HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.spec.11161993 �*�.,� -� ,T �a:n�t:�t ; . .�-�-r . 'elii . ti.� ti��L;�_ ha+t: '��'s c . '� i .:�r�r :-'_/ ..p�.,
.t4 }�,�� �, � i� - * . .f:, `-:fi ���'�•t=�. �+iY"'S:3j -i�- .$�;'',! :wr �'1 .r�:
Y�,� ��� M �- ` . �a . ,. 'i�_ �,, •�q>y,�,�,, u;�- �p ! ,�i", 'w'�,�}
+`V� �t 1 x'" .. . ''+ ���TJ3�9"'.'��5- �.�1Y a A 1
�,� �, �. '�r'' a�` ;�r ;,,,ti��y�_�n:` �,:�
. • . .... .'.. . ��� .� !�l.i:"�I.FR11M1' . . . ._. . , �.��.
��:�.
4•'� .��
'�a� .
3;;y.�;�
d�'' y_}r
PITKIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS �''` ' `�
�,_
WORK SESSION AGENDA r S.; ��.
Plazal Conference Room ` �'x-�- �•
°{:�-:�:. -
- �;-r,.,;.
.�� , .
�,,,�>:.-:
TUESDAY. NOVEMBER 16 1993 `�'••'-
'�.;
"� 10:00 AM Site Visit to Airport :��� "
(Meet at IO am at Airport Administration Office)
..,�
` ,a.,
?;:i 11-1:30 SPECIAL MEETING- EXECUTIVE SESSION-ARFF Building :�;:, .
ry;; (LUNCH PROVIDED)
;�c; �;�_
1:30 ADJOURN SPECIAL MEETING �
'..: �
' `� 2:00 PM COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
. ,f.
3. Animai Control Prescurement, Reid Haughey
^�; 4. Summary of Mid-Continent Meeting on 11/4, Reid Haughey,Tom NewIand -
= 5. OId Snowmass-Holland Hills Trail Damage Complaint, Reid Haughey
r;,
�� G. Commissioners Voice Mail, Reid Haughey
�� 7. Holiday Party, Reid Haughey
»: • .
8. Memos of Interest
b`�
�; 3:00 BREAK
� � 'x . '.
�? 3:15 � Discussion with Snowmass Village Councif -Hausing Bond Funds !�`
s:
� � � �
4:00 JOINT MEETING WITH CTTY- CITY HALL � ,
�� Data Processing Master Pl�n Presention �
,� RFTA Budget ;�
�� p 5:00 PM ADJOURN � i
j
`�?, .. ,
. ! �''., �
i-t,f �.
� , :
$1 ' t r,
'S •'
�
� . . . Ij':In
' j� ���
{ . � .::, �.
_ �,�,:
� <.,�; �,
� •
..�.�-`-�
_.�.�;•�:.---
3 ;r;?;.,:a'`
. S .. _ ..Fy:i�t.�.
�
. . ,.. .:: .�. '. �.:..:.:
.:.:.�)
r :..: -'h .::_ �.... .. ..�"�.;:.... ...�. " �
ii, v, +. . m , 1 � • ,. ... ' ✓ ;r x r `
� ; " �� , '
, . '
��; � , , ,
t�'F;:,.?: . '
��' '
�: •
M.,F' �.� . �
, ,�; _._ � �.';.:{ �,,... '. :._ .: St_ .f i�.. y..;�
� r ; � i. �y �.r -(.' ,u ". �
�•., ,� . , t ; ���d �r 7''�yj,. e..�, .��. . n.'�.
<i. 1 . Fis ;rr)y�' . � ��
�F� .. =�etA.yg y� .}'.`-S,: �' ' �.. a � •y� �` �ti4
f Y;" . ':'"r��.T.,�P�y !�• ,;�+�.+�iit_ ,r;��A�,l.,{�'•y�' �i � ! '
A��•q� �S�
....!'��y��1.
� .,�
SPECIAL MEETING CALLED SOLELY FOR EXECUTIVE SESSZON '�;,'� '`�, .
`� ` •�,�
Date: //�/6 9-3 -;�`.,.% w
Time called to ord /z;o .S� �, .��z,;,
I. Commissioners present: Commissioners ttot resent: '+� �i.
Ma.ck Ireland ✓ ' ��i�, ,.� ��
_Wayne Ethridge �Wayne Ethridge � y. M
_ �Bob Child Bob Child
✓James R True �James R True . *'
✓ Bill Tuite Bill Tuite ?�:-i. �- :;
— — ,..:.
!''`
I2. Motion to hold an executive session (need affirmative vote of 2/3 of ��`
quorum present (CRS 24-6-402(4)} 2/3x5=4;2/3x4=3: ; ��: .
. s2 y
_ 'YX .
Who moved• ��GQ
� 2nd: fi�.�.c� _ a���� .
For: Agaiast: F'.a'� �° •
Mick Ireland Mick Ireland "i-"� �
Wayne Ethridge Wayne Ethridge ; ;`��_
�Bob Child Hob Child �'
.iJames R True James R True �' , �s
' . r/Bi2l. Tuite _Bill Tuite } i'
:{ _
ZII. General Topic: � -
�
;
� ���>r �
i
E .
• {
} '
c
� IV. FILL THIS ITEM OUT ONLY IF board comes out of executive session & back
� into regular or special meeting for adoption of any proposed policy,
' postition, resoiutian, rule, regulation, or formal action {CRS 24-6-402 (4)j: �
Who moved• /y,�n_
_ 2nd: 'r�b°�° �
�
Motion: ;f-
�� G��� ��
,
�. �
For: Against: , ,_ ,
_Mick Ireland Mick Ireland
'� Wayne Ethridge ,Wayne Ethridge ,'��
✓Bob Child Bob Child
��'ames R True James R True � '"'�
�Bill Tuite Bill Tuite :+.�
� — —
Time adjourned: / �y� /] � �. �i
� Formally submitted, i� Cd"/.�-c.-r>' G/J .! '_:��� � ` �i�'�
•-� � ,. �.'
i Y 1!:
� IF EXECUTIVE SESSION IS CONTINUfiD CALL TIiE FOLIAWING WITA TIiE SCBEAULE: ��.1:,
BNOWMASB SUN - 923-5829, ASPEN TIMES - 925-3414� ASPEN DAILY NEWS - 925-2220 ;"v:,1"•r.%, .
� pcjmj:wp:form:exeoutive_session minutes '`�t �� �:.:,
j ,�::', :h,
, .
.�,;
,. . . , �, .
_.._, :_:
t:
• _
. , . �'i�:r �".
1 . , ' _ ✓ . � , �.
i
- J ' /
�£��`�;
�t;{�`�*�?"• • . •
�..�. ' '
��A
r%f
,� ,,
� . - �:,.; ,:.
;) r�4 t � .a"�', . .S�y i I��' / :''� ` � .:,.,� , �g �R': .
�A� :. t tf (, �f � n ��j��.
� 'j -� �?`,. rv{���t;� ..'�� ' � � �Y�:.
y�"�p�4�: .�rs��Is a�� . '� . � ,7,. ����i�Sr.,_
,�`�s?:;�� ;�, : - ,,�+""�,����'�r. ���.��. e ''� ;a,,,��'/��\s�-� , . �'/(�7(k�•;�
. +Y[' :;iiNC�'-�f�� �'il/.RRPF�.:..`- .. ... ... . .......�'A �QU ir�Y
. �..
dl�
. 7#�'•T:�' .t' .
f' ~y
�I,.'�-.:J .
�T,'i
PTTKIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS :'?,=' �
- - ' WORK SESSION AGENDA ;t;,; , �:
LOCATION: Plazal .��,';::i`. ,:
MONDAY. NOVEMBER 22. ]993 �"���'Y"�
• 1^.=;�`:':c
i�::..,;,.,;.
10:00 AM LandCli Site Visit `. �.`:' '
(Meet at Plaza3 for Transportation to Site at 9:45 or at 10 arn at the Iand�lt) ?c�.t�
12:06 LUNCH provided at Plazal s� ry;.
