The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutbocc.min.reg.12091985 i _ __.... - "A: ` - ,�.��:3; ,� +-'�{-�� s_�7t. ;:_, _ +�.i r�1.'R'" �:�. 8 Y� ""r'--, -� i Y 'i " �� .C,�� . 31��f �.}s'_ . -' ..� I� ��,4r� � . : r� '�� ' _. �:�,:,. _ .� . .��4-_ . . - HOARD 01� COUHTY OONMISSIOHSRS AGBNDA 9 DECBiffiBR, 1985 9:30 �xecutive Session - tiegotiations - Gacy Es�ry, Assistant County Attorney/Ann 9or+man, p[opecey Nanaqer LANO p3B IO:flO a.n. Public tiearing - LUC Ar.:end: AF-SRI Zone Uistrict Amendments - Cindy Kouben, Planning 10:15 Public Nearing ConEinued - t•tilinughby Pondg CMP/Ceneral Submissian/5[�cial P.eview - Cindy ltouben 11:15 1986 Plannin� Offiee Fees - Alan Richman, Planning ADilINIBTRATION 11s30 Couney Hanagec's Report/BOCC Commenes • 12:00 Lunch Dreok ` 1:30 p.m. Publia Coannent 1s�5 Rosolutlons and Conlracts Minutea ; Elam Gravul, Spocial R@vierr Permit Extcnsion - Francis Krizmanich, Planning Rocky Elountain Inatirute SpQClal Revlew - Fra►ncis � '• Krizmanich ; Radstorte llistocic Presc�vaEloo Committce Appoiotment - ; CinJy Nouben � Airpnct Liquor, inc. Ratatl Ltyuor License. Tcaasfoc o! � Ovne�ship - Ki�a Mhitestone, Depury Clock RFT1► Appoi�tment - Tom Islake So]id waste uisposal Fces - Ji�► Adamskt, Asae� Hanage[ Canyon Cablo Licensa Extension - Ga�y Bsary Huntcrc Longboutse Ratioancing/Dain noswortb OEtec to Purchase - Gary �sary tiealth l�su�anca SelectLon - Tom Oken. Ftnranc@ oicector �ov't Finance Ottico�s Associatian CcrtiFicata ot Co�formance - Tom Oken, Finance plcector 2s30 Public Heariaq - Gredig i.ease A9reement - Gacy £sary 2:40 Subdivision/General Improvement nistrict RoadFlaintenance Agreements - Gary Esary 3:OQ Pic„�t Rcadina and set �ub�� [i�arina Amend Airport Rules � Regulations: Co�eccial Aviation - Landing Fees - Dick Atnold 1j13/86 C� 2:30 p.m. , (�irst Readina ano set Pub,,jic Hearina + Adopt Airport Rates and Charges: RenCal 6 Fuel Rates - 16 December, 1985 @ 11:00 a.m. - 3:15 Vetecan's Officer Update - Gacy Peters 3:45 Depart for rnmmunity center =i�. ' 4:00 soint Meetiaa (Fieeting held @ community center) ��';�;;°;`_ Roaring Fork Transit Agency Public Hearing - Bruce Abel r;;` 1985 Supplemental Appropriation '�-'-�� 1986 Budget Review �:;:., �`.'' S:00 Public Hearing - ([4eeting held @ Roaring Fock Rooml - � Lynn Dunlop, Budget Analyst ��;.: Federal Revenue Sharing Funds Pcoposed Use •�-'y-' 1ST Reading: Adopt 1986 Pitco Budget ��: 15T Reading: Appropriate 1986 Pitco Budget ��$ . •-A: � t�r- �-�,,,, ;e-, a ''�JFk�� F - �'"° r� Yk - . �.... .:<'��?`�.�:.��'��C�'�a,-' .-.:ttu+.�.w�::�.. _+rr�.. . PITItIN COUtiTY : B01�RD OF pOMMIS8I0qBR3 $F:�'i1lLAt2 ft�F.'PiMf: 9 tIRCEHRRR. 19$5 PRESENTs THOINS !lLAKE, fIEL�1i KLANDF.RUD, CBDRGE f1AASEFf� RODERT RRI1UDfS Public Thc Roard convcnod a public heariny to roneidetr on aeeond 11oar[ng: roadinq a �roNoned �r►enc4aent to the t.and Uee Code coec@rning tho LUC AF-SRi 2one 9istcict. Plonner Cindy Iloubcn aubmltECd to !h� 1lmend rocord the plannin OEEice �+mm� oE 9 Daco�abtr, 1985, oncl thc Lnnd AP-SKt llao Code aa amon�ed co date. llouben lntroduced a coaolutlon Zone amendiog tho Pttkin Counly t.anci Uae Codee, Section 3-1.12(ctl�l Diatrict ond Section 3-1.12(eJ, che AF-SKI Zona pistrtct Regulationa, !or Einal readinry ��proval. The araendne�t waa in►tiated by Planoing OfEtca aeafE in t►n eE[ort to ciarify tho intent ot tha aubjoct zonet spocifically, thes procase to bo followeA for amenslments to master plana approvad pucauant to che nistrict was identt�icrd. aa were tho ceviev criterin tar uooe which vere allowed l�y Eu�thac rnviaw. Tha �ubjcct ptstcict MAB creA�e� ia t�ecc�bar of lASt yeac to allorr !oc thc eomprahansiva devalapnent af ukl arena an a lon� tecm baais withtn the cpntext o� A �as�or plaar skt areao wara pceviously subjoce to s�ecial rvvtew far evecy aingle improvoment a cac�uiremont vt�ich was� npt only onc[aus but pcecluded ovecall . - glanning foc ski area develoExne�t. Tha First amandment pco�uod vauld specifica2ly indicate thac �ucther reviev uses must 'dlroctly" support the operatian of a ski arca und that kheir 3mpacts can be niti9atedt tbe applicant must co�clusively _ demo�strate during master plan reviev that impact mitigatioo can occuc, and mitigation conpliance raust he der�onstrated in a detailed technical fashion ducing the Purkher review stage. Tha Section, as amended, vas as fallows: 'Section 3-1.12(cll3llc) : - Activities which are allowed by 'further review• ase those uses vhich directly suQpoct the operation of the ski area and bave significant environnental and service-related impacts which can be nitigated. The applicant shall be required at the naster Plan stage to conclusively 3emonstrate that these impacts can be mitl4ated tbrough _- identification of aethods and techniques to be used for mitigation. Detailed technical compliance in accordance . with the nethods and techniques to be used for - mitigation of imoacts, inentified at the Ftaster Plan - stage, shall be shown during the "f urther review" - ' stage. This "further review" category may also include -_ � activiiies contemplated by this zoning resolution to be ;� s '�' approved uses but on which the applicant cannot or has �,_- :.,::: ' not supplied sufficient detail at the master plan stage �" �":r to enable the County to designate them as approved �:r•_:'� .• uses. Such uses must meet the tests specified in this �� :'; Commissioner's Meeting 9 December, 1985 - 1 -.<��.F~1 �},�>.ri�r.l r�� q '"�<Lry�y`u., �� ':.}.:::+�:. , __.____ — �.�.._ ..��..e._ ______, - � -x:. ,� , �,��r, y:.y� ;� ;� . � � ... > ' � _.�y �� h. '..: '• `y.&� `� � �«j�.`'1�� ' �. .�Z�� .. �t��ax-aa..�.p... "� �y;.,_�„ ,��_ t . sec:ion for "further review" classificaCion. The proceducal and substantive reguirements of "further review" shall be as specified in 5ection 3-1.12(b)(31 Thp second and final arendment ��topo;,ed, ahich would add a nev subsection, was qenerally intended to addre�s the anendment ptocess. It was indicated, for instance, that raaster plans, as apptoved by the r3oard, constituted the deve2opment rec�ulations foc the �ki acea; substantial ar.�endnents to the �na�ter plan would neressitate a nea aoplfcation wheraa$ minor amendr.►ents could br approved by Che Planntng oirector. The aa�end�enC proaeduce wau identicel to that cequired of special ceview pe[mits. itouben r�comnrndrd approval oE thh resolution ac� submittcd. Blake then opened che hc�ring Eor public comment; there b�ing none, the h�arinq wau clo�ed, tlraudis ;�oved to apprcrve ehe regolutlon on Einal rendinq, Klanderud seronded and the no�lon r►asscd unanimonsly. Public Thc noacd continued eho pubilr henriny on the Hilloughby ileartnr) Ponda Eataeea, a li@trv Area Rentcleotial GMP. �enecal submiaaion Con'e: and 1041 ap�ctal reviev applfca!lon. f'incly Itouben aub�nir[ed to Nllqbby tho record thQ Plan��ing AEElce M¢�ao of 9 iwcember, 19A5, and the Aondg La�d Uoe Code aa amencled �o datQ. The appllcant hAe �equeated C,b�P n�prAVal �or an oight �8) !ot subdivlsion an � sixteen and one quareec t16.25) acre parrol oE land lor�ted betwecn Nilloughby t�tay ancl Rod Nountain Road. Irouben ex�lained that loday's heortng waa continued itom rhQ 2� !�ov��ber �aeetinq to allow for a aite loa�eceion of tho aubjvet �roportyt cho inepection waa lneended � to provlda foc r► revisw of the height of ehe eiryht i81 proposed builcitnga specifically to addreua the visual imparts of tho propoaod clevelopmene a� acljaeant p�opoctiea and righta-ot-way. Houbcn note�l that tbo hoigbt oE tho proposad 6uilding� was the only unreaolvod isauo assaci�eed with the applica�ion, and spcclEtcally, �ha Plartrtin9 Comnisssian reeoma+endation that tha heights oE sone af tho builcf�ngA be limited. That recommendation wAS aa followu: 1, no bullding oc high intensity rrcrontianal use �bAll be allcn+od out�ide the uesignatod building anvelopes othec � thon the proposed coramon tennis oeurk and c�AZebo, aa p�oposed at genaral aubmission. In addition, a covenaot reutricting the cutting oi trees outside the dasignated bui��ing envelopes shall be submitted at detailed subc+isaion and �eviewed by the Cor.ulission 2. the trail easement shall he pcope�ly located on the • detailed submission map showing the existing footpath dicectlY soukh pf the lower pond as khe easerrent to be dedicated to the County 3. the heights of the hoaes on Lots Five (5) and six (6) shall be specifically determined at detailed submission i af ter appcop�iate studies have been finalized. These = . j lots shall be limited with regacd to height as vieHed ! €rom willoughby taay by transit heights and vertical s-, i angle, to be oetermined on the basis that these homes ; � not intrude on the view of Aspen Hountain "'�� 4. the height of the building on Lot Eight (8) shall be no .=�-a-'� gceater than twenty-six (26) feet as measured from the � top of the roof �r_-S^?;� 5. the allowable floor area of the home to be built on Lot 'F Four (4) shall be no gzeater than twelve thousand � f � (12,UUU) sguare feet � �;' ��"°. �-:�. �=`=a Commissioner's Meeting 9 December� 2985 - 2 Y�� :;,- "�;.��`r.. __ .�r�...._. _ _ ..�Y . - .x. F. . .._,a�b ��.�� wir��R�A .n�l��'.:��. •a-�t�' �'�.'t.a.-ar`-asv� . , �-"! .,:?� v, s.: + �+.: - .. .., . �R i�p+�11 6. the applicant sliall provide the following infornation at detailed submissfon: a. adequate testrictions concerning the drainage foc 4ot Seven f7) b, concurrence Mith the tequeats made by the agencies t0gardinq aatec and sewer line �asements c, the applicant shall conmi[ to either � tieed Control Progran or joininq any future F7eed Conttol District foc the area d. a� drtailed l�nduc�ping plan shall be subrt�itt�d � Nh�CIt includ�a a ceveqet�tion plan Enr the ncopo�ed dtiverray� �nd impacted slopes e, derailed driveWay �nd road Cut denigns shall b� � , submittcd f, ehece shall be �o tennia court$ loroted on ehe indtvidual loes. 'Che �coposed comG+on tennis eouct ahall bce prohib�ted fcan night tin:e lighEing. Theae hcovtsiona ahall be in the Eor� oE rcotrirttvr eovenanta q. building �aaecriala Eoc the ronEa of the housa8 within Ehcr su�dlvieion ahall be roocrtated by covananE Eron being cons�ruce@d vith highly reEloctive marerialo Tho eite inapectlon va� accouE�liahed on 3 Oeceu�ber, and [eaulEQd in the Eollowing amended coe�itions by Planninq OEEice staEl: 1. No buildinc�s ahall be a1loMed outsicle oF tbe doatgnated buil�tinry vnvelopes ochec cha� tbe pcopoacd commor� tennis eourt anci gazeba, as propossed at gvhQral eubmisstoe. Only Fnsstve recreational acttvicies euch as walkinc� and ptcnlrkin9 shall bc allcn+ed ouEside o[ the bui,ldinq anvelopee. Absolutely no Acllve recreAtional uaos (auGh �a volleyball or basketball) shall bo ailawocl autside af the building anvelopes. In . Addilion, a covena�t restcicting the cutting af troea - _ outslde of tho clesiynatad building envelopee eba11 �a � subtnittacl at detailad guGmisslon and roviowad by tha Ccmmission 3. At the cirae of cletatled sut�mission, tha building - envelopee for Gots Five (5), Six (6), and Bight (8) shall be celocateci such khat no building shall bloak the view of Aspen and shadow Nountains as vieved fcom the willouqhby S�tay public right-of-vay. ('rhis view bas 6eea detecmined to be what is seen fram Willoughby Way at a three (3) degcee vertical angle �[om a five (S) - foot, Eive (S) inch transit heigbk) 4. The elimination of this condition altogether 6. (f� tio tennis courts located on individual lots sball - be located outside of the approved building envelopes. ": ` ~� All tennis rnurts located in the development shall he � prohibited from night time lighting. Fencing and -'•-- screening of the tennis courts shall be limited to ''y �:*' below twent (20) feet in hei ht. These ,:�.�:,;_- y g provisions ��::.�= shall be in the form of restrictive covenants �� .: �s.� �.,; Houben explained that the height limitation was proposed to allow �F.�-=`�:':_,; for compliance with Section 2-16, which provided for the x_.�;z•;;<:. =,;�:_.�_..r.� preservation of the natural apoearance of mountain slopes from `'�,�,y�:-;_-� public roads by regulating the location, height, design and �a•��l `�s��:� Commissioner's Heeting 9 necember, 1985 - 3 �� r��'�� .: .F��y ' •'x:: . �.�� ,�� ,�., � _ �.� y A eS�• � � .� ,..'.��I .� . �y-y �i, . �..r .�s )�� .._k• ._ . '.�Si�t�'.. +�_ l.° — L�;�t .1.? �I"�.1 . . ..e . ..a'y.,, ..__ .._ . .,...�-.�-..,i,...-+>-..a . 4s=.:.s.._:..:i'... �SC�'/^'�'�y..`z .. screening of development; in this instance, the vieW of both Aspen ;tountain and Shadow Mountain from the subject area could be affected by the development proposed. In addition, Section 5-501.4!b)(S) required that building sites be placed in such a Way as to protect scenic views. The apQlication Kas not found to comply With either of these policies in the abse»ce of a height lir.+ftation, and it Was on this basis that the Planning Conmission ceeonmendation was nade. 1[ouben ceco,raaended approval subject to the six {61 con�iitions of the Planning UEfice as amended above. rideon Kauf�an, on attorney repreapnting thp epplicant, explained that the applicant t►as alreaciy nade a number of conces�ion� by voluntarily eeJucinh ehe density oE the develo�:?ent. Thp $even (71 rteN unica propoged, for ingCanCe. re�rcaented a sixty-�rven nercent (67�1 density reduction (thc hcapecty W5v zonea fnc tWenty-three t23) units), a reduction whirh w�s achteved to pch�crve the vi�ual and scenic quality of tt►e sfubj�ct acea. KauEm�n twted khat arenir corridoc!s within the Gounep have bcun decfrynatrd ancf adnpted, and that the aubject pe�Perty kaa nor � ic:�nti�I�d. rhe heighe limieatton propueed by �hQ Plannin� Cor,+miu�ton ka�s intended tv �cotert the vtev Ecom the Ntlloor�hby Nay uublt� rinht-of-vay oniys althouc�h one thoun�ncl ,r1.QA01 fett oE the uubjrct pro4zerty bordececi on t3111ouqhtiy Way, �he cievrlA}xs+rnc }�cdposed wouir. only bloek one huncircd snd f�f�y tIS91 Eeet oIF ehia area, oc ap�roxinncely one and fouc tontha t1.91 �cr�ond� ++orth oE thrt vitw. KauEman maintoinocl that the ap�lleatic,r� anmplioJ with th� �renie nuality �oliatea identiEied ►n SQCtia� 2-16, and Ehat the alte plan propoaed was aceually »�eE¢rablQt thQ ci�veia�e+e�r oE � ce�ldentigl ntcuctuce with thQ allovsbla PAR, iE 1«+ltc�i eo one (11 DtACV innread, vouid utilize n rnueh gco��ec �or€1an of oaah lot and would cesult in more of a "eanyan vali' affeat. lc�uFinao �oneluded by nating that a height 1lmilation has nevor bQi�re becrn irnpoaed o� a etructur� locatad oucsido of a designatoci oeenic corrido[, snd he �ec�ueated thAt ic noc ba tr..poscci in Ehis inslance. �Tim �u�ti6, a pcivace plAnner also raprasxen�ing the applicans, axplained that thv applicatian pcovidvd Ear a naiac ceduetion in xo�ad dan�itys �t�a Aubject praperty waa zonad for tuoncy-chrec (23) uni�u at thia tima, tba applicant ariginally proposod a twalve (121 ur�it elevclap�+enc, vhereaa th@ applicatian gubmit�vd fat Isoard revie�+ anly provided for a tokal oF elght te) unitQ. seven (�1 of which were nev. The twalve t12y units originally reyuasted woul�l h�ve cesulted in a fifty percent (50t) reauetion in clensity. Curkis :,cated that the applicant has agccsed co linit the heighc af chc structuce on Got �ight (8) to twenty- six (26) Peet at the tap oi the roof, and to limit its FAR to nine khausand (4,�U�1 squace feet. 2he applicant also voluntacily ceduead [he FAR on 4ot Fouc (4) to a naximum of twelve thousand (12.00�) square feet. tirith zespect to Lot Seven t7) , the applicant agreed to relocate the twildit�g envelope by twenty (20) feet dovn into a gulley area instead of on s highec plateau; the visibilicy of the structure vould be �educed as a result of this action. Curtis explained that tvo (2} proposals vece made ducing the sice inspection as follows: a. the height oY the builaings to be 2ocated on Lots Fout (4I and Eight (8), and on the unper portion of Lots � - Five (5) ana Six f6}, would be limited to twenty-eight (28) feet at the toQ of the cooE b, the height of the buildings to be located on Lot Eight - (8), and on the upper portions of Lots Five (5) and Six (6?, would be limired to twenty-six i261 feet at the top of the roof. The development of Lot Fouc (4) was ''s-.' not felt to cesult in critical visual impacts in this .x:-=-. -' instance given an existing becm located along - Willoughby 4ray '""' � ` Curtis stated that the applicant woulo agree to either o€ the �3`«`� K��r Commissioner's Heeting 9 nece�ber, 1985 - 4 .�,. ;��t.;:<.: _;$�"'�" , �5:: •�-'- ___.,�.._��__ .. __ �� a::� *., .� �.; ��-��' �� ;# �i; *;_. . , ._ , (y� �` .�Ip .�:' ��9PL x�` --�!° .P�`Yt � F.��hXr ��l'F..s- -°�' k" '�'�` .ii,i.wai... s�it�'�':�.akkan+:Y�.,.a .-. *'�..+.�...=c'_ f. _ L . � above linitations, and that the heiahts would be tes�ricted by protective covenant. Fie noteci that a structure twenty�ei9ht (28) feet in height would not e;cceed the tree line as vieved fcon both the Cronin residence and the Cronin lot split, in Which case etthec a taeaty-six 126) ot twenty-eight (28) foot height 1;.�.i.ac�on would accomnodate Lhe.entire Cronin property. Curtis suygeated that thc heiqht isaue be reviewed Within the con[ext oE scenic viesas Eron tJillouahby Saay and the ptstential for Che "canyorr s+all" effect; this rnoditinn would be exacrrbated ra:.hec than alleviated, in the event � one ti) story structuce N�s rtc�uircd on �ny oE thc lot�, mhe appl#cant eonpared three (31 difEerent typ�s of cesidhntial units in sn �LforC to assesn vigual and aeseh�tiC imtaaces, i�cliiding e one fi) gtory building with a pit�hed roof, a two (21 story buildinh with a �lat rooE, �nd � two (21 ::tory buildinq xlth a pitched cbof; the heightc of thesr thrre (3) types oE �erurtuces Nvu1d �ppcoxiMat�, rennectively, between eighteen {lR1 and twQnCy t20? fcet, twenty- one t71) and tueney-�hrQe t7.3). and eNanty-�evQn (27) and thicty 1101 feet. tdith respect tn the "canyan w�ll" eE[e�t, the drvalo�ment oE a lot vlth a r+aximum F'Alt o£ nine thousand and nixty �9,�6A} �s�u�re feet woulcf providr for tbe Eollauing buildtnry fao�prints: a one f11 �tory regidenro built to thc maxtnum PAR woulcl rrsuit in a building foot,�rtnt of one hundred and five 11�y) by ei�hcy-aix (AGt Eeet, whecaaa the sane FAR built wltriin a tWU i21 stocy buticJinry woula provicie for a Eootprin� nf uevc�n�y-Eive i751 by �ixty-one ��t? fcet. Curtia ex�lalned that iho buildinry nans wae aiqniEleantly reduced In a ewo (2) atory ntrueturot aa a re;sutc, the viaual im�cta of s two (?.) stocy buildinry would be olgntEial�tly retlueed. Curtta cx�l�ined that ct�e ap�ilcont vould commiE to the Eollowinc�: n. ceduce tho aize of che butldtng emelopea on [.otu fbur (41 and �ighc (E}, the anly tvo {21 lota that could affece �hc �ievpiane fron s�illaughby �tay, by trrenty I20) Pcetr Ghlw vould reaulc Ln an additional oiyhty (80) sryuare feet of a�cn apt�ce botween the !wo (2) lots, Thc aE�plic�nt wouid alsa ayree to extond an cxlsting bQrm alpng cha wi22ooryhby FIAy �roperty 2ine in _ _ • thc vve�t cherc wcrc addiEio�al cancer�s with visual impact$ b. ralocate tha building enaelope on Lot Seven (7) do++n inta n gulle!• area by taenty t20) Eeets this action would provide for an elevation reduction of twenty-five �25) �eet, and Nou2d, as a resu�t, eliminate all visua2 impacts Bill Poss, an architect repcesenting the applicant, explained that a tasnty-eight (28) foot height limit would leod greater vita2ity to the design of the residences, Further ceductions fn this height rrould result in wider bui2dings without any pitch or ingenuity in design, so that a21 of them woald . appear identical i� style. Poss explained that the Code height limitation of twenty-eight (28) feet was an average betweea the eave and ridge heights; the eave could not exceed a height of twenty-eight (28) Eeet whereas the ridge of the structure could ' not exceed a height of thirty-three (33? feei. !!e aoted that a - � maximum top of roof height of twenty-eight (28) feet, as agreed to by the applicant, would not adversely affect the viewplane ' :" from the Cronin propetty, ��;�- -. - Blake then opened the hearing for public comment, Hecb .�; '.-,: Klein, an attorney representing adjacent property owner Jack =.�,::��-,.• . Cronin, expressed concetn with Lots Three (3), Five (5) and Six �•;�=;.:-;;=�. (6); the topography of these three (3) lots was varied and each -�:s=;�,'s�: consisted of both an upper and lower plateau. There was a twenty ,'��t�-�<-:%� (20) foot separation in vertical slopes on each of these lots; as �-,�• a�.�•? ^t.' ' Y�'�'L �"�+'%�-` Commissioner's tieeting 9 December, 1985 - 5 `'�'�� .:�-�' .._.._.__ ...... .. ..,_, WlWwiiM11- . . M'YI a�.-..,,.•m.-..-,-n..-..�.--_...,m. _._... ' �-�: �!�'i' 'r-!t ° y S 1--� ��'y� -`J'� y i,r_ sL�i�aE ° _ Y3 i�� -° a sf., k�.�t+'Si 1"'� `s . � . . _,: 4= , T= _fw-� '��c�-f�ini..s.;.i-�KVFitrar�,:+. �G ."�{,�+yu. ��_ .