HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.spec.04081991 ..��y�� .. � . .
�3y.����tu". .
Y ''}� �.I �..
\��
~��3SP � y� J'�iL�`N..:•.t 1 t�'.+ � yr �Y 'Y . ,.•... � _ � .� _
��'.'yV- �r,f.scn �'" . :.5t �;z,a �, ��� y � ...3 rn t_:. _ F�3-.�.
�A.Zy'{'�t;� tt7'�S Y 'Y !yn�,Y�f TrX ��t�k � � '. Rt ��_' �T`l��i,�
:r:��,,,�' w � ' ,, ;��.� ,�
> �r �.n., � :1a �"� t y! .f.��{�:
� ... '�'E '3��,�,.�Y_:�:
.. . � ti�n�`. .
i , .
..�.
h �
, ,_�.
PITKIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS -
WORK SESSION AGENDA •
Board Room ��'.:
� .
•:.r .
; MONDAY. APRIL 8. 1991 f5
} 7 �.�.
10:00 AM JOINT WORK SESSION WITH P&Z
j 1. Land Use Code �.' �
d � .
� 12:00 LUNCH BREAK � % '
�.. ; .
„I 1:30 PM BPECIAL MEETING �,;
2. Ist Reading, Resolution Approving GO Housinq Bonds, Tom !��`
�i Oken
, " ! 3. Pfister Ranch/Golf Detailed Submission, Cindy Houben j`�
:y �';
" ADJOIIRN SPECIAL MEETING !�j +" •
..;� ;t;
'.�
�; 3:30 BREAK t._ ;
3:45 COLTNTY MANAGER'S REPORT s'
:; 4. Slaughterhouse Bridge, Bud Eylar �
5. General Obligation Bond Sale, Tom Oken ;j,
'�-� 6. Memos of Interest �'.
� ,:
� �� 4:30 BOCC OPEN DISCUSSION �;.. . ,
% 5:00 PM ADJOIIRN
-'�. I�
� f .
y
�
�
k '
i
� .
��° � ,
� : S �
\ `"i �
� .
,•`� ��;,; _
t
/� �
y:�
�� • •
:-� .
:r� �'-
_� (� �i�
� HS• ..
rd.t T . . . . .
� ,
y �.y " . . -. . . . . . , .
a����'wi.. • - .� ' . . , � . � ..
��»!• 'T;, .. ' . . � . . • .. � , . . . ; - .. .
' � ,�..�."�,%.j . � . . � .
.�
..� �+
t '�1,r; . . � .
4f y�, ' . . � � .
� •
iyi'�
.����
_ -----.
"'�� . ,. , . -. � .
;���,���� i' � �
; .+ � . �
` r y �" `.• � �i � � � ' �.• A..' Y�. !: t- ;:.,f .. .
t ���,���q ��� � _ `t : �,r t . �d[ : �R' i�r7
��, `r �� Y:'• �t��Sry���#. 'f I` �1 . N Ci�'� . '�A� ;,�iY�1
. . ' . '4'l/ 1!�i! µ '�. � r . , •4 5 �/' .
. � k'F.',� ,�' :'.~��'.`ry . � YsY,`Y _ . _ _ �t: .i�'.'.
. _ . � ..'.a";j�'�S�Fai;`:��.
APPROVED AT
� �y 14 1991
, ,�
��S MEETING • ' '
PITRIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUN'PY COMMISSIONERS , .
, SPECIAL MEETING ,
.
APRIL 8, 1991 .;`r -
_ f,_.�r
CALL TO ORDEit: Chairman Ethridge called the meeting to order at `.s�,
1:3o p.m. ��
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Wayne Ethridge, Commissioners Bill `�
Tuite, Fred Crowley, Jim True and Aerschel Ross. � "'
FIRST READING - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF PTTKIN �• .i
COUNTY, COLORFiDO, GENERAL OBLIGATION HOIISING AND REFUNDING BONDS, �, `-`
SERIES 1991, IN THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOIINT OF 4.590.000- �i„;•,
MOTTON TO APPROVE - PASSED WITH FOUR YEA AND ONE NAY VOTE
Commissioner Ross moved approval of first reading and set for
public hearing on April 9, 1991. With a second by Commissioner
True, the motion passed with four yea votes by Commissioners
Ethridge, Ross, Tuite at�d True, and one nay vote by Co�issioner
Crowley, �
�FISTER R�NCH/GOLF DETAILED SUBMISSION - MOTION TO CONTINtJE TO
• APRIL 9, 1991 - Chuck Vidal, representing the applicant, asked
Commissioner Ethridge if he would be participating in discussions � •
! of this matter at this meeting. He said the reason he asks, is *
that Mr. Ethridge has in the past @isqualified 2iimself from ��
� voting. �l
t�
+ Ethridge responded, that he is not sure yet, that he is
{ submitting a letter to the County Attorney this week indicating �,
� his past involvement, not with this project but with this �
� property, r
i
� Tim Whitsitt, County Attorney, stated that he and Efhridge had
not discussed the matter in any depth but it his understanding, ,
that his involvement some prior planning before he became
' commissioner. If in fact, that was his only involvement in the "
case that would not constitute a strict conflict of interest '
under the statute. However, there is a question of appearance of
impropriety and that his what he is referring to now in making �
his decision as to whether he will in fact be voting on this
matter.
� Cindy Houben, representing the Planning office, summarized this Y
'7 item by stating, that this project started with a County review
in 1986. At that point it was just a golf course with no �
. i
,�.� BOARD OF COUN'PY COMMISSIONERS 1 APRIL 8, 1991
, c�
�,�
`a •
.Y
—� "';r'. 1.
R.�� , � . . . f . � I ..
` .. .. . .. .. . � .
. � . .. . . . . .. � . ' .. .
:+s�`rt" �.z- .
�.��y:��:� .
t�r;r,�c"` , � . .
.a�""
�±'t?
�. w,s✓%_. . . . .
a��.3�.�t�n.� � . .. .
'ic„��y::; � . .
����a.'Y' � . .
ii=r6c�..A .
��-�-�-,���,x - '
}�:sr •
t}
y.
t.'oj;�`. .
' tir,X
��4 . . ' .. �� . . � . . . . . . . � .-. ..
.�4Ty� �? J . . � . . , .. . .