1:30 PM COUNTY MANAGER'S REPOIZT � q
• � 1. Procedure for Remanding to the P&Z,Suzanne Konchan °.'��,`.
; 2. Air Quality Mitigation, Lee Cassin,Suzanne Konchan �,.�
; 3. PAB Candidates and Prospective Pzoject List, Reid Haughey ;
� . ! 4. Airport Paid Parking, Scott Smith
� 5. Memos af Interest :�;
�
` 2:45 BREAK
. ����
3:06 6. SPECIAL MEETING-LAND USE CODE ���' .
� 5:00 ADJOURN SPECIAL MEE'TING
5:00 7. Burnt Mountain Wildlife Management Plan/Area, Bob Lewis '`'
call if change 925-2832 �
� 5:15 PM ADJOURN '°
'1�
} ;:,�
1
.,` •
} -
. . . . . ��� ..`�':.
. . l+'�'.�� '�
- . n:�;._ 't- -
� E� ' �.
' ; 4
�. _
�� ,
� , � � - �'�.t,�l;.:.. .
4,; .
,�
���`
�
_ . •L.
,; _
'� ,. .. � . , `
,
� .
,���.. - , •
��
.�""
........_---`__.y.b . .. . .. ....L.
.... ..,. s��
i:.} .. - . � . .. �; f .r ... . . ,. � .�..
'� �4i�. � ,�, f f n �`n �� �% ,.���< �.�.:
- `j 7��- . �)r,.�� .^k r'r`�r E+1�'4����'� e },�����'�� ��'�as' .��r.
a"�C �' ,��s�u�,�< ,M; MF"n', f� ev}�., k , "k^�.
�'� �� �t, �t+��� r -+ ^v ..� . �A �,r.
. a,r � i`�"`.°..N`Y_+ic�•r �i:�. ��'6y� .D.�k r� �i � �r � �>>��- ':
.D. _�k:• .. tu' i���j!�''.
�J :� �'
/7��/%'U//`Cb �,�; .�;
�l-�-�t� r� i.
.:y'',''J'
MTNQTES
. . ;
PITRIN COIINTY 80ARD OF CQIINTY COMMISSTONERS :s �
BPSCIAL MEETING �'�:":.
�„...
NOVfiMHER 22. 1993 't'::;``.;:'.
+..;.:;_, _
r.
CALL To oRDEIt: Chairman Tuite called the meeting to order at 3:10 ��:,�;
p.m. ��:
COMMZ88iON MEMBERS PRESENT: Commis�ioners Wayne Ethridge, Bob ir ' °
Chi2d, Bill Tuite and Mick Treland �':
�..:�. .
� ' COMMZSSION MEMBERB ABSENT: Jim True y�.
�,;.
ALSO PRESENT: Francis Krizmanich and Suzanne Konchan from the
, Planning and Zoning Office
Francis Krizmanich commented that this is the sixth public hearing.
At the last hearing the Board requested staff to come back with a
number of issues for reconsideration. Those included slope,
dehsity reduction, low impact subdivision, GMQS exemptions, impact =.'','"��
fees, wildfires, special review uses, public zone district, road '�?Y•"
setback, absolute policies, agricultural uses, and barns. He said �' �
_ he went into some detail on some of these issues in his memorandum.
He proceeded with his presentation regarding the proposed code
amendments. A copy of his written presentation as outlined in his
memorandum is made a part of this record as EXHZBIT ��A��.
A discussion ensued with respect to the slope density reduction �'
� portion of the proposed amendments. .c
i
- Child made a presentation using an example of his ranch as it
, relates to the slope density portion of the code.
� It was the consensus of the commission members that option no. 3
, in staff's memorandum would be the appropriate amendmeat to adopt. �
It was the consensus of Commissiott members to direct staff to -
proceed with Alternative 3 addressed in staff�s memorandum.
A discussion ensued with regard to GMQS Exemptions. ��.
e:;l.
Ethridge asked if anyone was interested in taking out the density �� , ps?r
reduction lot split. He said the reason for that is that you don�t •�';
�, get any kind of qualitative analysis. t� � �i '
:f. .. .
A discussion ensued particular to this issue.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1 NOVEM$ER 22� 1993 �'• !.
�;i;:.
���`:
7'wi`�
i i'`.
, .. .i .
.
,t_,:;;:'. -
.*��
�•� I, ;t ,... � r ! . �r / �' �� a �� � . �' . .
�.�'�'-'� gg��},�-�-{� Y T f��.. 4 1 K� �yy�-L 4 S
.. ' 2 �_ .. 1 �f��& � .+��yfi�' r �1'���Y' i .�� ' %� !�`.��'f�e��,,
�i�� yT"�' .. b�, . n� i .r�C .,,� .� w { �z.
.�.�',t�, '�� � - •-����''Y�'�����''o" ls�. �w�'��, �. i`�x {+�,.. ��!Yl..� �'i,E` i •.��`t�'td���_:
_ .«��,wi ' ::.�:l��cMr'�` ,>'Y�4tiy�`,` r� }�.kti•;:
' .. ;(�L�:
=�� .c'
i� i.
;�.:/ .'.,.J�
It was agreed that this matter would be reviewed at the time the �.t'�
- � whole Growth Manaqement Package is reviewed. '�``�-
A discussion ensued with regard to the impact fees for employee -.�-=
generation. .�'`�:•' "
:.::t,.::•�..
Ireland said one of the things that we need to look real careful
at is someone not being able to escape their obligation by building ,r�..'' ._
a guest house. Also, he is willing t� support employee social s{,,;� � '
service PMH-10 mitigatipn for super large houses to the extent that !•�=�;.:, •
it can adequately documented through a fair an open process. Ae ',�•;� ;�
would like to see a committee formed to analyze this. �;.?
�•,�i'1?
It was agreed that the process of advertising for a committee to ,;��
meet and consider this problem would be started. Konchan said she
weekd schedule this matter for discussion at a work session next �_{'� ��
A discussion ensued with regard to the wildfire issue. i'��
Krizmanich said in discussion with fire fighting personnel, that
have said that it is difficult and dangerous to fight a fire in a :�:
house of over 5,00o square feet. Therefore, staff suggests that
this should probably not be looked at in the 1041 section of the
Land Use Code, but rather be looked at in context of the UBC, that '•'•
homes over 5,000 square feet should be sprinklered whether they are •��t.�'`
in a wildfire area or not. •
! He said as far as the 2041 hazard review, the current code is a
little different from the other hazard areas in that the other
j hazard areas like avalanche and 100 year flood plain and critical .�
habitats are prohihited development. Wildfire is primarily a
mitigation regulation at the present time. He thinks it would be ��
a good idea to require sprinkling as part of the 1041 review in
__ ` those areas that are designated or know ta be high, severe or
'• extreme hazards.
� It was aqreed that sprinkling shouid be required in homes of over
, 5,000 square feet. Staff was asked to look at tryinq to make it
` somewhat consistent but possibly with a leeway that the Board may
' consider balancinq 1041 concerns. •
A discussion ensued with regard to special review uses.
. Krizmanich said that the existing code provides that "Uses Not �i1�
Listed" in the Use Tables may be approved as Special Review uses ;�,;:
and the code prohibits uses not listed. What staff did in this ;,:
code is list more special review uses and prohibited the ones not ��t �k_,
� listed. Also, the new code combines both use tables. ;:'i�"'� � -
f ?
A discussion ensued. �
F;:
6 !;
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2 NOVEMHER 22� 1993 t:;
�'`�k,' .
F'',.
f� '
� l�;:,::�� '� .
Y
' 1; .. . `. .�• . .
a
w�a.
,#_ - y .
;�,i
�'�! `t' �4 tti�-�. ' . r �'; 'f, '� '' �
;. + �trsr�;t ..i " �y.. ' , . a ��, �v!�;;Y ye,: �� - ' ��� �!c�
•;i �' '� � .rr,a fri�sa��' �tf�� r .a"� � )��:
� �f����� e� ��f.g; �,i��'e �� ;� ' y ��:� � .��
:�'-r4, s� ' ';�,�.7;���� .:�". ' �„M;'# 'r'�'�y y Y �'�:f�:'`
'�' ^+��t- ' t�� ��':1R�i . . . .:�,'�Jr.�'S�S:-�
'�..
