The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutbocc.min.spec.04091991 ,:�;-�. � ,�� , „!"p.'T y� " j r v' < � ' �%'t��.to��tij ; n1�' ra ,1'..ul i � 1 ��' 1� u q �� f 1�.�. �.� . � ��,�� j�� `.1 y� ,7� i f�� 4�. �r��'"��y'A w. � �i, � !J'.:F iI l.G]�,5/ 1.� r''��r.i'°� t4. 4'. � ,�j��y�� . "l'�n�' ��"a tl�Y ki�• 1�F`: ;V�� `` �t a }q # �'S��w( 'y�'0��. a �� .= �7. '',�V'.Y#� , .. '��S'�'.: . �.#� .. .. . . . . , .._l�- �,'a' .- . . �.`.: . . .. . �f1lk.:` . j � � . - �. � - . � ..�, � . PITRIN COUNTY COMMISSION8R8 . SP&CIAL MEETING AfiBNDA �.'�=;; Board Room •� � TIIBBDAY. APRZL 9. 1991 �:':.X y�' � � 10 am - 3:30 pm SPECIAL MEETING (continued from Monday if aecessary) fr` ;r�`� - Pfister , ADJOIIRN SPECIAL MEETZNG �, ," i ' � F 3:30 pm 1. ASSESSOR OFFICE UPDATE . F -�� ' � ` �' � ADJOURN i � : y ;t y i'4 . � yv� �{; ;� �,, . �: .i � j I ; �: �:� : .. 4 " � . � � � Y , ��7 j � 31 � . . . Y '. � ��' � � . . l�. ! � . . \ �f; r�' iF; i!. .. . � � S'�� .� I. '� � _ �, �� ''. _� �: - s,�i. ws . 4: , r �I' � ��y . ''• . � � !�� ty ;' V —�r., 1 � �i r�,� ..� ;��4 'M t k S,. _ ' . . • � ��:<Yf�m�.S_ �s �� . �.. � `' + ��. . ._ , ..". . . _ ,.;... f'y,..a. . . . �. .� . ; /�. , .. . .. . u.. .: . ...w ., . �. . . � , < . ... . . , ..'� . r�. :. "'.." ...� . ,�;� :.. . . . , �. . . " � . . . ... :�. ... ,E`. ' . . � . , ' ' � � . . ."�+'��i' �rF. ' .._. . , . ' ' .. �. ' , . . .t . . . . . . . _ . , �:r. _ � '4i.. . . . . . - . � . . . . . . � • .� y. y.��{ C'+��..� ,�., .. .. ., . ' ' ' . ��Y� . . . . � ... - . . � � � . . ' � .-,. .. d � � .��. �.� . . � _ :: ,.;�'�Ty�(.��''�.t�'��M1.�"��1�'"}�c:. .yTS<�"i'H�S��i�,�,qk { h� �{ k,'. C � p� Y' � ¢ y� 1�f i . i n��alS�� k, � y�i.l � .` '. S .k-�,'it.� �' ��ir .�i � 7�� ''{ e- i� qy 1 CY!H�� `�t My'd y � !, +��^e,+�,. °F ..`„¢`o.A��v''r.nt ��Sl�...' .t� � . `��y� + �', � . {Tf t ��::: �,, ' *� r,.1 ��t �'� � ,� ift�>� yi.. � r�'� Kryp > � F �" ��'��'17�°��.i�k��i >- "-�,y,a�M r �r�t:+°k�'t�"L•sn'":�''�. , �'..�_�r,•��"�`�! k �;F��r�' : � .. s , � . � • � APPAOVED Ar . MAY �� MINUTES MEETIN6 ,,.:;.'": PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COIIN'PY COMMISSIONERS 'i '�•,:'ti�rr.• SPECIAL MEETING � ; APRIL 9. 1991 CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. �. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Wayne Ethridge, Commissiohers Jim ;,��, True, Bill Tuite, Fred Crowley and Herschel Ross '; . . PFISTER RANCHJGOLF DETAILED SIIBMISSION - MOTION TO TABLE - PI�.SSED IINANIMOUSLY - Tim Whitsitt, County Attorney, stated, that the Board to accommodate the applicant, is going forward with getting into the process before a final action by the Planning and Zoning Commission. At this point the Board will be looking at a couple i . of major issues to day so that when they get the final recommendation from the Planning Commission, will cut down the � amount of time that it will take to get through the hearing. � However, the purpose of this hearing today is to take information • . but not to make any final decision on the application or major issues but intend to remand this to the Planning and Zoning � Commission for their final review. � - Chuck Vidal stated, that from their perspective in terms of what happened is, that the Planning and Zoning Commission took a final � action, made a recommendation, and that recommendation �,> precipitated a revised site plan, and that in the form of a � resolution, that they have and they are responding to those � • recommendations which is precipitating a revised site plan. They agreed that if the modifications were siqnificant they would back . to P&Z and have them review the site plan, and if