HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.reg.09101997 ,�....�
�
.... `� . _.. _ . . -_ _ . . .. ... ..
4::�� �,���
, �k�' ,a
����.�:;..�
�����
y -Y� tif'�.
�,. -
" PITHIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA "' •�,
�3'EDNESDAY,S PTEMB R SO 1997 ���
�'y�:._:i, .
(Leslie Lamont Not Present) .
10:00 AM COURTHOUSE PLAZA BUILDING TOUR �.- • �
f f 2:00 PM REGULAR MEETING Location: Plaza One Conference Room
ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO AGENDA -.
CONSENTAGENDA 9'''"�? ±"
Minutes of August 27 Regular Meeting � �'=7�
Pur,Snow, Dominick,Tower,Cavaleri,Eubanks,Patterson,Hunter Squaze,Markalunas,
Moenssens,Sanwa,ALA Abatement Hearings,Mazk Pearson �:;'^'�' -
RuffDiamond Special Event Liquor License,Jennifer poss r� •
Letter to Colorado Department of Labor and Employment,Nan Sundeen
Motion to Sign Letter Authorizing Snowmass Water& Sanitation District Extension of
Service to Lots 1 and 2 of Hidden Meadows Subdivision
• ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS ,
1. Resolution Regarding Fishing Regulation Recommendation to the Division of Wildlife,Mike �`'
Villa ';zr.
2. Assign of Western Pacific Airline Lease&Use Agreement to Mountain Air Express,Scott ,c,�
Smith °
,�
ADMINISTRATIVE PUBLIC HEARiNGS
. 3:00 PM PUBLIC COMMENT,COMMISSIONER COMMENTS,PROCLAMATIONS �
rAND USE AGENDA
PUBLIC HEARINGS
I. Coleman 1041 Hazard Review,Lance Clazke(PN 8/9/97)to be con't to 10/18/97
ACTIONS
j�and Use Public Hearines
. . 2. Emma Store Rezoning,PUD,Code Amendment,1st Reading,Rick Magill(codt from 7/9)
3. Cougar Canyon Affordable Housing Conceptual Submission,Suzanne Wolff(PN 7/25/97)
(cont,from 8l27) '`".
4. Cougaz Canyon Subdivision Detailed/Final Plat&Rezoning,1 st Reading,Suzanne Wolff
(PN 7/25/97)(cont.from 8/27) }
5. Aspen Higtilands Base Village Detailed Subdivision,PUD,Rezoning,Special Review,l st
Reading,Lance Clarke(PN 8/22/97)
6. Crown House Conceptual Subdivision Rezoning,1041 Hazard Review,CDU,and Scenic ;
Overlay,Cindy Houben(PN 8/9197)
' T and ilse Actions
7. Acceptance of GMQS Scoring of Aspen Highlands Village Request for Exceptional Project � ,
Status and Metro Area Multi-year Allocations ,�'
8. Acceptance of P&Z Scoring of Aspen Higtilands Base Village Request for Commercial
Growth Management Allotments and Allocation of Employee Generation Units •;,
ADJOURN �,,� �
zi'
THURSDAY.SEPTEMBER 11.1997 ' �
430 ELECTED OFFICIALS TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE �
;, I
Location: Snowmass Chapel � �
!,�
.4:
r,
/ _ _ _ f . ` �
4
'' -�;. .
�-a � � ' I .. .
• '
. . `
�+y^''"'�_ _ ._. -. � ' _' ' — , .
m.a
i �
i
r�
{ 7�l;'
.-y�..?�e.;,;,
�- �•'�,��
i��r`,..i:f,.,.?i•;��.
�?...�S:L�?..
' APPROVED OCTOBER 8,1997 ' `-
�•i�'
MINUTES �.,'�a
;'', •.,�
PITKiN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMI�SIONERS " •.
',,_ .
RF,GUL.AR MEETING
.:�'�::.�.;: .
SF,PTF,MBFR 10.1997 ;;;::�,:'.°•:
, �;-
i
i ' _.
r , '. ..
� CALL TO QRDER: Chairman Tuite called the regular meetin�of the Board o£ �ti'� �
County Commissioners to order at 2:10 p.m. u+; '•
, � �QMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT•Commissioners 6i11 Tuite,Dorothea Farris,Mick ��
Ireland and Shellie Roy Harper j1;±'
' COMMiSSION MEMBERS ASSEWT: Commissioner Lamont :,Kc
�'�
ADDITIOI�SSlDELETIONG TO AGENDA• Suzanne Konchan,Counry Manager,asked that ' `�
two items be added to the Agenda. First an assignment of Westem Pacific Airline's lease and
- use agreement to Mountain Air Express. -
Commissioner Aarper moved to add this item to Administrative AcNons. Commissioner a
Ireland seconded the motion. Motion passed unaoimously.
+ Ms.Konchan said the second item has to do widi an issue regarding the consent of the County -
� for lots 1 and 2 of the Hidden Meadows Subdivision to connect service to the Snowmass Water
and Sanitation District.
` Commissioner Farris moved to authorize the County Manager to draft a letter for the 'S"�
fChairman's signature to the Snowmass Water and SanitaHon District authorizing the
I County's consenL Commissioner Harper seconded the motion. Motion passed
�
i unanimonsly.
1
; CONSENT AGENDA:
i
ApPROVAi nF MiNiITE OF AUGUST 27 1997
RESOLU'PiON APPROVING ABATEMENT OF PROPERTY TAXES FOR ALR .
' FiOLDING COMPANY `�
RESOLUTIOI�'APPROVING ABATEMENT OF PRQPERTY TAXES FOR PUR
RESOLUTION APPROVING ABATEMENT OF PROPERTY TAXES FOR SNOW
�7
� :' � -_
BOARD OF COUNTY COMM[SSIONERS I REGULAR MEET[NG SEPTEMBER]0,1997 �
� ;
T .
__ __.._. ___ ,-- ( _ . . � `'�
. ! �i
, , ;
4
r "-:.
� _ . . . - .}, .
�
�
•
, ' . . ' � ' __...._____� . .
k. , � _ .._.._. __ _. � - —.... . �
a.A
.,.ne� .__.. I .._... ..._............. . ......... .
�
��<'�'�L��•.
t���
t���,..3� �,
� ,;w�: ,
B�FSOLUTION APPROViNG ABATEMENT OF PROPERTY TAXES FOR DOMIIVICK ��'n,�, ��,��
.�•tik, • t.:y'..
y�����;
RESOLUTION APPROVING ABATEMENT PETITION FOR PROPERTY TAXES FOR =:,►�i� ��;
TOWER '�1
�y..
RF.SOL.UTION APPROVING ABATEMENT OF PROPERTY TAXES FOR GAVALERI .
AESOLUTION APPROVING ABATEMENT OF�PROPERTY TAXES FOR EUBANKS ��� ��
RESOLUTION APPROVING ABATEMENT OF PROPERTY TAXES FOR �1�`'`:' �.
PATTERSON �:r:::.r..`:.
RESOLUTION APPROVING ABATEMENT OF PROPERTY TAXES FOR FIUNTER .k�I'
�.:.. :
�UARE Y�''
.(, •
RFRni i1Ti N APPROVING ABATEMENT OF PROPERTY TAXES FOR ''i` "
, MARKALUNAS '�% •
3':•
I2ESOLUTION APPROVING ABATEMENT OF PROPERTY TAXES FOR A�
MOENSSENS
�'r
ItESOLUTION APPROVING ABATEMENT OF PROPERTY TAXES FOR SANWA '�.:b
LEASING ,.s�
APPROVING LIQiiOR LICENSES FOR RUFF DiAMOND SPECiAi EVENT i
`
�TTFR Tn('OLORADO DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT -A copy
of tliis letter is attached hereto and made a part of this record as EXHiBTT"A".
Commissianer Harper moved approval of the Conseat Agenda. Commissioner Farris
seconded the motion. Motion passed uoanimously. E: :
ir
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS:
RFS�T rTrION URGING THE COLORADO DIVISION OF WILDLIFE COMMISSION `
TO SELEGT DRAFT OPTTON ONE FOR DAILY BAG AND POSSESSLON LIMITS ON �
TI�WEST SLOPE-MOTION TO APPROVE -Suzanne Konchan,County Manager,
proceeded with a brief presentation regarding this item as outlined in a memorandum from
Michael Villa,Wildlife Biologist.
I
Commissioner Farris moved approvat of the Resolution suggested by statf;Option 1 with a
two fish limit with the ezceptioo of the catch and release already in place on the Roaring y
Fork and Frying Pan River and including the Crystal River as a catch and release. .
Commissioner Harper seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. '
R�SOLUTION AUTHORIZING ASSIGNMENT OF WESTERN PACIFIC AiRLINES
L A AND US A R EMENT TO-MOTION TO APPROVE -Scott Smith,Staff
Person �';
�, ',.�
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISS[OIVERS 2 REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 10,1997
!�
, . � ..i.��';�..
i ' \i . .
t
� , .
� �, '
' �
1
� . �
� . �
�N.. •
• �_ ._ . _-. .. ..._ .._._.._.�....�____ '
, .,M�°__ _ ._. ... i .
c..)
�F�1��,
$�:°:`:�,;���:'.
;"��'zy4;i�
.*, .�,..
�,� ='.f:��:.
Commissioner Ireland moved approval of the Resolution. Commissioner Harper seconded •'��s°�
� the motion. MoHon passed unanimously. `
•i J.
h�
Commissioner Farris moved to go into executive session to discuss pending litigation. '
Commissioner Harper seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. �'�..
f. . .
PUBLIC COMMEP{T• ��,�' �'
;
Lynne Haynes,representing the Roaring Fork Valley Energy Conservation Board,appeared ' '
before the Board to invite them to a composium which is to be held from October 1 through the � � ,�
4tlt. She urged the Board to attend ail the events that they could. ���'T �
� Garth Wilson appeared before tlte Board representing Luxury Limousine Operators,appeared -
before the Board to request agenda time to discuss the current airport rules which they think are -
not correct for them doin�their busioess out at the airpOrt.
[t was agreed[hat Mr.Wilson wi11 be schedu{ed on a future agenda. �
, There being no further comment,Chairman Tuite closed the public comment section of the ��
meeting, `':°;��
�OMMIR IONERCOMMENTS• •��`�
,{
Commissioner Harpec thanked Dick BuYera for taking the time to articulate questions for the �
. community regarding the train. She personally feels that she will try to answer all those
questions before we do put in a train,and she thinks this Board is also 6ehind that. She said the ;,
one problem she had with his questions is that d�e tcain pertains to the entire va{ley and not just
Aspen.
COLER.AN 1041 HAZARD REVIEW MOTION TO C'ONTINUE TO OCTOBER
. 0$,1997
Commissioner Farris moved to continue this matter to October 8,1997. Commissioner •!�
Harper seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimousty.
j �
� RESOLUTION DENYIN THE EMMA STORE CONCEPTIJAL SUBDiVISIOP[
! PLAl�tri'�D UNIT DEV�LOPIVIENT LAND E CODE A➢4IEN[?MENTS.GMOS
i FXEN`OTIONS SPECIAL REVfEW AND REZONIN APPL7 ATION MOTION TO
GONTINC�7-Rich Magill,Staff Planner,proceeded with his presentation associated with this
item as outlined in his memorandum to the Board. A copy of this memorandum is attached
hereto and made a paR of this record as EXHiBiT"B".
Magill said with respect to the meeting with the Basalt Board of Trustees,the trustees were �
generally in support of the restoration of the buildings,fiowever,there seemed to be a few
technical concems with the application,primarily having to do with housing mitigation and
traffic. But generally,speaking,there was a lot of support down there for the proposa(. He .
noted that diere was new information handed out at the meeting,and staff received a copy of that �� •
new information this morning. He explained that this new information includes actual '�`',
, � � t -_
,S . �
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3 REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 10,1997
!Z.
�r� ,
:
_ __ . ._. � �
, � ,.
i . �
�:,:'
.j ,
—. . �
. i
•
_ . _. �
. - - _�_,_. .__. ��-� , .
.4 �1�-_
4.E
�•.` ��
��:5!.,.
��.' �
r�������:�..
f,V�.:,�, yiw..
descriptions of the uses for the retail space,which we had not had previousfy. It also briefly '� '=
• addressed the housing mitigation issue and revised some traffic numbers. What he suggested �;; .t
that staff has a Iittle more time to take a look at that information and refer it out to the .i,�
appropriate referral agencies and a(low Basalt some time to submit official comments on the '`'
y. ;.
proposal. Staff does feel,based upon their preliminary information,that we are heading in the . .
right direction now because Hiere are uses for the retail store to review and assess. i.�. �
C,':• ,
Magill said there are a couple of issues Hiat the Board might want to discuss tonight apart from
the issues he discussed before most importandy the housing mitigation requirements. The I�y.•.'_%� �-
applicant now is requesting a 50%reductio�in housing mitigation requirements under the land i,�;:� :.
use code,when associated with the liistoric preservation of a building. They are also proposing
one more apartment in addition to the two that were previously proposed to bring their mitigation
up to 6.25 full time employees. And the housing authority estimated,upon the original Qroposal, '
that there would be between 10 and 20 full time equivalents that needed to be mitigated for this `
- commerciaUresidential development.
I'; "
Ted Guy,representing the applicant,said they would provide mitigation for 50%of the �s t'
calculated;they will provide 6.25 in-housing on site,i£there is any additional requirement they '�._
would have to pay the payment in lieu for that.
Magill said the other issue has to do with the land ase code amendments;GMQS exemption, ,�YS�,
Subdivision exemption amendments that would allow the creation of a third lot to presumably • 'h
finance the restoration of the historic structure. He said staff;at this point,is recommending ��
denial of those tand use code amendments,but they wou(d like more feedback and direction from -
_ the Board,as there appears to be more public support for the restoration of the buildings and
' people are concemed that there has to be an economic generator associated with the project to �
get it done.
Chairman Tuite opened the hearing to public comment
Ramona Markalunas expressed her interest and concems in favor of rezoning. She said at one
time those buildings were commercial buildings before we ever have historic designation of
anything. .�`
She further said these buildings don't have much longer to stand unless someone helps them out.
It needs tlie support of the Board tu do that. � �
Owen Minney,project director and financier,made the following statement to the Board. "If I
had a crew of guys and bulldozers t could take U�em in there and tear those buildings down,as
' well as the house and everything else,and the State of Colorado would support me in my ;
endeavor,Pitkin County has nothing on their books that can stop us from taking those buildings
down. I've asked Pitkin County to provide me with their documentation that they have the right .�
to say those buildings cannot come down. I don't want to take them down. [am at the end of
my rope. Tlie people wfio own the property are not going to let me keep having the right to � �
develop it. They want me to finish paying for it or get out of town. That's where we stand today
. and.....if 1'm gone,the next guy's going to come in and the next guy standing in line wants the ,,'
6ricks for some buildings he has in Cincinnati,and thaYs the Vuth. I would appreciate anything
we can do to move this thing forward so we can go oa If we had some direction tonight that was *i.� `
' positive,I could go to the bank,fund the deal,put it together and restore the buildings". 2'',
�. ,
I
� I
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 4 REGULAR MEETINC SEPTEMBER 10,1947 '�.�
,_...._....._- _ . , � ;
_ . , �;�
� - 4
� ' . . . ':,�._;. .
��l.
� , 4 . ..
s
'r,.. ���_„__.- ._. . _._� _. _ ..._�. _ — . ,
��
.. . '--�------__.____ _ . �
, -
� �<,
�����
� �
�'�;.g�s.
a�`;:,,:':csr '
s,�,:�,..:.;4;..:'
Diana Cordova,who aKended the meeting in Basalt last night,gave her views in suppoct of , �„°•
rewning. >' - .
