The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutbocc.min.reg.06251991 -,�, .. �'-�� , .. _ � , ,... . . . ;, -.:.. , ,:.. .,.,,; ...:,.;� .. .. ... . , � ��.,. �;,.f �/�y{, �Z.•��(J.l..!,, '�...�.. � /t�lj.,.. r . 'yl,;,�ti�'• PITRIN COiTNTY COMM288IONERB ` REGIIT,AR MESTING AGENDA , - DiStriCt CourtTOOm i, . , TUESDAY. JQNS 25. 1991 , 1:30 - 4:30 1. FBO DISCUSSIONS - Board Room REGULAR MEETING - Distriat Courtroom ;•:��". i i - 5:30 PM PIIBLIC COMMENT , . _ ;i'.�X'. CONBENT AGENDA ; 1HINUTFs5 , 2. Clean Air Advisory Hoard Appointment ! 3. Inactive Mine Reclamation Agreement, Tom Newland Resolutions, Debe Nelson � � 4. 1) Adopting Revised Ihvestment Policy 2) Changing Official Custodian of Funds y 3) Designating Eligible Securities Dealers !�?!- �� c,s r � .� '1.:'r�. . LAND IISB POSLIC $EARINGS :,f : ,� 5. Roaring Fork Mobile Home Park Licensing, Rezoning, Cindy � Houben {Applicant requests tabling) � 6. Tofany General Submission, Ellen Sassano � 7. Castle Creek Banks Lot Split General Submission, 1041 Hazard (;. Review and Employee Dwelling Unit, Ellen Sassano F 8. Jeffries Ranch General Submission, Ellen Sassano z 9. Eagle Pines Subdivisfon PMH Rezoning, Ellen Sassano (pending '• ''� site visit) I � LAND II8& ACTIONS f , . 10. Owl Creek Ranch PUD Amendment, Mary Lackner � .a 11. ASPCOL Corporation Employee Dwelling Unit, Mazy Lackner `: 12. Resolution Extending the Deadline for commercial GMP ' i Applications from July 1, Amy Margerwn f � - '" E ADMIN'ISTRATIVE ACTION3 • 13. Hunter Creek Access Agreement, Mark Fuller (subject to resolution of sewer line liability question) 14. Resolution Setting Operating Rules for Regular Meetinqs, Reid ' Haughey + ' ;. . ADJOURN � ° , PLEA3E NOTE: ALL PUBLIC REARINGB ARE NOTICED FOR 5:3d PM. ACTUAL TI24E8 WILL VARY. �' ' .,. � :_� `�, - . �� . �l` ��. '2 �� ' _ y �, ��,.s ,;-�:.�+ ::i� .� .:�:./ � _ , ��Yy. ,. � . ,.. , .1 _ 1 . • ' .. �_i.. �y{ �Y�tiW . . . . , .. ' 9" - . � � / ��. ��,� - . - i. r ��, s .. . .. _. . � � . �� . -. � . . . � � . ... .. . ��ry�'�.'Y�1� .. . , . . ' :�'�t��'�. � � � � � a:Y: . - ' � . ;$S;'aVcn.��;: ' x ��^ , � • �� .?.� ' �M��;. .J.j: . . � . .. . . _ �- . -. � � �.. . .._- 1�;;,��,: APP'fiOVED pT �s�,Z�y : JUL`8 1991 ��'�`��_:: i MTNUTES MEETIN6 PITRIN CDIINTY BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS : - '. ,. REGIILAR MEETING . " JUNE 25. 1991 CALL To ORDER: Chairman Ethridge called the meeting to order at �•�r 5:30 p.m. �':.s..<.. . MSMBERB PRESENT: Commissioners Wayne Ethridge, Jim True, Fred � ' ��, Crowley, Bill Tuite and Herschel Ross � � PIIBLIC CoPIIiENT: Raymond ogre asked to resubmit an application for a lot line adjustment to the Commissioners in the same packet as �f before. He said he was told by the Planning Department that the R , ' resubmission fee will be $4,900. However, they may refund him at the rate of $152.00 per hour. He said he feels this fee is ; _ extraordinarily high, and requested that the fee be commensurate L ;� with the amount of work done rather than four or five times of the ;;,-:;, amount of work they are going to do. `r ;. Ethridge advised Mr. Ogre, that the planning staff has told the Board it costs to operate the joint planning department on an hourly basis, and that portion of the fee which is not actually utilized in the analysis of his project will be refunded, and that is standard policy. , � Wilk Wilkinson appeared before the Board to request a work session with Commission members to see if a compromise could be worked out with regard to his pending litigation against the County, the • � Hunter Creek cutoff road issues, and the building permit issue. � �� ' Mr. Wilkinson was advised that the matter will be discussed with the county attorney, and staff will get back to him about a �� " . ' possible session. ; � Ramona Markalunus appeared before the Board to present a resolution � in support oE a integrated transportation system. A copy of this ` resolution is made a part of this record as ERIiIBIT ��A��. ►' i Stanley Natal appeared before the Board to express his appreciation • ,. � for the chip and sealing of the road through his property. ( , i CONSENT AGENDA• �':• . APPROVAL OF MIN[iTSB OF JUNE 4. AND JIINE 11. 1991 ' � ' APPOINTMENT OF LIL LIVELY TO THE CLEAN AIR ADVI60RY BOARD � i BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 1 JIINE 25� 1991 � . � !� . f. �K � , . .__ _ . .._ . t 1/ �� Y .. . ./:(.:. . . . . .. . 1 . �.':.. . `-e�..s . . . � .. -� _ . . ��p�. �� :� / . . . . � .� �,w�3 3 i�� . - ' . � . I�. ,�Q��• . .�� :� • ' . �-�w��i� . . . �r.t'r-^.TS.. . . ' . ..aj'�-s�.,u,�;; � , . . . .. - ��...ls , . .��,�+G''.� , ' , .frt,; Q`'�a'�'}u`:�,�� .��j'ti'„''aj✓r � � _ . ^ ��}yr.s�. . .� h F�. ;:a._Zy]�Z�- �3:�.Z/{��: aaf(�� }r �� • + " n�'�' .\r. ...�V:�':. . ' . '_y4��1. � � ' . .._.... .. ...:. . . . .. ��..k:�:.'�'. . ' " .-. . —. . . . .. - ��t��s��r � r:7'e�.�}f xs+,.�� I�'. . �j,{..�yi,:�.�'�.'. g.:^_H':L�p t,��.',�}. APPROVING INACTIVE MINS RECLAMATION AGREEMENT -. Commissioner Tuite moved to approve the Consent Aqenda with the r. exceptioa o! the Renised Investmeat Policy. With a second by , � • :.. Commisaioaer Ross, the motion passed unanimously. � RE30LDTION CHANGING OFFICIAL CUSTODIAN OF FIINDS RESOLIITION DESIGNATINC3 ELIGIBLE SECIIRITIES DEALERS _ , _r RESOLIITION ADOPTING REVISED INVESTMENT POLICY - MOTION TO TABLE INDEFINITSLY - PASSED IINANIMOUSLY "�'.�'' c • :., r ,� Commissioner True moved to table this resolution indefinitely 't��. � pendinq further information from staff. with a second by �,•t - Commissioner Crowley, the motion passed unanimously. -0 ' •.f RESOLUTION SETTING OPERATING HOURS FOR REGULAR MEETINGB - MOTION ' TO APPROV& AS AMENDED - PASSED IINANIMOIISLY - Ethridge summari2ed ',� : this item by stating, that the Board is proposing to start regular ;, ; meetings at five o'clock unless otherwise noticed on the second and '�, : - fourth Tuesdays of the month. Public meetings will be required to : i ;,=. v adjourn at 9:00 p.m. unless a majority of the quorum votes in favor � � t ; . of an extension. Such extension shall be in half hour increments, and land use public hearings are to have a little more structure than in the past. A discussion ensued with regard to Item 3 which states "such extensions shall be in half hour increments. �', � , Commissioner Crowley moved to strict Item 3. With a second by 'R+t! Commissioner Tuite, the motion passed unanimously. �F .A� . . :�Y_, Commissioner Ross moved to strike Item 5 limitinq land use public ;:i; � hearings to oae hour. Aith a secoad by Commissioner Crowley, the motion passed unanimously. t� j Commissioner Crowley moved approval of the resolution as amended ;� `.tP� • with an effective date of July 9, 1991. With a second by ��,�5' Commissioner Tuite, the motion passed unanimously. ` ROARING FORR MOBILE HOME PARR LECENSING RE20NING - MOTION TO TASLE '� , , �' PASSED [JNANIMOUSLY Commissioner Crowley moved to table this matter to August 27, 1991. With a secoad by Commissioner Ross, tha motion passed unanimously. � RESOLOTION APPROVING TOFFANY 1041 HAZARD REVIEW AND GBNERAL � �`r SUBMI83ION REVIEW - MOTZON TO APPR011E - PASSED IINANIMOIISLY - Ellen Sassano, representing the Planning Office, sumatarized this item as �, ;� ` . ' an application submitted by William and Sydney Toffany to construct ,•��. ` 't �- BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 2 JIINE 25� 1991 `,jyir �: i�- :5,i,� �{ . ;�� - ,- - ' : , � ,r�.�� . . 3;�. <•. , .. . . �' - . , r: , , -- '��.�.�y` ` . .�� . . . :��.:• TSf.��Y.' . `.s�i�r.y.r.� . , . �,,;;..;,,r.; ,;• . •h0�. .fti;�, • . .;g;�y�.,�.Ik�. , , .a�Y.`�.A`, . . � ' T� AsJ 1 'ir-y„�.�s;�ti, $�'� . . ��"•7 a;;:'�` �V: .. ��, �� .�.1�:"� .. . � - . . .. . �i''1��* �.. �i:�.�"�f .i , , . �,_�.��A�v�r,`;S%:�. , a single family residence, a garage and a storage shed on a site which is approximately 38.44 acres in size. Structures are to be contained within a one acre building envelope, and access to the site is via the Shield-O Mesa Road. � , .� . The Planning Commission approved the application on May 7, 1991. � ' � The Commission and staff recommend approval of the General � Submission request subject to conditions in staff's memorandum. - A copy of these conditions are made a part of this reaord as ERHIBIT ��g°. Sassano said the only issue is relative to the access road and � ' !' . emergency access up to the building envelope. She said there was a concern at the Planning and Zoning Commission review, that the � �-' �' Shieldo Mesa Road does not assure emergency vehicular access given '' �`'•� the existing condition of the road. Therefore, the applicant has �._ agreed to improve to the minimum standard required, the Shieldo �� ' Mesa Road from Snowmass Creek Road up to his lot into compliance so it will provide access for emergency vehicles. Also, the �' applicant is working with the neighbors to try and promote the ,� . formation of a road improvement district; that district is not in � ' place yet, but he has found some interested parties and it may be " � on its way. In the event a district is formed, the Planning �; '. Commission has recommended that the applicant join the Aistrict. ��"` r . A discussion ensued with regard to a possible cost sharing by all - the neighbors with regard to the improvements of the road. Bill Toffany stated, that he is hoping to get cooperation from his neighbors. However, there is nothing he is planning do right now to £orce the issue. , , . Sassano addressed the matter by stating, that the planning staff � is aware of the issue, and as other applications come in they can recommend a condition of approval that says if a district is �� ' formed, the applicant will required to join it. Otherwise -l%. enforcement is tough from staff's side. i � � t '� , Ethridge referred to the Division of Wi1dliFe's letter and Randy I� � Cote's concern with regard to the effect that this development will `;�'� have on the wildlife in the area, and also his letter with regard ` i to his recommended conditions. A copy of these letters are made a part of this record as ExHIBIT ��C��. ► , Sassano stated, that Randy Cote's initial referral comment �=� � indicates that this is a fairly important migration area, and he ' • was concerned about cumulative impact development in the area, and , , , would prefer to see no development in the area. And this was a . concern that was discussed at great length by the Planning + � .� � Commission level. Therefore, he went back out to the site and basically indicated, that given, that these are 35 acze parcels homes_will be hopefully spaced to the extent that there will still Fti(� HOARD OF CODNTY COMMI88IONER6 3 JIINE 25� 1991 ,e�. �' - t �, f i f , 1,,!s � - 'i �a��i.� . • .. !:� . .. . . , . . -- - �� . � . . . . . . . �., . y' � "•:ij:i,vl, . . . a"� � r�' . r . � � . � �u`. � �h�.�• � - . :- . � �E.��;��:• �� +�?��r5,�' . �, �� '1'.� %.^:='7{'. IJ&il'-.'.'v.�=., . . . . K+TD�`.'� ' . , .ipTi:;.;^_�X� . . � ��'�ky_r.., . • . � � . =1�'�;�:;r� :�'z�U.�� . � . ?�n,'r. ;A7y�'�"�H.�.'lij'�: ' , '�'ry"'.r.°Y:, i��, "r� i ��..'�7F;i�,-e • � � � t� :!,_.., ,. .�;. �� .. , � ^�k� .-:.i_�.� ,. . . .. . :::. ... . . .. �.... . _. . � . . . - . . . ... . . . . . .. . . . �..� ., . . .. . ,_ ... � r . . .. . . . . x�4��M+ ��a .F '�. ��,z�,}.��y.r-�� r/�.�P:�3',�: �i.'t-..�,��fj:,J��. �Y'.=y'?^j t':,+.'e'!_: be significant open areas for migration. In addition to that, his thought if this area is developed to a great extent, that the elk will still have the Monastery property as a corridor, and this was : his final determination. She said that the applicant has worked s., with Cote to locate the building envelope to mitigate to the best extent possible, the effect on the wildlife habitat. ' � Chairman Ethridge opened the hearing to public comment. There . .._ being no comment, he closed the public hearing. - � Commissioner Crowlep moved to approve the application with staff�s �• recommended conditions, the Planning commission�s recommettded '..�. condition dealing with the road issue, and referencinq alI the 1041 conditions of approval relative to constructioa activity. With a ''`,'�;.�''' second by Commiasioner Ross, tY►e motion passed unanimously. - " RE80LIITION APPROVING CASTLB CREER BANRS PARTNERSHIP LOT SPLIT �;'� ' CARETARER IINIT AND 1041 HAZARD 12EVIEW - MOTION TO APPROVE - PABSED IINANIMOU3LY - Sassano summarized this item as an application submitted by Castle Creek Banks Partnership £or a density reduction �,s . Zot sp2it on a 50.4 acre parcel. Two lots, each of which are to �' _ contain one residence and one of which is to cortain an attached ;� ;"_ caretaker unit are proposed on the site. She proceeded to review ; the issues from the Planning Commission meeting with Commission �'��''� members. A written copy of these are made a part of this recard i as EXHIBIT ��D��. 4 Sassano said the Planning Commission and planning staff recommend � approval of the .application subject to the conditions shown in staff's memorandum with one change that a variance request be �;. � allowed for the building envelope on Lot 2. A copy of these • recommended conditions are made a part of this record as EXHIBIT nEn� � �� , Chairman Ethridge opened the hearing to public comment. �� ' :�;. ; Gideon Kaufman proceeded to review the site locations. He said ? they gave a lot oE thought to the selection of the two particular ` �� ; site, and feel they are the best sites possible to mitigate the �� concerns of staff and the P&Z. --+�.� � i Kaufman proceeded to address the conditions of approval. He � referred to Condition No. 1. He said he would like same understanding. that they are going to be developing the properties � � ' into single family or something else so they do not run into a problem down the line. • • . It was agreed, that an additional condition could be added to state "that all residential and accessory development will be confined � to the building envelope." A discussion ensued with regard to Condition No. 18. It was agreed `� ' BOARD UF COIINTY COMMISBIONER3 4 JUNE 25� 1991 �,. :s'�y . , , i� �1 . �yj{� �.'/ , F � . . . . . ��— . � � . .. . ' � , .;q � - �- . ' ..-.. . - . . . �''�.. , . � L~{ .��4� . ' � . " . . � �� 5��. . � .� � --�..� � �.. . , *� ��' . j,s•:�'..n` � .. : . ..i�tj�,e,�l.`M�,i�`: ' - . . . �ti.�. . " $��2A� . ' . ' . .��*�'��'�'� . . . t��,;_�-i�� , f'•t5'"+i"' �;;i;� . � . ' �� . 7-n � �w�. i" .�yy�i�5 T�l� ' N- r::+rfy. :s...: '�� :. . _ _. � , ,;;. , ��_. . .. .. . , .. . ��;�;ti�� . i� ;�,�,^,�:,�:: `�''`?S.�k''=� ' that a condition will be added to state "the setback for the property shall be shown prior to recording of the Final Plat." Joe Wells, representing the applicant, referred to Condition No. , ;.� 24. He said he has a concern with the language "riparian/wetland" • " `� because he is not sure whether the Corps of Engineers� regulations ' " deal with the word "riparian" as much as with the word "wetland". ._ He asked that the Board consider taking out the word "riparian." _ It was agreed, that the language will remain as written. . .