Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.reg.10261981 r. � -` � ,� . ,, P '` +r� : . ' �• '.'.k`'K'�cw�ss-+a+a+ia:.r�t.Mfi.a:x-a�.kSF:.i!ti.��: �..:�5:�;'�._..-_:Yi'f�: �- � �..-t';��i.'e�Y::c.k(�M�l.�'��.l�..���,�yi�i3l�r�if��:�r��..4�'�i.�`��'�T�#•"t'�' fr y� .. .....� . . . . .m�P�y F . �,, �r,� �'�>'. �.i : +t, �'a' _ t'� so� oF co[ari�t car�ssiar�tzs ac�DA � October 26, 1981 8:00•a.m. Resolutions and Caaitracts Minutes i Sale of Aspen Institute pmperLy and Aspen Mt. Park Partrierstti.p - Sandra StuI.Ier AbatP�ent of Taxes - Sandra Stuller '•"� ' Addendwn tn D&H Vending Lease - Doug MoCoy, Airport Manager Tailwinds and Murnane Iease Pppxovats - Ibug McCoy 8:15 E�cutive Session - Michael Schultz 8:30 Social Sexvices - Michael Schultz 8:45 Red Mt. Road Easement - Pat Dobie, Engineer ' 9:00 Housing Task Foroe Appointrrent Discussi� - Helen Klanderud � 9:15 Aspen Rac�uet C2ub Housing Situation - Roy Vroan, Bob Child � 9;30 Reconsiderati.on of Crowley Detailed Submission - Bab Chi2d 9:45 Sewage Disposal Systems - Sob Nelson, Environmental Health �,� Lewis Varianoe Request Dr. Scott Varianoe Request HoZland Hills Coemtry Townhouse Association, Modify and Repair _.�'� 10:00 Public xearing - Reoodificatioai oE Airport Traffice Regulations and Discussi� � ' • of Administrati:ve Hearing Officer Re�mrendaitons-Sandra Stuller, Doug N,cCoy 10:30 Public Hearing - Vought S�bdivision GPS�eral Submission - Richa�3 Grice, Pl.anning � � 11:00 Public H�a�in� - Highlands Inn General Submi.ssion and S�.ibdivision �ti� - Alan Ri � I2:00 First Reading ��,` Monthly Managers Report - Qut Stewart ; Suppleanental Appropriations - Tan Oken 12:20 Conceptual Appmval of Kiosk Con�ssion at Airport - Doug McCoy 12:30 Aspen Rao�roet Club Filing No. 2 Request for Exaess Allohnent - Richard Grice � 1:00 Airlines Request to �d Airport�irfew - Dou9 McC'A'S' �+t � 1:30 Public Hearing - Crystal Fanns Petition for E�oclusion - Sandra Stuller 2:00 Administrative Hearing - C�rfew Villation, Lawler - Doug McCoy � 2:20 Election Cacmission Menbers Selection - Z�oretta Banner 2:30 Public Hearing - Continued - Brush Creek Subdivision I�rovement District � Sandra Stuller i; 3:15 Constxvction Sudget for Highway Depariinent - Dick Prosence, Colo. St. Iiwy. Dept. s!;A 3:45 Public Camt�nt _ 4:00 Joint Meeting � FERC PeLmit - Action on Reudi Water - Bob Child, Wayne ChaFsnan �� A-95 Jobs for Coloradoans - Governor I,anm's Program- Bob Child � � Housing Task Force Appointirient Discussian - Helen Rlanderud � � _ � ; ; I i { � ;�r��?',^„�^' 1'.;. "':�°i: ��.,! a _,.y,n ,.�,..�,.Y... � ���w�.� ; ,; � � F 'a `_F .. . . +'f .ftl�?� ,��: . . � ' � � ... _.. � �._ .r '.-: �� :�_ .-�..,...�� ,.. .,:._. ..�.........: ....�...:9�nS�.if�Nti��i.::bt•�.i'�Sv:�. i��.0 R'�.e7a�j:C"i ;� ' 't4 ` �4,4 s{< , R;,;�vT, ( ' �r� i..' ��� � � � � � � i _ 1 � i , . � i � { . ! PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS � r. - REGULAR MEETING 26 OCTOBER, 1981 � , PRESENT: ROBERT W CHILD, HELEN KLANDERUD, THOMAS BLAKE { � � Minutes Child moved approval o£ the minutes of 13 October, 1981. $lake secottded g� 9 and the motion passed unanimously. 4 .. ,- ��������� i Aspen Bob Hughes, representing the Aspen Mountain Park Partnership, introduced � � Mtn Park a resolution extending the ti.me li a�'t £or satisfying those conditions �� governing the sale of the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies property to the AMP. A previous Board resolution, number 80-112, exempted the sale � e from the subdivision regulations subject to various conditions of record, � one of which was a one (1) year limitation. Hughes explained that preliminary (j plat approval has been accomplished and City Council has passed an annexation ` c^. i'> ordinance on first readin A second readin and final lat a '�'~ g. g p pproval are ':F. still required, however, and this will not be completed prior to the ;li ':i 24 November, 1981 deadline. He requested that the Board extend the time � limit for an additional six (6) months. Blake moved approval of a resolution extending the ti�e limit to 24 May, !. :a 1982. Child seconded and hhe motion passed unanimously. --------^- ;� � Tax Blake moved to deny e petition for abatement oP taxes submitted by � Abate- � ment General Minerals of America, Inc, Klanderud seconded and the motion passed �, fy � unanimously. �. t -----�--- R i r.i � D&H Child moved approval of an addendum to an agreement between the Board and �� Vend ing �.. D&H Vending, extending the terms an additional two (2) years. Klattderud ;�' Commissioner�s Meeting 26 October, 1981 - 1 - ,.. ;M��f�k�. ._ . .. . ., . . .. . .: . .. . . . I. . . . . . . . . ����3q�'���Ju .�"',i �'� �:. ; . :��-.r . „ , I �"�� �, ` : . . _ „ � �^,�_sr� ° _ . -� .� _ .._ ...__... _.._...__.... ..__., �.,.,�.....�...,, ,...4......7a.w�:,:ca.�._:::u�::�:::.v-...::.rx-�s---, ws ���. ���Fk„ �. ��,, .s{<.:. � a.��, ��� � �:-Y4 seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Tailwinds Blake moved approval of a Use and Lease Agreement between the Board and•. Lease Agree Tailwinds, Inc. Klanderud seconded and the motion passed unanimously. a Murnane Blake moved approval of an addendum to an agreement between the Board and -- Aviation i Addendinn Murnane Aviation. Klanderud seconded and the motion passed unanimously. � t � � ---------- � � Social Child moved to cancel warrant $29936. Blake seconded and the motion � � Services �. passed unanimously. �r ,. E� Social Services Director Mike Schultz explained that there will be a F federal Energy Assistance Program again this year. The regulations impose � a resource limit and require that an applicant complete a declaration of � � ! resources, � Schultz explained that his service caseload has increased. If this continues � 1 1-� he will be forced to cut back on services unless additional staff is provided. �- ���� The situation is not yet critical, though, and Schultz would keep the Board � #Ea � � � informed. It was also noted that the Social Security representative would F be using the Community Center office in lieu of the Courtho�se. Child noted that the Department of Social Services has commended Schultz for administering his department under budget, z ---------- f' • Red County Engineer Pat Dobie submitted six (6) easements from pr.operty � Mountain , . Road owners on Red Mountain, granting the County additional right-of-way £or Easement , the reconstruction and widening of Red Mountain Road. The easements, which i3 ` approximate twenty-five thousand (25,000) square feet with an appraised ;� l valuation of one hundred and forty thousand dollars ($140,000), were granted free of charge. If the Board agrees to accept the easements for road improvements, Dobie would draft a letter oE acceptance and � appreciation. No specific performance date has been established, although i � Child suggested that the letters reflect that the County will not be able � � to accomp]:ish the improvements this year. � i i i Blake then moved to accept the road easements from the following parties: � � � Jane Mayer, Linda Kahn, Ron and Peggy Weissman, Sheldon and Priscilla ! Belousoff, Arthur and Joan Cox and Catherine Sweeney. Klanderud � � t seconded and the mot3on passed unanimously. i ---^----- � ` � � j Commissioner's Meeting 26 October, 1981 - 2 + , �. � 'a ,a_���. �:::,�z�_, ►�" '1����` "1 _. � � ; . 1 "�"'#1i3t-i s ry ����a\�"'___- _... .—�...........c ....r,-xri-.< .�;..c:.�_.,_..,._.�.... ,.. .. . . �......_...._r�e..xkb.t`ifw�ti�i.:._xe�:c��i;:id.:tit3!�L,c..:r,..4T,.�.:���i.a'it��t� • �,-� E�' �y h.t�<�; , � �.. ��!.j:;,<��. [�� I�;�R;•.- I. ' �:%SA�� ._ !?� �' Housing Klanderud introduced for discussion the formation of a Houaing ' Task � Force Task Force. It was hoped that the Task Force would work towards the � establishment of an independent Aousing Authority, possibly by ehe first of the year. If the IIousing Authority was not formed at that time, Klanderud i hoped to utilize the Task Force in an ongoing advisory capacity. The following � persons were nominated to serve on the Task Force: John McBride, Joe ! , I - ' Nazzaro, Joan Lane, Harry Truscott, Jim Johnson, Robert Oden and perhaps � i a member of the Aspen Skiing Company Political Action Committee. ' I The Board generally agreed to submit these names to City Council at the joint meeting. �� _��_______ f . . �, I:. Aspen Roy Vroom, owner of Lot One (1), Filing One (1), Aspen Racquet Club Racquet Club Subdivision, discussed his housing situation with the Board. Vroom �. t apparently has received approval to construct a two (2) unit dwelling on � the subject property, consisting of one (1) employee and one (1) fr.ee market unit. Vroom had intended to reside in the employee unit, and was only �.- - , recently advised that he was unable to do so. Vroom has requested, then, � e � that the Board allow for greater development on the six (6) acre site, � � perhaps two (2) free market units and four (4) employee units. Such would make the project much more viable for Vroom personally. The Board expressed a desire to accomodate Vroom but rejected the ��, i ! development proposal due to density considerations, and the affect of the {t • ;�;; - i � proposed development on the Highway 82 corridor, including v3sual impacts, traffic � iand additional road cuts. � , . ': � Herb Klein, representing Vroom, requested that Vroom be allowed to � ! . , �reside in the employee unit. Upon his vacancy, the unit would revert to n a legitimate employee unit, to be used in conformance with all aQpropriate �� guidelines and restrictions. Klein maintained that the Housing Office, i in previous discussions with Vroom, assured him that an owner could reside �� in such a unit, and that Vroom has proceeded with this understanding. ' � Housing Director Jim Hamilton explained that one could reside in an employee ; � 1 , dwelling unit if one qualifies as such. He further maintained that he had � ' i no record of discussing the matter with Vroom, neither did he advise the � ; 1 applicant that an owner could occupy an employee unit. It was also noted "i i that the applicant never discussed the matter with the Planning Office. ' � # � Richard Grice of the Planning Office expressed some concern with the � affect of the Vroom proposal on the GMP. There is, for instance, a dual � rate of growth, one for employee housing units and the other for free market � i I I � Comm�ssioner�s Meeting 26 October, 1981 - 3 ' �7?��-��;� !,��;�,�'�"�;'�:�i y.:r ;:.`•�`';''r:_..f . �. _ ..i .. - . . :.�5 .-.-., � . . 1 .�L f�'f . � . [�.,� r� `'.j^�':��«�w_.�r..n.:�c_-...,.,.ae�_:axrx.�:rl�.v.:...:n�...,.:«Z....r,. ' . .... ....;,,ss.,:.�R'i�...?t:�.aau.-eV:e'T]eFrisF'.T7�['.»�..!9ixH.3-.-?I,r�z--.•e.xme..�.^�+.�.'xre+� ..� rt •_ �,!��r��: �� 1�9' . � aqF;S�y;. w !':J1�3.i . ' ' units, and the Planning Office would prefer to coordinate the two. Grice felt it was wholly inappropriate to allow Vroom to convert an existing employee uait to a £ree market unit, or to use the employee unit in any way other than in conformance with the varioua restrictions and regulations. The Vroom employee unit has been deed restricted to the low income category; to allow for any other ;{ �'. use would haue..an aduerse impact on the rate of growth in the community. The � Planning Office further maintained that the subject area was inappropriate for any type of housing...Even if the Housing Office had advised Vroom that an owner could occupy an employee unit, Grice explained, the Board has never ' a ; � taken the position that an administrative error warrants amending the Code. � �4 Blake noted that the points had been allocated to the Vroom �: application on the basis of a low income employee unit. Vroom offered to � compete in the GMP again, perhaps with two (2) employee and two (2) free l• � market units. k , The Board generally agreed thaC it would.be inappropriate to amend the �` � r �;:� Vroom application to allow for greater development or to amend the employee � dwelling unit regulations so as to allow Vroom to occupy such a unit. l� # i . � ---'------- !! Sewage The Board convened as the Board of Health to consider two (2) requests Disposal Systems: for Sewage Disposal System variances. Bob Nelson of Environmental Health Variances submitted a request from Edward Lewis for a variance on Lot Twenty (20), j Little Texas Subdivision. Lewis proposes Co remodel his residence and � upgrade the existing sept3c sysLem. Due to the location of the residence and � i • the existing domestic water well, a variance is required for the location of the septic system. Without the variance, Nelson explalned, the applicant " � i � can not remodel nor can he upgrade the existing septic system. A similar � request was submitted by a Dr Scott on a lot in Starwood. In this instance, � the applicant requires a variance so as to obtain the minimum square footage � � for the leach field. Nelson recommended that both variances be granted. p t �Child moved approval of both variance requests, IClanderud seconded and the motion passed unanimous2y. '' . _ � Nelson then introduced the engineering design of a sewage disposal system } � ; t for the Holland Hi11s Country Townhouses. The proposed system would serve ? ; to replace an existing and failing sqstem, and requtres Board approval � due to larger flows and amendments to the Water Quality Control Act. ( ! r Although the replacement system fails to meet Pitkin County standards, it � does meet aIl Colorado Depattment oE Health criteria . Nelson recommended � I � { Commissionet's Meeting � 26 Octoher, 1981 - 4 ! � n�'"��.. . . u-+py,t ' �ra.4 t"t}�^, ' � � 'r.:�- - •:r�:. � j,�� , k �t��; � ;r� �s.'�*�s'�.�',.:,._.�..,�.�......,�... �` _—__._�.,....,....._...___._- --- _ . -....�...�_--_�---.___.... _._...... . ... .__..._., ,- � . _._---- , . �Sh�Y»' y�r . Pr+�i y�i�i i'�i:�:"..�,. r � approval of the design as it represented the only available solution to a malfunctioning system. Child moved approval of the design, Blake aeconded and the motion gassed unanimously. Public The Board convened a publ.ic hearing to consider an ordinance reenacting ' ' Hearing: Airport the Traffic Regulations of the Airport Code and establishing a Penalty � Traffic , Reg's Assessment Procedure. i i Child opened the hearing for public comment;: there being none, the hearing was closed. Blake then moved approval of an ordinance reenacting the Traffic � I. , Regulations of the Airport Code and further, establishing a Penalty Assessment �` procedure in conjunction therewith. Klanderud seconded and the motion passed �'� Y unanimously. r 1 Airport Manager poug McCoy explained that the Board recently passed a � '�' resolution allowing for the conduct of Administrative Hearings by a � Hearing Officer. He requested that the Board oEficially appoint Don Davis �� '�;'� �. ' as the Hearing Officer so that, henceforth, he may conduct Administrative �� i� Q Hearings for the Airport. 2dcCoy assumed that Davis would perform the duties F. ; of Hearing Officer as a function of the Sheriff's Office so that no additional reimbursement was called for. Blake then moved to appoint Don Davis as Hearing Officer, Child seconded � and the motion passed unanimously. ' ' --------- � : - Crowley Child introduced the Crowley Estate Subdivision for discussion. The detailed i � Detailed � s • ' Submission submission application was recently approved by the Board subject to two [:: ` �< �(2} conditions; a recreational easement along the Frying Pan River and the ! j park dedication fees, Crowley has protested both conditions and has requested � i � that the Board reconsider the matter. Child moved to reconsider, Blake � seconded and the motion passed with an abstention from Klanderud. � t t � Child acknowledged the vatious community services prov9.ded by the ; . i Crowley's and suggested perhaps waiving the recreational easement requirement. � r The Crowley's could be reimbursed, on an administrative level, by the County f � � � I for the use of the Crowley land. Richard Grice explained that the park dedication ; £ees wnuld be waived, 3f the Board accepted the recreational easement, by virtue of � � the size oF the easement. He cautioned that the Board may set a precedent � I � � by noC requiring the Crowlpy easement; access to County streams is integral � i to the tourist econnmy, and waiving the Crowley easement would jeopardize E , Commissioner's Meeting 26 October, 1981 - 5 ����� � . S. ,�i.._5� ...i.�?�.. s�T��.. ;. -; ; 4 .:,� ; 4� S�JI t-1 P�,�{��Y� � ...—� � . _ �..�_...�:�.r.e..w::vi•.n:4rr���1•�iC�...Y:.'�,_:A_. h.�. . �.r.--' . �. , —�n - ... . •+.3h}_n �.:.ri1�e.SL�i:'1'��..ri{R�i'1 'tAJ�.i'(.i'nit:i'wTC�:7(�Yl•..��. ��.r�J J . !.� yS�jj tY'( � k�fy.',S,'>;-:`,; � ! •'t�a,.;' ... >r•.�,..�t::. s �,��vi:'_. ,� � this basic policy. County Manager Curt Stewart asked Crowley if there was much pressure to fish in the area. Crowley admitted that there was very little. Blake did not feel that the recreational easement would significantly pA ; j� impact the area, and moved that the two (2) conditions imposed at ; r detailed submission remain in effect. Klanderud seconded and the motion 1. i . passed with opposition from Child. f Public The Board convened a public hearing to consider the Vought Subdivision, Hearing: j Vought a general submission application. Richard Grice submi[ted to the recozd the ;� � Subdiv � � Planning Office memo of 22 October, 1981, the Vought application, and the . Land Use Code as amended. The app2icant requests a two (2) unit subdivision �t ; c of a 3.1 acre site located on South Seventh Street, to allow for a new .r � 1 � single family residence. Referral agency co�ents were generally supportive � � ;{ although thexe was some question as to the access requirements. The applicant � �i � apparently has not demonstrated that there is an established easement at least � thirty (30) feet in width for ingress and egress to the property from a �}'� �- �t�� public road. The PZanning Office also questioned the trail alignment as proposed � � by the applicant, and recommended that the easement be relocated along an old � ( road cut on gentler slopes thus reducing construction costs. Assuming the access issue is ultimately resolved, the Planning Office recoromended approval subject to eight (8) condi.tions: designation on detailed and final plats , of bu3lding envelopes consistent with Nick Lampiris' report of 3 December, 1980; � l; dedication of trai2 easements to be approved by the Planning Office; in the event ' water is to be provided by the City of Aspen water system, the applicant shall i, i • identify and convey all water rights which are no longer applied to any beneficial use; Lot Tr�o (2) shall be served by the Aspen Metro Sanitation District unless the applicant can obtain the authorization of the Aspen Metro � Sanitation District for an on-site sewage disposal system; submission of a use and F �� tnaintenance for the shared well or agreement to connect Lot ltuo {2) to the ; City of Aspen's water system; soils engineering studies shall be provided to the Building Department prioz to the issuance of building permits; the detailed � � and final plats will include a description of the easements for the well which is located on property owned by the Marolt Associates; and deed restriction � against further development. ;; � I Chiid then opened the hearing for public comment. Leonard Oates, whose wife i � 7 and brother-in-law own a small house ott South Seventh Street, was not concerned with the Vought lot split, He strongly ob�ected to the County accepting a road Commissioner's Meeting 26 October, 1981 - 6 . �a���t�:xr • �:�4.f. �i.:: ..M1�� . . ��.::.,.��`�j,•,�i.. , � .y t � k �� .� ,;>, . '�' _' : f T �«� � '�o+*ar-w�k,.r,,.rssb:3:�:w�-x�..F.-.Q.��-.t..:..:_�r�_...-��-:..... _..,..:....,..._...._.:w,.-_..._..���.�_._.�_...__._..----- `. � i , Ei j�rs<<; -- - � �.t,�,_r, h, �y<�.'�;' e:.' Ri=y`�'�v��-. �'� it vacated sometime in 1957, however, and strenuously ob�ected to the public , �� �� dedication. Richard Cummins, representing Ed Zasacky, referred to a a� 5 August, 1957 petition requesting that the Board vacate South Seventh � Street. The petition apparently was successful and the road became, and remains, a private road. Cummins protested that the Board would allow [wo (2) individuals, Vought and Hefner, to expedite the public dedication '1 . of_a road without allowing for comments from adjacent property owners. Cuwnins feTt that the road was in very poor shape, which would certainly _ affect future development in the area, and noted that a section of the � � road easement is situated totally on the Zasacky property. # � � Aerb Klein, representing Vought, explained that the access problem . ��" has been resolved to the satis£action of the County Attorney. Klein , E felt that Hefner and Vought were only attempting to best utilize their � � S � respective properties, and that the road dedication was a means of '' S f� accomplishing this. Further, he researched title to the Zasacky property � 5 '.�, and was unable to discover an access easement. It was suggested that, � r!'�� Zasacky may actually benefit from the Vought application. With respect to � �t;� � the trail alignment, Klein asked that Vought be allowed to review the ? � �'� � ;rl final location. He did not think that Vought would object to the Planning � .c;;� Office alignment providing the trail was not paved and limited to pedestrian, � � � cross country and equestrian use. :! S �� County Attorney Sandra Stuller acknowledged that Klein was able to � ;� � display a series of deeds indicat9.ng Vonght had obtained a private roadway � ; ; . �� easement, but requested that he obtain an 0&E from a title company nonetheless. i Stuller also disputed Klein's interpretation of the Code, which requires � . �� � ' . that an applicant demonstrate an established easement at least thirty (30) ,i� feet in width for ingress and egress and utilities to the property from a public road. The applicant has dedicated to the public a private road A �� easemenC at the very end of South Seventh Street along the Hefner and Vought properties. One can only access the intersection of Seventh Street and Hopkins, � however, by use of a private easement along the Zasacky and Rinker propetties. j The applicant relies on three (3) separate seginenbs of road right-of-way, I i one (1) of which is not public. Stuller maintained, then, that the appl3cant has not sacisfied the submission requirements of the Code with respect ta { � 's access, as he is unable to demonstrate ingress and egress, It was also noted g � a that the alignment of the easement does not, in some places, conform to that ; � i of the existing gravel road. � Comanissioner�s Meeting 26 October, 1981 - 7 'ax� • ,Y;.;-.^"�� :;?,.�� �`.:-,;,, . i_� �,� � . � '��1f'{��� t' `"}. r . ' . ��..._ _, r J�r•»'+�i�._ .�._._ - G, .._..:---_ _ :.:.:, .. .._:_ . _ . , � fl;,�����,"�y � �4,��;.`; . H�%'FJI�'s.. ,. Klein reminded the Board that the Hefner/Vought properties could qualify for eighteen (18) units, instead of the three (3) units being proposed. Ae also explained a procedure whereby the privacy concerns of the adjacent 3 property owners could be placated..The County could vacaLe that portion of the road recently dedicated, establish a parking place for users of the !i trail system, and restrict access to pedestrians with the exception of the '. property owners. Klein also explained that he contacted Zasacky in an -; . attempt to mitigate his concerns, and got no response. He felt Zasacky. � was ho7.ding out for a large sum of money, as he is aware that both Hefner � and Vought are men of considerable means. Cummins replied that Zasacky � , was only concerned with the condition of the road, and its ability to � � accomodate additional development in the area. Ae also noted that the County Engineer advised the Board against accepting the road dedication. Finally, Cummins noted that the Board should not consider the development potential of the Hefner/Vought properties; due to the inadequate access, � �. ' there is no possibility for subdivision on either property. ��, Rlanderud noted that when Klein made the initial � � , presentation sometime � � in June, it was not c2ear that the right-of-way along the Zasacky and � Rinker properties, ( Exhibit E } was not public. Klanderud also understood � that the applicant was cooperating with adjacent property owners, although comments from Zasacky and Oates would seem to indicate otherwise. Richard Grice noted that Klein`s interpretation of the Code with respect to access was a novel interpretation and one which the Planning Office �� I " i ' did not support. Oates again noted that he did not oppose the Vought/ ; � � Hefner subdivisions, but strongly objected to the public dedication � � ; � of the road. ' 3 �Child then moved to continue the public hearing to 9 November, 1981, and urged the applicant to meet with adjacent property owners to resolve i t the access issue. The motion died for lack of a second. j Klein explained that he has met with the adjacent landowners and that he was ; � � unable to ohtain a thirty (30} foot right-of-way. He did feel that the '� � Vought application complied with the requirements of the Code and suggested � � i approval as this would freeze development in the area. Furthermore, no one i 7 ( was able to articulate any harm with respect to the appl3.cation and, Klein felt, the road was legally a public road. � 1 I i � Klanderud moved to reconslder the Board's acceptance of South Seventh � ,. i ' Street. Stuller explained that the County�s acceptance was exchanged for Commissioner's meeting 2b October, 1981 - 8 ::��v::�Y:r , :�;�� ^,n•;s;;, 1�� :'.j �;� -.,,; , � ,:-0 k,. v, �,; F_ ?