The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutbocc.min.reg.06131989 : : � : ,_:.,�. , �r_ . � . . . , � . -. ..... . . . .. . .,,.,........,.-_ . .. ... . . . . . . . .. . ..... �y 4�'�:1:; . B';x}�'�'•�Kr,•,. ' �'�">��j`M1'- ' PI�2@T Od[7NM 0�'�IISSIO� WDAK SE5S2�`T�IL� 7UE50AY. Jt1NE 13. 1989 - O�anissioru�xs' Hoatd Roaa 1;00 PM Joir�t Meetirg wi.th P&Z - IarYi Use Code Revisions 3:15 ffi2EAIC 5:00 PM AATOC�i . F114.ITI UU�[[7Nt9C CYY3�SSICYiL�1tS • I�QtAR M[�LL`II�AL�1�A •';i�.:, M[� ;.,� :`i� .'4`.;�r�ri.... 'lUFSlI�Y. 70NE 73. ]989 - 17iStr]ct Ooait �`•�i�;_��- 5:30 A�I P[JHS,iC�.iR�!@�TP s'�, ` t�SFNP AC�2�II]A "�'" . 1. Ooopesative Agreement between Pitkin Camty Sheriff's Dept., IS.S. Dept. of Agricultut.�e a�U.S. Forest Servioe for Patrol, Ho3� Braudis �"�, ' . 1�_.. 2. Dictenlxng SUbdivisiaal�tmg�tia�, 8�xlciy Iuc�+sv '::. 3. Ke�v�a �loyee D�lling Unit, Huddy Ix�.''o �'t""� 4. Zt�wesdt Zt�tantial C'Y�ange to a Reoonied Plat, Ci.rdy Houben rt�'`. : 5. Liquor Lioens�s: � 1:edstQne Volunteer Fire Degt., Inc., Special Event Liquor Lice�ise �` • , aTyd�Ora1'y Use Pezmit� Laurie Bznoks ;� : Eagles (Aizshaa) S�eci.al FYants Liquar Lic�se anci Tenq�orazy Use , , i Rnnit, Iaurie Smoks r` . + Sonnydale Tavexn Liquor License Modificatiw� of Pre�n.ises, Iaurie Brooks �� 6. Consolidati.� of City & Cainty Haaxd of Appeals, Bob Gish 7, Approval an3 Adq�ti� of Board of Appeals By-Laws & Rules, Hob Gish { 8. �ointme.nt of �oatd of Appeals M�exs, Rab Gish , 9. First ReadiixJ arri Set £or Public Hearing Aixport Gurfew ESctension for . Snowma,s Balloon Festival, Br-dd thri�tophet' `�� IAND l�E RE40ITIrID[+F � 10. East Owl GYeek Ranch Detailed Sut�nission and Final Plat, Cindy Houben � I14td)D6� II�I+S � � ll. Aspen Valley Hc�,pital II�layee Housi.ng Detailed Su}snission a»3 Fiz�a]. { Plat, Francis Krizmanich ( 12. Aspen Valley Hospital Am� Seivioe Plan Set for Public Heari.ng July S � 11, Tim Whitsitt, �y Iuoe-ro � '� �2FAK - � P[JBCSC flEARB•R'S � 13. East Aspen Metropolitan Distriet Service Plan, Tim 4�isitsitt, John Ely, .. Citrly Ha3ben � � 14. Ziegler Law A�act Subdivision, Ci.rrly Houben 15. Auster Genexal Sulanission, Bu�y Ti.icem !t p F[)g[,IC F�R:LI7C�S 16. 7hixd�:adirig, ffivsh CY�elc Village Iaoad Restriction Rm�nt, nea �'M Newl.atd (Tdb1E�i unti1 June 27th) �� i1�9DIITi`ICFS ANd�A�CPS � 17. K�a �t Settl.ement AgL�nm�t, 'lban S�tiitll ;' 18. Fleistter Shiyth Appeal Decisim. SUsan Snyder i. � j Z9. Cbllette t1ie1 Cbntract, Bzvice Vax�et�aw v �;,•.:�`: AL170iAtN ':a:`::' � ;��, � `.:'"T ' j T�FASE N�7PL+: AiZ PqBLIC I�AAE?X'lrlCm F(fli 5:30 A�i. AC1d9I,2Il+IF5 W.CI,L VAFtSt. '• �i�ai�:.�. Z .. - �w's„t�'. _ ..... . .... � . . . . ./.0� . . . . � � �j ,�• 4.�.: - ....�-'_".,.. � f�� ^S i-::' • �'..,..-..,.— ` ::'L". ' . + . . , :_.�`.�Sy''.�Li,..4:�. ` �\ ' ( ` f. i't...•:Sr: . . � � ' 4��"._'.1�" . .. ' ', . ' ::�".SF`�'1syJ.;r� � . ' . -��.�.dp':5?'t`.i:=.'_.: . S��i', ' ' a,�: �4'`4Y: F<zf 3'. . . '"�'��'_3 . >;,:'}�. � �' �.�,:.�,�. ,..�, . : �~" ' �~.. .. ...... �� ' . .._�._.. .. , . � .. ... . . . . .. . . . .. .. . ... , ��,•1 e�1"1 � �.Ati.y'�:`...::':.��.: apPAOV�o ar ��:`a:--,-:,. ry,�'�`:4r'.�... �xt�rES JUN 2 7 1989 MEl;i sN(i PITRIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONEI2S REGULAR MESTZN,� JIINE 13. 1989 . t:.1,R .(t`•:�^..:�=-: MEMBERS PRFSENT: Chairman Colette Penne, Commissioners Wayne r� � Ethridge, Jim True, Herschel Ross and Fred Crowley :`��. ;�: ,,�.. �CALL To oRDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:4o p.m. �: _ PUH7�.ZC CO�P: Jim Ward commented, that the memorial picnic was a great success. There were a lot of people in attendance who ��;:, ., experienced a lot of concerns, and he feels there will be more �'.;,:, .; support for environmental and ecological concerns in the £uture. '�:i+;� • . Joyce Ferguson appeared before the commission to voice her {,;'; �, ,. objection to the bicycle path on East Owl Creek Road. She stated � r'�� that she does not feel the road is safe, and she asked who �; praposed the proposed path. � Commissioner Ethridge responded by stating, that he proposed the bicycle path. He said, by history, Brush Creek Road was designed in such a way that it was suppose to have a bike path. However, the damage that would have been done and the expense to get a bike path attached to Brush Creek Road did not make sense to him. Therefore, when he took office the matter was discussed as a Commission, and the consensus was, that there was a bike path need but the appropriate route was not down Brush Creek through Shale Hluffs which would be very dangerous. Therefore, monies were taken out of the Brush Creek Road plan and put into a bike path on Owl Creek because they wanted to supp�rt an alternative Eorm of transportation rather than encourage more automobile traffic by an upgrade on ow1 Creek Road. Evan Banks appeaxed before the Commission to encourage members to look into a bike path east of Aspen to Independence Pass, l _ Chairman Penne responded by stating, that there is an organized group who is trying to raise some money for this purpose. Also, � wi.th regard to the entire trails plan, Commission members are looking into places where they think an extension of a trail would encourage people not to take their car but rather to ride .�.�( their bikes, and this area is one of the top priorities. CONSENT AGENDA' � �'<. }� i. BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 1 JUNE 13, 1989 ;�i < � �.� � :,f�,� ' ,.:�r.. r��.��:: .��'s� . _ . . _ _ �,s^ � '�; �. ..._..<,. . � �-�-.�--,..-----�_ _ . -,.�� . -.:>��' -- : a t, _ w� ` � � �; . < ` � �:�`: _ . . �;t`�:;::,; ' 'w.:<y-�w:� . � '�'r:"`. . -:c�':�-�.";'.. • :..P:.'�3,�_�. . � � . . ..'i.'h�:��;�� , . ,{z,'�f;{:;; �;�,-�r�� ` sr „ . . .... .... .;„,,..�..,��...::: .. �'��''- . _ . _ . . .,__ � .. . . .. �:�;�� :;: `' �?�:: ��-`r*';: �Si� r��.,.. . APPF20VAL OF MAY 23. 1989 MTNiTPES COOPERATIVE AGREII�NT AETWEEN PITRIN COIINTY SHERZFF'S DEPARTMENT, II.S. DEPARTMEN'P OF AGRICIILTURE AND U.S. FOREST SERVZCE FOR PATROI1 - This agreement provides that the Sheriff's Department will perform regular patrol functions for at Zeast two hours total in all o£ the campgrounds in the County on days mutually agreeable • 'to the Forest Service and the Sheriff's Department. In return, the Forest Service compensates the Sheriff's Department at an �' hourly rate of $36.25 per hour. ;,.',.'..' - RESOLIITZON GRANTING SIIBDIVISION E}�MPTION APPROVAL FOR AN �NSUBSTAN'PIAL CHANGE TO A REC�RDED PLAT FOR PETER DICTRNBERG- This request was for ah Insubstantial Change to a Recorded Plat. ��'". The purpose of the request is to allow the applicant to expand Y?. - the building enveSope so that the total residence will fit within � , the envelope. �n �+;:': RESOLDTION GRAN'PING ROBERT AND ELISSA RENNA APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT �, A 500 SOIIARE FOOT SI+IP7AYEE DWELTSNG IINIT - This request was foz ir , the applicants, Robert and Elissa ICenna, to construct a 500 �� , -' square foot employee dwel2ing unit within an existing 1,724 g �: •. - square foot agricultural outbuildinq. The parael is 201 acres I� ''�•;` ;� zoned RS-30 with one existing single-family residence. The �e .� property is located on the upper mesa, adjacent to property owned by the Windstar Foundation in Old Snowmass. 4 RESOIdJTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF AN INSUBSTAN'PIAL CHANGE TO A :, RECORDED PLAT FOR THE PRINCE CREER SUBDIVISION - This request was ' submitted by Larry and Nicki Zugschwerdt. The Prince Creek F Subdivision final plat currently requires that there be an " individually operated package treatment plant on Lot 4 and on � ; other specifia areas as designated on the Plat. The applicants are requesting that the Board delete this reqairement for their �+ lot (Lot 4, Block 1). Also, they have provided a signed uagreement from the Prince Creek Homeowners Association approving the requested change to the final plat. `i REDSTONE VOL37NTE_F,St FIRE DEPARTMENT._INC. SPECIAL EVENTS LIQUOR . s LICENSE ANIZ TElYPORARY IISE PERPLIT - This was an appZication for a b special events Iiquor license for an event to be held on July 3, ° 1989 sponsored by the Redstone Volunteer Fire Department in �' Redstone. ` y a EA6LES FRATERNAL ORDER 3184 SPECIAL EVENTS LIQUOR LICENSE AND i`�. TEMPORARY IISE PERMIT - This application was submitted by the Eagles Fraternal Order #184 for an event to be held on July 2, 1989, at Sardy Field in Aspen. �� SONNYDALS TAVERN LIOIIOR LTCENSE MODIFICIATION OF PREMISES - This '�.� ': � application was submitted by Arnold Sorenson, owner o� the +� :; ; :� I Sonnydale Tavern in Meredith to build an outside patio as an � • '�� ' ' � �:;.::;;'%.;`.�;?: �.'. i BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2 JUNE Z3, 1989 E : k5y;,: - ,'�t,.; :i ;, ..I �i.,-/�„� )! i��. ! � '. ,�..�,..._._ . ...'___"__......." ". . . �,. . . . ... .. . _ .. . . �. . . � . . . � . . . f �.. '.��.,;,= . � i . . -.....:_,.' ,' _ . . . ..;;. . � ..�� .�-... - � ti5 s'e.�l_� . . " , . ��:):' .'t': ` . . �' { I ` 1I ' � ` . i:j5.; , . . = �>Vl;:.�; . • �:C'�,s��'�1,�� . r';��,;�` . :.� d Nr�. i 't� � w . � 4.5 ` � , �."'_2':•"'..'� . . � '��. . .. _._, :_... . . ` � .. . ��}t ��r �' ;.a�,'s. yq':^_,�,tj;:' b•r�:':=�, s ... extension of the tavern in the summertime. CONSOLIDATION OF CITY AND (:DIINTY HOARD OF APPEAIS - This item was a request by Bob Gish, Chief Building Official, to combine the City and County Board of Appeals. APl2RdVAL AND ADOPTION OF H02►RD OF APPEALS BY-LAWS AND RULES - IE approved as a joint board, the combined Board of Appeals and Examiners is required to adopt rules of procedure to ensure procedural due process required by law and the efficient and fair ' conduct of its business. ti�a-:`:�':� ��,, .:.., RESOLx7TION APPOINTING MEMl3ERS T� THE CZTY OF ASPEN/PITRIN COUNTY :"�•:i�� BpARU oF APPEAIS ANA EXAMINERS - This resolution appointed Thomas '�� ;��, Voorhies, Larry Doble, Augie Reno and Russell Penning to the >'%� combined Aspen/Pitkin County Board of Appeals. ��`•' .{:,; RE50IATION TF•l�dRARILX AMENDING AR'PICLE 32 OF TH� PITKIN COUNTY � . AIRPORT REGUI.ATZONS TO PP�IIT LIMITED CURPEW EXEMPTIONS FOR THE t�� SNUWMASS B1�LtAON FESTIVAL - This item was a request by the �?; ." Snowmass Balloon Festival to use the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport �x�": runway for balloon departures of it's participants from 0600 ti;,;• hours until 0700 hours local time on July 7, 1989. �•' � , r.. . Commi.ssioner Ross moved approvaZ of all the above consent agenda ��: items. Commissioner True seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. FLEISCFiER-SMYTEi APPEAL DECTSION - 1�IOTION TO APPROVE - PASSED WITEi THREE YEA ONE NAY VOTE WITH ONE ABSTENTION - Susan Snyder, Assistant County Attorney, summarized this item by stating, that this resolution and attached decision formalizes the action taken by the Board acting as the County Procurement Soard of Appeals on April 25, 1989. Chairman Penne asked if the appellant was in attendance to speak � to this mat�er. There was no one present. Commissioner True commented, that he would be abstaining from voting on this issue as he has throughout the process because of � previous representation of the Stevens' Group on separate matters. i Cammissioner Ross moved approval the appeals action by the Board of Procurement of Appeals. Commissioner Crowley seconded, and � the motion passed with three yea votes, one nay vote by �� Commissioner Etrhidge, and an abstention l�y Commissioner True. RESOIA'PION GRANTING DETAILED AND FINAL PLAT APPRUVAL FOR THE EAST t OWL CREEIC PUD AND REZONING OF EMPIAYEE IATS 1-5 TO PMH - MOTION To APPROVE - PASSED IINANT1ioIISLY - Cindy ftouben, representing the Planning Office, summarized this item by stating, that this item `. .a-�..., BOARD OF COIINTY COMlQSSiONII2S 3 JUNE 13, 1989 �a•`.t._:�`;'' . �L.I: ��d"; � y � � ;•.•,�..�M�''. . '��=i��, S �• �q�. _. ... . . ... .. . .. . . . . . .. , �''�� .. . . . - . . . -' .�-�..'�'_"'" t .�t - . ' ' ?--r--��r.� ._�.�• �.- l��'i �-;e:„ .:L9` ' `� . ' . . ';ts=� ' • - � `+� � - � ` :;r'.^.a.`..;,,��,' :k'.'\�,K'�,;t . - e::'"�f.�.t . . �:�, .�.�u�.^�i'. ��[ry3T w � . .. . � � ��. �ir. � . . . , .. ... r�'Si:, .� "C. ��':i; � j��f':. �� iKi-�`�',��RC�. _ was first heard on May 9 and again on May 23, 1989. At that time staff was directed to draft a resolntiori with conditions Por approval by Commission members. She stated that in Item No. 3 (ej that the number of the employee lot should be changed from "Employee Lot No. 1" to "Employee T,ot No. 5". Commissioner Ross moved to approve the Detailed and Final Plat for the East Owl Creek P[TD and Rezoning of Employee I�ots i-5 to 4,!�-'-� � PMH. Commissioner Crowley seconded the motion. �"'�:i'=`::�. Tom Smith, County Attorney, stated that he had reaeived a call �•�' =� ;:,;::, : . from Stacey Stanley who said that there had been a general ;::-; agreement in moving one of the lots but that was not ref2ected in =� - the approval. =�_ -�`:;,.. , . ,,:�: It was agreed that the confiquration of the lots would remain as �`7�'�. .. is. A site plan reflecting the location of the proposed lots is '��,. : . made a part of this record as E�chibit °A°. ��,� - Dick Arnold stated, that he has spoken with the neighbors in the �. � � area, and it was their consensus that they would like to see the � r'�� lots located on the same side of the street. Most of the y " neighbors agreed that they preferred Alternate No. 2. i .; It was agreed that the neighbors will work through the Housing Authority and then file an application for a plat adjustment. '¢ ' Chairman Penne called for the vote and the motion passed unanimous2y. RESOLU'PTON APpROVING ASPEN VAIS,EY HOSpSTAL DISTRICT PMH REZONING �ETAILED AND FINAL pLAT SUBMITTAL MOTION TO APPROVE PASSED UNANIMOIISLY - Francis Kri2manich, representing the Planning Office, summarized this item by stating, that the Aspen Valley Hospztal District is applying for Detailed and Final Plat and PMH - Rezoning approvals to construct a 17 unit employee housing project. Detailed and Final Plat approval is recommended by the � ! Planning Commission. The applicant is also requesting approval of a Subdivision Exemption for Community Facilities to reconfigure the Hospital and County owned properties. 1. It is staff's opinion, that this project continues to meet or exceed the PMH zone district requirements. The applicant has ` addressed all of the conditions imposed at General Submission. Some final details, such as water and sewage design are not yet `� finalizec2. The staff recommends approval of the Subdivision i Exemption and the Detailed and Fiaal Plat subject to the . � applicant resolvinq alI outstanding issues przor to the recozdation of Final Plat or the issuance of any building ` permits. � �° _�, BOARD OF COUNTY COMlIISSIONERS 4 JUNE 13, 1989 � ' �,��,1 k`.,. .�,�� ,,.,. ��_r.y��:` �, � �; ��._._ _ _ - ._ ., . . � � F : _ �., _.:�k��.:.'-�:::�;� ' �.. �� . . " �_` .. -'.��.T�'�� • ;'..S��i��. . . ... - . .._ .. . - ` . � '` . ( i�_'',�`� '.:.�^ � , . A). • .�.rT:�'�,'!`':' . . . . . -'k:�',' �L' i�'i;{�'F1•�.' . . . '�x^.. _ _ ri��{\ .�CSaat.�;��F r • . •�'n'�P:ai � . ��e;"'T.L~a; � . �5;�.- . - _.. . . _... ..__.. . - ��;;�` ��.,;; �';;� .. He proceeded to read a letter from the Meadowwood Homeowners' Association stating that their concerns have been addressed. He then proceeded to review the conditions of approval with Commission members. A copy of these conditions are made a part , of this record as Exhibit °B^. With regard to construction prior to final plat approval, the • county manager has written a memo which says staff can issue �,',?:�•-' building permits prior to the Detailed and Final Plat approval at �;,i`,::-� Board direction for employee housing projects. � ;, . A discussion ensued with regard to the conditions of the resolution. � Commissioner Ross stated, that he would like to strike condition No. 2. �,� � After a short discussion it was agreed that the condition wi1Z ��. � read that rents will be kept at middle income. However, middle � ' � inaame residents are hereby quali£ied for the employee units at � the discretion of the hospital. � ,� �y � A discussion ensued with regard to Condition No. 5. It was � agreed that the language would remain as it is. � Commissioner True commented, that he abstained from a previous agenda item because of the involvement of the Stevens Group who � are also involved in this project. However, he feels there is a � ,...� distinction between the Fleischer-Smyth appeal issues and their consulting with the hospital in this matter but he would like to ; disclose the fact again that he has represented the Stevens Group • ry� therefore, if any one has a problem with his participation in this they can bring it up at this time. There was no opposition =a to Commissioner True voting on this matter. ;,, � Commissi.oner Ross moved approval of the application from Aspen "� Valley Aospital for PMH Rezoning, Detailed and Final Plat, and ;:� Subdivi.sion Exemption and directed staff to prepare a resolution • ~ ' <� for the Chairman's signature. Commissioner Ethridge seconded. �� It was agreed that the applicant can receive preliminary permits, � i.e., excavation and foundation permits prior to hav£ng the paper �� work completed and turned into the Planning Office. y � Commissioner Ross amended his motion to permit this and also to � change the language in Condition No. 2. Commissioner Ethridge amended his seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. r ti � Krizmanich stated, that the applicant is requesting approval of ° Subdivision Exemption £or Community Facilities. This was not ..�7 ` t�*3,• BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONSRS 5 JUNE 13, 1989 ,.^;;;. - .� � q:S:.. �� rl�'i { N . -,..._. ..._...�.:_...... ... .. ... . � . i .... . .. ... . . � ` * � . . . ' ... - . . . �-`� .�' . . � . . . ,F .�� . Y.a.�"'q'C'.., _+^^��.��. -.'..� . . ".:+rJ' �' _ x9' .. '+'� . . —:'�: . �'; � r , �i � � ` '+v�l:`.�ie.�- .. , . • � . . . . -�L��k.�'=�'..i!�i . . �v R;-:�� , .. n ,e-. .4r,t/i� '�i:tilf. �it,=i }y��. .�3`.(q. « . � . ..}. K`wi`' � �:..iE:::.�.� ` . . r;�^-,i ' .�' ( � . . . . .., , i�'c.;}�: i< . . . �z„�,;'.er,:.�` • �,�?7: ;-:�,.. ��gti,s.,� ?.:_y,: ... acted on by the Planning Office because it is a Board action. Commissioner Ross moved approval of the Subdivision Exemption Resolution and authorized staff to prepare a resolution for the Chairman's signature. Commissioner True seconded, and the motion passed unani.mously. , SET PIIBLIC HEARING - ASPEN VALLEY ROSPITAL SERPiCE PLAN FOR JULY ' li 1989 - MOTION TO APPROVE - PASSED UNANIMOUSLY - Chairman Penne stated, that this meeting is to set a public hearing on - this matter for July 11, 1989. `'�': �. • Co�issioner Ross moved to set public hearing on July 11, 1989. Commission True seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. " EAST ASPEN METROPOLITAN DISTRiCT SERVICE PI�AN - MOTION TO APPROVE - L - PASSED IINANIIKOIISLY - John Ely, representing the applicants, stated, that the purpose of this meeting is to gather public comment on the establishment of a Mosquito Abatement District for � the east side of Aspen. They would like to request a Resolution n -. � from Commissioners either approving a plan, disapproving a plan, � or approving it with modifications. If an approval if given, then a petitioner's committee which would be 200 signed names, . • �i would petition to the District Court to establish the district in =r�''•,' � that area. s Tom Dunlop, Director of Environmental Health, stated that his �+ department has reviewed the proposal describing the service plan �'� for the mosquito abatement district. ' r p He further stated, that his department has been a proponent of ,:� the formation of such a district for the past six years. The ; basis for the support is, in part, because volunteer labor used .; to control mosquitos has worked at various levels in the past. ' � Sometimes it has been very successful and at other times, such as ._� in 1988, the person assigned the task of determining larvicide � application times did not perform well, the mosquitos hatched and flew. The program was a failure that year, complaints were r' voiced by citizens. � =i The intent of the district is to assure a higher degree of '� reliability in the program. By employing qualified persons and ' having them be accountable to a governing board, it is felt that � more consistency in proqram management will be obtained. ` �� Pitkin County has been involved in mosquito abatement using the F . �� larvicide mentioned in the submittal. In fact, his office was s j active in promoting its use six years ago. The Board at that � � time was in support of the program, but with limited involvement by the County personnel. With that thought, the Environmental Health Department donated staff time to supervision, training and � ';,�': j application of BTI by volunteers. The County spent no money on � BOARD OF CODNTY COMMISSIONERS 6 JIINE 13, 1989 } '`�Y � ::�,>.:: �A 1 � i�c � ,. .. .. `.:.i� i sy� 1. 4. . --,:. . .__.._._..'.'.", ... . . -. � _ .. .... _ ... . . .. .. . . . ;z _. YP; _'t�`+_:,` .. �� : . . . _-- � ,�:,j.: . . .r . � . �F�'! S . � ` . , " �! `' 1 "�'��'j, ' �•F1'il' .:..,,�� . - �v'jti.,. . :^,R_,� `J c\.�4. w . ! . .,Y�X�v��,J� � � , , _ _..... .. � , . �#.��_' ��, �°>�, • h:XAq��:.••, ��a:•��ti'.� r':��'�',•- equipment or larvicide. That attitude has prevailed through today. In checking with the State of Colorado, BTI is still felt to be the most environmentally sound larvicide available. It attacks only target species (mosquito, black fly and midge larvae). Secondary (non-tarqet) animals are not impacted. Chairman Penne opened the hearing to public comment. ' �::,• _ Stanley Schaffer presented a letter from nine homeowners in the �;.:;;+;�-_. area whose property would have to be accessed by the District in s;? ' �� order to carry out the purpose of the proposed district, and 4�.'- -.. _ r->_ � encouraged Commission member's support of the formation of a 3t'"�, • district. A copy of these letters are made a part of this record �� __ ! as Exhibit "C^. Other letters were submitted by Nick and ' Margaret McGrath and Richard Cummins. A copy of these letters �� . are made a art of this record as Exhibit "D". � P �..,_ . Brooke Peterson stated, that he has concern, that if the proposed ';:�� :� : district involves subdivisions who have been annexed into the !"}'.. ! City, then it would require the Town Council's approval also for .1•::.. the formation of the proposed district. ; r-.'�: i John Ely responded by stating that, the City would have to be S involved. Adam Walton stated, that he had received a notice that he was to be included in the proposed district. However, in looking at the map, he does not think he is included in the boundaries. Also, � he feels Commission members should consider the wildlife in the ? area, and the impacts this would have on them. �� , Mark Overstreet, General Manager for the Aspen Club, stated, that � in 1983 they started getting involved in the District because ' they did not want the tourist coming in and being bothered by the s mosquitos. Therefore, he spearheaded the hiring and payroll � collection of people who are going out there right now and e applying the applications. Because they only have 112 employees '; � it would be difficult for them to continue to administer this � n program in the way that it should be. � t Brian Harper, Vice-President of the Mid-Valley Homeowners 9 Association, stated, that they have been actively involved in y supporting the district for approximately six years. He feels i ? there is a lot of support in the area for this district. �� 'r•. ' Rick Neiley, a homeowner in Mountain Valley encouraged support of I�� ' the district. ; , Jim Ward stated, that he has concern with regard to the impacts on the wildlife. ! :.