` � � "� ` � � r kry� � �r�a}��4^Y. Kvt�'�„� � ��e c
�� �y��.,_ �:� f�, (� - :. - � ',w:G ���.�X����.S��`�l�`� �r�=,iya�"]��7��yj� ����''�ily���t1 k :
:����'°5 ���. ry "!sj. � �..+f.. ; t�'t • p.� ��G�i���'>L �rv�a.}�k..�.y+nv s��..-�� � ��� s
� ���-•.•. Ta. {�` '�'r .,.: � Y�y:. �£ r +.,x 17 ,-.
��. �. r� {`" +€" i�.�� i
��..,_ .,. �.�'# i.,st,
. •.
s, , . .
association condominiums or other development. As the years went
on, the applicants received approval for a subdivision general
submission, and growth management allocations. She said the ,
' application at this time is for 90 units of density on the :
property, 70 townhomes, as well as 20 single family units. .`.r
Therefore, the revised site plan which the Planning Commission
will be reviewing reflects the density reduced by 17 units. :��:.,•:��,
J ,
Houben proceeded to review the description of the proposal with �
Commission members. A copy of this is made a part o£ this record '��
as EXHIBIT "A". She said this is an overview of the proposal as
proposed in Septemher when the application was submitted. There ?
have been revisions to this proposal but she does not want to qet s
into that discussion until the Planning Commission makes their
' recommendation. �
��, .�
' Aouben said that she has included in the packet a revised site i:;,:;,
I show plan which responds to the visual concerns expressed by the f .. .
Planning Commission. This plan shows that they have reduced the
overall density of the project, and also changing the mix of the
project by turning some of the upper multi-family units into
_ single family units to break up some of the massing of the
project.
i Another major elem�nt in the plan that is different from the �
general submission approval is the relocation and reduction of
. � parking at the Tiehack ski area.
�
' � Houben proceeded to review the seven issues which were the ?•
concern of the Planning and Zoning Commission. A copy of these
are made a part of this record as EXHIBIT "B„. ��
� , With regard to the density issue, she said she had prepared a
series of charts. A copy of these are made a part of this record ��.
, as EX[iiBIT °C". She said these charts give an analysis of how
the Planning Office came up with the total number of 94.1 units
� on the property. The applicants at this point, with their . .
revised site plan, are requesting 80 units of density. The total
number of employee housing units have been reduced to 49 units. ., ,
�
; Chuck Vidal stated, that the employee housing unics will total
, either 49 or 53 depending upon a decision as to whether or not
there will be an employee housing credit when they tear down a �. � �
building. � �
h ;
.' .
Houben said with regard to leased lands, the applicants are
, reducing their density and therefore, no longer need credit for �
density on leased lands. ;i ,
With regard to the visual concerns, the applicant has addressed
these in their revised site plan. She proceeded to review the +�,�
revised plan with Commission members.
. •;i
;�
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2 APRIL 8, 1992 •
+�:
i �t rr..
� �;,. .
y a �
�
�� .. � .
,.�,/�4� ' . .. . . . . . . . . � . . . .. . �. .
���� •
.��Lx°?:c:...� . .
.�•. ry�'��� ,
r�::.��.; .
::r1[i:'•':1y'` . ' , �. .
.:Zi:,,-.�;����.� . , ,
�M
r+.j;
�a�v.r��'f�? � .
���`� .
. �';� ',1u�;�
��;.E`'��?R.�'_
•�1'��
#�.��
,�� �
�.
aa�'�w
:�� _
�``i, . ' — ' ` ✓ .
'i�+-rr� ,: c
.. � �*y 'S, �' �w-,
��` �91�`��t J�r i y°7"t���f��r �y � ,e, �r�� [�Yl w��� �4������ �{"w�k;'� �iiar^�s i�������i��!�
- .�-r��{� � i', 1 �.* y �1[ .x�.-����� �{ ��c:��� u,� �.t- ��y �..
� � p 9. � r� f� ,£ ffi A �a � ±�
�'Itl ;i;; �������kl��� ��..� . _��#�1�`ei�w"��•"�� ��*�'4u c.-ti 3f!4�� . e_>.t 1,z l4
f..
a . .
Houben said with regard to the pedestrian links, Planning -
Commission and staff are recommending that the applicant be � r
required to build a pedestrian bridge across Maroon Creek and a �
pedestrian underpass under Highway 82 with a connecting trail in ����
the vicinity of the employee housing complex on the north side of I` '"�
Highway 82.
� With regard to parking, Aouben said that they are discussing with
the applicant a reduction in the number of parking spaces with a
mass transit service to the base of Tiehack. She said the
Planning Commission felt that 140 spaces was appropriate at the ;�•`
base of Tiehack which is a reduction from the general submission ;.!
_ a approval for 159 spaces. However, the Planning Commission felt j`•`
is was important to make sure the pedestrian links are included ��,�„
�! in that whole consideration. The Planning Office felt that 70 � '
spaces would be adequate; only if the pedestrian links and mass
j transit are in place. They have heard from the public, (
; especially the Aspen Ski Club, that they have certain needs as �
far as the race program is concerned. Gary Wright, representing �-
the ski club has stated, that they need at Ieast lI0 spaces for a
race day for the race program. ��
�..
'j Houben said, that on a average day there are very few cars in the � .
i parking lot. However, on a race day the parking lot is full. �
! Therefore, there is a peak use of that area on those days. '
� Commissioner Ross asked what funds are being proposed for the +
� bridge. �
. � Houben responded, that the applicants revised site plan says that !�
the applicants would be willing to increase the parking up to 121 '
,� spaces and contribute $100,000 towards construction of the �
bridge. The Planning Office's recommendation is in fact, that �
the applicant pay for the entire bridge. !�
�
•.I Gary Wright, representing the Aspen 5ki Club, presented a letter �
with regard to this issue. A copy of this letter is made a part �.
� of this record as EXHIBIT "D^. (
� ' Houben continued by referring to the issue regarding safety and
� pedestrian links. She said the applicants are requesting that �.
i they be allowed to put the underpass in at the time Highway 82 is �
being approved and widened. She said the fall-back on that which
; the Planning Commission feels is important is that the applicant ' '� -
, have an internal shuttle service that takes not only employees �p
but other people ih the project from their homes to a bus stop at
the traffic under�ass in the project. Therefore, there are a
{ series of steps, that the applicant will have an internal shuttle � '
i service, and then at such time the underpass is put in place.
