HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.reg.10291991 .�.W,. . . _ � __ _
�,.� -- _ _
, ,,_;_:;.
:�
�
, � ,�
.• r.� ,, — � ,.,. _ — .
: -. . . , ; :
�t. �t. .;�� . _ .._ . . _ , _. .., . . c - _
�;;,
��T�n .:
��4 �
�4�.1�i ,�rs,.
� {-:-.
':�^b,j'��°,
r�.'!�1=x5'Li�.
PTTRIN COIINTY COMMI88IONERB ..
AGENDA
TDESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1991
a. �
' AORR BES�ION - Sheriff�s office Conferance Room
1:30 PM '� Bill Raley, CSU . •
2:45 BREAK
3:00 1. Reappraisal Plan, Tom Isaac
3:30 SPECIAL MEETING -
EXECUTIVE SESSION �r
Litigation Issues
4:30 PM ADJOURN SPECIAL MEETING y.,.
,_�'.
REGIILAR MEETIN6 NOTE LOCATION: Roarfng Fork Room, Commuaity Center �
-I 5:00 PM PIIBLIC COMMENT
CONSENT AGENDA
� 2. Minutes
i 3. Resolution Supporting Grade Separation at the Aspen Airport ;. !
i Business Center & Hiqhway 82, Reid Haughey "
4. Resolution Supporting Public Acquisition of the Red Brick '
� i School, Reid Haughey �J�
� ADMINISTRATIVE PUBLIC HEARINGS �'
.� 5. Redstone Inn Renewal of Liquor License, Kim Schultz _i •
„� LAND USE PIIHLIC HEARINGS
6. Employee Dwelling Unit Code Amendment, Mary Lackner
� 7. Resnick Subdivision General Submission, Ellen Sassano
' 8. West Buttermilk Pfister Tract 2 1041 Hazard Review and ' �
General Submission, Mary Lackner
West Buttermilk Pfister Tract 3 1041 Hazard Review and , •-
General Submission, Mary Lackner
West Buttermilk Pfister Tract 4 1042 Hazard Review and
General Submission, Mary Lackner . ,
•• West Buttermilk Pfister Tract 5 1041 Tiazard Review and '
General Submission, Mary Lackner ,
: 9. Amendment to Section 3-3; Guest Houses for Historic Sites,
Ellen Sassano (To be tabled at staff's request)
;a� LANA IISE ACTIONS
r� 10. Lind/Koppel Subdivision Exemption for a Plat Amendment, ,
Mary Lackner
il. Allotment of Non-Metro Area Residential GMQS, Suzanne
Konchan
12. Allotment of Metro Area Residential GMQS, Suzanne Konchan � '
13. Endorsement of the Redstone Master Plan, Cindy Houben
f ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS `
;� 14. lst Reading and Set for Public Hearing, Ute Avenue Special
' Improvement District, John Ely ,
' •� 15. Resolution Adopting Revised Snvestment Policy, Tom oken .
16. lst Reading and Set for Public Hearing, ordinance Approving t
Library Sale, Tim Whitsit�
9:00 PM ADJOURN
•�; A BREAK WILL BE TAKEN AT 7 PM.
� PLEASB NOTE: ALL PIIBLIC HEARZNGS ARE NOTICED FOR 5:00 PM. ACTIIAL TIMEB '
-,� AILL VARY. �
,� �
1:!
,.,i
�e,'��+
��tz' ._. . ._ ,... . ,-i:v .t...... ... .... . . �.- .. . —� . .� � . � �,�� .
�t.�� � .. . . � ��Sa.s
:�����T� . 4 ' � � . . .
��.r. w.f,.r�.:
� �� . .
,u�t`. . . _ � .
�`
Yt`r,��'�, ' •
� � ..� , .
��N�
q���y?:. � , � :
,���,�`� .
:�,�t����� , � ,
��^
� .
uk�.
, w:;.'<.
}Y *
.,y�+t7'�;:�. �S Sy. . ... . . . . +I .. . .. F �� , ._.4; .�,.>.-+ftviwtYf.4i,r.12,%�1'�w'-�Ra:.ft'� , �u't I
�#s�t'�'k
. . �'p.�4 i N .,,�,
� �.�.�;i:l�,��.
� • Rar���E� ,�� �.�,��;�;;;�:.
' . A��v .���99 r
� �r'/4£r�<r 4
> �.
MINOTES .
e.
PITRIN COLJNTY HOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS "
REGIILAR MEETING ' '
OCTOBER 29. 1991 ..r ..
t 1.�,,.�r
. CALL To oRDER: Chairman Ethridge called the meeting to order at ":i ,
5:00 p.m.
`t i
MEMBERS PRESENT: Wayne Ethridge, Bill Tuite, Jim True and Herschel
Ross k� '
i
PuBLIC COMMENT: Chairman Ethridge asked if there was anyone ;i, �''.
present who wished to address the Hoard on any issue not scheduled '�� -_
on the agenda. No one wished to speak. ��' ^F'
CONSENT AGENDA: '�
Ethridge stated, that there are two resolutions which he would like
, a motion to add to the agenda the first one being a resolution in
support of public acquisition o£ the Red Brick School. �;. �
Commissioner Tuite moved to add this resolution to the agenda.
With a second by Commissioner True, the motion passed with three :�
�,�
yea votes. k_ ,
Ethridge introduced the second resolution as a resolution '{'
supporting construction of a grade separation at the intersection � j
of State Highway 82 and the Aspen Airport Business Center.
•'';�i�,
Commissioner Tuite moved to add this item to the Consent Agenda. ', ''F.
• With a second by Commissioner True the motion passed with three yea -��
- votes. -
;;: �
;. �.
MINUTES OF OCTOSER 15. 1491 , �`•
.RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF PIIBLIC ACQUISITION OF THE RED BRTCR SCSOOL �
✓RESOLUTION SUPPORTING CONSTRIICTION OF A GRADE SEPARATION AT THE
INTERSECTION OF STATB HIGHFTAY 82 AND THE ASPEN AIRPORT BUSINES3 "
:�'; ,.
. CENTER
Commissioner Tuite moved approval of tha Consent Agenda as amended. `'��
? Aith a second by Comtnissioner True, the motion passed unanimously. �� �_ .,, _
�
.,:t
;.�s,y
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMI33IONERB 1 OCTOBER 29� 1991 ;j ,
��.�
.`i
�1..
, `.'.
.�•,-� ...... . . , . . ... . . . �� . . . _ � .Y .. _ . _ . . � . :r�.
�y���. -- ' ' � �� .
_� .: x
'����.�
���,:.���
tc: �.�,;
�.��� • ' .