�„ � BOARD OF COUN'PY COMlQSSIONIILS 7 JIINE 13, 1989 "� '� ! ��tie.,:�:: `�. t �'i`�! . j �'iz�;-�j. � . --- _....__ ... = k� . __ .. . . . �� . . `� .r , . ..'..-� . ... . . .?3' ." . {t r �' `L:�. ti�'�A� . . a. ' . 'yfJ'1 � . _ ... � � A!� �-_. 1 1 � ;�}'•2:. � � -'�..�sy�:�4.±�:� . . 1.T � �"Y::�'::.1'F . . � .. '�l.a.��_�n 7.: . ...4,`f„1_ -.:��^;Iy'-1� _ . ' . .�i�'.�^4� �Y'-7 . � ' � . :t's�.`�`?f` t• . ••.;�i�.�. . . ,�;::5,r � + r i� � .. �.' .... .... . ,... �........... ._ . .. ;_.�r........--._ . ... . ... . .._ . . . . ... . v.l � .. . . . � . . .. . � . . � . . . ��,�`f'F r.,. , �.�r1�;: :�:��F'"�',� ..:R.t;.:.�_ Chairman Penne closed the public hearing. Co�issioner Ross moved approval of the Service Plan for the East Aspen Metropolitan Mosquito Abatement District. Commissioner Crowley seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. ZIEGLER IAW IMPACP SUBDIVISION AND 1041 REVIEW - MOTION TO TABLE - PASSED IINANIMOIISLY - Cindy Houben, representing the Planning �''•+;" �_ Office, summarized this item by stating, that the applicant, the ';i�:;::':r� ,�....,;:•,.,.:.: Ziegler family are proposing four additional lots on a 310 acre ,�..�, parcel. The area of the proposed development is physically ; ,. .: ;`. separated from the remainder of the property. The development '-� ;:�•:_.. area is within the AF-1 zone district and 100 acres of land will �=` � �.r? be associated with the low impact subdivision. In addition, the � applicant is proposing to give the Town of Snowmass 7.5 acres at ��•�, • the intersection of the upper Brush Creek Road and the Divide �'`^" Road. This land can be used for employee housing. The 7.5 acre ��' parcel sits in the County, but is anticipated to be annexed by ��:�•`` the Town of Snowmass. The Ziegler parcel is bisected by the �s;:��'i" Divide Road. The 32 acre parcel to the south of the road is to r��:,: be deed restricted as part of the l00 acre deed restriction � r;'._ ' requirement of the low impact subdivision. The applicants are offering a trail easement through this parcel for an extension of '! the Snowmass trail system. Currently, the Ziegler parcel contains one residence, two historic cabins, non irrigated grasslands and wooded mountainous terrain. The property sits is two valleys; the Brush Creek ' Valley, (where the proposed four lots are situated) and in the upper Snowmass Creek Valley, (where the existing house and historic cabins are located) . The historic cabins are not occupied. The remaining 210 acres has a zone density potential of nine residences. Potentially, the three existing homes could � be used for credit for three residences if future development is anticipated for the property. The proposed four lots are situated on a bench below the Ziegler ' pond. A proposed access for the homesites is over the approved � road for the Lange parcel. The Langs received approval for an access road over an easement through the Ziegler property. { In addition to the four lots which contain a combined total of 62 acres, the application proposes 38 acres of deed restricted open ; space along the Divide Road. (Thirty two acres are located on �." the south side of the road and six acres are located on the north side of the road.) This acreage adds up to the required 100 � '`j acres (25 acres per unit in the AF-1 2one district) . ,� The Planning Office recommends approval of the 1041 review on the parcel pursuant to the conditions outlined in staff's memo. A � copy of these conditions are made a part of this record as , ��= BOARD OF COI7NTY COMMISSIONERS S JUNE 13, 1989 � `'4 ��`' :'l�*`: ..:�'.-:.-:-.�...7.�. � �+ ;� � s �. K � �; °;�.'.�: _ _ _ �,..- .f:. 4:'' ." _. �- ..•J � n:, . � ... .� . . �rq�� :jS • � . � ` ..�.� .. . ' . . a!�t . i�. rV� F , V � kt� —;��`:.'}° . . �',�te.v.�.�i . . `.ti��.r��",` `� � ^ � . .-.. .__. � ;. . _._.._ ._ .. _. . ,. � _ . . _�__._ . _ . . _, ,.r< . . .. 4::.�r,`; ' hJ��,,�;1'' �"�'`�J.•�:• �'XZllblt �E~. A discussion ensued with regard to this matter. Jim Curtis, representing the applicant, stated, that what he has attempted to do with this application is take the Low Impact Subdivision Guidelines and expand on them in every opportunity , that he could. For one thing it is a significant density reduction. They have attempted �o locate the homesites to ' minimize their visibility. They have set a size limitation of �•'�:�`;" �_ 6,000 square feet and a height limitation of 28 feet which is �`�r;•:_z �'`_., more consistent with the Town of Snowmass Village's requirements ��,-?.'-"`� than the County. Also, they will be granting a 6o foot right-of- !�'�,'� ;'.,._ way to the County, and he is assuming that the County would want ��"" � to assign that to the Town of Snowmass Village. In terms of deed restricting the land, he used the guidelines of the low impact �, '' subdivision as it presently existed which was to deed restrict w:.- • the land with the highest visual impact given the re£erral agent comments, i.e., Randy Cote, representing the Division of �,;'. . Wildlife, etc. so they moved it to the scenic quality which is ti;. ;. „ essentially the land along Divide Road. Also, they are proposing !y to grant a trail easement to the Town of Snowmass Village. He :�.1•:�, . encouraged Commission members to do a site visit because he j. r."-. �a thinks there are some positive tradeoffs in looking at this type �r; � .� of situation. Ae feels it is a better product than if they went • through GMP process because they have made an effort to go above � and beyond the basic requirements of the Low Impact Subdivision. , Chairman Penne opened the hearing to public comment. � Michelle Boyd and Lisa Tasker were both present to voice a opposition to the proposed subdivision because of the potential impacts to wildlife, and further growth for Snowmass Village. � Commissioner Ethridge moved to continue the public hearing to June 27, 1989 after members could visit the site. Commissioner True seconded the motion. a • '�� Chairman Penne stated, that she would like to see the area where `� � 5 the pond is restricted separately. � v y Curtis responded by stating, that if there is a consensus of the Board with regard to that matter he thinks this is something they y CoUld do. e ` After a short discussion, it was agreed that this would be the �' ! consensus of Commission members. ; �� Chainman Penne called for the vote and the motion passed with � four yea and one nay vote by Crowley. ! PIIBLIC HEARZNG - AUSTER GEtiERAL SIIBMISSION - MOTION TO TABLE- i ' I � , ! BOARD OF CODNTY COMMISSIONERS 9 JIINE 13, 1989 �� „� ; ;�i�z .•` ��,�':: ti . �;',�:��:. `��,4. ±h�k'`' .. . , . - � . .. . . _�� . .. . . .. �.. �. ... .. . , . . . . �. __ y' . -,<�. .,-�...----.,^---_:_ . �. � . V -� ' ;s��.; � . . � �� ., - � . � ?.E".:•'s _ � . ' ,.. . . ��.+��^ , ...++y'� N '�: � . �'i '4'�t . - . , . _ �`i`r�� . � ;:r'r %^s-;tri''r. :,�ftii'.w . . '� � .y.:�h '.:?;:`�� ► _ f,F_.. ._ .. ... ..,.... .... .. r � . . _ �_..._. ..... .... , i . �A �J j'�, '^ r:{- ' �,s, .1�;';.��;:.. p�;:r'_«'zr;:i.:;�: ' t�ar�;'i�4:.:,�;_ �ASSED IINANIISOIISLY - Buddy Lucero, representing the Planning office, summarized this item by stating, that at th•a soard meetinq of April il, 1989, Commissioners tabled the applicant's Jim and Merilee Auster's request �or General Submission. The tabling was for the purpose of al owing the applicant time to provide a quiet title an the prope;ty. The Planning Office has not received any information with] regard to the Quiet Title action on the property. However, t.�ey did receive a packet from the applicant in which they indic�ed they would like to speak „ .. on. � t :,1:- - Tim Whitsitt Assistant Count Atto�ne stated that he looked at '"��`� . Y Y. i'":=::: : the court file and it has not advanced further. Tn the Auster's "'�'� ' benefit, one of the things that iri�icates to him is there will ��•�{ ' � ;;r,+:-�.' probably be defaults, and they wil� be able, in the fairly near future, to obtain the quieting of title, but it has not been done ��" - yet. .� '.':;1;�,,' Chairman Penne stated, that as soon as the Quiet Title action is r`f�';,: `. cleared up the Austers will be on the next available agenda for �:'.;,•; ` Commission members to consider the 1041 and General Submission h::i•:- .. application. However, the Board cannot take any action until �""� �• they know that the Austers own the property without other people `-,`�;', having a claim to that property. Therefore, action can not be �. ±'• ` taken until there is a court action. t- Jim Auster presented Commission members with a packet of t� information dated June 12, 1989. A copy of this packet is made a part of this record as Exhibit °F". He stated that the reason he is here at this time is because of the circumstances on the criminal proceedings which was filed and is set for trial next month. He feels that they need to go ahead with this application because the issuance of the Quiet Title is not a legal issue. His attorney has presented a12 the information that they can get • title to 100 percent, and they have at this time clear title to � 42 percent. He stated that, all the laws state that even if there were other owners, they do not need their consent to use the property. The situation is, that he does not know what is going to happen with the court case, and he feels they should be h entitled to ohtain the permits which they are being accused of `'t � nat getting. He further stated, that the top reaZ e�tate lawyer r in the state is representing them on this matter, and he says there is no way that the County can require the loo percent, and 1 :� it is not even in the County code. � Whitsitt responded hy stating, that there is a basic disagreement f`�, between the County and the Austers as to what the County Code can and does require. The l00 percent ownership is not just something that was applied to the Austers but has been applied ,� consistently in other matters. This is the reason the matter was tabled last time. However, once the 100 percent ownership is achieved then the matter can continue to go through the process. ; BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 10 JUNE 13, I989 t:'-•.;''`:``=?� :�s, :,yJ: ; �, . `*,',',��', �<,o,m, ....,, . � ,y- -c �.�.t . ._._ . . .. .. .. . .... . � . . . ./'" ° � . . . . � . -. . .�� • � i �' , �r r. : F ,� -- __ ..�,�__� _ �; .�, - - ` , �� ° � _ - � , __ , - , � . 1 ::�_ , . -�.:: . +:y'�:i . �;E"�:;�'„� .:�, . . " ��"s r �;.i�,��. • . � . :,�,`,"ir;• ` . ;s:�'.!.':�, . , ? � ~• .• ` �:, .. _. ... _.,.. .._.. .,._ .. . . ..,. .�._.._ . � . . . .. �r+ir• , S?=�`�',' .. Also, this matter on the agenda tonight has literally nothing to do with the criminal code prosecution. The code prosecution deals with three past infractions that well precede what is going on. Regardless of whether permits are granted today or denied, there will still be the issues of criminal prosecution for last year when the Austers were in violation of the code. Commissioner Ross stated, that when there is clear title to the property, Commission members would�be willing to go ahead, but :..;`;:�•,_ all they can offer at this point �s the tabling of this issue again. � - . i Auster stated, that what they would�'like to do is get a temporary f -` - permit for the tepee based upon the �ownership that they have. He �" does not feel that they need to prove 100 percent ownership for a _ temporary tepee. . � . Commissioner Crowley stated, that Mr. Auster does not have clear ��:. . title to his property but he would like to have permission to " start preparing to start to build his house similar to what '� ' Commission members agreed to let Tom McCloskey do when the whole �i 5 issue was whether or not the road was across his property, and �sl?; ' Mr. Mccloskey was allowed to build a home on his property at his r'•.; :� own risk while this issue was being resolved. €� �_ r. � Chairman Penne responded by stating, that Mr. McCloskey owned the � property. The question was the location of the tow road through t the property, and when he received the building permit to build, b it was written with a warning that there may be an easement or a % `a tow road through the property, and he would be building at a risk � -� depending on if he encroached upon that. � � After a discussion, it was the consensus of commission members j. - (with the exception of Commissioner Crowley) that they cannot '� deal with the issue of Gen�ral Submission until there is proof of - � 100 percent ownership of the property from the Austers. �,� Commissioner True moved to table again to a date certain_ ; � Commissioner Ross seconded the motion. � �'� ::� A discussion ensued with regard to when the application should be � >� tabled to. It was agreed that it would not be tabled to a date ` certain. Mr. Auster was advised that after the Quiet Title for ��. � 100 percent of the property is obtained, the Planning Office will `, schedule the matter for the next available agenda and publish k , accordingly. � ��' Commissioner True amended his motion to state tabling of the C� - i application indefinitely. Commissioner Rass amended his second. �' � Jint Ward and Bill Mormon appeared before the Commission to voice � , Etheir objection to Commission members not reviewing the _ y F* t �:'- � HOARD OF COUNTY COMl�SSIONERS 11 JIINE 13� 1989 ��;<;�? +,;.. , . ��:_Y-,�^y..r'.:.i I �. . � :,,�'"�R�'- t c; � �: e....,..,..___.. ........_.... _._ .. . . . . ... ._ ... � . . . . .. r . .,. Y N .� ....:.. . ... ..� ' � . . . `6'. � •�. : 1}± �~ . '� _' � � " _ -,i:f�. . . .. . ... . :'i= `' '_.5:.' , ' .. •f �,'' - t � -.c:ti�:� . � . ' '.s�a � n:��zv -'> � . � ,. � . `.1e. ?i�,;^r�_':; � . . :�3.k"' ;sG�, . . ;,r:=y'::: r<';:s:�: ,t�'�- . . ':r - � r� '�':, . ��} a � F ' �.r?!.,�! ' �r i�:,',,".'.:.,.:.: application for General Submission. .`.=�-�.�;.'�•<_ Chairman Penne called for the vote, and the motion passed with four yea and one nay vote by Commissioner Crowley. THIRD REAbING BRIISH CREBR VILLA68 ROAD RESTR.iCTION AMENDMENT- MOTION TO TABI,E - PASSED UNANIMOUSLY - Tom Newland, representing the engineering department, summarized this item by stating, that the Brush Creek Homeowners Association has requested that the County amend Resolution 87-54 that establishes weight . restrictions on the publio roads within the 3rush Creek Village ' Subdivision. The Board has reviewed at first readin a ro osed �"�'' - 4 P P �'�e,:.. resolution to that effect. However, the homeowners association I'"�``�;•-=_ • has requested further changes and modifications to the resolution '!� since the May 9, 1989 second reading. Therefore, they have r';!-.`. ,`� requested an opportunity to review the changes before the Board '��"'," hears third reading of the document. �','. �:�.;_ . Commissioner Ross moved that the Third Reading and Public Hearing r1�' concerning the proposed weight restriction on Brush Creek Villaqe �!�'<_ . roads be tabled until the June 27, 1989 zegular meeting. �:-'�` Commissioner Crowley seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. I�'i'.°' ` .. COLLETT FQEL CONTRACT - MOTION TO APPROVS - PASSED UNANIMOUSLY- G��;_'�. Bruce Vandergaw summarized this item by stating, that this item ` r�.' is to request approval of Collett Enterprise's (Amoco Oil �' Distributor) provision of fuel and lubricant dispensing equipment at no cost to the Pitkin County Service Center Facility in exchange for a five year fuel and luhricant supply contract. , Co�issioner Ross moved approval of the contract. Commissioner Crowley seconded, and the motion passed unanimously_ KONA-POST SB'1TLEI+�NT AGREEMENT - MOTION TO APPROVE - PASSED ' UNANIMOUSLY - Tom Smith, County Attorney, summarized this item by stating, that in 1981 the Kona-POSt litigation was commended, in which the owners of the 105 acres in the West Buttermilk area sought approval of construction of a hotel, and damages in excess f of $135 million against the County under various legal theories. ' In 2987 summary judgement was entered in favor of the County, and � the case is currently on appeal to the lOth Circuit Court of . `' ! 5 Appeals in Denver. In addition to the fact that the District Court decision could be reversed or madified, even if that S' decision stands the property is subject to development in S accordance with the Pitkin County Land Use Code. i By the terms of this proposed settlement agreement, the owners of �`• , the 105 acre parcel would be entitled to seek approval for eight _ single family residential units on the property. While under the • � terms of the agreement the requiremettts of the qrowth management i � quota system would not apply to this application, the applicant must comply with all other substantive requirements of the Pitkin - i `� i BOARD OF COUNTY COMFISSSIONERS IZ JUNE 13� 1989 �� ``.., c;Y �., �. ,.' .t.;c:':'.. . +�r:-�. `ry;%;' � �:: i `,�. ya�} *.`4..1�{t t� . .- , .. . . �� . ... . . . .. - . .� � - . n. . ... . � .k" � �, ��F _ _��__ fx: _ ,_ , _ , _ _-_i . _�, .�.. - ,�.- ::..,, . .�;.�... _ :�a:== , . _- - � . - � \ ,:��,:;` . ' • ' -:: . ,.c4�, . F:C-:fR^��:'.,y;:,.i�i . ;�°f_ y-^�;�� . . �.S:F.�� 1 � . y''."� S ?�^p'�. , , < _ � a� �'� S . - . � .`a r: . .. .. �'.. . _.__��.._..'�..�........--... s-� .. . � ��';�� .s�r 1 t • x}A. ...� �. r;,�:,;::,:. a�>,s:,�r,+ ' :<��r - County Land USe Code, including housing requirements, 1041, scenic foreground overlay, trail easements, area and bulk requirements, water, sewer, drainage, subdivision design, utilities, roads, etc. The agreement provided for expedited consideration of the application, and if it is submitted on or before June 1, 1989, the County agrees to render its decision on or before July 31, 1989. ; The aqreement provides for review by both the Planning and Zoning , ''�;�,;.,,:. Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. The agreement �a =' does not obligate either bodies to qrant approval. Similarly, if � �� the applicant is not satisfied with the conditions of approval, �',��+�,�_ `,:' - then the agreement is terminated and the litigation will ;�°i%: continue. "�' �= If the application is approved then the applicant's rights shall ��.:�:,; ' vest as provided by law for a period of three years for the ��.;',,.; construction of eight single family residential units and other �;.k., :.: development that may he approved in connection with the �t '^ application. Upon any such approval a mutual release from t¢¢¢M��. liability and dismissal of all claims in the litigation will be � � � � a '. executed by the parties and stipulation for dismissal filed with +",'. = i the court. • �n Coa�issioner Crowley moved approval of the settlement aqreement. � � Commissionez Ross secoi►ded, and the motion passed unanimously. I ; ADJOIII2NMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Re ectfully submitted, k ' anette Jon � Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners i � � �:i I � i . ( ,i'_ � i:. '� t � ,�'.. . ; � � ; �Y: ._.:�:��%`: � HOARD OF COI1N7.'Y COMliISSIONERS 13 JIINE 13, 1989 L , . ��,, I ' e°�d.h��" it: -ri,.,� �.: i i � h' ,_,��-�-- . ._._.____"'_"__. ..__�._.... - .. . :.__,.._._._. . __._.._ ..xc. . . . .. . .. . .._ . . . .___.._'__' .. .. SM 'fi .....-. . . .. +�" _ �,�� 1� p.� _,�p,�... �' _��µ�s=; , • _. �..s-� ��`�;; : � . - _ � - {}��,�sryi � ,��(�: • i , '1 ' . < •.`:,;.�;;, . `'�°�%�i�k�^: ' . . ;x�:z�:;:'�.:F>> . . . • �k;�__4'v a. ti�Y �. 4.1'7�'1R-oTf . . �'��tir�� r£:�*�A;� ,`� -� � �'fT�4� . ! � . `�� ` _ . . .':!�':z .. . .... _ .._ .-.. . , _...._ ... _ . _ . . m � �;� � !_; ra . . . , 1 .i�- "j.,� •ry�'ii�>t�'� = ltOAfiL3 8F Pti.CCiPhM'tt'E �, ,�/�� .i � � � . �.,� j ��, raflc . P�jKIY COIINTY ��' /, ,� � � X [i�as��lr.Mearing Fxhibi[s �� ;;,�//: �� i-,a'. � �"�� ...�,,'.. � �U / '�—r��'(.�j%i�/ � �!�� ^fa". D'Atil?:::. ��G..� �; %�� . �. i :��r�-�a��._ �� '�i *l'�i .// /;� �:; �li�iC4i 1 ��%�� `�` �r;;/ '. Ir � � , !�i' �' �k�l.t�ia, � r r(' c r � � \ :',�ll'% .`. i,�;�. �E. � � �fJ o ja '�# �J;�h�/� `'. '�/ ��;�� . �(� � /��//�...// � //0ro/�r, � . ,.,, ("%, /f} 'I,�� , ,�!i �o/ /• H .'.•",i:�. I ,�o S;� �� U �,,�( ,.e R� ��i . / / /�° � � � � � - 1� +.✓- �.,�/ ' / v ,tc.' . - / ;:. J ;`:;_ .� _� . �': ��3 �P� � / - /�:- f�� r , ! /� � � \ � � `. / /� f ± ,. �z./ t % '�� / : -F.`�s`:�.; ��'� /. LT 1 :T,. � � l � � � �--- :� � � ,�� . , .�. 3 3� / / � M11/t a � / p:, ,� � . `� � ��/°- � �°�s � � '� �,f �. �z _ � .' � �,�;�� . \ i �S ' f .::1: , i, ; . �� _ �, _a � 1 . � �\ �� .J � . 1 \\\ `, � �� +'jl+ f` , �1 ` �� .;,,1 �J \ � ` ti�� , '�i�1 �';'�I. � ` rJo . � 1 �� 1�� __� i` 1\'�'4 !��i�I�i il. . J ' :. � � .i\�, �.+ I�� I. ' �' _ � � � ,�� ,11l��,� I . � ^�� '�r ' 1�``1 �, . �\ 4 +. ' �� ` � � �.� � � �� . ��! i �' � ..:i �\�,� \��: �11 I�►,I,�,( ��\\\�\+,\� \ \� i.ii'��;�\ �� IIiI��i�l�� •,� .. �,;, ,� � ��,; �:� .,, �„�,E . _ 3 yo .y Q .= 1 �, � I�J � � .+.i •/ ' ''� �o .r .� \ s I i ' � i� .�r t`� i ' / \ \ .� � /� �� ' � k � L. � 1 ,\�\��\ �+ i�u� r/� i !i ir)r(r �:`�. �� i I ��\� \\\��\\\� \ \��I��l� i�u ri /��Il�:}� ��` ' •�� -� � �r.-. . . .. . .. .,. , . . . _ . . _ . . ......___ : ... ..., , i �� _ � ..__'_"' "_ . " ........ . . . . � . . . . . . . � LL . ._ . C.% 1 t i..a%:'� i��. �. . ' �.' .�. . .ae _�w^:.w:.v�•�'_:... .R+' n r -�'+.._ ' — .:� . . . ti..,:��. � ._ _ . ''-:r:�r:_.�._. � . ,.. t�};'.g>a..:2" . _.*;^;i_,�s,. . . _ . r_ � � > �, ;,.i;,;,,-� t . .,��;;,f.,;: • ::-Yi:�'�,!w .. ��C'iY��'�K`�'•- ' ��smf,i�'•(��.'.",!:, . . . K ��.,�� . . . . s�� .��'jjr.4: Sv\�� ;j'j;ri'i�y� ` ' � - . .,:-:". � �' _._�_--�._ �`°�`".."� �``"`�""�"„� �,,,,� ��- . ��w : � �```'�. r . ' U ' ' ,F„ � � ,� k. W ... Y�4 'ti-`ti.` . "`�.,,..:�:, ' "z't; k '�a ,.f,�-?� ,��r�'t, � ' '(�;' `�:�:;`�'. . � � /`'� ' ,� r � E..f. _T:='�� t.��/.'O" ��' `N � • �� } �y�� u`' � � �yg �� n / � � ��r L �' ° � �.�< s^�..:: � �'�/ �R. � Op�,r '/ `�� .�„, �„� � :� Q� W a ��/ ,�..� .. �2s,� -�� /�'�.+*^ ri� �"+ ., 1�� _�^;-��`��{ �'� ;ii / /y�y`..y �/j((,' {z,} '..;y �..�t �I � �^�AL`�`. 0' � 7 �� /' �,�s•• ` tM 2 t .,,,,�Y' � ' .7 3w`� a . '��'" 4�'�"'•,"'"�. � � 1�3� , �s`^�, �d `�� °'''�.c q.. . ' �'�f;�'"c'r � F�'-„�; 1 '"":`.,,,+ �i �� :�'. � , �.�.�v f•.p g. � . _ 3 . ��x-, �� \ d 1� , o p � a 5`w�: e 3 '�;�-;�' a 1�LK 'F,`�:Y�`«.�� 'fl:}`•Y l8 � �� „ &e . . . � '/'��`�� eM'%i.y T5. � t;�. �� A . C Q � �.��.i� �....��„\ . 4 �. F: . . .. _ y� ' a� / _ , '��,�;��`_r.�a° � � . ,� _ J - 1 ',�s,tt �,y,r�a,,•,�,. ! j . �. \\ ��^ .. �..�1,.' fV� „�'°"- y..d�� .v" ¢p � � .'� '4SQ 3 rf�`a � g �s' € ' � � `k�'�'�� n �:'i'� .� .�il � ��'� �;,r,-;: � �� 7 � p ,,•�,ir��W . � � ;�-��! .:�: ;�: c � �° p ,�x.�.�x:;?�,ti �� „ :� � nl d �?.�:. ., ;��'�,' �7 � '� �:� d�.....;,.�� O 4 O a � f . /i s� �:.'i � p / `��' .� � ��; � 1 b, �\ � y � \ �� 1 � _ $ < y ��V a � /r � ' `; �'�� r rt ':�T��y 1 �k+., ' . ,. _ ti < � ac4'-(7,`�� . � � . '�,e�. � sy k'� r �+� F .�p.. .�.f;.,. : � �. ;'' Sx.h+'`� � � �. ,. . ��. . � . . ., .... :....... � �.g .'.�. . V. ` .. � ' j A� .- � - . � � Sy� �. . . ` ��- �y ry! � ��. � rn�l�.. � � . .. (ry- �+� y.Kw0. 'F {�..� 'i:': ' . ' - . . �r: J Ym�� o . :�{`h�^�� ' ' �yS}+}r.,�#,�'1. •' , ( � �.'�T��. . . �� ` ' � � � ` Yr�. "._ ..... .... ... . ... . .. .- . ... . ..,...._-._._ . .. .. . . . � ��,5,�'��y�+.)Y�_. `. j IR'�'�l�'��e�� ,:,��.s.i'",:.''.'. BOARO Of C0.CD4�ih9'R'S '''�r��G:��.;,�.� Pf7KiN COl!',�!Tl' µ-t;':,;�,� Public liearinp Gi�ibits �„„�:r;q%i;�:=';; CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Date:_ �-!�-�`! Subject:�.