Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.reg.05081978 ���� �l 5: � .. ��h��f y,]�y� . � . . . �a.rr'� '�C . . _ � . � � .:� " .,.:. � :.�._.. ,, . ..,, , , . . .,. 7` pfl,' �:� . . . . . .. � H . �j PITKIN COUNTY COMMISSIOP]ERS' } MEETING AGENDA � May 8, 1978 � 9:00 a.m. RESOLUTIONS/CONTRACTS: � 1) Taxes Receivable from RMA - DM j:. ' 2) Vending Machine Agreement - DM � ' 3) Denial of Abacus Ranch - SMS i_ 4) 1041 Contract Amendment - KS i 5) Frank Bishop Contract - JD : 6) March Warrant Writings - CB �' ' 9:20 a.m. Food Service & Magazine Agreement - DM 3 z 9:50 a.m. STUDY SESSION: GMP Resolution � � I0:50 a.m. Shadow Mountain Restaurant - H. Graminger , 11:00 a.m. Lone Pine General Submission - RS � 11:20 a.m. ADMIN. HEARING: Abatement or Refund of Taxes - SMS - . .. .p - . � . . 11:30 a.m. — 1:00 p.m. LUNCHEON W/USFS AT ASPEN MEADOWS :j 1:00 p.m. Changes to Dog Licensing Ordinance - B. Grikis 1:25 p.m. Land Use Code Codification - KS 1:35 p.m. Ballot Boxes - JH 1:45 p.m. P.H. Code Amendment: Density Re3uction Formula - KS 2:00 p.m. P.H. Lyons Maroon Creek Ranch Special Review - KS 2:30 p.m. P.H. Hibbard Castle Creek Special Review - KS 3:00 p.m. Clerk's Reorganization Request - JH/PK 3:30 p.m. Central Garaqe Complement Change, Proposed Salary Increases and Reclassification of Heavy Duty Mechanic - PK 3:45 p.m. Reclassifications--Clerk Typist and Secretarial Positions - PK 3:55 p.m. SET PUBLIC HEARING TIMES: (June 12, 1978) a ,� 1) Code Amendments(1:15 p.m.) � . 2) Airport Business Center General Submission(2:00 p.m.) ;� 3) Snowmaking at Little Nell's Special Review(2:45 p.m.) � 4:00 p.m. JOINT CITY/COUNTY MEETING: � 1) 208 Water Quality Management-Plan Draft - KS � 2) Addendum to Land Treatment Study - JC � 3) ASC Bus Operation Proposal - HJ � 4) North Star Rancli Resource Inventory - MF ;j 5) A-95: 1980 Block Statistics Census - KS `� � 2 _ 4 � , S � � � � - � s A- ?�.r ,��...1'Vi'��''' . � r� Zc,. +>,�' _ . .µ.(._��fi�ii���' ����4 ` . � �: . ..., ..:.'.:�� . ... . ............ .__ ..... . " . X� _ ' rl,�. V: .� � . . ., `�: ;:-`i . � . . z"`s,'•, 4:' �� � '. � i �,� PITKIN COUNTY � �� BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS �� v.� Regular Meeting May 8 1978 � PRESENT: Chairman Robert W. Child, Michael Kinsley, .Toseph E. Edwards, Jr. (arrived late) �,'� ---------- � � Rocky Doug McCoy, Airport Manager, reported that Rocky Mountain Airways owes approximately Mountain � Airways $�0,000 in back utiiicy taxes which have not been cuilected in four years. Kinsley � Back �� Taxea asked about collecting interest on the outstanding debt. Stuller said the interest i �- rate is set by statute and is included in the $50,000 figure. She suggested that the � Board request issuance of a treasurer's deed, which will give RMA from three to five � months to pay; if the taxes are not collected by that time the County can take some of RMA's personal property to satisfy the debt. McCoy felt it would be more reasonable if he negotiated a payback schedule with RMA, since he has never discussed this matter with them. Stuller said a treasurer's deed would be the proper method to handle the problem; i£ they have to borrow money to pay the ta�ces, that's their problem. Kinsley moved to request issuance of a treasurer's deed for collection of RMA`s back taxes. Child wouldn't second the motion until McCoy has determined RMA's financial situation � to be sure they can get a loan to cover the amount. � McCoy added that approximately $12,000 of those taxes go into the general fund; he R asked if that share of the money could be allocated to the airport for operating expenses. Ochs said the money wouldn't be missed from the general fund since it was not included in the 1978 budget. Kinsley amended his motion to state that if McCoy's negotiations with RMA fail and do not result in a payment schedule, then McCoy should obtain a treasurer's deed. Child seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Kinsley also requested that a resolution be drawn up for consideration at the next meeting . which would transfer the $12,000 into xhe airport operating expense fund. Vending McCoy presented an agreement with Castle Creek Vending Company for vending machines Machines at at the airport; this was tabled at an earlier meeting pending resolution of the cigarette : Airport � machine question. He noted this could be solved in one� of three ways: the County �. could allow only one-third of the machine space to be used for cigarettes, they could ' t eliminate cigarette machines altogether, or they could rely on a clause which gives the airport manager authority over the machines. McCoy added that Castle Creek Vending � will be purchasing candy £rom Specialty Foods Corporation in Denver, which sells items '� � without sugar or preservatives. Kinsley favored eliminating cigarettes altogether; � E Child preferred giving the airport manager authority over the machines. The item was � a � `3 i: Commissioners Meeting MaY g� 1978 _ 1 � 1 t .a � : m � ���<: �s��,�e�, , �:s�s,.^�a.;,� a .�r;x �:: ._ ... . ,. . ... . . . . _... , ., ...... _ _ ___ , .. _ .. ,._. .. .._ ' ___ ..:... . .... . "� Y. Gt.y'_• 1F.�" tabled until Edwards' arrival. 1041 Karen Smith, of the Planning Office, presented a contract extension with the State �PPinB Extension for £unding of the COMARC mapping project. The current contract expires May 31, i I " and this will extend the time period to Sune 30th, because the mapping is approximate- I r � ly two weeks behind schedule. Kinsley moved to authorize the Chairman to sign the . - contract. Chi13 seconded and the motion passed unanimousiy. . ; : ---------- � Edwards arrived. Warrants Child moved to table the warrants because he has not yet reviewed them. The motion died for lack of a second. Kinsley moved approval. Edwards seconded and the motion passed with opposition from Child. Vending Kinsley moved approval of the Castle Creek vending machine contract with the stipu- Machines at lation that all cigarette machines be eliminated. Edwards seconded. McCoy noted Airport that the same company has cigarette machines in the Bonanza and Mountain West terminals Edwards requested that those machines be eliminated when their contracts come up for renewal. Kinsley's motion passed with opposition from Child. Bishop Jeff Davis, County Engineer, reported that Frank Bishop is requesting a 12% in- Landfill Cost crease in his fees for the landfill management contract. Last year the Co�aissioners Increase approved a.two•year contract which included a clause for an increase in fees if labor and £uel costs increase. Kinsley requested documentation that Bishop's costs have risen 12% before approving the increase. Child moved to table the matter pending .F examination of Bishop's business operation costs. Kinsley seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Abacus The Coimnissioners considered a resolution denying general submission approval for Ranch Resolution the Abacus Ranch subdivision. Child questioned the 667 acre figure contained on page four. Wells replied that Mary Frank owns 827 acres, part of which is already �� subdivided. Child asked if the application was revised to include 16 additional � units, rather than 24. Stuller replied it never was. Child asked if the question � � of transit alternatives is appropriate for the downvalley area. He felt that situa- I tion depends on location; mass transit will never be a realistic alternative in the Capitol Creek valley so automobiles will always be required. Kinsley said the impli- ! •cation is that since there will never be mass transit service to the area, the � � i Commissioners Meeting May 8, 1978 - 2 � s ; . .. -���r�l�M :„ �a,:`. _ ��9 �y wAj��. . �.�,���y; . . 7 ���� ,.' ,. . „. . , . �., . _ . _. _.. . . , _ __ , . . .,. ,�; -� �µ4;; �: reaulting auto-dependency is a strike against the application. It implies that the F; development is in an inappropriate area. Stuller said transportation is a considera- ; cr . tion county-wide, as is stated in the Land Use Code. Child asked about the 22 unit " � figure quoted in the auto study statistics on page nine. Stuller replied that was � a mistake by Jeff Davis, but since it was to the benefit of the applicant the � statistics were not revised for 24 units. Child requested that the sentence con- . cerning "prevention" of migration patterns on page eleven be changed to "disruption". Kinsley moved approval of the resolution with the wording amendment requested by Child. Edwards seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Minutea The minutes of April 24,1978, were unanimously approved on a motion by Kinsley and a second by Edwards, with a wording amendment on page four. Pitkin McCoy presented a renewal of the Pitkin Portage contract for food and magazine _ Portage Eood service at Sardy Field. Re noted that he has recently received some complaints from Service , Renewal members of the public about the service Pitkia Portage is providing. A proposal ' for a restaurant facility has been submitted by Penny Colburn and Tony Mitchell. McCoy said the prices and hours of the Pitkin Portage operation are regulated by the contract, but he doesn't know how to resolve the problem with inefficient service. Kinsley asked if Pitkin Portage was given an opportunity to change their performance based on these complaints. McCoy said the complaints surfaced at the time of renewal of the contract, however Pitkin Portage representatives feel the problems can be solved. Brian Blanchard, of Pitkin Portage, said part of the problem is that each sandwich is made to order to retain a high quality operation; if they could install a deli case the operation would move faster. It is also difficult to anticipate each day's needs because the volume at the airport changes so drastically. Kinsley said he is not inclined to change the operation at the airport. Edwards said he has experienced the delay situation, especially in one instance where it took him almost a half an hour to be served. He felt an operation like that is un- acceptable and does not serve the public's needs. Blanchard replied that that pro- blem doesn't occur often, and they have had very few complaints about the speed of � service; the airport ma�ager has never mentione3 the problem. � ( Ashley Anderson, representing Penny Colburn and Tony Mitchell, presented 28 letters � and 728 petition signatures camplaining about the present food service at the airport. 4 i, Randy Gold, of Pitkin Portage, said the petition is directed toward having a 6ar ! 4; at the airport. Andersan replied that the bar issue is addressed in a different i Commissionera Meeting May 8, 1978 - 3 ;i -,:;�.��,.�;` .....�. ���� ,. L j>` £3�yr.h�T I, - � .. . �ilt��=.t,,-�C{ . . � . . , `pi�=��w ��t�-. *S:3'w . . . ,•., _ _ . ��,; �. petition. Kinsley pointed out that when the bias of a surveyor is in one direction the results of that survey tend to go the same way. Blanchard repeated that this is � i the first they have ever heard of the problem, and noted that it is difficult to pro- j vide speedy service with their limited amount of space. ricCoy added that is was also j i hard to get personnel this year. Blanchard requested that the County give them an � � � opportunity to improve the situation. Kinsley favored granting Pitkin Portage a one- � • � - year extension of their contract, during which time their performance will be watched I closely. i : Edwards noted that the petition signatures show a large amount of public dissatis- faction £or their service, and added that they have had almost a year to get their operation in order. He felt the County should require a corrective commitment from Pitkin Portage or open the service up for alternatives. He moved that the matter be continued for two weeks within which time the current operator shall submit a written proposal containing specific methods for correcting the present dissatisfaction with the speed of service, and during which time other operators may submit proposals for the County's consideration. Kinsley seconded the motion. Blanchard felt this was unfair; they have negotiated for this contract for months and came to the meeting to sign it--they now find it may be put to bid. Child said that is why the Commissioners are giving them an opporutnity to come up with a solution to the problem before accepting a counter offer. Edwarda said the central question here is by what means the County can best serve the publ3c. The motion to table passed unanimously. McCoy asked how this would affect the renewal clause. Stuller said the clause states that if there is no breach of contract the contract would be renewed; the question is whether their lack of service constitutes a breach of contract. They •1 have now been given ten days notice to rectify the situation. Airport Stuller reported that the County Clerk's office has received an application from Liquor License Penny Colburn and Tany Mitchell for a three-way liquor license at the a3rport. The P.roposal application cannot be considered complete, and a public hearing cannot be set, until � f the applicants have a lease for the premi.ses from the County and have a restaurant � license for food service. They are appearing before the Board to resolve the issues of the lease and food service before setting the matter for a public hearing. Ashley Anderson, representing the applicants, noted that this is a dual proposal; they would like to operate a bar at the airport, but they also feel they can upgrade � the present food service. The public response to their proposal has been overwhelming. � s � � Commissioners Meeting May 8, 1978 - 4 ' . �. :. ��a e; . .;:`fiyts�';xr � r;: .,�°,��'�''�',fj��o . , . '�?t".`�x.}`•y<�,J�i. � ' .1��. '�.x,�s: ' �•"�' - ._ . .... ... , ��.;� �� . , .,. .. .. .. , ,..__ .. . . . . . ... ..:... .. ._... .._.. ... _.. ... _..-�. '--�— . . . . � . .Y': i��: k 'i "i He showed architectural plans of the proposal, which involves a bar on the east wall ;; .� . of the center pod at the airport. They anticipate this would be a pass through � 'z operation with approximately twenty seats. Larry Yaw, architect for the project, � felt this would be the best location for the bar-restaurant because it would have q � . the least impact on the existing uses and circulation routes, and would have the best solar orientation. Anderson said they propose to run the operation for a one- � - ' year trial period; if, at the end of that time, the County is not satisfied the contract would not be renewed. Kinsley replied it would not bother him to have a bar at the airport, but he ' l feels that this design esthetically destroys that part of the terminal. He added that it would take up quite a bit of space in the cenEer pod, and doesn't believe there is adequate room for such an operation. McCoy felt the Commissioners should make a policy decision on whether to serve liquor at the airport, rather than dis- cussing specific designs at this time. Child felt a bar would make the airport a less effective transportation center. Anderson pointed out that the demand for such a facility exists; they are 3nst trying to serve the public. Child said he does not consider this a question of proper design; he is against the idea of a bar at the airport. Anderson said his clients may still come in Por a formal public hearing before the Board for their application. Stuller said no public hearing would be set; one requirement £or a complete application is control of the premises, which means the applicants would have to have a lease from the Commissioners. Child moved that as a matter of policy no liquor be served on the premises of the airport. Edwards seconded and the motion passed with opposition from Kinsley. Midland Mark Danielson, Housing Director, presented an amendment to the Midland Park �. Park Qualifica- qualification packet which would exclude the three-bedroom units from the one person tions Amendment per bedroom requirement. He said it is difficult £or applicants to meet this re- quirement because there are not enough families in Aspen. Child said he would have a problem excluding one type of unit from the rule when it applies to all others. Kinsley asked how the Housing Authority could assure that the extra bedrooms would not be rented out for exhorbitant rates. Danielson said the rent would be establish- � ed by dividing the monthly payment by the number of bedrooms. Kinsley auggested that Stuller look at inserting a clause instituting a penalty for charging excessive , rent. Child felt they should first accept peaple who meet the residency and one I person per bedroom qualification; then drop the residency requirement by one year. � Kinsley agreed that people meeting the one person per bedroom qualification should be ': � Commissioners Meeting May 8, 1978 - 5 , i i � , � ,,�e.aw� ;: .,fn'#. ..M7 . .:�i�4�';X�<.. . � : tr� M 4 � ��:�tt.!t•_.