The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutbocc.min.reg.09281981 , � _� -?� , � . . ^.� i � �,y f 4�1 , r ��-�=,..i � :�, : _ , _ . F,� n1e+...�aaim['r�4.wlA;,:szr-xtis-�v....�..�a �..:.�.:. ....•.. ._..,,:.,.,�. . .....,.......,e,..-��„-.�-y_.......�_..._.. _._�_.._�_ . _- � � _. . , z 3 ip 7�4�, : Etp . � � � Y/y i; : t j�pS A' , �{/ ��F �:1u � r, . �. � � BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA September 28, 1981 9:10 a.m. Oh-Be-Joyful Subdivision Final Plat - Richard Grice, Planninq 9:30 Resolutions, Contracts and Ordinances - - _� Minutes 198Z GMP Ranking - Richard Grice � ' General Assistance Policy - Sandra Stuller, Michael Schults - Summit Aviation Lease Approval - Doug McCoy, Airport Manager ' ' Abatement of Taxes -. Sandra Stuller � Do 1 X uart-er Ci c1e.Subdivision Final Plat & PMH-PUD Rezoning �pp�rova� - Hzchar�d Grice 9:45 First Beading Supplemental Appropriations - Tom Oken ' Monthly Manager's Report - Curt Stewart, County Manager � � Z0:00 Public Hearing - Amendment to Individual Sewage Permit Fee � Schedule - Sandra StulZer, Tom Dunlop, Environmental Health f� � 10:15 Fublic Hearing - Amendment to Airport Regulations Administrative Procedures - Sandra Stuller, Doug McCoy 10:45 Break �.. 11:00 Public Hearing Continued - Permitting Prospectinq Activity - � Mark Fuller, Environmental Coordinator � _ C�C � 11:30 Quarterly Board of Health Meeting - Ann Knowlton �'' � 11:40 Lunch Break i--; 1:00 Public Aearing Continued - Cronin Associates Subdivision General Submission - Colette Penne, Planning :E". 1:30 Counail on Aging Board Appointments - Mona Frost � 1:40 MpEUen Subdivision Exemption - Colette Penne , 2:00 Administrative Hearing - Curfew Violation, Lawler - Doug McCOy (�'`� 2:20 Electi.on Commission Appointments - Loretta Banner 2:30 Mt. Valley Filing 3 Acceptance of Road Plan - Pat Dobie . ��. ?' 2:45 Housing Task Force Discussion - Helen Klanderud' � 3:00 Basalt Masterplan Final Dra£t Presentation - Jim Ragsdale 3:30 Public Comment �' 4:00 Joint Meeting - Cancelled ' � � i � �;.J. ` �J 1 f � � �'� ��L-:Y,• � . .. . . . . � . �.. . . . . . �` _,:,:'; ..,� �`�-'- r �.j�, .' � . � ��i ' i�x,-�' h?{ � - , F'Y.'�,�'S'SVri'�v�` . . . j'• r. �....,. -s �.x . . .. . . �. : � _ ,T ..,r..,� . .�.,, . .._.. f� .:,.: 9u. .Lr�s�:..:c;a:M.`r�k'iam.st�.�mi::aw4A6ei.�.+�c..:r ....�:.�.�_r..,..:4;;.:i�,s..��P.:�raa'.at;Aa'✓,y��,�(++y.�;+rh;;s�sa.��.:-.si�,c:c.'�.�;a�s�2.i.-•:�`�u ��e:i '� -; k5 �� .. �� r 1 .E n`; lr I:>S4-,'i,-. � � � � � f . -- ` PITKIN COUNTY i 3 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS . I � j � t� REGULAR MEETING 28 SEPTEhBER 1981 i. ' � PRESENT: HELEN KLANDERUD, THOMAS BLAKE, GEORGE MADSEN I �.'f Oh-Be- Richard Grice of the Planning Office introduced the Oh-Be-Soyful Subdivision Joyful : �"� Subdiv a lication for final lat review. The detailed submission was a ' �� pp p pproved at p < Final F Plat the prior meeting subject to seven (7) conditions, in addition to those found � • 4, � in Resolution 80-93. Grice explaine@ that these conditions have been satisfied: _._.',�€<¢ • ��- the final plat has been amended to exclude rockfall hazard areas for the building � �', envelope on Lot One (1); the Protective Covenants correctly prorate the irrigat�on f�4; Y,'.:. - water from tl�e Stewart Ditch; the first sentence of paragraph sixteen (16), the first ? i ' and fourth sentences of paragraph seventeen (17), all of paragraph twenty (20) and ii - ` the second paragraph of paragraph twenty-six (26) of the covenants run to the -' �' benefit of Pitkin County; none of the lots shall be conveyed prior to the �: , '` approval of the Colorado Department of Health regarding the water supply system; �_. � . a note has been added to the final plat requiring an engineered sewage disposal � �� .;k system for Lot Four (4); letters from .Tohn Doremus dated 22 September, 1981 and � Patsy Newbury dated 23 September, 1981, commit to a timetable for satisfying �;_'� the health and safety deficiencies specified in the Crowley letter of 17 July, 1980 6 �.kM" and should remain a condition of approval; and the water supply system has i�`� t� apparently been reviewed to L•he satisfaction of the County Sanitarian. The Planning Office then, recounnended approval of the final plat subject to ' the following conditions: the satisfaction of those commitments by John Doremus � , in his letter to Grice dated 22 September, 1981, and Patsy Newburys memorandum � of 23 September, 1981; the recording of the Protective Covenants for the Oh-Be-Joyful � � Subdivision as amended; paragraph twenty-seven (27) of the Protective Covenants f shall be amended to require prior approval of the Board of County Commissioners r � oE Pitkin County, as to the first sentence of paragraph sixteen (16), the firs[ and fourth sentences of paragraph seventeen (17), all of paragraph twenty (20) �F��R Comiaissioner's Meeting 28 September, 1981 - 1 �-� . • . . t...3ys'�l_n:t•. ��'r� '��. ^'� . !'. ':l �'. ':� r�'., . � �''e 'lb' � ' . !.� _•�"`4„-nF� _ . . . _: t '. �{^'y'�' k'-��..t.,.�.--.��r_�x...+...�:••:A:s�-i +...-r-._..x.. ,_:�.:�,_-::�� -- � . ..:.:sr:��:._._-..ar�mari�.,a'^�...ar,r,w7tx:v.�..-i!t�v;_rAr.vr...n.,;urt.��c-rh 4'�tr��'�v�` : I t u,f f{�� f; �SlRy; �';,"��.� ,_. . � and the second paragraph of paragraph twenty-six (26); approval by the Colorado Department of Health of the water supply system; price and occupancy guidelines as established by the Housing Authority shall restrict Lots rive (5), Seven (7) 1 and Nine (9) to low income and Lot Six (6) to middle income; Lot 1t.+o (2) sha11 � forever be a sterilized lot, ineligfble for residential purposes; and finalZy j . _ that no new road cuts sha11 be allowed onto County roads. � � ( i John Doremus, representing the applicant, noted that his letter of 22 September, . I . 1981, committed to correct the health and safety deficiencies within twenty I (20) days. Doremus explained that it may be difficult to accomplish the required ; �� improvements within that period of time; he may have to evict some of the � �� • tenants, for instance, whlch may delay the process. Although the applicant �� wouid endeavor to correct the various deficiencies wi[hin the time indicated, he asked that the Board allow for some flexibility in the event that the applicant is unable to do so. Bob Nelson of Environmental Health explained the water supply issue. A new � � well has been recently completed so as to augment the existing well. The two 3- �f, �� (2) wells must in some way be connected so that, in the event the water pressure � drops in one, the other can serve as a supplement. Nel.son would moniter this t and suggested that final plat approval be conditioned to his approving the water system. He advised that building permits would not be issued pending s completion of the water supply system. � i Doremus explained that the applicant was unable to complete the water system � f.. pending final plat approval. Plat approval apparently would serve tv generate �J � � the funds needed to complete these improvements, and he astced that the Board � . �, . consider this. There was some discussion as to whether an applicant was required to accomplish all improvements prior to final plat approval or not. � County Attorney Sandra Stuller explained that a guarantee £rom the applicant, � if obtained prior to approval, would serve to assure the satisfaction of the I varioas conditions. ; � Hlake then moved approval of the final plat subject to the seven (7) conditions � I � � of the Planning Office and further, that the Department of Environmental Health I review and approve the revised engineering plans for the water supply system. i Madsen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. � ---------, � Minutes Blake moved apprnval of the minutes of 1G September, 1981, Madsen seconded i � I and the motion passed unanimously. . � i I ---------- i Commissioner's Meeting 28 September, 1981 - 2 �. •��_s� ��:_;,�;, y '�.-"',J;_,1y..,:1 1' -..� . ��.�-. �� ' . . -i' • } YY��`'��s7 � . . r :.:.t<J . . . � .. ''N;`¢'"� — - .. .:s ,. . . �T 4�a�n!4F-0:.r:c7:l:ni,�?�.�.r.+:�_. ..:a:..,._._. ..��c :.....,... ......,...-�.�uwt,:,t�:�o��:s4T�2�:.::.t,:.r.:x!�.ai:yv.:,errc.::..:z.;'._-::sr� �i. ��Fv� � � Y:e��y_., .�. �.T�i�4��.i. -�. i 1981 Grice introduced a Planning and 2oning Coumdssion Resolution establishing GMP Ranking ranking for 1981 GMP submissions. The Board must affirm this ranking and can not refute it unless appealed. There have been no appeals to date. Those applications which were f.iled and certified as complete were; � t . Aspen Village, with twenty (20) free market and twenty-five (25) PMH units, ' i __ Star Mesa, with five (5) free market and ffve (5) restricred units, j I i i the Aspen Racquet Club with two (2) free market and two (2) restricted units, ( and Cheek, with four (4) free market and four (4) restricted units. � i 1 The Planning and Zoning Co�nission established the following ianking; i ; i Aspen Village received a total score of 86.6, and Star Mesa a 49.2, representing E`� f„ • downvalley applications, whereas the Aspen Racquet Club scored 87.6 and �� Cheek a 91.8, representing the Aspen metro area. Grice explained Yhe various applications and noted that the Planning Office supported the � I ranking. i � Blake then moved to affirm the Planning and Zoning Commission ranking � r i5 _ for 1981 GMP submissions, Madsen seconded and the motion passed unanimously. �- �}:�., r�: ��f ------- 3 � 4� General Blake moved approval of an ordinance enacting a General Assistance ' I: Assist- !, ; ance Policy for Pitkin County, Klanderud seconded and the motion passed � Policy unanimously. S _ Stwimit Blake moved approval of a use agreement between the Board and Robert � Aviation � �� Lease Bluemel, Gunnison Air Service Inc, d/b/a/ Summit Aviation. Madsen seconded k � � and the motion passed unanimously. i I � ' � ----^-- Tax Blake moved to allow a petition for an abatement and refund of taxes � I - Abate- ment for Norman G Smith, whose property was double assessed. Madsen seconded f '� and the motion passed unanimously. � � --------- � Double Blake moved approval of a resolution granting final plat and PMH-PUD ; X Quarter � � Circle rezoning approval to the Double X Quarter Circle Subdivision. Madsen seconded � - Subdiv ' I � and the motion passed unanimously. i I lst County Manager Curt Stewart introduced his monthly report, noting that � � Read: Monthly investments by the Finance Department will result in an additional one hundred � ' Report ', � and twenty thousand dollars ($120,000) in interest income, revenues fzom the � County Fair were higher than anticipated, resulting in a savings of two thousand, k � `� Coimnissioner's Meeting 28 September, 1981 - 3 • �� 'Y:R�v,...l- ' .�,.., 3 . . i.,.i.Y�;��.r:.r.• . �,_ _� 1�', ' ' � r }a '� �!:: . f �,, ��J � - 1 Y��.�X.-w.'-.Li{S'uS't:"liL.s°�'�::�.1`�{(r:�`__�.4_.�..�r5..�....:)_.- .. ..�..,.. .��__�r,..s..�:7i•'..�t13:�:if�3;w.'f-.errc�,r:«:3.�.r...,.:sn�e::.E++..�.r?..::i�:'T.>F$u'3it:.v? �� .. �Aj�'�� Y � . EM1 �;,��;.:,. +-� cf�i�:7��'.,'._. P .k�?r".'. %'1 ��ii�a, �� v� four hundred and sixty-four dollars ($2,464), the McBride land acquisition ; ,�j of approximately twenty (20) acres at the airport is nearing completion, a at a cost of one hundred and fifty-one thousand dollars ($151,000), and i the detention budget, due to higher transportation, lodging and meal costs, i � will require an additional appropriation of twenty-two thousand, eight hundred �' i . - ' and seven dollars {$22,807). i � A resolution appropriating supplemental revenues, expenditures and transfers • was included to address these and other items on first reading. � I � . Blake moved approval of the resolution on first reading, Klanderud seconded � �. and the motion passed unanimously. ! r- ' + , Public The Board convened a public hearing to consider an amendment to the Individual ! Hearing: ' 2nd Sewage Permit Fee Schedule. The Board is authorized hy reason of H.B. 1048 to � �N Read on i �� Amend increase said fees, to a maximum of one hundred and fifty dollars ($150), The �� Sewage Permit Bill becomes effective on 1 Sanuary, 1982, consequently, any rate increase � ��':� Fees "'"';�� must be postponed until that time. � �� . �`.=j Tom Dunlop of Environmental Health juatified the increases based on the j � � � cost of processing these applications, and explained that his goal was that J the program become self sufficient. � f R Klanderud then opened the hear3ng for public comment; there being none, i 1 the hearing was closed. Blake moved approval of a resolution raising and � £ establishing new fees for issuance of permits for Individual Sewage Disposal ; - � � Systems, Madsen seconded and the mo[ion passed unanimously. , � ---------- �� ;,,� Public The Board convened a public hearing to consider an amendment to the Airport Hearing: 2nd Regulations to provide foz conducting Administrative Proceedings by a designated Read on Amend Hearing Officer or Officers. The Soard is authorized by the Home Rule Charter � Airport CReg's to delegate any of its powers, duties and functions as it may deem necessary �� or desireable. � Klanderud then opened the hearing for public comment; there being none, the � � i. hearing was closed. � i Blake moved approval of a resolution amending the Airport Regulations to � ' i provide for conducting Administrative Proceed3ngs by a designated Hearing Officer j � I or Officers, Klanderud seconded and the motion passe@ unanimously. � 1 ---------- � , � , 'w; Commissioner's Meeting 28 September, 1981 - 4 _ ,�;a''.�_,=a t�_ .. , . . . . I''��'•' .. �`'� . . ' , �, >' I � P '�� . � , ;. �;-; II r M��t-'S"..""r..`.�v;�c:i3tiL3 s..�;.�.nh,:.. .A ..r. ' -.. . . .:..n.._...,r.� .,rr.x�.-:�.k-�c-eM..R,�.,,ri.v.w.....�,..v«.:.�..,.«.e... . ...»...._.._E.s:eP f> - y v, l i� 'f,! iF`�R.'.�.'. , � . .s h;'::.. >='.; 1.�: . . rr �a. �� Public The Board continued the public hearing on an amendment to the Land Use � Hearing � con't: Code establishing a procedure for pezmitting ptospecting activity. ;'� Prospect- A� ing Jim Blanning explained a recent appZication of his in a wilderness area on � Permit ; "��, Forest Service lands, noting that the Forest Service does ttotify Pitkin Couaty 1 ��1 � of intents to prospect/mine. As this information is being provided, Blanning ; • _ � did not feel that the Board shou2d become iavolved in these activities further, � - j particularly as the majority of these activities occur on public lands over � ' .� . which the Board has no jurisdiction. Blanning disputed var3ous parts of the procedure. He did not, for instance, ' i � � support a permit for core or rotary hole drillings as many of these are • quite insignificant. Blanning has such an operation on Aspen Mountain now; + the core hale is a small underground drilling which in no way affects the � surface or aesthetics of the area. Blanning suggested that this specify ! ;, i �� underground as opposed to above ground operations, as the impacts o£ the former �� ` i. are insignificant. C . �.a � �c"' Also questioned was a permit requirement foz seismic exploration. Blanning ��,�' � �E_�. was nat sure jast what this entailed, but noted that it was probably intended S � �;_. to address large, gas explosions. It was felt that this type of activity would i F:y,s i r,r,; �;< never occur in Pitkin County, and Blanning suggested qualifying seismic � I � - exploration either by the size of the operation or as being explosive. ,�� i 't:: To require a permit for excavating minerals, oil or gas prospecting was � �t�%,�, also too broad a requirement. This kind of activity could he very minor and ,lt`.