°���;,.��:;; . ..
,.�.�: .
' ����.;;
_���;,t� . ,
�����; .
.�
��;:
:����:
,,.y .
��
,.
R,w�.
.�;
;�,';
�
_� �},�y X� ;��?L t ..,,!' � '.��-" f e ..—....
�, *
.s4� _ . /... . . .... .� . • . .. . .. _ .�r�. .. . . . .. . . , . , .
�,lr,�::�
� • ,�tk k;�':.:
�,�:
_��,:,,,:;,,
. • ?��t`i���:,�.
• Commissfoaer Ross entered the meeting.
Tim Whitsitt, County Attorney asked that an additional item be •
� added to the agenda for consideration. He said the Library Board
and the Board of County Commissioners have been attempting to work '
out a sale of the olc2 library facility, and they have just in the :
last couple of days come to a conclusion of negotiations with ..
prospective purchasers. And for that reason, staff just today had
been able to get a Formal ordinance prepared for sale of the '�;.=
library property which he would like the commissioners to hear on -
first reading this evening and set for second reading and public ` r .
hearing on November 12, 1991. i
- Commissioner Tuite moved to add this ordinaace to the agenda as the �� ."�� '
fourteenth item. Aith a second by Commissioner True, the motion '
'' passed unanimously. '
REDSTONE INN RENEWAL OF LIOUOR LICENSE - MOTION TO TABLE - PASSED ,
� IINANIMOUSLY Commissioner Ethridge stated, that there is a
controversy with regard to this matter which relates to back taxes ! `
% being owed on this establishment.
��
x
*_ John E1 Assistant Count Attorne stated that the real ro ert ��
Y. Y Y. . P P Y �;'.
�� taxes have been resolved. The only outstanding issue is $8,495.70 ? �
w in personal property taxes being owed. And the Board may take this I�
into consideration in denying the application if they choose to do
so.
A discussion ensued with regard to the back taxes issue.
John Dody, representing the applicant, stated that as far as the �
nonpayment of the personal property taxes goes, their is a process
� � in collecting taxes, and it is the owner's choice to use cash flow
that he has to make improvements to the lodge, and expects to pay ;
his personal property taxes soon after the first of the year.
Further discussion ensued as to whether or not the Board should
. -<� ' table the approval of the liquor license until the personal �
�` property taxes are paid.
`� Commissioner True moved to table the action to Tuesday Decembar 10, .
:� 1991. Commissioner Ross seconded the motion.
:"'� Commissioner Tuite suggested that the matter be moved up a little �
bit more in November to alleviate the possibility of the � �
3 establishment suffering an economic burden over Christmas which is
, .� their busiest time.
� Dody stated, that he is not sure that conditioning this application
j on the taxes being paid is in the realm of what the procedure
'::� should be. He thinks that by denying or conditioning this j'
application for that reason could result in a potential cause for
=i $OARD OF CO[JNTY COMMI68IONERS 2 OCTOBER 29� 1991 �
+,�
.',,
,_:.a .
l:�
�FZy�
'FN
�-'}an �.�:i;:.ki .... � .
. .-:. .r.:'., . . . .. . _ ' � .
... :.1.-/ ..r...�_... ....: . . ... ' ...� ..... . .
��:.",n.': ' � - _ ' .
e
. , �
��, ".�'�� � . � � . , . . ��i-�'. .
�� `�����y .. � ' � .. ' ..
x'"�`.'� � . .
�+�� � .
i.v,�t�,�„�j�' � '
�"�;?:Y`�#t� . � . ' , . .
,..�t_��;, ' . , .
3�'.E�",#v 1 . . . .
•n,�Ge�� ,
.�.i.W J'�?
.c,�;i..i'.
'<.K 'r.';;l,;y°i . , �
��p; �,
� A •
�
4y"'x
�:d.,.:.;� .
_ _ __
� ....___ _ ____
...��.�,...�..,��
�� . � . .
_, _ , . . _„ ..
�. ` .-, ' _ _. ,
�.a� -,...
, .
.:
......_+:4. ,. ... ..��.. .,.. . . .: . . , � . . .�j . . .. . .. _ � . . .. , ; . .
�'l�t j�M '
tir..i�5 i 3�':
. Ai:ti`z�Y,.�n;.
t �iS.'"�i'�
�<���
. A^':.�I..:1 Yt�..
� damages.
Commissioner True amended his motion to table the matter to � .
November 26, 1991. Commissioner Rosa amended his second. The . ,
�. motion passed with three yea votes by Commissioaers Ross, Ethridge ,
� and True and one nay vote by Commissioner Tuite.
CONTINIIED SECOND RBADING - ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENAGTINd ?:j,
SECTION 3-8.13 OF THE PITRIN COIINTY LAND USE CODE ENTITLED ' �
��EMPLOYEE AND CARETARBR DWELLING IINITS�� - MOTION TO APPROVE - ;•r "'
PASSED DNANIMOIISLY - Mary Lackner, representing the Planning
• Office, stated that this is a continued second reading which was
tabled on October 15, 1991. At that time, the Board asked the ';' i ',�'` �
. planning office to make some clarifications in the resolution and t' .
also to look at two issues. She proceeded to review the issues :;�:� ,
with Commission members. A copy of staff's memorandum outlining
these issues are made a part of this record as ERHIBIT ��A��. °.�
A discussion ensued with regard to an AF-3 zone district being ��
incorporated into the ordinance. i�
t� ..
A', ::.
It was agreed that the AF-3 zone district will be eliminated from ++ `�,
,, the ordinance. �
I.� ';,�. .
;
Chairman Ethridge opened the hearing to public comment.
, Bob Hughes stated, that he feels the amnesty date should be
liberalized somewhat. ��:,.,
Chairman Ethridge closed the public comment portion of the hearing. +
` �
- ` A discussion ensued with regard to the June 8, 1981 amnesty date. y� , .
,t�
Commissioner True moved to amend the amnesty date to October 29, �1'•
1991. Commissioner Tuite seconded the motion. 1 �
' Tuite said he would be willing to liberalize the date if it is used ��,�'�:
� ? solely for employees, that it does not come in ultimately for a ''�-� •
mother in law, relative type dwelling uriit. �
Further discussion ensued. , i ,
Ethridqe called for a vote on the motion. The failed with two yea ' �'� �
votes by commissioners True and Tuite and two nay votes by
Commissioners Ethridge and Ross.
