HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.spec.12051989 �,;�:;.
.,
_. .. ,.. . . . ..._...�
_
��k;:.
� .:C:::��ir�•.
�� .��':.,.� .
PrI4@I QOONT�t OQ�P'�SSI�
WORK SFSSIOId AGElII]A
Sheriff's Office Gbnferenoe Roa�
(Colette PPSme not presert)
Z[7FSDAY. DF)CQ�R 5. 1989 �:�``.' .
��:_r;
10:00 AM HOCC OPEN DISCUSSICeT �� .
11:00 Redstone Parks Discuss. � -
1�1, JPSl'y SElinfrionrrl �1� �_..:°"-:�:�.
�' r-
�:� ��I �' . '
�`� 1:30 � ���$ � .' � .
Sopris Tree Farm (2)
�
� 1990 BOCC Goals (3)
Nortliwest Wlorado Cotuicil of Governnents QQ Grcx�p (4) � -
� RockY Moau�tain Pr°gra'° (5) r':;':
Ownty QirisUnas P�azty
- { District Attoznc�y's Bixlyet �
' Memos of Interest (6)
'',i
�� 2:45 ffi2FAK
�
S SPECIAL MEETING - PUBLIC HEARQIG
1 �
Y 3:00 Pfister Ranch/Golf Cause General �,tzn;«y�. �Y � �7)
a
�� AII7Q7RN PUSLIC HEARIIdG
� 4:30 Mistin, Inc., Request for F�ca�tiaai fraa Metger lh�le, Tom�nith (8)
,
i
'� 5:00 PM AIITWRN
� .
�
�
3 '�,
� .+Y_
e
.1 `� .
i
`.a
_ ,...; ;
_;•�;F
";,x:<�''
,,-.::.:,:.;,:
�'�.:..
k �:<..
__.�Sr3:
�f.. .,:: '��'
i�
, a.:
� '-" . . ;. '�;.. � .;i. . _ ..�:-.. ...._... . ., .. .. ..�0'. .. . ... . .. _� . .......- ..�. ..
...: ... . . ..
:.- .�.: ..:r:; , y, •�.- n Y...... .. . .:_... .:. _. ._ .. , . ,
F •
�Y� ' ' ' -- ��_ � .
�. .. .
z I r; fi�, .. °`:'�� '
aL.L +'C .� . � :. i� ... ..._.__..�. .
. f�� ���111...�: � .. ' , . • -
. ���.��. , � . � 4 ♦ .. — .
. �M-�
y-g��.� - ' . . � . .
'y.M )�..'� . .. .
� �i�.�l[- .
�.:r.�.-�.��! . , .
1.4, '"� 1
�`7:�:2 �-. � . ' . � .
T q k�' �
���� ,: . ' .
,.� xR�.'` . -
'..� �•�.�:
.•�s�= .
.p rKF7✓
�����
�+��.
t f
•:��� ` — . .
w�«
h:. .
`� _ . ,
..
�
... -
L
. �r�f .
,�;5.,,:;'',
, APPROVED A7 �'�'"�
y,,,.;,,.
FEB 2 7 199U
��''�, .
MINOTES ����
PITRIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
SPECIAL MEETII3G
DECEMBER 5,_ 1989
"c.
. �;�:9.}._.
MEMBERS PRES&NT: Vice-Chairman Herschel Ross, Commissioners Fred F�':�^'�-`•'
Crowley and Jim True i'� '
,..
E;
CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. �'j
�
� Buddy Lucero, representing the Planning Office, stated that Chuck F� '
Vidal, who is representing the applicant, would like make a
presentation on some of the policies and procedures he followed �'
in developing the application. G;� �
t:.: :
Chuck Vidal stated, that their goal and objective as far as this t`�� ,
meeting is to review the history and the process of how the r'. ,
project has evolved over the last 18 months when the application �' � ,
,i was filed with the Planning Office.
i
�
„ He proceeded to review the Highway Corridor Master Plan with
Commission members. He said, that this is an area where certain
statements, gaals, objectives and polices have been made
regarding land use, circulation, housing and a number of other
�� issues. In this particular instance that area may represent the
;; planning area of the highway corridor. Therefore, the Planning
and Zoning Commission, Board of County Commissioners and staff -
� has made certain points and issues relative to what was �
appropriate relative to the highway corridor.
i;
? He further stated, that before they started the planning exercise
; they looked at the goals and objectives of the overall project
' and tried to form them to meet the goals and ohjectives of the .
