The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutbocc.min.reg.06101985 - �;_ -=- '" t .� rt .s.: <:. , 'Ej ... .�.�� ^-'''.� � • j'4�. , "�`A l.��;' . j ,3 7r ..��w-+ j��. 3 �,� a - �� . � _ ,�:� � �� ,�� BOARb OP COUNTY COMMIS51ONER5 AGENbA 10 �UNE, 1985 ; 9s3(1 �.nt. �xecutive 5ession - Litigation - Tom 5mith, Countq Atturn�p LANU US� 1d:00 Pkblie He�ring - LUC An�nd: AE'=� xone bf�triCt Am�ndment$ - Alan Rirh�a�n, Planning IOe30 Cpntenni�l t+cnjcct, �etail�d :iubroi�niun A�ndm�nts - Cindy Houben, l+lannfng • 12:Od 6unch greak ` . 1s30 p.nt. Publir C�trinm�nt ADNINtSTRATION 1:45 R�goluEione and ConEracts 4UC Na�ncie Scc►nla forsgcound Ov@rlay - Ala� RicM�an . Owl Craek PUD Final P18E Extoniion - Ciody Noubcn Aspon Racquct Club GMP A�location Extonalon - CinBy Noubeen � Lewis Resldence CMP AllocaElon ExEQnsioe - Cindy Houben Crystel River CounEry Eatatea 1041 Spocie� RQVtow - Clndy liouban lilghlands Ina Exemptions - Ciedy tiouban ; Ruthla's Raataura�t Night-t�a�e Uae - Glenn Norn. Pianning 2ND Ra��dtng: SupP�e��Eal ApproprlaElona - Lynn Dunlop. 8udgat AnolysE � �°�`°��cy co�►9Qr�8�o}lor co�t:u�� '°�a�° c c�'� e`°43X c scooe Br� 9n Coo ract - u y�a�f, u lxc rka Dlr. � Radstd�e Park Qoaed Focma4ion - 0ob Child � 5ub-leaso Agceamen!/Liquor Liconse, County Fair, Hary Sue Kennin�� Set Public Nearang Aspe�/Snowmaas NorAic RecreatiAn District - LoreEEa R�•.r;t. ! Cleck 6 Racord�r 8 July. 19�5 � 2�15 t�.s:�. � i . � 2:15 Rodstona Voluntec�r Fire Dapartm��E Spacial �venES Giquo�. I.ac�nsa - Kim �1h�t�stona. B�puty Coanty Cl@rk 2�20 Publie Hearing - ?ta1� A9seement - Tom Smitb W1ND USS I 2:30 Swalss �ubdivisian �xsmption � Cindy HAUb�n � 2:45 Hernstadt Subdivisiwa �xemption - Cindy Nouben ;=qQ Cany4n CaLle Proje�k II. Final Plat - Cindy Haub�� 3z30 Roaring Foxk East Neighborhood Master Plan, Endosseme�t - of Goals aod Objeetive$ - Glenn yorn q:00 Ruedi Pow�r PuTChase Policy - Md�'k Ft►ller, Bnvironme�tal -��="�; Coordinator `7><:_ i.�i.;#? � � .,ti`� Y:�� ._+.:-.-:+s'i a•� �t, � � �� _ � �• � 'X�y` ..""'.�?�. __ � �. - _ _ � `- . �; .��. 1 T� 1 .. �.. ...... .. .. . __ +erJ*NC'-k-�w:'.w'w�..r��rw..c.t371..":- [,.v �� '� .-•.t ,++i.,. �4.'si: PITR21t OOQNTY 80ARD OP OOMlIISSIOt1BRS RB�ULAR_MP.STiNG ]O iLN6. 1985 PRBSEltT: TFtOfU1S BLItKE. HEGEN KLANDBRUD, G00RGB NADS6N, HtCNAE4 KINSLBY Publlc Thee Doard conve�ad a public hearing !o oonsidor �n awendm@nt Noaring: eo th� t,and Uee Code odopEing varlous amendmonts to tbe AP-2 Eone t.tiC oistrict ceguiations. Planning oircctor Alae Richman aubmit�ed eo Nnood the recocd the Planning Offtco memo o! 10 Juoe. 1985, aed tho AP-� 4aed Uae Code as amonded to date. Tha anendmenta woce iniriated aono during Planning and Eoning Comniasion cQViQw oE the HtgM+ay 82 Dlstrlct Cocridor MACter Alan aa thocQ wao nelehec an iaten! Eoc, nor a FM in, the subjece Aistrict. ThQ amendments aub�itted tor 8oard rQViey today uould eetablish an tntent Eor tbe Distcict as Eollows: "�-1.13 - AF-2, Agricultural and Fo�catry District (A1 The intant af �he ]►F-2, Ag�icultural and Foc�stcy Diatrict, is to pcovido for a modecate deneity restdentlal - bcaneition zone foc lands aloog tha valley floor which are located between tha County�s develoPmont centera and its more sural, open rspace land areas. This zone district is also to be applxod to aceas whfeb aca already developed �t densities exceedinq that in surroondinq areas vhicb represent blstorical housiag concentrations io Pitkin County (b) 11sea and bulk requirements a�d uae cequicen�nts for the AF-2 oistrict shall be as established i� Sectiona 3-2 and 3-3 oF this Code" vould amend the Pt1D procedures containec3 in Section 3-7.2(a) as Follows: '!a) Clustering of buildin9s and units through vaciatiop oP , minimum lot area (Section 3-2? shall be encpucaged provided that the density of the ovesa2l projeck shall not exceed tbe _ ` allorrable density in the zone district in vhicb the PUD is � located (excludi�g existing public and private [ights-af-way) -_i divided b� the minimue� lot area of the district. Clustering of buildings and units may also be permitted which allows the FAR attributab2e to the entire PUD to be clustered in a lesser number of units than allowed by zoned density, provided t6at the applicant restricts the entire PUD against further development. The maximwa FAR allowed shall equal the FHR attributable to a lot meeting the minimum lot area - _ requirements of the district multiplied by the maximum '+__ : allowable zoned density of the POD. Density shall be f acther _<_=. :: ' .�; , Commissioner's Meeting 10 June, 1985 - 2 , <!' -; r.�- . .� ;� �s.�=s ' : .�-: :y.`.: _ � � ] - ' `� rM a �. . s''�, f a f�� t � � - . ,'�"-�`�z . . r-.w�' . . .. . .. ,Ei...�.1,.»,e�.'.�`.,,_ __._ , reduced by the prnvfsions of 5ec[fon 3-8.8" and Would amend Sectfon 3-2 to establish a sliding scale PAR ranging from .13 for a lot size of up to twenty-five thousand (25,0001 r,quare feet to .O1 for a lot gceatec than one hundred thousand (100,000) squate feet in size. 2'he establishn►ent of ae fntent would dpfine the purpos� ot the subject Oistciet as a moderate dehsity aone for r3cidential devpiopment, Che amendment to the t+Ud procedurea was intended to encouragr the clustering of the allowable t�Al2 into fever buildin�s, re�ultir�y in a gceatec amount af apen SQ�Cl� wh�reas the �liding s�ale would egtabliah fairly lib�ral �uideline$ far tbe sise of a residenrtal unit. '�he planning and zoninry Coma�iggton reviewed the amendments ar its regular neeting on �6 Apcil, 1985, and c�convacnded approval ag tecited above. )tingley qur�tin�ed the renuit of the PUD am�r�dment propoaed above and the Ievei of FAR that would be aliowedr !t was not known, for fnutance, whethec thc PAR foc a een (10) unit PUb ehat wan cluater�d !n!o Elvo (51 units would brt calrulated on the baaia oE five (5) units oc !en (10). Richman explained that the amonda►ent was intended en providQ �n lnceneivQ to reduce ebe numbec oE unies propoaed in a c►evelopmener �he use oE thla p[ocoduro, instead oE prnaltxlne� an appitcane when a denaLty reduelion woe proposed, vould pcovido Eor abQ uaa oE eho total allowablo Fut aetribut�d co a parcel but tn a roduced number oi unita. The FNt Eor a ten (!0) unie davelopwene tha! wao clusterod inta Eive f51 unitss purauane to ehe PUD �coceduce vould bQ cn�culated on the baaie of Een (10) units. �lake expcesBed ao�ae co�cern ebat !he slEcitng scale PAR p�aposed foc cho Aistcict eslablishQd a ll�it ot approximately ten thousand t10,000) square feet regarcileae of the atze of the }�sopestyj the acale propoaed vauld al]ow tos a residenca ol eigbt thousand t8.00Q1 oquace Eeet on a anQ huneleod thousand (100,000I sc�uare foot Iot �rhile pravidtng an additionAl ooe thousAnd (1,000) tsquace faet Qf buildi�g sµ�ce tor each addltlonal o�o , hundred thousand {�00.000) square fact. 'tha FAFt attributed to a forEy l40) acce parcvl would, pucsuant to lhla acale, be approxl- a+acely ten thousand (10,000) syuare feet. Dlake did not Ecel that there sbould be a PAR 2imitatlon o� vary lasge parce2s aucb as thase Ln excess oE fo[ty (40) ac�es. Richman explained that the sliding scale was designed 1n such a way that, as the lot increased in size, the FAR for a residence alsa increa«ed but at a decreasir�g rate. 7►lthou9h there was no absolute FAR limit pcoposed, the scale would require a faicly large parcel foc a residenee greater than eight khousand t8,000) square feet in size. This system was recommended as the majocit of the AF-2 lands were situated on the valley floor of the Hfg�way Corridor, and it uas not felt that exceptionally large structures should be built in this a�ea. Richman also noted tbat, althougA a variance could not be obtained for tbe num6er of lots vithin the AF-2 districi, a FAR variance could be cequested within the context of a P(TD. � Blake then opened the hearing for public comment. Atto�ney 8erb Rlein expressed some concern with the PUD amendment and particularly the eAR requirements; it was indicated, for instance, that the FAR attributable to an entire development would be allowed if clustered in less than the oumber of units allowed by density, and there was some wncern that the entire PAR would not � be allowed unless a lesser number of units was proposed. County - Attorney Tom Smith explained that the PUD amenchnent was intended to encourage fewer units and clasterin9; the amendment did not cequire that a development propose fewer units than allowed by ':� ` zoning. := Commissioner's Meeting 10 June, 1985 - 2 � •'--, . _ ,�, _ . � :�.±: - \� 4��y '� �" ..:.v �`� `t- �, � _ ..£ = � ';�n ��'� r Y . � �.� ��c_ , , 'i'4 , . . •. v .t+ta.-. ..A+.'��.r-,-. . � i*.:w�l....F.. ��F�Rx1!s `L w.'f-Xkdw:Y s . � Rle�n suggested that the PUb procedure encourage clustecfng on smaller lots as well as in fer+ec unitst this would clatify that the [�AR for a PUb development would not be ceduced in the event the number of units allawed by aoning was proposed. and would still encourage that the development that did occur be clustpred onto a smaller land acea so that greater open space would be pres�cved. He also questioned that section of the aun¢ndment whereby the FNt attributed to an entice PUU would be �llowed in a fewec numbpr oE units but only if the entire PUb was restcicted ac�ains� further develotxnent. It was noc knnwn, in the evgnt this proeedure was utiliz�d, how th� entice PUD would be defined. Smith suggeated an er�endment to indicaCg thaC Chp entice "approved" PUb must be reatricted againgt fuethec developmant. Nlein agrced. . elakh agked Eor additional commantss rhece bring nonce, ehe hearing was rlosed. Kineiey woved to ahprov� the amendieent on sccond readinq subject to the follnwinq aaienclmenc to the PttD proceduren identlEied in Seclion 3-7.2(a): (a) Cluarering oE bulidings and units through vaciation oE minimum loe aroa t5oction 3-2) sholl be eeneoucagQd providQd ehat the denatcy oE the overali projoa! shall n�c Qxceod Che allo+rablc danaity tn thc zone dls�rict in which Che PuD is locoted (exrluding exiating public and prlvato righta-of-vayl divtelod by thQ minimuai lot aeoo of ihe districe. Cluatsring o! buildinga and unita may also be pormltead �rNich aliowe thQ FNt actclbutable to ehe entire Puo !o be aluat�rod i� , tewer unles oE lesse� staeclloes than allowod by zoned dQnsity. provtded that rhe applicAnt cestcicts !he enei�e approved PUd againat Eucthe� dcvelopment. The maxta�ua� FAR allowed shall equal the FAR attctbutable to a lot meetinq the minimum lot ncea raqut�omonts of Ehe Dlserict multlplied by the maximuai allou+ablc zoncd donsity oE the PUp, includinq any Jensity re�uctions pcovided foc heEein. Deneity sha11 be [urther reduced by the pcovi�ions of sectlon 3-8.s Klanciecud saec��cicd and the motior, passed una-:-:-��us1y. Centan- Pl�: _-� �:�ncennial Projecc detailed nial submissian anendment apulication, a request to ame�d the previous Detail decailed sutrnission approva2 as well as the iighking and landscapin9 Submssn plans revie+red by tbe Plan�ing and 2oninq Coamisgion. Specifically. Amend the applicant t�as requesked the folloving: 1. the elimination ot the parking along Pa�k Circle and of eight (8) parking spaces in front of Buildiag f�. The ' ceduction in parking adjacent to euflding N vould provide a buffer/open space area between tbe Williams Addition and tbe Project, whereas the elimination of parking along Park Circle would eliminate the need for parking and curb cuts on this road. � 2, a reduction in curb and gutter for snow ploviag. These • ; improvements would be eliminated along the north side � of the parking lots to allov foc snow ploving and i stacking. The applicant submitted an amendment to the � drainage plan indicating that the reduction proposed � � vould not affect drainage on the property - ' # 3. the removal of two (2) street lights at the intecsection ' , .i of Brown and Nicholas Lanes ,:: _ i _.•<:• 4. a reduction in the size of one hundred and sixteen �� (116) parking spaces to a size of seven and one half ��5p�, � 10 June, 1985 - 3 Commissioner s Meeting ,::;��`w . ''; , , . _-�.�: t-Z�y t•S ,.' .� � � 4�Ly : `` � .. f •. �A Y !+ - �' he�_ � �`�P ,�� ..,. _:. ,. . ,:rg � ` '� t-w :l `+r . .. .. � °�f . '�N�a.,`.�r�'e't`..T:.��'. _<- $.s�a_..�'.rte�kt, -_ ..1�,..��3 . .. '. (�.5) feet by seventeen (li) feet= ail three hundred and siaty-fouc (364) spaces Were originally siaed at nine (9) feeC by eighteen (18) feet. 5. the relocation of the Salvation Ditch approximately twelve (12) to fffteen (IS) feet to the north of its exisCing locaCion; rhe Ditch was incorrectly located on the de[ailed submission applic�tion, [he amendment would �ectiEy this, and thp 5alvetion bitch Company has appcoved oE its relocation 6. Nicholaa Lane would becom� a one tl? way roadway running eagt to west and the retaining wall on rhe nocth aide of the Lane would be redured 7, rhe relocatinn oE �he County ccail on the proper�y !o run along the north side of free silver Court parking lot In addition, the Pla�ning ond 2oning Commisaion has recoawended an amendment to th� ilc�hting and landsraping plans as follows: 1. a �evislon to the retaining wail project to b@ oonalcucted betwoon the Projoct and ehe Smugglec Run Mobile Home Perk to lnclude: a. a viaual/acouoticai bacrler io eho Eorm oE o eolld wall to be conatcucted along !he top of che retaining wolli Eencing a�ay be lncocpocatod ineo the oolld wall to achieve o greater visuai and acoustical baccler. The entire voll pcoject sbould bo designed in such aa way as eo accommodatc snow ploving. The Smuggler Run Noweownerallssociation vould cevtew the deeign ot th� ontire relatnLng wall project once aubmitled b. landacaptng in lcont oE Ituildioga R aad S vould be lncceaeod by eliminating Ewo (2) pa�ktng spaces aod reducing tbe size ot no pore than one third (1/3l of tbe ramaining sPaces in the B[eodan Courts parking lot to co�+pact sized bays. The two i2) spaces oo eliminated would be �elocated to the nocth side of Auildi�9 S and deeignated as handi- capped spaces. The existi�g t�ees i� the Brendan Couct packing lot rrould not be removed aad vould cemain as part of the landscaping plan Referral comments were 9enecally supportive: both the Building and Engineecing Depastments revieved the various amendments pcoposed and add�essed minimum desi9n staadards �or coad vidth and turning radius, Fire Code access �equirements, the distributioo of the compact a�d full size parking spaces, and others. The Planning Office recommended approval of the following amendments as conditioned: 1. relocation of the Salvation Ditch to the location St10MR on the revised detailed submission map 2. one waying of Nicholas Lane and the reduction of the retaining wall along Nicholas Lane are approved provided that: - _ a. Nicholas Lane shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet wide, unobstructed by parking - - b. Nicholas Lane shall have a twenty-eight and four tenths (28.4) curve radius at the intersection of :i_r;;�, Brown Lane .'