-� , :,:: � .. . .v.:ri<%�1.,�...:.�...ca.s��,...s..�s:�:ur-,x�r:,ci��.c.; �,1:^r__. ,�;....i.:a, ._.:.���--•�r.y.:...-:..._.-..:.1Sn::2'1tY'i'�..��f'.,�'f.-,ri:v:uazw::i��.w%tiiLC4't�t�"tV�. `�({" {� 1{,"^�Yk . %� f� ��fF� ��f��;, l�.;sii''+'� a trail easement, a maintenance agreement, and others, and that these documents have been fully executed. Klanderud withdrew her motion. 1 Blake then moved approval of the general submission application subject � t � to the eight (8) conditions of the P2anning Office. The motion died j i for lack of a second. f 3 Stuller suggested that the Board deny the application on the basis that t _ - i Vought has failed to satisfy the application requirements. The Board should � � determine, for instance, if the roadway easement is adequate to satisfy the subdivision. The applicant has a private access easement, although 3t is . i�s not thirty (30) feet in width. The matter should be referred to the County ��;. • Engineer. Klein explained that time was of the essence and asked that the �'� � Board reserve this as a condition at detailed submission. Stuller explained r � that if the Board recotmnended denial as the application did not meet �general submission requirements, the applicant would then have to solve the ��/,y� . 1(\ access issue prior to resubmis'sion. Klein maintained that the County Engineer � y i had commented that tite road was adequate to accomodate three (3) additional ��', __..l, � �� units. Pat Dobie did not recall such a co�ent, and explained that he would � ,� � have to study the matter further. '�� Blake then moved to deny the application for lack of ingress and egress, That motion died for lack of a second. � Child then moved to continue the public hearing to 9 November, 1981. •i � Blake seconded and the motion passed unanimously. ?�:i �c ` Public The Boaxd convened a public hearing ta consider the Highlands Inn renewal, � Hearing: ' Highlands a general submission application also requesting a subdivision exemption and Inn - a Code amendment. Alan Richman of the Planning Office submitted to the ;: record the Planning Office memo of 16 October, 1981 and attachments, the Land Use '�� Code as amended and the 1966 Aspen Area General Plan as amended. The subject '`,F property is situated on Maroon Creek Road at the base of the Aspen Highlands Ski Area and consists of 6.036 acres. The applicant intends to demolish and � rebuild the Inn to include one hundred and twenty-six (126) rental rooms and , � fifteen (15) employee units. The owners are also processing a simultaneous ;� ` subdiviaion exemption for the purposes of adding .616 acres of land, which ;` � was recently purchased, for a total parcel of 6.652 acres. Finally, the applicant `' � has requested an amendment to the Code with respect to parking requirements ; . � for lodges. 'y : Referral Agency comments wete generally supportive of the application: the t Commisaioner's Meeting 26 October, 1981 - 9 't:�.�'*�^:�i�y�.� ��`i.. ;:��, ���� . . � :.� Q$r .� � { �, `'i 0. `��� 1 1�'�1. . . . �� ' '�'�RMas'�r`�F� .+�in`.'^:^,,...�EC.1i`�:--. ..r_..-'�-::�r"-. _..,..._.�_�_.....<<.._ .��Ti'..x?::t�'�'f-ss.c..�::4'�.:cii1.�:t�x:^'�°3a�i:�33:�Sk.���..� �' a t� ����tyi � q °� , � �4�Ai:....� �r'TTIt'... ., � ' � site does not contain slopes in excess of thirty percent (30Y), the Highlands Water and Sanitation District can serve the proposed development and all employees will be housed on site. There are some major issues, however, � which reqvire further consideration, even though they may not be fully resolved prior tn detailed submission. These included transportation, and j' the impact of the deve2opment on Maroon Creek Road and Highway 82. The _ -- i applicant has provided a traEfic impact report indicatfng the proposed development � will not significantly impact traffic in the area, a position supported by ' fi Skrotzki Associates. This conclusion was substantiated as Highlands is i i 'q a destination skixesort catering to package tours, a signiEicant number of guests � }; , travel by bus both to and from the Highlands, and those guests using �' automobiles typically would do so outside of peak honrs. The minor addition of traffic at peak hours is well below the calculated capacity of the Maroon �, � Creek/Highway 82 corridor. The applicant also proposes an auto disincentive plan, � , � i including airport limousine service and mini-buses to supplement the public bus {� .! ` system. Despite this effort, however, the Planning and 2oning Commissinn � ��, nonetheless questioned fvture traffic flow in the area, particularly 3n light ? , � of the potential buildout in the AR-1 zone. For this reason, they requested � that the County seek additional review expertise in an effort to insure that any adverse impacts will be mitigated. The applicant has also submitted a rezoning application requesting a € j change in the parking requirements. The existing Inn has been adequately �y �i served by the twenty (20) parking spaces now available although the Code S � requires ninety (90). Once expanded, the Code would require one hundred Iand ninety-five (195) parking spaces. As zhe Highlands is served by both � private and puhlic buses and as the ski area is a destination resort, the j applicant requests either a change in the square footage requirements with � e respect to parking, or converting the current requirement to special review 7 G on a case-by-case basis. The Planning Office concurred with this request '� t i and drafted a Code amendment to address the issue on a special review basis. � The Planning Office also addressed lodge condominiumization, as several of x � #. i the units will contain kitchen facilities, Unlike the C3ty and the Town K � i of Snowmass Village, the Code clearly allows kitchens in new lodges. Although Y there are many advantages to offering units with kitchen facilities, the � � :j � Planning and Zoning Commission expressed some concern with maintaining the � � i � unita as short-term rentals. The applicant has agreed to work with the a Planning Office and the County Attorney to devise a mechanism whereby the j Commiesioner's Meeting 26 October, 1981 - 10 ...�,�y.,.''a�',r . ;g.;•.;,�:,5(�,sv.'�`.� � i��' -.. . ~'� _ �", � ._,i:,- :;y . � � ��� 4.� . . . � Y�t t. ��:� �. F(,. ,...�vr�.2i.� � . . . . ... . , . .... . . . . . . . . . .�.. . .. .. . .. . !�i� �,�p�"a;;� �; �b��t.-C�i`,'�,,. +�c � � ����� ui}at condominiumized lodge units wi11 remain in the shorh-term rental market. � The City has various xegulations addressing this issue, many of which ` � . would pertain to the Highlands, and Richman agreed to finalize this � � at detailed submission. { Area and $ulk Requirements have been satisfied, although the Building � . f Department continues to investigate building height and floor area f - "� _ F calculations. � The impact of the proposed development on the growth rate has not yet ` ) been established, particularly as the construction of new lodge unita � in not controlled by the GMP. The Planning Office will, however, expand � . the scope of the Buttermilk Area P1an to include the Highlands-Maroon �r i Creek area in an effort to determine the capacity of this corridor. � • � Concurrently, the GMP update should provide a mechanism Co address growth t G �j rates in each growth sector. � Finally, the applicant requests a subdivision exemption so:as to allow � . : �` for the addition of a .6 acre parcel purchased from the Highlands Ski ���' Corp. The exemption is submitted for the purpose of adjusting a lot line � � � � between adjacent parcels, and the appropriate criteria have been met. " �:i g� The Planning Office recognizes the extent to which the applicant has � attempted to comply with all policies and provisions of the Code and � recommends general submission approval subject to nine (9) conditions '. of record. The Planning Office further recoimttends approval of xhe � subdivision exemption for the purposes of increasing the size of the development parcel subject to the appZicant revising the note to the Building � 3 a ` • Inspector contained on the plat so that it satisfies the County Attorney�s concern that the parcels added to the original development parcel do not constitute separate parcels for development purposes but are instead pieces � of a unified 6.652 acre development parcel. Richman finally requested that the Bosrd direct the Planning Office to prepare a resolution amending Sections 3-2 and 6-6.1(c) of the Land Use Code. ! Child then opened the hearing for public comment. Tom Sopoci displayed �� ,� � various preliminary drawings of the development site and the proposed lodge. ;{ `r ; It was noted that the applicant also intends to include a meeting facility ^ f: � S approximating ten thousand (10,000) square feet in size, and an exhibition � restaurant. The facility will be oriented towards both summer and winter � i � use. !i !. Soe Edwards, representing the applicant, explained that an additional � i i Commissioner's Meeting 26 October, 1981 - 11 , . y*k�'X``�. _. . . . . . . � .��4-��� . .-�.�"�.'��i;��.s�:� . �i':t:�`�`,� _ .__ � �,� ���'�,�:i•���% � ' ' � .': Kc .'.a . . � � � �� "5� K , ti � . .. . . 1'.�' A T' ���+' ���4,l4TAcext�h�.r.�..�`:.✓''s�u�3[:.LaGfiK:.���...rr.<c.��, i., .f... ............,�.._t.c..ti; t.'.��./Y�_�2..',�r,1�bl�+dv..��,:.tf`�..rry.'a.:.-'tj,l��:tiS�!=�Lk.!�..�s'`.�k�'.'+ha�a�F��fi..iyn� i t.I" i1[ . .. .. 4 1.� 1� � . �1�. ' . tr;�43i� . .�. � . I�`.-�Y�A�3'•��,.�'� . � f' � twenty-three (23) unita are allowed and could be constructed at some � point in future if needed. The applicant also intends to run the operation with fifty-two (52) employees, all of which could be housed ! i r � on site. If additional employees are called for, the applicant has committed j to house however many are needed. Edwards explained that the applicant is � y . willing to work with the Board to insure that the facility is used as S t a hotel. The design of the units will actually mandate hotel useage, however, ' . the applicant is willing to accept various restrictions and limitations '; i to address the issne. Edwards did request:greater flexibility, though, fhan allowed in the City regulations, which limits owners use of a unit to two (2) weeks. �` , County Manager Curt Stewart questioned the transportation plan, Edwards , explained that the Highlands Ski Company buses run every f3fteen (15) �� minutes whereas the City buses run every thirty (30) minutes. The applicant also intends to supplement this with limousine service and mini-buses. � Stewart suggested that the applicant secure an agreement with these carriers so as to assure continued service. He also questioned the results of the �' ', traffic impact report. It was his understanding that Skrotzki Associates 's � �i � found the Maroon Creek/Highway 82 corridor significantly over capacity. � Edwards explained that Skrotzki found significant traffic congestion in the area only between the hours of 4:00 and 5:00 P.M. Blake felt there would be some impact from the proposed development, on = y Maroon Creek, Highway 82 and the Airport, due to an additional seventy-seven � � ° � (77) units at the Highlands. Edwards noted that Aspen was losing a substantial i • ' number of units yearly, such so that the applicant may be compensating for'.this - • as well. There being no further comments, the hearing was closed. � ! Child then moved approval of a resolution granting general submission _ ! �e and subdivision exemption approval to the Highlands Inn Renewal, subject to r•� j the ten (10) conditions of the Planning Office, and directed the Planning Office ' to prepare a Code amendment with respect to parking requirements for lodges. a � Klanderud seconded and the motion passed unanimously. ---------- ' � � Kiosk Spencer Walden submitted a proposal to,establish a new concession at the = � � at r i Airport Airport. Walden requests conceptual approval to lease forty-two (42) square ;e � feet in the lobby terminal to install and operate a Grove Foods Natural . i ( Snacks Kiosk. The products include a variety of dried fruits, nuts and � � i natural snacks. These kiosks are currently in operation in twenty-six (26) � major cities, including Denver, and are generally endorsed by airports � i i i ' � � 26 October, 1981 - 12 � Commissioner s Meeting �� ��, . � :j�.l � __,__. ,- . . � �4 y;y 1: � �_, " , n:a . �;,� ���.:. : ....... _ _ �' iy,� f� 1�K�jM,�� EI ���e, V r a�; P C.-,ia � for their efficient use of space. Doug McCoy supported the proposal, noting that none of the Grove Foods products would compete with what is currently being offered in the terminal. BLake also supported the proposal, as it would add some vitality to a sterile, under-utilized lobby area. Child was concerned with the loss ;' i of space in the terminal, and indicated that he would not support the proposal. j There was some discussion as to whether the Board could allow a new concession � in the terminal as an exclusive franchise for food service was granted to � Pour La France. Klanderud and Blake indicated that, if the Kiosk did not i i conflict with the existing franchise, they would support the new concession �� subject to regulating its design and color. ;�' ' I '.. � ---------- i;� Aspen Richard Grice introduced a request £or an excess allotment for the j� Racquet I ; Club Aspen Racquet Club 5uhdivision, Filing ltoo (2). The Board may award excess � Filing � �ao allotments up to twenty percent (20Y,) of the established quota, which was nine (9) units. The applicant requests an excess allotment for 1.8 units; 3 __._;� �. !%; one (1) unit would be an employee unit and the other .8 units would be �' � carried forward by the applicant for a 1982 GMP application. , ��i The Planning Office opposed the request for various reasons. The location iof the proposed duplexes will result in high visual vulnerability, and I conflict with the County's scenic policy. Approval of the excess allotment j I � might also preclude approval next year of a better applicat3on. Finally, , i s�; Grice felt approval would have an adverse impact on the Gt�, by exceeding ir - i j i . �. � growth goals that have already been established. The Planning Office is i i � actually preparing a Code amendment to eliminate the excess allotment ' . � � procedure entirely. f 9 Herb Klein, representing the applicant, explained that the application �% i ranked a close second in the scoring process and has received general submission ± i � approval by the Planning and Zoning Co�ission. The project calls for four �_ ; I (4) units in two (2) duplexes; each duplex would contain one (1) free market �: ; and one (i) low income employee unit. In order to provide the additional ` � I ; f employee unit as proposed by the applicant, an excess allotment of one (1) � � unit is necessary for the development to proceed. Klein noted that if the � f � allotmenh was not awarded, the applicant would apply next year for three f (3) units, two (2) of which would be employee units. He suggested that, ! � j i as approval is assured next year, the Board might as well grant the excess � � allotment at this time. The funds derived from this project will be used to � i I Commissioner's Meeting 26 October, 1981 - 13 ` i , . �'�,_�a-� � ��^'�'''!z• . �y?v:.):'� . t:�":�,. 4'`-... !. -`1 f 5 ",`.b 4. . ;'1 � :�•kErT l�.,i � � � .�� '' � ' �' r"�,a,`'i�if._:_:_... .-..:.....R»..T..�,.9-r.,-_.�.<, ...� ... ..,.. � ,...:... :�>.,.a..-„�,....N,-.«,.F...,�,..�,.v_.. ,�,x..�.,a.,,o. , .._...., _,.,z. ;��pfY 4�,,� � • �t r e h� .' ��M•���R;,;': � 1�:%s'4�?i.. . � � expand the clubhouse. The club apparently is not making any money, and f the proceeds from the development would serve to retire some of this debt. ; , Klein:also thought it preferable to construct the project all at once rathex than in phases. The manager of the racquet club supported the request, noting that the I __ club is the only affordable tennis facility for tourists. The development ( will provide the funds needed to improve the faci.lity, and, as a result, � . provide a better promotional vehicle for Aspen the resort. Child then moved to grant one (1) excess allotment for the Aspen � Racquet Club Subdivision Filing ltao (2). The motion died for lack of �� �•4 . a second.. Klanderud moved to deny the request for any excess allotment. Blake ' seconded, Klein asked if the Board would consider tabling the matter until � he was able to present the conceptual drawings of the project. Slake � and Klanderud indicated that they opposed the request on the basis that ;;- �. � it conflicted with the GMP. Klein asked for ten {10) minutes at the subsequent � meeting. Blake then withdrew his second and moved to table the request. Child seconded and the motion passed with opposition from Klanderud. Airlines Airport Manager poug McCoy introduced for discussion a request from z Request: Amend Rocky Mountain and Aspen Airlines that the Board amend the Airport curfew. Airport ' Curfew The Federal Aviation Commission has recently directed that the carriers • reduce their flights both into and out of Denver by twenty-five percent (25x). Schedule restrictions have been imposed on the air carriers serving Denver due to the inability oE the air traffic control system to accomodate the 3 same number of flights as in past years. The airl3nes feel that these restrictions will have an adverse impact on the community, particularly � during the approaching ski season„and have requested that the Board extend the airport curfew for this reason. � � I 1 John Skousen, representing Aspen Airlines, e�cplained that many of the i major carriers serving Denver will increase evening flights. Aspen Airways would 13ke to be able to accomodate Chese passengers during the � evening hours; to accomplish this, it is necessary that the curfew be � r extended at the Aspen Airport, unti2 10:00 P.M. The airlines also � request that the Board waive the flight frequency restrictions. Commissioner's Meeting 26 October, 1981 - 14 i ,�t-',•,i�31� ' . . . . - �,i , �'�'� . _ 7., _.' • � 1 r�1Ylk 1 . . . � . r� . �lS : C v:.wts.�� .____ -..•-•--.:.��w...�..T . .��._ ._..,, :._._t....s__..._.:.,,��.wa.:sy:�t�".u:...,.,:m=„7Y.w'Y�t.�ali��b':ti>t6?� ��t��Ll ea �'�"� . fa Fty t,n 1:' ���';'`':'�. . ,. �i : �a ;:. ,. i-t�.�::;`:�: � N� f � • + Skousen did not feel that there were any safety concerns associated with j i increased night flights into Aspen, and noted that an extended curfew . would not pertain to general aviation, as those aircraft would continue to � operate under the old regulations. � Gordon Autry, representing Rocky Mountain Airways, explained that � ! - the major carriers servicing Denver have responded to the FAA restrictions � by increasing their night flights. United and Continental Airlines, for � � � example, will be increasing their capacity after 8:00 P.M. There will be� � . rD then, between forty (40) and sixty (60) major evening flights at Stapleton i �ES that Rocicy Mountain will not be able to service unless the Aspen curfew ' j ��,. is extended. Autry noted that there are no Plight restrictions in �: Steamboat Springs for the airlines, and Vail/Avon was expected to lift s ns as well He re uested that the Board conduct a foxmal �. their re trictio . q I public hearing so that the airlines can demonstrate that the curfew is Ft unrealistic. If the curfew is not extended, Autry maintained that Aspen �� would lose tourists to other destinations in the state. Rocky Mountain iN� "f ���', Airlines can apparently serve to rectify this, with very little �� environmental impact, as the Dash 7 is one of the quietest airlines. � Finally, Autry noted that night flights were far safer than most other '. flights. � 1. A representative of United Airlines supported Autry's request to extend i � the curfew, United has scheduled several evening flights into Stapleton ��; i 3 j and is concerned that passengers are able to reach their destinations ; i � ; in a timely fashion. Lee Miller, representing Condominium Rental Management, Inc., also � j ; supported the curfew extension. Reservationists at thic company have t ; indicated that prospective tourists are e�cperiencing difficulties �� j ` � in making travel arrangements between Denver and Aspen. � I � � Rees Johnson, marketing director for the Chamber of Commerce, � � ! explained that the winter visitor spends an average of one hundred and �. � thirty dollars ($130) per day in Aspen. Johnson also supporCed a curfew � � ' � i � extension and urged that the Board expedite the request. � iBlake suggested that the Board shorten the public hearing schedule� � so as to aecomodate the airlines, An amendment to the Airport Regulations � ' � , will require two (2) readings, and Blake suggested accomplishing this i � on November 2 and 9. Autry explained that the airlines will need a i � final decision by 28 November. Klanderud felt the proposed amendment ` ! I � 1 � 3 'Couuuiseioner's Meeting 26 October, 1981 - 15 .� ��� . �` • ,� �. , - :•,i . � . A'.: � . j ��-���,� . � . t ��� � ,1., .r ... ' - _,�..�i.cr.�al�tte"a^'f�.�-n.+F..•wi+NnR+3'.-wt:Ans" �.�Mt1P�lw�n�.�...r�r-�.�....-.�i �.'.r-�-:a+��-+.:'.�:�.�.. ..,,-�.... .....,-...-.....:.�,...s�s. .� �. . . �a�:l':s:�.a3L!:tir�'u'�- ' fG J 4� ��'�'�� . ��;s � (�'. A..r�fR�J� (''. � ��i�S'r..,.,: 4i. �111i�i7e '. ��i • ��",, was of vital interest to the :comnunity, and auggested that the Board . �� conduct a first reading at the next regular meeting, with a public , � hearing and final reading on 23 November. The Soard generally agreed E� � with this schedule and directed that the County Attorney draft a resolution i restricting each carrier to a maximum of twelve (12) flights daily.and � • establishing a 10:00 P.M, curfew, all of which expire on 16 April, 1982. ; , � ---------- � • ; Election Child moved to appoint Brooke Peterson to the Pitkin County Election i � Commission ' Coimnission, Klanderud seconded and the motion passed unanimously. f �� �A � ����`���_� � . a Public The Board convened a public hearing to consider a petition from Joan Benson Aearing: E ' Crystal and Stephen ICent for the exclusion of the Crysta2 Ranch from the Redstoae i Farms j � Exclusion Ranch Acres Improvement District. State Statutes permit a landowner to i 1 � request exclusion providing such does not impair the organization of the � � district. Sandra Stuller explained that Benson and Kent were unable to attend � the hearing and submitted their letter requesting exemption. The petitioners � , � --�„t. ' ,f�: basically felt that their useage of the roads within the improvement district � a i # •, was insignificant and did not warrant inclusion, Exclasion would increase = G: � % the mill le on the other �" vy properties by a very small amount, whereas inclusion would increase the petitioners taxes by some twenty percent (20%). fi - � i Benson obtained fourteen (14) signatures from property owners within the `; t , district who did ttot oppose the exclusion of the Crystal Ranch property t ! ' f and further, who did not feel that the excZusion would adversely a£fect f ` the functioning of the district. � : ' Child suhmitted a letter from Pauline and Virgil Border, also residents � � ' of the district, who opposed the request for exclusion. The district was j1 formed so as to more equitably distribute the costs of improving and � { maintaining the roads within the district. The Borders maintained that a p` t 3�" the petitioners derived the same benefits from the roads as any other t � �resident of the district, and should be required to contribute towards F t the maintenance and improvements of those roads. The Sorders also feared that { I allowing the $enson exclusion would lead towards other requests, all of � ; � which would result in the failure of the district. For the district to � 1 succeed, then, the Board should support the equitable assessment against 3 j � 1 each respective landowner by denying the Benson request, � , � Sandra Stuller noted that a final analysis on the cost of the improvements a has not been accomplished and suggested that the Board table the request. �Commiseioner's Meeting 26 Octobert 1981 — 16 N:�..?