��. ai;, . a [�sult, there was concern that the height limitation proposed may not addcess the visual inpacts of these residenee�. [(e suggested that the F3oard establish view corridors far the entire p[operty in an effort to resolve thfs issue. With respect to Lots Pive (Sy and 5ix {6) , Klein noted that the Planning Cor.uaission atte�pted .o establfsh a height limitation in an effort pre�e[ve the sce:►ic vieNplane; the applicant has only agceed, ho�ever, to a [Wenty-six (26) foot hefgh� linit for these two (?) loCS, an amount which Nas not consideced cuEficient. Pinaily, Klein noted that thc vi�ual inpacts of the developnent on the Cconin propetty t+ere detec�ined on the bacis of the �xisting ldcation of the Cronin residcnce. This reside�ce was situated �t the very back nf thp Crahin propercy� IIONAVCC, approxinately ten (10) feet from thc rear �roperty linet in the event the Cto»in re�ldcACe a5r. ever recun��cuet�d, ies builc3ing envel�pr wooid mogt licrly be ndv�d dot+n the slone in qceater proxi;+lty to the t�tillduqhby Pondc prnperty, 1n which ca�e the height liniE� pcopuned Would not �chicvc visual i:��x�rt tiitigacion. Curtt� expiained that Lotn Four (d1, Fivr (S), Six (h� and Eight (tli wece thc only lo[s wich [hr not�ncial for vigual Ltti(7SGtII{ apecifically, all oE totn Four C41 and �ic�ht (A), and only the unpor porrinna oE Lotc Five (51 and 31x (61, were ehe subject df concern. The a��}�1lc�nt hac as�r�e� to relacate the �uilding envelope an Lnc sevr.n (71 �o ag to e!linlnate any inp,�clo eanaclated wit#� it� ri�velo�rnc. Al�ke nuggca�ecl that tha Eollouinc� .limitationa be ap��lied: a, that a twenty-ttiqht (�81 �oot top oE r�of helc�he limit be cutabliahccl Ear Loc Pnur (A) b, that a cucnty-six (z6f Eooc co� oE raof height limit be eseablisheci Eor i,ota Fivc (5), Six (6) and F.ight (8) c, thac che appliennt ' s aor-+r-.iGC+enc to relocate the Guildlnq envelopo an l.ot Sevon (7I da�+n che slopa into a gulley ACQA� for n reducEion of tventy-ftve (2S1 feet in alevatian, be cequiced a3 a eandition of appcoval. A h�ight limitatian foc thiA lot vas npt con�idc�ad necessary as a result af ita reloeaGlon ' d. that an aighky (80) �quare foot ope� space cocridoc be e�tAblished betwecn locs Four (A) and Eight (8? a3 proposed by tha �pplicant The soard genecally agreQd thac the restrictions recitea abova v�ulc3 adequately serve to nitigate tbe visual impacts ot the developc�ent on adjacent properties and puhlic rigbts-of-vay. ttouben felt tha�, a�though the cestrictions pcoposed would serve to mitigace some of the visual i�Racts assaciated with the pcaject, the development of tbe eight (e) lots as restricted would scill result in somewhat of a 'canyon wall' effect. She noted that the 6oard was autho[ized to relocate qr eliminate a pcoposed builciing envelope, as well as impose height lic�itatiflns, i� an effork to achieve policy compliance; further �estrictions • cauld be imposed, for instance, in the event fucther visual - impact mitigation was considered necessary. ``- -- Klanderud explained that the subject property was an open - meadov acea at this time, so that any development woulu result in visual impacts. The restrictions proposed were felt to adequately _ � , balance the need to protect scenic viewplanes consistent with "`'"� �� Code policies with the need to provide for a quality project that , : was conpatible with existing neighbo�hood uses. Restrictions that s,.,,._.._;.• encouraged the development of the subject property with eight (8) '.a;...=;;��:?'! large, single story, flat roof structures would not achieve =�":"�"-�_� visual impact mitigation; rather, this type of development, while �`"�"j perhaps preservin scenic view lanes to a greater extent, could �, ,;ti. 9 P ,��: �^��'� Commissioner's t4eeting 9 Dece�ber, 1985 - 6 :�j:•,��• � �,�!,1;'�:'�.',`� ,.A._ t ak�. 1• . '. .''.- 4q��_,'Zty 'YY'^i� 't.F :ii 1 � i� " .�_, c5+ ',.,2��'f`� 3 � � , . _ * l31� . .. _: . # a� Y-�,�ie^�"_�,.-1�� F7r � { jT�� . . ,.... - � �'E�'�•.�+r-.::._ .. +� �.n+tiie+�i.4�.i.'1-.:��:... ..._:�' �w...-sF+....E v�r result in gceater adverse visu�l impacts on the neighborhood. Itouben explained that the only other unresolved issue concerned the ability of the individual lot ortners to constcuct private tennis coucts. The Planninq Co;�nission appcoved a comaon tennis court within the subject subdivision on the basis that private caurts wou2d be precluded; this [estriction Was latec opposed by the arplicant. The Planning Office reconnended that private courts be alloo�ed, bu: only if constcucted within the individual bufldinq envelopes. Tennis courts W�re not deducted from the F'AR of a lot, although their location withln the buildirc} envelope aould limit the amount af build�ble area aviilable for cach te�idence. Tennis courta v+�re generally bnilt � at a height oE betvCen twrl�e (121 and taenty (20) fpet, and nihht titne lighcing aould be rrecluded� so Chat no adverne visual imt�c<s werr �nticipated. Klandcrud rec�ueuted that ail priva[e caurts br constCUCted c�n a 3peelEic pnrtion eE ti�� builctinq envelopes so tha[ they unula noC bc vigible fco;.� put�lic ciqhts-of-uay. pon� rxplained �hat six thouaand (f,,qAO) �squac� Eect oE apnre w5� neceaaary foc o �ennis coucts nnat oE [he subiec� lota roul�i nc�t accor:++odate a Eactlity c+E thfa a/zQ, i� which coae thetr l�caeton wiet�►n thct txtlldir.rJ envelopess wao not felt to be a vissual eencarn. Klein nbtcd th�r EN� landarataing to bc lm��lenented on the aubject iicoqecty wnu alao a ranrarnt 1C w�a �ot felt thot veryetatton ahould bo aliowed thae JOU1G block tho acenic vlewa [com Ehe �ronin �Sropc.rty, and it vsa augge�ted thar the height o£ �hc vegetation be limited as well. . Nouben explainec3 that tbe lnnciseaE>ing plan vould be roviewad at detaileci �uUr.+i:,stont the type and height of vegetation to be inplenenecd on the aubjece pCOPCCt�I ohould bc asaessed at that � time. haufman oxpcessad sone concern with thc Planning Commiasion racama�enAation chat prceladed builciina anci high intensity usan au�sida of thc individunl building c�vvlopoar chie condicion vas falt ta bo very restriative. tiauben expls�ined that thc Co�miasion _ ` desiced �a prea�rve tha open space a[eas in their natu�al state; to acl�iovo this 9oa1, it wa� ceco;a�ended thac conservation oasements be obtained and that t�ee cutting ba prohibited. The open space arcas contained uonds, a number of large trees, and othect�, all of ++hico Provided viable small game habitat, and it was noC Eelt that tbese areas shonld be cleared far �ecreational purposes. Kaufman noted that cree cutting was already prohibited, in tbe absence of a pe�mit, pursuant to Section 3-8.7 of che Code. Qn this basis, it wa� considered redundant to require, as a condition o£ approval, a covenant �estricting the cutting of trees, Kaufman suggested an amendment to the condition to indicate that permanent structures that cequired a building �- pe�r�it were p�ohibited within the open space areas. tle also - expressed ,o�ae concern with the condition thai precluded the use - of highly reflective roof materials; certain materials, for instance, such as copper, xould tarnish with age and should be - a2lowed. " - The Board generally agreed to delete the refecence to the ��:::�`ic type of recreational activities that would be allowed within the �=�`'-= �- open space area, and to retain the requirement for a covenant �`� z - prohibiting tree cutting outside of the designated building �='~'-�•- � envelo es. Section 3-8.7 was felt to genecally address the clear �,r,z=,:c,::: P �.u::,;::,., cutting of trees rather than private subdivision clearance, and '�'"' '�' on this basis the covenant was considered necessary. The Board �'__`:?i also agreed to amend the conditions of approval to allow for s,� �a��;; ��"�''f'°�' Commissioner's lteeting 9 Decenber, 1985 - 7 �=i�;� �{`-'�='�;^ ti'�j�� -;�:�•`''r`i.; I .. � .. _._._ ,.. .._.._._._ ... .. ._. _._._. .__ -�IYi�MYw:rri�rwrr� • `,�. - - "i 38- y f , 4. '�',� �� ,� '1 �.#..�� .�•.� �� q y, _...:.�.t�r�,�Y`.�3'/�.z.,46.:dd1Ea�'....:�aa4.... ..:._ _:::Y' "t . � �wEi:"c't',• �l n` � i.a� .. �v � netal roof natecia2s that would tarnfsh over a period of tine. Blake then asked for additional cot�aaents; there being none, tAe hearinq r+as closed, Nadsen moved to approve the application subject to the six (6) conditions of the Plannfng Conroission as amended below: 1. No buildings shall be alloved outsidc nf the dessignated buildinq envelopes other thxn the proposed cotr.�on tennis aourt and g�zeb�,, as proposed at g�neral aubmiasivn, in addition, a Cove�ant restricting the cutting oE trces auteidQ of the designatrd buildirtg pnvciapeg shali bp submirted at dEtailEd submigsinn � �nd cevi�wcd by rhe pitkin County Planning Commission and Uoocd t,f Cnunty Conmi�sionecg , 3. the hciyht uf che hone on Lnt Eigh� (B) shall be limited to rweney-six (261 frer to the ttip of the roof. 'Che height oE the hone on L�r Fouc (4) gha1L be limtred Eo :wenty-elnc� (Z9) fe¢E ea tNe top of rhe coof. The h�ight of the hame� nn t.occ Five (51 and Six (61 nh�ll be ]l�aitQd Go twenty-six t2t) frre to the top of the rooE on thn upprc rlevacton oE each la�. The racth llne aE the but2cing QnvQinpo on Loe SQVOn (7) ahall be celocaeed twaniy �201 Eeet aouth of the locatton ahown on Cho general aubmisaion appiicotion. Chercby ahiEring ehe antire building e�vhlope ocea nouthwarcl by twoney (201 Eee� 4. there aha11 bc 3n eigbcy (80) Eooc dlneance belweQn �he buildtng onverlopea OD Lots Four (41 and Eight (B) 6. E. No tennia cou�ta locatcd an in�ltvtdual lota sholl bo locaeed oucRido of the approvod bulldtng ernvolopes, A11 te�nis aoucts located in tha dcvalo�aQnt aha12 be p�ohtbltecl from night tta+c lighking Penai�g and scrae�iog oE the tennis courts shall t�a iimilcci to belov two�ty {20) Ceat in helght. Thesc praviAions cshall ba ln the Eo�m o@ �cst[icttva eovcnants • g. bulldins� aacerials far the caoFs of houses within tha sut,►divisio� shall be tescricted by covcrna�t:t Irom ueing constiucted with highly roflecttvv c�acerialx; providod, howeve�, that motal roofs of a type thaG vill tar�ish vith a9e c�ay be alloved and subject to the fallovin9 addiiional condikions: 6. h, the detailed submictal shall represent that � pdyr�ent of twenty-f ive thousand, f ive hundCed and fifceen dollacs ($z5,715) per home site shall be made for employes housing at the tiQe oF issuance of the building pe[mit for const�uction of a new residential dwe2ling unit on each lot. This amount . shall be adjusted to the low-incorae casb-in-lieu 9uidelines of che Aspen-Pitkin County Housing - Authority in effect at the time of payr�ent , :'::� - i. a note on the detailed plat map shall state that � no further developnent shall be allowed on the parcel '-'��'z''"'=_.-=- :--._-=- - Braudis seconded and the notion passed unanimously. Cy:S-.. �y. ._ - ; �:, ' �� fat.�.�'�'�. `�� ..� ,. s: 1986 Planning Director Alan Richman incroduced a resolution �``��;._:. Planning reestablishing a fee structu�e foc the processing of land use �►'�.:f ��' Commissioner's 6leeting 9 December, 1985 - 8 �,,, ��ya �4' �'��'Z:..!+2:'_r<:�Y� . � �-x: � � � < .��A �. s� - � ,: r >-.:. . F.,:. . .. :a-,«.`thas s.�-�:�.a�.r `��.. �..i�,s+:: . .at;.... '� .sz.ts '��rs.�.i+�wsa��r�i F��:��" . � Office applications. The soard revieaed the land use application fee Fe�s structure on an annuai �a:,E� to ensure that the OEfice generated sufffcient cevennes to ofEset i[s expenditares, and the fees aete established accordinqly. The resolution submi[ted foc Board review today woald establish aIl of the Planning Office fees foc the year 1986, all oE ahich Nere slightly reduced fcom the 1985 level, as well as establish a new fee for the reEerral agencies within the Enviconmental Qualfty �ectio». The tt+o (2) SeparaCe teEerral fees proposed, Eor efther aihor or majoc re�erral revfeW, werc ffEty do2lar� (550) and one hundced and twenty-:ive (S125), cespectively, and were ba�ed on an average ceEerral co�t of tw�nty-Eive dollars ;52S) �scr hour. The referral fecu uould only be assesned foc tMc Environ;�ental ltealth, �ngintering and ilousing b�p�rt;nen[a, �s aell as the �nvironmental Coo[dinator, + �nd aould noL be subjrct to eit8er additianal bf211nqa oi tefund�, ftichman recommended ap��roval df Cbe regolu[lon au submitted. ` nr�udls auggeaced rhac thc ccferral fe� be �naeused to on a�nlicSnc ba�ed on the hourly ratet � �rparate billing Eor ehe reEerral ahen�ies basEd on 4he smount oE eime actually incurred in thr rrviev aE an app2ica�Eon HoulB provide Eor a �aore acruratQ aaneeamene. RLcNnan ex�l�inQd that an hdurly billinc� systera waa not ��copoced due to the a�ount oE atafE ti�e that uould be requirrct co implr:�en� and mo�itor ssuch a sryotemj a strict houcly bflling ssya�e:� vould cequirr :� �iliing to the pianning OEEIco fraa carh referral, anrl anochar l��311ng Erom tho OlEico to �ach a��ltrant. This type aE ssyntQr, would reguire a elyniEicant araount oE atoEE tin4, a�ct could not be juatiEied on thia bassia. tlraudiss notecl th�� a �ingltt reFercal agenry coul� apond a nubacontial aa�aunt oF �lmo, �nd, ou a reaule, in�ur o aubaeaneial coet, ln revieuinq an a�plientia�. The fees Hrofianed by the Ot�ico wnuld not. Eor tnscance, cover thc coQt incurrad for a ten �10) hour revtev. Rtrlu+on ouggcaLed �hat the �ropoaed feea bc irt�Wie�e�ted on a c�ia! basi� Lor tbe nQxt year, aEter whicb thetc eEfoctivene�a uoulcl be ussengecl. �Ie Ealt that a nQparate billing uyaeen co pravide fo� tha �quicable assegament of reFecral cants would rec�utro a sabat�n�lal aciclieianai a�oant af staff ti�e a�d costt. Attorn4y Gideon 1'au�na� pptecl that nany pown Vallcy cesidents, as wcll as scvoral swall project aPplicant�, Found the • Pl�nning QEficc Feaa to be conaiderable. Raufnan felk tha� thQre should bc .,ome provision to allou iar thc puyme�t of the fcca over ao axtendcd period of C3n�e, k�af:�an agreed that an applicant should pay foc tbe revies� of an ayplication by Che ceFerral agencies; he did not �eel, bovever. that an applicant shoula bs required to pay for c�feual or staff review of co�cerns caised by adjacent pXOperty owners or neighbocs, and suggested that this type of review be incur�ed as a public cost and not as a cos� to be assessed to an applicank. Richman explained that reFerral costs wece assessed to an applicant on the basis khat the applicant created the need f oc reEerral review; a� a resulc, it was considered appropriate to . assess all referral costs to an applicant, including those coAcerns raised by adjacent property owners. - - Klanderud noted that the proposed fees were estabiished on an annual basis in an effort to cover the w sc of operating the Office. Tne real issue with respect to cost, however, involved _� the coMplexity of the Land Use Code. Klanderud suggested that - this issue be addressed through simplification, and by establishing more one (1) step reviews to the Planninq Cor.uaission - only. � Richman agreed that certain procedures could be simplified; � a lot split, for instance, was defined as a full subdivision, and ,�,�,�,. _,; the fees in this instartce r�ere identical. The review proce�ure , rt�t� �:: f��: Commissioner's bieeting 9 December, 1985 - 9 ��.a�'�:�.?;,i . 3�'a`�,.', ,:`�:,�s _ �_. . '=!: ��.,� r � ,�`�•�Y,-`",.0 1'' x�` � . �- ��';�5:.+�cst3-.�.,:.�':--. ...�.-� � ...c.. a�-'t'�,a+re�sw+�$'�t��.��ai`ce7s��+�. . necessary for these tr►o (2) types of 8evelopment �,�ere markedly different, however, and the fee strncture shou2d be ar�ended to reflect this. Yaufman also expressed sone concern with the additional billing syste� as it rela[ed to neK staff; a neW planner, for instance, night spend a significantly greater amount of time revieWfnq an application than an experienced staff person, and this nay lead to additional billings, Richtian explatned that the base fces represented an average cost of all Planning OEEice staf: time; as a recult, the effotts of a new planner Were generally not as�esced to an epplieant. In addi[lon, neW planning ut�ff havr be�n instructed not tc� ch�rqe an applicant Eor the tim� spene ahen traininq/learnin� Erotn an applicatton. Thp Affice � w�� xare oE this i�sue and aeter�pted tn adjuut billinqn accordingly. Kianderud gugqegfed thnr the dfficrr acivf�e applicantg oE rhoue instanCCn whQn cosstg have been adjusted due to th� eEEoctg oE new staEE. Klandprud moved en a�prove cNe resolution, Iscaudia eeconded and the motion haaaecl unaninouely. Publ�c Airport Manager �ick Acnold Introduced Ilinton Itarrls. Ilarr[8 Comaent performed a ciown routinc dt thQ Airpore during the past winter acaaon and haa rcqucatod opproval to uae !hc a[rport Eacility ooee oqaln �hia year. Arnold explained tha! he vas inclinod to deny the .rec�ucat on the boals of vinLtor conmenta noeed lact winter. !tarria explained that he va� nponaorad laut year by �he Clty oE Aes�n. Ne rnquealecl an appoctunitN to oae tho airport agair► this sca�on, nott�h that ho uould bo oponaorQd by thc As�on Reaort Associatian ancl supacvisvd by Assocsatia� Dt�cctor Tota Hoinz. Use oC the airport vauld ba liwl�cd ta vcokaaciu anly, and cor�portsatian voulcl be l�httocl co a �ki pasa nad� availablo by kho Aapen Skiing Com�ny. �iarris explalned that chtldren enjoyed the routinv aad that, tn additic+n, it pr4motad thc CGSQ[L. - Kla�derud queotionaci eha eom��ea�ian i&sueJ it was not . - knov�, fo� insEa�ce, whekher com�aeccial litscatucc would po distributed, advercisir�y pravided, oc iF tips werv racotv@d. tiarris explai�cd that corrp�n�aEion was linicad to a ski pass, and thAt all other activities vece pcohibited. Aspen Resost Association Dicector To�+ Heinx explained that he was nat concecaed witb che use of the airp�rt by tlarris as reyuestad. Ile felt strongly, houever, that all tippin9 should be absolutely prahibiced. The noard was generally suppo�tive of the use af the airpoct ter.:�inal by Narcis for khe clown coutine only. provided that it was lirt:ited to weekends duriog the winter season, and provided £urthec that any other activity, including advertising, tipping cor�mercial literature, was prohibited. !]inutes The minutes of 28 October and 22 November, 19B5, were - reviemed and approved as amended, Elam Francis Krizmanich introduced a resolution granting annual , Gravel review approval, extension to Elam Gravel Pit's special review -z;_;� �� Annual permit No. 79-132, and release from the honding requirements for �.;; `- i Review/ the Jaffee Pit. The resolution vas prepared subsequent to the �;_:. . ' ��'�:�Ti � _ ,,.,y, Cor�missioner s [�ieeting 9 �ecember, 1985 10 � ; M _� 3T3� ti: �� +.:tr`-'� "`.':T.:=rti`: , � ��k�- � .�.:* .:�,_._., x _;:��...:;"�'��. '-"°�?':, 'a��E�'�`" _� Special previous regular neeting, at which tine annual review approval Review Was granted. in addition, the bonding requirements foc the Jaffee Extend Pit Were released based on the satisfactory conpletion of the reclamation of that facflity. �inally, the a�plicant was granted a one (1) year extension of the Sand and Gravel Pernit subject to various conditions of cecord. Krizmanich recos�ended approval of the resolution a� subnitted. Klanderud exptessed sone concern with that condition Which required, within six (6► nonths of this approval, that the realignment of the existing entrance road be ronplet�d. it Was not known, Eor instance, what action Would be taken in the event of non-conpltance, riraudis explained that the entire special revieu permit wo�ild be reconsidered in the event of non- conpliance, and that the ope[atibn oE th� facility could, foc ingtanre, be terminated as a renult. t3aclsen request�d thar the applicant revihw thc uge of the benver and Rio Grandc right-nf-way as a pos�ible golution to the aceena is�ue. Ne suggested that the invess�iqation of the use oE this riryh�-oE-wsy, includinry the reuulting public and private rossnu an wall as its 1^pacta, be cequi[ed as a condition oE ap�rovol. 'Che 9�RG tight-oE-wuy co�id pcavlde an alternative acceau roaci Erom tNe Smlch Ftill ar�a to tha qcavel hit aite, and . may secvic en allevistr nany af the nelghborhood lmhacts aaaociated With tbe operoeion oE cho F.lam Eocllity. - Publie S•torka Director nud Eylnr explained that utaE€ was in eho proeeaa oE collecttnh infacmotion on che aubject right-oE- way, lncluding ita ovne�ahip, uac cessertctions, nnd othora. Thia in�ocmaeion woulc3 bo available wtthin the nexG two (2) monthe, an�l would be cavie�+ec1 cancurcently vith eho progresa re�oct to bc provldod by the applicanc on tbe purch�ae oE thn propescty Eor the rcaltgncd ontrance road. xriza�anicb explained thae thu tenoluEion would qrant a one (1) yeac extension to the exiseing Sa�ci and GravQl Pe�mit pur�uant to a motion nNp[a�od ducing tha pcovtoua meeting. 