�. would probahly occur on private lands. Blanning did not feel that private �� ' �4 landowners would allow any prospector ta damage their Zands, and suggested �rs ' �?��? that a permit be required only if the activity exceeded five hundred dollars 5�:� ($500). �� Further re uirements of the q permit procedure included a Yopographic map - showing the site of the operation, boundaries of the site and adjacent �`�.� ro ert qwners, and p p y proposed improvements, Blanning explained that it �` was extremely difficult to determine boudaries and adjacent property owners � ' and to notify these individuals. Furthermore, a reclamation plan was ? � ,.,.1 tj required, to be approved by the Building Inspector. Blanning felt the � .� Building Inspector was not qualified Co review these, and questioned what ; �� standards would apply. Most small miners do not have the funds to reclaim a site � '.� anyway. Blanning did, however, support the Building Department as the appropriate i � � i teview and approval agency as he felt the Board would only serve to encumber r� F the process. . � '?'�" Commisaioner�s Meeting 28 September, 1981 - 5 �x-�°��r,'-Y," ' ��;`-.w r,-_,'v;� �'`-� `,� ; �; , i ,,��< ��a , K ',: : . �� 1 r-!w, �A;��7 +c . � . .. �... ._.. .... � .� . .•r,-2F� �� .: s i '4 7 T k- : ' -� �v:v.ser.�. �._,......�.;.,L;:.nv�v.e.,..�._ �ri:.w�i.._��..c,.�.a.�kt:.!'Fi.�....,�::lrc:.Sr�.u.:..w...._...�•,��i:,t'S�G-a�_'��.:axr5i�.�L:: {t K��Sn1� ��: f� n �+ r6j��y•� .. ,'' li�' �ri �': Finally, Blanning noted that a permit, if granted, would be null and void E` ='' if the proposed operations are not cotmnenced within ninety (90) days.of issuance. Slanning explained that the permit procedure is a lengthy one, that often x i� requires the soliciting of private funding. Ninety (90) days was considered insufficient in which to accomplish this, and he suggested an extension to "� a minimum of one hundred and ei ht (180) da s. He also - g Y y protested the ability i of the Building Inspector to enter the premises of a site at any time; Blann3ng • did not want anyone to enter his property at whim and suggested that the ( • i Building Inspector be required to make an appointment with him prior to j i. � inspecting a site. � ' There was some discussion as to whether a minimum expenditure on any �, i � particular prospecting activity should precipitate the need for a permit. ' x � i Blanning had suggested perhaps five hundred dollats ($500), beyond which a � i�, permit would be required. It was noted, however, that a five thousand dollar g. ($5,000) activity could have very minor impacts too, and that a five hundred � �e. i.� dollar ($500) activity cou2d result in a huge pit. Environmental Coordinator - �-....'v� - ��`I Mark Fuller suggested that the need for a permit become mandatory'based upon i � a specific square footage of disturbed land. Such a system is required by the � �! " State, where a notice of intent is needed if more than one thousand, six hundred �: (1,600) square feet of land is disturbed. Fuller also was willing to amend the f bonding requirement regarding reclamation; he suggested that, in the event } � a bond is required by another agency or surface ownet, which is identical to � �; Pthat required by Pitkin County, the County bond requirement could be waived. There was some discussion as to whether there should be a time limit on a Fa permit; although the prospecting season is fairly short in this area, i it was noted that federal regulations only require a prospector to renew a � � � permit on a yearly basis. Fuller caas agreeable to an amendment eliminating the � one hundred and eighty (180) day requirement; prospectors who do not commence � operations would renew their permits yearly. Madsen explained the intent of the permit procedure. The Board is interested in knowing of prospecting/mining activities within Pitkin County, the potential ' � � affecis of any operation, and assess the potential costs to the Co�nty. The � proposed amendment establishing a prospecting procedure was i,nCended to accomplish ; these � � goals. It was noted that the Forest Service provides some of this information t i i i , on a voluntary basis,and that tE�e Board has a right to comment un these � r activities ;and request any information. The Forest Service,:.however, can noC deny , an application. 1 47 Commissioner's Meeting 28 September, 1981 - 6 ' ��;.i<;.,;H.rq� . � ._,�r:-.,1.. ,.y.:9 �.. ..,'',��^:?'„_� `.r'<1•.,. i L ;.� ''lo_,.. __ . . { ' S x.A'� )_ - 4,:) k ..�'�'�etKa.�-��.�a«. 'e.-.....c._..> c a . it: . !7 ._.-.t.:�:�;i'.t:�� . .__.. . .� ,__...z.;w ..e.wriMM�iYi4. i,?t�r�.i...i.�..,�Gs.,L�:.eE:�x:�ix,:,_..2:�x ',�.u..:��st4'a'� i }� ��i�ntti� t� �pQ; i �<'�ti.'•. 1,'� ��.�:V.ic��•� . - �L1 . 6J Stefan A].bouy felt there were very few prospectors in the County and R`J jprotested the procedure. Ae felt the proposed permit process was precipitated i by a few large energy companies whose operations could very well result in significant environmental damage, and submitted a petition to the record 1 asking that the Soard reconsider the issue. Albouy also protested the fee ; _ =� schedule. ! Klanderud asked for additional comments; there being none, the hearing was closed. � Klanderud was reluctant to adopt a procedure that would duplicate State and federal regulations, and noted that Blanning raised several valid issues that y � require further cons3deration. K2anderud explained that the Board did not want �� to interfere with the operations of the small prospectors, rather, establish � a simple, cooperative procedure whereby the Board would be alerted as to � �' the various prospecting/mining activities in the County. � Blake then moved to table the matter, Madsen seconded and the motion passed � � unanimously, � � . ----': ---�------ �� '��. Board The Board convened as the Board of Health for the quarterly meeting. Ann of � . Health Knowlton and $udge Singham discussed the formation of a new organization, 6; �? Community Health Services, Inc., the purpose of which is to promote the i � health and well being oE residents of Pitkin County by operating a public �. ,� health nursing service. The various services included communicable diseases, i; maternal health, family health, home health, adult health and child and school � health. During the first six (6) months of 1981, contacts in each of these areas, respectively, were as follows; one hundred and seventy-nine (179), six hundred �� and seventeen (617), seven hundred and seventy-six (776), six hundred and ninety- ' ,� one (691), six hundred and nine (609) and one thousand, one hundred and sixty- f: eight (1,168). The 1982 budget was estimated at one hundred and ninety-two thousand dollars ($192,OOQ), seventy-five percent (75Y) of which represents income �c � from fees, private insurance, Medicare and others. The organization will request that the City and the County contribute the remaining twenty-five � percent (25%). Bingham noted that this represents enly a nine percent (9%) increase � �� from last years request. The organization will work with the hospital, the � local medical community and the State Department of Health, in an effort to + continue local hea2th care services. r 1 Knowlton noted that the week of 4 - 11 October has been proclaimed as � i - health promotion week, and that various activities have been planned. Klanderud asked if Che Town of Snowmass Village has been approached regardfng funding . ;� Commissioner's Meeting 28 September, 1981 - 7 �`•�-..,,�..',y.� , � . }' . . ... '� . - __ _ � -.� s , c ��5��j F .,. ' �.•�,.Y.�; ': _ ----.•-� ._ . . __ ..__... . .. ., __ _._.._..� ..—_--__.__�._.�.____._�._____. E� ��„�rY . ��; f� �4j'4:>: ;`; r,;�:�::� lp:" C:Y%y.A�'.+.. :. p.} � Knowlton explained that the Town has not been approached as the local E�� population was considered to be very small. She did agree to keep records • in future on where the various people using these services reside. , ---------- ` , Public The Board continued the public hearing on the Cronin Associates Subdivision } Hearing . __ con�t: application. Colette Penne of the Planning Office submitted to the record " Cronin ' i ' Subdiv the Planning Office memo of 2S September, 1981, related survey information ' , i and the Land Use Code as amended. The appli�ant requests a residential ! lot split on a 2.977 acre parcel on Willoughby Way, to allow for a second ! ! � lot and residence. Referral Agency comments varied. The County Engineer � • suggested that the proposed building site on Lot ltao {2) be designated and � the access defined. The Sanitation District could not service the proposed subdivision as the main trunk line was more than four hundred (400) feet away i,� as required. The Aspen Water Department could make water available providing � the applicant re�ieve the pern�ission of an adjacent neighbor and agree to ;' o( #o _ maintain the service line. Holy Cross Electric could accomodate a power line -�f'( �. on the new lot providing a utility easement was granted. The Department ] � ` of Environmental Health expressed some coacern as to the suitability of Lot ltao (2) � 4 ;� fox an on-site sewage disposal system. The site would require such an analysis and should consider soil conditions, percolation rates, site slope, Salvation Ditch status, maintenance and others, If Lot 'Itvo (2) was determined to be � unsuitable, the applicant could consider using Lot One (1), subject'�.to Che � same criteria, with further consideration given to the situation of the fish ` ponds. a.. ' The Planning Office reviewed the application and expressed some concern as to the positioning of an on-site septic system. The applicant should cooperate with the Department of Environmental Health in this regard, as there are � two (2) itrigation ditches and slope constraints on the lot, thus requiring siLe specific engineering and geologic consideration. The Salvation Ditch runs � • along the top of the lot whereas the Duroux Ditch runs through the middle of the property, although geologist Nick Lampiris feels the site is buildable. Penne � also noted that several adjacent landowners have opposed the subdivision, .� i some of whom feel the subdivision would alter the character of the neighborhood, The houses on Willoughby Way have very sizeable setbacks and large ponds � � which serve to maintain a low density and a pristine environment. The subject - � ' lot, however, is heavily wooded such so that the new residence would be fully j �:: hidden from view for several months of the year. Cortq�issioner's Meeting 28 September, 1981 - 8 �.e-.•�.,._„i , `';��':'�;i�: ;?;.�'� � � . '�•+ i -- _ ,��. „��.�... �, , � i � `'�j . , � :: . � . ,. : �_.�,;�.,_._ _�__--._,�..,.._.....__.�..__ ., . _ ._... - ... . _�...._,�.,..��: �_�,��....�..._.«.�_..�. ,. fI . _ __.._. �`�� r,�. �•�,a.,.�:;°� f; ,4 .. t a��%'j�,::,. t; r:5f<'.-:... C� � � The Planning Office, then, recommended approval subject to four (4) conditions: ' detailed foundation investigations recomnended by Nick Lampiris be conducted to determine geologic stability; that the sir_e search procedure required by �. Environmental Health be completed and a suitable on-site septic system be � instituted; that arrangements for water be made either by tapping into the � � [dilloughby Way Line or a common service line with adjacent neighbor Thomas - � i that includes a maintenance commitment; and that deed restrictions or covenants ! j against further development be recorded with the final plat, limiting this � � site to two (2) lots and two (2) units. Penne explained that the Plann3ng Office i � recommendation of approval was not that forceful, and noted that neighborhood � . character should be considered by the Board as an important factor. i' I, Klanderud then opened the hearing for public coimnent. Bob Nelson o£ Environmental Health has conducted site evaluation and percolation tests on two (2) sites i' � i (�s, to determine if either could accomodate a septic system. Ground water was � i� � encountered on both sites, although it was much deeper on the lower one. I' . � i. � Percolation tests were accomplished, the results of which were acceptable. �• �. �'IriS Although some test results have not been finalized, Nelson felt the proposed I #u 1 � � subdivision could accomodate an engineered, on-site septic system for the new i [: ;i residence, most likely on the lower lot. I Jack Cronin Jr, representing the applicant, noted that a letter from Yvonne i Thomas opposing the subdivision has been reconsidered. Thomas apparently has since spoken with Cronin's father and advised him that she would support �k 8� the subject subdivision. Cronin was not able to submit a letter to this effect, � ; ' however, he did submit to the record a letter of support, in favor of the • Cronin lot split, signed by thirteen (13) Willoughby Way residents. Nick McGrath was representing Pat and Jean Westfeldt, owners of a 5.25 acre parcel ad�acent to the Cronin property. McGrath submitted to the record � his letters of 21 July and 23 September, 1981, the Patrick Westfeldt letter of 17 .Tuly, 1981, and the Jean Westfeldt letter of October, 1979. McGrath explained that the Westfeldts opposed the Cronin subdivision for various reasons. The lot � split procedure was felt to be inapplicable in this instance as such is permitted - � only if the division is part of an ongoing agricultural operation or if the � parcel creates two (2) single family lots resulting in not more than fifty percent x � I (SO%) of the density permitted under current zoning. McGrath did not feel that the Cronin application pertained to the lot split procedure, as neither � � i i of these e�cceptions were applicable. Further, the opponents felt the character of the area would be harmed by a lot split; the four (4) homes � Commissioner's Meeting 28 September, 1981 - 9 . ��w�'t� s'�"� � , ,<,, _-;�<:�j �, ! S ' ` �L t�.y� . . E� ��$�r@°"ss^��.�':ti;f.r.t�'.��'�R:.�... ..i.;..�.,..,.._..ia'_ :,......_... .�e<....,..:��w:a�ii%`.:c.`.S'�s��.«.R+:..:.�e.�:s�_�".s�..�.>..;�rt:..��;c'•,:� �� !i ��h�xr�'1�-:- f �r_�f::.., �,�y: �}F- i%Yt�.�.. C i� k on the northerly side of the road are situated on large lot sites which contain four (4) large ponds. The homea themselves have been in existence since the 1950's. The opponents felt that further division of these large parcels ' i would definitely take away from the natural and pristine beauty and character of the area. _ -� � McGrath also noted that the lot split would be inconsistent with precedent, M � d both past and future. A study of past lot splits within the last several years � � i revealed that all such splits, with the exception of one (1), occurred in � very rural areas of the County. The one (1) exception was situated across from the j f Plum Tree on a large 9.9 acre parcel; the resulting parcels each approximated . ��' ' five (5) acres in size. There is then, nothing in the history of lot splits to +I 1 support the Cronin application and furthermore, if it was allowed, these first i• � £our (4) lots on Willoughby Way could potentially accomodate thirteen (13) I � iot spi�cs. i �� The major consideration of the Westfeldts, however, involved the suitability 1" 1. • �- of the site for a septic system. There are two (2) septic systems on the Cronin '' i ' �f lot serving the existing house that are deficient by County standards. There is ; � , a great deal oP ground water in the area, as shown by the four (4) ponds, the y; 5 4 Duroux Ditch that crosses the property, and the Salvation Ditch at the northerly �' end of these lot's. This latter structure is not lined and visibly leaks at various � times of the year. The Westfeldts are concerned.,that water would seep through the � various leach fields on the Cronin property, and contaminate the Westfeldt well. � � A test this summer reflected a high level of coliform bacteria in the Westfeldt well, although this has not been directly attributed to the Cronin septic system. � The Department of Environmental Health can not however verif that the , . Y � Cronin septic system is not the source of this contamination. McGrath suggested then, that further development on the Cronin property be halted pending a � ,�, thorough and conclusive investigation as to the appropriateness of a septic � system for the site. The tdestfeldts, at their own expense, placed both of their ' homes on the Aspen sewer system a number of years ago so as not to contaminate j ? i ' any of the ponds or property in the area. The Westfeldts felt that the Cronins ; � i should do likewise. � ! i McGrath noted that County staff originally recoimnended denial of this � � subdivision appl3cation for various reasons, although the recommendation now � i before the Board is one of approval subject to conditions. The application i � should not be approved, however, until such a time as an adequate disposal � system can be devised and McGrath was convinced that the only means w i � - � Commissioner's Meeting 28 September, 1981 — LO , .y:�.z•�,,`,;u r - y::'� ''� _____,� __ s� .