;t I
� � �:¢���.c� .
�^ K:
' ;4�.��,,'Z�.
't ,r:
; It was the consensus that if the use is not specifically listed, �.'i.;='
- � � it does not come in for a apecia2 reviett. - �.
,;5.:'` � r'
; Ethridqe moved to continue the publia hearinq to December I4, 1993. `����;�,'?:: �-
With a second b Child the motion Y, �'��;�• ^:
i Y � passed unattimousl -
i �, t„ •
' ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m. �� �
� �i:�.::'
� Res ectfully subm' ted,
i , �;$.
vG� `� `L
it;
� ���
anette Jone
flerk to the Board of County Commissioners 'ti •
{ ;��'
,
,n
..i..,
���
�
f
. t � � . � � . �' .
1 !
f
..-._"__� ,J�
. . ' '. . �A. .
��
� . '
(
1
�: .
. . )
�
�": :��
� �`''•? j _
�i
;I,
e�
� ,� f r
BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 3 NOVEMSER 22, 1943 �';j , '
�
�
;�;
S
� _._ .. .,_. ,_. ... .
„, ,:.. . _ v
.
.
r
; . .,,. _. �
< .
� .,-,:
• . .
�
� - f
.F�Q�. . .
`�.vY,; . _ .
:��
'�� , .; i i;, ,. � _, < < ; i : ;,
,, . , , �t •_
!� . . ' , � �a. ! �'� � � 'f l�J,'+).1 'Y ��,nfJ:...�� ,:"� ' .:..
. �. � � �. �-�� - T .. 1j+ . � t f Ri' a ,�i��e�..
�-�,,, li trl ��k .w���„t,t �f �t . �.� � 4'e
'�,A71,�t` 4�le. "¢ f1 `"�i�,4�� .*G t� �4 �;4
� .�5�:�,; TE'� `st. . .,'�'p2M.�''����~Ij� �5.+}��-���^cC_�}..,M, �.' ,\: �' M1��!'
, ��� . ae ..av.t[4t^��Ss' . i '�. �i ��a �}E1 "
. . •.�`�r' -, :
__ .-. . _. '�.1�,! 1.�-:
'�..
. � "�t;i�,� .r. .
� . i" '�,
. G?J;:.".h'il�� -'y',_, '_
1?.i',i�C3(C�
.�
MEMORANDtJM u� -:IN?,0!r.,�;; _ . . :
_ . -- c,/s,�'`,.�-:•,�;in;j i.;:;,:`:i�ts :�r,-
TO: Board of County Commissioners ' '�� .C.; • !
t
Public Nearing - November 22, 1993 �3R .��-��--� ' V w s `
i 4 _��
,:�,q�,�3 (k . � �
THRU: Reid Haughey, County Manager ;�� f�// '
� r ;�::,i.:;r:��`+.�.
Suzanne Konchan, County Planning Dir•ectora�-- - � "'" " � •�
. •Yi
�w..�:
RE: Revised Pitkin County Land Use Code ;sl`';."';;:� •
,;y�;.
FROM: Francis Krizmanich ':'+ ``
.r�.�
G:;<
;r;;�?
�.;
ISSIIE: This is the sixth public hearing concerning the revised pt�� �
Pitkin County Land Use Code. This hearinq was continued from p.
November, 1993. k(,��
At the last hearing, the Board completed the public hearings ..[��;
. for the Land Use Code; however, the public hearing was continued
' to allow the Board to reconsider proposed amendments to the code
as well as to hear additional public comment that may arise. The
issues raised by the Board included;
✓f. Slope Density Reduction Formula for Subdivisions !V�
2. Low Impact Subdivision (to be discussed separately
November 30, 1993) �!j''�
- 3. GMQS exemptions - qeneral discussion
4. Tmpact fees
5. Wild£ire
6. Special Review Uses
7. Public {PUB) Zone District
8. Road Setbacks
9. Absolute Policies
___ 10. Agricultural Uses/Barns �
Background information from previous public hearings, including �;�
staff comments, is attached.
� 1. Steep Slope Density Reduction �
The Board has requested to review alternative density
reduction formulas for properties which contain steep slopes.
Four alternatives are provided.
These are: rl�
M.�r �.
Alternative 1: The City of Aspen formula. Density reductions �� � r
� begin at 20� slope.
�Y;'i
€,'_;� � _
r#:� t
Alternative 2: Existing Code - The existing Code provides for '�"
a density reduction when more than 300 of a parcel exceeds 45�
slope. ;;� :
I'�4
i
�;�1,:.
i�-:
r ;��.:,.
/ l�:a ��
, ,;
, t� �
�J,:
. . . . ,. � .
� � � . -•_. . � .i_.... .
� �
..,ul�'.: . �
:�;�: •
:'��
�
'�+�- � �!� ( J� ;" � .'. �`<�`. I . y . ...i �����.� 'ii� i �, .�5�.'.
e 4�.{ . � �� I+ t �f / �r -t �a ����•
� q 1 ) . - . . . T . )� (f . `.
.�,�i t '1 �'t �+
- � � , ..,' � 'i� ��S '��.. � ;" '� �L�
s ,, r��'�` x , �� '�. r +"��
,��y-� `st, : �t�?'��P �e�A<<'�� a : p ;,.}, t.
r. '.4i" ..r.i ...h F�- " i�,�tN�'' _ ... ....� �t�'L�.i
•��
' ' ''•1��"t• .
� �� 'l.
' 1
��y.t'�..�,� .
Alternative 3: This alternative is based on the Code �� " '•-
prohibition of development on slopes which exceed 30$. "i �,-'
_ �'=;l. . �4..
Alternative 4: This alternative subtracts aZl lands which ,S�I � �
;; exceed 45� from density calculations. ..f'�`';�' "
�
Alternative ,#1 ;'� '
>�:j,::.;�:.
In Aspen, density reduction begins with slopes that exceed 20g.
Example 1: Assume a 3,100 acre property zoned RS-30. Gross -�
Density = 3,100/30 = 103 units ' �
�"�}
; Density -y ,
� Slones Acres Reduction Net Units
.;
i 0 - 20� 775 0� 775/30 = 26 '�:!��;_
1
j 21 - 30% 775 50% (775/30) X 50% = 13 t,!i
�� 31 - 46$ 775 75% (775/30] X 25$ = 7
> 400 775 100% � n
� Total Units 46 ��'
i
E
Example 2: Joe Wells provided slope information for the Castle 1;r•.
Creek Valley Rahch. The ranch is 320 acres zoned AF-1. Gross s;;j�
Density = 320/10 = 32 units. �
' � Density
Slones Acres Reduction Net Units
,�.
0 - 20% 168 0% 16.8
j 21 - 30% 32 SOk 1.6 �,
:.4
t
-- 31 - 400 32 75� 0.8
>40$ 88 100°E � :i:
Total Units 19.2
�
` �
I
�
�
�l �
�����: h.
, .�.;
,, ,, � _
, � ��� ,
`�� � ,
�:t����j:
; � v
� � `
fi,,, :�.
: {
. �, '
,
_ _ . _---- : , , . _ _....._ . _ _.......
... .,
_ .
. . _: : <:._ _
. . �
• .
•
�-., '
��:. .
,,�;:` . .
�,�rf
� � ' �:. ':,.. :.,�� ' r..� ^ .
� ;� � i . ... ��i f ..�� . . r. :�. . . � :.. -.
. . 1 ��V '.1 �. � r r 1J �,� �;�,�,,' �C� {t':�.� .+� ��A� Y :��� � � x � ��....
y�"� ' �K�i i�'j14���5 ''t6L+r �.�����5��... ���' � �n �
. . . L+��,�� ���
.�'�r.; � ;s�; , ,�;��,24�«r c . ,� ` � �S f �, .. � i
r,• r� . r '�' � ,a,,: t,:' ��.'b �
. .ui�l��. .i�4'O,�Ww.. t � ;',�. .Z�•.
