The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutbocc.min.reg.12281981 � ..._._ � — � -:� .E_� � � � . � G �;, �r,� . � Y� �::' ... . , . �.: �.�;��:�''^�. :. t . - F. _.�: . . �: ; s:. : 7 + y ` _ 1 ��j�,�.: E' Y '�` �; y�{� �� . . Y4�, .... �' HOARD OF GOUNlY CC�lISSIONERS AGQ�IDA � G D � Decenber 28, I98I 10:00 a.m. Public Hearing - Land Use Code Amendment - Employee Dwelling Unit Regulation - Richard Grice, Planning 10:30 Public Hearing - Sparovic/Timroth Subdivision Lot Split ;t �e.� General Submission - Richard Grice -i 10:50 Resolutions and Contracts `t : � Easement Aqreement with p,spen Vailey and City - Sandra Stuller ;:� ' DA's '82 OffiCe Lease - Curt Stewart r� . Appropriating and Adopting 1982 Budget - Tom Oken, Establishing Treasurer's Fees - Trm Oken . Temporary IIses Code Amendment - Richard Grice • Crowley Estate Subdivision Final Plat - Richard Grice :�l Peter Vought Trail Easement Deed - Sandra Stuller, County ' Attorney '�:? Midstate Motors Special Review - Colette Penne, Planning � Parking as Special Review for Lodges Code Amendment - . Alan Richman, Planning �, Room Use Agreement - Community Center - Jeannie Bascom . �; Zj-op Discussion on Insurance Broker - Debe McDOnald �� ' 11:20 Approval of Airport Masterplan - A1an Richman "� I2:40 First ReadinQ and Set Pub2ic Hearinq `� Land Use Code Amendment - Parking as Special Review for ,� � Essential Governmental Uses, Facilities and Services � ' Alan Riohman, February 8, 1982 at 10;00 a.m. '�. Monthly Manager's Report - Curt Stewart � Supplemental Appropriations � 12:00 I,unch Break �� 1:30 NWCCOG Update - Tom Glass � 2:00 Subdivision Exemption - Hunter Creek Properties - Jim Hamilton, Housing Director ?' 2:30 Approval of Proceedings Relating to Issue os" Single Family �� Mortgage Revenue Bonds - Jim Hamilton �'�' t,� �_`k 2=45 Burnt Mountain Discussion - Sandra Stuller '>`� ' i_=� . 2:50 i':� Public Comment , ,-�.: i. �,..,,� 4:00 Joint Meetinq ; :;# C; Cancel].ed � r; I� . , � �-4�� "�� i( ��. ��: . . . . F.:ti:�. F�" . � . .. . . � c�-3:-: i ;� . ' -S�• . . � :°:ii:: (*� � �=� . .,�.�. - � ; . . . . j4�,.. j t�' ' �� :�t ."� ' ....: ... .. .. . ..,...:....�.. ._ . .. . ...... } . : ,�'T�.�.,::�r,�; � `r'�''?a�N:`%i ��:� , .i. , �'J ;,� ro t i�%� !� . t��"� ,R�ti41F'�:�i.�.�ri'.4't�:ai��o6C.'wti:�..�C:'v.... .....r..rR,. .r. ..... ...:J._ _._.. ,-.s.....,..�.x.ra�<�.,-.�,o.......,,.,_..._.....M........................._ _ ��,��F i, � y�,{i��g':'� . . ;fiT�;Ti _. I � . � � I . G . i i . - f PITiCIN COUNTY � � . f BOA� OF CONd�ffSSIONERS ; � i: g � • REG[]I,AR MEETING 28 DECFNIDER, 1981 � PRESENT: RDBERT W CHILLI, MIC.HA.EL KINSLEY, GEORGE MAUSEN, HII�P7 I(LFSNDEEtUD, 24i0�7AS BI�AKE !- :3 t� �' Public The Hoard convened a pubiic hea�cing to consider a proposed amen3ment to the ` t� `i � H�� LUC Iand Use Code concerning EYCq�loyee Dwelling Units. Ri,cYxird Grice of the Planning �� _ �, _ E]nployee Office suhnitbed to the recoz3 the Planning office meno of 22 Decanber, 1981, �,��'� Dwell � #�•,� Unit the Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution B1-17, azxi the Lar�d Use Code k '� � as amended. The proposed amendment, initiated by Conmi_ssioner Child, would � �:� �_ ;; all.aa £or such units in the RS-20 and RS-30 zone districts subject to the �y r, ,. following conditions: units are limited to three (3) bedrooms, not to `�� 3 exceed one thousand, two htmdred (1,200) square feet; the resulting density - noist conform to the minimcnn lot ar� per d�lling unit requirenents; the applicant�st damnstrate that the property constitutes a bonafied agricultural operation and that there is a need for on-site employee � � s housi.ng; anl, the applicant must guarantee that the unit shall be a rental �i,_ unit, wi11 mt be subdivided in Euture, will not be armes occupied, and will be limitefl to occupancy by persons Pmployed on site. The burden of proof is, therefore, on the applicant to demnstrate to the satisfaction of the Board that the subject pmperty constitutes a bonafied agricultural operation. The Planning and Zoning Conmission expressed � sane reservations with the proposal, rioti.ng that such units may not satisiy a genuine a�loyee need as they are not subj�t to either price or � E � oecupancy guidelines, all of which are probably unenforceable regardless. ,; Tk�e Canmission rionetheless reluctantly rECOmnended apgroval. R � Child then opened the haarirg for public cannent. Gi.deon Kaufman questioned ' j 4?: / the rs3ulations, notirg tlkit such prohibit applications on existing bandit units. Kaufrtan maintained that the purpose of the e�loyee dwelling unit ' w� Camtissioner's Meeting 28 Decanber, 1961 - 1 ,; � ,,,,,��, ��: , ! � :• ;� � -.� � � ;j . t -y_ y * : fT ��4.��,��1'ie w(iw�.:[h^sL'SF��,u..kn�i.tY�6..:i.-,5.y:.:..��e.s.aa `� .; ... � �LW��='�`.,l��l-e..w' a"��.�F.:Ct'i�.si;'.L^r�-�.:r.%cY4 � �: 1 . �.a..:.::.:..:.�.....a.�a,. M , ,.i "n; - . . ___. _ p,PtK ��: f� �p ti-: � y��S Lt ._: '� •:� f�� i i,.,. � � M regul.ation was to encouraqe the leqalization of existirxj ka�ndit units, I The proposed ame�nent as pre.sented by Grice would preclude app7.i,cations ' `i on sane o£ the larger tracts of la� within the County, although this j apparently is mt so on the sna2ler tracts. Kaufman noted thst there are � several 1�andit units now in existence, and that it m�y be appropri.ate f , to encourage their legalization with respect to safety stardards. � i Rinsley noted fliat the proposal attac�ts bo mai.ntain appropriate FAR 4 . limitations. There are sane high density neighborhoods, such as Mountain a � Valley, where an additional dwelling unit may not be apprapziate regardless � �'s of the lot size. Kaufman r�ted, however� that a Iot of fifteen thousan3 '� (15,000} square feet can qualify for an additional unit, wher�s a four _ � �. arul one hal.f (4'�) acre parcel i.n a five (5) acre zone can not, even though � � the impact on the larger Iot will be much sma2ler than on the former. � � Itaufinan mted that there are several units, r�a in existence, that should be �1�' �� u aded with r f ( P9x' espect to safety considerations, rental contml, and oth�s. �, -,.;,� f- , The regulations do not encourage an owner to legalize these structures, �� : as it is lcmwn that the Planning and Zoning Co[�mission sttotx3ly opposes then. � � � � ,� The guidelines should be stzuctured so as to provide an incentive for � +j an owner of an illegal unit, rather than discaurage him. � (7'eg Lewis, a twelve (12) ye3r resident arid owner of a thirty-five (35) acre � ranch i.n Srncanass, also protested the regulations. Lewis �ted that tt�se 3 _ are sevaral properties around him that qualify for an employee unit under g exi.sting regulations, altl�ough his own property, zoned RS-30, does �ot. . '�; Although concerned with the preseivation of the character of the various �.� zones, Lewis finds it impossible to preserve the agricultural nature of his property and still be able to afford it. It is essential for him, so �` that he can csontinue to reside there, to construct a rental unit on the � property. Lewis felt that zoning restrictions were important, but rr�ted that r he must devote a substantial proportion of his tune towards making a livinq ; so that he is unable to maintai.n the agricultural nature of his land. Under 3 current regulations, Lewis would re�uixe a sixty (60) acre parcel to ; � i � qualify for an employee dwellinq unit, although lots within the Little � i Elk Creek Subdivi.sion can qualify. `,• � Ki.nsley nated that the matters discussed by both Lewis and F�au�an would � � � require consideration by the Planning and Zoning Canmission prior to ° r 's Boazd action. He expressed sane concern that the amer�nt before the � Board did not de�ine agricultural, Grice explaine3 that the Planning Office ��ssioner's Nleetitig 28 December, 1961 - 2 ' . :«r;�.x r�aw=.. . - ,�... ��: { . �`�� . � `.•! . , I � � � +� ;�� I . -;�:,�.� - - _ _....... _ , .., . __......�. . ,«.-�- __..__.�._,.�;..�f:=..�.;.�:.� ,n�_�:� ` ",��r�,� ; • �, r.�'+�i� � 4�i�s•.,. f_�:; "�.� �"e%'li;.. . � t'� l:'. �; will draft sane criteria for such operations, to include perhaps the ' amount of time devoted to the operation, the primary source of incane , � of an applicant, and ot-hers. GYice expected to have this avai.lable sometime ' ;� in the near future. �: Blake strongly favored the construction of employee units with private � ;'��i capital, and suggested that the matter be zeferred t;o the Housing Direct�r. i • i Child asked for additionaZ cam�ts; there being none, the hearinq�.ras i + closed. Klanden�d iroved approval of the proposed amendrt�ent, Kinsley ' i ' , secorx3ed and the trotiAn passed n�*��usZy. � � � � Public The Board cox�vene3 a public hearing to consider the Sparwic Lot Split, HearirxJ: Sparovic a general sukmission appli.cation, Richard (,Yice suY�nitted to the record the Lot � Split Planning Office m�o o£ 21 Decenber, 1981, the application, and the Land �� Use Code as amended. The applicant requests a lot split on a 9.366 acre ; v � � site sitvated just belaw Nbuntain Ua1Zey south of Highriray 82, to al.low for � �I # ariother lot and residence. The application is made under the fifty percent ;� (508) density re3ucti.on lot provision, to be deed restricted against �' further developnent, as the property could acc�mdate 9.95 units. Referral Agency ca�ments were generally supportive, and the Planning Office j recromnended apg�roval subject to five (5) condi,tians: i ' . , 1) detailed and final plats shali reflect a recreational use eas�nent for the ;(a �.rater course of the Raaring Fork River as it affects this properLy. ;� 2) 2� nea roadcuts ontx� High�ray 82 will be petmitted as acces to lot One B (1B) will utilize t,he existi.ng access easenent through the Shimer Apt. property. 3) The applicant shall execute a main extension agrearn�t with the City of Aspen Waher IJepartrnent as per their main extension polfcy. . , Y, � 4) Dry wells shall be constructed simult�neously with the house on Lot One B � � (1B} to retain roof drainage and paved area drainage. i 5) De�ri restriction against further develognent. ; � .:.�.t i :t The Planninq and Zonira,7 Co�cenission revi� the application and agreed ;�� with this reo�ation. The applicant has since requested a reconsideration, � � however, as they wish to pursue alternative access to the subject property z azrl an alternative water supply. The Co�nission i�icated a strong prefer�ce for the Shimer access, but agreed to consider both issues at the detailed � � i � sutntission stage. Child then opened the ha3ring for public comnent. � � ; ; i � Leonard Oates� represent5ng the applicant, explained that he was �t notified of the initial Plannin and Zoni.n heari � � g g ng on the application. i � I As a result, the Ca�mission based their recortmendation on the assumption � _ i that the applicant was granted an access road through the original � subdivision. This, in fact, is not the case; the easertent does not henefit � Can[nissiones's Meeting 28 Decenber, 1981 - 3 i }V�.��.'�'r�y' . �� .'a� �°1 .��i�`' .,i � . r�. � �Y f�� • Fx . �. .�. ' . . . �� . �;,r�;;�2�r'�!'.t:�r..+<•k-.:..:::%�:C"1::``.�_.—:.a�.,�._._..:� .... ..._..--��. ....�....3n..ttt+�t:;2:t'�'2u�....�"wu:tW.,�inS,ra..:..:�i�1d,.:`��'- i ��r!(�.:, �; +M..:_-�'•s, �; ��y�i;','.. �~� :3i1��.>.. , :tii �:1 � �'', the 5 wic , rather, it was granted only for the Shimer lots �.