The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutbocc.min.spec.04151997 „: . .�_ .____ - ,_ - ,�,��.�,; PITHIN COUNTY C('iVIMISSIONERS ��''�� ' AGENDA ��";°,:':�r;r.''. fSt4'1' ��y�'��'��,. . Plaza one Conference Room y,�:�;_:'' TUF'SDAY,�,PRL 15�1997 . �” �', 10:00 AM WORK SESSION � K' EXECUTIVE SESSION `y.`�.'• • Litigation,John Ely � � ADJOURN EXECUTIVE SESSION �'�' '� 12:00 LLJNCH BREAK `�.:i: '' :r.trY' 130 PM �OLt?NTY MANAGER'S RFPORT . k':`� ` Healthy Mountain Communities Grant Letter of Support,Colin Laird �i'. ' Cazryover Projects;Lyrm Dunlop - Memos of Interest "- t� �; • . 3:00 BOCC OPEN DISCUSSION � �fi Future Agendas/Agenda Requests 3:15 BREAK '`� �4; ��,�t. , y'. v3:30 SPECIAL MEETING • W/J Affordable Housing Discussion,Community Development,Environmental �� . Health,Housing Office ;7 ADJOURN SPECIAL MEETING ; 4:45 Video-Independence Pass Foundation"Restoring the Top Cut" � 5:00 PM ADJOURN � WEDNF7SDAY.APRIL 16.1997 11:40 AM SPECIAL MEETING-Plaza One Conference Room 1. Resolution Supporting the City Of Aspen Real Estate Transfer Tax For The Wheeler Opera House, Tom Newland � 2. 2nd Reading,Resolution Approving GOCO Legacy Grant Agreement,Tom Newland(PN 3/8) 3. Contined 2nd Reading, Intergovemmental Agreement with CDoT Regazding a Grant£or Purchase � of the Denver&Rio Grande Railroad Right-of-Way,Tom Newland (PN 2/22) ' 4. Conrinued 2nd Reading,Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority Intergovernmental Agreement � Amendment,Tom Newland 5. 2nd Reading,Ordinance to Approve Acquisition of the Conservation and Traiis Easement for � Aspen Branch of the Rio Grande Right-of-Way,Tom Newland(PN 3/8) - 6. 2nd Reading,Intergovemmental Agreement with Gazfield County,Tom Newland(PN 3/15/97) i ` THURSDAY.APRIL 17.1997 4:00 PM ELECTED OFFICIALS TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE • Location: City Hall . i, ' � 7:00 P1VI SPECIAL MEETING-EXECUTIVE SESSION-City Hall � ' �.,-- LandNegotiations � _. � � . : . , _ _..__ _.._._.. C , r __ _ . _.._. _ ��Y' . . ....,.__._........ . . . . ... . .. .. .. . �. -. 4 . � ' � ' � • ',J.. . 5 / T� --� . .. • . ,, / .. ! � ..- � . ' ' r 'k.. ' ' .� _ ._' . .. .'__..__�_-_� . ,y.�.�^...�_--r-�-__"__._ ___ .__.'_' __ _ 1 �F �y: .;;', - ------- _ ,_ _ `�� ;��t;�, �� .rt. , r:..,�,.. �t�'4;• � APPROVED ON MAY 14,1997 - . MINUTES '�� .�. PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER& � � SPECIAL MEETING APRIL 15.1997 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Tuite called the meeting to order at 330 p.m.in the Plaza 1 ` BOCC meeting room. COMMIS IO R M •MB .R P F .NT: Commissioners Bill Tuite, Mick Ireland, > Leslie Lamont,Dorothea Farris and Shellie Roy Harpec • W/J AFFORDABLE HOUSING DISCUSSION: Chairman Tuite stated tl�e purpose of � � holding this meeting was at the request of the W/J homeowners' representatives. The • homeowners wanted to know what was happening with the septic system and sewers of W/J , Ranch,the approvals that have been authorized by the County Commission,and what process they have to go through. The intent of the meeting is to: (1)answer the questions;(2)come to � some agreement as to what the process will be as they come in for additions to basements;and (3)identify any potential future problems the Commission would need to resolve. � Suzanne Konchan,County Manager,presented some of the history of the land use process for ' ' W/J Ranch as outlined in the Memorandum sent to her from Dave Tolen,dated April 7, 1997. � � The Memorandum is made a part of the record and attached hereto as EXHIBIT"� Ms. � Konchan stated the key approval,which is most pertinent to taday's discussion,occurred in 1994 f ' when the Board of County Commissioners approved a fully developed lands subdivision , 7 � exemption for the W/J Ranch that resulted in 62 ownership units on the Ranch. As part of tl�at � review process,the County corrected some rezoning that had occurred in 1990 and included all � of the 62 rental units within the scope of the project. Part of that approval allowed for the 62 i units to expand where they were less than 2,000 square feet of above-grade space(floor area). It � also allowed for a I,�00 square feet of subgrade basement as well as 500 square feet for � : accessory shvctures(mostly garages). The approvals that are standing for the 62 lots at the W/J ; �tanch allow for basically 3,500 square feet in total,2,000 above-grade living area,1,000 below � grede basement,and 500 square feet garages. Ms.Konchan stated there were many points of discussion around the square footages. In February of 1996, the Boazd of County w Commissioners discussed the square footage and it was clarified at the Staff IeveL � Ms.Konchan explained in 1995,there was an amendment to the 1994 approval by the Board that allowed a number of units to be combined,quad-plexes to be combined into duplexes,duplexes into single family dwellings. The goal was to keep the 62 unit number constant,to create no new units, but to allow for some of the existing residences to be combined into a more habitable space for those who were looking to purchase. The minor plat amendment resulted in new �_ vacant lots that have yet to be constructed on property which is referred to as Filings 2 and 3 at i the Ranch.Filing 1 is the piece of property,as you are heading up-valley on McLain Flats Road, i �� s � i BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS I APRIL 15, 1997 SPECIAL MEETING i. . � / ( � 1�g,4 \�:; ti � �, -. . ' I ;• . _ . . - --.. ..__ .__._., " .�,�.._.,r—- ---_ _ — . -- -- , ; �R � ' �� i-•.,��;. � ;��;�.�:, �,f�:.; �',. `.�y u+i , off to the right with existing units. Filing Z includes the bulk of the vacant lots,which is the �;�. middle area. Filing 3 is on the upper bench at the Ranch.Tl�ere are a handful of vacant bts in c this neighborhood. There is also another piece of property consisting of roughly 115 acres that is :� under tfie ownership of the Pitkin County Affordable Housing,Inc.,a non-profit group. Wayne " Ethridge represents the non-profit group. .