The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutbocc.min.reg.02141989 x��..::. . .. - � � ..:... ......:.,_.........,..,-«._..... .._�._. ... � � • 1 f�k�r:�?,� �,�,.K��,:.7,' ��5�':;?, . r,...�.:;; praux ao��c eor,�oF aoa�n�c aarrusszcrm�s �� 3f�1C- Fi�[14. 1989 7U�F�[[D Il1 CLI7C�[IIJI.Q,� FiRST FiOCHt CL'PY�IL (District oaat Roaa Not Available Dae to Wo�tha�7Yia1) ;,•, •:`,:;., ,''4t,. �.:.H:.:... 5:30 PM H1�iC 0�31P � - �SE�l'19C,ESSII]� (-1 1. First Reading and Set for Public F3earirg, Holy Cross Elec,-tric . ? imdergi+cxuri Ric�tbf-way Fas�t ordinar►ce, Tan smith - ' 2. Resoluti� in �pport of Tiic� Oaaipancy Vehicle Iane, ffiuoe Able 3. 2nd Reading, Resoluti�Amending Piex�mel Marwal, Taa Oken � 4. Siegel Lot Split Amer�i�t to Swbdivisi� Appnoval azxi I�rwements f� Aqx�ment. '!Ym Smith 'i�.,`:_'` j 5. Ccma�¢mity Se.tvioes Block Graht, Mike Sc3lultz , ., :. t ♦,. ,' _.. . . j IAND LxSE I�90IU7'ICTS Y �,:',.' � 6. 201 West Gbopet'PUD� . ; , . 7. Ehdors�ant of the Pi�au�ty AiYport Master Plan, Ztan Baker f : IAlII)USE ]'11�2�5 � R7BLIC HEAR'INCS: ' 8. Aspen Valley Ranch Iaw Ia�act S�abdivisiori, Buddy 7voezv , '� 9. Hilaiy Estin-Hood C�reta)oer �loyee Dwelling Unit, Buddy Ivoero " !=� GaY Est� c�etaltet Eaq�loyee Dwellittg Lhtit, �y i�cero A1o,raTr3r.+ �jn �g�jlpyee Dwelling ifiit, Buddy IuCe]7o ffitE�K t . 1 I�9DIiT�IQ�b At�ID�T�CiS � l0. Resolution Adoptinq Standatsl pperatinq p�es for I�lementatio�n of the Incide.ttt Ovm�nd Syst.�� Mark EUller� Cxtiy Fkiite 11. Use TdX Cbllection PlooeduTeS Resolutiarl, DeUe Nelsorl (See Packet MatPSial fram Monday's Work Sessioai Packet) ,� HTST�C I�1R'QIGS: 12. 2nd Readis�g, Re�olutiari Authorizi� Amerr�oent to Release of Deed Restrictioat - Hunter r�,�� Tim i+Eii.tsitt, Jim Ada�ki .� 13. 2nd Reading - R�olut,foaz Authorizir�g Amen�xit of Site Lease - H�mtex ,' Io�lse. Tim tdiitsitt. Jim A��;. ,� +�� ALITOUIai .�� . � PIF.ASE NOiB: AT.t,POffi,IC Fffi�ARE I7[I1ZCm I�t 5:30 PM. ACIS7AL TII+IFS WIIL VAibC. j � - z ,',�,P;i,`k' . � s _ �^sY'�, y ��i�.�`..�; ',7i � "�;'. •l.� d �: . "� . ' . .. ..._ . ... i . . ',., - ..�.. , �.,-,-.. .... .:.,�. . .. . ..... . .... .. . . . . .�._. ._..,.___ �.',�e . < ' � �. •.. � ;i ;;;�ti:=�>-::' 1=. ._.. ��. '+ --.�.a....-,.-.---�—� . •' . „� � . t� "�ti d,i,' 4. . __ _ :�..l� . ~C��'"�,4;' _ �� . • s � ��r`ic . . . .:�; , ;u�_ r _ � ��;.,;s?' , • 3c '� ' � . T � ,- s:'�:4�,�;,�,�;';.;. • •'c�AGt'��1:. . p��;`' :�^.'� . , . . �k .�� 1 v :�:�� ' � � ' � . . �:.t2:c . � . • � : . ��'�z,, .;, -. .. _. . . �.. .�_._ . ... .. . _ . .. . . _. . , _._.. ,_. . , ;,. . ... . '�r. .. , "'`;' ; } �i�✓Y� ' APPROVED AT F^��'� 2 . {'!,�' '.A,`. 7i MAR 2B 1489 `'��>>��;::;_ MEETING MIN[TPES PITRIN COUNTY BOARD OF COIINTY CU1�B4ISSIONERS REGIILI4R MEETING FEBRUARY 14, 1989 � a1.�,t ` t DVA[W Ol 4V� I.VPMI�SI01,1�2 '`}Y,��:..:.�. , r':.�'....'�._ ':�`V ,, . ::�z_. :i�:r i : �S[+iBERS PRESENT: Chairman Colette Penne, Commissioners Fred � Crowley, Wayne Ethridge, Jim True and Herschel Ross '�� CALL TO ORDSR: Chairman Penne called the meeting to order at x . 5:35 p.m, i �t� �; ° �HrrrFS oF PREVIOIIS MEETINGS - The minutes of November 15, " r •. November 29, 1988, December 13, 1988, January 2!{, 1989, January : 30, 1989 and February 7, 1989 were approved as read. '!� . CONSENT AGENDA ITENI� - IRST READING AND SET FOR P'[JBLIC HBARING HOLY CRdSS ELSCTRIC IINDERGROUND RIGHT-OF WAY EASEMENT ORDINANCS - MOTION TO APPRdJE- I PASSED UNANIMOUSLY - Tom Smith, County Attorney, summarized this item by stating, that Holy Cross Electzic Association has requested an underground right-of-way easement across the Airport for the under-grounding of electric utilities that occurred on \� the property several years ago. The paperwork was never completed and this item is proposed as a formality to memorialize a work which has already been completed with the approval of the county (t Staff recommends approval of first reading and set for public '� hearing the ordinance granting an easement to Holy Cross Electric s; Association for underground utilities at the Pitkin County Airport. .i M1 a RESOI�TION IN SUPPORT OF HIGFI OCCQPANCY VEHICLE LANB - liOTION TO � APPROVE - PASSED IINANIMOIISLY - Sruce Able, General Manager for '" Roaring Fork Transit Agency, summarized this item by stating, �� that a public hearing and joint meeting held on January 30, 1989 a'� � a request was made that a resolution be prepared formally � supporting the implementation of an H-O-V/bus lane between Maroon � Creek Sridge and Castle Creek Bridge. Therefore, a resolution \ ? has been prepared pursuant to that zequest. ` '.,., ;. = r�,•' BOARp OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1 FEBRUARY 14, 1989 � : t �.�,�.�,�. , .� '��' �. :�,'w. . . -, ,: .: ?.<.;.. .: _. _ :�. • . ;,. � �.�. .. . ._: . • _ •� ,. �} %� _.. si � �.�,.-�_--:-�^--- ��-K:•, . �'. � i3.; . . . �,_,�! _ r�.�j.I"i_'4. - . .,. "_ it�•#J;.�:= , :l,s�.::N''�,'+: :iy'4.A�-' , � - i� . . . � ��r�' . . , � � . ,, 1a."� ` � . . : `.��'rv+ � � . �,�_-��-sti;�.;t�. . . .�.-7c{�ar• i}'s� �:�'�f�'S; - ;��4 ` '�:�.x ' , t v� ,..x' � '� � .c-::'^:. (�(:' � �.....� . :.: . .._. ......... , . - .. ...,..-...._ "' ... . . . _ . � . ' f� .:. .. . ,,, . -' : -� ... ... .._ . ... .. . -.._ .. .�, �'Ri r � . , ,�:;:;�;��' ' • ��r.;:-..,;(`;�... z.r','� � . 1..��,A..�.�1'�'. �r:..'yl��' yy�t f�:'.:.. . L��.ti�-. - RFTA is requesting that the resolution be executed by the Chairman of the Board. SECOND READING - RESOLD'PION AMENDING T� PERSONNEL POLICTES AND PROCEDDRES MAN[TAL - Tom Oken, Administrative Services Manager, summarized this item by stating that the Perspnnel manual • authorizes the County Manager (or Sheriff, for public safety employees) to conduct a review of disciplinary actions and to _ render the final decision for the County in the event of an �y,'` appeal of such action by an employee. The manual does not address the possibility of a vacancy in either of these positions �-:3` nor the potentia2 for a conflict of interest when the County �:�'`I,�'� Manager or Sheriff has made the decision which is to be reviewed. 'F�:��'. � � The proposed amendment to the Personnel Manual would handle these r, , situations by having the Board of County Commissioners act in this capacity or appoint another qualified County employee to � '. conduct the review and render the final decision. j �S:• j Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution amending the Personnel Policy and Procedures Manual. . � :. � �'!''.,'a. AMENDING RESOIATION NO. 84-43 AND MODIFYING THE SIIBDIVISION ( � IMPROVEMENTS AGREEL�NT FOR THE SIEGEL LOT SPLIT - Tom Smith, � � County Attorney, summarized this item by stating, that by ! � Resolution 88-43, and the Subdivision Improvements Agreement ;,, y approved in connection therewith, Martin D. Siegel, owner of the � 3 subject property, received approval of a lot split on real - I--� property in Pitkin County, and was required to improve an access i' drive to the property prror to sale of either lot. � Mr. Siegel now has the opportunity to sell one of the lots, but F• ;� is precluded from doing so prior to improvement of the road in the spring. Mr. Siegel, through his attorney, Gideon Kaufman, � has proposed to post security with the County suf£icient to improve the access drive in the spring. Mr. Siegel would Iike ta ;�p be able to sell the lot how subject to a requirement that he ' � improve the access drive in the spring, in conjunction with the posting o£ security with the County to guarantee performance. '� Staff believes that this proposal constitutes a minor amendment to the approved subdivision and Subdivision Improvements � j�, Agreemeht. COMMUNITY SERVICES BIACK GRAN'P FUNDING - Mike SChultz, Human {_ y Services Director, summarized this item by stating, that �� ; Cammunity Service Block Grant money is available by the Federal ' � Government through the State to local communities with the �� . ; purpose oP making an impact on the barriers to self sufficiency. f ! Generally, all beneficiaries of these funds must meet eligibility pi:�<'�. � ' � standards of income less than 125� of poverty. After meeting ; � . with Boards of Mental Health, Council on Senior Services CounciT � r n � BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER.S 2 FEBRUARY 14 1989 �-.�'��", i � .';?i'-`•;i� � If-`. � fi,.�+ :� T� i7la�.ti..�yw, ._ , . .-. . . . ... - _ . . . ._ . . . . , . _n".`_. -: . � . � . .. , .. . . � .� ,t(,.� . . ti� y � p_�_ �"%"�" y 7 r.. :3;��. � . �_��>�� "��t::;f�:-� - — . ';�''��',?;'.z`` � _ . . :"1��...:�:,- � :s;ss; _^�, .:4'-�•::�:'. - (� n.. , � :.Y'�l� . ' . .,r�k:'j:''.. � ' . :?•c �' �-.:: . . . .Ek M••�; . . .. � `.-i- . :i'{"�: .".'f,.�Y.=� �.�ti..:�_(i��h. . ' � � :-: .hy , :tis:.._��i�: "$x:,,,s,;.. . _ � :A�•Y}'^ ` ' + � , , ....__ ` . ...� . ._ ...._ . ... :.. . _ �: _.... ....._, .. , . . � � ...:.:.�. ,?;.;��' n ��y�� ._.... .. ..�� _.. . �!. �_ . . _ ��„ �,� y.. �.a. _ i��rn�..:. f'�.'.'.:�- ' � _-_ �� r_�� :��.;�:�., a?�t ,v��va:u�L�.�l��\��'� \�� ,�•, �1• t�\. ]IGr_.E' __ r.._ ___�L�: - -- -- ,.: .Ziyrac.a;;:t�• :�.�a:Q:� �r.��., ��.:� t�,, ��,..�. ��.'� 1\��`111" J�£ :'E,. �' ..L��_ ::::\?� ;t:'v> :lC�<�\i.�s�E.�� . ' 2. �2=5� t.� tAa 1r�y�:�t� Nv1�E a11 Nr+t�1�h 1 1 1141�' �\ 1t u•, \`'1 :.',' . F�ergency inter�•�nCA.�n ��i� t t:�HniH��t M <�1N1 I��H� 111� �tll1.�� t+ll�•' ',`;�:1.- 3. $257o to ::�u1nt• ;�atvl�:,�N 1�� 1:�N1��1 IN 1�111�114r11 Ist14 !!1 �.�- their discaunt hook n�xl tr� y�«<� 4��t�� f��Hl t111 �+N41�+,N•Sf 1`t!V��`-1 � �;�.,,::; _ This grant revoiiun hna n 1 I�:�n�l�' I�HHII lill l I 1 I Ili il �111'�I ��Illil s>:''�` �:� ,. budgets. The Human Servic.on ril;nl't n�u1 Ilu+ Y�+i I�u�N lui�il�l�+ �i�111��f I�'�)1! I��' �I :, all segments oP the �annun�uillq �wi+,��n1ukN�l 41i�11 I�I�if �!lif�l f'!' �� approved as writt�n. � u��. Commissioner Rosa maiu� »uuir�vn) ��1' I►N, ��►�ii'/�� I�rJ1+l�.'tU�i�ll lrlllrll.''��) p; agenda items. Y.1:hrf�1</�* ri�:�+�N�/l�:rl� ,u��i r1r1� �ar�F��rt► +l�l�;l�li1� �; a . unanissonsly. '� r ��' .+. • - %-- �r- .a �� .� �v u� a:,u i /hl,li•)IU 11�1i/�, �'j:;��+�/r . .. � � i;' Sf.:.=rf: /J N%/ . �. !+•I / /JI I �`- L= -_--=--�� •.�s b✓://R:�;:�r'�:.��. !P�iv S/�!, I!/N /.d/;1%% 1� ! l ;�l', ' �'�:_ �_ n'?:'Ly;- y.i/ f•i�% L�://i�.¢ ///i �/it,;/ �'.'. . �-if f�l. ��_—� � �Sl .. .��:4, � �--'P� �= -3f - -r-.�lr"r�'1'�J�` .'�k/�''t1�'.i .'�f,e�1Sf�'l.fi fi�1�,t�''�i/�if/f� INl�///Jf/i - z`.S: ''_. +�L--" `SJ'r�.;�'.sS`.i. :1,Gf'.:!/�� ./� j./�'iV/�/lti .�/%-r,�liJy fl/�FJ,fd��1`/�;{'�� . �,r � yr.i'..�-:r:. r i.c- i'..�,.e.�.,�/fi /�9 t i a,� _„� � � , i _.=��='c' -' .:r % .�'-��%� i/,,, ,'yi/y� r >%..,�i /r.;� r/,s � `. a.:+� �'" � � .%'��.-`�.->�r'/ � �/��•//�/?�. f�l� '/ ��l,' ��` / /� :L•�'/ �- _ =.�"= ��% �S%�iiii. '///J ,.i.�.�, i.�./�:d; %f� r�i `� /.'! =-_ _ �.--�-- �:%� �i 4�s✓j/jit� /i t :.'1 r J.._�/ � ..� ;. (i. . �--= _ �-�i .W� i/� � %�/-°� i !;iiyr/i/�..., i, i.�j . . — - - _. =!S 'i,-.�//.� �.i'.-:T� .�%r .i/d.�i/.�%� ��.f" . -!�_-----.�-"'- ._._ �l�i - =.—.„�•r.