HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.reg.07101978 �,,,.,.
�� ��f.'{'4� . � ..
�t,
. `�'b�' � . :
#. ��� ` .
.� ��'+1F:��L _ _ . .
.-.. . . � _ . .
� .
..� .. .._...�� .. . ..., . .. ..�. ,..:.'� ,
�.�
-'�.�
� � . . . 1:�:�
. . . . . . . . . . : �.•
. . : . . � � � � .
� . . � � - � . � �.
�
PITKIN COUNTY �
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS '
MEETING AGENDA
July 10, 1978
9:30 a.m. EXECUTIVE SESSZON
10:00 a.m. RESOLUTIONS/CONTRACTS:
1) ABC General Submission for Rowhouse Development - SMS
2) Construction of Recreational Clubhouses & Buildings - SMS
3) Telemark Systems Incorporated Lease Agreement - DM
4) Aspen Hills Right-of-Way Deed - SMS '
10:15 a.m. SET P.H. TIMES: FIRST READ221G
1) Parking Requirements(8/2¢/78 at 1:15 p.m.)
2) Height Limitations(8/2T�/78 at 1:45 p.m.) a;�s
3) Amendment to U.B.C. Reqarding Swimming Pools(8/28/78 at�)
10:30 a.m. Discussion of Maurin Property - BC "
11:15 a.m. Highway Safety Consultant Recommendations - MS
11:45 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. LUNCH BREAK--DO YOUR OWN THING!
1:00 p.m. Law Enforcement Building Report - DK
1:15 p.m. Ambulance Committee Recommendations - B. McCrocklin
1:30 p.m. DUI Defendent Breath Sampling - C. Nutzhorn
2:00 p.m. P.H. Downvalley Rezoning - JW
2:30 p.m. P.A. Snowmaking - RG
3:15 p.m. Reappointment of County Boards and Commissions - SMS
3:30 p.m. Septic Systems in Crystal River Valley - BN
4:00 p.m. JOINT CITY/COUNTY MEETING:
-�}—�ki Insurance Legislation - BC
-2-)--�mergency Medical Service Recommendations - BC
3) A-95: State-wide Supplemental Development Assistance
� . .
� ,.
� -.
�r
• �
� . . .� .- �� . , � . . � ���.. .
. . . . . .. ��., .
. . . , . � .��.
� . . � . . � �� � ;:t.'..
_ � . . . . . . �i;�:
. . . - � - _ -� � ' . . �
�i .
'�,,
-`�;.h:.:5._4??::
F�a�
, ,.,.. „ . ,
_.___ _ _ y�=
r;.
t .,
�:,
�:;A;
,;:3 PITKIN COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
�' Regular Meeting July 10, 1978
' PRESENT: Chairman Robert W. Child, Michael Kinsley
July 3 The Chairman convened a meeting on July 3, 1978, as required by State Statute; there
Meeting
being no quorum present, the meeting was continued to Monday, .7uly 10, 1978.
Little Child moved to authorize the Chairman to execute an agreement providing, among other
Annies
Mining things, for the lease of certain mining claims to Little Annies, the specifics of which
Claims
Lease will be negotiated in the future and the terms of whi�h in Yhe interim will remain
confidential. Kinsley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
` ABC Stuller presented a resolution granting general submission approval for the construc-
Rowhouses
tion only (not condominiumization) of the Rowhouses at the Airport Businesa Center. This
incorpo=ates the changes xequested at the last meeting. Kinaley moved approval. Ghild
seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Recrea- A resolution amending the Land IIse Code concerning recreaCional buildings was unani-
tional
Build- mously approved on a motion by Child and a second by Kinsleq.
" ings
Telemark Doug McCoy, Airport Manager, presented a lease agreement wi.th Telemark Systems for a
Phone
Baard diYect line phone board in the airpoxt. This is a year to yeai lease, from which the
Lease �
County will receive one-third of the gross revenues. The wooden board will have the �
names of different lodges along the sides and bus information in the center. IY will be � x
installed in the entrance foyer next to the pay phones. Kinsley moved approval of the �
agreement and Child seconded. McCoy mentioned that some members of the Lodge Association �
is -
are resisting this because they already pay Aspen Reservations Inc. for this sezvice. �
McCoy spoke to the director of ARI for any suggestions ha may have, but he neve= received �
a response. It will be the responsibility of Telemark to fill the spaces on the board. �
Fy
:s
: Kinsley`s moCion passed unanimously. ''
.�
�
• Aspen Stullerrpresented a right-of-way deed with the Aspen Hills condominium owners for an �
Hills a
Right- enrry road to Midland Park. She noted that a deed agreement signed by all unit owners > '
of-Way � ' .
has 6een received, and requesCed that the Board authorize the Chairman to accept the ;
�
easement and authorize payment of $13,385 to the Aspen Hills owners as compensation for 3
R�
Commissioners Meeting July 10, 1978 - 1 �
.. . M�,:r �..y
,e yi;'
��;,_:
�:.�..W�._�__-_ _ _ _
7
fi`'��� �k' J .� -
. �`�v,. � . ` .. .' .
. r . ....., , _ , .
, . . �--.:., ... ..,.. . . �.. . .. _ .
. . � - . . . . . . . 4
tr�:
the grant. Kinsley so moved. Child seconded and the motion passed unanimously. �
�
Minutes Kinsley moved approval of the May 22 minutes. Child seconded and the motion passed
Silverking unanimously. Child asked if a policy statement was being drawn up to be sent to
Memo
Silverking residenta, as was discussed at the May 22 meeting. Ochs agreed to check
into the matter. .
' Set Kinsley moved to approve on first reading and set for public hearing the following
Pub11c
- Hearings items: an amendment to the height limitatioas of the Land Use Code at 1:45 p.m.,
an amendment to the parking requirements at 1:15 p.m., and an amendment to the Building
Code regarding covering swimming paols at 2:15 p.m.� August 28, 1978.
GFiP Karen Smith appeared hefore the Board to get clarification on how to review items
Quota
System under the Growth Management quota system with the PMil exemption. She noted that Owl
Review
Creek developers are planning to apply for 83 PMH units and 82 free-market units.
She asked if these should be scored separately or together, and if the 82 free-market
units would have to provide their own employee housing. Stuller said the PMH appl,ica-
tion doesn't come in under the quota system; the only criteria for PMH applications
is the application date. The 82 free-ma.rket units would be considered entirely separ-
ately and would have to provide their own employee housing. Kinsley said that although
the PMH llII1GS are exempted from the Plan, the market needs should be determined. He
felt that 83 units would probably saturate the market and the units would then revert `
to free-market units; the County can't allow that to happen. Stuller said the PMH
zone requires that those findings be made prior to granting the rezoning. Kinsley
agreed that in the case of Owl Creek the 82 ftee-market units would have to meet the
e
50% housing requirement. Smith said the developer's argument is that they aren't taking
advantage of the additional density allowed under the PMH zone, therefore the housing
requirement is satisfied. Stuller said that's their discretion. �
urin The Board discussed the matter of the estate taxes for the Maurin property. The P � Z �
state �
axes recommended against a proposed Land Use Code amendment which would allow subdivisions �
in the case of an estate tax settlement because they felt it would open a dange=ous ;
�
loophole; the same rationale could be used in the Buttermllk case, for example. They �
�
saw no reason to exempt this from the subdivision regulations, noting that the financial � . •
situation of an applicant shouldn't impact a decision, the RS-20 zone provides a �
�
�
i
Coumiisaionera Meeting July 10, 1978 - 2
�
�
!�
>i
. � N. ...i.,� .
,"':�"7,�;r' ,_!• .
�__. . _�._ . _ . __ ..LL. .� ,,,,..�,.
.,.�.. �.� _ .�__. �,.� �
. �
,�,t,��-
:�.�,� .a�x�, _
�.�,��'. ' ! .
�:
:����
mechanism to combine agricultural and subdivision activitiea, and the Maurin's defense �
8
of "non-sophistication" doesn't apply. They considered the case in terms of the �
subdiviaion regulationa, however it is apparent that the applicant could not meet
the subdivision regulations. The last approach considered by the P & Z would be ta
withdraw Pitkin County's claim in the litigation and allow the Court to order a
subdivision which would be acceptable to the County. This would involve a two lot _
_ subdivision of 160 acres each for ane single-family home for �easonal use only with
no utilities or roadways; the land would be covenanted to that extent. If the Board
finds this method acceptable, Stuller would be directed to enter into negotiations
in the litigation to obtain a stipulation incorporating all necessary constraints and
consent to a court ordered subdivision to that effect. Kinaley asked about the
precedent this would set. Stuller replied it would be less damaging than amending
the Code, and would set a precedent that the County would look at court-ordered sub-
divisions on a one by one basis. Rinsley asked if the Board has a strong legal
position because o£ the clear hardship situation. Stuller said their debt situation
is not unique; she doesn't feel their financial problems or their lack of sophistica-
tion constitute a hardship case. Kinsley asked what would happen if this matter went
through subdivislon review. Karen Smith replied it would require substantial road
improvements, utility extensions, etc., that the Planning Office would not like to see
in that rural area. Child also noted that the caucus would strongly resist these
types of improvements on the land. He felt that from a co�unity standpoint the third
alternative is best. Stuller noted that this division would apply to the cowcamp
land, not the three hundred lower acres. Kinsley asked about the marketability of �
the property. Irving Biers felt the property would be more saleable if prospective �
buyers knew specifically what would be allowed on the land. R
� '
Kinsley moved to authorize the County Attorney to enter into negotiations in regard �
to this property for the parcelling of two 160 acre sites from the upper 1000 acre �
� s.
parcel of the Maurin property, noting that the reason for this approach is the clear �
hardship created by the estate tax, the clear intention on the part of the Maurins "�
i%
;
to maintain the lower sits as an agricultural entity, and that this is a good faith �
attempt on the part of the County to resolve this dilemma. The County wi11 be looking �=
_ for a similar good faith attempt on the part of the applicant to sell the two parcels, �.�
i
and if extra acreage is required to sell the parcels, that the Maurins be willing to
give up that acreage. He added that the only interest the County has in resolving " � '
Fi
this situation in the manner described is that any development that occurs on the sitesfi
9
�
�
Commissioners Meeting July 10, 1978 - 3 ;z
?^�� � ,
.,y�,=;�ry;;<
..r,.
�` `�`-
. �F Vy�,�• .
i�s:u-+
:��; .
. . � ,. ._.. ,
.i.'
�;;
4�
be similar to that on the adjacent Huffman property. �
�
Stuller asked if she could enter into a settlement with the Maurins. Kinsley replied �
she could. Stuller said she would draft astipulation outlining the development Co be �
one single-family home on each 160 acre lot, caith no road improvemen[s and no electii-
cal service, and that these be seasonal homes for recreational purposes only with no
� additional roadcuts onto the County road. Smith requested that the land be deed res-
_ tricted against fcrther development. Kinsley added that there will be no County
services provided to these sites, including snowplowing and school buses. Child
seconded the motion.
Jon Mulford, representing the Maurins, said he would study this settlement offer.
Smith noted that the alternative of developing the lower property would undermine the
County land use and growth management goals.
The motion passed unanimously.
� Mark Danielsen presented the latest housing guidelines to be used with the Growth
:' Housing
Guidelines Management quota system. These incorporate the last changes iequested and give a
breakdown of square foot prices. The figures will tell a developer what sale or rental
prices would be expected for PMH units or for moderate or middle income units under the
quota system. Using the 1975 employee survey as a basis, Danielsen determined that .
50X of the employees fall into the low income category, 30X in moderate income and
20% in middle income. He devised a formula which would assign points on a per person
basis, depending on which type of housing is provided. Stuller said that would con-
etitute an amendment to the Growth Management quota system; the point values cannot
be changed now, since the application deadline is July 17th. The proposal should
include only ranges for different types of housing. Danielsen said he would suggest
amending the quota system so points are allotted on a person by person basis nexC
year. Smith said that would encourage large projects; she felt the point system should
6e oriented to encourage sma11 projects. Stuller asked about the recommended sale �
�
prices for raw land, so subdivision applicants that don't intend to constxuct units `�
can meet the housing requirements. Danielsen said the raw land prices would be based �
on a percentage of the three-bedroom unit prices. He felt no land price would be Y
�
aecessary for the low income category, since these people couldn't afford to build q
housing anyway. Chi1d felt some price range should be given for low income also, so in �
a
case someone in the low income category had some savings thep could purchase land. � '
s •
k
Danlelsen reco�ended the land prices £os low income range from $5,000 to $7,000, a
i
�
�
�
Commissioners Meeting duly 10, 1978 - 4 �
�
��"'�'ti.�St�'�"
�..�
....�,.,,
w'-��'µ`� -
���
�� ;Y . . . ' . ,
"`;
based on a calculation from the two-bedroom unit. All housing prices would be ad�ust-
ed annually on April lst. .
Kinsley moved that the following price guidelines be established as PMH, low,
moderate and middle income guidelines under the Growth Management Plan and Land Use
Code:
RENTAL SALE
I
- Studio unit: i '
low income $175 and under $25,000 and under � '
moderate $176 - 230 $25,000 - $35,000 �
middle $231 - 275 $35,000 - $45,000 j: '
�';=
Onrbedroom unit:
low $220 and under $30,000 and under
moderate $221 - 285 $30,000 - $40,000
mi.ddle $286 - 370 $40,000 - $50,000
�o-bedroom unit:
low $300 and under $35,000 and under
moderate $301 - 450 $35,000 - $48,000
middle $451 - 600 $48,000 - $60,000
Three-bedroom unit:
low $450 and under None
moderate $451 - 600 $45,000 - $60,000
middle $601 - 800 $60,000 - $80,000
Lot sales for single-family dwellings (regardless of lot size)
low maximum $7,000 (credit for two-bedroom unit)
moderate maximum $12,000 (credit for three-bedroom unit)
middle maximum $16,000 (credit for three-bedroom unit)
Child seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. -
Aighway Mark Skrotzki, Highway Safety Consultant, presented a report on his study of Pitkin
Safety '
Report County roads. He initially attempted to get a grant from COG for the work, but was .
unsuccessful, however COG is doing a study with Lee and Associates which has proved
- helpful in his work for Pitkin County. Skrotzki looked at moving object hazards, high-
t
way condition hazards, stationary object hazards, vehicle conflicts and erratic move- �
ments in his review of County roads. Ae utilized a computer printout from the Depart- '
ment of Revenue in plotting the location of accidents that have occurred in Lhe area. �
„ He has pinpointed twenty-seven problem locations, analyzed why the accidents occurred �
and suggested solutions to the problems. Skrotzki stressed that all his solutions are �
p
based on using the present alignment; this report is not aimed at longterm solutions. ,Y
Some short-term improvements that could be made include striping, clearing brush, a
• ��,
installing guardrails, patching holes, etc. The costs have been determined for each �
improvement and a cost benefit ratio has been established. He noted that safe speed `�
� .
w
tests were run for curves, and approximately 75 signs would be needed to bring County �
�
Commisaioners Meeting July 10, 1978 - 5 �
�'
�
.
� , : _:, . ,
_ �:�i.
` S,;
� �,���- -
r� ��,�:;
_ .s�i'�a��;SE' /
.�;
roads up to standards; he questions the effectiveness of some of these aigns.
Skrotzki felt that the present striping program being done is excellent; atudies
have shown that striping is one of the most effective improvements that can be made.
He suggested that more luminous paint be used.
Skrotzki's report recommends that the statistical data be kept up to pinpoint
problem areas, and that a right-of-way analysis be done. Stuller noted that she has
_ -' done the right-of-way analysis. Skrotzki £elt that the preliminary study of speed
limits should be finishad, and that a map should be made showing all mile posts on �'
County roads for easy identification. He noted that he is 11X under budget on this
report and would like to follow up on the implementation of the report. Kinsley said
he would favor completing the speed limit analysis and the follow up work. Ochs also
suggested that permanent copies of the mile marker maps be made. Kinsley said he is
very eatisfied with the work Skrotzki has done, and suggested that a description of
this report be sent to COG and CCI for the benefit of other counties. Child added that .
Skrotzki should also speak to the local caucuses, since they are very familiar with
the roads.
Jail George Ochs presented a memo to the Board expressing his dissatisfaction with the
Planning
Contract progress of Dick Kienast's jail pZanning contract, and reco�ending that the contract
be cancelled. Ae noted that no outline of work or progress report on the jail planning
has ever been made, despite numerous requests. Kienast was present to explain the
work he has done. He has been meeting with a citizen committee for four months; �
they have decided that it would be most helpful to first determine what programs and
organizational structure will be used in the building before beginning architectural
designs. They will draw up a master plan for the building to avoid constructing a
building with unuseable space. The committee has determined that it isn't possible � .
to build a jail which meets constitutional standards with less than 16 cells; Pitkin �
County will not need 16 cells. Almost all existing �ails don't meet the new standards �
coming from recent court rulings; because of this, there is a moratorium on new �
�ail construction in Colorado. Kienast said the Board could hire an outside consulting�
fixm to do the planning, however he recommends against that because it would be too
expens3ve, and because a consultant wouldn't know the coomunity as well as Kienast '�
�
does. Another option would be to hire additional help in the Sheriff's Office in this '�
area. :! �
Ochs commented that it has been more than six months since the contract was signed, �
;f
and he has not seen any results. He doesn't feel much has been accomplished, and if
:;
Co�mnissioners Meeting July 10, 1978 - 6
. . �:�,;.:�, �r` .
4:.�.;?A+�'.,4;;<'"�%'�
.,_�.,
w-�-.�'�� _
-.;,;�
g��Y.�, . �
�.� , .
, ::,. ...... _ _ _.
� . .- _ ._ ,
� �... ._ ___ ::__..__ . .. : ., .. - . ;:
i`<
'w,
�
anything is to be done in 1979 the process must get underway so necessary budget �
appropriations can be made this fall. The work thua far is not going to his satisfac- �
tion; aince there is no outline of the proceas to be followed, he has no way to
gauge progress. Kienast noted that he agreed he would not submit any more salary
: requests until a written report has been done. Rinsley asked about scheduling.
Kienast replied he is one month behind his original projection; he recomnended that
' the Buard give him two weeks to preparc a written repcct, and decidP whether to
cancel the contract at the next meeting. Child said at that time he would expect to
see major strides and would like to see some alternatives which are being considered.
� 1
He asked what portion of the contract has been spent. Kienast replied approximately
307. of the money has been spent.
Ambulance Bill McCrocklin, of the Ambulance Advisory Board, appeared before the Commissioners
Regulatfons
to present their final reco�endations for ambulance regulations. They felt the
areas of co�unications and disaster planning needed the most additional work, and
suggested that a standing Emergency Medical Services council be formed to handle
long range planning and training, and that an exceptions clause be added to each area
of the regulations to allow the FMS council to consider alternatives based on indivi-
dual situations. Otherwise, their recommendations mainly follow the state regulations.