they wanted to amend their xecommendation as a result of reviewing their . response, that would be appropriate. But he feels that if they �. , ' were not to amend it and go straight forward, which they are not suggesting, that they have taken a final action and that plan � which they have acted on could go forward and be decided by the ( ` � County Commissioners. Therefore, they did take an action, they � instructed Cindy Houben to prepare a resolution, ahd they are - responding to their conditions and eommitted to go back and let �! . them take another look. � � Whitsitt stated, that there is still a 30 day period required by ;E the code between final action by the Planninq Comzaission and " ' hearing by the Board. So that is an issue they are going to have '.,j , + to deal with. Also, he has some real problems with deeming the � Planning Commission's actions subject to review of the site plan. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ]. APRZL 9, 1991 �;.< l �. , . � . ti;.' . . , :�i��° • .��-��(( ^..Y. ��_�'`t 1 F�.f��T�, ��;�� ' �, . ,;��. .�.. ,.��;� �� .- _. � . �, . . .. _ .° � �4, � r s5� Y � � s 5 i �' �� ,, L{ � ��kb{��'��k�,�"' �� ?� a''a��3'`��ikt� .� y �k.,t�a ? �. H .'�4 1t�t � ,'�° r x�Ma °�� f�' �' -. , �M �f��,.`!,a �rr.. '�. � M y � w aG A,�. ' . �. . •w,, ,•�,'��/ � cf, ,a;f � _ .��4 �'"�,�.,'�,9��Z�� ,, ��.�1f� ?��RFI��- A�'YY �...�.� . '_{��.1ry �;.1��'.��+��.��x.��ti�l�� . � � • , , • . He was not involved in all the actions before the Planning " - Commission, but it does give him some problems to have the Board ::;•:rU"' take final action but have it subject to review of the site plan. % Cindy Houben stated, that the resolution in the Board packets is ; i`.3` � a draft resolution which will be reviewed by the Planning and . Zoning Commission this coming Thursday. They did take action on March 26, 1991 directing her to write the resolution. A discussion ensued with regard to this issue. Chairman Ethridge asked what is the effect of the Planning and � Zoning Commission having an unresolved issue which is the site plan. ' Houben responded, that the resolution says that the conditions of ��.� " approval rely on them seeing the revised site plan. A discussion ensued with regard to scheduling a special meeting to consider the matter far final action. � �, Amy Margerum, Planning Director, addressed the issue by stating, ' � that in the Planning Commission's resolution, there is a specific � _ . condition which states "prior to approval of Detailed Submission � by the BOCC a new site plan shall be submitted and remanded back , • to the Planning Commission." There�ore, that gives staff some ! comfort in that it was a condition type approval. Therefore, a F' hearing could be set within 30 days of April 26. � Chairman Ethridge stated, that he will be abstaining from � participating in this application. He said this is a difficult � " decision because he had been lobbied more heavily on this '�, - application on people wanting him to be involved, but as • important as this submission is, he thinks the integrity of the ' planning process is also highly important. Therefore, since he ! declared perhaps an appearance of a conflict interest he will , reluctantly not participate in this application with one exception. Because there is a potential that he might need to be � called in to establish a record in the case of a tie vote or if � there is a problem with a quorum, he needs to be fully informed _ , of all the issues on the application so he will sit in on the �:; presentation but he will not participate and will not vote unless . it becomes necessary to protect the County's interest. � Jim True, Vice Chairman, invited the applicants to proceed with iY their presentation. � � Chuck Vidal, representing the applicant, proceeded to review the � . history of the project and the proposed site plan with Commission � members and members of the public. ?! � He then proceeded to review the seven issues which staff BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2 APRIL 9, 1991 ' �rr- 9 � i . i � F � " ..... ..