:ti��: �,
� . ... .;� 'L'�;i'
. �.
. .� . '�j'T_�"t
_.. . . �^ .•�3
�) . AlEernative �2 `.'.��•' '
�.,�
This alternative is the density reduction contained in the existing �'� �'
.
Code.
i
EXample 1: Assume a 3,100 acre parcel zoned RS-30. Gross density ,J.���-'7., :.
= 103 units. ' '• `':.
�,�:;.'.�,
' :�:<:;�'".:.�;.:
; Density �x�; ,,_ :
SZooes cres Reduction Net Units x:':�...°.a. •
� " ;7s:
��:..�.��.
0 - 20� 775 0$ 26 �.•�
'i; w
j;,.; .
21 - 30� 775 0$ 26 +}:`�f
,��
31 - 40$ 775 0$ 26 ��� � �
; Ar...
� > 40$ 775 0$ 25 `'�'�
.,z�
Total Units 103
, i . . `
' .:t,':t
" Example 2; Assume a 3,100 acre parcel zoned RS-30 where 50$ of the
i
� property exceeds 45$ slope.
�
� Density r�'
Slones Ac=es �teduction Net Units
;�
0 - 442� 1550 Ok • '''`"�'
+ . �;r.
I
> 45$ 1550 20� 103 - 21 = 82
j �Example 3: Castle Creek Valley Ranch. 320 acres zoned AF-1.
� Gross density = 32 units. - -
' Density ��
_ � Slooes Acres Reduction Net Units
`t
_L
0 - 20$ 162 0$ 16.8
�.{,
' + 21 - 30$ 32 0� 3.2
,` , ..,�
! 31 - 45$ 32 0$ 3.2 ;
> 45� 775 0� 8.8
Total Units 32.0
�Nota that there is no density reduction in this case because less }1��.
than 30� of the property has slopes steeper than 45$. �+
�'t y':
f
� As can be seen from the above examples, the proposed Density i.:' , •�,
� Reduction for Steep Slopes is significantly greater than that in 1 `
the present Code. In the existing Code, density reductions do not %��": �
begin unless over 30$ of a property exceeds 45g slope.
��
:,,. ,
. , . �"+F;��
;M1 .
' �'.i....�.'.
. . . ..... . .
- . ,.. . .... ... .. ��'.:�"� Y
� .. � . . . ,.,'..�..'.
' . . , . . . ��.
} • ~
.�M�'7. . � � � . .
�Ci�' .. , _ .
:�!'
... ...�..._..,...�.._�_.__.
1`j 1 .� 1 I - ! .. � i. /. ''• 1
- � . i ..,
� ' • • 1 �� / �- � r��� � � '�J�� ��bFr � � ��. �. ,n��..
,., a� � X . ,,� r i ��5,' .�k-s:�; �j�`�"+.
��!'� � s��ss��.F'� � . _ .��+ . t.
� �
� .�`.q,�f�. . .,�'�',�..�.y 1� /:'.1�.-.���.�^c �,7„ ' 7.�.-ii:' � � ..�1�4�� (.
, � :+t+.�fie~��� .•�,i#O.Ifr7i-� •�° br p'yI a `�3,�' �'
� .. ,i,Y,r'1hi.:%
� ' '{i�� .c� .
. . • :��- .'�.
. ' � Alternative #3 �'�`'�. V
•.J
- � - Deduct 100� of Density for Slopes Greater than 30� , ������
; If development on Slopes greater than 30� is prohibited, those �`'=: . `
portions of a propert which exceed 30� could be subtracted from + .�``''' `
Y � ::_. .-..:
the gross acreage of a project site. �<;%.'.�.•;
Using the previous example of 3,100 acres zoned RS-30, the density �:',
would be as follows: �
r.
Density `�'_, •
Slones Acres Reduction Net Units '7,�
;i.`,
0 — 20$ 775 0$ 775/30 = 26 �.1
�� .
�>
21 — 30& 775 0$ 775/30 = 26 l�.;• Y
.. �:;� �
31 — 40$ 775 100� 0 �''y�.
" > 40� 775 100$ 0 t,s;
' . � Total Units 52
�
� Applying this formula to the Castle Creek Valley Ranch example (320 j;
i acres zoned AF-1) yields:
� Density ?;�
i . Slones Acres Reduction - Net Units ;�1,�'
� 0 - 20$ 168 0� 16.8
21 - 30$ 32 0$ 3.2
:i
31 — 45� 32 100� a
> 45$ 88 100$ 0 `�
,y
-- Total Units 20.0 a
j .
Alternative #4 �'
. �
; Deduct 500� of Density for Slopes Greater than 45�
! ;
Example 1: 3,100 acre property zoned RS-30 (3� acres/unit). Gross �
� density = 103 units.
Density
Slones Acres Reduction Net Units ',�i
�
�L'.
0 - 20� 775 0$ 25.8 •i��l N::
:�:5
� ' 21 - 30� 775 0$ 25.8 f-�;� '�'
��j ' 1
31 - 45� 775 0� 25.8 � �
> 45$ 775 100$ 0 �'"
Total Units 77.4 t� `! I
j., :,
�t t
� ..r.:
. � ��...-_ .
, t�
_ _ .
. . ... _. . . � . , . .. ... .. ...._ .. _ . ..._..._ ..: . i �
,
•
� , �
r:-�d�' _ . .
,_��_- +. - - '
•,hY
Ft'��� i�ri���!� 1�.A,�.. . w , :.. f I:� ti;q, �`,•.� .`: `'ik f.v` �/ �► "ylr��. , .i�'+4 at ^ f rt���i
e, ;y�iP K :v � . t �; 'j�l,e�v. �t �"Y�y t � ,a'�`° � i�i
��r:`��' . r' � �r .. 7"yi � ��.YI A�Su'`.. �.^,V.f+"'�' ,y
,�' tif � .:' � '
: 4i a"fi + A `
'�, � - �.�4.,���e�' 'i,�.�'.�r�� �';�'a�..�:z:�`� iw.',�!t�:
, � . ?y;:,..
' %}:�� .�•
. Y�..' �i
_ 1 Example 2: Castle Creek Valley Ranch, a 320 acre parcel zoned AF- "f'�%''�.:i�
. 1, ; _..
Density ;���._.
_-- S o es Acres Reduction Net IInits ' � ''"
��_ IiS�:i �
.:;'�;�:,.i' ,
i O - 20$ 168 0$ 16.8 ;',;i`;�';'`-;:: '
� . -
:_;���:"
2I - 30� 32 O$ 3.2
�.•r
s�,,:::;�.R-:`
� y..}��.,.,�. .
31 - 45$ 32 Ot 3.2 �
tt . ,
> 45$ 8$ 100k p Ir�::,. '::'
a'.�: .' .
. Total Units .23.2 �f;*``�'
' rtx.,,�
i�'..' s-.
� ti�':�_'
•'�.
�i 4
� � . . . . . . . _ . ••�'}
. , . . . - . � �' � �
. � � � � . . � .�� � � . ��
� �
. � . . . . . ' '.€.._ .
i
, . � . . , . . . . . . . . . `,�F .
. ._.__ . � � . . . . . . . ��' �.
.. .. � �. ' � . , ' . . U
�, ... . . . . . � . ' •
'r
s�F;
i �`�
�
, ' �:
� i �-
� � r,
: �_�
,,� �,'+.
.,:
'�
4�
74�a
,f��w # r
. . � . - � . � �5i'F a
. - . . . . . . . . `�r�: „
,
.
..._.�___. ....�::aax... ,��.-,..._�...._.____. _._�._ .:� _.. . ,. ... � . ___� _.,�
1 r
`�� ....._.,� .........__. .._ ... � �•1
...__...... '_'
.,'.:.,,�.: .. ..�.::. _ ... ........:... .. .
. .. . _ . . � l. ' . . .- .
. . . . . . . . . . . . �� . . �
\ . . '� . . . � .