� Par ProPErtY -' and it is vexy restrictive. Oates has pursued negotiations with the :x� adjacent property owners in an effort to obtain an eassnent to access �� the Sparwic property, particularly Lot One B (1B); the consideration for ' � ! such an easenent, however, wnuld be faisly substantial. Oates will endeawr ! , � ' - " � ta obtain an access within zeason, taut was not optimistic that he would � succeed. The only other recourse i.s an additi.onal road cut onto Highway 82. ' This would require the construction of a new tz.o (2) lane bridge across i � � the Roaring Ebrk Ri.ver as well. The Planning and Zoning Camiission oras mt i �, � ; £awrable towards the new road cut as it was to be located on a dangerous � , R�. � curve. The applicant is willi.re�, however, to move the access to a more i favorable location i.f possi.ble. Oates request�I that the Board all.ow for { i �- i �, an alternative access in the event his negotiations with the adjacent o �`- { prok�ertl'cxmers fail. g. � r} �' (Yice mted that the Hoard could ame�d the conditions as follows; 3 'j� �' 3) The applicant shall execute a main extension agreanent with the City of g ' Aspen Water Departrtte.nt as per their main extension policy, or, obtain a we11 ' #t �*�;t frcxn the Colorado Division of Water Resources and a ground csater r � �`; report pursuant to Section 5-205 of the Land Use Code, �'' 6) The Board will agree to reconsider the access issue aE detailed s�nission � I;° � r pxroviding the applicant obtain a road cut pezmit fran the Colorado State � �" Hi hwa � g y De�rtrnent arid provided it canply with Pitkin County standaYds and speoifications for stapping site dista�e on horizontal ctuves. � Child askc�l for additional cacments; these beinq nane, the hearing was closed. Blake moved appmval of the application as amended by (�ice, Child - : _ secoirled and the motion passed unaniirously. The Board urged that the applicant pursue negotiations with adjacent property �ers as an additional road cut � 4= . `1.. onto Hiqhcsay 82 was not fawred. i — s Easenent Blake moved apprwal of an easanent agreement between the City of Aspen, AgY'eE: . E . County, Piticin County, and the Aspen Valley Hospital District, to all� far roadway City Hospital improvenents on the road servi.ng the hospital a� water plant housing project. Child secon3ed and the motion passed unanimously. DA Kinsl ved a h D' tr'c � � ey mo pproval of a crnmPSCi.al lease agreenent eizaeen the is i t } Office Lease At�rney's O£fice and C.M. Clark, to provide for office space i,n the Courthouse i A�� • Plaza buildi.ng. Child se�nded, Blake suggested that the Hoard consider m�ving the � office to the Ca�munity Center, where sufficient space is available, in lieu of j � ! i 1 renting space on an annual basis. It was sugg�sted that the Boa�i authorize � the Chairn►�n to sign, rioting that the District Attarney's Office would be � i Carmissioner's MeetirL7 28 Dec�nber, 1981 - 4 r�" •-�'�"�y?�{Ai� • �:•'-r1i:`1:•�::�aa:'9 }'i . , '�� . . . . + •,:� '"�{�f-�' ' } s.,y � h ��"nW!.�....+....�oc�r...+..a .+:�-...vr.�r..r.a• _....,..._ . '._.. _._�_,. .�r f....G.Y:�.::l.�C:� _.�..._,...^c.3,�.i.�<.K.�........oi:�I:N`�L..�T�,?'' f�� _ . �j,'�,�F�r� �� : • t� �',s_: �5 . �`��;� ,1 Ez..�.�,,:.;•`: �� &:_ "�' relocated, perhaps sanetime next surtmer. Madsen agreed, aix3 suggested ,� that the laase agreanent pmvide for an early tennination in the event i � �' the Board chooses to relocate the office. County Manager Curt Stewart f4 � p had di.scuss� the lesse with the County Attorr�ey, who felt that it was i 1 reasonable. The lease has been negotiated for a periai of one (1) year � ;., only, and there is no provision for an early cancellation. 1 The motion approving the lease nonetheless passed with opposition fxnm . ; i Slake and Madsen as indicated. � t -- - r �. ; ` 2ND Finance Direct�r 7bm Oken introduced on secoirl reading Ltao (2) � Read: . 1982 resolutions appropriati.ng and adaptinq the 1982 Lxidget, The resolutions Budget were amended to reflect the full cost of the Bus Maintenance Facility, { in lieu of the net cost, and the retiranent fund has be�n cronsolidated � �' with the general fund. Due to these amendments, Oken exp]ained that a thi.rd reading will be required. � '� Kinsley movetT approval of both resolutzons on secor� readiny, arxi �' �f �' tn set a third reading on the matter for 29 Decenber, 1981, at 10:30 A.M. j # i ?� �:` Child seconded and the motion passed unanvcausly. � r;>; � �, ;, ---- 1ST Kinsley move3 approval of a resolution establichiTra cPStain Treasurers !• Read: � _ Tre3s fees, Blake seconded and the motion passed unanimously. 'i Fees " '- 3 LUC Blake moved approval of a resolution ameirii.nq Section 3-8.11, Tenq�orary 1 . Atf12IiC2: 3. Temp Uses, of the Pitkin County Iand Use Code. Kinsley seconded and the motion � Uses � ` -`�1, . passed unanimously. � � -- I Crowley Kinsley noved appraval of a resolution grant;*� final plat approval � Estate i Subdiv to the Crowley Subdivision. Blake seconded and the tmtion passed } --- � 1 nnanianllsly. t I Vought Blakeiroved that the Board execute a Quitclaun Deed, fran the Board � Trail � � Easanent to Peter Vought, returni.ng a trail easanent on the Vought prppcxty Chilcl • � . se�nde3 arx3 the motion passed unanimously. � _��_ � I 1 Mi.dstate Child moved approval of a resolution granting special review approval � r � ` Motiors I for expansion of the t�chanics garage of Midstate Nbtors. Madsen seconded � and the motion passed unanimously. ; Catmissioner's Meeting 28 Deceziber, 1981 - 5 ' �.'��,��':'.?'.�. . ,-,z;�.. �!'Y' . . •..� � ;,�_y� '.�a . . I r �,,1 ..�� . . �j.. `-r,"r`'SGts�e-,c�ca.��:ravr.vc,.z�« . . _..�� __ . - _ . ._ ..,._.. __.,.�_..._..........�._.,...._._...__�,.._..___._._.�---��---- S ��'�,IYrI Fi. �7ir^�,�:i� �Y' inj�y5:`". F'a>s' �� . .G f' r: LUC Blake moved approval of a resolution adoptuxJ an amerr3ment to the Land Use Amerrl: Parking Code ppsmittirx� parking for lodqes to be set by special review. Madsen i secrorded and the motion pass�i unanimously. . i i'. - ; � Corrtn Jeannie Bascxm of the Conmunity Center introduced a Conmunity Centex ( Center ! _ Roan Roam Use Agreartent. Bascrom explair�ed that the Gounty Attorney had reviewed � ' " Use Agree the foxmat, and recamiended approval subject to striking the indemnification clause urder the rules and requlations. The general waivex provisions of the j i agreanent serve to acccx�lish the same purpose. ' � � Kinsley moved appraval of the agreanent subject to the above, Blake � }' • seconded arid the rmtion passed unanimously, r� _ i � � Insurance San Oken introduced discussion on the insurance package for I982, for Broker �� which the follaaing bids were received: Marsh and McLeSU�an, one hu�ired � and twenty nine thousand. tl�ree huttir� and ninety-four dol2ars ($129,493); � -_._:<�� t Arthur J Gallaqher and Co, one hundred and twenty-seven thousand, si3c hundred �_ ! _ � and forty �llars ($127,640); Frank B Hall, one fiux�red arr� five thousand, !� �`�; two hu�red and sixty-t�no dollars ($105,262); and Fred S James, one hundred �:= ; �� and three thousar�d, seven hundred and forty-five dollars ($103,745). A Y � consultizx� fi.rm, the Risk Planning Group, was retained to analyze and i_ rank the vazious proposals. The Arthur J Gallaghpx arxl Ca�any proposal 4 - � �s recartnende3 as the most fawrable, as their coverage was broader 3 �", and npre canprehensive and due to the high qua].ity of risk maz�aganent ' services they are capable of providi.ng. The Gal]agher proposal is a self- : .1, � r �. insurance plan; in this instance, the County's self-insured losses will �� be limite3 to fifty tlwusair_1 dollars ($50,000) although it was reccimiended � •; that a reserve fu� be established to cover retenti.ons and deductibles. i r Oken supported the proposal, mting that one hturlred and eighty thovsarri •a' dolZars ($180,000) had been budgeted for 1982, whereas the Gallaqher proposal _ would establish a maxu�ann of one hunired and thirty thousand dollars ($130,000). . a - Adequate coverage will be maintained although there is a potenkial for ,' # lawer eosts. Loss coverage has•aLsb been increased fran two a�i one half � � million dollars ($2,500,OQ0) to three an3 one ha].f million dollats ($3,500,000) at no additional wst. The proposal did reca�mend that public official � � coveraqe be doubled to ten million dollars ($10,000,000), and that the f 1 Oounty obtain additional aircraft liability protection and increase the 3 boiler and machinexy policy. Blake moved to adopt the Arthur J Gal2agher and Canpany proposal and �" Camnissioner's Meeting 28 DecenbAS, Z981 - 6 !....sx�c�t.?� , •'�%SY'-'�y::. � �•. . " ' „� i.: '.:'r� �:1 . � . �i`4 �.j l °;'"�I . v� �:•: I� �;.:��,��; E' ��:�k<'' , <ti- ; 1��4;:'::�. rr �*��.�,.:., � fi::�•;:�: �� l-s�' _.,,.. ` to aut�zize increased coverage for public officials, aircraft liahility � � and boiler and machinery protection, all as rec«mierxied by the Risk Planning Group. Kinsley seconded and the motion passed unaninnusly. � 1 � Airport Alan RicYman of the Planning Office introc3uced a Planning and Zoninq Comnission i Master � Plan resolution adopting the 1981 Aspen/Pitldn County Master Plan Update and I . - � certi,fyi.ng it to the Board as an amencfinent to the Aspen Area General Plan j � of 1966. In adopting the Update, the Canaission also recam�ended t1�at ! , ! : the Board address various issues, including the relocation of the Road and s } Bridge facility, imre efEicient uti.lization of the �cisting facilities, �. ? the most ad�rantageuos loc�.ation for constructing general aviation storage � � hangars, ancl the need for integrated planning in the ai=port vicinity, i, The Baard need mt take any action once the Camnission has formally adapted i _ � � the plan in resolution form. Haaever, the FederaZ Aviation Administsation } :� � requires that the Board erxlorse the Ai.rport Layout Plan by authorizing the � Chaisnan to sign the mags which cxi�rise the above. Airport Manager poug �; . ' McCoy has indicated that federal funds may be wi.thheld pen@i.ng the _ �- pe �#'�' � ^� signature of the Chaixm3n. � r Kinsley moved to erriorse the Airport Master Plan and to authorize the :k' Chaintan to sign the Ai.rport Layout Plan set. Child seoorrled and the motion passed unan.urously. � . 1ST Ri,ctanan intraiuced on first reading a proposed ame�nazt to the Land Use � a Read: g LUC Code to allow parking as a special review for essent,i.al governnental uses, ., Amend - I '� Parking facilities, services arxi buildixgs. The Boaxcl earlier considered a similar t . 1 �' �:i ame�nent for lodges, initi,ated by the High2ands Inn application. The � ` 1 Planning Office later realized that a similar amerxhc�ent would be r�,;red � ¢ : to acoonqdate the 8us Maintes�ance Facility. Although its primazy use would � be storage and maintenance, the Code would requixe two hwxirec3 ar� twenty- � � � five (225) parking spaces for the facility. The P1aruLing Office felt � i �that such a requirenent was excessive, and, in canjunction with the • � P].anning and Zoning Commission re�ed adoption of the proposed � � + � Code amex�nt. � • Kinsley rmved approva7. of the proposed amenctnent and to set a public j � � he�ring on the matter for 8 February, 1982, at 10:00 A.M. Blake seconded i f { and the ttbtion passe�i unan.urously, t � � ____ � � � Cattnissioner's Meeti� 28 Decanber, 1981 - 7 � .4� � . . .... . . � ..... . . . . . I . . .. . . . ...... . . . . .... .;,.�, 1 7,��: x.q�a�r�nK� ' � . _ . �j , _ a . � S ;Y � �,� � � � � � = '�' ' .-.�, _...._ r^We,r�.,,,�.-_.....-.�s�..+.s�:-...c�a._�<,.._. ,.. _...._.:_..: _�.._.�__.....�,.._...,,.._�. f* _ _ ...,.,..u.._.__....__...._..........._. r{ t^f`,+.f r�'�21`�`, z, # �'�"��`�`` Er^:��''• -:=i,•s.,.. Managers Curt.Stewftrt intsoduced his monthly report, re�ti.ng that there will Report & 15T be various inareases in budgeted revenues, including twenty thousand Read: Supp dollars ($20,000) from Highway Users Tax, fifty-five thousand, seven hundred ._ .