�1;_�`FT.; . � ��.�.....1.'�Y . . ,T,,��,r�F. . _ �;-�. 'i= ,;:- fT .iF' � favored over othera. Edwards asked if this was discussed with the Housing Advisory � Board. Danielson said they concurred with dropping the requirement for the three- ''�. 3 bedroom unit, hut would prefer not to see a single occupant in a three-bedroom unit. 7 4 Ae felt the ei hth ualification in the Midland Park � g q qualifications statement (which � S . states that occupancy shall not be less than one person per bedroom) should apply � only to the one and two bedroom units, and a clause should be added excluding three- y d — bedroom units. ::insley said hE aould also li::e to amend the policy so people who � don't meet the three-year residency requirement will still apply; . he felt they should institute a specific guideline for lessening the requirements in the event that there are not enough qualified applicants. Edwards added that the qualifications should provide for appeal procedures so a person who doesn't meet the technical standards can apply for a special exception. Kinsley moved to amend the eighth qualification to exempt three bedroom units, with preference given to applicants with three people, then two people and then one person, and with preference given to people meeting the three-year residency requirement. Stuller agreed to return with the language of the amendment later in the meeting. Edwards then moved to amend the qualifications to provide for special exceptions in the event that the applicant believes that he or she meets the intent or purposes of the qualification standards for purchase but does not technically comply with the standards. An application would then be filed with the Housing Authority for review and reco�endation; the special exception would then be forwarded to the Commissioners for consideration. Kinsley seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Danielson said he would like to hold the drawing for the Midland Park units on May 20th. Edwards said the drawing cannot be held before the next meeting because the Soard must first act on the special exceptions applications. „ Gramiger Hans Gramiger appeared before the Board with a letter suggesting the County consider "On the Rocks" obtaining certain concessions from him (such as architectural control) in order to Restaurant forego further litigat3on concerning his "On the Rocks" restaurant. Child asked if this meant the Board would be given an opportunity to respond to the entire applica- tion andjudge it on its merits and general suitability. Gramiger felt the negotiations , could lead into that. Noting the high cost of litigation, Gramiger felt it would be � f worthwhile to explore whether the present Board of Coumiissioners is opposed to the idea,{ 1 _ as the Board was in 1973, before continuing the matter in court. He noted that he � ; would consider adding controls beyond architectural control, if the Commissioners are + i 1 agreeable to his suggestion. ' 3 Commiasioners Meeting May 8, 1978 - 6 � � A�.(�.��jt:!�: '-.CN,.y4r�.�..�'r �...r ,.�.. --..�.: ` r ;; s i .• d5.,.:4�w`„'�' � ��r�;::��: . , � , � itw �., "3 ,..V;ti;�Y. ���� - w_ . _. '.,-.�. �. :..,_. . .�:... ,...._ ... _ .>...., y.. �i � �i;�; ic Nick McGrath, representing the Covnty in the Gramiger matter, noted that the County ;y 3 has pending a motion for a new trial. He added that, under the current status, there is no building permit application currently on file, and the Board shauld not respond i Y in those terms. Also, Gramiger's letter discusses settlement negotiations, which � are normally not admissible as evidence, however the posture of the present meetiag does not afford that same protection of inadmissibility to the $oard. He suggested the Commissioners consider inviting Gramiger's co�ents on the situation and leave it at that. Gramiger replied that he left out any mention of litigation in his letter, and felt McGrath was merely trying to discuas Yhe matter in legalese. Child asked � � if McGrath meant that the Commissioners cannot enter into the conversation without calling an executive session. McGrath said that is not what he meant; the Board can do as they like, however his legal advice is that the last time a conversation of that sort took place, comments were made at a public meeting that later entered into the litigation. He felt any settlements should be made with Gramiger's attorney. Edwards felt McGrath's caution 3s accurate, and he preferred allowing the matter to proceed in court. Kinsley agreed. Child told Gramiger that the County's route has been chosen. Gramiger requested that the Commissioners make a motion to [hat effect. McGrath replied that the matter is already in court; administratively, no motion is necessary since the case will proceed where it is. Stuller concurred with McGrath's opinion. Gramiger said that after the outcome of the most recent trial, McGrath sent the Board a letter stating he would continue in court unless he heard otherwise from the Commissioners; Gramiger felt that is not the proper way to handle the situation. He again requested that the Board make a motion so he can see where he stands with each Commissioner. Child said his opinion would join the majority of the Board. Lone The Board again considered the Lone Pine general submission. Karen Smith reported Pine General that at the last meeting Edwards' motion for approval died for lack of a second. Suhmission Zf the Board decides to grant approval, Smith felt the following conditions should be imposed: resolution of the question of masonry construction over frame construc- r I tion, and the stipulation that no further consideration be given to other projects ., I beyond the Growth Management Plan. Smith felt the trails and open space questions werel adequately addressed in the most recent site plan. Kinsley asked about a co�itment � for pricing. Rick Ferrell replied that his March 7th memo stated his prices would ! i equal the square foot prices for Midland Park. He felt that memo should be made part � � ( Commissionera Meeting May 8, 1978 - 7 � t { =�� S :`It,':.;��i.�. .i �7��,� ' � ti : dK � r. . . .�_� . ,F,� ,. . � _ : -,. ..,. � fJ.-. 14! 1 .�'�' ;!C. of the record. Between now and the detailed submission Ferrell will enter inCo a i'U S: PMH agreement with the Housing Authority binding him to certain prices; the memo ��{' contains the prices they will try to live with. Ferrell mentioned that the Lone Pine `� construction is 18 months later than Midland Park, and if they experience drastic � � construction cost increases, that problem would have to be worked out. Kinsley said � � that in appxoving the pro�ect, the intent is to approve a moderate cost housing � projeM, so the Board needs certain dollar amounts or a formula for arriving at those � dollar amounts for each unit. Ferrell said if they want to condition approval on Che prices in the March 7th memo that would be acceptable, but he would want reason- able consideration at the ne�ct level of approval. Edwards asked if the pro3ect could be phased over a year and a half to comply with the Growth Management Plan. Ferrell said he could phase the units over 1478 and 1979. They intend to begin the site work in September and install all the foundations, however they could begin construction of some of the units then, and waiC until 1979 to begin the rest. Ochs co�ented that it is difficult to compare prices in Chis project with Midland Park, because Ferrell is paying market value for the property and subsidizing costs with free market units. Also, this is a profit-making proposal and Midland Park is not. Child reviewed his reasons for not second3ng Edwards' motion for approval at the last meeting. He is concerned about additional congestion on Mill Street and the resulting circulation problems, he feared that approval may establish a precedent with a possible affect on adjacent land, and he felt the mix of 12 freemarket and 24 employee units would not represent a net gain of 24 units because the freemarket units would gene=ate a need for additional employees. Kinsley said he supports the general submission, although he has mixed feelings. He said the applicant has done a good job in designing the project and, although he hates to see additional density in that area, he feels there isn't a beCter site in the County for moderate-cost housing. He admitted that circulation on Mill StreeC will be a problem, but residents at Lone Pine will be able to walk to the new shop- i ping center on North Mill, and thus won't need cars. He agreed that the net gain would not be 24 employee units, but that is an inherent part of the PNIIi format. Kinsley added that he received a letter from Dr. Oden this week which he taok into consideration in forming his opinion. Kinsley moved approval of the general subm9.saion, with the qualification that the � project be phased over 1978-79 to be more consistent with the Growth Management Plan, � 3 � i x 1 i i il Co�nissioners Meeting May 8, 1978 - 8 :i y •Ct3.`- . ::.,,y4.;f'��Y.t� . � �'.5. �.� � ^�' ;•`{���;� _ � � . _ ,+. �4� ' ,,� . ., , ,_ _ : _ . .__... , ,.. . . _.-- . s.x, *y�: t��`. and contingent on final approval of the pricing structure in the detailed submission. `!` i�' Smith raised the question of masonry construction; she felt whatever construction s� � method used should be a soundproof as possible. Smith noted this could be worked � out in the architectural plans at the detailed snbmission stage. Fred Crowley, Y Building Inspector, felt that full insulation and scattered studs should handle the � noise problem. Kinsley amended his motion to include the condition that no further � - - consideration be given to other projects exceeding the Growth Management Plan (which condition will be moot if an implementation ordinance is adopted) and that the design of Lone Pine include adequate noise control standards. Child asked if this project is affected by the adminietrative delay on subdivision applications. Smith replied it is not because it was eubmitted prior to the adoption of the delay. Edwards seconded Rinsley's motion and it passed with opposition from Child. Tax Stuller requested that the Holly Fu21er tax abatement petition be tabled because Abatements the applicant was not notified of the matter. She then presented a tax abatement petition from Anschutz Coal Corporation because it has been confirmed that their vehicle taxes were paid in Garfield County. Child moved approval of the tax abate- ment petition for Anschutz. Kinsley seconded and the motion passed unanimously. - Midland Stuller presented the following wording for amendment of the eighth qualification Park Qualifica- for Midland Park: that, in processing applications first consideration will be tions Amendment given to those applicants who offer three owners with three years residency each; if this results in insufficient applicants, then consideration will be given to three-owner applicants with two years residency each; if there are still insufficient applicants, then the Board will consider two-owner applicants with three year resi- w dency each; if there are still insufficient applicants then they will consider two- owner applicants with two years residency each; if there are still insufficient applicants they will consider single owner applicants with three years residency; and if there are still insufficient applicants they will consider single-owner applicants with two years residency. Kinsley moved approval of the amendment. Child seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Road Staller reported that the County solicited bids for the road overlay pro�ect for Overlay � Bidding 1978; Corn and Grand Rivers' bids were received on time, however the day the bids Problem 1 were due Elam asked Jeff Davis if they could submit their bids the next morning, � prior to opening time. Davis gave them permission to do so, and the next day Elam � �, � � Co�i.asioners Meeting May 8, 1978 - 9 ,' .a. � �• . . ..;;at;riy�,c.: � ; "i s F . r,i� , ' -a ��,' . . . � i������ . ...r, :..�:, . ...a _• �_..::. - . _ . . . .._ _ . ' " _ y., •.,!: �i:!; �t�� was the lowest bidder. Stuller suggested that all bids be rejected and the contract h` be resubmitted for bidding. Ochs agreed, adding that the County would be subject to suit if either Elam's or Corn's bids were accepted. Kinsley asked what the results � r. of rebidding may be. Ochs said that could not be predicted. Kinsley asked if Corn � is likely to underbid. Ochs said he doubted that would happen. Kinsley moved to � resubmit the matter for bids. Child seconded and the motion passed unan. Dog Bill Grikis, Animal Control Officer, appeared hefore the Board to reco�end changes Licensing i Amendments in the dog licensing regulations. Grikis felt a significantly higher Pee should be _ established for licensing non-neutered dogs to encourage pet population control. , He also recoffinended that a two-year, instead of one-year license, be issued since the rabies vaccinations are effective for three years. Kinsley asked if the more expensive fees would cause people not to license their dogs. Grikis said that would depend on the enforcement technique. Ae added that it would be necessary to change the fine amount for non-licensed dogs, so the fine would be higher than the cost of the license. This system of licensing is used in other Colorado counties and public compliance is good. Stuller noted that state statutes allow all these proposals. ' Kinsley recoffiended that a public hearing be set for the matter. Child also felt research should be done on the idea of having the Clerk's office distribute licenses. ' Rinsley moved to set a public hearing for June 12th for consideration of a resolution changing the dog licensing fees to $2.00 for neutered dogs and $20.00 for non-neuter- ed dogs, to include establishing a fine of $10.00 for non-licensed neutered dogs, and $25.00 for a non-licensed non-neutered dog, and to establish a provision for a two-year license. Child seconded the motion and suggested holding a joint public hearing with the City. The motion passed unanimously and the Commissioners agreed to ` discuss the matter with the City Council. Land Stuller noted that many requests have been received for updating the Land Use Code. Use Code The amendments are unwieldy, and no codification has been done, so it is difficult � Update � to get an up-to-date version of the Code. Presently, members of the public who want � � copies of amendments must pay $1.25 per page. Stuller said that the compilation done ' � by the County staff is too large for most uses because it contains too many diverse � regulations; she recomnended hiring a codification firm to compile the more frequently { � used County regulations in an effective format; this would involve certain parts of y f the codiFication of County rules and regulations that has already been done. Kinsley i � � i7 Commisaioners Meeting May 8, 1978 - 10 ;; I `��'�„'•���.� . -�::;- Tf' �.• ,4�.', � . � L �y�: . '�r k,�!:'4T}i ' . ,�... 1'�� ti{e tR . L ;��� ^ �✓.. � .�. ,.:.�. .. ��. _ ,...: ....�.-:.. .. ...""_.,.,.. . ..._. , :- .. .. . . . .T.0 .. . - .'�F}.: . 'lj'' 1... i'y:: asked if the cost of the codification would decrease aince parts o£ it will be eliminated. Stuller said the cost would be passed onto the people who buy the Code. �.