� .. �.�.. . � �' . � . . . . , ,` , . C r �,- ' ':xi,�; }% : ��3 F`i F�;�,^��.-:_' , <r��:�F-�:. ,,•,�� ;�� .��.� . •'M"k ��{�- - �a. . . � .. .. . - � �. '�{t Ma`f� . i� -. � � ; �- r r.j��`y� � -� �� W� 4 5 - r' 4 � . .• . �` �M�.�y"If1��A��(G�,��,f�1.� .`�n�i��•,�y , �� th.! �� w�}, � �r :� 'c, � t 4}d rv1?:tn5 rr�(��.^�' � � ��'� �i.; _ � �� 9y S. � . t�� e � �3, �� ? � ! ��'��i� t K� � �,�y SL � �,�� r . ,��., ��`�r ��'f ,�,-�}"`�`�J}'. . ._ ..�� ,�'. v ._rp 1 - : i. • ' addressed at the last meeting. He said there is a reference to ., the project as being large and complicated, and he thinks it is `-r complicated however, he does not know what designates large. - ! They are talking about roughly four acres per unit on the � ' development, and therefore, they do not consider it to be dense. ; �-� • There are 90 free market units with the commensurate employee housing. It is almost 40o acres of land and quite complicated because they are going under Highway 82, relocating a radio ! tower, they have had a number of land ownerships to acquire, they have changed the plan because of the acquisition and problems `� ' with they have had with some of those properties which has '' : + complicated the process. However, he does not personally perceive this as a large development. It is a siqnificant one �` _ and he thinks it resolves some problem pieces of land, that if �� develo ed se aratel could be develo ed in a lar e se '�� p p y p g quence and � :. . ti increase the development potential. Therefore, he thinks it has � some benefits because they are taking away development that has already occurred i.e, Park Meadows, Aspen Country Inn, two more houses along Highway 82, etc. For these reasons, he thinks there ; are some improvements to an existing condition. Vidal proceeded to address the seven issues which staff brought �' x up at the last meeting. A written copy of his presentation is E " made a part of this record as EXHIBIT ^A". � A discussion ensued with regard to what type of transit service • i the applicant would incorporate prior to the bridqe construction. � ,' �It was agreed, that staff and the applicant would work on that matter and bring something more specific back to the next � , meeting. ' � x :� A discussion ensued with regard to the bridge, and how much the ' applicant would have to participate monetarily to the i • � construction of the bridge. � Vidal stated, that they are willing to participate in the ` construation of the bridge to some significant degree and � � suggested that it be $700,000 at this point in time. . '' Also, they will agree ta install a tunnel under the highway to ?� the employee housing project but they would like to put that on � hold until the four-laning is complete or do it at the time of `' the four-laning. And in the interim, provide a transit system '� - for the employee housing to get them over to the bus location. � It was the consensus of Board members that the construction of the tunnel should be done at the time of the four-laning project. �� Vidal said, that with reqard to the issues, they all have a �j, - financial impact. He said the end result is, they are taking � down the Aspen Country Inn, they are at 10 units less than what � �; BOARD OF COi7NTY COMMISSIONERS 3 APRIL 9, 1991 �1,,:,�. `i .. .. ti`"�d .3ti , . _ . ,.:,;taee. � � � . . 