__::F . � � . ._y. I ` �-+��.�;� K •'�,��.wn�ii_,..__,.._. �._......� ..�..._<..,__ . ....._�. _...... .. ..._..... --__. ..r......,..,_.c.....�-.�.�....,,,,..o_,.,._yM.........,.�...,.,....•,... .. , �� . . . .. . . . . IAi��* 1'.' ...c : I.:;�-:=�..:. � M1f,�,,.> e��:�:° �� ;"""._ _ +'i e-'i � �: by which to accomplish this was a tap onto the Aspen Metro Sewer District t:f� line. Furthermore, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation of approval should be disregarded as neither McGrath nor his clients were �� notified of the P&2 meeting. As a result, the Planning and Zoning Commission €:� did not benefit from McGrath's testimony; they did not consider, for instance, the lot split history in Pitkin County nor the potential for other lot splits on Willoughby Way which may result in over development. In conclusion, then, the Westfeldts request that the Board detty the Cronin request for a lot split or, at the very least, condition it upon the demonstration that the existing " Cronin residence and the proposed residence will be attached to the Aspen �fi , �. Metropolitan Sanitation District sewer system. � Nelson e�cplained that most of the tests he has performed have reflected acceptable results. He has not completed amnonia, phosphate or boron tests, �. but he did note that coliform bacteria counts were insignificant. McGrath ' � asked if the Salvation Ditch was full at the time of testing. Nelson did not � �_ know, and further noted that the Cronin residence was most likely unoccupied �- y "�rc at the time of testing. McGrath asked when one could expect high seasonal ground i � � water in the area. Nelson explained that this occurred usually in Sune or July. . � I: �`•, McGrath asked when Nelson performed the tests. Nelson indicated that this was accomplished only last Monday. � � I McGrath argued that all of these factors, the timing of the tests, whether ;: they were performed during high seasonal ground water, and at a time when the � � residence was occupied, were critical when considering the ability of the � - Cronin site to accomodate an individual sewage disposal system. The Cronin f � property should not be further developed until such.a time as this issue r can be resolved. Cronin explained that the applicant has investigated a means by which the � Aspen Metro Sanitation District could accomodate the Cronin property. Heiko ?' Kuhn of the district has advised Cronin, however, that this can not be accomplished. ` 1 Kuhn also alleged that the [destfeldts may have hooked onto the Sanitation District sewer line illegally. � I i McGrath maintained that his clients paid all appropriate hook-up fees } and hooked onto the sewer system in a legal manner. He did note that under the lot split procedure, adjacent property owners are not notified until such a time i � as a public hearing has been set. Neighbors do not have the opportunity, then, � i i to appear before the Planning and Zoning Co�ission and discuss their concerns � j. on the issue. ; ;� Commiasioner�s meeting 28 September, 1981 - 11 - - .R.�,,..-.�`� � , . . ^lFi�t,��^��`� !��''- �. . . . �j '� ;� � ��:! ;:.y • t �_, t,, ,• ,�� p , ., <<-•.�. tiry . . {t �4.�x:.,';^��,•.,ri.?.r�c_{i.r c _- .... . ��• . �w...�_. ..._....,_. ..c..:�an......�.vv:��.sa;...a wu<_�:�.::rna...�=uzo:.-sau�.,..,.. i . ...._ ...,:�t:..s t�..Y . . '_" 4��t�;.. Snn ;.'i.t � �� `��.. �,��f.�'�. . ty`r� �:i. t'� �3i>i .;f;, Cronin explained that he shared the Westfeldts concerns regarding the _:;ri � . �� ' �� character of the neighborhood. He has been coming to Aspen since 194fi and �,J ,� , i��, does not want to alter this character either. The proposed residence would not serve to change this; the site is heavily wooded and can accomodate an engineered n sewage dispoal system. • "s�1 _ -= Nick Lampiris supported the Cronin applicaton. He felt that the Salvation � Ditch along the Cronin property was unusually sound, noting that seepage from the structure was normal. This seepage, however, does not contribute to the .'" true ground water table, rather, it reflects an artificial table that should grt be considered when devisiag an engineered septic system. � d'`:: i � � Pat Westfeldt explained that he had walked the Salvation Ditch with Cronin Sr, i ,� ; this swmner and observed significant leakage on the Thomas, Cronin and Westfeldt ��,` properties. The berm along the ditch leaks like a sieve, and he cautioned that I`•'` � '�� one not underestimate the quantity of water leaking from this structure. He •' u,. E �.,: �z; � * also disputed the applicants claim that the proposed residence would not be � �s t visible from an adjacent neighbor; the Cronin residence is v3sible from � �%'...�' , # = the 47estfeldt livingroom as is the site o£ the proposed residence. .7Ean � ;� � 1 _F;; WestPeldt noted that her property was flooded this summer and attributed this � ��;?� in part to the Salvation Ditch. i;F: Klanderud asked for additional comments; there being none, the hearing was closed. �e Blake felt that McGrath raised some valid issues in relation to the ; ? � �x proposed lot split, particularly the history of Iot splits within the Coanty. He suggested that perhaps the matter be considered in relation to the Land . � :=2' Use Code. Sandra Stuller explained that the character of the neighborhood � Y � Y?a was not a relevant issue and that one should consider the application only :�) in relation to the terms of the Code. She also explained that the Planning and �}; Zoning Co�nission aonducts public hearings on only certain types of ��' applications, not including lot splits,. and that their recouvnendation � should not be wholly disregarded. Pentte explained that the Planning and Zoning � �'�, Commission will again review the Cronin application at the detailed submission � � stage. � _% Klandervd then moved to remand the Cronin Associates Subdivision application . � N to the Planning and Zontng Commission for recons3deration. Madsen seconded � �I � 1 ! and the motion passed with opposition from BSake. Nelson urged that the applicank � � i 1 continue to pursue a sewer connecLion with the Aspen Metro Sanitation District. { � � i i , ' . �T �-;.=� Commissioner�s Meeting 28 September, 1981 - 12 ��'�:-"�"g'-.�!`� ' ��'�,..;: �`�" �� .:._._.i . .... .,�..,..,___.�..� ... ..�.,.....� i'- c . ..a . f �y`'t,a+ h _?� }I. •,�,y�`;G��P�3'�!.h`:ii�i�nrlil'�.Ei'�.'�!�F..:._.wt.�.�.Y.:1=.:�1!' . .�.�. .�._ �.f.ne�.....�r.:s�at[Nr��iw�.��af�w:.a.a.0 eS��..xi..�:S�iw.:.s�v.u�i�.�. • �'yk'�tr : �J ��h�.:�:r.:�.� �} �y.:::: � itw FF . �`( b"'i7i:�.� . N � � Council Mona Frost of the Council on Aging submitted five (5) applications for i �'j on � Aging the three (3) alternate positions available on the Council.Board. They included , Roy Lewis, Theresa Carroll, Henry Sussman, Ruth Presby and Pearl Kamm. j Frost thought that all applicants were qualified for the position and j � asked that, whichever two (2) applicants were not chosen for the alternate {' I positions be appointed to the Council as members. i � Madsen moved to appoint Lewis, Carroll and Presby to the three (3) alternate � . i positions on the Council On Aging Board, and to appoint Kamm and Sussman as j € members of the Council. Slake seconded and the motion passed unanimously. r � • McEuen Colette Penne introduced the McEuen Subdivision Exemption. The applicant �' Subdiv Exempt requests exemption from the definition of subdivision on a 1.5 acre parcel with an existing single-family dwelling across from the Elk Mountain Lodge � along Castle Creek Road. The house and land was purchased in September, 1980, � �i under the assumption that Castle Creek Road served as a subdivider and made � the parcel non-contiguous to the Elk Mountain Lodge parcel, of which it was �� l.- ��' i � originally a part. The County Attorney, however, has indicated that the 1 # subject parcel was contiguous and therefore the sale constituted an illegal � f f " subdivisian of the property. The Planning Office reviewed the application, noting that the fathering parcel is fully developed and that the applicant will plat the 1.5 acre parcel, ± thus legitimizing its use. The Planning Office recommended approval of the � � subdivision exemption subject to the applicant recording a plat so as to '' ' prevent a merger of the parcels and preclude the creation of any new rC � ' � development rights. Herb Klein, representing the applicant, explained how he thought the Castle Creek Road served to subdivide this parcel, and explained that the applicant � . has no other recourse available other than the exemption now before the Roard. : � Sandra Stuller noted that the issue of a road serving as a subdivider 1 f is clearly e�cplained in the Land Use Code; that is does not serve to subdivide � a parcel has been affirmed on several occasions, includ3ng a Snpreme Court ruling. � ; Blake then moved approval of the McEuen Subdivision Exemption conditioned upc,n � the recording of a plat. Madsen seconded and the rootion passed unanimously. Mountain County Engineer Pat Dobie discussed the road plan for Mountain Valley, Filing � ' Valley � Filing Three (3). A previous Board entered into an agreement whereby once the Three t? Road Mountain Valley Improvement District was formed, the County would agree to Plan • � Commisaioner's Meeting 28 September, 1981 - 13 ,�`,'-:}�:�� _m ___.___.. ,, � ;; .`� ' '�'�;r=1 . , � ,.:..:..:_,:.�:.; � 1''�y!'4@+41�._ ...�:.:��..�.._a�.�..�......�.i-�a_� c1 --..�»..�.::.-._....,. .._ ..r- :.�:.�%i� ,:. �•..,..�i.:+l.:�a1:4.'ir�l..�........�k:SK..�....i'�•��..w�r.if�`ia ij• . ._ . . �.. ..�it.��tYi.4!ti�w1: �� j��tY�S �i; �;�p'4 �'.�� i:i[-��i4:�'�. �.V� ��` snowplow the roads in the third filing providing the residents improve - t�+ �� their roads, at their own expense, and satisfy the requirements for County i �' standards. At the time the Mountain Valley Improvement District was formed, the third filing was excluded as the residents did not feel thaY the �; i ' general improvements would benefit them and they did not want to pay the . t additional mill levy. k � ' The County has heen plowing these roads for the past several years, although the ' 3 improvemenGS were never completed and substantial additional work remains. The residents still desire to improve the roads, which involves some widening ,. of the switch back curve, tree thinning, asphalting, sealing, and the removal of � a section of guard rail to facilitate snow removal. The County could agree to `� accomplish the curve and ditch work sometime next summer, and provide an estimate of the labor cost prior to construction. A committee would be �; established, representing the residents, and this co�ittee would be responsible for collecting a proportionate cost from each property owner and remit to the � 1�t County. Upon completion, the third filing would be fully integrated into the � �. ��'�� County road system and the County would then assume full control and maintenance. 5 ��. F� If the Board was agreeable to the above, then Dobie would schedule the improvements '� F� �� Ee � fs' for the spring/su�er of 1982 and draw up a contract so that the residents � q would assume financial responsibility for the project. r The Board generally agreed that Dobie should proceed as described above. �� , `; �, Housing Klanderud discussed the formation of a Housing Authority, an independent � Task Force group that could perhaps assume the various duties of the housing offices qi now functioning in the City, County and Town of Snowmass Village, as well as Q � �; other private organizations. Klanderud proposed the formation of a task force towards this end. ;. Madsen agreed, and suggested that the Board coordinate this with the City. . • �r Harry Truscott felt the City would be supportive of a task force as the t: City Manager has already indicated so. He felt such a task force could be organized by the first of the year; the task force would be advisory in ` 1 nature, and would ultimately provide a recortunendation as to the fotmation � i of a Housing Authority. Housing Director Jim Hamilton supported the proposal, although he felt � � � the Board should remain involved in the process. Truscott assembled the ! r functions, by-laws and a budget for the proposal, and suggested that it include individuals representing development, management, finance and an f � Commiasioner�s Meeting 28 September, 1981 - 14 - •�.t.i,:,�',e:��k� ' �� . '-2�`?'44'.:i!iL�.� �-: . :.1�: ••� . �� _ _ ��. �� . � � ' � ,.t<._ �- ,�: �i � ,� i.'I,� r M w'�G.�7J�s�3F�..�`.i,'.;�*L?;'i�_".L:,{�.''.�.��,..a,Lr..r,,.i.�._. !' ,......�r_...._J_.:»:lS...u.:4�:,��:!'Gd:..+t�:i�t31al.:w�?�....�c.'�.'oti.'��"�ii TA'i�ii.�`t^:.ttw*;%Q "' � k4 �1 IF� r . F1 l 41 `3��A..:�. ri ii 4::.... . ��1 :t':� �., attorney. Madsen suggested that the task force also include an elected official. Soe Nazzaro felt the proposed task force should also include an individual � representative of those who would be residing in housing provided by the 4: �. Authority. �, ; Blake supported the proposal but expressed some concern wfth the financial � _. r implications of the proposal. Truscott explained that every project would �� - � + require Planning and Zoning Commission review and subsequent Board approval. ' � The Board must also approve the budget for the Authority, which was estimated r at eighty thousand dollars ($80,000) for the first year, to be assumed equally � ` by the City and County. �� • Madsen then moved to form a Housing Authority Task Force, and to direct �` " Hamilton to coordinate this effort with the City. Blake seconded and the � � motion passed unanimously, i �j --------- � �9 Basalt Acting Town Manager Ann Coble discussed the Basalt Masterplan, and expressed i� .