�t��•�
Nancy Adams,from Basalt,also attended die Sasalt meeting held last night. She voiced her '��
concerns about the traffic that wouid be generated based on approval of this project. ;x`,' '
Chairman Tuitc then closed the public hearing and brought the matter back to Yhe Board �.'<: � '
for action.
Commissioner Fsrris moved to deny the Emma Store property aPplication. Commissioner �'i -�
Ireland seconded the motion. ��-�-'�.,`
.�.::;'.;
Another discussion ensued at this point among Yhe Commissioners,Ted Guy and Mr.Minney. ��� . ,: .
` Ted Guy asked the board to not let iwenty-one(21)months of work be for nothing. He asked if �:
�
there wero any other alternatives that could be investigated. �; ` �
+,_:. •.
• Chairman Tuite asked Mr.Gny if he was proposing to the Board to look at one question as a free �%;-4.
market first. Chairman Tuite then asked Mr.Guy"are you asking if the Board would allow an
additional free market if we could get the preservation and then wocry about a potential use with
no guarantees to that preservation"7 Mr.Guy responded with yes.
�;1'
Mr,Guy asked the Board to table this and to use the next opportunily to see if the creation of a Y,�
frec market is acceptable,not only for this project,but to preserve historic strucYUres.He asked '
- them to delve into the allowable uses for historic structures.
Chairman Tuite asked if Commissioner Farris and Commissioner Ireland(first and second to
motion for denial}woutd agree to continue this as a public hearing on Tuesday,September 16.
; ' Due to various scheduling conflicts and the time�eeded by Cindy Houben and Rick Magilt to
investigate other alternatives,it was agreed to continue the discussion on this item to October
07,1997.
Commissioner Farris AMENDED HER ORIGINAL MOTIOl�i to move for a continuance
to October 07,1997. Commissioner Ireland seconded the motion. Motion passed with four
yea votes. Commissioner Lamont abseat
: FIRST READIN('AND PUBLIC HEARING ON RESO UTION ANTIN
CONCEPTUAL TRMISCmN APPROVA .OF T O AR CANYON
�FORDABLE HOUSIN S BDIVISTON/PUD AND A C PTIN T
SUBJECT PARCEL AS EMPL,OYEE HOUSING MITiGATION FOR THE
COUGAR CANYO�i CUBDIVISION-MOTION TO APPRO'VE SUBDIVISION
AND ACCEPT SUB iFCT PARCEL -Suzanne Wolff,Staff Planner and Cory Point
Partners,LLC,applicant and representative,Bruce Hazzard,Design Workshop.
. � .
Ms,Wolff proceeded with her presentation as outlined in her memorandum to ttie Boazd. A
copy of this memorandum is attached hereto and made a part of this record as EXHl'BIT"C". �.
Ms.Wolff did point out that tha County would be required to bear the cost of development of Uie � •
affordable housing lots,based on a previous agreement. One clarification for tlie Resolution �
r .
' -_
i
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 5 REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMB�R 10,1997
_ _ ._. _ _ _.. ._ � , .
��
x
/ 4 .
� _ . . . . � �. -• . -
"' �
• ,
'„ . .
� , ewe�./�--.' - .,. _.. � .. __ . .—._. -- ....�_._.__—_ .
�a.}
; .
����'
4 �1
��sSMG.�'� �"
would be that the Coun would re are the detailed and finai Iat submissions and from there �}`'
tY P p P f:{�_..,t�.'1'4`,
on out whai is reFerred to as the"applicant"wouid,actually,be the County. ; ���,
Mr.Nazzard discussed the historic drainage and debris flow down the canyon and around the 'x;s''. '`�
switchback portion of Juniper Hills Road. There will be an ongoing maintenance issue r� �=
associaied witb any development that occurs here. "•y��',:�"
Chairman Tuite feft the meeting room. jt�` ,. .
Commissioner ireland opened the hearing to public comment in Chaittnan Tuite's absence. ;` `
_1.�:;`,.•
Jim Crowley expressed his opinion that in developing affordable ho�sing he doesn't feel the ,'''"'ir�^'
economics are ttiere.
�k::.
��.�.,;.: -
Dave Tolen of the Housing Authority remarked on the$625,000.00 price for the 40 acre parceL �'`�' .
For that amount of money,Mr.Tolen said,"....t question whether we could purchase two �:.�
comparable pieces of property on whicfi to build units for families". '''� `
'3:;
Mr.Hazzard clarified the amount of$625,000.00£or the 40 acre parceL FIe said,"that figure is . ,.
the appraised value of the property in excess of one of the other altematives if we were to fall
back on that,wl�ich is caslt in lieu. �y1'
',Kx
Mt.Tolen expressed concems over the mitigation of the debris flow. There may be some
.;Y+�+
unusual development costs(in regards to Spring runof�and he feels it shoutd be borne by the ,4
' applicant.
Mr.Hazzazd continued"from the applicant's standpoint,there are a couple of points to bring up.
One is....if the cash i�lieu amount is different Uian the appraised value of the property there is '
- already a significant benefit to U�e Counry°.
Commissioner Ireland asked Mr.Hazzard how the applicant felt aboat Mr.Tolen's concern
regarding debris flow mitigation costs.
Mr.Hazzard replied"based on the way the numbers play out,the$20,000.00 is an estimate....and �,�
y so it's sort of di�cult for us to say we'll buy into that. On the one hand,we can agree to do it at
� our own cost and it may onty be$5,000.00 or it may only be$5,000.00 to the County to do it
with their own forces. I wou(d be hesitant to put a number on it. We have a design and a
-- recommendation from the engineers to solve the problem".
Commissioner Ireland asked Mr.Hazzard,"what if we said you will contribute no more than".
Happier,replied Mr.Hazzard.
In responding to Commissioner Ireland's question about when t�ie conveyance must happen,Mr. � •
Hazzard said"prior to the(assuming the next issue on the agenda proceeds to fina[plat).....plat �
heing recorded". He thought it would be approximateiy in thirty(30)days.
r:>
„
� '-
BOARD OF COUNTY COFVIMISSIONERS 6 REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 10,1997 �
___ ____.__. _ y � . �. i 1'�rf1 ,.
� � '
v
-. `
_ , r;
� �•
� _ ..
•
'k. .
. _�_ --_ - — - -- ---.�._,.�
. •f..�°+�.�.-'_." � i
A}
j
,.��lt�`'��+�_-''`
��``t=:
��;�, :
s.'�;n�*,;�+:.
�':a,%�Ykt�7;
Commissioner Ireland said"if the applicants are wifling to accept responsibitity for up to but no ;;;,,; .�.:Ls..
' more than$10,000.00 worth oFdrainage improvement,then[am prepared to move ahead and : s�
make a motion".
;, .c
�i a
Mr.Hazzard replied that they wouid accept that provision. '
y.:1 .".
Chairman Tuite retumed to the meeting room. �.
Commissioner Ireland moved to approve thc Subdivision and accept the sabject parcel �' .
w i t h a n A M E N D M E N T TO A D D C O N D I T I O N#1 3 t h a t C o z y P o i n t P a r t n e r s,L L C w i l l ;"'j''�`'��,
provide up to but no more than half af t6e drainage mitigation(up to$10,00Q.00) OR shall �` ^
provide mitigation at its'sole expense,AND that the drainage miNgatio�plans shatl be "'��'�' +
submitted ta the Brush Creek Metro District for review and comment prior to
implementation AND changc fhe word APPLICANT to actualty read Cozy Point Partners � -
LLC. CONDITION#14 shall be added to include assessments for trash and road �'` -
improvements. Commissioner Farris seconded the motion. � �
,t '.
, Commissioner Ireland then asked if there were any discussions on the motion. There being ���''•�
none,he closed the public hearing and brought the matter back to the Board for action. � -
i=
Motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Lamont absent �;,•�
��.
FIRST READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE REZONING THE ,`'��t
COUGAR CANYON SUBbIVISION/PUD FROM AFR-20 TO RS-� 0-MOTION �
- TO APPROVE AND SET FOR SECOND READING :j
�lYI2
; It�SOLUTION GRANTING DETAILED SUBMISSION AND FINAL PLAT
APPROVAL TO THE COUGAR CANYON SUBDIVTSION/PUD-MOTTON TO -
, APPROVE -Suzanne Wolff;Staff Planoer,Cory Point Partners,LLC,applicant and ;
r
representative,Bruce Hazzard of Design Workshop.
�
Ms.Wolff made her presentation as outlinq�in her memorandum to the Board. A copy of this �'`
i memorandum is attached hereto and made a part of this record as�HIBIT"D".
Ms.Wolff stated there was one issue that sbe l�asn't gotten confirmation on from Mike Villa yet.
— + (t relates to the areas'fertilized and irrigated lawns. The applicant has proposed an acre. Mike
� Villa and Randy Cote both agree that tfiat amount is excessive.Mike Villa suggested between
� five thousand(5,000)and twelve thousand(12,000)square feet,but she has not gotten a definite
( number from him yet. This will have to be cleared up at the second reading.
�
�
i Mr.Hazzard said there are just under one thousand acres here and he has been going through dia •
� process to get five(5)homesites created wliich leaves the other 98%of the property in �
' perpetuity,the situation that it is right now. �+e
I '
,
�f':
`, ..
� --
f
BOARD OF COUNTY CQMMISSIONERS 7 R6GULAR MEETING SEPTEMSER]0,1997
� � _
,
_ --_---- ._.._. ... . _ .. 'y
.. , � .... ..... . . . . .. . . . � ... . . . �7:�1 .,-
r.
� �
ti
-� �' . ♦
'
` _ �E�
. .
k. _._ -�- ----—,
.�„�__ __ �_ - ,
u.r
.y:..
.,,,.�.� -
.; �._ _ _....�. --4. _ ._. ..,.:.. _
i ��;+t,�.�
,..� ��r �,
�„;
,� �X�_
!�yC:\.j`�'.
. Chairman Tuite interrupted Mr.Hazzard by saying we are rezoning this at one hundred and sixty '`-
(l60)acres and there's no prohibition from a future owner or homeowners to come in and say, �i
you know what,eighty(80)acres would work. ;�1
. It was mentioned Uiat there are deed restrictions that there will be no further subdivision or •'�.
development other than its'proposed application. This runs with the land and cannot be tumed
' over by the homeowners. This is a very significant issue according to Chairman Tuite. �
' l�
l
Mr.Hazzard then expressed his concerns about the wording regarding separate septic envelopes �`'�'' �"
for homesteads I-4. Chairman Tulte asked staffto work on the language for the second reading. `.�.��'
i
j Secondly,Mr.Hazzard asked about the suggested"Domestic Animal Management Plan"under
, the Wildlife Pfan,specifically about dogs,not just these five(5)homeowners,but dogs from ' �
adjacent properties which are a bigger problem. •
Lastly,Mr.Hazzard talked about his request for a five(5)year period of vested rights. �y
' ' Concerning the last item on vested rights,Chairtnan Tuite said he diddE like to set precedent,but �
the point being made is the applicant gets an RS-160,it's in perpetuity,it's a deed restriction, i
not just a zoning. He said he would be willing to set,as an example,a longer vesting because he �
thinks iPs in Hie best interest of this County and what it is trying to do.
Chairman Tuite moved to AMEND the Resolution specifically and state this as a five(5)
year vesting. Commissioner Farris seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
' Commissioner Lamant absent.
The other items witl be discussed at the second reading.
Commissioner Ireland moved to approve the ORDINANCE on re-zoning to RS-160 and set
Sor second readiag. Commissioner Farris seconded the motion.
i�
'� Chairman Tuite then opened the hearing to public comment. There being none,lie closed the
�;y public hearing aod brought the matter back to the Board for action.
jt
�� Motion passed with four yea votes. Commissioner Lamont absent.
�:�
i Commissioner Ireland moved to approve the RESOLUTION granting detailed submissiou
and final plat approval and set for second reading AS AMENAED. Commissioner Harper
' seconded the motion.
r.
s
t Chairman Tuite noted that the Board amended the dogs and specifically added vesting
; They are still going to discuss irrigation,PM10 and language for septic envelopes. .
Mr.Hazzard notified the Board conceming consideration for condition number seven(7)in the
proposed Resolution which relates to the building envelope on Homestead five(5). App�icant
has agreed to move tlie Homestead 5 envelope out of the setbacks. He then requested Item seven
(7)be addressed as Item 1.E so as to be part of the final Plat provisions. L `'
4`
n
i ,. `..._
I
SOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS S REGU[.AR MEETING SEPTEMBER l0,1997
� ::...; ,.
�L,
____ _ . _ � ��
�
t�;
� , ;.
�
� �,
� � � ;.. .j,
� ,
s -. .
— - --- �
� . - ___,r-.__ ._....._ -. — .. .
w•. ��-.' . .
�a.Y
_ ._--.
----- _____ ._
-�+..,.._...�.�
� � �
; �
�kr��
. �,�'�,1 q:`i'.
vV
.).��s�j'��:.
:�pJ�.U'.
- ',���"\:k:
• Commissioner Ireland AMENDED HIS PREVIOUS MOTION to move to upprovc the ��!'9
Resolation weth this additional amendment as svell. Commissioner Harper seconded this
amended motion also. ''
1�
� In conjunction with that,said Mr.Havard,would be the elimination of Condition Number 10 of �.�,�.
i the Resolution which is tied to tlte current location of that envelope and its impacts on debris ,
� flow channeL He tfiinks iYs agreed and covered to be away from the debris flow and requests "
j .''.
that Condition Number 10 be moved to Item 1.F. �.: ��
� L.�..�'
�,�.:�..... .
� Commissioner Ircland AGAIN AMENDED HIS PREVIOUS MOTIQN to move to approve 1 ,':;:
� the Resolution with this addiHonal amendment also. Commissioner Harper seconded this 1�?"
amended motion. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Lamont absent. ;°
� FIRST READING OF DRAFT RESOLUTION GRANTING DETAIL FD � ,�^
SU3MISSION PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT,1041 ENVIRONMENTAL
HA .A REVIEW AND P CIA R VI •W APPROVA TO T .ACPEN +
, ? j�IGHLAND5 BASE ViLLAGE PUD-MOTION TO APPROVE AND SET FOR T`
SECOND READiNG AND PUBLIC HEARING-Lance Clarke,Deputy Community
- Development Director,proceeded with his presentation as outlined in his Memorandum to the `'
Board. A copy of his memorandum is attached hereto and made a part of this record as �
EXHIBIT"E". i,�j
r�
� Mr.Clarke requested tltat toniglit,the Board state any particular conditions they think are]acking
- ' in the proposed Resolution that he may have to add or changes they would like to recommend. �
Chairtnan Tuite was the first to respond and said he had asked about basement space. He stated
that he went to a lot of work to try to size these as small and suitable as possible and then to
aliow ti�e basement to be maximum,[think,kind ofdefeats the purpose since you have virtually
almost doubled the available square footage with a garage.
� � Gtenn Hom responded by saying,"I took your comment at our last meeting about floor area to
`j mean how was floor area calculated,not to mean what the limit was".
i1
�j A discussion developed among the Commissioners regarding the toial square footage.
S.
�;
}. Commissioner Farris said"somehow this has got to be made cleaz to everybody at the very
�i beginning thaf Yhis is all inclusive or not all inclusive--".
X� It was agreed that this would be discussed the next time and tliat there would be a specific
�i recommendation at that time.
w
y
� Chairman Tuite next brought up Construction Pf�asing. -
Mr.Horn said one way they have looked at it is"encouraging a contractor to move as quickly as
possible and.....to hit as hard and fast as possible".