. . . . . . �. . �� ! .
.,.�:s:i; . . . . . . . . •, '
.�`r.•�a� - � � - - � - . �
-.,, - . .
_.�l.
__ __--�.--�---�--._.
��� t� ,` t ' - : ..;, �: r `
� r. � 'Z' . _• . �! 1t ;1 ��;,�(1�/i� M ����� �1. .
.:T� E�� .��j r`J3������, ' ' ,.
a1��� r� . � u�. S, '4a.�p' � a �3`;� `�t'S;�
. �r� .�!. . ;'.�at!;r5z�{ -t��;`��.1'� ` � '^�t 5 Y
N..-y('p �f. ���' y{t �� j �.5p�� j�l� R:'.
•�frt_l5v.- t,.,i�.�• �„'+ 7� .' ,
. . . ::�!'��.i��`�t�,.','f:.
�..
� . '{:T'�'.t� .
• . r• •�3
'`.1 SLOPE AS A LAND USE CONSTRAINT ��'•'���?�
- - •'�
� ��'?:, __.
i The e£fect of slope as a land use limitation varies ij.i . '
accordin to stee ness of the � • ��� _: r
g p gradient and nature of soi2 and 7 ,����.�;-
geologic materials on a site. On steeper s2opes there is a t`;-�'_�4'
greater potential Por erosion, slope failure, 'and scarring y,;:�...,:;-
k:. ,:.: •
of the landscape. Any increase in slope causes a faster �+?. ' .
:s...
rate of spread for wildland fires. The severity of slope ::'��;`'
:y, �,.
limitations increases continuously over the range from � ;�i;:�
?
level or gently sloping land to vertical cliffs. t'�
? t�,
`; . The Slope Map identifies land areas accordiag to four � 3
4;;,�.
slo e cate ories: 0 to 10 ercent IO to 30 • `�-
p g p , percent,
• , 30 to 45 percent, and slopes greater than 45 percent. These �:'��
categories represent ranges of relative severity of slope
i2imitations on Zand use. Y.�
�
I , f��°�
;'�;.�:4
�o,�.�..�c: t �
G�7vibc��naiaT� ;.
/ .
N /jc�au�c� �/ S
Buitding o o� � / �r �:'
_ f Q.� : �T�J�C'iu� enq
Constraints �o i
9 C`Icrndo S��e(�xi�r�n�
�o (y7cr
'�
' a5
10 30
Percent. �
- S lope "
`�
� �,,1� N.Y .
i � .s.; :�:1
Steepness of 51ope as Related to Limitations 1 "
on Structural Development � �
:ry�'.
14
�,��,,-
. :;`-.
_ ___
. ,
.. . _ �
�. _. •i...
• � � :
� <.. .
���,. . � � .
.�_._ _ .
.�y -
��,r ... . " � ., J .
'� .. . �. �. .� . ..�r.
�.1 �,"� t , �.. �`{ °;� � ` !j, ..f,��� �.,
' a ���� ��. i . ��'-i, S .�:..ti ����� ������� ��k r � 2a ��l!.
.J�_, , �� t� r.t � ,tv` y��.}�.•'•
` a '�i,4 `��,'�`,m •'','.: � :.1 .,p..t ' �`t
.43' �� � ,?'�!w.�i * 4 ie°:i ,y�-�:.t�''+�„� �('. ` 5 rk�U
'-{' .w�c-- :::k..�MFi. .��.�4f�4�. Y" "w� .`a3.'4'�;:
�i..
',�:i�� .r .
� i" �i,.
. . '.y'e-' '
.,,
Slope Iimitations are relatively low on land with ; :� �r�
`� ,sr
_. _ slopes in the range of 0 to 10 percent. Slope is still an �
important consideration on these lands because significant ��� `
..�::�,?.
erosion, slope failure, and other phenomenon can occur,
:,:;::.h..-:
, particularly in areas where there are unstable soils and ''r�` :;,:;
geologic materials. ,�`;�?; .��
i The relative severity of limitations is moderate on �;y�;
jlands with slopes from 10 to 30 percent. Considerable ��:,' 4
i '."j i
grading, cutting and filling. and other land alterations are
�:i.,
i necessary £or consLruction of roads or buildings. Costly
�:��;3 ",
engineering measures may be required to stabilize tY.e soil � }••:'�:(`
� and provide adequate drainage. Construction may create ' ,t,;
� visuai scars that detract from the scenic quality of the
i
- landscape. These limitations betome increasingly signif-
icant on slopes approaching 30 percent.
On slopes between 30 and 45 percent, 2imitations are ;';°�
� relatively severe. The rate of spread for wildfires may '��'� ,
be two to four times as fast as in similar vegetation on � �
level ground. Slope stability and erosion problems make
construction extremely expensive. Because.of these limita- -
tions, it is recommended that buildings not be placed on
. �.
slopes steeper than 30 percent. Roads and other imprave-
_ ments requiring cutting and filling should not be construct-
ed across slopes steeper than 45 percent without £irst
making extensive engineering studies of stability problems.
�� The visual scars created by construction on steep slopes ;
should be considered in planning the location of improve-
' ments.
i
Slopes steeper than 45 percent are generally best le£t ' •
. '�y'.
in their natural state. 1Vhen there is heavy snow accumu- �� ..:;:
p�c-
lation and a suitable sliding surface, these slopes are ,.: � 7"-'�
� -
� potential snow avalanche areas. Construction limitations a'� . F
� �;�
are extremely severe. ;�
t,�
� ��°i::.
. � 4
15
„
� .. r .�
I ..
� .
�
-;., .,
'K�::`1.':`. _ .
;c±�?
,._ _ . �x�..�_.��_r.
��. -���..��..,.._._
�' �.
����.: ' .
�t 1 �
:� � , � � `�i ,� -
..,. � :Z" . .. . �r .�1� �r �J �,� Y ����4�,"� 7e�� �r^lr �n x Y ���y�.
,.
y� _y, ��!,� ��, ?�`'' 1' e{�-��r�� , 'F� t �C it:
.. � . .��� � . ' + j+rvY'J�,'��"}7 �;� � . �'�V0. .�M�;� �•� �}��'�1�• 7y-L
Y' ',ri' '�vR"C:. ���'�� ie°�;'' �'[`1����` '�, �� �� l�`1'�i:�1tE� '
4 �
_ . � -.a.r'wo t�1S,l�„►,.,: '� s��,:' '�..
' ;;#r�,�;;�
f ' •
+ i .
; .v
� RECOMMENDATIONS . • •',�' �a
i . +.
_.-- '.� �c . '.
7�:.-
�� 1. Implementation: The Slope Map and information ;,_ .. �
on togographic constraints in this report should i�:;_ . �
I be adopted by the County as an officia2 delineation �'�=�:?: -
of limitations to be considered in planning Iand s'_'.::�`:
use and development. �;?'��.
Anyone planning to construct new facilities or �" : .:•
expand existing improvements should recognize the g�: ;•�' '
i severity of topographic constraints and avoid ;
creating conditions which increase the potentiaZ ';�
£or erosion, slope failure, drainage problems, ox
visual scarring of the landscape.
Z. Review Procedures: Plans for subdivisions �, ..�
' and ot er evelopments should be reviewed by the
County to determine the compatability of proposed ��_
� improvements with topographic constraznts present
• � on the site. ApprovaZ of plans should be based on
submission of evidence acceptable to.the County
by the developer or property owner showing that
i necessary measures will be taken to assure slope
, stability and adequate drainage,prevent excessive
erosion, and minimize visual scarring of the
landscape. ��
'#.�
� �` 3. Construction: Buildings should not be placed on �
s�opes wit a gradient steeper than 30 percent.
Cuts should not be made into slopes steeper than
45 percent unless slope stability is reasonably
� assurec� by means of inechanical support or other
i necessary measures.
� Cuts and fills, grading, and scraping shouI.d
---� � be confined to the minimum area needed for
construction. 5teepness of cut and fill slopes
' should be the maximum which will assure stability �
and still allow revegetation. Soil material �
removed in cutting slopes should not be side cast
� down embankments.