�� Master- 1_ ` plan her appreciation for the participation of Child and Madsen.in the process. �'' ��'�� Town Planner .7im Ragsdale presented various drawings of the masterplan, noting hat s e meetin s were held s � I � �� t ev ral g o as to solicit local interest in the plan, including a public forum sometime in July. Some revisions were made subsequent to the Basalt Trustees change in position on the by-pass. The Masterplan basically would focus development in the downtown areas � . x and encourage such growth only in areas contiguous to the existing town F'� � • limits. Areas below six thousand, eight hundred (6,800) feet can easily be accomodated by existing sewer and water lines, and it was here that most ' of the growth was expected to occur. The population of Basalt, currently . - i� seven hundred and thirty (730), was projected to increase to two thousand (2,000) once full build out has been achieved. The Masterplan did account � + for an ultimate population of six thousand (6,000), at which point the { ;� town limits would extend east to Wingo Junction and include most areas j 1 south of town, although it was not felt that this would be realized in the ; � . near future. The Town has encouraged more of a planned unit development s' r � i approach, and estimated the average density at approximately five (5) units �, , per acre. ; � The land use concept plan specifies the various zoning areas and reflects ? . � those areas with the potential for annexation. These included those regions i i i ' immediately west and south of the town, with the largest parcels lying east � of Basalt in Pitkin County. The town concepts plan defines the commercial � f Commissioner's Meeting 28 September, 1981 - 15 i �''":' �;r'a-'� f `� 1 � . _____._. , . t' ' I �'1'`'�� ,,1 �..;_�'a-:v?hl.,,.,...�.,,.��.—_........a:_:uit.i:.i�z�v.. .:.•,.....:, .-:. �re.. "�.�._.:::...<:.>�,�,::c.�m..:.�ui6�AiJ'.�t'ie'`.�v��d►.��.:,..`.`.�±`s�_.:,..�h:C2r�:t.r.`ti��-.�r.�`�..�`i�7511�11::4nF� t�� ! f� ��i';'';';.�- i; �KSS; '� ' Li`'�'"-' .i i:,. C_f • areas and designates various green apaces and open areas. The downtown �^' E,,; design would include pedestrian circulation, traffic patterns and the �� `? commercial core. � l Coble asked that the Board support the planning e£fo=ts of Sasalt. Once � the Sasalt Trustees apprwe the Masterplan, it will come back before the Board � I for a final review. � i —__---_—_— � . t Public Sim Crowley discussed the Crowley Estate Subdivision, explaining that it j _ Comment i was an estate subdivision consisting only of his fathers heirs. Crowley � £elt that the Planning Office reaction to the subdivision was very negative, ��, and that it has taken two (2) years to resolve the matter. The subdivision j 1 was finally approved on 24 August, 1981, subject to a recreation easement � 1 � and a park dedication fee. Crowley protested both of these conditions, � noting that he already provides a community building, a fire department � and a location for County fuel tanks. He also felt there was no need for a �� park in Thomasville. As the subject subdivision was felt to be unique, �'� ��,' he asked that the Board reverse their dectsion and approve the subdivision � � � unconditionally. f Madsen recalled .that the park dedication fee was an absolute requirement of the Code, so that the Board could not he flexible in the matter. Crowley particularly protested the fishermans easement. He does allow I people to fish along his p=operty providing they ask his permission be£orehand, •�� t - but he was concerned that the easement might result in the loss of his t .-` � river rights. � . � Blake suggested thaC the Board discuss the matter with Kinsley and Child, a. s ! � as they are �ore familiar with :the Crowley subdivision. Curt Stewart noted j 3 that the Board was considering convening a town meeting in Meredith sometime ! within the next month, and suggested that Crowley discuss the matter then. `� ? ! i}: � Klanderud agreed to call Crowley by the 13th of October and advise him � i � i of the status of his request. � F i ? I� _��_�__� j j �' S E I There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. ' t I i ---------- � f I i � i . I j I � Commissioner's Meeting 28 September, 1981 - 16 r �..,,,�:s. ��:•�� . } ;�,<e„�.Ar .�-...,k.�5,)'.i..� `:,., ,:~�� 7 ri'�� _ i:.`^��r<y}:1 .. . - - � . ``��y.'�"� �y�'.� .:� ^vr�ry ��}�� 1",Y(� �� Y IF .J_«�.- iJyC�?�a_i�rf`��{�µa;�ta�� £M[,; ' ..4�-v. .ti�"�' .�'{".. . �� ....�.._...��. : ��.'M.dR'/��.��Wi..�.,+r.rl.u�^Ilv�Sl.ir.._.Y&1.wuL..Ey."u.�L��E"'.�t '��' . �'�,,.��t�� .. ,1 � . .- ' . . . . . . . � b`q .. fa ��` �� . . I...Y.r ' . . . . . . . . '.. i , P c Respectfully Submitted: A PROVED• I / � Dep ty County Clerk Robert W Child, Chairman + I _ . i . � � � . . . - . .. .. , . ....i.. . _ . . . � .. � . � . ...�. . i. � . � � � � . . . . . . .1. �'�'.t .- � . . � . - . . � - � . � . .�. . _:#.. . � . . . � . . � �. .. . . �.:� { � � � . . . . � . . - . ._ . . . . . �� . i� . . ��: . . . . , . . . . . - � � � . . � . .� � �'`. . . . � ' � .� . � � � { r �`-`:; � '' Commiesioner�s Meeting 28 September, 1981 — 17 � ��.�i'.�R^� . . .. . ._.. . , . . . . . .. h� '�f-f T�°,"1�'� 1981 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING EXHIBITS Se tember 28 Pros ectin Permit A Petition in O osition of Pros ectin Permit Cronin Associations B Memorandum Dated September 28, 1981 from Colette Penne, Subdivision Lot S lit Planner,to Board of County Commissioners C Letter Dated September 15, 1981 fro Yvonne Thomas to Bob Child D Letter of Su ort for Cronin A lication E 1 Letter Dated July 21, 1981 from Nicholas McGrath to Board of County Commissioners and other County Officials E 2 Letter Dated September 23, 1981 from Nicholas McGrath to Board of County Commissioners F 1 Letter Dated July 17, 1981 from Patrick W. Westfield to Board of County Commissioners F 2 Letter Dated October, 1979 from Jean Westfield to Board of County Commissioners (', Mailgram Dated September 24, 1981 from Goodrich Operating J.C. �� : � �. € ' , ,,. = , � �.. «- ,, �•.. , °` .. t ;� , �... :. 29 . ._ r�r�i __ _ � .�_�...�.� . Ir!e, t;he undersigned, feel that the proposed permit for prospecting is both unnecessary and will result o::';� in yet more government regulation of business, something that the maj��rity of the citizens of this country are saying loud and clear that they want stoped. The code already provides for special reviev: when there is enough activity 1.0 create an impact, either visual or ��£ heavy traffic. We therefore urge you as our public servants to reconsider ar:d dror� any plans for a permit for prospect:;.ng in Pitkin County. NAN� MAII� AT:)RESS OCCUPATION , -� - �, � � �� K��C ,�s7 _ = �o�� _ ��,.. � .---..__:.�.___._ _ . _ _ ` ,�r lt�s�z� .�lu�, - � V�ss��,�� . �.. je o 3 ` YI G „ �- �. o� � ��1 a �? /�G�,� -1��,��-.�/� , � i / - qv.-�� _ � �--�� t ; -�..w._E.-✓� r U�Lti. °d-�.� .S ��. ° _ � I � I L�•f:FiD OF C0. CC::[::'R',^, PITItIN C0. Publi , nnte �HIBIT • SuU3- � /! TIVITY £zh, _f� . � . � . i i � � . _ .. . - i 1 i i ' I , �e, the undersigned, feel that the proposed permit for prospecting is both unnecessary and will result only in yet more government regulation of business, something that the majority of the citizens of this country are saying loud.and clear that they want stoped. The code � already provides for special review when there is enough activity to create an impact, either visual or of heavy traffic. . I;, , We therefore urge gou as our public servants to reconsider and drop j; any plans �or a permit for prospecting in Pitkin County. NAME MAIL ADDRESS OCCUPATION � J /inti Sma R� lQotc 7�'Fq IQ s�riu('��o o,c�i �%NlN�P _�ic�u� �!'•/'! �c i -7/,c � J � �Y1-A�.� ./ �L� li.�e..�_ ,�Clcty�rrfq.. i � p ^F �/� i °T �k�1l�l� 1 Ro x 7 9'4 C/«,�-✓�n��it .,/ �i�ii R flsd�ei�'yy�6 i V � � , i I � � 1 � � . , t . ! I . � • bonxn or co. coaarx�x�s , . . •- PITKI2t C0. Publ MEMORANDUM . EXHIBIT D4tie � B Sub�� T0: Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County FYr,. � FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office � RE: Cronin Associates - Subdivi.sion (Lot Split� ' . DATE: September 28, 1981 Zcning: R-30 Lot Size: 2.977 acres Location: A part of the Brown Placer, U.S. Mineral Survey No. 15047, lying in the NNJ 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M. (Just off Red Mountain Road on Willoughby Way). Applicant's Subdivision approval (residential lot split) for a second lot Request: and residence. . , Agency • Comments: County Engineer ' "I think it would be helpful•if the propased building site on Lot 2 were designated and the access •defined. I agree with the geologist's recormnendations that the Salvation Ditch be avoided and similarly the status of the Duroux Ditch should be determined and avoided if found active." "I recommend that road right-of-way for Wil7oughby Way 30 feet � iJorth of the centerline be dedicated if it intersects this property." Sanitation Distric+. • ! "Aspen Ptetropolitan Sanitation District cannot service this � proposed subdivision as the main trunk line is much more than � 400 feet away as required," � Aspen Water Department � ' "I have revie�rred th.is A�plscation for Lot Split dnd noi:e that � the Application states that City water would be available. Thz existing residence located on Parcel �l receives its water � through a private service line which crosses property owned � by Mrs. Yvonne Thomas. tdot knowing the particulars of this situation, I am assuming that Mr. Cronin and Mrs. Thomas share a cottmwn private service, which is connected to the City of ' Aspen water main located in the Red Mountain Road. A city • water main has been installed in 6ailloughby Way, from r�hich Parcel �2 could receive access. • Therefore, the Water Department would make water available to ' Parcel #2 either through tapping into the new main or conditioned upon receipt of a written agreement stating ti�at: (1) Parcel #2 has the mutuat permission of h1rs. Thomas and Mr. Cronin to share in a comnon service line, and ' . (2) Mrs. thomas and Mr. Cronin have•an agreement between • , them to mutually maintain their common private service line." ' . • Holy Cross Electric "In response to the application submitted to your Planning � Cortmiission by Cronin Associates, Holy Cross Electric Associa- tion may have existing power lines across the referred-to • property. We would request that a 20 foot utiiity easement ' • ' � Memo: Cronin Associates - Subdivision (Lot Split) Page Two September 28, 1981 be indicated on the plat for the power line, taking into consideration that anchors and guy wires associated with the li.ne may be placed outside of said easement." � Colorado Geologic Survey i "If the detailed faundation investigations recorronended by �; . � Nick Lampiris are conducted we have no ojbection to this application." Environmental Nealth Department . i � "This Office has reviewed the proposed water supply and , on-site sewage disposal systems for compliance with the Pitkin County Land Use Code and applicable State and County regu7ations gnverning�these insta7lations, Water is �roposed to be supplied from the City of Aspen Water � System. This is an acceptable means of ineeting with the ' Land Use Code requirements. •This application indicates that there are two existing septic systems on the property. The proposa] is to use one of the two systems on Parcel 2. This is unacceptable. P9tkin County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations require that the minimum septic tank capacity for a single-family residence • be 750 gallons for a two-bedroom house, 1000 gallons for a three-bedroom, and 1250 gallons for a four-bedroom. The two . . existing 500-gallon tanks and septi.c system is only large enough to serve the existing house and should not be modified. Therefore, additional on-site sewage disposal capacity, beyond•that currently serving the residence on Parcet l, shou7d be designed and constructed to serve Parcel 2. First, Parcel Z should be analyzed to determine its suita- bility for an on-site system. Such analysis should consider � • soi] conditions, percolation rates; site slope, Ditch status, maintenance of Ditch integrity, etc., all in conformance with applicable regulations. • If, after analysis, Parcel 2 does not yieid an acceptable on-site location, then the search should move to Parcel 1 for a location to serve Parcel 2. There, the analysis should also consider proximity to the existing fish pond and Parce] 7's on-site system, as well as those criteria men- tioned above. Further, appropriate legal documents and easements between Parceis 1 and 2 wouid be necessary. It wot�ld also be opportune to provide for Parcel 1's residence to tie into a common line with Parcel 2, should that become desirable in the future. This Department recommends approval of this Application, provided the above site search procedure is followed and further conditioned upon the determination of a suitable . . on-site system location within the proposed Subdivision." Planning Office The pbsitioning of the on-site septic system is yet to be Review: determined, and the applicant must work with the Environmental Nealth Department to locate a suitab7e site within the proposed subdivision. With •the existing two irr�igation • ditches and slope constraints of the lot, site specific engineering and geologic consideration must be done in order • to determine suitable locations to build and service a residence. • ' This lot is impacted by an area of steep slopes, the Salvation Ditch along the top, and the Duroux Ditch through the middle of the property. Nick Lan�piris, consulting geolo- gist, has assured this office that it is a buildable site. Bob Nelson is in the process af several testing procedupes and � . � � f � Memo: Cronin Associates - Subdivision (Lot Sp1it) ,' Page 7hree September 28, 1981 will be in attendance at the 6eneral Submission Nearing to report on those. Water is now available because of the instaliation of a main in Willoughby Way, and the septic system will have to be on-site, if one can be implemented. ' . Opposition to this proposed sUbdivision has been voiced by � •several adjacent landowners. Reasons for the opposition encompass a range of problems, centering around the aiteration of neighborhood character. The two owners immediately adja- cent to the Cronin parcel both oppose further development. It is the Planning Office opinion that their opposition has ' some serious merit, in that the houses in this section of Willoughby Way have very sizeable.setbacks and large ponds . ' which are situated to maintain a.low density and pristine . environment. Ho�+�ever, we a]so recognize that the lot in . question is heavily wooded and the house could be virtually . hidden from view when trees are in fuii foliage. The access road may present more of a visua] impact. I•t would be inathematically possible for this parcel to contain 4 ]ots of over 30,000 square feet, so this•lot split would be an alternative that would result in not more than 50X of the • density.permitted under current zoning. This conclitior� is specified in Section 4-6(b) of the Land Use Code, to wit: "A 1ot split is defined as the division of a parcel of � land into two single-family lots where both parcels are restricted (by covenant or otherwisej against further development and the subdivision wi71 result in not more than 50X of the density permitted under current zoning:" In a letter from Nick McGrath, legal counsel for the • Westfeld's (adjacent property otimers), the point r�as made that the location of the pond and slope reductions on the site would not permit four lots of over 30,000 square feet, therefore this code provision does not apply in his opinion. It should be noted that any employee housing consideratians are waived as per Sec. 300.3 for lots formed by a lot split provided that the waiver is granted only once. This lot spli.t is also exempted from growth management requirements by Sec. 5-510.2(c) which aliows "the construction of a single-family home on a lot formed by a lot split" as defined in Section 4-6. ' • P & Z Action: Approval of the applicant's request for a lot split and � � second residence'at the General Submissi.on stage conditioned upon the foliowing: , 1, A written agreement between the adjacent property owner, Mrs. Thomas, and Mr. Cronin that Parcel #2 has their mutual permissi.on to share in a comonon service line for � water, and that they will mutually maintain this. 2. 