�.ti;r,'�� • ' ��-,'.`. �7j-�'v ::;':`';�i, �'<'!'-�-i?.,.�':� . i a: -.t .5.-'�_���� . l . ���'��.�� . _ . . - . , � z i�: '. > ��Y. � _ - .�._�. .» . _.... . �.: f ._ �-'fn � 1 �F.�CA+sr�'dC-i�+vw.1r"`�xi.tFiG:s6.�r.z�:a,rret�xrt3�-dlr �-.:.�:•..�.:-.,..,.:... .. �...:�Tn:.i.d�-t.:1°"�wi'f' '.,°-„�siia[nwv...:a��i•.:!:..�.:'Lw �' ���N: .3,.7s...a+u.a. . ..t � t, ��.:s � �, ��,��g;.: ;� ' � Y f _... [r� e1 ! . � . Zt was noted that the district would only request a small mill levy this � year for snow removal, which would not result in a significant cost to i � j any of the residents. Child then opened the hearing for public comment. Byron Donahue, a res�dent • of the district, is also the president of the homeowners association. fte explained that the Bensons can only access their property via the � subdivision bridge and roads. In the past, the homeowners association y 2 ' has arranged for road maintenance and bridge repairs, and has attempted to ± collect an equitable share from each resident. The Bensons have always � refused to contribute. Donahue explained that the distr3ct was formed (� , specifically to equally distribute the costs; if the Bensons are excluded, �4 i they will nonetheless benefit from the improvements without contributing financially. Gene Border acknowledged that Benson has contributed to some very atictor repairs on the roads when the district was first fozmed this past summer. � This has'.;been the extent of her contribution, however, and he felt that }, ���r each property owner should be requzred to contribute financially. Thelma �. # Horder, also a resident, noted that Benson has indicated a willingness to i� � pay a share of the costs for the improvecaents, although she never has, Sorder felt that if Benson was.willing to pay, she should not oppose inclusion in the district. As there were no further comments, the hearing i was closed. � ��= - Klanderud then moved to table the request until more specific information � .. on the nature and costs of the improvements is made available. Blake j F � : . seconded-and the motion passed unanimously. � 1. Admin The Board convened an adminsitrative hearing to consider an alleged �r Hear: Lawler violation of the Airport Rules and Regulations by John Lawler in that I he did, on the 7th day of August, 1981, at 6:20 A.M. execute a take-off � at Sardy FieZd in violation of the curfew. Airport Manager poug McCoy � � submitted to the record the Airport Rules and Regulations Section 31-1, ) � a notarized affidavit from a witness, the notice of administrative heazing � � i and a notice of receipt of service. � � Spencer Shiffer, representing Lawler, objected to the witness affidavit S i as the witness was not available for cross-examination. John Lawler � � I r explained that on the morning of 7 August, 1981, he flew to Grand i .7unction with two (2) other passengers. The weather was clear and I ). , • lie estimated that he executed a take-off at 6:30 A.M. Lawlor stated that y � Commissioner's Meeting 26 October, 1981 - 17 ,ewy,�4_,a.�r,,.%'�. .. . � :�Y,\} ;��.:' , '.^�� � ;�r '.�� . _ _ 4 1 , *`*�.}'y ���1 _� .» . . ��. . "�'n°'il..�.._--�-.�..r-r_v.....�..z...v:�,.a...c..v�..._�.c �'.':_a�.:.._.�.-,..._.. . ... _,:u:..,�.:e�.;.s�r�ai«.aa.3.csr_....s;��t..i+e+�.?_sr�::2::.T.::�.'c...:_�; r ��st4 : r,� � : a e.. ' �a. L.�4.1.,.:.,,,.�, R C2t�'s � �:; ' � " he did not intend to violate the curfew, nor was he aware of an ordinance Rl relating to such a curfew. He has been a pilot for thirty (30) years ; i and'has been flying into Aspen for the past twelve (12) years. Lawler then � �` stated that he was aware of a morning curfew although he thought this was � I � related to sunrise. He has never been handed a copy of the Airport Rules and Regulations and noted that very few airports have morning curfews� i McCoy noted thaC Lawler uses a publication where the_Aspen Airport � curfews are regularly published. The curfew hours are also posted at the ' i pedestrian and vehicluar gates. McCoy �elt it was the responsibility of } � all pilots, particulaxly those who fly into Aspen regularly, to appraise �3 themselves of the hours of operation. Shiffer suggested that the �R County post notice of the hours of operation in several locations so that this is more available to pilots. a Blake then moved to suspend Lawler from the airport for a period of ! a� two (2) weeks. The motion died for lack of a second. i Klanderud moved to revoke Lawler's airport privledges for a period o£:.orie (1) �'� month. Blake seconded and the motion � � passed unanimously. , � � __________ � Highway Lou Stern from the Colorado State Highway Department discussed the -. Dept Budget departmental budget process. Seventy-nine thousand dollars ($79,000) has been budgeted for spot safety improvements in the Basalt corridor for the � t p : coming year, and some three million dollars ($3,000,000) has been budgeted `�q for improvemenCS between Carbondale and Aspen in 1983-1984. Stern also explained � y � , - that the department has never contemplated diverting funds appropriated for ;y, '- . safety improvements on Hig6way 82, for the busway project. The Basalt a Trustees had expressed some concern that this might occur. ; � The Forest Service should make a final decision sometime next spring � as to the gravel pit on Independence Pass. Nothing has been scheduled itt z ,: the maintenance budget for this purpose, however, so that if approved, the E pit wovld not become operational for severa3 more years. ' � :i Stern asked that the Board prioritize their requests for the forthcoming 1 � meeting in Grand Junctiott on 24 Novemher, 1981. ' ` c i - � ---------- � . l Public The Board cotttinued the public hearing on the Brush Creek Subdivision I Hearing 3 � con't: Improvement District from 13 october, 1981. It was decided:at that Cime i � Brush � � Creek to continue the hearing as it had been determined that the petition did not � Subdiv contain a suffucient number of signatures. Harold Whitcomb, representing the proposed district, re-submitted the petition and verified that the `s 1 , Commissioner's Meeting 26 October, 1981 - 18 i ;,�..,�;��a.� ;. v�;;,. �.3.r.:�tij� :"� t�.,..., id�` '�f . w � � r 7: ._:r . . - �"4,;� ��� . . �, ?"�:;�i , � ���N� i���,��'', �g��,4i;: - � «�4 x � . �� �' required number of signatures has now 6een obtained. The cost of the ' proposed improvements was estimated at five hundred and ninety-seven thousand, seven hundred and fifty dollars ($597,750). The next general meeting of the homeowners��association is scheduled for 10 December, 1981, at which tfine the specific imgrovements and the cost wi13 be discussed. i i. County Engineer Pat Dobie agreed to perfoim a site inspection, and 't f - noted that the cost proposed by the district should accomplish whatever improvements are required. . Sandra Stul3er suggested that the Board continue the hearing so as to a13ow the staff an opportunity to study the proposal. Child moved to � continue the public hearing to 9 November, 1981. Klanderud seconded and �` t':. ' the motion passed unanimous3y. �� The joint City Council - Board of County Commissioners meeting was convened. Those present were Child, Klanderud and Blake, and Councilmembers Parry, Michael, Collins and Knecht. � ---------- ��. r �� Reudi City Manager Wayne Chapman introduced for discussion the Reudi Hydtopower � FERC,- � Permit Permit. On 28 September, 1981, the Federal Energy Itegulatory Commission awarded the preliminary permit for hydropower development at Reudi to the City and Pitkin County. Chapman expiained that the two (2) governments must commence feasibi'lity studies on Reudi project no later than 27 November, -- 1981. The governments must also appoicit a liason officer and fiie with the FEAC, at six (6) month interva3s, progress reports on the feasibility � study. � e. . 1 � Chapman exp3ained that City/County were not notified of the award untii � � sometime during the midd'le of October. I�¢¢ediate action is therefore � zequired if the appropriate deadlines are to be met. He asked that the � 5 staff be authorized to prepare a contract with Sheaffer and Roiand, Inc, � an environmental planning and engineering firm who had submitted a proposal ! � i to complete the feasibility studies at a cost of two hundred and twenty-three � i � thousand dollars ($223,000). The governments may investigate, at a later date, f � � other sources of financing including a private partner and state sources. ; i The City has, however, the availahle funds to finance the feasibility studies � at this time. � I � � I Klanderud expressed some concern that the governments had not been _ � i notified of the perit in a timely fashion and asked if there was an 1 ' i Commissioner's Meeting 26 October, 1981 - 19 � r�,::^��ta� , .,.._ -- . ;�i 6�'±� i �a^..c'br%1°-n � . . �,'y',^,:�:4�•y.i,a.aj . �'� . �i>� �'.•1 . a ' ' � ; . l t"� =7`'� I � `�'�'''•^A"tesw...--;,cc.r��..w:�:,�.:;asri�.-x�i-._.��'..:.,`a.�.���..... �� . r... ... .. .>:?.r;e,.-._�F,"pi.aw.�iL�u�C4'`w�',fi+ierar.+':.:`aiitate��-•w'4:Y:::�i�t.5�f��� i� y,.�. (t d.r�?�:'�',M/fti�� �� F '`:�: � �F���,y::`�, �,,l,-n:.:��. �� � �. occasion to solicit additional bids for the project. John Musick k�1 explained that neither government received a copy of the permit, rather, that he discovered the award inadvertently. Due to the time lapse � and the number of agencies to be contacted, he advised against delaying i the project any further. Sheaffer and Roland has accomplished some { { hydropower work for the City before, and this same firm completed the 1 I ' pre-permit work whfch secured this permit. � . Michael noted that the Sheaffer and Roland proposal was submitted � with four (4) specific tasks. The firat task, estimated at a cost of sixty-eight thousand dollars ($68,000), would define the potential energy � �� , to be developed from the site and a management plan. The firm may, � for example, upon completion of this task, recoamtend against development. Collins asked if the permit must be a joint venture hetween the City �. and the County. Chapman explained that Che permit was awarded to both 4 ,, � entities and is non-transferrable. The governments should appoint a liason `� ti+ � � officer Lo discuss financing and the roles of other jurisdictions in the �'�Y valley. � � Harry Truscott asked why some other entity has not attempted to deveZop + hydropower in Reudi. If the development of hydropower is financially feasible, he felt that some other entity, for example Holy Cross Electric, would have attempted to do so. Musick e�cplained Chat federal regulations �, were amended under the Carter administration which made the development of �,���� iLs ' hydropower more feasible than other energy sources. Prior to this, there was � � no impetus to do so. He expected that Che Reagan administration wouZd � i . . continue these same policies, and noted that there were several other � � applications, including several private ventures, far the Reudi project �F should the City/County decide not to proceed. � Child then moved to instruct the staff to draft a contract with Sheaffer � ! � and Roland, Znc, Parry seconded and the motion passed unanimously. � --------- i A-95 Parry introduced a proposal from the NWCCOG for the development of � � Review a Tri-State Energy Employment and Training Consortium. The proposal i would make operational a planning network for energy-related training � attd a coordinatd common data base for planning between Colorado, Utah � and iJyoming, The NWCCOG provided no other information and asked for � i comments by 6 November, 1981. � ! City Personnel Director Patsy Malone noted that she had spoken withthe � � � ,i : ' � ; Commissioner's Meet�ng 26 October, 1981 - 20 ; ',����f ia.� .„ ,? �,,,., �:�<;?r:�"� __ w.k�w���,�,�.:. ;,: _...;��,;�;; . l�f H i,,,,,•��. e't • • :�,� �Y'�r...:��__ �':, . , . . ' � . - . .._ . . � . .. . . � . . . . ���::- _---`�--_....:�,. .......�:-.__.._. .. ._. . . ....:-.,. .. ...-. fra. La: K� � ���,�: yf • ��-L k 1 . �� [�t�S�D i:Z��irr.'. 1�"`p��'i;; r` . � ,R j'^,�:%.��.�. " �sl�ii'9F:1��o..: . � NWCCOG this morning and was advised that the City/County would be given a thirty (30)'day extension to comment on the matter. � Child mwed .to respond with a ° no comment ° as the information pr.ovided was inade uate f r th t n. Co li s seconded and the motion �` q o any o er mo io 1 n � passed unanimously. Housing Klanderud introduced for discussion the Housing Task Farce. The i Task + Force Board had agreed to form such a Task Force, so as to determine the need for I an independent Aousing AuLhority or to serve in an on-going advisory I 4 � capacity. The Task Force would re-assess the need for housing in the � f ' cotm¢unity and recommend a method fot combining the efforts of the � 'i City, County and Town of Snowmass Village if a Housing Authority was to ( a formed. The Board had generally agreed that the following individuals � would serve on the Housing Task Force: Sohn MeBride, Joe Nazzaro„Joan Lane, Peter Forsch, Rick Farrell, Brooke Peterson, Griffin Smith and Bob � - ;;� Oden. : ��� Michael fully supported the formation of the Task Force as she felt � � it was critical that one determine the need for employee housing in the �' e'•: ^ valley. Parry supported the proposal, and nominated Michael Hernstadt �`. - and Terry Parry to serve on the Task Force as well. , Michael suggested that one (1) member from Council and one (1) member from the Board meet with Harry Truscott and Jim Hamilton and draft a policy for the Task Force. This would be presented at the subsequent j ., , meeting. � < �� Council and the Board generally agreed with this approach. � ,� --------- � There be3ng no further business, the meeting was adjourned. � ---------- z � � Respectfully Submitted: APPROVED: � � . `V'�����L.(XiK. � � ut Count Clerk Robert W Child, Chairman � ; Dep y Y 2 � � i � � ,f ' Coauniasioner�s Meeting 26 October, 1981 - 21 j W' .. �������_�.. _ . . . . . . . .. . . .. ...+.. . .. . . .. �. . . . .. .. . . . .. ....: . ... ' . ;:,.Y-1,.�N �3 . "1,'c..�i �^ _ - _•-'� 1981 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING EXHIBITS October 26 Vought Subdivision General A Memorandum Dated October 22, 1981 from Richard Grice to Submission Board of Coun Commissioners B Land Use A lication—Peter Vou t Dated January 20, 1981 C Letter Dated December 3, 1980 from Nicholas Lampiris, Consultin Geolo ist,to John Doremus D Memarandum Dated October 8, 1981 form Sandra Stuller to Richard Grice E Memorandum Dated January 28, 1981 from Brian Stafford, Trails Director,to Jack Johnson Highlands Inn General F Memorandum Dated June 26, 1981 from Jim Hamilton, �:.. Submission and Subdivision Housing Director,to Alan Richman G Memorandum Dated June 23, 1981 from Patrick Dobie, County En ineer,to A1an Richman H Letter Dated Jul 2, 1981 from Lee Cassin to Alan Richman I Letter Dated June 30, 1981 from Jeffrey Hynes, Engineering Geologist,to Alan Richman J Memorandum Dated October 16, 1981 from Alan Richman to Board of Coun Commissioners Crystal Farms Petition for K Memorandum Dated September 24, 19981 from Sandra Stuller Exclusion from Redstone to Board of County Commissioners Ranch Acres Road Im rovement District L 1 Letter Dated September 16, 1981 from Joan Benson and Ste hen Kent L 2 Letter Dated October 25, 1981 from Joan Benson and Stephen Kent M Letter Dated October 21, 1981 from Thelma Border N Letter from B on Donahue O Letter Dated October 1, 1981 from Pauline and Vir il Border Administrative Hearing— P Notice of Administrative Hearing — John L. Lawler — August Airport Curfew Violation— 14, 1981 John L.Lawler �„ Q Affidavit of James Belfont ; � . ; �Y. ,, _� 31 I �_ . � • i , . , . - r.oisr,D o� co. .r.n:�: ,:,�_; � rlTxitr co. � MEMORANDUM Publi I � EXHIBR Dato � T0: Board of County Comn%ssioners suvjc� � i �'::t,. rt, . / FROM: Rjchard Grice, Planning �Office RE: Vought Su6divis1on - �eneral Submission - Public Hearing DATE; Octobe� 22, 1981 - . We have received an appli`cation from Peter Vougf�t for a two-unit subdivision of his 3.1 acre site located on SoutA Seventh Street. The proposal is to divide the site into two single family parcels. Lot 1 would consi'st of 1.4 acres and i presently is improved with an existing dwelling and studio, Lot Z will be } approximately 1.7 acres and upon approval will 6e eli'gible for the construction of a single family residence. ' . This proposal is made under t6e lot split provts�on of Section 4-6(b) of the Pitkin County Code. That secti.on provides for an exemption from the once a year subdivision applicati'on date, the 50 percent employee housing requirements, and frowth NJanagement Pian provided that the end result of the subdivision is no greater than 50 percent of the zone density and the property is deed restricted against any further development. Referral Agency Cor�nents • . The County Environmenta7 Health Department has recomnended that the new � dwelling be served by the Aspen Metro Sanitation District. The applicant would prefer to install an on-site individual sewage disposal.system provided he can obtain authorization from the Aspen Metro Sanitation District. Also, � Tom requested that "any fireplace installations in the new dwelling be designed in accordance with Pitkin County Codes." The water supply will�be provided by an existirig well which the applicant � proposes to be shared between these two lots, The wel] is located on adjacent � property owned by the tdarolt family. Tfiere is an easement in existence for ' this well, The applicant should be required to su6mit a use and maintenance ' • agreement for the s6ared well or agree to connect lot 2 to t6e City of Aspen water system, Tbe County Trails Director, Brian Stafford, reviewed thi:s application prior 1 to his departure from t6e County and has approved the proposed ali'gnroents and easements as s6own on the general submission maps; The Diyision of Water Resources wrote that they could i:ssue a well perm�t for lot 2 should the appllcant so desire, The Colorado Geologic Survey reviewed the data submitted and concurred with � �ick Lampiris's findings. Their reco:mnendation was approval subject to the t recammendations found in Nick Lampiris'.° report of December 3, 1980. Also, ; they strongly urge that the building envelope for lot 2 be placed such that hook up to Aspen's a�aste water system would be possible. • Planning Office Comments Section 5-107.4 of the Pitkin County Code requires the dedication of vrater E rights which are no longer applied to any. beneficial use on lands to be improved which will be served by a public water utility. In the event lot 2 is eventually served by the City of Aspen Water pepartment the applicant should identify and convey to Pitkin County witl�out consideration all or part of such water which is no longer applied ta a beneficial use. ' A geologic report �repared by Nick Lampiris was provided with this submission. ' 1'hat report designated specific areas as •�eing suitable for building sites � from a geologi'c point of view, Those sites should be Sdenti'fied on the detailed � and final plats as tf�e only building envelopes, Also, Nick has suggested that soil engineering r•eports be required as conditions for the �'ssuance of buildirig permits. • ' � , • ( • � . � Memo: Vought Subdivision - General Submi:ssio� - Pu61�c Hearing Page Two October 22, 1981 Planninc�and Zoning Commission.Recommendation • • The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed th�s applicati.on at their regular meeting on September 22, 1981 and reconunended approval su6ject to the following conditions: � 1. Designation on detailed and final plats of building envelopes consistent { . with Nick Lampiris's report of Decem6er 3, 1980. � 2. Dedication of trail easements as proposed i_n the general submission, 4 3. In the event water is to be provided 6y the City of Aspen water system, the applicant shail identify and convey all water rights whi�ch are no longer applied to any 6eneficial use (w�etfier for domestic, irrigation, or recreational purposes). � 4, Lot 2 shall be served by the Aspen Metro Sanitation District unless the � applicant can obtain the authori'zati�on of Aspen Metro Sanitatlon Distri.ct for an on-site sewage disposal system. ' i � 5, Submission of a use and maintenance agreement for the sfiared well or � agreement to connect lot 2 to the City of Aspen water system. 6, Any fireplace installations in tf�e new dwellings will be designed in ; accordance with t6e Pitkin County Code, ' 7� Soi.l engineering studies shall be provided to the Buildi.ng Department � prior to tf�e issuance of 6uilding permits� I 8. The detailed and fi�na1 plats will include a description of the easement for the well which Zs located on property owned by the Marolt Associates.. 9, Deed restri.ction agai`nst further development,. 10, The County Attorney shall review tF�e access with respect to the sdti,sfaction of Code requirements and to be sure that_ Ed Zas.acky's rights were protected • in the Vought/Hefner quitclaim action. • Also, the Planning and Zoning Conenission requested that the Planning Office revietv the trail alignment proposed and express their concern to the Board of � County Cortunissioner's over the lack of a county trails coordinator. Planning Office Recommendation The Planning Office has reviewed the trail alignment proposed by the applicant and has determined that the alignment proposed is not the best alignrnent possible through this property. The trails masterplan identifies this segment � of the trail system as being an unpaved equestrian/footpath. The lower part , of this proposed trail alignment which runs parallel'to the Castle Creek lies just downhill from an old road cut which bas been partially revegetated but still represents the most logical location for a footpath. In contrast, the proposed footpath alignment is a heavily vegetated riparian zone with slopes in the 30 to 45 percent range. . . Tn furti�er discusslons ►vi�th t6� Planni:ng Offi�ce, ari'an Stafford fias indicated . that he felt the old road cut described above could be used for a trail reducing construction costs by up to two-thirds. The Planning Office feels that the cost savings which would result from the relocation of the trail easement . could be greater than anticipated by Brian Stafford. If it is to be a footpath, ' there doesn't appear to be any need to expend any addi'tional funds for its construction. • Some of you will recall the long and difficult histc>ry of this trail easement. Originally, Brian Stafford 'wanted a trail following the abandoned Castle Creek Right of Way. That would have severely impacted the VoUght residence by running , the trail within a few feet of the house, •We agree that such an alignment would be unreasonable, . � , , .�. . ..._..__._�._�......, i ....._ ._.......�.� - i -._ Memo: Vought Subdivisian - General Submission - Public Hearing Page Thrc� ' October 22, 1981 � The alignment whic6 the Planning Office is suggesting doesn't adversely affect ' any existing house. At tf�is time, Mr. Vought still has the opportunity to ' site tfle house so as to maximize privacy and t6e county 6as an opportunity to tie up the most reasonable trail alignment, Therefore, we recommend that the trail easement be relocated consistent wit6 t6is discussion. In response to the Planning and Zoning Commission�s concern with the•access � to this property, the County Attorney has loofced into the matter. Her entire comnents are attached for your review and are fonnd jn a memorandum dated � October 8, 1981, Sandy F�as concluded tfiat tf�e applicant fias not satisfied the submission requirements witE� respect to access. Due to the flaw in access, the Planning Office has no c6oice but to recommend tabling this appli.cation unti.l such time as the applicant can demonstrate "that there is an established easement at least thirty (30) feet in width • for ingress and egress to tfie property from a pu6lic road" as required by the Code. Assuming that the access question will ultimately be resoTved, the Planning , Office reco�nends the fo7lowing as conditions for approva7: 1. Designation on detailed and final plats of 6uilding envelopes consistent with Nick Lampiris's report of December 3, 1980. � 2, Dedication of trail easements to 6e approved by the PiannT.ng Office. 3, In the event water is to be provi'ded by tf�e City of Aspen water system, the applicant sf�alT identify and convey aiT watel^ r?'gftts wF►i.ch are no 7onger applied to any•benefici.al use (wi�ether for domestic, i'rrigation, or recreational purposes). 