� Further discussion ensued. ! �
' i� !:
�F Jim Curtis asked if the Board had any interest in discussing a ��
potential six month grace period on the June 8, 1981 amnesty date. ;�� (
He said he may be dealing with a situation where an existing unit ;,', ., _
BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERB 3 OCTOBER 29� 1991 ''Y
�•
��';�
-i
i �1
i
�
i°��3z:s r;c,. --� . � .::;/-• . ;. . e ..... . . -. , - _ _ .. � . . . �
. :,::,_,_.. :�� . .,.�� . , :. : . ..,_..-� "
�� . . _ . . . . . _ . . �,��
i
:�.'3�.;q,��;�t, . / . . � .,
.�i...��...'l�y. . � 1 .
_� �,iv j.�. ` .
�, �
��k��`•. . .� . . � � .
`�i��'!:�.�- . .
�Y„ ���.. ' . . . .. .
��-r
..q.si;;'r,�e'� ' . .
..'78 ;k' , . , .
�.��''
,��,��,( .
���'i� `
'�.��i,}�.� . i
��J.:'j.
Cw'�T�"�1�:: � � -
��`^' •
�(�
�d
�.
•K�..:.'.
,�,.;:`
Y
�h. �
����� l?.�... yr.�...� . .., _ . 1 ..�{`w �'�� - � , . . '�_ '_ _�_«__.. .......,:=..a::: ._..
L
(�� .
��t t�
. �:?�'f�ik:.�1:.(
L �i._..�.
ik�'t''
. �,:S+l 'l:i
%
� is roughly 1,650 square feet. And under the present amendment,
they would either have to reduce the size of it down to 1500 or try _
to close some of it off and call it storage space or unlimited , ,
.
space. • '
A discussion ensued with regard to this suggestion. � .
Commissioner Tuite moved that to change the date to Octaber 29, ,
1991 and to draft lanquaqe in the context of this ordinance which .
would allow a qrace period for all units built after June 8, 19a1 ���
and prior to October 29, 1991 hane six moaths from October 29, 1991
during which to apply for legalization of the unit. After that •-•
period of time, the amnesty period expires. with a second by j •�� •
Commissioner True, the motion passed unanimously.
i
Commissioner Ross moved approval of the Ordinance repealing and � .
reenactinq Section 3-8,13 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code
entitled ��Employee and Caretaker Dwelling IInits as amended. With I
a second by Commissioner Tuite the motioa passed unanimously.
ii
�RESOLUTION GRANTIN(3 GSNERAL SIIBMIBSION APPROVAL TO THE RESNICK �r`
SIIBDIVISION - MOTION TO APPROVE - PASSED IINANIMOUSLY - Ellen � �•
Sassano, representing the Planning Office, summarized this as an `;, ,
= application, submitted by Candice and Brad Resnic3c for general
submission approval for subdivision of a 62 acre parcel into two
31 acre lots.
The only outstanding issue associated with the application regards
Dinkle Lake Road. She said there was some discussion in the memo � ,
about the fact that there is some confusion about whether Dinkle
,+ Lake Road is a Forest Service Road or a County Road because a
portion of Dinkle Lake Road crosses through the property. The
� applicant has made it clear that he is willing to provide a public �
. access easement across the road through his property. The thinking y
is that this road is a Forest Service Road, it has been maintained �.
to some extent through the years by the Forest Service, but in ��
case, the applicant is willing to work with the Forest Service to
provide an easement for public access along Dinkle Lake Road.
- �,
� Sassano said there are not outstanding issues, and the Planning �
Commission and staff recommend approval of the application subject
:; to the conditions in the resolution. � . •
Ethridge opened the hearing to public comment. . ..
Commissioner Ross moved approval of the Resnick application subject
to the conditions in the resolution. With a second by Commissioner
' Tuite, the motion passed unanimously. � � c, .
�: .
t...;
' Ethridge closed the public hearing. �� .
RE30LIITION GRANTING 1041 HAZARD REVIEW AND GENERAL SIIHMISSION '
1 F.' :,t
1
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 4 OCTOBER 29� 1991 ��+
y�.
. ��j ,
:�
,�. ��. .:. .,...:.- -.. .
� .. _ _� . ..� .. _ - - �,�
�.�,�,: , ' .
; ,4:- , .F..
���r��:5� . . � . ..
+1���'3.�Q;: ._ _ . . . . .
__� s��:=� . . � .. � .
��V�_
������-• � . .
`i�.�s.�'�<. .
`Gyy�'L���. � � � _
'�'�y..... . � , .
.&��:�r�*' . ' , .
.�v�_:''Fs' .
:•a�}:.q.�• . , � .
� .{�,'+:�I' . . �
�xF�T . .
����f��t
'et,w;l F`U. �
`;���,'�+.71,�,,. �
:..R '^°'kx
�'�
,�l� �
2.j�'Jii
_� �
�. _ �.�,.�.�.. ,�. �... ti�.�..�.,�
����x 5
.. . -.. _. , . r� . . . —_..
� ,.
. �y�;���sc�,.
�'Kfi�t'.:;ii:�
� � '•��i;`��f�i. .
. ��i�:1fY���.�t'��.
l .
APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ONS DETACHED EMPLOYEE DWELLING
IINIT AND ONE SINGLE FAMILY REBIDSNCS ON WSST BIITTERMILR PFISTER
TRACT 2 - MOTION TO APPROVE - PASSED IINANIMOIISLY
� ,'
P RESOLDTION GRANTING 1041 HAZARD REVIEW AND GENERAL SIIBMISSION .
APPROVAL FOR THS CON3TRQCTION OF ONE DETACHED EMPLOYEE DWELLINlG
UNIT AND ONS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON WEST SOTTERMZLR PFI6TER ' �
TRACT 3 - MOTION TO APPROVE - PA33ED IINANIMOIISLY
RESOLIITION GRANTING 1041 HAZARD REVIEW AND GENERAL SUBMISSION • ;•r !�
APPROVAL FOR TFIE CONSTRIICTION OF ONE DETACHED EMPLOYEE DWELLING
UNIT AND ONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON WEST BUTTERMILR PFISTER
TRACT 4 - MOTION TO APPROVE - PASSED UNANIMOQSLY �'�'.�� ,
RESOLIITION GRANTING 1041 HAZARD REVIEW AND 'GENERAL SUBMI83ION ��.�
APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTROCTION OF ONE DETAC$ED EMPLOYEE DWELLING
IINIT AND ONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON WSST BIITTERMILR PFISTER ;�
TRACT 5 - MOTION TO APPROVE - PASSED IINANIMOUSLY - Lackner stated,
that the applicant, Art Pfister, has met the threshold score for !r'
receiving four residential GMQS allotments, one for each lot of the ;., ��
West Buttermilk Pfister Tracts. Because each of these parcels has �; :(`
a proposed free-market single family residence and a detached �'
., Category #1 employee dwelling unit, the Board must grant General F:� �'��
Submission and 1041 Hazard Review approval for each tract.