�r� ao +� - NAl P f� EXfi.7`�0. �—�1�� - - ____ 1. Submittal of a Subdivision Improvements Agreement `''�� acceptable to the Planning Office and County Attorney �`� _ prior to Final Plat approval and the issuance of any ; � building permits, to guarantee the following ,��"�.,_:`:='- improvements: �'°` ' t ; �;�:. > - a. Lahdscaping, revegetation of distnrbed areas and re;. associated irrigativn systems; �'" � b. Provision of pedestrian Zinks to the Hospital and • �"r�:;.., RFTA including both temporary and estimated final ��;%ve- design costs; •��1 � ` -� c. Drainage improvement; '��I� , i r•..a. d. Water line construction, inc2uding pravisions for a "looped" system as approved by the Water � �� Department; ; �. e. Sewer line construction; f. Re-alignment of the existing trail. 2. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the ' � Housing Authority shall approve a lease and rental agreement which takes into account the Authority's desire to maintain this project�s rents at the Moderate income level and the Hospital's need to provide housing for employees in the Middle income wage bracket. i 3. Completion of an amended plat for the City Thomas �� Subdivision property. 4. Submittal of a Final Plat for recording which meets the 1. approval of the Planning Department and County Attorney. This plat shall also show an easement for the "nordic" trail acceptable to the County. ,,`-. 5. Dogs shall be prohibited in this project, The � �• Applicant shall incorporate this prohibition into its .� lease agreement with tenants. .:�,`. 6. Fire hydrants and interior sprinkler systems shall be � � provided as approved by the Fire Marshall. �.,{�.> :4."�� .4�:.,,::�::'f'>'�„ .�Zi::5 J��::'. Ylj�•. � L ' -�1�'.?.R. .. .�'P"::- ' iji' C•.; ct� . . . . � ' � ��';'� ,. ��:'.,.. �� -..� f;:�:-.: � - '-:� ��.. .... ��;�. . _ ' ' .< �� .i ... � . .. � . . ' -. �. e- . . ' . , �.-. . . . �. r. y - . y� ' �� .y...�s�+_r�—'_.� � . � ;1�.l.�'�'.'. . . �_..,"��/ . y-�.,y H.�"�. . .. , r,. " - '_. q[� ; X' ' :�VJ�i.�.S,-" � � . . . � . .7.� ��.` � ` , .� ti�.r�S j''` 4 � !' r -.a•� . . � If �!h�t ' \ )i'/;,j. � � � :.�;�,��'h:y'. ' . . . ' !�,.��'�!R:tk�.� '� . S,„�Sr*.�l-�T!.a�'�i�c�:�i?` � . �'.�"!�it:'+L4:�;s:i � ' y_v��•�i'� � . :�z�y;v:i� � �� w ,.:u,y � _ ..�_v_,_ �.� � _,_.;� : �� __ . _ . _ - . �,�: +iwd�, y��;. �- ' �::r''�-�: �;_�•��;" t��"b�'�v,;. ��-,� • 7. Improvements to the bus stop, the provision of ' pedestrian "links" and the realignment of the intersection of Doolittle road and Castle Creek Road shall be provided in conjunction with the Health and Human Services building and are not specifically required for this project. ' I � 8. The Applicant shall make provisions in its lease ; . agreement with tenants to control the outside storage ='}' of material, equipment or junk to insure that visual t'��""s `_ impacts to adjoining properties are minimized. �`=��- i. _:.�'.'T= ,� '!:>� �;,`;:i 1 � ; i �� i �� : . � �,, i ��f �l1�:� =�.' �. ' , � :, j . � � I. ' , � _I j . I i i � t. i z � •:t- . � r_, � :: j !.. � ; , , . , �. �,:;;>; � . �� I ; 4 . �Y.:.:.�i..:. I ��'j' I Y.,. ;;;: �.: � �' .'� �9 •F}�-� .� .�— . . . . .. .� u.�.—-..-.-....r., .<....w..�.�_.w-w �...�...,... ... -. . .... E .-.l' �.1 '3��'� . ._._ . . . ' ".� �� . . ' " . � . �'PT�� . � �� . . l � . ��( . . . .. �. . - . �.. � 1 „nctR� . . . � . . . � �. . _{�]P��'�' � . .._. � � . . a. _ . . - ;�.r . - � . . 3�*��" ��, . : . - � _ . . . . � .. `. . � �.. .. �. �'�y�d. �.: . � . . . � . . ' . . . . . . . . ' � { ��'�r �^ � . . .. - . . . ; � . . . . ��,�eS `.-: . . . . �. . - ' . .. '..^1 ts,..� , . ;;y �,�u'�• _ .. . ' .. . - \\ . ��,i . . . . ' � . . . � , � � . ' ' . . �y� rt � '� _ . - _.. , ' �• � . � ^ F � � � F ` ' . �� : _ ...... _ _ .. . , . ._.... . ... _ ._ . , _. .; _ ,,,?„... _ . . _.. �� . . .. � � �.��p{• ,;�,�. . !'Wr� ?''�:�'f�';� ��:;�.�. ��..�'ii*';.?' ' ��:��:, tlohnp dF��. i'S'.�'.;°�rs PITKIIU COl��i+5' Puulic heariny C,xi,�aics Date: L—�-3'�'9 u-- Subject' �iY@tuT��[sC ,� ,� Exh-�o. _�_�� Pitkin CouPty l Board of County Commissioners ` *,�,,�, � Pitkin County Courthouse ? 506 East Main Street � � Aspen, Colorado 81611 '-.��'�• Re: East Aspen Metropolitan District �t �- �� Dear Commissioners: ��'!'�;� I am the owner of certain real property in Pitkin �a ,� County upon which mosquito control efforts have been conducted by 1�'� ' �� various groups durinq recent years. I am aware that the East ��;_�,'; Aspen Metropolitan District is being formed to provide a legal � �:,,,`;, �_,'; entity through which efforts may be concentrated to control the - � presence of mosquitos in the East Aspen area during the spring !� and early summer of each year. � '� i It is my understanding that the proposed District will + be continuing with the same type of program that has been carried on over the past years. I am in support of such program and �! will continue to permit the Metropolitan District to have access Ito my real property in order to carry out the purposes of the ; i� proposed district. + � I � However, in the event that the Metropolitan District ' revises its method of mosquito abatement from that carried on in i prior years, I do reserve the right to deny access to my property to the District. Because of the severe mosquito problem being encoun- ' tered by the re�idents cf thc �as� Asp�ii area, 3 ctronyly u�ga you to support the formation of the East Aspen Metropolitan ti District. i r I Sincerely, � I �r /� ` .�,.�.. � �� V�'�d:`�2C� . � 6�Z� Mark Overstreet `, � 6eneral Manager =� ; The Aspen Club Iniernational � t +�x -. i �.�- 4 ti;_� ! .'cr: -..=+;..,.�� .,a.'.v;';.�i5�""'::� , � I '� , � �;.�....-; — --- --- --.�__---__ . ...._._.... _ .:..._.. _�,�_ _ ..__... _ .__ . , ____--. .w.... _ . �h � � �� `-- f�. 4�,��, .._. _.�..�.._..---�.�'�,�� , ��.':�: , '� .� ,�t�.�:;�_�" . . r � �.�.;._��:' . _ §�,�..F;� = . � , : `��:; . � �; .._ ,.� t ,. � , �. ` f��r �` , �` ,, . a>i.��y�t�;i''i;' , � '�i��i`.k"'r�k:'�Fi,`,`'� ' ' ' . . .��" ,`'+�,�,.��/.j� - . .. �.;;..m�..:�x; ..�....,`. ��,;��-`.:: i..,. �,, ,.�_ M ;. S �; �� ?:ta>�� s+,:�'o,...;� ' �, r , . '.:...._.,....,.:r.....--:..•rr.�,.... -._..._..__... .:-�. . :.. ;...........,_.-,... ... ..... ,. ... � :.:., �� . . . ,..,... . . .. . . . . - I . �k��?'i.:. . �.k�.iY.i': �p��f",rii7_.:J'. � i:4:'If's1:-.. Pitkin County ,�.�;;�-` Board of County Commissioners '�`''�'� x ' Pitkin County Courthouse �, 506 East Main Street ` Aspen, Colorado 81611 �;<-;.., - r; ; � Re: East Aspen Metropolitan District ��` � j Dear Commissioners: �''` ._ I am the owner of certain real property in Pitkin �� County upon which mosquito control efforts have been conducted by � ' � various groups during recent years. I am aware that the East �',� � Aspen Metropolitan District is being formed to provide a legal entity through which efforts may be concentrated to control the }��''`� '� � presence of mosquitos. in the East Aspen area during the sprinq ! � and earZy summer of each year. � � It is my understanding that the proposed District will , � be`continuing with the same type of program that has been carried � ion over the past years. I am in support of such program and - `� will continue to permit the Metropolitan District to have access �� 1,� to my real property in order to carry out the purposes of the i� proposed district. � .,. � However, in the event that the Metropolitan District jrevises its method of mosquito abatement from that carried on in "1 prior years, I do reserve the right to deny access to my property `:� to the District. ��1 Because of the severe mosquito problem being encoun- . � tered by the residents of the East Aspen area, I strongly urge � you to support the formati�n of the East Aspen Metropolitan f',� District. -� Sincerely, ': t ; � - � (e5 :`�, f � ; 6.z� oZ�� [dwa;� 1� ;� ;; , = I � f ' 1 ,�,,- ',;�:.. �:�;.w:' � �,:,�-`: .k � � - � �..._"__'_`_....�Y....»� . �.,.,_�.� . . _. ......_..� . _. t �.:.:_.. -......"'. �'.'"'._....,..._.. .;_.._.._ . .._��_.._ ............. ......_. _._.._....._." � �t ' � . " .�� a k .a �,� � S�!' ""� . _. S s..._ __�,•�__j'' .. {�(i+.f'{�T��': ' �. � . ` "�'+��,,,� . }'+.,�y.ti L'-(�?.� ' _ . M' " � " . f�:F'�-?.�'�'Y . -.. � . ,5�h�X�S..�Y'_. .. ... � � . _ . '�"e'��',_ . ,� ,;,.._.-: li .��,�.`�' • , ` ` ��`:.,,'_,; •a!�..,%i>�ny�< � � . . . ' a:q�'�,�'•.'+�=. • � . • � . ' - . uOq.. •. ;' .. , . . ..* ' rr� :�1�,++i •,r? , ��,w�^�.`�.:� . . i�,`�'',��`x! , �.�� w �� r . . `+ � ._. .....: _. _;.:,.. _ . . .. -. .. _ , , ,. ... .. . . .... , : �'... ......_, �._. . J�.}y,.i�. • � • �'�`7.�t`��.��. ��?�';:�': Pitkin Cou�ty ''''�"" � Board of Count Commissioners t''• i' . Y `5.i;;z';;Y . Pitkin County Courthouse �',.�,`'<' '• 506 East Main Street "- Aspen, Colorado 81611 :.� : Re: East Aspen Metropolitan District ' , " ; _ �+,pe.,_ Dear Commissioners: I am the owner of certain real property in Pitkin � County upon which mosquito control efforts have been conducted by �� 'i various groups during recent years. I am aware that the East � (�� Aspen Metropolitan District is being formed to provide a legal �< � 4_`r�-,;. entity through which eiforts may be concentrated to control the '�- � presence of mosquitos in the East Aspen area during the spring ! � i and early summer of each year. � It is my understanding that the proposed District wi12 ' be continuing with the same type of program that has been carried ' on over the past years. I am in support of such prog.ram and - � will continue to permit the Metropolitan District to have access to my real property in order to carry out the purposes of the � proposed district. � ; However, in the event that the Metropolitan District revises its method of mosquito abatement from that carried on in I prior years, I do reserve the right to deny access to my property a to the District. � Hecause of the severe mosquito problem being encoun- " � ' tered by the residents of the East Aspen area, I strongly urge I you to support the formation of the East Aspen Metropolitan District. � Sincerely, �,i � �� ,�-�� ,��- � :`� ; . � 6.27 i '� '��J:iyi.�.�. i�.r��,�',l"- � �n`.x _�,�': .�"•.��.-_ ,�^. �; _--- ------.-._. --... . _. _.__ _.._ -__ _ _ .__ ._._.. __ __ _._. ...__. _ ._ __._. _.._. M �r �� Y.�i�„y!� . . . . • P � .� . � . .. � � .�._._ u �i . K� � . f ... '. . . _ ' - � *� �:. . ` y-� i��+'.� � . .. S X �'�'�{�.'�t�' . � ��.��.. . . � .. - ` . �. � , �,L1T�k�4�. . .... . . . . �. �+� T �,�� . � ' � �� . ... �;.,, , � Y ' , x ��y': . . � . . . . . ..'4�ts. . . - fT '.��4.P�"� � . _ . � ' � . 'EH.+Y..r��- . . . '{tl��Y✓V". ;'�'}'�s.'�'°�r':,}� . ._ , .:�w�PC.�kS"'!�. . ,_... ��": . . �.'u=.:.vi�4ri. � �� 1' �� . - .�..Jc. + . ' . .1�}.�� . . 'su; A:ht, �'. . � � . _ . .. . . .... -- . � . .. ... '� .�.�. . . �-t�'�+��:i� A 't. .'N t-i�;�: . ?.ai�,�#e:°:��:. ��,`�j`�'{�4.ta[,�. ��9�_i:M:'1'`. Pitkin Cou3�ty y_�;..;,�_..' Board of County Commissioners -.'`�1-. - Pitkin County Courthouse � "'�=�",`� 506 East Main Street ' �� _ Aspen, Colorado 81611 � ;� Re: East Aspen Metropolitan District �Fy Dear Commissioners: �� I am the owner oF certain real. property in Pitkin ��t . "' County upon which mosquito control efforts have been conducted by �;� various groups during recent years. I am aware that the East �� Aspen Metropolitan District is being formed to provide a legal �..r�.. entity through which efforts may be concentrated to control the � i>`"° ;�,, presence of mosquitos in the East Aspen area during the spring ! �; and early summer of each year. �. :i It is my understanding that the proposed District will be contihuing with the same type of program that has been carried �� on over the past years. I am in support of such program and �` will continue to permit the Metropolitan District to have access to my real property in order ta carry out the purposes of the proposed district. t i However, in the event that the Metropolitan District revises its method of mosquito abatement from that carried on in prior years, I 8o reserve the riqht to deny access to my property to the District. � Because oi the scvere mosquito probltm L6111Cj eiic�un- • tered by the residents of the East Aspen area, I strongly urge ' i you to support the formation of the East Aspen Metropolitan District. Sincerely, i . .k• : . a . �i 6.2� �7�JfO� � . {� , t 4��} 'l�i�� -� ��,� � : .� ti: : ��-.��8� �� K:..,'��t. �� filtz '�-•—""..._,�.�...�._�..�_._..___�__.___�".'._.__'__'__-'__.._. .. .. ... �.. .. . . ... . ...,_. . .._..... . +�i _.._....... . .., . ' �s; `',r...` ' . , . � � . f.k �.y"^ , � ac�..,,;:,. � � _ . . �.." �- . . - � � ..;�,�,,,�- � . h: h . � �d� �i ;;:�ri' . .. n .. .. �} . . _ .. - .. .. . . .y �=��' _. r,�'�'��.;u . ' {�`�'�: � ' �i�r , - - � . 5��.�` .�.:.F . . � . . � . � '\ ¢'.�'L. ' , � �'r..n�t_�:: � � • ;.'��:�F�`':`." . . f . y.tY f� al�' � � ` G�F� , a'�°�.i�-�.;A� . � . � , � . . FL;��.. `�%."y`F Ti . . . . '.�'u'`'�(i, � � :��' � fi .,��f � . . 1' ;K.�`,�� z• � � ' . ... ..-.e,.......�._ . _.. ... .. I�.*� . . ._ . . . . . . . ...., �. ... . ..,' , .. . . ....... ' .... .. . . . �. 'Hrl '�t.:�. `k'.: ��:�j.��e�.�i.� ,�.,,r • . k a� i4�,.. �'L��:i�`.� • �.�ry7��`y:�:4�'. �r.�'.b`�''. I � Pitkin County -'�:��z:�,� " Board of County Commissioners `"r`.�'-��: Pitkin County Courthouse �`�; 506 East Main Street - Aspen, Colorado 81611 .�:.. - y,; Re: East Aspen Metropolitan District ='� ` =� � _�v:;� , �. Dear Commissioners: ��;,. � , . I am the owner of certain real property in Pitkin �� '" County upon which mosquito control efforts have been conducted by �� various groups during recent years. I am aware that the East ��,• Aspen Metropolitan District is being formed to provide a le al a'�`= 4 i.!';'. entity through which efforts may be concentrated to control the • presence of mosquitos in the East Aspen area during the spring �' and early summer of each year. " `! It is my understanding that the proposed District will be continuing with the same type of program that has been carried on over the past years. I am in support of such program and will continue to permit the Metropolitan District to have access to my real property in order to carry out the purposes of the � ; proposed district. However, in the event that the Metropolitan District revises its method of mosquito abatement from that carried on in prior years, I do reserve the right to deny access to my property � to the District. i Because of the severe mosquito problem being encoun- tered by the residents of the East Aspen area, I strongly urge ' you to support the formation of the East Aspen Metropolitan District. Sincerely, < •i I ~ •; i � ' 6.27 6 ��Q � � (�%� ��2:�'��l/� �?� . ,�,v.: ��ODa ��'� �� °�'y� ��.� j � 'r �. �; ?..__ ,__:-----_ �_. .. ...... ......._ . -_. . ___ _ _ . , .. . ___._ . _.. .. _ ._;,-r .. �,: � - _ . . . . . , i. ^� � f � „;' . . '_'' . .... � �� — .: .. � SS !� . . � - °9p�"� ��7 y _.. , ` . ..._. v �4�: .. . � � �. � �'4yi'!t�-t."T, ... ' . � ... *x,.��,'; � a�^ .�,:+ - � � • � �; -�•a,;:_,_ •.}.,,,., , , �� L��S"G- i,.. . , . . . - . � . ,5v_; '�,�i�'•r.. . � � . � � . . ^�y�;'^ . ;�.}��rAy+�::i� , . .:`S�'.y>k'4'�'.-��r. ��'S: � � w . 1. �: ` - . :;�"h'��nfy � '�. . �: ` � _ r,� �,,.,, : 'L{•.��sj�,ry_:'!?,. Y,�.e{ • ��'�'�.p�S...i.t-'� . �'.�''..k.�i:..��.ti(�'.;�,. jr��- +f�%. ��44..,; ..��..: Pitkin Co�ty �';�;.`.'�-° Board of Count Commissioners ' "`��- Y ':!�;;�`��:�. Pitkin County Courthouse �. -- 506 East Main Street � Aspen, Colorado 81611 � ` �_� ?",., _ Re: East Aspen Metropolitan District y��' `' �� Dear Commissioners: � � �j� :_: I am the owner of certain real property in Pitkin �,w �- County upon which mosquito control efforts have been conducted by �ti�� various groups during recent years. I am aware that the East t�,� As en Metro olitan District is bein formed to rovide a le al "'�� P P g P 5 �.:�;``., entity through which efforts may be concentrated to control the . presence of mosquitos in the East Aspen area during the spring �. and early summer of each year. � j It is my understanding that the proposed District will be continuing with the same type of program that has been carried on over the past years. I am in support of such program and will continue to permit the Metropolitan District to have access to my real property in order to carry out the purposes of the r proposed district. However, in the event that the Metropolitan District � revises its method of mosquito abatement from that carried on in i prior years, I do reserve the right to deny access to my property � ; to the District. ' � Because of the severe mosquito problem being encoun- . tered by the residents of the East Aspen area, I strongly urge you to support the formation of the East Aspen Metropolitan District. ' Sincerely, < .i� LYJ n�x..� .�-1� ` ,1 � 6.27 � . � `� - r��.��. �`c: � : .: , .�r�,:_.. '' ' �t�a y-j � �. L.. S ^-f�z. r:i:: ; � �' �.t i _... _. �----- —�._.�._:....�,..�.°--..�"--"- - _--`--_._.._�_.___..... —...----'�_.._. -- __ _._---- —------' --- (' M '� . , . ' � _� � �F, F ; Z yt,��_.,. . . . '. F : �tiN:' - � ' . ......_. .,. .: . ? . . . ` � �� Y_ � ti�r ' `?'�.-��e:l'. :� ,}3r r:. • . __.' r. ^ ��',��': � . . ' •— � . _ p� h��_.4 . . . . _ ' . � �� . I �p. �'i� r�:.' .� . . . � - � � � � �� SX" � . � � - '. :�ti;+�rK- � . . �. - . ��4"h�4�, � ' . . ' . . . . � ?';:" `��.��. J . .. . «��'��^�:, '�I ��J. ti ��y':..: .6.F.�rr.s.� .V't:: , 1�e�'ti. �'v.}st. ..-(�G� .. . {. � � � ;��,� � . . : , : ` �, �:,; .;.. .._. .,. .;� _ -• ._�..._.._..___ ._.• .. . _ . _... �, ,,,,,. , � � N`'�r`}+�,, . "�a�e,.y�,.. ` �`#'�`.R?�-�;:' Pitkin Co�ty ;�?.:.i,- : Board of County Commissioners � ty,,,, . Pitkin County Courthouse fi ''� 506 East Main Street ± Aspen, Colorado 81611 �:;�•:,• " , •7{`. , ti.. Re: East Aspen Metropolitan District `� i;�;': . N- Dear Commissioners: r•� �� I am the owner of certain real property in Pitkin x �:, County upon which mosquito control etforts have been conducted by �-�� various groups during recent years. I am aware that the East � � Aspen Metropolitan District is beinq formed to provide a legal �""; j.° �,� .. entity through which e£forts may be concentrated to control the r�'' presence of mosquitos in the East Aspen area during the spring �` � and earZy summer o£ each year. It is my understanding that the proposed District will ' be continuing with the same type of program that has been carried on over the past years. I am in support of such program and • will continue to permit the Metropolitan District to have access j to my real property in order to carry out the purposes of the proposed district. ' However, in the event that the Metropolif.an District revises its method of mosquito abatement from that carried on in prior years, I do reserve the right to deny access to my property to the District. Becausz of t:�e severe mosquiLO problem Y�eing encoun- . tered by the residents of the East Aspen area, I strongly urge you to support the formation of the East Aspen Metropolitan DistYlCt. L Sincerely, i > � ! 6.27 - t ' - . .;;" ':": _,� ; # �; .. �`"-`• c .� '. �'"j;:._G.. � �. ��:%�`''... �tf .r.J.,.�� ._.,___.__.,._.�+::. ��.._.,..... . . . .:.... ... ..:..�.. �, ' . .._.:.:.: .. _..,:.� .. . . . . .. . . .�. . .......,. . �: .t+� �•' G. ,�.d� h �i"�v� _ .._. . . . ' ..�� . Y I.t ;�'"�'��'. � _ . � ' �� :� - :e�t�;; . <�� . . �. ��`� . � F { �. � . � � . � � I-7 -.a � �..�:."' . . . K�Y I r qn}{.'t�`� . . ' . . �. „•'1 `, �'�rY¢_t-' .. �. � . . . . . . Ery� � cK }�Y.i�i:�`r� ' ;s�::Rt'c'z>' , :,��:1, ��:: , ak� ��,r, �� ! s . . .,t . . : ((,�.}.�.�.�.. 4�.. t ir—'.i�., (� aqi�d.,. . � � � �;^��j_�,r E;�;��i i ��#�,�a�' Pitkin Co�ty ,:.�`�: ' Board of County Commissioners �"��'i" �- :=>.�,;:;,,,. : Pitkin County CouYthouse �'� .z Sd6 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 ..I,, ,;:_ ;,.;�:;: Re; East Aspen Metropolitan District �'" ' _ K_. . De�r Con�aissi�n�ra: r''�; ^ i� 2 am the owner of certain real property in Pitkin ' County upon which mosquito control efforts have been conducted by � t - various qroups during recent years. I am aware that the East � l Aspen Metropolitan District is being formed to pzovide a legal y, { entity through which efforts may be concentrated to control the � � `' „ r•,:: �� ' presence of mosquitos in the East Aspen area during the spring �� ; and early swnmer of each year. :- j It is my understanding that the proposed District wi11 be continuing with the same type of program that has been carried ` on over the past years. I am in support of such program and i will continue to permit the Metropolitan District to have access � to my real pzoperty in order to carry out the purposes oP the � proposed district. � i ; However, in the event that the Metropolitan District revises its method of mosquito abatement from that carried on in �, prior years, I do reserve the right to deny access to my property to the District. Because of the severe mosquito problem being encoun- tered by the residents of the East Aspen area, I strongly urqe you to support the formation of the East Aspen Metropolitan Distzict. Sincerely, i ,�� _'" 'P1', i . i 6.27 ; �\ ,,`,'i 3 ��.�.'�.: � , '*z,;. � ��s. I, y� � . � ;.j�' ` I ` �,;, n,i ;� _--- ---------------__ - ----_—_-- -----__ _____ ..__.___. � x,�,.. r �. : � ... ..�.-'-.._.-__.. . ,. +. ',c . r .�-t�'S+= � . . . . . f�.. r-M��` �h �Y . . . .�..' � .��.�_��-� .` . ^r^�r� �': " J.�w'�-� . �tX' e T� - ; � - � �--�`��.�- ' �'.�.a s�''" . . . . .� . . . . -_ wL��}�' � . . - .. ... . . � . �+��=. .... . . � � , ' .. . ` . ��. _ _ _ . . � . . ' � : rr� "L"2 .S, . . , ' ' � �a,">� r�.: r3. ,�•��n;...<,: , t , ,�•.�*a.� � ��; � �� . • . .�„��, ,�� . �� .��a�'�� '�� 4, . w . � ' . e�`,�;�� s► t ,n:. �► . � . ;�, . . . . .. ,. . . , - . :. .. . . . �. �ti.. �.-. ._. .,:.. ,. ........ . ,.. .. . . t ��;i�F° :5 ' ' � � ��5[f��'f�, �:'�iti�i. Pitkin Courity :�`�i" Board of County Commissioners �u"s;s,�^�;. ; Pitkin County Courthouse �'� • '� � 506 East Main Street � Aspen, Colorado 81611 ;'- '� I Re: Easf Aspen Metropolitan District "'� Dear Commissioners: .,;:,"`� I am the owner of certain real property in Pitkin County upon which mosquito control efforts have been conducted hy various groups during recent years. I am aware that the East � . �., Aspen Metropolitan District is being formed to provide a legal ' �- �- � en tity t h roug h w hich e fforts may be concentrated to contral the �'��i` -" � presence of mosquitos in the East Aspen area during the sprinq �,;,:� and earSy svminer of each year. =4 � It is my understanding that the proposed District will ��, be continuing with the same type of program that has been carried " on over the past years. I am in support of such program and "� wi12 continue fio permit the Metropolitan District to have access to my real property in order to carry out the purposes of the �� proposed district, , However, in the event that the Metropolitan District revises its method of mosquito abatement fzom that carried on in �; � . `i� prior years, I do reserve the right to deny access to my property ` `=� to the District. � i: :�. ,;� Because of the severe mosquito problem being encoun- - - tered by the sesidents of tre F.ast Aspnn cs�z, I stror,glq nrge you to support the formation o£ the East Aspen Metropolitan District. � Sincerely, F �a' ^ �.. `:� � .-Ql(l L,g �.,�oN ,� 6.27 - � � ;:j�; .� ; ' � � '�$ ;. ; " ��: i � I f ��., ;,-:t R,: , �� * .� _ _ _..__ ___ _ ---__.. ... ... __ _ _._ _.._ _ ----...___.._ ., ;__ ._____ __--._____--- - °� -�. .�-. ,� � t � sr�)��k;. ... . . � `_.. �J .. -��y:ti � � .. . � . � � �—��y�� . ��€'��'��'.•. . - . . .r . ' , _.. , . �,,�� 4�� . ..... � � � . � _ ppp'''--- ��} / ��s�`�� . � , � � 4 � '1 .-'p'yM -i. . . . \ .i':.';:�';��_. . . .t � . ..�:"'t:;'i'4` � -�.9 z� �:�i": . � . 7'.�`'S:,�y..,. ' , � {�M1'�+ tiy`�_:: , . � � � , . . . yr��.� .� e�^.� . F�,.'�y',Yt� �;�,,� . '� � �y.; ,,,�-=r,3�,",`, ��. R, r . J` 1 '��, � � _ . �.�;-ra- „;. : ..,,. .... _... _ . . .._ __.w_..___.. , , 134ARt�0�C�7. ” �,;;;'S p1��j�', )r�/�) /�.. ttlyti/�. • �11 f�11Y U�i J:'..r•-' 1' , (`^ � 7�1=•� ' P+�SliC N2atittq=� !oi?s ��?' J.NicHO�as McGaArH Date: lo/3�y n9n�,�s��r�a MARGARETA.fVICGRATH rai��3oajvxsewaa SUbj3;;t��Ql�¢__�r reiecoa�e�woa�nsanos E;:h.t�lD �Q��•.