'T��, � �� .: a4��C�" . ' . �*�x�� :� ,.� �t . �• ,�� .�:�`. M..::^_ rY` . ��{� . , , _ -, �, , � . `��`� aj� ° � v �� .a �. � �, P �.', .' '.; �� `. a � r a..,�e� ` f�}��'. # .^4 r `,:. �V Fk ,, 'a�'� �X,.., f4 b.�... �'(� K��# w�'s9'��g 3a.�-, r �� 4 .� x'1� �f�3�.� y �..: `� "'�f � �`� {� � y°�Li �x7E S-. f�''�'i�`�}:•'>''�� .� . ,�. „ .oc'�+°�ixr .. .. �r�'' r�c�G��isa':� i . / . a � �. 'i,- they had at general submission, and they are paying for that. •. ' They have been requested to pay for the bridge, they have been '� . Irequested to pay for the tunnel, and committed to do that. And � they have reduced density and increased cost. They have to look !;;"`' i at that package and the cost implications as it relates to the �"� � -� project. And again, all this affects this project in a � . � significant way. - � Bill Kane proceeded to review the proposed employee housing project with Commission members. He said they are working very f� �� ; closely with the housing authority with this regard. • � � P_ discussion ensued with regard to integrating the employee � : % housing units in with the free market units. '� �.:: . � Amy Margerum stated, that it was the Planning and Zoning � Commission's recommendation, that they not be integrated in with the free market units. `; _. r A discussion ensued with regard to when the next meeting would be ' scheduled. d Commissioner Crowley moved to continue the hearing to May 7, 1991 a at 5:00 p.m. With a second by Commissioner Tuite, the motion � - �' passed unanimously_ ' 3, ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m. ` l! es ectfully submi ted, . �, ��-�y �i L:�!�G� eanette Jo �!. Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners ij i: : � �� - ,� 4 . . ;'�1 � i . . " 4"' - i E. �'t y � � b � t 3 BOARD OF COUNTY COM�QSSTONERS 4 APRIL 9, 1991 � �; 1 N `1 __� a � ii ..i; , •- - . . _ - :�' _ _ . .t� � . , . . _ . . . . . ' � � . �,'` � :� � i� t%��:' �� . �.w,... � � 1, �� - - , ' : , V° , ` a �t'1Y�� !� i. . " . � ' � , • �,�,,-. q.. ,.S l' f¢ H,yW'r�, � jt; �r . , � F y' { / �1 r� � ti�Y i t .� � , } . FS.Si� +�'��'� �, ,.S ��'Y � �~ ' ��r�,�� M ' - t ` 'A j. ' �.�r�1ti� '�Y4�� 'A�� ! ... � 'Y�M i� l� �b,�*��fl�tL! �: .; ,. � /, !: .. ..��p�� , t • �! � ' fs 4, ,� ' „ .4M'S� l , � , }?� j, . n 5 . � ' n t »1 .. n`.,Y ♦��+ .� . -�� tl.3 ..: � Y;T'�I... r�P 4•hS.�.`$'. . � � '/.-. t . . . .f . �. .. •�f .. .. . . ..... . .._ / � . . . n . ...f\. ., i .. . . . .. . . ' .. . ' . � l . • � ` - Exhibit C . . • @4Af�p S1K�tl,G6t:1t�i'k1'}; - rn�ua c��,a;� � �<:�;�. ' Put�l{c hoarin;[;;��:��:�s • `•' i �( �� c!/A.� �EEtNW�` . i bate: "—�l r—y----�� :a'��:I`.. ' MEMORANI)UM $Uh�2Ct: F/SIE�?_ HC�Go�r- . '. �� . � F.sh,itic. ----1�.�---- l �: � ` ; TO: (3ndy Houben " As en/Pit]dn County Planning U�ce �1.. .' " P c.: � `;' FROM: Bill Kane ,�A'. � ChuckVidal `'` . �, Andy Hecht ' - DATE: Apri12,1991 � �� ; • RE: Revised Site Plan for the Pfister RancWGoif Detailed Submission '' �, . � . In response w the County Planning Commission meetiag of March 26 and the Pianning - ` Office recommendations regarding approval of the PfisCer Ranch Detailed Submission, • �� we aze tcday submitting a revised Site Plan which we believe responds to the major d, � issues raised by the Planning Commission and Planning Office. As you can sec,our plan �. calls Por a iotal reducdon of 17 free-market dwel1ing unit and 8 PMIi uniu by � substituting single-family lots in place of sites that weie originally planned for attached P • ` :` single-family,townhouse style uniu. We believe