and �: • : ;., Fourteen (14), and by the addition of Sections Fifteen (15) = through Seventeen {17), The amendments would clearly define the scope of retail and self-fueling activities, as well as address � -'=:� safety and insurance issues. :�: . - � ;� The minimum spec3fications were prepared in response to a . +:,� charter operator complaint filed with the Federal Aviation _;;�:_� Adm3nistrationp the operator's request to conduct commercial fuel sales at the airport was denied by the County, and the complaint was filed accordinqly. The Administration recommended that the County adopt minimum commercial specifications for all aeronautical _ activities that occur at the airport. The specifications, ?".` ` Commissioner's Meeting 27 January, 1986 - 17 -(>rY"'�•'. . ' . _ . _ . .... . . � ..� � . . . . . . ... . '_�._...,...,..�«..:.xrwr'..-as�.��!_� : � ��i � ��h f y' , . `,,-ii�. i' 4} . .;F.' i encompasae8 in a new Article Thirty-three (33), were intended to provide adequate critetia to address applications for commeraial � � activity, including the limited space available at the airpoct, ; �j minimum needs f or the adequate conduct of co�ercial activities, -'i and others. ;,;:� E � �., Smith explained that the Federal Aviation Administration was -1 consulted informallp durinq the preparation of the apeciffcations � ;� submitted for Board review today, Formal commenta fxom the aqency, and the affected conceasionaires, have not yet been received. He recammended fizst reading appsoval of the resolution � - and that a public hearing be scheduled as Fequired. E ;;>�, Child moeed first reading approval of the resolution, and to ;" , set a public hearing for 10 March, 1986, at 10:00 a.m. Blake �`•�?'� _ � seconded and the motion passed unanimously, ��' ---------- � _ � • .T,1.: j�_�.. '�,'�;"� There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. ,`„Ta .�� . �� . . � .1. � �i�... . i�� . . } ^�'F� . - . . . � . ` • •. �-w. � � �� , . �'+� . � . . . . . . . � . ;_� . -;)�'= I ;�._ � . y'a�. . . . . . � . . � �., ,� � _ . � . . . . . . . . � . . � . :� f r i: , r,t� +' �y. " { .�� ! `� I t. ��i � .� � � �{ Respectfully Submitted, APPROVED; �:�� i J � `�� : � � ;�� D uty County Clerk H en C�landerud � :, Chairwoman -'� �f . . :::i li :: � '• ,'� j _'-__� � E �- . ._... •�z� `� � ! � ai i � `� Commissioner's Meeting 27 January, 1986 - 18 '� � ,� `<n._,..,..,.,,.-�.. ,�;,,:a;:-,!`� ' � ]Y;: _ ' � ;Y r A i 'rt�t...�� 'i��i,iH •:�}.(�l - - ��I�:•�� ~'�'•, ' �•��{.�� l� � � . .+`:,y'i`J''; . . ,��h`A11' .. . . . > y'. Ij�Y'�`�1 +i��L�Jt�.:�. `?� b ��;7.s.w�;��. ,.: ..., •...: , 2.. Ta � ..'ti;.�.F • :6 ' . . ,�I� 'Y1R � r� �' .�ta. �� '� � , '�;1�f' �_'.�rt!� . ��'�n.� _ � �a !:;'<:+ -u�� . � ; ;�i ! � ct•,'-I BEFORE `PHE SOARD OF COU23TY COMMISSIONERS OF PITICIN COUNTY, COLORADO 1 .:. , �I.,�� NOTICE OF HEARING AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE _ �. - -:i ��`�ui TO: Matrix Ski Corp. Jan N. Hunt �' ` P.O. Box.4708 P.O. Box 8242 ; .