HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.reg.07271993 �:` .
i .. ,,,r� !�f" � �` �.•'I� "' �� 1L{r� 7 .�:��, '=J'f;'��.
'�. ]. � • . }' 1�Y S:� r � u .F:
�:.1' �F� tr��ii 4 !> � � - ��' : �� 1r� � ��}:` ��F� � .. �
� ��'�r: . . . � .�� �µr � C. !A_ � i�1,�
�r �.. � ,y,'7i 1�laFi„�'t. .�� 'a ' t�_ �- ✓F
a�
. . . � ���' tte{���ti k � sr. � . ,�' a ..� = t��`{r �k � �,•�� ��'
' �tLr, '.� ., .e�twY� k. ;�t' �. ..'���lt� �.- .. . . .... - ... "autxa�L�y�
.-.2�+� S:.
. . . . '+.;:.�... _
y .
I�y
- ..._, '� ',y rr
PITKIN COUNTY COMMISSIONER5
- ;.:
; REGUTAR MEETING AGENDA <
District Cnurtroom
E
'I'UGSDAY. JLJLY 27. 3993 -
3
,
r 5:(Hl PM PUBLIC CONIIviENT
� COMMISSIONER COA�IENTS
}:, ADDTTIONS/DELETIONS TO AGENDA 'o.;
�, CONSENT AGENDA
1. Minutes of July 12 and 7uly 13, 1993, Jeanette Jones
2. Letter of Intent, Wildfire Incidents, 5teve Crockett � '
� . 3. CDOT Resolution/Annual Report, Bud Eylar � �
Gy
's; ADMiNISTRATiVE PUBLIC HEARINGS ��
�
4. Cnnveyance of Parcel Adjacent to Ute Children's Park, Jahn Ely '
Ordinance Authorizing Public AcGuisition of Meyer Property, Mark Fuller (To � :
� be tabled to August lOth)
q s
�'�Q � LAND USE PUBLIC HEARINGS �
e_�y,� s
� 5. Mountain Valley Subdivision Rezoning, Tim Malloy i
= (. Resolution Restricting Acceptance of Land Use and Building Permit .+.
Applications- Richmond Hill/Little Annie Area, Suzanne Konchan `•`
� 7. Aspen Skiing Company Buttermilk Master Plan Amendment, Tim MaIloy
8. McCabe Ranch L,ow Impact Subdivision Detailed 5ubmission,Caretaker Dwelling
" Unit Review and lst Reading PMH Rezoning, Mary Lackner `-!',
�� � LAND USE AGTIONS y ; .
� i 9, 1sE Reading and Set for Public Hearing, Land Use Code Adoption, Francis y �
k ;1 l'.,
Krizmanich
� 1Q. Resolution Directing the Planning Commission to Develop Zaning and � �
i
£ Regulations for the Little Annie Basin/Richmond Hill Ridge Planning Area, �
Cindy Houben `� •:�>�
ll. Ta11 Tale Filming, Suzanne Konchan ;;:
12. Temporary Use Hard Rock/Special Events, Suzanne Konchan '�' -
i� .
� �:��
ADMINISTRATIVE AGTIONS ��
l3. Transfer of Ownership,Meredith Store Retait Liquor License,Lisa MacDanald �t�i��,.
j 74. lst Re�ding and Set for Public Hearing, Resolution to Adopt Additional PM- F'i �
Measures Required for SIP, Lee Cassin
. ;,,..
)
i
„ :.._..__,. _._.. -
.
_ ........... ,._._... .. ..<.:__
_.... ,�,�;:...
, . . .. . _
, _
1 . . . . 'I . . . . '
1
.,4TrsaQ'. . � � � , .
��.;`,'�.'�'' -
.;n�
T '
�� k ..��4� �f .�f�} s r .41; : � , � '{- Ith�+'�r f a./r��t.y�� ��t� �U "Y'(�}`��G�4�k1�� - iw rAr�.
SZ`�. '��'�',t'iM.,`1�t�,E�`� -� u� '��� �� '�''Sl�''� iV/'"f,�ii,'�.�,5�._ �}rJ.., .e..��r� y. .I.Y.u.��.tii:
��'�tl' c �
���� ��:. .��� �-�' + . t ��i+� ,.� e 7
,:. � � '
.
, •
, , . . F. ,�, ,
;: • .
. _
.,
�. ,,,•`a�., ` *;, � ,.
� - � . . . . . . _ _ �:t,�l:r• . `r.t:,nn'J�si �
' i..
4 I��..
, 3 ; '
�� `,ti.�
:�
----- 15. Resolution to Affirm Historic Position On Hwy 82 Four-Laning, Reid Haughey ','�,i>;
9:00 PM ADJOURN .-`�,�,�
� �:
� �� ,
� A break will be taken at 7 pm. �:>'<:,;:
. : �
� Please note: All public hearings are noticed for 5:00 pm. Actual times will vary.
,ti-.i
t
� j�� . . . . � �� . - .
. / � . . � � .. . � .
. ..' .s � . . . . � � . . � � . . . . . . . '
�
�'
.. � ..� . � . . . � � ' .. . . . � . _ .
.�• . . . _ . - . � . ' ' . . . .. .
.,` . . . . . � � - . . .
. ' . . . . . . . � . . , . . . ... . � '�.
r. _ . . ' . . ' . . . . . .. . . . . : .
.- , . . . . . . . . . . . , ' . :�''
`\\ . . . �' �� � � . . �. � i�
� - � � . �� � . . . . . � . �. �1�`�
. . . � . . .. . , . . . . . . .1:.�1 �
.... . . . . . . . . . . . . � . .�r. ..
' . . . . . � . . . � ... � . . �� .
- - . . . . . � � . . . .. � ��.,'.
.. � . . �. . � . . , � . .. . � . .. � �.� . �:
'- A'. � �. . . . . � � � � - � . � .. t
. � � . . . . � � . . �. .4�
. . 1 . . . . . . . . . ,
_ .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. �. � ��..
. . .. � . . . . . . . . . � � �I
, . . . . . . . � . d.! ��1
I � . . � � � .. . .. .�y?��..
rK r
iyt+� M,
y. ;.�v�s..
. � � . . . • ..... - - . � ir1�'
� tl ' , . .. , . ... .�. ��� .
. .•- ,.; ._'
` .
.. ., � . . . . . . ..
. . _� .. . � . , . . � � - - , . . .
� ; . . � . . _ . . � . . � . � � � . . '' - ..
... .'...: �..�. �- , � � � � . �. -' � . � . . . � . � . .1�...�;. �
, .. . . ' . . . . . � . �� /� .
_ . . - . . . � . . . � � � . .. ` � . �
"-"tiY.�,��..'. . . . . . . ... . �. . . � .. � . .
t}�'^1'�'. '_ " . . . . . . , � � � � � � . �� � .
� . _.. . '
. �}^ {!�� r �:.".
.-'. . ' t!. ' t .�(:<< ff` t't� ..a��,, . .
�� ' ..; N ` ��,.� . ':.. �.� `�`?' . i` J�.4 sJ ::.y s `4�.. � s»J7/+ ��Iti"�+
� t � Y i �' , r r.
� e:,�,,4 , ti
`.,; 'it' � f. . � , . 7. ' �iJl J��y ,�`�' ., �-' i�"� Z��1
:-, . F a �. .. . ��.., � . < � �.
K , ,, r,::�' ��
. � :-t& ,' . �,�t����m�; '�•'` _,:,..A�. `�"`���; . ... �..�.�"''
, ; l�nr�z o�c.�
�
; �-��-sa �
---- . � MINUTES fl:
-� "{..
� PITRIN COtINTY BOARD QF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
� REGULAR MEETING
i�
"� JULY 27. 1993
� .
�I
}� CALL To oRDER: Chairman Tuite called the meeting to order at 5:00 �
p.m.
�
�' COMMISSTOI3 MEMBER3 PRESENT: Commissioners Fred Crowley, Wayne f.�
�� Ethridge, Jim True, Bill Tuite and Bob Child
.�
j PUBLIC COIIMENT•
, �+ Bill Martin appeared before the Board to ask them to consider going ;
;::; under the runway with the realignment of Highway 82. �
! Mickey Herron appeared before the Board on behalf of the Mr. � ,
� . ;; Fifield whose land use application was denied at the last meeting, f
;;; to request that the Board put the matter on a future agenda when �
zj a full Board is presen� £or reconsideration. He said that he does ;
" not feel there has been action taken on their application because ;
�� of a two/two vote. �
; t .:.
� Tim Whitsitt said it has been the past procedure of Board's of
' � ;� County Commissioners to deem a tie vote a failure of the question �
�. � that was proposed. This Board and Boards in the past have referred 4
�� to Roberts Rules of order and on that issue, RoHerts Rules Article
6 Section 38 on voting clearly states that when there is a tie vote
the motion £ails. �� '
�' ..
Herron responded to Whitsitt's comments, that no where in the code :j ' .
does it state that Roberts Rules of order has been adopted nor is '
----- -- their a provision in the code that says a two/two vote is a denial.
Therefore, he feels they are being denied due process, and being �
denied due process forces them into a litigation procedure that � ,;
isn't fair.
'\. . _ �. �...i
` � Crowley asked if he could make a motion for reconsideration.