that this single change goes a long way '- : �. toward adcixessing concerns raised by both the Planning Office and P&Z regarding ! . . densiry and visual impact � i. �' ; � By way of comparison,our detailed submission,as filed,called for the development of �j . , � 97&ee-market units and 65 employee units. This revised Site Plan calls for a total of 80 � frce-mazket uniu and either 49 or 53 PMH units,depending on the final nsolution by the � � � :q Boud of County Commissioners with iegard to the pmper methodology for employee ' housing calc�lauons. Our original submission called for 27 singlc-family uniu and 70 } , �: � townhouse units. In our revision,we propose 43 single-family sites and 37 townhouse . . �;. ; uni[s. � k,.: d ' - � �.,, ' ; . � • 3 . � _ ��{ .�. ''y � � .�� `� • _� � _ .. . _ . . _� . . • .-i, _ � !� �_ • - . ��> . r �w, . .� � �r.� :Y: . ' . a.�. ��. , � a .�"� •""�;. _�,��_�..u_�.,._�.�. �i� ��# � � �� - ' ' - � , � �ih's'M:y !� �+ . � . '� .` r a g,�v�.� �'I�o ��,—Fu.x 71^l �.r r y�, . t* � � � Y r - � i �"Ui � '�SQ �'�•a � � � � a f �,` � �... ., t fr �'k.�{ 4.Y ':` d��:i -.�,i�T��: j '�nikA ��i.� ��.,�s � :.j ' u� 1�,. v .��,'Ft"vh �' +I Y�'r>k�t;V . +� �:.� �'�.?T!'y '4i�..1_��'' .r��l. � _. . . �yy��_ . ... ... � y �i .r�. � . ... � , w. "1�`�"{!7 �, y � . � .'.t'`�+°��Za�'_. . �� ..,..�!"-i^��t,.�,i t.. . 1 ' � � - � . . 4�... i � i e.� i � - - ; By way of further explanation,we have recapped below how our izvised plan will � specifically deal with the seven threshold planning issues raised by your office and which � we believe will be embraced by the Planning Commission in their final resoludon of �i':,; approval. • ;: '� For the sake of clarity,we are taldng them as enumerated in your memo of March 21st ; T ,: � L Density �:•. . , .y . ,,: � You have recommended an overall reducdon of 19 free-mazket uniu for the project and in your rationale for dus calculafion,you sitc a range of 15-19. We are hopeful that a 17 unit reduction will be deemed acceptable. � Our radoaale for this reducaon is driven by site planning concerns and a ' desire to eliminate large,conflguous townhouse shvcnues in azeas ;; relatively high on the hill where they would create a greater visual impacL . Reducaons beyond 17 are at this point not considered feasible given the , �� large infras�ucnue and additional l'ublic Service commitmcnts which aze � being requested of the project The reduction of 17 free-market units also ' carries with it a corresponding reduction of 8.7 units of afforda6le � housing. With rounding down,this single change will cause an overall . � reducuon of 25 units within the plan. In removal of Aspen Country Inn 57 ':. lodge moms,9,600 square feet of comercial and one single-family home � will be demolished along with the Obermeyer house. ( " ! 2. �sual Concerns ! ' � • � T7iis revised Site Plan deals direcdy with a principal visual concern raised � in your memo. Your recommendation has dealt with visuai miflgation for � , �' . � nnits located above Townhouse Drive. The responsc will he co commit 4 � that lots 32-39,depicted on the attached Site Plan,would be limited to an f. . � � FAR cap not to exceed 5,500 square feet as well as be able to create 1 . ' addiuonal open space between uniu. This FAR mduction,in conjunction �'�� - ;j with the ability to allow single-family residences to respond more easily to �y i � natural grade,tvill substantially reduce the potential for adverse visual impact on the hill. � . !, S .�,.�r '`� ' ; . � ; ;.� � :�� . �� ;�- . E' . :,'F: ; � � , � � , � , .•,� �:�� - . , ; . �c,�',: ,> , Y: � �•� ,��T. . ��t � �� . - , _ � s1 �5 d. p �r .