�pprop a arni farty-si�c dollars ($55,746) fran interest incane, additional revernxes fran saZes tax, the Library, the Airport and the Building Departanert, � - for a total of sane one htu�dred are3 fifty thousarxi dollars ($150,000). � The[7MPA contract has been executed, and adequate assurances have been � . received fran the City that they will accept full responsibility for � the twenty percPnt (20B) local share of the grant. An additional J �'s appropriation of one thousand, two hiuxired and fifty dollars ($1,250) t � is required for the Coroner due to late billings, and the Attorney's . � budget has be�n recluced by seventeen thousan3 dol]ars ($17,000) for litigation related costs that did mt occur. Steurart included a Road , Projects Status ReFort fran County Engineer Pat Aobie, indicat;� � those projects which were catq�let�ed, arr2 at what cost, and those that � : ��3 ; were not. Dobie was re�uesting a carryover to his I982 budget of �+i � ox�e hturlre3 an3 fifty tlnusarKl, nine hundred and eighty-sevPn dollars � � ($150,987) tn acccmplish those projects not ccmpleted this year. A i resolution appropriatir�g suppleme��tal revenues and exp�srlitures was included to address these and other items on first reading. Blake m�ved approval of the resolution on fixst reading, Kinsley � secorrled and the m�tion passed �,n�n;�usly. � NWCCOG Tan Gl.ass of the Northwest Colorado Council of Gover�nents presented . ;. f tlpaate i: ` : a quarterly report on (�OG activities. A total of six htimdred and eighty z thausand dollars ($680,000) in CETA funds was administered by the CoG, i £ran which Pitkin County received a total of one hundred and thirty-five � t � thous�nd dollars ($135,000). These latter funds were used for various ; projects, including telecrnmunicati.ons, tourisn enhancement, axchivists f t far the Historical Society, Ballet West, the Deaf Camp, PiZgrim Theates, i . , the Hotel Jerane, and others. The teleoamnu�ications program included � � a qrant for a mobile van with production arid post-groduction equignent, � ; which will be avaiIable to various canmuiities on a user fee basis. } The grant includes sane five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) in � � • related i t aixl ttain' � t equ'prnen � uiq will proYx-+bly be available through � �� t The ENE grogram, part of a preventive health b]:ock qrant, i�ludes ' b Commissiones's Meeti� 28 Decsnber, 1981 - 8 , � ''z;,',7 . � t =' :� �` '� ' � `_...� � r;.'::h k ' �-s��,'} w �. �.`y=��,�`,,,,,,� . _,� �. > _ . .�'w'V6.�_ .�...r_r�rias�.ry.r��.�t�a+w..�.:[S. - :��.... . ......... �.:a�� :_e��. ..Sl...d[/�r:��'tti��.. i�Y'^lw.:..a..r^..... ••_�'lr!1r`t. !"'�.�� It � � '• }� _,_ _ iN^� �t. YJ'� �+' } �[�{4!p�� • (- µ�ZI'':-"�" � �r��,,:,. i� �u i'>,.... � 2 � seventy-three tl�ousand dollars ($73,000) for Pitkin County, most of which will be utilized for ccximunications equignent. The program is due � t� expire in 3uly, 1982, and its fate is not kmwn at this time. 4 With rAspect to natural resources, the �G is moniter.ing the A-95 ' i i program, a process which prwides far local reviea of fedesal expenditures. � _ _ - The current administration has decided to transfer the administration � tn the states in the form of block grants which are exa�t fran A-95. E • 1 There are various agencies, such as HUD, which ww7-d prefer to be Pe�entlY � exanpt fr�an A-95, and the Coimiittee on Regulat�ry Reforms is currently i r _ Pxami ni� thg R12Y'1tS of the program to detennine�if it is unduly burdensane. � � There is a mov�nent within the ONIB, however, t�o strengthen the program � and make it�ndatoxy so that local review would be required prior to the activity. The COG will continue to monites this porgram. � ! t IF The transportation stuay was been funded and will proceed as planne9. Glass aclaiowledged the sexvices of Gt3rt Steuart in this reqard. � 't � -,,.'. Enezgy impact is another are3 of cotbcern, altlbugh there have been # � in grants for Pitkin County recently. Gaiy Martinez of the COG is ` � � available for technical assistance, as it has been determined that the �i Redsinne area is eligible for such funds. Energy impact funds have been _ i � used in the past for bridges, sewers, and others. The Aqency on Aging has planned a variety of programs; additional training is planned for holistic health, and the senior meal program in Pitkin County has been vaxy successful. � s �� The Energy Crisis Intervention Program has been the subjeat of discussion � ; i � . �, � zecently. Various aounties not�ed that t1�e program is difficult to •� ac3ninister a�, parhaps, open to abuse. Th�re is a snall amount of � funding ranaining for this program, and this has been discussed with Social Services Directar Mike Schultz, Four (4) hanes in Pitkin County � � were chosen for the weatherization program. Those selected were chose� ' � by using fedetal criteri.a, generally establisk�cl at one hu�re3 ani twanty- i five percent (125�) o£ the poverty level. � � Kianderud noted that Holy Cross EZectri.c has rece�tly posted a rate � ' ' i increase and asked if the COG uras i.nvolved in the process. Glass explained � that he coizld bec^.ome involved in the hearing process only if the Board S of Directors makes a determination in this regard. It was noted that the I i i � Colorado Municipal League, of which the City of Aspen is a manbes, is 1, ;_ very active i.n moniterirr3 thi-s field, , Cortimissioner's Meeting 28 Decgnber. 1981 - 9 �s�;'a;;�N:;,�+'y,� - �' �` ��'�:a � ,� ' _ ::'.:I . . . � . a '.y . 4 �,��i �yl . � .�___..u� ji ' ��.r S �}Y � . !{`.y.��t.:..'-'. �: Ni sr,1'i: �y � y �� _� . F ' t:t.,.:�:s;`.:�, , y , F� a;�4�,..: : �. i ,f�; �� w: << �,.,� ,; � ��. }� ��:.�.-_,.-. � �: Hunter • Housing Director Jim Hamil.ton sutinitted a request fran Garfield and Creek Prop: Hecht, represanting Silverking Irnrestznenis, for a subdivision exelnption Suix3iv ; Exempt for the saZe of the Phase Zt.o (2) �rcel, and the condaninitunization of � Phases One (1), Two (2), and Three (3) of the Hunter Creek Properties. � � ' . The Board had previously agreed to the ex�nption as per the terms of +' - -' a Setttement Agreanent of recard, negotiated in March, 1981. Hamilton j i � �ted that the exesnption fran the definition of subdivision should be � , i granted as per the texms of t]iat agre�nent, in lieu of the ex�nption ' 3 - provisions o£ the Iand Use Code. Hamilton did mte that parking and i recreational facilities have yet ta be i.dentified, so t�at the Board � � sknuZd corr?ition approval of the final plat to review by both the �I i County Attarney � County Engineer. � g ,� Kinsley moved approval of an �Pmption frcm the definition of � i � subdivision for the co�cminitm�ization of the Silverking Aparianents � � ( Hunter Creek Properties ) as per the terms of that Settl�nent Agreement 4 :� � --•�,�� dated March, 1981, and fisther, that said exe�tion be conditioned upon � '" the review by the County AttDrney arrd Engineer of the final plat ar�d � � condominiwn declarations. Blake seoorded arxi the motion passed ", w�anvrously. � z _��_...� Single Borrl Counsel Barry Wolfson discussed the authorization for and issuance '.4 FamilY , Nbrt of Sirx�le Family Nbrt�age RevPnue Bonds Eor the Silverking Phase �t.ro ! -: gage 1 ,:.: Revenue (2} project. The borid issuance, for three million,- two hundred and fifty � , Bonds ' �i thousand dollars ($3,250,000), is tax ex�npt and has been underwz'itten by ' � �� t a ' Denver has a reed to urchase the �, u.;� E.F, Huttnn. The Firs N tional Bank of g p l� bore3s the roceeds of which are retained b the Hous' Authori until ? ,�� , P Y �J h' , .�� closing, whereupon the individual mortgages are issued and the developes � i.s paid off. The issuer of the bonds is generally req�ired to pay somethinq at the time of issuance, although i.n this instance the developer, as per a separate agre�nent, will be responsi.ble for renitting approximately � � ten percent (10�) of the total. � Zn most instarices, the ixrlividual mortgage loans are us�i to pay off � . i the bord, so tl�at the terms are for a period of thi.rty (30) ya3rs. In � the munici�l market today, however, cixcimistances are such that there � � ` is little iriducesn�nt for purchase. The issuance ft�r the Silverlci.ng I � `� project has been structured accordingly; during the first three (3) 4 r i years, the interest rate on the borxls has beet set at iwelve percen� � �r Ca�missioner's Meeti.r�g 28 Decanber, 1981 - 11 `��,�,� yyy . 9�-�•�J.�•y`� ��a��J • �.. �.� --__.� �.�..�� •,.. �j . r .� . f ' �_,`,f�, _ `I "�y't""°:\a�K4..8wR. —�..c..:Kb:_-rar-xx-�:.v.�-_c. — . _....,t. ....._,__.......,..�._......._____..._�.�.._._�.._,__.__.�......__._ , � . _ __ �._ _.. _ --��nn�f4s . -+, �i hT�� ,+, r., :.t.._. . �`� � N" �'� (12B), wheseas the interest rate on the irdividval mortgages has been E:^ 7 set at twelve and eight tenths perc�t (12.9$). This differential between =� the bond rate ar� the mort�ate rate allows for insurance, trust, the ; i y� actninistration of the program and for servicing. Aftex the third year, a - 1 however, the interest rate on the bonds will i.ncrease faur percent (4�) ' i � - ' �� above the revenue bond index, and the i.ndividual mortr3age rates wi11 incra�.se accordzngly. At any tvne during the first three (3) years, � i the Housing Aut-hority may att�ipt to fire3 a buyer for the bonds at a ` I�: more favorable interest rate, a feat which N7olfson thouqht was very � � li.kely as the k�onds will, at that time, be seasoned and rated. The j �5 i � Housing Autlwrity actually has the opportunity to reca].1 the bonds ! � at any time throughout the life of the bond issue; the mortgages, �:r how�ver, wi11 aZways rsnain ei.ght tenths of ane percent (.8�) al�we : �,: � the bond rate. �' �'. � �° At the time of closi.ng, Kuhne will corrvey the entire Phase Two (2j '�� '�`' parcel to the Housing Authority, who in turn will cornrey the units '+ �' ; #�'' to the individual purchasers. Of the eighty-seven (87) units to be conveyed ' � �v; '- to the County, ten (10) will be reconveyed to Kuhne for sale subject � I:';. i;-- �:' only tio the siuc (6) month rental restxictions. The s�vicer of the bonds t %� is responsible for collecting the monthly mort��age payments, ratiitting �+ f �= tn the trustee, which is the Central Bank of. Denver, and monitering ( ;f foreclosures. The Housing Authority in only briefly in the chain of title ( , � 4 r� to the subject property and is not liable in the event an individual ? : 1 � purchaser defaults. • 4� �;;� Wolfson presented various resolutions for approval by the Board. � �"�f i . The Board corivened as :the Board of Coam�issioners of the Pitkin County � ' Housir�g Autl-iority, whereupon Blake moved approval of the following: ; z• � "`,� a resolution authorizing the Chaixman to sign the Trust Indenture, �nl ; �`�< a resolution authorizing the execution of the purchase contract, j the �cecution of the origi.nation agreanent, the service agreanent, ` � �. the invesi�nent agreanent wi.th Midlard Federal Savings and Loan, and � , t authorizing the issuance of the bonds in the amount of three million, two hunclred and fifty thousand dollars ($3,250,000). Blake also moved �, � to adopt Resolution 81-44 as amerried, establishing the 1981 Housing � i Authority qualifications and guidelines for low, iroderate, and middle r incane ownership ared rentsl housi..ixJ ProJects. The Chaisrnvz and the Clerk to the Hoard were also authorized ta sign the various dociunents. `�' , 28 Decanber, 1981 - 12 t Cc,�missioner s Meetinq 4;��4„�� . ��.��_ .� • ;� _�,;:>;::� ��:> . �j _ _� _._ ...W W� ,��..__ � =f -i j .�y. L� ' . . � . ! � : y,., � , �,. . ,�,. f1 �'1ciRUr.o�ac:+"�•...�x:_•usr�aY�r�.r�i c-. - +......�...�+�.�—.........e.......................��_.`.........�..�� _ �.:,::a..._. �.-,.,., .:...,....:.._..-r�" ' � .. � � fi��+ �i �� '::� F: � � '�' ,�, , �� Kinsley secorried and the motion passed with op�osition fxnm Klatxlexud. The Board adjourned as the Board of Cartnissioners of the Pitkin County , Ho�asirr� Authority, ta recorniene as the Board of Covnty Camtissioners. r �� i � Burnt Stuller introduced for discussion the Burnt hbuntain issue, to obtain � Mtn - -" an offici.al response fran t1�e Hoard as to their desix'e to participate as a signatnry in the joint review oE the Rurnt Mountain study. � . Kinsley explai.ned that the previous Board had discussed the issue, � r + . parEicularly the appropriateness of insist;*n on a full F.nvirormental i ,: : 7mnact Stat�nent (EIS) for the proposed ski area at Burnt Mountain. The � � Hoard at that time unanimously endorsed the pursuit of legal action �II l � t� ensure that the full EIS was, in fact, acca�lished. Action on the �, matter was p�st�oned, knwever, pending the ass�tion of office by � � three (3) new Board manbers. Although the Fbrest Service maintains that ( �S; the �r++;t for a ski, area at Burnt Mountain has been issued, such so that � ..