HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.reg.07111989 , ._. _.._.. . ._ - .- . .... ...._ .. � _ _. -
..-vrw. . , _ � � ' � . �. , � . . ,�-�, � .
. d�
;,
. S. . .. .,_�;,, �s'. a
. . .� � t�h. s �_:; L �'�r �_�{(P7i� .
i f ���1� .� � � - �"• q �,y�i•
� � �t -�'.� 3�;._. . i . °�".�r e s.;^ _. _._ �X��'r+�'5y'�' ., . .., . . . . , . -A-a�'a y„T''
��Y �I�
WORR SF.SSION AGE3�IL1a,
Crnmissionets' Boani Room
TOFSOAY. JIJI� Zl. ].989
�:'
� "-
' 1:00 PM JOINP WC3RIC SFSSION Wi3H P&Z E�`.
( Ianl Use Oode, Glem Iiorn w �
'IYails Plan ilpdate, Ellen Sassano `,t :
i; ~
"i 3:00 F�M AII7WFtN
_ i
r k
� .
�� �,�1��Y�
=�;:;� I�JI�R!��lII]A
r�F
. :K� n;�r.-;�-r awmi,o� -
- ;,x:� 5_30 kM HIBi,iC 0.ZTIINP
�-:�N.
�•..'.:��� .
-'_`.s 1. Ehg�laYee BornLS Awarcis, Cheryl GtimmocJc
3
Y'^� �P AC�3�i �
2. Boazt3 of Rpp�als Appointrt�+nt, Hob Gish
�.�;f:� T�'��p
\� �✓ WG �
3. U3II1b2Tt.E�Ip10yH2 [7a0�.11iXj UI]].t� E112� S05SdItU
_ P[7HCSC�
4. Aspen Valley Hospital Master Plan ard Service Plan, �y IllL�Sp
�� s. r�sF�L Corp. special. Revie�r e►,a F�loyee uveuing vnit, &xldy rucero
?:4: ;
... '-S� �TV .
LmCau\
+ �1J.IJ..1���
`;='���(( 6. Chip Seal Cbntract, &id E�lar
:;i+:�� 7. AutA 7nspec.-ti.on a1xI Mairltenai�Reso� Iee C,assin
8. Resolution 89-6 Appi-opriatinq Stms of Maney for RFTA, Bruce Abel
:`-.±I
e`4
.:y--:i ��
�.�
i.
PiFASE NCYrE: Aii,POSLTC I� ARE tiOTICF�ELB2 5:30 PM. ACi[g1T,Z�iES WIIL VARY.
^�
� �,��
. �..-,`1��.:�'
��`
J�,:
�b
�.� f,
`?�'r
'`:7.�
1 {?
�,Y9,lS�P',.,:��. ...::�..�:. ,. :.�-..'...i- ....a...a..�.:.. .�... . . :. .. .... . ..... ....�. . .... ...:... ......�...._.... ......,. ...
..���^ .... _. .._. - , .
�S
S�.: <l?, . • . -
. ll.4i,7.f.�-� �
tf c�7r=; . . . . . .
::a-
5.'.idy.=i.ti-1 , . � .
�Y"e , d
'�..��%�;:::^y� � , .
'�:,N-`a'�;$•:':i� � - . -
;"Svi . , . . .
��:'
S�v�NE . , . . . • .
�.�..Vj'U�..k
yCy;.:,
.,�:�Y,°i . .
,;:�^'�,"�-���-'-„:;J.�";,�.,r;. � � -
. .<<ti:,,,�
., `�,�µ.,.
;;�� i
'��i,:.' '
;z
<a,XL�y�� ` . .. . "
�*�"�:w-:,' � � .
.:
�
�'� . . .... .
.. _ .... ._, - .. . . ,.
a� �' • u -�)',�}
.,. 'j'�i'�"4�k�;;r��U2y8�',��1''`��'����1�' t'���.�$3��,�:.
t�` � ((�� ,I ��� '`f��fi�r� A� e i �i �S
1
(]I(��r .+e� �a ��' Vl.��t ynr . '�. ' � ,�,'�x �+G��n- � �nr�, 1 tl,
� ����/h ' '`�d�'I.'�i����x�f�,,����yr ry i� �pu ,1
'r A-.�94yrr e r s;t�..i 3�5'r_.:�..:�Y�.";�:� e _ :7�a� � { s.� .
pPPROVE�J AT
JUL 251989
Mzrro�ES MEETIN6
PTTRIN COUNTY BOARD OF COQNTY COMMISSIONERS
REGIILAR MEETI2dG •:-{';-
JIILY 11. I989 .-�4�.�;:
�
,�`_.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Colette Penne, Commissioner Herschel (
Ross, Wayne Ethridqe, Jim True and Fred Crowley i; :•
ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order at 5:40 p.m. �
�`,
R;, _
� PUBLIC Co�Pc Martin Freeman appeared before the Board to �?i
% present individual petitions on behalf of several homeowners in ��.1-
the area with regard to upgrading the Conundrum Valley road ;; r.."-
- maintenance.
,,
a Tom Smith, County Attorney, stated that the state statute which
, is being referred to in the petition was repealed some time ago.
- Therefore, there is no statutory provision that mandates the
Board of County Commissioners to maintain every road in the R
� County. It is generally acknowledged by the courts that the �
� maintenance of County roads is a budgetary issue that they have r,
to review annua2ly. There is a lot of competition Por this and
; the Board has to balance the leading needs for the expenditure of
; funds.
� Chairman Penne advised Mr. Freeman that the Board would look into �
'j the matter. �
;I Hob Lewis, Director of the Environmental Research Group, stated
that his group had been spearheading the effort on Independence �
Pass to get the upper slopes stabilized by the highway department
and also to conduct a series oP revegetation tests along the
� lower slopes and Iess steeper slopes in the vicinity of the Town
� of Independence. He said that last year they were successful in
� getting the Forest Service to pledge $10,000 to a stabilization <
� fund that would be matched by the City and County which has '�"
� already been done. They also made a request to the County for
$2,000 to carry on the work which they have been doing, i.e., �;��
' organizing volunteer, building walls, revegetation, etc. This
! $2,00o was approved and he is requestfng at this time, that a �
check be authorized in this amount. �
� � ' ..r.,. ..
Commissioner Ross moved approval of the allocation of £unds in �
the amount of $2,000. Commissioner Trae seconded, and the motion �°
passed unanimously. �.;; '� '
r;:.
i Walter Gantz appeared before the Board to thank them for their �. :���..
� cR,h.,..,A. �
4 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSYONERS 1 JIILY 11, 1989 f:;' r,:
-a::
� ,
�
i .
��' '
#�� `
- c
;�:�=: ' . . • ..
°,;:;;,,_�..�.�-.`.7. .
:�;i°�. rF .
`��;i:.l;:,:
-�:d•;�
.'�yT
Hilti�liw �• •
t•° i +� . . . .
v
._ . .. :, . ...
, _. ._. .- �
�� �,��� . � . . . � � . . � ��..cy� y��.:�,y.'��F�:a Y�S ��`'}� �' .. �'"�FS'{�}o t f��,{':.:�.
. . f�Ft� 4���'4f.y^ � vS'�{ ' K �
� c���.,.. 1 . j ,,. .. ; Y 4�t �j V�...r t� i n�:'i���T � �1'
+� �(3�`. � b ��t 4 � S ,,�, i Y��7-?'�P';� Y+4�vw�..�'S � .a 1
� '���'��+��*�`.,_T���.7h����&�a�}'� �.�� ,�..'l. _ ,� LJ.iBo-"tJ+ .....+.. . � ,}.- .. . . . + . �.wa'��if,.
action making the Community Center available to the Aspen Pitkin
County Aousing Authozity rather than selling it for commercial �
development. '
EMPIAYEE BON[7S AWARDS - Chaizman Penne presented second quarter '" !
,,..
employee bonus awards to the folZowing employees:
Don Bird, Don Walker, Mary Lynch, Dennis McAVOy, Gloria
Houser, Linda Kimmel, Cheryl Morris, Jim Dnke, Scott Benesh,
Bruce Benjamin, and Jim DeBerg.
,'..i
CONSENT AGENDA
a APPOTNTMENT OF REGULAR MEMBERS TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING �:
�-;� COMMTSSION^ MOTION TO APPROVE - PASSED WITfi FOUR YEA AND ONE NAY F
V�E ':
.''� Commissioner Ross moved to recommend that the Planning and Zoninq '.�
�;;� Commission amend their bylaws to seven regular members and two
alternate members, and that Tom Tankerinq, Dwight Shellman, and
,-,� Jim Breasted be appointed regular members_ Commissioner Ethridge
.1 seconded, and the motion passed with four yea and one nay vote by
� Commissioner Crowley_
�;-� BOARD OF APPEAIS APPOINTMENT - 1�IOTION TO APPROVE - PASSED
IINANIMOUSLY - Bob Gish, Chief HuiZding Official, stated that they
^-'�� have received a resignation from Tom Dougherty. Therefore, they
-yi are recommending that Billy Dittmar to the Board of Appeals.
j
„,=� Commissioner Crovley moved the appointment of Billy Dittmar to
the Board of Appeals. Commissioner Itoss seconded, and the motion
-� ; passed unani.mously.