.� Then that required shuttle service will be eliminated but the �;;
applicants will always maintain and "on call" shuttle service for
� i.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3 APRIL 8, 1991
� 9
� .
--.+. �
.. , . . . . .. . .
.
�� �: .... . � - . � . . . . . � . . � � .. � � � . � .
..A"'(.�....._ . • -
'�Q�.+t.j'�h����� .
":epC:.;,���. .
��'tt�'��;j';'*_ � . �
x��•f't.,�-`�'y°i�. �
ui:{�"„T•'� . .
'7F!`��
+K
S�`�_
i.1..
�� �
$r'r�
.��M _ , t ' � _. .
4, � q�
, 4� .,.,. �~v k � �.. i �N� �};� .1�' + �:i •s' .-'G'�`��}�$�/y. ���,���';x�;F kri��������#syl��+i�L'r�;.`
��=r.� � �� l�'��IQ�� fI � k j`C i M � �$i.. �.��'� � avfu�,�fr>'�i�4;-a{ .. �,f �� k�� .
. ' �y�'� :,���,€��{±p�� . <����h?!�'[,.�� ?.-�.�,y�r �A". !!ti y #e��.r,� ��, ,'1�����[ari il�ffhtir��.
dJ
r.`t.ti�'.".�h.50e'!",'���K . �."•t 2'b�71��..., f .�}}1 b�:t.
� _. ..�.. . .. � . .
>' '.
�. . � . .
- people in the project who want to get to the Grand Champions Club - .
or ather areas of the project. _
%'Y '
; With regard to the employee housing, staff recommended that the
units including the Mathis unit shall be integrated into the free � '
market units. However. the Planning and Zoning Commission did . ' °�"
not feel this was necessary.
j
With regard to zone changes, the applicants are now requesting, � .
as a result of the revise@ site plan, some rezoning to R-15 and
R-30. Both those zone districts allow employee dwelling units � ,
! (caretaker units) on the property. If in fact, the applicants
are granted rezoning, then there could possibly be a substantia2 �
, increase in density. � :�:
� A discussion ensued with regard to the proposed impact of this. �'+.:.
!
� Chaix�nan Ethridge stated, that under the current ruZes, there is
i no gvarantee that anybody would be living or working there
because there are caretaker units not employee units, and he �•
thinks this is a very important distinction. �,
•i Houben continued with the next issue. She said the staff and r
i Planning Commission struggled with the private Zift because they � ,
1 have never dealt with them before. However, the applicants are �
� now saying, that they can open this lift to the public which is a •
very low scale poma type lift that would. be helpful if there were
a bridge across Maroon Creek because there is an elevation
, � difference in terms of getting up to the bottom of the first
lift.
Connie Harvey expressed a concern with regard to the parking r.
spaces, and the possibility of them being taken up by guests of i
the residents. �
i
Commissioner Ross stated, that he did not understand the language ;�.�
which states that "the County shall not vacate Stage Road" but it ,
is going to an easement for a private road. �I
I .
� j Houben responded by stating, that what staff decided was that '
1 they would keep the county easement but allow a landscaping :•.
license over that easement. The applicants need this in order to '
'• keep their commitment for visual screen between Highway 82 and
; the new employee housing.
; �
i �
Ross asked what liability it would be for the County to take its ;
plows over a private road through the golf course to maintain the
section of the road that is still its responsibility.
; Houben responded that the road will be dedica�ed public.
.#.; +
�•,� Staff was asked to make sure there is a contractual ag7ceement `
i BOARD OF CODNTY COMMISSIONERS 4 APRIL 8, 1991 f
�' �',
-� � `\ .
:�
%�fi��; _ _ . _ , .
. °'�,�i.� • ' •
��rr.. . . . � .
.w��''��,��ti'� � � �
C 1��;
t��'a� V_
��� •
�i
aka�+.
.1:!�,
���� _ � � � _. .
��.� , , < _
'� P
� ' � ,w ", ..,,,t � t(� '", µ� �P,�`�*r'a�� `'�'.�' ' t� � �' h �1���t�
'� ��, �..}.►� � �� � � ,�
! ��.�„+�}Y`d�� v F,r�j,i 1L f...� rt; �}'� �. o �'i S a"'J'{ti.� k.(���rR �'`� . F�R�t �''k� �7.
, Y�iit",��` Y��Ty ,�3�9i...4; �" �j'�"' YP � ` !'.
.. .w .. .. .. , . -•l.! . . _. 1�`�� . . ... r�w.�..�,����t�..
i
between the County and the applicant with this regard. '
Chairntan Ethridge asked if there were any outstanding conditions '
of approval from general submission.
Houben responded, that there are outstanding conditions, and r..''
therefore, they have all been incorporated into this resolution
- - of approval.
- A discussion ensued with regard to the Board continuing the
- hearings until a revised site plan has been reviewed by the
Planning Commission to get their comments and recommendations.
°'��. Chairman Ethridge stated, that this meeting was scheduled on the
assumption that the Planning Commission was finished with their
- , �=;�,;.� work, and that did not happen.
��?:��;�! Chuck Vidal, representing the applicant, stated that he feels
' �'`' there are a lot of issues which have been discussed that do not
� ' deal with the new site plan that the P&Z are going to talk about.
i They are prepared to address the major issues which Houben has
•�-' j broaght up at this meeting. But he thinks it would be beneficial
r � to discuss some of these issues and getting some of them resolved
��'� as long as there is time allocated. There will have to be
another meeting after the P&Z reviews the site plan but he thinks
a potentially very long meeting but could be a shortened meeting
' �;;,; � if some of the mundane issues can be discussed at a continued
`�:;;,� meeting tomorrow.
. � It was agreed that the hearing would be continued to April 9th.
:�;,s�,-�,,: Commissioner Ross moved to continue the public hearing to April
.::;�i°. 9, 1991. With a second by Comm�issioner Crowley, the motion
_';i�:._�, passed unani.mously.
:�ti;
���< r':� ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
Y�c_.•
;;� R ctfully su i ted,
` �r?4`� eanette Jon
_- Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners
:1F-:.
;
�n�".rt,':1 .
