The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutbocc.min.reg.11241987 '�� . . , . _.._ _ `', ' �. , , � ,: •, . . _ . A'rv^l 1 r't t�' �' .`'^ t s� f �� 1�� r t't k��K.�r�F� � � �i t i �.t�d.�.�z�.SL..a�� f�l�:'I�11 5"J�LEtl..�. u'4'i.]�. .. � . �. �`-�.t�1��-,��f.,�t'. ��y�'�'L'`i R•� "1,��,'�'�� } - `��y'" � s�t �� `.�t�.,{��!�••Ar',,, . . BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING AGENDA (MF GONE) 7UESDAY 24 NOVEMBER, 1987 5:00 p,m. PUBLIC COMMENT/MANAGER COtR1ENT 5:30 LAND USE ' Raaring Fork Railroed, Growth Management Applica- � tion (tabled to Jen. 12, 1988), Cindy Houben r . LAND USE RESOLUTIONS: Williams Lot Split Reso. fUH) i Aspen Valley Hospital Assisted Living Center GMP Exemption and Special Review Reso. (FK) Oden Lot Split Reso. (FK) _,,;j Sterwood Rench Final Plat [FK) ; 1 PUBLIC HEARINGS: ' :?,;T Hines-Duncan Sub-Division Exemption and Access . - Easements, Tom Smith ,;.s�:� ''-':s Clasen Guest House Special Review (CH) -+^_-� Rudolph Lot Split (CH) ( TO BE TABLED ) Ashcroft Rezoning [GH] �-�y.� 7:45 BREAK � �1 ADMINISTRA7IQN �`;'� 8:00 PUBLIC NEARING :` � 2nd Reading and Public Hearing '�">� Resolution It87-56A, Airport Rates and Charges, Tom Oken ' •:;,_� and Gary Esary . '��'a RESOLU7IONS 8 C�N7RAC7S ��` 2nd Reading. Airport 8ond Anticipation Note Resolution, '=:;? Tom Oken ;ry;';R Sales Tax Distribution, Tom Oken _i:.. RFTA RESOLUTION 87-i1, SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET APPROPRIA- •''': TION-RUBEY PARK, BRUCE A6EL ,� Main Buttermilk Corporation, New Liquor License for The ��=!` Racer's Edge, Kim Whitestone ;_� Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Easement, Tim Whitsitt s '�� ADJOURN t � ' #. u ;:.`; - i� : ", i. y.a ..i�� .. F_ : .�� '`� ': ,:.. :��:: �:' +'�` -f,.. �. �, �, y�_ Y — . . _ ..—=�� .`a�-:;�' - � µ: �kT,' • S,T � �"'�. . ... _.. , . . . . .. , . ... , , . x�� , N`. . . � �� '`t�'� �� u �11KA � ;��,�`��.,'�. ,<.. .�y[g\ �Yi'• t� h..,{, �'t n.'�I!! s . .5 3 Y� � � . l i � ��'y x. N .i pI�S��Y.J " ,� 1 � n., :�t't(,r'r , ,.�r ,.�� 1�$��t,�}: 1/�L;` r .� ' ♦ 5� � . V �� t�1 ir� yyk!'''� � i '� ..;�`'��'� ,u�,t�` w � "" 'a* YL�A-k�,t, ��. � �M ��'A 3±? .. ..A.�'i�'�i�'��'�� `�i�."�4��...�.�� «-� . '. ',.��i��k'_" l:ss� . ... . . ..... .. .. "1?� �:.,kx'k.._ j..Y'T-... �/�6�G"uCCf Q� . Iz-z�- �1 h��ny >�. ; ._ . ��S ;:.: � r �� BOARD OF COiJNTY COMMISSIONERS , .- y - NOVEMBER 24. 1987 REGULAI2 MEETING � -� I+ILMBERS PRESENT: Chairman George Madsen, Colette Penne, Fred � Crowley, Tom Blake and Bob Child -j CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Madsen called the meeting to order at +{ 5:12 p.m. ��; PUBLIC CONII�4ENT: Chuck Cherek, a resident on the Lower River Road ' was present to discuss with members reimbursement for a culvert ':� which was installed at his expense in this area. Tom Smith, '� County Attorney stated that he had been in contact with Jeremy :_;� Bernstein, legal counsel for Mr. Cherek with regard to this ,-':.`� matter. He in turn contacted Jack Gredig and was in receipt of a memo from him that there had never been an agreement of any kind. � He reported back to Bernstein with this information and had not heard back from Cherek or Bernstein since that time. ' Smith was instructed to research the matter and report back to _ the Board with his findings in two weeks at a work session. , ' Also, Cherek commented that he felt that contracting the landfill out to private operation would result in higher user fees. Chairman Madsen stated that the reason for putting it out to bid was to see if the County could get a better price along with .�,�i better service and at this time they are only looking at options. �-°, BASALT LIBRARY VACANCY - Smith advised members that the Board " .; needed to address a vacancy on the Basalt Library Board. Penne ..a offered to serve in this position. i a MOTION TO NOMINATE BRIAN OZSON TO SERVE ON Tf� REDSTONE PARICS t ::.. . ' i BOARD - Motion to Apnrove - AIFMC - Penne stated that there is j currently a vacancy on the Redstone Parks Board and she would , like to nominate Brian Olson to fill this position. 1,, y ! �:. . :•.,-, , After a short discussion, Penne moved to nominate Brian Olson to �: :�"�; '. � serve on the Redstone Parks Board. Child seconded and the motion �>� -;�� w � carried AIFMC. '" ' y��.: k�'��: '�'� i-„�:j�: �'. �'`' ,/3o�C 1 �o��,� Z� �9�s� ; t: �� ;, �� _ � ..i.��'k:.. ....... . . . . ' . . . -�;'��` � ( � � ;>.:.;: '�'�•> . � ,;;�;- _ : . . . . _ . . t� � � � -.. � �` a g-i s . 5 }t�� t� �,1�,� '+f� ��"jrc�`�YM�.�(t�+1 '. i t� r z i ' ��e.�',�i A`'��ra��7� �tyj1 �j,t � r] L y' . F�_. v� � f}fid� ,1 C .?'�7'�' �,,+L�n� ��is r� � . � ��s� r ,Y 1�y�.+.��Z'�:'-41`1.�tq�� 7::� _4� ��K."`.`Yiw��_ . �i..�`a�.�.r�l�Tf`i�.�.�t4�iA, .S','f",'u GOVERNOR ROMERS REOIIEST FOR A SPECIAL SESSION - Motion to Aptirove Letter of Opnosition - Commissioner Child stated that at the CCI meeting last Friday, Governor Romer asked that every county respond to a fequest that there be a special session to consider a reduction in the valuation of improved residential property in all of the counties in Colorado from the 18 percent level to 16 1;:::: :- percent. The Governor would like to know if Counties are in �`; "' favor of a special session or what concerns they might have with ;': a special session. He read a Yetter from the Pitkin County to Governor Romer in response to this request. The lettez states that the County would not be in favor of a special session. In ' essence, there would be a reduction in valuation of such property in Pitkin County of $36,567,230 and this burden would have to be `; transferred to other classes of property. �� Penne moved to authorize Chairman Madsen to sign the letter and i� forward to Governor Romer�s office. Crowley seconded and the � =� motion passed ATFMC. i, CAANNEL 9 CIATHING DRIVE - Penne commented that she received a � : call from Pam Arnold, owner of Kidding Around, with regard to a clothing drive sponsored by Channel 9 news on December 1 for the ; Denver homeless. She has prepared a memo to City and County employees to advise them of this drive. ROARING FORR RAILROAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT APpLiCATION - Motion to � Table until January 12. 1988 - AIFMC - Cindy Houben, representing - the Planning Office, asked the Chairman to table this matter. # She stated that the Planning Office did not receive the commitments needed (a signed agreement with Wally Mills for a l0 acre site for the Railroad terntinal) to hold the continued hearing. Therefore, she recommends tabling the issue until � January 12, 1987. : • Madsen moved to table the Roaring Fork Railroad, Growth Manage- 4. ment Application until January 12, 7.988. Penne seconded and the , ; motion passed AIFMC. � `� �. `; WILLIAMS LOT SPLIT RESOIATTON - Motion to A�prove A2FMC - ! :I Francis Krizmanich, from the Planning Office, stated that he is !� � handlinq this application for Glen Horn. Shere is no outstanding ! problems with the Resolution and therefore, he recommends F� � approval. s` ! Blake moved approval of the Williams lot split. Crowley seconded �� and the motion carried AIFMC. , �' : ::' : ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL DTSTI2ICT ASSISTED LIVING CENTER - Motion to � }.;:..:t,,� ' Apvrove - AIFMC - Krizmanich stated that with regard to condition " ' , #1, the Entrance Committee shall be appointed by the Board of �';�:'�c?;_,, Directors, with the initial Committee membership subject to � approval of the Board of County Commissioners. �h �, i � l �Y':• _'�=,!. , f3��G �1�� /� �;` /987 �;��.t - �:�._ . - . y��;�:��. - ` � � �.. . . :�i ,.