+:,. Ms.Konchan said there was discussion,which occurred between the Housing Office and W/J, � Inc.,regarding Uie potential re-subdivision of Filing 2 and the creation of additio�al lots. There was an exploration on the part of the Housing Authority concerning whether they wanted to - ' participate in the acquisition of the vacant 4ots that were created a[ready by the plats that had • been recorded as well as some potential new lots that were being discussed at that time. On the �' � part of the Housing Authoriry and the County's diligence on the proposal to buy these lots in the W/J,the County contcacted with CHZM Hill to look at some of the water and septic issues to � understand what issues might come up if we went through a new subdivision or re-subdivision • process to create additional lots in and around Filing 2. 'I7ie County expanded the research to � encompass Filings I and 3 and all of fl�e septic systems which exist at the W!J Ranch. Ms. ` Konchan stated this is important to owners who may be interested in understanding how their � • � septic system compares with local regulations that are in effect today as well as what regulations - might affect them from a septic system perspective if they wanted to expand their home. When homes are expanded and bedrooms are added,new requirements come into play with regard to septic systems. There is an abi{ity for most all of the units to expand at the WJJ. Adding j garages,sub-grade living space that does not include bedrooms,et cetera,may not trigger septic f system issues. - � Betsey Kipp,with Emironmental Health,said although Staff comments in 1989 suggested the , need for a State site application for affordable housing on Filing l,no application was made and � tlie County has no permit on file. In 1444,for the majo�plat amendment,EnvironmenSal Health ` referenced the need to assess the adequacy of the ezisting septic systems. Early in 1996,due to a lack of documentation and conflicting reports, and inquiries from property owners, � Environmental Health Staff field-verified the location and sizes of the existing septic systems. � j Data was collected by excavating and digging of the four corners of the seepage pits and shared leach fields in Filing 1 and using cameras to confirm each system's configuration. Calculations � were based on the sewage regulations that were in effect in 1990. What Environmental Health t � . determined for Filing 1 was that 21 of the 27 uniu have septic tank sizing for four bedroom � homes and seepage pit sizing fm a two bedroom home. The other six units have their own septic l� tanks but share two leach fields which do not comply with regulations. In the Spring of 1996, t.; the Housing Authority considered purchasing lots in Filing 2. The engineering firtn of CH2M f _ �.� Hill was contracted as an independent consultant to study waste water treatment for Filing 2. A � ' second study was conducted to study the waste water problems on all three filings. � } � ' Bo6 Nelso�,consultant for Iohn and Bob Musick,stated as far as his analysis shows,some of the � �; �: seepage pits are a little bit larger than what is required for a 2-bedroom house,and thus might have enough room for a three-bedroom unit. Mr.Nelson asked if the pits are only 30 or 40 ' � square feet short of being adequate under today's cuaent code,can a third bedroom be added? � Betsy responded the pits come out to being sized for 2'/=bedrooms so more footage would have s• to be added on for extra bedrooms. �,., � . Vt'. ; ._ ' BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2 APR1L I5,1997 SPEC{AL MEETING ` �; . . . . . � -- .i ) . . ! .&��, / � � ' � ' � . .. �� .. t � 1i ..� . . � ' �� . � .. . '__ --_.._._..._._"'•,, b' ��___�—.._ _". . _. ._�_ -. "_ "— " ; . n� .�..,, - ____... -. _ _ ._.....,_' . [��a`�' �y�: g 4 i... i• . �r�, �'�?r�:,• . Tom Dunlop, Director of Environmental Health,proceeded to describe the County individual ' `- . sewage disposal regulations so there wilt be no misunderstanding of where the direetion comes ;: .� from in the actions oFthe Environmental Health Department. [n 1994,the Colorado Department ti� of Public Health and Colorado Board of Health passed individual sewage disposal regulation �T' .. r':• ':{ guidelines. Those guidelines were adopted in 1994. Every County had the opportunity,within • _ one year of that adoption,to pass their own guidelines based on that guideline,or if the one year time etapsed,then the State guidelines would,by default,become efFective in those counties that ' did not act on their own behalf. Pitkin County adopted their own regulations in 1995. They , went into effect March 1, 1995. They were adopted after a very lengthy public comment and q.`:''. ' , public liearing process. A task force came up with the recommendations that ultimately ended � up in the regulation. The County regulations do follow the State guidelines. The County ��'r , guidelines cannot be any more lenient than the State guidelines. The guidelines can be more �'''^'. restrictive in certain areas. F` : Mr. Dunlop explained there has been public comment recently that the guidelines create a �� .. difficult prohlem as far as sizing systems go. Mr. Dunlop said"that is not the case!" Mr. Dunlop further explained Environmental Health ran calculations on various generic examples of ' • leach field sizes based on numbers of bedrooms,percolation rate,and soil types. Environmental s ' � Health has found generally that using the 1995 regulatiorts,the sizes of the leach fields are ' actually a little bit small. There are two key calculations that Environmental Health uses to �';,f differentiate between the County and the State guidelines. Environmental Health sizes systems r based on square footage of house size. From 0 to 2,000 square feet(two persons per bedroom), � they use 75 gallons per person per day. For 2,0�0 to 6,000 square feet,they use 100 gallons per `� person per day. Above 6,000 square feet,they use 130 ga]lons per person per day. A factor that � - is different in the County regu[ations versus the State guidelines is Environmental Health uses a peaking factor of 1.75 times what the daily flow is. The State guidelines use 1.5 times the daily - flow. Previous State recommendations and previous County documents actually use 1.5 and 'I 1.95,depending upon the type of system to be installed. Mc.Dunlop said the basis for the numbers that Emironmental Heakfi came up with is the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District,for their design purposes,use 90 to 100 gallons per person per day. They assume an average size home is 3,000 square feet,3 bedrooms,and two baffis. Some of the larger homes would cause the number to go higher. The Snowmass Sanitation District uses 200 gallons per person per