The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutbocc.min.reg.01291991 ' � u-� ��'y1111 � � �J�` f�' 1��1" � *-+ �' -., t .- , ';� .� �,.1 .. �„ �{{{y��-]} 4. t .. f � 5.�.�: 5 �.✓ _,. 1 lA.�� ..�a j �.�` ,A71''.1 7 �� , ��:.�t�,.J '� �R -' S .4� f"� �.� �;S � K �� ` . ${�.�'. y � A . �r � � .'.;�iH'°:[� .�•5f,~,�'k'�l.�o-l�°�.�r:a`�.�.%r`_.ui. 1.' �{ q•'�� l..S. ir<. . �L �' . . t . 3. .s� . ._ �,.. ???t�':: i. PITRIN COUNTY COMMIBBIONERS RBGIILAR MBSTINti AGENDA District Courtroom TDESDAY. JANIIARY 29. 1991 . 9 am - 5 pm OPEN SPACE BOARD INTSRVIBWB - Plaza3 Conference Room it;r:• � fi ' S:30 PM REGIILAR MEBTING � POBLIC COMMENT ' _ •'';j� CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of Previous Meeting :�i^� 2. Abatement Hearings: t. . -�;. John Slavik --�:,� Bob Erancis 3. Resolution Granting $681,000 to Snowmass Village for _� Affordable Housing ,,;_,� LAND DSS ITEM8 � 4. Appeal of 316 AA$C GMQS Score, Mary Lacker 4 �� LAND USS POBLIC HEARINGS �'+Y`.; 5. Alamo Rent-A-Car Special Review, Ellen Sassano r ' ;�'>`� 6. Basalt Fire Protection District Rezoning, GMQS Exemption, ; �.� Cindy Houben . -�`' RESOLOTIONS AND CONTRACTS , , ��=:� 7. 1991 RFTA Supplemental Budget Resolution, Dan Blankenship .;y�;;r:� PIIBLIC BEARINGS "�;=� 8. 1991 Supplemental Budget Resolution, Lynn Dunlop " � (To be tabled to February 12) „''e.c-� , . •;'� ADJ�URN , y''� PLEASE NOTE: ALL PIIBLIC SEARINGS ARE NOTICED BOR 5:30 PM. ACTIIAL TIMSS ' � �.� WILL VARY. • :.i � •�,�� . �-`�'°��'-�,;�,; i '�w;._ .��t. ��_' ` • ��- 'i� � ` �� 1 ...'P= , � � .. .. _ � . ' . . . - �i. . �. � - . . . y��, �. . .. . . . . •�'a+�"�� . . . . . . . a :��7r. . . . . ' . . . . .. �� . .' , 4s��iA� �� ' ,.��-T . � «i��. �.2:- _.��`,r.��;{ . �y, � �� , � �kAfj�}; 3 � LJ• � r j � .. �r .., .. '.'' .� ..-, .�•. � 4t i ' .. . . . � � ,... . L::...., v:S6'��,. . VI��T�i-p 'Q.YS�C:Y..,-(��1��.`dTA�,-. 1 _ � AP�ovEO ar �.; MAR 11 1991 � a�xUTES MEETING �. PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMIS�:IONERS REGULAR MEETING •• JANUARY 29. 1991 • CALL To ORDSR: Chairman Ethridge called the meeting to order at '� ' , 5:30 p.m. _ N�MBERS PRESENT: Chairman Wayne Ethridge, Commissioners Herschel Ross, Jim True, Bill Tuite and Fred Crowley PUBLIC Co1�II:NT; Hans Gramiger appeared before the Board to encourage them to purchase FAX machines at the County�s expense to be located in their homes. - ' Phoebe Ryerson presented Commission members with a three ' -3::hj dimensional map of the area showing the undeveloped land left in =^•a the area. CONSENT AGENDA' APPROVAL OF ISINUTES OF DECEMBER 18. AND 19 1990 �� RESOLUTION APPROVING ABATII4ENT PETITION SUBMITTED BY JOftN SLAVIK - . RESOTATION APPROVING ABATEMENT PETITION SUBMITTED BX BOB FRANCIS _ �''. .�' :`� R�SOLUTION CONCERNING A GRANT TO THE TOWN OF SNOWMA3S VILLAGE C�(7ARAD0. IN THE AMODNT OF 5681 000 FQR THE PURPOSE OF AIDING TFIE �OWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE IN PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR ,,,,;,..`+ R�SALE WITFiIN THE 'lOWN; DECLARING THE COIINTY'S INTENT TO MAKE THE • ;::';,;,� G Ai i' TO TIiE TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE AND PROVIDING OTHER DETAILS .: _, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH '"�`,:� Commissioner Ross moved approval of the Consent Agenda. _ �"� Co�issioner True seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. � �'`1 R�SOYdJTION OF TfiE BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY � ��1 COLORADO AMENDING RESOLiI'PION NO 90-107 AND GRANTING THE 1990 � ` COMMERCIAL QIOS AIJATMENT TO 316 ASPEN AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER- � �"�� MOTION TO APPROVE - PASSED WITH TI�REE YEA AND ONE NAY VOTE - Mary ':�� Lackner, representing the Planning Office, stated, that there is . some confusion in the memo which she wanted the Board to be aware of. She said, it is the staff's recommendation to accept the � Planaing Office's staff's scoring. The othez clarification, is that the Planning and Zoning Commission's score is actually 32.1 instead of 32.6 which is what the memo says. �`�'�� BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 1 JANUARY 29, 1941 :�:�.� ;. ., K,,�� . ;;*..{ y'.., . . . � � ' ' � I:�vF. �_�a ��j' ... .. � ` . �' _ . . . .. .� � . . �y��...1� .. .�� 11RR°�� .��,'�'��.4;, . . "- . . kr,,�,, • . ..>,_.,�` . .y�y::�i^'� . - q Y � . � X A �',:'i . ' , . � � . ...rY`��•�.. , ' � 'f%.. . _4,v'.+"�r:T,��` , . �� 'r'i�e• � - - .��'v i ��;�::�i;'� >'.�i�, �1" �- � �� „�� ,,. �j�� . '-_'�.��A :1�� : � - . �IXJ'Y` �c f� �' �.��. } '. : . f b . , I ?�� L��, , .. j h i l� ��J . 1- `17 ` � i f4!��t h [0 � � :r, �{ .; .' tL`+��.. ti� r jKf�`4 ��.•. ' ` ` 5 � _ ... ay�A'i'�tt�_��0:��1.�i��13iL'k�.e'�..... ,.L-:7(+ . . _ � � ��.�Y.__ `'�b... ,. ..� _ i�?; ��'S�^�'�� r . i': a. Chairman Ethridge stated, that the Planning and Zoning Commission made a recommendation for a score. He asked Lackner what staff's . recommendation was regarding this specific item. Lackner responded by stating, that staff recommends that the . Planning and Zoning Commission's score not be accepted but rather accept the Planning Office's recommended scoring which is 37. 1,<:• � Amy Margerum, Planning Director, stated, that the Planning Office �� . is not recomraending that the Board go through each item and rescore them. Rather, they are recommending, that the Board acaept the Planning Office's score. / : Lackner proceeded to summarize this item by stating, that the ' - applicant, the Stufuna Corporation, has submitted an appeal of the Planning and Zoning Commission Growth Management Quota System ,-;� Scorinq for the 316 Airport Business Center project. She said y^•.� this commercial growth management application was the only , � received for an allotment this year. The Planning and Zoning t; . .4 Commission heard the application on September 4, 1990, and did ' ,:� j not score the project to meet threshold, meaning the applicant was denied the ability to obtain GMQS approval. `� On October 9, 2990, the Commercial Growth Management quota scores �3� were forwarded to the Board, and subsequently the applicant . applied for an appeal within the 14 day deadline. Tonight the Board is to review the appeal of the Planning and Zoning �„� Commission's score. 'ha Lackner proceeded to give an overview of the background of the '� project, staff recommendations, the Planning and Zoning � • Commission's score, and the applicant's appeal. , ._.} ;:�-� A copy of her written presentation is made a part of this record ''"'� as EXHIBIT ^A°. �,.wY.� A discussion ensued with regard to the procedure and whether the ��r` � Board should proceed to rescore the application or rather to 'Y`! accept the Planning Office's recommendation. `,':� Chairman Ethridge referred to page 2 of Lackner's presentation regarding a glass skylight. He asked how that issue got , ^`� resolved, whether it was resolved at the Ylanning Commissian meeting regarding scoring or after the Planninq Commission meeting. Lackner responded by stating, that the Planning Office reviewed the application and the elevations of the plan submitted. At the - Planning Commission meeting, a planning commission member asked , ,�� what the top of the building was. At the time the applicant said �=K� it might be a lighted skylight and therefore, it got into a I.�'.�FI� BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 2 JANUARY 29, 1991 �,' �+=� .-,��' -�! ::cy � .4r .. ..i1.r:. . � . .% , .- �., � _� �'�y r .. . ... � �. �. . _ . . .� . , , " 1 . , � .. ��s� . __ ;�� , . . �,.�.�;..::a . J.`rrr . =''ii''v��. . . a'3#�i{'��;: .�� r � t•;v � ',��,hC,, . . s•.f3;.''y .s � �.:, � �f . �� r,r,,:ri. ��` , �� 4' „ . . � q��. . e . . . � ,f,�. 5 'ry'Qs - <��,_f z.� .�F.�`:�! JC�y�♦��,^r '1 :S '�� F.; `��J, 'Y;. � .y� � : ��;t ° : C�A,C�ar .'� �a�Y �.�f� y u ��y't�,�,t �f ��V k� �wy � � .. ,;"�'•3�`i�� 1 �D ��5 i.- ��_,�� ' f ,�r� �, ` �r�G`� .. .: �. "{'C�.i• � �u�".!tia�.��."fii .�. �Wt`_.�iCt t ."�" ...r'�ti:' .. Ydm...s.__ . ng_M- C1�..6.�f"�v.9��:i . �. discussion that it might be lit up at night, etc. And so due to the representation of the architect at the meeting, the Planning Commission thought this was one oP the design elements of the "' building, that this would be a strip of skylight which would be ;: eliminated at night. Also, at that meeting ,there was other - discussion of other possible roof features or a way that it could � have been designed. There was no definite that this was the finished design element or that it wastt't the finished design . element. But the Planning Commission scored it thinking it might �� - , be a part of the application. . Lackner further stated, that the Planning Office never heard that � was what the design feature was. It was not represented in the verbal part of the application so they did not review xt as such. '.`� Therefore, they have not redone the scoring to reflect that - change because they never reviewed it as a translucent strip. ,-'y Ethridge expressed a concern about the process if the issue was t::.`� resolved after the meeting; the Planning Commission scoring in ''',�i the absence of an ability to have the new information because of • ?�, the visual w2nerabiZity, environmental impact, and other scores might be affected by this new information. He felt if this was a substantial change, he was not sure it should be back before the :J Board at this time. .`� Lackner stated, that one of the alternatives would be to send it � back to the Planning Commission, and have them rescore the - application. �'� � Cindy Houben stated, that staff's rationale for keeping it at the � Board level, was that even if the Planning Commission scored it , _ at the highest level of that category, they still would not have met threshold. ,r,;,�i;i .. ' ':� Bob Hughes, Attorney for the applicant, introduced Steven Hansen -`� � who is a principal partner Suzanne Jackson, land planner for the ris'.� project, and Douq Porterfield, project architect. He proceeded ,. .� with his presentation with regard to the applicant's appeal. A `'_ copy of this appeal is made a part of this record as EXHIBIT "B". ;�,-: �.`:t Hughes said, that he was not involved in the project at the time � of scoring. His firm was engaged by Steve Hansen after the P&Z ^ 'i proceedings were concluded. He said when he was first hired he • got a copy of the application, the official minutes of the P&Z, �� the scoring sheets, etc., and quite frankly was pretty startled '� and confused by the scoring, particularly the big swings by the P&Z that attended the scoring. He said that he had his secretary type a transcript for the tape of the meeting which was given to him by the planning office, and he did this because he thought " the tape was very revealing and included the dynamics of the � .•:;w^� P&Z's deliberations. He submitted this transcript to the � Planning Office and feels it is unfortunate that it was not . �:j BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3 JAN[TARY 29, 1991 .s_'::`•� � . Z,�i� :..�'.i'�,l '� ��y�+� � � _�.� ��'"i s, . . . . .. . . . . . � . .