�--�, i
,..}� -±
.:ii.�. � i
:''`t':+
.�-�:.'`"�7t)
.:_,��� BOARD OF CODNTY COMMISSTONERS 5 APRIL 8, 1991
�
f
�i�
�i.
__� �����
r
r�is`� .. . - ' . . . . . . . . ' . . � .. � . . � � . . -
� M� . .. . . . , . . .
r��.�s� �
'�.k�� `, . '
���'x`,
��r,�': .
�'`� .
��N'
f,F
�_.�.�,_.,�,��: .
....:.���,�;.
.��.� -
� �,
�� �
�
�;,-�_
�,.,..
r t
��'�"w.
�t'� .�' ..t- '.::.. �.:� � .- �. - ,, . � ,. . - � ' . � � � ' .
��1 �. ✓ ', � �.
a �,.�
, i � V ` � �,*.��{�����µ����Y,xn �` .���rF; r�,
r �;� � a�•� � ;; � -aa�'� 4{% i t 4 - �.� y�A i
} ���r� -`� a,.�'r� �f��'� ' f�y 'a, �` �.�� ,. t� �"�. ��u� ;��--"r� �e.. ��'a-''��a � .
�.: ti .. �, ,µ � , '1 _A� �s i :
� � _ .,� . '�'�b���' . ��.�r . . . .�r�«.�� �;}� J��Jitt �� + �-Yx�,r
� :x��>� � ,� � _ ��t,: - . . -
. -� ... .. S . _�� . .r..zi'�� ' .���'r�iL�- .µ �!.a y�k \o.�..
. �.
4 .
aoaRO c��=cn. cet,i����.s . .
rr�;:�!a�;c;u,;�v .
ps!•�i;c f�r.ari�. E:.;:i:;its .
ou��. -`-� —8��f___ .
,u+�.:-.�.��..-�/s_ 4 R�---��acF " :
, .. r.^� `i�':r. __M��/ �, .
, i
':';,,�-:
♦;,
=..�.
i
:• ,,
s� ,
';��
i.
_ . � "
�._� 'I��i� .
APPLICANP: Maroon Creek Development Corporation
REQIIEST= Detailed Submission approval of the Pfister Golf I2anch �
PUD and General and Detailed Submission approval for the "Grand �,;,�
Amendment". ' '
DESCRIPTION OF THE� pROPOSAL: The BOCC approved the General .�
'. Submission pursuant to Resolution Number 90-87, attached as . :;� ,
� Exhibit A. Some of the major decisions made by the SOCC at that �1`
time were: "�'•
- Acceptance of the General Submission site plan allowing .��:��` .
; 'residential development surrounding a golf course and on the ,:_;�,
' slopes of the Tiehack ski area. The General Submission '
iapprova2 also included the expansion of the Grand Champions � �
Club and the addition of an employee housing development on �=�' �
` the north side .of Highway 82, near the existing stage Road.
� � ,
' - The Board decided to uphold the policy of subtracting the ;'�.�f"•� �
� employee housing element of the project from the overall
density calculations for the site. .
� ? • - The Board determined that the applicants could submit an ,,."
amendment (the �'Grand Amendment") to incorporate the
. demolition of the Aspen Country Inn. This amendment would •':?.h� r .
• be reviewed pursuant to General Submission and betailed
Submission stan@ards at the time of zeview by the P and Z �. �• ,, _
and BOCC. Specifically, the Grand Amendment requests the �.���� �
following modi£ications to the Plan: �
:�1�
:1', '
The proposal is to purchase the Aspen Country Inn property :';,,;� .
which contains 15.4 acres and 57 lodge units. The lodge � �"
structure is proposed to be demolished and become part of
the golf course area. Two sinq2e-family homes would alsa be � '
purchased to be redeveloped elsewhere on the property. The �
proposal is as follows: '
`•'
,:_
':;F.•
' .
�
�
�� .,.._:,._,_ . _ . _: . : , .
_. . _ , , ,
��� - .
;,���;� - . ; .
a��,�:�>� .
1�y.:
e,�'���y?i', '
•,�,�":..-$�;
��k't.�'.MS; '
7?.Sf
�� •
d��
M�..
�.�,
m?^;
9��{ / 9
� + � �
`y�7�, !1
"i C�� GL4 : ' f ' ' i '� 1 ..y . �a-' :J Y p .. ; r` .
s y,�+�'+� �'c, , � �"�` �� ' � � ���� s wj
x}1d�c,,S.Y�� �!_'�p�a' � 7 � tj A� • ,"'��{�'b ���a'�� +G A �j.°�„ '�r �,��,. � t. 1:, ���F..�.
, °� "°Oi �Yy'.� .1�. �i�' : Y�r�i�` . "��. * �l � ��y�1 u k t�
'{`?�. � �.• � � : LS y F�i� +� 'r�" �` � {y t� �ri. ,
. � y �x,. . .. ���., a' ?-..r.._. �".. '�iM2C.4�r...- ..� .��:�7Y4�'.J'+'i'.,�•,�i�,�1..�1Y!F::�,
i. � . . •
-- Twelve (12) of the Aspen Country Inn units would
be replaced as lodge units at the Grand Champions '=;;
- Club {6,96o square feet equaling 12 580 square -
feet units). :':.r `
� -- 13,20o square feet would be added to the Grand ' '
Champions Club which would include a "golf .'J`'=,�'�
clubhouse"; a "golf half-way house" located on the .
course near hole; a maintenance and qolf cart ,
j storage areas, 12,000 square feet, 9,600 square
feet of which is below grade. %..':.
-- Five additional single-family homesites (total of
1 seven with the Obermeyer and Aspen Country Inn �i�
j � - - -- � single-family replacement units) to be placed on i�': .
' � the Tiehack side of the Highway. �:;�;
ry�.,,.
� � ��:, .
� ;,,:
5 The application is summarized in the following chart: f
Chart I f
General Submission ' F
. Approval Pursuant Amended {�
to 90-87 Detailed Submission ��.
� Single Family _ 20 27(7 new replacements) � `
- . ; . �
j Townhotise 70 70 . �
i:
,i Commercial 16,900 sq. ft. 30,100 sq. ft. (13,200 �
� (Clubhouse, etc.) additional sq. ft. . of f .,
. .. _ _. replacement �
c
� ,
E�nployee Units 57 65
(129 employees housed) (151 employees housed) ! .
F.