� community knowing, that if they are unable to do that, and are
� unable to read those appropriately, that the potential approval
S success for this particular project is unachievable. Therefore, •
� the first part of their planning process was to look at the `
community and public statement that has been made on the general '
j sense for the area within which we find their property. This is �`,
reflected in the form of a General Submission, and a master plan,
e�c. for community evaluation. After General Submission, they
will file a complete Detailed Submission of the whole project. �'-i .
He proceeded to elaborate on the characteristics of the .
application submitted in 1988. He said there were numerous study '`
sessions with the Planning and Zoning Commission discussinq
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1 DECEMBER 5, 1989 � '� ,
' ,�:`
j F. .
� ��� ;.
;'�{
. ,.
�.,u�.t.ar�:�;�.a. . _. ... .._. . �. . _ � .. . . `'-. t.. •
. _ . .. . .. . . �r
� •
t F' . . . '�� ' .
��.:; � .
t'�f i�.'7.... . . �- - ..
'"i!r �cC��' ' • .
'�•jli _ ' . .
_ •
Ye.ts�':'n�•� • � ' ' .
,.ti�:�.:'{.,��. ..
ty,:<i+
,.��:���y�'-;? .
�::t�t�``' �: ' .
.1���`'
�-,5~.... ' � ' .
;s'4.��;��` ` �� : .
.; .
x,��,r.
.
� , . . ....
1 , �:�y.,r�;;:
?•1.:•,':,:
" . ��y'�,>'"j
� j�'y`•{:? ..
elements of that plan. They have concern about the FAR and the
visual impact of proposed plan. Therefore, they are prepared to
show Commissian metnbers the visual analysis that they did to get
the Planning and Zoning Commission to a comfort level relating to
those units as they were presented. He said that Bill Kane did
photographic review of the site and superimposed on the
photographs the actual building elevations on the site. "
He further stated, that there was a significant modification and �
give and take with the Planning and Zoning Commission in trying �.`�^,'.���
to resolve the FAR restriction on the single family homesites. ��'"��'•�`-
With regard to the visual impact of the units on the Maroon Creek f'=`��-`
Road they have dealt with that, and are prepared to go through :';;:-•.`
that exercise with Commission members. �:'< `
�'�: . -
Another issue that they dealt with was a potential for a 1.
signalized intersection. In their 1989 submission they have come R;.-`: �
up with a plan for a much safer, smoother pattern for the �i�'�
intersection, that will not require signalization. �'�:
�, .
t:;�,�
The resolution of all these issues was satisfactory to the . �.,,
• Planning and Zoning Commission. They reduced the number of units �
of the single family residences. However, they advised the ' r�'•. .
• applicant that if in the Detailed Submission process they found a r
� site that they have no objection to then they may allow them to
bring those units back in.
Buddy Lucero proceeded to review the Highway Corridor Master Plan
and the goals and objectives which the Planning Commission and
staff feel are relevant to the project.
A copy of this presentation is made a part of this record as
EXHIBIT "AN.
' Chuck Vidal proceeded to review with Commission members the *
� proposed density incorporated into the 1989 application. A copy
of this presentation is made a part of this record as EXHIBIT
^B". He said the number of units proposed total 90. .
With regard to the employee housing, in this plan they have
agreed as part of their submission to satisfy 100 percent of
' their employee housing requirement on site for a total of 44
units. They have requested as part of the plan, that upon the
demolition of the Park Meadows Project, a growth management �
exemption for those 24 units. To satisfy the removal of this
project, they have committed to build an additional 12 two
bedroom units to satisfy the displacement and removal of that ''�
employee housing. Therefore, there will be 56 units in total
that they are presenting as part of the project.
He said that one of the reasons why they were able to get the �`
Pitkin County Parks Association to endorse their use of the land �
t J �
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2 DECEMBER 5, 1989 �y va,.'
[i �w,.
� '��fi
t � I
) S
yc.i fY
-^.t..,�. - . . . Ri•; _R +,
'�4rr�se�'�ii � . .. _.. . , . . . . . . '^F°P - . . � r F .