-+:� Aspen, CO. 81612 Aspen� CO. 81612 .,�+.��l ;r,� _ -', . . �( You are hereby notified pursuant to C.R.S. 12-47-110 and � iY 1 CCR 203-2, Reg. 47-110.1, of the following: ` • �Y '�`��" 1. The Board of County Commissioners of Piticin County, `'"`�; Colorado, has determined that there is probable cause to believe ` - 3"�� that you have sold alcoholic beverages on the premises of the High- + �• `�� lands Inn on,December 21, 22 and 23, 1985, without a license therefor • in violation of C.R.s. 12-47-12s(q). �,, � �y-� 2. A hearing regarding this alleged violation shall be ,aq� held pursuant to 1 CCR 203-2, Reg. 47-110.1, before the Board of `'`"z, County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, on l0 February, �,,,3. 1986, @ 2:30 pm. �� 3. You are hereby requested to be present at the aforesaid � � � hearing to answer to the probable truth of such charges. �. "= 4. The outcome of this hearing may affect the pending '=, ' '^i.?'jr`,� application of Matrix Ski Corp. for a new liquor license. '�". . Dated this 28 day of January, 1986. '. e...�,'- ��.: ',:;'�»'-�? BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS B{: � PITKIN COUNTY, COIARADO �� ;� t, - gy; T',�° en {lan rud Chairw man � - ,� ��; -tr-� �� -� 1 � � � �' -, - �� •--� I ' , ,�,,,� a�=<J � t. ,.,,,e,,�=.,%- ,�t;_ _ . _.. -_ � . . _. t J,,}'�`^�v�` 3 .. .. �.��z�� ._- . �� . , �"'�;= �� - . `T :' � . r. . � . . . , J�T '. �1.{:�.L..�.. . 1 . � , ��`!. �t�..- ' . :^^..�yyy��y „�: I�.: - . � . ��G. � . . ' � ..._ ..� l ^. { { !�r i.'.�t").�?�'+'�:'1:.�;-�:�� . . r � 'ay� I �x '-..�� 4'�'!, �!h�;•!':T?�'.r.��I�i' " . I 4 - ,r:a-,. ' � • �^r. . ".�,!: '•: . � . . . � � , ',�::. 1 �'�`1 � ,�.•. ' _ ,� _ 6 � +' �� M� ___. : _ :>��, �o -��,�:ti-.>�. .�^3r:, . ::j-;�� . . � i whlI CERTIFICATE OF MAILING .�;� r� I hereby certify that I have served the foregoing NOTICE OF HEARING AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, by placing a copy thereof, #� in tha United States mails, first-class postage prepaid, this � ? day of January, 1986, addressed as follows: - ��y `� Matrix Ski Corp. •'�'r;':=�� P.O. BoX 4708 �;:� Aspen, Colorado 81612 . ��+..'� . . . . . . � . . r'•. , 3an N. Hunt �,�,r P.O. BOX 8242 �" Aspen, Colorado 81612 . T� i�. 1.. . �.r '��F ` I,1'.. . �� ..` �` �p�,� �� ( . � ,��. �� t=�� . ' �� . .. . ' � � � � F . ��j, � � , . � � . . . � . . . � . a. r-. . i a_. . . � ' . - � � � . � 8 . xT�:_ . . . . . . _ ' . � •• .� i'sby{ � � � - _ . � . .. . . � "fe,e. �..,..i,'�.. � . . . . � . . . �-u. f.. d, . �4'r;- � � � � . . � � � .. .p. . . . . . � . ��' � . � . . ��t -. �,:i�LiS � � , � ' �. � , � � � . ' � � � � � . t; �Y . _- ;�� . .. . . •f� _ K�e� ' �. . Ij. . - a ,.; � '. ��a) 1, ,�: .ty. �:: k :��,Y1 �� 2 tii -�� . " ! . . '.�':1: � � i- � .. {c ,-.�` �+i:su� ��.^'��n-w,,•...N R'"ha.U;:� .+:. . . . ._f_, ..., . - _ . ,..., .. I . >�.: ...:,;: �,� �.�.^�� . � . ,�` . ..,':; . ,.r. .,��.. .e. .��. .,�.... . ' �., .s� . �•� _ . .g'S7 y�� ..: .: . .. " ' � '., .. . L r`��' �t: ..