�:. ��. � � . . -. • .h7P7'�'';; .. . .. . . - . : . .. � ' .. . � - � y±.�: - -- • . . _ �1r�x,��. '.i 1 G!�'r� �� y.!�yj � =i . ra e4�'�tY. 7 �.�.3 Y��A� S ��C 1 ,d l+''r. �+ �. I�1 `c ,: '� F� � � �'��` �b.fv'Y�'6T f»� $1`�f� i „t a r � � �i `y,� �?��5.g�}��"�1A�l.�.�.°'s':�_��x�rs�a:S4_?u., ;� �e�v��k. 4�.... . . ,.ai�.�4�'!i•[..��n'�`�"'��r��a�" Penne moved approval of the Aspen Valley Aospital District , Assisted Living Center. Child seconded and the motion passed AIFMC. _ ODEN IAT SPLIT RESOIATION - Motion to Annrove - AIFMC - Kriz- ,:;!_ '_ manich stated that the only issue with this application was the ! 30 percent slopes and P&Z have indicated that they have no f, � problem with this issue. Blake moved approval of the Oden lot split resolution. Child ' seconded and the motion passed AIFMC. ' STARWOOD RANCH FINAL PLAT - Motion to Annrove - AIFMC - Kriz- manich stated that the Starwood Ranch, Inc., is requesting I approval for a final plat which was a lot split. Staff is " '� recommending approval. He summarized the issue in his memo by � , stating that the final plat and supportinq documents generally a•• ! comply with the conditions of the Detailed Submission approved by -.� BOCC Resolution 86-109 and with the requirements contained in the ' code. However, the applicant has moved the lot line between the -, two proposed lots but it is staff's opinion, that this change is not substantial and does not affect the prior conditions of approval. Also, there are some minor changes to the Protective , Covenants which will be necessary for the applicant to make prior to their recording. The covenants now reflect wording that shows two lots on Lot 1 and that is the basic change that needs to be made to the covenants. Lot 1 will consist of 30 acres and Lot 2 ' will be 90 acres. Staff has calculated a park dedication fee in `� lieu of land for this subdivision of $8085.20 which will be required to be paid at the time of building permit issuance. The applicant must submit a letter from the Fire Marshall in confor- -'� mance with Condition #2 of BOCC Resolution 86-109. � '�I Penne moved to have the planning office draft a resolution to ;f approve the final plat for Starwood Ranch. Blake seconded and the motion carried AIFMC. �IIRLIC HEARING - HINES-DUNCAN SIIBDIVISION EXEMPTION AND ACCBSS -� EASEMENTS - Motion to A�brove - AIFMC - Tom Smith stated there t_ was an error on the agenda item for this matter. The subdivision Exemption has been previously granted. The subject of this ; Public Hearing is approval of an Ordinance granting sewer line ;� and access easements across County property. The applicants own property adjacent to the Rio Grande right-of-way and historical- f�; . ly, permission to cross the right-of-way was effected through a �• ` private right-of-way license granted by the Railroad Company to ' ' the property owners. Since the County was deeded the property by � �-::.;:t the Railroad, no formal agreement for access was made. This will ��' affect the property owners' ability to obtain financing for the ��. property. Accordingly, Board members are requested to grant an �? access easement across the Denver and Rio Grande right-of-way l?,_. �;..,. 3 ��;�_'�{ � '�;� , �� z� �98 ' -: -- �T 6 C C �V o�e � � 4: ~. r- t" -'��:. - ' � ' ... .� . - . `'si�?�:.�- . . � _—..��-�... _.--.—�_ � .� "�f� : ,.�•:.. ,s;,:..�.. .�. .. , ,.f; . . . . . . .._ :,..,'; . ` y i �{, ,,�[ �I , Y>>-�� t �-�k, � , �r,. ..�%:YT'�.�7�'•'aAJf��`t.��]'li��i-��tJ�i'�S.:�y��:....w. �♦�w .b�,i>.�'��`��.��`��"'+1'6'.ti.��'itJ��/i� .r�r,��,AiT t` . along the alignment previausly utilized pursuant to agreements with the Denver and Rio Grande, and since then, without any agreement. In addition, the applicants request an easement for a sewer line under the Rio Grande Trail, consistent with prior actions o£ the County for adjacent property owners. �;i: - Neither easement has any negative impact that he can see on the }' , Rio Grande and therefore, he recommends approval. Nick McGrath, attorney for the applicants, stated that the only - thing that should be added, in fairness to planning staff's recommendation at the time of oral permission to cut through the Rio Grande trail for the sewer, is the fact that the sewer � easements should also be conditioned upon the applicant's posting 4>. � $1,00o cash as security that they comply with staff's memorandum � :,`i on relandscaping the sewer cut. �: - '� Chairman Madsen opened the hearing for public comment. There �� being none, he closed the hearing and called for motion. �� B2ake moved a pproval of the right-of-way easement and easement '� for sewer line to JePfrey C. Hines, John H. Duncan and Hrenda P. -, Duncan. Penne seconded and the motion passed AIFMC. PSJBI.TC HEARING - CLaSEN GiJEST HOUSE SPECZAL REVIEW Motion to Denv - Cindy Houben, representing the Planning office, outlined - the application by stating that the request is for approval of a • guest house as a Special Review in the RS-30 Zone District. The property is located in the West Sopris Creek Valley at the Sopris - Mountain Ranch {a 35 acre subdivision which was developed prior _ to the Growth Management Regulations). ;.`_:j The applicant has applied for a minor 1041 review for wildfire. ;,� The building envelope submitted with this application was for the proposed guest house as well. Therefore, the Planning Commission ` �i did not review the application for 1041 concerns. "�;1 .=„1 Initially, the Planning Office to2d the applicant that he did not - have the right to apply for a guest house on the progerty since there is only a total of 3S acres (each unit requiring the • minimum lot size in the zone district). The applicants, however, insisted that they have the right to be reviewed. Thus, the application is before the BOCC and is not supported by the Planning Commission or the Planning Office. The Planning Office believes that the Code gives specific direc- � tion to deny this application based on the area and bulk require- �j. ; ments oP the code. In addition, staff feels that even if the �.'; ::.�� applicants had enough Zand, the request should be denied as a special review based on the special review criteria alone which } � . 4 � ��. - �o� �i�� :� , �. r��;Y ' . ------ —::,�::.:%� �� ` . ts ;�,t.- . � _ -':::��`: .. . � ' %�.�� . . , . . �;� . t � � �,� 4.. , .. . �f.ti�YS�YA Y;,� .� Flf��rv��.:^��Iy�t�t � � . q� �,, ,v� `i'�L.�. . �� ti� .+�� t ��f��-�)f �'�}r y . . 4, ��t:i{f ,`f�"1 i'-tP ae;p�v1 1{'h,CF�1 � � i . �t�, .�'��"" ' , �!�+{ir�,'3'�{ k d" �' J S '�rr i��,��y�,�, a,yy r�'�y�^�'�t�+��`��.r3,t4tn'a�+�'F:.� � +r ''N� � .�r..�i��.S.Y�..`u'�.�' �.��',.�s�x''7'4�'k. '�- ��fL'.��1��G�x�'�v'�",.."'�J4E:bi1�'3P^u",°O�i'!'