�i', -...._:� the matter should be considered moot, the question of whether a full EIS ��" should be required, arrl, of e�ual importance,:whethes a slci area should i � �� ' be developed at Burnt Nbuntain, l�oth ranain unresolved. Kinsley felt r:; � the issue was crucial with respect to the impacts o£ the proposed developnent ` on the Connty, and moved to direct the County Attorney to ensure that Y a full Erivirornnental Impact Statsnent (EIS} is required for Burnt Mountain, � includi.ng the question of whether the ar� is appropriate for a ski area. !�' The motion included a directive that the Board decline to participate � � 1 � as signatories in the joint reviEw process, although the County wi11 i ;. �j t • + participate as mn-signatories. Rlanderud seconde3. � Child felt the prima�.y question was the land alZocation @ecision, wherein � i Burnt Nbuntai.n was designated as appropriate for a ski area. This + `; issue must be addressed fisst and foranost, and must be posed in � � ' s�- conjunction with an EIS. The Forest Service has proposed to complete an � � Errvisorgnental Analysis (EA) on the Burnt Nbuntain proposal; the Envirormental � ,? Impsct Stat.�nent, however, is a much more ccmprehensive analysis and ? 1 represents the best method t� assure an ada3uate ara3 tYnrough examinati.on. ` � x Klanderud felt it was extranely important that the County beo�me involved � in the joint review process, altlwugh it was �ually important that this � l i � � � •� be accomplished as a non-signatory. Klanderud acknowledqed the full and � d� frank 000peration of both the Forest Service and the Aspen Skiing Gcxnpany, � and expressed her appreciation on behalf of the Board to both entities. v � Conmissioner's Meeting 28 December, 1981 - 13 [:e�,°-.s,'"=-;1 , � ` ''':� � � a` s' ; � �i' R.. _ �') . . . � '- �,�: � �. �j �u�"°'1'�x�.�.r^�.w:�«.a�s:_:�.,,-r<.c..r_.=---'. _„n_,_... . . __:.,_,. �:_.__....._..�_____..._�._.._. , _ _.._--------_ _ � �� `,` �lx^"`. ,,; � k t �� S . �j �� She felt it vras critical, l�wever, that the iu�acts of the proposed develo�zt R„�- �� be fully and adequately addressed; the EIS represents the most appropXi.ate ;,i� � tool to assure this. � ! � Tarrl Biedelman, representing the Aspen Skiing Canpany, asked if the � � Board would pursue litigation for the purpose of irnral�idat;r� the 1973 ' I. _ -� permit. Kinsley acknowledged that this was the intent; the origi.nal � pexmit for Burnt Mounfain was issued sanetime in 1965, and subseque�t7-y transferred to another party sanetime in 1973. Similar transfers have indicate3 that the reissuance of a nP�-�+;t must be acc�npanied by an EIS, °�� which, in this particuSar instance, did not occur. Biede].msn explai.ned � i ' "`i tl�at only one (1) permit was issued for both Snowmass and Burnt Nbuntains; ; as a result, if the Hoard is successful with respect to tlie EIS requissnent, j �� Snowmass Nbuntain may be closed. The closure of Snowtnass Mountain may, in { �1 f'"� r �;- fact, be ma�lated as soon as litigation is initiated. Kinsley explained ' � �;;; � �% that the pmposal before the Boaxd was not interX3ed to, nor would it r �'%:? 3 ��..{ --::��{ result in, the closure of an Pxisting ski area. Z ;��,;1 y �k'.�:° Harry Truscott noted that a special use permit will be required frcm � y k- � 'S �'�'" ��',' Pitkin County regardless of whether the Forest Sesvice initiates an i r:�. . �-<.< i r=' EA or an E7'S. The kbrest Sexvice must solicit public participation and issue its results to the public. The enviroianental consequences on the l i �:�;; subject lands must he disclosed, and the a�ropriate decisions by each i ; �'�, jurisdiction must be considered. In this regard, Truswtt fe�.t that the 3 �,�? ��, Board should make kr�m at this ti� what they wish the study to address, f� �'`:�± particularly that all related provisions of the Iand Use Code are oonq�lied t'''� . i. , �` t:;� with. Ki.nsley explained that the Forest Service has extexxled an invitation ~`��) to the County to �rticipate in the process, regardless o£ whether this is accanplished as a signatory or not. The County i.nten3s to actively •'?�?. parti.cipate in this regard, at which time all appropriate issues will +�� be opened for ciiscussion. ^�kr: � Madsen felt it was important tn note that the proposed developnent of �. k Burnt Nbuntain could not be accomplished in the near future. Madsen felt � it was inappropriate that the Board.pursue litigation at this time, � 4�� resul.ti.ng in a significant expenditure of funds and staff time, wt�en � we ; � •°i : � there may be other methods for resolvi.ng the issue. Blake agreed, mtinq j '` that the Board may have other recourse if the EA is deternuned to be � � �r � i ,�,�y insufficient. Litigation at this time may preclude the ability of the ' .�.i Hoard to pursue other options. � .�'=� Ccx�missioner's Meeting 28 Decanber, 1981 - 14 .=,=� �,r-i , �, �Vry�,:,� . h C-: [ � �` �1 i _.__��_v... _ _. �. '��.;��" . . :,�� SSStir �T� „' „""Jn. �� ^1� �/y�_�ir9i."E�r_q,W1 �'' �-�C ��,q��p��. �yM-t�iC �y, r�"F(��y'}i� � (�4�'�N�+� �• �� 7�ns�. r�� lk�.�';�.�'�73�iL�"�t,la..fi��r � _ . ,n, { � {y ��.' !l'91Md4�5.#6�v.a-.w71+:f.i.t.:i��+"N�.1." � � i� F i ^ � I�,�,�,i�' K .. ii . � � . � � �1,1 ii;� . . 1' � ' . . , . . . � � .�.�. �. A�4Y "1:� �y � . 3 Rinsley.explained that the major issue before the Hoard ranain�, ; ! is Burnt Mountain appropriate for develognent as a ski area. The Board has discussed the matter with both the Forest Service and the Aspen Skiing Canpany, arrl it has been debenniried �at the issue will rnt be resolved unless tl�e Board pursues the action srow befare it. � ' - � � The m�tion passed with opposition fmm Blake and Madsen as noted- � . • There bei�g no further business� the meet;*+� was adjourned. ' � � � 4: ' .. �. � p n � - ectfu]1y Suknni_tted, APPR�VID: � R��. �� I Deputy County Clerk Robest W Child, Chainnan �, • . ,. � <� � 'e' ' I , � :; i r ,. i . .� . . . � 4�, �.:.� � � � . �.. T � � 28 DeC�nber� 1981 - 15 7 ; Co�nissioner's Meeting %�f°�I�.a'��.. . . . _.. .. � ' ;,.. _.:�:!•.{;:a ( � y 5 �'-attrkSY� .::•, ttrL': � . . �fT rY3r,riyn�'� . , :' ' .. . � (� " �YO1b�ePG.�.��`vy^"�.vMS:�:iZ["YY�C}'-P.'i.:t. ��n�'��.. ••.•.:..�_ ��Y-�;t:,};��.•..�.vrr�+.4!'.Si6'�`ii11e*E'.Sh��FiA'..'°u!TSI�wPA��,VV�,Mn.+Ya-nrv.�r. ..—.Y , �� 1 �� Sl � ? .� � �,� t 4�t 'i �:., a e a�' . . �. �� PItKIN COUi'�TY COf1f1UIJITY CEidTER ROOiI USE /IGREEf1Et�lT � NAf�IE OF GROUP: - ' .� � ilATE(S) OF ROOP�i USE: OW–GOIWG( ) SHORT TERfi( ) ;� � — _ COiaTACT PERSO�J: PHOiJE: � k > S[ZE OF GROUP: ADDRESS: �= — � AREA(S) REQUESTED: Co�wnunity Room Small All Purpose oom Front Lounge Game Room '� Dining Room Kifichen :' -�` fiitldle ice � Stora9e �` i; ` °� °�yTS: _Room a � Full Day, Times ( ) Days. , , . .� � Room a � Half llay; Times ( ) Days. . . . .� _ �� Room a � flovement Rate ( ) Days, . , ..� r:� ---- ; � Room a � Per Sauare Foot Tirr�es`Sn. Ft.� __ �` �: TOTAL REiJTAL DUE; , , , ,, , , , , , , , ," � � _ -:-.... :.-_ j ;.�..� ; #' �'�' R00f1 SECURITY DEPOSIT;�.. . . . � . .a �. .:: ;� ,4 FOOD AiJD JAf�AGE DEPOSIT:.. , , . . .5 �� TOTAL DEPOSIT DUE; , , ,, , ,. , , .; - � s:;t . it A('�10UiJT PAID. . . . .. .. . .. . . .. . . . . .5 _ � ",;' BALA(��CE DUE: . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . .v ', �;' � r q �" DEPOSITS /�iJ17 PAYfiEf�TS '; �' �c' -� 1, Rental is due on or before, daY of usage. (Exceptions r��py be granted ; . �. ,:; to an-9oing uses) �t �;: 2, Depasits are necessary for reservation of room(s>. A senarate check � for the deposit an�GUnt is required, °s �.;: 3. Poyments moy be made by cash or check, make checks paYable to the ` �:,.7 PITKIW COUidTY COi•ifIUNITY CEiJTER, `t`�' 4. In the event of cancellation of a room rental bY a 9roup ��ithin 10 �' �- �=s days prior to the event, the Center Director reserves the ri�lit to ��£ retain the security tleposit, ; j ! I FIFIVE READ BOTH STDES OF TfIIS /�G�EEt1Ef•!T AiaD AGREE TO THE TERitS STIPULATCD � � � __ ; � authorizetl signature date �r .�M1� � address � � i -.s=� � � APPROVE�; ' ;�; PTTRI� � � � i�6f;�UST�E . __. i � `� ��Jate -- �'', �`��a-a , . c ` �•;•�:� �'°';•:� '� _.._. _ _. � �i: :;�;; . ;; t F Y�� t�t�� . � � �� E��f ry,�r��1.�.�. .'�f��6:�iGid�"r.P_AL�t�F�:9�f74E.:,_'.� .,c.'..,.�.�.�,..t,�.:...`s.�s��a�'��'�:y}� ;c�PS�ua�x''k' *�.�$��'?..�s�`�3��'�,s�� . E� _ '. .. �L#N c ;� � . RULES I�iaD I2EGULATIOiJ �y* �--� N .s� �. �' L. CLQs.Iil�; TIf�IE: A�1 usc oF c�ic ,irc:i(s) m�ist. cnd �in�l :i� � ��:ir�.iri��:iiii.:. � � ; �ii�t o�f tl:c Couimunity Centcr by 10:001'.�I. unless urr;iugemenCS h:�vu I�� :� : �`: m:��!�� I.for l:it.ier usc) with Pl�c I)irectnr �ir Iinsinc::>: Al:ui:i},cr ut' thc .. � t:�,mm�mi Ly CcnCCr. , � l_, SilUK1iJG [S_iIOT PER(IITTED IN THE COf1f1Ufi[TY CEi�TER, ; i, U..1:11(J UP AidD D111111GE: t �: • � .. � _ ,_ 14iCh res�ccf [u �I:wi:i c nr in nric�: fh:�t ni:�y r.. .. P,.c rc:�san- ul' fhc usc oF [ho arc:�(s) by lhc un�lcrsi�;uc�l ��nr::uant lu :I:i :i��,rrrmrnc, Lhc lli]IICl'S]bI1C(I :igrces: � �.'I'hat (hc, shc) shall bc solely responsiblc for :iny cicn;i-un ur f - tr:i:;h a•cmovcaJ nccessit.�ted hy i.ts usc. i I E ' B.�fhal' (hc, :;hc) tihal[ be rc4punsihlr. fur sL'ac�kiny, ch,�irs, ;in�.l p:.:. : � Folded-up tables at sidc of room. 1.'.'I'h:it .(hc, i;hej shall bc solcly responsihlc Pc�r ❑ny an�l 5l1 �I:�ri:� . . � f�� thc premi.scs that occtn� hy rcason of its usc ,�nd sh:ilf immc�il:.�� : � rx un �Irm;in�l, rc.i.mhursc PiCkin CounCy for :iny co::e�: I'nr rcp:�irin;; . - --repJ:ic.i ng .I:�m:igcd property. li.'I'h:it �hc,sh�) will .indemnil'y :inJ hold Pil:kin CounLy hnrmlcss f�.: �lam:i4��•s ur iniury ch:it resull:s to Chc undcrsi�;noJ, itr: lic��u:c� :m�l inv.itcs, I'rum t.hi: uses ui'• l'hc ��rcmisc:;, c•src�if Lhu::c fh;�t r. �. I'rum nc�;iii;rnrc of cmpl.oycus nnd ai;ents ol" I'ilkin Cuunty. � WAIVER PIZOVISIOilS � l, t;LiJERI�L:"�ri,� undcrsi�;neJ ;igrces Co rcic:�sc, indemni fy :in�l :::ivc h:i.r.r , . � �I�r CuunC�•, iYS ol`I'iccrs, agents ;ind empl.oyccs I`rom :ind ❑g:�inst ;in; .... all lu:;, ol', or d;im:�gc Yo, proper[y, or injuri.cs to, or Jcath ni', :�u ' �>rr.un or pi�csi�ns, :�nd sh:ill defcncl, inJemnify :ind y:ivc harmles:; tii• '.- 'f� t:u�incc, iCS off.iccrs, agents and cmployccs from :iny :rnd all cl;iims # � I:,�ni:i;os, su.itx, costs, espensc, li;ibili.Ly,:ictious gr procr.eJin�;s iit' .: � .;nJ or n:ifurc oP or hy :�nyonc whomsocvrr, in :�ny w:iy resulCin�, 1'ru:n �;. # � nr :iric:ing out ol', thc usc oc occupancy oP thc Conuuiu�il:y Ccntcr, cs� ...;:; � thuse resuJtinl I'rom the sole negligence of the CounCy's oElicer:i, :�;,� g .�r i:mployces. 'I'he County may, �s a condi.tion of this agrcemene,rcur; r� thr un�ci•signcd Co Jeliver to thc Community CenCcr Uircclor u ronip;•.�!i��;: :ic�• li;ibility i�isurancc ��olicy i-nclu�l.ing public Ii;i6iliLy, dc:ith :,i��+. ��rap�r[y d:imagc, i» Form :ind nmount acccpt�blc tn :ind nnpruvc�l hy •.i.,. Uirrclor :inil County ACtorncy.'1'hc insur:incc rc��tti'rciacnt:; pres�:ribc;l � : , � I� sh:ill nut bc decmed to in :uty way limit the obl.i.�,atian:; of Chc tniu� r' : � hrrcin.�� .�, ti(�iZ��:"�i'hc undcrsigne�t �a:iivcs any :ind :il I cl:�im>: ;i�::iiiisL thc Cn�r � � nnJ nc� Commun.ity Center for loss ar d:im:igc to proporey st:ore�l ur i��1 � �.�n l:hc prewi.ses, iC bc:ing the intenXjon c>f the undcrsiE;ned Co :u;�:u.., ; � rrr:punsihi lity for any such loss :ui�l to ahsalvc I:hc� l;ounly, it::; n: . !, :in�l cmploy��os, frum any li:ibiliCy hy rc:ison or lo::s or .I:unagc• Cu , i: . L � ��r��i�'�.��. ii .. .'�� FI�UI(�il�i�_I__""I'hc County makes nn rcprescnc;�tions ,i:; ru ehc ;idcyu:��-;: :�. � �ur r��uipiucn� :iC Chc Cummunity CcnLCr lur thc u::c iu��.•n�IcJ I��• ih� . .. is,ncJ inil thc undcrsigncJ accepts Chc condit'ion ol sucli cyuipmini . 16c un.lcrsign�•J w:iivcs airy nnd all claim5 ag:iinsf. thc i:uimCy fui _.. � I•.>s,, injury ur damage sul'fcrcd by the undersigned hy I':ii liire uf , � cyui��iacnl: or uthcrwisc, csccpt', th:it aCCributahic solcly Co [hi• n�a i . . �� ,�I' fhc Cuuncy, i.C� ❑gcnts or cm�iloyr.es,�� — TERf11f�/�TIOiJ li'�r Ilireccur ul' fhe Community Center rc:serves thc riE;lie t<.� re��i�•�c ' ! :ii;rcamcut. ilirc�� (.i) mon[hs from thc da�tc hcrcof ;inil tu Ccrminntc t.. , .;uuie il' hc ur ::lic shal] deCCrminc thaC chc utic i:: inrnmpaCililc a:i � i ��uhli�: pin-pusc uf Lhc Conuuun.ity Cent��r. ' i � CAilCELLAT I U! In :i�l.litiun, lhc IlirecCOr c�f tha Connnimily Conlcr h:i:; thc ri};lit �: � thi:: a�rccm��nt �.