The Planning and Zoning commission and the Planning office
recommend approval of the applicant's requests subject to
conditions. Each tract has been considered as a separate
application and as such, competed against each other for the
residential allotments. This application is not considered a
"subdivision". The lots were created pursuant to CRS 30-28-
l0l(10) (b) the State Subdivision exemption regulation for 35 acres
and larger. `�� .
� Lackner roceeded to review a site lan showin the ��'
p p g proposed :>;
building envelopes with Commission members. � j
Lackner said the only outstanding issue with each of the four ;�''��
- - application is that the proposed agricultural preservation plan ;"'T�♦
does not meet the requirements of Section 5-104 of the Land Use
Code. She said the whole 250 acre parcel was assessed agricultural
at the request of the applicant earlier in the year. The applicant � ,
received an agricultural employee dwelling unit in August for Tract i_ , _ �
1, but this tract is not a part of the other four tracts receiving ���
a GMQS review. Historically, the 250 acres was used as range land
for cattle, and enough information has been given to the assessor's
office, that this could be assessed as an bonified agricultural • •
� parcel, and it did receive that assessment standing. The applicant '
is proposing an agricultural plan to preserve only a
total of 3.5 ��
acres of the 250 acres. And it was only for a meadow area whereas �.ti� `
the traditional ranching operation did consist of the entire '
parcel. Staff does not feel that this preservation plan Pollows .��, _
;<i
BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 5 OCTOHER 29� 1991 �
. ��'��
,..,j
.
`i .
��','�:>, :{>;; ,. ,, ,,, _ . -- . , . �,.
�;:,:�.:
''•>=;��r , . • .
X�:�,`��� ` ,
��. Y''i�y�ti � - .
•,�:{� � . . � ..
��/M:����
� '•;T��a�. . .
ke'f;���:r3i.
%!.. �Y F..� . .
� � �
•'1�r�`��3�V;lr' � .
�1 n.ZS��x , � . .
':?+��^�1' i
•�''�;i/•t .
r:a4��?}�Yi` .
��`��i�>.
� �"
��
� •
��
,r.
k�x��
_ � �-w— �,�, .
�
,..
,r.�,..
=�'.. � ,
s , .,,, ... . . , _ _
=1L.�Y..t' .±.'.. J . ..: .. �., ..., ..: � . .
..
,_
.;,:i . .' ..-. .. +: ..�., ..,...� ... ;. ' ;� . ..
. . 1� �Y e��r ,
J ' _ �(� ��a...:,
i r3C�`� J';
�'r,�t� ,
�� !•'�:.:
. i �'2{11j.`,'%,
� . �`.�s Y_,_:-�ar
the historic use of the parcel as agricultural range land, and they
do not see the justification for the ranch manager's unit even
though it has already been approved. The code does say that 75 -
percent of open range land be preserved to meet the general �:•
° regulation in the land use code. • � " '
Lackner to summarize each of the four tracts. A copy of her .
written summary is made a part of this record as ERHIBIT ��B��.
Susan Konchan stated, that the issue boils down to how the Board -
wants to interpret range land for preservation under the general � ' _r.
regulation provisions of the code.
- Ar.t Pfister stated, that the whole xanch � was changed from ' r��� '
agricultural several years ago and he does not know how that � '
' happened. And it only came to his attention this spring, and they ':.� '
went back and changed the whole ranch back to agricultural where ;�
it should be because it has always been a ranch. He said the lots
are being processed today on an estate plan; they are not going to j� .
be sold. He said as far as agricu2tural use is concerned it is
just spruce, heavy aspen growth, service berries and choke �' +
cherries. There is ver little area for cows to ��' ''
y graze on the whole
25o acres which is on the side of a mountain. ia-.,
� :
; . .
Jane Ellen Hamilton, representing the applicant, stated that they � �
trying to reach a point where they can preserve the agricultural
lands that make sense in the future instead of having cattle
running wild over 250 acres.
Glenn Horn, representing the applicant addressed the matter by
stating, that he thinks the key issue is how much open space is
going to be there. He said this is not prime agricultural 2and.
' There is a pasture on Tract 1 and 2 that is about 35 acres in size,
and they do not have a problem restricting this for agricultural � '
uses. But the rest of it is Aspen, Spruce trees and land that is
not very good for grazing. A copy of his letter dated October 22,
1991 addressing this issue is made a part of this record as SXHIHIT �
oCn � �
� A discussion ensued with regard to the agricultural preservation i' �
j issue.
� Ethridge stated that the fact that the rest of the ranch has been ` -
eliminated through a separate process does reduce the agricultural
� valley of this. The question is whether or not there is sufficient �
protection to allow the occasional use of the property for open � '
range that have existed in the past if individual parcels are
' fenCed then that would be eliminated. If there is a condition to � �
eliminate fencing, that opportunity still exists and he thinks it
- gets conceptually to the heart of the matter. �,•;
�;..' : •
Further discussion ensued.
i __
! BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 6 OCTOBSR 29� 1991 �� • �
� X�. .
c
; ��'
��• s _. � ' r� �. ,
•,.�:, _ �'•' `.r', -_.,,.,.. '- . . . . . . _—..—�. .� .. . . . . . ..� .
}�.i}? .. ' . . . . . - . .� , . �':��.
%.... ... . . . .. ' ..
�.a ��,�y
g'i. r . . i � ' , ,
� 4�.i 2:':ti� ` ' ,
��rrn�� . � ..
,�":��� . _ - .. _ .
��xr� ' .
.e.,,,,.rk
�Yar:•:eqr
• ,! ..4. , . . .
X����•• . . .
����:7�'.�'.' /� , �
✓
�t`��.
��:aj�` , '
���
.o���
h��
� _ . -- ... � .. � -. .
. . _ ;w'T�.r .
. �s'��t.lf'�
t ,.;��re.�
.��i�
� ge'^�•j�;��;
k-:�.�.�:�i.!' -
Comz�issioner Ross moved approval of Aest Buttermilk Pfister Tract
1041 Hazard Review and General Submission for Tract 2.
Ethridge opened the public hearing for Tract 2. He said he would • •
keep it open for the 3, 4 and 5. But if there are comments on •
Tract 2 they will be taken at this time. There were no comments. ,
Commissioner True seconded the motion. ,
A discussion ensued with regard to Condition No 5 of the ,�''r
resolutian.