•:r Chairman Ethridge closed the public hearing. Commissioner Crowley sugqested an ameadment to Condition No. 22 {:: �`y��; , . that the aaretaker unit shall comply �ith the rules and requlations � which are in place at the time the building permit is pulled. It ,��,i ' rras aqreed that this amendment would be made. �-s . Commissioner Ross moved approval of the Castle Creek Banks '�� . Partnership Lot Split, Caretaker IInit and 1041 Hazard Review as ! � amended. With a second by Commissioner Tuite, the motion passed ,�: %. unanimously. ��; �� RESOLIITION APPROVING 1041 SPECIAL REVIEA GENERAL SIIBMISSION AND •�'I%'. . CODS AMBNDMENT TO ALLOW SPECIAL REVIEA FOR GIIBST HOUSES ON y HISTORICALLY DESIGNATBD SITE FOR JEFFERIES - MOTION TO APPROVE - PASSED IINANIMOUSLY - Sassano summarized tis item as an application submitted by Boyd L. and Sharon K. Jefferies to construct a single family residence and to retain historically significant structures ,� , of the Christensen Ranch. Existing structures on site are to be f�� , + renovated, relocated and/or removed. The existing ranch house in ! site is proposed to be used as a guest house. Specifically the °;� ; applicants are requesting the following: i . i ��:. , � 1. Geologic, Wildlife, Historic and Floodplain Environmental ;•�:, Hazard Review. �. ;j 2. General Submission Review. `.�ti� � 3. Code Amendment (sponsored by staff) to allow Special ;'�;'I Review for Guest Houses on Historically Designated Sites 4. Special Review for a Guest House. i � � j �., , Sassano said the Planning Commission did review the application for - � � � 1041 concerns and did approve that request which included a historic review under the 1041 provisions of the code. She proceeded to review the proposed site plan with Commission members. ,� `4'1 rr . . Roxanne Eflin proceeded to review the historic aspects of the application. She said this particular parcel has been determined '��'c� ' eligible for listing on the national register so it is an important (' � - BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 5 JIINE 25� 1991 �:��!�• , :� • `�,.:1,:. �'� . '�� f -��.f - ' ,-- ." �'.' + ::.' , i' .� f'�y � � � -s��r�;: ,� . -- �,yrr�.,,;i'� .::p.7,0 . . ,,tti��` . +��4^S�'� „1��',.�^kM'. . ' :i'�•y._�rn� � ' . a..`'�+`[";C�r . . 'SL^..'^,ni:�, �� .. �'�s�%.: � " ' .'��'ResS'a:r"� . ' . c��hQ;-ct7�:.� .�7 yc.:+; - . .:u. �� - . .f. ' .,��; �� -�.� � --- -- _ ,.,�, . �� ...�' . . ... : . . . . _ - . r ,��[ . '� „ ':?�`i�`�.: `'ST, A ,;... '.�� }I parcel in the County as far as a rural ranch in context. She said the applicants are planning to relocate a number of things, and the P&Z approved what the applicant is proposing. She proceeded to review the proposed site plan, the proposed relocation and use of .; ; the existing structures for preservation purposes. The original . • ranch house is not being moved, and the idea of having the code • amendment for a guest house is an incentive for this historic source so it does not have to be completely eliminated from the � parcel. , Sassano continued by addressing the issues of concern with the �'r ,� application. A copy of these written issues are made a part of this record as EXHIBIT �'F'�. • '_";..'r• � . tvith regard to the issue of the creek reZocation, the proposal has ':,. . • been withdrawn, and therefore, the conditions relative to the �j relocation of the creek will be eliminated from the recommended conditions of approval. -.s Sassano presented Commission members with the proposed amendment �� , to the land use code relating to the guest house. A copy of this ' ,. amendment is made a part of this record as EXHZBZT ��G��. She said �� '� „ the Planning Commission recommends approval of this amendment as .:�2�.;,.; drafted. Also, the Planning Commission has recommended approval �� i . of the guest house per special review code criteria. She said the only general submission issue remaining is the scenic quality � associated with the proposed residence. The residence is proposed to be approximately 8,000 square feet in size, and will be located � on a knoll on the site. As people travel on Owl Creek Road, there "� is no question that the residence will be visible. The applicant �i; � has worked to try to design the home that it has the least possible visual impact. They have also agreed to do some planing of spruce ,��. and aspen trees in the area and to maintain as much natural ' „�'� vegetation as possible. ;:k� • Sassano said a bike path has also been requested by the county �!�' engineer. She said the Owl Creek bike path currently stops on ' i either side of the property, and the county engineer has requested .�y�� ' • a 10 foot easement on the property. The applicant has Zooked at it and tried to make it work, but it is very difficult to provide .., ��. a 10 foot easement in the axea because the large barn that is on ' � site is right on the road, and therefore, there is not 10 feet to give in that area. In addition, spring creek is coming up on the � i' _ , property and the bike path would have to cross that creek. ' r.:,. Sassano said the Planning Commission and staff recommend approval of the general submission, code amendment and special review for � the guest house subject to the conditions in the memo with the exception of the conditions regarding the reZocation of the creek. `� �41 :, '. . A copy of these conditions aze made a part of this record as EXHIBIT ��g��, . :,(�! - BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 6 JUNE 25� 1991 'j � � ii�'��r �. il • ;�.•.:1 ,.`, � `t. � , � - • �.;� ��' ��r. . , q�� f� ` � . � . _� r �. �yM��,��;` .. ' � �.�uR`L�.rty. . . �,*,�"c.'i:+;��f . ' • . aw.: t' K:'4iv,,YS? , � . . �� _: A`�+' .F�'=�. - . . . � ) �f� • .'K�'.,�"�,� . ' . . i-��4d`' ': !�/3i_.•+�. � � .'R./��"��.f: . �!_"'y.��Y��`.-�Y�.?,. . •oit �+. � ' �'¢ � r;'r�k. '_Y`.:. ��% ," �Y .i� . . _ .... . _., . . . -'- . . .. .. - . . . . " ' ' . . . '' . . . . . . . . _. ...h�1�`��J3'l�+l�hlY7 � 7'Q�,V � 1�;;.%i,{.t_,�{�1,_': � . ��..;.r. �t�• .ct,^.±!€.�`t^�i'::�: A discussion ensued with regard to the requested bike path. Mr. Jefferies said that the County has visited the site and � toqether they looked at the property line and the road width, and :>::� ; they both think, that there is room for the bike path within the • ' County right-of-way even where the barn comes out next to the road. Further discussion ensued. � Mr. Jefferies said they would be willing to give a foot but they _ would not be willing to give ten feet because then they would lose �`?� 25 percent of their frontage along Owl Creek Road because they only have 40 feet or frontage before getting up into the slope area. '�`-�� :; ;�',,�. . Chafrn+an Ethridge asked Mr. Jeffezies if he would be willing to :*• ' dedicate a five foot easement. i•' , Mr. Jefferies responded, that if he gives a five foot easement from �f the County property line to his barn it would be inside their barn. s� .. � And he would not be willing to do this. He said the property line a• is three feet from the County property line to the edge of the "� �. barn. Also, if there was to be a fence installed along the bike :�; �'' � . path, he would not be able to use the barn door. .��;,%, Ethridge stated, that the easement agreement could specify that the County would not fence the easement along the barn area. It was agreed, that an easement of two and one half feet shall be granted along the Jefferies property up to both side of the barn and then one foot in front of the barn with no fencing in front of �'� � . the barn. Chairman Ethridge opened the hearing to public comment. 1 �� `�'�} Mr. Jefferies stated, that they have worked closely with Roxanne -G4 to try to come up with a package that everybody would be happy �: :j with, and they intend to make it a beautiful project. '..::��, . Commission members thanked the Jefferies for trying to preserve '� some of the heritage in the community. . ��,, ; i Commissioner Ross moved approval of the Jefferies 3041 Special Review, General Submission and the Code Amendment to allow Special .. � • • Review for Guest Houses on Historica2lp Desiqnated sites with conditions as amended. ,. Commissioner Crowley seconded the motion with an amendment to , Condition No. 19 (a) that the language be amended to state , '�sprinkling spstems shall be instal].ed in new residences.�� `>"�:: � . Commissioner Ross accepted this amendment to his motion. ;;;;° . - �:. '- � HOARD OF COUNTY COlIISI88TONERB 7 JIINE 25, 1991 ��?�- , � :;l: � ,�..y� ` i ;( `��'�' ,;, . _ . l•,. . ,.. , ,, . . .. . ; . . . , - ,; 'S5u�y.>f. . . . ..� �'� ��. .. j � . . . ... : i. �' .� ��'-.. '.. . . . - „.� - � . � . ��. . � .. . " � . . :r � -�15� . , i � ��. .. �i"�� ' I.. ta, --- ">:,�?,�t�R . J•� ��T' . . . . . ' . ��LY�: _' ` . . . `r,`;y-'.;�� . � � ' � ' . • l y�4i ? r.`�/..Y:H� , . � ylt/'M1� �i?'�..A��.-1�{. � , , �� . �An RF ��r' " r�� ♦ ��1, kyH _ _. ._u --- -e ,`.: .. � ..� .,.. ... _ .. .. . ... r � - �:�-.� .._ , . .�... .. .. . ;� � ...._. . , . . � ... � .._ ... :yt....'i-_� . . �..�..� �.. ._ . . .. . .. . �... .... � , . . � ,,_. .. . ... . . .. . . _ . . ..,, . ._.... ��+,y-�_:: .��c.� , � �� rr �'9'r;•'.i:::... :;.,��.4�i.,:.S_ l The motion passed unanimously. EAGLE PINE� BIIBDIVISION PMH RBZONIN(i - MOTION TO TABLB - PASSED IINANIMOUBLY - Sassano summarized this item as an application :��,� � submitted by James V. Redd, Robert Ritchie, Louis N. Scholnik and , . David S, Swan (aka, Redd Mountain Holdings, Inc.) for Subdivision, • Planned Unit Development, Rezoning and 1041 Hazard Review for the � Eagle Pines Affordable Housing Lots. � " The applicant requests approval for the subdivision of a portion - of Lots 1 and 2 of the Eagle Pines Subdivision aka, the Aspen :'y~ Buttermilk Associates PUD, into three affordable housing lots. The lots are to be deed restricted pursuant to the Housing Authority's • affordable housing guidelines, and are intended to satisfy the `� �'.�� a£fordable housing requirement of the Eagle Pines Subdivision. She ;.; . . said there were two issues from the Planning and Zoning Commission ;•� - one being a concern by other neighbors in the area, that the development would not be compatible with the neighborhood due to r the density of the proposed lots. The other issue relating to the � density. She said the Housing Authority is recommending that the �' ' lots conform to moderate income or Category 3 guidelines, but the �, ; Planning Commission recommended that the two lots be sold as M: �: �, Category 4 income level units with a cash-in-lieu payment and/or �!' another option as chosen by the application for mitigating the !��`-, ; � remaining of the Eagle Pines Subdivision's affordable housing impacts. The recommendation is based on the finding that development at the category 4 income level will be more consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. A copy of these issues are made a part of this record as EXHIBIT ��P�. � Sonny Vann, representing the applicant, stated, that the settlement � ' ; agreement with the Aspen Buttermilk Associates to chose whether _ they wanted to pay $250,000 cash-in-lieu or to provide three affordab2e housing Zots. The BoaYd expressed a preference for . ' three lots, and Aspen Buttermilk Associates elected not to provide them and recorded the subdivision plat, and the project was �' subsequently sold to this group. He said the Bob Ritchie contacted '� him and asked that he investigate the ahility to satisfy the y�" � affordable housing requirement on site because they have a concern � about affordable housing in the area. He proceeded to explain the ��, factors that went into their decision to propose the lots in this �, ' particular spot one being, that there are very few other areas on the site flat enough to be subdivided for affordable housing lots. � , The other one being able to provide access to the lots because of previous agreements with other landowners. �, , , Vann proceeded to address how they propose to mitigate the impacts F , on the adjacent neighborhood, i.e, clustering the lots, preserving the large trees, and making the houses subject to architectural guidelines. � With regard to the Category 4 selection, they felt these would �� i t �� _ BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 8 JUNE 25� 1991 i'� � �. . f. r ��,�a . . . . � - � ��- . � � - , ,�,�,�. ' F . . �. . . .. . . . ' � . . . . . . t: �.' ��'��;�� ` ' � . —� �,i, ..:• �'s:� . .��:K�:� � ;��.�. . � yy._::-y�,�:. � . yi•° t'r � . . �-4 A . � - , . aJ��Kf��.� � . . ��;`, . r�.+�'i:ry�`,;`, ' . %rid+2�a'�:: . - ' . . t�azFu: � �� . v �;r�. •'«�, ..�: . � ,. ,. . . _ . _ _ . _. _. . . • .. _ . . ��:�'_�� `Y�{''`5,Y,'. �F."!:.Y�}Y��:F��_. � appeal to the kinds of people who are at a two bedroom or three bedroom Centennial or Midland who have close to 1,000 square feet and have considerable equity in their homes, and wish to move up for family reasons. a Category 4 would also allow a larger " structure and would also result in a much nicer structure than �' �- '� would be seen in Cateqory i or 2. ' � � With regard to the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation - of a two lot solution, that leaves the applicant in a somewhat - difficult position. He said it was never their intent to force the � - development on the surrounding neighborhood, they are not obligated - to produce three lots, but have come forth and expressed an � :'� . interest in doing so. They also have concluded that a two lot solution does not work from a cost benefit point of view e.g. they ��, ,"�.��` still have to extend the utilities, landscape the entire site. and � plus they would have to pay one third of the $250,000 that is s'•;' ' required under the cash-in-lieu formula. He said the project is ;�� not going ko be any more visible with three lots than with two with { larger square faotage. x Bob Ritchie stated, that the people involved in the project have � �� held property in Aspen for over lo years. And they have watched �' ;'. - deterioration of employee housing market, watched the migration of y, "" the professional people that would end up in this employee housing, r� '�:`� � down valley or leave the valley, and watched a significant turn ' ` over in the people that try to stay here because they are not happy with their housing. There£ore, they felt they had a rare opportunity here to do something to contribute to a partial soZutioa of the problem, and to do with negatively impacting the neighborhood much. He said he thinks the community is lucky to � have developers that have this attitude because it is very rare. ' ± i Chairman Ethridge opened the hearing to public comment. He read a letter into the record from the Buttermilk Homeowner's . Association. A copy of this letter is made a part of this record � ' as EXHIBIT rrJee Jane Hamilton, representing Art Pfister and adjacent landowner of the 8agle Pines Subdivision, stated that he has no objection to the �� proposal to build employee housing nor does have any objection to ��` , ; the number of lots or homes proposed. What he does object to is ��. the concentration of three lots on the tiny piece of land because �t� ; it is so out of character with the rest of the neighborhood and does not meet the County's own PMH rezoning criteria which � � encourages PMH housinq to concentrate near areas of existing �=" density. ' Lenny Oates, representing Ralph Woods, stated that they feel the ,. ' same way Art Pfister does. Glenn Horn, representing Jeff Suseum, stated that Jeff has no :� : objection to employee housing on the site. However he objects to `� BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISBIONERS 9 JIINE 25� 1991 �'� ' " ,;;y i � yi� ;. f . � � ��,�`�'... � �; .; '.. . . - , .; , �` `, • . , �-: . �}...:s.: � . �.' `�. :. s�',+':`t�..�;ii � . '- . . - s;` ':�'r�, .. . ,•�'•f'�e�;� � . --.— r r f s o� . 1��` . - . .. � . •-,y,r,��',.�"u�: , • ' � Y� ..Ys'�J��•��_�i:� _ ' . . :�fiit�'YSf�"� � � . , YR. . 4St��#a. ,; ' . . ' �' .'a.�,!�*��.' . :a:. y,.1' � ;;�'�j.�s,,: . . ..i/.'f!1!� .iii;' . Y� y. a�U'�a " . y,�� • .+r k.�y�. ii, '� , .iV.. � K � � ' - ' .-. _. . .. . .. . .. . .. .. . . .. � ..:. . , �.li;"..... .... .. . .. . . ... � � . ,. � . � . . . . . _ . . . .. .. - . F�` ��fY�� "'s� � �'��.'