°�'`:-.� APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 27 1989 - MOTION TO APPROVE - PASSED '
;�;� IINANIMOUSY,Y
..`� Chairman CrowZey moved approval of the minutes of June 27, 1989.
Commissioner Ross seconded, and the motion gassed unanimously.
,''�'�- I,AMBERT EMPIAYEE DWELLING ONIT - 1sOTION Td DENY - PASSED WITH
�' FOUR YEA AND ONE NAY VOTE - Ellen Sassano, representing the
� Planninq Office, summarized this item by stating, that the
applicant, David Lambert, is requesting approval of the creation
� of an employee dwelling unit pursuant to Section 3-8.13(d} of the
i Land Use Code. The proposed unit would be created through deed
.:� restriction of an existing residence.
t -
, � The Board reviewed the Lambert case at a public hearing on May 9, `:r.J
1989. At that time, Herb Klein and Jim True requested that the `' `
1 hearing be continued to a later date so that Commissioners could "`
do a site visit prior to approving or denying the request. A �i��,-.
I site visit was conducted on May 17, 1989. However, Commissioner ,..n%.
��:'::�4.,.:
'� BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSTONERS 2 JULY 11, 1989 -
:i �
�,
.��
- :�� - . - .
_ ;,:
;:: _ .
- - . � �
:.�.,- -
:,ti:,�:- ,
;`:;;.c,y ,` e,. ` .
.��ro�f . . .. .��.,.���n �. .
_- -_-_��...
:
�:.
� `'
�_ .,. .._. .
... . ,
�.� -r; - . ..._ ... . ,,
' � , �.}r �,y2 r 9 �1T��C �l'��l{� l ;b
�J't f ��(�����$ �.'c'�2�,p` « �`, ��C" � �
�,?�-y,'�k�a��4tt t�t h�,�tk��,��}�it � 4)4�j i r, . w:: q ,� "��}%' ,''��r� .:�nv�i�"�L �'t�c7�.��1'� , � ; i.-!�
r ,,.,9��''F'?�:. '��j`+���� �4��-i��'�..s�`'� k��"x���Y�.^�,.,f xv,-�_ - -�;' � . M
:cr' ..
True was the only Soard member who was able to attend.
PZanning staff recommends denial af the proposed employee unit •
based on the fact that the applicants lot is not only non- ,
conforming in size, but only one third the minimum Iot size ~ _
: required in the AF-1 zone district. As such, two units on this ��;�'r?,.; ,
site represent overcrowding. �
Herb Klein, representing the appZicant, stated that the issue is ��
, one of discretionary review of whether or not approval of the � " .
4 application constitutes an overcrowding of the neighborhood. ;
They feel it is essential that other commission members visit the �
site in order to make that determination. '
�r . .
, A discussion ensued with regard to this matter. �.'�.-:
� Assistant Count Attorne Susan Sn der stated that in her }�
,. � Y Y� Y . . r1, _
opinion, if the application is approved it would be overcrowding :,.
� of the property, and she recommended denial of the application. =r' `
� Commissioner True stated, that his wife does work for Herb Klein.
1 He feels there is no actual conflict which exists with Mr.
Lambert. He asked if anyone wishes to express a comment. There
.# was none. '
., �
;�� Commissioner Ross moved denial of the application. Commissioner
Ethridge seconded the motion.
_;�
Klein asked to make a presentation with regard to the
application.
',,.:�
He stated, that the property is three and one half acres in size
",�,,:� and is located in a ten acre zone. The existing house was built
by the Lamberts' in 1981 and received a Certificate of Occupancy
,-� at that time. Therefore, it qualifies under the provision of the .
code that says the "proposed employee unit must have been in
,;� existence prior to June of 1989L" At this time is was not an .
�' employee unit. However, it was a proposed employee unit at that
:�:�� time. !ie said that the code states that the proposed employee
.•a
� unit must have been in existence by that date.
<;'� He further stated, that �ater in 1951 the Lamberts' applied to •
;� the County for approval of a very similar application. It was ,
always their intent that could someday be an employee unit. The
;� matter was taken before the Planning and Zoning Commission. s>,,
xowever, there was a concern about where they were going to get i';;;:-
.: { the water for the extra unit, and therefore, there was a �' '
recommendation from the planning office because of the water � '
situation, and the matter was table in order to resolve that t :
issue, and they are back here after seven years later. The $, �.'..;
' Lamberts' have received 1041 approval to do that. Therefore, the �.,
.� issue is whether it can become an employee housing unit or be � tu,
:� � �r .
.J BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3 JULY 11, 1489
i ��a;
•i`:'7 .
:-.8 � :
;� .
� � - - , - � _ �
;:�:�-:-
�;:;;. .< _
�-,�;::.`
.,+.i%E4c',:�'N�__ . , '
�,
_„z�i(�:� .
'`�e.`i}{> �
�.i., � . +
,:y � ��
—. ,.,.._�._ .,. �,.,.�.,b .��.
:��««.m� e,.;��-..�:, . . �• �-
�r: _ . . . . _ . . .. . . _ �
..�i�''.1i..'f'ti.. . � . . � . �
/] {( � = -
� " '1 i .�.�'i` l'� ��s7.`.1•'� iq��L t : � � a -: � ���F����Y��.,1���.yr�,'��r{,'�b��'��L�'SS ij j�f��i
,,���• t A Y !�. � '�3 - r �. i �t4 S St�. ,���,�,� slyi�Yf1 � � �
,,y�`� , . _
" .. +M��"'3k�>.���1��7c���'�r���'�d����?!� a�'�_v����.�l;ax.�.. e �` +J� 5'7
�» _ �v
gutted and used as a garage, etc. Also, the immediate Holland
Hills neighborhood is not visible from the house nor is the house
visible from the Holland Hills neighborhood. It is up a draw
behind Holland Hills. Most of the lots in the subdivision is '
between a half acre and an acre in size. This is a three and one d�;'° -
half acre lot, and putting to houses on it would still net in a x=''i:
density which is less than what is in the Holland Hills
neighborhood. They have reached an agreement with the Basalt � .
Water Conservancy District to acquire water rights and have an
augmentation plan which would provide sufficient water from the ; �
� existing well. -
He asked that Commission members follow the cade, and use � ' -
reasonable discretion with regard to this matter. �€, '`
�-� Commissioner Crowley stated, that there is an unbelievable `
? shortage of employee housing in the area and that coupled with �'.
� the fact that when the lot was created it was a conforming lot �.,�:,
'' but due to down zoning it is now non conforming he would be '�
�-� willing to approve the application. A1so, he does not feel after
� visiting the site, that it would be an overcrowding of the
neighborhood,
�
Commissioner Ethridge stated, that it his is concern, that if it
;.y is approved, it would be setting a precedent, and would make the
.� zoning ineffective in those areas.
'.Y.�
Chairman Penne called for the vote, and the motion passed
_� unanimously.
/
� ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL MASTER PI.AN AND SERVICS PI.AN - MOTION TO
'�t�f APPRO`lE - PASSED UNANIMOUSLY - Buddy Lucero, representing the
'.,-� applicant, stated that the Aspen Valley Hospital was requesting
approval of three items. The items are the Aspen Valley Hospital
District (AVHD) Master Plan, AVHE Amended Service Plan and an
,,,t Interim Building to house a CT scanner building. However, he was
,_� advised earlier to this meeting that the applicant would like to
-V� delete the scanner building from the approval because they plan
to place it in with the existing expansion of the property.
..��
'.y He proceeded to review with Commission members the proposed plans
sand the conditions imposed by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
He referred to the condition regarding a trails easement. Fie
,� said that at this time a pedestrian easement exists along
Meadowwood Road, and also a hundred foot easement along Castle
,;� Creek Roa@. That easement has been set aside essentially for
traffic or for road purposes with an approximate 20 foot for
I pedestrian and bicycle. Staff recommends that the appZicant 1
implement the pedestrian and bicycle path at this time. !�
i��:` .-�,y,�_',
i Steve Saunders, representing the Aspen Valley Hospital, stated, ,f, ?
r that they have no problem with implementing the trail. However, �
!
r.
<:., BOARD OF COTJNTY CdMMISSIONERS 4 JULY 11, 29g9 r�i'A•i�,,
�:
_ i
:'� �.
:"`,�
s'��—+�"�i•. .... . . . . .. ._ . .•,. . . . .
_�+y - . . . . . .