�''i L '�. �:s�- � states that the Board must determine that the use is appropriate in the proposed location, that it is appropriate with regard to the surrounding land uses and that it will not have any negative environmental, social or economic impacts on the area or the " character of the area. �;-.. - When considering the Special Review application for a guest house � - there are three main issues to analyze. These are traffic, ' wildlife and character of the surrounding area. The ranch currently has 54 lots that were created just prior to .I the enactment of Growth Management. If all the lots were allowed to build out with detached guest houses there would be 108 units Y on a county road system that the existing number of residents j complain is inadequate for current traffic loads. By allowing �'� each home site to have a guest house would be stretching the ; finding that the development fits in with the existing character of the surrounding area. The general area of the ranch is a � s migration area and a transitional area for deer and elk. ; Increasing the development potential of the area would increase 1 the potential conflicts with the wildlife in the area. i The main house on the 35 acre parcel was exempted from Growth i Management since the lot was created prior to the enactment of ,;� the Growth Management regulations. The proposed additional house on the property should be required to compete for a Growth _ Management that would allow a guest house to be built without an allotment. Therefore, it is staff's opinion, that Guest Houses , are not exempt from GMP requirements. - In summary the Planning Commission and the Planning office recommend denial of the application for a guest house on the : ' parcel because the proposal does not meet the area and bulk requirements of the Land Use Code. If there were enough land to E build an additional dwelling, that dwelling would require a Growth Management Allocation. The potential for essentially � doubling the density in this rural area will change the character �' � of the area, have negative impacts on deer and elk range and � migration and unmitigated road impacts. �� Penne asked what the requirements are in the RS-30 zone area for ��' a caretaker's unit. , 4 i Houben answered that code states, if the minimum lot acreage is �� 30 acres, then an attached dwelling unit of 500 square feet for �, ? an employee can be built. However, if a detached unit is wanted, , �`.. .' .. ' another 30 acres would be required. i ; i �:' � Penne also asked with regard to 1041 review, if the applicant was � i subjected to wildlife criteria. � � Houben answered that they had received a letter from the Depart- �y:-,�'�� ' �'!:��,�: 5 '^�`. `� �� t. ; � Z� ��'8 '. .. ,�Qcc , �f r�, 7 .,:. ; Y�,,:}:;�:-.: _ -x .:_ -: . . � � :: .. ,�..:: �,�.,: ,..,w;. Y:f:; .... ... � ;: . . . . . . . , * 1}ki�,�;` � :s�, z . � m �K Ry f'!�, �' ..r t �•r � �{�, �4 j �z� 'x�-r ��?� '� l , � ;:!.�`'�4..��t�}':AA��+��;�j��y.5.4..�T.i:.sxr�.. � w- „�.�-1�... 4 h�f�� ....'r��'��i . r7�,�'.�`:�. . ment of Wildlife stating their concerns with regard to wildlife in the buffer areas of that parcel. She further stated that at a prior meeting she had discussed the issue of buffer areas, and asked the Board's direction as to whether or not staff should � make an applicant go through the review process for wildlilfe. The Board instructions was for staff to ase their discretion. She felt because the Department of Wildlife had sent a letter with concerns, she could not ignore those concerns and therefore, +� ; . placed two conditions with regard to wildlife. � ` �'• " Chairman Madsen opened the hearing for public comment. � Joe Edwards, attorney for the applicant, handed out an exhibit � showing the location of the proposed guest house. He stated that � . the dwelling would not be able to be seen from the county road. � �, He stated the issue is whether a guest house is an accessory use j which goes on the same lot as the principle use or whether it is !1; , going to be interpreted to be a separate principal use of the ; �. ; property which reguires its own 30 acre allocation. i ! ; one way that the courts look to find out what is meant by the f languaqe in the code of guest house is what does it mean in its normal use. He does not feel that a guest house, in its popular meaning, is an isolated, independent use of property. Histor- `r . ically, guest houses have grown up in an estate setting where - other accessory buildings are present and are associated with ' ';� somebody that they are the guests oF. He also pointed out that since the Planning Office has adopted this interpretation of a � guest house reflected in the code, there has not been one built 4 _� in this County. „ <�! In all the cases he researched involving guest houses or related issues, guest houses throughout the country were dealt with as : • -:� accessory uses on the principle residence site. i � He presented copies of the code which defined a guest house. It ,, states that a guest house is allowed provided that adequate s provisions are made to prohibit rental or long term occupancy. ' •} That kind of a setup is inconsistent with the definition of what � :� a dwelling unit is. A dwelling unit is a structure that is � designed to be occupied as living quarters for any single family -- constituting a separate independent housekeeping unit. He then ` presented cases which had been over-ruled by the judicial system a in favor of the applicant. tS In sutnmary, he encouraged Board members to evaluate the defini- �� tion of guest houses as a single family structuxe. He feels they � should be defined as an accessory structure for part time guests. '' �':.. 1 Crowley commented that the key word which is being talked about j` ,. is land ase and what is the use of the structure proposed to be. �� 6 �' .,��. J �` �� ,�6�C. zr� /9� � ��;.. �l�e�,.�. 7 �='�K. v � (, 4.. / f= ;,��s... • _ . �-�`."°.."i� � s �� . �,�� .. . . . . . . . _ , . , .. � ' 3ky'�!�Jr� i f.-�'��k*' � ♦ J�x a �'41 . � � .ya„p� �-. tN��'p��jk �.t t+..�`�f,C��°,�+ .�� ) ° L-,��: �t w: y� 9'' � E s" �. t'�," .5- :=G.a:f,afiEt�x.:.,......t. � 1 id'�h..-,:.1.l.,s�:a. . - ,�: .ST.ic.�"a��.;�i'�i�a� "`�►��'�J`i*�'ii°.'r.�. t:,��,�J �t; He further stated that he is in favor of this type of thing. If Board members are worried about limiting the area, the size, who will be occupying it, etc., he feels that amendments could be made to the code to limit the number and size of the houses. Norm Clasen, owner of the property, stated that his application has been stuck in the transition within the County Planning Office. He finds some inconsistencies in ways things are being �.�"�� interpreted. As a tax payer and a person trying to deal with the . . system, he has found it frustrating and inconsistent. Therefore, he is appearing at this meeting to relate to members some of the difficulties he has experienced in trying to deal with this issue. He gave the reason of why he has made application for a guest house which relates to the health of Mrs. Clasen and her inabil- , ; ;� ity to entertain clients and guests in her own home. He further stated that he has taken a poll of other property owners in the ''•a area and there are not many who want a guest house. y� A discussion ensued with regard to code amendments, rezoning to ='`� reduce the density, accessory use versus dwelling unit, etc. -.., Both sides again reiterated their interpretation of the code ;, regarding guest houses. _;� Tom Smith, County Attorney stated that the Board has heard both • sides of the issue and both sides have presented reasonable - interpretations of the code regarding guest houses. He feels the - code is less than perfectly clear and under those circumstances members have to make the best judgement that they can. He can 4 -�.:.j not make a legal judgement which is mandated by either argument. :;:_ � He further stated that in discussions with Edwards he would find it easier to accept his interpretation if the code placed � limitations on the size of guest houses. Edwards has agreed to • the Board placing that type of limitation in this case. . After further discussion, Crowley moved to direct staff to .