� T; '�� 3. one hundred and sixteen (116) compact car parking sized �:��..._� :; `�-'��!"�� Commissioner's lfeeting 10 June, 1985 - 4 t '�;;�.;,:;;y�..! �': ,.,. F�M.-- �� , �.. j ._ i,. ...0 ... � '. � �� : .i 1 � �� } � a .. . . .� � � i"� �>a _ w r r�.�...'�� J� ��"'t� . . S .... ..—.T-r a.. t� :n+y 'E � y,'� „. � • � - +"�r:'-.+.�l,�w'+'�i:•r , ._ . 'i.._:..+,--..�•, . � ... M+�.+t�3CY�(..:��.yiw..i�M"".:., bays (seven and oae half (7.5) feet by eighteen (18) feet) ate approved provfded that: a, the applicant requests and receives an amendment to Section 3-8.4 of the Land Use Code allowing seven and one half (7,5) fe�t by eighteen (18? feet sized packing bays for compact cats b. the co�pact bays must be evenly distcibutpd thcoughouC the Project. Ho one (1) parking 2ot sha11 house all CCR1pdCt cat sized baya 4. elimination of parkinq along Park CirC1e and in Econt nf Building H ar� approved ptnvideci that: a. therr shall be an arceas drive oEf of Park Cicclo to Buildiog It which meQts Pice Code atendarde and ig approved by rhe Building deparCment S. two (2f liqhts, one (1) located at the intersectio» of Bcw+o Lane and Park Circle aed one (1) located et the intersectton af Nicholus Lane and Pack Cttc2Q iaay bQ Ql t�a!natQd 6. Tbc County Solvatlon Dltch Trall ahall ooE bo oliminat�d. ThQ exact location oE the cratl ahall be approvQd by the Planntng OfEfce, howovst, thQ eppliaone is seaponsiblo Eor thc cont of conatructing tho tcail to the County Traii aeanclsrds (in no ev�nt ahall thQ tcall be raquiced co be paved)j and ehe Aspon Nordlc Council and Canto�nlal Pcojece manage�ent shal� rork together cegarding the matnlenancc of tho trail 7. cu[bs and guttcrs shall be reducod alo�q tho noreh ai�o oF tho parking lots whece designed on the maps aubmieted with Che dctatled amondment request Providod lbat: a. the�e shall be a deli�eation Iphyelcal bacriar) along the north aida o� Frca S12ver parking lot between the parking lot and t�ail � a. tvo f2) parallel handicappad spaces shall be pcovided oext to suilding S on Spcuce Stcaet to accommodate handicapped residanCs in tbat building 9. a revised detailed submission p2ak shall be submitted vhicb illustrates the approved amendments to the Cenkepnial detailed submission. This plat shall de submitted prior to final approval by the Boa�d 10. all the above conditions of approva2 are subject to the review and approval of the County Engineec and Building Aepa�tment 11, prior to final apptoval of the requested changes, the County Attorney sha12 review tde reguested chaages vitb regard to the commitments made in the existiqg subdivision � improvements agreement and shall verity that all . expenditures regarding the changes are consistent vith the subdivision improvements agreement Klanderud expcessed some concern with the reduction in the size of the parking spaees to accommodate compact cars; although this reduction would provide additional buffer/open space, there was some concern with how such would function particularly with - respect to snow plowing during the winter months. Klandecud � suggested that, in the event the size reduction was approved, the - ' parking spaces be pzeassigned to specific units. a �. Y� Blake expressed some concern that the reduction in the size ,�.;;_c:.� * �-. . Commissioner's Meeting 10 June, 1985 - 5 � 12T�.f`n �_ , , :�.`: � �. i � �3 � ..� �;t 1 �3' r , � '� ` ,�'. .: . - . -lr_ .. _.- .:.m +w..t?+K�-�,. .s+s^r .ks«.,.K.. �. . -:�lk �� .+� d' +s.. _. . of parkinq spaces to accor�modate compacc vehicles may n�t comply with the Pire Code. Jim Cuctis, representinq the applicaht, explained that he 5urveyed the Castle Ridge, Lone Pine and Hunter Cceek employee housing projects specffically to assess the siae of cars in the respective parking lots; approximately �ixty--five pe[cent (658) of all vehicles were considered compact cacs. Curtis felt that the use of rnmpact parking spacps wms justified given the pcevalence of this size car, as it would allov for a �pduction in thp size of parking lots and, au a result, an incrpase in thp size of a buEEer zone. The proposed reduction in rhe glze of parking spaceg Would ctill comply with �ire Codp �tandard� concprning arces�, turn aroand, and orhers. Klanderud expres�ed sonp roncern with the total numbec oE parkinq spac�s proposed Eoc the Prdject= thece wag aome guestion, Eor in9tencs, as to whethec auEEi�ient apaces would be provided for queat parkinq. Cureis explained that the Pcojeat would contaln a rotal of thcee hundced and nixty-Eouc (364) bedrooa�n, and that an ldentical nua►bpr oE perking spaces would bc pcovided. Thia number wa& ralrulated to include guest parking facilitiea. Curtin oxpinined thac cbe cequested reduceloo 1n rucb and qutter impcove�aenes on rhe noreh gidea oE !ho parkinq lots was propoaed for uno++ plowing and stacktng pucpoaeo an well as Eot Eintmclal reaaons. The Solvatton Ditch consiat�d oE an o�n ditch until 3971, ar whrcb eime a Eorty-etght (�8) lnch concreEO plpe wae tnntollecl. Tho pipe, vhich was to have bcon lnatalled !o thQ same aliqnment ass �he opon ditch, waa orroneoualy fnstallod bQewQen liftoen (151 and ewunty (20) Foet ou�stde oE this alignment. Tbc er�oneous alignmonE of ehe �ipe has neceaslCatod cevlsioos to both Nicholao 4ane ancl the erail, as the locaeton o! both projecea was pianacd o� orconQOUS gurvey tnformation, and the applicont has slne� celocaced the piEch pipe at a cost oE app�oxtmately one hundred thou�and dollacs (S100.000). The reductlon in !ho cu[b and gutter tmpcovements, vhich would only oeeur on thoso pn cking lota withln the Projece thac d1d �oE consise oi publtc cight-of-woy, or Approximately five pecconc fSa) of the tolA1, waa proposed tn an elEorc to rvcoup sa�ae o[ the expense associatcd with the colocation of the pipe. ApNlicanC Sa� s�own cxplained that the olimt�a�ioa of the cucb and guttec impcovemantu would only occur on �he north sida ot cectain parking lots vbere the�e we�e no entry ways. Tha a pplicaat has agreed to install posts and large stones in an effort to deli�eate tbe bocder of those lots where the curbs vould be elimiaated, all in an effort to keep the cacs within the lots. Brovn noted thak the elimination oE the cucb and gutte[ improvements would also facilitate snow stacking, most of vhicb vould �� ir.oved onca the tcail to facilitate cross rnuntry skiing. D�ake Jacobs, an architect cepcesentiag tbe applicant, ezplained that thece was no standard in the Code Por curb and gutter improvements in private packing lots; the Code only required suci► for public �ights-of-way and roads. Houben explained that curb and gutter improvements vere required during the review of tbe ociginal detailed sube�ission; the Centennial Ptoject was intentionally required to meet urban . standards as it vas considered very likely that the entire project would be annexed by the City of Aspen. Spruce Street resident Jon Busch genecally supported the eli�ination of the cucb and gutter impcovements in the packing lot as proposed by the applicant; he did not feel, howevec, that these improvements should be eliminated on Nicholas Lane for snow - p2owing purposes, Houben explained that the removal of the two (2) street lights at the intersection of erown and Nicholas Lanes was - - requested by the residents of S7nuggler Run in an effort to reduce `:.: Commissioner's Fieeting 10 June, 1985 - 6 .�,,.�.,- � �; 1�� i y . :- .. ; < ��* � t' . '�- : �Yd : ��.iF. � . � , ��-��?!'��tf�`�,Pxi.��,,.�..�,..%-�,. ._ A, .: � �<<�"E y` Kt • r- ` � �c�+�+^:;4.."tl'��_r+\'�Sr�!�.�s .4�r..'—i_.—.w'Ss!__,. the imp�cts of the lights on adjacent ptopprties. The lightinq plan, with the elimination of these lights, aould still comply wfth Code requirenents. The proposal to revise Hicholas Lane so that it would be a one way road was intended to facilitate circulatfon and intecnaZ traEfic flows, as Well as temove vehicular tcaffic from Park Gircle. The relocation of the County trail rras necessitated by the reiocation of the Salvation bftch; Che new trail alignment would fu�ction bettpr, hovever, as it would be conctcucted on a lesser gcade and as it vould be situated Ea[thec auay from tt►e buildings th5n originally propo�ed. Rlanderud noted th�t the tra#1 tv be congtructed on thQ Gentennial Projec� aite would be buil� to County trail �tandards. The Board has ronreptual2y agreed to cdnvey the trail system to th� City of Asp�n, how�vec, in which cage it aaa sugqesred Chat ehe erail shauld be builr te a hlgher, more ucban, standard. , Houben expinined thae ehh tr�il standards arinpted by the City wer� identieal to those adopted by the County, in whieh case the conveyanee wnuld nnt affect the constcuetion of this ia�pcovement. tiadacn then moved to appcovp �he sQVen t7) a�ends,ientsc to the deeailed aubmisston as recited abova, exrludfog tbe landaceping and lighting plan amrndments recv�aar�ded by the Planninc� and 2ontng CommiBafon, �ub�ect to thc elcven (11) conditlona of tho Planning OfE1ce aa rccieed abovo, olakce aeconded ond thQ motion paaaed wieh oppoaition frou� Klandecud, who oppoa4d the elimination oF parking ancl eho reduceion in parking requtcementa ao woll aa thc rodurtian oE eurb and gue�er S�apcovementa, and an abatention from Kinaloy. Jacoba �hen add��ased eho re►ealninq wa12 projec� to be conat�ucfed adjace�t to che Smugglec Run Nobile tlome Park. Thia . project would conotst of a cetnEorceci Qaceh wall atm[lar to thoae usecl by tbe Colorado Depactment oE Illgha+ays, eo be aupplemeneed vtth concrete cylinde�s to provido Eor landscaping. tladsan raqueste� that the cetaining wall pcoject i�cludo an extensto� abova the gcade of the coad SPQC1f�CAl1�/ to addrese noise lmpacts. �rovn explained that hv understood the concera of �he Smugglac Run hameovners and he agceed ehat this projeck should addreas acoust3cs a»d snaw Qloving aa wal] aa �ofcty. He did not feol that a woo�len fence constcueted above gcade would [unction co acidre�s these cancerns, given maintenanaa costs and othors, and he fclt that a conccete bactier of sowe soct would be safcr and mo[e appcoprinte. Jacobs felt that a concrete bac�iec Installed above the qrade of tbe coa8 yrould t�e �osE effective as it vould aaaress a21 concecns. The barrier, vhich would b� similar to a Jecsey ba�rier, vould be thicty-tvo (32) inches high and would run the length of the retaining wall itself. public wosks Directar Bud Eylac explained that the use of a concrete barrier would primacily accomiodate snow plo�ing of the road; the barrier rrould run a lertgth of approxi�ately thirty-tvo (32) feet, or the length of the wall, He noteo that tbe �etaining wall woula be constructed approximately two (2} feet fcoa► the boundary line of the 9auggler Run lots, so tbat it would be vecy close to the mobile homes located in this area. Blake noteu that Child, who was unable to attend today's meeting. reguested that the retaining wall project consist of masonry with pouced concrete estended on the eastern end beyond the tcailet park and that it be wvered with ivy. Smuggler Run homeowner Janet Raczak noted that the cetaining - _ . wall project, as proposed by the applicant, would terminate prior . to her propecty boundary. Sbe requested that the wall be extended - to include her property, Commissioner's Ateeting 10 Jnne, 1985 - 7 �•'iti..T::�--r�. -'F , � ;�;.; . � ..... l- .,. ,f t � : c' '�S v`�� j ►�?' �. ��, '�, `' i, �'p�`+.se�; �i . . . . ` ._=f . . '�'-Y 4PW!?b.+�.�.....�w ,3�... s . . -. �� .. . �.,._, ._�_, .... , ..., .' 8rown agreed to extend th� cetafning wall pcoject specifically to protect the Raczak lot. Racaak also requested that the landscaping to be achieved in conjunction Nfth the cetaining Wall be extended beyond both sides of trie wall proj�ct; additional landscaping in these areas would further teduce the visual and noise impacts as�o�iarea wikh the thig project. 1'he Snuggler Rnn qomeoWnecs Association would agree tO MAtp[ and naintain all plantings impiemente� for this project, and would agrep to execate a naintrnance agreement with the appliaane to prc�vide foc eurh. Cuttis noted that th� appiicant desired to commence the base vock for the retaining wall project next week, and hp assked if the Smuggle[ ttun homeownets vould be nppoged to thia. Raczak explained that tne homeownpr� woulcl not oppose the baea wock for the wall. The Momeowneca wece moat concerned wieh tha Jerusy barriers and the �andscapinq, and would r�uest an oppoceunily to review rheae facets of the project prior ro implmnentaeion. Nedaen then moved �o appcove the omtenclmenes to the lightinq and landacaping plans, including the reralning wall pcojocG, as reco�aended and �onditloned by the Planning and Zoning Coramiaslon, and aubjecE to �rho Eollowinq additional conditionns i, ehQ exQCUeion oE a malnteoance agreemene betweon Eho Smuggler Run tloiaeownoca Aaaoclatlon and the applicant eo provido Eor eho maintonance of the landacaping to bo imple�►ented in conjunceion with the reealroingwall pcoject 2. lhac addieiona] la�dacaping be implaaented, extending boyond both o�da of ehe cebaloing vall, epeciEically to aehievo visual ancl noiao impact mltigaeion Rlaaderud aeconded and the motion passed wtth ao abstention Erom Rlnslcy. Public woody Creek residc�t Stanlcy t�atal cegucaled that Woody Coa�ment Cceek Road be upgsadad ancl pavedJ only that Portio� of tho ttoad . up to the Aepen Ca�munity Scbool was paved at this time, beyond vhich tho Road consisted of g�avel and rock. Natal noted tbat bhat po ctio� oi che Road r+t�ich was paved vas deterioraEing, and be unde�stood that there vas a proposal to remove t!►e pavement so kbat the entice Road would revect to gravel. Natal reguested that tbe Road be patched and paved instead af revertin9 to gcavel, and be noted ibat a number of neigbbors suppocted tbis. Blake explained that between one hund[ed (100,000) and tvo hundsed thousand (200,000) ya�ds of road base has deteEiorated on Ftoody Creek Road, and that other County roads vece in similar condition. The Board considered, as a matcer oP policy, grading and applying dust contcol on these roads in lieu of paving. A fipal decision on implementing this policy has been deferced pending the completion of a cost analysis; a preliminary analysis indicated that the cost of a grading/dust control pcogram would equal the cost of paving. � Kinsley noted that many of the rural roads were originally � paved at a very low standard; the County's adopted road standards were much higher at this time, in which case a paving program would require a major rebuilding of the rural roads. � An unidentified c�loody Cceek cesident noted that the subject Road provided a very good location for bikers given the relatively low level of traffic in the area; the impl�entation of a gravel � road would adversely affect its use by bicyclists. It Was noted � that the Road completely deteriorated this spring subsequent to its grading and that it was very unsafe at this time. � Commissioner's Meeting 10 June, 1985 - 8 � ...