1ie oxpcessoci ao�e conecrn chat an t►dditianal condi�ion ot ap�[oval c+Ay be raquired ae this time, au thc applicant wa� not available to res�ond to thc ccqucst. fie suggestocl chat the f�oard dafar actio� on the cesoiution, until some tine latQr this aFternooa, , to provide the applicAnt Hith an apparEUnity to rQVie+� the odditional eonditian Nropoacd. Madsa� maved co table the resolution until som� tlme later thls aFCernoon. Kla�dcrud secanded and the notio� passed unaniaously. Radstone Plannec Cindy 4louben intcaduced discussion on tvo (2) Histpric vacitncies on the Redstone Itistoric Preservation Cowaission. Pceserve ltembers of the Coerission r+ece required ta reside aithin a Cor.un designated area within the Ccyatal River valley; memher:: Steve App't whipple and Bill Robects receotly noved outside of this area and, as a result, no longer mei this requirement. Interest in the two (2) vacancies was recently solicited and five (5) applications wece received; of those five (5), two (2) could not be considered for appointment as they did not meec the residency requirement. - ( The Coe�mission conducted a meetin9 on 20 !aovember to revierr che qualified applicants, and recor.unende8 that Jean S:nith and William ; t•]orle�• be appointed to the vacancies noted. " _ tiadsen moved to appoint Smith and Dlorley to the Redstone :=:t" ; Historic Preservation Commission for the cemainder of the fihipple - and Roberts terms, Klanderud seconded and the motion passed `=''°` unanimously. :�;��--_ _�;;: _ �'� � . Commissioner's [ieeting 9 December, 1985 - 11 ��: �ti s;; � `-�a:.`�-. �,.�.�. • ,�,. ��,� K x� F�/+ ,.L. 5--• .� iy.. _� .,�.,;� '��'4Y..�r: � � }4 -(�ah � . '� z �� _ y .� � ,t' 4�� it ,�k.. � i z�,�3,�-i � s�� ' .0 f l s y wY A t��';, f�ri i �A� �f ��,y_�.�.�� t �tv'�e Y �� . ��r y� �4. � fn. ._a� . ...-�ey"1:��:!'.l.Jilr�e}w,...��....� -�u ...�..w.w�:itir .!,M�' Y..s . Airport Deputy County Clerk Linda GuStafson introduced a liquor Liquoc: license applicatiotl submitted by Airpott Liquor. The applicant f.icense has tequested a�proval fot the tcansfec of tne lfcense, issued Transfer for the Airport Liquor re:ail liquor store situated irs the Airpoct Ausiness Center, fron 3ts existing sole proprietor to a co[poration. �oWlec P SLone ItI was the existfn9 �ole proprieCOC, whereas the license Woold be tranuEerred Co Airport Liquoc, Inc., 3 corporation consis[ing oE SCOne and Bcverly A Recsc. P.eferral cafiment� �terc generally supportive, and Gustaf�on reconnended approval subjecc to tht cicarancC of thr applicant's fingerprints (bott� Ree�e and 5tone) through thp Coloradc� Bureau oE fnvg�figation. Klanderud movpd Lo ahprnve thc� application au cecocaaspnded above, f'.�dsen ��conded and thg notfr�n passcd unanir�ously. Rnrky Areudi� moved td anprove a reaolutinn hrantinry ahecial Kountain ceview approval co the Ro�Y.y !!ountain tna�ttute. etadeen aeconded tnatltute ond ehe motlon paueed ui�h an abntrntion fcoh hlanclecud, who lndfcaced that nhe did not h�ve uuffielont inEor�a�ion upon whlch eo anaeaa ehe application aa ahe waa una6le to attQnci the public hcesrin� eondueted �uring ehe pcevinua rQ.ryulac :aeeting. RFTA tlraudio noved eo reappoine Eve 1lomayor aa a requlor memboc App'c oE ehe Roarinq Fotk Tre�nutt Agency lioacd oE dlroctors for a threo (3) year ceca. :Iadaon aeconded and �ha motlan psaaQd unanimoualy. Solid Asset !!anagac Jic Ada�ski inEroduced a reaalutton Wasto ia►piQC+enti�g che manciatory Colacado Aolid wasta diaposal Eeos. Center The ColorAdo legislature reconely adoptecl A:► "Ac! Concerning Pooa Haaar�louo Sub�tanacn Sftea. and Pravicli�g a Funclin� �lechantsm Eor the Clea�up of Sites". The legisl�tian would establish a Ilaxacdous Subseancc Repponse Fund to �rovidc a porttan a� tho , estate's share af tbe costa a3aoeiatecl witb the cleanup af • Superfund sites in �olorado; the fund woulc3 �e used s�ecifically tac thase sica� within the skate whece responsible parties did nat exist oc �ct[c unable or un�rillin9 ta fund remedtal action. The [asolu�ion �ub:c�itted for 3oard reviev uould establish nandatocy Peas, to be collected bj all attended solid waske dispa�al sices in the state, khe proceeds f ro:, whieh s�ould be cemic�ed co the Response Fu�d on a quarterly Uasis, The e�fective date of che legislation xould be 1 January, 1986. Adae�ski explained that the Aandato�y fees wou2d be collected as a sepacate �ee, in addicion ko the existin9 cates established for the so2id waste centet. '!'he nandatory fees would assess a cos"t oE five cents (S,OS) per load for non-Ca.:mercial passenger vehicles and ten cents (5.10) per load €or non-cor.ur:ercial tcuck � vehicles, uhereas co�.�e[cial and o�her vehicles rioeld be assessed a eost on the basis of either cubic yaccls oc weight, Adamski explained thac the :�andatory fees would not significantly affect - the average usec. -. Braudis a�oved to approve the resolution, Klanderud seconded - and the motion passed unanimously. :i;.- _;x.;:-'==-_ 7�.3�:— ��__�� 1 -� � Canyon Assiscaut County Attocney Gary Esary introduced a Cable Zv ';�:•,�'••�:�: Cable License Agreement to be entered into between the eoard and lticro- r�: � License Cable Cor.�unications Corporation, d/b/a/ Canyon Cable 2v. The ;��. ,.�� Agree Agreement, first adopted by the Board last year for a one (1) ��..:,.;�'�; year tecm, governed the use of public rights-of-way, roads, �3`�,.,, . ��-:.; � �a�� Commissioner s lleeting 9 December, 1985 - 12 �i::�':� _ . . . . r..., __ � �.�.....�. "i�: *, ; �'�.�� '�;�� -.� . ., ,, ;.. .,< ., ----.',-.'a,a...-<_�s�S_ ��_ .-s-:+J::+a . ...�r._.....��....._-��.*"��5:�_F-�.�`a��ti�!� easenents and other property, by Canyon Cable. The A9reement was adopted as an interi� neasurc pending further analysis of franchisfng fssues o�. fn the a2ternative, a long term license agreenent. A� neithec of those issues have been resolved at this time, anothet one (1) y�ar agree�ent has been proposed. The Agteement submitted foc 3oatd revieW today would alloH foc the use oE certain County properties for another one (1) year period sut�ject to a ttirce thousand dollar (S3,000) annu�l paynent. Caayon Cabie Tt� reptesentattve Y,e21y t3loomer explafned that the uut of Cit� rights-of-taay was governed by a Eranchi�e aqCeenent which pcovicled the City with tWO perceet (2�1 oE g[o3s revenu��; there were approxi:�ately Eivc thoucan8 (5,000) City clientn, anci puresuant to the fcanchise agrec�ent, approximat�ly farty thoutsand dollars (S4A,A(1Q) r+a� re�f:ted ed the Clty last yeac. Thece Wece betwnen onr. tnou�and (1,000) ancl one thougand, f1v� huncircd (1,5001 County citcht�. tllooner noted that thc co�t �f �roviding cablr cervicca va� 9tnecally highec in the Councy due [o lnwer denciC}�. F:cary axplained ttwt thr Public c�tnrks nireatoc wyn satisEled :riCh the perfacnance �f Canyon Cable utaEf and uubrnntractora aa it rrlatcd to nhr uur n£ Coun�y pro�rty. Klandcrucl :noved to authorize thc Chaic to execute thQ Agtee�rnt, ,�raudlu uecwncir�d :�ncl tbe notian i�nsecl u�aninoualy. lloalth Finsnce plrresor Tom Oken inecaduCOd dta4uaalors an the ianuce aelectian of a he�ltb inaurance vendor fo� Councy ancl Roaring Select Qork Trannie �1g�rn�y er�ryloyeca. The Councy hao, Poc the ssu�at ewo and onc half (?.S) yaara, obeained Q;+ployee health inaurancc Eron �traic:e�tal Inaur�nc:c, who annousccd a ffvv �serecot (Sa) proniun toc�eaae foc 1986. Oken exglaine� that clai:�u wece qutte high clurinq the first ynac of Occidctntal scr�trc and EhAt premiva+� ancl doductibles wesro �aiaQCl accocdingly; durin� the Hast eightoen (18) monchss, hoxcvcr, claims have atabllized to tha point tAat the pceniun increa.^,e �nnoaaced aas nct considored juatified. As a rc�ule, conE�ecieive bic�� wcro ao!icieod by �xecutive ScrvLccs, tha County'r insurance bcaKe�: Uicia ve�e solicited fron elevon (il� �oior municipal he�lth insurecs, Five (51 oC which [espanclec�. The bids wece identical in ter:ns af coverAge, and th� � deductibles oftered r+ith cach bid wccc generally thn samc wltb tha er.cep�ion oL the occidentAl bid, whicb vstabli�hed tba highersc deducctble a�aunt. The lotrest bFd �eceived was su�m3tted by Hukual of :�ew Yark, at an annual cost of two hundced and thirty-four thous�nd, chree hundred and sixky-six dollars (S234,366), approxir.+ately thirty thousand dollar� (S30,p0�) less than the Occidental bid, The selection of the healkh insurance vcndor was sub:nitted pursuan� to Procure�+eat Code procedu[es, vhereby all expenciitures in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars (525,000) required Board approval, Oken recor.tmended khat khe ESoard awa[d the Coun�y's 1986 healch insurance contract to , ttutual of t�ew York consiste�t with its bid, and fuckher, to autho�ize subseguenc contracts with this firA in the event its [ates remained compecitire. Braudis moved to awa�d ihe 2986 health insurapce contract ; for County and Roating Fork Transit Agency employees to Etut�al of taev York consistent with the bid suba�itted and furtber, to authorize the Finance Director to concract with the firm for _ � subsequent years provided its rates were con�etitive. t7adsen seconded and the notion passed unaninously. i= Klanderud expressed sor.ie conce�n with dependent age �'�:"'"' coverage; Occidental pcovided dependent coverage up to the age of =�;�r'-.=;: twenty-three (23) years, and it was not known whether llutual of �-, ` New York would be consistent in this regard. Oken understood that �.� the two (2) firms were consistent in tetms of dependent coverage, ?rr�°;a.:Y �;x`�?"x� Commissionec's lfeeting 9 Decenber, 1985 - 13 :�.��;;': $�� . ��'r. - ,��. ' 'z`.�tc,y '.X � . �,,� �a ' "'.Y� i�' s-..-,i;�. y;RvL �•,.:'K,.-v3'_�"�. . .-+... .�':�� '.. �.�� t :..,r... .. �Te'�140C_.��a1��'f�:.:P�. although he agreed to vetif} this. Ne explained tfiat Executive Serviees Frould concinu� to func;,ion as the County`s fnsurance broker, in s�hiCh case the selection o: a neW vendor would not result i� any change fn clai�s pro�essing. Gov't ioa Oken introduced an as�atd of a Cr[tificat� oE Cbnfor�ance �i:�anCe in Financial ReFortin9, issued to hitkin CounEp for the third UlEtcet con�ecutive year. The award rrprescnted the hiqhc�t achievc�,ent Assoc in hovern;�ental accountin9 �nd Einancial reportinh, and aas �lKatd tire�ented by the Govecn�ent Fi�a7ce bfficer� Associ�tioh. t5ken explained that, in adc�ition to thr Certific�te� sn ANard of �inanci�l ?terortinq Acbievr::ent wac �resentec� cn Account�nt 5tivia Davis, tNe �taf€ prl.�^atilq respoa;�ible fot c�rning Che Gertific�te. Ol:en axplainecl �har the CeCtlftcate �ncl th� AWyrd represrnt�d an outstandin� �Ghieve;?ant Woctiry oE s�knowlydi�em�nt, and h� coa:encie� che efEdrtss o� hi� �t�Ef in this rehard. 9r�uct3� �!o�ed eo forr�ally arkpovlcdc�e Ni7�ncr dEEicc utaff �or thr CartfElr�r�, �h�i ea direce Che Gh�ir rn uend � letter nf appreriatl�n Ed D�oi�s tn ��kttG�tlCdgc�Ct1E aE her gEEdr��. a copyl nE wttlrh would be r�t�lr:ced in hec �rsonnrl Eile. Klandecud sernncleci and zhe :+aeinn qsc�rci unaniaously. Public rha nna�cl ronvrned a ��ut�lir hQarsr.«� to con3t�Qr �n ordinsnre Ilearing: autharizing �Me axerueion af � twe�ty f201 y�tac lcaao (wieh an Gcedlg opEion/�ight oE Eirne t��uan11 for thc purpoao of o�scratin� � L�aan t�own Vallcy }sacktn�; E�c�lity and �uol atotaryc on a par�ol oE l�nc{ Aryree ouned by .1of�n J Grc�cli� ancl £1 izabeaM P Gce��i� near tlaual t, Calor�do. Aa�l��ne Councy AEEb�i1t?� �ary �:sssry �nerarluced eha . octlitu►nco. vhieh waul�i provi�ie for the use of tNe c:r�clig p�opecty !n Er.�-�a 2r,+ ehQ Couney R��! ano �?ri�lrye 9cparteont for (�he pertocl sp�clEied: the pfopecty vavld bQ u�ad a� a packlnq �nd fueling faeilily tor. �eNact�anc votiislc« Ehat secve tha t�++n t�alley� And Frying A�n Rivc� road :y�ete��. Tt�a �ubjoce prpperey hzs� actually bepn uacci foc thia� purpau� for the paat �ev�ca�l yeacs, and was canaldoccd vQry laanefiet�l fn that !t elitai�accd tbo oeed [or pe�arc�+en� voht€ica tA rccucn co Ehc noad :�nd Aciuge Eaeility� at Ehc rirpocc Eor �ski�g ancl Eucliag. � The ordinance �ub�ic�ccl Cor uoard ravfc►r eoclay uuuld provide � � fo[ the usv at ano half i.S) aer� pf Fcaperty for a tvency (zA) year period. ersary ezplainctd khat che [.ease and 4pcian Agcee�eat, the execu�ion ot �ehich ++as auehorized by thc osdinance, vag amendad subsequent co ficst cead;ng zo address pcocu�spenC Code issues and to prpvide chc county with a furth�� uption [ar an additional on� half ;.S) acce paccel. rhe Sounty vas provided, therefore, vith a� opcion to use and purchase a tocal aE one tl) acCe of the G�edig Fcoperty for the purposes noced, Upon app�oval nf the ordir.ance, the paF�el would be i�proved wich Re�r fencing and fueling facilicies. Dlake then opened the heacing for public conr..ent, �ack G[edig explained that he a2+rays intended to proviae the County with the option to use and purchase up to one ;1} acce oE his property, This option was alwa7s incended to 6e prQVided, and at no additional cost to the County, Blake asked for additional con:.ents; thece being none, the - hearing was closed. Braudis moved to approve the ordinance on second and final reading, ltadsen secondea and the potion passed unanimously. s'r�` � ',� ---------- � :^� Subdiv/ Gary Esary introduced a Pitkin County, Colorado, Road +�;:..y Commissioner's t3eetinq 9 Decemberj 1985 - 14 �� - ;V�� :1'�"�.�_ __ . �..m , � '=A:" .''��, :� �{' � . ��ri+u `�'�:'r�.,...�"�� °��I�R� e.$.�.'C X� �S.. (�� .-��-..-�—: •yTa� —•f*± �• "!f� �'s,r: ..W:!Y+�O-'Sf�J,s.�}��esr3a� . � ..a.r• ' 't . General t4aintenance Contract, a generic, unexecuted agreement to be impcove entered into with each subdivision or general improvement bist district ahose roads would be accepted for public dedication. The Ag[ee Cbunty agreed, in 19R4, to accept certain subdivision coads for maintenance purpose� on the basis that additional }iighMay User Tax Funds would be nade available to the County; the acceptahce was pcedfcated on the receipt of such Funds so that mafntenance could be acco�plished at no cost to the County. The specific naintenarce progran, its cost and the method of reimbur�enent Wece all discusscd durinq a pcevious wock aeagion, at Nhich tine staff was Ll1IIC[UCLC�d [o pucsue a contraCtuol agreement with each cubdivision eat�bliahing ninimum naintpnanCe specificationn and mandatory insurance roverage. Th� Gontrart subnitted for ryoard review enday would a�hirve the follorring: l. the County Waa not obliqated to �,cavide Eundc to dny subdivi�ion beybnd th� level re�clved ln Tax �undss Eor tbQ rnad nile5hc Ni�hin rsch subdtvtsion. All Eundc nuat be sp�scopriated to participaeinry uubdivisions on �n annual baaifl, and �il approprlationg were sub�QCt to the ceceipt, by the County, 6E Tax Funda for rach aubdfvinion 2. all coacie subject to thQ Contract muat meet minlmum County roari atandacds Ear that claau oE coad 3. cach aubJivi3ion waulr he rec�u�teri to provide liabiltty Enauraace cenuintent wlth the terna of the Contract. Coverage could ba pravided directly by the aubdivlalon or by joining an inauc;�nce pool eatabtiahed by thQ County 4, a maxinurn deductton of Earty-FivQ pecce�e t4531 uould be eatablished Cor thauc subdiviRionu tha� do noe Pcovldo thetr o�+n in:�uranco 5. at such tine an a �uFEicient deductible reaorvc has bcan establi�hcd 1n thc County pool, the maximun ` deduceton idonci@ied nbove may be decreaaed 6. cach aubdivision would be assao�ed Fivc �cccnt (5�1 oE -, its sharo oP thQ Tax Funds for ad�fniBtrative costa - - i�aurcod by the Councy 7. QACh suddivision must indenni�y anc� hold harmlesss tho County frora any liability Bsary explained that the Contract vould only apply Co five (5) subdivisians co�taining nine and sixty-t�+o one hundredths (9.62) miles of roads, Existing maintenance costs and estimated Tax Fuods �eceipts were identified as follows: a, the County's cost of maintenance, excluding overhead, was appcoxi�ately six thousand dollars (56,000) per mile b. annual administrative costs per subdivision were , estimaced to be six nundced dollacs ($600) . This eost, - which provided for legal drafting, negotiating. - � enforcement and accounting, would increase in the event � of a claim - � _� c. two thousap�l dollars (52,000) per mile in Highway User ��-R.�:,:'; Tax Funds were made available to the County �'if. i.� � i i�~ � The County would not assume direct responsibility for road =s'i�f-=``�'• maintenance programs within the subject subdivisions, rather, the ��`Y i subdivision, through its homeowner's association, or the General �: �� Commissioner's Meeting 9 oecember, 1985 - 15 �� _::��. . ______,�. _.__ • qA: . . . � T.- rY -�'" ' ;_.kr t . .. , . � � F��.n".. ' .,� x"fi��'�.�t� .� s. .: . ..:R�`�<t+n,..�.:-u.alt.-...�.. ,r�..:s. � =�'�,ir �i s;, �. Improve:�ent District, would assume all such responsibility and would liF.ely subcontract With a private vendbr to ptovide the necessary services. The County was a party ta the rontract only as a „,eans of pcovidih9 the participating subdivisiohs with thef[ shate of Tax Funcis; payr..ent of the Funds aould be subject to con�liance witti the terns and conditions ideniified in the Contract. E�aey reco�.tiended that the !3oard authorize execution of the Contract aith the Little Elk Cc�ek, E3cush Cre�k, Gatpway of 5nownass ;,e�a, Orchard �state� an8 l�olland llills Subdivision�, sub�ect to rzinor changes fn tor:� to br appcovpd by the County AL[arney, F'ir,ance Director and f�ublic As�rts Directnr. Ne also recow��sendrd tnat an Asset ttanaqenent stafE pE'C4bh b� ctc�ihnated a� re�pon�ibie for neqotiaCinh and ciossing the fivc (S� Cr�n[racts uith the �ub�ect �ubdivfsione. �a e�r12 ats admini�tecinq its terms and conditibh� on �n �nnual banis. Thp Contract� musE be executed by all parties �srtor to the end oE this ycar i� the �;ubjert cubtiivt�ibnu Whre to be eliryible fot 19�5 Tax �undcs. t;landrrud expra��ed �onc concccn wieh eNe retmbucu�n�n� �rdgcan, it aaa tndlc�tcd, for in��ncc, thnt the Cnunty'u rnad mafntananre cn�t uao tsix thauL:�nct doll�r� (56,000) prr ;atic uhere�u Tax Fundu werr. 7r�rvided nn ehc b�uiu oE two �hounand dnllacs (52,Q00) per w llet it uaa not known, for inssE�nce, what casse per r�fic woulci �a incurrecl far road nain�rnance wichln ehe aubdlviciona anc! wNether Tnx Pun�iss voulcl �Srqvide ssuEfieient Eunda foc eh9e pur�nae. Pinanee nirector Tora Oken ex{�lained thc�t the cix thouaanci clollac (SG,OOQ) per ^ile firyure e+3a determinecl by divlc�tng the Qntire ttn�cl and t�rldf�e :+�intcn:�n4e buclgo� by the nambec oE milea wiehin eho Gounty �oad ay�cQa. Thc ind3vidual aubaivtuiona would ba rcapanciulc €ar porfor:+Ing C►►a rnatntcnance funaEionu. naaC likcl�+ t�y aubeo�ecaeeing Eoc tha�c acrvices, ao ehae County ataff aould nac �o achie�iny the nece��ary improvr.nenea. Tho Concract 1t�+Itocf tundin� tp ehe a�+aun� o� Tax Fundu recei�ecl for thc nu�+ber of mile� r+lthin C3CF1 sulxlivision, aa tt�ae no addittonal funding ++aR rcyuiroc�. Ir► t1�e aven� �dditipnal funcl� wcco ta bo Nrovidod, CounCy qenerc�l aalea Eax �avenuea wauld be uoeJ to� this purNass. �sary explained ehat tha AEtprncy GenQ[�1 hrs nat yct ��rovided a� qpir.ion on eha fundiny nechanisn p�oposads Tax Funclu can anly t�e provlded, by ata�ute, co gove[n-�enc�. �nd aichaugh a Geneeal I^+p�o�a:�ent pi�trict sro�:lcl eomply with khla dafinition, it uas not yec kno��n :+hether a haneotiiner's a:�sociation would c�ualify. - County t•!anager �ohn Elcerc e:pcessed so:,e eoneern •.ri�n che administrative costs that .rould be incurred by ehe Cpunty in the evenk of �ppcoval; those coscs included legal, enforcenent and acCOUnting costs, c�onicoring the insurance pool and sektling ' claia:s, anongst others. t!e suggested thac these costs could be ceduced by simplv acc�pcing the subject roaus as publie roads for c�aintenance purposes, and including che� within the inventory oi roads maintained by the Bond and Bridge Department, Esary exglained that the County would incur administrative costs for the �ubject roads regardless of the method used; 2ega1, accounting and insurance needs would still be provided by the � County, for instance, even if the subject roads were accepted for , public maintenance purposes outright, The Contract was prepared - so that the subdivisions r�ould assume responsibility for some of these costs, and also as a method of providing the subdivisions - - ' with some level of local control; the County would pcovide the = subject subdivisions with a certain level of funding, but the �_:-,:;;� individual homeowner's associations would actually determine how ,-! those funds would be used. ,.''�'�".a._ ��`i::�' Commissioner's lieeting 9 Decenber, 1985 - 16 ,,�`y�..w� .��:%�'�i. i��; , =c-_-�r.•;- ____i ____. __..__. �x:. '�`1y f f �r+� � t � � 4�� ' .:...., f� ,5��'.x:_..��'�, ¢s.,�. .,�:....,.?_?�?:_ . _ �'�re:....'s �- 'a j ?'