McCrocklin reported that NWCCOG has �ust received one million dollars in EMS planning
funds, and Pitkin County is eligible for some of this grant if an EMS council is estab-
lished. Stuller noted that the reco�ended amendments would apply to next year's '
licensing. She asked McCrocklin if Pitkin County could apply for a waiver from the
regulation which requires that each driver have an advanced ffrst aid card. McCrocklin
said the State would be willing to consider such a waiver. Stuller asked if there is �
statutory authority to require people to participate in disaster planning. McCrocklin � .
said he did not know of such authority. Stuller suggested that participation not � -
a
: be mandatory. � '
Kinsley moved to direct the County Attomey to rewrite the ambulance regulations
for adoption following the recommendations of the Ambulance Advisory Board. Child
seconded and the motion passed unanimously. �
.
-------- �
Breath Carl Nutzhorn appeared before the Board to request appropriation of approximately �
Testing
Devices $450 for the purchase of breath testing devices for people charged with driving under � .
the influence of alcohol. He noted that this device would be offered to any defendants
Commisaionera Meeting July 10, 1978 - 7 ;
7,
1
:�
':y4,`y�:.
.,,,:i�,
,. .,,..,
j� ��
.+F.�i��{.
'�r�?�y t'�14: �
. F�'?�' . . • . !
< y^';
S `��
� �:,
� who wish to have a second laboratory test done, and that the cost of the tests would �
be covered by the defendant. The present Breathalyser used by Pitkin County is not
f
�
accurate because it measures all hydrocarbons present in the breath and alters the �
results. Nutzhorn noted that he was made aware of this situation when he defended an j
{
individual charged with DUI, whose breath tests showed he conaumed three times as much �
alcohol as he had actually conaumed. He said that people charged with DUI have � ,
- their choice of blood, urine or b±eath samples; the first two are much more accurate
however the third type of test is usually given because it is so much easier to admin-
ister. The Breathalyser used can often show different results each time the test is
given, and it is very easy for an officer to manipulate the testing device to alter
the results; it has been abandoned in California becauae of similar problems. He
suggested that the defendant be required to initial the testing ticket before it goes
into the machine to help avoid any manipulation. Since the punishment for conviction
of driving under the influence is high in this County, Nutzhorn felt the defendants -
should be offered another testing option. Kinsley said he would support making this
available if the Sheriff's Office is in favor of the idea. Kienast said his office
initially felt it would be good to offer alternative testing devices, but no longer
supports the idea. fle noted it wouldn`t answer the problem of manipulation by an
individual, and the defendant does have the option to have blood sampling if desired.
He felt this would cause added time and inconvenience for his office, and reco�ended
against it. Nutzhorn asked if a defendant who wants blood tests has to go to New '
Castle. Kienast said that is not true; the testing would be done at Aspen Valley : �
Hospital. Leon Murray appeared representing the District Attorney's office. They
feel that since the State requires only one breath sample, if that is the type of
test being administered, they will stand behind that requirement. He added that �
. x
there is already enough time and paperwork involved in a DUI, and this would just
add more to everyone's workload. Nutzhorn Felt that the fact that the State requires •
only one Breathalyser test is unsatisfactory, since the device often cannot produce
the same results twice on the same defendant. He did not feel that the amount of
time required to have a defendant breathe into a testing device would be too great.
Kinsley asked if a blood test provides an adequate alternative. Nutzhorn replied that .,
it does, however most defendants don't know about their alternatives. Kienast said �
that is not true; each defendant is told of their options in the advisement process. �
Nutzhorn said if these devices are not ofPered to the defendants, the only option ia •
for the attornies to litigate the matter. He felt that $450 in a revolving fund is �
t
�
i
i
�
Commiseioners Meeting 3uly lU, 1978 - 8 ;
�
�,;,,= ..
,:�;t�'�.i
��ir
" _YS';
. .'- yr, 9�' . _ . .
�+ �Z��
�
.. �.�{-���o���!� ,
. .. .:..... � ... .. . . .........,. ��:.,..
.... .. .... . ..,... . . . .................: .. �
. . . .. . . . �.
4-
.�;
� a
not too much to ask to solve this problem. Child said the money is not the isaue; if �
the Sheriff's Office were interested in this the Board would consider it, but both �
�
the Sheriff and District Attorney have recommended against the idea. Kienast said y
�
y
the money is not the issue for his office; the time involved is. Kinsley thanked �
�
Nutzhorn for suggesting the idea.
� Public Joe Wells, of tiie Planning Office, reported that letters were sent to the downvalley �
Hearing:
Downvalley caucuses notifying them of the rezoning public hearing scheduled for 2:00 this after-
Rezoning
noon, however the letters mistakenly said the hearing began at 3:00. The Board
determined to open the hearing at 2:00 and leave it open until 3:00 in case any caucus � ,
members arrive. � .
The Board convened a public hearing to consider rezoning in downvalley areas, based �
�_
on recommendations forwarded by the P 6 2 after several public hearings held to con- �
sider the zoning changes referred by the Commissioners. Wells submitted the following �
items to the record by reference: Pitkin County Land Use Code as amended, Resolution �
�
74-16, Resolution 77-33 creating the RS-20 and 30 PIID zoning districts, Enviromnental
Resources analysis maps and report by CSU, Floodplain information report on the Roaring
Fork River by Wright-McLaughlin, Colorado State Highway 82 concept desiga study by
Halprin and Associates, specifically pages 16 through 18, the Aspen-Pitkin County �
6rowth Management Policy Plan and specifically appendices D and E, Snowmass-Capitol
Creek Caucus plan, Pitkin County Road Network Analysis prepared by Brisco-Maphis,
Five Year Capital Improvement Program for Highway 82 prepared by the State Highway � y�. �
Department, and Resolution of the P � Z dated .Tune 7, 1978, recommending approval
of the proposed zoning changes. Re noted the public hearing was noticed in the Aspen
�
Times on May 25, 1978. � .
Wells presented maps to the Board outlining the present zoning, fire, school and �
neighborhood co�ercial areas, and arterial, collector, paved and unpaved roads. He �
noted the floodpiain maps indicate the downvalley area is more significantly impacted �
by floodplains than the upvalley region. The land suitability section of the CSU re- a
y
port states that valuable ecosystems, avalanche paths, rockfall,areas, tallus slopes, ,�
critical winter ranges, high scenic value, riparian zones, etc. are included in the
protected lands category. These lands are not suited for structural development. �
�
�
Excessive slopes are also a primary constraint, and are used in designating non-occu- i
pancy lands. Wells noted that [he Board of Commissioners recou�ended that the P & Z � '
�
i
i
Co�issioners Meeting July 10, 1978 - 9 j
1
s
I
s
�
,
t
-.t'Y.�,.�.-
_��. -_ ___�_.��.__ - -
� ��;` _
4� R'
E M.�
r s< >: , , i
' ���� .
. �;
A '
�l
consider the highway corridor for the AF-1 zone, and examine the areas away from the �
i
corridor for a more restrictive zone. He ptesented a map showing the current zoning �
1:
and the proposed zoning changea, and described the parcels that would be sffected j
!
by the rezon3ng. Wells dist;ibuted a handout assessing all the lands proposed for �
zoning changes on the basis of their land suitability. This indicates that if the
land suitability maps are examined it is clear that lands which are presently more
stringently zoned have a much higher percentage of land suitable for occupancy uses
than the area being considered for rezoning, In addition, the floodplain and slope
reduction formula regulations indicate that those areas which are more heavily ' `
impacted by these concerns should be zoned more restrictively. Those lands shown
as suitable for development on the maps do not take into consideration road access or
neighborhood commercial services, and therefore are not necessarily suitable for
occupancy.
Kinsley remarked that the Watson Divide area which is proposed for the AF-1 category
may be more appropriately zoned RS-30.
Steve Child, representing the Trustees of the Snowmass-Capitol Creek Caucus,
appeared to request that the rezoning proposal be delayed for further study. The
Caucus feels that several lands proposed for AF-1 zoning should be rezoned to RS-30.
He listed several examples of parcels of land already in agricultural use, or with
� a potential for agricultural use, that would be allowed a much higher density if the
AF-1 zone were adopted. He felt reducing density at the lower end oP the valley is
critical due to road and visual impacts. The Caucus also discovered some instances
where the zoning map and descriptions don't agree, and requested additional time to
study the proposal. He added that some areas of the Snowmass-Capitol Creek valley �
may be zoned AF-2 and weren't included in this zoning; he felt the Planning Office � w
should check that out. Because of the controversial nature of the rezoning and �
the differing views among Caucus members, Child requested that the matter be delayed �
to allow for more 3nput. The Caucus also enconraged the Co�mnissionera to pursue the
� ,
�s
issue of traneferable development rights as a way to control growth. �
�
Speaking as a private citizen, Steve Child co�ented that al 1 land in the valley ��
7 �
should be zoned R5-30, with the possible except3on of the Gateway of Snowmass subdivi- ;€
sion, since it all has a potential for agricultural use even if it isn't presently �
a
being used for ranching. Ae suggested that to help rural landowners avoid the �
�
t .
onerous County regulationa, the Board create a new 160 acre zone category (not RS-160) �
�
i4
IG
Commiasioners Meeting July 10, 1978 - 10 �,�
r
t� ::gr?; _
�Yr..
y
� r�„���• '
i�,:..r`�-� .
�,�"f` � .
_ _ , .,,
. _ . . . . ..
. . .._.
,. __ .._.. _ __ _ ,,
-• :«:,
,:
*;:,
with one unit allowed per 160 acrea and with no quota system imposed. The apecial �
review process for this zone category would be limited to review of the location
of the homesite only; no units could be ptohibited through special review.
Irving Biers, a resident of the Snowmass Capitol Creek valley, reported that ia was �
� accidentally discovered his land is zoned AF-2 as a result of the highway corridor
rezoning. He noted that when the valley was petitioned at the time of the RS-160
3
. ' zoning, 90% of the residents favored that zone category; they wre unaware that such {
i
a large tract of land would be included in the corridor zoning. Biers felt it would �
be hazardous to allow a high density zone category in the valley, pointing to the
unsafe road conditions. He recommended that the entire area, including Watson Divide,
be zoned R5-30. -
Wells suggested that the matYer be republished for a public hearing to allow
more time for public input. Kinsley moved to refer the rezoning back to the P 6 Z
to allow them to consider the more restrictive recommendations heard today, and to
hold a public heazing when their recoumtendation is complete. Chi1d seconded and the
motion passed unanimously.
Public The Board convened a public hearing to consider the application by the Aspen Skiing �
Hearing:
Snow- Corporation for installation of a snowmaking system at the base of Aspen Mountain. �
making
� an Richard Grice, of the Planning Office, noted that special review is required because
Aspen
Mountain the ski area is a special teview use in the AF zone, and therefore anp expaneion must
receive special review approval. The City P � Z has reviewed and appxoved this applica�
tion under the 8040 Greenline Review, Mountain Viewplane Review, and as a conditional
�
use in the Conservation Zone District. The application initially covers 30 acres �
& -
t .
at the hase of the mountain; an additional 60 acres may be included in a future s
expansion proposal. The County P & Z reviewed the application on May 3rd and tabled
action pending receipt of an acceptable noise abatement agreement. Grice submitted
t
for the record the P 6 Z resolution concerning the application, and the original �
noise abatement agreement. This agreement has since been amended to allow the City
Sanitarian or the County Sanitarian to close the snowmaking operation down if a �
violation o£ the noise regulations occurs. ltao paragraphs (6 and 11) of the agreement .
n
which stated the Ski Corporation could clai,m damages if the operation were shut E
down, were stricken. The maximum noise level allowed is SS decibels during the day �
1 ,
and 50 at night, measured 25 £eet from the property line. Stuller asked if the ?�
9
Ski Corporation is acknowledg3ng for the record that this is for a residential district�
't,.
f
a
s
Commissioners Meet3ng .7uly 10, 1978 - 11 �
#
'- .-�s�,' �:
'-'A'�M.u�ic.'.
�;�; �� ' �
-...� fi;,�x. . r .
�:x
..�,�,:
. ,.:,
. r`;
-,j+1',
4.�!=.
:y�:
or for a conunercial district; there is approximately a 5 dec3�e1 difference in the �
allowable amounts for the different districts. Leonard Oates, representing the Ski
Corpoxation, said he would like to diacuss this matter further; he didn't feel they
would strongly fight either way but felt that the co�ercial designation is appropriate.
Grice submitted for the record an agreement as amended by the P 6 Z, and an April 14th
memo from the City and County Sanitarians stating that the noise profiles in the
-' applicatioa indicate that the 55 3;.cibei requireme�t won't b± ex.oeeded. Bob Nelson,
Environmental Health Officer, stated that the point raised in the memo concerning
simultaneous operation of the devices has been satisfied. Grice noted that the Aspen
Alps and Mountain Queen condiminium associations have expressed concern about the noise
levels. He submitted for the record a copy of an April 17th letter from the Colorado
Geological Survey indicating that the slopes are potentially unstable and recommending
that care be taken not to disturb the equilibrium because increased water in the
surface could result in slope failure. A possible beneficial effect could be an .
increase in the ground water leveL Grice noted that this snowmaking system wi.11 be
used only in times of drought. Dave Shelton, of the CGS, did not feel that a
geologic report is necessary at this stage, but suggested that a representative assist
in the final design stages. The P 6 Z recoffinended =equiring a revegetation bond, and
after consultation with Larry Dunn, Grice recomnended that the amount of the bond be
$10,000.
Oates, representing the Ski Corporation, noted that they have now gone through all
the necessary City approval processes, and satisfied them as to the need for the
project. He stated that Grice's statement to the effect that the purpose of this
system is for use only during drought periods is incorrect; they intend to use the
system to supplement the ordinary snowpack. In a very high snow year if the snows R
came early, chances are that the system would never be used. In an ordinary winter
the snowmaking would be used to get a good start on the season and to fill in during y
a
p . .
the late spring months. He felt this would benefit the business community by improv- ;
ing the image of Aspen. The purpose is not to create greater than normal snowpack, �
but just to get the terrain to the point that it is skiiable in a quality fashion. �
He noted that the system on Asgen Mountain will be approximately one-third the size �
of the Buttermilk system. �
t
Regarding the noise abatement agreement, Oates said it addresses the ceasing o£ a
f
operations in the event there is a violation as determined by the County Environmental � •
Health Officer; if one portion of the operation exceeds the standards of the law, �
s �
�
�
i
�
Commiesioners Meeting .7uly 10, 1978 - 12 -
;_�v�re?�,•''r
i....'�n,.".!F,�i,., .
'-i
T.,.:
:x�-sa�:�s.:s ,
�::, �:�'� �
��i;,g'�'; .
i �
._ . ._ ,... .... . .. . .. -... ..
_ - _ _. �.. _
Y..
�!'
t"'
�.t�l'.
i.Y.
that portion will be shut down. Oates agreed to involve the CGS and the County and �
n
City Engineera in the final design process, and to see that landacaping is properly 9
�
�taken care of.
�,
Kinsley asked which Db scale will be used. Oates replied the A scale would be used. ;'
,i
Rinsley said he would like to assure a smooth proceas if the system ever has to be �
��
S
shut down. Oates replied that the Environmental Aealth Officer will be given access �
_- ' to the Ski Corporation proper*_ies �or testing purposes, and that the Ski Corporation �
will iimnediately notify him if they receive a complaint about the noise levels. In
addition, all of the Ski Corporation data will be made available to the Enviroxmental � _
Health Officers. Zf either the City or County Environmental Health Officer says the
system is in violation based an the evidence available, the Ski Corporation has no
right to disagree. Stuller asked if they would abide by the Citq or State noise levels.
Oates replied that the State law clearly preempts the local ordinance. With respect
to the commercial or residential question, Oates said he would like to reserve the
full benefit to argue each based on the type of complaint received. He noted that
the Ski Corporation has never received a complaint about the Buttermilk syatem. Kinsley
asked what would happen if there were no noise abatement agreement and the noise limits �
were exceeded. Stuller replied the special use permit would be revoked, and the matter �
would proceed to court for abatement of the violation and removal of the equipment; �
that would be a lengthy procedure. Tom Dunlop, City Environmental Health Officer, �
noted that if the meter were reading 54 decibels during nighttime hours, the system �
�
would be shut down until 7:00 a.m.; at 7:00 a.m. the system would be in compliance. �
Peter Alford spoke to discuss noise considerations as they relate to the design of �
�
the system. He noted sound was a major consideration in designing the installation, �
3
'r
and sound levels can vary depending on atmospheric pressure, wind, etc. The sound ;
3 •
reading in the room throughout this public hearing has been between 58 and 60 decibels. x
Kinsley said the variable conditions involved indicate that the operator would have to �`�-
eacercise discretion when running the guns. Oates pointed out that if conditions are �
; .
windy the system will not be operated because the snow would be blown off the slopes. �
. �
Child asked if topography would have any effect on noise problems. Alford felt it ���'
would not. �
Gideon Kaufman, representing candominium owners in the Little Nell area, stated his ;j
t
clients are not opposed to the concept of snowmaking, but feel certain provisos should �
be adopted for protection. He noted that the purpose of special review is to give the { '
i
i
�
�
A
�
i
Commissioners Meeting July 10, 1978 - 13 �
s
i
�
t
1
�:
,:_.l,..,�.,;::
�i z u. Yz's' . _ . .
`_ a:•`%`>�_,'�.
xig,-i'v,.:}y.+ , � .
. �i.s'ylk�{`E..:if-i'. � � . ,
r� �
lr
��
Board an opportunity to decide whether this use is compatible with the neighborhood. �
He listed the following concerns: the adoption of the agreement with the Ski Corpora- �
tion to provide for immediate abatement of any noise problem, a limit on the use of �
t
the equipmen[ during Thanksgiving and Chriatmas seasons, and the adoption of a yearly p
hearing to revieca the system to determine that it is compatible in a denselq populat- �'
ed area. He recommended that the impact of the increased water on the geologic �
- - �roblem be co��idered at this annual review. Kaufman felt the contract shonld state �
that this is in a residential area, since a reading of the statutes shows that the
surroundings are clearly residential. He also reco�ended that the a6atement stipu-
lation would apply regardless of the wind conditions. a
Oates objected strongly to the annual review suggested by Kaufman; he noted that the ,�
�
expenditures involved in a system like this cannot be justified if it is considered an "
"experimental" installation. Tom Richardson, of the Ski Corporation, agreed with
Oates. He didn't feel a yearly review is justified considering the lengthy review
they have already gone through; he said such a review would be too risky, and if it is
a condition of approval the Ski Corporation will not install the system. Rinsley noted �
that the mining companies are required to go through a local review, and it has not �
Y
presented a problem. Smith suggested the scope of the review could be limited, and �
� it could include a guarantee that the use would continue. Child painted out that they �
�
cannot predict exactly what problems may arise, so this review would give them an f
�
opportunity to deal with anything that comes up in the first year. He felt at least �
one annual review should be established. The hearing was continued until after the
• `�
City Council meeting. �
�
--------- `
At this point the joint City Council - County Commissioners meeting began. City `;
� ��
; �
Council members present included Mayor Stacy Standley, Steve Wishart, Michael Behrendt, �
r
John Van Ness, Tom Isaac, and George Parry. �
�
e
---------� .� .