�., ``�^
Whitsitt responded that this decision would have to be made by the �
Chairman as a procedural matter. ';
� W',
Crowley asked if he could make a motion that the resolution of
denial be brought back to the full Board for a decision. � =
Whitsitt responded that there was no direction for the resolution �,i'
� to come back to the Board. i�1,
;(,;
; y_
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSZONERS 1 JULY 27, 2993 !�!.:�''.
i°:±...
`{°:.r-,, ;
_ a`::,,
� r,s:<`...
f
:;:,��µ.'�.;� .
!
�
I l. :
�. , .., . . . .. , . . . __ .. ..........
.......... ......we...�.��... . � -;. .... ...,..�.. ..�,;�'.:.. ,............ . .. ..... ... ..,�.._. ... .. ..... .. . , ......, .... � � kZMy'. .
..' '. . ... .. .,- .: . ... ..:...._ ,. ..
...
. _. . . 1 . �; '.'�
1 .r � .
� t ' . •
- � .. ' . . ' � � .
/ .
����:
xn:+, ,
cti?•"Y.. .
i��
r.w
: :. , ' ;., / Jr ,. 1 �.�,�
-P . . ._y�. -. . ,. �` 1'�
'y.� -. � �: - .. i.(- y il �v � �: - � JOd;'=�� '�- �. ID'.
- ��,� t��'y �' .._��. �. .. , V• �y � � ,� ���V
{P . • . - r ' k �'�•. ��Y.
� 1 � , 4 j�H.�� 1� S��a � ♦ ' . ill +. ^+ ..A r ) i-10�' y
� � +.,�j��, �S:` n-.�va�-_���'k s^'Y �. `.'�"'������.. i�.�:� 9�.`.�'. S't
.tLic -='(6 ,Et"� a?.�aiL•�.�:• d
r
�-�- _ Tuite stated that he takes the position that a two/two tie is a
� denial. He asked if there was a motion for reconsideration from �
�i one of the pxevailing voters that they woul,d Iike to rehear this �•
land use application? i
•`.; Ethridge and Child responded that tihey did not wish to make such i
_'; a motion.
�� i .
�{ True commented that he would like the opportunity to bring the
i;i
resolution back to the Board for a vote.
``` Tuite stated that he will ru1e, tY►at Crowley does not have the
� '�� right to make a motion that the resolution be brought back to the
=+ Board before it is siqned by the Chairman.
i�
'{ Crowley moved that Tuite�s rulinq be overruled. True secox►ded the
'' motion.
�
A discussion ensued with regard to this matter. �
� True commented that when there is something that is determined
� • a based on a two/two decision then it is a matter of fairness and a
`i question of whether the majority of the five member board has
?� acted. It is different if somebody is abstaining because of
� conflict.
Tuite commented that he thinks there was a win/win situation in the
land use application such an offer of reduction of FAR which was
� about half of what was proposed with no further FAR development,
� '!� screening from Highway 82 and town, and lighting controls. Things
that are not there right now the way a 15,000 square foot home
stands. Somehow, in a long meeting that was last. Also, the two
members present thought that was a very good situation. He would
like the two commissioners who were on the prevailing side to
consider that. He thinks something cou18 come out that works for
this on both sides. Also, he thinks that it would serve the
�---- -';:;:,�'' neiqhbors, the site and the county well.
`'�':i• Child commented that he did consider that when he voted no on the
`�
application two weeks ago.
� Tuite called the question on the motion to overrule the chairman.
The motion passed with three yea votes by Tuite, Ethridge and Child
and two nay votes by Crowley and True.
Herron asked the Board to direct staff to amend the language in the
• resolution as to the way it was adopted. k�
��
It was the consensus of the Board that Mr. Herron's request would �'`
� be appropriate. 3
There being no further public commen�, Tuite closed the public
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMI5SIONERS 2 JDLY 27� 1993
I.
i I
�
. i. � ...._... ............. . ...:.._. ._. . .......... } Nrt.a,�::•
....... ...:....::. ..�.._ .. - . ._._. :. ..:,. ...�.....,.... ...... ...�..... . ... . .:.. :
{ •
�. ` 4 _
. .. (.:. '�.
0 � ,, .
\ � '
f
yF�� ,
:rKx. .
i;,�,.';• � .
;�i
K'
��.� • �� � ; . �.�: 1 =t `' � .:� :�, �, ;,� �,,,
_.l � It,tr.qn � >o � " , , .-.�V r ! i.-�r ���?: - ��,.,� . :'ti�.
� L` � .. �r
• �. � R , yi t�n '�� �.; «<.. � '^�. F;i
�..�:n.. {Air���j ��t � � . ,. Lx
�'*,� '-��''y ''t; . �ag � ;� � ,� y'� .��d �' S�
'�' ,� �'' ::�������r �?�!�y,r s,
. _ � ; „ '` . ' ._._zow_:�:�t.'t�>
� .
'�
__ `' �:
} comment section of the meeting. ' r
s! i..
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: None
j ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO AGENDA:
i�; Suzanne Konchan asked that a resolution approving a special use
�'.a permit requested by the Hard Rock Cafe be added to the agenda for �� -
consideration.
"' Child moved to add this item to last of the land use actions. With
�<''� a second by True, the motion passed unanimously.
s,
.i� CONSENT AGENDA• �'
',. ,
,.f;; APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JULY 12 AND JOLY 13. 1993
` LETTER OF INTENT FOR U3E AND PAYMENT FOR FEDERAL WILDFIRE RESOURCES I
j ON NON-AILDFIRE INCIDENT3 OCCURRING AITAIN PITKIN COONTY - MOTZON
' _ ' TO APPROVE �• ,
"i
i� RESOLUTION SUBMZTTING TO TAE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ?
�� A MAP INDICATING CHANGES TO THE COUNTY SYSTEM OF ROADS IIP TO
:# DEC$MBER 31 1992 - MOTION TO APPROVE
� Ethridge moved to approve the Consent Aqenda. With a second by :� '
FTrue, the motion passed unanimously. "
P
��� ° ADMINISTRATIVE PUBLIC HEARINGS ;
� ORDINANCE APPROVZNG CONV�YANCE OF PARCEL ADJACENT TO UTE CHILDREN�S
PARK - MOTION TO APPROVS
H '
John Ely, County Attorney, summarized this item as a request by the
-- - --- City to complete a pedestrian/bike trail along the Roaring Fork in
�•���`', the vicinity of the Ute Place Subdivision. The Board approved it
'L;;.^ on first reading on July 13 and no changes have been made since
that reading.
'�
' Tuite opened the hearing to public comment. There being no
comment, he closed the public hearing. ;:_
Child moved approval of the Ordinance approvinq the conveyance of I�
a parcel adjacent to Ute Children�s Park to the City of Aspen.
• With a second by Ethridge, the motioh passed unanimously.
A�
S�COND READ - ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING ACOUZSITTON OF THE MEYER
PROPERTY - MOTION TO TAHLE TO AUGUST 10, 1993 �
� �
Reid Haughey asked that this matter be tabled to allow time for a n
public notice.
j BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3 JULY 27� 1993
�
'
+ I .� _ ., _, _ _ . .._._ . :. __ t,.�.w.
�.,
_..,-.:... .:>.,v_. _ �..,
�
� , �
� �
Y r:h'� .
.. ::.. . _ �
�;�'�r. .
,,-�?
.:. !n �� � �;.i; � �!'�. ��� �4:i � �7 �1 �1�..°..,y } .i ���
'ZF I � �Y � � y�.. .. - r �L�tili �!"5,::,.�<< ' y�_ �, .
��" P'�b:�� � t�. � ff x,,. ; �.. �
C.': . - • }p �1!e y < SS11 � '�1'i
• ' ���✓ �7 la TiF.t'�t�s' ,��"' `���� r,
'�, . , tt.},�Y. .} � � .'!5 t: ��" r��� � .
. e1 Ns 4� i'� . r ) .�
•�'r� 'r6 . •;�"�����V` i`e°.�` .:a..��e `���!.� _ . . �'�.;,;43.'L�S�
,4,.
i
�
--_ _ z,
�'i
� Ethridqe moved to table and continue the public hearing until
;� August io, 1993. With a second by Child, the motion passed ;• .*
unanimousiy. '
�.�.
LAND USE PUBLZC HEARINGS
i
SECpND READING ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3-1.1 AND ADDING A NEW
SECTION 3-1 15 TO TAE PITKIN COUNTY LAND IISE CODE FOR THE PURPOSE
y'+ OF CREA2ING A NEW ZONE DIS2AICT (R-15A) AND AMENDING SECTION 302
1�'� TO ESTABLISH AREA AND BUI,R RE�UIREMENTS FOR THE R-15A 20NE DTSTRICT
'`� AND GRANTING REZONING TO THB MOUNTAZN VALLEY SUBDIVISION FROM R- �
t
��,i 15 TO R-i5A IN ORDER TO ALLOW MODERATE INCREASES IN THE FLOOR AREA
i:i OF THE HOMES WITHiN THIS SUBDIVISION -- MOTION TO APPROVE - Tim
Malloy, representing the Planning Office summarized this item as
an application which was last heaid at tlie June 29 meeting at which
•��� time the Board moved to forward this for second reading and ;
' �^;' directed staff to provide additional information with respect to ;
several questions. He referred to his memorandum outlining those (
questions and responses, and proceeded to review these with
. �„ commission member. A copy of this outline is made a part of this
' � record as EXHIBZT ��A°.