��.�.,r�. Ht��,yi i.'�'�F;,: �i�,�.�'�ji.. _ an urban solution in a rural area and the impacts associated with the proposed lots. - There were several other neighbors who expressed concerns with reqard to the negative impacts associated with the density of the . . proposed lots. . � Chairman Ethridge closed the hearing to public comment. ' A discussion ensued by Commission members with regard to the � : proposal, and whether the matter should be tabled pending a site :•; visit. Commissioner Crowley moved to table the matter to July 23, 1992 �� `�:� � pendinq a site visit at i:oo p.m on July i, 1991 to look at tha - location of the lots, discuss the size, architectural controls, ��:� heights, etc. aad also to have the neighbors involved in the site visit. With a second by Commissioner True, the motion passed ,•.y unanimously. !' �� . RESOLUTION APPROVING OWL CREER RANCH PUD AMENDMENT - MOTION TO ;, � �PPROVB - PASSED iJNANTMOUSLY - Mary Lackner, representing the :!�;, �; Planning Office, summarized this as an application submitted by the ',�' -� Owl Creek Homeowner's Association to amend the Owl Creek Ranch :*,� ��,.' Subdivision PUD Pro�ective Covenants as they pertain to employee �` dwelling unit requirements. She said this was noticed as a pub2ic `• hearing but is not listed on the agenda as such, and recommends it be conducted as such. Lackner said the original approval permits the applicants to either �: � pay a cash-in-lieu for the low income employee housing provision or to provide a two bedroom income unit on site of between 700 and h� S00 square feet. Presently two of the lo lots of the Owl Creek �� ' Subdivision have been built with on-site low income employee units. ;►� , She said there was some confusion between the housing authority and :1` the applicant with regard to a cash-in-lieu option being availabZe '�'' even though it was written into the final resolution of approval. �. i ; The applicant are now requesting three things: (1) instead � � ' providing the units on site, the applicant is proposing to pay a -�- � ' cash-in-lieu difference between the low income category and i'�'�. Category 3 which would be more of a middle income unit; (2) allow �� " the existing low income units that are built to pay the entire cash-in-lieu and to let the homeowners rent these built units to � � , caretakers of their choice. There would no occupancy or any kind of restrictions on these units; (3) to permit cash-in-lieu for the , GMQS units which is available now plus permit all property owners to construct a caretaker unit on site. ' The Planning Office feels that this is blanket request for this !� subdivision, and that 3-8.13 looks at individual lots. It looks ;3; = ,.. to see if there is adequate water, septic, parking on the site for -.yi ` each house requesting one of these employee dwelling units, They ' � BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 10 JIINE 25� 1991 �(t'i ;l�� 3'':� r� . "j , � ! .. ��` . } � . . • ; ;. . 4 y irf • , � {�'4 ' � . � . _� 'y�.�;,. � . y� m �,��•` - . �st,.,:��;,;;� �•y�Y�'.�F� �R . ' � . 1 1'1 2 . � 1' Ff.•. . � � ' . a��,�: ' �'i!�'v' . :?,�se.�d"'�'i''. . r•:.. -�;�.:�,'t'.�`,•',".,. ¢aZ�' a r��_',. :�� . ;r- R;'v`!�j',' „ �� . ,�� `� : . .. , : _ , . —_ , .- ' � ��s F��”` �� , . F� ;i`t ;, ;. .�`r... ` !�.yy �:;,.:�, � �:y;4i��+�n'y'. also feel there is an issue of density on each property, and therefore, cannot support this request for all lo lots. A copy of her written comments relating to the plannirtg office�s specific concerns and reasons for the recommendation of denial is made a - .. part of this record as EXHZSIT ��R��. > • A discussion ensued with regard to application. = Katie McMahon, Attorney for the applicant, stated, that when the two lot owners, who were purporting to build their homes to find � • out what their options were in connection units, she went to the , • housing authority instead of the resolution, and was told by Jim ',r. Adamski that there was no cash-in-lieu option so the two lot , owners, in order to get their building permits, executed deed �, �;":_�" restrictions and built their units. Then when it came time to fittd what they considered to be a qualified caretaker, they found that `:�' after you take the allowable rent from the maximum income, that " they could not hire anybody suitable for their needs at the low t inoome Ievels, and this provided a real diZemma for them because `j , they had intended all along and built this unit to accommodate a � caretaker couple for their own needs intending all along to put ; �• - their own person in there. Therefore, they went to the Aousing �' � „ Authority and explained their dilemma. However, the xousing ; `. ; Authority's decision was to enforce the PUD exactly the way it was. �i��;'., Therefore, they developed an alternative proposal, and the proposal ' • they developed was a cash-in-lieu payment, and a proposal if a lot owner pay the full cash-in-lieu payment, it not only relieves it of its obligation under the PUD approval, but they also be allowed to build a housing unit of 700 to 800 square feet. � She said the other portion of their request is that if the owners � want to build a two bedroom 700 to 800 unit that is presently - . ; allowed under the PUD, that because of the difficulty in finding suitabZe caretakers of their own choice, that they be allowed to ' pay the difference between the Category 3 cash-in-lieu payment, and ' the Category 1 cash-in-lieu payment which amounts to $27,000. MeMahon proceeded to present the justification and the benefits of , - the proposal to Commission members. A copy of her written proposal �� , is made a part of this record as ExHIBIT ��L��. i� � �� Chairman Ethridge opened the hearing to public comment. There a being none, he closed the public hearing. � A discussion ensued with regard to the applicant's proposal. - j A representative of Jim Barks, who owns Lots 1 and 2 stated, that , they are currently in the building department trying to get a permit for building on Lot 2. He said his owner would like to see �" paying the full cash-in-lieu and avoiding an income restriction. �� . Commissioner Rass moved to allo�+ the Owl Creek Ranch PUD to be ' j BOARD OF COiJNTY COMMISSZONERS 11 JUNE 25� 1991 • - �r, ; 3 i� -� !:. ��,.� � � .. , r: � y . . ,. . - �;;�° . ... . ._; � �.• ; . : �- -_ , , ;: :, -i,:f..s. , � ...Yy . . .. ' . Li r i i ' . ��, . . —� �f w� � ,�-. . .. v�=�F: , .. . . .�r � 14r-r�*•" - ' ��4 �� , . • ,yf,�. ._a, , . . ,`i.✓j_i-:.�'.y^,•� . h!7.." r . . . _ . . a�r{�n�.. - . . . ��xi_,y , ' ��,;; :,�,�.�* . �:r� ��*�; . nr ix?� � , , z . �� • � .. � , ..;:� . , ,,.:.. ., . _. _. . � i'?.��'�. ,��;�.` , �.rJ;,ll�:yj,i.1'. w,�t`:�,:�,q<>::,�.: �"-',��111��',`e',. ' eliqible to pay the cash-in-lieu rather than do the employee units, � - and at the determination of the individual lot owners to qo ahead and do a carataker units, it shall be to the size as allo�red in the code at the time that they pull a buildiaq permit; Yhe two already � built would be allowed to be converted to caretaker units even �,:;:� though they are slightly oversized with the full payment oE their • • cash-in-lieu. With a second by Commissioner Crowley, the motiott ' passed unanimously. . Commissioner True moved approval of the second requast by the applicant. The motion dieQ for a lack of a second. . ,.y RESOLiJTION APPRODING ABPCOL CORPORATION EMPLOYEE DWELLING UNIT AND AMENDMSNT TO RESOLDTION 89-72 - MOTZON TO APPROVE - PASSED ' " IINANIMOUBLY - Mary Lackner summarized this item as an application �� '�••'�� submitted by ASPCOL Corporation to amend Resolution 89-72 to ; � convert an existing historic log building into an agricultural � � building, and construct a pre-approved 1,20o detached employee dwelling unit which was to occupy the existing log structure in a r new building envelope approximately 200 feet to the southeast of i , ' � the historic log structure. � • � She proceeded to present the issues as follows: 1 � F.�: ('('.. 1. Resolution 89-71, which granted approval of the r ; . ' applicant's request for two 1,200 square foot unit, specifically identified this unit within the existing agricultural buildings on �;. site. � 2. the addition of 'the 1,20� square foot structure adds r, additional bulk and mass to the property. The new employee units , is, however, clustered with the historic log cabin and caretaker's ' unit, to reduce sprawl of buildings and preserve open space on the � � property. j, 1 � , 3. In consideration of the historic log cabin, the applicant r -" has aqreed to preserve this hi�toric resource. t Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the ' � appropriate code sections and recommends approval of the applicatian with two amendments. (1) Condition No. 4 be changed to state ��Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the i employee unit, the Fourth Amended Re-plat shall be completed and � recorded in the Clerk and Recorder's Office." (2) the applicant has . a request with regard to Condition No. 2 that the tzming of the ' �i preservation plan be delayed until August 15, 1991 as they plan on F .. � constructioh immediately, and they do not think they can get a � preservation plan into the Planning Office prior to pulling the � permit for the employee unit. ;. : � " Fred Peirce, Attorney for the applicant, stated that the only issue � that is outstandinq relates to Condition No. 3 and the financial i'1 BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 12 JUNS 25� 1991 � � ;� - s ..xa �� -�. , .. � - r � , . . . � . � ri .. . ,. .,.. .:. . . . . . :,:-- . ,'1 ?rF,, r . . . . . ... ._�. . . . � . . . . . , ��_� . �� y�44 . . ' „ • 1 __._�� w.�-?t�''��:. � �. ' � . . . -.:�3Trfy . . . � . � .. , � � +y�-,<'�� . `%�.+�c"�'..� . . . . . •�j.°'.:<i"v � , . . ,. � . . ��`;'`%�L.• ' . � . . J .��:�-�.,t', � � ' y��p x :��.�c5�„`t.." . . t4 � ��:�,;•"�'�`:�>.'� • ; ,�" t�_��,�, ''�:1�, . ,r .ti�� _,��n.y�t; � . �. . w � ;�x..al�:, � ... . . . .. - . . .. . , .'.. . • - . . � , .. . . ._ . _ . .. •�,*',��;":. �� ,�,C.�iy'. �l>.?_ '::.�.�ti:.:... � k�11�:Y�;. assurances. He said the only reason they are not tearing the � building down is because of the Board's and the Planning office's preference to preserve the building because it is a historic •' � structure. They feel it is redundant to ask for financial t. assurances, and therefore, they are requesting that if there needs to be financial assurances, at least not require them prior to • building permit when they don't even have a plan yet, but to � require financial assurances after they have a plan and know what .. the costs are going to be. � It was aqreed, that Condition No. 3 would be eliminated. . ��, . Commissioner Roas moved approval of the application as amended. . _ , Nith a second bp Commissioner Tuite, the motion passed unanimously. � � + �,t` RESOLOTION E$TENDING T$B DEADLINE ROR COMMERCIAL GMP APPLICATION � � FROM JIILY 1 TO BEPTBMBER 1 - MOTION TO APPROVE - PASSED UNANIMOUSLY ' ; Commissionar Crowley moved approval of the Resolution. With a � seconfl by Commissioner Rosa, the motion passed unanimously. i ' '" d ' 7►PPROVING HIINTER ACCESS AGREEMENT - MOTZON TO APPROVE - PASSED WIT$ � � BOIIR YEA AND ONS N1+iY �►OTE - Mark Fuller summarized this item as an . -7 agreement between the County and the Hunter Creek Homeowner's �� Association and grants an easement to the County for purposes of � " access to the Rubey property for the Rubey Lot & affordable housing f . project. Ae summarized the main points of the agreement for Commission members. A copy of this summary is made a part of this record as ERHIBIT ��M��. j ` i Commissioner Tuite asked for a clarifiaation with regard to the sewer. He asked if it was the new portion of the sewer or the ,,j entire line that goes thraugh Hunter Creek. _�:; 4? �uller responded, that he believes it is the whole line but he can • not answer that for sure at this time. >.• Tuite requested that the approval be subject to the entire line. . <c,_;.t Ethridge stated for the record that the $75,000 i.s payment for the �� access easement. _:;y;:.:i 1';; i i A discussion ensued with regard whether the langeiage in the �`��'• aqreement is sufficient to assure that the County is not biting on . • ` ;� a huge expense based on this language. Commissioaer Ross moved approval of the Hunter Creek access � uqreement to be returned to the Chairman for his siqnature pending resoiution of the cost liabiZities for the Suater Creek pazt of the '" - sawer system. With a secoad by Commissioner Tuite, the motioa passed with four yea votes by Commissioners Sthrs.dqe, Tuite, True anQ Ross and one nay vote by Commissioner Crowley. ^ SOARD OF COIINTY COXMI88ZONERB 13 JIINE 25i 1991 ' ti>! �. '� ��i r;=.�� `:'t�i '��•*''�' ,t�j,*;.a�a .�.,�,: .;...:,:r. . , ..�..,.y �r�•::,�.:. . �-��.� .� �'• .� � �� _ .� ' - . �� . .. � ��.�,. . . . . . . __�- , . _ . . . „ , . ��! . . � �� .`-_.b,'�'�.�yy . . �� , -. , � �+� - � . - ' ;F= �+ � --__•_ v�i 4��.y'., 4 � .. t r ��R� . ... . . f�� . �-w��`. . '� . . .. . ��'";�''.:it� . '�'�'Ha.�':}�. . ��.�.:4w , , � ..T��?°:�iP^~ ' " ' , ' , 4�F`r �c'MSi�''�:j!F:f.., . . .�� "Y : .',�;, .`7y'•, . ' t';.+"�x�'�•'y . . �•�,m�,..,,T';ji, � �'�'.'�` " �r � �� . r�;;.M;.. ha:G� . tl�� , . �. .. . . ... . __... .. . . . .. ...�..._._..� .. � . . ..... .. ....�. .�.., ..... .., . . . . . � - � . . �'l�,1' },�fai1 '�:: w�i}�F;u�, � �►"i.��.' �DJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m. , ; j ctfully sub ' ted, -' . � j+ � ;' � > i 1 � ' � /,�� ` : eanette Jone • - Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners ;'� �,. � nr . � y�,�'.t;''�, e �`� . ,f �, ' v� s (� t.�i _ � ' i:,:� � s � t-t{�.�. � �f;;.. . . ' � i ' .'+ l . • - ! . _ �, ' s;; .. i .� i � <i '_ti1� � i: . � I J ; I S ` �. f � L:'. \ �' . .`.I_.'�:f ;:.,� � BOARD OF COIINTY CO1+II�tI68IONERB 14 JIINE 25, 1991 ��:� ':, i '- s� , �. i �l i�: ' � '_ . �,1� � �(;., . � . -,�4��2..dM'"�+�"�'�`73�'�.rt�,T��'� r�c�.?� /v F:�.:: � , ,.. _,�.r_1�' . . . . ..., w��4�V;.;: 7 �,^ . 1� ��h . � : . � . .. . � - .. � .. . '� .. . . � ��'�A�: �`�[� ' . � . . . . i . �':� �� . . . . . .. �" . . ..� � . � � _ ' -• � �� . . . � .. . . . .. . � . ; . .. . A� '�j . . .. . � . . . ' � . . �,a . C' . . . • k�p 'M�,�+' . . . . .�. . . . � � � . . � . � pa . '.Q . . ._ � . . � . � .�, ____�._.__m,.,,,,.,.,s,W,,, n� ,-;�i- r 4�rF � .�r.yr+ •:,. �, � .�- _ . ,. . ,, ,. � .. v :�.. . ,_.. .:.. �, .:. . � . ,.:::..- .r ,�.,.. ,-: , . . ... - ��.t�b�.. E oli;VCA�n�� f�:�"�.Y�*�� t+ ; [�0�1f111�1F fi�. ral...i�„�.�..�.; ' �!(,IPi 1�1� . Yrrtara c I��.*•��'r:x,.t��. Sune 28, 1991 Putlic Heaiiilj��i=:v"' �v.'9s=9�--- Data:___ ..__.__ . T0: BpARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS � ,�A�A�4UhV5 ��y�'r � EACLE CotrtaTY ''ubj�ct:�.F�Va��/ C� `.� GARFIELD COUNTY EXh.F14. _- M .__--�--.--- , • . PITKIN COUNTY • '. FROM: WESTERN SLOPE P,AILROAD ASSOCIATION - Ramona Markalunas, Vice President • P�.O. Box 10790, Aspen, CO 81612 �- ' •� Wer 1Q0 eo le attended tfie VALLEY[�IDE TRANSPORTATTON RAI,LY he2d at Ed `�-��' p.".p �.,' '•u� - Lars$'s �anch near Carbondale the afternoon of Sune 1, inspite of MoCher Nature's downpourl! Scott Mclnnis State Re resentative and Sall Ho 't' � > p y pper attended. :;� The crowd moved indoors to fiear Amory Lovins, world renowned energy efficiency p expert,and head of the Rocky Mountain Institute, stress the importance of rail , as a part of . the transportation system, which is a potential solution ��, to a variety of valley problems.