`� � �_. . � �: . � �._ ' �F�` `" J.i ._ * . „'�� J�� Ly�� . it ♦ . . . ♦:: .t:-. `T r �''l S 3�ifii iy1cT ,s�� . . � .. -:'�f .> �C' ., �- � Fcs .�t a�s „r.�ts . Rr ' Y . . } ..;r g``s s .,•' �i,� �,''. � - ��C'a;:a� Yt r[� 'h .,. . . , _rs�,.,. a`t+{��S rr�_-..-..��,.._v e�.. �.�r��_�:u:.k_Z.....,...� .. "'"' .ri. . . _ tiatal noted that Woody Creek resident George Stcanahan favored the use vf a chip/seal progcam foc the ltoad in lieu of paving. tilake noted that a wock session has been schednled next we�k to review coad st5ndatds and the qradinq/dust control policy. The status of Woocly Crepk Ro�d wauld be considered at that tia�. Jon Lusch note� +.st the futuce oE Amrrack Was in s3 doubt at thts tim+e duc to federal cu:c:.�_.: likely ceasse in Sep�enbec of this year in the even� rontinued fnnding s+as not pcovictrci. Ne cecjuesteo thar thr aoard dcaEt e resolurinn in suppoct oE rnntinued funding for the entity. tte also requeuted that the BnacB encoucage the RFTA board ro utiliz@ ehe Natrark connection in Clenvood Springg to enhancs akier/tourist acc@sa. Hadsen agreed co discuss the iasue a! the next eJMiCCOC �ae@ting. Kinaiey tifen moved to authorlxe ehe Chair to pcapace and execuee a reaol�rtion QxprQasing 8oard auppocr, Eor continuod luoding oE 1lmcrock. KlandQrud aeconded and the motion paasQd unAnimoualy. GUC Klnaley moved eo approve a roaolutton adopting tha Scenic 1laend: Foreground Overloy an� r�vieing ehe otllcial Pitkin County foning Scenic ma�s to illustcalQ the Scenlc Focegcound Oveclay. Klandecud • Overlay seconded and the moeioa•psesod unaoimoualy. Owl Kinsley moved to approve a resolution gcanti�g an eztenaLon Cceek oE the deadline Eor subn►ission oP plaes suitictont to[ bailding � Fioal permit issuance to Ju�e l. 1986, foc the F11ing ot Ehe Einal plat Plat oE the Owl Cre�k PUD GHP Project. Hadsen seconded and the motion Extond pasacsd unonimously. Aspcn Madaen moved to appsove a resolution granting a� extension Racquet of tbe deadline Par sudmisston oF plaos sufficient Fo� buildi�g Club pecmit issuance to June 1, 1986, foc the Aspen Racqu�t Club Bxeend Subdivision. Klandecud seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Le�+is Hadsen �oved to approve a resolution granting an extensian Residence ot the deadline for submission of plans suEficient for building Extend permit issuance to June 1, 1986, fos the Richard GeWis GMP PcojecG. Klanderud seconded and the motion passed unanimausly. Ccystal Kinsley moved to approve a resolution granti�g approval of a River 1041 floodplain special review for the Ccystal River Countcy Estates Estates HomeoWners Association. Hadsen seconded and the motion 1041 passed unanimously. Highlands Madsen moved to approve a resolution amending subdivision Inn exemption resolutions 81-30, 81-45, 81-99 and 82-103 for the - : �� Subdiv Highlands Inn. Rinsley seconded and the motion passed with '.-->"::�� - Exempt opposition from Klanderud. �� : -f Commissioner's lteeting 10 June, 1965 - 9 :�,�,;-,.::» x.'_..;=.;:�, . _. .• .�.�._._. 7.`: �. _ , lr �• * .. - . „ a� - �, .., �. .�.' t . �� - .,�F' : �r:_ ^,�� .��*�,� - .F q.f . .. f`"}'�rn..::;..r xy •t'Y��'��;.��.� . -"� �e.r _- . Ruthfe's Rfnsley moved to appcove a resolutior� teqarding the rpguest Night- for the nighttime use of Ruthie's Restaurant on Aspen Hountain time within the AP-SRI Zone DistcicC. :Clandpcud seconded and the Usc motion passed unanimously. 2ltD Kinsley �oved second and ffnal readf�g approval of a Supple- P.Qad: men�al Budget Appropciation resolution that included the foli wring: 5upp unanticipated ex�endituras of three hundred and one thousand, two Approp hundrpd and fifty-nine dnllars (S301,259), ronsintinq nf fifty-five chnusand, nine hundted dollar� (555,900? in addirional funds to complete the rrnova�ion of the Cnurthouse, foureeen thousand, ninc hundred and taenty-E1ve dollars (514,9251 in addiCional , oEfice fucni[ure Eor the renovatad Cou[[house bag�ment, seventy-six thousand, rao Aundred and twenty-seven dollarg (576.227) in funds to extenA the phone system to th@ Coucthous� basement, comawnity center, airport and Road and Rridge oEEices, and otherat addieional avoilable revenues oE two hundred and aeventy thousand, nine hundred anciEiEty-eight dotlara (5270,958), ronsiseinq of thirty-two thoucand dollars �532,000) in additionol llighway Uaec Tox Eunds, one. hundred nnd EiEey ehouaand dollars For the aala o! the Randoll property, and othecs. Klanderud ueconded and tha motion paaaed unanimoualy. , A & D �Kinaley moved to authoriao tha ChAic to exacute an amundmenr AabQatoo to the A i n Aabeaeos Abaeemant, inc. contractr the maendment vould Abate expand thc origina! co�tract to pcovide Eor tho �emoval oE asbeatoa Contract froea teo (10) a�ditiooal rooma in tbo como►uoity ceatec at en . AmenA aJditionai cost o! twelve thousand, three hundcediio�2ars t512,300). Klanderud sccondecl and tho motion pasned uoanimously. • Redatone Public Worka Dircctor Aud Ey]a� intcoducod a resolution . ifridga aPprovieg and adoptiog a eontraee Eo� services For engineering , Replaco deaign with Scha4ut�er aad Associateo. ine. Eor the Gowec RQdstone Bridge Aroject. The resolution would award a ca�tract eo Schauese� and Aasociatea to replace tAe lower Redstone bcidge� engineecing bidss were solicitcd in May o€ tbis year, six t6) such bida weca aubmitted and the Schmueaer bid wr,s the lovest one �eccived. The design contract vould cost approxi+�ately eigbt tbousand, eight hundred dolla�s (56,800) vheceas the �eplacemeat of the bridge would cost appraxi�ately orte bundred and facty thousa�d dollars csiaa,000�. Kinsley taoved to approve the reeolution, ttadsen seconded and the roption passed unanimously. Redstone Blake introduced a lettec from Redstone Commuaity Association pack board pcesident qoug Self reguesting the focmatian of a Red&torte Board Park Board; the Park 8oard would serve to develop park facilities ' vithin the community of Aedstone. Self also recommended that the ` membership of the new boacd consist of the follos+ing: Brenda Button, Debbie Condello, Clark Cretti, Bill uorais. Pat Herpel, Bob HcCocmick, Annette Markham. Cathy Piffer, Irv Tasman, Ben Tilton and Dave Thompson. Slake noted that the proposed board and its membership was reviewed by Child, who cecommended its formation. Klander.ud expressed some concern with the formation of a neK board; there were a number of citizen boatds in the Redstone • community at this time and it was not known what function the Park _ Board would pe�form that was not being performed by some other -" board. In addition, all of the members cecommended for appointment Commissioner's Fteeting 10 June, 1985 - 10 , , y,±: � l. -:f Y . a ' . . � �� 3��Y^eK Y�` '��. !� � • . � , �.� � .s�. .°.�_�c}".."""*a�if..�f4.-.-a�,-.< . T�+i.-.-t.-,�.. , � �' �...f�er-6. s.-...5r _ .. aere nominated by the Community Association, and it vras not known whether thece aere other interested residents t+ho were not solicited. Klandecud suggested that, in the event the Board desired to focm anothec citizen boacd within the Redstone eo�sununity, its role should first be defined and its menbership solicited in such a �anner as to allow for the greatest representation and participaiion. Madsen [hen moved to ccpate the Itedstone Psrk Bo�rd ronsistent with Nome Rulp Chacter requirements foc citizen boards and to appoint th� above lndividuals as the initial membership. Kin$ley uecon8cd enci the motion pagaed with oppottition fcom Klandecud as noted. County �xcengion uicpa[or Mecy 5ue Kennington introdured a Sablease Fair Aqre�menE to be entered into between the eoard, 3now�aua Stables, Agcee the Snow�ass Company, ancl the County Junioc Livastock Coauaisaion, aa weli as a Lerrgr oE tndemnificoclon eo be exerueed in favoc of �ho Town oE Snowraaaa Village. The Agreementi would providE Eoc the use of the Stablen pcoperty and aould outhorizQ thQ Livestock Coramisslon, a non-proEit entity, eo apply Eor a apecial use Ilquor licena@ foc the saie oE �.2 beec at the Falr. The LQtter would inclQ�+niEy the Town, to the extent allowed by lav, Eor any and all activitiea organized purauant eo che Pair. The annual Pair would be held on 9, 10 and 11 Auquol, 1985. Nodaen movod to authocize the Chaic to oxecuee both tho SublQaae Agreemont aed tho Gette[ aE Indemnificatlon. Klandecud sccondQCl and the motion paaaod unanimoualy. , ' Set Couney Cle�k Loretta aa�nec intioduced the Se�vtce Plan lor Publtc the AspenlS�ovc�aas Nordic Recroatlon Dtstriat. The Plan, which Ilearing: vas secvecl upon the Clark pursuant to statueo, vas auba�ittod to tlordie the floard Eoc the purpose o� scheduling a public hearing. �annec Recrea- recomwen�ad that the beacing be IIchoduled tor 8 July, I985, at tlon 2s1S p.m. uisertce Nordic Oisefict Directoc Craig HAtd cxplained that the public heari�g aas the first step towards the tormaelon oi a special taxiag distcict to be Eormed primacily fo� the pucposse of establishin9, maintaining and opecacing a ccoss country ski tcail syste�e. Tbe Secvice Plan Foc the proposed distcict, in addltion to the crass country ski trail system, indicated that some summec trail �aintenance Would occur aad that the oistrict could be expandeci in f uture years ta encompass othec �ecreational activities. elake sug9ested that the aoard secve as the boacd of directacs of the praposed District; under such a systen, mill levy elections could be scheduled at an appropriate time so as to maximize voter participation. Kins2ey then moved to set a public hearing on the Aspen/ Snowmass tlordic Recreation District Service Plan for 8 July, 1985, at 2:15 p.m. Klanderud seconded and the motion passed • unanimously. Redstone Deputy County Clerk Linda Gustafson introduced a special Fire events liquor license application submitted by the Redstone Dept Volunteer Fire Department. The license, which would provide for Liquor the sale of Malt, Vinous and Spirituous liquor, would be used for License the annual fireman's ball to be held in the Redstone fire station - on 3 July, 1985. In addition to the license, the applicant would require a tec�porary use permit to hold the event in the fire - Commissioner's lleeting 10 June, 1985 - 11 _�,- � «.,..�..�, �_ __ . . - .�,,- _ �r w , y'.�`'_" s ' . . �- .'-` � � '�x� � ti s�r . �� kr: C 5!= . k��'i °l�'�^T"•".:a��^.�'d 1LS:'Sl�tl�.`gt'°' . -� �Y�s�"ru�"N��€�M1��01�i'� at'c'las.s.. ..... station. Referral comments aere generally supportive anci Gustafson recoru�ended approval of both the license and the permit without condition. Klanderud moved to approve the issuance of a special events liquoc license and tempocary use petnit to the Redstone Volunteec Fire Department for the event to be heYd on 3 July, 1985. Hadsen seaonded anti the roCion �s::ed ananimously. Pubiic The Board ronvened a public h�aring to consider on gecond Nearing: reading a reaolutinn approving that aqre¢menr betW�pn the City of Tcail A�pen �nd the County whereby the Councy has agceed to convey and Aqree eh� City has agceed to areept Itagner park and �he County trail �ysrhr� aa rrfecenced, including trails cqui�xnene� terminatinq the jotnr ttaintenancp and Policing Agreement between the partiea datect Seprembec 1], 1976t and directinq thQ Chairman to execute aaid Agreenenk on behalE of the County. County Attorney Tom Smith in�rodured the restolution, which woul� pcovide Eor the conveyance of ehe ucban poction of the County trail syatem and t)agner Pack to tNe Ciay. Smith explained eha� the ngceemenr waa revie�+ed by City Counril laut Monday, at whlch tima County atafE cequeated �hreQ !3) speciEla amendme�tsj 1. an anrn�lmene to incltcaee ehae tbe Couney would not watve lEa land une approval pcoceao in the event the eratl ayatem uaa cxpa��led by the City oe a lutuce date ?. wteh reaNect to e�inone do�►ai�, ehe Agceemone ahould be amcnded to inJlcate that lhet County vould noC waivc t�s right to invoke ihia p�oecas in tho evene tho Cily roquesced irs uao !ac the purpoaea of tratl expaneion. TNo City could not. in othec worda, requtce that thc County invoko le� ominent domain pawers, rathcr. thc � use of thesc povecs by Che County for trails purpoaea would be ptodicated on a joint City/Counry deteraiaation 3. thcs Agreement obould �ie araonclQd to i�dicate that tbc expansio� aY the trail �ysstcp into u�incorporatcd a�eas ot ehe County could only occur pucsua�t to a coordinatcd policy ast detiecmined by both gove�n�ents A. Witb resspcct to tha documents lhat rrould be uscd to achieve tbe conveyance to the City, it should ba indicated, in addition to the use of a quit claia dead, that any •otber appcopriate instcume�t• could be used Smith noted that City staff did not recoemend that Council adopt the Agreemenk with khe above changes. tie Eelt, hoveve[, that the abave four (4) amendments vere substantial in nature and he cecommended that the Agceement be amended accordingly. Blake then opened the hearing for public comcient; there being nore, the hearing was closed. Madsen moved to approve the resolution on second and final � [eadir�q subject to an amendment to the Agreement incorporating the above four (4) amendments as reconmended by the Attorney. Kinsley seconded and khe motion passed unanimously. ' S1,rales Planner Cindy Houben introduced the Swales Subdivision Subdiv Exemption application, a request for a lot line adjustment Exempt between three (3) lots situated within the Redllountain Subdivision in the R-30 Zone District. The applicant has requested an adjustment between the lot lines of three (3) esisting 2ots to create tWo (2) larger, separate lots; the three (3) lots each approximated _ - Commissioner's Fieeting 10 June, 1985 - 12 t � .ti � :� ,, � , , � •x`.: s _ t .:' ':�`L ti .-., _ - '�. � '+t s, ." i v . . i' `.� ..a�F�� ` #- t �� . . , . _ x-r�.7,�. !`.,'.:.��+ri1.."f.".�-,''�``lt",.73. . +�'.+".�� l - aF.