day. Mr.Dunlop noted that Snowmass has to compensate for a lot of infiitration that comes into their lines through snow melt. Snowmass Water District,which delivers portable water,referred to design manuals that recommend 150 gallons per person per ; day. The Aspen Water Department has an equivalency unit. One equivalency unit is a I bedroom,1 bath,1 kitchen home with one hose bib,no clothes washer and no dishwasher. This unit calculates out to 92 gallons per person per day to deliver portable water to this type of unit, i Mr. Dunlop said the 1.75 figure was used to adjust the figure back to where they thought it � should be and it also was more compatible with the existing regulations that Environmental . Healffi has been enforcing in Pitkin County since 1981. ' Mr.Dunlop stated Pat Nelson,with CHZM Hill,was hired as a neutral party to investigate the septic systems. The conclusions that are drawn and the recommendations that are being made, ' ' are for the benefit of not on(y W/J,but also for Pitkin County. �� ` z�,, - � ` -_ �.' I r�: BOARD OE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3 APRIL 15,1997 SPECIAL MEETING i�;:� ?'+ ,}: , / ;� _ . i t , � , / � - .-. . � '�• . • ..- ' � , -- --. _. •� ��_ . _^� . .... __._ -_ . "_ _. . , Y •r.z .. � ._ ,.,. !,`:�Y'i;:�°, 1. ]��r N�t��. �}��t[•' . yW.l: :y;'� • John Musick explained the water system at W/J Ranch delivers at 50 gallons per person per day `�". 4` to Filing l. There is an external raw water irrigation system,both hump and open ditch,that supplies irrigation for the irrigated lands separate and apart from the house. There are hose bibs '�� on the houses where people can use the irrigation. Mr. Musick stated this accounts for a - substantially lower number. Filing 2 does not have this option readily available. Filing 3 does ' � .• ''.�� have this option available. Looking at the individual filings,it tends to average about 50 gallons per person per day of actual water delivered in house to the individuals that would go to the ' septic system. Also,Table 7 of the Affotdable Housing Guidelines indicate that the maximum occupancy or standard occupancy for a rivo-bedroom house is 2.25 people. For a three-bedroom �+`'-`-� � ' house,it is three persons. ,,,-:i„��. Mr.Dunlop stated the dilemma Environmental Health has is we have a standard that has been � �,• adopted through the pubfic process in Pitkin Couniy. It becomes a political question as to how � � i . we customize standards for specific uses. Mr.Dunlop said he recommends sticking with the number that we have in the regulations currently because we are not sure what the ultimate use might be of any of the properties. We are looking far beyond the current occupants of the properties as we Iook at any subdivision or any dwelling that comes before Environmental � ' Health. Environmental Health looks at the long-range use of the properties. � ;. , Mr.Musick stated he limited the 50 gallon delivery because it was the County's requirement that �c W/7 Ranch move towards system design imposed conservation so that people were not permitted �� to use more water than that The pipe lines,the distribution system,and the de{ivery system was • intentionally sized down so that utilization could not be more than 50 gallons per person. If the � pressure is increased,the system can deliver more water up to a limit of what you can pressure � through a pipeline. This does not apply to the fire protection system,which has a capacity of 50,000 gallons delivered through the storage,plus 45 gallons a minute through the pump facility. It is a separate system. This also does not have to apply to the raw water system, which is pumped,and could be treated and delivered to the homes. Dave Tolen,from the Housing Authority,stated the occupancy standards table mentioned in the . housing guidelines is a minimum standard,not a maximum standard. It is for purposes of telling people what they can rely on for mitigation. Wayne Ethridge,representing the Pitkin County Af£ordable Housing,Inc.,stated most people are , not around. They work two jobs and the kids are in school. They do not use 100 gallons per day. These are not resoR houses. He stated he feels there is room for a more reasonable standard to be applied. Pat Nelson,with CH2M Hill Engi�eering,stated she was hired by lohn Musick through Pitkin ' County Environmental Health. She said she is a neutral party. � Ms. Nelson stated she based her calculations on the Aspen/Pitkin County Septic ISDS , Regulations. To perfortn the review,she assumed hvo people per bedroom with four bedrooms for Filing 2. For Filings i and 3, she estimated the same sizes. For the buik of the septic i,., systems,she stated she used the numbers in the regulations. The 100 gallons per minute is also � used by the State. For percolation rates,Ms.Nelson used information from past percolation tests �, in the acea. They ranged from 5 minutes per inch to 60 minutes per inch. There were several �, tests that were 10 minutes per inch, which is a very good number. She did not evaluate � + complicated systems. She looked,at a standard system. For filing 2,Ms.Nelson looked at a j� . ��" 'j� l i: 60ARD OF COUNTY COMM15510NERS 4 APR[L I5, 1999 SPECfAL MEETING x / i _' ��'_ `. i r -�. � . ' -�� t � ' . ------• , . __ .— . .__ _ , x. �._ _�._ - -- _ , : '-,.> �. _.� _.,. �- - -- ,�, .. ►z��'�,�:a'�`' �:Y�;yY�:y'_l I- ::....:. �:'�;'?�;�.�";: �;' �•�:::y,. ,,�;.;'- • single community septic system. All sitings were based off of maps provided by die County. - . She looked at the biggest open area. She did not facror in drive-ways because it was too t•. �; complicated. Ms. Nelson stated she gave the benefit of the doubt to the owners on this ?� standpoint. For the package plant and the lagoon system,she assumed a flow per person per day yI� � •�• of 110 gallons. This is based on best professional judgment and Ms.Nelson discussed it with • . other professionals. Ms.Nelson explained the reason you need more gallons is because the longer the collection system,you get water into the lines. Maintenance and operations costs were from an EPA document titled, "Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual." 7'he costs were updated by the rate of inflation. The numbers were also discussed 9:`'-•` with Bruce Matherly with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation to obtain an agreement on the .. numbers. The designs of the package plant/lagoon system were based on State design criteria. �f' �Y ' The package plant cost was obtained after talking with several vendors and receiving quotes ` � from Aspen Consolidated for connection and user fees. Regulatory infortnation was obtained h.:.' :� - from Ms.Nelson,as she used to be a regulator,as well as from conversations with different �,.