HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.reg.11101986 ,!',.' ,y��., • . �
�:, "
y�• � . . ., .. � . . ._ .. ._. . .
i
• 'N
�� +.. �,..x c'�.u:t'd�aFY. �Y. . Y�",r�,�5�+-::'� � J+;,+'n'� . �.`:�n�c .r�`.,'.`._:��..,,c��F�"f',�.,�����,,,�,_—_
tia. � �,.,: r�F? . ��r'K"�r3 d:tr� -�'�";t"!"'t�d�`.`z�`ec�°"Y',rP �i*�,P
�
I
PITRIN COUNTY �
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
�
MINIITES i..:. ., -
. _ . q.i,�: '
REGUI,AR MEETING� ' ' NOVEMBER 7.0. 1986
PR�3ENT: HELEN.RLANDSRIID, BOB BRAUDIS, BOB CHILD, GEORGE MADSEN, �',,
.e---+ ' TOM.,BLAKE
1 -------------- ° -.
4 Helen Klanderud opened the meeting at 9:05 a.m. -
�
! PUBLIC HEARING: TASMAN 1041 FLOOD PLAIN REVIEW.FRANCIS RRIZMANICH
. a !;,:.;.:`•.;:-.
! Francis presented this item.
� t.
It is a request by Irving Tasman to construct an 85o s.f. t� �'
addition to an existing residence in Redstone. It is affected by �•''�. '
the 100 year floodplain of the Crystal River. The expansion is
made possible by the vacation of Beech Drive in Redstone. " '
� The Planning Engineer states that the addition will be outside ' . �
the floodplain. Tom Newland would like the Engineer's Certifica- �
tion Stamp placed on the site plan as a condition of approval. �
Environmental Health recommends that no hazardous materials or ��
waste be stored within the l00 year flood boundary.
Helen opened the Public Hearing for public comment. There being
none, this section of the Public Hearing was closed. '
It was pointed out the construction was started before this was �
, approved. Francis stated that a foundation permit had been "': -
-.,'
obtained by Mr. Tasman.
� Helen asked if the conditions contained in the Resolution per-
taining to Beech Drive had been met. Francis replied they are not
� met yet but will be incorporated into the conditions of approval.
E
_ .
'i Planning Office recommends that the Board direct the staff to tt
j draft a resolution of approval with conditions. 1�'
; PLANNING OFFICE MEMO CONTAINING REFERRAL CODIBSENTS AND WNDITIONS �
� OF APPROVAL IS MADE A PART OF THE PUBLIC HEARING RECORD.
I �+.
� GEORGE MADSEN MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
Bob Child had more questions. He asked if construction was L
taking place in the setback. Francis had not seen Building Permit �
application. Jim Wilson stated construction was not taking place ��
within setback.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1 NOVEMSER 10,1986 �
�:
�-�._
�� ,.
, ` ":,'
«:�. ;.
� v .
`+� ;:.a—, .r9- , . .. . .. .. . . . . - ---- �
l;A������yF .... - ` � � !� .
�u! �..:. - .. .
i'p'����'a`f'k'�. � . . � . . ` .
�'�»,}% - . � . . . . � � .
..����� ,� . _ . � -. � , . . . . . .. .
� �� � � �� ' . ,
x �
��'�.�.,
��-�'-�.;�'��`_
� _
���`y .
Y : ' .._. -
a _ _,:
w �-
� ��-�y� : . . . �-. . '
Y.�[.,Y:...�:�'1� . � . � - .
�� � ;:±1
;a:,.. _...;�,', i
�'�` � '�
i...
•�o.{ �•a . ' '
��., �
�
�
�5 D'�.��-..t � _ ��``,."�'�'S?�i,�i''L.3'"r�'i��E"�,,,�e3^`_���},�57:, i�` ���jA��.�.'�u�.cWP.'�','i.- ...�.�..;`.�ry^��'�����,`;C��-.�}` �.i�-'_�.'M�
�
Flood Plain determination: does Pat Dobie qualify as a registered �
� professional engineer. Francis answered that Dobie is a P.E.
i :. .
Bob C. also felt fence separating driveway and playground should -
be '�childproof." Mr. Tasman stated that he cannot put up a fence
on public property,:�'�It is in the Conditions. Helen aqreed that � `
- tais is contained in.COndition #B.
��3
GEORGE MADSEN MADE A MOTION TO DRAFT A RESOLUTION WITH CONDITIONS �� :
NOTED BY THE PLANNING OFFICE. BOB BRAUDIS SECONDS. .
� There beinq no further discussion, a vote was taken. All are in
I favor. Motion Carries.
. ,:
i Mr. Tasman asked to read a letter he had prepared. He would also ..x ,,�+'
I like it submitted as a part of the record. IT IS INCLUDED AS A " -
�:r.:..
! PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD AS EXFIIBIT 1. He concludes that he s" r'
� would like $1,400.00 fee returned. -
---- �.. •
PUBLIC HEARING:BERIRO-PREISSMAN CARETAKER DNIT.FRANCIS RRIZMANICFi � �
Francis presented this item. The applicant is requesting Special , •;
, Review approval to construct a 50o sq.ft. employee unit as an ti .
addition to a 5,000 sq.ft. residence at lot 4, Ridge of Red � .'
! Mountain Subdivision. This is 1.76 acres and is zoned R-30.
! Francis stated that this application meets all of the criteria `� '
� outlined in Section 3-8.13 of the Land Use Code.
i
Francis stated that Tom Newland pointed out that Red Mountain i �
Road is over capacity. The County does plan to do some upgrading "��
R, J on this road and as a part of this approval, the applicant should _
� commit to joining a road improvement district if one is formed.
Planning Office recommends that the Board direct the Staff to
draft a resolution of approval with conditions as recommended.
� Helen opened the Public Hearing for comment. There being none,
the public hearing portion was closed.
ALL STAEF COMMENTS AND CONDITIONS ARB CONTAINED IN PLANNING �
OFFICE MEISO DATED 11-10-86 AND MADE A PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD '
AS EXHIBIT 1. 1`
�,:t1'
GEORGE MADSEN MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED !'
BY THE PLANNING OFFICE CONTAINED IN TI� ABOVE MENTIONED MEMO. f: '
BOB B12AUDIS SECONDS. �' ` .
�:! •
Discussion: Sob Child wanted to discuss the road. Bob is in ��'
favor of taking the P & Z position, which is that BoCC not grant ���
� any units on Red Mountain until we are able to upgrade the road.
IBOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 2 NOVEMBER 10,1986 �
<i
� �:..>'.
__ 7:�.-_-.� � - .
-- . ;;.-..,..:���� .
.....�� � - i_.� .
�.::"��.-- •�i - - - - '. !
..�. ��.-�., a� � •;. . . "' ;. .
N�y�'s 4<` , . -
�FG.., . . . . �
� � • � t.
��� . ' . . . . . .
'�1y .. . .. � � . . . . • . . . .
��S�4�b�?�. � . . , ' � 1 1 .
7 S�'t'j` , . � � . . ' � .
�a�1 . �: - _ . . � '. :- .
� C .
t �1-'+.}.I
� .�'' .. ._ . �.. -......_�-:�.
� �Z ..1�',� ' . . . :
{
!�A �* . ' . � .
y ``.., .,_� .
'�;C: ':'�i . � .
f � '1;�
1-::,z ``
:�f` �
�����F . . � . , .. � . .: . . .. . ....
` tl
-' t, � �y§..r�r•��t�°x'��:'3�5� yS�.Sa*�-c v � 'w.?„=- �t a` �t t,,,,, - i'kc,�1°'�'�"�`""y'��S T'�_ss�
�-.'�i £�t y i-._ ���i�-'� �f�-` � s:; ��MY..:4v..�_ h::..,.. ,+. :°.-�!,...{'P S_.f•+u� t. s
't'•�+� �. �,._'=�!4 ... �_:. .. . ... .� .
y. .. .
Notwithstanding the condition that they join a road improvement �
, district. We have a bad situation on this road now and we
should not add more traffic to it until we know there is a road ""
improvement district or that we can upgrade the road.
There being no further discussion, a vote was taken. ` _�"
AYE: HELEN KLANDERUD, GEORGE MADSEN, BOB BRAUDIS :�
'��� NAY: BOB CHILD "-
,, ' ;,.
� Motion Carries. -
Bob feels that this should be the trigqer for calling a meeting _
� of the homeowners.
, Francis asked if there was a message he should take to Alan.
i Commissioners replied that they would like to discuss it further
first. George requested that it be put on a future agenda. <�.-�''�
i
� ' . ------ -'y" �
� PUBLIC MEETING: GOTTLIEB CARETARER UNIT,FRANCIS RRIZMANICH
j ,
Francis presented this item. The applicant is requesting Special . �•
i Review approval to construct a 500 s.f. employee unit as an
addition to a 6,000 s.f. residence located at 0481 Glen Eagle � '
; Drive. The project meets all of the criteria for an employee
� unit as outlined in Section 3-8.13 of the Land Use Code. ,
� This unit has existed for a long time. The owners did some
remodeling over the past summer and have decided to bring this
request to the Board and legalize it, per provisions in the Code.
j Bob Child asked if the fireplace already existed. Francis replied
. �� that the fireplaca has been there for as long as the house. .
Francis requested that the condition referring to the fireplace
be deleted, since this is a pre-existing fireplace.
> PLANNING OFFICE MEMO CONTAIIJING REFERRAL AGENCY COiIMENTS AND
PLANNING OFFICE CONDITIONS IS HEREBY MADE A PART OF TfII: PIIBLIC �
� RECORD AS EXHIBIT 2. 7
�.� Sob Child questioned the comments made by Ann Bowman. She states .
, that there is a bedroom adjacent to the caretaker unit. Warren `
Palmer, architect for the applicant, said that he had spoken to ��,., .
Ann and that she had no objection to having the bedroom attached,
since that was the situation on the existing unit. The doorway
was designed to be between the caretaker unit and the bedroom. �' '
- � Helen asked if the unit wasn't to be approved the way it exists. ! ."
Francis replied that this is a pre-existing unit and the Code � .
does allow for approval of units that do not meet the criteria. �
Helen stated that this is what we should do. The unit is actually ;�..�. .
; 750 s.f. �'r'
i
! SOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 3 NOVEMBER 10,1986 �
, � � ,
k'
� ��
.� � _
�
f ''�� " �
Y
.•,,,...-- 't"V:+ '''--=-
y,�,'�-'��g4 i
'k F +.
�,�'�n �;: .
%' '� r " ,
�� R^� .. . . . � ,
�A��f�' :
���(Y . � .. . . � . .
����i� = ,
�
Pf`
�''� �•� " � . . . � . . ' .
� �
� �� � . � � �� � ' ... '. . . .
1 v v - _ .
r' : '
.r,. -
�Y4r .
�R
,'�+ ♦
�1.. .. `s:4
r•;'
i:.:<,.:"'•, ..;,
-
",,�. : , _ ,
:� . ,. .
� � s
. . : . ,: ; ; ::; 3 .
.y+�5�' ��t �rt'� +r�- _ y�- x a �,f�i�v°� � �.sd� "33Z
-. 'xt." ,`�i.'�%v". ���'`G3`���'v+ct R.,�,�vk�.,#��'-�lr'e%c.a�."� }� �y���� .�°�n.._ .�.lS..w�,.�..,r..����*!