`~�... Rlanderud noted that the Tax Fund progran was initially pcoposed by the focmer County Engi�eet as a means of incteasinq the County's Tax �und recei�ts to allos+ for a better road maintenance progcan. ^he Contract suDmitted fot lloatd review today would appeac to result in greater costs to the County than were origina2ly anticipated. Esacy explained that the Contcact would provide less of a c�ch b�nefit :o participatiag �uDdivisions than Wa� ociginally �titici�ated, a factoc which was atttibuted to changeu in the County's liahility posCUre. Ete ex�rlained that the Goatcact Na� drafted not only to function �� a "�acE throuc�h" Eor �tate fundn, but also ac a �canc oE a��easinh the ssubdivisions for co�tc Chat NbUla 6e iticUCted b5 the County �G A Cti3Ult of pUb11C 3GCC[StOpCC. in thi� �ense, the "�w s� throuqh" funcCion abuld not only cieate 5 Uenefit ta thc rntxtivi�ions by ptovidi»g the:n with ntatp EUndst, it Hould also sllosr Eor thc c�uit�ble ��e�b��,rnc of Cer�aln cogts a�coclated aith public acceneanee. TNo�e ct��[�, and �petcifically the admfni�tratfve cactu, r+d�lci be incurred by the County wheChec the roa�c aCr� 3rcr�rted outrir,ht dc ronctition�lly. Finally, �s�ary noECd th�t �o:�e oe rhe �ut��e�t rn�cl� dict not r.ect thr County'n nlnlmun r�[eccifYC3tionL at thin eine= thn Contract ssut�LtEtd for ±so5rd r�vl�++ :od�y vnulcl r�:;ulra� ch5t thnae upealEirationa be rnnplied wi.h �� ronclition o£ acrertonce, thus protectinq tbe l�ccrenea nE che Caunty on a lang ecc� banlu. Klanclecud expre9ue�! so^�e �aneern that publir aeee�eanre �aay LCIItl�E 1n adclitional ea�ca c� :he �aunty th�t hovc nnc yee bean aAUeaaecir aerepc�nre n�y r�qu►re tha� Ehe �ouney qrovide aciclltion�+l ycrvicea. Eor inac�nee, ineludin� SharIEE'o OEficc ae r�icea, ehc e�n� for whizh has aoe beert ad�EOaaed. P.sary axplsinecl ehn[ tha Shortt�'s c�t[Lcv would 6ecome rea�onnible Eor �rovldirtg rcicvane gecvieo� uith►n thQ aabjcce autrdivisionss aubaa�ue�c eo aece�en�ce, n� che �ub�ect roada woul� then be cicfinz� Aa �wi�li� ci,he�-of-�+a,e. Rrauclia than nQ;��d eo authorix� ehQ Chair Co cxacuta tho Roacl 1!.�ineenanwa Cont�acc vith kha f iva (5) �ubdlvt€iana idontilied aGove. �ubjaet co aiaor changeg In farM appcavQd by tha Coan�y Acsprney, Financo Airectar a�d Tublie Asae�s Aicoctor. tladacn aceondod and tlie nacian �asscil +iith aE�poBikia� frnn Klanclerud. Ilollan� Hills Subclivisian resident tiancoe Summers nocod that an insurance ponl af ten thou�And dollacs (S10,000! wa3 necesuary fac cho�e �ubdivision:, that did no� o5cain liability insucaocc clicectly. tie noced ths[ the Counky received appcoximately four hundted chousand dallar� (5400,000) in 'rax Funds annual2y, and au9gesced thnc the in,+ucan�e 000l for khe subjecc subdivisions be established ac this cine enkirely with Tax Funds. Esary expiained that the total insurance pool fo� the subjecc subdiviaions would appFOxi*�ate betueen eighcy (S80,000) and ninety thousand dollacs (540,�00? , the ^�inimu:n reServe necessary given the nileage involved. The County pool would provide for a ten thousand dollar (510.000) deductible per claim. : Elac Francis Kriznanich introduced a resolution granting annual .i Gravel review approva�, extension to £lar.� Gravel Pit's special review ; Annua2 pernic Ho. 79-132, and release fror� the bonding requirements for - - Review/ the Jaffee Pit. The resolution was tabled earlier this afternoon _ - Special pending contact with ihe applicant concerning a proposed additional condition of apgroval. The condition, which was '"'-�>4- , proposed by t9adsen in an effort to address a potential � '= alternative access, was as follows: ,.�:.- ' ___; 3, that within two (2) `�ho'7trhs of this appcoval, the =-:��=;,:t applicant shall submit a report to tne Board on the >�:��.•;,;;.., '� ��', Cor�missioner s tteeting 9 December, 1985 - 17 �f�.,; � %-�'�s� ,�`� :r,�.r,'s . . � •�: .7. 4 j _,:�,� -.. ,..... . ._ ,. _ `� '.��'s3i�:�� '*°"' �'��9!�C�'��s>a_s: use, impacts and other public and private costs for refurbishnent of the Denver and Rio Grande r9ght-of-Way to the A7cLain Flats Road as an altetnate entrahce - and/ot exit �o the existing E1a:� Gravel Pit Ktizrsanich explained that he contacted Ilal Clark, the applicant's cepre�entative for the Ela;.� Eacility; Clark agreed to conply With the condi�ion, as recited above, and that it be identiEied in the r�solution as the third and final condition of approval. t3adsen �oved to a�yprove thp rpcolution subject td the inclusfon of the thitd conclition oE approval as cecitcd above. riraudis seconded and Che notion �naed unant-ously. 15T nirpnc[ !lanaqer nirk Arnold lntcdduced on Etcst readinq a Read: re�olution a:�endinq tl�e Caunty's Airport !2CcjUl�t�dfltl by Airpoct inccr5�ing the 1�nciinn Ee�c Er,r sir cacciern �nd chactrc Ftrg'g oper�tors. 7'Na rr�olueion �nuld for:^alty a�end the Airport Rulea Tv:+end ancl 1;rc�ulatianc cn prbvide fnc an inrreau� fn [he landinry fet� L�nciing anses�cd to eoc:r-:ercial �irrf�ft .in@ �AA part 115 thac�er Feec operatorc Eram t3Ety-Eivr �ene� (t.551 :o ulxty-fivr centn (S.65) per one thou�and (1.000� p�unda o� -+�xir�uca qcnes al2owabie londing vcihht. �'he Eac li:creane Waa aagcaaed durfnry the air(sorr rstea and chocc�eu anaiy�sia whi�h vac reCentiy conducted b� Caun�y ataE�. Arnold ax�lained th�+� the nea f�e ++ould bc eollected Eroa ali cnm�crrlal nvlatoru rtthrr bac�c� at Ssrdy Flold or ehr aubjar� of �ontcact� Eor ehc uae of tha airEsoct Eacility. Tha inercaac !z landinfS €cea, �he Eirat Lncreaar in five 151 ycdca. waa �eeeanir�, eo gener�.e auffictune cevenueg toc aicpott opora�iana. n�ob pden oxpreaaer� vocnr concec� with eho applicaGiltty oE thc fccj it s+aa not knovn, fot Ln�tance, hov one could dtff eror�tiate balwecn tha uac af a 115 by a Nciv�cc ovncc oc a chacter gcoup. Arnold explainocl thac the @eeu would asseeaed to all ehartcr opocacora auct�orixoc3 ta aecvc thc aitpo�t, nact o� which ware guvarned by u�c anc� laase agcca�aent� fac the Eacilicy. . iter agreed co rev�cw thc i�suc oE ��rivate use ot a 1�5, and eh� ablllcy co di�tinquiah betu�e� artv�te �nd con�nareial use, prior to the pu4lic hcacing. Klandcrud mavcd ii�st ce�din� appcovol o� tha re.,oluCion, • and co :,et a pub�ic hoaring foc �3 3anuacy, 19db. at 2:30 P.ta. Rraud:s seeondoc3 and the :+otion passed unani;nously. 1ST nick Acnolci inCroduced on fi�sc reading a teNolucion Read: increasiny terminal rents for nspen nirNays, Roaky t�ountain Aitport Aisv ays, T-hangars and fue] floy+age rates. The cesolutio�, Rent.al/ subnikted putsuant to the fo��al cesoZution requirements of the Fuel Home Rule Charter, would increase khe airpott terainal rental Rate rate� foc both conc^ercial airlines. the annual �ent assessed Eoc Increase all T-hangars, and all fuei flowage fees. The proposed fees, all of vhich aere f�rogosed as a [esult of the airpatt tates artd charges analysis, anq all oP :�hich were necessary to aeec airpork � ' operating expenses, aere as follows: 1. Rocky ttountain Aitways annual rent for airpocc terminal space woald be increased fro� eighty-three thousand, � one hundred and sixt}�-seven dollars (SB3,167} to - ninety-one thousand, four hundred and eighty-three - - dollars (591,483) ��-�� :; , , ,� 2. Aspen Airways annual rent for airport terminal space �. .��== would be increased from one hundre3 and nineteen =�.'"_'--= tt�ousand, nine hundred and sixty-seven dollats =;6.:=.,,;-_<. -��`:. -.y (5119,967) to one hundred and thirty-ane thousand, nine .�;-y,_+�� Commissioner's t•teetin9 9 Aecember, 1985 - 18 'Y y"� �� T� _� { `��:� .,.�r�.� ._��........_.a.,.._...._ __. ..._. _.__ .. . .�.. .. - . . . ��i. s.; -tt! c�: �'� �ti; _ , �`�i 1;� § � t +� _.. „ zl...-.�•_. , . _....i,.- ..�-.- ...... . . -.. , _ ..��sc� .- ...Ya �.�,'��,,� ]r�� -. . hundred and Chirty-fcur <1o21ars is131,934) 3. inc[ease the annual T-hangar rental rate fror� two ' thousand, two hundred anci eighty dollats ($2,280) to tao ihousanci, Eive huh<#re9 and eir.hty ($2,5R0) do2lats 4. incre�Se .he Evel flvaage rate fto�.r eiqht cent� ($.08) pec gallon to ten centa (S.]0) per gallon Arnold explained that ihe trrminal rental tate increase�t (s[opotsec: foc the tWO (21 co;�:�ercial 5lclinev woulo increasc the �quare fnut cogt frnn sixtecn dollacs (S1B1 to �eventeen dollars and sixCy cents {c]7,60). The ,ermin�l renta2 ra[e proposed Noultl c��ult in an inctcase o� ap�tozinately ten �ccent (lb�); thes� ca�te� have :�ot been chan+��d �fnce 1983, however, no thSt ehe tsrdpo��d cat�� Wc�uld a�ount to an aver�ge �nnual increage of . tNrce �nd tMcnr tentNu peree»C (3.3�}. The T-han�ar tentel cates praposed Wau2r. in�rensc thc nonehly rent for theae ESClli�lea fcon onr huhdcrd �nci ninrry dollarc (519Q) 4n two hundred and fiftcen rio�tsca (52151, nll T-h�nhar uscr� h�v� b�rn actvined by aertiEteJ mail nf the Incceane� pr�r,aaec. c;arp [:usry exhla/ned that che no�rcl uaa aurhor�xed to lnrrca�e Lhr reneal, [uel Elouage and T-hanc�ar ra�c� purauan� co the Uee on«i Le�ne Aqc�ernents Entereci inc� with the vartouo uatro. Th�ae feet+ coulci i�c ar--endsd b�• Cacr..�l rc�oiutlan anly ao Ehae a torn.�i an.+n�i�+ent to tba Alc�wrt Ruloa anrl t�oryulattona, whtch uoulcl r�uare a thirey C�0) dsy pu�►lic nutice, uaa noe naceaaary. � The renol�eion W�a �ubnittod for Eirnt Erading taday, anci a pulalic heacinry during �he �ubsec�uen� �ecting. RrauJia moved firut rQading appraval oE tha reaolutlan and Eo see a iwblie hcaclog Eor 1G �ecer.+bec, 19A5� at ]1:OQ a.m. ttadocn soeondecl an�i tt�u raa�ion �xiase�! un�nimoussly. + Vete�an's vaccsran's OfPiee �ary Peters pcavldacl an uNdate on his Otflcer ac�ivitio�. Thaca vero approxlc�ately ono bhousand, two hundred Roport (1,200) veto�ana in PiEkin County, ra�t of which secved �luriny 3 the Rocaan and Vie�nan War�. Fu[ty aercent t4Aa) of theae ucro ` b�crreen thc� age o� chir�y�-Cive (3�! and forGy (AO) years, thicty percent (30�I Were constde�ecl eld4r2y, aod tho 6ala�ca cansisted of dePendonts and cecently discharyed lr.dividuals. Fetera, vho was appoin�od to the pasikian thi� past ocCOber, explained that he aaintained an aff ice at the con�unity ceotc� where he vas available Ofl 1•todnesday afternoons and Friday nornings. A tptal af tventp-four (24) veterans visited the office during cbe month of Octobe�, Hhereas thirty-one (31> visits were cecordeci in Elovembec. Nis secvices vece generally incended to p�ovide assistance xith teterans benefits, inc2uding inyucance, disabili�y, pensions, and others; the ceceipt of veterans 6enefits generally requi[ed a six (6) ^�onth lead time prior to disburseaent. Peters felt that the veterans off'scec position was needed in - ; the community. He vas very pleased vith khe assistance the County , .-� Vas providing bim, and acknovledged the assistance of the local media in publicizing the position. The location of the office in the connunity center was considered appropriate given its - -.< i proximity to other human service providecs; referrals have been ��:=--• made, for instance, to social services as well as the mental '<;�"`-: ' health clinic. Peters explained that he completed a training `-`�- session last month, at a cost of one hundred and forty-one �' dollacs (5141), and that another was scheduled for sometime next 't`� '. : 3 spring. A report on his activities and the nunber of clients a „ j would be provided to the Board on a monthly basis. '�.. .:�--=�3 ---------- �'��'�e.=�-- �ce,�.��-.�h:: -Y:wF�T="('�. �� :':. ��'��: Commissioner's 17eeting 9 December, 1965 - 19 � :��[a�ji- s..,,:T� . ''R: -v� < s -. - , ,,. _... �...._. . '�.�...�'+ts'��6t34�'u��-'y"'�;3r :he joint City Council - Board of County Conr..issionets meeting was convened. Those present included Council�e�nbets t3i11 Sticling, Chic Co11iRS, Tom Isaac and Pat Fallin, and Boatd renbets Qlake, Klanderud, itadsen and [3raudis. Public The i2oaro and Council convened a public hearing to consider tieacing: a 1�85 supple7ental budget appropriation for che Roarfnq Fark R�TA TCansit rtgency awd the Agency'S 1985 budaet, 'fYansi: A9er.cy 5upp Generai .:anage[ t3cuce Abel introduced �upplementaY budqet Appro�/ appro�tiation P.esolution 85°9, Nhich identified unaoticipated 1986 expendituce� of one hundred ahri fifty-five thoUS�nd, gix hundced E3udc�rt and eigbt dollars (��55,6(�n) , includinq eiqht thou�and, �tven Nundced and twen[y-Eouc dullar� (St1,7241 fn ^�aintenance �ecvic� Naqes, Ei£[y-s�ven chous�nci, ehrec hundreci an�i euenty-eight do113rs i�S7,lyis} foc additional �art:, anci snppileE, r.ixty-fout thousand, six nundccd and �eventy-Eaur dollnrs (SGd,f74) in adclition�l oper�tincS u�heE, Carive thou�ancf, cix hundr�d and forCy-one dollar� (512,6At1 (n additiona2 in�urance expensea, and othrr�; on� hundfed ond eight ehonu�nd, uix hundred Snc1 tweney- nne dollnc� (SLQA.62t) in ��1dEtional available cevcnue� inrludlnc� thicry-thcee thnu��nd, �htc�z hu:►drect �nd orve dollscs (533,301) ln additibnal Asp,�n :;kiing Co-sp�ny r2vvnurn. nino �hounand, fonr hundreci and turnEy-nine ciollocn (9,�?.91 in P6acaon Rrlls reeciptss, twelve thouaend dollacc i51.'..000) ►n gce�rcr than tyrojected aolea eax rnvcnuea, cevc7 �houganci dollar� (S7,490) ln charter Ecru, fiEt�+-ueven tNc�usahrt, fivs hundre<! nnd fifty-et�he elollaru (�57,5581 in �±:ctcrc�tfr.c�r.e r�rant�, .inct nthcrs. ':hc c�unlue.ian, �rhirh wa� ��+��r��•,zci �n tir.:e rcaclin� 1�; the ^rancsit Ar)rnry noacci of nircrtnra an 1 pceonbcr, :+as �ub.r.itted :or Ein�l rcadtn� aErgroval 9�• :he !�o�rrl ancl Caonctl. ,1bc! exi�l:lned tl�ot the appcnprlatiana iHcnclfiecl in chc reuolution ccflccteci ci�e r�onc recenc butl�et firaiection� for che Aqency� anci provided , rcaitt�tic budryec sur.�ar� Eor thr yoar. !Ie revie�+ed thr v+::uon a��ropcia�ionn au foll4wa: che in��ea�c in �aintonanee wagea aould reticct thc eaat at thc ebceo (3) sEafF seitbin thi� AtCA� nnly twa t2) aE wtiieh s+ccc buAgetedr �t�a ineteausr in �rEa and aupglios axpendieure� uoulci retlec: tsre purchaac� �nd valitcle repairu aGCO�Flisbacl in cpnjunetian aith tha bua paincing pcogcu�. nono af s+hiel� ua� budgac�d= thc lncreas� in operating wages would re.lect additional auperviaory a�d �itiver ++age�, bnck oE which wece undec budgeced, �nu snfocnatian elcrk ++a�cs uhich �,QCC not bucigeted7 ch� in.,arancc expen�ca uould reflcet addittanal funds necdecl fa: unbudge:ed deductiblc expen�es, tbc addiclonal reeenueB consisted of unduc]geked [accipts, addieional billi�gs to the Skiin� Compart�r, and qceAter tha� ptojoctec! sales tax collections, The va�ious app�opciation2 aould result irt a fund ba2ance of approximate�y eighty-five thousand dollar� (SB5,000) , Abel teco�::ended apptoval of the resolution as �ub^�i t ted. Fallin naved to approve the resolction on second ceading, Collins seconded and the ^�ot:on, which was limited to Council, passed unanimously. Klanderud �aoved second and final reading appcoval of tbe resolution, +�raudis seconded and the motion passed unaninously. The notion pertained to the l3oaKd only. Abe2 then introduced tWO (2) resolutions, one sur�marizinq cevenues and eapenditutes and adopting a budget for the Roaring Fork Transit Agency, Pitkin County, Colorado, for the calendar year 14B6, and the oYhe� anproptiating su�s of soney in the anounts and purposes as set forth below, for the Roaring Fork _ Transit Agency, Pickin County, Colorado, 1986 budget year. The trfo (2) resolutions, which would for�ally adopt and appropriate , the Agency's budget for next year, were approved by the Agency s`" IIoard of Directocs on 3 December. The proposed budget psojected 1986 revenues of two r�il2ion, four hundred and fifteen thousand, �,'y� �" '� Commissioner's lleetin 9 Decer�bet, 1985 - 20 ._., y r,� :�•'_ i � �:f k� 'v;3". _-_ 'i . . � •�: �.tw-' ... ._.. . . - . . .c i�_ . ��*k4iiAS9/c:��j.'�+ 3��!7�_. t�:o hundred anci twe�ty dollars (S2,415.220) and expenditures of two million, four hvndred and ten thousand, one hundred and seventy-eiaht dol2ats (52,420,17R} , for a net revenue of four thou�and, four hundted and ninety-two dollars (59.4921 . The pcoposed budgrt would providc a three percent (3�) cost of living increase fot all Agency e�ployecc, efEective at the :irst of the year, as well as a nu:nber of reclassifica�ionc for Eive C51 pernanent, ycar-round positfons; the reclassiEications, which uould affect thirty (30) of the aixty-six (66) dcivers as well as five f5) of the fourteen (la) ,�aintenance staf€, re�ulted fro� a s53ary/wahe sur.�ey acconplished this past sumrer and Hould mote �ccucately teEiect econo�fc condltion� in the aten and Nag�� paid for co�F;arable po�ition,. Abel explained triat one (1) oE the najor operating goals for the A9ency nex[ ycar aac staff tcaininh, and an extencive maintenance tcaining prohcam h�s bccn funded fnc this rcason. mhe proporsed 19�f, budget �lco refleceed a msjor changc fron ��reviou� budhcta ln that iC provfded a very small Eund balancc aontributic,n. �fnnily, �1be1 �ug9esCed that a longevicy/nccit bonus prnqc�m be ctit�blisshed f�r 1lgency amployrhgs chc prapoactd pcogr�r, whiCh vas not funded in the pra�dced budgce, woulti 3I�ON �:playe�s who h�v� r�ached the :.�axfr..u� ryradr wa�e to be e1lc�iblQ Eoc a longrviCy bonua a� ueil ac a nerle t�onun. itadsstn quca.ioned chQ lanrycvity;c�rcit bonug progcam, and partirutbrl y^ ehr aethoc3 in vhicb it ao�lcl Eunction. ��bal ox��latnecf th:�e tha Aryenry uelllxed a gra�1Q/aeep co�a��ens�otion ayuce� th3t o+aa nimil�r co ty>>ie3l runicipal �ay acaiee, rhe nacit hroryran propOOed aould provide cach employrc wltb a merit evaluation on hlc/hrr annlvressary datot � oslsry inrreaac v�� noe a given �t thla �i,r, rathec, thasse e:a�3loyeon who have F�erEocned t� a �aoct�or[oun Eauhinn nay bc ellgible Eor advancome�� to a hlghoc Essy ran�e. The longevity vyaten Ncoponed Woula aPply only Ca tNoac r:aployce� who havo cc�ched thc :�axta�um ryrado �nd pay 9C3�Q and t+eco nva, thoretore, eliglble for merit inccQaoeu. Thcac em{�lo�ccss woulcl �e cligiblc for � bonus award hased on mQtitorioua longevityj �liis ��e�rd, wl�ieh waa imondcd to conpen�ato emplo)aea ++ha coulcl not advance any �arthe� in che pay 3cAle, NouicF provide auch o:n�alayocsu wich an ineentive to eo�tinue to �a�fo�r.. uell. nrauc3is expre�sed �omQ concern with "tho langevity award. !te d1d not facl chst a�plo�eas Rhould be awArdad simply on thc basis '# of their t�nure with an antity, and he suggvaced thaC tha ngency rescansidec thia p�ogr�r••. Abel explatrted that thc longevity progran aas really a bonus pragrar.� that ��o41d taa used to encourage continuity ot sserviee. The tecm lot►geviGy ua:, only u$ed to defirte those emplayse.� wha, after a peciod af years, were unable to �dvance apy farther ir. the pa�� ca2e. The entire bonus p�oqcam was predicaked on meritorious :,ervice to the Agency during the preceding yeac; longevity itself woul@ not be Xewarded, rather, mecitorious employees r�ay 6ecor�e eliqible for such awards on the hasis of tenure and their inability for f�rther advancer.+ent within the conEines of the pay scale, The award was not a given, and the f unds would not be appropriated for individual tenuced enployees; rathec, a separate bonus pool NOU�L� be established and awards could be made su6sequenc to a review process, The Agency rias in the process of establishing �-pecific rev3ew criteria, including _� ; complaints, mechanical call-backs, absenteeism, the use of sick time, and others. - IIrau@is suggested that the :nerit progcam proposed by the -' Agency be identified as an exceptional performance bonus program, :�:;;.`: .: and that the term longe�ity be deleted fron reference altogether. '.� � Stirling noted that Lhe proposed budget cesulted in a tr�enty ��:='-``- percent (208) increase in staEf over the 1984 level. Abel "��"�" explained that 1984 caas the Eirst year of operation for the .:�.s ; ri� �s� Co�missioner's tleeting 9 December, 1985 - 21 .��-1_ ;�..�,,tl� r�� { ��a�� :,.?��x �.c��.:7'=� _ :�� . - � �a: `' ��`��`` ,'�� n � �� a..�: �;.�._;;�, . .... . .. __�,.'_._..�;�--.,. Aqencp, and that the anount vf staff necessaty to opetate the conbined public transpoztation s}sten sras not accurately pcojected. The �lgency siqnifica�tly redUCed the nu�ber o: supecvisors in 1985, realizinc greater efficiency ih ehis aspect of opera[ions. The aunber oF staff proposed fot next yeat was considered a realistic projec�ian of what was necessaty to ptovide quality sercice. Abel explained that the pcoposed budqet ccflected an overall inccrase in operationa2 costs; the co�: pec nile has increased fro;a tWO dollars �nd thlrty-fauc cents (52.34) to tr+o dollars and �ixLy cent� (52.60Z . This increaae wau attributed ib tWO (21 najor exp�nditur�s; incurance rxpen�e� ineceased Eror:� Eifty-sevhn thouaand (S57,008) ta onc hnnde�d and sixty-cight thou�and do2lar� (S1��,000) , uNere�� the matnte;�anc� tcatnln�7 prngram, pceviously unfunded, .+vu�d r��ult in �n ex�nne nf t�+� hundred and Eif ty-thrce thou�and dollars �525#,000l. +�l�ke quetstionrcl ehe ►t�� crf th� Aqency's fund b�1�naQ. � identtfted �� sliChtly �raatrc than s�evcn hunriced anc� Eour thouaand dail�cs (570�,00) . nb�l explainec: that the propoaec] bud9ct wa� only ineanded to addr�a� �hort-rerr� capl�al Inhcovn�ene» �nding �h� ro;a�slatlnn of ehc Tran�it Dr�+elopment Plan. The Pl�n, whCeh u�ulci bc ro:,��lated flf!%C yrar, voulrS addcean tbQ rolr ot tha Agenry tn the rnn�unity �nd, aa a c�eault, ldenclEy long tr�� cst:ical exµar�ditut�u ehae �aay C@tjUICC ahe uae oE Eund bolance. The Pl�n uoul�i be Eundecl xl eh forEy tHouaan�l dollars (S4A.00t1} in ac�tr gr�n� Eundn, asrd ita a�opa Would be Qxpao�ed tn adclrens a nun�er oE Iora1 ta�ucu, ineluding do++nto++n parktng/Cireulatton, �t an addicten�l roct oE ��roxl�atoly tweney thouaan� �1o113ra !