With respect to the Board's question as to what the effects and the
� impact would have to increasing the cap from 5�000 square feet to
5,500 square feet and as to how much additional square footage
� would result from increasing the bonus for duplexes from 15 percent
�' to 30 percent he referred to a two tables that he prepared which
��, summarizes numbers relative to this question. He proceeded to
��,!� � review these numbers with commission members. A copy of these
� tables are made a part of this record as EXHISIT ��B��.
�
� Ricic Neiley, representing the homeowners' association commented
� that he fee3s the numbers are pretty accurate with what they ;�
rePlect. He said the association feels that a 5500 square foot
___._ cap would be an appropriate cap, but they feel comfortable with a ':
:�•*`• 15 percent bonus.
:
, ~'~' Tuite opened the hearing to public comment.
�. Mick Ireland, representing Don Harris, requested that the Board
approve a 5500 square foot cap.
Don Crawford requested a 20 percent bonus rather than a 15 percent
banus. �
Evan Benning representing three of the homeowners, requested a 30 '�"
; percent bonus with a 5500 square foot cap. ��
� �=
� Dale Morris commented that he has a duplex on a Zegal duplex lot.
He said he thinks 30 percent would be �he correct figure.
A discussion ensued as to a clarification of whether the Planning
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 4 JULY 27, 1993
i
. �
�I
� , ._..
� . . . . _ . . . .:.;.:. . ...,� ..-.✓c..
_.
• � .., ..._.. _. .. . ..: .. .:. �. . . ,.�
_.:. � . , . .� . ...... - �., �'..
_ . ......_........ ... . .. .,. '. . J
� I . . � . . r � . .
/
,E�.s�'. . . , .
��}. . - '
�5�, �
-,�F�'.
ti -
`'"� � �;I,�. ,.. ' �.,,-y �) . , 1' :-� -;:= ' , r.� - '"
r,� � -j4i . < � �/ ` .: ., .
' , ` ��y � r.r '�„ "q _, ,m�„g . �',;
,
Y � U'.
. ., � � ��.�4 �7�� �)l,r f" .�46 � �2 ��N.e±� `�4C_ �1',f.
1',���� ,i �{..�,����4 .��f "� � " °�� � � j'r
�r7 � r , , .� - ` t r � 'f�
.. �Y..,_ �i� ��?�P� . -a"F {,y��� �y��,�� 7� { .
'S�q<- :;;.bna=.4.+ . �� k__VV�7'.aMG•' r � � a t
. . �r_ . . ... ._ . ....�..�t'S`c...1�11.� '�
�
__ +,
and Zoning Commission approved a 5,0�� square foot cap or a 5500 � '
square foot cap. �. ;..
i
Konchan advised the Board that the tape has been reviewed and the
motion was for a 5,000 square foot cap. �:
f'
There being no further comment, Tuite closed the public hearing.
��-
True moved to approve the ordinance of the Board of County �
';. Commissioners af Pitkin Countp amending section 3.11 reqarding the �
p rezoning of the Mountain Valley Subdivision from R-15 to R-15A.
\; His motion would haVe a 5500 square foot limitation and a 30
percent bonus for duplexes. Crowley seconded the motion. !
_ I',
Ethridge proposed a1� amendment Eor a 5000 square foot cap with a � '
� 15 percent bonus. With a second by Child, the motion failed with �
r two yea votes by Ethridqe and Child and three nay votes by Tuite, '
True and Crowley.
i
• Tuite called the question on the motion by True. The motion passed i, '
unanimously.
RESOLUTION PROHISITIN6 THE ACCEPTANCE AND PROCESSING OF LAND USE
`' APPLZCATIONS AND HUILDING PERMITS LOCATED IN THE RICHMOND
HILL/LITTLE ANNIE AREA - MOTION TO APPROVE Konchan summarized this
item as a second reading and public hearing of a resolution that
� the Board initially adopted on June 8th. Also, the Board
• � considered a second reading of a limitation to 30o square feet for
'��6, � the same planning area on June 15th and at that meeting, there were
� a number of changes to the ordinance which were made which she is
proposing to carry over into this resolution. They specifically
deal with certain parcels that they determined were appropriate to
exempt from the planning area which included lots within lega2ly
platted subdivisions, properties with vested site specific
,. .
__ development plans, properties that were adjacent to and served by
winter maintained county roads and a specific site owned by Lucy
Hibberd, which takes access off Castle Creek Road. Also, staff
added, for clarification purposes, to that emergency ordinance and
`� to this resolution as well, language that would override Article
� 7 of the existing code which deals with non conforming structures
and proposes language which is currently within the draft of the
revised land use code, which will be considered for first reading
1 later this evening. It basically allows property owners to
� reconstruct non conforming structures as a matter of right without
. going through any review process regardless of whether it is
destroyed by an act of God or purposely through demolition by the !w
owner.
,<
� Konchan advised the Board that the Planning and Zoning Commission g
did approve this resolution and the six members who voted for it
; did support the six month restriction. She said there was a
mistake reported on an article that the P&Z had originally �
C
HOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 5 JULY 27� 1993
i .
i
�i `
' i.
_.,:.. �,--... _ __. . __ __._ ._.._. .....__.
._,_.. ., ,
, .1.
9 ' ...
� � / '
� • �
�a. . 1
y:Y:�
t{�',�:�� ., - .
t
i+�
. 1
Z � � f r .1 �/-r �.':'r � ��i- ` � .�..Ir � .a,_,.�.
`�.�•} y:t I i.. ,.� �-r. '"1` �; !� iiJ Sr_.y' 1C-�x � �'+q7P6'
t �� r � . � u�� v r � t�r';
. . � �4 �;'v . � �.wi�.. ��rs5��i'�i ,��'• � _.�'wk��� ��
'u�� .__ ... '.et�..�+``u�' c�::�r������:'_..,`.... .,...'"tz` �.l`•.
��
� .
i
� /�j
._ R forwarded a split recommendation that half of them supported no 'Z>s
` � development and half of them supported an as is in terms of
regulation. She said the split was between whether �o allow ,..
moderate development of perhaps the 300 square foot range or no
development whatsoever. But for the public reaord, she thinks it �t.,�!
; might be helpful for that informati4n to be put forward.
Konchan said staff has drafted a resolution, it has been duly
- noticed and there were mailings to all the affected parcel owners
which they were able to track through the Assessor's records.
Tuite opened the hearing to public comment. .
, Buzz Cooper one of the owners in the Little Annie area commented �
;', that the planning staff has implied that there are 200 plus units ""�'%
that could be developed. He said the truth is much fewer than that
maybe 10 or 20 because the fact is, that five parties own most of
' the back of Aspen Mountain. He proceeded to review a map of the
':! area showing the ownership. He said Mrs. Paepcke, one of the
largest land owners, told him that she could think of no better use
of her property than for a park, given certain tax incentives.
i� Cooper said the p2anning staff supplied him with a list of the � '.
i' variance names that they had and sent notices out to and about two -
!' thirds of them were right. They literally listed Urschel as having r.
!t part o£ one claim. They have various other lots and pieces that
� they have left out entirely. There are people who own parts of
claims, but you can't build on certain parts of claims. He asked
� that the moratorium be put off until the owners can be talked to
• �F, � individually. Also, his family finds it better to work toward a
'�_� park. And sooner or later they will sue the county for four sites
t there.
� :.
i �.
He referred to an article in the Chicago Tribune where the Supreme � �,
Court awarded Lucas 1.5 million dollars of tax payer funds. Lucus ,.
in now going on a national hinge to write books, start national � .
_. organizations to find every county and every place that goes into a :. ,
� the takings market, and he thinks this county will make national � '
�l news based on this article.
��
`� Cooper summarized that he thinks there are other alternatives where � ,1
�. � everyone will win. �, .i
, �
' Gary Wright commented that he has eighti or ten clients who own
claims up in that area and they do not think the county's plan
�. '
dealing with this as an emergency and the moratorium is not the �
right solution. x �=
f Alan Schwartz appeared on behalf of the [Srschel Estate Property to
express their concern with regard to a moratorium being imposed. � �
{? He asked that the Board reconsider a moratprium or an alternative. �{t
it�.
�4�r.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 6 JULY 27� 1993 �!'I
,:i
/.
'j`:
' � .. .. - -: ... . ..:........ ._..____. . _ ..... . .._.._.,._ .. .,....�-,.,. �.,�_,
..._. .:.:.. ._.._ ......_<....... � .... . :...:, `'�'� :�i.
, .�....,r...c_ . .n�..:...::..... ..__:,,.:�... .. .
y � . '` t
. ..�,� �.��.
� �_
` ,
. . i
� '
Y.��� , _ . , , �
�:! _
��;+..
zAd
�
,: ' , .,
*1�} �,a.+'.�.: i � .0 . - , - ' _r y'1�v � �✓': r �l�F� � t ._�t � ..t. J`��.�tt' � � i:yi.'�.
.: . • � 7,. . �,ia. �t�A.����+ �r�y*ti.'�'; � `�'{ix �'.r • ������+t{4;i
. � +a ,'` .Ah. �.X�. �,.h�<� ..�.� r .:; ._, � a 1.�...i �i
.�� .� . . . � v1C'� L` `Mf n...G....,..�L..�� � .� .