Chairman Tuite asked Mr.Horn how many building seasons he was anticipating,as he tecently =�
heard Spring,Summer and Fall for the first year. �}� `�-.
fi� �
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 9 REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 10,1997 'i
.�...I
ra�
i ,!�
:_. ... . .. .. __ . . . . _. . ,� . . �. . " . - . . . ..'. ��};'4 . :
� . . � � . � �' . . .-
� c
�
t, '-:
-�a .
' 1
�
°'. ` .w�+�"�'�" - -_. .__. --- _. .- .._—. _ .__ .. ..__._-- , . � .
a.y
... . - _ .. I Y ;
�,`��'�'F�..�::
���} :J.;:
�n��.'71':�47'- ,
� ""``,. �6�:I�:4`.
_ '��
Mr.Horn responded by sayirtg"realistically,......1 tliink you are Iooking at a four(4)year ,�',� ,;
i�:
construction program". ;. ._,�.,
:��•, . ,
In response to a question from Cliairman Tuite,Mr.Horn gave a variety of acceptable suggested •''•.
ideas on the impact of construction vehicles on Maroon Creek Road and how it could be cut '� ' ' '
down,for example,moving some equipment in early evening after school bus use and five �"R�' '
' o'clock traffia
...��.-,:
` Suzanne Konchan asked Bob Daniels,how much of the$650,000.00 figure in Condition Namber ;.,,,:;;�.�`:'
� Nine(9}in General Conditions of Approval(concerning improvements along the Maroon
' Creek/Castle Creek/Highway 82 intersection and Maroon Creek Road)are going to be utilized �'��^
on the Maroon Creek Road outside ofthe Highway SZ intersection? �' `
�.:; .
Mr.Daniels responded that the intersection, as they proposed it,was somewhere on the order of
$100,000.00 to$180,0OO.OQ but he woutd have to look at the actual figures to be sure. s �,
• Commissioner Farris thought it would be very helpful to have those figures and it was decided `
that Mr.Daniels would suppiy them.
�,y.r
�..
Chairman Tuite opened the hearing to public comment. 3' �
r 1�
� One woman,whose name was not audible on the tape,expressed her concerns over the height of '�
. the proposed buildings and asked the Board,individually or as a group,to go to t(ie Aspen )
Highlands and try to envision what it will look like.
4
King Woodward of the Maroon Castle Creek Caucus talked about the immediate need for work
to be done at die intersection and to not postpone it any longer and also he talked of trying to
avoid people parking on the road once the construction starts at Aspen Highlands.
�
' � Cindy Houben did remind the Board that it has been written in for the September 23,1997
� agenda
i that the Board Uave a site visit to Hightands. '�'i'
Commissioner FIarper moved to approve the Resolution(with proposed conditions)and set �
for second reading and public hearing on September 24,1997. Commissioner Farris
seconded the motion.
Chairman Tuite closed the public hearing and brought the matter back to the Board for,
i action.
� Motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Lamoat absent. � •
i
� LAND USE ACTIONS
FiRST RFADIN('nN RFfini.iiTinN ACCF.PTING THE RECOMMENDATLON ?
' OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSiON TO DESIGNATE THE =�'�
'. 5 . -
ASPEN HIGHLANbS BASE ViLLAGE PUD AN EXCEPTIONAL PROJECT ' ` � �-
-- j I
i„
BOARD OF COUNTY COMM[SS[ONERS 10 REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 10,1997 'j, .
� ,
i ' �'� .
� . �
�
f,,.<.
� - . . '��`'�': _
. � 1.. .. I ' .
� ✓ _ ,
t
. � � ..._ ...._____'_"�'.�
�__ ... .__.. �-._ __ '_' _. � .
�o.}
,y:..
� ^
,��,�..
� ��� �
,� �.y,r . .
.'7f�.�'.:i'('�_�:
THAT I I IB FOR AND HO Ti D BE GRANTED MFTRO ARFA ' (r•�,,."':�J��:`.
MULTI YEAR RF ID NTIA A i OTM NT MOTION TO A ('FPT THF' ' `'R
SCORING AND RECOMMFNpATION OF THF['R WTH MANAC MFNT k;:,� .;,
. COMMiSSION-Lance Clarke,Deputy Director of Community Development,made his r' 1�
presentation as outline in his memorandum to the Board. A copy of which is attached and made -;.~`�� � -
a part of this record as�XHIBIT"F". � •''•_
Y`': ,�
The aciva!allocatiort action cannnt take place until the City Council has also accepted the GMC
recommendation. The City Council has scheduled its consideration for September 22,1997. A � �`p_',z.,��'
Resolution for allocation of the residential units wifl be brought back fo fhe$oard of !'
September24,1997. '.'':r:.'.
��,:.>� .
Commissioner Farris moved to accept the scoring and recommendaHon of the GMC. i�', •:'.: •
.4..'
Commissioner Ireland seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioner •:F� :
Lamont absept. �'`
y::. -
• R�SOLUTION REGEI��*N('THF R Ob""d NDED 1996 Oh�l�; RCiAi, `�r''�:
�MOS SCORING OF TH ROWTH MANA M NT COMMiS$.�ON ANn :;;�
' ALLOCATING COMMERCIAL.FMPi.OYE . N ATION UNIT TO T .
ASPFN HIGHLANDS BA VILT AGF,PitD-MOTION TO R FIV �_� ,
SCORING AND ALLO ATF i1NiTS-Lance Clarke,Community Development Depury ��' ;r�+
Director,made his presentation as outlined in his memorandum to the Board. A copy of said ���� '�!
memorandum is attached hereto and made a part of tl�9s record as EXHIBIT'°G". �?�
�
i
Commissioner Ireland moved to accept and allocate. Commissioner Harper seconded the
motion. Motion passed unanimously. Coromissioner Lamont absent.
�IRST READTNG ON R O TION APPROVIN TH ON PT A 'i' !±'
$UBDIYISION,GMOS EXEMPTION 1041 HAZARD REVIEW MPLOYEF
� AWFLLINC'UPTIT AND��$�'TA�CER DLVELLING UIVIT FOR THE ASPEN
SKIING COMPANY/CR�WN R SiD N�F na�TTnN TO APPROVE(WITH
�9NDITION$�AND SET FOR FCYIND R ADIN -Cindy Houben,Community
Development Director,made her presentation as outlined in her memorandum to the Board. A � L
copy of said memorandum is attached hereto and made a part of this record as EXHIBIT�A". i
` Chairman Tuite said he could tive with a detached emptoyee dwelling unit NOT an attached
! employee dwelling unit and a detached caretaker dwelling unit.
i
After much discussion among the Commissioners,Commissioner Harper ramarked"I know that
when we liave existing houses and they cfiange hands we don't have them do employee
mitigation. If someone who lived here for years sells to someone who's a second homeowner we , i
don't require mitigation so I'm trying to find ouf what the difference is. I want to miderstand �� •
better why this is differenP'.
Chairman Tuite responded by saying"the difference is we have a change in use,we have an 'i'
increase in the size of the house---". ��
:i;
� --
1
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS I 1 REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 10,1997 .�Y�
Sr,
��
� . . ... .. . . . . . .. . � . ..
� . . . , � '.�;_ - � .
V
� - . . ', .._. .
� I .
, � �
� . . •
, ..,..�.....-,---- - - -- - -- --.._-- ---
,,.
���'.
r#r'. ��::
�`.'.��:r���a�.;
i ..�5..ti2;:
y'�Y w .
, The representative for the Aspen Skiing Company/Crown Residence said he would agree to the - -
mixed conditions to avoid laboring on this issue any longer. ��:i� �i;, .
�; �,
Commissioner Imland moved to amend the employee mitigation wndition to 4.8. _.,•�.�•_�
Commissioner Farris seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioner ' •
Lamont absent. "•� '' '
Y
Commissioner Farris moved to approve the ResoluHon as amended and set for second -
� reading on September 24,1997. Commissioner Harper seconded the motion. Motion �9r`':" �'
passedunanimously. CommissionerLamontabsent. i+;:.i::.,i.��``
i Alice Davis asked the Board if she could make a request. She said"the 1041 and the Scenic �k ���-
'�., ..;.�•. -
i Review are what we feel like we need to accomplish the addition. We started this process a year ?��' '
� ago and hoped to get a building permit this yeac For a while there,Francis(Krizmanich?.....) � `
� indicated his support for coming to you guys and asking you for permission to go ahead with the ;!+` ''
' building permit since we have scenic overlay and 1041 approval issues out of the way. That "
� would allow us to prceeed with the building pertnit because we don't believe that Subdivision i•:i`•�F
' and Rezoning is really required for the addition,iPs kind of a clean up issue the Planning Office
wanted us to do way back after the first approval was given in 1995. ....Right now,if we were
"Joe Schmo"coming in for a]041 and a scenic,if you had no problems with those do you have a �"r
s."�`•�,
problem with us getting a building permit to begin the construction". ,�
s
I Chairman Tuite asked Staff if there was a precedent about this,can it be done,has it been done, '�
� should it be done7 � i
Ms.Houben said she didn't believe re-zoning should hold up the request. The Scenic
i Foreground is really an issue...but I don't have an issue with this one way or another. I can't 'I
recall doing tliis for other applicants but this is a pretty complicated application,as you can see �' '
iby the number of reviews involved.
. � Chairman Tuite said"this is such a damn unique situation. LePsjust go ahead,process it at diis
time and we will bear the burden of what the hell have we done,what are we doing and what can
happen in the future. I'm willing to let this go ahead,['m willing to let the permit be issued. I
hear what you're saying and I think I understand the issue". ` �
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned.
. � �
,'
I
1
i ,' � .
I
�
'i
�`
� i::
S i , , �
d.��'�
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 12 REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 10,1997 �;,;� .
�-r�y .
`.'l�.
'�,:
_..__---- -._...... . . �:. - �
. _.i. .... .....: .... ... _ . _ . .. . . . . _... .. . . ...... . .��� , � � -
/ ' ` � .
^ ,I.
. . _ � ._..., .
� � .
1 1
'• ' '"�."'"�_.�_� .
_�
. . . - -.-'_"_ , 1
•� . � '_ ..-....-""_ . .
T��
.�:.,.
.
� ..
,.;,_
, �, t,.
��r �L
i �
;�i.����'
li .,��.`..
G��'� �2�� ~�«�.
^�ac -+'
e�nette Jones �� � '!�
erk to the Board Commissioaers -:��', •�.��.
� � ���� ��.�j, . . '_4.
3 �S
! Bill Tuite,Chairman ' `:f"�•i'r'`�
� i°:Y:,.:.�,. :
? Board of County Commissioners +, �:;' �.:
i . ++�-.%:e.t:,Y;
i j�
: �
� i�...
! �y,�
��4.;{
� �� v
�Y
[
� �.��
•:.��
I
•I
� i . . --�,..
1
� .
i 1:
�
�
�
pcjmj/ww/g/minutes/1997/09-10-97
submitted for approval on October 8,1997
, .
.'. :�,.
.� ,
{;
� BOARD OF COTJNTY COMMISSIONERS l3 REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 10,1997
!�
{< _.;,;�....�.: ...,.._�.__,:.:. . .;__.,..__...._._ . . ___ __ _...._..; • _.,. , - ,_ _, < a.. .,. ...> j .
l _ _ . . _ :: �
;. , � �,:. ,
s ,. { .
_ . _ . . , ,:
;
,, ,
. � ' •� . . � � . �:.S: .
. �I . ' � . . . . � ;�.: . , . .
� -.. _. . _ . . . ' � � .
,}r. " _ � . . , '
. �—.—��. ..._�..�_���. . _._._�..._ _� ......_.._�_.__�._� ,
j�
..,.�...�_ � _ . __
�- ------ -- . .,.. .�........... ... .
+; �/� _ ,..
,y �Y���,�.
�'(.. ���� t�,i:��i's,.;,;._:.
c� ,?t a•:�`;t. .
r
� � Pitkin County '' ;:Y.
��
�"� -�:,�
,� : �
August 19, 1997
' �- y..�:;"
. �.;:>.�.�
i
Mr.John Numair � ,.
Executive Director .
Colorado Department of Labor and Employment
1515 Arapahoe Street,Tower 2,Suite 400
Denver,Colorado 80202 . •
Dear Mr.Numair. M�.
When our Region was split from one 10-county Region to iwo 5-county Regions,the ,4��
state sent out a new staffing fonnula showing the breakout of the two Regions. After
. reviewing the changes,a determination was made that with Grand County now in the '�
Northwest region,one FTE ftom the Rural Resort Region formula should be moved to ,t
the Northwest Region.
Therefore,Pitkin rounty as part of the Rural Resort Region for On-Stop will be willing to
transfer one FTE to the Northwest Region.
Wdh the move of this position,it will allow Grand County to again have emptoyment and
training presence in thair county. •
Sincerely,
�
lBill Tui
Chairman
Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners •
•I
� ;\ �
_��.
,
��. � � --
Adminlstratlon County Commissloners County Attorney Flnance and Use Tax r, I
530 E Maln,Sulte 307 ' Sulte 301 . Sulte 302 530 E.Maln,Sulte 207
. Aspen,CO 81617 530 E.Main Street 530 E Maln Street Aspen,CO 51611 �° �
. (970)920-5200 Aspen,CQ 81611 Aspen,CO 81611 (970)920-5220 `.�f � �
���� FAX 920-5198 (970)920-5150 (970)920-5190 FAX 920-5230 `a �.
RECYQFDPAPER `��
'�
.. ..__.. ... . . . ._.����+w.. ..-..� . .-.:.
. .. ,_nt+--1nwerw�v�...�..� ... . _. . .. . . .. .
. ..
� '— . .
_.. r _
_ �
4
�. ' rl�' R
� � .
. .
•.�, �-�_ _. _. —_.. - ---- — __._ ,
aa
,
..
. .._.� __..____ --- _ ..
� _�-, :
J _..-- .__ �� �.,„�.�...
. /�..r17 ,'�v u�Y ��
�•�.�;�;,
-*, .:,;.
.,�,��'4`..
`-�;.
AGENDA ITEM SUMIVIARY
j TO: Board of County Commissioners J ���
i Regular Meeting-Septernber 10,1997 �.' .�'•,
RE: Emma Store Conceptua(Subdivision Submission,Planned Unit Developmen�Land
Use Code Amendments, GMQS Exemptions, Special Review and Rezoning
�:�::_.:
THRU: Cindy Houben,Communiry Development Director i,','�� -t=:7-�`
FROM: Rick Magill,Senior Planner . -
APPLICc1��IT:Owen Minney Y,
APPLICr1i�11''S REPRESENT�TIVE:Ted Guy �
REQUEST:The Appiicant requests appmval of the subdivision of an 11.9 acre pazcel into three �:'��.
&ee-market tots. In order to facilitate the restorarion of esisiing historic structures and promote •,�
consistency with the size of adjacent properties, the Applicant is requesting the creation and
- utli..ation of a proposed"historic preservation"overlay zone and the rezoning of the property from
AFR-10 to AFR-2. The proposed overlay zone wouid, aznong other things. allow certain
commercial uses by special review which would ordinarily be prohibited under AFR-2 zoning.The
Applicant is also proposing Land Use Gode Amendments(Subdivision and GMQS Exemptions)to
; create the third free-mazket lot
�
• , The Applicant's request is subject to the following land use reviews:
,� 1. Rewning �;
2. Land Use Code Amendments
! 3. GI�iQS Exemptions
- .�� 4. Conceptual Subdivision
5. Pianned Unit Development(PUD)
j 6. Special Review �
( BACKGROUND: At the 7uly 9, 1997 meeting, the Board suggested that this application be !
