HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.reg.10021978 4 �
�`i���� � _ . . ..
' _\^:"�
.. ".�'jiy2 , . . ..
� . . _. _ .. _ . . . ' fl�. .
" . � . . �� .. � . M
.� . . � .. � �. . .. . . . . ..� ' .
.� � � � . � � . .. � ��
PITKIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
� TSEETING AGENDA
� October 2, 1978
_. '� �
9:00 a.m. EXECUTIVE SESSIONo Welfare
9:15 a.m. RESOLUTIONS/CONTRACTS: �
' � 1) Divide Welding Contract for Heron Park Bridge - JY
2) Redstone Snowplowirlg Contract - JY
3) Proposed Amendment to Airport Regs Night Flights - SMS
4) Approval o£ Pitkin Iron Special Review - SMS
5) Approval of 9/20 & 9/25 Minutes - LS
9:30 a.m. Carter-Gossard Exemption - KS
9:45 a.m. Continuation of E1 .Rancho Deluxe Gen. Submission - RG
10:00 a:m. P.H. Amendment to Animal Regulations - SMS
10:15 a.m. P.H. Samango Lot Separation - RG
10:45 a.m. Lot 2, Aspen River Valley Ranch Final Plat - RG
� 11:15 a.m. P.H. Lull Special Review - RG
11:30 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. LUNCH BREAK
1:00 p.m. Snowmass General Store Liquor License - LS
1:10 p.m. AABC Condominiumization of Rowhouses - MD
1:40 p.m. Environmental Projects Proposal - BL
� 2:10 p.m. Introduction to Industrial Bond Issues - GLO : `
� 2:20 p.m. Request to Continue Lone Pine Detailed Submission
after PaZ meeting on 10/4/78 - KS , :
2:50 p.m. P.H. Airport Administrative Hearings - SMS
_ �, .
3:15 p.m. Sales Tax - Adoption of Resolution - GLO
• �. ..
' � ;
�
�
. �
I �
i
{
g
. � � � � � . . . fi
� . �� - . . . � � , � �
. . . - . . . .�� .
. ,. . . . �.. .
, . , . . . . . ,I�,-.
.. . �'f���;�"•" ..
'.f:.�: .,.
"_;
;
...__ . _ .__::._. _....> - -._-...,_._ --_�:...__:, .
x,
;,
,:
;a,::, . ,..
;�;' ��
�2�,:� . . }�;.
i� PITKIN COifiTTY �,.
���� ��
BOARD OF COIAiISSIONERS �:
�� .
�: r,
*r�'ReKUlar Meeting October 2, 1978 �4;
�a' �";
PRESENT: Chairman Robert Child, Michael Kinsley, Joseph E. Edwards, Jr. (arrived late) �,3;
� ' ' ---- - "}�
� � ��
^ Rio/ Ochs reported that three bids were received for construction of the three Rio Grande/ ��:
Herron �
`Bridge Herron Park bridges, with Divide Welding the lowest bidder at $18,700. When asked F�`i
.-Contract ��
,� about the reat discre anc in their bid amount �'
g p y (approximately $16,000 lower than the �:'w
�`:
other bidders) Divide said they would be able to complete the work at that price and did �
not want to back out of the pro�ect. Child asked about the quality of their work. � `
Ochs said the County has checked their other work and it has been acceptable. Kinsley �i
L.
� 1 moved to accept the bid amount and approve the contract. Child seconded and the motion
pasaed unanimously.
;,b --------
'��Redstone Ochs presented a contract with Duane Piffer for Redstone snowplowing; he did the
Snow-
•�plowing plowing last year and Ochs felt his performance was satisfactory. Child aeked if Piffer
�z would get cinders at the County's cost. Ochs said he would. Child asked if the County �.
s�.
could get out of the contract if Piffer does not perform. Ochs said they could. Child F.�,�,�rx.
��
moved approval of the contract. Kinsley seconded and the motion passed unanimously. ��
�*.
Ochs said he would advertise in Redstone and Carbondale that Piffer is responsible for
plowing so he can be called when needed. � '
�
•Night Kinsley presented a resolution amending the Airport rules and regulations to allow � � •
,Flights: � =
First limited night operations. He noted that the Home Rule Charter now requires three read-
Reading ��.
ings for adoption of a formal resolution; this is the first reading. Kinsley feels �`�' •
��?:
there is reason to distinguish between the Dash 7 and Convair 580 in operation of the �ti�`
���
airport, since there is a considerable difference in noiae levels. He felt the Dash i��?"
should be allowed to fly at night. Kinsley stated that at a recent Chamber of Commerce Ip==s'
��r`
meeting Ike Hoover, of the FAA, said there is a distinction between the noise levels of ���;
���
the two aircra£t; it now appears that that is no longer his position. Kinsley feels it ��;
3s reasonable to operate the Dash 7 to 8:30 p.m. Stuller noted that the Charter requires Ir,s,;
x�
two readings; if adopted on first reading today the resolution will be set for public G''
H.;
�g°`:
hearin She added that Hoover is not in a osition to ive an o inion on the noise �"
8• P B P {�°
,r,.;
levels of the aircraft, and that absent pending legislation, the FAA will not give an' �7�
�c<c
opinion on the matter. �"w
� .
� ;,
{';
Commissioners Meeting October 2, 1978 -1;':;::
i��;
��;;
'"s� ;:.
�, �
.�
,�+T��
.. � ' . . . . . . . . .. . . _ � - � _ . . .
. � �_ ��DI-:
}�I
,Y,_,'J Kinsley moved to approve the resolution on first reading. Child seconded, noting M� �.
,•� t�"�,,,,`,
�� that this merely indicates that the process will be advanced to [he public hearing ��'
r �
`r� sta e. The motion `��
`r� g passed unanimously.
�x:
�>� --------- nu.
�
�_+ �`
x� r
,wjPitkin Stuller presented a resolution approving the Pitkin Iron special review permit. �
�,�Iran
��Special She noted two corrections are necessary: the first states that the entire road is
�;;�Review
�� to be scarified and reseeded, not just that portion to the Lindley Hut, and the
��
� second concerns revegetation and restoration of the quarry and mill site. (Edwards
;s;:"
:,J�!
��� arrived.) Grice reco�ended that the fines at the mill site be removed, but felt I;,�
�a
zr':� the quarry site is hopeless. Stuller suggested the County adopt the State reclama- '
�
y. tion plan for the pro�ect, which includes a revegetation plan for the mill site. �
�:
h`� Kinsley moved to adopt the resolution with the amendmente concerning revegetation of '��
� :
�, the road and adoption of the State reclamation plan and to authorize the Chairman to �
�, I..
�_= sign. Child seconded and the motion passed unanimously. :
�.
x.* �
i` --------- � � �
�s �
,� i
°�:' Charter Stuller presented a resolution proposing an amendment to the Home Rule Charter I .`
;�� i ,
�,�: Amendment: � ;
�.�Candidate's which states that names of candidates for County offices shall be placed on the 1 :
F�='Names on
�i�Ballots ballot in alphabetical order. The procedure under State election laws has the I �'
�� �
� candidates listed by parties, however the Charter aims at eliminating the importance �,w�
x�,j . !�', .
��y� of parties, especially in the general election. Rinsley moved approval of the resol- :�',
� ution. He then withdrew his motion for conflict of interest. Stuller noted this 44
� (.x`
amendment would not go into effect until the next election. Child moved adoption of �.,a�
the resolution. Edwards seconded and the motion passed unanimously, with Kinsley �
� ,°
abstaining. �
r�
---------- t� �
?�,�a
Minutes Kinsley moved approval of the September 20th and September 25th, 1978 minutes. �
Edwards seconded and the motion passed unanimously, with Child abstaining. ��
-------- ,�.i
�:
� Carter- Karen Smith presented a subdivision exemption application by Tommy Carter and i,�x�-�
6ossard �
Subdivision Sack Gossard to change the boundary line between their tracts of land. Preaently, ��:
' Exemption ,.
Gossard's house encroaches onto one of Carter's two lots; this exemption would ;�,.':
change the boundary line and would result in a total of two lots where three now �y,
x:c-
exist. John Young recoc�ended that the trail easement be shown on the existing �=�:
driveway easement, and at the time of any improvement to the trail an additional �`
� (
five feet be granted for a total of a twenty foot easemen[. The application meets 'kti;
�:_;
all conditions of subdivision exemptions and the Planning Office recommends approval. �;'�>
f;�
;
� ;.
""=>="Commiesioners Meeting October 2, 1978 - 2 ;i:�:;
`.:r:�:�{
F,�
t�,l
a �"
��x ,�lxY �x`•,� • ' .
�,34¢'.
�t f .s.`a '
_ .. _ r,y�.
A::
_ ��,'
- .t�t,b.. .
;�; Kir�sley moved approval of the exemption. Edwards seconded and the motion passed �`
�.
;�, ;��.
unanimously. �c:
��
r�
r :,-
,..
�
�: --------- ^'�
�
:i , �k,
?�_! E1 Rancho The BoaXd again considered the general submission agplication for E1 Rancho Deluxe �
:� Deluxe �`
;��. subdivision located in the Crystal River valley. Kinsley noted that the subdivision ;�%i.
�,.
� y.
was shown in the floodplain and rockfall hasard areas on the map of the valley. �'
�s
:�:; ��
--�� The major question is whether the site is in a significant hazard area for rockfnll. ;�.
�? Kinsley walked the location and does not feel the hazard is significant; he felt ���
#::
�ti} i�_
' there would be a substantial hazard approximately 300 yards up-stream, but Yhere was �'-
��S
� no appearance of any rockfall in the area proposed for subdivision. He added that
5� �4::
t,;
�- there is a sign3ficant potent3al for floodplatn hazard on lot three, and felt the
:rG
'r;,.
F County should disallow construction in that lot consistent with the floodplain
�
� mapping; Kinsley felt a suitable home site could be £ound on lot three on Che
wi
:�+` bench near the highway. Child asked what would happen if, after completion of the
zr.
� floodplain mapping, there is no suitable building site, on lot three that could meet
�f the setback requirements. Kinsley said it is clear there is plenty of room for a .
�' home between the bench and the road. Gr3ce recommended that no building permit be
,�°
�' issued on lot three until the floodplain mapping is completed. Kinsley moved
Fr ,�
� '� approval of the general submission with the following conditions: that utility
�
� :
�' easements and certified plat survey requirements be met prior to detailed submission, �
�,
K: that detailed suhmission reflect the condition that the floodplain be identified on
�
� �
�
� lot three prior to issuance of a building permit, that rockfall hazard relating to �"�'
lot one be shown on [he plat, that the Lincoln DeVore report be made part of the �..
:,� ��
- record and referenced on the plat, that the applicants deed covenant the property �
� ��
�� against future subdivision, and that the applicant agree to improve the road via �iti
a subdivision improvement agreement to the satisfaction of the County Engineer. ��.
�
� ��.
Child felt the County should withhold general submission approval until the flood �;
��:
plain mapping is completed, since the applicant may wish to =esubdiv3de i£ no build- :i�;:
i�*S.
ing site is found on lot Chree. Grice noted that the Land Use Code prohibits is- �4`�:
�:�
�..,�
' suance of a building permit in a floodplain. Child did not feel the County should E�.
�_ �
create a lot that may have no development potential, since somewhere along the line ,
F';;;
they may be pressured to allow development there. Grice said he is convinced there
will be a site outside the floodplain on lot three. Edwazds said that should be �'
l�,
� k''•:.
shown at general submission. Grice noted no floodplain maps are available at this � ,.
�.F'
�
{ Commissioners Meeting October 2, 1978 - 3 I;
�` '.
h
� �
_! L'..:,-:
� � �:�'.::'
.»3' I__...
�..ti�, . C:":
�,
{ I,,..
�
15.�r':' ..
�3��RN.
�' � `
:;� . ,::
� time. Edwarda said the applicant could then have a floodplain study done. "1
ht•
e Kinsley's motion died for lack of a second. Edwards moved to table the general eub- , �_
n
mission application until the floodplain mapping is completed. Child seconded and ?�
:� ��
the motion passed unanimously. Grice said the mapping sbould be completed in the
; �
spring.
Public The Board convened a public hearing to conaider an amendment to the animal regula- !
Hearing: ;
'. Vicious tions concerning vicious dogs. Presently, a dog is not considered vicious if it � '.
: Dogs ,
attacks someone on the owner's private property; the animal warden has suggested i !
k f :
an amendment to that section of the regulations which would require posting of the
:�
premises with a commercially printed sign to warn the public of a vicious dog.
� Edwards further eaggested that the property be fenced and posted on all four sides. � I
Kinsley said the question is whether it should be legal for a person to own a � �
� !
vicious dog, even if it is penned. He asked if this amendment would allow vicious
dogs when they are now prohibited. Stuller said that is incorrect; presently one
can have a vicious dog on private property without fencing and posting the property. y :
This amendment would require signing the premises to warn trespassers of a vicious i,;;
dog. �
�
Edwards moved to amend the animal regulations to state that two conspicious 4 inch � !..'
� , :
by 14 inch signs be maintained on the perimeter and along any obvious approaches � `
�
to the property, and that the boundary in question be clearly delinested by a fence a;; ,
or obvious boundary definition so it is clear that the area is private property. I['
'ii
Rinsley seconded and the motion passed unanimously. ;;! ,
�:.
-------- - i i
Public A public hearing was convened to consider a special review application by A.J. ; ,
Hearing: ''� s
Sawango Samango for separation of lots 38, 39 and 40 and 42, 43 and 45 of Holland Hills
Lot Split �
subdivision. Smith noted that there is a road separating the six lots, so the six
lots are considered as two lots eince they cannot be used together. She submitted
�;.
�
for the record the Planning Office memo of August 24, 1978 and Bob Nelson's memo of !��
�.:
Y�
August 4th. In considering the amount of development in Holland Hills, Smith noted ,5�;
�F '
�
there is one house located above these six lots, but the rest of the land surround- ��t
� � .'.r.rs :;i
ing the lots is mainly vacant with the exception of the central part of the subdivi- y��
�,,_'
sion. With respect to degree of compliance with existing subdivision regulations, r�;:
;e+
Bob Nelson co�nented that a central water storage tank is begin installed, but ;M"
���.:
�y .
requested that ditch rights be obtained for irrigation water and that controls on
r�
�h;�-
�r}:.
t .
4��
Commissioners Meeting October 2, 1978 - 4 ;r
S.'
��:
���:
n�
,!.
-...;_
�,,.,
�j}=
. � ��5+���a � ' .
" ' �_ ..�""'_"_ .�.. .__.._:... ... � ...... . . .. . . . . . . .. .
k•
�i'} . . �j.-
;:i
,�� ��'
;q� lawn watering be inatituted. He felt the sewage system is acceptable. Utilitiea
and roads are installed, however the roads are not paved. No geologic hazards are �
'�
� shown which would affect the subdivision. These lots are further from the more ��
�
=" developed portion of Holland Hills and would be less visible from Highway 82. Smith : ,�
felt the real adverse impact of congested development will not be felt at thia site �
evelo ed lots and the lot sizes ��
because it is further from the highway and the other d p
are larger, however development on these parcels will mean that Holland Hills will
be more spread out. The six lots were purchased in 1976 for $90,000; Interwest
Realty estimated their current worth individually at from $28,000 to $30,000, and
with three lots combined at from $30,000 to $35,000. Smith noted the economic loss -
suffered if this is denied would amount to approximately $60,000 but felt the Soard � ;,�
should consider the initial purchase price. There is a question as to the degree of
Samango's knowledge when he purchased the lots; his realtor felt they were separateiy j�
A
developable when purchased. Clay Crossland said there were no less than ten building {.
��.
pezmits issued in Holland Hills which sets the precedent that these are separately
"=�
developable lots. He added that at the time the lots were sold to Samango he felt
;� f�
the lots were �ust as developable as any other lots. Crossland noted that Ralph
�
�� Woodward purchased five contiguous lots from Landmark Universal and has since built i
five separate houses. Smith felt Samango's knowledge of the condition of the lots � '
'� when purchased relates to the degree of economic loas. Stuller did not feel a mis- ', ;
i'�
� understanding of the law is relevant. Smith staCed that flolland flills was subject 1;' ,
j'
to paragraph one o£ section 7.22a of the Code because it was never formally platted ;:� ,
i(; .
pursuant to County subdivision regulations, so special review has been required to �'
develop contiguous lots since 1975.
Bob Francis, representing Samango, commented that this matter is being litigated i� , .
� �
between Samango and the seller, and between the seller and the County. The contract ��'
:Et�:
for the sale pravided that the lots were sold as fully-subdivided, buildable lots;
if was not until this year that Samango learned about the contiguous lot provision. �:
•�.
Unanimous approval for the application was received Erom the P S Z. Francis said ��i
he is confident that if this special review application is approved the litigation ��'
�,�;
between Samango and the seller will be ended. The parcels are located directly �-';;
'Y�'
behind the Hi-Co lumberyard so they are out of site. Francis said Samango would like ""
�::
to erect moderate priced housing on the parcels. He corrected Smith, stating that the .:
aelling price for the six parcels was $92,250.
�a`
Smith said the Planning Office looked at the review criteria for lo[ separation and w';`
it A�
�::;s
it seemed the reasona for approval outweighed the disadvantages. The most negative
�.,y�
:4j'-
7l ti'
�:'•;
i�� Commissioners Meeting . October 2, 1978 - 5 t ,"
�.
;p'-
I
�,c�r�..:,
, ;
� t'�'�
�����,���* -
i:.
y":1. _ W:. .
3i
::.,i
';;� aspect of the application is the incremental increase in development! and visual im- ,�
f,;
_; � ;
4. pact at Holland Hills, the added congestion on Highway 82, and the substantial 1
��
� difference between the density of the lots and the propased AF-1 zoning for the area.
� i
The physical limitations on the lots are not substantial. Francis noted that by �
�;l
:� definition, density will be increased by a lot separation.
F Kinsley asked about legal implications for denial. Stuller noted that Crossland
corporation sued the County, challenging the constitutionality of the substandard lot
z clause. Any denial would not affect the validity of that ordinance. Crossland said
;� !
when they became aware that the County was contemplating the contiguous lot law they �
�. notified Samango of the County's intent, but he chose not to do anything. They then -
�'
initiated a lawsuit to protect their interests, since they had a sizeable Deed of
Trust on the property and felt the consolidation of the lots would severely damage
�` their security. Crossland stated that if this application is approved the lawsuit '
;y will be dropped.
� Child commented that when looking at the criteria for lot splits, other than the
� historic use of the iots, it is difficult to find reasons for denial; there will be
some effect on public seroicea and utilities, and the question of the effect on the
purposes of the zone district is unclear since the new zone has not been adopted.
': !' � He moved approval of the application conditioned upon obtaining existing ditch rights
+ :
for irrigation purposes and upon the homeownera developing and enforcing effective
regulations to control lawn waterin from the domestic s stem. Francis said he does °
g p R:
not know how the homeowners could take an action like that; he felt the word "effec- '�
'!�
�, ;�
tive" is ambiguous. Chiid`s motion died for lack of a second.
Rinsley said he would be favorable to the idea of moderate cost units on the lots,
if the lots could come under PMEi, however he is opposed to the existing application ;,� ,
�s
and moved for denial. Edwards seconded, adding that the grounds for denial are that ���
)��,
the lots are substantially below the two acre zoning for the area; if combined, the �
lots would comply with the existing zoning, but could not comply with the proposed
��
zoning, and that there is already a traffic congestion problem in the area and it does �Mg;
�
not seem appropriate £or additional density there. Kinsley noted that Edwards' �'.
��
considerations are those far denial; Kinsley's considerations are only those condi- . �
- tions under which he would consider a resubdivision. Edwards added that the acqui- �:;:
�'�
sition reflects that the property was purchased as speculation, knowing that there �`;;
may be a problem with the contiguous lot requirement, and this is an attempt to avoid � ,
�1; �
its effect. Francis said Samango wouldn't have purchased the lots 1f he thought i;;::
�:;,
��:=
there would be a problem with lot separation. Kinsley said the parties to the uiti
I:"��
�:?":
�� `t t
��
��`: Commissioners Meeting October 2, 1978 - 6
k� ;:,
Y�i.
;
`.�_
-� � r
. V�.���1. . " .
��,}'"�..�{± . ' . ..
i�
.'
r transaction were aware of the regulations, which is the subject of Samango's auit �� ,
r: �'i,
� with the seller. Francis said the ardinance sets forth the criteria, and the appli- �
icant has satisfied them; he doean't feel the Board has the discretion to deny. �
i' &*�`
:r Kinsley said the main point is that the size of the lots is inconaistent with the AF-1 ;;�;
�'' zoning. Francis said that is always true in a lot separation. Rossland asked what �"�
, '�,
�': �
� regulation requires special review for this lot separation. Stuller said it is the t`�
'� � .
contiguous lot law adopted in 1975. Francis said Edwards' ob3ection seems to be that
the lots are smaller than the required zoning, which is always true in the case of
};.
" a lot split. Stuller said it is true that one wouldn't go through the cumulative
".:�
a�,
lot clause if the lots were not substandard, but Edwards feelt that the zone category
-�,� has stated purposes which may be undermined by permitting this special review, and
�'+ that the application would have adverse effects on the neighborhood. Kinaley said
the Board mast look at the total impact on the community and the cumulative effect
'� of these lot separations. He added that the degree of economic loss to the owner
� is minimal, and that the historic use of the lots ia as pasture. Francis noted that
� �
Samango also suffered the loss of a substitute investment, and the use of that money
since the property was purchased two yeare ago. Kinsley felt it is highly unlikely
�. that Samango will ultimately suffer a loss on this property. He added that any eco-
nomic loss would not be the result of the County's action, but the result of the �
seller's action. Francis asked if the Board would consider a compromise on this "'
�
=;� matter; he would like to speak with his client concerning an application for less thaa�
six lots. Kinaley moved to table the matter. Edwards seconded and the motion passed �
unantmously. ��
. ,-
---------- �,t
� ,
� Aspen Richard Grice presented the final plat of lot 2, Aspen River Valley Ranch for i.s�
` River s'��3
Valley approval. The applicant has met the two conditions imposed by the Baard at detailed :;�
Ranch ���.
Final submiasion which were that the plat state that no construction of any kind, including �;;
Plat �,T:
road construction, be allowed on the common area, and that no more than 10% of the '?:
��s:
r�-:
meadow land on the property be nsed for construction. In addition, the plat contains y
3�
language deed restricting the lots againat future subdivision. Kinsley moved approval �'.
z.=
of the plat. Child seconded and the motion passed unanimously. ?��
�
.;• ---------- .
e,�
Public The Board convened a public hearing to consider a special review application by �;;;
,Hearing: �`"
Lull Hans Lull for separation of lots 14 and 15, block 3, Brush Creek Village filing two. Ks,
Lot Split �'+"'
Grice referred to the eight criteria for review in the Land Uae Code for lot separa- ?�.=
�`„+ .
tion, noting that there are numerous developed lots in Brush Creek Village, which is ';;;�
�r''
;
� Commissioners Meeting Octoher 2, 1978 - 7 �;;
.� j:,_:
Fi
`�'
.j �"
d..;
--�.,.