�: health department people,including Dwayne Watson and the groundwater people. Ms.Nelson said she also looked at the State ISDS regulations and they are basically the same. Ms.Nelson � �. recommended a package plant because of the ability to have someone manage it If they go with � � � a lagoon system,they are talking about a lower rated certified operator. Ms.Nelson stated her �.. experience has been when you get into the more remote areas, it is difficult to find a good k ''-. operator. Aspen Consolidated said they would operate the extended aeratio�plant which is in r�� - the package plant and not a lagoon system. When talking about expansion,a lagoon system � ��,� takes up a lot oF space. Ms.Nelson stated a package plant is the most cost effective and it also �� produces the best quality. . i Ms.Nelson said with regard to a septic system,she based Filings 1 and 2 on a four-bedroom unit. She assumed a]0-minute percolation rate in the four bedrooms. She came up with some ; that woufd fit four bedrooms and some that would not. Mos[of them did not. As the percolation � rates become larger,a 30-minute percotation rate,the absorption geks bigger and there is tess space available. With regard to Filing 1, taking into consideration the different setback requirements,there are currently 21 units that do not meet the ISDS requirements for both Pitkin . County and d�e State because of size. Phillip Whittingham,President of the Homeowners Association,stated not everyone is going to build out to a 2,000 square foot footprint. John Musick stated the configuration for the lot lines was decided amongst the owners. They did not take into account where septic tanks and leach fields would be. This applied in many of the cases,not all of tliem. � Bob Nelson,consultant for Bob and John Musick,said the systems in Filing 1 were built before the laws were in effect. It is his opinion that the systems were installed in compliance with the County permit requirements(1981 Code). But when property lines were drawn, leach fields . crossed and got mixed up. Mr.Nelson stated he has had the thought that what they could do is go back and re-permit each and every one of those, particutarly the seepage pits, because effective in July, in a State legislative amendment that has already been passed,there is the ] ability for the Board of County Commissioners to grant a variance from the 25 foot lot line to �. seepage pit setback. That particular variance procedure has been written into the law and can be _i+ ` implemented after the law takes effect the I�`of July. Mr.Netson said this means the existing + � � � i -_ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISS[ONERS 5 APRIL l5, 1997 SPECIAL MEETING l...� i �,ti,'` ; . � . ; ` _ • 4 t1 .'' -a . ��. i . .. � ! . . / . _'____._-..____� '�.. �,�,..�- .__-•--.. _ . .-- .- __ . .� -. ..- . . u.> �y:. .:... . . ,� _. _ ,,, . ... _ . . _: _ � ��.�;��. ! fi�+y'��:.. t s.�:. , �r.�:.ni,,; `t:''': i_' ;r: � pits can be granted a variance when and were it is necessary. The other option would be to do � the legal documentation to grant some easements where you have property lines crossed. •. �,, , Betsy clarified of the 27 units in Filing l,21 of the units have their own seepage pits and the '_..�: other 6 units share two seepage pits. '. Bob Nelson asked Pat Nelson what is the signi£cance of choosing a package plant versus a lagoon7 � Pat Nelson responded her assigmnent was to come up with the most cost-effective treatment plan 'r'r. � for sewage for Filing 2 and then she was asked to look at Filings 1 and 3 in addition to the i� ` individual lots to look at a combined system for all of them. This is for a consideration that �. everyone would be hooked up to the system. The estimate to hook up the whole ranch to the . ' extended aeration package plant would be$375,000.00,which does not include the connections ` from each unit. This would decommission all the existing septic systems and taking all the S affluent direct to the central system. If there was to be a choice of maintaining existing septic p . . '� systems and only treating the excess,it would be this range in numbers or less. � Mike Rosenbaum stated in the W/J Ranch Subdivision by-laws,it states,"tl�e owner of each lot shall be responsible for the maintenance of septic system of the lot. In the event that a septic �' � system is shared by more than one lot,each owner shall have the right to access the septic system � � whether on liis lot or not. In that event,the main into the septic system shall be shared equally by the owners of the lots." So if there is an issue of how people would get from one lot to . ! another,it has already been addressed. There is no reason for a legal filing. � i i �i Commissioner Lamont asked Pat Nelson when she did her assessments, was she looking at � whether Uie septic systems were adequate today under the existing conditions or was she looking at potential to expand the units? ' Ms.Nelson stated for Filing 1,she looked at both issues. 3he stated there are some units where � ' � there is not enough land available to expand considering the four bedroom parameters. This is j � considering the size of the seepage area and the area available on the lot for each individual lot. t + Ms.Nelson also clarified that the seepage pits for the two bedroom units were sized for hvo i ' Q_ bedrooms,not necessarily four bedrooms. Ms.Nelson said when there are 2,000 gallons per day i ; of flow,it becomes a system where you need site application and you need discharge pertnit. So ' �: when we are talking about the two systems that serve six houses, it would be a community j` system that should have a discharge permit. If there are a whole bunch of houses on one acre, � i then it is a community system. The State could possibly azgue that it also needs a discharge � � permit. In the case where property lines encroach on a septic system, it is not considered a � community system;it is separate. � w �; i Phil Whittingliam stated the information given to Ms.Nelson,the four bedroom issue,on the i • Association's standpoint,he thinks is incorrect. i � Mr.John Musick said there are several units that are adequate at tlie four bedroom level already. s � ,, Mr.Dunlop clarified that the State of Colorado is not going to be looking at the peaking factor of 1.75 or the County's variation in square footages by 75,100,and 130. What will trigger a State - review is they will calculate everything at 1.5 times the flow and they will use 75 gallons per � �, ,i BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 6 APRIL 15, 1997 SPECIAL MEETING 'j: ' f� j 'l i � . a; , . -� �' .. � �� .., " � " �' . _. - �, �__ _T _ _ . _ — . -- -- -- — : :..