�?Q,QOQl. Setclln� noee�i rhat theco uaa insufficicnc tia�a to eonelucla thc revtov of tha proponcc! budyec coday, and he auqg�ated �h3e ehe heac�ng bc eon�tnuod to the aubsec�ucnt �aeeelnry. • Thc noard ancl Councl3 un�ni�+ou�ly agrcecl to eontinue tbc �ublic haari�g co ttonday. l6 flaec�der, aC 4:Q0 p.�a. Tho Agcnay vas Inst�ueEOCi tu providc A li�c at iCa cg�ital in��rovemont ' projoc:ts, includia� !�us 9a�inton�nco Facility ea�iral acyu�aitiong for Gevie++. PuGlic Tlie Ro�GCI ca�tvned m public hoa�ing Cc cansic3vr tha 19Ab ' Boaring Pi�kin County budc�et. Rucl9ec Analys� 4ynn Uunlop intcoduced an �ST Ei�st rea�ling twq ;21 re�Qlutians. one tl) suau+a[ixi�g cevenu�s Read: z►nd expcnditurea foc cach Eund and adopting a bud�et for Pitkin 19d6 county� CpZOCddp� foc ct�e calendar year 1986, and the aCh�r Aitco approp�iating sup� of non�y to the vaciaus cunds in che amounks Budget and purpases a� sec forth helav, far the Pitkin County, Celorada, 198G budget year. Dlake Xheo i�kroduced a request, submitted by thc t�oun� Sopcis Soil Conservatian Districc, for five hund�ed dollars (5500) in Councy funds to be used in the ltount Sopris/Book CZiffs acea, The cequested Eunds would he used Eoc conservdEion � education, 4-!I, and othet resouCCe pcogcans. Eie then opened the • bearinr, foc pablia comr�eni. " FinanciaZ Advisory Board Chaic:�an Chuck Carleton explained thak the Advisory Board has been wor{:ing with County staff during � the past severa2 years on a raulti-year budget tnat would assess the County's financial position o�er a five (5) yea� peziod. The multi-year budget, firsc co^�pleted in the spring of 1984, was considered a critical financial p2anning �ool as it resultec in a : realistic financia2 plan over a number of years rather than an ' � annual balancing of revenues and expenditures. Carleton felt that -� , K ` the p�oposed 1986 budget failed to add�ess long tecm financial :-J planning, and he was pacticularly concerned tnat it failed to ��:--�`� .,�:.; � t�#y,%„�' Commissioner's Meeting 9 December. 1985 - 22 'T��: �`u`�'.� ,rea T -:=c:t3'k., i'. � ,N� _._ � _ . . �� ..... � � � ..it_ t �;. .r �t " A �#.� tf '�s` } 1��.}��L` �: � .� x�� '�,'y�. . , \t 4�' .t��r�`t'``c�ti af'-t.�'. �'A.-2� R',t � ��'-�t.-�.��t... 4",� . , ,,. . .. . ,-..�....,�f�4_...w__... 's.�i�`AA . �,��t� .. - .�:+.+b' . . . . .. presecve County assets. The Advisory t3aacd identified four (4) specific ateas of concern; �ersonnel, the defertal of asset manage�ent, the selectian of the �ost expensive office space altetnative as a neans of ptoviding Additionai court space, aad the bud9et prc�entation i�self; the bvd9et sun:sary distributed at the hearing thi� evening failed to identi£y those prograns that Nere no: pro�osed for funding nexc year, those that aere funded instea�, a7d how taesc aere balanced. !te utged that the ?�oa[d revie+� all four (.!) area� oE concern prior to adoption. hen t'.00ce stat�d th�t Hh had noe been provided, eithec lndividuallv oc through thc nedfa, with �ny re�o rtu on the County budget ptoc�s� througNout the past ycar, ^he budget sunmary di�tributed this rv�ninc� did not cnnkain a rlear and concise text on the County's goals, obj��ttve� and �alfcieg, provided nu cdncf�p t:1�UCClatlb:l on the bucf�ec it�clF, and Was nat conaidered uaer friencily. ::ooce felt that he NSU rntitleci ta all of rhi� fnEtrr;�acion, a� s rr�ident of the Coun[y, an<1 he suhhr�trd thar a pro�eduec b� i:.+�lr;�enecci to a11nu Ear �uchs atockholdeca, for inutance, Nrrr �srov[de�t vith ryusrterly ceport� indicatinc� how tAeic e�uiry tn J CbCjX1C�CSOi1 aan betlry rnaintained, nnd ciCizena ahoul8 be atr«ilarly infor�rd on thc uue ond �rcaecantion oE thefr �oaeta. Itooce ciid noc Eecl Chac County u�oEF had caacic � goo� €alch eEforc to brtng the �ublir in�o ehe lwc3get prorcaa, noeinry Ehat thecc: u�cC a nurber eE F�ubi[r forunn �vallable Eor thlu purpooe, tte ��lc that ti�i:� Waa a pnlir.lc�l, raehec than n bu�lgecary, �arotslQr.+. :;tth res��eCt r.o the bud9rc itaelE, he did not Leel thac it aclJrea�ed thc► manq ;�roblem� facing County go�ernnrnts ehe CounCy Poad and !lridrye [acillty, Eor Ln�tance, waa aicustect in an inaNpropriatc locacion a� :Ni� t1nQ anci h�a been unsaEc s;incc tirat in:+tslled o� ehe airpact ncaperty in 397Q, The bu�lget �nclrcly tailce! co acldccss this iseue. NoorQ folc etiat ie uould bc haip�ul if an overall, coa�rehen�ivc budget plan vaa madc availaGlc to tha rcaic;c�e� n�ior tn 1ca acloption. flo Al�o augc�csceci tbat �hc ¢pA[f1 LOl�ds+ ita adopted palicios And Nlsnu irt preparing eho badgot. Finally. he tclt that thv budgot and it¢ ado�?tian process, art vvidQnced by eha hoarinc� this evening, only uecti�ed co alienaco �he public. !11ake notect chat a sfnglc Courthousc i�+gcovenent was onc fl) . of tbo majar apprpprir,tions idenci€ied in tha pcppo�ccl Audget. - � Thf� expenditure wnald �rovide aciciitiansl space for ehe coucC ay�ten, vu� wacranced glven increaaes in case?oad, and tha �o�rd WAS obligated by statucc Co provide such spsce, !le noted that the bud9ot prace:,s has becn dis�orted during the past fev years due to significant projeacs that requiceJ funding; the new jail facility, the renavatian oP the Cour�house baseoer►t, and the pcaposed Courthouse attie iaprovenents .rere all :najoc capital idpravenents, ancl the acquisition of a neu coe+pucer systen next yea[ was yet anothe� ezanple of a significant capital exgenditure. Carleton explained that the Advisory Aoacd prepared, over the coutse of the past ttiro (2) years, a five t5) year financial p2an for che County in an eff ort to alleviate annual discortions. ' He noted that the renovation of the Courthouse attic was the r�osc expensive office space alternative, as Ehis project was expected to cosi one hundred and thirty-five dollars (5135) per square foot. Blake noted for the record that the preparation of the 1986 County budget has occurren over the past trro and one na2f (2.5) - rsonths, that a nur�ber of neetings were conducted during thac x=4�'_`_ ' period, and that all of those aeetings i•�ere open to the public. r_ � ��> Klanderud noted that, during the preparation of the 1985 -'`_ �"� budget, the Advisory IIoard net xi�h the 3oard several nonths �;;;,y:�-:�,' prior to adoption. She expressed some concern with ihe issues ;y;�.;.y:�;;� noted this evenin g, and particularly, that the Advisory Board did .��y,�.��; not express those concerns until imnediately prior to adoption. �.^:: ,�.; ��'x,-;.; Commissioner's !•teeting 9 Decer�b�r, 7.g8'S - 23 �� :;i.c�3..�:�Ta _ � �.. n.w..�.� , . '.�:- :� r � w' ��;�.� ,� :s. t•-� ,. .,. ., � �� . .�� 3 e� ��.7�1�� i� ��,�� .- �8"'Vhl"'_��1.�, ..e. .._ -is�t, . _.. �:..1.,a..�.a.u.. ......,.....a .�_ She noted that asset :aa:�agerent was a co:aplex issue and indica:ed that coo�eration with the City of Aspen in �anaging all public as�ets Has the :nost fiscally responsihle alternative, T�tith � resp�ct to the Couttiouse i�ptove�ents, she ;�oteo that the � renovation of t:ie a��ic °.or �he benefit of tae court �}ste� r..ay �ot ba trossible, ana that a d�ter�inatfon on this alternative Would not be finaliaed penciing furthet er►gin�ering s�udie�. � �landeruc: a�rcad that the �rogoc�d budget Was ;�ot user :riendl}�, I noting :h�t there have becn a nu;,�ber of 3ddLtional �taff �utbacY.� � a� FIC�.S as :?ajor chanoes to the hu^a� servicts �togcat�, non^ of which ha:. been idetiti:ied. �hc :roted, ha�tevec, .hat the 7aard did � noG havc th� fle�ibiltty to eLtab2i�h its �rlocitie� anci th�ti fund thoce �ervic�� With nill levy c�venuec. rv�ry dt:�er cnunty ir� the �tatc vas ptovicted s+ith tliis �bilitp, and the tnabi2ity csf �t�c nnara to act�u�� the levy cbn�ifiten� a�t:� a�r•�icen ha� �ontribu�ed to the clistortion oL the b�d9et [�ro��n�. Carleto7 noted �:i�t Che �ro7o�ec1 budr��t prc�j�cthd very cub�.antia2 cirEicl�� durin� th� next �our (!! yzaca, �eficitu whiCh Were ,�uch �reseer eh�n t:�t�aa identified durtn� previou: yrarr�. !!t cx��l�tnai► th�: ehe ,sublic c:ic1 nec hav� � cicac ldes cr: vh�t Chr rio�rcl'c �riori.icu i+errj ha Bu��raCrd that thr ttnard ficut e�:3nliah itu �rco�tciE� �n� c:�c� avvt�e the �utalie o: che Eun41[ary 11r�l�sttnnn. !!e a[o�eci t;�az ehe Artvt��rq E?n�rct rlaaired �o roesnanea uork an the 19A7 huci�se nrx� �anth, an� co eoltzic aublir inr�u;. tn ch�e �rorc�a et�caughsu: tt�e qsrsr. E�oAre Ealt thae l�udqct ca�.r41 v�a st� Ir�Foctane �� c�coatN control. anc3 he aut�.)2ated thac thr for^+e� �e areoun�ect for �c dili�catly :►Y cnc 13:tcr. Airk Fanto�� ex,recned A�1f�C coo�ac�� vich tha Gourehau�e imprnvementss �cagaaad; it r+�� not kno�+n, [or inr�e:►nce, vhy tt�a Couaci ncedecl adclt:ion�l oEEic:r �E3ace zie a ti�•c vl�cn, glvcn linitod revanucs. i� +:a� reclueiiti� chc :?ies af i�» at�[E. nl�akc c^:tP�31lIGfI thnc tha i^�rovc�ent rrocad uoul� a�lro�a Ehe ncvd� AL :hc coucc syscc-� 4nlj, ancl ch�c ic woulcT Anly expancl CpUCC facilitias. eoun�ias u�ce ��quired, by� acacue�. co prav�dQ tha cour� ay�cer+a uith Au[iici��ic �pace ta eonc�uct tMeir �LPaics. and ehc '�inth ;7uc�i�i�1 piSCFl�L ha� bcen ��quc�cing �aditian�l , ofEiec a�acc far Ghc 4»sc �h�ce t�1 �ears. l.iaigatian and couta • caaelaaci haa 3fIC[CdtTGd dra�acically i� AlGkl{1 CounGy Juring cbv pas� fev ycacs, Aci�litia�al office s,��ce u�� EUly ncccied, �nd the Councy wau oblig�kcd co Aro�id4 ic. County tlanager Johrt elde�t �xplainecl chat the p:tl� other incre�se in affice space was an iuentified ezaenditure chac :�ou13 pcovide foc the reloc�tion of �he computer syscQ�+ fra� Citiy Hal2 to a County iacility; Ehe celocation was neces�acy to allov Eor the renovation of Cit�� Nall. Fen4on suygesied thaC the �ud9et id�ncify the number a� County s�aif funded next yeat, as uell as provide a co�parison of staffing levels during "the previous fivc (5) years. :dinY. ,7afEee expressed so:ne concern c�at the Councy ,ras obligated to provide addicional o£fice space for the cou�t syscem. He noted that judges were elected o�ficials, and he BiJ not feel that the couct sy�teca wou1C actually follow through on - its statutory authority to require that such space be provided. _ Blake exQlained that the District coulc, at this tine, -�='<�•'" obtain a court order mandating tie pcovision oE additional office �;'� space, and that it couln also icnpose a mill levy inccease to Eund such. The judges within the Dis"trict have inc:icated a wil2ingness __:=;�t�� to obtain such an order if necessary. =r'.::;=:-: =;: - Fenton questioned the consolidation of CiLy and County ��°Y�°K"� governments, and specifically, whether any progress has been � � ,��,�-� � Commissioner's tieeting 9 Decerrbet, 1985 - 24 y{ f :1 �'i 3"i !=�� _ �-- . _�. _ � '�Ai� .. ... • �/�!�� . . . ..._.�Ae,.. ,aY... ..�.°1TY�w�A��,�•�E�:�j,iS��R9_� achieve� in realizing this 9oa1 during the z�.ast year. [ie asked iE the �ioard ;ead �utsued consolidaiion r+ith the City to the best of its abi2ity. :Sad�en explained that tne :3oard tsas not net With the City Council duriag the past feW nonths. !te sta�ed that the Board had r.:ade a nunber of atteapts to pcovide foc jofnt discussion on the issue, and that the Boacd was purseing Lhis 9oa1 to the best of fts ability. �enton al�o que�Cioned a recent office EurnfshLng expenc:f:ute of �he Sheriff, anc� �ugqested thai a singlc electad law enforcewent �:o�i�fon be e;tablished Eoc SheriEf and Aspen po2icr hepatt�en� Fu:tctio»�. rraudic exSlaired ti�at rhe E#oard ha3 bpen unab2e to achirvc a di�loquc �.rith the Cit} Council, nocin� that thecc hav� bcen vrty fea jafnt ;acetin�� durinq ihc pa�: Etvc (5) month�. Klahderuc: noteJ th�t coh�olidation Hauld requirc thr cnoh�csci�n �nei parctcti:a.lun oC hoth 1e�si hovernmentn; nlchau�h �hr n�r�cci h5s Uern v�ry vtllins to i�ur�ur thi�s goal, �ap�3ure for eh� ic�u� :�a� no: universo:, anci it� fruieion couid not be foraed . UjiGil Jh Criti[y. P1ai�r�ri.zl �lci�s�nr� l�o�rd :nc:+U�C �i r::�1tb explatned th�: thc main:c��anre E�cllity needa �£ a11 lpcal �2overnzenta were cevle�+ed w;� th� Rdvsc;ory �osrci� �onc of uhoac �?c:��eca attencied a ninrbcr ot '"rn+n aE �nos+:aaaa Vill�qc :►nd citq Coun�tl aeecingss to dlc�usa ehe r..vrit� of z ronr,�lic:aced f:�aiisty. 1�e enaoucaryed Fen�on'� �3[tici�sacian in e,ic�rcui�, fhc nerit� aC a eonssolid�ted Eacilley. Fencon ex�lalrec! ehae Caunty rcaideaGS were aerlouc abouc rcali»ing c�naolidatian aa+onc�;� all thraa tJl local governneneu wbere•aec a��ca;�riatc. Rc noted that che reaidentss nay have to aeek lec�al rrcour�c to pcdvida Ear Quch, ?ert�aac thr�ugh the iniciacive and refecenciu� praceaa. eldert r.oced th;►t thc pcapo�ec3 kuc)get prajecteci �izeable defi�ie� in :u�ure yeac� ancl thac, des;+ite thc �uppart iaclicated fo� a joint :n�incenance t:+e£li�y, the Couney coula �oe provic�e . �he Ehcee hunclred thou�and dollars (S�oA,Oflo) Eoc ita uhare of � con:=�lidated iACility at �hi� Ci,r.e. !te explained that tha noard una vcrry supporeivc �i a siqgle, canGr�l faetlity ta �erve all ; lQCal govecnment�. vith a nu-�ber of sacell�ce facilities co serve the �uniciNalities. Thc �aincenance i�uue �+aa Eurther con:,cr�ined a� che £ederal A�iation Ad�inistrAtion, by letter dated 3 ' Oece:�aer, 14tiG. has indicstad that all 1984 entitlenent funds for airnorc i:�prave�e�cs will be withhela pending the submission of u plan thac :�o�:ld arovide for che reloeation of the existing Road and aridge facility off of tne ai�port p�opeccy. Eldert explained tbat ooerations, deht secvice, and repsir and replacement were the hi5pest prio[i,ty County services, whereas capital improve�e�t Q�ojecG; ;�ere not paid for +rith restrictive funds; as a result, capital ir.+provenencs wete given the leas� priority and ++ere the first arograns proposed for elinination in the absence of • additiona). revenues. Tne Count! budget srould be balanced through the year 1990 by elir�inating all road projects; subsequent to that, the budget could only be baianced by reoucing repair and rep2acement, - Jaffee stated that the construction of three (3) new, - separace saintenance facilities by each local govecnment would - not occur. This type of activity rres not po2itically astute, and the electotate would assist, if ner_essary, in providing for a consolidated facility. Blake then asked for additional comments; there being none, : the hearing r�as closed. .J�#, - ':� Commissioner's Eteeting 9 Decer�be[, 1985 - 25 - � ; � •,��;i �� - `:t :�::;,,:`'.;. � ,�;- :: Yf� y-4�� ,_ . - : • .,r .:y�q - � - 3 }'�'e-r��... .. ',f� ; . � _ - r� f @ ��4 ��. '.,:.:.f r. . �� A. _ a�� .�i�s� Braudis ,�aved first reading ap�roval of both resolutians a3 1 reciCed eacliec, Klandecud �econded and the notion passed , cmanimously. Klanderud encouraged continued dialogue on the pCOposed . budget and the is�ues raised this eveninq. She noted that rhe cenovation of the �ourthousc �ttfc, although funded, was no[ : mand2�ted, and that, in the event a bettet sdlution became apparent, rhe t�bard Would considet such an alternative. t�ith rEgpect to the need for additionai court s��ce, incrpaspd ca�eload warr�nced so;ne Ievel of �xpansion enci ehe Juciiei�l District W�s authoriacd to �andate [hat n Caunty providC necded farili�ies. Sh� net�d ehat thr loeacidn of the Road and ±lridge Depsctnene, and th� need far �n altcrriative location fot the facilicy, r�quirrd furthcr revi�w; thc iscup roulci not be resolv�d t�} the �oard alnnc qivrn thr nunber of partfe� invc�lved, lncluding the P�deral Aviatien Adninistration. and pendinc� sro7Q dceerminatlon on local gnv�rnr�ent interec� In a eonssolidated . � aLructuce, rinally, ghe noted tha[ thr entire ronsolidation iasu¢ . , woulcl requtce �a[tiaipatinn by eaCh governnant, and she cncouraqed cNat rhn citix�ncy �ecnnc invnlvhd in that proress. Thore botng no EucehQr bualnesa, the meeting waa adjourned. :� i � .�; ..� -::;+ .:;;; ;.`:�j . :�� ;:a�a i'� "�'. t!h':� �E.• y�. � Commissioner's Meeting 9 December, 1985 - 26 =�� t.•' '�r,�,[ ^'>. � •a: PZ1'ItIN COUNTY. COLORADO 1tOAD KAINTE1iANCE CONTRACT THIS CONTRAC�, made this day of . � 19 , by and betx�en the 80Al2D OF COUN�Y COMMISSIONERS OP PITKIN COUNTY, COLORAW, (hereinafter referr�d to ag °County^) and the - -- SttHOiVZS20N HOIfiEOSiNER'S ASSOCIATiON or the ______. ___ ____.___ _ GEHERAL IMPROVEMENT DI3TRICT (hereinafter referred to as "Contractor"). W Z T N E S 3 E T H: : iittERE1�3, the County haa aqreed to accopt thQ maintenance rnsponoibllitias for roa8s wiChin the subdiviaion or conar�l isprovQmanti District subjQat to c�rtein conditions containad in Resolution No. 84- s and IiNERE1►s, ths County has datarminod that contractinq th�so aaintananca lunetions Eo ttfe homaownar'a associations and � ganaral improv�mant districts involvad is the moit eflicient and �' aconomical wsthod ot perEoraing such tunctionss and d1iHERE1IS, ahathar by telloy-government exa�ption, sole k' source exemption or amall purchase examption, thi6 contract ia .� -------- ---�--.- -- not subiect to the Procuramant Coder and �� wHEREAS, the Contractor ia taoailiar with the nnnda and ,-a requirements !or tha maintenance o! thesa roada� � � NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual condi- tions herein, the parties hereto agrea ae lollow6: 1. The Contractor agrees to furnish all labor, materi- als, equipmerit, tools and servfces necessary and incidental to perform and complete in a workmanlike manner all work required for the maintenance (includi.ng snow removal and siqnage), repair ' and improvement of the raads in the -. ?:� Subdivision or � General Improvement District for the term _,.� = --._"j of this Contract. `:;�.'�:.. �.�'_. 1 �.; - :,;._. :�:"„_ �ts` �Fu{s: �i-��..�;, . �� .S"� ' _..�...�.-�---�-_ __ ___ ___.......�----_ ' :�:_ _ - ,•',;�-r� "'` ° '�-�"�� _:=� �i �� 5� * � ��a . ��»�*, «..±�!�.*,'`� �. .. I . _ � ' Snch roads are identified on the annexed Exhibit "A." 2. The t�rm of this ConCract shall be from December 15 , 14 85 ta D�cember 14 , 19 86 . if performanc� under this Contract extends beyond the calendar year, nothinq herein shaYl be conatrued as an obligation by the County beyend any amounts that may be, from time ta time, received by the County #rom the Stata and appropriated by Che County on an ant►ual basia. It is understood thet paymsnt under any aontract is conditional upon annual appropriation of funda by seid qovern- ing body and that before providing aervices, tha Contractor, if 4 ha so rQquosta, will bQ advised as to the status of funda appro- prietQd for �orvicoa or matorial� end ahaii not bn obliqatad to provido ,aarvicas or saCorials tor which lunds havo not br�n � appropriatad. � + This contract sha12 autometically b� �xt�ndad oa a y�ac-to-y�ar bssia, unlers tarminakad pursuant to paregraph 10, bslow. � � This Contract ohall autoa�aticaZly tenaiaata i! and wheo . � ths State t�rminatas tha Highway User Tax Fund rafmbursawent tor � the roads tht►t are tfie subjact ot thia Agrnament. ; � 3. a, Tha County agrees to pay and the Coneractor ; agrnes to stcaept as lull payment lor tull pertormance under thia � Contract, the Contract Amount o! S Dollara (S 1� Which shall accrus and be paid by _ : tha County in the calendar year the work wAS performed, according to the schedule on �he anrexed E�chibit "B:" payment a�aounts and �imes by tbe County to Contractor in a calendar year are e�tpresaly conditioned on receipt at Highr►ay Oser Tax Fund payments by the State to the Cou�ty in that yeax. If the payments from the State ; are reduced or nat received by the County during the terms of this � Agreement for any reason whatsoever, the County shall have no � liabflity to Contractor for payment or reimbursement except for � those funds actually received from the State and in the calendar year those funds are actually received. County shall nat be subject to a claim for payment hereunder until 6o days after -� ,� 2 � �:9 __ _.__...�.�.�.........�--_ _.�_ _ � . ,_�:. , � � . . .:� ..'3�-.:��"' t,�i--i'�.t -^�it" . , r.� . . _ .�S`. �5+, a: ��.: r�ceipt of such payment by the State for the year in Xhich the Work �ras performed. b. Contractor shail either provir]e i�surance to the County or elecC to have thc County supply such cnveragp, as ---�.._..__.__ . . ....__... __ _. . . ._._. __ ____ . _ _.---.__,. such required insurance coveraqe is set out in Paragraph 6, - .. . . ......_-_..___... _.�__....____. __ beloa. if �he County supplies the coverage, the county shall -----.__ ._ __ _._ _.--------_.� reduce net payment� hereunder by an amount, not to exceed 45# of the Contract cost, sufficient ta pay the pro-rata share of prQmi- ^ uma end�tcs build and maintain a self-insurance reserve, ciaim ~ r�servQ and�premivm rsaerve, as nerassary in th� rnasonahle� _._ _.._. discration of thQ CounCy. At such time, during any ronsuela �_....___--- ___. . _ .__ _ _ : . _ . __ __ ._..___ _ _ .._.._..__._. hQreoE� �ha County has establiahnd sufficiQnt raaQtcvee, it vill K abatQ thi� in�urancQ�dQduction until such tiwa as^a cleia� or e _._..__--- _ __ -_ -- _ _ .. _. . _ . _.