� "Bringing together the IIarious forms of !' transportation into an efficient, effective netwook for the region will create rA' ;!, - soluLions for tfie economic and societal issues facing the area." saated Lovins. "Rail is the most energy effic3ent means of transportation, the equipment is durable, �� ' and a61e to provide safe and dependable service in the changeable weather �' experienced in the Roaring Fork Va11ey." ,s Ed Larsh of the Strategic Options Institute stressed the importance of the acquisition of the Denver & Rio Grande Railroad right of way from Glenwood Springs to Aspen with the advantages to the economy of the region in having a train not only for commuters, but also serving visitors and speciaZ tourist features such � as a dinner train and special excursions, which would provide considerable operating revenue. „�' The discussion period focused on: Energy conservation, �� " Acquisition of the rail right of way immediately '��. Establishing a Transportation District with public and private participation, funded by the sale of stock or bonds to the � public; commuters, visitors and residents of the valley. �`yl�� .;;�;` Someone suggested we adopt a RESOLIITION to be presented to the Board of County " ! Commissioners of Garfield, Pitkin and Eagle Counties stating the groups' ideas and the ZMPORTANCE OF THE fiCC1UISII�IAN OF THE DF.�IVER & RIO GRANDE RIGHT OF WAY from Glenwood Springs to Aspen in order to keep our options .open for establishing. � - an integrated transportation system. .Furthez we believe the Boards should adopt . ''�" ' an_Energy Conservation Plan for their respective counties in view of the limited � enetgy resources. � A Resolution was handwritten and signed by all the individuals remaining at the i � RALLY at 4 P.M. A great deal of positive energy was generated by a diverse , ?; group representing all parts of the ROARING FORK VALLEY as indicated by the `• . signatures and addresses on the attached copies of the RESOLUTION. -�t � ' Feel free Co contact Ramona Markalunas 925-3399 or 925-7071 is you wish e�. - additional information. We have a VCR tape of the RaZly which you can borrow � if you wish. �,�r . � , S,'; � i `r --..�: _.:.:,. __ __.,. :_.,:.__ . _ . __ , �,.�' , . _ , . _. . . u,s x; . . . . .. �N`v-'i' .. , `� +.t,.' . �� ; � � . . . �-. _� �+3,� u ` , .�;,. . � _ . , .. ��• • r7�4"s• _.¢ � � - . C.;�.,.�.Sf.F.'.a. r'�.y,�,X,r,, � . . � S�ixj'a-l�-.i.,. . � . � ,.w�::�^;+`:,y � . . ::�n:��..'Yi[��, , . .. � ..i. . av�t� i '��,� ` , t'��r;'• , ' y�' v,./„�,.��... . { ��x , ,_��, . u3t� d a:.� .,:,. . ,�, . �� ` ' .. •., _. ,... , . ,. . �..:�,. � - . .., :. . . _. . _ . ��',��.��`a.��/ , �� '`� ��,��:�; ' �G�� G� "" O(,(� �r�'�� + . s�« � :. � �e� ''n�i�k:•'�•. , _. _ _ --:_ ,__._ .._ __ _ _ _ __��_ °' ` _ _ . �. �_ ----_ .. _ _. _ _ _ . _. ..__. ___ _.. _____ . : _ _ 1 ' �/ �Q /� : _..-- -�..5�.�/ . , �c'�"'`'a'.�X. _ _ _.. _._ _��_.�� : .:. ��c�i� ;�..�,�%L-�.ic �v��x ��'�---�.e�d�,/L.c? g"agC�l-Cl�efr,r-e�l' .:'=:; •.__ .b.a.. {Cr_.i_. v _-----_?ZY_ N'(a.i�...S�__ �,�,,t�l.�__._�__-- .._��3._-zG6� ;°: :. f`[tiL- _._yy�9(_��nfiz.� . ��G`[��S//.. _.----.... 9`�'y-3�7�_. , : _. . F,��d. 01�r.w,.�,�.,.,-- -('.�,�a b� �r s- �-�3 ` r� �?y j?�!y ___ _�.z.y-/�3tJ : ; �� ' _...__.�1 G �wG�c l Q�r, G(enwaacl.�j-s Co• . _ iyS- S10� , C�-�� (�.Q,_s�_ c �c-��, ,�� ___ � ��S- c 7 y 6 � _ � .�'°'`",`�s.��,`(YZ�,.,�s;'--;5-�z� (�a U.� (k'u�/ �j ��^'� ��7�(2/ ;:;_ �. �,.��i�,��: �e�v�,s�, f�Q. 'l l�� , �.1e� Fl6�t � p� �� -2z.z,.s� ,,:.. + �a� � . �5 �f'�c�/� e .�� Z G 6 Z /�'�ew� C� a�/G�Z l�'.s w.s�7.3'� ' � . t"� �� >< �Q� ��yc,�- � £sC� s� g=� 3� 3� �� r _.tiT � 3��Y, �SP�� .�� i�i2 /Qzs-Y�/,�i' ; �iQlc�Ti� /l�Qe�ucs o�s6 lii�( CQr�on'a�.l��'eo-Qa-B�ba,3 qb�-�-g�� , . �o � { �/NDY l�l�c�2;c� �}17 r z3��aT ln-/� �-L�,vwe-oA �-P�s a/do� 9�-o9i� , /�r��m./��j,!Jr:S 3'Yo? S�cycO � / i i 9yS -.'�' � - � ;;-��%'�.��- i ��5,�,r/� ��-�- ��2 3 967-9/�� . ,�,, � °; S'�'�?v�`Z.�LA{JGr./fL[OJ.....'J—/35—FKYC,t.G A4� p� �� 5'r(�a l 9,z� -y i�Z ., y :' o��.�� . ��j � , . ,�� -�F. l0�31 "�� t�iZ,Z `�z3-`E.�a3� ! a � y PuL�o �a�2N. ��L� �2v C�KgoN�ql� BI�Z R�� , 3 � � ; . _-� . ., c � :. ` �C� ''co s��ti.��/%/°'�6P %�a_� �� G'T 8/�� -�ff�-��.38' .-; /�Q�' G�� ` C l / ��Ir �j/J S- 9�_ .. . ..i /i " (�� . °" LwV-v N!7� NG l l-! �' . . 1 . � �� /,� .�.�,��/ -�'�-r-� C� �� -- 9��_ �� ; � � ��b,� oz� fr� S r . ►�.�6�s�� c�r��,��.�.� ��z3 ��-�yz2 ;.� `�� _ ; �� 1 ��j�i��J-��` �e�' ��S l"��j ; .i J� f' ,;; � �� i�°s�"��, @� g.z�707/ . .� �/ ��'�-�t/o-z.-�. 5� Q.s��.1�G�c, .�, �� . _ ,__ _ _ ,. , , n �� , , ,. .� ,. _ h Ls.�. . . ..,}^., ' 1; �.�� . . � ,,:. � ;,�.� � �. ,. _-_._ `',�� .. ,r�.. z: r��x�'� y�l�f.jr:� � - . . }..� ��.. - . ' �� ,:a • ' . ' ' . � _1� k+�y J� - i�.tj�"� . � � . � �+3' _Q,ti�;'^F,� . . . . �'�i :�.Ct�'��'"'. . . n'�,a:. e'. �r "�C"�}' � . ' . '"•{i,�'.Ri; . +��:•U: �� . ,r. a�r'� t...�:-:, �p,p,r5 a"'� ' � . „�--- - _.. . ,.-. . . . r.1� : � -Ma:: -� �� . :, .. : ,. • .. _ . _. . _ _ .� .,..r.. . . . ... .... . . _ . . 3. . . ; � ��r,.�-��r�� `-�'G-�►�, ,�`��J . �. y �,L.. � �� .°°`�`). � `°`v � �� `7f��— .�. �r..�.� ,�. I• s �` �� „��P� ��'� r:f�^,.��`w.ti.. ��Q/W1 i,��,,�� Q u-� � � � �K��.�;�k;�,�;. ; �,., �,.t�1 � �,Plocv�t� (�a.�2��, � ��' 0 . '�� -� �'�.. , , !G45T�J - 0,7 �sa.v �x /69 ��s-Az-� 9z�-as�Q �.L1N.�J�4 �/�7US0.�/ — � — —s -- - ; -- , ... ' � .(�o�r.�- �,�F 13ax �ZSv, i4spEiV 4�23-�23�s �. � �a �� /��/a7�3� �� -a/� . `�,�,:��- � ,��cl ��Y�r�� C�.S, 9YS'-7�� `�. . ' � ' /gi�oi � �•c��. � �9x (z.3� ��2�o�.f�'/�53/(o z3 945- !SZ�(p � . f i /C�'lrf� ��')'1 �X�� 7 �O ��1� 9��.��y' y� , ' p� I��g `C3w��- �8��a� °�a`1 -4�+� :,, ;.:� �� 4 �� 2 - � � S� �'y��O :�. � G�� - �s T �, I ; �,� �c1�3S Gl�� 16oL 9�fso�Z3 � , ' � � � �aX �l�'I� /-�S�'c`� 9"�� -2.��'� i ; � �Q� �- �— - Sl� W� ��7f _ �` yzo`-a�./6 ^�+� � , �-�a�-�-�--� � � ,� �/. . s �:b/��;sfne �6 E,,,,.,a �(uaoC f3ara./�Cr� P/62/-9//8 qz7-37/5 , . :�i r ��,- 7/ y Cxra.... � ft�e,J Gk,.w��oys�y..�� Cl� �/!-�' 9ys-�td`7� �i;. � ��.��.� � c,��,� ��x a 3G 3 �a'�� i 9d�3-3z s� ;�.�� f ; `.}�. � ' ��-.� ,� 0'9 s-� _/,1--�-��-'��G'�� l'�.!� 9C�-Zs. .:; . � �� %�� 3 7�-P��Q �-� /?� , .��..,,._,.( G�- 1'Y a-s�: ; ' ;� �_ �> >� �� i� �t u ` . � i �.,"�'Q `� ,. ' ��4�fh�`.� ��ll� �i �u.�.�¢ �� ,�-b 9��soo , . ;�r e lvccr-��' �'� �E�C 19a7 �'a.sa�f s16�1 ��3 9/d6 '; . . ��r . � }� � \; �—\\ �v��-�i� ��t��4�yFc�; �J. G�3 �1S�"� :. � , ;- �/5��v � , r�� 9a�6s�/ j�' �, � �� a�-��1 ; .; ��,,� C�'��,-1�9r� :��; ; .-_ ' '��U��- (w�� `?I°I f�/� I�,e_ a ,,� Iti2S' �'�,�,�;��°� �;s,.;� � / ' a � �� f ZS •7d7/ ;:,� . � I l�l��/n5 (�z4 �o��++ s-r a � I z� ��rr, sc,hu,fTZ o-L�� -lo�seshoe c�r'`��c�5alk �Z7-�F�4e1. : ��' _ ,__.__ ___ __ _ ,... . � . z��: . .,:.:. . 1:;. �ti�..F'_�y` . . � f -:�.�. _. . . , i.., �-.- �. . ' - -..•F! :S.,:...�r� � . � . • • • . � .� $Yj�l"]�;--. ! .. ��r 4"��'a�w. . � . . - ' . i^T��. .+6iX , .- . ' t,� 1'. ._�� . . . . • . . f�S� � �r�.� . r,,.'� �s�,��ti. ' . . '�`�3r��-.. . ' a��t ��w :�li �� . ' . � � iwi: • F'.0 �., ��4h�� : � +Y�' ,i.5.w.r. . . ._.._,...T..-...... _ _.__ _".� _-_ i�w.r�r ��..' � " . �'� . ." .!'F�'f t...:t't. �` v'.�r'J . .',i.i .�' " �,.��.. . .�. . .. _ . .. ... ' ' ... . . . . .. .. .. . .... .- . . � . .. . .._ . .... ` �',�,��i�'�.;�;��. • �+Pr '.�.,�":' '�':`t-'f;:.r„�r;� • FroY e t.}.iY.:t+�: �:�`-�t9�.,' B4ARD OF C0.COMhS'i:'G :wy..��,;��;. PI i KIiJ COI;NTY Public Nearint��xhibits oate:_ 6"ZS � ... i: SUhjCCt:,... F ' . , N�� RECOMMENDATION: [xit.i'10. . Staff recommends that the Board approve the Toffany General Submission request subject to the following conditions: . GEOLOGIC: � . .:'� j .,, . 1. The applicant shall abide by recommendations made by Nick '' r�''•d � , Lampiris in his letter of March 21, 1990. They are as follows: ;> . • Y a. Soils engineering studies shall be performed at the site �.� ; speci£ic level to insure proper foundation design. All " ci � aspects of the design of the home and the surrounding `� , landscaping shall emphasize a positive flow of water away !`r� . from the homesites in all directions; ! i �.w. .e � b. Native ve etation which does not re �re extensive '"' ,.L �3 �- . ��r=:, ' watering shall be utilized; '�;, . � c. The driveway into the building envelope shall be designed �� by a licensed engineer familiar with Mancos ShaZe. The access drive shall be engineered to include water culverts and borrow ditches to promote stability and to mitigate erosion potential; •;•, d. Slopes steeper than 3og, (other than in the immediate � -� area of the switchback for the access drive), shall be ` � avoided for construction; ;��; • : I � e. The home shall be designed to preclude the accumulation ~1�� of radon gas; I ` ' WILDFTRE: ' �.�, ' 2. The following wildfire mitigation measures shall be adhered '�� ; to: � V i .. a. The applicant shall improve the existinq access road from ! Snowmass Creek Road to the parcel boundary, as well as : , . ,, his access drive from the parcel boundary to the building � site. Improvements shall be as follows: ` 1} Roadways are to be of a hard surface, (gravel � . acceptable), and maintained for access; ' � �` 2) Roads are to be engineered with water culverts and ; y{ ' . borrow ditches. ` � i 11 (�I ± ��: i ��•� � � , ..l:. � �,+t3' ..,,_..'�.,.v.r .. .�,,� i , t .. -�f;. :; ,.;,,, �:.,_ . . .: %':-' ' , , ��'f . ' � �, Ts,��:' �•! �[ ij,'.. . . . �.:r,: D?t,,.�'s� � . . . i ��i�"' . � - _ . . . � . _��. M f-�i: - . . . " . . . �� .. Pfj` �� .1�^�^t,.� . . .. , - . !�� . • . . . . . i�+�'�'4�. � • . -p,�. + � � . � - � ' � w��.,y t, ' . ��•� �- .f�� .Y'� � . �: y e�•yI � . . ' � � �, �'4� ' k� '"�t-``:' �� . . .. .. . _ . . _ .�.x,....�, . ...... .. ..... .. . .. .. . .� . - ..� . ,.. . . . __ . �'��' �'''";�::,�.�; ' � ��*_ri,� , ��;��,;�;- ', 3) Addresses shall be visible from the road for emergency reasons. , Road improvement design shall be reviewed and approved �:,.� � by the Basalt Fire Chief and the County Engineer prior � " to issuance of a building permit. - b. The applicant shall install a water storage tank to accommodate a minimum of 2,000 gallons of water storage • fire flow. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall document evidence that the size of the '�?' . storage tank is adequate to provide for both fire flow �`y and storage for domestic supply in the event that the ' `.-,''a�� ' well yield is less than 15 GPM. Tank size shall be determined by both the Basalt Fire Chief and the Environmental Health Department. + " � � c. All roofs will be kept cleared of debris � ., i ,, . d. The base of the building(s) will be kept cleared of weeds ' " � and debris. � `}' � ,- � e. Firewood will be stacked on a contour away from '�r,-:, " building(s) . F.�. � f. At least one ten ound ABC class fire extin p guisher will be placed in each structure. g. All utility lines will be undergrounded along the existing and proposed road alignments. �i, - � ! h. Roof material shall be non-combustible. WILDLIFB: ' 3. Development impacts on wildlife shall be mitigated as follows: i ' �R , � a. Dogs and large domestic predators shall be prohibited at � . ! the death of the Toffany's existing dogs. The Toffany's ' , dogs shall be leashed and or kennel restricted. 1� b. No perimeter fencing of the property is permitted. ' Fencing the building envelope is allowed. Fencing shall - be a maximum of 42'� in height with a minimum kick space � • of 12" from the top. Fencing shall be designed to allow passage. ' � c. No vegetative manipulation outside of the building envelope (including grazing). , d. No exterior construction, excavation, etc. allowed from � � November 1 to May 1. , e. No development, with the exception of the access road, ; : shall occur outside of the building envelope, which shall S' � ' be no larger than one acre in size. f))` _ 12 (i � - �_ . c: `ig I �:5. " :�. . � ;J' � �:.xt3......,� .i...:F> ..�.. :',.,� Z:.. t"�.._: - :: - _, .� �;. . . _ , : . . t.. ,. ��k;y;; , - . .. . ' . ) ;'� . . . . . .�:e�. � �� . ` � . . ��;n.a..� �. . _ . - _ � i� . —� y:� �':.�. � . _ ' y�• .� � r2"'4'�w' . . � . . . . . i�)i„�.-'u,�'�l.. � . . . . tiA•• *�,:,t�i'. . " . . Ff � � 1�f{� . � . . . . • . ..Z�a��t . - ' � � �x,`hA&�'t; �� ' ,�� , �A��u �� ,i�i....;e � "'.�.. �.`Y�: .. ' . ��. � ,y'�•S � ,.�:�.. . _,.., .. ._ . _. , .. . . . -. .... . , ' . � . .. � .. .. . ....... �'L+�'�,.,e.:'��:, �'t�!'�-^•t`:�'`. r.`��. �'+: � • �,�c��,�is+�,:. �;.��!:y::',��,_: � v'�y".-'# l�k�'t.�j.,�. r f. The single family residence shall be no larger than 3,000 . square feet in size. g. The applicant shall deve2op surface water on site to • provide wildlife with drinking water and to enhance >:,.� !: habitat. The water feature shall be designated on the site plan and approved by the Planning Department and ' ' bivision of Wildlife prior to signature of the Plan by , . the Commission Chairman. GENERAL SDBMI88ION: .. ....r . � 1. Prior to issuance of an access permit and prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a road �', '�':..:�'� improvement plan to the County Engineer for review and approval. Said Plan sha21 address drainage, placement of sub- �� ,,. , base and resurfacing of the Shieldo Mesa road from the last ;� ` existing home on the road to the point of entrance to his lot. Said road plan shall also receive approval from the Fire �` District regarding emergency access. R . I. �� 2. The applicant shall join a Shieldo Mesa road improvement �: � - ' district in the event that such a district is formed. r" �� i�,.. ' 3. The applicant shall improve the lower portion of the road to �1� ; compZy with the minimum requirements necessary to gain approval from the Fire District and the County Engineer for emergency access. The lower portion of the road refers to the � portion of Shield o Mesa Road from the intersection at Snowmass Creek Road to the last house on the road (green loq , cabin currently owned by Aikens). � , � ; 4. The applicant shall revegetate areas disturbed by construction � within one growing season of construction. 5. The septic system designed for the site shall be reviewed and �%, approved by the Environmental Health Department prior to �_ issuance of a building permit. � � 6. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shal.l •�, provide evidence that the water well on site yields a �!, � sufficient antit of water and satisfacto qu y ry quality (if treatedj. Water well yieZd and water quaZity shall be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health bepartment prior to �� • ' issuance of a building permit. �:��.� 7. The applicant shall apply for and receive a driveway permit � . , from the County Engineer prior to issuance of a building . permit. . 8. The applicant shall prepare a site plan for recordation which � meets the approval of the Planning Department and the County ;i ' � Attorney. (" . ��:+ .' , - 23 ;s�p i � ,' � .�� . :,f i�+� '�?' .;y�;." ,` .. - . , �. r . t.. . � - _ � . . ,:.>. . ..... .. . . �:�v .. ' . • - � . . . ��-: .. . . _. 1 .: ,�:,:: .. . .,... :.� ... ��-=.�f. 1'." , <_. . �. �� ' ' . � � _ � �� -��; - � . `�`"=� . � {� ,��, . .:��.t KL - ' � . . . �ifi:{� V ' � � ' . . . ,��'';' ' ��} ' .4-;. �� ;� . �;� x�. �;.., ,..,w,;-:;.. Y , � x r t . .rS{4°:;3?�=�:EV.�i'�S.t,f..`,°�_,. 4:c.::'ir, t.. �'� ., r� ? ,�$�� , �:t r � �i( s � t ,� h'.1�ti9 {r� ,:� _... _ .�\. : i ,a�_,_ _. .._ , f:'� ..,,...,_. . _._.. ..,.. lx...!�...:�3" a . � r�,� . � 1�'" '�N��Q':�i ' ��. r 9. All material representations made in the public hearing and �.'..: � in the application shall be adhered to. ? ,.,` � � � , • . � � � . - I ,.n� ... i.0`'T',;>I�;;' �.-r" ' �� , . � �?� ' •� 4•:�, . � � - � Yrl �r' � . i A . . � . :�{.