- �':�� i,y. -�%/� t/�j/.:+r. -%e� !i:-. �:[/� �' '�+� ,f'�:%' .��_c_ s�"." `-1 iG�% '�if/d� ��'%i � �-�—,= — �r ��.i" .%' �,;, �. i/- 'iii - � ;%�' .< -�-- _ +�.�.. ��;i� -:,i .;y__si-- -i •i�� . � . . � . : �i-• .�F• . . - — ' '_'��'j _ y `^�-aa�s��^—�— �°��y"� L'vr/ �f%'��i>i %� �ii� �1��/i /�% �'f . '�^�*=--+�- �--'�' 3'��"`...5/ x,C :.f- ii .%� /�/%i ,rii i �%� �----�. � --�n�-..--�"�'..�'" � /L ii/ -i�:_.s r.� // . ... ,��/f . \ "�+Gr-� _s_-�-�_- .." '�' _"l'; �..s��3''<s!� ..i , %..i`-�5'i%�% .6ijs�!/�. -�- .�..--^?z._-�7"�7�_-:�t •�'.'�':.£ �i��"✓�i-'R`. !. "-;.��j?� ,�'��:s�si.�i1sf' '/f�„':yf. v'$ ��-'' . �i- •j , 3 �at:, - - --'._�,�,^T ""''�':`.�.�'!c,,r- �_ 6 rf..�.r'/.--'' , i/:i., ti,,,� -.�,... _ � -�. �Y��1_'� '�t 4( , . " �` �c.� - '�'q�i-�rt ;___.....,. ,. ,�:::. _ . _. , .. � � _ . ..,. .. �� t' Y�:. � -:.Y� .'��:2'2:: � • � _ .._._ . _ . x+.v �"t��a. • � ~ . - �-;��-� . ' . .ij �7�,L_.� .... .. . ��`S� '�-. , . S� s��k` �' l � �n 1 � ..�f�' ' " , . . . --..�#µ�•:. ' . . ...•:{,'S;.�;i��' .. . . . .. . ' �y�'��,m.;�� ' � � . .�f'r+.��..: . .yi4{..�.�_�, ;y� , xa` �� :. ��:e.��41.. , _ . .•�' ��`. � .'��E - � . r��*�; � �' �y}.'��;f. �ii;�. � _ r ,-� . � , . . . ._. _ _._ __.._. .,... .. _. . .,_. v_.._ .. . . . ..� . . . � ��Sr,�. ' ��ht�!��:{�.'. �ciiti��:. and its CSBG advisory council the recommendation to allocate the money is as follows: l. $3700 to Community Health Services, VNA to use for home care when no other funds are available. 2. $2557 to the Aspen Mental Health Clinic to use for emergency intervention for transients and low income clients. 3. $2570 to Senior Services to assist in publication of ^�.z. .- their discount book and to partially fund an outreach worker. This grant revenue has already been built into their 1989 - budgets. �J " i' _ ^ The Human Services staff and the various boards which represent g all segments of the community recommend that this plan be approved as written. �:`` .,. Commissioner Ross moved approval of the above referenced consent 4r.> � agenda items. Ethridge seconded, and the motion passed � ii unanimously. F�_.;,, � r�', -I � Chairman Penne presented former Commission member George Madsen f � with a Certificate of Appreciation from the Northwest Colorado y Council of Governments for his service on their Executive .� Committee from 1986 to 1988. S SECOND READING - RESOLIITION GRANTING GENERAL SIIBMISSION APPROVAL f, - `� FOR_201 WEST COOPER POD - liotion to Annrove - Passed IInanimouslv �` .� Cindy Houben, representing the Planning Office, summarized this item by stating that on January 24, 1989, the Board directed the staff to draw up a resolution of approval for the 201 West Cooper �' ;, PUD. The Board added several conditions regarding landscaping q and a commitment that the employee housing would be open to be 3 rented to those who qualify under the employee housing � � guidelines. These conditions have been incorporated into the _,� resolution of approval. +` G � Staff recommends that the Board approve the attached resolution ;� of approval for 201 West Cooper PUD. `� :9 � Commissioner Ethridge commented, that as he had done in previous � � meetings, he would abstain from voting on this issue due to a ,' conflict of interest. ` �t. ` Commissioner Crowley move@ approval of the Resolution. ' Y Commissioner Ross seconded, and the motion passed with three yea �,� `9 votes by Commissioners Ross, True and Crowley, one nay vote by A Chairman Penne, and one abstention by Co�issioner Ethridge. .�t _ 4 RESOLtITION ENDORSING THE pITKIN COUNTY AIRPORT MASTER PLAN IIPDATE �•.��;=-- a i BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3 FEBRIIARY 14 1989 f � ; • .ay,., i:t`;r.t`':; � - a �;..: � , ;; � -;. ,____ . .. , .. -,�- - �' : -- �_. _ 4, t f . � i .. . _ - _"��. �.,e�,.��;. � y. .� . .. .. .. ' . '.4ejs��: _ .. � � � .;5:,�:��r'y;;�.;,` . ' . . - ht ��' . - ( . �l . >. :.�>.K.t_.�" � .. - ,`ti�.��.:�T.�::'. . ..�1-.u�::{,.:.* •_ . . . . . `T'�.+��:i'°. ' ' •K.-� '�;°.s.;'r%):� . �"d.p•."'::1�� s�~',�t�� , . . . :f-y.5y,,,'^�"z�. . t� . � . . ,'�.�� ` +, � � : . r ._. . _ .. .... . . ` � . .,. �3''�;'"''� .�.a�: y,. �`'�r_'•:;'_'''}='' . - MOTION TO APPROVE - PASSED UNANIMOIISLY - Brad Christopher, Airport Manager, summarized this item by stating that the Board met in a work session on Tuesday January 31, 1989 to consider the Airport Master Plan Update draft. In that session, the Board and the Planning and Zoning Commission discussed various aspects of the Plan. The meeting concluded with a general consensus towards the existing state of the Master Plan with several exceptions: - Delete certain language indicating Board support of either State Highway 82 alignments at this time, it is understood _ that the full EIS currently underway by the State Highway '-.:e;,;;;;-.•. Department must be considered by Pitkin County before .#t"9?"=: establishing a final highway alignment policy; ;W�. ;� :,�r'- r .. - Deletion of parking structure in Phase III development .<'. •.1�`i'.'. _ Y - Delete language pertaining to rental car storage areas ;��.. , �x� - Isbill Associates shall conduct more research into the ��•� Pitkin County growth management forecasts. �'w� �.:•�.. J;`.i: In addition to the Master Plan Update, staff is also requesting ;�:I::�>:;: that the Board consider two other issues directly related to the 1. °. Master Plan Update. These include allowing staff to pursue `�� communications with the Colorado Department of Highways, Federal Aviation Administration, property owners, etc, regarding the P : possibility of State Hiqhway 82 two lane realignment to the east of its existing location. Again, it is fully understood that the east side nor the west side have been identified as Pitkin County's ultimate preferred alignment. However, due to timing considerations, staff is requesting herein permission to pursue land negotiations, federal grant applications, and coordination with the State Highway Department in consideration of the future `. possibility that the highway may be realigned to the east. Staff � ' is requesting BOCC approval to submit a preapplication to the FAA for federal grant funds as identified in the Master Plan Update- Phase I development. _. Staff recommends acceptance of the Master Plan Update, and attached resolution as revised, and allow staff to proceed with the other two requests as identified above. Commissioner Ross moved approval of the master plan. '- Commissioner Crowley seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. � ASPEN VALLEY RANCH PMH ZONING FOR EXISTING F.��IAYEE DWELLING {' UNITS 7AW IMPACT SIIBDIVISION PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IAT LINE ADJQSTMENTS GROWTH MANAGEMENT OIIOTA SYSTEI�I EXEI4PTIONS. � •' SIIBDIVISION OF ONE IAT AND PROPOSED PHEi LOTS - MOTION TO APPROVE f AS AMENDED - PASSED IINANIMOIISLY - Commissioner True stated, that his wife works for Herb Klein, the applicant's attorney. He does not derive any direct punitory benefit from the applicant, he '� •` BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 4 FEBRIIARY 14, 1989 ��' . . ��`� �..k,i<- . . ��`. - t��:.�` �. � ;.�.": r�.. �,; . . ��` _ F, ;....c,. . -— .__...-,,..--r._=�— —��_---�,,,,.� t :;�.. � :r� �':- � . _r •r';f.:.,`+:�C'1.� � � .. . . � . r .�;c}�!.L... • ';i? � ' � . -. ., `r,'iy:.� . � � � . :'�* '.. ' ' . . � . '�iY:':.�,'%�.:- � . :-`i`�.=�?`<tit`'�•+}' ' � � '..'�'-sc�'�t: . . �:VC��';�,:`�" , ::'�s�:'�41�" x�.. �'i�i��,R « ' . � . . e).a"= ` _ . . :: _.....:. �:,: . . �.: . , . . ��;., -•. �s�:'r�?;;�; . • r,;�.:�:.�;.:. ? ,sa,�,`,:: �-�:`l`t�::.� Subdivision to create four lots with attached employee units for each of the four lots. Klein stated, that because people will be living out in a rural area, they would like to have the ability to provide employee housing units within their homes. The low impact legislation says that there cannot be employee dwelling units on nonconforming lots. He suggests, that if the Board is interested • in fostering employee housing units attached to single family .-•:. homes that are created through low impact subdivision -;:_:;_:._- application, they consider an amendment to the low impact � '��• subdivision regulations to allow this. �� ' Lucero stated, that the �aay the code is written is that no r,��, - caretaker units are allowed in a PUD in a Low Impact Subdivision. ��`' ": �.: , It was agreed that approval will be given to create four lots through low impact but no caretaker units will be allowed on :a � those four lots. However, it was agreed that the applicant will ;� ;.`.,..; � be allowed caretaker units on five of the lots. '"�"� .: -''Nti', a A discussion ensued with re ard to a roval of the Planned Unit °''� '.'� 4 PP �r'�.:'.. Development. ' ' " � *'t d It was agreed that approval would be given to a Planned Unit ; Development. A discussion ensued with regard to a Lot Line Adjustment with the ' Vagneur Ranch Company. It was agreed that this request would be reviewed at Detailed � Submission to allow the applicant time to demonstrate to the : County that they are not affecting the Vagneur's property. ! . t } A discussion ensued with regard to approval of one additional � subdivision for one lot for the Aspen Valley Ranch fathering � parcel (20 acre ranch house). � Lucero stated, that staff is recommending denial of this request � because it is not allowed in the code. If the applicant wants to ± do this, they would have to submit a GMP application. ,� It was agreed that this request would be denied. ' jA discussion ensued with regard to five employee housing lots to ` be designated PMH (subject to acceptable approval by the ,`<. iapplicant on the DWC/AVT application) . , ! It was agreed that this matter will be left open until Detailed :,� Submission to allow the applicant time to meet with the housing � authority to discuss the matter and their options. �� ' \. , ; i ,. I BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 8 FEBRIIARY 14, 1989 ;':=•�,'�'�`;-, 1 k ; ..x,,.: i y-��:. � . ..:ii :r f ti n.� 3 :-��4x� .. , . .. , , . . � . . . . . . . ' .' � � . � 7 -S . t � �. . ' . � ��.�..w..�� T_ . h � • r{!.c ' .. �l ,� £' 1 .� • . .. - +.:3.aµ-E[�s}�. . , - _:r= ' ;:�•, - ::i°+ - .L:� - f � .. r�l��ttl�S , �. . . a�iY�.. , ' . ' . � . . �:'{�:': - . . :.L'��•..�fH'G.e'�..��" . .``r,�;�x�t�. v5=��+f�j' ". . •.k�4y�� — � �;:�, � � y: ' ��'. . ' af�.7t�^. rf , �,::k��(`J �. k'�;�5d`';j"":. Chairman Penne moved apprwal of General Submission and PbIII �":-x'•i.'<::: zoning for a 1.2 acre parcel that has up to eight dwelling units on it that are deed restricted employee housing, that there be a Growth Management Quota System Exemption for creation of for some number of employee lots which right now is at least four and could go as high as six. The replacement af existinq lawful dwellinq units, two of which are to be verified, that are located on the current Aspen Valley Ranch property. That a Iot Iine adjustment be approved that is attributable to one lot with the " Dry Woody Creek °Trust out Parcel' and the Aspen Valley Ranch property. That Low Impact Subdivision be approved to create four lots. Planned IInit Development is approved in concept through h`�-'-�'.