- . .. . , . . . ��f ' - . � . . . . . .� . . � : . ��T. , . . . . . . � . . . V,x-i.'�i . . . . . ' . � . � � ' . . . � . �r � � �• � . . � . . . .�.� ' . . . . �. . . . . . . � . . . �}�},� ,�(I -. ,� . . . , � , . �1if*"�.n rJ"` ' . . . . - . . � ' . � ' . . - �. �i��R . � . . . . . . _..- � . �' 0-M1';; - . -. , . ,P✓y,�#r .� ' . . ' . ' _ - . . „ , . „�'v�'r.��ey�: " . ... . . � -.- . ' ,-_�-�� ....... k�„�,�.��;� , � ...- 3ti 3ji y h '�''�s��t.,,;';;� ��;},'`•i'1';�:: ' I ��: s�� 7�•p m'r� {y�nwrt,:tfyl � . t`;::�1:,r:iy�.,, ��'fr?h`". ;t:.l 1986 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING EXHIBITS January 27 Update of County A Memorandum Dated January 27, 1985,from Tom Newland, Zoning Maps Planning Engineer,to Board of County Commissioners Note: Minutes refer to certain sheets of the zoning maps,but unable to locate e�ibits at time of fmal com ilation of record ', .- i �,:: Z „ i «a� E_ € �- �. � E. i. i r, � i 1 . i 0 i„ l' au> „ a: � . .. , ,_ „ . ; .,;- =.�, I�„ '.. l. .d t„ .��i , . .. .,i, , , . � _. ..s.1_. - .._ w. r ..-w..'..�„�Hl�"... _ � . �.. . . -� •.�.w.w�. � li 1�•�. 'ih� � � . � . -� • .� _ . i • . .. . • ...�♦ . . ... . �•r.•��{:��.t • . . • . .. . '.: '_ � .i :�. ' . . �•t'�V�1:1/��t . . . . . .. ..Vi�� .1 . OHlKi]0�1f0[O - _ :'i:"::"s.; � �-.. � , . . TO: Board of County Commissioners � EXHIBIT FROM: Tom Newland, Planning Engineer �,,:;.,�_� � RE: Update of County 2oning Maps r="• I'o - � DATE: January 27, 1985 � � ______________________________________�________—___________--___-__ Request: To visually =eview four zoning changes that have been graphically amended to the off,icial Pitkin County 2oning Maps and approve these changes. '� Background: The Pitkin County Zoning maps were formally adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on December 27, 1982. in the , ; past three years, four land use cFtanges have been adopted by the board or others that change or alt�r these previously approved ' maps. These changes are: � • Resoltstian #84-138: Ac7option of the �'F-SRI Zone District. This resolution, signed on December 20, 1984;- was adopted by the board to improve the capability of ttic County to plan for and review ski area developments within the'�co,unty: The " board f urther resolved at this time to � rezone the Aspen i Mountain and Buttermilk ski areas from AF-1 to AF-SRI. The i boundaries of the rezoning coincide with the boundaries of the two ski areas. ! . � . I Resolution # 85-2: Establish Zoning and Rezoning witb Respect � to Certain Lanos in or Near� the Snowmass Creek, Capitol Creek and Brush Creek V311eys: On January 21, 1985, the board approved this resolution to accurately answer questions ' that arose concerning the zoning of certain lands in Pitkin County, namely Sections 25 and 36, T.9S., R.86W. and Sections ; 1 and 2, T.lOS., R.BS`W.. Zoning changes to be reflected on � the zoning maps incl,ude (see Figure A} ; - Lands in Se*tion 25 