Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.spec.08271996 (2) 11-. . . n 4.. . ' ' . :'.. ..,.�.; � . �' .... .: . . �.....� . ..Y'., .... ':rn:-...- ., ., .� . . .. . . ��'! �. ' PCTKIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ��`� WORK SESSION AGENDA P1aza One Conference Room a TUESDAY. AUGUST 27. 199b 10:00 AM SPECIAL MEETING-EXECUTIVE SESSION • Contract Negotiations - 7 Star, John Ely, .Tane Ellen Hamilton Litigation, John Ely • ADJOURN SPECIAL MEETING 12:00 LUNCH BREAK 130 PM COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT 1. Owl Creek Road Issues, Brian Pettet 2. 1996 Budget Update, Suzanne Konchan 3. Memos of Interest BOCC OPEN DISCUSSION . 4. Future Agendas/Agenda Requests 2:45 BREAK 3:00 SPECIAL MEETING -ABATEMENT HEARINGS Fifth Avenue Condominiums , Grahm Gundakar Landman & Giacinto �:UO PM SPECIAL MEETING - PUBLIC HEARING 1. 3rd Reading, Rural/Remote Zone District Code Amendment, Cindy Houben Special Review Code Amendment, lst Reading, Cindy Houben (PN ) _ 5:30 PM 2. Aspen Village Mortgage Contract Extension, Dave Tolen,Francis Krizmanich ADJOURN SPECIAL MEETING � '1-,.. . .. . � � .. a e.i . �ppaor.�te ''�%'��:'° �,-�_q c C�:�Y ,: :.:, MINUTES - � PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS '�• .• .�. S�ECIAL MEETING ' AU T 27.1996 :� CALL TO ORDER: Commissioner True called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. ' ('nMMfSSION MFMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Jim True,Leslie Lamont,Mick Ireland and George Krawzoff � THIRD READING ORDINANCE APPROV(NG FIRST AMENDMFNT TO ORDINANCE 95-24 OF THE PITKiN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTV COMMICSIONERS REZONING OUTLYINC c�T�S WITHIN PITKIN COUNTY FROM AFR-IACRICULTURAL-FORESTRY RESIDENTIAL 20NE D[STR[('T RS 20 AND RS 30 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT(PUDI R SOURCG ZON DISTRICTS TO THE RURA[JREMOTE ZONE DISTRICI'(R/Rl AND AS PROVIDED HEREIN AND AMENDiN('THE PITKIN COUNTY ZONING DISTRICT MAP AND ^"SE CODE SCCTIONS 3 40 115 3-I50 160 3-200 95 4-60 95 4-70 25 AND 4-80.25.AND " ARTICLC 8 -MOTION TO APPROVE-Cindy Houben,Community Development Director,said there are hvo issues before the Board today. Both are amendments to existina regulations. The first amending the existing rural and remote regulations. Secondly,and amendment dealing with floor area above I S,D00 square feet in size,and using the TDR's in that case. She said she would like to start out by briefly going through her memorandum. A copy of her memorandum is attached hereto and made a part of this record #� as EXHIBIT"A". � Houben referred to Item No.2 of the memorandum. She said that is where we discussed using a 5,000 square foo[size for a TDR for use above I5,000 square feet wi[h a special review process. She said the Board asked her to come back with a 5,000 square feet size rather that 8,000 square feet,which was what the Planning Commissianer anticipated when[hey were looking at non-residential space above I5,000 square feet. However,the Board asked here to come back with a straight 5,000 square feet for one TDR when they are applied to 15,000 square feet and above through the special review process Houben said one issue that has come up is whe[her or not the Board intended it to be a straight 5,000 square fee[per TDR purchase or whether or not it intended it to track the sliding scale that is in the existing ordinance. After a discussion,it was agreed that the langua�e will remain as written. A discussion ensued with regard to Page 9 of the Ordinance regarding below grade space. , Houben said the way the ordinance is written it does not provide exemptions for below grade space or saraoe and carport space. Judy Hoff said she was not aware of[his and needed a clarification. Another clarification she needs is whe[her or not the electrical is in addition? I BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1 AUGUST 27,1996 ';;14•: i !��':. ' r , ..i" ' .;i ���5.:•,'..,-... ��F?;�:�rt' �.�••.�. C{�„"�' :,�'��:`�• Houben clariFied that it was in addition. She explained that outhouses and mechanical enclosures shall not _ exceed 100 squ�re feet. 't_' �. � ti, Ms.Hoff said she thought at che time of her approval,that she would be alfowed a basement. She snid she • had othu questions with respect to clarification of the legislation as it pettains to her personal situation. ':' ' �.