� General Submission. That the rezoning of a parce2 to PMH for ;'��'`�.', ' five additional employee housing lots be pursued and more detail :.` , be presented at betailed Submission_ That the Lot Line -'�- ' � Adjustment with the Vagneur Ranch Company to be examined to be determined at Detailed Submission. - Approval of one caretaker unit for each of the exemption parcels �',�' ' which could be from five to seven dependinq upon the X;!; . verification. Denial of the 20 acre ranch subdivision. Approval ��`� :':'4:` also beinq subject to the conditions listed by staff with the .;; , ' additional condition which would determine no conflict between �.�:�;`; ,_ the development approval and the use of existing easements, i.e., . 1. �. � cattle run and agrioultural purposes. ' r�'. . Commissioner Ross seconded the motion, and directed staff to � prepare a resolution to be brought back for Board approval, and the motion passed unanimously. GAX ESTTN CARETAKER EMPLOYEE DWELLING UNIT SPECIAL REVTEW, P AI,EXANDRA ESTIN CARETAKER EMPLOYEE DWEI.LING UNIT SPECIAL REVIEW. Z ANA HILARY ESTIN HOOD CAREPAKER El�IAYEE DWELI,ING IINITS $PLCIAL REVIEW - MOTION TO DENY WITfi FOUR YEA AND ONE NAY VOTE - Buddy Lucero, representinq the Planning Office, summarized this item by ' � stating this item was presented to the Board on January 24, 1989. � The applicants are requesting approval to construct a 500 square ! foot employee units for each of the three houses that have been t approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission for 1041 approval. a � The Planning staff and Planning and Zoning Commission recommend 7 denial of the request due to the location of the property and � also the other considerations regarding wildfire, wildlife, and � geologic hazards. He stated that there were also concerns voiced � to them in the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings from the 3 Neighborhood Association of the Wildridge Subdivision because of � < the visual impact and the impact to the existing road. The F�. ; Planning Office is also in receipt of a letter from the Town of Snowmass Village Town Council recommending denial of the request �� because of concern of the impact of the road which leads up to j the property. They feel the road is not up to standard now, and ' � by providing additional housing and caretaker units up there it �. ; BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 9 FE$RUARX 14, 1989 �',,;;�,;;;,' t � � : x�: 4 � .�x. �t � . . � .. .. � . . . � . . . . - � 1 M-: �- , _ . � � �� f '- ;:--=.._--^----�----'—.. , X. �> • � , -.._ _��i' . ::;�_ ::x� � <,�,.:- = . - . + , _ :,;;.;,' ,�;.�:�; '��'��.��, + . • , � r � �a ...___._,`... . irrl i M �_ �. . �: � � .. ... �`?�`;,��:;'. . h 'j.. :?ja,';!�;". fi�;`�;, .. • would have a greater impact on the road. He further stated, that he was contacted today by the Snowmass Water and Sanitation District, and they indicated to him that they would be able to provide water to the site. Chairman Penne stated, that at the January 24, 1989 meeting, the vote came out two to two. Therefore, the matter was tabled until this meeting so that Commissioner Ross could cast his vote. Marty Pickett, representing the applicant, stated that at the �._, last meeting there were two outstanding issues. One was whether 4:.':�i�. - or not they could get a firm commitment from the Snowmass Water r��`'�'' � 7 ��'.•; and Sanitation District for service for the attached employee units. At their regular meeting this morning they moved that �;;"`.' - they would be able to furnish this water. The other issue was �:� °: what County Standard to use for the driveway or the access road �; _ ' on the property. �;: , ' Chairman Penne opened the public hearing. There being no public comments, she closed the hearing. k �� .... ; 1:' ;. _ Commissioner Ross moved denial of the application. Commissioner ;: :." . ''�,. . Ethridge seconded. t� �.,', r•.:. I,: , . . Commissioner Ross explained is vote by stating, that the road is ! °I extremely dangerous now and has been determined that it cannot be � upgraded to mitigate more traffic impact, and is under standard now. Therefore, the caretakers which would be living in the ,� proposed units would be living in extreme danger driving the ., roads. ' �, Chairman Penne called for the vote, and the motion passed with `� four yea votes and one nay vote by Commissioner Crowley. � RBSOLIITION ADOPTING STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDIIRES___FOR '� IMPLEMIiNTATION OF TIiE INCIDENT COPIMAND SYSTEM - MOTION TO APPROVE � � - PASSED IINANIMOIISLY - Mark Fuller, Assistant County Manager, " summarized this item by stating that this agreement is intended � to provide a basic framework for implementation of the Incident Command System that the Public Safety Council has been developing ' for the last year or so. The agreement is the most general of a � long series of intergovernmental and interagency agreements that � will be put into place over the next year or so that will further detail the roles of the various players in emergency and disaster 3 response situations. This program does not make any new � commitments on behalf of the County but rather gives some ' { organizational framework to those responsibilities that the tF + County has in ahy case, either by statute or default. • ; `� ; Commissioner Ross moved approval of the resolution. Commissioner i True seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. '. ::.�`�.;_. �� .._:;,. �;:::'; � BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 10 FEBRIIARY 14, 1989 "'".''`'"• � ::�,�i .;, i � ` � �`;. _��.: , _.;:i•` ti + ,y r: :��: rr - n'•' �r.�, .. .. . . . . ' - � . . . . . � -� j. . . . . . ��. � . Y �:{>j,?-ti: . • . '"". �,,,��•�:. .. : . � 1 ' . i' �".: . :��v � � - •�5{:: ' 4 � . " . r�Jj}:_ - _ - . . �*''y` :� ` . f {`�. �f . . _ . 1 �:.y,A � � . . . 'ti v ��I::1 .. ' ' . . r� . � i ��, �. "rt'',,;';=.;rsz'; . ^-:.�'�;'•�,;�:i ; ..;:�.� ;�;s wi;� .s.�.t��;�y � • , \ � ��."r'!'t.�. ' ` � p •�g�:�=;�% ` � , :.`,: . �• . , , _ _... . . . . � :�----�--- : . .__.._. . .,. .. . ... . _ _ . �y�}�'�Xr,f, ;w"'i r••- . 'r;•`��•`,`r+".�. '�,;Y� � '�;�`�-°�^C'.�`e��. l�ll+il READING — RESOil�jf�lf .Nl4�1.'!�.lf1i1.U11111(r ��{lii�ii�(I1�1�+'� ��1(�j � �'t L�T+L�.CPION OF THE USE TA% ,�r.r��.r.�r..rr�r� ��ri��,+,' f l��l� � rr//��r,��.�' L't?L�l.atx� — rSOTlota To �a,L"1,L� -- i�Ffif�14J� Nll�l�il4/q��si� 'I r,�c o,� )„ �\fittLt:L�t��Li� 5<_t7i!'yi ,V.i.li.�rfs/� :;�,ir./j i i�q%� ;%ir;� f;'l� ,�:, . . a\`�:� 3� � w�Ca:t S'c�r-�_Y. .:F_i/: /FC-t,�J:l�:4� " . L� „T�_._�_L ?�:.f� �'si %f-:i,/;�c •.i� /.��L"/n�, ;i . j,.j ri.��% �i. ,� . . `�� .E.1C . . ,,� .�. �-...�--'•-�...� 7YI� .�c L//S L � /. �, ;/� / / .. 1,��T T� '_�.. �=� �'" ..I s// � i./f //� �-. /, � ��( r �� :�`.��£��.�o`�.=-� - -r�..._. .;1"!'+�': �,� . -%'�`i . •ii . , � ..-7; '/ .;r(. .. �� 5�.1��',_._ �_ -, - - �r., ; _. ^:�' �../: 6 /; � �/ i � .. , ,yE' - . �a' �; � _=�- _ �_ %__.�` % �/L i•i i �` � � '' :''�....:- ' _ _ aa-:--..`. �� =T�_-^."G %i_ �a � � �.>.. /� ':/ � - ti.��` �. ___� '_ "_i;. .�'�-.f�' /�'/ �:i�:j.:4..-i� '� . i � t��• �e . ./� . f ./�� . � r �� - -�- -- r� �t� �i�::- �:i: �� .v>. . . ii. � _ �,, ��-'::i . �� -� �'°��,� � z'�;.._ ...._. .— — —F � ��—: - > ��_., �� . , t _ �f • _, __=--�- ---= -:c� .s� .:i_. •- ;i<�-; ,y, ., . >_. '_:�"�� _ . . ._._ �i-�.,::r_�. . i i:- r-3:ri;.� j. .'iL� � •�. �.�''�'�__ �- . ..__�_ _. _ - : . �''---.-_`.--`----�' .—- �__�•.:'.. :Y�.r✓�'�._ ..s-. y�i�` .�:.� ..!./: .f.-�. , ..�.� .. .��.�'.: _ ..-. . '-._:. :.�c �3. „��,"�r^-:.:. i�- /// i� .-. ,��'.. �, �:j ". �... . .�t Z �_..�.�..�. . .. . -�._ ..�� A .1 _ . .....:.'._,,:.-..--�--�--.-__,�-.-. ...�-.. l—.�._ �. .�..--. ./.r:/// .:. � ...w�_�+.c'- -�: .'^�-_ .-�. j��i'-� '.:-�%' -�%/j-� .�/ . �: -�'�-�"�"-_ R%ac s/ �� _iJ''. /.:. %� "y�"'r�'^__ .-. -- -- �.�'"s�'�. . . _-�'' , c�ii�rr:�-' �/,.r'. /:�. � . . _ � - _ �� _ •: • � : -.`�,--.,.'�'- ..'�..'.-_�`..��C_.�. �'si:. _�r.c.� �...r/� i./ iY. / �::-. � . . .. . .�--." � - . ....�,_�_;._' _ �-�''_ _��: "..� -,i�i��' i ��/ .�.✓/- .-�r" "s' -a- �--�-:..�"-'_.-*'.�s�'_~_�'_,_,/�s✓ii 1.-�/i ��' ,�•� .:•� �� . . .�_ ` _-'_�'�_. �.< ...�.r"'",j��,.� .. ✓`/��'��✓� �-- -�-._—x*..�-. _ r _. ..�-s� �,,,yc"� � ��/;'.. _�'O`=. .� . ._.V, ._.___ . �.__-!^' .. . . .< ' .�. . ., . �.. .. . _ . '�� .}.... �. .. ,.:.�.-.�.._.<.-�.. ��-_ . ._� __ ._. � "-v+�t.-�.�. .�_' _�' __ .�.. ._� .� . . ._ . . _....... � ._. . _._,�,,,..._ . . _.. �:.r�.�i' .-�., ., - �: ` ?:. _� ` .. _ . , - _ .. . .__,�- .__�:.�..�... . �_.. .._--._.'__ . :�..-- �:- r. . "��... ..�_. -_.�. . ._�„�,-._._..: �-. . - " � `' .� � . __`,.- . - ._.___.��!-�/�- � . . ,� . . �� ._..�_."_� '__ . "":..,,....,L:' —' _... --.- .�: . . . � .. :' . . --'<_.-�:. -.�_. "' -�..�._..��: .. ..s_ . . ... .- :.-.. . . '... - <��' ._��....-�. ___' '. _,_' _ . .� .. , _._-__. - - �-. �. _--- . . .>..��--�i�-i j - ,..i � . . . ---�.-.-.,�. . �_-,�-,. ..'^'__ .:._. .. .� . . ::_.:.�._..-..�__. ._.._ ._. .__ _. , � ; , _... f "'�e �:_._�_ ." "_. -a+G-�.��yl. . .l� .. /.: . .. h��• . . ��..._ .�._�- ' . . �' . � � � :. '�.'___ _ .... ... . .�..,'�-... . ..,�rli^y�Xe'� .,:- %' - � 'S SI�S',� .. S- '}„b:''�. � a�4 � �r: Y .; _: r,• .. "�.' :.;�s .�;,...r :�,; , ..- � ;;� � . "� ... � , ,. '. , '. , .. � . ..,, , � ._ . : _ � . �. G.n f , � � . .:. -�- y .. >-�; _�..----��t� `a��",� , . . �-�-�...� ''`�}c`gR'�..�`q.{.. _ �. . ��'+�,+'"ts,it: . . � , . . -..y��.er: �...�=�.:;.�ey-`7. . . . ii �t'�' . .. �'r�i;�`i�,:r:, . � � - . ��i;:y'r'.:'.�.. ' - � '::�::'i>._;'.�';i,�.'.,- . . . , C��E:i�.'}1i•_..� � . • . Z;, :14�F.. . . . . . .. .i�`,�'i�Y,�. ' . - . . � _••��A'4".,. rr.�'a ��' . <'.}ya5:.�.�y'tr�� . T.'t-' '�,;``X'-;�a'f,•; -'��°� � . �: � � .r4��s ` � � 1, "'kX`::; . ....__--°-._._ i ._. ,: . .. , �',�,.: . . - .. _ ._.,.._,...,.:... . . . . ' .. . . . ...,� ,�,.;,. �. ..,;. ....... ..... .. .. . ,,........._. . , .�j j��}r i�: ' �.'.x��+'.:i��:�. p'!'.�y�`�,�:.-:°,. t„�•,—.;el�:.:,.. FTRST READING - RESOLUTTON ESTABLISHTNG PROCEDURES FOR THE COLLECTION OF THE IISE TAX ON BUILDING MATERIAIS IN PITRIN COUNTY. COIARADO - MOTION TO TABLE - PASSED IINANIMOIISLY - Tom Oken, Administrative Services Manager, stated that this item was a topic at a work session held yesterday. The resolution provides two options to contractors for payment of the tax: .L.. 1. Contractors may file monthly returns and tax payments _ with no tax deposit required for issuance of a building permit. "'��? - A separate monthly return must be filed for each job detailing j��;%�=:C-> the materials purchased. ' � ,,��:� - . 2. A contractor may elect to pay a tax deposit of 3 percent of 25 percent of the valuation upon issuance of the building ��^' "-_` permit. No monthly returns are required, but the contractor must ��` submit a final use tax return upon completion of the project and ��;q ' _ pay any remaining tax due based on the actual cost of building �'y�t<',':., materials used. �Fc��' r Chairman Penne opened the hearing to public comment. 