The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutbocc.min.reg.12291987 __.__ ,�,,, _�.; �..,�.�. ��::�. - . . .. . .�_ _ � . � r r^ , , . , . _.. . , . .,. s,�'.:�.`�'�t+��E1�Suf�"':' '''.,�i;S . . �id BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Y yj �� REGULAR MEETING AGENDA TUESDAY 29 DECEMBER, 1987 5:UD PUBLIC COMMENT/MANAGER COMMENT LAND USE 5:15 LAND USE RESOLUTIONS Aspen Sludge Site Special Review Use Permit C6H) Snowmass Sludge Site Special Review Use Permit(6H) �?;�;,' - �;.: PUBLIC HEARIN6S: '� '` � Jensen Rezoning [GH) Hunter Creek Ranch Special Review - PH (GH) _ `"y NEW LAND USE CASES � 3....: ,:� Highlands Resort Lodge GMQS Ailocation (To be tabled) (GH) Grand Champions Goif Course Genersl Submission �. ='� Extention (GH) � County Land Use Fees and Reso. (GH) , � ,:i i ,� Emergency Resolution: Implementation of S.B. 219 �; •..,, CVested Rights Legislatlon), Tom Smith/Glenn Horn -;:::a , ';:_i y:15 BREAK ,� _::� ADMINISTRATION •• 7:30 RESOLUTIONS `'^i ist Reading, 1987 Supplemental Budget Appropriation, Lynn Dunlop ;':� 2nd Reading, 1988 Budget and Approprietion, _� • Lynn Du�lop Highway 82 Concerns and Priorities, 7om Newland ,�t EMERGENCY ORDINANCE: Friedberg Land Dedication �y`� Tom Smith '::!_� 7:45 PUBLIC HEARIN6: ;;;'� Second Reading: Ordinence Approving Ten Year Lesse --;; of Lands in True Smith Park for Natural Gas _ �� Facility, Tim Whitsitt (15 min) '' . t FIRST READING AND SET PUBLIC HEARIN6 -:� A80 Lease Amendment/Extension Richmor Lease Amendment/Extension '� Fattor Petroleum License Agreement >� Isbill Associates Consultant Agreement _ �S :.� �::;' ; `� Uff-Site Rental Car Interim Operating Agreeme�t, Ed Thumond /. � Building Department Lease Extension, Bob Anderson / �` ' .:?� �`� �� ` a 9:00 ADJOURN �� :� t / �� t � "� �/ �'� . .'e4� . . . . . _. . •F �� . :' ...:�. ...:. .........�..._. ..:'_.1 . . ... �.:. . . ... . ....... _�' . i �L�ii .. �"�' . _ % :'f i�:;: . . w- . . *-�c..,: . .. �.c,'''+�_ . . � ' .,'ys:/�_ '��i�.. - . '� . 1 ic�� . . ;;;T}:;` � . :��i��.. � � � . '•:.'�`1S:�!�:� �.��.".y,_'4!' . _�.'��:. .^,��r"�� ':^{:::y,��1 1��i•� . . ..�Trc,'...°.�� ' � ry�: Y �: _ ` ��tic � - . .. -. . . ...-� y .. -�' � ,1. M 4."•�,� �';6-•i :�f.l�l � � ,�, � '� � � r;,a7�F+ ,�r .::d1ht�. .h'�a..=T,GI.,�'�1c�4._ %."?:n _ .. .Yr4�� t. `�� '�.� t GiF '�,.�+`i �'i� , " � ,?L� �� k� ,,;�� . �'� /�r1�z1� � � _ �::: , �. . MIN[ITES BC)ARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS „ _. . DECEMBER 29. 1987 E` ti a. REG[TLAR MEETING ; . .,� j:: ;:, i ;:� ;�• . ��.� MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman George Madsen, Bob Child, Fred r. :� Crowley, and Tom Blake � .� PUBLIC Co�NT: Tim Howell a property owner on Aspen Valley � Ranch which takes up the major part of Snowmass Canyon was °�i present to ask certain questions of the wmmissioners with regard " to the widening of Highway 82. After a short discussion, it was ,.� decided ta hold a work session on January 5, 1988 at 4:00 to discuss the issue with property owners in the area. �`f',� Mark Fuller, Assistant County Manager, stated that for informa- 4 j tional purposes, there will be regularly scheduled updates in ; work sessions with the Board on alternate Tuesdays. This - schedule will start on January 19, 1968. , � �? Also, Fuller stated that he was in receipt of a letter from G. ;•� Dwight Shellman with regard to structuring the donations which � } were made by Don Henley to the County relative to the redesign of � the road and bridge maintenance facility which was brought up in �S � a work session a couple of weeks ago and directed staff to proceed with planning for that facility. It is Shellman's t i request on behalf of his client, that the work and the cash that went into developing that redesign be characterize@ as a contri- j bution from Henley to the County for tax purposes. Tt is his recommendation that the County accept it as a donation and a s.t 1 letter is being drafted to that effect. � Board members agreed that this would be appropriate. � � Fuller reported that the Hunter Creek Committee has been formed ;,,.:� ' and read a letter from 12on Austin which stated that the landowner - � representative will be Tom McCloskey, Red Mountain Homeowners� ' '�.•"`w;:'. representative, Jack Barker, Community representative, Tom Clark °:'��'. and Jim Ward as the joint community member. They have agreed and ��;"_. � ��*�-;?�;,. �� ,�D C L .D�(��n�.z q /�l�7 �,�. ` ,�:� �:�. ��: . ;. , . -,_„"'�'"�.�— - ,ti�,..Y_ _ , , " < ;,�J . ^G:; � ;�:: - ��A. ` � . ^� . -r. +�_- _. . . . . . . .._ : � � SF,r. � �: �} . _ . i'kw,. ��,.:.+... Ya;.c . -r. _ ..:5$ '��.'.�dr&-� ,A Sxr 'ar6i2 - �..,4', � Y?'y�?� endorse to having open meetings and inviting pubZic input. Also, he has an invoice from Tom Oliver for the first phase of the Group stndy and a funding request for the second phase of � the study. The first phase is billed in the amount of $2400 which is above the original projection of $2,000 due to some - travel and lodging expenses of some of the people from CU who performed the study. The Board has set aside $3,000 for the �'��" study at this point, and the request for phase two of the study is for $2,000. Based on the amount already allocated Zess the amount requested reflects $600 available now and members may want to allocate another $1400 above and beyond which they already have to perform the rest of the study. ,::'.; - ' It was the consensus of inembers to discuss this matter in a work ;' session to review the outcome of the first phase of the study �. j before allocating anymore funds for the project. F . 3 - .�:.� Another item which Fuller presented to members is a concern he � has with miscommunication with staff on the curfew extensions at .. � the airport. A work session has been scheduled for next week to discuss this matter. Bob Child commented that he had discussed this issue with Tom Hines and Hines would also like to sit in at "� the session. ',� Connmissioner Child presented a letter from Michael SchulEz, ,k Director of Community Services in which he expresses his satis- ,;, faction with the high performance level of community services. :�� He feels they are making a lot of progress and specifically in �''� hospital relationships. b '3 Coaunissioner Crowley suggested that there be a work session with ; � regard to the projected level of construction related employees ';:� coming to Aspen in the next year to build a massive amount of • hotels, etc. His concern is with the potential housing problem ,•°f and the number of cars on Highway 82. He stressed the fact that � he did not feel that government should get involved with supply- ing the housing, but rather the idea of approaching some private E developers, encouraging them to become involved and ask them to '� come before the Board with their ideas on how to help alZeviate � what he feels is a critical situation. j` �s -� AEter a short discussion, it was the consensus of inembers that � , the matter should be discussed in a work session to be held on � January 18, 1988. ' �i � ASPEN SLUDGE SITE SPECIAL REVIEW IISB PERMIT - Motion to Approve- � �'.`" AIFMC - Glen Horn stated that the resolu�ions which have been � ?;; '; ' prepared note that the previous approval conditions remain in 3 .:;::,;.,' effect while the applicants are encouraged to experiment with �;��:.�_,..:;;° i disposal methods to reduce impacts. The resolutions also call for �j`; ,"`u;,�. ! a public hearing on the sludge sites to be held during Septeml�er - ��"` �^:.�'i'�-'�`ri;� . : :,�y��:.. � �r�.'<'t,t2 � i Z _ Y. � � �;� ` ��i<� �� Z�l (9� ��,. j �2Ce m � � � 7 �. F � � :�i',a.�' - �,,./ � � ....?'-,.•�.. __ . ` '��'' . . � _ . . _.. " ':x..�" ?:1' . . �:4,. `:.�i:'•'_ ' . i ...�;' :�:�±?�'e "j" . -��ti�a • • . �?+� �_:z � � �f .� . . . ..... _ � .. .. . . . � .. Te+J'i' ' .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. ' .. • ,� ,pr.� � J`�'y� .. . '..li�`Ml�.. '1�v+x. �7�� r ,. ,,, � ..r.'Y...3�...�� ., si �_ ..e .. J .�L �{t . . _ 'ilHRxr . . l�5' ... k,�. of 1988. Child moved and Blake seconded approval of the resolution as written. The motion passed AIFMC. SNOWMASS SLIIDGE SITE SPECIAL REVIEW USE PERMIT - Motion to Aporove - AIFMC - Blake moved approval of the Resolution granting � an extension of the speci 1 review use permit for solid waste ': - disposal to the ��'��onsolidated 5anitation District to September 1, 1988. Child seconded and the motion passed AIFMC. PIIBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION - HUNTER CRE K RANCH SPECIAL REVIEW- APPLICANT - JOHN MCCIASREY Motion to ADprove - AIFMC - Glen Horn, representing the Planning Office stated that the applicant, John McCloskey, is requesting special review agproval to con- struct a seven bedroom single-family dwelling unit. The County Land Use Code requires special review approval to construct more �,.. '.'