� - �o^�y��– ?S , �.. �'�,,��5`4'. y `� pj�'7�1. � J ��^ J 3 j �` � � �-0 .� 'i f,y� r �' .� ��tlt:: � " .. t F��a(�t �~ � Y'N� �� r,e'�.`��'+8` � �� t k� ��%��, ��,'�Y ' '.i '� � ��' {'�i�Ti,b,j. �a'7��,�,��,Y�xT �o��..' . � ��..l�'1`� �V 7, � �#� ,��. �'!'c,.�:-.. . �._.� . �r7;s;4�:��d.7�"!°-,=�""Frl�i t,=..� r�`�-. ��►.�� _ � � . • � . a � ; ; . - ;� ; - .. _ 1 3. Tiehack Public Parking ! - � In our propased tcvised plan we aze showing a commitment to 121 surfacc 3 parldng spaces immediatoly adjacent to the proposed islocated Eagle Hill LifL The plan would deliver a net 121 spaces available for public � parldng. This corresponds to a recommondation from the Planning Office ; for 70 spaces. We have also attempted to addresses concerns rsised by the - :� � Aspen Ski Club,in that when asked,Czary Wright indicated that between �E'::� � 90 and 110 vehicles would meet Sld(:lub requirements for peak,race day • � events. While tfris parldng is committed to,there will also 6e a requesc � made to revisit the parking issue once the Maroon Cieel�Pedestrian Bridge is completed. �.v ,t � . 4. Safety and Pedestrian Links : ''=i Maroon C��eek I7evelopment Corporarion will agree to provide an - . . additionat pedeshian underpass under Highway 82 to link employez . � housing directly to the principal eastbound RFTA bus stop on Highway � 82. It will be om�iequest w not require both shuttle bus service and a �'� tunnel since we believe these connmitments aie essentialiy irdundant It � will also be a nquest to conatruct the tunnel in conjuncti�n with the four , lane improvement of Highway 82. R'e will agx�e to operate the van service on an interim basis,pending complction of the tunnel. With ?� regazd to the proposed M�roon Creek Bridge,it is proposed that$100,000 � be committed to the construcaon of this bridge and that all the necessary , � . easements for its wmpletion will be provided by Maroon C�eek s Development Corporarion. . k � 5. Location of Employee Housing - � . j T . � � As you can see on our revised Site Plan,the azea originally shown for } employee hwsing at the base of the hill is shown for surface parldng ta -- � accommodate the desire for public parldng. As mendoned above,the 17 � '� unit reduction causes a coiresponding reduction of 8.7 employee units. It ;� . will be our request to locate all 49 units including the Mathis unit north of s Highway 82. There are many good reasons for the location o£all PMIi ' 'd, uniu on the north side. This site is well situated in that it is pmximate to i , ;; . i: � ' i=;. r4e;� ;�..� I. ;� �� -� . , ' . ' . ' , . .... �:�.:,.:, .,.::.�,..�._.. ., .. . _.,..... . . ... —. -- . .. . . t • � `� ¢ �� .. . – . .. . . . �� `_��'. .. . ' _ . . ��;y . ' �� {t' �� . . . 1♦ ��. fi`�. • A� •M�� ,.vii• *<,�� J�'� `2 14 _ '.. . � . . � . . . , � � r � .M . ' . � . � . . � �,�. t �. ' r . .. ' l�;•3,'f�� ~V iy � `'r� -„ ��t.��;Y} �w"'zW :��..�7"i1•S��Ttf.a.r�� fj �y� y�,H� . t.�r . . �y a t� �� `-> �'i'6�. ��LG t �x-�, iS.l-..�� I �l y . � � �.�11.,I�G �• ,�'�'r kS "'X`PiF/ 1.�t��,��J^��};. . W.. ,`•e. :. . . : 4��,:�. . .,µ. . .. - . .. �L�� "� ;;y� �at "SJ+E tuS..' 7�( l � � � . . -.�,;,' '�!��T`�•':. ~ ' ..dt" �"��"v��,ra�a .,,. .<,. ._./ _ . � . . � .. . ..... K+.�.. .msr�.,<A>:f�i.nt�s�,�. . 4 - � . .. . _ .. . �. , i - j ... , •'r -; public transportation and will have extensive recreadonal base and service s.