�...y�"`'k. a�... . . thirty thousand (30,000) square feet in size at this tiae whereas the two {2T lots to be cceated wou18 each approxima[e fotty-six thousand (46,000) square feet. The application was sub�-nitted pucsuant to the subdivision exemptio� ptocedures contained in Section 4-2.2(a) (2) of the Code wheteby an exenption could be granted for the adjustnent of a lot line ptovided it did not C[ebYe nore than the ociginal number of lot�. In this instance, the subj�ct property vas developed with one (1) single family cesi8pnce and the new lot to be created Would �crommodatt a nev residence; the ad3u�tment was prnpoged as the creation oE a larqer parcel would inereach the F1►N �ttributabie to the proprrty. The �Att alloWed on the existing lots would linit the giae of a n�a residence tn three thbUSdhd� nine hundced (3,900) square feee, wh�reac che cceatio� �£ thp new lacger loe would si�nil�cly increa�e the allouabl� F'Alt to approximarely �ix thoussand (6,000) squacp feet. R�ferral eomG►ents wee generally suppor�lvr and the PYaening ofEice ce�oiamended appcnval subjere eo ehe Eo11o++inq condieion: 1. prior to Ei�al hlac appcoval, the applicant shall submit a plat ataonding the R�d ltountain Subdiviaion Plat. Th�a plat ia to be reviewed and approved � Lhe Plonntng OEE1eQ and County Attorney, and �o be ilod in tbo Cleck and P.QCOrdar'o oEftco. Thta �lae ahould tnclude a@la� note incticottng tha� Ehia aaiendment waa mado through ehe ;ubdivlaion Exea�ptton regulatlons In Section (�-2.2fa►(2) a! ehe Pitkln Counly 6and Uao Code ond shall ceEecence the reaolurlon o[ approvai Hadaen moved zo approvo the applicalto� subject to !he one (1) eooelitlon cecleed abova. ltlandecud aecondod an� the �ootion pnsaed unant�+oualy. tlerasEadt Cindy lfouben int�oduced the flecnatad! Subdivision ExemPtian Subdi� application, a requeesk to create a parcel of land foc a cocw�unity ExempE focility to be convayvd to tho Colo�ado Department o! Niqhways tor higtnray cight-ot-way purposes. The applicatlo� was submitteci pursuartt co Section 4-2.3fe) ot tho Codc whicb p[ovided Eoc the cceation of a sepacate, ca�maniey paccel foc the purposcs of utiliry/right-of-wny aequisition. The IIubjecc �ropecey r►as located ot the upper c�oady Creek intarsection in tho AF-1 zone Dislrict and wng ovned by thc �state of �lichacl Har�stadt. In this instance, the applicani has proposed to convey one tenth (.10) of a� acce of land to the [lighway Aepactmeat Eo� cighk-oE-way purposes and for the relocation of existing utilities, including telephone cables and an icrigation ditch. Refercal comaents wero generally supportive and the Planning affice recommended appcoval subject to the followi�q candition: 1. prior to final approval a plat of the grope[ty ko be - conveyed to the State Highway Department shall bc submitted to and reviet:ed by the Planning Office and County Attorney • Brooke Peterson, an attorney representing the applicant, � expressed some concern with the condition of approval. The application was submitted at the cequest of the High�ray DeQartment, who requested an easenenc to achieve highway improvements in the vicinity of the subject propecty. The parcel to be conveyed was - representative of an easement to be used for riqht-of-way and . utility purposes only, and on this basis the requirement for a pLat was considered inappropriate. Peterson noted that the - Department has prepared a right-of-way map identifying that � portion of the subject propeity to be conveyed and ceflecting the _ utility and right-of-way improvements ptoposed; this map was _ consideced sufficient to identify the approval in lieu of a plat. Commissioner's �ieeting 10 June, 1985 - 13 _ , ' �,: sF �- ` . � � f s . . Y �_ ^k� Zf �•��n � i` ?�� s � . , . ., ,.... a-...:_ ... . .. ._ 3. 4 ��-. . � ,:°k`-sib+i/ .� t �n.' . . . . Rinsley noved to apptove the exenption subject to the following condition: 1, that a copy of the map submitted With the applicdtion showieg the area to be conveyed to the 5tate Highway Department sh�ll be attached to the resalution oE approval t4adaen seconded and the notion passed un�nimou�ly. Canyan Cindy Flouben inCroduc�d the C�nyon Cable Projects I and tt Cable �nplicatlon, a cesoning, rondominiumixation and final plat Projere �pprovai requhnt. The subjeet properCy wr►� locanad in �he Aspea i S iL nirpott buginrgs Cpnter in the I-InBusECia1 2ont District and Finel con[ained an eight (8) unit PNN apact�rn[ building and ehe Canyon Plat Cabl@ ofEice building, and approval far a tweety-flve Chousand �25.000) a7uoce Eooe coada¢ccial faeiliay wilh s�ven (7) employee units. The appltrant has reyu�ated ehe �ollowinq: i. ehe rezoninq oE �he proprrey Ftora tndustriol to a-Z and Ptlll. The entire �SCOpe[ty vould be rozoned 0-2 with !he cxceptlon of rhe caployee unitu, which vauld be cesoned to P�',It 2. �i�e�l �lat ap�roval iot tho aubdlvtalon oE Loec Ono (1) and �l�+o (21. The forracr would eontaln the existing etght (H) unte ea�ployeo houaing a�soctmcn! bntldlng, and the latter thQ propoaed co�mercial �aclli�y and exiating oEflce building 3, eonciocainiwnizacion of both the existing oLEicQ building and oxiatin9 employeQ housfng apartmertt building Thc conrcreiai facllity, alebough appcovwd. has nat yet bcco construceod eso tbat plot rovtev would be 1lmited today to existing . Pacilities anly. A plat fo� chis Facillry, aod the seve� (7) nev amploycc units, uould ae reviaue� upan constructio�. Rafercal cartw►ents wcca geoecal2y supportivo and the Alanning OEfice cecoamended approval subject to the Eollowing sIx t6) conditions: 1, prior to Einal approval, all conditions and agreements, as ouc2ined in Resolutions e1-34, e2-67 ano 83-35 are met ko thc satisfaction of the County Attorney 2. tAe County Attorney sball [eview and aparove the subdivision aod conoonir�i�_� alats pria: to cecording 3. pc _,._ :,urt.:i�, all proposed ir�proveaencs sball conforn to conditions and lir�itatioas iaposed by Resolution 81-3A, 82-G7 and 83-35 and all other condi�ions of agprova2 must be me� 4. that the County zoning maps 6e amended to ref2ect the app�oved zoning changes 5, no sa1 e, rental or tiansf er of the undeveloped area shall be allowed until: a. an amended final plat is approved by the County Attorney tr, all employee dwelling units are completed �_T�+,,_:,,-;T C, all public utilities, including, but not limited to, roads, drainage and landscaping, are completed �- " and approved by the County Attorney Commissioner's !leeting 10 June, 1985 - 14 , . � •-�.�: .,. .. � �`t� �;i?;,,�.�-�.,. . •na+�x�^.:'!.--.. . .ei �,:.._�....�.._ �� "�_...`��i� ��_ .�.`'�rV- .: 6. the Park bedication Pee fot the txenty-five thausand, five hundred (25,500) sguare foot comnercial and seven (7) unft employee housing structute shall be waived in accordance vith Sectfon 5-501.11(h) of the Land U:,e Code fierb Klein, an attorney r�presenting the applicant, explafned Ghat t+roject I consfsted of the �xistin� eight (8) unit �nployee ht�using building that would rtoW be desighated as Lot Oae (1)i p[bject II consisted oE the ezisting office buildfng and the approvrd, yet uncon�tcacted, condoniniu;niaed rnmx►eccial facility vith sav�n (7) a�cached enpinyee unirs, all oF Which Would br knnwn as Lot 7�+o I2). Klein explsined Ch�t the applicant did not inte»d to construct the ne++ coasneeCial facility; the �pplicant souc�hC drvelopmcne approval so thaC t„e �ub�pcC propr�rty rould bc �onveyed ta anc,th�r pacty with the dev�lopment ric�hec. Cuvenants have b��n �gtebiigh�d for �he pcope�secl commc�rcial Eacility gnvarning the ronditions under whiCh the indivtdual rorrm�cci�I uniES uould be soldt in �ddition, an ��ndrd final hlat would be re�quirecl upnd tMc cons�ruc�ion and aalr nE chose unics. Kiein � nor�d that �he applicaeion submieegd far goarcl rcview roday reprpuented final pl�r ap�roval foc the d�velo{xaent of the en�irQ Canyon CaBlr proprrty, vhether constcurrad oc not. !t]andecucl �,ueaeinncd che lattEt cdntlieton of op�rovsl t le wa� noE known, for inatance, why �he Park �adieation FQe Eor che pcojac� ahovlc� be waivcd. Nouben explatnod Ehar the Peo vaa not impooed on rouvarretal developme�t, ao tbae lE waa only applicable to ehe aeveo (71 nuu c�aployce houafng units. The �oecd haa, aa a asottoc of F?olicy, w�lveci thQ �eo Eor M`.1t e�p3oyQC houaing projects. t�lake exhreaaeci nooe roncecn vith eho landacaping plan ehat �aa ap�corQa foc ehe �rojcctt Ehc exlaeing landscaping, Eor inaEarcc, vac conssiderad cn�itoly inolPocttv� in ahloldinq thc tvo 12) ontellice reception dishas �rom ehe highv�y. glake reguesccd an opportunity ta �vvt�r the landaeaPe plan p�ior to g�an�tng [inal a�groeal. Klain stated cbat he would reviow the laadscape pian as approvod Fnr the develqpr�ent aod to verity its campliAnce. P.in�loy then �n�e�i co approvic eba applicatioa ouDject �o tho ' six (b1 eondittons of Ehc Flanning Aftice as cccitod above. Hadsen seconded and the �otion �ssed uoanimously. Raarin� Planne� Tam Hewland introduced a �esolution e�clocsing tbe Fork goals and objectives and future Laad Use Nap of the Roaring Fork East �a¢t t�sighborhood 11as��r Plan, a component oL the Aspen Area Fiastec Compcebensive Plan. The subject Plan encoppassed that postion oE Plan the County betveea the e�stern boundary of the Ciky of Aspen and uifficult Campground, aad would establish six (b) land use districts as follows: Resource Conservation, Low Density Residential Lorr Density Cluste[ Residential, Public/Institutional, Open Space/Recreation/Parks, and Creeks/Rivers/Upen Space. In addition, a Scenic Foceground was designated for those lands most proximate to, and visible from, State Highway 82. Newland ezplalned that khe Haster Plan �ras reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Coamission during three (3) public meetings and one (1) public heacin9; the ' Commission recoma+ended Board endorsement at its regular meeting on 28 Ftay, 1985. In addition, the City Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of tne Plan at its reqular meeting on 4 June, and the Board reviewed the Plan during a work session on 19 April. Board endorsement of the goals, objectives and f uture land use map would provide for a final review, and - adoption of the Plan, by the Planning Comaission. . Slake expressed some concern that the Resource Conservation _ District, which encompassed most of the private Zands within the � Commissioner's Fieeting 10 June, 1985 - 15 - -:;i -ai , . - ,x,, �. - � _t �,� �-�r��.. �, t � .� , . ,3 ; ' � �e� :,,��l' �-:�- � . ,� '.:�� f� 'yr-l�+�riM�� '�4 F� A 4 .« ��o� fit ��{ 3'� .. ♦ R._' ,+.:"S aes�► �' a "`� �,�'.+� . .. . . . «:'� .�Fr�±.++��.w . . Plah, a�by allow for non-tesidential development. Assistant Plannfnq Dicector G1enn Horn explained that this bistrict w�s defined within the individual r�aster plans and not aithin the Land Use Code; non-cesfdential develop�ent, although allowed in the Resource Conservation disttict designated within the Highvay 82 Co[ridor Master Plan, would be prohibited within the P.oarfng Fork East Neiqhborhood fllan. Horn noted Eor the rernrd that 5tiriing Cdoper, oaner oE the Aspen Park 5ubdivision. submieted a letter �xpressinq coneprn Wfth the tfaster plan process and ita potential inpacts an the zoning of his pcopecCy. tfew+lar�d ndted th�t th� Plan Was finaliaed aC this time with the excrption of a trail alignmene arross the tiorth Star Nature Pcpgerve. As a Ein�l alignmrnt haa not yer bepn determined, ihe Euture land uua map would no� ref.lect an �lignm�nt until auah a etrne as ths Pftkin County Park� nasaciarian has camplened a mascer plan Eor the Preserve property. Kin�le:y caoved to approca the cesolution, Klanderud seconded and Ehe moeton pacsted unaniwoualy. (Kinsley leavea) RuQdi Envico�meneal Coocdinaeor Mark Fullec ineroduced a jotnt Pow@r r�aolurion oatabitabing policiea and procodures Eor deeermining PucchaeQ the �roduction coae ancl �urchooe price of powac pcoduced by thQ Poliey Ru@di 1lydro�lececic Projeer aod Eor the diatctbution of ravonuQa from che cale oE itued! po�+Qr. The r�solution would ocMievo �he Eollawings 1. oetabllah �he coat of produ�ing pouer Erom the Ruedl facllity 2. eatabltah ehe rate at which tbe City oE Aspen would purchaae tho pover ge�erater] by tbe Eacilltyr the rate vould equal the cost of production plua an additional tventy pa�cent (24�l. 7`hts addiiional percentage would be used �o establish a two hundrod thousancl dollar (5200,000) reserve tund; che fund would be unod ta eovec opecatt�g expe�sas during a Eaoor producllon yeac (hydropo�►ec output could fluctuate by as much a�s twenty peccent (20a) in a givea yeacf and provtde Yor khc distrlbution of excess cove�u�s to the pacticipaeing enlfcies. Tbe rate thus establishcd wa3 cou+parable to the pavec purchase price3 established by MEAN 3. reGite the focmula fo� the distribution oE exce�s ievenues as follorrs: thirty percent f30a) each to the City and the County, and twenty percent (202) each to khe Ruedi t3ater and Poyer Authority and the City/COUnty e�'atec Trust Fund. This Fund was established at the time that the joint hydsoelectric deparkment s+as created although its purpose has not been specifically defined nor the use of [evenues prioritized Kla�derud suggested a� amendment to the resplution that vould reguise an anqual review of the watec Trust income and ezpenditures. Fuller explained that the City Finance Department was responsible for all Ruedi accouating, and he suggested an ' amendment as follows: • Bookkeeping and accounting associated with the : col2ection and distribution of Project revenues will be , carried out by the City of Aspen Finance Department according to methods and procedures to be determined by _ that Depaitment. That Department will also compile and .. . distribute accounting records which will include, but � � not be limited to, annual Ruedi gtoss revenues, production '-=` �R costs, and net revenues, said records to be provided to �'`'' -�' Project participants at the time of revenue distribution" - .i � Commissioner's lleeting 10 June, 1985 - 16 T..-�;-;..;�l 6 � �,�}.i: :`:.r' �•.�� . . . ��. �� .� j ' �� '� a $�� yf �.__ t�I��, � ,� `,'�`i �� :,�`� ' *. �!f �. . . e:v�.� - s. -- .. -4� . . . - . . . . . .4:�.�! .� . . . - . . . . . �. ... . . .•e�.�,"$' . Klanderucl moved to approve tbe resolution ro inriude the amenda►ent recitpd abavp. Madsen seconded aed thp motion passed unanimously. There being no further buainess, the meeting was adjourne8. c •-'j n=�} � � - � -.::j - } _ ;..� ':`i__ ;��i ;Y;'�;:�;t`- �� ,w. ` '�`':"� Commissioner's Meeting 10 June, 1985 - 17 1'�J> �`1 ;.:„_ . W..�. 1985 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING EXHIBITS June 10 Land Use Code Amendment A Memorandum Dated June 10, 1985 from Alan Richman, AF-2 Zone District Plannin Director,to Board of County Commissioners Centenniai—Requested B Memorandum Dated June 10, 1985 from Cindy Houben, Amendments to Detailed Planner,to Board of County Commissioners Submission and Piticin County Planning and Zoning Commission Review of the Lighting and Landscaping Plans for the Centennial Pro'ect Public Comment C Letter Dated June 3, 1985 from Stanley Natal to the Board of Coun Commissioners re: Woody Creek Road Trails Agreement with City of D Memorandum Dated June 6, 1985 from Tom Smith,County As en Attorne ,to Board of Coun Commissioners 20 .�_ _._..._�..� »..�«�.�..�. _ ___W r:. , lIBMORANDUM r::,; . EXHIBIT ' �..