•:;;'�.:'�:�� �'�::-; .
- . � ,
r'-�::;�'?�r:`
- ;:e' -
_ +"'=•4
:.>aN.i°:-� �
:k:i:3�� . .
�rt`t.: . .
.':i^I- � � .
i+wr+.n�irmwn' ° .iy___ .... ._.._ �.. - ......,....
e ;
. ........... .. . _.._. ,.. . _ ... . :,-.... .. . ' .. . . .
�r� . . ' . . . �. , .
. �k3��tiw'rk �•� nS9".—;s�� s ��{��x`�.�'s f:
� (� N� � r �`rS�'�r'Z'� y,�rt�,,. Y!' �.t�d� �,�'���J'���} .
�s � 1] 1 J Fl,�, � . . Y % 1...' q't � !n�kF S aa� ��
� '�".`r.c�r��w����������C'"��.xt����'i,.k�x� -�.����,�,��. _�5��.4�i� �W.e ��,'�.�5c�^�s,�� .
�',, :.
they would ask the County's assistance with the funding of it.
Chairman Penne opened the hearing to public comment. There being '
none, she closed the public hearing.
i:'.._ .
Commissioner Ross moved to direct staff to draft a resolution for �;::.;;-
the Aspen Valley Hospital Master Plan and Service Plan which i"`:•
includes the Planning and Zoning Commission's conditions and the "
trail along Castle Creek to be returned for the Chairman's �` �
�:
' signature. Commissioner Crowley seconded the motion. ,
, ;� Commissioner Ethridge suggested an amendment to the motion that
� the trail will be completed prior to October 1, 1991. ;::
g Commissioner Ross accepted the amendment to his motion. ,
y Commissioner Crowley accepted the amendment to his second, and r '
the motion passed unanimously. �;'
.���� . ;s�.
_ -_}' ASPCOL CORPORATION SPECIAL REVIEW AND El�IPIAYEE DWELLING UNIT-
:-.� MOTION TO APPROVE - PASSED WITH THI2EE YEA AND TWO NAY VOTES-
Buddy Lucero, representing the Planning Office, summarized this
-; item by stating, that the Board reviewed this matter on June 27,
;s� 1989. At that time Commissioners requested that the ASPCOL
_� representatives return on this agenda with additional
information. He stated,. that the applicant was forwarded a
�'-'� letter dated July 3, 1989 and asked to address six items. A copy
i"'� of this letter is made a part of this record as Exhibit "A".
;:�
�. a
��°'� Staff received a letter today from the applicant's
;:; representative, Fred Peirce addressing these items. A copy of
�N: � this letter is made a part of this record as Exhibit "B°
; However, staff has not received any changes.
-:�
'',=� Fred Peirce proceeded to review with Commission members his .
letter in the above referenced Exhibit "B".
`,�,.]� He stated, that the change that they are proposing at this time
';�i is basically a change that is an attempt to deal with the
,,� perceived impacts of the project. What they heard at the last
';' + meeting, were two concerns. One concern was about the impacts,
:.� and the second concern was about the size of the structure.
He said that in their review of the code, discussions, and ,
�1 attempts to work with everybody involved, i.e. Planning �
i Department, Commissioners, etc., they have been unable to come to
any kind of ability to reduce size. In reviewing the code, they ;
have determined that size is not the criteria in this kind of � ,;
special review. This review is for additional bedrooms, and the E ;._,
code clearly states that the criteria for additional bedrooms i;,:_�
:� under the special review are to determine two things. The first ;;,;i;„:''`
,,.� r,�..
-' thing that has to be determined is that the single family # :���
�
j BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 5 NLY 11, 1989 �
��{:
� F
:'�
:,�
< _:---
, �. -
�fF: -',°{s:. . ' . _...
?_
� r
?��i:.":'.N'._i�:.
,�:.Y.':::�i,i.i��, .
_ � n',�f.(.,
i�N�_~�:�, M .
.5�'u:t�:C� -
,� �
�'� � . _
r
,. r�1,� ty, ;�fY�'�n '�� -C�r j N {t �f .
. .. � i :R. f t �. ,.. { �� ,-KY.,p 4. 4�'#�U3�.����� �1 .��sN� '�,�-'�'�' f��l�';a: i
� T ..'.����.��� �' �e A
� ' -Ya Y��tiCt'��u�{'�'+7'°i��s'.��.AlY.':,f;yit��.aF�:�t. w � p � � A
. .,,� .�� �e!.,._. �'. L.��.�:.c.�M .
dwelling application conforms with the definition of single
family dwelling, the second is that it conforms with the
limitations on occupancy that go along with that.
He said that there is no question from the beginning when the -
Planning Office submitted their memo to the Board, that this 5�`
�'%��'.::-.
residence is a single family residence. Also, the Planning and iy^. .
Zoning Commission found that when they passed their resolution
recommending approval onto the Board. ��' �
; The other issue has to do with limitations on occupancy. As has
' been previous discussed, there is a presumption in the code that
� says that if a family composed of six or more persons related by s- ..
' blood or marriage shall be presumed to have a need for a number M:.'
of bedrooms equivalent to the number of family members. '"
� j' .
He proceeded to review with Commission members other applications ';�,
� where additional bedrooms have been approved which go beyond the �r::`:
applicant's brothers, sisters, children and parents. He said !
' � that grandchildren and children of law have been included in
approval of these applications.
d
a
� He said that in this particular case they have shown that there
� are substantially more than 15 just brothers, sisters, children
E and parents of the applicant. Also, they have proven actual �: -
:S need, and that basically states that they have the need for the
bedrooms which they are requesting. They actually have a need
� for more. Those are the criteria that the application addresses �.
: and those are the criteria that the code request that they
; address.
a� With respect to size, the code allows size to be addressed in �
terms of mitigating impacts and making sure those impacts can be
mitigated. As a result as requested by staff they addressed
z those impacts. The Planning staff and Planning and Zoning �
:; Commission has said that all the particular impacts have been
� appropriately addressed and could be mitigated. Therefore, they
� stand by the application in terms of its size. �;
�
At the last meeting they offered to contribute $100,000 to the i
3 County to be earmarked for energy conservation items for whatever ':""
s reason. r,
� Another impact that they have been hearing about has to do with '!
� employees, and whether there is an employee generation impact,
! and if so how do they propose to address it.
`
After reviewing the code, and discussions with the Housing �_-;
Authority, they have determined that if they opted for the cash "7< ;.;:?.�
in lieu program and had to pay the maximum amount per employee of '""::<:
4.95, the required payment would be $148,500. What they proposed � �.
at the last meeting was to purchase a condominium in the range of , � :.
��.,:;��'
I ..�s:,
1
HOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 6 JULY 11� 1989 � �';.-��S"
i - �;_
� ;; �.
`dd��r�': . �. —
.:4.��;;:." , ' . .
`
"'.i�;: .. . .
,�._L'`:'�t�"-���.:�M^;,
:,j2_:", .
'.1,'
u;'C�
i:i�"l�.Y'. � � �— � .
� ... .._. ..._ . .... . . . . . . .._
�° � __
; �� �.a��ry�(p �"�b���'`� ' 'C' `� ��'`4P � ,�r
w,�{y �r �� �' j qff= � � .-� ��' St�i�����j..��.� `��.t�"C�,�9(ri�'.�"��j��.��,�J�tl���� ��r,�
�,F y{'..,,y� 'i �.i�� �����;�J f�}�(t y��.t:.M�rr_ . w ?,{p���� 4 ��S/14�. at�r,,77{!.�,�.x e a�r; r�! 1�� �';
'r¢i,� . °�{ J 4 ��yFr ����;t �I� C.� t(�{' .r- � � ' 3S�`'� A�� �''�
.. � k..u-�::Y'T`rcF.,�,�,:�?��'q�'.3�{xt.��.�������".dr."Te?:. -iSk���Y'�' ._. . . ...� _ ... �.,:"'' �.0 ��.wlk�-.ti.. .
$150,000 and giving that to the Housing Authority to add to the
employee inventory to sale. They felt this offer was sufficient.
However, what they are proposing at this time in an attempt to •
work with the County, is to offer $500,000 toward the purchase of '.•`'+':r-
the Community Center property by the Housing Authority from the � �-��.�
County. That in turn would give the County $500,000 to put �f''"::���.�'
towards the Health and Human Services Facility. This includes j^'"'; ,
the $100,000 they offered previously for energy conservation ��- ., '
items, plus $400,000 that is on paper. � '
, r: -
Also, on the 95 acre parcel there are two free market building
envelopes. There is an existing building on the site, and what .
they would like to propose at this time is to not raise the
building but to leave it there and turn it into a deed restricted ����'•
; employee unit. Therefore, they would be giving away a free '(�'� �
„ market site in order to maintain a deed restricted employee site. ; �
;' 1. ,..