� May 31, 1989 �� . jl��;;'.r'. Board of County Commissioners JE1M 1 3 1989 � 506 East Main Street �=?'`• Aspen, CO 816 i 1 ��GifCi,. "�+�"-'� ��;7: Dear Commissioners: 'y��:•� ' We support formation of the mosquito control district :,;_.� � tor east of town, scheduled before you on June 13. � i � ; � _� Thank you. r � Sincexely, .� � �� •� ` a r � J. Nicholas McGrath 4 #+ °g �� '� �:: i L br� `';: r et . Mc r h ,� :;� j2:mosq531.1tr �� ,v`� {, ';� ; ';:' P�EAS�CIf;CULA�'E f ,:. G�owiey � -F� I ' . Eih�ici��e 1; / `' �'�nra '-��'f�--.- � �� a5s _��_►_L- � ;,,� Tt�Je �� ';� i�S�n�ger ___.� Asst.Mgr. ;"� ?^E�;m Yc A�';n�nisirafion ; � � :4 'I �.�S, I ."s'�'*;5 :_l ��_. , :;; '��.��__�_-._ ._,�_ �.... _._ .� .._.�. � �-- �°'"�. _ ..�� _ ��-�:- �� .�;.�� , . -�� ;�: _ . , �-��, � �� , '`y 4�� . . � . . . #��'� �� .�. �,��s�,�y'�' , ` . ;. Y " .. . • � - , � � . - � ��. '. ... � ' . . � . �� t ;��i i'�. . ` .. . . K' I fY, Y�'��,' . � ' . . ,�.•��- � • 4 .�raa�'`•'+; � . . .. ..� .. .. . . , . _. .. _ , _ . . � . . .... _. �,�;„�;• ; 1''�„;�'`f��,', �'::;..�,� �' a r�`��ti� �,a/rllinund� t 4 � ,. Attomey at Law niw eam�rea u�cenmmm and New va� Suite 20t 450 Soulh Gafena Street Aspen, Colorado 816i1 TeJeptrone:(303)920•23f0 Facsimqe:(303)320-2312 , June 13, 1989 • :_•-. .";;;:�.-r;,., -. �,.i',';:;!.;; Pitkin County Commissioners "� 506 East Main Street ''i'%- ` Aspen, Colorado 81611 (z","" k7 - Re: Mosqnito Control District Dear Commissionersc �'�:,• .. . �.`;i.,.-.-�.. 2 am a resident of the Aspen Grave Subdivision, and have in '��`� ' the past experienced the effects of mosquito infestation when no ` ?'.� ,'. steps were taken to control mosquitos. ; ,r.�. �+ A voluntary program, which has been established from time to �� time, has worked rather well, and I think it is imperative that a mosquito control district be established. I have two children, and � many af my neighbors have children, and when the voluatary program y does not take place, the infestation is horrendous. It is almost impossible for the chil3ren to go outside and glay without being � severely bitten up. 7 I can also advise you that every neighbor I have talked to, � including David Melton, Gideon ICaufman, Steven Colin, and Don 4 'v' Fleisher, all of whom reside in Aspen Grove, are in favor of the ,�, establishment of a mosquito control district. A ' I hope the Commissioners will see fit to establish this �' district, as it will substantially enhance the quality of life for � aIl residents who reside to the east of Aspen. . ; � I appreciate your considera i n in this matter. � V tru y yours,. k . z i i �" , 'char ins �''� Z �` 3 ��:':::,. , .,: _ �� - � RC:slh "' j cumbc613.1tr �`� I ..;i•';,":"�.. ;:� ; � �..'"v�'1... '.' :i�`. �.`SFSti . .. � . . ......... ..._. ... .. _.... _ . .. . . .'��. . , '� • �' � �, _ .. __�_. ' ' J r � �-. . - ..:. .. �� C.'�'i`�r.`-ti . . �n . . ?`�,. . . . ! ' � _��: r . _ � :�_:. . ::��»��y:;. r f3 i r ef t jy i:iL._ . � . . ' . . '��+�s,�"°'�4� � S �' _. ._�.__..,._._ � _ . _ . , _... x.: ,,,:: :.;_,.. ;...._. ... . .:_ � _ _ .. . �};� ,,:j1,. . �� ,,. . ��, � . r.!r�A \� . 4:,':J�i?,�'S.. ^�'l� �''. ' RECO2R4ENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Ziegler 1041 Hazard Review and Low Impact Subdivision with the following criteri.a: 1. The applicants shall grant the County a 60' right-of- way for the Divide Roa6�as it crosses the property. The County sha11 have the right to assign the right-of- way to the Town of Snowmass; 2. The access road shall be built to Class V County Road ��:�."':��" � Standards or shall be built to the currently adopted -+-,;;,::_';y.: standards prior to issuance of a building permit; `�'.;�._'""- �' 3. Verification of the legal use of the proposed water i;�'V.F'` ir � � :� source shall be provided prior to signature of the ��X �, final plat by the Board of County Commissioners; oo�� ?. , . `� � 4. Recognizing the differences between the Snowmass Pire �,, �z�� \ � ; District requirements and the County requirements,_ the �,�� o=-�- ♦ applicant shall submit a fire protection plan which ' � o a° � shall be submitted to the county for referral to the �'. ¢ a � � Snowmass Fire District prior to review of the final z� m `; a � plat by the Board of County Commissioners. � t;.':. ov� ��'.`� ^' ? . 5. Zf construction occurs on said lats before improvement �' � can be made to the Divide Road, as contemplated in the Divide development application by the Snowmass Land Company, a significant amount of dust will be produced. If construction precedes the road improvement, the applicant shall insure that an adequate watering - program or suitable means is employed to keep dust to a ' minimum; i 6. The maximum size of the homes on the four (4) newly created lots shall be 6,000 feet (to be further defined '? in the subdivision covenants) with a 28` height limit �3 to the peak of the roof. The 6,000 foot limitation shall include any future proposal for employee dwelling �• units on the four (4) parcels; � ,j 7. Prior to review of the final plat by the Board of � ,p County Commissioners, the applicants shall provide t, specific building envelopes to be reviewed by the P.itkin County and Snowmass village Planning Offices; � 8. The applicants shall convey approximately 7.5 aczes on �`.,. the eastern portion of the parcel, known as the Palisades area, to the Town of Snowmass Village. This . � area shall be initiated for annexation into the Town of _1 ; Snowmass Village by the Town of Snowmass Village. Prior to final plat approval by the Hoard of County , � � 8 ,�S� : .=�•'i�;;;;c.` � �`�;��,�'ks`�:� '' �'...'-'4':. t tt�'.''t'� � . c ��""n�.7.' ` '��t: �``��. ,. • .. ... .. ... . _ . .. / . . �. • • -:_-�.�..:. : .....:. . _., -,. .. .. .... - ..� �. � ;�I (� . . . .. . . . .F . "``-J -�.+..:� . ' .. -..�"�^'`^"�"�'.�-`., e a: . " _� ' . ..�-�v_"�4�i—.- .-'�� . -P t ��:-�-rc'-�, ' � . . . . . __. .s.- . ty,.��!' . . . �„ . . � � r. ` . �F'^'+_k' . . . � ��.1 ��'� . ' { ' � � .. r.�.LL.' � . � , fi� ��.. . . ' � � , � '�i`ti°."iT�� . '::�::r�.?;.. " _ ..,�,fi.,.' � �'hf>p�:..1 . .Y:..�..}�.q._ . . •�:�� .�*S' .! V�� : . '` �.Yli;�;'�� . . . '��. _�5. � . ._ ... ... .. . -, -. - � _. ., � `��. h �� ' � w �bs�#+f�n��-. •-_ C Y i YS�•,'.;� � ��i.�. - Commissioners, the applicants shall submit the documents necessary to convey this parcel to Snowmass; 9. A 20' wide pedestrian *_rail easement on the southerly 32 acre parcel shall be granted by the applicant to the Town of Snowmass; � 10. A specific drainage plan for Lot 3 acceptable to the County Engineering Department shall be included as paxt �Y �� of the covenants to the subdivision; ^`:''•''�'r;'+ - �"�".��-'.•:'`- � 11. A vegetation plan acceptable to the County shall be �'� j submitted as part of the covenants to the subdivision; y� ±r; .��,F:�.'.�f;• ��'.'. 12. Prior to review of the final plat by the Board of ` � � i County Commissioners, the app].icants shall submit subdivi.sion covenants which address the specific , conditions as listed above. 3� 13. 10.0 acres shall be deed restricted pursuant to th� Low � " Impact Subdivision regulations, this acreage shall � t� .;' exclude any land given to the Town of Snowmass for ` ,� . employee housing. i ��;::'; s' . .. •�; . . ch.ziggy � c j . � i � � .• t c' �Fv. t � i £ j `j;. . � � � — � `4.�� 9 � �: v':�`. i ;��::.� : � '_ �S" Y'��. '', Y�,� i � ::._.... . ....< .._.__�*-. ._ __— --- •ry y��__,.>,.;:�.:_..:.�-..».,..,�.. _.._. -�._._..__. .. _.�.._ ,.._..._.—....._... �` . � s :��.,, . -- �...�.+..-�� J ;�ti.�3r�{, - 4. . �� ,� ,��„'� - ` _.._ . ��J�� , . I( ,,��r�, ` `r.�� . �' � N"�� . � . . � . �� . . ' � � � ., �,,. .... . . � . �� . . � ��t� . . ... . . :�. � .,��: w' -. t . . :� , ` � ' � . . - .r-`"r. - . . . , -.. .. ......_._ ' . ... .. , �''';4 S,�,`,� _ - :�;,�"/vii '..�.t.:��,;i:::,. �6aRt7 6F Ga,CdfAM'fl'� `�F�,:.-.:.._, �;«..La;�.,(>: :. F!1`K;PJ COUNTY a�"��r�,�<,�;r. Public Hearir�y E�:iiibits i.�`�-'�;;.�.::.: JIM AND MERRiLEE AU57ER Date:_ �-/3-59 ROX 4771 - '--- ASPEN SUbjECf: �US J'�� 3c5 4952 EXh.N0. _ ��'� L/��7.,,_ __ -..:a.,; .._:.:-...�: - _ .�..... ._. ._ Pitkin County Cammissiar�ers Pitkin County Cc�urthc�use �'�~ -•:s�:,�_:�. Aspen '''?•4. - �;;::s Re; AUS'fER G£NERRL SUI�MISSION REVIEW, 6/13/89 �' : ;,� - Dear Com�nissioners, ;.• . . _{, . Since you have beer, proceeding with the crimin�l '�; -�:<,_ . .: prosecution, it is essential that we be a2lawed to camplete the �'" Iand use revzew process and receive the required permits. We �`d� wish ta take this c.ppartunity tc cammunicate the facts from c�ur �'. poir�t �f view on; ]) our 1Rnd use application, 2> the crirnir�al �r ti prosecutiory „) the Hunter Creek Raad settlement nenotiati�ns� in �+• the hc�pe c�f resolving sc�me of the misinfarrnation and ec�nfusion E''�'�' 1::�. t�egarding these issues. At the end of this letter are a list of ' ��'' questic�ns we are askir,g yt�u tc� consider. �� t I} Lend Use Aoplicatian '. Dur com lete iand use a p pplicaticm was filed with the ! Rlanning Dep�rtmer�t on March 11� 198$, It was scheduled for or,e - step P&Z review �n May 10t 19$8. One week befare this hearing Cc•unty Attc�rr,ey Torn Smith recpmme»ded tabling the review pendirig ec�mpietic.n af � quiet title on two �r the three undivided interests that we purchased tu prove the 100x ownersi�ip 5mith i sazd was required to build. Alsa at tfiis tir�ie, on Smith's recammer�dation the review prc,cess was cnanaed to a two step � review requiring Cammissic.»er approvai because the pr�perty was ' beir�g classified as unplatted. Si»ce ther, we t�ave ccmti»uousiy � tried to cc�mplete the review process and did receive 1041 appr�oval arid recummendatic.n af Generai Submissian approval frorn , the Plarmring Dep�rtment and the Pianninn and Zening Cc�rnmission. In Rpril yau tabled our 6aner�l Submission Review pending cornpletion af the quiet title. e • i@0X OWIVERSHIP ISSUE i �' Numeraus Ietters to Tom Smith ar,d Tim Whitsitt frora ctiurselves and ��ur attorney, WiiIis Carpenter, who is the a�tti�or • � of Cc�lor�d� fiea3 Estate Practice ar�d is wide2y respected as �r�e f of the tap r�ea] estate lawyers in the stzte, recited the facts of -�.:,, aur ownership with clear title to �7/o4ths and "gt�od" title to the rernaining interests based on cc�lor of title and payment of tzxes fc�r we21 c�ver the required 7 years, which by C.R.5..38-41— 109 exciudes all previc�us ir,terests from any claim to titie, ,�, Exhibit 1. Sn additian, there is a siatute c�f Iimitatic•rrs of �:,• >4�,.; '_p �,. �� ;;��r. , y � ,, : • r ; '�"frM*;1�.w._,.:.:. . � i.: . : . . .. .. , . .... . .'�.. .. -�.. ,. . ._. . . . ' �p- � c . . .ti . . .. . ... . ..: . . . ' '.• . - .n�' . . . . . . �= __ `E:: t �,' ..�:.: �ss� °� . 2 . ' '�� __� .. PS �.l'�' , . . �' '�'^..�E.Y�^'_ /v ' ��.,� - � . ��+� � .•.�: . . ' . �aie..Y�._ • � ., - St f �::. �:: � d l .:l.,f., � , � � � \ ¢.��,�"��i:�:ti�, .. . � " . .. . ..i�,}�e<�.� � . - s�. 3 � �y,�k{�;T`� . . � . 43 ...J.. {r'. . .ri}M�:�::.�� .. .�':�s�'Y'3 ~" . :L�r9.� � . �a,k�s,Ti� . ;�`�s^.ti.,,� ' �, ' • � . ,; . . � .. _.._, _... . . . . :... �._. .. �`�y��r� - - � �':.� ' ��,r,+f,', t;,�;>�:- r�ine years after which na ane can challange a Treasurers Deed. Mr.Whitsitt ackr�owledged this ir� a mernu dated Ja». 12, 1989 ir� which he said "the Rusters appea:^ tc� hava clear title tc� c7/64ths _�„ _, , a»d there is.na ane alive or.dead who can.claim better , , , , �title to the remaining 371E4ths." See Carpenter letters, Whitsitt memc�, Exhibit c. The County Cc�de E-3.2 or�ly requires that we provide "a �`��i'.;� rertificate frorn a licer�sed title cc�rnpany er attarr�ey settirig ">'±-:' .j:�,,.,.,... forth the names arrd addresses of all owners ir� the property... �� ar�d evidence establishirrg the applicants ir�terest and right tc� use the property." We nave fiully cc�rnp]ied with this requirerner�t ' with � title repart frorn American Tit1e Cc�. and from aur ': � �ttorney. �_iE:''. . - }�,: ..pA�;� . McClc�skey's clai�s to c�wnership which helped to deraiI our iast ��•�_ rneetin is tct�lly Praudulent. There is nu wa that this 2Y. � ' g Y t ir�terest which was iast ta t�xes 200 years ago can be asserted as �, 5..• valid �r ever challenge the tit2e of �ur predecessars ar� title ;y!"i. Y?'�"'. whe have deeds arid have paid the taxes over that 10@ years. We •f;r:1 �%.. � - have a si gned waiver fr�rn Mr.D.R.C.Prown wh ich denies that he r�.,`- ever had any ownership ar,d a statement that McCloskey was fully �' ` infarnied c�f this. This rnakes MeClnskey's claim � fra�d under F � the Statute ofi Frauds ancf C. R.5.38-10-ici which states that a `� title is void if the purchaser had nc�tice c�f its invaZidity ' �S before the purchase. Even if there wer�e a valid claim it could nat be used ta de»y us the right tc� use or rnake irnprovemer�ts ar� the property as McClc�skey asserted in his letter. Publieatiuri of c.ur quiet title has been cornplete fc�r four weeks and there has been no respor�se by any of the parties listed and no attempt by McCloskey to intervene. See Ietter from Wi21is Carpenter- tt� Ran Austir,, Exhibit �. The e�rlier letters from c•ur attarrrey alsc� recite the applicable laws on 7enancy in Cc•mn�on which state ... one cotenant is � priviiegeri t� use ar�d to er��ay the whole praperty in the same manner� as if he were the sole c.wner therec�f prc+vided oniy that ' his behavinr dc�es r�c�t bar uther ec.tenar�ts seekir�g ta share the benefits." See Pc�we13 an Real Praeer�, Carpenter letterr �. Exhibit �. Even if there actually were other valid catenants in the Hummingbird their cansent is not needed ta develc�p the praperty. 7hey wuuld be entitled to "sfiare in the benefits" of ;.l ' sucti development at our expense ar�d at our risk. Tfiey cannot assert a right tc� additionsl deve]upment in excess of the � ` existing :caned potentia2 c.f c.ne reside»ce, r,or eould they deny us '� the right ta make improvements and use the prnperty. The Coa�»ty is not r�isking subdivisian c�r ar�y further development by allc.wing us to proceed withc.ut c�rnpletien of the quiet title. 4 ; The State paf•tition and siibdivisior, statutes forbid partition or ( _, subdivisit.n bf a property without County sub[livisiur� approval so „'' ,, .F,%': there is nc� threat of additionai develo mer�t arrd no risk or °- w+_> p i _ _ , possible liability to the Cour�ty. Ther^e is Iiability ta the .� -�"'k. � 4� t t:.' �: `°�'�'',�'i+ aa._. ..... ..... _. ..... .... .. . . .. _. . . . . . .�/s _ ...... - i �' '_ r� ��("y. �s. . . _�..._,,� r �l _�y :` t • , �"�� ;�',�`•==a= � �r� �, . - • � Y ,` � � ..$..�� ( � � �. i�i)_�.� � ' �ti1-'��?�:�:��' ,. . . . Fv ' . ir.�,tV:>: . � �7Y.'li: ' ._ . :;r.V;�_`�+�cy'. . :.,;;�»i>=�:` . ",'r:.+i�'i4e-�: :�iC=....( ,�i+�:� i�2+� . . • ;"K"I>irT. . fi.�- - ` S �:� . , � . - � ��r r , :��:�..,, �µ�#5:i``' Caunty if we are being irnpruperiy dQnied aur legal use af the pr��perty. The County Cc.de, Sec 20, subdivision td)<1) states that the _..,:{.. . ._�County can..stop any court ti:�dered partition�action`if it dc�es' not'"`""'��"` `' have Cc.unty approva2 under its subdivisiar+ regulations. See C.R.S 38-28-1@7, Senate bill 35, Exhibit 4. C. R.S.�4-44-SQ:, Mine owners -Tenar�ts in C�mrnon - Rights, ;��;;;;�-- specifically applies the ctrtnroc�n law �f Tenancy in C��mman to �Yu_�;,,;. mining claims. It states iri no uncertain terrns that "any one �''j'" tenant in common shal2 have the right to enter upor�� occupy, �� , praspect, develop, arid wark said rnine withoezt the conse»t of any 1�� »onworking tenant in common... " Dccupancy and residential use pf t'�''' �>: , a mining claim is one ef the provisic�ns af the 1872 Mining Ret [ -- , arrd is a right which is vested in the ownerahip of the surface as t �,.- well as the mineral estate su this use cannot be precluded from �` the "development" of the pr-operty. C. R.S. ,:0-15-411, Cunfl icts �'�" : With State 5tatutes, states, "Nu Cour�ty shall adopt an c�rdinance - � that is in c�mflict with any state statute. " Exhibit 5. ,� � � � \ ! The Pitkin Cour�ty Cc�de, E-3.2, in cc�mpliance with these �: •.. _- established lawst does nct regyire either 10@Y_. ownership c�r the r�" � .,,.. ; cr,nsent af other owners_ It does say applicant must demcrostrate � "the right to use the praper•ty" and supply the names and � addresses of c�ther c�wners. We have more than cc,rnplied with tnis � requirernent by notifying at their iast known address ail parties who ever had an interest ir� the property. � Mr.Whitsitt confirms this in an Oct.32, I9BB letter tc. Mr. ;y Carpentei� which states, "While you are correct that the County ' Cade does not require� as such, marketable and insurahle title, , or even 100% ownership...�" and "the Austers, as �� cotenants� are priviliged to use and en�oy the whole property..." ; He then gaes an ta say, in cc�ntradictinn tc� this statement and to ' •Lj the 5tate laws of p�rtition ar�d subdivisior�, that other c�tenants . � (whc+ hc admits da r�ot exist3 rnight be able ta build �dditianal :i dwellings �nd that we canno-t commit the entire prcpErty t� the � single use ��f a dwelling. This is not the case. While they . a might be able ta share in the "�enefits" of the zingle allc�wed { dwelling unit tfiey canrwt build additional units ir� excess of the 1 one a2Iawed by the zc�ning. Any catenant daes have the right to � ec�mmit the entire property ta the single use of the one allowed dwelling. if a partition is saught �he caurt would have tc� c+rder � the sale of the property and the divisior� af the pr�ceeds rather � thar, a h sical subdivisian of the j p y property, if it is nat in the , interest of the Cuunty tc• approve a subdivisivn. See Cou»ty i Code, Article 2@� subdivision, <d) (1). See Exhibit £. ,Z -;, ..` � The dei�y uf our application far lack of clear title ta 100-/. - ' is nat a discretior�ary land use issue but a clear violation of x' -' � c�ur established right to use the preperty_ We, the public, the � �_ � i Plar�ning Depar�rnent, the Planning and Zcming Carnmissian, and the „�, �. _;c: � County Comrnissioners have beer� misled by the Cc�ur�ty Attorney tfiat ``'f'`" �<;:;: ; ;:4�.>' �:i! ..,. i �i: � - r_: ::��i*� :.: . .:.., .. :.._...._. . ,. .. �... .. . . ... . . . . . � .� � .... . ., . '" {' _r ,'':'''�_ . -_ . �, �.:,.y,.:.. :- �� ,..�s�—�.�^�--. � F � ,. . :: . _ ....._y ''.. . t F.` .. . . '�'a�ay°�... �.� ��.:: _ . . ` . . . F;i .. . . _ .. 1.�� h ' • � �� „� ' .. 1� '�'i�:::�,_...^:'. . - . �� >'1:� � i�.[ � ��Mr. . , • . . . - ,•Yi'�• . . � ��K�'_ . � . ..4fi:A'c+i;�: . r��*��..;ti�-. . ':�4',"�iR . . . ' _ ..i..�Y�� Y`:' . -� . .._...... ...... .— . .. , , ....�._ .. . � . . . � - . � . � . , . .... rA ifa �� I , . F:;;:;5;'� ,��,.; ��+�:: this is a legal requirernent and that aur ownership is insufficient. We have suffered trernendausly frc�rn this de2ay and are even being criminally prosecuted fc.r- failing tc� obtair, the ;.y.:.____,_permits which we.applied for 15 mc,nths ago. . We.request that _ . ... . .. our applicatien fcr land use and building perrnits naw be allowed ta proceed, prior to completion af our pendir�g quiet title, REQU7REMENT FOR 6EfVERAL SUHMISSIDN (PUILDIN6 PERMIT) REVIEW � � r Since March 36, 1988, c�ne week after we made our applicatiun, "� ir�terpretation znd er�forcernent c.f the County Cc.de 18-2.3 was (j changed ta require "ur�Qlatted" properties tc� go thrc�ugh a twc !, -`--: step Genera2 Subniission Review approval by the Comrnissic�ners. Sec. 1-2.G(C> states "any applicatian for a building permit on �"'� prc+perty, which is not on a platted lot �r building site located in a sti�bdiv_ision recc+rded with the Pitkir� Cour�ty Clerk and ,� Reccrder, c+r which has not been approved ir� the past year or 1 i under the prev_ious zaning ar�d subdiv_isc�n regylatigns requires f� ' � Huilding Permit Review. ° � 1 ' .` 5 f-,�`�. ' Sn Article �0, Defir�itioris� af the Cc�unty Cade: � � Plat is defined as, "a map and supparting materials of certair� � described land prepared in accordance with subdivision Iregulations 2s �n instrument fc�r recc+rding of rea2 estate ' interests with the Coirr�ty Clerk and Recorder." ; Lot is defined as, "a parcel of real praperty as shc�wn with a - separate ar�d dist irrct number� or letter fi led fc�r record in the � office c+f the Pitkin Cc�unty Clerk and Recorder used c�r intended ,� for use as a unit for trar�sfer c�f awrrershiQ or fc.r develapment. ' ? Si�bdiv_isian is defined as, "a tract or p�rcel of land which is ! divided inta two or mc.re l�ts, tracts, sites, parcels, separate interestss interests in cemmon, c�r other divisic•n... " � The Fiumrnir�gbird Lode was first platted and recorded with the i CLerk and Recc�rder in 1B89. On at least three accasic�ns since � then Plats ccr�taining a "map and supporting materials" have been . recorded with the Pitkir� Caunty Clerk ar,d Recc�rder. A Plat of the F{ummir�gbird was recarded by Pitkin Cc�unty ir� 1949 pric�r to � I tax sale. It is a legal lc�t desigr-rated by the »umber M.5.4034 arid is a p�rcel of real property which has been sold ar�d I transfered rnany times. It was subdiyided from the public lands in full cempliance with ali local� state., and federal ` . y.. ' subdivision regulatiuns in effect at the time. This propertys in acc�rdance with the County Cc�de, 1-2.2tc) is a platted lc,t er building site lacated in a subdivisic.n approv_ed yr�der the � prev_ic.us subdiv_ision reguiations ar�d must therefore be exempt frc�rn Puilding Perrnit lGenerai Subrnission) Review. 7o redefine this 104 year• c�id platted praperty as "unplatted" is retroactive legislatior� which is strictly fc�rbidden by Sen.Pill 35 and by the ~ LS.S.Cc.nstitutic.n� Rsner�dr��e»t 5. "TS�e Cc+ur>ty ar�d its Cosnrnissioners s,}, pc.ssess only s��eh powers as are expressly confered upan thern by �` the Constitution and Statutes." C. R.5. 3Q�-11-109 General �i:v'...:;;.;h,'' Gr•ovisions, Pc.wers ��f C��unties. "''��' . '::".,:.�� .s�p;:..x. f. '� �. ��:�+� ; c - _.. �-. _ . , �,. .... .... ....:.,.,_. . _.._,....._.. .._ .._.. . . .. . � . .. . ... ... .. . �r, ,F '+... �7 t{ __. �_. _:� �r �� .:Y�'Y • Y. • y.�. f1_.. . . . ' . 't��_3``�.--�,.._ " � ti ♦ . � \ _ _ .. ;:y:? . ' .. »:°Y=y*; . ' ';r�.-„�:1�=�', ��,.,�t;a:s.;;� �:F:� ;�yh'Y,�,`t;.;. . �.�,.;.;�;<:.; ;�;_ -��;,�..a-;�'. :�;w��;. . ',�*,;�:� '?�..? � � ;�. �:. y�.. �. .....:�.. .....�.' .�. . ... . .. . . .. . . ... . ��d � 4r�, :' �. t�� !,.` , i�`�±_' .. Hefc+re we purchased this pr��perty in the winter of 1987-BB we consulted with �rar�cis Krisrnanich to deterrnine if it was a legal building site. He said it was and that we.need only have a 1041 �..__., . :.;Hazard�Review before being eligible for�a building"'permit. We relied c�n that r_�fficial irifc.rrnatiarr in deciding to use all c�ur savings to purchase the pr�perty far use as a��r r�ew horne. It is campletely ur,fair and a vialatic.n of c�ur reliance upc�n those �� re resentatiuns m�de b the Plannin Department to chan e the ,,.i P Y 9 9 .ma;�:.. r^equirements to include General Subrnission Review and, in eftect, •�'`=�.!:"': be able to overturr� the prc�perty's designation as a legal ,��yy ' building site. !