A-95 The group conaidered an A-95 review on state-wide supplemental development assis- �
x
tance consisting of five parts: urban strategy development, state economic develop- '�
ment concepts, western slope economic assistance, Denver mini-industrial parks, and
Southern Colorado economic assistance. Kinsley favored the last concept if it is
designed to aid minority groups; the groip questioned whether the money would be used ,f
to aid large corporations getting established in southern Colorado.
Commiasioners Meeting July 10, 1978 - 14
i
;� �• ,�.
�t" ..
'•,�r�1�.'.G�yTi . .
1 L7 •'3�+�� . _ _
�ru'w;s�5 . .
, ??i�S�:j- . ,
::..�.. - . .
'.f:�.
Kinsley moved that a letter be drafted to COG stating that these funds should be 'si
}
focused on the individual COG's, that COG can do these programs with technical ��
�
assistance provided by existing state resources, that there may be merit to some �
elements of this program but the description is too ambiguous to tell, and that COG �
�
shou}.d help implement the OEDP and obtain EDA funds for this purpose. Behrendt
- seconded and the motion passed unanimously. :
. : ---------- �
� Hot Standley noted that the City is having difficulty obtaining hot mix for repaving,
- Mix
and said a rumor is circulating that this is because some gravel operator said they
' !
wouldn`t sell Corn Construction any gravel if they sold hot mix to the City or
t
County. Ochs noted that the County had a bidding problem the first time the asphalt
contract was put to bids, and the project had to be resubmitted for bids. The second
time Elam was again the low bidder, and he heard Corn was upset about the award.
Ochs agreed to check into the problem with Mahoney, Stuller and the City Attorney.
Ski Kinsley noted that when the ski insurance legislation is considered, the group
Insurance
�
should give thought to recommending back-country skiing as part of the proposal.
f Snowmaking The Board reconvened the public hearing on snowmaking at Aspen Mountain. Kaufman
(cont.)
pointed out that the snowmaking noise problem would only involve lower Little Nell's, "
which is a very small part af the entire proposal. He couldn't see that the entire �,
project would fail just because of this small area. He noted that if the system � ,
proves acceptable and there is a minimum amount of annoyance, his clients wouldn't
complain. Raufman said the Ski Corporation appears to be unwilling to test the �
�
�
system first on Little Nells, and there are unknowns involved which could present a i a
problem. The state statutes would allow an individual to shut the system doc.m on a �
�
permanent basis, however it would be a burden for an individual to do that; he felt '�
?s
it would be preferable to hear any complaints on an annual basis. In light of the �?�
l� ,
small area of concern, such an annual review is not unreasonable. '9
�';
' Kinsley said his real concern with the application is noise; he has confidence 15;
r:
that the Ski Corporation will handle the revegetation aituation and doesn't feel S
. . . � iri...
geological hazards will be a problem. He questioned the value of a yearly review, �:�
F�
given that the County can shut down the elements of the system permanently if noise tx
�
proves to be a problem. "'{ '
='r
J1m Lester commented that the noise meter is an oversimplification of the problem, ��
`G
a�
,:�
Commissioners Meeting 7uly 10, 1978 - 15 re
'Y
q
;j.
?�c„�y.��;'
�a���'�vF!. � . .
i
iN-�.i.;.«'�. . � ' ..
� �ro.. �tt� ' .
. >:� ...:_.. ;_ .,:::
-.,I.. . - -.:.... ��:.. ' ' � '..,..... .,,..,.. . ... . . ...
.j.
�,_
t :
.3'.
because people react to dffferent noises differently. A noiae could meet the legal �
v
limits and be obnoxious, or could exceed the legal limits and not create a disturbance.�
�
Oates pointed out that the couununity may want to tolerate noise that exceeds the 55 ?
�
decibel limit, especially if it is a drought year like 1976-1977. He ob3ected to a �
pre3udged limitation on the time for operation; the Ski Corporation feels they have �
compromised already by virtue of the i�mnediate abatement agreement, and they have �
E
enough flexibility and technology within the system to solve any noise problems that
may arise. Richardson agreed, and noted they have tested many types of guns at
Buttermilk for noise levels. He felt decisions made at a public hearing may be
politically motivated, and said it would be too dangerous to risk installation of
the system if the annual review is required. Child pointed out that the statutes
address noise only; the annual review could address any other problems that may
arise, such as drainage control. Richardson replied that the Ski Corporation did
their experimentation with the Buttermilk system; there will be no experimenting
at Ajax because the operators for the system have already been trained. Child felt
review may be necessary to fine tune any problems, and to let the community have
input on the process. Richardson felt the review would be opened up to people with
different motives, such as lift prices. Kinsley pointed out that there is much
co�unity support for snowmaking, and that would have a beneficial effect at any
hearing.
Kinsley moved approval of the noise agreement as amended, with the City Sanitarian
included in paragraph 5 and with paxagraphs 6 and 11 eliminated. Child seconded and
the motion passed unanimously.
Kinsley moved special review approval of the snowmaking application on Aspen
Mountain, with the resolution of approval to include the solutions to the three ;
conditions contained in the P 6 Z resolution as they were resolved today, with the �
system to be subject to an annual review only for the purpose of examining and �((
taking public input regarding the nature of the sound generated, the location of the ;
�
sound generation and the time of operation of the sound generation. Child requested �
y
that the motion be amended to include drainage and a limit to the annual review �
:i
process. Kinsley amendad his motion to state that drainage be considered at the �
`i
annual review, and that at the time of the first annual review the Board of Commis- _�
`i
sioners consider discontinuation of the review process. Grice asked if this would �
�.
include a $10,000 revegetation bond. Kinsley said it would.
Ri.chardson asked if someone objected to the type of noise generated by the system, '
Commissioners Meeting luly 10, 1978 - 16 ;
a
i
.c�',�,�,Y
';�:
z:�.
'�"`t"�z��v �
"s" xt. �
�,{.,
rather than the decibel level, whether that would be enough to ahut the system down. I
i
He said based on this motion, he would recormnend against installation to the Board �
of Directors.
Stuller said the problem here is the distinction beiween resolution of the appro-
priate land use concerns, and satisfaction of the State statute concerning noise levels�
She said the apprehension of the Ski Corporation is that after a year the County will �
.- decide that snowmaking is not ar acceptable use even if it is in compliance with the �
State noise regulations. She suggested the Board make the determination that this
is an acceptable land use activity if it remains in compliance with the State noise
`
regulations. Oates said the risk is that if the system meets the noise regulations
but a lot oP complaints are voiced at the review and the County considers that ample
reason for shutting down the system, the Ski Corporation cannot �ustify the invest-
ment. Kinsley said there is also a risk in the community committing to a system they -
aren`t familiar with. He said the only potential for any constraint of the system
is based on the h drants on the lower ortions of the mountain. Richardson su ested �
Y P 88
establishing a contour line, below which the hydrants would be subject ta annual
review. Oates said the State has set a standard, and if the Ski Corporation meets
that standard there should be no complaint that could be registered hefore an admin-
istrative body and jeopardize the system. They need an objective specific outline
of the criteria that would be sub3ect to review, and exactly what levels would have
to be met. Richardson repeated that this system cannot be subject to political whims.
Kinsley noted that the atate statute is an attempt to apply an objective analysis �
to a subjective area; he felt the responsibility of the Board is to deal with sub-
jectivity. Child suggested that hours and dates of operation may prove to be more
important that the decibel level of the system.
�`
Kinsley suggested the resolution state that the County shall not consider any part
of the system above the 8300 contour line. Richardson said the compresssor building
is at 8150, and that's the most expensive part of the system. Oates said that would �
be in the City so would not be included in the review. Kinsley said they could �
�
consider only sound generating sources below the 8300 contour; the compressor building�.
g
does nat generate sovnd. Richardson suggested limiting the review from the City line i
� x
to the 8300 contour. Oates said that would then limit the scope of the review to k
�
complaints received from County residents, and City residents would not have input.
Stuller said that is not true, since no County residents live in that area. She said �. .
�
�
�
Coimnissionera Meeting July 10, 1978 - 17 ;
e
�
�
�
6
, ��� ,
_ �'.';$,kF;
�--r:��-•.
't'"'?
y)'{ +�u.}�EM�.,
� S�4�S���g''9;A.�Y�/ ' '
. .'fJ;;9'x��_�v:' ' / .� . , .
,+fi
. . ......�... _ .. . . .
'_. '".�—. ... . .. .. . _, . ._,..... _ .... . . . . _ . ..,
..__,.. y..
1:
k
$
the annual review would be open to City and/or County complaints, but would concern �
`�
only that sound generating equipment between the City line and the 8300 contour. �'`��
H
Kinsley amended his motion to read that with regard to the three areas of noise �
consideration, only those sound generation sources which are installed below the 8300 e
contour line within the County's jurisdiction as it affects both City and County
residents would be included in the review. This includes adopting the state testing
_ -' measures.
Oates asked if the Board would consider any efforts made to resolve any problems
at the reyiew hearing. The Commissioners replied they would. Child seconded the
� ti
, motion and it passed unanimously. Stuller will present a resolution at the next
meeting.
_ ; -
3
' Elk Bob Nelson, County Sanitarian, appeared before the Board to discuss the sewage
� Mountain,
i Crystal disposal problems in the Elk Mountain and Crystal River Park subdivisions outside of
j River
� Park Redstone. Because of the large number of lots and small lot sizes, Nelson feels
•'' Sewage
; Problem an eventual health hazard will be present as each lot installs their individual
water and septic systems. In addition, at some point all lots won't be able.to
meet the 100 foot setback requirement for septic systems. Most of Elk Mountain
subdivision is owned by Colomo Inc., so the contiguous lot regulation would apply.
� Jim Lester, lot owner in Elk Mountain subdivision, applied fot a sewer system permit
on lot 38 and at that point Nelson felt he should consider the effect this would
have on the other lots. Kinsley asked how many lots exist in the subdivision,
. assuming continuity exists. Nelson replied there would be 33 potential building �
sites. Kinsley said he would like to see the minimum happen in both these subdivi- �
sions, since many of the lots are so small and are unbuildable due to alluvial fan � :,
�
hazards. Stuller asked what alternative there is to individual systems. Nelson �
replied they could annex to the Redstone Water and Sanitation System, which would �
{
invoive crossing the Crystal River; he felt that alternative may be prohibitively �
expensive. He noted that a person could meet the minimum requirements for an �
��
individual system now and still have a negative impact later on due to cumulative
effects. Stuller noted that estending the Sanitation line creates the potential for '�
' 4
more development. Kinsley said the first step is to notify people in the area that �;
further subdivision in Colomo's contiguous lots will not result in building permits
being issued for those lots. He felt the only solution to the septic system problem � '
a,3
is to issue permits to people who come in first and can meet the 100 foot setback 5
;
S
�
�
�
Coromissioners Meeting July 10, 1978 - 18
:
: �:
=.�;i;,'g;;`':
�;��x��.,�w� "
°��,.� ,a'�'.
:AY.
�;-�
limit; eventually it will get to the point where lota won't be able to meet the
requirement. Child also suggested the County approach Colomo and encourage them to
apply for resubdivision of their contiguous lots.
Kinsley directed that a letter be drafted notifying all reaidents and realtors of
� the situation with Colomo's contiguous lots, that the County approach Colomo concern-
ing resubdivision of their lots, and that people who can meet the 100 foot setback,
;.�
and all othcr requirements, be issued a septic system pexmit.
t ,
..�i
� Reappoint Stuller reported that the Home Rule Charter requires that the Board appoint m�bers
's Citizen
`' Boards to six citizen boards: Board of Adjustment, Board of Appeals, Library Board,
Election Commission, Financial Advisory Board, and P & Z. With the exception of the
P 6 Z, the boards are limited to five regular members, with staggered two year
terms. The Commissioners felt the composition of the various boards should remain
the same, with the exception of Joan Lane on the P 6 Z since ahe is out of the country
a substantial portion of the year. They requested that each Board determine which
members shall have one and two year terms. Kinsley felt that conflict of interest
criteria should be established far all citizen boards. Stuller said the Charter re-
quires that in any case. The second requirement of the Charter is that the Coffiission-
� ers permit these Boards to adopt their own by-laws.
Kinaley moved to reappoint the various boards, with terms to be decided by the board
members, with Joan Lane dropped from the P & Z, and to permit the boards to adopt !
i
i
their own by-laws. He also directed that the County advertise for applicants for the
vacancy on the P 6 Z. Child seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Gerbaz- Stuller presented a resolution adopting the transportation zone at Gerbazdale for .�
dale
Rezoning the information booth, as was approved at the last meeting. Kinsley moved to authorize
the Chairman to sign. Child seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted, APPROVED:
� {
`�i4�1�=���.�/P l i/��i�f�'�(/V •�/�!���
.7,�.a;SCewart.=;'Deputy County Clerk Chairman Robert W. Child
n:,- x �
. ' •�) �/. . . 1 i i ��/b"i�'n,(�� �</, ��. S •
oC�. �: �c Mich�el Kinsley
��(�•,',..r.. � �g
. . . .. � . ' � : • . ' 1
Co�iseioners Meeting July 10, 1978 - 19 's
;' '.
. .x:
'�xi;.: - -
_�..�m...,�,.��,.�.�.....
1978 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PUBLIC HEARING EXHIBITS
July 10 Down Valley Rezoning A Memorandum Dated Mary 15, 1978 from Joe Wells to Planning
and Zonin Commission
B Plannin and Zonin Commission Resolution 78-14
C Land Suitabilty for pown Zonin
Snowmaking Aspen Mountain D Memorandum Dated July 6, 1978 from Richard Grice to
Plannin Office
E 1 of 2 Plannin and Zoning Commission Resolution 78-9
E 2 Of 2 Draft Agreement with Aspen Skiing Company Amendments
made at 5-24-78 P&Z Meetin
F Memorandum Dated April 14, 1978 from Bob Nelson,and Tom
Dunlop,Environmental Health Officers to Planning and Zoning
Commission and Richard Grice
G Letter Dated April 17, 1978 from David C. Shelton,Engineering
Geolo ist,to Karen Smith
H Verbatim Transcri t Down Va11e Rezoning July 10, 1978
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 20 1978 EXHIBITS TO MINUTES
�', r 1
i � - - • �
�
MEMORANaUM
1;�nRD OF C0. GOLiLi'R'S '
T0: County Planning and Zoning Commission - pixxiN co.
Publia Hearing Exhibit�
FROM: Pianning Office (Jtd) nato . EXHIBIT
• RE: Proposed Zoning Changes sub�oct : � � U,�'�
/
. OATE: May 15, 1978 �'�'' N0•�
-'1 Y
This Wednesday you v�ill be discussing proposed zoning changes referred
back to you by the Commissioners for your comment within 30 days.
These amendments propose Co rezone the downvalley corridor adjacent
to.Highway 82 presently zoned AF-2 to AF-1. It is proposed that AF-1
zoning be app7ied to the lands adjacent to the Highway and that side
tributaries beyond these ridges, including some of the lands in the
Ermna area, be examined for RS-30 zoning.
The acreage of private lands zoned AF-2 downvalley have been calculated
using the County Zoning maps. There are 7448 acres within the large
generally contiguous area zoned AF-2. There is an additionaT large
outparcei of AF-2 zoning of 470 acres, or a tota] of 7858 acres.
The present theoretical density potential of this area, then, is
3929 dwelling un9ts or a population of roughly 13,750.
The proposed zoning change'has been broken into two alternatives,
to better assess the effe.cts of either proposal:
L
Alternate 1 - would simpiy convert the iands designated AF-2
to AF-1 designation. This ►aould reduce the theoretical
density potential from 3929 dwe]ling units (13,750 population)
to 786 units (2750 population). _
Alternate 2 - would apply RS-30 PUD designation to other lands
removed from� the Highway corridor and accessible only by
Type 3 roads (semi-collector and local roads), which are
general7y narrow with sabstandard shoulders and which in �
severaT cases are unpaved. This would be the case with a
section of land in the Snowmass Creek Valley which we think
wes mistakinaly zoned AF-2, with lands along unpaved Type 3
. . roads in the Emma area, with the Zieglerland along the Divide
. at Snowmass Uillage, which is surrounded by RS-zoning and
with portions of the 4Jildcat area. �
There is no rationai pTanning consideration which can justify retaining
the AF-2 zoning in these areas, A decision to do so would have to be
made str9ctly on a polftical basis. A thorough documentation of the
environmentai factors affecting this area wiil reveal that, from a
land suiCability standpoint, the constraints are considerably greater
in this area than in other areas in the County for which present
zoning is more stringent. A similar observation can be made about the '
existing road network and access to goods and services, as well as
fire and police protection. We are preparin9 a graphic pr.esentation
to iilustrate these factors for you on Wednesday.
�
, I
lmk . . •
. i
U[t�SiiY ANh POI'ULATION R[:(lUf;ffqN RLSUi_Tit�G fit0��1 PitOPOa�U 7..pPJlla� CliANGES.
Land prop�sect for chancLe fram AF-T_ to AF-1: .
� Density Dcnsity , Popu7ation Population
___Parce7: • Acreage: Under AF-2 Under Af-1 Under Af-2 �nder AF-1
(3.5�u 3.5ppu}
Ertma 880 440 86 1540 308
lJingo/Dasalt Flrry, , �
Corridor � 1594 797 159 2790 � 557
� Snowmass Canyort Nwy. � • •
Corridor 1496 748 � 150 � 2615 525
Snowmass Creek Canyon G00 300 60 1050 210 �
Watson Divide 320 160 32 560 112
Gerbaz�aTe Hwy. Corridor 44b 248 50 863 175
. Total �. 5386A. 2693iinits 539units 9426persons 1887pers�ns
Land Proposed for change from AF-1 to RS-30 PUD: ' .
Density ' Density Populatian Population
Parcel: Acreaqe: Under AF-1 Under RS-30 P.UD Under Af-1 Under RS-30 PUD , ,
, Wildcat 2507 251 84 879 294 ."
Ziegler 448 45 15 158 53
Total 2955A. 296units 99Units 1037persons 347persons
Land proposed for cl�ange from AF-2 to RS-30 PUD:
- Density Oensity - Population Population N
Parce7:. Acreaqe: Under AF-2 Undei- RS-30 PUD Under AF-2 Under RS-30 ?UO
Snovnnass Creek/ I
Wildcat 480 240 16 840 56
� Snowmass Creek
Va71ey 720 360 '� 24 1260 84
East �nd 4Jest .