�e � r�o� T0: Board of County Commissioners " • £::,. FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Director RE: �.�AF=2 Zone District � Amendments - 2ad Reading DA : June 10, 1985 ac= ��vccCO�cCaa�CaCSe�c�scaL�lGe•L=C��C�a=CCSiGaCa=�csceCCnzceC^�=css ��8 F'ollowing your review of the Planning Commission's recommended priorities for implementation activities for the State Highway 62 Corridor Master Plan, you asked us to add the following activities to onr work pcogram: 1. Establish sliding scale FAR for AF-2 zone districtj and 2. Establish intent of AF-2 zone district. Pe2 acted on these items at their meeting on April I6 and you approved these recommendations on ficst reading on April 22. The purpoae of today's meeting is the second reading - gublic hearing on these Code amendments. SLIDII� 3CALE FAR The concept of a s118ing scale FAR is one� which we have employed with good success in the regulations adopted several years ago in the City of Aepen. The typical FAR's previouely employed in Aepen and Pitkin County are a single value foL each zone district. For example, in the PMH zone district, the adopted FAR is 0.50. This FAR means that for each 1 foot of lot area within a parcel zoned PMH, an applicant can propoae to build a maximum of 1/2 square foot of floor acea. The sliding scale FAR recognizes that the linear relationship between lot size and floo� area begins to bresk down as a parcel gets larger. if we wish to place an effective FAR on large parcels (in excess of ' 1-2 acres) we find that we must either penalize the smaller lots by creating an unduly restrfctive FAR, or we must go to the sliding scale approach. Tbe following diagrams illustrate the difference between a linear FAR and a sliding scale FA1t. I LINEAR SCALE SLIDING SCALE ! � { I ; � House House Size Size _ Lot Stze Lot Size As these diagcams demonstcate, the linear and sliding scale FAR's � treat the smaller lots in a similar manner. However, as the lot sizes get larger, the sliding scale FAR allows the house size to increase, but at a deereasing cate, insucing that mega-struetuces are not built. In developing a sliding scale FAR, the Planning Office considered the following gremises: � 1. The FAR should insure that thP smallest lots found in the zone district are able to build a reasonably sized house to meet basic living needs. 2. The FAR should bear some reasonable relationship to that . • already in existence in the most similar zone distr�ct in Pitkin County (R-30 FAR is 0.13) but should be somewhat more restrictive, given the lower density nature of the J�F-2 as comparec7 to our residential zones. 3. Existing houses should be surveyed to insure that the proposed .FAR correlate� with the size of units in developed areas and that significant non-conformities are not created. Using assessor file records, we surveyed the FARs in the Pleadowood, Little ELk Creek, Aspen Tennis Club and Spa=ovic Subdivisions, as well as in the [aoody Creek area. ATe made the following findinqs from this survey: a. Most homes in l�leado�aood have an FAF. of about .075 to about 0.13. There are a couple of houses in this subdivision with FARs in er.cess of 0.20. The princiQal reason for these hioh values is that the lots in t4eadowood are only about 25,OOQ-30,000 �quare feet, and some of the homes contain 5,000-6,000 square £eet. b. The homes in Little Elk Creek all exhibit very low FAR of about .02 to .05, with none hiqher than 0.1. The reason for the low FARs is that lots in Y.his area are about 1 to 2 actes in size. c. The homes in the Asnen Tennis Club Subdivision have FARs £rom about .�?.5 to about 0.1, with a couple of larger homes havin9 about 0.145 for the FAR. Lots in this area are about 1 acre in size. d. The four units in the Sparovic Subdivision vary in FAR from .008 to .075, with lot sizes from about 2-5 acres. e. The lots in the S*oody Creek Area are mostly well in excess of 2 acres and have relatively small houses. The FARs in this area, with a few exceptions, are so small as to be meaningless. The calculable FARs are in the range of 0.025 to 0.05. Sased on the above survey and the premises noted above, the Planning Office proposes the following sliding scale FAP, foc the AE-2 zone district. Lot Size Rouse Size (sguare feet) FAR (square feet) 0-T.5,000 .13 0-3,250 ?.5,001-50,000 .09 (9 s.f. foc each 3,251-5,500 additional 1Q0 s.f. of lot area) 50,001-100,000 .05 i5 s.f. for ench 5,501-8,000 additional 100 s.f. of lot atea) 100,001+ .O1 (1 s.f. for each R001+ additional 100 s.f. of lot area) I i ( 2 � I i { x � � Please note that computations on this scale would be based on a � straight 13 FAR for lots up to 25,000 square feet� would then cumula- � tivcly add on at a .09 FAF, for that portion of the lot above 25,000 � but less than 50,000� and so on, at the decreasing FAR scale. � The above proposal would allow a house of 7,35G s.f. to be built on a lot of exactly 2 acres. The proposal represents an overall FAR of O.OR foc a lot of 100,000 �.E. (about 2-1/4 acres) . The proposal also limits the very largest houses in the County to lots khich are well in excess of 2 acres {i.e., a house of 9,306 s.f. could be built on 5 acres and a house of 10,178 s.f. on 10 acres) . The Planning Office and P&Z recommend the implementation of the above scale in Section 3-2 of the Code, Area and Bulk Requirements chart. INTENT � The Planning Office and P&Z recommend that a new Section 3-1.13 of the Code be adopted to read as follows: "3-1.13 - AF-2, 1�P.ICULTURAL AND FORESTRY DISTRICT (a) The intent of the AF-2, Agricultural and Forestry District is to provide for a moderate density residential transition zone for lands along the valley floor which are located between the County's development centers �ncl its more rural, open space land areas. This zone district is also to be applied to areas which are already developed at densities ezceeding that in surrounding areas and which re�resent historical housing concentrations in Pitkin County. (b) Area and bulk requirements and use reguirements for the AF-2 district shall be as established in Sections 3-?. and 3-3 of this Code." POD PROCEDORES During its discussion, P&Z considered the hypothetical case of a property to be developed as a PUD and whether an applicant should be allowed to "cluster FAR" in a manner similar to clustering density. � For example, if, on a T.0 acre parcel zoned AF-2, an applicant proposes i five (5) rather than ten (10) lots, should we allow the total FAR on � the five (5) lots to equal that which could have been built on ten � (10) lots? P&7, felt the trade-off of keeping lancl in open space is preferable to forcing developers to increase lot size in a PUD to mar.imize FAR. .Should you aacee, following i� the a�propriate amendment to Section 3-7.2(a) (new language is in bold type) : " {a1 Clustering of buildings and units through variation of minimum lot area (Section 3-2) shall be encouraged provideci Ithat the density of the overall project shall not er.ceed the � allor�able density in the zone district in which the PUD is I located (eacluding public ancl private rights of way) divided I by the minimum lot area of the district. Clustering of buildings and units may also be permitted which allows the � FAR attributable to the entire PUD to be clustered in a lesser number of units than allowed by zoned density, provided that the applicant restricts the entire PUD against further development. The maximum FAR allowed shall equal the FAR attributable to a lot meeting the minimum lot area i requirements of the district multiplied by the maximum + allowable zoned density of the PIID_ Density shall be � further reduced Uy the provisions of Section 3-E3.8." � i ; 3 i � � ';1 I'� •. • � j" r 1 ' - I � 7'.-' EXH BR I i Nenoxnrmuh r � � . �.:�:� ,- ,. — � T0: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Cynthia M. Houben, Planning Office � I RE: Centennial - Requested Amendments to Detailed Submission and the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Review of i the Lighting and Landscaping Plans for the Centennial Project DATE: June 10, 1985 ----°---- ------------------------ ------ --------------- ------------� _------ ------------------------------------------- RBQOBSTs Review of the lighting and landscaping plans and requested amendments to detailed submission. APPLICAPTz Centennial I,. LIGHTIt� AND LAl1DSCAPII�f� RE{IIENs Condition t5 (F) of Resolution 85-27 which granted Final Plat approval to the Centennial housing project states that the lighting and landscaping plans shall be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission and that the developer shall cooperatively finalfze the 2andscaping and lighting plan and shall make reasonable modifications to the plans as tecommended by the Planning and 7.oning Commission. it also states that if there are any disputes that they will be resolved by the Board, if aecessary. in addition, the condition reads that the lighting plan to be installed shall be low level; aIl levels shall be shielded from view; and high intensity lighting sources shall be pcohibited. ' Both the lighting and landscaping plans have been reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission and have been found to be in � accordance with the County Code requirements. The Planning ! Office feels that both plans are adequate anc] that the developer i has worked with the adjacent property owners to improve sensitive I areas. � � RECOlIMEHDA?IONs The Planning Commission recommends to the BOCC the following modifications to the Centennial landscaping plan: l. That landscaping and visual and accoustical barriers as well as a design to accommodate snow plowing be included in the i design for the retaining wall at the Smuggler Run Mobile � Home Park. The retaining structure shall be a solid wall and fencing may be incorporated in the design to accomplish I the intent of creating a visual and accoustical barrier for j � the Smuggler Run Mobile Home Pack; and that the Smuggler Run ; Homeowners .Association review the proposed design when it is Iaubmitted in accordance with Resolution Dio. 85-27, S.b. 2. Landscaping shall be increased in the Brendan Courts parking lot in front of Buildings R and S by eliminating two spaces and reducfng (no more than 1/3) the packing spaces to compact sized bays. The two parking spaces sball be relocated to the north side of Building S and shall be designated as handicapped spaces. The existing trees in the Brendan Court . parking lot shall not be removed and shall remain as part of the landscaping plan. II. RBQOBSTED AltEY�iDMENTS TO DETAILED SUBMISSIOA: In January of 1984, the detailed aubmission for Centennial was approved with conditions (See Resolution 84-5) . (In March of 1985 Centennial was given final plat approval for the subdivision of parcels within the project anc7 f or the Condominium plats.) i � � � Detailed Submission approval fs the stage in the County pcocess ! in which the applicant commits to meeting conditions of approval for the project. The applicant is coming before the Board today to request amendmenta to the commitments which were made at the time of detailed submittal. The reqnested changes are as follows: 1. Ttie elimination of parkinq along Park Circle and in front of Building e - This revision wauld provide a buffer or open space area for the williams Addition and would eliminate parking and curb cuts off Park Circle. (Note that the parking spaces approved in the lot in front of Buildinq H have not been eliminated. Reduction in the size of the parking bays in other lots accommodates the 8 spaces lost in front of Buildinq H and along Park Circle) . The negative affect of eliminating the parking lot in front of Building H was �xpressed by the Building Department with regard to the Fire Code, h•ithout the parking lot, fire trucks do not have access within 150' of the soutbwest corner of Building H. Thus, no approval to eliminate the parking lot in front of Building H should be granted unless provisions to meet the Fire Code can be made. The applicants and Planning Commission have detecmined that an access road off Park Circle would eliminate the Fire Code concern. 2. Reduction of Curb and Gutter for Snor Ploving - The request is to remove sections of the curb and gutters along the north sides of the park3ng lots to allow snow plowing and stacking. The drainage plan foc the project done by Anderson 6 Hastings was approved in January of 1985. The applicant has submitted a letter dated 5/7/85 from James Hastings of Anderson � Hastings stating that the proposed removal of the cucb and gutters will have no effect upon the drainage plan. However, it has been the desire of the Planning Office and Board to maintain urban design standards for the project. Since it is likely that the project will eventually be annexed into the City of Aspen it is important that the project will conf orm as closely as possible to the city design standards. Reduction of the curb and gutters is not in keepin9 with ucban design standards. The Planning Office feels it should be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that snow plowing and stacking cannot be accomplished in any other manner than the proposed reduction of the cucb and gutter. The existing approvals regarding snowplowing and removal - are that the snow will be lifted and stacked above the curbs. At their meeting on May 28th, the Planning Commission determined that curb and gutters were not necessary in the lacations� requested for removal by the applicants. However, a delineation of where the parking lot ends and where the trail begins should be made in the Silver Court parking lot. 3. Re�oval of Two Street Lights - The proposed removal of two street lights located at the intersection of Brown Lane and Nicholas Lane will not create any negative impacts and the � lighting will still meet the County lighting requirements. � it was inferred in the application that the removal of the � lights is at the request of Smuggler Ftomeowners. i i 4. Caapact Car Parking - The applicant is requesting that 116 I. of the 364 parking spaces (one space per bedroom) be reduced to compact sized bays. This is approximately 32E of the total parking. The request is that the smaller bay� will be 7-1/2'x 17' rather than 9' x 16' . The Code (Section 3-f3.4) requires that spaces be B-1/2'x 18' . The applicants have submitted information sapparting the rationale for 7-1/2' width vs. 8-1/2' and 17' in length. In addition, the studies obtained by the Planning Office from APA's Planning Advisory Service support the size reduction. This appears to be a reasonable request, however, a code amendment to - 2 - _ __ � .e ,. _ ..�..