;����,: �
�,<--:
-- � - - - ;:
,:
y�
zoned AF-2, and the water, aewer, access and utilities are acceptable. There is a ���= -
�-„�
14 foot cut in the mancos shale behind the building site, and in their review the �;�::
P 5 Z recommended that the geologic hazard of the cut be mitigated and that the Y
���:
s,:
[>�:
water quality requirements be satisfied. Grice reported that the cut was made with- �r.
�`,x
out a building or excavation permit, or inspection by a geolagist, and the foundation E�
�i
is already installed. Dave Shelton, of the CGS, coffiented that the bank behind the �;�,ys
� foundation would come down if it gets wet. Lincoln DeVore reco�ended that Lull �'F
construct a retaining wall or further excavate the cut to a one-to-one ratio. The ;`�
S
!
cost of construction of the wall is ten times higher than the excavation. Grice
- �
` stated that the water quality requirements imposed by the P � Z have been met.
k
. i
Edwards asked about access to lot 15. Grice said the subdivision road fronts on
s lot 15.
� Ashley Anderson, representing Lull, said the applicant has had a soils study and
}
Chick Collins Engineers and Lincoln DeVore have looked at the site and feel the
i
� problem of the cutbank can be resolved by lessening the grade. Lull agreed to
'} terrace and landscape the cut, and the building office feels this will solve the
i
problem. Edwards said the cutbank situation should be handled prior to further
construction on the property. �a
{
Kinsley moved approval of the special review with the condition that the cutbank
7'
� be reshaped and reduced in steepnesa to a one-to-one slope, and that revegetation
P
� and terracing be done prior to any further construction or improvements on the pro-
_, ca
� perty. Child seconded and [he motion passed unanimously. ��
� �
* --------- �8
�� Community . Gene Marsh, Co�nunity Center Director, appeared to discuss the budget and square �
Center �
� Square Foot foot costs for the co�unity center; she explained the square foot cost must be r.
.�� Costs, '
Budget established so rental room rates can be set. Ochs said he has reviewed the aquare ,�a
��_
� foot cost analysis and feels it is accurate, but would like to review the janitorial �;
� �
�*`a
� estimate. Marsh said the utility cost estimate may be high, and the Advisory Board +�:
� feels more work will be needed on staffing the center. Kinsley felt the center may ��•:
��, need a live-in caretaker. Marsh noted the County has received only one firm appli- s?r:
r;4.
i[:;
cation for the senior citizen rental units, however no advertising has been done ��>
5j":
since the rental rates have not been established. She asked the Board to approve '`=
}',3
� the 1979 budget for the center, noting the Advisory Board will constantly be evaluat- °�;
;�'.;,
ing staff needs. She felt it may be possible to use one of the rental units as a �'i`-
�.,_'
shelter for battered women or runaways if all the units aren't used by senior {`r� .
1�.
�f f
�x
�i:�.
� ��
f Commissioners Meeting October 2, 1978 - 8 �"'
� ,;,,',
e� iy�
.:<:
'yf. :�;�:f
�:
+`' �.,
e �
4r
_ _-- -�-.--...���
_�.�.
. L'x � �$�`F"•� � . .
��qj� �7��f.y�
�31":(."S�'U'�.,�. . �
�:
li.,"
' citizens. The Advisory Board did not include the cost of the solarium or corridor �„ . "`
f �.;; -
' �t in computing the market va2c�e of the units. The Board acknowledged the 1979 budget
v
� of $119,900, and approved the square foot cost of $5.70. ��
: �' --°------ �
n Snowmass Deputy County Clerk Liz Stewart presented an application by Dick and Charlotte � .
; General
r �
� Store Wambsgans for a 3.2X beer license at the Snowmass General Store. She noted no final �
� Liquor �
,' License lease has been submitted, but a temporary f3ve-year lease is included with the appli- �
cation. The application has been reviewed and approved by the Sanitarian and �
> 'i Building Department, and Wambsgans preaented a petition supporting issuance of the
a
i license signed by 108 residents. Wambsgans noted that the premisea had a liquor `
� license previously. Child moved approval of the application. Kinsley seconded and
3
the motion passed unanimously.
.r --------
i Airport The Board again considered condominiumization of the Rowhouses at the Airport
• Business
' Center Business Center. Mark Danielsen, Housing Director, recommended that the County im-
Rowhouses
Condominium- pose residence, employment and sales tax licensing restrictions on purchasers of
ization
the unita because he feels it would be too hard to enforce resale price restrictions
and to calculate the business selling price separately from the price of the living
quarters. He felt purchasers should qualify as individua].s who are making a
covwitment to the cammunity, and that the project should be protected from the tourist ;
market. Danielsen added that these qualifications could be included in the land lease
terms. Kinsley said he is willing to go along with Danielsen's recommendation,
although he is not comfortable with it. He �sked if this would set a precedent by
which developers could get around the housing requ3rement. Danielsen nated that no
other areas are zoned industrial. Stuller asked how qualifications coul.d be imposed �
�
in the land lease if they cannot be formulated. Sohn McBride said he would have
�,
approval rights over any reassignment of the land .lease and he would impose the �
�;�
condition that any purchaser be an employer-employee. All purchases could also be ��
�:
run through the County for approval. Chuck Brandt, representing McBride, said the
�"
,��.
initial sales would be screened and Danielsen could then qualify all future purchas- _;�
r;`
ers. He sa3d this cond3tion would be included in the subdivision improvement agree- ;`�;-
ment and the land lease_. Stuller noted the requirement in the commercial zone is for '^
employee and moderate income housing; she felt the County needs guarantees the units �.`
�p1;
will be sold under the housing guidelines. McBride pointed out the Airport Business "''
�.
Center doesn't have any other kind of person there now. He added that he would be ��a?
��
�:;;:'
6:�
�;„
��.:�;
Commiesionere Meeting October 2, 1978 - 9 I%;;,
f:°r;
�_;,
r,.,
t:•G
I'I
--__,���..:__
� � ,'
��,��;�-,;;�
,,�
;:.;�:•:�.
.::_:_._ .
x*
.�._. • ���Yl.:
ti"~'
willing to put the purchaser qualiflcation reatrictions on all the units, rather
�:; -
vy`;
than 3ust SQx, because he doesn't want any tourists in the Rowhouses. Stuller felt sy,;
this techni ue has no substance because McSride hasn't classified the t �x
q ype of person �s<'
itK:
who will purchase the unit to meet the requirements in the Land Use Code. She asked ��`
if he is claiming the area isn't exclusionary by definition. Brandt said he is, �
adding that they have indicated a number of reasons why the Airport Business Center
is historically primary residences, and conditions will be built into the lease to
�
iassure future control. He suggested the project could be done in two phases: first i,;
a performance phase to try out the proposal, and if this method doesn't work addi-
tional controls or standards could be added. Stuller said that approach is too open- '
S
; ended and would just postpone the problem. If criteria can be formed when the
�
� problem arises, why can't they be instituted now? She asked how the applicant pro-
s
F� posed to establish the moderate incoue character of the project. Kinsley said the
i
Board is relying on the nature of the project to keep it moderate income housing.
i
A He said he would be satisfied with a system that requires that the unit be the pri-
mary residence of the owner, that there be a mechanism for reviewing that, and that
any transfer be reviewed by the $ousing Authority or Housing Administrator. Daniel-
sen asked if two year residency would be required. McBride felt the County should
not discriminate against someone who moves here to start a business; he felt they
should just require that this be their primary residence.
Kinsley moved to find that the project is not exclusionary and to approve the
concept of condominiumization based on the following criteria: that these units be
the primary residence of the purchasers, that they 6e sold only to employers or
employees or those to be employed, and that both conditions be verified at the time �
of the transfer by the Housing Authorlty; and to authorize the County Attorney to
� ,
dra£t a resolution for presentation at the next meeting. Child seconded the motion. �t.:z?�
Edwards asked if resale price restrictions would be included. Kinsley said they ��'
would noC. Stuller said there are ways of distinguishing the value of the business �
�i
and housing elements of the units. McBride said he would be opposed to imposing re- c,;,
sale controls oa ha2f the units because that would encourage tourists to buy the �+
�,
other six units. He would prefer to call the housing non-exclusionary, and to give ���
, p;::
4•f:
the County further asaurance it is not exclusionary in the form of purchaser quali- -
t.:
fications, which would apply to the entire project. Stuller said she would rather r`"
have the Board find the project non-exclusionary than abdicate the employee housing '���
requirement. Kinsley said he is assuming that the project is non-exclusionary, and �.;;`
�"'
asked the Board if they felt that fiading is accurate. Brandt said one cannot point i:`-;�
t;,
fi>'
e.;:
�';
f,;;i
i`;"
Commissionera Meeting October 2, 1978 - 10
�
j.
�:��:
'�v...
c
�' Y �y`4� . ' � � .
� 1! ' �- . � ,. -. . : . .� . . ..' .. . . . �� . ��'.: .�
-' _ -_� -_ _- �7:
�1
.r
:�t:
to anything that runa agaiast that finding. Kinsley felt some criteria should be �. ,
�C
established u on which a roval of the reassi nment could be based. Edwarda said E`='
P PP S �,�:
T,jv
he doesn't want to give the Housing Director the authority to approve transfers of �
��;.
the units. Stuller said the flousing Authority could not delegate that authority un- �`�
K�
less review parametera are spelled out. Kinsley asked if incentives for higher F�
E'L�,
appreciation rates for half the units would be created if restrictione were imposed ��
��
i on the other half of the project. Danielsen said the units without controls could be
marketed as residences with garages for tourists. Stuller said that would be incon- ��
� ,
sistent wdth the zoning. Kinsley said the assumption is that someone in a high °
income bracket wouldn't be interested in purchasing a unit, given the nature of the � `
,�,
pro3ect. The motion passed unanimously. Kittsley requested that McBride report back
to the Board in one year to inform them of who is in the units. r
!y; _�.._�__ �
; Environmental Bob Lewis appeared before the Board to preaent a ser3es of environmental projects
`: Projects �
he feela are needed. They include: work on revegetation, weed control and stabiliza-
tion on Independence Pass, &oaring Fork River channel modification, North Star ma�al
: �
trapping, reseeding and filling near the Lost Man Campground, designing and fabri- �
cating signs for the Grottos area, preparing a photographic exhibit on the AMAX
claims in Pitkin County, and reseeding along the shelf road at Independence Pass.
Ochs supported the second and third suggestions, but felt some profects could be
handled by County staff, and others are the responsibility of the Forest Service.
Lewis reported that David Johnson, of Western Resources Development, has been here
twice this year and will return next year for completion of his inventory at the North
Star Ranch. Specimens are being cnllected which will be displayed either at North
�
Star or Hallam Lake. He noted a recent newspaper article concerning overutilization ��
�Y
of the Grottos, and felt signing there could do much to educate the public, rather �.�
�
- than using a prohibitory approach. Lewis reported that a recent log jam in the river ��
X
was allowing people to cross the Roaring Fork, and was endangering the rare club �;
sr
moss in the area; the am was cleared to z"
3 prevent further deterioratian oE the area. �,;
kj:
He also felt revegetation of the Grottos area should be started in the spring, which F;
r'
could include rebuilding the soils and repZanting with native seeds. �;'-
�u<
�::
Kinsley requested that Lewis draw up a proposal to be signed by the Commissioners ',
?';
for the projects concerning the Grottos and seeding on the Pass, which will be sent �`��,
1,-,
�:::�
to the Forest Setvice. He recommended that Lewis hold off on the photographic display.�;�;
. . . . h.';_:
Lewis felt this proposal is especially valuable, since these valleys may be involved �';�z
�`x.
t�rA
iF;.:.
Commissioners Meeting October 2, 1978 - 11 �'�_
�ci.,
�
. -z,._. . . .
..*�!.`-ti .
� y �t � '
. �x ��:y�• � , ' .
4.5� +.ti"ir'. � . . . .. . . . � . . .
_._ . -_ _ _ _ _ . _ . . ... 3. .
�u
n �;
to anything that runs against that finding. Kinaley felt some criteria should be E,�-;; •
va:
f�a,
established upon which approval of the reassignment could be based. Edwards said ��;>_
�;� .
E�
he doesn't want to give the Housing Director the authority to approve transfers of 4'%?+`
i'<'
��:
the units. Stuller said the Housing Authority could not delegate that authority un- �i
less review parameters are spel2ed out. Kinsley asked if incentives for higher ��
�
�appreciation rates for half the units would be created if restrictions were imposed �
aon the other half of the project. Danielsen said the units without controls could be ��
�,
� ; marketed as residences with garages for tourista. Stuller said that would be incon-
:�
' sistent with the zoning. Kinsley said the assumption is that someone in a high `
'-�
�; income bracket wouldn't be interested in purchasing a unit, given the nature of the �' �.
�
- ;� project. The motion passed uaanimously. Kinsley requested that McBride report back "
r
+ to the Board in one year to inform them of who is in the anits.
a
��.�..� _���� . .
~ &nvironmental Bob Lewis appeared befare the Board to present a series of environmental pro3ects �
Projecta �
he feels are needed. They include: work on revegetation, weed control and stabiliza- ,�
tion on Independence Pass, Roaring Fork River channel modification, North Star ma�al
- '��.f.i :j . .
� trapping, reseeding and tilling near the Lost Man Campground, designing and fabri-
s
cating signs for the Grottos area, preparing a photographic exhibit on the AMAX
claims in Pitkin County, and reseeding along the shelf road at Independence Pass.
: Ochs supported the second and third suggestions, but felt some projecta could be
handled by County staff, and others are the responsibil3ty of the Forest Service. �
? Lewis reported that David Johnson, of Western Resources Development, has been here �
twice this year and will return next year for compZetion of his inventory at the North �
�.
�
Star Ranch. Specimens are being collected which will be displayed either at North ��
�
��
Star or Ha12am Lake. He noted a recent newspaper article concerning overutilization � '
�.
of the Grottos, and felt signing there could do much to educate the public, rather ��4
fis
than using a prohibitory approach. Lewis reported that a recent lag jam 3n the river �
�f;
was allowing people to cross Yhe Roaring Fork, and was endangering the rare club y:
�:
,;.
moss in the area; the jam was cleared to ptevent further deterioration of the area. ^�'
k;�
He also felt revegetation of the Grottos area should be started in the apring, which ��s
U;:`.
could include rebuilding the soils and replanting with native seeds. 4`�`
ICinsley requeeted that Lewis draw up a proposal to be signed by the Commissioners
for the projects concerning the Grottos and seeding on the Pass, which will be sent �::
�:y:
to the Forest 3ezvice. He reco�ended that Lewia hold off on the photographic display.;;;,'
j,;_,
Lewis felt this proposal is especially valuable, since these valleys may be involved � ,.
ic..
��
. . I:.�':`.
���:
Commissioners Meeting October 2, 1978 - 11
i-;
�i
1 • :L: ,
- �s��i.. . ..
. �i�.n+��� .
4 k.�..+jj.'} . .. ..
L1 Af4
,.^K�_
. . ..;..... ,...... .,. _.. ...... . ....... ....... . . . . ..._..,.. . . ",' . ..
, }.
M�:
��µ
fn mining in the future_ Kinsley agreed it would be good to alert the cotmnunity to Ft .
::
�
the possibility and requested that Lewis prepare the diaplay and Ochs highlight it
i�
so people find out about the situation. Lewis reported that New York, Taber, Brook- �
lyn, Upper Lincoln Gulch vallies would be impacted by the mine tailings. There is �
s
p
also a potential for tailings in the upper Castle Creek Vall.ey. �
With regard to the McNamara elk study, Lewis recoumiended that the Little Annie
decision be delayed until the results of the study are in next June. He said if the
ski area goes in there won't be elk in the meadows on Norih Star; he also felt the
. chair lifts would open the entire Little Annie area up for summer use, which woa2d
have a substantial impact on the herd. '
The Board directed Lewis to proceed with the second, third and sixth proposals,
to write a proposal to the Forest Service for the fifth and seventh projects, and
to direct County staff to handle the first matter with assistance from Lewis. Ochs
wi1S present an amendment to Lewis's existing contract at the next meeting.
%' Obermeyer Ochs reported that a proposal was made by Sport Obermeyer last week Eor issuance
Industrial
Revenue of County-backed industrial revenae bonds for the coastruction of a new warehouse
Bonds
at the Airport Business Center. He reco�nends that before making a decision on th3s
request the Bnard should first determine if they have any interest in any such
revenue bonding and, if so, a general policy on the matter should be formulated.
The policy should include the following considerations: environmental impacts,
2egality, local employee impacts, fiscal impacts, political implications, etc.
Shorty Lankfozd would be willing to issue a statement as to the appropriateness and �
safety of such a venture. Ochs noted that the City and County of Boulder issue bonds �
such as these, and Obermeyer`s representatives said they would send the County copies
� x
o£ their policies. Child asked the motive behind issuance of industrial revenue
bonds. Kinsley said chey are used to induce outside industry to come to an area or a
to encourage an existing industry to stay. Ochs said they sometimes serve as a �
government subsidy to attract new induetry to downtrodden areas. Sport Obermeyer �
indicated to the County that they may relocate their business, and felt County �
issuance of the bonds would encourage them to remain in Aspen. Kinsley said he favors �
the Obermeyer proposal becaase it would help an exiating, light, clean industry that
p:
employs many local residenta. He felt the County would have to measure the danger, �
�
n
if any, of setting this type of precedent. Child was skeptical about the County's �
:i
ability to encourage one such industry without opening the door to other requests. ;
�
�
T
;;
Commiasioners Meeting Octo6er 2, 1978 - 12
i
i
�.�������
��,.
�
� ;��;�:s: "
+.G^=� ,: .
. ,x'� r'2.".
,
,.
��y��- . . . ,�
�....� � . . �..:.. .
- -� ._ ..... .. .. . . . .. . . .
.. '_� �'"�_`_" ........... . .. . . .. . � :s,
y,.
���
t
He felt the primary reason for issuance of any bonds would be to balance the aummer- �a�'°
s; -
winter employment patterna in Aspen. Kinsley favored directing the staff to develop
a policy on this to determine if it is feasible to allow this request without being
forced to allow all other industries that apply. He felt the matter should be pur- ;U
�
sued to encourage existing businesses that are conducive to thia valley. Ochs felt �
,
z
the crucial question is whether the County could develop a policy that would hold �
' up to challenges by entrepreneurs trying to get low interest rates. Kinsley noted �
there is no risk or expenditure by the County in revenue bonding; all coste are
covered by the bonds. Stuller said that industrial zevenue bonds axe designed to
aid communities that are economically depressed. Edwards and Child were ciot inter-
ested in expending staff time to look at the question.
Continuation Kinsley moved to continue the meeting to Wednesday, October 4 at 1:k5 p.m. to
of Meeting
consider the Snowmass Water and Sanitation facility, Lone Pine detalled submission
and adoption of final procednres for Midland Yark. Child seconded and the motion
passed unanimously.
Adminis- The Board convened an administrative heariag to consider two violations of the
trative
Heariag: airport regulations. Stuller submitted for the record the two amendmenta to the
Airport
Curfew original not3ce of hearing, evidence of delivery, and resolutions 77-112, 77-147 and
, Violation �
77-153. The first violation was cownitted by Parker Quillan who has waived presen-
tation of evidence and will admit guilt. Quillan agreed he did violate the curfew �
regulations when he took off from Sardy Field at 6:50 A.M. on August 2, 1978 on his �
way to Sa1t Lake City. He noted that this curfew requirement is a unique one; it �
is very unusual for an sirport to be closed during daylight hours. Quillan stated � ,
that he had no saspician his takeo£f was illegal because he had never heard of auch � `
�
a curfew before, even though he has flown in and out of Sardy Field for two years. �
a
At the time he was preparing for takeof£ Quillan saw another plane owned by Walter �
- Roberts which was coming in for a landing. Roberts eaid Chat the fact that the tower `
�
was closed didn't mean the airport could not be used during daylight hours. Quillan g
a
i
felt that, because this curfew ia so uttusual, the County should post signs or notices "+
a,.
so a pilot wouldn't fall into a violation. Child asked if the hours oi the airport r
are in the pilot's manual. Quillan said the houre are in the Jepsott manual. McCoy Y
added that a 6 inch by 2'-g foot sign is posted on the door of the general aviation ';
office stating the hours. He noted that the sign doesn't state if the hours staLed .�
��
Commissionera Meeting Octobet 2, 1978 - 13
, '�.� t '
.:�.s�.,�.}:;^•
r '� ": ,
;;a.3
,,,;.._ �Sa: . . . .
,}at��` '
��,��� ";. •
,, N�� . ;:, . � ,.;,. :'.
� -- j-
h�;�:
are for the FBO or the airport. In addition, the Sardy Field hours are published ,
�a
�.,
in the Airman's Information Maaual. Quillan said that since [he sign on the door of
�
the FBO is posted on a private building he felt the hours applied to McDavid Avia- �
3
tion. He also pointed out that just because a facility is closed, that doesn't mean �1
3
it's illegal to use it; he noted one can still mail letters at the post office when
it is closed. McCoy asked Quillan if he has ever read the noise abatement procedure.
Quillan replied he has. McCoy said the hours of the airport are also listed on that
procedure sheet. He added tha[ there has been so much controversy about the airport
curfew, he couldn't imagine that anyone using Sardy Field as often as Quillan would
not be aware of the hours of operation. Quillan repiied he knew about the evening '
curfews, but not the morning curfews. Moet airport curfews relate to noise and
� darkness. Quillan added that the information on hours of operation should state that
it's illegal to take o£f or land during certain hours, rather than saying the facil- �.
ities are closed. Kinsley felt the pilot's manual was clear, in that it states air-
ports are either "unattended" or "closed".
StuZler said the range of remedies in this situation seems unlimited. McCoy -
co�ented that restricting a pilot's use of the airport seems ineffectual for the
most part; he felt the most effective way to step curfew violations ia to use a
fine. He suggested a fine of $10 per minute of curfew violation be adopted. Kinsley
said it seems clear that there 3s ample opportunity for people to determine the hours
of the airport, although the signs should be more explic3t. Chi2d suggested the �
hours of operatinn be posted along with the noise abatemenC sigA on the runway so
' there could be no misinterpretation. Kinsley said the problem is that the County
regulaCions are scoffed at by many pilots, and if violators are let off this situation
will continue; he felt McCoy's suggestion was reasonable. Quillan requested that a •
a warning be issued for this offense. Mike Eustes testified that he saw Quillan
� �
ta�ciing to the end of the runway and saw the other plane approaching; he got on the �
radio and mentioned to the incoming pilot there was another aircraEt taking off, but �
the only respanse was that the tower was not open until seven a.m. McCoy pointed �
out that one reason to enforce the curfew is to avoid situations where more than one �
aircraft are operating at the same time without control. Child felt a fine would be x
h
more appropriate than a warning. Quillan suggested a Eine should be imposed after �
the notice is clarified. Child esid there was adequate notice and suggested levying �
�
the fine and waiving SOR of it in recognition of the inadequate signage. �
�
Kinsley moved to find thaC a violation did occur, to impose a penalty of $10 per �
,.j
,
!