`j prepare a resolution stating that the reason the application was ''r:s� reviewed and approved the application was because it was a .,::� special review use for a guest house on the Clasen ranch at the proposed location limiting it to one guest house of 1,000 square • feet and a single story dwelling with appropriate deed restric- �,;,, tions to be approved by the County Attorney regarding use and - occupancy, to be recorded on the plat. Child asked legal counsel, if this application were approved, 1 would it be saying in effect that the applicant would not be '' 1 required to have the basic zone density for each of these uses. �:- ` , Houben answered that would be a policy statement which the Board .1;;:,..;,,-� would be making. Smith stated however, there would still be � control through a special review process to deal with other + • issues such as the size, visual impact, etc. The Hoard would not ��:,'L;'. : �,r. . ��..� 7 `��C=i� . L � �dCC L� ��`� ��{. ; /�0 UZ`ri� � � � <� ::;� Yi � t ..,it;. , . � .,�s��; � ' � . � 4 � _ ____ , . .. .... .�n.____. :. . . �.: . ��:, _ , . , . . ... . . . ,.- .� . ' ,}.} , j �' . ��.��;�lS 4'S�'<"��S �C ,,�,..�A � ;� •L;��!Y{�ij�it � . � y� t� ��6 1 ,r ��,.h r�a '�( � "�� 1�E�l ?c�"� �Y w a'° � .'� •fidi�- } �lyt��ir'�' 'y1►ly'�ry � ��*J'��SiB�� - h��. .�n.��M4�r'+t. �.��,1. <�:.�..�_.�.. �� ° n�t4i. I r"� ��r . _. .c ,.'v!9 a:rG3y..t,r.�F_:. be obligated to approve it in every case. Also Child asked that when there may be multiple uses could � people then, based on a favorable decision here, make the argument that they can have two, three or four of these uses. Smith answered that this is an issue which has to be clarified in >'�� the code. There is no explicit language at this time that states f you can only have one principle use on the propert � � Y• Madsen seconded and the motion was denied with 3 nay and 2 yea votes. Penne moved to deny the application Blake seconded and the motion passed with 3 yea and 2 nay votes. ; � The Planning office was directed to work on clarifying the code .,•y with regard to guesthouses and also to clarify the density and ' ; the amount of property required for the uses laid out. �� PDBLIC COMrIENT: Jim Ward was present to ask the Board when the • i appointments will be made to the committee which is being formed with regard to the Hunter Creek access. It is becoming an issue ;j because they may lose their access to the McNamara house and -, another piece of property because of the inactivity of what is not happening to the committee. Smith answered that Mark Fuller, Assistant County Manager has scheduled this matter on an agenda the end of December for the Board to make appointments to that committee. - RIIDOLPH IAT SPLIT: Motion to Table - AIFMC - The applicants had , requested that the review of this item be tabled until December • 8, 1987. The Planning office recommended that the Board continue the Public Hearing until that date. � Chairman Madsen opened the public hearing. Child moved continu- ation of the public hearing until December 8, 1987. Blake _ seconded and the motion passed AIFMC. ! =�K ASHCROFT SRI TODRING REZONING AF-1 TO AF-SKI - Motion to Approve � - AIFMC - Glen Horn stated that this is a continuation of a � public hearing. Ashcroft Ski Touring has requested a rezoning „ from AF-1 to AF-Ski in order to enable the owner, John Wilcox to �S make long term plans for upgrading non-conforming facilities at i the Ski area. �` , When John Wilcox submitted his application earlier this summer, � }: ::,:.;� it was combined with a Commercial Growth Management Quota System r,,�-�. :� request for the expansion of the Pine Creek Cookhouse and an AF- ��' -h,:.. � Ski Master Plan. The Commercial Growth Management Quota System ' i::- application was scored below the minimum threshold by the P&Z, �,� � ��` -';^+ ' - `'�::. S 4±��'�`s. f �Y� , g��c �� /9�8 l;. �. :; �(la��l�,� , 7 ;; . . ,, o. �. �.�. .:... :,�.��: , . - - :r.�:;q•k . . . , _..__" � ' ..:1:�: . `^ . . ' � S � -- :�:��;:: .:�:;_�-.. � Ty' .. .. . . . . : . i ��t��K ��`3 ��:i t y:-i"��,.�p�,��a ' r �. . a r b�S'� 3" �q�'jJ�E� �i�. �!- t . �'� ��*�`t�rr.�� ,%:��».° .. ��»,q�t�,'{�t ��. � � ��. .�'.M.��.,..�v�'f+�.�..�ti�t!3i�d'�,k S��rK�.n' �' t� � � . ;,a. �:`e��C+f.�*4'F3f;�f+�'S�.`�"+.�-r� � . but the applicant has filed an appeal which may be pursued at a f�ture date before the BoCC pending resolution of the rezoning request. . The P&Z completed a preliminary review of the AF-Ski Master Plan. _ Based upon the preliminary review, the applicant decided to `�� revise the AF-SKI Master Plan and re-submit the application at a �`�-'.�• future date pendinq rezoning to AF-SKI. However, Wilcox is understandably reluctant to spend a lot of raoney to revise the ! " AF-SKI Master Plan without a decision from Pitkin County regard- ing his rezoning request from AF-1 to AF-SKI. Therefore, he is - ' seeking the Board's decision on the AF-SKI rezoning request now, before initiating further Master Plan work. j It is the Planning office's position that there is a precedent � ! for reviewing the applicant�s rezoninq request prior to consider- 4 ation of the Master Plan. Both Aspen and Buttermilk Mountain were re2oned AF-SKI prior to the submission of their Master �:' Plans. It is staff's opinion, the basic question regarding the !". ^ future use of land in Ashcroft, can be afldressed in the absence `' of reviewing the Master Plan. We are confident that the P&Z and = BoCC will be able to work cooperatively with the applicant to develop a mutually acceptable Master Plan if the property is �' rezoned. ',i Madsen commented that the reason the matter was tabled is because � Board members were not clear on the reasons for denial of the �"'� request by the P&Z. A work session has been held and it has been placed as an item on the agenda for action. Ae reopened the _;� hearing for public comment. ` Chuck Vidal reconfirmed the statement raade by Horn. The process �+ they are asking is exactly the same one that the Aspen Ski . � Corporation went through in their procedures involving Aspen ,-� Mountain and Buttermilk Mountain. ,.� Smith stated that he feels it is a judgement call. However, he felt planning staff's recoaunendation was reasoneble. �-;� After a short discussion, Blake moved approval of the Ashcroft Ski Touring Rezoning from AF-1 to AF-SKI. Child seconded and the �- :i motior► passed AIFMC. � 22� READING AND PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLDTION 87-56A - AIRPORT NOTE � RSSOLIITION - Motion to Anprove - AIFMC - Gary Esary, Attorney 3. for the Airport, stated that the newspaper publication of this � public hearing called for a start time of 7:30 and the agenda � j item got changed. Therefore, he would like to indicate for the `` ' . ' record that the Commissioners have been present since 7:30 and �i` '"= ` continuously in session except for a short break and that we were �� -<•"� ! available if anybody had been here for action. j: '. '':;-' i (, �>�;t :� 9 ��.i�'G'�is . �-j r.r'y�,w,. �.