. . . . . . . . . � . . . 4.;�t
;. ° ..
:. � � ' �' -•.
• -' _�
:' �.?��'-= � ,
il`:._ ;y '
. .1.: .tt� ,
:,�.;- !';��'. . .
�
'!RY:::-'_::�:�. . ..
.�..�i....:;:;:n=� .
4 ki.1.,' � .
r....T�:,'�i� ' ' �. ' .
��f�.l.ff:'v' .
`"Y
� F1 . ,
.:,.� ..�,J:. .
_ Y,.i."'
4�W.y1�'� •
..f n.�:�:� � . � .
,T.•�[:�"�? � � .
•_��''i�.°.^,
f��N�:' � . ..... ....r.
.�v . ..... -_.._ . .. ... . �.'d}.n•
i�•�'�` �
�l' ,
�.,.
. ���,
for a golf course was that they wanted to preclude the City down
the line of having the opportunity to put employee housing on it,
the opportunity of putting ballfields, parking lots, etc. They
wanted to preserve the open space characteristic. This project
basically resolves the use of that land.
With regard to the phasing of the development, they will be •
prepared to discuss an internal phasing program to give .
Commission members a higher level of comfort if they are `
concerned about 65 units all coming in the first year. �� `��'� �
.�:;=:.;:.
With regard to the concern of the project as it relates to its F'�� •-
�r.
distinction between a residential growth management plan tr: ':'
application and a lodge growth management application, when they `
had the 81 units there was concern that they would be centrally �(�' -
managed, and the potential owners would be required to rent their (
units, and that it would be operated as a lodge. They have k'`" �
agreed to covenant against that to satisfy the County Attorney ��
that the units were considered residential, and they could �'�
compete under the Residential Growth Management plan. Subsequent '� -�
to that a modification of the plan has even taken them further
�;::�`.,
out of that configuration and put them into a townhouse �; �: �,
configuration. Therefore they satisfy the definition of ' r'�•
residential units as far as the GMQS is concerned. It is not �:
their intent to run the units in any way like a lodge. What they
' would like to do is ask for comments regarding this point at the
next work session.
. Buddy Lucero proceeded to review the site plan with Commission
members and staff's concern for future development of the Zoline
property for employee housing. He said that when a development
like this occurs, paving the roads, providing other types of
amenities, etc., they do compliment other development in the
area.
�
He said that another issue which needs to be looked at is what
type of chemicals will be used on the golf course area, and what
effects it will have on the neighbors in the area, i.e, their
water system, air quality, etc. .
` Another issue is the visual impacts of some of the homesites.
Bill Kane proceeded to review with Commission members sketches `
reflecting the visual analysis aspect that they did for the
homesites. `
;..
`�.
There was remarks from the public that the sketches were not �'
appropriately showing the full visual impact of the structures. �l ,
;�: :
Chairman Ross also remarked that pencil drawings �vere not very i ;
effective as to how well the buildings fit into the natural 4 �.� ;
topography of the area. He su g gested that the a p plicant return � ; -
BOARD OF COUNTX COMMISSIONERS 3 DECEMBER 5, 1989 �`- .?�,:,..i
Lq\ S'`
F ���
. ,3`T':�l�•1
t'�,r
°��i.'
. ' : r
� � • F
..�.e,ay �;-. � i . , . . , �
,��
'.y . . .. . .. .. .. . � . . � .
.
,. . . ��= . ..
� •" +'
' � . ... _ _� .
��� ti�.� � . ...
�'S;i.`i'�„ � •
-iil'..
y,:' ' .
:;?^ . �
�^'.-.,
�::
_�y.,,._.,�
��:.�a���';. �
.y.
?tit`'�:j` . ' .
;��-��F ,_ . , .. .
� �
:,:,,. .
�,.,_
; . . ._ .._,.:�.... . _._,..._. _ ._ ..._....�_ ' . ._. . ._...
, ,.., _..
',.; � .ti�;.
. . .��r�:
, �*�1'�u''
� , with a better presentation, i.e. electronic renderings, models,
etc.