and 36 of T.9S., R.86W., shown on Figure A as "Parcel 1" have been reconfirmed as a RS-30 ; PUD zone district'; � - lands in Sections 1 and 2 of T.lOS., R.86W., shown on i . Figure A as: "Parcel 2" have been rezoned from AF-1 to ' RS-30 PUD; - lands in Section 2 of T.lOS., R.86W., shown on Figure . • ' A as "Parcel 3" have been rezoned from RS-30 PUD tp AF- ' l. Resolution # 85-5�: Adopting the Scenic Foregro�u►d Overlay: � This resolution f ormally adopted the Scenic Foreground � overlay for the Shate flighr�ay 82 Corridor Nlaster Plan and ti the Roaring Fork Ea'st Neighborhood Plan, as per the Pitkin � County Planning end Zoning Commission Resolutions #85-2 and � #65-8, respectively. The purposes of this overlay is to steer develop�nents away from the most highly visable sites on � lands within the highway corridor and to insure that develop- ment are designed to complement .the natuzal features within this highway corridor. Annezation #84-09 of the Snowmass Village Town Council: This resolution reflects the recent annexation by Snowmass Village on June 19, 1984, of adjoining lands that were previously unincorporated. • • . . Staff Actions: Four existing zoning maps.•ha.ue been .vi-sually,::��,�;;,;-, , amended to reflect the r.oning and boundary changes listed above.��''�t`=�'°�'��' .. . ;.t-.�. . . ... . . . __ ..:�-�- . . •_ .. . . .. -_h;.?crt'.��: _ . .-.. . ,•7rt. -� . .. .-. . - • , ':r;�. •�-- - • - --•-- _ . , ' .;`."�,'tfi`� . .- . . . .� , • . � . ..nrti`._ . � ,�.� _ - . ' � , ; � These maps are known as the ��r+{nQ D1_ ricf map�. Pitkin countv, j ('.olorado, Cover Sheet 1, Sheet 8, Sheet 9 and Sheet ],0. A new zoning district map, called Sheet 8a, has also been made to � teflect these changes. Listed below are the amended changes to each zoning map: Cover 5heet 1: a portion of the AF-SRI zone on Richmond Hill has been designated; the new limits to Snowmass Village are depicted; the location of the new zone district map �8a + is identified. � i. . Sheet 8: The AF-SRI zone districts have been placed on i', Aspen Mountain and Buttermilk ski areas; the Scenic Foreground j.` Overlay has been established for portions of the State ; Highway 82 corridor and the Roaring Fork East neighborhood. �: 1' Sheet 9: The Snowmass Village limits have been =evised to ;' reflect the recent annexation of June, 1984; the zoning of ' Sections 25 and 36 of T.9S., R.86W. has been re-established `� as RS-30 FUD; The portions of Sections 1 and 2 of T.IOS., � R.86W. have been zezoned to RS-30 PUD; the portion of Section 2 of T.lOS.,� R.86W. has been rezoned to AF-l. Sheet lOs the Scenic Foreground Overlay has been visually defined f or a portion of the State Highway 82 corridor; Sheet 8a: this newly created zone district map replaces the cover sheet in that portion of the county between the . southeast side of the City of Aspen and Difficult Campground. This map shows all present zoning districts in greater detail. it also reflects the AF-SRI zone district