� The Commissioners supported the idea and requested that Stuller ohtain cost estimates � �� Eor the compilation and return with a report. ''+ � Antique County Clerk .Tulie Hane reported that her office is custodian of thirteen antique � Sallot _ ' Boxes wooden nallot boxes, ana requested feedback on what should be done with them. She � � suggested giving them to past County officials, to long-term employees caho retire, to the Histozical Saciety, or using them as planters in the Courthouse. Child moved � ,_ that one be given to the Historical Society, one to Peggy Miklich, one to Louiva � , Stapleton, one to the Clerk's office, one to the Assessor's office, one to the � Administration office, and the balance be stored for use as gifts for future retire- � ments. Kinsley requested that Che motion be amended to state that any County office � that would like to use a box as a planter may do so on a loan basis. Child agreed � to the amendment and the motion passed unanimously. Cancelled Hane reported that her office has three cancelled 1888 stamps which someone has Stamps offered to purchase. The Board instructed her to display them in a case which is to be installed in the central hall, or give them to the Historical Society. Set Ghild moved and Kinsley seconded to set the following public hearings: Code Public � Hearittgs amendments at 1:15 P.M., Airport Busineas Center general subm3ssion at 2:00 P.M., � and snowmaking at LitCle Ne11's special review at 2:45 P.M., June 12, 1978. The motion passed unanimously. � ------- � � � Public The Commissioners convened a public hearing to consider a Land Use Code amendment $ ; Aearing: � LUC which wou13 make the PUD section consistent with the slope amendment recently adopted. � Amendment � re: PUD Smith submi[ted for the record a copy of resolution 78-31. Child moved approval of the Code amendment. ICinsley seconded and the motion passed unanimously. � 3 --------- g Public The Commissioners convened a puhlic hearing to consider a special review and s Hearing: ; � Lyons building permit review application by Lee Lyons for construction of a single fami.ly r�, Special � Review house on lot 7A, Matoon Creek Ranch. This lot is shown in geologic hazard areas, :i and never received County subdivision approval because it was divided prior to adop- ;y . .4 tion of subdivision regulations. Smith submitted the following items for the record: ' Sanuary 26, 1978 letter £rom John Denison, December 26, 1977, and March 9, 1978, ;; Commissioners Meeting May 8, 1978 - 11 �i _ .._.__ . . __ _ .. _ . _ � . . ',i.r:, ,�F,�; . . _._.... �� _ -�,; `_�r;�: y;;�:�:• _ r;�;:,..:�,�,�: � �`{�esFJa-� • � ��'� �,• . . .... ..... .. . .. __ . .... x.. i. x letters from Nick Lampiris, February 12, 1978, letter from Bob Nelson, February 14, '1 1978, letter from David Shelton, March 16, 1978, letter from Jeff Davis, P & Z � � . resolution #78-4, and the May Sth Planning Office memo with the attached March 23, F 1978, letter from Jeff Davis. Smith noted that there are significant geologic and avalanche hazard problems, most of which have been dealt with by the geologist's : zeco�endations. A wildfire hazard exists due to the poor access to the site and ' the leck of water. Bob Nelson, County Sanitarian, commented that he has reviewed the water availability and septic systems, and feels there will be adequate water. Smith cont�nued that the P 6 Z reromnended approval based on conditions concerning the alluvial fan and soil creep concems, review of irrigation ditches, installation of a catch basin, run-off ditches and culverts, improvements and revegetation for the access road, and plat amendments. Davis requested that the following conditions • also be included: (1) a drainage ditch be constructed at the toe of the cut bank to carry storm runoff from above and from the access road. The ditch will be adequate in size to retain all sloughage. (2) A concrete catch basin with removeable steeZ grate wiZl be installed across the access road to prevent storm runoff and de- bris from entering Maroon Creek Road. (3} The access road will be crowned to direct stornt runoff to the control ditch. In addition� the bottom third will be coated with 3/4" road base, four to six inches deep to improve traction. The bottom access turn- ing radius shall be improved to accommodate all emergettcy vehicles. (4) �o signs 3ndicating a hidden entrance ahead are required, The County will install the signs at no charge. In addition, Davis felt the new plat shou2d be amended to meet County regulations. He is not satisfied with the present access, however the matter was reviewed by the P & Z and they recommended leaving the current access. He felt the plat must be amended to show access more clearly, define roadways with a sixty foot right-oP-way, � and to show utility easements for the entire subdivision. Lee Lyons agreed to do whatever the Board reQuests, bvt asked that approval be given today so he can begin building. Kinsley felt the matters mentioned by Davis are technical problems, and said he would have no problem granting approval based on these conditione. Nick � Coates added that the other property owners in Maroon Creek Ranch would be willing � ;� � to help straighten these problems out. Child asked about fire fighting problems. ; Davie said they are very bad; a fire truck could not reach the site until the road '� is improved. Child asked if the County should require a surety band. Kinsley said that wou2d not be necessary; they could retain issuance of a building permit until 'Y all conditions have been satisfied. Edwards felt these things ahould have been done Commissioners Meeting May 8, 1978 - 12 ;�,. : ,.: ^;Y�;,�gx!;;. - ,.,�. ��; �-,�`� � _ .��.v.�r�.� . ; �Y' . ��Y , � �. S.',�. -� �:�'N= , . ' , ...,. , �. , .:.., . ,.. ... . . -:. ...,...�...... ._� ... . . .. , . . . ��__, .. . _. . . '.�............. �. �-, 1^, ��1:;� by the subdivider so the purchasers wouldn't get caught in this situation. He did ��' �:. not favor approving the application until these conditions have been meC. Kinsley 4` said he didn't feel tabling the matter fot two weeks would accomplish anything. Child � submitted for the record an April 25, 1978, letter from Mike Conviser. Lyons asked � if approval would be granted if he obtained everything prior to beginning to build. � Stuller said he cannot get an excavation permit before receiving special review � . - - approval. Ochs mentioned the trail easement thraugh this subdivision which was con- - sidered by the Commissioners once before. Edwards noted that the County sued Carl Curtis for violation of the subdivision regulations when this property was first . 'c divided; the suit was later dropped, however his attorney stipulated that Curtis would insure complete compliance with the subdivision regulations. He felt a proper plat of ehe subdivision should be prepared showing easements, etc., to bring the subdivision into conformance wi.th County regulations. Child noted that some conditions � apply to the ent3re subdivision, and some only to this lot. He felt the Board should require that Lyons first satisfy the conditions dealing with the entire subdivision, and then grant approval with conditions that apply to his lot only. Lyons said he doesn't mind spending the money to bring the plat up to County standards, but he would first like approval so he can be sure the money won't be wasted. Kinsley replied that the Board would be abdicating their responsibility to the County staff if they granted approval without assuring all necessary conditions have been met. Stuller said the Board needs to review the plat in its entirety to be sure it complies with the Land Use Code and all other regulations; if this was not done they would not be performing their function as a reviewing agency. Smith asked if the Commissioners mean they have to review the entire subdivision. Kinsley said they have to review it in the way it relates to this lot. Coates said it would be impossible for the sub- � ti division to comply with all regulations; for instance, it has only one access road. � Edwards felt the best way to handle this would be to grant conditional approval so the � k applicant can be sure that, with compliance, his investment won't be wasted. Kinsley � asked if they could include a waiver by Lyons to dissolve the reliance question. � � Stuller agreed to do so. � � Edwards moved that special review and building permit review approval be granted : conditioned upon the folZowing: that alluvial fan and soil creep concerns be resolved ; � hy requiring design of the septic system and foundatian by a soils engineer and � investigation of the effects on soil creep acceleration of all road cuts and fills � on the lot; that review of the irrigation ditch by done by a soils engineer to � �ti :� } Commissioners Meeting May 8, 1978 - 13 � ,:� � , _ ;'�;� _ :� >;�.� �, `- - �����'r�� . :��7.:r,'�; . . � .'��.: �3 s: . .. .. . -. . .. .. ....�_. .. ....... ...... .... . ..._.�, . _.. . .. ,.... ,,. _. .�. _—_-',_ , .......... . .,. _. __ ., ,. ' k ��:�� determine if lining will be neceasary to prevent seepage; that a catch basin, run- � ;: off ditch and culverts be installed to control drainage, the design of which shall � � , � be approved by the County Engineer; that improvements and revegetation for the �. access road be reviewed and approved by the County Engineer; that the plat be amended to show proper utility and road right-of-way easements with approval and review by the County Attorney and County Engineer, such plat to particularly define roadways ' within the subdivision, water transmission easements, sewage transmissiun easements, utility easements; that evidence be provided to show that the water rights and adequate water supply provisions of the Code have been met; that the sanitary pro- - blems noted, particularly the lack of adequate screening to prevent the entrance of surface runoff on the storage tank and the pumphouse, be corrected; that a plat of the entire subdivision be made of record showing the proper roads, utilities and lot linea in accordance with the current county regulations; and that the applicant execute a document to the effect that he would waive any claims of reliaace to his detriment as a result of expenditures made in behalf of the approval herein given. Crowley asked if this means that no building permit will be issued until all these conditions have been satisfied. Stuller replied that is correct. Edwards asked if the road grade should be to county standards. Davis said there is no way that could be met. Rinsley said he Wouldn't require that, because it would necessitate another cut in the area. Davis felt the interior roads should be to County standards. Kinsley seconded Edwatds' motion and it passed unanimously. Public The Cou�issioners convened a public hearing to consider a special review and build- Hearing: Hibberd ing permit review application hy Lucy Hibberd to construct two homesites and an j Special j Review access road to the Cora Mae 1 and 2 mining claims on Castle Creek. The Board of � Adjustment granted Hibberd a variance from the 100 foot setback requirement to 50 � feet. Smith submitted for the record the Planning Office memo of May 5, .7eff Davis's � letter of March 16, Bob Nelson's letter of March 13, P & Z resolution U78-5, and Dave Shelton's letter of March 16th. She also referred to the record those items � included in the previous public hearing held November 28th. � � Smith noted that the previous and later reference cownents show no proof that a m � building permit could be issued, that there is sufficient water or septic system � availability, or that the road could be constructed without considerable environmental i i damage. The P � Z noted that the site is difficult to protect from geological � _ hazards, difficult to serve with utilities, and access will cause visual damage. The ? � � `i Co�mnissionera Meeting May 8, 1978 - 14 ' I .': s. _ i=�,��,�,�.;; _ � �,,� a:: � iw. . ,.a..��7h, '� ';1t'sd#����. . '�1��.. . ¢ .../�` ` ., � js-: .�5.. 4f��: Planning Office recammends denial for all these reasons. Smith added that the site was initially platted as a mining claim, and no thought was given to its use as a �" � - homesite. She also re£erenced for the record the Comnissioners' previous resolution � (77-166) on the application. � Brooke Peterson, representing the applicant, felt there is some misunderstanding as to what Hibberd is applying for at this time. She would like a special review � permit to allow the Forest Service to grant her a permit to allow access from the County road to her property for the purposes of water testing. If there is not enough water obtained, the road will be revegetated. Nick Lampiris testified that, geologically, suitable access can be obtained. Peterson presented a new map showing access; they cannot address the water question because they cannot get to the property to determine if sufficient water is available. The question of a building permit is moot if no water is found. Smith noted that no excavation permit can be issued until all necessary special review approval has been given. Peterson said the location of water on the site will dictate the building site. Smith said if water were the only problem the situation would be different; however, the referral co�ents indicate that there are very serious geologic hazards. The Colorado Geolo- gical Suryey cannot even say if a building site could be found with the 50 foot variance. Davis said he did not feel the variance did any good, because it is still very difficult to find a suitable building site. He has many problems with the road; the initial cut is very steep and would drain onto the County road. The access is hazardous and cuts up a lot of terrain; he did not feel the area should be damaged without even knowing if there ia adequate water, septic system suitahility or a building site. Lampiris said there are two possible building aites at the low end af the property. � He noted there is a discrepancy in the property boundaries between the two surveys � t done, however there are still two sites which meet the fifty foot setback requirement. � He agreed there are some geologic hazards, however since it is a twenty acre piece, 6 parts of it are safe. The avalanche and mudflow hazards are directed away from the i � building site; he estimated there is a 75 to 80Y chance of obtaining water. The q soil in the area is sandy, so a septic system shauld not be difficult to install � a since this type of soil is usually permeable. From a geologic standpoint, Lampiris } concluded that this site is as good or better than most. He added that things are j ;! x much clearer with the new topographic map of the area, and felt the CGS would feel � � better about the site if they saw the new map. J i ;; Commissioners Meeting May 8, 1978 - 15 q ; '�� .r :<<�r" ,. _�..____�.____ w.r..�.�- ,. ,T � �r� �5{.. - . 3c�-��,�� . . . - �t�-'.� x�� . .'.' .::..:::.. .,._ . ... ........ . �. � . . . :. . ._.._.. ... _ ._ - x•. '. �. �. �!Y, i ..1' Kinsley said that site distance for the acceas road is a big problem; the area is located on an unsafe part of Castle Creek Road which is very steep and narrow. Child said his primary consideration with this application is the roadcut, and the variance obtained doea not change that situation. Child moved to deny the application based on the reasons contained in resolution 77-166, and with the additional reference that the setback variance did not reaolve _ � the problems. Kinsley noted that it they allowed this application, they would get roadcut applications all up and down Castle Creek Road. Child mentioned that they , hiked the site to try to find a solution to the problem, but were not successfuL i Kinsley seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Clerk's Phyllis Kenny, Personnel Director, reported that County Clerk Julie Hane has re- : � Office Reorgan- quested a reorganization and reclassification of her office. The Personnel Review ization Board has recoimnended that a consultant be employed to reclassify the Courthouse prior to July 15, and that Hane withold her reorganization and salary increases until that time. Kenny said she has reviewed the job descriptions for grades one through ten, however she does not have the proper backup to classify the bigher grades because she is unsure of what those jobs involve. Child asked if there is any stand�d that covers County jobs that could be used as a guide. Kenny said they could use the present 3ob descriptions, however some are not accurate. Child felt the department heads could write more accurate descriptions than an outside consultant. Kinsley said the implication is that a redefinition of some jobs may solve the pro- blem. Barbara Ornitz, who helped compile the reclassification study done by Hane, pointed out that the problem is a complex one, which has resulted in sex discrimination in � the County. She agreed that it would be best to have the department heads write the descriptions, however the consultant could then help compile these descriptions to eliminate the job bias that exists in the County. There are consultant firms which specialize in this type of evaluation. Kinsley asked about the cost. Kenny replied she did not know. Hane noted that when Lloyd Yorker, of NWCCOG, did the job descriptions last year, he interviewed people concerning their duties, but didn't consider the amount of independent judgement that is involved in each position. She felt it is also difficult for department heads to ob�ectively consider the responsibility of each - position when writing job descriptions. Ornitz suggested hiring a consultant to i I Commissioners Meeting May 8, 1978 - 16 � . i 3 l :� _ ,� u -`:..