�;; Ms.HoFFwas told that the appropriate forum to review her questions would be at the[ime when the entire �;'�„ rural and remote ordinance is reviewed in its entirety. It was agreed[hat the section of the Ordinance addressing below grade space and other aspects will remain ;;� as written. , � Houben said Page 23 of the Ordinance notes that,under the Special Review SecNon,the approvals are ��'` good for one year and requires that they be developed�vithin one year. She said the 6oard did not wan[to �� - have the limitations on the TDR's so she added language that exempts the use of TDR's relative ro the • . Special Review section of the code. F` �.,. : Houben said[here have been hvo new things that have come up since she prepared her memorandum. She �r referted to Page 16 Item No.6. She explained that this is referring to the use of TDR's for alwve l5,000 �`'� square feet,and it is in appropriate[o say that it is a growth management exemption because it is just � additional square footage. Therefore,she would like to amend the language by adding a comma after the ' ` M1 code section and stare"Where TDR's are transferted to increase residential square footage above I5,000 `.f• square feet pursuant to Section 3-200.90, 5,000 square fee[per TDR shall be granted. �i �'. She said the next issues is that on pages 21 and 23 reference sections that don't exist. The first one is on � � page 21 A I(b)(2)which si[es Section 3-40.1 I S(C}I above which doesn't exist. She wouid like to replace that with Section 3-150.160(B)I. The same correction on Page 23 c.2. She would like to replace � that section with 3-150.160(B). � Houben said Sonny Vann,in proof reading the ordinance for her,wanted to make sure that what is bein� talked aUout is gross acreage when talking about the preservation site rather than looking at an acreave once low density reduction is applied. It was the consensus of commission members that this was their understanding. Fiouben referred to Page 21 regarding a Certificaie of Development Rights shal!be valid for one year. She expressed a concern that it could be an administrative nightmare ro track Ihese. It was agreed that the language"A Certificate of Development Rights shall be valid for one year'should be deleted. A discussion ensued with regard to Page 16 Item c. It was agreed that a period be place aker"Underlying Zone DistricP'and delete the rest of the language. �� Houben said she would like[o clarify the Board's intent with regard to preservation sites. She asked if i[ f4 was the Board's intention that a individual may retain one right on site to build one cabin and still transfer 1 ' tBree rights off of the land? � � It was[he consensus of commission members tha[this was their inten[ion. r Houben asked if it�vas also their intention d�at only one ri�ht could be developed on the preservation site. ?; _� You weren't no�v creating an additiona!right on site by this provision? ' j .- IiOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2 AUCUST 27,1996 i . `t:� . 1 � � e ; ..i" . -.i Ai:l�i'+�. �,a..:,,. ��; Commissioner lamont said it seems to her tfiat it is the TDR-the transfer of the TbR that creates an � `� esemption righL That's where you get your esemption. �T' i.' ti. It was tlte consensus of nther board members that this was their intention. . �y, . Sonny Vann said there are two sections in the ordinance diat he would like a clarification. He referred to � ., p�ge 22-sub-paragraph b.with talks about the avidavit He said this talks about tlie seller having to out �.��.- and get a CertiFica[e that says he has x number of TDR's. This is[he owner of the TDR or the purchaser of the process of keeping all those in obtaining approval. The way this is set up it says you have to have an a�davit of TDR rights,you have to have the deed restriction,you have to have a copy of the deed i��'� restriction and you have to snbmit a!1 this stuffto Nie plartning o�ce 30 days prior to submission of�ny _ . apptication for a speciai review approval to use them. He thinks it seems contradictory co the concept of � �'` having a condition on yo�r approval and you get out and acquire them. Then on the next pa�e(page 23) �,'' he thinks this is where Cindy attempts to clarify