.'i than six bedrooms in a single-family house. The applicant has � been before the Planning & Zoning Commission and they recommend ;�; ��_�^� approval of the request subject to two conditions as follows: ,t � 1. The house will he used on a long-term basis consistent ``-� with the definition of a one family dwelling (section 20-1).1 -.� '``� 2. The applicant will agree to join a special road improve- ment district for Red Mountain Road in the event that such a district is formed. `:;I ��:`,°;?i Horn recommended that a third condition be added that requires •:'I the applicant to agree to have one parking space provided on-site , � per bedroom. He stated that this is part of the code, but feels � it should be explicit. : ; Chairman Madsen opened the hearing for public comment. There `� being none he closed the public hearing. ' .�,;..� ,-::.i :�j Blake moved approval of the application with the two aforemen- ;;;i� tioned conditions with there being a third condition that one .;�..y parking space be provided on-site per bedroom. Child seconded and the motion passed AIFMC. ;;�i ASPEN HIGHY�ANDS RESORT REOIIEST FOR M[7LTI-YEAR IADGE GROWTH "��:# M�TA AGEMENT ODOTA SYSTEM ALLOTMENT - Motion to Table to January ,;�:j 25. 1988 - AIFMC - Glen Horn, representing the Planning Office, stated that the Aspen Highlands has submitted an application ,;;,�j requesting a multi-year lodge Growth Management Quota System ; ; :i allotment under the provisions of the Land Use Code and that F:: • staff is currently reviewing the application. The application includes a fiscal impact analysis of the proposal and a economic analysis of the possible phasing of the development. Based upon � '.� a mutual agreement between the applicant and the staff, it was ��:;:;;�:� determined that it would be best to review this application in ' �'`t'• .:�� . i ':a,��: 3 (:::�,.:. , ; � �ac� �`�=::. =�:� �ete m�e:- Z g /q8� F' ��. . - � _. . ��: � , , :�. -.r° _;;; .. �. � . � �� "�' ,, �► �' . ._.. ... . . :. . ____ _ . ��; � •, .. , ..�`�� 'ivT-`�:;�!"'��j ��.. :�',��'��, ':�,� -•,.��?� �, ,� y'�� . k h °Slr�u ti i 4 �:'� .....n:'�-.' � � .4 �,� �� w�i ..�� 1988 rather than at this meeting. However, this item has been scheduled for this meeting because the request is technically part of the 1987 lodge growth management competition and there- fore, should be heard in 1987. The Planning Office recommends ' that this item be tabled to a future date. It was determined that because of the technicalities of the �;;;;.�,i.�, � issue, it will be heard on a work session day which will be k`� - scheduled as a special meeting and a record kept. �" Blake moved to table the matter to January 25, 1988 Child seconded and the motion passed AIFMC. ROBERT N JETISEN - REZONING OF GRZZZLY LANDSCAPING FROM AF-1 TO F. B-2- Motion to Table AIFMC - Glen Horn, representing the Planning ` :j Office, stated that the applicant is requesting approval of a " � rezoning of the Grizzly Landscaping property from AF-1 (Agricul- i:� : ;_, ture and Forestry) to B-2 (Business). The property is approxi- .� mately one acre in size and is located adjacent to the Boise � Cascade Lumber Yard on the east side of the Aspen Airport - � � Business Center. � . ,` Planning staff is recommending denial of this application due to their belief that the proposal does not conform to the adopted ' State Highway 82 Corridor Master Plan. Also, the Planning :.;� Commission unanimously recommended denial of the application �e because of its inconsistency with the StaCe Highway 82 Corridor `_�i Master Plan and the location of the property within the 200 foot setback and traffic impacts onto Highway 82. � y _� Brook Peterson, attorney for the applicant appeared before the Board. He presented the history of the property and the reasons - • for his client's request for rezoning. This documentation is in i the form of a hand-delivered letter dated September 28, 1987 , • � which is attached to and made a part of these minutes as Attachment "A". ,j:j He stated that thay have and are continuing to try to work with j Boise Cascade to get the entrance problem resolved. The same �I problem exists that has in the last four years, and that is that :>i Boise Cascade wants an exorbitant amount of money in terms of i insurance premiums. Jensen has had discussions with Kelly "' Bloomer and the manager of Boise Cascade about their willingness to join in and consider moving the access to Grizzly and Boise Cascade from where it is right now down to the Airport Business �' . Center's entrance so as to eliminate not one but two entrances off of Highway 82. He reiterated his statement in their appli- cation and stated again for the record that they have no objec- "; ltion to that and are willing to participate in it. 1 � � He summarized the issue by stating that the property is presently �"`�i.-1 ,j zoned AF-1 and is a non-conforminq parcel. The use before his � �'�� : � 4 ,s��,... � =``��:: '�� 1c�Ce�n�Z� �1�57 �-'' �.. � . ��:� ' � - _ �--.�—°�� . ..;:,;=;;_.::- . _ ••:in,�':`zi`�'��j'�� F': . `:.�'• . ` - w ��. . . _ . . . . _,.... `. _ . .. �:. .��, ` : f � � � ._ .� ...' :'>w. _ t �.{�,Js� •' .� y��i:' � F C r.'i.��?�.s.�Sa��....��tL�1s"'�n�E:_�.a `n.�:;a . w: �,�-� .E.`c« � ��:$'. ., .:�.,�iA •. '�;.: : client bought the property for the nursery was not a non-conform- ing use but rather a conforming use within that zone district. The application speaks to the advantages of the rezoning and to the logical nature of the rezoning except for the issue of the 200 foot setback. The building is within the 200 foot and therefore, no expansion can be done on that property without more i.--- County approval. Allowing other uses, which is what the B-1 zone i:;. . would allow would (a) create a conforming parcel; and (b) would w'�•:` allow reasonable use of the property which the County would still � ; have the ability to monitor and control. � Horn stated that the Planning office recommends denial of the - _:.� rezoning request. While the present use of the property seems � somewhat consistent with the B-2 zoning of adjacent properties, it is staff's opinion that there are significant differences � .._' which make a rezonirig of this site inadvisable at this time. � I - In any rezoning application, the full sange of permitted uses in ;`.; '`,� a zone district and the appropriateness for a given parcel must �` ..-:ti� be considered. If this area were zoned B-2, the site would be 7 opened up to a lot of different type activities which are not taking place there now. Right now, it is a low impact operation �`-j which is visibly attractive. .'� The property is located entirely within the 200 foot setback from .,y�� Highway 82. Both the existing access and the proposed access through the Boise Cascade entrance should be improved to highway �:;� entrance standards to reduce traffic hazards. Any increased use - �; of the property, particularly during the winter will increase the j potential for accidents. -'.'I - In regard to the Highway 82 Corridor Master Plan, the staff � opinion is that the Plan recommends open Space/Recreation/Parks ` for this site when the maps and text are reviewed in conjunction. • ,,l:� The current use of the property is arguably consistent with this ,.`.� designation. A rezoning for commercial uses is not. .;::�� He stated that the Planning Commission recommended denial also for the following reasons: ��x�� 1. The property is located entirely within the 200 foot '�:� Highway- 82 setback. The possible expansion of uses within the � :;� setback is not consistent with adopted County plans, particularly - the State Highway 82 Corridor Master Plan. ':,a �1 2. The current use of the property as a landscaping business is an acceptable use because it is in general compliance ;:'`: �. ' with the open Space designation of the fiighway 82 corridor plan. � ) � 3. Increased commercial use of the property is not approp- < � riate given the present poor access onto Highway 82. .'s�;�;� +�,.,.. � 5 .;�'aa. �'� ��'�`. ::' � �; -'-� ��CC ��er�i� zy /9�y , f ;M , .��%; � .. . �.. .. . � . ' - �.�;, - �- . � . . . . ._. .. . _'. . � . - ::�5:�: . . .. . . . . _ . .;i:. a ' ��..j:::.�.',...f ' f _y. ' `...y'i .V's - :.