> .�:.. � xi:;;?��;`' . �1+�'1;,-Y•�:.�=.:. "YY:'�r��:'� . :�;1,k�: ' person per day. Mr.Dunlop said even though the bylaws give authority for systems to be on - neighboring properties,he dces not believe this overrides the State guideline where it says tltey ��;� . have to have it within certain setbacks. 7'his is probably a legal question for the County Attomey ?; to look at. Pat Ne(son stated according to the information she was given by the County,the septic systems are adequately sized for two bedrooms units except there are setback problems. Tom Duggan,a member of the publiq asked is Ms.Nelson relying on four bedrooms,two people 't:'` '' � per bedroom or was it 2.5 people per a two bedroom unit? :::s„ `� Ms.Nelson responded she is going by two people per bedroom for four bedrooms. �: , ' . Lee Cassin,with the Environmental Department,stated most of the systems do not meet the � setback requirements. Also, she asked, can these homeowners do what is allowed in their approvals,i.e.,expand their houses? Most of them cannot on their lot because the system cannot , be expanded because they do not have enough room. They can expand if the expansion is not bedrooms. � Commissioner Tuite and Suzanne Konchan clarified that other additions like porches, family �r rooms,et cetera,except for bedroom additions,can be done without issue. A building permit can �' ' be applied for the above additions,as long as they are in compliance with die Code. ± � _ Mr.John Musick stated the Company is committed,oat of each of the individual sales that go � � forward,to escrow the money for the benefit of the Homeowners Association so that they can � j pay,if they wish,for the installation of a single collector main,either in the street in front of the ! houses or behind the houses on Filing 1,and appropriately design on each of ihe other filings,so I. ;: that if tliere is a desire to expand to the full four bedrooms,full capacity,full demand,there will be a main collector main which will go to a package plant,which the Company has committed - that it will pay for,even though it is not legally ob[igated to do that. The Company will do that because it is the only way that the political question becomes easy for them to solve and it does not have to get into a difficult question,so there is a long-term solution. Mr.Musick said the only thing that has to happen is a discussion and agreement as to the phasing of this. It is up to �i the homeowners,Environmental Healtli,and County Staff to decide if they want it in their front footage. If they do,then the chip sealing will have to be delayed until the lines are installed: . The installation also can happen in the back area of the property so that the chip sealing dces not have to be held up. Mr.Musick stated the resources will be there for the centralized sewage system. Mr. Musick said he will provide the collector system and the connections from the houses. There is a caveat to tliis. It appears to Mr. Musick it is an economic waste to have i ! perfectly good,functioning,existing septic tanks and leach felds in some areas and then just � abandon those. Mr.Musick stated this needs to be worked out. Mr.Musick said it would be real i simple to run a line right behind the existing septic systems and connect it on. . �� Dave To[en said the Housing Oftice currently holds title to eight unitr and lots and they currently have one unit on the market. It is difficult for the Housing Office to transfer clear title on a unit to someone wlien there are remaining concerns about the septic system. These issues need to be resolved. He is looking for a commitrnent From the Ranch so he can pass this on to the �-. prospective buyers. + -- � . � - 1 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 7 APRIL 15, 1997 SPECIAL MEETING :� � ,}, � . -� � �, :. • ;• . . _ . �. - - _ _ ____�., �, ;,,�.,_,�„___--- --_ _ _ -- - : -:>., _ � , , �.:� , -' , z�.� ��-`"'" , t.��;: f�;;;�;;, . 4,r8>:ti•: � 4•.4k.•.. • Commissioner Tuite stated John Ely will come back to the Board to infortn them on what the ��. State requirements are on setbacks and what is the ability within the County to look at those and have differences. The homeowners could work out the problems that may be of concern to die ��',� 5tate. ,.�. Bob Nelson stated the septic at W/J Ranch is fine right now. He stated he will send this . � information to any prospective buyers. Tom Dunlop stated he dces not agree completely. The lot line issue needs to be looked at. [f there is a situation where there are two leach fields on an undeveloped lot currently,it is going to take some real creative thought to figure out a way to put another dwelling and another system ��?'` � on a lot that already has two septic leach fields on it that do not belong there. ?' • Commissioner Lamont stated with regard to Filing],we do not have the problem that we have in � • Filing 2. Filing 2 is where there are the leach field problems. In Filing 1,the two outstanding � problems seem to be lot lines which affect setbacks which do not meet the State standards of � '� today. Then there are systems that might be inadequately sized for potential additions of � bedrooms. Mr.John Musick stated with regard to Filings 2 and 3,where the remaining unsold lots and/or • houses exist,there are 16 remaining lots,four of which have houses, 12 of which are vacant. ` , There are buyers under contract or in contract negotiation on all of those. Mr.Musick is holding � the sales up until the septic system issue is resolved. As to the 12 vacant lots,3 are located in , � Filing 3. Two of those lots could have their own septic and leach field. The other lot shares a common leach field with two adjacent lots and this lot may be limited to