�'�'�
''3
' - A representative of Mrs. Paepcke appeared to comment on her behalf �L'-
that she is concerned about building potential in the area and
} would like to see it remain the way it is. � . i
� � �
� Tuite closed the public hearing section of the meeting. �,, :=
, Konchan noted that staff did exclude all portions of the ski are
; permit for Aspen Mountain, and that has been detracted from the
� area affected by this resolution as well as the emergency
i
ordinance.
' Ethridge moved approval of the Resolution Restricting Acceptance j ,
�;: of Land Use and Building Permit Applications in the Richmond i
'i Hill/Little Annie Area as drafted with the amendments by staff. '
` Child seconded the motion. t '
r
Ethridge advised Mr. Cooper that the Board has every intention of �
talking to the landowners. The intent of this is tio level the ;
r� playing field to the extent they can so there is not di£ferent i
� interests trying to compete durinq the six month period, but the �
. Board certainly intends to meet with every landowner who is willing
' i to meet with them.
d
� Tuite commented that he does not think any decisions has been made _
on this. He knows the Planning and Zoning Commission is going to
qo through a series of public hearings on this to hear from the �
public. He says he has concerns regarding how many claims are `•
being dealt with because that number has changed almost every �
rt�;�, meeting, and he thinks that is something that needs to come out
'��'� this process at the very least and define the level of concern that
is being looked at.
Tuite called the question. The motion passed with there yea votes
by Tuite, Etriridge and Child and two nay votes by True and Crowley.
RESOLUTION DYRECTING TftE PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING ?
COMMIS3ION TO DEVELOP A NEW 20NE DISTRICT AND REGULATTONS FOR TftE
,�_z'cI LITTLE ANNIE SASIN/RICHMOND HILL RIDGSE PLANIiTNG AREA - MOTION TO
., ; APPROVE Cindy Houben summarized this item by commenting that at the
`\ last joint meeting of the Board of County Commissioners and the ;
� Planning Commission, the Board gave the P2anning Commission some �
specific direction in terms of the development of the regulations �;
for the Little Annie/Richmond Hill area. And in this resolution
she tried to outline what direction that she felt the Board did
give the Planning Commission.
� A discussion ensued with regard to other areas of the county and F�cs
� whether or not they should be cpnsidered along with the Little ; ,
IAnnie/Richmond Hill area. '
� f
It was the consensus of Commission members to address this area and
then move forward with a total policy for rural and remote areas
4�.
BOARA OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 7 JULY 27� 1993 4;.
i
i
i
�
�.,_ _ .__ _. ..._..�.:
. �........... .._,:...:._.. __. .. ....._ .. . . . .__. .__., _ .... ..,.._._ _.... .. �. .. . . ... �r&m.e��
. � ._.. . t; � .
. � �;.: :--,
�
1 - '
�
.c'fse�'. •
f{�,.i.„ . . .
.�x
��:
� .. :. ,,a, , , ,
�.� , , ,.
s, t �+ � l �.I_.. ...: ;. . . -. �(�. �� � .y : .';�.:i.,
r �
�.f �t.i�1 . � ,f, �. . .L�. -� � � . . ��.
p:' . . . , .l: i� .� fi� r�y. �E'C`' ... ,� � �'' t .
t �� � -T.. � � ��'r � � ��i f�r
`t'7��tr�� 4ts �.lw�iy�.1 f1 ..�Y � '_ ... . .� .n`.�. ����� .�'#
, ... '.t�l. � . .''�S!!Y �i�x �k 1e:+���7���F��^. � tit. � �.
'�F p � ��•-^n.r' i :i;�'.``�`r��
: �.
I•L�
.. _. � �•�f, �
� in the County. '
• -;.
Tuite opened the hearing to public comment. �.
1
� i: �:
� Gary Wright voiced his opposition to the proposed resolution. He
F said he is particularly concerned with Item G. regarding the si2e
� of the lots and the 300 square foot criteria. He also thinks the
bonifide residential use needs to be left.
;�%'
Buzz Cooper reiterated his earlier comments in voicing opposition �`
�� to the proposed legislation. !
� `
Another member of the public voiced his opposition to the proposed
`! resolution. ��-,
Ethridge moved approval of the resolution as drafted. Child
6 seconded with an amendment that under A. the language be changed i
to ��access ta historic public roads access and rights-of-way.��
Ethridqe accepted this amendment. The motion passed with £our yea �
. ` votes by Ethridqe, TTUe, Child and Tuite and one nay vote by
' � Crowley. � '
�
LAND USE PUBLIC HEARINGS
� ; -
€ RESOLIITION GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE �
� BUTTERMILK MASTER PT.AN TO ALLOW FOR THE RELOCATION OF THE EXISTINC3 #
j MAIN BQTTERMILK RESTAURANT - MOTION TO APPROVS AS AMENDED - Tim � .'
�a f Malloy, Planner, summarized this item as an application, submitted � `
g�,�� by the Aspen Skiing Company, to request an amendment to the 198G i
Buttermilk Master Plan to allow them to relocate the main ,
Buttermilk Restaurant to the second floor of the Vic Braden � .
Building. He said the project is driven by the fact that they are �..
3 actually relocating lifts one and two and the lift relocation has 7,
� been approved by the Forest Service. Ae proceeded to review a site �� -_„
plan showing the proposed lift location. �
........___—_- _ N .
� Malloy proceeded to review the issues associated with the !+
`` application as follows: ; �
��, Malloy said the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Planning `
Office recommend approval o£ the Master Plan Amendment as k � `
summarized in the draft resolution. � �,
�
� Tuite opened the hearing to public comment. There being no
i
comment, he closed the public hearing.
� Child moved approval of the resolution granting approval for a ` w`
minor amendment to the Buttesmilk Master Plan to allow for the �
� relocation of the existinq Main Buttermilk Restaurant with �� "
Iconditions. With a second by Ethridqe, the motion passed ��:
unanimously. '
�';
�.,
„
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSZONERS 8 JULY 27� 1993
`?,-.
� -
� �;.�:i
. .,�.::o.... ..-.��.... ._ � . . ..... . .. .. . ._ . . _._. ._. ...._....._ .. . _....,_. ......'_._ ....,._...... _.._.....
. - ��::, _ .. ,. _ .. l, -. _. .e �
,�_ .
. ' . .�..t:', . '
� . ' ' I _ � � � • .
i • I
ul.
�Y� '
�. .�'Y •
l��,A�:M' � . � .
^.���:
:: r �i^ .:� ' �:.
. ; . ' t � tf .. � 't :� �
n`' . � , , �^-+1 J ..!'.;r s `4 .r.;A6�. ,. �gy.
�T'! r-: 1 -;J�i�. .��. ,�7^; t: ���..y.� Z 9.', �' ..1r�Vt ''�' a,! tCtTi��'f
,��i .��(;.e, . . , t �y " � t (
1��_ j?"r�. ta i.�.��. '^k,�` T ., U G ^ f�,�� °T y
. ' L }d ' t�e �'". ��� � � t ' ` `��Z ,.
����e� 4N5 e��+�:..iit-, y ' �{f�_�: ��74�►i;'3�v. . ,. .. . . . ... ���` '+�I�Y�
� w�
l.
��,' RESOLUTION GRANTING DETAILED SUBMZSSION APPROVAL FOR THE MCCAHE �.r�
� RANCH LOW IMPACT SUBDIVISION - MOTION TO APPROVE �' �
/' Ethridge proceeded to read a letter from Chuck Brandt, of Holland �_,.'
- and Hart with respect to his not voting on this application.
Ethridge responded to the letter by stating that he believes it is
important for him to be consistent on this issue. He has not voted
�.:
; on McCabe. And although he understands the context of the letter, � �
`{ he does not think it would be appropriate for him to suddenly
declare that he does not have a conflict when in fact, he has said '
that he has in the past or feel that he does. In the interest of �
'� consistency and fairness, he will not participate unless his vote �
�� is required as previously discussed. k, ;
%� Herb Klein, representing Harry Collins, asked Bob Child if he could
� fairly vote on this application?
,; i
�`: Child responded that he thinks he can be objection that he does not !
a have a problem with that. (
f
• ,? Jim True stated tha� his wife works for Herb Klein who is the
� �s attorney for the applicant's representative, but he does not think �. `
it is a direct conflict. �
i
� Mary Lackner summarized this item as an application, submitted by t
;� Harry Anthony Collins, and Judith Allen Collins, for detailed ; .
. submission review for a low impact subdivision in the Castle Creek $
ivalley. The Board reviewed this application at general submission �
� �� ; and at this time, the new additives to the project are caretaker � :
`_ty� dwelling units, a PMH rezoninq of the total of five units and two � :
£ of those are on the JH McCabe Tract Subdivision and three of them
are on the low impact subdivision parcel. The Planning and Zoning
� Commission looked at this application and have recommended denial ��"� �
for several reasons. One was that the proposal was not consistent �i.
with the low impact subdivision and purpose, they felt it was out ;i.. .
_ of character with the valley, they felt the project was destructive
to and does not preserve agricultural Iands, and they don't feel � �
that it is in the interest of the county to rezone the units on
.. this parcel to PMH to avoid the density requirements of the code i .j
`� of the low impact subdivision. 5he said as a matter of � ,
. housekeeping, the Planning Commission did approve three dwelling
� units; the duplex unit on Tract 9 and one dwelling unit on the low '�. 'i
impact subdivision site to be consistent with the original Jii
� McCabe Tract Subdivision that was approved in 1980. �
k
� Lackner said staff has reviewed the detailed submission application ` '�
� and they feel that pursuant to the general submission conditions s
the applicant has adequately addressed all of those items. i
However, there are a couple of items that they don't agree with the � y
� applicant on. That was the first one being the caretaker dwelling �t�.
unit. Staff had recommended at qeneral submission that those units ��t
be attached to the barn or attached to the principal dwelling unit i��,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER5 9 JULY 27� 1993
J ,��
�
#
� . � - .. _ . _ .. �, . _ . . �. -,._.. .w:::�
� � .