- Commissioner Ross questioned if they would be willing to give up `� r'�•
� the 500 square foot apartment in the barn.
� �
Peirce responded by stating, that if it is an issue, they would
be willing to give it up. However, they would prefer to keep it
� in case they need it. �
Buddy Lucero stated, that the Planning and Zoning Commission did �
;� recommend approval for this application with the conditions based
in their resolution. However, staff did not concur with the �
; Planning and Zoning Commission or with the applicant in regards q
to the size of the structure and the compatibility with the f
! surrounding neighborhood.
� With regard to the number of bedrooms, anytime there is a reguest �
! for five or more bedrooms, the applicant needs to provide
information showing the need for those bedrooms. They have shown
; immediate need for the family itself which consist of eight '
`I members, and for one additional member because of the position of
� the applicant (being a foreign ambassador) and the need for
'� security. For that reason, they would recommend eight bedrooms
iand not fifteen bedrooms as requested. The applicant could
� _ essentially develop the three allowed buildings and come up with i�'°
the fifteen bedrooms.
1
� Pierce continued by stating that the project is located in �
� Starwood, and that the residences in the surrounding area are in
I support of this project.
��
; With regard to size, the floor area ratio of Starwood is .07.
;;;.a.'i:''::.
The floor area ratio of the proposed project is .013 which is �.c: :,
five times less floor area per lot size. Also, the largest
residence constructed in the last three years was 18,500 square ��
feet, and the smallest was 5,500 square feet. If size is the � '� °:
� issue then he thinks the code needs to be amended. In this s��:�,.�
�i
BOA22D OF COIlNTY COMMISSIONERS 7 JULY 11, 1989 '��:;
� �� .�'�
, �;
�
��x
�;� . .__ , : _
� �
,.�a,; _
:��`�-::°:�;:,
.,:�`� .
�:i:�r;�•,
�;�v}:�;T � . . ' .
�.c:,.t..;:.,':''1` � .
�
� �. ,.. , . _. . . . . :... ...._ � _ ....
,�{ ` . •, � �c,�n�"
��,y�YY RIryC ST`�� � 'y.,-�h ;��
t i���;it� �j�'� �� M1 t yy`1 '7�`j Sl�,f �
, . .�"�`�p `<<(a}��y�t�13� �W���� � t,t�.,� .. ,¢� � � kA���� � X'l�t'jr�4 iU''�dy..�� lr � ; .�f'
�' � t�+� ..f� <:.�i�S+,.�.*C��. �C�� ������k.. } ��"i����.:3R"X:�. �__, ...._X��`�F
• �,
particular provision of the code, size is not addressed.
Chairman Penne opened the hearing to public comment.
Catherine McMahon, representing Kazl Parrish, an adjacent _
landowner to the subject property vozced Mr. Parrish's support of ir„_
� the project. �' .
;�._:
Don Erneman asked for a clarification regarding what jurisdiction � -
the Commissioners have in terms of interpretation of Section 2-13
r or 2-16 and the ability to approve or deny the application based
+ on appropriateness or compatibility with the neighborhood.
Tom Smith, County Attorney, stated, that in his opinion, as he �`
advised the Board at the last hearing, the applicable provisions 4,
-`::':,�'�, are in Sectioh 3-6 of the Code regarding special review permits, i
}r
�.=M1_� The first subsection states what he believes to be the applicable ,;
criteria to all specia2 review permits. Those criteria have to
' be satisfied as far as the Board is concerned. Also, with
�=;N� respect to single family homes exceeding five bedrooms, the
"'i criteria requires that a demonstration of need has been made in
-'-.:.i the absence of ineeting criteria for presumption. As he has
:,>_-� stated previously, he does not believe the presumption of need
=:;-3 applies in this case, and the Board must determine whether or not
an actual need has been demonstrated based upon the information
7� submitted by the applicant.
`� Y � Mr. Erneman continued by stating, that if the applicant is really
;-;t sincere about wanting to build what the County is comfortable
-� with. If he wants to be liked, and wants to be a part of this
community then he should reduce the size of the structure or
build smaller units.
;=�1 Joe Edwards questioned whether the applicant has really proved an
immediate family need. Also, he does not feel that a structure
' of this size is appropriate for a single family zone. �
Mary Martin stated, that past members of the Board were rude and
;,;�=k�� abrupt about a farmer's family coming in and wanting to subdivide
';n�., i foz a chi2d of their own and refusing them any subdivision some
of those ranches would be filled which homes which Mr. Edwards is
`.::�'� talking about.
J� Richard Cohen stated, that he has a concern with the trend of
=;+ thought which is coming out of this process. He said there are j
•1 very few people who have a demonstrated need for a structure of
- _'=+ this size. He does not feel that approval o� this application �'`
would be setting a precedent. Also, the applicants are doing a 4
great deal for the community, much more than anyone else would, ' ,
� :�� in order to make this happen in a way that at least is palatable �
to the community. ��'`''
_ �:;,'
�;
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 8 JULY il, 1989 t
tY •
- ,�({ �..
':'£.�.:T�'.�,7
�'�
:`'+ � .
�
......... ... .. .. ... � . . . "__'�+� . .
�g� � ..- _ . . .. . c . . � - . .
.rii. _ '' _ . .
. :s�. �:.(%� • ..
- c
^:+� ,
.s'�,. v� `i�. .
�'J. _
. �"l.�^,`�y
,��„i.f.� .
't;;{:�;.:._ � s . .
�� . _ ' � _,
.. .. _. ---
R� .� . . . ...... . . .. . .�.......
.. � � r
� � j 1f `' � � �� � �rr���� ��� .. '�rr'�a -....� ����r
. .,('�' }�µ�} -.�.r' S•4 Y ��;���
q ua �
. t � } '����`Sj��' y�„ �.. � � .., �' ��" `. �fdi���'4t�ii''�7.''S�- � �' �3
i �pe.� y� �� ,�t�
-. .�� ��������5"��Epi.ti��,e�.l�a"�•�f f ,. �Stlt�Y' .�,_" "; '�°,LS3�����+�'d r,�..} .,f�F�',�.,
�:. ... . . i�) %;.�`�66..`Q F kt:F u. _�+::k�...w�ri:v' .v
Art Daley, representing an adjoining property owner to the north
of Prince Bandar's lot, stated, that �is c2ient fully supports
the Prince's application.
4�
Dick Butera, stated, that the Prince's affect on the aommunity is '•�:?. -
an enormous amount of taxes paid to the school system. This is a +�'z�`.
proportionate amount to what his usage would be on the school � .'
system. Therefore, the children in the coaununity are going to k �
benefit from this kind of development. Also, after construction
hourZy workers are going to be called upon to keep the property _
� up to standards. In discussions with elected officials in
Washington, he has been told that the Prince is considered to be �'.
the number one charitable person in the City of Washington.
Therefore, the charities will benefit. He encouraged Commission `'
-:� members to uphold the zoning laws and to respect those laws with �`
:,� regard to this application. <i
i:�:
� Don Kopp, stated that he has been a contractor in the valley for ��•,'
,� 27 years. Since the five bedroom law has been effect, he has ,•':
submitted plans for five bedroom residences in Pitkin County with
: a a sewing room with a bathroom, a office with a bathroom, etc. He
said that the proposed Zegislation has made cheaters out of
� builders and their clients. He feels that the Prince is a fine
gentleman and has a great family. If he wants to build 15 _
;:� bedrooms and 26 bathrooms, and the dwelling is tucked back up in
the hill where no one will see it, he should be allowed to do so.
;,:,�
'• Mark Pa le encoura ed members to fair and a
5 q ppropriate under the
-F present law and regulations. FIe asked that personal emotions not
:`� be a factor in consideration of this application.
��'! Paul Taddune, representing the Starwood Homeowners' Association,
,_Vq stated that the Starwood Board has met with the Prince, the
1 architects for the project, etc. to discuss the concerns they
had, and to deliberate these concerns. The Board concluded after �
these discussions, that this project should be approved under the
existing regulations of the County. �
�;;� Barry Siegle, a resident of Smuggler Mountain, stated, that he
- feels that the Government here is stepping into areas where they ,
+� don�t belong. He said that we have codes and fee2s this project
;:� should be approved fixed within those codes.
''� Nicholas Kume encouraged approval of the project.
� .
Bob Child expressed concern with regard to energy consumption '
associated with the proposed structure. Also, with regard to the
size, he feels it is totally inappropriate for this community. ��
Suzanne Caskey, reiterated her comments from previous meetings �'`
� with regard to her concern about the impacts to the community if - y,
this project were approved. Also, she has concern what the next ��,;
" BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 9 JULY 11, 1989 � ,
:� �;
r� 1
'i,
� � � . � � . � . . . . . '_ . . . . .
y �t ' . .. . � . _
�:.