:S
;z
�t .
Commisaioners Meeting OcCOber 2, 1978 - 14 '
.:�-`'�;:��x:;`:
_ �..._T�...�. .
1 ' .
�,,:;:��r�+�_� ,
�� '�`r�';
'��5..s,�; '
�
y�$�;:
e�,^. .
',. . . ;tt � .. ..,.._�...._ ...�_...:-.,- . :.... :........ -;..: . ,:.��,
� �'.
� ,�
f minute of violation, and to suspend $SO of the fine. Chil.d seconded and the motion # ;
passed unanimously. ;
�
Stuller noted that Walter Roberts, who is also to appear before the Soard for a �
violation was unable to attend the meeting today and requested the hearing be con- j
�
tinued to a later date. Edwards moved to continue the hearing until Roberts can be
pzesent. Kinsley seconded and the motian passed unanimously.
< Lone Pine Rick Ferrell and Michael Erneman appeared before the Board to present final draw-
Drawinga
ings for the Lone Pine project. Karen Smith requested that a continuation of this
meeting be scheduled for 10:00 A.M. on October lOth so a fa1Z presentation can be
made on the detailed aubmission application. Ferrell noted there are still some
things to be settled, including pricing, marketing, subdivision agreement, etc. _
Erneman explained that the three-bedroom units will be separated from ehe one and
two-bedroom units, and all units will have an unobstxucted view and a private, out-
door patio or deck. The storage varies for each size unit but the rooms were de-
signed sn storage space could be added if desired. Ferrell noted that the units are
larger than their original plans. The Board agreed to continue the meeting to
October lOth.
Sales Tax Ochs noted that the City, County and Snowmass Village have gone through a series
' Redistri-
- bution of alternative plans for redistribution of the sales tax; at a meeting last week
an agreement was reached which gives the County 43% of the 2� sales ta�c, with the
remaining 57X of the tax to be allocated among the incorporated cities and towns in
proportion to the amount of County sales tax collected within their limits. With
this system both Snowmass Village and Basalt receive amounts in the range they were ,
asking for, and the County gets a fixed percent of the tax, regardless of future f �`
annexatlons. �
. �
Jack Schuss, Mayor of Snowmass Village, expressed two concerns with the reaolution
as drafted. Ae felt paragraph c, conceming calculation o£ the distribution of
the tax, should be changed to reflect the fraction of the year when taxes were col- ;
Ilected if an annexation were to occur. Thie would gradually reduce the amount of �
revenue received by the municipalities over two years, rather than reflecting the �
:f
entire change in the year following annexation. Stuller said that would be unfair to �
�:
the annexing municipality because their funding needs would be immediate. Ochs felt �
��
by leaving the wording vague, the Commissioners can deal with the situation on a �
f;
case-by-case basis; the net result would be the same in any case. Kinsley also ;
ti
�
Comnissioners Meeting October 2, 1978 - 15
. . ,.�i` k'�:. .
�4��r:,y�t••
�>±
. i"/s�Tyt�7#��. � _ . � . , �.
�
� �'���t � - . . � ..
. �,
� �,`:. .. ' .... ...:. ..-: � . -�. ;...
. .: ...._ ........_..... . ...r
, . . .... . . .-- . + .!.
�
A�"
�:
\:',
noted that annexations can be deai.gned accordingly. Schuss added that in paragraph `� •
d, wnceming participation in the county open space program, Snowmass Village �
�
would like a statement of sincere cooperation by the three governments in a whole =�
;,
range of areas, rather than a blanket statement that Snowmass will join in the �
�
County�s open space acquisition program. Ochs said that phrase was included to
x
retain the integrity of the initial sales tax resolution passed in 1968; this is �
not a requirement for a co�itment by any municipality to contribute money for open �
space, but merely keeps the open space isaue a concern in people's minda. Stuller
felt a standard should be established for open space contributions to carry on the
rationale of the earlier appropriation; thia clause presently contains no remedy
for enforcement. Ocha noted the landfill costs are developed based on the operating
deficit prorated by the number of resident and condominium units in Aspen and
Snowmass Village. Schuss suggested that the municipalities' staffs begin working
on the question of a microwave system for the TV signal. Child noted the County
has allocated funds to Roaring Fork TV for this purpose.
;' Peter Craven, representing Basalt, said their Town Council will review this on
� Octaber llth. He felt the last paragraph regarding adoption of definitions or
, , i
� procedures by the Board of Commissioners could allow them to impose any set of
' ! regulations they wish concern3ng open space or landfill. Stuller agreed to qualify
Ithat paragraph to state that it refers only to the assessment aad coZlection of the
-_I
,`j County sales tax.
Kinsley moved to approve the resolution placing the sales tax question on the bal-
lot, with an amendment to paragraph f to assure the definitions and procedures
refer only to the assesaement and collection of taxes. Child seconded the motion
and it passed unanimously.
�
A continuation of the October 2nd meeting was convened on October 4th, 1978. �
Commissioners present were Robert W. Child, Michael Rinsley and Joseph E. Edwards, Jr.
(arrived late.)
Midland Shorty Lankford presented the permanent financing for Midland Park in its final 9
�Park �
Permanent form; this resolut3.on was approved prevlously with amendments to be made by Stuller. �
Financing
Kinsley asked about the changes made in the format. Lankfard replied aI7. changes �
were very minor and included changing the wording for the name of the Housing �
il
Authority, the locatione at which the Deeds of Trust and Promissory Notes wi11 be �
�
domiciled, etc. Child asked about the missing numbers in the resolution. Lankford �
r
a
`{
Co�isatoners Meeting October 2, 1978 - 16 _
ya ��.. :�
�;;:r�:.:4'�t
_
r��,;�;' _
���s::;�,�;v - ,
.�.ay;,��,
rA .
y, t:
L' ' .
•Y�•
replied those will be filled in at the time of the transfer of funds. ' Child moved y ,
to approve the permanent £inancing subject to Stuller`s review. Kinsley seconded
and the motion passed unanimously. (See resolution 78-166.)
First Kinsley moved to approve on first reading and set for public hearing the Snowmass
Reading:
Snowmass Water and Sanitation District apecial review application aC 9:30 a.m., November 6,
Water & San
197$. Child seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
N3ght F1ighLa Gerry Fox, Director of the Chamber of Commerce, reported that the Chamber approved
three resolution at their last meeting. The first requesta Ki.nsley to revise the �
night flights resolution approved on first reading at the October 2nd meeting to
include a decibel level which would allow Aspen Airways to fly at night, the second
asks the Board of Commissioners to put an initiative on the November ballot for
night flights, and the third states that if neither of the above-mentioned actions
are taken, the Chamber will seart an•initiative petition process to call a special
election on the issue of night flights. The Chamber of Commerce is hoping that
the Board will follow the second alternat3ve which vill save substantial time and
money. Kinsley noted that the first alternative ie impossible since it is too late
to amend the resolution adopted at Monday's meeting. Child felt it would be best
to include the quest3on on the November ballot. Kinsley suggested the ballot ques-
` tion could be worded to ask if people favor no commercial aircraft, commezcial air- `�
i
craft with noise restrictions or couanercial aircraft without noise restrictions. �
Elying into Sardy Field at night, fle felt these results would more accurately
measure what people want. He also suggested the question be considered as a poll
and not be binding on the Commissioners. Fox was opposed to that suggestion since .
it would allow the Board to change its mind. She felt the entire question of night x ~
flights should be resolved once and for all. Stuller asked if the Chamber is re- �
z
commending that juat scheduled carriers be allowed to fly at night or that all j
j
carriers be allowed night flights. Fox said they favor allowing scheduled carriers �
r:
to fly until 8:30; the County could then make any necessary contracts with the
airlines. Stuller said the County is not in a position to impose any conditiona on
`�
the airlines since that is the FAA's responsibility. The County does not know if
they can use the 70 dbA level in allowiag night flights; the FAA has stated the
A
County cannot distinguish between the �tain Otter and the Convair 580, but they have
not issued an opinioa as to whether the County can distinguish between the Dash 7 and�
j
Commisaioners Meeting October 4, 1978 - 17 -
:s
�-,'���(�w+��d,j�pa. .
,
, 4 sTt:�' _
�^
:. �;
'�3 ; •
�,
�•,.
?�:
the Convair 580. Kinsley po3nted out thaE by allowing the Daeh 7 to fly until 8:30 � ,
the night flight capacity ie almost dou6le what it was last year. Fox said the �
Chamber feels strongly that there wauld be much less pollution if people could fly �
y
in until 8:20, and that those people inconvenienced by not being able to fly in �
in the evening may not return to Aspen in the tuture. This problem will compound �
itself each year and will eventually affect the quality of the resott. Stuller �
suggested [he question be worded "Should the Pitkin County airport be open to �
commercial flights until 8:30 p.m.?" Fox said that would be f;ine. Child noted
the question would not affect night operations this winter because Chere are only
4000' of lights on the runway. Kinsley said temporary lights could be installed. �
Stuller felt the crucial question is whether approval of that ballot question would
obligate the County to make increased expenditures at the airport to install the
lights or to permit the installation of additional improvements. Kinsley said
Rocky Mountain Airlines and Aspen Airways could make the i.mprovements jointly and
authorize the County to conttol them. Stuller asked if it is understood by the
ballot question that the County fully light the iunwaq through private or public
expense. Ki.nsley said it the sirlines want to operate at night they would make
an interim investment in a temporary lighting system and the County would go to
the FAA for a grant in the spring. Ochs Eelt the question is whether the electors �
of Pitkin County would approve of the 3nstaZlation of the additional runway lights, �
rotating beacons, etc, that are involved with night flights. Child asked if this
would also allow Frontier to fly in at night and iE a terminal would have to be
built for them. Kinsley asked when the FAA would take over operation of the tower. ,
Stuller said the FAA would operate the tower if there are more than three operations t
�
per hour. Kinsley asked if they would also turn on the lights for general aviation. � �
E ,�
Stuller said the FAA will not deny general aviation the right Co land when the tower �
�
is open and will not advise them that the airport is closed. Kinsley asked how �
many operations per hour Chere would be if this question were approved. Stu2ler
said there would be two. Kinsley atated if a third carrier came in the airport �
would then be opened to general aviation. Child said the County could estahlish �
a ceiling on the number of flights allowed. Stuller said they could limit ihe �
numbet of operations but could noL assign those operations to specific carriers. �
Kinsley did not feel the Board should act on this until Edwards has a chance to �
a
comment. Ochs noted that October lOth is the deadline for submitting a ballot �
queation. The Board agreed to consider the item at 9:30 at the October lOt6 �
�
�
i
i
Commiasioners Meeting October 4, 1978 - 18
lp�y.�[�'`' '
k<'h''� f�?C-�� -
� �,,x
�..�-�� ;� .
. ",F'tiP. . . .
���l.�rf'i, .
� ... _..�._ ..�......._.... . . ... . . .4..
f �ei
i ��;'
continuation.
x •
°------- � :
? Pry-Ark A joint meeting was convened to consider the Frying Pan Arkansas diversion. '
Diversion �
Settlement City Council membera pzesent included Nina Johnston, Tom Isaac, George Parry and �
John Van Ness. Edwards arrived. �
Attorney Joha Musick presented a draft joint resolution and agreement for
settlement of all matters regarding the Frying Pan Arkaasas Pro�ect. He explained
that the resolution authorizes the Mayor and Chairman of the Board of Commissioners �
to sign the agreement if and when it is signed by [he other parties. The resolution �
. also d3rects the Chairman and Mayor to communicate the acceptance of the agreement
in support of any necessary reauthorizing legislation to the Colorado Congressional
Delegation which 3s consistent with the attached agreement. The two other documents
include Conference Co�ittee report language and a redraft of the piece nf legisla-
tion submitted by the Water Conaervation Board for the purpoaes of reauthorization.
The material submitted by the Water Conservation Board has been modified by Pitkin
County and is consistent with discussions with the Congressional Deletation staff
on some points. It is an embodiment of the terms and conditfons of the agreement.
Musick explained that because it is so late in the session, there wi11 not be a
co�anittee meeting or coffiniCtee hearings on the legislation. If it is submitted
as a new piece of legislation it will go directly to the floor; he suspected it
would be attached to an existing piece of legislation that has pasaed the Aouse
• and is in the Senate. Consequently, it wi21 have to go to conference coam3ttee �
because Che Senate and Aouse versions differ. It is common to have Conference � .
Committee report language which indi.cates the intent of the Conference CommitCee in �
asking to keep a piece of legislation out. The report language is not law, but it ,�, ,
�
is a direction to the administrators as to the method of the administration o£ `
the law and the intent of Congress in passing it. The Confetence Committee report �
Ianguage says that this legislation is to be interpreted and administered consis- $
�
tent with the agreement attached. Musick wants the agreement to become part of the �
n
Congressional record. �
Musick noted that paragraph two of the agreement is the moat substantial change "
in Che agre,=anent. Tiiis paragraph was drafted as a result of the meeting held with '
the Water Conservation Board, the Bureau of Reclamation and representatives of t�
«
the Southeastern District and the Division of Natural Resources. It states that �
21 second feet at Che confluence of the Roaring Fark and Huntez Creek is a project ��
!i
�
ii
")F
J
)
Commiseionere Meeting October 4, 1978 - 19 ':;
} ,
`,�`�'�,`"�;�
���
`�` �r;_, "
7< r..
;;��..:K�:.�,,-: . .
"��;r��
_. . _ . . . . .
. . . . . _ . . _ .� .. . ...F.. .t'..
i:
•.�'..
�{L'
obligation, except that, so �ong as there is 51 second feet at the stream gauging `�
station presently in existence which fs immediately above the Red Mountain Ditch.
�
The balance of the agreement contains changes made for editorial reasons or non- �
,�
substantive procedural reasons, and fs a very strong statement by this area of its �
desires and interesta.
&
, x
„ Musick noted that the stream gauging stations are 2ocated pzecisely and become �
the official recordkeepers of water supply for a stxeam and are found in an annual
�
water supply paper published by the Bureau oE Reclamation: Immediately below the
stream gauging station are a total nf 45 second feet of water rights senior to the
: project; 23.9 second feet belong to the Red Mountain Ditch, 15 belnng to tt,e City
of Aspen Hunter Creek F1ume pipeline and the balance are smaller miscellaneous
water rights. Maps of alI the ditches in the area have been prepared, and the amount
of watex that those rights can take senior to the pro3ect have been established. i
� 7
Mus3ck was conf3dent tUat the senior priorities have been establ3shed as accurately �33
as possible. In summary, paragraph two states that there will alwaqs be 21 second �
feet at the confluence except during those ti.mes when there is 51 second feet at �
the stteam gauging station. There will always be 45 second feet for senior calls,
vhich means tbat 6 second feet would have xo be a project obligation unless the �
. State did something to alleviate that. Musick sa3d they asked the State that this
be a burden upon the Water Conservation Board, the State of Colorado or the project
and not a burden npon the residents of this valley. There are a total o£ some 50
second feet of senior water rights upstream of the gauging station available for
acquisition by the State of Colorado to ensure that the 6 second feet will always
be at the stream gauging station. Musick stated that the 15 second feet of the
McFar2in ditch owned by the Forest Service would be available to the Water Conser- •
;
vat3on Board for acquisition either directly or through a land trade. An oral �
agreement has been reached between Tom �ans, Forest Service Supervisor, and Mr.
Sparks thaC the water exchange can be worked out among parties. The question ie,
having 6 second feet, how to make the bulk of the 21 second feet necessary at the
confluence. By this agreement, we had previously dedicated for use by the Water ;
t
Conservation Board 15 second feet of the City of Aspen's Hunter Creek Flume pipeline; (
that water ri ht ma be used for this '
S y purpose when and if a transfer is undertaken a
s
where all parties to the agreement agree to the transfer, if the City of Aspen may ? •
i
use that water at any time without consent by any other party for its own individual ?
t
City municipal neede. There are additlonal wates rights that the City has acqu3red �
3.
i
3
i
i
Commiasioness Meeting October 4, 1978 - 20`
;
•4^?X°� .. ." .
``�:`7.�';:i;Gj�{:^
� :yt;���':`1 _
r,x =S�Y�ta�
'acs���•`.:""' '
. .
� ;
�;�:..
�
.. ._ , . . .. .
.:». _.._ .._. . ....___.,. .
� i,
� M�.
� : ,'
.�.
���. .
and other water righte which are available which can be exercised; Musick recommend- f�,
,, .
ed that the City acquire the one second foot of the Red Mountain and the Houston jG
:S
Ditch water right. The water rights available for acqaisition total more than the s;
q
21 second feet at the confluence. The agreement provides that the Wa[er Conservation t'
�
Boa=d shall acquire all water rights sufficient and necessary to make 21 second feet �
,
at the confluence or S1 at the stream gauging station, of which 21 will pass all
senior rights. The agreement also insures a guarantee that the water rights of tbe
Red Mountain Ditch will not be challenged. Kinsley asked how the agreement guarantees,
that. Musick replied it does'so by guaxanteeing 51 second feet at the stream gaaging
s[ation. Isaac asked if there are any circumstances where the City would have to -
hypasa the Ked Mountain tank to meet the 21 Feet requirement. Musick said there
would be such circumstances during August. Isaac asked 3.f it would be possible that
the City would he bypassing their tank and the project would still be diverting.
Musick said there is a period of time when the project could still be diverting and
the City would be bypassing, but the project would be bypassing water to meet the
City's demand. The Salvation Ditch and the Red Mountain Ditch water rights would
cause that situation. Isaac asked if the City is senior to the diversion at the Red
Mountain tank. Musick said the City is senior at the Red Mountain intake to all but
four water r3ghts, and is senior to the project. Kinsley asked how the Citq and
County would assure that 21 second feet are at the confluence. Musick said the
agreement speaks to the transfer of the water at minimum flows in conjunction with
'the Water Conserostion Board, which the City or County are not permitted to do them-
selves, and the filing ori the water by the Water Conservation Board for minimum flows
which establishes a priarity on the stream for a quantity of 30 second feet in total
which runs at any point in the stream from the confluence with the Roaring Fork to ,
the headwaters. Kinsley asked if that ass�es accurate reporting on the ditches � '`
�
below the gauging station. Musick said that is correct; that is why it is necessary �
to maintain surveillance and supervision of the activities undertaken by the users. 7
a
That is best done by the water utilities; Musick recommends that the City and County �
request an installation of a stream gauge at the conPluence of the Roaring Fork with �
� Hunter Creek which can be read by the same set of recorders, and that the cost be �
shared. Kinsley asked how the City and County assure that the 3000 acre feet exchange�
is going down the Roaring Fork. Musick said that is very difficult to do administra- f
�
�.
tively; the only way is to look at the records after the Eact. He noted the project �
�
will be operated by the Bureau of Reclamation. Kinsley asked iE this reduces the �.��
i..
1
�
k;
Commissioners Meeting October 4, 1978 - Z1 +.3'
{%
,'.`-:�:.'�y`' .
_ ..� �
.
, �;;�.. ' , _
� a4<tL�.i�l�• _ � .
.. '3'.r��l,� .V . :
; .w ,
k• �
� ..
,. .a'�.-r�t�ic
. .. :. .._. . .. , ..
_ . __. ....... ...�
' " _ _ .. . .;,
(
n,
"a',
obligation for bypasa on the part of 14ain Lakes. Musick said it does not. Lee ^ .
�
Leavenworth said the City and County wil2 not be releasing water under the exchange
�
when they have to bypass. Musick said they have also zequested that the Water s
Conservation Board Eile on that water as tranebasin water to maintain the water ;
must headgate at Lhe Salvation Ditch and downstream to the confluence of the Roaring �
Fork and Frying Pan Rivers. Child asked about the 45 cfs active existing senior
3
�
water rights and if there are any other active water rights that could be called �
on. Musick said there are water rights upstream of the gauge that have not been �
used to the full extent of their entitlement in recent years; there are none down-
stream. Wright Water Engineers conducted investigations of the irrigated acreage �
there. Kinsley aeked about the points of disagreement with the Congress3onal Dele-
gation staff. Musick was unsure that there would be specific points of disagree-
ment; he is just unsure of total agreement. He telt this agreement has protected
all of the City and County's optlons to continue to f3ght for what they believe is
right in any eveat. Musick said Mr. Sparks was responsible for drafting the lan-
guage in paragraph two, so Musick be23eves he will support the agreement.
Kinsley publically acknowledged Governor Lamm, Jim Johnson, and Harris Sherman
for their assfstance in coming to this agreement. Musick ttoted he reviewed this
agreement with Stacy Stand7.ey and he favored proceeding ahead with it. Rinsley
moved approval of the joint resolution. Parry seconded. Johnston asked Edwards
if this answers his concerns. Edwards said it does, adding that paragraph two
guarantees a project obligation to provide water to the confluence of the Roaring
Pork and Hunter Creek; this would make that guarantee in all but the most extra-
ordinary circwnstances. The only event in which that would not occur would be if
more senior diversions t6an have ever historically been taken out of the stream �
a
� X
were [aken, at which time they would be challenged for abandonment. The Bureau
calculated that this agreement could impact the project up to the extent of another
�
9
2000 acre feet. �
Isaac asked if, by aign3ng this agreement, the City and County would have to
E
come out on the side of the project if the Carter administration vetoes this bill. �
k
t
Musick said they would not. Musick atressed the importance of maintaining good i
I
records of the amount of water in the streams in this end of the valley in order 5
��
to kaow how much water can be supplied to existing and expected growth in the '
�
f uture.
�
�
�
The motion for approval was passed unanimously hy both the City Council and , �
�
�
n
:4
Commissioners Meeting October 4, 1978 - 22
�<�� ��
-•�,,��r�a
_;
��r 4:��i.n.� ' ' . .
� `
��k � .r '
����° ,
-..:. ... . .__ .. .,.,... ,...
. ..-... .. .. ..
. ��.
.�.
County Commiseioners. Kinaley acknowledged Joe Edwards for being the one who was � "
most responsible for reaching this agreement. �
---------- �
A continuation of the October 2nd meeting was convened on October lOth, 1978.
Commissionera present were Robert Child, Michael Kinsley, Joseph E. Edwards, Jr.
(arrived late).