4. Lot 2 shall be�served by the Aspen Metro Sanitation District unless the applicant can obtain the authorization of the Aspen Metro Sanitation District for an on-site sevrage disposal system. 5. Submission of a use and maintenance agreement for the shared well or ' . agreement to connect lot 2 to the City of Aspen's water system. . 6, Soils engineering studies shall be provided to the Building Department . prior to the issuance of building permits. 7. The detailed and final plats will include a description of the easements for the we]1 which is located on property owned by the Marolt Associates. 8. Deed restriction against any further development. i I � '; . . ,. � ;� I.� _ �onxn o8 co. cot�u��r.�:� ;� PITKIN C0. !1; 1 Puh ir. I.� : EXHIBIT Da� ' � � � � � �uv= ,: � F.:11 - �; I.� ' � ;'� �-� : � GENERAL SUBMISSION i � 1, EXEMPTION FROM SUBDIVISION j �;. ',, `-� Peter Vou ht Exem tion ' ��i t.� � li I: i �� ! . . . � �.: . � � .� � � � � , i i � . . . . . - : � . i �� Pitkin County, Colorado ' i January 20, 1981 ;i i� , ;�� _ ;: � �� �� . ; ; L �� � : � f� � , ---- _ ___ .�,_y .� _ . a.rwrr.rrrWyW�r ._..... . �� + . .. . . ...._.. .. _..__.. . . . .. .' '._'._. .._. ._.".'___'_"_,__�—�_ �w . ooremus & ��mPanY - ; so8 east hyman avenue • aspen, colorado 6�6�t • telephone:(303)925-6866 �.:: ; 'i p_ . _ _. _ .. ._- - - �-- -------------'-- —�---- - -- --- - • -�---__ _._. .. . _.._-- -- � � � 1 �, January 20, 1981 ` 4 :'I �� • Richard Grice, Staff Planner � Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office � 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 '�� Ir! Dear Richard: �.� � We are submitting to you herewith, on behalf of Peter Vought, seven complete sets of our Land Use Application for fV� ' Exemption from Subdivision as per Section 4-6(b) , sub- ; ; division approval for a lot split, of the Pitkin County Land • Use Code. The purpose of the application is to parcel off ; one building site from an existing 3 .1 acre site with �� , existing dwelling in an R-75 zoned district. The ' � � application is pres�nted pursuant to the aforementioned ' ' provisions of Section 4-6 and in accordance with the ; j� ; procedural requirements of Section 6-3 of the Land Use Code. ` ? . I Our application fee in the amount of $160.00 is attached. ,� � Please advise this office when the Application is certified � �� complete or if you reauire additional Submission material. ` � Thank you. (� Sincerely, - /�Y �� n Doremus {� JD/bc � Attachments � �� � ., i �� i ��' : . _, _ _-- - -- _ _ _--- _ ...� ��; �_ ,.. . __ , � 1a �'�T��IIZ Cc�UNT�1 PIZOJECT N��.,��R �I� ; � , M • Section/Parccl ' . ,. • �� 7J1liI) U�F: 711'PLICATION FOJtM DATi: SUBMITTFD ( �' � �'-II �� j.� Tp EG COhiPLG7'I:D BY F,?'PI,ICAPIT: ' t�i,t�:e Peter Vought '.� , c% Doremis ard Co., 608 Fast ni�ull:ss Hyman Avemie, Aspen, Ccloradc 81611 " ( 1�ttUt.e 925-6866 l N�:E or• PF.OJ1.cT Peter Vought E�canption ( ' PROJECT LOCATION: (On attached shect, locate on zoning map, showing boundaries of any riatural ha;ar.d ��nd re•sourcc arcas, any othcr special �( regulatory districts, Sectic•n 5, Land Use Code; and locate ••" on appro��riate CSU/Ei:A N,ans any areas not covered by the � above.) '�? TOTAL AREA 3.1 Acres � , ;J�1 EXISTING USE(S) _ Sin,le-Family I�use _ � 1 . � ;�� . �ROrosr:� UsL(S) 2 Single Family Parcels: 1.40 Ac. w�th existinq c3welling_�_ " (approximate square fo�ta�7c for each) 1.? Ac. vacant g�rcel. (� . � � YRF;SE`T Z(�rl.i\G OF SI`�� R-15 ' ' '(I DES:,l:IPTION OI' Li+Nu t�SL•' PROPOSI�L T112-d1Vi51oII Of a p3Z'C°I Of laIld ]S1tS? t.WO � j � �' single-family lots wh�e both parcels are restricted against further develoo—_ .�I ment �as per Section 4-6(b) of the Pitkin County I,�rid Use Code. _ ,� — --- . —� — }� --• — - - � TO I3E CQti1PLI:T�n by TIIT: PI,11t1NING Ol'i�ICE �;� TYPE OF AYFT ICF�TIC.`:: Fci;7.C1:]ING X SURDZVISION .' ' 1'.U.f). }{ E}:Ei�1l'TIO"1 SPF:CInT, RGV?3:�� 35-acra + SUf3D:VISION ; '�� � 13UiLUTA!; YER"SIT F�r.VIEW � RCVli:1i I`HAS�: i F!;-AI'PLTCITIO\ R.i-i.G. 11/13�80 DA'1'F.. COPIPI,E7'::D �r' GCC:ERIL SJGf•1ISSlc�i�� P.C. ACTION DF,TI: " � I�OAI2D AC'CION UA'CF. Dl.'i'.iI1.L'D SCiJ}11.`',:iIOC7 P.C. AC:'I'IO?] DATI•: (r ----� LSOI�l2I) i��TICN Ul+'P[: ',•,F 1'1?l:�:. ?':r�T liC)Af:U AC1'ION DitTt•: 4 ._. �_.�_._._ � t._�, �T��1���`}�' ,'j� � �r �t � � , � �,✓ � � f� .�\ ,.' �- � V . i_ ,�. . �. .:,�. t � . � �' /��. � , �� ''�, �� : •�e ''. ��" �, ,, ; , �, -�, -� ;�1 - � 'O '� ��t �, ?� ;�,. .-� . .,j+ -� � - � �_ `, 1 ,` � ./. � / i \,'\ ���� j; t _ ' � " � ��4 �J ; �� �� . , � ��� � -� ��. � �� .�� j- � ( �, �•;\�_ -� � � , � � \� ,�. _;�...:..,� ' I T< <. it � •, � • � ' I ; � , � `�-- � :''�– .� •�,•—; �°�"`�,..� ��• • / ! � � , \ � • �� _ �•�� a'.�� . � _ _ .♦ � , � . . � , � `� ��1 � , �, -- ,i^ _/ • . ` � ` � �� � :J, � .� ' 4 ' - ._-f`\ '\ �` � �• . � `��� � �.. -J 1 ;1,� .� � . � ' , ���� /1`•-., �' � ��'�.� � � � � '�-� �� 1 � ` � ` � �`` _ ` � l�.l .J . � \� '�., � ,. � . �, �, �., � ���� �' .` ` .,��.. �, ( � � •� \\ / ,� .� ! -�. `_ �� '� ` ,' ,� � , •� •. � ��'" �, , , i � . -" ', � ��- �•- ���_�. .� ;/ 1 •• - ��+-�.� p � II \ , �r1,� �ti w.�..� „ '� 4\^�a _ .r / �• � \�� :f ~� �—' \��� •�.S . ,\`. /"�. �' ♦__1 �;. � � � f; : � ; _ _ ; ,( - � ,; ,, _ ; ,�� . . p '�r► ,r,�:. �� � � � <_ : � �" � D4UNICIPAL h � � � 0 ��� _ _ %j` I .- ",� j ���, GOLF ) ;1�:.•='';�5� ��, 1 ; ' ,1 •� , - _ I � �, COURS� ��j �(S Si�� �-�,.. , �.,,,� \• ; ,,., �. I • — � " `�� f ^ '�, I ` / �41•P, �; ��,� � � - , ���►,i �' ,',a .� ��� ,., . � � AF-2 � : E"f� . ' _ 1 ,, -.� „ � ..y w \� \ \ y ��.\. ` ,� „. �+•p �I . . � • � � � � f � � ` �1 ,", � \Q; � /y , � .;/, � ) „ .9�s '� r��' W 1 � � � � � t �� .. n t tiR� � a C-a�/ ;� , � ���' r. " � 1'� '%� �, I /O V] V7 �� �� M i;` \ \'. �,r, � f i O O �J � • � � , ,� .,� � � � x � p k .. , ) � A • - � • �" ` � ♦ pF_2 ,�►�� ,'`� SUBJECT r�,�l -� � �l ! �•, I PUD ,,��� u_ i , ,• � \ � !,IL � `•� � � s/� C�� � ' � � f i * � r� �� -;�+ti � � �• � t .� � �''� �i , i i t F�� �� � � � � � . . ,,,�.vJ �• . . .� � �, , ` � f �. , � � i.({ .r � . � J��; �, t • .� ' I/ �' � � •��� '�� I+� � 1 C ' �E J i ' 1 ��', ,. . r� ' • (' �, r � ' � �, � C �I �• + � 1 � , 1� � I �� . /'� t ` �� ,�-. . \ �. •7�i � ` i � ,,� � � �� i i i � ( �I '+. � !4 . '� '� '1 AF-1 � �f . / � I � S \��� �FB�.A�F�}� � _ �.`. f � � � � � � � •• � �tl, ti � ' i � � ' , ' �' � I\ �\ ' :� , ' ' ''�r �t ` 1� � �!-- �' � ' i, J /I I ,\ , :�:� u .AF- 1 ,' .. •{.`tf �� D � _ � '. � 1,.� . , `1 �',•; '.�A � •i�� '•• 1 •. :': /.'� ) / �, / . � ---�-�-----� � --�----'---- �---- , �- � , / • [ . _ "�.. IT. _ �� ��/ ' VICINITY 11AP • '�`: , i (� � / „ `L"�"�/'�� � , • °' • ./ �'� ,' � , � � PETER VOUGHT EYEDiPTION �-"� ,�,a��'" —'.'� — � � � , i 3. 1 AC.LOCATED IV SEC. 12 ,T. 10 ' '�� ` ' , Q'. '� : • ,� I S. :R. 85W.6PA4;P I TK I N COUNTI,CO. • '�� (', ., ' . / � SCALE 1"=2000' N DEC. 1980 �� � ; ' � , , ;f l ;; � � oOremus & ComPanY � ��. J .� ': � . .. . .. . , . . ,., . , ... ... . , ..,. 1 . �:. , �"_ � __ � Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D. • CONSUITING(3EOLOGIST � PO BOX 10935 � ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 ,,-� (303)925-6020 � '�l December 3rd, 1980 John Doremus � Doremus & Co. 'i ��I 608 E. Hyman Ave. Aspen, Colorado 31611 ���i Re: Peter Vought Lot Split � �� 1 Dear John: � 1r �F I have completed my investigation of the approximately 3.1 acre lot located in Lot 13, Southwest 4, Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West, I� . 6th P.M. within the Aspen 72 Minute Quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado, owned by Peter Vought. The property is an irregularly shaped tract lying at the base of Shadow Mountain and east of Castle Creek along the proposed county trail easement. �� The topography of the oarcel consists of gently sloping terrain down toward Castle Creek with several benche,s running north and south, which in part appear to be manmade. The Johnson Ditch traverses the lot from approximately �� north to south and an older ditch, not now in use, runs parallel to the Johnson Ditch but some twenty feet below it. There is also a barn in the southeast , corner of the lot. The southern tip of the lot is quite steep as it approaches i� the Castle Creek floodplain and in the Y�estern corner of the property, near an old foundation, are some very large granitic boulders. The lower portions of the lot are heavily wooded, while the upper portions consist of saqebrush and other ; � bushes. According to my observations the surficial geology of the site consists of , � both talus deposits from Shadow Mountain and glacial moraine deposits from valley glacier "B" which came dotvn Capitol Creek in the Quarternary a�e. These glacial deposits consist of poorly sorted silts, sands, cobbles and bouiders � while the talus deposits consist of angular boulders of granite and other � �_ sedimentary rocks. Outcrops of the Pennsylvanian-Permian age Maroon Formation � are visible in the �vestern portion of the property. These hematite-cemented ; sandstones and siltstones are dipping approximately 30 degrees to the east, but ;, ( are actually overturned, The Castle Creek fault zone passes through the property, i � but because of the gr•eat thickness of surficial deposits in the general area � the exact position of the fault cannot be ascertained. � f The only geologic hazard associated with this parcel is the potential for � `_ � soil creep in steeper portions of the lot, especially when Yrater from the , existing irrigation ditch may supersatur•ate the soils. On the accompanying � ' map I have delineated areas for building envelopes which are not exceptionally -�� steep. In the one case on the flat land adj�cent to the existing barn there is no danger �f supersaturation of soils from the irrigation ditch. In the lower ( 1:.� - 1 - I ;i IJohn Doremus - Page 2 f �� bench, where two building envelopes have been delineated, there is danger of supersaturation to the soils from water from the irrigation ditch. There is a minor rockfall potential along the access at the east quarter of the ��� property. My recommendations are to avoid building in the area marked as rockfall ,� and to limit proposed buiTdings to the three flat bench areas designated. The upper bench, adjacent to the barn,is manmade, perhaps 15 years ago, according to Peter Vought. This involved some scraping, but mostly fill t� oroduce the flat area. For this reason, I suggest soils engineering studies prior to `�� construction of any foundations on this bench. In order to develop the lower two benches, the irrigation ditch above those sites should be lined to prevent leakage. �� Water for domestic use may be obtained from the existing well on the Vought property or another well can be drilled in the western portion of this lot with a high probability of success within 50 feet. If municipal waste ;� disposal systems are not available the soils of the site should be adequately permeable for a septic system and Teach field. Access to the barn area of the property is already available and an extension to either of the two sites on the I� � lovrer bench should prove to be no problem praviding a culvert is provided ir crossirig the ditch. It is my opinion that the large boulders in the western corner of the lot were derived through glacial action rather than rockfall and �� therefore do not signal a potential hazard. The previously mentioned fault : zone has been inactive for millions of years and should pose no problem except in the unlikely event of a large earthquake in Colorado. In any event, single family dwellings are not considered in danger when built in the vicinity of � �� ancient fault zones in Colorado. In conclusion, I would strongly suggest soils engineering studies prior ` ; � to construction on this property in view of the manmade topographic features . mentioned above. Also, the county sanitation engineer should be consulted for � his views on any planned waste disposal system. If there are any further ; � questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Yours truly, t �J- r':�� ��_ .r �'i. -c.�' Nicholas Lampiris i Consulting Geologist . i �� i i �� � i I ( NL/dsf Encl . I I� (^ - 2 - � � i � '� 5-200 SEWAGE TREATMENT & COLLE�TION � �� Sewage treatment for the existing dwelling, or propos^d Lot � ' 1 has been effectively handled by an existing on-site system for � over two decades. The newly formed Lot 2 will hook on to the !� Aspen Metro main, which lies approximately 200 feet from the proposed building site, if physically possible. Depending on � I� the specific siting of the proposed dwelling and determining i� exact grades, it may or may not be feasible. See topography on attached Site Plan. The Aspen Metro Sanitation District �� indicates that capacity is available from the public sewer treatment system. Alternatively, on-site sewage treatment and ,� disposal will be pro�•ided. Such s�stem will be in compliance ; l�: with the Pitkin County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations. 1 The Geologic Report prepared by Nicholas Lampiris, dated � �� December 3, i980 on pages 1 to 2 of this application indicates that excellent conditions exist for on-site treatment. . �� Dwellings in the immediate area utilizing on-site systems do not I� show a history of adverse impacts. ! , . 1 � i i �� � i i � f I � � - 3 - .E ;� � . ► � ;� , :� . '� 5-202 ROAD (TRAIL) AESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION � I� ' The existing access road serving the subject property i minimizes the requirement of the creation of any additional road � �� �� network to serve the property. The proposed and existing sites �� are very adequately served by the existing extension of Seventh Street at the present time (See attached Site Plan) . Not more !� than 1 or 2 additional vehicles are anticipated by the ro osal. P P ;� Due to the excellent location of the new site to the urban core of the City of Aspen, it i�s suggested that auto use will be ;� minimized and that service levels of existing roads will not be affected by this proposed Iot split. �� With respect to trails, the Aspen/Pitkin County Trails i� Master Plan prepared by Fawnia J. McLaughlin and adopted as an amendment to the Aspen Area General Plan in August of 1979, �� proposes the Castle Creek Trail which crosses the subject . property. The Castle Creek Trail Alignment, as delineated by }� Pitkin County Trails Director, Brian Stafford, is shown on the . �� attached Site Plan. It is described as a Class II Trail to be ' unpaved and requiring a 10 foot easement, 5 ' on either side of a � `� center line as marked by the constructed trail. A temporary 20 ' construction easement will also be required. The applicant �� �� l� - 4 - � � I I� I ,� . �� ' ± iI � ��j hereby repxesents that he will_ grant, to Pitkin County, the ; aforementioned required easements as shown on the Site Plan, as �� � a condition of approval of this application. �. 4 fr ;: �� �� I� , '� . ;r � _ 14 '� i� . '� i � . �r . �� �� ,� 1 ,� . _ 5 _ : . 1 . � �� , ; � i � '� � 5-203 LOGICAL EXTENSION OF UTILTTIES �f � Telephone service by Mountain Beli Telephone and electrical ; r power by Holy Cross Electric Association are located in the a: right-of-way adjacent to the subject property and presently �� service the existing dwelling. See letters from Mountain _ Bell and Holy Cross which discuss the availability and conditions of ;� service on pages 7 and 8. See also letter from Wiilard Clapper, i� District Manager, Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Co, , Inc. � indicating that natural gas is unavailable at the present time ;� on pages 9 and 10. However, a gas line does, in fact, exist in the right-of-way opposite the subject property and serves the +� existing dwelling. S�w�er service has been previously addressed � in this application. � � � �� - I! � : A � � � � _ 6 _ 1 ; � , . �: HOL�" ( :RC)SS F�LE:(:"I�E=�IC: ���SSUC:lAT1�N, 1 NC. AREA CODE 1101 Git 1�1� 9\'6`CE 30] p,r�,pHAtt'F:H :50 945-5491 , � Gl.liN��'OOU 51'kI�GS. COLOIZAUO SI60I 945-6056 � � • � December 18, 1980 � Nir. Jahn Doremus � Doremus & Co. 608 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 "` RE: Peter Vought" Exeinption Dear John: � ' The above referenced property is within Holy Cross . El.ectric Association's certificated service territory. � Holy Cross Electric Association has the capacity to serve the developmenL provided all contractual � � obligations are met. Holy Crbss Electric Association will extend the power line per our Line Extension Policy on file with the Public Utilities Commission of the State of Colorado. � - Sincerely, ' �� HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC A�CIATSON, INC. � �� � �� , ✓3�� i � 'John R. Spangler, Engineer JRS:lsz • F � � � - 7 - f � C � . � � � � Mountain Beii � P. 0. Box 2688 � Grand Junction, Colorado 81502 : � December 16, 1980 ! � John Doremus � Doremus & Company � � 608 E. Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado $1611 ; : � Jear Mr. Joremus, Regarding your request concerning the provision of telephone service, I submit the following information about the property known as the � � Vought tract: . :, � , 1. Telephone service, while not available to the proposed lot, will be provided by Mountain Bell in accordance with the Company Tariff, Colorado Public Utilities Commission No. 5. •� � 2. Mountain Bell is a supplier for telephone service in the area. Moun*ain Bell is a private utilities company, and �f ' as such, is regulated by the Public Utilities Commission � i � and for interstate rates is regulated by the Federal j Communications Commission. !; ' 3. An estimate of schedule for installation of facilities in � the area cannot be given at this time until specified � !�' � infoimation can be supplied as to telephone facilities ,� required. Upon receipt by Mountain Bell of the requirements, , ' �� it may be determined that certain costs will be expected � to be borne by the individual lot owner. 1 Please be advised that as of this writing, a c�mmit►�ient fur proviuing , �( service cannot be met until studies are completed. These studies will � of necessity be made upon receipt by Mountain Bell of Che service and � � location of service required by the owner. � � Yours truly, (/0 �� �,�C i1�'t"7- '7'L� . / � "Jerry ' Cemm � Supervisor Residence � i � i 3 � , l i � - 8 - i� , - I�� ROCKY MOUNTA/N NATURAL GAS COMPANY, /NC, P.O.BOX 205�D. . ASPEN.CplORA00 81611 • (303)925-2323 . f�l� � � . / e,1 ' �i �� .�� �� �� �d i Il� . J ; I � i, �?i�1 ��-�-� ,,.�,,.�., ; 4� � ; , 1.� i� .. � v �� � �.��—r' Z i. ► • / t� � ' ' . ,/' j F_/�L.�� . �C_ 4L•�.t' _�-1', '` •'�'� '_�� ✓����� �.�.-�I/c(rc�''t� ��' �'�{.�'t/y1 � � - � � � i� ; — ;� � � - G•' ��� ���,..�.� j—(iL�� lN� Q—?'� �v—�,- -�ti �i.r��� � ---�.Z ���,��f,' --�ct1 � . ` . �� . , ,� ����- - _ ;� 1� ��. . { � i l J � 7 ' � ��a�(.� '(/�� /��.' /y��(�"�„t ` . . i i� �-���� � � � . i .d-» ��: � � f� ' ,, ? � � -,�� ,��� -yz•C'� .. . .� * � f � s�A. 'd�' '� iI - � � � i � Q � --�' � ,'-..-Y ,�,<,l� ��, -���L��. G'c.v�-�'Q�v�:sl�C's . -, . �,�)1 � Lc.? c.L.--, `l � �� � ,� .c,,•1 �.�' -���L������^!'�' �-°���'�r�`,c+`?�``' � ,r� , �� � , C� . � � � ��� 1J �• � ( �� �J � �` . i i �J:. �// LL �.l�(f-C-:•. ,� �� � - / �- : ;�t, � � --�-- . Lc, � �';� — / '`� ..�`- — , Q � �� !.._.� ;, 1 �t c• ���. ,f�.e' �� �/ -� , � , :/ � - .; ; � C '�r,l _ .,�:, -�, �,�' ,,��.c.G���ti��t�<_�:• L�J,«� �.,�-- � .,!,�f �� ' s - i G a �� �o.�-->Y�_ Y�-� , i� :� >::-�'► '� Q ti� ,.�.v _�, ,;?—P. .;t � � _//r � � -� -. � _ �. C �< <. � � -� ; � / r . J i ��.�� ..�. � _-�% -�; .� � .._: `" � � 1 :� - _ cr-� � ...�-- �"�,.-�� r-� -� �. � � /,� . � � ; � ; ;�� `.t- U � �?�� ,f`.-�,���.-:—•' C�' ') 4; _/�'�.-? C.�Z.�-i.r_.('�. ��%� � . � i /, � • � r�� G L '�� (.��'L• r '--' — 9 - ( , j /' ) �-� ; ' "-' \- �"� ` ���.",// � ,_, '' ,: .. !. - _ ,�i 'T�f" ,..� , ,.� Q��t�'--E? C�`�' � l�� �• C . � � _ � .` J.' "' L� +;i���� ��' ��� I . l� I i-;�� �L% ���U� ! �� / I . , , I� U ,/�, � .. ,i' � �� � • _� ... - . � � I //? �1 `f .��'4./�.C�'--fl—� [�t�J f'%' �N�. + �J { ���7 � i� .JC -�L�� - /7���/ ��:•C�i•""�� ' �.!l `r . � , . .���t,��'� �� � �_ � V.�',i--�7��� ,-.'..�-'�`�'';�..f`�.,.�'2 �-G� �-,,,_./ ,-�.._i}-+- � . `'. ! / / ' '' __��^ .�G`` . ��L.�:_1 ��Ci�-f" � ��OC/�..., t�..��A.�f��I,C�! . �� :� .s? l G-� �?�`Y� -� - - � � ��� - �� � ; � , , , � , ;� ._� ��. �1�� - , ' /` �� �.�✓�✓t. ./�/J•7-��f�,ttc�- , - •✓��CU,I?.(�, L L...� C,(/.-� ! -<��< <� � ' % , ! ' /, + f r"/ G . i� �' G� �,� �Z , '(, ;i'�-�(' � :7''�'-%'�� . , � ' � � ./ ;� , ;� -� - ' � . ; - � p . / �_ ' "_� .$�„L. ��?/�_�°.,�'._�+ Gt.s..'G .�2.�.-- .���!'' ,,-rrr''a�ic,..•=., - C'-/��_ _ , i i� J�-� � _ � .^ , �� 'G'�--�� �%''7�'' ��l _��-c% ��`��u-� ;� � ti .. . , - � . i� � -, _ .�, (��- � ....� �:-- �. . . . Z . . , • ' ' k �k�. ]?'� . � , � . �LJ.,� r -A� �� �,i r �IL . . . - -J�/ �� W ' ��� /' Or//6�� � � -� -,� �� � : �; - � (, � , ; .� � 1�� _v. , � >,.� i� �, � �� v �� � _ Ir . � , E� . I� . . . � �., . i� ' `�� - 10 - i� �� ',11. 5-205 ADEQUATE PROVISION FOR WATER NEEDS , `�� � The Applicant has an existing well which historically has s � � served the existing dwelling for 22 years on Lot 1 . The well � has an estimated capacity of 20 G.P.M. tsee attached �. Affidavit on page 12 ) , which is sufficient ,capacity to serve several homes. Water is also available from the City of Aspen '� water system which has lines serving the existing Hefner ;� dwelling, adjacent to the subject property. See letter and attachment from Jim Markalunas, Director - Aspen Water ; �� Department on pages 13 and 14. If the Applicant elects to serve the new Lot 2 with City water, he will comply with the '� requirements for ser�ice as specified in Markalunas' letter. In `:� . either event, no addztional public expense or improvements wil.l i be required as a result of the tap-on of this proposed lot split `I to the City system or the existing well. As the property lies � . � east of the Maroon Creek Bridge, if hooked on to the City . �� system, water pressure and facilities are able to provide an �1�" excellent service level. i � , ;� i , ; i L - tt - � ;� « � � �, _ , COLGR;+,GG :�;ViSiOi` �F �ti�.�7cR RcSOURCtS ��„ ,-_- "~ _-�, , , 8�0 �:..e;tenr.iai :,�ay., �313 S;erman St. �r "� "��6� �� �CflvCf� COIO�OCG 2ill�u3 .CM�\. .M���.C, o. �e�.,�s-. . S'.;-� 0; C�LGRADO i AFFlDAVIT y SS. I�. CC�NTY OP � Pit;cin . x STATEyENT OF 8ENEF(ClAL U5: OF GROUND WqTER �� ANEhDM�V� QF EXtSTING RECORD . X LATE R�G�SrRATIOy �r � � v PERMIT NUMBER _urtnoom LOCA7�ON 0� H'E�L L_ .-- ,;==;;,`�;Si P���� VOliGc:i co,,.,�y , Pit:cin � .•.,ose r.,c:�iag � �.lJ. 30}{ 508 ' ZG �_ ccdress is � • S.E. �or �V�� S.Yr . �. s�c��,., � �::y .'-aS�2: CO�O�dQO 8�012 wp. 1.� S . Rn9� _.$�_ �i_ . .�11 P �� T il��r[i II�PI �N O�1 SI �C �• I�1 i ae�ry �,;:y sworn upor. ooti, deposes cno says that he (t�eyj is �are� the owner(s) of tne weil oescribed hereon; the weil �s ,� �ccc:ec cs descri�eo above, ct distonces oi 332 ieet sron :he S011ttl section I�ne ond 1534' ieet from tne �wo.r+o. lOVTNI .,r_ . . 'GS'- se:r;on �i�e; Wcter from shis we;i was Tirst ap�fiec to 0 oeneric�o� use for the�pur�ose�s) described he�ein on the �5� •�.�. :.• .,.:-� (� ccy c: _ 34C45� , ;9�8; fhe m.oximum susiained �un�ing rcte oi fhe weN is �_gollons per minute, 1he pum��ny' � f'i2 CiO1.T.C�. nereSy is _ -�0 go�ions per minute; the :otol deptn oi the well is — 35 feet; the overage annuol omou�t o: wa:er to.be civerted is �2 aCre-fe-•; for wnich c(aim �s AereSy mode for cinnacti C � , ��rpose(s); the legal description of the lond on wh�ch the water from th�s Well is used �s =ECO�CE��., y� ?�Ci. �R�j� Pa�p ;?9nj �k 1 R'���:A��,1� P.001�G ��6 �a+-e 4�� Pitk;tt r,��t,�,_of wf,ict -- _ __ � � �' cc:as crz irriya;ea anc wi;icn is illustreted on the map on 1he reverse side of this form; -;��:�i�:s-v.e+�-wcj�cera;-ylstes;r .;.:�r.:;.c.ca.::::�::.a�.�«.::.:.��.sawoa.s;�►.ua:os; this sfatement of benefitial use of ground water is Tiled in compliance witn law; h� �;;e j1 hcs (ncve% recc tne s;aseme s made hereon; knows the content thereoi; and that tfte same are true or i�is �their} knowledye �� �CONIPLETE REVERSE S{D� OF THIS FORM) t �r ` � . S i y�.::�:e�sj :�:.�.-`.._ :'�-1�r�'. �� ' `,';/� � y � FOR OFf ICE USE ONLY j�::s:r:�ed c�o sworr, ����� .- oc oe:orz -e o� tiis _�= day oi �"^�"�,/1.�*i+�'� , ;9� '� Cour�Cose No. . � M�/ VOTT:155�0:1 ex2ires: Z� �% v�� ���••. �, ,/ O � Prior. Mo. p°r _-Y.. � %✓�/� l�'— .o,.. .,� � _ _ ° • . o�... c�,,. � :.CC�?��� �uR �; .�v 3Y THc S`AT� �yG�ticE�R Or" CGL�RA�O � � ru��:::,�' �� +�c�:v��CW��;G Cu\�iT�0�V5: s.�. 'r.. n. w. ' . w.0 ua. O�sr. _ 3os.n ira,. G�: ..----- � • �' . _ . �'a'. i �G,�:E�._� �12 - :�r __._ � - -�-,__ _ i� _.. � L✓ . r :�a�� c:;�ced �y 2I�]R:R':'�� DRIL.;.,��iG Lic. No. L;:`it`GP;` . (�. �erna�e�t ' r r ?„r� ins:o;;ed byDP.LE G�.