__ change in tho insuranco �earket mnkas turthor dQduction nQCessary. . . . . _ . _ .. ---... ._____r a. in ali casos, thQ County ahall bo entltlad to doduct [ive (5i) porcent ot ail Eunds raceivad by tha Stata as -.-----_--__._._.,--- ..___ �_._._.._.___.._.�.._.__._.__ r�imburaaa�nt tor tha County�a administrative costs haraundor. , 4. a. Tha Contractor heroby ropressnts and warranta _...,__.. _ . .._ _:.....___ that all roads subject to this Jlgraaaent maet mtala�um Fiticin � County Road Spacitications for that claes oi road. Funda here- ; . „� — _...____..._.._ . .__....._. .__ ._ _..,__._ . ..___.____.._._,. ' uader shnll only be apant on eubata�dard roada to the extent that °i such eacpenditure brings such roads up to miniaau�a gtaaaarae. --__.___.__. __..._ ..- -- ----�� b'. All maintenance, repair, and construction shall ba done in strict conlormanca vibh the reyuirements oP tha then- curra�t Pitkin County Road Specitications, Staadard State of Colorado road maintanance, repair ard improvement standards and tha requiremants oh the annexed �xhibit "C." . c. Tha terme, conditlons and restrictions of County Resolution Ho. 84- are expressly adopted herein by this reference. d. All operations hereunder shall also �trictly � comply with the requirements of 1973 C.R.S. 43-4-207, as it may � �' be from time to time amended. That section generally provides as a � follows: ! ¢ (i� Funds shall be expended by said counties � only on the construction, engineering, 3 � 3 .� � -.K.:>;-�y � •�, r;�:� ' ��-E��fi';"�l�' . .�� ._ .�= r. reconstruction, maint�nanae, repair, equip- ment, improvement, and administration of the aounty highWay systems together aith acqu�sition of riqhts-of-aay and access rights for the same and for no oCher pur- pose. {2) 2'hs amount to be expended for administrative � purposes shall not exceed five percent af gach county's share of the fundss available. (3j All roads for whi�h funds are reCeived shaii b� "open, used, and maintained," ahich means legally opBn to public travel . by ordinary motor v�hiales at all tim�as, usable at all ti�aes except durinq adverse weather conditions, and maintainad by uork of county maintenar►c�a creas or crsws af other qovernmental agencies vithin thia r stat�► vhich are authoriae8 to snqaqe in `_ highaay, road, or streBC maintQnenca or improvement performsd on a conrinual basis. s. Tho Contractor mey subcontract its obiiqations hsrQUndnr Co eny qu�lifiod road cor►traatar vith tho Qxpress �:�; s+ritton pQrmissSon o! County, but aqraes to bind ovnry subcontrac- Eor by ths tarmn o1 this Contract. Thia ConCraat shall not ba . aonatru�d as crenting a contractaai ralationihip botween any subcontraotors and th� CounEy. No aubcontracE shall b� construsd { to �xcus� or ral�as� Contractor lroa primary liability h�raundar. •, 6. e. Th� Cantractor and ar►y subcontractora shall Y�laas�, discharge, indemnify and hold Aarmless the County ot ;; Pitkin and its oiliaials, amployaa8, aqenta and rnprasentattvea y trom n�d against liability !or ony claim, demand, loaa, damaqes, penalty, judgment, expanses, coats (including cost$ ot inveotiga- tion and detense), leas (including raeeonable attoraey and expart witness fees) or compansation in any iorm or kind vhatsoevar for ary bodily injury, death, personal lnjury or property dAmaqe arising out a! or in connection with any negliqeat act, intention- ai act, error or onission by tbe Contractor a�d/or its officials, - employeeo, agents and representatives, or fox any resulting : liability alleged to accrue aqainst the County on account of the � Gontractor's aats, errors or emissions; provided, how�ver, that � such indemnity shall not be construed as an indemnity for bodily g injury or property damaqe arising from the sole negligence or i .�j intentional acts of the County or its employees. � ,.� :� 4 �� '�• _ t-. F 3- ' �a': ;:�:. _ ,;. .. .�., 3 .� ,� ?W, �` # �.b �+ ' . '�l��'��;e�r � �° ,�:1.�"�:. ;. � -� �. ' b. The Contractor further shall investfgete, prxess, respond to, adjusC, provide defense for and dePend, pay or setCle all cYaims, demands, or lawsuits related hereto at its so2e exp2nse and shall bear all other custs and expenses related thereCot even if the claim, demand or lawsuit is graundless� false or fraudulent. �. To fund this indemnity, the Contractor shall: (i) sacure and maintain for the term of its contractual reiation- ship with th� County suah insurancQ policies, from compa»ies licnnsdd in the State of Colorado, as vili protect itsaif, Che County (with thn County as named SnaurQd), and othora as apeci- .� x lied, lron cleims for bodiiy injurios, dQath, parsonai injuty or proporty AaaaqQ, uhich may ariso out oE or result from th� Con- �� tractor's acts, �rrors or oaissions= or (2) roiaburse thn CounEy,, t � - �� pursvant io paragraph 1.b., abova, to wai�tain such covQraqa. � ," Th� tollovinq insuranc� cov�rag�, at ar abovQ th� limits indicat�d and inoludi�g such andors�m�nts as ara indicat�d, ar� r�quir�ds � � (1) Statutory worlaan�s Comp�nsation Colorado � statutorv'±nL w.• ;� � (2) Co�epreltiensive Genarul Liability: -� Bodily Injury/Each 8erson soo,009 � Property Damage/�achcAccident l soo.000 '' - i; jAggregate l.o00,000 Endoraeaents: ' x Caaprehensive Foree x Premises/Operations Y Undarground, ��losion & _ Collapsa Haaard, if necassary dopandfng on construction �C 8road Form Blnnket Contractual (Hold Harmless Coveraqe) Y Independent Co�tractoxs . aad Subcontraata�cs x personal Injury, with �mployment Exclusion Oeleted � (3) Compx�hensive Hotor Vehicle Liability Insurance: � Aodily injury/Each Person 500.000 � /�ach occurr��cs 1.aoo,0o0 < Property pamage/Each Accident 500.000 ' /Aqgregate i.000.oOQ., * Endorsements (check as appropriate): �} x Any Auto j x All owned Autos � x Hired Autos x Non-Ovned Autos `•} (4) Sgecial Coverages (check as appropriate): ; x (1) Performance Bond and 3 ; � 5 � � ! ,�N� �c ,�-�, . ��:� � ;��: ,< ,�F� ,�''`?�.-'�'_ . <� �ta.- _ ��. �-i::' . i' � Labor and Material Payment Bond (for projects gteater Chan $25,000) 100$ x (2) P7rofessional Errors and Oteissions Tnsur�noe for projects requiring professional design or supervision: L'ach Occurrence 500.000 Aqgregate 1.000,000 � d. To provide �vidence of the requirad insurance coveragea, copies of Certificates of insurance in a form accept- abie to th� County ahall be filed with the County (throuqh the Projnet Manager) no latar than ten (10) calendar days prior to : commencemene of operations affectinq the County. Failure to file or maintain accaptable CertifiratQa of InsurancQ vith the County �� ia agr��d to b�a a metorial broach of any contract and grounda for � rosci:sion or tQrminatlon. Thnsa carttficates ot inauranc� ahall � aontafn a provision that covQrngo atforded under tha poiicias R will not bo cana�llad or Aat�rially aitarod unless aE laaat thirty (�0) csl�ndar days prSor aritlan notics sant by cartiElod raail, r�turn r�aaipt r�qu�atad, has bsan giv�n to th� County (throuqh th� Proj�ot Hanager). � :� •. In additton� th�se Certilicat�s ot Insuranca ` 4 shall contain the following clauseas <; ,� (1) Underwrlters and i�surars aball have no .� ; right ot raeovery or aubrogation agaiast the Coynty oi Pitki�. �- it bsing the inte�tion o! the par�ies that the insurance policiva ' so ettected sha22 protact both parEies and be primnry coveraga for nny and all lossas covered by the abov�-described insuranre. • (2) . The clause "other insurance provisions,'� _ in a policy in-which the County oi Fitkin is named as an insured, shall not apply to the County of Pitkin. (3) The ineurance companies issuinq the policy i? ? os policies shall have no recourse against the County of Pitkin .. _� � Lor payment of any premiums or for ass�ssments under any form a! � policy. (4) Any and all deductibles in the above- e� -.� described insurance policies shall be assumed by and be for the s_-.,.;;i amount of, and at the sole risk of the Contractors. '`:-_ i ��ti- 6 Y�r-: " .`��f�s �:._. �.Ys �� :��. '....�� - ,�;- _ T�. � rx�;� `� ' �',�;;�..:c: 3.�,.��,��'�.�� _ , � . �, �, (5) Location of operations shail be: "all operatians and locations within Pitkin County and affectinq Pitkin . County governm�nt.^ 7. This Contr�ct also is subject to the County�s ��ttequired Clauses,^ as such r�quired clauses may from time to time be amended, a current copy of ahich is attached hereto as Exhibit "D." e. All work hereunder ahail bs done under the qeneral snpervision and directian of the Director of Roads and 8ridqeg or _' hi� designee. The Director sha11 d�cide any and all queationa ahich may atcise as to th� quality and acceptability oE matQrialg ? furnishQd, work performad, ratn of proqrasa of thn Work, intnr- 3 protation o[ the Contract, chanqs ordara (within tho limita oE hia authority) and all othoY qu�stion� ai to the complianca with th• ContracE on Eho part ot tha Contractor. Any aubcontractad work her�undor shall ba at th� supervisian of th� Contractor, aubj�cc to r�view sad approval by �he Dir.ctor. 9. Thls ContracE and all ot ths aov�eants h�reoL shall :� inurs to the bensfit ot and bo btnding upon tha County and the �' Contractor respectively and tfieir agents, rapreeentativos, ea►- � ployees, auecoasors, asaigns and legal reprasentativea. Naither '� the County nor tha Contractor ahall have tha right to assign, � trartater or aubcontroct !►ie interest or obligationa hereunder withont the vritten conaent ot tha other party. < lo. This Contraat may be terminated by eithar party upop thirty (�o) days written notice thereof, with obligations hereunder adjusted pro-rata or by separate agreement of the = parties. ______��---..____.�_. . � 11. This Centzact does rot and shall not be deemed or � coristruQd to confer upon or grant ta any third party oX parties � atty riqhts to claim damage� or to bring any suit, action or other proceeding against either the County or Contractor because of any breach hereof or because of any of the terms, covenants, agree- ;'i =°� ments or conditions herein contained. :�� .<' 7 :� r3� T �':it ..�.'�.� 'Y�. ' ,a; • q�¢ ..:�.r xa•.:�..t..�.�€r> _ �°�� _ . ,'�.: . ��;:. ��.` 12. No waiver of default by either party of any of the terms, covena�ts �r conditions hereof to be performed, kept and observed by the other party shall be construed, or operate as, a Waiver of any subsequent default of any of the Cerms, covenants or conditions herein contained, to be performed, kept and observed � by the other party. 13. The parties agree that this Contract aas made in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and ahall be so conatrued. Venue is aqraad to ba exciusiveiy in the courts of Pitkin County, Colorado. 14. In tha event that lsgal ection is nacassary to _ onforcQ eny ot thQ proviaions of this Contrect, ths prQVailing � perty ahall ba antitla4 to its costs nnd rQasonabla attornoy's #� loea. �" is. This Contract was n�gotiatad and revi�w�d throuqh th� mutusl •tlorts o! th� parti.a herato and th� partias agrsa that no construation shali b� mad� or prasuAption shali arios Lor or against •ith�r party b�sad on any allag�d un�qual statu• of ° th� parti�s in th� n�gotiation, raviow or drafting of this Con- * i tract. � A � 16. The undarsignad represa�tative o! Contractor, as ;� an inducoment to the County to execute thia Contract, representa a . p that he/ahe is an authorized rapresantative o! Contractor !or the � purposes o! axecuting this Contract and that ha/she hAS lull a�d �. comploto authority to entar into this Contract for the terms a�d �: tconditione specified herein. � - IN wITNESS wHBREOF, the parties bave made and executed this Contract, the day and year PirRt written above. � - COUNTY OF PITIfIN. COIARA00 ATTEST: � � BY' � :� Title• . � Address: 506 E. Main Street RECO?R�NDED FOR APPROVAL: �w� Aspen, CO. 81611 _ ;� i_''� �� 8 '�1.:; _��'..�` 1 . • ��1 ^.�,.� , �� `•� ,��.�. ,�.�� _ , � . � � APPROVED AS Td POitlls � GBty 3. SsBiy �ssistant Pitkin County Attorney Tho�maa Carl oken Pinnnca Dirnctor � � CONTMCTORt Bys '°� TitiQs �� Addresss ,,_,� '� � � i ;' _ '� � :f :� � . � � . - �. �� . . , . . . . . � , �� 9 � . Y� , ' •�a% ,-_�;?� - �,._�,� -..., ...,. __ _._.. 3.w�.-��`�;k'"�i'� �;�`' ''*��3; a. Snos+ploWing and snorr removal The Contractor sha11 be responsible for keeping the roads open and passable through the vinter months. A prampt and effici�nt response to all storms greater than 3 inches in depth is reqnired. Durinq larqe or extpnded periods of snoM service shall be provided at appropriate intervals to enaur�a thaL the use of the road is available. The Cohtractor shall mainCain the snoabanks and Wind roas to prevent any adverse acaumulation r+hich would restrirt the use of thp road or hfnder the efficient removal of snos�. b. Surface grading and graveiinq The Contractor shall at regular intervais, qrada thQ surface of the road to dev�lop and mai,ntain a standard csoas . seation and knAp tha aurface amooth and uniform. In addition tha ContracCor ahali furnish and instail sufticient road baaQ ' matorial (CDOH Ciass-6) to maintain a we11 drainnd end durable surfaca. CompliancA aith thia task wili invoivo a minzmum of ? tvo days machine tiene with a motor gradQr and tho pl�icamQnt ; ot a minimum ot 100 tons oE road basQ as needed or as diractod by the County. c. Ditch claeninq Tha Contractor shall machanicaliy grada and claan th� drainagQ ditch to ra�fovo dirt and dobris and paintain th� lraa flow o! storm Watnr. , d. Siqn installation and mainEananco The Contractor shall install and maintain approprtat� siqns to compiy with the raquir�mants of Pitkin County and tha Nsnual oE tinitotm Tra!!ic Control Davices. Coteplianea uith thls raquir�monti involvas th� installation o! a miniww - of lour aigns togather witl� their rapair or replaceme�t 1! thay ara damaqad or lost. •. Culvert inatallation nnd maintena�cs - � The Contzactor shall ba responaible Lor the i�stallation nnd maintanance o! tha drainaga culvorts withln the aubdivi- `) aion. This work ahall include claaning the culverta should j they become pluggad aad the raplacement with new culverta o! �; appropriata eiza ahould one bacome damaged. � � 1 E7fHI8IT "C" i 1 R t � i j ,��.�,.,,, � • • ;y�� _ . ::_ _ , ,��,:- � �; ,�;,; _ �5 ", i : _ r•'�',�-� �. . . `3r"'�rteAi�i_;� . ��t+ �' ��; �g�� '�;-:€i;"t;f� _..�..�� .a.... �.� _� _ 1985 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING EXHIBITS December 9 Land Use Application Fees A Memarandum Dated December 9, 1985 from Alan Richman, Plannin Director,to Board of County Commissioners Willoughby Ponds Estates B Memorandum Dated December 9, 1985 from Cindy Houben, General Submission and Planner,to Board of County Commissioners Note: For all GMP Application other exhibits pertaining to this matter refer to Board of County Commissioners meetin of November 25, 1985 Jack Gredig Lease C Memorandum Dated November 21, 1985 from Gary Esary, Assistant Coun Attorney,to Board of Coun Commissioners 51 � E�IBIT r��r�iou�t TO: Board of County Commissionets � S FROM: Alan Richman, �Planning and Developanent Direc or RE: Land Use Application Fees DATE: December 9, 1985 °____________________________________________________________________ SZl!!lfARY: Attached for your review is the Resolution which we recommend you approve to re-establish the fee structure for the processing of land use applications. The fee structure involves the same basic elements that have constiFuted the land use application fees for several years, with two significant changes: 1. The base fees have 6een slightly reduced for the first time since their original implementation, reflecting some increased efficiency in our office in processing applications. 2. A new fee for the referral agencies within the Environmental Quality Section has been proposed. Following is discussion of these two changes. ANALYSZS: The following table compares the present fees to those pr.oposed for 1986; CatPgory 1985 Fee 1986 Proposed Fee ' I. GMP/Subdivision/P[JD ; 1. General $ 2,930 $ 2,800 2. Detailed $ 1,900 S 1,820 3. Final $ • 730 $ 700 II. Subdivision/PUD l. General $ 1,7 50 $ 1,6 80 2. Detailed $ 1,470 $ 1,400 3. Final $ 730 $ 700 IiI. Al1 'Two Step" Apps. $ 1,320 $ 1,260� IV: All "One Step° Apps. $ 730 $ 700 We are pleased to be able to recommend a fee reduction and yet still meet our 1986 Budget guidelines.. The new fee to be charged by ref erral agencies reflects a consensus reached by the members of the Environmental Quality Section that the costs of the land use referral process should be off set. This finding was reported by me in the Organizational Plan f or the Section, presented to and accepted by the County Manager in July, 1985. The budgets for each referral agency reflect the adoption of this new fee by the Board. The premise behind the fee is that applications sent to referral agencies can normally be classified as either minor or major, based on the hovrs it is anticipated to take to review their contents•and make recommendations to the Planning Office. The agencies have identified $25 per hour as a reasonable estimate of their costs. We recommend that a "minor" referral cost $50 and a "major" referral $125, based on the experience of these departments. Fees would be assessed by the Planning Office for each referral agency at the time of submission of an application. Additional billings and refunds are not proposed to apply to ref erral agency fees. RSCOMMENDED MOTION: "Move to adopt Resolution No. , Series of 1985." AR.6 • . EXHIBIT � � i�-� Rr•.�or.u�rio�i ��F ��ir•. iSOARD OE COUP7PY COMM1SS70Ni:rts OF PI'CKIN COUNPY, COLORA!)O� R8-ESTA[TLIS117NG A FEE STR FOR THE PItOCESSING OE LAND USC APPLICATIONS Resolution No. 85- WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado (hereinafter "eoard"} has adopted a policy of annually reviewing the •Planning Office's land use application fee structure to bring it more into line with the increasing costs of service provi- sion; and � WHERFAS, the Board, in consultation with the Planning Office, has determined that the current fee structure for the processing of land use applications contained in Resolution No. 84-132 does not accurate- ly reflect the costs incurred by the County to provide the necessary level of services associated with the Land Use Code administration f unction; and WHEREAS, the Board .desires to revise the fees for the processing of such applications so as to off set 100 percent of the total costs of the Land Use Code sdministration function; and , WHEREAS, the Pitkin County Land Ose Code establishes the f ollow- . � ing categories of review processes with regard to land use applica- tions: I. GMP/Subdivision/PUD l. General Submission 2. Detailed Submission 3. Final Plat II. Subdivision/PUD � 1. General Submission 2. Detailed Submission 3. Fi nal Pl at III. All 'Two Step" Appl ications • IV. All "One Step" Applications ; and _ WHEREAS, the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office has projected the ' total cost of the County's Land Use Code administration function, which includes the cost of processing land use, applications, respond- ing to routine public inquiry and initiating minor code amendments; and ' WAEREAS, the Board has determined that a "base Fee" should be established for each category of review process whieh when •applied to the projected 1986 number of land use applications will have the • . • , . . . . • ,, •. � Resolution No. 85- Page• 2 effect of offsetting 100 percent of the total cost of �the Land Use Code administration f unction; and iisEREAS, the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office has reviewed the average time historically required to process land use a pplications and has identified that number of hours• in the table below; and FIHEREAS, The Board wishes to provide for "Additional Billings" to cover the additional costs incurred by the County when the processing of a land use application by the Planning Office takes more time than is covered in the "Base Fee structure; and WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the Environmental Health, Engineering and Housing Departments, and Environmental Coordinator, as land use referral agencies, should charge fees to offset the cost of their review activity, which f ee should be collected by the Planning Office. ' NdW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board that the "base Fees" I and Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office average time requirements for the I processing of Land Use Applications are established as follows: � Category Planning Office Hours Base Fee i I. GMP/Subdivision/PUD � � 1. General Submission 20 $2,800.00 ; 2. Detailed Submission 13 $1,820.00 3. Final Plat 5 $ 700.00 II. Subdivision/PUD 1. General Submission 13 . $1,680.00 2. Detailed Submission 10 $1,400.00 3. Final Plat 5 $ 700.00 III. All 'T wo Step" Applications 9 $1,260.00 • IV. All "One Step" Applications 5 $ 700.00 V. Ref erral Fees - Environmental Health, Housing, Engineering, Environmental Coordinator 1. Minor Applications 2 $ 50.00 (per Ref erral Agency) • 2. Major Applications 5 $ 125.00 (per Referral Agency) ; BE IT FQRTHER RESOLVED by the Board that the Aspen/Pitkin � Planning Office staff shall keep an accurate record of the actual time , i required for the processing of each land use application by the Planning Office and that "Additional Billin�gs" shall occur • commen- ; . . I . . . . . ' � :. � . ' �. i . Resolution No. 85- Page 3 surate with the additional costs incurred by the County when proces- sing of an a pplication by the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office takes more time than is covered in the "Base Fee". In the event the processing of an application by the Planning Office takes less time than provided for, the Planning Office shall refund ,the unused portion of the "Base Fee." BB IT F[IATHER RESOLVED by the Board that the following guidelines for the administration of the f ee structure hereinabove described are established: 1. Fees charged for .the processing of applications which fall into more than one category shall be cumulative, while the fees charged for the processing of applications within the same category �hall not be cumulative; provided that in the event that the fees which result from cumulation are found by the Planning Office to be er.cessive in relation to the number of hours it is anticipated to require to process the application, the Planning office may waive the cumulation • requirements. 