�' • � ` � __ ___._ . - __ � � ... - � _ �- . . .. . __. . , *�. ��.., . . . , �� :�� yt��,�a�� ,;�f +i , . t,� � Y. r"3 ti r+4' _�l,'-f" �', i'S �•.I - . . 4.. �� . � .M ,£ � ,?. '}' �'�; � a�f��:4ti6.,.�n1�-.��1,�t�,1�e3�'.L�J:1.'f�._ti�� ..� ....�. �...._ �� t}'. . . � _...+ �'i..� � _ 5�;• ��, " �.'�G,..._. Peterson asked to address the two issues which Horn had raised (1) the issue of what the master plan says relative to the zone areas around the business center and (2) the uses that would be • allowed in the area if it was rezoned to H-2. Ae stated that the language in the master plan does not specifi- '�''. cally direct someone to the zoning for commercial areas. It states that the commercial areas is a designation to be applied �•�-'.'- to land such as the Airport Business Center and the rear portion r.'. ' of the vacant parcel. He submits that there is some symatic ability to look ati that as non-specific designation. He also - feels it appropriate to look not just at the zone uses that are � allowed in the B-2 zone district, but the zone uses that are � allowed in the B-2 zone that are not allowed in the AF-1 zone. �� He asked that members refer to page 5, last paragraph in his � � letter which has been referred to previously in these minutes. ?�'' He feels that there are not that many more uses that could be "1� i allowed on the property that are practical for the property. ��. y Commissioner Blake stated that his recollection of the original � deal on the land which was almost five years ago, there was an � agreement on what zoning and uses could be allowed on that � property. He stated that as he remembers the agreement, the � � County was eliminating the usage of the State Highway Department along with the cinder piles, shed, etc., and in turn have a • :i wholesale landscaping program. He would like this agreement to ,..� stay in effect. Jensen stated that the agreement was for a wholesale retail ��, r operation and they have kept to that agreement. They also � � agreed to eliminate the access from the highway and they have •^ used their best efforts to achieve that. However, there has to '4 be an agreement with Boise Cascade to accomplish that. . i He further stated that to adhere to the requirements that the � + County has imposed, it has been an expensive venture, and that is ' part of the reason this application has evolved. He now is � limited to six months of revenue income and would like to extend `, � that income another six months. fi � Commission members entered into a discussion with regard to the �t-- initial agreement which was implemented at the time Mr. Jensen �': � bouqht the property. Brook Peterson stated that he is in ' possession of the agreement and would forward it to the Planning ; office. ,`� Chairman Madsen opened the hearing for public comment. There ; being none the public hearing was closed. 1 Crowley moved to table this item until January 12, 1988, thereby �w��"';';,< allowing time for the original agreement to be submitted to ' ��;:;: ! members for their review. �_ - ti. � i � ,... �i,; 6 ,�;;,,ti 't. a �� r_� � �ac� ��m�U z� �s�� .� ��t.,�. . _ - __—;.�-- ' r ` ' . _ . -;,,:: ' _ " � ��:: �,�y��i:"'-4'�'L',�' . . :_:1;; w ' . ` - ��,�,�,,_._. _ . ---_. �� .� . . . . . ., . _._ . Pti, A ¢.� � ' . .� �� _ :. : : �•' � � �tti �rt zL �a��,: �.°tk.•��£ �ytyt.,�r . � �'a4r,3.'�iM,S�-�`�ali�if�.�llY?:.��z.'i��nh��i`,'4..�h"�a w. ...��'��/�.�n�� ,_<. R��S.` .R:+L�._if!�y�� 4 GRAND CHAMPIONS GOLF COURSE GENERAL SIIBMISSION EXTENSION - MOTIOti TO APPROVE - AIFMC - The Grand Champions Resort Develop- ment Corporation is asking for a one year extension to the � General Submission approval which was granted last year for a golf course at the base of Tiehack on Art Pfister's land. The Corporation never bought the land and has discontinued negotia- 'A.':?� - tions with Mr. Phister. Therefore, he would like to keep the (;i'-�,:: approval alive so that he can investigate the possibility of �< developing the golf course or sellinq the land to someone who � • can develop it. Blake moved to grant the one year extension. Crowley seconded and the motion passed ATFMC. VESTED PROPERTY RIGRTS - MOTION TO APPROVE - AIFMC - Tom Smith, �;. -i County Attorney summarized this issue by stating that in the past �• >'� legislative session, the Colorado General Assembly adopted S.B. "�' 219 regarding the establishment of vested real property rights. �" This legislation goes into effect January 1, 1988. In order to f•• " ,1 eliminate any period of time in which there is uncertainty regarding vested rights in Pitkin County, it is neces�ary to ;, adopt the Emergency Resolution at this time. The concept ' embodied would identify detailed submission approval as the time '�� vesting occurs. Where 8etailed submission is not required, Final Plat approval would be necessary to establish a vested right. . ',�j Where neither detailed submission nor final plat approval is �:i required, as with staff sign-offs on 1041 Reviews, the final land `r;:� use approval (prior to building permit) necessary for the project would constitute the "Site 5pecific Development Plan" for _� purposes of establishing vested rights. Notwithstanding this Emergency Resolution, we intend, in 1988, for the Planning & Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners to enact .�+ a permanent code amendment dealing with this issue, subject to , : � full notice and public comment. • '';9 ,;� Child questioned what would happen with applications which are in :,:t the process now. Smith answered that if they are in the review process now, they would come under this Resolution. If they are -�� already approved, they will not. Child requested that the . resolution state speaifically what items will be covered by this :� resolution. Language will be added which states that "this ,� � Resolution shall apply to projects that are currently in the land ;� review process unless those projects have not vested prior to `�' adoption of a superceding Resolution." Horn requested that h language be added that addresses publication of vested rights and � public hearings. � Commissioner Child moved approval of the Resolution and authariz- � : ' ed the Chairman to sign. Blake seconded and the motion passed L'•i':;:;.� ;; AIFMC. '�' � ��'. ?� �.:.::.i', `. }� .:_,-k��.',. 7 � �c $ '"'��' =� ��cc ,� ��z y i9�� .�. :;i .� °�;�. . . . -.--.-�=_-- - -�.r�,; .. - . � �Y��a:�';�� i�, '''i':,�_;.` ` . ;:�;:'.:.i; � � � . ,. . ,. .... , T. . _... ... .. .. . :,�. ...._... .�.�'�r.,. . . . .. .. . . . . ... ,:- �5��,g( �ti.yi�� C,� t`�M�,. . .�t t. ��i��,}! � 1��.i,��1� }. +�,� .�cf��1'M.S`p�u�.�.11{�f Y�.��...t��s�t l�r��.4.rd.�'.. � '�-�N%$��..�i't��' �� .�r� ti:i'� . ,.) :r,^ ' F.i<:..�. . PITRIN COIINTY 1988 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES - MOTION TO APPROVE PASSED WITH 3 YEA AND 1 NAY VOTE - Glenn Horn, representing the Planning Office, stated that during the 1988 budget review the Board directed staff to prepare an analysis of land use applica- ' tions fees for the next year. They were asked to consider a fee structure which charges higher fees for large applications than is charged for smaller applications. In the past, the hourly �,:;_,, . billing rate has been $145 per hour for all types of applications F�� •:� with the exception 4f consent agenda items. F t- :- The Board has approved a budget for 198s that is based upon a goal of establishing a fee structure which generates sufficient � revenues to offset the $80,570 cost of administering the entire caseload review process (including application activity, public inquiry, administration and routine code amendments) . ;< .� � :. .. One of the considerations in analyzing the possibilities for fees � is the forthcoming adoption of the new County Land Use Code. T. " When the new code is adopted, it will likely be necessary to j completely revise the application fee structure. 9 -r j He presented to members the five options of the County land use � ;;� application fees. These options are attached to and made a part y of these minutes as Attachment "B". �:"I. A discussion ensued with regard to the logistics behind changing • ;^;`;;� the fees now only to have them in effect for a period of six to . -,1 nine months. Blake stated that the reason the issue came up was to mitigate _ the costs of fairly simple procedures which was costing applic- ants a sizeable amount of money. ; After further discussion, Crowley moved to adopt Option #1 until • '°��' the whole fee structure is revised. Child seconded and the '�� motion passed with 3 yea and 1 nay vote by Blake. � �c<:1 _:?