"M � . . . .. —_
�
�
Helen wants the resolution to include the exact square footage, �
' with the fireplace and also include the fact that this is a pre- � '
existing unit.
� GEORGE MADSEN 'MADE A MOTION TO DIRECT PLANNING OFFICE TO PREPARE i;.°''=`�:��;,;
� A RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL AND TO INCLUDE THE EXACT SQUAP,E FOOTAGE�
• � TfiE FIREPLACS AND THE FACT THAT THIS IS A PRE-EXISTING UNIT. BOB
BRAUDIS SECONDS.
? .
�
' There being no further discussion, a vote was taken. All are in
� favor. Motion Carries.
' '. . . . ����� .F.
RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS ;c'.::;;`
a) Gibbons 1041 Floodplain Reso.,Francis Rrizmanich
Bob Braudis Made a Motion to Approve. George Madsen _
seconds. All are in favor. Motion Carries.
b) Piffer 1041 Reso., Francis Krizmanich �
! George Madsen Made a Motion to Approve. Bob Braudis
seconds. '
!._.'.
� Bob Child pointed out that line #1 on Paqe 2. of the �;�'..
f resolution is missing. Francis will add missing
' sentences.
1
� All are in favor. Motion Carries.
: � c) Beriro Plat Amendment SubDiv.Exempt.Reso.,Francis
; xrizmanich
,
; Bob Braudis Made a Motion to Approve. George Madsen
iseconds. All are in favor. Motion Carries. _
� .. . ____� t1 '
I
ASPEN-MASS GMP/REZONING FRANCIS KRIZMANICH �.;.'
!i..; .
Francis stated that this item is to be tabled again. (Second
time). He said that Gideon Kaufman has been retained and needs
more time for review. -'
�.
GEORGE MADSEN MADE A MOTION TO TABLE AND RESCHEDULE. BOB BRAUDIS �
SECONDS. E' .
There being no further discussion, a vote was taken. All are in iA1
favor. Motion Carries. �` `.
\�'� ; BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 4 NOVEMBER 10,1986
...i i;
I
i
- �,` r'
.. {
. � ����� � � . � . .
}
»..-z. --�;y 7
y _
� �'q.�,�,� , .
�r ��`r � .. . . � . .
� "�s�"�.;� - ,
�� .
� -
��J� �' r � _ � .
{�x ,
J�3;
'fi'��Z3:�ti . . � . ' '
�y S� .-$ . � . ., . - . . .
� fX:Tjj. ' .. '� ,
t�,�� r+ . - . . � . _ ._...... ,_: _ �
„ . '. ..".-...�,.;.
3' !'x . . � _�
�R�f x�{ ;
�� � .��'
� s�.� =rr - - � . � .
'�R?!;1•:i`k`'rv.':( '
(.-`: �`x:� .
{;:�r::��:�'1�.. ..
•i:�`f: M,V . . .
��EN�� � _ .
� �
,, . ;. , ` - . _ � r
� ` ,�`�,��J�'�"�'-` �axaa."��'�^.��c�°�'�, '[-°�t �s��'�''�'"r��s.�x�;iz `���-"����-���.�� �... .. �
`Y.' . .`�'1 f���` . , ::�-. ... �' .�. �Ia: S� . � ../. • .MJ� �f"�
P
�
. . ' � � . . . . . . . . .. � . i .
. . ����� . ' . - . I .'- . .
ELECTION CAMPAIGNING DISC[JSSION. HELEN KLANDERIID
` Helen presented this item. She stated that this is a result of
' • '" three lifferenc incidents which occurred, that troubled her. � -
i `
_� �,.;
1) Chuck Carleton's public comments re: Maint.Facility
' 2) Eve Homeyer's campaign against the railroad which � :
iincluded an editorial to RFTA employees in the RFTA News.
3) Possibility of a County employee�s involvement in the
� � Maint. Facility. �
�
• 1) Regarding Chuck's position. After the BoCC was "blind- �Y������
sided" by the FAB at the Public Hearing for the 1986 Budget, it ' ��� ,
� was agreed that BOCC and FAB should have been talking all year `i.'-�'<
long. Helen stated that she had lunch with Chuck after the lst of `-"i
the year and suggested that if there were disagreements, some
joint meetings were necessary. •
It troubled Helen that with no previous conversations with the ' �
BOCC, Chuck came out in opposition to the Maint. Facility. She �
� feels that Chuck had plenty of opportunity to disayree with the �.
� BoCC position. She stated that as an appointed Board member, he
( is not expected to agree with BOCC on every issue, but that this � �
sort of effort is not productive. '`•
iGeorge stated that Chuck was the County representative to the
; City Council, who urged them to go along with a consolidated
£acility. He does not understand the change. Helen agreed. ;
. �
2) Regarding Eve's campaign: Helen stated that this was an i°,:
open letter to all RFTA employees. It states that the RailYOad
- vote is a bad idea for a great many reasons.
� Helen said that Eve is Chair of the RFTA Board and is using an ..;
� in-house publication to try to persuade employees to vote a
� particular way. Helen questions whether this is appropriate. .i
I
� 3) Bud Eylar was present to explain the third concern. The -
individual involved is Bruce Vandergaw of Fleet Maintenance, The `
original plan was to do a County informational mailer and a slide �'' �
presentation. When the slide presentation was shelved, a number
of employees thought that they would still like put something out .
separate from the mailer. A collection was made at the shop which
netted $100-$150. Bruce picked up the tab for the remainder and
put out a couple of paid political announcements.
�;�
Bud said that Bruce and the employees involved did not realize !�t
that a disclaimer was necessary on their handouts. i��`',
H.,>.
� BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 5 NOVEMBER 10,1986
i �
__' a'
. ;_,.
. . �e i -.;S r-..
�.� .a � ,. . , _
� ���ow� . . .. ..
��, r .�,' .
r���. . . . . . . . . . .
`T'�,s�Aaa r : .. � : � . . ` .
Yry��4 `r^'.- - - . _ ,
�$��� � - � . ' � � � . .
S�k;�.c�y{.' � ,
��. t';�,
�- ''. r:s-'_
��� � '` , .. ' . _ -
r `'
����"�'
� n +'.:��;� ' . . c . .
rrti! �r �,' . . � . � ,
�"�f"�t':,;=�
��,
�,4�_`'Jy .�LS��..Sy I
j T
j�'�::':`�, . . .
.'/;y��:,. _
Y
.< t�'� �7x�fi�' 5�., ."`r�'r6Y�� �ra"'��ts�._.. {A' 7:ysa'-.h�r'�§'�'if��_, .s_Y...��±�`.5���.'�'iLz4`s�";Yr+�?"'��n ..
4. � .oxv r.F,c-. ,. .. �'. .,,. . ..: .. '. ... . . �
Tom Smith was present and stated that the County Attorney�s �
� office was not consulted reqarding these items. They do raise � ,. , .
some issues on which there are some statutory :provisions that
govern this type political activity by elected, appointed ± ,
officials and employees. He would like to prepare a memorandum -
�on what some of the bbundaries are before the Board makes any
: ' decisions on how it wants tc handle these items.
. �� :
r
RASCO - REOUEST FOR CLARIFI��A.TION, TOM SMITH �
? Tom Smith presented this item. He summarized the points in the �
� packet material.
� '` : �
. � In May 1985 Herb Klein approached the BOCC regarding the 360 acre L'`�" •'`
I:::,5:,. ...
parcel which was created in the settlement of the Morman Estate !
� the Count was a ''''''. '
( y party to that). The request was for approval +a• _:
� to subdivide tha parcel. The Board said no at that tima because
it was inconsistent with Paragraph A-D of the Court Order (which -
� states the remaining 36o acres shall be covenanted in perpetuity
� against further subdivision and limited to agricultural uses. - . .
i s•� .
! The question now has to do with an interpretation of the final • •
clause limited to agricultural uses. Kasco Investments is now „
the owner of the 360 acre parcel and has applied for 1041 Review �
i for the purpose of building a single family residence on the
1 property. P & Z raised the issue as to whether or not the
� residential use as proposed is inconsistent with the stipulation
in the Court Order referred to. 1 •..
� There are potential implications with respect to the East Sopris ;.
� Creek Road vacation. Gary Esary explained that the County is f
presently in litigation on the vacation of East Sopris Creek '
Road. Litigation would be affected somewhat by a decision to
" '� grant Herb's request. �
`� Herb Klein stated that he does not feel East Sopris Creek Road �,
access as a problem. There is another access thru Grace Huffman's
property (A Deeded easement) . Applicant would use Capitol Creek
Road exclusively. �
Herb feels the most important thing is that if you are going to
restrict the use of property, the restriction must be in very �,� .
clear and unequivocal language. The restriction cannot be 7..: •
imposed by implication. He feels there is nothing that says the
applicant cannot build one house.
I Tom disagrees very strongly. There is no reason that you have to �
have a residential use on the property in order to maintain -
; agricultural uses. Farmers lease land to neighboring farmers. �
Granting approval of a single family residence is fine with him, i.�
i but it is not consistent with the language of the Court order.
� There is a lot of planning history and planning recommendations � "
!
� BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 6 NOVEMBER 10,1986 b '
�
_ I ��
-T��
��t,� >:%� .._, = . �_ . _ .
t'���4�'. --
,f,s !M1r
� !�
��r� ,' . . . . . ' . .
� w.
��� : ,
�"�`r�7 _ . . - - . . . , . � - . � , � . .
���E :_=r'. .� ' � � . : . � , , � .
�N -.. . . . . . . . .
�� � `:J�.: .. . . . . � . -
ul+�`z�:y�%�rC,�.:':- . . � .
.7"'� .�,. . .
�
cdk-�rn .�� .. . ., . . . , . . . " ..
'x����`..; , , _ � _..,..�- � ....:..._...� . .
4
; � �
Y��� -:Z'.'.� ' . . � � �
�q�,t•.,,,;.y;i;'if i
.,,;#��' ' '
� �
.�� .– e.'4.- �.�..�.r�tru..�.r`^.��k« F"s'."a s'�'-�_.%$'y.CA�-'�.. . .� ��F���.�.,�.��C''`_'. ., .,.._..n.'r+ ��3�-�b�k,'��,�€'�'��" ^��^'j,�5� � .r--..—. _—_
behind this order. Nothing indicates that a residential use was �
� •intended on this parcel. Everything, Tom states, indicates quite
the contrary. +
Bob Child explained the Board of County Commissioner's feeling at
the time of the decision. It was that even one home up there was
�inappropriate. The county road was not maintained and never
� should be maintained because of the difficulty of maintenance.
There were wildlife considerations and we felt it totally
; inappropriate to subdivide the property at all. It was extremely
i difficult for the Board to approve the three homes. That however,
was the number the Board agreed to.
• Helen asked the Board if they are ready to make a decision. All �
Commissioners agreed with the Court's decision as it is already °� ��'�
t4x - .,.
stated. (No home may be built).
'R.F
PIIBLIC COMML�NT - �
1) Chris Landry of Mt. Sopris Nordic Council was present to �
explain to the Commissioners the Spring Gulch Trail System in
Pitkin County. It is free and open to the public. He stated • �
that his group would like to do something in the Redstone area ,.