7hat a 20 foot utility easement be indicated on the plat ' � for the electric power line. � 3. T.hat the detailed foundation investigations recommended . by t�ick Lampiris be conducted to determi.ne geotogic • stability. ' 4. That the site search procedure required by Envirorimentai _ Health he completed and a suitable on-site septic system � be instituted. ' It sho�ld be noted that the Planning and Zoning Co►nnission enterta.ined a motion to reconsider their action at a subsequent • meeting, but felt the General Submission process shoutd not be interrupted, and they wil7 have an opportunity to furthe� review this.a.t lletaa.lpd Submission: • • '� Memo: Cronin Associates - Subdivision (Lot��plit; .j Page Four _ � September 28, 1981 ' i . � Planning Office Recorr¢nendation: The Planning Office recommends approval of the requested lot split conditioned upon: . l: Detailed foundation investigations recommended by Nick Lampiris be conducted to determine geotogic • stability. • ' 2. That the site search procedure required by Environmental Health be completed and a suitable on-site septic system ' be instituted. i 3. That arrangements for water be made either by tapping . into the Wil]oug6by Way line or a common service line with � Mrs. Thomas that includes a maintenance cortenitment. i 4. That deed restrictions or covenants against further � subdivision or development be recorded with the final ' plat, limiting this site to two lots and two units. . • -. ... _ _. . - - - . � ; � � ,� . . . ;<. ; • � � � � . . , . � 't�, i t S•: . .. '' !� ..,, '\ ,; �,t ; ;': ..`,`` � . . :'� . .. � .. „.....% . . . .. 7 . . � r .r... : �4 , � `�' • r � . . �'t': .. .,• ,.. ' � • 'f. � - . ;\\' � i , jt; . . • . :. „ .�.r. .. � , � l�� , . . . . . . �-'"i '� ' • � . �f '' • . . .. . .• � . , ' �'; ' •,. , I� , � �4��!� t ;.� �, ,\a , � 'i; !� J` •♦ . ♦ � :: •�l . �f � L? .. `r`. . , '', .. � ,y� � " A,� + u; . , . .' *i� s ~ �.. .. . i`~ . �`, fJ ''; ��t ' • . •,� �' • /' .�.-�; � •' , , . • !, � '��:t?`+.~ ~�• a ` j r\', / •� �: . . , r r� t j��, � � . ` �\ , f• �t'�: � ' .'�J�, ' � i \ � � � . � f�. .~��. ..� . : • � • ;'� 1�,. ,��s,� t � 'ti"�= • , ��,.: , ��,�� . �.�. ,�, �! 12 , ...��7;.. . _ '� �j �\,:' „�l`.' �< ' , , . i^ I;. �. �� .. t 1 . \'�'•• -;�. ' . . . . ..t•;., :�\, `+ \," ' ��. 1 ' + �.. .�.� �.. . �� .r. ��.._....'.�' ' , . <� ; � _ •�� 1 ; , ..: .y/'. . �...." ``w� `�r \�r:).�- t1` ` . .. � . ... ;1i,�; `� ♦ f . �'<.'.:':.,�1�, ` , • .� .5�� 1�t,,. \q,::�.,4� c - .� \�:�`�;� y G/� � ..f��.�•'.., •, , •�.C;y�`�' j'�� .i. ,,6b,t' \'�°...��`:�\y :�,,1GFi +'�'` .. f.I�� 4�`- r ''S: �, .: .� , ��;;.:.: � " � � et , `�,� up • -.� �/. ... �JS�i.'/ G"s t�^ �?; �.., o � 7.1.;`�i. .�K.J`♦ ,•.r�� ` r� �'..._',.�' ' 'j . � �� ;. '," y 'f8 �i"�":'�i (` • / .%' �..:.;.. 't. ) . . ( •'��. .;.f'/ `'�� :,':. f� ! ..• •� S� �a ~�.•// �.N '�.,�':.�j 'I �O �{ •�� .l\rJ :?� '1' .� �5:� { E�, � � .�y;� ' ':• i '.� "'.,, t'._{',\ �4 ` � `, l /�i•-.� � �.� \'�,=-�:� <� 1ii \�t (_r '� . .�.i . O �'`;''�(•��\y' .�Yi ��- ��` ',�,� � ... '(4{ . , Y / �� ` lT t�� .'� . �.;\� �, n M,:� �-_��.,� c .�� ''. � ,. ., � . m ,:� � �' , . � t� ,�. �f ;' S '� �� -\��.,�.��c � 6 ¢� �,�.�a� tz. .��t�� u� � � � c`.,,p> J"`4�,•�.,; ��/ \ ' / �r� �.'a `r �'�' `-� -R' �' 1� ��.t., � ��.. /._�. ,�.. � !;.�� t j ,•••'•-^--•�,._� <y,. :��'� � S"r.. �rA '� _.`��,i�� '�\ t,: 1 /---r`._,,,.`-�.;�--..�, , �.�,-� -,�j7 `� � � ,a.•U . : �� ...,j. ^;:• .�;.. "� ,,� f .�.ur,�.,> . '�.� (��,L � �7 k'7 '•�' :`,�:•;. � '�.,,� �'`';. i !�-• :t, ` � J. 'r�.' 4 �-, - �, } 1 �pA.1..-"� ,��(. 'P > .�^;'�,.. �;•:�,. �-'.�::.�,�:`, �."� �;�_--=,•i_.. ' n``� 1 + j l: '� �(�� , �' ��\\ � �.-..r a.r a..'-•.` ..'�•.,�..,.� �' �.j (}�1) �,iC.�y � ' � , � ../� .?�`\1��, i/ . � �=ou:•;�.t' " .. /',� N � w Y` `•�T`��+ � � . : �i �.I:':: . f .� .�� :, � � ,�, �,a YI/f' � �: , 1.x ..�` � s- ��Q �'iy �!� ,/�}� � t f r", e �.;� \ y •' '+� •��lr��'j / /' �.c,r' /,- �-1`�a',,.. yt`i s+e : '.'�.•�r-. � A� ' �� t••:r 7` - 'i;. V.,. /� :.;' �i:.•. ,� �'' ' r ..y^ /. � ( �� . . /y�.��•"�`:: '�.�.� h Y . . . . . :��e'T"'A�~`>{. e i� 9 �',:':::t,,. ;:,:::�•`;.:.': '.:3;�.,.r;�`i;, ... t--..t{' 1�• s - �l. t:: y v / .� � „•..J.s't � A ;�.. Y •'�^l r� ` � �./S'Fs:% • . � ' • ' '�� c,� .'l�L'�J. � ` I. �� i�r �a �'• • 's,:�.l�:•. /'�'� ,;..: s /7 ' �,1j � � `i:�,. ; �ti .:!'�� ,,!,' 'PiC" , ::.,: - '��" � G! � �13:' ��'F:ts:•�`�;, �: ,J, � � { : � � •` c , �� t, �l� � � � �,� ` 1 1� � ,''Y�' < `. . _.�( .� �N.� l ,I � � • ��. � /.:' t� �'.."•�� /� �e� � , � •,�' '�•'.'. '.: :�/ '•� /.:.��.�;, �=':•..'• i � . r..;;.', _ \r?•=,'.i�ii.°: ,:� t`. :;�`;' '=. t-::.t.J�< .� i :L�`:.` :r'• .:f>_ �� °:::i�''.,i/� ...� �.�'.�,...�.�- . -t ..� '•' t%. �.�i°"� � \•:°_:;. /.' ."' . r'�J,: '/.'�/i f�`ii "\'.,'.tM1 / � _. . ';'�/ ,� �....-��, � ; '�`` , . r! ''. �'l `l ' '' F� � • . � . � � .� � � , �s-, r •. . , . >. �" �. ., �f "'\' . t'• �',�: , •.' � � ` `��. . r j t. }j � r1:' ;. _ i . i , f! � 1. ` /', 1�.. ,•• "*'�`�. ( �' ♦ ll\ ,� � ,t�- r.-r !�. ,! . :: �r� •�'�, t .,_ � '�\ . t ,f� ••. f <. r �i �i� �,� Y� i .'(� i . _ . �1 � ..}A�\ � ',, `, �``,,�` `` . �'S . �l ,♦ . !� .�i� �'� ��.. �� . . �-- . , c=�� ' . ". � � ," ��; , �g.s '�, '' �' } — "- `,ti'.�" ,,f+ �'+ . . " !+ flg G�• �� 3 .. � ' � �` � � + _ '� . . �` ��pT�� '�a6hibit . • `'.r'�� ,,,1.�''� '.t , .z`} � � , \�' �13.d�@ g�EYT '�.��y • Y�\, �` �:_ � ,�f- ' ,' �' .,� �'',tQ s 2�,lt�,,........- `� ,.:.>� �;:-;%':�. ��` ':� •`1:"_ '/i ' : 'Q@ Ot,Z � ,,,r- ;`� r ��,�.. .,E,..:.• jl.' •r;_ :. :�`z,. .��...•-- , `•..`S�ti3•° .../' _ �`. .•. `'' ,, r. �,` -;, " {' � ' - '+� .�r\,'�.•y' :::� � <,• , � `•� ,,.... �; •..:-�1. �,�:�.: •`i. �,:%'� - - .� . . `, '/'.� ?� 1ti.� ,''�,' t� v' l`4.�•^" , ` '� . ��y'� ' t.. tt .;\ . ' - `.�~��'.,.'�'. �^ ��F t �a. . . .i ' . ,.'.+ .�`.; ��:'�`- I,.�' :C'. 'f��.^�. 'i:+ ;;�' �c s'. « hOARD OF C0. COrQM'R's PITKIN C0. Public Hearing E�chibits �H�B�, Date , 28 SEPT, 1981 S � n Sub��et '�; CRONIN SUBDIV �.� � ,� ;;:.. -;.� . E'�._,=.�: .,�� _ . ;fit;�� s. 275 Central Park West � New York, New York 1.0024 September 15, 1981 Mr. Bob Childs 506 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Sir, Y will not be able to attend the hearing concerning the Cronin property adjoining mine, on Red Aiountain. Y am opposed to subdivision, as it would permit any number of houses being buil.t in the future and spoil the privacy, character and value of the surrounding land, including mine. � If Mr. Cronin plans on building a house next to his present one, as an addition, that is not my concern. Yours sincerely, Yvonne Thomas IEXHIBIT • . LETTER OF SIIPPORT � � —a-�''� I am aware of the Lot Split application by the Cronina f or 0107 Willoug,hby Way, Pitkin Green, Aspen, Colorado, and am in support of their efforts. S3�nature Address 1. �` .��-•C`a_� �`' '�'y�-'�c�. � QL{"—]� �l��C.�-�{��i � .�. y , �f� ��, ��,�L��•:-�,�jl!/c� �r �� 2 ,,` l' -� � �. , C, � � - O�$� ��.��1�. ia3C� ; 3. L�LZtiC',��Sic,� . `OV-t nc�t� 7 .� �`� ' ��f- ��i��u.��. �� 4. �`�"�>k'��,',�;;,;' .j��y��v,�.,-� . �� i�-3 U�� 5• ��'t.t�� i?Ll ��ZJ(/� , , �i / u 6. ��i-/4:<i �Z�,��!�_-r� /zL� �� " ' �y�� n „-.-+-� � 0 , 7_ (� / dz� � �( '/, // l � Q� .ri� i � s. , �! � ��`-.�� 3G�/ G��.��..��`f �� 9• ,��J!��t-�2, Gz'K � /, ��-��L l e3 v r�y 4�—!a� �o. - .c�� t�c� ,L��= (��- � Q o��c � W,��.�., a.� � � z�. � 12. LETTER OF SUPPORT � I affi aware of the Lot 3plit application by the Cronins for 0107 YYilloughby Wa"y, Pitkin Green, Aapen, Colorado, and am in aupport o.f their efforts. Sipcnature Address , o�/�� w,/lo�� b,!y �.A y� /� �� ,- � . � � � �; . , � „ �.° � `� � s � � ; . , � , j � � 3� t . 1 ' • �� . . �,S � , ' � . ^� � ,LAW OF.°ICES AUSTIN MCGRA7H & ..JORDAN � BOO EAST HOPKINS AVENVE � � - . SUITE 203 � OF COUNSHL. RONALO O.AUSTIN ASPEN� COLORADO 81fi11 PETER L.BtJCK.P.5. J.NICHO�qg M�6RATH�JR. AREA COOE 30] Su�T[26o0 � I � � WILl1AM R.JOROAN III TELEPMONE 925-2601 . an TH�wO�viMU[awtOtr.G � SSATTLC.WA3NIMpTOM Y8W1 O.LEE SCHUMnGHER ..ar.o�.nio�.rcaw+�oo. July 21, 1981 � . ' � ' �onxn or co. co;:;�t�R�s Pitkin County Board . PITKIN C0. of County Commissioners publ -• - 506 E. Main Street .D�.�;� EXHIBIT � Aspen, CO 81611 Subjc � � / Planning and Zoning Commission �'::r,. _�y,. � of Pitkin County . 130 S. Galena � Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen/Pitkin County P].anning Office 130 S_ Galena �spen, CO 81611 � ' Attn: i�ls. Collette Penne � Re: Lot splitting -- Cronin -- Willoughby Way Ladies and Gentlemen: We represent bir. and Mrs. Patrick i�estfeldt_ i have attached a letter from Mr. t�estfeldt outlining his op�osition to the proposal of the Cronins to split a lot in order to build an additional house on property they own across iro:n the P7estfeldts. �3riefly summarizing P�r. Westfeidt`s points, I would call your � attention to the following facts : 1. The Cronins expressed a desire to engage in a lot split before and that was not successful. tive are reviewing �ahether that was turned down on the merits, or not filec'� or simoly withdratan after the Westfel3ts e�:pressed their position. 2. There are four homes, including the �r'estfelaL's, on large pieces of property in the immediate area_ If the Cronins can split their lot, so can several others, resulting in much qreater density than the Westfeldts would prefer and much greater density than they have relied upon by their purchasing and maintaining their own property_ � . I .. . : :`:.� � �_ • ,.i -_ �_ ' �_.' . -` AUSTIN MCGRATH & .�ORDAN ' Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners Planning and Zoning Cominission of Pitkin County � Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office . July 21, 1981 • . : � Page 2 . . I - � ! ; 3. The septic system should not be permitted with � or without a lot split. The ground water level is high f especially when Salvation Ditch flows at peak levels and the possibility of contarnination is great. Apparently this matter is set for a public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners on Auqust 10 and tve � will appear in opposition. We would prefer that th� matter be remanded to the Planning and Zoning Commission for full consideration with Mr. and �Irs. Westfeldt, as adjacen-t land- oF�ners, thereby giving them opportunity to respond. Sincerely, AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDA�J- CO°Y °,R��.�` J. P11CHL'LAS P!!C G4ATi-i JR. BY J. Nicholas i�icGrath, Jr. . JNMjr/dw cc: Mr. & Mrs. J. W. Cronin __. �a.�. �..�..�.��.� LAW OFFICES AUSTIN MCGRATH & .�ORDAN 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE I SUtTE 205 ; OF COUNSEI: � RONAlO D.AUSTIN ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 PETER L.BUCK,P.S. J.NICHOLA3 M�6RATH�JR. AREA COOE 303 SUI7[2a00 WILLIAM R.JORDAN� TEIEPNONE 926-2801 1111 TNIRD AVENIIf sUtLDINO � S[ATTIE.WA9MINOTON 00101 B.LEE SCHUMACHER - �wor�oMirTCO�w cowRwoo� September 23, 1981 � ba�n o:� co. co�,:;�•::�:� I Pzr;;Iti L`l:, �` EXHIBIT I z,.,; 1 (: Board of County Commissioners , Pitkin County j�l� � � ' ' 506 East Main Street �;:t - F�-�T � Aspen, CO 81611 � � , Re: Westfeldt -- Cronin Iot split ; Dear Commissioners : � We represent Pat and Jean Westfeldt who own 5.25 acres of property in two parcels adjacent to and westerly of the Cronin property for which the Cronin application seeks a lot split to build a second single family home. The Westfeldt's oppose the application for lot split upon the following grounds. 1. Lot split procedure inapplicable. It does not seem to us to be legal or appropriate to use the special Iot split ; procedure for this apnlication. Section 4-6 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code permits a lot split, exempting it from full sub- division and the annual application procedures (as we11 as other aspects of the subdivision procedure) , only in two instances : if the division of the land is "part of an ongoing agricultural operation" and lying within four of the resource or agricultural zones, or if the parcel creates two single family lots and "the subdivision will result in not more than fifty percent (50%) of the density permitted under the current zoning." Because of slope reductions, and the location of a pond upon the 2.977 acres (assuming that figure is correct) of the Cronin property, it is not possible that four single family homes could be built on the property with the minimum lot size of 30,000 square feet as ; specified in the R-30 zone. Thus the two single family homes proposed are not "fifty percent of the density permitted" by current zoning. The lot split procedure, and the history of its application in Pitkin County, is substantially narrower than assumed by the applicant and perhaps staff in this instance (we � will discuss that history in a further section) . � i r�� a I AUSTIN MCGRATH & .�ORDAN Board of County Commissioners September 23, 1981 I Page 2 I i 2. The character of the area would be harmed b lot s lits. � As ou wil s rom t e ma. attac e to t is etter, eginning � wi e ntersect on o i oug y ay and the Red Mountain Road there are four houses on the northerly side of Willoughby Way, all of which sit on large lot sites: the Thomas house, the Cronin house and property, Mrs. Westfeldt's house and the house belonging to Mr. Westfeldt (which is rented to Leslie Smith- Troyer and Gary Troyer) . These houses have all been in existence since the 1950s. There are four large ponds on these lots, one on the Thomas property, one on the Cronin property and two on Mrs. Westfeldt' s property, fed naturally by springs and by ground water. They attract migrating birds, and currently have a large duck population. If you are a history buff, Mike Magnifico used to stock and grow trout in them and sell the trout to local restaurants. Further divisions of the large parcels would def- initely take away somewhat from the natural and rather pristine beauty and character of the area. We should add that Mrs. Westfeldt bought a second piece of property with the second pond on it to keep that property from having another house, so that her property is larger than the area she originally purchased. 3. A lot s lit is inconsistent with recedent -- ast and uture. a. Past. As you might gather from the narrow texfi of Section 4-6 concerning lot splits in the County, lot splits are not an ordinary kind of thing, especially not in an already developed area. In fact we researched the history of lot splits within the last several years in Pitkin County and that history is summarized in the attached memorandum and ta� All of the lot splits except one occ�"�'rrea i`n very rura. areas of the County. The only exception to that was a lot across from the Plum Tree that was very large, namely 9.9 acres, and that was split into two large parcels of five acres each adjacent to the Tennis Club subdivision which had smaller parcels. Thus there is nothing in the history of lot splits in Pitkin County that would support the current application and indeed the current application is at odds with that history. b. Future. We have attached a map showing these four large lots (the Westfeldts' two lots, the Cronin property, and the Thomas property) . You should note that Mr. Westfeldt could divide his property into two, Mrs. Westfeldt could have four lots, and Mrs. Thomas could have seven lots all consistent with the 30,000 square foot minimum lot size in the R-30 zone. Thus the lot split AUSTIN MCGRA7H & .�dRDAN Board of County Commissioners Sep�ember 23, 1981 Page 3 application here would create a bad precedent for much greater development along Willoughby Way. Mr. and Mrs. Westfeldt have no desire to divide their property £urther; on the other hand, if their large lots are in an area with smaller lots and more houses, there will be economic pressure upon them to conform thair large lots to the smaller character of the neighborhood. 