Night The Board convened a continuation of the October 2nd meeting to consider the issue
Flight
Ballot of a night flight initiative question for the November ballot. Stuller presented two
Question
alternative forms of questions for the Board's consideration; the first is a general
question which would allow the airport to remain open until 8:30 for scheduled carriers,
with the condition that the Cacxnty not be required to install improvements at public
expense, and that the FAA close the tower one-half hour after sunset. The second
question calls for specific amendments to the Airport Rules and Regulations which
would allow night operations. The more general question would allow the Board to
amend the airport regulations without voter approval. Stuller said the Board must
resolve the question of whether special review approval would be zequired for night
flights. In response to a question raised at the 2ast meeting, Stuller reported that
the FAA has no specific rules concerning how many operations per hour will be allowed
before they begin operating the tower. Child asked what would happen if the FAA �
insisted upon opening the tower. Stuller said the Board could then repeal the night � .
flight authority. If the tower is kept open the FAA will not refuse permission for
landing to generaZ aviation, and wiZl not police the County's airport regulations.
Stuller felt that with the FAA's cooperation this can be avoided, and it wi11 become
almost impossible for general aviation to land at night. She noted that if either �
i
of these questions are adopted they cannot be repealed for one year, as stated in
the Home Rule Charter. This would allow the Board the opportunity to review the
activity and repeal night flight authority next year if they feel there are too many
negative isrtpacts. Child asked about noise. Stuller replied that the Chamber of
Commerce requested that no 70 db noise limit (which would exclude the 1t�*in Otter and
Convair 580) be included in the regulations. Kinsley expressed concern that operators Z
s
would begin flying jet aircraft in at night. Stuller noted that the present scheduled �
�
carriers do not have jet sircraft, and this regulat3ons would exclude charter opexa- �
�
tions from night flights. Kinsley asked if a dh limit could be instituted next year �
if one of the scheduled carriers began flying jets in. Stuller said it could. Child '
�
�
�
�a
Co�uissioners Meeting October 10, 1978 - 23 ;�
k
';.+,�,.c',tg;�;
� 1 M ;
- t��:.. k�-:/
.k.�l���_��. ' � ..
. `�LSi y}`� . . .
e�
.. -... . .. _.. .,. . ..
_ ' . C'� . .'x`i"
s;
�c•..
:�:..
asked if this ballot question would be binding on the Board. Stuller replied it i}: •
�
would, adding that the Board may also subm3t advisory questions on the isaue to the
electorate if desired. Kinsley said the initial idea o£ including three ballot ;
�
questions concerning night flights and whether or not noise limits should be imposed ;
- �
would result in a split vote and may not result in an accurate measure of what �
people in the community favor. He added it is clear that the Chambex could get an
initiative on the ballo[ if the Board does not submit the question, and Kinsley was
opposed to the excess costs such a special election would involve; he felt the hest
alternative is for the Coummissioners to put the issue on the November ballot. He
noted this does not indicate that he supports such an initiative. Child agreed with
Ki.nsley and added that he saw no advantage to submitting the more detailed question;
he felt the general question would give the Board an accurate measure of the commun-
ity's Eeelings on night flights. Stuller noted the more detailed question is harder
for the public to understand and is more difficult to amend. The general question
will require that the County go through the adoption procedure, and the effective
date of the resolution is January 1, 1978 ia order to allow time for this process.
Gerry Fox, Director of the Chamber of Co�erce, said the Chamber wants the County
to assume the espense of reinstalling the lights they required Aspen Airways to
� remove last winter. The Board was opposed to that. Kinsley suggested the County
could install and own the lights and the sirlines would cover the coat. Stuller
felt the County should not install any improvements but should require that any
improvements installed by the sirlinea be conveyed to Pitkia County.
One memher of the public present suggested the ballot question be phrased as a
general issue of whether or not to allow nigfit flights, and if the elector votes
yes, they should then choose what conditions should be imposed on night flights. '
L
Stuller said that would then raise the question of how ta handle a tie betweea
items nn the list of conditions. Kinsley said he would at least insist on the
cottditions contained in the more genezal question. Steve Harris was opposed to
imposing a decibel level on the night flight regulations since the County would �
� agein face a discrimination suit and all night operations would stop. Stuller ,�
h
suggested broadening the ballot question in an advieory capacity. Ernie Ashley, �
President of the Chamber of Co�erce, said they want a binding mandate, nut an {
advisory question, and would favor a general questlon on night flights with atty, �
i
regulations left up to Che County. Stuller said the initiative must include the �
�
condltion that the tower remain closed so the County can override the initiative ;
s
if the FAA does open the tower. She felt these issues should be resolved in advance. �;
{
i
ii
Commissioners Meeting October 10, 1978 - 24
;;
� n •
� `i:�,��: .
'%4,,
.....,.i.r":
2{ ry �'.} ��5. _ � . � ,
r
'�3 5t�:''��`.' ' ;
���_
... --— r.�',
}j
...4:
A_�'
4 ,
Harris asked why the effective date of the more general question ia January 1, 1978. �. -
Stu2ler said the adoption process would take approximately aix weeks because of :?
�;
the Charter requirements for setting a public hearing. This delay could be avoided s
by adopting the specific regulation in its final form.
f
�
Wendy Morse asked if the condition concerning installation of improvements "at �
�
public expense" includes FAA funds. Stuller said it would, but noted that Pitkin �
¢
_ County could choose to use FAA funds but would not be required to do so. �
Kinsley felt [he Iong form of the ballot question should be used so the delay �
period can be avoided. Stuller pointed out that the resolution would then be
effective for a full year and could not be amended during that time. Kinsley asked
if it includes the regulations used last year. Stuller said it does, although some
refinement has been done. If this form is approved it should include the condition '�
that the FAA tower shall remain closed, and the question of whether night flights
require special review ander the Laad Use Code should be clarified. Harris suggest-
ed a general questian precede the specific regulations so the questfon can be
understood by the voters. Fox said if land use review would be required witfi the
longer question the effective date would then be the same. Stuller added that that
review also includes the opportunity for denial. If that review is to be avoided
e
the qnestion must state that night flights don't constitute an activity of state
interest and do not reqaire special review approval under the Code. Karen Smith
noted that the creation of an airport and any e�cpansion o£ the afrport activiLy
are under 1041 but that can be superceded by the local government.
Kinsley moved adoption of the more specific initiative amending the airport regn- �
lations with the qualifiers that any improvements installed be conveyed to Pitkin �
County, the FAA tower not be in operation during evening operations, and no special �
A
review approval will be required, and added that the amendment to the regulations
be prefaced by a simple question on the ballot. Stul2er ttoted that if the FAA
makes more stringent demands than the County requizements, they would supercede �
�
>
these regulations. Child asked about the number of operatione to be allowed. Last �
year six operatione per. carrier were allowed during evening hours. Kinsley noted �
�
that without a limit, if the number of flights exceeds FAA guidelines and they open �
the tower, general aviatinn will come in. Stuller said the initiative would be
automatically repealed if the tower opena. Child felt a ceiling on the total
?E
number of flighta should be established. Stuller said those flights must be pro- �
�3
rated per carrier. A subsection could be added to the regulations stating that j
i
'A
;f
:i
Commissioners Meeting October 10, 1978 - 25 ''
� • ; � .
n�,,�„'��. .�
::'1!�'.�F�'�
, -.,,,. �-;: - ,
,, r�s:�;. .
�.t ��-
.5,.�,�;'�`r. '
''t..�,s"'' ` '
�'.♦' , ,. _ _.. . .. . x��i_
� ,t�
��K ..
w�:
the nnmber of scheduled operatione sha].1 not exceed twelve during evening hours. '
IChild asked what would happen if an evening flight is delayed. Stuller said the �
I �
� regulations allow a late scheduled flight to land until nine o'clock. She noted �
this resolution would become effective immediately upon approval by the electorate.
t
A member of the public asked if the FAA funds can be used for the lights if they
are available. Stuller said they could, since the County has a one million dollar
grant from the federal government that can be assigned to any project the County
chooses. The question of underground installation was discussed. Stuller felt
surface installation would be allowed if the lights are installed aC private expense.
• \
Kinsley moved to authorize the Chairman to execute the resolution submitting this
initiative to the electora with the following qualifications: any improvements
installed will be conveyed to Pitkin,County, the FAA tower will not be in operation
during evening hours, there wi12 be no more than 12 scheduled operations in the
evening hours, and night flights shall not require special rev3ew approval. Child
aeconded and the motion passed unanimously. (Edwaxds was absent.)
Lone Pine The Board considered the detailed submission application for the Lone Pine project.
Detailed
Submission Smith explained that on October 4, 1978 the P S Z tabled the detailed submission
`'I until the housing commitment fs clarified, and requested that the application be
returaed to them for review when this has been done. They felt the planning consid-
� erations were acceptabie with a few minor changes. Kinsley asked if all other
. � detailed submission requirements have been met. Smith replied that most technical
Imatters have been resolved, but noted the question of circulation on Smuggler
iMountain raised by City Engineer Dave Ellis. He suggested that this project not � ;
I preclude any modifications that may be required on Lone Pine or Red Mountain roads, �
I i . 'a
� adding that one possible realignment could affect the common area on the weatern �
edge of the project. Rick Ferrell stated the land involved in that alignment is q
i �
ialready owned by the County. Smith added that a non-specific trail easement is Y
�
� shown through the common area, and a specific easement is included on the eastern E
i '�
� end of the project. Stuller noted that in order to qualify for the increased �
;
I density of PMF1 zoning, the applicant must have a moderate cost housing project with �
i j
� price guidelines and constrictions on rents or resale prices. The general submission�
3
approval also included a condition binding Ferrell to the prices included in his �
March 7th memorandum. �
Mark Danielsen, Housing Director, stated the major problem is arriving at a formula �
�
�
Commiesioners Meeting October 10. 1978 - 26 $
�
�
�
. � _
.,:�:;y:��"
_,., „�,. . ��.
,'`,+..�f -
�`�,��X.#,' - _
,_ .
s:._
. �1.
��,.
:�.
for recalculat3ng the pricea included in the general snbmission to arrive at prices '� .
,.
for the detailed submiesion. The resolution approving the general submiasioa atates'
the prices of the March 7th memo will be recalculated to include construction infla-:
;
tion which has takea pZace since the time of the general submission, but Danielsen
j
noted Ferrell has also increased the square footage of the units. Danielsen z
E
inflated the prices of the March 7th memo by 15X and then increased them according �
�
to the increase in square footage. The resulting prices were $46,000 for a one- E
a
bedroom �
, $63,000 for a two-bedroom and $89,000 for a three-bedtoom unit, wkich
i
includes the land lease cost but does not include financing. Danielsen calculated �
g
that each free-markeC unit would subsidize approximately $11,600 of the PMH units. � �
Ferrell noted that public f3nancing raises the prices of the units to estabZish
a reserve to secure the bond. 17% of the loan amount should be added to the unit �
prices, resultfng in an eftective interest rate of 8 3/4X based on obCaining 7�X �
interest. Stuller noted that the cost of the units doesn't increase proportionately�
per square foot, since there are some fixed costs like land, kitchens, plumbing, �
�:; etc. Perrell agreed. He said he considered the market people purchasing a primary �
i
residence would be interested in in determining to increase the square footage �.
' of the units. Child asked about the square foot costs for Midland Park. Danielsen �
i �
� said these square foot prices are similar to the one and two-bedroom units and �
close to the three-bedroom square foot costs for Midland Park. (Edwarda arrived.) �
Ferrell showed the Board a chart indicating the PITI (principal, interest, taxes �
and insurance) and MHRI (minimum household required income) for Lone Pine. The �
MHRI ranged from $17,355 to $34,2I7, depending on the size of the unit. Edwards �
co�ented that the PITI is much higher than Midland Park. Child pointed out that �
�
the PITI would not remaia stable because of inflation and land lease costs. Dan- q
a
� ;�
ielsen noted that the top figures allowed in accordance with the general submission Y
resolution result in a total subsidy of $26,200 per free-market unit. Ferrell �
s
i
stated that the reasons for the increase in the PITI required over that given in °
the March 7th memo are the reserve required for public financing, and the fact �
that this is based on lOX downpayment rather than ZOX which is required with n�
V
conventional financing. Danielsen said the result of this is that the minimum ;�
required household income at Lotte Pine i.s equal to the maximum allowed at Midland
Park. He felt the pricing of the units is making the application unacceptahle, �'
noting that the general submission resolution states Lone Pine will satisfy the '�
a
moderate income levels. Ferrell replied that resolution etates Loae Pine figures, ;a
.'s
j
• Commissioners Meeting October 10, 1978 - 27 !%
�:Y''.�,a�"�t ax�..
.c�:�ry-
f •:1 i...,
,_�'^yi� -
�'s�h��� " '
,� w ttF r�` � �
�-' � ,.� ._ . � , . ,.
,- . .�.. ., .... .... . . ..: . ....... . ..
_.. _ .. . .,.� .:.. �.
. _ . . . . . . ' �, ti.
�'
..'��..
as prajected, will fall in the moderate income level. Stuller said the applicant
must satisfy the moderate income level in order to qualify for PMH rezoning.
Y
Ferrell said it would be impossible to duplicate the prices at•Midland Park, noting �
; �
that the condemned land for Mid2and Park was acquired for a very low price. Kinsley 3
� said the subsidy by the free-market units should resolve that. Ferrell noted that 3
0
� a $147,000 subsidy from the freemarket units will go to the PMH units, but the �
'"� real problem is that inflation is maicing ownership housing almost impossible to
' afford. Kinsley felt Ferrell should consider eliminating the three-bedroom units
i
; and creating more one and two-bedroom units, and suggested the possibility of the
County doing the interim financing. Ferrell presenCed income figures for a pro-
ject with ten studio units rather than four three-bedraom units. The MHRI for
these uaits would range £rom $14,044 to $24,450. Child felt that would be a much
better alternative, but noted that the bathroom and kitchen costs would be increased
for studio units rather than three-bedroom units. Edwards fe2t Lhat since the
project cannot come close to meeting the Midland Park prices with three-bedroom
units Ferrell should concentrate on a one and two-bedroom project with studio
units, sud should meet the Midland Yark prices plus inf2ation. Smith asked about
the parking ratio with studio units. Ferrell replied there would be more than one
� parking space per bedroam. He asked if a public hearing would be required if this
is considered a substantial change to the general submission. Smith said it would.
Kinsley did nat feel this is a substantial change since the building coaf3guration
would remain the same. He requested that Ferrell look at the County assisting in
the £inancing of the construction loan. Ferrell said he would be willing to turn
this project over to the County foz conatruction, with the applicant covering the
costs. Edwards said the County woa2d not be willing to handle construction of the �
project, but some similar transaction may 6e cansidered in order to ger the construc-
tion loan at County interest rates. Kinsley felt the studio alternative is a step
in the tight direction, but snggested Ferrell determine i£ the unit prices can be
decreased with County assistance for the construction loan, and with smaller units. � .
�
M3chael Erneman, architect for the project, said the units just aren't workable if �
the size is decreased; they would not be livablr.. He added that the construction
used at Lone Pine will not be "rock bottom", like S3lvezking, so the results will �
be much better. This type of construction wi1S also lower replacement costs. �
p
Ferrell added that the therma2 code adopted by Pitkin County also increases the g
k
,
unit costs. The revised detailed submission will be presented to the P � Z on �
�
Commissioners Meeting OcCOber 10, 1978 - 28
';o:r�,'��.` `
��::
,... =:z
w�.��„�N».„���
� .e�y+.i.] . � ..
!i �
:� . „�
.� .. � ...:.I ^t � . . .. '
. ., -.. 9 :. E.:: �.:� .. l,.n�,�a.s<5_I ...:...;�.. . .r.GY. ........ . , t.. t,;y.:rJy S.Cj4-+a*.1..
:i
. . ':. i � .:'-'..Y, .e .'_ .. . r,_. �.`f.:'� .. .. �*} .
October 18th and to the Comoniesionera on October 23rd.
Aitport The Board determined to stop processing the recent amendment to the airport
Regulations
Amendment regulations adopted on first reading on October 4th which wou2d permit night
flights for aircraft under the 70 dbA level, and to cancel the November 13th pub-
lic hearing for consideration of that amen8ment. .
;�
There being na further businesa, the meeting was adjourned.
�d' -- -c z
�i.
.�4g` . fi ..a ..
) �RespecX�u lq submitted, APPROVED: 'i
���: �,. ,.� .
�� ,:'a . '�� R .}_. i ..
� '%� ��. .: .: ". 1 t�. . . 1� .
Y
� �J�� � �..� �
�; ) ��,���� �� /�
;� �j,L�iz.StgwarC;�•D.eputy County Clerk Chairman Robert W. Ch d
� t, .- .
�e: tu-i c � � �
.�� � ��� + u = /
� / C z�
Mi ae Kinsley
i
Joseph E. war s, r.
�
`.;:
Commissionera Meeting October 10, 1978 - 29
� ..,.t.-_,.avy .?.,.-rt'ti..:rrx a..;w_:�:,Wti..t��..'Ji�'�xd,n..en�:..:.�uinb�J=r.S'-�f�����.�k�n....., ..�-.__._..—. aw...:-.:: ..�.. ,..:c..::.. '.t.���e�..z.: ,. . .
. : ......�.. . - ,r .:f.
."2�'.,;�.,,.. .
1978 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PUBLIC HEARING EXHIBITS
October 2, 1978 Samango Special Review— A Memorandum Dated August 24, 1978 from Karen Smith to
Lot Split Board of County Commissioners
B Letter Dated August 4, 1978 from Bob Nelson, Sanitarian,to
Ka�ren Smith
Lull Lot Split C Memorandum Dated August 24, 1978 from Richard Grice to
Board of County Commissioners
D Letter Dated September 13, 1978 from Lincoln Devore
Consultants to Hans Lutl RE: Slope Stability
E Letter Dated September 26, 1978 from Charles T.Collins,
Consulting En�ineer,to Whom it May Concern RE: Slope
Stability
Airport Curfew Violation— F Notice of Administrative Hearing Dated September 5, 1978—
Parker Quillan Parker Quillan
G Amended Notice of Administrative Hearing Dated September
13, I978
H Amended Notice of Administrative Hearing Dated September
20, 1978
Airport Curfew Violation I Notice of Administrative Hearing Dated September 5, 1978
Walter Orr Roberts Walter Orr Roberts
J Amended Notice of Administrative Hearing Dated September
13, 1978
K Amended Notice of Administrative Hearing Dated September
20, 1978
L 1 of 3 Letter Dated September 11, 1978 from Walter Orr Roberts to
Commissioner Bob Child
L 2 of 3 Letter Dated September 20, 1978 from Walter Orr Roberts to
Commissioner Bob Child
L 3 of 3 Letter Dated September 25, 1978 from Walter Orr Roberts to
Commissioner Bob Child
M Resolution 77-111 —Adopting Amendments to the County's
Regulations for the Management and Operation of the Aspen
Pitkin County Airport
N Resolution 77-147 Amending Section 31.02.02-1 ofthe
County's Regulations for the Management and Operation of the
Aspen Pitkin County Airport
O Resolution 77-153 of the Board of County Commissioners
Amending the County's Regulations for the Management and
Operation of the Aspen Pitkin County Airport by Excluding
Charter Aircraft from Nighttime Use of the Airport
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 29 1978 EXHIBITS TO MINUTES
EXHIBIT
. �
14 1? h1 i� k /l P 1 D U i�i � -
'f0: Coai,d of Cour�i.y Cane��i�.sionc�r; ?
i
FROIr: I:arcn �mil.!�, ('iain�ii;�� U�r.ic�
Iti:: S,n:an�o - Spr�r.ial Rc.���ictiy to Scp�ii•aCc Lots 33i, :j� arid �10 and Lots
4?_, 43 �ind R5, IIr�Il��nc( I(ills 5;;�:divisiun
(IATF.: AugusC ?�!, 17ift
"fhis i; � publ�ic hearine� Lo consider thr_ attaclied application rc�euetiting
�.c:i�ni.=,sion to sep�,r.�te �h�, above n,enLionecl lots for the pur�oses of single
Family cieveiopment on rac+.i l;,i:. '(i�is ap��iicat•ion is made under Section 7.22
of i.he Pit{:in Cnunt,y �and Use Code �•�hich ���as amended by the �oaru o•i County
Cnnn��i;s;oners last Niond�./ to pi,ovide more detaile�i criteria for i•evie��, of
separ�ii:ior� oF sul,standarr?-;ized 'lots. The zone disi��ict foi� the en^ea is
AF-1 being pro;»sr.d fcr• P,F-1. The apnlicaL-ion lias provided us with a list
oT tl�e aci°ea,e per l o� tvhi ch i s as fol l o�•t,:
Lot A,cres !.�nrn oF co. Coau�•ft�s
"� -- PITKIN C0.
33 .65 � � �;c Hcaring �xhibits
39 .��
40 .91 • ---�.P.__'.�..:_7c5'.-
42 .74 ;�,.t : ��.I21sZ�1�'!�0� �v//�
43 .82 I� ;
�-.�i � � I:o.: �` �
.7 J '-----'
For �OCC's reference the ne�i criteria for, r°evie�•r uf separation of substai�dard-
s;zed lots include the Fo]l�i•�ing:
1. Tiie number of substandard lots developed in 4e area and the effect of
sapar�ate c!erelnpme�� an the ch�rac�ei° of the neighbo�^hood ar.a purposes
of tl�e zone category.
Z. Tiie exte��f to arhich the lots ccr.ipl,v i��ith e;<isting subdivision regu-
lations,
3. The effect of sep,rate developmer;t un available public u�ilit?es, roads
and other public serv�ices.
4. ?,ny pi�ysical limitations of the lots.
5. The cnnfi��ratinn uf tf�e 1oi:s as it af�`ect; Lh�ir suit�bi?ity for �
separate dcvelopment. ;
G, 7'1�e Jec�ree of ecnno�ric. loss ot I.he o:�mc�� if separatc dc:velopmeiit per-
missinn is izoL granted (inc:lncfing n considera.�ion of i:he value of the
iots if scpar•ately develuped vi;-a-vis �Lhei;, ��alu� ii' used in con-
,junction t•1itL each uther).
7. The history of acquistion (includina a conside�°atioii ofi ±Iie pur•poses
of the p�n-chase and «hel:her or not tf�� lots �;�ere involuntari1y ar_cuired).
8. T�ie hisi:or�ical use of the lots.
On an atta::L•ed plat map ,ou ��,i� see �i:iie locatiori of che lots in question. They
are locaterl in tli�r fa��• north:�a�t r.orner of the Flollaro tlills SuL,division, wnich
t,as p?ritL•n�� �irt 2!i70, artd tihcrc�vre did nut go �l;t°oug;� Cour�ty St,bdivision
i'��q�.(I�itions. Ther�. are ov^r� ;fi lots in the Hallaiid {i�i11s plat of t•rh•ich about
ha i f have �een devel opeo, The !oi,s ranri•� ;n s i ze fi-om abuut �z i:fi i i•d of ar�
3C!"E! �O OVC1" l;] 1C1"C ]t1 5?�:n. lr;e �Of 5 l!nder• coi�sideration �181'C' are amony th@
1ai•qcr lot:s eF th^ subc;i�.•isicn.