�;J� II��RGENCY ORDINANCE - FRIEDBERG LAND DEDICATION - MOTION TO ; APPROVE - AIFMC - Smith outlined this issue by stating that �. improvements to the Red Mountain Road are currently scheduled for �"'! the spring of 1988. In order to complete the improvements, it � will be necessary for the County to acquire property where • '? necessary for widening the road. Marc and Karen Friedberg have agreed to donate approximately 4,000 square feet of land `"`� necessary for this project. The transaction must be consummated '. in 1987 in order for the Friedbergs to claim tax benefits in 1987. Acceptance of a quitclaim deed by emergency ordinance is �?:': � necessary for this purpose. In addition, the Friedbergs have 4 <.i requested an agreement for the construction of road ir:.�rovements ' , which provide for the County to construct two parkin s aces on � 4 P � ' � the property to replace the existing spaces which will be lost by : ,, � the widening of the road; that the County cooperate regarding a �:"� �, , � �.r�F_ r g Y ri:, k:..'( :P BG�CC ;�•'": .;_:,� ��e m�2w �� F17 �;. �.::;p ,: , - . � ��. _ . . . -=-�-- �_� � '.� -._,> `. . _ � . ::;_ , - .:�: _ ;:.:`:��:.;,:;:: - . � .,:;.;:. ' ;:�:�':','; ,,:�-.. _ _. :`��: , . ?.�_ � � � ..___..... .,�.__:_ __.___.. ��x'�' : . .__. . . _.. . . . . ., . .. , 5� r`A S tir. :. . : Y..l� N '!�,{L.c7 ��4\ ,[`/, ;k� '4 i; 4 ��`df�i�MiXt�'pUs}yl\f'4�XMIiLl�}iT}.��.�i�/!��vi..wSX�.��. .:Yt��-' . . ��!�C�h�ii��:l�i�. .1�?.' yj..�� F .. ��.�:i� .ff�.7:. -1... A �,7.'• setback variance as may be necessary in the future for construc- tion af a parking garage; and that the County agree to protect evergreen trees which may possibly be affected by the project. ' The transaction saves the County a significant amount of money, - since an appraisal estimated value at approximately $50,000. Mark Friedberg stated that the appraisals which were done by f'�•- � Mollica and Associates for the County reflected a $14.00 figure ^ per square foot for land value. In the agreement, an approximate �� value of $50,000 is used. He requested that this figure be amended to reflect the $14.00 per square feet for the 4,000 � square feet which would total $56,000. Also, he asked that particular attention be paid to alleviate tree damage as much as possible. k, ' Crowley moved approval of the ordinanoe as drafted with the �. ' '..'4 above changes noted in all documents. Blake seconded and the _ " -q motion passed AIFMC. '`t� MINUTES - MOTIpN TO APPROVE - AIFMC - The minutes of the November 24, and December 15, 1987 meeting were unanimously _� approved. '•:� FIRST READING OF 1987 SIIPPLII�liTAL BUDGET APPROPRIATION RESOLU- y TION - MOTION TO APPROVE - AIFMC - Lynn Dunlop, Budget Director, ,;,3 stated that this budget resolution is the first step in updating . ,:� the budget for the end of the year. Much of what is adjusted in this document appeared in the last exception report presented to the Board. There are still some problems which have not been ',� corrected; 1) the savings in Road and Bridge operations, 2} savings in Fleet Management cost center, and 3} budqet needed in the Phone/12adio cost center. These cost center budgets will be �. revised in the final 1987 supplemental appropriation. • '.;��,i Blake moved approval of the first reading. Child seconded and :a the motion passed AIFMC. -� SECOND READING OF 1988 BIIDGET AD�PTION AND APPROPRIATION RESOLU- TION - MOTION TO APPROVE - AIFMC - Dunlop stated that the State _ Budget law specifies that the County budget for 1988 must be formally adopted and appropriated before the end of the current � year. She presented to the Board an amen ed resolution for approval on second reading. �SC U7-J13 �;�j y7�- i/9 1 Child moved approval of the 1988 Budget Adoption and Appropria- � � I tion. Child seconded and the motion passed AIFMC. ` `' � i+ H�GHWAY 82 CONCERNS AND PRIORITIES - MOTION TO APPROVE - AIFMC- j � ' Tom Newland outlined this issue by stating that the State of [y'.., :��,' �-i µ..':..:...;, , Colorado Department of Highways is preparing a Supplemental �� ,.�c;.:, Enviranmental 2mpact Statement for the portion of State Highway ::�; : s2 between Basalt and Aspen. Centennial Engineers, who is ."'',��" ' � ..,;�':.:. 9 .,:��` ! � : � 13D t� /.�r��..�,v �9 /�`�� `- � . ' ,�.,� �- _.�-�- . f�: ��,, � 1 , '.i: • � - _ ( rY. :.Y:�Y "�K� . .'f��:,� _ a}T ` ! . '�� ' ` . . . . , . .. t t .� �, l_ ,jK,��,,� ;,f".��, �:.r� ,� , s't�, �t,, �� f . �rr "w e�� n t�� c �yy ,y 0 __�Y � A� 'i,{..y�= rq/, �i�a� 'f� � -t i �•� TA•��'.4 '.� �s'� i ��'.'1��kr�1�7� .. ��, �':��.�r��'��,�;,'3`��`._'*��#.. ��`"''� ,��'';•� .d}?� ��:.�.,:. . .:� t� w.�: A :� '�:.�- �.. ��::�. responsible for the development of this EIS, would like the Board's input concerning local issves of concern and preferred � design guidelines for developing alternative alignments. He presented a proposed Resolution to the Board for cansideration. Comraissioner Chi1d questioned whether the list of intersections i�`•:• on the last page of the Resolution are intended to be inclusive. ` Staff answered that they would change the wording to state f� "included but not limited to Brush Creek Road." After further discussion, Blake moved approval of the Resolution recommending preferred alignment alternative for State Highway 82 located between Brush Creek and Brush Creek Road with Child's recommended change. Child seconded and the motion passed AIFMC. � ::t PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE APPRQVING TEN YEAR LEASE OF LANDS IN TRUE SMITH PARR FOR NATURAL GAS FACYLITY - MOTION TO APPROVE- °�� AIFMC - Tim Whitsitt, Assistant County Attorney, outlined this �• . . ti� item by stating that the matter was first considered and accepted in October 1987, approving on an expedited basis a one-year lease of lands to Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Company for a "pig- -� catcher" facility in True Smith Park. The $2,000 consideration has been paid and the facility installed; however, that sum ;� contemplated a lease pursuant to the original request for the - ' land by Rocky Mountain for a ten year period. In order to 2ease ��"d public park lands for more than one year, an ordinance is � required. The ordinance for consideration tonight was drafted .'�'''� and a first reading held at the regular meeting of November 24, ,:t� 1987. ' Passage of this ordinance on second reading will finalize -' t approval for the ten year lease. -::� Blake moved approval of the Rocky Mountain Gas Lease. Crowley ;ii seconded and the motion passed AIFMC. =t '�� FIRST READYNG ABO LEASB AMENDMENT/EXTENSION - MOTZON TO APPROVE- '':� ANA SE'P FOR PUBLIC HEARING - AIFMC - Gary Esary, Airport Attorney - `;;� stated that this item is an amendment to the two years remaining � ;,;d on the ABO lease and ABO's request for a two-year extension. � Crowley moved approval on first readinq and set for public hearinq on January 12, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. Child seconded and the i motion passed AIFMC. FIRST READING - RICHMOR LEASE AMENDMENTjEXTENSION - MOTION TO ?. •• APPROVE AND SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING - AIFNSC - Esary outlined this ,.,� issue by stating that in 1984 the County entered into a five-year �' : lease with Tailwinds for space at the Airport, including trailer '` ,+ � and arkin s ace. Since then the develo ment of aid arkin L � P 4 P P P P 5� � }y� � the availability of the ground floor North terminal for commer- �r':�.;`i: � cial occupancy, the apparent settlement of certain disputes •.;..;,��: �s; � 10 _ ,{. � k t � .�FJ(G ,�?fz��ir.tJ �� 1�f 4� _ / � � � �`��' - r _ � ;::-:'-<�'' _ _`;;;, �YY* \ s �'� . ,.. _._.. . . £�o' ... 1� - 1� - <r; �� i � �a�� y� . ` �fi s �4�� "�S�''� tsc{'�.*� '�`�3�Jy St� a a i '�N��I� ��y�x��`-5�$�,� 7�* ��'��jbF =T A"� �� . �_: .� o t ��.�'�li � ..�. �� L._. ..,ii�w A�A��'�SYw��Sr4Sy.�+'..ii:�.. �.. ��.�tib..:�^�R•::w`._ ' '�L..... ...va _.,....e'.�:?r . between Tailwinds (a Richmor Company) and ABO, a number of expired agreements between Tailwinds and the County, unforseen • delays to the planning and development of the general aviation - end of the Airport and the pending lease amendment with ABo, have ��'._ • resulted in a staff recomtaendation to amend Tailwinds� lease to ` '• " move them to the North Terminal and extend the lease for two 4� i'� years. � ; t_ Child moved approval on first re.-.ding and set for public hearing on January 12, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. Child seconded and the motion , - passed AIFMC. ', FIT2ST READING - FATTOR PETROLEpM LICENSE AGREEMENT - MOTION TO '.. : APPROVE AND SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING - AIFMC Esary outlined this .