HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.reg.05231989 �
��s:'
.,€" ��ti" —.� ._.' _. .
. .r,.; _. �.__.. _. .-.._;_.,...._...-.-
,i' . . .. . � ..�. ....
�
. ��j'�,�rt�it'.
. , ��'�.t".�j,�
`��� .
����i-.,
F1RKIIi QX][fPY QM+ffB'iIQ�3tS
I�AR�CII1G AGHIl]A
District Qoprktioca
IS7ESOAY. NA1C 23. 1989
�;;�::,_ :
5:30 FM PpHGIC�l�Zlp '��•:
s:ii;i�;:..•
; �@ili H�II]� �'��` '
i 1. Oooperative Wildfire Pmtectiou� Agt+eement Annua2 Operati_[x3 Plan, Steve ,;��`~.
� �� .. ,
� 2. Wilclw+ood Sc31oo1 Special E�ents Liquor License, Kim Schultz
3. Newsttran Davi.s cbnttact Amencfinent to Maintenance Facility, Bntce `
VardELC�1W
4. Airport Srwwplaa/Braaa Pm�t, �uoe UandexgaW
� I�9DIUrI(%S AND�T1i7AC.'IS
# �9 II I �
5. 1988 RFTA Final Suppla�sttal Birlget Appropriation, Bruce Abel �
-i> -.� ��,�;
r ;
�' IAND�E ITII4i
'� 6. Hodges Insubstantial C2�anqe to a Recozded Plat, Buddy Iucetro �,
� 7. Gaffney Speci.al Review for Separation of Substandax3 Lots, Buddy Iucero i
_ ,:�
• ';`� �'� � '.
� '
-=:�. �+tC�� S � .
':p 8. N�nGeophysical of America Pmspectirg Prermit, (Withdrawnj, Cindy ':
`f:
9. Fast Owl Creek Ranrh betaileii Sutmissiaai arid Final Plat, Cincly Hw}�n
= 10. Navratilava 50 � �ity REductiar� Zat Split �.a„�,ai s,tb,;s�i�, �Y
. ,��2� ��.� , .
`j.
' 11. Iow I�act SUbdiVision Regulat'1ons, Ci1x�y Ha��.n !!
c-
i�`, ;{
A[170URN iE
i`:� �
�.�.
PiFASE NUIBc AIL P[]BLIC Fffi�RII�ARE Ii[7PIC'�FLfft 5:30 PM. ACLtlAS,TSMFS FT�S,VlSRY. �
; � ,
�e1 ;
;;_-�
`;�:�'r;�.
_ £�;
� . '�t.,..
;:=�..yc:
; ; ��.
_ . ..:::.�3-
�
,�'�- . . �`�
�
r'.1
1'-,i�.��-�;aw.f,w.+wkr:,ts.�?x.is.+^`��„_.y....��—:»:�..:..w....-._:u,:� -.,:e:�...., . ...... ..,,� u., �,.� -
.. , _ ;.., ,�.. �;
j F �y, .- . ' , : .�.:rM1.l k �!�_
'� � . I ..... . ,
r''��r�
��`���� . ` --� �, c�
v>�$y�. �.' _.
,:,t; �
_ jr� � � � . _
r:t� ,
�.z�x
��Y�-,.�a��;
.���M1��j - . . � . . � . . ,
a'l�bx �"�: � . .. �. . �� , . .. ��
��- � � ,
.,�'s'
r
�� \.
�� •^ . .. . � . . . ' ' , .
�����'
� �
� .t
'4
y�'ft. � . . - ` . .
:��2�! ` _ . . . .
�;\:
i�
. S . . �.�.. �. ....... _ ... � ..4-.... ._. . ... ... .. _ " ._....
�_pa' .... .. . � . . . � . .. a. . ' . . .. . . . . `,,
. '•N��F ii�4(�l
���_,
'i•
• APPROVED A7 a�'�``;�;�;'
. �='�,'���:�
. JUN 1 319819 ��#�'�`�',-
M=N°TES MEETIMG
PITRIN COUNTY $OAI2D OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
REGIILAR MEETING
kIAY 23. 1989
�;.:•>
;:
f��.S:;.
£`�.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Colette Penne, Commissioners Wayne �y`'�f
Ethridge, Jim True, Herschel Ross and Fred Crowley E� `�: , :'
�S�: -
� CALL TO oRDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. };,..,r ` �
PUBLIC COMMENT: Dieter Bibbig appeared before the Board with �
regard to operating a glider business at the airport. He
referred to his letter of 5-Z6-89 an@ presented commission •��
� members taith a current letter of 5-23-89. A copy of this letter �
� is made a part of this record as F.xh_ibit nA". �
_ r `
`� After a discussion, staff was asked to look into the matter, and
';� try to keep Mr. Bibbiq operating until an agreement can be worked �
� out. �
? Jim Ward, representing the Hunter Creek Advisory Commission,
� appeared before the Board with regard to the status of the Hunter [� -
� . � Creek access matter. He requested a work session with Commission !�
� members to update them with some new information.
' Commissioner Ethrid e advised Mr. Ward that the Count Attorne �
y 5 Y Y
has received a settlement proposal at this point. However, i
� Comatission members have not had a chance to review this proposal '
at this point in time. If the proposal is acceptable to legal
f staff and to hi�a he plans to suggest that it become part of the �:
£ public record and the discussion process take place publicly from
� that point. He further stated, that Commissioner True and he .�
,� visited the site today to look at som� proposed trail alignments,
;� etc. He found the last alignment which was discussed
unacceptable. However, as he understands it, there is a new
proposed alignment suggested which is a part of this agreement.
;� There are a number of aspects of the agreement which need to be �
checked very carefully from a legal standpoint.
{ Mr. Ward continued by stating, that he has a concern when there �
� are negotIations going on without community input. -�
,� Commissioner Ethridge responded by stating, that there are always
negotiations going on when their is litigation in process. �.;'� �
� However with re ard to this latest ��
i , g proposal, Commission members C.;':�y,i;�x
:.�.:,$.._.
� BOARD OF COUN'PY COMMISSIONERS 1 MAY 23, 1989 '`:`;`�r,'
,�,�.:.
;��;.+:.
� �
;y; .
u s: i::;
x.
�
,
.
�.- e�. � . . .
>
�i. _ ., . .. , , . .
:, ... ,.:,_ .. ,
,J t < .. •� .. ��:�� .�,� y� �� . A
�ti<" �.�s�: � � _ �--�
�y;,, .
�',�'*.,�:�s� ,. - _
.<;{;-��;,�zAti . `
s,v7���•.;ti
. .�•�2��_���- �
�5�;`�;t.��,�{ .
y �.
r'�. T,. . . �'.
',v . � \
':�'�'7'.�u"���, � , ' ..
'��✓+il` ' .. . . . . . .
�'� r4�� � . . ' . � ..
.. ��
...r��r' . . � .
`�'��� ���` . ..
�ti�:'
't,��i'�i�-
�
;��� � • .
.���� �
„��. . _.�; .��.. .. _ ._
.
_ ._ �. . ._ . _ _. .rv.. ._ _. ..
•M�_ . � . . . .. r , . � .I 4 . . • . ... _ .. ._—_�.._...�.,-,�_..6.......�,z y,-1 .�`'!.
���;!}:tk;;�
,.,,;,..;
� ���";i`=�'�-
have simply been asked to respond to some specific settlement
terms, and that is part of the normal process.
Mr. Ward asked if there could be a work session with Commission
members prior to accepting the agreement in order to allow the
public the opportunity of providing input.
Commissioner Ross stated, that the process will be, that when
they are proposing to settle the lawsuit, legal sta£f will look +' ''?;� �-
at it, other staff recommendations will be considered, at that "��2�`=''.'
j:=,, ,..-.
point Commission members will receive a copy of it as well as the =__'� `
. j •,:�._...:..
public, then a work session will be scheduled to review staff's �r :r -
comments and to solicit �'�”'
, public input to determine whether the
proposal should be accepted to resolve the lawsuit. �- �
Cindy Houben requested that an item be added to the agenda with '
regard to the RS-160 Zone District.
,�:. . .
Commissioner True moved approval of this item being added, �1�,��,:` ,:.
Commissioner Ethridge seconded, and the motion passed �.
� unanimously. �:�-:
; 1: +.
, �,,,:
- CONSENT AGENDA•
I
I
� GOOPERATIVE WILDFIRE PROTECTION AGREEMENT ANNUAL OPERATING PI,AN-
� Bob Braudis, County Sheriff, summarized this item by stating,
, that the recently signed Agreement for Cooperative Wildfire
Protection in Pitkin County stipulates that "Annually" prior to �
the initiation of wildfire season, representatives of the County,
' State, Federal agencies, and other deemed necessary shall jointly
� prepare, review, update, and distribute the Annual Fire Opezating
Plan. The plan shall be approved, dated, and signed by �
authorized agency representatives of the County, State, and other
applicable cooperators, and shall become a part of this agreement
as an attachment.��
WILDwOOD SCHOOL-SPECIAL EVENTS 3.2$ BEER LIOIIOR LICENSE - Kim
5chultz, representing the Clerk's Office, summarized this item by
stating that this is an application for a special events 3.2g
beer liquor license. The applicant is the Wildwood School and
i this event will be held on June 18, 1989 at the Moon Run Ranch. �,
iNEWSTROM DAVIS CONTRACT AMENDMENT TO MAINTENANCE FACILITY - Bruce
� Vandergaw summarized this item by stating that this amendment is i
to place Alpine Gardens Landscaping contract under Newstros Davis '��
CM/GC contract as a sub-contractor in lieu of direct contract
with the County. �j
AIRPORT SNOWPIAW/BROOM PROCUREMENT - Bruce Vandergaw summarized -
this item by stating, that the 1989 budget has $10,000 (l0$ of ` ``-
$100,000 FAA Grant) for an additional plow truck and blade, and �-'�``
� $fi,000 (same percentage FAA Grant) allocated for a runway broom � � :.,
! ,.;�w';
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2 MAY 23, 1989 :�`�e;�i
Y ����7$�J"�.