Amy Margerum, Planning Director, stated, that staff will work
with the applicant to come up with something to bring back at the
next meeting which would be more appropriate to show the visual '
impacts of the site. �
She further stated, that from the Planning Office's perspective,
they think in general that the proposed development is an "'���?: �
a ro riate use for the land. Staff's concerns center more the `�� ����
PP P ��
density issues, ar.d the impact to the Highway 83 corridor, and to
try to work with the applicant and the Board to mitigate those `�! �
impacts. }��;:'ti.;:
�
� Vice-Chairman Ross continued the public hearing to December 11, ;'
� I989. �
ADJOURNME'NT: The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
� r`
i R�s�ectfully su 'tted, �� -
? � �.�.'�
�':
T � eanette Jone Recording Secretary
� Board of County Commissioners
� o
;
� '
;:� ; :
i
.�
� . �
- ,
�
�
t�
t�
f��
_� .
� �.J-.�
� - ;`����.:���."; .
1 tiY'.
1 BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 4 DECEM3ER 5, 1989 � .��"��;
! ,y.::-ti�.:;
1 .. ,.,���"^.,.
� '+c�:'-
� �k
�,�z �;.: � ,..._.-._ ,.. _..
. `,. . .-:-• .. . ;.:. __._. , _ . __..._._
� . _. .., ... _i"`� `w
��'e".: --,
����"'��y�
����^,Y � , . � � - .. i:�� - .
.��: - . .. v - � � �.. .
;�''<•`��.`.�Y . '
i";��;�>iq�s .
k:r�'�,,.��:�.� . � . . . '
..�.i' . . ..
'.',�.y:..��Y#� . _ , .( _ _ .
'°�-'r�%F�'. . . �
'ly4YF4�}f�.F�`' . � . .
L7� .
'�p-*�1�'y t3�� .. .. � .,. . . .
.;rw:�q��.' . • .. �. .
„�'7�x��=t�� . . .. .
,.`��'d�`-�,:
..��.'�'S:
�:�•� -
�t 3�� w . !� . �
M1� ` _
.'���,
�F��
�.;x;,.:.
��
-- � _...
. , . . ���,_��,:'
, � � } ;,
:soARO oF c� c����,,:;. a�'�� �....
PizKirj cou��. �
,�' Publ�c Flearmg s�� 5�
D�tR �._....'����4 � : �
y f��
] F�1 ��y r
HAr ' V � �� �I'� H'�'i����,` 4'�'�1::.� 1�� 1 �'hl�}'!'�'h��Y' NL'.�:
. . ..���:�N � �� .� �µt ��I:µ .
y
� �r ��:.
� t y,�s�r���,�r ,
= � , , k � r ta � � t4�.=� g:,,� �
�K" �1f^.'�a�a+y.�Ul,�i����,f� I..x,byi� F '� y 1�. ,7r I y �r�r�tr� "� '��I ;J� H t;�ti�-it�i�ri�+�{ �: - -
�;. .:. � i'1�"(. � #��� ,.1 I � �� �� Y'C,a1 4 �.J7'f S t�f'�.�} C�X ,f � ,�'F�Y 1�'� �I
, . +� .4 r Tv .�, � i:.. � �. i �.�. ,Mid c �i� TF�_�.� �S x'�!''y�r� � - a�
� . �;n} i1�7'� � i � y., ` i � � ��� 7 i � k��r� �'I ���'7 i4tN 35��E ii..��1d+�}�4-..:�t,.G.t �{,�
., ...' ihk� ' ` {r�b�."ii,1t tk `"�` ', a� �i `" [r_(ir�ii�4 n��$� i � �':� ���'; �y t���_�� l�r �
. ( t i 1 _ � � �Ta�"' 4 - ' f �.
.. _ v,� � �,, ,' � `.
. . � �� �� � x .
♦ i �.�� � a�'"�i f a -�-f: ��'=�'"_"�q.I"'��"s� .-' � .
� .r-: "r .r rx�'.�5�s ti �ir ''vw�d;t4 i ��' �r'e r+'�"'+'nt+� �+x' �{�
The State Highway 82 Corridor Master Plan, the Growth Management .:�?'c`''`
Policy Plan and the Pitkin county Dovn Valley Comprehensive Plan `'�`'"
ti:•`:.
are the three adopted planning documents which affect this :`:y
proposed development. A final considaration is the 1982 Short �`)-'•_
r; ,•.:;
Term Accommodations Repozt which is not an adopted document. � t;,...