� similar to this. His request is for the donation of some traffic � .
I control signs. Bud Eylar was present and said he will see if the � �
; County has some at the shop. If not he will get some for the �'
� Council.
2) Tom Dunlop was next. He stated that the Environmental ��..
Health Officers in the State of Colorado are getting together to
organize an attempt to restructure the food service license �' .
�`. program for the entire state. He would like an endorsement of ""
's the concept. This is an attempt to raise more revenue through the �_ •
� ; food service program. TOM BLARE MADE A MOTION TO ENDORSE THE
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICERS EFFORT TO RESTRIICTURE FOOD SERVICE �'
� LICENSE PROGRAM FOR THE STATE OR COLORADO AND TO ADTHORIZB THE
� CHAIR TO SIGN SIICH A RESOLIITION. BOB CHILD SECONDS. All are in
i favor. Motion carries.
C �
3) Irving Tasman was back to explain a problem he has. He �
understood he would be able to get his building permit today upon
approval. Francis explained that there would be a two week delay �
since a resolution of approval has to be prepared and presented '
to the Commissioners. for approval at their next meeting. (Two
weeks) . He requests a waiver of the two week wait and the „
qranting of his building permit today so that he can continue to
work while the weather is good. HELEN KI�NDERUD MADE A MOTION TO �
WAIVE THE TWO WEEK WAITING PERIOD AND GRANT APPROVAL FOR TfiE
BUILDING PII2MIT. TOlt BLAKE SECONDS. All are in favor. Motion ,�
carries. '�l; ,
4) Bob Child asked about the status of Lee Schwaller's claim. �
' BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 7 NOVEMBER 10,1986 !• '
3;,
h
� �, '. .. .. .. . ._ . . .�.. . , ....� . . .
_�
'a .. ". ... . : ...' � .
r ....�. ...... �•�
,a i�
– - �
Ci ..: , -.. . - '....
�w5d
�'%L..� ✓y: - � ' . .. .
�� �.:., . . . � � ' .
r�� . ' � . � , ., .
!•`;�'Y - . ' . .. �
��• ;� . . ' . 1 � . .
�+ �' � . . . . .
1�f`�?'r' - . . � , - . .
��yC .
{`'E i
^� ]I,.Y. � _ ., . .. �
Y ^„`. . . .._
1-p%; �}::.�i � '
'�:j
L'+ �
{�r
I;,�:,'i
.,,r ,�u
� .j, .. 1 . . .. . '..
�� � - � :: - : .. �.� ..d . .
�ky;�` , �-:KS1�-Y `°��'�c�",�`y,�rd,�s'X 3%�.ti"'".�,.�,:Ke4s�J<4�-�-, � ��4�, .�'.£�. �`:�'''' � .,. ..'�.�xf����f���k�''�6M��.�`��� —
. . . ..t d."i' �r �7.�. .. .
}
Helen thought the matter was to be handled between the County �
Attorney's office and Bud Eylar. Bud was present and explained �
that he had received a report from the engineer. It was distri-
` buted to Gary Esary, Spero Niaharos and himself. Bud stated that
? he would not release the report without Gary's authorization and
; Gary was out of.town last w�ek. Bob will tell Lee that Bud will i-�
j be talking to Ga'ry regarding the release of the report. �
_._.,._i PiTBLIC HEARING: 1987 BIIDGET FOR PITKIN COUNTY ROAD IMPROVEMENT � '
DISTRICTS. LYNN DUNIAP '
� —
� Districts are: Mountain Valley, Highlands, Brush Creek,
I Twining Flats, Crystal River Estates,
Holland Hills and Redstone Ranch Acres �;.';., ,, .
. � f:,,;;,♦-, .
Bud Eylar began the presentation with Crystal River Estates. He �
� stated that they have over-expended their budget for 1986. That f;'-�� ,
� Sighorn Excavation was to put in approximately $8,60o worth oP
culverts and ditches. With about $6,000 worth of the tvork done, ='�n
; Bighorn asked for payment. This was done. In the spring Bighorn
� was to come back and complete the project, but it was found that :.:�`
� his backhoe had been sold and therefore he could not complete his r''
i contract. In August Dreager Excavating was hired to finish the ' �
� job. He would not complete the project for the balance of the � •
contract. The culvert and ditch work cost approx. $2,000 more '�* ,
i than C.R. Estates had budgeted. They are requesting to borrow �
the $2,000 from Road and Bridge (to be repaid out of their 1987 ,' '
mill levy). Bud explained that there will be an appropriation
for this which will come before tha BOCC.
� Helen requested that Bud follow up and see if anything can be
� done with Bighorn, since they did not honor their contract. , ;
I Helen opened the Public Hearing at this point and asked for �"' =
" r comments. There being none this portion of the public hearing ' �'?'
� was closed. ,
Lynn explained that this public hearing was just to inform the
� Board of the Crystal River Estates request and that no formal
approval is necessary at this time.
•� MINQTES - MEETING OF OCTOBER 27.1986
There are no corrections or additions. Minutes stand approved as "�' �
� presented.
, I RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS '
I 1) ist Readina: Resolution Levying Property Tax for Pitkin
County and It's Road Improvement Districts, Lynn Dunlop ,�
i ;��)
� Tom Blake would like this to be a little more informative >
� for the public. He would like to see the total budget I " '
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 8 NOVEMBER 10,1986 �. ..
�
i'
� `�
-__ I y,
� _. , .... -
..s.- � , -
-•, ,, �,� "
Y..�.�#� _ '.
��`s'� -.`,;-
�y.r �<.`, .. . _ . . .
�,f-.�r�e'. - • -
��'°-�'.�.�.
��`,�, • .
,
��.., } , , �
�,�,t �,,:"�
��,�,,, ,
� ``
'x�"�.zr �,�' � � � . � _
�'n1 ,i-,�,.., . . . _.
� 'l1�FT�:' . .
� ::�i,:..:Yi:.:^..::�..;. ..-. . .
�Y .: �
5y 1'..
,
•Ji� t'i
f°
.`k��"�., � . '
�� .. .. . . . � . . .. . ...
. ��
'k�' .. �„ryr�4,a, "�`s�MS�ay�,..-�"�.�°' ✓'r�r�.r,3``�+},t����..��� .,.<* `a'�'�$`�-s'Fa��'�a•,y�s�i,. .... _r. .a'J�.'ri�'��d�d"�T��r�'-K .'.-.��.
-. . __ . fs.M _ „�i,. . . � .rv . .�... . :;�f« ��ksJ'i..� �.. .
. .. . •:.. _�t�'--..
figure and the percentage of change in the mill levy as �
� regards format. ; ._ _ ,
�
TOM BLAKE MADE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLIITION �;. ,:
LEVYING PROPERTY TAX FOR PITKIN COIINTY AND IT'S ROAD t";'=:i.:�;..
i IMPROVEI�IENT DISTRiCTS ON FIR.ST READING. BOB CHILD
SECOND�. �he�e being no further discussion, a vote was
"._� taken. All are in favor. Motion Carries.
,
� 2) Soil Conservation Services, Mark Fuller I �
j {
The Soil Conservation Service is prepared to contract for �
' work in Redstone to close off the channel of the Crystal
• River that has threatened a number of homes with flooding j:',::;,,: :'��
for the last few years. This agreement is for our share �,^ti'
of the funding (its an 80/20 grant) estimated at $4,000.
Total project will be approximately $20,000.
`_F� .
BOB CHILD MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGREEMENT WITH THE
� SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE. TOM BLAKE SECONDS. There being '
no further discussion, a vote was taken. AlI are in
1 favor. Motion carries. � '
3
3) 1986 Road Management Plan - Formal Adoption, Tom Newland � !
� �
This plan was adopted at the September 22, 1986 meeting .'
however, it is recommended that the Board approve the
plan by resolution. John Eldert explained that this is �.'
just the plan, not the funding for it.
,
BOB BRAUDIS MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE TAE RESOLIITION � .. r
ADOPTING THE 1986 ROAD MAINTBNANCE pLAN, WITfi AMENDMENTS. ''-�i
rl TOM BLARE SECONDS. �`„
. I
George would be in favor of doing projects that require
' more attention immediately. Woody Creek Road, for -
' example. Capitol Creek is another one. Tom Newland .
j explained that there is no schedule attached to this,
I just a plan. There being no further discussion, a vote
was taken. All are in favor. Motion carries.
4) Establish Distribution of Municipal Share of County Sales ' �
Tax Resolution, Debe Nelson '•'
Debe explained that this does not effect the amount of
� money that comes to the County in any way. The split of
� the sales tax is 57&/43�. This only sets the distribution i
of the 57� to the municipalities. Tom Blake asks if a
review is possible of the way the split of the 57� occurs i.,�
(as established in 1978). Once alternatives are received
by Board, Tom may be willing to discuss a change in the
distribution with the other City/TOwn Councils, but not �
BOARD OF COTJNTY COMMISSIONERS 9 NOVEMBER 10,1986 ��, �
1'.;'
i;�.�.���.:. ��•�
Y� �.-;� .�y!':;" .:;-: . . . '� �� ', �.... .. ' . .
. . , __, . .. . . ,. .
t��-. . . . . . . _ .. � . - ..... '
}���- . . . . .. .
� �� � � . . � . . . � , . , . . .
�� '
�i�,� ,. � � .
� s�=
�
. .�.���.� �� . . . .
'�c.3 F. � . .
15�A��f : . � . ' . . . . .
�aY � �'{��� - � . . �
e'�.. ,
�S"•3, :����4.� - ' . ` . .. ' ' .. . .
e`:rt'.. . . . .
ti�^t , '
��
/
'•ii;�;)�v,
1'.
1^�.':�� " � .
��(.�tiJ.''��'}T' � . ,
•'�' 1 .
, t i,,� �a � :�v+ v x�,.r�k��x r ..y, ,�.i ;e Q�.kta `-t'�' .�*� . c�:x ,p��c�..-,..��f..Z�+��r�-t�..�� .
w
� . ,..^ ✓.__�� �_!..": ..:,�'. w ., ,,•..? x,:�.. -.�.� a4r _,.'� '`c r k�YT'Sr f 'Si�r . .
1 -' . . . ..:. - . . .. _., . . .,,._ , ...r. ,......s� �. :
, at this point. �
TOM BLAICE MADS A MOTION TO APPROVS THE RESOLUTION ;
ESTABLISHING DISTRIBUTION OF MUNICIPAL SHARE OF CODNTy ;
SALES TAX. BOB BRAUDIS SSCONDS. There being no further
discussion, a vote was taken. All are in favor. Motion
carries. '
"M� �>'.
5) Law Enforcement Assistance Fund Resolution, Ellen i.