It was agreed that Condition No. 5 would be amended to state ��. `.�•�� '
"compliance with the preservation plan as submitted."
Commissioner Ross accepted this as an amende8 oondition to his ±�
motion. Commissioner True accepted this amended condition to his �`.s
second. The motion passed unanimously. `�� '
•,.
Commissioner Ross moved approval of Tract 3 eliminatinq Condition �• ,
' No. 5. With a second by Commissioner True, the motion passed '� '`
unanimously. :q��.;,r_
�'
f Commissioner Ross moved approval of Tract No. 4 eliminatinq
Condition No. 5. With a second by Commissioner True, the motion
passed unanimously.
Horn stated that with regard to the approval of Tract 3, Mr.
Pfister objects to the condition about dogs being prohibited on the �!; .,
property and would like to have the capability to kennel a dog on
the site. "�'
>��� Ethridqe asked if there was a motion to reconsider that issue on ,:��. •
Tract 3. Heinq IIo motion it stood as passed. ;:4;;
' Commissioner Ross movad approval of Tract No. 5 eliminating ` i
Condition No. 5. with a second by Commissioner True, the motion .�`'.��
passed unanimously.
. �'�:,
Ethridge closed the public hearing on the West Buttermilk Tracts.
;;�
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3-3 OF THE PITRIN COUNTY LAND OSE CODE TO �, i' . •
ALLOW GIIEST HOUSE IISE FOR HISTORIC STRUCTIIRE3 - MOTION TO TABLE TO ' I_ .�
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY • ..
Commissioner Tuite moved to table the matter to January 7, 1992.
With a second by Commissioner True, the motion passed unanimously. �
,_�!', .. .
iRSSOLII`PION APPROVING LIND/ROPPEL SUBDIVISION SREMPTION - MOTION TO
� APPROVE - PASBED UNANIMOUSLY I�;;'i. : �
ra
BOARD OF COONTY COMMZSSIONERS 7 OCTOBER 29� 1991
.. (1.i :�. _
:�`'Y:
;�
;:�.�
� ``�
..� '� .
�,��t . . ,.. ....,__ , _ . f , . ;,
r,.;��� • ,.� •
�"���r:. `- . � . . �` .
�_i Y M
.���
�.iF>�'t..:..�. . , ' ,
��`.r��ty,�4�T . .
5,�,��'°'�'�?� . - • -
. R�qM��� . . . .
�6 �
,..�'+'-:Vh.t�. . .
'14�'�'i' . '
�*�7nn�+y �� .
v��:�4�';� •
�'�'��
�"� .
�i�
A
j�.
.1../.�:.:
,�.;..;;.
3�
.a��'�,�.. .... .:. . ... .. . .. . _. ` , ' .. _. .
�'Y�'��`"��`���
r:.'?4,...•1<:�.
f+%��j���:�:�'
_ ir�:5� :5!tTf'.
��:i`.I.:-.
r �;x,!,a t. ::�
, :s ti�¢"t.-':•'t';
� Lackner summarized this as an application submit;;ed by Buzz
Feitshans for a Subdivision Exemption to extend an approved -
building envelope approximately 3o feet to the north pursuant to .
Section 4-2.1(b) of the code and to construct a 500 square foot
employee dwelling unit pursuant to Section 3-8.13(a) of the Land • •
°s Use Code. She said the planning office recommends approval of the •
application subject to the conditions in staff's memorandum. A , .
copy of these conditions are made a part of this record as EXHIBIT
oDu • .
Commissioner True moved approval subject to the conditions in ' '`r
Ordinaace No. 11 pertaining to employee dwellfnq units wbich was
passed earlier in the maetinq. With a second by Commissioner �.��-
Tuite, the motion passed unanimously. � �{
_ � "
/RESOLIITION AWARDING RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANA(iEMBNT OIIOTA BYSTEM i:'�
ALLflTMENT3 FOR THS NON-METRO ARSA APPLICATIONS TO FFISTER TRACTS
2 3 4 AND 5 RE3NICR SIIBDZVISION AND ROSS PARCEL AS FORWARDED BY '�
THE PLANNZNG AND ZONIN6 COMMISSZON - MOTION TO APPROVE - PASSED `�
UNANZMOUSLY - Suzanne Konchan stated that the Board accepted these ��
scores from the Planninq and Zoning Commission on September 24, �� ;
1991, four for the Pfister Tract which was just approved, one for � '�`
the Resnick Subdivision which was also heard earlier this evening �;,-•.
r and one for the Ross parcel which was General Submission 1041 � `
Hazard Review which was approved by the Planning and Zoning �
Commission under the provisions of Ordinance 91-06. She said there
is no competition, they all meet minimum threshold, and stafP
recommends that the a2lotments be awarded.
Commissioner Ross moved to award the allotments. With a second by �'� ,
Commissioner Tuite, the motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION AWARDING METRO AREA RSSIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT ODOTA
BYSTEM SCORING APPLICATIONS TO ASPEN 4ALLEY HOSPITAL AND FOR ���', •
pFISTER RANCH - MOTION TO APPROVE - PASSSD IINANTMOUSLY - Konchan i4y.;
said there are two applications representing six total units, five
for the Pfister Ranch and one for the Aspen Valley Hospital. There
was a third which was the Doremus application but that subdivision ����ti�
was denied by the Board on October 15, 1991 so it would not be
' appropriate to award an allocation to that project. :���;
Commissioner Ross moved approval of the allotments to the metro
residential area GMQB. With a secon8 by commissioner Tuite, the � � .
motion passecl unanimously. � �-• �
RESOLUTION ENDORSING DRAFT 7 OF THE PZTRZN COU23TY REDSTONE MASTER �,
PLAN - MOTION TO APPROVE - PASSED IINANIMOIISLY - Cindy Iiouben
stated, that this is a final draft of the Redstone Master Plan ��_ : "
� which the Planning and Zoning Commission has basically adopted, and � .
is now asking for endorsement from the Board of County
Commissioners before the final signing and printing of the plan. '.t ' .
��� � -
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 8 OCTOBER 29� 1991 ��; .
j�
'�,.,1
'�
. '�•,
� ,F._ ...._ ..:.,.,_ ....:a.:.... .c_. . _.,...�.� F ', . _ .
�� .. - .. . . .. .. . . - � . � � ,� .
�"'�,i;L::�r: . . •
..Y,y�u'� � � , . � ' ,.
�;sl���i�,'. � � .. ..
_..� �.�r' ..
C?
:j��. F
'.w;���' . .
:;�;_.
z`t�.;,
�....'-_�';�5 .