:::�j� .':..
�_� .
Y: :�
i;
,4.
�• � . ' ' . , - , . .. ._-. �• _ . . � ,�.
�% �--' . - . . . ... .
` :
,���i t. - � --_ -�'.��
:�ti ,�t::. . .. .... . .
r r:.� yyf--' - .. � .
<iS+A:�cfz��": . .
::��"�=;� •
.ti:' •
�1��
. ; :i . � , � � ' � `
F�4�.::�.:'- .
�F�°{�S:f � . .
2r-�••��;�..
"�43a-1 k.^,; � . • . . .
,Nr;:,,�•.
:,.. �
<:s;::;.='u=
.��;�..,�;..:�:?
,-��.�:�€:: .
•�., ::�'.
°c-'^�s
<=
t�.q'�.
':XT.,{/��,y2 1 � .
'e1�``:e.-'7` ` � , �
�:::fr;.'.
_ �
�a <: '
'i.
� , .. __. . ' . _ . _ . . . , . ... . ...
�...:':,
�.#�•;';
, ' ���>��,,..
ag.:a�•"`.�:
k'�=i 3'r` -
' The total FAA and County money for the procurement of both items
is $160,000. The low bid meeting specifications came in at
$213,892.00 Therefore, they are requesting a supplementary
budget appropriation for the amount over budget conditional upon
other approvals being obtained.
Commissioner Ross asked that this item be separated from the
consent agenda to be voted on separately.
MINL7TES OF MAY 9. 1989 - Commissioner Ethridge requested one �'�:'�=�'' _
amendment to the minutes. The recording secretary acknowledge *»-•.�:•.:r�
this change. �t j
Commissioner Crowley moved to approve the Consent Aqenda items ��
with the exception of Item No. 4. Co�issioner Ross seconded, �� : "
, and the motion passed unanimously_ ��` -
ti. .
Airr�ort Snowplow/Broom Procurement - Commissioner Ross stated �
that he could not vote for an increased expenditure as a consent 4:;;`' `
, agenda item because he had not receive updated information. �`
• However, if other Commission members feel comfortable with it, he �
b would be prepared to vote.
� t',
-- Commissioner Crowley mwed approval of the request for Airport � ;'
� Snowplow/Broom Procurement. Commissioner Ethridge seconded, and !
� the motion passed unanimously.
d ROARING FORR TRANSIT AGENCY 1988 FINAL BIIDGET APPROPRIATION-
MOT�ON TO APPROVE - PASSED IINANIKOIISLY - Bruce Abel, RFTA
� Director, summarized this item by stating, that this -
• ' appropriation is necessary to "formally" amend the budget to
y conform to actual figures.
Commissioner True moved approval of the budget appropziation.
Commissioner Ross seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
m
� RESOLUTION - GRANTING SIIBDIVISION EXF.MPTION APPROVAL FOR AN
INSUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO A RECORDED PLAT TO WILLIAM V. HODGES, III
� - MOTION TO APPROVE - PASSED IINANIMOIISLY - Buddy Lucero,
F representing the Planning Office, summarized this item by
� stating, that the applicant William V. Hodges, is requesting
approval for an Insubstantial Change to a Recorded Plat. The
� purpose of the request is to allow the applicant and his father r;
y to adjust a property lot line to be closer in conformity with the
3 topography of the land and existing landscaping. �
� t�-.
� Commissioner Ross moved approval of the resolution with
I conditions and authorized the Chairman to sign the document. '�
i Commissioner Crowley seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
I RESOLIITION GRANTING APPROVAL OF TFIE GAFFNEY APPLICATION TO
� SEPARATE IA'P 10 OF TIiE BRIISH CREEIt VILLAGE SUBDIVISION FROM A j '�
� { ::
BOARD OF COIINPY COMPIISSIONERS 3 MAY 23, 1989 +�, =
�c:.
�YS:�
' t W�':
a .::,�T��.�.� .
f °�4
. �'F�`�'^jt L
�'r��
- IY..;
_';�.,�...�� � ' -k .�'
r�� ' '� . . i ' . .. . ' . . . .
.,: :;. ' . .... . . . . . .. . . .
.:ti: .
- _ . .. '' . �.-:-, .
'�, - , ��
y���-"Yt Q14� � .. . ' .
:;y;���(5=' � � � .
':j':'\:'�i�iut� .
;
r` ' ` `
A
1, 'i���;j i�' � .
i:'�AY,���4i:. . .
yiS�'-::.{t.n • . ' .
Y
C}.-.i� .Fi ?� .
� � �.:5... .
�'f',`
;.�,rt`'iii;,..�+•��
'•:�i::�t�, . .
.�'�w.�fiit. , .
.,�,�,.��.�; « .
;+-'��^r�� ,� s
•:7::>��:
....:.:_. -�
� ;,..�..-
�.�:
����
.'- ,. ..._., . � �
, . �����
. �`:l�=';:s;;'-
{�T:ii.:�•���.
CONTIGIIOIIS 35.9 ACRE PARCEL - MOTION TO APPROVE PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY - Buddy Lucero summarized this item by stating, that
at the meeting of May 9, 1989, this item was tabled so that the
applicant could provide additional information. The information
requested was for the applicant to provide documentation that a
water supply existing, fully address the degree of economic loss
and that the applicant pay their fair share for road maintenance. �
Documentation has been submitted showing that adequate water
supply does exist for the two lots. The latter two issues are .
addzessed as conditions. '-+.�:"•„-
•�
He stated, that he wouZd 2ike to make an amendment to Candition ''"`r�'��
• No. 2. After talking to the applicant and their representatives 1' '
of the Water District, he was advised that the Water District is "
? just for the subdivision and not for parcels outside the �' '- � ;
j subdivision.
Commissioner Crowle moved a {�'�
y pproval of the resoZution as amended. �
� Commission Ross seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
'� EAST OWL CREER RANCEi DETAILED SIIBMISSION AND FINAL PLAT - MOTION �-:•.°!
=ti TO APPROVE - PASSED IINANIMOIISLY - Cindy Houben, representing the
�. � Planning Office, summarized this item by stating, that the Board
.°.� rescheduled this item to tonight's meeting in order to conduct a ,
site review prior to voting on the Detailed and Final P2at for -� ,
,:� tha Development.
::� Additionally, the Planning office represented that we would
follow up on the nordic trail easement with the Nordic Council
�� and the applicant. She referred to a letter from Craig Ward
;!� outlining certain requests from the Nordic Council. A copy of
'="� this letter is made a part o£ this record as Rxhih;t pBn•
She stated that the County Attorney, Planning Office and the
_'� applicant has reviewed the requests and feel that the following ,
?;�:p� requests by Mr. Ward should be accommodated:
'�.i^�'._i . � .
•�.� 1. Eliminate and/or revise the following language:
'°�
All mechanized equipment (piston bulley, snowmobiles,
etc.) used in the setting maintenance of the cross country skiing
- tracks shall only be operated through the East Owl Creek
"`_ Subdivision between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Use of
:'°: the easement shall be subject to the Protective Covenants for
-� east Owl Creek Subdivision recorded in Book at Page of
`.;�� the Pitkin County records.
! 2. Coinsurance shall be required on January 1 rather than t�
`"1 November 1. '
r� 3. Any relocation of the easement "must" be acceptable to � -
; the grantee rather than "may" be acceptable. ., ;
�:� BOARD OF COiJNTY COMMISSIONERS 4 AAY 23, 1989 `'":NS�
�;?'��M1.
. �i:�� . fi�.���,
�,r•
,.-,� ;'-iii �^�.�.
�'o �,
�1 r_
.,,��,c�� -.. . . , : :� �.
r r- ���--`—
: i � .
i r -
',�`�/�� �1 . ` - ... ,.-�`
. �'l�S:�-,`s-�i�:< � � . - .
�Cs.�T_�..� ''-. .
',�:-.'a.IS�4.
_�i.
1
��!b y� . . � �.
i e� 3 � � � � ` . ,
� ��'-�.��"a'..;;:�;_� . , - . . . .
i � .
`� t$`
`y ! ° .
z:�.--5, a .}.� .
;�;x�yc �rt i
s��l.s�;� _
:��� �
::��: � � '
`�:�:;u +►
` ` �
�... ._. _,_. _ _ . ...,�_...�_. __ . _ .
� , , _ : ... .
� .. . � . . _ . . : . . .,.
,,. ,��I•I
• �ti.A{
. ,r?.5,,',;;_'
rs;.t:..
� F-4....��•.:
4, The Grantors written prior consent shall not be
unreasonably withheld in assigning the easement to a future
recreation district.
She further stated, that the Planning Office also received a call
from the owner of a lot in the West Buttermilk subdivision �
regarding the use of the water in the pond on Lot 2. Her concern
was that the water remain flowing down from the pond through the R:;' '��
ditch which runs through her parcel. The applicants have assured �t`.i
the Planning office that they will respond to this issue.
�9..
StafF recommends approval of the application with conditians as � .;:..
outlined in the May 9, 1989 memorandum along with some additional � �
conditions. A copy of these conditions are made a part of this � � �
,._i zecord as Exhibit "C". - �
!