2. "Additional Billings" will be based solely on processing time spent by r..embers of the Planning Office in the proces- � � sing of an application. I 3. "Additional Billings" will be calculated at the rate of $85.00 per hour of Planning Office staff time while refunds of unused hours will be made at the rate of 5140.00 per hour ; of time. i 4. The Planning Office shall establish appropriate guidelines for the collection of "Additional Billings" as required. � 5. This fee structure shall be reviewed annually in December of each year and adjusted appropriately, such adjustments to take effect on Jannary 1. . 6. The Planning Office shall identify, prior to or at the time of submission of a land use application, whether the application is'to be referred to the Environmental Health, Housing and/or Engineering Departments, and/or the Environ- mental Coordinator. The Planning Office shall also identify � whether the agplication constitutes a minor or a major ' application, based on the number of hours which will be required to process the referral, and charge tY:e applicant for each referral accordingly. Additional billings and refunds shall not apply to the computation of referral fees. APPROVED by ttie Board at its regular meeting on December 9, 1985. ATTEST: BOARD OF COONPY COMMISSIONERS OF PITRIN OOOIJPY, (70LORADO BY Lew Scanlan, Deputy County Clerk Tom Blake, Chairperson ; . APPROVED AS TO FOIrFI: RE MENDED FOR APPROVAL: �O]L�-�� - � Thomas F. Smith, County Attorney Alan Richman, Planning and . •Development Director . AR.5 • � .. ._.__ '...._ ...___._. __- ��.�..'-i.....�r.u.......�...�.�_ .__.._ . ._. . ...._... �M1YWi!(YiIfliWliliNYm ` 1 � .. .i �iypx�xDp M EXHIBIT � � ....:,. ... 3 — � ,,. T:o. T�: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Cindy Houben. Planning Office RE: Willoughby Ponds Estates General Submission and GMP Applica- tion DATE: December 9, 1985 RBQIIEST: General Submission and Metro Area Residential Growth Management application and 1041 Special Review. APPLICANT: HRG Partnership LOCATION: The site is located directly south of Willoughby Way between Wil.loughby Way, Red Mountain Road and the Rio Grand Trail. S1TE DATA: The site is 16.27 acres in size. ZONING: R-30 ACCESS: Existing and proposed access off of Red Mountain Road and a pro posed acce ss off of Willoughby Way. WATER: Proposed service by Aspen Water Department services. SEWER: Proposed service by the Aspen Metro Sanitation District. PROJECT DESCRIPPION: The applicants propose to develop 8 single family homesites on the property. One home currently exists on the property. This home is to be removed and replaced by a new home, therefore, seven (7) new building permit allocations are requested. The proposal creates 8 lots ranging between 1.4 acres and 3 acres in size, well above the 30,000 s.f. minimum lot size of the R-30 zone district. The property contains 2 existing ponds which are to be included as part of the acreage for proposed Lots 1 and 2 but are placed within a designated open space easement. Lots 5, 8 and 4 also contain an open space easement area. Lots 5 and 2 contain open space easement areas which will serve as a buffer between the Rio Grande Trail and the development. Lots 8 and 4 contain an open space easement which will allow a buffer area between the development and Willoughby Way and the corner area or intersection of Red M�ountain Road and Willoughby Way. The proposal also offers a trail easement from Red Mountain Road, near the Hunter Creek Bridge, through the property, south of the existing ponds. to the Rio Grande Trail. The trail location has been modified by the applicant and is located higher on the property than what is indicated in the application. There are three proposed access drives into the developnent. The existing drive on the property is to be utilized for Lots 3, 4 and 5 while a new road cut is proposed off of Red Mountain Road for Lots 1 and 2. Lots 6, 7 and 8 are proposed to be accessed off of Willoughby Way. 1091 SPECIAL REVIEW: Dr. Nick Lampiris did a report which indicates that there are no geolo gic concerns associated with the property other than a 150 foot area which has slopes above 30� . No developnent is proposed for this area. In addition, no development other than a portion of the trail easement is proposed to be located within the designated 100 year floodplain. RBFERRAL QO!!l�NTS: 1. County Environmental Coordinator: In a memo dated 9/19/85, Mazk Fuller addresses the f ollowing concerns regarding the pr�posal: a. Easement - The open space easement should be extended to also include the lower portions of Lots 6 and 7 and the portion of Lot 7 adjacent to Willoughby Way. The lower portions of these lots are adjacent to the Rio Grande Trail and can serve as an effective buffer between the T�ail and the development, as well as continue to provide habitat f or small game and birds. Mr. Fuller also notes that the easement should be considered as a conservation easement versus an ogen space easement since an open space easement may allow f or f airly drastic landscaping changes whereas a conservation easement would limit activity to clearing of undergrowth, trail develo pment and other minor improvement s. b. Lot ? - Mr. Fuller acknowledges that Lot 7 is in an area of high grouad water and saturated soils and will require special measures ta avoid problems. He notes that detailed information on solutions to these constraints should be subm itted. c. Weed Control - Mr . Fuller notes that the subdivision homeowners should carry out a prescribed weed control program and be required to join any weed canttol district that is established f or the area. d. Tennis Court-Visual Impact - The open space easement concept may not work affectively if the tennis court is not lighted and required to be shielded by landscaping which creates a wall effect. e. Trail Easement - The proposed traii easement is partially within the 100 year floodplain but does not appear to have major drawbacks in terms of soils stability, grade o= standing water. 2. Colorado Geological Survey - in a memo dated 9/5/85, the Colorado Geological Survey concurred with the findings and recommendations of Dr. Nick Lampiris. 3. County Engineer - In a memo dated September 9, 1985, Tom Newland notes that the proposed new access off of Red Mountain Road could be used if the small slopes next to Red Mountain Road are cut back to aff ord the proper site distance. 4. Housing Authority - In a memo dated 9j3/85, the Hcusing Authority recommends approval of the proposal with the following condi- tions: a. Payment of $25,715 per homesite shall be made at the time of issuance of each building permit. b. The payment amount shall be adj usted to the low income cash-in-lieu guidelines in effect at time of payment. � 5. Environmental Health Department - In a memo dated 8/27/85, Tom Dunlop addresses the following items: a. Air Pollution - The application adequately ac�dresses dust control and woodburning emission, however, there shoald be some clarification as to what type and how many woodburning • devices are proposed. Prompt revegetation of distu=bed sails will help mitigate air and/or water erosion of soils. At the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant clarified the type and number of woodburning devices proposed for the 2 __. � -e-.. development . The proposal is to comply with the existing standards allowing oae fireplace per home and to install certified woodburning stoves if stoves are to be used. b. Sewage Disposal - Mr. Dunlop requests that the �pplicant grant a 20 foot easement to the Aspen Consolidated Sanita- tion District, to allow eight inch collection lines to extend to Willoughby Way where there are two homesites which are not yet connected to public sewer lines. In addition, there are 3 or 4 homesites in the area that are individually serv ed by 4 inch connecti ng lines which have experienced pro bl�n s. 6. Aspen Consolidation Sanitation District - Heiko Ruhn concurs with the memo written by the Environmental Health Department concern- ing the requested 20 foot easement to Willoughby Way. 7. Aspen water Department - In a memo dated 9/2/85, Jim Markalunas notes that the City can serve the parcel with water and recom- mends a looping between Red Mountain Road and Willoughby Way. This looping already appears on the applicant's utility plan. PUBLIC COMMENT: A letter was received on Sepkember 25, 1985, from Herb Klein, representing the John Cronin Family which are land owners across Willoughby Way from the proposed development. The major concern expressed in this letter was that of adverse visual impacts due to heights of homes and vegetation, building materials and potential lighting of the proposed tennis court {see attached let- ter) . Subsequent to the Planning Commission review on October 2, 1985, the Cronin Family submitted another letter dated November 15, 1985 (attached) . This letter basically notes that even though the Planning Commission attempted to limit the visual impacts of the proposal, the Cronin Family would still like to see height limitations on Lots 3 through 8. The letter also reguests that the landscaping on the property be limited in height so as not to obstruct the views from Willoughby Way. STAFF COMi�PTPS: l. As noted in the application, the proposal is for a significant density teduction on the parcel. The parcel could potentially contain 23 units under the R-30 zone district regulations. The density reduction is approximately 66$. 2. The proposal is in an appropriate location for residential development. The site is surrounded by single-family development in all directions. Willoughby Way contains lots ranging in size from 20,000 to 60,000 s.f. The pro posal contains lots ranging in size f rom 1.4 acres to 3 acres. 3. The development req uires 1041 Special Review with regard to Geologic and Floodplain Hazards. The applicants propose to keep the developnent totally outside of the 100 year floodplain. With regard to the geologic hazards, Dr. Nick Lampiris has completed an investigation included in the application which indicates that there are no major geologic hazards on the 16 acre parcel. Dr. Lam piris, how ev er, does make recommendations regarding the specific geologic aspects of each lot. He notes that each lot should have a site specific engineering and f oundation design to insure stable foundation. Lot 7 will specifically require site - specific engineering to insure wet area drainage and proper foundation construction. Lot 7 will require surface and subsur- face drainage xrom the guiley bordering the building site to the northwest and the high water table of the southern portion of the building site. The recommendation is to install perimeter drains around the foundation and construct the foundation for high water table. With regard to driveways, lots 1 and 2 will reguire cuts into the slope and may require retaining structures in some areas. 3 Dr. Lampiris recommends site specific soils testing and engineer- ing be done for all driveways. The staff is satisfied with regard to the 1041 issues since no development is located in any areas of either geo],ogic or floodplain concern. �• 4. The staff conceptually supports the proposed development, however, makes the following specific comments: a. The proposed open space easement should be enlarged to include the lower portions of Lots 6 and 7, anc7 the upper portions of Lots Z and 3. In addition, the open space easement should be established as a conservation easement as noted in Mark Fuller's memo. The concep� of a conservation easement versus an open space easement is that the buffer area along the Rio Grande Trail, Red Mountain Road and Willoughby Way would not be encroached upon by high inten- sity recreation uses, small game and. bird habitation would be preserved and the visual impact of the development would be significantly less than if the existing healthy trees were removed f or private recreational development. At the October 2 Planning Commission meeting, the applicants agreed to the f ollowing condition imposed by the Commission: "No buil ding or high intensity recreational uses shall be allowed out side the designated building envelopes other than the proposed tennis court and gazebo, as proposed at General Submission. In addition, a covenant restricting the cutting of trees outside of the designated building envelopes shall be submitted at Detailed Submission and reviewed by the Commission." i This condition is satisfactory to the staff since it will accomplish the same result as was initially proposed by staff. b. The proposal is for two road cuts off of Red Mountain Road. One cut currently exists and one is to be adaed for access to Lots 1 and 2. This new access is directly across from the Rubey. Estates Subdivision driveway entrance and will require cuts and fill along the western portion of Red Mountain Road. The upper existing driveway is proposed to access three homesites. At the Commission's site review on October lst, a suggestion was made that the applicant explore the possibility of eliminating the existing driveway and accessing the three homesitPS off of Willoughby Way. The staff feels this is a desirable alternative since it will reduce the number of road cuts onto Red Mountain Road which has historically been a dangerous roadway. After lengthy discussion at the October 2 Planning Commis•- sion meeting, the Commission voted to recommend approval of the access as proposed. This decision was based on the design merits of the application. Elimination of the existing Red Mountain Road access point would prevent Lots 4, 5 and 6 from having a more secluded and limited access. c. The trail, as shown in the application, borders Hunter Creek along an existing cut within the 100 year floodplain. The staff feels the floodplain should be totally avoided where possible. The proposed trail connection is planned to be a paved connection linking the Rio Grande Trail with a trail along Red Mountain Road connecting again with the Rio Grande Trail at the Art Museum. There are also plans to connect this trail to the existing Hunter Creek trail. The trail easement has been clarified by the applicant as being further nocth on the site than is shown in the application. 4 It is proposed to be directly south of the ponds along an existing footpath. This is a very desirable location for the trail link. d. The R-30 zone district allows for a 28 foot height limit- ation, however, with a pitched roof the actual allowable height of a house could be 33 feet. Lots 8, 7, 6, 5 and 4 could potentially create vi sual ba r ri er s f or property on Willoughby Way, Lot 8 being the most critical. The appli- cation includes a 2otting plan which indicates the building envelopes on the site. When this is overlapped with the Environmental summary map, the slo pes on the property show how much of the building envelope will be below the slopes. Lots 8. 4 and 3 will totally be located above the slopes. The back side of Lots 7, 6 and 5 have the potential to have a house located partially above the slopes. This means that the house could potentially be 33 feet high measured from the grade on the top of the slope. It is important to recognize that these lots, even though not proposed to be designed for full heights at the back of the slopes, could, in fact, be designed for the full heights at the rear of each lot. Heights of 28 to 33 feet on all of the lots (with the exception of lots 1 & 2) would block the existing view of a significant portion of Aspen Mountain when looking south from Willoughby Way. In addition, the potential size of the houses an the upper lots could create a wall effect on the property, as seen from Willoughby tvay. Section 2-16, Scenic Quality, of the Pitkin County Land Use Code, establishes the policy of the County to preserve the scenic quality of the County for the benefit of its residents. The Planning Commission made the following condition of approval: "The heights of the homes on Lots 5 and 6 shall be specifically determined at Detailed Submission after appropriate studies have been finalized. These lots shall be limite@ with regard to heights as viewed from Willoughby Way by transit heights and vertical angle to be determined with the intention for the structures not to intrude on the view of Aspen Mountain." Both the staff and the Planning Commission felt that this condition would mitigate the impacts on the existing neighborhood and Willoughby Way viewplane. The applicants, however, do not agree to limit the heights of the homes (other than Lot 8) to anything other than the 28 feet all ow ed by Code. The County Attorney has agreed with the applicants' counsel that we cannot impose a stricter height limitation than what the Code allows. This location differs from The Preserve Subdivision or Golf Course Properties in that it is not within a designated Scenic Viewplane nor is it regulated by our Scenic Foreground Special Review process or HJD regulations. The applicants have agreed to a condition imposed by the Planning Commission for the height of the building on Lot 8. The condition read as follows: "The height of buildings on Lot 8 shall be no greater than 26 feet measured from the top of the roof." The 26 foot height was determined after a lengthy discussion by the Planning Commission who were using their best judgment after a site review at which they "eyeballed" the potential heights of the buildings. After the Planning Commission meeting both the applicants and the Planning Commission members did an informal viewplane study at the site and determined that a home of no greater than 20 feet 5 in height could be built in the proposed upper slopes of the building enveZopes (Lots 5, 6 and 8) without disrupting the view from Willoughby Way. The measurements were taken at a vertical angle of 3 degrees from a five foot five inch (5'S") transit height. As noted above Section 2-].6 of the Land IIse Code is the policy upon which the Plannin� Commis- sion and the Board make decisions regarding approval or denial of a subdivision. The General Submission Section of the Code, Section 6-3(e), points out that the proposal will be reviewed for conformance with the policies and general regulations of the Code. The following is taken from Section 2-16. "2-16 Scenic Quality It is the policy of the County to preserve the scenic quality of the County for the benefit of its residents and the continued viability of a recreation economy which is dependent upon the quality of its rural and natural setting. To this end, it is the pol'icy of the County to preserve the natural appearance of the mountain slopes, particularly f rom major activity areas, public roads, and trails by regulating the location, height, design and screening of develop- ment . It� is also the policy of the County to preserve and create scenic vievs of the surround- ing mountains from public places within the County. It is also the policy of the County to achieve visual quaiity within areas of existing and fnture development by prohibiting or requiring provisions for screening of unsightly equipment, uses and structures; controlling the design and alic�nment of electricity and phone lines and similar facilities and where feasible, requiring such lines to be underground; specifyinq design standards such as setbacks, height limits, viev corridors, historic zones and material require- ments; controlling signs, and ensuring the rehabilitation of areas subjected to temporary or discontinuous use, such as mines, pits, and quarries. Since the staff has been told by legal counsel that we cannot force the application to restrict the height of buildings on Lots 5, 6 and 8 to 20 feet, we prop�se that the building envelopes for these lots be reduced in size, by eliminating the portion of the lots on the upper slope, or that the lots be relocated such that height will no longer be of concern or that these lots be eliminated. e. The concept of this proposal is advantageous in that it allows much of the area to remain in an open state, pre- serving much of the existing character of the property. If the parcel were to be develo ped at a higher density, thi s open character would be completely lost. in addition, it is important to consider the actual. carrying capacity of the parcel with regard to its ability to be developed without major regrading and modification to the landscape. Another consideration, however, i:s the allowed FAR on R-30 parcels. It would appear that the .13 FAR was not intended f or large lot s but rather for lot s in the 30,000 s.f. range which would allow basically 4,000 s.f. homes. The Willough- by Way area has lots ranging between 20,000 s.f. and 60,000 s.f. which would give a maximum FAR of 8000 s.f. it would appear out of character with the surrounding area to have extremely large homes on the Willoughby Ponds 6 development. The developnent as proposed could potentially have the f oZlowing size homes: Lot Acreage Square Footage 1 2.5 acres 14,157 sq. ft. : 2 2.5 acres 14,157 sq. ft. 3 1.4 acres 7,927 sq. ft. 4 3.0 acres 16,988 sq. ft. 5 1.4 acres 7,927 sq. ft. 6 I.4 acres 7,927 sq. ft. 7 2.5 acres 14,157 sq. ft. B 1.6 acres 9,060 sq. ft. Other developments in the County have been required to comply with the FAR limitations of the surrounding zaning in otder to be compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood. In this case, FAR limitation for surrounding zoning would not work since the surrounding parcels are zoned R-30 and R-15 and contain lots which are closer in size to the 30,000 s.