have a septic and leach •' field on it. ThaY issue is the same down below where there are 9 vacant lots. Some of those lots � � i are going to be too small for a septic tank and a leach field on the lot. Some of the adjacent ! houses will have to be disconnected from the leach fields that are on the vacant lots. Mr.Musick said Bob Nelson and Uie County will be working on designing a septic tank and leach field on the lots because most of the owners prefer it that way. On lots where this will not work, I or 2 � - t; lots will be aggregated together and have a septic system and a leach field system off of that lot as an interim solution because what is going to happen with Filing 1 is die same thing that will � t,' happen to Filings 2 and 3. They will be incorporated into a collecror system and package plant. ' �" Mr.Musick said this expense will be absorbed by the Company. ; ci i �: Suzanne Konchan stated with regard to the vacant lots in Fifings 2 and 3,Mr.John Musick and � x' his consultants will begin to work with the standards that are in effect today and begin to design � I systems that would comply so that building permits can be applied for. It may include some � t ' community leach fields. The standards that Pitkin County has adopted for ISDS regulations,as i they compare to State guidelines,for the most part match the State guidelines up to 2,000 square I � feet and that is where the County begins to depart in terms of a higher per capita flow rate. Ms. i Konclian stated she thinks it would be productive to assemble the expeKS to begin a dialogue � regarding the standards. She said perhaps this would be Environmental Health,Pat Nelson,Bob ' Nelson,and another professional engineer that John Musick has'hired,a Mr.Robert McGregor. Mr. McGregor would work in conjunction with Bob Nelson. Ms. Konchan said she would ! expect these discussions would lead back to the Board of County Commissioners,acting in their role as the Board of Health,to see if the Board wants to consider any amendments to the ISDS regulations that would play a role further down the road. �• 4 . i � �- 1 � f BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 8 APRIL 15, 1997 SPECIAL MEETING t ' � . i n� , ,_ � ./ �� ` � 4 —. f i I i j . � . . , . x .. .. - — ----- - - - ----- --- '--�—. � �'r�` -- — -� — -- - , . :,.� �-�� '' ��,`,,. , .,•f r��_:, ,:�:� ��;.: •Y��i• . U;;:k�: Ms.Konchan stated there are other issues relative to the approvals that were talked about today ' that were addressed to John Musick in a letter from the County last falL The agreements need to be worked on more formally between lohn Musick,the County and the County Attomey's Office �': to make sure we atl are heading in the same direction and agreement. Ms.Konchan stated we ':�• also need to work with Phil Whittingham and the Homeowners Association regarding some of ' - the improvements,e.g.,where to locate the collector system,chip sealing of roads,et ce[era. Mr.John Musick stated they are still working on the rear exit windows of existing houses. Any material upgrades to the standard exit window will be borne by the homeowner. The labor fees wilt be borne by the Company. The chip sealing of the road wi11 be borne by the Company. Mr. � ' Musick stated the Ranch is having a hard time finding contractors for the chip seal project. Also, plumbing needs to be done first before chip sealing can be done. The money will be escrowed in ' !"�- - its entirety and in accordance with the bid received by the Homeowners Association. . � Doug Smith said the Association,as part of the approval process back in 1994,was promised i two lots. He asked how these lots fit into everything else that is going on? � � Wayne Ethridge stated he volunteered to prepare an application for those two lots. They would be on foundation property as part of the master planning effort that he is undertaking. Doug Smith asked if diey couid be identified now so that they could make it part of the 12 lots � ' and be able to get those sold and get the money into the Association coffers as opposed to • waiting until Mr.Ethridge does the whole development plan. . ! Mr. Musick stated there is a recommendation to locate the lots immediately adjacent to the � � existing Filing 2 and right at the end of the road that would be redirected into Filing 2,the new '� road. There is a plumbing question regarding this recommendation. Wfien the piumbing is i installed for the 9 lots,ihe plumbing is going to go in for those 2 lots as well. i Doug Smith asked are those two lots part of Mr.Musick's development approval? • j; Mr.Musick responded,no, they are not. It is a new development approval. It has to come � before the Board for the 2 lots. s; Doug Smith asked if it can be separated from the proposal for the whole 100 units, c: ��. � Mr.Musick stated yes it can be separated. a � � Mr.Smith asked if anybody at the Ranch wanted to take advantage of their rights that were there � at the time Hiey purchased their house,namely a 1,000 square foot basement,and the right to k build tlieir livable space to 2,000 square feet and add a 500 square foot garage,could they do all � � of that by applying for a building permit and expect it to be approved as long as there are not any • I bedrooms associated with that? Ms. Konchan stated they can receive building permits up to those square footages. The on[y caveat would be general setback requirements. General zoning issues wifl have to be complied with. She stated anyone wishing to add to their houses should meet as early as possible witfi �. Community Development DepaRment to make sure what is planned is acceptable. =` � � -_ f BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 9 APRiL 15, 1997 SPEC[AL MEETING � ' �:. ,. �. . y ;' : � _ . :.�R� � j / . ` , . n : .i. � . I � . �� .. � . . . ' � � _. .___ .� ... , 'k.. ,y,�,r,s�—�_•--_".._.�-- '. ,-�•r �... �_ ' y a - ; 'r'.=��,�.., �i: ,.;. .: :x.<�,':>;. P:�s,�', u.,�`,}'{j:�_, ' David Schoenberger asked Mr.Tolen if he said that in order to sell Uie homes at W/J,he would • ='� �� r need verification that the septic system was sufftcientl - . Mr.Tolen stated yes,and that it was only one of die issues because some of the septic systems "•^� encroach on lot lines. � ��.�' Mr. Musick reiterated that this problem is solved by the existing covenants and bylaws of the Ranch. The only issue that has not been addressed is the State imposed 10-foot setback for septic tanks and 25-foot setback for seepage pits. A homeowner(his name was not announced)asked if a homeowner makes capital improvements W.