�'� Lodge Rooms 0 12 (580 square feet �
� each; total 6, 960 '
'! square feet of replace- � '
ments from Aspen
_'.� Country Inn) � � ,
, ;i ;.
The land use requests associated with the application are as
�! follows: - �'. ,
I '
� 1. Detailed Submission/PUD approval; including PUD variances. � � _
�`„ _
"y 2. Rezoning from AF-2 and AF-1 to AF-1, AR-2, PMH, T. �
�
,� 3. Vacation of a portion of Stage Road.
1 Z � • j.
� '
�•:
� • i:r;
� ' .
L°.� ._..e.��..�._......,_�.,,:,._.._.,.._. ..,...._...,� ..._ . . . _. .... _. . _. .. ._ ... ,. .._._.. . ._. _......._..__ .
:?C _.. _... . . 1S
... . .. .
z;
�,,���, :, ' .
��p"F���;L'r� - .
�'�:}� , ; ' �
Tty
�� ''�y' . . . � �
��
.ld�
���
��. :4 $1 `�E � . . . . . .. .� • .
1 S -.:. '� .. . .'. �.�• Ir d � . .
�� ( 'C 4 .� .y. _ • , 9 '�� r� i '4� E[7
. .�,y�,+�t��A����`+�`"j�`�,����`���: '�t�a�r��' � _.. , t ��. �'.k�; �.
's':�fII!',.4[1., i. ,a ia, A 5.1'4lf+..,��. ..�.Si.•�ai'c�. •'��u.4 .x •'iw r 1 r0.
,�1h��1 '� ,
Ti . . Y::i.:
� t*;:w�e;��2�t'
. . . .,.�.,>:i�.'!�Ti*;ki
'�k.:.
i
�• , 4. Exchange of Highway 82 biY.e path easements between County , ._`
and Applicant in order to relocate the bike path. � • •
5. Lot line adjustment between Applicant and St. Lukes ARU
facility. -_
6. Special review foz e3cpansion af the Grand Champions Club; ..
proposed replacement square £ootage of existing Aspen ��`tV'
Country Inn. ,
• • :`•, ,.,_,.
• 7. Special review for relocation of FCSNO building from AF-1 �' '�`•���
zone to T zone. `.x'�, : .
8. Buttermilk MaSter Plan amendment to accommodate changes
oc�urring due to the development. ;:i
. �� .
SDZ4iARY: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval �� `
- of the application with conditions of agproval (see attached -�� �.
% Exhibit S, draft Planning and Zoning Commission resolution). The <!�% %''
' most:.s�ignificant•�condition requires a review of a revised site '"��:;
plan. The applicant and Planning Commission agreed to meet on :� �f ;..
April 11 to review the revised site plan and make further '
recommenciations to the BOCC on that issue. Therefore, the staff
Iy envisions the BOCC reviewing the application at todays meeting,
yet delaying any Pinal action until a later date. ._
� Since the time of the Planning Commission meeting on March 26, . �
' the applicants have submitted a revised site plan which responds
- - 't to the Planning aad Zoning Commission conditions of approval. �
Staff did not have an opportunity to review the revised site plan
i and associated documents. We have attached these documents as .
Eschibit C in order for the BoCC to preliminarily review the plan �:,
', prior to referring it back to the Planning and 2oning Commission.
• � �',FFS?RA7. CO�TS: All referraZ comments and the staff summary ��
j o� these comments are attached as Exhibit D. These comments have
� been incorporated into the conditions of approval.
•{,
,'i .
`
_t. G .•
' .,�1 ' � .
.�i,_._.._ ,.
i; :�
1 f.�
.��
,
:l �� �
�-� ."
��
� �.;;
. ^.
��� ���- . .._.. _ ... .. _._ .�.. .. _ .
,
...,. �. �.4..:. , _ _:: _ �:: ..
. . _„ .
,....�.,..,, �.......:.� :.....,.:. . M,
��—�.� ��l�fyilL .... 4 , . ' .
��
l����� . .. . . . . . � , ' �' I ..
t
t
� ��
�5��� . . . . . . ' .
:,r p��f T-1,. - ' .
1 .�!
��'y.��'�' � . . . . . .
M,
���X: �
� 3
�
a�� •
.3[,...eR
;�
�,�. , �
:� _ . _. .
��''
� rw . . � � ,
f _� .: ,�� "' � � .d y,X� �7"k�J.`��"'k t a �#]�r�'�( r`��k4�7t���CZY�N .
�� 1 �� ^vV � l - `� ..� c �.._Ay) -`� ,� �y��� �� �� �''���l��Yr..M j }
1` �,..�.i4a y� �.I ` Fti i s•� v ruv h x P x r� �a � y 1 S 1
. . � • �� 'S� �Q: 1 i F3:� �G��. 4. +tF_y.,�e ��;����,Z„�. ����`- �����' .`-�' r
'r"}�: �� ,.t n.. ��`� i^ (R tl`,�9a�-y��i''._. � -f'��ir, va�'.•�a�„`-�4" �.. ,�+�i;.y..
% '
a
� ," . .
. �D ' ''. .
� 1. Density: The Applicant shall reduce tY�,e overall density � T
I (free market and�employee) of the proposal to be consistent
�n with the' qeneral submission approval and retain 100� of
oc ;° '` f�:-,.�' ,
- �o their employee housing on site given the increase in
�-;�=; employee generation as a result of the grand amendment. A ���
��W� � revised site plan shall be submitted reflecting this change '� -
p�`�� in the overall density of the project. Specifically, the
c�„��� a Applicant shall reduce the free market units by �, and the ''
o y� � , resulting employee units by 6 (2-badroom units). The tofial 'rt , �
o n.� � � of free market units proposed is 97 and the total empleyee ` '
� � .. � :� units is 63. ':�; 1 .
m o ' 1. Visual Concerns: There are major visual concerns with .�i•.-?.
structures located above the Townhouse Drive and the
location of single-family lots 1-12. The revised site plan
shall eliminate or adequately mitigate these concerns.
� 3. The Tiehack puhlic parking area shall be expanded to a
minimum of 140 spaces until such time a brfdge across Maroon .