�1�T PLTJN:3I�iG Lic. No. UI`Ki�OVN �� ::e:er Se:iai \o. ❑ �iow Meter Date Installed AUGIIST� 1958 vwner of Ic�d on wnich • . wc►er ;s oei.-,g used PET�R VOUGHT � ' �� ';�= �.��:,TIC�1 0� TFiE WcLL MUS7 B: SYGYlN AND ;dR L.ti,RGE CAPACtTY tRRIGATIQ�! W�LLS 7HE i ' aR�.: C� 'r1;slCN 7HE WAT�R IS US�D M,US7 8E Sl:ADED OR CROSS�HATCNE? ON THE DlAGRAM 6ELOW. �f, 7his diegram represenrs r.ine (9) sections. Use t�e CENTER SQUARE ; j� (one sr�tio�) so �nc�cc;e tne locot+on oF :ne well, if possib;e. ; �. , 1 ' ... f � - _ _ �.. . . . .. . .. . �.- .�- -}- . -}- -}- -{- -� .�. � , � , � , . , � , � + .� � ,�- + � + �. ..,. . . �. . ; - . ' I � NORTH SE T'ION LI�lE � ' � , � � NGRTH � . I � , �� �/', �' _i" .�' .� w -t- ' + � i � • • �, . • J i � � , . � I � o . .,.� � � � - . � , °z ' ,;; G� � � � �. ' .�' . �" m . . � + + � �� � . • W. ' � O � I � SOUI'H SEG JON L1 E _ ;� i ... . . .. . . _ _ ._ ..._ . . - •- --_ - . -.- - ,. - �-- -i- . -}- -}- ' , -}- . . . -}- �. -�- � � . � � , � � � . , � TI-� SCALE OF 7�1E DIAGRAM IS TWO INCHES E UALS ONE-MI � � ;� . � . . F �' • 'r- '1' '�' _'�' � '+' '�" T • i • . • ; ---�, ��� � � ��.,. � � � � � WATER EQU;VAL�NT$ ?A��E �Rounded F�gures) � i � ;�n ecrr•foot covers � acre of land i foot deep. � ` : c„aic �oot per second jc�s) . . . ��9 gollons per minutc ;gpm), . , ,�crc•fout . . . •1:�,$Lv c��bic (cCt . . . 325,700 nnllons� , •.�� � ,��u yp�n pum��� eont�nuou�ly i;,r one day prou�eas A.4: ocre•(eot. � ��� g�rt pumped cont�nuously for o�e yeor produces ;SO ocre•feet. • , � (W�117E �ND PINK COPY TO BE FILED VII7N TNE STATE ENGINEER , PINK COPY WILL BE RETURNED TO OWNER) � . ___.__. r. rnwirrro�..�`-�_ °. .. � 1 � I� � � ��- CIT PEN 130 s treet � Ir p 81611 i ; as en , � S ; ' �l, . December 16, 1980 ' ; : « r � ' Mr. John Doremus � ��- Doremus & Company 608 East Hyman Avenue � Aspen, CO 81611 � ic } Re: Peter Vought Exemption � I`: Dear John: ' !! � In reply to your letter of December 9th, please accept my apologies for my ' I( lateness in responding. Concerning the Vought tract, I have no problem with t ti what you arP attempting to do. However, please be advised that this property, � to the best of my knowledge, is not supplied by City water. , l�: However, I am aware of the fact that the Hefner property is supplied by a rather long and extensive 1�' service line. If your client is willing to extend the main, in compliance with City regnlations, at his expense, I see no reason ' !��� why the Vought property shouldn't have water and the project be approved under ! Pitkin County land use. � ; Attached is a copy of a letter concerning the Hefner subdivision. �:c . . Si erely, ' �•+- • . i Markalunas ! Director-Aspen [dater Department ,I tL cc: Planning enc. 1 ;.� L L - 13 - ,I 1 � � i 1 .�; ; , , _ __ � �. i(' . � ,t; ASPEN WATER DEPART:fENT • : �f � . i MFM�RANDUM ; r 1: T0: PLANF:TING DEPARTL��NT � FROM: J IM MARICAI.ITtiAS • ' SUBJECT: HEF�iER SUBDIVISION ! � DATE: JUNE 30, 1980 . i 1 � �� We have no problem with them obtaining water from their existing service. However, please be advised that there is not an adequate main in South 7th � '( Street south of the point wnere tne existing iieL-ner ser�i.:e ��es off. ;Tar � 't� is there a fire hydraat other than that which is located behind the Gerbaz j residence. However, if Mr. Hefner wants to use the existing service to his ' � property, we have no objections. �� ';� � • � • �1 iL � . - � � �� . ,.J,�. l�lb�',���� . '� '��� � :� . � . � . � . ; j,-- 1 L . ; . � � . , .� , . � . - � ;� � . � ,� ; , ; � ; ,.L . ; : , � ; `L ; ;C1 " � - - ` 14 ! . t i r ,i ' I `� � � � ; ; � , STEWART TITLG OF ASPEN, INC. `I.: tIERE1iY CEItTIF1i:S Crom � �:earch of the boc�ks in this off Iri� th�t the own.�r of : See EXHIBIT A r !; � , � - � ; � � : i i.. i i I . Situated in the CounCy oE Yltkin, State oC Colorad�, appcars to be vcsted (n tlio E - name of: � , , Peter Vought li i�. • - i ' 'i �: ' � 1 f; and that the above described property appears to be subject to the following: no encumbrances of record ' ; !� � 7 L L � ; : Althvugh we believe the facts Stated are tcue. this CerttEicate is not to b� construed as an abstract of title. nor an opinion of title. nor a Ruaranty ol' � title� and it is uncierctood and �Rreed that Stewart Tltie of AGpen. Tnc. nritli�r f assumes� nor will be charRrd with any ftnanc.lal obllRation c�r llability wh:�c�•ver on account of any statement co�ta{�ieJ here.tn. � Dated at Aspen, Color;�do. tl�ls 3rd day of December q,p, �0 80 ;,� 8•00 AM L � S . A 'f l A::I'h:N, INC. � � � � r 0! � ����.�. i� ��:�i��..�,�..__-_ - ___ ; l — 15 — � 1 � ;. � � ,�: ; EXHIBIT A ,1: A tract of land situated in Lot 13, Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian and being more fully described as follows: Be- `. ;l: ginning at a point whence a 1954 "unapproved" brass cap (set forth the witness ;� point for the south quarter-corner of said Section 12 which bears N. 78°10'30" _ W. 78.57 feet from original rock witness corner) bears N. 85°23' E. 827.56 feet; :I: • � thence N. 70°12' W. 339.46 feet; thence S. 16°44' W. 139.78 feet; thence S. 02°43' E. 221.35 feet; ; �; thence S. 42°30' E. 329.09 feet; ! thence S. 19°12' W. 1I7.32 feet; ; thence East 94.32 feet; � thence N. 02°58' W. 110.94 feet; ; '�' thence N. 02°50' E. 117.00 feet; thence N. 08°21'30" W, 127.13 feet; ' ( thence West 10.00 feet; � !I: thence N. O1°37` E. 75.76 feet; thence N. 31°48' E. 193.19 feet to the point of beginning ; `� i s . � I__ • ; �.; . � , ; L . ��; L � i : � � ; �� - 16 - [) I 1 , � ; ; J `� � : , � : LIST OF ADJACENT OWNERS t Marolt Associates i � : � ' c/o 300 Equitable Building 703 Seventeenth Street Denver, Colorado 80202 ;� �_- Keith Hefner • �_ P. O. Box 2i50 Snowmass, Colorado 81612 � : Mr. & Mrs. Everett B. Biggs � Mr. & Mrs. Theodore M. Brown 607 Burwell Building Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 �_ . � � Bureau of Land Management -` ' Department of the Interior P. O. Box 1009 i , Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 ;� �.� ;� � � I•M i_- ,,� 3 ;+':j ,. '� � . '� . � � :� �_� � r � : � � . ; �_' � ; � � } i j i �' �7 - � - i �_ i \� i. ii � � �� � � u��:'.`�� i � ; ( J, _' - \ � �F�� �,... \�'rs � -'� � �., �! � . r�� �. . . �� ' 'r . 1 ) � 'y� \�� . �� � .. � �( / j �� . ��� T /: ' # �l ,t•�A• A-����� .,�. � �, �f � �� -i .I / .,. ' ��, � , � y %� a �r. lV \ � � ; /: ���/ � � . . ��. � x �r f j�� . ��.`-i� 1�i � .� ' � i< '/ I. 1 1 �� �_�-' � s .. �.���� 13 � i ' / � \ . � ' /" � ', rt� '�'� � s �. � �.\� � ,; ' i f � �� . � � � �� t��y.�1��1�l I :.;/�./ �� . . . �' . \`\ t, y,j' ,./'" \ .��r t i� 1,\� / s�, � _ . � , � s- � �� ��\�\`���� ��r--'�,.��� ;y /,/ ���^,�� � �\,\ _. � .. '� `�\� - �-� r •�'7'�' � �. a �����' a.`� \\ ,� a/ i \�\ 1` 1 Y �� G7 � ( - �if�`.�a�„� ��5 , � . � ' (� • i ` . " ,, ,� .�. ��`1�* ,��} ��� ;� lTZ ��i �'�-��\ �/ ��^ \1�•,` � \\ �i ! . ^ � .. �� �i���f�. aa'n.;.',.. � I��� 1��1 1 � � \�'. i � �.\� ` � ) — a s' Y�' p„`.'r ��,' �r � t:� c .� '� �. . r ;\ � �`' - '- ? ' r��"' ! r � � i\:,� � ��� " r � i :� : ��_ ,� � ;� �����\~� t\`�Jj,// /� �i .�.�� � . � ,� �. .. -- _ _.,,,,�\� � ��z�� - 7 .�'.T. � : 7}i,l� I�/ N f I ��.�' ) __ _ _ _ � i ��/..� .la 'Y�f�il`� 1�����,!_.' / /���� .✓ r.: � /�. � . .��� _ -;\� :" . i �' a'` � . - i � � - — - i.- _� �f'"�� 3`� ,�'� v_/`1 °� / /•, �;, ,.r i��' ! � _.. vs _ �� � � i 1�J�� ,�,- � !�"��� / ��� �� ��J;j 9+ro�rws�DC111iE5 �� - � �_�4`�"�!-�'���;/� � "� { : [.-� , �� � " �1lr' ��1�7Is':7`°- {'.�/ i� � �'; - , _ .. - . . , '� �\ � � / �,: '.. . J//� js ;�• ��;j✓ �� ._� �� �� 1E�i� �,,,✓' ''Sx�`.v ✓ �'a�� �. f�,.r -� -`°'.� -_ _ s< ���_�/�g � £`>°`'i e i • ..,L, :�s��� \ .\ ` ��`_ 1 a.�M,�aj1� r � �_ �l - l i �� � �-r`�i�'�i�� � � !��"`�"� �""�, � . ' • � 1 � � t � � �...r- �i �. ��. � \�..r �a t_ .��� r�,. .. n � i� - � ;%� �w�•'�' �� i> \ � --�'�i -��..�`_ �q.:y /�.;` e�� '. r��� y � `� S � � ����� �_r ;�r-��� �„���-O.:' .- .� '��i� �.' _ LOT 2 - ..■ ��/ r r^�.��'*��;,,;,,�� �= . .. . � ��,o � �, / �/ - -�� ... . � � _•� . . �4w�- 'C'}:�� ' �. �'i . �" � � �,. .. . -1�`u`�.yS�� \•. �� '�;� '�y �c+� � n:�� . � �\ �:� �� � :: S ,<.���"�"�i.�. C : �f�� � .� ••i , ;,�' \ l , � � ; \ '`� �'�,��` =�. �"�'. � i / �i� a -LOT6� « / ? •�a� � _ ��.' �.A GR'�. � � x ��f � �K� ... � � �� , ' . � � . 1 �\ `�� \� `� ��. � / \ y Sa„ � ..� �� � � //i! � ��`��--� C ! � '. � :.-� � �„� ---`ai` E e �'� �j1�` ,��, // �'� , _ __ �� - 1 N � v' � f ..� . i,. �.� o��. - =.�` �., 68 ET�� i j `: `���„ ,�,�_ �-""-�, . �r�',',, _ - _- �. "�; ��� ^` � l �� r � �;�;a� ��. � ^BLN -� %;' � ' '�.� �� �'6z�� s` •, `/ � . -%- �' . �;\i. \ .��' ` y ��� ¢± � 4��'. �,�'4 "' � � � .\.\�\ ` � ; z�� h �,�*\ <i%7FY � I(IETM 161ER \ �l � � ,\ � i F 1 r T? � 8UBMISSqH - � � ,�'�`. ;�` `' \�i' '�\.�` 4 � '` 6�. / � 1 5�, e , � / � ����rr� � . • � - r ��¢'����?� _ 3� ��. /�� �' j ////. �-i �. ��� '� .. � _ +�� ; � l'�\'- / 4 . .;� % �// � �� .. l � "S � . � z � ��� �$-, �, F A / � � � . � �l F ao'C`..'�{�,.. ` �� ��; �') � , �� �1� , j� 1' � . � x t ��. � � �4'1 () � . '� /i...� . . �� . � .�� . . . � .. _ �p� _.R . `��1��� .��` ` .:.{ ' ��. g i � /�!1 . , . . \ r ��y. �c,/ 4 �, . k, � t�� 3.�`� �,_I � �� /// 1'1'.. ���` �. � . �•`� rr�',�'�µ�'' . +�..��� � C ,�; �� / ' ' 1 �� ' � � � ,� ; ti � � / ( c-;,J �..: r.�.*z s*� �� � \ � \ 1'.� G-'�/ `\\ ,,� ,.' ' ✓l �_�� y� i � � x � l`k nk„�•y .._ � ,� ��1 i � \ .` . / ( - i j ..r k ��k���� 1 4�,' � ..,` / /I�,. \ \ � 1. ` � � . `J �c'�. �.. f - � �� \ . i � ��1_ l� .• �/� . .`�� �: ^�j 4• �k �t t � � ��/. , � J _ �,,,* s � ` ��x �> I ..i i > ��'�\ ��!/ � --- - r : .�.�-�- f�- •...� n. � ��, /�.� .� �� . \1 �"/ .. _ �. ' ' --� ��'-_" , !�f'�''� f x�� � � 't �"� � �r�+�!! i ,, i / r �� �.� � - - �k,<K ,�a,, ����3r ? � �:��}i r. l � 'r� ' . i/�� � _ ��� ��.- ��`�/�� ��f / '� . , f,���t�.v-°� �;`�y-' � �'' '' , c—i i � - F s ,� r .� ( '>' ,/ ._ . -. �� � � t i� � i // . / rs�ocures � _ � � �.� r�t t�" / �i / i � - � ��ij;'�. �— ,� ,�,- ' �� '.�'� . } i� �'�:� j� :j/' %�j�' , .- `.\ '\ •' '�.�.� _ � �k �,y' >�y� �/.�.�_1� ?;� :� . _ . . . /.r r%�/ ! 'r+ow�n-F^ .. \ � ;�� l /'��.SS. �������:� '�t' � . i � . - � �� / �j- s • �-� �t�,.'% � - � 'j� �i `:)._: ��-- �� /rI % '.. '=_f�"°'-�..c•.. •`-�� �1' `'•,. �,p' /j�� ��� ?��; ��� � � J � i ( •��""�i r'���� -,!f`�-t'�D:ENTAI. - • � �� ��, �—� ` '�„` ti £��`kv,�. -. ; �O�" ....... '�.►•�� ;' _-�7.1 ....i BAItDING�� . / �''Wy+s: 3� .. �'�_�� ra�i�� ; � / ;/ . . 2 .� ` " r� .� F�'y_,__�_a '��'�'—"� : �y'.-/� _ ��'�ARE:l1 � �\ � �' .��` 'y�1i�` "' \. � � � �w �1E0!�F � � . `.. �•'. '`� �.,u�\����� � ' � �` � / �/ �i`�`" � ' �b7M:•�\� \`�.. �� .� Y �-�� �\\�: 'ex: i a � ��. ' 'i�� � ,� 1 �, +.�y �.° .� :j 3 i Y �_--,�' /, ,, �a�, �, 1. .�� - ���� , _;����, ,�.�,�; �� . .. � \ / //`"et� !� . � 1 { sB15LLlv6�� � ��. :� , �W�\1.. /�� +A � , �'�% /�i��'/; @,���� _ ``. . .. `! i.' 4F , ���w4�w1 �-�� � �r l ,'\ :.i/�','q .a� . r' — _•` �e�TE , \�a,� ��, �,-,�t,�K aM� �r�kys '� ' /i' = � ■ .,aipss er K�f� o. ♦ -:'�`�-.ry''�"�. �: � �:�j'�� .J' � , ,� , � �.. .�. ' '=' - �. k z `�� �� � y .� s � '';',' s�M � � --" , �'�� . 1 �-�i� � ; .f ZN . N 'F; . ./ � \' . . ��` . � ,�� �� `l.. i»; ' ` ,+ � � .�� � � � � �� F �� < � � � ,Y��.� � �.�'� � ;, f ,�, �f ak ,$�BMIS$ION t - io���t \ 1 `,\R;•�\�\ �\ � �� �.�r, ��� ,�,> � � I i�XEM�OOM �r �`� � `.�1'\I'\� '\� � � ��'�&'��: : \ �: :1� i� ,��}t�.�, ,� ..»,»-_.._...._ .. j..__, a....... . � • Nicholas Lampiris,Ph:U. CONSUlTINO GEOIOG�St . : i � PO BOX.10935 � . - " ASPEN,COIOFADO 81611 (303)425-6020 ' . .1 � ' � r � • $OARD OI� C0. CO:.i:.:'P`;"i �j i December 3rd, L9SO . Z'xTxzN CO3 Public Hearia - � 1 ' � ,r-:.:. .. _ John Ooremus nnte �IBIT Dorem�s b Co. � I 608 E. Nyman Ave. ' � , • sub3�ct /� ' Aspen, Colorado 31611 EY-h. .xo, � v " i ' � ` Re: Peter Vought Lot Split � . � � � Dear John: � �. I have completed my investigation of the approximately 3.1 acre lot � located in Lot 13, Southwest 4, Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West, . 6th P.M. within the Aspen ;2 Minute Quadrangle, Pitkin County, Coiorado, owned by Peter Vought. The property is an irregularly shaped traci lying at •-' the base of Shadow �Mountain and east of CastTe Creek along the Qroposed county trail easement. � � . , ti ' ; The topoqraphy of the narcel consists of gently sloping terrain down toward Castle Creek with several benche.s running north and south, which in part appear to be marnnade. The Johnson Ditch traverses the lot from approximately north to south and an older ditch, not now in use, runs parallel to the Johnson } ' 'Ditch but some twenty feet below it. There is also a barn in the southeast corner of the lot. The southern tip of the lot is quite steep as it approaches � the Castle Creek floodplain and in the western corner of the property, near an � � old foundation, are so��e very large granitic boulders. The lower portions ot the a lot are h�avily wooded, while the upper portions consist of sa9ebrush and other � bushes. � ; � According to my observations the surficial. geo7ogy of the site consists of , both talus deposits from Shadow Mountain and glacial moraine deposits from valley glacier "B" which came down Capitol Creek in the Quarternary age. These z " glacial� deposits consist of poorly sarted silts, sands, cobbles and boulders while the talus deposits consist of 'angular boulders of granite and ott�er � ; sedimentary rocks. Outcrops of the PennsylvaniaK-Permian age Maroon Formation � are visible in the western portion of the property. These hematite-cemented sartidstones and siltstones are dipping approximately 30 degrees to the east, but are actually overturned. The Castle Creek fault zone oasses through the property, but 6ecause of the great thickness of surficial deposits in the general area the exact position of the fault cannot be ascertained. . The only geologic haza��d associaLed with this parcel is the potential for • �. soil creep in steeper portions of the lot, especially vihen rrater from the . existing irrigation ditch may supersatu:ate the soils. On the accompanying map I have delineated areas for buitding envelopes which are nat exceptionall.y steep. In the one case on the flat land adjacent to the existing barn 'there is no danger of supersaturation of soils from the irrigation ditch. In the lower �.l - 1 - , . . . .._.,,,. _. ,_....�.., . , ,. _: , . .. .. . . • , .- _ _..._.. __ -�. . �.._;, . .....__._ . •�r ; ; `. . ' � � . • . . '� ' ��I ,�. . . . r . . ' . '� . .. . . � , ' , . . _ `, . f , . � • , ' . '. � . , ��I . � �� . . .-. � . - . C . . � � �, � . � . . ,. , . . � . � � , � ��� � __............... .. .. ....... .. . John Doremus - Page 2 . _ � , • ' � � ; • i i • i;� bench, where two building envelopes have been delineated, there is danger of � t supersaturation to the soils from water from the irrigation ditch. There is � a minor rockfall potential along the access at tfie east quarter of the ��j property. _ � My recommendations are to avoid building in the area marked as rockfall � and to limit proposed buildings to the three flat 6ench areas designated. The , � upper bench, adjacent to the barn,is manmade, perhaps 15 years ago, according . to Peter Vought. This involved some scraping, but mostly fill to oroduc� the � flat area. For this reason, I suggest soits engineering studies prior to �°� construction of any foundations on this bench. In order to develop the lower � two benches, the irrigation ditch above those sites should be lined to prevent leakage. � '' Water for domestic use may be obtained from the. existing well on the , � Vought proQerty or another well can be drilled in the western portion of this , lot with.a high probability of success within 50 feet. If municipal waste disposal systems are not availabTe the soils of the site should 6e adequately � permeable for a septic system and Teach field. Access to the barn area of the property is already available and an extension to either of the two sites on the ' lovrer bench should prove to be no problem providing a culvert is provided in crossing the ditch. • It is my opinion that the large boulders in the western corner of the lot were derived through glaciai action rather than rockfa7l and therefore do not signal a potential hazard. The previously mentioned fault zone has been�inactive f�r.millions of years and should pose no problem except in the unlikely event of a large earthquake in Colorado. In any event, singie , family dwellings are not considered in 'danger when�built in the vicinity of • ancient fault zones in Colorado. In conclusion, I would strongl,y suggest soiis engineering studies prior ' to construction on this property in view of the manmade topographic features, mentioned above. A1so, the county sanitation engineer Should be consulted for his views on any planned waste disposal s,ystem. If there are any further �� questions, please do not hesitate to call me. } ' � • Yours truly, . ' `��•�. r���(� n•:. �:i -�•:.� . � • Nicholas Lampiris ' . ' Consulting Geologist NL/dsf � . Encl. � . . - 2 - - . , . � - . �, _��, _ . . . - y. _.T-; . ;. . .�; • . . , , � E: , . • . . . . � , . . � . � � �• ' � �. • ' , :, , .i .. . " , . i . . " . . `� • ^ . . � . ' , • • � . . � • ' • . , . . • � , . • . �- � . �. • . - � ' ' • , , , • ' ' �� . � � ' • ' • � • � ' • � ' ' . ' . ; ��� _.__ ___�-. _ _ . • 1.,..:i, �.; ro. r.0 . _ .. ., .. ' PT7?;.;1 C0. . 7 .,�a c IIc•� _ MEMORANDUM ' -;o c EXHIBIT 1 S�1:1� � � TO: Richard Grice , �_ti. FROM: Sandra M. Stuller�� , DATE: October 8, 1981 . ' RE: Vought Subdivision; P&Z referral regarding adequacy of access Richard: It appears to me that the applicant has not satisfied the submission requirements with respect to access. The general submission requirements require evidence "that there is an established easement at least thirty {30) feet in width for ingress and egress and utilities to the property from a public road." It appears that Vought rel.ies on fillree separate segments of road right- of-way as public; one o£ which, from my research, is not. I. The right-of-way from the intersection of 7th and Hopkins to the • southern boundary of the Homestate Lode {attachment "A") has � been dedicated to the public .by reason of a. quitclaim deed from Hans Gramiger of record at Book 362 Page 72. 2. The right-of-way south of that descirbed above is shown as "Exhibit 'E' C.A. 4862" on attachment "B" to this memorandum. This land was included in a quiet title action (C.A. 4862) in which there is a stipulation among the parties that they had agreed to dedicate this to the public. This dedication was not effected by the judgment and order entered in the case; nor ' have the parties conveyed this right-of-way by deed or easement. Consequently, this segment, to the best of my information, is not public right of way. 3. Attachment "C" shows the area described in� a- quitclaim deed from . , Vought and Hefner to the BOCC recorded at Book 413 Page 3. The landowners conveyed (a) their access easements and (b) any right of access they may have acquired by use of the roadway in place. As I recaL7., the easements granted to Vought and Hefner were not limited as to use or assignment. Consequently, • � the public did and could acquire any right of access they had as their successor in interest. . Inasmuch as I may be incorrect with :respect to any af the above, I have copied Herb in this memo and anticipate he_wiil respond. SMS:cjs • . Attachment cc; Herb Klein Pat Dobie Richard Cummins � • . • • _ . ..�. „���. . � . ' ' ° ” • + . . . � .. . .. . . ,.. . ... . ., � � ,', �,. . i f � / ...._,� � .; ;. • • f • j / , � . • ``\ 4 . -.. -_ _ f. � . ,,��.5�' � , I � .---_. j ,u��� rR�y� 23�/_ 3�.t:+�� Gys' .• 1 , ___ � ('•j8O J__!•• S .�3a. '—�_ f ' '-•-- ��` / � 1 iC.pK4ER 2�421����+J�.���•• 1 .� �q1124 i l •v . . �� . " c � M • � / ? BK 26C PG.942 � t U I 0 GRAM 1 GE,R 70 ADAt�S � / \ 3 ' sy � � - N -Y z14 R¢-BaR No caaP • /. N C� � � //�� TH�S �ATiON OF1J�Nl7 �5 GFg�A�1E0 . J _ � F'OR DEO�CqT10ry TO THE pUBUG UPo �� ` DECLAR�710N OF INTENT BY PTfKIN . ' � ` , COUNTYTO V�/1DE.N AND IMPRCxI�-17M�, ' � • �` € BTREET£7lTENDED 50�S TO R�'+Qut�E^^�` I ``�l USC OFTNIS LFahD FOq SUGH aKsHT " Q.` / `; � oF'wi�Y�a-T�U OG GROO�TtTY'ro n. GAUi`»T't D"E1N6}1C,th IN ESGROw 3. � 0Y ��Cl-LAND E HAAT AS�£N CC%.4 '�' • - • fO' . �� �� ! f�'1 't � f �� GW T; .'�^ �� e /. � � �` �� � �.; -` . o :•ti � j;' ;> .o � �� • � / 3 ' �v •.,P�/' . ., ; � O �� . / ^ , L� �� �� J � - �_ 1 � .� - �; 'rp�-CA _�- / / �T � . °�27°� YR,-�o ` > ` e'� HOMESTAKE LODE M.S. 4211:� . u9184 p'; �rp�� , N, �._ i.-,.� y . ~ �q .G V ' '�P�� a�_ v • ' . ,�,3 • . /`� � `�'��v . J � x • ✓ .� , . / �s� , p3� � O n�n` �,�fD ' ' .� �Ji�� `�l � •.t� . P.n.r�. � .�� • - , . . � : . �� ' • y rx.nFitT E � � . � � . �. GV1L HGT1C'N`�NHG2 � . � • . . � . • . � � . . . . . o?i/ � . . � ' � � 9'1� . . . . ' . . � q. ' . � , ��F,1�T►1`►���_ l',�IO!�� .. � S�t'�f�i� . "1`.1.11.� � ��rY 't�117 .� �v.ni '•..i�;. . . • � .. . ' � � � . ...vt. � . � , , � . . i __�_._�..._�m � . � . . --- . � . . . �. . � � . - . � . . . � , � . � . . - : . . . .g . ; . ' .-� .,; . . , fJ . . '� � �..r.....�.w-•.ywna�evt+.�sr,w4n�lac>si'.A9�:.'s"5.:::�•sx a.r.'i..:i'i+.:a.5r.,a.rj,....-..f:* -'..�:�.�.��'x.vi+�.rA."�i�.w�...r.::ni«;�zn.iuL:a.:F:«+Va:::.i�• �.w+..,�� I . :it[ G�LUyy ' 1 , i / � � _ ,�. r, J/�� / ' . � � � }.( I : //' /i � �� : _ �i � / . . i , . . � �q /"� . ,; . �`P�a062 � . • ' ' r�� ' ,, . . � • ' � ' � • _ . GARFIELD 8� WOODS � � �xaas j s�e`s.� . :I i R sTi•M . . . ' . � . i I \ `� i Si I i ,\� � • � ADAMS SUBD. ` :-+ \ • '� � � � • � I � ,\ ,� � 1 �. \ i� , / � / � � � . . • � � . . � • . . . - � . . I ! � _ / ��j ; . - . . , . . . . � ;� � .,� _ . . , ` . � . � � �j ; . � . `I ; . � � �� � � � . . • . � . O 10 p f �-� � CANTFiUP sca�.e:• i~_�; K ��J i / �. 1 ' / �p�`e�862 ,—'� � SURVEYOR. � . / � �'J - � I,J7WE5 E�i` � � . . ' UNDCR MY 5�: - � - � RECORO.�x0�• $XOWN NERE��. / . _ �:..i . . - � .. . �. i . r . . . _'rn"x�`•'. . . . � . . ' . . ���� ' - � � � � ` . . '�,�- . . . . . - . . � Atv�HE SUR`rt'�Y . '� � . , JUIY 15.98•:I I' � � i� ' . � `� . / - � . . � �. : Y . :�.�y:.:. � . . :i � SCHULTZ • '! � � ' ' • :� j .. . . • •. . ;i ` . ' � • ._..,._..,. �•� - •� ' , �� .. t ., ., �r,�^i',i}�; .,.!.,,,.. . ....�..,.._.._. .,...,,•-:..-._�.r.._...�,�.. . . .�,..,v.. .. . -....:,,,,.rv' ' • p+�e-r.. :�r•, �.;�.: . ^ -�-^n�- . ;•a-�. . ....... ... _ .. . �..... . ..._............ ._.�............ .. .. .. ......._... ... -.. ... ....... . ... .. , .�+.u.�w�..._r..... . ......,.....»... � • ' � � - � ' . .. � . i . • � . ( •• ' ' , • ' F _ • . • - . � � f � .. � .. . . . - . " �/ -_ . , V . ' .. ' K ..�. ; � . „,....i,...w�w�wrw�a}Fw�aoperimG�Ti tf��7�'a 1�.A:r` w.y,SiaiNALU..wr..�...a��/:afa•'Xr��.Jiwi"l�F+.7! .Iar�.+:.Y...�1tiiIS:i1.iC.Z..kL.nt-.s4W.Liirw�..�T�.J'�.-.... . ' • .. . . . . � ' . - .. . . -. . . . . �i : ' GERBAZ -. . � • � . . � � j. . i �� j � -` . , . � � � , .. '. � � � � j �SS . . . . . .SO• � t i i� // i .. . `�Qo f i� / � � ' �i . � . . . . . ' ' . ' . � '. .yb�,4���,•.'�,���' ' / _ ZASACKY + ,,�.,� -"� � BOOK 331 ��/4"~ ��w,.�''� t . ' P�CiE 523 . , � �/ FOUNDt LOWPLAS.��� ��S i � . � / _ . � ' .6/� ,t . •�% � • . . . � . � F�\�Iw .h1p y'� . _ • /f`� yM �\ � PQ.y �i��0 / . � : i �`O�M. di�q°y�� .w`�f{." • . . . . . . � \w iq�w R �'/•: . . � r . . " . . � �jV� � .v,8 . ,b � ! i�.ei • . � i b % / t�~ . - � . �1 .�0 J � � . . . � - vV 0�° 8�/ - r I ��o'�� B16GS i �'/ � RINKER BOOK 365 j� i REC.#105468 k PAGE T60 J f " . � i ' / �FOUND: ELLOW►US.GP. L.9 2376, . ! / �� • � / . . .. . . � . / � / "� � `. � g . , oo � ,.y;,rP , � ' ��N I ; i�I+ 0'h . ' � y/ .e° � V . . ' f : � � ' . �/ �/� j. . ' . � � � °� � , FOUND: q b tt ` . ' � /�AI�IA���'SG_ ,� Mitl'3tap.w . . ' . L � /� M1 . 1: / � '� { 'b'ZP � .l x�. �.� � Z: aoc.M . _ . � VOUGHT � F . . i . . . �. '• HEFNER ». � • • ' • ' '� . .. • GERBAZ • / � . �. i .- �� .�'� �-. ' . , . . , . . ,/ ..,�•--. i. � L I� •r � cr.r;r� . . • /�(�„-•�.�i�rn Ft�,�►� nrn'v� ' ..v. ,,. T.r.�nn�%rr';TT�`.^���T•� •j.;wlw T'W��w� (T'...� N7�R..l�SC;_: ' T. •'^�.'�.4r,�1�Ke�-:.�.,q�..�v'»t1•.� . . . .... . r.....n. ..�l..�w..� .�J. . .. .�:.\'. .. �.ir...... .�..w...tn .. � ... ..e..�...w.r....�v..r✓w�r�..i��.tw..�J .w..�.�..ri... .. . _ � __.,,��,�_. __ _ _. �� �itkin county • 506 east main street ., aspen, colorado 61611 M E M 0 R A N 0 U M ���r�. .-�,�i:�'�,��;--�r.;, __________ �••:- � ,I'._._.�� i�,: �!�^� z`; �9�1 � T0: Jack Johnson, Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office __ ----�- E;�;��:-- ":�:, ,. .+;�. FROM: Brian Stafford, Trails Director � F�........;_�L`�';.