` � .
• ,
��. .
.�'�r;-rF.
,...,�F. . � .
;��.r,
o�'k.
.
'�'4�' �. 'n � . ';r�t .�� � , rt! � _ij ��~� �L` t�„�:> � f l^ r��.?k�,i'..
+'�� . � � i il� ;�� �r � �.
s: I S t
.r fn�,.0 l f:. �ji(�� Yf y�f x1�t,���• � �i!
.9 � L.�.��. � . � _.?�.��_ . ��SJ1�i?!Ay' ,�.'�4a�_ariw . . ... . }'4
�t:
so as to reduce land disturbance in an area that is used for �-
agriculture. The applicant wants the ability to have free standing �°� •
---- units with the barn or principal building envelopes.
I •'-
I� .;.
Lackner said the second item that had significant discussion at the �
general submissian hearings before the Board had to do with the �.. '
;; agricultural and non development easement. Staff has reviewed the
`<; 1980 record very thoroughly in that they do see that there is a lot
of discussion in the minutes about non development easement and ' -
agricultural easements and feel that those terms are used ��:'�.
;; interchangeably in that the resulting acreage that was set aside '
by that JH McCabe Tract Subdivision did represent what was put into i
the record which was a little over 260 acres in non development and ,
` in agricultural easements. She said unfortunately there was no
� detailed submission resolution for that 1980 hearing so it is
'_! difficult to piece together what actually was formulated in 1980. 'c';
After the review staff has done on the detailed submission �
application and looking at the general submission conditions, they j
< ;± feel they can recommend approval of the applicatian with the i
conditions as noted in the memorandum with some minor changes oE
wording. (
� • � Herb Klein, representing the applicant, commented that the scope i
� of review tonight is detailed submission. They are no longer at -
w the conceptual level. He said this is a low impact subdivision.
� The 8oard heard general submission and determined that it met the
criteria of low impact subdivision. He said the reason he mentions
this is that the P&Z recommended denial based upon findings that
this wasn't a low impact subdivision, it is out of character and
q all kinds of things like that which were all general submission
� �!�� issues that were put to bed that were resolved. Also, the requests
the board made at general submission with respect to relocating �.
some of the lots have been done. He said the only additional thing �.
the are askin for which is `'
Y g , provided for in the general ; ,
submission conditions, is the Board approved an attached caretaker � ' .
unit. But if they want detached, they have to come back at � :
_ � detailed submission through a hearing process to ask for that. So
- — they are asking for detached caretaker units which will be located � `
'' within the building envelope. � `.
:i; F -
� With respect to having the units detached, he said they will have ? •�
� the opportunity to create a lower profile. If they are attached, � `1
� the tendenc is oin to be ut them on to of a �
y g g p p garage or put them ;� '
on top of some other portion of the house. And they think this �=
will end up being less visually impactive. !'
With the new plan and the relocated Tract A and the elimination of �:�
tihe use of an additional 700 feet of roadway, Klein said that this �
application uses one and a half percent o£ agricultiural lands. And
the code requires not more than 10 percent of productive land be � �
� us ed. (��,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 10 JULY 27� 1993 :,j4�q.
�.� 1�
r. :;. •
� tt-
� I�.
. C,_ ,w
. , ,, __ _,._.. __- _ ---..... _._.___.,_ . ..__ __--._ .__. ..._.......__ _ ____...__
w.... . ... ...... _......_ *� .
� �,
. �_,
� � .
.
, . `
. .
. .fi��� . . _ ' � .
�-'};4'„?: . . .
t��
i--
�..___._.,�....�..-.�.��._
�: F:�..
�.:. . t ,,:,� �,; i . r` ,�:_��' 1.-�� :5.--
�� . . . _ �;:�'" �4C�iU ��/' ;r' r��� t��fr h�N.t� � � �
' .= 4 � � ��1
j • t : ��i �� �c� � ' M, ,�,
1.. ��, n�r�. �:�� � , j'wn I � ����);`��s� '��' � � � d � �. .. k-t�.;.��.�•,
wI +,5�� p"'i'. a.v..�},��:
� .��3'.AR'�E .'�.�yWS..,��,� .'pS:d. AI��tb!Yrr....Yr.. .�A�:Ys.�'
r t
J
!I
�,r�
-_._ ' Klein proceeded to review other aspects of their application and i s
�� his arguments as to why the project is low impact in nature such { ,:�'
i as clustering, maintaining the aqricultural operation, preserving !
and enhancing the character of the val2ey, and the fact that they
are sterilizing the ranch from future develapment.
� With respect to the P&Z vote, Klein said there were two votes
� against it on conceptual issues and two votes from Hatfield and
� Krazoff voted on it saying they didn't think it meant the intent
� of the low impact subdivision, was out of character with the valley�
and destroys aqriculture which in his opinion is absurd. �
With respect to the particular conditions of approval, he said he '� �
� just has a couple of minor comments.
Klein said with respect to Condition No. 1, paragraph 1 c and 1 d,
; he would like a little bit more flexibility in the language to deal
� with what income categories and what qualifications there will be
for residents. He said in the other approval Unit B was low, C was
moderate and the duplex was moderate.
,
• , A discussion ensued with regard to this issue. F -
a
� It was agreed that staff could discuss this to be brought back a
� little iater in the hearing.
Klein continued by referring to Condition No. 9. with respect to
� them submitting a landscaping plan. He said they have submitted �
�g such a plan. Therefore, he would like the condition to reflect
- �i►��.f� that the landscaping plan has been submitted as approved.
� • .
� Lackner said she was not aware of a new detailed submission � ;
� landscaping plan being submitted she only found a genera]
submission plan. But she wi12 resolve that with Mr. Rlein. �
Tuite opened the hearing to public comment. �
Harry Collins "commented that they he does not want to rehash the �
entire thing as they have several times before. But he and his •.� ,
•� family have been in the valley for almost 25 years and are very � , '',
��, interested and concerned about the valley, they think they have
> done a good job of running the ranch and conducting the ranching
operations, they think they have done a very good job of developing
the plan for this low impact subdivision which was approved last
August. He said the have managed to preserve agriaultural and they tit-•
� have managed to develop a very thoughtful plan that not only
� concern the agriculture and the ranching operation but also took �t:
into the concerns of the neighbors and most particularly the ��
� McBrides. They have made numerous changes in the plan trying to ,,.;.
improve it from their point of view and the result of that is that � �;�,�
� their entry into their ranch is now a valley that is totally ; ;!;:
;';j i,`
SOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 11 JULY 27, 2993 (;<Jj' �
`:i`i..�..,...:�'.
14•�(!%,:'r.�
I ii'.t
� '.�
i
, . ; ,�t���''.
. � . . ,.,- ...__. ......... __...__ . _..._.. . . .
....-_. ....... _.�... .._..� _ . __........ .:._,.. .,.. . ___. , . .. . ._ ... . ...._-_..__....... . .:.1
. r.. � ..- , � . \; .. •l�. �
. � � t � � y � . � .
\ ''
� !
.,�,�C."�� .
A:s .
�.,.�..�%r� .
�,N^1
'��'�J" s J� � ...1..'� � r.:l�,- . �r� � � ..?; '���'� �� x� � �.(` + }r pi';
.}.� �-.�t . � ��a j" - �L�� i l� �=r i � �.��g �{v� . .�`.,�y '.,f :ei
::�,..Y�:'� - �'� _.. v7a . �'. 4. .:.���. �� a.. �..�_r�..i�.�.."'�����b,l�}� -
� ',�(.
i.
; r �
�`';`��'
,..
sterilized so they have 100 percent protection in triat valley as I ��'
they come through his ranch, and they also have sterilized about ;�;'%
--'� 80 percent of the common boundaries through their two properties. 6-'.�y
+; And the only issue is some minor view ridgeline issues from perhaps +`
a half a mile distance on their ranch and they have made ahanges L -`' Tj
'� to try to accommodate that by adding landscaping and so on. '" ' '.
{:.�' , � r.
Collins summarized that they have been in the process for two years 4��'?�,;,:-
and have spent over $200,000 in engineering and legal fees, and he -
would hope that the Board find the recommendations of the planning `��,''�
staff and follow those in terms of their detailed submission and �''`'� '
that they have met all the conditions of general submission �
approval of about a year ago.
Don Smith, Ranch Manager proceeded to give a run down on what they z
i'3 do in terms of an agricultural operation. He said he has been on ty
the ranch since 1979. What they have tried to do, is take the ;Y,
existing ranch facilities and try to use them in a way to preserve
the agricultural character of the land. They have the finest hay
� fields in the valley and they produce between 350 and 400 tons of
': hay during the year. Some of the hay gets fed to the horses and
the remainder of the hay enables them to keep their herd of
� registered cattle there year round.
• `� �
;�
Tuite opened the hearing to public comment.