��yyt5't. _ . .�.� . ..w�_�.�, � �.r..m. � � ������� , �'��'��5,. ' , ;.,. .. _. ._., . . . : � � z�: Y{;� �;��':� stt� work with Kenny in aetting up and compiling the job descriptions, and doing a limited I,:': evaluation. Kinsley felt that job classifications are largely independent of the �, sex discrimination issue. He pointed out that there are some lower-paid County employ- `sY o? ees wha should make more money, such as bus drivers. Kinsley said the question is r�: 3i whether the County creaees adequate opportunities for women to get into higher paying � � �obs. Perhaps the hiring process is not purposeful enough in that direction. � n Hane pointed out that the emphasis in job descr3ptions is not always accurate; she � rewrote the job descriptions for her department and compared them to others in the � courthouse, and concluded that the �ob description and salary levels didn't always � r compare. Ornitz added that they did an analysis of where women fit in the different � employment categories; it showed that, except in the clerical category, women weren't suffic3ently represented in the higher categories. This stems from the method used � to find people to fill these jobs. An affirmative action program for the County would � � deal with that by changing the attitude about recruitment and hiring. Ornitz concluded � � that the County needa a program establishing goals and hiring practices to deal with � the problem. '� � Kenny said she reviewed the number of women in administrative jobs. Although 49X of y� S : 3 the population in Pitkin County is women, only 38�C of the work force ie women. 35X � _ of the administrative positions in the County are held by women. Kinsley added that � he is biased toward hiring a local person, when the applicants are equally qualified. � f Ornitz suggested dealing with groups specifically oriented to Pinding women when inter- � � viewing for positions. Child agreed that there is a strong bias against the job title : of "clerk". Ornitz said that because of that, they used a job standard book published � by the U.S. government which uses more neutral job titles correlating to actual duties, � in order to avoid biased titles. Aane noted that when a wage comparison is done with � a 3 other places, the title of clerk is compared to rote positions with very little indepen- � dent judgement. Child suggested assigning job titles by a number related to abilities, ? rather than using actual titles. � Ornitz stated that Hane would like to go ahead with her reclassification on June lst. She feels that this issue is of major concern and cannot be ignored. The Peraonnel � f Review Board recommended tabling action in the ClerkTS office until the job classifica- i tion analysis is done; Hane disagrees with this reco�endation, based on her history � i of being told to wait. Hane added that last December, when she discussed the 1978 { � wages with George Ochs, they made an agreement for short-term salaries because the i County didn't have a Personnel Director at that time. Ochs asked that Aane accept j i � � Commisaioners Meeting May 8, 1978 - 17 ! S t �.1.;./" '. . q«j+(�y�'y`Lr��: . .��_ ___ �....�� Y..�"`'i'F"�`'�t1�F• , ��Yi:����� . . - - � ', - •dfrcFw . ���:.. . .... . , ..... ., .. ._ .. .. _ . _ , . . . , j..- . ti- m:f{,: �: the salaries until she did a report analyzing the problem; at that time Hane thought � S � there may be a problem with sex discrimination in the County, and thls study has � confirmed her suspicions. She put off her request for higher salaries then, but � she now has a problem with waiting any longer. $2500 extra was included in her budget � � for salaries, which she and Ochs agreed to leave in the Clerk's office budget until � the salary problem had been analyzed. This money has subsequently been removed from � _ - " her budget in resolution 78-25; she now needs an additional $1400 beyond the $2500 � to handle the reclassification of her office. Kenny pointed out that if that increase � goes into effect, it is an average annual increase over the past four years of 24% � in the Clerk's office. Ochs felt it is inappropriate to ask the Co�issioners to act now, because they haven't reviewed the history of this matter. He favored hiring , a consultant to do a study, however felt it would be fair to have the Clerk's office stay in step with the rest of the County. With respect to the $2500 budgeted amount, Ochs felt he said there is contingency money in the County which is available for mid-year salary increases. Kinsley asked if there was a verbal co�itment'to relook at salaries midyear in the Clerk's office. Ochs said there was. Kinsley said they should then look at those separately from other departments. Ochs felt that he expressed a willingness to have Hane look at the Clerk situation to see if salaries should be increased, however that is no guarantee that raises are merited. Foxy Kirwin, Librarian, stated her support for this investigation due to her e�cperience in the salary question. She requested that the study be completed by July lst so their 1979 budgets can be prepared on that hasis. Kinsley concluded that he doesn't dis- agree with the philosophy of this report, but that doesn't mean any raises will be given. Edwards stated that a reverse discrimination claim could be made because there are eight women department heads and four men department heads, and the average '� salaries for the women are $2000 higher than for the men. The matter was continued until after the joint City Council meeting. At this point the joint City Council - County Courmissioners meeting began. City Council members present included Mayor Stacy Standley, Michael Behrendt, Nina Sohnston, and .Tohn Van Ness. � -------- � a 208 Smith reported that the deadline for commenting on the 208 Water Quality program � Water p Quality has been extended. She suggested that the matter be tabled so the group can consider � the maps and data base at the next meeting before making a recommendation. Johnston j r � j � a Commissioners Meeting May 8, 1978 - 18 i, � � 1 ;i G . . ���',r� . •:y`t. � S� � d:p'Y�p�«� , �!i�7t^I'�$"+ti . . . . _�Tl.$�'t....u. ` .- � �.;ht, ' � � ...r.... .. ., '• r,. �r' ���`,�; '`,y,• moved to table the item until the May 22 meeting. Kinaley seconded and the motion � passed unanimously. Wright- Standley noted that Wright-McLaughlin will include study of snowmaking at Butter- McLaughlin Study milk with their Land Treatment Study at no additional cost. _ Ski Corp. HJ Stalf requested that a special meeting be scheduled tomorrow for approval of Bus Agreement the Aspen Skiing Corporation bus proposal. They have finished the draft, but the � attorniea have not yet reviewed it. There are four separate agreements: one between the City and ASC for Buttermilk bus service, one between the City and ASC for Snow- mass bus service, one between the City and ASC for the Buttermilk bus barn, and one _ between the City and County for the bus system. Johnston asked if this arrangement will mean there will be buses not used during the summer months. Stalf said there will be about eight buses not in use this sumner. Ochs asked about the PUC waiver. Stalf said that responsibility is jointly assumed by the City and ASC, or the City and County. Standley suggested approvi.ng a purchase order Por the new buses, and approving the contracts at the May 22 meeting. Brian Stafford said the County's only concern is use of the airport; he feels it should not be a problem to extend the bays at the shop to accou�odate the new buses. Johnson asked what would happen if the new buses arrive late. Jim Adams, of the ASC, felt they could cover a few weeks with other buses. Behrendt moved to prepare and submit a purchase order for twenty new buses. Van Ness seconded and the motion passed unanimously. North Environmental Consultant Mark Fuller reported that funding is needed for a detailed Star Ranch resource inventory of the North Star Ranch. After conducting a study and two public � s Inventory � Study hearings, it is felt that the area should be preserved in its present condition as much as possible, with animal habitat improvement where possible. They are request- � ing that the City and County fund half the cost of the $2600 inventory; the rest � of the money will come from the public. After completion of the inventory, a final � � management plan will be prepared. Smith reported that the County's application for � a grant from the Division oP Parks and Recreation for purchase of the property was � turned down because they did not have sufiicient grant monies. They will reapply for j a $75,000 grant on June lst. Standley felt it is premature to spend money on the � � management before acquisition of the funding for purchasing the Ranch. Smith said " the Division of Parks would be impressed by a study done at the local level when � � , ;x Commissioners Meeting May S, 1978 - 19 '� i1 4:�.'',-.p•br.. � axR,:.: ._._ 1WYY _'.__ ._ . �a.._...._._,_.......,_...... . +.- . ��yA'�t�''� T. � . :.�u1..�_Y-�.'��1; •,). .� ,�.y� . � .. _:, . . , �:.. . .,..;., . , ...:.:.. ... �...- .,.. . _._ � .... . � ..,. _. y� r �1: .' �' �3y �. �.`•.;` � . considering the grant application. Kinsley stated that the County will definitely ;4 � purchase the property, which is presently held by the Nature Conservancy. The City H� unanimously approved appropriating $650 for the resource inventory. Child moved and �� Kinsley seconded to appropriate $650 in County funds for the same purpose. The � motion passed unanimously. � '" --------- � - " A-95 On a motion from Johnston and a second by Behrendt favorable comment was given to � an A-95 review for a 1980 City block census. The motion passed unanimously. Joint Kinsley asked if the Council would be interested in holding a joint public hearing � � Dog Control Public on the new dog licensing procedures discussed earlier. The Council felt that would r ' Hearing be a good way to handle the issue. A joint public hearing was scheduled for 4:00 P.M., I June 12, 1978, at the Council chambers. u' �t Clerk's The Commissioners resumed their discussion of the Clerk's office reorganization. ; Of£ice • Reorgan- (Edwatds was absent.) Hane stated that she has done a report for her office, as ization �` (cont.) suggested, and made recommendations for the salaries; she should make these salary changes effective June 1. She asked the Board if they will support this with a budget adjustment. She also requested that they address the contents of the report _ as a whole for the County. Kinsley said he may be willing to make a budget change, and is definitely willing to consider the report as it affects the County. Child � pointed out that Hane has improved the job descriptions for one department, and then � compared them to inadequate job descriptions in other departments. Kenny stated that � � the job descriptions done by Hane are arbitrarily written, and the qualifications for the �obs are raised to such a high Ievel that they eliminate many candidates. � .ti Hane said she re-wrote the �ob descriptions for her office three years sg� including � S the same educational and skill requirements, and she has been using these qualifica- � tion levels ever since. Kinsley requested that Ochs, Kenny and Stafford go through � � this report, form an opinion on each job description and salary level, and come up � � R with a recommendation on the appropriate descriptions and pay scales. � i. Hane requested that the Commissioners address the budget adjustmen[. Kinsley said lie could justify a budget increase only if he first saw that an increase in salaries ;t is justified. Ae strongly suggested that Hane not implement raises in her department �� it -� on Sune 1. ' Yy' 12 Stafford said that the "just wait" attitude that Hane encountered was due to the ',�� fact that neither he nor Ochs felt qualified to judge pay scales, and felt the matter �� � Commissioners Meeting May S, 1978 - 20 �; �^l�?��'`,�:, i:'v�+`,Y.r. .;a�; ..._._.,,..� wrunrrr —' . . . .a.....�...s.._.._._ .._.....___.._... p-`�.. y}�,`�itiJ.. - . ' . �y:F,t'» .t:}f';: . . . ��°''�'^�:{c '1' 5 iy >- '.. ���1 a' ... ,.. �� . ... ....:.. .. ... ...�.:..,.. ........ .. . �'.:-. .,� ::.��::. �..:: . �9_ wr�, �_ ;.; �i' i ahould wait until a Personnel ➢irector was hired. He said that the chief deputy � � and administrative assistant positions contained in Hane's recommendations are dis- � similar jabs if compared to Warren Conner or Nina Johnaton. Stafford suggested � looking at jobs individually instead of equating them to other jobs. He added that � the 1978 budget was passed prior to any wage scale adoption; the Soard set the wage increase at 9.3z. Over the last four years the Clerk's office has had an average � an�ival increase �;. 24%. Kit�slEy said that the salaries have probably been inadequate in the past, but that must be considered in light of the fact that only a 7% annual increase in the County budget is allowed by the state. ` Stafford continued that the biggest problem in Pitkin County is inflation, which � stems from wages. He felt the role of the government must be considered; they should encourage the private sector to go to equal opportunity programs, but if the govern- ment adopts an inflationary wage increase, the economy will not be improved. Stafford also added that Hane's report places too much emphasis on a college education. Kirwin pointed out that the percentage of budget increase in the 1978 budget is misleading, because in her department many employees went from part-time to full-time employment, and that change in status showed up as a salary increase. She added that the County also discriminates against people who have held their jobs for a long time; if the County is having difficulty filling a position, their solution is to - raise the salary, not the qualifications. That c�auses a morale problem for long-term employees who resent not receiving a salary increase. Kinsley agreed that that is an inequitable solution. Ornitz stated, in reply to Stafford's co�ents, that Hane's concern is with a case of sex discrimination--he is comparing an economic problem with a philosophical one. She quoted a Title 7 ruling, which concerns this situation. Ornitz said that Staf- x ford's concerns are heard, and the County needs to find the quickest method to solve both problems. Hane's responsibility as an elected official in this matter is to more than just the Board of Commissioners. Kinsley quoted Colorado statute 29-1-113, which Stuller feels indicates that Hane doesn't have the authority to make the raises. Ornitz said there have been many court cases concerning that statute which have gone � t " both ways. Kinsley said that if the Clertc's office employees get raises, that creates ' k a ripple effect in the rest of the County employees; he will not support granting � a the raises on June 1. Ornitz asked the Board what solution they see, and the time j frame for implementation. Stafford predicted that the study could be done within ; ;t $ a few weeks of the June lst deadline set by Hane. Kinsley suggested moving as quickly ; Commissioners Meeting May 8, 1978 - 21 { ; ��„,�,r� ...� -.'i*:�ti�c�� ^A � r� �f S.: - � . . . ����; . ! . _ , , , ,_ _ .. .; _,_.. _ � - . . __ �.. . .._:� -.-. '"_`__�...:�• . . ..� <': y:.; i� E} as poasible on the matter, but pointed out that Hane's proposal creates a potential i^� � for an inequitable situation. Ornitz asked if the study could be done by July 1. q ¢ Hane felt the timeframe would depand on how much of the study was done by Kenny, and � i how much by the consultant. Child pointed out that the consultant may recommend � many salary adjustments, and the County may not be able to meet all thase recommenda- � tions. Ornitz said she could counsel Itane ta wait until July lst for completion of � . = the study and implemeutacion of the reclassifications in her department. Hane asked • if the Commissioners would be co�i.tted to completing the study by July 1. Kinsley � said he would. Child felt the hiring procedure should be reviewed at the same time -..