1 ��s �,�t� : '" Lynn Levinson stated, that she feels by passing this legislation, _-?';••,'. it puts the burden of being a tax collector on the qeneral ��- contractors. Dan Levinson urged Commission members to give the issue more time �' to allow staff and the contractors to work out a system which will be the most efficient. A discussion ensued with regard to this matter. Commissioner Crowley moved to table the matter for further j consideration, and requested that staff ineet aqain with the contractors to try to reach a mutnal agreement. Commissioner ;, True seconded, and the motion passed with four yea and one nay vote by Commissioner Ross. �F.S(fTITI'TnN - AI)DPTTNG AN AMENDMENT TO TAE DEED RESTRICTION_PLACED I IIPON THE LANDS IIPON WHZCH 7� HUNTER LONGHOIISB PROJECT IS BUILT, AND AUTHORIZING TAE CAAIRMAN TO EXECUTE AId, DOCUMENTATION i APPROPRIATE TO EFFECTUATE TfIIS AMENDMENT - MOTION TO APPROVE- � PASSEA UNANIt40IISLY - Tim Whitsitt, Assistant County Manager � summari2ed this item by stating, that at the time of the bond refinancing by the County of the Hunter Longhouse project in � 1985, one of the concessions demanded for the protection of the � propezty was a deeded dedication of the property to use solely as . housing in accordance with the low or moderate category of the ! ! Employee Housing Guidelines. The Iiousing Authority has developed a plan to pay off the � ` `:; k.: } BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 11 FEBRUARY 14, 1989 '"''`' "`=• :�- , , .�>: �`�t_;< °�.4;_ '.:,z..;. � ��': 1 .�-�,�':. p.,;;y 's , �. i�;,' i: _ � Y . ��:y� . . . • � . ! �. tN'. . .. �.:.. 1 . � . . " � . i.�. �' ' . � . . ...,. ,�.. -:. .. . . . ,.... . . ., � k. . � -:�, . . .. . . . � . . - ':'"-� - -. . . . . : "_ � �'. ..:��.z�-..A'�.^_TS"��_ ' t ,,:,. ' ,„_�. � - . � . �hiY.; . . . .._ ,�M 'i4,.:.� . . � , 1�,�,��. � � _ . .:��%��'.1.'=�'' • ( ' ,2.��F._�- � . . . r `�t; 4 • , '-�t�wc .ti':;� . , ..CF..!n.i�T.�.. �"F:r�:�4!i. j9}�y " \ j " � � � ..r'i,:�•., . . - � `.. .... .._ . . _._... ... _ _. .._.. _____ ' � . _ ,, • ' �'tj+�,t4�. �.�'�k t Rs��;:a�;;�;::.- outstanding Pitkin County indebtedness on the project by the issuance oE Aousing Authority Revenue Bonds on February 15th of this year. The plan has two separate goals: 1. To refinance at a more favorable interest rate and thus to insure that major rent increases will not be required at the project over the life of the bonds. 2. To provide additional capital for the construction of five additional units to the project for occupancy in the fall of �';;`:?� �- 1989. '�'.i'=;t:.� a ; � ..��s:9..:; �: RESOLiT1ION ADTHORIZING THE AlIENDMEN'P AND RESTATEMENT OF A SITE ,:�_� ':�^- ' LEAS$ DATES AS OF DECEMBER 1. 1988. BETWESN THE COIINTY. AS LESSOR AND THE ASPEN/PITRIN COUNTY HOUSING ADTHORITY, AS LESSEE,_ +��` ' _ RELATING TO THE AONTER IbNGHOUSE HOIISING PROJECT - MOTION TO =�' !e;. : APPROVE - PASSED IINANII�OIISLY - Whitsitt summarized this item by ��x:, ' stating, that the prior Board of County Commissioners on October � �ar�,�;, . - 25, 1988, as owner of the lands on which Hunter Longhouse is •.�.::`�.: constructed approved a 30 year site lease to the Housing �., y,:• Authority for a five unit addition to the project is to be r�' constructed. ,,� ;, r.,-. s The site lease was a part of a package for the refinancing of the ,�,' ` : _ project through a new Housing Authority Bond Issue. Those Bonds were scheduled for issue on December ist, at which time the ' �' County's current 1985 Bond Issue for the project would be refunded. We were not able to close on the sale of the Housing Authority Bonds as contemplated and have only recently obtained a private investor willing to purchase the entire issue. Closing on that transaction is now set for February 15, 1989. The purchaser has requested several minor and one significant change in the Site Lease itself. Since the Site Lease as originally authorized by ordinance is not being extended in term and specifically permits of such amendments, this matter is being presented in resolution form to the Board at this time. The significant change is in Article IX which would extend the investor's time period in which to buy the project (including the � County's lands) after a default from 18 months to five years. The investor has further agreed to pay to the County as ' additional rents a share of excess revenues it may receive in the i j event rents are raised above low or moderate income guidelines as `` � a result of default. � _" � . Chairman Penne opened the hearing to public comments. There being none, she closed the hearing. \ Commissioner True stated, that he used to be an attorney, ' ` - BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 12 FEBRIIARY 14, 1989 �' � �.� �w_. 4 't z '"t" y`��1 ; �`s.: J �� w�i Y� .� F ;.. ` . . . . � . ' O. .. . . . .. . .. ... ��. � . ...' .. . . . . . . . . __" __ ...5�..�+^^'�i� ✓. _. f. r _ f ` � �,t'•j .. -- �.y� c ri-' �- :�;�;r};`_ - . ��;;;; ';�?;;`: :_;s. . � , :;i�:a�: � . ...a'iy:i;;i'y � ' . • . :rr.,X.i `b"i:�..-:�' . . :.�'s',��,t�N'''i T . ':Ly�:ii�.i�:�.4��:. . �3f:. �%�;1�i'f�+l. "��F` . . ♦ --^� � + � �;; '-.."�—. IMPW�Y�PY�i1HiYMMq . . .. . S•� { �:. � .s.',Y 1 �_r' ^... :.: — .. .� ` � _ . -� �. .w...�v+. � J . . • . . " . . - . .... ... . ... .... . . � . . . -.. . .... .,. N v. .., ,• . .. � ..... . .... . �:..- . • , � ��:��"' , . h.'�1"��'. �.,��,�.t�e �:.: v+'��Tw�S;;;:.. representinq the Aspen/Pitkin Employee Housing, Inc. in the past, but he does not see that there is a problem with him voting on this matter. There was no objection voiced. ` � Commissioner Ethridge abstained from voting due to a conflict of • , interest which he had expressed in previous meetings. Commissioner Crowley moved approval of the tvo resolutions. '��:;`" � .'.?,1-. Commissioner Ross seconded, and the motion passed '�,�>"=�'� ; with four yea votes and one abstention by Co�issioner Ethridge. k � � F�� ; ADJOIIRNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. �:.• �>� + : � ; � Resp ctfully submitted, � J nette Jon , Recording Secretary a, � Board of County Commissioners � y ��.. '�= J � � ij � . � t� r: �i - « '� �fi �.� t� t; �i .� �G� i ..Y � `:�,} � �4f�. k '��?� S E� ;4y .I �.P�. :� s i - . . ;r:`�'. �```�. ,�;-:>�: 't BOARD OF COIINTY COl�SISSIONERS 13 FEBRIIARY 14, 1989 ��`.�� .,� Y� � «n s_� .� t,.l&,S.,r a�'c-va, H.�.:G�s��av�r-M�..'. ..> .:,1 . . ..._ . _.:,t . . �.e�.•:s� ,�:. . ... �_ , .,,,., _.. ,._. ' � [��`�7�� . � .essn�en�+� . �`�-�`„�� - --__:�,..�� . - ... � _ . � . �.r ,. : �� :_ . , � , - __ . ��i"3�r: � . � . .. � � . . . n . _�� . . - . . . ��^fir*.�+f>.. . . . . . � ' . ' � ..�:`7;..�:�:-' � � " � ..�� _ . � . . . . "g:'��' s.- . � , � - � . � . • . . � . . . �� . � - � . � � � 'L"Y� . . ' . . ��j,, v �'^ �R�� . " . . . � . . �`,:.:;.�;� ` . — . t - _ � � �� ... . . . . _..__ ` � - •!'.i. ..,.. . . .. . .. . . . . .. � . �� . . � ' ..... � i' "�r�l � py j�:,,. ��yl� wt�i. (/7Jf��'��ivivu•y�sr� ._.. . _ ... . . ..... _.... ... . ..... .. �� .•�. . P..�. ..: __ _-. . ___ ____ __- — -- Q� � 4�-a.�r �t.o Ct,uvur,��` /�:�� . __ _ _ . _ _.. ..____ _GtJ�i -� �ce�� .,� ��u-c �.Pi�c G+� _ _ _.. _ _ _ • __ ..--_.__ ....�, -�e l��P.�, I�.e�.�...�� Ci.c�t � �ri._ _ _ _ .. __ ,.. _ � ctic,+�.?-v�" • � �iu.e�, .' _ _ . _._ . -_ _ �`�- �2�.i.c�c�'"�� 7uP _ . _ ;�&y . _ :.. . _ W�. __ _..___ _ _ . —. -- - � �. Q .�';�o _ :t _.-- u� _._ ��. , _ , f o a�'��° . � .� � , _. __. _.._ � _ -- - - _ _ � . ------_ ___J�,�,,` ��ti. _ ___ _- __ ., � . _ _ _- --- --- --- -- -..-_- --._..._ .__— _----' _ ._ . . __ y ... ___.. � � � . . �� -.�- ---- __.".--'---- ._..__—. .' . '---" __..._ ..._____ .—. .. .... . _....._. ._... ._ _ __ __ _...-_--' --_. t ,. . . . . '- -- ` _-------'--- .. __—-----».-'--- --......._._ ------_ ._....._._...._____ ._._ _...__.._. __.._---._. .. _.-- ., 1 � �� ------�— ,__..----�------r...___----�._'_---`----._.-------------.._-'-._------___.._---�--_.------._ _.__.__._ t .., ... ----`--'�---------�----"--�--- � ,---- -- ----------------------g4A(�D JF Ca.COF�IM'R'S �: P1TKiN COUNIY_.______.______....___..--- --,----_— ---.----------,_._._.__._--Pu�iic He3ring Exhibits , �----------'___---_-___.� ----------___-----_Date:-=-3-iy-89--- -- __ -------_—-__ • . ,; Sttb},:c,;:_ _. _. ot�l�axe.u_____�__._ . --- —= ------------------------------ - . �, �� EKn. �io. _-----------.�--____—�_�,— + i . ^��_-----------_._. __. ----------------------- ------------------------------- � , __-----—-----------�.v.-----------._----------------------------_—__._�_..------. . ; �: __------�— ___--�-------._.. _._- --__— __ --�------- ----------- -- ____ __._. ._:___ _--- --- ---- __. .- - -- - --_�..---. _ _..�------- --- � ___-_- --____—_---- --�--- — . ,.. `_� ,,.. ti ti, _---- — —_-- ------- —� —--- ----- — — __-----__--------- a�,..` ' � ---- - -----------_..------ -----. � � s�� _: � r. _,_ :__-- ---._.. --- -. .__..- - _ . .r : _._,__ . --- `�: . , ' • � — -- ------------.�._---------------------------------------------_----_.�_ �_...___._.___ _- _ � . �. . . :. . ____----_ ----__._....----------.....--------_-------------------_._..__-------------- --------_. _ �«�. . __,. ..._.._._____-- ----- . __.__ . -___ ._.__._.. ... _ - --___...._ ____._.. __ .------------- _�----._�_ - ; t..�.�—_ =---....__.__._...___..._ .._ _.__._ ____..___ ._._._..._.»_ _._..�.--`------._.____.___ - �i ._.....__.._.._._.._..-----_._._._— ----------------------------------�---------_..,__..._..:,� . yhY--^'..__._.., . � - � ._..:......_.._._ ..._._.."_"' '__._""_'."_"._. __.___..._......-...� .. . ._..._ ..... _....._.__.._ . ___..._ ...�_'__.........____.. _.. . �"�`` i ��i . , . •-S'{rz�'(�� ":i: ,S '+� �� •. a� « i - � � ,: t.�..: . . , . b. .. .... ..,. _. . _ - , � . � - 60AFiD OF CO3 ht�MM'�1'� ',,�., � PITKIN COLyTY y�'',7'.��i', Publlc Hearing�xhibits ,;;�,;�,.;;j.�.: Date: ,�-/5/-89 �" �� ' , �_ MAJOR ISSBES AND CONCERNS SUbjBCt�_��Y�N ��e '� . � I'�11 ( I. I2EFERRAL COMI+�NTS: The referral commen�s�are a ressed to both the Aspen Valley Ranch and Dry Woody Creek application because the applicant submitted both requests in one report. c 1) County Land Use Engineer: In a memorandum dated September 28, 1988, Tom Newland concurs with the applicants on site specific drainage plan for each parcel as they apply for Building permits. He recommends a "loop" internal road system for �� 4`?;_.�-: convenience and safety to the residents. For other general "'+�±• , comments see the attached memorandum. ,�`� � { 1 2) Environmental Health Department: Attached is a memorandum � Erom Rick Bossingham dated September 19, 1988 stating that site "" � specific soil tests will determine the type of sewage system �i. ` needed. For other general comments see the attached memorandum. � �. � 3) Housing Authority_ James L. Adamski submitted comments on ��%�';;...' both Aspen Valley Ranch and Dry Woody Creek in the attached `.