� Commissioner Ethridge stated, that there will be an additional �;;
:� three lots on the road that the Arnold/Stacey duplexes are. He
( questioned if a new road standard would be necessary according to
,� the adopted road standards. However, as this application is �
'! being proposed, there would be turnouts so that two cars could ��
� pass each other rather than bringing it up to the appropriate
,. ,-_.� �..'.:,
road standard. Planning Staff has said this is okay, and that is
why he is questioning if there is some new policy which has been •
�:>-1 negotiated rather than holding to the existing road standards.
Tom Smith, County Attorney, responded by stating that he wou7d be
�'`�� cautious about this because of potential liability where roads _
,��� are being improved and the road standards are not being met.
"=`'''� Cindy Houben stated, that the applicant, prior to any
construction or sale of any lots, would meet the standards which
�.^.� are in place at that time.
� Jim Curtis. representing the applicant, thanked everyone foY
��"�'�t attending the site visit. He stated, that there were three
' technical issues coming from the last meeting, and these have .
�`''�� been resolved. He feels that the only issue outstanding is the
:.:� location of empZoyee sites three, four and five. He said that he
feels comfortable with the homesites down below they way they
have been proposed. At the site visit he was asked if the
applicant has the flexibility to potentially relocate one or two
:�;% of the homesites across the road, and they do have that
;'`� flexibility, and if Commission members chose, they are prepared
to address that tonight. He further stated, that they have tried
to be very cooperative in working with the surrounding neighbors
��� and trying to address their concerns, and requested that a #
•'� conclusion be reached at this meeting. �
,) �:
Commissioner Crowley asked what the price was on the employee
lots and what other commitments have been made. �
-1 ��� �_�
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 5 MAY 23, 1989 � '
i� ' �� 4�1nt:�
��.� :
. ','� j{�'^ �'�'.
� w5
� ° � ,.. , • �,,�
_�v�� ,-, c: � �
�- :
E , -��— ,
� -
.`_r "{ : • _- :�'°�""_��.i- "
'�'�;..��2:..j+L:.� ' ' ..- ' , � .
"�'�el�.±i�".;r�:�`• � • '. ' �
{' � _
."-:�:., .� � � • � �
� (;
'�n�-.... . . ( _ `
i:ie ;;:il�.^ �
+�':�ai�t:~:��:.;� . � � . .
....irtP::...t.�_ .
..'k'.��.,:: . . .
.�_N`.:'u��y`.1'. .
�' :2';'� -
�,:2_a�5 x:' .
. ;s.,a;:��
�'�4 '�. ,
_��,,C.x�. . ,
��fz �►
-��tk:�� 7 . . . .
� �.
.
.:. ._ __.
.y �_._v ., ._.� ... .._ , .... .
... ��..; �.. , .....�. .. �....�,...._,,.._ .. . . . .
, , .._ .... . � . . . .. .
...J' _ ..' �. . : ... . . ,.... .. .. . .
f��a.�`�ra��
=fiY
� � ,a� �r
��4� y U.
����� ,
Curtis outlined the four commitments as follows:
1. Commission members will have the authority to determine
which lot will be designated as the ranch manager's unit.
2. On the lots down below the applicants wil1, at their
cost, put in a uphill drainage intercept.
3. They will give a $3,000 credit against the $20,00o sales ;�':';.`��_ '
price Eor the back retaining structure. ' ;s,;,'_;;,
' 4. At their cost they will put in the septic system which ��y�
will be above ground systems acceptable to the Environmental rT -
�_:.:`.:
Health Department. �=- : ,; ; :
He stated, that these commitments are not necessarily for all ..
four lots because the upper two lots do not need the uphill , "�
drainage, and the back retaining structures. `�.' - '
t'
Curtis proceeded to review with Commission members an alternative �'
F�
plan for relocation of two of the employee 1ots. He stated tha� '
�- Alternative A took Lot 5 and relocated it on the other side of '! :t",.�'
! the road with Lot 3 staying in the same location, and moving Lot
�+ 4 ten feet to the north. Alternative B is just making a very
� tight cluster at the southern edge of the Iower property.
{ Therefore, �here would be three lots on the west side and two
�
lots down below.
' Houben stated, that she feels either one of these alternatives is
;� superior to the existing proposal for all three lots on the same
:
side.
�
' Chairman Penne opened the hearing ta public comment.
.'� i
Mick Ireland, representing Randy Woods, and other property owners
in the area, stated, that his clients would like to see paved ?
� roads at the time of construction. If this does not happen, they � .
are aoncerned about how long it would be until the paving is +;
� actually done. However, they would be willing to accept brine
'`,� for a year and then get the paved roads which would at least give ��
the property owners some relief from the dust generated by =
construction traffic.
Curtis responded by stating, that in the last set of documents �
� submitted to the Planning Office they did commit that the roads �Y.
a
would be chip and sealed within a one year timeframe from
� commencement of construction o£ the road. In the meantime they �
wi11 brine the roads as per the County Engineer's recommendation.
s.;_:,
I Jodi Mack questioned if there would be any further erosion to Lot "
4. �`..:
SOARD OF COUNTY COMMTSSIONERS 6 MAX 23, 1989 �-�
'� ?;.;�d 3.
`;� ;�� �>
4w
n,
Y��`�.:...:: , ., : �
� � . . . .. ,,e!`�°
`
�;tr�,{� ti�; . � ��—�e� 5� .
r i . �
.,+`t��. L'L .
��u,a�s,k, - . ..-. .
- 4..•�' #-.�_f��' � " . -
�.y_i�.`�';�;�= . .
:.i�
�ti:�r`_ .
° ,�
y_ i_
:^,�..,_,..;.�,,-; � . . !:
� _ i
. }� � , `
.,�'�',i�;;c•:;" . . . . � , ..
':,,t �,y � . .
.r
vr '� .
i=?F1�ra:a�:,;;�`
::��'���.=+w-`h+},` . .
i,�: .
:<S:'.�F.i%-.
.,`M4,�ti�.:
_���'� . ' � . � .
a:�1ia�`?'�'� . ` �� . . .
ti.
.,P
.
�
. . ._., .... ._ .. ...........�--._ . _..� ... ._. . .. _ . _ .. ._ ._._ ..- �
.n,..: .... __. . .... .. � . . . . . . . . . . . , . .
"�`�k�� ��.,
. ��SY ��.�
��...7.
r?��1'>�'� -
Curtis responded by stating, that Nick Lampiris, the consulting
geologist £or this project, has recommended that an uphill trench
be put in, and the back wall of the house be built as a retaining
structure. TherePore, they feel this will be mitigating that
condition and will prevent sloughing.
Jackie Broughton expressed concern with reqard to the owl Creek
Road and the potential danger involved with regard to the -
proposed alignment of the subdivision. She asked that commission :;��:LZ;;`;,_
members reconsider this matter. i`
3
� She also asked what the criteria was for employees to qualify for _
the employee designated lots.
�'`.:,.�, :.
Chairman Penne reviewed the criteria with Mrs. Broughton �" "
;.
Mrs. Broughton continued by expressing concern with regard to the
potential impact on the wildlife and a potential for losing the
� agricultural area if more homes are placed in the area.
Jim Curtis responded by stating, that the Division of Wildlife E; i_.
� has reviewed the site plan and in turn have given their approval 'r"
of the proposed Iocation of the buildinq envelopes. Also, the ��`��,�
only rezoning is to permit the employee lots as required by the r
.';� County code.
� With regard to the road issue, he has no problem relocating the
-� road to another location where staff or the sheriff's department c
+ would feel more comfortable with. �•
_� fi
Stacey Stanley expressed dissatisfaction with the proposed �'
�`;�r location of the employee lots which would directly have an impact (
on his property. F�
�1
� Cindy Houben responded to Mr. Stanley by reviewing with him the
,� history of the proposed location of the three employee lots.
Connie Harvey expressed concern with regard to any tuture
development eliminating the wildliPe in the area.
.�� Phoebe Ryerson complemented Commission members on trying to deal
with employee housing. Also, she is in agreement with employees ;
having the opportunity of being neighbors with otheY future �
homeowners in the subdivision. ;�
2
.i Trish McKenzie, wife oP the ranch manager up at owl Creek, asked �'�`
� Commission members if they would consider attending a work �
session with the homeowners in the area to discuss the proposed
� development and their concerns with regard to the employee lots.
_, Jim Curtis responded by stating, that they submitted the .
application in December, 19a7, and that anytime anyone approached !-
�a':�'e.,
7 BOARD OF COIINPY C�MMISSIONERS 7 MAY 23, 1989 ;.�:-�.
-q�;
� 4�,��.
� r,:
L�¢z� . �;� ,
�v� `- �
:u,�r F _ ,,.._�„�,e,m �
S z v , , � _
r`,,�s�,�;�.:, .� � .^ ' ._ _ � . .
. -�'vi�+..-T�.�4= ' • '
::�,i.r�'"M1,['�"�,'�'��
�.�;:���r..�l�.':• , , •
� { ^ , ;
+�: rs:- . . . . ,
i;� ' � \
�:�2•�iT�;1:iY:��� , ' ' . . .
�'l�y�;� .. . � .
:,�. .`-�.�. . . . e
i�r '
��
y
�i`'-ia.� i
�"�4�'`- _
%�:�,�c�.��:;
���� _ ,
.;�-h'i,
`:9:��" '� �_ . • � .
�:{`�:�.. ..
r,:�� - �,-, .-, ,:_ - ._w... - ., . - ,
�
�, � , . _ . ..-... . . . .
>}, �
+� ' _
. . ...