�.ith or wichout i�:iusc, upon givin}; nueicv (,it tl�i :�, ul' th�� nn�lcrsi�ned given I>cloia) ol' suc:h C�WCIiI,LA'I'10� in Che ful iui. ., � Iri;iiin�.r ______ � I { ;i. SINI�I.Ii li\+IiN'I': in Chc rnsc nC a sinF;la cvcul , hy m:�ilin�� ;� n�., . i Iul.--c;inrcl I:icion (7) SIiVIiN UA1'ti hcforu fhc �Iny ��F Chc cecn� . { b. U�-GUINI� USIi: In fJ�c c:isu of c��nfinuinl; ic;v I�y m:iiliu�; ,i n..� , . - ��:inrcll:ilion (3l1) 'I'lllk'I'Y 11A1'S I�cforc Chc effcrtivc �latc uf .�, � �::in.ull;ition. a � 1 . 3��V„�t?n'^} t , _ .�4%•;� �:1;:�-."{� • � . .. �,��.�� , . . :;.t..:.;..,..: [ . . 1981 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING EXHIBITS December 28 Code Amendment— A Memorandum Dated December 22, 1981 from Richard Grice, Employee Dwelling Unit Planner,to Board of County Commissioners Re ulation B Plannin and Zonin Commission Resolution No.81-17 Sparovic Lot Split—General C Memorandum Dated December 21, 1981 from Richard Grice, Submission Planner,to Board of Coun Commissioners D Land Use A lication S arovic Subdivision Lot S lit Lot 1 E A1 ine Surve Tabulation Dated November 5, 1981 F Memorandum Dated October 16, 1981 from Jim Markalunas, Water De arhnent,to Sunny Vann,Planner G Memorandum Dated October 27, 1981 from Mark Fuller to Richard Grice,Planner H Memorandum Dated October 19, 1981 from Tom Dunlop, Environmental Health,to Alan Richman,Plannin Office I Letter Dated November 2, 1981 from William Stanton, Water Resource S ecialist,to Plannin Office J Memorandum Dated December 24, 1981 from Ron Thompson, En ineer,to Richard Grice K Letter Dated October 22, 1981 from Jeffrey Hynes,Engineering Geologist,to Plannin Office x§��, �;��' �x�ti �y�� ,,a ,. . , €��: , 9��"s`, 4�,1� ;� -� -�� .,;�� yr,a�,.�� s .h 41 - - ronxn or co. cohU.��a�s PITKZN A0. } Publiv Hearizig Eahibitn i MEMORANDUM nate EXHIBIT � Subjoct � � �T ' T0: Board of County Commissioners FY��. xo �a�g_ FROM: Richard Grice, Planning Office ; RE: Code Amendment - Employee Dwelling Unit Regulation � DATE: December 22, 1981 � l In response to requests from several members of the Board, the Planning Office ; has drafted an amendment to the Employee dwelling lfnit Regulation to permit � detached units in the AF-1, RS-20, and RS-30 zone districts under certain � conditions. i The proposed changes in the existing "Employee Dwelling Unit" regulation amount to the creation of a new sub-paragraph (b). This paragraph expands the eligibility for "Employee Dwelling Units" under the regulation to the R5-20 and RS-30 districts. You will also find that properties in the AF-1 i zone district will be eligible under either sub-paragraph "a" or "b". This does not mean that AF-1 properties can have two employee dwelling units ' but that they may apply under either category depending upon which is appro- priate fior the situation. The essential elements of the new sub-paragraph "b" are as follows: � 1. Such units will not be permitted in excess of three bedrooms or � 1,200 square feet of total area. Thi.s size limit is intended to be large enough to accommodate the permanent residency of a ranch employee and his family. 2. The resulting density must conform to the "minimum lot area per dwelling unit" requirements for the underlying zone district as establisned in Section 3-2, area and bulk requirements. This means i that in order to qualify in the AF-1 zone district, a parcel would have to be in excess of 20 acres in size: There is some question as to whether or not there can indeed be an ongoing agricultural � operation on a parcel containing only 20 acres. There is even some � question as to whether there are bonafide agricultural operations of 60 acres 9n the RS-30 zone which require or have need for full time employees. Commission 3 below provides furtF�er guideance in determining the eligibili.ty of a property. 3. The current use of the property constitutes a bonafied agricuitural I operation and a need is clearly demonstrated for the housing of employees which are employed on site. The burden of proof will be upon the applicant to demonstrate that he does indeed operate a bonafide agricultural operation and that there is a need for the housing of full time employees. 4. The applicant shall guarantee that the unit shall be a rental unit, not be subdivided in the future, not be occupied by owner or spouse and be limited �o occupancy by persons employed on site. The Planning and Zoning Comnission continues to have considerable reservation with respect to this regulation. Since these units have no effective price restriction, the Planning Commission considers them free-market units and the regulation itself as a rezoning. They are not suggesting that pri_ce controls be added to the regu]ation because they do not believe that price controls on this type of unit could be enforced. Even so, they have made their best efforts to quote form their resolution, "To attempt that which should not be attempted." Even so, the Planning and Zoning Commission's attached Reso]ution No. 81-17 does recorrunend your approval of the code amendment. _'.'_' . f I . RESOLUTION OF THE PITKTN COUNTY PLANNING ' ' .AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEtdDING AMENDMENT �..�.;o o� co. c.o.:::.��r�s TO SECTION 3-8.13, EMPLOYEE DWELtIN6 UNIT, r�.T,'-�n ca. r�• - OF THE PITKIN COUNTY LAND USE CODE � �JCHIBIT . Resolution No. 81 - 17 � '`''"''=°t � ,� _-_., r�� -=---gj WHEREAS, the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission at it egu ar � meeting held October 21, 1981, has considered an amendment to Section 3-8.13, ` Employee Dwelling Unit; of the Pitkin County Land Use Code, and ' WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Correnission considers the Employee Dwelling Unit Regulation to be an inappropriate method of rezoning the County, • � and • ' j. WHEREAS, the Co�nission questions whether the regulation rea7ly satisfies an employee need since it is not subject to either price or occupancy guidelines and even if it were subject to such guide7ines it would still be unenforceable, and WHEREAS, in spite of the Commission's negative opinion with respect to this ; regulation it has made its best efforts to attempt that which should not be attempted. N041, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLIlED by tfie Pitkin County Planning and Zoning i.: Comnission that it hereby recommends that if the Board feels compelled to �'' �' • • �: continue supporting the Employee Dwelling Unit Regulation and even desires to � expand upon said regulation, that Title II of the Pitkin County Code (Land . Use Code) be amended by the repeal and reenactment of Section 3-8.13, Employee �: Owelling Unit, to read as follo�s: � "3-8.13 Emplovee Dwelling Unit (a) The Planning and Zoning Commission may by special revie4i pursuant to the procedures established by 5ections 6-3 and I ' 6-6 of this Code permit the construction of one residential 1 � dwelling unit (hereinafter "employee unit") attached to or � within, a single family home (hereinafter "principle unit") on any lot which conforms to the minimum lot area require- ments within the R-15, R-30, Af-2, and AF-1 zone districts under the following conditions and limitations: . • {1) Newly constructed employee units shall not have more than one (1) bedroom nor exceed five hundred (500) square feet of total fluor area, provided,that employee units in the R-15 zone shall be limited to studios not to exceed 350 . • • square .feet (atthough there shall be no limitation on ; � are� i^ the case of e.:�ployee units car�st�,ucted prior to . Lhe effective date of this reyulation). � � • (2) 7he total floor area of the principle and employee unit . shall not exceed the allorlabl'e F.A.R. of the applicable. ` ; - � ; � , zone district-. • ! j (3) There shall be provided one (1) off-street parking space , for each bedroom within the principle unit and one (1) off- street parking space for each employee unit. . (4} The applicant shall, by deed restriction or other permanent conunitment running with the land, yuar-antee that the employee unit shall remain a rental unit; not be condomin- � iumized; not be occupied by the owner or spouse; be limited � , to occupancy by not more than t�vo (2) adults, and related children, who qualify as (and have been found by the Housing • Authority to be) employees of the conmwnity under such guide- " ' lines as may be from time to time established by said � 4uthority; be rented for telms not less than six months. (b) The Planning and Zoning Commission may, by special reviev�, • : pursuant to the procedures established by Sections 6-3 and 6-6 � . of the Code, permit the construction of one residential ; dwelling unit either attached to an existing dwelling or detached ! � � within the AF-1, RS-20, and RS-30 zone districts under the follotiving conditions and limitations: (1) Such units shall not exceed three bedrooms or 1200 square • feet of total floor area. � � (2j Detacl�ed units shall be sited consistent with the County's • ; -- �� '.Scenic Quality Policy and taking into consideration the . visual impact upon existing residences. � , (3) The resulting density must conform to the minimum lot area requirements of the underlying zone district. � (4) The current use of the subject property constitutes a bona- � fide agricultural operation and a need is clearly demonstrated for the housing of e�nployees which are employed on-site. � �w --_ _. t (5} The applicant shall, by deed restriction or other permanent ; � commitment running with the land, guarantee that the employee unit shall remain a rental unit, not be occupied ' by owner or spouse, be 7imited to occupancy by persons and ' � their families who qualify as (and have been found �� by the Nousing Authority to be) ' employees of the agricultural operation under such � guidelines as may be from time to time established by said authority, and be rented for terms not less than six months. (c) The Planning and Zoning'Commission shall review applications for approval purs;�ant hereto, taking into consideration, in ' i , addition to special review criteria established elsewhere in . , the Code, compatibility with the existing neighborhood and � availability of public and private access, utilities, and . services. (d) Nothing herein shall preclude the approval,.as employee dwelling units, of units existing on the date of adoption • hereof, provided that the same shal] meet the requirements of this section. • (e) All units approved pursuant hereto shall be made available for rental under the limitations established in Section (a)(4); � • . provided, however, that such restrictions shall not be app7i- i ca61e in the event.of occupancy, without consideration (direct _ � or indirect), by members of the i�uediate fami.ly of the owner j . i of the principal dwelling. "Immediate family" shall mean a ! person related by blood or marriage who is a first cousin (or i closer relative) and his or her chi7dren. - (f) In lieu of any notice or hearing requirements otherwise � provided for in this Code, written notice giving the specifics �� of the employee unit application shall be delivered or mailed � to adjoining 7andowners at least fifteen days prior to the review of the application by the P.lanning and Zoning.Co►m�ission at a public meeting. i . (g) All units approved hereunder shall be registered with the � Pitkin Cour,ty Housing Authority which shall� verify the qualifi- cations of all applicants." �.�� .�.�.�.. __�.� • vo�,�D oz� co. con�t�R�s r��r�oRnraour� PITICIN C0. . Pub11c Hearing Frlaibits i � � Da�o �CHIBR T0: Qoard of County Commissioners sub��et � � FROM: Richard Grice,Planning Office Fr.t�. r:o. a!