+ . Section 3-8.4 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code to allow spaces of this size would be necessary prior to final approval of the small sized bays. It should be a requirement that fu12 sized and compact sized bays be evenly distributed ovec the entire project. Each lot should have either all full sized bays or a mixtnre of full and small sized bays. No lot should be allowed to have over 1/3 of the total parking spaces in that lot be reduced to small sized bays. 5.. Relocation of the Salvation Ditch - The locatfon of the Salvation Ditch was shown incorrectly on the detailed snbmission plat. It is actually located between 12' and 15' south of the location as shown on the detailed submission. The Salvation Ditch Company has given Centennial permission to relocate the ditch to the north. The Planning Office has no problem with the relocation af the ditch. � 6. One waying Nicholas Lane and Redncing the Retaining Fiall on t6e North Side af Nicholaa Lane - The applicant has requested to make Nicholas Lane a one way street going west to east. In general, this request is acceptable to the Planning Office and Engineerfng Department because it would help to give direction to the internal traffic flow of the project. It will also reduce the amount of east bound traffic on Park Circle near the Smugqler Run Trailer Park. The Building Department memo points out that the Fire,,� Code requires that the road be no less than 20' clear r3idth, unobstructed by parkfng. The Co�nty Engineering Department suggests that a 28.4' radius at the intersection of Brown Lane and Nicholas Lane be required to allow for a variety of vehicles (single unit trucks and bnses as well as cars) . The Suilding Depactment memo states tbat the turning radius must be no less than 25'. The applicants have agreed to both of these design standards. The Planning Commission, therefore, approves of the requested one waying of Nicholas Lane. The applicants have also requested a reduction in the size of the retaining wall along the north side of Nicholas Lane. The Planning Office and Planning Commission only object to the reduction in size of the retaining wall if reducing the wall means that Nicholas Lane cannot be widened to the cequired 20' width. 7. Relocation of the County Trail - Originally, the applicants were requesting to eliminate the County trail linking Silver Nugget Park to the Hyman property. They now propose to relocate the approved trail. The Salvation Ditch trail fs a component of the 1982 Smuggler Area Master Plan and the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan. Presently, the City b County P&Zs are updating the Trails Master Plan. The Planning staff views the proposed Salvation Ditch Trail to be possibly the most important link to be completed within the trails system. It has consistently been the policy of the Planning Office and the County to require contributions to the trails system as part of the subdivision process. with the transfer of the trails system from the County to the City of Aspen there will be substantial funding available to complete the trails system. The recent allocation of $200,000 by the City of Aspen foc Capital improvements to the trails system in 1985 is a stronq indication that long arraited trails construction such as the Salvation Ditch will be fortbcoming. The Smuggler area and specifically Centennial ia an area of high population concentratfon in which many local employees live and recreate. The Salvation krail is an important link for the trails systems in general and is a major amenity for the Smuggler Area Residence. (Maps of the Trail System will be - 3 - � I available at the meeting.) The applicants are proposing that the trail be relocated to rnn along the nocth side of the Free Silver Court parking lot. Soth the Planning Commission and applicants reached an agieement at the May 28th Planning Commission meeting that the exact location of the trail would be approved by the Planning Office and that the applicant is responsible for the cost of the trail or constructing the trail to County standards (except that in no event shall the trail be required to be paved. In addition, the Aspen PJordic Council will work with the project management regarding trail maintenance. A. RBFERRAL 11GENCY COlIlIL'NTS 1. Huildinq Department - In a memo dated 5/10/85, Jim 47ilson indicated the following concerns: � a) The inside turning radius from Brown Lane must be no less than 25'. b) Nicholas Lane must be no less than 20' wide, unobstructed by parking. c) Fire Code requires that trucks be able to access within 150' of all angles of a building. The elimination of the parking in front of Huilding H does not allow the south and west perimeter walls of Building H to be protected. d) Buildings R and S should provide better parking arrangements for the handicapped units in those buildings. The ANSI Standards Section 117.1- � 1980 require parking be located the shortest ; possible distance to a accessible route and building entrance. 2. County Engineering Department - a) Design standards call for Nicholas Lane to have a ; 15.3' minimum radius for passenger cars. The recommendatfon is a 28,4 minimum radius for single unit trucks etc. since moving vans and firetrucks will be using the roadway. � b) The County does have plans for trail use in the � area (Trails Master Plan for Aspen/Pitkin County 1979 an Amendment to the 1966 General Plan, page 34) . Thus, the trai2s should not be eliminated. c) Parking spaces should be evenly distributed with regards to compact and full size bays. d) The proposed ceduction in curb b gutter for snow removal has been reviewed by Anderson & Hastings i who state that this design revision will not affect the drainage patterns. ADDITIOI'�AL CWIl1BN7S s 1. �ohn Bush, an adj acent property owner, has requested that j Centennial consider removing sevecal parkfng spaces in the Brendan Court parking lot. He proposes thnt these spaces are relocated off Spcuce Street along the north sides of Buildings R and S. There are several appCOVed parking areas adjacent to the eastern side of the Centennial project which are associated with the Hunter Creek properties and have not yet been constructed. Mr. Bush feels that the visual impacts of the concentration of all these parking areas can - 4 - .� ----------- __ sW.._ . _. be lessened by relocating several of the spaces above Buildings R and S and pcovidfng more landscaping along the southern portion of the Brendan Court Parking Lot. At their aite review the Planning Commission and applicant agreed that the parking spaces in the Brendan Court lot could be ceduced in size to increase the landscaped area. In addition, two (2} landscaped spaces could be located above Building S. In the past, the residents who use Spruce Street as an access to their homes have expressed opposition to direct parking off Spruce Street. 2. The existing subdivisfons improvement agreement clearly identifies the pcocedure f or the expenditure of funds of the proj ect and prohibits the transfer of funds from one line item to another. The applicant has not suggested that this may happen, however, verification of this should be estab- lished by the County Attorney grior to appcovals for any of the requested amencicrtents. PLANNIt� OFFICS RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office cecommends approval of the following amendments to the Centenaial detailed submission provided the following conditions are met: 1. Relocation of the Salvation Ditch to the location shown on the revised detailed submission map. 2. One waying of Nicholas Lane and the reduction of the retaining wall along Nicholas Lane are approved provided that: a. Nicholas Lane shall be a minimum of 20' wide, unobstructed by packing. b. Nicholas Lane shall have a 28'.4" curve radius at the intersection of Brown Lane. 3. 116 compact car parking sized bays (7 1/2 x 18') are approved provided that: a. The applicant request and receive a code amendment to Section 3-8.4 of the Land Use Code allowing 7 1/2 x 18' sized parking bays for compact cars. b. The cnmpact bays must be evenly distributed throughout the project. No one parking lot shall house all compact car sized bays. 4. Elimination of parking along Park Circle and in front of Suilding H are appraved provided that: a. Thece shall be an access drive off of Park Circle to Building H which meets Fire Code standards and is approved by the Building Department. 5. Two lights, one located at the intersection of Brown Lane and Park Circle and one located at the intersection of t3lcholas Lane and Park Circle may be eliminated. 6. The County Salvation Ditch Trail shall not be eliminated. The exact location of the trail shall be approvecl by the Planning Office, however, the applicant is responsible f or the cost of constructing the trail to the Caunty Trail Standards (in no event shall the ttail be required to be paved); and the Aspen rlordic Council and Centennial Project management shall work together regarding the maintenance of the trail. 7. Curbs and gutters shall be reduced along the north side of the parking lots where designed on the maps submitted with the detailed amendment request provided that: - 5 - be lessened by relocating sevecal of the spaces above Buildings R and S and pcoviding more landscaping along the southern portion of the Brendan Court Parking Lot. At their site review the P2anning Commission and applicant agreed that the parking spaces in the Brendan Couct lot could be reduced in aize to increase the landscaped area. In addition, two (2) landscaped spaces could be located above Building S. In the past, the residents who use Spruce Street as an access to their homes have expressed opposition to direct parking off Spruce Street. 2. The existing aubdivisions improvement agreement clearly identifies the procedure for the expenditure oE funds of the project and prohibits the transfer of funds from one line item to anothet. The applicant has not suggested that this may happen, however, verification of this should be estab- lished by the County Attorney prior to approvals for any of ' the requested amendments. PLANNII� OFPICB RECO!lMENDATION; The Planning Office recommends approval of the following amendments to the Centennial detailed submission provided the following conditions are met: 1. Relocation of the Salvation Ditch to the location shown on the revised detailed submission map. 2. One waying of Nicholas Lane and the reduction of the retaining wall along Nicholas Lane are approved provided that: a. Nicholas Lane shall be a minimum of 20' wide, unobstructed by parking. b. Nicholas Lane shall have a 28'.4" curve radius at the intersectfon of Srown Lane. 3. 116 compact car parking sized bays (7 1/2 x 18') are approved provided that: a. The applicant request and receive a code amendment to Section 3-8.4 of the Land Use Code allowing ? 1/2 x 18' &ized packing bays for compact cars. b. The c�mpact bays must be evenly distcibuted throughout the project. No one parking lot shall house all compact car sized bay,s. 4. Elimination of parking along Park Circle and in front of Building H are approved provided that: ; a. There shall be an access drive off of Park Circle to Building H which meets Fire Code standarc3s and is approved by the Building Department. 5. Two lights, one located at the intersection of Brown Lane and Park Circle and one located at the intersection of Nicholas Lane and Park Circle may be eliminated. 6. The County Sa].vation Ditch Trail sball not be eliminated. The exact location of the trail shall be approved by the Planning Office, however, the applicant is responsible for the cost of constcucting the trail to the County Trail Standards (in no event shall tt�e trail be required to be paved) ; and the Aspen rlordic Council and Centennial Project management shall work together regarding the maintenance of the trail. 7. Curbs and gutters shall be reduced along the north side of the parking lots where designed on the ma�s submitted with the detailed amendment request provided that: - S - a) there shall be a delineation (physical barrier) along the north side of Free Silver parking lot between the parkfng lot and trail. 8. Two para2lel handicapped spaces shall be provided next to Building S on Spruce Street to accommodate handicapped residents in that Building. 9. A revised Detailed Submission Plat shall be submitted which illustrates the approved amendments to the Centennial Detailed Submission. This plat shall be submitted prior to final approval by the Board. • 10. All the above conditions of approval ace subject to the review and approval of the County Engineer and euilding Department. 11. Prior to final approval of the requested changes the County Attorney shall review the requested chanqes with regard to the commitments made in the existing subdivision improvements agreement and shall verify that all expenditures regarding � the changes are conaistent with the subdivision improvements agreement. — 6 — � . • • __ . EXHI8IT .- PUBLIC COMMENT � � . �-_I.Q_�:�.s.... . _� . .�,��c.�4..im�� -z,.�- � � C3 . � unJw�_ � .�� xJ�1 ' . ��"/�_'-� � V _ . �' ��/1.J �.�G/�+�/1"�^ . J / ��"'�'(�„� . . . ... . _. . . v_�" . �`�'�i�"`-�J •-� . . . . . .. _ . . � ' ` CL.�J'�[j/� t..,C�i/��t'�-fJSn� . . i��-*R .�d �. ,d,e� � `Ylr �%c..r-r�2 J " � �� f D7�� ^ ;' s� . � �� .Ga-t� �il ct�Q_ � � is�:.� .�e��- i(-c3'�-� �� .�i-e,a-Q.�C v �,. ,Q� �� .,:.Q. M.p�•> ,,,.�„� � � � c:c..�,, ~ -- — � � ,L•�-� � /J ✓--' . �w.. :Xl--'�.�� ... U , " z�.a. /� ,�'�-�. � _�,,, �,�.� �.,.� .,��.�-�. �-� � � �_ . . yfJ+Ll�"'f ��-V'-�C I`r"'[/-v� (�i� -/��f� ..i C f. , ��-��rx ,,Q�¢�Cr��a� 4itu.cX O �X `� , ' - ��' � - � �.�...� �-.-�-� � ,�-- ,�� - . � ��: . ��. �.��.�-�t2 �'� .. � Rit^ �-�. a-�— .:(�%�, o.,c�--� -�-,�-�--� CI�►..�.�- . s' 41 �:-r�� ovi... 4vj� �..�..�� t 6 � � - �3 � � ,�-a � �- � �� • � � �� _..._. � .�--- �� _ �.�. �� . ._ � 4 t r . • �! +�"? :i.ic1 F•'%�4 . � pitkin county 506 east main street aspen, colorado H16'11 MEt90RANDU� , T::,. .:� � . T0: Board of County Commissioners ;�.-'�'` EXHIBIT FROM: Tom Smith, County Attorney ��" � � � � ( `..�..; DATE: June ,6, 1985 "' " ?'. `.t. . R�: Trails Agreement Attached for your review and approv�l is the 'I5rai1�—l�.gr�,pmPnf- � F�ith the City o Aspen. I ave al�o attached a memorandum from me to Paul Tadaune, City y �tornev, dated Mav 21,�s,$.�,, reques��.ng additional cTianges ased upon your review of the Agreement with Gary Esary during my 3 absence several v�eeks ago. "fiF"ie c anges s�eir. r r nor in nature. Ho�+iever, they generated the response contained in the memorandum from the Cit-y Attorney to the Citv Council dated Mav 30, 198�_a�'�ac u re g. i Cauncil met to .discuss this �' ma�on Fionday, June 3. I F�as out of town an no a o attend the meeting, and am currently tryina to find out if the City Council has approved our iast set of requested changes. I expect the matter to be resolved by the ta.me of this meeting. With the changes outlined in my memorandum, I would recommena that the Agreement be approved. If these changes have not been approved by the City Council, we will need to consider their importance and whether or not the Agreement should be approved without them. TFS:cd Attachments ....,_..,..