� ti,. ,. . . , _ _
��,��}
' k
h �'
tiNJ'�
. f�' _'•.1�' +.
��� ii�«_.:
p,'.�...�.,
+�%�'F.yl�....:
him indivi@ually, he had tried to do whatever he could do to make
them feel comfortable, and the matter has already been tabled
once pending a site visit.
Chairman Penne stated, that in the future, if an invitation is
han8ed out by the homeowners for a member oE staff, the applicant
or Commission member to attend an informal gathering someone
would be in attendance at the meetings.
Houben suggested that they might think of forming a caucus group. `.A`��'
Then when an application comes in the application is ,`'".�:;;:;;::.
automaticall referred to that rou � �
Y 4 P• ;�`�-j.:::':..�
' Chairman Penne closed the hearing to public comment.
��',''. _
:i�' i
A discussion ensued by Commission members with regard to the ���
employee lots. � ;
Commissioner Ross stated, that he supported the applicant's ����•-
proposal for Alternative B for the site of the moderate housing. r�; •
, He feels this is an appropriate area for single family homes. He ; •
said that the 200 plus calls which has been received by the ��
` � Housing Authority since the time the employee lots were first I,_���,'
� discussed supports the need for employee units. Also, he feels
°� that the neighborhood will find that havinq working families �`
living in their neighborhood will only enhance the closeness of �
the community down there. He feels the applicant has proceeded �
absolutely by the direction of the County which has been
j consistent that if an applicant comes in wi�h a proposal for a ,
E large subdivision they will provide permanent moderate housing on
�.� site or a lot as part of the application. Also, that the
; applicant is willing to address the road issue with the county ,
; engineer. With regard to the selection of the ranch manager's z.�
.� homesite he would recommend Lot No. 3.
jCommissioner Ethridge stated, that he would like to get a
� response from the applicant with regard to movinq Lot No. 3 up
onto the market area.
i
` Curtis responded by stating, that he would have to speak to the
� owner of the property.
j Commissionez Crowley stated, that he feels that moving Lots No. 3
� and 4 to the other side would help with the problems of septic,
+ swamp, etc. �
Chairman Penne stated, that once the fourth house is built the �;
road would have to be brought up to standard. Therefore, having �. ;
three houses on the lower road and three up above would eliminate
'i that problem. '
' Commissioner Trne stated, that he would like to hear the response � -'�wi-',' y
:{ �.".��'Y:'':A.-.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 8 MAY 23, 1989 �"�'`: �
i _�. �2„s.
`. �".
r,
� �,�,a�'
� i ; �;
fX.:
� h�l'..: ,� , ��_... , .�:.'.�. ...�., ' ,'.� . .� -, �.v
. ,�'R+' ' ,'
�
't� � ...�... __.':.. . . . ' . � . '. ' . .�'� �
.
... . . ��.,. . ..� .
. "L.l'q_� � � . . .. ., _�� ..
r�`� � ._ �
:• .
� �{ ; , °,x,�„�.�`/
�,�� �-.:` . . ,�'
c�{ i- ,r Y:� � - . ' -
x`�_,k-�`��.+ ... _.
��'-�•��+�:; . � . . .
'� •
7;<
- 1^;j:::. , I
7'f 't.� , � .. `
E'•;i � ,
.,�`r`�:.�,�' .. . ' � . ., .
�� � �
�.: � � . .. ..
x.� R
M �
..T�x���1 . .
:�����'���y ' . '
�S�
��Qi�•�'+'K;C pr ` S . .
�:t4:<: . . .
f^
... . ._ . .._ . ,
�'';lsr.:
i ;:;;��,
� t"�r�l:;-
to the request for moving Lot No. 3.
A break was called at this time to allow Mr. Curtis and the owner
an opportunity to discuss the matter.
The meeting was reconvened.
Curtis advised Commission members that the applicant �,rill agree
with the direction to put two lots down below being Lots 3 and 4, :=;;�„_..
one on either side of the existing road, and relocate the old - �!
employee lot No. 5 up internally into the project in the vicinity �+
of the Clay out parcel, and that unit will be desiqnated as the �
ranch manager's homesite.
. ��,!�`•, r :
Commissioner Ross moved approval of the East Owl Creek Ranch 3. _
Detailed Submission and Final Plat with the conditions discussed, E
I
and directed staff to come back at the next meeting with a ` '
resolution. Commissioner Crowley seconded, and the motion passed
unanimously.
•j_:`•��.��:�.
:' RESOLUTION - GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A 50$ DENSITY REDIICTION IAT �
� SPLIT FOR MARTINA NAVRATIIAVA - MOTION TO APPROVE - PASSED ,
UNANIMOUSLY - Buddy Lucero, representing the Planning Office, �r '
� � summarized this item by stating, that the applicant, Martina r/// ' .
, Navratilova is requesting approval for a 50g Density Reduction �-
! Lot Split. The property is located on the east and west side of
' Castle Creek Road approximately three to four miles south of �
4 Highway 82 and zoned AF-1. The purpose of the Lot Split is to
'" create two single-family lots by subdividing a 125 acre parcel �;
1 -
� into two (2) parcels of approximately 100 acres (Lot 1) and 25 �`�
acres (Lot 2). The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended i
,:� approval with conditions at their April 4, 1989 meeting.
� .
,i Chairman Penne opened the hearing to public comment. There being
� none she closed the public hearing.
i:
� Commissioner Ross moved approval of the application, and directed 4
' the Chairman to sign the Resolution. Commissioner Crowley
<� seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. �
i
i PUBLIC HEARING - RE�7IEW OF Tf� LOW IMPACT SIIBDIVISION REGULATIONS
'� AND REOLTEST FROM CEiQCiC VIDAL REGARDING THE RS-160_ DISTRICT -
PASSED WITH TFIItEE YEA AND TWO NAY VOTES Cindy Houben,
i representing the Planning Office, summarized this item by
� stating, that Resolutions 87-80 and 88-65 adopted and amended the -<
� Low Impact Subdivision regulations of the Land Use Code. These
y regulations require a re-evaluation by the Board approximately
� six months prior to the expiration date (August 25, 1989) of the _�
t regulation in order to determine if the regulation should remain ,
' in affect. This re-evaluation is to be conducted at a public
� hearing which has been noticed for tonight. The Board is not ; %
i required to take action on the regulation at this hearing. :.:--.:
� � �°`,�
I BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 9 MAY 23, 1989 -,
� `'�er;�
? ,`�''''
:::�r:.
r ' ;:'.��'?;.�:
,�
��L�
r' � .� .
v �t,�, . _ : , d'� :
r., _ �...---
..:; ___,.___- - .
` �
r - - - �
�',r-� ` � . ,. . �-
'�:�:,.�^`:;o:i�' .
cr#, .
. .���
$;;t..;�...' ' . . . .
" '
t `
' �,y�1'�Sf'�? � . . . . , ..
p"�r.':�� . . � . • . .
"�Y::`^.:�`v .
�;`r,�.Y��.i_._�' ..
�;Cw..u4,=::i.,1',,::y! .
iy.l;:'.
''�'F�".�+:n.�� .
.'�Y,i� d •. . '
-:i} ;4�� � S � ' . .
:
. � ,
��,i?y'`
�„�,;�;::�;:�
F,���' .1rV.:
it,;
. yM yi`:
f..
{'�➢�
However, they may wish to do so at a later date, prior to the
August 25 deadline.
She proceeded to review with Commission members the applications
which the Planning Office has received since the adoption of the
legislation. A copy of these are made a part of this record as
F.xhibit „pn, . �
She said that the question tonight, which is brought about by the
Sunset provision in the regulation, is whether or not extend the ��+�?-� �
Low Impact Subdivision Regulations, to modify them in some form J� '
or delete it from the regulations at this point. �,�'_� ! .
s,��.. ';.. -
. She proceeded to summarize discussions which have taken place at ;��:� ''
various work session meetings. A copy of this summary is made a '-:
part of this record as Exhibit ^E„. �;_ :
�:
Chairman Penne opened the hearing to public comment. -
, Connie Harvey commented, that she feels there have been some 1 ,
problems with the regulations. She would like to see a more i`
; workable solution. ti :
4 r:�.
` j Gideon Kaufman commented, that one of the big concerns he s
� expressed at the time the Low Impact Subdivision Regulations were
1 adopted, was he did not think it was fair to adopt the Low Impact
Subdivision Regulation until the implementation was put in place
because he had some real concerns about the ability of TDR and
PDR's to actually happen. At that time, he urged Commission
' members to adopt the downvally plan but just hold it and not
� implement it until it was known whether that some of the things
which wauld result from it was going to happen. He said that the
P TDR's and the PDR's did quickly fall by the way side which only ?
left the Low Impact Subdivision. Also, this time he would like
� to be assured, that as the process goes along and new regulations -
� are implemented, projects which have been in the process will not
have to comply with any changes which are made.
3 Jim Curtis commented, that he does have some applicants in the
process of the Low Impact Subdivision. He thinks there should be
� some form of alternative procedure for the down valley
nondeveloper property owner due to the costs associated with
� going through the whole procedure the way it is set today.
i
� Bob Child commented, that he agrees with Mr. Curtis that there ��,...
� needs to be an alternative for ranchers. It is a very expensive
� process and once you enter into it you have to put out a .
substantial amount of money because the alternative to a Low '�
1 Impact Subdivision is a Growth Management. .
; Walt Laven commented, that he thinks the down valley plan does ;� ��: -
ihave some merit as opposed to Growth Management. However, he :i, _.,<�;k..;;
+ BOAI2D OF CODNTY COMl1ISSIONSRS 10 MAY 23, 1989 � ��e'�
� '�t..