� item by stating that in late 1985, the County conducted a �� ,,) competitive selection process to choose a supplier/manager for ;=i the Airport Motor Vehicle Fuel Farm. Fattor/Petroleum Company j" �'_; was chosen and in 1986, the county entered into an interim r'. �- � agreement (which provided for a four-year extension upon satis- factory performance). Fattor's performance has been satisfactory � and staff is recommending a four-year agreement. Crowley moved approval of first reading and set for public hearing on January 12, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. Child seconded, and the � _::,� motion passed AIFMC. :� :::; IGRILL ASSOCIATES CONSIILTAN`P AGREII�NT - MOTION TO _APPROVE _AND . `� SET FOR PUHLIC HEARING - AIFMC - Esary outlined this item by _� stating that in the fall of 1987, the County conducted competi- ; tive selection process to choose a consultant for the Airport Master Plan Update and optional Civil Engineering services for a para21e1 taxiway (or equivalent ground-based enhancement for . � capacity/safety). Isbill Associates was chosen as the top-rated - proposer and negotiations have resulted in a consulting Agree- ' � ment. � _:� The Scope of Work, contract form and contract amount will aiso need to be finally approved by the FAA, which has given prelimi- ;� nary approval. The npdate process is expected to take ap- C proximately eight months and has been budgeted at $30,000, with � partial FAA funding. � ) � Crowley moved approval of first reading and set for public ;y i hearing on January 12, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. Child seconded and the �• , :._ 1 motion passed AIFMC. � i pFF-SITE REN'PAL CAR INTSRIIS OPERATING AGREIIiENT - MOTION TO � APPROVE - AIFMC - Ed Thurmond, Airport Manager outlined this item �-�t`:�`:�.='� by stating that there are several off-airport rental car com- � 4'. panies who have served the airport in the past or would like to ' ��:. serve the airport in the future. These rental car companies -�z<� : conduct no business, per se, on the Airport, but usinq prior ±•'�"sr7�:: 4:..f1 I. f '`�.-';FV _ �,s 11 �'n i ( � : ` � ��•: � f�G��C /.�c��l�� Z9 /�JS� s � "' ��5�`. .. . � �.. . .. . .. . ' � . . . � . L. ti',.,j^:�•,_ . - � :`h'. .".��+ . . ,�._`. _F�':'..', w -. .['i'�,F _ ` _ . . , ,�._.r. ,._ ..,..._.,., . ....... .... _ . ' .. . . � ,. � "fM t' "f � i t .rv�#�� +;;� ry� a. �'s{ � �.�,yl��Yy�.j��, ,��'.[(e!' '�'�M��y''(� �-t�). j�{�'yi�yv{� ��.(, p��.:('t�� ti�4 ?^� 4 ,t��'f . . '7S!:t"'�s^�3d..�:�� d!s�'ft��'c��✓.i:.U:4 F.�NS� s ..._ .F t` �_��&r��.y� t�� , S.��1 �.i}� reservations, meet passengers wishing to rent their cars and transport those passengers in a courtesy van to an off-airport location, write the rental contract and deliver the vehicZe to . the passenger. Typically, the passenger returns the car to the off-airport location and is then provided transportation by courtesy van back to the airport for departure from Aspen. ' There are currently three of these companies in operation at this i?��°� time. F E ". Federal regulations provide that airport sponsors may adopt � reasonable rules and regulations to govern the operation of off- � airport rental cars. In an effort to respond to our obligation t to provide operating accommodations for off-airport rental cars = '.� (not in conflict with on-airport rental car operations at the �• " airport) and sets forth the operating conditions under which the �.� ;;a permittee may conduct business. - �:.. i. .y In the design o£ the commercial vehicle circle at the a3rport, �,•., � two remote parking spaces have been designated for off-airport rental car vans to park and meet their customers. Operating �� conditions set forth are: 1) customer pick-up and drop-off ;.� areas; 2) prohibits solicitation; 3) prohibits writing or � execution of a car rental contract on the airport premises; 4) : prohibits storage of rental car vehicles anywhere on the airport; , �'-� 5) prohibits allowing the customer to pick-up or drop-off vehicles at the airport. ,''k.:� . ';� A $5o/month fee is proposed for each permittee on an interim basis and until a final policy is developed by the County. ... � , He stated that the proposed permit is fairly standard for air � ' carrier airports. ''"`� Crowley moved approval of the off-airport interim rental car `'.? permit, to be valid through the ski season, until April 10, 1988 -'==! and authorized the Director of Aviation to issue such permits :��:�,� when all terms and conditions are met by a qualified applicant. ' ,.,;� ._;.-� BIITLDING DEPARTMEN'P LEASE EXTENSION - MOTION TO EXTEND TO APRIL 1. 1988 - MOTION PASSED WITH 3 YEA AND ONE NAY VOTE - Bob a Anderson, County Manager, appeared before the Board to discuss the matter of moving the Building Department out of the leased space they are currently occupying. Ae addressed members with '"� regard to the move and the problems he foresees in implementing ;; the move in the timeframe alZowed. � . } Crowley expressed concern with regard to extending the lease due � � to the fact that the move would then occur during building permit � �� - high season. �i;:'�>' u'-�;'�, A discussion ensued with regard to the consolidation of space and � ia_':. 12 �y'" �':. � �:ti.� L30 CC � ;� .� ,/�nle`n�2u �� /%8� �-�` , � ..: ---:��- -- i.�K.:'.:-.�`L:.' , ' . . ( i�uJ`�'•�•:a' ..i, {'r�:.':-i . �':.4 • � � � }��; - _ _. . ..... .._.._ • . ._ . .. • Z r ' _. �.. �.- a :;;_�. . ; - ..m �' F a"I �,,,�... �'� . �.:� �.. �x �k ,. . .,. _; �..�. .... � .�._ �, • ... Y�`�i:,e. »l,�i��:��y�d��.._ ..1.N�.�e�... . i e� ��. .. .. .. :i+ ��k.�•.� 'k�i'a`.is;�,. . "�''�3�°• proposed offices to be moved. Mark Fuller, Assistant County Manager, stated that this matter is very complex. and in order to efficiently consoZidate space and move employees with the least amount of disruption for the least , amount of money, it needs much consideration. He assured �'.:,t,..��• commission members that it has been an item for discussion in �:.. every staff ineeting in the last three months, and there has been �%',_. a great amount of progress made to reach that goal. = After further discussion, Blake moved to extend the lease until �'��;``;�` j April 1, 1988. child seconded and the motion passed with 3 yea ? - and one nay vote by Crowley. ' 1 • '� ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Re ctfully su 'tted, r ?� � !� � . ��'.; . r�:' ;,,� ;. , ,;:i anette Jone , Recording Secretary oard of County Commissioners ? ,,i _ r,$ ^� ,`;: _,z� �� .,-;i' . � Y � / �� ?i.`.h�: :�;`� �� h ��? �;__� 13 �•'�e"'`,� � ;:;.�: .�4 LC 11ece�n/v�✓ Z 9 /98� ':V� �� ------ _...._ • _f .. ,. .. . _ _ . _ -__ _.. � ...... __ ...._ . ..._ �-._ ._._ _ � : _- � T � ,t: . �� ' _. . - _. �:,._ :. �'�•:4�i�..i�Y_�*-'. . . . .±.�::':'./+.'.i�.�_ . � �:��FqyCi��' ' . . �. ( ��,-�;' . • . - � - . � � . �,'�� ,� ' ' .. �tk:� �: ::.�P;� .+�'.' _ . ..r.s:.7,e��: „�a�,�;.�,e.°E��n'... .�R..`.�� , � ��:v�`s �.�3, t. .'��`�; . �X� ` - :b.,�...�..�.. _ � ` r,_ ... .. a 5�, s}� '"�^�° ;- ' �� „ ' � q t��, �(N ��{ ,�efj�7:"'��.. ,. 3'�'t( Sr �r . - :v 4 f'(��ii' � ,y �L x�,� �3 ��, a-� ;�'' �;�+. - ��s,�l,_ '�?"4'- � qj A� h' h�' 7' Y�9J t"S - V r�..�"� 1�.:y� ,.,Q 1 S • 'f H*y�'� � t'�'I j1. t��(,' � � j��: ��. .Ml,T . _� �=5�i�1..��s.s��:�y��i�+ydkfid�}{��f'.KB:: 4�"� '�df:3��'�v:A'�!`. . � . �"Gi '��'-...::�'�.�S . 1� � . . � ��t�c��Kt � LAw OFFICES BROOKE A. PETER50N , A PROPESSIOHAL CORTORATION ' ' ]19 EAST HYMAN AVENUE . ASPEH,COlORA00 01611 : •. ��oni azs•eiea � . • TEIEFA%:1�031 Y23•fOGO �E�:�ti::.:, . September 28, 1987 {_.:-�.,,, �-. . HAND DELIVERED i, r , Mr. Alan Richman G�.. .. City of Aspen/Pitkin County • � Planning office ' ' {j • 130 South Galena Street t,�,` � Aspen, Colorado 81611 �� Re: Robert N. Jensen 1 `' ;;; Rezonina Apvlication j i �� Dear Alan, � Please allow this letter to serve as an application an behalf of � . my client, Robert N. Jensen, for the rezoning of the property which k' '" he owns at, 219U5 Wesb State Highway 82, presantly occupied by ° Grizzly Landscaping and Nursery, Inc., of which Mr. Jensen is i� President and majority shareholder. Accompanying this application, � you will find the enclosures requested by Francis Krizmaaich at our � .