` as the salary issue is being studied. Kenny said she is fairly confident that the County is practicing correct hiring procedures. Kinsley moved that the Personnel Director be authorized to solicit bids from experts for the purpose of a reclassification study, subject to approval of the expenditure at the next meeting. He added that she proceed with this analysis with a goal of completion by July 1, and she maximize her role and minimize that of the consultant. Child seconded the motion. Hane asked i£ that meant the work would be completed by July 1, or if it would be presented to the Board by July 1. Kinsley sa3d that would be with a goal of a presentation date by July 1. The motion passed unanimously. Kinsley then moved that the Personnel Director proceed with establishment of an affirmative action policy for the County. Child seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Road 6 Kenny presented a complement change, salary increase, and reclassification for Bridge Dept. the Road and Bridge Department, all of which were reco�ended by the Personnel Review Salary Changes Board. She noted that none of these changes will take the department over their `s 1978 budget. Kinsley moved that the complement be changed ta include two light duty mechanics (instead of trainees), that the position of Clerk-typist be reclassified to Secretary- Dispatcher with a 5% salary increase, that a one-half step increase be allowed for Danny Nall, and that ihe position of Aeavy Duty Mechanic be reclassified from grade 13 to grade 15, since the position cannot be filled at the current salary level. - j Child-seconded and the motion passed unanimously. � � Classi- Kenny reported that the Personnel Review Board recommended that the positions of � fication Changes Clerk 1�pist 1 and Clerlc Typist 2 be changed to one grade classification of Clerk 4 � � ' Co�iasioners Meeting May 8, 1978 - 22 � a � � r :� 7 " �, f,_ _.��,�. .�.�,.y .;;,�:K '"� -- `- , ;; , ' - �i; .; � � �_ �x, �y< .�:..,„ ���. � y.n..�...it<; � ?x� �5::f r��a 9TMt � .:.'"'�r ^`s.F� 'n�-+r.✓a.�$'�r...�^N?c�.,v� ..'-.+;..,.z.L;�i.;k'r'�'".�s3E�.a-�..c.J�.•;L',.:,,.... ��-.a . . . � . . . typist, at grade 5, and that the positions of Secretary l and Secretary 2 be combined to Secretary at grade 7. They also approved changing the position of Clerk-typiet in the Finance Office to Purchase Order Clerk, at grade 6. Kinsley moved approval of the proposal. Child seconded and the motion passed unanimously. ,• There being no further business, the meeting was.adjourned. ,`.; • ,.,`• : ;", _ RespGCtfully:submitted, APPROVED: � ti ,. � ;ti. 'L . � '�\+ l. . - � � �. .� . . ', ������ r. � . . . � . .- i . : � iCa� �:'�,�'d�— p : � 2�Liz�5tewa'rt,�Deputy County Clerk Chairman Robert W. Child - l,� r Yi . ..� . . . . t ` �r * . . . . / �� � � a a�!.- � w : .- � �� � � � � ',. . . . . , . .. ^ f � �' 7 . � ' Mi hael Kine ey '' � �. j � �� Sosep a , . . , . . . . . . . . r ^:` _ _ . .. . . ' . . . .. . �. � . � . - ' � � � . . .... . . -.� . . . . . � . . . . . . . . ;.,;-. . .. ' � .. . � - � . � . . . . . . . . � . . . ._' . ':.{ . . . . . . . . .. . Commissionera Meeting May 8, 1978 - 23 � ..._.w _�.�u.w. 4 ._..... �., ,:':., .>.� �::�:,.1. _ _ . _ .,y,: 1978 BOARD OF CDUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING EXHIBITS Ma 8 Lone Pine General Submission A1 Refer to A ri124 Meetin Date E�ibit B Land Use Code Amendment A2 Board Of County Commissioners Resolution 78-31.Density PUD Slo es reduction far stee slo es Lyons Special Review B Letter Dated January 26, 1978 from John Denison,District Forester,to Karen Smith C 1 of 2 Letter Dated December 26, 1977 from Nicholas Lampiris,PHD, Consultin Geolo ist,to Howard Nearin ,AIA C 2 of 2 Letter Dated March 9, 1978 from Nicholas Lampiris,PhD, Consultin Geolo ist,to Lee Lyon D Memorandum Dated February 21, 1978 from Bob Nelson, Sanitarian,to Karen Smith E Letter Dated February 14, 1978 from David C. Shelton, Engineering Geolo ist,to Karen Smith P Memorandum Dated March 16, 1978 from Jeff Davis to Karen Smith G Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 78-4 H 1 of 2 Memorandum Dated May 5, 1978 from Karen Smith to Board Of Coun Commissioners H 2 of 2 Letter Dated March 23, 1978 from Jeff Davis to Lee L on I Letter dated Apri125, 1978 from Michael A Conviser to Board Of County Commissioners Hibberd Special Review J Memorandum Dated May 5, 1978 from Karen Smith to Board Of Coun Commissioners,Geor e Ochs and Sandra Stuller K Memorandum Dated March 16, 1978 from Jeff Davis to Karen Smith L Memorandum Dated March 13, 1978 from Bob Nelson, Sanitarian,to Karen Smith M Planning and ZoniY Commission Resolution No. 78-5 N Letter Dated March 16, 1978 from David C. Shelton, Engineering Geolo ist,to Karen Smith BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 13 1978 EXHIBITS TO MINUTES ExNaBrr � � ` 3/7/78 TO: PS,LI:in Couniy Commissi.oners . Pit}:iz� County P7.anning and Zoniny Commission Planning Office I'ROt2: Ric3c TerrelZ, Irtterwest, Inc. SUBJECT: 1?�VISSON'OP' 36 UNIT LONE PTNE Pt4H PRIC�S r �-. This memo revisc�� my t9arch 2 memo in which PP1H prices were . r !' ! projected. The prices and monthly car_rying charges are here- � in modified to reilect 1) the actuaZ, rather than estimated � � ,� land lease paym�nts, no�: that an agxeement with J.R. t4i1].iams � has heen reachcd, 2) points that increase the do�•:n ��ayment when conventional financing is used, 3] tax consequences of ownership re�)_ected the fact that one can write off interest and property taxes. Un:it prices a.re unchanged. • The improvement prices, down payments, points (l��) and j mortgage amounts, assuming conventional financing are: IASPROVEI.��NT 20 0 llq TOTAL •i•10RTGAG� UNIT PRTCE DOI+7IJ. POINTS DOWN APdOUNT 1 BR $ 25,22C, $5,045 $303 $5,348 $20,181 . , 2 BR 40,147 8,029 482 8,511 32,218 3 BR 59,34R 11,869 7I2 12,581 47,479 . The monthly carrying charges are as follows: . M012TGAGE LAND PROPET2T1' PITI , � U'JIT PAYP9�[JT LEAS� TkX INS(iP..�fNCF I•SONTHLY . 1 BR $173.38 $ 76.71. $31,40 $ 7.66 $289.15 �� 2 BR 275.94 89.35 43.49 11.39 420.17 i 3 5k 407.97_ 101.98 56.27 15�.OU 581.17 � Since the IRS pernits the deduction of interest and pro- ' perty taxes tvlien determining taxable income, t_he"effective" I menthly living cost or rental equivalent can Ue calcu1ated assuming a 25�- cor:ibinec� federal and state ta�. Fo�: the first year of ownershil�: • APPROYTPI:�TI: YP.OPERTY i��RITE 25�5 � UNIT PIrTI�Ll TT:TEP.�ST T�1:�C OI'F iAX SAVIIdGS . _ � 1 BR $ 163.92 $ 31.40 $195."i?_ $98.83 • � 2 BR 2G0.92 43.49 304.41 76.10 , ( , bQARD OF C0. COMAi'R'S PITKIN C0. � Publiq Hearing 7Sahibits � . Date � !i�—�'---�-9.Q �$�7$ � � sur�eot : .�iC11(%.L7.1L(! . . . . E.=h. No.: .••-_ ._.-••......._ . . , . . , R.`corded nt 3:16 P.M. Apr 14, I978 .Iu13e llane, Recorder Reception Number: ti�'�,Zti���i PITKIN COUNTY [30ARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION N0. 78- �, �flpx3t�� Y,'.L�2V�J Re: Code Amendment - Density Reduction for Steep Slopes WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing on March 27, 1478, to consider an amendment to Section 3,08 of the Land Use Code which would provide a form- ula for reducing gross density on a parcel when more than thirty (30) percent of the total land area is covered by slopes of greater than forty-five (45) percent, and WHEREAS, the 8oard has considered severa7 proposals providing for density reduction in steep slope areas, has held numerous meetings since September, 1977 including two public hearings, has listened to concerns of affected landowners and makes the fol7owing findings: 1. That the proposal offered on March 27, i978, addresses the extreme problem cases whereby density may be transfered fror� steeply sloping hillsides and clustered on narrow valley f]oors creatin9 an urbanized land use inconsistent with the intent of the rural agricu7tural, low density residential and resource districts. The proposal prevents these probiem situations without pena]izing the majority of landovmers. 2. The formula allows addressing each application on a case by case basis and avoids a blanket rezoning or overlay district approach. 3. It is appropriate to reduce density when a substantial portion of the land is covered by slopes in excess of 45% because these areas are much less suitabTe for development as they are typical]y associated with a wide range of geologic hazards including unstable slope, avalanche and rockfall areas, and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the Code amendment at its february 8, 1978 meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, BE I7 RESOLVED by the 8oard of County Commissioners that the Code amendment attached hereto and incorporated herein as Attachment A, be and hereby is approved as an amendment to Section 3.J8 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code. � :Effective the 27th day of March, 1978 � " ' Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners i�� ,�.,`w✓'C/.' � �/• /% '�.:: ,."- B,Y. �--�' ���s� c � ` ' �' � � Robert Child, Chairman .� 1'.� ; . r • p' . �TT�SC: .. . P�:. �. ��`�,�• ,�ounty'•. srk and R��ecorder ' / • . • 'roaxn oa co. coa��a�a�s APPROVED AS 70 FORM: PITKIN C0. - Publio Hearing Exhibits � ��� .. � Dato ._..�'ll�?�_.. � �i�!!�^c�� • 3a�idra Stul�Ser, �ounty Attorney sub�oct : �P.►'_►(A�._� n��� �IOP-2„� E 181T ~ , � � � �\ ~� „ ,. �ro�34E ¢���21fl AT7ACNMENT A � 3.08.08 Density Reduction for Steep STope Areas. ( A. There shall be a reduction in density from th�t which is al7owabie � in the zone district whenever more than thirty percent {30%) of the ; total land area of a project is encumbered by slopes of 45� and greater. The gross allowable density of the project shall be reduced by one percent (1�) for each one percent exceeding thirty of iand area having slopes of forty-five percent (45�) and greater. I B. The calculation of the formula in sub-section A is as foliows: Assuming a 3I00 acre parcel of land on which fifty percent of the total land area has slopes greater than 45�, the ross allowab]e zoned density is 3100 acres ; 30 (one unit per 3Q acresj = 1Q3 units a]lowed. The density re- duction is calculated as follows: 50% (percentage of land area havinq slopes of 45X or greater) - 30� {no density reduction for up to 30� coverage) = 20X (percent reduc- tion of gross aliowable density} x 103 units {gross allowable zoned density) = 20e6 or 21 unit reduction. 103 units - 21 units = 82 units {net density). C. An example of the appiication of the formula to a 3100 acre parcel in RS-30 where the gross zoned density is 103 units is given beiow, assuming different amounts of iand with s7opes greater than 45X. LAP1D AREA IN DENSITY UNITS NET EXCE55 OF 45� REOUCTION SUBTRACTED UNITS 0-30� 0� 0 103 45 15 15 � 88 50 20 21 82 60 30 31 72 75 45 46 57 85 55 57 46 95 65 67 36 D. In order to determine the amount of iand area having slopes of 45� and greater, the applicant shall use the county Slope Maps, adopted pursuant to Section 5.41.01 A.2 of this Code. The applicant may elect, however, to prepare at his own expense, more detailed slope maps for his site. Such slope maps shaTl include an accurate survey and topography prepared by a gualified engineer and the scale of said map shali be as foiiows: 1. For parcels less than 10 acres the map scale shall be at least 1 inch = 50 feet with a contour interval of IO feet. 2. For parcels consistittg of 10 to 200 acres the mapscale shall be at least 2 inch = 200 feet with a contour interval of ten feet, 3. For parcels greater than 200 acres, the map scale shall be at least 1 inch = 400 feet with a ten foot contour interval. E. Slope may be expressed either in percent (change in vertical elevation over a given horizontal distance) or degree of angle. Some sample equivalencies are as follows: Percent Slope Equal to Angle of 100.00 45° 00` 50.00 26° 34' 45.00 23° 00' 30.00 17° 00' 25.00 14° 24' 20.00 11° 19' 14.29 8° OS' 10.00 5� 43' � . EXHIBIT oR��QS�, COLC)RADO � c�., �-� �yy� . v ti �"`,� rn STATE petroleum Building • � ``" /` F OREST 1129 Colorado Avertue,Rooms 209&217 �"""��'�� Grand Junction,Colorado 6i501 FQREST SERUICE SE R V I CE Telephone 303!242-7518 GOlOR400 ffAtE UNN(RSltV January 26, 1978 bOAtiD OF C.O. �0:�:.i'i2'i Ms. Karen Smith PITKItd C0. Aspen City-County Planning Office Public iiearin� ��:nibit:, I30 So. Galena DuCo : _._.�:.0:.7 Aspen, Calorado 8161I ��� ������'�� � sub j oct : !�:��t_1.5...._�?.: 1('Pr✓ RE: Parcel 7A, Pfaroon Creek Ranch Dear Ms. SmiCh, A£ter raviewing the maps and other material your department sent, I visi.ted the proposed building site on 3unuary 25, 1978. The road leading to the siCe is an excellent example of the type of r�ads that shoul.d not be permitted in subc3ivided areas: grade in evicess of 1Q7o, curve radius of 60 ft. on one curve and only 48 ft. on another. The recommended standards �or subdivision roads may be found in Wildfire Hazards: Guidelines for Their Prevention in Subdivisions and Developments, of �oi�ich your de- partment has a copy, tdhile Pitkin County has somewhat more lenient standards for private roads than our reconmiended guidelines, roads such as this one can't possibly � be said to "be adequately designed for the provision of safety and access for.,.,. , emergency vehicles", � Perhaps an even more serious consideration is the fact that the subdivision has not provided for separate, multiple ingress-egress to the area. In ehe event o� wildfire, the access rasd is tao narrow and steep to allow firefightxng equipment in and re- � sidents out t��ith safety. . If qour departmenC allows more families to build in this type of subdivision, I can only hope you will require an adequale fire fighting water supply system. In this area perhaps the irrigation canal can be developed to provide adequate water supply, ; � i Sincerely, i �����.�'�^''.�"""' John Denison J District Forester � � � , � - • • � . , . . • .. • • . . � . . �,! • ' ' I�licf'��It�s Lt►r��piri:, PttD EXHIBIT CDNSUl1iH0 Gl UI OGi:T � /� ,� • ' 1'O IIOX 10935 `� ` h,�,P[tl,CUlOfthUU G'1G11 ' � � . (503)U25•GG2Q Of•F. B23•2120 F1CS. ' J � �%n- COMAf'R rS ThZN C0. � ' AecemUc�r 2G, 1977 ��° fr°�rihB Exhibits � • SubJec� � • ......y:g,��-J . Mr. livaard 1lcari.n�, AIA •. ~�� 5400 Wc:;t Glst 1'].ace ' E;:?1• No., y����Pil/ � Sl►awnee JSi.��9;on, }��nsas GG7.05 . . � � ' Re: Wat-er Srudy • � • T,e:e Lyon Proper�y Dear 1�;r. llearin�,: Yn respanse to your requcst for a watcr avaiJ.abi].ity reporC Lo a��PP�•ement' tl�e �coJ.oy,ic re��orC wi�ich T have prenared, ,I have Che , to2lowing observai-ion�: , " ' � 1. Lhe �roundwat�cr potential map of the A,pen � quadran�le t�y �ruce �rpant (1972) indicaees that Che properLy stradles two zones, tiiat of "alluviaZ � and glacial deposiCs," and that ot "�•ariabJ.e- ' . � permeabiZi.Ly bedroc,k." Aoth can contain suffi- • � c3�nt amounts o; r,otablc uater.. • • . • 2. ' fractu:e per�eabiliLy, a f:actor. which increases • �roundwatcr potenlial, uill be higl�est near the � covcred fault near the lok�er end of the Iot. 3. lower•oi� the lot the alluviaZ and/or glacial de- ' � � • gosiis will be tl;icker, thereby increasinb the ` ' . � chance for szp,nificant a:nounts of water. . G. tt�e Fos: rcport (1474, pg. B-XIV) indicates that . there are two wells in the area to depths of 120 feet and J.GS {eet producing II and 36 gallons per ' � . ' minute respectively. • ,. • ' . TJy cai�eulsions are that chances of recoverin� a suf:ficient � � amount of waCer will Ue enl�anced Uy drilling a well near the lower end of the lot, perhaps L-o a depth of 2U0 fceC. • • ' Sincerely, . . � - f�c��LL�`:i( !�'1•�/' •_ . ��� . Nictiolas T,:,ropiris ' . • �ConsultinF, Geolo�;j.st � ' . � . �� � . • • .. . • . __. _ , .s --------�--_.---.._.._._...._.. .--. . `,_—..___._._..-----._----._..._._�_.----.._._ _ � � -• ' .. • . i .- �- � � f 4� - �/.��� �"�- � � � Y�J��� �_�Lc�;r i;� � ' References (� � ��~��� f��l�c`y�- � . ' � • . � f � • 1. BryanC, 33ruce, 1972, Avallnche 1'oCential. Afap of the Aspen • j Quadranp,le, Pirki.n Count:y�Colorado: U.S: Geol, Survey. � • . '2. rox, �.M. , 1974, itoar.i� Fork at�d Cr�*stal Valley�, an ; • envir.onmental and en i�eri.n�; �,zeolog� sLudy: Co].o. Geol. ,� Survey, Iinvira�mcntal Geolo�y no. Fi. • � . ' i . � • � � . � . � . • � ' • . ' � -�� Nichaias Lampiris, PhD EXHIBIT co�,sutt�uc cwi.oaisr � 1 , PO P.Ox 10�95 � / . ' ASF'[N,COLONnI)O O1Gt 1 . � ' • � (303)925•G020 O{'F. 923•2126 RES. • ' � March 9, 1978 ri'JARD OF C0. C01dM'R'S ' ' PITKIN C0. � Public Hearing Fxhibits Lee Lyon ncta . _._..._.S���� . 