Sapris Creeks 1656 828 55 2898 193 • •
' Total 2856A. 1428units 95units 4998persons 3�3persons
' Acreage: Density Under Density Under Pop. Under Pop. Under
!>respnt Zoning Proposed Zoninc� Present Zoning Pr•oposed Zonin�
Tota7, all 11,197A. 4417units 733units 15,461persons 2567persons
parcels
' • BOARD OF C0. CO1DI'R'S
PITKIN C0.
• Pnb210 Aeariag 8ahibita
. . Date r: 7� /O•78
Sub}eat : l�'a.1 rl b- l/ 1/ /(�QZGI'!Gl'�
Exh. No.: " �'J �
R[SOLUTION OF TftE
PITKIFI COUNTY PLANNING AP�D ZONING COtAIdISSION��� on co. contta�x�s
PITKIN C0.
RECONUdENDING APPROVAL Of �"biio Hearing Eahibits
' , Date EXHIBIT •
CERTAIM COtJNTY ZONING CHANGES sub�eot � � �np'
,-?���� �,. No �
/b-7ft
WHEREAS, the Board of Piktin County Cortunniss9oners by its action
of April 24, 1978, did refer to the County Planning and Zoning Commission
what has been referred to as the highway corridor Zoning proposal, for
that Board's com�nent within 30 days, and
' WHEREAS, the County Planning and Zoning Commission did consider said
zoning proposal at its regular meeting on May 17, 1978 and again after
requesting and being granted additional time to review the proposal, on
Ma.Y 24. 1978.
• WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commissiori has heard a presentation
by the Pitkin County Planning Office expiaining the planning rationale
underlying this zoning proposal, including the following considerations:
' L
1. That a thorough examination of the land suitability maps pre-
pared by Colorado State University and adopted by the County
subsequent to the adoption of zoning presentiy applied to the
]ands in question reveals that the proportion of lands designated
occupancy lands in these areas generally is consider.ab]y below
� that in other areas of the County presently zoned more restrictively;
2. That the lands in question generally are r�noved from necessary
goods and services, including schools, fire protection, police
protection, utilities service, full-service shopping facilities,
public transportation and organized recreationaT and cultural
opportunities;
� 3. That the lands in question are not serviced by adequate road access
capable of supporting the 7evels of density reflected by the present
zoning and that thi� problem is worsened as the distance from
Highway 82 increases and as the condition and design criteria of .
the road decreases;
4. That the Flood Plain Study, conducted by Wright-McLaughlin Engineers
in July of 1976 reveals that the potential• for flooding along the
Roaring Fork Rivar is more pronounced in the areas in question
that lie along the River than in other areas present]y zoned more
restrictively.
NOW, THER[FORE, 6E I'f RESOLVED by the Pftkin County Planning and
Zoning Commision that the zoning of the following lands within Pitkin
County, Colorado be clianged from AF-2 to AF-1:
7. 85., R. 871J : The eastern half of Section 10, all of Sections 11
and 12, the northern half of Sections 13 and 14,
and tiie nor•tt�eastern quarter of Section 15.
7. 85., R. £36W.: Ail of 5ections 7 throu9h 18, 20 through 28, 34 , '
through 36, and that portion of Section 33 recarded
as Gateway of Snownkzss Mesa 5ubdivision, Filing 3. •
� ��.��C��ez)
T. BS., R. 854J.: Ali of Sectians 1II, 19, 30, and 31.
. T. 95., R. f36W.: All of Section 1 , •
T. 9S., R. 85W.: All of Section 6 and that portion Of Sectton 5
presently zoned AF-2.
And from AF-1 to RS-30 PUD: •
T. 9S., R. 85W.: The Southern half of Section 7, all of Section 17
and 18, aTl of Section 19 except that portion owned
• by Snowmass Corporation or its assigns, the western
. half of Section 20, and that portion of Section 30
presently zoned AF-1,
T. 105., R.86W.:' That portion of Section 1 and 2 presentiy zoned
AF-1
And from AF-2 to RS-30 PUD:
T. 95., R. 86W.: All of Sections 2, 12, .and 13
• i'. $S., R. 86W.: All of Section 19 and a71 of Section 33, except _
that portion recorded as Gateway of Snowmass Mesa
Subdivision, Filing 3,
T. 85., R. 87W.: Southern half of Sections 23, 14, and 15, North-
western quarter of Section 15, and ail of sections
• 22, 23,� and 24.
� Approved this / � day of June, 1978 by the Pitkin�,County Planning
and Zoning Cormnission.
t
By i �
. eter Guy C airman
Pitkin Count Planning and Zoning
, ATTEST: Cortreiss9on
, ,�.c� �
C};erk and Recorder
�'
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
�G�M.�t!'_,%!n !'-r .
� � ,�-County Attorney �
- 2 -
.u_.,�....,,,v�6,.,,�,�.� �.;�.�.,
. . _ __ .
,� EXHIBIT ���� '
' � �
�L�r�_f .yvil��1 if��r'� -- .,�'l�
__._.._.___!r r/���::�a��r�fs�;�r�c�r�`�l:�f-_:�r���i��� c/�,�;���.�,�.oi�,.. �� . �' /��.�_.
_:___._._..--".�Iea. •,c����---.._.. -----.__._____._. _.._.-----._.__.._.�Y��..__.��1�/�l�,o•�r�.:
__...__._._ �� .,._.,
�_.__ a�`:..:,�.�:��s;.-=-------�----__------ ' --. //6 e�._-----._.�3 3.%--_
(�-'�' ..k • l�:r�J G✓I�y D7Gu l�� Cans'7jF1�H71:
----- � l/'�.r-;f�./�'�1�_._ .J'._._..___.__..__�__.. .- .--..___---�7�2fE. �_.._.._.__�.��.---.
� _.__. �oh-O�.w^v}�,�,��.���'�:��s;..�_.._ ��--- `S�A'...__ .z__6.7% --...
�'����,' /�:�-�a: � /3.2.8�9. �5.�%
- . `----.7".f�!�,�-���.%��--_ -_ ` —�?��____�__-��.°_�._ : �
..+�_---- - -- —� -- ------•--0----i•--•-�r -- • �
�__�lf'`�.,.-�SI��Gc/l�If�S�S'�%"�z� ��YG� ���:.�z: / �f�!;�;���,::�.�.
(.�CC/�:��1G'.� ri�:F:7u • � lJ•Q� ..�/o� .
•-- �l J�•,,'��� Ji.�.t G✓�)�� •r.�:�3a,-;i,s C�»Si:��::•I,�l: ---•-- � �-1--- -• i
, . ----�'cu/� .. � ._ .-----___f. .. .--�------_._�__�__. — ---�_._.
,
.. ,
� �j ',�� �U�-' � � - �oi4: � 13.3°
• ._.�.�?'o"G'.vC,'�t:1v,�_._,s---- - -----------------n___.___..----..___ �_`O._,.
_ _.`.��adi'l.�L".^.'v'�J.•.;C!� �:iG/r?_ �� �.G.���..�...---..._._`�" �_.�_._
_�_��-'`��"`�'__f-�t:;'r�_.___ _ �_�O.D/�.- -------��'�--'. .
'']�� ( �/ 0
---- !vlGa�o.�':i�.^.::�• ��/1• /DD.Lj�
--� -•-•-- -..�.....__-- - -- •--___.—__—.-------_.____._.__.._._.__..
_ ��1 �1�,�;--/,���p��A// Y///L..-.�- . "_ �j„��F:✓��`�o of� ���i:� ya�r..t�Iµ.
� ��x� � J
_._.__��t7w::=�.f,�.�:..— ._ _.__ _____.9_�¢�_._�____2�.f"%__
' S!!.�-^Jf.i�.!:.,l. /f�t�i1 L�J/ [. J'��s%��`� C'O�:S�Ja:t_.lr� .
— � . . %_. ._ �. ._ ._ _ _ _ -•__.__._—._
_�____.../�i�Za.Jc.i.i'_!,?./�°2.1.' _ -
- _.�
Jir n'1 /•�w
- ---� �-'�---�� .�o��,r".:.:�i-��=�';-------..�____ �_2_.��__�—�__ 29.0%__..
— -------.����':�1u:���- -----.—_-----_-- _ 132.6�---_._------'�i.5% .. .
7;`�� �;c!�.;..:,% .32oalf �C�4��
_._-�-------�---- . . .. ... � ---._-----------.__.__— , __._ _-- --... .._..._-�--- ..
_.---_...^ �r���,'.._��c//NG-�,C'f�-���fL.7 ;�;''�Y�- --�1��f�1���-�..: /��r!:14; ;���,�:-��.
-- . --
Qz,�r.�a,•rs�i '� • -- ..
.
. !:,:� .
--_._ ..._. ._... � ._. ._ . ..___ .�_ .. .... _.. . _--....._.---.... ...______.... . . ..........
_.. .. 2%l.�/I 5.9%
(�4..''i'_4�L�:J�<c:f/ !`i•i.;id (U.�:o�'' ./ f'C �.C;;../.�:,1(i�%
_.___ ..... ..._.. / � �I07/ i-'(Vli.. L Jl�i�• _ ....-°• •---'.__ ._..._ ..... .. . ..
/ . .. .
t���:z%,::':t�� /�o:' : � 52.(n%
..---•--.... .____.. ��
..._ _...__._._..._.
.._. . . . .1��7. �;�;��,��:::.�•1.�:��'.�� � . .. . _...__....._. . . .38.: . . .. 3.0 0
� � �� .
. .. . ... ._..._.. .. .__......_ _ ...... .
�r o /
. %:,:`•.�;;���!�:.�{�:!;: ' �.. 6/2.5� -. ..... _. 38 s/. ..
f'li�l ��,":�'��j�'� . . . . . . ./�%J?G/�'. �41,�0i�o
./
.� � s1��� z
. . � �
,���-� .���;��1,1��j , . . � . —`
��� � �[� / ��2 �-f� � ,
_._.._.�_��lf/J/l?� /)(.��5��Tri1iGtSr� 7�J1^ 7/�/9//�.� l'l�i�)`9���'i�Ok _� �o�_ �
. � . . _ _. � .
..___.�Y-�-.'/�/�c7:J/Y(JW����Cr�l�lyU�!I/�!�(_„�/I�JY�� ,Cir�^r�;-`•--���/"�ri.���i�{��/'F.�:: �
. � --------
__..----�`",.r�/t7as: ------��- -----------. -----i2�:�� ..___..._._..�-��.- -____. .
.
-----�'r'�«y �?�s__w,�H,�Uf�.�,�,�._�h�a�rJr:
' � ..._ ._.__._____ .._�_.. _
_ �.�/u-;�ru���o�ls�� _�_ 26d.8/�. _._ 1�D% ___.
�oh-O.s'^..u�*�r.�e�/��,r1s: --- — -- 33I_2� _ � .2,'L�j.�_�_
��fPC�e�/ /a:�s: � � 169.�/� 5�4%
__.�_......._..........--- _ � _ _ _._..__..�.
7of�/��».�9�i'_ � _ � � 1�96.0,4 � Ioo.�% __.__. . �
- — -- --__ _-- -- ----------- --- - -- �
' �_��:��' ,��ffLc�/Y�i�1�IZY�i� ��;:;;,�; �% ��;;�';�,.,�,_
� �.1�. f;.�u� .�2� �l,9% , �.�
�' .�---.. .------ ----- ---------------
' Qcc���,:x�_/a:�.r.c_tvi'r_�f''�sa�e..fr�/G�hrl�sf;i_------�--------_.__ - .
� r�cwc:�ti����<;�: Z��.4� ��r� .
- l�ti.•occvP.�?:� --�h:,��t: � _._.�_____ 5¢�--��–�_—.�/I_o% . -...
� - f�v��.cEd ��:�.�:._----- . � �9¢ol� 2q,o% `
iTf��/r����.: " .-----�6.o� toa o% �� �
_ ._ . ._._ ..__�...--- — --�- ---�-------__
,;
� r��: 7oTf1-L,7��fflS f�- � •� ���.;�: /b�?`�-- �a� ,;�,.._
- ____�.�._____�_.
C.�� 1. �./..�_ _4�-7__2f�.__ 9.3� _
�-"'�__ . -
����c���r-�s._tvif��'.._�r���.��i�2 ec��sfr�.�;;.�lr:.� ...—� ._.
_ �'�v�!T�%._/,:�.: _ - _____��196��:_.___ 311%
_ `._�__11!,���...-��P�.�;�..1��-��-- � . ---6��=��----- - �15� --- �
-- -... a._._
� ��C`"�.,�lac�l.c : 2272 of� �.2/
__ _...7c�al ��c:c.J��... .,.�__— --- _�.�,_^_�_:53856�-- -�--�DO..o°o . ......
�._.._.__.�. —_lT�c'ol�_—_.�_—__------_.--�----- �__.�..—I1Cr�n;�� �nt 7i7f:� -'�i .�z�r:. .
_ . -
QZ::.'�:�,tr,:4�laG:�s: . • J -
.�... ..... ...._ .. � ......... ......._ ...----.__..... . ...._ . . .__..�__...__ _.._ ._ ._.._._.. ..... .._ .
�
_ .... ._...: .Q�ccr.�ar�u� �a�ar �.ur;�;,�;�,�cc�a� Go-�u�;atr,r(r: .-- --._....... . .. .._.._ . .. . .. .. _
,
j��i�vc�v� ��o�� :. -
___..__:.._.. ..�/!r c ��l�i�►-u��l�:r�c:.; . .. ._...__.. _ ._.. .. ..._..---• .•-_.__ _;�..�---. ......... .,... • . : .. .
%%;�rr•-�:1 'l.::l:,xS� .
�/t:�tJ:;l?�.�r.: . _. .. _ .. .. _ '_
� �/cL�i 3 ,
,�nya .,�;��1,1,�y � . _ a ,
�._.._...._..../!/�/t� ��{.r��f��7�rb�f'Crf'. !ur 1��i?/i��') C/�c�',q�i� /rf / �� '����� l
./ / �J
._,_�_������� �ii��.�r _._._.-.-----.__.---__.........�__:.____------�u���,: �%�l�t�i����<<z.
_ � _._���:��:u /��-lJ- __.�.�.__.. . :..----- ---�-°A=-_.._-.-s��---....
(,�:.� �t I/>�r w,��_. ��r�__��,s��/r_ � �6�__. �8`�� ____..
----.. .P� �_._ -�- -I'� �-- .__......------ �63.2�f 6 5%
_ ���fru,�../a�,ds:-- � - --- ---- ----- _.
Noh-CL���,�.��./�.��5�: _ _� I�5¢��___-�°.o�° ---�
,�j r
!"���c.c7ea �ar�r..�s: � �_ — �----_.
7�?f��_�n���.------ . . � _ 2506.��_ --���o%^`-- .
---- ��. Z/�"��� . ' • ����: % ��%�a l,-n,�r J�,:�,
O.�cv �.,�s_ 9.6fE^ __-_2_._2/--=---.
---- j�`��J._. _..__ • � ��lp.8f�. � 3L�%
fl' o�er:�i�/�Yr,S���ii:r:
_ (�cu��,��/ar,�s..cv_� � � ------ -- — .
- _��i-t�dv_ _c�,r.�e. /xz�!s:� � _ � .-
l��h•oec���:�c� h=��'= 2g�:6I�___—_�.�% •
��
/ialP �i l�✓.�1': ' -- ------ --�
� Tfa/a��u,,�.n.�: �8`6� ' �OD 4%-�-
-------�- ---- J.. _._.. ----- --
_�.�I"e :`7��Li��S � , �� ' �A',?alt,: ---�jo��'�•;�'f �Ga=
/
C������� /?�!r�_ ___ • 13�.��f. 4�% ._ .
--�-. . _ .
--
��:,u�.���.,�s �v�f!�w=�4� em.sfi:��:zf�: �1.�1�. -- d.¢%
_. n - - - - -� -�-�-�- -------�-------- ---- 2-- --
---R�u�c�����r: -- — __ �763.Z�f__ 55% . ..
_____ ���',•�c�lna.�: �o-cc,�s-.�-------___._-------- 2052.3f} ----- �.¢/ -.
_ ------- - �
n,() ;�",-.:✓C+i`.:._/G�
• ���G�';,I /�.�- . � � �
..._._ � .�.,, .
-•---•-._--------- -- —•---__.—._._ :.t�.�_.
�`__T f�!�,��:���,___.._._-----------_--__-___29.s�.�7�_--_.�.�.�Oa.o% _
-----�--.� �II'.ca• ._ ,.� ____._ ._'__. -� • _ �fTU,C��t,�: ._-�af �oi>/ �• ff7'c:�:
-----•-�--•._.._..�i��zct«f�a�.ds�. _. .. ....__. .. _._...____._. _.... ._.......�----.__._.:.__.___._.----. .. .. ..... .:..._. .
: .
� �
'Qu�C��c�u�/a-r,�s cur�',�? -cr.�c.� c;o�:r�i yrrdr:
_ . - �14'2i�C;«.� lc�o�� : . . � . ._..
__.__._...-..��t�•c�,�c��.x:u, �a:;,.�r. .�._.`... ._ _.____..�_.._..--.---.'__:... ._...... _ .._._.._ ..__._ ._...._ : .
�.,i;��� � �
f/lt. i: s:�1:w C' . .. . . . . .. . . . � •
� . f'f'l c,x:r;-,J�,: ... .. . _. . . . .. . .
,_����...�,�.� , � _
,
. � . • �'��:� =-�
/r�� .��,;f�l�,l ty /� . � . /. � �,t' -�
�___......./ i%f/J/r�� �1 f r��S�?•rr}irafr� %�'r..���/7��i� �'�fr,Y.9yp�•��!t�,.�i/�� r���
� . . . `/ .
..•_°- ��/P��. �S'iVa�lrl�Js��t�i��� � iV�`-��--��/ ...�P/r: �:•.....-./��r�;;�1���/lir•;2.
. O�C//JL:7(!Cf I>4�.f' � , ___._....._�O�'_.�._,....._�/._...�.___ .
'~____�,:���:�cf/at�,�/s_ui��l,'j:n�'ck/a.� c�.o���r��-/.r=__ .96�f. .____.._ 2�.:-------�--
�� ��.�t� /��,.�r;_._----�_�..__ _.^ 1024�.,--213��--.--�--�
/YOh�--�l��GtCy��t�G�s ° _—. _ -•�D"�-------��7/- -•-_••-.
�/'DT/J-C/CQ /o`�'✓�'.�S. --- --�'---------..
� /••!�?.!a�rC�;Q/_ 4 _ _�_., ' �_°_�__--��0�------ ..
_---. �i,��� J'/�l,�/��S' c�'� Y�LI�� V �w.,�.� �����l,�r,��:_
_,�----___�_
O�..cv��rr�y._�::Js° ____�_�______ _— 96/�_ �7�._�3��. .
•� , ,�GCU JLI� /i✓:.'GS GJ/���10�('-/.�•77J��''rJ-f/�"fi:'r:__ .r._ __._`__-�__.