. �
:i-; -
=-.ti'
:?�+c:
=1't::
=;4ci
?��:��: « , '- �
,� ; � �
� �
, ,
.. .... ,.. . . ... . . . . ,,.._.._.
C.
m„;- �
t� Y` d,!�������� �����n�,.;�iry�l,�r�`��1,}��i���ta^G,
. . .'�.Mi.���*...��'�.�µ.�J��'��?;�1t2..t"k'�`',Zr�.��'�'°�,...`.� k+�R'y''�. ,�9.1{3�' .�i�.�1�"�' .- 'a°'�i�3.,`� ,-z�.*'�'..��,�'��'�`'_r�;
r':;;
owner would do with the structure.
Paul Taddune s�ated, that no one is impacted more than the 113 .
Starwood property owners. They have looked at this project and
considered all the valid points that have been made, and have
concluded that their neighborhood is not going to be adversely +'i -
impacted. �;:�;';:;
Peter Guy requested that Commission members try to peel away all � ::• -
of the emotions involved in this application, and consider it on
its own merits by doing what is right.
`i Alan Monrae stated, that his concern is what happens to the E'''.
' property if the Prince chose to sell it. However, he thinks the �,
Commissioners should address the application fairly, and not
I change the rules in mid-stream. ��•
1 e
=� David Amory urged Commission members to remember why they were ��'
��.� elected which was to change some of the things that have been ��;'.
,^; going on in the past. They were voted in as a slower growth ;
fmandate and requested that the application be denied.
i Charlie Marsh, a resident of Starwood urged Commission melnbers to
'.� treat the application fairly. He stated, that there feeling in
' Starwood was that the Bandar house wou2d be a reaZ plus for
,:j Starwood because of the enviTOnment. The 100 acres would have a
�� use for approximately six houses. Those six houses would be
:�_�} probably 12,000 to 15,000 square feet, and would represent far
� more use of water, sewer, etc. than one single home for an Arab
=,� prince who wi1Z probably leave the house empty six months out of
the year. They felt this was a lower impact on Starwood than
anything else that would happen on that land.
3<^1
'� Janet Lightfoot encouraged approval of the project. �
Jim Curtis stated, that he knows it is a tough decision for
-,,� Commission members to make, and they have his support which ever
,�'� way it comes out. However, he is opposed to the negotiations
,,� regarding the $400,000 for buyout of the Community Center and the
$100,000 contribution to the energy conservation. He sees those
- two items not being directly applicable to the issue at hand
.+ which is size and compatibility. He encouraged Commission
� members to separate those and not consider those as part of the
approval independent of which way they decide to go.
( Lynn Levinson encouraged support of the project, and asked that C:?:>:`:-
� the applicant be treated fairly. she feeZs it is a good use for -
that piece of property. �
� Paul Anderson offered public comment via a self composed song. �
;''.K i:;:
� ` , personal representative of the Prince stated, ry�
BOARD OF COUNTY CQMMISSTONERS 10 JULY 11, 1989 � �
i� a%:��'F..'..
� �
:�J
�,... , _.__..:
F -°--
. r_Y.� -,
.,_
�+�' .,, . _
�tijy_ � •
�'.�'': � � � .
. (
+.�_.,,s`) . .
`�'�?�' ', e� •
,;
. . . ,.. .....
��� ' � .. . . ._ _ . . .. A r.
�f '�,,{, �, y,,,��53�Y;a:'��'��' '?t,,�;'{�:��`�����fy�vt�iS r
� ..,�y. ��� � Ub'*y ��� ��3� �.�,��3F'��,`t ,,,�t� t �� _,` �F� � ��.. �',��"�},'�rS.." d eT� ;k 1
. -.�A��� .��' �,'�.�a��t�iC�4�F�i'����.�.��i?��.'.�-f�r'��:�At a�� � '<�'fi�.._...�'. � .�r's.>..te�s..��_..�.5��Y����.�:�(�����.u�'
that he respects everyone who voiced an opinion against the house
because this is their belief, and this is the American way, and
he likes it very much.
Chairman Penne closed the hearinq to public comment. �':?.
�.;;:•',;.' .
She stated, that this is a discretionary allowed and mandated in �'
�.:..:.,:.
the Pitkin County Code. They are not changing the rules that �. '-.
already in place. The provisions in the Code under special
review which has to do with size of bedrooms are qualitated. -
That doesn't make them any less serious and that is what they
have to consider when they consider it under special review.
- �:. .
She said that she is really disappointed that when they were sent F:.
away two weeks ago to try to reduce the size of the house they 5:•:'
I chose to ignore that directive. �;
_�;';
�i She further stated, that the heavy truck traffic on the roads �♦+:'•:'
1 with dirt for the last two years every day of the summer are
� distressing a lot of people. Moving those impacts to the
� Starwood area is what Starwood is saying they are willing to put
up with but there will still be impacts to the local community.
{ With regard to approving this application, she has reviewed the
special review criteria to make a determination of whether the �
•� house is compatible with the neighborhood, the area in qeneral,
, what kind of social economic impacts it may have, etc. She does
-e not feel the applicant demonstrates a need for this size �
= residence for a vacation home. Therefore, she can not vote for "
this level of consumption because she finds it incompatible with
3 the values of this cammunity, and what it used to stand for.
� 4
Commission Etrhidge stated, that he too is disappointed that the
� applicant has not changed the size of the development. However, �
he appreciates the attempts to mitigate some of the impacts.
i
� The central issue for him is the size of the proposed structure
� and the relationship of this structure on the environmental,
social and economic aspects of the community. Also, he cannot
make a finding that a structure of this size is compatible with '
� the policies and regulations in the review criteria. Therefore, t
• he cannot support the application.
'�
Commissioner True stated, he recognizes that there may be
� differing in interpreting the code provision. However, he was
elected to make a interpretation of his own. IIe thinks there are
problems with the house, i.e., size, with some of the issues,
� etc. but he will vote his conscience and vote to approve the - -
' application because in his interpretation that is what is
i conscience requires. ,, ' ti::'
. � Yh .
+ Commissioner Ross stated that the s ecial review was tri ered '��'
� P 49 t�v._,;4 ..:
� �=..
p.,., �s;;`
� BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 11 JULY 11, 1989 s `"`�' ''' `
, _ �.:
� Y�, .
i �,_
.�-
'���# ~ ` -.
_
,�,
�"�?i;:-
'li::?
�,i .
,fa;: '` . . ' .
�`:�:
xtw'�` �
" �
�'� . .
� :. .. .... . .
. ......
�;�.�. w
.�, : . � n r 1 EP 9. , .,.. F�w.� .
. � -�.. ��,� �` '�'.�_f Iq � �y;..� w ;�•:�o±��y�y��'-,���� . ����''"i, fit,'6l .
�.�,�y� { �`.� t� �S� „��•y �, : � �jj,. A���
"`�� .,?�l,n��„'�t,�,i t�i�.�...v'-'�'.�1:`�:����t��:.-��*e .."-R' "�i°JY' Yh,K�;.:�" �.�1:_*.'°Lr3`.���� 1 a1
e
�!
by the fact that the development has a certain number of
bedrooms. Therefore, the land use code compels them to look at
the impacts on the community of this kind of development, and if
it is applicable to the zone district and its impacts on the
community. This is a special review for a specific application.
This application is not like any that have had befare them, and -
is unusual for all aspects.
� .:
The Planning and 2oning Commission, after a great deal of time
and anguish over this application, said that the need for the r..� , �
extra bedrooms was established and that is what they recommended
to the Board. However, the other impacts on the cotamunity do
� have to be considered with respect to this application. He will
always represent as one of the tenahts of what he tried to do in
his land use decisions is to not requixe the publi.c sector to pay �.
� for or support the impacts of a private development_ He feels y._�
that the applicant�s representatives have made a good effort to �`
a i8entify some kind of a project that wouZd re@uce the impact on �:`�.�
y the community i.e., parking, driving, air pollution, and housinq �_'r•.,`.
i employees. Also, he feels that the County being able to finish •
the Health and Human Services building which is going to have a
� positive impact on the community is very laudable, and he does
� not feel this is buying the way in but rather trying to address
the impacts which will affect the community.
i
'� He Eeels that since this house does represent an entire
� subdivision, that it should be the only free market building site
r� on the 95 acres. He does not support an extra employee dwelling
' unit on the 95 acres although he thinks that the new land use F.
� code is anticipating a change from 500 square feet to 1200 square
� feet per dwelling unit.
:�
,'� Commissioner Crowley stated, that you don't create l00 acre lots
sell them for five-hundred million dollars and put a trailer on
>� them. The large landowners have been forced to sell their large - _
�' pieces of property who are now making up a great part of the ?
community, employing a great deal of people, and contributing a
� great deal to the community.