it but he does not think i[is completely right. He referred � - i-' ro sub-paragraph e,which states"Prior to final approvals and signaWre of approvals a deed res[riction sliall • be recorded and effec[ive againsi the Preserva[ion Site from which Hie TDR Rights are being transferred. � He said it seems ro him,Ihat the recordation of the deed restriction and the execution of it is a ministerial � act in much the same way as getting the planning o�ce ro sign Ihe final ptat. So iFyou can go out and get � '. an approval and then go out and acquire the TDR's it seems to him that a condition of the approval would be that prior to recordation of a plat,prior to issuance of a building pecmit,in which there is no plat t required,that evidence of a recordation of the deed restriction be provided because you can't record 1 deed ' restriction prior to fina!approval if you have not actually bought a TDR from a sending site. 'I'herefore,he �`i' thinks this paragraph should be revised to reflect that you don't have to own the TDR in order to submit an � application for approval. Ratlier the language be redrafted to read samething to the effect that before you �' - can effectuate chat approval(record the plat building peRnit.etc.)that evidence of the executed/recorded 4� deed restriction must be provided. l It was the consensus of commission members that ihis was their intention. Commissioner True suggested that tfie language should read prior to building permit the deed restriction satisfactory[o the County Attorney,shall be recorded. Hnuben said she thinks it should be tied ro recordation of the final plat. Sonny Vann su�ested the paragraph b,say somediing to d�e effect that¢ny application for specie!review shall identify that fact that the TDR's are going to used for whatever it is someone is applying for. I�. Lenny Oates s�gges[ed striking final approvals and signa[ure approvals and just say prior to issuance of a �,'. building permit and/or recording of a final plat or any odier map,a deed restriction shall be submitted. ` I4 A discussion ensued wi[h regard to eliminating paragraph b. h It was the conse�sus of the]ohn Ely,County Attorney,and commission members that it would not be detrimental ro eliminate paragraph c. Ed Smnrt voiced opposition to the proposed legislation. He felt it rvas a violation of people's constitutional rights. ' Ch�innan True asked if there was anyone else from[he public who would like to address the third reading �: of the Ordinance. A member of the public said he would like to review the language of the deed restriction. � + -. �'. I BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3 pUGUST 27,1996 r � , � ,j",�},.; . � . � a �.i . t�,....�,' r�� ' i%�'� He was told Ihat the County Attorney is working on the language and will have it available as soon as possible for review as soon as possible. � i. Chainnan True closed the hearing to public comment and brought the matter back to the Board for � consideration. There were a few members of the public who simply asked for a clarification of some sections of the proposed legislation. Chairtnan True closed the public hearing and brought the matter back to the board for consideration. Commissioncr Krawzoff moved approval ot fhc Ordinance amending thc rural and remote . Icgislntion as amended. Cammissioncr Lnmon[seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. . _ EIItST READING ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3-200.90 OF THE PITKIN COUNTY � LAND USE CODE FOR THE PURPOSE OF REOUIRING TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT BIGHTS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT EXCEEDIIYG 15.000 SQUARE FEET OF � �OOR AREA-MOTION TO APPROVE AND SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON OCTOI3ER 9. 