� �� • RE: Sparovic tot Split - General Subm�ssion - Public {leari . DATE: December 21, 19t31 ; • � We have received an application for a Lot Split from Christine Sparovic l . for her 9.366 acre site located east of Aspen.' The site includes both sides of the Roaring Fork River.below Mountain Valley 5ubdivision and is bounded on the north by Highway 82. The application is made under the 50X density reduction lot split provision of � Section 4-6(b). ' � ; Portions of this property lie within three separate zone district boundaries. � Jim Reser of Alpine Surveys:has completed a density calculation �vhich is included in your packet and reveals a zone density for the site of 9.95 units'. Referr�al Agency Comments The water supply is to be provided by the City of Aspen Water Department. Jim Markalunas has corrnnented that he does not see any way to serve the subdivision wi.thout a main extension. He would be ab12 to provide service if the applicant entered into a main extension agreement per the City's Main Extension Policy. fJo water would be available without such a main extension. � Mark Fuller has confirmed the Planning Office's opinion that the area does not constitute a valuable riparian resource. Mark expects little scenic damage as the.site currently consists of excavation debris. Mark also suggests a recrea- tional use easement for the Roaring Fork River. ' Tom Dunlop of the Environmental Health Department approves of the water supply � ' system as well as the sewage disposal system. The applicant proposes to serve � ; the new dwelling by connecting to the Aspen Metro Sanitaticn District lines. ' , Tom's final suggestions is that on-site dry wells be constructed to retain � �, roof drainage and paved area drainage in'order to avoid run off entering the � • Roaring Fork River. -- i , ' . Jeff Hynes of the Co7or�ado Geo7ogic Survey has indicated that his office has , no objections or suggestions with respect to this proposal. The Colorado Water Conservation Board has no objections as the buiiding envelopes are located out of the 100 year flood�plain. � No comment was received from the County Engineer. j Planning Office Comments and Reconunenda�ibns , ( The access proposed for lot l6 requires the�construction of a two-lane bridge , I , across the Roaring Fork River and a new roadcut onto Highway 82. There is � an alternative access availa6le to this site which the Planning Office favors. f That access would employ the road which accesses the Stillwater Gravel Pit and � the Shimer Apart�nents. An easement through the Shimer Apartments property exists which could be used to serve this Subdivision. i The Planning Office reconunends approvai of the General Subrnission for the Sparovic Subdivision subject to the foilo►•�ing conditions: 1. Detailed and Final Plats shall reflect a recreational use easement for the water course of the Roaring Fork River as it affects this property. 2. No new roadcuts onto Highway 82 will be permitted•as access to lot la � will utilize the existing access easement thr•ougn�the Shimer Apartuients property. .�-�-__ �� ,,,"`� . �_ . ._`��---�"'',.. • . . �--_�'�_.---__..,--.�"" �. • . � . , . � ' � � . � . � . ' .� _.r : . . , ' , • ' . � • ' . ,�• ' , ' . . . ' ' . � . � . � . • . . ' � . • � ~ •1 : {� . , i . ' , . ' . . . � ' 7 I • . • , � i � . , � ; RESOLUTION OF THE PITKIN COUNTY PLANNIWG " � � � , �� ?` ' ' .AND ZONIN6 COMMISSION RECOMMENDING AMENDMENT , •`� l; C�. C:Gii:3'P'S TO SECTION 3-8.13, EMPLOYEE DWELtIN6 UNIT, r�'�I:?r� ca, r� � OF TNE PITKIN COUNTY LAND USE CODE � . .FJCHIBIT . Resolution No. 81 - 17 � `!`'�10L � � � ."-.'i, i.`n /� ' I" � � WHEREAS, the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission at it egu ar : � ° ' meeting held October 21, 1981, has considered an amendment to Section 3-8.13, � � Employee Dwelling Unit, of the Pitkin County Land Use Code, and � ! � WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Corranission considers the Employee � i • '�.� � Dweiling Unit Regulation to be an inappropriate method of rezoning the County, �, ' . 'i� and - WHEREAS, the Commission questions whether the regulation really satisfies an empioyee need since it is not subject to either price or occupancy guidelines '� and even if it were subject to such guidelines it wouid stili be unenforceab7e, � - ; and ' WHEREAS, in spite of the Commission's negative opinion with respect to this � . � regulatian it has made its best efforts to attempt that which should not be ! ,1 attempted. NQ41, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLYED by the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning 4' Commission that it hereby reco►�unends that if the Board feels compelled to � un i� continue supporting the Employee Dwelling Unit Regulation and even desires to } � expand upon said regulation, that Title II of the Pitkin County Code (Land . i Use Code) be amended by the repeal and reenactment of Sectio� 3-8.13, Employee D4uelling Unit, to read as follows: � � . i "3-8.13 Eroployee Dwelling Unit (a) The PTanning and Zoning Cortmnission may by special revie4i i ' pursuant to the procedures estab7ished by Sections 6-3 and ' 6-6 of this Code permit the construction of one residential dwelling unit (hereinafter "employee unit") attached to or within, a single family home (hereinafter "principle unit") on any lot which conforms to the minimum lot area require- ments within the R-15, R-30, AF-2, and AF-1 zone districts under the foliowing conditions and limitations: • (1) Newly constructed employee' units shall not have more than one (1) bedroom nor exceed five hundred (500) square feet of total floor area, provided,that eniployee units in the � ; R-15 xone shall bc lim9ted to studios not to exceed 350 I , , . • • square .feet (although thcre shall be no limitation on area in �he case of e,:�ployee units ca��sti,ucted prior� �o the effective date of this reyulation). . � � ! . • (2) The total floor area of the princip]e and employee unit . � shall not exceed the allovrable F.A.R. of the applicable, � zone district. • � . � . ;� (3) There shall be provided one (1) oFf-street parking space � for each bedroom within the principle unit and one (1) off- . . 'i street parking space for each employee unit. . . (4) The applicant shall, by deed restriction or other permanent conunitment running vrith the land, yuar•antee that the employee unit shall remain a rental unit; not be condomin- iumized; not be occupied by the o�aner or spouse; be limited ' . to o.ccupancy by not more than ti,ro (2) adults, and related children, who qualify as (and have been found by the Housing . Authority to be) employees of the conununity under such guide- �� lines as may be from time to time established by said �� . uuthori�y; be ren�ed for terms not less than six months. (b} 7he'P7anning and 'Loning Commission may, by special revieri, • • pursuant to the procedures established by Sections 6-3 and 6-6 . i , of the Code, permit the construction of one residential i i dwelling unit either attached to an existing dwe7ling or detached ;; i� j � within the AF-1, RS-20, and RS-30 zone districts under the ;I i . 1 follo►aing conditions and 7imitations: �i ;� (1) Such units shall not exceed three bedrooms or 1200 square � � � feet of total floor area. ' '� . -�; (2) Detached units shall be sited consistent with the County's • �} • ,_ ii �. �.Scenic Quality Policy and taking into consideration the . ;� visual impact upon existing residences. '� . (3) The resulting density must conform to the minimum lot area requirements of the underlying zone district. (4) The current use of the subject property constitutes a bona- fide agricultura7 operai:ion and a need is clearty demonstrated for the housing of employees which are employed on-site. � ' � i � • . � ` ' t • �, (5) The applicant shall� by deed restriction or other permanent �I' � � commitment running with the land, guarantee that the �; employee unit shall remain a rental unit, not be occupied it ij . i; ' by owner or spouse, be 7imited to occupancy by persons and ' �� ' their families who �ualify as (and have been found ;I .: ;� -' by the Nousing Authority to be) ,t • '( employees of the agricultural operation under such �, i� guidelines as may be from time to time established by said � authority, and be rented for terms not less than six months. �� (c) The Planning and Zoning Commission shall review applications u . �' for a roval !: pp purs;iant hereto, taking into consideration, in I; . �' addition to s ecial review criteria establi.shed elsewhere in � P P . the Code, compatibility with the existing neighborhood and I � availability of public and private access, utilities, and - . services. � i (d) Nothing herein shall preclude the approval,.as employee , i � dwelling units, of units existing on the date of adoption • i � hereof, provided that the same shall meet the requirements of � this section. j • (e) All units approved pursuant hereto shall be made available �: • for rental under the limitations established in Section (a}(4); • • provided, however, that such restrictions shall not be appli- • i cable in the event.•of occupancy, without consideration (.direct ; ` or indirect), by members of the imnediate fami7y of the owner • I of the principal dwelling. "Immediate family" shall mean a � ;, person related by 61ood or marriage who is a first cousin (or s r i closer reiative) and his or her children. • < � i " (f) In lieu of any notice or hearing requirements otherwise ? �; • � r provided for in this Code, written notice giving the specifics ? �i . ;, of the employee unit application shall 6e delivered or mailed ? � to adjoining landowners at least fifteen days prior to the i , �. review of the application by the Planning and Zoning.Commission �; at a public meeting. (g) All units approved hereunder shall be registered with the - Pitkin Cou:,ty Housing Authority which shall" verify the qua•lifi- cations of all applicants." t Approved by the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission at their : �� . ;' regular meetir.g on P!ovember 4, 1981. r � � ' PITKIN COUNTY PLANIJIlJG AiVD ZONING • ' COMMISSION I� . By: • • Peter G y, Chairman • ii� • !' ATTEST• ! j ii' �W� � . Deputy County Clerk j' • � . i I � � , i: r . . �; ? . I; • + � . � i i� _ . � J 1 � � • . . � . � . i�; � � � . .. . � . __ . _ ' J . . . . . . . . . � . i f _ � >�,�, . � �� . 1 • b�l�I',D Ok' C0. COl:ti.i'P.'S �4[f•tORA�•�DUhI PITKIN C0. . Public Hearing TahiUita . � nato EXHIBIT T0: Qoard of County Commissianers subj;;ct � � FROM: Richard Grice,Planning Office Fr.t,. r:o. . a-��-�� - � RE: Sparovic Lot Split - General Submission - Public Ileari . DATE: December 21, 19t31 I � 1 We have received an application for a Lot Split from Christine Sparovic � • for her 9.366 acre site located east of Aspen.' The site includes both sides 1 of the Roaring Fork River below Mountain Valley Subdivision and is bounded ' on the north by Highway 82. The appli.cation is made under the 50% density reduction lot split provision of • Section 4-6(b). ' � Portions of this property lie within three separate zone district boundaries. Jim Reser of A7pine Surveys:has completed a densi�y calculation ►ahich is included in your packet and reveals a zone density for the site of 9.95 units: Referral Agency Comments The water supply is to be provided by the City of Aspen Water Department. Jim Markalunas has commented that he does not see any way to serve the subdivision without a main extension. He would be ablz to provide service if the applicant entered into a main extension agreement per the City's Main Extension Policy. Wo water wouid be available without such a main extension. Mark Fuller has confirmed the Planning Office's opinion that the area does not constitute a valuable riparian resource. Mark expects little scenic damage � as the.site currently consists of excavation debris. Mark also suggests a recrea- ' tional use easement for the Roaring Fork River. � Tom Dunlop of the Environmental Health Department approves of the water supply system as well as the sewage disposal system. The applicant proposes to serve � the new dwelling by connecting to the Aspen Metro Sanitation District lines. Tom's final suggestions is that on-site dry wells be constructed to retain � ' roof drainage and paved area drainage in order to avoid run off entering the • Roaring Fork River. ; Jeff Nynes of the Colorado 6eologic Survey has indicated that his office has. . 