� referred directly to the Basalt Boazd of Trustees for comments.3taff will attend a meeting of the
' Trustees on September 9,1997 and report to the BOCC on September lOth.
STAFF FINDINGS: � `
� ♦ Pursuant to the standazds of Land Use Code Secrion 3-�0.10, Staff is in support of the
creation of the pmposed Historic Overlay-PUD zone disffict. . " - _
I
1
� _
,:.,t.
� : _
I . i'x;r
� `�,_
t
-i • � ..,
' ,, .j`,
• . .
., .
K•
. ' �_� __.._'."_.._._.. __ _.___... .__ ....__.___..._.�--. .
. � !
'a)
,�:.
.>.
,
� ,.M �,- - �__ -`
,�:
`�',
Q ��
� K�C:
�Y '.,���..:
�:�:��_F�tq,;.
♦ Pursuant to the standards of Laad Use Code Section 3-220.20, Staff is in support of the ,;,' �° .
rezoning from AFR 10 to AFR-2. '`.`.'i �
♦ Pursuant to Land Use Code Sec6on 220.10,Staff is in su ort of revisions to Code Section 3- �;�' �;,
PP :.,,... ,
30.60 Historic and Archeological Resource Areas. .,,•:� �
♦ Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 3-220.10,Staff is in support of GMQS E.cemptions for the •"'•.�:
restoration,remodeling and change in use of the historic srivchues on the property. " `
♦ Pursuant to the standards of Land Use Code Section 3-220.10,Staff cannot support a land use ���� �
code amendment for creation of a GMQS Exempuon for the additional residential lot. '�' �
♦ Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 3-�0.10, Staff cannot support a land use code T`��'� ��
amendment to create a Subdivision Exemption for an additional residential lot. �'`'`?" �
♦ Pursuant to the standards of Land Use Code Secrion 3-210 (Special Review), Staff cannot X=`" '
support the proposed commercia[uses ofthe Emma Store building. �'`�`�' '� �
y�:...
.:t:. ,
♦ Pursuant to the standards of Land Use Code Sections 3-130(Development Esactions),3-160 F� �: `
(GMQS),and 3-170(PUD),Staff cannot support the Conceptual Subdivision of the parcel,as '�'+`'.• %
(�.
proposed by the Applicant �r�•a
' f�; ..
STaFF SIJD'IMARY: Staff believes that some :ype of use of the Emma Store buildin�s is °��
necessary to restore and preserve these historic resources.howev�r,ihe proposed commercial uses �
set forth by the Applicant aze too intensive in rela^_�n to the esisLag character and tand uses in the '�P"��
Emma azea I1se application presented by the App:icant is also svbsrantially deficient in a number
of azeas,par�iculazly with respect to the lack of.�itigation of the impacts on the community at-
- laz�e.Despite Staff's willingness to support of sos�components of the project the application as a
� whole does not meet the t[ues0old criteria of the L�d Use Code.
E �
� RECOMIVIENDATION: Staff recommends that he Boazd of County Commissioners deny the
Emma Store property application,based on the fmc:ngs listed above.
- � ATTAC�IlVIEIVTS:
1. l�tiuhf
� pril 15 emo to P&Z w/attaclunP--•�
I
�
( , "
j
i
F
i a�..
, .
i � � itr "
j 2 �,
�'
; �
'..:
---.._ . . _ � ---__... ...._�___ _ __._,__..----— --�__:.. .
__..,_ ... . . n :
. • 1'`'
/ }
t .
� • . 'i.,
�
� .
..
. � ------�.�
", �„�.....�—__--r-- _ ___ .� _ — -._..._ __ �
�y l�
.
� :::� �_ _�__ ..___ .------- �. _ �.,.
� ._ -.:--�-°:,... . .:....._:. ,
; t..,,a��.
' ��'r.�.��;
f��'D`/�7 ��� "�;�.�� °
MEMORANDUM _- �", `;F`���'�;'
• �;
Y:
TO: Boazd ofCounty Commissioners
,.
Regular Meeting-September 10,1997 �., :�
-��
THRU: Cindy Houben,Community Deveiopment Direcror`�%T��°� '.: ',�
s ••
FROM: Suzanne Wolff,Planner
; RE: Canyon Affordable Housing Subdivision Conceptual Submission,First Reading and ��''�1 '
; Public Heazing *:���`-:
REQLiEST: The Applicant is requesting to subdivide a 40 acre parcel into nvo lou to convey to Pitkin � ' �
County to develop two sing(e-famiiy detached,dced-restricted residences.The applicant requested to create
two lots of approximately 30 acres each;however,staff and the applicant have agreed that it�vouid be more
appropriate to c�eate two lots of approximately 2 acres each,which is consistent with lot sizes in the Brush it�
` Creek Village Subdivision,and to desienate:he remaining 36 ucres as common open space. The following ,
approvals are requested:
• Subdivision/PUD Conceptua(Submission t�
• 1D41 Hazard Review ��,�
• GMQS Exemption for Deed-Restricted Dwelling Units Lacaced Ouuide of the AH Zone District �
• Scenic Overlav Review
Please note that conveyance of this parcel to Pitkin County is proposed as employee housing mitigation for
the five lot Cougaz Canyon Subdivision. Pursuant to Resolution No.9c.�244,which approved the Cougar
' Canyon Subdivision Concepmal Suomission,if the Board agrees to accept the 40 acre parcel and if the �:.;:,
re
j Conceptual Submission for the parcel is approved,the County will prepare the Detailed Submission/Final
i Pfat application. 'Che Couety may either deed-res�trict the parcels for affordable housing or may sell them as
, free-mazket lou to benefit the affordable housing tund. Rezoning is not necessary since the lots comply
jwith the minimum lot area in the r�.FR 10 zone district,however,if the Conceptuai Submission is approved
and the County decides to desig�ate che lots for af£ordable housing,rezoning to AH2/PUD at Detailed
! Submission may be appropriate. The land shall be covenanted against development of more than two
sinele-family residences,whether deed-restricted or free market If the Board chooses not to accept the 40
i acre parcei,two aitemarive methods of housing mitigation for the Cougar Canyon Subdivision were
' provided in Resolution No.96-244.
__ i �
! The Planning Commission recommended approval by a vote of 4-0. The stafFmemo to the Planning I
�' Commission,which addresses all of the conditions of the Conceptual Submission approval,is attached for �,
� reference. Only specific issues raised by staff,the Planning Commission or the applicant are addressed
below. �
APPLTCANf: Cory Point Parmers,LLC
f
REPRESENTATIVE: Bcuce Hazzard,Design Workshop
�s�
-,
� �'
i
� .
�t
; ,
' • �I��. .
.
-., �
" �;� .
� .
, ,
k . �_: _ __ _.._ . -- — -- .– - --_--�
:..,
. -•,:: _ ..
�
�,���:
����
� : �
,�; ,,y,d'c-
LOCATION: Just north of the intenection of Juniper Hiils Drive&Upper Ranch Road,adjacent to the '+';'� ��,�1`:
' Brush Cteek V illage Subdivision and Cory Point Ranch. It also abuu the Cougar Canyon Subdivision to �'V`-k,.
the north and west '
�•T� 't�
K,
ZONING/LOT AREA: AFR-10/40 acres �`:
.y' '
:��
1$$�$: .
1=��
4dditionai informatin:Staff requested ihat the a�plicant provide the following additiortal infocmadon prior
to review of the Detailed 5ubmissiocvFinal Plat application by the Boazd. ',i`'"-`" ;"
_ I-c.r'!,.,1,. �';
I. Provide aletter to the Environmerrtal Heolth Deparrment from the Brush CreekMetropolirarr �
District stating tivhether the District tivill/can provide water to[he devefopment. If the Disrricr k��^� '
cannot serve these Jots,then the appl icant siwll provrde rnformation for review bv Emironmenur! �
Health documenting thcrt the quantiry mut qualiry oJthe tivatersupply are adequate and tlrat the
required setbocks J'rom the tivell to the septic system can be eneL
• Response: The District is not wil]ing to annex the lots,and therefore,not wi!ling to provide �'�`i
G'� ..
water to the lou,if the uniu are sited in the proposed location. If the units are sited across
Juniper Hill Road from the Co2y Point Ranch buildings_the District would be willing to anne:c :�,,�
the lou and the lots would,therefore,be entiiled to recerve�vater service from the Disuict(letter Y=
attached as E:chibit A).Under the latter scenazio,the costs for water service would include a •,-�'
system development fee of 525,000 per residence_a monthh�service fee of�25,and a water ,�°�
, usage fee of�4 per 1000 gallons. However,staff reviewed this aitemaYe Jocation,and does not
' believe that the area is adequate to accommodate two residences,well and septic,while !
` complying with setback requiremenu and avoidine slopes in excess of 30%.
i
i
In anticiparion of the response from the District,the applicant drilled a test�vell on the property
� and has provided a preliminary report on the depth and yield ofthe welf(repoR attached as
! E:chibit B). The quality of the water is currently being tes�ed.According to Nancy�tacKenzie
Ifrom Environmental Health,the quantity of water is adequate to serve two residences.
i
� '. Sufimit a report from a qual�ed engineer which addresses thefollowinggeologic hazard issues:
a• Determine the magnitude of potenlia!debris flow mrd ineludes a preliminary design and
provide a cost estimate for mirigation to chanxelize or redirect potentia(debris flows.
b• Recommend whether movirrg the buiJding envelopes toward the road would allow them ro
javoidslopes in excess of I�%arrd possibly to avord slope stability issues.
' �• Provlde v slope stabrlity analysis in order to determine rf engineered foundations wi!(be
�
required
�Paose: The applicant has provided a revised site plan,which demonstrates that the building
envelopes can be adjusted to exclude slopes in eatcess of 15°/a. The applicant consulted with CTL •�
'Ibompson Engineers and Hieh Country Engineering,and the envelopes and the adjacent area are
not cons�dered to be unstable and engineered foundations were not considered necessary. A
P�'OPo�1 to construct a ditch and a detention pond to mitigate for debris and drainage flows is
a�a�hed as Exhibit C,and the cost of this mitigation is estimated to be$20,U00. 'I'his proposal has ��
�en fo�warded to the County Engineer for comments. '��
, �
/`, ',
;�::.,: Z j4
' � .Y�^.-"".. � . ._� .
. �,..V2�Fx:-,:. . .
, ' . ( '� 9V� v, � .
i
� ^.-.r:.;-� ::' ' '
. .... . . ........�..... .... .. ... , .. .. _.. . , ' ti ..��- .
. .. ... .... . .. , f
/ . 1
`
� . � '
� .i_
r.- ' ,
� .
, f
..
,
iy` . _" .-' '_ _'"_ . ""_"....._..-__.,� .
. , .��_._ _ ,_. __._ -
F'
.:.: ...._ .
---- -
� --------- _. ----�-
����''��'
3� �,c t`.
.;'s �. ._.
� ��� '
3. Provide a letter from t{fe Bncrh Creek Merropolitan Distrrct addressing the canmrbution that the �
��''.,,;_�;'.�k'..
o�mers would be required ro pay to the District for road mainrenarrce and snowplowing and trash .: ;;"'
�� �_
service. -
5;a: 'c
Respoose: [f the lots aze not annexed to the District the current cost for trash cotlection for each "���:�J
tot is S50 per quarter and the eurrent cost for road maintenance and snowplowing is�583 per year. -:y':'';'
If the lots are annexed to the District,taxes levied by the Disttict would cover these services. � -,''
�l. Cause to be performed cm.LlAI summnry appraisal of the parcel ,.e
� Response: 'I'he market value of the property,as of August i,1997,is$G25.000. The appraisal is .�.''�� +'
attached as E.+ehibit D. The cash-in-lieu amount that wouid be required,based on the 1997 Housing ,`-"'�''r.~�
Guidelines,is$508^00. ,k'��' �
�h;.•:,:, -
Brti�h C'reek�"etrop9Jitan Dicttict&T.andowners Asscciation: A letter from 1im Crowley addressing -y'� •
the concerns of the District and the.�ssociation is attached to the staff memo to the Planning �`y;�
Commission. The District and Association do not supQort development of the anits in the proposed .;;::'
° lceation,based in part on wildlife.traffic and visual impacts. The�ssceiation requested design approval %� '�
,�_.
of the project. .4t the Planning Commission meeting,Mr.Crowley also questioned whether the parcel 'a:� •
could be purchased as open space. Sraffwouid note that Resolution Vo.96-2!1 approved by the Board
on August 28,1996.which addresses issues regardin_the Brusi�Creek Village Suodivision.includes the �ft
following statement,"Affordable housin�proposed as a part of the Cougar Canyon de:�elopment is >'•
supported by the reside�ts:' The Cougar Canyon Conceptual Submission was approved by the Board on
,ugust 14.1996.and representatives of the suhdivision visi[ed the proposed affordable housine site with �1.�
" [;i::Board in dune of 1996. ' j
�ildlife: 7'he site is within,but on the ed3e of,mapped mule deer winter range.and is just outside of {.
mapped elk winter range. Richard Thompson summazizes in his wildlife evaluation of:he site."The
� affordable housing site will result in a minor loss(approximately 1 acre)of lightly-used.deer and elk ' � �
� winter aod transitional range that has already been impacted by human accivities associaied�vith the
. ' Brush Creek Village Subdivision and Cozy Point Ranch. The effect of this habitat loss��ill be
nondiscemable on herd numbers and overall habitat use pattems." He adds that"although a small
acrea�e of previousty disrurbed habirat would be lost,the remainder of the site would be preserved as
viable winter and transitional range in perpetuiry." Mike Villa agrees��ith Mr.Thompson's assessment, � �
and their recommendations ue included as conditions of approval. '
�
i
One of the conditions required that all dogs be kenneled,based on the recommendation of Mr.Thompson
i to preclude free-ranging dogs. The Ptanning Commission recommended that that dogs be prohibited.
based on the di�culty of enforcing a kenneling restriction. The resolution reflects this recommendation.
i
; Parks/Recreation/Onen Space Develonment Exaction: The applicant would be required to dedicate 0.069
acres based on a total of 6.6 residenu. However,staff recommends that the 36 acres proposed as S,
common upen space be dedicated for public use,which wou(d substantially exceed the dedication .
requirement. The appticant questioned whether pub[ic access would be appropriate.�iven the wildlife .�'
habitat and the need for pazking to access the open space. Limiting access to residents of Brush Creek
Village was discussed,as�vell as restricting access during certain months to limit impacts on wildlife •,
habitat. Staff recommends that this issue be addressed during the Detailed Submission. ��•�
�i;.
,1 1
� �;:.
�,:�
„�:
. �.
' . ',.�. `
ti
� � -:
4 " �j.
. I
.
•a
r.�"'r"_' __ _ — -_- ____._ ---
R�
.. . - WY�� .... .� .__. ...�.� ..
,_,� �.._— -._. _ __ _ _— . .._.... �� f .;}
,,:.�: ��,�.
J�
I �Yv��`.�
i onv�yance of Parcc!: The Planning Commission was concerned that the County would be required to Zh;,�:�;�;:
• � bear the cost of development of the afFordable housing lots,since it was previously agreed that the parcel � '°_
would be conveyed to the County foliowing the parcePs Conceptual Submission approval. The County !_, .i.
' would be responsible for the Detailed Submission and Final Plat applications for the parcel,as weU as for 4;, :��
i improvemenu including installation of well and septic systems,potential drainage/debris flow mitigatian, '
and extension of utilities. After weighing these considerations,the Commission recommended that the �,".:�'.