1996 -Cindy Houben said this amendment is for the purpose of requiring transferable development rights for residential development rights for residentinl development over I5,1000 square feet of floar area. This legislation will require that a transferable development right be used as a threshold requirement in order to � obtain square footage 16ove I5,000 square feet. � Chairman True pointed out a problem with the numbering in the Ordinance that Visual Impacts should be chanaed to no.3. Chairman True opened the liearing to public comment. There being no public comment,he closed the public hearing and brought the matter back to the Board for approval of first reading. Commissioner Lamont moved approval of first reading and set for second reading and public �,= hcaring on October 9,1996. Commissioner Ircland seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. ASPEN VILLACE EXTENSION OF CLOSING DEADL(IVE-MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE -Dave Tolen,Housing Authoriry Director,proceeded wi[h a presenta[ion regarding this matter as ou[lined � in liis memorandum to the Board dated August 23,1996. A copy of this memorandum is attached hereto and made a part of this record as EXHBIT°B". , Tim Whitsitt,representing the Aspen Village Homeowners Associa[ion,said he thinks it is reazonable ro put some kind of deadline into effect. He said d�e homeowners association want to do what they can to encourage people to close early also. However,they have had a problem with one of the lenders which has delayed some of the closings. He said he talked to a local representative of United Financial today he said they are definitely going to do any loans in Ihe park and in fact,will be closing[he Aspen office as of September I st. It clear now that they will have to go to other sources for funding. As far as he knows the people who have pulled their application and gone to another lender has had any problem getting financing from another source. The other banks have mmed these applications around in as little as two or three days - after they have submitted all the application materials from United Financial. Also,Uni[ed Financial has told him that all of the money eapended[o Ihem will be refunded with the exception of the S50 which was paid for a credit check. The refund check will be in the amount of$400,and they hope to get everyone paid within o�ne week of today's date. After a discussion,it was aareed that an estension should be extended az necessary. • Commissioncr Ireland moved to extend the time for closing to November 28,I996. Commissioncr , � IiOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 4 AUCUST 27,1996 � '`,'� . � � ; . ,� ���H�'�'' �+,,."t"'-:•'. �: `�:' .`,;. Kravvzoff seconded lhc motion. Motion pASSeJ unanimousty. c pDJOURNMENT: The mee[ing was adjourned at 6:15 p.m. �� Re§pectfully submifftd, .� '•'''.�• �l�Cc��, ,�%�`' .j Jeanette Jones i" e:`,`' Clerk ro the Board of County Commissioners i:'Y.. /� /-� _�— Gc..--�-�v L� ��_'-... .. James R.True,Chairman Board of County Commissioners ll-i3.y�, Submitted for BOCC approval on November G,199G iy�. f' �-. �;;� I BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 5 AUGUST 27,1996 . ;ra� / . ..i . � . �(' . . � � .'�` . , . »I ' il!'I • ��t �-�'7-iC. %.�, , 1 MEMORANDUM �, ' TO: Boazd of Counry Commissioners �,, y : FROM: Cindy Houben,Communiry Development Birector ��'. RE: Amendments to the Rural and Remote Zone Distric4 Public Hearing,Third Reading;Amendment to section 3-200.90 residential development with more than 15,000 square feet of residendal floor area, First Reading. . :x.�, ': DA'TE: August 27,1996 � . SUMMARY: The County adopted revised Rural and Remote(RR)regulations in late 1995. In , an effon to clazify specific provisions and intentions of the RIt Zone District,staff and the Counry Planning and Zoning Commission are proposing several amendments. Additionally,staff would like the Board of County Commissioners to consider several amendments which wiil '; hopefully further enhance the value of TDRs. y;�. j1r Y At the July!0 Board of County Commissioners'meeting,the Boazd of County Commissioners �r reviewed A list of the proposed amendments and cheir status relative to the County Planning and � ' Zoning Commission recommendations. "fhe most significant revisions are intended to increase � the ase of Transferable Development Rights('TDRs). The Ciry Planning and Zoning � Commission was also consulted on the proposed revisions and their comments have been added. (Also see attached memorandum from Lance Clazke summarizing the city Planning and Zoning �; comments}. ;�` PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE RR ZONE DLSTRICT: � The proposed amendments aze indicated in bold italic lettering in the attached draft ordinance. lY l. The char[s explaining the use of TDRs are very complicated and are difficult to use. Staff has eliminated one chart and revised others. � Status: County Planning and Zoning Commission recommends amendments to the charts. ": (See pages 17,18, 19 of the attached ordinance.) ,. 