° Pertinent policies from each of these long range planning ` . •
documents are highlighted in this section to determine their ���
relationship to the application. '�
�
1. State Highway 82 Corridor Master Plan - It is our view that
� the planning document which is most relevant to this land
use application is the State Highway 82 Corridor Master Plan
' } which was adopted by the P&Z in February of 1985. The
i future development of the Pfister parcel and others which
are a part of this application were a major consideration
� during the development of the Master Plan.
A review of the Goals and Objectives in the Plan indicates �
, that the following Goals and Objectives are directly
relevant to the proposed development.
la. "Identify areas in the Corridor that are least �
� visible from the existing and proposed highway
1 alignment as preferred development sites." _
t:
lb. "Encourage the clustering of development on
� parcels which have the least visual impact from ��
the existing and proposed State Highway 82 '1"'
alignment." '�:
•• 3b. "Establish a scenic foreground contiguous with the `'�
existing and proposed State Highway 82 alignment
� and steer development away from the foregrouod." � '
;i
i11 _;_ 'iiJ ,;;
� � jti�
' ti�'<
�� �,�w,,,,.
i
. F� ��'T� f.%�
�+�cw�..:... -_:;:.:_.�_ ,..., .>.,:�. . ,..:.:_. .. . . . . .. � . ........ ..._...... ..... . . :
�
:..,.:... ., �_.,_.�.. .:....: � . . � :, . . � .. .� �.:
f`i�. •
�'S`rn`".t..^. . . . . . . � h
' t.+i..F L.-� � ' ��_ '_ ..
/t M '
I�� -�Z�� � � • �-"�
L,, '� � .' .... _"_ .
'f-�.'�"t.3� � - �'. .
pC asC� . _..
. -t��`;�i1"`,j;K'.'` � � ` '
'„��3��,
`?�;c^,:}:.,_. .
�.;:�_
���`'�-�:`- •
S �x . . ., � � _
�.�y:�j '�`�' 1 . . .
'%)�.Yj��i, .. ' � .
.,�,j,..������'.
':4'l.�'�( ' . ' . .
!}c rn"'� .
�..¢'r..iH;'
,"'Y:°,��L..�
.:�����'��w}, � . .
;2.�:�.`2���;L: . . - .
,�n�y�,r'.. .
.fiY�.�. .�. . .
:�„'���M � � .. .
4_� � .
.. , ,
.,__._ � .
. -
._. __._.. ..... .. .. : .,...
._. : ... ; �F��f e
� ' • � ;�q�p:.l.�•
A�e�ili;�: .
• , �,-d i3'..
• 4c. "COnsider the possibility of additional short-term
accommodations developments located on the Valley
floor only at the base of the Buttermilk-Tiehack
skiing areas."
4a. �'Obtain right-of-way or easements for trails
identified in the Master Plan as part of the land �
use review process or as a part of the City and
County capital improvement process.��
�::�'� _
4b. "Provide for non-automotive transportation modes �'�'``�'�"':
� including bicycles in planninq for the upgrading r�};��'•:-�'•�'-
of State Highway 82." %�` r"'�
' � 1+,` -
The Transportation Element of the Plan is devoted primarily "
; to an analysis of the development of a plan for SH 82. A i... .
( major component of the plan for SH 82 was a review of ;' '
! options for consolidating highway intersections. The
followin eneral ���
g g guideline regarding the management of
Hiqhway intersections is contained in the Transportation .�
j Element. :�
;
' "Future highway plans should attempt to incorporate '•}'S"
consolidated manageable intersections and minimize the
`" ' need for traffic si nals or ��
4 grade separations.
,� Attachment 19 depicts the Future Land Use, Scenic
i Foreground and Transportation Plan. The subject site is
I split among the Resource Conservation, Open
� Space/Recreational/Parks and Skiing Area Support
3 Facilities land use districts. It is the staff view
that the site plan prepared by the applicant is • .
� generally consistent with the Future Land Use Map. The �t
key to the Skiing Area Support Facilities (SSF) land
use district is quoted below for your information and
relevant. �
S �.. #-�-„ ,�.�,...._n..-�.y.......,a,.,._....,�,a
4
�., a � . 4�r — �.,�,.
i�j � r 7�.a�{i`7Ya ��T�a 4h r,�i�1 i 7
I „� �
�� �� { � �l:, ������ 5r
r ,, j . rt�t� J a , �i r�.. i .��� � 1�� .