Board accept the parcel as mitigation,and then detertnine whether it is economically feasib�e to develop �� •• '�+
two affordable housing uniu on the parcei or whether the parcel should be sold to be�efit the affordabie js'-,�' . ;,-
� housing fund. The Commission did not support the altemative option to atlow employee d�velling unifs f
on the five Cougaz Canyon lots,since the EDUs would increase the density and potential impacts of the � r
� subdivision. l�.,r:�-.
i •, �.
? RECOA'IIVIENDATION: Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the Board approve the : .`.
�.'�.:;^� ,
i Cougar Canyon Affordabie Housing Subdivision/PUD Conceptual Submission and accept the subject
parcel as employee housing mitigadon for the Cougar Canyon Subdivision,subject to the conditions in
the attached resolutioa ` " .
i Y1
4 Y.
.. ���5� 1��� _ .
� A. er from Brush Creek Metropolitan Dis ' ated July 25,1997 •
B. Well r from Shelton Drillin
{. C. Debris flow a raina ommendations dated September 3,1997
. � D. Property apprai• pen R.E.Appraisers,Ltd.
� ' E. Staff ine o Planning Co ' ion daud June 17,1997
;
ication and Site Plan provided separately
4v
i
� 4 i
�
. . . ��� . '.r� .
�y. '' '
Q ��J
� • :li.
! ._:_,.m�eZrJ/�� ..� .... . . . _ . . . .�'. � �
. ... . ... • ,
�'
/ . i y 'S.
�;'
-^ � _ • , , I.• ..
'
. . 'l,.. �' .
. . '
- • . . � ...___..._�._.�� . .
•'1, ♦ �—.•�--_� __ '.__.._._.-_ __'_"'_ __ . .. , 1 ,
AD
,,�:
�.-� ..
s `---
, ____
a�w ...:�.�,. ...... .. _ . :: --— —
r
!f // �'i'St:;'.'�yy�",
,r�'
-�a-s� � >;�:.��_��;
..�; �..::.
- .�,����-f..:
r �� ,
MEMORANDUM . �'* t�'�'�;
y,.:,:,
TO: Board of County Commissioners :,�;;; .�
Regular Meeting-September 10,1997 �i.�
TFTRU: Cindy Houben,Community Development Director��t"" '� '�'•�,��'•.
FROM: Suzanne Wolff,Pfanner v � t
I .:':.:.
� RE: Cougar Canyon Subdivision Detailed Submission/Final Plat and Rezoning-First .Y `'` ±
i .. -.
� Reading and Public Hearing �;:d:=,r_'•
,'k. �
... -
�<..;.i:: _
S[TMMARY: The Applicant is ra{uesting combined Detailed Submission and Final Plat approval to y'''
subdivide appro.cimazely 954 acres into five tots of 160+acres each and is also requesting to rezone the 7��` .
property from A,FR-IO m RS-160. (,`°
. "�,t
�:. 1
Conceptua(Submission approvai was o znted pursuant to Resolution No.96-244,which was approved by -�
the Board on August 14,1996. This approval included 104I haTard review and a GMQS exemption far
single-family dwelling uniu on lots created pursuant to RS-160 rezoning. ���
',,�
The Planning Commission recommended approva[by a vote of 4-0. The stafF memo to the Ptanning '��
Commission,which addresses all of the conditions of the Conceptual Submission approval,is artached for �,
; reference. Onty specific issues raised by staff,the Planning Commission or the applicant are addressed
; below,
! �
I APPLICANT: Cory Point Partners,LLC
�� REPRESENTATIVE: Bruce H
auard,Design Workshop
j LOCA,TION: The parcel is located west of Highway 82,north of Brush Creek Road and above Cory Point
Ranch;in 5ections 16,17,29 and 21,Township 9 5outh,Range 85 West
r,±.
; ZONIlVG/LOT AREA: AFR 10/954 acres
;
j ISSUES:
,i
�ditional Information:Staff requested that the appiicant provide the foltowing additional informarion prior
�; to ceview of the Detailed Submission/Final Plat application by the Boazd.
I. Provide ver�cation from Rick Thompson as to the area ro be desiguated"Protected Wildlrfe
Haditat"mrd a draft deed resrrictian precluding developmenr wirhin this area .
Response: Rick Thompson verified that the azea shown on the Plat to be to be deed restricted from
wirtter use is consistent with the area he designated during the Conceptual Submission review
(letter attached as Exhibit A). The applicant is working with the County Attomey on the deed
j restriction. �s
i :, .ir:
1
�
--- _._ _ .._ _ %
-- _... _ .. _.: ��'i -
_ �
� . y 5.
^ �:
:`,
,. . ,
.... •- • ! - .
,� , `
� . ��,.,,.�__ �---•--.-. .._.__.�... _ _.-_..._ _._ ...__...__-�_-'�
�!J
.,�.,
` - _ , _ ....
_
� '�°'=-� �,,
u��
�l;, 4`;:
9
� ' Ei'e.:��,``�4.�±',.��:.
.�:,,:.�.:.,��:"''.�.
� S,t�.,,...';:�i':
Propase o spec�c limitatia�on the orea offertilized rmd irrigated lawru within the building .:,�
envelopes,to be reviewed mrd appraved by the County cmd the Division of Wiidlife. "•� �
'fi{=
Response: The applicant proposes to limit each Homestead to 1.0 acre of irrigated and feRilized � �'�
lawns within the building envelope. An exempt well permit limits these uses to 1.0. Mike Villa �,y','.',-;'
spoke�vith Randy Cote of the Division of Witdlife,and tfiey asserted that 1.0 acre was e:ctremely � '.
excessive,given the wildlife concerns. A specific square footage recommendatio�has not been j:��; ,,
made,but Mr.Villa suggested it would be between 5,000 and 12,000 square feet
3. Provide a draft deed restriction precludrng further subdivrsiai of the property for review by the �� �'� ,.
Co�mtyAnarney. �'_=':r' �'
:k:
Response: The appiicant is�vorking with the Counry Attorney on the deed restriction. '�:<,,`''v'. -
r7•,, '
��'.: '
d. Provide a preliminary desigrr for debris flow mifigatiar on the north part of the site and along the �.<-;.
western edge of tHe building errvelope on Homestead.i for review and approval by!he CO i�`'
r,y:,„
Geologrcal Survey. r..;, �:
, .f;
Response: A report from CTL Thompson,Inc.(attached as Exhibit B)states that the potential
�:: _
debris flow hazards at Homestead i can be mipgatcd by avoiding construction or siting of .�r,_j.
strucncres within the hazard bounduies,and recommends structural mitigation if ihe envelope ` y''q
cannot be moved to avoid the hazard azea. The applicant has agreed to amend the building �. ,��'fl
envelope to avoid the debris flow area,so miugation is not necessary. .��
�
• .i. Provide cert�cntion from the Coinrry Treasurer's office rhat all ad valorem taxes applicable to the
� parcel have been paid jor all prior years. ;
i
Respoose: Cerrification that ali taxes have been paid for the past four years has been provided '�` "
� (attached as Exhibit C).
a
j Govenant/Develogment Guidelines/Devr ment A menL• The applicant has provided staff with a '`
� ! redlined copy of the Protective Covenants,Development Guidelines and ihe Development Agreement
� which address the corrections recommended by staff in the memo to the Planning Commission. Additional
I corrections are included in the conditions of approval. Debbie Quinn requested clarification that all mining ,
activity is prohibited on the property;staff agrees tha[it was the intent of the Conceprual Submission �� �
approval to prohibit all development other than one smgle family residence and certain accessory uses on
each Homestead.These documents must be amended m the satisfaction of the County Attomey prior to
recordation ofthe Final Plat
i .
� PM-10 M�jgarion: The applicant has agreed to mitigate the impacts from this development by providing a
one-rime cazh-in-lieu payment to Pitkin County for future construction or paving of new trails within Pitkin �
County. Environmental Health has determined that 48 trips per day or 6.7 pounds of PM10 need to be .
mitigated,hut has not yet determined the exact method or cost required to offset this impact. The applicant ' '''
was originaliy required to make the contribution prior to recordation ofthe finai plat,however,the timing
has been changed to require the convibution prior to issuance of individual buifding permiu for each lot, }`
, since the actual impact will not occur until the lou are developed. 1
�S
At�ordable Ho�sing M;tieation: The applicant has submitted a separate Conceptual Submission applica[ion ?•.' , -
to subdivide the adjacent 40 acre parcel into two lots in order to convey the lots to the County fo� d �
, .�!I"'I , .
. 2 . 'i.:��( _ .
w !�
'i:!�
� .... . ._....._... . _... . _�. . . .. . . .. . . . ._. . 1}. .
' , . ... . . `�1 �.
5
, .-:
�. , '1•
� ;
� -
'
.._---__..— _ �
�. . .twa�,.,°—�_--•^.--_- �--� -- ---- ... _ ..—._ __ . , .
a.I
.,:; �_ y �'
' �.��,a..
�� t,
���x� :
r �' j+ � . ,
r.',�::�,,�#"';�:
Gik� iic �:4.;
• development of 2 single-family,deed-restricud residences, [his application is being concurrentiy reviewed .'' �:
by the Pianning Commission and Board of Counry Commissioners. If the Boazd approves the Conceptual '' .t.
Submission application�accepu the 40 acre parcel as the affordable housing mitigation,the parcei will S�' ,,
1�
be transferred to the County priorto Final Ptat upproval for the Cougar Canyon Subdivision. �
,y'.., 'J'
The Planning Commission was concerned that the County would be required to bear the cost of �
development ofthe affordable housing lots,since itwas previously agreed that the parcel wouid be i�`' ��
conveyed to the County foilowing the parcel's Conceprual Submission approval. The County would be
responsible for the Detailed Submission and Final Plat applications for the parcel,as well as for '��',_�i.,� -
improvemenu including insta(lation ofweti and septic systems,potential dreinage/debris flow mitigation, �'
;..:::_r"'•
and extension of utilities. Afrer weighing these considerations,the Commission recommended that the
Board accept the parcel as mitigation,and then detertnine whether it is economically feasible to develop k=''^'
nvo affordable housing units on the parcet ar whether the parcef should be sold to benefit the affordable ;`'� , '
- housing fund. The Commission did not support the alternative option to allow employee dwellin�units �.:. `
on the Fve Cougar Canyon lots,since the EDUs would increase the density and potential impacu of the ;•;� �.
su6division. �`
f� .;•
, 3�[gi: 11ie Conceptual Su6mission approval required the applicant to provide documentation at Detailed '�
Sabmission that there is an adequate quantity and quality of water to serve the proposed development
Documentation of adequate quantity has been provided. The L-:vir.nmentai i;�alth Department originally ;;�x.
requested proof of adequate quality once the pemtanent wells were drilled,but has since realized thut the ��g
� applicant shoald provide proof of adequate quality of waLer prior to approva!of the Detailed Submission. ��`�'
Staff will ask the applicant to provide this documentation prior to second reading. '*
. j
fndividual Se�vag�D' cal vc�em f[SDSl: Based on the perc test information,ihe app)icant has
determined that the required setbacks and the potential size of the absorpcion fields will precfude locating .
the septic fields entirely within the proposed building envelopes. 'Il�e applicant has requested to establish
specific areas ouuide ofthe building envelopes for homesteads 1-�1 to accomrnodate septic systems and to
expand the envelope on homestead 5. Environmental Health aereed that it might be difficult to
' accommodate the system within the building envelope. Since the perc tests were not necessarify conducted
in the areas desi�ated on the plat for the"septic envelopes",staff was reluctant to record a septic envelope
on the plat that might have to be amended based on specific perc test results and the re�ulazions in effect at
t'
the time the ISDS permit was submitted. Therefore,staff and the Planning Commission decided that the
individual owners could establish a separate septic envelope,only if the system could not be �
accommodated within the building envelope,and that the specific location,configuration and size of the
septic envelope would be determined and approved by the Environmental Health and Community
Development Departrnenu at tho ume of ISDS pern�it review. In further review of this issue,staff would
recommend that all development,including the septic system,be required to occiu within the designated
building envelope. Separate sepric envelopes are requested for homesteads I-4;the building envelopes on
these homesteads range in size from approximately 2 to 2,5 acres. Allowing the applicant to designate a
separate envelope if the system"cannot be accommodated"within the building envelope seems to imply 1
pecmission ta(ocate the system outside ofthe building enve[ope. This pua staffin a difficult position � •
because our interpretation of"cannot be accommodated"might be different from the owner's interpretation;
for example,is it acceptable to allow a separate septic envelope if the house has been desi�ned to utilize the
maximum floor azea availab(e,and therefore,the system cannot be accommodated within the building ��
envelope. Also,by the time an owner designates the separate septic envelope,and comes to the �� ,.
Environmental Health and Community Development staff for approval,a substantial investment has already �'�"
been made in the preparation of building plans,and it wouid be difficult for sraff at that time to require the �' � -_
owner to amend the plans to accommodate the septic system within the building envelope. Therefore,staff j
p <
i
3 �
F::
+/�
/ . ..... .. ... .. +� . . , �., ` .
4
', ., ♦
�a . .�
`- ',
• ,
. . ._..._�.. .�.-_-.,
R. �._,__---•--+�- .. ....� . __ . _�. . -__ .
o.i
.._ �_ ._� _____ '
• �,.,....,:;.;;,.
. �.��,�.,:;;,_
;i!�":,��;'�',
• r'l.: �,�+s':.
'''•"•�'?.(��i.;:..
�
��:;::,.�:z�..4�,.
recommends that the septic system be required to be located within the building envelope,though the .-
:"°�.
condition in the resolution is consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendation to allow '
designation of separate septic envelopes. As required by Environmental Health,the individual owners will 3�;- ��
also be mquired to provide perc test and profiles conducted during the"high water"period in Cougar "��
Canyon between May I S and July t. �,,y,• �•'�.
Wood Chin I c; 7'he wildfire mitigation standards of the Code require"Roof constructioa shall be Ciass A, i.'� � , ,
non-combustible(no wood shake/shingle)material with no flat roofs." Staff recommended that the
applicant amend the Design Guidelines to prohibit wood shake/shingfe roof materia(s to be consistent with -r..;,`:�''
this Code standard, The applicant requested,and the Planning Commission supported,that wood p' `��
shakeJsfiingle roof materials shouid be allowed.as long as the LTBC requirements for Class A,non- ''!�;r�`:
combustibfe roof construcqon are met. `k;::;'.::'
��,."�_-�
W ildiife Plan: The Conceptual Submission approval prohibited the keeping of do�s,but save the appiicant ,"" .
the oppormnity to submit a"dog management plan"at Detailed Submission,which,if approved by the �'y �;,
` BOCC,could modify or eliminate the dog prohibition. The applicant has submitted a"Domestic rinimal
�::� •.
Management Plan"for consideration by the Board(Appendix 10 of the application). This plan includes all r�r`;
• of the wiidiife mitisation measures included in Resolntion No.96-244. With regazd to dogs,die applicant &;
proposes the following: �:
�:,+:�
'::;it.
• Residenu shall be allowed one domesti�;doe per Homestead,except off-spring less than 6 y�
months old. Free-roaming doos are prohioiied. Do�s will be kept inside residences and �,�
allowed ouuide only if(1)on a leash under direct control of its owner or authorized ,��
representadve,(2)if in an enclosed rua,or(3)if in a fenced yazd,if the fence is adequate to �
• contain the dog. Enclosed runs must be located immediately adjacent to the home_within the
i Homestead's 6uilding envelope and shall not exceed 1000 square feet. Runs with enclosed 4,
i tops aze recommended to protect dogs from possible lioa predation.