� ,g Q�� /�„� Z¢ l9'8��.,',`,:: a �: �<�;. 4. . _ � o � :: , . °',{F,::- .. + ? . . , . '.�;y" __ ._....._... . ... . . . . .. .. . - .�'•r: . � .. . t ' ea ..��}q!�' 'l�� >� F� �r'�`{�� .�, 1 � �`'� �}� 4 .. t��.541 � i, r, k� � �. � 7�� R� {� k� � �.s,� � {�4�"i �'' �yi�7�,E y �-k : w �-*'t XF�� YGLf�„Y^��1' �Y IJ�j�� tA N.�i.��'��at!�M�.^��`.'��fY...a!��.Yak:1?�_f�-�y'�.y��. �� ,.� �� . r�,.ti. _�.r��i'��7w..n��r.1�_...�.�., . Esary handed out an agenda for the hearing which is attached to and made a part of these minutes. He asked the Chairman to add one item to the agenda which is an amendment to the letter of " intent to the paid parking letter of intent. Undate on Neaotiation/Litigation - He stated that there has been no break in negotiations since the meeting with airline officials �:'�•� the last week. �� : Tom Smith County Attorney, stated that there was a motion to dismiss the hearing on Thursday in Federal Court. Basically, the ' Court agreed to dismiss the claims brought under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, the Federal Civil Rights Act and the claim brought under the Supremacy Clause for the U.S. Constitution that our regulations were pre-empted by federal law. The remaining ;;� i claims in the case concern the question of reasonableness of the rates and charges under the Federal Anti-Head Tax Act and �. `? compliance with the state law which authorizes the Board to set a- . �+ rates and charges at the airport. In essence. at this point in f� _ � time, it is a question of whether the judge decides the rates and charges set are reasonable under operable law. The next raatter to be heard by the Court, is the airline's motion for Suspension of the Rates and Charges that were adopted under 87-56. If action is taken on 87-56-A, then that motion will relate to these rates and charges. After that motion is resolved we will begin to go into the merits of the remaining claims. The notice of Public Hearing was published in the Aspen Times and additionally separate notices by certified mail to each airline ;, as required under the previous lease. The purpose of Resolution of 87-56-A is two fold. The first , because of developments in the airport ranch acquisition as • negotiations have continued. 87-56 was passed on September 14, '' 1987. Since that time, continuing negotiations with the airport � branch owners and continued discussions among the Commissioners led to a restructuring of that purchase that has had implications � in the five-year financial plan and therefore, in the rate � making. � '; �:� The second purpose is to address matters learned in the process � . of negotiations. There has generally been a policy when dealing 4 with the airlines that when an error has been shown it has been � corrected. This has been done several times with the allocation $5 i of revenues and the amount of money to be paid by general R- , aviation. This procedure will be continued. Additionally, it � " • was realized that after litigation, there was something for ��:-, ` clarification on the policy on debt and acquisition of multi-year � �;. ; `� long lead time items. Out of this, a policy has been drafted �:.k'• :'i;� which will be recommended to the Board. Also, in this context, �= this is an amendment to 87-56 but as part of the record, 87-56 will be incorporated as well. He stated that this is the first � ; { I^ vF . 1 lo t`r ':�' i�. :N �aCG /�lo�,�.e„ z� /9 S 7 c-" ? .. �.. :=t:.-�:�:. . . . ------ . .;�:��:. . , �. -, ,O s ___.� . __ � . _ �.u.__..____ _ S..a�..��, . �" � . ..r!t�, .. . . . . ._ � .. . i,...- .... .... .... . � .. . . .. . ... . . 1' . ' �:;!; " '� r r ,;$ s /� ?{ x� ie ��: ' YF�^�1�Pt � �•+ ��Y; .:ds.'��.�,��;p�A�,�'�' "°-� � li!/��y '�':�) . � 5 b •�� r q� * i.ab• t��{� r ;��i<„Y �r. �'- �' <� . R,�� e,ya� , �7.�e7 Y ,�:'i�4,_ '�?C .��,��°@;a t��."�S 1't>.f.ti:�,�y*�..... ,:�' �..��i�`... i..F$1.,v�yt.a..._.. .. -. time there has been a written policy for airport rate making However, there was a existing policy from which they have been able to extrapolate this writing. Also, there has been compli- • ance with the master plan. He gave a brief overview of the amendments to Resolution 87-56 - which was read into the record at the Zast meeting. h-:'. There were two basic changes to Resolution 87-56. The first � ". being a clarification of policy and the second was actually • . reducinq the rates based on policy and the restructuring of the airport ranch. Tom Oken, Administrative Services Manaqer, was present to tallc � about some of the policy components. He commented that with � regard to rates, it was the same rate which was offered to the airlines which they did not accept_ Some of the policy issues �'.;i which have been amended actually focus on the long range finan- � cial manaqement of the airport, and more specificaZly how capita2 �� projects are to be financed. Throughout negotiations and the lawsuit that the airlines brought, this is what has been focused on. There are four options to finance capital improvements those :-; are as follows: (1) to get contributions from the private _ sector, (2) to make use of FAA qrant funding, (3j to use internal cash that is generated from operations and the airport, •'=`i and (4) to issue debt. The preference as set out in the >`',`j resolution, is debt. By issuing the highest quality debt, ' � financing costs will be as low as possible over time. It also ; assures access to the market in the future. ...:'� 4 :' 1 In settinq the rates, an analysis has been done with regard to ; , comparable rates at other airports and what the airports are ' � '� paying elsewhere. The limits on debt are significant. In order . ..-:1 to issue debt voter approval is required. There is now a limited ' '� voter approval in place for the debt we are trying to issue right ' `�� at this time. If it is going to be investment grade debt, there '-`=� are bond covenants in place for the debt outstanding that needs ;::::� to be complied with and only issue bonds that are on par with the �� existing debt. The debt outstanding now is rated, was insured • _;�� and received an AAA rating. With any future debt issued, the goal will be to maintain that same grade. To accomplish this, , the covenants of the existing debt need to be met as was discus- sed in a previous public hearing. There are enough historical coverage to require the County to plan ahead and get enough �� revenue in place to cover both the current and proposed debt. � There are projected coverage requirements and also market requirements of what that coverage has to be. Ae has been � advised that this is usua2ly 1 1/2 times the debt service cost as �� required. '3""•�'a �� He introduced a letter of testimony from Ann Sowder, Financial Advisor to Pitkin County with regard to her advice to the County � •.`;;;�� ; r.,. � 11 �.•.�z_. �,.... _� '��. �,{ .