Creek is in place. At such time the applicants may apply ��� r .
for an amendment to raduce parking to no less than 70 spaces
at the base of Tiehack. A transit plan mitigatinq the loss .�
_ of 255 spaces (from the existing 325 space lot) shall be S�;
provided by the Applicant and reviewed by the County ;:�i�';� �
' Engineer and the Planninq Office, and accepted by the BOCC. . ;-�i,
No additional revisions to the Buttermilk Master Plan shall �
be allowed by the County without adequate review of lift
capacity and the transit and pazking needs of Buttermilk �;��
- i - -� � Mountain as a whole.� . • �•;
��
:. 1�
* StafP recommended that parking be reduced to 70 spaces if
the applicants construct the Maroon Creek bzidge and provide �
transit service to Tiehack. : �
4. Safety and Pedestrian Links: The Applicant shall provide a �
pedestrian bridge across Maroon Creek and a pedestrian
underpass under Highway 82 and connecting trail in the
, vicinity of the proposed employee housing complex on the � �
north side of Hiqhway a2. _ `�
*S. Staff recommended the following, however, the Planning & '`�� '
Zoaing Commission deleted it from the recommendation. '� !) '
. <S:i
, Employee Housing located on the south side of Aighway 82 ��sf'
(including the replacement of the Mathis unit) shall be t� .
� integrated into the free market units. ;� Y;
6. Further evaluation of appropriate zone changes (relative to � �
" setback and height variances) for the residential portions ? ��
of this develapment shall be considered by the BOCC and +
. `.,.
� : ; :..
4
��,.. , _'.
s�_,..��� ,_.,. _ . . _
���,X�a. . .
r�'"�rra,.-, �. . - ' ' .
��,��_��, � � .
.�7.r
hf��.��e.-Fi(�;r�:` � � ,
�+,��
.4�h. �
�; u
��'�
y�] •
�
�l
' :��•z
.N
,�•W;•�;�.
}..�Y:.. � ` .
�3'�
�� �"{ r
g. ! ' :
f
'i'�� jti��i. � ' .s ; r.. �, a..
3�z ��,y�' �r'�.� , ' « � � � 9 h�.. :.F, '
Y��^,� .T±.R ` ry.1 �' • t f.,'�.F � r'. :�.
x3"�tCLSis�f y';n,�'x,�" . ai.�.� �,ft � # !c f N :A' �- � �a. '�`.� 5����.
r�, g .� `� .�� -,.. _.• . 1Y TY�� � �, {,f
/ . . .. , - . .. .� . . . . . . 4C.• �.: r IYM�'�����t
. ,�'kst�n"�:
i .i.:.�.
, � .
Planning Commission upon submittal of the revised site plan. '
7. The lift shall be denied unless the Applicant agrees to � r�� ��
`�� public use for skier/pedestrians who will be using the ;_'�r .+
Maroon Creek ped�strian bridge. In that case, the ski lift
s request shall be reconsidered. , ��,,,'�
?
�..
1 I:�. . .
� f
M -
. ''. �
5��
F�`
� .. . 's���` .
�. . - � �i�:r�� .
i
... "..� . . . . . �`�. .
, �
. j .
b`
1{
.. �:; 1 . � - �' �
.. ,� . . � � . . � ..
� . .
_ � i
-1 �
3
, . . . . . . � `:.
�; r
- � . � - - �,�. .
;;j �-i�,-�
;� . . . �. .���. ! 'J
6
.. � '.� � '3, �.
f 6 ':
. -� �F, .
�:.
� i'<•
5'°,;�
��.`
n
....
. �.. _ .,:... .. . . �
,ki-u:vw:ta4�. .{��...�k�c`rAk ..Y�.s... x,....,-�,:,a ..: �.. � ... . -
_ .:. -. ,,,.v.:..�.. ,.,...5� ._,._.:: \,.., �...`., '-: � �...��.. . .
� �' . . . � � . . . . .
. .j�r- .}._. � . . . , , ' . � . . � . �.. '-
� .'� . - . . . . ' . . . . . . . . .
�.� Yi . . - _ � . � . � � i
�
��'
. :��. ' .
!yqry��'��`i sySr �;i - �t t� .:`. : ' .�_. .. � � . � . - .
:f f 14Z��iA .. � .� .f��, 1, �il).� :{" P �'�p':.�' �Y�., �' 'L. roi'.
,� ��.4i � + ,,-- ��* � i� �,t�Ai �,b.`RSk x ��'S"' 'Y . ��.�-�''
1 �j��'��'�,f� ��0.�:.�� �� � s -prt� �' ,.�`'. e ''�' �' y. �.�.�1;}+��f�.,. .
. �„�y���.�i�Y 1. 'ti������ Q�,.�i'. _ +� .`ti�...�_.�M4 .. . ._ . . . . e��4+';,�k1.�'Y.'�.:�:,
� _
� . . pOp�D OF C0.C4Cv1F�TR'S .
,
�: - 1'lilClh,Cu' '
Pu�iic�k,/�ar�t,��
Date:��"'!_�k'--�1-•--/.��- :
. cBAirr i Subject:'�����uce�/r� :;
.
/ r,
' � xh.W9. �__---._.-.--�-- )
A. Existi.ncx UnderlvinQ Zoninv - Ownecl Lanc�• ''
I <` �"� �.
Zone Acres Potential � of Units r.
i x - .
102.0 10.0 <
' � AF-1 '
� AF-2 PUD . 179.1 89.5 E �',`�. .
AF-SKI 49.5 99.� f' .' .
� � �3.
� _ �"
!%:
" � B. Existina �nderlvina Zonina - Leased Land: �
��`i,; .
° Zone cres Potential �` of Units ' �'r;
;
<.� �>
i AF-2 PUD 64.7* 32.3
k 64•7 -�y-,�- �
. �
g �
" * City of Aspen - 45.4 acres _ 64.7
�::� ?
Pfifer - 19.3 acres ;,
1 t
� C. AF SKI IInderlvin4 Potential: � �
� Potential # of Units
,�; Zone Acres !
� �
AF-SKI 14.3 1.0
. _ �4.3 -�.'-Q
. (35.2 acres to remain in AF-3KI With no development
potential)
.y '
y� TOTAL -
, IInderlying Zoning Potential
. k
Zone Acres Potential # of Units �.
• AF-1 102.0 � 10.0 �,; -
AF-2 PUD 243.8 121.8 �' '
- 49.5 1.0 f �
AF-SKI
3�.._1 ].�8" S
. �
i
. . ��,���j:. � . : �
�t� '.