; • When doss move beyond their Homestead's building envelopes,the dog must be conuolled by
j a leash of no more than 12 feet in length,under the direct control of its owner.
� • Visitors and guescs are not allowed to bring additional dogs onto the Cougar Canyon property.
� Based on the prior recommendations ofthe Division of Wildlife,the County�s Wildlife Biolo�ist and the
! appiicanYs wildtife consultant,Rick Thompson,s7aff still recommends that dogs be prohibited. However,
� the Planning Commission disagreed with staff and supported the applican['s proposed"Domestic Animal .
� Management Plan"which would allow dogs. "ll�e Commission recammended that dogs be prohibited !�
' during consWction and ihat the fines levied by the Homeowners'?�ssociation to enforce the wildlife
! restrictions should be given to Pitkin County Animal ConROI. If the Plan is approved,staff would also
` recommend that County representatives,as well as DOW representatives,be allowed to access the property
to enforce the Plan. Staff is also concerned that approval of the Plan would create additional administrative
; costs for the DOW and the County staff in order to enforce the Plan,and suggests that the Board consider
whether the hameowners should be charged for the time required for invesrigation and enforcement of the
` ptovisions,in addition to any fines levied for violation of the provisions of the Plan, The recommended
i conditions of approval reflect the Planning Commission's recommendation to accept the proposed !
, "Domestic Animal Management Plan".
In response to stafFs request that the wildlife restrictions be addressed in the Covenants,a new secrion, �.,�
Section 733,Midgation of Wildlife Impacu,has been added and the"Domestic Animal Management P(an" .i,.,
has been attached to the Covenants and included within the Development Guidelines. This secrion shall be ,
Yi ;
i. .
.,..
4 1�:�,
,,.
� :i'
..
_ .
. _ . _. _....--- --._ .__._� _ _ . .. _ ,
i . 1 ,
ti
� ,
... . , ,-i�.
♦ �
' � .�„�-_. -. - . .—- -- --. . .— �----�-- ---
...F
.,��+rrrrr. _.i. ....w -'-' --� -- - -- - � .... ._ ..
� '
j .,�4
j . � ���:�,,:
ja��{.
amended io include a provision allowing DOW and County reprosentatives to access the property to enforce L:_�.�'L:;•
� any dog/wildlife restrictions,as required by Conceptual Submission approval. `'=�.
! Accessorv Structures: In his 1995 report,Rick Thompson states,"It would be most sensitive if caretaker �...�,ti�
' units,garages,guest units,ar offier accessory buildings were attached to each home,but it would be
'' acceptable if all were contained within the building envelopes." Resolution No.96-244 included the +.�''•.u
i following condition,"All accessory suvctures(garages,etc.)s6all be attached to the primary residences." i,'.� �
Smff discussed this issue with the Planning Commission to clarify whether the intent of this requirement
i was to allow only one structure per homestead,or if this remiction only applies to certain accessory r,:-;..:''•;
` struc�,such as garages,but not to others,such as barns or stabtes. The Commission agreed with the (
i 1'•t-.�
� applicant,who suggested that all habitable shvctures within the envelope should be attached,wheroas [;r.-.'� _
i nonhabitable structures may be detached. This restricuon shall be included in the Covenants. �
` Vestine: The applicant has requested a 5 year period of vested rights. Staff orieinally recommended that a
' ; 3 year vested right be gTanted pursuant to the Code. However,it is the Counry's policy that subdivision ��' �,'.
; approvals do not expire,therefore,it is not necessary to establish a time limiration for the vested rieht.
' �
. � $$rOMMENDAT[ON: Staff and the Plannino Commission recommend that the Board approve the First �
� Reading ofthe Cougar Canyon Subdivision Detailed Submission and Final Plat and Rezoning to RS-16Q (, ,
i subject to the attached Resolution and Ordinance,and all conditions of Resolution No.96-244.
� �k,
' ATTACHMENTS !
f +�
9 A, e om Rick Thomps�on � uxdT ly 28,1997 `1
- F B. Repert from perfrson,Inc.dated August 7,1997 `
iC. Certificaf m Pitkm Treasurer �
� D. S emo to Planning Commission e 7, 1997
� Application and Site Plan provided sepazately
�
� '
�..
�
3
�
i
1 .
, �
,
�
� :; : -_
� ,�
i �
I 5
�:
s
_ . � :
,
, `�
. �
;; �
-- . - , �i� .
.
. ,
�.�. , �____ _ -.____ _ -__ __ __---_;
a�
�y:
,...��� ._..I_ .._. ._. ..... . _. .. _.....
. ^
._.' �..___
/ "_. _"_"'___.�. �.
�� f
� n �r��.����'.
�j-/d-�7 � ;��Y�.�`?
,;�.����'�..
/' MEMORANDUM �.,",'��>�Yf'.
�-�_,�a.�.:..
TO: Board of County Commissioners i�. •��,, .
- �s.�
� THROUGH: Cindy Houben,Cocnmunity Development Director ►�`e'�':;
� - .
FROM: Lance Clarke Deputy Director '�`; •
RE: en Highlands V illa e Detailed Subdivision Review '�' �
qsP g ;%?;:':.. ,
� (lst Reading,Detailed Submissioa Special Review) �::,':��':.
DATE: September 10,1997 -
NOTE:YOU�Y WISH TO BRING MATERIALS PREVIOUSLY '
, DISTRIBUTED ON JUNE 6,JUNE 30,JULY 16,1997 ''
� REQLTEST:The applicant is requesting Subdivision/PUD Detailed Subdivision approval �
�.�';
for a mised use project at the base of Highlaz:ds Ski rlrea. Conceptual Submission �,-�.
approval was granted to the project by the Buard of Counry Commissioners(BOCC)on �
Mazch 6,1996. ��.
�+
' The following approvals have been requested as part of the Detailed S�bdivision review:
• Rewning from AF-Ski,r1F-1,AR-1,and P.-30 to R-1�AIiO/PUD.R-15 PUD.?�H �
AHO/PUD,AR-1 t�,HO/PUD,R-30 PUD,and AF-Ski.(First Reading approved 6i30.
2nd Reading and Public Hearing scheduled 9/24).
• Special Review for proposed multi-faarily and retail uses in the r1R-1 Zone District.
S • Consideration of Land Use Code Amendments to provide for multi-year growth
F management allotments to"exempY'mixed,free mazkedaffordable housing projecu.
� (Proposed amendments adopted 6/30). iY;
i
i
I PROCESS:This is a two-step review requiring Planning and Zoning Commission
� recommendation and public hearings before the BOCC.
The P&Z recommended approval of the Detailed Subdivision,Rezonines,Land Use
- � Code Amendments,and Special Review Uses,all subject to conditions�on Apri129.
' 1997.
Subsequent to Detailed Subdivision approval by the BOCC the applicant shall submit and
' the BOCC must approve a Subdivision Improvements Agreement and a Final Plat.
, "
APPLICANT: Hines
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Glenn Hom,Gideon Kaufman
,
N. �.
LOCATION: Aspen High[ands Ski Area Base ;', -
� . ��-
' '�`
__ _. . _ _. ._ . .
/ �}
`
�, -:
-- , i
''�'
•
I
,,
,• — -— - •— -------,
�._ _ __ — ....
va
,,�:.
.._.. _._.. . _... . ...._ ._. _ w . .�......_.. ... .
. �
..,.:� �,_._ . ..._.z:. _ _ '
,... ___ _. .. .. . . _ —_',__ . ,h � .;�. :
�
4 C 4���'��N��:,
� .O,�r,� .:C, l.,
�'y�.F.::
° �'��,�;.a...�,-.y�',"
. . h � b3",^u�_�:,e�«.l`:,.
BACKGROUND:The staff inemos to the P&Z,as well as all attachments provided by �'����
staff or the applicant have been previously provided to the Boazd as background '�.t�T•� •�:>
information. "'r ��
��y�• �:�'.
REQUIRED BOARD ACTIONS: To complete the remaining required actions on this . �•
application the Boazd must make.detemunations in four issue areas: 1)Rezoning, ���,�',�'
2)Special Review Use Approval,3)Conditions of Appmval,4)Allocation of
commercial and residential growth management quota system development allounents. Y:�''-'� �
:.�::':.
�,.. :�.'
RF7.nNiNG: The first reading of the proposed ordinance rezoning the property was
�.k�;:;-:.
approved by the BOCC on June 30, 1997. The Second Rea ' and Public Hearing is '`"
�B �:; _.
scheduled for September 24,1997. t�':` ,
.�.:
SPFC'IA . FVIEW: �;", y,
3,�Y,
, ynecial Review Llses-In the AR-1 zone district,the proposed retail and multi-family ;;
- dwelling unit uses are subject to Special Review approval pursuant to Section 3-?10.10 of �`
the Land Use Code. The intent of the review is primarily to determine whether the �''
�;:�'
proposed uses are compatible with the character of tne sur.uundi-�g neighborhood. '�'y`,r
Specific Land Use Code criteria address consistency with: r,�
i
* Applicable master plans:
� * Land use policies;and
* The intent of the zone disffict.
�
� In addition,there must be a fmding that the proposed uses are in harmony with the
isurrounding area,and minimize adverse effects. Adverse effects include visual impacts, -
�i impacts on pedestrian and vehiculaz circulation,pazking,trash,noise,vibrations and odor
! on surrounding properties. There must also be a finding that proposed development does
not endanger the public health,safety or welfaze,or substanrially injure the value of .,.�
adjoining or abutting property.
� The special review uses requesied by the applicant are 1)alpine ski azeas and support
services,2)club houses and recreational buildings,3)domutory housing,4)multi-family
i dwelling units,5)nordic ski azeas and support services,6)outdoor recreauonal uses,
f 7)personal service outlets,8)places for retailing of goods,9)professional offices
� accessory to on-site opentions. �
�
iIt is the staff and P&Z recommendation that the proposed mixed use concept of the � -
i Village Core(to be zoned AR-1 AHO/PUD)is very much in hazmony with the applicable
! master plans and land use policies.
Approval of the requested special review uses is part of the detailed subdivision approval � �
� resolution to be considered on first reading at this meeting. �i'
. ,
, __
�',
� � ;��
3F:. '; .
,.. :
� -- r ,.
--- -- --.— .� ___ ,. _. . _ . .. ... •
_ . '+�
� .
y
' ":.
—• � • � � -�• . .
� _, . '
• ' . ..'--'---.._—, .
•�y.. , � ..... '_"."" �'.' ._ _"_�. _ _'_ . .
'vn�
___._
. .. .._._ _ �
---- ---- - ---__ . _.�
I
�
��
: ti�:
. ��'.;.��t
/� I�`�. �k�.4`-
` f`nNniTinNC OF APPROVAL: On Apri129,1997,the P&Z adopted a recommended '+' `
set of approval conditions which aze attached to this memo.A staff suggested set of �fi.#�� ��,
conditions of approval were attached to the previously distributed staff inemo of July %� •'��
16,1997.Also attached to that memo were conditions supgested by Commission member •r.�'r� -_,-•
Marcella Lazsen,who was not able to attend the final P&Z meeting. ; -
'��,'
i�
The applicant has submitted a response to the P&Z conditions which required further :%;
action rior to detailed submission a roval attached Davis Horn letter of Au ust '�'" �
P PP ( S i:•::,>;•. ,-
29,199'n. This document has been forwatded to various County officials(Blankenship, ';;�:�.`-;.
Eylaz,Anthony,Tolen),for their review,but as of tius writing there has not been time to
receive any comments. It is hoped that responses will be received in time for review at ��`'��^' `
second reading,scheduled for September 24,1997. �" �.�
,Y..�..
�� .
�OWTH MANf�C*EMENT ALLOGATIONS: The proposed project requires allocation V; "'
cj,�.
' of 29 Commetcial Euployee Generation Units and multi-year residential allotments for !;='�`
;,=:
112 Affordable Housing units and�3 Affordable Housing-Associated Free�Iazket units. `i: . ,.
The required scoring and recommendations have been completed by the P&Z and Growth �'.�
Management Commission. The resolutions for Board accepiance of the �.':r.
�
recommendations and for the commercial aliocations aze on the Eoard`s agenda today. ' ;'
The residentiai allotmenu can not be made until the GMC recommendation is accepted '{'�
- by the City Council. This should be accompiished by the Boazd's ne.et rneetine,
�•: September 24,1997.
�� ISSUES FOR SEPTE�vIBER 10,1997: This meeting has been designated for '
;
- discussion of the propased resolution of approval for the detailed subdivision submission
and the special review uses.A draft tesolution is attached for review.
SCHEDULE:The second reading for the rezonings.the second reading for the
resolution for detailed submission approval,and special review use approval,and
I ailocation of the residenrial o owth management allotments are all scheduled for '�'�
� September 24,1997. �
i �
� The Final Plat and Subdivision Tmprovements Ap eement phases will follow Detailed
j Submission Approval.
i '
�
� RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board discuss the proposed
' conditions of approval. A first reading of the resolution could be approved with the .
understanding that condiuons could change or second reading could be delayed pending '
: staffreview of the applicant's August 29,1997,response to proposed condirion
requirements.
ii1�' ,.
• , -
. � _
1 f. 1
�y
3 . ?..
,�
4
' _ ._.._. _ _.__---.__. �:
' __._.... . _ .-.__..._ .
-....._.: .... .
C � '
,� _ � . . _ . . �4�U1��.- .
�
� t. . ,i
' I',
�
f
.,, . �
t►p^....—_' �__.___ __- — - -- —- -.._ _---- —;
Ra /
.Y:.
_. �.,.
� ` ----- --� . .... . : ,,
— - �
.s,::�::. wi
/� • . �,��"
I // �p,�i,�,�y:iGk� .
��'C'/7 '.'''.:,k� :
��� '+''y2.'�.
MEMORANDUI�i "' `"�,
s;?;,,
�' "`�
TO: • Board of County Commissioners "•'��`.:�,�,
Regulaz Meeting-5eptember 10,1997 c . �
- �,'
l'=
THRU: Cindy Houben,Community Development Director
.:��_: ':
FROM: Lance Ciarke;'i5epury Director ::�::r.�'�
Yk._;=
RE: Forwarding and�cceptance of Scoring Of Aspen Highlands Village Request for �.,'-', -
Fxcepsjonal Proie tatuc and Metro Area viulti Year Residential_-�llotmentc }�''
p� �: .
i.;.'
; :!;:
SUWNARY: Pursuant to Section=4-60.6�(B)(3)(g)of the Land Use Code,the attached ++:•'`
• ! resoludon of the Growth Manaeement Commission(GVIC)foiwards the scoring on a request of �''' �
Aspen Highlands Village for designacion of esceptionai project status and for multi-year�tetro �.�'
Area residential allotmenu: s�'`'r^
( Y'I'
' • Aspen Highlands Base Villase PUD:Request for desi�ation�f exceptional project status ,�'
( and for Metro Area multi-peaz residential allotments: 112�ffordable Housine allotments, _
, � and�43 Affordable Housing:4ssociated Free Mazket allounents.
I ,
The Code requires the GMC to review and score a request for multi-vear residentia!allotments. '�
' The GMC recommendation is then forwazded to the BOCC and City Council for '`acceptance"
of the recommendation and to the BOCC for allocation of development allotments.