- . ` '� - .. ��.� . .. � . � ... ° . � . 4'ti.�*�i:�.' . . �..:::.+ ' �.r.ti.��. . . 'T. ,�ad....,..i: � � . ,.i:�'^...:::Y. . . ;t:�y;i�iit. ' ' ' 4�7'3'+�'r.l,I?'� � • . �K.�'�,.+�4�Ls�St:�ti� � ""-if`a,�?. P. J... . �£' �.�' �� . �� ✓, .ri,'s' � ,, � �;< , , �� . , � J � {� `:Y��de.e�a � fir�.;� � ., � i :... . �! i 4�� lf��# :t ��4FVji1�=��",y�{�o( r � � .. ::i;� - hr -r.-1 J ^��kbA �`y k'� �� s , „��.r.l ��''�`�" �� 4 ``�" „�� t,�.. "i � � r {. . �� "� r 1e �,�..;J,��. ._7. ��F�°��•" g�"t ��"P ..,. . ��r.�"J�S!se- . . 1'+a�..�� f ,_'�i.�4 F��, e, included in the Board's packets because they went to a lot of time and trouble preparing it. He thinks the tape would olarify such things, i.e, the illumines strip that Ethridge brought up. He said this illumines strip was discussed but was never made a part of the application. - Hughes said in their written appeal referenced above, he did excerpt several sections of the typed transcript which he felt `r�" ' � _ was particularly illustrative of what went wrong and what drove P what happened. He said it is his strong belief, that what � _, happened when the P&Z scored the project, they P&2 were very ; legislative in response �o certain frustrations its members felt. In his written appeal he tried to point out what seemed to be the recurring themes of frustration the P&Z was feeling. And it these frustrations that seem to drive the scoring on the project. He continued to review the above referenced exhibit with this -�'; regard. ?�:�a Doug Porterfield and Susan Jackson, consultants for the project, , proceeded to review the proposed site plans, floor plans and -��+ architectural drawings with Commission members. A copy of these are made a part of this record as EXHIBIT "C��. a Hughes stated, that the scoring chart shows there is no .��1A disagreement between the applicant and the planning office other 3 than in the road system category. He proceeded with an . evaluation of the scoring between the P&Z and the Planning Office. This begins on page six of the above referenced exhibit. , • _7:_��:� . . � � Hughes said that he does not feel it would be beneficial to �.4 remand their application back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. He asked that Commission members make a ==;i..) determination to score the project as threshold. r.=. �:.�:�� Chairman Ethridge read a letter into the record dated June 28, "' 1990 from John McBride, the owner of the property. A copy of �; � this letter is made a part of this Yecord as EXHIBIT °D". ,� ;`�� Lackner stated, that in order for this project to go forward, Mr. McBride's approval must be given for the project. � Also, the planning oEfice and the County Attorney conclude that , . ' the Board can accept the planning office scores, and they recommend that these scores be accepted. r,'�� Chairman Ethridge stated, that he is concerned about the process. The Planning Office recommended scores only four tenths of a point above threshold. There is a standard technique which is used when going through the scoring by the Planning Commission, � and it has been his experience that the score recommended by the ,_'';� Planning Office and the score given by the Planning Coramission is ;;� rarely the same. He said the Planning Commission was left with � �) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 4 JANUARY 29, 1991 r,��,>;ij;;� �''#7 ��'�e 3 h�� ^J1.� 11�'�� .T�.�• �• . � . . .. � • .... .• ... ' • .. � '�� . .. . N�v'�:�}:�� . ��:a��y . ' . ..9'.�;_.'.�: .. . .'i.`i'��ri�'` . . -•e.rr:.,�, ' . . a,;i;::' � � . . .._�,_�,`,�„�:`. . .'.�;�"�-�'�. � >;f�V�Y��'� . ;��=ffi£;, �.: �:�v ��:� � � r;w:y �,�<�� , ��. 1�� `:. : , J �,:4��n ': �� . c. . - �y' ' , A" �� p l''�,�'� M1`c 1• )�t '1 :C k !. '�� ... vY�04�f �� • �Y Y J�; f '� �� f a%�-�' � ��1 7 J�� r{.��f.' . �,,.,�j� J�jy�� y {ry� (� �r �Y .� . n�r.FST....t �lti('�4l�':R�C.L��1 i��i�.{' .1�:��iM�i.^.'�.... �X�!"_�..� �iTJ'vs.!. .R' .S� �.1'��`' . .. . _ �� ...l.Ni. .,M.�. e, the impression that there would be a translucent corridor which may have colored the entire presentation. He disagrees with the Planning Office that this is not a siqnificant change based on �� . the record and he thinks it is important, particularly lookinq at ;; the scores and the consistency when you throw out the highs and � lows, that the Planning Commission have the opportunity to � rescore the application. Co�aissioner True moved to rescore the application and adopt the ��.• . , Planning Office's score. Commissioner Ross seconded the motion. � Commissioner Ross stated, that he is also concerned about the process, and thinks there is a problem. However, he is strongly influenced by the applicant's complaints about some of the ;;`f specific scores being zeros, i.e, the road which could not . possibly be the definition. - '.-'i Chairman Ethridge called for a vote. The motion passed with ,�;i._j three yea votes by Commissioners Tuite, Ross and True and one nay °',� vote by Commissioner Ethridge. • �`,' ALAMO RENTAL CAR SPECIAL REVIEW - TH INN AT ASPEN CONDOMTNIUMS- ; M�ION TO TABLE - PASSED UNANIMOIISLY - Leonard Oates, ,;� representing the applicant, stated, that they would like to request a tabling of this matter until a £ull Board is present to �'-� vote. Commissioner True moved to continue the public hearing to � � February 26, 1991. Commissioner Ross seconded. The motion ��,�` passed with three yea votes by Commissioner Tuite, Ross and True, s and one nay vote by Commissioner Ethridge. - i FIRST READING - RESOLDTION REZONING A ONE ACRE PARCEL F'ROIY RS-20 ^,_;.� T�_(PUBLICI PIIB TO BE DEVEIAPED BY THE BA.SALT AND RURAL FTRE ' DISTRICT AS A DISTRICT SUBSTATION APPROVING BASALT FIRE =� J PR�7'ECTION DI5TRICT REZONING GMQS EXEMPTION - MOTION TO APPT20VE Y:;}� - PASSED DNANIMOIISLY - Cindy Houben summarized this item by stating, that the applicant, the Basalt and Rural Fire District, ;:yf�- wishes to construct a substation on the one acre Lazy-O Ranch parcel which was granted to the District at the time the Lazy-o , Subdivision was developed. The application included a GMP exemption for an essential community facility and rezoning to PUB ' (Public). The proposed site was deeded to the Basalt Fire District as a ,!';� result of the growth management process when the Lazy O Ranch was subdivided. The parcel was granted provided that the District ;,;-,'• would construct a substation for the Snowmass and Capital Creek areas. The District is now in the position to construct the facility and is required to proceed through the land use review - process. _..� , :?;:� BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 5 JANUARY 29, 1991 �� ,�Y. � ��{;`� +r; -r --� �� ... . . . . - � . - - . . ... . .• , .. .� i . � ,y� *� ' • • _ . . . " . r �.a,,;� _ _ . �W�; - . 4 hF.``�C��, . 'I`:��/�- . . ?f"'}.`•`�.I. . .. ��i:��^<' . ♦Y'�.'T'.i.,��t`' ' .a.sr.��,� . ' " �,Sy�:_,j �`�;��a ' � '�;i�y..: . � z"�:�.�a; . x� � ��> ;; � ��.::. ='N��:� „'�,�', t � 7R�7� ��'a i � A � ..� . . . . ; J�`y� S ,. h � ,.y ` �� y .o� ' .., � .-µ�hS ..w �'.' �..�. f . -.. . �. � � � 1 ':� .;,�` , ..�V,, � � �-, � - +dLS�,� `'`c�' c . � �� y. � r : / �y� d:4 4, �p�,,,i t y� a i.�t ja �`'4 'r'e �• b+�� k.r p - . .'C:....._� _`_�'+,�Q_ 7...�Pi.+»,�aG�.�.�+.4.,t h.c_ .._.�i'! ��'�6'3�1+9r�� . .. ..wi. tw 3. 1 'F�_ c.J:.�a� �r . ; The site is approximately one acre in size and was partially used in the past for agricultural out buildings. An irrigation ditch runs through the parcel and will be realigned. She proceeded to review the applicant's proposed site plan with Commission '" members. A copy of this plan is made a part of the record as - EXAIBZT °E^. ._ Houben said the applicants on the plan have showed the footprint ' of their building with two road cuts off of Snowmass Creek Road. t, • She said initially, the Planning Department and the Engineering �� .' Department had some concerns with the two road cuts in such a � short span of the road there. But the applicants have convinced them, given the function of the building, that they really need , - the two road cuts. One road cut is to access the parking spaces for the volunteer fireman, and the other is for the equipment so there is no conflict between the two. Another issue with regard to the project, is that the building is ` ��''- a public facility which the applicants would like to open up to ;;�;;i�l the neighborhood for public meetings, public gatherings, etc. But the problem staff found with that was the conflict between an , emergency situation and the use of the parking spaces by the volunteer fire personnel if in fact, there was a community meeting being held and all the spaces were taken up with people ' at the community meeting then the fire personnel would have to ,.;_;,� park on the county road which is unacceptable from a safety . perspective as well as from a road standard perspective. Therefore, the Planning office recommends in the last condition _ oE approval that the fire station shall not be used as a �� ' community meeting facility until alternative parking arrangements ;�=',a `: � are approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Also, the � : Planning Commission asked that the applicant find alternative ' parking for community events. She said one of the options would be to use a portion of the adjacent property being the Lazy O for . r�=4�� alternative parking. However, that was unacceptable to the ==i'�`;� owners. Therefore, staff does not feel they have an alternative � �'� ' except to submit that condition of approval. She said the other "�`�Y�,� conditions of approval are pretty straight forward, and the Planning Office does not feel that there are any further issues. 'jr:�_1 Lee Levinworth, representing the applicant, proceeded to review , f the history of the Basalt Fire District and the reasons for - adding an additional substation. He said during the growth management plan process for the Lazy o Subdivision this site ��"�� became available to the District so long as they moved in a :�°;.�� fairly expeditious manner to put a substation there. They are heYe tonight to ask approval for a rezoning request to Public Zone District and for Growth Management Exemption. - With regard to the conditions of approval by staff they agree ' with them but they would like to talk to the community meeting `�^a place issue. He said due to the security required for the °;,�;.� `"'" BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 6 JAN[JARY 29, 1991 - ;:i;;1 �;;��,� . . �.�.� ;-.�T� .��:,� �� ,•� - � . > . --ti r r°��" . . _. . . . . � ' . .. . � � .. ._ . � - .. "Yl�. 1S . . .. . . .. ,. . c�� , x�.v. . .1r:-. �::i. �'��Y:,:�4 • . . ..g,i,_u;'F�.� , . . � • e y;:�s,�:;. ��yY.�'i�• . . ":TJ%. y5 � M�^��`i:'. . 7";.; :e ��+�,, .��!::.Y:t . },I�A,��• i.�..y�c . • :�i ,y"' iy'�y.: :'-�.; pK¢�,�y _... 'r:� -... �;N t' .': _ xi lwairvG :�a �#� , rr d. �"w.` t.' �� , �� s � �'h F y �. A.ij '�' . 4 f � Y �� . .. � . 11titi:-v.. -v..��+. .. ,t..t . ... .��,,xai�(9;�-�dwu.�:; .. ... "� al._. 14,.��`ff- .l� a.F..� }. . . ,.