� 13 ?G .
�� '�
�� ,
�; . • ,
::�a ;. _ . ' , ' .
-�F:- .. � - - .
,� .. w�: _ � . � . �
�,
,� :
��
:'e�e•�•,�
:�, . .
'�� � - ,, ,.� � ,, - "; ,,.. �
�c"��' t .,' ��: .� •,.; �;• ��', �v ��rg:r
� � , y"�` ;:. '' `< : Q.,': '�}
�, � �
t � r:'` ����, ,-,�,��t�'� �� ti ,�'� �� ;� ySFi�rc� ,b �k � +, r,�$y��!
,�,.,
. �y .. � �� - .. .'-, �w' ,��� fi�i�":4�Y i��:
' .:?'Ri �:!w , �.e:�+ .. . �...t�. ..-v-"`i�'°�'.. ..�F ...�K.+��,.�fi��'�,E,:' .
l'.�':. >- .
` _.:-
.. . � .�,-;.
.� ' e _ � . . , i ...
' � � ,_ .
. _ � � �'.�.}-_
�f . � Z . �'_ ��:.���
j {
j i�'i..'<,..'.�.,.''�
i Planning Office analysis of appropriate site density subtracting ''�.''•�
_ ; the Grand Champions parcel from the density calculations. =r; .... •
� *� .
Potential '•.�f
i - �
j Acres Units �'; . - -
t �s ,;
` .. �.:
i
C:aned Land AF-2 PUD = 179.1 89.5 �i;i4
pt'.
� - 12.8# - 6.4 i '
. � i 66.3 �l. �I�'�
� �
�' Leased Land AF-2 PUD = 64.7 32.3
_�
` TOTAL (Owned and Leased) AF-2 PUD = 231.0 115.4
� ,
;7 t'
3'
*Grand Champion's parcel '� � '
'•'i ,
' ..�� � .. ;y�, .
;,i ;s.,.
� � ' �
x, '�` ,
� , .
z;
^ i.
;j ' �
J'-r �
�.;
� '� • . . ;�i`
�� . � . � . k-71�''�'F,
w . 4��':.. .
? � r= -
� . �:.;
e �'� �
� ;, ,.
r ��
� . �,:�
; ,
� � � �,.;�;;
ia ' r,�'�,-
� � �;:�.-.
�=-;�
_.___I �. . .
, .
� ._.�_..� _,_._. _ ___.._ �
- -- . .�.,.. __..__ .. ,.. .._,.,. , . .._.. ,�; .
f � , , ; . ..
.� ;:�. ,. . . ,
s�
.: �
€; ;' ;:. .
:,�.. � .
-•�y�; .
:.�
� °�;.
��..�}�' � . .�.
��i
� Y��9i_� tuS . o �Y. � a t ..i{ �t* � � .�,..' .'�� �' ��.� � ...�� }
�i , ' T� t a i" r s� '� 10 i '� � 1 i,� �
xa a�x� g,�
�ts �.n�¢t�t'�`�i wf +�� s x "�,vd'{Yg�`k �n 'p *C � `, ?r�,7,� �'
� �L� k..`c' R�`,,�T�� �iti4,'1:� �'°E. y�! ..� .�, 'lr . .' ..: + �'f''�y��1.1'�.
� �� .���5� �[
.. . .... r A�N���.." � . .. .. . � . . : . ..+�. .. _ ... . . .
� --��� . .. . � . ,. . ;
.-., .
�.�;:,_�,,.� . � � . , . .,.,.
,. . ,. . , . . .. . . ..
.
. ,, ,. ,s.':,, '' ...... . .. _
� � �.. � "�. . ._._. . .. -.� .
. ..� ._.._. . •-
rT'h,.� .r.._.. r,-.:-T. ..__...._- � �
}"
.'.�:�- 'IS "
�
• i
.. � � � • � - �{ . ��,
CSl�RT 3 i ;r
t �.
t` ,'
�,. �ct..;+:
y• q density with and without leased lands � .
�F
-- Total praject underl in _
after subtraction of Grand Champions acreage.
�� .
pi /.r�
4 ! ,
f Density With Leased Lands:
�� :�
� Units ��E�
Zone Acres
10.0 1•i1:..
� .� AF-1 102.0 E,,.: .
231.0 115.5
_ AF-2 49 5 1.0
�� AF—SKI
�j ��� ��
y �i•
,s
� Density Without Leased Lands:
ACre 1 nits
i Zone_ .
� 102.0 10.0
1 AF-1 166.3 83_1
t �^2 49.5 1.0 .
-` � AF—SKI
= 94.1
.� �
;� j.
;� tl
�
�
. ,
. , �:;'; -
- . �: �
• . ; ,.
��,
:�;
�. .
�- �
15 . � ��c
�.
� � ;
7
.� . _
,:._.,.,.._- . . .
��, , . .._�:., . � . .
. _.r:as�nr,_.. . . .
...�-.-,-^•r„� - - .._...-, . � , � .. .. . .. � . � . . ... �
\�. �. � .. . .' ' .. . . .. . . . . . . ' .
;f _ � ,
� • .
r=, _
� �., ,
� .
�
a e.✓'s
}}
`�`�i,� r� � - � �,/�,
�'�''�s. i �.t - � * . : - � r•, � � �:, .
� ;{ � '� ,F � "#'�"i�Y
� ,. ; , v?. y4 bc,a't- 4�"Mt'�e� ��iy,°� ,s {� �it�s�"�q . � �, f�"`�'�
� ���'�,��j, • v 0�. � �.1;• �� , ; r� � k!+� y�,'4'��''`e'...`N�: � �s cy�, w YY .'�
ri.`� s� ��a•. T �' yy '�y � +p� � :' .. qd � � S,� . � �rf�f ,
� � ' �L�;��. +43��"�• . . b��'l.�.� ' _ •� 'Si��M1... ..�.... ��.''��}� �r���''�' 41'.
� � .V ..-h",. 1.� h::�,
4 r
. } . , ).
�
. CHART 4 .� ;�_
. •.r '.
• Recommendation for Overall Reduced Density
; � I:'��':,,���'
'� I. .
i General Submission Approval: 147 Units = 90 Free Market � .