I
_ The Growth Management Commission reviewed and scored the application at a public hearing
j on August 26,1997.The applicacion exceeded the minunum threshold score of three in ull four
i of the scoring categories,therefore,the G�C has recommended that the BOCC and City Councii
accepc the scoring and find that the Aspen Highlands Base Villa�e PUD is de[ermined to be an
j "exceptional"project and is eligible for and should be oranted 1vleuo rlrea multi-year residential
� allotments. It is further recommended by the GMC that the BOCC grant the requested � ,_
� allotmenu and that the allotmenu be taken off the"back yeazs"of the Growch Manaeement
; system(see attached staff memo to GMC).
'�
RECOMMENDATION: StafF recommends that the Boazd accent the reco�mendation of the .� :,., ' •
GMC and find that the Aspen Highlands Base Villa�e PUD is detemuned to be an"esceptional"
project and is eligibie for and should be granted Metro Area mWti-year residential allotments. It
is further recommended that the BOCC grant the requested AH and AH Free Market Associated �
residential allotments and that they be taken off the"back years"of the Growth ivlanagement �� `
system in order to not unduly limit affordable housing projects in the pipeline or contemplated. ��'+ , _
The actual altocation acfion can not take place until the City Council has also accepted the GMC � ��
� �`:.
.,�
�
_ _ __..._ . ......._.._. ___ __ � _._ _ . .._. ' � '
.
, I.I ,.
/ @ �
. . . t� �-;. . . y
'�..
�a . . ' ' . ' . .
- ' . . � .�(:::;
• .J
� . . / .
'.F.. , �_ __ ._.._ �- �-- . .
tr�� /
�
_ _---..._..�....-.--..__
__ --- - ___
......�
_ --• ,
:.,, , :-
. —�.. .�. .._ ____�_._._ ._ ..,.f. �:xa1.e..h»r.Gl�k,t`rveT+it �1F:�4��t� .. 4 :., ._.
.�:..�__ , c
. j x�,
�y`y'
4 �°��
� :'a•,�.�l".
y.ri.�-
recommepdaYion. The City Councii has scheduled its considerauon for September 22,1997.A ;�.i,,;,
� resolution for allocation of the residential units will be brought back to the Boatd on September ;:;:�. �.3
24,1997.
-;�•' �.;'.
� .
i :,c
44.�-
�'
1 A; merit5: _�`=. ,
; \ `�:,,ti:;- .
4 1. BO esolutio epting Scoring and Allocating Allounents ,`' � .'
� 2. GMC Re• n Forwarding Scoring k,;� _.
3. S emo to G �
I �;':' �
, .
} �::. .
� �,. .:.
i7:t'-
r '�'Yi
a +yer
i . . �iy� ���'.
. .. � . . ;�g:".�i}.-� .
iTa N�
j'• �:;�
g:lplanninglgmqs\netrolresid\1996�bcchvfwd.doc � t
�
a
�
I
- i .* �;'
,..
I
� • �
•� , �
� 5. `
�`
, .
� : , � -..
� sf.r, 1
� �;:�
i .'�1 � -
,
,_ -----_.. ----- --
' . .. �.` ...�....._.� _..._--'—__ _ _....,.:_...-. ,... _ .. � �F�T
i�. . . 0 1.;i.,-;....,;? �
—. � � . '- � � . . . � 'I
' , . ' , . . . . . . �.... y: '
�� . � e' . �.� - . .
. . . .`- ,. � .
�
� � . �. . �' . � - . . . t , �
.
. ,
_� �
.. !._ .�...._._. -----
• _"....—"_'�-..-----^� —— �- �
,� .. . — � . . .
�� /
_�.____�_ _
_ ---- - __...._-�__._�....-
.,:- `--- - ----- - _ . y "
/ i.
, '�s p ����ra'��`5
CC�/0�%� �� . ,..
kF�;",�i`:��,�<
kt���•��lLtk'..
AGENDA TTEM SUNIlVIARY •:',:" '
,. ._
�'t'_ �i•
TO: Board of County Commissioners " +�?
Regular Meeting-September 10, i997 '' '�
.•',�
THRU: Cindy Houben,Community Development Director �`� '�'
; .,,�� ..�._'.
FROM: Lance Clazke,Deputy Director •y�'``��'� '`
..::r.�,..
� RE: Forwazding and Receipt of 1996 County Commercial GMOS Application Scoring .� �
and Allocation of Requested Empioyee Generation Units -.
, t.'y
SUb1MARY: Pursuant to Section�3-60.60 K.1.of the Land Use Code,the attached resolution ;t.,
� of the Planning smd Zoning Commission forwards the 1996 County Commercial GMQS scoring
for the following application which was submitted for the 1996 competition:
'�'�
• Hines/Aspen Highlands Village: requesting 29 Employee Generation Unit(EGti) "��
Allocments for the Aspen Highlands Village Planned Unit Development ' ,
�
- There are 43 EGU allounents available in the unincorporated county area on an annual basis. :j
Since only this one application was received,there was no cocnpetidon for the 1996 allounents.
r, 3
` The Planning and Zoning Commission scored the application on August"'6,1997. The Planning
and Zoning Commission adopted the staff recommended score of�3. 36.6 is the minimum
threshold score required. .
- i
t The Code requires that the Boazd formally receive the Planning and Zonin�Commission
� recommended scorin�and allocate the deve[opment allotments. �_'
� RECOIVIII�IENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board receive the 1996 Counry
� Commercial GMQS scoring as detailed in the attached GVIC Resolution and that the Board
— .� al[ocate?9 Fmnlovee Generation Units to the Aspen Hi�hlands$ase Village PUD by adopting
�
the attached BOCC resolution.
�
i .
� g:\planning\gmqs\1996�cgmfwd.doc
�`
;,� .
: i --
i
i
� ` .
�I '_
: �.`
__ _. _.____._ _ .....__.._ _. __._.__. __._.__ __---
/ _ _.....:, ...._ � .
I-- _ ��`'
/ A , .
y .t'.
� ' r:�- ... ;
� � . ' . . . 1� .
� . .
�� . .pa"�-^ '_ .___._'_ _ _—'._ —_ .._..__.—._^� . .
�e,) /�
.Y:,.
� -rr�rrwrr�.�...� _ w.,
w�i�r�+�!.
�(�0-97 i/'" �`•r��U.
*
�.����..,
MEMORANDUM �"�,'�_ :..�<'�,..
f,,..
.;.' '�?�
TO: Pitkin County Boazd of County Commissioners �'' /
':�'t�
.��
. � Y�_a r:�,
FROM: Cindy Houben,Community Development Director ..y. ;...
,.
• :�.
; RE: Crown Subdivision,Rezoning,1041 Hazard Review, Scenic Review, " ` �
and Cazetaker Dwelling Unit ��,�.
AATE: September 10,1997-regulaz.meeting .�.�'�� ,
�,:i'..i."��. .
'�?:-i.
tw�.... .
APPLICANT:Aspen Skiing Company :;`.:: `
.�;
LOCATION: The parcel is adjacent to the Buttermilk Ski Area and the MCDC ;"t;<_
� proPem' '�.r ..
; •,',
SUMMARY: On July 1,1997 the Planning and Zonin�Commission reviewed the �;;�
request by the Aspen Skiing Company/Crown Family for the followine: '�-'�i;�;
F f
s
1.Subdivision and GMQS exemption for a change in use: The request is to subdivide an • ��
18�acre parcel into an 8 acre pazcel for a free market,single family,residence.The P ;)
remaining 10 acres would remain as part of the Buttermilk Ski Area facilities. A GvIQS
exemption for a change in use allows the existing residence on the site to be chansed ?
} from an AF-ski related commercial use for employee housing to a free market residential ;i,
' use not associated with the ski area.
;
• j Z.Rezoning:The proposal is to rezone the 8 acre parcel from:�F-Ski to P,FR-?.
3.Scenic Overlay:The applicanu aze requesting a second story on a ponion of the -
existing residence which is visible from highway 82. ' �
:
4.Cazetaker Dwelling Unit:The applicants aze requesting a CDU on the 8 acre pazcel.
k �
� �.1041 Hazard Review:The hazards which exist on the site are steep slopes and low
wildfire.
ISSUES:The Planning and zoning Commission recommended approval of all the �
requests with conditions.Staff recommended approval to the Planning and Zoning :� ,"
Commission on all issues with the esception of the following: -
1) Scenic Overlay Review(see the attached P and Z memorandum outlining the staff ��� , -
analysis).
��,, -
� '-
i
�
'3.`�'�,
i .;,�
-• ----_ ------ --__ - ----- ;
� ..___ ._._____ _.___.__
_._. .
. _ t'�",
� - " i ...
�
-.. �' `-' .'
. `, ;I.
� .
. �
.
.� .
t,e,..�....--.---- _._ __ — — – —- -- .__.._.—_,
'A.� /
/
� __..� w._
=:-:.� �--
- ��-
.
---. -...-- __- - „�,:-�.
- - �"°°::,:,:';
� �;;N•.
';�
. . . -.�'
2)The Planning and Zomng Commission recommended approva!of a caretaker unit and �'� �'t?4;�
;�'i-.
an employee unit to be located on the approved 8 acre pazcel. Staff recommended that ' - .
the applicants apply for these uses after the Powder Panda and ski activities have been 'r•: -i;,
removed from the parcel. �. -..;+�
; ��';':;�._,
� HISTORY AND ST?►FF CObII1�ENT:Much of t6e histo of the ro r `��-''
rY P P�Y and prior c .. , '
approvals for the pazcel aze found in the attached P and Z memorandum, however, i
�`,.:.,'
i many revisions were made to the application just prior to the P and Z meeting and at the �:, ;-�
' meeting.Thus,revisions regarding acreage's and reshictions on further subdivision are �.#;-:��:3�,:,'
not reflected in the memorandum.The attached resolution of approval cleariy outlines :;_4;''-..
� the revisions which took place at the meeting and the recotnmendations of the P and Z. "':;r
i �i .�
` RECONIbIENDATION:The Planning and Zoning Commission recommend appmval � � .
! as indicated in the attached resolution.The recitals in the resolution of approval outline
�_�..5'.'..
the required land use code reviews.(An ordinance for rezoning will not be necessary
; until the detailed/final plat is approved by the BOCC). �'�'i .
,.
e
i . �s.
� . �k
�
. �
..i
"-{
t�
i
�
. / .
� �
�
i . . � ����::
• :,i
'_ i .
� -
�,
1
. _ � �" �_;:i , '. �
—__ .,..--_._ . _.--- �---------
. ._.�_._�_�.._-...... "'. .`..�.__ h}�
P�..._.�.........�. . . , ,..._ - -� ' ' ���kF'
. / '. . ..,�-� �._-' � . . : ^..�.
.� � . . � � . ` . i
. . . . _ . r . ' J
� _ . . � . . . � . . . . . . I. '� . ♦
1 '
.. - - . � , - � � ,i.' . . ._ .
' � . . . ' . ��. .. . . .
�, i . � . � i . �
. � ,
.•
. . � - . ___.'_ �.. ..___'_-�_.� . �
�. _"-'__ 1 .
� 'l�'°�'_—�_��' .
,y'' //
:
. � __..�... .... ..�:..._. , .
.. __ � _..._ _ �Y,�.<;
ri �;� r
1 3,r7}�a...
Date: — ' Catl to order ut: =3 7•�.m. y'i r<?ti',
��.,.���:
I. Commissioners present: Commissioners not present - •
' � Leslie Lamont ❑ l.eslie l.amont j•;� •�
�orothea Farris � Dorothea Farris .� '�1
[�'l�lichael Ireiand [] Michael Ireland ;.:',' '.��
[i]'S�ellie Roy Harper [] Shellie Roy Harper :; " -
0'Btll Tuite [] Bill Tuite
i,�
I
II. Motion to hold an executive session(need affirmative vote of 2/3 of quorum present(CRS 24-6-402(4))2/3 '.�'�'��� +
3x5=4;2/3x4s3: :;.i:r:�.~"
- Who moved: ' DlLU�/l�_ �k,,i��. .
� �:.; .
Z . 7"''.
t .
� .
FOR: AGAINS'I': �`' '
is'. .
�Leslie Lamont ❑Lesiie Lamont �.��,7'
Dorothea Farris �]Dorothea Farris �;
. ' Michael Ireland ❑Michael Ireland �::. -
Shellie Roy Harper ❑Shellie Roy Harper ��,y�
Bill Tuite ❑Bill Tuite �
III. GENERAL TOPIC: f,,�
�G'i✓OI�t/G �7/G/J'74- �!`
./
F IV. FII.L TffiS ITEM OUT ONLY IF Board comes out of executive session and back into regu{u or special
' meeting for adoption of any proposed policy,position,resolution,rule,regulations,or formal action(CRS 24-6-
` 402(4)):
i
Who moved:
' 2nd
' i -
V. MOTION: `
� a
t ..
i
� FOR: AGAINST:
�L,eslie Lamont �Lesfie Lamont �
I � Dorothea Farris �Dorothea Farris
� MichaelIreland ❑MichaelIreland
�
Sheltie Roy Harper . �Shellie Roy Harper ,,� "
Bill Tuite / �Bill Tuite
jAdjourned at: �'�5
� �`
Respectfully submitted: �t"
� _ ,
� �
IF EXECUITVE SESSION IS CONTINUED CALL THE FOLLOWING WITH THE SCHEDULE: ti �
SNOWMASS SUN-923-5829,ASPEN TIMES-9Z5-3414,ASPEN DAII.Y NEWS-925-2220
:�' �
i
pcjmj/ww/g/forms/ezecform.doc ��,.+ .
' '�'^
,,.. ._ . _ ___ _ .
_ _. __ .._.-,_. . .. _ _ � 1
r - :�
, . �
,, .:
� _ �j�
. ,j
, . .
. ,
- , _ __ . ___ --_________;
._�. �_ ____---- ,
a.y %
i
..__._..___-- i
.:�� � _.� "
_. _ . . �__ .........
•:,� ... ._ . - --- __ �
� j Nt
x �� �•,
\ r rN�i�(';-.
. � �� sP�N =M�S �_Y.�.�:�1�..:
BoX E :t�- ��;
Aspen,Colorado ��'�
- . .Y',. :�'.
PROOF OF PUBLICATION - � � �+
�:``
STATE OF COLORADO) -`�=
)ss. Copy of Notice �` �'�
::;::;
6 Y
j County of Pitkin ) . . ('=;�`
I,Attdy Stone,do solemnly sweaz that I am the Editor
1� in Chief of THE ASPIN TIMES:that the same is a weekly
i . �'�
newspaper printed,in,who[e or in part,and published in
the County of Pitkin,State of Colorado,and has a general e�r��uc�c�+FOr�Tn."�e i�aa..a d �?`
� circulation therein;that said newspaper has been pub- co.�eo�wnl�eo�iaa pe�i ii:`i .
lished coniinuously and uninterruptedly in said County Ruulutio�at the BwM's rcry4r ncdlnt on
of Pitkin,for a eriod of more than two consecutive W��5e1��0`��'1°70°`p'�" '::
P �' Plua One Matlne Room.PW&dINM.SW E .
weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed M�"�'�"'�,'�"'^�'�oieand�""" ?�
membm W[he pnbllc may appeu apd be y�i.
legal noEice or advertisemenh,that said newspaper has n�.�e Y'�,
been adautted to the United States mails as seco�d class ���oN oc rHe eo,�ao ov coum�r ��
�C0111Mf5510NER5 OF PRKIN COUNTY
matter under the provisions of the Act of March 3,1879� SUBDIVISION.SCENICOVERLAY 5 EpAI.
or any amendmenLs thereof,and that said newspaper is a rzEVrew.:Foa' s+u'.a� �c'rivmFS:,
' a weekl news a er dul ualified for uhlishin le al �"�'v'D�%'O�DW°�6�`
Y P P Y 4 P S 8 :-,vro.�a�xw�nunEV�w�ernovN.'ron�
j notices and advertisements with the meaning of the laws ���P�
of the State of Colorado. cav�«oi m�Pro�.ea ae:ai�ua�,.�
ri,w��w w���woee�aua�e.n�i.�
! businas hars lo the OfHce of tlfe Clerk nW
� Reeoedu.530E�stAlalnSleeel/uOm.Colanda � '
That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was pub- s�sn.en���s'+o�sxos�ea _
; • ' iw�et�1���ewircw�bavk . s-,'•
lished in the regular and entire issue of every number of
said weekly newspaper for the period of�_consecu- ��`d�TM`���"����_
tive insertions;and that the first publication of said notice
" �as in the issue of said newspaper @ated
_A.D.,19�._ and that the last pub-
lication f said noGce was in the issue oF said newspaper
i dated��_A•D.,19��]._.