3 no objections or suggestions with respect to this proposal. i : 1 The Colorado Water Conservation Board has no bbjections as the building envelopes � � are located out of the ]00 year flood�plain. i � No comment was received from the County Engineer. � � . � Planning Office Comments and Recomnenda�ibns � . , , The access proposed for lot 1B requires the�construction of a two-lane bridga � . across the Roaring Fork River and a new roadcut onto Highway S2. There is an alternative access available to this site which the Planning Office favors. That access would employ the road which accesses the Stillwater Gravel Pit and a the Shimer Apartments. An easement through the Shimer Apartments property ' exists which could be used to serve this Subdivision. � The Planning Office recouunends approval of the General Submission for the Sparovic Subdivision subject to the following conditions: l. Detailed and Final Plats shall reflect a recreational use easement for the water course of the Roaring Fork River as it affects this ' property. , 2. No new roadcuts onto Flighway 82 will be permitted•as access to lot 14 will utilize the existing access easement thr•ougn'the Shimer Apart�aents property. Memo: Sparovic Lot Split - Gerieral Submission ' Page Two ' - ' November 11, 1981 _� • � 3. The applicant shall execute a main extension agre�r*�: with the City � of Aspen's Water Department per that DepartmenY s n�i:n extension �: policy. � , � 4. Dry wells shall be constructed simultaneously witia �`��= house on lot 16 i to retain roof drainage and paved area drainage. I • ' . � 5. Deed restriction against further development. _ . . il . . �I. ' _.. , . Planning and Zoning Co�nission Recorttnendation _ _ :,..�.;.:... . : The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this applica�#�r. ;:,t their regular meeting on November 18, 1981, and recomrnended approvaf s�ab��.�t to the above' five conditions suggested by the Planning Office. The a��=:_ant has requested an opportunity to discuss the conditions with the Corim�issias. :an Wednesday, December 30th, so, it is possible that there will be som� c#ay�ge in their recommendations which will occur prior to this public heari��., ,. � I . _ i i ' . I � � . � � , • i � � � : � � � E • . . � � - - ; . � . ' . : • ; , . , . P " : : .� ��. : - �� . � �p��- ��-�.k ' � . APPF.NDIX B . �"��"�" - - ...... . . . ..._._._..T,. • 3 PRW ECT NUMHER � . PIT�I�d CaU�NTY � •�; . Section/Parcel � ��l.�!•• r:`� f�. . � � i�'=`%`�:• LAND USE APPLZCATION FORM DATE SUBMIT2ED 1 ' TO BE COMPLETED BX APPLICANT: , • . H!l1�1E Christine K. Sparovic (Onwer) ' and Ger Timroth & .Donna Timroth Contraet Purchasers) � c o OATES, 1�UGHES 6 KNEZEVICH, P.C. . . 1►UDftJ:SS 600 E. HQpkins, Suite 200, Aspen, Colorado 81611 bOARD�OF C0. CO;�.;;.i�R�S ' . ' . ' ' . PITKIN C0. • . _� PHOtaE (303)920-2700 .��'Z�Q EXHIBIT , . • - . • . . • : • ' Dato � cL/ r N�1ME OF PROJECT S rovic Su Sub��ct j ' ; . Fr_h. 2?0. �� PROJECT IACATION: (On attached sheet, locate on zoning map, showing of any natural hazard and resource areas, any other special , � • � " ',' xegulatory districts, Section .5, Land Use Code; and locate I ' . • � - on apprapriate CSU/ERA I•taps any areas not covered by �h� ; . ' .above.) . - . � TOTAL AREA '9.366 acres � ..�. . . ' • ( EXISTIhG USE(S) Vacanf Land (vortion south of Roar;ng F�rk RivPr) an�l cirP nf ' . { ; � existinQ sin�le-family residettice (portion north of Roar{�g Ft�rk River) : BuiI.ding site for'one single-family residence in addition to existing ; PROPOSED U5E(S) _sinQle-famil�residence • � • (approximate square ' ' � footage for each) • . ' AF-2 (portion south of Roaring Fork River), R-15 (portion•narth � PRESEI�'T ZONING OF SITE of RoarinQ Fork River,� and �AF-2 PUD (go�tion SQ�,}� of Roaring ' Fork River). All zone districts are shown on attached Lot Split *1sp DESCRIFTION OF LAND USE PROPOSAL _This request is for a�lot split of Lot 13 Sparovic Subdivision, under §4-6(b) of Title II of ttie Pitkin Countv Code . (See Discussion attached on Planning Office concerns) � � . TO BE CaNiPLETED BY THE PLAPINING OFFYCE • . TYPE OF 11PPLICATION: REZONING ' SUBDIVISZON (Lot Split) � : P.U.D. r £XEb1PTION • SPECIAI. REVIEW 35-acre + SUE3DIVISiOfi �. ' .� BUILDING PERMIT Re.VZEW . � R�YIEW PFi]ISE; PRE-11PPLICIITION � �� DATE COI9PLF.TED I j . GENEFAL SUII�lISSION P.C. ACTION DATE � • . �BOARD ACTION DATE � . DETAILED SUB[dxSSION P.C. �ACTIOti DATE I . BOARD ACTION � DATE � FINRL PL71T � BOARD ACTION �� ' DATE __ . _ . .._.. ..,__._`- . . t . . . ... _. _.. _ . .._. :�. . .... ,,,:, ,...,,, .-.. , . . . ,.,�...,.�� . , ....�_, ..,.� .._ _,_.�....,- ,.:,T-,. � � --�-�..� ` ' • . � � ' } � . . ' � + ATTACHMENT TO LOT SPLIT APPLICATION i . � � LOT li SPAROVIC SUBDIVISION ', � f 1. FLOOD PL'AIN. Although a portion of Lot 1, Sparovic. f Subdivision is within the flood plain, that area has not been ' included in the calculation of density for purposes of the lot ; split. The residential improvements are not proposed to be j located within the flood plain. Please see the copy of the letter ` attached hereto dated July 8, 1981, from James Breasted of Alpine � Surveys to Robert W. Hughes for calculations. The proposed building site is intended to be located outside of the flood plain. Reference is made to the attached Lot Split Map which � shows the boundary of the flood plain, together with a proposed building envelope for the location of the additional single- family residence created by virtue of the lot split. 2. SCENIC QUALITY. ' The proposed building envelope is shielded from view from Colorado State Highway 82 by a large mound of earth, together witli existing vegetation. Generally, the , j area where the mound is located was a part of a former gravel 3 extraction operation. It is apparent from looking at the pro- ! perty that most of the gravel was removed and the sand was left in . place. It is the intention of the applicants to reshape and re- � vegetate the mound so as to make the same more attractive than in its current state and to utilize the same as an effective berm to I screen the view to the extent possible of the proposed improve- ments created by the lot split from Highway 82. There should be no other significant visual impact of the property from any other direction. ; 3. t4ATEK SUPPLY. The proposed water supply for the site ( will be obtair�ed from the City of Aspen'� municipal water system . which is accessible from Mountain Valley Subdivision across from . Highway 82 adjacent to the property. Easements e�:ist on all i Mountain Valley lot Iines for utilities. 4. SEWAG� DISPOSAL. Sewage disposal will be by means of � the Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation District. That district has � a main on Highway 82 immediately adjacent to the suliject property � and service is connected to the mul.ti-fami.ly project located � directly to the west of the proposed building site. Other properties lying southerly of Colorado State Highway 82 are serviced by Aspen Metro Sanitation District and no engineering � difficulty is antici,pated. � • � � . .. _ _ .. ... , - -- --- . . . . _ . ..._ _ _. , . . , ,_,... . . . . . , . .,; , . .... . ..,.. ...._.'.,.: �.,:..,:r�. .r.-...�.za..: -.,.._ :�-.,...-°-, .^....._._.. .�,.-.,.:. :r.-.....,. , . , � ..... . -.. .. .. . . . ... . '.?^•'„ !!�.�.^.cn_"TS*':Sr�._'2P'�nv'nlri?a�!:t�n.�"�'.',P"4L�Ce1527'+��!?kIy � '— _ � =�_.-_ .� . .. � !: �a"�''-"T - . t t� .v.� _ . i • i� _ �'� _�.. ' ��,, _. � S. ROAD/TRAILS. A dedicated trail easement from the �'� 4•' kesterl:y to the �ezsterly boundary of Lot I, Sparovic Subdivision exists-as is shown on the attached Lot Split Map and described _ _. �y Mr.� Bre::st�d in his earlier referenced lettez of July 8, �� ' 1981. Access to�'•;che subject property will be by means of a i' bridge crossing the Roaring Fork River to be constructed by the � '� ' � r_- ,_ � �gplicants. as .sI�own•�o�i the Lot Split Map. Approval of access � - . � . . w�s �reviously apnr_ovr.� in a subdivision exemption relating to ; this property. The property was never conveyed by the applicant, � Mrs. Sparovic, under that exemption, however, a copy of that ±: . •.. . . ...-• _ .. �exe�.g��.._r.n i.s:.�t#acned hereto. Internal roads will be constructed . only to. service �the residence to be created by the lot split. �'� � ..• - . .- -. .-. she.�e wi11�:�e �z�u�i.ed and maintained by the applicant. �6. UTILITIES. Utilities to the site will be provided by ' � , Rocky Mountain Natural Gas, Holy Cross Electric Association, � . .. ..._. iounta?.n .Be11�...t.he, City of Aspen i^Tater Department and the Aspen I - - �s�tropolitan Sanitation District. Service for these utilities •T� • � - � ��:��-�cvai��nle irmne•32�tely adjacent to the property. '�- � 7. TITLE EVIDENCE. • Attached hereto is an Ownership and , ��`-^t",�*^hran�c�.-C�—t:;:-icate issued b Transamerica Title Insurance ;:. . . -. .: . . y Cbmpany showing �the current ownership of Lot l, Sparovic Subdi- vision. The excepted position as conveyed to J. H. Smith was . � the snb�ect of an additional subdivision exemption obtained to . .. .. settle��a•�;aegal. bc�u�,��ary ].ine dispute between the applicant, _ . • - • . Mrs. �rar.ovic; and Mr. Smith and is not included within Mr. Breasted's calculations. �. . 8. R.EQUIP.ED PLAT CONTENTS. The� contents o£ the Lot SpZit ; . � • � i�lap �attached hereto, the applicants believe� othexwise complies �� . • _. • ,-.. .•.. ' �� E:.;-�r .r�a,��vi.sians.�o�-:6.03.02 of the Pitkin County Code. ; - • . . . � � -- - - • � ,' ._ . � � ." .. .- : : -� •_ : . .. , . � � � '. .. ... • .- � ,. .. . �• . . . .. _ �� ".° .. c. . . . . ,. ' .. ,. . -' �.. ' - '-• . , � - , . . _ - . #.�- _- _ � . -- . . ,. _ . .•�- - .- � ; . . . . s.•. - . _ ''�� . • s _ . -• . ._ . -_-:� __ . � - - � . . . . . , . . .. . . . __ . . _.. . � .._ ,.-,.. ..a3!e- .r ...,. �... . —.. . . .-.� ....:�'i..�. �.,........�..: *a:- ..t . --_._ �_..�,-:... .....�..,,,�,.�.,ra.. r>-r•+-:c� _. . �.-rr..,-r�rc..:r^.r^.n�._. .,. ... ... . . . .. . ... . . .... . -'-. ..,. -.. . . n-��. . . . _ � ... .... . . ,.. ,. . _.. . . ._. . ..._. �. . , • i , • ' EXHIBIT Alpine Surveys � � � `�' 414 North Mill Street Post O(fice Box i730 . �.�,� Aspen,Colorado 81612 303 925 2688 ' - ;` - � ;� November S, 1981 �� ;� � l . t Lot T, S.paro.v`i.c S'ubcli'visian 81-91 j - i Zone District� and A1lowable: Uni�t Tabul�ation �, . . . '; i Zone Net Total Allowable (� District ' Area " Area ' Uni.ts � � " ' � ' " ' " � ' � � � � ;i R-1S 3.082 3.082 8.95 (3.082 Acres ; ].S,OOQ Sq. Ft.) AF-1 1.391 0 � ;' AF-2 PUD 2.505 1 (1 Unit/2 Acres) Area in River and in Trail Easement � � 2.388 � 0 � � � � Tota7. Area of Lot 1 9.366 . f . � . , Sub Total, Allowable Units 9,95 . � . � � Less Existinq Unit and Fractional � • � � Unit -�•95 ' Total Allowable Units . �I� Under Existing Zoning 7 I' ;I 50$ Reduction for. Lot S�lit -3.5 � � � , Total Allowable Units � �� for Lot Split 3 (Rotznded) Sincerely, . ,� `� �. ��r �// . ,7`am s �.�teser ' � • JFR/ml . . i ' ' � ' . � � I . .. .__._ _.—_. .... .. . . . _ _ _ . . ,. :_ � .� ., . __--__�.�,... won�a�r rrrarrrei.rn.r.6.�.rrrrwrr ' T' ^� "' -..��:.,�ro• ,..v�,....�. -r�<,.•.' "'...... �. ,..�.....-. ��. ._..,.._.-...... _V,�,.,,..� ..�.,.,,:-.r.—.w.<. _..-+�r.wm�+�cnee-n�y�� aa�w5a+rr + 1 . � . _. ...'L.�._.. . _. ..._.. . � . . ��4• . • r •,� ��r . - � ' . . ' 11� 1• • • • • • ' 1 . • � 1 , EXHIBIT .� ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT � � . MEMORANDUM � � ' �i T0: SUNNY VANN I' FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS • � � ;` SUBJECT: SPAROVIC/TII"IItOTH SUBDIVISION (LOT SPLIT) - GENERAL SUBMISSION � DATE: OCTOBER 16, 1981 i . 'r. � i We have reviewed the above referenced lot-split application in regards to available � water aupply •and wish to state that, as of the present, the closest source of I Aepen municipal water is located at the intersection of Highway 82 East and the Mountain Valley Subdivision entrance. The present Sparovic residence located on Lot 1 is now serviced by City water from a standard (size not presently known; assumed to be 3/4") service line which crosses the Highway to the existing � Mountain Va11ey main located some 100' up Mountain Laurel Drive. It is estimated ��i • that the length of this service is approximately 300-400'. Except for this one �� small service line, there is no present, physical facility available to service Lots 2 and 3 located across (south) the Roaring Fork River. �I Therefore, we do not see how Lots 2 and 3 can be serviced with municipal water '� without a main exteasion. And, in accordance with our .existing main extension 'i policy, we would not grant service to Lots 2 and� 3 without a main extension agreement being entered into. � In the interest of the Sparovic application, it should be noted that we have E! � provided a tee at the �uncture of the gravel pit road and•Highway 82 for future i development which might occur in the gravel pit area. Should a main be extended, ! this would be the point of attachment for such main extension. � In conclu§ion, it should be made clear that no municipal water is available without i such main extension. ' � � . . , _ . . . . . . . . - • , _. . . . . :::.