�^_", We are requesting tc� be allowed ta proceed with c.ur applicaticm ' � far a E�uilding Per-rnit. , c. CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AGaZNST THE TIPI -�'�. N, CflUNT ONE� E+UILDiNC� PERMIT `t Wher� Tam Smith initiated the red-tagging c�f the tipi he was �;? ` basing his claim of a vi�latian er� the very broad definition ef ; r''`�' " � structure and building in the Uniferm Building Code, as stated in ts 1 a Ietter to us dated Dct.31, 1988. Recentiy the ,7udge ruled that 'i � the only definition that can be legaily applied in this case is � the much rnore specific definition in the Cc�ur�ty Cc�de which ; cle�rly defines that c,r�ly permanent structures and buildings ? require building perrnits. The tipi is not a permaner�t buildi»g �r structure. We did not pr��ceed without permits to buiid the � cabin we are applying for but only tc prc+vide temporary shelter ' for our Pamily. � CDUNT TWO, SQ�41 HAZARD REVIEW i I We are alsc� charged with erecting a building witheut c�bt�ining a � iN41 Hazard Review. Hc.wever� it clearly states in the Cour�ty C�de 5-4Q�0 that structures which cost 3ess than �SQr00. are exempt � from this requirernent. Neither is there ar�ything in the Code � i that says we need apply far this exernpticm. Also, to convict � us af this vielation will require proc+f that a tipi canstitutes "developrner�t which changes the basic character or use af the 1 I land". This property has always been used fer tents, tipis, and camping and there h�s been n� Casic change in the lar,d. i � ,i- . i, COUNT THREE� bUILDING PERMIT REVIEW Ta prove a vielation of this requirement the Caur�ty has tc� prove ,`� . � that our praperty is unplatted. Evidence will clearly shc�w that _ it is platted, In additic�n there is ar� exemptior, from this requirerner,t for single family dwellings and structures custir,g � - less than �5@OQ�. �t .; = __ HUNTER CREEY, ROAL SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIDNS E ;?t��.; Y � . 'C'_ �._, � ! T. .J,..'1l .��. . ' . . . �� .. . . . . . �. �e._., ..:..... . . . t . . .. .. . . .. . .... �.., _ ..... _�_...__.... . . .... . . .:�:. ..�. .. . � �...: . � �-. �' . . .�',�.. � g .F. � r = r��. . , . ��:._. .. .�� -^'�.� .y�G ., ^ . .___-. ys$'t} .. ' _ J'F:r.. �- . �- f . � 'TS'i�L w. - . ` . ,:� ` rr-. ' 4 � . f f2};�f�' � . . . .it+:Syw.�i�,. � . .:7 +� s �-A N �� '�: �.�;j�. ri{.�iY't • . •�.'.a.�� w . ;k��,j�� r �:;LC:':^. :-,�; . . : ._.._._._r._. .. ..._._. .._. _... . ... __ � „ i . �+�L tr d,. ;=�;aa„'r'iir. �' '4. ��•��;';::' We are informed by statements made by several Cammissioners and County staff that yc�u are ready to accept a settlement agreement of the Hunter Creek Road dispute which will vacate that r•c,ad tc� cur use witheut providing us a legal or usable alternative access ___ . ,.._,,,as,:,requir,ed,:,by;,C.R.5.4:-2-303.• .:..C.R.S.43-2-3s3 19A8, Methods of Vacation, states: (2) "No platted or deeded roadway or part therCf or unplatted er undefined roadway which exists by right of usage shal2 be vacated so as to leave any land ad,7oining said raadway without an established public road c�r private access '`i, - easemer,t connecting said land with another establisled public "r'�:�-��: �'_�-.,-::: rc.ad." Exhi bit 7. :; The County, through Tam Smith, has already ec�nfirmed in several �� public statemer,ts arrd court dc�curnents th�t the Nunter Creek Road ' ' is a deeded public ro2d which has never been vacated. If any cic�sure, p�rtial closure, relinquishrnent af rights, or vacation '�*. • c.f this rnad is contempl�ted as part of a negotiated settlernent �:�: . this vacatiryn st�tute will have tc� be can�plied with. � t The Caunty has alsa confirmed� through Tom Smith, in several '� �. ; pubiic staternents and caurt dc�cuments, that the first sectian of the 5rnuggler Raad up from tc+wn is a public road by prescription ;,r,:,':_ ,. aniy <wnich needs ta be prc�ven in c�urt) but that there is nc. ' . . ' evidence that the Cuunty has acquired legal title t� the road by �' deed or dedicatia». H= was requiring owners of lar�d ad�aining ; that road tc. c�btain private easernents to satis-Fy requirernerits for legal aeeess and alsc� tc. indemnif',y the County. In cther wc.rds, the first section of 5muggler Rd. is not a legal access far Iar�dc�wners ad�oining that raad. See POCC Minutes, Aug.e3, i9AB. Exhibit S. The next sectic.n af this road after the fc,rk tc� Hunter Creek passes thrc�ugh private praperty and is clearly net a public rc�ad either by prescrintic�n er by deed �r by dedic�tion. This ; section was first built in the 19E0's and has beer� cl�sed with locked aates ever since. . � The next twa rni3es of this rc�ute thraugh the v�lley rloor ta connect back tc the Nunter Creek Rd.at McCloskey�s proDerty line ' i are -vwned by the Forest Service and require soecial use permits which require a fee far use, are restrictive� and are revacable. � Without acquiring a perrnanent deeded private er public easemer�t frorn the Furest Service for this twe mile secticm it would nat i satisfy the requirements of the vacaticyn statutes fc,r a legal �i i.- access to otir praparty. � The length, physical c��ndition, ar�d grades of this rc.ad �� , completely preclude it as a reasonable� safe, or usable � aiternative access road to replace the paved, irnproved, and , maintained route up Red Mour,tain and intc� Hunter Creek. ? i The Cou»ty Rttcmneys know these facts ar,d have nc infc+rrnati�n or ,.�,' ;__± dc�cuments to the contrary. In spite c�r the tacts they are still �' recommending that the Hur,ter Creek Rd� can be vac�ted �ntl <. `�'�_'1 �.. �.�:y;.'. Y�. t � ..;�,�..q��r � �� +` _ �: y�y.w wv.E.r.ar._. . . ,._.. . .._..�:.�.-.._... .... �.. .. ..... . .... . ._. . . �, . .. — _. ... . .. .. . � .... � ....,. ._.. . �'( �� ' .�3'-: .e., _ ��•:: -' - �r—'.�T,�_-,- ' .�L\ �� ' ' ' � ,{ {�., . .. . - . -'�t �� , � . . . {-k� � //p''� 3''� t i . _ (' . . t '\ ,. 7�y'.;>'.. • . . � Y:k='.�'�y . . T �Y ,` Y .t�Y"� Ri t� ' ':�1.•:;�I�a�' • 1:f;:`�:.#rt`�' . � :��.y�T� . . . . 'q.YSy�ic: ` � - � _ � . �STM)Y:-• . .. .. .�.....-_"" . .... . ' - . . . .. . . � _ ' �'�j'!,' i . r'�`x;,°; . {��iY^i Pi7i��r` - rep]aced with the Srnuggler raute which they adrnit is nc�t publicly vwned. As public c�fficials in a dernocratic society yeu have a duty tu respect basic rights, horresty, and the iaw. If you do nat you wil2 da rnore to degrade the quality af life here Chan all � ;,,,. the disputes� development, and other problems w_�are facing. '`' ` ' The notion that cic�sing the nc�rth Hunter Creek rc�ad tc� vehicular use fexcept for McCleskey's vehicular use) and sending vehicles '�'•?'.i� up Smuggler•, down ir�to Hunter Creek, and all through the valley '''�'�=��' will keep vehicles aut of Hu»ter Creek is tr�tally absurd. With ;�f''�',.` this raute every hiker, skier� and m��untain biker using Srnuggler `;�,'�--'�- - rc�ad ar the Hunter Creek trail will be affected by vehicular use. �:s,�."` Use of the north rc�ad fr�m Red Mour�tain, on the other hand, is "��: `_ alc�ng rc�ads with heavy existir,g vehicul�r traffic. The iast rnile :�{ of the H�mter Creek road frem the Fc�rest bc�undary tc� c�ur property `±;�� is the same regardless of whether the Smuggler or Red Mt. route :�'�'�_;;; . is taken. Use of this last section by vehicies affects a er,ly �(,:?.:' ' very small fraction of th� nurober of hikers whn use Smuggier and "="�;:� Hunter- Valley trails. �3��"�� , '�1''� , ... Dr�ly use ef the north road can help to "keeQ vehicles aut of ��q``` �'r:' Hunter Creek". The few private inholdir,gs, the various Forest �; ` '. Service persaitees, the radin tower maintenance vehicles, TMTA, • ' the hu»tera, etc. assure that the presen�t Ieve1 �f vehic��lar use f '� cannet be elimir�a�ed. Dr�ly the nurth ruute can rninimize the impact of this use orr the valley. Use af the Smuggler rc.ute by vehicles affect5 five rniles of trails which might �therwise be cornpletely free of vehicles. The se�tlement as prap�sed will greatly increase vehicul�r i traffic in the v�lley �ust tc+ pratect MeC2oskey's privacy. The lack of a trailhead p�rking lat c+n the ncrth read wili perrnanently elirninate access to iiunter Creek tc� those who are unable �-+r withnut sufficient tirne available tc clirnb up the south traii. The putential for develapment of ar�other mansion an the Penedict 70 acres ad�aining the south trail will afrect the , .experience af using that trail ,7ust as McCloskey's "hc�use" affects the nc�rth raute. Acquisition of a second hiking trail ' without parking on the north route would be a taken settlernent that does r�c•thing to iniprc•ve aceess tc� Hur�ter Creek. It would � sell out ec�nver�ient public accass under the guise of "keeping vehicles c�ut^ bu�t arily result in ir�creased vehicular traffic� or, mast Iikely� with the inhalders overt��rning the closure arid c keeping their access on the north route, anyway. � b We are protected by l�w frern any atternpt ta deprive us �f a � us�b3e ar�d legal access raad, either by McCl�skey or by the County. Rny settlement which tries tc� do that will be illega2 ;1� and wilI be overturned by the cc�urts leavir�g everyc�ne with � nothing and the prospect c�f st�rting this Qr�cess all over again. � � If yau are seriaus abaut settli»g the rc�ad dispute and do not � wish tc. incur cc�ntinuc�+_is litigatior�� ir�clude us in the `Y ,�:,,.,:�, negotiations' and produce a settlemer,t that accomodates everyone�s �w•`" '` _`� needs and truly settles the issues. , ;'7:. • �� t �.,, � `I'_ �: ,� � _ . •: r.tir^w_:.:�.._.. .:..:..,� _.:..,,. . ._._ . - . . . _ . . . . . . . . . t;,_ - i �� : ,... ��.. ,' '. � " ' �� j�F F�.. .. . � r�C ?,�,�d . �.. . ` .., i s�'z�'i , � . _ I .-��r�u . ' \. s� ` :,y[.^`.�:= � . ' . . .��`Y t+.� ..'�.�€�:'r' _ . . h.i' rci;::.. � , .�:s'ai.?:",a,..�;',s .',`��.4.�;_" . t.'��'�'�� { . ..fir.�� . r�.��rt' �'.o�i4�:1�=, � ' . :i� �, � � �a. >:�:�; ^�a:, ��:` _ � � ._ . _ _ . , . "' 4.c��",�j� 1,� :j f•re:�,�. . • .�;r, �•=a$;;�.�;i�:; (':.�Ss`-": i��:.�+-�- We need a r•eview of the above sub,7ects and answers tc+ these questians: .�:,,,:,;fK��;;:i.:.,.Daes-the..County Ccde:require proof of clear title to 100X ownership tc+ devel�p property or does it c�»iy require evidence c�f the right ta use the pr-operty? 2. Under what law can the County deny that our gaed title ta 10Qy �:".'-;�.''_ �nd clear title tu 42Y• give us the right ta use the whole c�f the �:e,,;F-::t:r.: pr^operty? �# 9 . What evidence dc.es the Caur�ty have to si��w that the � ; Humrningbird Lode is not a Rlatted and Recorded lot ur�der the � . previc�us zaning ar�d subdivision regulati�ns as required by Cour,ty ' � Code 1-�.2 for exernptian from 6ene:al Submission Review? m _ .�°:-';' 4. What is the ieg�l basis for asserting the tipi a permanent ;r,-'` building �r structure requiring a building perrnit? x ' � i ; 5. What basis is there fat^ asserting that a tipi needs 1041 �- apprnval if tnere is a Code exemption frc+m 1N41 Review because it ! �^`�"• t.r'-,°`.. �. casts less than �5�2+0? How can a tipi ccrostitute developme»t ir • ! is temporary and does n�t ca��se a basic change in the character �� or use ��f the land? � 6. Why can�t we get a permit for the tipi as we have requested rnany times? Is the Caur,ty asserting that our ow»ership is inauffiicier�t ever� tc� give us the right t� have a tipi? - ,� 8. Is it legal or- fair for the Caun�y to block c+ur g��od faith �� efforts to get perrnits on the ow»ership issue and then crirnir�ally � pr-asecute us for not l�avi»g permits? � � 9. Whet eviderece is there that Smuggler raad pr�vides a legal, reasonable, ar�d usable aiterr�ate access ta our property� if you chouse to vacate the H�inter Creek Rcad? � We �ra not asking for special favors but or�ly that the Cc.ur�ty's - i actians comply witn Cour�ty, State, ar,d Federal 3aw and respert ''j our rights. We want ta pr�ceed witfi c+ur applicatic�n fc�r ; perrnits. We have nc�t ar�d are nat trying to evade any � requiremer�ts. Ii� y�u ec�ntinue tc� require the q�iiet title before � we can build, �t least allow us to get a ternp��rary special usa � ermit for the ti : and dre the crirnina2 F` � p p' p pr��serut i o». .: � Si ncerel y, �;� I iJire and Merrilee Auster 7 ( � ��i��.`!"'-f , �� i/?!?%� �:'' 4: �;. � Y.:.'��a':, :I , :./�'`�' l. � ��?*'' x �wo�. ...;:��..:�. .....,_�:.:, . .:.�_......... ,.::..::.. ... . ..... .. . ..,:�. . . . . . . .. ......... ... . . ' '•' T . . . .. � . �.... .. ..... .<< "'=;r,} . ` 'h t h �.�.: ,._. -, ' � " ..,-c+�,�a+�'�— ' ti .T.� . . _ � t . "�:•-` ��_.,�.� . :1� .�{�.. . � � , . . . ..... .. . . 'r„i . #"Y,�i;' . . r. . , x . TL f"' � . �r � , . .i Y,,;" . � . t . ,� � . . ' � . �� '� y:5.::,j:::t.,�: r . . ,Y !�" . l��`� fi•4.<��%-�+F'.��'i) . . .. ,;��;y.":;�+; _ . --.�..'�`µ3''g" . . . t4.- �ti.��:;,�. , 'c;�.-.�,�,k. � � . '-�'�-� . , . . � J�'.,:p _ YS-. ` � ' . � . �.,fi:;"�". �;�:: ��, ,` I jP. ,. � �� , , 38-4]-]09 Property-Rcal and Personal 366 367 1 i Failh depends upon purprsc witb which dced acknowiedgment of tax deeds and,atter they � < -Md stetian doq nol , Ls oDtul'rcd,and the reliance placed upon the were recorded,he inscned his name with a era!inureds,i.a,its ap claim and tbe color,and a yarty receiving color rubber stamp and the county clerk's record upon tbere being no o� � a of titk.knowing it to 6e worthleu,or in fraud was chengcd sccordingty; while such sur(ace which would g� � ; f of the owna's rights,afihough he hotds the procedurc is condemned,it does noi attcc�tbc adverse claim to�he ` color and azurts Ihe claim,canrtot render it validityo(the deeds,nor toshowclsimof tiAe Wcbermrier v.Pace, ' � avai)ing,becauu ot lhe want of good faiih. made in bad faith on the pan o[the persan P.2d 10?t(1976),a(f'd. � � Silfwd v,Scratan,54 Cofo.248, IJO P.327 causing the altero[ions to be mada Lengley v. 950(14T)). ' ! j (19I3). Young,75Co1o.44.72dP.231(1924). Section la paralld ��"f�; � f Deeds unaflertcd by{nserlton oi trcasurcr's Possesston end pa}•ment of Iaxa musl bc ?8-41-)08, Winsletl v ��'''�� - � ( name lollowfng rewrdln�. Wherc the etfirmati.�el��shown.Knight v.Lawrencc,i9 pOth Cir.(960). �'��'-� � : � [reasurer's name wes omitted from the Colo.4?5,36 P.242(I894), pud�ry�m��. �.�'""�� u �,; � � sectlon 38.41.108. W. :: . ' � Colo.App.546.552� �":.' . ; 38-01-109. When in possession under color ot title - unoccupied lands. �9�Co1o.t57,56a P.2�.�,'. ' Whenever a person having color of titfe,made in good faith,to vacant and T�ro�ttme�brr. ,. de�c pedormaoce un•..;. unoccupied land pays ail ta�ees}egally assessed thereon for seven successive section 38,4i•tOS.Hc ;;;A'. years,he shall be deemed and adjudged to be the legal owner of said vacant mance under one se�,;<?, = � and unoccupied land to the extent and according to the purport of his paper other and,ihus,nk� `::.,. } I j ; tide. All persons holding under such taxpayer, by purchase, devise, or sections.The bar m��_.`t'.;._• f descen4 before said seven ycars have expired,who continue to pay the taxes �irtct unda the one a;';'��n''. � oany cnnnot avsil c,F�k:r.,1_. ' as provided in this section, so as to compl�te the payment of taxes for the sections at the same i ; ` penod of time provided in this section, shalI be entitled to the beneft of wacmo.sts,362P.',� i this section. If any person, having a 6etter paper tiUe to said vacant and �'o o�rn��e b>t�',�� , � unoceu ied land, shall durin the said term of seven ears a the taxes �his sectinn cannot t '�. p g Y p Y was ncithtt raisen � usessed on said land for any ono or more years during the said term of sustained by the ta� ' seven years, then such person seeking dtle under claim of taxes paid, his b7emiog v.Howell." heirs and assigns,shall not be en6Ued to the benefit of this section.For the sst(tstz�. � purposes of this part 1 a redemption from a sale for ca�ces by the pazty ciaim- Panure io pi�ad;' : i ing under any of the Gmications set forth ia this sectioa shaU be considerea "°t`'n•A defendanr � ot ail thc facts,gac as the equivalent of a payment of taxes, u;s S�u,«o��;,,,,�; � and 6e may na y �� Souree:L.27,p.602,§38;CSA,C.40,§144;CRS 53,§I 18-7-9;C.R.S. supplemental answ� the vial. Empire i: 1963.§118-7-9. CnaPin.22 Cob.AT ` � Applied in Sntfiv; i; I 39 P.334(184�:l . 7 ;�• l. Gcnaal Consideratiort. TiUe'in ihe Cdorodo Short Statu[es of Limitr ' Co•. 2fi Colo.App�� a '±�� SI. Porticulaz Requircments, tion°,5ee 2!Rocky Mt.L.Rev,726 p9C9). Heini v,Bank of H� � j � A.ln General. For note,"Adverse Posxssion ia Cotorado', P.2d 1 I 13,89 A.L�"�,: . a .j � H.Cdot of Tiila sec 27 Rceky M4 L.Rev.88(IA54). Yust,1 IS Colo.44'. � �� • C.Payment oC Taxes. 7bis acction is ronstituNanal. Towna �. v.Rhodes,123 Co1�. D.Cood Faith. Schaftnit,59Co1u.242,249 P,625(1915j. Iif. Commenament and IatemiA�ion of '�s sx6on k 1Mmded as�protecdoo to a . II. PARTTCU7'.� . +' Sqiute. person hdding in good taiW nnder a mere cd- i onble tiilc,that is,under a tiUe whieb is reatlY A• C �; i. GENERAL CONS[DERAT70N_ � no titk.Ck Foresta v.Gast,20 Colo.307,38 P• { 244 Addldontl requi j-�� Cro�referc.ke.As to righu o!a person io �This�sectio�is clearlydesi�ed toopenfe as ��.�additic ',� actual possusian ot ta�s and tenemems for a�imitation upon aetions involving conffieune must have been seven ears,with color of tiUe and a sevrn succusive� :�i Y P Ymento[ [itles to vacent and u�ecupied lands.Mortis eial: l 'Iherc mt �`.. taxes.see§38-01-108. v.St.Louis Naf't Ban{c.t2 Coto.3t.29 P.802 O - � � CJ.S.Sce 2 C.1.5.,Adverse Posscssion, (1892). PaziY muse claim� ' �, 4 226. Sectbn focuve:ody oo suzfsee ncrnpaoeY• must be made in g� � � �'� 4w rcvie..s.For artick,"Nrotive Stannes Webermeier v.Pace,37 Coln.App.5<b,552 ��ments is lacki � a {�� of Colorado Respccting Titles to Real Eztate", P,?d 1021(1476),aff'd,193 Coto.t57,563 P.Zd Si�fmd v.Sinno; � i p ' see 26 Dicta 281(t9a91.For note.•°Colw ot 950p9TT). � (1913). See Emp '.��. !� � Howell.ZZ Colo., ';.f';.��. �' r� i ? �`. �;_. ' ' j � .��,.' ��'.. �� _ .}:d` wu: � . � . �(r:-•� 'ir�i�i.. -'� ,�T�'µ�� r¢ � � - :._e�-�� _ - �. � :r:_ . � °" �:�� , _ ��;:�..,... . �+'��:: �� ,;�.;��;,� �- ' ;�:�r'�``� CARPENTER 6 K�ATSKIN.P.C. ATTOHNEYS.AT UW � IyOp DCNVCq CLV!SU��DIMG WILLI!V.GARVCMTCM 51�SCVCMTCCNTM SIACCT TCLCPMOMC c �"'.- I�NORCW 5.11{,ATSIIIM..-. . . ... ... (90117]�.l71! `°°'��a�• .....OENVER,COLORA00 B0202 � _. .. - .... .. ! . J�NCLI MIN21C � 1n e . .•. .. . . . .� TCICCOPICR . /pCDLRICF p.SRI�L[qN October 18� iJ80 1J0�)SY-OSM " . "1ti:�.� _ �..7.'' Thomas Fenton Smith, Esq. .��'._;"''- Pitkin County Attorney �:;�: 506 East Main Street, Suite 1 '� Aspen, Colorado 81611 -�; Re: Hummingbird Lode •�'#�'•:..: '.t:�;, Dear Mr. Smith: ' �^ � ' � Jim and Merrilee Auster have requested my opinion on a �. . , ,. , matter now at issue between them and Pitkin County. The r�•.' , �' dispute appears to center on the question whether, under �' your land development code, the Austers are entitled to ? ;i " proceed when a portion of their title is uninsurable and ' unmarketable. F� ' In my view, the most important factor is the ownership of marketabZe title by the Austers of 27/64th interest in the Hummingbird Lode, conveyed to them by Warranty Deed dated February 22,• 1988, and recorded February 25, 1988, at Reception No. 297804 of the Pitkin County records (copy 4 enclosed). This interest, of 27/64th, has beeti insured � by American Title Insurance Company under Policy No. 30-238642 issued February 25, 1988. I Will ask Jim Auster to bring you a copy of the policy. ! Taking the most negative view, as the sole owners of � this fractional interest, the Austers are, at the very least, tenants in common with such other parties as may be , shown to have an interest in the Hummingbird Lode. The initial question then is the right of a tenant in common to proceed with an application under the County Code. Before < discussing that question, however, we should also consider `� the title to the remaining interests in the Hummingbird ,� ' Lode. ! A 17/64th interest in the Hummingbird Lode was �Z�' conveyed to the Austers by Personal Representative's Deed � dated February 22, 1988, and recorded February 23, 1988, in Book 557 at Page 566 (copy enclosedj. The remaininq 20/64th interest was conveyed to the Austers by Quitclaim L `�' Deed dated April 18, 1988, and recorded May 25, 1988, in ��,`: Book 564 at Page 98_4 (copy enclosed). The grantors of f; `� , ��T`'".:i�,:.�. . �1�_�":✓ 1. ...._.__ . �.i': 'f��. ___ . . . . _ �. iR f: __ _�_ ' �„�.' . . _,�i` :-�,:. ;,:f;.: . ;�_, .;_:i,� .� . � , �_ _ � ' �z • ,` .,'Y:; . -�(:;!ii�y;..;_ .. , ' . ' • .. - :�?:'s"' _ . i'G�C" :.�):-;:'-�"R;�..''�Y' . ;�y ' �{i . ;::'; �. . . . �'~��.ti� .�� h :`;j`��- ,� ar ,.: r ._; .., _ _ ' � .. . . . . ,.. , ,., ,.... . . ,. kr� . . . . fi 7�'r:�t �.y'.y11`.i'.1 i�''! � � �Y�,'S�n�Gi r;'�y. . •w.'�'a.:`.�4 - Thomas Fenton Smith, Esq. October 18� i988 Page 2 I i':1�- those deeds are the parties who were paying taxes on the .;�-;;;::::.�_ Hummingbird Lode as the descendants of the last record `.�r:-�'':"= tztle holders. I therefore conclu8e that the Austers now �'�','-" have acquired "good" title to the remaining 37/64th l�t�-° , interest. To convert that "good" title to "marketable" and :r� "insurab�e" title, the title insurance company has advised :i_� " that a quiet title decree must be obtained by the Austers. �"'• Accordingly, the Austers have reqvested that we initiate .�'�- . that q�iet title action and we are proceeding to do so. �r.�} �. .z,�._. _ The County Code, however, does not sequire marketable �'_��:i ' f., � or insurable title, or even 100� ownership. As you are a'.I.i.�, ' aware, it does require a certificate from the title , r.,; insurance company listing the names and addresses of all = owners of the praperty, including all mineral owners, etc. �� , Section 6-3.2(b). The applicant is required to submit � evidence establishing this interest and riqht to use the property. The Code section then indicates that a notice will be mailed to all such parties at the addresses supplied. It appears to me that the Code permits any co-owner to 'be an applicant thereunder, provided he or she submits evidence establishing the ownership interest of such co-owner and evidence establishing the co-owner's right to ' a . use the pioperty. I am sure you vill agree with the proposition that a • tenant in comieon of an undivided interest in real property is entitled to t�e full use and enjoyment of the whole ' there�f and cannot lawfully be ousted by his or her co- � owners. I enclase an excerpt from Powell on Real Prooertv whicA expresses this well-known principle of property law, concerninq which we are, no doubt, in agreement. t The question which I ask you to consider is the �' applicability of that legal principle to the Austers' , application under the Code. It is my conclusion that the i Code permits a co-owner to apply Without joinder by other ; co-owners. No othez interpretation is logical in view of � ; the right o# each co-owner to possess and use the whole,. , ; Non-joining ar-ovnezs are noti#ied. They can appear and ' ; object. Apparently, this procedvre already exists with - � .-�`�`;°�:- ��:irl;':.i;:;,..: ' respect to co-owners of the mineral estate. Z see no ..�i� � reason not to include surface co-owners in this procedure. � ; Since the AusYen presently have the right to enjoy and use 5��?. � .,��,�. �`,, � ?�.�;�• rc"' ' rr..1.. ' ,. .. . . �..b4�. . . � ' � . �. ............ � : '�....� . ..... ... . . . . ... . . _ � ... � t. '!'. F �.i . `_ ��.�-.-a+.�+��., �9'. �i r ::. . �.. .S . .. ---��-?�__� +-��,,. •�.:r).. . � ., " - . . a:�'.: , ' _ . j b ' � A _- ' t � - - � ,\ ' ".'r"� . ' . . :ti: �.:: . , ' . . � - '`�.7:;=' . . �"i'`4 � .ea2.-'�e'�'•„ . . ,�.�:... ;ry'� •i r�_ti�1��'��`r.':- - '=::,`5•'�• . .:>z\'`^ . . � . R �:.k,9'�' � v . ..,� , . _�� :_� �<< x,:.°� � - .._-___....._._ � - � - z;t7:.� . . �r.ii. , � . • �.��:�1.' ' J�„+1��'J'ytiit:,.,. ! �<,�4:��'�. � ' i`i-'k',�.V°. • Thomas Fenton Smith, Esq. � october 18, 1988 ._ . _ Page 3 ...:,:, . .. �. ,:.,,R_:..... ._....;_._ .. :..:�_... ...:... .:_. . .. ,_ .. _,._..._ ..�.-.<..:- .....,. �., � �c=�t:�._;:. Since the Austers presently have the right to enjoy and use ��:i�.__ � the enCire premises, to the exc2usion of all others except *�'`" their co-tenants, if any there be, in my view the County � � should not deny them the permits they seek mere2y on the ,� � .'. ! basis of their ownership of less than 100� of the "':�"��'� i marketable tit2e to the Hummingbird Lode. `yr'�` '" � ' � We would appreciafe your consi6eration of these views "" ? and we hope that the situation can be resolved in the near .�� ' ; future. n� .y i Very truly yours, �,�� z � � � r .