The land �iisl:urically tia�as i,� ,:u�ricuiturn •u,e, ln�L at least since 1970 when
pla�c��ng c�ccured it has noi: br;en used a; ;uch. 1-herr� is sonx� aqriculturai
land ;•��maininq a:-ci�.inu tlie 11o11and I;i ll; SiiUJi��is�iori ��nd thesc loi;s are
��d,ja�;r.�n1: L-o o;�en �ands. Tliere is activc� agr.icu7i:ura7 use ar_ross the va]le��
to ttu� ;,ouLf; of Ili:�h�.�tay 82. '1"hr suh,d:�•isinri i� sri,••�ed Uy a centr�il i•�atcr
�
hY�mo tn LOCf,
5�manc�o - llu��u�I: ?.�!
I'agc 2
sy�tent and se��tiic s_y.tc:tus are bein9 used tc� st�tisi'y set•rer requ-irenicnts. WC
do not Yet h�ive word from I;ob fdc:lson ��s Lo I:he idequacy of tl�ese ��arLicular
lots for ::uch ��ur��oses, l,ut iC clu��s noi: �y��icar that i:hey �•iould have any
diffet•c�nc�� in suit�if�iliCy from those aircady developcd. liowever, Lite net
effect of such dev��lop;�irnC may afiecl: se�i.ic tanl: suitability. Roads are
in the subdivision, ho��rr��;er the.y �u�e• noi: pavecl and �•�e t��ere unable to deter-
mine ti•riiei:hci- their t•�idti: r,+eY, County design stanc3at°ds. lJe have askrd Jeff
Davis to review Y.h�is as��ect.
From a iooi; at the C5t1 maps, thcre do not ap��ear t� be any phys9cal limi-
tations on the lots. 1'he lots on Lhe upper side of the road a�,e more
sloping i;han tho�e on i:he lovier. The lots are said to be less th�tn 10;o in
slope riever�theless. The upper lots (all s•ix tfithin the app7ication) are
visible fi�ora Hiqht•:ay II'L and are 1ocai:ed in an are�i of moderate visual
��ulnerability ��s desi�nated on 1:he CSU maps. In view of the lar9er size..
of ttrese 1otis, t;fie appearance of congest�ion and visual i+�pact t•�ill be soine
degree less than thaC portion of Holl�nd Hills which is im�nediately adjacerit
tu Hightivay 32. There is only orie house in this area of the subdivision at
the current ti�ne, and �Jevelopizrent on all sir, oi' tliese loLs wou7d have the
appearance o� e�:tendiny the congestion of the subdivision, albeit to a
lesser deuree than in other portions.
I�r. Samango bouyht the ints on September 3, 1976 for a total of $90>000.
Flis realtor, Paul Adams, thouc�hi: he had n�et the deadline. Interwest Realty
cor�nented that individually the lots would be �•;orth $2�3 - 30,000. Tl��ree
lots combined could be expect to briny $30 - 35,000.
The lack of physical limitations and the existence of services and facili-
ties to the,e lots argues for approval of separa�e development. On the
othe�• hand tl�e deg�°ee of non-ca�fo�-ioity with existin9 zoning and wi�h the
pro�osed zoning is substantial. At full buildout, Flolland {iills will consl;i-
tute an urbanized node and a problern in terr�s of congesti�n on Highvray 82.
Consolidation of three 7ots �into one for a tota7 of tv�o lots �vould ease
this congestion and tlie visual irnpact in the ai°ea. }1o�•iever, at this point
in time and knorling the nature of economic loss, we think that there 'are i
more g��ounds for approval of separate development permission. We v�ould
qualify this recominenclation periding receipt of comments from�:tlie various
refei�i�al aoe��cies.
At a special meeting on August 23, 1978, the Plannin9 and Zoning Conmiission
reconnnended approval vrii;houi:condition.
s i,
� J
i
� • ' � . EXNIBIT
� �
, • ' �:��„ r . ,;r.ir: ::��,c::�, n.�,�-f.ia,��;�i.c.�i�ni�c��i►r.•►i � � i
,
.
� - ;
t�S f: !•t U I; A f� i.� il hi • . ;
, ' , ' 1
r� j r.�n.rp o�-.co. cor::.►�R�� i
. , - ,�;;�'l�' PITKI2J C0. ;
;• ��(.l; F'l�,tttilli'� �;ff�ir.C�, f;��t'��li _�ttil,lt ,�' t.li' Public Hearing �xhiuit� t
.. , � �J'�V � / <, �
Er;lJri: L+_��I iii'i:�.(I1�� �.O1!11�:� Cilii�l Lti:�li'li i}l� p�i.0 . .__l�._�__.�[1.'•'-" �
�`'� sut�3 oct :�Z�1.7.1�G�J���::t-�J�Ilt�
U,1'f l:: ��,u';t:_,'i r' , 1:?%11 ,
' R1::. S(�cc�i ;l f?r��;ic�',•� - :�,:�,:�;�c'� Lot' _ _. ..----.. . ;
(_Ot.`. ,'•'�� .�:� �911t� �i(} r.:ll!� i_U�.`; '�:� �F.3� dllC� �:7 �
lic�ll�:r�cl �li�ll:, Sui�clivisi���; i �
f
.., f .
� 1
• � :
., ��tl S p(i i CC' �iu.ti C0�171 Cjf.C{ i1 �i j.0 111��1PC1.1011 ��.1iC) t'(?':1 i'tl'! 01 �:rlC 1';?1 C'1'i'f1CCCj � i
c t �1 '� -� i���� c �! " r'� �r'�. • c r� � . i j
1U�:.� YC�,�It'C�.I1P �..1� !r, f..i' . U�3}i�J r;l-.�= - i�iCii? (�'!�j)J.;�l� 1'C�U11"'._1il•,"'I1�5 Of j;j1C:
Cc��ur������ U:::j;:]t'i:l�::•nt af l,.r.ali.l� ai�:; thc PiCkit� Co�ui':y Lanc� l;se Cocic. ; i
, �
. �
,
(�iF? SUO�'�1V1`_;'IC❑ 15 SU11�)1 ir_'C� �1'Oi�l 1 CCiI{:1"a� ::'F9f:C1' Sj'Strlll COt151Sj;1f1CJ 01" ; �
�pfil" 4•Jr'lli� �1'C,c;U("t? �:;3f1�: StC1t'::Cil:� i!I1!� n CI1�Oi"llili,�)1' �1�: E'.i1CI1 l•!C'�� f1C'�;C�. ' � i
Thc ��r,z i.er sv�;:cn; c�r,es no� co,;,;�1 y �,r�t'� Sr�ci;ion G.25 o�f the ?i t�:i n CGU11��y � � �
.. ., . --- �
Ldll(� ��SC (�OU_ ?;l;f� l C'.701'�.C'(�I`; ���:t� ii':'i{!I��fl''.��;f �;,Ci:C(� a:�^C�U�i�r 17�1�:LT' 4):"CSiU�1? . I
dll;� O(:Ci:51C`lio i �J' aCi:i:1ilt�; I:u:'L f�^O;l ;•!) L��0:1� 1':i:ti2T' 111 �IIEc r�:i:it. Y�li_' {'i0lii�ll� ` . �
. }lil'I� i,cr:c���,:��ors ;�.�,sn. i-�as �r ��, .r.; , �- � � � �s1:�r;= ,,,
f�GS ��n_c��._ii�::. __�ii:_:�. 4,�.,1���. -c_f. tlie ) t,:... , ; ,
1"1 �I�JI1�' �.�'i.�'1' EI1`-ililiCl'S �.t1C� UUI' Oiilf:r, {i�S CDiil�:l�f_'L'�:� i"OU�;lllc 111VCa1'.1�'cli:'IU11.`',
t�l�th i:i;c C�>Tor;�do 0e�?.r�cii;c�nt: of Nc��i.h Dist:r•ici; :�.ngira�er. lt is tl�e '
-, ,,;:,::; co�iclu.�ntr tf;::C given i:he assu1117i;1Uiii of� �;ell ��ield (15 GP(�1 ;:�=7� �•rell ) a�id ; ;
:,, .,;: d�n�:^�-;_ic i�se o,11;�, the pre��is�ion oi 1(�,000_g�llons or stora�e ��tili allevia�:e ' i
��, ,, `., r�osl: pi•oL�le:�s e:.���erier�c_•ri. T'r�e_ �ihni�cll��� stc,r,.,.��, tr�o�E; has been purch��seci . �
1';� ', .�'�.'_ � �' ' ��� 1. 1{� ��10U�'� LC 711 USC S�"101'L�`- ---It:. 1S a'tso 11�Ce:,�.a1��� �� �
��; _�ri � d�l.i�1.rr� � .� ,/. �_ , �
� • 0�)t:i.�l ll C?X'I i�i:111C :11't'Cfl 1"'i Uf1 i:S '.'�1" i 1"r"!Jd�`,l0!1 (!f11'f!OGC'.S l fl �:�iC: SUf)C�1 V1 51011> �?l�(1 `•
,,,,.•�i' ' fC)1' �;f1E �10;'��Ui:ilt't'S �:0 Ci;?:'�•�0�) i111(j Ci�rO'/'CC.' C'i it'Cj;1V(.' 1'(?�I.l�dt1J115 {:0 CO(li.l'�1� ��: � +
� l aanE ;�,t:er i r��� f i�;,::� tllc do,�;��s�i c sy;;i;c;��. �' �` �
: 1
�� Sc�raqe_ cii_�;�o::al l; ;;�=�ar.-, of a scpi;ic i.�nl:-dI)SOi'�3�1G11 field has proven �; ;
t :` ;•=•- dCCt4:�2�)�f: i.�ll'Ol':;fi0:l� i11L' ii)i;5 01'CY' O:lc' c1Ct't' lii i,�11S SU�i(�iV7Sl0I1. ��1(? l`LC� ' 1
`� I Shcli�j' SO1 i; CEi-�il'J���' �l�ll'C' �:CC(]{li:it)�C ti:�rcolation 1'�:ti:CS d[1C.� j:f1C j�G(Ji:$ 011 .' I
t�l�'rC! �0�:; ill't 111:+G21'df,;�. I��� i�er_1 cill 1(l�l'd-i(iUl� SC'i:."1C�r� C�"!��)O�al 5J'St�'f!i lIl � 4
coin�ilia�-�ce �:ii:h Cr.u+,i;y regti]aLion� c��:l Ue installed. � .! �
�
� i
' : � �
cc: 1?oi� 1=ranr.is ; '
. , j :
, , ,
� ! t ,
; _ ,
. ' � �
. � !
� ,
. i
� • � � � i
. � i
. . : �
� . . . . � i
I
EXHIBIT
�
I•� � h 1 0 R 11 N 1) �J I�i -
— -• - - - ----------------------- ----r.�nFn or co. cors:,��r.�s
r0: cc,,,rd ur co�;nty con��nissioncrs PITKI2J C0.
Public I�caring TxhiUit�
i-1t0(4: Planning Ofiicc, Ric:har�i Grice .
:�`�o : ._��_.:--�-I--�-�� �
It�: Lull I.ot Sepao•ai:ion sutijcct : .�(.Gc.�--!4�n�,-�-7��I'�
DAl[: hugUSt ?_4, 197�3 E==2i. Na.: ...._. ..__�:.% �
---- ------- -- - �
This is a public iiec�rin� �Lo crnisider an application fi•or� i•ir. Nans Lull re-
questini� permission to separate substandard-sized Loi: 14, �lock 3, 1--iling 2 '
of i:he Lrush Crcek Vil?ac�e Subdivision from Loi: 15. Tliis ap�lication is made �
u,�d�r thr ameuiled Section 7.27 oi= the Pitl:in Co�mty Land Use Code. Section �
7.27_ ���as amendr�d by th�r 6oai,d of County Cou��inissioners on llugust 14 at ��hich ,
t�ime additional 1"�V1�5'� crit�ria t•lere added for spec�ial revie�v approval as
FO��OIVS:
i. Th� numbcr of suhst��ndard lo�ts developed in the ���ca and i;he effecl:
of separate development on the character of the neiglzboi°hood and ;
pui�poses of the zone category;
2. the er.tent to t�lhich the lots comply ��rith existing subdivision i°egu- I
lations; �
3. tfie effect ofi sepai�ate development on avai7able utilities, roads, �
a:id ol:her publi� scrviccs; !
4. any physical lir;itations of tl�e lot; �
5. tl�e configui-ation of the lot as it affects their suitability for I
separate dev2lopn?ent; �
�
6. the degree of economic loss to the ormer if separate development �
permission is not granted (including a consideration of the value �
of tl�e lots -if separately developed vis-a-vis their value if used �
in conjuntion t•rith each other); '
7. tii�_ history af acquisition (includiiig a consideration of tfie pur- �
poses of the p�n�chase and whether or not the locs involuni:arily i
acqui re;1); '
i
8, and the histor•�cal use of the lots. (
Substandard-sized lat� which �•�ere apoi°oved subsequent to thc adoption of ?
Resalution 72-17 �in 14ay of 1972 are considei°ed sepa�,ately developablc riith- �
out goiny through sperial revie�•�. Filing 2 of Brush Creek Su6divisio❑ I
was ap�r�ved in J�me i956.
�
Boh Nelson has appi-oved the septic system. The ivell on the property pro- {
duces a sufficient quantity, fiowevef�, l3ob suggests your anproval be condi- f
i:ioned u��on a bacteriolo9ical and chemical qualii:y repori: prior to the j
40CC publ�ic hearing. ;
A relatively level gravel drive-�vay accessing the homc-site from Daniel �
Di-ive in (;rush Creeic Subd�ivision already exists which bears a logiral �
relationship to topography. �
Dave Shelton of Colorado Geologic Survey inspected the site and commented (
that a cut had been m�!de into an unstai�le slope whicii could result in slope �
failur•e 1� Ild7.l1'U nritigat�ion techniques are not emplr�yed. He sug�ested
that a geoluyic engineer be consu�ited for an engineered foundal:ioi� and re-
taining :;�;all. i
Rt a sp�cial mc,et�iii9 on 1\uqiisi: ?3, T97�3, lhr Planninc� �ind Zon�in.y Commission �
recon�mended �ppro�-a1 subj�.;.t to a bacte•�ic,logical and ch�^mical quality
i�eport I�einq pi°widc�cl i:o Lhe satisfaction of the Count,y �arritarian and
provi<Ic•d ;ui engirieered foundai:ion is desi9ned to mitigate the qeologic ;
hazni-d. I
I
i
�
sr
I
�
�
I
� EXHIBIT
. ' � �
r.�nr,D or co. cor.�nt�R�s .
� � �� PITKIIt C0.
�' - ^�bl?c I�carin6 Exhibits
, ' � , �Q '� '71.�7.._ l
: ..�, j ;'r,'�Jcct . L�.(.�C�.....�L_._,�"��7
.! ..
Lincoln i�ctlora �
10001`/=r,:l filimo�r;;L
Cul��i.��In;lpr inq;.Cnlor'tdU C0�07
(;103!0::-:;i:73 �
I lu�v:O'licr:
.icn:axaar '_3e ;.t)i3
�i�, ::a.�,� 1.u:i1
'r?�xc ..:�++:3
.".�,,.;r�� �'7 .;1aAd �
?.�; i'SJ.s �irs, .,.—�i^S!� �
_°.251?'�:i tii:;'s1).iL�
�.'::�:��..1�:•, "'�3.1
i�_^.?:al� �..C:.t`t; JLiL'b':�.�Zw^ii .
i�ti.2 �� C.�:- �L�i
i�9.3% i'ZCe �s��:
�__ _J�i.rt zs:su�:::'-�, ;,3r�-:s�.ni �� E:in :..��!�ra�:aty ;iavo �a:`a:s�z:i au. lzv��t�-,szin:n
-� a: i':e .:ati ...c.�:a z� s�... ::'s,h•a ..>£a..:..ncc�a ;::�3c__. �oatzin�xt i... �:y',.� Ia:_�r
. nY.. ...".S Sti•.SUaT:i tb-� =::f.`T__'S �-.,.-;��.'!c;5::..ti�. :.i� :�_lU�ox�.`".rS�H ..��pi>A��acL�.:A o: �:13._.
6�.F,l:JFi :{9 ii7:3"r:i.. i)3 �L7±3 i_::M�1;)6'-i{� �:�l:3fj:;:'?.
T') ;:_�u °='F3fl�:!:%L ..`!2Yi.;L•I't±i�S1� {i;16; i1�.Z�r T;Rtfi{:� �Jit .^.n115���7YRCj 7._'L'4��:1��,�y ��..ti ']2S�J
. .IV�:ZiL'3�.ta�.T� �.�...$,'.>:s .;t'�,-l=�:..,'!9 .';31,:.:l.�ih,. .._ :i1CG ;.1 �.Ai.U;.. 't12X:i �:) ��.,.._Y� _.
1.�.�?!i<;.;}�St;�:f.:,. �? 3,Y+�[�X "s'� i::lsY �k^�.Cx��,::�.
4,':�3 .^��;;v3 �x �sbli=:.�-,�;; �:�e :31��.^.�a .. ,�x1.,3 '�v �>;' �:�ii�et_�x�°.�,:r<.x c: a �.r.tiui:�v,
ci��il. ���ss _...✓s:s •:io:-:.�:i.�- :a:ec» �s . ?i:., �ii .<,�:3.•.Zlnhc Y�ni:i �r-�»a,.:,. ��i _:�:�
u�>i2 i�a �_'.�v`.r.L-;•:rz at::�a .> >� b� �.a�_ez:� ��� 5� �r_z� :aia z�i,:s l:r "�s,�41 v: ,�`.�.
aSi:�G?tftC, 7�.l7Trr :D:'9�!"' ..i:#S:,�r •9�.1": .t �:`� J84::�.10+,=::. �3 ;Ar :!kis2 .'�:��r•:r i.:�d
::RS;�S Ow ->2d i3::,. P . ��` _-1`.;Yc?? :)K 1� C". �txL'::cld.;:°,�0 iD ;)�:=�=c]t[ �?:Fi�l.�3tt .:^.E4Ti
:4�" i:i y.w5� ? )£r?'-3i? :.I17c8 W:1.� )d il+lC:;..^. ,>_i.^
t'�e� .;ak3� .� r3° ::t.:;ui: ur". S::�i� �ia:3 ��:�• , ? K ).
,��:ldi.:.:z�:±x?-._ .,..�� .�:.ccn�rl t��� ._..�:rsra .:� ti::;�t-uata,y c;:si:t :`�,a �x.,,"t?., a�� :�.aZ
� v�:e:�z ti.-.-:?� �ti=: �.,�}.?:t<_� ....._.r:i 3; ��z.<<.. a.a ..,:c,:'i.:i i�n �s.rit '...;tY ;niat ._:]
C,:1..:�.�an: :G!.._ >f �t3ha�'; ...L;tE ..;1G3: _..'-'t :�1�CYE.s:�3 ,:.':hLi: ..:]a1{ ianllv tiiR�.:1t] A?' :i4$O••
;e�?.�::.:a ��.::::'tei�c�ati a� •:l.Zc.,:�::i s;a ...._..,_.. :s- ;N:.•.si .__ :::�:a 3�,q�a 4: �[t» �_}1 .-�:
u:•�=:c,� : ... , .n;�_ .:.a �..fr._;�....,�.t. i.aa :a ..:-> >i-�,.� ..;��q a::r,�,�a =;c t�hw :spila
�.: ..:Ki i.iF:���� ti.F/:...............::Z .`.i1�c..G � ., L%I,'.�:�"����7. .-.;.'Jl:i.'y': :)�t�."+t J%J -.-<'+%1�1 ?'.]t.�HT. �
,.... � c:ar,x�_�ynx �>.a}.: �:t ...;is ._. ....:,a: :.*��a .::Rx: . :},k !��> �;yla 'r.o �w«r
'?-:'.:;:�Y1� ..�de: �.x�:as,.:t1�r,3 �3.\'..^,3,:t2Y^%dt1 S:if,�*:e ,.:!.•r.cs 5's:.+uta�e
:�7 .ii :li«:4:C^=•';1lYi .�.h �%3C�::�:]`'�.7� '1.�a� i:�:ri3i...Jr,;l:i'•Ap «:d :I�u4� ::<71i�:� �d C:ti: i):3C.:
�:� _ r:�:� ...._,!� �'_��s,�� :er.•?�� :� .:;;�"i.;ir:..c���s e±z 1 j;3r.f-cs=:c:.iL fis _ ���_:,_c:si
.•��31-3 ��5 a�+.z:�i�L.�ne ;:�,�r ;i,_;.�:�a:� :'.... _. :.ia:_s.� ,� �:ie T�:z::i-:1 �:7 taz ���.�cC�ay:�;
?7C�J hf�h,aay 50 N•1>sl P.O.Boa 1477 109 Huse.mcml Pl�za P.CI.f.'ax tE92 P.O.Ciox ifi13
Pu_b,n.C��Ir.91u�`3 Gl�::m.vood';^��r.•l�.Ce!:�07G01 `J.cn!ro�:a.Cul��01407 Gr:nd June��un,Cofo f11501 fl^,ck Snnr,r,s,1Nyo�2901
(:u:):;•,a��i:.o (�o3)sas-���i�o (so3)'rs�-��::it (303)%i2-:f4utl (3o�)�a2-i6:9
I
I
�
I
. j
' �
iir, i'..n�a i.ull �
.11.;�� .. ri:�t i_ i
. ::'�.'f�i t.•.';;:t .i•d;;d[.•JtJtvn . i
. !����.Jl•:J.t.�. _.i� �'��!1
i>>-�.� _;.. ,
"-`_.._."�—�......._,.._.�.�.J
. `
�
lzc•.r��•a�r .,._ :rl,��: �- - :�:. , t i j �
> � ta,:u..1 �er.d t:� .'z �1 --:t� ul,i;f. ccr,i[_nu:�i_• u?oct �,re::T.a3«- �
.._.... -..:U's��_!:1.� .1 �::i ....,.-.........-.t^ito �it �e�il.`.').:S :� �Uc9 JPl�CK.t Ai C.LJ �
s:�::ua. i
i'i� .... r:x::.� c.,� �a�.�'•.3^. c��-_' .:?,a::'.i._�3 0;'. rt;�.•.� :�:?�rc+ ::uu1d i�ca n�:�v�.�+.c::hl;t
L:G��:lr..r.� �-� !�::C.�q:.�:.--,� _:7:V :3jC��: i).?^'S. 44 .:15 (�'�-�.?. ��3 :•3 c�
Y r ceelfi;ur.axi_ u: .oe
�,:.<::�71a, 1� _, _ c:r ;? ... 1, i=bu'r:�c:�2�, �:�N �:..�L•�ar t.:a s?ooe cou�i:;v.-stLoY,
C:i�i �4*.•d2 i.C.! ;lu;;:;_Y.��°n r.i ..._•:�1:.'_a3 ;:�?d :cl:,.l'�;.:�. 7t :!� susg:,�t::d ::Sa: t:l:�
.;'?^ue ���j cuc �:a�;: t:� ..:;� il�_...r+c r:�u�+y�ax��3,an �r3ct;,��? .;a �?�i:s n?'.. .