°. preapplication conference held on Monday, September 21, 198T, after � the Pitkin County Commissioners agzeed to allow this application to `.:j� be filed at this time. � Z am an attorney licensed to practice in Colorado and in conform- 'j ance with Section 6-3.2(b) of the Pitkin County iand Use Code, Z hereby certify that the suhject property is aC present owned by Robert N. Jensen pursuant to a deed of conveyance from Grizzly Groundskeepinq and Landscaping, Ina. to Mr. Jensen dated May 1, 1986 � and recorded December 23, 1986 in Book 526 at Page 161 as Reception No. 284496. A copy of that Deed is enclosed with the application. As t the property is adjacent to Highway 82, the requisite easement is certainly in existence. The property is •more fully described as follows: ' -� Part of the NEi/4 NE1/4 of Section 3, also described as part ' of Lots 1 and 7, Section 3, Township 1� South, Range 85 West of the Sixth Principal Neridian, bounded and described as '; follows: Beqinning at a point from which the NE corner of said -�-'•"°��`�� .i, Section 3 bears N40'39' E. 1003.8 feet; thence N86'46' West � �'..?ti',y: 165.0 feet to the Easterly line of riqht of way of State .:;;;;;:,; Hiqhway No. 82; thence S3'14' West 264.0 feet along the '.!;�Y?,= Easterly line of right of way; thence S86'46' E. 165.0 feet; �` �`��: �,E.;;.`'`�. i. thence N3'14� East 264.0 feet, more or less to the place of t �;�. beginning, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. - �+. Y _ ...... .. ....:. ... . . ... . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . �� ,.:; � � . ,,;,_;�__=.':�� s,:. . . � ,. . � .:;�::: ,.��.':y.:i'. •.�Y.�•', :"i.'•� ' _'Fi i �y"� :.i•c.: r�`r\t.;..•r ` � �� - . ... ..... . ` � �r:� . ... . - � � � K � . . .. .� P�x�Y�,_,�Y� �V��i"_?,:i��,�.`�p y��t`"�xj . � �'� iF7t t�� " �i/ .ir`L! r..:,n�yR �.�x< <��Y� {� � . { S� 15tl r °� .� >� . . W � '��i'rk $ .i�✓ �''� L 1��a .�x ., r ed��ao. � {'y� 11�!#� r � �i��i � Y x�'��t�` ' `'�F3�"o��tbu i� i"i',+t�++ . � Y xtc�w�'` �� , � .� �. r. .�y �m1. yN.�F,� � � F i � ..�.y� i,.•�,.�u�� il AL. �. .,r��^+fk.L��....-;v��t��""�SI'��sY�°.�Ifi�� 3 i�ti..�;��.�� . .� � � �.��^�.nvs�,ti,.s�+,Tx,��•'�'�r'.0 .. Mr. Alan Richman � September 28, 1987 - Page 7tro �: It is a one (1) acre parcel. The property is presently unencumbered ��',''- by any liens, judgments or easements of any kind, except the ease- ment for the Pitkin County bike path and the right of first refusal for the benefit of Pitkin County. As you know, this property was � , acquired by Grizzly Iandscaping and Groundskeeping, Ine. in 1983 from the Board of County Commissioners, Pitkin County, as part of a three-way transaction involving Mr. Jensen, the Board of County �i, Commissioners and the Colorado Department oP Highways_ At that time, �'�, it was demonstrated and agreed that the property had been utilized ,y ` , . by the State Hiqhway Department since at least 1954 for its storage J �• and maintenance facility and that this one-acre parcel was created € . � prior to adoption of any restrictive zoning regulations in Pitkin County. In 1986, the property was conveyed to Mr. Jensen by Grizzly � �3 Landscaping and Nursery, Inc. as a tax planning device. This convey- � ance was exempt from the application of the riqht of first refusal which benefited Pitkin County contained in the Deed from the Commissioners to Grizzly Landscaping and Groundskeeping, Znc. For your information, a copy of that Deed from the Pitkin County Commissioners is also enclosed with the application. � From this � information, one can conclude that the property has not merged into : adjacent property, nor was it a parcel which was created in violat- ion af the subdivision regulations of Pitkin County. You will find enclosed in the application booklet a list of adjacent landowners and their addresses and a survey map/site plan ' of the property indicatinq its boundaries and the location af the � existing structure upon the property. In addition, I have included an Aspen area vicinity map, wherein I indicate other major land uses and the existinq zoning on alI the parcels surrounding this piece of property. , The property is very familiar to the Pitkin County Commissioners, t as it was the sub'ect of a reat deai of discussion i � ] g prior to the conveyance to Grizzly Landscaping and Groundskeeping, Inc. The �' property is, at the present time, zoned AF-1. It was detezmined in 1983 that Mr. Jensen�s use of the property for his nursery and his � landsca in business was a t p g permitted use pursuant to the Pitkin + County I,and Use by the Pitkin County Commissioners in accordance 1, with the opinion of the County Attorney at that time, Wesley Light. • ` '`- ` In reliance thereon, and in conformance with his representations, ;''"•:� Mr. Jensen and Grizzly Landscaping and Nursery, Inc. then expended a substantial sum of money in improving the property, including �'^ - completely restoring the existing building and the complete land- � �� scaping of the property at a cost of approximately One Hundred Fifty ��?. . c�:.�.,�.i;r!°•;�. Thousand Dollars ($150,000.00), The improved appearance of the ,::..; ,-r. i�'a::,, . property will not be sacrificed iP Mr. Jensen is granted the `-' +��- requested rezoning. .'�'`• . ��i , .�.� r .r��:;y�;�,�.: , �_ .. - , . �'S� - � , c .�r?�:;� �� • _.,i;, :i�'!� ?�`> " ` � ��,; . .,. _..., . . . _ . � r h. �. , rr�^^ r,�,�� '�� e ` �� t �„"'�y��`��,�n �-��'��4, y � � .a c" ry� r ► �r�'1J C y s 4'ti � ' '�'�a � �-£f ,) � , i � ya t"5�1c� �t'Ri�''�'� J1 ��. r � S;�� .. ; Y� � y"`t�y4�Y t Y.: -�:y R��ti�R ��'� .� �t� �;r �. �� '+., s1. t !"t ..5 �y��r�x�s . `bl �� :4:. ..y;d`�t, r �� a11 j� .. r . ��'��rr�......_�'�ki'�;y�.�,�'�" �.:5�'.�»�,.��+'1��94�.�!:�-�� i�: ��':�di::�.. , {.a. a�., .�.�. F;�;. , Mr. Alan Richman September 28, 198'7 � Page Three L::'':- � ;:�-.:. This application for rezoning is being made in order that this i� - one-acre parcel, which has been considered by almost everyone in , Pitkin County as part of the Airport Business Center will have the same zoning designation as the majority of the Airport Business '; Center, specifically a B-2 zone district designation. Although the pr�perty is used for what is a defined agricultural use at the present time, I think it is clear that, under the present zoning � �3 � requirements of the AF-1 zone district, it is, at the minimum, a �� .. yi non-conforming parcel. This would not be the case if the property �. :S was rezoned to a B-2 zone district designation, as a conforming �' parcel in that zone district is six thousand (6,000) square feet, �.. - � except in the case of multi-family housing parcels. This rezoning � presents an opportunity for the Pitkin County Commissianers to _� reduce the non-conformity of lands within Pitkin County, certainly an implied goal of the provisions of Section 7.2 of the Pitkin �j County Land Use Code. ::� This rezoning is a logical extension of the existinq zoning zn - � the Airport Susiness Center and possibly could be construed as a • � practical recognition of an already existing situation regarding the �� nature of the property. The uses to which the property might be put during the periods of time that Mr. Jensen's nursery and landscaping ^j business are closed, specifically winter, are very limited uses in , the AF-1 zone districti, whereas in the 8-2 zone district, those � >�_•, potential uses are much more attuned to the existinq property and the improvements thereon, while, at the same time, preserving the ":3 aesthetic improvements made by Mr. Jensen. Mr. Jensen does not have ;.� a specific contract at this time for use of the property, he has been in contact and has discussed the potential use of the property ';� with interested entities. We believe that our proposal also demonstrates compliance with --� Articles 2 and 5 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code. For simplic- �z ity�s sake, I have not commented upon the sections of those articles a �' which I do not believe apply to this application. Zf your staff `! disagrees in that regard with my conclusions, I would be more than � happy to try to address their aoncerns. Where it is appropriate, I '-' have referred Co both sections of Articles 2 and 5 at one time in i the following discussion. 7; , � Section 2-1 states that it is the intention of the County to ``::� ;a insure that "the use and development of land will not, as a general �,::_r:�,•�, matter be inconsistent with the oals and ob�ectives of the As en `� '"_ � 9 7 P ':;:<,,-`., ::�� Area General Plan, as amended.° In 1985, as you know, Pitkin County 7'c-•.: �.