�},_. equipment and the need to get personnel in and out of the building in the event of a fire, they do not anticipate this as a ±•: big use. On the other hand, if someone needs to use the building for a homeowners meeting, etc. the District, which is supported by tha tax payers feel that if it is something that would not , interfere with the public safety and their use of the facility, � they should make that available. They would not allow alcohol, • parties, bingo games, etc. He does not feel the issue is a major issue to the District but somehow became one. He presented a revised parking plan to staff and Board members. He said the ' District would not like to have the condition posed by staff but - , instead would like to have the candition read, that any use for � community meetings would be limited as follows: 1. The District would reserve eight of its spaces for District volunteers only. '' ! 2. All parking would be limited to the spaces available so the County Road would not be used. �:°u;7 "'"! Chairman Ethridge opened the hearing to public comment. • `�a:,�� Jim Curtis, representing the Lazy O Ranch, stated that the owners - of the ranch are supportive of the project and would like to see it built as soon as possible. Their only concern is that the -=a dedication was for a fire station and not a community facility. He said this was set forth in the language in the deed that ."=`g conveyed the land. And from the owner's point of view this is the controlling language. Chairman Ethridge closed the public hearing. He said he has a 'j'`.:? concern with regard to the site plan. What he would like to see _ �,{ is to take some of the parking close to the road and move it to ; the rear. Also, he feels that the parking spaces can be reduced s in size. The Upper Snowmass Creek Road has been designated as a ;�;'s,,.,� scenic area, and he thinks it is important to try to respect �:, that. The structure is a fire station, and he thinks it needs to =�_...i be sensitive to the designation of Upper Snowmass Creek Road. `:_y;;{?� Houben referred to a landscape plan which tne applicant had provided. She said it does not totally shield the building from �� the road but it does help to break up the massing of the building :`' ' and the parking from view along Snowmass Creek Road. ' ;i _� . A discussion ensued with regard to the site plan and some , techniques which could be used to mitigate the visual impact of ;.::,; the structure. "�''± It was agreed that the applicant would move some of the parking spaces back behind the building. Also, if possible, to move the building location back into the setback. - i Chairman Ethridge moved that the application of the Basalt Rural ,:.57'I BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 7 JANUARY 29, 1991 � r•:':� ar� . "'�*t +y 5 �� i . .._.: .. '. . . . '' • _ • • , - � �� . _ . � �° ;,ta�iaa, r� -- . - _ �� Y ��x`�� 1'��y W N '�.��, .. . . ��K+ . AIiY. r+?.:'�:�S(=_, � � , � � ¢ �. 'ty, Q , . • ' . .. '"a% y : . �a J l. . ,y��t�1�� . 4r�:a�': . .��a�J � , .�.'l_ .��;!�" � s�� . � . s i�' 4 ..'�+.:Y.. � ��` .... �� « � .�:•. �4'�� `�23��} f } �'t � �` !�' ��h�'• � : `�;jx ,,.:` :', .� ..+ ,., ..., d ' ` f ,,, ' i �:.;b , � � - �y .4 ��ytr y � ; •{. `,.0 1� ��.#�� . �� ... �.,��1��kA�.�"l2e� °Y"�.��)�.��.5.�':x'�Ji''�!L1,9i�ti4r.� x�,.�=��L�R�IF�li � ' . .. .._ �` .ht: °�.�.�.C�Xr��p�}. • • '�+4 lij. 1:c. Fire Protection District for a GMQS Exemption be approved and �. District Rezoning to Public be approved on first reading, and set for public hearing on March 12, 1991, subject to a provision that .- the proposed buildinq location be moved back as far on the site _ as possible to address the scenic concerns and the landscaping � concerns adjacent to Snowmass Creek Road and understand that the •• parking n�bers, as indicated on the original application, will . be accepted with some redesign to move as many spaces as possible from the front of the property to the rear of the property as �' ' lonq as it does not interfere with the functioning of the fire - . _ . equipment on the site. A revised site plan shall be submitted by the applicant prior to signature of the resolution by the Chairman. Commissioner Tuite seconded. The motion passed � unanimously. �� _ ROARING FORR TRANSIT AGENCY 1991 SUPPLEMENTAL BIIDGET RESOLUTION- �.'"' MOTION TO APPROVE - PASSED UNANIMOIISLY - Dan Blankenship, General Manager for RFTA, stated that because of increased fuel prices, - �`,;:a:� incr.eased awareness of conservation, congested driving conditions c.�� on Highway 82, bus ridership on RFTA's down valley service has increased dramatically in the past few years. Therefore, in : � order to provide RFTA with more depth in its fleet size, they plan to lease four additional over-the-road coaches for use in valley service. The cost of the lease for the four vehicles is not expected to exceed $30,000, and RFTA has sufficient revenues available from its prior year fund balance to pay for this .�`:� supplemental appropriation. ; Co�issioner Ross moved approval of the resolution. Commissioner - ,r � True seconded. The motion passed vith four yea votes_ ' r,:,;'� . � 1990 SUPPLEP�NTAL BUDGET RESOLDTION - MOTION TO TABI,E - PASSED UNANIMOIISLY �;,�. Chairman Ethridge opened the public hearing on the resolution. , . ,,.,;, Commissioner Ross moved to continue the public hearing on the '2�;`?:j resolution to March 12, 1991. Commissioner �'�� i ADJOIIRNI+IENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. iS',.� . �,.'.� R ectfully su itted, . _ :.� . n:, eanette Jo ;'�!:�; Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners - i _;�'� ''�'.J BQARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 8 JANUARY 29, 1991 _�:� �}� ��' � rd i . <�.r:.A' ' , .� �' � � . . 1 3�`al _ . .',:. ... ; : _. � � ' ' � _. _ �_� ti _F' ' . " , �� . .. . .. - . �Tg tl� i '+ � � . . : . . :..��My��'. . . � . � . .��.�'` � � � � �#'i ,�4,,y 5„��`j ' y�i. �' �� ,r ,��;r{,'' ��;._ - , - ' , ,. . tw�rrr�. , _ a • � 'f t��'� . ._ +�.� ��`��'`i� '�"k"`r�k� '� ,� � y 1p 'h��k M.�/ {Z � "i�� rAi. :I�A'1 "f+e`�`�J['Y � 'i' y�t j�.%� Ik �� f'� l-b* c �pL,- �iA��''�t # J �}'�"`S��j Q�� 7 �. Z�r+�t'�.� �' S�R�I.� ��?'' �� L'�,; q" �lF.�Lw V nytr LU�'M f iF I �I' '�i fI t'. ... � � �^�'�":lA�i_R�*:,�:7.��Au��dn."'�f'�`��:iir'.s�i��i^ S�f�4�.:-��`-13k!'Y�a�.�.._:...�„r�x��[ - A:.��'�.�'..�rsi+r' �� . �,. 6�NRD 0"r C0.COir`��A'F'S ; P47;�lid COU�dTY Fub�ic Heari�g c>.i';ib�:s o2t�:_J-�9-9/ Sub�ect: �c G�jt� ,3/�/�� r�7� ,S ��ppE i - fxh.ho. " . �~. REQIIEST: The applicant has submitted an appeal of the Planning and Zoning Commission Growth Management Quota System Scoring for � i the 316 Airport Business Center project. The appeal of scoring ,_•; is made �pursuant to section 5-510.6(a) {5) of the Land Use Code. °?J (The appea2 letter is attached). . ' - "-:j APPLICANT: Stufuna Corporation '"+-•� AF'pLICAN'P'S REPRESENTATIVE: Robert Hughes, Oates, Hughes & -�t •Knezevich � ' ,..,.:� DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to j reconstruct and expand an existing 5,183 square faot building at 336 AABC. . . ' ,}� . � 7ACATION: Lot 2, Block 6, Filing 1 Aspen Airport Business • Center. The car wash is on the property alang . ; with the structure containing the Garage and D & A ,.�'a;� TOWIIICJ. . . ,��: ZONLNG: The approximately 37,667 square foot lot is zaned . ` B-2. • . . `�`�I ACCESS: The property is located on a corner lot on Baltic ��>_� and Mediterranean Avenues. Primary access to parking will be off Baltic Avenut. ��Y� %�t- ' s, � SEWER: The applicant proposes to hoolc onto the existing `.��"� � system. • ' , �., . . WATER: The applicant is proposing to be serviced by the . - City of Aspen water line. , PROCESS: Section 5-510.6(aj (5j of' the Land Use Code estab2ishes + .;:�, an appeal procedures which. reads: . , Having received the Commissioner's report, the Board shall y _,;a,:� entertain any complain'ts by the applicants that the " - Commission has abused its discretion, exceeded its � ' ,'�� , authority, or denied procedural due process in its ';`_�: processing of applications under this Growth Manaqement , j , ,f�t� '""a5i� µ`,��, I j! .3; �.:�.�.. -... . . . . . . . +S'; t. . 4 . . .. . . ... . . .. _ . _�. •r��r�� .. , .. r��:� .�'r'?..:`?,°�-. . '�",4 . . �� y{�'�. . . . �w z �.., y��},,.�=yTT.i . . . ��:�: � ��"tiTM�,F ; ,:�;'1,": a`.y , '��T �� . a �4i+'�,,' . y;� ^�,�.. _ , _. � lY�rti�.; ' . ' - t . `f., � �-� �� , '- . tb.F��1��'� ��i£ r a'.' �k�� .',��j�t�l'1�" o '� sr $� � y .� � �.{'�,ji,� ' ,r t�r '�c}'�,"� � 5 ��,y��t4 �' � r �. � , . . . ^�'{'+-�'�CaL-��t,�'�T� :��1{s:30N��'�:'�_....^'� ��aT:�'1``f'hti".�,..a..,,_._. y,��'�'•�{��R.'k..�-S1{•:i�..a�,f.:.:,1,! ):I S:: ' Quota System. Ang challenges must be filed with the . � Planning Office fourteen (14) days of the date on which the . Commission did forwazd its ranking of projects to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board, on hearing such appeals, may affirm the action of the Commission, remand the application to the Commission for � �� further consideration, chanqe the number of points awarded • to any applicant, or take any other action reasonably calculated ta correct the error complaine@ of. . �.f� � ' On October 9, 1990 the Commercial Growth Management Quota System .. scores where forwarded to the Board, and subsequently the applicant applied for the appeal within the 14 da'y 3eadline. At toniqht's hearing the Board has the ability to take a number of . ! actions, as outlined in the second paragraph above and in the 'j agenda item summary. { BACRGROIIND: The Planning and 2ol�ing Commission heard the .:,{ commercial GMQS application (attachment 1) at their September 4, ' `9 1990 regular meeting. This was the only commercial GMQS c,' { application submitted for the 1990 campetition. Planninq staff • -'�t reviewed the project in a staff inemo to the Planning and Zoning Commission (attachment 2) . ' ' The Planning Office continues to .support the recommendation and � scoring in our memorandum to the Planning Commission dated � September 4, 1990. Planning staff scored the application with a �'"; score of 37 points, whereas a threshold score is 36.6 points. . However, at the Planning Commission� hearing, staff learned that •j , an architectural feature •of the building would create a � G tremendous negative Visual impact to Highway 82. (The feature is ' a glass skylight which extends the length of the building, ' protrudes above the building approxi.mately 4 feet in height and would be translucent and illuminated at night). Had Planning . r;� staff been aware of the translucent. nature of this design feature ^YS� while scoring the project, additional comments and a possible reduction of the score would have taken place in the visual ;?, vulnerability category. ?�� • The Planning and Zoning Commission had concerns regarding the ' ��'� project. The, Commission did not accept the Planning office • t recommendation of 37 points, and instead rescored the project. 1-�.i The resulting score by the Planning Commission was 32.6 points, , ,.