�6�c �/avu�� z�/qs� . :� � ��' _ � - . __ __� . � — �.:�_:.:: , :�., . . . . ... �f t � . . .. . ' t Jy�}tR�i'� S � �� i� y,��tit Xi�� r��s - l �� .. `' A t Kr7 f'V 1 S�lY`tt' w..°ad �t. � f��.� .., i *: i'�t �.�g.{�.,�� a � 13 �� A�j�y�� }y��''f '� ��+ , .. e n`iF; } i �7 t . - ��..�� l�." .. �� 4 ��i� �. �,5,�-'tT-'i� ��.r"��l��ij�.l LZ'M. b '^(� is � � ��4..._ ,;,�,sta7d.r .�.�;�i w..;::�. . .d. .�1,�.,�..e_,.. � �s�,i?..��7.��".t' n„� h.. �'A�. . �. 3�).ti� _ x� . .. - - . to set airport rates and charges so as to annually produce net � airport revenues (after payment of operation and maintenance expenses) equal to at least 1 1/2 times the annual debt service payments on the County�s existing and proposed airport revenue- j.. - supported indebtedness. In here testimony she stated the reasons for this recommendation. This testimony is attached to and made a part of �hese minutes. The recommendations made in the Resolution are sound financial - policy thaC he recommends even if bonds were not being issued. Over the last four or five years, the County has generated an ; annual surplus of approximately $240,00o from coverage and are projecting with the 1 1/2 times coverage, that rates are being set to generate, $250,000 in the future. The financial planning ;; process referred to in the resolution has been done for several ' years. � .':.� ,. �;4 He presented a five year projected Financial Plan which coincides I with the term of the weeks in attempting to negotiate with -j airlines. The airlines asked for a five year term and therefore, that term was beinq looked at by staff. He briefly summarized the Financial Plan which is attached to and made a part of these minutes. The plan has been set up assuming bonds were being • -"� issued but the coverage levels that are in place for 1988 and out are over what would have to be paid in debt service had bonds '" been able to be issued. Instead of issuing bonds, notes have �'� been issued and the debt service cost on the notes is less �'' because principal is not being paid only interest. As soon as ` ,� the dispute is resolved with the airlines, and sufficient revenue is in place to issue the bonds, the intent would be to take it - out long term. He noted that net bond proceeds are shown of . $3,000,046 and what was received out of the note proceeds is actually $60,000 less than that. What is being saved in 1988 by � not paying principal is approximately $50,000. �' Ed Thurmond, Airport Manager, summarized the capital projects ` portion of the plan. He stated that the capital improvement '; budget, which is driven by the rate making process in Resolution ;E 87-56, was developed with much consultation with the FAA, and as � .� to capital projects that were needed and eligible. He has < consulted with the Director of Public Works, and many of the i� items are ones which are supplied and maintained for the airport ;K by fleet management. He has also had a day to day working �,;, relationship with the Department of Finance for the County. ' , After looking at last year's operations and after the budget last year coupled with what has been done the last several years, he � ��` ' feels this is the absolute minimum necessary as a capital � -�` `�s improvement program to continue operating the airport at its �,' :.i;;.',:: present level. He presented a recent aerial photograph reflect- � ing the extensive deterioration of paving at the airport, the lack of maintenance therein, and the need for substantial heavy � �'�. capital development. � �a,. 12 ��':�,, . � .j�1• ,'' � }� 9 , D6 /C �f� ! � Z� /��7 .' r� . ,!J c, vGU✓ r i:��.V, .. ` `;'s,, °;:< ;. � � - � � _..... — ..r...._.a,....�... �...�.,,, nrwi+pni _ ._ . .._�.� ....�.._ . :�,w.�.....,....�.. ..�,..�.,...�....,.. �yf�•.: .. . ... . ' .. . � . ' - .T-... .... .._........ . .. . . .. .. .... .. ��;.:' 1- ' . .--, .� , � .�-. �{ ��° i'� �ff��r r� �°`�/S, rsy �14;d+M�� ::�1 ,t �.�j t, ��1 ,�� lr �}Y � . � .a w`i`'�y� a 1��,� i�i�..E y> i5�.�� "•�%��f�"� • �� . ya W.�,�:�*5� ��` � .,r:��.:..k� ',5.,�,.tJ wt�.�i�� .�s r..nt.^�:'�'. _�i � �r e�� it. �,'�..H�...,.; �� . Esary explained the multi-year or long-lead-time items. One of the things they discovered that there are problems within the • capital improvement budget, is the fact that some projects, such - as parallel taxi-way and land acquisition that are by nature _ multi-year projects which cause potential legal problems. There are some case lots which indicate that counties receiving federal funds are not permitted to add capital improvements to their rate base until those capital improvements are actually placed in service, but there is also language in the Statute that dictates that the County may take into account reasonably projected - capital expenditures. What staff is trying to do with this policy, is find a way to balance the legitimate interest of the airlines that they are not being charged for blue sky for capital improvements that may or may not happen. Zn order to plan ` capital improvements and land acquisition for the maintenance and � development of the airport and meeting future needs, staff has :,:� come up with a policy on how to deal with multi-year or long lead =i items which he presented to members. He stated that the policy � has four major components: (1) whether the item is supported by the existing master plans and updates; (2) funds be earmarked; (3) annual certifications/expenditures by staff; (4) findings of benefit. , With regard to land acquisition, which is the acquisition of the ranch, it has been analyzed in terms of the improvements to the ``:' safety, capacity and financing capabilities for expanding the :'::_`{ fees base and future needs. He proceeded to analyze the land � acquisition with regard to the previous purported policy. He submitted for the record the CHzM Master Plan and a copy of the " Existing Conditions and Future Directions Report which reflected � = . that the land acquisition is supported by the these plans. ' '� � . _.,� With respect to the support of the plans, he introduced Neal Rude, a consultant from Isbill Martin. ;_`,� Rude stated that in looking at land acquisition, previous plans .''�,.1� will be looked at to see what was recommended. The levels will be first what land is required for development and secondly the FAA certification process for aircarriers coming in, and what kind of safety requirements they have today as they compare to . what was required when previous studies were done. Esary stated that the acquisition adheres to the earmark portion of the policy. It is clearly identified in the financial plan for land acquisition. Oken commented that with regard to the good faith efforts being i� �' made to acquire the airport land for airport purposes, that since ��"``=y April of 1986 a grant was received from the FAA to spend approxi- mately $630,000 on the land acquisition. He presented a site plan showing the location of the property to be acquired. He �.,-� : ,t, : I �:.:. 13 � . � � ��f J.��C��. � �i -':? �OCC /�loy,��, ,� Z� 1Q8� �• �� ;.�� f �� . _-_:� -�:�,�;r: � . . .... �.. :.... .. ;;,;'.;'::,; � ,� ... .:... , <.�: , . .;�.; .�.; , . ._. . . . . .. , . _ .r:.�,r. � , � A -� w � � f+`�� w •�Y��.:��r` at Y �,,cj'�y �a,d s� .,4 b�I q!�� I'��E'�y y� �, ,, f. w„? j.�.M,�` at, frl� ,. : . �.Y$'�,;,5-�r'•�'��,��T,��';`i-.�5��}I�v` �C�5ti*��>u'"<', 4lTi ^� x..,�� t:: ,S�' �a i .