'� ;:
i 'r��
� ��:,
� *.=.ai
�.
,'i .t,�� �,:
�.
F � .
:
�4s ,..- _ -�r -%
} - , _. _ , , .:, :
L � . `._ �:� ..
' / �
.��t `. . . . ��_ _
.:�j7C1�-{w:.' _ . y � . ' . .
Y;�` s��T-,�• �. . ` _ .
�'hyr�4Y.'�t ..... � � ,
-�i�'X.�.'r�,.'rt'`,i,
-h,
: v�;�_t,Y�,- . +�
?'`�� . . . . -
�� � . . {' . '; .
t ,
- .r,::
t� �'l�i:r:>" � . .
.ii1'::n:r}r:s.. . .
'�N:.� . . . . ..
�� .
y;
' r
�-c'�,_";.-��` � �. .
;�.:;yai;t,.�;:;,,; .
.a���. h��� . • �
'� r
��;t�� . . . .
t�Y���_ .
:i �?;���`�`--.�- �
',`;�'." � �
- - - �
:,;;
,
,.�x. ... _._ .. . ._. .,._ _ ._ .._v.. ..
: .. . , .__., ... . . ,
,-- � �r
�i�ti' ',
. ,r�,:a:+;;
�3`;;.�; :
thinks it needs some modification and needs to be simplified
somewhat. He thinks there needs to be some process which would
allow larqe landowners the opportunity to sell some parcels of
land or to be able to build a home on their property without
destroying any of the agricultural land of the property.
Alan Schaefer commented, that in researching the regulations, his
ranch would fit all the criteria to receive approval for a Low
Impact Subdivision. He thinks there have been abuses however, he :,;_�;�„�:
does not feeZ the impacts on the County, i.e., visual pollution, ' t,
t,,:,:.
etc. created by the low impact applications. He encouraged �`;,-;,,..:
members to keep a modified form of the legislation. �� "-
Harry Bawaan agreed with Mr. Schaefer's comments, and also
encouraged Commission members to keep some form of the is '-_
, legislation in force. Also, he voiced dissztisfaction with the
3 high taxes that ranches are forced to pay.
Rachel Richards commented, that she feels the legis2ation needs �
� to be tightened up and refined but she would not like to see it ��
eliminated entirely. � '
� �. `;
;:1; .
ti Chuck Vidal commented, that the two abuses that have been ��;�
` � referred to the most were primarily not abuse of the Low Impact � ' `.
�;� Subdivision but where it was allowed to be applied, i.e., the -
;y Smugqler Mountain which is not a down valley ranch area. He
� feels there was aa oversight at the time in terms of where the
�;� low impact subdivision should be applied. t
' �' -
:� Cindy Houben stated, that in current discussions the proposal is �i '
to only let it apply to the areas that have been identified in '
�':� the down valley plan as aqricultural wildlife reserves. '
f �. .
y Commissioner Ethridge sCated, that there is a request before them
-� tonight to consider zoning RS-160 which is 160 acres for
; development right, and this may or may not be an alternative to
� the Low Impact Subdivision or replace it. He suggested that this
,".; item be discussed with this matter. "
� '�i•
I Chuck Vidal proceeded to present his request regarding the RS-160
� Zone District to Commission members. A copy of his letter ::
addressing this request, which was submitted to the Planning
� Office, is made a part of this record as Exhibit •F"_ E
�; ��
:�j A discussion ensued with regard to this matter. ',,
�
' Glenn Horn, consultant for revisions to the Land Use Code, stated �
'; that Commission members might want to consider requiring a � .
+ phasing mechanism as part of the RS-160 PUD.
!
' Commissioner Ross moved to direct staff to prepare a Resolution �
:� for a code amendment to allow for the voluntary down-zoning of a , '
� BOARD OF COUNTX COMMISSIONERS 11 MAY 23, 1989 �� ����;
� � �:^.,#�g.°�:
� �.�,.i-;�'a`..
� a.
� _ fY.�
:;�;�.�.,. _...._.. :._.,:;. , _ �
� , , , .. . . . . _
1' ��-r . ' ..
.�. '... - . ` �"� .
•�r ' �
44i y�'_ ' ��
. ��r-h ��''� � ' � .
�4�;Q t _ . � ' . ... '
j�!\ y�' . .. ' a. � .
� �
y+A��M� .
f
'�.�i�.i-.��.'t�•.� . . .
�..Y '�:_ � . ''
�� ; ' ( \
.. i���:;u�T.:�'� � , '
'{��.��,��'I��r,'� � . . � .
\�L= :.
;� �
L "'
r�.,�'�.5a •ii �. ..
.:�.��^`'� . - .
�.���y^tt.i; . . .
����� _ ` t
;:�y.�� � - . .
�� .__ . __ ...._..�_._ ._ . _
,.+4P�.-. .. _, . � �� . , . . . b . . _ �'��.4i7Nt^'�'.*".C.X:CN.'�.�.�J.�Ki�.�"�S�FZ'�`�M�lu�'y.2�;F;ST�
�3
� �h,_..�,.
x
. -t c:;-'.`.�..
Y w,!'�,:;:.
. � �.;:�y,5,-'.
property to RS-160 PIID of the vhole property vith appropriate
affordable housing regulations. Also, to be exempt from G2�.
Crowley seconded with an amendment that the applicant come back
with a proposed phasing schedule. Commissioner Crovley seconded
the motion.
A discussion ensued with regard to whether the motion is a code
amendment, part of the code rewrite or an emergency resolution. �:;t;"' _
It was the consensus of Commission members that it was an �r�i
amendment to the Land Use Code.
��._ -
Chairman Penne called for the vote and the motion passed �"
unanimously.
3 Further discussion ensued with regard to the interim period until
the amendment is taken through the process.
�•I-'.
Tom Smith, County Attorney, stated, that the code lists �� �
� exemptions from Growth Management. However, it does not list a �
� specific exemption for an applicant for RS-160 zoning nor does it 3r,,';
list an exemption for a 500 acre subdivision. 500 acre ��• '
gsubdivisions are exempt from the subdivision regulations. ��"
However, they do not have a concurrent exemption from Growth
,3 Management. Therefore, there is something of an inconsistency. �
With regard to RS-160, the best they have been able to figure out �
� in trying to recreate the past in the absence of any kind of F.
s clear record as to what the decision was, is that no one thought "
� about the GMP treatment of RS-160 when it went through the ��'
• process. Technically, under those circumstances, legally if '
,� there are no exemptions stated in the code there is no exemption
unless the determination is made by the Board responsible for the �
� legislation, that in their view there was a technical oversight,
" and that it ought to be interpreted to provide that exemption.
� Chairman Penne stated, that she has a concern in allowing any F
kind of an exemption until she has an opportunity to review the
� final code amendment. Commissioner True expressed the same
H concern.
4
� Cindy Houben cautioned Commission members on moving too fast on
� this issue.
R Ross moved that i.nterim to the code amendment that it be �
s recognized that only a G1+� competition exemption for voluntarily
fdown-zoning to RS-160 parcels but all the other general
� regulations are in place and that a mandatory PIID process be `-a
� used. Crowley seconded the motion.
I �
� Ross amended his motion to include a amendment that no more than
one third of those new units under this process be allowed :,;;�s,`
buildinq permits in any given year_ Crowley amended his second, `":�?:`::�,,;;'
.�°r`.'''4�=-,'
:::�y...
BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 12 MAY 23� 1989 ;':-'�+F:"'
, �•�-�e;:,i�.V�nc.
� .41�.::jf
� �0}' h;•.
�
y .i< �'
i
•A� �' .:.�. . . .. . _ � _. . . . . .
. ___!„r
,. .::_. ,:>.,:., '. .,� ._._ .. .
.:. -•. .. .., �..'�,. .r„w�91�..�--•—� . . . . , _ '
. .: �i�.r— .
. ;
4 f'�SJ. � . - . , -�- '� .
�J� �h�: . . .r • . '
t��
. ..�s�;:Y�,.4���� '
i'K`'+,`F��T�t . . �
i.`k;.,� . � - .
_ ( . \
�•��}S , .
a��'.t ' . . ' . . ,
..k'.�_ � . .
i+"�1._.•' .
"YY�''����::� . . .
:�7..','.'s'.i5;.'t I -
.:;tiara7r .'i .
:=i-<;�,'iwS� ' . .
..:�!�t �' . '. . .
•4+'yr`�r i e�e►
�:+.'"
`,t�:�� -
,.. ,
,, ,. .....
�..; , _ _ ,. . ., ,
, _... . .-.
_.. .
'� '
.. __._ — �����.��;;
Y
1`�t$k��:���: .
��,:�� '
, �yeAt
� . � y��y�°��•'-
and Yhe motion passecl with three yea votes with two nay votes by ''
Chairman Penne and Commissioner True•
p�p� The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p•m•
Res ctfnlly submitted,
; ��2:�GG� '�
4y��, .� ; .
� � �<. .
� anette Jone Recording 5ecretary •s ;
Board of Connty Commissioners � '�
:(. -.,�:
_ :'ii`r;�� _..1 �
P�3 [
���
�� T
-�xt�1 `e .
�s}��
�i ��
L�`{ �,j
9 L �
�{
i
�
..� . - .. � � } .�
- . �f'�� � . 4 .
- � � . . . . . � . .. �
i
4
n ':
5 . . . ' ��'!�
T ,
G
7
�
q `
A
G •t` '
g �
� _ ::�!. . �
1 :
� f .� � ;:
1 �x § �
�IAY 23, 1989 : z,�W�
gppiRD OF COUNTY COZ'Il�iISSIONERS 13 _X ,,4�i
.�_
� �tn,�.:
.,� `����.�"�,
� 4 _
rx'1 )-�I; .