^I which did not meet threshold. The following lists the items � which were of concern to the Planning and Zoning Commission and , which are being appealed by the applicant: 't . ';� 1. Road System: This section evaluates the ability of the 1, public road network to provide for the needs of the proposed development withzn acceptable 2evels of safety. Also considered � • �� ;�� . z � ' �#, ,�,� � ;. n�d� . . rS¢'�� _.._.. . . . 4 . _ ' � -- `�r�� . .. �"�'='•+ A�Z'i.p:.,� ��"'ic:.�,a.� , • ' � � . ��.. '�,��'ti�f�.'� • � ' ' . p��'J'iYh . . �4�7�,^,n'' • , R: , �`�p'C; '��'��F1� . 7�� 7 �'�iz • T. . ��" _ ___..__ . � ��' ..�`� _ _ � x��r.,t `. ti , � �, `�K" a i- � r.. . � .. { ,�pg� � .�. f "�r�'c .r . 1 •..'�u'k" �� t,, ��,. �4�+��E� �,�•`t�'F��is��IS:�SA}��5'�,��.. � .,��{'�`�C�t-.. 1.._ . .',..d drl.�'��f:... _.�.:1i�°1.��:Y.•.2i�S'a.....�_._.......- r «� - �:w ''+� '.�. !u�.4 'HF'... � . �.'��t.� is the applicant's commitment to finance necessary road system ' �, improvements attributable to the proposed developmeht. Cumulation of traffic impacts was tfie main cancern of the Planning and Zoning Commission under this section. . The Planning ' Office score sheet comments stated, "The AA$C is accessed by State Highway 82, which is presently oveX capacity and offer ' dangerous turning movements a the AABC intersections: Additional � trafEic generated by this proposaZ is mini.mal, however the problems increase slightly. The applicant did not propose to • _ participate with the County in pursuing improvements that will �t" � increase traffic safety and turning movements in this area." . „ .. Planning staff scored the project 1 and the Planning Commission scored .83. By reviewinq the criteria and the score rating system of zero (0) to three (3}, the application fa21s within the � . = Planning staff and Planning Commission assigned score. ,:-:�� . . . Applicant's Response: Road System is to be scored considering - ' ,�� the ability of the public road network to accommodate the Project •�� within acceptable levels of safety. The Planning office '��:' recoramended a score of 2*. The P&Z gave the Project a score of � .83, with two members scoring 0 and three members scoring 1. A •�-.� seoring of o signifies a tatal impracticality o£ providing road � . services to the Project. that is preposterous. The Project is � serviced by the existing network of roads in the AABC which were . designed to accomtnodate the subdivision at its full buildout. �,..� The only competent, non-speculative evidence in the record on the ' , road system is that the impacts of the Project upon the exist�.ng ' road system would be "minimal". The mere fact that the Applioant . chose not to participate with the County in pursuing wholly 4 , speculative improvements is no basis for a 0 score. Indeed, had • ' "" ` the Applicant so chosen, the Project would have been entitled to � , a score of 3. . . * Staff note- The applicant inaccurately stated that Planning � "�-''=°' staff recommended a seore of 2, staff recommended a score of 1, . "'``� as shown on the attachefl score sheet. ::;:3.� ��;J 2. Public and Private Transit Systems: This section considers , � the proximity of the proposed development to existing transit �;t"�� routes and trail systems. Consideration of the ability of the ' ''�.I:+ transit system to accommodate the proposed development without d the need for additional facilities route shifts. Consideration •='� of the applicant's commitment to provide capital improvements � i (i.e., bus shelter, trail connection spur) which enhance the �, � �`r'} service of the public and private transit system to the proposed '.;:=, ' development. .� � Applicant�s Response: Public and Private Transit Systems are to _ be scored considering the proximity of the Project to existing transit routes and trail systems and the ability of such " _��'�� facilities to accommodate the proposed development without the � .'=�� 3 . �•t . ,a�� r �� .,� _ _ .. ` . . , .. :.st�, y . � .t?'sA;� ' __.. r.rlw y. . �� G3t�� ' : . � ��:�.„� . :ck:;,;�?�. . �t,'..".::,•_� . . . :i��,'",s:.;r� , �;':'r�r�,� . • . ��M, .3.��4!ib�. Y,h�s�,�:::• ' .,.. .:.��:: ,r�r J.'` . . � �s • �N .. �� yLr�.y.�l-t �'�i.�'-�5 ��'�'� -5 . . ' . , .. . . ' . . ."' . ._1�� ' . � � +, .t� ��yY�y 4 j ��'t �{�y�F,.��.'i .I .6K..�'7-i'�P�T'�.x 1��'{ qr �� 1 �� :IV {'� ' . L :' f.Y .. '"�W y. �ll�r3"��1'�4•�'�iEr.��'� S� y R.�S T ��i�'T!�� N'1 t,� 1 � �,6�� •`��Q: Y^r ry � f.11� ?. � iA �. �M y y�, �{4.4�'�3sa ' e'*�.vi M\St' �' a„y � a �i� 7c, w ``� ....�`i,�N,l��.�',s�.'•� �.. �'" �'F y�". w y�r s � '� ��u .? '� l,,t � � � :�?Y� � � {� �j�� .."':' ��?�`.'�t�a�'l�frr��_.�ii��'+.�'�.�`?3��` r�wf . �;,;', a nead for additional facilities or route shifts. The Planning Office recommended a score of 2. The P&Z scored the Project at 1.16, with four members scoxi.ng it at 1. A scoring of 1 requires evidence in the record that the Project required the provision of ' new services at increased public expense. there is no evidence whatsoever to sustain such a conclusion. The Project is serviced - by RFTA with a bus stop in the immediate vicinity. The Rio � Grande and AABC'bike trails service the area and there is nothzng in the record to suggest that any of these facilities will be �., ' , rendered inadequate Or insufficient by reason of the Project. � � 3. Site Design— This section evaluates tYie quality and character of landscaping and open space area, the degree which natural vegetation is preserved ancl the•provision of pedestrian� amenities which enhance the design of the development. The Planning and Zoning Commission was .specifically concerned `�;;� that the type of vegetation proposed by the applicant was not adequate to screen the structure and enhance the design of the :;.-:,� development. The view of the site Prom the Highway 82 was a •�;.=� significant concern to the Commission, especially because na -. vegetation was proposed from this highly travelled public view. Applicant's Response: Site Design is to be scored considering "' the quality and character of proposed landscaping and open space �,.rY,� areas, the degree to which natural vegetation is preserved and the provision of pedestrian amenities. The Planriing Office recommended a score of 2. The P&Z scored the Project.at 1.16, with one member scoring it 0 and four members scoring it 1. A �.;?' � score of zero requires evidence in the record of a totally • `.=i deficient design. A score of 2 requires evidence of a major ',} design flaw. There is no evidence in the record to support either score. The Project proposed extending and enhancing _ , i existing planting, sareening of the existing car wash, screening -+�=%t>�.,' of parking, provision of . :•,.,.,i public paths and installation of a pedestrian bench and a bike rack. The only member o£ the public commentinq on the Project found the Applicant's proposal to be ';�'�'� "definitely an' improvement over what exists." T.T.p.20. While - �'I the P&Z was concerned with the visibility of the Project from ~_�-� ' : Highway 82 and the Applicant's choice not to shroud the building .,.`:j from the Highway 82 perspective in favor o£ incorporating more � parking into the. Project, that surely is not a basis foz downgrading the Project in the site design categozy. The ;;;j appropriate category for dealing with that would be the visual =�:,;�� 'vulnerability category. To do so in the site design category amounts to a totally inappropriate and unfair "double .dip" of a 'percezved negative. There was also an illustrative discussion `'` amount the Applicant's repzesentatives and, P&Z members jT.T.p.13J . - of the tyge of landscaping selecte�y the Applicant (i.e. ' ' deciduous versus evergreen treesj. he only thing seemingly " :y:F resolved by the record in this regard is that while deciduous ' ;�t,� trees have the drawback of shedding their leaves for part of the '1=�=,i -y 4 - �� . �:� :.� . -;,;;:�. a '-� � . �;F . Y rT�,. ......�._.. .. .,..... . . ` .. . . . . . . . . . . , I �� .�� . .. � .. . .. . .,{jt�}�e,}'. � . . .5::.. . :r:::�:�:.- . �:t.x:n`::� �;ri �. . �:k�� - . . . . • �'4�r�.i��i`, . , i�� .''I iK�� . , ' �? �.+• . '2�" %,�-� M��ry � � ��4��. � . . �� • , :+'!;. �� , . _ � _ . ��rr,t. # !� . �� 4 �w .. �. ,y,y 4,..� � . _i . �. .�;t•�,�#h�}�T��.i.�.��tYS,4"�'Y,8�K" +''�� s S�i e��rd ,�� , �. "1 �i.��.�: � ,e - � ia � 4�s e S��v; r�i4*=�e` �'��. i� �� ,. � ,a..,�� .v�,. r�c�'?�rr.�di�.�.�.�. 1�.. _.._,`�! ��'��" . :�,�_n"a�,+ka�?�_�' �:o'� •:;>•:�• year, evergreen trees would be totally unacceptable to the P&2•. `- �hat kind of "Catch-22" reasoning is hardly consistent with a ' air hearing based on the evidence. 4. Environmental Zmpact: This section considers the degree to which the•design minimizes adverse impacts upon the environment, • including impacts on air and water quality, visual vulnerability, - and natural and man-made hazards (geologic hazards, floodplain, steep slopes, unstable soils, snow avalanche, wildfire, wildlife habitat and airport f2ight hazard area). ' �� ' Applicant's Response: Environmental Impact is to be scored considering the degree to which the design minimizes adverse � impact on the environmen�, including impacts on air and water � cluality, visual wln�rability and geologic and manmade hazards _;� and conditions. The Planning Office recommended a score of 2. ' The P&Z scored the Prbject at 1.83, with one member scoring it at :-� one; indicating a major design flaw. Under the record made (i.e. and acknowledged absence of any hazards, prohibition of wood- � '• burning facilities, removal of gas supply and two pipes, etc.), °-",k the only conceivable basis on which the lone member could score �k the Project at 1 is on the basis of visual vulnerability criteria • � " � of this category. ' Given that che visual vulnerability is a separate and distihct GMQS category, the scoring system to this ., extent is flawed, unfair and arbitrary in accommodating what amounts to a "double dip" of a single perceived negative. �� . 5. Visual Vulnerability- This section considers the extent in which the applicant uses mitigating techniques such as siting, buffering, natural topography and vegetatien and setbacks to _ 'F_ J offset the visilaility of the project. ' , The Planning and Zoning Commission was extremely concerned with the proposed translucent strip on top of the building which would :;j;�i create more and new illumination in the evening which was • ;��:� previously not there. This design element could not be screened • or buffered by any mitsgation techniques, and it also clearly :�<� does not meet the scenic quality policies and general regulations _;`� of the �County. ��'` The applicant chose not to screen or buffer the structure from `��"� views from Highway 82. This was a significant concern• by •the • ..,j � Planning and Zoning Commission. . �.� Applicant's• Response: Visual Vulnerability is to be scored ' =`� considering the extent to which the Applicant uses mitigating techniques to offset the visibility of the Project. The Planning ,� Office recommended a score of 1. �°he P&Z scored the Project at ,.