�:�:'�:;:,: memorandum dated Septembez 19, 1988. His recommendations are as �' ti f ol l ows: f,�� k��1� k:�, xousing Authority Recommendation for Parcel I: The Housing n• - Office recommends approval of this portion of the �; ' �: application contingent on the following: � ;: � � � 1. After inspection of the units by the Housing Authority ' and before issuance of a building permit £or any portion of � the project, the applicant shall restrict each unit to either low or modezate income category �of the Employee � Housing Guidelines and, file. the appropriate deed restriction. 2. Each unit will be inspected hy the Pitkin County Building Department to determine if the housing units are in conformance with the health and safety requirements of the Uniform Building Code ("UBC"). Each unit shall be in conformance with the UBC before issuance of a building � permit for any portion of the project. 3. All units shall be occupied in accordattce with the Housing Authozity Employee Guidelines. However, the existing tenants will not be displaced if they do not meet the income requirement of said guidelines. � Housing Authority Recommendation for Parcel II: The �� ' applicant is offering land to be used for the construction ' of 5 employee single family housing units c�nditioned on the .�� applicant receiving approval of the project with terms that are agreeable to her. If an agreement is reached with the 2 :� '.�t;' ::!�{ :(`:�i`-��c': ' � '_'^`.si � s'�Kr . F ' �c ;#a'�+`" --- ______ _. _ _....-- __ . -�_,...:. _.. :�:.� . ._._. ,. � �.. _. y .L :f��-� . . � ' .. , . .,. . � �... '. I`• �, .:!�r�r li-.; . . ..__ . ..-�,._ _..�-- __. �--_�� ;,j��1�,. • . ' , � . y�s,,.,��h__' . � _ _ �fi��".��'�f-=: , ' - ,�+ �w _ ..'S''F��' � ' . :y r � � ..�.t' �' ' t �3.�r j . , ' , , - � ar c ,� '•,��1's"' �� . �,�.�,�.-7��.;. . . . ..�.a+Rf�}'�`�� . . i�`:�; .t'u��.,� . . . ',t f"js, ��Ap � ' � � . . . � . . ��_t.;�: ,. i + . � ._ .. _..... � . ,�- _ .. . _ _. ._�........___ _ _ . --. . .. . __.. . .. .. _ �� ,.. Y 'ry, , �.� � f"a°,�G;..�+�:.; f!'�I'i'7it5.:2�;.'. . �,a�Y'y.Yi';�'. ' County, the Housing Authority will do whatever is reasonable to facilitate the construction of the five deed restricted single family housing units. The Housing Authority commends and thanks the applicant for this offer ' and looks forward to working with her in developing this much needed housing. 4) Aspen Fire District: The Fire Marshall, Wayne Vandemark, states that ponds are not a reliable source of water for fire ..�..::;;: ' ;�'�<i:•--`' fighting in his memorandum dated August 18, 1988 (attached) . He ;•;.r - recommends that an adequate water supply and fire apparatus ,.� access road be provided as specified in the Uniform Fire Code. �� 5) Citizen Comments: Attached is letter from Dwight R. y!�.`'�:: Shellman, Jr., dated September 16, 1988, stating his concerns that the overall application is not a Low Impact Subdivision. He � also states that the application could be a winner if applied � • ` j under the Growth Management Quota System. ::':':: �;: :p,.,,-'.';. II. PROCEDURAL ISSUESe I�i The County Staff has been working with the applicants for the s� _, ; past nine months during the pre aration of this a lication. ��•`'- P PP �t r,r•.�:,, � is a complicated application because it combines the following f five major requests: . . � 1 � 1. Acknowledgement of the legality of 6 existing dwelling units. i t . 2. Resubdivision of the existing legal units in a different Y configuration. 3. A PMH rezoning o£ the existing legal units in lieu of their i � demolition. i : 4. A Low Impact Subdivision for the fathering parcel. j 5. A second PMH rezoning for the creation of 5 new employee ` housing lots. i � Due to the complexity of issues involved, the staff has had a very difficult time analyzing problems and establishing a 1 recommended course of action for the County. However, we have 1 recognized during the review process that the best site plan for � this property can be achieved by addressing the complex land use �i issues in a comprehensive manner rather than planning the parcel =t`� i via a piecemeal approach. ;�; ' If a piecemeal approach were taken the planning process might .'i� � possibly include the following steps: � ; � I � :.,.'..,�;:; 1 :3;;<;t'' 3 z , � g i �' ��' � . , .y:..':i;e�<.. I �I:��-',^- 7 ,� •s iiAPrw*� ----. . . ........_.__. ._ ..,....__._ .-.. . . ._. ..._.._ .. ..__...--------�---�.. .�..,_..... :... ..........._.__'�_.'_ .._._.._ ,__.,..��. . .`ii� � :. ' , . . . .'""' . ��. E., _ 1 �"*`L. �t- ' . __. . ' y . J M: .��2.r ' . . � .1r �. ;�f�� ' ..�� . . ��i. � �� .._3. �4Ft�'' .. . F . ,_ . . ,, ��,�,. , , ��,�,� �r`,.'': �� -,,`i>?�;,. . . � . . . ' . ��;`w;..:.;�`<; . ' . '..,�K%�',i�`. . ' . . .�� . � � . . i �; .$�.y• ��,�tw� .. . ' ��vr'i1�;:� . - . � � . �F s��:...�}' . '��;1 . . � � . . :9': `�.,�?'� � <" . �'i� � - . , � :;: . �.� � ., : , . .�-,....�_._ .. , . , . _ _ 1 __ . . _.._....._. �. . . ._. �`��*?�': ��;..r.;,,; �.;r:.. r •�:.,:; ��:�;s.:; 1. The applicant would file a Low Impact Subdivision for four lots and possibly a PMH lot; 2. The applicant would establish the leqality oE the existing dwellinc}s on the site and then file either a 35 acre or greater subdivision gerrymandering a,�parcel around each legal dwelling. The existing struct�res would then most likely be demolished and relocated on the 35 acre garcels, or t ;�'-.. `;•:.i; '- � 3. The applicant would apply to Pitkin County for a complete � �;r:..:: three-step subdivision approval and utilize the credits from .'�j''� - the existing units. `''�j� j!�i!..S_--" If the preceding scenario came to pass the result would be the ��;:,'�. ,� , loss of a significant number of dwelling units that house ?' ' ' employees and a haphazardly planned subdivision that did not take , ..' advantage of the parcels attributes. _ ;�� ' _... An alternative approach, the one preferred by staff and the applicant, is to review the application on the basis of the I�c � i applicants suhmission. Given, this approach, the County will � focus upon the Low Impact Subdivision in conjunction with the � 1;'�. subdivision of lots that correspond to those legal2y created �� r''•` i: ; units that exist on the property. The subdivision of the legally created units is permitted as an exemption from the residential •� GMQS, however, it is still subject to a complete three-step review by the County. The Low Impact Subdivision legislation < states that due to complex site planning issues the County may require Detailed Submission and a three-step review. The staff recommends a complete three-step review for all aspects of this .. application. t The applicant is requesting approval for 5 PMH single-family lots . i of 10,000 square feet each on 2.5 acres as shown on sheet 2 (attached} . These lots are not required and are voluntiary, but, the applicant states that "In the event any condition is imposed which is not acceptable to the Applicants or if the Application is denied in whole or in part, the Applicant expressly reserves the right to withdraw this portion of the Application and, at its option, mey not make the conveyance of PMH Parcel 3." Tom Smith has advised the Planning Staff that given such terms, we should not consider the PMA rezoning request. Staff has urged the +.. applicant to amend the application to change the terms oP the � PMH rezoning request £or the new units because we feel the site is a good location for some PMA housing. The applicant :F�,, indicated to us that he would seriously consider formally amending the terms of the PMH rezoning request. No written i. ,�� amendment has been provided to the staff regarding the above. �� ;\ �;.`- 3 �. �l • i 4 `+yt :� ' ! '+S�^. i '';;:;`�.:.; �;:� � i� =� ,' w� 1't,, � ' �� ...._._�.-......�.._�. .._... _ . . .�.._...... _...... . ............ .� ... /�........... �r........._.. �.......__.. ... . . ., _ _ . --.-._........ ..�.�..... . �!6" `'h %� y f � .:v' " _" .� . �� .x �� .'��",t�.�... � , � • .. ��-I - . ;i��^..te'rT. - . . � 4 . ` - ' _' �.14f�� i . �"�.,?.`3�,:ir . � . . �.:T�'�.�_t�� ( , . •,tr� �, S1 � . .Y��*�"'�- ' ' . . .'Y":,-•A9s. �. . .��°.RE�'j7� ' � ",��i�i}s�+.��5.'S�„!``•-f . ^:,Nr..� . _ ,.e. ti,(::t, ' ;�i;M�� h. ' . . !' \ ..��- ` � � , � . ,�'ct�•: . ��. , � . ��:tiµ+. '+ �`+�. �'.LJt�d...L�.r`I�; III. STAFF COMIIENTS: �"�,,'#'`3:�':'�� PMii 2oning for Eight Existing Dwelling Units: The applicant is requestinq a GMQS credit for existing legal dwelling units located on the parcel. The applicant is seeking to relocate the units to ar�gther site on the ranch and subdivide them. The applicant siates in the application. that ^In order to avoid the displacement of the occupants of the existing dwelling units, AVR is seeking PMH zoning for the area containing these existing dwelling units in order to maintain this housing stock and . "secure its permanence" while making these units subject to �•'-:x:i.�- Pitkin County Aousing Authority guidelines." '�`'�i - �� - These 8 dwelling units, 1 through 6 along with 8 and 9, as shown ��t � _ on parcel map 2 of the application, are located on 1.2 acres. ,"Y�,.. The following is an analysis of legality for each of these �% " ` � • existing 8 dwelling units. The key criteria in our review is if " '_' the dwelling units were constructed before 1976 and whether they meet health, safety and welfare standards. � '�::�-''. Analysis of Legality: �''s -:. ' . s Building 1: This dwelling is a two story log house with an ��;, . adjacent tool house and shop/office. It was built in the 1890's �, •- 9 and contains a kitchen, two bathrooms, and five bedrooms. It has �,:r'•; been occupied continuously since the time it was built and is t '� � currently occupied by ranch personnel. . This structure has been ' remodelled several times in the past 90 years. It is provided ' � with the following services: ' : i 1. Water - Ranch underground spring. fed system; 2. Sewer - Septic tank/leech field; �� . 3. Electric - Holy Cross; ; � 4. Propane tank. ? � . � Staff: The two story log building has been continuously occupied -,J over the past 90 years and was a single family building as stated � in an attached letter from Mrs. Virginia Jones dated October 1, � 1988 and records provided. � Building 2: This is a single story house known as the original i homestead house for the ranch. It is wood frame and built around 1900. The house has been continuously occupied since it was built by ranch owners or personnel. It has been remodelled over �'� the years and contains two bedrooms, a loft, kitchen, a basement f and mud room. It is provided with the same utility services as ,; � in Building 1 above. � � kF' � Staff: The homestead house has been continuously occupied over � the past 88 years, and was a single family building as stated in �',�� . . � an attached letter from Mrs. Virginia Jones dated October 1, 1988 and on records provided. � `_ i 5 i� yc. , �u ti�. , `� ��:: *�'.. � �-� '::'4,`±'.:. i ±i:f:• I .,�.:� J.