FLOOD07086 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I riverfront homesites outside the 100-year floodplain boundary. To further insure against floodplain con- cerns, the applicant will retain Wright-McLaughlin Engineers to prepare a Detailed Submission site specific, floodplain guidelines/recommendations report for the homesites. If the report recommends the elimination of any homesite, this will be done prior to Detailed Submission. The site specific field investigation has been committed to at Detailed Submission because the applicant feels the County's adopted floodplain mapping is the suitable guideline for the General Submission. This will give the Planning and Zoning Commission an opportunity to evaluate the overall development, and yet insure all technical issues will be resolved prior to Detailed Submission. 2. No new Highway 82 entrances are created. In the 1979 application, the County Engineer expressed concerns with creating new Highway 82 entrances. The revised plan uses only existing entrances and will continue to upgrade the front portion of Watson Divide Road and replace the Highway 82 bridge culvert resulting in a public improve~ent as stated by the County Engineer. 3. All roads and driveways are located away from steep slope areas. The riverfront driveway that was con- troversial in the 1979 application has been relocated to the unirrigated edge of the front pasture and looped to only use the existing Highway 82 entrance across from Aspen Village trailer park entry. 4. The three southern riverfront homesites will be connected to the central water system. The applicant is willing to connect the 3 northern riverfront homesites; however, this cannot be committed to currently because of technical, easement and cost uncertain- ties about crossing the river. The applicant will work to resolve these uncertainities prior to Detailed Submission. The above revisions have been made to specifically elim- inate the technical concerns identified in the 1979 appli- cation. Moreover, the applicant strongly feels the present application has important merits that were not fully recog- nized in the 1979 application. 1. The application provides significantly more employee housing than any other application. The Aspen/Pitkin Housing Task Force recently recommended there existed a shortfall need of 250 employee units and an annual need for 67 employee units. The proposed 25 units cannot be disregarded in aiding to fullfill the immed- iate need for employee housing. The Aspen Village - 3 -