� .83 with two members scoring it at 0, indicating a tptally deficient design. There is no basis in the record to sustain - scores of 0. W'hile the Applicant believed (and believes) that �;:.� the visual impact from Highway 82 proceeding south would be , �� 5 . . . .'s'� ^`�� . �� y,'' � __ . ._ . _ .. _ . : f , _. _...r. c��f�,.. 4 . . i, . � ��u, ,w`�``. 4-�ta h b: ' . S �.�. I... . ' ..k^(;:. ' . �Y`�'Ct., . • • ��y�j_�3� � . � ��}t..t,�i � :,�,n:',�,;2':' . �F :`��'�.;;�'-' r;,r�.� rp f�f;• ir.y ♦ ' �•� a :+� .-.,�,..; �� , "`Q':`•�_ . _... ��r,� .. i . . . . a � '��"�s'��YS �'`��`�"� � � �,��+�U��7?{� j i . Yr ,,y '�r'. f r �':"�ae: 'r� r tt ! � b `r �F ��Y�r .. 1 y at v1i� y �r.t ° � q��, ..�iy � ' - ��.��.'�q;,.r`,.�,r�.�,i3f f � ��( y � .,��p's�i.'aY' p . l� .u�r��r�rt �K�.1�1�,�� f 'a � � . . .��"�' �!l�r�'ti��.��.:�� ,....4r�1.'S�,f".��'�4 .7°i0��q2}i �}'1.iw..Y i+�,.�.`�. <,. negligible, given the distance of the Project from Highway 82• and the shielding of the Project by other buildings and, therefore, chose to maximize parking facilities rather than incorporate 2andscaping in the rear, the fact of the matter, based� on the record made, i.s that this choice of the Applicant is the only arguable design flaw in the Project. This, however, does not ' render the Project's design totally flawed. Indeed, the record otherwise is clear that the Applicant's proposed landscaping was well used to enhance the character of the Praject when viewed • £rom•within the AABC. 6. E�mployee Housing- This section requires the Commission to assign points to each applicant who agrees to provide low-, moderate- or middle-ir.�ome housing for employees generated by the � proposed development as•such housing has been annually defined by � , the Hoard of County Commissioners. Applicant's shall be awarded one (1) point for each ten (10) percent of the employees �of the �;_� ; project who are provided with employee housing by any method specified in Section 5-300.4. The standards of Section 5-300.1 shall be used as the guideline for establishing the employee ^f'^`•`'�`� housing generation of commercial development, although the Commission may accept an alternative standard proposed by the '" applicent, if said standard is foun@ to be appropriate for the particular development by the Housing Authority. Applicant's Response: Employee Housing is to be scored on the ";:.z basis of i point for each 10� of the employee generation of the � Project propose3 to be housed. The Planni.ng Office recommended a � score of 5 based upon a Aousing Office determination (pursuant to � �`� ! Section 5-300.1 of the Codej that the Project would generate ; • `' �, j 10.17 employees and the Applicant's commitment to house 6 ��';:� employees. Even though the Applicant committed to house 59$ of ~ - the employee . generation, it is the practice of the Planning Of�ice to round the figure down to the lowest lo�. The P&Z . , scored the Project at 4.83, with one member scoring it at 4. - '.� i There is no basis in the record for scoring the Project at less :.`;-�cj � than 5, other than the apparent frustration that P&Z felt in �`'�';�'Ks�- having to £o11ow Code (Section 5-510.6) mandated guidelines for Y.� - ' scoring this category. that is hardly a sufficient basis. •-i'' � . ?,';.� The concerns of the Planning and Zoning Commission with this project are directly related to the criteria established in the :. �. � Commercial Growth Management Quota System. Their score reflects • ;;;:} some serious design flaws with the proposed project and feel that � -_'=�';��j the project should not progress due to these inadequacies. - SiJtgfAl2Y: On page 7 of the appeal information, the applicant �i indicates that the Planning`and Zoning Commission double dipped � the scoring in the categories of site design and visua2 -_ ; vulnerability. The Planning office disagrees and feels that the two specific categories have been treated as such. '"b...�` . 6 " -;'i;.".� � . . ...�.;.•...��f �7'i•6.�.. . . 53 :`.iX� ��.�``'L� � . � ��'� �5ys.�, _ . _� ti'r,�r. py� ,��Y .4• ,lyb.- . .. . . ��' • . a%tti<=L� :RS'.S,`:s;:=y'�� ' '. �`F'xi?.� � , . ��ATiv..•'F' . ' � .?x:'t,;.*;r� - . � . ?'�'*�, i�%ro.'� , ,��s�?;ry.' ,��:;'�`;: ,�,-:,.�. , k�q�e��r� �q�(.y�♦ • `P ti; �+S.! r,�y`y� :l ,..�;. .. a�; �� _ :.- _ �� a�}± L.''� C .: 'v ... , . ..,. 1 �h�= } �- j �� u�� 3Y : � . t A .i �:: A ,-'� ' :�a 1 � _ ; I ° ,��- � 7" ��y.� a,�4 p �F� .�y�ie�'i. sr +,�}t�►i:� V y� 'Y;,'�aF _ ��1x'�ry �� `L!;� . , �� .. . ' ��`i��,�y. t t ".�� ,.y, ,�r ri,.� � .. ,„,y 'y �' 1 �.�`�^1�i'i&�.R�;j,,,.� '�"R�'� .. .. �,"l:<�_ �E, i'�.. f . .., �.�:, . *i S�ka,1�;:�11's':', � • ±. . The 8oard of County Commissioners may uphold the Planning and ; Zorring Commissions score of the project, which did not meet threshold, or rescore the app2iaa�tian. The Planning Office . recommended score of 37, has not changed. . RECO�IDATIONe The P1a�1niA�QE�f.ace—reeommends that—thp Board_of �� County Commissioners rescore the applicationY---•-�- - . _ s . , ' tr,'. _t cmqs.appea1.316aabc , � . . . i '{ . ' 6.' b i,S` ::��:•:� �' �.�; . } . y . _ ' `?C'�;Y • • • K:.�� . �:'��A� . . . �h . .'�a�ji'%'.S . �. . � . 3 . , .r.f . . z *�� . ' . �,,� , j� >,;�� . .. o- • ; �'�`-'q� ' ,�,^'�. ,�.°� " . . .r�w-_ . �� . � , ��¢� . • . ` . 1' . •;ni`, ' - �mt< . �,�3': � -n.l.V.��=. . . . . i��1�. . . . . }±M1N . -�l�%^ . � . .. . ' � :*,`��,, i - � 1. �� . I .,��,. . � . - ».� . �w ,�._: ..�:, ;��t, ; � -� .. -_ �3 _ _._ .__:__--__..___._ � .,w:�:w„_�.�:�.�,____.._..._._ _.---________.---___.___ ,_ _. _..._.... _... ... -�- _ _,_� . - �_ ± � .. ;��. , � . . : . ... � "'�F. . , � • . . . . � ' . . . . • . . � ��.f . ' . . . _ . . �. ��• . . . � . . � ' . � � . � � � � ��rti C d� i a 'S ry$F.�„ 7� r : �� {�'��+ ��.� ��{,.'�^`'�i �d.`� ��i�r�l�`t� e ' ,� .• �tiE�' h y�� L � �' r. `' �'`� ��'��` � r'J��i�r'��i U f�i� � : �_i , '� r.,LaB.e ,i• �Y..r1.1t.,=rF -Lr�'.�4.tlw1�,'aw _ -:e'.:.�t"a✓ � s.� � � j�%, ��„n . ... . . L� . ..�,,�i.�� , ' ^i ., L�W OFFICEL . � OATES,HUGHES & KNEZEVICH vqOFE5510NALCORPOPATqN •. ,. TXIRO FLOON.ASPCH PL�2�oU1lA1HG SJ1 GSi NOVKINS�vEMUE , L[ON�RO M.OATES ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 �REACOOE]O� J� � ROB[MT W.MUGNEi TELErMONEOtO•IJOO NIGMAIIO h.kNE2EVKN TELECOPIER Y20•1131 ��M.a. - October 23, 1990 oP cIXw�SE�_"-_—'" . � �Tl' • � JdIM TIqMK N[Ltv � 4 • Board of County Commissioners 506 E.Main Street � . Aspen, CO 81611 . `� � RE: Appeal from Planning and Zoning Commission Growth Management Quota ° System Scoring of 316 Aspen Airport Business Center Pr�ject ' ;� . •:y Dear Commission Members: � �� . :,.;-.x This is an appeal from the Growth Management Quota System("GMQS")scoring by the Pitldn County Planning and Zoning Commission("P&Z')of the application for a GMQS � commercial development allotment for the project lrnown as 316 Aspen Airport Business Center ' ("ProjecY'). The Project was scored by the P&Z at its regu2ar meeting held Septemtier 4, 1990. �� At the meeting, there were no other applications competing against the Project for a GMQS allotment. The Project was scored at 32.6 points and failed with the P&Z to achieve the � minimum threshold of 36.6 points. The report of PBcZ scoring was forwazded to the Board of � �'a� �County Commissioners("BOCC")at its regulaz meEting held October 9, 1990. This appeal is t�' brought pursuant to the provisions of Section 5-510[A][5]of the Pitldn County Land Use Code � . _ .. ("Code"),which provides: -�; Having received the Commission's report,the Board shall entertain � ,..�� any complaints by applicants that the Commission has abused its ' discretion,exceeded its authority,or denied procedural due process �r=,� in its processing of applications under this Growth Management ;�y� Quota System. Any challenges must be filed with the Elanning ' :?•::� Office within fourteen(14)days of the date on which the Commis- • a sion did forward its ranldng of projects to the Boazd of County • - Commissioners., �;�� The Board,on hearing such appeals, may affirm the action of the ;j Commission,remand the application to the Commission for further �� '3 considerarion,change the number of points awarded to any appli- :;; -,� cant,or take any other aclion reasonabiy calculated to correct the �: error complained of. i'� ______�� 60ARD OF C0.COiri"d'R'S ` PI7KIN CO�N7Y t� Pu�lic Hearinp E�ihibits " '1 Date: =2 -9/ Y�,i u2 Subj��•v � /�PF �. ot s, ,3 �n s coa�� , , [xh.ho. ",Q'� �- _.. ..._.___ . _._._ --_...__. � ,. � ,� _ . _ _ . ._ �_ _ . v� ' _ � _� t'�.�; ` .. ,��s. ' ' �� i.�j. �.i � . ,�}Sµ�.� . � . . %� 1��:,Y.' . . • �e4� i � ,��fi�'�y�� ' 3�aev.':-;4C; �a��; tP � �x • 1� �v xr;�.. _.;�,� �w� , '�.y�`�'��. , - .` , � �f� � y� K. � +t s '!<<< � ayy,�}F.��,y,! ' '�..' •� �' . '. �� IR�,.1Y` r �M� ��.}.�, p�Y��y�rc,. �,/1y '��.yy�lY�, a � !T!N u y.� y,�7.?.'}� _ , yi�„ ar '� t4 c, ''.� pv..� rK:��+r� �^� ^'" ' �.�y,s'y , � . o�� 'Qi 7 ��{�t .•- �`i�`�3r1G_:t�. Yr ��.:.- ,.�4 ',�7y,�` yp �' �x� 4�h�,q �;.�.. l .J.�,.hdL�R^ .�.i±�� ,.��i� 751��F�i�RE � '�. '!{ .�lnim.`._.... ,rW,�j�••...c..+L �hnSCF., _ � OATES,HUCHES 8c KNEZEVICH,P.C. � i. � ` Board of County Commissioners Octobes 23, 1990 - Page 2 ' . • _. _ �... . Accompanying this appeal aze the following: '�. A. The Applicafion for Growth Management Quota System Commercial Development Allotment for the Project; r.",,: �'r B. The Memorandum dated 3eptember 4,1990,of the Aspen-Pitldn Planning � ' ' ' Office ("Planning Office") recommending approval of the dcvelopment - °' � allotment for the Project,along with its recommended GMQS scoring; '� C. The minutes of the September 4, 1990,PBc�meeting; t: ,. ti . :-z ' D. The tape of the September 4, 1990, P&Z meeting, together with L'�e ' . transcription thereof prepare�by the undersigned.' . � E. The 12esolution(PZ-90-�of tho P&Z forwazding the 1990 Commercial ."Y GMQS scores;and �� F. The tally sheet of the PBcZ signifying ffie GMQS scoring of its members • for the Project, r.� . ;;y,� The application for the GMQS allotment for the Project was submitted to the ' Planning Office by the ProjecYs owner, Smfima Cotporafion ("AppIicant")on July i, 1990. �� T'he Applicant's property,located in the Aspen Airport Business Center("AABC")adjacent to %� � Baltic and Mediterranean Avenues,contains 37,667 square feet and currently accommodates a , � ;._, 1,200 square foot car wash, 1,792 square feet of automobile specialty shops and 2,466 square , feet of refail, wholesale and service uses. The Applicant proposed to enlarge the existing •; structure to add an additionai 1,792 square feet of wholesale space, 1,000 squaze feet of office " , space,and 2,200 squaze feet of employee housing. The Pmject site is zoned B-2,the proposed � uses are allowad uses and the proposed site changes comp2y with applicable area and bulk ; requirements. The Project lies within an approved subdivision. c 1. _'^� _W �_ _ je� ? � 'The tape is inaudible in some respects. Wherever possible, the transcripfion attempts to � identify the speaker. New speakezs, otherwise unidenlified,ue signified by the symbol "X". ; '" 'i . :'`� a [y � :. � . • '•� ��: __.._ .. _ . _. _.___ . __ .. ._ ... 4�¢ ` _ ._ __ . -.. : `. —.� rv - '4ti.:.