800 Noreh Atlantic Avenue 5ub3ect : _�.`��p=-�� Kansas City, Missouri 54Z1G /1 � E°h. No.: __.1r./.- �--. Dear Mr. Lyon: I have recently investi�ated the problem of access to your property; • t as you know, the problem c�nters on the subdivision access road, especially as it leaves the main Maroon Creek Road, rather than the _ specific access to your lot. . � My observations are from a strictly geologic point of view, although the problem of ready access to fire-fighting equipment must be ' addressed. The only portion of the general access which appears to me to be somewhat constrictive is the area of entry from the Maroon ' Creek Road. It is a.rather sharp turn to the.right and should � definitely be widened to meet with County Engineer Jeff Davis' . approval. Widening will also e:cpedite normal vehicular traffic into ,� � and out of the subdivision. , This widenin� should be a fairly easy and inexpensive project because . the steep roadcut alread�• present should not have to be altered. It will present the nuisance, expecially in springtime, of loose cobbles (as large as eight inches in dianeter) rolling into ttie access road, and of an occasional minor sloughing of red colluvial material from the cut onto the ed�e of the road. These prob].ems can be mini- mized by constructin� a drainage ditcti along the inside of the road which will collect rocks and slough material, as �•�ell as to help keep , runoft- water off the access road. This ditch should be regularly main- • tained. Some positive direction should be given ti�e runoff water as . i.t rezches the riaroon Crec�l: Road by use of 'a culvert, for instance, , or by Iinking up 4�ith tiie Piaroon Creek Road drainage system. In addition, I recommend that your own access road to your lat be de- si�iie3 witli CuunCy specifications in mi.nd; I foresee no �eologic � probletn with any raute you might choose includin� the present one. It �,*ou].d be to your advan�a�e t� contact oeher lot o�aners for their . cooperaCion in implem4nting the preceding recouunendations. • . ' � ' • i . , . � • . _ __--.._...__. _ ._. _ � _.._..---�.......... � �. � / . .. .. __ r. ' ,' . . i 'Q` �- �- ,r'�' � . . , '�, r • Lcc� Lyon � . . ' M��-cli 9, 1978 ' � Pa�c T��n • Please feel Lrec to contact me if you requzre further assistance. Si.ncerely, , Nicholas Lampiris • . Consulting Geologist ' � cc: Karen Smith , Jeff Davis , � f ; • • . . . . . . • . . . -+ ::, � �ce of Env�r�nmental Health �'2''`F;i�+'- ` . '�.`a a'r�, '::��`'�s�,�'"' EXHIBtT �.:�..��� �� 60G E.MAIN S'f'REET ASPEN,COLORADO 81G11 � � P � � - I� T � � � MEMORANDUM ' i ��r:::n or co. cor.Rra�R�s I ' PITILIN C0. N n� i��i c Hearing Exhibits T0: Karen Smi th, Planni ng•Office =�-,.� : ---.---�=�-7�-- '1� C � Planning and Zoning Commission �ub3��t : ... -•- r1Q�/ O FROM: Bob Nelson, County Sanitarian , �:�tl. xo.: .__ ••--- U DFlTE: February 2] , 1978 -• N RE: Lee Lyons, Special and Quilding Perinit Review T Lot 7A, Maroon Creek Ranch � • Y � This office has completed a revie�v and survey of the referenced property. The water is to be supplied from a central system consisting of a surface intake on Maroon Creek, a small st e tank and pump on the creek, a � 6500 gal]on storage tank, prechlorination, media filtration and further ultraviolet light disinfection on existing taps. Two minor sanitary defects were noted during an inspection. The first was the lack of adequate screening and height sufficient to prevent the entrance of surface runoff on the water storage tank, a�d the second was a roof leak in the � pumphouse which presents the possibility of flooding above pipes. Water samples were taken and sent to the Colorado Department of Health Laboratory in Glenwood Springs for baci:eriological analysis. The water distribution system has not been evaluated and is deiegated to•the County Engineer for . review. � . The sewage disposal system proposed is a septic tank and absorption field. Inasmuch as there is a large meadow below the building site, there is more than sufficient level area for the construction of a seepage field. A soils test has yet to be completed due to the snow cover,- but the conclusions of Nicholas Lampiris, the consulting geologist for the applicant, indicate tiiat - "a ]each field for waste disposal purposes should be possible in the generally permeable soils developed on the morainal deposits." Our experience in the • area confirms this general conclusion. cc: Jeff Costley . • ' � . , , . � • . ' ��,q�,,�,� � EXHIBIT � ���y����a, ..�,,,,.�aQ��� � � ,,s,Q�r��!'a��.•' ot�.�� o ..,,����� . . ���,,_�r.�,i�i�'�o ' ' w � i �,,.; �� o . RiCHARD D. L/1MM *t���j?'��j� � JOHN W.ROLD GovenNOn , , t*y,.;,�N;,,c;�** Diroctor �848 • COLORADO GEOLOGICAL StJRVEY DEPARTMENT Or ldATURAL RESOURCES 715 STATE CGNTENlVlAL f3UILDING—1313 SIiERMAN STREET DENVEn,COLORADO B0203 PHONE(303)Fi394611 � February 14, 1978 ' . � • bOARD OI' C0. CO1�IM'R'S PITKIN C0. • , Public Hearing Exhibits � • Ms. Karen Smith Aato ..__�_��"?� • ' Aspen/Pitkin PZanning Ae�artment � ' " 130 South Galena Street Sub3oct ; ��Atu�`d��l Qi1/ ' Aspen, Colorado 81611 Er_t►. No.: ... ,_ . . ' Dear Ms. Smith: RE: LYONS-SP�CIAL AND • . - � BUILDING P�RNiIT Ak'PLICATION • • We have reviewed the above application for the Lyons building site, near.Maroon Creek. Based on Mr. Lampiris' analysis of the geologic constraints on the site and our knowledge of the area, we believe . that there is no geologic reason why this application should not be approved. The site is sufficiently large, and, apparentl}�, contains a very reasonable building site such thaC no severe conditions would prevent the planned construction. 'We agree with Mr. Lampiris that detailed information should be provided for the ' �, � leach field siting� and foundation design. Particular care should be taken in all construction to preven� the creation of unstable • slope conditions. . . Tf we can be. of further assi:stance, please coneact our office. • Sincerely, .. . . . � ,%��.v�c��C. �5�. � David C. Shelton � . Engineering Geologist DCS/vt , cc: Land Use Commission • � , • I • l � . I I { i • � ' � . f GEOLOGY i STORY OF THE PAST . . . KEY TO THE FUTURE 1 . , .. � . . . � ' .r.;:. �.� . '� ,� w:�n:'., ��:'�; `.l .: EXHIBIT ��;- � ..: :. :�./�.��#)��`: .`�'�`� GOG E.MAlIJ S71�kET ASPEN,COLORADO Q1G11 � � ' .. I � � NJ�MORANDUT4 T � + i� • � 1,J..7�') ,. . . , ._. ,�.� ,i � . �._�..;:• (:i":- iF'.,,�?.��. i?c�.:�•_ �1; .:..:�ii:it; T0: Karen S►�ith , N �,4�a : __.._�":8_:�� - . �� _..---.. . k'ROM: Jef� Davis � 5uv3ect :/��__�"�_._._.'�J-..� C R�; Tfe�i�•Lyons Subdiv�sion ��t'. No.; ---- -- _.._ . 0 , . U . DATE: March 16, 1978 � N �+ As per your requesi; T am outl�.ning the problems associated Y, wi.th the Lyon' s Subdivis ion: Acces�: Access from l�saxoon Creek is at be�t hazardous. Poor sight distances exist in both directions as tlie access ' � is located within a series o� curves. In addition, the turni.ng radius from b�aroon Creek is inadequate for emergency vehicles. � Drainage: Due to the �steep access grade, storm Evater run of� drains from �the access road ca,rxyin g debris onto A4aroon Creek Road. This storm water is undermini.ng h4aroon Creek � Road an d causing shoulder and asphalt damage. During spring � � xun of� the excess water �reezes resulting in icy conditions in curves which is hazardous. _ • Soil and Rocic Formatioii �nstability: There currently exists � a very lar�e exposed cut due to installation of i:he access road. Th� existing slope is greater than 1:1 �vhicli is too steep :for revcge�tation . In addition the cut continues to slough due to the size and steepness. Large rocks are continually rolling out onto the access road. Near the back of the proposed subdivision vertical rock walls � exist. These walls and towers are fractured and in my opin'ion a rock fall hazard exists in this area. Irrigal:ion Ditcl�: Traversing the proposed subdivi.sion is a .' large irrigai;ion ditch. I am not sure how many C.F.S. the ditch carries and due to the snow cover I could »ot make an � accepi:able estimate. Tlie ditcli is Op�21 and subject i;o �looding an d seepage. . ' Fire Dan�er: There are no fire prot�ction �acilii:i�s availablc in the proposed suUdivisi.on. � REC01�41hICNDATTONS; Access - Due �:o the poor access I would recommend that a1l:ernate . � access points be invesL-iga�ed. Trying i;o improve tiie existing . - ' , ' . ' � ' -2- ' N1�MORANDUM � . , access wi.].1 no�L improve the sight distances or existing grades. I would exami.ne access poinl;s aUove an.d below the exisi;ing access. A new access will also e].iminai:e the si:eep �rade of i:he existing access road. Such a s��:ep grade increases the chances o� sliding _ into the pai;h o� oncomi�ig vel�i.cles on D4aroon Creek Road. Drainage - Assumin� i;hat an 111;ernai:e access is not possible I �vill. � require considerable improvem�nts to i:he existing drainage patterns ' to effectively manage storm water run off.. I will require 1;he • following: 1. Cai;ch basin-To control run off from access road. � 2. Ditches-To cliannel si;orm run of�. 3. Culverts-To e�fectively dispose o� storm run o�r in�;o t�4aroon .Greek. Soils - The exisi:ing cut banlc must be stabilized. I ��ould pre�er i:hai: the cui; be staUilized with vegetation. This may b� impossible � due to the steepn�ss of the slope . If so, then other mechanical means of stabilization are to be employed. If the �subdivision is to be xec�gnized then careful consideration must � be given to the rocic. walls near the back of the subdivision. Irrigation Ditch - Since the ditch is not lined I �vould recommend a . care�ul inspection to insure that seepage from the ditch �vill not � produce excessive hydrostatic pressure on proposed building foundations. In addition� to �;he above an appro�ed drawing of the proposed suUdivision ' is iieeded that wi11 show all util.ity easements, right-of-way for xoads, etc. If you have que"stions please call. ,• , _ I I . � � i . . � � � , • _ ' ) ) EXHIBIT � . � • • � . ' PI7KIN COUNTY PLAP�NING AWD ZONIN6 COt�1MISSION . . . , ...: �:�� � �,-;-.��i co. .. RESOLUTION N0. 78 - - . -:o- ''°°"."� "`hi"iL� ,. ., . . , ? . � ' � ' �;;,_,��_�:t . lLL'd.lt-`>�• � . RE: LYOtdS - MAROON CREEK RANCH - r�:yl. t1o.�: -_..._... �° � SPECIAL REVIEW AND BUILDING • •� . ' � � PERMIT REVI.CW ' �WHERFAS, application has been made by Mr. Lee Lyons for special review and building permit review for a single family house on Lot 7A of the Maroon � Creek Ranch, and - � WHEREAS, Lot 7A is located within designated alluvial fan avalanche, ' and wildfire hazard areas which require revierr to ensure that the hazards either are not present or can he mitigated,�and . WHEREAS, buiiding permit review is required pursuant to Section 10.02.02a of the Pitkin County Land Use Code, and -. . " WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission•considered the matter at its March 22, 1978, meeting and heard var-ious recomnendations concerning conform- � ance w�ith applicable policies and regulations�of the Gode. . . ' N04J TIiEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PITKTN COUNTY PLANNTNG A(�D "LONI�IG COPIMISSIO(� that special review and buiiding permit review is recommended for , � approval to the Qoard of County Commissioners based upon a finding that the • avalanche hazard is not present at the site and subject to the following conditions necessary to ensure conformance with the applicable regulati�ns of the Code: � 1. That the a7luvial fan and soil creep concerns be resolved by re- quiring design of the`�septic`'system and foundation by .a soils " engineer and investigation of the effects on soil creep acce]eration • .of all ►•oad cuts and fills on the lot. . 2. Review of irrigation ditch by a soils engineer to deterniine if lining will be necessary to prevent seepage. � • - • 3. Installation of a catch basin and run-off ditches and culverts to � • . � control drainage, the design of which shal] be approved by the County Engineer. . � � 4. 7hat•improvements and reve9etation for the access ro�d be reviewed . ' and approved by the County Engineer prior to the public hearing. " 5. 'ff�at the plat be amended to show proper utility and road riqht of � way, .easements with approval and revTew by the County AtLorney and County Engineer prior to recording. AND QE IT FUEZ'fIiER RESOLVEO 1:hat this Conimission fi�rds tl�at tl�e access � road is substandard despii:e any improvements which may be made by this . . applicant and tf�at it does not represent a satisfactory, road. � ,; � � .) � ; * ����l y� � ,' Dated the 2��d'day of�Q�rctr; 197a U . , � , . • ' ' • Pitkin County Planning & Zoning Commission . • � � . . . By . . • eter Gu ., Ch i rman . . . ATTEST: � • . � . • . &��jt Cl erk � ¢,e,or . . ��o J� _ � � . . ` , • • . , I • EXHIBlT � ' MEMORANDUM � _ ��y T0: Soard of County Commissioners � �o. �or,�is�a�s George L. Ochs � ' -;,zr1 co. Sandy Stuller ii:.aring Exhibits FROM: Planning Office, Karen Smith ; __,.$,:�:7�_w RE: Lyons - Special and 8uilding Permit Review ""=°t ° •`�y�--�f�—;��t/ :..,�. No.: _.._.._. �' DATE: May 5, 1978 . ' This application seeks special review and building permit review approval for the construction of a single family house on Lot 7A of the Maroon Creek Ranch. ' Application was originally nade to the 8uilding Inspector for buildinq permit review but was rejected as per the Land Use Code requirement that building permit review applications be rejected if they are found to be located within , a designated hazard and resource area. Because the site is found in designated alluvial fan, avalanche, and wiidfire hazard areas, the matter requires special review for reso]ution of these concerns along with the usual concerns (eg. � water availability and septic tank suitability) which are part of building permit review. - While this review is limited to the suitability for development of Lot 7A, many of the problems that were uncovered have to do with the design of the Maroon Creek Ranch Subdivision as a r�hole. The property was divided just � • prior to the change in county subdivision reguiations requiring lots of �ess than 5 acres to receive subdivision approval. As you may recall, the County did challenge the subdivision but ttie action was dismissed with the county agreeing not to contest the subdivision, but with the applicant agreeing that each appiication for building permit on each lot would compiy with all zoning, subdivision, and building permit regulations in effect at time of application. Hence, the review of this particular lot and any subseqaent ones is appropriate. The County received cormnents from referral agencies as follows; 1. Geologic and Avalanche Hazard - The report of consulting geologist, Nick Lampiris, 4�as subnitted for review. . Dave Shelton of the Col- orado Geologica7 Survey agrees with the conclusion that a reasonable ' building site can be found on the property. He does caution that the following be further conditions of approval: a. Placement of Leach Fields should be looked at in greater de- tail both because the geologic hazards may cause faulty oper- ation and because faulty ooerations and seepage in turn may increase the instabili�y of the site. YJe have notified eob Nelsan of this concern so he may address it in his corr�nents. b. The foundation design must be accompiished by a soils engineer. c. All cuts and filts - whether related to road, driveway, and house construction must be considered for their potentiai to accelerate soil creep processes at the site. 2. Wildfire Hazard - 7he comnents of the Colorado State Forest Service are mainly re7ated to inadequacy of access roads to permit proper utilization by fire fighting equipment. Such deficiencies are a problem of the subdivision as a whole and it is questionable whether there is any remedy when we are considering only one lot. In the al- ternative an adequate fire fighting water supply must be developed. We have asked Bob NeTson to look at this problem. 3. County Sanitarian � � a er upp y - ater is to be supplied from a central system consist- ing of a surface intake on Maroon Creek, a smaii storaqe tank and pump on the creek, a 650Q gal]on storage tank, preclorination, media filtration and further uttraviolet light disinfection on existing � taps. Two minor sanitary defects were noted during an inspection: . . . a. l.ack of adequate screeriing and height suffic:ient to prevent the entrance ot s�rface runoff on the storage tank, b. Roof leak in the pumphouse � ° Memo to eocc Lyons Page 2 . 