// �. i .L��""' � f WVC:des .� t cc: Mr. and Mrs. James Auster I { � � 3 � . : ' I � 1 i r tj § � � ' 1 t � � 't: i �� 5 t -,<��.. . . � �' �`.1... °�� I ' �i, ..!AYS;,�IC:e � �' �5�: � {�k... i � ,.��. � �>:. '�x:j�; J ' t�-'y ' .� .--_.:..-........�.,ar.�.4..-�,.,::..�..«:;.r..K,.s ,.�..::.::: � -�.��.._'," .- .� ... ,._ . ._._ ...,._.. __ _�..__�.... ..<:..� t��'�- .., ,.su,... .., . �,.,, `-. . .. . ... s -._ . .: _.c. �s .. ., _. ' . .., :. ,� qN-' �.t:�. " - � - � �t' ��i�-1^_�sj; . . . . .. � ,.� . ��p " .. � �� ... :.... - . . wi� ... �� •' . . . `. . . .. ...::� y. y ' ��'�� _.. � - .. � � T� {�i c L�M-� ��' . . . • 1 �p{ .� . . . � � ' . . . ' 3�r�`: ' " . .(� . ' . . . � TS. t� �4.��-.: . . . ��T^_ � �y�� . � .. ' . . .. . . . . . . . . . . �'J "� . . ' . . . :��d4� .. . . . . �,��htt�' \ "TF� �f� ' . r . . . S� ,r • . �jy�;�,K� ` �► � ` � � ' _... ,�� . - . • �.,,, ._;:,: ' ��' h'(.. s- � �;�;'°';- ; CHAPTER �� :r�•`�," �'��,'�'"' O�S'IVERSHIP L'�' CO�LtiiON LVCLUDIIVG ��:�_ . ' COPA,RCEtiAR� A��r� PAR'I�TERSHIPS i; `- ,' _{ - -- �. L 6UI. � •_I • Scope aad organizatioo oF the�apter f �.," ='� + 7Le tbancteristic attribnte oE a tenancy in rnmmon is unity oF posses- � sion.�Tbis meuu that each of the co-owncss bas a separate and d'utinct ` � °'i� claim ro wme haction of the oxvership iavolved, but shares w�th his ?r,•,`. cote�ants aoe single rig5t to possessioa,which right applies to every part i; �'1 • of the aBeded property.A tenancti in common does not e�rist as to Black- °•,j acre when A ow�the west half tbereof and$o�rns the eut half ihereof, � for,in this mu, eack has a diatinct right of posses:ion az to a distincc pazcel of 1and.lt is possible to hare a tenancy in coaunoa which will last "�� no Ionger tfnn for one or more sepulated liva.TLere is no necessity that �:� t]u sharu d the rntenants be like estates or that thev be equa! fractions � •� of the�hok'Ihae iu no restriction which prevrntt this form of common • ownastip 5um adsting as to build'wgs,minerals,personalty,or land It is ;�,-� appumt th�t tmmcies in rnmmon embrace a wide diversity of commonly -=:? eamuntered situations�rhich consdtute an im t ent of the laa•. ''�� • HistoriaDy, tmancties in common were importandy diHerentiated from � t�{ ' jnmt teoancies by the absence from tenancies in rnmmon of a right of ;�:`,,� survivmship betweea the tenants.=In modern limitations,tenants in com- . , mon c m b e g i v e q by e x press l a aguage,a ri g h t o f survivws h ip, but w hen � ` this is dour,tLe prodect haz character'stia whicL deviate fro�rt ti�ose of . a normal tmaacr in common.i 1Le matcal on tenaacia in common in this Treatix has been organized ;;.� araund 6ve fai: . '•; (1) Ibe mdhods for the aeation of this hpe of concurrent { °'°n°�iP (T 602); ' � e, -;:�.� �II Slockao�e.Conmentaries'182. '1&3 (Lewis ed.1897): Fremm�, CMmon�cy :� . � . . F�');os f 88(?d ed. 1888) (hereiaaha cited respective1y u Biaetatone aad t . 1IImc6de•19L � Sa ii/ru S Q8 as to tbe rigl+t of mrviwrship in joint tcn�nda.� � �� . �Sa i/r�i 6Q7.u to estare a�inheritanee tues. �i.;_:.-�._: . ,� - 595 �, y �Y-. � :kz:. . i;� . . �..t::.'. .Y{v�'e,.� �i.;� '<'1 P'Y, � • ,t �ltAli.Fp4 ;:;-.�.. r .,��:,�.� ........ ... .. . . � .. .. �.'4., h,�. t .� ....., . :_... ._...... . -.. _ .. .. . ... . � ... . . . , . ... .., .... . ._> ..:. � ... .r... __-. Y�� : ' � 4..'�„'.._ . `��. ��'.T.K � ._�-� j� rr� :�_�k:: � . "'� __�:.��` - ;�.,,�,,��. 4 s � �;�,(�i: . �, _ . s;�''��'y�=� �a�''� � F, ;,;'�_r�,;fs,h': • � ' �"��t�t:.,:=.�. ;� .,�: . '�"`�'b:y"' ;�u�';r� ``�';.; •M�•�;, • �,�7vF��""t�'f:._ w. �: ��r�� • �::t:�:; � --_�� i- __-- _ __ ; -� ...._.._ ' . _ ,. � , �: _ ._ , _.. . . . .. .. . .,... . �. . � , . � - : . .. .- - �akF��;' R��,�. ,.: _ I ..,_. k;. < ., ,. . �,__.:... .._._ ..:__.. 596 p rowa.L ox e�t rnoeFnix" .._ .:. ........:.. ._ ...._, � ...... , . (2) The relabons of tenantt inter se, with respcct to posses- sion (4 603j, economic beneBEs (S�4j, and Bduciary nature =',';,i.� - (11 �s): ';:?�'' - (3) 'Ihe characteristics of the intcrest aE a rntenant in his relations w'ith outsiders,in terms of protections(�G06},liabilities " IS EOT)2Ad poK'tR(S GOS); ' `r - j (4) 7be all-important problems of partition (S�� 60�613); and (5) 7he deviatlons from the general pattern of tmancies in { mma,oa,found where property is owned b��partncrs (k9 614, � � 815). , 1 . , - . ,,:..,, �: 3 T 602. r.. : }� Crution of tenancics in common ( 1 Tbe feudally influenced oid crommon law favored joint tenanci�s rathu � ; . than tenancies in commoa Ia that atmosphere,it required a speriBc and � affirmative muiifestation of intmt to create a tenanry in mmmon. 7'he � changin8 prdcm«first manifested itself in a judicial willingness to 6nd " - ;� in the language and circuinstances of a traasaction indications oE the gnntari desire to create a tenanry in mmmoa This process of nibbling � ' at the older nile led to statutory enactments. In more thaa half of the e American jurisdicGOns the present statutes reverse the presumptien, dr p i elaring,in suhstance, ttut any conve��ance to two or more pecsons sha11 � ba construed w create a tenancy in common unle:s it manifestly appears � d from khe awting insuument that a joint tenancy was intended.'T6e same ¢ resu)t hu bem attained by a las explicit statute in Oklahoma,s and by � � statutes wLicL either abolish joint tenancies or eliminate,whoDy w largely, � its cLiel ebaracteristic of svrvivorship.'Ia the three states of Connecticut, � g �" ' - Ohio, and Wyoming, the substantial reduction in the possibility of joint 3 tenanoes was aecomp'ished by the rnurts wiiLout statutory aid. + In view of the sh�ong modaa prefereace for tenancies ix�rnmmon, this . ;. � is the type af mncvrcept mwecship which usually is created by a con- . . . fveyana mta viws to two or more persons,or by a testamentary gift to . �i two or mae pe+sons,or by intestate succession by two or more peisons to k� � assets of a decedent* Special situations ako give rise to a tenancy in '' M mmmoa 7'has,when A,one of three (or more)joint tenants in Blackacre, :� 3 �Shtuta af t6is rype hom 29 iurisdictions nn be(ound ia the Tre�Cse,1 602,N.3. - � S Ok1a.S7�t Ann,Tit 80,4 74;7it 84,S�184(19G!),applied in Qinton v.qinton, � - ist ox..1M,�oi r.2a eos iisao). . t �ShW4s oE 16is type f�om 17 jurisdietiora nn be Eound ia the'f�eatise,1 802,Ns. ! S and 8. i _ 1'{y{��a t6e rihution originally said to ercate a tenanry in copatcemry, II � : I $4cistom ac'187,bu ia tLe United Sta!'s it is normill desi ted as twancy in ��•;`r:�;� � C Y Fna ..: ..;2-'�. ma�mo4 IV lCeer.Commrnwriea 983(1830). •��:�:`''�:.^�; L �•. � . 5 ! ,�. ,�"��. 1 c �:.. � �:�� :� � � Y -.�.. .......:. :..;.,.__..._ .__..._..... ._. .. . .. ' �� .._.... .. .' _ . ` . . � ....:.� . '. ' �, .� �- .. _ f •f : . -�'.=._. . _.'_ � �H. . �'. k�,.f..: . . � .,.'�-"�—+�-�'�+'��g! '; tc. .y �� .. . . ��i '{ • _ $ .'s�";,;' � ' � ,yu�,..�'c,�'_�Y Y . - . . ... . . . ial ..� . . • `.. " . 1' � ��V. 5 \ w`4..' . . I� � �Yi'_ . . � ` �••�`i .��=1��' " � . . �..'l,.t.:''!.. � . . i/<-�:�='��i - - � � -+E'. :y`�^'• ' . . . , ..^�T'e:�.''��:: , ..�y„ rr� . . 1��..µ:..�3� '�.�y :•.��i�� . ;.a.�'"��}`C�: ��f�'-�',l.� ' . '`L"'�� 4 w . i' . . :�� :� -?r��. ` � ,�: � -- _._. � . ,. . .. .. .. f�i'r.r ' �'�,'�"' i'•.�a�'>'�;�� - i,:�,•j;;:�s�..'. . Y s5�1��"" S 803 OWNERSHIP IN COMMON ❑ S.RT F'��'��i"�.��.'�. rnn��eys his interest ro D and his he'vs, D thereby becomes a tcnant in mmmon�tith the other joint tenants.When A convevs land'to B and C, husband aod wife,-and the conveyees are not married,a tenaocy in wm- � �'' " mon is created.Similuly when divorcc entls the marriage between tenants by tbe entirety, or betwecn trnants in community property, the parties thereafter becnme tenants in mmmon. in at Ieast nne rtate, the eyuitable conversion of a temncy by the entircties,caused by a tessee i exercise of an option to purrhuq waz hetd to make the reluctant vendors tenantr in - _ common of personalty.A teoancy in rnmmon is tS�e label a�zcd in cata ��.''''''� where two or more penons have acquired separate tax interests in the ;jt;±i'.=,�._.' � same land or vcherc two or more persons acquire propertv by a cooperative -�'� ' redemption;or wbae one rnncurrent owmer leases the land to a trnant;or „ K�here a tree is)orated athwart the borderline between propertia. ��'".' '. , In gweral,it caa b�safely said ihat w�here two or more persons are con- cwTent oKVen of aa interest in ]and, theyµ•i11 be found ro be tenaats in common thereof,escept a•here special circumslances aompel a diHerent mn- '' � c]usion. �T� Even ancient ivrmalism haz been resorted to in mme states to aid this * ; , : strong modem dai�e for tenancies in rnmmon. In stata where joiat �� tenanoes aze perwissible, A, owning Blackacre in fce simplo absolute, � ° � executa a deed 'm proper fonm m�veying Blackacre `to A, B,and C az ; �, •. joint tenants and mt az tenants ia crommon"A's desire to awte a joint ; r''''' � tenanry is vnmisi�ble, but some states stras the old common•law re- r quiremmu in a joint tenancy, of"unities of time and tide" and declare j j that because of A's Inving Aad an interest before B and C acqu'ued one, � the transaction crrata in A.B,and C a tenancy in commoa A bettu view. ? is ta give eSeM w tLe conveyoi s dearly manifated inten�without com- � � pelling him to resori to the fully eHective but roundabout method of Srst ' �� hati'ing A convey to�l and then having a secnnd ronce�•ance from X to ' A,B,and C,the intmded joint tenac�ts.'Some states have statules express)v . authorizing the aaeon of a joint tenancy by a con�•eyance made by A ' •to a group in wLoci he (A) is a member.' In these rtata, the eecessive ! - ose of hittorical foma7ism to expand the desireble modero preference for � tenancies in rnnwa u prevented� i � 6Q3. � Relatio of tenants in common inter se—Possession i . It is stated aboae that'unity of possession"is the characteristic attri6ute of a tenancr in ao�on. In the absenee ot special facts tbe possrssion by 1 1 �7�yis pracace px,aied 3a?:cbruln�nd Wisconsin,StucLm v,\Sikul:lq 139 Neb. 374,297 N.tl.995 fH11): Moe v.K�upke.:S.S R'is.33. 37 1v.W.2d 8B5 (19t9). before the states D��ta permitti�S t1x single a�direct wnveyanm.I�eb.Rev. .�. Sh4 S 7�118(19f6k Wis•Stat.Ann,1 230.45(3) (1957). ,�". � •See,for aam�plq GIo.Rev.SlaG Ma 5 118-2-i (195!};Mass.Aaa.I,ws,Ch. � 184,S 8 (1955);1[154t Ann. i 46:3-17.2 (Supp. 1987); N.Y. Real P,op. Lw, � , i 210b:N.A Ceart.6de f tt-10-25(19801;Okla.Stat Ma,TSt 80.!7{(1983). `�� i i ' � .y"';d .;}.`\ � ~ �' � ' .�:i;��'= f. ....� .:..,. .:_,:,:. •� .. .._. ..:__ _._ . ,:. Y .� - . . ... . . ... :.. -�.--........ •. . � . , . . �' ... _ . ,.-.... ........:. .. . .�. '�• `4�`�, j � . �.. . . .�+TS'MT�"�" ��. �. -�'.� . ' _��—�� . � L � , ` t� tf. ' � - ..��• '�F� _ � ��'�: . .. . ' . _.. - '�'pra�'i=^ 4 . . � � A�• � � P �� •:'r . \ :�,,,, , :'>1< , � �< ?r-_" . , . ....:.r{.a;,�:• • ti�.e� � � � . . .i'�'.y�a�si`;�j'i � . z sr��=:,�;.' �;y,; x+F S`i9',;: • ;�?� ti.�, � ��__�, s ,,a, ` `-::s-�- ��'' , ; _ . • - i � • �r>r ..«:.. +�,��.�7; . #A�� ;p;; ,.��;ti�.., I�s��°�..'i'' r`3 t,.,.; , � SaS ❑ POK"FZt.OM REAL PROPEATY � B04 ... . .. ..:. -. .>. _ .. ; -..r . - ._. . � � � ,.�:_._:_._..,. ..—-: .�..:.::..-,:.. .1 �-_. :-. one cotenant is deemed a possasion by all cotenants.This broad generatiza- � tion can be sigqificant Tt makes a conveyance by one of the actualfy ab sent cotenants 3axful, despite a statute declaring c}umpertous and void a dred given by a peaon out of possessioa lt also pLays a part in justiEying a suit by one mtrnaat to recover possession of the whole land from an �' ;�°";;:��s outsider,although wme murts ruVict the recovery in such a sut to the ��i,;.,,,': ' plaintiH's fnctional share. lt is a coroliary o£ this basic generalization � ' that one rntenant is wiviley,ed to use and ro eniov the whole qroperty in � a �r same manner as if he w�ere the sole oKmer thereol�pro�9ded only that �V i his beha�dor does n� baz other mtenants seeking to share the bene6ts, and subject to a tcldom recognized duty of account to the other cotenants, � , A tenant in mmmon occupying the�fiole is normally held not liabie to his { cotenants for the va]ue of its use and occupatirni, or for the economic • # beaests so obtained:An excepHon to this rule is recognized where the '� , , propecty owned in mmmon can onty be occup�ed by one peaon, since - 1 occvpancy by one in this sifuatiw constituces an exelusion of the others. �•� ''` {� -:a An ouster or denial of the rights of the tenant in possession constitutes � another exception which requires tDe payment o( renfat Sometimes the �,�}y ';�j exclusi��e possession by ane of the rntenants is sanctioned by an agreement r�� ^i of all the cotenants.Ta the ahsence of svch an express agreement, the re- � ," lation betwaen aa occupving coteaant aad the out-of-omipancy ather � cotenanu is not tt�at of landlord and tenant. `' �'� The practical borderline between privileged occupancy of the whole ; �r� by a single cotenant and unprivileged greedy grabbing which subjecrs '.�S'1 the greedy one to liability to his cotenants is not crystal clear. Occupation � .F_� of the whoie by one cotenanY oaly is never presumed to be advecse to the other rotenants. Speciai facts, however, can make ic cleaz that tbe oc- � cupying cotenant has ousted 3vs mtenants and hu claimed as an individual ,'•',� + mom tban his due u a cotenant'a In thit situation,the wrongfulty acting "; cotenant must cumpensate 1us'rntenants unless his wrongful claim bar '°>.+ ripeued'mto an adverse ownenhip.t� . - 't.� ,• - ' . �; �. , ^t'i �_;� ; ;:: .:'� . :. ,,� ' s. ,(� .,'� �._;�� :; . ..1',r;�;aq;". ��:��:,��;.? ��l� -:�;,. • �1 � : ;w�-n-� - _w_.y___._..,�._..._,._ �,�X:.�. t� ..-y.� � ...� . :....�_...,� � ._..,.._._.._..---- . . . "+'i , -.__._,.. . :. . � ....., . . ` . - �.� .. . .. ._.."--_ . 5 d�'} '� - . . , . � _ ...�. . ... .. , r,. ,:,,�f� . . . . � • R-'h e � l��i2�.� .. _._. ��T��.� �:��Y� : . � � ' `�f:3'��l . .. ' ' � � • - • . � -tcx��_ � _ . '+'n``.rt'*'�>.�.. . .. . . �V�' / 4 l�J.�r� . / � " -� . .. , . . � '1 r �:��i�_ . rl c:.. �. ,�:. . , . . ,4..S,FJti.: - .( . .�{c`R`Si_�w�;1�`� , � . � ..i'„ . . . _ . . ,y�.s:�. . . , � - ' �=+9 �r�.r,. '� �;;�'�::;; . :�� r �:k,sYn„�. � . . t";.tyi��; � ' � . `�=;� , , .r w � � � � ' �j��;t.��rr•�: �'�' . ..., .. . . . � � e.::..�:'_.''"';.�� 3..,_i„:,, , '� .y � � � ' pitkin caunty , � October 91, 1988 f� Willis V. Carpenter, Esq. •�;�.�;'y,:� Carpenter and Klatskin 1500 Denver CZub $ldg. 518 27th Street c � Denvex, CO 80202 • � 1 �;.':� . f%i�,_ Re: Eiummingbird I.ode {,.. ' Dear Mr. Carpenter: . �;>�� 7'.��. Thank you for your Ietter of� October 28, 1988 on the above r, . subject. Tom has turned all matters regarding the Auster's ,,�` application over to me for.handling. Your underlining of a clause in the excerpt from Howell on Real Provertv, which you forwarded to as, omits a critical qualification regarding'the rights oE cotenants to the use of the property: �� ..provided only that his behavior does not bar other . � ' cotenants seeking to share the benefits,...'�. While you are correct that .the County Code does not require, as such, marketable and insi�alile title, or even Ioo$ ownership; in those situations where 100$�ownership are not demonstrated, the . Cbunty has coasistently required consent from the co-owners to the application. While the Austers, as cotenants, • are . privileged to use and enjoy the whole property, other cotenants �.ay assert t2:e same rights. If the Austers caru�ot demonstrate that they are able to commit the entire" property to the sinqle use proposed in the land use application, the� they are deemed � � not to have demoz�strated "the right to use the property" as + required by Section"E-3:2(b). ?, non-coasenting co-tenant could assert the right to establish an additiona2 use on the property, and thus attempt to force the County to approve development ;`• exceeding the zone density for the property. This might further be the basis for a future suit for partition of the property, which miqht achieve�ttiat same end. � While I am not completely familiar with the distinction made by the title company with respect to the Auster's 27/64ths interest conveyed by Snyder and the rem�ining 37J64ths interest conveyed - � by others, it would seem that if the title company is not willing = to consider the 37/64ths to be n arketable, then the County shou2d �,-: : = : be equally concerned regardinq the ability o£ the grantozs of - �`"%=` t Yo.". ; County Commissioners County Attomey Personnel and Finance Road and Bridye �� i�`�� Suitc 8 Sufte! .Suite F Reet Managemanl �'"R,:.: 506 E.Main Slreet 530 E,Ma'rrt Street 530 E Main Street 20210 W.Highway 82 S �' �" - --'�-� -- � -- ' -- � -- - -� � �'— `- r : = �''�! 1 �� . --=�� t; .�> ,.,.�� .;5;j;„` - . . . _ � ( 1\ 1N�'r� - � ' . � :`'�!;.,°«,.:- � � ' '�;�;':?�'. . ';:c;:ti.�; . ��..: .+,_i.a.. , iY��ah� � . . n_?.,, � v� y.��:.-. ..'1 .1..� _ ..' .�.., . .... ..�.. . . .. . . - .. � . - . . � ... ... . . . v .. .. - ..- . ! � J: . . .... .�.i . .__ ., u ..�i.. . � �rs�`, _ r „'"�i";,'tif,�. : ' ' � '-�.Xi�tv'1h.`•�;.. - . ��'��'';`= �� willis Carpenter, £sq. • October 31, 1988 , Page 2 _ , ,_ . ::... . ,... . , _ .:........... ..,. ;�;,_... :.:. .... these interests to consent to the application. . �::c,'>: ' . Perhaps you can convince me that the County�s concerns are ''�`'�'�c'" �- unfounded, and accordingly, I look forward to your response to �' � this 2etter. ` V ruly �+'� ; : � 1ry � � � ' T �sd E. Whits h �: A si ta t Pitkin County Attorney � ��y:>": ,x,4 � TFS/cc Y��, ac: Glenn Horn � Jim and Merrilee Auster �t„ ts10.357 �::�'C'` �: , ' . i i i. I � ' ' , _ . ' .. ;{ _ • .. 1 i ; . ,`� . . � � • 'Y � . i �:� � � _j . . . . . _ , _ `, 4 � � t ti. . . . . . . . _:( . . ' 1 . )�� ``L��. � - . ';°.i�:�':: M: ti . S�.. .y4r.:' . . ..�.,_.. I A�� . 1 ._�� . ._.. �.... _ 4 : : �; _.u....�.... - � �.r. .� �_ _� �.... .. .... .-::,,�-_ .:: -;s .�� --�x� - �.�.-� �,� �. ��.��.� - , � �°-�' _ =� s f.i�4��,�, . . . r. • ' . • ._... - $'� �' ��x: . . ' ' � � ' II` . � t o ct� A '�^,�:. . . � . . . . Sq��'��. � .. . . � � - . .. ... ' 4u�k#� \ ��. . . - �' - � ,.�«; �. 1�[I . . . i. . . f. 1��:' . . . . � . . \ ,,Y�, . . .. . . . . i c, _ `#r� '°'��`q _ . . . . . . . ��. � , .. . - . � �: � „�� ` � w . . � . _ .. ..._. .:�; ,.:, �'4; • ' �7°'�'�tifr�' � , �r FF . ' . # t � :: . • �;s�;u:i; CARPENTER & KLATSKIN.P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW noo oeNV[n cwe euuo�wa . � WIIIIS V.CARPCMTCR ]t!5[V[MTCCMTH STR[[1 l�O�)SY•d)�y �NORCW S.RtAT]MN j DENVER.COLORADO 80202 -`_. :�:••JAMCIL M1IN21C ..• ... � . . TCICCOp1LF � rAmeaica e.s�iucne DeCelRbET 7� 1988 (�03133�-OSw »t:i" - �. . �.-;�;u��::.;-,. Timothy E. Whitsitt, £sq. �`;"�:^ - Assistant Pitkin County Attorney 5�0 East Main Street, Suite I ;'�•`��' ' Aspeh, Colorado 81611 `>�" _�.: Re: Hummingbird Lode � a§ �S� Dear Mr. Whitsitt: ��j'�" zr�• ..,_':�•.:.:. This is in response to your letter of October 3i, �t`-� ;�x.. 1988, reqarding the problems encountered by Jim and ;�:?�.�., .. Merrilee Auster in obtaining the necessary pe�its under ;� 1:. �.. the County Code to proceed with the buildinq of a sinqle �"'_ family residence. If I interpret your comments correctly, '!' it appears that the County's concern focuses on the possibility that other co-owners (assuming such exist, for the purpose of argument) cou2d petition the County for equal rights to construct single fami2y residences, thereby increasing the density on the property in excess of the a2lowab2e 2imit; or, alternatively, that such co-owners might seek to partition the property into smaller tracts and thus increase the density. My view is simply that the property will support only as many residences as the County zoning allows for that � acreage. Regardless of the ownership interests, or the manner in which the property might be divided among co- owners, if the zoning requires 20 or 20 acres to support . one residence, then the owner of a smaller tract could be prohibitad from building and increasing density beyond the allowable limit under the zoninq code. ,. Further, by constructing a single family residence on the property, the Austers are not necessari2y barrinq i "other co-tenants seeking to share the benefits". Rather, `� in my view, other co-tenants would have an equal right to occupy the dwelling constructed on the premises. If the �.�� Austers construct a hame, and another co-owner appears who is barred from the use of that home thett, and only then, : � would such co-owner be deemed to be "ousted" from the premises. If that occurs, the co-owner can sve the Austers : � for damages. The County would not be involved. The � .� �: Austers would be required to respond in damages if that `�' , were the remedy souqht. Referring to Paragraph 603 of �L � ; � h . 1� �;` �7 G ., • . L!/ !: re,: a. rs.xK..:.-..;;. . �y � ., �f.: :..�.:.:.�.... . -. . . . .. ` .„. � . . . .. . . . . . _ /�' . . , . . ' `. t. . , . ,. . �:` `�� ' t F:t f�. r 5 1��1 a:. , � - — • .. . . . 07.- . t x t� � ` ` � `i•�s._• . • , . . `� S • i.s �',�ia:�'�=�:'{� . ��.C):. . .�'i�'?��i^t. . �^rv5 �, 'Y. . � ��"'t�, . 1� . +'�'t..'-�si r ' �^^Y�: , � � . . __._._..� ---_�.��..-s�..�� ;�• � . i i. �+�� r , ; � . :r'`j:.`�'�t;....;;,: 2H'�.,M';':,;:,: CARPENTER & KLATSKIN,P.C. !`"''�`�'�°`"' ATTORNEYS AT LAW I500 DEnVER CIUB BU�IDIHG ' S�G SEVENTEEN'IH STA[ET TELEVMONE ' WILl15 V.GAqPENTER � AN�REW S.RV�TSIUN DENVER.COlORA00 80202 lDOJ157�-6J15 ' - -�-JANELL KIN;IE � - � - TEIEGDPIER � FpEDERICR B.SKILLCRN April 18� 1989 (�O])S3�•O5�< ';+�:�,� �� Ronald D. Austih, Esq. ,.�� Austin, Jordan, Young & Peirce ' _ 600 East Hopkins Avenue, �205 �""'� Asnen, Colorado R1611 ` �'�= �{,� - Re: Auster Quiet Title 'K, Action �j� Dear Mr. Austin: �' . ��F, }- This is in response to your letter of April 12, 1989, a, � �,; enclosing a copy of quit claim deed from D.R.C. Brown as r well as the letter to the Pitkin County Soard of County - Commissioners dated April li, 14s9, from Thomas D. ' ��` McCloskey, Jr. I have several comments concerning the r' '� � McCloskey letter and the deed. i ' Mr. Brown and Z talked by telephone after your letter was received, so Z know that he advised you that none of the members of the Brown family claim any interest in the Hummingbird Lode nor do they believe that they have any interest. This fact was not presented in the letter to the ; Commissioners. That seems to me to be a misrepresentation by omission. ' The letter then represents that Mike Veitch's exam:natior. shaws tY:at the c,�e:it clai*� @ea3 '�censti±u*_es � good and valid claim to an interest in the Hummingbird . Claim". I have talked with Mr. Veitch. He to2d me that he had much additional work to do and had not completed his . ' exatrtination. He thinks he may be able to show such an � interest as you claim. But this is not what the letter said. < The next sentence of the letter advises that "Mr. "� Hrown" has been designated as a party in the complaint. � �'. i You must know this is not true. Mr. Brown's father was 1 designated, not the Mr. Brown who signed the quit claim deed. '1 ;` The letter then implies that the joindez of D.R.C. � Brown, Sr. must reflect my opinion that Mr. Brown, Jr., has � an interest sufficient to join him in the suit. Again, as � i'� �: .�a . :s,l�"�t.,1u�R�. ' .' J.. ......,....,.. . . . . . �� lf �r.. i�r. _.,:..,....__..._.�_ _..___..._.... ._ _. . . .. . - .. .. . . � .. , . . . . . . .__ ._..:...:_ ... . ,. , ., .. .� t... � l ,c.'..M;. .. L • ' �' � �= "' . .;�a C�:; ' �s� : � . . ��F - .:�re''. . . . --.. �� ,��' . . 4 . ' . - _t=�.� .� .: . . . . - .. �. -t[�^+',�!�' � Ryr', P '' ��xr - . ' .` -j.a .Ht..i..,�.�;.� . �� .. �Jj � ' {R�X�� ' i 4c:`:�,, . ��;is.` �, �i :; . ^�`�,�i";�: . y"��, " . . :�i+:?'? ♦ :. . .,,_, n.,,:, ,_ ...:.,. -......