�• to his property and house,what is covered by the RO capita)improvement guidelines7 .. Dave Tolen responded the capital improvements are outlined in the deed restrictions. The � specific items that you can add do not inc[ude Iandscaping. It does include additions to the units. , � i The homeowner asked if there is any way to change the regulations7 Commissioner Tuite responded homeowners would need to approach the Housing Board � ' regarding allowing landscaping as a capital improvement j . Commissioner Ireland suggested since there are several County Roads that need to be chip and i sealed this summer, if the timing is right,the County could possibly bid to chip and seal the . ! Association's roads. Commissioner Ireland stated he feels with regard to tlie chip aod seal,lie feels it is a carrot in making some decisions out at the Ranch about what they want to do so they � ' can get on with that part of it. 4 The W/J portion of the meeting was adjourned at this time. �: Iohn Ely stated he has another issue to bring before the Board regarding the Amendment to the � - f ' [ntergovemmental Agreement between Pitkin Counry and Eagle County. I . FIRST READ• EMER ENCY FRO TiTinN OF TH PITKIN O NTY � � �QARD OF A NTY COMMT SION .R AM NDING AN � � INTER OVE NM NTA . A RFF,MF.NT g TWF .N A L O TIVTV AND � Y �TKIN COUNTY FOR THE GRANT OF FUNDS BY THE A O 1NTY � ? ; �IONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR THE PURGHASE OF i � � THE ASPEN BRAN H OF THE D NV R AND RIO RAND TE N ; BAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY-MOTION TO APPROV QN FIRST R ADIN - i � ;� John Ely stated Debbie Quinn prepared this resolution after the Board's discussion of this issue ! ` in the morning work session. � Commissioner Farris stated the goal of this amendment is to allow die transfer of the funds to be extended to a later date. Commissioner Harper moved to approve t6e resolution amending the intergovernmental agreement between Eagle County and the Transportation Authority for the purchase of V I BOARD OFCOUNTY COMMISSIONERS t0 APR7L 15, 1997 SPECIAL MEETfNG t ,_I: , r � �_ ��r � � :� ti �a , Y � i � , .. ` i . � '�.. . � . ' . . ._ ----•--_. ._.. �_ ._ __ _� ... ..._ . .__..._"___�__, . a.) a i:� b � �44J ,Y. ' u:� -.:`:: :.�`:�4:� , Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad right of way. Commissioner Lamont seconded !° the motion. The motion passed unanimously. � ''� . . �� - Commissioner Harper moved to adjourn the meetiog.Commissioner Lamont seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously �:'+. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjoumed by Commissioner Tuite at 5:10 p.m. [,.-�� i:';;:, i�' `..�. � y'`;�... � i . ;� 1 N . 1 .� _ j� �� . � � � k � ....__...__ . ;j l • � t 4. �:. ;1, �� i BOARD OF COUlV7'Y COMMISSIONERS 11 APRIL 15, 1997 SPECIAL MEETING ; i 1;' �, I .. ..r--... . _, _<_..� _ ._ ._..._.__----- ,_..:,.__.._.............:._..:..:_. __,.._ . , . .,,.;. --�.yai� / .._, . .. .....;... ..-'.-._ I }lak4 i � ;'. . . . . . I . �_.-- ,.. . � , . �I . . '�.".:_�.:�'. .. � . � . �.. . 1 . _• I � . . . � ' I � . �. - . . � � . . .I�,• . � ✓. . .. . • . .f: .. ' . , . 1 . . . . • _ ' ' . . . � . • . ' . ' • r . .x ' . ..„ .___—__._�� . —.—_—�.._ .._...._.___�� . . Y�, � '�.i, ., ;� :. � � �"��'��. � ' Respectfully submitted, _r ��n� �it� 1, Ly�ne�'io�rdova : . Deputy County Clerk `'. • i � � � � . - �� (��i1iv��°Tv� ��C�P Q ��rr .. '�r r�: BILL TUITE, ERSON � ,. � PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS '� ��.;.;:'.. ISubmitted for approval on May 14,1997. �•;,'� . i c„ i �� g �. 4 . Y!: �.. i }!`•`� � � ! . 3 � __ ---� .� � ! I. f I:� � i I PCJMJ/lNW/G/Minutes/1997/04-15-97.doc � '. :�;= � t.I I �._ � � �. BOARD OF COUNTY COMhIISSIONERS �'� APRIL 15, 1997 SPECIAL MEETING ,I , i ..._._..� �:>�_..,.w..._ .. _:•__: ` _ . ,. . . ;�.t . fi. ' . , � . . . ... .!:�:. _,, .�..�. , . .... �.- . .�i-. ' ,�;� . .i;;. l ��'�� ; �, _ ,� . � �:_�:.t ' ' - , . ,` _ rI, � ' , � ;;;:; :. , _ , . . , • :, :. , . —...__.-----1 'ej :�__� _..—— —--__ , :.�f ::SS�., � .�,... .. � � -...___ .. ...... .. ____. _ � '� ; , �:: r�;; ��:... - ., ' • ' �i�r;� :. ��;.:•�%�r,, � cY�d-is 9� "A " ;'a`,'��,: To: Suzanne Konchan .��N� 'k` From: Dave Tolen ' `.�;� Re: W/J Ranch-Outline of Housing Issues �-'• '; Dace: 7 April, 1997 '".'�. ', ;:. i �:_._' . 1'his is a summary of issues related to the affordable housing units at W/J ranch, ��;r•''J' I beginning with the proposal to convert the units from rental to ownership. '' � j'.:.- _ s� _. • The Hoasiag Board reviewed and recommended approvai of che proposal to convert he 62 units at Wlj Ranch from rental[o ownership t • The BOCC approved the conversion,subject to the conditions of Resotution 94-200 f, � • The Resolution included(aneuage about the maximnm price of each anit. The units ' were to be priced on the basis of 5170,000 for a two bedroom.two bath 1?00 square foot Category 4 or Residen[Occupied unit. The prices of the R units were to be t � adjusted based on square footage,site location,age and configuration. Purchasers � ' would not be required to pay any money in excess of this amount,althoueh`could � agree to a higher purchase price for purposes of qualifying for favorable tinancing ' terms. •� • Units were sotd to tenants and non tenanu.at purchase prices exceeding the above � limits,but with the actual cost to the purchaser reduced to those limits by a"�ift" � from the seller through a non profit intermediary. The Deed Restrictions for all units limited their resale prices to the original amounts actually paid by buyers,not �� including any gift,plus appreciation and capital improvements. � f= • The Housing Office purchased 13 of the homes,under lease purchase agreements �'j with the tenants,in order to give these tenants additiona[time co quatify for f nancing. � 1 Tom Smith,representing the Housr,ig Office,reviewed the terms of the sales and , �� loans,and datercnined that there was no misrepresentation to lenders on[he pan of E i� purchasers. � �� x� • The Housing Office reviewed a proposai by W/J Ranch Inc.to se119 to 15 additional � !' - p lou to the Covnty for Housing Development. These lots consisted of 91ots created in �;; a minor plat amendment and six lots proposed to be added to the subdivision. Review s? of this proposal led to concerns about the adequacy of the exisung septic and water r �. �� systems. • � , . l ': � i ( �. �. � �1 __ �•. ; . �I _ --____ _._.._._ ._...