•, - . � . � � .. . . �ap t...�� . .. . . • . �'+• '•i-a , . . ,�t� �;�", . � ��f.. . �F'1:' � r � jNA I 1 �'�i::" .41�*��„�. „� • �, ��. `.:i"• �f'i �L't � .. . � � . � _.. . _"k . . . . 1 ' . - . . ., . .'. .� I 1F l: yj YV 8. 'F l" `�� ,y,�� t, � :h�� e� �i ty?>,;7,j�'��S . e ,�_`'`'�'�f��`,,'��.`�SZ`'�'1 �� +a'ik��x'yh��Y,��r�rr s�, �,.t s8w , p� ' }. " � ' �„t,�,:�-��.q.�tr tie`SC�d.�k',��.`.tfa:f'�,�:a�....�� -,a��Y�.��--� ._..,�F•��' 4�.�'i`S`��'��-' C t . ��,i3��(�r•. - ' OATES,HUGHES 8c KNEZEVSCH,P.C. , � � .. Board of County Commissioners October 23, 1990 , Page 3 . .� ... The P&Z abused its discretion and exceeded its jurisdic6on in scoring the Project� ' �''�� in the manner that it did. The record as a whole (particulazly the tianscribed tape of the • proceedings) reveals quite plainly that, wnsciously or unconsciousiy, the P&Z in scoring the Pmject and in the deliberadons that culminated in the scoring was far more bent on venting its � frusuaGon with the evoIution of the AABC and other projects in the Greater Aspen Area and ? on implementing what amounts to a legislative agenda of its own,than it was in fairly evaluating . the Project against essentialty objective benchmarks as it was required to do under the GMQS. - 4 ! •:i When one e�camines the tsanscribed tape("T.T."),threa dominant themes,steeped y�s , ��; in P&Z's frastration and inappropriate speculation in the matter,tend to leap out. Unfortunate- . f' -1 ly,it Was these,rather than the merits of the Ptoject measured against prescribed criteria,tfiat drove the scoring: . ' ir , ffie P&Z was frustrated with the zoning at the AABC to the extent that zoning admits of any erosion of what P&Z member Shellman (with the other members ':; coneu►iing)regazded as the original concept for the AABC-one of service exporting as opposed - to office uses [T.T.p. 12]: ' -Fi , VJhat T am observing is that this confinues a process of converting - that into a more ac6ve office use to the extent that the 1,000 ,`,� square feet of it,if I understand correctly,is offrce space. ThaYs ' . a significant change. I believe it is allowed in this zone. The �,� .� pmblem, I guess the issue that is coming up for me is, are we • `i�� prepazed ta abandon the Idnd of land use contmis that were •,;�'; imposed on the Airport Business Center when it was approves for :-;� � conlinuation and alsq are we prepared to see the whole Auport "'•� Business Center go to a 28 foot height fimit which this is one of ' "� severat buildings that are ic►the prceess of doing that. * * * I ' • ' ,.; ;'! will say that if this azea condnues,that ultimately Uus was created � .�� for the purpose of taldng service and wholesale uses that were -.; being displaced from the Rio Grande fifreen,twenty yeazs ago;and :t that was the reason that the restriction on this use was imposed and ;:,� what has happened is as office demand increases, it will drive ? these other uses out of here,as well,becxuse office use will jus6fy -,'� higher rental in all probability, thaYs a likelihood,and what wiIl : happen with that is that an o�ce use,taking only a]awyer's office ,;,;� as an example,you tend to turn over a pazking space every hour - � � .:.i�� '"i:� ,3 � . , ;� . ,� �` ` S.' a J :' ,�1�. e' .... ...._ .. . . � .. —_r "'Y-a _ . . - � ` _. . .. . � . _ . _.. . _ . . . . .. . . �.�.�. � . . � � . � - .. ' � � L�,'�ti�ft.rc e�'`-�;�`8t, � is`' 4�L+� - ' �s�'-.i,'rF'`:Wx. . � . ''fi�:'�ki�,., . , . . �1-"nF°'"�.':ir��. . - � . . ��f . ry �x�•1�)�:� . I S'��.�� . . , . �%'� 1r3.f,y • ' _y"±s a .y'"rE`. •K�:e; �.:,�X '.�"�''�' , _ � �..C' ' , ♦ ♦� , �"'r;��"�"f a�"�+�Jrr`�,.r� G�. '�' "t��ia7 j�� t r t z - r M 1 ��.y �fyaba �k � �'�l �. � a . i s, l�k.,.t" v��r• y,�''�,'"��si � ' r _�ti r�yltk ,t � � i y ; �' , �*��a _. .. rd i�.� . .. '��.�.,�,:��d4. �t.s:�1b.6�X�i�.y��w:w�.a�.. �:n„_. �:_��'.�� `.�:v�iz�1;��.. � • . fy-4i•�. � OATES,HUGHES 8c KNEZEVtCH,P.C. � � Board of County Commissioners October 23, 1990 Page 4 " �: * * *and so you can see an office use potentially co�id generate r , � signifcant traffic, ***. ' ' ' Second, ihe P&Z felt unduly constrained by the rules applicable to a GMQS ' ` scoring of the employee housing category,particularly ic�light of the fact that the Project lies ;'�::.�� within an approved subdivision and,hence,was not obligzted to provide housing for 100% of - its employee generafion.� For example[T.T.p. 14]: �.�� - ' -:� ��•'� I think I will commenL I am, number one, I think that any • '��`� • development which increases the commercial square footage and `;,.�j dcesn't mitigate 10040 of its real employee genesation deserves a . zero score,frankly. I don't Irnow if that is entirely possible in that :i ��g°�'- �-,�� And[T.T.p. 15]: . � I am uncomfortable with,whereas I would like to score the way , `R"p Dwight says he wontd score if he were going to stay for scoring � � _� on the housing issue, I think we're ]dnd of constrained by the ,x ,� Code to score this,you la►ow,the way the Code specifies,which , , is either it meets such-and-such a pencentage or it doesn't meet � �-�� such-and-such a percentage,and we may want it to handle 100% ' ;�-;;{ � of the housing,as I would like it to do,but I just say that to make :'"r{ it clear that if I score this,it is reluctantly. =w�:;,:S `� � 'And [T.T.p. 10]: ' �� . . But the point is, what this says is there aze an addidonaI ten • _ employees who are being genented by the increase in the building � , use here and you're only providing space for six of them, or - ' probably fewer than that, its probabiy going to be a family situation that may only provide space for two employees, so there , :;.'� is probably a d�cit of eight created by the increase in business. I - ``:{ And[T.T.p. 17]: i :� The problem is we're stuck with this stupid process, you know, �� - and in thinking about Dwight's comment, one of the things I've � ..;: � . � "r�; . i•-•(.^�'1 '�ChT� � :St � � ��. �_r .. .___._.. .. ._ .. .. .. ��. . .. ._.. ..._ ._. .. .. _.. ._ . ._ . ,.. .. . .. . .. . .. .... .. .. .... . .. . ... ......_._.. :.-' __ ��t � . ,_ � ',. ..,.. :,. . ., : �� :� _ . ZK F£ , ' , �.j r . � . � � � . ¢y �` ::�t � � . y��{'1`y� . #G'.�� C � • �. +.+�'� •+;f.. ,�„�,��,. , _ • � . _. . �iit`+�.- � � �. � . Y - � � , : . . .-�` � .� 1`�� , ` � 1� 1 � �� " '+��. �� .��.,. �-F:r}��.,•R{d-��'��,� �� 4�y� r��4`�4•'"��,�jy��yl��t r ! .. ... . ....t''wn!!Xt��•�L'.._ ��_��'`t:fw�r3�:�:�SA�+,d..s.. :.. .e....�l�il .i , �. ��.��... .�� k. ��'y.�A i�et'�:a.°��Ra.�l� i . 'i;",;:..'- ,. M , � `�;��,/� •—•) ^l � OATES,H UGHES & KNEZEViCH�P.C. '. Board of County Commissioners October 23, 1990 Page 5 9'�� . always hated about GMP is that even when you think the thing i�' - stinks you gotta score it a particulaz way. • ir , the P&Z was willing to let the Proje�t suffer for the sins of unrelated ' developments and of Upper Roaring Fork Valley development in general. For example,[T.T., , i p. 12]: � ".i ':-..� I'm feeling especia]ly sensidve to this berause of the landscaping issues now and the visual relief that it can provide. After we just ,, �;:';'� , heard from a landowner or several landvwners near the Owl Creek . �: ;,.:X Club,the Grand Chaznpions Club,who had been promised and we ' " � approved a landscaping plan that looked fine W me when it was on � a piece of papes but wt�at they have pointed out, what the neigh- s bors have pointed out,is that a tree here and a tree here, iha2 in ',� most cases aze aspen h�ees,still leave you with very clear views of parldng areas and reflection that those neighbors get from that and . . what you see from the highway still,and so they were pointing out ' that we failed in that particular landscaping plan. The other one �� that's been built most recently was built by the hospital and that -# was the Assisted Living Project where the Iandscaping Pian looked good like this but what it has come across as is a very urban lawn clipped area with a tall building that they had promised to hide and r`'�� break up but it doesn't because the h�ees are czab apple and smaller • .},t =``a and the building is much taller and they are just specks in front of �;F;"� it. •:�� And[T.T.p.29]: ' ':t ' ' ***We hassle over this all the time about the fact that what we • ;"� wanted to do is***. There is no way that it is. It zs a very ' ' � •::� subjective process and it depends on your perspective and it also, r ;5 to me in this case I think depends on the ldnds of pushing and `•:1 yelling that we've heard from other people in the past along the . ' � highway corridor of what they're seeing and what they feel they ;� :r?; • ***and telling us the** *and Connie Harvey and Joy Caudill � and in no uncertain terms fast week or the week before telling us ? ` .'.'� "You blew it when you dealt with the Grand Champions Club"and ' ,,.� 'r�� J(l�1�l •� A �-:). _...._....._""_._.__.__._....._. . .. .. . ... .. . . . � . . . . . . _ .. _..... . , - ......_ . �. . t.... �- - . . ... .� ;. • . � _� ��.r y � ` - ..� �>.' . .. , �� . . ��"-, • . � , ; .. sY�� ..._ . E�'�V,i,y � ,xhz�^�"tit:" ' � ' ��. �� • �'ir'� •iC.. ,k:. ��:� , ��s.: - U � �r �-�+.y.�t`�. �1�.�..�i. � ��, ' ��,� ji' ",�`,G J`�iM�-� �K� Y q� #+,,j��'•�s Sr�ti t� . ..;'i s.n�t:: .�"*u� .......,c`�r:.. �n. ..�,.w ,;�-F�N...+i..��'tCli..�:..�t2L"��'1�:�x'. ��C;..��`��es4�y�d��i�'7��4 � ,.': . c��;. . ,� ,--� . �,:,,::. ' . OATES,HUCHES 8e KNEZEVICH,P.G. � � Board of County Commissioners October 23, 1990 Page 6 . I felt like we had done that but its berausc I can't see, was not r� , " able to see ahead of time,what we were really get6ng. • i� _ In differing degrees, we can all sympattnze with P&Z in its frustration. It is a ' hard and thankless job to be put in a position of having to condone certain uses of land just , because the BOCC has determined the use an allowed one. And none of us can doubt the .. . -.•� sincerity or depth of cazing on the part of the individual P&Z members. By the same token,in the final analysis, it is, as it should be, only the BOCC - the elected o„�icials - that is ' ':,� consdtutionatly delegated with the authority to detezmine the palicies of 1and nse-the allowed uses and the standards by which projects must be evaluated - in PiUan County. Legislative � �"'-� determinations like that aze,under the law,ezclusively the province of the legislative body and �� s `' not of an administratively appointed board impermissibly seeldng to legislate tlu�ough the guise = of a GMQS scoring. It is againsf this background of frustration and of jutisdiction sought to be � exceeded that certain elements of the P&Z scoring of the Project must be critically evaluated, because that bacicgronnd explains a scoring that fails.in many respects to find any competent ��i] evidentiary support in the record: 1. . Itoad System is to be scored considering the abi3ity of the public road ` +°i network to acoommodate the Project withui acceptable levels of safety. The Planning Office • ".i recommended a score of 2. The P&Z gave the Project a score of .83, with two members ,. j scoring 0 and three members scoring 1. A scoring of 0 signifies a total impracticality of � providing road services W the Project. That is prepostesous. The Project is serviced by the . r;,=;;; existing network of roads in the AABC which were designed to accommodate the subdivision ' .