Ahderson ' "
•,:. ';
i
+ TOM BI,AKE MOVES APPRpVAL. GEORGE MADSEN SECONDS. E11en
1 Anderson states that press release will be issued
_ regarding this grant. There being no further discussion,
a vote was taken. AZ1 are in favor. Motion carries. -
,.s ,;.;'
PUBLIC HEARING: REVISIONS TO FITKIN COUNTY pERSONNEL PLAITQAL AS ', -.•
RECOMI�NDED BY pRB-BILL KIPP
This item refers to Revisions to Chapters I, IT, III and VI of
the Pitkin County Personnel Mannual. �
Bill explained a correction on Page 16. Georqe asked if the Ski ' �
Pass "Bonus or a Benefit" question was a budget consideration or �• �•
if PRB had a recommendation. Bill stated that direction at this
; time was to consider it a bonus for time worked, but that more
� time to research it will be necessary.
� Staff recommends approval of the revisions as proposed with the ;� �'
! exception oE an "Additional Sick Leave" policy.
i
TOM BLARB lip�pE A MOTION TO APPROVE REVISIONS TO PITKIN CODNTY ;
PERSONNEL MANIIAL. GEORGE MADSEN SECONDS. Bob asked if a third
= ^ reading was necessary because of typo. Tom oken said page was -. �
: correct on £irst reading, so it is not necessary. There being no
further discussion, a vofi.e was taken. AlI are in favor. Motioa
carries.
J 1ST RF.ADING & SET P'U$LIC HEARING• ODEN PURCHASE OF COMMUNITY
� CENTER LAND AND 1ST F'ADING & SET PUBLIC HEARING OF SALE ORDIN !�
; ANCE. MARK FtJLT,ER
Mark explained that Dr. Oden has requested that the County sell '
to him that portion of the Community Center property that '� �' �
underlies the existing access easement to his property. The
Board gave conceptual approvaZ at its l0/13/86 meeting. He would •
like to process the sale ordinance. The sale price is $100,000, •
Dr. oden will pay $1,000 advance upon approval of this and the
balance at closing. George asked if the Hospital Board has been ���
informed of this pending sale. Mark said no, but he will do so. �;j`
Aelen asked if this parcel was developable? Mark replied no, t*�,
• � $OARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 10 NOVEMBER 10,1986 E ;
�: .
� � �
� 1 -
� .;� - ,. _: _ .
,� ��3 - ... - a
:..-.. .... .-.,. . .. ;, ,
. , � : �:_�.
�'.��fi�� . _ "
�����.:�. . •
� �S � � . � . � . .
�'q'y'`u� . . � . ' . . .
;. �!F :... . - . . . . � ..
a.a:��
�v� >:�'.
'�f���7ti � . � . . . . ' . � ' . - .
��z�. �: . , . .. , . ' . , . .
�3 f., � � . . . . , . .
f�p4 � .�' .. . . .
}� -�'T.t'..� . �.. �
,� : . . .. . . . .. .. .
�C�'4�.-��� ' , . . ... . = .
..
. �:!}.,`1�;_x`. . , . . ' _.. '
t4�Zrt � . . . �� � . . �
S a� 1
r ,'�fi �
t
1.. ,
.�ii,:?LSY"M'kx� . . �
��' � . . � . . . -
�� . ; .. . . � �.',� �f t k �:� sF���4�3r1 .
-h,�r ^c,.�,yc tG'��' 1:r�eG4 � ��"`4•c� c�� '� F�$`� ����,'��.__. '�� a�'� t� "w
4- - ..... ..�•'�lif .. V..a._. . . ._ .r,...�..�. ... . ." _ . . .... . '_'... . .." ' ' '" . r�_—
Helen asked that a specific stipulation be made that there not be
. a building envelope on this parcel. Mark will handle this.
� .. _.
Mark Fuller pointed out that Dr. Oden is willing to lease the i '
property back to the County for Community Center use until such ''. :.
time as it passes from County ownership. He stated further that i�.�=��''�:`-,
Dr. Oden wants to spzcifically reserve the right to clOse off i.'�'
that property at such time as the County should give it up.
This request is for approval of the Sa],e and Leaseback Agreements r '
and to set the Public Hearing for December 22, 1986 at 2:00 p.m.
I`;
gpg CIiILD MADE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL ON FIRST READING. BOB I{.y`.;:
_ BRAUDIS SECONDS. There being no further discussion, a vote was 1=� ` .,;�.
taken. All are in favor. Motion Carries.
i
j PERSONNEL MANIIAL REVISIONS - PROCEDURAL CORRECTION '
Helen stated that the 2:15 item was a Public Hearing and that it
was not announced, therefore the Public Comment section was not , '
� opened. Helen opened the Public Hearing for comment. There being
none, this section of the public hearing was closed. BOB CHILD , •
i MOVED APPROVAL OF TI�SE REVISIONS. GEORGE MADSEN SECONDS. There
being no further discussion, a vote was taken. All are in favor. �'
Motion Carries. ''
1 1ST READING & SET PITBLIC HEARING: ADOPT EMERGENCY RESOLUTION AND 1'
I AIRPORT REGUI.ATIONS/COMMERCIAL CURFEW EXTENSION AND GENERAL � ._
AVIATION CURFEW EXTENSION, ED THURMOND
? Ann Bowman stated that the Request is for Emergency Commercial
i Curfew Extension that provides for landinqs at Aspen after 11:00 • '
p.m. as long as departures from Denver take place no later than ' `
� �'I 10:30 p.m. John stated that this is not a temporary extension,
it is an amendment to the Airport Regulations. Bob Child
wondered if we should put a one year limit on this.
� Helen pointed out that this item was listed incorrectly in the
* resolution presented to the Board. This is not a public hearing :,;
� as indicated. Ann replied this should be ist reading and Set
� Public Hearing.
� Helen said that it was her understanding that a report was due :,,`.
' back to tha Commissioners last spring after the last emergency
resolution. It was to be considered for a permanent resolution. I ',�;
I She asked why this was happening again. Ann said if resolution I"
� is done without the emergency basis, it will not be in effect ,
+ prior to Thanksgiving. Helen said there was time earlier in the
I year so that this would not have to be an emergency resolution. ',�
�
� Helen stated that there are two issues. One is an emergency
, resolution and one is a code amendment to the Airport Regulations � -
BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 11 NOVEMBER 10,1986 � �
, t :
�
i -
... � �,
��� ;:,Z.t , � - �_.
�..k�°..� � . . . . . .
"�'���F'+ � .. .. .
3u,���+ . � '
�q ti
�1� F � � � � . . . . .
i�l.�ix-� .. . . � ` .
}2.ig'y^ ' . . � . . ' , . . '
�,.1�+ .:t.yi . . �
�.�� � �
�Y!
7'
S
,+'r� � �`j� . - � ' �� � -
� ,.; � .. . � � � .
�fM � . .� .......:� ..., . .. "
,� i r �
,1 �
!�+ ro � . ' � . .
i _.�
h.t �
C
(','n
.`�"- . ' .
��6 . . � . .. .. -.. . .
� ��,,, .}x �,!�{'fi"*E S Fv'`+s 4��'�,C �'�2'd k�
. . ?�""'.:i'..t��,�.�`�x r�'t'?�'r-�'��t'3!:� k`C i, .,_ .__ .�; tl`..�.�-,r�gt_ ,r: � L�. �.��.�{,..�l�e
� -
on curfew. �
TOM BLAKE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE EMERGENCY COTII4ERCIAL � -
C[7RFEW EXTENSION RESOLIITION UNTII, THE CODE IS PERMANENTLY '
AMENDED. BOB BRAUDIS SECONDS.
Bob Child had a question regarding Section 2 (D). It provides
' that any flight operation that lands at Sardy Field, may promptly r�
' take off from Aspen. and return to Stapleton. He asks what
"`"i "promptly" means. Is there a legal definition? Gary that is an , .
� open question.
� Public Hearing will be set for December 22, 1986.
i
. Helen pointed out that several corrections need to be made on the l •
� resolution. There are several typos. We need a whole new '�
resolution. The attorney's should sign Approved as to Form first. ��` :"'
`��
There being no further discussion, a vote was taken. All are in - -
favor. Motion Carries.
( Now, requested is an Approval on First Reading and Set Public
Hearing for Amending the Airport Rules and Regulations pertaining • '
i to the Commercial Airline Curfew and set Public Hearing to .
December 22, 1986. '"
ITOM HLARE MOVES APPROVAL. BOB BRAIIDIS SECONDS. �` . :'
� Bob Child asks if this is the Emergency amendment. Helen replies 4•�
no, this is the permanent amendment to the Airport Rules and
Regulations.
There being no further discussion, a vote was taken. All are in §`;
favor. Motion carries. �'• , •
. r`, N
? �
The last item is General Aviation Curfew Extension. Ann Bowman
states that GA curfew in Aecember can be as early as 5:00 p.m. �
Because commercial airlines are leaving with full loads, conges-
; tion occurs. The recommendation is that G.A. be allowed to leave .
� as late as 9:00 p.m. to alleviate "bunching" situation.
! Tom would like to try this and make sure it is not a problem _
rather than a solution. John suggested making this effective -
until a meeting in January and then re-authorize it at that time. ' ,
Ed pointed out that the tower will not be open. Most of the
people departing will be contacting Denver Center. � '
' John McBride expressed concerns of allowing general aviation
people to fly out of here in the evening. 'f:; �
Tom Blake would like to have this item noticed. �`_�
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 12 NOVEMBER 10,1986 �
�: .
' �_r
, - .
I
°`�,./' �1, ;.�"s : rf...:..., - ,
�s��^-� _
Y�,�� ��
' � �ir . . . . . .
t .y�,.�r,. .. . � . . .
t�d� �' . . . _
t7"�'"���",'.: � . . _ � . � ._ -
��� ���� `
..yT�+� +�'. . - . . .. 1 .. . : .
����Sn,_;�:✓'. . . �� � . . .
Y �� t' . � � . � � � �. � , • � . � .
. �A .t.:.M1�1 � � . � . . ' . . . . . . . .
�F
,�'.�'i. �i w;;nJ'� - .. ,. , . , ..� ,� . .
�"'�'��^'�+�:-���t: � . . . . �
�r��r . _ - _ _.. .... ... _..._..
,s� ;
, ��,).� . h`-� . . .. „ .
. y'}`My ..'ti�`i' , , � .
( �.'�-1;t I
.S.!. 'Y�� .
1;
i. ..
. ''.{:,7:q1�-�„'•�° • ' ,
.��t.� „�,. . '
:2. �
�'� � . . . . ' . . . .. ._ . .
4 x_ 1'�L� '7si*..�r,yri#�'� ��1�r s�j''�s "' '�y" '�..a t,b,�;'a4a-�,� ..... �A � f �, �
� ,-., S$ � . F �_��it�l u.J.a.2�,..,.. � . t_-tr�t�.�,�.� ����j' ...—'� "
.�"'�'t. ..:a�'." ,s.Y .. �:�� .'r..Y..v .._:� . . l... _—�- �. �'
Ly � ..... .. ...._ .,. . .
(
TOM BLAItS MARES A 1KOTION TO TABLE IINTIL N�VEL�ER 24, 1986. Staff �
is to schedule a work session between now and that date, BOB
CHILD SECONDS. - '
John state3 that'Ft.A is in fa•vor of this extension. They are �`
sure it wi13 3,mprove the situation. No one else is sure what this G�_
"-' " will do. •�
� There being no further discussion, a vote was taken. All are in
favor. Motion Carries.
i
� AIRPORT FOOD SERVICE LICENSE JIM ADAMSKI AND GARY ESARY .� ,.`.;'�
� Helen stated that there have been some complaints regarding the
airpor� food service license and the procedure by which bids were
solicited and reviewed. The license was to be presented to the
� Board for approval today, but it has been pulled pending a �� , '
k., ,
decision on whether or not we wish to consider complaints that
� were brought forward.