He further stated, that all he has heard is a great deal of �
;� support for the application. He has not had anyone call him �
` negative about it. There has been a lot of people speak at this t�
� meeting, and the majority have been in favor of approval of the ;;
application. In his opinion, the laws have been set up, and he i�
feels that the applicant and the applicant's representatives have
lived up to the laws. ���
J ��
; Commissioner Crowley moved approve the construction of the Bandar
� residence on Block 2 of Starwood as designed with fifteen ±
bedrooms including the acceptance of the $500,000 gift to be used i
by the County towards helping the Human Services Building, and t',. ��'-_<
' directed staff to draw up a resolution approvinq the special :.;�1�,:
� BOARD OF COIIN'pY COMMISSIONERS 12 JULY 12, 1989 'Z`.,`'��?
"=3 �.-�:'�!t:
:.�
� 4 f`
_ �'
: 4 4�.. ' .' .:..-�__ °:-�i' ..: ., .
�, i'r'�-�v��-.'• . ... . � ... .. . .
� t �'G .� . ` �- • . . .. _-, .
t��
_Yr''1..�'�.
.:;^1�� � . a .
:.'ii�'[�':- �
�
��:' -- . ._-�__ _ f
� � r�� .''�t' ,�•.��� �� R���'�r
��_ y� �g,� 9 �'r, t "°r�s °L t
:3i.Xf:��.ti�'�34�t�.tt�.ui.f��h4i �:�r��_��'x.`'�..���.i€«��_a.'' _' .�' ��1'i..� .��..'t�.���� ^y3�{,a ta�`�� .�L�s ,it:�..�1�' .A�T,.
review use of the ASPCOL Corporation and bring it back for
approval of the conditions striking Condition No. 2 of the P&Z's •
recommendations and modifying Condition No. 13 to state that
hours of construction will be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m (if
approved by the Starwood Board.) Building site No. 2 from the '
plat vill be deleted, and a condition will be ad�ed that no
accessory units without further review. Commissioner Ross ♦
seconded, and the motion passed with three yea and two nay votes �'��''�.�
by Chairman Penne and Commissioner Ethridge. �R' . -
Commissioner Crowley moved approval with the existing ranch �, _
manager's house and the existing log structure to remain on the �
property as employee housing to be used at the discretion of the
people who own the property with a maximum square footage allowed
in that particular district, and no apart�ent in the barn. �,`�.,
Commissioner Ross seconded, and the motion passed with three yea 1" • .
;`�{:
� votes with two nay votes by Chairman Penne and Commissioner Ross. �
I AWARD 1989 CHIP SEAL PROGRAM CONTI2I�CT TO GMCO - MOTION TO APPROVE r?.:
PASSED IINANIMOIISLY - Bud Eylar, County Engineer, summarized this f �
item by stating. that this contract is for the Chip Seal of
approximately 13.3 miles of roads in Pitkin County. This program �
' was discussed extensively during the hudget process and earlier
� this year when road work was re-prioritized. Unit prices were �
� slightly lower than last year. The reason seems to be that most
3 of the chip seal this year is in longer stretches and is taking �.
place on rural roads with less traffic_
� Commissioner Ross moved apgrovaZ of the contract. Commissioner ��
� Crowley seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. �
.� FIRST READTNG - RESOLUTION - AUTO INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE-
MOTION TO APPROVE - PASSED WITH FoIIR YEA AND ONE NAY VOTE - Lee �
Cassin, representing the Environmental Health Department,
.i summarized this item by stating, that at a work session,
; Commissioners expressed their desire to adopt into the State of , �
i Colorado�s Automobile Inspection and Readjustment program. In
`; this program, gasoline-powered vehicles registered in Pitkin
� County will be inspected to ensure that their emissions are not
extremely high. This program targets only '�gross polluters", or
3 the 20 percent of the cars responsible for 80 percent of the i
jvehicular carbon monoxide. The State of Colorado will provide ��
mechanics' training, enforcement, public education, and
� administration of the program. The program is expected to lower ..�1
; Aspen's carbon monoxide levels (which this department believes �
i are too high to be healthful at this altitude) by 20 percent.
� Adoption into the state program requires writing a letter to the �; `;
Air Quality Control Commission requesting inclusion, and passage
I of the resolution.
I ��
� Commissi.oner Ethridge moved approval of first reading and set for
pu2>lic hearing. Commissioner True seconded, and the motion ' ,�}�,, .
% �'. ;�'.��
- BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONSRS 13 JULY 11, 1989 "q�:„ F
f,.
�, _:�;
� ��'
t
���� ' � ��'
='r�
�
;,�`�:,;,�:
;:}'r .
���
�y�,� . .
_- ,, °'�
-'�: .
.,.f�a ' 't ti '�F � ;�. ,
�Y� -: �-, ��.' . :: ,u,�:i� t '�� 1N:f' i� ':� ;!',t ,,--;.
l� ..:l�.��iE'�:Hii1��a��d+�,��5 �(._S:u��.1,.�'.�, .._.`�j.��i' '6"�' .. . . !0�a... , ,.: �.�?�..'`.�.
- . v«.�+1 ��<�
C:�`.�:: . .
passed with four yea and one nay vote by Commissioner Crawley.
RES07�TION APPROVIIiG 1989 BBDGET AMENDMENT FOR ROARING FORR
TRANSIT AGENCY - MOTION TO APPROVE - PASSED IINANIMOIISLY - B7ruce
Abel, General Manager for RFTA, summarized this item by stating,
that the supplemental budget appropriation is necessary ta amend 4�. .-
the budget to accommodate additional expenditures that were not �',;:..;
- envisioned when the original 1989 budget was prepared. `
Commissioner True moved approval. Commissioner Ross seconded, �`'`�
��' ,
I and the motion passed unanimously. __
!
`I
-,.j MoTION TO ADJOURN: The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. ,
� � .. ,
Re pe tfully submi , �
x� L!Z� �'
T
�;,^`� anette Jones, ecording Secretary
:_;:-� Board of County Commissioners
`-�`'.-� _ _
���
:•..�
, �
zri,,�
;,-�
W:
_ � .
�
'�,� ;. .... -
':,i =.� .
�'���J :;_k C,
` '":�":_�:�:'.
�.;;
r'�il.,
�"� .�.-�`.
;;j BOARD OF COUNTY COMKISSIONERS 14 JULY 11, 1989 �:
``Jl
,°rl
.�
��'�'� s,. i �-�"'"
w��41 .. 4 t i
.�`
' �,
,�F ��r�-' _
<i{,�� f�, ..
_ ���` , .
�,;�,;;;
,s�u,`,:?":,=''�i;
,w�s:i;.�}
..?t31r . . . , . . � .
.V�� �.1��}" .
.-?4���9y� � . . . . . .
i.;���y-C:�st'`«� � ..
;:.,�"'�.,�ri,' � .
�"tiF'�����:� .
:S'�n'�'?`�'c�' . ` .
,.��� ` _ . . i
+.n}y';»i�{-
,��; •, _ . . ., ..__ ._ �t . . . ,
• � � J , M a a �'�' �� .. �'f 1 I
�i ��y ._ �.L� �q+ � „..�t ._ . - t s �r'�� '��,k�+7+SFM,����'����������� !•� �Y�F .
'�y'�py' a'� M 7� , ; �j='PA/�t! S'�i� '6. � �,(I Y ,Y Yf s 42�'r '������ � y'�� `� ,�z��, ���.
1►�"'�¢ sa ..Ysa.',_�'�a �. .!�/i )S� t�� t 1 t
�».ar�c:l��fSf�:�.��. .;� ��+ a. :M.�,r
�� ;.`;•_
_. .
aon��n a��;1. Cn�..�i=,�„��
r��rKitJ L:�^l.�t,.f,'y
I'ukilic Ncati�t��z..,.. ' .
O��tr.'--- 7=�-- , +':�.
—�-----
s�,�,�����,..�5�?�O�._` ,;:..� -
t.;:,
exi, rio. .._"A�'.._.------- �.;:�'_'
July 3, 1989 � '�y -
7�~
I
�
� Fred Peirce
_� Austin, Jordan, Young & Peirce -
7 600 E. Hopkins
a� Aspen, CO 81611 ��;..
� ki:.
�- ,'.� Dear Fred, s ' '.
j;
On July 3, the Board of County Commissioners instructed the staff
'`� to ask you, as the ASPCOL representative, for the following
; information concerning the special review application. As you
'•.; are aware, the Board has set the next meeting for July 11, 1989.
,.,_,�� If you can not obtain the requested information by that time
please let me know as soon as possible in order for me to make
the necessary arrangements to reschedule.
t�`x l
•,:,
,,'`i Please address the following:
;�'+ 1. What is the average size home in the Starwood Subdivision?
'`� 2. What is the average size home in the Aspen Metro Area
(including Aspen)?
`'�� 3. Provide a community cost benefit analysis for the proposal. '
What are the benefits and costs to the community with regard
to services such as water, sewer, roads, schools and other
.,-= special districts.