-f,=� at its full buildout The only competent, non-speculative evidence in the record on the road :;::,� system is that the impacts of the Pmject upon the ezisting road system would be "minimal". `•�'�.� � The mere fact that the Applicant chose not to participate with the County in pursuing wholly s:�'� I - speculative improvements is no basis for a 0 score. Indeed, had the Applicant so chosen, the ;��' Project would have been entifled to a score of 3. _'• , . ;:-! 2. Public and Private Transit Svstems aze to be scored considering the - , �- _� pmximity of the Project to existing transit routes and trail systems and the abiliry of such : facilities ta accommodate the proposed developmeni without the need for additional facilities or .r;;� • route shifts. The Planning Office recommended a score of 2. The P&Z scored the Project at 1 1.16,with four members scoring it at 1. A scoring of 1 requires evidence in the record that the .. :�::+ Project reqaired the provision of new services at increaseci public expense. There is no evidence _ _ whatscever to sustain such a conclusion. The Project is serviced by RF'PA with a bus stop in : �_:;j the immediate vicinity. The Rio Grande and AABC bike trails service the azea and there is °i � � �:;:� , .,;=11 .��;; .:,��.�� , ,�. __ �� ar.:SzL , , I..;., ,��tt '7�,0;� . . '_ � �_� ��` `_ ' , ' .. �� . .. � . . . � . .�� • . ��+ �y��.: • . � � . .� . . c .,Mr`,,� �.f•� . . . .�tiy��.�� , . :. 3,y�.: . . � a��; , , ::Y��,�� r.. S'v. . .��1.,.4.�L_ • l ,j"{'��{. . �� #� �'M3 � ,�C ! T��.. 4'��S . . � .. . . � . . . . .., .�7i4i>'�i ° .. . � . ' ,� f �� 'T��F�, t >.,�k a�,�C�,t��t,y,y� t �'. , : ` �'4. �1;.. � � •r' i`-� '� . 1 ��,Rd .�:'�Yy� �11,1 �)r� �.� r +` �*'i-��,c. '�v�t,� :k'`� 'e'�`�..^"�f a�, k.: �q�,� �65'�.t� "�'f �� +�y � '',d•d mL. t ,r.�r. 4'!y.��+�(�G6�F�r«`".de.,..:i"`.#�.•",�a''7:;:a �• '�' ' ,��:.;�.��f�S.c�'v �{ , �� t� � t +<a�: �,.�.. ...:�1'l�et:`:ia.tt"d�tr`'In .C`�:.::+l.L.L.!.r;�.2 .-�j ^'; OATES,HUGHES & KNEZEViCH,P.C. `' Board of County Commissioners . October 23, 1990 Page 7 - :� nothing in the record to suggest that any of these facilifies w�71 be rendered inadequate or ' . ' insufficient by reason of the Project. 3. Site Desien is to be scored considering the quality and character of . proposed landscaping and open space areas,the degrea to which natural vegetation is preserved -=��..; and the provision of pedestzian amenities. The Planning Office recommended a score of 2. The P&Z scored the Project at 1.16,with one member scoring it 0 and four members scoring it 1. ' �;,� A score of zero requires evidence in the record of a Wtally deficient design. A score of 1 requires evidence of a major design flaw. There is no evidence in the record to support either `'��° score. The Project proposed extending and enhancing e�sting planting,screening of the existing `"� car wash,screening of parking,provision of public paihs and installation of a pedestrian bench and a bike reck. The only member of the public commenting on the Project found the Appli- :� cant's proposal to be"de5nitely an improvement over what exists." T.T.p.20. While the P&Z was concerned with the visibility of the Project from H"ighway 82 and the Applicant's choice not .-;� to shroud the building from the Highway 82 perspecfive in favor of incorporating more parking into the Project, that surely is not a basis for downgrading the Project in the site design category. The appropriatc category for dealing with thaz would be the visual vulnerability ^ ` category. To do so in the site design category amounts to a totally inappropriate and unfair ;i_`.� • "double dip" of a perceived negative. There was also an illustrafive discussion among the Applicant's representatives and P&Z members[T.T.p. 13J of the type of landscaping selected � by the Applicant(i.e.,deciduous versus evergreen trees). The only thing seemingly resolved .;?;;;;i by the record in this regard is that while deciduous trees have the drawback of shedding their , ;t.::•:i � ' ,::, , leaves for part of the year,evergreen trees would be totally unacceptable to the P&Z. That ldnd �<�' ; of"Catch-22"reasoning is hardly consistent with a fair hearing based on the evidence. ,�l`� -:.�`_ ' ° 4. Environmental Impact is to be scored considering the degree to which the design minimizes adverse impact on the environment,including impacts on air and water quality, � r' .� visual wlnerability and geologic and manmade hazards and conditions. The Planning Office - � recommended a score of 2. The P&Z scored the Project at 1.83,with one member scoring it • , •.Y_f at one,indicating a major design flaw. Under the record made(i.e.,an aclrnowledged absence of any hazards, prohibiaon of wood-buming facilities, removal of gas supply and two pipes, etc.),the only conceivable basis on which the lone member could score the Project at 1 is on ':.�� • the basis of the visual wlnerability criteria of this category. Given that the visual vulnerability is a separate and distinct GMQS category,the scoring system to this extent is flawed,unfair and _ arbitnry in accommodating what amounts to a"double dip"of a single perceived negative. -'`?.'1 5. Visuat Vulnerabilitv is ro be scored considering the extent to which the `Y;'1 Applicant uses mitigating techniques to offset the visibility of the Project. The Planning Office ;i �s;� +"`.L� :;:.Y�.' . . �� ,' � � 1 y� .,,..�-.__..... _ , . :•�{'�*;�'�. -- � _._._. x-:: ',;,y{. ,�.a; ' ;,.�-�.�`�;� . . , v�``�,� ��Y 4� . • '. . ..y,�f __ ' . .� ..�..+i� • � � }.:. �.r f�;'Jretfr�.7:i,i� . .r�• d:.b-ya 4.J'. . . . .r:' `'3�" . t �� nti+�' ____ �o -�-�:,x �� .��'�.�1 ' . •�' P v� .. . . .., .� .._� k ��,� ;, ��,,��e ,�'� 4 � � ,rt � ��1z:.-��vi }tjii'H�'�*�'.: �� K�,;�:,:�y� �-.��, � :��,y� t �� y a,E�x'�j�`+�kl�� S'� u Ir �1t� .�..� ' �� ..,t.l�"'�.: . . • "�;.'[G � i��+9 k1 � Fd. T4 � +�., r�-w'�iY�yk . . . ...:..s� ��'�� 'y:e?,a� ��`��. u.._ .��hi �.;t•,.�1��-l:-.tix.'til. _.�_�.� ,�YnG.... . ... v�ti"!o L"�, . ,:rw �.''1��^� - . ` 9 , �i • . � OATES,HUGHES 8e KNEZEV{CH,P.C. � � i. Board of County Commissioners ' ,,' - October 23, 1990 Page 8 � t � _ ie�ommended a sc�re of 1. The P&Z scored the Project at.83 with two members scoring it at ti.�'� ' 0,indicating a totally deficient design. There is no basis in the record to sustain scores of 0. . .. . While the AppIicant believed(and believes)that the visual impact from Highway 82 proceeding south would be negligible,given the distance of the Project from FIighway 82 and the shielding ; of the Project by other buildings and,therefore,chose to maximize parldng facilities rather than incorporate landscaping in the rear,the fact of the matter,based on the record made,is that this � choice of the Applicani is the only arguable design flaw in the Project. This,however,does not � render the Project's design Cotally flawed. Indced, the record otherwise is clear that the , �� Applicant's proposed landscaping was well used to enhance the character of the Project whert viewed from within the AA,BC. i , �: _,w 6. Fangloqee Fiousing is to be scored on the basis of 1 point for each 10% , of the employee genera6on of the Project prokwsed to be housed. The Planniag Office re�ommended a scosc of 5 based upon a Aousing O�ce determination(pursuant to Secflon 5- � .? 300.1 of the Code) that the Project would genesate 10.17 employees and the Applicant's commitment to house 6 employees. &ven thaugh the Applicant committed to house 59%of the ` � employee generation,it is the practice of the Planning Office to round the figure down to the ,� lowest 1096. The P&Z scored the Project at 4,83,with one member scoring it at 4. There is i no basis in the record for scoring the Project at less than 5,other than the apparent fiustraflon , . that P&Z felt in having to follow Code(Section 5-510.�mandated guideIines for scoring this category. That is hardly a saffrcient basis. . ;'� r� — . �.r� The record is clear that the P&Z Iazgely ignored the evidence, engaged in ,a.� •unsupported specutation, and improperly sought to saddle or blame t}us Project for the • deficiencies the P&Z felt existed in other unrelated developments and for the evolution in general � f � of land use policies in the Aspen azea,which have conhibuted to a need for o�ce space in the • -:�3 AABC. Under the guise of a GMQS sooring, the P&Z has, in de facto fashion, effectively , . , � rezoned the Applicant's property to preclude an otherwise allowed use. The P&Z chose the Project as the medium through which it could express its frusha6on with many of the ills that ' . ;;� it perceives with Iand use policies and other develapments in the area and in so doing iY ignored ' the evidence. Determining what the land use policies are and should be is the function of the • .;`,<� 3egislative body. The P&Z exceeded its jurisdiction, abused its discretion and effectively - deprived the Applicant of a meaningful opportunity to be heard by maldng it the unwitting ;.�� apologist for allowed zoning uses at the AABC and for other unrelated developments. . ';i .��`� ' .� n'1 .��.•� , m -. ; ,�s 3 r': ` , _.. _ _ �. �_� Y�. . . �1 ��".�,'�` . ' . .• '�`"`;�`��: ' . '- �"'�"�:s •�+�;q,.';;-,c • ' ..a�". ;.:1; :}:.�w".,,� , �� , , , .��i� � � . ,.yr "`i.:��:t'...- . � �� "x � . �� . n`�r. .«i.:..; y'"N:'' . .w � �i.y�� k i`): .j�' � + � , . � 71." tt Jl . .j t ..': , { r� ; ' . . - . 4 �'' i�R � 4 ! � � -., � �� '-'RA�. . r ,,i ry�� .. g7Y. � ,'1V 4K.. .,f`��"'�?•• �v k.� i��' i{y/S�1 +, � H�v�l,�":N 1 � .� , T�H � ...T!�.�4 �..n�5�?1E@AO '.?Yi.V.Yj�'.G:�'aN�i��v3.:sM�`�iK�._ .r L.. ......�r�.-.'.. . h ,yV1iyG[��. . �`;b '. :i�. . . . i—.i � � . . OATES,H UGHES & KNEZEVICH,P.C, i, " Board of County Commissioners October 23, 1990 Page 9 ;; _ _ s For fhese reasons,the Applicant requests that ffie BOCC vacate the GMQS scoring �' of the Projec[by the P&Z and that,pursuant to its authority to do so, the BOCC rescore the _ � Project atthe threshold. � �';: _ � Thank you for your considera6an. � Sin ely, _ .,,�.s_� O , ES VICH,P.C. -'��-�i:-: . . .N.;`�.� ' $y ' � � Robert W. 73ughes r '�� ATI'QRNEYS fiOR STUFUNA �'*� CORPORATION ' " G BOCC.Ol _ •?,;.� • ��•.� �. _ .q k .. .. ��.� . � . ' . .. . .4 y ' . ' . �� • ♦tj�t•,•••� ' . � � �� 1 ! . '"� • ^91.�".- � . . . �tii r, '`�r . `�'h.s"�" . � _ . ,. ��4 1u'.��_� - � - ��. 4��'1 . � . y��, � � � . �� . .. . '.'��i� . . � � i;_ • }�� _ Tj i '�'� n . �� .. . . . � . . . y - , .__.� _ _' ... ,......_,., ..._. __..,. .<_.. __., ___.... __ _. _.,.� z , _ --^ - ' I�t i �° .. . ti `X� � �+, � - , ; �3' , � ..D� � y r � . � - . � • . . � �M1•' ;�� - .. . . � .{`�'�' ,��/` � �� , ,'r:,. . '��-x r � . . . . y��5�� 3'S .. .., r. . . . .. t �4 �1: .n �s 1 ,�, '1 i''.�. ,��`�x �'. �f^ ..K..P.4Ek,'"d�Ai�+�i..�:.�. � .� '.e�..>.r� �.,.L.. . w....,+.�..- �e,� �,�.��.�� . Vr�i; � . . �'Ar$,. Ir l.ki " ^�� t} �t y,a,.''