' l�rFi2�+��i.,z. .t.t r+n .m:; � .. � ... :_ . - �; ��'^W� .
- it""'f���i.:ti- .� . - . __ . _ �,L� � � - � .
���.��Y� . �. ; .r r . � � . . �__ . .
x �`. . . . ' w . . . _
�i# .. .. - . . . , . ' .
� � f ti. � . � . . , .. . . . .
���'��< � , �. � . ' , � �� `
t y�� . . � ' . . • . - �(� . .
7„�'''��-' . ,
����s�r. . '�
�,���;.���:. .. _ - _ . .
�4' . .. ��1 .
'� �t1� . + . .
:,�+G���� ' . ` . Y ' .
.y` w
.�����t� � ,_ .
...:io.,
_ __ ��.�.�.��.,.�.�.� � � .���..�
. �.�; .
a '• '
'Y •VVS.I�.. .. . . ,_ .. ....._. .:.. . ' .
�
.. . ..,...... 1 �.,.�. .r.. .. ..-�.....---_, . ..... .. _.._ ....._,... . ��. ..
.. , .; . . .. ...... ..... .._ ..,.... ._:.. .. .�...
_.Se .. . . . ......, .. . . . . . . . . . ... . . .
..,�.�.. Yg;.,
.. i���������
gliders of aspen inc. ����.����
101 park avenue
dieter bibb�� aspen, colorado 81611 flight instructor
-1������r��� ``T 303-925-3418 ski instructor
The Cour-thous ' ASE 5-2'.3-89 �•..,
" •',�,��y,:
F'itkin Coi.�ntv Commissioiiers - -
jA ,
��h .
Aspen Co. 01612 '�
Dear Commissioners: �:.��:
'.
�'. I herewitF-i r-efer to my letter to you on 5-1b-t34. � `
Your Attorney.=_ fEFl that ._.t i:hi� time there is no
agreement in ��:istence iri';order t_o n�erate mY business en � ;
`� u�.ir� airpori. In fzct �'.�the a=.sistant �irpc,rt r�an�a_•�- ��
��' yes:terday b�nned any sailplar�e c,p�r�.txur�s c{'f a.ir ai rpoi t. �?
The�: �rould like to see the' new contrac*_ ne_.��tzated and ���it C
r \i
� � ir e�ffect. r�ti'�.
�,5 'fhere has not beer ariy cantr ict si�r�4�d b� •:'n�.� �yi'ir_e 193�1 �
p and we Peel 1:I�at aie were operatinq on � .F.-r tu �!c�ar basis
"' until--a-new one was =_iuned :by You. Ar�ain ��� feF-sl i•�G =rr�
'�. nut treated f-air-ly'
;y
r� �
'; A�. S me:ntionFd in rry ].ettEr to �:r�u the oth�r- d��;, we a�o�i,.�i
.a li4re to talk: to you about a coi�nle o{ r;c.�in;.'s in tl-�e.t. new
�y contr�;r_t. I� you need some time, to get tnoether and we
3i aiili have to o0 on the agertda in one of your' meetinn=„
'� ple.se lcts ma4:e tr��t •?.pGointroe�t. '
- . -.. -._-.. %
� ',.�� _.. _ �.� .. ._. .
In the mEanti.me, plea=c� c�ll' o+f the doqs, and lEt us
oper-ate zqain. W+� !,-�':-e . short s�_imrtier _,ensun it i� and
� we have tr tr°air-� ai_�r new pilets a* ihiL time. TherE a�-�
hardly any comnizrcial flights conduct�d noai G@C8ll5E the
t� tourist senson ha= r�r_�t star-ted vet. �
� �'
.�nE; Yc,u {lery I`�i_icl-� �
�e�u /�,'�,.�'. ��,
� 6lider-s o�F Asoc-n � BORRDOFCO.COMNI'R'S �
� Dieter 8in6i.ia PI1"KIN COUNTY
� Public Hearinp Exhibi[s �
, � Date:— ' �`��— , ,
S�bjBCf: �JSh1 YN4kY' 7 f._...
� 1! /� �x 4';
� Exh.No. ._._... , "
:�;
a��
� ,:;:��
;i -.
� �'� -
•,.
'� �;,
r
? �•--------r— -- -----_.W.�.y:�.,......_.��..v_ _.,.4 _..� _ ..., .�.._.y:
F. � �:-.. _..��'..-_ �. +.+1-
�
��
� �� . ll.i'-q. . . ' " . .� �:i� . '
ry�!'rV;,r fiv.; . . � � ., "
� 21+9 W� '� . . �.- ".�. � . _ "��r...��
� �'„' �
� �.'
����, � ~ , � � � " .
y� 'E�'�: .. . .,.. � . ' . . .
. A � '
;s��' . ,
'�{k.:��
+,,. ,
ro �'�''�:
s������: � , . . . , .�� .
� �. ,- .. . .. . . . _ .. . - ., � . . �`� .
���
�Y . - .��-i .. � .
v<��I � , � . - � .
r.
:;�+� � . � ' . � .
.��
.:�.--
� ..�l ::?F .SJ...-Y 'jjd"4 y , b, S,� 'A„ � .. .��
. .. ' .• .� ' . , ... .r t . - . ..
. ...iY .;1. l
. � .. � . . - ' ' . ' � " • . ,..r�'a i.ti _ a: 7y -" t{.
�f.l�
- ��, '�: .. '' .. . : . . .
. . , . .. . .. . .. .. . ? ... . .�.v
. . ��� ''� �� �r c�7�:r r�
� .BQARD OF CO (`Or.i�'R'S �a�'^.��4,
PIl'KIN COi.IA!'fY �..�t��='''ss�<:.:.
! __Qublic Hearirg E;:iil�its
' • ; . . • • - � . .. jl���� :Oa�—�'3 �'�.�:
�� 1--itUstl - q N �
ASPEN SNOWMASS � _����_}�,�...-.;:;
NORDIC COUNCIL :
. ^,., _
Board of County Commissioners ```'��-� "
501 E.Main St - �^� '.
aowrtn oF o��croRS ,.. ,
s�nw.�.r�d�,� Aspen, CO 8161 1 May 7, 1989 ��-- .�:> -
;.,.<<.:,.
� TobyMone.VittPres�daR ..':.j �
. • J4oldollica.5ecreury?RssYR! : ;��-
� PelttForsth . � ,. C3C'�:'J.� '
� SkFpHamfiton h
r��� Dear County Comm(ssioners, � 'k
. Pe�� . . : . 7 `�� •�. .
��'�" As the President of the Aspen/Snowmass Nordic Council, I �° c
-;� , y
urge you to consider making the following changes to the Nordic �`'�f r'�, :;
Trail Easement Agreement for the East Owl Creek 5ubdivisfon: ,�;�;,��.
'' Fx�.,m�o��c�oR 13 Eiiminate the last two sentences of paragraph'�2. ' ` �•'
- `"'g"'"� 2) Change the date of furnishing certificates of co- �
�` :;�
insurance in paragraph�S to January 1. I
- 3) Delete all of paragraph Y7. • � . . �
; Y<�O� = �4) In paragraph."8, third.:.line,,char�ge the the,wocd may i. ,,z �,, ,.
�c�rr�e-�.: ;�r.:: . _: .<�> ..-'ie -
T�ewR tO fftUSt", .. . .
� Jim Chelfin :
�����«. S) In paragraph"9, second line,eliminate the words"with �
�
; �!;�„ Grantor s prior written consent". _ i ; �
' �DA.EdmutMCm � ' . . . . .. . .
1 �IraEet6 Fergus ��...
-,•:•.�f.,�F.�,�,�^�° �,^:�S.;A;��,.�;::�•' :=:�i ptan°to�attend�the�public hearing on this matter;<juesday:�% �r.�h�Y;.���. .,:�.%� !�� .
': . .ULqttrell i
;,..�M,,,� , ;,, May,9, in,order that�l,may answer questions thatryou may have;,, ;�'�,,,, ,{ , �' ,.
j,� ��, ° ' �.At that time:l will:explain the'ce�asons for the a6ove changes:as'. 4 . , '
!° T°��° f' ; °'it pertains to ttre cross country tr'aits operation.•.�..; :: .�:'�� ; .��:: .::`; i
+ "''.�°�'�s�'; '.,, .. .... . ... . , �
�.Respectfu)ly submitted, � i
�nvtsoaY eo,►xn �f � t �. /� t (u
1` Pa� t �. ( � �� �� C ? '..� �� 'S� I
�i BaABe�pie , li. -: : �: � �C/�•�• ' ' .
; ,`aw�; a �:; , >; �'cr�i c w�ra ; �3,. �J ,.,
�r� i . I i r i� �kw �;,,,� . .�� r ? 7 �i� f ��� f `
''Sr?4 i-� � ��. tl1 1.1 ' 1�h7 }i,�� t�}�hC�J � ,'S.�t'�cs�dent �i �- �<<ga V ,«f...« ,i .��}1,�a f� ,
� 1 � �� ! `.-� �'�rl �� A�q a 3� K�H �,;3 � � �I �k ,, tiP F t� i t
���r� h � .��a� j -�� .k �� i rr �.9� � Fx,x e rf1il �S � .. r �d ,jt t4r�1�'. '�� sa f
� t�kt 7 '}�+�.fle r� t 1 .yL aS-: } µ.