�>..�-,._,.�._.�-_::...,._.._.�,.... ,..�. . ... ._ ._ � � ., ��.�iky�°�� >}��;?`:�`i;��: . �>�.�,`1��s', }f,,!��., tr�"�.yi"`i:�%` Ronald D. Austin, Esq. April 18, 1989 Paqe 2 a lawyer, you know that people are joined in quiet title '�:•:��,�' actions not because they have an interest, but because ''�? . - they do not. You cannot quiet title against someone who �� . ,_ has an interest. All you can do is wipe from the record those whose interests have expired. - °` ;_�`` The fo7low�.no paraaranh of the letter is Certainly °i�; `-_` , going quite far with the boast that you will show fhat the Austers have no clear title to a� of the Hummingbird. s�`` �-. :!"�'; I hate to start off on such a ne ative note with a `"'"=�"` j reputable member of the profession whom 2 have not even ,V • � met. Nothing personal, but I think Mr. McCloskey's letter r� �'° is full of misstatements designed to mislead the Commis- (��':� { sioners. whether there are actionable damages, I do not ` r`�.' � know at this point. But it is certainly a possibility. { In response to the second paragraph of your forwarding � ? Ietter, I do not intend to serve Mr. McCloskey at all. My ' � Zis pendens was recorded before his quit claim deed so you i have a problem how to get into the lawsuit. If you do, � then I trust we will be able to cooperate in the normal � fashion to get this case tried without undue delay. s . { Sincerely yours, ; � � . � �� t� 1 WVC:des � cc: Mr. and Mrs. James Auster � ,� ! `: it � :� 1 . � ;j ° . � �r � � � ,:,;�, t ,;�r`�.��;. ,� .�.� �.r;� �.,.:... . . .,�. ..:..a.. ...:..:.:...�... :...:..-:',.��_ ..-......_.., . � .. Y.. : �:r: � � . . _,.:.. �^ ' �a �� " ,:..�;,,�- .. _, `� t„ :� . ., �p :' �y ��i."� _ . . ' � . �"z-.ur��—q��I.., .. "f�j t�!{r."= . . . �r_`-.w�..�9 �� . w� ��. y' . � ,-...... _..�,.-f Y. � ,;�;�"+-J` ... . �:.�,� : ` _ _ S�r'h`r,�'`�,^!lr=� . . . . ' . n ��`,+'�` � � . � � . '�-ce�,±NN'::�:s:' . , �Y.. ej,,��'i��' 1 � �f . - - `y �. �+ .L��:. . . � . t} . ��,� . . . . .. ^�'�� ' ' .. 'a��e.�y . .t�}'/i->" � , • . '°��y a13�i:.�� 'k ..F��'ibc'' ~ � ., �f . ..�.;�S . . . , �' .sj�t��i, w ' . � . q:SY:4i"� � � . . . :,,;;,,: �- :: :�., .. _ _. , , ~�„� ij� , % ��kl . y....,�aa. -i� ..•. , �_ �+�,� :.f: _. . . , 2Q''�SOR11HlX12( . Dated: Jahuary 12, 1984 < ,__ _ TO: Planninq Commisa3on � FROH: Timothy E. Whitsitt f RE: Jim and Merrilee Aust r -- General Submission Review on ..�c`>�- - Hummingbird Lode Claim �;;'�;_', -.,q��:-� i_"'�;�.'° Tom Smith has recently turned over to me the captianed `�' matter Sor all purposes involvinq the County Attorney's office. �}' • This appl3cation is on the Comraiesion�s docket for General #,,�^., Submission Review of the Auster's application for conatruction of t��• , � a single family dwelling upon the referenced patented lode mining �.'!� ' ' claim in the Hunter Creek Valley. The matter first came before „ the Commission for consideration of this application on May lo, ;::7 . ; 2488, at which time it was tabled, due to the applicants� �'��' + inability to demonstrate 100k ownership or consent of co-owners ' �° t to the development. At that time the applicants� attorney !` � consented to the prosecution of quiet title, actions as a � condition precedent to the Commission's consideration of the application. j More recently the applicar►te have expressed their ? unwi113ngness to vait for the quiet title decrees, and have � demanded that the Coamission qo forward to consider their application on the merits. Although they have not as yet filed ; any guiet title action to c2ear their title to the Zands in � question, they have provided you and this offiee with a quantity of information as to their tit2e. The purpose of thzs memorandum is to review briefly for the Commission the state of Austers� � title to the Iand and to make recommendations to the Commission � as to how to address this matter in cansiderinq this application. ; ? First� it appears that Austers have solid title to an � undivided 27/b4 interest in the lode c2aim. This portion is ) subject to title insurance issued by American Tit1e. They � further claim to own the remaining 37/64 by virtue of two deeds � which they have recorded. These deeds raise inherent questions � as to their validity, since there are several "gaps'� in the title t,`r.. 3 chain of each of the grantors of those instruments. In other �; ' words, one cannot trace back the title of the grantors through �� ! consecut3ve conveyances recorde@ in the County, but instead at k! ! some point reaches a dead end. These qaps occur enerall in the k . 9 Y k": . :. ; period of the early 1900's, makinq it impossib2e to complete a j� I chain of tit2e for the Auster's interest and establishing its � . validity on the record. ;� ; I ��` I ?„k�,. � - ;J+�,, ; � : i � ,�� _. ....._... .._.. � . _ _. .... ._,_ . � _ � � �` r�'1 ' • �. ,�t; �� - ' . _—�...�..�.-..----_ !., • �: ;-� - , �� -. ..e _ .� _ �iv�M1 ' �:.1:+ . U . . ¢. � i • � ` -:�,,Y:.•:' ' . . • ' v-i•:. _ '�:c.1y;,,��,ri�-, . ;,t i�n _ s�i'?;;. . � .;,.`i�=yw � . ..u`,.,�: . .y,,��.a ' . ;:;.<:,;' � � :. .. , , ... . . , � bi ."._ . . ._.... ... . _ .. � ' �yi"��.i�r:�� . (,:.'.�z t, '`x.�. ' • �t^Yt`�"• .. Timothy E..Whitsitt, Esq. December 7, 1988 Page 2 Powell on Real Property, forwarded with my previaus letter, ' �_ it appears to me that the paragraph states that while a ��' tenant in common who occupies the whole is not normally �`i�"' ` required to compensate the other co-owners for his use and $�,` :: ::. occupation, Where the property can anly be occupied by one • . person, as with a single family residence, then occupancy sF` by one co-tenant ma constitute an exclusion of the others �� Which would require compensation. : �•�`.: In other words, if the Austers erect and occupy a �_"."'' single family residence, they might have two choices if �;,�:� : another co-owner owning some fractional interest suddenly appeared. They could open their doazs and share the `.%� � � residence with him, in uhich case they would not be barring ; r'�.,� ' "ather co-tenants seekinq to share the benefits"; or, if % they did not open their doors, then they could be subject to the payment of compettsation to the co-owner who was not allowed to occupy the residence. That compensation would be measuYed in terms of the fair rental value of the premises. All of this is remote. Sut, either way, I do � not see how the County could possibly bear any of the liability for having allowed one co-tenant to proceed with • the erection of the single family residence. If partition ' is sought by a co-owner, then un8er C.R.S. �38-28-107, the i likely remedy would be the sale of the property and ; division af the proceeds, rather than the division of the + property on the ground. It does not seem to me that C:R.S. ? §38-28-106 would permit the division of the la»ds into lots ': . or parcels if that would violate the density limitations of � the zoninq code. Surely, no court supervising the � partition would allow much less order such a violation. � � The question presented to the County for administra- � tive decision is whether an application submitted by the y � owner of marketable title to 27/64ths interest in the � ' property and "good" title to the remaining 37/64ths ,`�. i interest can be denied a permit to proceefl with construc- i tion on the basis of 2ack of marketable title to 37/64ihs � interest. In other vmrds, the Austers have 100$ ownership, :� , � but not 200� marketable title {at least, not until the ' quiet title action can De completed). ' 'i l In addition to tLe title insurance policy on the - 1:r �" ! 27/64ths (copy enclosdl) I would be willing to give m `��''�"`� , Y ��;cx`.;; :;�;. leqal opinion that the Austers have "gaod" title ta the � remaining 37/64ths intcrest and that my examination of the ', , +�`..: � � :,.;��j. , '` :; � _.� r. _._... . _ � _._ �. � _ � ' , k ..�'-. i� �� . ,.F. _,z _.sr+....�.r-:. L / '..,�_• . ' � --°�' �� _ . ;�.-'_ � �.. ` .. . . 3 `� L � � :.)•a t . .. ` ._;�r`�; ' . � ' . � )�� f� �.c.5:y�!q:.;..:>' . . . ;.w:k:,e :.��?` . :Lu_�., � -'R��:i=� � ry1::; : ��::k.'�'>P`. � + � , r. �i< � . � . ��.�}�-,�:�t, ..'i '. i ,1��y1. ' L�':iik`•('�' Timothy E. Whitsitt, Esq. � December 7, 1988 Paqe 3 _..._.... i , chain of title does not reveal any living person who can ,:.'3;!''_ successfully contest the Austers action to quiet title in �:s:<-:� themselves. I could also recommend to the Austers that :?9,;'' '� � they assure the County in writing that they will not "oust" - �- any co-owner who successfully proves his or her interest by court decree and in the unlikely event that a partiti.on �: r : � action is ever sought among co-owners of the HumminRbird Loda, they will not seek to subdivide the property but will reqvest sale and division of proceeds. In that manner, the � Austers would be demonstrating to the County that they are ::i able to commit the entire property to the single use proposed in the land use application. A non-consenting co- � � tenant cannot object to the use to which the property is " �� .,. .. , ,;� .�,:, � � put by the occupying co-tenant during that period of time ;�•:' in which the non-consenting co-tenant has not sought to �; '.. �;.; share in the possession and use of the property. For these reasons, I urge you once again to reconsider '� this matter and to reinstate the Austers' application °� tabled in May, so that they may proceed under the provi- �'� sions of the Code as then in effect. They are being � ' :,�� seriously damaged by the present refusal of the County to `="� process their application. I �. �^� Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely yours, � - i �� WVC:des ` ' - Enclosures h cc: Mr. and Mrs. James Auster g� ='I E�. J "l � � I .._� _ :�. ` - � : I �. �i. . . � -' (yv,' � ��' "�'''• 1 :;� � �� '.��__-�_�.,��.�,«.��.�.�.�...� ._�.�.:....�..: -�.......... ._.,�, � __ � , . .. ...:.:.. .. -_ . .: .1 .._--. ._a . r. . . , .... .. �.. ... .. .... „ .:, ��. �Y r.. .. T„ . . . . .. F �f{ I ti . . �� . ,W t �_� -�IV�a � : � . . . . �,.�}!F'� . tiy t�q3,. . . . - ��''�.,.a,y'„ - . ' . .- . ' - " . . _ ..a.��^�{�. � . �. •.�.}� , . ..k:,i�� '�f . . . . . ' � �.�• - . . . ' . , �'.. - � �. - � • � . 3` ..'�� ' ,` . . .t . . ,.y � y;. . . , � ?•�'ti:;;. . . � .. .,:q;�:;'�nt:�y-°.. . - . . . . � ��„a�43�` - � � . . .. . yi � ° .'��''�� 'q'.rt� . .;`4�,4_�i,; . 7��• ' �i L�. ��`��`� . . . . . . J�y,:,�� . , . . . , . __ ��'..: _ . . � �, :� � ,. - - _ . .__ _'� . '92 193 Partition 3R-28-107 f `: t'` nn- F��;, �. . 38-28•1(14. Process,practice,procedure,The process,practice,and proco- nA, , dure shall be in compliance a�ith the Colorado rules o(civil procedure lhen j. ' ' in e(tect. � ti- Source: L.49,p.544,§4;CSA.C. 122.§27:CRS 53,§ 103-1-4;C.R.S. � � oy � 1963.§ 103-t-4. - f;:ti � ; S 38-28•iRS. Commicsiooerc•oath-partition-abjections.Upon the entry of � �`.� ! any order tor partition,the cowt sball appoint one or more dis�nterested com- ' �� missioners who shalf take oath to fairly and impartially make partition of i ` l,;�:`� the properry in accordance with thc decree of court. 5uch commissioners j !<�:, � shall vicw the property and make partition thereof in writing. assigning to ,l `h each party his share,and shall submit the same to the court for confirmation. � �' ' • � cr Objections may be filed by any party wi[hin the time(ixed by the courL , '� " Saurce: L.49,p.541.§5;CSA.C. 122.4�8;CRS S3,§103-1-5;C.R.S. �I ( � � 1963.§ l�3-I-5. 1 • � � Is ,yn,Jur.2d.See 59 Am.Jur.2d,Pani�ion. the appointment.M it may be interposcd as an ; ); §)�p, objection to the report betore its confirmntion. - j _ - C.J.S.See 68 CJ.S..Par�ition.4 130. Jcttdan v.bfoNuhy. 14 Cdo.2H0.=3 P-460 ! Subs[iWtion ot commissloner for n(uud to (1890). serve.Wherc a commissioner apPointed by�be F1fed of cummiv iuner's tyilure co �ipn ,I � , court undcr Ibe provisions of Ihis section to rcprcl. A commissiuner's ncRktting W tiign � • ' nuYe partition dcclinesio serve,tbe coun muy 5nd ucknowledpe tbe report doei nu�do:fwuy � wbsti�ufe ano�fiei per3on in his p4uce wilhoui with tAe presump[ion�hat he did meet a�uct �� - givirtg notice to the parties.and, i!ibe w�th �he o�her commissiancrs in making the - appointee is objec�ionrble by reason of comin6 nition.Jordan v.McNdt 14 Colo.280.23 �,,� ' � �' xathin any of�Ae exceptions enumeroted in W+ Y• � , . ��a �bis settion,tbe objec�ion may be raiud aher P.4e0(�s9D). f ! `+. � 3&28-146. Commissioners may div�de tand.'S'he commissioncrs appointed �� i ' by the court,with the approval of the court, may divide e�ny lands involved •.j ' in such action into lo[s or parcels,streets,and alleys and file a map or plat 1 ; <c � thereof in compliance with law and applicable ordinances. f' Source: L.49,p.544,§6;CSA.C. 122,§29;CRS 53,§ 103-1-6;C.R.S. i, � 1963,4 103-i-6. :i' �r� C.J.S.See 68 C.I.S.,Par�ition.¢§ 154J58. � it- '� 3&28-307. Sale of property;notice. If the commissioners report and the court finds that partition oi the property cannot be made without manifest � prejudice Io the nghts of any interested parq�,the court mey directthe sele � � ,, � of such property at public sale upon such terms as the court may fix.Notice � ' of such sale shalt be given in the same manner as may be required by law � : tor sales of real estate upon execution. Source: L.49,p.545.4 7;CSA.C. 122.4 30:CRS 53,§ 103-1-7:C.R.S. �i 1963.§]03-1-7. �; - Crussrclrrence: Forsxkolrcales�ateuponexecution.see41?•SG-'_OI. . �b�r'��'�i�"' App�ied in Firzt Nat'1 Bank v.Energy Fuds ��.� � Corp.._Colo.�.618 P.2d 1115 U98U). . ��', � 'c rr.•.'.. . f�� %�-:...� � `J �:;:f . � ti��i..• _ �� v`, _ . . .E�- �': �_ =� . � _ .-�.. ,. ' J �` ;'Y:, _ �I ' ' ` t "�;�.,�,_�.i:;� . _,t�y„ N_ � . :?�•`., • :J�sT•'>`'. � . '. .r..:'C;�.. � . :+•i":',_- ,` ;s �;;.; ..,.,.: �' ��. ��_t� ,, , i �?�.'l*<'i: F ' a � �'1.t Gt:=�.�-:•�•': •�.-...,. �wunun6 — ucros cons�d- .14-44-107. Actions of accounling — 1 cxpretsio�w formality of exec • ��red. setoffs. sary, and a parol agrceinen� 34-H-105. Contributiun from tenants— 3d-�4•(O8. Nutice�o�enants—contrnts � Smeller v. LeacA. 136 Colo. ' liens. —e((ecL- 1030.70 A.L.R.2d 89I(19571.o':�""?�-��-_.- � 34-f4-I06, StatemeM — disposition af JJ-44•109, Setoff rules applicaae,when. U.S.936.78 S.Ct.'n7,:L.Ed. �: - ' _.I � pro(ts. )a-74-I)0. l.eases—righis and duties nf MininR paAnership exLsts br t . Iessce, whece lhe xren�owncrs o(m � ' work(ng thereo[,acd onc a!tt � 3 4-4 4-1 U 1. Legis la live dedaralion. T his artic le s ha l l be construed as a nocbindchea�hers�oth'rrdpan>,,;; . � remedial law,intended to promote mining activi�y,and shall be libcrall con- a�c�er.��nner mey ao.Sn��:� �' � strued in favor of the workin [ett3ql. Y 136Co1o._97.316 P.2d 1030.:, g . 11957),ccrt.denied,356 U.S.�- �- � 777,2 L.Ed.2d 81?(I958). [- � �� And�i t��a neeasan m.�l�.t.,- . ' Source: L. 23, p.455, §9;CSA, C, 92, 4 16;CRS 53, §9:_3-9;C.R.S. t;,^r ', � 1963.§92-23-9. traet sute intertsl of taeh of�(,'±�, � ( � sumptioe being equal owncrs tf.�' . � � Lcach. 136 Colo. 297. 316t'��• " .� t:;( Law revicws.For Mide."Severcd Mincrals � � A.L.R.2d 891 (19571.cert.d;:�.j!.� � '!J as a Deterrcnt lo Land Development".see 51 9;6,78 S.Ct.7T7.:L.Ed.:d��i i�.�. � Dcn.L.J.If19746 �`.,��.,. �� '� 34-44-[O4. Acrnuntii,� ; �' � ' 34-4�3-102. Definitions.As used in this article,u�less the context othetwise tenant shall be permitte `• ` ; requires: , ation all expenditures a'�` `;�j ; (1) "Mine"inc[udes all reat property acquired, used,or chietiy valaable repairing of such roads.�� i;.i for mining purposes. ent to fumish economi�: i1�i (2) "Mining operation" includes all acts constituting ihe prospecting, road; prospecting, de�� ; development, and working of a mine, incfuding the mitfing and sate of ore, apptiances far ventilat �) � minerals,and mine products,which are carried out with reasonab(e difigence chase, instalfatiaa, ma . � �° from the beginning of work until comple[ion of the operation,or until aban- ment,aad appliances f �t donment,or termination by law. of tcansporting ore am + � (3) "Person"includes a corporation,partnership,firm,association of peo- to or aristng out of s: � 4 sons,personal representative,heir,assignee,trustee,or receiver. tenant shalt ba allowe , :�� (4) "Tenant"includes tenant in common,joint tenant,or copazcener. rendered in or upon tF � 4 exceed the curtent rat, �� Source: L. ?3, p.455, §4;CSA, C. 42, § 16;CRS 53, §92-23-9;C.R.S. �n the community in �. � 1963,§92-23-9. � setoff for his expendi , i:� ! convincingly appears ` ;�. intcnt to injure or defr . - '• � 3t-44-103. Mine owners-tenants iq common•rights. It two or more per i�� I sons own any mine they shall be considered tenants in common. Any one Source: L. 23, p. 'f. or more such tenants in common shall have the right to enter upon,occupy, 1%3,§92-23-2. _ ' prospect, develop, and work said mine in a minerlike manner, extracting, - � milling,and disposing of the ore from the common property without the con- ��.��.�.�'-o�m. ` � sent of any nonworking tenant in common, subject to accounting to the �d loim ownersn;p. 4: Mines and Minenls,f 161. � nonworking tenant in common for his proporlionate share of the net pro6ts CJ.S. See asA C.t.s.;� ` of such mining operations. 5 4?6,27:58 C.J.S.,M� . ` 4'e5. Source: L. 23, p. 451, § 1; CSA, C. 93, §8; CRS S3, §92-33-1;C.R.S. Co�o.ncnasno�gh�io -"� 1963.4 92-23-1. iare�o nonce.whcrc a pu � sale of a six-trnths imcrc ` ' Am.)ur.lA.Sac?0 Am.lur.?d,Colrnancv ¢ R 21?L• 56 C.J.S..Mines and Minerals. 34-44-]O5. COntti ]1� and ]oint OwnersRip. t 15: Sa qm. )ur.?d, 5 4 245,?46. � 2Ry righi to deman='. '�� : MincsandMinerrls.4 161, Joinl mininR advmmrt must h�rc i�s oriRin of lhe PioCeedS o�� ' CJ.S. See 3NA GJ.S.. Joinl Tenane>•. in rnneracq altAough na panicular lorm nf - :{ �b,:: �.,:.� ,.� �}- ;��;;'�4,� -- -- . � �� : ,' �.. � � �,3 - �:_ =-�. -_._� . ,� �,::• .. . <,�-;:- , - �` ` � • ,! , ' - , � :�;��;: ' � � .��4+_.'�ql� . :�f` .._ i+�',,. 'j� ..��f 4�:: ' . ;�:;F'i�Ya. . .;�.�.s��. ` • , .,ti _Y.,.�,. � � ��:: _ _,.. � ,�g-- . _ . .-— r ,;. ,,•,. , �.� �, .: 30-15-4{I Govcrnmcnt-Count�• 406 �'.:'' -1�� 30-I;-OI l. Conilicu with stalc statutes.No countl'shali adopl an otdinance ,. that is in conilict w•ith any state statute. 5ource:L.79,p. 1147,F L l�.� Am.Jur.2d.Sec 56 Am.1ur.'_d.Nunicipal lion musl con�uin czpress or implic�condi- . Curporrtions.Etc.,4 f 37s-377. tions wbich aze icxonsistent and irtecnocila6{e . • Dctermination and ctfect of rnnllia.No{ocal one wilh the o�her.C k M Sa�S Gravcl v. �t-� ' governmrnt may adopt an ordinancc or resolu- Board of Coumg Comm'rs, 673 P.=d IUl3 � { - tion that is in ronflict w•ith a siatc s�atu�e.[f i� (Colo.App.19B?I. I }!: does con0ict.�he ordiwnce or rc.olution is Apptied in Hudspctb r. Board oC County ' !�� void.However.(or a conllici to exist.tath�he Comm'rs,G67 P'd 77t�Colo.App.19e5�. i - � )�f siate statme and tbe lo�al ordinance or resolw i .. i ; : : ;':°: �� ' AftT1CLE17 � .'�'•��`.• .7F, ;i .. Count��Assistance for the Poor , � Editor•s notc.Thc suMtnntivc prorisiuns of thiz anicte((onnerh•tiUed"County Poor"�v.•ere �'5�:�� repealcd and recnaaed in 1981 causinF somc addition,eliminaiion,and relocaiion of scctions as � ... well as subjccl mancr.(For the historical recard of this a�idc prior to 1981,sm ihis articic as .�.�-:%�,� containcd in the 1977 Rcplacemem\"olume I?.Colorado Rcvixd Statmcs.l i ��.i . PART 1 3417•_0_. 1ob diversion ro � � � i i p �m-cstab. i :_�,.`��. � GENERALASSISTANCE � lished•eligibiliry�. �pa,.,��'� �- 1-. 30.17-_O3. Financing for ptogram. ' "��.t. i 30�I7-IOL Lcgislati�•cdedaration. 3417-204. Programconsolida�ion. � f;P�r�1�' 3417-10?. Counlies may providc tcm{+o- 30.17-2�5. Repon to joint budget commi5- rary gcncrel assistancc �o tee ot the gencnl asumbly. �}` ''r. . '� thepoor. 3417•206. Weld coum}• dcmonstrasion f 1 30.17•]03. Standardsandguidelincs. project-utablished-alip- �� j; 30.t7-IQ7. Burialexpcnse:. bility-financing. j. 30.17-I05. Temporan•general assisiance � �� accounc. - PART 3 . �'1 30.17d06. Esublishmento(poofiouse. � 30.17-107. Reimbursemem Iocoumy. 70H ALTERNATI\'E PROGRAbt ' ;'� 30.t7d08. Tcmporery•genera4 assistance paymenis limitcd �o appro• 30.17-301. LcFislative dmlaration. �� priation. 30.t7-301. DeGnitiona. � � 30.17-303. )ob alternative program. PART? 30�17-365. Couniy p(an•required-con- - - �: �rnts. �� • I�� COUNTYJOBDIVERSIONPROGR��f 3a�7_JpS. Plan-financing. � �. ` ':�; 30.17-?01. Definitions. 30.17-306. Financial incentivcs. PAKT 1 �� GENERAL ASSISTANCE ' ., i 30-17-101. Legislative dectaration.It is the intent of the genera!assembly ' !;� in the enactment of this part 1 to enable each county to provide a means �; of temporary general assistance to poor persons who reside in the county ��'. or to transienls. Such temporan� general assistance is necessarily restrictad ;� by the limited ability of county government to make appropriations therefor. c i i,; Source: R&RE,L.81,p. 1451,§ 1;L.8?,p.428,§5. _ �• i�; . i � � �=; �; � �: ;: ,. ,�� - :�, �� ; z I�; :;>,�:;; � , ; tia�� _ - ;�: t _- .:.., VJ�,- . : � ----:�__.—_= �-- a " Y ' .� g a ` ^ � A ^ !\ } o _ � � . _ � i�- , r.:,':�;, : ._ . >, ° �; ... __ . �°� , �,:.. =i .�`; ; g zo-t ' `�+ ..a •". i s, j �• . �yn—proiecting.Any sign supported by a builtling wall antl projecli�g ' � •!c p�er¢trom. � � ��.—Wa1L Any sign painted on, incorppraled in, or aflixed Io the � ��•`^'' puildingr+ali,oranysignconsist�ngofcufoutlettersordevicesaffixedto p� '�� - Ne truildmg Wa11 with no background defined on the buiitling wa1L � C Soi(,The relalively ioose,incoherent earth malerial ol whatever origin � s C�'� `• �hat overlies bedrock. r� � f.. � Sofa�Ene�gY Co!lector.McluOes solar collectors,storege facililies,and � "' . . f distribution components(lor space heaiing and cooling and domestic I { �� rrater heabng)whether attached or unal[acAetl to a struCtwe, f � �t� � $tafl.Mem6ers ot tb¢Planning Ottice or any other County employee � wRp may review IanG use appfica�ion. � $lream.Any natural channel or depression through whicb water(lows, rAether continuously, intermittentty, or periodicaliy incVUding any � -i � yliFicia�modilication ot the natural channel or depression. � w $treet Right-o/-Way.That ponion of land dedicated to pubfic use tor i � anC utility purpose. i -�, f—Private.A private way which has been delineated as the principai ! p p�eens ol access ro aDUttin ro rt i � ,' 4 P Pe Y� o � f—Public A pubiic way which has been dedicated,condemned or � a •bendoned to!he pubiic as sucn and which aftords the principal means � � access to abutting properry. � $ ; ture.Anytbing constructed or erected whith required location on .°. ' ground or attachetl to something having a location on the ground dut 1 htcludiog fences or walls used as fences fess than six feet in height, i �a � � lines,cables,or other transmission or distribution laciGlies of Iic utiiities. � •. irision or SubdivideA Land. I � (e)A�ract or parcel of land which is divided into[wo(2y or more lots. hacts,sites,parcels,separateinterests,intetestsincommon,orother ,c division,��nfess exempted pursnant lo subsection(c)herein.Mteiest �neans eny and aIt inte�est in tMe surface ot land(including Ieasehoid � fnterest)but exctuding any and a1t subsurtace interests.lncluded(fiot �1' WaY of limitation) within the detinition ot `subtlivision" or �Ubdivided land"are: \i. S�)A parcel ol land to be used ior the construclion(for lease or t . � sa�e}oi�ondOminiums(commercial or residential),cooperatives, y . .ePeAments,time sharinq unils,or multe-famity units,whether or �' `�'� � 'not constructed on a previously subtlivideti lot or parce�(unfess � � �such lantl,when previousiy subdivided,was accompanied by a ! ��^9 0l an application lor improvements(with 5ub5tantiafiy th0 ' same densit whicn complied wifh afi •�� '�"� Y] provisions ol tne state ...., .�`-:�` . :�;:. '�'� ',i��c. 233 swn s i'yJ;:` Y;{ �- ---'-'-- ti �x;. :� - ''�1... ..��{' � ��. ., f= , ��j��a:ti::�--� � ` �� v � _ " ' � . , ` :_:y'`�'' � �:C• � _ �� . � . � ' - . . . ._ � .. .. . i`�,: - � �:. ,I. �;I; c..�,�L: _�, ''� �,-.� I, - _ � .. . . . . r... i gzo� . , . �;� i I � ' security instn ` i subdivision law and Counly.subdivision regulations and was a � � � proved thereunder). � �3) Which is investment Iru � � . (2) A parcel 01 land lo De used lor ihe construction ol a hotel, interesl in any`,� � ; IoOge,matel or dormitory. �4) Which cre.�' . � i . (3) A parcel ol land lo be used�or a mobile home park without (5) Which cre ��'; . � regard as to whether park spaces are to be leased or soid. _ waler which .; '� .� �j � ; (4) A parcel of land(not previously subdivided)to be usea lor�he property:or � '. , ' conslruction ol two(2)or more commercfal or intluslnal spaces (6) Wbich is cr.� f� ' � I � lor rent(withoul regard to the term ol sucb leaseholds). name of[he hu � � � (5) A parcel ol land(wilh or without improvemeMS)leased(lor as tenants in c� . ;� other than utilily or roadway purposes) lor a period(includ�ng 1be purpose ot renewal terms)ol Iwenty(20)years or lonqer,provide4 however, (7) Which crea�. I that no lands subject Io such leaseholds created pnor�o the live(35)or mo:. , I; etfective date hereof shall be deemed to have been sub6ivitled use by mufliple � merely by reason ot such leasehofd mterest. 7 tl � ` (6) 7heconversionofresidentialunitsintounitscapab�eolsepar- =' ; � ate ownership by condominiumizauon or crealion of a coopera- �, i tive.time-share interests,fr2ctional tee,or similar device ;�. � ' �! (b) No subdivision ol land shall be deemed to have occur�e0 merely T� ' 4 j by reason of the establishment af a pubhc right-of-way Qor accessor . . 3 .! utility purposes)across such land without regard as to whether such x_ . iight-of-way was acquired by dedication or established by prescnp- ; � tion. . '' ,f : 'li (c) In the eveM that two or more oG ntiduous parcefs of�antl.previ- y � �. ous�y separately conveyed{or describetlj,shall come unde�single•' ` I, � . ownership,the Civision of such land into two(2)or more lots,tracts, - � ��j sites.parcels,separafe interests,interests in common,or other divi-J sion, even it divided along the Iine oi a previously described or '.,� � conveyed parcel, shall constitute a wbdivision o( lantl. Nothing �. ��1 � herein shall be deemed to apply to a bt shown on any recaaed -�' subd'msion plat,untess such subAivis;oo plat shall not have received_ . ;'i those approvaVs required by state or local law. :, � (d) Unless the method o(disposition is adopted(or the purpose of ' � evadingthis0elinition,theterms"subtfirision"and�ubdivitle0�and" � � as delined in subsection(a)stiall not apply to any division of land: -� � (1)Which could be created by any court i�this state pursuant to ' � the law of eminent domain,or by oprsation ot law,or by order o� �. . �'s any couR in this state i11he8oard ot CountyCommissionersof 1he . , counry in which the property is situaied is given timely no�ice o! � arrysuchpendingactionbythecourtandgivenopporwoirytojoin � �� as a party in interest in such proceedings for[he purposeol raisin9 � :� theissueotevasionofthecounty'ssvbtlivisionregulationspriorto 4._.: � � .- '; . the entry of the court order and if Me Board does not�de a� ' ; appropriate pleading within twenty(�)days after receipi o�such 4 I s.o 234 ; '-Ic{f'. + o. ' --- ° • - - -__-- -..._ —.. �•: �. %_��.,.•, _ .. � � F . __. _,..-,.�....r_._.._ _ -- � _ _ - �- - - - - ---- - - --. �' ` �� `. ��-- f . -_—.-��,_� '�� - ' '` � \ _, � � .. . , . ..._ - .__. � ��'`� • . . . - , �. . , '' i ':, :l. 1. . 1� �,� "-- . � s;.: ,;:<�r:.��. r:;;. r .a _ � . .... .� . . ,. • .' ,_ {;:` ;,,... _ _. .. . .... .°'.. . �..._ .�.:.�,.r._�.'__—... g 2o i . _ . . � � � p A,• i`:!4r. -. - . P.i . y � o ,ecurity instrvment; � •��:`��> � (3)Whicn is crealed by a security or unit o( inlerest in any � � �,?:� . inve5trt�ent trust regulated under the laws ol thi5 State or any other � intetest in any investment enlity; � � , e °� �' �`r (q)Whirfi creates cemetery lots; ' C � � �5�Whicb creates an inleres!or in�erests in oil,gas,minerais,w = . water which is severed irom the surtace ownership ot real � proPerhr,or � �5)Which is created by the acquisi�ion oi an interest in land in the name of the husband and wile or other persons in joint:enancy,ot � 1 as lenants in common,and any such interest shail be deemed}or ,� tbe purpose oi this definition as only one inierest. (7)Wh�ch creates parcels ol land,Bach of which comprise5 thirty- five f35)or more acres o(land and none of which is imended for use by multiple owners. � s . � � 1 � D 4 � � � � � 1 � I s i. f � : � t a;�. � . � M , , ; �� i}},,�� -:i �!�`' �� ..��k.. �)...�:'..i:y:f.'.. 4 " c� : # �� i; ' , . ��;'. �'. C � 234.t s�oo.s �:.:. i. __ , �� .�-�:. . - ._ : .:�,r�--'"°r'% t �%_ . . Y ` .. . R :t:9^�`"..��?• • � ,\ �� _ ( Y i . -��'Y.�.. ^;'�}c:'�" . Y�:ti.y::. . �.�,^.:�i '�FV:� . .��.i�.�Vr � � . �,il.��'�� . _�.�� - �� s, > , _ . . . ... . _ .. . .... ......_ , D{ -,�'':'4 .��..... '�' . . . .. ... ... . -. . _ .. _.,.' . . i. . ��..� �� +'��:;�;s;: � ��;t r�` , , ��r�ey �.,;.,,_� (a) Wrltten request from at least seventy-five percent � of the participating property owners; or (b) Refusal on the part of one or more property owners � to convey title as required by section 30-28-307. ~ (2) The board of county cortmissioners shall have the authority to assess costs as provided in section 30-28-310 against the properties included in the adopted plan for work ��;' � completed prior to cancellation of the process. `'�'�'�;" � .'�a 7]:- 30-28-312. Limitation on Tiability. Property owners and �. ? any persons representing themselves as property owners who • convey property to the district court under the provisions of ff this part 3 sha71 bear fu11 responsibility for the condition , ; of the title they hald to the property and for any subsequent litigation regarding defective title. Admirtistration by the �- ,• board of county commissioners and the district court of the �.;:;;', . procedures set forth in this part 3 shall not confer ii'ability � ,•,�. :. upon them or anyone in their employ far any litigation :p regarding defective title of any property which is included in ":t� ' a subdivision ezemption plat prepared pursuant to this part 3. :, d 30-28-313. 5everability. If any section, clause, l...r%;?, � provision� or portion of this part 3 shall be found t unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by a court of competent ! jurisdiction, the remainder of this part 3 shall not be ; � affected. , � � SECTION 2. 43-2-303 (2). Colorado Revised Statutes, 1984 .j Repl. Vo1., is amended to read: ' 43-2-303. Methods of vacatian. (2) No PLATTED OR ' j DEEOEQ roadway or part thereof OR UNPLAT7ED OR UNDEFINED r ROAOWAY WIiLCH EXISTS BY RI6HT OF USAGE shall be vacated so as � to leave any land adfoining sa�d rosdway without an 1 established public road OR PRIVATE-ACCESS EASEMENT co�necting � � said land with another established public road. � i SECTION 3. Safety clause. The general assembly hereby . � `� i, i S�t. � i I • :f t , � . ! + � ij� , f PA6E 8-HOUSE BILL N0. 1229 ;: s��;• � �.�"� :: i � � .�:,,;"` '. J.' ''.. .._. ,_ . ��jft � . ..._._._ :.�_._,.._ . , . . . ..... . _ _.,__.._ .. _._ ._. :.._.. . ._. ...._. . . ' ,rn/, . . � . �.: .... . C � _ .. _..._.._ . .. . ._ f .t.w �:tii�`. . . '_. �"�fi �. .. .'' � . �� hc�: ' , ✓1' „3 ru.s7c'. a . . .- . � . O �iS4�ti.°'L Y. .4 . � ... . - . .,;:.114i �. . �� T ��1:�� . .. ( �y /' . . ' . . .. � �-: i - I� � r; ..F 3�?;.,•::z • � �°�?;,"<i:�:- , :.q-3,'�'�.'��itr .. . � . ' � . k � y` �t��' .`��,` _ . .`x$-'"�H {. . �"'�� , ,-0�� ! s '�ik��i''H�i . . . 1 .. -. �"� ' � , . �1;t:�;s,�,.:;:; 1�'<,�}�=, . ��.::is::j;:''- i,r-.-:�'�.�Lr::%.. September 15. In reviewing the Aspen Mountain Master Plan it is clear that communication facilities can be located in this area. However, Mountain Bell put in a similar facility on top of the mountain and they were asked to go through a two step review for exemption from the Growth Management Quota System which is mandated by the Land Use Code. � Another issue has to do with building permits. The FAA says they do not usually get building permits from local : jurisdictions. Aowever, they were told that the County's �-;;;A`':'�`., position is, that they require all structures in the County to �x`�''�-'��= apply for and obtain a building permit from the building "��5,' } department in order to be consistent and fair to other persons ';I.•.'�', " who have had to comply with the permitting process. _ :�',�: - A discussion ensued with regard to the building permit issue. _;�_:,, . Smith commented that this is a life, health, safety issue and ""r'�+ recommended that it be fast tracked through the system in order ��' to make sure the facility is there in time. �'`�•` �,V`1, . After further discussion, was a reed that the FAA should a 1 ''r^.''}' 5 PP Y ,�T' , , for and obtain a building permit, and that plans be submitted ` immediately. Also, staff was instructed to schedule a meeting r�� , �; for the Planning and Zoning Coaunission to review the application !� for the Growth Management Quota System Exemption Iteview and try fi'r to get the FAA through the process as quickly as possible. Tom New2and, Land use Enqineer, commented that the radar proposals are due to be submitted on Thursday. In the RFP's it states that a representative from the Board of County Commissioners will be on the Selection Committee. He asked the Board if they wished to appoint a member to serve on the Committee. 4 Because of most members having a conflict, it was agreed that staff will handle the selection without a Commission member. SMUGGLER/HDNTER T12IIST - GENERAL SIIBI�SSION AND ElifPIAYEE DWELLING IINIT - Francis Krizmanich, representing the Planning Office,� • summarized this item by stating that the applicant, Smuggler/Hunter Trust, is applying for a 1041 Hazard Review and , General Submission approval to construct a single-family residence on a 1Z.26 acre property which contains mapped 1041 hazards including geologic, wildlife, and wildfire concerns. The � applicant is also requesting Special Review approval to constrvct `'' � a 500 square foot employee unit within an agricultural building. � ' He presented to members a site plan showing the location of the �E property. He stated, that this application is being forwarded to the Board �•.� for General Submission review pursuant to Section 18-3.2(b) of ; the Land Use Code which requires that applications for building � : `i q .. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 4 AUGIIST 23, 1988 .[ �`: "k;'_:' �v � �� '� �::. �:;.;�,: �� i �� i'�_^. ,... , e ; � ' __ -___.._. .__.._..... ..r 4 }. . ... .. . . ... . ..... . .. . . . � . � � . . . . ' . '.� r.. . ._._ `�f'.� F " .. ' . .� aa�!�^+ -�.., n: s �t�z s�� f �:�i..Yr �. . . ...c�.?a:;;n_ � . . � . . . . 'Sy.y:.y;`>' . . F' ' � 1 Y . { ` � � . ,l ;S r _ ..$::`t ,<5::�ii' . Y��tii�.� « . . �1 '. :,i g1',��: - ;zf�i:� . ` . . . :; , : � �.- .. .:_. . ._.. . . . .... ...__ . .. i:;.,;s.;�.. . �r;��'�? `4r'��;::s�'! �:;:e�;z ��7 ... permits be forwarded to the Board for final approval or denial. He referred to a memorandum from Tom Smith, County Attorney which describes the process. The memorandum is made a part of this record as Exhibit ^A^. The Planning Commission has granted 1041 Hazard Review approval for this application by their Resolution PZ-88-21. However, they ' have recommended by their Resolution PZ-88-22 that the Board deny the applicant's General Submission application because it does - not comply with adopted policies of Pitkin County as contained in t'��'-` Article 2 0£ the Land Use Code. Both resolutions are made a part �`��°'•,� - of this record as Exhibit "B". yh�� <,�- With regard to the 1041 Hazard Review, the applicant can meet all _ the requirements with the exception they have not completed ;{;''. getting their legaZ access to the property. He does not have ! :.=`• easements across all private properties, and this is the base '. issue at this time. r{��.:' .�;:,� fi � . The Planninq and Zoning Commission approved the 1041 Hazard 1,� Review subject to the applicant qetting those easements prior to �I;1 ,, the issuance of a building permit. He advised members tha•� they can do as the Planning Commission has done, and yrant approval ,r�` , , subject to that issue being resolved, or table the issue until `!' the applicant can secure the appropriate easements. ' t� He proceeded to review staff's memo with regard to the issues and concerns. A copy of this memo is attached to and made a part of ' this record as Exhibit "C^, and he again referred to the Planning Commission's resolutions referenced above which addresses their concerns policy wise. � He continued, by stating that the applicant has also applied for an employee dwelling unit. The Land Use Code states, that if an applicant has a conforming lot in the A-1 Zone, they can do a 500 square foot caretaker unit attached to the main residence or within an agricultural outbuilding. The Aley's would like to do a caretaker unit in the agricultural outbuilding. They can meet all the requirements of the employee dwelling unit provision with • the exception of Provision C which says it has to be found to be in compliance with all the other regulations and policies of the � Land Use Code. Given the concerns expressed by the Planning Commission in their < recommendation to deny the General Submission for factors �� relating to utility extensions, scenic quality, compatibility � �• with neighborhoods and adjacent public lands, staff cannot t recommend approval of an employee unit in this location. Their , opinion is that the rural location should be kept to the lowest �t:' residential density possible to mitigate the concerns raised by ` 1 the Planning Commission. �� J 1 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 5 AIIGUST 23, 1988 `� !� ' . •��;:��,. :�rs',, ..� � , �''��i?.,.-d�r��- �_'-'�;: . � ....... . , ��.. Y.. .,. ............ .........: ..... .. .. .. . . . . _ . . .. .. .. . .. . .. � ... .. . + .;�, . - . .... . f �.-r_'�.� 't ,.... . . . ;. -�.�:"r'�'��;"��"��—'_- �'A �. : � � -.�.. '—:� �.��. : �. . .� : . J �- � � " ` . " . `�iSi.:;.�' .. . - ' `�1 f � .r � ' ( ':Y�i,�:�'i- � -L'j '. ' .,a!` ��^}�.`'�� . '��:c"�.T�� .. , � ;n •_;�- ,` �� ;,:�::.. : ,, • � �� . .. : , ' {��i��+arr4i„ �+•�.1,/•` N'�`•�rt�i�. ni,' . F";�;%%.;:f� ;:�',:4'�,?: '•' Commissioner Penne asked for a c2arification with regard to Smuggler Road, whether it is a county or a public road. If it is a public road, she questioned why the applicant needs ta prove legal access. Tom 'Smith, Cou�ty Attorney, responded by stating that Smuggler ' Road is a public road. There is no deed or other 6"A�F'nra S•�.<.-n i� satisfies him th�thP ro„n+Y ever acwired �arta� title as such - to the Smuaaler Mountain Road There is conflicting evidencein the historical records regarding the status of the road and how the County treated it. At the present time, it is determined to ��i - be a ublic road. "t°"�"�� P �'7�'':`: > He stated, that what they have done in several similar situations '��'� "':' � (when the road essentially appears to be a road that is public by :..�;._ . prescription) is require that the developer/applicant get permission from the property owners through which the road travels so that there is no liability situation later on with ?�r,;�, possibly the adjacent property owners coming back with a protest 'i��'. .: with regard to the increased traffic through their property, etc. Therefore, when there is no deed or legal record of County € � ownership, but merely that the road is "public by prescription" , �, _ they request that the applicant receive permission from other '; ; • ' owners to access their property. ' r''' ,�: He further stated, that if the applicant has requested that permission, and it has been denied, then he would suggest that an Agreement be obtained from the developer to defend the County if litigation is a result of that, and indemnification if there is any liability because of the approval based on an erroneous j determination regarding access. Chairman Crowley asked the representative of the applicant, � . Maxwell Aley, if he had any answers to offer with regard to the • legal access issue. , Aley responded by stating, that he disagrees with the County � Attorney. The code says that the applicant must prove access to a public road. Staff states in their memo a "dedicated public - ; road." However, the code does not state "dedicated" public road. . s He feels this is an interpretation by either the County Attorney ; or the PZanning Office. Also, the County required them to get a � perrait to improve the road. f � A discussion ensued with regard to this matter. � �.. Wilk Wilkinson, stated that he has provided the Board of County Commissioners, the County Engineer, and the County Attorney a .� copy of a document which was in the County Courthouse records which dates back to 1891 when all of the mine owners on Smuggler Mountain petitioned the County to take over the Smuggler Mountain Road and dedicate it as a public road. That was done and is � � BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 6 ADGIIST 23, 1988 � ':�x;'`�:�`-,j�;' � .,�i: 1 , I Y'~ ; �,�`_�, �t- � � ,,r r•.:, -- ; _ _......, .. . n� :. _.. ._. : ,<.: t . � _ _ � ;��~`�� . .... � � ... .. . ..�` .IFF�.., - _ - _ s::m,r--.r+�-�---__,_. .w� {.'E , • �� . t :,.�F�. - . . ...- r `- :4�:°�;y . , � ' . .::tF^ y - Ij :Y._- � � ` .-Y+1"ti��y',� � . . � _ -��+_ ,,�lrif�_'�,.�'.:r.i {�{{�fk.i�} Y^�4�^ ti. . . I . ,''�'i�,�I�� ' � . . ` _ �`� { . .. .r. • " f.�.�`'��7:: l:�+ ,i,,5 I,_z.a. .': recorded in the BOCC minutes. The second agreement which affects the road was in 1953 when the State mandated to the Counties that they go through and designate all of their county roads, put them on maps with mileage, etc. There are public hearings to that fact when the BOCC said that Smuqgler Mountain Road is not a - County road �nd therefore,-they`were not going to piace it an the mags. It is his opinion, that at that point, the County effectively took the position that they abandoned or vacated the . raad. Smith stated that he has reviewed the document which Wi2kinson is ;��•: - speaking to and there is no evidence that there is any notice of '"�'�:'�^ a meeting of the Board on that issue or evidence that the detailed statutory procedures required at that time for k'�`'"..• establishment of County roads, were followed. It is his opinion , that it i� a checkered history and this is why he has said that 4.' . -_ � he believes it is a public road because, it is still unclear " whether or not it is a county road. 4"� � rtia_. � A discussion ensued with regard to what easements have been �� granted to the applicant by other property owners. i 1 ; Aley stated, that he has submitted easements from Phyllis and '� � ° i Grafton Smith, and from Fidelity Trust. They have a verbal r , . agreement from Smuggler/Durant that should be finalized this i week. The only one which has not come to a concZusion is Harvey � Baldwin's property. j Blake moved to table the application until pernission to use the �' � road is obtained from all the interveninq landowners. Chiid f r'.� seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. F i SILVERBRICB - 1987 METRO AREA RESTDENTIAL GROWTH KANAGEl�NT SCORE � . ! - Motion to Anprove - AIFMC - Krizmanich summarized this item by 'j stating, that the applicants, Phyllis and Grafton Smith have j purchased the Silverbrick property from the Bank of Aspen. The `._� Silverbrick is located on the south face of Smuggler Mountain at ' an elevation of approximately 8,200 feet. The property is - � approximately 2.3 acres in size. ,,� � � i When the GMP application was originally submitted by the Sank of ;i Aspen in December 1987, and scored by the Planning Commission in ; � January 1988, it received a score below the minimum required 'l + threshold. The property was subsequently purchased by the ; i applicants who appealed the score. The Planning Commission then `� reviewed an amended application on July 19, 1988 and the new GMP j score exceeded the minimum threshold. Therefore, pursuant to �;' � Section 5-510.5(a) (6) of the Land Use Code, the Planning �` j Commission hereby forwards the revised GMP score for this `� j application. � � Staff recommends that the Board direct them to draft a resolution ' j T � BOARD OF COIIN'PY COMMISSIONERS 7 AIIGUST 23, 1988 �, - � �ii ?'y:��.;, �,i:y,�:.;�' + � t � �P�, ? ..._ .... _ .. 1:.• ..�.n �....._.... ...... . ...... .... .. ._. .. . .. . .. . . _ . . . . . . . .. '� i � . � ... . � `� � �"" � , �� . '�'�'•��_�_ . . . v .. ' . iz " _ ` .• .. '1 4F....� • j ' f; � r- 1\ � 2�ii:,`:i i . " . • , . . �,".Sj�.,,:... �-:^_w•'�`5`'-`l�`� . :.�,F ,•-}d+' , , ~:E• ��'1.^•�'�.',,'1,j`,�` � . . � s _ .__ ____ , .,..w ,, ��. . ,... . ,,,� :� ,` � • � . ' f�i!':�r...',��(,. � ��Yf:, � F�i • •� ��+�.w ' 1'.•.�.i��;. , 'tb;�l,`�.��.,.: . ' ��,,,•ri;;.;,.. r;��1t�;::. Daspita these qaps, it appears fairly clearly that there are no othot porsons, livinq or dead, who hav any better racord c2aia to this 77/61 interast than do ths Auetars. This vas cont;,rmed !or me by ltr, xike Do2an of 1►merican Titla in Eagle, ,.,___.:;.;,, ,,, Colorado, who,did the resaarch �pon vhiah tha Auatare' inaurance i• based:� '"In tact, it is difficult to lind any paraon who has any aonllicting claim to title at all. Auatera have deeds lrom , pax-ties who themselves had "color o! title", i.e., a deed of conveyance tc them (whether or not it had any validity) nnd Who • had paid taxes on that interest tor a period well in excess o! �:�":;^?�- ' saven years. Under Colorado atatutea, this would qive them a ;��+,." right to title euperior to any other claimant, wlth the exception �5`s�"":^�- of an adverse possessor. F�t.-�' . ._ br, .� Given this status, it is extremely unlike2y that any party �:��`�� will be abla to prove that they have any interest in the -- Hummingbird Lode and is even less likely that the County will be faced vith competing development claims from such a co-owner. At ��.. the same time since no livin `��r� , � q person appears to hold any seri�us •� claim to these interests, it is a practica2 impoasibility tor the �' - Austers to obtain consents to the deve2opment from those parties. r� ; '1,'`.,.. ' 3 Based upon this analysis, I have two suggestions which Z � believe will serve� to adequately insure For the Cout�ty that any j permit issued upon this application ie issued to the Austers as the sole owners. • i � ' • l. The Austers 'should be required to publish notice of j public hearinq on their application before tha Board of County Commissioners, Which notice shall be specifically �� addressed to those persons T.rho may have a claim to tftle, as ! ' .identified by Mike polan. That notice shall clearly etate ; . the nature of the application and that the granting of same � ' may foreclose all furt.ber development upon those lands by # any co-ovner. i ! 2. TY:e Austeis should be required to have corep2eted l . quieting their title to the Hummingbird Lode prior to the issuanca of any building peruit. , � � i I ��. j �.1 ! f ,=� � + _ �� . . ! _�.�.' ';�:- ;;k;�:: I �y� : � � ,...`�,_''. ':� 1". ..•w,�� .._....:... . . .. .�ri J. ..___.: . . . ., .. . . ...�......-.. ........ ::.. . . ....... ;. ...._._. .. . .. _ �.: r .� .. . .- . ... . .... .. . . .. ...�-... ..r � . . .. . .. .:. .... . , : .... . � ,t.: - >l:. C �:r . .....�3°�-^"'r'="' '�Q7 n v.:�3:.: • - �"� . -. ,r,:�.�Yi..::.' � . .. � --- �:�:iy�.y.l.ii; _ ' . Y �?ry^. . � .. . � ,r..,_ . . /� . f'F .. . - r , i . :''j;,� - . , � � �.�i:". � .. . . . . . 1 w ..�ri.� . � . `�;��.>i[.�:Y:.; . . . Cix t"`�: �v_... r`y 44, �;^ ��(� � . . �,4� �; �:, � +