boundary on the Aspen Mountain ski area and the Scenic Foreground Overlay for the entire Roaring Fork East neighborliood. Reco�ended Action by the BoarB: Two actions are requested from i the board: ' � 1) to visually review the changes to the existing zone district maps and approve of them dnring a public hearing; 2) to visually inspect the new zone district map numbe.red . "8a" and have it endorsed by the Chairperson �f the Board of County Commissioners. � _ i s . t __ �.. .�, 'f'��r.p 'i:. ._ .,. •,,� .; .>.�.`�_...,.,,. .'�--.� �---:;�.;�..�_..:..�-'...�.., ' -; I� Il��1�r�'hl ^�Lr1�' t x'• ��CUr; '1�• r�' '� .:� i ' �� , Jf;!/-' .. . _,,.. '—_ .r„�' �ti �"a�;�, �, '��., '�/.�•� j•. }/. .��-1� .j.l': .,Z`-: ,t;. '.:�. EXHIBI'T+ �� . j�:i`� .� . 71!' ii'%� /►'} ;� v '•�i ') .:�l.,�i�;� �.::•� t .� �. �!y�,",. / � •, • •'� � .i. ,. �� i. -�,I1� y(; .;r��/:"v' ;�n,i��''��i '� f'!r' � � -;. `�,�: .�I =^�` � ��c:�t��;�; .1:-r, �,r;. ,;-�.-�:,y-/f'�;,i/� :�� !� ' .�%;Sl��, ��. .,•i� '%a/ �/�� daa�. /• �/�,� i�.:l� ' � , ��"�i'� ' r•�, `�� •;FY,�,{y..�;y �.�'�1�� ry � ;;,; ��f, . :. • , , ;.r�' t � �� . ��" it. �,. / �yXei� '��;:�� :!.•��/ .� \14�y71 '' 0 �,_) � ( ;�>.', .l � � ;. .,� \ �.;.��.� , ��%.��: � �` ��,/;��Y��,��-o->>:' ��1(.i - , .. �;Er. /�� -- � J : ` r/ �,�• �, + �'.� �.• J } ' ��fv' i �«..•y 4�•t:��.r;�.� /!J�(�:/`�0✓:�;��i ' //—� '�� ✓ .�[ �� . .�!/ .�`-': �'\.�•.' • i� ! +C;� -1'�.�•9 "��:,�, ' _ `i '�i .i.i. .� �iI� '�',�� '� ,/�. ��. �j!� •� �.;, Y` 'f,:�. Jti� '� t ��! -- . ��'+ .c�:��!.. � /: :�:��• f/;.% � �i„JJ/ •�� / �. .: �.i'.�� +�. • � � 'p• �� Y,` �� i �. • . ,' � "\ ;, �� ..� , �� I ��r.:�.. �� -� '` ?�• , . � �.:';'' �c,�, �i. � .�, ii.,:•'u'i�lYIJ7��!'l ! f:;�. r`'��:{ -� ' f� ��!' • ,m•'V`v �� / � ,• ,�;� �., :Ii / i� �r�'Y`:J�" } �j r ,%%/:%�,.,,�''�`��j�p��., •'(,' �� ,��^';�.Ni��G\�,�� '`"��`'t.,c"f'��{�r r�f �` � p�%.�.' '� \. � i�/ i �i� � 3! ;� r �, �t i� i�_ ':- ,;l' y,: i��. .,�.�,ti��. ,.( ''�„,� .�Y ��iN . � t� 1�.,��r •�•�:�.�:;� �� ( � ji�/,: •„; .�.�C,�+. '•t,`�;�t``/ �%�� -,C` t'-;�'�;t :'�;�`:;�;-<, ,�� % ��:.'''!� .'1 �. Y/� p;� "� ,• .�i�.%��,'G�.;i'"�--�i `� �'�'r,1��,�^� ;`�r.•x: '/..�`��' �� '��. .� �°�G'. �, `;,. i� it '1��l�•"�'.Ij(!^� ! ^ ��{ /y�l,�';��!�(,��j' �� y `�y „',�'f �� .�� .,i�:�.�t � %%�"�,`,:;. •/:'^ X l. "•',!,c,� •,� ;`cc: ,�>' •�' =r. .�� k��, j\�..,: �1!'� r' �`, j` ��{�„�� •, 'r '"��1 ��; r � :�.•�;�.-' %�: ��.'��5;.f��l;` ^✓';:�;. �,.:E � ; i•.. . ' 'j� �� !��. i� • _ ��I�x� !� { .`�C:�; a-: \,. X/._�. � ��_ '��; �� '�,� •� i �!i _ _ 4. V —ti_ "G--.�«_ ' t. �� !�� , , ,' _: 1 � j , , --r:i (.4�� 'Z� .�� ji � � � •. ., .� . : , ��; ` ,, '� .r�r:;';,wj�' '�•�,;�� \•�� -�� ;:. ';��< , r--�_��a.��. �/�� J •� ..f�� ,��.`i.��<�� '%�� '1' (�/ -'�� w �c. � �' j� ' �!'��.• v<if \� .��I�� `.�� 'l,, ` ,,'' '�'�%�! -��.�� •�� \' ":L��; �• %��'� �� `�31�f�f'�r/� � �rn f• ;oc. `!,�'---`�'-.'";`�x�i .t �,�. l:,_, z ..;,.� '1 � �� X/`'"�:'.c'��::��" ?y.�:�' .-/ 1� (/y.. .i/.,_., ,�t ..