{:� . . ,�1:,�'�• . I'h'?�. ,y �!': . �: : ,� i - ��t, •. I'�'� I I`';� �::;;.�'' ;` F , � j' 1 ,• � i � - � � ;'•Y , •. -� ti.�. \ . � �.11 t (�, � � ' �y ; .- j 14 �':��'.', r` � i �;"�'�.! ' �� ,ji ��...f..�..x.�• ...�r. �.. .�, ' `�. �\. ..�.":. .m>,� �._ _ � -,.::a�, ,.af�,G.: �. . :• � �!�'�'+-k . - . . � � . . , '• . . . , .. - . , . �i;S4 ��. ' . � ' , -. , '...,f —^� �r. � , � - . . :., t . - _ ' `"� .F, ' ... . . � . .. . � .. _ � .. , �' . . p .ir . . �� . . . . .. ' . - . .• ' . 3 i. . . . . _. .. . . . . . . . .� • � . I ' . . . . . . � ' . �'4" . � ... � � . , � . ' . '1'!. � � . �. �,� y� . _. , ,.__.,.... .. . , � . : _ , . .� _. . � ,..... .. .. . . _.. _. . ., , . .. , . , -. . - . . . ,. . ,.:-.:. _, �:, �'� :`,�.. '�,�...,;:: �:. �;. ._ �� .�h i�- . ,,,��y��,, STA7E OF CO.OFACO 'a".:��^�`%% . Roy Roma�,Gove�nor • ct��s To - "q4::;�i,; DEPARTM�NT OP NATUR 4L RE5�LiRr'ES �:#}"��i'�' D1ViSiC1h� �!'1F �'VEL,. IF'M -0`°�" _ � +';E_ �. �•�.°� � :r.c6_:_;=.:... • tr:=:• �ir`. ; Ptrry D.O�se y G:�ecfa 'SJ,I�:�yq - 6060 6ro�dne i Dsnver,Coleeaac Bo'tt6 OF T�Npho+rc:(903}281-�19� , r=�-;s �7, �y 7 � . T, E��tE,..� s�s,-,.,..;� - Bf�HHU 6i`t9:C�.+f4�rtrs . /7i i,�i.✓ C" /��rc��:YL PITKIid CUU1�tY �; ., Pu�lic Hearing E�hii;;ts ' �^ Date:__G�__--15-9 r ---- ,f,,.`�., : 7 r{G e IO i-�•✓t.�''� •��l/ .� � � guhj2�;'::.I�,GI'f-f-�'�' -. . // ` y� � �G!�_ Exh �c�. _- �.i /—;'_.,j"_`� - � �� !�� \�r� � � �:{ — _ ( { ( ':; ; � ►.� � c��i a�,_t� �:cnr c-F 1 �S l:'E' 4�.�1^�.� c� w+�`��.��(� `4 ' y' ,.� � , /r 'Ar. ' n ` ,+ Lcx.-r-.�a.- �,.�� tx o�• �-t,-.2 �� c�< ��.,�.E.�..�- ra.��e: S��. ,,: . �;; . f ?-� �t;t,�:�,::� ��. ,h..j ti��:Clc•c,...,:,,.�L.,�..�-��,., �`�^��-" j� i � �� -,/ i; �' �� i'.C1�C�4'> i7:? v.�.s-'tu`.Ll.',�4' '�� '��_t. li7v.�,ct.....�, .Qln r � . 9 �, 1.I.(CC�`•t. � t . � V�4,tH��.Q• ;1. . - . ,� J-. �-�. ' �.-�t•�r �::k. t+�t.•_.�.n�4 Ct. clro.`t,E'� O�'YS�� ' �-�' �v��.�'l,, ..�, �'rtJ2�c�x.� � ; 3� . � • 1 UoS� �,y� �,a;.�„��a kc�. �:, �� . ( � . . .. g ' �C:4_ 1..j�•'1%� t�+'��s ]t..,,,_,`..�,• l'�. �wrncttt s � ' �.N�'len�.�k r �'�� S 1'wV��.. tS ��6ST"�lj� � . �� .. ,a � • , , � i . � � . �.C��.J `� .. . i , � . 4. �f . . ;.� . � i � � �i: ,.- � I F 7 �. ' 'a • , . ' '1 �'. ._� • i � ' • �. ' � DEPAAiMEN7 pF 1�A?URAL RESOUflCES,Herciel J 6any,Exe¢ut��v Dnector � �� WILDLIF�COMM!$��Ot+;Georqg Va�Den3orn Cha:rnaq. RoDerl L freidenDei{:er.!ke Chairrtun.W��pam fi.HeyDsrp,Seue�a.y �' . �.�,. -- -�---°,_.._-_'__.._. . � s� . � -.�•.�..` w ,.,n.nroa,luetr ��,Me�r.tyr+i�er.B 6.Aeterson,MEmbe:•Lerry M.WrwhG McmGrr �i�•� � ,�� . _ .. _ .._. . .... . , . � _. gs. .-".c . . . . _. ' ., . ...._ . .. ._ ..- . �'k: . . .. _ ... . .. .. +�r^� � �� ` . �. � ' ' � - 1 ;. —� d'�� . _ . . `. - • ,� ' . � . . � ^_ . - � . .. � � � . . - ._ - . .. . . � .. � �f?��p ' � , . ' . . � � , ' . . . �-�� . . �. .. � .. . � � . � . . . . ,1��:�.f' ` .. � . � . - . ��R t� ,��•�y'r . . . � - ' � , . ' . , � � .W.1k„ i':, .. �� . ��:< .., ,,,.:: ,::: ._..� . :.....:... . .. :.... . :.. . - ,.:, -. ��_ � . . � -.. . � �:. �'�t { �, ti,, .�, �'p^�,�.�;�; ,r_TA:�OF COLORADO ro ' ��;',��(5 5�.� i oy Romer, Governor or�co to ,��;,��^„�{p:3�; DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES `o��oG "F;y;�?i�;:4,::, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE ��,: ,w , AN E WAt Ov:p.;Jr.-i F��C.Ui=. �'" �Parry D.Olaon,Dlraaor . �'� �cV ' 6060 Broadway . G'Y OF'r'� � ' . . Denver,Cobrodo 80216 . :;>�:_ � Telephone:(503)297-1/92 , • • i • ROhHU OP t",0.l:t14:61A l;S April 11, 1990 {'i'(Kl�J��OL:.TY � 4'ut,lic Hrari�p ti>:lubit,>; � Bill Tofany I�,.F. ...Ci_�'��,�/-� � •Y•�. PO Hox 9151 .;,t:rt:._...f� �"`]-�" ! / � ,`.� I Aspen, CO 81612 i:<h.hiu. ; . i I� ..1�.�` ;I Dear Bill: ,1.,� ` . i:.i I final2y got a chance to look at the property in Shield-O. - � ..i . This piece of property lies within a migratior. cc_ridor and is in ' elk winter range. The parcel is used most of the year by deer until �� : snow depth becomes too great. Elk in a normal winter will range >�, �, in and out of the parcel. `�' !� - ; � �r�.. A home in this area will disrupt Elk migration and elk winter use. �� "� :. � If this parcel and surrounding parcels are developed, all elk use will probably cease. Deer will most likely still use the properties E if vegetation is maintained, dogs are restricted and fences are designed to allow passage. This entire valle.y of Shield-O is becoming increasingly important �'� ; . to wildlife as development continues around the valley. When building occurs here, a siqnificant disruption will occur which may be diEficult j� . to evaluate on the short term. . �'��i. . . r�1� Sincerely, ':;%� � � � .'� �. ,/�y 1(.� ( C�-t--�- ' r �' • . � Randy Co� • ,ty District Wildlife Manager-Aspen ;'�j RC/lmp Y ` � � xc: File a,; ` i: i � .. � ,'��1'; i ;_. � � �.." ;'� r;7� ' . (�t .� , - ; � ; i.j'' � pEPARTMENT OF NATURAL HESOURCES,Hsmlet J.Barry,Executive Direcl0r . '`� ' . i WILDLIPE COMMISSION,Georfle VanDenBerp.Chairman. Robert L Freidenberper.Vice Chairman.William R.�Hegbe�g.Secretary �;��•;�3��- ' Eldan W.Cooper,Member. Rebecca L.Frenk Member..Dennis Luttretl,Member.Gene 6 Peterson,Member•Larry.M.Wripht.Member � �� j �{' i ,y -..Y __.�—.�._. _,. .. _ _ _.. .,.._ .__. _._ . .._.. _. . . .__. .... . . .... . . . ..__.._....._..... �;�� , �::,. 4Y,.'�.,. ' ' - 1.. _°�.:o-._ , . , .. ' . �.�. . ':.r.. �.�:''.w'�'cr � . , � � - - . ' ' , . .�-t�t'�.�� / .��. _�- '�Fr�� ^ . � : . ,. . , • ' _ � � '� . . � . . . - . . �� . . . . . ' . . �� . Y . � *tii . ��ry��tf • lL'q;� � ' . , - . �� . 1 M y�.�(� [vl: �'i�i��•rfi'�. - j 1.. y�^'o'1Ik. � . . a � .�..� �� .. �� f� �'-�'- t�. ..:f.. . .. ,... . . _. .._... � _ f � . � '.:.1�... V . �'.,'.-. ..' ... ':-i�. . . ' . .:.d.��-.- .. �. ...�. ... . . y��41��;;�. �*� C A�fiS �*a�i�,�-(,. BOARD OF C0.C.)'+'��'' f �* ; PtTKltv CGI,r!Tl' , �»��,��'�:{,' ,,,�� ti��..�:: Public Hearing��.�'�:�.'° L1:ti;:.��.� s �:�4�','s�.t E� 4i,K___ - ... �r nN ` E:it;.IvO. _J./--°----"_.. . . IBSIIEB: At the Planning Commission meeting, discussion centered � �� around the folZowing issues, the resolution of which is reflected in the recommended conditions of approval: � - 1. The applicant proposes to provide a 60' easement to. !`.-..r � accommodate the existing Castle Creek Road alignment which k.�•:•,;.�.> _ _ crosses throuqh the property, The County engineer has � ''" recotnmended that the applicant also provide a separate 15 foot • trail easemer►t. The applicant would prefer to provide the ��f � . trail alignment within the 60 foot easement. It was agreed that the trail alignment would be based upon a field check and t approval by the Planning Department and the County Engineer. ' Where topography makes it diPficult to separate the trail from �` '' the road, it may be located within the 60 foot easement. ' � - (: . 2• The applicants have revised their original request for two �.;�,�, � caretaker units to one, based on available water supply. °, ;, . 3. The applicant agrees to pay a pro-rata share for improvements to Castle Creek Road. The pro-rata share shall be determined by the County Engitteer, based on the traffic study recently prepared by Schmeuser Gordon Meyer for the Health and Human Services Center. � � 4. The building enve2ope on Lot 2 does not meet current � .- underlying zone setbacks. The applicant was not aware of this � at the time of submittal and proposes to request a variance � • ' for the setbacks through the PUD procedure. Staff recommends 1 that no variance be allowed, as this building envelope is in �� close proximity to Castle Creak Road and will have the least amount of impact from the road and on adjacent properties i£ � ` - ' it adheres to underlying zone setback requirements. �� . j 5. It has been agreed upon that the building envelope on Lot 1 ' ; shall be located outside of riparian/wetland areas as ' identified by the Army Corps of Engineers. If allowed by the .' , Army Corps of Engineers, a bridqe across Castle Creek may be placed in wetlands and mitigated, as recommended by the Army , , Corps. . �'' . . �� i . f , . • � � � i z ;+ ; ; � � � , � `f ,� ,N... <_�.,. :,_.:: ,, � : . . �,{, . � .:; ; ;. . : . . ; � . .�' _. . , . . . . ., �:.•��i --54'}%<.. . � . :Si',r-'aw'tt . . / ' . . , .�v.., if' 4�,�*h. ; , " . _�. ,�r�y'�� . � �n,� . • f.�,�:�`;�� . - �.1�FR'�j; . .. . . . `ay�f'..'�t.. " . � ' . . �`��. . � � , � .�� r . , � . . •y5.��:t'.:� . . � . , ��; i+: 1f' , �� • t r:ir'�1, . . j{4 4 �'+� ,�:_:,:: 3� �� . _:�<,. . ... ., =-. , . ' . . . . _. t�,�,;g .;;w S ��FY 1 �' ..t'��.. ��-.�p#i 1�4.!.. .i;^:yy7i�?.:i•. ��2k'?.+��. 1�:1.�:._. sonao or cn.co:?,»rn-� PtTl�li�i CCZt!��1 Y D� Pubtir..Heari�ig er!,ibics (� � ��C�'�] p,�ta: .___ _�i�3 S'"�l 0 Llqt„�1 U :. U� , s::t,;,,..,:f,�,�-.�1�s.__.C�� . . . ►��c.. � F�,, .,,, _ _._ _�._._� - RECOMMENDATION: '.r•.. The Planning Commission and Staff recomraend approval of the General ��`,;�?,�.' Submission for the Castle Creek Banks Partnership Dehsity Reduction :-• Lot Split, Caretaker Unit and 1041 Review subject to the following '`;� � � conditions: ..� . DENSITY REDUCTION IAT SPLIT �s ! .• � 1. The applicant shall deed restrict Lots 1 and 2 against further �° ;';. „ development and/or subdivision. Development is defined, ;r+. pursuant to Section 20-1 of the Land Use Code, as "any �' '�'' • construction or activity which changes fhe basic character or { ' � the use of the land on which the construction or activity + occ�rs." Said restrietion shall be noted in the subdivision ' Covenants and on the Final Plat. Said deed restriction shall be in place prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. An existing cabin on the property shall be demolished prior ' ! to issuance of a building permit. Said cabin shall be � delineated on the Final Plat. •' � ' 3. Pursuant to the 1990 County Trails Plan, the applicant shall � � provide a fishing easement in Castle Creek as it passes �' through the property. At Final Plat, a determination shall �'� be made by Staff as to whether an easement is appropriate in �;�'� . • this area relative to wetland/riparian areas. At that time, specifications of the easement shall be determined. ��_; . i 4. The applicant shall provide a 60 foot easement to accommodate the existing Castle Creek Road alignment which crosses the . property. The existing right of way shall be vacated. The `� - easement shall be recorded with the Final Plat Resolution and depicted on the Final Plat. " � 5. The applicant shall provide a 15 foot wide trail easement. „ The trail alignment shall be based upon a field check and • approval by the Planning Department and the County Engineer. �.'� Where topography makes it diFficult to separate the trail fram `� the road, it may be located within the 6o foot Castle Creek '� � � 1 g I�;+,' i -- �. z r ' i y�'� 'f ��.Y'F .._, . _.,.�e.... ., , ......... � ...._ . ... . .... ... . . � . .: . . , _ . ._. .:�� . , ��. ._�� . . .. -� . SS �.�T�L'� . / _ _ �R= v' r- . ��y� ' � . " . . --�� ^.r.�l i �.: .� ' . . Y ��+�xi.y�: . `.��'�,.��`'�'�,r� � • � . ,T_'�»�}�'w ' ' . � . . . . +i�;'�F6.t . •ZA�:'t�+�• - ' . � , . i'".y7:,y, . , . . , ��v� �� , . . . r��''�i�p i ' �;ti.� . . � � t;�np.�'�+�`?y''�` ' ' , ¢ ��a a�'•: � �� • �. �;;�. la...::^ ��; �� -��S,. �y "f a. , . " � ' _ . �I A" _... ..u` ... .. .-. , �c''. ' �4� � ' �r�F .1:++ . 6 5e � 1 R4.T�.��4�1.)��4:.. Road easement. Location of said easement shall be determined at Final Plat. Said easement shall be recorded with the Final Plat Resolution and depicted on the Final Plat. � :: 6. The applicant shall provide an access easement and maintenance � easement respectively for the City Water Facility on site and the City Flume alignment. Easement widths shall be determined ' � at Final Plat. Said easements shall be recorded with the ' Final Plat Resolution and depicted on the Final Plat. � - GENERAL SUBMISSION •' r !'.�`:''•`t.r:' 7. The applicant shall submit a plan for both access roads to � i •.a � the County Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance ' of a driveway permit. Said plan shall address �� grading and stabilization of proposed driveways. The proposed bridge and streara crossi,ng shall be subject to review and approval by the Army Corps of Engineers prior to issuance of an access permit. R . 8. If a domestic well on the 50.4 acres is to be shared by the `� � _ lot owners (to serve three units-maximura) the following 4, i;. recommendations shall be ac3hered to: � i C'"' � ! a. Common access to the well and the right to establish and ` ' ' maintain a pipeline shall be provided by easements where necessary. b. The we2Z shall be jointly owned by the lot owners.. c. Covenants and/or other mechanisms shall establish a lot owners association with powers to make decisions } concerning manage:nent and operation of the well. A joint ` ' � � maintenance agreement shall be a required part of such an association. • 9. Sewage disposal systems for Lots 1 and 2 shall be reviewed � and approved by the Environmental Health Department prior to , issuance of a building permit. _� , , i0. At Final Plat, drainage improvements shall be stipulated to � insure that runoff for the developed site shall not exceed �, the runoff attributable to the site in it's natural state. ' 11. The applicant shall revegetate all areas disturbed by .�� construction within one growing season of construction. ' Revegetation provisions shall be included in the Subdivision Improvements Agreement with associated bonding. ' , � 12. The applicant shall pay a pro-rata share to the County for improvements to Castle Creek Road. The pro-rata share shall � be determined by the County Engineer, based on the traffic '� '� f.� �.,. study recently prepared by Schmeuser Gordon Meyer for the 'c Health and Human Services Center. Payment shall be made to the 'S � ' � county prior to issuance of a building permit. 't ;,, _ 2 0 �_':` . ; i� �. ; �� . �f. ,; .:._.:. , .-_ ,� „ � ..,-,. . , > __. , . _: �,. �?4.F - . .. � .. ':�_. ... . .. ... .. - �' . ' ... '.::. '...� . . � . 4 �� . � .• , � 1 - - y �� . � � ;�SY''tz``�`.n • . -� rr�� . ��a�:� .. ,�..�'�t:. �,,.��,,s;. . � .� , :�;:�`� .��° '' 'F'�'y''bJ�`' � " . . . . 'Zj�i:,-�r' . . �'r;t{ .� � . �;«. .'� £+��.:�.�- � • � ��x aN' � � �� . q'✓1:` �4. ,?,�� -� ..i:-�. . .:.. .. .. . ... � . .�. .-. ;t��`: _ - -.,. t�,�j�"�i;��; r� v ,. ' �.��t��`7�:. S � k-.'v.��'�4':=. � ,��!:=�1:_s;r�-. 13. At Final Plat, the appZicant shall provide "will serve" letters from utility entities providing service to the site. .. �. t 14. Prior to issuance of an access permit, plans for construction , • • of the bridge and stream crossing shall be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health Department. Said review shall address water quality impacts to Castle Creek. � 15. U.S. Ax�my Corps of Engineer's 404 Permit requirements and � � Colorado Department of Health water quality certification ='r regulations shall be adhered to in construction and design of �:� '. " the bridge and stream crossing. ��,~� . . i ,,� 16. The applicant shall provide a minimum stream setback of 20 � • feet as measured from the mean identifiable high water mark � - . of Castle Creek. i .. 