� •
_{� �
/' G�---��_
� Subscrib d and sworn to before me, a notary
• I public in d for the County of Pitkin,State of Colorado,
i on trris�_day of. A.D.,I9�'�_.
� � , •
Notary Publi
Mycommissionexpires��"��
��� ?I>,, � �: �^'-
� r �.
. . �j�•. � �.
I.
d
.. . . �..�`: , �.
.._..._.—__,.,....__.,...... .., ..
...._--'_. ... ._. ... . ���
, . .I.�.._.:.... .. _..._._._. . _ ., .
�; .. � . r - � . . . . r` ` � .
`
�: '
� ' - . . .. i., .
•
. . /
.,
w.. .—� — _.—'_' "' .._..___.�._—'� . �
. }vn'/�^�_ _"'^�'.__. .__.._ . __. I
_ �.,.
.. . _ ___. ..---__ _ . . .. .........—. . ,
� �
�;: , .<.
,.
:; ���',`
� ��- �'�a,� _
� �� ���� ���� ���Y3��fk•,��
BOX E �
Aspen,Colorado �K"
�:�'
PROOF OF PUBLICATION ��
STATE OF COLORADO) � �
, )ss. Copy oF Notice �," '
� �
` County of Pitkin ) •
; _
I,Andy Stor+e,do soleauily swear that I am the Editor
; in Chief of'I'HE ASPIN TII�S:that the same is a weekly , -. �
� newspaper printed,in,whole or in part and published in � ��_{��coe�rruei.�, � �
the County of Pitkin,State of Colorado,and has a general ���"•10°""L`RD"��"'� �
OVFRUY AND G W ETAIffR DWF]LNR IRlIT
� circvlation therein;that said newspaper has been pub- �ar�er.avqvu�n•w�� •
�n
]ished continuousl and uninterru tedl m said Coun ""Nbe�dOOa°�""�`�mihi10'��
Y P Y� h' :r..aw.��wcam+exoor►�na«�
. of Piticin,for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive �B°°"dcw"'r�°�°'""°"°',p"'°"
c�i��n«..sw e Mr�s�..No�io
weeks next prior to the first publication of the anneaced ..�ua�.,a.�umio..ouwn�e.brtiv�
legal noEice or advertisement;that said newspaper has �'�'°tO�'"9��""°"'�Nds u �
,��u�uw�iu.�v.Ra:�:
been adautted to the United States maiLs as second dass �e m.ss.>.wKd��+ua�ene wa
� � ew�reome�oiux.�.�a�d+io�ne.m.Fwo
matter under the provisions of the Act of Mazch 3,1879, ; w ihq v..��..u�.:'�'a�•n��c,i:a
or an amendmenls thereof,and thatsaid news a er is a a'-°DO'°tot°i1nthapowdQpiida°o°d1pj I
y P P �ocen.uauewrcdw.v.�wmlew.�n�.
, a weekly newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal �u,���,���+�*°�"°"�"d"P'
notices and advertisements with the meanin of the laws °"' �"�b°''°�°�°'����� �
of the State of Colorado. g 'w u����t�v�osK a.aua�d u.rm. !
repunt reqf(Irts the(ollowin`land use '
� �v1�lon u�d CMQS esunptbn for a �
That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was pub- .�`x��� ��"
lished in the re and entire issue of evgry number of •5cai1Or""•
� •Cuel�ka Dwellin{Un1t md Envloyee I
said weekly newspaper for the period of ( consecu- n�.an�e�e+� • . :
�ve inser�ons;and that the first ublication of said nofice ��"'°'°�'°" �
P v�x�s u w�.ke x z�ses w�..y ez
i was in the issue of said newspaper dated �"°a'�°"°deo"°°i°kw'a°u°" �
p,��,,, ro�.aQ e,�m aaur.oa e mamea...�.w
i —L��F. �1 A.D.,19�' _ and that the last pub- w�a.�aukseindsemoas,oabuK i
lication sazd nohice was in the issue of said new a r r��Nds°°i°"�°'T°"°i°°�°sow�'R'K`es �
� ' dated�_AD.,19�_. � � W�01�6th Nd.Fw lunher 6doeaathn
atKl CInOy Haubell al tAe A�pm/PLLFIn
j ' � .5p9C j_��ro�R'idut�bo�- ,
t �vaW61e far v�Hc rosv��durin!�re�d�r ;.
b�umas laun In tha Otllce ol the perk aad . t
� �z____.. �.�����.� ;
.O 81611PM¢(97�97D67BLL.�.
� � . Jmenebna.���qWr j.
' Subscr ed and sworn to before me, a notary P"a"�'edp'�""'"°'�"°1tl°�'1B�'� t
� public' and for the Co ty of Pitkin,State of Colo do, �t
w
on this day of A.D.,19�_,
� •
{ '
Notary Pub c `•
My commission expires q"�-��- �
P�`.
` �,;'ll.: I;�
, �_ • c i�_
c.� � �: �
,€ r
• ^ , : `'`
;.1`,.;
t�
;�.';
: ; -- �. _ . _____ _ _ , ,��r
, . , �
� .
. _. ��i.��.���� �
� • .I
� . �, - ... a. _ .
, . �.
� / ,
.. . . .__.'__—'—_� .
•.� ,���_ .__.. ._.__ __-. _ '— ' "_ , �
/'
-..
,. ..,�__ . _ __.----- -.
, �-,*;;,;`:,
I��,,
� ,.
. � ���� �t�� SP�N tM�s . ��.� �=��
BoX E �.
Aspen,Colorado �':;�'
PROOF OF PUBLICATION �
STATE OF COLORADO)
)ss. Copy of Notice ':, "
nonccoFrumxe�,wmc •
County of Pitkin ) r�se race rancE:�m.�m�mya�c.awy ca.�u..ro�K,w rxa�c�x c�ao,�u , .
w�m��ab.n�e o.aw�u m�eo..a�.newv maime. . . 0.
. 1997�1ODP.M..PI+raOneMeetlnBRoom.PluaBWMM�,S]oE:wnrrm.rov�.uxn�me �
and plaee all membns W Ihe publk mar appear and beMpN: '
I,Arrdy Stone,do solemnly sweaz that I am the Editor �CRANI'QICpPJAf�ICE M��q ��cx.x�eCO��oxo�PRO�R rrrv,caae�oo,
in Chief of TF�ASPEN TIMES:that the same is a weekl °i°�""'tt�97-�"'�'
Y C�IunAs�Iln��m pany(hvoher'Appllunl7 Faa�pplled to the PIINin Coumy Bwrd ol
newspaper printed,in,whole or in part,and published in r m���.•so..a�ra„���".a.�wr,,,,�„�.,i„aw�,�
wrwm a�erts
w
the County of Pitkin,State of Colorado,and has a general 2.TM prepnly b desvibed oo Ed�id[`A'all�rhed ud eooahts d apprmbnatd�B�ue.
• circulaHon therein;that said news a er has been ub- 3��^ipiopoidxane1in�1i6oni�'�°'°'�'z
P P P I.'Oie Pla�nin`�nd Zoning Canmisslen heard t61i roonin j appllulbn at thelr re`ularly
lished continuously and uninterruptedly in said County •��W�wwi��u��mir i.�es�r,,�.m�n um�en�.«�Aa,am+P�.,i o�m�
oE Pitkin,for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive `s�e�.e�n�VF raonNg requnt et tlMr regduy xhedukd nM duiy�wtlad pubNC 4c
' weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed o'����a���•tl°^u�u��wa�,aa��oYw��,x�a�.xn.van ,A
legal noflce or advertisement;that said newspaper has 6.TM1e Botrd flnds tAat[h4 rezonine applin�lon Is conslstmt wll�the surrounAing .P
been admitted to the United States maiLs as second class N����RO���,�%��,,,,,,�,�„d��,�„q `
matter under the provisions of the Act of March 3,1579, �v+����'�^��a�ea��������a�-
2,u decr@ed 1n EddbR A altacheQ:ub�eet ro Ihe raonlnt beln`e9eetWe upon Ihe a�prwd uM
or any amendments thereof,and that said newspaper is a .KOw�w�wm�Flwrwi,.uKc.�„xo„ks�ww,. I
- ' a weekl news a er dul ualified for ublishin le al ����D'�FlRST REtD a�a re�ulv weetinQ anA publlc hwlnt��he IMh d�y ol i
Y P P Y 4 P B S s�w�w.irn.
notices and advertisements with the meaning of the laws �'�a�����W'��'�uffs�N�scnmYd�m,�ssz
of the State of Colorado. 'P`""����ID,�N%����`i�°_�'�y«��iyy�,
cope d mc v��m o.em.�,�+.,uwe w p�waa�a�mi..Nw aw�n:
�hours N�he 011ke d 1he perk aM Rernrder.S7u E.+1 M+In 54eet Aspen,Colondo 81611.PtwM
That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was pub- (��N 9��ea �
lished in the regular and entire issue of every number of �
exri�r• ��n��aw.oew+rcWnrycb.t
said weekly newspaper for the period of�_consecu- , ����� • �
j tive insertions;and that the first publication of said notice �.�N,,�� , �� ���
was in the issue of said newspaper dated y+�•g9,E ,,4y. �� UZEEK .
� ��A.D.,19�� and that the last pub- �$ CLUB
. lication f sazd notice was in the issue oE said newspaper BU77ERMILK�f�� � � ,a,a,,��,�„
' dated_I�_�(7 A.D.,19�.�.• 3K/dRE� ll `Et .� 41�
� '4E-C fl � d•E°��� *.��
i � S�C7'/O��N�l f �
. . y � � T/OS S f�p�� ` -P.y"�t� � ��
, � .L ��.�-� �JI .��a+we ���f �Tj \ I
Subscribe l and sworn to before me, a notar �'�ff a! R � � Z ��pA�.
public in an�d for the Coun of itkin,State of Colorado ;l t f 6nyP ��,��
on this�_day of � � A.D.,19�_. . y,��qq ti1, n � ;
d�. �n �:
F-- r� � � � '�1� 1 �
Notary Pubhc � � �� � I
My commission expires Q �� � / r� pE
i �.it /
(3_V
' N �wr�z'wz.ti / d �, .
' i. ` J �'
, i . �',;- _.' .. �c,V
c - c: I VIGlNlTY MAP � ,y L� �
:� - . i .x�tE•I-/�oo', . i�RaON � I.._-
, '
; PuElNfidinThebpm74onq�AUywlJ0.1997. ,
�
.. �
j.
7
.. . . . . .., i . . ,,+¢'���- '.
7
� , t .
, -:.
• - •
'-a. ,�w,s,.._.- - — - -. -- � - • `
/'
<. _ --� � ...
=- — -_ _ __
�
Y ���.
E���
�l� • �� ��jl,.
�� ���� ���� �"�, +.;'���
�t:y;�a ;�;:��:`
y _,`;.
�<c ^ `
Box E :,7,,� .�.
- ... '��
. Aspen,Colorado '
'�•• :J
' � .�i
PROOF�OF PUBLICATION �;:�:�,• ;
STATE OF COLORADO) f � �
)ss. Copy of Notice �
1'
� County of Pitkin ) • Y� '
, . :�Y.:,�...' .
I,Andy Stone,do solemnly sweaz that I am the Editor �`'"`
in Chief of THE ASPEN TA�.S:that the same is a weekly '�`'_� °�
newspaper printed,in,whole or in part,and published in �!;.�.5
the County of Pitkin,State of Colorado,and has a general „,. , _ , �-"' ''
:+r
. dreulation therein;that said newspaper has been pub- `.. '-'PUeiicnori� i •
� ]ished continuousl and uninterru redT u�said Coun ��AA°"a1HAZ"i°"�'°''"
y g Y ty �NO71C6'13 HLRE6Y U1VEN lhat�public
of Pitkia,for a period oE more than fifty-two consecutive h�noe.ei.��a«�Ww�•r'�1eti' � �
weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed ��,h B,"�`.,da�.«�.�q�Oc��.� '•�r
legal notice or adveztisemenh that said newspaper has �°"��O°"°s°°'��0��"�" } : �
�.��o m�w,�wvo��.�rea er ,�R
� been admitted to the United States maiLs as second dass rnm ca�+��w�at w�e x.w^�'
matter under the rovisions of the Act of March 3,1879, 'OD`°°r 1O°�'�°u°d�e'�`°`�"� f
P a�+.�h no.�..a a.�oo+n.�.wa ,
or any amendments thereof,and that said newspaper is a ��w�.m m�stiis�a�o��.+..u•rn.
p„�y��xre�e2auKsuaa.orw �
. a weekly newspaper duly qaalified for publishing legal s�uam,�;e�aewm�e+.+o-�ee�w�
noaces and advertisements with the meanin of the laws �����z•°"�d�'°'�s,a.o ti
g �svWr�N.naw�RSUNa��s. , .
of the State of Colorado. To.�,,.np 9 swm.wM�e�w�n a ee<ran �
P.M.Pw lor�her Mtorwatlon cmbct Lance�- 2
�� Gahe at lha Mpen/P�tNe Cee�muelry .
'� That the annexed lega!notice or advertisement was pub- ' o�au;;`�`"�;;e 20.,,wm� '? '
lished in the regular and aitire issue of every number oE �w�u�°^°'""�'a"u`°i°"°`
� hms m We oroee N�lie ant u�a naourdv.
said weekly newspaper for the period of � ' consecu- sw�rew,s.�.,aa.,cda.ao eisu.
live insertions;and that the Fust publication of said notice ?^0P°��B°'�,,,d,�,�,,,,,r�
� w s in the issue of said newspaper dated ' �T'��°"� �� �
; �� 9 A.D..19 and that the last uh- �d��� .
.�— P n�ex.�emu.�'rrwee�s.isr�:
lication f said notice was in the issue of said newspaper � ="�
i dated�}.K'__�._'�_AD.,19 2�. �
� .
� •
� 1 Z__�_ .
� -
Subscrib d and sworn to before me, a notary
public in d for the Co of Pitkin,State of C�1�rado,
on this day of A.D.,19`t'1 .
- .
Notary Pub c
My comxnission expires �'Q�
�
��" � *? ..
'', ;i:;
. n t� " . . 5 .. -
" i -
-.f� _
. ' � '/�..� ��
�
•:_''
� �+,
.._... .... .. ..... ...__-__ '•- . .
. ._'_ �. _....._..... ............. ......_. .. .._ ...._..... . ....,
t_ / ....._. . ... ..,- . . ' ' ��.� ..
P
�a _ - � . '•`��' .. .
• �
, l
.+r�. ` �� __ .._._..��-- � _'.�.... �.._. . ..._ �� ,
l