Present were Mike and Maria Ceros representing Mama Maria's, Andy �`.
Hecht representing Air HosC, Seros representing himself, John ,
Bennet and Cary Clements, Tim Cottrell and Rick Neily represent-
ing Pour La France.
� �'
The purpose of this meeting is to hear what concerns or com-
plaints there may be from any of the bidders. Hear what process
had been followed and see if the Board can make sense out of it. �
Gary Esary stated that the food service was competitively bid for ��',�
. �� three reasons: 1) the Procurement Code requires it. 2) FAA grant
I assurances appear to require it. 3) It makes good business
i sense. He continued that the Procurement Code does have a ,
procedure for appeals.
� A written appeal is to be delivered to the County Manager within
; 14 days of the event. The County Manager or his designee is �
`. responsible for presenting a written decision in a prompt manner.
�! If the written decision does not settle the matter, then the `
party may appeal to the Board of County Commissioners sitting as ''{'' �
( the Board of Procurement Appeals within 7 days of that written
� decision. ��
i
� If the matter is not settled at that point, then the parties are
; free to go to the courts.
' '�\_
Gary recommended that the appeals not be discussed today. That
the process for resolving this be followed. He stated that Pour
La France had been awarded the license and that was what was to
gppiRD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 13 NOVEMSER 10,1986 �
i � �
� .
. r�,.�"^'* �".a.
yh . ;}� .!""'. . _ . .. ' . . l _' .
''y���+e�,'c.� ' . . ' ,
4 �
}'�,��' �'�- . - � • . - • - ._
. '��f t . . . . . � .
�i � � . . . ' . .. , . . . . . .
�yt5t ry - � � " ' � . . � .
� �� , , -
k�-� M
`�'�'„�k�r�,r�. � � � � � . .- � � . �
�I ..:� 3', . - . , . .
'xi: ,r�t
�`�-�W �' � - . . � . � . . . . . - . '. , - .
� �� _i �F..�i . .
k'�� �
:�
� J ;t �
�'-���:.�:��.i,.i�,-� ,
�'^'`
1:. �
.. , � .
.`��� ,
�. ;' �' , ,:, � :
^ f
:: ,*� � �`�'`������*e. Y�Jt,'k',r'��'��"�.; t a k :%�.�`��+,�R�,�="'�,,,,,,-,+�*1��'-.+��Y;�aa.r�-.t,.�,.k��.�. ... .. —
"'x, �^. �,.`,- -
�
come before the Board today. The license agreement will not come I
forward until at least November 24 and that is plenty time to
file an official protest.
Gary asked each representative individually if they were submit-
ting a letter of appeal: „�,
;ir°:
�,.� Andy Hecht, Air Host - Yes ,�r �
Mama Marias - Yes -.
� Seros - Yes
� Rick Neily stated that he did not believe the Procurement Cod�A _
allows for the participation in the appeals process by a success- ` r�.:
• r ful bidder. He stated that Pour La France would like the oppor-
Itunity to submit their own response within a reasonabl.e amount of °e�:_^�
� time.
Gary states that i£ there is anytriing that should be in the
letters of protest that is not already included, it should fe ,
forwarded to him immediately. There are 14 days Prom the date of
i selection to appeal. To move things along promptly all bidders . �
agreed to make Friday, November 14, 1986 AT 5:00 P.M. the
� deadline for receipt of written appeals.
; After that date and time, the County Manager will issue a written •
i decision to each of the three protesters. There follows seven
� days in which to appeal the County Manager's decision. .4 •, �
�
; George asked about Pour La France's liquor license, which will be
expiring on 12-5-86. Gary said we can do a one year extension o£ ;=
the Pour La Franae lease with a provision that it ie terminable
; within a certain period of time if this is re-bid. At this time �.�:, •-
,. ,� they are extended on a month to month basis.
p
� ��
± �--"—
5 '�(
_�: SUNLIGIiT GENERATOR - REOUEST FOR FUNDS
i ;
� I John Dady was present to request $13,000 for a new County .�..: .
� generator on Sunliqht Peak. The money is already in the budget,
i however the purpose is different. Presently the money is in the � '� .
( Capital R&R/Capital Improvements aggregate that was set aside ��'' '�
pending a decision on the FM system. ;
�:
Bpg gRAIIDIS MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE $13,000. REQIIESTED. TOM :i\
gLAgE SECONDS. +� '
(.. '
SOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 14 NOVEMBER 10,1986 �i'' �,
4:.."-..:. .
�
V z}
. � � t"'��� •
_� .
� �.-i �✓ .,S \�-'
. ' . \, ''. . , ' , . .
. �� �,��,�r , . . ' . . .
¢
���� ` � � � . . . .. _ .
�si...
,� ic � . - - . " . - .
��� �. . . . ' � � i � , � . . .
t�"��::� �
�'.'��r`+t
KA�i
��� •: - � � ' � . � � .
��,,y+i 1,�� - _ � ...._
,�.�'1�,��k�� .1 .. . � . -. . ... . " � � .
� �� �
nti,�.�M: ;
�x ,,�' � `ti . � ' , . �
`��•,�-v:;�„�,�;.:��j.
hr�it.t�"i
f�
��.:::�c...,;-, . '
V — �
Y�� '3.. . - � � . . .
,:1
.. �.. a. ' � . . . . , . -
...... ' . . .. .. . .. _. .. . . . .._�.... . ' ._....... .. ........ _.. �
......�.�. .. . .. .1. .. .. . .
. . � , � � � r � ����� �Y 3� � �? � tJ� .
h�' 43 :.�'�� '�-�t �. -. -�� t .j .r��sa r` �rf��'��t+,.�r,� �.: � w,h,x�..n�#'s .
. �� } t�'c"'���r�•ts`,'�'r�� .f� w.ix„�{4r,�5R;�ki+ s��r�. ;: :e �r4 ,,,,u{ i::.3�^.. r r4 � i �'a,}M1�� a�y 4 i A �� .
� �. y�-`'�k-�: 's v .�-.��"'��r`�`N.�.,��v�.�:'`��.. �`�.�..,r:.e'� ..fiY`5��:rcC � ('�„`' � !? 1 ,.�-.��� .t.a ,-" � s
1t4 r.La Nf'.*��' r t���i 1��✓. 1�i. �''. .
».. .. n •
� . � � . . . .. _ . .. _�
'_.
� � �..
i . :-' �. �. �: :... .. . . .
George asks if we couldn't hook into the Garfield County genera-
tor. John Dady replies that it i$ over l/2 mile away, also their
generator can only handle their load.
i.
�
��
i
There being no further discussion, a vote was taken. All are in
� favor. Motion Carries.
.�i -
Meeting adjourned 5:00 p,m,
. -;:
Respectfully submitted,
p
;-.:
� - . . . �. . �. . . . . �,,:, 's
�' at Belfont
� Administrative Re rds Manager �`•
G
a ..
�� APPROVED AT REGULAR MEET�N6 `-°
�N
c r r
oard o County ommissiorters
\ :
�
.. , , -..
- j •
F�
. . . , � � � � � . . � !�)
_�� : � . . � � � � �'� � =. .
`\\ I
� BOARD OF COiJN'PY COMI�IISSIOIQERS 15 NOVEMBER 10,1986
�•
�
���
�
7 �c:''
��� � S��"'.�...�,� � ,`xs,��5 '::c .. „�4 .c � � ..
..� �'�' -��v-'"�"5tn��s��m'�1's ?-4�._ti..�:.�.a.�.. ..-. tz` t- 4 �4 z,.'�`j".,,,,�;;��+�—.�����
. � � � .. . . . � . _ .. � .
.�
: }.�y� . , . . . . . . � . . . 1 � -i. . �
,-y . : ... . ... . � . ..
�.�y� - _ . .� . . .
. �1 . 1 . � . � - .
N ��
�§'y _ r"
_. ,
r ,- : , , .
• f �z; � : — `— _
�� ,�
� Y
�,� '� fY� �
s:....�4��;,
� r x 1;;;;
1986 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PUBLIC HEARING EXHIBITS
November 10 Tasman 1041 A Memorandum Dated November 10, 1986,from Francis
Floodplain Hazard Krizmanich,Planner,to Board of County Commissioners
Review
g Letter Dated August 21, 1986,from Clifton D.Burdick,Esq.,to
Francis Krizmanich,Planner
C Letter Dated August 13, 1986,from Pat Dobie,Banner
Associates,to Irvin Tasman
D Letter to the Record from a Citizen
Beriro Caretaker unit E Memorandum Dated November 10, 1986,from Francis
S ecial Review Krizmanich,Planner,to Board of Coun Commissioners
F Memorandum Dated October 14, 1986,from Lee Cassin,
Environmental Health,to Janet Raczak,Plannin Office
C, Memorandum Dated October 15, 1986,from Ann Bowman,
Pro erty Mana er,Housin Authority,to Plannin Office
Gottleib Caretaker H Memorandum Dated November 10, 1986,from Francis
Unit S ecial Review Krizmamch,Planner,to Board of Coun Commissioners
; ,: ± E ,��. �=i "t.,
, -: E,i' ;, ,- , .
: 6;
.i, ..� ., . .,: .� _
. ��i., .1„ -
. . . „ x '-` i,, .._ ,� r. :,.� ., —,,, c .,
i
6
36
-..<_ .:.. ._.�'�1.:._� . '1. _f"�_ .. r -�.L� T y�.C'i'..CSI%l:il:��s<�'�vr;.�.,:,W�CMo.� -
... � .................... • .. � ....w.y�. . .�. J.�. � . �r��. �.�e�. ! �... . ....... �H.i�.iu�. .vvu�.�� i i.�.l.i �.. ........ ....�...v .���.�..•-IJ�..r�.�•.. � .�.�uu.���.�IVUU.��.vuur.
`'�_ � — ' _ .. — "_ - , _ �— _ - .� ' ..�. � � ^ f
_ � 1
- ' - � - = _. � BOA#iD ��C0. COM4�'fl'S -
' � � � • P17KIN GOIJlVTF . ;
. � •Public Hearing Er.�tiibits � ;
t�nat�x�noK �ate: '
s�a�eot:;
. _
T0: Pitkin County Board of County CommissioKners
FROM: Francis Rrizmanich, Planning Office �� '
l
RF: Tasman 1041 Floodplain Hazard Review
DATE: Nonember 10, 1986 ;
'L'�L•QLSCGC=CC�.�S=LC.f.�L•��C=�C�==CCCCC�C�C.�����^.����.CC�.��.���.CC....CrCLCG .
APPLICART: Irving Tasman.
RBQOBST: The applicant is requestinq 1041 E'loodp],sin Hazard
review approval to construct an approximately 850 square f oot
addition to a residence. The property is affected by the 100
year floodplai.n of the Crystal River.
I.00�rI08: Lots lt and 12, Block ]. Ristler Subdinieion and half
of Beech Drive in Redstone.
s0l�ING: The z oni ng i s B-1.
iP�TSR 1lND 88wSR: The property is served by the Reclstone Water
E
and Sanftation District.