%'' .: • ��du;�a�/��:�s.._____.--f------------� _ Zj�G�------�8�b 3s��_...
���� �� o �.
-- - " /:x'ti�oecu��.:� ���c� __._ -___._._ ��__��'6��8�°_..
� - ��;�'a!/y.,�,'r: _ _``���iE °_y'__�._9-_�.�,.__�j?/�-
Tt..�!d�;�4,. �,: --�-�2�q �aa.��__.__ - --
— ---._.__._�-._— . --- -- �;
_ � � . ° �; != `� _'��_...
V li:�:;�L��'�r ���.2'/!l��c� ��1�-�L.1W t}=/:�.,;°ti= /°° I" � �✓r r;7`_'
.___--
G���::��..h��s: — 6_5.6� _`��%6-�---�---
(� ti !c?t��C Gvllt"� '' �u�Z� Ccr.J�J".�-�si�3":` ���o/� ��� ---
��/ '�� " / � �/ o
�[�fJt.�771/�il�.?:%�l' _____�., . � /�G� O.�� . .....
--- -- -,�.._
�.e1,•.occ:��a�:�� /�r,..<!s: � ?�3o�f /T.4% .
--.---.----- . . _._.__.. . . _.... __ _.._._ -- -----__�____._.—._._ .
� ' 69 2%
P.•�;��-�t:..� �G.�s : ���:6,� o .
--- ---- .._ _._---_--..__ _—�- -------.-------.__... --..---------.__._.
T�a/ dc<<J✓� . l�oA �oD.r�� .
-----'__-__ -�– � --- -----.__---- --. .
-------��-�-----.��--- ��-L �.IS ,� o � , {
------____ /f' .��"_. ^__rr�� l d�C�r���:; -��;• i=��:��,
�t�: � T--
(�u��:rr� .�. ,�c4�s' 9�Zft. � 35�
.,._.—.�—�. �.._.._. . . .. ..--�-.-- -----.._.. -- -. _ .-� -- -.....___. . ...._
_._,.__...____ ._ - -- .
� (,���t���;,u�:�� ��:u�s w�;���{���.�{�-.� c.�-ltl�j:�:���l: 2'/,z�. fo-f- T o%
.___..__.....--- --... .....__.._.._ ... . __. ....._ .
. , . ��� � a
�rf�uCl[vr. �;r t:�s :. � "7tJ`�,�ro-' ��'S/o
_ ._._...._.._ .r� .. .._ �.... ............... .. ....... . ........._ �. . ..
_. _ _. •.
.��:t•c�.��s�r�-�cc �a:.��• . � . . ... . • .. .._. ,
... �.. �16.� . -�.�.f�- ��s1,�
_. . .. ._ ��h;�•�:���1:;�% . . ...._._. ....___.......... . . . _ .. `� 1�'.3� �f�-SIo�
�7i�/i,�."/'r'.a.i: . ' `�%�?t�+i',Y'�9����yi
I . / .. . .
✓
t. •
F�ARD OI' C0. CO1:tA4'A'S
MEMORANDUM PITKINCO.
Publio Henring Fachibit3
' Dnte EXHIBIT
• subject � /� n /77�77.
T0: Board of County Commjssioners �i.•xo �'�
FROM: Planning Office, Richard Grice ,
RE: Snowmaking Aspen Mountain - Special Review - P.N.
DATE: Ju1y 6, 1978 •
This is a pub]ic hearing to consider the application of the Aspen Ski Corp-
oration for the installation of a snowmaking system at the base of Aspen
Mountain. This proposal must be approved by the County as it will be an
accessory facility to the ski area which is a special review use in the AF
zone and any expansion must also recieve special review approval. The appli-
cation has already been reviewed and approved by the City P&2 under 8040
Greenline Review, Mountain View Plane Review and as a condit9ona] use in the
Conservation Zone District.
The system is designed to cover 30 acres initialiy, all of Litt]e Hel7, with
• the possibi7ity of future expansion to cover 60 additional acres. This
future expansian will ever�tually reach to the top of Spar Gulch on one side
and to the top of.Lift 1A on the other side of the ski area, thereby improv-
fng two avenues off the mountain, 7he only parts of the system which wi]� .
actually be located in the County are the underground instailations of air,
water and electric iines and the "nozzle-guns" which wil] be above ground.
A site plan detailing the location of these facilities is irtcluded in your
copies of the complete application.
The purpose of the installation by the Ski Corporation is to provide
better utilization of the existing ski facilities. especially during the �
early and late portion of the ski season.
. The application was reviewed by the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Com-
mission at their regular meeting on May 3, 1978. The Commission initialTy
tabled action on a resolution recommending approval and asked that the
applicant prepare a noise abatement agreement including provisions for
cease and desist of operations upon notification of a noise violation by
the County Health Officer. The original draft agreement is attached. On
May 24, 1978, the P&Z signed their resolution of approval but conditioned
their recamnendation on the following amendments being made to the noise
agreement:
(1) deletion of paragraph 6,
(2) deletion of paragraph 11, and
t3) in paragraph 5, the additi on of the City of Aspen Sanitarian as an
agent of enforcement,
The Planhing Office agrees with the concept and need for the proposed snaw-
making system as described by the Ski Corporation. We are concerned about
certain specific impacts of operation,specificly the following:
i. Noise Generation - The Environmental Health Offices of both : the
City and County have jointly cormnented that, "7he noise profiles
presented in the application indicate that with the placement of
various brands of guns, the 5.5 dba requirement for this general
zoning category as specified in 25-12-101 ta 103 of the CRS (Colorado
Revised Statutes}, 1973, will not be, exceeded. There is insufficient
Snformation to detennine the accuracy of these profiles, or.the con-
sequences of additional guns operating simu]taneously." A number of
the adjacent property owners have expressed concern over the passible
noise levels, specificly the {lspen A1ps and the Mountain .Queen Condo-
minium Associations. It should be noted that remedies provided for
the abatement of noise in excess of State Statutes requires a District .
Court injunction. A revisod noise abatement agreement prepared by • •
the applicant's attorney is included in the packet for your review. '
Mciuo to [iOCC
Snr>venaking
Page 2
2, Geologic Hazard - The Colorado Geoloqic Survey has commented that
"We do not believe any of the ged ogic or hydrogeologic conditions . .
will be so s'ev.ere as to prevent the execution of this project."
� However, several items were noted that needed further consideration
. during the fina] design stage prior to construction. "These are
, potentially unstable slopes and care will have to be taken not to •
disturb the equilibrium. The second area of concern relates to the •
increased infiltrat9on of water int� the subsurface as a result of
inc'reased snowpack.• This may turn out to be a benefit as it recharges
the ground water in the area. On the other hand, in areas that may '
be potentia]ly unstab7e, this increased moisture could initiate
slope failure. We believe that neither of the above problems are
so severe as to render this project infeasible." I spoke with Dave
Shelton of CGS on June 22 regarding the need for a geologic engineer-
ing report, At that time, he suggested that CGS send someone up to
assist during the final design stage. He did not feel that it would
be necessary that the design be finalized in accordance with a .
geologic engineering report prior to cormnissioner's approva, just
prior to construction. ' '
3. Landscaping and revegetation - The visual condition of the vegeta-
tion on sTopes of Aspen Mountain is at least as important to the
Ski Corporation as it is to Pitkin County. Their attorney has in-
' dicated to me that the Ski Corporation will be willing to submit
what ever bond is required. As it stands noar, construction wil7
probably not begin until ne�Spring. They would prefer not to have .
a bond outstanding for such a long period of time. We suggest that
a condition of approval should be the estab7ishment of a performance
bond for revegetation in an amount to be agreed upon between the
County Engineer and our CSU Extension Agent prior to construction.
Given the satisfaction of these major concerns, the Planning Office recom-
mends approval of the Special Review application for the snowmaking system �
on Aspen Mountain.
sr
i
�
. • �
' ,
' , I
�
I
�
. �
, . EXHIBIT
� � ,� ��L i
PITKIN COUNTY PL/1NNIP�6 AtdD ZONING CONV�ISSION .�
' RESOLUTION 7a - �
RE: Special Review - Snowmaking Aspen Mountairi � ' '
4lHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission cons9dered the Aspen Ski �
Corporation's specia7 review application for the installation of a snowmaking
system on Aspen Mountain at their May 3, 1978 reguTar meeting, and
WHEREAS, accessory facilities to ski areas are allowed oniy by special
review in the AF-1 zone district, and
- WHEREAS, the Commission heard evidence on the ability of each of the
three different types of guns to be used without violatTng dba noise levels
established by State Statute, and -
S•�HEREAS, a geoiogic engineering report will be prepared by Chen Assoc-
iates addressing the concerns expressed by the Co7orado Geologic Survey in
their letter of April 17, 1978,
� NOW THEREFQRE, BE IT RESOlVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission
finds the special review use to be compatible under the following conditions: L
1. An agreement detween Pitkin County and the Aspe� Ski Corporation re-
garding noise to facilitate shutting down the system in the event
noise levels do not meet State dba requireemnts for residential areas
and any amertdments to those requirements made by the City of Aspen
or Pitkin County,
' 2. The geoiogic engineering report to be provided by Chen Associates is
to be reviewed by the Colorado Geoiogic Survey prior to the BOCC
Public Hearing.
3. Details af Landscap)ng and Revegetation be specified and guaranteed
by a perfarmance bond for adequate revegetation within the Pitkin
County appropriate bonding requirements are to be specified by the
County Engineer and Extension Agent prior to the BOCC Public Hearing.
� � Effective this ��� day of May, 1978
Pitkin Gounty Planning & Zoning Con�nission
By �.
. eter uy, ha rman
Ai'TEST:
.l�-� •
Cou�- Clerk bonxn or co. Cotant�R�:;
rixxrx co.
AP V[D AS TO FORM• Puti2ia He&ring Exhibit8 �
�,----- ...._____._____.L,� Date ii ._.—=sG-:�.��
�:.•j'.'-4/�1�. t.....>./.,..,,.r'c'�"'-_:� Subjoct 'i'�r3.�LL2f?: �� {�t/7,
Saridra t�t. SEulict'.s County-1\ttorney
_.. .��..��,�y. . .:.,.,...�«��.�,m�..__..,
. . ,":.
. �vV��nc��Y►��c�� ►'i'►tt�e C�f" 512�1�j8 �'� � �tt>��(-t��n �
t
L��- "� (�QSU�tR-�'l �'�t �n or co. co�.;:,t�R�s
' A���YN � PIT]tTN C0.
F� 2ic F3oarin Exhibits
, . �:�zo, EXHIBIT .
• • 1�c1u:LMr•.raT , sub�oo � � y,�y en /�lfiJ
• . • Er.h. N �, _�
This Agreement macic this day of , �
1978, by and betwecn thc COUNTY Or PITKIN, STATE OI' COLORI�DO, ,
by and through ii�s Board of County Commissione:rs, (herein-
after called the "Courity") and the ASPEN SKIING CORPORATIOtd, _
a Colorado corporation, (hereinafter called "ASC") ; .
• 47 I T N E S S E T FI• '
WfIEREAS, ASC has applied under Lhe Pitkin County Land
Use Code for a speciaZ review permit allowinJ the construction,
• ' maintenance and operation of a sno�.-making system situa�e on
Aspen P4ountain within the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado,
, includiny, but not limited to, certain portions of the in-
sta].lations which may, fror,i time to time, be operated in close •
proximity to heavily populated areas, and ,
WFIEREAS, the PitY.in Courlty Planning and Zoning . `
Commission has recommended to the Eoard of County Commis-
sioners of Pit};in Countv, Colorado that it approved ASC's .
pending application upon the condition thaL- agreement be .
xeached as between the County and ASC prescribir,g a procedure .
for i:he imrrte8iate temporary abatement of use and ooeration of
any portions oi the snowntakinq system �rhich may, fra:� time to
time in use, bec�use of conditions complained of and which,
upon investi9ation shall be believed, based on seientif.ic calcu-
- lations in ihe field, to be in violation of applicable standards
set forth in the lzcvs of the State of Colorac3o and the resolutions
of Pitkin County, Colorado respecting noise, ancl
, �JHSRE�IS. ASC is wi].ling to enter into such an a�reement
with thc County, and
WIIEI2L�S, it is agrecd as bet�vecn thc plrtics ttiat tliis
1lgreemcni: is wnr.ranted to protect the he�z1L-h, saf.My and
. welf.arr. 'oi thc occupaii�s and inh��bitants ot i:he .Ci.ty oi • •
Aspcci and PiL-):in Coun4-y, Colorar]o. . , .
NUSJ, TI11iRL•'PO}2T's it is ayzec:d as follows: ,
1. This Agrecmetit shall bc constxucd ta be a part of
that cerzain resolnL•ion of the Board of County Cammissioners
of Pitkin County, Colorado, specifically Resol.ution 78-
wherein the County has approved the presently pending applica-
tion of 1�SC for a special use per,:iit to install snowmaY.ing ;
on Aspen b7ountain in Pit}:in County, Colorado, and the pro-
visions hereof shall be a continuing condition of thaL- approval.
2. Recognizing the legitimate concerns which the County �
�
has on behalf of the zesidents and occupants thereof, bot-h j
i
�oith the City of Aspen, and the populated unincorpor.ated �
portions oi Pitrin County, Colorado, ASC aqrees that it sha1l
- ' operate its snowmakiny system approved unc�er the above number.ed
resolution within and under the standards set forth in such lasvs
, of the State of Colorado and resolutions of the County of Pitkin,
.
Colorado, relating to noise as are naw in effect, and as shall
be adopted and amended hereinafter; as shall be applicable to
noise generated by ASC's sno�•�ma}:iny �sysL•em.
3. Further recognizing the desire on the part of the
County ior temporary immediate abatement proc�dures which may
not be specified or provided for in the appl_c�zt�le la�as ar_d
. resolutions herein referred to, ASC agrees that if upon investi-
' gation of any complaint regarding noise alleged to be being
generated by ASC's snocamakitig system, a determination shall bc
� made by the leJally designated agent of the County, based upon
all scientific evidence available to him, that it svill immediate- �
ly obey any order of such agent to immediately cease utilizin9
tl�at portion of its saici snoc��making sysL-em believed to be �
Jenerating noise in excess of standards set farCh in applic�hle �
la�as, and such cessation shall continue unL•il such time a� .
s�1id equipment can be ope�-ai�ed to the satisfaction of such agetit
within the sL•1nclards•cont�zinect in appli.cat�le lao-�, oz- the cletermi.iza- �
t1011 oi the County's �tgec�t so m�dc sha11 bc d�ter.minad by a foi-um •
•-:-
.,..., .� ... ...... . ...... _ _.. �
. of compeLent jur.isdicL•ion to have been erroneous. � ..
9. The parCies ac�rec that any determination oL- the
autliurized agent of the County that particular portions of , •
its snoc•�making e:�uipment is in violation of thc requirements
. of the aforementioned laws shall be conclusive only for
�purposes of requiring ASC to cease and desist from utilizing
• that specific equi{�m�nt in that sp�cific location so deter- )
� �
fiined by its said agent to be in violation until a full and
finaJ. resolve of the matter can be made before a forum of
competent jurisctict;.ion or untiZ it can b� redetermined that �
• inso£ar as said ar,ent is concerned that the said portion of ' �
f
the snocamaY.ing system can be operated under t!�e applicable
lacas governing the same. To this end, in making any determina-
tion or redetermination the County shall make its said aqent
. available for testing at all such reasona'.�le times (taking
. into account the neeessity of night operation in subfreezing �
- . � .
weather conditions as shall be necessary to carry out the in-
tent hereof. • . ' •
. . ` � .
' 5. For purposcs oi this Agreement the Pitkin County
Qnol `I'1�e C�-f� o� Asf�a�+ Sa-n rf�a-r�n-�� �
• Environmental FIealti Officer� shall be deemed to be the agents
of the County, whomsoever ��ra-�indivic1ua15 shall be, or any
' qualiiied em�loyee oi Lh� nitkin County Department of Environ-
. mental Flealth. '
6. �3 his Agreement ASC in nowis ives any claims
• • which it may have foi mages her reliei by virtue of ' �
erroneous determinat' � s neces ' zting an immediai:e cessation �(
t/
of its oper 'ons on a temporary basis, so determinecl to be
erro us by a forum of competent jurisdiction.
. ' 7. For pur.poses of carryiny out tl�e provisions o£
this Agreement the �Coun�y's dcsignated ac7ent is hereby Jrantcd
access to the properties oL• or con�rolled by ASC pledges i:he
• reasonab2e: cooper.�l�ion of its empl.oyees �nd ag�nts �t all such
times Zs. shall be nece:�s'ary i.n carr.ying oui: the spirit iiiL-ent �•
hcrcoE. •
_:i-.
—._ _ ___ __. .�
. . . � • �
II. 2� i, thc akpress unclersl:anding.oi• thc parties that
, by entcr•ing ini:o this ngrcc�ment nei L•her i� agreeing L-tiaL• a _
m�tr�oa is tiereby esi:ab7.ist�ed for full and final� detertninalion
as to ihc EX151.4`I1CC of violai-ions, or the disposition thereof,
' but rather e�ch reserves the right, subjecL-� to the obZigation
of ASC to cease and desist operations t•rhich have been deter-
mined hereuncler by the County's agent to be in violation of � �
this coni:raci:, to proceed to a final disposition by any and � I
all means la�•�fully' available to it. � I
. �
. ,
9. The parties hereto agree to deliver such 'inforr.�ation '
i
� and data as shall be, from time to time, in their respective i.
possessions, as shall be of value in carrying out the spir.it ;
;
and intent of this AJreement. � �
' • . I0. The parties •agree that the sanctions of this con- f
t
�
tract shall apply and the terms hereof shall be enforced under t
c
• +
the extraordinary procedures made available to the Countg only �
�
• upon complaint, oraZ or written, mac�e to either party. Tne �
. ,
�
parties agree to notify each other immediately of any complaint �
so received in order to allo�a a timely investigation to be `
made. • . � �
�
11. e County agrees that it shall their best �
� efforts to enforce any a ise reyulations enforceable
by it on a unifor nd regular basis so ot to discriminate �.
agains C in the applications of its resolutions re 'ng to
. n ise. ' �
�� COUNTY OI' PIKTIN by and through
ASPL•'N SKIING CORPOItt'1TION its Board of County Conunissioners
E3y ' $y �
D.R.C. F3rown, President - Robert Chi.lds, Chairman
. • ' �y '
' riichacl Kinsley, Commissi.oner
IIy _� _
• . . . . JoseF�h L•'d�•�ards, Co�mnissioner •
. • -9- .
!
.. . . .. _...._ . ; - ----- �-��__ . . . �
' 1
� . �
�f'' • '
606 E.MAIN STREET ASPEN,COLORADO 81611
P
I 1,:;._l:i� ;::' �.:;. : i;l .. i;':;
T � P;.TKItr C0.