. ^1^� 3� h. � r .
i �1�� N 3 ' .
� J,
� .. � �.�. y yr,� �Fr; F �� i, ��.
, . . �M i �.�r � � ���ti„� � s �--;�� ��� ::,s�f ,} ..� � �i�p, a.F r�� � s.:r n � ���_-
. xg�xti+� { :i"�f ul i ." �r�4r`!+h 1*r I .J'y ° `�,,.'�,.'Yai- '� ��wx�'FS���,,�,�'���1 �i"d fY_ � -i� .� :.
. A l a,�k��'hr�l�;i:��a,�t�s�tr�,51k�"{"J-� 1'y�N 'I'4�x�r.`T - � �r�,�Ny?"'3F (I 71Cii� �`�G�� �.��a r..-
, , ,�+k � �
� �I I^�.:Yr t , . . �y' i'� i � r'.a 1 i��i i.' ��?$�#'r �.. . .
`:. ., :; , ...,- ,. .:.
. , :'
,
� �.� � �. ...�` _....._ . . . .�.... .. . .. . �-: _.. � . .
'
� . .:... .. . . .-.:. .,-. . . .: .. .� .;.. � -i '..�
. `. ' . , . � � . . \
, . . -y { ,�..
r f�4 �J� :
� M�I :� l ry��YyY'� ��� .
� .. .. . � � Y '� fi4-. C 1!'� .
� ... � . . ... . _ .i ' -A�A..�r-. �
i . ' � � . . . ,. .. . . ,ti.� e�..
. . . . . . . .. . . . •�-� � z.
. . . . � . � ,.' ���;'�
. � - -f. i• r�.
5'7u1
��
..;��p .. ._ . . _... ...:.:... . ....... ... .. //-.:,. ... ... . .... . ... ... ...._.. �t.
�'� . .._. .. ... . .. , .. •.'_ ' -�n��1. �
.,'*•ui" ' '�sr.�—� '
e��
:;' �.r R.. . . ....... __ .
} ,. _ .
�f7 .��1. .. .� � . '
's•:�-;rz- > . � '
�Z ��}.��q4' . .. �
:�3ic±t�.,;�.;;
;� :':kk'��,,;'y': �
,i�";^; : -
_y��;."�
:;.;µ.:`h'- �'
,�„:�_ ,
`c:, i`s'g',`' . . . .
.,�,�',�'�;" .. . . • . �
�� :.
.�Y7 qti
X,1�_.��}. - _ �
�..,,+',�.,'.vhr.-. t:i.:.
yz�<-,a��.,.
,,,.
�v3`x . ,
��..
.,q��:� ,� � . . . .
�::� ' .
. � ..__. � � .
`�� 1�:�'�?;";;y
' FlonfiU Or•C0.COP,fiF„'R�s r, �a>�i
� RI7t;i11 COU�llY �� .�,'-
IIL RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN p���1ic�{waring E�:hibits
�iPPLICATION
� Ra:r.:.�_/�?..:.S-�9'
A. INTRODUCTION `'���'��'`'�'F � C �
� ii
E-x��s �v:f _.�._
� i. Submission and PhasinQ Procedurg
� As described in the Gencrai Submissioa section,the total residential development ..,�,-�.``•
".:;;7.'-
proposal is for: �
�
� 70 wwnhouses(condominiums)and F -
,.
20 single-family lou. •'`: •
�� ���.
,� The development will be built in compfiaace with the Counry's Gzowth �
� Management Plan,wi[h buitd out occumng ovcr several years(see"Cons�ucdon ;��;;
Phasing"). Tlus June 1,1989 application is for GNIP allocadon for: ����` �
_ ..� � f:�I�.
IO[OWIIhOUSOS � ��. '
�� 8 single-family loa
i
in the 2ocadon indicated on the Construction Phasing diagram.
!�
i .