17. All utility extensions shaZl be located underground within � + access alignments. ,.. ; ,.,, � 18. Setbacks of the underlying AF-1 zone district shall be adhered � ;-r, to on the Final Plat. �.;�;� "r ;. . � 19. All accessory structures shall be located within the building envelopes as designated on the Plat. • 20. At Final Plat, the applicant shall provide a fire protection . plan which has been reviewed and approved by the Fire Marshal. t; Said plan shall address, at a minimum, proposed bridge load � � capacity and provision of water for firefighting. � ' = 21. A Final Plat shall be submitted which meets the approval of ` i the Planning Office and the County Attorney. � . ,� CARETAI�R UNZT ,) 22. Should a caretaker unit be approved for Lots 1 or 2, the � • � following conditions shall apply: '' '<! a. The employee dwelling unit shall be located within or � �j attached to a sinqle family residence or within an { s agricultural outbuilding and shall not contain more than I� . ( 500 sq. ft. of total floor area. `� b. Applicant shall be required to provide plans for approval � by the Housing office and Zoning Officials to verify the i � ; calculation of the net liveable squaze footage of the one �� j bedroom employee dwelling unit prior to issuance of building permits for the units. ! c. Prior to issuance of e building permit for the employee 21 � , ::i ;i �� .. . � ,. _.:_. . __:. _.,.. ._ ; �r� � .�.�,>,.a.:: _...._._ _.. .. , r. -. . . .. a� ` -.w�c%f. ' ' ' t .y� . � . • '• ' . . 1 .�, ' �'; � � . � � � - " . . �� - ____ u ,,. . ; , ��:�r,;-��.� . .. ' m,:. ` . xa:r�,.:�. _ ,;��,:� . . . :n�`-`'•� . , . � ��y . . •�`.:�,;�i: , . . . :{�-."a�''r . ',�t4i»�`'; . ' .: <y:,�.'�:�: , � ,;,. �`L �� . �� - �. Yy�. K� ��.�. ,.�,;.:�. _:�,� ��. � , _. . . ��'ra,,,,' ��,. � @::x.,�.:4c,"s. !�.��+4��I 5•l�t , dwelling unit, the applicant shall be required to submit for approval a deed restriction or other permanent commitment running with the land guaranteeing that the employee dwe2ling unit shall remain a rental unit, not � , be condominiumized, not be occupied by owner or spouse, �:•. , ;, be limited to occupancy by not more than two adults (and ' related children) who qualify and have been found by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority to be employees of Pitkin County and that the unit shall be rented for terms - of not less than six consecutive months. - d. Applicant will be required to provide one off-street : ' r .. parking space for the one bedroom employee dwelling unit. t� `"�S 1041 REVIEW ''7 � 23. Foundation and grading design shall be certified by a .�_.� professional engineer who shall review soils engineering studies at a site specific level to insure proper foundation �r� • design. � `�, '- _ 24. Prior to signature of the Final Plat by the Board Chairman, �� . building envelopes and access road alignments shall receive ��•:: approval of the Army Corps of Engineers, relative to impacts on floodplain and wetlands. The building enveZope on Lot 1 shall be located outside of riparian/wetland areas as ' identified by the Army Corps of Engineers. If allowed by the Army Corps of Enqineers, a bridge across Castle Creek may be - ' placed in wetlands and mitigated, as recommended by the Army Corps. �'' 25. Through Covenants and Plat notes, lot purchasers shall be ma@e t:�• _ - aware that avalanche is a potential hazard on site. ,� ,�!� • GENERAL i�'• I' ��26. A six acre open space easement on either side of Castle Creek Road shall not be subtracted from lot size calculations in the � � . event that floor area restrictions are placed in the AF-1 r't�'� zone. i' � 27. At Final Plat, the applicant shall submit covenants and a subdivision improvements agreement which shall include costs ' ` � Eor the bridge improvement and xevegetation. � �'' ' � ,. 28. Signature of the Final Plat by the Board Chairman shall be contingent upon acquisition of a well permit from the Division ,., , ' of F7ater Resources and a water court approved auqmentation �: plan, if it is determined by the Division of Water Resources that such a plan is required. The applicant shall only :� receive approval for a maximum of 3 units (including one ; t� , ,' ( - 22 ;�}� ; - �a s' ' ' � • �! ��.4; , i `�. � -�.++a,. .�.;...:e �.;�_.:�.._. ... .�....:�. � .:,-..�. ....,.. ._. ..�. . .._.. . . . . . . .. ,�y�;1 •.. � . . --' ... .. . .. .. .. , .. . . ,. . ,. . .''�x�`,. . • � � � � � �� . ,�. _`_��-:d:'�_..r:. . - � , . Y�{ �� . � ' � ' �, . . t'�`�. —�� , ' �- :- . _ ' , . ��d��` �.��`' . � . ��ir Y 4' aT' c ��{.'� ;'+h•1 , . , ; , . Z��_. , � ' . �s.a..! . �.�,(g ��yv°' �:r.�irb�;a•:ti: � ' � . •'pM��Ki•�. �^��y'1Jc,�`�:.��'" �. . �+'!;�Rk,� A�� y,'/ �C�sy�` ..'�Y: .. _ . .,j� 1 �•..�:'��t�.,e- ........ . .. ..,... .�.. . � � f��r.� r... ._. . . . .. .. .u .. ..�, . s.i ....,. ...... .. . .. . ....~':v ... .. . .. ..^I1 .. �t i"N;t �, t � • �:�i,�}�1;.;. ' k��'y�'5.;�?;: �` caretaker unit) unless an augmentation plan is approved. > ; � � 29. All County air quality standards in effect at the time of -• issuance of a building permit shall be adhered to. �:,. , `• 30. All representations made by the applicant shall become ' conditions of approval. I� . - s `� i i,' I �;�';?':;'�`. � �� '. � ; I � C�' x � E; %�• - i ,��;=�, ' ._� . . . .i . i � f � f .. �� . . , ... � �: . i i - � � , ia'. _ :.' . !. � � � l� . • 1 ! .. i I j �; , � .. � '�k^ � 4 ° '��.: . �'' . �.i�. ��'I1 _ t: ' 23 yl ' � j-... ; �i!�: . � ji _ � `:,ii, � �-;I _._��..«...s_.�.,,,tx rau;;c�.+.a.c�+::�.i_.�..�::;:,t . t ....,._. . � .,�..,.,, .. - � � . � � .�. � . . .�: , ,. Y... *r�� . ..�, ..._ ..,.,.,. __ � � 7.. � ��j . . ' � _ � � • . - ' . . .. . '.°�' _ �Y1 � � _ . � � �� . .- �. . � ` . � .r- _ ... . . - _. . .. � ... �¢}i. .�. ... . . . . . . . - . . . . . -�. �� .. . . . . . . . � . � , _ ... - � .�� . � . . .. � • ; . �.`,,, . . .. _ . � • .I.y,1 . ._.___� - ..�- ---- ,-'Y�. J;. � � 5�:. .:-. •..�.._. ..,.. ... ...-. .. .�.. . .... .�._.. . .. .. ... , . 'Z`.��Ifi. �in 1'ii i��R�.5 f�k�'„�{,(.., BOA,f;U OF C0. >:.ti�:.:. P(!KlIJ CO!!!'+i Y '1::��c;>'` r �.;., �f't,a;�ie: Futslic;fiearinr f.�„tiis ' oatc:: __G..-'1?=`�t,`s 4,.,-;- �.�_r�.�.►_ __._ �. �/ �� _ __.f__�___—___ :,� . ;_:,� . . I88UE8: At the Planning Commission meeting, discussion centered ' i�:�" � around the following issues: - 1. Recomtaendations by Staff relative to proposed relocations, ,:.�r . renovations and preservation of historic structures on site; % It is noted that the xeview of historic structures on szte is r�.;�'` � both a 1041 and General Submission review item. � ? Staff's recoaunendation per each structure can be found on page li of the attached Staff inemo. The Planning Commission�s ," . modifications to Staff's recommendations per each structure, r are reflected in condition number 9 on page 19 of the attached memo. `i :�. x �°4 2. The applicants originally proposed to relocate Spring Creek '�' � r from its current alignment on the property. The proposal was ��'`' intended to improve the water quality and flood capacity of ` �," the stream, and to provide a water feature on-site in doing �' so. Due to the potential (pex-mitting) difficulty associated • with the relocation of the stream, the applicant has withdrawn I`_ the proposal. The appZicant agrees to work with the County �� at a later date to relocate the stream if the County chooses to pursue the project. `' , 3. A Code amendment was sponsored by Staff to allow Special � ? Review for guests houses on historically designated sites. i , . 's The amendment was sponsored as a means of allowing the I applicants to retain the existing Christensen ranch house on t .� site for use as a guest house. In addition to the recommended + amendment to the guest house "Use" section (3-3.55), a � . , � proposed amendment to the ��Definitions" section of the Code }� ' �± (20-1) was discussed at the meeting. The specific code ; � asendment language can be found on pages 16 and 27 of the ' ;� attached Staff inemo. The Planning Commission recommended � approval of both proposed Code amendments. The Chairman � i requested Staff to forward a recommendation that a County , ` � Historic Preservation Commission and a complete inventory list of historic sites and structures be formed and completed, �� ' ; respectively. � 'I � ,.. i -i • '- �r. : . ;.� r . � � c. r� , .. . � �:� ..�,u ..:. F.�. ; .<: r-- : .. ; . .. . _ . i, ��li` ' . � , - � ,' . :.:r�_�y_• . . . . .. . . .:r,: y i'�fy�), TJ�.r;".�.t` ra'3 ' . ' � . 4��.� � 4 . . . —�r. X f - � . . . .. r . •��y�� _ ' �`'�r-g.ri�� . , . . y:!�.',4. . , ,y ,'r.�:-,��,.„_u,+;�. . . :.F rx.,r.-,z>c . . , , �'a,4H��'r . . . ��'.� V. . . . . . , � � °+.'•. .�&�'�t�};� . ' Ylq��a�. "°'4T D ?�, kLwf� �� a,,�t�xj,�T . ''&l� 4. l�� :e.•a. '��y�.�:. ' . �� ±;; . ,. . .. . . -.. , . ' . _ _. .. r4'j#�nV.' .::::: �'�;ii' `±��I�� - � t �"'kv�jt st.�' BOARD Of C0.COf,,r�n�r�s , �,,;,}', ��rrK�w cour��v �..:�� ,,.,t_, Pu�tir,H�aring L>:P�iblts Da�a:__ � s wN ��h_.� FFn�c�� .� ... /��.S117R!L �°_�__.._._ `' , ,-_:1?.tc'�. �-� • ' ' Section 17-2 Amendmant to tbe Land Use Code- The project site is - located in the AF-1 zone district. The applicant proposes to retain ,: the existing Christensen ranch house for use as a guest house. As they :':r propose to construct a new primary residence, the existing residence (ranch house) must be removed to comply with zoning requirements. , � • Rather than relocate or demolish the existing house, the applicant has �. +'.� � been encouraged to retain the house on site in order to preserve the ,,; . historic context of the ranch. Therefore, it has been recommended that � •'! . . the house be retained as a guest house. Per Code Section 3-3, guest � houses are prohibited in the AF-1 zone district. However, it is recommended by the Planning Commission and staff that the Code be s'� amended to allow guest houses on known historic or Caunty inventoried �'� historic sites, subject to special review. The recommendation is made ,;, ; as a means of encouraging landowners to retain historic structures on ��: �;� . site, within their historic context. The following amendment is � ' " recommended to be added to Section 3-3.55 of the Land Use Code: �'��. "A structure which is known to be historic or which is listed on the Inventory of Pitkin County Historic Resources may be used as a guest house, subject to Special Review approval and compliance with policies and regulations of the Code. Adequate provisions shall be made to prohibit rental use or long term occupancy. Expansions may �!;.� be allowed for presexvation purposes only." _ The following amendment is recommended to be added to Article 20-1, ' � under definitions: , . ��?�� "Historic or Cultural Resource: A building, structure, district, ~4�' site or object that is 5o years old or older and of significance in national, state, regional or local history, architecture, archeology ,,'`• � � , or culture and that possesses integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. A ��,`�� , � historic or cultural resource less than 50 years old may be ` � considered significant if it is unique or possesses extraordinary elements of integrity, design, construction, or association." � � . , ' �; . . ` The following addition was recommended by staff to be added to Section ; �; „ 5-405.2(e) under referral agencies: , � "...the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee." ` '�� R "' JI �: •'J 17 ':��'i i _ t .� . � , � �)..,� �'� - f �� - ,4,-�.�.> ,_.::;:, . , :�:. �.:.. ,�. .-: J . : . . . . . _. .. . �;� • ' . 1; ��+� � +xT'::., . . � . .. . •F.' '�''T%�' --- *�"•f�,�. `' - , . '.,.-'��^� �``,;�' � x�.::��;,�r. `�:.-�a , • . � . . . ..A��'i2'i+i . . . � .. � :i:!ti�cp)Ej.. . . �'�4°�'{�M�.� ' , � � i��'Cr:fi`� .�,"C'. �. . - � � . �.��.�''C_ . . • i .�� i `,•y��',_. T �� • wl.. i\b' 3b....:C;� ,��. '� . .�_,�: .._ .. .. . .. . , . .. .. .. _ . .. . :�;s , .� ,_,. , . � � 1° f,s. � �,::1p �n 19'.. [�� r.�Y}.:��%r_.. i Ci.3�.�::j8:t�.: f'�.�ti.�'r.ZSi•�. r 80AFlD OF C0.L'ON,�an�K�s r�».�,��,4�: Nrt;ctt�co�!��1v D��U �( PuGlic Nearii�g Crli�aiis 11 G_��- _► , ` lJ 4ate:.` ��,c �k��ar' ' �� +�. Subj�:t��-/ t . • Exh.Mo. � -'�_..__�-- ;�� r _ RECOMMENDATION: }:.!:,•_-�r,.�, ,. Staff recommends that the Commission recommend General Submission 7 `�d. j. approval to the Board and that the Commission approve the Jelinek � 1041 Review subject to the following conditions: A� , . GEOLOGIC: ;f 1. The applicant shall abide by recommendations made by Nick R ; Lampiris in his letter of October 17, 1990. They are as 'r', ;, _ follows: �• I>' � a. Soils engineering studies shall be performed at the site ��'; ; , specific level to insure proper foundation de�ign. All aspects of the design of the home and the surrounding landscaping shall emphasize a positive flow of water away � from the homesites in all directions; b. Berming around the east side o£ the home shall be � provided to preveht material from reaching the homesite �' during periods of high water flow. The berm shall be approximate].y three feet in height above normal grade. c. Slopes steeper than 30� shall not be disturbed during " ? construction; t d. The driveway behind the home shall be designed to aid in �� . the diversion of water or mud flows; and ! 1 e. The home shall be designed to preclude the accumulation � of radon gas. , i. WILDFIRE: 't . ,. 2. The following wildfire mitigation measures shall be adhered to and shall be placed as conditions of approval on the 1041 , Site Plan: �=; a) Roof coverings shall be of a non-combustible Underwriter ° Laboratory approved material. ;�� ,` : � Z3 �`� Ss� i i�� . ;�:j ,��.: , _ - � ,:.:__, �._,... , :;... a." �.?'"' • �.' � . . . ,�;, �� - . - , � ;,��1' - ` . . i I��-;� . _�ti��`�,,...�,. . . �� ,~r�' - , ; � �y�' , �- �, ��:� ; �• �,, �� , �,. ; . ;��- � �� "�',�`� � �. . � ""_:�:. , .t,.,.;. �_... .... .._._._. _ _. .. . � , � � �;� �. ��j ,a y �..; ��;�;.��u..,' ��.t��'. b) Brush and debris kept at least ten feet away from the base �,'� �`�`'LE` of the home; Dead branches, stumps and other potential fuels - will be removed for a distance of at least 30 feet from all proposed structures. ,,, ` c) Stack firewood uphill or on a contour away from buildings. ,! ' � Keep fire fuels away from stacked wood. • d) Place at least one 10-pound ABC-class fore extinguisher '"" in each structure. A 50-foot garden hose connected to the hot water heater drain is useful in a fire emergency inside - the house. -:'-r `� e) Power and utility lines shall be installed undergzound. :� _ t; i�-.� f) Tree branches within 15 feet of chimneys will be removed. �,... � Trees will be thinned to the extent necessary to develop the --'( - . homesite, but not to the extent that the home will be visible � to wildlife. `-s g. Lewis Lake will be used as an external water supply for 1� � firefighting. ;, ; - � �. ;;.. " h. The access drive shall be improved to meet County .� �,: standards. The road improvement design shall be reviewed and ; ;. approved by the County Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. i. The applicant shall install sprinklering systems in residences, the desiqn of which shall be approved by the Fire Marshal prior to issuance of a buildinq permit. ; � WILDLIFB: 3. Development impacts on wildlife shall be mitigated as follows, � . and shall be placed as conditions of approval on the 1041 Site Plan: , �; a. Homesite be located as indicated on the submittal map: � ' • ' along the east side of Lewis Lake at the base of the � r � ridge, just south of a small ravine or gully. • � ki� j b. Maintain native vegetation outside building envelope and �p as much as possible within envelope to help screen home. i I c. No dogs. „ � d. Fencing be 42", 4 strand or less or 48" 3-rail wood � ` fence. Property boundary fencing be discouraqed. •� e. No horse grazing along riparian area of Thomas Creek. �4 ` t � , ' 14 t ,i _- i ;�i � � i r � j1 � ' '�'�'a`=.c", s-_...r.�..�.:.:. ,.._..�,,. _ . =: -_ �'; , f ,..: . ,.. �f � a.: . .. ,-: '�NY'... . . . . _ . . . `� . �j,•� }.• __. �� • ,_ ' � , f,' .�;.?�;.