!!�l.TO& ISSQSS AND C101�(S�S: �
�. Referral �gency Coaenta:
1. gnviron�ental Health Departaent: In a memo dated �
Sept�nber 24, 1986, Lee Cassin su6`nftted the following
camtnents:
"We will not comment on the appropriate location for
the floodplain boundary, but comment based on the fact
that the site is within the mapped floodplain boundary.
Infiltration of floodwaters into Rec3stone Water and
Sanitati�n District lines could occur by having an
occupied house within the floodplain. But given the
number of a1. ready-exi sti ng dwell ings within the
floodp2ain in Redstone, the ].ike2ihood of this occur-
ring would probably not change. Eowever, it appears
that the applicant could� place an addition where it
. would not be increasing the footprint in the flood-
plain. (Sect3on 5-402.2 (a) (7)) . � ;
If the addi�ion is used for shop purposes, as ia part '
of the dwelling currently, storage of hazardous
. materials could. pose a risk during flooding. The same
. _ . ' ;
" . - - �: . -
. - � . .
. _���
.,.. _ _ ._.... __..........Y T.......�...�!F..Y.'�Ifc._.. .�..sa4—.r,.._�_...^�^9nT�� ' —�)wt..�YnNYMNRUa:.�tix.�u...i:..,�.-+vn�n.ra�.ct:.»..n.�w....`..u....�..�..... �,.. .�.._
...i...r�........ __......_...............�....i..�......._........�....4-...�_.........._.�....._..�.'.._..`.............�.....�.............�.......�...�...........�...r�...�..»......�......_w.... ...... .�y-.
is true of any garbage or other waste materials that _
miqht be contained in the addition. (Section 5-
402.2(a) (1) and (2) ) "
2. County Planning Sngineer: In a memo dated September
24, 1986, Tom Newland submitted the following comments:
"I have reniewed the August 13, 1986 repart from Banner ;
and Associates, a local engineering fi rm, whi ch i s a
follow-up to their initial report submitted for the
Tasman property.
In this report Mr. Dobie states that the Tasman �
property is on a rise similar to a peninsula located on -
the fringe of the 100-year floodplain.
Based on this site-specific report it appears that the
Tasman parcel is in�eed removed from the 100-year
. floodplain. It is recommended that the 1041 floodplain
� hazard review be approved based on Mr. Dobie's report. !
The County should, however, require as a condition a �
copy of thi s repor t f rata Banner and Associ ates that has �
been approved and stamped by the seal of a registered �
professional engineer. " ;
� B. ST�FF QO!!!l�NTS: The applicant is reqaestir►g 1041 Floodplain �
Hazard Review approval to add an ai�c3ition to a residence. The ;
property consists of Lots 11 and I2, Block 1, Ristler subdinision . ;
and half of Beech Drive which was vacated by the County. The � '
property contains approximately 6,875 square feet and is affected .
by the 100 year floodplain of the Crystal River. A retafl/resf- '
dential building of approximately 2,500 square feet presently �
exists on the site. Ttie applicant's request for an approxi�aately
850 equare foot addition will result in a total building size of
3 ,350 aquare feet which is allawed based on the B-1 FAR of .53.
The Planning Office notes that the original building did not
receive 1041 Floodplain review. Previous Gounty policy was to
allow builainge on lots in Redstone without requiring floodplsin
review. The current County policy is to require any subdinided
lot or metes and bounds parcel that did not receive County
approval to go through the 1041 special review procedure if
County maps show such paraels to be affected by 1041 concerns.
In Redstone, the Ristler Subdivision is affected by this policy
becsuse the plat was never approved (signed) by the Board of
County Commissioners. Tt�e Redatone subdivision is not affected
by this policy because that plat was approved and signed by the
County Commissioners.
This specific request for an 850 square foot addition was made
possible by the Board of tbunty Commissioners decision to vacate
Beech Drive in Redstone (see -attached Resolution) . The vacation
action gave the applicant sufficient property to meet the
appl icabl e FAR in the B-1 zone. - .
� _ � _ . . . �
_ __�. .
. . _ . . __.. , .� --_ - . _ ..._..__ _ :............. ..... ..... _ ........_...._..__�.... _.... , ....�.._.,..... . . . - , .
The appl icant has submitted a property survey wfth elevations
that has been reviewed by Patrick Dobie P.E. which certifies that
the proposed addition lies outside of the 100 year flood Iimits.
The Planning Office concurs with the recommendations of Tom
Newland. The survey and a stamped certified copy of the engi-
neer's evaluation should be included with the County •Commis- ;
sioners resolution approving this project if approval is granted.
In addition, the conditions of approval attached to the Board's ;
vacation of Beech Drive should be enforced through this review ;
process. The applicant should also camply with the recommend- i
ations of tt�e Environmental Health Department. ,
The Planning Office notes that during the week of October 27, �'
1986 , we were notified of construction at the site of the !:
proposed addition. The Planning Office directed the Building ' !�
De pa r tm ent to i asue a stop w.or k noti ce at that time. The ��
Building Department did issue a stop work notice and subsequently
issued a foundation permit on the basis that the addition is � �
shavn by the engineeri.ng reports to be outside of the floodplain. �
Jim Wilson of the •Building�Department will be present to answer �
any questions the Hoard may have concerning the foundation permit
issuance. �
RgdOl4�BD�TIOA: The Pl anrii ng Of f ice and the Pl anni ng Commi ssi on ,
recommend approval of this request to the Board of County ,
Commissioners subject to the following conditions:
i
1. The engineer' s report and property survey shall be �
attached to the Board's resolution of approval. The i
engineer ' s report shall have the seal of the profes-
sional engineer affixed to it. .
. 2. The applicant sha11 not store hazardous or waste � �
materisls within the 100 year flood boundary. �
3. The applicant shall comply with the oonditions of the ;
'�oard resolution vacating Beech Drive prior to the ,
issuance of any additional building permits.
FR.35
� _ . . � .
__
�t-LL-�-, �- _
.......... :.:..:... -- ......._.,.. _ .... ...,.>..,...._..:;. ,.��,. _ <..�,,,��..�..,.,��.,,. ��,.,...��.a,�,.,,,�,�.,..,,�u,..�..,�,.,...,,,�,:u,.,�,,,...u..,�,�„�,.......,y,.,•...,...,���..��,.,.........,... ,.,.,.....,
_ • - • . _ = - _ _' ' C : - - -_ -_ � �-,- -- _ - _ _- _ _
_ � . . � ��=- � � - _ -GARFIELD & HEG�T,gaA��S aF co. coMM�R's "
- RONALD OARFIELb� A'TInRNEYS AT UW _ �„Ep}{p�
ANDR�w V. HECHr•• F}TK1N COUNTY .
vicroac�N sQuwxE Bui[.nuvc,puhli• �arin E>.�11QItS �)923-1936
• 7'EI.EC�OPIER
WI[.LIAM K.GuESi�. P.C.••• 6�I EAS't HYMAN AVEl�i�B:__ ' I 9��
IEREMY M. BERNSlFJN ASPEN. COLORADO 816 1 " {� B��DRESS
CLIFTON D. BURDICK �UU�6Gt... II O O V ��GARHEC.•
��IM�111�IOd q �
t�r�w EXh. y0.
�hlq�T�1ILA M
DYRfiR O�COwlllbi��if •
���aBO ad�Wld b �
N`w`�`°T`�.w ' August 21� 19 �� �
: . .,
d ��ObL�
HAND DELIVERY � 2 �� .
ti
Francis Krizmanich
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611 I
RE: Irving Tasman - i041 Floodplain Review � •
Dear Francis: �
Attached please. find my. client's, Mr. .Irving Tasman's,
. � Application for 1041 Floodplain Review. Mr. Tasman desires to . ;
construct a� two-story approximately 850 square feet addition to . ;
his house which will increase the footprint of his house
approximately 550 square feet as more. fully described by the • �
attached plans: Mr. Tasman's house is located in the Ristler � � �
Subdivision �in �Redstone which� area is in the desiqnated' lA0 year • . i
floodplain. Mr_ Tasman's house was originally construct�d in .
1983 pursuant to a building permit which•was .i.ssued without a• •
floodplain review. Apparently �most of the Redstone area, • �
. inclnding Kistler•Subdivision, is in the flooclplain, but many of ,
. Mr. Tasman's n�ighbors have not been r�quired to pursue •
� floodplain review based upon various technicalities of the Pitkin .
County Code, even� thouqh their houses were located in raore
sensitive areas than Mr. Tasman's property.
As indicated by the attached enqineering reports of Banner
Associates, Inc., dated July 23, 1986 and August 13, 1986, the
location of the proposed addition is at an elevation of 7,168
feet, which location is a dry area within the 100 year floodplain
designated by Pitkin County. Furthermore, the proposed location
is not within the floodplain at all assuming that the Redstone
levy is maintai.ned pursuant to Pitkin County's publicly stated
intent.
For your information, Mr-. Tasman's property is provided
water and sewer by the Redstone Water and Sanitation District.
. As you know, Pitkin County has analyzed the impact of the .
proposed addition upon the community in connection with Mr. �
, . I . . • ' . • . . . ' "L�� . w • • . • . • \ • ' • • • • .
' . ♦ �`1• 'r.�T•♦ � ' .
. 'j • . . ' . ' _ . ' • .
. • ,
..�..�.............�_.._.......�"_....�..... ....-....n......:............. . � .
� . . . . ... . . . .. . .�_ .
.
.........:........_...,........,.,..�,,.�,..,.__..... _ ...._......_....,.,..,..,...:-'...,...,.,.,....-,..-,.,�........�...,...,.,.,.,...�.....�_ .........:..,...�..:..,.,.;....�..1.,..=...,.,...,.,�.,_........._.....�...,...=.,_ _...,.,....=.,.... i
-_ ' • ' . _ - - _r _ � - _ __ _' _ _ - � _ - _ - ._ .
�
_j � . . - � - -- : - � .
GARFlELD & HECHT, P.G. � � � �
Tc'rancis Krizmanich
August 21, 1986 .
Page -2-
Tasman's previous Petition to Vacate Beech Drive, which was an
expensive and time consuming process. As the building season is
almost over, and Mr. Tasman has been attempting to obtain the
various approvals required for several months, I would appreciate
any efforts to expedite this review. Expediting this application
seems especially fair since the location of the proposed addition
is on dry ground even if the levy is not maintained and is not in
the designated floodplain �at all assuming the .levy holds sound.
Please do not hesitate to ..contact .me if you have any
questions ox •require any additYOnal information. � • �
. � Very truly yours,
GARFIELD & HEC�ST .C. .
,, � . �
Clift . Burdick �
' CDB/mms i
enc
cc: Alan Richman '
�. :
Irving Tasman
i
�
�
� ,
; •
' -- �
i
; •
r
�
I , . `
� • ' �
_
. ' �
. . • i
' • . � .. . _ , , ' . }
: ' • • , !
� ,.�,-_..,,._..�..__.----_._...._.�_..__�._...__.:._. .. ._r--.,�.,......._ _
..