,��i.F�y}.��.t . . .
�T'{;M i�'�. . r.
_':.6a°�d.', . .
��r1:i:;�Fr . '
��.". ,
-'t,e.:�N�." ' .
��J2:e:_g%'•• '
. e•y�'t'•' •
:.:A.J�'n..:.�f i
� - '1'.�;;Rj
X���� J •
�
a�(.'�
xA
k,��(�'
... '
i.:.:����'•.
��... .. - ... ,`. _. .. .. _ _ .. . - - •. ' - _ . , , _. .
4y`*n,t�,� -'G.:.
, . . �Y'�r��f'��.,
�,r';�f ..;Ji;,
'e�ie�.;;>.,..
7 . �;',��i,1n5,.,i.
w...: ,
� Commissioner Ethridqe moved to approve the Resolution Endorsinq the
Redstone Master Plan. with a second by Commissioner Tuite, the
motion passed unanimously.
�::.
FIRST READING - RESOLiTTION UTE AVENUE SPECZAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT • "
`- MOTION TO APPROVE AND SET FOR SECOND READING - PASSED iTNANIMOUSLY '
John Ely, Assistant County Attorney, summarized this item by
stating, that the majority of the residents that live on Ute Avenue
want to form a road im,provement district. Because of the fact that • . _
Ute Avenue is parti�'lly within the County, it is necessary to .
obtain permission from the Board of County Commissioners. He said ��'r
the only financial liability that is going to be incurred will be
by the property owners. The County will only be involved as a tax '-' � •
collector. �r' '�
Commissioner Ross moved approval of first reading and set for ,�'ti
public hearing on November 12, 1991. With a second by Commissioner
Tuite, the motion passed unanimovsly. ,
6� .
"RESOLOTION APPROVING REVISED INVESTMENT POLICY - MOTION TO APPROVE ; � '
PASSED IINANIMOUSLY " !
6�1'.
: i ;t
Commissioner Ross moved approval of the Resolution. With a second ,' i „<„
by Commissioner True, tha motion passed unanimously. �� f
�
FIRST READING AND 8ET FOR PIIBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE APPROVING THE
SALE OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AND IMPROVT•:MENTS lINOAN AS THE OLD
PITRIN COUNTY LIBRARY IN ASPEN. COLORADO AND AIITHORIZING THE
CHAIRMAN TO ERECUTE ALL NECESSARY DOCIIMENTATION TO COMPLETE SAID
SALE - MOTION TO APPROVE AND SET FOA PIIBLIC HEARING -PA68ED ��� , .
UNANIMOUSLY
Tim Whitsitt, County Attorney, stated the Chuck Vidal with the '.��
' Library Soard, has been involved in negotiations with Dr. Oden and ���""� '
Charlie Moss for the purchase of the library building. Therefore, -4;,
he drafted this ordinance to approving the sale and authorizing the j
chairman to execute the appropriate documents to complete the sale.
';j��l '
Commissioner Ross moved approval of first reading and set for �..t�;`
� public hearing on November 12, 1991. Aith a second by Commissioner „ �
Tuite, the motion passed unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. s � - '
;; � ' .
- Respectfully submitted, ` ' �
.J'/ I�i�.Ci ,i�-'G_/ .. .
Jeanette Jones ��!'.
Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners
.ij
.? �� , '
<:
' BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 9 OCTOHER 29� 1991 • s! � �
i :�
' ;;..,1
�
; � �
' 'i .
't'Y:�'�•;� � ... . . ._... _.. . ..... [-.•-; . _ . . . • , �.� . .. - .� . 1: .
�Z4 . . . .. - . . , . '
'�.�'s..?`.f.'� � .. . :��,,
� �;` � . - .
G.S���3 ri ._ _ .
--- ,�.r�.'
•�a��,?
, ;�_� . .
�����:a � . . . .
..St�:�.1:::�'$! .
.,��4:�y.+ _ . . .
�A�.;.
1 t".( '� . . .
•�1',�;�q:k r �
����
+.�.5�'qr'���'„'. •
. ��`�'
7���.��- " _ .
�� .
���
N
i.r'�
�Ni�.i:::•.
. �� � _ u_.�
-� ...w...s�=:�.�.� ,M.. _
.`'�� -
� ..... � .., .. . _ _ .. - . . � ..
• , ,�������,�.
�
,� �,�+R�r� #
DOR�i`�f11=i:0.CO�+s;li R J ,
�y��
Pi;lt;;•!CU�t;1;'+' �',� � + '..
p,�i:fic ti.^.2rm�•4.�i;,it" / -
C
• ��-�Q.��,-rrrn�„r
pa�i:: ��bti..._...r /`<t4NE/t .
�p�G d�'Fc"..F.._..._.._� �
_ c�.h;::p �/ S �.
..,..
4 . vU.. .1�.
. + ..
♦�_.. '�_�...r-- � >
."__...__... •
r;:;� ��:.•. .---- " .
ISSOES: The following issues have been raised with regard to the ,
code amendment: -
r .
1. The language of the code amendment has been changed so
as to permit new and existing structures, including •�;`l�i.•
- additions to existing units, as long as the units fully " '
comply with the provisions of this section. We have also `.+.• � •
clarified that all existing units must meet UBC ;-� �
requirements for health and safety (see subsection (i)).
The "bandit unit" provisions of subsection (e) , which '�
allows the Board to waive ang requirement, has not been '�� , "
changed. y`
�'
2. Employee Dwelling Units (701 - 1,500 sq.ft. units) in the "�- •'!`
RS-20, RS-30 and RS-160 zone districts shall be located �,„,s.
on a conforming sized lot or larger. Employee Dwelling
Units in the R-30, AF-2, AF-2 and AF-3 zone districts
must also meet the minimum lot area requirements per
dwelling unit. For example, an applicant in the R-30 5
zone must have a 60,000 square foot lot to qualify for
an employee dwelling unit.
3. The Board has discussed changing the "bandit unit"
amnesty date of June 8, 1981. The Planning Office �
� recommends a compromise which includes the revisions �
described in #1 above. It is our opinion that the �
revisions proposed in this code amendment will permit
� existing illeqal situations an ability to apply for �:j
approval under another subsection, as long as they agree
to comply with the provisions of the code. ��
i 4. The Planning Office has reservations about a floor area ��I
i
exemption or bonus for the provision of a caretaker or
� employee dwelling unit. We feel the scale of the
building environment has been established in areas with �' .
existing FAR's, and to permit a bonus or exemption could !:�-..
create some negative impacts. Our primary concern is ,
that the FAR Committee and Planning Commission have spent
� many hours reviewing floor area regulations throughout
' ! the County, and the consensus from both committees is ' •
that all structures on the site shou2d count in the total
floor area of the property. Moreover, the proposed FAR a;,,�_ �
Code Amendment will liberalize the calculation of floor ,�
area in all zone districts. This includes new exemptions
for decks, overhangs and below grade space. Additional �'� � -_
I%r Y ;
i_
, '��
. ,;'
� _ ' ,- . �, . _
f,, � �_.