��.Ji � .�.� -.n.�?..�ajEl�.�..2.�!,fce.rY.g"F..!r�..:_ t3�...r.r.fa�",+.;n... _. pS .t��_ei. I"1 stated that the seller wants to sell the County the entire property. They have looked at commendation, however because of a willing seller, the feeling is they can probably acquire this ' land more cheaply by trying to acquire the entire parcel and work with the owner rather than go into condemnation. With regard to _ negotiations, they have been able to reduce the price of the ;,:.;; property from $200,000,000 (the airport share being $825,000) to . approximately $1,400,000 (the airport share being r�duced to : $215,00). This has been accomplished by dropping the significant portion that the property owner is willing to retain in the hopes that they might be able to develop it in the future. Also, the � � County has contributed funds to buy specifically the land that is not related to airport use but is a good open space use. s;. -, . � Esary commented that they have gone through the FAA review .t . ' appraisal and survey process, used significant staff time for ,;� continuing negotiations, have hired a master plan update consul- •,� � tant and participated in the Highway 82 EIS plan. Also, land : acquisition will be in service by 1988, and with regard to the i present negotiation, deals with the possibility of the purchase ` of the entire tract with multiple securites, and buy back or sell � back provisions. The FAA has funding approved for land acquisi- a tion available for match and essentially, it means that there is preliminary FAA approval for some level of land acquisition. • The last element is the findings of benefit. He explained the 60 percent figure is the recommendation by staff of the benefit to accrue to the aircarriers resulting from the airport ranch : acquisition. This excludes the river land and the out parcel as � indicated. The reason staff feels it is a benefit is because :� they believe the relocation of Highway 82 and owl Creek Road is a safety issue. The development of GAM, although it is a benefit to GA, is also a benefit to commercial because of the safety . • issues having to do with separations. The finance issues have to _ '� do with increased reliance on air carriers for the overall „ airport budget and also the capacity issue to the extent that GA shangars and GA development is available will cut down on certain . types of GA traffic. The highway relocation will also make it 'r i possible to lengthen and widen the runway. The CHZM Master Plan ; suggested a runway length of 7500 ft. and a width of 150 ft. The ,� � existing runway at the airport is 7,000 ft. with the width being � 100 ft. This has turned out to effect the availability of the �: airport to certain new types of short haul by quieter jet ! � transport which otherwise would been available. The longer and :'s wider the runway, the safer it is. �Z i . Compliance with FAA standards is another benefit. There is � �• _: , presently a setback waiver. Also, there is presently a center- � �;. ;....� line between the taxiway and the runway waiver. �-` Parallel taxiway is supported by master plans, and funds are `; earmarked as per the financial plan. With respect to the � �, : , . i- ''�t�: 14 �'.�� q k°„�3. :� � �Y ��07�r�'�`• r; . = I oCL �/ad�� r ;�� ., f �, _ . � :,;:.::: . _ .,.��;-�;.. _ ... _ . ;__�._.,,.,._. ,� s 'i��.��: . . . _ � �,.�.. ... . . . . Tl�'�`� .��i.`:'?4�..s':;.:�� iSfS..`�`s".��.iL�9tE�il , .1'�.,. . . ..._ '� .'�#�'dr3uy,r."!�4�r��'k��,��i3�.s. T."r��T,^l{�', ii certification, the FAA, with their preliminary approval, have approved civil enqineering as beinq paid for.and the Master Plan Update Consultant's Contract has an alternate of civil engineer- ing design and construction management of parallel taxiway. With � regard to radar, this item and the parallel taxiway are inter- twined and all of the things done to pursue radar count for _ parallel taxiway as well. With respect to findings of benefit, <:. - it is staff's estimate, that it is 75� of benefit to the air- �;�•.. . carriers. Oaken presented the Airport Rate Proposal which is attached to and made a part of these minutes. He stated that the rates as recommended, require that the airport be loaned $200,000 for � short term. It is a rent increase for a total of $535,828 to be collected from the airlines for their space. The square footage would be approximately 20,677 sq. ft. for a rental cost per square foot of approximately $26.00 per sq. ft. That compares to the old rental cost paid by the airlines of $20.43 per square foot which is a 27$ increase per square foot. The airlines are � - getting significantly more square footage for their rental fees. . { Landing fees are not being increased. Also, as per the Resolu- :�a� tion, there is an increase to general aviation's rent to an -� average of $174,00o increase over five years. Concessions are up .:y 18$ and other revenues 22� for a total increase in revenues of 41�. The overall increase to the airlines for passenger tickets ' for flying out of Aspen, would be half of these amounts. The ;`.'-y increase would be $1.17 per plane passenger or approximately $.60 •�;t per ticket. one of the comparisons used, is a survey from Smith :�;:� Barney of 1985 that fit the airports that were using airport bond ;� financing at that time. Their average in-planed passenger cost was $4.27 in 1985 for those 50 airports. Pitkin County Airport "i is now at $3.58 still significantly below that figure. In terms : of rental costs, the airport is now at approximately $26.00. The ' :' Smith Barney survey was less than that. There has been recent information that indicates for new space now, it is more in line '�3 with the Denver/Salt Lake City ranges reflected. The closest � t,,a airport to the County which these airlines fly is Grand Junction and they charge $25.55 per square foot. ,'-� ;;;•� In the last year, there have two bids received for space in the ";;i terminal. Last fall the restaurant and bar space was bid out. That bid came in for next year at $41.83 per square foot. The , .•;"� gift shop bid came in at a per square minimum of $45.00. Adding in an estimate of their percentage of gross revenues, the bid comes in at $83.00 per sq. ft. Landing fees are at $.65. The Smith Barney survey reflected the 50 airports in 1985 at $.75. ; Grand Junction charges $.68 and Denver charges $.92. - Also, the airlines have indicated that general aviation is not paying their fair share. However, the figures reflect that �•'' '=' general aviation will be generating $236,500. � ; ":�'::'�;`= i 15 jG.'t,�:. � r9g �,,�,� '� �3oCC /V�� z� 7 `� ";i 1' .f � t,jF:'. . . . �� . - ..N}1,. . � ' � ... .�� :::: ..��-r:. . .. . . . • u.;:s.; . `�- '��r`y,�;�+�: �'�`��:,'�� +'�.li� �.��±��'� 4 }t '"��v��",�� f7'k� `�"�.�r�1h4 9_ s � ' � ��'3� m.} �"�''k � `� a � :'f! nr�:@it�> ��..�a.r........r..'� �- � +..N_.r . _"' ,.�':�.i�.t.i.�Y� l .z3' Chairman Madsen opened the hearing for public comment. There being no public comment, the public hearing for closed. Penne moved to approve Resolution 87-56-A on second reading. ' Blake seconded and the motion passed AIFMC. PAID PARKING - AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL REVENUE- - Esary .