__ ._--- _ _ _ �._.____ _._ _----------- .. .�.,�, .. _.. . _. � _ . .. .. . .:. ..._ . . . r , � .� � � ' � f� , . . � . � ��' �-� .�:.:<.:.. �. ^ . . . . . � n.: .. .. i. . � . _ � � . t ,� . . . � ...—-- — -—�-- --- . .—.____� . yr,�._,,._«_ __ -- , a.,� .; �` .... ...�:. �--- � -� x __ .____ .. _A� ...>,��.. .,..,..., .,. ,_... __._-- , �., • - ' '�'� ,,��'• h � t a'(��:�. gLT I�F.CE.NT HI.STORY a�.�;s,Fy.�':. _ sw,"' : �:4;_ y. .`,. • 1972- A subdivision application was submitted by the app6cant for a portion of his �:`' property, and subsequenfly withdrawn. At the time there were approximately 10 �z`" ��'• T .. K.�. duplexes(20 units)on the pmperty. Theze is no record indicating whether these units `� were built with required County pennits. 'y.' • . :,' ,L , . • 1989-The applicant submitted a request for 1041, Scenic and rezoning approva� tor l�� '� twenty seven proposed 2 bedroom,modular, 1200 square foot rental units,on a newly ' ��':. - created thirty five acre parcei.The applicanY proposed to rezpne the parcel from RS-20 P' `'� � to PMH.At the time,thirty three rental units were in existence on the adjacent pazcel ' �'''':r��` owned by Mr.Jaffee.There is no record indicating that required pemvts were obtained � ,k;�� for the additional 13 units buitt between 1972 and 1989. ' �`"-• "'= • >,; � : � . . • 1990-The twenty seven proposed rental uniks were approved for 1041 Review and F; , Scenic Foreground review pursuant to Board Resolution No.90-66. Resolution No.90- r';;.�, �,.,.:, ,: 66 granted rezoning approval for all 60 uni�s and tt►e entire property from RS-30 to �'.` 2� PMH.The 1041 and scenic foreground approvals did not include the existing 33 units. �;.'. • The Final Plat and Subdivision Improvements Agreement for the W/J Employee :""'�;`' . iHousing Project were recorded on Tuly 2,1990 in Book 24,Page�9 and Book 626 Page � ,,�.,�, � 920,respecfively. ,�` � ./ • The Final Plat exhibit identifies a parcel of appro�cimately 140 acres. AIl b0 units were intended to be included within the parcel. However,due to a drafting error,5 vnits were � omitted from the Plat. The applicant proposed to coaect the eaor as one element of the , major plat amendment proposed in 1494. �A i • 1994-The W/J Fuily Developed Lands Subdivision Facemption was approved •`' ! pursuant to Resolution 94-200. The exemption subdivided fully developed lands into � lots,allowing for the conversion of 62 rental units to sale units;and allowed ail units to expand to 2,000 square feet of floor azea,I,000 sq.ft of subgrade basement,and an additional allowance of 500 sq.ft.for accessory suuctures.(*See clarificarion of �' permitted basement exemption below.) The pazcei boundary line of the Ranch was revised to include 5 PMH units which were omitted from the 1990 plat due to a drafting error;and PUD aQproval was granted to accommodate setback non- confornaties which were inherent in ttte new Lots created by the subdivision exemption. � • 1995-Pwsuant to Resolution 95-125,the Boazd approved a request for a"minor plat . amendmenY'to amend the first,second and third filings of the final plat Specifically, ' the proposal allowed the enlargement of eacisting units by combining duplex units into singie-family dwellings and four-plex units into duplex units. New lots and units were - added to the plat Lo account for lots and units"lost"as a result of the combining and E; s,- w i , f t _.__.._. � . . . . ..._.. :..._......... . . ...._..-..�_ ....... _ . ,:.: ... . ... . .:... ._ ,.. .,._.__. . __.__. ........ �_..._..�,,am�4..:.� i . �. . .. . , � . ,�t� . . ` - .. � t: �� . . � , . � �. ,� . . '-- .. . . . . . . �. . a.� ' . � - -_ --__-- . , :„... ,. ....,... ..__..... ; . ��' �,�, ;a�`.; r::°';�,�.�t,; ' enlargement of existing units, The total number of lots and units were to remain the `=., same though there wouid be an addition of bedrooms. � ..;*� • On November 1,1995,the applicant received approvat of a minor piat amendment for • - the purpose of moving the westerly lot tines of Lots 30 and 33 of Filing#2,W/J �.' �• Ranch Subdivision,approximately 17 feet to the wes�t. The adjustment relocated one lot line to better accommodate the location of an existing sepric system,and added acreage and a portion of an existing yard to another lot to accommodate the needs of a ��' 9::.:..•, - purchaser. Permits for new septic systems oa Lots 30,31 aad 32(which were �s - vacant)were to be obtained as part of the building permit application process for j�;?"..� homes constructed on those lots. Two lots to the west of Lots 30 and 33(Lots 31 and '=' 32) became slightiy smailer as a resuit of the amendment, All lots continued �" ` "� � f ' however,to comply with area and bulk requirements of the AH Zone District �� . � I 1 1 iy it'� . • 1996-W/J Ranch,Inc.The applicant received administraYive approval of a minor plat � amendment to facilitate the adjustment of lots lines on Lots 5,6 and 7,Block 1,Filing � 3,W/J Ranch Subdivision.The following adjustments were approved: '�- � xt , - On Lot 5,the lot lines abutting Bullwinkle Circle(Subdivision road)were �, drawn incorrectly on the originally recorded plat.This amendment will reflect the correct lot line configuration. � - The center lot line between Lots 6 and 7 has been adjasted to reflect the location of existing sheds on duplex units which are split between the two lots. • At a regular meeting of the BOCC on February 28,1996,the Board directed Staff to process an administrative amendment to 12eso1ution#94-200 ta clarify that the Board � intended to allow basement space in addition to the 2,000 square feet of above-grade space cleazly approved by the Resolution. Specifically,basements of up to 1,000 ,'; squar.;feet,or the footprint of the structure(whichever is less)may be added in � addition to the 2,000 squaze feet of above-grade space,and 500 square feet of � accessory square footage(inciudittg gazage). a i __ � .+ . � . � � . . �_; . ; -- ,. � � . Z � ;' , � �'` ` __.____....�.__.�_.___._---_ ____.__ ___.� ----_ .. : _._. ..__ __ _.___._�._—---- 1— - ` ,:� , _ . � , t` ; ; . s _ � ; . �.. - ,: :�� . . - , : : _ , . . , . . . _ k. _ _._ ___ _ ___—_ ._ __ _ ._ _ , , �-________ , a.� �V