Adequate revegetation and erosion control ,
measures should be promptly initiated in
developed areas. Mulches, jute matting, or
other stabilizing materials should be applied
to bare soil areas until permanent vegetation is
re-established. Large tracts should be developed
in sma22 �aorkable units to avoid leaving large �' �4:::.
areas of soil exposed for lerigthy periods. � #�,
� Natural drainage patterns should be incorporated �='
into development site plans. Culverts, sediment �y �•.
basins, and other engineering measures should be f•;'
used where necessary to control erosion.
<< �
ZO
�
. t." :. .
.,.x:, / � �
:�:; . '
;�,.
�� • � � � .:"
1. +. . ` t ,r r �� � ��� �Ty , �' ' t� ���f
1. . � �. ' � �n, i �i.,� aib.ab�` ��'y;'� �'� . ��4��)t � �t,�..y Y�;�ti
ia� C�,� ',1 �`u,t�ti 4 x..�)V'`°�� ! �y- � hli�f'`�Y 1 rf. �.�'i'C��',�,i'��+':
.. >
� ''L�� � ,., .',�3Rt''�.�',y�p M . yw��-��� o �G.'k..e- '''.:�, � � .Y�_+�� yf„�t
....__".�...._._._ ........._... . ...,.__ ...,._.. .,.�7:�i. ..._... ..... . _ � . . __Y+�.�t,�, ��1�1�t;:
- � .i
i��
. . '�,
. � �'y�� .i�
by an experienced geologist is necessary. Specific recom- '
' mendation about the hazards and the land uses proposed can 4
r
' only be made after such an investigation. �-��`:?-. -
i
An eXtensive literature review was made on the subject -�';r�`
o� gealogic hazards and a complete re£erence list atcompanies �`'•`��'`
„ik,
'�!�-..�.~��':i
this report. Assistance and criticism was generously pro- �y�. ° `�
vided by Dr. Stanley A. Schumm of the Department of Geology, �T''
, 'e
Colorado State University. Also of great help were �;;,:
�. i'r
, . Mr. Bruce Bryant of the U.S. Geologic Survey in Denver and �'''
i�
the entire staff of the Colorado Geological Survey. , ,
�:;�r .
,-,:
MASS MOVEMENT �'
�,-;.
' Potentially Unstable Slopes
� This is perhaps the most complex of the geologic hazards
• ' since there is no past movement to tndicate the possibility ��'�%"�
for future instability. There are, however, several very
speci£ic geologic canditions that, if they exist, predict
potential instability. The geologic conditions are discussed _
below; however, befare proceeding, slope and its influence on `
� stability should be mentioned again. In the Mass Movement �
jcategory, no other factor aside from the geology of the site, r�t`
-;
is as important in determining the extent of a potential '.,:
j hazard as the steepness of the slope on which or in which the
� potentially hazardous geologic material is located. Gravity
, is the moving £orce in mass movement. Therefore, the steeper '
the slope the greater is the potential for movement. The
steepness of the slope is a key element in this determinatian.
';,�
Steep Unconsolidated Material �`
.�,,,.r ..:,
This is material like the glaciai and £luviai deposits �? ��`'.
� found in terraces along the major drainages of the County. �;�� � �
�
Failure and down slope movement of this material can occur �;' '`
£or several reasons. '�.;;� . �
�j�:;
29 �
� n :
��•,
- ,, _ - '
_ .� ....
�
_.:a:?, .
;�T -
.°y'.
�'•'•} . , . �
' .. ..y i � � � .
1 ,• 11� � t ! �A°^ r�`�'.,�fr��;���rt ,;���ri� �y��c ,�j�.;'_
' { . .,.i, ��, 'k�' �f�{
'���1�'t` , �.•.h.. 'utl�'i�`a c;���'Y� q.�e.4��"�. .'� �L�'w K,t"` ���M^f •�t�{'�1;.�ii''•.
'Y',. CC '.<!, ' '''�,�twr���� %!?� `<'�"~���,r lw : y' .''�i'F'- � ty{ �'�"`�CI's,.��G�.�`r
��i� .'�-a�,.� _.`.,,:'�i ' :.`'�!f?.'�`wer, ��;,: � i:'�" �Y.,,�•,.
._."" .;� t�•
"�..
. tits: .;
. : 4.
--j WHAM MAPS SLOPE ,,y�.�.;.'__�
,� The Colorado State Forest Service(CSFS) has com- The rate of fire spread inaeases as the stope of the ',
� _,� pieted �vildfire ha�ard area (WHAM) map sets for land inaeases. Fuek are preheated by the rising
many privately owned lands in Colorado,particularly smoke column,and a"ladder'effect may be aeated
� along the Front Range.7'hese consist of maps which: in the adjoining timber (spreading fire from the
� ] mdicate areas with 30 ercent•or eater slo e 2 ound to tree aowns `�
( ?� P S* P �( 1 UR �•
, i delineate ecosystem types; and (3) outline areas o( Y•`,
varying wildfire hazard levels.The hauzd 3evels are: ,,. 7` �
no hazard ("0"), lo�v("A"), moderate("B"), severe �°
...........:.....:..
::::::.�:.:::::•..:•:<.
•:::...:....:..:v;...,
�ei ��
..:...:::•.::.:..:.�:.
("C"), or severe brush("X"). Areas rated"B", "C", _ q }yA � +,`
or "X" should be considered for fuel mndification �•%• r��' ;
work. ': •Oc�., � _. .
_ l`�,,:�
( , _ ,, .�• �•.•� �, ` .
`•.r �. �;,� ...:� �,i '••R ;!`.7;
�' t / C' . �� ' �::" �op �y, �. ;�
E � a. i o �, :� �� •;_ .o�• ��p,
,� � { �� � — - ��� ��.,:`. :: >�`• _ p „ r^
-,:I ' � ��; • } _ 3
'', ' • — „ �..�h .
�, ,,. _
.....,.n,� ' - K . 1 t .
*, .r G •.1..���'
• ` . ...'4� ; � k°) \J�� -
..(I,�� �Y 1'.�;.,1�r� 1'���.
. �� _ y�, 1
\ •o '
. . _ :."1\•�i.C . °s 0 s<C�1 i .
!;
- ,l S� -�,�Q : ' '"
. .:�t:�' '��r �'a.
a o�e.a a.::.•' •;:.:
:ls c�` 4.4 +a.9 „." . ;:.`.�:
i. � � .�� •i .iSj'•. �.
�, y�.. :•�.
i 3 �� ..,,..<�..,,�,.� ,Qq�+ !Q''~ �" ,. ,:Y:1{
. .*' - _ — `.,"r-��_.'ac`"r..rot:,�' � ,Q Z �-� . -
- , .�,f."N:,. • i�;(�. .
°b
Sampie mi7dfirr hrtmrd map mieh Maurd typcs a�d siopes grroter ehan q
30 pernnr. � .
Firr r(Jecls./la�VS strep�rrrarn.Nn1r pnhrating of Juels ott sterp �-
....._1 � grounA from pa5sagr o/srnnkr rolumn. .
1
j
At 30 percent slope,rate o(fire spread douhles com-
. pa�ed to rates at level ground, drastically redudng
{irefighting effectiveness. Areas ntar 30 prrcent or
` ' greatr�slope are crrtica!ond rnust be reuiewed tarefully. �
�C 4,r,Ge�: r 1 t�
Ft�G/fX��� (jwGe IfYln �.:� �,.
�+ / ( s�da,ks'ais ' �:t'=:
� i�cr �rxrC S�t"C� � :s.*,:'�;
Cr `..
i xa.Qo�J7A� Ta�c�� pp 1
- Suvicv• 14�+3 �'�+� �
. �.'' '
s'.
5 �;;�
- ��'�7:,,i .
� :
t
. ; ..
. . . . - _ . . .i ,.