°;.;. „. � adopted an amendment to the Aspen Area General Plan sgecifically �,f��^; dealing with the State Highway 82 corridor, which it appropriately � titled "Stiate Highway 82 Corridor Master Plan." A review of the maps ��: .,_� contained within that document indicates that my client's property �'�� _ . ;,x °�+ :; ;,:z, _ __ .. . � _: _ . .i.,�'� - . �;�;:; ;..: . `�: ,. � � .,.�.,.��r _ �.__ . _� ___ ��' . ... .__. � _ r... .. ... .. _ . . � . . . L � -r(��[]�� .�„`f",�3� yY�i�K �' � ��4��.{'�� 1,�,,i �."tz,� k�� A��% S�� !'.-}�. yf �lN� ��a.e��{�ii��r r ��71Kj"�,�{}i�#e'�i�� dl .''�' y a �1 1 r a-. . � V 4 �. . .�S�r �.y�". ,^Ey�-yt�}tlAi,��t�;`i��r'i t� �{1 ('i L �S'n�_ 1' � 1�;a�S� . ,ax, 1"�Fi�O t . t� . � 'M .`:.'dd'd"�F� ,..F�h�t�lpMi�..'��'�k��,n�� !�.k`:..'��4c+'�t}x•.f�!"r3`s�te..�_.:f�.`�M��lti., tij,...�.s��i� ., r.. - Mr. Alan Richman September 28, 1987 Page Four ;t in' - is already designated as "commercial" property. On Page 25 of the ��,,' •' State Highway 82 Corridor Master Plan, commercial property is ;" defined to be as follows: , _ "A designation to be applied to lands such as the Airport Business Center and the rear portion of the vacant parcel � located between the 9usiness Center and the bus mainte�ance � facility. Principle uses may include, but are not limited to, € y� service commercial operations such as wholesale activities and (�' . �� storaqe, which do not qenerate high customer traffic; low �:�:• intensity, non-pollutinq industrial operations and limited % :., . retail operations. Limited ret_ail operations shall be primar- , � ily oriented to residents o.f the Airport Business Center and �s employees who work in the immediate vicinity. It shall not be j oriented to the community at large. Limited retail operations �: may include, but are not limited to, such uses as restaurants, '; convenience stores and Iiquor stores." #. . �� I think it is clear that the plan recognized the existing situat- �� ion with respect to the uses in the Airport 8usiness Center. I submit thati this rezoning is consistent with the desiqnation of this ,. - property as commeraial and is� therefore consistent with Section 2-1 4 �! and the amendments to the Aspen Area General Plan. I think it is k. apparent, given the size of the property and the set-back restrict- � ions, that Mr. Jensen would not be able to create a large industrial , type of operation but that he would be able to make use of this • :s property, for activities already designated in the Master Plan as :, commezcial in nature. I would also note that this property is not designated as part of the scenic foreground on the Pitkin County ;i zoning maps. From that, I would conclude it was'recognized that this �;; property rras part of the Airport Business Center and appropriate for i. a commercial use in that respect as well. ; t� With respect to Sections 2-8, 2-9, 5-201, and 5-202, Mr. Jensen � ` . does qot feel that the proposed razoning of the property will s : increase the impacts upon the road systems or desiqn. He is willing, however, in the interest of safety and in the interest of accommod- � ating concerns about other uses in the B-2 zone district upon the ►; j' property, to agree to close that access from Highway 82 to all but �� - semi-truck vehicular traffic and to only open that gate on an as- ' needed basis. The reason the access must be preserved for this type � ' of vehicle is because those vehicles simply cannot turn into the entrance to the property from the road to Boise Cascade. I would �" - � emphasize that the use would be extremely limited. Mr. Jensen is "� :,°•�%� ,; furthermore willing to underscore his support for the creation of a 4 ,�-�`r. " "frontage" road parallel to State Highway 82 to serve his property �'r :5 and that property owned by Boise Cascade from the easterly-mosC '=" , entrance to the Airport Business Center in order to eliminate (' ;` '� ` •+, � . % � , _� s ' � .iY�€�� . . .� .... . .,.. ' . . " . . . .y-.��.::,�°:;r; . . . � ..4CZ'.. .-:.,:� . ;�`5.;::�' . 4:rr,; __ - . � — ,�, ._. _N.� �____. � . : , ,�.� : .. _ . . . . .... , • t(�}k .y i r f ��,�lF�� '� KT'��,� �C�}yt ! 1 1 1 � i FJll��f,v�'t� �i�ay'�l r's l�l.y��... �,� �31��.� �f . ' � .uJ t i� - � 1!� C,t �.�.�:Y . w � � -� x"'�'fl`{�]4�-� .y�`3�Z'Y+s.s�� '�t� r -. � .t.� '4ti:ak y�yl`t,ytf?Nb�i��a �'j ; ^� 4t�i 4 rSv..�- 'Y t��»*�� .. ••� �'w�� j,�� . :1 �" s �,a�ae,�� f�,��.� �,r �'{r x :�� ,,f.t! �.,•...,, ,^:�a�1�� f�'r*�, i;l` r . �,. ^r,�, � �"�, ..... .r r�¢��T',+. '_�i�'�'�'.,.f 4•"'t �, 'ki.�i.��'�3 1 �h4'aa`al:'r�u a .r , �tt,.'•'.ni:'y:�Y..rv'"'"��.Wri.'.�.`�':��F�t.a � ... .,'�L xr. ._. Mr. Alan Richman � September 28, 1987 Page Five ' _ �?c:,'''_.. . another access to State Highway 82, if Pitkin County adopts such a �� ' plan. With respect to Sections 2-1.3 and 5-104, both of which deal with ` the preservation of agricultural lands and operations, as you know, the Pitkin County Commissioners concluded that Mr. Jensen's intended �• use of the property did constitute an agricultural operation. I ;,- ;� think it is clear, however, that this parcel cannot be devoted to :'_j crop production, nor is it a food resource area, and, as such, no � �: lands of this type are being removed from the inventory of such �� 'r lands within Pitkin County. Therefore, the policies stated in � � Section 2-13 would not be violated by the change in the zoninq of �a the property. With respect to the policies articulated in Sections 2-16 and 2- � 21, as I have previously stated, the appearance of the property, given Che change in zone district designatian, will not chanqe and ' Mr. Jensen has already, as I said, expended tremendous sums of money " attemptinq to minimize the adverse and visUal impacts of his ti`! facilities. The rezonin of the g property to a H-2 designation will make Mr. Jensen`s use of the property perhaps more compatible with �' � existinq adjacent neighborhoods, specifically the Airport Susiness Center and, thus, will not be in conflict with the scenic quality of ':t and will certainly be compatible with the adjacent neighborhood. , �; Although the Pitkin County Land Use Code, at the present time, - allows any use not specifically prohibited in any zone district by special review, an examination of the Code reveals that uses allowed by right in the B-2 Zone District which are not allowed used in the � AF-1 Zone District are the following: multi-family employee housing units, low density turn-over office space, professional or quasi- professional use, equipment, supplies and contracting or subcont- t racting, and general service uses as defined in Section 3-4.19, food $. related businesses as defined in 5ection 3-4.20, vehicle and . aircraft related businesses as defined in Section 3-4.21, vehicle �t , and vehicle accessory dealer and repair services as defined in '-::3 Section 3-4.23, research facilities, provided the same are complete- • ly enclosed and provide no effects from noise, smoke, glare and vibration, as allowed in Section 3-4.28, and more than one use in ' � �' individual building is alloved by Section 3-4.30. I would submit � '� that, given the constraints of Mr. Jensen's property, the set-backs y:?� ':��' from Highway 82, and the applicability of the provisions of the � Growth Management Plan in the event of any proposed expansion, as a i � a{; practical matter, any use of the property for the allowed uses in , •y...�. .'t,•; the B-2 Zone District would not have any greater impact than the ' {;.;;,�„` :•'- present use of the properCy. Any other use would, o£ course, be ' ' �'�; subject to review by Che Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to • �f � ' the special review procedure_ � ��: i . ��r'.+;,y3,.. -� � . � e . . . . 7'.�`_- . . < ';�-:, .. .. . ^;�. . � s ... ... . . _,._._._. ` . .r' � �� '- � � �'� E tt 5F� -+- ' ?? .. . � , . ;. . ,.�� `�k� `��r�+t�'ti��`>� � �y� v y w� 4�y��tyS�G.'.'��S�. ��1��1 Z 1. ��},i,�T)�..�e•.�„� .. • V ,}�+`��`�2`».'r�.��''t .`r 1 � ''r`S►iyy'y��in�� 5�if�}y, ; 4 t� �a � . � �.:v��'`..�_�?wl:.'.��1a75S"v�d:'S'�'r.f{4k�'�1447i1�3iu?1..'u�.� '�.'�L..'�� b..79K?:.M�. �.+,..__. . :_YS��4��.'�1�.:!�it�:.�rt7.