� i r. ..........—, ' _......."'_....""., _... � .........�. . .. . ._..... ..._-. ...__.__ __'__ .. .�....��._�..:...:. ...:...:. . �� ..... . .. . �.. w. t ,,.g� . . . �.. ::yE2,� � . � . " '<. . . ; "._ �'.. . . � __. , � . � h} . .. . . - .��""; :; � ;.. . ' .,.�'� i ,•,•,1 � iri,� '� . � - ._s.�'_ .�:'�� h-r{�:`�,.�.-��" . y . _ � .,. - . . ',f."sj�y,��,�i``��,C.^ - . . '� <�,�;-;�si_,". . . '.�.'<T.^'r=+..�i.., . - .;1�•,. . . . . � :ii. ��ef_Y,'�:.;F:':', . 1 - � .C't?'��{�� . . . .'��1�:'. .' . ' , . ' ��1��.:�}'�... ' . . +�;K.�'C�, . ' ,'11.( ' " _ •�� . . 'fi^S' `�{!C.W.�': :•'.Y7;��'1'• .liw�'- ' � � , . ��• , ♦ �� . . . � . . �� ' � `.hf�" ` ' ' ' . � . ` _... ._ . ,..._�._._ ` , . . _ , ... _. . .. . , _ _ , ... ..�.. . , �.,...,. _ ._. ,. _ . __ . ... _ ' ,-5��t 5;•� , � �`y ��1� ' r��.%� �9t. � ;j�:�,';%' L�y�:�`�t);�' _ �•k• Building 3: This single story log house with loft was built around 1910 for use as a ranch bunk house and milk house. It is presently occupied by persons employed within Pitkin County and contains two bedrooms, one bathroom and one kitchen. It is provided with the same utility services as Building 1 above except it does not have a propane tank. The applicart will agree to health and safety inspections and necessary upgrades to comply with health and safety buildiny codes. y'r:'J�,_< Staff: Patsy Newbury, former Zoning Officer states "The Milk House - Does not meet Building codes for residential � use. There has never been a chimney in this building. It now ;:�,.,,. .,- comes out through the wall. New loft - 2 bedrooms? 1 bath 1 •=r • .:y;...' .. r . kitchen." " :�, Mrs. Virginia Jones states that this dwelling existed for � decades. The appraisal only shows a date of 1�/9/86 on a photo. �.�� The aerial photo has no date stamped on it, but has a written �<;,�. date of 10/20/69. A County windshield service of 1975 shows on a ��,�;1:' s. County map that there was a building on the property at this � location. Staff would request that additional information be r�� . �. provided dating back to 1976 when the area was zoned. This f. .'. information shall consist of written evidence in the form of -� dated tax statements, utility or rent receipts, building permit and the like. Building 4: This single story wood frame and log house with a • loft was built in the 194o's, with an adjacent storage shed and garage. : It was originally built as additional bunk house space for ranch personnel and has been occupied since 1970 by persons employed within Pitkin County. It contains one bedroom, one bathroom and one kitchen. It is provided with similar utility services as Building 3 above. The applicant will agree to health and safety inspections and necessary upgrades to comply with health and safety building codes. Staff: Mrs. Virginia Jones states that this dwelling existed for - decades. The appraisal only shows a date of l0/9/86 on a photo. The aerial photo has no date stamped on it, but has a written date of 10/20/69. A County windshield service of 1975 shows on a County map that there was a building on the property at this � location. Staff would request that additional information be provided dating back to 1976 when the area was zoned. This information shall consist of written evidence in the form of < dated tax statements, utility or rent receipts, building permit t and the like. � � � Buildinq 5 and Building 6: Both of these mobile homes are 12 x 50 in size, contain two bedrooms, one bathraom and as housing - for ranch personnel. These were placed on the ranch in 1967 for ;', y;;.?r;;. ; _, 6 �iex % �� q„_'. s`'� y : � ; � � �,,,�y�_. � Ir F� �.� ,�.,.-,..�—. _.._.__.....__�_..... ..__..__ _ .. _ __... . .-.-._ . .�.._ .i�"'�. ._. . . ....__.. . __....__._._ .. . . ..:.�.�_... .......:...._.. . ' .; : . ic � r�3.:,.-. . _._. . � � , . . .�..� ,. +. w '�'c„? . 'r'°�G+E�'� ;` ;. .. �.��:...�-','.t�s Y;,. '� . . . .... . .. _v;;f:?�=c't,3.� - . .. . . . . °'' -Y- _. ci , . . P'; . ca� . '•�\•�a ��N-. , . . +:l:" . -__� � { ..}i•3':..'.;l , � . . � f�� , Ir *� •' ' Et��,y,` - � '�'�w>�'S.`•i)'� . 'y4=��}�f'�' . . Yy r�,l'! . . _ . .y,•.�� r . \` ..R��.� � ` � :,F�:Y� � � . � . ' , . �, . _. .. . ... .. .. . , , . .... ___ _ . _ , . _F._ :_... ,... .. _ _ , _ _ . . . -.. . ' z�;"��4'"'; , �'SJ�r�%�:';., �,"y7t''.w';.:. y��;��Y`"yrr�•. [F�': �:il,'tle5,�i.. l+�C'i-n�_:ut�:::-_ use as housing for ranch personnel. They have been continuously occupied since that time and are presently occupied by persons working within Pitkin County. Both o£ these homes are served by similar utilities�as in Building 1 above. Staff: Mrs. Nola Goody states that she lived in a mobile hor.:': on the AVR and that there was a second mobile home on the property. Utility billing is provided dating back to 1974. These two mobile homes are �hown on the 1975 map. "°S.',� Building 7: This is a two story log and wood frame house s ,� containing seven bedrooms, six bathrooms and two kitchens. It �i . was originally built in the 194o's and has been the primary � �,.. residence of the ranch owner. It is served by the same utilities :;,�".•,-;'� .,..�._ � as Building 1 above. ��•'. '�; _ Staff: Information has been provided establishing that this unit �` was created prior to 1970. However, this unit is not part of the 4"f�. i GMP Exemption or PMH Zoning. f �.�:;,;- Building 8 and Building 9: These mobile homes were laced on the r'�•"` '' P z�, ranch' in 1984 and are not considered legal units. They are �,••�a;;:': ,: - presently occupied by employees within Pitkin County. The . �. �;;'., applicant will remove these if requested to do so, however, in order to avoid displacement of this low cost housing, the applicant is willing to keep them under employee housing � guidelines and pursuant to the PMH rezoning request set forth in Section VI of this application. Staff: Staff concurs with the applicant. These units' are illegal and should not be credited for a GMQS Exemption of any kind. Staff has visited the site and concurs with the applicant that there presently exist 8 dwelling units. As noted above, the - � applicant has established the legality of buildings 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7. The applicant is not seeking a GM4S credit for building 7. Buildings 8 and 9 are illegal., The applicant must supply more information to establish the legality of building 3 and 4. Therefore, based upon our analysis to date, the applicant has established that they qualify for four GM4S credits to relocate dwelling units via the Subdivision process. � I The Housing Authority and Staff concur that the removal of these units will displace the occupants and that the units should not be removed. Planning Staff recommends PMH zoning for the 8 .t�--. existing units and that the applicant shall follow the conditions 5', stated by the referral departments memorandum, and that a � detailed site plan for the 1.2 acres be provided, showing that �l all conditions are followed. The dwellinq units need to be upgraded to comply with health and safety building codes. ` .;<`.,� �� ' {. ,.` i . 7 ��, G. ` "k�'-'. ,'�:_ �";_: ;-;�.: �_y;��.:'1?.�. � � �t�'�•".: � ' [�{' � ....._...._. . ___""__" '__ . . .__'_'_._'_'._. . _...__...._. -...... i ... ..... _ . .. . .:.. ... _.... ..'. '. �Ey�Y'3'^� ... - _'.�...�..._-r..�. .. �.- . .:r`„yl : .. .. � fi� s5.,' _ - �� .T�_�.,e� . • ' . �" r 4+�n�- . . . - - �- � _ . . . . a "" . ;r...;�4�..��:��, . .. ,.?':'r"_��5��','':� ." _ . . : � �,_ � . ' � � -.�i .s.i . . . ::e1}'�c - � � . . � S �y. ' . • . , ��,�,_.r,'. ;. ;��:vM. C.�..•y:;,d.. . . . �Lt�t. y�"y�. `�.t .;:.��j':t i7�C�{uk'�'n� . . . � fi^'Vi�� . ��;�y��;i:� . :�r��7 - xvj$�,?�r�a`; ; ��:��fF_�. . ` . � ' . • ' � F: : � ' ..s- .. . ..i . .. .. ...... .. ...._ . . . . . .. . .. . . v ... . . ... ........ _ .. ... . . ��` f+��. . � ��¢�p��r��'� 1 ��'Y: ��,:;�.,_ . � Growth Management Quota System Exemptions/Subdivision of Legal Exi.sting Units: The applicant is requesting approval to create six new parcels, Lot 1 through 5 and Lot lo as referred to on parcel map 2 of the application. The creation of these lots must be through the replacement of existing lawful dwelling units located on the AVR property. Section 5-510.2(b) Exemptions, of t� the County Code states "The remodeling, restoration, , reconstruction or replacement of any legally established structure, provided there is no addition of dwelling units, nor expansion of commercial floor area (except if constructed '�';';'i'' pursuant to Section 5-510.2[i]), nor addition of lodge, motel, t �"`� hotel or tourist dormitory units, and provided the building ��5 complies with the requirements of Article 7, wherever _ aPPlicable.�� fi.:,n<,..,` As noted in the previous section, the applicant, so far, has - established that only four buildings currently housing employees . are legal. Two buildings are clearly illegal and it is not clear � yet if the two other buildings are legal or illegal. The ,�`:�-' Planning staff does not object to the applicants request fvr GMQS credits and Subdivision as long as the Subdivision is reviewed in I�� conjunction with the Low Tmpact Subdivision via a three step + review process. ; a,'�.. . r•. t' '' Zf the applicant can not establish the legality of buildings 3 � and 4, than the Subdivision of additional lots other than the Low ;. � � Impact Subdivision should be limited to four lots plus the credit ; for the DWC out parcel for a total of nine lots. The DWC out i parcel is addressed in the following section entitled "Lot Line ' i Adjustment DWC." � � - � Lot Line Adjustment DWC_ The applicant is requesting a Lot Line ` Adjustment. for a 20.2 acre parcel re£erred to as the "Trust Out i Parcel". The Trust Out Parcel constitutes a separately : developable parcel which is entitled to a single-family dwelling exempt from GMQS. The applicant proposes to transfer from DWC to } AVR in equal land amounts. The site plan provided is contingent � on the approval of the Growth Management Exemption for subdivision of existing units. The 20.2 acre site (Lot 3) is designed to share the proposed new road and utilities with the proposed Growth Management Exemption lots. Staff would a recommend that the applicant provide a new location for the buildinq site if the Growth Management Exemption is not approved , ; as requested. The existing site is located in a severe hazard , brush area, avalanche area, steep slopes, and a new water well and road would need to be rovided. ` P ,4-, z`, Low Impact Subdivision: Planning Staff finds that the AVR Low Zmpact Subdivision proposal for lots 6, 7, 8 and 9 complies with � ' the requirement of sub-section 4-6.1, of the amended Low Impact Subdivision, except for the following: �\ 4 i 8 �Y'. �r� � 4 " .�.:.:. L�, ..>�;�::.. � - ? �r'Y':.�� N ( T : ...�.—_._.;.�.�__. . .._� ........... . . ......_. ... . ..._...,...� .._....._.._...__._......_.. ...._'"_"' ......_ . . � _.._....... .%��,. ��,• • ' +..}. iwl. . . � ,' . �. ir .•y f��Yra�i�� . .'