...... ... ,., ............. _ .. . .....,,..:.. .:...... ........ ......,......., ..... _ ,.............., ....,...,...................,......_._......................_...._........_...
_-. , - - - -_ -_ _ l - - _ �_ - - -_-� � - - - ' _ -- _ .
�., . _ _ . . - . : . .
. � V. • �
RQ CQ. , 'S , �
plT;'IN CO[INTY !
August 13, t 98b Pt!biic �Yaa�ing E�,i�iaits I
Mr. Irving Tasman t'lata:_ � i
225 Redstone Blvd. !
Redstone, CO 8'1623 �tibjeCt:_ /_ ,�G �
FX�1. 11U.
Dear Mr. Tasman: � �
As a follow-up to our recent conversation, I would like to �
restate some of the findings of the Flood Plain study contained I
.. in my report of July 23, 198.6- . j
' - I
The Flood Plain Information Report identified two flood plain i
boundaries that �affected the To�n of Redstone, specifically your
property. The first f lood plain boundary assumed that the levee �
that protects the ToWn from the Crystal River woul.d maintain its �
stability during �a 100 year flooding event. The second flood �
pla_n boundary identified the flood area should the levee fail � I
under the same circumstances.
The portion of your property where the existing structure is �
located and where your addition is proposed is within the � �
boundaries of the flood plain should the dyke fail. However,: � �
� based•upon my analysis of the detailed topographic survey
� prepared by Mr. Sid Linscome, L.S.,. your building envelope is
above the elevation of the f lood waters even if the levee fails.
. Therefore, your proposed addition is in the 100 year flood plain
but it lies above the elevation of the water itself. In other
. • � words, your property is technically on a rise, similar to a �
• peninsula, located on the fringe of the potential flood waters in I
the event the levee fails. �
I hope that this clarifies any misunderstandings that may exist - I
� regarding the status of your proposed addition and that this
inf�rmatioh kill be us�ful �n re�clving any probl�ras that ma;r �
arise with the Pitkin County• planning officials. :
�
� Sincerelg,- . ;
�!�'�' �� .
/Patrick Dobie, P.E.
Project Manager
BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC.
cc: Cliff Burdick
BANNER ASSOCIATES.IhC. BANNER ASSOCIATES.WC.
CONSUIJING EMGIN[ERS Jk ARCNITECTS CONSUt?fNG ENGINEFYtS&ARCNITECTS
SUITE 6,605 EHST MAIN • � 2777 CROSSROqOS BOULEVARD
ASPEN.COLURADO SI611 •GiOCi)925-5857 . � ' . . GRAND JUNCTION.CO S1fi06•(303)243-2242 -
I . .
. � I
� l-/0'f��
For the record/
As a citi�en and taxpayer I wish t.o t.hank Pitkin County
for over 3 years of discrininatory harrassement, mental,
physical and fina.nci�l hardship. No:v giving me the restrictive
privilege to build on my property during the winter months.
All this litigation based on archaic, arbitrary, delaying
-rules and regulations.
Thankyou;
y��i— ��1�� /I��-e-�2_ �o--P�T.�.�e� �'�!G�%�-�J
'/� ,�,.� �
%/��J���7c� �1�,c� r--� �
�
' l y p ��,�
--�^'
_ `�rC� G. !
� ��� � �
�r��-- .� � -�-��e� ��-� ;
�%� ��� � ,
.��__�i���-�/'.�-� _ - i
c �,�-.� /�,��%�'�-/ �'� �-- � f
� �
�
i
�
i
80ARD QF C0. COMM'R'S
PITKIN COUNTY �
, Pubiic Hearing Exhi its
Date: � —/b- F��.
Subject:�'�sr►'a n /Dy/ ',
Si3. p: .. � . •
j
�..,. _ ----._____.__..__..._.._. .... .... _._...�._._
..utiu.�libs'>_util�liuwkYli3titi12d�u3at3iiiiuti�ii�lsiUititltiuuutnc;tftft»>..uuLac,�t�i�yie� +uutili��atl�autivbtwu4btwnti uun u uuu uu u � u u 4 u�,�•�,�•�•,.•�.yi,uuuu�u:
� � - _ - _ - - - -B�ARD OF C0. COIUIM'R'� - i
- _ - . - - _ _ _ - _ f�lTt(EPl Cai1y�'Y = - - �
� � • _ . � . Pablic Hear'n " _ - �
- � � - . Date: .
- r��au�noN � J � /�D£�G �„�
.�ub ect: �
Exh. Pf
T0: � Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Francts Krizmanich, Planning Office �
,
.
RE: Beriro Caretaker Unit - Special Revie�w
DATE: Novezaber 10, 1986 !i
�
________________________________________________________________ ;�
�
APPLIC�T: Shi rl ee Prei ssman and Simon Beri ro. �
RHQDBST: The applicants are requesting Special Revie�w approval �
to construct a 500 square foot caretaker unit. The caretaker �
unit fs planned as an addition to an existing 5,000 square foot s
re si den ce.
LOC�TIOA: Lot 4 , Ridge of Red Mountain subdivision, 0356 Ridge
Road. � `�
BQ�IPG: Lot 4 is 1.76 acres in size and is zoned R-30.
ACCBSS: Access is via private parking area adjacent to Ridge
Road.
!lA.TOR ISSOBwS APD DORCBRHS:
A. Referral Aqencies:
1. Savirorneental Health: In a memo dated October 14, 1986
(attached) Lee Cassin commented that this proposal
conforms to the Coae provisio�s a2hninistere�l by the
Environmental Health Department.
2. �Couaty Planning Bngiaeer: In a memo dated October 15,
1986, Tom Newland subqaitted the foll.owing comvaents:
"Iapacts on Road Syste�: Although the addition of one
more dwelling unit on Red Mountain will not signifi-
cantly raise the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on Red
Mountain Road (County Road #20) � it could elevate this
traffic flow by as much as 6 trips pe�r day. Red
Mountain Road is already well over capacity and needs
to be upgraded to Collector standards. The prolif-
. eration of dwelling units like this one only helps to
further decrease the safety of this road.
� � The County is planning on upgrading Red IKountain Road
. witbin the next three years. Thie project, estimated
� at over $800 ,000, can not - be caapletely f-unded by the
,-�_""""�' - -
�.-�----,---�----_.._---_.._ ._�. _._.._ _.
:.................._ . .. .�. - -
�.. ... ...,_..,.... ............_.. ..._.._...... ::._.;,`......:.,:.:.._..,..._.......__...._..._...................................
- ' . _ - _ - � - - _ _ -_` - - -.- ` - - - �
_ - _ - - - - _ _ - . _ _ _ . . �
. Co un ty, and i t i s pr opo se d that a Red Mountai n Road
improvement district be formed to pay for half of the
improvements. As a condition of the approval af this
additional dwelling unit, the applicant should formally
� express her desire to join this road i.mprovement
district when it is foxmed".
3. Honsing l�luthority: In a memo dated October 15 , 1986
" (attached) Ann Bowman commented that the proposed caretaker
uinit appears to be well designed and mee�s the criteria for �
employee housing. The Housfng Authority Board recommends �
approval of this propo�al subject to the covenants reoom-
mended in the attachecl memo.
B. Staff Coaments: The applicants are requesting specia7. review '
approval to conetruct a 500 sqnare foot "caretaker° unit j
attached to a mafn residence. Secti.on 3-8.13 of the L�nd
IIse Code provides that the Board may permit the construction �
of an attached employee unit in the R-30 zone district under
the following Iimitations: ;
� 1) Newly constructed employee units shall not have more �
than one bedroaa nor exceed 500 square feet of total
floor area.
The applicants proposal for a 500 square foot, one
bedroom employee unit meets the above code requirement.
2) The total floor area of the principal and employee unit
. � shall not exceed the aZlowabte FAR of the applicable
zone district.
The applicants property is approximately 1.76 acres in
size and is zoned R-30 which has a .I3 FAR. The
applicants proposal will result in a res3.dence of less
than 6,000 square feet on a lot where the FAR would
permit an approximately 10,000 square foot residence;
therefore, this proposal conforms with this Code
-pr ov i si on.
3) There shall be provided one o£f-street parking space
for each bedroom within the principal unit and one off-
street parkinq spaoe for each e9aployee unit.
The site plan shows that the property has adequate
parking area.
4) The applicant shall, by deed restriction or other
' . permanent commi�ment running wi th the land, guarantee
that the em�].oyee unit will regnain a rental unit; not
be condominiumized= not be occupied by the owner or
"spouse"; be limited to occupancy by nat more than 2
adults, and related children, who qualify as (and have
. been foand by .the Housing Authority to bey emplayees of
.... ._........: .. .._. , __ _ _.,._ __�-_ . .._._.___...... - -
_ `. _ _ _ _ _ -, ..�
_ . __ _ � _ _ _ - _ - - _ . . - , E
- . = _ ' _ . _ '' - _ _ _ .- - �
. - the community nnder 'such guidelines as may be from time
to time established by said Authority t be rented f or
� terms nat leas than six manths. "
The applicant should be required to provide deed
restrictions as outlined in the attached letter from
the Housing Authority. !
. i
5) Units within agricultural ou�buildings shall be allawed
only when such buildings contain over 1,500 �quare feet
and it can be demonstrated that the construction of the
additional dwelling unit will not interfere with the
agricultural uses oF the building.
This criteria does not apply.
This applicatfon meets all of the above criteria for the provi- �
sion of an employee unit. The Planning Offioe does agree with
Tom Newland's oomments, that because Red Mountain Road is over
capacity anc3 requires upgrading, the applicant should commit to
joining a road improvement district when it is formed to offset
this density increase.
R$COMlISNDATIOP: The Planning Offiae recommends that the Board
grant special review approval to the applicants for a 500 square
foot employee unit subject to the following conditions:
1) The applicants shall deed restrict the �aployee unit in
conformance with the attached Housing Authority . �
guidel ines. •
2) To off eet the road impacts caused by increased density,
the applicant shall commit to joining a road improve-
ment district, if formed, to upgrade Rec] Mountain Road. :
FR.37
; . - �- . . _ . -
_ � _ .
.W...��. ._.� . _,s _ -- _ _ ' _
_ ` • - �' - A8PEN�PITKIN- . - -_ � - -- -- -
EIVWAONMEN�'AL NEALTH �EPAFiTMENT ° ' . • -
- _ _ .— - — � BOARD QF-00. COMM'R'S '. -
' � PITK` CQf1NTY � .
- - Pub'
� Oate: '
� M E M O R A N D U M SUb)@Ct; /�-/ -�G �n
Exh, No,
TO: Janet Raczak, Planning �Office
FROM: Lee Cassin, Environmental Health o� �� �
DATE: October 14, 1986
RE: Special Review, Beriro - Preissman Caretaker Unit, Located at
Lot 4, Ridge of Red Mountain, 0356 Ridge Road.
This office has reviewed the above Special Review Application and
has the following comments.
• The proposed activity does not change the basic character or the
use of the land. It does not violate any provisions of� the Land
Use Code covered by this o€fice.
The caretaker unit will not have a woodburning device, according
to Warren Palmer, although it could have one certified stove.
Auto emissions from the increased traffic would be negligible,. . �
especially if the occupants worked at the house.