2. Some feel that there is a market for TDRs to be used for non-residential space such as I enclosed recreational uses(pools or tennis courts). The concept was iniaally to allow additiona!square footage above I5,000 squaze feet if TDRs were purchased for the non- . - residential space. At the July lOth meeting the BOCC was uncomfortable with the definition of non-residential squaze footage and requested that staff revise the ordinance to allow all �; additions rather than distinguishing between residential and non-residentiat uses. , . � . , � i . � 1.' � � .a . ,, .'} . ' �,,T.,a . � 4:�.`� Status: County Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that TDRs should be used for ' non-residential space and that each TDR shouid allow 8,000 squaze feet of non-residendal _ � space. The BOCC determined that 5,000 Square feet is more appropriate and is more ti, consistent with the rest of the rural and remote regulation. 3pecial Review is required in order to increase square footage above IS,000 squaze feet (See attached ordinance amending '; section 3-200.90 of the Pitkin Counry Land Use Code). 3. The section allowing an existing cabin to remain on the property should be amended to clarify that either the existing OR the newiy constructed residential unit may be deed _ , restricted(currendy the regulation requires that the older unit be deed restricted.) - Status: The County Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that either the existing or • • the newly constructed unit may be deed restricted. (3ee page 8 of the attached ordinance.) • 4. Affordabie Housing midgation for TDRs was not discussed as part of the existing ordinance. • This should be clarified as part of these amendments. Stams: After substantial debate,the County Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that no housing mitigation be required for TDRs. 5. Amendment to Section 3-200.90 of the County Land Use Code which allows increase above 15,000 square feet by Special Review to require TDRs.(See attached ordinance amending " this section of the code). S[atus: T'he County Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that an increase above 15,000 square feet in residential space should require the use of TDRs. � 6. Clarification to 3ection 460.95A2e(page 23 of the attached ordinance)�oting that a deed , restriction on a pazcel does not need to take place antil the TDR is sold. � 7. Page 9 of the ordinance adds a clarification to the intent of the zone district for purposes of calculating floor area(see**language on page 9).. 8. Page 13,3H adds a cross reference to section 3-200.90 of the Land Use Code - which allows TDR'S to be used to expand squaze footage above I5,000. 9. Page 23 adds a clarification that section 3-210.10E3 of the Land Use Code shall not apply to the use of TDR'S thereby limiting them to one year approvals,or requiring that they be developed within one year. , The following are points of discussion for the BOCC to consider. These amendments to the Rural and Remote Ordinance may require further clarificadon,which can be accomplished at this meeting. . . i� Z � � �^'. • � . , � . ti� _ __ ..... , ,,; : . , ,. ..... . __... «. _..�i,r,: ..�- .,. � ... . . .. .., _. � . . ... ._ .. ._. . .. .. ._ . �i,;'v^a�k�; j�;•,.*� q���,-�; ��''.;��c:. I. Did the BOCC intend for the allocation of TDR'3 to be based on gross acreage,rather thaa �:�,y��s`;;• . ti..,.. remaining acreage once slope density reduction and easements are subtracud?Staff feIt that `�' the intent of the Rurat and Remote legislation was to allow TDR's to be allocated based on , 35 acre parcels regardless of other code requirements normatly applied to subdivision �.. purposes. .. ' , ..�. 