�'_?':;;�' i ameniues buitt into the project I think it was agreed at P&Z that it i` would not be economically practical to duplicate aII of the services � , inten@ed at both housing locarions on the north and south of Highway 82. � ;�_. These services include extensive passive open space,play facilides for � ;`,` chi]dren,common recseation building to include laundry and mecting � . � _ ; space. The site is pro�cimate to thc Airport Business Center uail system f � ' end Owl Ckeek irails. We befieve we have evolved an excellent Site Plan � ;. � with clear commitment to quality design in both architecture and site ',,,.; � amenities. 'i.:, 6. Further Evaluation of Appropriate Zone Ckanges • , . 's' Ot�r revised Site Plan pmvides an indication of lotting and building �b envelopes which are consistent with convendonal large lot single-family �` � : residential standards. The mwnhouse uttiu are clustered in a seasible " manner that provides easy access,great views and immediate proximity to v the major recreational amenities of the site to include golf and slding. We � ; . � would mquest rhat the large single-family lot areas be wned Ti-3 and the - smailer single-family lots be wned R-15 and the remaining Tiehac� �y . .� townhouse area be zoned AR-2. � _ � � cr � ' � . 7. Private Ski Lift � . It is our agreemant that the proposed lift below Eagle Hill will be ; • a available for public use if built, This is an element of the project which , . `� will andergo fucttiereconomic scrutiny,but we are prepared ro commit that should this lift be built,it will be availabie for public use to inciude � Nordic slders and slders aecessing the site across the Maroon Creek - Bridge: , This memo provides a summary of the major features of our revised 5ite Plan Upon ' "°I� �1 revicw of the draft Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution,we wili be 8appy to ti� " respond in wrivag to the additional conditions of approval which were discussed at the J: :__,� Planning Commission Meeang on the 26th, We look forward to your review of our � i y _4_-.� revised glan and the opportunity to present this to the Boazd of County Commissioners • � on Aprit Sth and discuss the subsequent referral to P&Z on Apri111th. As soon as we �� ,� • s1�� —_ �� _, _. ;�_ ...._ .. _. . . . ,4,c ,,.... . , ..-..:, ..�;�.,. . . .. ��. . .. .�.: � . . i � � - . . _ . . \_-''. . . �... - R(��{� . , . . . . S�,c . . � . . . ' . i'��".��: . . . . � . . . �T�p� - � . . ' . Y: �� "�t :1��' • � 1 , §� . k� ��, �' � '� °tsr �'?34 e �� Y;' y a � ' "' `.,� �' d ~°T� �� F� $ * � �'�� °a+�1�:�� f .. i . } t . ..ii.�i�` . .. � ��?J Y+t�'�. f� .-•,,,�t G ri�.�7 + ..r '•" M��1��S �� '`' „t!y •+y 'f�r•��.�� -.t r':.. ��{i1tyy�"��;L s. � �� .1�j 'd° ..5�'Y'��_'. ► Y n�,��e� t •`•'R*iY,�,v��-` ��'�. .... � .. . . �PN'�„�,'n^,,� . . , �.... . , � .. . , , ,,� , ...., r . .. , . � , : . ,� . � ' � < can get a copy of the P&Z Resolution,we will prepare written responses on the various __ . condirions. �ye appreciate yaur cooperadon in reviewing these revisions. Please don't hesitate to call � any of us with any questions. .�v;�r�.:: . . �'�f�'��, . , � �":µ,,!';. . . ...i'.�.'�; . . � :.'S�„Y;tl�: . . . . ...h��'� ' . . - .ti'�'�'_:..�. �.�Y�::-' � . . . a�:..� � � . � . . . .1��_-. . � ' ' �`'t�:�. ' . . . . . '-'''�'}�c�:..� . . . � .ar�,';.::�� . � . . . � .�� . . ��'t• . . � . . '47.+'f.�_ . . . '. . . y . � f��J: ,�Y �: ,�_yl.`�i . . . �• F ",� h ... 1. �� . : . ,:�.�, �;� . . -: �� , ,.'�� . ,..�,r.: . :�'3� � . ' . . ��P; . � . . . �i � . ',;.�;±_ � � . � ;. :p� �.. �:. ��i; i ..,;'� . _. .. ,:i�y- . . _ � ;�� . � . . � � • . !{ A• Y)_ `�� . . . •.r " .. ..."_^T_'-^�.--.�...�.r��--..M...�.......u�..��._�`.�.._..�.�..�.._..._,.....�.. ___`�._...�_............... ...._,�____.. -:=K i T _ . .4%.v�� . . :�q� _�:. � � � . . . . � � . . . . , 1' �}'. . . . . - �5�--� . . � � � . , .' �� . , . . .. . . :Y:� . . � . . . � . . � . �..��. � � , . � �