.��.,
<'?;� 4. What are the construction impacts to the community? What
� are the impacts to the County road system and safety?
.;;;� _
`- ' 5. What are the construction impacts relative to employees?
How long will construction take place? Eiow many individuals ;,":
T� will be employed? �
;� 6. What are the long term employee needs o£ the proposal? How � ;5
many people will be employed on a year round and part time �� �
basis? �' �ti,
� t .?S"'.
}�i'Yj�.�"
71�?y+l.
f
s;i �.
�:
�-�`1��� ` F� .
� .. . ... . . .........._ _.._ ...... _. . .
. ._._....__ ._.'- _____.._. ._. _.., .. ...:....__ .. . ..... _ . .._ _...._.�-_. ._.. _.
..� .__. . . ., . . . . _ . . .
t't'� >:- � . .. . . '
. �3:;>`;xM .
_,��':4''- , .
'�-'4��:. . � � .
Af� . f
tl k::�- � - �
.;�}�.'.'�� � . . , ,
'q�y.4�ti�.V�� � � . � �
'�:.:��n;:r. ' .
`�;��hi�:y�x.:.�' .
'.!.{;�' �^i.T.•: ' .
a,:-._..v�+e�-..
7';.
,:ifti;.�.T��,;� . .
,t5''�
S9-:�� �
:jl;i:3..a.. � .
�'�i1'.`,�-.T-, �
�'.I�M'r,�' ` . .
:�
+
v �� u._. `� ' .
4 �,_. „���-��) ,�,:
, i �1� { Vy[
�•'?<'�Gll(..���YWf��.ii1�'SF1Kf7S'4�d5t�.1�•LJ'Ie1c �;b..._. �.Li�f"�`I. h ''�(� r v ��S9 ti':
:tl� . . '•�: ... �� . ���sE��:
�. ,.
�:
_ 1i .
� Fred Peirce
July 3, 1989
Page 2 .
i
" If you have any questions you may contact me at the Planning .
; office through the 7th. After that time Buddy Lucero will be '''� �'
back in the office to handle the project. Thank you for your ,:
cooperation. �,;;,.:�..:.
' R� -
x Sincerely,
r �. . '-
;i.;,
y �:,. ;
._� Cindy M. Houben,
Senior Planner
;�
��
.1� ' _
'f� `,� 'r,!��`��Y
P ,
i�
� _
.''a
.:-�
.���h� . . . .
� `
„�
.'�
f
.;T� � 7
;j �
�
. .ti;�;.'�:�.'
� . �:'f�:".:'.�.i
� . .�'iYi�3.
. ::;i>-...
''�
y��\�
. .I �:,"'sy.:�.:
.:3 .�� ;
.-� � ;_':;
`�
3�„�,n,,�::.�+,�..s�:.��,_.._ ,.�,.�. «...w.� _._�:,•:.._::�_..�..w, w
�,.
,��, : -.:_.w_. _- v
.. - _ - .;.;,
. ---
_ _�— .
� ��:: .
_ . 4
�5-�� � �
, �➢ _ �
,5���=" � .
1��3'1 � . . . . . . . .. � � . .
���� � �� � - . ' � . .
d
. �o'��.�r�.'4',: . � . ' - . 'f .
s'�8 Z:��-�1"�.'� . .. � . � . �. . .
���� .. . � . . ' . � • .
�' . .. . . . , . . ' . .
N*
�Y .
-���� . . . .. ' .
,��,.��s, .
� �.
� . .�.� .
,���
. . <�
;���t- � -- . .
�,.
, . _. ...
.���V � . .. ' . � � . °r. 'P t �3-'Y�j �92�E�`� S��i,,afir`y.y�y �,.�}i��r!
D._ � .. : k .� ii " i4'�r v eha+�Gi i� i ��
� � ,�� x. � '+.�.r Y -��'}���5�+.f.. '�&�+t..Yr,'g� ,'4'�S � r ' kj��`
.,1��, ::W. ..t'-�'�i3Fi y`���,y,y�`:_(�[��y��/,�,�y`t jl, �1� q3e.. .. --�.1:.'.,.��"�i�l=�����K�.� .
.'..'.��±t.�a�e.�^..��1�b/IYT*:�W3'.!`�a..��"�r�.�Y.Y��•` .-Li.�'�. ..._ _ ,ii1 3.n�iC..K "S['� '�
�;r:'..
• '_ . :f �(;. '�.1'J� •.1:`�i'!'�„��
,1i . :'�� , ;:)�;
�4.USTIN,70RDAN,YOUNG&PEIRCB ''` ;��.�'"7 4''�'-'..'��':'•:�,i
wmm�nNLa l::.P:� _.._.,.._1._�=�_L____
600 Esst Hopkias Avenue /�� /�,/ •
Suite]AS :..•....._iIJJ"�L 4�'�_ ,.- .. -
RonaWD.Amtln Aspen,Coiorado81611 �,�;�_ .,.. 87elryhoae(30J)925d600 �:--.,_ �
Wi116m R)ordan lIl _ '�A7C(7USr925-1720 ..;..
a. . ,
Gnr A.Ywn6
�'':"
� FrtdcfiekF.Peirce . �.�, _
'Icd D.Gudenswrnz
� k3EM0 RAN;DUM�.''
-� ' ✓
TO: Cindy NI. IIouben and Buddy Lucero, Aspen/Pitkin Planning �'` .
,,i Of f ice �
� �,-
�1 FROM: Austin, Jordan, Young & Peirce �'�,'
..:,
� � .
�' DATE: July 11, 19H9
,� RE: Request for Additional Information Regarding the ASPCOL
"� Corporation Special Review Application for Additional
�7 Bedrooms/Additional Employee Unit
-:�
� -----------------------------------------------------------------
:� The purpose of this memorandum is to attempt to address the
:'�i reguest for additional information received from the Aspen/Pitkin
�'�� Planning Office by letter dated July 3, 1989, addressed to Fred
-� Peirce of Austin, Jordan, Xoung & Peirce and signed by Cindy
Houben, Senioz Ylanner. The referenced letter requested
information regarding the average size of homes in the Starwood
subdivision as well as in the Aspen metro area and requested
� information regarding construction i.mpacts to the community for the
� <p proposal as well as a "community cost/benefit analysis" for the �
proposal. Within the time parameters allowed, the aQplicant has
� been able to obtain the following information in response to the ,
`� sequest contained in the referenced letter: S
._� 1. With reEpect to the average size home in the Starwood r .
subdivision, we were able to determine that 13 residences were S�
;• constructed between 1985 and 1988 in Starwood. In the time E.
fallotted, it was not gossible to compile information prior to 1985. sZ
Of these 13 residences, the largest residence consists of 18,567
:a square feet and the smallest residence consists of 5,726 square - -
; feet. The average size of these 13 houses is just under 11,000
� square feet. These 13 residences were constructed on lots ranging
: in size from 2.07 acres to 5.073 acres, with the average lot being `.}:c:":`s';���
a 3.25 acres. The Aspcol lot is 29.23 times larger than the average "�-:='i?'
r of those 13 Starwood lots. If the Aspcol residence were 29.23 �`�`
� times larg�r than the average of the 13 Starwood residences it -•:�:-���•
would be 311,530 square feet, not the proposed 55,000 of gross `'�"'���';
" square footage. The 13 lots have an average FAR of .07 and the �=-:'�� �JF'��
F �F'.-��r".;.
' �:
}
e
1 ��
,; .
i _- __ -.----
.
3�:_; � .
:��: .
:3-.�- - �
.Y��:;;_
�;3v..- �.:F�::
- '
��" ` -
4 1
.'w.:
_;' -
:'r;'s ni;:�:: - •
.�:�������, r
�
��� . ..._ �
��,- . . . . .,
�`, _,`1 ''�-�pg��j u��'�r ,,�r� ��.t, fff,,�� ,.
'. ��p p K:� �l��i ���( �}q . .r.' .. . '' t rl,1'FC��r Cf Y� i� .}� '�.�� �`P� ����� ��j 1
. � xS'Yiy �.dY�]{!n �l{ k�.��3`+ �rs!'P)�.s � r��j 1�i ��. , w:. `� i �'1.$�y t�4�� 'ii�'` 9W.��f'7r "r�,�✓��'`a� 9 Y1�I�hv
... F�'k.�d�.. :�`'.�CS..�.`J41�v-1�f.,,�.L�Fi:SY`,.%'�{��^'?rS"r�Y�a�$.,;,l.iY:. ..-f.te!''���.'_FY�_._ _ ���',�,!,��.�' �i. �. :*r;a�
, �'' .