� M E M 0 R A N D U M �'ubl�.c Hunrin i;:i:iiLi�.:,
I — . — — —— ——— P���o exH�sR
N � Suv3��t � � `�
��. No. � -
C
O 70: Pitkin County Planning and Zorring Commission
Richard Grice, Planning Office i
U �r�
N FROM: Bob Nelson, County Sanitarian �
T • � i'om Duniop, City Environmental Health Officer
Y DATE: Apri1 14, 1978
SUBJECT: Aspen Ski Corporation - Aspen Mountain Snow+�aking System �
We forsee no adverse environmental impacts created by this
proposal other than the potentia7 for noise. The noise profiles
presented in the application indicate that with the placement of
the various brands of guns, the 55 dba requirement for this general
zoning category as specified in 25-12-101 to 103 of the CRS (Colorado
Revised Statutes), 1973, will not be exceeded.
� • There is insufficient information to determine the accuracy of
� these profiles, the methods used in establishing the shape and siie
of these profi7es or the consequences of additionai guns operating
simultaneously. �
We do, however, understand tfiat Mr. P. B. Alford will attend
the meeting on the 3rd of May to make a complete presentation of .
the anticipated noise impacts.
It should be noted also that while noise levels are dependent
upon temperature, wind speed, source direction, distances and
topography, the equipment used at Buttermilk Mauntain did not
create any complaints and measurements taken at the Holiday Inn
� demonstrated that a single Boyne could meet established State
standards.
. � .
..�. ....__._ ....... ..........._ . _ :
•� ��• �T.
• i
' '- , -- ����Q��.'".,Y���`.+'��.�Sq,� . - �
�
., ,�.� i, :.��:�.�`}� m
�� � � �
�j�"",t(b�t , .R pt'• •U�' `.,,j.:.;{X���:,
. +,,,,''°."' �4� �f<<��, '`'�-... .,,rf
Q' �t:t:i"r�;`�' .
• �;j'•;�^..,�;, d
� � �._-_f O
R1CHAf�t1 Ll, LAMM *� ���?'�� t� � JOHN W. HOLn
GOVERMOR '
• . �`,���mi•��� ,�'� Diroctor
• 1tlTe .
� COL�RADO GEOl.OGtCAt. St1R\�EY
DE('ARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
715 STAi'E CENTENNlAI IIUILDING—1313 SHERMAN STRE£T
. D[NVER,COLOAADO fl0203 PHONE{303)II394611
April 17, 1478
. ]",�AIiD OI� C0. CO;.i:.t'R'.;
' PITKIN C0.
Public Hc�aring Ex'ri3bii:�
, Ms. (:a re�� Smi th �b��o EXHIBIT
Aspen/Pitkin Alanning Office , sub�ect : �iGJ� �
130 South Galena S�reet � �
/�sFen, CQ 81611 Er.1�. No.:
� /D—
Dear Ms. Smith: RE: ASPEN h90UNTAIN
SNOWMAKING
. We hav� reviewed the application from Aspen hiountain Sl:i
Corporation for their proposed snowr��aking instal]ation.
' No information concerning the geo7ogic and hydrogeologic • •
conditions have been included. We do not believe that any '
of these cond�tions ►�riTl be so severe as to prevent the
. • execu�tion of tiizs project. Hotveve��,. several items r�eed
further consider�tion before the project is ac�ually � •
. finaily designed and consti,ucted.
� Excavation conditions throughout the area for placement of .
the lines wi71 vary considerably. Tn some locations bedrack
may be encountered at a relatively shaiiow depth causing
di-Fficult excavation. t�Ihile in other areas of alluviu►n or '
coliuv��am excavation e�se wili depend on i:he size o�
materia]s encountered. In ei�her event, if these lines
traverse areas that contain potentiaily unstable slopes care
w�ll need to be taken r�ot to disturb a»y equilibrium t�hich .
• may exist at this time, Ar�y future leaks of i;hese lines
could 7nitiate local s]ope failu��es an� majar b��eakaue of •
water 1 i nes. iti►hei-e these 1 i nes are pra;�osec� to fo7 7 ot•a
drainages up tize niaimtzin �>>e reiationsl�ip bet�-�eert the '
' potential erosion a;id c4ep�sit9o�� on the dr�inages and the
projecl: should be add��essed.
A second a�°ea nf ��t�sitiai ~i•7hl�ins r�latc�s to L•he increased
i nfi 1 Lrati on o�� �vatet- i ni.o thP SUJSUi°face as a resul t of �
increasect sno�v��ac�:. This may tu�-n out to be a benafit as it
recl;�rges tI14' yroun�fti•la�er systen� i�i t�re ar•c�a. t?n L•he otfier
hand, in areas tiiat �tiay be potentially unstable, this �
increa�e� moisture could inii:iate slape fsi"lure. ,
' . G [OLOGY .
Sl'OItY OF THL' PASf . . . I:L•Y TQ TI;C. FUTURf:
_ _ _ ...._ .._.._. __
'.. , . Ms. Karen Smith � i
. April 17, 1978 .
Page 2 , i
, ;
• . • ' i
. . ,
6Je believe i:hat nei�ther of the above prob7ems are so severe as to � • ;
render this projeci: infeasible. Nowever, .for the benefit of the
city and county as well as the developer we recommend that these
areas of concern be addressed more fuliy before final design and
' • construction. '
• If we can be of further assistance please contact our office. �
� Sincerely, '
� .D�� S�t.P,•fi�` .
• David C. Shelton +
� , Engineering Geologist �
DCS/vt • � � � ;
cc: Land Use Comnission ' �
i . �
� .
� '
�
� , . .
i EXHIBIT
i
� �
PZTKIY COUNTY -
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Public Hearing
Downvalley Rezoning
July 10, 1978
JOE WELLS: The reco�endations Z'll be presenting to you today are those
of the P & Z based on several public meetings that they he2d on the proposed
zoning changes that you referred to that Board for their recommendation. I
would like to enter some things into the record by reference, just to make the
record: the Pitkin County Land Use Code as amended, Resolution 74-16 of March
5, 1974 of the Board of County Comnissioners which created county-wide zoning
resolution and map amendments, the third item is Resolution 77-33 of June 9,
1977, of the Board of County Co�nissioners creating the RS-20 PUD and RS-30 PUD
zoning districts. Item four is the Environmental Resources Analysis Maps and
Report of July, 1974, prepared by Colorado State University. Item five is the
floodplain information report on the Roaring Fork River, Aspen to Basalt, pre-
pared by Wright-McLaughlin Engineers, August, 1976. Item six is Colorado State
Highway 82 Design Concept Study prepared by Halprin and Associates, June, 1975,
and specifically the evaluation in that report of existing traffic conditions,
pages 16 through 1S. Item seven is the Aspen-Pitkin County Growth Management
Policy Plan, and specifically the record of County land use policies in appendix !
E and the reco�endations of the Citizen's Advisory Board for Transportation in !.
;
appendix D. Item eight is the Snowmass-Capitol Creek Caucus Plan entitled "A '
i
Plan for Land Use in the Capitol and Snowmass Creek Valleys". Item nine is the �
Pitkin County Road Network Analysis of October, 1973, prepared by Brisco-Maphis. �
�
Etem ten is the Five Year Capital Improvement Program for Highway 82 prepared by �
i
the Colorado State Highway Department, 1976. Item eleven is the resolution of !
the Planning and Zoning Commission of June 7, 1978, recommending approval of
�
the zoning changes being presented today. This public hearing was noticed in the !
�
Aspen Times on May 25, 1978 and The Glenwood Post on June 5, 1978.
The first thing I want to do is describe to you the existing conditions in
the area, more or less in a general fashion..............and look at the spec3fic
changes. This map illustrates the present zoning from Aspen, which ia on the
south end of the map, to the Pitkin County line which is on the top cff the
Downvalley Rezoning Public Hearing July 1Q, 1978 - 1
sheet. AZ1 private lands have been rendered in shading to illustrate the
general zone density of the area. This illustrates some of the problems that
have been created by the '74 zoning, in that regard, and that, other than the
two areas of fairly intense zoning, the zoning downvalley is less restrictive
thatt the zoning immediately adjacent to the City of Aspen. Specifically, this
area, this shading indication for AF-1, this is RS-30, RS-ZO for tloody Creek, and
this area is all presently zoned AF-2, so you can see the zoning becomes more
restrictive as you approach the urban centers, specifically, the urban center of
Aspen. This map also illustrates the availability of goods and services and
the road network, the neighborhood commercial kinds of uses--fire, schools, fire,
neighborhond-commercial presently under construction at Snowmass. And then its...
they break along the highway to the Basalt area where we get those goods and
services again. Neighborhood-commercial again, fire and schools. The road net-
work, basically, the County has three road types that deal with residential
development. The arterial designation, which only applies to Highway 82, is
shown in the heaviest line designation; collector roads, or type two roads, are
the next lighter road indication with long dashes--that's Zines for Brush Creek
Road, Woody Creek Road, and actually Maroon and Castle Creek aren't shown on this
map. The type three roads are of two types, both paved and unpaved. Those are
shown, the paved roads are shown with the heavy short dashes and these roads are
type three unpaved roads. So genezally we have type three paved roads coming in
the Snowmass-Capitol Creek area, with gravel roads connecting to other type three �
paved roads...........................This is the East Sopr�s'.Creek Road and the f
i
West Sopris Creek Road. �
An examination of the floodplain maps indicate that the downvalley area is ' ;
also impacted by floodpla3ns more significantly than the area upvalley, and that is �
f
slmply a reflection of the terrain. Generally through this area the Roaring Fork �
!
�
River is generalZy in a canyon, and as it proceeds downvalley, it begins to approach
the exisCing development areas and finally down in the Basalt area�.it fans out
;
across the meadow ott your side of the existing body of water. Specifically, in this j
j
area to the west of Highway 82, that area is more significantly impacted by flood-
plain.
The Land Suitability map prepared by CSU, I'm only going to go through.•......
half of this but, in general the darker shaded areas are tha more protected areas.
I'll use this in a minute to illustrate the appropriateness of the zoning categories
Downvalley Rezoning Pnblic Hearing July 10, 1978 - 2
downvalley, but you can keep in mind the fact that the darker the shading
then the more protective the land category. That will be critical to the
analysis for the zoning. I want to quote some things from the land suitability
section of the CSU report. As you know there are four general categories
illustrated on the map: the protecCed lands are the darkest, non-occapancy
areas the dark gray shaded areas, productive lands are the light gray areas,
and the white areas are the occupancy lands. Just to clarify again, in case
you shouldn't recall, that the suitabilities are only shown on private lands,
they're not shown on the government lands. "The pzesence of fragile or valuable
ecosystems, or of a condition which is extremely hazardous for development
causes lands to be included in the protected category. Historic avalanche
paths, rockfall areas, talus slopes, critical winter ranges for deer and elk,
specific areas of high scenic value, riparian zones, wet meadows and alpiae
vegetation are included in the protected category. These lands are not suited
for structural development." Excessive slope is a primary constraint used in
delineating the lands designated as non-occupancy lands. Obviously, as the
slope increases the potential for iristability and erosion and those sorts of
phenomenon increase. The non-occupancy category includes areas with slopes
greater than 30�. Structural development and long-term human occupancy should
be prohibited in these areas. The land in the productive lands category is
suitable for residential development, but its physical characteristics indicate
that it has the greatest potential for farming of the private land areas in the
County. As far as the occupancy lands are concerned, they are those lands which
are best suited for structural development and long-term human occupancy even
though, in some cases, those lands have geologic constraints designated on the
map.
The map over here illustrates the areas that are proposed.....Your reco�nendation
back to the P & Z was to consider the highway corridor for AF-1 zoning, and to
examine the areas away from that corridor for more restrictive zoning.
BOB C,HILD: Or less restrictive too in some cases. Not less restrictive �
than AF-2. �
WELLS: At any rate, the proposal that comes to you from P & Z is for the
areas shaded in a diagonal in this direction, all of the lands presently zoned
AF-2 that are proposed to be zoned AF-1, lands proposed, or, with the diagonals
running in the opposite direction are lands that are presently proposed for AF-2
Downvalley Rezoning Public Hearing July 10, 1978 - 3
or are zoned AF-2, proposed for RS-30, and the third striping is, are lands
that are presently AF-1, proposed for RS-30 PUD. The handout that I 3ust gave
you breaks those areas into, each of those areas into specific readily identifiable
parcels, which we've historically divided them in this way so that they are pro-
bably familiar to you. The lands proposed from AF-2 to AF-1 include lands in the
i
Emma area, and then the highway corridor broken out into each, or several, -
i
different distinct areas. The Snowmass Creek area, or what I'm calling the Snowmass
Cteek canyon, which is the land lining the, the area from the hig6way into the
Snowmass-Capitol Creek valley. Watson Divide, and the other parcel is Gerbazdale. •
The AF-1 lands that are proposed for RS-30, this parcel in the Wildcat area, this (
parcel owned by the Zeiglers down adjacent to the Snowmass area. The AF-2 parcels
proposed for RS-30 PUD is this parcel that is called, for want of a better word, �
I
Snowmass Creek Wildcat that is in between the Snowmass Creek valley and the Wildcat !
area. This parcel which straddles the Snowmass Creek road, which was clearly, �
well I won't say clearly, but, apparently an oversight in the zoning originally �
when we did the RS zone category, in that it is in the midst of land that is
deemed appropriate to zone RS-30, one woald assume that that parcel does not have i
l
any unique characteristics to warrant an AF-2 zone. Also, the other parcels in �
that area, this is a piece to the north of East Sopris Creek and also the areas I
along East anr2 West Sopris Creek in this area. OK. �
CHILD: Is that it, Joe?
WELLS: No. What I distributed to you in your packet was a hand-written
handout which assesses all the lands proposed for zoning changes on the basis of
their land suitability. Start at the land proposed from AF-2 to AF-1 zoning; �
those lands constitute 9.3y occupancy lands, and in contrast, 42.2% of those lands !
are desi�nated protected lands. The lands zoned AF-1 to RS-30, only 4.7% of those
lands are designated occupancy lands and 69.4Z are designated non-occupancy. Lands
proposed for zoning from AF-2 to RS-30 are 3.5X occupancy land and 51% protected
land. The point of that is that if you examine the land suitability map in detail,
you discover that lands which are presently more strictly zoned, more stringently
zoned, actually have a much higher percentage of land suitable for occupancy uses.
In the Snowmass-Capitol Creek valley, for instance, just an examfnation of those
two valleys, you will see that the shading is much lighter than in this area whlch
is the area proposed for rezoning, and yet this land is all zoned RS-30. The same
applies to Woody Creek, which is zoned RS-20 PUD. Generally, large pockets of
Downvalley Rezoning Public Hearing July 10, 1978 - 4
occupancy land shown within those areas, and that is not the case in the areas �
�
proposed foz downzoning, which are presently significantly less, or higher, zoned
for higher densities, so on that basis, we argue that the zoning is appropriate.
Another point thaL can be made in that regard is that the various regulations i'
applying to those areas, specifically the floodplain, the slope reduction formula, °
il
actually do not reduce density, and therefore one could suggest that the fact �
that those areas are signfficaatly impacted by steep slopes and floodplains should �
logically have more stringent zoning attached to it. Another point that could be �
made with the land suitability map is that the areas that are designated suitable
for development aren't necessarily, have not been assessed from the standpoint of �
road access or proximity to services and, in this case, some of those areas are ��
�
clearly less accessible and more removed from goods and services. Questions? f
BOB CHILD: I don't have any immediate questions, I think that um...oh, �
I did have one. I had one about the Watson Divide area; I noticed that you had �
i
listed that as changing from AF-2 to AF-1, at least on this one sheet, I haven't ;
i
confirmed that on the map.
MICHAEL KINSLEY: I have the same problem.
BOB CHILD: Just by checking the map.
WELI.S: I don't know if you may be being confuSed by the fact that the
Watson Divide is onZy that piece right at the top of the divide, it's not the
piece on either side, although pieces on
BOB CHILD: Oh, I see.
i�ELLS: on the highway side is shown AF-1 as well. In other words, the
dividing line is about half-way, well I guess it hadn't started.................
More or less along the top of the divide; on the other side of the divide its
proposed for RS-30. The east side of the divide is proposed for AF-1. `
i
BO$ CHILDt The part Chat fs adjacent to the, uh, Aspen Village, roughly ;
is proposed for AF-1. �
I
WELLS: Right. The line comes somewhere through the area of the trailer �
I
court; I don't recall precisely where it is, hut, on the south side of that �
line it is presently zoned AF-1, so in effect it would just all become AF-1.
BOB CHILD: Michael, do you have any ques[ions?
KINSLEY: Oh, I just thought that that probably ought to be RS-30.
BOB CHILD: Yeafi.
KINSLEY: A quick look at it.
Downvalley Rezoning Public Hearing July 10, 1978 - 5
BOB CHILD: I think since some people were notified that this hearing
was at 3:00, I think what we'll do is take testimony from those who are here
now and then continue this, am I correct procedurally, continue that, continue
the public hearing until later in the agenda when perhaps we will have other
people.
,j
SANDY STULLER: It's quarter to three already, why don't you just go �
right to it. �
BOB CHILD: Oh, this clock is way off. A11 right. �
KINSLEY: I didn't realize that the snowmaking went to 2:30. '
BOB CHILD: Yeah, and this clock has lost another five minutes, hasn't it? �
I
KINSLEY: Well, let�s move on. Y
�
BOB CHTLD: All right, we'll open the public hearing for comments from the (
�+
public, and those who speak will you please identify yourself. i
STEVE CFiILD: I'm Steve Child. I'm going to make two statements. One as a �
representative of the Trustees of the Snowmass-Capitol Creek Caucus, and then �
I�11 make a second statement which will be my own personal feelings. The Trustees I
request that the rezonfng of the Snowmass-Capitol Creek valley be delayed for �
further study by the Caucus and by the County. There are several landownerships
which are proposed to be zoned AF-1 which we feel would more appropriately be
zoned RS-30. We did a little research into the approximate acreage involved;
the Helen Ogden property is 200+ acres and much of that is proposed AF-1. Some
of her land is already RS-30 or is being proposed RS-30, but the difference in
units there if she had, say, 200 acres, which I don't know her exact acreage.