��,..� .. 7' � ��.. 3��ti�• r. !.�,:�� G,.. X�!��-�'' ��7• % �;, 1<i<i;•,,•�: �`.`y� 1`.� � �3.��1 1,:�/�j-.".''r�jl r�;'i� i x};;�' ',/, ."Y'f��Qr ^�/. '�,1�'r;�\'\�.�\•: � y."��J�. /'�=v'1�` '�..'��' / � .., �;�:, „ i�G"� ••.;?•iT: I� ��r� � / / �' � �/�/ �:. 't�� X`� `. =<✓\.��l�•:'�/:� �.+�'• � I �� 1�.1 / ��.��.�'C�r�,7��. �l 1 �: C,�'i`��j�;��,/ �• j%�,�,`r�' � h � F.,�';/r�..-:- ' �'�,� � � /� �i ��,;� `��Pi �' i . `.t� c��^7�� /. U�^�� 'r'�.�i r� i � �� p J\ \ �/1: �� .,''\,�1�`'�� ." '!F`�.,��'r k�'Y�.,��`�.'\' `N / \ '��.�.�, �/ �. �� '��..n � '\` • :T�'1 �� ;: �' �`�l�-�:�•r'� '%`�:�•.;:�� .. , � ` :- 7 /n1�.i,< •,�,r�. ./�� ,:, \�: �� •'� ^w=-�', � : a 1 '/�f;b,o..�.��i�" `�` ,� � '�•: S9� ��:'� '' / r . j� ��:.f��v�I�!V�i� ' i.`:%��' 1/ �l �G� � � Y �,..i.f'.��'!',r. � i �t;�'�., 1 �,�1 j n ��' ' .� `�`':-1 y `C��,��`" "-/%!r�i.ly,% � � �`�„_ "'i�.��. � 11 r.� . ,� �y � �� / . ��_�� r. C� �.�r� � C��Y' r /•�t �� ', t�/� � � � ,�y' � �.�,.�-`,�'`'.��`� " ... i\ �.� r, �. : ; � �: . v:.:c <1 !1 �.��.c,�� ,�'� ' ,. ..- j�. �� ' �•°o, �� \. �j. ,1� �`v�I '�'x;:5�:�♦ .,F;f�': �.• �--� 9�•'.� /�--�,.: �0,'v A� �� . (� �t ��.. ��`.;±C�\/�.f.Y�\ �'/�. .�t�� / j � f j �� II i-:�.�:, � ;� ..,,<,��:;� <��s- 1.�:.,\.=�. j��7- � � /�— �- �q� ;� `Si�� ,,��f`1`��°�,f� .�F;4'",r'�.�^. �� ;�l "�7 1��''� �, � I(I i /�r\� ! �i. �J Q� Y,f �i V�.�:� � ,� �' C. l-�Y�• �� /� 0 /r 1� l � �� .. ;��.\ti��'.;:;:�`�.,,rl��l;��;1 .�<1�� r./� � '� ,�`� 1� � •t1 ;�: ...;;�':,`�:1;�:i •,,� `��`.�,��: .•,�:,�'; l �� l,�(1 � �� ! � .�g � �. ,.�.i•. '�•�.• �X �cti\`� ,./•%: -.�.� �,/'�.; � •� . �""�,�/� � . � \\ �� `:. .1 ��t'�.,�)�y.:<Y�/-<<'r'� '"X,`=-�.,..�� .l,s �-�)` �� 6 ��i L �F ',:}.''� ��'', �.' � �� - �� ' � ,,,;; , ;- �. •�1�. c�iy �`%;�,�� `ti��"\` "`vs'''`'''�i�% � �� / �,'/ ''" �� . v�1^t+!' �.�}li 1x1'�'�<l'�`�D��`C'�'�"�'\�C•t�`�t�"—�',' /��' � � '/�i 1�^(�� /� ��o �^%.-- � .�� :v,t,��,�r,� .._,•�.,�ll�.��.,:�`1.�-^.`� ,,� �,\,\�-/� ! ,� �� :'\` � � �-- / ;t:�•v�4 ;:��'`1- �_�`.. ,� � �\ � �� / / /:" I 1 1 ( '� +„<, • �I•/`tti � ;�--�r.a-:.�-�- ' .. , ` .�."��'�'^` �i ; f � � ,� � i ,t 7 '�r` j{.,�� ) t'�. o ,�+t-� l.k. `1 � � _...r�+�'/J 11�1 ( � �� '� L -�---�. �� ` )�s �c� a, I` ;�.:a � y '��. --� �,�,�` � �% `` \ �,� �`h" ,,%;'/�'��.c�., ,�•,:-a�_ .�1�:s��..��. --�_ ,• 1 ,,��.J,�� o �.`, .rc, �i �.t .�� ,.,i� ..y;... ��•<< i�C � �r G� �_ �'(� rY. {� (�.."{%'.-Y.'.�'� ��' � � �O �i:� '� �ti �� i.t.��i' � i 'C i.� ; '�'1 �'?\ ��'r. L'�'':-=:. �` /�....__.f�_.✓ / O "_'` l r. �� •1} •�,t L,;i t.•. j�""'"`r-•• �� i�-� �ry " X �t�,:(`{. .� � �-/-=—'—�;�/�=-_,•'� q � m l;�`�;�r�; � t,��:�.��:::� _. �,:��--8,.��--ti;;:� o, . z�;,�''F : �.: � /l;; , �- �� . .�..� ��,��, �, ,�� ( .Y ��,. �� .- %_, �;.;;:. ;�:�=� , �%� � � - '�. , , ',Sr'�-` .J,� - ��; i•(;%`:� _��, I''r f.i _ -- }.�,f1, f•�f, l� �r�~y�( ( i � .o lj �� C��, �7�� 'n=' �( -:�J � � � � � /:.f �F. ,\ •�' 'f' :<••••�� •��.� ! �--v �. 00,�7" � �t ��' �• ••�';.�1': s --� . �` i/�^%y,' •.j�:.