:'i:a �ai�;:::ri�. ^: ._.ai:c.i.zl ::t ..�..r, ::o.� aF :a� ��::�>c ;��-•±32:��a an :.:'p4�f;U;2 .1t1Su-
ar_:.a ;�rr�yl:->> _._�L•�:a ::r:r..l� =.tai.;::s -.a1?' r�c�u.i��z �.+�ir+c:ic �:?��o��L zisd -csie�-
�.:_,�.:c.,� ..,:uitia,..r,i.J; ..r_.x cJllc.:,........ _; _.:t;:c�zl ?ri ti)2'� �r�r. o�:�Jrrzca 3
a
1.:cii_.-rf: t�-_-.s:,•3 �_� r_:^,: o;_eciuea, -,;.+:il�,�.i_t.� :;Grf�crr �S;;siZ.tg3 nu't:::�r�c :ind
Yc�:ai,t�..�x?, ui.�r,c.t.a.:a�; :;:.a::r..rh ��,,..._ :�,;,��.si: ....:o �3:�acs•s�,�. :�� Cn-,sct .._:t-
:r.ay .:�> c..�..��n�.i �v:,::ir-.�cc?at a �oy _w1Z st oa� ,�� t�e i�o::��,ra c;: t_�.
�S3v)�3 ?J ^.,_C'-1 ;a�`.::1ttn� 7'i .i.^J723�:.t4�i•� L1pL::1 `:Z3i CC�al3�,.^.IZ:l�. ?QYfJCt#:S :�::i1A•••
t:>::.::r_,c: s�:::r l�� �_,r_s�5a.xy� in :s�y ��-a�,
:i�e a::aus:;. ci .-c�:-?=1,�.:� , s :3 , *_ h nnt �n i=�i
_, :.:d :�;:�f.�_a �ra u9 x�:d,icnd, a7, tico3; h 7
ci-�xi�:ted, �� 71avaC;::;; an� L.ad�r.:sp[.3 L•:��> sluu4 io*_- ��urposes a� �:.os;on
corttzcl.
2:i:ir3 wi7.? Ss _�a ;�ar�icular aciaa:�t=.�.�a ta �:sr.�;ci3g nx SC�:C`:�I1,h, t'-.a a2n;�,
�'__�e vi:s :��.i�:�<;ri:�; ?:za i.::s.-.e.�.� *.a3.11. :,_ •e�3uca�i ta � u:��zaxm �lr�Ja or..�
� i.:�.��d o:: tj.r�. Eir,�:a•��3r. ?::iar.� l:a r.:r c:o�j,��rl.:xi to aa:�:.:�ing tn3s slopcs
i._ t3if.s L:=:e�n� oE c;ur._at-actir-n is :}r���. -°d i=::� ;.in cir_ottiecsc a: ^asi:Jili'�
r -i
`Laztd;a�:tC. !%enc��� �'lSO�,� anoul� iiavu^a n�,.ft�tr��m .,_.:ye a�i,q1� ht�•+5`'
� $ s 1 ;,?�;�s) �.;t oi�s�. La z�K3uc.� �•an l,aza:d _o �5a^:l�rc,.:iur�z f:n�t �>asaaivs
L'7.^..7] .�.'63.]:1_1• �:�u41 C::� ,^.�u�)!3 :�:'.U!1�� af2 ...:C;Z'7•2T.iQ i::7 �:'. :l:r���:X ;: :'
=a�_ ,.�c:l
COqXZ�73:�t-j.,.n, �s:d .. ?;,a v::lZ >: Aerx 'l:i zr.c=:i:.:h�ndL� at tbn 3�:?,�L•U.� Cr� catca
9i'.tSI 37Y�. �_�;�[t_�.5. .
r7a �:oz�•� L�iS 5:ia px�•�;:s�d `>iza i.a%�zm:.t�ext yr_� -'.a_s�:..�i. I� C7:1�:f?Z�.^.ii3 :]T'�33 .
oz L:J c;,� b? o� „ur���,z a.�atat:.::c.p ,�lzaaa fael x_>e L-v ccn.act tha ?abcra-
� Cvz7,
R-r.ap•�ct�sll.� II:.�%:lTt_o3tlp
��.:C;Jl.i7 Ln�t){;��� �iS:i:`=�:a 1...Li�J:Z-i���.t.: .
��---,,.:.��.. .�•,^=d
i.'uil?w' %. ::f•i:�
..Y'IS�� �_7 j�'7:t!:3Y 1 i�,�—____-''-� .
.._'�!'i� J/^.. l.:�/i / ___�l
. ././ ., i r'�_�;��;3 � .
..=�J'Ji�P.H��i'j��v=<1Y�3'U. :[: � e .. -
i
L�l.u��fid �
.::L'r
i
�.
!
' I
f
�
. i
. I
I
I
I
, �
x -
r
�.
.. . ..� �:,, ,��. rr::'.i'P'S
i Ti!:7..7 C0.
t,.t:)'r. lu:�rin': i�::�:li�;:it�
�,_-.� ; EXHIBIT
[� �j � �
�� . :.�:v}�ct � � �
L'_:z. Iio. �
i, ti /� kl L l= .�'� T. i. C} L L I I� � [] C U N :� U L T I IV G E N G I t'J E i._ 'r't
P. O. Fl O X H li � !�°i P I? IJ. C C L O R A D O O�G t� � 3 O❑ L�?.�; ^O l3 9
SepL-embcz 26, .1978
TC.1 19II01•i ?T i�ItlY CO;'.Cl;i:ld
I:�: Slo�c f:tabil.ity
lio t: 14, i37.ock 3
Urush i'reek Subdivisi.on
Our. office )i.:ts beei; requ�sted to i_nvestigate the stability
c�T a cut slope at the above siLe.
llased on a site ir.spection and a revie�,r of- the soi_ls
enciineer's re1�ort, t•:e recor,,mend t-h�t i:Yze presenl- slope
be reducea Co z rnaximum of 1:1 and thaL- the nes� conSiguration
be plant�d and leindscaped t:o cont-r.ol erosion.
The reduced sl.op� wi:l.]. virL-ually climi_nate any slide
hazard t:o the propos�d resi�lence.
Preliminar.y design for a concrete r.et�ining �•�al]_ indical:es
a cost fact-or of 10:1 over the cost of eYCavating to
the ].:1 slope.
t��e further rccorN�icnc7 t-hat inspections b� made to insure
tY�e ne�a cut slo�c is at 1:1 or. ilatter, tha t co�ltinuous
drainage 9._: provided at ihe sl.ope b�se and around the
house f:oundation aiid th�t acceptahle planl-i»gs are madc
on the ncw s1oPe.
Attached is a sk�tch of the present and propased slope
profilc.s.
Char).es T. Coll.ins
�.,,,r..__,.��
CTC/sd ;��"� (• �.���•1
.C:-�—`--;•.-.,. •,•>,
t. ��. �� . c�. ',
attachrnent �;' °' F�`=.'',�:�
���
;r�4.�.*-i�.� .1
�' 1�; l„�� w� ,'�
�.;���,1.�,� �;:!-: �
T
\ 7 f-.;i..:.11.�-�.��.�•�' /
� tti,�JF..`-J���-:' /
��..�:��
, , �-
. �
I
• I
i
. i
_ I
l
,
;
�-.
�
.
_
-----_�_...---------.__---�--._._______..----- --�
_.___.______�.___---------___.�.__. `
='���
.._�. _` �
.�°`� }� ----- -
. 'I-'`` '-\�`` z``'
��=!;-�,, +'`�w��
\- -
�-;�,,;i� � �"` � ,
;.., �.
'�"•t�`.� �f � C�S� Cc/T
��"qn,,. . � �° N P�
� d� Ci
C.L — LC.sr Cidy. :%'�y ��ii�)�,
7^raGd A�:�i/\ �rr:v�'�f � lC�1d CU7�
�,�ofosEO �
�..6.�:�, s�,�� c.�`�..-y ^ . scol'�..
/ , �� /:�
�o ��'o�i! Co�or \ / N��.
`,r
� ��s' r-�y� �
\ � t�.���ai
o T` �
�N 7`�� '
._� �
-�l�i -- /5� n—
'f�'�ii,'o�,��:-�'�/ � �
r� - i
�
�
La�"" /� ' .�jLvc.e j �
,l�i�rsN C���"E".<� .:iu�pi./. �
t
�
r
7.��ica/ _Si;.��• C�-nss - S._cfi.�n 7HE LINCO�N-UeVOitE� TES7ING LAeaeai�or�'( t
�� COIA(;l.pU�Color�do S;nrn�.,Pui•tlo�GlamvGGd tl/YU:d:t�G:Rock,°.Viif:;:�
/ e GJ-C! �n:•)'�btc.ihe•:^�G�,'y�n�09. �
�
• �
�
�
. �
�
. I
I
�
�
.� _ _
�
.�
,� � ' EXHIBIT
• . � �
NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE AEAR.ING r.rr.;n or�Co. co���t,��R�s ,
• • � • rrTr,icr co. .
� BEFORE THE EOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIOAFERSic liccirin� ixhibits •
OF P ITKIN CODNTY, COLORADO ��".`° : _1D`°`!�___��S"'_
suvja�t : l�zr�y U�1Zti�
. TO: Parker Quillan E::t�. No.: _
, FROM: The Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin
County, Colorado, owner and operator of the Aspen/
Pitkin County (Sardy Field) Airport
DATE: September 5, 1978
RE: Violation of Section 31.01 (curfew for general
aviation) of the Rules and Regulations of the
Aspen/Pitkin County (Sardy Field) Airport
Dear Sir:
Please be advised that you have been charged with a
violation of Section 31.01 of the Rules and Regulations of the
Aspen/Pitkin County Airport in tl}at you did allegedly on
August 2, Z978, at or about 6:50 A.M., execute a take off
from Sardy Field (in an aircraft numbered N2164L) in violation
of the curfew established for general aviation in said Section
31.01.
The Board of County Commissione'rs will, at 2:30 PM, on
' Monday, October 9, 1978, in the Commissioners Room, Pitkin
County Courthouse, 506 East Main Street, Aspen, Colorado,
sit and take testimony and any other evidence concerning this
charge, and make a determination as to the truth of said
charge.
YOU ARE HERESY NOTIFIED that you will be afforded the
opportunity to exercise any or all of the following:
1. the right to be represented by counsel;
2. The right to present and submit testimony and �
evidence.;
3. the right to cross-examine other persons g�ving
testimony, and to require that all witnesses be
placed under oath;
4, the right �o a record of the proceedings; ,
. ''., -
,
� , ,
5. and the right to a iaritten decision setting forth
• � � • the findings of fact and conclusions, with the , _ . . �
� reasons or basis for said decision, on the material .�
and relevant issues presented on the record. _ • •
� YOU ARE FURTHER 'NOTIFIED that the Board will not
enforce any formal rules of evidence, but may consider any �
matters which a majority thereof concludes is reasonably reliable-
and calculated to aid the Board in reaching an accurate deter-
mination of the issues involved. .
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that the Board is permitted, '
on a determination of guilt, to authorize the initiation of
- criminal proceedings, to prohibit your further use of Sardy
Field, or to apply any other reasonable remedies established by
the Aspen/Pitkin County (Sardy Field) Airport ReguZations or
� other provisions of law.
Issued pursuant to the provisions of Section 41-4-106,
Colorado Revised Statutes, 1973, and Section 50.03 of the �
Airport Regulation.
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
DATE: ! p �O By Gl/•����
Robert W. Child, Cla'airman
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I hereby certify that on the � day of September, 1978,
the within Notice of Administrative Hearing was served.upon
the above mentioned violator by mailing a copy of the same,
postage prepaid, certified mail, addressed as follows:
Parker Quillan
Box 4098 ' i
Aspen, CO 81611 ' i
�
�_�� � I
� •
�
"�� . • .
-2- � • .
RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL-305� (plus postage)
SENT T /�f� ww POSTMRRN
��� /',/ C��^ OR DATE
�/[
� � STHEET A�N0. ����
(/)[
(J� P.O.,ST�—OPDONAL`SE�VILES�,Auul710NAL F�/
�}i
CC�'y
� RETUPM �� S�ows to rhom anU Eate CellrereE...... 15�
`#'j• , With Ecliveiy to a0dressec only............65�
RECEIPT y, Shows la whom,date�nE where detlrer�A..35�
' SEBV�CES With tlelivery to addressee only............65t
• DELIVEH TO AODRESSEE ONLY ................................._...................50! -
O SPELIAL DELIVERY
, (extra fee raquired)....................................
� � ' PS Form
38Q0 NO INSURANCE COVEflAGE PAOVIDED— /s..oih.,ad.)
Apr.197t NOT FOR INTENNATIONAL MAIL �r,ro:�n;,o_ss�-.s.
f
�.__��.. . " _—_ -..
" nuu ywr adtlrese in IAe'RETURN TO'space o�
3 fBVBlSB. .
� r �
= 1.The following service is requested(check one). �
� � O Show to whom and date delivered..........._¢
m O Show to whom,date,and address of delivery.._¢ �
� �i RESTRIGTED DELIVERY '
Show to whom and date delivered..........6�¢ ;
� ❑ RESTRICTED DELIVERY .
m Show to whom,date,and address of delivery.5_
� (CONSULT POSTMASTER FOR FEES)
c ;
z 2.ARTIC�ADDF�SgED�T�O�
ma,ari.k.
m�g�L�5��6 l�
I � .
D 3.ARTICLE D CAIPTION:
� REGISTERED NO. CERTIFIED NO. INSURED NO.
i � 7 3j 6
-,
j � (Always obtain signa[ure oT addressee or agent) �
� o I have received the article described above.
+ Z SIGNATURE ❑Addressee ❑Authorized agent
I �
c if a
� m 4. u� �
Q DATE OF D IVERY � �
D ,� rj .
z
o �' s �p,.�
n 5.ADDRESSfComplete oMy i1 reque�ed bs�
m �° j�;
; t._���' _; �
p 6. UNABLETO DELIVER BECAUSE: K'S
D LS
P �
tIGP0:1977-0-244595 %
... �
�
�
�
ronr,D oF co. co�.sra�R�s
PITKIN C0.
• . Public Henring Exhibit�
Dato : �w.�___7�..•--••-
}1MENDED ' Sub3oct : � �
' • Er�,. No.: EXHIBIT ,
' NOTIC� OP ADMZNISTP.ATIVE IiEART_NG • � � �
BBFORE TFIE BOARD OF C:OUNTY CONFI�7ISSI0*IERS
��
OF I'IiKIN COUNTY� COLORADO '
. TO: Par.ker �uillan
FRO,1; The Board ot Couaty Commissioners of Pitkin County,
Colorado, owz'►er ar.0 operator of the As�en/Pitkin
County (Sardy Field) Airport
DATE: September 13, 1978
fti3: �Iiolatioii of Section 3Z.01 (curfew for qeneral
aviation) of the Rules and Regulations of the
Aspen/PitY.in County (Sardy Fie1d) Airport
Dear Sir:
Please be advised thet the Admir.istrative Hearing set
for 2:30 PM, on Monday, October 9, 1978, has been changed
to�2:30 PM, Tuesday, Qctober 3, 1978, in the Commissioners
Room, Pitkin County Courthouse, 506 �ast :Iain Street, Asp�n,
Colorado due to October 9, 1978 being a County recognized
hoZidav.
THE SOAPD OF COUNTY COMNiISSIONFRS
OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLOR'�DO •
.' �L,��C�/
DAT�: / / 3 � BY /�"'.-. ��
F.obert . Child, Chairman
CERTIrICATE OF MAILING
I hereb� certify that on the 13th day of September, 1978,
the with�n l,mended Notice.of AcLministrative Hearing was served
. upon ths above mentioned violator by rnailing a copy of the same,
postage prepaid, certified mail, addre�sed as follows:
Parker Quillan
i Box 4098
Aspen, CO 81611
���
,�- -�
. :� C ��'
.� " - �
1. � -
1
S'
i
i
l , .
�
�
RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL-30S' (plus postage)
SENT T¢, n ^ � POSTMARI(
/�_ /,/ OR DATE
i Yaa�'�ii �x �tc,
('�� STNEET 0.ND N0. .
j r—`. —�?7C �D 9
, �' P.O.,STA E pNU ZIP CODE n0 �/ ///
�c—i.' I L� 6 �
m TIOXpL SERVICES FOR FODIiIONRL fEES -
RETIIRN �. Shaws to whom and dats Leilreretl........... 15�
(` With Celluery to addressee anly,...........65j �
RFCEIPT 2, Shows to w�om,date aod wharo Eellventl..35� �
. SENVICES Wfth delivery to a0dressee only............B5�
—_> >
. DEIIVER TO aUDPESSEE ONIY ......................................................SD!
� SPECIAL OEIIVERY(sxlra fee re9uire�................................ '—
z PS Form 3B00 HO INSURANCE COVERAGE PpOVIDE�— (S��o�her s(d�)
AP�.t971 N01 FOR INTERNAiiOHAL MAiL a GPO:19ii O-551-I5�
. . I
� �' • SENDER:Completa Items 1.2,end 3. � I
� Add your adAress in tbe"RETURN TO"space on
reverse.
�'
� t.The folfowing service is requested(check one).
b O Show to whom and date delivered...,......._R -
° '`:.
❑ S ow to whom,date,and address of deiivery.._�
� "�ESTRICTEDDELIVERY /�
` Show to whom and date defivered..........K��¢
❑ RESTRICTED DEINERY �
D Show fo whom,date,and address of delivery.E_
m
-a (CONSULT POSTMASTER FOR FEES1
c
� 2.AR�aLE9pDRE�EDTQ:e
f4-vt, u.�.CCa��
m ���r�c �l D 4�j
� Co �`6 f�
'{ 3.AR71CL DESCRlPTION:
m REGISTERED NO. CERTIFIED NO. INSURED NO.
� 73�q�z
� � (Aiways obtain signature of addreuee or agenp
0 I have received the article described above. �
SIGNATUR '� ❑ ddressee ❑Aut zed,'ZjeRt
lm �" �-�',c=2`�47j{ i'
4 DATE OF DEI:IV 'S� • �O
D at.-� � ri,'. .
o �, )f \ ,�a
. .,, _
m 5.ADD ( ompleteoNyp�epuesfed)
�o '
�
T
m 6.UNABLETO DELIVER BECAUSE: CLERK'S +
� ITIALS
�
D
�
�l'G P 0:1877—0—2 4&595
� ..... _-.. . .�
; " .... _._ . . ._
._-� _� •_ , .__.. .. . . . _. ./" .
J '
..
�
�
f
' .
�
�,:� .
!
EXHIBIT
. � /T
AMEND�D
. . _ . • NQTTCE OF ADMINISTRATIVS•HEARING ;",;_::,, o� co. r,o,.;:.t�rL s, �
. rtT�;rt� co. ' '
BEFORE TH� BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION��3�5 c Hcaring �xhibit,^,'
OP PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO ' �� : ..IO;,�i�� �
. Suv,��t :�i��t�JTcfi��
TO: Parker Quillan . E=h. No.: .__ �
FROM: The Board of County Commissioners of P�tkin County, •
Colorado, owner and operator of the Aspen/Pitkin _
County (Sardy Field) Airport ,
DATE: September 20, 1978 .
RE: Violation of Section 3�.01 (Curfew for general
aviation) of the Rules and Regulations of the •
Aspen/Pitkin County (Sardy Field) Airport
. Dear Sir:
Please be advised that the Administrative Hearing set
for 2:30 PM, on Monday, October 9, 1978, has been changed �
i to 2:30 PM, Monday, October Z, 1978, in the Commissioners
Room, Pitkin County Courthouse, 506 East Main Street, Aspen,
Colorado due to October 9, 1978 being a County recognized
holiday,
' THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
; OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
.
DATE: September 20, 1978 By �
Itobert W. Child, hairman
} CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
�
� I hereby certify that on the 20th day of September, 197$,
the within Amended Notice of Administrative Hearing was served
upon the above mentioned violator by mailing a copy of the same,
postage prepaid, certified mail, addressed as follows:
Parker 'QnilZan
� Box 4098 .
Aspen, CO 81611 �-=�'
! G._.
f � -'' �� ��
; � � ��._G�� �
� �
t �
• ; .
xo. �2q936 �
RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL
NO INSUNIINCE COYEflA6E PROYIDEU- � �
NOT FDR IMTEHNATIONAL MAIL
(See Reverse)
SENTiO Q
STFEET ANO NO-
P.O..STA1E NO ZIP C E / �
O
POSTAGE S j
y CER7IFlE�FEE ¢ .
W
LL SPECiALDELNERV Q
a RESTRICTEDDELI�ERV C
O y '
LL
� V U SHOW TO WNOM ANU a - �
y � ¢ OpTE UELIYEflEU
< u1 W
� uJ y SHOW TO WNDM.OATE, a
� K �' �HD RODHESS OF �
DELNEflY
a O W y�pyy TO WNOM ANO DATE
j '' ¢ OELIVEREUWITNPESTIOCTEO C
� � = DELNERY
Z j SIqW TO W NOM,DATE ANU
� � RDONESSOFOELIVENYYnTH C
V Q ItESTRICTf�OEIIVENY
TOT�LGOSTAQEANOFEES 5
�D '
� VOSTMARKORDATE
$
6
S
M
�
0
W
�
. - .. . . . —. ' �i
-- ..'. . ' ' . �'f'.
� � �'�SENDER:CM�y{RC ilemi�.'.aM1 3. - � '.�
S .. ...Add Y�r�dd�m in eht"RE7l1Mi TO"�pcc on �
g mene.
��`�-' I.<llx following urvite is requested(drctk one). . �- ��
;..;:�� � �Show�to w�fam and due delivcred....�......_4
.�- �Sfav to wlam,date,and�dd�ess of delivery...�¢. .
�.°, .❑EESTRIGTED DELIVERY � . �: � � '
.�'V � � 56ov to wdwm�nd d�te delivered.........._¢ -.`
: �RES7RICl'ED DEL[VFRY.
-Slww fo whom,date,and addcas of ddivery.f— �
.. (CANSULT�POSTMASIFR FOR FEES) �;
I .2.�ICLE AD RESSED TO• •
i c ���. Q �.d,.. !
= 3a� �/09 t; ;
Z �f-s.r.h,, �o �/6//
:� � ,
����� 3.ARTICLE CRIPTION: ;�.-� .
."�,.� REGISTERED NO. CERTIFIED NQ . INSURED�NO:
� S� G � � ° �
°- .-W..n obt.�n.�i�.w..e�da'.w.w ar�. .