. � $ X N p o i t u � �. � p _ > � ��;�"� Y ''"'1 �� _ ' °�•` . . �� -- - goaau oF co.co�srh��s - � w � pITKIN GL'�LPl7Y � � ,•..,�..;:ti^_ � s �+ P��t!lic Hearir�cj.:,��+�� i . � •� � � e � Qate:�� F N a � Mrr�� O . ,. ° =� � �� _ ' o Sub�ecc:s�Y--�'NJt�. � ' :m_ .�� +� �� . � � : s,,,,��s : z � s: =' w:..o :, � 5 " Exn.f do. �L" �� o W - 9- e- - . � z t�- �' �; �3 �35u1 �u� t� r�- ' m H � . ., ' . . . . • �('a � - < ' � N • , ..�'� ' � � ' � �( �� . '' e� Y�t:� � ` � + ��1� � . . . .. ^��S T • y�j 7 �G� ,-:il � � 9 \� . � �` / i.� w� \ .. . ':5 �� V' �,.:a;;� r . +f . �. 0 � ly. . �c 0 { �ai \•: \ ocaa.,=d . J�. i /l d ��w i�:' 'i / • 6�O � � a �:� '��A�.�°' .� . . . dr �� .� �6 ss"«+ ' . . .��s4 . � 44p�+�� , -j�i:: . . , '�Y,\. `� �J� � , \` ' ,� , / ' . � � �� e��• � �,,' •Q i` .• • � +' . \ ?� . � +ra V�1 , \ 4 a `'' �+ , � '''�i \ �` \,y�`. �1 � \ 4d4NA i \ �: . .l R 4 *:� �rat ` '� `. �` ��.°.I°. � '+.. �r' �\ `e �\ .\ `� � z � a ' ' �;L• �� v�o, `, . ' .�� , - . 4 � y�� ,,\ �• . �\ ��s.:� � �� /' W� �1 - i� �:x�� N- . _ -=� \ � '. �, , ; . . �;'.r_.r . �` \� • ? � �� \ // � . � . :' � �.�� ---'-- — ---.._.,.. ._.__... _..:.::.._. .:..,._..... ... . ., ...__. ...__._ . .t.__,._�. . . ..__ . ..._._... . . . . --•-- _..`6�:� . , ' � . . . . ��ti �.j! �. .. . ' • . � . y�` . 71'�L" � . . . . . ' . � .. �7 . . . ~ � . . . ' . __� �i'�{''.a. . . . - . . . . . t�. . . . . .. . `�. }��"r"�. _ . � ' . �, �; - � ..� .f �'r: . .:.�f. . . . . .� " � � � . a� ,y� • ��' �-� , , � � ; � � "; .��`, 1 Q. {' �i l �1+ �'�j f��' �` ) .{:M� ` A'{1 ;}�� }�� Y t .-it \ ' . j� " . 1 r e L 5 � � ' ; . ' .: ai.3�'(Y'k .� � '�. ,. �, r. � ��a ; r r :;. 4,� ' � ` G .� � �,' � �;�� my�.+t�, 1;.f �' 4 .,i � i ,''h�, . -��' ;fM`' 1„�t!x•:' s t1 T�y "�»" y,�. .7z:�� ' n.,:'�r. �.. 'i . . ..,. . .. .. .. Y . . . . . ` .. � . .... . . . . .. .. . .. .. , . . . x , 1 ' � . � } • 1 � i � . . . . � , . � . �; ._— �_ � '� �I �- - ----- " ! '�� j . ' � - . S :; �______—---------.._-----� , �� , . , � ❑ � t � � , � . ._ � � - ; . � o . ,.},. - ��y � � . � - Y . � 'f,: � .I ' � ' $„ . , � oj ~:.� , ___ 4 � .. � �:� `----- �_`_�'--,, _...��_—_ — —` i� . r,�. . . ' . ' .,'� � - ` ! ��. ;,� � . c�� . � I . ' . . � - � � I I i � ' �. ' � I ' � i � . . i - - � � . � � . t. � . _ , ` � .Q'_" � . 1 f � � ^ a�; � � � rs. =�'i - • ' � � ;�� . i ; � , • . � � a � � i �' � �, �:'y � ' � i , =�-� � ! i � �;; � � � `; . " , . � ) � - ;� � ; ; � � � � z . , � , � �� ._ .. ; ; � Q� � . �- � i ¢ ,� . .�J i � q e �, � � � �----' �,` ;`� _.____.. .. __. .....: ..__ _ _._... ._ ,.�:.._ _.. --- .. ._._._._ _.___ ,� _ _ _ . � - .:.;. � - _. ;.. `� T �: . � - , . � � . J1 . .. . . � � . � � '�M.f,. � . � " . � .�� . . � � � . . +�� `,.: � " ' . C� - . .. .� . . � � a ij,�r� : ,; . - � ..,��j' iiPt��`S'� � . t 4 ..A If � � M '�a. �. �x T�� . �� ] � � .. ., +.} �.�c:L MJ j� +��- . yi�.S='� ti �� .�. t �kt ,�',��+f h ��. I� ,� � �'�s.�q,��r `2' t , �,. 'M1"c, � 7f+�+wi�4Jk. : :. ,. ..5; �,: � , w � `�: ��'�,i� ' wv Y.��{*f �!''t y'�`��'r` ��:, f"" .�r�A�"•' . 1 � z�.�Y�'S3'�;;�.e.. , �. . � , . ' � � � • , . . � --._-- ' . ' . ;� ,�.�.�� 1 � �i�� f� � :�� — — __ ,ti .h I . -;– : . . . . ., ... . Y �T� � : �, . .~.a � �+.j { '� ' ._ . ' ai i ; := _� - �' � � � � — - ;�� _ � — j _ . � •i�.y ,i . . _ '� � ; :�4�:-:3 � ---+-;- _ „h� _ �� --,- ;_ ..:� . . :,�; � � . , . .�� _ _ . . . . . " - �: � � 3 �� Y . t . 's°,�:�: ,p . �. � �� ' . :i'-:•;',-_� � t� { . � � � � � { i � . •� . . . _ .:.� ' S � �:Y� � S 't"'y � , . �:�,, e= �;�.� -� � . , i j a i�I � = � � -�-o}' �;�� o x . ��;>.�{ � . a d �`�°��-'�'i . °� 1 Y �� .. . -�y+i�� . � , � � =f� 8 � -, o� ' � n s � � ♦ . 'i�''3J.'�"� —_ j o �.J �!`� . • •� , 0 - `�� - : . . O ; f .,-�� a �� c� _: � � �r�� ? _ ,. <, , :'.;"�' W z � � � 1 '�d �+�- (� a '. ,w::. .t . �$ � _ 1" y ` t '^i��'� —�----^"_' - � �,_ j( II 1 � .;.:"�F?+,� 5:� - „..h`�� '�I� N ° x��, L�! � t � � ``�?� �. . . s �=' � _ _ � , , . .. , _ � ._,. — , : - ,�'_. _ _ p,'�': ..._. � � ----- . _..r. x.. . � t x ., , , . M.:� 4. . .. . . . . . - , . . � � . .Y- ��,r,�?:�Y.. � . . � , � ctg � � - - � � . v`'� �rt 1 �'�� ''�k. . . .��,;��`�' • � ��.:� . . � '�r ` � UL_R . ' � - . . - . v p �4 �� '� �. W � ��+. ?� �', J �.� . . 4 ..�a � �/ x� �� i �n�i'*.�i r ��fr � � . � �. � S ' T � �.` ._�� .1 A�t , . .,i LT 1 t . JaY.?+'IY• .`� l� k � �' � .h, t�1. 1 pY Y��,t �' 1 .a F " � t � � ` �� • : �LSf-K�i��IY}�,"� ` '.\ ...+ �J'��•V�� ,�,�•.Y�, �l� �Y T�•��"�.��y�:� "_ ' n�,�flL, l�1�� . 2„I._ . s7: „• t . . . ..` . � " . , . . � � . � i . e S . ' s i� . a � � � . �'f . , , ' � E i � . � .. . °y� A � u : � .. � �\� •3 p " �� • t � . . � `\` ...�Y J 9� � S` 2 e . . .. ?� i 1 , ..cT 9 � ... .\, .,j .�,` ', a�Y�1y�`? • � - 's . !"� . • '� '1 � �� q . • T fi'�.` , ` ' F � r � , . . .}iA.� y � � I �• . �{ cg_ ` 1 ` .-r.# :�� `�f '. ; � � � � � �- •�� ;� �. ;:J � -\ �� i.:+r =�� _':t':.ytL ; �'• `��.:a. .�°�.� . , !.��'\ � •°' ♦ : 4, � . . . '�� 4 ' ��e tSL . � �, _ _ _ �'� f�r,` 1� ': Q • ' , .,. � 1� �^ i � � , � . . 1 •'• �a I / Dy N � . �',w�.�} `` =u \ /� !' / � � . �?i�'__,:� I` '. O` �<% \I� � � 11 Z : . .��i TE \ \ .�� \�i `� �� . �' s�w��' ~ ,` �� W ' 4 . � c e.� ` \\ 9+ \`� �..��`` �'' � t/ , r . ,� � ' � . , .` � W >t'��-�"�a • \� . � , i ; � .. L,;,..v�'•�' � l./.�;rR '��' ! ,I ' 7 . . , • y.��:�i 1 V `\ ; t \ �1 ;O Q g � ,,�:i `�� ,� ,� `'Q ��,`P , � �s _ , ,Y�, . \'J\ a�' �� l�, ,.,�!' '' � �;..�� :'�'`r � `�� =.,,�\ ', '' , '� ` � `�a. W ra�< . : . ` ' � w =:;� . ,f;'" \ ' I �;� �' �� ¢ `� � � C.? '.:,=i , �' �t ;� Q �� - . . . •;.�;�i� ' � ;Z °�aE ..::;. . � . � � Q iZ°`u . ' 9 7 "„1 °:< �. L� ;,j . � ;�" � � �� ,,.'�x,� � ..i:5R . � . ��`� .Y'�j'-'y:1 .... . . . _.� �. __... �y . . ...J,�. ..�.. ...... ...:....�... . I . ..._. .. ... ..... .... ._ '.. . ..... ..._...:.. :, �''•.. .. . . �' .. . . x .______..... `�"Z � � �.�� ' . . . _ . . . :.1 � � . � . � .. " .C- .. . ' . . . ' ' r. � ':# �'� � . � � . � . ' � }. �. . � ... � . .'�!. �;, , � �� '. . N X ts:.. .tiY. . . •,�ro�'�.�.��}�. .. ��g^t�{�� +� .��F1`-'� _ Y. �� .�2...a ..t; f � . . � � . ...3 � h k.�(g�,�(y�.+� �� ' 4 ' M1 � �� < � ��Q�.. �� y.�^� b � .�, i:�.'.� � a�� '. t� 1tu 1 �{r!'1�i!w;�� 3 .{ F '�Ary.,,�� : ! - � , �,,: ,Str'-i"1-� "2.ii'. � s��,7j� Cp��`�'r'��fi�'�. 't ,L .��_��y,&" �� aV�� lii F''�� y� �, . ? '�v' � ��t�- `a.�, � a + ym 4 .r��^ . n.,+1�M�' �_��,�,�� . - . � . . V " • � ' � � . ,� �^ u-�{ , , , #,5. 4.] � � ItJR ' . ` . co ." "__ . n e� O � - . , '�o � . � , .. ' _ • • . � ry d ' - y . u . , l -� :F ; � � �`�=� � � _�l°�jh�� . � ' .7.�a!;.1. ' . . . i T , .. i. ' t. � � w . , _�,,r,�.._�;j ,L � 9 ' • ; � � ':: � il , `, , � r:. � � �`, � ��"�''"� � � � • ::a � iUt�n t:l . O ,�.�>'.;':'9i � 1 �,: ,- • ' • a.: �,.'' � � r_ � ° � f � � � 1..1 5 � ri� ` ti.s � .. .� ��t •1':• � � • . ,y: .Y� _..^-. O 'i ry ' � K • � :._� , � � .�� r .,�; � . � � ❑ - � ,, � � " , � � �,�� a '£T,'r`::i 1 �_ � w 'y ' ' �s � °t � N ., 7 �.K �� 1� � 4� ❑ � � " .�� i 4i 1 • � I },.,�� _ o p �� ❑ n . .. . ::� � �� °� _ . � , `�',:��.� _ __, _ .. �<" .� . r=- __ .. � ��i� .:, ....:._ , _ • �,.�ii'�y ` . . . • - , . . � � ' � .. . �s�� , ',�u. . � ' � �'['-r::'=,�'' . � ;;a�,`�?"�:; ��i� ` d ��_ ^�� . x:�� .�.... .j,.;:. w�,,' � M� { a�/ F 3�� • �''i�k�t ° � � � { � + �' i "� J .P�� ' t��r�j � i��rtit � � " � �{�� v� y a �k. *�ti ;� _ui ��a� ' i`�'� � .�y l i ti : '�' '�"�` �jj s��e•y i. � ,j.. . �. ` C�x�'Ya3 ' d �y�� . ..�/.i 2��`ff i..�?��3c'.fk'P�r�i��l«!.i�.....�-• —. ._.. . . . . _ p t/i��.�.. d ayS � . . . • .. ` f � • � ' s ' � �' .�� :._ . I I' . �`. _ - -I ; � � �� _ � ''� � . YY� � � o � . :a�:'l� . - . . r^ � --0 � "` , , .r;I, , � � __ __ . . .��i . ,�'�+�� I � . . :;f:^-:� ;� 1''� ' . . '�;<i { — �''� I _�� . . �,:� � . � a'Q �• � _��, f �!...� _,� n .`:��❑ ❑ J:� _ _ ❑ = Q ❑ ,I . . � I ' . _ :! z � o z � .; � �� ° � I� ' ° �;� _ < . ' '�;', Q -- � � ��; � u � ��' a '-� ° a � w u :,,�;� =( _�;;,; � , =� o ❑ ;�- - � : Q .. ::�. �, �r1 L � � � L N � 4 � � .J�;�;: � �'� o �r � � � + 3 � � - u � :::4I '� ° �:;.,.. - ;;�:. . . ,� �.r� __ _... r.�� , � .5� ..y� ..._.__.. ... ... . , .. _�. �.�� , .... ._ .._ � . _ . . .. . . .-:��.� � .. ' � � . • J. _ . . . - . .. . . �� . � .. � � � . t ' 5, 3'd. � -;�� `��..; . . �� 'r . , ;,�,.r��" ��: � �� ,_�;:'' . Y ti� ' t� ,j p' `� - �..f E �Y t. � •.� R / pfY>:rfJ^� �'��'�Y 1 �.-'. ' {; 4 ��p ,` ' !_ .i•t �� N .. + ,�l � ; � �.. . .. A A4'� � • R �'�� .��i'��.. 1 ..� .�- ,.. 'n� �}�1. � t:.�� t .� �{!t? � %`1'� � ;. �. �.�': y�cS;: . "� � Afa b,� f �r` �s',a ::�'� .� ,f_ �i�;a$w!��/�, � j�ar� q wr?q.�� ..i ��. . ,^��K��.: .._ .�VS-1i'l}.,. . . � � '�.x. :.L��. . .. .. . . , ..f „ . .- • �� o►��o�f co.cu�_,��s : i t'I;KIN t;;JliN1Y . 1*u'.:ii�.1i:��itSlc)Cl:�llJtiS . Da1tY. ._�-.°°�-9-�-- �.,,_ j� /��t A` b��-�e'�IS9rv�j j��bn�` O!" 3/L 1117/aS�. „ Q+�_ John McBride ' - (::;1 i'tia _..�-�..,----- „ : . . 303 Aspen Airport gPenneCO C81611 � ,� � . �, June 28, 1990 j�'.;: >. � , '",� p�my Marqerum Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena '�: ;"�il� Aspen, CO 81611 ' :,-� Re: 316 Aspen Airport Business Center y GMQS Commercial Application � � Dear Ms. MaYgerum i '•. , � This letter is to infozm you that I autho=ize the Applicant, ` t Stufuna Corporation, to make the above referencad application. "r�' Sincerely, .�� BY' o ert Owner �� ,7 n McBride, P Y u. , �; r ,y�_`� � � � noY� � ��l,�a.��, . . ��_' �s� � � � - � � G�� ,� . . _ _,.,� � ��.. �a � �� - � . '—� � Ylo �� d� o� �.OYn7r� e . >..� r� �� "� -� ��.�J ;'� � v✓� � s�,� �la�► � _ 1 �' VT � ��'' � � � ,�,��5 �, � �� ti��- `'9��c� � d° s 2�i. i�oT we �'��s. ``:�; ��,� �i►�cQ G� �c�a"�""�' r�r"� �,,, .;,., ��" �.�� , j..rry�. � � . ��` : . _� G`�:� . .. .. -.-. ', .� _,_ , _ . _ . . �t . . ��. _ _ , .. ,.. .:. . , '. ��ti ....._w..,._......... ......... . . - .. . , _ '. , ' .t.. . .. �- , . . �� . . . 'TdCV` � ` . . . ; .. . �� '.�j. ,, . • ;��' . . ' ' , � �, �� ' r�� . � ai •�, `.a:- �� -. .. �L�� - .<. ; `t�� +�y ' �.. . � U A .'.� � vs � '}r��q. ¢/ �P ''��4�+`.�8�'l�ary'�� .�� ,L2 r 3 A�'.F� 4�y�f`,��`� � '� ."! kf r"71- ��4q'�},t,y�F�t N�i , �_ -�' � . :.. � .. . ' � � Y' y . 1��,83'� '. ii .`'.. . ."�".k��r6d.�..��k k1��j��"C�t�"i.�i�1:3d��!s,�!`!-� . • .F' . . ... ,_ �:_ .. . �\ jt;. a!:.rlS��-ibt ' . . " ��C�,GC15.�P�i�� , BOAFiU C0�`S�Y ,1 , � . . r�Tri►� � L�r::,;c��:� fl 4,t;t,��c Ilearir,,i y� �L'��x�. �aTMJC* � .. o�tt,:�r_ . � Q-!.s Cubiecc(�'�,��' .�...�— � " - �xn.nu. �.:�-—'` 1 5�.. ,;, � ', s � � �.� ... � �� . � _ . _.: ._ ,� �� , ;'.. , . .. . .:�, . ........ , _ . _ � � 5 � , � $ �� ;: � Q � /�� --.� r`<' si'� 1'_ �h�—a� ' ` � . s � � ' . , �,�.,. � '� T� �9�� 3 �'. E�� - �� . � � �, . , � :.; . , , - '�:� • - .. . � .�� . . � , :�� ..,�yy(� � • tk::; �'P' ppp111 .`-�Y� � �� '� . s� �� i M ;-� � ` . . . i� ' :�,;` � � �� . - . �'•. `•� �_ • �� . - �,�, • _ . i ;;�� }�� .�J_ � •�� d� �� I. •�5:� p�� _ y � .�� . � -'Fj »' i/. , �:�� X +'S�� } � .. _ _r;:, :,, .. , � ... ; � _. ;.4r: _ , , q � :5.__...._ � _ .. ' ___._ �'.,•,,„�' :y�` . ��}I: � ` � � � U�d". �, � . �� 1 v:i' .4 (.r :`. . . � w' ,��!r ��r �[i'r. . . . . i �� n� . �� .� -�.