.�:: . �_ - ��rs�- • � r - '''. . t�4• �..�. _� ..4f1„y�:;�R,j" � . .._.. _ . x` }r�.�' — . :s� �j'' . . ,,:_�.�f,: ;yY.��_ �..: ' . . -�'�t��. `�� . {• . .•�y`;S'i`�.. ' , . . �_3: Y�'K.�.i':.TiV . . - .f-,c4.c..�'1�',`'-;;: ' � ' . . .k�;��ti,N � � � - . . -.zi;.:�,. � :�R.�a...i�'�. . �i��F;nr�i-%!tiY:•�y� ° .4�.��.,� ':.Y-.;:4:��_�.'::. . � . .,.R:�,�;.a '4 bR']�J,� i . . � �'��t�� . �' ��. �� '��;�' �..� ,�_�_.. �_ .�.._ . s.+'q:..; . k��hEl�f. � . .. . ... . . . .. ' y �. . �ii�:��'s�'?i� . �.k`��='.,y1Y�: a +�°��;��,: �a� 1. Approval of the AVR Low Impact subdivision be contingent on illegal hausing units be legali2ed or removed (Seation 4- 6.1(c) (v) Land Use Code) . 2. Section 4-6.1(C) (viii) of the Land Use code requires a lot to be conforminq in size in order to contain an employee unit. The option for employee units will be precluded, given the proposed lot sizes. 3. In the event that the number of lots proposed by the �•_ applicant is reduced or the lots are re-configured the road �,'�,'i. - �.>i::... system and water service system may have to be re-desiqned. 2" � 4. staff recommends that the applicant comply with the �_ ' ., recommendation of their consulting geologist Nicholas ��-: Lampiris as outlined in his report. �`` ��:. 5. Staff concurs with the Aspen Fire District and the i� �: applicant's consultinq engitteers in that individual in- �� . house sprinkler systems be considered to be installed. � ' Staff would recommend that individual in-house sprinklers be ��:1: installed. The use of an irri gation ditch for fire fi ghtin g - purposes, as stated in the application, may not be '��t"�;'>;, ;. sufficient for year round access and availability. �; ±''� ' - Planned IInit Development: The applicant is requesting Planned - Unit Development (PUD) designation in order to permit a variation in lot sizes £rom 11 acres to 25 acres for Che AVR Low Impact Subdivision property. It is , the intent for Planned Unit Development to encourage more efficient use of the land by , ' clustering development. By clustering the lots and reducing their size along with taking advantage of the sites unique, natural, resource or scenic features the sites become more i � efficient. The clustering of sites will preserve more open space while lessening the amount of roads, utilities and public services such as fire and police protection. The conditions outlined in the Low Impact Subdivision above shall be foll.owed for PUD approval. Scenic Qualityc The County Code states the following in regards to scenic quality: "It is the policy of the County to preserve the scenic t quality of the County for the benefit of its residents and the continued viability of a recreation economy - which is dependent upon the quality of its rural and c natural setting. '� i To this end, it is the policy of the County to preserve ',� the natural appearance of the mountain slopes, particularly from major activity areas, public roads, 9 ��, �� .�k' et^, N*?r :y!T.� • r• _ '.; L'�'.. . .__-----_ . ,..---'- . , . .,.- .__..._, .....__....._ _ ._.._... _ _. .. .2___.. _..__ .�_._ . - �_.. . ... �.'. . ...., .. �...... _.. . 4 y~ , �. ft � %� i��Y��'� � a+. �'ti% . ; �___ ..�-� .. t - - k�„�S _�--� ..t�� ,•t; � _ _ �z,..±�,-"r._. � - x n.._fr•:> . . _.. . ��'x�`'a�v v , - f't�- :.`;�..:-: '.'Y'`i 1�iS.�:: . . }��; ��;��:�,.»i'�.''j:�- � . ::Ic"�" - � ' � . , .'':'^'jM'ii•fj'i�. . � � . . ' ' 1 �r^ . , K C",�..N�� , ' . . �:e,�c}�wq��!v 1, �. . ':c�;;,�::a+:�*' - . '.,�r, :��t'>y . :�:-�`r ` � � a�� 6K;.,.-. .__ . 1 __" ...�.._�._.,,...._ . ... J � . .. . ... . . .. .... _. .. . . � . ... � .. ... . .. . �..� r14"� .. . � .. . .. . -. ...... ., � . _.. :.I � �+,ti?!C 7�i�`%�. ' �"r4la��':«f'� . ,��r i: I'�'i3.�Si':? ' and trails by regulating the location, height, design and screening of development." Relocating up to four of the proposed southerly lots to the lots � designated Trust Property (TP 1-4) on'the northern portion of AVR will lessen the visual impact while preservinq the natural appearance of the mountain slope from H�ghway 82 (see parcel map 2) . The lots recommended to be relocated to the north are Lot Numbers 1, 2, 4 and lo along with locating Lot Number 3 to Lot 3A as shown on the alternate lot configuration (Parcel Map 2) . By �� ,:-;;;y,_.. relocating these lots this will eliminate the need for a new '•.s., - upgraded road, new driveways, two new water wells and lessen the .:.�%:s':;�.:; visual impact of five house on the southeast property of AVR. s:�,�`::.;:._ The Trust Property lots were proposed for the Dry Woody Creek Low ;`��"'-�' Impact Subdivision. The applicant (AVR) requested a Lot Line ' � Adjustment to allow the creation of the T.P. Lots. Planning Staff concurred with the County Attorney in that the Lot Line ' Adjustment and Low Impact Subdivision request does not qualify •' '''' for approval under the County Code (attached November 4, 1968 ��'� � ; letter) . Staff recommended denial to the Planning and Zoning ,�; � Commission at their November meeting. The applicant requested �, ! the application be tabled to provide additional information. No �� _ � l:� • new information has been provided regarding the Dry Woody Creek r:_r•; . s: , i Low Impact Subdivision. These four T.P. Lots would provide sites � i for the four (1, 2, 4, 10) Lots on the southeast side of AVR. 1 ! 1041 Hazard. Review: The Planning and Zoning Commission granted a + 1041 Hazard Review approval on October 25, 1989, the following is for information to the BOCC and no action is required. _ ? ! Geologic: Nicholas Lampiris, a consulting geologist prepared a i geologic analysis for the property, the report is attached with the application. Planning Staff concurs with the recommendations � � j of the geologist report. Staff recommends that the applicant � follow the recommendation of the geologist report. � Wildlife: Virtually the entire ranch and trust properties are � considered elk and mule deer winter range and significant portions of the ranch have a resident mule deer population. Therefore, it is important that all building envelopes be located to avoid the activity of wildlife were possible. Recommendation from the Division of Wildlife shall be followed in regards to fences, vegetation disturbance and that dogs shall be kenneled or leashed. i Wildfire: Planning Staff recommends that the applicant follow t`" the "Wildfire Safety Guidelines for Rural Homeowners" by � � Colorado State Forest Service, Colorado State University, 1980 to � lessen wildfire potential. They shall also follow the �`! guidelines outlined in their report for wildfire. Staff recommends that individual in-house sprinklers be installed. The ` � � 10 '. z � I n�,;,..;��;. ��;„��;,:: ';; � �� y�� r�' . I _ _..__ . ___- __..._._ . _ --- - ------_. �...: _._.._ _.... , �-,�-:. _.�.�:._.. ......,,. .. . _._. .�+'"�"' , ,�;,;}�:,_: ' ' '�-t"",::'. � � . . � _.__ . ,�-r-�-,.� � � . �� .. *uo-J'�.�;. , � ."'aay.,i+�� i; �._�.'��g"• - . . � ...� � . _ _ }�!{x Y�si;�.. _ � -- . ..�F'I�:7,4 i`. . - . a �:,.^.Y��.'s'�: ' �'..,::.:wA::'{�.i: . . . �:� .. . :ir_�.�,�;�. . F: �F� = . � � . -.:,',�'.ui`,'.�, . . � . .�,t�''�`�;y�.'1= - � . , ��`��:.� . . . . . .:�}._i��1.}'}�� . .�� ' . �� .,,�� — - � . ,: . :;;:..-. . ... . ;, _. .----_... . ............. .. ,.._...._ _ .. _ . . � �.� .• . �t � rr��., ,��`r.: ��;�fs`;;!'' r��;�, �:��:r: use of an irrigation ditch for fire fighting purposes is not sufficient for year round access and availability. Lot Line Adjustment with the Vagneur.Ranch Company: Attached is ! a letter from the applicant's agent dated September 29, 1988 requesti�3 amendment to the application for a Lot Line Adjustment between AVR and the adjacent property owners-Vagneur Ranch Company. The purpose of this request is to establish a common boundary line between their ranch p�operties. Planning Staff _ • finds that the request meets the requirements of a Lot Line �?'�:t.° '_ Adjustment as outlined in the Pitkin County Land Use Code. � �s;:?:<.•� �'a Fathering Parcel: The applicant is requesting to create a 20 acre lot for the ranch house. It is the intent of the Low Impact ;:��J;,_ . Subdivision that the principal building remain with the fathering '`� ' • � ,. parcel. The ranch house has been referred to as the large main � house in the application and attached letter from past residents. ..�'... . To subdivide this 20 acre lot would create more than five lots '�, and would not be consistent with the Low Impact Subdivision �#�- - requirements. The applicant may wish to subdivide the main house ��,� • � as art of a 35 acre or ^ S�� p greater subdivision. �,. r r� PMH Five New Lots: The applicant is requesting approval for ,5 ';'i.�• ,; PMH single-family lots of 10,000 square feet each on 2.5 acres as ` r''` shown on sheet 2 (attached). These lots are not required and are �� - voluntary but, the applicant states that "In the event any r ; condition is imposed which is not acceptable to the Applicants or if the Application is denied in whole or in part, the Applicant expressly reserves the right to withdraw this portion of the .Application and, at its option, may not make the conveyance of - PMH Parcel 2." Planning Staff has been advised by the County Attorney that we are not in the position to review the PMH re est because the re � qu , quest is conditioned upon an approval of all elements of the application on terms acceptable to the I applicant. In the event the applicant changes the terms of the request you should consider it. ! SLJrII�fARY: Although the land use application is complex due to the many requests, the staff supports the application. We support the proposed Low Zmpact Subdivision in conjunction with a subdivision approval of four to six additional dwelling units as credits for the existing units plus one credit for the DWC out parcel. We believe the alternative to approving this application �• will be the piecemeal development of the ranch. Due to the complexity of the application, a full three step review is recommended. � F�- The staff also supports the rezoning of the existing legal r .� dwelling units to PMH. Given the lack of affordable housinq in �� the community, it may be unreasonable to demolish legal units which provide affordable housing. Unless the applicant amends the terms of the request for PMH re2oning for new PMH units we ` 11 t�j�� #?a �. ` , �� .. 9fri. :'': k'.�-:/ �.� � a.__ . __ ._. .. . .......... .... .:., _"'..._...... .... .. _...._...� ._ .... .-.......... _'"'.'_...._.._.. . .�. . . ............_. , . ..,. . . . . . . .. t , ' ti i':'+�.. ' �� t:-�:'.C-y�._:. . . .6,' 'k. ": � - � `� � -_.�:"� ��x 7'��. � .. ' .<�� . .Y�_+�.t. 5,:�, - , ._.. ��• � ... . . ti�, -`.�:� ... � , ' . � 1 __ t S 3. 'LF� , . - . �1 ':l;.?��. . . . - ''p::• . � � e. �i�)`.f:J�_��.. . � . . . . ' ¢ ' � ,�2 '.. . _.�.4��Af.. . � . ::skiy,yoxl�f•�j� , . ,-�;.f�roNL'�i.7CS.i�: ' " �-}'+.:;�; ;.•%'*i;l•5..� . � . '�µ��1.1 . . . �. . %s?�'v: � . . .k"��:��l�� ' � �;•.rk::�cr � ' . . �J'F .. . . ... . ... . _ . .. .... ...... • �. ti r � . . . .. , ' ..