-..W-_ _ • �f,., • I,�y`" ';�'? 4•efi�. rs�Y•�•�y , . � : . ':,�i.,r�.-r�n�y�,� � , ; , ` :� (��i•yf! �L�ij if�. At.r : � F`'3e.;) G� C'p. f ; .. ., awi��f � k�... ! ' l •. �i'!C.''} w�� t.� .'�� }�� J' �, 4 1" ;C', (. �* . , �.� EXHIBR �. . ;: � � TRAIL AGRErEMENT ,:. ' ?� ... q��,MT� • . THIS AGREEMENT made by and between the Ci'ty of Aspen, Colb- � rado, a municipal corporation and home rule city (hereinafter "City"), and khe Soard of Connty Commissioners o� Pitkin County, CbloYado (hereinafter "County"). , • " ' ' R E C I T A L S ' - , 1. City .and County are each lawfully authorized to acquire � and• maintain trails for th'e pu-rpose of hiking, biking, equestrian, ; � • i pedestrian and recreational use. ! i 2. County owns or has easements with regard to approxi- mately twenty (20).miles of trails located ia the City of Aspen � i and unincorpo.rate8 Pitkin County (hereinafter "County Trail ' ; System") , which County maintains. • •• , i 3, County owns ap�roximately 2.5 acres. ],ocated in the City, commonly known as Wagner Park {here�nafter "Wagner Park") , i which County desires to deed to Ci•ty. ' • � 4. City and County are authorized pursuant to Section 29-1203 :C.R.S. and Section 13..5 of the Asgen Home Rule Charter, to , � enter int0 governmental contracts for the purpose of providing any , function, service or facility lawfully authorized, provided any ' , � such contract receives the approval of the legislative bodies of • the respective governments. • 5. City and County entered into a joint maintenance and . policing agreement, dated September 13, 1976, whereby County assumed responsibility for the costs of maintaining, repairing and signing all of the trails within the City oE Aspen. 6. City and County desire ta terminate the aforesaid joint maintenance and policing agreement and to transfer ownership and • conkrol of Wagner Park and the Co.unty Trail System to Czty � pursuant to the terms nf this agreement. NOW, THERBFORE, in consideratio.n of the mutual benefits to be derived herefrom, City and County agree as follows: �.�._,�„,�,.�..�......�.��..__.��_.._.._ . • I, CONVEYANCE OE COUNTY TRAIL SYSTEM AND_WAGNER PARK TO CITY ' 1 , • A. County hereby agrees to convey to City its right, title and interest in and to the County Trail System, including: (i) Any and all riqht, title and interest .in and to all real property (except as provid.ed in I.A.t2). bel,ow), easements, rights-of-way, or dedications pertaining to or included within the County Trail System as $hown on Exhibit "A", acquired by or � entitled in the County for trails purposes. Provided, however, that with regard to that portion of the trails system depicted on ' F.xhibit "A" which was once known as the "Rio Grande Right-of-Way", • County shall convey all of its right, title and interest only to that portion running generally in an easterly direction from and through that park known as "Henry Stein Park" running to and through the City of Aspen, and an easement for trails purpo.ses over and Chrough the remaininq porCion running generally in a westerly direction from Henry Stein P.ark. • • • (ii) With respect to those portions of the trails syst�m , that cross parcels of land owned or held by CounCy for purposes : . , ' i . otheX than trails pur�oses (including, without limitation, Jer�ny � V. Lode, U.S.M.S. NO. 5310�, 'PLaCtS. "C" thrOU9h "I", and LOt 6� Rpbey Subdivision, out excluding Wagner Park as prQvided in Z.B. � belowy , County, to the extent of it� interest, shali oniy convey _ to City an irrevocable, non-exclusive easement(s) for trails • • ' purposes. Such trails easements shall be of sufficient wid�th {but ! . . ' , � not less than ten (10} feetrl for the purpases intended and � � i consistent with and complementary to the trail•s system segments it l . f adjoins. (fii) All buildings, and other �improvements situated on the County Trail System as described in Paragraphs (i) and (ii) , �above, including fixtures and other property affixed thereto and • all and singular rights an8 appurtenances pertaining thereto. B. Subject to Paragraph C below,. County hereby agr�es to convgy, to the extent of its interest, to City all of its right, ' title an8 interest in an� to that real property located within the City of Aspen, commonlx, known as �"Wagner Park" (more �specifically . descxibed as Lots K throught S, inclusive, in Block 62 and all of Slock 83, sit�uate in the City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, 5tate of Colorado, including any and aIl buildings, improvements, fixtures and other property affixed thereto and all singular righCS and appurtenances pertaining thereto) , � C. The conveyances of the trails system and Wagner Park, as hereinabove described, shall be subject to approval of the elec- tors of Pitkin County. County shall take such steps necessary to obtain voter approval on or before November 15, 1986, Pro�erly � executed quitclaim deeds shall be delivered to khe Ci.ty no later than thirty (30) days following such election. • D. Pending the vesting of title in the City, County hereby conveys to City an easement,_ to the extent of its intere5t, across and through the County trail system and Wagner Park for purposes. � of public park or trail use, maintenance and construction. � II. . � CONVEYANCES A. County shaJ:l convey its right, title and interest in and to the trail system and Wagner Park by quitclaim aeea, and� City shall accept said conveyance, subject to the terms and conditions ' of this agreement� and thereby assume any terms, conditions and obligations appurtenant to the trails system and Wagner Park or set forth in any instrument granting easements, licenses, dedica- tions and rights-.of-way in connec.tion with/the trails system or Wagner Yark. � B. In addit�ion, County at the same time shall canvey to City an easement across and through any and all property, rights= of-way, dedications or easements acqvired or used by the County for trail.s purposes, so that the City can maintain the same, if it so desires. • III. . • COSTS Any closing fees shall be paid one-half (a/2) by County and one-half (1/2) by City. However, the fee for recording of deeds and other instruments delivered by County to C�ty hereunder shall be borne by County, if applicable. Each party shall �be resp.ons- � ible for the payment of its, own attorney's Eees incurred i�n con- nection with the transfer of the property. IV. TRANSFER OF EQUIPMENT Simultaneo•us with the execution of this agreement, County . shall also cor�vey and City shall. accept, full title, free and clear . of all liens, to the equipment whic3� is desctibed in the list annexed hereto as Exhibit �"B". V. � TERMINATION QF JOINT M14INTENANCE AND POLICING AGREEMEN2 This agreement, when executed, shall supercede and terminate the Joint Maintenance and Policing Agreement (and all understand- ings arising therefroml between the pa�ties dated September 13, 1976. � � • VI. � COORdINATED POLICY CONCERNING ACQUISYTION OF PROPERTYt, • EASEMENTS Al3D RIGHTS-OF-WAY FOR TRAIL EXPANS.ION County hereby agrees to utilize such land use regulations, including applicable subdivision regulations, 'trails and right-of- way dedications, to facilitate the expansion and improvement ••o� ' the trail system in accor3ance with the 1979 Trail �faster Plan, as it may be amended by tbe City from time to time. County sh•all utilize such devices the same as if it retained ownership of the� County Trail System and sha11 convey and assign to City, at no cost, all easements, rights-of-way and dedications which expand or .,are intended for integraEion into the trail system .in accordance with the Master Plan. Further, in the event resort must be had to condemnation to acquire such trail rights-of-way in the future, County agrees to exercise its right of eminent domain. at the � request and expense of City. The City shall have full responsi- b�lity for amending the Aspen Trails System Map and Master Plan and shall refer any amen3ment qutside the City limits to the County for review and comment. . VII. , _ INSURANCE It is expressly understoad that City and �County shall each maintain insurance in amou•nts not less than the• amount speciPied • in Section 24-10•-114, C.R.S., as it may be amended f�om time to• time, for the purpose of saving, defending and holdi�g .the other harmless, to the ex.tent permitted by law, from and against all claims, demands ar suits for damages resulting from negligent acts or omissions of the other or the other's agents, servants or, ' employees with respect to the t�ail system.� In connection here- with, each agrees to notify the other within five (5) days after • the presentation of any claim or demand either by suit or other- wise, made against the other. � VIII. . � CITY'S RIGHT TO RECON�7•EY • The City, in its sole discretion, shall have the optio'n to reconvey, and County aqrees to accept any portion of the Trails . Systeln. The City, in its sale discretion, shall have the option to reconvey and County agrees to accept any portion of the trails system. In such event, County agrees to assume any and all .obii- 9ations appurtenant to said �portion of the trails system so conveyed. � � � Ix. � . ' SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE � • The parties agree that in the event of a default or +threatened default by either party under any provision of this agreement, they shall be entitled to an injunction to prevent default or further default, as the case may be, and also to a decree for specxfic performance of any of the obligations here- under. ' ' X. � ADDITIONAL INSTRUMENTS County agrees to duly execu�e, acknowledgs and deliver, all further assignments, quitclaim deeds, easements . or other docu- mentS that may be reasonably necessary to'carry out and ef'Pectuate the purposes and intent of this agreement. • in the event that ' third-party appravals are necessary to accomplish a trans�er. of its interest in any part of the property to be conveyed. hereunder, County shall _undertake all,reasonable efforts to qbtain �such � apQrovals. XI.. . LITIGA�ION If either party shall be required to commence court groceed- ings to enforce performance of a covenant of a party refusing to perform any covenant required of either party by this agreement, � it is �greed that this paragraph is a grant• of authority to the court having jurisdiction of such cause to include as part of its judgment an award of the reasonable attorneys' fees to the party in whase £avor tl�e final judgment, after all appeals, is entered. , XII. LAWFUL AUTHORITY . • Each party represents that it has specific power and author- , ity. to enter into and consummate this agreement according to law . and that it has followed the proper leg al procedures to authorize ' those persons whose names are subscribed below to execute this agreement and obligate said party to perform this agreement. . ' XIII. . RECORDING This agreement shal�l be recorded 'in the office oP the Pitkin County Cler'k and Recorder promptly after its execution. XI V. SPECIFIC PROVISIONS A. Any notice or communication required or permiCted ' . hereunder shall be given in wtiting, sent by United 5tates Mail, • postage prepaid, registered or .certif�ied mail, addressed as � • ; follows: � � �� i CITY: , COUNTY: . City of A6pen Board of County Commissioners c/o City Manager efo County Manager . 130 South Galena Street 506 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Aspen, Colorado 81611 or to such other address or to the attention of such other person as hereafter shall be designated in writing by the applicable parties sent in accordance herewith. Any such notice or communi- cation shall be deemed to have been given within £ive (5) days' of � • " mailing. to the address in the manner providecl herein or upon actual seceipt or refusal by the addressee. B. The paragraph headings contained in this agreement are � for the convenience only and shall in no way enlarge or limit • the scope or meaning of the various and several paragraphs here- . of. . . C. This aqreement shall be binding upon the successors, representatives and assigns of the parties and shall only be modifiable by writing duly executed and approved by each of the parEies hereto. D. The uaenforceability or invalidity of any one or more. of . the provisions of this agreement, shall not rendec any of the other provisiorss unenforceable or invalid, and any remaining provisions of disagreement which are not unenforceable or inv alid � shall be given full force and effect. E. � No waiver on the part of either party hereCo or failure to exercise any option, right or privilege under the terms of this agreement on any occasion shall be construed to be a waiver of any of the same or of any other option, . right or privilege on any other occasion. TN WITNESS WHEREOF, the pazties have hereto set their hands and seals on the day and year shown. ' . CITY OF ASPEN� COLORADO . By_ William L. Stirling,Mayor , ATTEST: Kathzyn S. Roch, City Clerk � � BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITICIN COUNTY, COLORADO aY� __--_ -------- --- Chairman . ATTEST: . ?H r- , � • ,.\. .� +\,.; � ��•, - ; . •\' ''ti `. _ ' i I . _ ,t.i i-rC .�, ,s, , '� •`��`� I - . . �� .. ~�,�'\1� �� .��M�� •�• `I�• :`� `.\ � .. � '� . . a - - Y . � ��•. , .» ''i'' �, .� a . Y , ;4. , � • r, i ' . ' ��'� � � � �' a ' , .,. ~ `I` , '• • � • - \ ��' + 1 � � „ e• . 14� . ... - ° : r � .,; I �•.='� p . �� ` ,�� ..4��r ;;.�: I , .T. . • i a.�!`, •� '� . f j•. r ,. � .�.��'., ,`.. _�r. . ,; �"i. �'✓` _.J : .. - �-�. �T . � •':•� .._ � � ��;:+i� •. , • _,;, ._ ,��1' '� ' � ._ �j: .. _,:�� j ' I'_' s:. �� •!� ' • �, ! [' •'•" `.f � ��♦ ��_ .u �-...,; _ '�'•{��(�r.f't'r � '��'� /� ��_•;.. •;. = p . � •� �r� •i ,�.:e� i_ ',' I . � : % }' •� :� v ' ► . ••r� � � �I �• Ir„"'_1` '• ' , i� _(�T��j• o ,. ••- � r 6 ' � "'i� ,�-� -f�" �/.. ��• � . ��'�� `�'�:?:� r ,'`,:;'� • � � g�' �� . �t� __..;-- .: ,: .� �.•.� •�� ._�� :� ,:,.. , � �. •-.�r: �". � r � .. • �•aa:r�- i' ' , .-:M��.. _r.,:.,: , ��4.; �,..- ., .h ��:.;�.;�.: ti.. .�. : . . . �� . . ;�.� :� . � .. �_;, -�::v,.. : ,�.� � ::��.�:�� . i ,�- • ;. F, . '�_ '�:_ .` ,..:t��:''1'1�...�ll ��. �lt� �� =� .:��;•` . i �.t� .,� ( � �.�� 4 _� J` _ . ' �. 1 ' • '��•/�Lr��'�f�•�L:} �b ' . �'Y • �'\ �� f•� I 1 1 � . �• :�• ' � ;�•--t '',. � � :' ;; •,r D' '� • _;=;;� .•:!`�• ._ •` ';"� t�r;.lri:-::•�lll •.. �� . 9:,.. .:� •. " :,'. . i- , . . �`�'_" �1�;;;�..f�'''�j•,.:ll •'. . 