2. Page 21A/B A certificate of development right is valid for a one year period. Does the board care if it is valid for an indefinite period of time?This provision w�developed in order to update ownership of rights. Staff feeIs it is burdensome from an administrative perspective and should be updated on an as needed basis. i7 : 3. Does a receiver site for a TDR, for additions above I5,000 need to be a conforming size pazcei. - , ^ ' RECOMME�IDATION; staff recommends approval of the pmposed amendments to ordinance 95-24 on Third Reading. Furthermore,staff recommends approval of tFte proposed �. amendment to section 3-200.90 requiring use of a TDR to expand above 15,000 squaze feet, ! � � � ,�'_ � -_ i I . � , i � t1:�^� : ^ � . • ,�- , i; , �•� �}t �: ' ��77'�G, �,J /, ` Ta: Boani of Comty Commissionecs es Su�anne Konchan,County Manager - . . ` From: Dave Tolen.Housing OfTice �,, Re: A�en V llage-Exteasion of Closing Deadline �,'+, , Date: 23 August,1996 Summarr•:The Aspen�llage Homeowners arc:�sking far an exteosion on closing of many of lhe units. beyond the deadline stated in Resolution 96-1d2.,u�d the cunent dpoline discussed by the County Commissionecs of SeQtember i.1996. The Commissioners have also asked for a review of the Housing ' 8oard's discussion relating to amending the Residcnt Occupied guidelines for Aspen Village. Deadline Eitcnsion: 'I1ic app�ovai of the Aspen Viliage Subdivision was formalized in BOCC Resoluuon 96-Id2. Condition 1(n of that resolution requircd up to eleven lo[s to be resuictcd to Categorv Four price:md income guidelines.and called For those lots to be iden�ified as lols that�vere not under contr�ct for pivchase prior to May 27.I996. � Manv of the lots Uiat have been under contnet have not ctoscd.and the homeowners:ue concemed that thosc units might be dcsignatcd as Catcgo[v Four units. However,my reading of ihe ordinance.and its probablc intcntion.is to include only ihosc lots or units that wcre not under contract at the time of thc approvai. Tt�ose lots that were under coniract and have not closed,but whose residents inrend to purchasc,should not bc idcntiCied as Category 4 units. . Those units�hat are not under convac[at this time should bc resuiaed in accordance with Resoluaon 96- 142. Ttus should not inctude any uniu where a convaa has lapsed due to financing problems.bul whose residents intend to purct�ase and are willing to renew a purchase contract Background and Prcvious Housing Board uction: The Pitkin Caunty Commissionecs adop[ed the �� Resident Occupancy Guidelines afier at least three ycacs of c?i�NSSion at the Housing Board and between the City and Counry elected boazds. The guidelines were dcc�:oped in response to ihe Aspen Area _ Community Plan and required significant compromises in ordcr to balancc campeting community objectiva. During the su6division of the Aspen Village Mobile Home Park.ihe Housing Office recommended lhat Resident Occupancy guidelines be applied to those units,as opposed to ihe more svict requirement in the iand use code thaz the units be restricted to an income category. Subsequendy,and in response to ,. concems raised by the Aspen V'illage homeowners.ihe staff of the Housing Office recommended lhat ihe requirements at Aspen V(►age be evw less remictive,by eliminated any cap on appreciation. This recommendation was made m the Housing Hoazd at its mceting of April 17,1996 and the Hausing Boazd fonvarded an amendment to this affect on a vote of 4 in fawr and 1 opposed. i . ' �,'' ' • . 9 .� ` . -.�� � -. � ' ' �� �.,,:,T,:f'£. i �� � T�t� sP �t Tt��S ���-�j��.::_: , A � � . ' aoX c , � Aspen,Colorado � '= �. . PROOF OF PUI3LICATION � � STATE OP COLORADO) )ss. Copy of Nolice. r i County of Pitkin ) � � I,Artdy Sfoue,do solemnly swear lh�t I am Ihe Gditor • in Chie(of TH�ASPEN 1'IMCS:that lhe samc ls a weekly i newspaper prinled,in,wiwle or in pad,and published in ' � the Counly of Pitkin,StaEe oE Colorado,and has a general i circulation therefn;lhat said newspaper lias been puU- lished conlinuously and uninlerrupledly in sa3d County ruaucrione� of Pitkin,tor a eriod of more Uian tift -lwo conseculive RC AMFNOM�77'70 THE SPECUL REVIEW p y �SECTION OF THE PITKIN COUNTY IAND USE � weeks next prior to lhe first puUlication of lhe annexed cooe le at notice or advertlsemenh,that said news a cr has NaT�CE IS HEREDY GlVEN lhal a publk $ ,� p hcarmQ wUl bc hcld on Tuesday,Auyuat 27, ' been admitted to the Uniled 5(ates mails as seconcl class ��%"+:���m���^e�o�ci�a�s,ao i�m • bdora thc Board oi County Committlancrs,_ ' matter under lhe Provlslons of ihe Act o[Mareli 3,1879� Fkst Floor Mcping Room,pyaa gullding,5]II E - j � Maln SL,As�en lo eonsWar an amentlmmt Io� , or any amendments thereof,and lhat safd newspaper is a s�o�mn 3•suo.so,i m��,,,,a u:�con��o a week( news a er dul ualified(or ublishin !e nl «qWrc thc usc o1 e Tnnskr of Oevebpmn�� Y P P )'� P b' E R1ght(fON}n a crltcAOn a!Sp�cyi ReWCw Io I notices and advertisements wi[h lhe meanin�of thc laws j5,000 sesldrntial devclopment ol morc�han � , quare Icet ol Iloor area.Por lurlhcr ot the State o[Colorado. i�m�mauo��en�,�e c��ay eo�o��.