- - ,:- :: ...., ...... .... .....�.. �_... ._ . . ,. �.:'- . ', . . . . . . ........... ... ....�,.. ..�..�....n, ..�.�...�..-....r-.�.x..nw.-..n.-,v:'i^T�I.TVM1�YT�%�]Y�I[IMw)LNY¢R�C�ucL_ .. � • • • ,� i� 1 �; pitkin county �. � 506 east main street ;' aspen, colorado 8'161'I ?; �): . l; . � . � MEMORANDUM �� p � exHtBiT ° �; ��y i; ;s � � ±; T0: RICHARD GRICE, PLANNING QFFICE �� . � �� - ' � �; FROM: MARK FULLER� � f1SNt�v i t'IT;;liy C0. � `' FIANNING OFFICE � � RE: SPAROVIC LOT SPLIT - II DATE: OCTOBBR 27, 1981 '� . �t ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- �; . I, T have two comments to offer on this proposal: �' �' �: The first is to confirm the submission's assessment of the area's existing �? scenic quality. The existing excavation debris, while not an eyesore, could certainly be improved by fairly straightforward landscaping and xeveget�tion ; measures and could also function well as a berm. The area does not now con- " stitute a valuable riparian area. �! t My second comment is a request ;,hat kayaking easements be preserved (or new j ones granted} for this section of the Roaring Fork. This is an important ', teaching area for the Aspen Kayak Schaol, and this existing use should be ' recognized and allowed to continue. Kirk Baker o£ the Aspen Kayak School should be consulted if there are any questions on this point. � • � . � MF;pb . . . � ..,.. ._�� ..,,. . _.. .:.._... ..,.,, ,.�-., .. _._._...._ ____. _ .. ,......_ . .._.__. . .,...._. ._...,..,.�.�.�,,...,,...�r.....,.r,��,. �.. � ASPENQPITKIN � - ; ENVIRC�NMEN'T'A►L.. HE�LTH �IEPARTMENT i � - � EXH18� � MEMORANDUM � TO: Alan Richman Planning Department FROM: Tom Dunlop, Director '%3'� Environmental Health Departmen.t DATE: October I9, 1981 RE: Sparovic/Timroth Subdivision (Lot Spi.lt) - Genera]. Submission � . . --------------------------------------------------------------- The abvve mentioned lot split has been reviewed by this office for the following topics. � �. Water Supply: � Proposed water supply to the dwelling by the Aspen Water Department service lines is in agreement with policies ' of this office. Sewer System: � � Proposed service to the proposed� dwelling by the Aspen � Metro Sanitation Di.strict lines is in agreement with policies of this office. . Site Drainage: It is the recommendation of this office that on-site drvwells be constructed to retain roof drainage and paved area drainage. This wi11 prevent the drainage/run off • from leaving ihe property and possibly entering the Roaring Fork River. 13D Bouth Galene 9treat Aspen, Coloredo 81611 . 303/825-2020 ... . _... .:.._�-,, :....,r�..�...�_._.,....s..__..__ .., _�.. _ ,._�....�.-n.�....,.,.,�..,�,.,...,.e ._. .... . .._ ... ... � ,_. . . STATE OF COLOR,ADa . COlORA00 WATER CONSFRVATIOPt BOARD F•co Dr.putmen�of Natural Re;ources ,�� OP� � EXHIBIT � '�.=.'£� 823 State Centennial Building -_ » �;,, ,.'$�� 1}13 Sherman Sireet . *'�^��;, •�••� Denver.Colorado d0203 . . � / '��i;,'' s�e .• Phone: {3031866-3441 . • ' .• � ', Rirh��d D.I.amm • • . . ... Govemor ' • ' . . . . . 1.��illiam�tci)unald � • November 2, 1981 Diracror David Walker � DepuN Direc:or •. . . I � Aspen/Pithin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street � Aspen, Colorado 81611 . � Re: Sparovic/Timroth Subdivisibn (Lot Split) I � Gentlemen: . The staff of the Flood Control and Floodplain Management ( Section of the Colorado Water Conservat�on Board has made a I review of the General Submission for the above referenced ` subdivision application. Concerning the f lood hazard, the boundary of the 100-year f loodplain shown on the Final Plat dated January 17, 1974 , is in close agreement with a study � prepared by the Sacramento Distict, Army Corps of Engineers ,. . dated June 1973. That report was designated and approved by our board on October 31, 1973, in accordance with State Statutes. Furthermore, the building envelope clescribed in the undated attachment to the Lot Split application, Lot 1, spa- rovic Subdivision, paragraph 1, "Flood plain," and shown in Lot 1-B on the Lot-Split Map, appears to be beyond the limits �• of the intermediate regional (100-year) flood and the standard project (about a 500-year) flood as shown on the Corps' maps. Therefore, we have no objections to the application. Sincerely, • � U u� William P. Stanton � Senior Water Resource Specialist WPS:cs • ' • COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD, Frederick V. Kroeger, Chairmsn Robert A.Jackson,Vice Chairman • Joh� R. Falche�,Steamboat Spnngs C.M. Furneaux.Walden • Floyd l. Gelz, Monte Vista• Patrick A. Gormley, Grand Junction RiChard W.Johnston, Montrose •Oavid W. RObbins. Oenver+ Herbert H.VandemOer.Sterling • . .>,,�:-,�,,.,.�z.,�-,�...... ,...«�..e..._.__...�__..._.�..___�__--___..._.....___ ._..�,...,...._._..__.�.............�.....�.e,.�-.,.....�.�,�....,T........�-a..a�...�,.n�.,..,. __... MEMORANDUM EXHIBIT TO: Richard Grice . � � � - � FROM: Ron Thompson, Assi.stant County Engineer � , :: DATE: December 24, 1981 .- RE: Sparovic Subdivisi.on • • Road System The access r.oad onto State Highway 82 should comply with the Colorado State Highway access requirements and a permit from the Colorado State Highway should be obtained by the proponent. The access road should aZso comply with Pitkin County standards and specifications for stopping sight distance on horizontal curves. The planning office may � ' wish to research accidents on the curve with Mark 5kortzki, or the � Colorado State Highway Department to provide further imput. ' RT:cjs � ' _ :; . . '� . . - � � . .�:T . ' �. •� •; ' • . • - I ,.. . .. • .... . . . .._��'... ... .-� . � �D f«�iz►c�r�T'.�r� , EXHIBiT �� ;oF ��to,� "��;<<�, � � . '� ,•90 y�%�ct� . _ NICHAFiO D.LAMM ° * * N W.ROLD OOVERNOH � ��``�F DIRECTOR ' ��876 * �• COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY � � DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES � 715 STATE CENTENNIAL BUiLDING—1313 SHERMAN STREET � ' DENVER,COIORADO 80203 PFiONE(303)866-2811 � ° �'��-�� . ,. October 22, 1981 �` 0C'� 2� �gg� }t 1� _.... ��J � � a�rc�� ;x�iv co. PLANNl1G CFFi�E Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street ;� ' . . . • � . � Aspen, CO 81611 . Dear Planners: RE: SPAROVIC/TIMROTH LOT SPLIT We have reviewed the information submitted•on this matter and the general and eng-ineering geology of the area and w� have no objection to the approval � , of this application. • � . . . � Yours truly, . , e � , �� I � , Jeffrey L. yne . f Engineerin g Geo7ogist . � . JLH/bn • �� cc: Land Use Conm�ission • � . � � ' . � . . ( E G E O L O G Y STORY OF THE PAST...KEY TO THE FUTURE ' . � � ,`,�� ,�1 � ��, �The Aspea Times I��.o° ,� BOARD OF C0. COhU1t'R'S ` ,i PITRIN C0. BOx E 4, r{ ^ �Y � Public �earing Txhibits �. ��, _- � - 28 DDCE'N�ER 1981 Aspen, Colorado ,�;� Dat9 ?s ..........'. • Sub��ot =LUC AMEND: � �Z LTNIT PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO � Copy of NOtIC@ ) ss. County of Pitkin ) • I, W i 11 iamA. ' Dunaway � ao solemnly s��ear that I am the P�l}+� i char of THE ASPEN TIMES; that the same is a weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in part, and published in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, and has a general circutation therein; that said newspaper has been pub- lished continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Pitliin, for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive µ�eeks 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 provisians of the AcL of March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, and that said news- paper is a weekly newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal , � ,' '-` notices and advertisements with the meaning of the laws of the. � "�bltc notice,,,_.._- � State of Colorada RE:Pioposed-�en�ent to the:Pitkin ' Th�t the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published County Lend Uee C«1°.9eec�°°s°8'�•`: NOTICSL4 HEREBY GNENthsta pnb in the regular and entire issue of every� number of said weekly t �y,s�;Lg wtll be held bsfare t�°P'�°a . , � ConntYB�l��ofCountyComm�saionerson newspaper for the 1 ,,Mond,qr,:Decambar 28�198�at 10:00 AM' period of consecutive insertions; and � �,�tDecembec14,.1881st11:16AMaspra' � annwnoed et a BoBrcd,d CountY that the, first puhlication oi said notice was in the issue of said � �"°��d��u,ths.Commis- , ' unerelMeetinBRoomialhePitlnpCounty. - newspaper dated NnvPmbPr 26 A.D., 19�and that �rthouee:606EMain:Aepen�toa°"81d°! �nding 9xtim 5-8.13 of the Iend Uae: � the last publication of said notice was in the issue of said news- ��ttheconet�uctionofonereei''. � F i[sntial d�vellin8 unit either attached to m- :qypetinB:d+Qelling a decaehed withv►ths.. ' paper dated A.D., 19_ ,�g,i�R,q.Zp�and R9-30 sme dietaiets sub�; . � eck'to:ePecific conditions-sst forch in?hr,. , n '�gmenam's�.F�liuther iriturmati�,ca►xt ff 't�et�!»Plannin6Of6es,190 8 Galena,AIF; :. ��".L��i�2C��/ /�/s� en�9Z6-2D20�eztZ2B; gubCb�� ' ��rman,Boadot'CouatYQomnaisio4�� ; 'Ifubli�hed in the Aepe!!15mes Nar�eliT�+. �: ` 28i 1981 �: ' ;: $ �? .a. t Subscribed and sworn to before me,.a notary public in and for x,; �� a + , , ,,. , .. � _ r .,��.. _ . . _ . ,x.:xs' . the unty of Pitkin, State of Colorado, this +��!L�_.day of A.D., 19`��L / Notary Public 114y commission expires r � � _ , , The Aspea Times ,�I;ll`��,�.:_ �OARD OI' C0. GOI+IiS R S , . � i P�Txzrr co. Box E '�� Publ�o Heariag �xhibit8 ��` 28 DE'��IDER, 1981 Aspen, Colorado Date :' � SPAROVIC � Sub3�ct :: PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO ) COp�/ Of NOfiC@ ) ss. County of Pitkin ) ' I, william R�. Dunawav do solemnly sw•ear that I am the PUbliSheT' of THE ASPEN TIMES; that the same is a weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in part, and published in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been pub- lished cotttinuously and unintenuptedly in said County of Pitliin, for a period of more than fifty-two consecuti��e weeks next prior . to the flrst publicatian 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 notices and advertisements with the meaning of the laws of the, State of Colorado. Th9t the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published - `- " ,:, ' ' in the regular and entire issue of every number of said weekly �b{�C 1'10�C9�..�:�.�..` RF:Sparavie I.ot�lit: (i�neeil Subm== newspaper for the period of 1 consecutive. insertions; and .;� - 2 - ': that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said 'NO�I�g18��REBY(�I�Ntlut�p�" i 1ie:bwiat.will'be�(d 6rliea•tlu P'iticin.: � :`:Caunt�Ho�rd dOcnnfy Cominni�fmai oo-; newspaper dated November 26 p.D., 19 81 and that Ma�d�ur;D�bR_26.1b1at�Q:001�[in ,. Mou the last publication of said notice was in t he issue o f sai d news- ��Q°°°�0°��in t6s_' .Pitiun CaunlY.Oa+�tbouM.dA8'.$..M a i n.,.i ; y ^ A�peti to odrida':f�(7�nu�ilBdLeoi�[m:';� + PaPer dated A.D., 19� �`p,ri�� ,��l�oaie d . � � `euC of A�n.wd ew of�ii�h pfiim. � ,��w tIu Mau�n V�11�y 8u6di Qj i �,�� :'•11'er;�e{atarmatioa.amtad t6�P1an- k N��/��2'l�/ / ��GTf/L ';�i�8°°.1808(7a1�A�p�+��6-2020, ert'128. �.. ...�.,,._.,, .. :,. BabChild : :� C6aamnn.8o�ed,of�o.u�y C000m�da°'en. � Publi�Mdinth6As,pin�o3�lud'Nwambsi'h Subscri6ed and sworn to hetore me,.a notary public in and for i: 28.198L'• • the County of Pitkin, State of Colorada, this �,��.L—. day of ' • _" `:. A.D., 19� -._. . i � � Notary Public My commission expires r. u;;�,=-_ s: . i '