'Sewage Disposal - Final determination of septic suitability has not , been made due to snow cover, but he believes a suitable site is like- ly to be found and references the geologic opfnion of Nick Lamairis. . 4. Count E_n��in��eer - After citing numberous concerns the P&Z conditioned • �na approval on the Eng.ineer's ovinion after he had made an inspec- tion. ' . At their March 22 meeting the P&Z recom�ended approval subject to the following conditions: . 1. That the alluvial fan and soil creep concerns be resolved by requiring design of the septic system and foundation by a soiTs engineer and in- vestigation of the effects on soi7 creep acceleration of all road cuts and fills on the lot.. 2. Review of irrigation ditch by a soils engineer to determine if lining will be necessary to prevent seepage. 3. Installation of a catch basin and run-off ditches and culverts to control drainage, the design of which shall be approved by the County Engineer. ' , 4. That improvements and revegetation for the access road be reviewed and approved by the County Engineer prior ta the public hearing. 5. That the _plat 6e amended to show proper utility and road right of way, easements with approval and review by the County Attorney and • County Engineer prior to recording. The access road question has been further studied by the County Engineer and his conditions are attached. To date we 4ave not received a copy of the plat and do not know whether it is in a form acceptable to the County Engineer and Attorney as is provided in Condition �5. , . . � sr ' , !.�, �l ly .;_�};r`t , . `��;r�.� • . . EXHIBIT r; ��:.J � � � 506 E.MAIN STREET ASPEN,COLORA00 81611 � y P March 23, 1976• . , I . . , . T Mr. Lee Lyon ' ' ' ' � 800 North Atlantic Ave. � • I Kansas City, MO 64216 . ' � N Dear Mr. Lyon, � � Detailed beZow are the necessary access improvements C as required by the Planning and 2oning commi.ssion. These ' O improvements will also satisfy County requirements. � � U A. Drainage: A drainage ditch will be 'constructed N at the toe of the cut bank to carry stoxm run off � T from above and from Access Road. Ditch wi1Z be adequate in size ta retain all sloughage. . i ' i B. Catch Basin: A concrete catch basin with remove- able steel grate will be installed across Access Rbad �o prevent storm run-off and debris from entering Maroon Creek ltoad. C. Acaess Road: The Access Road will be crowned to direct storm run off to control. ditch. In ad- dition the bottom third will'be coated with 3/4" road base, 4'�6" in depth, to improve traction. The bottom access turning radius shall be improved to accommodate all emergency vehicles. � B. Signs: Two sictns indicatinq a hidden entrance • � . ahead are reguired. The County will install the . signs at no charqe. You may purchase such signs � from "Warning Lites" in Grand Junction, their phone number is 923-1800. Ask for Bob. - The subdivision home owners are at all times responsible • for mazntenance of Access Road, drainage faeilities, etc. . ' . If you have any questions concerning these improvments, p2ease•call my office at 925-6527: Best Reqards, . • ' , �r�G� ��r��•�f ' . M�. Jeff Davis • � � � County Engineer . JD:nm . . I • . • " . . " � . � � � + . � I � , �p s/�/ P.u. BOARD OF C0. cor�c�x�s nS. PITKIN C0. EXHIBIT Publio Heering Exhibits ApriI25, 1978 nate : ._..�.=.�.:-�-- � Pitkin County Commissioners sub3eot s -.� . . Pitkin County Courthouse Eah. No.t �_�� Aspen, Colorado RE: Maroon Creek Ranch- Lee Lyon Gentlemen: It has come to my attention that you will be considering an application by Mr. and Mrs. Lee Lyon to build a house in t:ie Maroon Creek Ranch subdivision. I will be out of town on May 8th when you are scheduled to review this matter so please accept this letter in place of my in person comments. My wife arid I built our home on site #6 in Maroon Creek Ranch in the summer of 1972. In the summer of 1973 Mr. Paul Monash attempted to get a building permit on site #2 but was turned down because of legal problems regarding the subdivison process and Senate Bill #35. Since that time the ' legal problems have been resolved and seven out of eight sites are now owned by people other than the developer, Ca.rl Curtis. During the period November 1972 through today my family has lived on this property and can assure you that as a subdivison, Maroon Creek Ranch is a superb place. We know that everything works - the roads, the water system, the gas and electricity, etc. Each home site is on 5 acres and there is a S acre common meadow. The home sites were picked so that the houses are in the trees and are very private. The protective covenents are very strictinsuring that this area when fully built out (8 homes) will be a subdivison Pitkin County can be proud of. This land was subdivided in 1971 by a developer who now fortunately lives in another State. The people who presently own these sites and wish to eventually build on them are solid people who have been involved wi�h this area for many years. It is my request that you allow building permits to be issued. If you have any questions to ask me please feel free to call me at Aspen � Savings, 925-1474, and I will get back to you. Ver truly ours� , ,1 / . �-,,�_- Michael A. Conviser CONVISER ; �` EXHIBIT � S � ; M E M O R A N D U M TO: Board of County Commissioners � ' George Ochs, County Manager ;t,,•,�,� or c�. corSMB�s Sandra M. Stuller, County Attorney PtTxZN C0. Pi.blic Hearing Exhibits FROM: Planning Office, Karen Smith ,�,yo : Y�-• '� RE: Lucy Hibberd - Special Review sub�ect : .�hhb�rn.( �n ,pp�v DATE: May 5, 1978 E:�ti, No.: _yZ._ � � On January 31, the Board ot Adjustment granted a variance from the 100 foot setback requirement on the Hibberd Cora Mae One and Two Mining Claims in Castle Creek. Ms. Hibberd has, � . therefore, requested that we again process' her application for an access road and homesite. This time she has requested , approval of two homesites, the location of which makes no difference to her. The Board of Adjustment stipulated that � because of geologic hazards, the 100 foot setback could be � reduced 50 feet. The application requests special review ) ' and building permit review approval. In the earlier appli- I cation we addressed only special review related to the , geologic hazard. Matters such as water availability and I septic tank suitability were not addressed because there I was no vehicular access to the site without the access road. This time we have referred the matter to several referral agencies including a referral back to the Colorado Geological ' Survey. We asked the latter to comment �as to the nature of detailed topographical and engineering studies which would � be required in order to locate two houses on Iower portions � of this site. Letters from Dave Shelton of the Colorado � Geological Survey; Jeff Davis, the County Engineer; and from Bob Nelson, County Environmental Health Officer; are attached • for your review. Each of them suggest that a �onsiderable �' amount of additional, technical and engineering investigation would have to be accomplished before it wouZd be certain that homesites could be located on the property and before it could be determined where such sites might be appropziate. After hearing this additional infortaation, the PZanning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of the building permit and special review applications for two homesites and an access road. Resolution 78-5, dated April 5, Z978 makes the following findings with respect to that denial: 1. The Commission reaffirms th� findings made by the Board oP County Commissioners in Resolution 77-166 with respect to location of the application, � reasons for review, history of consideration before the Planning and Zoning Commission and Board of County Commissioners, existence of hazard at the site, evaluation of feasibility and desir- j ability of access routes and £easibility and I desirability of construction of a homesite. ( l 2. Notwithstanding the setback vairance granted by the � Bdard of Adjustment, the Commission finds that the i site is unsuitable for development. Having been i patented as two mining claims rather than parceled for residential development, the topography and ; geologic conditions at the site will require � I ' I 1 �,;. . Jr\ Memorandum Page Two � • • May 5, 1976 extraordinary technological studies, including . detailed topographic mapping, test pit excavation, 8rilling, detaa.led air photo interpretation and hydrologic studies. Without such studies there is • • no evidence that suitable sites could be found beyond the 50 £oot setback.. Further geologic investigations into foundation conditions, ' drainage, and active geomorphic properties would be . prerequisite to any construction. The topographic and geologic constraints are so serious and the degree of technological solutions so great as to render construction of the road and residential development unreasonable at this location. 3. Evaluation of septic tank suitability will require a similar high degree of technological analysis into topography and soils because of the con- straints posed by steep slope a�d unstable soils conditions. ' 4. Without expert evaluation of groundwater and geologic resoarces data there is no evidence of water supply of sufficient quality and quantity to serve two homesites. Alternatively, water supply may • be determined by well digging which would however, require construction of road access to the site which is not felt to be appropriate by the Commis- sion unless the site is determined for other reasons to be suitable for development. • . 5. Because of 'the technical and engineering difficulties of develogment at this site, any soZution would constitute a severe visual impact on the land- scape, the site would be difficult to protect from all manner of natura2 catastrophies including avalanche, wild fire, mud slide and others and. the site would be difficult to service with various services anc3 faciZities. • The Planning Office continues to recommend against approval. , The further evidence we have received merely supports our original belief that the site is not suitable for residential development. Having been patented as a mining claim, it was not platted with any £orethought or planning for accommodation . of residential development. lmk encs. � � .i:• .._.�..Y . � � . . , �.. . �.' - ,- � . . . _ . '_ G.;�. --....-' ;,' , . • . � � • ' . � .. � ,`•�; ��-L•�� -Y ' .�� . ' �'� �-J � �� . � _ �\ ,V�� /���,� . ' � . . ' . . � �. �:,,._._ �� � �./ � . . ._.. !� �� . o � . o •.t • ' �---� •:. • . �•,�� '. _ .__ 2 . � . '� • . ��- . , , � ~�; ��j�� � • "'.. . '. . . . �� �, .. - • Q,�n�'� � � _� ' , . � ' � / ' � " + � i • • ,, ` r' �� . �� �' � �. \ • % ' . �.. , /S� y � - : • � i • \. � ' �\ � � . �S"� `�J . t' ��, � .� _ _ . . .\��� '� ,�i � . f _����.�' i � ��: � • . t • `� t t� ��i�, ° • ' -- ^+`n 0 ' N � y z l ----� __._ � - ��-.�: . _ � -� � ; ':' • . -- . .I`` ' �r 3 b `�l . ry ��'� y . . , • ,� � . c�' ' L � . � . \ � `1^ . • • �` . � � , � ''\ . . . .... ._... � � _ .� ."�--_... .' . - _���. y '�• � � �_ . � „ : � / � µ b 1 , �r . ; . � . . . ,';��t�:, ;-.�� 1�. . 's � _ =' ;: . �-. o . �.. _ �y � ' \ � .� ' � —``, - : _� . : � `, ; _ . : . . . � \ '` �� . �:� .�:` . : , .�; � ��. .� -- .. __ . . - � . . � �5 . � , . � �..\ } . . . . . • N - `� ., . , � } j n ��. , _.._..:....._:._._ ... . --..:.._..._. .' � : �. � � `� . . . . � :`. • ;j C d� n �°+ �� � . . . . .� �; � r,- �. .� . �, �� � .� �. �` . '� . . . . . c � � . � . . � ; . H ,11 n iG r � .,� �`� � � ' . S1 t� , x� � � � ' � � . � . . � . [ l� n t• � .- . . . . � . . . .- . . . . "s, r, ,;f<1 `� � : c . . . � �: . � a ' f1 `. n' `r • � . . , . � . � , �� �¢ C �; t` ! �7 �' „ ' ' t'' b: -.� � ' � !: %' . . ' �, �� • . ' . . . .. ' , ' , ; r y s... . . , . �.m . � � �. � _ . , : � � � � _ ;? � . . . ,, � - . . . � � � �. . . r'�. . . t,.,���:'�;,� . . ��r 506 E.I�iAIN STREET ASP6N,COLOR/',DO 8 EXHIBIT • � , . . � r ' ' t4EMORANDUM • • . j ' . ' . � � j��nRn oF c0. coMM'R's I � T0: Karen Smith pjTxrx co. • N , F�ublic Hearing Fxhibits • FROM: Jeff Davis • >ato , _ ,,Y.__5��� C RE: Lucy Nibberd Access Sub�ect. : �`^ O Ea�Yi. No.: _.���A'/,1� � /�Qi1� DATE: March 16, ?978 �����'L�` � � N Detailed beloty are my cor:iments concerning the possibie access points. T . , � Road acc�ss in general fron Cast]e Creek Road providing access to the mining.claim is generally poor. • . There are only two possible acce'ss points. The first proposed access lies directly belot•r the mining claim. Access at this point is not possible due to poar sight distance, a large bank cut �aould be required and several switch backs would be necessary to keep the road grade • acceptable limits. In doing so considerable erivironmental damage arill be done. For these reasons I will not coi�sider this access �oint. The second access is at a point tahere a large bank cut t��ould noti be " necessary. Ho�•�ever, a longer access road �aould be required. 4�lnile . this road rrould have u ]ess steEp grade, it would have i;o c►•oss a � debris-fau and avalanche area. If the road is construc�ted only 'temo- orarily, assurances of reveyetation �•ii11 be required by this office. If the road becomes pernranent I r�ill require considerable draineae • structures i:o effectively manage storm water run off. In addition, since sight distance is mininal, signs tvill be required to �•�arn Castle Creek traffic of access. Signs and drainagr sL-ructures Nrill be main- � tained by property owner. . • • ' . . . ._. __._...--- i . . � - . � - i . . ' . . � . . , . . ; , . . ' i . � � i � ' • . • . EXHIBIT „,� . . � � C,�GA�'• �,I.0 5y,:r: 506 E.MAIN STREET ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 P ;,;,r,� or co. co�ut�a�s I . PITKIN C0. . • � '':�bl;c HeBrinp Exhibits T MEMORANDUM • ;o .._.,� '�� •%S� • � P'r• S*���1/ I �uv3o�c : f.�.�1t2 � N . . . l T0: Karen Smith, Planning Off9ce '' � % i � ,:� Q FROM: Bob Nelson, County Sanitarian �u� V SUBJECT: Lucy Hibberd--Special Review Application N DATE: March 13, 1978 T � Y This writer has completed a preliminary review of the sewage disposal and water supply requirements for the referenced mining claims. Terrain in the immediate area is consistently steep and two lots in the vicinity required engineer designed individual sewage disposal systems prior to permit approval to mitigate slopes over 30%. We would ' , suspect the same requirements to be applicable on these lots, however, the consulting geologist has indicated the possibility of available seepage area toward the lower portion of the lots. The geologist also indicated a probabi]ity of suitable, permeable soils. If slopes over the area of the seepage bed are less than 15% a conventional individual sewage disposal could be installed. Slopes from 15Y to 30% could • accomodate a septic tank and, narrow trenches on contour with adequate results. We would not recommend any absorption system on slopes over 30X even though engineering might enable approval under existing County regulations. The cost is greatly increased, as is the possibility of failure. We do not have enough information to cortenent on the availability of water. We would assume a well is proposed, however, there are few ' records of wells in the area. The claims are south of the study region � detailed in the groundwater and geologic resources maps of the Colorado Geological Survey. The Wright Water•Engineer Groundwater Resource Maps � indicate the claims are just outside a major recharge area. Most homes are supplied from the numerous springs or surface supplies in the ;� immediate area. We understand that there are no springs on the property. � We can only recommend that consultants furnish further information as to probable availability and quantity. � � �. ! •�- , I . • � . . � . ,. ` , •. . EXHIBIT ^~ • � � � � . � � � PITKIN COUNTY • � • . PLANNING AtdD 20NING COMMISSION . • . � ..:�r.;;r� .:.; c ; ,'n:.::;•�;�:, • RESO�.UTION P�O. 78 - �� ��•�.:;I� co. • . • . ' �',��,,.� . �: :,,•s„�; i�:.i,�v�c� ' ,� !f . Re: Hibberd - Castle Creek � -�•--��5-'�•-•-�-�•--- Special Review :u�s.ot : �f..h.�b.G.rd_.._.