+ '
:;� 2. Site Vicinit�and Descriotion '
i
�
The site for the propos�d 18 units is located within the development wne
;.`� idendfied in the Highway 82 Corridor Pian,near the enarance to the new 1"iehack
j Base Development Area. Proximiry to the site enttance will minimiae the need
�'i� -
�. for udlilies and mads in the first phase. The upper portion of the development
;� siu is presendy disturbed due ro overgrazing and recent placement of fill j;
� material.�C�eation of high quality landscaped single-family lots will gready '�
i � t ti. -
enhance the appearance and quality of the land. The manner in which the new
development will comr.ement exiscing neighboring land uses has been discussed '� .
;:� in the General Submission.
�.:`,a� -
;� =`?s•, .�;�•'
, ��z;
, ,c.
i� 30 ��i+-=:
i ( ;� .k'
uau�t~�. , ._ �� - -:.
_ .. . -
_ ,
_ x
;i _.a....-.-�-�--+^.—__.
r � . -��� .
,. ,��.�:: . _ .
?�c��:��u.� - .. � . . - '
.:-��`�:=::: . _ _..
�N��'`f
t1;, '
`:}_.Yi:�i - � , � � �-
�+r::
! >')LSS. ' � .
t��� � '
F�� .. •
,`�.�+yy�,.-,=��;, .
.�';�;�.em.��+_�'_.,.. � .
]k
... :.-�1A"�,r'- .
,a.a�..��i:
;rkw:`yL"'� ` . .
�..e5'py.k
V�• w .
�`��.
:;.ti,'k�t�� � �
.::,�.>ss4r . . .
���;.
� . � . .
• . '���_':.
� �;,.;;_ .
�19`;.,:;
3. Proiect Scorine
� This project proposal will pmvide numerous on and off-site benefiu which,while
not a formal part of this applicarion.should be taken into considerarion in project
� scoring. Due to the need for multiple,funue year GMP applicarions,peimission
will be necessary to allow the granting of repedave credits for on and off-site ~°`'�
;;.^'�:.,-.'.
�� <?;��; -
amenides. For examplc,this applicauon is for only 18 uniu of a total project of ;,,+;;�;�;••,,:
.�;;,�......
�� b 2:.-::..
90 uniu. The proposed project benefits will be commitud during this first year to ,._-_
�::�,:_
include housing,circuladon,open space and iecreaflona!ameniries. Ic will be � � + �
�"`! necessary to rely on these commitmenu in futare years to provide a fair score for
s ._,
the project A condidon of approval is requesud by the applican[to permit the �•r''"
� 'L�;.,:
;;�;.-::>,
, County Planning and Zoning Commissioners W score the project based upon the :r�:. �
r�.;
wtal o am in all subs uenc hases. S ii"ic lan a e to su this ie uest 1`�""
'�•',� Pr � ul P P�� Su B PP� 4 y.,r',•.`.,
ri
` i will he provided by the project attomey at the appropriau time. These benefits �
;� 9
include: �
1.) Implemeatation of a major portion of the Highway 82 Corridor Master
� Plan.
;� ,;
2.) Pceservation of major open space land pa�els along Highway 82 at no t
,
� public cost
'� 3.) Provision of 44 uni[s of employee hausing madc possible by new '
� coastrucrion.
s
. �
t.„
�� 4.) Pieservation of significant open space and view plancs as provided for in � '�';
the Highway 82 Corridor Master Plan. . '�
I� '< .
i 'y 1�
I
i� j. ! -:
i t .
S!X- # .
.�' ��:-�
,'+# L :.
1 31 �"�'.
��, i r.
��:�' -
,x�1wHt � . _ . _ ... . . . . ... . . � .. - . . . . . .. . . - �i,
.r .. _ F�
;,:�.
:� _:
• �`� - -_
;�-` - ��
`,:; _ _l
�.;:"� ' • . _._
Yi�� i = .. � _
.;r:�-;' .
� `�'?�-ss�v . . .. .
jl��'?=.. .
'.5�.=}��iFR.�,>� . .
�5:� •,L+r - � ,
.;L'':.'w: . ..
����'` ='>�J � � � .
..'.'����j�'., � .
.l~Y=y�i�•,�J,° �
,�..•j'a, ".:.',S _, . . . .
�'g�,f�j:`. . .
:NL".-�:. �:
.:r...Yy,.�y:i" . .
".��9;`i�y�� ._.. . .
Srr i�','�'q�-.):� ,
:r���(
':�� w
'�.�':��
�5�.��c '` � ' ' . .