�-� pATE: January 28, 1981 RE: Vought 6eneral Su6mission - Lot Split I have reviewed the Peter Vought Exemption application dated January 20, 1981 with respect to the unpaved Castle Creek Trail easement dedication. The ten (10) foat permanent • , trail easement and temporary twenty (20) foot construction easeinent, as shown in the site plan, are cansistent with � the As en/Pitkin Caunt Trails Master'Plan's proposed corridor, so roy recortenendation is favorab e. � In past years, Pitkin County has examined and xppraised:a ! trail corridor along South Seventh Street which would proceed within ab�ut ten (10) feet of•Peter Vought's house. It was determined that while such a trail alignment would be much - more direct, a more suitable grade, and less expensive to � construct, the damages to Vought's existing residence in � terms ofi both privacy and personal security would be ex- cessive. Therefore, the B�CC decided not to proceed with this alignment as long as Vought or any future owners of this property were opposed to it. • I:-1::i� G�? C0. GG....'P. . ' PI_T?tT.! C.^� � Y:�1.'?C Ifrar;••,. � . � cc: John Doremus - EXHIBIT Peter Vought . ' � � / . � ._.. . ' L � / - /� . . ....:J. i�Q ^�� � /� �,. . . ... . ,.y . _...._. . ..... . . . . _. ...__ ...� _ . . _ �`. . ' , �. . ', • , ,�� ' ' , ' . • . . • . : �,. • . . ; . , }', '' . • . • . . _ . . , _ • ,• , . • , � . . . . ,. . . . _ � � � . . � . . l . . . ' � . • _. ' ' � .i . - ' � � t � ' • � . � . , .. � . ' 1. . � • � � • � . . � �' . . . . � � ,, . . , .. � . . . . . , . . . . . � • . 1{ . . I ' . � ,�� �._-_ � __ _ _ . : pi��cin county ' S06 east main street : � - aspen, colorado H1F,�'11 � '+ MEMQRANDUM �-}, .. v; `��•-"�;�`51 I j . . �'1t'`:�.—°' ;:,h � � � '�'� 1981 ��► I ' �s ,�V1�2 G Gn; i � T0: Alan Richman, Planning Office �Q� 1f,� N��tYK � � FROM: Jim Hamilton, County Housing Director `�pIANN�NG� i i OATE: June 26, 1981 } RE: ' Highlands Inn Subdivision C - . 4 � I have met with Highlands Inn representative Joe Edwards to discuss � �� the non-exclusionary criteria described in Section 5-300.1 of the � Code, as is applies to the Highlands Inn apnlication. In talking 'y to .loe, .it is apparent that the number of employees needed to i operate the pr.oposed expanded Inn is fqr less than the Code � anticipates for such develooment. The owner believes that his � emplayee reguirements rii71 be between thirty (30) and forty-taro j (42).people. The Code, however, anticipates that an expansion ! of the type pr000sed would require ea;ghty-four (84) employees. i I have been assured by Joe that whether the number of employees }f actually needed is thirty or forty-two the Inn will accomrwdate I � all of its employee needs. Therefore, I have concluded that the i application is in comoliance with L•he intent of Section 5-300.1 � (al(1): . _ "Whether an adequate supply of housing exists to accommo- date any additional oopulation which may be expected to � come to the County as a result of employment resulting from construction or operation of the deveTopment." . ;,2,:.D c„� �.:�, c, . : �; . ' r�.l:.:T cn ' r,:.,,; � .. EXHIBIT si I ;:c o ! uLSJ,` � � � . . . r.[i�. � —� . ' � . ._._.. . ,....�_., i .. • . . ... ...._ : .. . < - . � . . Y �`�� • ' • , . i • � • �I oe. . � ' : , .' •- , " • i . , • : �''.,.. , .. . .. • •� • . . . . . 1 . i . - � • . . . 1 �• • . ' ' . . , . ." • ' •� ... . . / , �, . . ' . . • !, • ,. • , �; . , ' . • , ' I . . .....I. .._._....�. . � - ........_..... . ' . .. ."..'___ b � pi�kin ca►un�y � _ • 506 east main street aspen, colorado e'1611 � . MEMORANDUM --------- . v��sD or r.�_ �: ' r,�r:-;.�; �: . P�,'li° EXHIBIT T0: Alan Richman, Planning Office , � • D��� � SuUj�ct � I FROM: Patrick Dobie, County Engineer r� ; r:.r:. :�o i DATE: June 23, 1981 , � RE: . Highlands Inn I reviewed the development proposal for the Highlands Inn and i found several areas where either the application was incomplete or in conflict with the Code. ' � DRAINAGE: There is neither a plan for the treatment, nor the i impoun ing of runoff, although the development is in direct interference with apparent flow patterns. In light of the magnitude ' of this development, I feel that drainage should be an important ; consideration and a comprehensive plan will be needed, � TRA��SPORTATION: The applicant represents that there will be , � minimal impacts to peak period transportation facilities. To a certain extent, I agree that steps could be taken to discourage auto use and avoid peak periods. However, I do not feel that merely reducing the number of parking spaces will accomplish • this objective. If the Inn would agree to avoid Saturday bookings, the peak period impact at the Airport could.be reduced. With respect to parking, I feei that the total number of spaces required by the Code could be reduced in 'this instance, although not•as great a reduction as is being proposed here. Not only is there less than one space per•unit, but there is no space for employees or restaurant goers. I suggest•that the accessible spaces be increased to a minimum of 135 and that arrangements •be made with Aspen Highla�ds for summer use and overflow use of their parking lot, BUILDIN6 HEIGHT: Based on the building profile submitted, the zone height limitation appears to be exceeded by 32 feet. � ... ..' _•- ._.':. _... :. ...� . ..��:.. _. .. .. .. . . :.. . � . . . -...—.._ ."_"^'-��. . . .. � ' . . . .� , . � ' / ' . � . • ' • • • _ � . ' .. ' ' • ; . . - f�. �� . .. ' .. � , � . . .. ' . . ' _ . . � / � . . ' • � . ' . . . . . . ' . . .� . \ ' . e .. . . - . � � - , . � ' � � � . , i • • . . . � . � ' ' . . • . • ^ , . , . . .. . I ' .. 1 . � , • . ' �I:' . ' .. � /. � � � . . 1 , . . � . - � � • , , � • ' •' _ ,'- �I 1: , . ' ' . . ' I ' • • � . .i i � , . I , A►�������1-1-�a� �3 ElWifi�0�11i/�EiVT.�►L 6-iiE/�l..'1"{-�9 AI�PA6�T1'�7EiVT r.�i�.� a� r::,. ' PITIi7A r � , Publie Ilo�•�.•. �; MEMORANDUM nnc EXHIBIT 81 i ' . • suv� � ,/ ; T0: Alan Richman, Planning Office �:.r,, f� ; l FROM: � Lee Cassin, Environmental Health Officer V '• DATE: July 2, 1981 ;; RE: Highlands Inn Renewal Subdivision ; � j I have reviewed the application for redevelopment and expansion of the Highlands Inn and have the following comments on environ- � mental health related concerns. i WATER SYSTEM • • With the planned connection of the Aspen Highlands Water System to the C3ty of Aspen supply and abandonment of the old plant and sub- station, the system will be improved in quality and adequate in supply. Parts of the distribution system are very old and will continue to need routine repair and maintenance., but the Highlands Inn expansion should pose no problems in this respect. � • SEk'AGE SYSTEM The sewer system serving the Highlands Inn is adequate for the proposed expansion. rOISE The only potential noise problem would be entertainment in the restaurant or other areas. A condition of approval should be that the operator comply with the state of '�olorado's noi.se abatement � statute. � AIR POI.LUTION ' � Only one iireplace is proposed and that will be in the lobby. � We would strongly recommend the use of a V-shaped grill for restaurant use. Otherwise, air pollution impacts will not be significantly di£ferent from those of the present facility. 130 South Galena Street Aspan, Colorado 8'1611 � 3Q3/925-2020 ..r .. _ . .._ . . , . _. , ._ . ._ - - - . , . . . / � a. r . . , , • ' .`� .. . . " . � . • . ' . . , � '. . � .� . . , . • � . , , . �. . � • , I . , ,, , 'I i � . • 1 I: • . . �i t' -— � }+�����������D ' . . � - ��� � �.�g��l�� �• o t� ,� "� �' a`'°"w,�°� � `� , `'"''S` � y��.r.�7;�yo U� �.i G� c,; '� ' �' RICHARD D.LAMM * I�j * !'t r�g J(�OHN D � Govcar+on *��,�'� � �V t» fe lJl�l Ir a 6 COLORADO GEOLOG{CAL SURVEY ti, ASPEN/PITKIfV CQ ..• . DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES `k.S'LANNINGOFFtC�.� . 716 STATE CENTENNtAI 8W LDING—13t3 SHERMAN STREET OENVER,COIORAD080203 PHONE(303)�{9(AOOk 866-2611 � .... _.. .. . ,. � ... _. . 'e..r � f . , � f June 30, 1981 � bo;,r� r+:� � � . P'.'�:: Mr. A1 an Ri chman r�? EXHIBIT Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office �_____ 1981 130 So. Galena St. ��� � � Aspen, CO 81611 suv ! Dear Mr. Richman: r''} ___��� � � � RE: HIGNLAND INN RENEtJAL SUBDIVISION I � If the commitments made on pgs. 0004Z and 00043 are honored and the recomanen- • dations contained in the Lincaln DeVore report are followed, we have no ob- � • jection to the approval of this appl.ication. � Yours truly, � Jeffrey L. Hynes Engineering Geologist lt cc; LUC GEOLOGY STORY OF THE PAST.. .KEY TO THE FUTURE � , � ...__..... _ , . ._ . '--. . , ..,.. ... - _ ._ . _..... , .,T. , --� . . '• : : `+ � � ' . ' �! �c. • . . ; . . ', ' . . ' • • , . . � • . ' � . •. • . � . _ , . , ,. . • , . • • • . . ; . � • • . . � . `.; . � � . , 1 a � 1...-D C" C0. CC ' � " � rz;xzrt co. . , ., j MEMORANDUM !�'-'�t.tc I •iri; i �.c�,�� � � �as.o EXHIBR � T0: Board of County Commissioners suvj;. � #. r.�,. i � FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office i j RE: High7ands inn Renewal - General' Submission; Subdivision Exemption; and � Request for Code Amendment � DATE: October 16, 1981 . � . • i � � � Zoning: AR-1 • j Lat Size: 6.036 acres (262,928 square feet) ! Location: Maroon Creek Road (north west 1/4 of the south west 1/4 of Section 14, TownsF�ip 10 South, Range 85 west of the 6th P.M.) � at the base of the Aspen Nighlands Ski Area. Background; The Highlands Inn is a 49 unit lodge containing 35,944 square feet whi'cf� is dpproximately 20 years old, F�as inadequate ' parking�and which exceeds the 28 foot height limit for the zone due to its gabled desi:gn.. T.n 1978, wfien t6e current � �owners purc6ased the Inn, whi:ch. was located on 1.959 acres, i they also acquired an optioq to purchase an additional 4.077 ! act^es adjacent to their land, Earlier tf�i:s spring, the owners of the Inn appli'ed for and were granted a subdiyision , exemption for the purposes of follow%ng t6rough on this option to expand their parcel. On the basis of the new 6.036 acre parcel, tf�e owners are now applying through ' Su6di'vt�sion review to demolish and �e6uild the Inn to include 126 rental tooms and 15 employee units, contained wi.thin 78�182.squdre feet. The owners are also processing a simul- taneous su6di.vi�ion exemptlon for the pnrposes of adding %"�0.616 acres of land, whi�ch they recent7y purchased, to the existing lot for a total parcel of 6�b52 acres (approximately • ' . 289,760 squdre feet�, Finally, the owners have applied for a ' . pri;vate �rezoning for th� purposes of amending the Pitkln . • . County Land Use Code regard��ng parking for 7odges. Design Concept: Tb.e desi:gn concept for the proposed new Highlands Inn has been eyolving 'over the course of the revitew process. 'The Planni:ng Office will present to you the origi:nal proposal . �rhich. was receiyed on June 1, recogni:zi;ng thdt some modi.fi'ca- tions haye 6een made to 1t dnd that fn�ther changes at the detat�led su6mi.ssi'on stage ar-e anticipated s6oald the pendiny sv6divlsi.on exempti'on be approved by you, The generdl su6mi:sslon i:ncludes the fo7lowing design items; � The huilding 1s ��0 6e--s�teppe8 up the slope behi.nd tfie existi:ng structure in such a way as to eliminate the • vjs%ble cut whi�ch. hds ex-i:sted s1nce tbe I:nn +�as firSt �- 6ullt and to fit the contours of the site� � TBe 28 foat hei:ght limitati:on, wh%le clearly exceeded by • measuring from tfie base e'Ievatinn, appears not to be exceeded 6y the 6ui�ldi'ng ��n relation�to the slope . gradi:ent� � � Mpdular constructi.on of gues,t rooms 1's propo�ed, � 11n interi:o� court wi�th a skylight r�fii�ch.would tie tota.11y open i'n the surturer �z proposed. Linear streets would ' )'dd�:ate f7'� the.'court and provide di:rect access for guesl;s to the s,ki slope. ' . . � - Parking would occur within the bui7ding i'tself, as would the l�ading dock/trash facili'ty area. �.W �.i wy.....w�. _. .. .�.�__�.�,,:..�,..,:,� � __-------._.._ � Memo: Nighlands Inn Renewai i Page Two •• � October 16, 1981 • I' ' - The existing site access ramp wi11 proba6ly be elimi:nated � allowing cars to access t6e parki'ng facili'ty from the I Highlands parki'ng�lot and improving pedestri'an movement aS well. I . . . I - Construction is anticipated.to begin in April 1982 and to • � , be comp'teted in September, 1983. with a partial opening of the Lodge during the winter of 1982. The applicant . should recogn9ze that since the restaurant i's a use by i . special review in t6e AR-1 zone, if it does not re-open � _ tv%thin one year of its closure, it will have to receive speci.'al review approval prior to re�opening. � .. The applicant proposes to condomtni`umi'ze the units� • ReY'l`ew Concerns; During the Planning Office and Planning and Zoning Commissi'on peyiew peri:od, several issues were exami.ned and concluded to be easi'ly sati'sfied by the applicant, while other issues were found to be more substantial, and i'n need of furtfier attention ' before a detailed su6mission could 6e reviewed. Following are �some of the issues whieh appear to 6e technically solvable ; 6�ased pn information already provided 6y the applicant: t . 1� T6e appli:cant has provided informati'on documenting tfiat the si.te does not contain slopes in excess of 30 percent. The cut behind the exi'sti.ng inn has created a very steep, manmade hazard, 6ut the app7icant i'ntends to place a • re�'nforced retaining wall agai.'nst thi's slope as part of contouring the 6ui'lding i'nto tf�e site. 2:,�A soi:ls report, provided by the appli�cant�indicates some posaible soi:l prohlems which can be mi'tigated by proper �engineeri'ng and constructi`on tecfini'ques. The applicant • � � wi'71 perform detailed foundation and reinforcement in- • yesti'gdtions praor to constructi�on to insure that proper � ' bui.lding methods are uti'li'zed. . .3.. T6e applicant has suggested severa� dra�nage and ep�slon techniq�es to control runoff and sedimentation from the � site. The appli.cant has agreed to submit a drainage and e1-osion control Wl�rr.r+h.i�h meets the requireroents of the Code at the detailed submission stage of reyiew, • 4, The applicant has provi:ded letters from tfie Higfilands Water and Sanitation Distrlct indicating their abi'lity to serve the proposed development, The applicant has • d9reed to provide further information as to the need for trensmissic�i system improvements and to work out a flnancing program for these improvements, � 5� The.appl�icant proposes to house all of the employees of the H19hlands Inn on site, The aopltcant does not feel �I that the number of employees antici�pated by tf�e Code • (84� �s correct and has sati:sfi.ed th'e Housing Dlrectot^ j that n0 matter what number of employees are needed to rua the faci'lity, all•w211 be fioused on si'te, i • Beyond these i.ssues, seyeral concerns were rai'sed by P & Z Or review agencies which have,�a's yet, tieen lept unresolved� While it i's anti:clP�ted that these issues can be fully . resolved at the detailed revi'ew stdge� it is: i.tnportant i:hat each be di:�cussed at thi.s poi;nt in time. The major fssneS i n que�tlon i ncl ude, the fol l o���i ng; . ]� Trans ortation - The primary cpncern ofi P & 'L regdrding ', t e proposed�'odge deyelopment i's the impact of the ' added units on Maroon Creek Road and Highway 82� The , I . j . • � . , . • • � , � �� �_____ ,� ' Memo: Nighlands Inn Renewal Page Three October 16, ]981 . � � applicants prov%ded a traffic impact report as part of the general submission to substantiate their conc7usion that there will be "no significant impact" npon traffic from the expansion, This conclusion, supported by the Skrotzki Associates study, is 6ased on the following factors. - The Highlands is a destination ski resort in itself, � � catering to pa�kage tours. � � ' - A large proportion of the guests travel 6y bus from the ' Hjghlands to Aspen and/or Snowmass. � . � The travel engaged in by guests using automobile��'i� typically'outside of the peak traffic hours, . -. The minor addition of traffic at the peak hour is well . below the calculated and observed capacities of the Maroon Creek-Highway 82 corridor. i • In addition to these cortunents, the applicant has also made ; • the �fallowing auto disincentive comnitments: � i , � Radio controlled airport limousine servi.ce will operate daily. - Radio controlled mini-bus.es will cpprdinate wi'th and s,upplement the bus system during winter and sununer. Desp%te this information, P & Z still felt quite uncomfor- table about the future traffi.c flow in this area, particu, ]arly in light of the ultimate 6uildout potential in the ' AR-1 zone. While the Courity Engineer generally concurs wi.th the app7icant that no significant i'mpact should be anti'- , � ci:pated upon the traffi.c corridor, P & Z requested that . the County seek additional review expertise to insure that ' , dny adverse impacts of the addi'tional traffic will be mi'tigated� The Plann%ng Offi:ce agreed to assist i.n obtain- i.ng added review ski.11s for tfiis appli.cation, althqugh to t[�i:s point,• we have had no reason ta dispute the applicant'�s � posi:tion regardi'ng conformance with adopt2d County Poli:cy. � The applicant does. feel that the�applicahle parki.ng require-. � rgent for this faci1i'ty is excess:lve� Based on fiistorical datd compiled 6y the appli'cant, the cnrrently availa4le 20 spaces. are adequate for the exi'sting I�nn, although the Code would requi�re 90 spaces at the present time. Recognlzing . that the Highlands Area does x�t have bnth city and private bu� serylce and th�t tlie Ski area i's a desti.nation resort itself� the appl'icant hds submitted a rezoning application . requesting a change in the parki.ng requi.rement in one of the fo7lowing two ways: 1� Reduce the requirement from one space per �}QO square ' . . feet of nonresidential space to one space per 120� square feet, thereby reducing the required num6er of ' parki:ng spaces foc the new facility iror 195 tp 65y Qy� 2� Convert the current requirement to special review on a case-by-case 6asis.• ' ' The Planning Office is sympathetic to the applicant��s ' request and recognizes that 195 spaces for a lodge in th�s location is probably excessive. IJe also 6eli.eve that ' 65 parking spaces for 'i26 guest, rooms, 15 employee rooms and a restam•ant prohably is noL sufficienL. At the , present time, a special review is provided for the parking ' requi.rements for warehousing, 41e 4eli�eve that this type , i of approach could also work for lodges and.suggest that ; � you consider the following as th�appropriate language for a Code Amendment: . • �_i „a„...... � Memo: Highlands Inn Renewal • Page Four October 16, 1981 � That the language contained i•n Section 3.-2 of the Land Use Code, "Bulk Requirements �, All Districts" be amended to read as follows: • (New language i.s underl�ned,} "Minimum number of off-street parking spaces per dwelling .. ' • unit�or 400 square feet of ncsn-residential space; provided, � ' however, that required parking spaces for warehousing and lod in purposes shall be determined by special review 'taking tnto consideration pedestrian access, private and . public mass transportati.on, needs of cortm►ercial yehicles and historical auto usa e." P & Z recommended that you approve this request by the appl%cant for a code amendment, and that you also amend Section fi-6.1(c� which permits P & Z to finally apprave ' or deny requests to establish off-street parking require� ' , ments, as follows: (cj "applications to establish the number of off-street . parking spaces required for warehouses and lodges under Section 3-2." ' . The Planning Office reco�nends that you approve this request and direct us to write a resolution for the purposes of � dmending the Pitkin County Land Use Code. • 2� lodae Gondomi•ni�umi�a�i:on - The Land Use Code defines a . lodge as "any building . . used . . . for occu�pancy by persons on a temporary basis and containing at least six guest rooms, a public dining room . . and supplemental service facilities including but not lamited to office, guest lobby and co�anon kitchen." The Code further defines a lodge room as being one witt� or without kitchen facilities. ' These provisions do not provide adequate assurances that condominiumized lodge units will remain within the short term rental market. Furthermore, the condominiumization regula- . tions of the County only refer to the impact of condominiumiza- tion on the supply of low and moderate income housing and do not refer to the supply of �tourist rental units. � _ _ Since the applicant has expressed a willingness to adhere to any reasonable short-term rental restriction which we may place upon the Highlands Inn renewal, it is incumbent upon us to formulate the appropriate measures, One approach , wh.ich we might consider would be to utilize some of the concepts from the Aspen Lodge condominiumi'zatioii regulations • . as a model for framing conditions fo�- this application. The � major components of this regulation include: . 1) A prohibition on an owner°s personal use of the unit beyond a 74 day limit dUring the "high season" (December 18 - March 20j. . 2) A•requirement that employee 6ousing be proy%ded in the • lodget � . 3) A requirement that services previously offered by the lodge (on�site management and maintendnce) will con- i:inue to be provi'ded, and that common areas �r�ll 6e , �� _ retained, 4) A requirement that units shall rema%n in the general � tourist market by, for example� tncluding t6em in a � local reservation system. . • '. 5} q r�q�i:rement that the lodge will 6e upgraded as d result of condominiuroization or demonstration that the lodge was recently .upgraded by a preyipus expendi'ture of funds. . • ' ��� . � . . . �. ' � Memo; Nighlandg Inn Renewal • � Page l�i:ye . October.l6. 1981 � Among these provisions, the ones which are most directly of concern as regards the Highlands Inn are numbersl, 3 and 4, since numbers 2 and 5 are clearly provided for by the applicant, The applicant has agreed to work closely with the County Attorney and the Planning Office in formulating restrictions which are desirable for both the applica�t and • ' � the County, including developing a mechanism by which the � restrictions can be enforced. . As regards the issue�of kitchens in 'Iodge units, the Code is clear in permitting kitchens, unlike the City of Aspen and the Town of Snowmass Viliage which expressly prohibit � kitchens in new lodges. T6e main concerns of P & Z regarding kitchens were that the units may become more desira6ie as long term occupancy un9ts and that such units may not meet the identified need for increas�ng the supply of hi9h, quality ' tourist units. The former concern shouid be manageahle as ' a result of the previous discussion of prohi.biting an owner�'s ' uSe of the property for long term occu�ancy or could be insured by an amendment to the definition of a lodge rpom� . The ]atter concern has been addressea by the applicant in d market survey perf�rmed 6y Scott McCrea. The conclu�ions ' of this report are as follows: 1� The percentage of vacationers %n Aspen who bring their famili.es aiong is on the rise� • 2� The rates of a ski vacation are among the costliest of . the yacafiion experiences, 3� Yacat%oners primarily use kitchens for 6reakfast and snacks and someti.mes for prepari'ng dinner for chi.ldren whi:le the parents d�ne i.�n a restaurant, 4j Ki,-tchens are yiewed as a means of stretcF�irtg the do7lar dYd�lable for the sk%�vacation and would help to defray the image of Aspen as "overpri'ced"� 5� Tour book��ng agenci:es, as �vell as several neighboring . resorts, 'indicate that unl'ts wlth kitchens a�e the type desired hy i�ncreas�ing nuinbers of tourizts, The appli.car.t has dlso i.nformed the Planning O�fi:ce that of t6e 12b touri.st units, 86 �689'� wi;11 have some type of ki�tchen facillties. Only fi.ve of the nnits are planned to 6ave full ki.tchens w6ile the other 87 un1ts will have . modular Awyer units. Addi�ti�onally, the emplayee units will . • haye shared kitchen facili'ties available for all units� ' 3, Area and Bulk Requirements - Duri'ng our Y.nitial reyiew of ths appli.cant'�s request, we made an i►iterpretation. that the area i.n excess of one aere of 7and wi.thi;n tf�e app1i- cant's property.whi'ch was encum�ered by ski: easements sbould not be included i.n densi:ty and open space calcula- � tloos• for the site� Howeyer, Tater conversati.onS �ith the County {lttorney i:ndl'cdted that Secti'on 3-8.5 of the • Land Use Code refers more properly to lands whi'cFi are � ' • crossed by publ%c roads or �h�:cfi are under water and are c'lear7y unusable� The land encumbered by the ski easements • does.provide open space rel'ief for anyproposed 6uilding . and could ther.efore be properly considered part of the drea • for density ca7culations.. As a result, ther'e is no question that the applicant does haye suff�clent land to develop the entire project as proposed.. ' , Two questions were posed duri'ng the P & Z revi'ew, regarding building height and the floor.area to_be inciuded in bui.lding � calcu7ations, which needed to be referred to the Building Depar.tment. 