4. A sewer connection should be required. It is the Westfeldts gosition that i the Cronins cannot through voluntary easements or otherwise arrange that the existing house and the new house that they propose be put on Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation District sewer lines, then the lot should definitely not be further developed. There are two septic systems on the Cronin lot serving the existing house now. They are deficient by cuxrent County standards in terms of size and capacity. The site is not really suitable for a septic system, There is a great deal of ground water in the area as shown by the four �onds, the Duroux Ditch that crosses the property, and the existence of the Salvation Ditch at the northerly end of all of these lots. The Salvation Ditch seeps water into the soil on all of the four large lots and there are visible leaks at various times of the year. It is not lined, and it is not a culvert. That water could seep through the Cronin`s various leach fields and contaminate the well on the Westfeldt property. In fact, a test this summar showed the existence of such a high level of coliform bacteria in the Westfeldts' well that they had to bring bottled water in for all purposes. That is not to say that any of Bob Nelson's tests yet have shown that con- icamination directly came from the Cronin septic systems; on the other hand, apparently Bob cannot say that the septic system was definitely not the source of that contamination. In other words if it is problematic or questionable, further development absent a sewer system should not be allowed. In this regard, it is informative that Mr. and Mrs. Westfeldt put both of their houses on the sewer system a number of years ago at an expense to thern of over $5,000 because they fe].t there was a possibility of contamination of their property and ponds and of adjacent property and ponds. The Cronins shoul.d do likewise. Al1 of the houses along the ridge of Red Mountain directly north af the subj ect property are on the sewer system and the homes along Red Mountain Road are on the sewer system. It may be that from an engineering standpoint the Cronins cannot run a direct line down their pro- perty to Willoughby Way and out to the Red Mountain Road and get on the sewer because of differences in elevations. However, that engineering difficulty simply means that the land should not be developed ox that the Cronins obtain easements in order to tap on to the sewer. AUSTIIJ MCGRATH 6 .�ORDAN Board of County Commissioners September 23, 1981 Page 4 i 5. Staff recommendations and P&Z action. This lot split application has een t e subject o con licting recommendations. Originally the Water Department, and Bob Nelson of the Environ- mentai Health Department, and Colette Penne of the Planning Office all recommended against approval ot this lot split. Each apparently changed his or her recommendations subject to certain conditions at a later time; however, a major condition of both Ms. Penne and Bob Nelson was if the application be approved it be subject to the damonstration that a suitable on-site ' septic system could be devised. We think that puts the cart ! before the horse. The applica�ion should not be approved until an adequate disposal system be devised and in our view there is ; nothing that can be devised suitably on site; rather, there should be a tap onto the sewer or no further development. At ; the time of the writing of this letter, we do not know what the i current staff recommendation wi11 be. P&Z recommended approval, i with conditions. We ask you to disregard the P&Z recommendation � since we did not receive notice of the P&Z`s consideration, and hence P&Z did not hear our issues. So far as we are aware the lot sglit history in Pitkin County was not previously raised or discussed nor was any consideration given to the precedential , value in this lot split effecting the Westfeldts' and Thomas' � properties and the possibility ot further lot splits resulting in over development. 6. Purpose of the lot split. We assume that the Cronins will state a purpose at the hearing. It is our understanding that Mr. Cronin has indicated to neighbors that it is to be a retirement place for him and his wife. The Cronins own a hause on this property and a house further along Willoughby Way so we do not understand the necessity of a third home. Be that as it may, a good purpose does not prove that an area unsuited for further development should nonetheless be developed. Besides, � why is it necessary to do a Iot split allowing the further division of land and further density to serve that purpose? Isn't there some less dense, less environmentally unsound, less permanent method of accomplishing what is sought to be accom- plished? { 7. Environmental Health De artment's tests. Bob Nelson i has been most cooperative in testing t e water in the ponds, the ; water in the Westfeldts' we11 and the septic system at the existing Cronin house (we do nvt know whether the house was vacant or rented at the time and that of course might affect . . rJ J�� -- AUSTIN MCGRATH & .JORDAN Board of County Commissioners September 23, 1981 Page 5 the tests) . At the time of the writing of this letter we do not know the results of aIl of his tests and assume that they will be presented at the hearing on September 28. 8. Conclusion. tiJhen Mr. Westfeldt's property was appraised some years ago or mortgage purposes, a local appraiser said as follows : "Views from the site are unobstructed south across � the pond overloaking the �Cown of Aspen towards Aspen Mountain Ski area. The views are among the most desirable in the Aspen area; and the combination of views, privacy, wooded seclusion and accessibility make the subject one of Aspen' s most desirable building sites." The Westfeldts would like to keep it that way. Further lot splits i and possible degradation of tiheir pond and further density in the area are not cons�stent with that end. The Westfe�dts ask that you deny the request for a lot split, and at the very least condition it upon the demonstration that the existing house and the proposed new house on the property will in fact be attached to the Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation District sewer system. Thank you for considering these views. Sincerely, AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN � g �• �L��Jvra�7� �^ yJ. Nicholas McGrat , Jr. JNMjr/dw i Attachments (2) � � � � I � ' � EXHIBIT __ __�1 � �� , ri+E � W9 � �i Q In y � �= f � .- u {fa � .___ � � 1 � V Y.. _ `_ _ ~N r� . U � r v�~I� • � N �5 o � ^ w / 'a'^' Wa I o � °�c � I o=T � . Oy� � � ' •s i � r r w0�r ;+'+ O �'y C i n $ �� s � 2 -�1�) -� ' o a�� o � a 1 1 � s ,` A O ` $ 9 N m `'-� u p v m . o° <_ �� i � oz i _� o . s � f . o � , � m . S ° I � ° • � i f 8 � � � - o I �� I o . � � / � O y I , D � � � / . pr N � � ! TJ rya.�_.�� i . "'N O f9 ,� ' ` " ' o I"� ` . . � lu � . � /'� �_'_'�'.f� � . 1 // \` \ ♦ ., . . : � •, i . l� , . \ . . . , � i � � . 1 \ /� , \ . � � , \ i� � �i '` , /, \ . \ • p3y o+o� .yp .. • � I g: .. � i . .. � . . _ � . . . . . ' � �� . . . . . , . . .. . . � �g. . . _ . . . , _ . . , .. - . . . $� . . . . � � . . E� : °o .�.. - �..�-.,-...-•----^ _....._,,._. �..._,,.,�-•-__ . -- �-- ..—,..,.,a--"'1--.�m�R.�.....�.-�-, � , . ' . - � � r. . ' � _ • , . . � . ' - � .. ' � � ' . . ... ' r � ' . . . . , • � �� EXHIBIT I.AW OFFiGES � �� AUSTIN MCGRATH & .�ORDAN ' 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE �� SUtTE 205 pONALO O.AUST�N ASPEN� COLORA�O 8t6t1 J.NICHOlA3 M�GRATH..1H• A.lEA CODE�03 WILLIAM R.JORDAN III . AUCfUS l. 4� I901 TELE.�HONE 924-2801 B.tEE SCHUMACMER MENIORANDUM � TO: JbTh1� FROM: GY FE: R�cent Pitkin County Lot Split Approvals -------------------------------------------------------------- Since January, 1980, at least seven lot splits have been approved by the Pitkin County commissioners. Almost all of the approved lot splits tA this date have featured large initial and resulting lots coupled wxtl'i minimal development of •the areas involved prior tA and af ter the sol i t. On ?•iarch 2 4, 19$0, the Board of County Commissioners approved, in Rzsolution 80-20, a lot split application crea�ting a 17-acre parcel out of the 43.09 acze parcel owned by David F.. Ch.ristiensen in Township 9 Southr Range $6 ��Test, Pxticin County. It is not clea.r fro►�n the resolution itself whether or not a single-family dwelling was proposed for the newly-created oarcel, though it is likely such use was intended by the owner. It is very clear, however, that the parcel created by the lot split was very iarge and located in a Iow density, unsubdivide3 area. The next lot split approved by the county commis- sioners in 1980 involved prop�rty located on the Mirage Placer Mining Claim in the Columbia Mining District o£ Pitkin County. On July 14, 1950, the com:nissioners approved the Gramarye Lot Split in Resolntion 80-5 4. Again, the parcel af Iand involved in the subdivision was extemely large and apparently minima].ly ! developed. The split itsel� involved subdivision of a 20-acre parcel out of a 12� acre total ownership, pursuant to Sections �-510.?(c) and 4-6(b) of fhe Pitkin County Land Use Code. In addi�tiori to the very large size of the resulting lots, the most interesting feature of this lot split is the requir�ment that the final submission plats reflect �a prohibitio� against any further development of the parcel after the initial single- family development. An 81.74 acre parcel of �eal property located in the Snowmass Creek Valley of Pitkin County was divided into a 2-unit subdivision by the commissioners on December 22, 1980, , .. . � (.- t AUSTIN MCGRATH Si .�ORDAN in Resolution 80-12 4. This property cons�sted of essen aally undeveloped metes and bounds acreage and the resulting lots were 24 aeres and 57 acres in size, each designated for single- family use. Again, the features of extremely large size of both initial parcel and divided lots coupled with t-he undevel- oped or minimaliy-developed nature of the original property are very apparent. The above pattern continued with the approval of Aspen River Valley Ranch Lo t 1 Subdivision Split on January 26, 1981, in Resolution 81-4. The i.nitial lot was contained 46.95 acres and the proposed 2-unit subdivision consisted of a 7.2 4 acre parcel and a 7.29 acre parcel, with the balance of the property (32. 42 acres) dedicated as common open �space. The comrnissioners further required deed restrictions against further developmen t of the newly created 7+ acre parcels. On February 9, 1981 Aspen Valley Ranch Lo t 8, a parcel initially consisting of 40.51 acres was split into a 2-unit subdivision consisting of a 17.75 acre parcel and a , 14.26 acre parcel, witli the balance of the property (3.5 acres) dedicated t�o common open space. The pattern set in previous approvals continues with this lo t sp1i�: 1) the initial parcel was very large; 2) there were deed� restrictions against fur�her development of the large resulting parcels; 3) s there was �rery low density in the surrounding area; and 4) the ; initial parcel and surrounding area were minimally develop�d. � The commissioners, in Resolution $1-53, dated June 22, �i 1981, approved a lot split application for a 44 acre parcel ;. and a 35 a�re parcel each for single-family use and restricted '• against further development. The initial parce�. consisted of � approximately 80 acres of real property located in the Old j Snowmass vicini.ty o� Pitkin County. The resulting parcels, � cvhich were created for sinqle-fa:nily use only and restricted ; against further deve].opment, w�re also extremely lurye. The �initial parcel was underdeveloped or minimally developed and unsubdivided. Finally, on July 27, 1981 the comrnissioners, in � F,esolutioZ 81-69, approved a lot split af a parcel initial].g consisting of 9.9 acres, more specifically described as Lot 2, '• Iselin Subdivision. This particular lo t split approval in � � some ways deviates from the pattern set over the last year and f one half by the commissioners. In this particular case the � initial parcel was a very large lot in a subdivision. The resulting parcels, each for single-family use, apparently were ; equal in size, meaning tha�t each parcel was appraximately 5 acres in area. The common pattern in lo t spl�.ts apparen t from i ; � r � -2- � ; � � .. . � �. .. . `�_. AUSTIN MCGF2ATH Sc .�ORDAN the above outlined history is only partially varied by this subdivision approval. The resulting lots are still very large in size, and deed restrictians against further developmeni are evident in the approval. Hence� the ultimate division of the initial lot in to 2 relatively large, low density �arcels is on the whole consistent wa.th the pattern set by the commissioners over the past 2 years. Conclusion Over the past year and one half to two years, the Pitkin County Commissioners have approved at least 7 lot splits, all of which have consisted of an initially large parcel of landr which was divided into 2 rela tively larqe parcels for single-family use only. In most cases, the inztial property divided was undeveloped ar minimal].y developed and had no t been subdivided in any way. In all cases the impact of the 1ot split on surraunding land owners and neighborhoods was minimal, due to the extxemely large size of the resulting parcels. Even more interesting, turther development of the resulting relata.vely large parcels of land was totally restricted, i insuring that densities would not change, and t'�at the eYpecta- tions of surrounding land owners regarding limitations on further developmen t would be preserved. The pattern of the recent commissioner resolutions � regarding lo t splits is clear. Such subdivision procedures � have been traditionally granted only in previously unsubdivided � areas or an very lightly developed areas. There is no record of lat splits being gran ted where a subdivision or ex tensive development exists adjacent t,o the .i.nitial parcel. IIndoubtedly, the purpose of avoiding lo t splits in high deasity or przviously developed areas is to protect the surrounding property owners from being subjected to altarations in the configuration. ot I thP �neighborhood with regard to density, road use, ground f water in tegrity, visual impacts and the like. An approval of the Cronin lo t split application Vtould dev�.ate substantially from the standards and policies of thE commissioners in recen t history. The original parcel in the Cronin apnlication consists of only 2.977 acres, more or � less, and the resulting parcels would be_1. 419 acres and 1.558 acres, more or less. A1 though such �lots perhaps rneet minimum lot size requirements in the R-30 zoning district, the increased density the lot split would create is inconsistent with the expectations of surrounding property owners, and would signifi- cantly alter the character of the neighborhood. Approval of such a lot split, especialiy over s�ringent objections by surrounding property owners, seems to be inconsistent with fhe ; past history and motives of the commissioners, as ou tlined in ; tile above chronolgy of lot split app.rovals. GY:lu ;r � -3- '+,: a }� r. _ _ ------ __ _ .. .____.._ . . , �..