� ��� I have.received.t6r.article d5scribed abovc. �
.o SIGNAiUR ❑ ddressce� ❑ Authorizid a c t �I
� :�f�U d' �
w ��y —.�'li'�
_._.m �. DATE O DEUYER ,� � �' R. �
o � J�
��-p 5.ADDNE55� omAl�t�onl N �rb ��� �
� 5 �.
���k
T �
-6 UNABLE TO DEIIVER BEGUSE ClE 'S
' . .c:.�� . . � INI
' I .�� . � . . . .. . . • .. b : ,.
p r. �.. � ! "� .��.
.. f. �� w i�ivr-0-ars»�.r..
., k ---- _.,__��..... =,i
.,�--'-- ----- - -
' - EXHIBIT
� �
• NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING�,,,f�sn•o;� co, cc:::.i�r��:;
� ' •P12KII� C0. • '
. BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSI(����;�ca'ring Ern.it�it�
OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO I•'��o : .�.0_._..11.3..:7�_....
• Sub3oct : /.1LC.�_.Vl�.�f��� ,
TO: Walter Orr Roberts E:=r,. No.: ___._.�
' FROM: The Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County,
Colorado, owner and operator of the Aspen/Pitkin
County (Sardy Field) Airport
bATE: September 5, I978
1tE: Violation of Section 31.01 (curfew £or general
aviation) of the Rules and Regulations of the
Aspen/Pitkin County (Sardy Field) Airport
Dear 5ir: .
�
Please be advised that you have been charged with a
violation of Section 31.01 of the Rules and Regulations of the
Aspen/Pitkin County Airport in that you did allegedly on
August 2, 1978, at or about 6:51 A.M., execute a take off
from Sardy Field �in aircraft numbered N8002R) in violation
of the curfew established for general aviation in said Section
31.01.
The Board of County Commissioners will, at 2:50 P.M.,
pon Monday, October 9, 1978, in the Commissioners Room, Pitkin
County Courthouse, 506 East Main Street, Aspen, Colorado, sit
� and take testimony and any other evidence concerning this
� charge, and make a determination as to the truth of said charge.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that you may attend said hearing
k at which time you will be afforded the opportunity to exercise
,�
� any or all of the following:
,� 1. the right to be represented by counsel;
'i
� 2. the right to present and submit testimony and
evidence;
3.' the right to cross-eatamine other persons giving
testimony, and to require that all witnesses be _
• placed under oath; ,
4, the right to a record of the proceedings; , ,
• 5. and the right to a written decision setting forth
. the findings of fact and ,conclusions, wi�h tihe
reasons or basis for said decision, on the material
and relevant issues presented on the record. "
XOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that the Board will not enforce •
any formal rules of evidence, but may consider any matters
which a majority thereof concludes is reasonably reliable and
calculated to aid the Board in reaching an accurate determination
of the issues involved.
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that the Board is permitted, on
a determination of guilt, to authorize the initiation of .
i
i criminal proceedings,• to prohibit your further use of Sardy
� Field, or to apply any other reasonabZe remedies established
t
k
by the Aspen/Pitkin County (Sardy Field) Airport Regulations
or other provisions of law. , •
Issued pursuant to the provisions of Section 41-4-106,
Colorado Revised Statutes, 1973, and Section 50.03 of the
Airport Regulations.
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
. OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
� �^-i �-��i��
i DATE: 9 6 7� By `
; � obert W. Child, Chairman
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
4 I hereby certify that on the � day of September, 1978,
the foregoing Notice of Administrative Hearing was served upon
the violator by placing a copy of the same in the United States
Mail, postage prepaid, certified mail, addressed as follows:
Walter Orr Roberts
'' 1829 Bluebell Avenue
Boulder, CO 80302
I
� �
. c"
� � • � ' . '
• ' -2- "
� �
� , r
i
RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL-305� (plus postage)
� �� SENT TO �� B�F A��E A� POSTMARN .
OR DqTE
IA/� �(/Z � r•T Y
G STREET ANO N0. ,
�' -l_8'�q-
l Q7 � � P.O.,STATE AND 2 C E
` �� �3d����O 8"030„�
: i (Y� OP710NRL SER CES fOR 0.0�IilONAL FEES
F
7 Shows to wheminU A�te EelivereE........... ISQ
. � 1� pETURN WiM Eelive�y to addressee only............65� �
RECEIP7 �7 Sbows to rhom,drie��d where tlalirerad..35�
, �, �- SERVICES Wlth delivery to addressee only............85t .
. . � DELIVER TO AODPESSEE ONLY ......................................................50!
. . —'�'_______'_—_ .`_—
; I Q SPECIAL DELIVERY(extra fee required}--�-��-•��-���--��-�-�•�•�
Zj PS Form NO INSURANCE COYERAGE PNOYIUED— (Su orher s�de)
� Apr.1971 38� NOT FOR INTERNpTIONAI MAIL c cro:�oi�o-ssi-�s�
� ' -
,_,_�
�' • SENDEF:Compiele items 1,2,and 3. I
�q Rdd your address in fhe"RE7URN TO"spece on ,
B reverse. �
� (
- 1.The tollowing service is requested(check one). !
, e O Show to whom and date tlelivered...........�¢ ;
� Sh to whom,dale,and addressof delivery.._6 i
ESTRICTED DELIVERY
~ Show to whom and date delivered.......... ¢
� ❑ RESTRICTED pELIVERY !
� Show to whom,date,and address of delivery.5— i
� (CONSULT POSTMASTER FOR FEES) !
� � 2.A�ISC'LEADDR��TOGrZ n ' '
c_ i i
� "�iidZ (/ �',��-y Z� � �
m 9' `"�'st.G�t-- i
v c)3o2
� 3.ARTICLE DESCRI ON:
� REGISTERED NO. CERTIFIED NO. INSURED NO.
� 7 s/970 '
� (Aiways obtain signature of addressee or agent)
m
0 1 have rxeived the article described above.
Z SIGN RE ❑Addressee ❑Authorized agent
� �
� mc � �,_ �
4. °.1� .- � �
D A �yOF DEIIVERY �a.�p.OSTMARK i
o �r r �r•��� ��• ' i
n ' i
�� m 5.ADDRESS(Complete only I!requestedl i '' - !
1 . � 9
� i -i � . y ..�', .! i
T ,. ,
p 6.UNABLE TO DELNER BECAUSE: ' 't 'ERK'S �
D � ���'/IN,IT�IALS ;
r !� �
�ZGP0:1977-0-24&595 ;
,
.. 1..+�, . . .. . , ,
I
r
�
I
I
�
i
i
r •
� ,�
.
� �
EXHIBIT
• � �
Ah1EfiDED /I/ —
NOTICE OF ADMIr1ISTRATIVE FiEARTNG r��'����' �'R'' I
� . ;' : . � n.
• £EFORE THE EIUARD OF COUNTY COMNISSTOI�I��ic Iic.:i.`�-�;.i:::niUit�
. ` ' 7
, . .
Da:.o c •°--��.._�...__�.__. .
OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO �
5ub,a�t :�ir_p��Y����e��
Er.h. No.: _ �.
TO: Walter Orr Roberts •
FRGM: The Doard of County Commissioners of Pitkia County,
' CoZor aio, owner and operator of the Aspen/Pitkin
County (5ardy Fieldy Airport '
DATE: September 13, 1978 '
L2E: Violation o£ Section 31.01 (curfew for qeneral
aviation) of the RuZes and Regulations o� the
Aspen/Pitkin County (Sardv Field) Airport
Dear Sir:
� Please be advised that the Administrative Hearing set
Eor Zc50 PM, on Monday, October 9, 1978, has been changed
to 2:50 PM, Tuesday, October 3, 1978, in the Commissioners
� Room, Pitkin County Courthouse, 506 East Main Street, Aspen,
i
Colorado due to October 9, 1978 being a County recognized
holiday.
THE SOARD OF COUNTY COM.MISSIONERS
OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORAD�
DATE: / � Zj' / BY � Lf/' /"�//l
I �$ert W. Child, Cha rman
�
i
f CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I • I hereby certify that on the I3th day of September, 1978,
the within Amended Notice of Administrative Hearing was served
� upon the above mentioned vioZator by mailing a copy of the same,
{ postage prepaid, certified mail, addressed as follows:
Walter Ozr Roberts
1829 Bluebell Avenue
Boulder, CO 80302 .
,� ���r=�
,
; � .
� �
�
� RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL-30�� (plus postage)
5��--�1 '� POSTMApN'
OR DATE
�--( STREEi AND N0p. //
f` !��1��vGti�G� ,��1� •
. (T) P.O.,S7ATE ANO ZIP DE
;-; � �D g'�30,.2
, (Y� OPTIONAL SERVI 5 PoR RUOITION0.L FEES �
- qEiUNN �• snows m wnominA date Aeliverea........... 15� � -
~ pECEIPi W��h dclivery lo adEressee only.........._65t
SERVICES =• Shows to w�om,daU an0 wM1ere Eelivere!„35Q
Wilh dcllvery lo adEressee only............85�
� . ' DELIVER TO NDORESSEE ONLY ...................................................... 50t
— _._
O SPECIAL DELIVERY(a:tra lae require�....................................
z PS Form 3800 ND INSURABCE COYERAGE PROVIOED— t5�s o�h�r aide)
. Apr.19�1 NOT FOq INTERNATIOHAL MAIL ocro:��,.o-ss�-.s. �
. ._ .. _. _:�..�
r
' ��' • SENDER:Como�e�e items 1,2,antl 3. ' ;
Q Adtl your edtlrese In the"fiETURN TO"speca on �
3 IBVBf60.
�
= 1.The following service is requested(check one). '
s' ❑ Show to whom and date deliver£��e���.,,...
❑Show to whom,date,and add ` i q�
� �F�E�TRICTED DELIVERY� �
Show fo whom and date delivered........... ¢
❑ RESTRICTED DELIVERY
m Showtowhom,date,andaddre5sofdelivery.S_
'� (CONSULT PQSTMASTER FOR FEES)
c
Z 2.ARTICLEA DRESSEDTO:
� W c�iZ O�i a ;
cmi !Sf 2�f �{is,.P . �
� G'o G�i3o.� '
� 3.ARTICLE DESCRIPTION:
� REGISTERED NO. CERTIFIED NO. INSURED NO.
� ?3i9?�
i � (Aiways ob[ein signature of addressee or agertt �
m
o I have received the article described a
Z SIGNATURE ❑Addressee ❑Authorized agenl t
�
c � �
D ,
m 4.
Q D� OFDELIVERY ' , PpST�RK!�J
D
o r/ �s�sj' � �
m 5.ADDRESS(Complereanlylfrepuestetl):%�O� ,
i
� \��=... _ .
�� a'
m 6.UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAUSE: � ERK'S
0
� 1 IALS
D
r
SYC :1 —D-24&695 �
I
I
I '
j
i
I
1;., �� i
Pi?i:(f; C�l. ..
Fublic Hearin� E:. :;.;' ;
� n�;� EXHIBIT
AM�IIDED SuUjoct � J/
, ' , NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE. H�ARING E''t'• No. f,--�' d_%?f
. IIEFORE TfI� BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS� • . '
OI' PITKIN COUNTY, COLORFIDO '
T0: Walter Orr Roberts � .
FROM: The Board of County Commissioners of PitY.in County, .
Colorado, owner and operator of the Aspen/Pitkin
County (Sardy Field) Airport . '
DATE: September 20, 1978 ,
RE: Violation of Section 31.01 (curfew for general �
aviation) of the Rules and Regulations of the
Aspen/Pitkin County (Sardy Field) Airport
Dear Sir:
Please be advised that the Administrative Hearing set
I �
for 2:50 PM, on Monday, October °, 1978, has been changed '
to 2:50 PM, Monday, October 2, 1978, in the Commissioners
Room, Pitkin County Courthouse, 506 East Main Street, Aspen,
Colorado due to October 9, 1978 being a County recognized
holiday.
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
: �- ' j/���
DATE: September 20, 1978 By �l% '
Robert W. Child, Chairman
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I hereby certify that on the 20th day of September, 1978,
the within Amended Notice of Administrative Hearing was served
upon the above mentioned violator by mailiny a copy o£ the same,
postage prepaid, certified mail, addrej� follows:
Walter Orr Roberts • /' / ��
1829 Bluebell Avenue 1 .--���� �1� -"y
� Boulder, CO 80302
Ii
i�
� �
! • •
: . �^
� .
xo. 529937 �
RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL
� NO INSUflANCE COVEflAGE PqOViDfD-
j NOT FOp INTEflNAT10NpL MqIL �
(See Reverse)
SENT TO
�� STREyETANO(yNO. O 2 -
P.O.$TqTE AN ZIP COOE �•
_ L�O O 30
POSTAGE S
, y CERtIFfEDFEE Q
W
� LL SPECIlyDEWERY
Q G
O y �ESiRICTEDOELiVERY ¢
¢ W W �—
yV V SHOw TO WHOM ANO
Q ¢ OAiE DELtVEqED Q
< N N
� � SrqWTOwND1A,0ATE,
y ` y AHDAD�pES$OF a
O Z W OEIIVEHY
a O U
f. F w 5/qWTOWIqMpxpD�TE
¢ UEIIVEHEUW1T11pE51NICTEO Q i
� O = �UVEPY
y I
Z � 5110W TO WNDM,UATE ANU
� ADOpES50FDELIVENYWITH
U � NESTNICTCOIIELIVERY a
� TOTALVOSTA�EANOFEES y
� POSTMAW(OqDAiE
n
Q
�
�
0
w
�
4
1
��SENDER:�Caopkrc itema 1.1.and 5.
�.� � - Add rour addw io�he 'RE7tJAN TO"sp�ce on
�erene. �
= 1:1fie Following service u requested(check one). i
__�-:� � �Show to whom and date delivercd..........—¢ �
- �Show W whom,date,ind addness of delivery.._Q � �
` � : �.RESTAtCi'ED DELIVERY
��'�� -��.� Show�to whom and date ddivered.........._4 !
� RESTRIGTED DELiVERY.
� Show�ro.vhom,date,and addro�of delivery.S—
(CONSULT POSTMASTER FOR FEES)
.,�A 2.A�'7CLE ADDR SED TO: �
, ..� . . /��� � �• . .�
a
2 �
:� O 30
.'.� 7.ARTICLE G(SCRIrIION: - - .
I
.-�� .NE6ISTFIIEO NO. CEIRIAEO NO. INWREO NO.� I
- � s�993 7
...Q . IAlrm eM�M Y�tun W Ndn�sw�r aprw .
�'���� -I have received the attide de�cribed above. � �
-._o SIGNAT .❑ Addrcsscc `�Authorizod agent
4 - �'s
a .
r C 4. •
��n � � D OF DEUVERY POS �
�
:o � . . � . ��.
> o� � i
� :Q �S.AODRESS(Compbf�only If ipw�f�tl � �� �
� ���! I
•.y J� �
:w �j
_� 6.�UNABLE TO DEIIVER BEGUSE .-CLE111C5�/
:v -N�t5 ;
� ,
F '
' . . -{r Gro t tA/-O-2x-]l]�.�..,e .�
4 ' ��.,�....�._-.. �-....,.. . ..�- ..._.�-�_..._...� .'� ;
Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies 1919 Fourteenth Street,No.811
Food,Cllmete and the World's Fufura Boulder,Coloredo 80302 U.S.A.
Te1:303-443-1230
� EXHIBIT
� � ( 3 11 September 1978
i
� c�� CQ. C01�4M'R'5
r^T.T3�IId C0.
Watter Orr Roberla Mr. RoberC W. Child
Director " hl.ic Hearing Exhibits
Board of County Commissioners
Mary t.Wolit Pitkin County .o : ..�p...�..��
AssocleteDirector 506 East Main Street ;;uUjoct ; 7 G�//�
Aspen, Colorado 8161I
r�_fi. No..
Dear Mr. Child:
I have received your notice of administrative hearing regarding
a violation of curfew at Sardy Field on 2 August 1978 by a takeoff
at 6:51 a.m. of my plane N8002R.
My plane did, indeed, take off at approximately the specified
time, although I was not aboard, bnt at the field. I can assure
you that the takeoff would not have occurred had we been aware of
the curfew. Now that we are aware of the curfew, we will avoid
further violation.
My defense is only that the curfew is inadequately posted. It
does not show on the VFR charts (though I later found that it is on
the back of the 3ep plates for the airport). It is not posted at
the office of the fixed base oper.ator where my plane was parked.
', My query to the line boy whether there was a restriction about
takeoffs was answered negatively, though I am fully aware that it
is not his responsibility to advise on such matters.
I �
I am in favor of airplane noise regulation at Aspen. I have
� been £lying in and out for years, carefully picking approach and
departure paths and power settings to minimize noise--unlike many
� of the pilots who buzz around at low levels and high power settings.
Moreover, I strongly recommend that you make efforts to post the
curfec,r more visibly.
You can be assured that I will abide by the regulations in the
future, and make careful efforts to be aware of changes if they are
made. In light of this, I would hope that my violation could be dealt �
with by a warning rather than a fine.
Sincerely yours,
�
Walter Orr Roberts
An activiry of the Program(n Scie�ce,Technology and Humantsm
� ,�is
Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies 7919 Fourteentn Street,No.811
- Food,C1lmate and the Worid'e Future Boulder,Coloredo 80302 U.S.A.
�
Te1:303-443-1230
EXHIBIT
� � 20 September 1978
ao 3
o-�-7 s'
Walter Orr Roberta L;;fu�D OF C0. CQ[�Ifd'R'S
Director PITI{IN C0.
, P�blic Hoaring Exhibit3
Mary L.Wolff
Associate�irector Mr. Robert W. Child ,r`::t:o . ....�Q...� '���
Board of County Co�issioners 3 : �}jJ.�l".f�.�1Z��
Pitkin County Sub oct
506 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Mr. Child:
Your certified letCer of September 13, 1978, has come to
me. This advised me that the date for the hearing regarding
airplane curfew violations has been changed from October 9 to
October 3.
Unfortunately, I will be out of the country on October 3rd.
I have sent you, however, a letter dated September 11, 1978,
indicating that my airplane, flown by my co�ercial pilot, did
unknowingly vi.olate the curfew at the specified time, and
indicating that I feel Chat notice of the curfew is inadequately
posted. I enclose another copy of my letter herewith.
I am sorry that I wi11 be unable to attend Che hearing.
�
� Sincerely yours, �
�
j Walter Orr Roberts
�
Enclosure: September 11, 1978, letter from
TJ. Roberts to R. Child
An acCivity o(the Program in Science,Technology and Humanism
Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies 1919 Fourteenth Strset,r,o.e��
Food,Climete and the World's Futurs Boulder,Coloredo 80302 U.S.A.
Te1:303-443-1230
EXHIBIT
� � 3 3
0._� _ z5 September 1978
L•:iJ_;D Gc' ('Q. f:0:.i1.i'R'S
WaRerOrrRoberis Mr. Robert W. Child PITIi7.d C0.
Director Board of County Commissioners FuUlic Hearing E�hibits
Pitkin County Q'
MaryL.Wolif 506 East Main Street �'��f° = ---••�•�•---�--.-�Ll___
As�oclete Dtrector
Aspen, Colorado 81611 Sub,��ct : .�hr.�..y.r����t�,�
Dear Mr. Child: ' -- -•
This is furCher regarding the violation of curfew listed in my
notice of September 5, 1978. That notice charges me with a violation
on August 2, 1978, at or about 6:51 a.m. In my letter of September 11
T acknowledged a violation. However, my violation was on August 21st
and not August 2nd. I'm sorry I did not catch the error sooner. I
caught it when I checked my plane log this weekend.
I now understand that the hearing will be at 2:50 p.m. on
Monday, October 2, 1976, instead of October 3 or October 9.
I shall already be out of the country on Monday, October 2, on
the same trip that I wrote you about on September 20. This will
prevent my attendance at the hearing.
I hope you can assure a presentation for my view that the curfew
a is inadeqnately posted. This is clearly what led to the violation
j by my commerciaZ pilot who took off in my plane before 7 a.m. on
i August 21st.
Last week I flew to Aspen again on a business trip, and I
carefully checked the posting of the cnrfew. This reinforces my view
; that you should improve the natice for casual Aspen patrons like
myself.
On this 7.ast [rip I stopped at McDavid Ayiation. There I asked
where the notice was posted. I was shown the sign on McDavid's
building. It says "hours of operation 7 a.m, till 30 minutes after
sunset" or words to that effect. However, the sign makes no
� re�erence to the fact that this is the hours for use of Pitkin County
Airport for noise curfew reasons. My assumption was that this
represented the hours that McDavid Aviation and the FAA tower were
open. I had assumed that the only airport restriction was dawn Co
duslc for safety reasons. The posting needs eo indicate specifically
that Pitkin County Airport noise curfews ban airplane operations
between sunset plua 30 minutes and 7 a.m.
Moreover, the curfew should be posCed at the takeoff end of the
runway where the noise abatement procedures sign is. Such a clear
posting would help casual users of the airport avoid inadvertent
violations. There is no reason in the world for me to have my
plane take off 9 minutes before the curfew's end. If my pilot and
An activity of the Program in Science,Technology and Humanism
�
�.
Page two
Mr. Robert W. Child
25 September 1978
I had known of thie curfew, we would have waited. And I'm sure
others would also be glad to observe the regulation �ust as I am.
Sincerely,
Walter Orr Roberts
�
� �
�� � EXHIBIT
�
RF:SOliU'1'ION OE' TIIL I3011RD Or COUNTY COMMISSTONfs'RS -� -7
OF FI1'KIN COII[1TY, C�LOR11D0� ADOPTING AMF.NDMliNTS
' ' � TO TIIE COUNTY'S I2EGULATIONS FOR T1I� NIANAGrt�NT • . - � .
, AND OPERATION OF' TH��ASPEP]/PITKIN COUNTY AIRPORT •�
' •Resolution No. 77- /��
WFIEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners is authorized •
to promulgate rules and regulations for the use and operation
of Sardy Field, and
WHEREAS, the Board has become increasingly aware ot the
need to address the question of ap�ropriate levels of night-
time use as well as noise emissione,and
WHEREAS, the Board feels it has arrived at a satisfactory
balancing of the needs of the traveling public and the desires .
of the residents of the community to maintain, as far as pos-
sible, the rural character of the Aspen/Pitkin County area, and
WHEREAS, this balance is achieved, in the opinion of the
Boarn, by the establishment of stringent airport curfews, with
the provision o£ limited night flying for carriers(to expire•
in May,1978, giving the Board an opportunity to evaluate, at
that time, the adverse impacts and benefits of limited night
operations); and, further, by the adoption of penalty pro-
visions for tlie enforcement of these, and existing, requla-
tions,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County I
Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, that the Pitkin i
County Rules and Regulations. for the Management, Operation,
I
and Control of Aspen/Pitkin County Airport (Sardy Field) be i
amended by the adoption of Section 310-NTGHT OPERATIONS to
read as follows: �
r.:;r_r,D or co. coi�+.;���s
. PITKIId C0.