,AUSTIN,JORDAN,YOUNG&PEIRCE
Attorneys At Law
Aspcol lot has a proposed FAR of .OI3, less Chan one-fifth L-he k::-:-
Starwood FAR. i;:''`
i•;•_- -
2. With respect to the average size l�ome in the Aspen metro �'
area, including Aspen, it was impossible within the time allowed
: ;� to obtain any information regarding this request and it is doubtful
F whether this inforniation could be obtained in any detai2 given a ?
substantially longer period of time, t�,
�;l 3. With respect to a community cost/benefit analysis for the ,`
i: ;`
_ proposal, there can be no doubt that the constrnction of this �
;�'J;'-I project will create substantial benefit for the community. With %`
1 respect to cost o£ the community regarding water, for example. the %
i applicati.on i.s already complete with reapect to the report from
`�'� the water engineers and a water attorney that the water source will
-�..� be the Starwood water district and that there is sufficient water
�;.-,f� for the proposed stzucture as v�eZl as the rest of Starwood. The
County staff already has reviewed that aspect of the application
� and has agreed that water is not a concern with respect to the
`=`=:`;� impact of the proposal, as has Starwood fxom whom you have heard
<�; consistent support for the application. Lilcewise, there is no
'"';":`j impact to any sewer district since the sewage disposal will be an
-.,� engineered system on sit:e which will comply with all local and
state regulations as the Healtli Department has a2ready ascertained 4
`^._„� in its referral comments. There is a report in the application
from a transportation engineer that has been reviewed by staf£
pointing out that the impacts to roads from this proposal �aill be
,,�_;;� minimal and wi11 not cause any problems with respect to the
existing road system. A].so, as represented in fihe application, the
��� pzoposal wiil have no impact on the School District, except to
_.;:�.;� increased its coffers by virtue of the School District•s share of
property taxes, since there wi11 be no school children living in
;:==�g this partzcular residence that will use the schools.
;'n:,;.
-�`:� In addition to the above, it shou2d be clear that construction
c of the proposed residence will have a substantial positive impact
-•''$ on the community in terms of economics. The constr.uction costs for
,� this residence will be substantial and a majority of that money
<';; will go to local contractozs, subcontractors and to material r
,,;� suppliers, sznce the pro�ect will incorporate a considerable amount }; - _
5 of stone, timbez and other materials from .toca2 sources. In �
; addition, the construction payrol.l will significantly contribute �
' to the local economy.
j Finally, the taxes alone on the property will generate over i £ `
� half a million dollars directly into the County's cofiers over the
next two years, as already represented by L-he applicazet. #{r='.
� Therefore, it seems clear that the cost/benefit analysis 3ndicates �
r ��':
�� �,
�;�'.i
=�4'�:�
,
,.,... ..._._ __ . . .._,x_�--«-__»,,,� ..�
��:: ., � — -
a:i,�r'�_i'�• . � . �
`
_ :,4,•
��:i: '
�'';,t�:'7,'�:. . t.
- � �
,i
_._ , . . : :,..
.�r� .. . .. __ . .
�: , �7y.}�
, . . � . . , '�'� iJ1Si��'Yl�.�k;M�.�:l}1�f"j.y��}44:�d�li ��.�t;�5 �
{� �}Cd� r+ ' Z . . �! • Y � 7A � Y�+�,!��� f �1
x +��I��) / �7 �'��� i��� �i1 ) . .�-:. r t,q� `�'f+t Y�kA... '..�+ �'�r,��s Fi ,�'{ ,� �
y� �grf�7��a. 1 � .��`t' r:1f"�;.. ,1(
. '`Y 'il«.''Fi a�'-'rJe� �. N,d �j 'C�� r� 45�.� t�c��f t ��� [�. ��.. � 9� ��t�� �i`.t
� aM `�a.'�c$��5 .'.�r.`�" :�'�l�a7."4'9���i`?�P"'�an;�!t a t'i'-:���S��i��l�&�, a ,.. y.k*�; .�:�i:����.,�^�k��'•:
AUSTIN,JoRDAN,YOUNG&PEIRCE
Attomeys At Law
that the proposal will have substantial benefit at minimal cost to �,,
the community.
4. Relative to road and traffic impacts during the -
construction of the project, the contractor estimates that the
construction of the project will add approximately 2,500 round �;
trips by trucks on County roads over a period of 24 months. All
, ' loads will conform to County road restrictions or will obtain �.
oversize/overweight permits as required. This permit procedure
��'`� helps reduce road damage by providing the County an opportunity to E:`
. ';..,� review the axle configuration of the subject vehicle, as well as `�.
the load thereon, to avoid serious damage potential. The
contractors, in conjunction with their consultants, hired by the
iN,;
.�,� applicant have determined that the impact of the construction of
.;'j the proposed residence on County roads and traffic would be less
� than the impact of oonstruction of multiple projects with a similar
�_;:;j total square footage and construction value. In addition, the use
{ tax imposed by the County will more than offset any damage caused
to the roads.
'f� .
5. With respect to employees involved in the construction
of the project, the contractor estimates an average work force of
_ ''`-� approximately 60 men per day working on the site during normal
`%:;��I'� business days for 24 months. Since the contractor is local and
since the contractor will be using local subcontractors and worlanen
to the extent possible, this project will maintain the viability
- of the local work force. The applicant intends to find and rent
�;;`:� housing for any employees generated by the project who do not have
housing currently, and to provide job site transportation for such
employees by van pooling. Job site access will be limited to
^<� company trucks and car pools. The applicant will provide off-site
parking and van transportation to those individuals unable to car
pool. Consequently, the project will add only 30 round trips by
�-.'Y-� car and light trucks per day to the construction site. The
contractors, in conjunction with their consultanL-s, hired by the
_ applicant k:ave concluded that the existing County roads and private
^`� roads accessing the site will have no problem handling this `
increased traffic during the conetruction phase. q-: _ _
3 �;
�='� 6. With respect to lonq-term employees, the applicant �; '
� intends to hire one individual or couple to live on-site and take � �
'` � care of the residence and the premises. The applicant already �'`�' "
employs a full-time ranch manager who lives on site in an employee S�'��:;!..!
� unit. To the extent that outside contractors are necessary for �;:�:''
� yard work or maintenance or repair to the residence, existing t}�-�.�:
contractors or subcontractors will be used on an as-needed basis, ��'';.
` � providing work for local businessmen.
J �x
-,� �,
�":::�
�
;._
j�
- ___ _._. . � _ . _
�, -
;;:,;- ��;�- .
:�-_ ,
-
j:,;,:: .
�.;�:
��;�.,-
::;;:-::� . . ,
'',�; ,` a�'
'�� �
� �. 33�� ,a,
t� _ . . . .b `y ��� i N�� ,�������I..
A'f� .. ' .� "� ��. .M a �'l �`Yd, J �1'A,p��`+' :
. -y 'e.pp�� � �:r'� T-!'�� „ t ����,4x � y' t_ . -g'��Jri+y�'. �'
���,; y ,' � G'i`� . _ . � ',�*b....��j� � -
� !Q.n
t a►..�
. . '�)
AUSTIN,3oR��N�YOUNG&PEIRCE
Attomeys At law
� F '_
���-_
; '
i
uestions, please feel £ree to contact me. ��
i S£ you have any q E`•; � :
... _.
� ours, "
; very truly y _ -'-
� .... . .. ... F( '
;1 AUSTIN,C�O�A�� ��u�G & PEIRCS
�:,;
����' ���----------
,� F�cederick F. Peirce
�`:
; FFP1as �
'�°�^-� aspcoi�houben.mem
.�: ;rx
:;��-,�.�
� -
-. `��
� . ="s::;_`
1$X,.�,�� . .
�.3�
�'����
y�. .
[;'' 1'
:•_3"�,-•'` .
�y�.x� .
. .���,� - ' .
:}"
�i�'F
�j�
�,� _
�if`'.
. � . 'Ia`;w>i
�'.Z ��.
.�
,.
+:=r;� -.S,�.
.. -�;;.� . [A� .
�`*� F
. .. �. .
����
t f�-��
_�.:E . '.-".'
s:T,k�': ..... ......r...... . ... ':. :�;�.'- �� .
�� � iY M...vx X�^d�` _._ �,.,.'__".._---�- . '... . .. .. _.. ..... . ` .. .. .,
S .._.�—af ' • . . _. . ..
�'�'A� . . � .
, � 1�
iy1;�+�t,,`�,..
�.'- �,�y_ .. � . `' . ...
r'.'� �R. . � . -
,S i�r . . . . .
b:�t� � . , . . ..
.�A� ... � ' . � � . .
e�+Z°{y-0},�b:: . . ... . � .
:H���,4 Y,; .. � - . . . .
� {x
� �� .
.��4±a.. . �: .
:��;fry;1Sc4,!.�i 1�
�f]S.'�r...
�.��i'�3�f,,� . .
' �.�l, e;
;�;��� � - � .
�.�-
�� � �
:�,,.,.
.:�..