;: .. , ` '.
� , �>. .. . _ ,,
�'4 ' ,,
�� ,�S},Yi� . / , ... . - rY.• '
W �
CMG��yk... 4
��. i��-'�� .. _ . . , .'
��h��
p� :
�k''���:5$,x� . � •
�:.G':.�'i_ , ' . . .
�-�Mi'.�'';�,..: . . �
.��-�...':z�t� -
•'l.i^�x;'y''£!''.. � . . ,
'���,
r,.:�.�Y.•�L: . . �
.'fr . �iL:.' � '
���F��
� � ,
�
.Pd .
�t�
d-.
�y�.
�1e,y_(::^,
_ �� _ � ��
, -:.�:- .. .
�r�,�,
, ,
�:7:Ysi.�...�L.-:'tiS:.: R..:... . �.;._,. . . . ... .....','" . ..;._. ....'.. .,.. ... ........... � ..
. .._ ... .,. ._ .��i � .. .�f� ... .. . ..., �
! ., �����
l 5
. �ks�l��.�.''
. �������f L,L'.':
i exemptions to the FAR regulations, such as total
exemptions for EDU's, creates a tradeoff between
community character and employee housing. .
The Board may wish to consider a compromise which would '�''' .
''• allow a property owner to exempt half of the square � �
� footage of the caretaker/employee dwelling unit. For
example, a 700 square foot caretaker unit would only
count for 350 square feet of floor area, therefore
i permitting the owner a 350 square foot ��bonus". �� -
� i �� �.�r ;..
5. All units provided for under the Employee Dwelling ! `: `. '
Unit/Caretaker Unit provision of the Land Use Code must l�:,,�:,•��r-�.•.,'
' comply with the Environmental Health Department ;;;:`'T,'`:d
- regulations regarding woodburning devices. ,,;:_�..". ..
I '.1'� ` .
I . ,
i s.�!''
: �•"
t'.! �.
� ' . � :Aj_j': .
�:,
� I i�'i.,
i :'i :. ,
k. .
. � . '�'� ��1 .
y �
` ��.
. s
i
� ; . . . 1� ; � .
.. 4 . � � ��.'', .
r i:;
�. .
� I:a • ,
` , '. 1
�
�a ,.
i
�. �.� .
� M
� �.
1 � �{
� � c.:�.���,. '
:alj!F
!\7. .
j f� r ; '
� e� 1
2 ij . I
i �' .
Y �. .
� ��
� `��"g .
.;
� { :�:f::,
;�,�+��`.�o-7�ii�.'"�»�'a��aG�ax r��;,�'P.,�.� sJ.,x,.� r� � .... _ .. _. .. , . ..._. . ....3 ,an ,.. a .
�}i'4'" .. . . . -. �, R" .
�.;.; . . ' . • ,� y
—�. Y. . . � .. . ... • . .
�
.a. � . . � .. . . '. . . . . � � " �
'� . . .. . . .. . - .
d . . ' .. " . . . . . . � . . '
� •� ����'� . ' ' . � ' ` r . . � ..
't�: . . . . . . . . � .. . .
. r _ . . . . . . '
K'�:i.. , . . . • ,
�
k
� � .. ! .. . � .
� ,
,->�
�7 S� .
�`i � e•>S , r ::e� t. . .t . . _. .
�.'�!'!�,. . f,. ,. . . „; , . .. .,. �.: . . ,
t;�;.w
y/�, ��"��;=':
i`.�ji.:1d i�l....'}�:,�;,,
t ` l+..r`„�j..4-`;:
. ' {'1��I�.{1ij a:l'�.��.(4:�i1i�Il�����i'�: ��([k�1 �rTYi�l:�.
..ili �.i\:��rYi�, 4Yy'�0.�}�... .
. (,�;I'',...�t!•.ii:lil!)I_.•1:{...�:r
r �,:
_/p �l %� _
(�r�sr4?._���4crs
, ,,,�-: . �r ii .>: .
,,�, ;.:�;. .._..�__.�.._._.._.._...--
I8SOE8: The outstanding issue with each of the four applications . ,
is that the proposed agricultural preservation plan does r►ot meet �'i-
the requirements of Section 5-104 of the Land Use Code (attached) .
The approximately 250 acre West Buttermilk Pfister Tracts are -�:'-�• .
assessed agricultural. The applicant is proposing an agricultural �`"•�.
plan to preserve a total of 3.5 acres of the 250 acres. ;�, •
Each of the four tracts is summarized below: '-.� ,
; , ,
1. Tract 2 is a 47.8 acre parcel with a building envelope �.
proposed to be located on 10-20$ northwest facing ��
hillside. Deer and elk move through the property, but �`� ;
there is no known habitat on this tract. There are some *-• '�'
wildfire and geologic hazards on the site. Approximately , ,,;.
3.5 acres of this tract are proposed to be included in �. ; :
an agricultural preservation plan. ,
2. Tract 3 is a 74.74 acre parcel with the building envelope
proposed to be located in a small meadow between to ski
area access roads. This parcel is located adjacent to ,
elk critical habitat and calving areas to the west, and
is located within elk winter range. There are some
wildfire and geologic hazards on the site. No land is
being preserved for agricultural preservation.
3. Tract 4 is a 44.12 acre parcel with the building envelope
proposed on an east slopinq ridge. The parcel is ,�
adjacent to elk critical habitat and calving area to the �
northwest, and there is some elk winter range on the �r�
� parcel. The parcel is located within a mapped ridgeline
area, but after a site inspection, the proposed building ��:.
envelope will not be located on a ridge as viewed from
SH 82_ There are some wildFire and geologic hazards on
the site. No land is being preserved for agricultural i' .
preservation.
' 4. Tract 5 is a 44.6 acre parcel with the building envelope
proposed on a gentle northeastern exposure hillside. '
' � There is no mapped habitat on the parcel, but there is �•
! some deer movement. This parcel is also mapped as being �-••
within a ridgeline, but after a site investigation, a #"%
proposed residence wi11 not break a ridge from SH 82. i ' •
There are some wild£ire and geologic hazards on the site. �'
No lartd is being preserved for agricultural preservation. fi' ��
;r,
;
'y :1.