'1— Ptt3lic Hearing �xhibits
� �,::;.o . . lQ_..��7f�
. �uv,o�t . __l�t.r��_y!ol�.�icr�
310-NI(;IIT OP�ItATIONS .
. 31.01 The provisions of Section 2.18 notwithst�nding, .no . • ,
. ' • . ' aircraft shall land at or takebf£ from Sardy I'iel.d . _ . ,
between the period beginning one half •(��) hour after . •
, sunset (or 8:30 p.M. , whichever is earlier) and •
7 A.M. , except in cases of in-ilight emergency or •
other. emergency condition such as a natural disaster, _ '
, • medical emergency or civil disturbance.
31.02 The provisions of Sect�on 31.01 notwithstanding, � .
public carriers, whether charter or scheduled, may
land of takeoff from Sardy Field during evening �
hours between the period beginning one half (�) -
hour after sunset and 8:30 P.M. provided that
the following conditions, limitations and require-
ments shall be met:
.02-1. No carrier shall execute a total of more
than six (6) operations during such time period; '
provided, however, that r�othing herein shall be
construed to limit the number of operations of
those aircraft emitting 70 dbA (or less) during
• landing and takeoff.
.02-2 All evening operations must fully comply
with all other applicablP airport regulations. �
,02-3 Nothing herein shall be construed to
require Pitkin County to undertake the construction
and/or installation of any improvements to accom-
modate the needs of any carrier to undertake evening
flying. Each operator shall construct its own
improvements at its expense; do so only after re-
ceiving that permission required by Section 3.02
hereof and the approval of an application for a
� special review permit (the procedures for which
are described in the Pitkin County Land Use Code) .
All improvements constructed and installed shall
be made available for use by any and all carriers
permitted to engage in evening operations under
these regulations, as well as by any person author-
ized by the Airport Manager during an emergency.
.02-4 . Any runway, taxi, obstructson or other
lighting constructed and installed to accommodate
evening flying shall be lit only intermittently
and during periods of actual use by carriers en-
gaged in permitted evening operations. Any and
all such lighting now in operation shall be
modified (if necessary) to permii intermittent
use within sixty (60) days of the ef.fective
date of this resolution.
.02-5 Any operator proposing to' operate during
evening hours must advise Pitkin County, as soon
as such informat,ion is available, of conditions
• imposed by the P11A for approval of such evening
operations, specifying both improvements to be
constructed and well as op�rational requirements.
.02-6 Any carrier pr.oposinq to enqaqe in niqht
operations shall have on duty durinq the period
between 5 P.M. and the execution of its last
operation, a minimum of two employees trained
' • _z_ . • .
1
I .
in C.r.R. procedures, which employees shall be •
available to the Airport Managcr during airport
emergencies. Nothing herein shall be construed
• to reqaire Pitkin County i:o compensate atzy • • ' .
' ' � � operator� f,or ser.vices performed by thc C.P'..R. • • - � -
. personnel undei i:he provi.sions hereof. ' � . �
.02-7 The provisions of this Section 31.02 '
shall .be deemed to require that no operator - �
, • shall schedule any landing at or takeoff from
Sardy Field later than 8:30 P.M. Flowever, ,
nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit .
any landing at or takeoff from Sardy Field ,
between 8:30 P.M. and 9 P.M. provided that
it shall have been scheduled for a time prior '
to or at 8:30 and that completion of the opera-
tion was prevented by air traffic or weather
conditions.
31.03 The provisions of Section 31.02 shall automatically �
expire on May 1, 1978. •
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners
of Pitkin County, Colorado, that the Pitkin County Rules and ,
Regulations for the rlanagement, Operation and Control of Aspen/
Pitkin Count Airport_ (Sardy Field) , as amended, be further .
amended by the addition of Section 500-PENALTIES to read
as follows:
� 500-PENALTIES
50.01 Whenever in any section of these regulations
the doing of any act is required, prohibited
• or declared to be unlawful and no speci£ic
£ine or penalty is provided for a violation
thereof, any person, firm or corporation who
shall be conva.cted of a violation of any such
section shall, for each offense, be fined an-
amount not exceeding three hundred ($300.00)
Dollars or imprisoned for a period not to
exceed ninety (90) days, or be both so fined
and imprisoned.
50.02 Any person who aids, as.sists or abets any
person in the operation of any aircraft or
� vehicle in violatio.n of these regulations
shall be subject to the same penalties speci-
fied in Section 50.01. �
50.03 In addition to (or in lieu of) the penalties
' provided for by Section 50.01 and 50.02, the
' Board of County Commissioner.s may, subsequent
to notice and hearing, prohibit the use of
Sardy Field by any person, firm or corporation � .
Eor such periods or under such conditions as
are reasonably necessary to insure future
compliance herewith. •
. . `3_ '
1 .
� • . '
�
BE ZT PINIILLY R�SOLVED that this resolution shall be effective
• immediately. • . ' . � • � ' •
APPROVED BY. TFI� BOI,RD OF COUNTY COMMISSION�RS OP' PITKIN '
. COUNTY; COLORADO, at, its continued regular meeting held
September 27, 1977. ' �
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COM.MISSIONERS
OF PI KI CO T , CO OFtADO �
. gy nCLv ���
Chairman
ATTEST: �
. ' �di"��us<<�-I t " � .
. �Qp�clzj C����hj e��i�fi
� Approved as to form:
,��l�l��/"��/-/�����i,7-�
�
' County Attorney
-4-
I
• �I
exHieir
� ,_
_ �
I2ESOLUT70N Or `llIG IIOARD OP COUNTY CO2�'lldISSIONf RS OI' '
• PITY.IId COUNTY� COL03211D0� AMENDING 5EC7'ION 31.02,02-1 .
. . • • ' . .. .�..-.�) tr� f�ri. C(`i::.l'R'S '
, OF TII� COUNTY'S REGULATIONS I'OR TFIE•M�1NAG�M�I�T At�D.T��i:i Co. ' '
' P,�bl�c ilearin� ii::iiibit3 •
OPERI�TION OF TI�E ASYEN/PITKIN COUNTY AII2PORT : f(� :�i ?�___
. � ���ti;��t : Rtr._�L�_Y�a��h�
Resolution No. 77-�
WHEREAS, the Board of County Comniissioners o� Pitkin '
County, Colorado, did, by their adoption of Resolution No.
77-111 on September 27, 1977, promulgate regulations for
evening and night flying at Aspen/Pitkin County {Sardy Field)
Airport, and .
WHEREAS, in the adoption of Section 31.02.02-1 thereof,
the Board failed to properly identify a noise limitation therein i
established, and wishes to rectify the probYem by the repeal .
and proper reenactment of said section,
NOW, THEREFORE, B£ IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, that subsection .Q2-1
of Section .i1.02 of the Pitkin County Rules and Regulations
� for the Management, Operation and Control of Aspen/Pitkin
County (Sardy Field) Airport be repealed and reenacted to
read as follows: �
t
.02-1 No carrier shall execute a total of more I
than six (6) operations during such time period; �
provided, however, that nothing herein shall be �
consi.rued to limit the number of operations of
those aircraft emitting a 70 dbA (or less) noise
level on Zanding and takeoff when measured at a
point between 4 and 6 feet {120-180 cm) above
ground at a location approximately 300 feet (100 m)
east of the intersection of Colorado Highway 82 'and
Brush Creek Road. (This location is within approx-
imately .300 feet (100 m) of the extended centerline
of the runway, a distance of approximately 6500 feet
(2000 m) from the threshhold of Runway 15} .
. (a) For purposes of determining eligibility for
• unlimited operations under this section, the
Airport tianager may rely on FAR Part 36 noise
emission data (if available; if not, then any
other reliable published data) or require actual •
testing of aircraft, at his discretion.
(b) Vlhen aircraft is required to'be tested, the �
Owner or• Operator shall fly the aircraft for one
takeoff and one•landing in such a way as to permit
• r}oise testing in accordance lierewith,. at a mutually � •
agrecable time within one week of' the F�irport Manager'� . :
- 2 -
, notice of the ,required flight. If the Owner or
• • • Operator does not perform such tcsL- fligltt'as ' ' •
directod, or i.£ the resulting noise tost indicat'es ' - ' •
, lacY, of compliance with the aircraf.t noise Zevel • '
estaUlished in this subsection, the Airport- Manager �
shall determine such aircraft to be in violation hereof. . �
� (c) Aircraft shall be tested as they fly as closely
to directly overhead the measuring point as is feasible. •
In any event, aircraft s2ia11 fl.y east of Colorado •
iiighway 62 and west of the Roaring Fork River and �
track as close as possible to the extended centerline ,
of the runway. In the case of taY.eoff, aircraft shal�
maintain their heading until they pass the Woody Creek
area; while, in the case of landing, aircraft shall
continue final approach and complete thei.r 2anding.
(d) For the purposes of this subsection, the noise �
leve2 in decibels is the A-Weighted Sound Pressure
Level as measured using the slow dynamic characteristics
of a standard type 1 or type 2 Second Level Meter
• (Ainerican National Standard specifications £or Sound
Level Meters, ANSI S1. H 1971 (or latest revision �
i
thereo�) ) ,
Approved by the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin
County, Colorado, at their regular meeting. held November 14,
1977.
. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
c
BY ( /��y�-'
ChaiYm n
ATTEST:
�.�r.�����
1�f�uty Cot�n ty C��r'�
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
4 A
.
;�..� �-..;!li? �j�%�•..J
, �itkin County�llttorney
�� ' EXHIBIT
R�SOLUT70N OF '1.'HC IIOAI:ll Ol COUNTY COMM.T.SSIONE1tS �
/ ';2- �
OF PITKIN COUNTX, COLORI►D0� AM�NDING TIIL•'
COUNTY'S RL•'GULATIONS FOR TFiE M11[1FiG�M�NT
AND OPERP,TIOid OF TfIE ASP�N/PITICIN COUN�Y ' . ' .
' ,._1;D OF C0. CO;.:f,i'R'S
AIRPORT BY EXCLUDING CEIARTER AZRCRAF`P PITt:z:l C0.
7'.�'�lie Iic.irinC �;:nt�it�
FROM NIGHTTIME USE OF THE AIRPORT , . /jJ -�:_��
� ::�,,�;��t : .l�ir.�9z.t.....Y�oL�.h��
. Resolution No. 77-��f3 _ _
WH�REAS, the Board of County Commissioners, pursuant
to the provisions of the Colorado Public Airport Authority
Act, C.R.S. 1973, Section 41-3-101, et seq. , is authorized
to promulgate rules and regulations for the use and operation
of Sardy Field, and
WHER�AS, pursuant to suCh authority, the Board, in its
resolution nur.mber 77=111, approved September 27, 1977, adopted
regulations for the nighttime use of Sardy Field, which
regulations (a) preclude evening use of the field by general
aviation from 30 minutes after sunset and (b) permit use by
schedule and charter aircraft from 30 minutes after sunset
until 8;30 p.m., and ,
WHEREAS, after further deliberations the Board has
determined to treat charter carriers similarly to general
aviation with respect to nighttime use inasmuch as:
(a) The Board wishes to materially limit nighttime
use of Sardy Field (for the reasons stated in its resolution
number 77-111) and permit only that activity reasonably
necessary to accommodate the needs of the traveling public.
The nighttime use authorized in resolution 77-111 was premised,
quite substantially, on the fixed schedules of interstate
earriers and the need of local carriers to accommodate the
late afternoon arrivals of passengers in the Denver and other
metropolitan areas. Inasmuch as charter aircraft have flexi-
bi�ity in establishitig their departure times (and thus arrival
times iri Aspen) , the Board feels that charL-er operators are . •
- a -
better able to meet the curf-ews sel for general aviation while
sti11 satisfying L-he transportation needs of �heir �assengers. � �
(b) There is difficu2ty in defining a charter operation
(arguably operation by a cbmmercial pilot of any aircraft for �
consideration would qualify) creating unlimited difficulty in ,
distinguishing between general aviation and charter operations
and hindering effective enforcement of the night flying
regulations.
(c) The FB� terminal will not be open in the evenings
which means that charter aircraft will not receive assistance
in parking and fueling; and
(d) At present there is available to charter operators "
no public terminal facilities, no taxiway lighting, no instrument
landing apparatus, nor any navigational aids for locating the
airport, all of which makes nighttime use of the airport by
charter aircraft impractical;
_ NOW, THEREF�RE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, that Section 31.02
of the Pitkin County Rules and Regulations for the Management,
. Operation and Control of the Aspen/Pi.tkin County Airport •
(Sardy Field) be repealed and reenacted to read as follows:
31.02 The provisions of Section 31.01 notwithstanding,
scheduled public car.riers only may land and
takeoff from Sardy Field during evening hours
between the period beginning one half (1/2)
hour after sunset and II:30 p.m. provided that
the following conditions, limitations and .
. . requirements shall be met:
Approved by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting held November 28, 1977.
;
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
. , Or PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
BY � !'� -
. �� .
Ch�a.rman
ATTEST: • " � • . ' � . i
����22� ��LP
_
�
- 3 - •
• • , APPROVED AS TO rORM: � � - ' - ' '
/i / :7• l;/"r-_ '--�� _ .
Pitkin County Ati:orney
. Sandra M. �Stuller ,
I
':
�;
� � f�
,,
�
��
,
. �
I
� � � ,
. �
� �
. ,
. �
. �
� � �;
. . : �
. . . . j
. ,
i�l ti ,
�rl�� 1��.��1� �1'11l��:�
BoX E
Aspen, Colorado
PROOF OF PUBLI�QTION
STATE OF CQLORADO ; � COp�/ Of NOtIC@
County ot Pltkin )
William i�. Dunaway .._. ,.,..,.... ._ ... .. . .....
I. ............•••......_..........._.......................••-.... do eolemnly awear that . . . . .
.:, public not�ce��:-
I am Rhe ..__.pUUllS�'12T'......._.........••-•- of THE ASPEN TIMES, ; � : ` �
PUBIdC NOTIC� .
that the same is a weekly newspaper printed, in whale or in part, • - • � i
and publtshed in the County of Pitkin, Sta.te of Colorado, and has NOTICi191�R8HY(iIVSNWstth�pnb�
a generai circulation therein; that sald newspaper has been Qub- �O b�O�������°��01Oti
Cummi�loo�n tar Oetab�s 9,1Y78,d 10
1lshed continuously and uinterruptedly in said County �f Piikiu, Al1 in'th�Cammi�dao�s Booco,Pitkio
for a period of more hhan ftfty-two cansecutive weeks next prior �°b C°°�°°�.�a.�°St�t,
to the Sitst ubltcation of the annexed le al not[ce or advertlse- ��O'h�b�►�npd to Oetabsr 2,
P g 1978,at l0 Al[,to modd�r an�m�aoC
ment; that sa.id newspaper has �been admitted to the United 3ta.tes to th�Pitkin Couot7 Da� R�W��iaa�
mails as sceond-class matter under the provisions of the Act of ��"�01���»��°�p�'
mi�br own�n d ddw�dop wlfbin
March 3, 1878, or any amendment� thereof, and that sald news- � tmhu and.wbdi�id�d ana�of Pitkin
paper is a weekly newspaper duly qualifled for publlshing lega] �����P�d+'�N��
notices and advertisements with the mea.ning of the laws of the � ����+nb Attoeoer'�O[
flos at fh��bon�dilre�dtaini ra�ulu'
Sta.te of Colorado.
�� Rob�rt W.Chiid:Ch�irm�n
That tlie annexed Iegall notice or advertisement was publlshed ��~����p��������
Sn the segular and entire issue of every number of said weekly • " '� ` �� �
Pubtiah�d'm ths Mpen TSma�,8aptemb�
21,1878. -`,
newspapers for the period of .....1..........._ consecutive insertions; aad � ��
that the first publication of said �notice was in the lssue of eaid
newspa�r aatea .�eptember Gi �rC3
................ A. D.. 19 ........ and that
the last,publica.tion of said nottce was in the lsaue of said news- •
bOARD Or C0. COMM'R'S
PITKIN C0. ;
paper dated ............................................ A. D.� 19.......-
Public Hearing Exhibits �
� •� �
�A'LO 0 ---/�.__.1..!_.._._�._. ;
.................•-•................ .._._....................•••-•. ..
Sub3 ect : .��Cl�_.�.�".__.(���J
6ubscribed and sworn to before me, a notary p��lin in d�ar � ;
L
�e County of Pltkin, State oi Colorado, thls ........................ day of
Saptember 7$ `
..........................••-••.._....._.... A. ,D.� 19......... �
.l` .-..�r��%t2�......S�v--,�............ I
Notary Publlc
My commtsston exptres 6/6/8z
................................................
�Iti ;
� �11� rl�.��1] �1'111���
Box E i��nr.n or co. cor,ti.t��z�s
PITKIN C0.
Aspen, Colorndo Public Hearing Exhibit:,
, •�7� �
i?ai.o • °°°--°-
• ----ia__...-�----- ,
suv�o�t :�x��?��'-.�lr.f�7li�
PROOF OF PUBLICATtON
BTATE OF COLOR.ADO ; � COPY Of NOtIC@
County oP Pltkin )
i
william A. Dunaway ''+ �.
I, do solemnly swear that '
,.-. . .
................................................................ :public notice ;
p ub l i s he r : cot�ac.�norr xo�►scc '. .
I am Rhe .•---....._.........•--._.._.__.......................... of THE ASPEN TIMES� � gg g��tion dCmtltiwu�Id�SB 39,'
that the same is a weekly newspaper printed, in whale or in part, aO�ndLof�,4Z,48,{6oft�HaiLndHllb
and publ(shed in Lhe County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, and has ���� ' �' ' •
a eneral circulatton therein; that said newspaper has been Qub- ,y�V�a����H�ms :
S i'daLfart�'p►Llleh�aia�tobbidbdon ;
lished continuously and utnterruptedly in said County �f Pitkin, � th�BwiddCamqC�mi�im�nfob�v
for a period of more than ilfty-two cansecutive weeks next prlor +1°�;p1C�v��'�O
to the tirst ub]1ca,tion of the annexed legal nottce or advertis� ���������
p b�dLn/d tYem Oetob�9:19'ls tio Oo-.
ment; that eafd newspaper has �been admitted to the United 8ta.tes �'tab�r4,�q10:16�mfafb�C�miriao�cs.
mails as sceond-class matter under the provlsions of the Act of �°�RO�'��-�°���0°~'
March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, and that sald ne�we- ���������
i aela..47640mo.=c R'17 : .
paper is a weekty newspaper duly qualified for publishing ]egal -. � ��f����*�II
notices and advertisements with the meaning of the ]aws of the ��°«° ��°��
PaL1L6d in th�Mp�n 1SmY 9�phmb�r �
Sta.te of Colorado. Z1;1i�/8. , - �
That t7te annexed legall notice or advertisement was published
in :the regulas and entire issue of every number of said weekly
newapapers for the perlod of ..._..1.___....._. consecut[ve insertions; and '
that the flrst publicat[on of safd �otice was 1n the issue of said
newapaper dated .SePt em b�r...L.1.... A. D., 19 ._.7�and that
the last,publlca.tloa of said notice was in the iseue of sald news-
paper dated ............................................ A. D.. 19..-•.-- '
�'[/....t�1�S�J!-�".`.'`i�/...��__...._...-•---•••-•••-•-•••••
Subscrtbed and sworn to before me, a notary public in a.nd oa�
tn `.
the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, this ........_L..r�......... day of
September 78
......................... A. D.. 19......... '
.. .��:1�.�.�..�,����...............
No ry Public
My commission exptre9 .........G�6I..�4....................
�
l�ly
��1�r 1����J� '1'�11���
Box E >>����D or co. coat�r�x�s
PITHIN C0.
P� l.;lic Hearing Exhibits
Aspen, Colorado
� - • --�D-----a--=-��
:,�li,��t . �(.�ll.---..�(.�f���/��
PROOF OF PUBLICA7tON
;
� $TATE OF COLORADO )
� �, Copy .of Notice
County of Pitkln )
I William H, llunawz�y ao solemnly swear that ' " "� ' � ` ':
............... ... .. ........'"""..... . . ..k
pubhc �notice
publisher 'p; ; .- = �
I am Rhe ..._.....__....•••........................................ of THE ASPEN TIbLES: ,. ` �1'` : COBRtCH�i Nd17C8 �:� ';r
that the same is a weekly newapaper printed, in whale or Sn part, •� ��,�g�te Contijno�ldi
and published in the County of Pitkin, Sta.te of Colorado, and has l���d 16;:Boe�8 lftln/�d fh�Hroi�t
a •general circulation there[n; that sa[d newspaper has been puU- - : �` ' ���'��Q1 :
lished continuously and uint�erruptedly in said County of Pltkin, � rpUBLiC.NOT[CE�18 HlRBBY(iIV6P1'
for a perlod of more hhan flfty-two consecutive weeks next prfor -t6stt6�dat� ii�d°° uu����..tt�,1�i978
to the Sirst publfca.tion of the annexed legal nottce or advertlse- j°m�6A�°��O��w�A-,_--,��
6�id bifor�th�Houd d Caontr Camml�
ment; that said newspaper has+been admitted to the United 3tatee ' �torwl�+►�n�� °�°to ti
mails a9 sceond-class•matter vnder trie provlstons of the Act of ����NO°'�0�'j°'°'°"'o C��
March 3, 1879, or an amendments thereof, and that said nrws- �°�0°�������*9�
Y O�inb�r Z,1Y78,�t 11:16 am ia f�Cam-���
paper fs a weekly newspaper duly qua.iifted for publlshing lega.l ml�ima'�.D�lMtio�liom+,RtYin Cau.b..,.
notices and advertisements with the meaning of the lawa of the Cwrl6on�:Far.fu�r inioimatlan,rall
;t!r'PLenins OIDw,926��020�at ZZ7.
State of Colorado. . . h/Robnt Child,Quiem�n:.'
Band d Count�Gomi�ianeri '
That the annexed legalt notice or adverUsement was pub118hed . '•���in t�_Mpwi TimN 8apbmb��y,,,
21 197B.:.,� � _
in :the regular and entire fssue of every number of said weekly
.__.....
newspapers for the pertod of ..._......1_._.... consecutive insertions; and
that the first pubitcation of said aotice was in the Issue oP sald
September L1 78
newspaper dated -•..............................•..._.....__ A. D., 19 ........ and fhat
the last,publlca.tlon of said not[ce was in the issue of said news-
�
paper dated ............................................ A. D.. 19..._.... '
.� �.''I.
,���!?���if�//..�j.. . . . . . .
Subscrlbed and sworn to before me, a nota.ry public !n and Sar
. th
th� County of Pltktn, State of Colorado, this ..........2 5 ...... day ot
SCptember 7�
......................�--................... a. .n., is......... ,
��. .�_..1�.�.......-s.`..���............... �
Notary Public .
b/6/tS�
My commission explres .......................... ..................
. �