0�:A� f'. s • ' �! 11 '•. "'T''+r,I }� ' �> • -ij. .4y'/ :. f ' •' ,� � ; ,%•...�:��%�• �ll �� ,/ .. ' • `�.}:i• ' j%'� � • � ' � � �� • ► ��'� � /. 1 •f .�[, . � ,j� �'.; • . t., � � . ' .`�w �-J �sr r t �•• �' f �`�. �' : •��` ., !I. �— 'I � • ...',• '•l,f , .. I,• i ♦ i ��:� _ _•� i'ti' : � /� I,.� , � �;•'•.¢ �' •• ,�.��,�, '�4i' 7F•• `� , .. I . � � �=�' t•, .,'� f -s � di .. I `;' ' ' :l.:�.j�f • ' ,� �' � / '; '� � { : �.,i�•', �� l -�• � S ,v� t�'�� .• ,: �� . � .. • . . ;•�• • `'Zi��9C;` / ' • . �{- � .\:`• 'i- �,' rr�� ' - , , �'; , . M , � � . ' \ !''.. .•f�j',�,... i . ,�' . .._� � � �P I =� �,.: ., , , .. , � � I � . � . � �._ . . , � . .i � �� '� ' . - � � �� .�' � . �� ) � � L�+ --- - - ' � in � . '�w �` � � �• ..� �_•— — .-,�— — —,- � —�— � . . . , ' .� � . . . . -, a ; ; EXHIBiT A � ; � ! , , . EXHIHIT "H" Trails Capital Equipment to be traasterred to the Aspen City Parks Department lrom Pitkin County Public Works Department under Trafls Agreement. • 1. Sears Auger - Serial � 841-?200?0 � ' 2. Sears Chainsaw - Serial # 120-12245 3. Homelite ST-400 Br•sschcutter - Serial #214-43925 • 4. 19T3 GMC 3/4 Ton Pickup - Vin #TCZ243550?T23 � . 5. 19T8 H3-Dump Power Sweeper - Serial #3363, Enqine #800383 S. 12 Foot Bean Tra3ler - Serial #8316 , � , . . . ' • � , . � 1 . . . . . • � t : � + t � • kI � ; � ; ; . � � ; . , . ' ,: � . .�.._.. _..._...... .. .........._..._... ... .�......_.�..... .. .._.... _. .. ...�..�. . „�,... .�.....�..-.. ...�.,,..,r�»..�... �.....� .___�..«�T� H - � / I �„ �--•..;, , i� - —j�� ==�.�_-�.� �L' ; r/. -----t.. ��,�_-�~�--�-�"�� ..�,` . � . _� .� �� ,, : �r` 1 " -_-.=.-� �_.._�- � �-^ '•�. . , ' ` .� '�'��- �- �`�--_�� - , � ' , � �: ,�!� �,� , n . .v . ' . � � � . �/ •.' ► � "-- ,;_.,.�p .' �t��D��,�_. •_.• , / / ' ' i. � . . �p �r t��,_ �--i � �'�_�-� � � .l' t . , x� I�i� . %' ~�r �/ � �. • . r I' (� � K � �� .'.. - , K . �� 1 " . � • � K M � s[ ��' � ,v' Y � 9 , 1�� •, � - � �� A• K K � � / 1 , � � t �1 � � � � ' � � .. .. ' X ' . .. • R ' ' ' 1 . , % s•' . . K � �� , 1 L.�J � � .. , • • K`` � ' K � / /� ��jj.. `�./' / 0 � -.\�A �� • f� � • � VN ! / N .-0� wr... o � O ` � "� • � �- - . o x �� .- ' 'p � .. � /�\ •,N _ � � . � �1` '"1 � ~ . .. \ , ' � p • x . z � � � . : .�- �' �. . . �� ` \ O\�+ . s •- N o i �,� . .. . � - • : ��r f m, . . . . ,� . . t. . (f�_ ..� '�._ . � . � � `J . l L� � � . � o :�. T. � .. � �� ' _� � �. ,� t� ' ' • � . � � � ,,,��—� ' ��` � , F � � : `° � � ,� , � �__ • _ '` 3 � X C_�� i ` � x 1 � _. ' t .. � - . � , . �; , . ` ,�,��I -- ; : � . � �a . . x `J; ; 1 a,�� ,� f � � �. I rn► � / ' '�. l s ` �� _�� m � � � / • � b ' ' � '�, � . . A `� �� 't3 � � . � ' �°� y/ �' j �` �l� . � � � . � . � � i� � m � � �/ / ; -�- -� ► . . , x � z .► � � � 1� . . . �, .. � � � � . � 1 .: .� ;� ; : \ �� . ` � .� . . , pitkin county 506 east mam street aspen, colorado e1611 MEl70RAND[1M . TC,.:::) c:' �"�:t. r . r;�_�.�: EXHIBIT TO: Paul Taddune, City Attorr:ey �;_;e � � � Y " .,l:t'j t� FROr?: Tom Smith, County Attorney �t � T.:*;_ t: DATE: May 21 , 1985 � RE: Trails Agreement � On behalf of the Boar6 of County Commissioners, I hereby request the following amendments to the propose� 8raf t Trails Agreement becween the City and the County. Please bring these issues i before the City Council when the Trails Agreement is considered by it for approval, and make this memorandum a part of the record I of tnat r.earing. � Fiajor Chanaes � ; 1. The County requests that Section VI , "Coordinated policy concerning acguisition ot property, easements and rights-oi- •` w ay for tra?1 expansion, " be amended, by an addition to be � inserted after the phrase "from time to tir�e" on line 5 of ` that section, as follows: "and approved b�► the County, to the ` extent such a plan affects groperty within the unincorporated county. " , 2. In the same section, at the enc7 of the third line on the nexc � page, insert the following phrase: "as jointly determined by � the City and the County, ° ' 3. In the same section, the last word of the section should be � changed from the worci "comment, " to the Norci "approval." tiinor Chanqes 1. Page 1 , Recital 1 , change the word "biking, " to the word "bicycling. " 2. Page 2 , I, section A( ii) , where reference is mac3e to land owned by the County, the parenthetical phrase shoulci include specific reference to the North Star Nature PresErve ancJ Lot 1 8 of the Pitkin P.eserve. 3. Section I , C, in the second-to-last line aftec the word "deeds, " insert the phrase, "or other appropriate instru- ments. " 4. Page 3 , II, A, line 2 , after the word "deed, " insert �the phrase, "or other approgriate instruments, " 5. Page 4 , VI, last line of tne page, insert after tne word "cost, " the clause, "ana subject to the terms of tris Agree- ment, " 6. At Fage 5, delete the words "request ann, " at the beginning of the fifth line of the page. 7. Page 5 , VIII, line 2 , after the word "accept," insert the phrase, "such re-conveyance of, " 8. Page 5 , VIII, delete the second sentence. 9. Page 5, VIII, last line, chanqe the M�ord "conveyed, " to the worG "re-conveyed. " Please notify me if any of these changes are unacceptable to the City Council. TFS:cd cc: John Elc.ert, County Manager Hal Schilling, City Manaaer 1 2 pitkin county 506 east main street aspen, colorado e1611 ,.� . , �;, � ._ �,... . 1.T".. . /`.:. MEMORANDUM � EXHIBIT = � � T0: Board of County Commissioners John Eldert, County Manager �' � � FROM: Gary Esary, Assistant County Attorne� DATE: Apr�� 1985 \ P.E: Trails Agreement Attached is a copy of the County/City Trails Agreement essentially agreed-upon by the respective Managers and Attorneys. Minor changes are still possible. Of special interest are Section I. , Section II.A. , Section IV. , and Section VIII. �BK-�will be present to attempt to answer questions. GSE:cd Attachment i � , I I . I i i . , _ .�J i) ��,�:r....r�.. , � CITY OF ASPEl� 130 south galena street aspen, coforado 81611 ,-,;�-.;, , • r�. r: ��-•� 303-925-2020 - �`•`--�-, `'':. , ,. � � EXHIBIT MEMORANDUM -• ' : � � �.. . � DATE: May 30, 1985 7 •• `�"� TO: City Council � � FROM: city Attorney MAY 311985 RE: Tra i 1 s Ag reement Fitkin County Attorney's Office Forwarded herewith is a May 21 , 1985, memorandum from the County Attorney requesting additional� last minute changes to the trails agreement. Aespite innumerable staff conferences, public discus- sions and joint meetings that have soanned alomst ten months- and the .fact that it remains as only a "bare bones" image of the agreement originally negotiated by the City (with regard to title, surveys, maintenance cost participation, assumption of liabili- ties, etc. ) , I have found it to be extremely difficult to close this agreement to the satisfaction of all of the parties. There- fore, to avoid even more confusion, I have decided to not negoti- ate language any further, but to refer the County Attorney's com- ments directly to you. By copy of this memo, I suggest that the County Attorney appear at the City Council meeting on June 3 to discuss these issues directly with you. As you will note from the County Att�rney's memorandum, the requested changes are as follows: t . Rather than specifying that the subject properties be con- veyed by quitclaim deed, the County wants to include additional language "or other appropriate instruments". Frankly, I do not know wh at is intended by this language, or whether the City's interests can be protected with such vague reference. 2. The County seeks a contracted veto authority over the expan- sion of_ the trails system within the unincorporated areas of the County. 3. With regard to the paragraph dealing with portions of the trail system that cross County-owned parcels, the County wants to include the North Star Nature Preserve and Lot 8 of the Pitkin Reserve (in these instances the County will only convey an irrevo- cable, non-exclusive easement for trails purposes) . _ ---�. --�----- , . ( ! . ; .i i Meroorandum to City Council May 30, 1985 Page Two The remaining changes do not appear to modify the substance of the agreement, but do not appear necessary to either parties' inter- ests. Annexed for your reference I am attaching a marke8-up version of the agreement which identifies all of the changes requestec3 by the County. Finally, I think we should again point out that aside from the conveyance of Wag�ner Park, the agreement, as it has been diluted over the course of negotiations, basically amounts to an assump- tion of the C.ounty's maintenance responsibility and attendant liabilities regardin� the trails system. For this reason, the Manager and I do not feel further concessions on substantive issues serve the public interest. PJT/mc Attachments 2D � The Aspea Times • � ' < ��:�. r:��. ,°r,�:� Box E . ., � ..='T co. ' � J'ct:r�•-,- : -. Aspen, Colorado . .. , �_1_D.•� ;-. .,_:� . 2ov�¢ .Alm�nd PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO ) COp�I Of NOtICe ) �s. County of Pltkin ) � . ._ . .. -_ ..��`RE:Pitkin County Land UFe Wdc Amendmenta: AF-E Zaid DiArlet . . William R. I?unawa.y xorice•�s•HEREBX CIVBN t6at�a ublic i. - do solemnly sH•ear that �.�n�,,,�� ,�l�oO��ya,�u,,,l��yey, ' tieWn{p�, ofCouid Commiai�orPl�•. -; .kid;CoietY h�n.the_Co�mmiJiioncr�i. I am the Publisher of THE ASPEN TIMES• -M°N�'��°0O"��"A�'°'4' �O�°"' ' . do�bdooddernmeadnisala�►oEaUoi�'-1.19otthg. lhat the same is a weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in part, ��ui:�� V��1d�bUY��n in :; 'teMfa�2mn4diMritt�idteSektion&'L.o�, and publiahed in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, and has ►h�codc;A�.. smt cher�.a a general circutatlon thereid; that said newspaper has been pub- F"�'�,,,�t-�i�raem�i�'e�ia�4��e4s�e�rr(e? lished continuonsly and uninterruptedly in said County of Pitkin, � kimP4fM"'011iot:i3oe�Mns;ArRen,c inrq;. m e�t•�s�9ssso2o. .�a:.:Q,;� for a pertod of more than tifty-two consecuti��e weeks next prior Toi�ew�.Cnn�rn,an� . Bwidu(CaunqCommiNiooerso(PllkinCow�tv:: to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertise- , •- � ��e�� ment; that satd nee�apaper has been addmitted to the United States p"b�w�ed'"'the'►.pe""'rii"ahfay9;tses: maila as second�class matter under the provisions of the Act of Much 3, 1879, or any amendments thereot, and that said news- paper Is a weekly newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices and advertisements with the meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published fn the regular and entire issue of every number of said weekly newapaper for the period of � consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said i newspaper dated 1"�a.l� 9 A.D., 19� and that ; the last publication ot said notice was in the issue of said news- paper dated A.D., 19_ ` i . h�� . i Subscribed and sworn to before me,.a notary public in and for the County of Pjtkin, State ot Colorado, this ,_,�_,day of i A.D., 19� t otary Public ! �5= �� ` My commission expires I t � � ` ,f _ , � u .�_ ___ � � The Aspen Times t:....�) c r . � BOX E �T'�. .'' �. T:]'.i�.:C IiC;'.*::"" ' � Aspen, Colorado -� ' � sL,�.� : lv..-.ro.'�S. b ��t �o:n�enn�a�l.:�.sJ PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO ) C0�7�/ Of NOflt@ ) ss. County ot Pitkin ) — -- , --- RleuC NanCe William R. Dunawav '�`�°'�°°�°eti��°'°"°�°d' � I, do solemnly sw•ear that �eus Publisher Nancs��s xeesex�aivs�r�,.� I am the of THE ASPEN TIME5; h�.nvbeeeterya.eerdato�e�cam. that the same is a weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in part, ��e�OOio,°ife��•;e�� and publiahed in the County ot Pitkin, State of Colorado, and has �0'0°��s�� : a general circulation therein; that saId newspaper has been pub- �C��,�� lished continuously and unintecruptedly in said County of Pitkin, mwewu�rs.� for a perlod ot more than fifty-txo consecutive Keeks next prior ��°`�011f° �'O°'°' �s•.�e.dtee �90 to the first pub!lcatlon oi the annexed legal notice or advertise• ��''!�!!�ais�it I��am, ment; that saFd newspaper has been addmitted to the United States ' � maik as second-class matter under the provisions of the Act of ` �.� ' '''�°°°�' March 3, 1879, or an amendments tbereof, and that said news- � ��0m°� paper is a weekly n wspaper duly qualif:ed for publishing Iegal ��p��1� notices and advertisements with the meaning of the laws of the ` State of Colorado. ThBt the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regulnr and entire issue of every number of said weekly newapaper for the period of 1 consecuti��e insertions; and that the fIrat publication ot said notice was in the issue of said newapaper dated MaY 2 3 A.D., 19 s 5 and that the last publication of satd notice was in the issue of said news- paper dated A.D., 19_ � . �rr�% �� Subscribed and sworn to before me,.a notary public in nd for the County of Pitkin, State ot Colorado, this �.day of � � A.D., 19�� / �� a �� Notary Public I r=� �� V My commission expires � � The Aspea Times ,. LGI�:D tli C0. CQ:�I'i,`�, Box E r�lxln co. Public Ilcari:� i-��i`;'.'• Aspen, Colorado _� .� • i�LiO : ��rj. �Y�,� SL'1)jGCt • L�J.I"1 V PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO ) CO(��/ Of NOtIC@ ) ss. County of Pitkin ) • I, �•17.1_113.*;] n, Dunat�ray ao solemnly sw•ear that I am the p1i1�).l�}l�'Y' af THE ASPEN TIMES; that the same is a weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in part, and published in the County of Pitkin, Slate of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been pub- lished contInuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Pttliin, for a period of more than fiftytK•o consecuti��e weeks next prior �ffi�� to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertise- ,�.jp��a� ment; that said nee•spaper has been addmitted to lhe United States ,��camey,�t,,,d,,� �O°'' mails as second-class matter under the provisions of the Act of ��,��r�� March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, and that said news- �� n.�, paper is a weekly newspaper duly qualffied for publlshing legal ...y�,.,;��,�«�s.�� notices and advertisements wilh the meaning of the laws of the i'r"t10m��mrn�ati.,�� State of Colorado. ��wr��,a�y�� suai »ta.�aae. .�'°�`'a�n�.ca�,e,. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published 5 �,��. ,�,'c�.�rm.n in the regular and entire issue of every number of said weekty r,eu�.av,�� newspaper for the perlod ot 1 consecutive. Insertions; and that the flrst publication of satd notice was !n the Issue of saId Jtil'L� 7 newapaper dated � A.D., 19 5 and that the Iaat publicatton of said notice was In the issue of said news• paper dated A.D., 19— � ',�� ` Subscrlbed and sK�orn to before me,.a notary public in and for the County of Pitkin, State of Color�o, this �/ .day of r/ A.D., 19� ' � . J�� Notary Public / �� My commission expires � � t 1 