AF-1 she could have 20 units, RS-30 she could have 7 units. That's in a very
visually vulnerable part of the valley right at the crossroads. Everybody in the
whole valley has to go right by there. Dottie Fox has 60+ acres; under AF-1 she
would be allowed 6 units, under RS-3Q, two units. And Angus Anderson and Associates �
own I think 25 acres; under AF-1 they would get two units, and under RS-30, one �
unit. Jaseph Zoline, I'm not sure of the acreage he, of his that is involved, but j
i
I believe there ia some in section 33, no section 34 that is proposed for AF-l. i
All of these parcels are land that is already in agricultural use now, some of it
irrigated, other parts that used to be irrigated and aren't being now, but it all
has potential for agricultural use. And that whole lower end of the valley is
a critical part of the valley because of the impact on the road and the visual
impact. Also, a lot of it is steep, which I don't know if that would affect this
because of the slope density requirement. We feel also that the map that we
Downvalley Rezoning Public Hearing July 10, 1978 - 6
received and the written descriptions don't entirely agree, and we would like
more time to study that. The map here on the wall is much more, breaks it down
i
a lot better than the map we received, but still from the written description we �
received, still doesn't correspond wfth this. For example, the written statement
we got said that, in thia area here it said there were two whole sections being
!
rezoned, and this just shows parts of those two. The written description we �
have said that the entire sections would be rezoned, so I think that has to be
i
clarified. �
�
WELLS: Steve, T think maybe the confusion there was the #act, I think, I
don't know whether it said it or not, but it was supposed to say aIl of the land
in those sections zoned AF-2.
1
STEVE CHILD: OK, it said all sections. �
BOB CHILD: Is that 34 and uh 27? j
i
STEVE CHILD: 12 and 13 I think...all sectfons 12 and 23. OK, there's also �
the possibility that other portions of Snowmass Creek valley are zoned AF-2 that �
aren`t even included in the rezoning. This came to our attention when one of our !
Trustees said that he has been having some dealings with the Building Department; �
he lives in section 14 which is down, he is 'r.lght about here+in section 14, and "i
1
he, had been told several times that he is zoned AF-2 and that isn't shown for i
rezoning, so I think that has to be checked out to make sure that everything that's !
in the white is actually RS-30 and not AF-2. Also, the Trustees feel that the
rezoning is a matter of controversial nature, and there are different widely varying
opinions with different Caucus members about what should be done. We feel we should
have time to get more input from the different Caucus members; just among the
Tzustees we've had the sentiment expressed that there should be no zoning at all,
that everything should be zoned RS-30, and that everything except the Gateway Mesa �
�
area should be zoned RS-30, so we fee2 we need a little more time just so everybody �
�
itt the Caucus can give their input. The Trustees also feel that there must be a
better way to control growth in our valley than zoning, and we feel that transfer of j
j
development rights is a good possibility and we would like to work with the
Commissioners to pursue this possibility. You know, this will be for something �
i
to get into in the future in place of zoning. OK, that, I'll say will end my
official statement as president of the Caucus.
I personally feel that all the land starting at the Snowmass store, maybe
with the exception of the Gateway Mesa subdivision and Little Elk Creek subdivision
Downvalley Rezoning Public Aearing July 10, 1978 - 7
�
r
should be zoned RS-30 without any differences at all. A].1 land still has E
agricultural potential if it is not now being used for agricultural purposes. �
I was looking at the map to see wliat parts the rezoning affected our Caucus
area; it seemed like there was a lot more invoZved than we first thought. That
part up by Watson Divide I think is really critical because the part proposed
i
for AF-1 includes two big fields coming down on the Snowmass Creek side, two (
irrigated fields according to what I read on the topo map. There are parts of
1
nine sections that are involved in our Caucus area that I felt should be looked �
at more closely, if possible, zoned RS-30. And that would be, let's see, one,
two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine sections which potentially �
!
should be looked at more closely. I have a proposal which is �ust strictly my
own idea, which might be a way to help rural landowners avoid the onerous and !
lengthy County regulations now involved which are a result of a combinatiott I
of zoning and special review procedare and growth management plan restrictions.
And, my idea would be for the Snowmass-Capitol Creek valley to make a new zone !
�
R, not RS-160 but a new 160 acre zone where there would be one unit allowed, on
a Iarge ranch there would be one dnit allowed per 160 acres at that density, but �
there would be no quota system and special review would only be to review the 1
j
location of sites to be sure that they wouldn't be put in irrigated land or in �
w3ldlife corridors or floodplains or things like that, but that the special review
wouldn't be able to determine, be able to say no, you can't Uave these uaits. I
, think this would be a compromise that a large landowner could go ahead and subdivide
some but not to the density of RS-30. I guess that's all I have to say.
BO$ CHILD: OK, thank you Steve. Are there any other members of the pablic
who wish to speak? Irving?
IRVING BTERS: My name is Irving Biers. I own 40 acres in the Snowmass-Capitol
Creek area and several weeks ago, a month or so ago, it was Quite by accident that
we dlscovered, I had always been on the assumption that my land was zoned RS-160 and �
�
then RS-30, and accidentally it was discovered that this was still in the AF-2 or �
was it AF-Z? AF-2 category, and I was surprised. I definitely, because I was,
years back, was one of the people that worked on achieving the RS-16Q in the valley.
I just want to go back there for a moment. When we petitioned the valley and had
the, we went to everyone that was available and then we wrote to people in the
valley and asked for their concensus, our projection to them was the entire valley
would be zoned RS-160 and I've forgotten the figures but we had more or less
Downvalley Rezoning Public Heariag July I0, 1978 - 8
_ _. _� __. ,......� _ _
�
�
r
t
of the people contacted, over 90Y. agreed that this was the zoning to have. s
We felt, there was a technicality I think at the Cime, when the Planning Depart- �
ment they said well, yes, that's true, except for on the Route 82 that there
(
would be a litt2e, some Zand there that would not be zoned but because of its
proximity to the road it would still maintain its AF-2 zoning, and it wasn't
i
until this time that we found out that the whole corridor all of the way up to ,�
into the land would be zoned RS-30. I think that any zoning on all of that "
�
land up to the Snowmass Store and on the Watson Divide other than RS-30, the
prevailing zoning in the valley, is not only unreal and unreasonable, but it �
is diametrically opposite to the, all of the aims and the points of zoning in �
which the Planning Department and the Commisstoners and the P & Z have been
striving for. We are leaving high density zoning in the most hazardous area �
that we have in the valley. Now, just like in here, fot those who are not �
familiar with it, this route from here down to 82 is very steep canyon. Most
of the accidents and the deaths that we have had fR the valley have been �
I
caused by motor accidents on that road; it`s very slick, it's very slippery,
it's very, very winding, the visibility is very bad, and so therefore, from �
�ust purely a safety standpoint, adding density to that area which means �none �
cut-ins and more driveways coming down, the driveways there are pretty horrendous,
you can hardly see them because they are very, very steep cuts, and I think it's ,
completely in reverse, this is where the highly restricted area shott2d be for I
safety's point. I just also want to point out that in this very hazardous
road from here to 82 is where the entire valley is being collected, and any
density that we get in througfi here, that car, that auto or truck has to go
past this. And therefore, adding density onto this, which means roadcuts and
driveways down in $irough there is insane and is completely opposite to the
zoning, what I think of as proper zoning for the valZey. I feel the same way t
with Watson Divide; I see no difference in the lovely area coming through in
Watson Divide on this side of the road than I see anyplace else, and why that
should be designated for high density because it's on the road and an unimproved
road and a road that we would like, the people in the Caucus basically would like
i
to see stay the way it is and not paved, and no[ intensified and not heavy
density laid onto it, I think should be definitely this area in through here and
everything on this in the Caucus valley, this I'm not, well I know that that's
something that was worked out with the RS-160 with Wildcat, but I'm talking about
Downvalley Rezoaing Public Hearing July 10, 1978 - 9
I
the entire area that's supposed to go AF-1, and this area down into here, with
the possible exception of a huffer zone of maybe a few hundred feet on the
i
highway, my reco�endation, very strongly, is that all of this be reverted to �
RS-30, the prevailing zoning of the valley.
BO$ CHILA: Thank you, Irving.
�
IRVING BIERS: Thank you. '�
BOB CHILD: Is there anybody else that would like to speakY We'll close
this portion of the public hearing and I think we have...We're sorry the '�
notice had the wrong hour, but I think the Caucus viewpoint has been expressed. ;
WELLS: Sandy, you don't want to continue it then? 1�
�
STULLER: Well, I don't know. Are you closing the pub23c hearing, period? ;
'
KINSLEY: W[iy don't we continue it for next time, given the fact there's �
been confusion. �
i
BOB CHILD: I was just closing the public input, oh yeah that wou].d be...
WELLS: I'd really like to republish, because I don't feel we've had...
r
I fully expected this room to be packed.
BOB CHILD: I thought we would see people...
WELLS: And it has been a long time, we decided not to republish it again S
in the Times and I was afraid that, we published it a long time ago and I was
afraid the fact that we published it so long ago people would have forgotten,
so I'd really like to republish it and hopefully get more public input.
BOS CHILD: Apparently they did. Will we be required to have a second,
two readings on that?
STULLIIt: Well, would you like to offer it for first reading then today,
and then set a public hearing based on the proposal?
WELLS: I asked earlier if we could do that.
STULLER: Yeah, why don't we do that then? I
KINSLEY: Shall we move for approval on first reading? �
f
STULLER: Right, as proposed, and set it for public hearing.
KINSLEY: What if we ga more restrictive after having the Eirst reading
at a less restrictive?
BOB CHILD: It would have to be amended.
STULLfiR: It would have to go back to the P 5 Z anyway. You have to start
all over again. If it becomes more restrictive and you go back to the P & 2
then you'll have to duplicate the public hearing process.
Downvalley Rezoning Public Hearing July 10, 1978 - 10
�
KINSLEY: Anyway. �
STULLER: Anyway, yeah. �
KINSLEY: Well then what's the point7 ;
STULLER: It's to get the reading started. You mean what's the point of
adopting it today?
�
BOB CHILD: It's just so we won't be delayed, you know. �
KINSLEY: Well, we have to start all over again at first reading after
going to P & Z, right? ��
STUI,LER: Yeah you would, well, it really depends on the nature of the ��
change. If it becomes more restrictive, then it looks like you'lI have to �
duplicate the...
i
KINSLEY: Why don't we 3ust go right back to P & Z with the bloody thing (
and then republish for the more restrictiveT j
I
BOB CHILD: Refer it back to P & Z? �
KINSLEY: Yeah. Doesa't that make sense? It happens more quickly that i
�
way; we st311 go through the three readings at that point. �
BOB CHTLD: If it'll happen more quickly that way I�11 go for that.
KTNSLEY: And maybe we can just sort of powwow at some point about what
ought to be more restrictive based on what we've heard here today and what Joe
has sa3d. Wanna do that?
BOB CHILD: Yeah, and then maybe you can you icnow get together with Joe
and point out specifics beyond what you've given today, and I would hope some (
of t�he other caucus areas would do the same thing. Did you move that we... �
I
KINSLEY: T move that we refer this to the P � Z with more =estrictive �
elements which are yet to be determined, I guess. �
BOB CHZLD: I second. Further discussion. Procedurally, are we OK? �
ST[TLLER: All right, what you're doing is you're sending it back to P & Z
to consider the reco�endations from the public fbr the more restrictive zoning
in the areas discussed today. Is that right?
� BOB CHILD: Right.
� KINSLEY: Yes.
STULLER: OK. That's fiae. Yoa're starting the adoption procedure all over
again. That's just fine. And what'll happen is when it comes back from P & Z
we'll set it for first reading, public hearing, second reading nnder the new
Charter,
Downvalley Rezoning Public Hearing July 10, 1978 - 11
BOB CHILD: Further discussion? In favor? Aye.
KINSLEY: Aye.
,:
i
t
a
�
I
�
�
'
i
1
1
f
I
i
�
i
;
F
(
�
Downvalley Rezoning Public Hearing July 10, 1978 - 12
' � '1'11� i����11 �1'1111�� ` `
BOX E �OARD OF C0. COA1Lt'R'S
PITKIN C0.
Aspen, Co(orado �blic Hesring Exh3bfts
Date . ��/��7���
Sub�act :�.Q���,�'1��j/,�7�
� PROOF OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF COLORADO )
, �. copy of Not��e
County of Pitkln ) '
I
i
Lauren M. Cassatt ' �
I� ................................................................ do solemnly awear that
bus ine s s mana�e r ` � -•- `"� • -'
I am Rhe ...__....._......_.._..................»... ........._ of THE ASPEN TIMES, � .� pur�I�c nofice `�
that the sam�e is e. weekly ttewapaper printed, in whale or 1a part. '
and published in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, and has t` llt 8sssih���1lamfala 5
a general clrculation thereln; that said newspaper has been Qub-
llshed contfnuously and ufuterruptedly in said County of Pttkin, ' ; �y y,�,a�jy��pyy� .:�
for a period of more bhan ilfty-two coasecutive weeks next prior ,,IwNe�:wUl bi 6�M.b�x�!6�'Pl�kis
6.M
to the tirst publtcatton of the annexed legal noticc or advertise- I `���f0°�°b-���� �
ment; that said newapaper has rbeen admitted to the United States �_�'����� ''
is `�ewrii�t.IM�
matls as aceond-class matter under the provisions o! the Act ot 1' �M� b��M��
Match 3, 18?9, or any amendments thereof, and that said aew�s- - ��' "j
� q�� '._ �fAn�ib .+
paper !s a weekly newspaper duly qualifled for publiahing legal i N�' ,�:. Yf�Nr.l seq�r�. '�
notices and advertlsemettts with the meaning ot the laws of the 9� �'�'M/ ��� :
_.�s. aft�.�4.a.aa. :
Sta.te of Colorado. a������� '
�fii�ii'illw�►y W!N0.'4� . j
That Lhe annexed legatl notice or advertisement waa publlahed _����t���� ����'�'�� " i
in :the seg►ilar aad entire issue oi every number of said weekly :� �������'� �
. wZiQr Mi r��it:l�enis�► ; �
vled Isr W!nw•1;A�i Wt�kd bf ''
newspapera for the perlod o! ..._1............. conaecutive insertiona; and ��'b'�j� �°�6 L°�t ':: +
`tedW�i ir liii�i�.'� •c'..� I
t,hat the first publtcation of said aotice was ia the tasue of eaid � Aa/��[1v/r�t�qM�i�is�d � ,
i W o�a o[1MCItp�Oamb TL�e�e ,,. .
�fri�a�b�_���������t '!0lO.stio�.QA. ; i
newspaper dated c7.L1S1£...�_....................... A. D.. 19 ..78 and that -BWI�DOr00[1N1TOO�ONaB � �. �
the last�publication of aaid nottce waa in the iasue of said aews- , a���•�� !
` SirLMetl�IY.Ce�et�irp�� �
a r aatea June 1 . A. D.. 1e78.. :';r.�.�i�i���n..�.:.3:�rs. ; ;
PPe ..................................•-••--..• ��_.._ . ,._. _. .. .. _.. , , �
..�1� .��..��..._���...._....... I
8ubscMbed and swora to before me, a notary publlc in and doa�
the Gouaty of Pltkin, State of Colorado, thle .._..��... day of •
..........���":'�!'�.:-�..._..... A. ,D., 19._.7°
�� ...�._.....��►�..._�:........G..�...�...�-�-...................
Notary PubIfc �
a- �o_ �p '
My commtssioa exptres `
_.........._..................... ............ �
�
' / �i
1�' 1
Fi01�RU Ob' �JO. QOM16�12�$� ���J 1�J�..���+ 7111�..rJ�/. ._ ' r�,: � _� . •'y'c`.�...,,.;
PITBIN C0. . � �y�� ��e , � ; .
Publia 8earing Eahibits BoX E '= � �������
-? / 7 ; ��osol�—: j� r tr 1�•-� � .
nate is a � Aspen, Colorad; � • .:r '��,�� �' f ,..=+ a ,
� .
sub�ect :( allQU f�,7�I tf►¢' , :i:-. ` _ '' ,,,.' .I� �,., =�.r�., � ,
� ��. �
. .. _ ;� � .�— �►:���
I��6���i,l ii, .• � � :. �
., r , � ' i�i��f'� ; � " `��.i'�,er•3d'° F
PROOF OF PUBLIl. . �' -.'` ;� .'s.- � �' �����F2��.�1_;
'.� ��.`�• �'.�t � . � ,. � r. 's 1
,1 �� _� �Df+TP-.11FL Rf',Y�°
BTATE OF CALORADO ) � r � ' A �'%�
�' -;`�.� �) � . 1 �_�4,3' ���` •'
CouaU'Of Pltltln ) �. �. ��j'� � �.s r . � 7 4, ��.
• _ i�r Y �`+.:� � i 'J' 3 :,, ��,,,1 .;�,
Lauren M. Cassatt ; _ - ���---. " ,�� '�,' � � i .�,
I. ......._.._..___.._......_""'................_._... do eolemnly sweer lhat � ..- .. � � ': ' .��1 __ ` � �.! .;. �
business mana er ;. � ' � ' �r '�
I am the.--^-...._�..._.._......-----......_. g.....ot TEiE ASPEN TI2�8. � -� � ' '� 1.. � � •:i:' � • °"�. .�"''�.^
..,,a_� �
that the aame Is a weekly newspaper printed.1n whde or fn pert. . =�-, e i _ '� - �' ��- ' ---
and pubUehed 1¢the Couaty ot Pltktn,Sfat.e u[Colora.do.aad hes �I .,. � �... .� �'� i. � f . � ��' �` ..:,�,,,"K '.'� •
a genetal cleculation tAeneln: Wat sald newspaper hm been Qub- " "` � � .
ifehed conrinuouelY and uinhr+aPtedlq in satd CountY of Pltktc �� '/� � � ( � ... � "., ��� .
) �4 .,� � ��� . �� +.. '��k � �. �*.:� - � '�w.
for a perlod oL more�an ittty-two coasecudve wceks next prlor �J�.., � � �. . , ,; �
to the Smt RuMtcatlan of the annexed teBal notice er advertler � . �. { ' �`�� � ,' .. �'' ��:�;,�r,+ :,�. ;l %e�w.x..0..t J.���.
m eat:that eald newapaper hes been admRted to the United 9ta,tes �'.. � �. _. �"�°2^'.at �"� t• r`' "%�:� � ... . :. .
maue sa aceoad-cleaa aattee under the Peovtstona ot the wd o[ NO'IiCB.i�bere67 ii�aa t�ut a:andnbr10�197B,it3:00PMint� aasida the fdlo�wins rimninp.
March 3, ie7s,or any amenaments thenor,and thaz eatd ae�ve- P���L wW bs Leld bsfat�e Cammiduoe�s l[eetioj Ro�d oClaod w�t6m.Pitkin County� .
papee U a weeklY newapapu dulY 9ualUled tnr publlshln6 �e6� ��. � . �1LaP�itkIDCom�CO�ii�aosit. ths P�dkln Cqmty..CuurtLouee to - �'�`p -
noticea and advertkrmeaW wlth!he meantag ot Ne lawe ot the i � � � � � � - �
BtatB of Colora.do. ��_ � "�'i.BS..0.87M.: Southe.n'tN1i of Sectfa�s 1],1�.and 15.MortAVestein : .
.�.�. �_ - ..Vwrhr ot Secqou I5.�nA all of SKqons Y2.13.aM .
'. .. .. . ..21. � '� � -� ' � -. .