�'' ''. ,;��R ( ` .. .� .. . . .. � . �!'��;�� - ��`"• . , . �c>,:,., �MV':�.�., . ,i��t�.��'. , � .. ��i _ �..� . . . . . ��;v.yy�. . � � - j-�F' . . . • , � �..�,�, n�� "� ' .� ., , ,}�_ � ... .. . :�.�•.... .._......, . .. _. . . _ , _.. . , _ , :� �.��l;. • �`Sl:'��I.' . :1'. .,:�•. • ��f`;f::;.�..� 't ' f!?t[",Y 1'1�5,. • f. Eight foot game damage fence around haystacks to prevent ' depredation. . g. Utilities be buried in road, use existing road system. ��' '. h. Removal of any old fencing on property. i. No snowmobile use from December 1 through March 15. j. No domestic fowl (including turkeys) unless kept within _ totally enclosed coup or yard (includes roof). %�r ' 4 GENERAL SIIHMI88ION: ;�'.;�ry�' ' 4. The applicant shall revegetate areas disturbed by construction , , • within one growing season of construction. ` [ 5. The septic system designed for the site shall be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health Department prior to issuance of a building permit. ;'l� 6. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall '-` - � provide evidence that the water well(s) on site yield a c;,r;, sufficient quantity of water and satisfactory quality to i ; provide for a primary residence, guest unit and caretaker �:`� unit. Water well yield and water quality shall be reviewed f._ " and approved by the Environmental Health Department prior to ` issuance of a building permit. F 7. The applicant shall apply for and receive an excavation from •� the County Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. � ,�,� `' 8. The access road shall be improved to meet County driveway � • i standards. Improvements shall include, but not be limited to • the following: ' �� a. Grade improvements; � b. Provision of turnouts; c. Provision of ditches and culverts to control drainage €' � � and erosion; . d. Provision of a four inch gravel surface; � .:+ �: � 9. The applicant shall provide documentation that there is � � adequate access to the site, pursuant to Section 5-202.1(b) ��.,• of the Code and the 1990 County road standards prior to i issuance of a building permit. Access shall be approved by '` the County Engineer. � � CARETARER UNIT: lo. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the primary ' residence the following items shall be provided to the Housing . Authority and copied to the Planning Office: � � � :,. _ ? 15 � i ` I� i { �� . -+�� .... ...-..:>;:-,k.. 3;:��. :.:. = �_ .. �. . . . , .. . . . .... . ,� ., . . . � - � .. ...:� . :... _." . . . ... , ..-. : ,. .: .. .`� �-� -:.� :� v , S i �{Y' . � . . . . . . ��'��li.�' ' . ��..;. . . . ... . . .:r- J�i X'�'e� I . '1: . wM�� 7� . M ' � .• __�r .Y'!�� . . .. � ��, . • s�r�4;%;�i � . . . . . . i. :_�t ';��-!+e . ' . , � . . -R�?d:'::�r"�� .. . � � . ,��R;W;��.. � � . . _S' ��:� .. _ . :.•��, . . . : 3�f�:v: .�;. �+i f'c�pv.v4r�;�,.� �,:. .� ��T � �� -0�� ir. ��:� . � � ;{�}. �: �I, �7+ J;''�3.�s�k S;� Y7'S t j `'r ., . ��.... ` ^ .. `t,n. . .,.._.,. � . . .. _ , �t .: ; _- �, � f��4.. .�S_ i.�.i .� e _.::.F� i �.`'. ...� �.i.._ �4;�� ,.. . k�'�� : 5' r r�'��j�`��l;•F'£�(.' • ,+�... G'�"�sti:'tiiid•.,. r..._, ,}� ' f..,=k-_�!�ti+��"4.i;. a. The Owner shall be required, (prior to issuance of a . � building pexmit for the barn) to execute a deed , .� + restriction for approval by the Housing of£ice. The . � . restriction shall state that the unit shall remain a • rental unit, not be occupied by owner or spouse, be limited to occupancy by persons and their families who qualify as and have been found to be full-time employees of the agricultural operation under such guidelines as - may be from time to time established by the Housing :'� � Authority, and be rented for terms of not less than six consecutive months. � .� • t-, �{,�� b. Owner shall be required to qualify all prospective �:... . . � tenants prior to occupancy of the unit with the Housing :.� , . Authority Office. �.i il. The existing caretaker unit shall be rendered uninhabitable 'i ' or demolished prior to issuance of a building permit for the i� : primary residence. If it is to be retained as an '�, ^ uninhabitable accessory structure, a height variance for the !. ;, structure shall be re ired rior to issuance of an buildin '' 4u P Y 4 � �,-,.. permits on the site. � ; : . GIIEST SOUSE: 12. The guest house shall be located above the garaqe within the building envelope for the primary residence as designated on , the site plan. 12. Renta2 use or long term occupancy shall be prohibited in the � , ; guest unit. i �� . GENERAL: t;, '� 13. The applicant shall prepare a site plan for recordation which ?� meets the approval of the Planning Department and the County �� • • Attorney. ;=,�" 14. The guest unit is considered a unit of density on the �,�,, property. In the event that the parcel is ever further � ' subdivided, no less than 90 acres shall be required to provide ;� the minimum lot size required for the main residence, the �;'.,. ! guest unit and the detached caretaker unit. � ,, � 15. All material representations made in the public hearing and , in the application shall be adhered to. � � ii( `: :.y:' : �' �, ,, _ ��:i �:, � 16 I_, i +�. � :�� ' �, .J.�..-, •..•,�...:� ._..1.:.. ...v. ,:,._ .,:.. � , ,. . _,- ._: ._ ,. . . , '� _.�..-... ..,, ,.. _. : ,; ., �.!}:'�' ,': ��. . , • �'� � � / . � �'', . y1:. . . . .. � . .� �;� . . . _ - . . �� ' . � . . . . � . .k�tv'�' . • ' . , . ,�j�r�� . . . . . ' � � . �,�. �'` �r,"E��ti, . . . � a° ��. .� • ,'.�, . �.`Y�� '_ � �� • � r �.. � 2.. �..., ..... .., . . .u� _.. � . ._. .. . . ..,. . ..-�. ..�� . � .. ... :.. ,� .(R� , . .:.1:.. . . ..✓r ... . ... . .. . . _ . . � .. . .. . . . . . . .. . ... . ... . l.��!,��, . �_ .�,� ; ��,�,t��.;:-j BOAR�OF C0.COh4°A'R'a �•!.,��,.,'�,;. i 4�IlK{f1 COi!idTY Puk•;ic Hearin�[>:��ibfis � oatt.:..._.L�-�-s-��'-9/ � . sar.i;�,:._C�4 -� . . ri �i [xn.n�o. ,___._..—..-� . - . � ... I86UE8: y ' 1. The applicant proposes to subdivide two lots of the Eagle .;��,��`' ' - Pines Subdivision into three deed restricted employee lots , which are to be approximately 7,500, 8,500 and 8,000 square ! feet in size respectively. Neiqhbors who attended the Commission meeting expressed concern about the density of the proposed lots as it relates to the surrounding neighborhood. • ! i Lots in the neighborhood range in size from two to ten acres. �' The proposed development was described by a representative of •t� " � a neighbor as �'a very urban solution to development of '��'•• .� employee housing in a rural area." Traffic concentration in r;' � ; the vicinity of the lots was also expressed as a concern. '' Neighbors believe that the employee housing lots should have �:' , been dispersed throughout the Eagle Pines Subdivision, rather j; than on it�s periphery, where it is perceived to impact others in the area. ' ,`. ••.e The Planning Commission generally agreed that the proposed i density was not consistent with, and would negatively impact : '� the surrounding neighborhood. The Commission is forwarding a f ; recommendation for approval of the subdivision with the � stipulation that it will be two lots, rather than three lots. ,�i , %f 2. The applicant proposes to deed restrict the lots pursuant to j� the Housing Authority's category #4 guidelines. According ta . these guidelines, the category �4 units would be 1400-1600 • square feet in size, selling (at maximum size) for $198,000.00. Lot sale price would be $25,000.00. (The lot sale price may or may not be added to the unit price, as ; ' determined by the Board of County Commissioners) . ; � The Housing Authority recommends that the lots conform to the „ "moderate�� income, or Category #3 income guidelines, to make ; „ � them more affordable. According to their guidelines, the ? ' � Category #3 units would range in size from 1,200-1,400 square � . feeC, selling (at maximum size) for $148,000.00. Lot sale +;: price would be $21,000.00. .{ Z �� i - .:j � � { .. � , , :..: : � .. . ...... ,. , .., . . . _,.: .- - .: + ..s .. .�;.. ,.. ; . , - > .� . �'�� . • , . ' ; ._.,._ i .; �.�W�;:: � . � ;, . -�;�� '. , , . � �a4! ;;. � ' / �I' . r; ir�,'' ��s: • . �}�x�e�� t�i�,ia�, . � ��, �� , �� t.r. . ;��;� ��r "i�'��v _ r� cYiPP„_ .1:...�::�, . ., ,�._;' � . y�� , , ,. �g ,7 r . .. . _ . rR� ..�t, isr � � �.t: t� �:. -- S .t.f � .� , . r��S_��-f` Z`�''.d�tr'[ �_° r+� :e.'•��f � . S~�'� �A t: i;u�,� �.i a �-. f,i�.. r�- t �. r'�'t"r_GI"�'�.:,4,t .'': ,:,tl��;!EtS,�,.s.3. :i'., �r.a'.i.:. � ..�'.. � �..-L`kS'�.�r... .h<�.._-.7�i: �r.r.e�ii�'�13'j>XafL):.¢�oi.��wri�':'i�_• �} . �;' .. v,��'.Y. � � �,, . . ..��..�. ` The Commission recommends that the two lots be sold as Category 4 income level units with a cash-in-lieu payment, , f and/or other option (as chosen by the applicant) for ~ I mitigating the remaining of the Eagle Pines Subdivision's affordable housing impacts. The recommendation is based on the finding that development at the Category #4 income level � � will be more consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. � V� '.-• - Staff concurs with the recommendation for two, rather than three .r . (�'�` -: . ' . i lots on the site, as a means of responding to neighborhood concerns f regarding density and compatibility. Staff recommends, however, F�`'='r��:' � that the appropriate income category be determined by the Housing (?�"4 - - Authority. , I � �� /!'��". . � ; , � �,�� i *.}''�� ,,;: i , � , 'r i. # � _ � ' .. � '� y . � � . . . . ..i . � . `�. . � . . � � . � �11 .. 1 .. � � j^ I �•.f.\ . . i � � �'��1Y ��. ; � ts� � 3 +i :l .. '. f � / ! i.�i'.. ,: �e�Qk••�s�-:.e�saars7�:�.e�?��kt��;...� r,�.;,-:._� _.,,t.. . , <u .. ._ � .. . . _,..._.....�.__ . ,...., ` n t .. � �' v-4 � �. . , •• _ p. . _ �J�. . . . . ' . '. . . i , �fM1 . .. . �. . / ..� ' � . � . . ._ . ... i � � .i� . � . �� . . � . . � . L �. . . . . . � _ . . � � .. . .. ' . - ; . ..• . .F;. . . . . . . . . . .' . . _ . � . . - . . � . • 1 . ...�; . - . . - � . . . �� .. . . . . . . . �?'� �• "�A . . . ' � . . �� • �,. . ,;�;-. �;,�,� � � �, .. , .- .. _ .. _.. _ . ' _. _. . � i�,�f � / 1!` i� , �'�,, t " i:� — c �'j`i� �y+a `��. �T.�•,J+t i lI ..��.- .;'_j @+'�*'ri•:�i;. �� 24�991' _ Buttermilk Homeowner s Associtation � //� P.O.Box4941 �� ' Aspen,CO 81612 �``/ � . . • June 24,1991 6t�AN1�iii�CCf-t;�rel;tri`rs'a , - PiT1CiiJ Ct;i.;i1T5' . Futlic H�arin,e:s!iiaits •,:",. . Pitkin Courrty Board of Commissioners s:�f _ :• ' 506 E.Main Street Date:— '�-- r"J-'-3 �.'. .,�r � Aspen,CO 81611 S�sb;e:•t:��-;;`f"l.k�"5"— ` ` •k r.,;�: ,.:,. .__�------_.__..._--.- �' ' Dear Commisioners: � i. , + The Buttermitk Homeowner's Association wouid like to present it's strong objection to ; ` the proposal by the Eagle Pines development to place three employee housing units on � '� � a small parcel of land in the West Buttermilk area. The impacts from the development �_,;; , of this project and PMH re-zoning at the proposed dens'ity would be totally inappropriate •;; . ; to and out of character for our quiet residential neighborhood. The smallest lot size in the Buttermilk area is five(5)acres,with many lots of ten(10) acres or more. There is absolutely no precederrt for allowing three housing units, employee or otherwise,on approximatety one(1)acre of land directly adjacent to a rural ; t road in a rural area. During the planning and approval process for the recently completed East Owl Creek development,also near our neighborhood,the County � encouraged and approved the dispersal of employee un'its throughout the project. � Buttermilk Hameowners do not oppose well planned employee units in our area,and : woufd support one unit at the proposed location, The placement of three empioyee ' j units on a smali parcel is,however,an urban solution that is not appropriate for our area. � � � We understand that the comptexion of the Eagie Pines development was largely " . determined by an out of court settlement between the County and deveioper,and that ,� the fast track approval process eliminated much of the possibility of addressing public ►'_ . • concerns in the area. If this had not been the case,the developer,like other applicants, E� � ; surely would have been encouraged to disperse employee housing throughout the ' ` � development where adequate acreage would have mitigated or eliminated impacts to the . � neighborhood. We view the attempt by the developer to initiate PMH re-zoning on one acre,a convenient distance outside the develapmenYs exclusive secur'ity gate,after the !' developmenYs approval,as a cynical attempt to meet a housing requirement without __ making a subst�ntial cash in lieu payment. During the public process for the Eagle ��, ; ,. 1 . � ;�. �.' ,... � ,. _ .::-:.. ,... ,. : .. ` � _ �,,. .�:E , �. �-Y,r.�� / � wFd,�� --_� r,�ifG . � .. �i"� i �C . •' ' ._,��`.. . ' . ' ��M. !.r.�i . . . . "��•�'a':. � , . . . . '��'�'�i� ' � ':�'r�Ar . �*��c�.,�`: `'�, , ..^��:�: . :r �..�.: x�?�:�;. �.�� '� �� . r:�� •:,,,. *,M1 ��:�:. � . 'T� 6 �11��t� Y� {�! y ! � k"i{Y i'S� }�..:�.�.��<�'�...4t... x,His`1..:..; ,:: . ,Y•.r'. ..)i '��'�� u'{.��f....,: � . ..�...:.:t... _. . . �.,�.'. , .. . ...,�._.... ..I'. ,��, ��.W').� ~�'��i .. {*��5��: G Pines devebpment,no mention was ever made of the developer's ptans to place � : � housing of any kind on the acre now in question. _ ! :,::.•. i►. We urge you to deny approval of the Eagle Pines applica6on for more than one housing • ' unit at the proposed location. `� Sincerely, '�;; ; � : x , �� t Alan Marcus � `��:��,�•��A � ;:_; ' President,Butterm�lk Homeowners Association r.:�:.., . • i ; cc:Mary Lackner, Pitkin County Planning Office ;� � I `�• I �'� ,A � i!�;!�' „ ' � ( i��%�. � "j . � , i � i'..± ( , 3 . , �.. • 5yy i � . r. ' �}'1 i,�, �, �.:,� , ; ;� : . � . .. 1 l• 1 i. '1. � ` . I ; i.. ; °1.fi . ' . r'`7,�"_. '`i -- <�� ' 1 j �:,, � i �,:��.'. ,. � '; 'i�. : . �„�`.�s-�.�F�,1.yac.� -ti,� . ti:.��k} �r. - _. ---.� ,_ ..� . . .._ . , t .t x''�tF�..r�_ .s :�' .,.. .r,: ..r1. .. . ,....'�:. �,.., .: ;..._ .. . . ..;..�:. �.�� ' ' �"� �<�'�. � . . �. �_ '� ____ � _ , �; .. �,��.� __ ._ . .* ,_. . . ��. , � � _ . i� . r , !+ ,�' ' ' , �. .� �:� . . . �� ,;, .�;„ �... , � ,, ..,_ ,,.. _ ..r . _...—. � . .+. .. . ,.. • , �... _ ,.. ... . _ I'A S' u': _ ., �� fj ��+ ,. BOARD'Jf CO:GOi:;Y�'R'S � ;y+�� FIT!�Jld f;t'1'�'11' .......r=x ��:�. r�;rs�::►;��,;;��,::>.::::�;s / _ C.iC:._._.._._�4 aS'9--'t�" ,/*c�'O y � /> >Q/ /`1 ., `.a,,,�_;i• t�st4/_. r,/ ' ' , ,:�;ii.C;:i. ....-/.�.....__._...__._--- . St7MMARY: - , The Planning and Zoning Commission voted to approve a condition ' " . which would permit the owner's of the two constructed employee � dwelling units on lots 5 and 9 to '�buy down" the difference between �'='u'.• :;..:, � the Low Income Category unit and a Categoxy 3 employee unit. The - Commission does not recommend the adoption of the other proposed changes by the applicant. ,`�� The applicant's proposed PUD amendment do not meet the original �f intent and purpose of providing on-site units to mitigate employee }� , housing requirements. As Jim Hamilton oriqinally indicated, these ' employee units are not intended for the personal employees of the ','�_, ;�, � free-market residence, but are price restricted units (granted as ! a result of GMP approval) to be rented under the Housing Authority + i�•" :�.: Guidelines. .