, `,i
�-_� �
��' �,%. -- '�� - ; ., � t�.. .
:.f , .. � .
�� . . � ... . . . �.F.:
�r '���7�'}�y�'• � �-. , � .. ' '1. .�
� 'Jfl� � � � . � .
h����
���i�✓"�,
..,.(y . . _ ' ' . .
,;W.v
..t.+'��--�d. . �
's'���.� . � , . . - • .
,��;.�'.i . ' � � . .
.,�?�`'"^'" . .
.�����.:,:, .
�� +g,�,;'. . , �
,y. d����'`�.
�i'• �
Jx� ,
��� �,y •
?�b'.
��
- ������e��
. ,�.��_ �, �, �
Davis I--�orn,-_.- ��� ���4.,�
, ,-�
� PIf+NN�NG•APPRNSING•REAL ESfiJE CONSUUING �.t;".�.;�+���::'i;•..
..._. r��'���+.:�':,
October 22, 1991
OCT 2 2 ...
N,ary LacY.ner ' >;:.�
`' Aspen-Pitkin Planning Office ... � "
130 South Galena Street ; '
Aspen, Colorado 81611 .
Re: Pfister Tracts: Aqricultural Preservacion :"��:
':r ...
Dear Mary:
-- When,the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the Pfister Tracts l�`..�'.�'���
the aoplicant was requested to prepare a proposal to insure the �... •
preservation of agricultural lands in compliance with Section 5-104 �,•� � .
of the Pitkin County Land Dse Code. Art Pfister and I have
, i reviewed the characteristics of all of the sites and have ;�s
I determined Tzacts 3, 4 and 5 are heavily wooded and do not contain 3� `
j valued agricultural lands. Pfister Tract 2 is the only Tract which i •
` contains "productive agricultural lands" consistent with the Code �, ;
- i criteria. The attached map depicts the productive agricultural �!. :'�'
, f lands. .i�,::.
{:
Approximately 3.5 acres of land on Pfister Tract 2 is dry pasture
and rangeland. Section 5-104.2 �(4) of the Code calls for
� preservation of 75 percent such lands. The applicant will commit
j that the lands depicted on the attached map within Pfister Tract 2 :
j will be restricted for agricultural uses including but not limited !�+
i to pasture, grazinq, existing ranch roads, riding arenas and �r� .
� accessory agricultural buildings. The applicant wi11 also commit
to control weeds and maintain fences.
.
� We hope that this letter addresses your concerns regarding a pian � .
� to preserve significant agricultural lands on the Pfister Tracts. �;
Please give me a call if you have any questions or comments. • ,�
� �
' �K� '
" '? Sir.cerely, ,,�
`' :
DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED
/ •
��� • t'iOA�+�V(-GU.Cfik��tA'{t'S ��, - ,
pCi 4<.411 CCI;'rJTY I:.,.
GLENN HORN AICP �,,i•,'';�il.°. ,.
` Fili_ct�r Hi%d()(ii` �/
� U;ilc:�,�/� -�_r`L-Gi ..
; �.uh;�c�:IC-���5/'���, � _��� �.,;
i cc: Art Pfister �.;;�.,^;u. -•--•v_"'`
Jane Ellen Hamilton ti;.� .
. �110E DAwIS RM S GIENN HORN.NCP ��.�..� _-
. 300 EAST HYMAN•SUIiE B•�iSPEN.COIC)Ri1D0 616N-303'925•6587 ';� . j
�:' .
�} 'I'
�i.�
, '� 4.....';.�. ,�-... : . ... , .. ... .
�, ...�.. :;,.�.: /.:..:. .:..:.: � .:�:... .... ... . . ..... . ... ... . .. a... .... .
,..-..:.. _ . .. � :�:.A� .. . ?';
��.; . . . . . ' . . • .
} .. :
-���,_. . 1'. .
, . �
� ��,, , . , , . ::�
�
��,��'' : ` . , �.
��'r_'`� ' .. ' �.
,�,
�•
G�„��` • .
�r���a,'� . .
��, , •
�.;,. • .
,,y�'��,x'; - .
'���� �
T/ b�� ,
� •
�� •
d-
8.�j;+CJ. . .
«i.,�n
...,A�
}..�F�`:,:. , .
)�� �
' `
• _� Yi- . _.. . . , . .. .,,. . � .- . � . � � .. � . .- -. .. . ...
.. ,..�.s`�, .w`_ ;;.F- +�...., ... .i.. . . . . _1.�. . . _ , .
. -�� ".f�;-,.
i-'i�'',..
r r';,' iAP.7{1'!; ���5,+(y•�
� DOAF;O 0�CU. tl '
pt7Kl{•i Ct�t);'iY
� r, a [r.i�tbits
F;�;;.�,,H.ariny
: O�,.:,.�:�c/1/z��/'-!!���'""���a� a .
� � p,.�; �C�7. ._.:..-�//-'-----`-- .._ '
. .j : .�':i_
I ' ,
1. Yrior to issuance of a building permit for Lot 2, the
plat shall be revised to be consistent with the .r . .
j���;' . .
requirements of Appendix A of the Land Use Code and shall
be a roved b the Count En ineer and Plannin office '"��' '
_ PP Y Y 4 g � 1,'.�
prior to signature by the Board of County Commissioners.
+i �'� �
( 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant
sha11 file a deed restriction with the Housing Authority :
� which meets the requirements of Section 3-8.13(a) (4) of i . ,,
� the Land Use Code. .
Y i:���
3. All previous conditions of approval on the property shall '• ^
:f�
� remain in effect. t:'_
�i'� ':',
-� 4. All material representations made by the applicant in the F,F�.'-
� application and public meetings shall be adhered to and i �
x considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise �
amended by other conditions. I'
�..
;.a �i .
� � ' �.
� '�
;� ;
i
� ( •
%�
� I ,.
I .
� , . � � :S_•'.
. .i� . � . � �,.
�:�i
:�� r`. '
„z<� "
,.� ,-
��,
�c��<�, ,. � _ � � .
� .�'�c�aM,��e�C'�is�fy-;?�,',o,'�s.4��T"t x-7.t;�'ro.�:`•5:z_ �- . .. . :� : . . . y,i''��'' .
}' �T:
���.' �. � ,. - . . . .. . . ;.r� .
�� � . � � . • .. � .. � . - .. _ ,I� •
�a_, � �. � . ' ` � . . . . . . .. � .
� ,��� ..
����/� : .
�. ti: .
��' .
��. ,
.� �
+o,.�a.
-.�:,