�m�. , � Aspen/Pl�k�n Communlry Dcvclopmen. � � Departmm�(970)9YU-5097.Copics ol thc That tlie annexed legal nolice or advertisemenl wa�=pub- �;,spaj�d ry�g��jar 6usl�imss hours M[hc lished in llte regulatand enlire lsstte of every number o[ 0111ccolthcCkrkamlRaorJcr,S]UEastMa6� � . � said weekly newspaper[or lhe period of�_consecn- sia""`o '�`�"`CO1Of�°s�w�,rnonc(�ro»so- • tive inserlions;and that the Ctrst publicalfon oE said notice ��"""�°'yJj @��RTrueChnlr was in the issue of said news a er elated eo�.aoico�mrcommiwa�a: � P r Published In Thc Aspen 77mcs on July Y7,. � V J��.�, .�� A.D.,I9� and that lhe iasl pub- �r�s. � _...------....___ licalion of sald notice was in the issuc o[said newspaper dat d��.A.D.,19�_. � � Subscrib d and sworn to be(ore me, a notary public in d[or the Count�o[Pilkin,Slale o[Co[orado, on this dny of J " A.D.,19�_. U , � Notary Publ�c . Mycommissionexpires ���-4� �' _ • , c: . � '. . - . - ( . �_� - . , I. + ... .�� . . , �� . . � ��� � e - +,7 _�,:.' ., ' . � I, . � a ���� _� ��.. . . T�t� � . ..: . I ���� � ,,"�����sM.,'��`'. N Tt�� , S , �. � Box fi � '�. ; Aspen,Colorado ' , . ;. 4 PROOr Or PUBLICATION ` � STATE OF COLORADO) :-�� )ss. Capy of Notice ,;.r,': � i County of Pitkin ) ' F � I,Andy S[otte,do solemnly swear thal I am lhe lidilor � in Chief of TFIE ASPEN T'IMGS:that the same is a weekly � newspaper printed,in,whole or in parl,and puUfished in !he Counly of Pitkin,Slate aF Colorado,�nd has a general ' circulatlon thereln;that snid newspaper has been rub- lislied continuously and unfnterruptedly in safd Cotmly ftE ROftAUREFIOTE 7.ONE 015TftICi(R/R) � of Pitkin,(or a period of more[han fi[ty-two conseculive cocenuerivravxrs ? noTice is xeeeor civen we�r��nn< � weeks next prior to the ttrst puUlicntian o(lhe annexed n�nrmq..m b�h��d o�r��.a�Y,n�Q�.c n, t legal notice or advertisement;that said news a cr has "'""'�""'�'°"�""B�°�'""s�nm F P ��OfC Ih!6DAfd OI COOOtY Co�1�n1Y5100¢�s, been admitted to lhe Uniled Stales mails as second class ���orMeMingRoom,MaaiBuNdhK,570E ; Main st.,Aapen�o con:iJer approwl ol - . • matler under lhe provislons of lhe Act o[March 3,1879� dma��slolhcliuwl/RrnroteZoncDlsMCt � hlch was adopled bY�dlnnnce No.95-2I. � , or any amendmenls thereof,and ll�at said newspaper is� Specllkally,the.mrndmrnts wlll clarlir anJ a weekl news a er du! uali[ied for uUlishin le a1 �����< <n�.�: .�i,u�a �0 7ransfenble Y P P Y 4 P F, S Pevelopmmt R7�hes(fDNa),adJ TDRS 10 bc i notices and advertisemenls wilh the me�ning o[lhc laws u ed lor residenUal syuare lootage a6ove � . I5,000 syuare lect end for non-rcalAenflal ; o[lhe Statc of Colarado. .vL.rc�u¢�.namuw�,uY,m�,m�,m��� ' 111�Ilow cxlstin�cablus ta rcmaln by clihcr ' � � deed restridinH Ihc¢xlsUn9 ca6(n or the n�w � ' That lhe annexed Iegal nolice or adverlisemenl was LII7- devdnpmoq,Fnr lunhcr 4nlorma�lon contaa P Ondy Houbcn at Mc Aspco�Pli4M Communlly �'� . lished in Ihe regular and entire lssue o[every number o[ Ocrclbpmcm Qepartment(970)920-509T. Coplea ol the praymMl OrdNance arc avallable� - : said weekly newspaper[or the period of`�consecu- b.N�ak m:��m�a�,i„Q,��,iu w:���s live Inserlions;and that lhe first uUlication of said notice haun N�Ac Ofllce of Ihe Cluk and Rccot�er, P sao c.,i M.u�s«<a,�Mn,cwo.�e�si i. � was in the 3ssue ot said newspaper �lated P^^^�t����s�eo. leantltcloms,4�ulyCountyCMrk � dJ�..� .�� A.D.,19�_ and tltinl Uie Insl pub- °`" Nam's0.7euaChair ! Hcatton oE said nolice was in lhe issue o[said news a cr �rddCounryCamm�Wonas P � 1 P�ubllshed M thc Npen Tlmez wi July 1), dale �}�}l� `a],�} A.II.,19�.. _ - . � Subseribe artd sworn to belore nze, a notnry public in a for UZe Cou�nt of Pitkin,Stale o[Colorado, on tfiis day of !d J\ ' A.D.,19�_. Notary Publi • My comnilssion expires�_�_ ..� � _ .. , I � ��'' P� ' . �.� ��,�- , � - �,`., . . , . ...: