HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.reg.08101987 ,.
L �, ...... � . . ..
.�er . .. �—..�.. ..�.. ... _...... . .. .�..... r . . . . . . . .
. %l 1�:�..:....
� ��/.�.�J^._a. .. �li:�/•1<t�{.;��
� ����:
' BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIDNERS j:�;RSi�;�;_:;`;;:
. 4 1�,.�t
�'�,,,':;ti.;'
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA k�,�i'���• '
MONDAY 10 AU6UST, 1987
LANO USE
9:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING - Annies Hut - Speciel Raview/1041 Review (CH)
9:15 PUBLIC HEARIN6 (CONTINUED7 - Aspen-Mass Rezoning/Generel Submis- - _
sion/6MP Allocation �```
. ;�',`3.'.,':. .
10:U0 PUBLIC HEARING - Aspen Highlands - Olympic Bowl/Merry- •%ii`"';
Go-Round Restaurant Special Review - Growth Management '<<'°' "
Exemption (FK) }F" "
10:30 A.M. BREAK �:. .
10:45 Request to Extend Highlands Inn Detailed Submission (FK) �':
11:30 PUBLIC HEARING - Hines/Duncan 1041 and Lot Split (CH] • �tiy`
. 1 :.
12:00 LUNCH BRFAK ; ;:
, ADMINISTRATION
1:30 p.m. Public Comment
1:45 Manager/BOCC Comments
2:U0 Joint Manager Contract, George Madsen, Bob Anderson
i
, 2:30 PUBLIC HEARING: Airline Rates 8 Charges, (GSE)
. 3:00 RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
Rubey Park Improvement-Funding Increase,RFTA Reso.(8A]
, Piccadilly Circus Special Review Reso.(CH)
� Dockery Caretaker Employee Unit Reso. (6H) �
Mountain Mobile Mix Special Review Reso. (FK)
Holy Cross Communications Antenna Reso. (FK)
� High Country Storage Special Review Reso. (FK)
1 Eisner Caretaker Employee Unit Reso. (FK)
�
3:15 P.M. BREAK
�, 3:3D Nunter Creek Access (BOCC Discussion) 1��-
, 4:Q0 Banedict Trail Easement: First Reading 8 Set for Pub2tc Hearing
, (continued from 7/27) (TFS) ;
, :�
4:15 PUBLIC HEARING - Jehovah's Witnesses Kindgom Hall GMP
Exemption (FK)
5:00 ADJOURN - LEAVE FOR JOINT DINNER MEETING WITH EAGLE COUN' ''
COMMISSIONERS [CATERED �INNER AT TOL1N HALL, BASAIT - MEE" �y' .?`titi;,'
BEGINS AT 5.30) �a::..::.,�-„
f «��.. Y
h..:
� . �'�'��LU- 1Y.�
_ {.
����� , .. _ ' �,� � .
�.. _ - . �' �
, � .
� ,.,.
_.: -
.,. .. �---�
�} ,, �,9 .
. - ��� -
:;.+.> . ,
�-i,=:?t; - �- � .
:f�i°:':1'. .. . .. ` . ... �
,�i�7f,`_
i'i`
.1F',:�_ - �
• ;;?i;� , •
�r'v{„�_�c�. � . '
:t�_;, �
,.ti�,._YNx:,�l�
�a�•',p'4,;�:§,�}t;,.' ,
•.�.rn��;:: -
�+�X- w
.3JS ` �
./.:
��.. .
�
:� �,,.�;,e
. - f
. ,e�,,,�� ;��:'':.;;;,.
fn�����x��€��s��€�€�z��€���€�a��������€n���€r�€��€��x��r�€x�€�€e€�€aa�€��€�■n�il��lr�€
PITKIN COIIN'PY 61 c�,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS +v�.'
�Cj
��r4
MINLTPES
�2EGIII�AR MEETING AUGUST IO 1987 '
PRESENT: GEORGE MADSEN, COLETTE PENNE, TOM BLAKE, FRED CROWLEY,
AND BOB CHILD.
■f8H4�1[��€�€�3��I��Y€A�1€���€������€��€1����tl14�1i[l[1€�ffi�i��€���€�1€9€��€�A1�1€�€B�iE�ffi [j';.'�.' .
Chairman George Madsen opened the meeting at 9:05am. t.:, �
PIIBLIC HEARING: ANNIE'S HUT - RESORT CABIN SPECIAL REVIEW IISE- -
TOIIRIST ACCOMMODATION - GMP APPLICATION - 1041 REVIEW - Cindv
. Houben - I Motion to deny - AIFMC �
The applicant, Jim Mollica, was in attendance, along with Jim �
� Curtis.
�''�.
� f��.��:�.
[The application failed to receive the minimum threshold point �.
allocation from the GMP scoring session of the Planning & Zoning f' r��
T- Commission.]
�
�
�) The Public Hearing opened at 9:i0am. Houben presented the item,
and there was no one in attendance other than the applicant
wishing to be heard. Based on the P&Z scoring, Tom Blake moved
to deny the application. Colette Penne seconded - AIFMC
,
Jim Mollica asked the Board for opinions concerning his possible
� resubmittal of a similar application at a later date, and this
was discussed informally. y
NORPINI3 HAIIS fLITTLE ANNIE NORPINE AAUS SPECIAL REVIEW USE
APPLICATIONI - APPEAL FOR A REBATE OF A PORTION OF Tf�
� °ADDITIONAL BILISNG CfiARGES" ASSESSED BY TFIE pLANNING OFFICE- .
Cindv Houben - I A motion to direct the staff to refund S1912 50
to the annlicants nassed 3-2.
� Jim Curtis of Curtis & Associates submitted a letter on behalf of
! the applicants [Jim and Sharon MollicaJ, appealing some of the
i charges of the Planning Office, [which has been attached hereto
as an Exhibit of this item]. The applicant was asserting that
some of the work of the Planning Office was generic in nature, ,`•-
regarding the "Norpine�' Code Amendment review, as opposed to the
reviews of the specific application.
S
After some further discussion, Fred Crowley moved to direct the •�.
Planning Office to refund $1912.50 to the applicants, the amount
•,�'.�
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1 AUGUST lOTH, 1987 �"" '=�
y': ,=:�� :
�� { � ,
� ��"�
�.;�,:.•
�
Y�;�
= t
� ,,�=�;: , �' � • .
4- •�.
�.
F3 -
i.
�� .
, ' . ._. _.�-�
':t.' .
"-5; ' . � - � . ..
��t -_ ♦
(
�p�C'..1�zY v� .
� v
..,.. :
r:. ,:.
,
��., � , . _.
. ..
� .._.. .
' �::'�j�:
. ��,'
F�' .. .
. of their request. Tom Blake seconded. The motion passed 3-2,
with Bob Child and Colette Penne opposed.
[1-540] PUBLIC HEARING fCONTINUEDI: ASPEN-MASS RANCIi - RfiZONING FROM RS-
20 PIID TO AF-1 PUD: GENERAL SIIBMISSION: 1041 HAZARD REVIEW-
f9:15am1 Francis Krizmanich - I A motion to direct the staff to
draft a resolution apnroving the rezoning and arantina General
Submission aonroval. with conditions as recommended bv the �
Plannina staff. and as amended at the meeting, uassed 3-2.
.:.;i _
Attorney Gideon Kaufman appeared for the applicant, along with � ` -
Pat Dobie o£ Sanner Associates. County Attorney Tom Smith was
also in attendance. ��'�.:,,
}' '
[The "straw vote" of the Board was split 2-2 when this item was �
heard on July 27, 1987, and the hearing was continued until this �
meeting to afford the applicant a full Board for the vote. Based ��
i on incompatibility with the DownValley Plan, the P&Z had denied �
the rezoning, and denied the General Submission. The project ','
scored above the minimum threshold GMP point allocation � .
requirement, however, and the P&Z approved the 1041 Hazard :�;�
� Review.] � a.,
. j•�
The Public Aearing opened at 9:15am. The Planning staff was �' '.'
" ;; recommending denial, but provided 9 conditions in their memo of �
� this date which they recommended be included, in the event the �
? Board chose to approve the proposal.
.; Crowley supported the rezoning, based on similar properties in �
the area being zoned AF-1.
N
� Penne was uncomfortable with the applicant going through GMP,
i only to request a rezoning. However, it was explained by the
' applicant's representatives that the application had originated
as a rezoning application, but the Code required the staff to
� handle the GMP issues prior to handling the rezoning issue.
�
S
; Madsen felt that the applicant's willingness to compromise during �
negotiations on this item by requesting approval for 3 units ,
rather than 4 was significant, particularly in view of the recent
Supreme Court decision on a California land use case. [The First
4 English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los
' Angeles, California].
After some further discussion, Fred Crowley moved to direct the �
i staff to draft a resolution approving the rezoning, and grantinq l"-
, General Submission approval, with conditions as discussed at the -
meeting. Bob Child seconded. The motion passed 3-2, with Tom
Blake and Colette Penne opposed. �'�
��.
The Public Hearing was closed, and a short break was called. At
10:00am, the meeting reconvened for the following Puhlic Hearing: :''�y':, `;: ;
} �
• BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 2 AIIGUST lOTH, 1987 u
. �
{�� ..,;�
'��:';,.,�.
i.
.. .
::• ,. � ,
,
r,c,.+w�n"' . .. . . ..._. . . .. � . . . - �
+�.�,�_.� � � � .
. .:t..9.."_,.�....-+^�� . � .
' . , ' —.'. -� .
_ i:i.'' . • -
—`.c i --s:� . . .- . .
. t
•:f,'i:"',...',. .
,���iy:..":.
- _,�,:��' .
. . `=`.c. ` �
rl . ... . --- . _. .. _ . . ., ..._._ ... ` _' . _ .
�r'. - -
�t�?i'
. `J s .
. • 2.r+;
[1-1000] PUBLIC HEARING• ASPEN HIGHLANDS SKIING CORPORATION fAHSCI-
OLYMPIC BOWL/PSERRY-GO-ROIIND RESTAURANT SPECIAL REVIEW. GMP
EXEMPTION - flo-OOaml - Francis Krizmanich - I Motion to anprove
- AIFMC
[AHSC- Cont'dJ
R.M. (Rick) Jones, Jr., represented Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp
[AHSC]. Randy Herzberg represented the USFS. _
[The P&Z has granted a Commercial GMP exemption to the
�'%:`i.•.,, .
>.._
restaurant.] The Public Hearing was opened at 10:0oam. ;,�;
There was no one in attendance wishing to be heard on the subject "'�;
other than the applicant. After some discussion between the •`'•'��: ,
Board, Krizmanich, and the applicant, Colette Penne moved `" _
approval of the SpeciaY Review to add 65 acres of skiing terrain �
in the Olympic Bowl to the ski area, and approval of the 784 '�i•`-'
sq.ft. addition to the Merry-Go-Round, with the two conditions ���.�
recommended by the Ylanninq & Zoning Commission. Fred Crowley �,�.,�
seconded - AIFMC [See Page 4 of the Planning memo of this date �,i.:;',� • .
for the complete conditions, included in the agenda material
stored with these minutes.] '+' j'
'� There was some discussion regardinq the employee generation � � �
figure of 1.9 calculated by the Housing Authority, as the + ,
applicant disputes the figure. They had been offered an option
by the staff of providing an employment affidavit in lieu of the
actual housing. Rick Jones explained that the AHSC was not in
complete agreement regarding the requirement of the affidavit,
but were willing to comply.
The Public Hearing was closed. The Board took a short break,
until the following item:
[1-2400] MATRIX SKIING CORP fHIGHLANDS INN1 - REOUEST TO EXTEND DETAILED
SIIBMISSION f10�45am1 - Francis Krizmanich - I Motion to arant
an extension until December 1 198'7 fas specified hereinbelowl
Attorney Ron Garfield of Garfield & Hecht represented the
applicant, Michael Grossman, who was also in attendance; along
with Doug Horn, who represented the applicant at the July 13,
1987 BoCC meeting.
Originally, the applicant had requested a year's extension for
the Detailed Submission of plans to demolish the exiting i
Highlands Inn, and to construct a new lodge on the site. On July ''
13, 1987, the staff was recommending a 3 month extension. The ' ��
applicant was reducing its request, asking that the Board extend � 4
the deadline for Detailed Submission until December 1, 1987. The
staff was recommending approval of the extension request until ��
December 1, 1987, based on recent efforts of the applicant to �.,�` `:.
expedite the project. ` � - :�
) :i
BOARD OF COIIN'PY CONII��IISSIONERS 3 AIIGUST lOTH, 1987
�F
� ':_ :';r �'
/,�.�`�._' .i' .
_t��i'
��'..'�=c,` . .. � .. . . . . - . - � . . _ _ . .<tl�'� .F t�.:.
r � .
. �ly_' .
. � ,
�.:i`;.�:.��.�� ,
t:t".. .
. '`�}.� � ' �
!��
I��: . . .... .._... .. .. . . . . .
• }}�.'k�'�,�i
1
• �::�:`�::�
I'�:'f•�. _
�n July 13, 1987, the Board conditionally granted a temporary
extension until this meeting, and agreed to consider an
additional extension if the applicant would meet certain project
milestones, and supply the County with an irrevocable Letter of
Credit to ensure the first phase of the project involving the
demolition of the existing structure and the restoraZ of the site
in preparation for new construction. '
Ron Garfield presented information to the Board concerning the
applicant's efforts since the July 13th meeting, and reviewed his �`'',�•
Zetter of August 4th outlining the applicant�s progress, and ����.�''
providing a timeline for the projected activity leading to the •.�"' ;.
application for the building permit by December 1, 1987, [a copy ;:%�- .
of which is attached hereto as Rvhib;t i of this item.J An
asbestos removal permit had been obtained, and the work had �` '
begun. A contract had been let for the demolition of the �...
existing structure to Tri-Star Excavation, and Jay Saldi ot that
company was at the meeting, and explained the demo2ition ��
procedure and schedule to the Board. �:;-:
�:;y:
A draft "Subdivision Improvements Agreement and Employee Housing
Deed Restrictions" had been provided to the County, and t' ?
� information preliminary to the submission of building permit
plans had been provided the Planning Office and the Building t
Department by the architect, Sandy Ritter of Rittez, Suppes &
Plauts. Garfield evidenced the demolition permit that had been
obtained for the project.
Garfield asked that the applicant be permitted to extend until
December lst, 1987, by which time the applicant will have
complied with all documentary requirements and all other
requirements for a building permit for the project. Garfield
pointed out that the language of the extension should not require y
the actual issuance of the permit, as the issuance would not be
in control of the applicant, and instead asked that the applicant
be responsible only to have fulfilled his obligation to comply
with all the requirements for the issuance of the building •
permit.
Fred Crowley discussed the scheduling of removal of the
demolished structure to the landfill with the Tri-Star
zepresentative, regarding possible traffic impacts during the
Labor bay weekend.
Tom Blake discussed the status of the construction financing with i�--
Michael Grossman [the applicantj.
' ,.
After some further discussion....COlette Penne moved to grant the {
extension until December 1, 1987, and requirinq the appZicant to •�.
have submitted everything necessary for the building permit by + � ;
that date,, with the proviso that no further extension would be
BOARD OF COiTNTY COMMISSIONERS 4 AIIGUST lOTH, 1987 ` �'
•��- k
�~�,�'•'�_%�.
Jy'.'�:
�' `:r
f_-��+''
�����: �� .
`,�±.;. .,
,
_ �-�----^-'�`_.
k. .
- , , ---y-_i�
- =?f.i:' ,.
. "K: '
. c
,;�:,,';
� . _,
...._._�-... .-..___.�.e ��IY11Y�r
:�.�t�.
�r
.....
i ... . .. _. .. . . . . . . . . .... .
�Z����
. k',F',��., '
j�� . .
' available to the applicant beyond the December lst deadline.
Fred Crowley seconded - AIFMC
At 11:05am, a break was called by the Chairman. At 11:30am, the
meeting reconvened, and the Chairman opened the following Public
Hearing:
[2-001J PIIBLIC HEARING: HINES/DUNCAN 1041 HAZARD REVIEW; 50$ DENSITY '
REDIICTION LOT SPLIT - f11:35am1 - Cindv Houben - j Motion to
approve - ATFMC -
:;:�:z i!s_.
Attorney Nick McGrath represented the applicants.
Cind Houben discussed the im act of the ro osal on the Rio �.., �
Y P t� P s��-.
Gzande Trail, and reviewed an agreement to move the Lot 1 lot �'
line an additional 15 feet, for a. total of 30 feet from the t� �
Trai1. Addztionally, the applicants have agreed to disturb no f.
trees outside of the building envelope.
�'.
Colette Penne moved approval. Bob Child seconded - AIFMC %�., .
. �,„
�
. The meeting adjourned for lunch shortly before noon. At 1:35pm, tt��.:
the meeting reconvened, and the Chairman opened the Public �
Comment session. ��' '^��
�
'j pusLxc corn�r�m �.
�
' Larry Pell presented a petition from the residents of Lazy Glen
� requesting a speed ].imit reduction and the removal of a passing
, lane on State Highway 82 where the road impacts the trailer park,
' in order to improve the safety to the residents, their children,
� and their pets.
y
The Board discussed the issue with Pell, and heard comments from
County Engineer Bud Eylar. Tom Blake moved to direct the staff
; to write a letter to the CDOH, requesting that the State look at
,) the highway at. that section, in light of the concerns of the
citizens residing in the area. Colette Penne seconded - ATFMC. •
i Acting County Manager Mark Fuller, in attendance at the meeting,
� agreed to write the letter.
i
1
� [2-850] MANAGEF2'S COMMENTS
� Mark Fuller discussed the dinner with the Eagle County
� Commissioners scheduled for later this day. The agenda would � .
� include the Sopris Tree Farm issue. i-•
i
Planning Director Alan Richman discussed the work session
scheduled for the following day concerning a Code Amendment ,�
package, and d'iscussed the scheduling of Package #4, [GMP Quota
System], which the Planning Office hopes to have adopted by the
County during September. Richman explained that the Public
� BOARD OF COUNTY CONII�IISSIONERS 5 AUGUST 10TH� 1987 r-''." ;'�
!
- _i;«.
��
-q 5
'r_,•.
- 4.
��z. ' . " '..� F
. .
;-. : �,
�--�--�-�--°—�---
_ , ����•��"'"��
-Yj;� �
;,F._- , -
. ,
_;`;;L, - .
��;<�::.�.�.�,.
.:t�:;:; .
;:.�;_;':
: -- ` �
;�l':�� • � .
. �,����..At j'�:
7�+?'':.a�,` ..i'..
(':..� _
�s...>!•y•l.'-..'.
Aearing on this package has been scheduled for September 14,
1987, and recommehded that the Board hold the first reading of
the package on September 1, by scheduling a Public Meeting during
a work session. This timetable would a21ow one tabling for a
third reading during September, if required, without disturbing
the approval timelines the staff was working within. [The
applications deadline is set for December lst.]
Richman mentioned that the work sessions on September ist would
include a session with Code Consultant Eric Kelly to present his
Phase 1 Report. - -
�_,::.;,�•'••
Fuller reviewed the new schedule for BOCC meetings, work �`::`..
sessions, and executive sessions. The scheduling of work ���> '
,;,,;:
sessions immediately prior to the night meetings was discussed.
[2-1460] RESOLUTION 87-64• APPROVTNG AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEl�NT FOR `�`�
MANAGE[��+NT SERVICES WITH THE CITY COIINCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN - '•��
fJOINT MANAGER CONTRACT] - Georae Madsen Fred CrowleY - Motion •�'�
to apnrove vassed 4-1. •.('.•.'
1;:"." ..
The Board reviewed the provisions and language of the contract y
with County Attorney Tom Smith, and Administrative Services '��.' ,'
Director Tom Oken, chiefly addressing issues affecting the fair
`� allocation of cost between the County and the City regarding the j ,
manager's services.
After some discussion...Fred Crowley moved to direct the staff to
redraft the contract with changes and amendments as discussed at
the meeting, and Yurther, moved approval of the resolntion. Bob
Child seconded_ The motion passed 4-1, with Commissioner Blake
opposed.
[2-2150] PIIBLIC HEARINGe AIRpORT RATES & CHARGES - �2-30nm1 - Gary Esa�
J Motion to table the item and continue the Public Hearina until
Auaust 18 1987 at 1•30t�m - AIFMC
The Public Hearing was opened at 2:3opm. There was no one in
attendance wishing to be heard on this item. On the
recommendation of attorney Gary Esary, Fred CroWley moved to
' table, and continue the hearing until August 18, 1987, at 1:3opm.
Tom Blake seconded - AIk'MC
The Board went into executive session at 2:45pm with Esary. The
regular meeting reconvened at 3:oopm.
�
;•-
■ RESOLUTIONS/CONTRACTS ■ r ".
S
,"�.
; : ��.�.'-,�`.,� �>
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 6 AUGUST lOTH, 1987 � �
MM �
t � '
••"�-::' =-
�{�� +*p :
S h r�n%'
t��k";:
�' .
*.
��;��: - - .� - ' �; .
,.: . . -��
• _�.-_----•-- -
-. ; . . -.�.,��� .
••r� ..
. �
.,r„;':(`�i<
.rr� .
...'�.:tt.t;• � �
..`54• � ` . _ .
���,
, � � , , .
�:: . :,.._....... _
_ _.
� ..- --.. ._. . . _... . . .
;�''Y�."
1{i,. . �
[2-2788] RFTA RESOLLI'PION #87-6fRFTA1: SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET APPROPRIATION-
fRIIBEY PARR FUNDINGI - Bruce Abel
After a brief discussion...Colette Penne moved approval. Tom
Blake seconded - AIFMC
RESOLU'PION � PICADILLY CIRCUS jREDSTONE POPCORN WAGONI- •
GRANTING LIMITED SPECIAL REVIEW APPROVAL - Cindv Houben - I
Motion to anprove failed 2-2. Crowlev abstained, as he had not
had the ooportunity to examine the complete record of Julv 27. '.;.'��::,. �
1987. Motion to table until the soecial meetina scheduled for ;��:�:'�•'.;
the afternoon of Auqust 18. 1987 to allow a vote bv the full
Board AIFMC ��•
:4�" .
r..
Attorney Nick McGrath representing the applicants, Paul Hurley r
and Gayla Gregory, who were also in attendance. Commissioner r
[The result of the July 27, 1987 Publ}c Hearing was a motion i
passed to approve the Special Review, conditionally, for a period }�_ . :
of one year from commencement of operation, to be reviewed by the r'�
BOCC at that time.]
�:���
The choice of design specs had been left to the staff by the �� '
Board, which was recommending the "parlor car" design fashioned
�, after an historical wagon called "Sunrise" used by Charles
� Osgood, with "Sunrise" to be inscribed on the exterior of the
� popcorn wagon.
The conditions of approval of the resolution were accepted by
McGrath for the applicants.
The staff had included language that the review at the end of the
year's operation would constitute a Special Review. McGrath
preferred to have language specifying an "annual review," but was '�
willing to accept the Special Review requirement.
a
Houben explained that no formal application for Special Review
would be required of the applicant, but instead a submission by .
the applicant would cover the status of the operation, which
submission would be reviewed according to Special Review '
criteria.
McGrath asked that the applicants not be required to pay an
additional review fee at the time of the next review, as they
were being assessed a $1500 fee for the subject review.
�
�,.
Bob Child, after having been the moving party for the one-year
approval at the July 27, 1987 hearing, explained to the Board and � �
the applicants that he had experienced a change of heart ti
regarding some of the issues concerning the approval. :'�
Child explained that although the Board had voted to direct staff
to direct a resolution conditionally approving the operation, , �' .
�' )•• ;�
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 7 AIIGUST lOTH, 1987 j{��( � �
�4' H
� 7
.��'• :'l`�P':.��.
�1�
�..��r.^•'`.
' �r
4 .�x- . . • . � . . i�.' .�.
•j��F ,. .. � . � . -- .. . . . . .�`. '
i
�:.. .'_._ ..
' .. . .. ___��
':i�" . . `. . -
''.i - .
. �'s- ' .
t .
ti':?,:'j^'^-'•%'� • .
�?��''
=<i ..
` �
:�.,��:
�
��:.+r;;,;;
r.�yr v
j��
the vote did not guarantee that the resolution would be approved
upon presentation.
Child said that he was unaware when he voted of the existence of
a letter from a neighboring property owner regarding the electric
easement. He explained that the letter came to his attention
just after the July 27th meeting.
Child said that he had made the decision to approve based on his - .
perception of the community's response to the proposal. However,
Child explained that he had reconsidered this process, and had ~.'`�'� -
concluded that the Special Review approval should not be a �':';'-'•'•
"popularity contest." He felt that he had failed to give �
sufficient weight to the specific criteria associated with the �
Special Review itself, and that the Board may not have =:l.
sufficiently reviewed these crfteria in granting approval. t:• -
Additionally, he said that the Historic Preservation Committee �
[HPC] had been "shattered" by the decision to overrule their �. .
recommendation of denial, and that it might be prudent to meet `
. with them [prior to signing the resolution of approval]. ��LL+ '
• k:.Sl
He told the applicants, however, that the decision to withdraw '� jr
his support was made independently, [and thus was not based on
, the post-hearing input of the HPC]. �
i
' McGrath said that he would be "very disappointed" if Child
reversed his vote on the issue. He said that he bound his
clients not to engage in "ex parte" contacts with the individual
Commissioners, and suggested that the Board should have similar
' rules regarding such ex parte contacts aPter a hearing has been
:
noticed, heard, and closed.
McGrath asserted that the letter regarding the easement will not,
in all probability, there would be no necessity to receive any 4
� permission from an adjacent landowner for an easement, as the
� easement is a matter of record, or it is not, and the matter is
addressed properly by its inclusion as a condition of approval. ,
�
McGrath reminded the Board that the item had been unanimously
approved by the P&Z. He warned that it is extremely dangerous to
give a citizens' body [the HPC) a veto power on such issues. He
fuYther reminded the Board that they had taken the HPC
t recommendation into consideration, and had still voted 3-1 to
approve the project, within a one-year "trial basis" arrangement.
1 y`--
� He said that the HPC had offered no reasons for their
recommendation of denial, and suggested that it was possible that
the HPC decision was a reflection of the "popularity contest�� �s
that he agreed with Chi2d should not gavern the decision. :�
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS �
8 AUGUST lOTH, 1987
� M
I�
�t.
. �J�:}.'�`e
�5,.".,h.
/1' g i:
k,e��:��4�� ' � ' .. ' . . .. " . . . �s' y . � ..k. r .
° f
>>��:�
1 ' ;,. .�. :� ;. .
� � • � �
✓.i'�:
`
'�:d`t��'.'_�-y..
7 • '
�"�:: _ _ � .
�':'''.3%:�,:,
�F.•,_,
;.;:;`�y,�,. .
Though he acknowledged that the Board might have a technical
leqal basis to reconsider the motion, such an action would be
inappropriate in this case, and would be unfair to his clients.
George Madsen commented that the County had received a letter and
a substantial package of material from a resident of Redstone,
asserting that the support voiced by the directors of the
Redstone Community Association [RCA] did not reflect the majority
of their membership, nor of the community. On the other hand,
Madsen pointed out that the information was received after the •":";',"
hearing on July 27, 1987, and some of the Commissioners felt that �-:�'.
the information could not be considered after the hearing had i:�.'.a•�'�
been concluded, and the record closed. Madsen said that he �t�.;'`.' ,
personally supported McGrath's position regarding the ::-`��
reconsideration of the vote. �� _
�:
[Recorder's Note: The letter from attorney Peter Martin, dated -';`-
August 7, 1987, along with and the package of information and '�i�}
photographs, was received by the Clerk as an Exhibit to these .!.••,
minutes of 08-10-87. As the July 27th Public Hearing and record �`:�'•
is closed, they were not received as part of the Public Hearing 1t;'�':
Exhibits.] �f�� ��
r,
Colette Penne was uncomfortable with the one-year aspect of the ��, � -
" approval, as she felt it was unfair to the applicant, and left
the issue essentially unresolved for the community. She would � `
vote against the resolution for this reason, as she had at the
July 27th meeting.
Tom Blake remained in favor of the one-year approval. He said
that in his view, it would be difficult to turn the proposal
down, and it should not be turned down based on popular opinion
nor on the issue of "restraint of trade" raised by some of the
others in Redstone.
Child said that his greatest concern regarding the project was
compatibility with the neighborhood and the community. He
thought that popular opinion should be a consideration, but could •
not be the primary consideration.
McGrath asked that Fred Crowley abstain from the vote, as he was
not in attendance at the July 27th meeting, and had not had an
opportunity to review the record in full.
Tom Blake moved approval. George Madsen seconded. �
Houben asked if Blake wished to amend his motion to include a fee ` ���
waiver for the 1 year review, and Blake so amended his motion.
Madsen seconded the amended motion. The motion failed to pass, �
as the vote was 2-2, with Bob Child and Colette Penne opposed. `Z�.
Crowley abstained. [See new motion on page following.] :,�
l �
BOARD OF COUNTY COrIl�SISSIONERS 9 AIIGIIST lOTH� 1987
•.[i�', -
�i:.
'���`���.�-�?�' -
z*:����"=:
�. . �%•�
;, �_=�{.
, _��
, :.
r.��;t;��.. _- , :. . . - , . . _. . - .�" . , . � �-� �.
� . ...:-�� .
� ..��.-�'"��f
r_ � _
_- ,yS,i � . . . _
':Y.�::��'.'"��:•. .
'ID`1�; .
_ ` -
,.�� ... _ . _ . . .. ..__.._ . .
�i"`'+;
.;�,.
. 't"`;;a�.
�,�,,�:;�`;; ;
Tom Blake moved to table the item until Fred Crowley had the .
opportunity to review the record in full. Fred Crowley seconded
- AZFMC
Child suggested that the when the item is heard again, the Board
should have the Code specifications for the criteria of Special
Review in front of them at the hearing.
Colette Penne suggested that the item could be reheard at the
special meeting on August isth, 1987, after the item scheduled .`''+::-
for 1:30pm, in order to provide the applicants with a hearing ';;-.:;�::
sooner than the next regular meeting of the Soard. This was ��`i '-'
agreed, and the matter was tentatively scheduled for 3:3opm. �•;�.`
,.�,:: <.
4;::- '. `
Tom Blake left the meeting prior to the following item: k:-
Z
[3-309] RESOLUTION 87-it' DOCRERY - GRANTING SPECTAL APPROVAL FOR AN �'-._:
EMPLOYEE UNIT - Motion to aunrove - AIFMC
i� .
Colette Penne moved approval. Bob Child seconded - AIFMC �'
�;y,.•
71 • :.y'
R�SOLUTION 87-�C' PIOIINTAIN MOBILE MIX - GRANTIN6 A 5 YEAR ,:�.
RENEWAL OF THE CONCRETE BATCH PI�F1N'P - SPECIAI, REVIEW IISE P$RMIT- '•;
�• J Motion to aoprove - AIFMC
Colette Penne moved approval. Bob Child seconded - AIFMC -
�3
RESOLUTION 87-�• HOLY CROSS ELEC.rRIC ASSOCIATION - GRANTING A
GROWTH MANAGEMENT EXEMPTION FOR ESSENTIAL COrIIYUNITY FACILITIES
FOR TAE INSTALLATION OF A COMMUNICATIONS ANTENNA - I Motion to
a,pprove - AIFMC
Colette Penne moved approval. Bob Child seconded - ATFMC
Attorney Gideon Kaufman asked the Chairman is he would postpone
• the reading of the High Country Storage Resolution of Denia2,
. until Tom Blake rejoined the meeting, as Kaufman wanted to make a
statement regarding the item to the full Board. The Chairman •
agreed, and the followa,ng item was heard: .
1M
RFsSOLUTION �87-tS' MICHAEL D EISNER - GRANTING SPECIAL REVIEW
APPROVAL TO CONVERT AN EXISTING 840 SO.FT. RESIDENCE INTO A DEED
; RESTRICTED EMPLOYEE UNIT I Motion to annrove - AIFMC
Colette Penne moved approval. Bob Child seconded - AZFMC t
;--
Tom Blake returned to the meeting, and the following item was
heard:
i
��..
, � -
BOARD OF COUN'PY COMMISSIONERS 10 AUGUST lOTH, 1987
. ,��. ;��<:
+ �}A ;
S '.
•� �,t
. .;�I,�,. t
-����,
;
��. .. - .. .. . . .. . . .. � '�� � t I�,
. _ __r���-__.
f A;• . �.e�q�p�{j� .
i. ;,"j:�:'� � . �
'i�.:�,.;'�'l�i� ..
�'1F;:.:`'''�::�f.:
.a.Y`t..�_-�+;.
�;.i
` ' ~
..
.
�� . � ,
, . � - �
=: . , ,,..._._._ .
i, {'
�•;�'�'."
. �'1.:.�:� .
;:;
: �� r _. .
[3-400] RESOLUTION #87-�: HIGH CODNTRY STORAGE fCI�ARR SMYTHI - DENYING
THE SPECIAL REVIEW APPLICATION SUBMITTED FOR A MINI-STORAGE
FACILITY - I A motion to aporove the Resolution of Denial passed
3-0, with 2 abstentions.
Attorney Gideon Kaufman asserted that his client had been denied
due process when the Board refused the applicant's request to '
table the item at the regular meeting on July 27, 1987, and went
forward with the scheduled Public Hearing, taking action at the
conclusion of that hearing to deny the application. `�`
Kaufman said that he had attended numerous hearings regarding the
DownValley Plan [DVP], and attempted to raise the issue of the � , `.,
zoning regarding the subject property. He said that he was f �
continually told that it wasn't the appropriate time, and that he -
would have to wait until the rezoning issue was specifically
` addressed, at which time he would be afforded an opportunity to
` be heard, regarding the appropriateness of the zoning for this
property. ���'
4��,��.�'
Further, Kaufman said that he was assured at the DVP meetings ;`1,
? that the DVP did not rezone property, and that "nothing would �f �
happen to people's property" until the plan was implemented. ir�.�'"''•
' �' He objected to a Commission member having moved to deny the
�i application at the July 27, 1987 meeting, prior to the applicant �
... making his presentation to the Board.
He said that the Board "gave in to mob pressure, and angry
voices, and not to facts." He urged the Board to adopt
' procedures for the future that would formalize a tabling
procedure, so an applicant would know in advance what to expect.
�i He thanked Colette for supporting his client's efforts to table
at the hearing of July 27th.
County Attorney Tom Smith responded to Kaufman, saying that he
had not advised the Board at the hearing to do anything that .
would have been unfair. He commented that Kaufman, as an
� attorney, was aware that the applicant could not have relied upon
a certain tabling, any more than a party to a lawsuit could rely
on a judge automatically granting a continuance. He made it
i clear that no applicant was "entitled" to a postponement of a
' noticed Public Hearing, though the Board could choose to continue
1 a hearing, if it chose to do so.
� .
i_
Smith said that given the difficult schedule of the Board, and
the extraordinary efforts of inembers of the community, including
out-of-town residents, to appear at the hearing on July 27th, it 'S
was not unreasonable for the Board to have heard the issue, and �Z
acted on it. `�
�
BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 11 AIIGUST lOTH, 1987 +':
4'
.. .,�i.-� `*r,':.
��
J �
�• ``�:
,s � �� �'
-���. . fF,
- �-�-� ' .
,- ��y�:�
"- �.f;.' . . ..- . . . .
. �-h= `
( .
;�''ti:::•n[-:� .
� •
' ` �
-:�':: . . .. . _ - ' .
,tt_.•'.x,;;,:
F�.::'��'
. ?:;.;.'A
- f�
;: ... . _
Smith advised the Board not to change the procedures concerning
tabling, and instead commented that applicants should be on
notice that the decision to table resides exclusively with the
Board, [and thus no assumption that an item will automatically be
tabled can be made by an applicantJ.
Lastly, Smith asserted that the applicant had ample opportunity
to present his case to the Board at the hearing, pointing out
that Smyth only had made his case at the prompting of the County
Attorney, and in the absence of such prompting would clearly have
chosen to make no case at all. ,f:;i.�;ir;:
,,,.;
:'._.
Kaufman suggested that the refusal to table the item was contrary >•
to the actions taken by the BOCC during all the years Kaufman had •"•'�
been involved in such land use applications. �.'� _
SL
Madsen pointed out to Kaufman that the applicant had cited the '-`
absence of the Boise Cascade representative as the reason for the ~t��
request to table, and the Board had made the determination that •.f ' '
the testimony of the representative could not be sufficiently .';�;'.;,
relevant to the review to warrant a continuin of the hearin r�"''�
4 4• ��k.:: ;
•F'.
Tom Smith pointed out that, as the Boise Cascade representative ` �r ,
intended to address Boise's potential plans for the property in �
`' the future, according to the applicant, the Board decided that
the future lans for the ro ert were irrelevant to the a G `
p p p y pproval
or denial of the subject application, and thus could hardly
provide a substantial reason to postpone the hearing. E.�
Blake pointed out that the people who had flown in for the
meeting had a reasonable expectation that they would be attending
with the final hearing on this issue, and have the opportunity to
be heard at the meeting wherein a decision was made by the BOCC.
w
Smyth asserted that when Commissioner Penne had expressed no
personal objection to the tabling when contacted prior to the
meeting, he had relied on the Board to grant the tabling of the
request. He said that the architects and planners and others '
representing and supporting his proposal had been told by him not
to attend the meeting, and thus he did not have an opportunity to
make a complete presentation.
Tom Blake said that Kaufman's point was well taken, and he could
see where the attorney might have expected the traditional
response from the Board regarding the tabling. However, he �
pointed out to the attorney that this type of action from the ''�
Board was changing, based at least in part on time and scheduling � ':
constrictions of the BOCC, citing the Matrix Ski Corp [Highlands
Inn] Detailed Submission extension request, which traditionally s
had been granted extensions many times, and had been allowed to ���
extend for many years, and yet this Board had required the
.,�}": ;
�
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 12 AUGUST lOTH, 1987 �^
. � ��-.'a����.
�1.-� e.•;..
r..�'.��. }
�.'; :
�{:
. � .
x �' -� r
1+�-��: , - ���,
�
_
Y_t, .
. - � s
�;;�'.:�. � � : .
� ���.;�;
�::>.::
°���-
� ;�.
r;ra�' .
applicant to act immediately, or lose the approvals for the
• project. [See �he 10:45am agenda item, hereinabove.]
Kaufman also alleged that Dr. Smock may have misled the Board at
that hearing, when Smock said that he was not notified about the
- proposed tabling. Kaufman said that he had reached Monroe
Summers at the doctor's residence, to inform him of the ,
applicant's intention to request that the item be tabled.
Kaufman also said that the community would ultimately be the -
losers for not having heard from the Boise Cascade `'�"
representative. .�.�.'•?�
��'.:..
Blake warned Kaufman that in the future, applicants would have to '-�" , �
be on notice that a tabling cannot be a "foregone conclusion." � _
Automatic tablings, and automatic extensions could not be relied �
upon, as the Board simply oould not afford to operate on this �'
basis. �
Fred Crowle su ested that the Board should try to be flexible �:': � .
Y. 5g
with ah applicant under such circumstances, to retain a "human -:�
element'� in the BOCC review process, and hoped that an applicant . i-
would not be so entangled in leqal red tape as to prohibit him
from being able to make his best possible case to the Board.
�� [3-1100] In response to the arguments of the applicant and his attorney,
Tom Blake moved to table the item, [and thus rehear the item at a
future time, to afford the applicant an opportunity to make a
oomplete presentation.) Bob Child seconded.
The County Attorney suggested that if the Board wished to table
the item, they would need to make a motion to reopen the public
hearing, and the County would then need to re-notice the hearing.
Penne asked the applicant if he wanted to go through this process
again. Smyth said that the purpose of his statements on this
date and those of his attorney was to admonish the Board. He
said that he didn't believe that rehearing the item would result '
in a different decision by the Board, and thus would decline from
going through the Public Aearing process again.
Blake withdrew his motion. Child withdrew his second.
Bob Child moved approval of the Resolution of Denial. Tom Blake
seconded. The motion passed 3-O, with Penne and Crowley �
abstaining. [Penne abstained because she had favored the �'"
, tabling. Crowley abstained as he was not present at the hearing � "�`
on the 27th of July.]
4
y
r. .
� •
� �
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 13 AIIGUST lOTFi, 1987 '
� :,
�`�t� n �
�?1 �?`
ti3"'*
r ,� �;''
?.�:.'. ie�.:
�i
���-Y y�y... . . . . . . . E,
"'f .. . . . . . � . .. '� � r.
��+�
_ � .,.-�._�ns�"-'"'.�
,5.:.-,C._`'.' . � . .
�
•S:.' '
e a}�' '
_ ` �
�" r � . -
, ��:"r;
w 3:.
. • fa,;
L3�'�. ..
[3-1310] H[JN�PER CREBg ACCESS - BOCC DISCUSSION - f 4-OOPM] - Mark Fuller
Tom Smith - � The Board agreed to schedule a public site visit
on Auaust 17th. 1987. to be followed shortiv thereafter on a
date not certain, with a orivate meetinq with the peonle directly
involved in the issue.
[See also: Benedict Trail Easement agenda item hereinbelow.]
Attorney Ron Austin represented McCloskey at the meeting.
Attorney Leslie Fields represented the Red Mountain Ranch -
homeowners. �>�.`!;±. .
Austin suggested a site visit by the Board and the owners
involved, their representatives, and any members of the public �
interested in attending. Secondly, he suggested that the visit
, be followed at some point by a meeting between the Board and the '
principals, their representatives, and other "key players," in
, order to resolve the problem amicably.
The Board was in agreement with Austin's proposed site visit and :�
� meeting. The Chairman opened the meeting to public comment on '"
� the issue. :�:�`.
�' Pedestrian access on the north side of the property was ;�� ,� � .
�- ,; discussed, with the possible prohibition of vehicular traffic. �
� Blake commented to Austin that this pedestrian access on the
, north side was critical to him.
Gideon Kaufman went on record for his client, Leslie Wexner, that
+ under no circumstances would Wexner consider any public parking
� on his parcel as part of any solution to the access and parking
issues.
• 4
Penne said she would be glad to sit down with the people involved
and attempt to work out an equitable resolution to these issues.
;
"+ Attorney Leslie Fields joined Austin in his advocacy of the site •
visit and meeting.
�
` [3-2100] Stanley Natal submitted two letters concerning this issue,
[attached hereto as Exhibits i and 2 of this item].
i
; Natal pointed out that a substantial portion of the lands
affected by the Hunter Creek access was purchased privately, and
� then turned over to the Forest Service, far the public benefit, i��-
[as opposed to a Federal Government designation of forest lands]
and thus he was especially concerned about the access. He felt
that especially as the people had bought the land, they should i
have the right to use it. �l.
,,�, .
BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONER.S 14 AUGUST lOTH, 1987 - �
:,y.�
;s.;'.:,'�,�. '.
'�;:,.'
s �_.
�'��;
��:�=� _ . . � -_,,,�- ��=� ,F.:
�� .
-..:r. ' ` � - .
iP, . ` .
.._�`-'.�.:
::e�. .:i�'
��:ti
:}�14 •
'll'' ` !
.,,. .
...._
�-, .
t►•''a;:''
. . '�..'
Y�
. �.:�p:�',�
�`:!t�.`�'t...�
' Further, Natal commented that a closure of the northern access
would result in more traffic through the Woody Creek area, coming
over from Lenado, especially by hunters.
After some further discussion, it was agreed that a site visit
would be scheduled for August 17th at 10:o0am.
FIRST READING AND PUBLIC HEARING SETTING• BENEDICT TRAIL
- EASEMENT - I Motion to table to a date not certain AIFMC
Pat Maddalone represented the Benedicts, �"."
l:::;>':;,::
:3�::' .
It was agreed to table this item indefinitely pending the results =��
of the agenda item precedin ����..;
g, [hereinabove�. Colette Penne moved
to table. Pred Crowley seconded - AIFMC y'�
f3-3140�, PUBLIC REAI2ING: JSHOVAIi'S WITNESSES - KINGDOM HALL GMP 6
�t..
EXEMPTION FOR ESSEN'�'IAL COMMiJNITY FACILITIES f4 45nID1 Francis .;
Krizmanich - I Motion to a,pprove - `� '
r�.
As there was substantial publia turnout £or this item, the ���r�
meeting adjourned briefly and reconvened upstairs at 4:45pm, in .:.�.
the District Courtroom, at which time the Public Hearing was ' '
opened.
I
� [P&Z heard the item on May 19, 1987, and on July 7, 1987. p&Z
granted Scenic Foreground Overlay [SFO] approval, and recommended
that the Board approve the project, subject to conditions
{see P&Z Reso #87-PZ27).] Attorney Brooke Peterson represented
the applicants.
A site plan was displayed on a board in the Courtroom.
The County has received a variety of correspondence for and
against the project. Included in this day's packet were several
letters from those in opposition, including letters from
attorneys Herb Klein and Dan Kerst, who represent owners of homes
in the adjacent subdivision. [Copies of the letters from Klein �
and Kerst are attached hereto as Exhibits 2 and 3 of this item.]
Kerst was in attendance at the meeting.
Colette Penne zaised the issue of whether there was any precedent
for exemptinq the church Prom the GMP process.
Further, Penne raised the access issue regarding the intersection �
of the private road(s) and SH82. [The access issue has been the � '�
subject of considerable discussion and debate. See also: P&Z
minutes of May 19, 1987, and July 7, 1987.j �
l
Perry Harvey, representing the Witnesses, presented the ��
applicants' proposal to the Board. He discussed the access issue
,, �`-; .' ;:
� :�
BOARD OF COUNTX CO1lMISSIONERS 15 AUGUST lOTH, 1987
>�?�,-::.7``�
-.•�'.;(
;��`,.;r�;.
:: �� ,.
p ,� � ��.
'�^,� ` _ -�`' `�
�'.. t.
z�y.....-,,,�,.r,._
. -���
- ::;:: ,.. • _ .
_ . ,
_ °;,�' ' .
:,�`;;�:
�::_ .
- :��;< . �
'rr� � +
✓��',�`...
��:., / � . _ . .. _ . .
� �S#;�'�Ii.
. �:�': ';j::
, �.�_
��`�::`;:_ .
first, outlininq the history of the access debates, and reviewing
the proposed solutions concerning consolidated access.
Secondly, he addressed the question of precedents, citing the
Aspen Community School, the Wendy Morris residence [which was
converted for use as an alcoholic's recovery facility], and the
Messiah Lutheran Church, which was exempted from GMP by the City.
Harvey made a case for the qualifications of the applicants'
facility as an essential community facility. - _
Also, Harvey pointed out that, according to the Code, if the 2�'�""•��`�
project were to go through GMP, it would have to compete with ij�'-S•`,:;
commercial properties, which process was of questionable value to ,,;_._ `
the community.
�: ' _
• Betty Farson, the sister of the homeowner of Lot #10 in the �.
adjacent development of homes, spoke against the project. Parson
discussed the homeowners' reliance on a controversial area � �.
designated on the map as "green space," that in her view belongs �„`
to the "Tennis Club'� subdivision [Clasen/Pecjak subdivision]. �'�'`�
[This item had been raised at several points during the review
, and hearing process. County Attorney Tom Smith has reviewed the ��;�`
documents, however, and is satisfied that the Witnesses have .
� title to the subject parcels.] Further, Parson raised objections .
j to the increased vehicular impacts that would be generated from -
; the church, including those impacts that would be created by the
proposed parking lot.
[4-400] Attorney Dan Rerst, representing several of the neighboring
homeowners, spoke against the project. He reviewed his letter of
July 29, 1987 (Exhibit 3], outlining his client's objecti�ns to
� the project, including his dispute of the staff's interyretation
' of the Code section dealing with the applicable minim:xm lot size
for the project. k
Brooke Peterson spoke for the applicants, and responded to
• objections raised by Kerst and Parson. .
County Attorney Tom Smith reviewed the ownership question with
the Board, and addressed the question of the minimum lot size.
� He acknowledged some ambiguity within the Pitkin County Code on
i this issue, but pointed out that where the Code is unclear, the
' decision of interpretation properly rests with the BOCC.
I
, Krizmanich reviewed the landscape plans for the project with the y�..
Board.
�
`��:.:.
BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 16 AUGUST lOTH, 1987 } � _�
. �Y'...'g'Y"�..
;s���i
,. ;t c..
�r�',.
�
>' �4a
�-�''�»' •� �` , �' F�
�E;;
Y..�. . .--�cm'�'."'"_. ' � .
S F _,. . -'�v�'� .
�.. � � .
� �•.:J.����. - . �n . - ..
�:,�. -
�tS'' �( •
?ti�c '
_
.'jF��.�; .
. a;�>�,i�.;��,;. � ' .
'',.�.y_,,4 ' '
,,y;.;"�:y;,i:.
'���������:47' .
,c�'', :'._,r.
:��;,° � t
',��.rti� . ��
� .
, �;
' � . ,., ,
. .
,; ` ��,�. �;�:
1 i�`'�?:•''
;;�� ;4'
. �7'A\`�'l.I:..
r.`-
'�, •• . �k«,a�'�:i',.
�.;�.;.
j s,;�,,.
���x�::.
After some further discussion...Colette Penne moved approval of
exempting the church as an °Essential Community Facility,^ with
the conditions as recommended by the staff and the P&Z
Commission. Fred Crowley seconded.
� A vote was taken on the motion to approve - AIFMC ,
The meeting was adjourned at 5:45pm.
Res�p�tfully submitted, t'^p�i' -
� -�. ✓ .��'�`
David Highland fi, :: , -
Deputy County Clerk �'�s `
i
�'::;::>:
� �� �.
i (
. � :
I �'r'•.-
�
i
t
�
i
i
,� t
1
�
�j
� .
�
i
�
J ;;,
. �:,
=�: :.
`
,;�:,_.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 17 AUGIIST lOTH, 1987 �_,��;,;?:'_
�
St�'S•
i ;' �
� �� '.�
� ,�,,� :,-__-_.. ,. :
x T ., , . '-:�: .
� ` �� �__
xY�, � . . . , . . . ... ,�, �..,� .
=�=*.�?;;� � - . �. � _ _
;J;'`�;�v;`". _.. � .
.. , �G:�`�'�..`..i'�`:.� _ . � � .
,r,:"� `
Y'qS ��.: . ' . � . .
�'��� " . .. . �
i;k�_;t'{�.- . ! .
.,,-�N.�'.�;.:•"z;�.•;? ,
y'4.�:k�.� � . .
\'4k��i�`.:-1;.
�;:i:.�� �- . . - � -
F�"�'�S!�� -
���.:
..�9�J.'1���1 Te;;. �
�`��t�i" � i
��'.'�l '
f�� i�«
h��: ` . �
�N�. �
'� ��3
♦ I '.! ' . . . . ��.ti7d� •
• ���; i .;iiL 3 p �",,,�, :;;
i� . : ;'�...
URTIS �J�i ._.. F�""�'���'`:
��A.S��.�TES_— _.._..i. BOq9 Fr.•'q ,
O
are• �dii�r�iN.ep
July 30. 1987 F�.�Gb��'C,f ����gc�vry�'�i;�,
�Q��g /�,a�,6� 6
� fs
Board of County Commissioners \� �g�,
Ms. Cindy Houben �R��/ ....?.,'
�,;.�,-:: .
Pitkin County Planning Office \�J �,._,_
230 So. Galena �'ii'-. , ,
Aspen, CO 81611 �.��'�.;.,'.
x,..
a.,
Re: Appeal of $3,017.50 Additional Billing Charge
on the Little Annie Norpine Haus Review §
'F�..
Dear Commissfoners and Cindy, �,..ys,.:
Per my note to Cindy of 5/14/87, Jim and Sharon Mollfca wish to :`.�`..
_, appeal a portion of the $3,017.50 Additional Billing Charge of '! :;
� the Planning Office on the review of the Little Annie Norpine
' Haus Specia2 Review Use application. Upfront, we wish to
emphasize we do not question in any way the actual time Cindy
spent in reviewing the proposal. We wish to appeal that a
sigttificant amount of Cindy's time and therefore the Additional
Billing Charge was based on the discussion and review of the
proposed generic "Norpine" code amendment and not the specific
Special Use Review application. We feel it is fair not to be
! charged for the time spent on the generic code amendment vs. the
specific application. The code amendment discussion raised the
generic issues of what are appropriate uses for the back- _ w
country; appropiate uses for the hut system, and should
� back-country and hut system master planning be occuring. I feel
' these were positive ared necessary discussions for the County
j stimulated by Jim and Sharon's proposal. •
� The second point I wish to highlight is that any citizen should �
feel comfortable in putting forth ideas and concepts before the
r P&Z and Commissioners. I feel this presently occurs, and would
� hate to be setting the precident or policy of charging Additional
i $illing Charges for these open discussions.
Jim and Sharon have paid the Planning office $4,277.50 for the 1t'.
Little Annie Norpine Haus review as Eollows:
� Application Base Fee 9.0 hrs. @ $140 hr. _ $1,260.00 s
Additional Billing Charge 35.5 hrs. @ $ BS hr. = 3,017.50 ',`�
$4,277.50
1.;: .•:�
�
::.4;:"..
� 117 South Monarch Strac Asprn,Colorado 81611 303/9241395 ��
� N�I.
� �'�� t
1 ' 1
�..--. . ._ .... .... .. - . . . - � � » � .. . ' � ��.:
ffi:
.�...-. .^^�"'.-. ,�.
��.{; , -. � �
' .:15 . � .- - _ .
:._f.r _ . . • .'
`
��.'
:_,w`r��
.:,•'�.. . �
.'M1^`
.'y..!�•_�::+
_.iti.'n u 1
� s
.T �' . ( � . . . . ..
. . ��.er.u..v.+.'- ... .. _. .. . . . ....�.... .:. .
..� .. ._�. .. ... _ .. ....'.
�'. . ...._.�....._ .. .. . . . . .. . �� r
M S�.-ri.�,.
. ���L: �.
` . p����:i::ic�
. L°.fl�1?,'%.._.-, .
Boatd of County Commisszoners
Ms. Cindy Houben
July 30, 1987
Page Two ,
;•.'.'�•-- '
The $9,277.50 does not include the additional $3,275.00 Planning �'?:
Office application fee Jim and Sharon paid for the review of the ���''0�°'�`�
revised Annie Hut GMP/Special. Review Use application. We �"� �-
acknowledge this application is separate from the earlier Norpine �,�:.:.;;'�;' "
Haus application, but the basic inEormation was the same and
therefore the ceview time should have been less. -
i In reviewing the Planning OEfice time sheets. Cindy noted 22.5
! hours of the 35.5 hours of Additional Billing Charge as Norpine
code amendment. We request the 22.5 hours for the generic code �. �
' amendment vs. the specific application not be charged as ���`�`` '
; additional billing. The 22.5 hours at $SS hour is a $1,912.50 e. �. .
'.:'�-,:
i rebate. ; �;_`
i
Respectfvlly
^c ! {/ / 1�
� �,w^ 1_ �`_/�l/i� .
' ��� L���• r./
i .] Ill CUL't1S �
'i JC/b �
! cc: Jim and Sharon Mollica '
I
, �
t
i°
, ,.,
\ ''`:
'� t�
'cx -
> �s�'�
i '� �:;>_
• �.�-;
i . - .-:�c:.�
i ��.
) ,����i� n.�
t '
.�.,--... , .:_...._. .____ ....... ._.._...... . `
. .. "
�ir-� �.....:._ _.W._....�,_ ::....c... r. ...::.;.�.:. .. �, . ...:,:. --..r: ;j ��....:
ic !
� .['�W} . . . ' .
¢� . .. " � � � .
ty-� +T _ ' . ;��i
i 4t .' � � sf�
�:a h.' � . -_. - . -
� ,.
L:f;�����, � • - � .. . ` - ' �_
t�,Y` Q:,. � _ .... � .
� . � �q� . � . .
S F� ��
S
;..{Yl. . . . . .
.t ( .
N�il.,,r:�'.�,�.t:.. , ,
�4i[,-)i�.jS.,',', . � . • ' ' .
:.;'fi;a�,'L.,^����:"i� ' . . '
..'�:e�LjX�± . '
k�i�i��. �
-'::��i. ' s t.
. .i.�'w:':�..
'.� '�.j�:��- ,
nw1".'3�' . ' .
..'?rt'�: -
:w��'Fi=
;;��;� �
.;�n Fs � ,
�"
l;y?�'>;�
. >�i:
� � � GARFdELD & HECHT. P.C. . }h,� :
�
RONALD GARFlHLD• TELEPNONE a%�^.-:,�`��"-
ANDREW V.fIC•CHT•• ATTORNEYS AT LAW . ' • (30))925-1936
W�LUAM K.GUEST.P.C.••' y�C'�'ORIAN SQUARE BUILDING TELECOPIER
� R08ERT H.KENDIG (303)925-3008
601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE CABLE ADDRESS
JANE ELLEN HAMILTON ASPEN.COLORADO 81611 . "GARHEC"
'1110 tlniPN p � .
Ner Yerk Bv
�YYo Mni41[d b
D'nuin d CoWmEi�ex
����h0'dllwled b .
Wbut�rd Te�u Bn
August 4, 1987 '��`�
���i,�,.,-::, ;• �.3 ...
. ' . � "" c�
� �.g. ,:�-:.._�..
3%' ;�;a
6� `
iY,':
HAND DELIVERY �q�"(t £
��,� �Ob�'�/��'�'�+� "-
Mr. Alan Richman p rYN�'�'C�G p� `�._'.:.
Planning & Development Director � ':,,. �i �b,F,Y��1;Q,
130eSouthkGalenanStreetnning Office � ° �'�6�rs S �.�-�+�.•
Aspen, Colorado 81611 � ,' ;
- RE: Hiqhlands Inn Amended Detailed Submission �
Dear Alan: v ' �/
�
This letter constitutes a formal request on the part of
Matrix Ski Corporation ("Matrix") , the applicant, under section
6-4.4 (dl (3) (B) of the Pitkin County LanB Use Code ("Code") for
an extension of the esisting Board of County Commissioners
("BOCC") Resolution No. 86-75 Amended Detailed Submission
Approval ("Approval") for the Highlands Irtn reconstruction. As
you know, section 6-4.4 (d) (3) (B) of the Code provides that:
"Approval of the Detailed Submission shall be for one (1)
"� year from the date of Board Approval. If, within that time .
period, no final plat has been submitted, Approval shall
expire unless, for good cause shown, the Board extends the
. time period."
The Approval granted under BOCC Resolution No. 86-75 expired
July 28, 1987. On July 13, 1987 the BOCC granted an extension of
the Approval until August 10, 1987, at which time Matrix would
return to show what progress had been made towards satisfying the �`�.
conditions of the Approval. The following consitutes a summary
' of those items completed or that Matrix anticipates completing on � ,�
�' or prior to the August 10, 1987 date: S
1. An asbestos semoval permit has been obtained for the ��
, Highlands Inn; a contract has been let for the removal of the _ -''•�
asbestos and the remo��al of the asbestos has actually begun. A '
permit has been obtained for the demolition of the Hiqhlands Inn; � �
`� :'
e'�" "
I ��....,��.:
�...
,I r; ar�_^. `,:
f.r i�:
. .. _ ..... . . ..... .. .. . . . .. ._ � .._... . . , .. . . . .. . . . ti
..-.. ... . .._ . _ . . .. ,�r^- . . . � ^�;.. �• .
...
•H
> ���� '
. ��f= �
. i ,
�'Y.�}'�,: i:u'�' -
'�'.i.��:::.::.�;�_.�,': .
.,',.` f ` . -
�.
,. ..
� .. . ... ,
'�-- . .
� �;�:>'�;��.:
. , - , �,� �'
. �`:.�a;';.':.:;`
. GARFIELD& flEGIiT, P.G. . �� .
l'
Alan Richman
August 4, 1987 .
Page -2-
a contract has been let for the demo2ition of the Highlaeds Inn
and a irrevocable letter of credit furnished to the Coanty to
assure completion of the demolition, The demolition contract ~.`�'
requires the completion of the demolition within thirty (30) days �":��'�•'
after the asbestos removal is completed, While every effort has .<'j".,'--= -
been made to complete demolition by September 1, 1987, it is � '�.• �
likely that demolition will be completed by September i5, 1987, r���
� �;- .
�
2. A draft Subdivision Improvements Agreement and Empioyee ':
Housing Deed Restrictions have been submitted to the Planning �
Office and County Attorney for review. :
3. The project architect, Sandy Ritter of Ritter, Suppes & �=",'
Plauts has met with both representatives of the Planning Office ,� �'�� ,
, and Building Department. There has been submitted to the ' 't ?
� Building Department foundation information, architectual, '�
` structural, mecha�nical and electrical design development � 'f I'.
� ' drawings, preliminary code review information, soils reports and
structural calculations. These documents have been submitted to �
the Building Department preliminary to the submission of building i
, permit plans.
, r
1 9. The report from Barton-Aschman, transportation
consultant to the project, to varify parking requirements has
, been completed and submitted to the Planning Office. 6unny Vann, �
project planner, has had a preapplication meeting with the �
t Ylanning Office and Matrix will be on the first available ,
� Planning & Zoning Comnission agenda to reconfirm the parking '
° requirements for the project. �
i
' S. Sunny Vann and Sandy Ritter have had meetings with the � �
Planning Office to discuss compliance with the remaining ;
` conditions of the Approval. 1
� �
6. The followinq other project consultants are at work on
' drainage, water, road system, landscaping and the 1ike. Rea,
i Cassens for the detailed drainage and site utilities. Aspen �
�Design Group for the landscaping, roads and other general site +"
j civil engineerinq.
� Recognizing the progress made by Matrix in satisfying the 1s
conditions o£ the Approval, it is submitted that good cause �
exists for a further etitension_ Attached hereto as Exhibit "A", .
you will find a summary of critical dates leading to December 1, '�
; 1987 when Matrix will submit all documents required to obtain a � } :�
• building permit. The Code section quoted above ties the Approval
i
i ' +'.'
� + .
{ r.
S • �';
� . . _. _ � .: ....�...,_-._._..._...-�..-..,.�, -
' �
>,.
. _ . . �..
._ _ ,� � �j .�
..
_;,.�._:- :-�-�_�—�-----.---_ .
_ .
; ,
. �
, _��._.: >
_ . �-�' .
. �:��,.- � .
;:,-`=_:-:;.;_�<:
:��:`�: :
;..<�:..::...:: �
,C-�'::r.h,' .
'_ty�'�
j,i. � �
� �
.._�. MIYiYWY ..'_ ,..-...-�_...... .....___ ...
�� r. . 1 . . , • - .. . .. . ..
. . ..._..�........_. - .� _...,rr.�.�r..--.. � ..... .. .;... -...:�. .. . - �
; . � f ��.,.•
; , �p�: 4:
- " "�:a�"�':,�;,:
�.fr �., ,
GARF[ELD &HECHT, P.C, w'�t,;���::_.
Alan Richman '
_ Auqust 4, 1987
Page -3- ' � .
to final plat submission. Since this is a condominiumized hotel,
there can be no final plat sumitted until substantial completion t�A;:'•- -
of the construction. Accordingly, compliance with any further '' `�'
extension deadline should be tied to submission of construction '�'`�``
�:��.•
documents sufficient for issuance of a buildin ermit which �
4 P r�,•.:. .
.Matrix agrees to do on or before December 1, 1987. When a ,°,>: '
building permit is issued, Uniform Building Code requirements ��� ",'' `
govern as to when construction must actually commence and
percentage completion along the way in order to keep the permit
from expiring. Based on the Matrix hereby requests an
extension of the Appr until December , 1987. .
y ' _
; Sin er , � �'' '
i f�,
r',.
�` � Ronal rfield � �
; .
RG:kg:rgt2 �
cc: Claudia Crocker � •
Doug Aorn
Sandy Ritter
Sunny Vann
Tom Smith
; 1
I
i . .
� �
�
,
1 � .
j ',„
�
I
� . - C \ "
i •
j
I �
� , ' . . �.-�. .�fw..,.
i ' . . -'��:-r.
''�..:,�,:•(C:T.
,�[�f�'
. �::
� .
. . --'�""�.-..--.-,�...�-.�
, . .. ._._ .._ _...,... ._ __..__. ... ,.. . _ ,
. _ _ ........ �_. ..; . :._ ._. . .., .
. . � . ... . � . � . . . . �
,s .,�s j�-�
,� r� . �_.. _Y�
�-;� ' _ . .. . .
,r.._.-y., . .
yi(-.'Fi"'..:x. ... .. ` � . .
, .fi37'"'=�... .
�.,X��.',,y�": .
;=:�;s:.:-��ti: . . . . .
:ii=
17
t
,._r i�s'y`:.,`+:.;' ' . . . .
U�y `� � ,
� 1
��n��✓.
�?}'Y�j: '-. .
�':.��r-�'S'�.'t� '
,,+;r;.'
,:��j;�y..� .
..�wCR a�`�; w !.
1'���+'t��
._j •i+;�.--.: ` �
- �. _ ��
p'
,..
,
y � �
�� . _�.-"..�-... ...._,. .. ,.,.._ . .� .,.......,..-_.._ . --.. • _ . . . . . __. . . �. ,. � . �.
_ _ . . - . . . . .i .
�41yl}n<�p� .
- • . 1 i:$'t Kf5���ti
. . . • . . lv;���'•'-�;k:,'.
r,?•i'M_
� . � f_�.i�;?a;
��>'i,f`,
, !;`_4':�:c:�.
EXHIBIT A
� SUSMISSION DATE DESCRIPTION .
09-21-87 Design deve�lopment drawings
for architecture, structural,
mechanical and electrical
Final USC review document ?'.<�
, ,•jr�j�.r..,,
! • � Detailed FAR calculations k.'?;�"�.�
��"�,.. �
� Hillside stabilization study �t'',``.'`
10-05-67 Detailed landscaping plan
Detailed drainage plan
Detailed utilities system design ?:i:�;`•
Revised Subdivision Improvements ,%
:`�,
�. Agreement ' �'•,'
i
! 11-02=87 Footing and foundation
i permit documents
Detailed access road design
. 12-01-87 Final Subdivi�ion Improvements
+ Agreement
� , Building permit plans and
• specifications
I
i .
. t .
_;,.
. • :�.':
.t
:,�
� . � ^�. '
1 ��. ' :,
� �
, `�...::�-�
�� ��.� :
, .
,; . . .�;�; �-
, �.:
-��- _----.______ -
. - __�....
_ .. _ . . _.. . ...__ ._._ �_._._...�...
�,_ .�_ . .
�^.: - . _ _
�.� _ �--
�`�;�;: . ; . ` - � _ -.- y-W-�`
. =f;��:�;=:�t� � _
.:tSE�,�:: . .
�w �'SSSi;.` . .
ij1.
- :.k.
::f::-' - - t , .
�:�E�:.'''° 1..:�� .
.xi�);'e='�:'' �
n�,+f.�c.' . . . .
. Y{����` . . .
, � .
z
�S� ��� .
-N}'u:.�c!�?.:t.
.3�:
' ...;.r mr�Y".� .
�+=,(i�FC n.,i .
n'c.:�`-� ' -
����� . �
- � �►
�;�.
.���� 4�,��'.� b'� `� �.: , �
+1► `� r `�a°�ti��j/�o ' .. ..� . . u r}51..'�K..;n p�s�,� .
> r � r
. '� �4�T��`}•� s.Z7�!� \ -_�� ..�i+i�'4,.''�.iry�. r �;'k e'S`�� K� }�l :�i� .
Y� � �
r,. ��'ti .�+ ��;`f�it�i rd :� � . l
• � �w�s r3��� �cf���'�`��rl �Y 7 . �g� '�.�+ �� 1 y'��1�.� � . �� -,
�� �� ,. ��'6��''�f �T�{����tY�?�'^th,�'-i, . ��°si ;�.'',,.<��'��h :.s.
St
' .�}�� . � 't . .. .
-€s` � � �j• nag�chi'tft���' +-,�,
. ���
«cfFg� z�;t + �� y � ';���
P y+C �, .r'br��Y�,}:�:�.p�� �� t� .
.. `A�P_.O�{.�1YE(ti2i50..�751V_vMp�E,s'. r.:. '{ �"F'�.1.,. ' .
Esf�1OF�Us°s-so9� .Z., eoo,aYaq�•�
�//0/��
, ��-�-�-c-{ C[ec�� �����
/�,� P -
`'�'rliYyt:•dr,j.c,,�,,, ,vv,�
- `'� ,�-�..�, a�L �
_ ; ��.. ;��. ,�,1,��P.C�.`. +� '
. � {,.iC.C��V✓44(/ �IL� .¢�/{�pLd.2.L�.a � L^�j�,�9 � , ' i
/`._-. ✓ �
i .��"''' ���'�i'„ ,�,,.�,� ,� � ,
a/� .. '_ �� ��.+✓.�..t��7 . � .
�� , ;Y�'� .�7h.� L�L�-t�4„ ��--V�,.'�.�c--• �� T.. �
_._... /�'Tp/� -/� �
�� � i..".._. `w V�..r�,���' �V �(� ./l(� ��y{� i .T�t 1� .
� l�,yy{�y�,� p� l)'..::— � .�7 t
�`� '���U .�L�a.�L,r '
+ `_.� • � il���_�— ��"'�"� �
�Y:r'_ �� � -�. �;_,�.�� �� ,
: 1
k t.:} ).' ��G �,�"-, ,�I��,_,(��Q ` , .J .
. « �,r` .Lu-tt�, �;-�-
;� ; ' � � �`Ll �r �1 p-«.� ,
— � _
x ..;.� ��,�- -�`��r�a�c r' � .,,
�,` � ..__.___.____ �°"�—��— .
�s �
, �-�,,�-:z- c� `y��. � .
: �
t:t:�, i�x . _- _ .
:�-�
, ' � .� f
, ; ,
�. . . . w
_ ' S
_ - .. ���' . ._ ._. � ��� .
a � . . . . . � -.
�`
. . . _ �� �'�.
., t
�
� . �' . _ . . �. • .
' ' y'�� .
ti
. � . . �H��..
."�� ~. �� 1 r�1
..iv. . . iI ,
=� {-.
. � �.'.
.;s <� . , . . . �,`�..�..�'--r----
. to� 4 .
t
'-.-`K s . . . . _,.-�...._,..�'"'�•
� �
y�.;`�
�:i��s:, . " . � .
:i�''..r�}`F
�.y 5
:�i;;'.� .
;:�_�;.�
` • �� ` s
. . � ;*`�..,�\,.`'.;
�r :1,�
_ w �;
r�•s"�
"....�" . xr�;.. ..`..-.
. . C�M�R g ati
r-1��G�' U�(
, a„� �
. t•`-• ,;S;c:�� ;t F��b�1s
�yUrt�L`1ti4��,1 l t� c��ld�`
P>
�� �� �2�..-�
t��. ...,, - ' �, S5'� � /l, I ,'�t) �:��
t, ' �` �C j C'�..c�*'d`'��„ c�M-""" �" "r �+�... `�`:�,-�-
-I" �"'' � q'1�,�'a's'° i iw " `�`�' ,:t�c'
n.�� �� ���J�/w� I }' `
- '�� _�, ' •l���'"� � �" `' � . � .G.''�`.r •;.°� . _
� � C..i'.y1''�'✓'� .,1,,,c/ati� �V� �7�,e•�-`�✓ t:.(���v � '�``
�y L�-Ct� ` `� u
�,,,, ,k��� .,,,� �� �� � �' ��.�,tf-�"�"'�`-�„g., �, �,� c� ��
,_�"" ��.�' f�..rQ, ��^"j _ ,' ,(i'���L Cf�"� •�,�:;,��`.
� �, � , (�;l � �t�,
.,,,, ,�,,.�-�,Q," �---� � �� �., ,
,� ����`$ C � '�� �`��
� � cv�"`� ��'
y�. . /�� r � Q� �v � .
X. � �`�V � i�
�C°` ' L:v"" �''�"�
� --n �
� � �n�� �cy"'vv r ' �
r
�� �- `� ���'� ��` � ;��
;� � � � .
� �'�"'"Y'`" ;l v �, AC`r'` �.r�..
- �� � .-� �/�u�) ��./?����,.�,�''� ,�� �' �� ��-- '
�' , � ��
, ,-� r'.'!� ;'"'. �� -�+6?_._'? ^ ,�E-^"�. y,,,JZ� «� ,��,,,' t�'Z".-�, Ay,,,�- . .
� �
� �.,/ l) ���,v 'l I'
}. , � �'��� �— � .�^A.c.'�'"r� r��cj-�' � I
''`� �..cSn - - `� ��'-�'�' :V �«-�-�'� � ` a�-� - _
� �
. � . �"' L � �� J7 i.J�! /,C��� ��� C t
7 �,.-�i � �'
. �.,�� .. � �� � � � � J • _,� �y�� .
. ������
i 1lV�✓—
Q 1 �,�.,,� (1 ,, � � �.
;;� C'.�,"'`�'Q� �?�� � ��'`� � �,
,.
sk'�� � ���� ' ���� � �� ��
- '`�t � �%y'r-� r� ¢-�--� � �
�'.� -�� ``"`,��u ,� � „-� '�1 ��
�:� � � � ..� . �-:
. �� �- �-�- �� ,�.� �- ,� �� °�t
J� �� �� �/+1'�t� i �i
' �Y •�. � � r �� �� �" ,���,��--7
-�, � �� .
� �' ,�""� �� -��"�'� " :
+►! �.� . . -��..,��----�
;� _ . ,��'``��%
. �
- ..
�:r.R:�:: � �
_�:
:._ ::�,
"x�.s:`
"�1��'-:`Fi.'
:.:•t.i. ..:.. .
�.t�����.'.;::.._
.`���ti��+:,'!
'� I
�;,
;`,.;;,,� �
:2r
' � . �,t,:\
� . �
,_,
. � ' �'' ��.
x�
�� � �
_ . �_ ' . ��y'}'t _ __
, ��:`":
. �. . K
, �' r�.
�,_
- f r
�:z; . ,��� �-� �_
, - �`�`- ( "',
f.,.,. � j��:�'' /�� /�� ,� r� ', .
. L��W'` v �-t+'1�tIV� (.I�'� ��.:,.
.. Q� , j, �, �'� '" �'�"
- . _ �� �,,,.l.�U � ,�c�`'�; '�d--� � �. _
_ � � ,, :�� �_
�•,��.(�""i �,,,.c�-L' ��� •
'�` �;,,��- .��j ��� «•`ti s��. .
l� �7�
..�.�,r ��,G,V � �- �:���,e�'�`� , , r �
. � .�� . /��� v��--L`' �:, -�.
�C�a ,�° � �-�.� � "X';���� �y"`�� +r" �,d��
`}-'�,�.c.i�- p� ,`�,�� �� � � `�,?�t�'''� ���
�,�i�t�? n,f jj�LG°�I �� �`.�'- L��';� ��� C�`' j' ^� A
��'" �, Ca.t�.�' ��G`�,,, � }/ ���V��"" �.�� �
��t� �' �
;�`� ' �R ,q✓' / � � �'�n� f t.`}�� �'t :
f�'A' C}��L'C, � �;� ..F� � ,• •
V , �'
p .� , r � �
;v, /"`��,7 .p�',,�� �'� �. �i �;�,��QL,A,�
V-�"C;• - ��LyK L������' .
. � -^��R����.�J " t 4 , •
� ; �� „�(" P-'' �p�'.r �/ �; .
':'�.1 - �,�\ ��� �� '/ , V ✓V �1�^f:��C�Zw /, ✓ ��� .• �
;;;� '+, o;�� � � � �� �v �'
;.1` _�, 1,�� /t'�' ^Y��✓ ;�p �v���,� 1 / ♦
��
..� �� i' .v�j ( /`� �,f�,��t:
;;i ' �n o..� �� yY� L ��� Gl�l/�Lir�`�`' � �'v�(j�` �. i�.
,''_ `" y�"�l.'- \? v
���!C�c."t'"'r r� � Q l, ,ii ? ,vt� �'
r _. \ !.�''1�`r' �..��1�.'L"�.�� ��d�� �� , � ""� `� 'i� ��.
�
, � ��' J'�" � /�'�� 1
�,� i ��.i� (f �� �y � . � . �_ �.�,
iZ��� ��� ��,/-f:C, �/
� 4 � �L , �„ '„C,�.� �,�
� `�.`t � /� � 1,� ^ ' 1Y:.
a �I7'- �',•}�/Y � � \ '� F
: /..,, �,'�.
�� G, a�s^� ,Lr'^-�,; �' ,,� �
.`' � •i-'�'��� � �' j � � �%rt/'T'`��� �.� ` 3�;:
� i K� � ��'� * �. .�".
'` '�,� �j:��� �.�` �(;,,,r}(',�'j . :�.
`�� i�r�lJ� Z���' ,GL'.riY �
1 �,r �ti
; `�. `
:�` '. ��.� ���z.� Y "
��
�, �� - �� .
� �:�-
_ , M i
�.:l:. � .
•.� _ �
E'%i:
�� . "
n�'t�
,�e�t�,-,�tw,�'� '
"::i-:..:�:.�4'f!7�_
��
{ �
7�s,
�'"' _. .... . _ . _. .. _. . _
� ,.. � " . :� :��s.�:�:k'.K�5&�si914.d'�5�1�''�'���p�� .�}.
c:'
�i
h�F,ih`:
�.. . fiY � ..,It ..
/ !� ��
�." � , �y- , '
���, _., �i t C ` ��� �.
� ,�+�'
� �4sper�G'ongregatiotL �
�f'Jehovah�`Witnesse�
July 30, 1987 :r•,::':'
r:::;�•: ..
Aspen Congregation '�� ,
C/o Roger Long i�'` '
' Box 3849, !:`�, .
� Aspen, CO H1612 f-
Dear Clasen/Pecjak Homeowner, �� .
�;-�.:
Your principal representative, Steve Conger, has been negotiating w3th the ' t.,�
Aspen Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses an ad'acent �"� `
, � property owner, for two +;�.,�.
rights of easement through the smaller parcel of our land. The proposal is to ;:+ �
� give the Larson residence a private drive, while the remainder of the Subdivi- : 'r•.'
sion would use a second, common roadway. The portion of the existing roadway � �
� not used in this proposal would then be landscaped in aspen trees and grass.
All parties seem to be in favor of this plan, including the Pi�kin Countq
attorney and highwaq engineers. The Aspen Congregation is also willing to
grant such easements and work with the neighbors in the implementation of
this plan, We feel a suitable time for such work to commence would be after
, all public county approval processes have been passed. We would hope that
� would be no later than August 10, at which time the County Commissioners
1 review our land use application.
k
In view of resolutions passed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, we
feel it is important for representatives of both parties to meet and reach
equitable solutions to lighting the entryway and improvements to and mainte-
nance of the roadway. We also feel it important to put such agreements in
writing and signed by these representatives.
' We will look forward to such a meeting in the near future. We could meet
� th you or your representative on any evening except Tuesday or Thursday.
We will leave such a meeting to your discretion as to time and place. We
o d be happy to meet in one of your homes if that is more convenient.
ou may either call Terry Badger at 925-5132 or-�460 or Roger Long at 925-1771 �
�-.
or -2562 to set such a meeting.
Sincerely, {
n
BOARO Of C0.COMM'R'S Aspen Congregation �
F1TitIN COUNTY Building Committee
Public F�e rin Exhibits � :;
Date: �j �D �� �; ' �
Subject:._5��� J N�� ` _`��� t{"�;_ "_.
nK a�— --� :
Exh.No. `' �, /� t�` ��F
� / �' �f/- /���i�• 1 � �
J ��::=; -
�;.:
- , ;�:
F.-
-�-"'-.�,.,,x _ • '' .
,.�
--�.'.
��
::3• - . ,. '. . . .. .-- .
. t
�..'rr?-:�,::-�.,. . '
1ti��y��",�,�,yL�.;t
!�(y",
.,f,;; _
- �
_. w,_.,_ _ _,�...�n __
w:�.,
,. :::
._ .
, ` ���.'�,
� LAW OFFIGES OF ,.`,�a����-���,�..
•.1
��; 1
� IiERBERT S.KLEIN D �+` 6 f2�(�n� �;•:
� PROFESSIONAL CORPORIITION L5 V �
201 NOfi7H MILL STREET ;�����i�
BOARD OF C0. COMM'R'S SUITE 203
=� ;�=`
PI7KIN COUN7Y ASPEN.COLORAOO BI61 I ����
Patrlic He 1 g Ex ibits �303)9258]00 �;�
`� TELECOPIEF 1303I 9253977 � . �;
Uate:
May 1, 1987 ���=
Sub}ect:�e�c�c1w�, 1, •
Exh.No.
�,,�-„ ��`'``
Francis Krizmanich � •.�"j�-'•`�
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office h �*""'.
130 South Galena Street `,�"� � �. , � "
Aspen, Colorado 81611 �� #�r
�� �.
Re: Yir.53o.r. Y_e12 Scer_ic :'ar�groun.a. Revi�:a P.gg�_c��:_...
Dear Francis:
�:�
�.,:
I am forwarding this letter to you pursuant to our previous
};:t,. .
teZephone discussion. I represent some property owners in the •'�'
� neighborhood adjacent to the proposed Kingdom Hall site. They i1
f, are concerned about the vi.sual and physical impac}s of the •
� proposed project and requested that I state their objections for �
the record. Unfortunately, I will not be available at the May 19
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Therefore, I would
appreciate your discussion of the points raised in this letter at
that ti.me.
The overall visual effect of the project from the highway is �
a significant intrusion on the relaiively 3bw profile of the �
{ surrounding homes in the Aspen Tennis Ciub Subdivision. in
addition, the placement of the existing homes is at a substantial
distanCe from the highway thus enhancing scenic values. The only
� other pernitted use in this zone catagory likeiy to be developed
would be a single £amily home. Such a use would have much less
� impact and far greater design flexibility and thus be a much more .
� suitable use in this visually sensitive area.
' The proposed project appears to be approximately 120 feet
� long and in certain parts two to two and a half stories high.
' The plans I reviewed were not to scale and, therefore, it was
� difficult to preciseiy determine these footages. However, it is
clear that the structure is substantially more linear in its
! design than is appropriate in this location. The site is very ,�t--
flat and does not have any ex_isting trees which would provide
some mitigation of the visual impact. Other concerns include
traffic generation on this £airly dangerous and congested portion t
of highway and the substantial dust due fo the high volume of �
cars using the access road and the parking lot. �
In the event the Commission deems it advisable to approve :
the application we would suggest the following requirements be :�
� ' =,�:i'
� �t. ���
� �'��'� r..,
_ i.
.+�.x.:r:2 . ., . .. .... ... . .. ..... .. ... . . . . . . ._ �
_.. -. .... .. �- � -:.
_ �
_ . - -,_.�..�.wrr.-4�.^'^!--"-
J � . ._ �
;. ' �^'�: . .,�.—�- .
.-`:r�.- � . .. . , ' .
:Sy: , '
_j.':
^.'r��c:'t
:::4,':. .
5.1,..',,.. . .
_ � F
"-..;�,,�*L
` • '
-_ ----- w _ _ �
.�� _. _._
��: .
-�: ... _. .----..-- - -�- - . .._ . .. -- .. . . .
` ` i .. .. 41y.y.,J.+jr.E1,'�.
I��r�•
� �4�1:���•�i'•�
. ����'��S.':r�
- ks:,^°:1.�'-.-
Francis Krizmanich
May 1, 1987
Paga 2
imposed in order to mitigate some q£ these concerns.
1. Unify the aCCess point between the Clasen/Pecjak -
Subdivision and the Aspen Tennis Club Subdivision at the easterly ;�'"�ti;;•-�
boundary of the parcel. �'��,,:-, :
��
2. Paving the access road and all parking areas. �
�;X ,
; 3. Deveiopment of appropriate acceleration and
� deceleration lanes along its frontage with Highway 82 and -
� avoidance of conflicts with tho bu� StOD.
4. Extensive landscaping to minimize visual impacts.
.:i°�•5.�:
� i greatly appreciate your assistance in this matter and hope '�ti�;`-`.. `
� that, if the project is approved, these requirements will be
incor orated into the Resolution of A ''�,
p PProvai. ; 1:
T. f�'. .
� Very truly yours,
� HERBERT S. KLEIN,
i PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
t '-j' .
,� Hy: �.: � _ _.� ,
Herb rt S. Klein
� a
, �.� .
HSK/nwt
.�
�
t
�
i
�
.' � .
� �`4
j -��
� ;�
i ��'
! .s. �
, ,.,�.�,.
_ ,;;�,�_,_
I �i•.
� a'=� '�,
I :f,i,
' - +,
�.:. ----------------- ----_. _ _____... _ _ ___. _ �_
�.
—.... ,:. .<,,:.;.. -- –... ,
� ... . ,���._.. ��, �-'.
"r. t,,'
.l:r_�;� , �
���: • � , --�-�-a,�—i
�.
�, a�,:,� � .. _ •
tif ya�{::�� ._ � , • '
. a °
�.�-,.x,.:,�.�u�.
,;�e�,r":�;.�: . . .
"-i=
- --:,;s'- .
Fi _ . �
1 R `S�+y-, � . .
#�'"�'"S ' .
� 'y -
. F f�.�:_f " � . . .
'.F'ii°•i:"'4�..`�+i. � .
,�.�;',�,!I>:;;�;t:i� .
!`�°i,�+ . •
Ye�:
C` .-?�^� ' '
i+=:��a
:'`ff.�tl. ?'
?':�11'y�,l. � .
i'���'YS��:
:�v� ` �
_. . � __. _
���., _. _.__ .. .. _.�.._ _. ::.. � :r.�.._ ..... . ` � � .
: .:: ,. ,. .. . _ .
.. �
, :
• , �'����
•.� ,.
l���";�_: �-
�.i...
- � ^.
Aprtl23, 1987
����. .
Dear Property Owner: ,
As an owner 1n the tennfs court subdivislon i am sure you are awere that for mam years �:'.::.
there has been a safety problem turning on and off of Hlghway 82. Part oi the safety problem ts
th�t thAre Is no 11ght�r arry means of determfninp where to turn off the Mghway at ntght or in a ��•: •
snowstorm. Another safety problem results from the fact thal there Is another entrance on F;;.,�
, Htghway 82 Mght next io the Pyramld Road, �; �; _ �
; r..,
�: Because o(these concerns and several recent near accidants,the owners of tha Clesen .d
; PecJeck subdivlslon have taken three steps: 1)we have negotlated wlth the owners of the property -
on Highwey 82 for en easement from ihe tennis court subdivision entryr road(Pyramid Roed)io
the Clasen PecJeck subdivtsfon,2)we have made an agreement to matntatn a llght on the stone
entry piers from Hlghway 82,3)we have arranged to abandon the current easement in Ihe Ctasen
PecJak subdivision,subJect to the apprwal of those landowners.
Also lncivaed in the arranqement Is an agreement to share whatever expenses there are in
� road maintenance and snow removal. Anolher aspect af the ptan Is to landscape the area that Is
presenliy between the 1wo roeds end to get rid of the thisttes. We feel thet this will aesthetically
enhance lhe property es well as make It much safer.
Enclosed ts a plan of where these new easements would be.If you heve arry pro6lems wtih thfs
plan please contact me,Steven Conger at the above address or call 925-3021. .
Ve truly yours, �
,�C��,�c..� ' ,
� . ��s�1^' ,
Steven J.Conge
Encl, � ,`-
SJC/na
�
S
.'�..
,`� i
e'e
M? �
� .1:;...:��:��'Ye,,`��.
�'� �N :
{�j�:
. ' �''����A�- i`;.�
1 �
� ................ . .. ...._....... ..... ...., .. _.. . .. ........._.._. .
w;� C
.�. � F
.. �y� . . ....�.. ...._.. ._ . . .,
�y .,�..:� .... �:.�... . :_ - .. . .
-+.wt!�b . . .
t .�.ti.' . ; �' .
;�-.t... - � ' '���
.{-� • _ .
f�2. � ... . .. .. . ` . . _.
• -�f�:F� .
_ ';'���: . , �
. '�•,'y:� ' .
:�.4w;"x C�y' ' . . .
�•^:
k �
'�,-si5'K ai'. ii� "
.:V's:}.�a::�
��'f i:' .
_ ^:<'
r���,^_T✓: .. ..
4A!. F w
��.
'���y'w['-(i '
`
� , :
• ,..�... .
. �- -- -
. ....__.:._.,_. _......... . .
r�`. . ....
� �,�
. . ��;�`';'
�� � �.
�I.fi-��'t';�'.�.
. �J`CIi�NK, IlE12ST�G.DE�VINT�R � �
BOAR�Of C0.COMM�RrS ATfORNEYS AT LAW
PITKIN COUNTY CENTRAL BANK BUIIDING
SUITE 310.302 EIGHTH STqEET �t
PUbIiC�88f1(1 EJ(�11bItS i:�.t:���•oou:.t�u��c::s.c•uta>x��xi Ninoi ���''-�•�
Date:...._ g'7 I30318A5•2N7 � ��
JOHN R.c S..C�,MENN ( �$�Q✓��� .
DAN NEN6#/�P.C�, f��`-� �
WIILIAM D INTER, III '
E'r'h.�o.
July 29, 1987 '
;�,:,�.:
:�{."." y:,.
�,.-
Pitkin County Commissioners ;�`•-.�,
Pitkin County Courthouse +"-
506 East Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611 �;,, -
r
RE: Parcel A, Aspen Tennis Club Subdivision �'..
Application of Aspen Congregation of Jehovah's
Witnesses
, �'y�`;•
Ladies and Gentlemen: ` ;`
t� On behalf of the owners of various lots within the �
� Aspen Tennis Club Subdivision, I hereby urge you to deny the
Growth Management Exemption application of the Aspen congregation
of Jehovah's Witnesses for construction of a church facility on
Parcel A of the Aspen Tennis Club Subdivision. We submit that
the agplicable provisions of the County's Land Use Code require
denial of the application for the following reasons:
� 1. Section 3-2 of the Land Use Code establishes a ten
(lo) acre minimwn lot area for parcels within the AF-1 Zone
District. The subject parcel contains approximately 3.41 acres.
The applicant has erroneously relied upon the provision of
Section 3-3.10 of the Code which sets forth those Zone Districts
within which a church is permitted. Section 3-3.10 refers to •
'�churches located on a lot of at least two (2) acres in size . . .
.^ (emphasis addedj. Under the position adopted by the applicant
and accepted by the Planning office to date, the quoted language
in Section 3-3.10 is deemed to override the specific minimum lot
area requirement of Section 3-2. This position is in error under
commonly accepted rules of statutory construction.
�
It is the law of Colorado that statutory provisions `�°
must be harmonized if it can be done by a reasonable interpreta-
tion. Cooper Motors vs Board of County Commissioners of Jackson
Count , 279 P2d 685, 131 Colo. 78 (Colo. 1955) ; Rowland vs S
Theobald, 409 P2d 272, 159 Colo. 1 (Colo. 1965); Board of Countv "j
Commissioners of Montezuma CountY vs E.J. Rippv & Sons, 421 P2d
461, 161 Colo. 261 (Colo. 1966). The Colorado Supreme Court has ,,�_�..., . ;
also found that if separate clauses within a statute may be 1.;::::,.:�
reconciled by one construction but would conflict under a differ- ' ;=:.�' .'
ent interpretation, the construction which results in harmony 'd;,`; :�
.' :`���_ ::�y?a
`y�t ��
{)t -�k.'
.1 y
��� . .... . .. ...:. . _ . ... . . .. ... .... . . . . .. . . /�. � . ... F'
.. . .. . . �.�
.,:.:� . . .._ .. �-- .
. '°��'��
:t.: - . - . ` .
. -�{��� . , ' .
_ r .
.-i.�`,!' .
'�J,t
=� � s
. ..�. � __. ,.,, _____ _
.,:..
,��:,
. ��
.
. � �
• p�.�:4:F:':
t;c�::;-••::.,
� Pitkin County Commissioners �.,:;,•-�
v -suly 29, 1987 ,�i�;';%;�"
F,s�t�:S::''..:
Page (2) ,��.�,._..
rather than inconsistency should be adopted. People vs District
Court, Second Judicial District, 713 P2d 918 (COlo. 1986) and
Alpert Corp, vs State Department of Hiqhways, 602 P2d 944, 199
Colo. 4 (COlo. 1979). To read Section 3-3.10 in a manner which
is consistent with the minimum lot area requirements of Section
3-2, it is necessary to construe the words "at least" in Section -
3-3.10 to mean that where the applicable Zone District otherwise ��,'
�s;_i:r`:.;::.
allows less than a two (2) acre minimum lot size, the con- t'�=�'•� >
�,.�
struction of a church within that Zone District will require a ��=:= ;r
lot size of at least two (2) acres; however, where the minimum �;,;.;
lot size is otherwise greater than two (2) acres (as is the case `� ' '
in the AF-1 Zone District) the greater minimum lot size must be -
' given effect. In other words, Section 3-3.10 provides a limita-
tion on the lot size permitted for construction of church but it
does not set forth the only limitation and does not render
inoperative the lot size limitation otherwise provided for the
AF-1 Zone District in Section 3-2. '>•�+'
I %';�
Although I have referred to statutory construction, the ''jj
same rules of construction are used in construing legislative
` ; enactments whether they are statutes or ordinances. Gomez vs. � '
' City of Sheridan, Colorado by and throuqh xerrinct, 611 F. Supp.
! 230 (D.C. Colo. 1985) .
• Colorado Courts have also consistently held that
statutes should be construed in a manner which will render them
effective in accomplishing the purposes for which inacted. In
; re: U.S. District Court for District of Colorado, 499 P2d 'i169,
; 179 Colo. 270, conformed to Sandoval vs. Heckers, 350 F. Supp.
127 (Colo. 1972) . Statutory terms are also to be given the
benefit of common sense uttderstanding. People vs Garcia, 541 P2d
687, 189 Colo. 347 (COlo. 1975). In the matter before you, the
common sense application of the above referenced Sections o£ the
Land Use Code requires that the ten (10) acre minimum lot size be ,
, adhered to in the AF-1 Zone District. This is further supported
by Section 3-1.11 of the Code which reads as follows: '
� (a) The intent of the AF-1 Zone is to maintain the rural
� and open space character. of the lands proximate to the
, County's development centers and principal highways by
preserving the integrity of its agricultural lands and
� o erations q �__
p , providin land for low density, sinqle
familv housinq and obtaining public and open space uses _
within the areas so zoned. (emphasis added).
The foregoing intent of the Land Use Code relative to 'j.
the AF-1 Zone District will clearly be violated if the applicant
, is permitted to proceed with the proposed development on the
parcel containing only 3.41 acres.
';�-
i =-r?
ti
'. ��.
x''�:,, �.
�<�-
.
•.. ,�.:
... „ k; . ....._____ _. _ _
. _ . _ . i�' �'`. y�:'
�_
, �,�_�
, :�,..-= � . �
;:.; -
.�::":. , .
���:'��.,�:
'':'-:pi.' .
__ ,` .�
,..�.�.�..
� :; _. . . <. ..... . � . -
�. .._,., _....._..,. .
. ..._ ,.. _ .
'�'�,':- _ �,, ,
.j ��^r r.,',
�;;�.;.:
. , � Pitkin County Commissioners Sk�"i:i;=`.
y/ .�tuly 29, 1987 i;`
t�:` . -
� Page (3)
Since it does not meet the ten (10) acre minimum lot
size, the subject parcel is a substandard lot which would be
subject to the provisions of Section 7-2 of the Code. Section •
7-2 allows the parcel to be used £or development of one (1)
single family dwelling upon review and approval by the County. _
Although we reserve the right to object to use of the subject
property £or a sinqle family dwelling, such use is the maximum to �� `
C;'';�"-:c.`: .
which the property can be put under the provisions of the Land
Use Code.
2. The application fails to demonstrate that the } _
project represents an essential governmental or community �
+ facility whzch provides basic or fundamental public services upon � -
. which the remainder of the communitv is dependent for support
(emphasis added). Although the cause and purposes of the appli- ��
cant are undoubtedly admirable and of benefit of certain members
of the community, the application does not support a finding
+ pursuant to Section 5-510.2 of the Land Use Code that the com- ;��;
munity is dependent upon the proposed church facility for � r•
support. Moreover, under the circumstances, a finding that the
`' applicant's facility and proposed use meets the above stated �
minimum criteria of providing basio or fundamental public
services upon which the remainder of the community is dependent
for support may violate the provisions of the First Amendment of
; the United States Constitution prohibiting the establishment of
religion. I would urge you and the County Attorney to carefully
consider the potential ramifications of finding that this church
facility meets the quoted minimum criteria for exemption from the
, Growth Manaqement limitation.
3. You must also find that the impacts of the project
will be mitigated and that the project has a negligible adverse
� impact on the community's air, water, land and energy resources
! and is visually compatible with surzounding areas. As you review
� this application, please consider the following:
(a) The proposed facility will be utilized by as many as
{ one hundred and fifty (150) members on a regular basis
and will provide a parking lo� to ultimately accommo-
, date sixty (60) vehicles. You are well aware of the
intensity of traffic on FIighway 82 adjacent to the i
subject property. The most recent State Hiqhway '
Department traffic counts for 1984 and 1985 are in
excess of 19,000 ADT for the portion of Highway 82 in
question. St is apparent that any added traffic ;
generated by the applicant's facility wi11 increase the �
hazards to traffic at an already dangerous inter- �
section. Assuming as the applicant argues that the . �
traffic impact will be periodic, it will nevertheless ��.•::;.'
be significant during the periods o£ use. Tn consider-
ing the application you must also anticipate that the _
�
�±' i�.(;::
-y..;.. .
�> .,.,
�; c:.-
s;
.
-':..wx.c� _ ,. ...,..._... .... .. .. ... .__ . .. . . . .. . . � � - ...'r'� . . . •S
'_ ��
+ •. ���
-__;i;;' ..
. -''i:`- ' .
t .
.:s<s,`_..',:`:,_. '
�eiv���;:�M'� .
.,'T'%' • � .
''_}.L w
S:T ,` �
= _ ; .. .
..� ._.. ,..� _. ., .
� 't�
. {�
• - Pitkin County Commissioners �';i��;:s
� +tiTUly 29, 1987 r�;;�:;';.
Page (4) y�`.i:�'-.:
facility will be used more than two (2) times per week,
thus increasing its impact on Highway 82 and the
surrounding properties.
(b) It cannot be found that the proposed facility will be
visually compatible with the surrounding areas. Due to
the limited size of the parcel and its configuration �.';�� .
relative to Highway 82 and the surrounding properties, i;��,:�--
the proposed building cannot be situated on the site in ;�`=;= .:-
a manner which will acceptably minimize its impact. �;,�.• <
The building as proposed will adversely affect sight i�� " `
distances on the curve in Pyramid Road, thus causing -
added traffic hazard. The applicant proposes to
install landsaaping as well as a portion of its parking
lot within the fifty (50) foot private road easement of '
the property owners as established far the Subdivision. �,�.:
This intensity of lot ooverage to accomplish the -'��'' '
applicant's proposed development illustrates the ��`�
� inappropriateness of the development to the site. "� ;
i
„ In summary, the subject application fails to meet the ��
minimum lot size requirements applicable in the AF-1 Zone
District. In addition, the proposed £acility does not satisfy
the requirements for a 6rowth Management Exemption and finding to
the contrary under the applicable language of the Land Use Code
may exceed your constitutional authority. Finally, the impacts
of the project are simply incapable of being mitigated given the
inadequate lot size and its location. You are therefore urged to
deny the subject application. We will appreciate the opportunity
to present additional information and comments at your hearing on
this matter. Thank you for your consideration in this regard.
;
Your r t ly,
DK/rei
xc Lot Owners, Aspen Tennis Club Subdivision
Mr. Thomas F Smith, Pitkin County Attorney �--
Mr. Hrooke A. Peterson, Attorney at Law
S
`t}.
� 1 .
�� ;��ti;:;
� �' :.�-
�a:y '
� s�",�:.
��y� ��
f s
��.
:"".ok! . . .. , ,._..__.._—_..._ ..._. ... . . .
.
� � .. ,:...... . ......__ .. /'�� �
F .
: � .
' '_ i. '�,
J. _
� .�.:��-�•.. .. . -. �r._" � .
..._._ ... _v�.�
..:+Mf/�'�::� . . � • . � . ..
� �-� _
. 5;�r 1 ,
_ t
',�„ .
. !:�3��,'' _ � . .
T -
;C�', ' .
i=C?=','-y_: � �,
��:''. '
Fr�j'.'
�k�j�rfF,��:.
1
. MzNOTES t'''''�`''i,
HOARD OF COUNTY COI�IISSIONERS
SPECIAL MEETING
AIIGIIST 18 1987
�ERS PRESENT: George Madsen, Tom Blake, Bob Child, Fred
Crowley and Colette Penne .'�.��
j_:.5..,:. .
CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m.
;(�-
I[i;•
PU�LIC HEARING TO COHSIDSR RESOLUTION 87-56 AND OTHER RELATED r';�'
RATE-MAKING ACTIONS - Bud Eylar, County Engineer, updated '
Commission members on the status of the new construction at the
airport. He stated, that the contractors have advised him that � .
they are on schedule, and that completion should occur by the ��;
target date of December 15. If everything proceeds in this -�
`.:�..
manner, landscaping will still take place this fall. ��
,1
a
Gary Esary, Special Airport Counsel, stated, that the FAA has ! �:,
approved the draft of the Master Plan Update RFP. Therefore,
they should be able to get that out this week. They have
, approved this will the inclusion of the civil engineering for a
. parallel taxi-way.
Ae said that on the public side, they have received a complaint
� from Continental Express Management over the nwnber of signs at
y the airport. They feel that they do not have equal signs with
i; Aspen Airways,
Esary stated, that this is a continued public hearing from August 4
10, 1987.
; He stated, that this meeting is being held in the Sheriff's
; Conference Room instead of the regular BOCC meeting room. He �
said that staff has posted a sign at the BOCC room directing ,
; members of the public to the Sheriff's Conference Room. He asked
� that this sign be made a part of this record as Exhibit ^A".
Also, there have been copies of a revised agenda dated August 18,
1987, delivered to the Board of County Commissioners, staff, and
to members of the press.
t
He said that staff is not going to recommend specific structures !��
� or amounts of rates to be set today because of the status of
airline negotiatioas. What will be discussed today is the
� history of the negotiations and of the project, and will be ``
asking the Board of County Commissioners to consider a rate ��
' making policy and then proceed.
` ���.._
He procceded with the agenda for the meeting �tarting with a 1
�t� �
_/30tC. / �r�•5f �8��/8'� � .�h;:
t:, �
�� . _ . �.�:
�:�^ - -� .�
'i; ; �-��
_',_r-; ' �- _ . .
,:i•t::;'.} >. � � .
,�t _ •
� �
:..
�, . . '
� . i:::.,:;`;.
. ������
;.,, ..
,.,,,,
" �; .
brief history of airline negotations and the airlines input into
the plan.
He stated, that the effective date for the beginning of the
project was February 4, 1987. one of the first things that TRA
did was to meet with the airlines reqarding their requirement,
needs and potential planning concepts for the airport terminal �
expansion and remodel. Therefore, with regard to the desiqn, the
airlines have been in it since the beginning. There have been '
weekly meetings involving the airlines, and as of this date there -
have been no objections from the airlines regarding the design. �
With respect to airline negotiations, the first meeting was on
April 30, 1987. The airlines hired a special consultant to ���./�.,..
negoitate on the numbers. Since that time, there have been four 1
large staff/offical negotiations. Also, there were other public �
and quasi public meetings called by the airlines to which the �
Board of County Commissioners representatives were invited and
attended.
He proceeded with the need for the rate increase. A video tape � '
was shown reflecting the baggage area in December of 1985 and the l;,�
massive amount of baggaqe which comes off of an airplane. �; }:
. �. �'•
� �; Ae introduced into the record a letter from Gary Ross with
Caudill Gustafson Ross and Associates. A copy of this letter is �
� made a part of this recard as Exhibit "B". Iie proceeded to
, summarize the letter with Commission members.
Tom Oken, Administrative Services Manager, proceeded to review
f with Commission members the costs associated with the airport
` terminal expansion project. A copy of an outline of his
r resentation is made a
p part of this record as Exhibit "C". He
stated that the total cost is projected to be $2,542,505. They
are still requesting a waiver of the water tap fees from the City
of Aspen for $67,000. Of the $2,542,505 total cost, the FAA is
� paying $894,207 leaving $1,648,298 which needs to be financed
with the issuance of bonds. He said that proceeds will be '
i $1,424,000 leaving approximately $30,000 short. Therefore, in .
order to recoup the shortage a rate increase needs to go into
� effect immediately.
�
He then proceeded to review with Commission members the airport
financial plan. A copy of this plan is made a part of this
record as Exhibit "D". �
� �--
Ed Thurmond, Airport Manager, stated, that last week the FAA
approved the planning grant for the Master Plan update and .{
subsequentially have approved the RFP which should be out by the �
end of this week calling for proposals for consultants. The RFP �"
is expected and awarded and actually completed in approximately
eight months. He then presented Commission members with an � '�-:. ; _
inventory of immediate needs and anticipated future needs and 1.> �
projects. A copy of this presentation is made a part of this
record as Exhibit °E°.
� _ rp.:
Z ;r-�.:�:
G �:.
-l3 C� ,�a�us� /$/9�7 :�` '�::�
J�{ _ . � j R`a: �.
_���.
, :-�-Y}.�r`// ,
_- --1;.. _ . _
.e�:;A;-...� .
s �
.
.-
:
,
� �`�;?�;
¢��,,, ;;.
fi:-a, ;�;
� ..+;(i<
':�:�t'� -
Oken proceeded to review with Commission members a letter
addressed to Dennis Heap, Vice President of Continental Express,
explaining Pitkin County's approach to financial management of
: its airport and presenting cost allocation methods for use in
analyzing revenue alternatives for the proposed airport
improvements. A copy of this letter is made a part of this
record as Exhibit °F°.
;�'•.,`;;'_. -
Commissioner Penne moved to accempt amendments to Resolution. �
Tom Blake seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. '
�� � :�.
Commissioner Blake moved to continue hearing to August Z5, 1988. ;',';:,; �
Co�issioner Cro�rley seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. �=
"ie�
AATOIIRNMENT: The meetinq was adjourned at 3:45 p.m. �., '
" t,�
�K��lFii'^-' �l�'�'i ��,�:
�/Approved: :� ` 1
. ��'.C�'.;��-
i
�,
'F: .
Colette Penne, Vice-Chairman
i�
: .
s
�
I
� .
� ;
■ �
i '�
� �c,, :�
4'.. ''�;�:.
+}'h .:
h�C��..
.�o c� 3 ,��iCyuSf �� �y�s7 �' � ���;
� �;� . ��
r F . . . . . . . `+�. P+""�'�..rsz .� . . . ..
{'_ . � _
4 f.-' ' ' ... - ' �
;t...;.' . . . . .
.t.4.f::..`- '"? _ � .
• �';i�";=;'�i": .
.,�'.,.t'F.4t:✓�.�: '
�F - ' ,
. jifg'.�.� ' . . . .
xs • •
� �
,�,!*�;. �
t'S'^ ";���f,r
'• . .+.�,f���_;
+c�t;;�.i..�-
.:l�itY. « t
Y,
.'�Y`�ss ` S
��
._____
� _�_...�r.�.�� �.
��is'�j`�;
BOA°:�0�i:fi.��:^:•r'i'S �.;A�c:
I'S�:i: t:t;i;�{ ��,;y.s:;�,,
Fb;:iiC h. - ytj'S �'"_^° . •
ra.'. r�__��=�7
�-�. '^ � _ ��-�-b�Tti yl�aKrt�
�vl-/CfS� !�� r' �7'
I;':. ;iJ. ._____l/�1,�
August 17, 1987
:. -
•��A ,
.;�',;-`,,,.
Pitkin County Commissioners ;,_;; :.�
c/o hlr. Gary Esary
506 E. Main "
Aspen, CO 81611
DEAR COMMISSIONGRS; This letter is to serve as documentation of our opiniona ��..
regarding the Pitkin County Airport Expansion and Remodel Project with reapect '-�!�'
to size, quality and cost. I apologize for not being able to attend the public ;��t
hearing, but as I mentioned on the telephone, a long standing previous commit- � •i_
�- . ment coutd not be changed. � f•
4
With respect to the size of the project as it is currently conceived we would
first comment that the actual planning and programming for this project was
done by others and we were primarily retained to implement that program. S4e
would suggest that the 'PRA program, which is incorporated herein by this
reference, be ceferred to for the bulk of the supporting data on facility size
and passenger projections. The program that we were instructed to implement
shotiued an addition of approsimately 15,000 square feet being added to an
e�:isting building of slightly over 19,000 square feet resulting in a facility
of betioeen 34,000 and 35,000 square feet. It was stated that this facility
size could meet projected needs for approximately five yeare. "•
After a general review of the proposed program with our airport consultant
firm, Ralph Burke Associates, the following comments and suggestions were .
made: 1. It appeared that the baggage claim area was undersized for the
passenger counts shown and an additional 1500 square feet would improve this
area. 2. The ticketing area was undersized and an addition of �0� square
� feet would improve this area. 3. Even �vith the additional 2000 square feet
� noted ii1 1 and 2 above, the facility will not meet the generalIy accepted
industry standards for square feet per passenger for the peak periods.
With respect to the quality level being propoaed For the new facility we would i
j'-
simply state that we are specifying the highest quality level for the various
parts of the building that the budget will alIow, but that in genera2, this
quality lecel is acerage or slightly below average for typical high use ,S
projects. Structural, mechanical and electrical sqstems are very basic, -:'�
matching those in the existing structure. Low maintenance materials have been `I
utilized where possible on the exterior of the building and high insutating i
' materisls hat-e been utilized to reduce operating costs.
j.
. b.' ..4�.
. :: yn':''.
CAU�ILL GUSTAFSON RO55 6 ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS. P.C. P.O. BOX FF ASPEN, COLORADO 61612 303-925-3383 �ic.
'c.:...�.�:
�sey.-�- ;.
�L�:�.
_ �.
.... . . . .�� ,f� C.�.
� f
.,. .
, :. . l
.
.Ya. ...�.�-.-+.-��"'�-_:-
_��..�e�-�
�: ' . _���
'�7� �
.i_�:!s;._�-_ �
_ `.j-�.:1','' .
S�k;�_
�.� ....r..-....rr...��....._....__. _._..�..._.. .. .. ...... . - .
. ...._._..... .
,; � " !
:,y;^•-'. � '
...i'.Fr: .. ' .
..`'r-::'qy.i'. . •
.,�r::�..,'�� .
�"t':v�: _
y,"'.:�.ti:`k.: ., .
:it�e�h_:r
�..tir:.:�_I � .
` r
. _�...,.,.�,,.,, �
� . .. _ __. , .
; � .:. -
� �3 '�F-t:
if`��'S+',J�`f
��:i�.` _
Pitkin Count� Commissioners
August 17, ]987
Page Two of T1ao
Interior finishes are mostly painted gypsum drywall with a lay-in acoustical
ceiling and a good grade commercisl carpet. As noted above, all of these `''"`
materials are very standard with no elaborate or expensive systems, designs or ��`
��ti�=_",':.,,
finishes. We have propoaed to refinish the majority of the e�isting spaces �;,:
that iaill remain public areas. This was done due to the changes in circuls-
tion patterns and to achieve continuit3� in the new facility. -
With respect to the proposed cost of the facility and the results of bids that
have been received to date, the following commenta can be made: The original
estimate used a projected cost for new construction of $70 per square foot for �y":..
fully finished space and an average of $20 per square foot for remodeled �
spacea. Both of these numbers are relativley low for this type of project and
� are made effectively lower due to several factors. First, the cost of �.'��" �
building in the Aspen area is typically 10 to 20 percent higher than in the ', r''.
�- � Dem>er area. Second, the federal requirements associated with this project �
, �aili ha�-e an impact on the costs as high as five percent. Last, the problems - .
associated with building a project of this type both �oithin a relatii�ely tight
time frame and as a part of an existing terminal structure which must remain
in operation h ill also affect the costs. These factors result in an effective
building budget of approsdmately $55 per square foot for the new portions and
$15 per squace foot for remodeled spaces. As a comparison, our average public
type structure wiil t3-pically wst between $70 and $85 per square foot.
The above factors have created a real challenge in bringing the project in on �!
budget. Luckily, the existing building systems were relatively simple as
noted above, and by utilizing the eame systems in the new portions of the
structure and by utilizing relatively inexpensive finishes, costs are kept
relativley low. The general contractor has made and excepLional effort in + • .
soliciting subcontractor bide and on the majority of subsystems between three
and five bids have been received. This has guaranteed competitive pricing for
the various subsysteme. .
I hope the above information answers most questions which might arise
concerning the proposed project size, quality and cost. If you hace any
questions or comments feel free to call. Thank you.
t
,4..
Sincerely,
CAUDILL GUSTAFSON ROSS & ASSOCIA'Z'ES ARCHITECTS, P.C. t
Gary S. Ross ,�
� � �
GSR/at:30 �,�„., .° ,
d ��
�y,�.� ;
CAUOILL GUSTAFSON ROSS 6 ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS. P.C. P.O. BOX FF ASPEN, COLORADO B'1692 �3-9253383 V�°� ��j,�'
j� `�::'a .
�"�i%. Sv..
�.
, �� � . . . . . . . . . " �p� . . _ '�!.
e
��`-
�; .. ..�. ,, .
�-.. � � ��; . .
. �"�'
i::: •
_'.��:;.' . ' ' �. ' ' ..
.Lfr .
A ! .
)` ^t`. .
!:c•.:� ' . (
�.f:iF,;:r � '
� !v)'i � . . .
y'i`�vi. • . .
^'�'F,::. � Y .
�
��a
.r,N,,.!:.,,r •
.>�;�y�%`
:�'��'�.�".'``'`. „ 1.
�y,,w.
::�1'.��. ,
`:p,.w_'r ` ��
.. _ :... _ ' . .
,
� ... _. _ _...._.
�;, - � __:_
.. , _. _ . ��%
.�:_r=.:
, i.b�,��,_L,:'.
/ BUAFiU 0�f,�l.fi?'iS':JI'R'S i'' '•�
f �` S
FiT;!t� ?Lt�i f`( P4 i: •.
! -�a '.. r
F�U[':flC I wf?i,n :"�1:"It.°i
n,c�: _ —1_�=8 7_j�� ,,n
7 54 .:1�J�.{%1��c i u�-
���b�ar'c /R G6nT
Na��/�.5..__n(j'��,..._..-- August 18, 1987
e
AGENDA AND PITRIN COUNTY STAFF RECOMLIENDATIONS '
FOR PIIBLIC AE'.ARING TO CONSIDER RESOLUTI013 NO. 87-56
AND OTFIER RELATED RATE—MAKING ACTIONS =:-"i:'
t?'x.
l. COUNTY STAFF PRESENTATION "
I. Brief History of Airline Negotiations to date - GSE
�
� II. Need for rate increase
A. Need for �erminal - minimal space for present traffic �:. . _
1. Videotape of RMA baggage - EMT v
2. Testimony from Architect - GR "`� �
; a. Airport consultant's findings (TRA & ��`_
Burke) : �:, .
� b. Reasonable method of construction
c. Reasonable cost of construc!:ion ��
�� 3. Cost and proposed bond Pinancing - TO
� B. Other aapital improvements - Subject to Master Plan
� Update - EMT
1. West Parallel Taxiway
I Z. NDB
3. Land Acquisition
� a. 50o ft setback
3 b. highway relocation
c. separation of GA and commercial and
expanded area for use
d. poss. req. for west parallel taxiway
; 4. N. Ramp
i 5. Misc. -- Boiler replacement, plow trucks, .
CFR garage
6. Future FAA-funded projects
III. Financial Management and Rate-making Methodology - TO
A. Policy (Oken letter to Joint Airline Negotiating Team
dated June 17, 1987)
- 1. Entexprise Fund Concspt
a. Revenues ;t--
�i (1) policy of the BOCC
� (2) policy of FAA (gz'ant assurances-
� self-supporting ;
, (3) accepted in the industry
� (4) practically necessary because of
! Charter limitations on tax in-
' creases - �
� •:3
,�
����.�-�-; '
� ,�r
��a�:
�
_....__ ____ _____ .._ _ _ , _ .s _ _
°��
f.. �
,� . ��,� .
�
��
41>z�` ,. � . _ .
- •:�:: .. _
� �` -
. ?�..�.,4.= .
���• , � .
c�,..-. .
. 'i:3"_' ' .
,�. _ , �
-;,7;'
.''A;=:.'•.,,;.;:-._
��',`4;,�'`:�t��'�';#„�� •
1i�+:�x'`^ .
+;��:.K"^'':tii'. .
'y e."�j;n .. ^ "
.�i-ig. ` �
.:
:
�. . . .-- � .. .
....,. . .. .. __ �
�.. �__.._
, .
�. .. . , ..
ti ���y�%'��f�i
/ � ti
f �r A :;
, ��-,�-.�;z��
��`.�;,�::",
b. Expenses
(1) All airport revenues are spent for
@irect airport purposes according
to annual budgets and capital
improvement plans.
2. Modified Residual Approach to Airlines� Share
of Costs -'s:i•-
a. Restrictions ,tx��;.;_- �
(1) market (competitive bids), such as �`�a�'' '
PLF and ABO �'�"-.."
(2) unexpired leases, such as rental <tsh•- �`�
cars, ABO (g.a. landing data} :;:":
(3) BOCC non-revenue management goals ;i€; '
(a) ARA, ground transportation •�'`-
(auto disincentives), paid �"
arkin �.
P 5 ���.-'-
b. Airport retains risk that revenues and ;y;,•..
expenses may vary so must also retain a;s:�'`� .
flexibility to adjust rates ��' �`
r: c. Lower rates for airlines if significant �'' i.
revenue generated from othe:- sources � ��'�
3. Recommended amendments to Resolution 87-56 �#
�. OPEN MEETING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
3. BOCC ACTION
- Approve amendments to Resolution 87-56 on second
reading
- Continue public hearing to Monday, 8-24
-CONTINIIATION-
1. COUNTY STAFF PRESENTATION
i
' I. Update on Airline Negotiations ,�..
+ 22. Need for rate increase
� A. Capital Improvements - revisions '
� B. Four-year financial plan ��
� 1. amount o£ increase needed
2. operating and other assumptions; need to � �'
adjust rates if variance ;�:.�
':=,'`
s� .
•�k.
t .
Y�
�,�:;'.,�;'
� ,
��: .,
� __ ,�.:
:�.-��_._.________. _._. _ _ ,,,� .__
, ., . . .
. � t ti.. .. .. .. ... . �.
"��� �"�
li�
r� �� • ' � ������ .
'�.x `f(1.`—.� .. . � �- . , . .
T
, 4S�_:_1. ' _ ' . � ..
:�:�iti:':.�'•`i_g .
�i':.;: - . .
_ " �
� ',?}n�. . .
.Li[3c+}t ' • . .
tiY .
.�� N +3
i.'�'�` �'����� .
r:�:'ci 4�}n.'•
"; �.
.':.,`4�i .
..`lh.i:�;
�����3 �
� ` q
�� : ' .
�, .... _ . .. -.. ._ . ,.. �_ - . ,
_ , ,
„ ... . _ , ___,_. .
d-. _ . . . _ . . ._ '�1'�r
�� >
;t�*'�f
� `ti.k�A�`.,rr :
t'^�:7"Iy ,..
h�'e_F.��1?..'.
III. Financial Management and Rate-making Methodology - To
A. Policy - summary
B. Application
1. Recommended additional concession revenues
2. Recommended charges to general aviation
a. g.a. landing fee - inefficient �-•,;:+:;•
b. FBO rent �' �'
c. fuel flowage fee � :�
3. Recommended rent for airlines ��[�s'`4';,;'
4. Recommended landing fees '�;�-:'
C. Checks (reasonableness) ��i':"
1. Compensatory analysis - cost centers �:�' '
a. airfield
(1) weight v. weight/frequency :
(2) costs of commercial operations �:� .
(CFR, runway improvements, light-
in5) �>;�'i.:•'�
� b. Terminal
1 � of total s ace .��
( ) p , plus � of non- ' ±
„ rev. as ratio of their space to ' r�'
� all revenue space. (
c. Other
� d. airlines' share under modified residual
basis is less than allocated costs
, e. general aviation contribution
; (1) approximates allocated cost
(2) allocation of CFR expenses
� 2. Comparables
a. rent - sf +
(1) within Airport
(2) other Airports
j (3) Aspen area commercial
� b. landing fees - per 1,000 lbs. .
i (1) other Airports
i c. airlines' cost per passenger
(1) other airports
� (2) increase
IV. Set Rent - GSE
i A. Authority
i 1. Airport Regulations �._
2. State Statutes
� 3. Grant Assurances (self-supporting)
� 4. Federal Statutes ,�
B. Cost recovery and capital improvements
i C. Reasonableness '
� '.s"...
� _�,�.;,;
,..�.
��;��;;;
' ."��t .
��:�� ,.
. 4 �"" �
�.�
' _ _ _ ____ _ _..__._.__._ _...__ ..___ _....,. _. ;,�. _ . . . ___
r f f
y'
..c�. � . ��': .
. . . ��z.q �ri�i" ' .
. .�sr�._..�'za�yy_
c 'n�� 4 , _.
�.�4��°�`-�%; ._ . . ' , "
'�::?,:`c"(-s'~
.,-r'_. . . .
'�.:F::"' - � , .
r.�^ • •
.,�y�+ .
�`-�''-::i;a�A�~ . . ' • . .
`=`y';�,::y»= .
:-~.,��:�=:.'9,.S,i a_.
.y�y�:,;ui;` , �
";c':
���r:-.!_E'.-� .
��;�4�•� "
� -
� :.. ._. ---�._......�_ .._ . _,: ._ ... ,. ,... �.._._ . ,. _. . . .
y, ,�,,.,.
`i , �±���
�aat.:::i�;:'
� �,.��::���;;��:.:.
1..��;�::
• pi.?�r',�'+,';'::_..�.
r=;�
V. set Landing Fees - Commercial - GSE
- A. Authority
1. Airport Regulations
2. State Statutes
3, Grant Assurances (self supporting)
4. Federal Statutes
` B. Cost recovery and capital improvements ";�:;;:,;_ �
' C. Reasonableness h �
VI. Resolutions - GSE ' �
�.,.,.-
A. 87-56, as amended (declare 87-41 annulled, repeal. and j:;--.:
re-enact)
B. 87-_, establish new airport rents -
; .;;`1; .
{
''I���:
� - r`
1 t
t airport - .
� `
�
i
�� E
I � b
�
�
� .
�
j
t
<,I
f 't.4
� :�
a� `1
�• s,
�S' �
r �,�;.
� �;.�?'�q,7
� ��;
j ` •�
r:
-r—�--._._...._...a.......�_�_.. . . _�_,_._... ,_....._..... �—_ -- ----'— � _ . ........_.., ..._....,„_ ...... .-_. .. .
� M• • _.._..._ __,,�r.:..
t b�����' .. ' � ..
'4 .,y, � �. ' ,. ',�� �
4 �,j}��: , . . . � .
1Y+.S,h{� . �AR9�.;/�
R ��t,�i.- . ... . �
� .
;ii4 a a Y�. �� ....._.. � . � ' .
. p ,�f;
3�
y��:, .
y� E ,,
r ���.�
,"r:,;.;...,;':s::.
r� `'��, ' �
� � � ;.
�.���',
'Y"�i�� .
���`F`;�>t�
:c�.��:.c. •
�.�r"
r�A4 i`e'�. .
� 4
'�'^�"�{/y��- ♦ '
H'i:a CTy. �
;^' :a ` �I
__.._ �,�.� ----- �__�
T ...
•
"�'�.' . . - .. . . ' . . . . . . .. � . .. -. .. ._... .... . ......
...��.. _� ' '- ..... _.. ... .u..,...u-.._ ...� .
..3U ...
f�
i �-��,���,��.
;,�At;;:
ryG � ��[�<<5!�-''.�'��:.
f r•i it:Rl C!�f.liY AihFr:�,i t if:1NC[AL 17.AN :F�;:�l:,;,,.::
IR-Nlg-87 �ng2 2
-------------A�?T U S C-�--------- ------�--P k 9 J E C i E B---------
19C3 lyd i:�5 ;?Sb 1967 1?� 1W`.+ 1??D 1??1
--- -------------------------------_
� =�tia1 ProjerG � ��
A68 Facility F+�rdia;e ;+:q,01d
AwuaY E.rt,E[c.-tr�?ligiGle lF0,2�? 6,3t2 d,5�'
-Eligit�le F S,Z1,5'� 7S„� `,it0
Bamer Ineli9 t8,1�? �,dS!
l Ihite l'and kcqiisitim t 9,bld I50,£b9 �;•;t i,_ .
tlain Tereinai�cas �i,qlg
Hain Tereinal Gsepet 1t,%?'1 �'�'":�;'..'
fuel Farn Ieprrneaent a5,f�51 o,CA3 ? '
Airport Canch Acqiisitim -
6rant Eli9ible + 600,000 5iS,000 1(+O,U00 'Y ,
irreli9it�le I,45� 20,450 5,000 10,009 2'J2,�i�0 246,Ot� 153,(100 �.,' � _
i 6roder Plou i 12,:SSS Sd9 , '
------ c:::...
'.GtoWl k/0 Infiacti� ?,h?2,•161 ?R,Q23 12?,1l8 '.NJ7,a57 605,(q0 W4,000 �'2,(ti0`2c.6,Opp 25�,000
Enharice-Eligible s 75.b?8 ?1,�;3 432,a1i ��•';�
i -Ineli9it�le �S,"o2 �21,ISi y;::�.:.
� Snoublouer i 'd7,1�5 �`
Rmtal far Fuel Farn �5,176 l,??6 � +'�•`
T, ' New 6.A. Terainal�rn11;m�?rs VRIVAIE !� +�''.•.'
1 ;1ain Tereinal A;itn-Eli4ii�le a 1,101,15� - �': �
-[�ligiGl? 1,059,Sa5
i CFA 6arage i �,ppp
� Tereinal Siternrk ! :,ot,i�t
Taxivay,Raap:.ealroat 15,ppp �5,0'iq
� tbrth Rar�Reni'tld/Expansi� r 425,p00 k5,0� _
� Parallel ia;ivas• r ;Sp,ppp
Ma+er/Plan Tnuk; � v,000 57,975 •`,�7,9;5 �
�� AspAalt kepair ! �5,-�
fiepiace Eailer ap,p�
81ask Pa�/Fire Pit # 4
- fature FAA ium�e�proje:ts k 2?1,c;rS E2n,0i4 i
� Other Capital Froj?cts 11b,25� �,tx 38;�J o2,�2 109,P�,i SO,4n0 50,0�,�1 v SO,a31 Sil.t� �
•i
�; SUbtotal in Current�011ars 11b,253 l�k?,0�6 21U,9�5 &t7,i81 2,727,353 535,000 �'7,915 dil,6�,4 ?F?,0:9
'! Inflatian at'I�3if2F IYY/ . 'Co,750 ?S,Sii 1'r1,2Y2 2�1,35?
I
�otal Capital Fi�ojects 3,?',�,,14 �06,059 3�U,Oad I,U5�1„a3 3,a?2,9�3 1,205,�50 1,Sa5,�7,�2 1,2a1,"9b 1,323,�Ye
�iplaned PassH�a�rc '.�,i; 1�P,IR; :Sa,:Si 1T�,4!S 1�1,-93 �Y,i,:#'o 2l?,240 2SS,�it7 251,tr",3 2a3,57?
� �arr�t Yr Eopl'are�t fu:r;s 2�:511�42p ��104 �/�359 7F,I.1Y0 ESS,wJ .oi�°x' ?'L°.�1:d "•�7�015 S'.-'4�927
i ;rior Yr's�rPlus!(Dr��► ib8�tis7J ��5,��� o:w,25; a�,355 {;�,{�s) i12�t,31t1) 2 t
+..
I ::?t tirazit Fun��tn3 Rr;ilaol? ^,S?tl,i�`n,,Io° ;?�,150 i.3:5�b:�)I�SJ9,.4,'?`��,2� �:a.".o11 ---:S.z15 ?`�,'+2.",
i �FAA G��ani iun�in9 nee�ki 2�i"1i1,•12(1 1"s4�4:v" ?:�6d0 i+e2,�9�1:�ei,:'.o l,CdS,��..1 475.4F1 855,?.7� ':A,!�2f
i Cwau m n?zt year;f:n��: �,3Cfa 0 0 [i ;�.od,� 12?,bl�l (�
� ---------•--------------------------------------- -.,,.
� - i:;i:.-
diani`urplu�(([�?iici[1 ICl 0 555,5lG ��51,25:, dS,;,.:5 0 , � jil
. `
,} •. ,
@OAi�t)OF C0.CO�ib7'R'S : � :�
+=7T'Y.:N COUNTY � .�>..
' Pu�;;c Heariny£::�ii�+... �,�•'
� Dal:�: _ �_� ^ ��
; �,�/�� .
. � 11�'ljc"(:i. �� �l�//Ih/GC/t44- ��� t .r �
, �"i �J./C/ laf/l.bpri�Y.._ _ �7..
trili P� _....�L_,QlL.�..�_�.....--
�---------- ---
_ _..._.. ., :._ _.._.._ .__ �� '
_.. ,... . �
� ; _ _ •�.
y -� .
k.
,�`: . . . ' . .. �' ..
S'�.�: . � . � . - J' .
�.F:�". , . . ♦ -�... _v� � .
.�. F�i1. � ' � �- - . -
. �. �+�. � .. . � � � - ,.
��1.��✓! , ,
`:�I=�'
'i�; , `
\',y .AS.� . • .
�'�l�:�
^\y. .
�'�'}�M¢��1.3.� , . . .
:�eni.r''+'Ii�1�� _ .
.c�-�x�x� '
+,�}'�� - � .
�
�,,,...�., ,�, .�.._ .�._._. � _. _ ,�.,,�. : ..��
�` ; . �
. ,.:--- �..... „_. ..,_. .. .. ..:,....._._ � .
� i�-f�.��;�Y�';
r�,
� f'ITYIt!IXGA�TY AIRE'(V;T F1fWJCI�L PLN� ^'��la����: �
k`y.'i+iiti'�n..:.
18-1�u9-8' Page 2a
-----A f.T p A L---- -------P R n J E C T E D-------_-
198,i 1?E4 t485 ll�"cb i?37 1`.� 1'.09 1$'Y� 1?71
. ,ther Capital Froj�:o�
Tereinal I:�rovU:+iaging) 1,;99 2,0�0 2,U10
' �1�2f�Typ?NYIICf a��)J J'�� � .
P�m�ay Brak?�es�er 814
P,u�xay Cracl•ClcarFr 1,500 .
Shop Ny�rant iaprc�v 2,�
CFR 9iit Realaceaent �,�0 r`VA�:..~ -
CfR Fo3�TBnkSjoi Sxu 6,139 l,lb7 l,;im ,.,;�,-::-.
e
�`:� .; .
DraftCurtair� 1,469 b,ppp T.� ''
T Hanger Roof Drains � ���� '�
,,..
Wind Sak Li9ht � ''?� :�
AA Bagga�Rcam(overhead U�xw 2,SOD - _
, Aadio Aca i,Slb 1,40b 5,000 1,463
! FBO 6ate/Wastm::cp/Har�ger 1,336 1,47A C,� ..
AOA Raap Irpra+ L,000
AA Air Freigfd ���2 '�
Yui Li�,'rts PRIVATE �''`
� ,,i:'_;.
DeMlty Altitwie ia4itatw b,03
Ptwto[�S�ste� 1,1a0 �'� '
Audit Grants � - � r'..
f. . '
� SecanA Tero I:prev 12,032 23,925 � �
INain Tero Elechic 10,f�
AS/A6 Dr9uell 1�592
I 2 Air Handlers ���
' AS alvert 5�505 b,Q15
Trash Containcrs 3,27E 1,i2S
�malirectians tRac�n 12,@70
.�i Office Furnitm�e 2,572 2,523 �
Carpet Ettrottic�Syst!v 5�� j
AA�a�P,epair
� g» ;3,211 15,�27 2,579 S,WO S,�Xi S,roO S,ODO
F.�er9�Y LiqSts 2�Oa1
Pickup trucksjMt�at/tractor 41,U15
Ottcer Cantir�enr.y 11b,253 2,5;9 i,"ul'a d,06% �,�% ��� ��� '�+�
;
� iotal other Capital Prajects 116,25 3�,1;� 38;19 62,'� 10?,S�i 50,�0 50�(�0 SO�Cd�1 50�0�
a
,� �;epair Prajects
� �
� Fen�e&epair-;F»Y�t 10�1� 8,tq� ��
eo
� �
( ___"-'_-__"_'_'�_"_'__'-'_-_'"�_____'�__-'�' ; '
; -::ta1 F�cpair Proj�cts 0 [I 0 10,i:u •i,C',a 0 0 0 D
, �
inFlation 4airi�ble, [ 1.0.5 Tnierest Earnira�Vari�Sde,E J.a;
� '
� s.
y..�:. .:.4e',.'.
', ,u
�n:
i �:`'��-�:
i _..t. l:
� ..
1 �F"s t{,,:
� .__�_ - . ._._-.____ -...._'__' . .. ._ . ._ _._____... .. . .. . ........... .._. ._ ....,:,.. �
.._. . ._...... . ._... . . -- .�. -..
- - . .�._. F.
R,C i
�,._ _ . . . ,�..n�-e�'� .
}y, ' . _."'��,+�'"// �
����
y,�'`.�; . , .. � .
� �� _ -
.c;a�._s>.�.:..�;, � ._ ._ � .
' -1 4":
::�a��'
:���>wy,�',`7�-',i;:: � _ . .
f,i: - . . � , .
Y .�� . . . .. ' .
t
y•�k t:-iO�"•�'>'t'�' � � , •
G'Si�':� � , � .
�.�:��11r..i'.i.^. �' ' " .
.!rL.-.
�"�.iG�y,�� , � . - .
-.�i�'-r"�.��. � '
;'�'1�;`'�,'ry` .
" - ;;;;�:�"_. .
'��.�;�+.�.I�7_='.i�.
`;`-x;;`:..
F����' ` - ,
_......,�..
d_ �
�,..;
..
.:
_y , p;{_,.,.
4 �y���°'':
� .F�.i,.,,'. '
, r �
��_:t;%
CAF'ITAL I"IPF.OVEMENT PROJECT
RE�UIREMENTS
7he FAA has approved � �lanning Grant for a Master Plan Update
2or the airpvrt. The update will identify airport requirements -far
the immediate future and for five ye�r periods over the neit twenty -
<2�J1 years. The Mastar Plan Update is e;:pected to be compleEed 2"'
within, eight (87 months. �`�3�'';:�
.;�::.'_•;.
A recent invenEory reveals immediate needs which can be under- ;ii:.=;.
taken prior to the update either because of priority for safety, to >' .
,•t,
increase access� or because these items have heen deferred from �
previous years because of funding deficiencies. Projects are identi-
fied as follows: , . -
�_,:. :
1. Master Plan Update - FAA 90%, County 14% - �33�33�
:>i1:�� •.
Will provide in part: ;;:�,
i: �:.
� * Ultimate airport configuration �
i CAOA/Landside) t ;
} � Land acquisition requirements
* Possible Highway 82 relacatian
+F Air Carrier and Ge�eral Aviation
requirements
* Airport access needs/deficiencies -
� � Terminal deficienciesJneeds
'! � Funding requirements
* Time table/priorities
2. Immediate Needs
a. NDb <Nan-directional Beacon) - County ��"^^ � �1�,00p
Donations �4h.0���? .
' �5�,U��u
NDP will provide missed approach fix for IFfc traffic - frees
use af VOR Approach for arrivals -may increase access 14 to �.
15 percent.��j�
. . '�V"`—_— U
� b. West Parallel Tai:iway - FAA 9u% - County 10% �75U,4U0
t
�_
Will provide su6stantial i�crease in runway exit
ahility for landing aircraft, increase runway availabi-
lity, may increase acceptance rate for take-off/landing 1;
iJ7. �
c. Land Acquisition - FAA 90% - County 1�7% �2,OHO,Or�U
' (up to 70% may be eligihle)
1 1 �+.
! ��:,,
i a :
` v '�::.
�„ !..
i r
..... __.._.. _.___._. . . .__._...... __.___....... .. . _......_ _.._. . . . . ._._--... _. . .
,�- . .. ._.. .� � .. .. .�_ .
!�y. ;c' _. �-
r, ^^���'
a.r:Jr{,. ' . .
�.S.y:r;' , _ � ' ~ . - ..
1•3i::-_
'*'=-
�•:r;;_ - . , � '
;;'jy ,
s�f:ni:2.:::`..
�.':j-.w:..{1.���:. . • - . .
".'V icEti'.. . . ' .
y�jt`�::�..M%.. . .
�.i�.Yia�rti�'f•: .
-r_45'y`�".. .
.���.�k%. �
z�:'X�t ' ��
` '_
_ ...o...W��
-��,.
.
�
- -r - "�;��,';,�`
A ���:
. . t.�i•e4'�.t
1�-�'�il;i:��;
Final allocation of acquired land for FAA eligibi2ity
for funding will provide for:
+� Highw�y 82 Felocation (safety)
* Meeting FAA 5uilding set-back
requirements (safety) -
* Expanded AOA and landside for "�''
air carrier and general aviation use `��-��;".•�
+� Possible need for West Farallel Taxiway
d, North Ramp ftehabilitation - FAA 90% - County 10% �4c:,,�7caG i:,,,`. .�`
� Reconstruct and expand gener�l aviation parking and �
° ma�euverin areas. U " '
9 p-grade load-bearing capacity to
meet existing needs.
� 3. Other Capital R'equirements C1989-I992Y �t•.'
�:I:,
" a. Snow Flow keplacement - FAA 9��% - County lu% �87,97;, ' �:�
r..
'• �=. ' .
� Fteplacement program to replace snow equipment which has
�� reached/exceeded normal life ezpectancy. t
b. CFR 6arage/Tr�ining/Equipment Storage Areas
� FAA 90% - County 2C�% �285,4caq
' Replace "Lean-to" currently housing CFR Vehicle(s7 with
= heated storage area, centrally located to Air Carrier
operating areas. Training �nd equipment storage areas
s required.
� c. Terminal Roiler keplacement �4d,00r�
� 7erminal main boiler has exceeded life expectancy. ftepair � �
� exteeds economic value.
E
e 4. Future Projects Eligible for FAA Funding
ia. Additianal CFFt vehicle
�
� b. Additional Air Carrier ramp space
1 �
F�
c. T�xiway lighting
� d. Safety lighting j.�
cip.doc
, �,.;;.
� ..
:,�,�. :.
' � , 'nx,,
'ti_
�� :
� �'�
M �' ��+,,r,4F:.
: r.:
-t --�-- . . . _
. _ ... .- --. .
. _. _.._ __ . _.
. _ _ _... . __.�"�' . _.._......._ .__._.__ ��
� . . . . � _ '_r: �
.�+.�' . . . . �_�� .
)�t��: . " ./ .
� .� :�. i ' , � ��
..._...._._ �:,��.
�';.
F . ��F1K�� - . � , '
, ��'?�'�:`:a„:'.4;. .. . � , .
:'y:�,�'`-.�i,:
���:. �:c:;:� � .
.:r'F . �
�`'"�. :)1.�5' '
��:K,.'` . ' ..
.ia:����_'�r.,.:+: . �
.:T��?::�q,s
`:tiw=.�;;:Tt`':?�#i
. ,,;i��:
`.�'�`tti",
:5 A_,�.
.�`,s!i�.'.:3( • �
.�.r`i'+rt'.`
:.��3'•=<I- � � .
__ .�____._ _ _r._
�. . .
s
' � �+�;l��r:.
! �:�;,�t�;`'
a��7:�.:Sy..
7/l8/87
Airport Terminal Expansion
Project �urrent Estimate
Renovation study 8 ads S 10,350
Design, construct, 8 furnish 2,4D2,670
Apron rehab 35,U00
Sewer tap 21,485
Water tap (requesting waiver) 67,OOU ''^�`
Public information 6,U00 �` '�;�
' y..1'.t-....,'
Employee housing LS116,000 contributed by County} �,��:?'c:�`
T0�81 COSt S G�J4G�JOJ •��•'��,�,
FAA grants ( 894,207)
; I.ocal cost/net financing needed S 1,648,298 S;` '
i
Airport funds available 5 194,953 ,
Maximum net bond proceeds 1,424,000 [see below) �.:� ...
Net financing available 5 1,618,953 ''
� :��;
t
l Financing deficiency 5 29,345 '�','
, ;
Y. � fi
� �
� .
�
jFinancing
,#
Maximum bond authorization 5 1,690,000
;<� Issuance costs/reserves:
lOt reserve 5169,000 '
1.Sk underwriter fee 25,350
.� financial advisor 10,0U0
-i insurance (.9� x de6t service, (
� assuming 20 years at 8.Sx) 32,145 r
bond counsel & disclosure 15,000 ( •
:' rating 3,20U
' printing official statement 5,000 �.
,� re9istrar/paying agent 2,OU�
,`f bond printing 4,000
{ ads 35�
l
;a Total costs/reserves 265,000
; �
' Maximum net bond proceeds 51,424,000 •
•i
I
�
i ' <:; - �
� At e.t o BOARD OF CfJ.COi.4'�i'F'S "• -:
I PI?IClfd Ci?l!{tiTY � �::`:;:: ;
'� Public liearir.4 F.�:;�ii3i?s c
; Oate:_ �7 ',�e "�- �yy;
��t.,���7�.5�� fE" I'I,tf<iat ��,� .
� �,:�� .���%-= .
i ,.!,.ra�. �:�,� :.
} �?:
. -i �` ?:
-.,�— _..�.. . _..___ ---.. .--__..., � _ _ �:
; , . ._ _ _ � ..
, :
�'
' �,�s"'�'�_
r �� — , ���I�� .
.+•(�;:` .. _.. . ' ` '
'�-.ii.:��'"t':���� . � ,
_ t
.?)��s � •
�j�._�'{U:�: . ' , ,
�.y�i_�.'r. . � .
���'Yfii�'0'!. . .
'�,�:�:�:w .
�-•'}!�`.'r.�.;'�T%e�• .
�..5.�'�M'. .
.-�M:.�"� 1
r�`,���`� ` � �
>>..�_,
�' -• � --..._.._....
�
• . � �,..'
r ., `�" �,,'.��''_
' f';�,
� pitkin caunty
506 east main screet
aspen, colorado 81691
RAND-DEL.TVRRED HOARD OF C9.�^ :r,`d��(�•S -7 _
- -- s'ii�;i�':CIE ''I �`�'•, .
�u�?�IC Fii,�4?i:)i;�.�'',,,j!� 4';.. ..
June 17, 1987 d��� �; _
Da?�;:._. D ;' -
Mr. Dennis Heap c„ ;�;;;. &�:�l�.�d�iHC. i..
� Vice President �f-�'l�� , i�?POk�-
Continental Express ��'��' '�3 --7rr�'"i%""""` � �
Denver, Colorado t`�.
, . �i•.�
Dear Dennis: y �
' t� �:
The pvrpose of thfs 7.etter is twofold: 1) to exrlain Pitkin
Count 's a �., .r
y pproach to financial management of its airport, and 2) �
to present cost allocation methods for use in analyzing revenue
alternatives for the proposed airport improvements.
• Pitkin County operates the airport financially as an enterprise
fund: revenues from aicport users must pay for the airport's
expenses. This is not a new pol.icy; it has been in place for fen
years. The County does not have the financial capacity to
subsidize the airport, even if its policy were changed to do so.
A 1979 amendment to the County's Home Rule Charter requires voter
approval of any tax increase, Referendums for a property tax
increase i.a 1984 and a use tax in 1986 both failed by significant
margins. We view this as a significant difference between as and
Bozeman, Montana, Whose lease and revenue allocation structure •
you presented as a model for us. Bozeman has a tax subsidy for
its airport, and the allocation sttucture is aimed at identifying
a community tax share.
Zn our revenue structure for the airport, we view the airline's
share on a modified residual basis. Concession and other non-
airline revenues are established on a market basis; that is, we
competitively bid these to obtain the highest amount the market t``
will pay consistent with the level of service we require. (For
instance, the restaurant and bar space of 832 square feet was bid
cecently and will 9enerate $34,800 in 1986, establishing a matket s
value f or terminal space of approximately S42 per square foot.} '�.
We then look primarily to the airlines to fund the remainder of .�
the airport's cost through airline rent and landing fees. This
, is not the true residual basis found at many larger airports, •'
�
�d::` 'b�
� �?'�� ,.��^-.
�::.�
� � "�%:
;:
: •
�.._...-:... _ . .. _ _. _ a:
_ � - __. .(M .�
' ; :.
��'-
j '.
_.'.i'. ' �"_�•'�
:'A] . . .� � .
�.�.% .
. :r�':, .:'., . .
,'�'��
J`}; '
„�,..
� . � s
_.... 1 - —
;...;;
; ..
:
: ..
,
� , . �
t _.. , _.. _.-.._.. . . ........ ... . :.... . .:._ _ . ,
. 3::.,
' �- �t�'.':.i;;:
J .- � .�:: .r,
i l'•"
Letter to Mr. Dennis Heap
June 17, 1987
Page 2
though, where the airlines g�arantee to covez remaining costs and
therefore require some cantrol over airport budgets and projects. ���.{��
Instead, we retain the risk that revenues and expenses may vary i�:'���-:.
from those forecast, but consequently, we must also retain the �`:'
flexibility to adjust rates and charges fn response to changing ���� '.
conditions.
Our approach should generate below market rates for the airlines .
if we are successful in generating significant revenue from other �;` �
sources. Comparisons to other airports indicate that we have `�
been successf ul, and in our letter on June 5th, we committed to I;.; .
f urther increases from other revenue sources. A 1984 Congres-
sional Budget Office study entitled Financina [t S Airnorts in :�..��
' the 1980's found that "larger commercial airports typically have i ;:
a more diversif ied base of revenues that do smailer ones,"
{ Specifically, larger aitports generate a thitd of their operating t .�
� revenue f rom concessions while those of our size only generate
, 218 from that source. In 1986, the Pitkin County airport
generated 338 of its operating revenue from concessions, so we
are already doing as well as much larger airports. Another
study, by Smith Barney o£ 1985 data fo= approximately 50 airpocts
with publicly-rated airport bonds, found an averaqe airline share
of airport operating revenues of 48$ and airline cost per
� passenger of $4.27. Again we compare favorab2y, with a 42%
airline share and $2.41 cost per passenger for 1986.
4
The proposed ai=pott improvements w311 obviously increase the %
airline costs above the 1986 levels. However, we feel the target
average aitline per-passenger cost of $4.24 that we groposed f or
1988 is attainable through our ef£orts at cost reduction, '
revenue enhancements, and increased access. This inerease of
$1.83 per enplaned passenger may be reduced further by passenqer
volume growth e.cceeding our estimate of 78 annually for 1987 and
1988. In the interim, we can certainly understand your need to
taise ticket prices by about $1 to recover this cost. To the
extent you can do so, we view such action as sfmply an extension
of our Pinancial policy for the aizport, that users, passengers, �
must pay the full cost. �'�
In our June 5th Letter of intent, we also offered to consider
cost center analysis as a method of balancing revenue shares, As s
explained above, however, we do not view cost allocation as the t:
definitive method for determining the airlines' share. We must
generate sufficient airport revenue to pay expenses even if that �•, �` .; :•
means the airlines' share exceeds the allocated costs. We do 1=:;'.�
, agree, though, that this type of analysis may be useful in �� `-
approaching community organizations for contributions or identi- I�y _
fying other areas where revenaes might be increased. For that `
��,-:,��lf,
' �.',2.x�...q �";��
�:.:'?..w:.
. L.�-hi..v�
v,�y .. .... . . .. � . . . :
-�!
��.�.-- .
- -����.��
- :�;
-� � �
'l-....
���. �
� _ . . ...... . . . ......
` -' � � � �`~��
� �.'�;.
r�:�.�e�' s.
Letter to Mr. Dennis Heap
June 17, 1987
Page 3
purpose, then, I am continuing to review Carolyn Sandoval's
analysis, and I should have some revised figures for you by the '
end of the week. . -i; ;:
�':'• ., .
•�'::?
I already have differing views on the allocation methods proposed 4+,. .
for airfield and termihal expenses. For the airfield you Ic�'�. , `
proposed using an anerage of frequency of operations and annual
: landing weights to ceflect the limited airport access during peak '
! season. I suggest we only use landing weights since that is the ��
industry standard and it already includes frequency in the
calculation. It also may not be appropriate to allocate all ��
airfield costs on this basis. For instance, 56 percent of the �,
; cur=ent debt service expense is attributable to widening the 'y';
� runway by twenty feet, lengthening it 2,000 feet, and increasing
its strenqth from 55,000 to 90,000 pounds in 1983 sol.ely for the � '•
, r•.'
Y� .1 ai=lines' benefit. �•' '
� Fot terminal expenses you proposed an allocation based on �
! percentage of t ta space which results in the need for public
( space cost to be funded by the County. Since this w ntradicts
• ouc financial policy for the airport, I suggested an allocation
L based on percentage of rentable space at our meeting on June 4th. �
Attached is a copy of that analysis, indicating an airline share
'� of from 758 to 92$ depending on what we call rentable space.
� Given the County's financia2 policy for the airpozt, however, I
� do not think we should get hung up on cost allocation method-
ologies, Instead, the most effective efforts I see for minimizing
the airlines' cost aze 1) soliciting contributions to the airport
' projects from community organizations, 2) suggesting areas fot �
,1 potential cost savings, and 3) snggesting other potential aizport
j revenue soutces. �
,
`� Cordially,
/ /�y7���/�� '
,� / C�z2 �/�-�'?
i Tom Oken t
Administtative Services Director
�
i TO:sm
�
� attachment
j cc . E�.n,v-� ;�y
; ,
�, .�. ,�
� 1,dhcefin.to �`=" ' ��
�j_'
5�...ria�� `w;
i .^% •'i '.A� '
� ��iLl.L�m. �.1�. '.
fi :.��?:��.
�.�.t
',h'�q .... . .. . . . .... . . . . .. ... . � . ` . .. . . .. . .
:.
,� _ ...... . .. _ .E�
� �
.�.
„
,.,, w
,
".^j` . � . .._.� �
��:t.-.�s�-:�`;'.�'� 4 � ..
:i:�� - . , " .
t
t�-' ' '
�.�.' .
'F l_�-°N�.:•i.T
:-..��,�.. .
_;' ` � •
��...
_W . . _. __. .
�` ° _ . � . .
' ��u5�/']�J�� ��� /7�PPI`�%1 y ?;��i�t
' �/ M:�'lrt��3i1+:��
L.":`''��..1.:��;.:.
M1
NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of Directors of
the PITKIN COUNTY HOLLAND HILLS GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, o£
the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, will hold a special
meeting at a.is _�_.m. on Monday, the 24th day of August,
1987, at the Commissioners Room, Pitkin County Courthouse, 506 E.
Main St., Aspen, Colorado, to canvass the results of a special
bond election of the District and to declare the results thereof -
and for the transaction of such other business as may come before '." `��'
the Soard. �'��
.,?,.'>
This meeting is open to the public. t�
>
¢,a.
::;� .:: •
BY ORDER OF THE BOARD OF -
DIRECTORS, PITKIN COUNTY HOLLAND �,'. ,
HILLS GENERAL IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT �� � -•
�'."
DATE• 8-17-87 BY: Silvia Davis �'
Secretary for the District �•'�,';�
,. �
ACRNOWLEDGMENT OF NOTICE AND
CONSENT TO SPECIAL MEETING
We, the undersigned members of the Board of Directors
of the District, do hereby acknowledge receipt of the foregoing
notice of the special meeting of August 24, 1987, and we hereby
waive any and all irregularities, if any, in such notice and in
the manner of service thereof upon us, and conser.t and agree to
the holding of such meeting at the time and place specified in
said notice, and to the transaction of any and all business which
may come before such meeting. _
. �V Yl/� y/i/�(///� ' I/� A . ' .
` n / �e� ��� .
, c_ CL2C.l.rtC�-c�--�! ' �?° .
�
i � ,�-
vr� ,� Q_i ,(�.v���C-� Board of Directors
Pitkin County Holland Hills
General Improvement District {
County of Pitkin, Colorado
i
�.� '*,�
`1 My.;
c
. �'g' r��.�:
. . �;},�'��;e"?:
° � �
. �` -�� . .F`:
`4.�i� . - �.. . . _ � �. . �� -.
y, � .. � - � . ..� .�.
,�r�r'� y.
..:�.:
,... , .. �,-
�..-:,, —.���,r""'�'.r.
---��.....<<'� ' .
,�x-' :. . .
, .
' , � ._�
-:�J . .
_._i� _
. ,'i._� .
.li:' - � , � '
. ,';:��:± � - .
='�:,.:_''. _ . . . .
�.^..:��;i�;� � • .
:�cy.:...,; .
���.`;�ii.��.','[" "
:^}„'�
',"'r:;',Y�}�..,,, .
;.t w 1:
���l#y;y�.t, S n
� . `
, ;.. . .
... . . . .. . .. ..
. . . ._.
, . _ .
, . .
,.�d.. � � .�. . ..,�. �.: �-.�� ..:. . .. .. .- F. . ���� . -. . . . �
. .. . � • .... r ' . ��..�w�s.....v...�r�iaaiN�R1l4�Yi�YK.+4-.�t+lb��_•.—fL�7N�r � Y
�is'�l.,�r
, �c��. ' ,
,��..._,..
STATE OF COLORADO ) ��jt3=�•'
' �
COUNTY OF PITKIN ) SS.
)
PITKIN COUNTY HOLLAND HILLS )
� GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT )
The Board of Directors of the Pitkin County Holland _
Hills General Improvement District (the "District"), in the ��
County of Pitkin and State of Colorado, met in special session at '�{;`i�,
the Commissioners Room, 506 E. Main St., in Aspen, Pitkin County,
Colorado, on Monday, August 24, 1987, at4:20p•m. There were ������
+� ..,
present at said meeting the following Directors: �`�` r"•
i:;.
Present: �`
Chairman and President: George Madsen ��' ".
�_":•
. Directors: Colette Penne �r"''`
Fred Crowley i;:�:�.
.�
'i 1..
T, Absent: Tom Blake. Bob Ch;�d :* .
�
constituting a quorum o£ the members thereof.
Thereupon, the following proceedings, among others, -
were had and taken:
The Actina Secretarv for the District presented and
read an affidavit showing that the notice of the special bond 4
election of August 18, 1987, had been duly published on July 23, ti
1987, on July 30, 1987, and on August 6, 1987, in The Aspen
Times, in due form and manner as required by law, and said
affidavit was ordered filed and preserved as a part of the '
records of the District.
t
i`
1 •,.
l
,,�
��� ��
:R`". ;_�{�
� �
-1 ��"�:`i '�
�
.��.i�� r..t
' L:
F -� A '�. •.. � �' � �'.... . . .... ....r . .. . .. .. ......
.. ... ... ._ .. .-.. .: '
�.�:� ` � . . . _. . .. �l ... �' .
�.. ' r��
_�
.�.���i� . . `- ; � ..
� � • �
' i ' �3; .
a�ii .
_, t
�-..I:�F.�.' •:�� ..
�:r�i.�� . .
. �;S.;";...": � .
�.s 5;�; . . , .
rC w .,.� . . �
't:
� YI 1�:�
J.a�^�er,y � .
•c
^y,i;'��i
•�`t..�3ir�i.� .
�,;y�, J
�::`: f
���``
.�yy;,•S ` s
,?�,:
,;..: ,..
� � , . .... ._..,,
;
��.__:;.�..<..
. �,�)k����-,G����
���\.r} '.
�'+kF�11�L� ":,
�pr-y .
F
The Chairman then announced that this was dz°F 1. "
• the time and place for canvassing the returns of said special
bond election, being the next regular or special meeting of the
Board of Directors after the date thereof, and that he had
received the returns of the judges of said election, held as
aforesaid, which he proceeded to open and read, as follows:
-;�r:
. . �:i:i+�. _
.i
��~
�9
. ��
i:l�
��:
�� 3�:.�-.•.:',.
'i 1:`
��
iE*�'
: 'ki� ;
; r:.
� ' ` �� '
f
i
I I.
I
; .
I -
I
i
i
i
I -
,i t
.��-.
i
I
i
1
_2_ � ,
• , �� �F .
`�ki=:�
�..
,' . � J $}j 4��.
� . . . � :�1..':i_.ryC i1�:
'•y ', :.>'
..�;�.,
..::._ :.:.. ,_. _ _.:. :. .._ . �._.. ..__.w. .
rr.1z��'� `" . .,..� .. .. �s ........ ._ . �� .r,.
/
.. � . .'.•. . , .. . .
��.�,; � . . . s-� ��� .
'•ti� . � . . � . .. � .
':..- .
�r�.f.;. , - : � ' . .. .... -�,,,...� .
__' .
� yh{�. . . . _.
—�::•i'r'r9±:. . .. , ..- . - _
:,.tis.y^�i°x'," .._... . . ' . � .
�l:'�,E^ .
. .�'>�:t�wl��:•' . . . .
,_�.�'_„�,�,,u..,,�,;�_ ,
t;�.e's - ' ' . . . . ,
"<:^�V st� ' . ' f .
�M .;��._ � '
4�MT �
3a . , .
��i�.'. � � � . . .
"'�;1.��. . . .
:�a�L.�H''• ., '
.,�'���i�'1
.i'�'�.'3.��•.{� . ;
1��t
.f,�.�ry,�S . •
.I.��.�� ' .
:��'�.�347% ` �
��.. � , . �1J�
. �;�;;,:;;:'
. ��'';F`
�. STAT$ OF COLORADO )
)
COUNTY OF PITKIN ) S5. CERTIFICATE OF RETURNS
)
PITKIN COUNTY HOLLAND HILLS )
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT )
TO THE SECRETARY AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF PITKIN COUNTY HOLLAND
HILLS GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT IN THE COIINTY OF PITKIN AND
STATE OF COLORADO:
;:.�-
The undersigned respectfully report and certify that: ,,,
nd e ection of the Pitkin Count �:t.���,� "
1. A special bo 1 y
Aolland Hills General Improvement District (the "District") was � ".'
held at 167 Holland Hills Road (the New Creation Church), Pitkin � .
! County; Colorado, within the District, on Tuesday, August 16, :. ,
� 1987, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., at which
i election a question concerning the issuance of general obliqation
bonds of the District in the principal amount of not exceeding �,' �
$210,390 was submitted.
{ 2. The undersigned were the duly appointed judges of !�1j:.
election of said special election at the polling place at 167 r'
Holland Hills Road, Pitkin County, Colorado. �% '
S
� 3. The polling place was opened at the hour of 7:00
a.m. and remained open continuously and was closed at the hour o£
7:00 p.m. Every person, otherwise qualified to vote, who was
; standing in line waiting to vote at 7:0o p.m. was permitted to
vote. We kept the register, in poll books provided for that
' purpose, of the name and address of each elector voting on the
; question submitted at said election. Immediately after the
i closing of the polls we counted the ballots cast. There were
�_ ballots cast by electors upon the general obligation bond �/}
; question submitted (including absentee ballots), of which�we.r�e ..�Z
"For the Bonds" and _� were "Against the Bonds," there eib "ng
! �_ spoiled ballo�s, �_ excess ballots, �_ unused .
ballots, and �_ de£ective ballots. _
,� 4. The question of contracting a debt by the District
in the amount of $210,390 by the issuance and sale of the general
� obligation bonds of the D'strict was decided in the affirmative
by a majority of �� of all the ballots cast upon said
I question at said polling place by the electors of the Pitkin
County Holland Hills General Improvement District. tt.
5. All of the ballots cast at said polling place at
said election were so cast by persons who were qualified to vote s
at general elections in the State of Colorado, registration not ;e
being required, and who were residents of the District on the _ �
-1- l� .;�
:.�;
�"��.:
�, Y��..
�� �.
�• f� . -� r+
��� . �
� —�--�._� .
>,,' �r''��
. �*�'-y./
"i;�::. � . . .r '.
_�.�4:��.���
4`�t.�T� . . � .
-- { .
�. :�•lt��'�' '
_ .�,;. .
,:��....��a;;�"' .
:ti�."',
.:�.�+.H�.'/'� .
�:li:.'.:���:,
;;':":",4.'_. ` .. .
V+r.,_::
'"�?''. ` ��
�: ,
���i...,,y..
;;i•
�,L.Y� �,,..
�.'�`�:�;;�:.,.,
;:,,..
��ti�s+'�'
• date of election, or who, or whose spouse, owned taxable real or
personal property within the District, whether such persons
reside within the District or not, a person obligated to pay
general taxes under a contract to purchase taxable property
� ' within the District being considered an owner. No person
possessing the proper qualifications was refused the privilege of ,
votiag at said election, and each person offering to vote signed
an affidavit that he or she is an elector of the District.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands this ;�'^;:�••- '�
' August 19, 1987. `�"'
j
�.��'
� r ...
�:I�-:,"
r.�.�.:
\��==\{7L�41J���....... ir' _
Judge of Election -
� . �i'`
�
� a� '�. :
rt; Judge of Elec 'o '� r''�
j
a
`I
� • t�-b r� ,�i�r�c a.�
Judge of Ele tion - -
; Pitkin County Holland Hills
General Improvement District
County of Pitkin, Colorado t
i
r
�
;
i .
I .
,
1
i
t.
,.:
;r;
; '\.
�
� —ii— � :�y:t
��_�..,�.,.,.
�T��.��4:.
. f -J.
� y.� . � . .':'_ .. �� . . . . . , e. . . ��� � � � .. _ - �••
��.
- � � �e. � •-'
r �.- . . . ' ,�� _ � .
Y .
Y i�.. ' . ' � _.
�a�, - . ,. ' ... .. . . . . .
� �.p- . . . : . ' . . ..
����'
����;
,��` � . '. � .
{'°+'_
1. ��''k'�- . . � � .
..aw::.�.�:'= _ . , � � i I �
t��,, .
"� ��,:.. '
, s:
��}: • .
�i1r�,, - , ,
���y': -
�!:�+�_+
���`:+.
:;�T`7�� �
���� ' e;.
���` '
, �.�: �
..
.
. .
:� � � . .
� �,�f::
a#TS�°hf��..�
`���'.
. STATE OF COLORADO �
)
COUNTY OF PITKIN ) SS. CERTIFICATE OF RETURNS
) FOR ABSENT VOTERS'
- PITICIN COUNTY HOLLAND HILLS ) POLLING PLACE
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT )
TO THE SECRETARY AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF PITRIN COUNTY HOLLAND �-
HILLS GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT� IN THE COUNTY OF PITKIN AND c�;,t;•—°.
STATE OF COLORADO: �,-.;1:,::
f �� �
1. A special bond election of the Pitkin County �
Holland Hills General Improvement District (the "District") was �:Y- ;
held at 167 Holland Hills Road (the New Creation Church), Pitkin
County, Colorado, in the District, on Tuesday, August 18, 1987, -
° between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., at which election a
question concerning the issuance of general obligation bonds of '
the District in the principal amount of not exceeding $210,390
was submitted. :y�'.:-: .
>�i:
;i .� '
2. The undersigned were the duly appointed judges of
.,�
� election of said special election at the polling place at 167 ; �;;,
_,
Holland Hills Road, Pitkin County, Colorado.
� !•.
3. All absent voters' ballots for said election were
; delivered to us; unopened, at said polling place, by the
, Secretary of the District, on the day of the election. After
opening the packages in which they were delivered, we determined
that each voters� individual identi£ication envelope was properly
sworn. Thereafter one of us, in the presence of the other two,
after announcing in an audible voice the name of the absent
� voter, opened each envelope without defacinq the affidavit
` printed thereon, or without mutilating the enclosed ballot, and + �
deposited the unfolded ballot in the appropriate ballot box.
4. Immediately after the closing of the polls we
• counted the absentee ballots cast. There were �_ absentee .
ballots cast by electors upon the bond question submitted of
' which �_ were "FOr the Bonds" and � were "Against the
Bonds"; there being _� absentee ballo s rejected; that the
� results of the absentee ballots are included in the Certificate
of Returns.
�.
i�-
.�
-1_ C \1
. ��~' '�'ti:'�;T,
L''' �'`.'.
.�.�'.
� ,,:.9"'.:�::� �`':
1��s:'.
' � �.
�esx� � . � '� "
n'� _ �
t' ''v � -. . - Txarr-�+--y—�� � . .
r„t:: ' '. ��"%
`.:�.-'k:yc,_ - . ..- � .
. t'�:;�-.:j�' . .. . � ` .
����
��, -
„��": %.. _ t'
..K<�.,': .
r'F•: �
:��,w�.:,.``'i: � , .
:;''.?,`."?i'.: .
?ti):'�..i�` _ .
�:�,`•":,J�7'
�_ti�;��:1F• -
i�i��'A.r�,�� .
,��,•':7�� . .
,� _� ` �
i;: ... . . , �. r . . ,.. . - � .. ... -. :�i . . . ._ .�r�ti' ,
�J• '���.
'�'7 �,
' �Y�,{,.
�i
y��j`SY»',�
•1 ?����.: .
:.u.i'�..�+,
' IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands this
August 18, 1967.
;
i
ow.=.
Judge of Election �;,��.:
i ����'�:
�.,;:,, _
i.�i'�.,..
� y
i .�'r..„'..,;:
//G�///�6 y'�-
i
Jud e ot Ele io � r
f
h
� � ���
Judge of Election
� �_.; , .
q Pitkin County Holland Hills �:�•'
w General Improvement District �`� ` -
"� County of Pitkin, Colorado i ,
_, [
�
,2 �
� ^
i
•�
�
��
� :�
,;;
.y � .
��
Yi
�\
{����y��.':1.-'.
_ii_ �, .'�';��
�:�-,
� 1:
,' � �.
� ,, � .. .�"'
_�,L r ;�i.�, ,�.+�!+� a,;�i... -�•-F _ . _ ' � -' �� � , _.
,
.. ; ;
- . . .. . ..,..�:
,.
��.1l�:�--a� f �
t .y r� . ' ,
�'�' "
.:,�. .
�� ' ---_- _�
y
�``�:, . .- � . -
t� .y "': . ' .. '
� «��:�� .
�, .
� �:�,. .
r....._ ._�}
.r��:;:4__ . `�
�'��,s;,� .
��� ,
_.iF�,°�.:. .
<"'�"���a*r�_ . . • .
�'4'}.p� ' _ . . � ..
;'Y�..�; . .
'��i)i
.'�„�,xy'"�! � ' .
A�'_^�a��'�'
..��� ` � - '
:,:::::;
. . . �_. _. ' �
�'�'`:_ _. .. .. _ . .. _
_. . . , s_
i �'�4,g,.'
;.�;�tii,;.:;�
h �.J':
STATE OF COLORADO ) k"�=�,'^' '
)
COUNTY OF PITKIN ) SS. AFFIDAVIT CONCERNING
� ) AHSEIdTEE VOTING
PITKIN COIJNTY HOLI;AND HILLS )
GENERAL IMPR0�7EMENT DISTRICT j
The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and ' _
says that:
1. She is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting ' "
Secretary of the Board of Directors of Pitkin County Holland �`'����'�'"
Hills General Improvement District (the "District"). s���_� ; ;
,:;�: :..
2. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 30-20-525, .;`'::"
and part 1 of article 8 of title 1,•Colorado Revised Statutes, "- '
and all laws thereunto enabling, applications for absent voters�
ballots were permitted to be filed with said secretary from at ��
least July 20, 1987 (a date not earlier than 90 days before the �
special bond election held in the District on Tuesday, August 18, �>:A
1987), until the close of business on Friday, August 14, 1987, k�;''
being the Friday immediately preceding said election (subject to
the emergency absetttee voting provisions of Section 1-e-118, 'i�
Colorado Revised Statutes). . � .
f. !
3. For each application therefor properly so filed,
she delivered to the applicant personally or 6y mail to the
mailing address given in the application, an official absent
voters' ballot, tagether with the other material required by law.
4. At 8:30 a.m. on Tuesday, August 18, 7.987, i.e.,
' the date of election, she delivered to one of the judges of
election at the poll.inq place at 167 Holland Hills Road, Pitkin
County, Colorado, all the absent voters• ballots received up to
that time in sealed packages as provided by law and she continued
so to deliver such envelopes as were received thereafter during
said day to and including 7:00 p.m. on the day of the election.
5. All absent voters' ballots filed in the hands of
said Secretary after 7:00 p.m. on the day of electioa (if any)
remained in sealed envelopes pursuant to Sectiott 1-8-125,
Colorado Revised Statutes, and remained in the office of the
Secretary of the Board o£ Directors of the DisCrict to be
destroyed later as provided in Section 1-7-701, Colorado Revised �
Statutes.
i
a •-
� 6. Affiant, as Secretary, did all acts and things
necessary to carry out absentee voting as provided by the laws of • .
the State of Colorado. �
�ti.
�1
^1 � � 4-:�_
��� +y�.
' �5 �!`.
y�_;•. f��
�,�'
�r��!G.
i ,y.
, �. •
al�.'3�LaM<�:....... ......'..:: ..... ... . .. . . ... . '.�_iP .. . . .. . .. .. ; Y
1 l
~
_ �'_ � .�r_.%" .
�.t 'K . ..._. __�
,.� ;'.`. : . . ._... ...__...
�, i,.:. . - r - ..
`;��1��_ _ . ' � .
"�'--�e'�:�..;' .
�.�:.�::'�: ..�::" •
( `
f 'a '
_ -t�..��:.;: • '
�'r,:: .
.LZ,�.__,.,::_.
{��V,�,:!`P,'tty.v�s,:;
::.ii.
:+'Y-.
i;[(�:ij' .
�'�'�'j� � � ~
._ ,�_�.�..�,�.--_ _ .
f ,
,- � , .
. . - --.,.. .._,_. ,_,
� _ _.. . .. .._.. ��h ;
� ��
��,�',;'n:;
� �::.
. � ��:�;,:::'..
Further a£fiant saith not.
� '
� ��i11S-':$��,^,,:: 1///L{ll.d-�
. ••.�.r, : Secretary
. . . � _
�,�(,� ,r ._,� = Board of Directors
_ � f.ix- 5 Pitkin County Holland Sills
�� �� � "'"� = General Zmprovement District `' '
. ''q .;;.. n:__ r,�;'.,_...
' Pitkin County, Colorado �.,'<,,
C�o ,:�� .��' `.,=s��.
�(SEAL).-• :S ''�`.
1, SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me by Si�Vf�l k/QUts �` ;
this August 19, 1987. _
My commission expires: 1(_Zf1�q� ¢'::r,
�
�YJ y
� ,
�
� `
�
. Notary Public �.�-
� � �t�,':p� ,
I _ (NOT.AIt.I•AL SEAL�)
.'��. �""�'., v n
� . p�jg�.� �
� ' ,;° t�%
i
i
(
;� ��
`�
� •
!
1
i
� _
+
� ,t.
j 'f:
�
,^\ . '
�':';1'...
-11 ` r..?3
- N�,•'-i3;•:.
. ��t,xiT:".::�'f:"�
.�;.' �r:
'�S',.:, r:�'.
t:
� T��
� �
4 ,� �,::,>„ ..,.:�:.,;...,-_.,, .+.` .,:. wr,.>.:,-. ._ ._ . .•..._ : _ _...._ _... .. __. . . _._ __._.,
'� _. . .. ,, _ , ,.
^ ._. ,. ,
��= �
'"�;a --���.�.--`^'��
y.: ' . -
��
l�� � • . �� .
r���� - .. . . _.
�t iy��A.. .
-? -�a . ux.� .. . .
. .:��.%.�.:t:-, . ,
'-:.:;v�:'":,�;:. . .
4�:i�p.:, . • . - � . .
�?�"�:� . . .
.�"., . . . - `. .
r��-F.i'1 ��. . i . . , �
.$�!. .. . . .
�:���,.:��3"e
+�a'i,`,r'r,, '
:�:.���;���
:•�w�+�+,'
`_����;:: ,
"�at: {:
:'�'�`���� ` � .
,R y,,,.�,
..:�_:
,�Z;. ,
i ,
. ����;��;;.;;-
��'
2'A h���F:.�:
iu.;'.
F y�.f,•;:-'
Said report and returns of eaid Judges of Election �:x�''1's:�;�.'-.
were, on motion, ordered filed and spread upon the recorde of the
District.
The returns of the votea were tabulated by the Board as
' follows:
AGGREGATE TABULATION OF VOTES
Total Total For Against t���'•,-.�
Votes Excess spoiled Defective Unused The The ��;,':_:::
Caet Sallota Ballots Ballote Ballota Bonde Bonds �
_Z3_ _n- -0- -0- 27 �2 4 �':.
,,h
Thereupoa, Director Georae Madsen introduced
the following resolution for firet and final consideration and ,�� -
passage, which was thereupon read in full, to wit: tr:.. ,
i��::. �.:
F,_�'
"';:1:,
_y:.
y��.''
�'.
7. .
t'.
1 '
t"
�
—3—
,' _`.
;�;..��'?:���r..
� �ity`.
; :� i� '.
i .�y.;��-, .
f�',
. � 7�y� �t.�:
' .__ . , ..............-._.. ........."""." �. . ..— !
� � --.�..��. �...,.r.n.�.: -.,.::...�.�_ ._..........:... _ ... ,. ....
... .�.:�...;:.-:_... .... ...�... .... :_. ,
y � . � �� Y . . �.
r '..i ' . . � �A
�i•.:;4�',�i,'i'C' . ..��� .
=r`F' - — ,�-_a✓�
�' ' ' —
{ §;"- .. ' `
T '� �' _
t �_:. .
�E, ,�:_�,.
s
� .
�. _ .:,.-.s •
�''r', '
�y .�1^,; . �
�,;e sr��:�,�-•v � �
- 'N'fci.ri�LL°� . _ _ .
r''"—''f-�.1.�. . . . , .
,�-�.Y�'��!�:f: . . . - , . .
xY`�y;,�� . _
:�:t�j�.:H:'_<}'�:
:�,�m'.!fd�::•'._q,!E:. - .
...4i';�'�;�', .
:'�R'.''. � ' 1:
_�"��� ` �
�
, . . ,.. _.._. .
,. . . _ _.... . ..
.
Y "�'. . . � . . . .. .. . � .. . . . ` • .� -.•.tuiftR&7f��..=:S=.etY'Si?'C91LraR�l;'#":��'"r.Ti1�'LtiF%4R�1"!"ir'�-
� I't
E�'
RESOLUTION NO. 87-65 (HHGID)
A RESOLUTION CANVASSING THE RESULTS OF A BOND
ELECTION FOR THE PITRIN COUNTY HOLI,AND RILLS
GENERAI, IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT; DECLARING TAE
QUESTION VOTED UPON AT SAID ELECTION PASSED;
REPEALING ACTION HERETOFORE TAKEN IN CONFLICT
HEREWITH; RATIFYING ACTION PREVIOUSLY TAKEN
IN CONNECTION THEREWITH� AND DECLARING AN -
EMERGENCY. k:;'::'.'
�.;� ...
w
WfiEREAS, the Board of Directors (the •Board") of the � •.:
Pitkin County Holland Hille General Improvement District (the
"District") did meet in special session on Monday, August 24,
1987, being the next regular or special meeting of the Board
after the date of a special election held on Tuesday, August 18,
. 1987, to canvass the results of said special election; and
WfiEREAS, at said election the following question was �,.,
� submitted to the qualified electors o£.the District: ��;^,
� �
GENERAL OBLIGATION � �
`' i BOND QUESTION SUBMITTED:
i Shall the Pitkin County Holland Hills General
� Improvement District, in the County of Pitkin and
j State of Colorado, be authorized to issue, in one
� series or more, its general obligation bonds, in the
' rinci al amount of not exceedin
p p g $210,390, or so much
.I thereof as may be necessary, for the purpose of the
acquisition, construction, installation or completion
� of curbs, gutters, culverts and other drainage 4
facilities, paving, lighting, tra£fic and safety
controls and devices, grading and other street and
� safety protection improvements, together with all ,
necessary, incidental, and appurtenant facilities,
i improvements, land, and easements; each series bearittg •
interest at a net effective interest rate not exceeding
� eleven percent (118) per annum, maturing serially
� commencing not later than three (3) years and extending
not more than twenty (20) years Erom their date, or
dates, payable from annual, general (ad valorem) tax
levies, without limitation as to rate or amount, and to t
� be issued and sold at one time, or from time to time, �
in such manner, upon such terms and conditions, with
such covenants and agreements, and with such other `S
detail as the Board of Directors may determine,
includiag at its option provisions £or the redemption
of bonds prior to maturity without or with the payment
.;�
-4-
a:� "{:;:,
.'� �ti .
sr=.
.a'•�;;r�4�'•;�
'"k�::.�-i
F �:'.r�`_.
��
-E_ �
....�..>�...� _ _ _ ,: _. .,_ ._ � �
: - ••.
,.,-: � �.
_ �.a� .
==:r'°��;� �
. �E�:�� -- .
,:- = .
_
::�:.��::�;,:; .
:::�,,:.:.
..Y:.,r�i+,... . '
'`1 ` �
�s�ua,�. ` � , . .
�ra�{�. ..
of a premium not exceeding three percent (3$) of the };�''�i',.`;'_;
principal amount thereof?
; and
WHEREAS, the Hoard has received, opened, and examined
all the certificates of return for said special election.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE PITKIN COUNTY HOLLAND HILLS GENERAI. IMPROVEMENT
DYSTRICT, IN THE COUNTY OF P2TRIN AND STATE OF COLORADO: �:;�,.li., �
Section 1. The special general obligation bond ,j'=��=;i .
election held in the District on Tuesday, August 18, 1987, be,
and the same hereb is determined and declared to have been dul s` `
Y , Y i�:;~.. �
called, ordered, and held in strict compliance with law.
Section 2. It is hereby declared that the result of
the canvass of all the votes cast on the general obligation bond �
question by all electors of the District, including nonresident �:;:
_ and absent voters, in .the . special. bond election held in..the _ . , _ . _. ,L;;;':
District on Tuesday, August 18, 1987, is as £ollows: =�•!��
:t:.�.
FOR the Bonds: �_ ^! j..'
; t•.
�- AGAINST the Bonds: 4
TOTAL: 73
' Percentage of
those for the
Sonds: 95 �
SPOILED BALLOTS: -0- I `
EXCESS BALLOTS: -0- 4
UNUSED BALLOTS: Z�
DEFECTIVE BALLOTS: -�-
Section 3. A majority of all votes cast by qualified
electors on said question being in £avor of the issuance of said
general obligation bonds in the amount of not exceeding $210,390,
this Hoard is by said election duly authorized and empowered to
issue bonds of the character, in the amount and for the purpose t
set forth in question submitted as aforesaid. i•-
Section 4. The Secretary of the Soard shall � �
immediately post the certificate of election results for said �
election at the regular meeting place of the District. '`�
' -5- � �
�? 4 J
.,�','��'.,•..q�y��:
'�.' �'.:.t�y ��'f ''.
I ',
_T�. L
�_�.��:
;�� . ........__ . .......... . . .. .. . .... +. . .. . .. � � #
_�.r.. .... .. ..�,. ._. ... ... "'.'� - . . •?V
v �.
F_r�� , �a�.� � .
_,�,^�:�� . . — ✓ .
.t...���:f.�':.. . � . � � . . ..
-`4;i;��- _ �� �
_;,;:�`c;x-_ .
- '- f
=g.,r•,> . . � . � .
;'^t,t.+'-�.;. .
.�.�-�:.;=:�:,,�7.�
:i5.i:`�;�:.�r�k.��' '
:�<<��'�� �
_ :':v.:rA•.tik.'� .
'::.'.`;.�K�.
:['�'�`1�_y � •
t'.��3�T � ��
�s •
� .. .... ... . . ... . .,.... . .. .. . . � . . . . � : � . .. �... . � . I _
x • A.�',`C
a•.:
. t.�5.i1�.',.•. ,
Section 5. The President, Secretary and officers of �'''""
• the District be, and they hereby are autihozized and directed to
take all action necessary or appropriate to effectuate the
provisions of this resolution.
Section 6. If any section, paragraph, clause or
provision of this resolution shall for any reason be held to be �
invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of
such section, paragraph, clause or provision ehall not affect any
of the remaining provisions of this resolution. `� '
'�;:.�
Section 7. All acts and resolutions in conflict or a
inconsistent with this resolution are hereby rescinded, annulled ^
and repealed to the extent of such conflict or inconsistency. �:'
This repealer shall not be construed to revive any act or
resolution, or part thereof, heretofore repealed to the extent of t3 _
such conflict or inconsistency. 4�
i. .
� • Section 8. By reason of the fact that the present _
street and safety protection improvements are not adequate to ?:: '
meet the present and future needs of the District, of the need to ;ti;� :,
immediately apply the proceeds from the general obligation bonds
;�;.. .
Iof the District and for other compelling reasons, the Board finds ;r-
� that an emergency exists, that this resolution is necessary for ; i,�.
the immediate preservation o£ the public health, safety,
,. convenience and general welfare, and that it is enacted for that
purpose; and the Board determines that this resolution shall take
effect immediately upon its final passage.
;. ttl�,�/.S„ ,
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this August 24, 19 7.
��`.•J, ?~ r�,";
` , ��c���ti
,.:; ti, .::�,-� � �
i '��'. �'� - - � �`'--� ' z
:,,.,':ti Pre i ent
�:9o�'g '`� Bo r of Directbrs
.d.�j'' � „
, d.. .
•'f;_;.:i=�;.�:.�'. .
Attest: .'
�� � ��C !i��/ _ .
Acting Seoretary
�
�°
M ':
E
, �t
_6_ . ] ,`
� :'..: r.,:
. •,�d���-�.`',.-.
.:�L 4'.
n7
` ..
.. �- ��x� �'.
' r.,:
k
._ _. _.. -' --_'— .... ._ ___. ._.
�
. _._._. ._. . � _ .. ..,
. . ...._.:.. _>-:.... .._.._... .. _ _ .._. . .. ... .. ..
�' . . . . .� .. . . . H-
f' _�J •
/
��} �.� . .�.-„��ti+��� .
L�:+ _—f��. • . M I ` ' ' .
� ����:�i.a�..�:�e� .. . . . .
.�;��
.�•`�;�-�_. .
'. _�: - • .j .
Y..t:�J.. � �. .
�.:1:..1::-,...:. .
-i�M::,'��� .. . � . .
i1'`,:..Si!�•,�� . . .
'.r:':l:'.
':+f}ap�.y�h'')ti� .
»� _
�`•1•: �`t:�,:r .
'.;,f:,<,,i'7'.F:i .. +
' rLr
'sy�+�'��3, ` � .
:
�T . : .
i _. . . � . ' . '�� � .. . . . ..). ... �. '
_ _._......_- - _ .,,.,_ i�� 'r:;: '
`.��}�:;'
s>�v:,�-�,::
{r��,��,•:r;,
��k�r.�;,•�"..,
�rh'�.�
�M��1�.'.
r�+M;1S�?-'�t
. A motion to finally pass and adopt the foregoing
resolution was then duly made by Director Colette Penne and
seconded by Director Fred Crowlev , was put to a vote,
and was unanimously carried, the vote being as follows:
Those Voting Yes: Colette Penne .
Fred Crowley
Georg� Madsen �;`'t"` �
, .��j
:;tr.
Those Voting No: ��`," -
Those Absent: Tom Blake "�§
;`,�:`_. ..
Bob Child '"4.�'` .
=f+,�:_ .
1;,'�`z �.
Thereupon, the Chairmaa declared said motion carried ;�-�',;
and said resolution duly passed and adopted. � :
` on motion duly adopted, it was ordered that the •(
resolution, after signing by the President of the District, be
finally published by title and summary, in The Aspen Times, a
newspaper of general circulation in the District, and be recorded
according to law.
� .
- t`
M
�
,�, .
. _�_ � ``.� ,.-:
; � S'.�
• y`•-
) y�
� .'Y`�tii!1���.
: ��}�.� I.� .
}.'�r
�
k.
� .,...._... ..._�..:
.._'_�_.�.....��.�_.�...,..�.. ..__-.. ..........._. ..._... ....... :
. .. ._ ._ . . .. .. : .
��.4 --.......�. .... . ,. £.•
�-S. . � . . . . . - ma! .
f ��. . , '����� .
��� �
_�'3�.•v.4•.'Y.; ' � , . .— -
- F.. �':�': . . � 4 . ^ . . .. �
.:�,i,y:�.*��:y_= ..,.. � .
. � ti��Y ,
- i':2f�r.; � .
_ ..t: . - . . .
.iT`.�4_:^_�:: , . `.
�A 3' �
t4 �Y'Sf • � .. . . .
.II�.x�$1�: ' . . . . .
:.•'}k'c��{.:�x . . � . - � .
�a t tf s
� "��i} .
t,cra�
.. '•�y,4`.r. .
fn' •
ti, -a ,
s >"`lt� � . i.
�
;��-�� �
¢:..;y.• `
._ . , _ ._ __.._ .. . . _. ,
•_
- .m"... .;_,,+. . -..,:rt i..,,-..,, •-..._�,.�.. .. ..:.. .. ..._: � ..._ .. �.: ...-.. ..-.:�. . .... . .,.... . �_,:.. „.> .
. - ��` T�v:.
�*�'�+t
����t�.
,y�i� _
• Thereupon, the Board considered other business and took
other action not concerning the canvass.
There being no further business, on motion duly made,
- seconded, and adopted, the meeting thereupon adjour ed.
, `!IL( ��`'l`�'`,"Q� .
�.0 ...... S�''•., :`;::,-.:-
t'. r ., r-; Preside t, ard of Directors ;..;_�.
� v 1 . �`•>"� Pitk'n ount Holland Hills
� � .�:
�,,
`' x�'•,�;n: Gen ral Improvement District �.
,'�:::, � : ;�,; Pitk' "County, Colorado
cs��` 3 -
' Att�'st;:�;.;"� -
; ..
i '
�.�/�� ����.``
y.'.._.'.:
.� Acting ecretary � .
Pitkin County Holland Hills f�> '
{ General Improvement District t� ��..,-
,. '�
Pitkin County, Colorado f-!`' .
{
� � _
�
. �
i
I
i
A
i
� ,
- ,``a
..:�
r;� ,:'
-8- ';'��:�:i i:
',.-Y�
� :::��;�:
. ti=^:�. ::�8u^,.r"-ti�,
.�'a`;
� . . ";:�:ve ....:
l.
I Y � �1 J.
� Se
�y� ..�a.._�...�. _ :ir�,:� � ..r......t..4, i... ... .. ,.-. ... �.,........ . ..,..._. � .'..��s.. ...... -. '...... , ...,.... . .,. .�':.
s •�-,
<"� :?.: ,
i:�n;.':,:: . � � . .. ��� �� .
�q<r �',. . . - �� � -
da , , -_
} y
riA .. •.. . . _
5�� .
.�����ri. .... � .
���-�' �
"� ti�,
�^r-,�:
x � : , � ,
'�i�„ ::; ,
�,�+�-Y']F�,°•., � .. . . . . �
����;�, , '
'���.�� . . . . . . .
�b
`�:-'�t' F� .. ..
,�5 t
<r��;
f�'��,.'.
:�"�.,3s .
::��� ` �
�� ,F:
'w.+L:�
,-
�.
. ... . .. :_�....__._ ...
- . . ._. ._.,_.. . .
_ �;{r3�
?��i;^,;,t�.:
!:,;;;;�i:.:`
STATE OF COLORADO ) �;St:s;:-..
)
COUNTY OF PITKIN ) SS.
�
PITKIN COUNTY HOLLAND HILLS )
GENERI�L IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT )
I, Silvia Davis , Secretary of the Pitkin •
County Holland Hills General Improvement District (the .
"District'•), do hereby certify:
1. The foregoing pages numbered 1 to 8 , •��:���•;�
inclusive, are a true, perfect and complete copy of the record of �
proceedings of the Board of Directors of the District, had and y;;., "�' �
taken at a. lawful special meeting of said Board held at the
Commissioners Room, Pitkin County Courthousa, 506 E. Main St., in -
, Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, on August 24, 1987, commencing at
the hour of 4_2a m., as recorded in the regular official book of � �
the proceedings of the District, and said proceedings were duly
had and taken as therein shown, and the meeting therein shown was � .:
duly held, and the persons therein named were present at said �
meeting as therein shown. r�c�:
� �:�:
� 2. Pursuant to Section 30-20-511, Colorado Revised .
_ Statutes, as amended, and upon the direction of the Directors of �
the District, I informed all members of the Board of the date, -
� ' time, and place of a special meeting of the Board to be held on
August 24, 1987, and caused to be posted on August 19, 1987,
copies of a notice of which a true copy is hereto affixed and
marked Exhibit A, o£ said special meeting of the Board, which
posting was at least three days prior to said meeting, ia not
less than three public and conspicuous places in the
i District, to wit:
(1) Junction of Bishop Drive/Highway 62, "
(2) Junction of Holland Hills Road/Highway 82,
(3) 167 Hol2and Hills Road (New Creation Church),
and, additionally,
(4) on the bulletin board of the County
Courthouse of Pitkin County, in Aspen, Colorado; and '
said af£iant believes that said notices remained so
posted and unchanged until after said meeting. i�__
3. The resolution was on August 2�, 1967 published by
title and summary in The Aspen Times, a newspaper of general �
circulation in the District, as evidenced by Exhibit C attached '�
hereto. . ,�
_g_ ,
' �,.�.�;.,����,
�� .;:
.`l�l':..'+_r;;
. 1��:.�.��'7•':.�
'. .`,1>. �...h. �t-
- � '�!.�.f::' �
t - ;:,
1 i:r
'�
. .i.•4..:a.�.. _�..._.__,. . ....-... _. _ . . �..�.. .. . ... . . . . .. . ... ... _ ._f� . . . . . . �.
" '�/`
.; ��-'
�. .-t, � �. �. .
..
� •
, '��.�.+;�
.t r1:. . ... � � .. .
, ";sy:'' ' . � ' .
',.,... -
- . � .
�,:R-'..� t.i��' .
��t� -r
i�,f`.
ae' F J
� s
��+W9�Y�W .__._ .._.. .L . ..,..._. ...._w_. - - ._....... .... ...:._. ................
�i....... . ............w_....._, � �,
�y:� ;ti..
.0 *'�,
'.f�:�,�}r'.e,�t
.1:��q�ii:i:�iri:,
f'._a ,
w�r1.'%'..
4. Immediately upon the conclusion of the canvass of
the results of the special bond election held on Tuesday, August
18, 1987, i posted the certificate of election results, of which
a true copy is hereto affixed and marked Exhibit B, at the
regular meeting place of the District, being the Commissioners
Room, Pitkin County Courthouse, 506 E. Main St., Aspen, Pitkin
County, Colorado.
5. No proceedings to contest the election or the •
results of the election on the general obligation bond question ";�"��:;5'
were instituted by any qualified elector of the District in the `�'-
manner rovided b Section 1-11-211 Colorado Revised Statutes• �'_''''��`
P Y . , � °, .
and the l0-day period during which such proceedings could have r�`;.='- -
been instituted following the date the votes cast at the election
were canvassed has now elapsed.
{, -
6. in accordance with the provisions of Section
' 1-7-701, Colorado Revised Statutes, for the period of 6 months �
from the date of the election, the Board will preserve the ballot �:�- .
boxes unopened and intact as well as the other materiale and �"
records. After said 6 months, the undersigned Acting Secretary '
�;y:: :. .
� will cause each of the ballot boxes to be opened and their ;,:�-_
' contents burned. ; �;. :
;, , �,,
IN WITNESS WIiEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and �( �
affixed the seal of said District this August 19, , 1987. ;'
, •,il'L L�� . Secr ar ���
y
j >,�`.'•"'-��"'•-C;��'=, Board of Directors
I .�,�,`� ��� °.,,':ir`� Pitkin County Holland Hills
�;o '�-"`�- F ;�� General Improvement District
;°., �, ,��`- Pitkin County, Colorado
'�.�SE�L •:.
:'ry° �.".s� =a1;�
,�r �,.;.� � .
(
t
t
t
�"
-10- `1 :�:,i::, :
' . ;i..
' :'J:":."::'=�:
s:'�_,,�,,
; �; ��`:
,��� .,�;'
:: ,:.
� °f-;, .f;.
- -'---------�_....._._.---.�., _ _ -
_.._...... _..__-_ _. _. __.____
a � . � . . .. :. .
. �i:. .l.,�.
.:=-'.�., . .
f
_� ,
j . . . .--.. _..... .._. _. _. �..
� f. � �,�'� .
. t�;: �. . . . ..-_.
s.�r�--' � � " - , . '
� , �cs."rI:;S'.' . . � . . .
.'j';`�`�:""'�G`'': .� .
���f:�::?'•.'� ' � -
. `��'4,.A;4t V� ' � ' � '
':��%i��i�`�Y�::', . - - . . . .
:�:^�jy�C�. .
.y j,l'
:w2'.',�.�;iH-�',`�}�
,�.�\�£r.>i':.ln:i.�. .
����:1
�:�4 W���,._Ar�.: .
'��„�!i
. � ,
..�r2�-:k /
��.....�,�iw �
+'i����S•
�t3,�f::' �
`
�.
.. ..._ _ . -- -- .. � .�_. . .
r. :. .
. ... . .. . .. . .. .i. .. �.... .zLL.:�iu:«� n'....»
-..�.......�r.�..a...;.:.u:..�,.r.�6u �I
_. ....... .�. .�. .. ....:...., ..,_ .r _ . _.�.'._ .......
c'�Y �::'
.. �ji�ri�r ','.
Ik���� .T��,�
�l•j?��.}Y`''''
EXHIBIT A
NOTZCE OF SPECIAL MEETZNG
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of Directors of
' the PITKIN COUNTY AOLLAND HILLS GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT� of •
' the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, will hold a special
meeting at 4:15 p.m. on Monday, the 24th day of August, �,
t`.;i_.._..�
1987, at the Commissioners Room, Pitkin County Courthouse, 506 E. � ��-.�-: �
Main St., As en Colorado to canvass the results of a s ecial �'-" �
P . , p �::- ..�..
bond election of the District and to declare the results thereof p s '
and for the transaction of euch other business as may come before ;.i�;; ':' -
the Board.
`-f�� �
This meeting is open to the public. �'
{i'; '• .
� BY ORDER OF THE BOARD OF J`.'�"
DIRECTORS� PITRIN COUNTY HOLLAND �'>':'�? '
HILLS GENERAL IMPROVEMENT f„5"`
DISTRICT ��!!
�a.:'��-
r' DATE: 8-17-87 BY: Silvia Davis �'� ^
Secretary for the District
t
�,.
� '�-
• : �
`
�t�- ,�;�
T�:i .:.3_'
^ �:',
I
'�"����::
; �.
__ ._____..
,
�--__�..� ��__._ �� ____ ______ __ __ _ , .
... , _ ._,, _ _ _
.K� �
� �:.: - -
�
S(�-Y�f'•' i ' . .... -�:�a� .
. .� �l'��*�. . . r . .
�.���� - •. v . ' . �'
u�
' { y�'k i. - .... . - �. � .
�: .
>t�-> .
:��.y�'y.5` � .
'^:i.: . � . . � .
:'p:r�'`� ' . � •
a'ti��i�4�:,y _ . . ,
..�_'n�.�.�i�+ . • .
�;w'y.Lr::,..4:�:. .. � . . .
'�.Y.ir�M��?. � . . � . .
;��:-,�-N,3.r���± _
��i�1��y''i� '
>��'2L`.
,y;y�e.«y'�.: ��°": , . .
� S. �,
��,"�;• ,
� ��.
,
����' � �
* ;
;�. :
. �
�'�°``... ,_......�__ .. .._._......._ _ . ... ..,.r_...�_._ . .._ . ,. ,..... _ _ , . •
; i�;.��,;,�.
;,L.`=
:.:�Aa�,,�,;;'
EXHIBIT B :''.'„�:�,�;: '
rY,�:;:r- .
STATE OF COLORADO )
)
COUNTY OF PITKIN ) SS. CERTIFICATE OF
) ELECTION RESULTS
PITKIN COUNTY HOLLAND HILLS )
GENERAL IMPRO�IEMENT DISTRICT )
IT IS HERESY CERTIFIED by the undersigned, the duly ;;��';t.,•-
chosen, qualified, and acting secretary o£ the Soard of Directors " `�'
of the Pitkin County Holland Hills General improvement District �"a'-��
(the "Dietrict"), that: i��- ;,`
1. A special bond election of the District was held �,�-,~'. '
, within said District, on Tuesday, August 18, 1987, between the -
hours of 7:0o a.m. and 7:00 p.m., at which election a question �,, .
concerning the issuance of general obligation bonds of the
District in the principal amount of not exceeding $210,390 was �
submitted. F�`
s.-� ..
;:i'�:• ,
2. The members of the Board of Directors of the ��:�`
District met in special session on Monday, August 24, 1987, to "; ?;
-,; canvass .all the votes cast by qualified electors o£ the District ' f''
� at said election.
i
� 3. The results of said election on the general
obligation bond question were as follows:
. FOR the Bonds: 69
� � AGAINST the Bonds: 4
TOTAI,: 7 3
� . Percentage of
� those for the
� Bonds: 95 8 •
�
! SPOZLED BALLOTS: -0-
i
IEXCESS BALLOTS: -0-
� DEFECTIVE BALLOTS: -0-
� 4. The question of contracting a bonded debt by the �t--
� District in the amount of not exceeding $210,390 by the issuance
� and sale of the general obligation bonds of the District, was •
decided in the affirmative by a maj.ority ( 95 8) of all the �,
� • �
i —i— i
, , ` ,-ri�;..�i,.
�� :
�f
?�
! �;..•.r,�y:
i
1 �k;" '
` a:,
�----_-- --- ._...., __.. __ _. .
,.
._�.... :,, .
. _
F
, - .
�. _.
�: �--�'�`''
, . --�� . , .
r'.K. �� _.,�,:san �.
y- , .
-tYt.., � 4 , ..._ . - . .
�.i £ .. �� ' ' • -.
'ec~.�.� ' . _ � - .
'.y,i••g.�', , _
'...id`- � _ � .� .
.'ir`-.'`•.1�;; . • .
:�4:�;i.�YL'�4"+ � .
S�
:��.:h'S[�`;N.��'.
�.`�;`i}I::�ia:�i�'�,�: .
♦j�r'
__ �-•f•
.%ft��"y:�=.�
''T'�.°..•;7{ . �
.��';:�t,. ` �
��:: . _. . . - .. ._ ._ . .._..,..-„ - � ._ _ . _ . . . .
.
. . �'�t tc�..,.,,
+,����.I•.,F i;''
F' fd
ballots cast upon said question by the qualified electors of the j- ��r+5',
. District. L�;�:sa.-`,:
5. All of the ballots cast at said election were so
• cast by persons who were qualified to vote at general elections
. in the State of Colorado, and who were residents of the Dietrict
on the day of election, or who, or whose spouse, owned taxable
real or personal property within the District, whether such
persons reside within the District or not, a person obligated to
pay general taxes under a contract to purchase taxable property
within the District being considered an owner of taxable
property; no persons possessing the proper qualifications were
refused the privilege of voting at said election; and each person �_;;;��:;:�...'
offering to vote signed an affidavit that he or she is an elector �"`�;�:��; :
of the District. r�-: ,:;
�3;''
�-. .
6. Pursuant to Section 30-20-503(1), Colorado `��}';`
Revised Statutes, registration for the election was not required, -
and further registratian pursuant to the general election (or any
other) statutes was not required.
. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this
A�qnct t9 _� 1987. '� '.
i _ �
�i. � ,,.�'.ii(,��F �/IlW(/F/ Y//,�Q� �( �
i ,. ...*�.� �,�:" Secretary - .
-� :,,�e „�'•.��=:. .
`-,.o . :-..:a ;.•�
'(D�57SR�CT J5E�4I;)
. �r.:::..p.�..,s .
' :F .} ;..
.�0,...� . . ..
;f ,� •���
� ..': .�i.
� •
J
0
� . .
F
�i
t
j t .
1�
i '
� 1i
� .
i
1
—11— ti
I ' �� _,
• :.�,.:
w`—n
`.y�.:
�y���
_ _...-......�.,.. .-..,._ . . ., ........._..__..._........... ............... . .. .._..... :
:. .. .,� �..:....... � . ...:.,�:.. .�.-........ � ... . • � � j�^'
..� ..y• " .. " ��� `�
1.:4=� . . . ..
':.':..� .�. � ' . —w .�.r��— ��
,:F
.'L .... , . .� � _ :� '
x;k ��+"��'. . _ 4. • . -- �
. .�:K�;,`.vc�`— . .. . � ` � ..
..�;;.'.:��;';��: . .
� ,.- . � • , t ' .
�'� %:'.'.��i.`� � . . . ' .
•+����wi.��;. �
r, .
�+ '
a'
�.� �i',,�: , .
�,���S.i;^�:i: .
.y�.,,t.���� �
,"N,e.E
��Y�j� � ;.
t.,-`T `
, .
s�; �
,�:: ,
��+,�.:r;�:;
���F,
EXHIBIT C �r�������:�
�� �F•".i
• (Attach Af£idavit of Publication of Resolution) �����'�
i
`r1 _
�
i r�� _
�>:` ,
7i
. � _
I c41`'°
��,.
i 1�:
, � r�•
F j �'
�
i
! ;'
i
3
�
�
t .
j -
+
t
i � i:
i i�-
�r:
�3 —111— ,���..,'
"i
i - :>`.
` `.-•:!.i;:e
f �.ia;''� '�'
i •" ���`
� � . �;�``. .��„�;.
; r i�� ;:
i `i ��'
I *.n
�'.
� I �__ . - - .��..-ti......_., ......:::-.:...�_�.�:�..•.:: ..,_..�:..... ....--.,..: ._.. -._�...... . .j......'_—
,'�� K.,•
+...,f � .. e.
F+�} , � , . . � . . �£��.
+;ih.Fj.::::y:;� . . . . .
1
� '^4'�. J�. � • � � � .. a'-r+�cr.�i`y� ! ,'.
��}'h . . .' ��� '`�' �
1
. 1}Ij,1 lXj+.�f�<. . �. . 4. . . �. ., -
Yp��: . _.. .. _ . � ,.
{{. ,�'.'�. , . . _.. � . . ` � . .
iR� A
1 }�„
:�}�yk..;��^;,�,• . . . � .
.i��: ',1'.:_. � . . . . . . . .. . .
r_i�k.:,� . � � � .
r x'
..<• � . . . � . . .
�� � � . �.� . .
S°
�iE�(, �.��, � .. . . . . .
�i i�f��z=.. � . - , . , ,
,�'`.H';�;. . . . � .
���e". •. . ' . � � • . � . .
��a��y��' � . ...
�����i; .
�'������� . �
;;�y.
Y;:�;:
v�°�� • ..
`.h� S.._� ,� . �
�_.�_.� �_� _ _
,�.;,.,
�. � �
, . _ ._...___._ . .. - - _ _._... ._._... , �_.....
... .
;. ;t���;
M::.�..�;: ,
��x���;;;'.
STATE OF COLORADO ) �'�'��"'
)
COUNTY OF PZTICIN ) SS.
)
PITKIN COUNTY HOLLAND HILLS )
� GENERAI, IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT )
This is to certify that the attached is a true aad
correct copy of the otficial ballot used at the special bond
election held in the Pitkin County Holland Hills General •
Improvement District on August 18, 1987. _
�'��
SIGNED AND CERTIFIED this August 19, , 1987. .� �
` iS}"y. :
+ � fi;Y:
.;;� 72iLfit.tt� �'/.U� ��
:�. �;�•; Secretary �
s f) ,, ,•;-�: Board of Directors '
.,�. "��'�i�: Pitkin County Holland Hills
'; c.'?' : General Improvement District ,.,
I ��� : Pitkin County, Colorado '� ,
, , .,
'~�(SEAI,) ..��'
� .,.s:���.,: � �:.
7 _ ��. ..
�
�
� 1
�.
�
f
�
i
� �
S
t"
f:
. .\.��5�..����•���.'.
I1) t;
,:-�',`;',:#;:
•t<` �°'+�,;.
_;..,'•`=ti;�
w .T�,.��zr+_
{ � ¢��:.n�,.':.,
� f'•
� �!S- C.•
• � 4,
�c-+�apw+s ��.,:.�._...,. -::,.w:..:,. .5_s..::;...c .._...�,. ,��... .� .... ... .�...:.. ..:.... ..-.__..._. . . .........._..._ .____.,.."
,.a .
.� .'Y�X�.,..` .. .. � . . ' - '� . ��i:
� �;��'' � � . . .
"�_ : . ' ' � .. . . �_"
M
S l}2f.. , . .
��;�. _ , �_� �.��� -
�.��� r _
� �.yt�__��.��` ...._.-. ' . �
����iaw�iti: ' , , � - �
� ���#�. . � . . .
!���iS.i'� . . .
i�Y..t
F� ('
t��7:!U � ,. . .
Nf�'Q��•11,�. . . . . . . .
�� . . - � . � ..
1:��.;?ii��.g,,.r.
'`�C'R.��^',,'•.dr' '� . .
*
M�.�
��� 9..
:�
F�� t
.,�����4 � �
it`� `
...�� —
s` '
�
.. .... , .::- .... .�................�.._ .... ....,... . .. . . . .,.,... .. •
. ..,,...._., . .� ....
.....� ... .;.
. ..yid. ���r. �..:.,.r �: .. . . ,.. ._.. . , . .,...�. �.
.1........ _ ..-...... . . . . ... . . . .
V
4 �h%i�
' ':y.Y::'�
�� .�t�
�
(Attach Copy of Official Paper Ballot) �'��+��� '
���.>� �.,
. � ^',i•��' _
`��.r:.:
� . �(:...'_ .
; �t��i:
1
{
� ',•:�'".''..'.
; ��:
`3 ' � '
/ . . � ,1�'�.
,T: � !. .._ .
F ,,. .,
'� �
ei
f
! ..
i
.� .
}
'�1 '.
1 i .
�
i
,�
::� .
.��
1
_•� •
. �-'� . � .f.'
1`
; :,
J
� i
C
I
+ f
a � ti
i :t,..;_.
� �i i� ;`-`;—.;�::..
'J:;":•.: .
� •..
:�s;;
,i ',-�c;��..,
�;�:�.,..
>� ,���,:'.
� �:
.
, �
_.._.`..._.. .. �::,�. ..�>;V..: .�.:u... . . ._:.. ,.. ...__.._.__....._ .. ,
.. '���4 � . " .. . . _ . �.._...�, •�' 's" - 1 �'
�RT
t+t.,�. .. . . � ' �_�r .
�s7+�. �`
, e��t � _ . -��� .
^,�s."t. . ..
{ p - . y — ._ . . .
T.�j�5�:� . . �
R✓Y�y�.a . , . . . . __ . .
. I 2� }i;. . . - . � .. � .
���f,, .
���`
��"� —=��r •
��l. :�,. c
� y� .�;,Tr`. . . , .. . �.
4�4,K._�.: . . .. . �
�� . .. . � � . .. - . . ...
`k�r�%i,� _
_L '';:
�� •�a�.�!;
_�� M_
r��°�`�'� �
�:�:...;!-'?F�� � .
'�F`�::.: "
� . ��{1'����'-
� ��ra;
I c��.;"-'`','.
����{'u�)(.;.,
STATE OF COLORADO ) ��l;�y:,�':.
)
COUNTY OF PITKIN ) SS.
)
PITRIN COIINTY HOLLAND HILLS )
. GENERAL IMPRO�IEMENT DISTRICT )
This is to certify that the attached are true and
correct copies of the official elector's affidavit and absent
voter's affidavit used at the special bond election held in the _
Pitkin County Holland Hills General Improvement District on �,_
August 18, 1987. ��':•7: .
y',:,.:'.:
SIGNED AND CERTIFIED this August 19, , lgg7, `�':�}�'A .
i �//� �.......
-I . .. . "V✓VV�� //// �y. .. .
Secretary
��:lil;.�� _
;,,;.,..��•... ,�„` Board of Directors
,,��•'�-.'; Pitkin County Holland Hills '-
� �' ...�, �,`,�`. General improvement District 5•; �
:� - �%'�? Pitkin County, Colorado
_• :r—s ���.;
�SE�r�';�, 1:..
L...� ;s : r�.,,
z: .� �' .•'•�Z.:•� �?'''
-��ti��r.°..� � .
,`I � .
I �
� �
:{ � . t
,
�:� � .
.�
�r� � �
�� �
I
°;:, .
���
;:'s . �
_ �,Y ,
, �`�
�
�> ��<.
c ,_�j_,:,;,.
i ��� ,��::
,i ::x.
� ;�.��:::
, ,h .:
' � ':
�oit+Faa. �a,::: v..-.;:.r_�,. ....�..: _.;.r.:: ...r,:...,.. .._..:.:_. ..�._..,... . _._.._ ... _ _._ � .... . _ ._
p, . ' . r:. . .'
��r , :.:, p .
�r �
�t i,; - —�=r'��
?�}�c" � ._-�..� � '
t r��� s.-; � _ � ---......._ ..�.--,�•s,i
rs�� : • . . . . . .
� � � . � . . . � -
. ��'�";�� . . ., L _ _ .
' � T"i-
3 ��14: .
��str�'... � . � . � .
�... ��. . . � .
F ,� .�a � � ' .
:,��:,.;y�,i.., . .. . �(
. lx � ��1r-•:' � .
.�:.:f.�;': . . .
.y��at ✓
�e k'! � ' .
��rs..'-'q�:%a�1� .
..��';��� '
~� k`�:;
.'.'��..i._� . .
_.:"l�:�£J'y _� • .
. �
� .' .
... , . - -- - -• . _. _ . _ _
,
._�. , _,.,-..,.,,�._ _. ,
��� ��',,'
:;t��',..r„
E����a`<;;`:'.
' (Attach Copy of Official Elector's Affidavit ��°"
and Official Absent Voter's Affidavit)
<�"i:��+-
. {( -
`"-v-�F:
+��.
:f,
Y;�.
,:,_-L._,� _
[�
r�`�. ;
. ��
����
�: r..
i . ,!
�
�
i
I
. t .
� ,
i
,
I
j '
i
i �
;
i'�
I
.''
1 '.,
1
� ��� ,
1 . �`
L) �y .
% y.
„. q
�''�:i�t�.
.� t
�:'�
��r i�a,..�_"t .r�.�-�v�.�:.� -....�. ....�",___ ,�...�.-.-
Y � �
� .. -.,7. ��.. . . 4 .
? .. -� .:�. .:. � .
t� �'Y::. .. _ ... , .
�
t K�.i���F� � � � �
. r���.r.� �
rb.�S�t.•. . ' - .� ` . . . . -._
"`i%�.
`R �
in � �. ....._ ' . ` . . .,. .
. F;N,�jy':_ ,
:,;,��^��-a�'.J' . , ' .
yY.
�y`�.�'�':^i'�" . . .
f �
� �1�.,;��! � . . . .. . . .
�y�Y .tiZ'r . . , .�� - �
'rcl:���S�i� . . " ,. . . .
����'�'�� ,. . • .. . .
���)�l'��yr� .
=�i' . _ ..
'„a.���r; .
,�:c�._�, . .
;ss r
����c. . r
,:,�.=�. ,� �