I .�� � i���; ��i[ �� �T�� t�r. .�3 �_' l,�{ J�Y� o �r2 � ^'7ti�i� r ��. �, `�T-�c�} �d9.. rr+c.{F t� �� .��5'r
r,f �-.j'` ._�, }Y'c �', ,'. � .F�y :�ti �t �yy� i -Y4�= i 'I a� >.���i � ��1'�
1I . . . . , � . . - ...�, , � .�± � . . � . ' . - . . . . ... '.f 4
i . ' . �,�� ;4.
a . �.:
4 � ,
� j, 1 ��� , k�� �� ;,. P O BOX 10815 �PEN COLORADO 84612 303/925-4790 ��,� y,���j � � y
I . . .. . ' . . ,7� . .. . . .f�� ���T � �����
.. . ... . .. .. . �::. ..._, . .... ...�.
��. : . . .. . �: ' �. .,' :�.. . ..
h
, . . . : .. . . . .._'_.... ... ; ��. ,J,....
± �a,� . . . ........... .......... .. .. ..... .. .. .. .. ., . . . �!o . _. .._. _... ...."__. ..__ .. �
/
��,_a_......... .......�_ . . .. .. .. . ��
_j :
u . � � -� k. �-.
}, }�
�F �_
. �-.. � ' .��_ .
R _
:Z t--�`\ : � _�
���� � � `. e - .:._
Z
;:�;F,�r�S�r_:b' - � . . . • _
_ *.,;,,_y..LL
_, ,
,;�:�, �r;;:
�X�r... . . .
;����, . . � � . �.
'.:t:��:; -' ' ( .
- +;T�,:s`'' , . ' . .
� �:R'�` ' .. • . ..
'al.f r�
��
,y,{��
'4,�"' "i� .
,�_nc-•t,,. . . �
.ra+'tl:.
•��i'i4S• � .
•':ti:V`.`S�- .
�,,,..�. . . .
.;�±,�, ^ ' -
��Yx'
�� �
�:.:H n�('. ` . .
,,
_' ._.. '
.'.�^-\.<�. � _... . —._.�...: :..'-�,..,-...�.�,r.. ...
� ._.. ... . . ' r�'
;� � � •' HOARD OF C0.C�1M1M'R'S �'�`.�
� ' PiTiCif��OU{V�(Y t`'�',
- Fublic F{earinc�ExhiUits �;�'�`".'s4;'.
� _& ���.���:
DatP:__�;4— :
' si;biect:���4�:,�
L'ktu�
_���
f:�i� sa�,- —
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the Detailed and Final PUD
application, and approve rezoning of Employee Lots 1-5 to PMA.
`, � 1. All conditions of Resolution 88-131 shall remain ;»,�<. .
conditions of approval unless otherwise modified or �'r:;�;:,,�.
superseded by these conditions. '�-1{,;,..
z. Prior to review by the Board of County Commissioners ,� ' �
the applicant shall amend the proposed Subdivision "
, - =Improvements Aqreement in the following way: �
f :;:,
The internal roads in the subdivision shall
4 �—'—.—. .._.._._..__ __.'_—
� be chip and sealed within one year of filing
of the Final Plat. The applicants shall �
supply a dust control plan to the County I +
� Engineer which includes the treatment of the �i�
roads during construction. The chip and seal + r��`�
� shall also be applied to the access road £or { }5
,, `'�"
the Employee Lots 1 and 2. f�•:•�;�, :
�y� ��j . .. -
S 3. Prior to recordation of the Final Plat, the
� i� construction plans for the water system shall be
� approved the Environmental Health Department. A
>� letter from both entities shall be submitted by the
4 applicant prior to construction oP the system.
��
� . � 4. All final documents shall be approved by the County
Attorney and Planning office prior to recordation. � �
� �
�
� .
9
p -, ��;
_ �
.� `"
� fi��.
.S
' � . _:,....,:, s.-.:.-, _F��. �.-
.
� � t;} ::
.,�,_ ,.�,.
s.
i ��:�y'�;;.
� ' � -
�:r��.
� Y~ 's;: -
I .... ...�, ""�:�T �ysYVw.'Y.`v+n.�.w�%��'.�u�:w �..�.•�..��.a�.»x.��.:::�;1...4�.W-��.�v-.:%.. �-..i._�:-.�.. .�....v ......_ ...s[......_v.. .�..J--�_ __
.
F r ;.
� �� ._..". _"`-......,:,�. - :
i
."`"'�h'�?'�a"`I'M'"w�r�u�d'ur�5,vw�:;.uw+n. . . . � - �
FF��� , . - _ . . . :. .
s�"�- �
?� $.i. - � r,_
�_'..�„�� "i'�E��
•"���'� ~ . ` _...
. �
�c- ��� "
?:`� ..`�� . . _ � . . . .. � . .
�
€?:��,y���s,.
�x�+�;>��. � S'
4�
�� �.0 ` .. .' . _ , � � . . . `._\\
����. . . . . .
..�.`+�'�'�T.. � - ..i
N��':
�: � �
y.. �'�..:
� �,.,,�" •
�'.�,. ,� � '
„,,.: .
' . , �:.. ,_._. ..��_
.r . t .'�:r.,� ;tt...�... i ., r_� . �..,..—,.'_-.. �•--
..,...... . ... ,..,. ...
, ..:...._......:... ... ..
��. -.. ,....A�a..i -, . . . . .. . � . -. , . .. _ . . ... .. G.. _,_
� - eor,9n o�co.r,o�r�r•r;�n�s ��h�;<.
• �%� PITKiit CC!��fi'i ,+-`��h�'`
. � �;E�i,
Pi,h;ic H:;ari;c�Er.ni:,i's 'a�;°iy�';
. y usti:"I:''
Date:_ — ���1^s;�
Subja�i.
NC,� :
RECO?IIdENDATION: F:xh,yo, _
The May 9, 1989 memorandum on the development is attached
containing the Planning O£fice recommendation. We would like to
add the fol2owing conditions regarding the Nordic Trail easement.
' 1. The Nordic Trail Easement shall be revised as fo2lows:
;.'{';,Y ':
a. Eliminate and/or revise the following language: '��'�l; ”
All mechanized equipment (piston bulley, '�,-�.�
snowmobiles, etc.) used in the setting -
. and maintenance of the cross country
'� skiing tracks shall only be operated ,' '—'
;j through the East owl Creek Subdivision :} `
between the hours of 8:00 a_m. and 5:00
p.m. Use of the P,asement shall be
'� subject to the Protec*ive Covenants for :
East Owl Creek Subdirision recorded in
yh Book at Page _ of.the Pitkin County •`',::? " '
records. � �zit
t r�� `�.
� b. Coinsurance shall be required on January 1 rather '
� than November 2.
� c. Any relocation of the easement "must" be ;t� ,
- � acceptable to the grantee rather than "may" .be M.
,,� acceptable. � _
�c
d. The Grantors written prior consent shall not be '�
unreasonably withheld in assigning the easement to
a future recreation district. �z
i:.'
..; . .`
�;
i�
_ �i'� '*:
. �
�.
+YT} �
;�
�.
1�
_ ;��{ql.�:.'
...�;.�_^i..
J�-:'
2 r'�4,�k„�.
� � . :_�Y���'4�i
3y^a
_ !. �� '
h �
� � .____. _. _'_.
-----:.,t..
�.`x�..a+`+� .. . . .. . . �--�—.w._— `-- -. - `.� �. �a' L�.�:.
�.z:F� �:.. . . . - � f
i �. . .. � � . x �
. M��w� . . � r `� . .
� f��1�'. � .. • � - . ~ � - - _ ' . __' . .
�,��L� - � . ..
�ia �+
�-� .
.��- .
J rh� rs >
:'�,��F I�- . . . ' . � . . '
,'';J'_.:�'�•��.. . � . . . . � - �
,�,� �,� _ ,��
�SS�4,�, k.y-s ,
� � '
,�r�'
wy���C \
�n .
a,'�� � _ - � . . � .. . .
:�� . _ . _.. . .
W�
..!* ��1� . ' .
,�. '�c. � � „ r ' � � .
� � � +
3���i ' .
Y
„ � ��;.,t 7t� if: �2 .i.i � �:`., � _ .._�..... ..,.,-...._.' ,_ ,_ "
. �
,..� � . ... . . , , . . ... . ... .... ......
:
- . _ .�..,_ .. . .-: , � . . . .
-�.. . . .. -F _.- ,_- .
��
�r� hSt`
. �� ���
x �
. ....: ......., .
�'�°aTM�wy�t,..
The Planning Office has received the following Low Impact ��x��;°_�
Subdivision applications since the adoption of the regulation.
xumber
Name of Lots
_ 1. Cozy Point Ridge 4 free-market,
General Submission Submitted 1/29/88 2 employee
Approved SoCC Reso. 88-81, 7/26/88 housing
� Cozy Point Ridge ;;;;';''.,� ,.
Final Plat Submitted 9/30/88 ;.�{:;.: -
� Approved BocC Reso. 88-158 .:�:?;„�;';:'
; �@ �-.
2. Smuggler Mountain Estates Parcel A N/A ��:�-
;� General Submission Submitted 3/14/88 •'ti�•
� Denied BOCC Reso. 89-03, 1/3/$9 �
# . 3. Smuggler Mountain Estates Parcel S N/A
� General Submissxon SuDmicteu ����ioo
;� Denied BOCC Reso. 89 02, 1/3/89
���':4+Tw.�:i�-i+�w.:N;.; ,.�„4:.... .. ,. ...�-- � .:.-.:... �. �,_...:_ .:.. '�,:: .:.�.._. ...;. _..,_.. ..,_ . _ _ . -� .-.....�:..,..._:. . . .. ��E
's :`� 4. Arbaney Ranch 4 free-market, , " !