;; Chuck Brandt, representing the McBride family, commented that the
?; applicant would like the Board to believe that their role tonight
� is to only look at the conditions of general submission approval
T but he said that is not what the code says. He proceeded to review �� •
�" with commission members sections oP the code referencing general
� 4i� submission as well as detailed submission criteria. He emphasized
''=� that the applicant has to finally show conformance with the �
� policies and regulations of the code. He said you always go back �. .
to your policies, so you are not locked into just the conditions. �
!: '
With respect to the Planning and Zoning Commission, they are
suppose to consider the submission and make a recommendation to the
------' Board in the same manner and subject to the same time limitations '
as specified with the Planning Commission recommendation as sighted '
in Section 3-34(c). He thinks the code is very clear and the Board
is not hand cuf£ed at all.
. � �
\'` � Tim Whitsitt, County Attorney, responded that Brandt has correctly � '�
sighted the provisions of the code and he thinks the general � ,} '
policies of the code are always at issue. If in fact it is the � `
Board's decision that there are general submission problems with "
this provision that there may be a requirement that this be
j referred back to a general submission step once again. .
I u;
John McHride, an adjoining neighbor, reiterated his objection to �
� the project. He said he feels there is a misuse of the low impact `':
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 12 JIILY 27� 1993 {'�
; �i`�
(...i.;
�•: -
,:t_.. .
i
..._ ....�.�..__ ,... _..__. . . _ ..
...: :....�.�...,... ._:,. ...._.....,..___.__.._.. . . � --.....__.__ .... . _ . a...
..._.. - �:... y�._�.�. . .:�;•... 90AWS
� . . _ . �'�..tr;.
, . ' . 1: .. •�
, •
\ • ' .
� �
/ ' ,
f,��,� ' ' , .
<<�. Y. . -
��A•
t��� � .:i I J. , � s.r. -. . 7 � �il. �;:� �1 I ',� � i �, i
� � r �� ,�� �� r '-ir � rr�: ti : ,�..:
�'� � � � r 'Ii ..- �t{ a`'p '+- qe.
. k ' , � �I� . �` � � �_'. ''�.�T"r
�� '� � J�ii . r i� fl:� 't4.i*� t � �
. .��'��� -,� . ;,c�'�x�,,�'F{ �;,��.�- � �, Y 'r;�,K,�. k�`aF �'�'+�4��r�
K. ::a�,F...: r'i.�_'�R}_t�r'. ,:''�ywyTf'4'StY�
:c•
i q,
J
� • �• •
subdivision regulation. ��. �.r"
` Other members of the McBride family also expressed their objection � ' t
� to the proposal. They also felt that the project was not low 1, _
impact in nature. �'"''' 'f
�::•..
Tuite Closed the hearinq to public comment.
Crowley moved approval of the Del:ailed Submission of the Low Impact
application as conditioned. True seconded the motion. !`'
:� Crowley proceeded to clarify the conditions as follows: ;
i
section 5 allowinq the caretaker employee dwelling units to be
attached or detached within the building envalope. . •
Lackner commented that with reqard to Condition 1(a) we sYtould add �
PMH Onit A, H and C and the duplex unit. �
• ;; Item C should be PMH units shall be restricted to Category i I
� guidelines. i
' i
f; item C defined that the duplex unit is going to be moderate and t -
± that Unit C is a moderate unit.
x
i Modified at second reading to be clarified to be either 2 or 3.
� { All residents shall be qualified by the Housing Office, and comply
`i� with the housinq authority guidelines.
1 �
� All the other conditions as they exist. i .
R
True aqreed with this. ;
� � ., '
__ _ Crowley moved to amend Section 5 to say that the applicant is .
allowed to provide caretaker dwellinq units pursuant to Section 3- �,.. -
8.13 attached or detached at their discretion. With a second by
True, the motion failed by two yea votes by Crowlep and True and
`� _ two nay votes by Child and Tuite. � '
� [ .i '
True moved to add Section 5 as pfieviously wXitten. With a second i! i
by Crowley, the motion passed unanimously. � "
�.
Crowley commented that a part of the motion a landscaping plan �
shall be submitted for County review. True accepted this to his �
� second. p �_
� � •
Tnite called the question on the mption. The motion carried with 3 ; .?
� three yea votes by Crowley, Tuite and True and one nay vote by � �
Child. �l!
�:,
FIRST READ — ORDINANCE APPROVING PMH REZONING FOR THE MCCAHE RANCH Si':
;:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 13 JULY 27� 1993 i ;
I'j'
� ' - i�.�-::.
i ;,-�''
�`1:'
. .... . �. .. .. .... . ._. .. .. ... ... . . .. . . ...,:... _....�.:. �:�
. . ..�..._.. . . _ . _, ... .. .. .... . .. . . .. . .. ._ ..
'
1 . . . . " . . . ..
..cTi._s�' � . � . •
��` ., . .
.�j-.
�_.
k 1 .
i`..- �: 1 }. '
1 �.,.' ' _" i � i,: :a� , iz}•4. f S.v�r `� , :��,.fo�'..r yl��r�
'1�� . , T • 1�y�{ 'ti ��r .,r f � ^ �Z'i
� . 'j, x . � �7� FIr! r'SP4 �'�•' • x � LL
� ��yvj.,. .0 �a.�. '•� 7:.
� � . . ,��- ,°i!c b'-` - ..�M��� V. ,�`6:�'���.....',�w..:.:.��.Yw,r . _ . :;'. .
?
'" MOTION TO APPROVE AND SET FOR SECOND READING ON SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 �r
' j:
� Crowley moved approval of first reading of the ordinance approvinq �_ ,..
PMH rezoning as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission, ; ;
and set for second reading on september 14, 1993. With a second
by True, the motion passed unanimously.
=j APPROVING TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP LIODOR LICEN3E FOR THE MEREDITA
STORE RETAIL LIOUOR LICENSE MOTION TO APPROVE - Lisa MacDonald,
Deputy County Clerk summarized this item in her memo, as a transfer
of ownership for the Meredith Store formerly the Ruedi Pan Store.
`i The applicants are Betty Lou Nielsen and Larry Woolley.
. �..,1
Ethridqe moved approval of the transfer of ownership. With a
'; second by Crowley, the motion passed unanimously.
�
FIRST READING - ORDINANCE AMENDING PITKIN COUNTY LAND USE CODE - !
MOTZON TO APPROVE AND SET FOR SECOND READING ON AUGUST 16, 1993 -
Suzanne Konchan commented that the Board has been distributed
copies of the latest draft of the Land Use Code. It has also been t
. published in the Aspen Times and it has been noticed for a public
- f} hearing on August 16th. Staff is recommending that you approve by
;, first reading the revised land use code and to schedule second
reading for August 16th at 1:300 p.m. at the Pitkin County Library
;; meeting room.
�
« Ethridqe moved approval of first readinq of the revised land use
� code and set for second readinq and public hearinq on August 16,
. �� t, 1993. With a second by True, the motion passed unanimously.
~�` � RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR TALL TALE FZLMING -
� MOTION TO APPROVE - Konchan summarized this item as an
� application, submitted by Tall Tale Productions, for a temporary
use permit for the filming of a motion picture at three locations
in the Crystal River Valley. The filming needs include
construction of temporary structures, filming support trailers and
----- a variety of outdoor shooting. The primary filming is proposed at �,
* the Filoha Meadows site, where a wooden house will be temporarily •'
�""'�' constructed for both inside and outdoor filming. !
�
�� Konchan said she has two changes to the conditions of approval.
With regard to condition No. 9, she has changed that to reflect
that she be the contact person. Secondly she recommends an I'-
additional condition about all material representations by the �
applicant.
Konchan proceeded to review the issues associated with the 4,;:•;
application.
� Ethridge moved approval of the special use permit for the Tall Tale =
Filming Production as amended. with a second by Child, the motion �
E
passed unanimously.
HOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 14 JULY 27� 1993
� ;
i.:
/ � .
1 �
, � _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _
. . . w s,...
- _ . _ _ _ � ,
. • � ...5. '�- .
� �
� �
�
4l�` . •
,CY; •
���P
(tY�~.„ '
t"�• ' '
��k
��+� .. ��r.�i° t �-��,.�� � � . ��h, '�^ .�S��, a„�-1��� s y�.. :� ,!:� E � �.�:�I�{�.r .�" 1 ���:�.;:r � �' �iF,`;.
(� k� . �.� �.
K2 . , 1{ . r{ �': � . ,��'
� �4 i i
� , . � 1:'� , , j,7 M �'i�is r�'� "'G,�. ,. . ���� �'
^��� a i
. .. !1'}�4" � � ..r�QSc.��` i.. +.,i'.' �.���`sY.N�- .
�Si
�
� j.
� �i
- 71'r
R£SOLUTION APPROVING TEMPORARY U3S PERMIT FOR THE HARD ROCK CAFE -
;; MoTioN TO APPROVE Konchan said this request is being made by the
Hard Rock Cafe for a temporary use permit to hold a special event � �'
at the base of Aspen Highlands on August 7th from early morning to `
early evening and will include a run, a bike race and a rock '.•
concert. (�-.
�•':_: .
�; Crowley moved approval of the temporary use permit for the Hard i;,`
,� Rock Cafe. With a second by True, the motion passed with four yea �° �
. � votes by Child, True, Tuite and Crowley and one abstention by
Ethridge.
� FIRST READ - RESOLIITION ADOPTING ADDITIONAL CONTROL MEASURES AND ;
- CONTINGENCY CONTROL MEASURES FOR TAE ASPENIPITRIN COUNTY FM10 STATE 1�-.