' -� -� ' �,. � . . ... . . .
e
-.^'�.���� �
a�i
'�`.: , .,
r� , ,
� < ;, - . � , ;,, .. � �,,
F ,1 " r J��^4�`�. r�{, �`a�( ° � ���-` t,e
' .+ �.��:. �d.. r� r J4�[� •~�yry�1*j� 't(hl'`2�?l��5'��,� ��'���.`�. ��y � 75�����'��..
,�+V����� 'sb . ,:�,"�t,gf�u���� .�i!�'�vT C��57� �� � � _`�;1 �Y�_1 4��1•�
� ....�.:z�r~�'S4�. . 'L'�t,,,,k�,,`r,- � �' •(�;. ,�`kt�
, . � ... r.I 1./k(.
. � � %�:y,_� .a•
. . 'l.
' ^'/A . . . . ..y.:�J .'J,
Z. /, /� " .
,
3. SECTION 3-15: GROWTS MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM EXEMPTIONS . .�`'":�� '
:r
. � ��si�.:.,.:,.-,�..
The following development activities are exempt from the Growth ;��?,;��:'' �
Management Quota System (GMQS) subject to compliance with the �?t.:;. •
standards identified in this section: i�;ti �
..i;;:
A. Residential, Commercial and Tourist Accommodations �':�?
Development within the Frying Pan and Crystal River ;;;� ' ,
Valleys (refer to building permit procedures Section 4-
3 and building permit submission contents Section 5- �.�`�
23)� •:gf,:
B. Construction of. One Single-family Dwelling Unit or , !:'�:
• . Duplex on any Lot which is Currently tinimproved and
, which was Subdivided before June 12, 1978 (refer Co
building permit procedures Section 4-3, and building
permit submission contents Section 5-23) (Lands held by
any governmental agency on or after June 12, 1978 do
not qualify for this exemption.) ; °
;.;�..'i;�
�'_^ C. Remodeling, Restpration, Reconstruction or Replacement �
� of Legally Established Structures (refer to building �
permit procedures Section 4-3, building permit ,
submission contents,Section 5-23 and Section 3-1502 for
standards);
•�
! �.
D. Single-family Dwe2linq Unit on Each Lot Created by a ��`
Lot Split (refer to three-step procedures Section 4-7,
--� Section 5-16 for submission contents and 3-1503�for
� standards); , `.
/.1�.�; �v.i' `GG7Y�tii�� ) �i:
� �E.� Duplex on Each�ot Approved for a Fifty Percent (50%j
� Density Reduction Lot Split (refer to three-step
; procedures Section 4-7, Section 5-16 for submission �
contents and 3-1504 for standards); •
F. Single-family Dwelling Unit on Each Lot Created by a
Low Impact Suhdivision (re£ez to three-step procedures ��l"
Section 4-7, Section 5-16 for submission contents and � ;'.
Section 3-1505 Eor standards); f�:�. 4
� z. .
' ,s,. #,'�:
G. One Single-family Dwelling Unit on each Lot Created 'x:' , �?,
� � , Pursuant to RS-160 Rezoning and Subdivision (refer to ; ` { "'
two-step procedures Section 4-6, submission contents #�� �
Section 5-5, and Section 3-1506 for standards); �
�/ �� '
l�:a. .
7'i`.
' � _
' ;r ._;
�
. �}' .
►
,�;
:p:__ .. � . '
yayY
� . ^
'+�:� ,' ..i 1 A... . � � , `�.`-, r� � ,:: , � _'. .:���
� . �'. �` � � _ t 7 `� � ♦"� �� �K
, � 1 '�, . yF�� `r� ��5;' .�6�;�' ����,.�� �� J �{• ��"y��.�,�,�
?'�L.x"�.,�f� :.Hi - ' .':xW'ckN'�'.�'� � ���•�!����{fiS�'��h!•sl.._...`xi=+; t a �lY.-0�!_.,
- 'r: ����*�. � _� �'y�i kL'4;=
� � . .
� � �-�.�� .r,
�, n.
�
� H. one Single-family Dwelling Unit on a Lot larger than •�y,��'�,'-��
500 Acres in Size (refer to one-step review procedure ':.�� .�
--� - 5 Section 4-5, submission contents Section 5-5 and 3- �` �
� 1507)p j. `
2. Dwelling Units Constructed in the AH Zane District �
(refer ta three-step procedures Section 4-7, Section 5- �'���� .�
T.. .
16 for submission contents and Section 3-1508 for • �'::�+K`''
standards); ��
i �' .
�
J. Dwelling Units Restricted to Affordable Housing Price ;y"`
i and Income Guidelines Located Outside of AH Zone (refer �"`�
_ :� to Section 4-6 for procedures, Section 5-5 for ;r`��
submission contents, and Section 3-1509 for standards);
j K. Employee Dwellinq Units (refer to Section 4-405, '
, i Section 5-8 for submission contents and Section 3-1510 ?,ti�.
for standards);
, ,t,��.
L. Caretaker Dwelling Units (refer to Section 4-405,
' . Section 5-5 for submission contents and Section 3-1511
' for standards) •
. :i•-
M. EssenCiaJ. Community Facilities (refer to two-step
review procedures Section 4-6 and 4-609, Section 5-6 '
� for submission contents and Section 3-1512 for £"�`
.�1'.=
standards) ; . c .
' � N. Commercial Developments with Negligible Growth Impacts
t (refer to administrative review procedures Section 4-
} 4, Section 5-5 for submission contents, and Section 3-
� 1513 for standards); ��
} o. Change in Use of an Existing Structure (refer to ��:,
� • administrative review procedures Section 4-4, Section -�
- 5-5 for submission contents, and Section 3-1513 for
review standards); and ;.
�,
P. Development Approved Pursuant to Subdivision Exemption
(refer to Sections 3-1802, 3-i803 and 3-1808). �
Q. One Additional Single-Family Unit on a Lot which
Contains an Historic Dwelling Unit (refer to two-step
review procedures in Section 4-6, Section 5-5 for ,�
Submission contents and Section 3-806 for standards) . �
�.Q
.s�j`:
� .. . �:�.'..:' j _
I-•''
i.',
� �';�
� ?�
� i4
. �^.�`' 1��:
. ' 'T�.:��`. -. Y
. .. � ........ .. . . .. ...... .. :i�-��' .
.,,. � .. . . . . . . .. _. . . . . . . . . . . �i• ..
t
��`, . •
,�:�� - .. . .
.��
R.� r�- -. . � . , . . ... 1_'....� • '� . ..�� �;�" ' rL.. ( � �'��µ�'
. . . ,Y I�p�F'�2 '� n�N' A A C �M y ��+ �fi � !1
� .�(
_ Z� . Y l �f;I 6 i�t� 1 '�f� J•� ° i�'���fk' T' � �7 �y�."�,�'�.
., ,,,,,� °t' � . ''t'„ ��'`y�ec,� *�.��- `* `ac _ �v� w�':..i}.,� ��• �1� �t+� �a�Y n�.��,
� .�c!,. �t � . j k�.# � 'r S9y� � r �..� . � � �aTn, � IT f 'th' � .
�'�' �• �"�u �tt�c-� , �T4V�.+.',. �i.-�,:3.��� ._ct` '�71rk':
��i� ��;
. ' '�.
. . � _���. : ..
y.{ .
The staff notes that the GMQS is being reviewed as part of the
_ _ - implementation of the Aspen Area Community Plan. This review is
considering the existing Aspen and County Metro Area exemptions.
The staff opinion is that the study undertaken for the Metiro Area �r:_`%•. _
' will provide a good base to consider GMQS exemptions in the Non-
metro area. The staff recommends taking no action concerning GMQS `�� ?? �
exemptions until the results of the Aspen and Metro Area study are �' `' `
known. , i ,
4. Impact Fees: The land use code currently requires impact fees ���''�`�'
for parks (through the subdivision review process) and employee
housinq (through GMQS). Transportation impact fees are generally �. ,•�
oriented toward road upgradinq and are obtained through the GMQS
and subdivision processes. �R '
E:.,.S `
In regard to residential development, Che staff notes that impact ;;y�.
fees in Pitkin County are generally assessed based on the number
of persons that will occupy a dwelling as determined by the number
oP bedrooms. The staff opinion at this time is that "number of
. bedrooms" does not provide an accurate estimate of the number of
' people that may actually occupy a unit, or the units overall impact
to the community. The following discussion regarding "larqe home"
impact fees was exaerpted from Mary Lackner's memo to the Board
dated November 2, 1941. •.