7he response to these questi'ons is that it is • • impossible, at this point in ti.me, to rletermine whether or � �:: . � Memo: Highlands Inn Renewal Page Six . October 16, 1981 not the building complies wit� all underlying requirements . of the zone district, As a re5ult of the uni�que desi:gn � concept being proposed by the appl%cant, it is necessary that � • . additional i.nformation be provided at the detailed submission stage to permit a proper interp�etati�on of these i'ssues� � 4. Impacts on Growth Rate - As we are all aware, the constr�ction of new todge units is not currently controlled by tfie fMP: At yo�r previous meeting, we had a lengthy discussion of the . ' 800 lini't touri:st buildout potential at the base of the � Hi;ghldnds Ski Area and of the alternative approaches you mi_ght consider tdking to control the •rate and timing of this deyelopment� Our recommendations to you at that time included., � Direct ns to expand the coverage of our Buttermi.lk Area Plan update to i:nclude the Highlands-Maroon Creek Area so that a comprehens�`ve analysl`s of the constraints and opportuniti.es in th.i's co.r•ri:dor can 6e performed, , - Allow us, to continue working on the GMP update so that we can examine all of our growth sectQrS �- �^esidenti.al, � conanercial and lodge, together, to determine tfie appro- priate rates of growtf� in each sector.. You agreed with our proposed work program on this issue and aSked that we return to you hy April 1 with some recomnended actions regarding touri.st 6uildout. Since we have a once a year deadline for subdi.vision appli'cations of June 1, we feel confident that we a�e adequately protected at this time and cdn take the time necessar�y to properly plan for growth i:n tfiis area� 5� Subdiyision Exemption - Tf�e appl�,cant is also requesting, dt th.i,s time that you approve a subdivi�sion exemption for �the purposes of adding approximately 0.6 acres of lane pur- chased frpm th.e Highlands Ski Corpa to the origlnal 6 acre parcel� This exemption ls su6mi.tted undep Section 4-2�2(a)(2Z . . Of the Pi;tki:n County. Land Use Code, sirce it is for th.e � purpase of ad3usting a lot ]ine 6etween adjacent parceYs ' qn lots under sepdrate ownershipt T6e applicant meets the • ; ' cPltepia of thi;s section i.n that; � I � i�. The adjustment creates not nior-e tban th.e ori:ginal ! num6er of lots or parcels,. 2�.The pnrpose or effect pf t6.e dajus:tment is. not tfie cpeati,on of a new par•cel for deveiopment or •resale � purposes. . , 3). The resulting lots complY with. the mini.mum area and . width r�qui�rements.of the Code, 4j.Tp comply w.t'th all ldw$ re�ardi;ng the recopding of • plats, the p�at Fia� 6een reyi.ewed as to i`ts legal ' ddequacy� TF�e County Attor•�e,y is not sati.si:fed with the note to the Builai;ng I�nspe.ctor contai.ned On the plat and states thdt yery speci:fic langodge shoul8 be provided that the parcels added as a result of the . current and previous exeroption• requests do not con- . • . stitiate separate parcels of land for development purposes� but shall be construed as part of a single ' parcel of 6.652 acres. � • I • ' Memo: Highlands Inn Renewal • � Page Seven October 16, 1981 Planning Office � Recommendation: As was stated during the P & Z review of this proposal, the . applicant has gone to great iengths to insure that this sub- mission complies with all policies and provisions of the Pitkin County Land Use Code. While this is a very ambitious and significant development proposal which has led us to question ' some basic premises of our regulaLory system, we must judge � the application simply on" its merits as compared to our existing code. The Planning Office therefore recommends that you approve the applicant's general submission, subject to the following conditions: � i, The applicant committing to house all employees of the � Highlands Inn on the premises and providing deed restric- tions limiting the required number of units as employee • units solely for the use of the employees of the Highlands ' Inn; � 2.. The applicant applying for special review approval of the ' parking required for the facility prior to the review of . the detailed submission for th� Highlands Inn; 3. The applicant providing more detailed information accept- . able to the Building Department, prior to the review of the detailed submission, permitting the determination of the height and FAR of the proposed building; � • 4. The applicant adhering to restrictions which will be developed by the Planning Office and the County Attorney pertaining to (a) short term rental restrictions upon the , owners' personal use of the lodge condominium unit during _ . high season, .(b) the on-site manag�ment and maintenance services provided at the lodge, and (c) the method by . which the County can determine that the units remain in the general tourist market, including enforcement mechanisms, as appropriate; • 5. The applicant providing information acceptable to the County regarding the adequacy of the summer and winter transportation services pr�vided to the Highlands Inn, � including an assessment of the impacts of growth upon • . Maroon Creek Road and the bus system, and providing a plan to mitigate the adverse impacts of the development i on the cortnnunity`s transportation system, if such impacts are doc�nented to be expected; 6. The applicant completing more detailed soir investigations . • prior to construction and submitting the engineering and � construction plans to mitigate any geologic hazards to the County Engineer and the Building Department prior to construction of the building;. � 7. The applicant preparing detailed drainage and erosion � control plans prior to the review of the detailed sub- � mission for the Highlands Inn; 8, T6e applicant providing information acceptable to the • County regarding the need for water and sewer transmission � system improvements and the financing arrangements for . these improvements prior to rev9ew of the detailed sub- . miss�ion for the liighlands Inn� and � 9. The applicant complying with the standards of the Environmental Health Department by using a v-shaped gri11 for restaurant use and.by complying with the state ' • of Colorado's noise abatement statute in the restaurant or other entertairar,ent areas; . . � r _ . _ � f , . . � • . � , ',�Memo: Highlands Inn Renewal � � Page Eight . October 16, 1981 T6e Planning Office further recommends that you approve the applicant's request for a Code•Ameridment to Sections 3-2 and �� � 6=6.1(c) of the Land Use Code and that you direct us to prepare a resolution concerning this proposed code amendment. The Planning Office f.inally recorrnnends that you approve the : applicant's request for subdivision exemption for the purposes � , of increasing the size of the development parcel, subject to j � the following condition: • 1. The applicant revising the note to the Building Inspector ' contained on the plat so that it satisfies the County ' Attorney's concern that the parcels added to the originai ' � development parcel do not constitute separate parcels for � - development purposes but are instead pieces of•a unified ; 6.652 acre development parcel. � ' . � . � � . � • � . � • . � . I � � . � . ; � i • . . . . f i I • . i i i , ' � � i . . i � I i . 1 .� � . . • . . . . ' , . . . . � _� . . . � .. . :. . - �� � � . . . . . .�� . . . � � � ' . . � � . . � . �. � . � . . � . . � . . I .. . - ; . . � . . . � � . '. . � . � - ��. . . �v/ Cl�/ r{l ;3�, . . ��� `� MEMORANDUM r>onr,n on co. co,:,:.i�R�; TO: Board of County Commissioners PI Public F �J(H�Bn' FROM: Sandra M. Stuller/-�+� Da�o : � � DATE: September 24, 1981 su!:3:et G ION T"11. 1�0. -O RE: Petition for Exclusion Lady and Gentlemen: Attached is a copy of the petition of Joan Benson and Stephen Kent for the exclusion of the Crystal Ranch from the Redstone Ranch Acres road improvement district. A noticed public hearing has been set for your October 26th meeting. The relevant statute permits landowners to request exclusion but requires that a "change in boundaries o£ the district shall not impair its organization, or its rights in or to property, or any of its rights or privileges whatsoever." This is the only guidance given in the statutes for consideration of such requests. SMS:ejs Attachment . . . .. . ;' . , 5 � . ;�: .��� . � . n '•, ` � � , '• N L: j: ��� r�. CC.'�.i�:'A3' �,:tiEN- (�j ' • 1�'� .. .i`7',1,:�.iil (,'�� S -- 'Q �� •� � • .. • -o� ' Public Ilcarir.a ,i,:t a+ ' a - - . l• I����ti s.��i 1.G�i� 1'���,� � � Dat o � . _ ' ��a A�+��o� az EXHIBIT ^ � � ( 3 Tlor i =- o_ i , CAR6oNdLLE� COLORADO 81623 Sub �� � y — � - �• I FY.Yl. r: � � ! • � is . ( ' ' PHoNe: 9s3-235fl � . w a Bf ,` .!ai�* 'f°:4.�- r �'�`� '""s � � — - -r- - - • Sept l�, 1981 Pitkin Oounty Board of Commissioners, 506 .East Main Street, . ,�spen, t7ola. 81611. gttent2on: Michael Kinsley. Gentlemen; � i This letter is to petitian the Board for an e$c3.ueion trom the Redatone Ranch Acres Road Tmprovement and Mainten- ance District, for the Crystal Fa.rm property owned by Joan L. Benaon. The Cryatal Farm ie the origina2 deeded property in the area and is already legally exempt from the subdivision named Redstone Ranch gcres. The road system involved, serv- ices the subdivision and consists of approximately 11,650 feet of dirt and gravel roads and two bridges. One of these br3dges and 250 feet of road service the Qrystal Farm. That particular briage is not in need of any ma�or repair and the amount of road used does not constitute a reasonable atnount o� the entire system to warrant inclusion of the Cxystal Farm in this District. The arystal Farm has had easement rightaway; across the Orystal River eince the 1$90's and all aubsequent road and bridge systems have been in addition to those established by the Qrystal_Farm. The Crystal Fa.rm has the equipment and has maintained the road from the property boundary to the Orystal River bridge �or the past several yeara and will eontinue to do so in the Yuture. These actions hape been witnessed by the residents of the subdivision and cannot be disputed. I I i r . � . + . - 2 - � I � The subdivision road system is made up in a large part, � by steep, Winding, mountain roads which makes it an egpeasive system to repair, maintain and plow in the �rinter monthe. The small portion of the road used by the Farm is flat and , well drained and requires very little repsir or maintenanoe, both oF which have been done by the Farm in the pa.at without any charge whatsoever. i For these reasona, we feel that it is grossly unfair to � include the Farm in this Dietrict thereby forcing the oKners ; (both present and future) to pay for a system when only two � percent of tha.t system is used. i � E , i Sincerely yours,. �o�,� ��y��,-i/ � r._. � • �i � The Cryatal Farm, l � Joan L. Benson 3tephen C. gent STATE OF COLORADO) ) ss COUNTY OF PITKIN ) Subscribed and sworn to before me this lFs�th day of Sep�ember ; 1981, by Joan L. Benson and Stephen C. Kent. Witness my hand and � official seal. ; , ) , otary Publi `� =� '� ' 506 E. Main Street . ,._ . - Aspen, CO 81611 � :r: i . �'`My`Caznmission Expires: �/„�,�,��. �►� /��� i _ ,�` � i , � . � � i � I i ' . _ _ . .. __ i , � , . , . � ... f,, � - r�`.'ti E. . – �r��k�!:. __ .Q r:f Q� � ". „ -atti ' •� � �j � L^ultRD Ot� C0. CGi.i:"t B� _ - _ � ����.s���lE , . �,� ' PIT1{I2d C0. — �'.' ' -18/1NTELOPE DR�1rE I Pub2ic Hearir.�* � . _ ~ � CAR80NDAl.E, COLORADO 81623 L �_':!��;:��.-' o- � n�,to __ . . 1�� . s — P►io►�: 96a-2�a , suu,�;;e EXHIBIT ITIo � � 8�r Fvt�. P1 � � � : , -��� �,_, r �'�e'�"�'""'� a b�a � • • � � _ _ r ' ' • October 25th, 1981 The P�tkin Oounty Board of Commissioners, Pitkin County Oaurthouse, 506 Ee.st Main Street. Aspen, Oolo. 81611 Gentlemen, Due to the unaffordable expense incurred by personally attending this meeting, we must be represented by this and previoua letterB to the Board. We alsa feel that by the na.ture oY previous meetings, our presence would not in the least expidite the decleion making process of the Commiss- ioners. The Commissioners should know that the vote represented as the opinion of the Homeowners Association is in fact, only,� a vote of 1ts four officers in seclusion. Three of these four officers are Mr. Roy Arneson, who lives at the top of the hill, Pauline Border who lives at the top of the other hill (both have the most to gain in having the greatest number of people possible to share their road ezpenses) and Jean Border who has been an inetigator and staunch supporter of the intervention by the Clounty. It ie by no meana an opinlon derived from the Homeowners themselves. Enclosed are the signatures of aome of the people we have been able to Bontact with regards to our e$clusion. We have not been able to contact all oY the property owners of the District but must re-iterate that the Homeowners Association does noc� neceasarily repres�nt these people or a ma3ority of these property owners. We feel, and not �uat ourselves, that there is a misconception as to who the Homeowners Aseociation actually represents both in number and opinion. Of the twenty- eight �nomes in this District, we have signatures of fourteen .ownera. Nine of these are members of the Homeowners �Association. . • ' • � _ 2 _ We must also restate that our usage (appro$imately 3�) of the road system and of the Or stal River Hridge (which is approximately 7� of the initial �35,000 designated, divided in- to 66 portions) is not fairl.y represented by the assesement that would be added to our property taxes. We are not attempting to obtain a free ride and are willing to sign promissory payment.�papers for that speci�ic portion of the work to be done to the bridge. The snowploxing on this port- ion of the road aystem ia negligable and is not even represent- edby the 3� figure in cost as it is only a flat section oY road approgimately 200 feet in lenght. Based on figures received from the Finance Department of Pitkin County, it is obvious that this egclusion would not create any hardship on the property owners in the Dietrict. Given an initial loan to the District of approximately �35s00 to �40,000 dollars at 10,� interest for 20 years, the mill levy per 10,050 dollars assessed value would be 0.0138• �lith the Crystal Farm egcluded from the District, the mill levy per 10,050 dollars assessed value would be 0.0142. This is neglig- able in amoun.t. The in�rease per 10,050 dollars assessed value would only be 3 to 4 dollars �er year. The faxea paid by the Cryatal Farm on the other hand, would increase (without exclusion) from �705.00 to �843.00. An increase in taxes of almost20,� per year. These figures do not include the future loans to the District for road maintenance beginning in 1983• We feel that these figures show that increased taza.tion to such an extent is unreasonable and does not comply with the guidelines of the law as explained in the first meeting. We hope that the Commissioners will act fairly and without extraneous motivations in the casting of their votes. We also tru�t that the Commissioners w311 realise tha.t this exclusion will not, in any way, limit or impede the functiong of this District. Sincerely, �. �1 � � Stephen C. Kent Joan I,. Benson The Orystal Farm � __ _ _ . . , . `/ �, � r `'L,-�� � . ��.,-^� '� ����«. _— .Q ''�,,r:` � x ' • ,. " `Y�'- ' -a<<. , B• - — � (,��IJI�!i.����J�� � � -' " �18/WTELOPE ORIyE ' { — .; caReoNau.E, co�oR�oo e�s23 - ` ,• PHONE. 963-2350 I .. � w ` . . ''�,�; '�!;4.� • r �•iCsd��,,,.� ; � — . ' ' ' � — � i To The Board of Oommissioners of the Qounty og Pitktn, State of Qolorado. We, the undersigned, are not upposed. to an egclusion for the Crystal Farm property, owned by Joan Benson, from The Redstone Ranch �cres Road District. We further allvw that such exclusion would not impair or have any adverse effect on the functioning of said district. �� ` � � _ r� , ��lri_E� i / ;� l - d � - - - �. � . �.�.� _��-- �,. � . �� . .. • � V � 'S r _ r�.''►E io:� Q' '� .. . • �` � ����9N+!�. 0• " - � ��Y�s!s.i�� .�"�� � ,� — " �� -19 AN1'ELOPE DRI�E � ( - j � CARBONd11.E, COLORADO 8t623 � - � ,+ PNoNE. 963-2'S5o • . ` � u` � ���* 4�,�_, r •�.t✓'�i....s . . ` �. . r _ _ . . � . . . : . - . . To The Board of 0ommisaioners o� the Oounty of �itkin, State of Colorado. . We, the undersigned, are not opposed to an excluaion for the Crystal Farm property, owned by Joan Benson, from The Redstone Ranch �cres Road Diatrict. We further allow that such exclusion would not impair or have an�r adverse efYect on the functioning of said district. S ;� ! �.�,�.� _ �- '°wo � � , , ,., � �„ •ti•� ry�� �j� • - . � ��i�MK. . . . . . __ i.��r.I iC' � �/ „ 'D�� �' m� - - ���i�b�$.c rJ�� _ " �i ��e A��o� oRn/E ' - � CAR84NdiLE� COLORADO 81623 � - ' � � 'a • � ,; - � � ' _ PHO►�: g63-2350 � � �� � � '��....a � • • ��* '4",!.' , t _. ' r ' • . .. - . . . � ` E To The Board of Commisaionersof the Oounty of Pitkin� State of ! Oolorado. - � We the underslgned, are not oppo$ed to an exclusion for The Orystal + Farm Yroperty, owned by Joan Ben�on, from the Redstone Ranch Acres � Road District. We further allow that such exclusian would nat impair or have nay adverse effect on the format3on of said district. ; �`�.'� W-�-��G�.�-- �' a� � �� .a-� . :; � , ; ; ,, ;, ,, ;; ,� ,, ;. �i , . ; � , ; ;; � , i . ; , . ; ; , , � E . . ,. . ;, � v � •y � ��,� tl� . — ��� . _ .Q �'��c+:i � � � „ �• 'pi`t • � B' _.— — t +i .��L�7Y� �J�� � ' � •18 AHTELOPE DRIyE ' ( --_e_ i � CARBONdLLE, COtORADO @t623 _ • — ` ,• PFioNe. 96a-2350 � .0 •, s `�. t . . 'i�ii�� '�°1'� ' '' '.�'sd'r,.wk c — . .�— — � • To the Board o� Commissioaers of the Qounty of Pitkin, 3tate of ; Colorado. We, the undersigned, are not opposed to an exclusion for tha Orystal Farm property, owned by Joan Benson, from the Redstone � Ranch Aeres Road Diatrict. �Ie allow that such an ezclusion would not impair or have any adverse effect on the formation � or functioning of eaid district. r uCz -��� u� ��� 6�� .�� � ��; � 'f`�� � r' . ��` , L� �, ,` . ��l� � � _ �/�' a � c G����;���� � .._. � �r ;,��.� . ; _________..__._ _�...�._..___. . Ji:...,i) l!. .,,. + PII'L-ii ('.�, Publ i.c - n��a EXHIBIT � � ' Pitkin County Commissioners Subj.:et I�� , Aspen Colorado � �`zY�. P!o '2 - t October 2 , ; . Gentlemen: i � ! Regarding':the petition of Joan Nazarro Benson ; and Steve Kent Por exclusion from the Pitkin County— � � Redetone Raxich Acres Road General Improvement Distric�; (1) As may already have been called to,your attentim, � Steve Kent is not a property owner and therefore not � properly included in the petition. � . { ' (2) Joan Benson derives as much benefit from roads � and bridges as any other homeowner, and perhaps more � when numbexs of vehicles she operates, and the fact � that tlie tenants 3n her rental house also have uae of ; these faci2ities, is taken into account. ; - (3� I believe that to gxant her petition would be to ? ehow preferential treatment and that in tlzat event � ' ; several of her neig�bors who could also claim to use ' ; a negligible length of road also wauld desire exclusion, t resulting in the negation of the very purpose of the � Improvement Diatrict...to fairly apportion the cost of ma,intenance of the roads and bridges upon which we ` � axe all uniformly dependant. i � � Thank you a].1 for yo�r interest in our problems � � and for your help in resolving them. � . � � � Sincerely, ? j .��.�r vJ '�`-°� ; � - (Mrs. J. S. Bord.er) i t ,� r _ . � l � � f. � � � I � � �_--_.�.---�--�-�-".. bOAI�i� 4i.� �:r), '��� ��7 EXH1BtT rt�t�a.�o r- Dato � � ION Sub9_-c't -� ' �� F^.;Y�. 1Ko.: �fyG`JLI��G,_>� � i r� �.�a .J /' P,�. .��`._) ` ` (. �r����� � G,�/� L``�'� _ . ) �(��t�`v � '`'� �_ �-�f 7LU v�� 9 -�"G.�� ��.L/ �%L" . ��,L�f ~�� , n 1 :,J,,,o L . ' ���� �%� �_.._ ,�j-�'/W � � �L� J . '� � %�`-"� •� �-�t� � '�� ) � ,� %�C� � � �- r/ ,� V .L���6�-�� � ' .��� �`"�� _ ��.�; �� � ,�. ��� , � -��'� �� � , .�� � . �1 , ,/ .. ;� . ������ ; /� � _�_._. G� � 1 �, ,�,L�G�'G � � � Gr-i� � ��-�-� - .� �� --�"�� ���" .� � �L.: � ,��,4>�� � %' ,tJ ����� � ��� , ''�� ��ti �{ v��� f r�t't� � ,�U � _, �`�`fr� • , � i� ` �— � � , �G� ���,�e� •� G� . � � G�� : - _ �i� /fi,�' � � , ��L, �i�"'G�,d �• �:�"' _ � ~ . - 1 JC�� � �r/�� � ��� . . � �� , �*��,(�� w � 1.,�-�1�Q - --��;' Z�-L�� �� - y,.�-��� ��L� ; L�� � .���� � .� . Q � ��j� '� �' �� .n� �. 1 i �V � .� � lr �� .�:,�'�'�� w t2�� ��LG�-� ��� (�, � � � �� �,�� ���_� � i �L-�/�—cJ �, ����=�' _ �� / �L`� �.C� �,` � J� � .�� ,�`'� � LL.. ' ��2��- �- �+,�' r � . �,G. . �)�� � � G� �,� G`, , �r. 1�,� � � L.c -L'` � ����� �--t� � G���'� �LZ-2�`G -�- �� GL� -z- � �''v�� .� j �'v � � / - � 1 �� �� ' t� � 2�t �� . , . � ���� � /� �G� .�� . ��zL� � ,�.� ���` f ,�, ,� ZCl�. v'��il� U '� ��� ' �.L� �.� ;- ��� .��- �` ,L� .� ��� . ,� l � ,) --� ,�� J� � - , � ��;�"'" � .��� -.�� r�� 'L ��' r��.G� / � � ����'"` � /y,o� � �� ��� J � ��� .�-� �-�_ ��� � � �`' ,, ��1�� �"�,`� � ; ���;� �,�� , , �� �::....:i) . . f,':�., (:l!�,_. i� .i Board of County Commisioners October 1, 1981 ,_ 1'�''�';r;;r nr�,s Robert. W. Child, Chairman � ' � S26 Main Street EXHIBIT Aspen, CO 81611 ; � O Dea.r Commissioners t _� _ Since we will be out of the st,ate� we regret it will be impossible to attend the meeting� October 13, for hearing of the petition by Joan Benson and Steven Kent. First� we want to again thank you for approving the Redstone Ranch Acres Road District. We sorely regret t.he petition that is being presented. �would be disastrous to open such a Pandora's box and to begin chipping away at our newly formed Road District. Surely� once such dissent were approved and accepted, clear passage would be offered to other disgrvntled residents. The whole object of the recently granted District was to assure equitable support and payment on the part of each landowner. Any deviation in this respect would veaken the support and cont.inuity of the whole concept. ` We point. out, the fact that with the Road District, there is now, no undue burden inflicted on any resident. Heretofore, the burden was on those residents who wPre pa,ying for those homeownsrs who simp�}r did not provide t.heir rightful share. We hope there will be no return to that kind of business. It. is true too tha+ the bridge across the Crystal River is most critical to all of our homeowners, as well as the most expensive piece of real estate, where ever locat.ed. No matter where one lives in Redstone Ranch Acres� this is the only access available. Thus, to share and share alike� is the only equitable answer to maintaining �he bridge. Likewise the roadways. As we stated before� taxes are a reality, and vital t.o maintaining a itiable and reputable community. Certainly, property owners across the nation are e�cpected to - and do pay taxes. Any sensible person knows that practically a�l revenues are acquired in this fashion - which has been operative since t.he American Revolution - and which all good citizens respect. Again, we commendi yo�.� for your wise and prudent decision in making our Road District a reality. We are asking that you continue to abide by this firm and constructive ac�.ion wit.h no excep+.ions. Having assured us of your real concern for our well-being� we are confident you will not deviate from the original commitment. , . �' Gratefully ours . '�i� , ' �(/ ` �L,C:��� ����1� - Pauline & Virgi�er i ; . ; . ' ' � N07'ICli OI' T1DFI:CNISTTU\TTVL: IIEI�RING �`. • �� bOAP�D C�� C,D. r;-_ • •IIErORG T1IL BOl,Rll OP CUON'PY COMMISST.ONIsRS pyTj;,_;.t C� . PubI OI' PITY.IN COUNTY� COLO'R}1D0 �CO'I181�T' .DaCo Subj � � R TO: John L. Lawler F:si. FROM: The Board of County Commissioners o£ Pitkin County, • Colorado, o�mcr and operator of the Aspen/Pitkin , County (Sardy Field} Airport DATE: August 14, 1481� RE: Viol�tion of Section 31-1 (curfew f.or general aviation) of the Rules and Regulations of the . Aspen/Pitkin County (Sardy Field) Airport Dear I+ir. Lawler: Please be advised that you have been charged with a violation • of Section 31-1 of i:he Rules and Regulations of the Aspen/Pitkin � County (Sardy Field) Airport in that you did allegedly on P_ugust � _Z.__1981 , at or about 6:20 a.m. , execute a take-off at Sardy Field in Twin Bonanza ?�2240 in violation of. the curfew established for general aviation in ; said Section 31-1. � The Board of County Commissioners will, at 2:00 p.m. on I ' . i t�ionday, September 28, 1981 , in the Commissioner's Roam, Pitkin County Courthouse, 506 E. Main Street, Aspen, Colorado, sit and take testimony and any other evidence concerning this charge, • and make a determination as to the truth of said charge. YOU AR� HEREBY NOTIFIED that you will be afforded the - opportunity to exercise any or all of the following: l. The right to be represented by counsel; 2, the r�ight to present and submit testimony and evidence; 3. the right to cross-examine other persons giving testimony, and to require that all wii:nesses be placed under oath; � 9., the right t.o a record.of proceedings; ancl 5, the right to a writirn decision setting forth the findings of fact and conclusions, wiL-I� the reasons or basis ior saicl deeision, on the matcrial ancl relevant '; issues �.rc:tienluu c,�i l•iic record. ' . _ .._._.