�. �� � WHEREAS. the Pianning and Zoning Commission at their March 22, 1978 meeting considered the amended special reviev� and building permit review • application of Lucy Hibberd for two homesites on and an access road to . � the Cora fday and Gora May 2 mining claims on Castle Creek Road, and • • - 6JNEREAS, the Board of County' Co�runissioners denied an earlier appli- � ' cation for the same site for one homesite and an access road setting forth its reasons in Resolution 77-166, dated December 27, 1977, and . - WHEREAS, the Commi•ssion has�heard new evidence (from the Colorado . � Geological Survey, the County Engineer, County Sanitarian, and other's) since that time, including that tBe Pitkin County;Board of Adjustment, ' on January 31, 197t3, granted a variance t� PSs. Hibberd from the 100 foot "front property ]ine setback, permitting construction no closer than 50 ' feet from the front property line setback�, and , .. MtHEREAS, the� Corrmission wishes. to make of record its findings and • determinations in�its reconsideration of this matter which are as fo77ows: 1: The Commission reaffirms the findings made by t6e Board of County Commissioners in Reso]ution 77-166 with respect to location of the application, reasons for revie�v, history of considerati�on before the Planning and Zoning Commission and Board of County Commissioners, existence of hazard at the site, evaluation of feasibility and desirability of access routes and feasibility � � . and desirability of construction of a homesite. 2. Notwithstanding the setback variance granted by the Board of Ad- � justment, the Commission finds that the site is unsuitable for development. Having been patented as two mining claims rather • . than parceled for residential development, the topography and _ geologic conditions at the site wili require extraordinary tech- � • nologica] studies, including detailed topographic mapping, test pit excavation, drilling, detailed air photo inter pretation and hydrologic studies. Without such studies there is no evidence that suitable sites could be found beyond the 50 foot setback. . Further geologic investigations into foundation conditions, • drainage, and active geomorphic properties wouZd be prerequisite i to any•construction. The topograpf�ic and geo7ogic constraints _ ' are so serious and the degree of technological solutions so great � as to render construction of tf�e road and�residential development + unreasonabl'e at this location. . 3. Evaluation of septic tank suitability wi11 req�ire a similar iiigh • degree of tecl�nologica] analysis into topography and.snils because • � of the constraints posed by steep slope. and ur�stable soils condi- tions. � A: Irlithout expert evaluation of groundwater and geologic resources ! , data there is no evide�nce of water supply of sr�fficient qu�lity � i � � / . • and quantity to serve two homesites. AlternativeTy, water supply /' ' may be determined by well digging which would however, require f/ construction of road access to the site which is not felt to be , appropriate by the Comnission unTess the site is determined �or� ' other reasons to be suitable for development. � �' . . . � � 5. Because of the technicai and engineering difficulties of develop- . ment at this site, any solution would c�nstitute a severe visual . impact on the landscape, the-site, would be difficult to protect '. from all manner of natural catastr�phies including 'avalanche,wild fire, mud slide and others and the site would be difficult to service with� various services and facilities. ' NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by tF►e Pitkin County Planning and Zoning ' ' Commission that it does recortmend to the Board of County Commissioners that _ the special review and building permit review app7ication for two homesites on and an access road to the Cora May and Cora May Z mining cTaims be denied. � ' �,� . � . .. � Dated the 2r.''nd-day of , 1978. _ . . Pitkin County • . . . ' Planning and Zoning Commission � . , Sy. . . . � - eter Guy, Cf ai man AT7EST: . � . Cou •y Clerk & Recorder � ' . � • � � � . • , � EXHIBIT ' � ���Q����'��+8��� � i 11.V�, �' �'�`"`'�"�°�yi � � � � � oF'�o O Y � ���-'�-` 1� i �^\f=J�'p . F%=. �a �tIGHARD D.LAMM *���i✓�* JOHDireccaOLD GOVERNOR 'k� Tl�yr��� � �aTe ; � COLORADO GEOLOG{CALSURVEY • i OEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES • ! ]i6 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILOING—T313 Sli@RMAN STREET � OENVER,COLORAD080203 PHONEl303)839-2611 , � � March 16, 1978 ; ' r,onr,n or co. co�.Ut�a�s , � PITKIN C0. ;� PuUlic Hearing Exhibits • � Ms. Karen Smith �'�°o . _._.,�� 'R 7,� I � i Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office subjoct : .�1h�>�. �Qjl/ � 130 South Galena Street Erh. No.: ____��_ Aspen, CO 8I6II Dear Ms. Smith: RE: CORA MAY NOS. 1 AND 2 ' ) In response to your letter of March 2, 1978 and the additional information ; i which you sent to us we offer the followi�g comments. :i You have asked me to locate the two possible building site that I � i mentioned in my letter of October 13, 1977 and to indicate whether or ; � not they are behind a fifty foot setback. Unfortunately, I am not able to do this for several reasons: We still have no detailed topographic • � map on which to locate specific building siCes. When we were in the ' � field last €aIl in the rain, we were abl.e to genera7.ly 2ocate the � ' property lines of the two mining claims in question. We did not have a tape measure or a topographic map on which to base any specific sitings, ij As I have stated in past letters, however, it did appear that there were . � � buildable sites located toward the front of the mining claims. I could '' i not tell you whether or not• there are two reasonable building sites given t � a 50' setback requirement, althovgh there may well be. These building ; ' sites, however, should not be approved without certain geologic investi— ; I gations being prepared, �s stated in my letter of October 1�•attd �f��c. � investigations needed would include foundation conditions, slope stability conditions, drainage, and active geomorphic processes. In order to prepare � these studies I believe that an investigator would need a relatively " ' detailed topographic map which includes not only the proposed building site, but sufficient area surrounding them,particularly to the uphill side, to indicate what geomorphic processes could' affect those building sites. These studies might involve test pft excavation, drilling, detailed air photo • interpretation and hydrologic studies. Additionally, as mentioned in my letter of October 13, the problem of access to the sites is difficult. My comments concerning the alternative road of a long traverse from the north across the large debris fan and GEQLOGY . ' STORY OF THE PAST.. .KEY TO THE FUTURE � , . ' � ' ' ' ' ! ' . . I . . . . , • ' � . • i ' ' i . i Pis. Karen SmiCti • ' Ptarch 16, 1978 , ' i � Page 2 avalanche run out zone are still valid. T}1e access roac�, coming off the highway directly below the site and making several switch backs,would need a geotechnical evaluation to assure that the road would provide safe access. In conclusion, this pair of mining claims was not patented for the • purpose of building single family dwellings. The topography and geologic conditions create serious constxaints for both access and structures. We do not,believe that these conditions are so severe as to make this land use�unfeasible, howevez, we do believe that prior to final approval of such a land use, the conditions be fully uriderstood. Proposals for mitigation and an understanding of the maintenance problems should be presented to the county for khe decision making process. If we can be o£ any further assistance at this time, please contact our office. Sincerely, � 6�Q���'�. S/� David C. 5helton � Engineering Geologist DCS/vt .. cc: Land Use Commission � � • �, . ' : . . �� � : . . • j . .: . - . . . - i . . � � ' � � . ' . � M . . . ; . . . . � . ; . , � � . - . . � . ; �rl�� f��.��1� �r111��� � BOX E "��ARD OF C0. COMM'R�S PZTKIN C0. Aspen, Colorado �`�hli� Hearing �ib��g i tie . . _ :T•8 • 7 � _ , ..�,bJa�t . _�t,t,�C Am„�• /��D j PROOF OF PUBLICA7iON $TATE OF GOLOFtADO ) � �. Copy of Notice County of Pltk7n ) I ..ldi 1118IIi A. ,Dunaway do soiemnly swear that � ..................... ...._... .... I am khe ....�41.b�.�.���x:.........._............... o£ TFIE ASPEN TIbLES; . khat the same 1s ,a weekly newspa.per pHnted, in whate or tn part, i and publlshed in•Lhe Gounty of Pitkin, $tate of Colora.do, and has ; a general circulatton therein; that eaid newspaper has been Qub- lished continuously and ufnterrupfedly in said County of Pitkin, • for a period of more hhan fifty-two coasecutive weeks next prlor to the iir�t publicatton of the annexed legai notice or advertise- ; ment; fihat said newspaper has �been admitted to the United $ta.tes , mails a9 sceond-class matter under khe Provisions of the Act of i March 3, 1879, or any amendmeats thereof, and that eatd newe- paper !s a weekly newspaper dufy qual[fted for publ[shing legal notices and advertisements wlth the meaning of the ]aws of the Sta.te of Colora.do. c " � y , � '."..,k , ,�y: _ That the annexed legafl: notice or advertisement wae publiehed � " ' notice�,,•� � in •the regular and entire fasue of every number of said weekly ".. . ' ,._«,�, , � .,,, Dens,ty�feduN! . -�:t1 'W7�1 xr}; n��' .:.:'.% j newspapers for the period of..1..•••••....... consecuttve insertions;a,nd j ` jkY � that the flrst publica.ttoa of said aotice was it► the lssue of satd ':�i� '����at*��-" r 1�ncig will be�he&1 be}'nre:the Hanrd of° rSarch 0 ,a�c,, . �, . �8; : newspaper dated ................•••-.3............_...._. A. D., 19 78. e.na tt�at is�e,c� .� .. M ��Ss d the last,pubItca.tlon of said notice was in.the issue oP said news- -to " c4de.�` 'ent tbat woiild; '.renew�.. ' - ucW6n:-:fora�ule ia' paper dated � '''lo menc : licati6ne.� • .. A. D.. 18.._...._ ' ► p � _, ""....................."""'•""..... r . . ,:P� tuQoeed W��m e he; i �s fetent wytL"e formuln" -edo�ekBo�d at da 61eich 22tIr; ���v ��� �r��� ,` PYof tfie pmawssj��qqy be•e�c;; '-�il/.^F.�/5'_._'�..,'...v.n•-�........................_... t amn e PlapmngO�ce;Crty Hell,� � ;`t92G2�10�s:c 227)durmg riormal�ueineee;� , `hours. . ; Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and doc s Robert Child,Chalrman� � �' Boaed of County Ccmm�ee�erp; t �Publ ta the A,epen Timn.March 90.� • the County oP PS fn, 3tate ot Colorado, thia ... . ............. day of �1978 s , � t- ' •��(,E��--k�•••F•-....... A. D.. 19.7� 3... _... -�--- ��'-='` � � .. _... . .._...... ..... .. �...,.. � . _... .... . .. .. Notary Public � My commissian explres �„�,�610R••�%�FFBS•�IOY. 3, 1980 � - �� __..__ __ _ _ -__.__ _ __.... . _ � i r r �� r r � r�a 1'11� 1����1� 1'111]�� � BOX E j'�ni�� OI' C0. GOLG,i'R'ci PZTKIN C0. Aspen, Colorado Public Hearing Exhibits na t o _.....,1:$..:�.G�..... Sub3 oct . �'rJ-�.-� ' �` �1/ �� � 1 PROOF OF PUBLICA710N >; STATE OF COTAR.ADO ) ; � �. Copy of Notice ; Couaty of Pitkirt ) i I, .Wi 11 iam.H.. Dunawa�._. ao solemnly ewear utst i am tt�e _.._.Publ i s he r........................ or z� as�rr z�s; ' that the same is a weekly newspa.per printed, in whaie or in part, and published in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, and has a general circulatfon therein; that satd newspaper has beea gub- lished continuously and uinterruptedly in said County nf Pitkin, � `is � L kl, ;r- -^ '.i for a period oi more �han fifty-two cansecuttve weeks next prtor � Y , t ���� �0�� , + r; to the tirst pubtication of the annexed legal noiice or advertise- � w{, c ,;R� ,;�,�� �I� �. ment; that satd news pa p er hes �been admitted to th e U ni t e d 3 t a t e s � - - #�'��' mails as sceond-ciass matter utider Rhe Provfsions o! the Act of � , �y �GNd1TCS� +����' �y' '�. 4[i� k.Siy i��tl:vr [ _ .ir{!�`��_: March 3, 1849, or any amendments thereof, and that ea3d ne�w�- ! �:LY�.M�raanCn�E'Rmeb � .:s. L 7.1M1. �:.:'h I...� paper ts a weekly newspaper duly qualified for publtahing Iegal !•� N�OTICEIB�R6BYYi1V$Nfl�a�uti.; notices and advertisements with the meaning of the lawa of the iif ' '" wflt 6�6�W 6efoer tbe Hwied d 8tate of Colorado. �g������m lfooiay.�l[�y � - pp Camb�Ca�iw�°�r��,: That the annexed legai!' notfce or advertisement wa.s published ` ��i•� s ad puti��pv ; !� in .the regular and entire issue of every number of satd weekly °°�t�°�"��m�°�+�� jT�: �� appitat�aireqo�p�infwio�`{0!°�'6dtW. . ; �•rm�l�6mib�hous fiec tbi'f[iu�ooh�Onek.; newspapers for the pertod of.1......._..._..consecutive lnserttons;a2ed 3 ���'!t'�w���w<: araLnc6e wd h�wda:A',00p�of.. that the first publlca.tion of said aotice was in the issue ot satd � �::�pp�,p,�.����,�t���; i� �,mq'"bs s�iitlmtnad�in Hw'Pl�nnip�'OiHcs,"- � � ..Ccty�l[(9�-2020a=4Y'L7)dnrio�riormsi'; ; newspaper dated -••.MA;X'.�Y1....�0.............. A. D., �9 7�.. and that y�buunwhouis:: - the ]ast�publicatioa of said notice was in the issue of said news- � " " . s.�4s �4 .. ?;tis",�-". ; F •:' ���R°b°St Q►iLi,Ch�iemaa : � paper dated ........................ A. D.. 19........ Publiehed m tlie A�7Tno�i��30 ' ' .................... ��19T8-; s ' i ,/(j' / � ,a `. >^ -:.= ; , � . •. ,�J 1 / � � ................................�/. "...._.................. � � Subacribed and sworn to before me, a notary publlc fn an daa� i the County of Pitkln, State ot Colorado, thfs �.......... day oi j � { ... ............ A.,D.� 19�. , .., � ��� i 1 .,Z1.r.�;�l.l�..... .. ... _ .. .. . . . . : Notary RtbliC ! , , a�r comm��an expuc, �qy�o�t�i.s��-��it�••�lov. 3, 1980 � , i i � �. � � I : �1'11� i����1� �1'111��� � ; BOX E 1•:)%�:1) 0� C0. COI,i1;i'R'S � PITKIId C0. � Aspen, Colorado Public Henring ExhibiLs � , ri-.., • �..!_.:O:�� : ,.��,.e . ----- •- ........ suv�e�t : 1.�1.�2�G�.'G�....�jQ. 1�PiV i PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COTARADO ) � � � Copy of Notice � County of Pitkin ) ' � � � i� �]ill,i�m...�.....,�unaway......, ao solemnly awear lhat � I am the _.._..PUb11Sri@T'......_............... of THE ASP�N TiMNE5c ; that the same is a weekly newspaper printed, tn whale or in part. � and published in the County oP Pitkin, Sta.te of Colorado, and has a general efrculatton therein; that satd newspaper has been Qul�- � Iished ContinUOUSIy and uinterruptedly in sald COtuity Of Pitkin, ;,� .�.�,� .-� r. ~� � t� L • ' for a perlod oi more bhan fifty-two consecutive weeks next priot �',�,��=r.+ M . to the tirst publica.t[on of the annexed legal notice or advertise- {s'�'�'�publicr;�� ment; that sald newspaper has�been admitted to the Unit�ed States 'k� + �« ` ' :� � , �.�r,�+���v'��:PUBt1C NOTICE ` mails as sceond-class matter under �the Provtsions of the Act of , �,�t��: ` t:, x: -- .; March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, and that sald neare- �,���:�,�_:���:_� paper Es a weekly newspaper duly qua.lified for publishing legal �:iiwr"> `:`.r '• � notices and advertisements wlth �the meaning of the lawe of the k;»��ffi�BBYaNBNtbdapnb ; i • will b�1i�id bdaes__thRBo�ud ot ,, Sta.te of Colorado. �� oa.l�4erp�1W { , y�l�i�l il�OPlLisfh�Camroi�i�CS' : Tktat the annexed legail' notice or advertisement wa9 publlehed �=Ab�Pk�ini CoimtT Cauthatl�to.qon- . �;+iir 4'�Pw�l nlriw.�ad 6ui1��it : in .the regulax and entire fasue oE every number of sa[d week2y ?,iNriw� afL�ryAiEb�e�f�rpnP . �!ia�Cn�k V�thr.Yb�pyti� - ; r��eM�as tp�iMb P�ra�i�im to:boild�tl►o { newspapers for the period of 1.•••••.._........_ consecuttve insertiona: aad :fiM1��e HM Caer,l4r No�;�ed��jdo�2 ; � 4hat the first publicakton of said notice was in the issue of eaid r ��:.���°�0°� : ; ��FawtBwvle�prqhrt tothe ; ayi...w da:.�as��,.1::= � � newspaper dated ._...MaY`��1....�.�........__.. A. A., 19 .7�. and that "' k�miV=6� adimioia ie tb� �� �ies,C' Htll(�Y6�aE �! the ]ast�publica.tion of satd notice was in the iseue oP said news- R � �r t ; 2Z4) naem�l6u�i�Lea�s.�` • � �y , 1 ,,• , ; , �• , ,; paper dated _ A. D.. 19...-•-•• i : , ° ': +Ro6�ett�ild.`(�irm�n , , ..._......._.............................. . Bo�edd�C�omiriaoln : �:Publi�hed•in tlr-A�p�n'iSmY�Wreh 90. � =s�1978 - a , ��'� -��' � i:.�_.w,.-r .' .:, .. .,.,, ..�� . ...:: .._:i_.-�. ..,.: � .............."'_�....""....._....._............"'»'"'"........._..... 1��--- . Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public Sn and Rarr the County of Pitkin, State oP Colorado, th[s _1�:r'�/.............. day of ' .����r( .�...�.1����./........ .D., 19.�. , ' �.�,,��.�/- . . . .. .. .... ... ... .. .. Nota.ry PubliC I ndy commiss[an exPUes -My�-���;an••Expfres••Fiov. 3, 1980