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (3IP) I
Ethridqe moved approval of first reading and set for second reading i
�,s and public hearing an Auqust 10, 1993. With a second by True, the �
. motion passed witlf four yea votes by True, Tuite, Ethridqe and �
Child and one nay vote by Crowley.
�
, Y £ .
E RESOLUTZON AFFIRMING THEIR HISTORIC POSITION ON THE FOUR-LANING OF i
HYGHWAY 82 - MOTION TO APPROVE - Tuite said this resolution {.
reaffirms the previous position of the Board of County {
Commissioners that any four-lane of Highway 82 through Snowmass
Canyon be on the same side as the existing road right now.
� Ethridge moved approval of the resolution. With a second by Child,
� the motion passed uaanimously. � �
=fy. � _".
ADJOURNMENT: True moved to adjourn the meeting. With a second by
Child, the motion passed unaaimously. �
.
Resp ctfully submi ted,
�. .
- ---- �' ��1��C� ` �� � ..
';:;i Je�anette Jones;j �,
: e�lerk to the Board of County Commissioners 3:
$�
`•�` �'�`
� .
x �
�
�.
� •� -
� �,
�l.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMM28SIONERS 15 JULY 27� 1993
�''
i . �w�'�`.
� _..:,:�.>.Y. �...,_.:. .._ �..._.__. --.._.�._ ..--°---___ ___---_.--- ..,_....: __.....
� _. ..._ ._�-_. - , 1 ��� �
� . �, .:'.
� ' .
. . i
�:?�• - ' ., �
(�V�'
ti�
• 1
`�Y 5 . �I � ��{"��+ ( }r� r � f.t�I.'
�. .'��Rh i �..�. ' <Y}�.. . f j{ .b�r f i ''!�(�!'k � �� J�:.� � \.j-� � � +.{ .
����;� i0'���%'� t�1�':�, � . r - ,�'-.o- . t: . i��n'Y'��r �I.tiIT}t.�r'.re,��..�� ..i� tl�. ..'r �._
f' .�., i
}.�`,:+�� . , �.,� ; , ;.. !,r„ ��1�j� s _ . ,.
'{a �t � y:�
' � . �7Ye'.�� 'te�"!i�}H4 ..r ., - _ ,.:s:.. _ .
x. �saY:..a Y ...nl;���7��. �„3�.
���ti
',
.1�r'
_ - - - rive.
�`; IS&IIES: This case was last heard at the June 29, 1993 Board of , '"
;; County Commissioners meeting. At that time, the Hoard moved to �:< •.��
?; continue the public hearing to the July 27th regular meeting, to ��� `
��; allow staff time to conduct further analysis on the impacts of
several additional alternatives. Staff was directed to address the
��; f.ollowing issues: � '.
�t..
� la. How many lots would be affected by raising the cap from �?_•
� �� 5,000 to 5,500 square feet? �';
7 �
� Response: There are (14) lots that would benefit by such
'` an increase in the cap. Al1 but one of these lots are
s, located in filings 2 and 3. of the 14 lots, 4 are duplex .
:i
� ��
�. -�
' St
�
BONRD�F C0.COt��hTH'S
PITKVN COUNTY ..•
Public���4y 3�`;h4�
� �tQ, Oato:����� `
�� �
' `�` Sub;ect: ��.--rK--�q-d �. � �:
• r..h M0. _..---Tl..-----'_"� �.
\ . �
_ ��t f'
`�`>! �i�
`\ . ` �j
,`, ; _ ;
. � '�!i.
�. ..
�.x=W `.;�� -
, -__ � �,. ;
ti. :
s.,= �+
�. ;.
. . . . : . ;s�'
� . . ' . � . . . . . __i u�
� . . . . . ' ,_��
. . .. , , ._Y�� �� �
� � .. . . 'e;'
. . . . . . . ��fi ,
. � � . � ' � z S;
� .... -�1�:.id4
h
���3
i
/� . . ... -��i`��' ; �1-.'
, � -. � ..���..��...�- ......_.. ...._..�..,..._.__ ............ .... ... . 1 .�`
� . �l_ �.._ y.:i;r:w-�f.:.�a�:..0 �u++�+-'.."�.�.+.:..-.�....r�.�.--..�.�<.�.�-_.:,.,..�.::..��.w •. . . . 4���is.p�
� . .. - . � . . �. .. . . _ -. \
�:1 .. . � , .' � � . - . . . . .
I . . . . , - . � �. . . . . . . . - . � . . . .
1 • ,
;
_ � .
, .. . �
�': � _
. � � ilFi�.:... ._ . . . � .. . ,
����. � . . . . . . . .
'�'�y'' n
�',�
. � �
,: � �, � ,�,i.
'ti ' ' , ' - z t� � '-�.=� `x t �1qX
�! i'��i 1 � . � � . 5 P �i� � .' r�f ,� finy�� J hjTi��l
� _. . . . , 1v. "' 'i! r r7
. ``� � .. J?Il j�l:4,h ,�'��'y'?����� ��� � 5 ��M1 :{� {Y f,1
.1:�9it',N . ..Ha...'�c���f.-�.4� r.....,`i"� ... �.. �._:ii�� _� �j�� � .
� ' `\ �'L�:M1'1
� '��
�- -..,.:. _ . � . . _. 3
. . ,.:
__._ ' ��:
, . i .
t ';..
'Y lots, which due to the 15 percent bonus, could have 1 '�
structures that would exceed 5,00o square feet. If the
bonus were raised to 30 percent, 7 duplex lots could have -
structures that would exceed 5,000 square feet. Changing
. the bonus from 15 percent to 3o percent would also `
increase to 17., the number of lots having the potential
for structures over 5000 square feet.
lb. How much additional square footage would result from I '
�, raising the cap from 5,000 to 5,50o square feet? �
Response: The total additional square footage that could �J �
be oonstructed in the Mountain Valley Subdivision if the
cap were increased from 5,000 to 5,50o square feet would
=� be 5,117 square feet. This reflects the 14 lots that
exceed 5,000 Square feet with the duplex bonus at 15
percent: Sf the duplex bonus is raised to 30 percent then
a total of 6,199 square feet (sum of increases on 17
� - lots) could be built under the 5,500 square foot cap.
;(
2a. How many �ots would be affected from raising the cap to t
� 6000 square feet? �
� Response: Raising the cap to.6,00o square feet would �` ;
; provide additional benefit to 8 of the 14 lots discussed + '
� t in item #ia above (assuming a duplex bonus of 150): If '
:� � the duplex bonus were increased to 30 percent, 2 more ;
���� lots (lots 34 and 80) or a total of 10 lots would benefit i �
r by raising Che cap to 6000 square feet. '•I
� 2b. How much additional square footage would result from �. .
! raising the cap to 6000 square feet? ' !� �
r
- --- Response: Raising the cap to 6,000 square feet would
. allow an increase in floor area (over the 5,000 sf cap)
of 8,424 square Peet, assuming the 15% duplex bonus. This
represents Che potential increase in £loor area for the
�� entire Mountain Valley subdivision. If the duplex bonus
� is raised to 30�, the potential square footage (over the ;; "
! 5,�00 sf cap) for the Subdivision would then increase by �
� 2,424 square feet to 10,848 square feet. �
s`' . • n
3. How much additional square footage would result from ;�:;
' increasing the bonus for duplexes from 15� percent to 30
� percent. � ' -_
1 4 �-
� j Response: increasing the bonus for duplexes from 15 �.';
? percent to 30 percent wou2d allow the typical duplex lot �`
� (15,000 to 18,000 square feet) an additional 525 square ;,���,
feet of floor area (over'the 15� bonus). Increasing the
; bonus would allow an additional 11,391 square feet of
building in the Mountain Valley Subdivision under the
2
'1
/
.
. .....:_..:_:.. ........._............... .. ... . . .. . . ... .. . . .. .. . . . .. . . . .. .. . �,f'�'�
� `.
• l
� I
1 /
.�a}a . •
�',T d�
�.r.`.,, •
�..�:.:
;'�a
H
�..�,..�_...__ _ _ _
' . . .'sl l �a ..�ry. � y'�i�bb��Yl:.
- : ' !a! �.��� r �vt.�u r i _.,4t4��A..�'. t ; >��� t,�. : �t
�� c �2};; �51iV� �<il'y��,��f73�..�. � � ,�
r ��
5�,'�`r �Y,> (� 1`'a'�t'r ?�•�r, rr�.�` e p' �: . t �1 y� 1�31° f � L�.
�r �k �.MF� . . - � . �. �J-��. _.'ttr.�c. _..,..... �
p w..... .. . . � � _r<.- fi.i,.. ♦.
`i�+:�,:_ -�. . ��t
` ` 5,000 square Eoot cap. tinder the 5,500 square foot cap
! an additional 1,777 square Peet or a total of 13,168
squara feet couZd he built in the Subdivision.
,a
'j Under the current FAR (,16), most of the duplex lots in
the Subdivision can accommodate structures in the 2,400
:; to 2,600 square foot range. Under the proposed ordinance :`
{; amendment (15� bonus and 5,00o sf cap) , most of the �
� �� �-:�: duplex lots in the Subdivision would be allowed to build f'�
�d; up to 4,025 sguare feet. This is an increase of �
approximately 60 percent over the existing situation. For
�� the typical duplex lot, increasing the bonus to 30
��. percent would allow a 4,55� square foot structure. This
�> translates to a floor area ratio of .2S to .30. The 15 i
i.�
.� percent bonus results in a .22 to .28 floor area ratio
'�' for the same size lots.