That�the anae:ed IegeR nottce or advertUe�nent area pnbllshed � �71ij follatng lanAs NfA1n-.P1tt1n Cauid.[olor.b�rc v!'�sea Por�mnLp �
tn!he regular and e¢tlre lnsue ot everY niunber ot sWd sveeklY rai!!ax_hv��-z��o�-1:--- . � , . -
1 ' ` �` �' t rT.E���R.67M: TAe eastem Mlf o/Sectten�t6:-atl of�SecNons lt and �:
aewepapen for S�e petiod of..........._.......con�ecuUVe lneerttons;and :�. . � �:' r: } ;' . 12.-the•northern Mlf of Secda�s 17 and-U.and tAe , `: '� �.
t�hat tM flnt publfcatSon of sald aotice waa 1n th�faaue of eaSd --�' �, .� ' "�'"a'��*��'�°��.��°"15:: . �.� .
8 � .. - T~6Sy R.86Y All Ma�1ss 7 t��10.�20 tAraqA?B.3�thrwqh '� ',.
�7 � _.. ` , 3f.� � t P�im tlm 33 recorded as 6�twY. :
nep+apapET datld ..._...r1.L�3�4i..�1:.............__ A.D..19.t...... atld that .. - -. { �. �- 0/Snarru Iksa S�bAtvlston,.Flflag 3. . .
the lgyt,publleatfon of sald notfce was 1n the feeue o[sa.fd newe- T � �..eSY.• �ql'ot 5ecclo■s�le.19 30.aM 7i: . � .
paper dated ...!7}lI1B__l.."-"-"......_. A D.. 19.78_ r� ... t _; �T7�lS II.;a6Y.: 1111 W:SecNm,1 :.' . ' . � :�, .
`t �,T�'9S.Y.�tl.:� A/t ot Sectia 6�nd ti�t.P�im�of Sectloe.5preswtlY�.��
�: ..� .: �.;r '. . taned�IIF.2. : . � ' �
. i, ^ ' �:% 71ie folloNiy�lands rlMts Nqin Cawb..�lor�Ao�re�proposed for��zonin�
..���?�'r$'�........._ _............_....... � .�:'.
,. � .,. .�� .c- dwge;lN�IIF-l�to NS-70 PUD: . .� '. ' ,-� - .. • ."��' �''
Subaerlbed and aworn to before me,a notazy p�Alte In and iaa� �.�T.95 I4 BSY.: 7Ue 5autlKrn Ir11'o1.5ecHun�7.all oi Sectten�ii ana
�".� �.._ .' .� -' � 15earss Ca7or� �`n �Sectlr Mstarn MH
� Sacttos��l9.e� -
/ , ttan�a►1 . .
thE Covaty of Pltkln, State of Coloi'ado.thL.....LY �....day of .. . ' = '.�. ��� :..of.3ecttou ZO.a6tNt pocdox -tlea 30 Orcsenpf :: ���.
.... . �� .: .
-r . . ... . �_. taneA:AF-1 . . � . . . . .
..........._...1���
..A.D»19.Z!/. '� '�� �' �t 7L 105 R.l6Y. Thit�portton ef Sectton 1 ud-2 P�eM1Y:ontd AF 1
�
_ � _
� . � .f � ihe fallorin9 lands k1M1�Pitkin WrKY Wlo'�do ue prapasd far�rmt�g
. �, .,� drnge 1ro IIF-2 te Ilf-DO PIID: � .:. ..
�,Lv�`..���. , ,�'' s ��T.9S R.BW.: llll,oLSectlaai 2 12.�a!l3�.- ..
..._.._.................... ...._"........ � .. .: , - �:.-. ... . .. .- '.. .
NofBrY Pub11C '� �: � T.BS.R.efiY.: All of.Seet�irm�l!��1��M e5naws Mes��SYbd�1 f -
�_/0-��i` �,� .. -i ..,..� , .� �1�9 3. � n , s � r s m
MY commisefon expiree ....."'.......,,._.........j.. .. .. :� .., ' . :. , .. ,. . ._. : .. _ :� �-
� 11dd1Ltw1 S�fovrtfon ry�be oMafnd frs tAe tftktn•Caotf F. 'mi�ip OIHce.
.`.,«.�a,.c,a wn.Mx*.w,or.ee..or�y on,n�a�n.n�f�orf,u
:: ,�.;-'`.ab�98-2020.«t.22/. � . ' ,."�' �.. .� .
�� ��.� �-�y HO6�s C��.� � :-'��1ld jO�M�/�����
� � Haad of Coant�Cammiriooea�. ' '' ,J�ms 1 187B:
,
, , . - . �
, _ . :
, .� .�:�r--. . ...,_..
� � ;
!�
.y
� � F
t�1 nQ �
PROOF OF PUBLICATIOI�i BOARD OF �*D� COM];Y'�{��9 `"-
GLF11iWOOD POS'i PITKIN C0.
Public Hearing Eahibits
STATE OF COLORADO, Date �_ _ 1�ir _,]�___ '�
�_
� ' ,. COUNTY OF GARFIELD. Sub�ect :�J/l��..�Q,eZBn/,nid I
J' x -�
..�... .. ... .._. �. .............
�f ` � �� u». I, ...........�Q.��r...�N.....5.�&�Li.1:f,�r.................................. ao sotemnly i
�;' . � ��� swear that I am ......Qr6!!6!"al...�d8ri� eT'............................ oE the i
� ����ti{ � �&;, GLENWOOD POST; that the same is a n w spaper printed,in whole
;�'f`*�' � , 4>; or in part, and published in the County oE Garfield, State of Colo_ ;
t�,�,^�r ;,•;w ha t Y ": rado and has a genera[ circulation therein; that said newspaper has i
-,��°�: O V. ' ' been pubiished continuously and uninterruptedly in satd County of �
' �r�'. w `-�` Garfield for a period of more than fifty-two wnsecutive weeks next
t��� ' •> •*a n.fe d :.To Kno.w . �� prior to the tirst publication of the annexed legal notice or advertise-
:��� � ment; that said newspapet has bcen admitted to the United States
'�-���a �'� '.. mails as second-class matter under the provisions of the Act oP
�✓�; " °'• � March 3, 1879,or any amendments thereof,and thet said newsgapes- -
�' Dear Mn Landers.I am 87 years a�d:yqiJ is a newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices and ad-
:"''�``• my aB�K'O�1d have learned all she is gotng to in vertisements within the meaning of the laws of the State of
:i�' � �wnB lo tell You.a yaung waitress taqght irie ' , Colorado.
t��� ' had learned ma
�� , �!Y Years soor�er.Wql you please
��,; A few monlhs ago I moved'trom gn Egste'rn� That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in
"< ��� Ihadtolivein8motelnearDenveruntiltityda the regular and entire issue of every number of said newspaper for
�:�',���; � �
, 1�+x�„. dY:As I was havit�breakfest ie the cottee s
,+�'�,z,:.: Iq�ely.g;y . � the period of......�.......consecutive insertions; and that the first pub_
�3,,, - e �nB..attractive waitress brought lication oE said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated
�:,�.��Y� cottee:;,She s�iddien said "I +
s� �N hope You don t m
K �YQtterBa � �, i A.D. l9. , and the last ublicadon of said
:� ,� I��ti'�YBaod-look�nglady. i ...J�ly....�'j..................... ....78 P
'�`= d�aDP�d mY:eotfee cup 6ut�manag� notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated ............................A.D.,
T r, }�n„!fhata�e�enl,ence�lenedmyentireda
� , �.
,���_ r�al!t:vali�b►e keson Evety one o[iis can add t� 19.............
.� .: �°��'�wi11 tet411�e�time:Aod now I'm .
; '�� t'�li�ve��tiq�•� In witness whereo[ I have l�ercunto set my hand this ...a..���J,.....
+,�" .
;
.
.,�} �� ��t`��=�k tbe Y�4�� day of ...................�1113C.... A.D., 9..._�
��. � a ������i," .................��s..G��U�... k
� �,;� �B�d+�c tor many`y�.�: �eneral Manager �P�
;'' �j,p�,g��"'�,' � :�;�. Subscribed and sworn to before me,a notary public in an or the
:, wpi wy bm 7 I�e�e enp�y �
. �I6i°S w�n4�M�ptltlM�to{�e;� County of Garfield, State of Colorado. this ................ �.t.pp....... day
s � �Pa1n1o.71yUaeiseS6uw�i���kaYO�j ...,T�i.��.. A.D., i9......7...8.„ ..1
, : �- �. : ;. ,�,,. oF ................. .............. .....
i , . `Dear Ae.taaier..N..r t kn�r wMa '� , •
. ....
�,
_ . . (SEAI,) ..... ............ .
i� ' 1[�!'wfr�Ae far 25 yws INs b osvv �;
' rl�e�� � Notary Publia
- '�: Ydr w�risif�prahe q`tY����
� _;# o11/�tf�sbie01i1�dyMerE - ;r
s.
,�J�` �� 1'e�.eWk-i[ei.ahlrbo�iiy�ql��jj1J; y Commission Expires.....��Ml�/�.*xPinB�e.Jaa.1B.1�17�..._...........
M
4 ;;� ' t � se�t M�o6siy Now tMN lrome�ire flpqii�lj�r�
, ; '' dce�Nh�eqw�MYaoiapW�t%w,4kt'���
•.. ^ t�� ,trriUoaL'.": :. � r,�, . _ . ._ _ __
-�.�
,- ,:t sa wemea drid3iq�lo b�rs,s����,
, tM)•Mil�lt�►�Y�au�trrd�a4J�x'�
a�iKS.7tiey NaM b be erealad rke�ey;��M,� �
z�rW WtYeway �. :�r y�4z-r:`
* ' ' :`.0 s�eie at IY�e.Aama�rMil `�e��s�
r1:; `}ai�t�rMOei�leada[3;Mj.s.;�Ir` '`
° irM�e,fMep;terli aleY ui ar�e��Mlr�. "'�'
6
+'_' 1�M�M!!�10�'�(,���,r � �
� �,.' �s ..: :; t:! e t.�y�?- ,�t� �
{,.. . �. .. :I �...� � 5��
�r �Iid OVlf'I��lf�0l�'� �'
�i1, �lIAi�L'.!Y�'f ff�!{0 iWO!��,M� f��
N!i��1'Ofb 60Q�f!p��_ �x�
�, irY�{eaMe..t ,i. , H;:�;�� �,,,.
� If yw wut to stay Qoli M''Xw� �,
x- Y
� `�Y; �f, all rl{�t�rili me Hwier.Mt] '', i'.
� rAwta �aa� ; , _ �'�
} , �.�S�,.t� �'
...._.::'.s.�:a -
. `
PROOF OF PUBLiCATI011i SOARD OF �� COM11K^^���9
GLENWOOD POST PITKIN C0.
Publio Hearing Tsahibits
STATE OF COLORADO, Data �; )•�d .],�_
SS. y�„a11�.1�e.�Z6r,�,,'�
COUNTlt OF GARFIELD. Sub�ect :
_..... .. ,._ _ _ _
. , _._ - �
.._.._ ., , . ; _
,. . • ..
_ ,. .,� .. ..�:.. .... . ...... r. ._..........
�,; )T*�1.�'� �fCJI�t""4'�s' ` �- .. ; . .-.. ,- .. ' ..
. pt��tC tlOtlC@ i.tau.t��r................... .............. do solemnly
��� rr - , � r.: _
` �� 1� ��� I .' ;-�.:�5��• ry �.��� •. � � - ' ' ' •t61"9'�:...Bd�ri�B�C!"............................ of the
� . �� ''• ``� _ � r ° . �+' '�, ��� `he same is a newspaper printed,in whole
��� � ' ��' � �� ''� � . in the County of Garfield, State of Colo-
����=1f] ,... , �� � • . , ' � ceulation there�n; that said newspaper has
.1 "�^+!'�*�+�-ci';:`':'�lii!+ , ely and uninterruptedly in said Connty of
� ,f�� . y r•�5� �` � ` � ' .= Iore than fifty-t�vo consecutive weeks next
+ �� tttu r, , �
I •. • . , . :;,, . •� .bn of the annexed 2ega1 nolice or advertis�
. :,�L ��s� � ` ,� �,p{�7.z,�r.���'�.���.��� r has been admitted to the United States
s �• ; L , ,tter undc: the provisions oE the Act oP
W � : _ � � r .r �� " m , ndments thercof.and thet said newspaper- -
� �� � '"" '\ ' ��'����'��`�r�4�� ified for publishing legul notices and ad_
.�_:�.�^ 1 �. • - I �" '� , '�. .' ���;�;ti��R.-��,y�O 'meaning oE the la�vs of the State of
.jr---�----- � '. ---'�- ---
� `' � � . � .
� � ' _..1 I� •'. ,. . �t '�•�..�. - ` ... .. .
n� �� � ��notice or advertiscment was published in
', � + y�' �� � . � ��4,` , E ae of every number of said newspaper for
,'.. •�e ',: .
�� s t•.: I� � • �. �; '� .��� �� .-'� , '?� �;�;secutive insertions; and that tt►e ficst pub_
'.�_ �� � _�. . „ .� ��! � �-� � .� �as in the issue oE said newspaper dated
, --t 1
, .. . . � . , .
.'�.: . �,� � . . :.., • , \°s. ~ ,�,,;� , 19.....'j8, and the last publication of said
� �,l.l. �..�, 1 '°�, �. .'. ' - �`� �� �._ " said newspaper daled ............................A.D.,
, ' : • ,.� � -� „"' ` [a-«�
._ ,
},. � t' • . '�' _ *..
� ' � � •- . ,• ��� • � ive hereunto set my hand tkus ...a..��i�....
i�:.� `�'' �� .. .r� ,'' ,: "'r' .. � � ,+ � �"�, K �
. ..... . �. �- . r ... � , . _ �
: :..• � .� ..:� .- � ;. .. . .. . . . . , .. . :.. . �. . .....
�'NQTICE u heteby gi�en that a .onduly10,197B;at3�OPMinthe• consider the tdlowing rezonings
` I puhlk hearu�g will be held befon �+��ioner's�teeting Room of .of land within Rtkin CountY: ..���
............. D., .. ��...
.; theAtkinCountyComtni�sianers .the�i&in Counfy CourEhouee to :- ... ..
`: � T:es..R,en.: Southern Aalf o/k4tSons », u.ma�s.�a�uwe:urn � be ore , no ic in an
.. .
...,....
� . ,,n$ger 3tvhld�toFx
�� ' � � �-' � . - 2 arter of SecNOn 15,anA�11 of settlons•¢2,23,�nd mC a cary publ' the
.
„ _ ; _ i. ,, . ; .. � . � , o f Colorado. this ................ � t .or aay
'! - � �.,:. . �� TAe falid+fny lmds'r1thfn'►iLNn�County.Color�dp�rc.pr.opose0/or�aon1�p
.°x� , . . ,_ �n.nhe�ni.AF-2 co Itf'-t:� , �;..� •. . � .�.� � .. „ . - A Yi
... .
5'? .�.�- . � . . _ .. � . -�..��. . . �� . � . . ..........
a. , _, . ' ' . .....
r;� . '� � �7.!S. R,87M: TMe nsttrn haltjof Sectton 70,+Ii o�Sectlons tl�nA . � � (�\ ^
.., ..•.. . - "� 12. the nortbern Mit of Satlons.l3�n0 N.�n0 the� , 1••••\••••.
l y '• northaskrn 9wrter of SeitSon I5. • . ' I ....l�..X,A.!e+.D . .
1 �
:t:� �:. ,�.:t. . -.. ..� ..� � . . .. :,.� - .�.. . ' � .:•�� .� ��-.�:; � HOLB Pll�'f�1C
..i . . � ��T�.M.•R.86M.:��11 of'SecHons 7 tArough�IB.20 tArouyh 2!.3�throupb � 1 ry
- . . . , .. ]6.�nd.tAat porNon of;Section D);�KOrCtA�t Wtcway � �'+�:
.: � .: �,. , �__�. � �...�af Sewnai5.lksr.SubdlWsioa.�R11�3.. . . � _�
�.�� ' '� 7.AS: R.ESM.: _ATJ 0/.Secdons�8. 19 �0.md��31. .•. :, . . ��.�G G90.�A[I.. • ��.............. .
� t' . .. ,
t is a
� :..t.n..�11.b6�.:_Att-.or.secston.l��. . .. . �,.�. '
�': - . , . . _ .
r:' - �t:�:' -•;T.K.::R.BSY.::�Ait�of�Secdon�6%�nd that portfoo-of-Stctlon.5 presenpy !
::- p.. . ��... . . . :_.. �aned AFd. . .
.r. . . . � . .. _ .. ._--
� "v��� .�iAe'foilwl landt rltAln Pitkln Cant Color�da�n r `.i
� M Y. V�:eA�for a tan/e9_��. ,'�
�cMnqe/►o��F 1 w-RS-70►UD: . . . , - ��� �
��� _•� . .� . - � � ,'�, � . � . .. : ��. -� .-_. �
�=F �-. T !S. �; ESY p TAe.Sauthern MIf of.Settton 7.�ll.of SecNon 1 �and. i = .i
� .�1 . 36.'all oi ScetiOn 19 a[ep[.tMt portiun ownM Er '�� .� ;
�, . Snowss Corporatlon or Sts ssstgas,�tbe we,tern�h�ll' , •
o/Sectlon 20.anA tMt po_rc(ae:o/-Sectlau]0-preseedlyr �' -^ ;
: , . . . •.,.}: .
�!• . . . .'iYeeA.AF.I. ': .., . .. . . . , , _ _ ,
. T. 105.+R.06a.:"?Mt-�pOrtton ot�3atlon 1�na 2 prK:nNy zonM ni-1����' ���''
1. . � .
. . . . . ... . . t � ��i
� � �,�ihe foilwin9 bnAi�rltMn�ilttln_Countr.Wlonao�n'DroposM for�toMny.� y ��.
� clwge fra�IIF-t tu R-�0 PUD: �. .
� �.1... . --.'�.'K.'�II.86Y.:� All e/Snctt�ms 2.•1?.�nA lD . ' .
J
� �� /.'BS. II:.E6Y.i All o/�Sectfon 19�:fnd�II of�:ecUon 7l,eYCept ih�t•::r. .
. ... •.•portlun.��eorAM eS.W�y o(Snoi.�zs!4s'�Subd.frlston -
' , . _, f1H�p 3.. � , . � . !� . .�. .
�. Addlt1011i1 1nf0��l�itbD rtlay ba oDtalnetl flO�f the Pitkip COU�ty PNDi11�9 Offkl,�� � � �-
�. � �� .Iocata0 In Cfty Hall,Aspen,Colorado�or by calling the Planning Otfke �. : �:� _
i : at 925-ZOZO.ax6 224. ' ' r . .
-s-By�ob Cbi1d.Chairm�n • , . PubLshed in t6e Glenwood.Po�t
I '�Boerd utCbuply Com�mierioitie{. July 6,1978
i . . . . _ �
� _.,_