- . , . �_ ANALYSIS OF 1980-81 PITKIN COUNTY LOT SPLITS Date Description ` and General of Distinguishing Res.No. Parcel Size . . Location Split Features March Sections 22, 43.09 Snowmass Area Creation of 17 acre 1) Very large initial 24, 1980 23,27,1tasp acres ' parcel out of 43.09 and resulting parcels Reso. 9 S. Range acre"fathering" 2) low density, BO-20 86 [�. parcel, presumably minimally developed, rIetes & for single family unsubdivided Bounds use July 14, Mirage 125 Castle Creek Gramarye Lot Split; 1) Very large initial 1980 Placer, acres area Creation of 20 and resulting parcels. Reso. Metes & acre parcel, 2) Low density, No. Bounds out of 125 acre minimally developed, 80-64 "fathering" parcel, unsubdivided area. presumably for sinole family use. December Snowmass 81.74 Snowmass Tcao-unit Subdivision 1) Very large initial 22, 1980 Creek acres Area to create 24 acre and resulting parcels P.es�. Valley, parcel & 57 acre 2) Low density, No. Ptetes & parce.l, each for minimally develuped 80-124 Bounds single family use Unsubdivided area. January Aspen 46.95 Roaring Pork Two-unit Subdivision 1) Very large initial, 20, 1981 River acres Valley with 7.24 acre parcel parcel. Relatively Reso. Valley and 7.29 acre parcel �.arge resulting parcels No. Ranch, Balance oP property 2)Low density, 81-4 Lot 1 (32.42 acres) dedi- minimally developed cated as common area. i open space. 3) Deed restrictions �! against further �, development. 4) Large open space dedication. Februaty AsQen 4�.51 Roaring Rork Two-unit Subdivision 1) Ver;• large ini[ial 9, 1981 River acres Valley with 17.75 acre par- and resulting:parcels. Reso. Valley cel and 1G.26 acre 2) Loca density, No. Ranch, parcel. Balance minimally developed 81-5 Lot 8 (8.5 acres) dedi- area. cated to common 3) Deed restrictions open spaca. against further development k) Large open space dedication June 22, Old Snoza- 80+ Old Snowmass Lot split; 44 acre 1) Very large initial 1981 mass, acres Area parcel and 36 acre and resulting parcels. £.eso. Metes 6 parcel,.each foz 2) Low density, No. Bounds single Family use, minimally developeci, 81-�3 restricted further unsubdivided area. development 3) Aeed restrictions i: against further �; development. �, � July 27, Lot 2, 9.9 Across from Lot split into two 1) £.elattvely large 1481 Iselin acres Ylum Tr�e parcels, presumably initial and resulting Reso. Subdi- Inn Hwy. 82 approximately 5 parcels No. vision acres each, for 2) Loca ultimate 81-69 single family use. density 3) Mini.mally developed area 4) Deed restrictions against further developments ; ..n.o..��w�...n PATRICK M. WESTFELDT � 555 SEVENTEENTH STi7EET EX�'B� SVITE 2900 � � I DENVEN�COLORADO . MAIIING ADOFE55: � P.O.BOX 8749 -��1_ d� ! � DENVER�COLORADO 80201 R � � (303)5�5-B253 '� .� � July 17, 1981 � :� � Pitkin County Board of County r Commissioners � Pitkin County Courthouse � � 506 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 . ;� a Attention: Bob Child � Chairman, Board of County � Commissioners s Re: Lot Splitting - 0107 Willoughby Way � � ; , Gentlemen: � � y i Mrs. Westfeldt and I were shocked to receive your ;i � notice about something called Cronin Associates trying � i to split the above-referenced property into two lots. The Cronins tried this before. We opposed it. Either �� they were turned down or they backed off. Now they are at it again. ;� �i Mrs. Westfeldt owns 0109 Willoughby Way which adjoins �� the Cronin property on the west from Willoughby Way all � the wa u to the Salvation Ditch. Her �� Y P property com- �� prises about 3 .7 acres. I own 0207 Willoughby Way which ;; � comprises about 1.5 acres and adjoins Mrs. Westfeldt's ;� land on the west. � Mrs. Westfeldt's house was constructed in 1958. ;� When we are in Aspen, we reside there. We are in resi- ;� dence there from time to time at all seasons of the year--winter, spring, summer and fall. The house on ' my property was originally built and owned by Mike and � Maggie Maquifico. It is presently subject to a two and � one-half year lease to Dr, and Mrs. Gary Troyer which, if inemory serves me correctly, runs out about a year � from now. �; 5 � d � yt 3 � '� i� .�'"..__........ ...... .. __......................... ....._ .,__ ....._ _..:..,.............. .:..__._._. .. . _... .. _..... . . � ' . .. . . ... ... ..... . . ...._. ..,...:� � I • w PATRICK M. WESTFELDT 555 SEVENTEENTH S7REE7 EXN�B�T . � SUITE 2900 � ` � : DENVER�COLORADO r� MAIIING AOOFE55: / ! P.O.BOX B749 /�.� ✓ � .� � .T OENVERi COLORAOO 80201 � (303)575-8253 � 3uly 17, 1981 � � � Pitkin County Board of County � Commissioners -� Pitkin County Courthouse �3 506 East Main Street t Aspen, Colorado 81611 ;� Attention: Bob Child � Chairman, Board of County � Commissioners � Re: Lot Splitting - 0107 Willoughby Way � � Gentlemen: '� , ' Mrs . Westfeldt and I were shocked to receive your ;� i notice about something called Cronin Associates trying ;� to split the above-referenced property into two lots. �a The Cronins tried this before. We opposed it. Either '� they were turned down or they backed off. Now they are at it again. ; � Y Mrs. Westfeldt owns 0109 Willoughby Way which adjoins � the Cronin property on the west from Willoughby Way all � the way up to the Salvation Ditch. Her property com- '; prises about 3.7 acres. I own 0207 Willoughby Way which ; � comprises about 1.5 acres and adjoins Mrs. Westfeldt's t land on the west. ? Mrs. Westfeldt's house was constructed in 1958. } A When we are in Aspen, we reside there. We are in resi- ; dence there from time to time at all seasons of the 's ' year--winter, spring, summer and fall. The house on ? my property was originally built and owned by Mike and ; Maggie Maquifico. It is presently subject to a two and � one-half year lease to Dr. and Mrs. Gary Troyer which, � if inemory serves me correctly, runs out about a year from now. � 1 a � , :� � � ,� . � ...... _ :.... .. ., ... __......... __ _ ._ _._... ... _ ,,..,..,, . _ 1 ..... .,.... . _ .��::.i'_� . . . .. . . . . . .. . . .. .... .. I t Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners July 17 , 1981 Page Two In summary Mrs. Westfeldt and I own about 5.2 acres immediately west of the Cronin property. I do not know whether any of you have looked at any � of these properties so I will give you a brief descrip- � tion of them, The basic north and south boundaries are ;� the Salvation Ditch to the north and Willoughby Way to = the south. Starting from the east, the Thomas property � lies just west of the steep pitch of the Red Mountain � Road. There is a pond on the southerly portion of it. � Next, there is the Cronin property which also has a pond ;� on the flat part and slopes up steeply to the Salvation ; Ditch behind the Cronin house. Third, Mrs. Westfeldt's .� land has two large ponds on the southerly part. It too ' slopes up steeply from the house to the Salvation Ditch. r The front of her house is on stilts . The back of it is cut into Red Mountain. It won architectural awards when ? it was built in 1958. My house is on the only level part i of my property. The rest of that land also slopes up � steeply to the Salvation Ditch, a 3 1 In case you do not know it, water has leaked and � seeped from the Salvation Ditch in many places from the � Red Mountain Road to a point opposite and above Judge ? Fitzhugh Scott's house at 0368 Willoughby Way. I am ,''s also informed that iL is leaking or seeping above the a John Cheek house. I saw three leaks from the Salvation + Ditch Sunday, July 12th along the Red Mountain Road. I ; also traced a leak or seep outcropping on Mrs. Westfeldt's � land up the steep slope of the Cronin property. The leak � first surfaced below and not far from the Salvation Ditch � : and flowed down to our ditch, the Duroux Ditch. Much of � Mrs. Westfeldt's land is soggy from Salvation Ditch ; � seepage at the present time. We have enqaged a con- ? tractor to try to channel it away from the house. i For your further information, the Duroux Ditch, in f which Mrs. Westfeldt and I have water rights, crosses j these properties above the houses but below the Salvation i Ditch. The Duroux Ditch is used regularly every year, i Mrs. ��Vestfeldt and I pay all the maintenance and repair a expense on it. We have laterals out of it and additional ; i.rrigation facilities on our properties. � k � v i f � � � I1 1 1 i S ' __. . ;.3 � __. . ___�_�,�__.. Pitkin County Board of County � Commissioners July 17, 1981 Page Three If Mr. Cronin has about three acres, which we do not admit or accept, and if Thomas has about four acres, what you have is about twelve acres of land on which there are four nice, well-spaced houses in a row facing � south with four qood sized ponds in front of them, two � irrigation ditches above and in back of them and steep slopes running up behind the houses to the leaky, seepy, � old Salvation Ditch. Subject to the Salvation Ditch � risk, these are all extremely valuable properties without any 1ot splitting. i l Your notice was �he first notice we had of this ; business. We had no notice of the proceeding before j the Planning and Zoning Commission ("P&Z") . Your notice i does not tell the whoZe story. The least you could try � to do is let the neighbors know what they are in for. ; You made no attempt to do that. The story at page 10-A ± of the Aspen Times of July 9th tells a little more of � the story, but it too is incomplete. We intend to ; resist the effort by the Cronins, and we need more ; time to prepare our presentation. � � � ; In order to determine the facts upon which P&Z � acted we need to examine the record before the P&Z. Our counsel, Nick McGrath, will do that. He and we ; will want to see all letters, petitions, applications, � oppositions, proof of title, deeds, surveys of the ; Cronin property, surveys of adjoining properties, transcripts of proceedings, minutes, remarks, rulings � and decisions of the members of the P&Z, who parti.cipated ; ' in the unilateral presentation by the Cronins, a record i of which members of P&Z were present, how each voted, $ whether any alternate commission members were present � � and how each voted. We do not even know when the P&Z ; meeting took place. Why were we not given an opportunity � to be present? Mr. Cronin knows very well how to reach F us in Aspen and in Denver. It is hard for me to believe # that he did not suggest that the P&Z invite us to be � present. ; � He and Mrs. Cronin have been fully aware of our � j position on this subject. When they tried this lot ' split once before, we opposed it, and Mrs. Westfeldt i � ' 5 i � '� �� , . � ;� i ' :' Pitkin County Board of County � Commissioners July 17, 1981 �` Page Four sent the Cronins a copy of her letter of opposition. � We want to know whether they called that opposition � to the attention of P&Z or of the Board of County Commissioners. A copy of Mrs. Westfeldt's earlier x letter of opposition is enclosed. � ,; � I now comment on the conditions set by the P&Z as + set forth in the Aspen Times article. i i 1 . A Cronin-Thomas agreement to maintain a water line. This brings back sad memories. when the ; City ran its water line up the west side of Red Mountain ; Road on Lennie Thomas's property, the City workmen � wrecked our spring. Our spring, to which we have the sole riqhts, is located on the northeasterly part of � the Thomas property above the Salvation Ditch and just ' west of the Red Mountain Road. This spring was the ? source of our domestic water. After its destruction we � had to drill a well for domestic water which cost thou- sands of dollars. The pipeline from the spring, which $ now brings irrigation water to our properties, is below � the Salvation Ditch, crosses under the Duroux Ditch and i runs behind the Thomas, Cronin and Mrs. Westfeldt's � houses and in front of my house. We have an easement ; for the pipeline over the Cronin property. The Cronins ' have known about it for years. ? 1 � ' Thomas got a right to tap the City water pipeline .' in exchange for giving the City the pipeline easement. { The Cronins made some kind of a deal to get on the same ; tap. So the Cronins and Thomas got City water from an ; enterprise that destroyed our domestic water source and ; cost us a lot of money. ; . ; 2. Utility Easement. What is this all about? ; 3. Geologic stability. We do not know where � the Cronins want to put their new house, but it cannot '_ be on the Duroux Ditch or over our pipeline. I contEnd = that there is no geological stability in regard to the steep land below the Salvation Ditch. That is a long, very large ditch through which an enormous amount of j water is carried. Leaks and seeps in our area are i mentioned above. I suppose it goes without saying � ; • i 1 I � t j � ;� :� _._._..._... i i i Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners � July 17, 1981 Page Five that there can be geologic stability problems on Red Mountain independent of those which may result from k the Salvation Ditch. � 4. Septic system. This is the real shocker. $ Has anyone talked to the health department? For several � years there has been a rule against new septic systems on Red Mountain. In conformity with that rule Mrs. � Westfeldt and I spent more thousands of dollars to put ; our houses on the Metro Sanitation District. Why ; should the Cronins get the special privilege of avoiding that expense? Moreover, there is a lot of underground � water on Red Mountain and we do not want even the slightest ' chance of sewage from two Cronin houses migrating onto our � land or into our ponds or well. You should test the present Cronin System immediately. It may already be 3 polluting our land and ponds. Maybe they should now be ': required to get onto the metro sewer. � 5. "Building envelope" . We will comment on this ; later. Our only present information, and it has not been � verified, is that they want to build on the steep north- i i erly part of their land, should that be so, I suggest ' ; it would be a disaster that no "building envelope" could i � help. Depending on where they want to put it, we may � have to build a wall or plant a lot more trees to sepa- ;; ; rate the new house from ours, � , For many years Pitkin County has had a strict limited ;; growth program. The Cronins want an exception. The � result will be more people, more cars and more noise in � what was a charming, peaceful, quiet neighborhood. } ; Problems have already started in this regard. The � Cronins have not lived in the house at 0107 Willoughby i Way for a long time. At times the occupants of 0107 � � Willoughby Way have been numerous and have fleets of ` motor vehicles. I have recently written to Mr. Cronin ' , about his tenants, Attached is a copy of my letter. ; ; He says he has talked to his tenants. According to Mr. ; � Cronin, they deny everything and accuse the occupants i of the Thomas property of poaching our fish. He also � says his tenants say it is other dogs, German Shepherds j belonging to "someone" on Willoughby Way and another ; from "up above" that come on our property, 3 i � � r � � � � , ; _ _ _ _ _ __ _ . _ _ __.._._ _ . ._...... i i � � . Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners July 17, 1981 Page Six Also attached is a letter I have written recently to Mr. and Mrs. Lavender about their tenants living in the house just west of my property. i My point is that you must look at the whole picture. � The number of people and motor vehicles and the amount of noise is already growing. If you let the Cronins chop � their property into two lots, you will aggravate the ; problem. Somebody realized this and stopped it once j before. Please do not make the mistake of departing j from prior sound policy, i You should also know that we do not accept the Cronin i contention that their land comprises 2.977 acres as they ' apparently claim. I looked at some survey markers this i past weekend. One of them up near the Salvation Ditch � seems to be a marker purporting to be the northwest corner of the Cronin property, and it appears to be j substantially west of Mrs. Westfeldt's house. This does 1 � not make sense to me. Mrs. Westfeldt and I are going � � to engage our own surveyor. We will want him to review the Cronin survey, which we assume (but do not know) � � that he filed with the P&Z. We will also want our ; surveyor to run the line between the Cronin property � � and Mrs. Westfeldt's property and possibly resurvey the 1 j Cronin land. Unless and until it is proved otherwise, ; 'i we will not concede that the Cronins own as large an ; area as they claim. •` � �: How many lot splits have been allowed in Pitkin County? Hasn't that concept generally been rejected? ` Surely the Cronins are not claiming hardship, financial � or otherwise. If they are, we should be allowed to test . 