-.-._._..___.. ._ � �� . r. � . XOU ARF FURTtIP•,T{ NO'i'IPIL•'U i:hat the Board wi.11 not enLorce any formal rules of evidence, but may consider.any rt►atter . which a . majority thcrco£ conclucles is reasonably reliable and calculated to aid the Board in reaching an accurate determination of th'e issues involvc:d. . YOU nR� FURTI��R NOTIFIED that the Board is •permitted, on a determination of guil{:, to_ authorize the initiation of criminal proceedings, to•prohibit your further use of Sardy Field, or to apply any other reasonable remedies established by the Aspen/ Pitkin County (Sardy Field) Airport Regulations ar other provisions of law. Issued pursuant to the provisions of Section 41-1-106, Colorado Revised Statutes, 1973, and Article 50 of Title IV, Pit):in County Code (Airport Regulations) . � . . _.. . . . THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COI,ORI�DO _ .. Q DATE: Auqust la; 1931 By: %. •a D �—�i3 r•t--�Iana- . CERTIFICHT� OF MAILING . . I hereby certify that on the 17th day of August , 1981, the within Notice of Administrative Hearing�was served upon � the above mentioned violator by mail.ing a copy of the same, postage prepaid, certified mail, addressed as follows: � . - -_ • - - � . John L. Lawler � " ' -- -� •- -�--... : 714 Equitable Building � Denver, Colorado 80202 -- � - - --- - -•--•- - :..... ....... -. - - -- _... - - . I � � i � :��:_:..- �:__. _: � _. _ _. �ll����:�,��:(��. ' _ , Melanie A. Rock • � _. ....- _ _- .. _:, :t:..__._ _. .._.. ._ _ , .. -_:'-- ... - • . -_ .. __ _ � - :.. -. -,_.._ :_� .._c-_ . . . . _:... _... � . i;•' . . I•_.. _.�__ .t..__� ..�:. ... #�-S. . .._ _.._._._ � ._ � . . � . . . � ° �0� OF C0. CO;;tP,S'R'S I'ITKIN C0. � Pnb13e Aato EXN►BIT � Sub,��et' � � �;, Er,h. I�'o. ' 0-26-¢'j � � � 1 ; , j i { � i: �C w w � � � r N• w . O H i C� � N �D �- X A A z ►�-� !'. � U�1 Q � � � � � H � � O :, F'' b0 n� N rt ct f�+ tri O� �J ; � 'C n U.,U ¢' 'C � W A+ C � C5 : . O .'�." H � ro I-'- �' f�l! 'ZU H LO'� : � � t'�r! � ��-h (D t�i � � y � � ¢ d �. o o � �- � � � - ro a � � � x m cHi z` -o ' n a � � � a cn�+ m a � � � I �:... ' u�i o p�� cn � n O u�i - r�n d ; M I �� O N � P+ N l3' � � F'- � .� � �i N • � �. � � w rr w w � ro � ; �, � o �r �, . �- w ; m m td ~• w � � o l � rfi �c p. � � � ` , � ! \ rt � � E ' � k .� p, � � n N � u�i � �C O rd � � ro �, � i rn � a. o � w `�'� . i-, N H a� \ m w� ro `� a � w �� r�n � � N � C� w '� n n '-� � H .� � � � —' m n n `r � � Q, ' � � i-wn cn a fi w �''I p, � � rt a. w a ai N � k � a o � a �- `� � ' _,. _r°n � a x m " w � rt i . � .. . . � a .. ' � . _ _ . � .. I � , s � � _ . fi��= _ .�._.. __..,__^,_._ � ___-----.._. .___.. _ . � ,,.,. , `� sonxn oF co. �or��t�R�s The Aspea Times ;� Pixxirr co. '� Publia Hearing Exhibita gOX E RECE�VEp SEP Da'te =; 26 OCTOBERz 1981 2 Z �f � Aspen, Colorado Sub�oct : AIRPORT REG'S . ���� ;��t�� ;�;� � � . I�� ',��n'` � '.i � t,' ;',k PROOF C�F PUBUCATION � ;t�J``� ';.� � �:� ��a STATE OF COLORADO ) '`�� � S� Copy of Notice ;� County of Pitkin ) • �'f I, William A. Dunaway ao solemnly sw•ear that P ubl i s he r ,�-;-^�-�^z. -��� �'`�3r'� I am the of THE ASPEN TIMES: [��--F_�� �;,,A- ,�.,t��,,;,p,re e rlyf8r.�,,s�,���� *i+,��,.�s,r•.�,��� F av`" .�f: that the same is a weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in part, f�-C]l+lb'���`'C�d;t<' ,rrrs �,�;' fi r.,� 11 . and published in the Count y of Pitkin, Slate of Colorado, and has p�,P ���t�,x�,�r,r 5 ';; •; ;. �` � a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been pub- I OYDII�TANCB�OF THt BOARD:.OF dfi�porWobidtbMA�$eb6a77rta1- - lished continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Pitkin, f COONP�F,t'lOSQO�IOIinIBOF.P177�L !�ewlo��a� rqb�hrd.' for a period af more than fiftytwo consecutive weeks next prior i'�i1'� �N��a �-"�°�OO�"��'°tid��°°ad' r<TI�IlE1Y�►!IC'86lRJI;�TIDNBO�!.Tl� 'PinkaQow::' 'i7600 ': ,; to the flrst publication of the annexed legal notice or advertise- ;A�P081'�`COD!AND"'�[IAT�R;.E& 8reird aber< - iso0.o0 r; ment; that said new�spaper has been addmitted to the United States i TABLI�N4�'A�PEl�!u''1'Y AQBl�9' Thi�a�°Q°�''•� �' ' : 00 ' mails as second-class matter under the provisions of the Act of i �T�'���I� `N' ���� �d 1!� ' 1i�6�di6rtl3itfde�la�babthnvul� ; March 3, 18?9, or any amendments thereof, and that said news- f ��GO�e�:N�'.�-t' ^ � irs�44�P�i P��� ' • �W�;;f]n�Den�d Coueb Cam• 6a1,a0 9 m QD9,m�athiwlw pro�W�d paper Is a weekly newspaper duly quallfied for publishing legal t : miroo�r hY g�k�b tl�yftl.akpoet }i law notices and adverGsements with the meanins of the laws of the r�desao0iol��ad,ryuyW�th� 8�etien3 " ' ` =' ` State of Colorado. • �'�0°���`��Oq g��0°��°'�°�"0�°�� thi S t� �r F� 1:��i +Vl�fLw�al a aq�Pnon ar:eir- ! �l�y�,�,��y �fa�s b bdd in�alid;w�6 in�dfdik� C< ThBt the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published ����rp��mP��!��d��'�' ���6�0���0°�°��' �� in the re ular and enlire issue of ever mimber of said weekl � °��� �m ��������� ' 8 Y Y li�y o�jo�d�l''"af�fui�w tt0asd �d tLN�iod���e�iks a�r r- I ��i � - ^t '.s .�:;. r18,':Cas 1s78;,s.eao:aPb. nP�•�•dtld.ad�.na.cl.�a +' newspaper for the period of —� consecutive inserGons; and �r �01a�p����� �r�a�bL. ' :; ;r '� that the first publi�ation of satd notice was in the issue o[ said pioaBuNi[fh�Naai�opbiMO�i� :����mthbac��oei�ll:, � '�Tf�P'08E.B61T08DAII�IYD baddeoth�9BfhdqdOeEa6t 1981,d newspaper dated September 17 p,D., 19 81 and that � ��Cwaa�at lOAO M[i°f�°dmmir�J 8°°m �aoiQ�ao. Pitldn Cwnb_Coa�thanw A�p�,Col� the last publication of said notice was in the issue of said news- � :��1 .,. :: Qe�, ; �Y� ! ':'l�s ra�ulatioo�oontrotllaL tM ws. ����nd apprave�on. . aper dated A.D., 19_ � IDO�°'��'�°�°°�°�`� �� ������ ! p t .a�mdin'FdfilV -AitldasT.B,Y 10.11 ��'i18DOFCOUNTYOOMlQ98IONl�tB , � 12;1a 1{16381T ls li,tOr41add4{d fbs Plfiin(�r Ca�:G«t�i{ala- `r ITPICIIQ COiJNTY COLORADO :;� �j� � �t�)onp�.:d wLid�aw d�ebd+ha�tu ` BT Ro6ut�C��. L(/_���/it2i�ZGk � Le�eb7���uE��7��am�ot `A7188T I ;BNSm q : s � �- � � -I+wL 8nd�n"• ' � " 'Tft41{r AeU�L30'd f1r Pktin Cawy p��r CI�k�od BKad�e ���p g�}►��v��� APpin\►ED A91'O FORMq Subscribed and sworn to before me,.a notary public i and for I th�.dditlontba�foaf8�6o41otwd-•�Y�1�' ', ; Y�O��OA�. -� ���' v 1 kv�� - '•'�OiANa�aad�edwlt�a�bl�kianat A A7iONOFCOUNTY'CLERR �the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, this �_,day of ` aipretuLmnomtdwdinArtlets7'8,Y '��s����. lp,llri�7g;14,16,'16.Mr1&`1&2021: nd�od�b�th�Bardd ; �(� .ind24 f�r+lrput;;�;�ll �. atitin�oLrm�d- : A.D., 19�1L, tia�tbu aothnat pyio�Lo tbs Aepat fi�L�ld=28obpuotttieirto,tLis;O[d4 . t�(�til�d�d�{a;)rpo doawupubrrL�dinf�A�pmlYm�m • il�ur��otfnlieuotd�p�oilkiyor 8�ptmLn'17,1981,�l�xt faa(10)dqn ' pY�oe�d[app[e�id�dfQiutlirl►itilli'60. F�lorbib�dap6imdl�s��bjlaw�. '. In th�wsot ioi�h'p��od d�e4�h p"p wrch A BANNSB ; ;. C P�ar��ek it iy11�4ael�pt4 an ; :P117[II�i COiJ1�1'Y.CliBS ? Notary Pu61ic � idmowldpo�ot d�ailf dtL�a�ow : . B7 D�Wb Q� e8ie�i md�116�di�m�d�qoeol� Yubirh�d�n fL�A�pn'Pim�s 8�pe�m�6u �_.- �r>F � - : ,. My commission expires ; .,..:,-: ____ _ _....� �:;.> �,'...�^�e�" _.. I - � ( -- ....� i - The Aspea Times RECEIVED OC i 2 ,s81 �onr.n or co. cor,�,c�R�s PITKI2T C0. BOX E �? �� Public Hoarin� �;;.hiUits Dato . 26 October, 1981 Aspen, Co�orado �� .��o �.. . . . .....___-----...._--•_--_ . � i sut����t . Vought Subdiv �r��r�' ' `,� ..� � � PROOF OF PUBlICATiON STATE OF COLORADO ) COp�/ Of NOtIC@ ' ) ss. County of Pitkin ) . I, W i l 1 i am R D in WSy do solemnly sK�ear that I am the – FUb113h@T' of THE ASPEN TIMES; that the same is a weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in part, and published in the Couniy of Pitkin, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been pub- lished continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Pitkin, for a period of more than fiftytwo conseculive weeks next prior to the. first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertise- ment; that said newspaper has been addmitted to the United States mails as second�class matter under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, and that said news- � paper Is a weekly newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal `������ '"�,�r r'���' � ', not�ces and advertisements with the meaning of the laws of the r: � �� " bll4'�10�1Ce�-: �'..,..�.�._. State of Colorado. "- "� V�t������' ��"��'�,�� '�u ,v+ �?;�, r'�_ Thtit the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published mN�'n�ffi����ipnli-�. �ls hsrin8 will bs bdd beforo the:AtkiN-� in the regular and entire issue of �every� number of said weekly ,?:Come�HoridofCaint�rComm�esiou�s��.F, Momriq.OcFabsr 28,1981aC 10.90�em in ! news a er for the �'����������� ? p p period of �— consecutive insertions; and Pitkin Cwnty.,Conrtbours 608 E Msin that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said �1°°t�A'p'II+tOCO°'�a'"bdi!'isi°°°p' ' •pficrtiam submiCted�pder Voi�t ra ; - qnsting a lot�split d Lir:91 sees:site lo- � newspaper dated Se�;ember 2� q,D., 19 81 and that �- °�0°9a'lth-8°o°°th_9��"°�'Th°pr°Q' i ���:: oesl'is to divids ihe eds iato Mo single- ` the last publicafion of said notice was in the issue of said news- +':; r�y pu.ael,;I,,t i La�,n ari..t;og dwd- '� inge�atumo(1.4aaesla�Lat2wouldb '', paper dated t : ,'bli8�bls fot ocnqhuctiao;of a iingle:famffy � A.D., 19_ remdemea.(17:acres).Forfurfhtr infoima i � tian'�aontseC:tlia P'lefinirig O�as��130 B � � l(�lelsaa Aspee.:926-2020:ent�228 - �� �j _ HobCWId,Cheizmenti` j � � ' Boardbf Count�Cammisbwi�sre � ,f�A�bNehed in the Aepen Timee$epRSmber � np ,.�y. r n� +� � �r +L �- t�' ��r�rr�.�Fl�y,1.4f�21ty5ily`ta�4 fa�'ti+'��'�'rCei{c�7y:.�r.v �.: � �� �' -=.4 1 !: i ' M �t��� Subscribed and sworn to before me,.a notary public in d for � "� ' ' ., �. � �. ' � ° ,; -, s y,"Y,'S f a �_._��...,::?._::��_..w,I..i�r.3�.$.'�.....,..5.....d;e».,4:a.�a.s_� the County of Pitkin, State ot Colorado, this �__day of A.D., 19�. � Notary u u My commission expires � � ._._.____._.._ ....____. ....__._..._._.__.__. _.__ _.__.__. _ . � j /i r � - � The As ea Times p R�CEIVEO aC�i 2 »' � Box E v r(� � n Aspen, Colorado � �t ��' (� f'% � � I a.,rr(+3'�' �t� i' PROOF OF PUBLtCAT10N STATE OF COLORADO ) COP�/ af NOtIC@ ) ss. County of Pitkin ) ' I, W���1PIn R�� iluna_wa� do solemnly swear that %��°l:-�D G:� C0. GC:.::;`Z'S PI.�;:a..i C0� I am the Publisher of THE ASPEN TIMES; P�}�J-:-c FIE�ri;1� s:,I-!ibii,s that the same is a weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in part, 26 OCTOBER, 1981 and published in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, and has nu�o : ........__.___.._...`_..... a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been pub- � .HIGHLANDS INN lished continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Pitliin, Su�j::ct . ..-. for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior .. to the flrst publication of the annexed legal notice or advertise- ment; that said newspaper has been addmitted to the United States mails as second-class matter under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, and that said news- paper is a weekly newspaper du}y qualified for publishing legal � notices and advertisements with the meaning of the laws of the. .�1��N ��"5sT" State of Colorado. ����(;��Q � �a� �,,.•. �:�,r�,F'^°;��e �i'� �� Th�t the annexed legal notice or advertisement �as published �;;���� , �? in the regular and entIre issue of every� number of said weekly �,�;m�ntto�p�_ , ° �� BM��d-'laaa'M�il �°x 7d n���� � �; NQ�I�,Ci18�Xd�V� � newspaper for the period of _�_ consecutive insertions; and ' �ie"h�r�'o�wN;6a�Kda.b�, � ` that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said r`C°u�'.H°�rd°�� 9' ; � :�laodyi.Oetobir9d,1Y��1 : newspaper dated September 2� p,D., 19 8� and that a���'R�'������������ . �,.8treet.Aip� ta b�►ap� �` the last publicaEion of said notice was in the issue of said news- � ;p��-��:�j,������� .. 4 =��rrmt��soo���Opl�o�d''w�,:• paper dated A.D., 19— ':�mio�.7bi��ppYe�tian ir elio'Y�souin��: \ ���rrqnrt;(ataq�rrtfd�atadr!ioi4�tu i.?�u4�Wa r�qu�imimb f.a-�tb� :: / AS-I uw by�iu�tb Ai�t arid Bult :. ` eL�rt)W 000dd�r dE�h�ed' ' 1 �-'���a����:.-��v� .:�new.on.ea..b�!e...b..i�:Fur t4rtber;� :iirifoeno�tSoa�aontaet tlw:P1�mie�OII�es.s.-; s,`390 S G�1�,926�20�azt 7.1�.� ' q . Subscribed and sworn to before me,.a notary public in an for �x `Bo�ed d'(Caantyi��" - the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, this �. day of ,������ ���� ��:` �' ,��;��s t ��. �. ,..� _ `,,I�'�`-''__. . .�u A.D., 19� i j Notary Public � � i My commission expires � ........._._., " i . . 1 w � � � The Aspea Times R€��ivEe oc� $ ,�, BO11RD 0� C0. CO,:ic:'R'� �;' PITKIN C0. BOX E �(f� t � Publio' �3earing I:xhiUits j�� ' �g�i� Dnto �; 26 OCTOBER, 1981. Aspen, Colorado r� �� Sub j oct : CRYSTAL FARMS PETITION ���/r`� J�� PROOF OF PUBLICATI�N STATE OF COLORADO ) COp�/ Of NOtIC@ ) ss. County of PItkin ) . I, W i 11 iam H: Dunaway ao solemnly S��ear that I am the p»h� i S h P r of THE ASPEN TIMES; that the same is a weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in part, �� ,��:�', r . , : v, `ya , and published in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, and has �� ��C(10�C@.�� �; a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been pub- �`;�� r���. - -: ' ,, : ,�� lished continuonsly and uninterruptedly in said County of Pitliin, ��f���,,���;� �•PUBLYC,N01�C$ .;�' ' for a period of more than fifty-hvo consecutive weeks next prior `j�r '�> �g����GIVBN th�t t}r�� �r, ,�Bo1'�d�of County Commi�oone�s of Pitkoi- to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertise- �„�?��Cwat� :Co! ,w�l cqdud a��bll c ment; that said newspaper has been addmitted to the United States ;�S�',�Y.;���.�l at �r��t,1d90 AM in fha Comcsia�ioesr�Roaan,PIt=; mails as second-class matter under the provisions of the Act of f;�ry ���y����g��&�. March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, and that said news- ;�A"�Gia�doytonon thspetitaonof � paper. ia a weekly newspaper duly qualified for �` Jam Henim `CKentforthe, j pablishfng legal � ;�������° ���o�; . notices and advertisements with the meaning of the laws of the �M �'e Rooc�Ae� ' �ali�.ova.: 3 � State of Colorado. ;� ��b�j wbidi'pehtbn i�Hled pur; ��.Y+�?iam't�q CB81978i 9eetim 80 20-620 Thd' �`; �`I�mCI ta�be�iided u dta�te�a PiE-° .; Th�t the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published �"`� �Y�I�.P��1ei�t'dam'bed; ,�.I in the regular and enlire issue of every� number of said weekly '' � ����astrad9l«eted�n +�}� . �,�� af 8�cdon 2B W:u[ths 8th` i� newspaper for the 1 �w.. � �°�����!+� r. period of consecutive insertions; and t�y�•�R������ that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said "� �prg9697ofd►srecordsoEt�P3tlunCounty_ � e Clstic�end Reooidsr+�:;:.s�` . , ; news a er dated OctobPr 1 81 '�,.r e � �,+ir���' ` � ' . �; p p A.D., 19 and that � �Pa 1tan�rAcres 3ubdtm: j the last publication of said notice was in the issue of said news- � �f'�' ' � ' �'�'Myaos ti!nus a.�,n.�.to tia petx'. � � '�#�uo,�qr! axthqt�sand Llaenpted, , papei dated A.D., 19_ � E:.a b o►e�c�uN w 6 y�e p e t i twn f C��'i`'w�Idmebsg�inled:.CopiaeottLepstition'`r ; � ` � ��arq�si��We m t6e;b�ice d.tbs CountyY ��CEbD sL:fhsaboveed�ra�due3ngregu_ : � J / �+ �1ir�b��u houts. � - :" : �l% � � �� ?k113� '� Pdkin � I9aelu� � � � t �.P�6iiel�ed ia tbs A�pen Tim�s�.0etober�,#��' c,�T�' •••' ` "; �� � ; �I�`� � '�#*..•-d4.�+.L++�S�..",:t4RaRf'�''.�"�At�A01, Subscribed and sw�orn to before me,.a notary public in a d for ' ` ` 5 ? � , , � 3 ,i .�r :; Y � .aey OF �"��j '' ; t , , �i?�;��1 t h e C o u n t o f P i t k i n, S t a t e o f C o l o r a d o, t h is -,-- .�_..___M .. _..... ,. .._.._ ���r��`''/ A.D., 19� ' � i ^,�� � Notary Public , �-� � My commission expires � ' I i 1 r t t 1 _ �.... _...__._.M.__ ..------..._._ _._. __...__�__ ._.__.-----.__._.__.,__._..,_..�..... -- -- .___ _--. ___ �^ r ' t i i: , -'" PROOF OF PUBLICATION � ROARING FORK REVIEW&VALLEY JOURNAL � � STATE OF COLORADO k ss. i � COUNTY OE GARFIELD � I.. ..... . ..�r.�-�.n. .�1��.�....do solemnly � �� swear that I am ............��.�f.����.�...................of the � I � ROARING FORK REVIEW & VALLEY JOURNAL; that the same is a � newspaper printed, in whole or in part, and published in the County of i ? Ga�eld,State of Colorado,and has a general circulation therein;that said � '. newspaper has been pubiished con6nuoustv and uninterruptedlv in said ; County oi Ga�eld for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks t next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or adver- ; tisement;that said newspaper has been admitted to the United States mails � as second-class matter under the provisions of the Act of March 3,1879,or 3 any amendments thereof; and that said newspaper is a newspaper duly � . qualified for publishing legal notices and advertisements within the 1 ` i meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado. J ' That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was pubfished in the � ; � regular and entire issue of every number of said newspaper for the period of � I � i iI ............��.�.°.......:....:.consecutive insertions; and that the first � � t publication.of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated on i ; ' � 1 st b�-�J.���..L.9�$.J..:, and the Iast publication of � , ....:.......::..... ; i : c p � � said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated...�7olmG.i.......... � I � � � � ............................. I � 1 �' � � 1 witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this....�...................... � � day of......V.�.�. .�.7.g.�........................ j . � � .................................C��...... ....'.. ................... ` � Publisher � � i � f � Subscribed and sworn to before me,a notary eubl'ic in and for the County ?. , ST � ' of Ga�eld,State of Colorado,this............1.............................day of � ........��...�.�i..S.l................................. ; � � . .. . . .�1.....�. ,� ; I (SFAL) � Notafy ublP ic � i ' . �pp : � My Commission Ezpires.. . . . . ...�.�..(..1.0.�. ; , i ' i i I i � � i �. . ; i ' '., i j ! j/ i ` I � i . _ �.�.w r�r d - . . . . . . ... ff�;lR�� t�.._t'f`! �.j ��.l,r.�t.. � � . . � . . , i .. � �t;t' '-i;d.. ? f .. r4 !'. .;ti ! . . .. . . . . . t . . . . . . � {l. i_I"�"� .l,,a r . . . . _ � . . ,i�{ . � . t 1 � .. - . . - . . � . . ... . . . i. ...�-.\r.��.:.Yr1 T..�-.�t� �. �i� �l% l.:lF!''.'.�'.. ..... .�.. .. . � - .. . - . � � ,. . ' . .�.3 . _ . . .�-��'`�i ?!�.�� . ..� ._ I . .; . . . . . �� � i j . . c�y�,�j , � I � � �.�:�.s � { 1xa i�, `�� f�t�riC�910pilO`Ft�r�`�, ; R on�"exc��id�i`°;� ;���. �����,,:,� � � ' �`i�'�k�''���7�#% �v,r�*n�y��.�.s � � 'i�d o[Rc«a at book�7�, � i ����y`,':�c��1��Z ( ��y�y',�S K'8o!'dsafd�e_Pkk�(��CounlYc ' � � ■ NI',�'1�. {f�t! �.1C�R���: /,�� 1 K � �`�`ed�+oT!CoL 1Cq�ifnis3�on!(sf:oi,�id�in , a�'�x"� '�y'�yLrt�S��.j i i �Coi►MY.?Galorx�o wifl`condudfia=�iubite , dhnT���� , c�,t:. � �.�i �.c,�,r<� j �'IiearNigon"Tuetday'_O.ctohier.26�i,19�1,at'' , r �, , � t �k1:30 p m..i4� Co,mm�onen; Roomf • Anyone havine ao-objectton 1a.the ' I �Pit@fn ;CouMy Courthouse 506'E. Maln : Petnb^:may'appexrat the•Hme aad Plxe � : � + ' Colo{adQ>,tn co�fderathe noted above and show c:�useuwhy:the i ! z�p��jaan�"Be�son ard�uphen C.' P��W-notbxgranted�Copksdthe ` � K 'Jot the'.excl�ton,-of'IfierC,ryStal FLm : P�',arcrararlable Inzthe.oNke oftthe � I � I `�Cenerale'.Im'�iovement�Disttl�ct,�� w� ; ��b►�!!�F�+��-���=���duri�g� � �� P �,�, , v a��."'s+� �:�a.�u�� ! � �x!'pe{ition is filed Pars�etio C.R.5.19�3,Set � /sl l.orelta Banner PldtlR C�onu�M{y Cierk_ i ' C��ed��ituate,�in�P(ikin CalrnY and'�mote� �t Publ�_fc Tr:�,,,,1.,,I,R'�1�k�` ,'� � 1 �gS.. . ,t.t-rr �e;- � f -Rw.t y � � iS.w!�4n�lS'�,�f��Z�k��,r�........... ..�.Llli"� 1, �"�l!'^",4� p . - , . � � _ ' . . ' . _ ��,1" ' ' � , � .��:, I . � . . � J ' -- � __ . . ( `-)'- '/ �i �F. �� l .� � -J.«f�� i �}�l. � � l •�� � ��': . . � . { ; . •�,s'-.P. . '° �., '`r' . .�..'•: �,t'. . . . . ........ ... � . � � -.. . - � � � .. . � i � . __ r . . . � �. � � �. . . . � .:. . . ��� .,`�, i,� . � 'rf � -..i i� "^�'t �'' . ,:�, . .L. �:y � 3 ,��..i!`3w ti `j:.,-' 1 . � .:.. �• ,. ....i .. � i 1 .r ,y � i , , .•� ,; - ;. .r � ' �. t Cy� � . (r• � ''• '�..-c �.��r `�- ��.''. . . . :t .. i�..!_:= �� . . , :,:s . . � � . , . � .;t . . . . � . , . ..,.# . f . � , . . . . .. . .'� � � - �_..._._..... . ....... .... _ .... . .��... . __. _._ .-....-_ ._:.. _......_... . ....-,._�... ..- ..., .._..._. ...,..,..___ ......._. . � � i . . . �. . . . . . . . � . i . - . . � . . � . ' . . . - . .. . I� .� . . . . . . . I' . � , � . - �.. ' I � � i 1 � __. .�..... ....�+nnn-.M..+e«.-.—._.�... ; - . - - The Aspea Times ��CEIV�ED OCT 2 0 1�1 � r.���;� .��: 1) Qti` C0s GC:.:...'1i'u ' PzT1�ITJ COe Box E �,�� ! Pubi;c Elearin� �::-;1iaz<�s ^,(r �� � ����.a .26 oCTOBER,1981 Aspen, Colorado )���, � • --..__.._.__...._....._.. � � ( ,n� � Subj:ct ; BRUSH CREEK SUBDIV v PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO ) C0�3�/ Of Notice ) ss. . • County of Pitkin ) . r, _ William R. Dunawav do solemnly sW�ear that I am the p»h� �Gh .r of THE ASPEN TIMES; L� � �" ��'.��y��'"r''�,:� -��wr�- f �« that the same is a weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in part, ��'�����;S � �C('1�11� ��� • and publtshed in the Cou�ty of Pitkin, State of Colorado, and has ;'��r'�'�'��������"`'A_ �°�'�{`'�""�a ii� 1. � a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been pub• �����'i`� '.�+�Np�g�gB1t68Y(BVEN,thaf+tlu'� c F Baed of CouaoV Oammi�i�d'Piltin�o lished continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Pitkin, ., �1' � ° -�Y Comlp Cotarado.wflI�ea�'�•?'�0 a for a period of more than fifty-two conseculi��e weeks next prior a � ����:�Q�:p��18,1Y91,�t to the first publication of the annexed lega! notice or advertise- • �fr-�-.�F oe00 a�![in�t�CamomiNioora�'A'o�t �. ment; that said newspaper has been addmitted to the United States •, .� ��CO°�O°~'�E� , � 91�rit�Arpio,Coiardo:to oao�id�e R p�ti : mails as second-class matter under the provisions of the Act of " � �tOO�pah���imp�oti�t�- - 112arch 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, and that said news- �� +� � ��wkbinPdtin ��.: paper is a weekly newspaper duly qualified for publishin le al ?r,' � �°°��i«�� g g n prepoNd_di�Eelet ii�t�"Pi, n Conu�7' natices and advertisements with the meaning of the laws of the � s BiaihCiwkViOyi(iinn�llm�rnt State of Colorado. },�.«i D�kr�t"The;P�P�°f�,��;. .u = etaqd in!�pititioo.u+� ' � � •To p�idi•for fhi'�tiao�tradiocti�Od fn a �. . Th9t the annexed legal notice or advertisement µ•as published ; �;� " ` �otpnio�,of+lt roed�w��A� in the regular and entire issue of every number of said weekly f '�'�+�tO'����°�"°t°�'°d • ' '�..� ; auh b7 l�ad�eapl aad �bilisati��-' � wb�ee nquind.��+�n�:�:�� � newspaper for the period of 4 consecutive insertions; and � ` � � n°°�"�'°d� ��� ; that the first �'���� ��� publication of said notice was in the issue of said � ' .��., [orte�e000�i�idro�ds. _ ?t Y l'�:�PIR'�M����1�j newspaper dated Septembe r 17 A.D. 19�and that 'h"`+r <t ���A�m A�°O0f'�� � itY�w v+�,.}.; .f�.b011��M Of Lbl;tlM 10��.�0l�11��J the last publication of said notice was in the issue of said news- ; ,� ����,�{y u;[o1Mwe i;� t,. , ! ��`� � ;:Bruh(,�t Vii ;Fllin�No'1.and ` ; paper dated ��t ohe r 8 A.D., 19.$�. ��'��f�� ����vi��No2,�ooadias+� -��: �otbiplattLee�otdnemdinPlatBook9d , �.-���u . p�9�land98dthenemed�dtli�Pftba ; li� / _ fil ' Lbmty Cbtk�nd B�oo�r Q{7[CL�[JDII�Ii � `'(/ k r�,.� B�Ceak V'�ii�Y0.'�n6 No 1,Lut 1.2. ; /�LZZ^����/ z -r a'� 9;4,6�nd8:Blod�l��ndlab49.4,baod8, , "' ,r,,,��; =$lodt?J;all wil�O,.Attitn Com49 Co� �� * 5rin ., . � ...:,..�... �, . -' - . :, �.i ,,x.!�u�" i►r�do i�av�iLblefoe.ia-, ,e x � � �A:eoP7 ot1L�P�'tltia° t '� ''�� w� �pidion�nd daplieation in ths offiot olthe Subscribed and sa�orn to before me,.a notary public in and for ,��'� �� ,�:�������w :' «�`-�� y�3 hags(9R6-8'JBl) . ` ~ �` the County o�Pit in, State of Colorado, this _.,�_�_.day of "�s�, � ; '� °� ' ��5�} : ,' r� >w Y`3�a i„��.���l�ti�} 2 � A.D., 19� �;,��'�.� z17.: �Oe'tobae�9.i�Bl�� p1a�'',. �.. :A 1; � � "'k`tRr,v'v E��,`l+y, . :: t y�'41Y� s . .� �.fl�`K'.�5`�"�fi � x;�J! ., ..i '4� *w,'M� • � �'x�`���''Y i i.a."zz' �- a ��-.�s�j���°'�s' j' ...u.,,.�: :.s,�>_.,:., � •:.st otary Public �� My commission expires