£. minimum lot size requirements of the R-30 zone district. On one hand, we don't want to discour- age new develoFanents from creating open space such as this application has done, and, on the other hand, we do not want to encourage development which is out of character with the existing surrounding uses which were the basis for the zoning in the area. In effect Lots 1, 2, 4 and 7 are being developed more as AF-2 lots than under R-30 zoning. As is apparent from the above square footages, Lot 4 has the potential for the largest structure. The Plannirtg Commission recommends as Condition 85 of Resolution No. 85-23, that the building on Lot 8 shall be limited to 12,000 sq. ft. The applicants have agreed to this square footage limitation. However, the applicants do not agree to limit the square footage of other structures in the development. The County Attorney agrees that the County cannot impose a restriction which does not currently exist in the Code without the applicants consent. f. There has been discussion since the Planning Commission meeting as to whether or nct �adividual tennis courts were to be restricted from the open space area on each lot or whether they were to be to�ally prohibited on individual lots. The applicant suggests that the intention was to allow individual tennis courts within the building envelope of each lot but exclude them from the open space. The records of the PZanning Commission are admittedly conf us- ing. Condition No. 1 notes that no high intensity recrea- tional uses shall be allowed outside of the bailding envelopes of each ].ot. Condition No. 6 notes that no tennis courts shall be located on individual lots. The staff f eels that the intention of allowing the common tennis court in the open space was to eliminate individual tennis courts on the va=ious lots within the subdivision. However, if tennis courts are to be built within the bui.2ding envelopes, we do not foresee adverse impacts in that most building envelopes, if modified as proposed by the staff, would not have adequate space to .construct both a tennis court and a home, or at least a large home. g. The applicant has agreed at the Planning Commission meeting to provide a 20 foot ea sement through the property to Willoughby way consistent with the request made by Tom Dunlop regarding the sewer line connection. PLANNING CO MNIISSION REQOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recom- mends that you approve the Willoughby Ponds Estates General Submi s- sion, subject to the following conditions. Staff has inserted 7 additional conditions in bold print: 1. No building or high intensity recreational uses shall be allowed outside the designated building envelopes other than the proposed common tennis court and gazebo, as proposed at Genera; Submis- sion. In addition, a covenant restricting the cutting'of trees out side of the designated building envelopes shall be submitted at Detailed Submission and reviewed by the Commission. Staff Proposal: No buildings shall be allowed outside of the desic�nated building envelopes other than the proposed common tennis court and gazebo, as proposed at General Submission. Only passive recreational activities such as walking and picnicing shall be allowed outside of the building envelopes. Absolutely no active recreational uses (such as volleyball or basketball) shall be allowed out side of the building envelopes. In addition, a covenant restricting the cutting of trees outside of the desig- nated building envelopes shall be submitted at Detailed Submis- sion and reviewed by the Commission. 2. The trail easement sha1Z be properly located on the Detailed Submission Map showing the existing footpath directly south of the lower pond as the easement to be dedicated to the County. 3. The heights of the homes on Lots 5 and 6 shall be specifically determined at Detailed Submission after appropriate studies have been finalized. These lots shall be limited with regard to heights as viewed from Willoughby Way by transit heights and vertical angle to be determined with the intention for the structu=es not to intrude on the view of Aspen Mountain. Staff Proposal: At the time of Detailed Submission the building envelopes for Lots 5, 6 and 8 shall be relocated such that no building shall block the view of Aspen and Shadow Mountains as viewed from the Willoughby Way public right-of-way. (This view has.been determined tu be what is seen from Willoughby Way at a 3 degree vertical angle from a five foot five inch (5'S") transit hei ght.) 4. The height of buildings on Lot 8 shall be no greater than 26 feet measured from the top of the roof. Staff Proposal: This condition shall be eliminated: 5. The allowable floor area oP the home to be built on Lot 4 shall be no greater than 12,000 sq. ft. 6. The applicant shall provide the following information at Detailed Submission: a. Adequate restrictions concerning the drainage for Lot 7; b. Concurrence with the req uest s made by the agencies regarding water and sewer line easements; c. The applicant shall commit to either a Weed Control Program or to joining any f uture Weed Control District f or the area; d. A detailed Landscaping Plan shall be submitted with includes a revegetation plan for the proposed driveways and impacted slopes; e. Detailed driveway and road cut designs shall be submitted; f. There shall be no tennis courts located on the individual lots. The proposed common tennis court shall be prohibited from night time lighting. These provisions shall be in the form of restrictive covenants. Staff Proposal: No courts located on individual lots shall 8 be located outside of the approved building envelopes. All tennis courts located in the development shall be prohibited from night-time lighting. Fencing and screening of the tennis, courts shall be limited to below 20 feet in height. These provision shall be in the form of restrict.*',ve cove- nants; • g. Building materials for the roofs of houses within the subdivision shall be restricted by covenants from being constructed with highly reflective materials; and CA.50 9 pitkin county 506 east main street aspen, colorado e1611 . EXHIBIT MEMORANDUM � � � , � TO: Board of County Commissioners , , � � �. �- �� ' FROM: Gary Esary, Assistant County Attorne�J� i i DATE: November 21, 1985 � RE: Gredig Lease Attached is the original memo on this subject dated November 15, 1985, and a new Resolution and new Agreement with the changes suggested at the meeting of November 18. Note the changes to paragraph 5. , Rent. Note also the first clause of paragraph 12. , which is new, was suggested by Jack, and is clearly advantageous to the County. GSE:cd Attachments cc: Jim Adamski Bruce Vandergaw Jack Gredig ! � ; F . a i' e . EXHIBIT � � E y�� pit 506 east main street aspen, colorado e1611 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado FROM: Gar�sary, Bruce Vandergaw, Bud Eylar DATE: November 15, 1985 RE: DOWNVALLEY SATELLITE i � ISSUE: It is appropriate to execute a Lease Agreement between ; Jack Gredig and Pitkin County so as to continue the use of a fueling site (gas and diesel) on Jack Gredig's property? i , BACKGROUND: For nearly twenty years the Pitkin County Road and ? Bridge Department has parked equipment and maintained a fueling i site at Jack Gredig's ranch in Emma in order to facilitate main- i tenance of the downvalley and Frying Pan River road systems. � This have saved literally thousands of miles of "deadheadinq" of t equipment to and from the County Shop and operations base over the years. Recently, the tower supporting the diesel tank has begun to deteriorate and lean to one side. The entire fueling facility needs to be replaced, to meet satety and EPA standards as well as our own County codes. Since a sizable investment will be required to replace the existing tanks, and since a more adequate means of providing security to the fueling facility and equipment is necessary, it is suggested that the County consider leasing property �in the area far a more adequate facility. This � would include a fenced, secure area with adequate access from the County road, electrical service to provide light and power to fuel pumps and engine block heaters for equipment parked within the enclosure. The area would be graveled and would provide space for a possible future building to protect the equipment j from the elements. ! I Jack Gredig has offered to lease the County a site for this ; purpose in �he corner of his property bounded by Emma Road and ', Sopris Creek Road of an appropriate size, (approximately 1/2 acre ; for ti�e County's needs) . Other sites have been considered, but ; none appear to be as desirable for our needs as the Gredig site. � � 1 ' The sites investigated were the Basalt Maintenance Facility, which has inadequate parking for their own vehicles, the State Cinder Loading, which does not have adequate security or room, and the State yard, which again does not have adequate space for additional vehicles. sack will be retiring from County service in the next few years and the County will be forced to find another site for basing downvalley operations unless some agreement of this nature is reached in advance. To justify the investment that needs to be made in the fueling facility in the immediate future it is sug- gested that the concept of providing for a downvalley satellite be considered as one comprehensive groject. The monies to facilitate the first year improvements on the property will be allocated from revenue received from the surplus equipment sale on October 31, 1985, of approximately $13,000. Bruce Vandergaw anticipates costs of first year improvements not to exceed $10,000. We have contacted the Planning office and they have indicated that this is an accessory use which has been grandfathered and will not need special review or rezoning. ACTION NEEDED: Approval of Lease. GSE:cd I i ; ! � � 2 , _ ._ J The Aspen Times Box E ..- , .. :; Aspen, Colorado / Z -�7-�� .......................... - ��_/t,P 5..�.T PRC?OF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO ) GOp�/ Of Notice ) ss. County of Pitkin ) �+f;-,r��,-,��jry;nrrr ;�,} ;,.� � � y� : _ . �� ,y JT�' i<i �: I� Willlam R. Dunaway �o solemnly sw•ear ihat ��+�•fBYSNWei�e 3 �i.,r.ti��r.r, ,� uso '� P u b 1 i s her ,.'"��a�°'""''1ifOi'4'�� ,.:�,� i�I�.a.�hi�r . I am the o[ THE ASPEN TIMES; i.II;ri�L.,,ee�s e1�A�aG�.ir� that thc same is a weekly newspaper prinled, in whole.or in part, r''�'0"W�"r'�'�~�'��'��'� " ' saz...�t1Y.ewt�.�1.�1..rura6.'er. and published in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, and has ' �1,� +�,��`y�� a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been pub• ' rr!i�rr��.arrwsdH�� r M}rwtM�'�du�Ik� lished continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Pitliin, N�trrrre... F� � for a pertod of more than fiftytw�o conseculi��e H•eeks next prior ��°1Y"��'�'�'��' � � o�,t7o8�8h+.RA�w. to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertise- ` a'�"�'p��l��'�'a TM� ment; that said newspaper has been addmitted to the United States � �!�.��s��. + mails as second•class matter under the provisions of the Act of ^1�i1rid1iWllrjri47..QeY�at;lfe[ � March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, and that said news- �-w �•'�s �` : ,� paper is a weekly newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal j noti¢es and advertisements with the meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado. That the annexed legal notice or advertisemenl a•as published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said weekly newspaper for the period of 1 consecutive. insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated OCtobet' 31 A.D., 19 85 and that Lhe last publication of said notice was in the issue of said news- paper dated A.D., 19_ ( ��j� Subscribed and sworn to be[ore me, a notary publ c in and for the County of Pitkin, State ot Colorado, this � ,day of rz�� A.D., 19�i Notary Public � � _ . i lliy commission expires The Aspen Times Box E Aspen, Colorado ., � - 12..�"�� PROOF OF PUBLICATION � � ��`�`.5- STATE OF COLORADO ) COP�/ Of Notice ) ss. County of Pitkin ) i� _ William R. DuIIB.Wety do solemniy sw•ear that � :: �,�1 `""RJBUCrtm7Cs .,.. • --- � 4 oann�r�oR��s•so,uu or courn�r. P»hl iah�r �N��g��4 I am the — of THE ASPEN TIMES; � ��T�rBke�r�iE��o�F.;• that the same is a weekly newspaper printed, in H�hole or in part, .��p��pp�� and published in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, and has p��a�� f APA�[.BLOfI.AND�JOffi�I�GRP a general circulation therein; lhat said newspaper has been ppb- DIO AND SLIZAB�171,;P'¢R6DIO,N�AH. lished continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Pitkin, `��T_�� • for a period of more than fiftyhvo consecuti��e w•eeks next prior � ��a�:�a:��, to tl�e first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertise- � lroteiwalee�wbitieee.reorCeo�ea. ment; that said neK�s aper has been addmitted to the United States ��OO'°°��°��y�,°°�a'�• P •'.Ilraw�6ar,1Y86,d Z9D pm is tM Ca�io�-. maIls as second-ciass matter under the provisians ot the Act of ��,•��0°O��°�� Co�r�,b�r�..�...�.�a�- March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, and that said news- - �.75.a�.�waua.m�.e�6.ar.co- tbs da le��pwmeat�th Jasa�ed 6liobd6 paper is a weekly newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal ;�lta.a.aaeejaia notices and advertisements with the meaning of the laws of the ��;,b' ,°��"�' " State of Colorado. '` - Far furt6a iekrm.tion oonf.ct e6e Peope�tr ' Y�e�er OIOO lans Pine Ra�d,Mpe4 Cabrado. i 816I1(9aCil 9'1DE812 .• That the annexed legal notice or advertisement ��as published :-'lbmBl.te,CS:iiorn in the regular and entire issue of every number of said weekly ` : ' '" �°«�,�p�,� ' ; �irhrd in tlr:Mpdu 7'imro on RS1Vo�uo6v t I � newspaper for the period of � consecutive. insertions; attd ' '' � I that the first pubticalion of said notice was in the issue of said � newspaper dated �Ip.vemher 2� A.D., 19�., and that � the last publication of said notice �vas in the issue ot said news- 7 e paper dated A.D., 19._ i � � Lvl��t��Z� ; fSubscribed and swarn to betore me, a notary public in and for i a- � the nly of Pitkin, State of Colorado, this vv . day of 1 �A.D., 19 Notary Public , 114y commission expires �� The Aspea Times Box E Aspen, Colorado PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO ) COP�/ Of NOtIC@ ) ss. Counly of Pitkin ) � s �r7i.°�.7�� ;�• ��jpQ��r`m . 1,t', I� - W�7,1f�ttn—S n!��AwAyr do solemniy sa•ear that a�g } � �^�ry �. ��{'�� ,8.��. n�t-Mw� �`�`o.oi�l^� � :.t _._..t Publiaher �e� B r , " �� '» � � t ^: I am the ot THE ASPEN TIMES; �' r�j� . W » ,�. . that the same is a weekly news a er prinled, in whote or in ��?� ' ' '� P P Part. e e `a�. � � ` f ,�, .. f and published in the County oi Pitkin, Slate of Colorado, and has � ��;�� F ' r r �+ ; ` a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been pub- �'�,�°�'3 ', �j L.��t� �;`, lished continnously and uninterruptedly in said County of Pitkin, ��=s.� . ,' .' .: ('�i � , :!± f o r a p e r i o d o f m o r e t h a n f i f t p-h ti�o c o n s e c u l i v e �•e e k c n e x t p r i o r o '�'��a ' • x . ' .� : to the first " $_� � ' `" � publication ot the annexed legal notice or advertisr �.��. . �,. y. �y ..•: ment; that said new�spaper has been addmitted to the United 5tates ' �q�:��: �� ' , ; i ,.. mails as second-class matter under the pravisions of the Act of •.�� s�� o . �' ��r'�` March 3, 1879, or any amendments thercof, and that said news- _ �,��°9 � �`Sr � • paper is a weekly newspaper duly qualitied for publishing legal r ��y� o • • ,.� w• � notices and advertisements with the meaning of the laws of the a;°�'�a a ' . ,�� +�:�a �� State of Colorado. ' ��'� o . '�'""�'-�gf'x`—" j � .��a_� $ a� ` i+ �,.�. �� : � That the annexed legal notice or advertisement w•as published �_��, 'i t ,aa ��:� � in the regular and entire issue of every number of said weekly , - ` �,` ' " t :. °�a�� a , .,,'`,:�� z : � 8�. � :e- s newspaper for the period of consecutive. insertions; and ae� �- � � � � 7 r,; , UU � that the first publicalion of said notice was in the issue of said ' ;��L g_ � o � : � 4��a� - o , ' r-5� ;�� a •a @ �' ,��G , �'. ��: o� (7 news a erdated November 2$ p,D., 19 85 and that � S�s� a' o � �� ° ' ' �e , ��.'�° P P . ��.�� `� .�� :��-' ��' � �a$a�a� � the last publication of said notice was in the issue of said news- , �.e�'g� ' � �; �_ �e�. .� � . ;BL,. ��:=��v�3a�� a _+ g � � •z '�„6 '3��E�==� .�n 9 �$,� �_��}� paper dated A.D., 19 — �� c3�� •a�c3c5�i��ci �cS�c;i�w'•, wC��i'$ . : i- ., . . . �' . j�. r ' . � � . . � ... .. . ' i � / y ' ,L 6 i �. a „ Subscribed and sµ�orn to before me, a notary public in and for � �.' the unty of Pitkin, State ot Colorada, this � ,day of G L'�'`�N A.D., 19 (/J . � ,': Notary Public : � ,1 r4y commission expires � •��v • :,� i i! ii i� ti�: • _ 'i , _ �,` - . , '� The Aspen Times Box E r::•._ , , Aspen, Colorado r��' - .� . . . � 2.-� �S' �_ � �7'� PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO ) CGP�/ Of Notice ) ss. Caunty of Pilkin ) i, _ William R. Dunaway do solemnlp su•ear that I am the �blisher of THE ASPEN TIMES; that the same is a weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in part, •• - ,. -�- � �:. and published in lhe County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, and has < p11BUC.N077bt .�s'+ Il�l'w iMa BUOUeI'A1�N01@1T a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been pub- , �?-:p��t�taouxti oa,pppp�,r ..;: lished continuously and unin!erruptedly in said County of Pitkin, ,��B�sY�IV�tYt� ier�ii�AM�t��ilbib '' for a period of more than fiftytao conseculiee w�eeks next prior meb�tte.errA 1��:`' ta the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertise• afolotw.aHl�wye�;��,C��hrr��ia'r ' ' ment; that said newspaper has been addmitted to the United States '6�'i�`da��°prs��t : mails as second-class matter under the provisions of lhe Act of �L�..��,��,��'a�'_, March 3, 1B79, or any amendments thereof, and that said news- "�'°�'�' �0�� puaae6.��i ti.�etti.�..�,.+�.�,e . paper is a weekly newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal "��vs� :. notices and advertisements w�ith the meaning of the laws of the � 11.ioa..d •i �y ,�.,.: State of Colorado. � ��i?�'ii�,a� ��aro,ni '� `';� =AO�AM Xtsr�6lb. ; _:: �firl6�ii!��6��re�Daee�6r That the annexed legal notice or advertisement w•as published �� =_ �� in the regular and entire issue of every number of said weekly ' � ��re��«� :PoLU.L.i,in t6�I�.pqnlss�.D.c.a6r.6�.19ea. newspaper for the period of � consecutive. insertions; and ' _. . . i that the first publication of said nolice was in the issue of said i newspaper dated DeCember 5 A.D., 19 85 and that the lasl publication of said notice �vas in the issue of said news- paper dated A.D., 19_ � c / � Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary pu lic m and for he County of Pitkin, State ot Colorado, this �, day of 1 A.D., 19� i i i :j Nota y ublic i� Eiy commission expires ji I' I