��C�f-�.e�3�: Mr_ Alan Richman September 28, 1987 Page Six • b" In addition, the definition of the H-2 business district contain- 4; ed in Section 3-1.6 if the Pitkin CounCy Land Use Code states that the distzict is intended for that area of the county which is deeroed . appropriate for the location af general service, commercial and ' industrial uses not otherwise suitable for location in an urban - . setting. I•would submit that Mr. Jensen's use of the property and . otiher potential uses which would be allowed by right fit within this �'� definition of what is appropriaCe in the B-2 zone district. �; �`-� A redesiqnation to the B-2 zoning district will bring Mr. � " + Jensen's property into conformance with his neighbors in the Airport Husiness Center and will allow him some flexibility in planninq for �� the use of the property. As I stated, it will also eliminate a non- "'`�`-`- conforming parcel in the AH-1 zone a , parcel which was designated AF-1 only because the State Highway Degartment had no concerns as to � the zoning. Although I was unable to find specific information to +-z=;? this effect, it is my belief that the property occupied by the -`~'�� Airport Business Center was, at one time, all agricultural, as is ' the property where the airport is located. I believe this was the �`=°j reason the agricultural zoning was placed upon the property in the ��•,:'.:�j first instance. The designation of this property as truly agricult- ° �- ural qiven its suhstandard size at this tima is inappropriate. .;� ,� Finally, when the�property was acquired in 1983, it was recogniz- � ed that there was not a change in use from the commercial use by the . State Hiqhway Department to the use intended by Mr. Jensen. The -,; proposed rezoninq would not have any effect o� Mr. Jensen's present �;:;�� use of the property or upon the historical use of the property. 'Y� Lastly, I have enclosed my firm's check in the amount of �ne ?;��s.-� Thausand Five Hundred Fifty Dollars ($1,550.OU) to cover the costs '�`-`•� of the review of this a licaCion as re _- pp , quired by Francis Krizmanich _�A�� at our preapplication conference. J:Y:� • I appreciate your time and attention to my request. Thank you for � your consideration. Please contact me if you require any further •� information. • � . . ,.� Yours ver tru y; F� i � BROO A. P T SON, I ��.:_.,� `:::{ • A Pr es ' a Gor o tion �,�-. 4?i v;:; _:i gy; '<:'�;;, ,� r ke A. Pet r o � �- BAP:krl 'i. :�'Y Enclosures �\�� .-� � ..a . ;a . � v - ,�,� ._ __........ __. . ..__._ . __ _ . _ _ - F.`�! �. . . �. •' , . .. . . � . .�5�-� -`_; . . . '- c . .�.,:',.\4~''` � . ` ..�.: - • �i'�-.`i;;' � . ' . �tY. , r . 'L'vr�: - '_ 1.n i�^�:.. 'a,z'.a:.`.�Ky'�.i 1 -yt�a.,l1�•'.i�:i,'.' . :'�i tl�i._• ;`i,. . `,'c`^1._:.,'-: 1. ��zrt � �f� � � ___� --- _�� _..��.,�. _ fi',��i:. � - _. _. . . . . . .. .. � . .. . � . � � � ..,: o ,y-:' °� rs��G��x .��d'}5�.�,�1+��,��l,''��:�;y s��t� ,L, , % .- .�,+f, ! ��il�:�"�� '�.(r 1. �,�. , r_' ,�7Yy' i�4� b"� -�;'i�a L t'4'f�' r i�! :YAI�y�� i y �` ��f i h�f�Z,� . �7 Fw�.�¢�t ." M,f�w s 'h 13. � 1 -� ,., , .. RGtt ��'�.&�#� .s�y�53'�t��S1RIS�+�.�lY'.._"'1�. ::�� .J ''"..��t.�'-:�"e3'�;s,;...._.. -C�� L'`'�i��...i�es°_A:.`.q'LY. . ft�`/��l2'fE6c)'- ��; � �_ o Consent Agenda Ttems - In each option it is assumed that � the fees for the aonsent agenda items will remain as $5o for minor items and $100 for more significant items. •- o Copy fees - In eaah table it is assumed that copy fees will be the same. z.. � The following is an analysis of the five options which have been � prepared for your review. 1. Option 1/Status Qvo (Table 1 ) - Table i represents the status quo. The 1987 billing rate of $145 for categories I- IV remains the same in 1988. The projected revenues under _::i this option are $76,360. This represents a projected budget ;;" shortfall of $4,270 which would have to be subsidized by the County. ,i t;�. �. *_� 2. Option 2/COnstant Fees with. $5 Increase in Hourly Rate (Table 2) . - Under this option the hourly rate for app- j�i lications i.n categories I-IV would increase from $145 per '` 1 hour to $150 per hour. The hourly rate would be the same :;:; + for all categories of applications. Civen this option, it ._i is projected that total revenues would be $78,700 which � represents a projected budget shortfall of $1,870. ;,;'r.`� ' _ -•-� 3. Option 3jConstant Fees with $10 Increase in Hourly Rate '-'��-� (Table 3) - Under this option the •hourly rate for app- � lications in categories I-IV would increase from $145 per s-?:s hour to $155 per hour, The hourly rate would be the same in =�� 1 all categories of applications, Given this option, it is ' projected tihat total revenues would be $81,040 which . ' represents a projected budget surplus of $470. - 4. Option 4/Variable Rate Billing : Three Rates (Table 4)- : Under this option variable billing rates are proposed dependfng upon the category of application submitted. r.°'-:� Category I applications would be billed at a rate of $200 : per hour, $55 per hour more than the present billinq rate. ::;;.� Categories II and III would be billed at a reduced rate of �- %; � $140 per hour and Category IV appliaations would be billed + at the rate of $100 per hour which represents a $5 and $45 � t'`� per hour decrease in the hourly billinq rate. Total .� revenues under this option are pro�ected to be $81 260 � , , � which represents a projected budget surplus of $690. � Under this option the billing rates for GMP applications are ��' � ; ].s:,:,;' substantially increased based upon the assumption that the � ;`.� � developers who submit GMP applications are involved in large i �;',, speculative developments as opposed to a small developer ;- �i'. : � just sQeking one or two units. (Please note that in the recent past, we have received several GMP applications for �`:., `; 3 �`�?��: i , .:-t � � �. . .I ��. _ _ _ . _. �+,�.�: _ y . .. . _ ; __s., __�_ . _ _.. . _;_,:, . ,':-_ _ . _ , ��>;: � ;`;'��::�. . ` f ,� s ' ... � --. ... . . _.. . . . .. . v� �� ... . ,,; _ • . .. .. � ��'� ��'-'��.k�+ ,� .t'�'`�`�r.��...�# �.t ' / ff � ' / f ai t'�� 's��"��'��,'4�� +�'�ie.� �$�w�t� ti ��'i�X:4.�x�,�� yl e�� a .�2 _ S�M. w�.�.i�, r r.u.w.:� 'B�'e1+9.:� :.�ria.,...9ti�.iL.S.�- .+� A . . �...... . I�:. . � .r one or two units from °small guys" and that the GMP process does not apply only to larqe project.) Billing rates for subdivision applications which do not require GMP approval _ are significantly less than applications which seek GMP approval based upon the premise that most of the applicants ' in this category would be "small guys" seeking low impact �:�" subdivisions. 4�`` �'•`; , . If you select this option you would be gambling that the f - county will actually receive 10 GMP applications. In the event that we did not receive the GMP applications the County would incur a budget shortfall. 5. Option 5/Variable Billing Four Rates (Table 5) - Under i this option variable rate billinq rates are proposed • � depending upon the category of application submitted. �• : Category i applications would be billed at $22o per hour, . $75 per hour more than the present billing rate. Categoxy � II applications would be billed at a reduced rate of $140 f.. • per hour. Category IV applications would be billed at a further reduced rate of $120 per hour and Category IV , ;� applications would be billed the lowest rate of $100 per ' hour. `':;} -`i Under this option revenues are projected to be $80,740 which ;:;i, re_�resents a projected budget surplus of $170. This is the � � '"`' only option which proposes variable rates for each type of ,`;'7 application submitted. A major burden is placed upon the 'i`` developers who submit GMP applications and consequently the ' ,.,� County would be taking a risk that we do, in fact, receive GMP applications. .:':'i '<,i� RECONB4ENDATION �;:._:t The staff qenerally has no strong recommendation with respect to�•f the fee issue. One of the most unappealinq aspects of working in s�� "� the Planning office is telling an applicant about the billing ' "��'"� fees for an application. However, since it is the County policy ``;.;� that development applications are to pay for the caseload � activity than there is not an alternative to hiqh fees. :.� We believe that the approach being used in Pitk�n county is +1 preferable to other �counties such as �Mesa Connty where the F Planning OfPice bills the public for public inquiry. �„� �. Based upon our review of the options presented above, it is y • recoromended that the board direct the Staff to prepare a resolut- ,� ion adopting the fee structure for 1988 which is proposed in -? Tabla 2 (Constant hourly rate of $150 per hour). We support this y�' ' ,i option because it comes close to .covering the projected budget . � costs and does not require a •major change in our existing fee �""' �� structure undei' this o tion the Count subsidizes all consent �"•'=�`'`!� P Y r �. -., agenda applications. We believe that the entire fee structure � i + a ;� 4 �} �:. � ��y.; :..� �. _ > � :. . ,..,:_ ..� . x� r. �'.fi-"?'- . _ .. . _ .' . .. . . _� . . ' . 7 i. , ' - � :'-:Fj1c ..�1 . ..,'; _ ` _