" 57 Employee Housing �.. ,
! 1_`,,,
� Grand Amendment Request: 172 Units = 109 F'ree Market (97
i + 12) � �
� 63 Employes..Housing ;� �
- i
I "
� f * The amendment represents an increase af 19 free market units �''•i;„
{ �,r
and 6 employee units. -
1
�
� , * IInderlying density allows 94.1 units.
i
? * Code and BOCC policy exempted empZoyee units from density
! calculations. �
•i * 109 free market units is 15 units over underlying density �!
and 19 units greater than general submission approval.
* 15 free market units create the need for 5 employee units.
19 free market units create the need for 6 empZoyee units.
:t
' * If the project is reduced by 15 free market units, then 5 �
� employee units are also reduced creating an overall density
� � reduction of 20 units (172 - 20 = 152 total units) . This is �I
a greater density than approved at general submission. `
.� * If the project is reduced by 19 free market units, then 6 �� ,
) employee units are reduced creating an overall reduction of �'„
:� 25 units (172 - 25 = 147 total units). ,
# * 147 units is consistent with the general submission �
� approval. . �
, �• .� '
.� Plannina Office Recommendation:
i Reduce overall densit b 25 19 free market units and 6 em lo ee �'(n
� Y Y ( P Y
units) to maintain the general submi.ssion approved level of I'-�;
� i -
overall'density. �
�
I i
j ch.papril8 • �
;�
1 [,
''1 i6 }��
. �.
,� ' . i�f.=
t+
, _ _...
__ . .�._.. .__. . __
� ....__._ ._._... ,_._... <. _
..._,_ .. . . _ _
� .
, �
,,,,,�� , . , .
`�r '��,' ` , : .
�`'� . .
:,� r'
,
�:.��
� . .
.t.
."�.'��'�,�'.-'.
.�.
��.:�
�� �=�'� ` f,b's � :, �: p : .
, , , � ,�• a � .. w p9� > F
t�,� `� n���la � .�',v ki}�` �i',F :tt l. .4 ! � :�'�'',r�"�5-•� � w �� �!!'.,f���A� �: Y� ` ytY��d'��
��� ` y�� �� j '." '. �'y � Y A � ,�? �,.a �>t.
{,,. at t•. .�t`��,�.�r�,. �i;��` `�t'� •r ,+�i��x'%:
; .. . . . _ . .. . .. . .. t� -.K,rrS 4��ti.k..
.. � YC\:. . . � - � . . . . . .
i. . ' %-
r�ti��en 5ki Clul�, liZC. BDARU 4F C�.CO;vI'vi'F'S � -
PITKlN CUUt�lTi'
�K��w�• ��� PuGtic NoarieU[;c;':b;+.s
A.�xn.Culur:�du hlbl! .� v�
(i115)7_'i-51_'i Date:�__ — ���
Sobjec�!� •'.'
ii
5 April 1991 ������ �� ��� ���
.' � ,�'
`
Ar�Jrr;r 7�rn.i,n�
'�I.lill'�{llll�lll t•� .
Board oE Count} Commissioners �.
, Ru:�rd uf Uircrtca;ti 506 E, t4ain Street t�; ., ..,
j Aspen, Colorado 81611 k�s :
� �tan•\c7iylu , .
�! l•Aiq 19:mcic 1..:� s
- Re: Pfister Golf Course Subdivision j_'• ;�
••���•n��ux• :
! ,u,r,.�;,y:,. Tiehack parking and Ski Racing considerations r�i=�..
�.+ O�d,fw�ucr . j�l'�,�.,
� ik:n�in•enn,��:u��� Dear Camnissioners• ` `• ' '
Itiik luu��+ � ��
� 'linn Ian6rrinF r .
� i_����.iA�k•n•r I am writing on behalf of the Aspen Ski Club, Inc. I serve as
�;,.,,,�;���,�ik.,, its President, Che Chairman of L-he Board of Directors and a part-time
� I�x,i+cc�:�i coach. SuUsequent to the recent P&Z meeting I have become more fully
�:I��;,v,ni�l� informed on the above proposed PUD. Based on information available
, �,'"'����'n"„ to me at this time, I believe that the long-term ski zacing and •'��' i -
j ,blauu�Cti.:�n
� �,,,,.��.,��. training needs of the co�anunity catt be met with the same standard of
� . � quality as i❑ the past, hy assuring year-round access via public road :
I Iune�r:u'�•:nxi to the relocated Tiehack lift; and providing approximately one
I.il"ctitne\Irndx•rs hundred parking places, k�
ii,r��,����M,..�•�� � ,��
� iwd�n�-m��� The developer has indicated a willingness to "reserve" eight ;' -
��'���r"`•'" spaces For Aspen Ski Club use. This situat3on would actually improve t''p'�
• � °'�"'��""" matters for the Ski Club from its present status quo. ?,f`:,
;. ydmnay.. :_��. .
� � liimuiclk•��c:� •
e,ii,����< Further, and consistent with my understanding o£ a goal oE �' i
� ��:��'�K2•����••:��� reducing vehicular traffic to Tiehack; encouraging parking at tiain- ,
� �"��`�;,T"�' guttermilk would in fact enhance training on ttaining days and ski
� �'°�����"�" racing on race days at Tiehack Ski area by focusing the traffic at �.
� � nkk rarkcr - .
�;,�,,.i��.,k.,�,.,, Main-Buttermilk.
j t"h:vks Ikhi�w• s '
-"'•����+'K'�' Flease consider this cexrespondenae full support for the � . ; . ,
. `'''�`��"""`' proposed redevelopment of the Tiehack ski area based on the foregoing
naec�iap�cum ' i
iw�����,�i���,����� considerations. �
� laura\C7nrlcr '. �"` .
iI hnul�l\\fii�cumh `ri�-��
; r.�ui��ci�„c Sincerely. i°'
� � ,
i r • --
ASPGN SKI CLUB, INC. Id:� �
� �';f' �
� �..Y�
� BY� `�
I GA'ry . Wrfght, President
cnw/j W .',f,
� .
j SKSCLUB\COlpl ' ;1,•,�,
�rI�^
i 1.:
' I
' i '
'
r _...___._..._..<..____,. ._...._ ...�...:.,._ , .__ _., �.::.._._...._.
'�. �"�: . , . ..
��� ,�'T!` � ' . � ' .
. I .
L�: ,;:Y} ' . �
4 ..:�5_' � � . .
. �.
� '
.�
£,