Constru�tion of a living/sleeping area adjacent to a garage is
j� not the most desireable location for such an area, in that
exposure of the occupants to auto exhaust would be a concern.
There is no prohibition of this, however; we would recommend that
� vehicles not idle at all in the garage.
�
�
( It is our understanding that the house is on public water and
Isewer, so provision of these services can be accomplished.
� Water conservation and wastewater reuse have not been addressed
by the applicant, so we must assume that no such features will be
j used. The applicant should be requested to provide these
features.
�
i
� : .
� • . -
1
f
�9
F
Z
1
1
I •
I •
i - . ' , • . - .
� . . . �. • - . .
" _ '130 8outh [i�isns 9te�e A�psn. Colw�ado 016Yt . � 303/'H86-�O�O ' ' .
__,w� w.Tw.,
�. _:_:_..------_-------- T.-,,-�..�....,................_-_____._.�-------_..._.._ ___..
�,� ,.-.'��- " _ - - -- -� _ - ~ - ' - _ _ - - � - - -.- I
- � . � _ . _ . _ -- - - = p ��=M C�
_ . _ . OiL`i' 2 3�
MEMORANDQIK
� BOARD OF C . '
� PITKIN COUNTY
T0: PLANNiNG OFgiCE Public Hearin Exi;i�its
FROM: ANN B OWMAN, PROPERTY MANAG ER Date: •
Subje /�-/0-�v �'
DATE: OCTOBER 15, 19tf6
Exh.
RE: BERIRO - PREISSMAN CARETARER ONIT
ISSUE: Does the caretaker unit proposed by the applicant meet
the criteria for employee housing?
BACKGROt1ND: The applicant is requesting approval of the con-
struction of a 500 �quare foot caretaker unit onto an existing
5,000 equare foot residence. The proposed structure is to be
located at Lot 4 , Ridge of Red Mountain (0356 Ridge Road) in
Pitkin County, and consists of 1 .76 acres in the R-30 zone
district.
This appears to be a very well designed caretaker unit and meets
the criteria established by Resolution of the Board of County
Commissioner No. 84-65.
HOQSING ADTflORITY BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 22, 1986
RECOMMENOATION: The Housing Authority Board recommends approval
of the caretaker unit with the following deed restriction. The
income guidelines have been omitted from the restriction and will
be discussed at today's meeting.
CARETARER (EMPLOYEE T�t1ELLING DNIT)
1 . T�ie Employee Dwelling Unit shall at all times remain a
rental unit and snall nat be condominiumized. Use and
occupancy of the Smployee Dwelling Unit shall be limited to
housing for qualified employees in accordance with rental
guidelines established by the Housing Authority of the City
of Aspen and Pitkin County or a successor thereto. The
owner sha1Z have the right to lease the unit to a q�alified
employee of its own selection. Such individual may . be an
i employee of the vwner or employed as a resident caretaker,
; provided such person fulfills the requirements of a quali-
- f=ied employee. "Qualified employee" as used herein shall
mean any person currently residing in and employed in the
City of Aspen or pitkin County for a minimum average of 30
hours per week nine months -out of any 12-month period.
_ � _ . .
- +
_'- ___.__- - -----^-• - _ .. _ _ ..
..... .t �.. .. . . .. .. _._ .... ' - � _ -- _ ^ _._- ...__ - _ __ _ _ . - .
_ _.
-./} `r - _ -- '` -_ - _ _ _ - - - -
. - - - - � - _ _ � - i
2 . Verification of esaployment of person(s) living in the
employee unit" seall be completed and f iled with the Housing
Authority OFf ice by the owner of the unit prior to occupancy
thereof and must be acceptable to the Housing Authority. If
the Owner does not rent the employee unit to a qualified
employee the unit shall be made available for occupancy in
accordance with the Housing Authority Guidel•ines, provided
the Owner st�all have the right to approve amr prospective
tenant, which approval shall not be unreasonably delayed or
wi thnel d.
3 . The employee dwelling unit is limited to occupancy by
not more than two adults and related children. Resident
adults must qualify as and have been found by �he Hoasinq
Authority to be employees of the community and residents
there of as referred to above.
4. No lease agreement executed for occupancy of the
Employee Dweiling Unit shall provide for a rental term of
less than six consecutive manths.
5 . These covenants shall be deemed to run with the land as
a burden thereof for the benefit of, and shall be specifi-
cally enforced by, the Board of County Commissfoners of :
Pitkin County, the Housing Authority of the City of Aspen
and pitkin County, or the duly authorized designee of the
� Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, by an
appropriate legal action including but not limited to
injunction, abatement, or eviction of non-complying tenants
during the period of the life of the last surviving member ,
of the presently existing Board of County Commissioners of
Pi tki n County, Col or ado, pl us twenty-one years, or f or a !
period of fifty years from the date of recordinq hereof in
the Pitkin County real property records, whichever period
snall be lesso .
ACTiON NELb�D: Approval of staff recommendation.
�
� � . _ _ � - � � "
�
_—__�_ _.�. �._.� _
.....__......._. .,._.._.._..._.._...___._...�.._r.�---- ---- --
.� � _
�.�....�.................._.,......................._.....�........... .. _......�.�........................�.�.a......J.......�....��.-r-......�..............u.......................«....._..._�....�r._..v._......`.......�....��....._..._..��...»«....� .... .
' ' _ _ " - - � - . _BOARD OF C0. COMM'R'S .
- � - " - - Plfif<IN COUNTY '
- _ .- - � � -Pt�biic Ne4ringfr,n9uits- .� �
. : Date: '
� hs�x�nvK sub�ect: /-/d��'L `'�
� Exn. No. � I
T0: Pitkin County �Board of County Commissioners I
FROM: Francis Rrizmanich, Planning Office '�� �� !
.
RE: Gottleib Caretaker IInit - Special Review
DATE: Novembe r 10, 1986
s=��==a�a===aaa=aa�aaa�=aa�aa==c===-�c�=�a��aaacaacaacaaac�aa=c=
APPLIt�lIQTS: Howard L. and Anne B. Gottleib.
R�Q�SST: � The applicants are requesting Special Review approval
to construct a 500 square foot caretaker unit as an addition to
an existing residence.
I.00aTION: 0481 Glen Eagle Drive, Aspen Highlands Subdivision.
EQIING: The property 3s zoned R-30� and is approximately 52,800
square feet in size.
�CCSSS: Access is via private drive onto Glen Eagle Drine.
MA.TOR ISSOSS �D OOHCSRNS:
A. Referral Aqencies:
1. Snviron�ental Health: In a me�ao dated October 14, 1986 '
(attached) Lee Cassin commented that the building plans �
show a fireplace in the caretaker unit. If the �
building is considered a single family residence, it is
allowed only one fireplace and one certified stove in :
the entire building. If the building is considere@ to
be a duplex the caretaker unit is allawed to have one
-certified stove in addition to the main residence. Lee
further stated that the Environmental Health Offic�e
would be satisfied to consider the residence as a
duplex in regard to the fireplace issue.
2. Connty Planning Sngineer: In a meno dated October 15,
1986, Tom Newland aubanitted the following comment:
"I have reviewed the application eubmitted by Warren
: : Palmer for the proposed caretaker unit on the Gottleib
� residence . I have no comments to forw�acd to you
concerning the proposed addition."
3. Housing llutbority: In a memo dated October 22, 1986
(attached) , Ann Bowman commented that the buildtng
blueprint shows a bedroom directly adjacent to the . .
�
" - - • " _ - - -. _ - _ _ - - �
' - . _ '_ _ - _ - - - _ . �
.. � - _ - .� - I
' � ' ^ ` . �
� caretaker unit. The architect represents that the I
bedroom will be used by the main house. The unit as �
defined is a studio of 500 square feet and meets the �
Housing Authority guidelines. The Housing Authority
Board recommends approval of the caretaker unit with
the deed restrictions as outlined in the attached
memorandum.
B. Staff Co�oenta: The applicants are requesting Special Review
approval for the construction of a 500 square foot employee
unit attached to the main residence. Sectian 3-8.13 of the
Land Ose Code provides that the Board may permit the
construction of an attached employee nnit in the R-30 zone
district under the following limitations:
I) Newly constructed employee units shall not have more
than one bedroom nor exceed 500 square feet of total
f].00r area.
The applicants are proposing to build a 500 square foot
� studio apartment which meets the above criteria.
2) The total floor area of the principal and empioyee unit
shall not exceed the allowable FAR of the applicable
zone districts.
The applicantis lot is approximately 52,800 square feet
� in size. The R-30 zone district FAR is .13 which would
permit a resfdence of 6,864 square feet. The existing
house is 6,000 square feet. Adding the 500 square foot
employee unit will result in a 6 ,500 square foot
residence which dces not exceed the allowable FAR and,
therefore meets the above criteria.
3) There shall be provided ohe off-street parking spave
for each bedroom within the principal unit and one off- '
etreet parking space for each employee unit.
� 'R'he existing parking area is adequate for the restdence
� and the proposed emplayee imit.
;
4) The applicant shall, by deed restriction or other
permanent commitment running with the land, guarantee
that the �nplayee unit will remain a rental unit; not
be condominiumized; not be occupied by the owner or
� "spouse"; be limited to occupan q �ifyt 8°�and have
f adults, and related children, who
been found by the Housfng Authority to be) employees of
. : the community under such guidelines as may be from time .
to time establ ished by said Authority; be rented for
terms not less than six months.
�
� �_ . . 2 - • .
� . • . . _ • • � .. , � •
_ � . . : - .
. ... ��. _ , � ��„�, � ,
.._ :...._.____.__..__ ._ y . . .
_ . _ _ _ _ `, .r���� ��,;�, .5,. i
� - - _ _ - _ _ _- - . _ , + .�,� .-
. The applica�nt should be requi�red to provide deed
restrictions as outlinecl in the attached letter from
the Housing Authority. �
5) Onits within agricultural outbuildings sha11 be allawed .
only when such buildings contain over 1,500 square feet
and it can be demonstrate8 that the construction of the
additional. dwelling unit will not inter�ere with the
agricultural uses of the building.
This criteria does not apply.
The applicants proposal meets the criteria for an attached
employee unit in the R-30 zone district and may be permitted by
the Board. The Planning Office does not agree with treating this
proposal as a duplex for purposes of allowing an additional
certified woodstove as recommended by Environmental Health. The
theory behind the "employee unit" provisions of the Land Ose Code
is that these units are low impact uses which have negligible � _
community impacts. The Planning Office opinion is that allowing
an additional woodstone for employee units will have a negative
impa ct on air quality. We, therefore, recommend that employee
units be considered an integral part of the main residence and
not be granted� additional woodburning denices.
RSCO!!!lBPDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the Board
grant Special Review approval to the applicants for the construc- �
tion of an attached 500 square foot employee unit subject to the
f oll awing con di ti ons:
1) The applicants shall deed restrict the emp].oyee unit in
conformance with the attached Housing Authority
guidelines.
2) The applicants requeat for a fireplace is hereby �
denied. The total residence may have one fireplace and `
one certified clean burninq woo8stove.
FR.3 8 ---
;
i
; .
i .
{
i
1
1
f - 3 . �
i . � .
t . � � � .. . : . - - - - -
� - . - _ . . .
. _ � . . . . � - .