� ' ' �1�rfrn;I��' r. r��e;._: ��a�t,.;;�.' . G��;::::.- use of an irrigation ditch for fire fightinq purposes is not sufficient for year round access and availability. Lot Line Adjustment with the Vagneur Ranch Company: Attached is a letter from the applicant's agent dated September 29, 1988 requesting amendment to the application for a Lot Line Adjustment between AVR and the adjacent property owners-Vagneur Ranch Company. The purpose of this request is to establish a common boundary line between their ranch properties. Planning Staff .'=`;�' finds that the request meets the requirements of a Lot Line �':;?"'"'_ Adjustment as outlined in the Pitkin County Land Use Code. �;.;;:;;� �3 - Fathering Parcel: The applicant is requesting to create a 20 � � -_ acre lot for the rahch house. It is the intent of the Low Impact ' Subdivision that the principal building remain with the fathering ' parcel. The ranch h'ouse has been referred to as the large main " ! house in the application and attached letter from past residents. To subdivide this 20 acre lot would create more than five lots and would not be consistent with the Low Impact Subdivision : requirements. The applicant may wish to subdivide the maih house � as part of a 35 acre or greater subdivision. f � ` . „ PMH Five New Lots: The applicant is requesting approval for'S 1'::'`, p PMH single-fami2y lots of 10,0�0 square feet each on 2.5 acres as r�'�" '� shown on sheet 2 (attached) . These lots are not required and are voluntary but, the applicant states that '�Tn the event any � condition is imposed which is not acceptable to the Applicants or. if the Application is denied in whole or in part, the Applicant � expressly reserves the right to withdraw this portion of the � Application and, at its option, may not make the conveyance of FMH Parcel 2." Planning Staff has been advzsed by the County �`I Attorney that we are not in the position to review the PMH � request, because the request is conditioned upon an approval of � all elements oF the application on terms acceptable to the � . � applicant. In the event the applicant changes the terms of the request you should consider it _ i { . T :�.�. t � l 7 .. . _ _ ' }T .;. f Y - �. � ... ' . ' ' . � . .� :af 1 I (�' . I � � i Y i ! '�� { ' � ' �r . r � S y i Y a i: � ` a �ui � '�^ ,`7 � � �-� '�, � �, � ! � . .. -.. �' E � � ' . .- . ' � . , . .. . . . � . . . . ++� E } . . . . ..-� . ! .. �!' . . . .. . : . � . .- _ . � ' ' .. . � . �. . � � - �. ! � � . � . . �. � . � .. . , . . . � . x . .i _ , . . , - . . . .� x �.��, i � , x �`j. e� i •StLX� . I t-.. .... .......---._...,:,.._�,...:._ ......._.: _,,. .,,.....��. ._"'-_' �� . . � .� ..,.....:.�,:._:. .__. . ... �. . Y � . . .a' •�'.:,. ...IE_.... ._._..w..__.,��.��_� , f' �#r��, �'� � �.. (�; -- �-- f ^�da.s�ti, m�4.�w.' � . . . �'��- . q5�',,�r.`:�. . _ . � ._. . - `_. . '��,s�`'kiLT� - � ' _ � - � � '�S��i ro-'� . ... _.. +F �'_.. 7..�7i.t�: . . . - A�� "�' . . . . � 1 b�y�� r ( 4'S�Lj-��.� � � . .��,�,.r.' . , ;�¢ ti - cs�. .4v"��,+4.�';i� " . . ;.�•:,�yay;,�k�:^ . ,':�;.��-',�,�'s�; ��:� .,t�� . � :f,'�.'-�-'��r.,�� . ' , '''� � � r . ° � ��.: , _.... _..-� . .. .._... .. _ _. .,.�,.,...,_.. - .. . .. .. . . -. . . _.. .. .. . . ... . . .�.. b6AtiB 6F�d.BdRgM'fi'fi ��'"+;,s,��,t�..;�;��,: , PITI<fN COUN�iY ��"}"��« �w v'' , Public Hearing Er.�ii;its �,7",.Ra7� a . �1!i PM Date: —/ —�fq Y�.:�°,�:�-1i�R;;�; Subject:� K�y _ _ , _ F�h N� Ie�l� RECO2gIENDATION: The Planning Staff and YIie Planning Commission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners grant approval for the PMH Zoning for Existing Employee Dwelling Units, Low Impact Subdivision, Planned Unit Development, Lot Line Adjustments for the AVR property with Vagneur Ranch Company and . the AVR property with DWC "Trust Out Parcel", Residential Growth Management Quota System Exemptions, Approval of five 10,000 '<' ��".i.:.,,.:� ' square foot PMH employee housing lots on 2.5 acres and General . ��.t: - ' Submission approval subject to the following conditions: t�� :�`=:i 1) Approval for PMH zoning for eight dwelling units on 1.2 acres subject to; �� ? a. The applicant shall restrict each unit to the low ��; ' or moderate income category of the Employee t Housing Guidelines and file the appropriate deed ��,- restriction rior to recordation of the final '��'` '` P � plat. � . 1z. :. P.: ...._ b. Each unit will be inspected by the Pitkin County E., 'i�,�'. Building Department to determine if the housing � ;rr.< . units are in compliance with the health and safety requirements of the Uniform Building Code � .�� ("UBC") . Prior to Detailed Submission the Applicant will meet with the Building Department ; to inspect the units and determine the feasibility of bringing them into compliance with the health � � and safety requirements of the UBC. The Applicant ` will identify the units which will be retained � . and brought up to Code compliance at Detailed � Submission. . Each unit to be retained shall be in � conformance with the health and safety ' '� requirements of the UBC, as specified by the Building Department as part of the Detailed Submission review and Final Plat, before issuance of a building permit for any new residential structure to be constructed on one of the lots ! created pursuant to a subdivision exemption for the replacement of such unit. i c. All units shall be occupied in accordance with the Housing Authority Employee Guidelines. However, the existing tenants will not be displaced if they i do not meet the income requirement of said t'- guidelines. Prior to Detailed Submission the Applicant will provide the Rousing Authority the �'! occupancy of said urrits by present or future �;�::.,. � 12 �� ;, t } ` I �x # , �,..>. .1'+�:] �Y��: 1,r' , � �4 , , __. __...�..._- -�._.__ .,_.._ . .... M.__.�._�.:.�_._ ---__ ......_.... _. _...--.•-_.._. . .:_.. . : r ��y�;._, .h ��f .f,, 'r ' � ... � W� �,-; .,�,�. ��'i y�^�-�,,.. ,. - -�--r�/ '_'ry . . . . . - . � ��t�n�"• . . .- . . . ... jv^�. y�-.a� . .. . � - ' . �'"�':'Yd.,.`: ...wji�i,• :�"'!ft.. �'. . ' ' yfT-J,�,.h . . �k.' � ..i'... :��..� - . ' � . . y ' � �4�,��=s;`.... ' . , . .:��,Y-rry�.:''.'."-� . • . - . . .N� > � ' . " � . �;� :a5�: j.,., � r��t�S�r . . •`�.�•'xriN4�; . .I.i,��..:..�,.3-y. ' , . � . Y+S'd.yyy:. ,:�� _ . . � . . iF.�'.�'i+,�'�L ` . � • t .. � , ._. • ' .. �,��"�f:��;��: � ` p(r"�;`��`L'`':��.. 5 Y�y�.�'��'... ranch ' employees who do not meet the income �;�:g,,.�;; requirements of said guidelines. d. That a detailed site plan be provided showing that the area and bulk requirements (Section 3-2) of the County Code have been complied with for the eight PMH dwelling units on 1.2 acres. e. Each of the units shall conform to the County Environmental Iiealttt Department and Aspen Fire District requirements. `��: � -';•-;•'7" .. �:;�,'%:a.. 2) Approval for Low impact/PUD Subdivision to create four J.a'� lots (6,7,8 and 9 Parcel Map 2) on approximately 64.7 ��{� acres, restricting an additional 135.3 acres in �.� - critical Wildlife areas and prime Aqricultural land �;''"��=• against further development subject to; � � a. The request for attached employee dwelling units for each of these lots be denied because they do not meet the minimum lot area required. ,.',;.:- .,. � b. That the applicant comply with the conditions i outlined in their application, such as �� architectura3 style (height & bulk) color,, ;.r•::;:. j vegetation and etc. i c. That a "loop" internal road system for convenience and safety be provided for emergency and private + use. i i d. That a site specific drainage plan for each parcel � � be made a condition of the building permit. 1 e. The two access points to Upper River Road from AVR , � property be upgraded to county standards and s � approved by the County Engineer. f. The applicant shall provide engineering studies Ifor road design, particularly where roads or idriveways cross gullies or irrigation ditches. � g. Soil engineering studies shall be completed for each building envelope as part of the building permit application. � h. That the Uniform Suilding Code shall be adhered to '� � with respect to Seismic 2one II for those site t`• ' developed near the Castle Creek Fault Zone. :� � ~> 3) That the one lot subdivision for the 20 acre ranch .:� fhouse be denied. . ! ! 13 , �t.��_ J �: �x,.� `� X � �� a. ,r", .'.,�+!R,.i:� K:-;::'!ir i � ��:j,-,.. 5� " _""_..__.._. .."__'._..._--.�.� r �..- . � ._::.:.c.: ...._.. ..-....�..� . ._:.,,._.. . .. . .._ .... .. ...�_................_..._ �y�� ..' . -_.. � • . , � �: r 4�c>K�5:_ ' . . p F • ,.�,u�f.-'7:- � . ___ � a�. �rt�: � � � . ��• . ��,,"j�f��`� � . . . . _ ..^r___�!� k�,�� ... .. . '�'-'�'z,o,,��; . _ -�.54��'..;., `S�'.\uj iir::� � . .;?`'.,=�`�i',. . � . . • �:�Y: t'?n~' � . . , . �.��::;:�s:; � . . . � . � "'C'i'�Y•�� , �� . . � � , . �C�,�d,�, . . � :��qr y' :��.-�;� . .;�``�''�' R 6 J' ��; ` � �, � � �i� � , _ . ;..v ...�_._ ...._. ` � . _.:.__. _._ ,::.. . . , . .._ .. ... ._., . . , . . _ , ; , . , __ . . .. , _ . ., . ;� r,;�<: � . ' t��`;`. `�':;�5��1�:?' 4) Approval of subdivision/PUD, attached employee dwelling units and, Residential Growth Management Quota System exemptions for creation of six (6j lots through � replacement of existing lawful dwelling units subject to; j a. Additional information for the existing Buildings ; 3 and 4 as shown on Parcel Map 2 shall be provided at Detailed Submission. This information shall be :�"f��s'' � satisfactory to the Planning Commission to � ��1'' *y;,�f:ti1:,:.-...�. � demonstrate the lawffll pre-existing nature of the �`•''�" residential occupancy of said buildings. '��'•-= :;ti;.;; - b. A site specific drainage plan for each parcel ,;;.; ,� :. shall be part of the building permit. - � c. The applicant shall provide engineering studies � :; for road design, particularly where roads or � - driveways cross gullies or irrigation ditches. �:` y tjl, S '.. • d. Soil engineering studies shall be completed• for ��;,� . � each building envelope and be made part of the I z, building permit. Y.}'�� ' e. That the Uniform Suilding Code shall be adhered to �• � with respect to Seismic Zone II for those• site � � developed near the Castle Creek Fault zone. ? 5. Relocate Lot 1 to T.P.1, Lot 2 to T.P.2, Lot 4 to T.P.3 • � and Lot 10 to T.P.4 along with relocating Lot 3 west of � Lot 5 as shown on Parcel Map 2 dated 6/1/88. s . s 8 7 ji MJL/ds �' boccmemo.avr a � d � - i / M •f •,4' j �� 'y � � 14 ' _\ ,`7`(; - � '�.`r.,,�.',�,':;;;��<r;�::' '�^�y.. :� :1.T�x:.? ��``. ��:�� F��• �r � .,`r �r:. . . . -- . .__—...�. .__._---'--- _�. „ _, ...__.r._..—�._._.._---'-- �.k'�#+..,. ,:;.�� .._ � �� 'y -- ��r � �... ,.�. �. ��}7x � � . . . _� '��{dFvt�. .. : . 4. . __ - . +s,��` _ _4"[ ' . ` rt z,t Ct�� . �3} i�'� T��,, . .. - � . . � � . '.}A'��x�"� . . � , � , �.��1�1y'< .�: . . .( . ' - Ii y�,,,�}.,.�.'�,' 1 . . , . 4 i��. �t:%� .. . . .. . . . . . w � � . . �r Y��..}I � . .. � ':.:a"�rH. 5, . . rf�.-.� . �� . ,�H��1�:* , C • � . �� ` v . . �