� r i Two issues have risen from this application: i 1. The applicant is proposing to amend the employee housing requirement for the Owl Creek Subdivision to exchange these "GMP" emp2oyea housinq units into � � _ personal "caretaker units." ,' 2. The rules governing the built employee dwelling units specify that these ur,ii: not "intentionally" �� ' ' be left unoccupied. The Housing Authoritp should retain control of the rental of these units. The Owl Creek Ranch PUD subdivision won the residential GMQS I�� allotments due to the scoring they received on their commitment to provide ten on-site Iow income employee dwelling units. The � applicant's may pay cash-in-lieu as listed as an original condition � of approval in Resolution 84-91, subparagraph 11. B., if they do not wish to provide a unit on-site. � . � � The individual property owners may also apply for an on-site +' � � employee dwelling unit pursuant to Section 3-8.13 of the Land Use � ' Code, iE the cash-in-lieu option is selected for a site. This ( provision of the Code perntits a unit similar to that the applicant �' . ��` is requesting, except that the allowable square footage of an ` employee dwelling unit is Soo square feet (rather than 700 square { < feet proposed by this application) . �� • 5 � ' �- tt ,i ;,f• .- � �," M �:�:.'. .�'.._: ' . ... � . � . �. � �� - . s�::.1,l ..i'��.:.. .. . -. ' . �.... , . . �:-.s. . � . .. . ' • . . . .. . �� . `ti�;.� " . � y�,y�. � � - - � F. �� ' f r�'�� . . b. • . / .. 'F��y �.��. 4 � . . . . � ' � . ' .• . �•3�Kt: - ' . ��L`I."°��;��^Y. . . ��;s��f- , ' . . ..y,x��i�yp R�� . . . ,y/�•f :2£,R;�(±,. . ' - . . "��t: . . . ' .. 4�°�t�;w , ��• c c��;� ,`,ix a,"s,t- . ��a • � � • .,. ,��_ .:n...:•, :;�, ��.., . .z..� ..r ...,r...... . ...., __� . . ,... r. . �.�. ...i`:e. � . .7i.}.. .... '� , . .`'F . .y. _, ?r��`..�.;':�� . � ��, t� .ti �HS ��.: �"��'�:: , It appears that the applicant has not contacted the APCHA to obtain � � - a list of qualified low income couples, roommates, and single �' parent households for selection of occupancy of the two bedroom low ' �. z ! income employee units presently in existence. Since these units ' `• s were committed to the County through the GMQS process, the Housing ' Authority should be able to place qualified persons in these units if the owner has not rented them. , �. The research the Planning Office has done indicates that the � applicant's request is contrary to the intent and requirements of '•`� �.. ��': -� � the GMQS system and the required mitigation of employee dwelling :�. units. There are other mechanisms in the Land Use Code which i,`;�'�'�.;�' permit the individual property owners to apply for units which - would accommodate their needs. Planning staff is in agreement with i•'" � `j the Housing Authority staff and Board's recommendation of no change � � � ' i to the approved PUD. �� - i ��, .. • j :��;{. `-� . �.•'_ � . �1x' . �� t li j., ' �, ; ,� ? , .? -E.Y'. . �. , SY��; S � �`:�� . : �� . � , . }: ;v � i �:: �� .. ;_:. � �: � . : �., , .. � ,'�al.��.. � � •�j(�':'. 1 . �� ..�. _— I 6 ' S4 � + . i `��; ;;f,•. . i,.,. `!`, ��...�... .:.�.x�,. �a:;� ,�..:� .�..�. �.� __..,. � _ : _.. _. . �.,..�< ..,..�., �,.i.._t. ., � • <� �,,�.. , . �; , �!Sr�f`'' � . . . �� - ,e c � S�� . .. . . � . . . . . • . .. ; -','w, '$t . . .. . . - . _ . . . ` _ . � i' , . �; .�� . . . . � ... � _ �. . _ . . �� .. :ti . . . - . . . . . �� . � � '1 . � .. � .. � � , . ' . ��p ,1�: . � 1 . ' . . , ' . ' ��. .. , . . � . . � . . � . '_�.�i • :.,'i,' !� • " .�.� . .�:. ...Y:: '� - . � . �� q�. .. � .`- ,; . ...' .. �,Y..' . 1 y . . . .. . ... . .... . . . . .. ... ... . .. . .... . . '.. .. . . .w. .. ��i�. , •_,:.. ' �i�� ,`,, . ' ��a1' (�}! : ��, �+r��i!i�s�,:'n..: ; D C�C�C�QNI� MAY-61991 � . �/ ' '.�. � . . . .� ... REFLY MEMORANDIIH t�(l;:t..; .. -�,� ��p•�� : . °:� ` Pir�i�; �'o'aw* �r�'.,I f�,t5�e.�Eg��riar� � ` � �-�.s/-J�.�1! :�l _ To: Planning & Zoning Commission ��Q� (/jffie�_f� /�,tl ;.5 + rrr n�ii � From: Catherine H. McMahon E�(�,�r """'"""' � : ' �'' Date: May 6, 1991 �G,� '` �ri :,-,. Re: Owl Creek Ranch PUD Amendment s ; :. ; ----------^--------------------°------------------°------------ Ten months ago two Owl Creek Ranch homeowners requested the Housing Authority's consideration of the problem the homeowners were facing in placinq acceptable tenants in their Employee Units that met the low-income guidelines. This request led to a meeting ' , . with Timothy Whitsett, Jim Adamski, Yvonne Blocker, Ron Austin and myself. At that August 2, 1990 meeting Ron and I were told that, i�.. . w h i le sympa t he tic to t he lo t o wners� d esire to p lace emp loyees o f � their choice in units that were attached to or in close proximity y: • ' j to their family homes, the County would enforce the Owl Creek PUD ;;;: ; absent a proposal by owl creek Ranch that presented a reasonable ; ;� alterna�ive. ' � � Assuming the County's representatives were acting in good ,'=�� faith, Owl Creek Ranch spent considerable time and money ($1,700.00 � ��' in a lication fees alone in develo in and � pp ) p g presenting a proposal that would both resolve its problem and benefit the County by givinq it additional employee housing or additional money for such . . housing or both. ; Y,�•.• The applicant suggests that, at the very least, it is entitled to a reasoned critique of its proposal by the Housing Authority and the Planning Staff. Instead, their respective memos simply present � '� � a requrgitation of what we all already know -- that the Owl Creek �; PUD was created pursuant to the GMP process and all that that process entailed. 't( . • The problem remains despite the process. The app2icant was e� -- • led to believe by the Housing Authority that a reasonable proposal : ,yy , would be thoughtfully considered. Instead, both the Housing �- ' . .�.� I '� _ � ��} . i .��,..arA .._.,�.. ...,.�.:,.. �.,__,:-,... ... ,:.�:_ .. _..... .. . . . . .._. . - . .. • . . . . .. . � , '�� . .1 _ 1 �! � . . .. ..��.r,.: .,�. . ni::�:..' - . . , . . 'y=1:..:`�`-�" . . � . .. t�'3 r'. � , � ��` r;e,�� • � '�Y�� .a�7";.�:.�*�; � . •�'t '�i`y4..1�. ' . . �-.y Y . IIjrX�'�U ;' � • n„r`:,� , 'x �L�ry� ..;�•�ci`'.:, . . • . '�:�.,�`.s,�=};i.' y:x��. ,'��,�.-^�u.° � � . � k�'r`��. _V: .. d'q�Y FG ��'�� . . .. . .. .. . .- .. —.. . . . � . �� . .. . . . . .. . .. . . . ... � .... . , � ' '�7{e`�I/4{•Y�'`:��: . .'�,Y i^^��.'�..�. � � -• d''i3�#Y(1 ,:a�-.:"1��; �'".�1c.��+i�jl. : �b,+l}�Sa1"�c i Authority and the Planning Staff refuse to consider the applicant's proposal on the basis that it does not comply with the original approval. That�s a given -- there would be no need to apply for an amendment to the PUD if applicant's proposal was in exact compliance with the original PUD approval. , - , The applicant reiterates that its proposal is not an attempt to circumvent or abuse the Code or employee housing guidelines or � to subvert the employee housinq restrictions of the PUD. It seeks merely to resolve the immediate prohlem faced by the two lots " ' already developed and resolve potential problems for the owners who :•,, !' have not yet developed their lots. It does not seek anything from the County without giving the County something significant in ��'•:... : return. ` �'•.:�' � APCHA's list of qualified low income employees does not solve ' . the Whites' problem. They are full time residents with small ��J children and would like to employ a caretaker couple experienced ; and qualified to assist with the care of the children and the house. Their employment requires a live-in situation, and it is � understandable that they prefer live-in employees that fill their ` i own needs to strangers employed elsewhere. Both the Protective i, '= Covenants and the deed restriction they signed indicated to them ' „ that they would be able to house employees of their choice. �� 't ; The staff inemos fail to address the Housing Authority�s ' erroneous information as to the Whites' and Seidens' option to make a cash in lieu payment. The purchasers of Owl Creek were ��oected to have knowledge of all of the PUD approval conditions (as well as ' Jim Hamilton's memo in the PUD file}, yet the Housinq Authcrity ' itself that was intimately involved in the PUD approval �rocesrs was � ' ' misinformed as to the cash in lieu option when presente� wi.th the question by the Seidens and Whites. � With respect to the applicant's Proposal B (designed to , ' resolve the Whites' and Seidens' problem) to make a cash in lieu 1�' payment in exchange for the right to lease to moderate income � employees as opposed to low income employees, the County gets money ' �' to compensate for the benefit given. No other provision of the � • present PUD reauirements changes. Planning Staff's suggestion that ''�.I the owners could determine occupancy requirements or leave the Unit � � unoccupied is erroneous. A careful reading of the proposed amendment indicates that every requirement remains in place, except � that the unit could be rented to a moderate income employee -- for a price. An owner must make a cash in lieu payment, in addition to , constructing employee housing, for that privilege. � � With respect to Proposal A, a full cash in lieu payment is • .. presently an option (even though the Housing Authority in 1988 told ' the Whites and Seidens that it was not). The applicant is requesting the right on hehalf of all owners to construct a y� Caretaker or Resident Occupied unit in addition to making the full 2 ��'� - `' t 1 �,.,j '� . .'s _ r.. " " ,...�. .._....... ... .. -..F ' .. : . . . . . .. . . �� :_""_ .... ... _ . . .. . . . . . " .. -•.. . - -tF�: - 1 :k{�"�:.��rif . , . . J..- : 1,a� . �� l'+'e��. ~ .. ' .. . '. ��[p�1��. :� �f�M'��: ' a{�X4^�, Rt�",fyj•ti�R . l��Y.;:;�� ' . ::Ti��-,� . � . N '� � ;!�V1y�•': � . . � a� �,z.,�' ,�;�5y;r� , ��,',` . �� s I�; r�� "�� . .:'8:l'�"-° ,� ry��. _ . ..�.�.� ��._. _._ , __ _�; °' ?�.�;Wr , a'3�'�• ` <� ._e; -' <<. ;:.:. r :;_ : � . �` i.. ., ,. , . - , . � .. -:. . . . .,�:..�.F.�. .':f.,. _ _ . , �u :.:{, "t 3� . • �t . . i'�. �, ' • � i ,N.tF'r.'�t'1, !. ��'��,�'..: r.��r� n!t:�. payment. The payment fully satisfies all PUD requirements; accordingly, Planning Staff's response -- as to GMP points and - awarding of GMP allocations and the employee housing requirements -� _ of the present Protective Covenants -- is superfluous. A full cash >:,.� in lieu payment fulfills all GMP requirements under the present • � � ': PUD. The County need only consider whether it would also like the benefit of housing additional employees, as it stands to reason - that if an owner chooses to build a deed-restricted unit at • considerable expense when he has no obligation to do so, the unit "'�'r will most likely be occupied by a Pitkin County employee. ;:,,1•?.,�•. Planning Staff's suggestion that the owners may apply - individually for on-site employee dwelling units pursuant to �ti.�- Section 3-8.13 of the Code seems wasteful of the County's time and ' the owners' money. The applicant is attempting to achieve that objective on a more economical joint basis. Moreover, any change `' `~ to the PUD requirements made at the request of an individual owner ' would require an amendment to the Protective Covenants in any �� ' ` event. An amendment to the PUD makes it a matter of record, �' % � prospective purchasers are aware of what they can and cannot do by `�"' -; a reading of the Protective Covenants, and piecemeal applications ' i�,-�,. � � :'��.�i r-, . are avoided. Such an approach is simply good sense. i ` The applicant respectfully requests the commission's thaughtful consideration of its proposal -- a reasonable .i ' ialternative to the employee housing requirements of the Owl Creek , � PUD that the Housing Authority directed it to submit. '�..' i j � I }!!. � "� i �; . � .''`, � i. I � �, . .. � � � • � � ,'��; I : :. , � ;y� � � 3 `tf; �. , __ �1' (. � 6,�� ; � , �'.;^ k ..._ i ... ._".��_"' . ._.._.._ ... .. ""'—_,._..:....--__...�� ........... ..___' '""�.� .... .. . _........ .�_...... ..._ . Y.�L��a.��-�--.. :"_____ . ' � ��i Mt .y� ' .. �. . . . . �� . . � . . . . . " , • . � ��-�'K. � . . ' � . . • . S`.: , ' . . ''.� .. ��► ��•�� . 4 , ^ .. _. . .. I ' x' . � �' � , . . . . • . � . . . '"��' ?!i� .. � . . . . 1 . . ,r��f��. , � . •��: , c' d � . .,�,�.:�.`� - � � °`'` . ��h �': ��; : �l'° ��,,�yw}F . �4 ,..L. ��,�}y� i� ..�a'�'� ....�� ..... ... . :�(.. . .. .�.f�. . ' . . ... .. . . .. . � � . .-� � . �. . . ..- . . ,. . '� i+C ^;C � ��rb , € ' 2 ��t Y1 noAa��or-ro.t:o:�;�;^,�j�c�s � ��.;.. FiT�Qid Sl'!!itTY '`�.�:'h't��:.'L: � AGENDA ITEM SI7tR+1ARY f'n�''i�Fle•rClnt)�T��" , _�s.9 : e:;i::....(a_._. ��ocs s WORK SESSZON DATE: JUNE 24, 1491 ,/ ,t �,tCE,Y �tsc{4f'_'. ,. �..��:•::)Ft!!�kJ'.4-- - --" — /'� ... AGENAA ITEM TITLE: HUNTER CREEK ACCESS AGREEMENT ��I�.��'•----`-" � • .:�., .,. ___ STAFF RESPONSIBLE: MARK FULLER ISSUB SUt+Il�tARY: We have been discussing access to the Rubey Property across Hunter Creek property with the Hunter Creek . Commons Association for some time. The issues associated with :'r these discussions have included the following: � ' " - Densitv - The Agreement limits Rubey development to 18 .-:1, ' _ _ units in perpetuity. '''�� - Access - The Agreement provides us with a forty foot . i easement connecting the Braden and the Rubey properties, . sufficient for all roads, utilities and landscaping. - Vacation of Existina Easements - The Agreement calls for fthe County to abandon existing access and transit easements , through Hunter Creek and to provide a writteh confirmation from RFTA that they hold no interest in those easements. j � - Sewer - The Agreement provides the Rubey Project a 20-foot ?� „ easement allowing sewer hookup to the Hunter Creek line. This ;��= line will be dedicated to the Aspen Sanitation District after "�f; interconnection. The County is obligated to make necessary �."° � upgrades to the sewer line and repairs to Hunter Creek common E. areas in order to implement the interconnection and dedication. - Landscapina - The Agreement calls for the County to berm and 1 landscape to shield the Rubey Project from Hunter Creek. - Fence - The Agreement calls for the County to work�with ' i Hunter Creek to discourage pedestrian traffic between Rubey and '' Hunter Creek, including future fence construction if necessary. E - Pets - The Agreement allows Hunter Creek to enforce � j covenants against pets at Rubey should the County, the Housing l , Authority, and the Homeowners' Association fail to do so. - Pavment - The Agreement calls for the County to pay Hunter Creek $75,�0o in one lump sum upon final land use approval. - i EPA Site - The Aqreement acknowledges that Hunter Creek is within i. � '� the Superfund site and that all County work must take place in a full compliance with institutional controls qoverning ! • ,.� construction activity within that site. y,� - Liabilitv and Coinsurance - The Agreement calls for the :� County's contractors to coinsure Hunter Creek, which should not ., be a problem. It also calls for the County to coinsure, which we �' are investigating. The language of this clause is worded broadly i� , to acknowledge our obligation to assist Hunter Creek in extending • >•� their liability coverage to address the potential liability , incurred by the construction of the Rubey Project and is � approvable on that basis. i ` � i This Agreement is consistent with our ongoing discussions with ( : . � Hunter Creek for the past several months. We recommend approval at your Regular Meeting of June 25. ` -'� �'' - _) � ,,.� - _. �� .} __�_. _._____._. .. ,.. ....,,..._._ , - ,_ • a<r �.. . .. . - .. . , .. . . . .. . .. .. . -�.F.�'-_. . . • ��4 . ��ti;... � . . •. . . ,�.. . -�� . . � � ' � � . . SY�+b�� ,� � ' _w '�� . ! '�� . �K�.�y��. • . '%,�'�`=»:'� , • ��:� ..x�;;..•�,r � . � . . �'�`�.y��' . � ' . � . :�j.STw•. . . ' . ' :��p�+� U� . . . � . :��2g a.,'y: � i.� ��i,"�•� ��x +�a • � ' �'<+ r Q.W;�..�. . •M�..�S