1i that claim. I suspect the contrary is true. They can � probably enhance their financial resources by splitting i the lot, but that is no basis for action by the County ; i Commissioners departing from a strict growth management ; policy. Perhaps they can also sell the house they now live in at a great profit with little or no tax impact. ` Should that be one of their objections, it falls in the category of estate planning, again no basis for con- ; sideration of lot splitting by the County Commissioners. ; ; :i ;, ; 1 ! { :� , '; � � i j�- _.. ._.. .... � � --- � ..m.. .._ _ �� Pitkin County Board of County ,�� Commissioners Ju1y 17, 1981 Page Seven . , You should also consider the Cronin request as one that can set a precedent. If Cronin gets two lots, ;,� Thomas can get two or three and we can get four or � five. Maybe we can all chop up our property, sell :� out, make a lot o� money and leave. � Please consider this letter a motion on our part � to remand the entire proceeding to the P&Z sa that we ' can be heard at that level. Failing that, we move in � the alternative that you postpone your consideration ; of the subject until at least November 1, 1981, so we j can get the surveying done, look at whatever deed � restrictions may exist, formulate appropriate theories upon which to oppose the application and get whatever , witnesses and documentary evidence we think appropriate. � We want a fair opportunity to be heard in an effort to � persuade you to turn down the Cronin request. � � Yours very truly, � � � 5 / , / � � � ; Pat ick M. Westfeld j �. �� PMW:nr � ;: ; Enclosures + i` + � i� cc: Pitkin County Planning and f � Zoning Commission ;• � Attention Peter Guy, Chairman ; , Mr. and Mrs. J. W. Cronin '; . Mr. Dan Levinson s � Nick McGrath, Esquire ! i � - i I � i 1 � i 3 i� j . ,� 3 .; 7 �i i � � ;� � j1 . � � I � . . ' � �� t ' • �.... • ' -° ` �•�:;s. E,,;�.c�z�rr� �a_ ;�rr:s�r:��.�:f,i)�r .PO� 504 i • ASi�FN, COL.Oi�ADO 37.5].l �(�cf�9?a� � ro�n oF co. cor�tn��, ., � `Ph� E��r�i of Count,y C•om�ni.:;:,i_.r�n�r.s PITKIH CO.: oi ?�itka.n r_o�u;ty p� EXHiB1T Pi.�':in Cot:r��y Courtn�u��e Dat ::ain sticct � Aspen, Color.ano 81611 . Su1i � �- r _�g /• A�tention Ifr. �Jo�epl� E. Fi?wa.rds, Jr. . , Ch�irnan G�ntl_emen: . I am inio.r.med tnat you �aill �gain ronsid�.r tt�e subjLCi� o� "1ot splitting" at your .ieetiryo un `.?'u�5drzy, Or_cober 9, 19 i9_ I um a .resideiit of Pitkin C�un�y_ :•iy i�rc�per�y is locatz3 i at 0109 [�lillouohby I7ay on lo.aer R�d i•,ountain. Thai� prooer�y � is rnade up of two adjoining par.c��is of 7.ai�d �ahich, ��nen L=,'.en ; �ocether, coraprise ab��ut 3. 7 ac:rc�s. �oth of tnc�e p^rcels oricjinr:311y car:�e �rorn 1�1i;e and� .�:'�:�gie 2•;ac�ni�ic:o �::ho �•:�re ;-:Y neic�hbors for a t•�nile afzer I had 'nuilt n�y h��e_ �7':-� first ; Parcel oi land I thi.nk I bought in 1957. `i'he itoiise ��:as � UU.Ll� a3�d I moved into it in 1958_ The second {�3IC?1 I � bought a couple of years later �rom a c�GIRr,4ily Cc"'.IZ('Cl �i�zln i � Land and r�plora�?on Co:npany, who in tu:rn };ad Uought ?� �rc;L► ; the Magnificos_ i • . , I am sendir?g a copy of this le�ter �o I•ir. Cro��in: As I j tinners�_and it ��e and ��srs_ Cronin o:•:n the prop�rty �.*hic:� ?djoins ` ��e to the �ast. I believe that i�e is orie of �he ner�ons *:°ho � � is in �avor of lot 5nlitting_ As j%ou will see frc�m �his le�ter I am not. Ho��:ever, i��.r. a>>d ?•�rs. Cronin are a�od �ri�ncs of i�ir_ . t•,�esi.feldt anc? r�1ysF1f �nd .T. =..,�ni� lhem t:o be i_nT�or::�.:=d o?' my l�1.C'A �:�i"1 'i:17_S �il's�]��?C:t l.?1 i:[i� Si':u�3 .'�?;�'-ecil �'.:1!? ivi.. i:.tli? .ic._;,? �_".'1'? �15� . � �-ou a�,e. k ; � ��'}lE.' nroper�ies 111 my i.r�_n��d�FiLC9 vi.cini:�ty _�.re; 'c S I Lli?QcrSL=*?� lt� i subject to your -regular s_i.,Ig]_e f�:�ily resi��nce zoiii�g z-u1es. ; I beli�.�e this ?r�e3ns �nat �ne m�:i:.t nave at le�l:;t �0, ��'0 s�_u�te � :�l�E�� Af 1371d 111 O?-4P_'L T_O .I��l�!C f1 !_"r::i i!il:i�C�(? S l�(�. C:p•.:i:`:�'L'� � ;ahe.re t.hrre are larcer �rar.�L-5 of 1a»d, as in �1�:� c:se of �he � pro�ert��s along jtiTl1.�.U11�7�?i��' ?''a�l� i:1.it? U�::;i?tS Of �:;•.U:�C? `:iG�..!?Itll?S � �3x'E 7]Ot ��@I.'Tit1tT:EC1 �O suL,raitT;ce 1:}�ic�?ir Zc IlC1 i:I1C� I�ll� T_il�.-);_i? L!`:?1 O?1E3 ' retii_dr.:»ce on tilc, nro,�.-r��:i.cs :•�i.t:l��out= fi.-rst cu:;l�lyi.,ig •::i�h a.11 � .._!{��.1.�.�b�_P_ QT'Ci:J��1 ?11::11�1C,JC?f(1.£?:7� �'i:C� ::il(�t�l.Vj :�ltiil j:�f:0��('(�ll<<tS .?e1C� I <jett?;?y ,317. n�.:c�::saZy i:�?T�I(�':�clJ.$. ' � � 1 :i -:.1 i - ` • • � � � �, �-?.- 'Chose rules, :•7117.r�1i you hav� a�3opt�d, h�v�� pres�rved one af tt1G' :�OS� a�f�r.aci.ive IC:3�C3G'1"1t7�3�. �'f_t:�7S 112 c'1�.1 O� �1L�1I1 C011Il�y. On the co.rr�er ��f tdillougizby [•lay and Red 2•;ountain Road is tI�e Lc;�nard Th�Tas ��roperty. Th:i.s inusi� have �t�hree or i'our acres :�i�h a 7_ove�.y �ond and a ni_ce house. T}ie Croni.n prop�rty is ' n�x� S_o �:he �•re�;fi. I be7.i�ve it has about tli.r.ce acres �•�i�h a loz�n7.y pond %�i�d a na.r:e ;:ouse. .�iy p�:�?:c:��.L-y h��s 3. 7 arrc�s :aith t.�•:c� Lr�;�ui.:i.1:111 ��;��ds a��r7 � nir_� �lOL1SP__ ']'he nc:;i: pioperty to tize ;•::�st :t� o�•:��r�d by my hur_-bai�d arsd I=,c3 Lynrh. `ihey h�ve just had i{� :�puraa.scd. It h�s' apprc�ci:��L-ed yrcatiy ia� value s�nce they i�r�ug��t it fr_am 1�Sr, �:�nd I•;x-s. �wi;�g Taylor_ 'i'he appraiser c3}7SOI.11tc�ly �•:%::{C?S �O�t.l_C: i3�.7C�lll''. ��1C �iiC� tllc�'r l�� S' U71�3 U� i_.'�e bc^si� bui_lding s�.t�s in Pit',�.n ��ounty. Jie coni:in�i:�l_ly rei�rs to �.hn pr��ty view over my� pond and across .the vall4y to �he south. 4uite ai�viously, if ].ot spli��ir_g �aere allo�.oed �t?3 one or more r•esidences ��ere plac�d in front of Lliat proper�y, �ne apprais�r's view or the value oi that property could b� v�ry different. i�ext we turn to wnat t:�e nlace �,ould be l..i_t:e i � ;:ou ��cr�i�ied 1ot s��litting. The Thornas ProPerty could ha�e a c.ouple of Tansions, so could the Cronin pr.operty, so could mine, so . could the one that ny husbaild und Ecl I.ynch o�ar.. Ins�cad of a nicc�, peace�til., quiet axea �vith pc�?zds, a_r•r_i.ga�ion ditches, str_�.�:r.s, �,rild duc�s, trout, et cete:r�, cae ;,=ind �p ha�-ing a �unch of big houses and lots of automobiles und ueople. I ;'�OLG;I't the tc•�o pieces o� land I own bncaiise I 1 ikAC3 th�-i �he way they :��are and are. Sia�ce I bought '�..hose tt•:o piec�s, • �rie ��.rd of Coun�y Co��u�nissiallers of Pit.?:in Couiity h��s ado��ed ��he n.r_esently existing plann�ng and zoni.ng regula�ic.�s, �.}:e C�Sr-C.'CL of ��hi.ch is to preserve tne 1_ovely settinc� �.s� �•:tsicn all of the houses that I've ��enti�ned f�.nd �he�i:sel�:es. Ii you . r�o�a s1li.ft g�ar-s and f�n__r_init tot spli.�ting ��ou �.�ill s�.l:ply :.,e revers�ng a v�ry Zrd�Lable L.r�nd �n��t Nas pre�ert:ed p�a=e, �yuiet i �nc3. nztura.l b�auty ar_d 'n�s kr�pt thn_ nii:�iU�r of_ h��.�ss�s, 3uto-- i �pi�11.CS �:1'1C3 k7t;0y��_-G' �ri t.ii1S Vl.Cl;lliY T1-Gfll �jt?i-��11�J ��lli. �)i [ec�C�. + I i.:c!?: i.,?r'r31i?.�V \i?.atiZll�:�� .?'_3t� 1r i.t_)L .`i��.lLiir�� S _ __::i.l�.�t.C�a � �nd iz i:he 10�s ax'e sp7_ir, �he �Jic��ry �ain o� i=i�e propc_-�.y � T�1( owners could be. very great. Ii ��ou s,1oul.d go in �hat dirr-ction, �hen 1 ou will �ave decic�ed to �nove in� favo-r o� ti�ai� !:ind oi .:�o;i��ary cain �•rhile sacri_iicir_.q the qua]_i�y and the c^_�_:n oT �he Proj�erties in our n�i�h�ornood. .l S�.?SI74CL that �he, i.otal nuni�r_r_ ot �e�arately o::ned ►�a�-cr..ls of ].�i��d in Pi=}.�n c'��unty that inight be �ztiectc�d by �he 1ot sl�li�ting prn��sal �o L-e cansic3er.ec� n�:st Tur_s�3ay �.s ��ry l:i�tiitcc� , ?� r�L_�?��c�.r. Iiv�ti 7,:.,ly ,3a:e :1-�ere? T:•:enty? t�.��re? Less? � ;?i3i•. i:l?IlY :31(2 �f7t?r(. ].Il :ily ;:i?l��it[�('ij't?liCiC�.� �.'.CZlI(,U].\��}�1.}'� �::OSL Of i i 'i i _�•}� i , • ' . .. - • F �'• � �y_.. . -3- ' them zre in tn� Red I•iounta.in ar_ca. If I am c�rrec` on �his, your. adoption of ].ot sp]_iL•i.ing ;•�ould be . some��hing. do�e for the benef.it of very fecv people and c�rtainly would not ha�� ilY broad sucial benefit in Pitl:in County. It ��ould t'�erefore . s�em that char_ging y�ur o��n rules in -L•his ma;�ner could only be siipi,orf.�d on tlie basi.s that you ��anted to c.o s�:�e�hir_g f.or �h� fi:��,�ncial b�i�ef.it oi v�-ry f�w �c�opl�. 'i.�hat �oesn `t seem . to ,�e J.ike. a tii:�.y �•�o:ct}�:�:hi.le obj��ctive, c��;isid`ri�g ::�hai: :L - � . belicve are the �erious r;et:rilnental aspects of I.ot sptit�iiig_ I Jery sincere7_y request that you take ny vie:as in�o acco��nt, and of course I urge you not to adopt any kind of County • r_esolui�ion that �,rould ner.xnit a person' �.=ho o:�rns ;itore �han . G0, 000 square fe�t to. chop �hat parcel up into �;•�o rc�idential properi:ies witlzout going throuyn the suUdivision and grc;rth manac�e�ent plan proc�dures and regulations. Very sincc�rely, � Jean H. k*estfeldt � 0109 �9illoughby t�:ay ' � � cc: i•1r_ J. LV. Cronin � . Sar_dra M. Stul.ler, Esq. , ; Pit.l-in Connty Attorney . � � . I � ; � `s . .�; i • - EXHIBIT � r _� G"; � OOODRICH OPERATING J.C. '� 2210 dANK Op THE SOUTHWEST 6LD� � a S a �* HOU570N TX 77002 � ,I , ��049536926� 04/24/8! IC3 IPMdNGZ CSP DVRB 71365936B0 MGM TOBN HOUSTON Tx 48 09�Z4 0454P E9T � /2 !..� JACK CRONIN 433 FRAnKLIw S7 QENVER CO 8021� , • � TNIS LET7ER OF SUPPORT. I AM AIVARE OF TME LOT SPLIT APP�ICATION 8Y THE CHONIN�S FOR 0107 WILLOUGHBY WAYi PITKIN GREENr ASPEN COI.ORADO r AND AH IN SUPpOkT OF THEIR EFFORTS. HUGH GOOflRICH� KED MOUNT4IN RD AND WI�LOUGHBY WAY� ASPEN COLORADO � 1bs54 EST MGMCOMP � � r i . �.... i ' I � I '_ . (_ f I I � i � i I I � ' ( f': ; _ _(_ (~ TO REPLY BY MAILGRAM, SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR WESTEHN UNION'S TOLL• FREE PHONE NUMBERS . • � . . '.•�!:;�� y: .�;�.: �.- � � . � '.;�r,�'��' 14� { , � The Aspea Times X �� l a � S goX � ��:� Aspen, Colorado b�'� o� co. cot.t,u�R�s . PxTxzx co. Public Hearing T�shibits Da'to �; 28_$EPT,.�1.9,81... . Sub3:ct : AIRPO_RT REGS PROOF C�F PUBLtCATION : � STATE OF COLORADO ) COp�/ Of NOtlt@ ) ss. County of Pitkin ) ' I� William I3: DUriSWSy do solemnly swear that I am the ��h� ��hP�" of THE ASPEN TIMES; that the same is a weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in part, and published in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, and has i a general clrculation therein; that said newspaper has been pub- lished continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Pitliin, for a period of more than [iftytwo conseculi��e weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertise- ment; that said newspaper has been addmitted to tfie United States mails as second-class matter under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amendments theceof, and that said news- S 1�;_ :�t{�,,-H�� , - s. �,� � paper is a weekly newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal �� , � ' notices and advertisements with the meaning of the laws of the �,�,,:r� , L : *s� State of Colorado. �°��Y mVEN� ,�� ,�F;Baad K.Cone�p Commi�ion,e�oE� ' :Oomtr"Cdaailo.wD!000doet s'y� ' Th�t the annexed 1ega1 notice or advertisement was published � �'�sa+�.� 1�BItaO in the regular and entire issue of every number of said weekly -1 0�1 6 A 1[;1 n t h�C b a�m i�i�.g i�m;_,'' � � `P'Ifida.COimlp CbYR10YM�-60d'�r 1L�ia w,. ' ;��t.;A�:'��io,,.to,_eosid�e*iin' 'L{ ; newspaper for the eriod of Z consecutive insertions; and �'�t°T�N&ei°°6o�o�t� ; P P1t�in Caeol�(1od�(Anpa�i � that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said � wbi�h�. . �` ' `1 wouid:p�es�i!fh�Bard o[Ceuak� ' newspaper dated _�g 27 ��l� A > >st A.D., 1981 and that (ara�s)bsemdu�iadm�qit�ktwh�r_ the last publication of said notice was in the issue of said news- �A°'��"*t'�� ' • -9 MqWi�h tbr rl�q�e5�r�d: ' 'with �iol� aneh Le� , ': paper dated A.D., 19_ ��0��"��D � .Y'�ao�d.�oe.l•, .- ', .�.��• : _ CapiM at t�propau�d�sm�m�ot(and' � �� °+�� / �� 'i[ �wu. is;� �YA!'El�:.+.�1(J T.�`., F.�.. �.�'` ...'��:k � C 'BDARD�F �' ...:. , , ; P117�1 C0[J1�TY OULOS�ID�O° .: Subscribed and sworn to before me,.a notary public in a for �. ';x y' '��:��.��'��`, PnbH�6d m ths A�pen Tima v�t�2�' .1� M :: I �.' �,� the County of Pitkin, tate of Colorado, this , day of . . � ._::, �,,,s;.�;�.� A.D., 19 S�L Notary Public My commission expires � � The Aspen Ti�aes q%� ��,l�� r.:::.::;� o:, r, r; � ; �',.0 o. co<::.: �,�a U Box E rzx:cz;t cc. 1'::b7.i.0 Hcaria� ;:��?1�i'�s � Aspen, Colorado " ,'_`'° . S 1 8 • --•---—�T 198.,,..._ Sub3cet : S�A____GE PERMIT FEES PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO ) COp�/ of Notice ) ss. County of Pitkin ) , I, w i 11 iam Ft� Dunawav do solemnly sK�ear that I am the — PU1�1.1Sh@T' of THE ASPEN TIMES; �b'!C��`�iM,4a��{,st'Y�� that the same is a weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in part, ��_� �' �'�� ` ;�� '':+ N01iCS;IS:HERE�t k:. � �'. "! and published in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, and has � - Borr'd of County.Cammi• a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been pub- Caunty.Colorado,will oosldnd`�c;" 8�� lished continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Pitkin, �M��6��•.�r� for a period of more than fiftytw�o consecutive w�eeks next 1tr00;,. �u� e� . ; ta the first � prior pllkia-County:f�� $' �:-, publication of the annexed le al notice or advertise- ��CO��`�� ment; that said newspaper has been addmitted to the UnIted States °�tO��$'�'�� ` I'�� ladfvidual8swugs mails as second-class matter under the provisions of the Act of hLian.Ths ami '�f March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, and that said news- "��'fO��ap�'` paper is a weekly newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal �)��i��',�k� notices and advertisements with the meanin of the laws of the �°°'�`� ' �" "4y`` Lz''��`�� 1:Fmraoo�eucdns•�'i►iq11�!!s►ti: State of Colorado. � ��y�� due6ed�6'd�t, i1�0 00 2.FQ 000sltndio�a n�w.iidill'vtdN�I�ew r Th9t the annexed legal notice or advertisement �sas published ��1��,rL��piltawarsnot i in the regular and entire issue of every number of said weekly eaod�ted M.t�e dp�i�ient `i10000 n 9;Far iep�irlo�,�6�1id.a m�ll�netiao-:. news a er for the �.i��,��1�r�^t p p period of .1_ consecutive insertions; and �•p�.�+`��bY•�1°�� p�t .,:•: . . ': =16000;� that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said ;�.-g��af��'a�j��-., in�"IndivIduel ssw�e`drpas l.syit� , newspaper dated _AU�USt 27 A.D., 19 81and that �°�0��'Q°°0t'a�dn�d by th� the last publication of said notice was in the issue of said news- ,Cop�ie�thepropn�edemeo�dinentareav� ; ,aii�b�einttii.6moeofthaCamb:�mY.,: paper dated F 'at;th��bovead�wq�dn�og.rpgnlei�busi ' A.D., 19_ ne�d.bwn Fluthet;lnfarmition on the ' "piopo�amsndaoent eiu be'oLtained fiam`:'. • ths Cannk�-S�nitarian,190 8 Galena;° i � Mpen(92b�'101O)�rloi e+s�uLt busins� - �G�O�� /�I �OFOOUC�rco�or� :: �av courr�x,�w�,�� iAfhwP �..>••aA a.h:...: � w � - r Subscribed and swarn to betore me,.a notary public in and for r�� mthpA�pnTime�,A� > 1�81:� + :. the County of Pitkin, tate of Colorado, this �_, day of • �; � . .,_ i.._"�.. _ ...c._. _r.,..�.�sF r ..�. r.«;.w��._:r,.) A.D., 19 Notary Public 114y commission expires