,`r� General Submission Submitted 5/11/88 1 empZoyee ti�,,,
Approved BOCC Reso. 88-100, 8/9/8S housing �;;k_':,
-'� Arbaney Ranch Final Plat �,"
`�;� Submifited 10/21/88 Not complete.
• "� 5. Happy Day Ranch 4 free-market, �
General Submission Sabmitted 6/3/88 1 employee $
''�'� Approved BOCC Reso. 88-137, l0/25/88 housing �
;:
z Happy Day Ranch Final Plat
'` Submitted 3/8/89 Not complete.
;'i:
.�7
- 6. Aspen Valley Ranch 4 free-market,
General Submission Submitted 6/29/88 6 Subdivision
Approved BOCC Reso. 89-? Not signed yet. Exemption
- Lots,
6 PMH Lots
;;�` 7. Dry Woody Creek Trust General Submission 4 free-market
Submitted 6/29/s8 Tabled indefinitely. r
,,,`°,� 8. Ziegler General Submission 4 free-market i;
�-Yz Submitted 2/8/89 Not complete. � '�
� t
9. Lind/Koppel General Submission ,. .
Submitted, not reviewed to date,
,-+.� BOARD Of C0.COMM'R'S
lo. Sha£fer General Submission P(TKtN COUNTY
Submitted, not scheduled to date. Public Hearing fxhibits ;:�>;�'
Z1. R & O Partners General Submission Date: � ' r -f
=� submitted, not scheduled to date. SubjBCt�-+� �9rA�417 �1� ���'-��
:,
'�Yh No '� �'' '�;''.
z, .�. '� . � . . . .
� ,�. . . . . .. :- .
��� ..� t . .:. '. . .
LR i} _'__" .�..._:.. ._:.<�. . .
�����`. _4� _ .... � _ .., . __ .ee� . . .�k
� - _. . ,-
��_,�Fy sr. - � .. ` __- _r,,;����'s
. r
• +���j��' . ., . .
��� �
:� ..:
r'�`�,�.
;'�.�.�.,'b V
�Y'y--„x,;�x..�?.
;tY`G,��y, .
<Z�+�+�`` �
' ��"��"� • , �
;`��, c�
. �;y�„�n�,r . , .. . '.\. ,
���F��
' +�t:�t"�.�, . ,
�s' .
. -.it���y� !;� � .. �� �.... . .
,-�� 'H- ' � , . . . . ' .
� ��_. � w J! ' . - . .
y ` �� . . . . .. . .
,,
, .�. .
��:_,,
:
x... ...:.::......:...... ,
�if;t� f� +,4:�
BDARD Of C0.COM�'R'S ������„'`
.`w'.m,..;7: .
':�t;x�£.�,._t�.,
� PITKi�!CQlliVTY '�a'�i7�"
•T�:±-::.
Public Hearin7 Exnibits ����''�',;-;�
Date: ,S-�t3-��
5ubject�)t,� !r++p•4`a r s.�[�z
ir i�
�xn.vo. �
� , - ,���: ����. %
� � ' + '�a1�` �`` � r�
ir,� s
.,�
�
t �
� `! In^�recent work�session meetingT s�he Boa'rd—'�has a so �ev2ewe`�he �.� -
intended purpose of the Low Impact Subdivision relative to the `s°
Down Valle Plan im lementation '='
y p provisions which can be
.�,�:,
summarized as follows: ,r;.,
a. To give some relief to ranchers (income and family ���
housing) from the GMQS process; �;,� , ..�
� . b. To preserve agricultural properties; ,��,� .
�-1 �..:,
c. To presezve wildlife habztat; !.!'.'r'
...:... ..,. .. .,.., .
_._...� ..._ ---_•'- ^r'_.= . .,::; .,.. _ _ �
�: ...,,cs;•��s -
d. To reduce the ultimate density of the �larger parcels�in �
the County.
During a wozk session meeting with the Board on March 27, 1989
the Board determined that if modifications to the Low Impact
Subdivision regulations weze ta occur the following would be the
general direction of the Board:
(
1. The Low Impact Subdivisioa should be a ane time only
option;
2. The Low Impacf Subdivisions shall only be available for
parcels located in the Agrioultural/wildlife/Reserve as
'� is designated hy the Down Valley Plan;
� 3. The prioritization of lands to be deed restricted
against furthez development shall be accomplished on a ,l
� case by case basis (Agricultural, wildlife or visuaZ); ':
` The Board has conducted additional discussions regaYding the <
� numher of lots which should be allowed under the Low Impact t.y
, Subdivision propisions. Zn these discussions the Board has '; �
_ . : ,_:,
� -�struggled'`with`�the'�intentiori�to make the`regulation'appealinq':tio '
large land owners {in ozder to discourage maximized growth ��
through the GM process) yet discourage the acceleration of growth
which may no� have occurred if thes,Low Impact Suhdivision option ,i `,
I were not available. This is an issue the Boar@ expressed an :; '' :
Iinterest in exploring at this public hearing. J; , �,
C The Board has received several letters supporting the Low zmpact � 4��'
+ Subdivision in some form. These letters are attached to your �<r,3:'��.?`.
;� packet, Additional comments have been received xequesting the ;'�"`��; :°
Boards position on pending applications. a�a ==
�-.—. _----_._--_...
. � r.t .. , ,- .... . ...-...._. ..._..:. ...... .. . .. .. . . . . . . d ?�
.. .. ...... . � .
,-z�� � ,�,,,,• . _ �',:
� ;
���..::
�. � � .�
.�Yh�r}��"' ' . . ' -• z�"-`°�'�- - 'r"'r-"�-�„—
� ����. � ... . . `. " . . . ._'�`�'-� '� ..
{�
.. ,,. �i�y�. .. ., c ' . � � " .
k�Yy�H i . . . . ..
'}'{,, �' •
'�.�;v-:��-. -
i.Y✓
=L +�y�,'r��R1�' . f.. `,
�����n��'. ' . . ' , . , . - ..
��
i:�Y�7� ' . � .
�x����, � . , ..
��fi?7''�,`°'' _ '
�.�,�
);��� s " .
4 .
:, .
,
.. .::.:�._ _.._.._ _ _
, ,
. ..;...,_ . _ _ _
. ,
.:.: ..,.
„ _,. . .. .._ : . ., _
�.� . . , ..... . . .. _
,k����'JF'".:i
�' �'3��•,CI'�.
., BOARD Of CG.C0,41M'R'S `'�"���``�}��'
;x,�;�a+�:: .
• PITKlN Ct7U�VTY �;•y"""``'
REAL ESTATE AF�ILIATES Pubiic Hearing Fxi;i�I�s ��`�'"'
Incorponted Subject:.�—�Q •,�� , T
May 15, 19 89 Exh.Np. �� F'�
HANA DELIVERED '
Pitkin County Board - - � �;�`�;' �_
of County Commissioners
506 East Main Street �7 ' °
Aspen, CO 81611
t�
� Dear Chairman: '. � •
;.�:,'
iAs yoa know, 2 heve been acting as representative of Niel C. �,,
Morgan the purchaaser of Wildcat Ranch. As a result of numerous �'il
discussions with ou, Tom Smith and the Plannin staff re ardin ��F
RS-160 zoninq andyWildcat Ranch the following actions areg g �4� �
requested to be taken at your next regular commission meetinq: �.:�.� `
1. That you direct Planning staff to retain the RS-160 zone r�f �'.
"`� category in the revised land use code and that as an incentive . � '
for land owners to utilize that zone category and to resolve anp
� ambiquity this zone category be expressly exempted from the � '�(
Growth Management Plan Qvota System as part of the code revision. ' ;
� 2. Based on your intent as expressed above, the County reso2ves
• i any ambiguity in.the current land use code as to the RS-160 zone
by making an express findinq fihat currently the RS-160 zone is
i exempt. trom the Growth Management Plan Quota System and any j ;
applicant for development in this zone district need only comply
with the General Submission, rezoning and sub@ivision
� requirements of the code and Special Review, if applicable; This
� finding will be in the form of a resolution, ���
3. That the matters discussed above be scheduled for your next �� '
regular meeting this month. �
I appreciate very much your willingness to consider this
' matter on a timely basis.
;
Sincerelp,
. � :�
� ;��.
M
� C.A. Vidal . �;�
cc: Tom Smith �. •:'t ..'
�iCindy Houben
;s r �.
� ;
r .
i ��� �it���:
{ -� : ,r,'"-
( It7 South hfurmml� ' �
P.Q IIaa 3159,Arpcn,CulonJo AIG12 . %��,��'.
� l'clrphonr.l307)�-4:�:4O �����. -;y�
...---'-�--�----'- ------ .._.._._.------- '----"-__.._ ..----..'-'—..��_._..._�-'--'.,...__....
.,�
.;�'� .,, ... .. __-____.�._. � ._.... �±..
,��� .
�a4?��. � � . . ..._�
���, '� � � .. .� -- i.
�`�+�i-,�: ;-`� _� -
W`7 �`�w'Y
���' � � . ,� �. . ' . -:- ..
���4`� � � , � . � • ' .
�����`{ - . � . . . � � • . � . �
�
���`�~�< � � . . ' . ..
i.�j::....r. � . . ( .
i��l.t��r'-' ' . � � . . � .
jq .
�µu't�,c��tn ri. ' .. • . . .
.P•;ti`'vy�.�,wi-.. .. . . , � ..
):�'.i.'. ..,:
;��j�a:�� _� � ..
.�,��.5 i: _
=xn'y`��S.y�,� . . , . ..
'4
% r
�� � -
�F