��:f�y� �� .7/`K�f��# '�r✓%<;� / /1 � 8400 ''%1��:�{`'<<�`��l�% '1'. ..�'"� �� - �:i!'� 3r�,��-,3.:� �.�•�.�I j %`' ' •,4�e� .,._: . ;:;..:�^:�� l �,�i �•��"�;:'. J� `:'i.3'�e�1'� •�,/.:..�.r� i � . i� ��/�-` .�^' .:,!. •� j:`j.��i'�r:�..= 6BD0 �'�.�`�,� '�•�-�;lf1r`�(i 'T:-:.'::.r�... ': � ,..�.�� L. `"`. � :;, � �_ _ � _ , -- ��^:�=-�- , :,'�'.��-1�,,�-�.- �: � � -5e� � ;;-�=-�- � � _ 1 ,��..�^, � �. 1 / � T• ` -�S.`__- �-��-a.,�,-�I ". - . -�,�.-�� I 1/� _ ' �,, ,, _- =��?�0_�,�'��.�, ��;:'% � t��---- �;� r'i�'. � S F�S� '. ��_ � 1l ,� 1�`- , , . :., ;. ;� � .� , -� ._�_��. -;�t� �, \..��_� .;;- ,;�--� � ;, -�-.�� -. .�`��_��. �� ,- � �___ � --� , - � �. �. . �.�_ �- .�_:• i' i � SOJ3 ' \ \ � 1� !_'4,.�.;,�� 1� ' ��`� �``` �• �.�� . "� � ,��..-�\' i • . 'q. . �, ' . , • _ ' • . '�. . � ` .' ' • . . � � . '.'�.� � r"-'_- ._..\`\� '� • The Aspen Tinaes Box E r:::,-::, ��:• �. .. As en Colorado J�'�'� '� �� p � r::?.�.: _. rr•. , � . . �� • ......�.-,�.7-�� ° ......... SLb�cct , _'""'--- -...�._. � PRC�OF OF PUBLICATION - STATE OF COLORADO ) COpy Of Notice ) ss. County of Pilkin ) I� William R. Duna.r►a� do soicmnly sK•ear that � I am the �blisher of THE ASPEN TIMES; kvv �J ,�� that the same is a weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in part, � AS •PITBIN OOUN Y D°U8B CODB AHBNDHBNT� .N6W CAUNTY . and published in the County of Pitkin State of Colorada, and has � �� '�' , .N07�C6 I8� .Q�YlJS`t�t-�. !c ' a generai circulation therein• that said newspaper has been pub- � �!�a� ��' '' �l�{,�� ' �_?;deJae�A.11:1rARi. '1,kaibtb�rM,�r;�ir ltshed continuously and uninterruptedly in said County oE Pitliin, ,:.tosesatP�Wa.�i:eiae:do;i�tr.aoeem�.-,. for a doners�I.eHi� doe&WiseUl+�t;A�peo� • period of more than fi[ty-tw•o conseculive w•eeks next prior c��to°°1°'��e,,;,��y,�„g to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisc- � -�ooro�dv� �"�0°' ment; that said newspaper has been addmitted to the Unfted States `'Forfo�tb�e�'�ofa�6c.�, '��r�t� . maits as second•class matter under the provisions of the Act of .bewo ei li taoa).s�.2o9o,-s�e.ssf.�;i;. March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, and that said news- �0°°�g�� "�' �.e;,, paper is a weekly newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal ��°��0tl1�'�� 11�pn 1YmM oo Deesm6r I9 : notices and advertisements with the meanin� of the laws of the 1� : - �'c t , ;,, r.•-' State of Colorado. _,_ _ ,. Th�t the annexed legal notice or adverlisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said weekly newspaper for the period of � consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the iss�e of said newspaper dated DeCember 19 A.D., 19� and that the last publication o( said notice was in the issue of said news- paper dated A.D., I9— l / Subscribed and sworn to 6efore me, a notary pu lic in and for County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, this �.day of r A.D., 19� C� \ Notary ublic � i b1y commission expires 1� " ` I