,.'� '
- �ra The information summarized above is also presented in tabular form
2M
;,:� in the attached figures 1 and 2. Figure 1 is an analysis of �
���' increasing Che cap from 5,OU0 square £eet to 5,5DQ and 6,000 square ;
feet. Figure 2 summarizes the numbers relative to increasing the �.
� duplex bonus from 15 percent to 30 gercent. 1
:E �
r� RECOl4SENDATION: The recommendation of the Planning and Zoning
� ;.�;'i Commission and the Planning office has not changed since the June �
•j 29th Board meeting. The Planning and Zoning Commission and the
. 4� Planning Office recommend approval of the Applicants' request for �'
�: rezoning and Code amendmant with the language as summarized in the
• S attached draft ordinanoe. ---
,s —
' .�. . . . . . . . � , . �..'� .
�� g$
5,.
.'. .. . . . . ... � :'�
, . . . . . . . � ;il`-•
...\. -'. . . . . . _ . .. ,
..� . . . � � . . . .
. , . . . - � .'�
. . � . . � i�Il,:
�+ . .;..i C,_
>;�:
:,:;
_;,�:
f�.w�
� ,.
��. �.�:= - H....,....._.._ • .. ,y�
. � ... _. ~ __--- --_.__,. .__..._.___:__1,_ _ _---- -- ---*� t
� ~
. • ,
; .
` . ,
. �
� , ,
�,'!"'.�``�, :
';,,
t�:�K.' , ,
.,:f.:
y��:
�
'�F'�' I L .. . . ' ° .k�. f J .r �' � �'.�.y ''� � � ', ����
:� �� , i �` ��' r �e�Q,+
� -r. �� �� -< �t A � �I�R�":
, � _7�� T�� �1t ���� �+t�,s.�r 1���� 'uc .�. .. +�. 11.
'.L Y � '}
� ��,' � 4�4 .,K fip.yYa� ����y 2 �'�1.
� .1K'.�� . �'��Wi..qM,'/�1` Y �F. f+J°+�'' 'y,�'�r.� :�1�. (y/.'�' � ���•
.�_1.-: � "i"I<.����� . . ����?;��+>��I+{ld�.�i�� . �'�JyA. 5
;.�i t'�.�
, , :,:
4� .c:
. . � i7 .. . .. . . . .. . . . . '4.
- �I[aUK� I , . �7r�3 y.,. .f=.
P1�UNTAIN ��.11�Y�bN151oN tZ'�Zot�itt<u��� �D�At�.i�tP�i�� � ;`�'" ;
G°�P iNGR�v6�.NAi.Y���✓•. 7�1-t�� `� �?�':
i�l �•� �'<:
. . � _ . . y,:..
fIi Lc�l- !�a{ ' C C�t�A w .20 �ftR �F>5aoac oo sF�s000«oob ';Y;``
' -i �j 2o,=5�i 4,"12'( (5,�49� �3�t4� C3�E�)
. �¢�) T3,I�DI 5,?J�b (5��$D) • ZQO CRBa�
31¢? Zo,41� 4�,6�fv l�i,3a8) C�o�) C3a8) � Y
�/ ) �,3�t°I $� 13� ( q,lqq) 500 � (000 �;�
6'1�A) Z6,2G� 6,0$o Cfo,SZa) soa . teoo -�-:
(�$ 31, [LZ (o,Z?1L so� � t 000 �'� �
� Ff1 �f`i,35q ��o'1L 500 • taoo '`:�-
zl (D) Zo,�' 4j8a3 (543a) C43�J C43o) :
, '16 Z�1,�46 S,Sgft �o • .88�1. ': .
- So(a) u,7f� 5, oo� (s,6sa) • � C�sa) :x;'�.
�1 Zf�'lb! 5,55Z 56� • ssz '� �
ao 1fi,�45 5, t4� r4�t • t4�t r;��
u,r
�j Z`��33L 5,866 �Oa � 866 �:�,y
� a� �a,a85 �,an �ao . ►aoo
� � q(� 26,z16 �,Z58 2s8 • T�'-v8
►a2 t�,7�2 s, t�'i t�I • t�f .
t� 3Z Z Z6� • ZGS � .
�' .
,.�
Ta�ai pa}e�r}ia�qncYlaSe cy� Yo9s�o�-�a w�5,5c�v�ae�= �i,JI1 s
__ �a'.1'rUri'1lMEF �yl°�v ��?C �oNt,tS� �4; �
U
; �y.
`.
;` T�al po�w�}tc�widul�5� w►qYess �r u tu w�33ba 5�¢�= 6,_ ��T°t ,
. �a�sumw�5 �9'n dttPleX on 5 y .
—i"�f �-fa�+ft�l�w� w► oss f L�o�r a�ea► w/6,ooa q F ta,�a � 8.q24 ,�
(a�s��g ,� dup1� t�nu��J ,:
�M 4
��`
9.
� T�-a 1 �a}��uv� � � , � -
rMwcaS� �+n oss-�cnr are�, w16ao�o ca.p = 1�3,8'(�
�' CaSSC�m� �% d 1��nus� �:.:. (, ;
� �
� �
; C1r�eg: (b� Imct i�t�� u e�c b{�i. Cno�S�leavr anrla Slnowh �o r dupl�G ����
p( ev
(�i w/o C � src e�fs I�% bonr.�,. Nrnr,nb�r�rs vh C ) r�(ccf �°,6 bau.t� ;
• (u�s �aflt�ao� -fb �G►�w w►cr�� a►ti�s�s-�(oovareat w�6,�o� �a,P
a�swrwn�� (5°/v afu(�erjc 6ont�K,
. + �
. .
,
µ,���. �
,kr . .
;P}.
'�r � . � . .:1.s�...�a..:��c.:._.:.�:.�. ���.:��i:ti]LL-:,_.......�:3ai:'a.11i:aaii�.�'.:�t:.r�64i:�r`',:
t"� � i;
��.�.
� ;(,..1.",ir� .
:.'';,._'� 7
. t,
' FIGURE 2 �
MOUNTAIN VALLEY SUBDIVZSION REZONING & CODE AMENDMENT
ANALYSIS OF DUPLEX LOTS FOR 15$ AND 30� BONUS
CHANGE �
- EX. PROPOSED PROPOSIip L'ROM ��
---- _' Fi1S»g LoC � l.it t•.41: . to t:�k Y:11! {n��
- - -�<;; siza w/i�r w/�u� �ur�nr)
;:.
,•"Yj 2 15,017 2403 4,025 * 4,550 525 r
,��{
� 5 18,996 ' 3039 4,369 4,939 570
;{ 7 20,553 3289 4�686 5�000 314- �'
-i? or 5344 658
- ':�� � onpcad
P
'� 9 16,147 2584 4,025* 4,550 525
10 15,847 2536 4,025* 4,550 525
�;,, _ 11 17,147 2744 4,025* 4�550 525
;�� 13 16,635 2662 4,025* 4,550 525
� }�1 15 16,334 2613 4,025* 4,550'� 525
.� 18 15;112 2418 4,025* 4,559 525
22 16,485 2638 4,025* 4,550 525
� 'rj z3 15�060 2410 4�025* 4�590 525 � ,
� 25 15,443 2471 4,025* 4,550 525
, 27 �.6,196 2591 � 4,025* 4,550 525
29 16,196 2592 4,025* 4,550 525
. 32 • 15,291 2447 4,025* 4•�550 525
34 23,001 3680 5,000 5,000 210
or • or ass-
5,290 : 5,980 uminq
depend- depend- 550 sq
. ing on ing on cap
. cap cap i��:
� 35 16,7,18 2579 4,025* � 4,550 525
� 37 20�416 3267 4,696 5,000 304-
� � or 612
� ' 5,308 depend-
' depend- ing on
ing on cap
cap
43 18,396 2943 4,231 4,783 552
.,`t
- 4
;�R
��. 52/53 35,379 5661 5,000 same no
�^a or 5550 chanqe E;r
depend-
•� _ � ing on ,� .
'� cap
� 54 16,236 2598 4,025* 4,550 525
63 17,638 2822 4,057 4,556 529 '
*2 64 17,106 2737 q,025* 4,550 525
67 26,263 4202 5,000 same no
or 5500 (6828) change , �
depend- �
ing on
cap
71 20,844 � 3735 4,803 5,000 197-
� or 5500 617 y
depend- '1
inq on ;
cap 4�'. .
9 73 16,758 2681 4,025* 4,550 525
� 80 21,763 3982 5,000 5,000 +q95 .
`ys or 5500 or 5500 depend-
'� . depend- depend- ing on
.�.
/,.;;; inq on ing on cap
�``
cap cap
.1
r�;
Total potential increase in 7Y`
'`' Floor Area w/30� bonus = 13,168 sf t�;'.,'
.z`i t,+
,;;,, (assuming 5,500 sf cap)
\, i:�, -
Total potential increase in �
Floor Area.w/30� bonus = 11,391 sf
(assuming'S,000 sf cap)
*Duplex bonus calculated basea on �,50o sqare feet minimum house size '
y�;,� (lots smaller than 17,500 square Eeet) � � � •
":r
�'
(�''�,i -� . . ._. � ..
�
y�M