�-;�: stated that Commission members had approved a Letter of Intent � '= d .. •,. for paid parking opezator capita which authorized an expenditure t o£ $85,000 in improvements and equipment at the airport to get going with a durable surface. The construction work has been put out to bid. They originally planned to do $180,000 total. . $85,000 this year and the remainder in the spring. In putting - their project out to bid, they found that prices were favorable. � Therefore, they would like to do $90,000 worth of construction this year at the favorable rates. ��,. . k,�- , Child moved approval authorizing an extra expenditure of $5,000. ��. Blake seconded and the motion passed AIFMC. i '•;. PIIBLIC HSARING - MAIN BUTTSRMILK CORPORATION. NEW LIOUOR LICENSE � � FOR THE RACER'S EDGE - Motion to ApArove AIFMC - Chairman Madsen 3 opened the hearing to the public. There being none, the public ( hearing was closed. � t i Blake moved approval of the Main Buttermilk Corporation, new � liquor license. Crowley seconded and the motion passed AIFMC. <.� i �ND READING - AIRPORT BOND ANTICIPATION NOTE RESOLDTIO�I - Motion �. ' to Apnrove AIFMC - Penne moved approval of the Airport bond Anticipation Note Resolution at second reading. Crowley second- ? ed, and the motion passed AIFMC. _� SALES TAX DISTRIBDTION - Motion to aqgroved AIFMC - Tom Oken ' • ? outlined this item by stating that Resolution 78-121 established ! that 57� of the 2� County Sales Tax would be distributed to � municipalities within the County based on the percentage of sales ' tax collected within their jurisdiction. The County's portion of � the 2$ sales tax remains at 43$, and the distribution of the 1� , sales tax to support transit activities is not effected. The :!. attached resolution sets forth the distribution of 57t of the `.� revenue generated by the 2� County sales tax. �'� �: Blake moved approval of the resolution adopting the distribution ? formula. Crowley seconded and the motion passed AIFMC. 'S , RFTA RESOLUTION 87-11. SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET APPROPRIATION - RUBEY t�' � PARR - Motion to Aonrove - AIFMC - Bruce Abel, General Manager E �; . , � for Roaring Fork Transit Agency, summarized this item by stating �:�.:.: .,;,:j that at the October 28, 1987 meeting of the Roaring Fork Transit ` Agency Board of Directors, the budget for the Rubey Park Transit s, Center was amended to appropriate additional monies to improve �� .' `;��^;' i r,:- � 16 �'.:",�;: � �6CC �(/�i,�•�,L..e�. z��R 8� , -- i / 4 ;;.� �.: y,1'!�`.'-Cy�`, . � . . . . '�� . . -5� .. . - ... ". .� s y.�.ir.-... ��: .�c:.'{7�.: .. . . ,+r.. . .. .. _. . . . .. . _ . _.... . .. . _ . '{ �F l, � f[+ T 5 ` x�_7�,� � b�` '9'�.�j�'! E � t r +t ' A � �a,'.^' �4��P�' ''� t+ ,r r.. . ''�t'�„'4 q" ��lr�r�� it �� !� '+' a�!�� , t x�`��J�� ... .a �;: .?�.,�+9 �� 3.!,is.,,��,�.,�'�`_,�F"�s.'"LS.'?,... ..�*i �'�?��.,�''.F;:�.. "'�''�o f,c'�y�. 'a . ' �;•..:i�:: . the alley next to Rubey Park as well as to move the trees from Rubey Park to the goZf course and other recreational sites and to provide for the sanitation tap fee which had been omitted from the previous budget. Tn addition, it was necessary to incor- � porate the revenues flowing into the Rubey Park budget into a budget document. _ They are requesting approval of the supplemental budget resolu- r? : . tion appropriatfng additianal monies for expenditure on the Rubey �;°� Park Transit Center as well as incorporating additional antici- pated revenues into the project budget. ��.�` H1ake moved approval of the supplemental budget. Crowley � seconded and the motion passed AIFMC. � . � ROCRY MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS COMPANY - Motion to Aqprove - Passed �• with 4 yea and one nay vote - Tim Whitsitt, Assistant County I'�� Attorney summari2ed the project by stating this issue has been F; �,. , before the Board previously in the Form of a one-year lease of a 1 ; small parcel of land in the northarn end of the True Smith Park ; '� • t to Rocky Mountain Natural Gas for the purpose of installing and ( maintaining certain equipment used in conjunction with its � natural gas line which runs through the area. An ordinance is � required for the lease in excess of one year of park lands. Rocky Mountain wants a ten-year term, but was £irst given a one- year lease in order to accommo8ate their need for quick action on � installation before winter weather halted construction. � i Rocky Mountain has offered a total consideration of $2,000 Por � the ten-year term. The one-year lease was approved by the Board at the October 27 meeting and signed by Rocky Mountain. Staff at j that time recommended approva2 of both the one-year and ten-year . leases and suggested further that it would be inappropriate to � grant the one-year term unless the Board was favorably disposed � • � to the full ten-year term. � � i Blake moved approval of the Rocky Mountain Gas lease as drafted. � � Crowley seconded and the motion passed with 4 yea and one nay . vote by Penne, i j ; MI�tOTES OF NOVEMBER 10 1987 - Motion to Approve with Correc- � tio s - The minutes o£ the November l0, 1987 meetings were � approved with corrections. ` ' EA�SEMENT AGREII�NT WITH TOM OLSON - Motion to Anprove AIFMC- `:s i Smith stated that Tom Olson owns Lot 1, and the Wesf half of Lot j' ! 2, Block 2 of the Red Mountain Suhdivision. West Ridge Road was 4� _ .. iimproperly located outside of the easement with the effect that !� , this property encroaches upon the easement, and poses a tech- ��." : • i �....,;•..:t ' nical problem for Olson to obtain a building permit. Therefore, �..-••. ;� ,,,: � he has proposed that he and the County enter into an agreement � �. I which will allow the building department to issue a building � „_;'.: j 17 �._;.;;��' ! ��<< /�l e ve.�,��w z� i�`�� `'"�'�.'��: ,, f . �.� � d �S. .. �� f ` � .., ':-�.s�-.%.,�J.;:. . .:-� ..�_.=:✓a��/ ;.�'31x. - � . ' .... . '_._"'_ ., , ' -, � ! ._ . _. � :. _ ..._... r . . . ...._ . ....... .... .. .. ` . ' ... . � ::, � :� .:,......_... . . ,{ ��: . � . � � �. . � � - . .. � ' . .. . .... � � .t a�j�� s ..... ' .. ; .•,. y� :�� ,k_� ,a v.. � y, .n,�, ,,.I .� �pi(g��, .wit ` L ��t� . .: „�"��A �.. .�P'f.t��-��4L'f�..d"h�` r .�...�'��:�. � 5 5�.�• . . . J 4 S.s{'�. .(l l �. 1�yY T'� �i, . . . �L 1S.0 . SF#.. .. - ',;t:;�. �.. permit to him in consideration of whioh he would agree to defend and indemnify the County if there is any problem, liability claim, etc. Smith recommended approval of this request. Blake moved approval. Child seconded and the motion passed F:'� AIFMC. +•- �' �:.;-_. F:�_:' AQ70IIRNMENT - The meetinq was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. "�" Respectfully submitted, �,`�:� � - � Jeanette Jones i. �� Deputy County Clerk F __ i:� �_ .. ' :�� ,�' -+:� .'.� ==;;� "4:u `=a�ti.., ,ny-_ ;'�i.. .: . �. ;n� . �.e: N:(. �� _'�J �_� i =! �r:. _'":i k i'r. ...i S•:' . ��.�t `.�I �,• >'' .,._�;.�^ ;°;;::: �` 3 1$ :% T � „ ~.-��' ��CC /fIDU¢m� Z� (�/8� #� ':`:�'.-�� ' �'-� . , , ,-- . _ ,,,�- . .. . Y � �- .:...�:: ..,,::..�. � . :..... . ..�.. -. _........�, � .. . . .. .. �,':�,.:5"�. . " . ..� . .. .. . . . t. -4F':R . . . _ . ~:�l:.'Sx.�. . .. • . " '_ 'x+.ti"��'�.'� � . � 1� .i+.}:� � �. � . �2' .! ','�l".!�2'��. . • . . . ;�;j;yF,''.�i i � ,. . t..q�.. �� f`V�.t ti..� . ' r%t ai+t. � . 3=?�,.:r :S'4�',�,�,� • I" j'..i � �