::�t�i�
Imnact Fees for Emblovee Generation ,
� The BOCC asked staff to return with a recommendation on impact fees
for employee housinq. The Planninq Commission and the B�,�_oP
County Commissioners have determined that square footage of homes
is directly related to the demands for services and impact on
infrastructure in the County, in particular on employee generation �.
i and the need for employee housing. The FAR Committee does not
j support impact fees for employee generation for large homes.
' The BoCC's philosophy on employee qeneration is that larger homes �';,
! require more service employees to maintain the residence than
smaller homes. Employees such as maids, landscape workers, pool
maintenance, security personnel, maintenance workers, etc., are
� needed to upkeep the residence. Moreover, the servicesJmaintenance �
functions generally are required regard2ess of the owner's use of
the structure as a primary residence.
The FAR Committee expresses a different philosophy in which larger ; �'
homes contribute taxes to the community, but don't utilize the r�'
services. They believe, in fact, that these homes actually �'�y �y
subsidize the local service employees. It is asswned that these �::,
are second homeowners who don't use the RFTA bus system nor the ��' ' '
� school system. Therefore, we should not further tax these large �;�f {
homes for employee generation. '=
!:
Staff recommends exempting square footage under 5,00o square feet '";J
from the requirement for housing mitiqation. Every additional
square foot above 5,000 would be required to pay an affordable �•��f�...;
,�•,:;'� '..
r': �` �
i•
9
;�,:_'„�::'�� .
;.,r
3�� ,
S i�. 1 .. . , _
n: � . . _7. ���..., ;,. .
., µ�',.., t� 1�',;, ('-s,fKV� 'K'���r�{���r ����'�,� ��t�' d��J���,
j u�. �� ,� � •r.�,:�i��+L�l:.��.� � ���;4��°� ` � � ti�kiy����,Q!��p• .r r�`���;f:_.
�
t K �eAf.t.l�� ._ . .� . 'i���Y.1Y1• C:.�R•�7�t
' fypi. '�;�1 ti)S��
4'
., f • � ' ��% �•�
h� .. '{,y
�-; housing impact fee or provide deed restricted housing on site (if ;y�`�.�:'�•
j it meets other applicable sections of the Code, pursuant to Section � ,
_ _ a 3-8.13 0£ the Code).
, The Planning Commission recommends that only metro area units which
. exceed 8,000 square feet should be subject to this employee ;"J.:.�;.
generation impact fee, since these homes would be subject to
. special review. �=..Y:.'`-
Using the GMQS methodology and the 1990 Housing Authority
Affardable Housin Guidelines a 5 000 s uare foot home ��'' �
4 , , q (assuming g:
five bedrooms) would generate 1.32 employees. Using the 1990 �"� �
moderate (categories 2 and 3) payment in-lieu fee schedule of �
$25,000 per employee, this translates to $6.60 per square foot. �
If the BOCC chooses to move ahead with an em lo ee housin �'` '�, �
p y g impact
fee for single family development, a property owner choosing to ;,�:�.•
! build a 15,00o square foot house would pay S66,000 ($6.60 times
10,00o square feet) . A property owner building a 6,000 square foot 1��
house would pay $6,600 ($6.60 times 1,000 square feet) . ��.;
�
• � It should be noted that the in-lieu fees may be adjusted annually, .
� based on adopted Affordable Housing Guidelines.
....
Staff recommends allowing the property owner the option of building
an affordable housing unit on site in lieu of payinq the fee. on-
� site units would be permitted if existing size limitations and �:��
regulations with respect to lot area and other Code provisions are ��+''�
. met. Staff recommends that these on-site units be deed restricted
as per the current code requirements for "caretaker unitsJemployee
dwelling units." This would be significantly less restrictive than
fully deed restricted units (PMH rezoning) , and provides owners an
; attractive and flexible option. -�
� The sections of the Land Use Code which are proposed to be changed �'
( to accommodate this provision are Section 5-300 Housing and Section
; 5-51Q.2 Growth Management Quota System."
i 5. Wildfire: The proposed Land Use Code contains the standard ��
� fire mitigation measures that have historically been required for
, homes located in wildfire hazard areas.
�
Recent staff discussions with Fire District representatives
indicate that homes located within "High, Severe, or Extreme" -
hazard areas should be required to install sprinkler systems. The
Planning Staff agrees with this recommendation and supports adding ,�f
this requirement to the Code. The staff notes that the wildfire A
�.:.
section of the Cade Sec. 3-807 ��° .
( ) primarily relies on mitigation to }� . �,�r.;
reduce fire hazards - unlike other hazard areas where development � �..
�: is prohibited when a hazard is rated '�Severe" or "Critical." The '': '
!; � -
Board may wish to consider prohibiting development in those areas a•�• �
where the fire hazard is identified as being "High, Severe, or ���
Extreme." {��
f�.� _ ; •
�;�.7',:
� '�.� ., :
� . . . . I: `.j
.. �: v
. j
9
:a`;
�t�� .. . - .
:"JI
�-
, , .
�1:,�� r tµi� � �.,v` �.. ' �� '� �-J• ti z t� / .�� �� ;1 t ):,; ., -. � �r..
, ,; � ,.
�. It , t v _ ft ' : - 1'
ri r )• rf „�70 � �
cC ""• J<< r � A
; '� �N..... jJl:+��� +�� R • � .1. � �i1�+
� � .. , Lt.. �a . fG - .. 4
'� � ���Y���,> i�
:�; '�� ;�!' . ;�,N������"4 �.s .�r.t .n,; ". �'r.,;rt�=� r,i � ��
71� .-..L.,FGe_ >,:�A'B.1Kiai•.. a ry1�YZ•.
� - '.��.���1[�'��i7-
. 1 , � -�(•r�' `�,�
� ' 1
� , . . y
� �.;:. � -y, ��r�
' As a separate issue, the staff notes that the Fire District ' •
representatives have indicated that any home greater than 5,000 �'�,-�
square feet in size should be required to install a sprinkler y f
i� �� system. The Planning Staff opinion is that the Uniform Suilding �
� Code should be amended to require this if the Board desires. y'
t��
6. Special Review Uses: The eaisting code provides that "Uses Not ',� r
;� Listed" in the Use Tables may be approved as Special Review uses. �,� y,_._
�: The proposed code prohibits uses not listed. �
:;;��.
� : The staff concern regarding Special Review for Uses Not Listed was �'���' '.
��=; q that the existing Use Tables did not prohibit uses that would .�';; °
obviously be inappropriate in rural residential areas (such as �"r��{y
�,.:� shopping centers or manufacturing plants) . The staf£ opinion was
;�',,� that rezoning or code amendments would be better processes to t'
' , review a proposed use that is not listed. � �
�!1K� .
;� Other Issues
; "� '�''
The Board also indicated an interest in the following issues:
7. The Public (PUB) Zone District •
8. Road Setbacks �'
9. "Abso2ute" policies
l0. Agricultural Uses/Barns ;;�
. �y .
The staff has no additional information or comments regarding these ,
• issues. We hope to discuss your concerns at the meeting.
�� .
� ---- � ' . � . � i .
.. .. . . . . �i ..
. . . . � � � ii.
•`
, !' ;
; . . . . . . . �1`��, ��i:.
� � �� � � . �{��s:'� ��.
� - . - . � F .:�!
f
, �� ��
, �:::s �
t�,.
, .
i �� �
. . � � �� µ�����J
. . .. _ .._.. . . . .� . . .
� � ..... . . ... . ....:,. . . -.' .
. . . . . . - ; ... .. . ... . .�•� i: .
,, ' • . . . � . .
' . . � . � � i . . � . .
� • /
,!�'��. . �
,.�_- .. .
�:Ms