HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.reg.04231991 'tC
�'� ,
���,: ' �
,�z��.����, � r �...w , t� ,>
: � }et ,; !�, s.a ry�. , ;q,t� �,��
� F`�"�<' tii'. -:. r _-. �,_ '• , � 1"''�. �"Y � � �`��cy,�+cP'�4 t r tt
t k. �a r' r-� F. . �-7�: � .' � �, .� "a' )�,. � �'� 15 ��l��
A -�. �;�"'°4 . •w}•�64�� i.� i 4 S.-�� K�'Ac � a�"t k. �' '.'iY �`��...w�c F
;
-j� +� .,Z . �i+ 4� 'a� �.. 5* J,.;:�. 4 -.�, 7
�",.��t6' . �. l.°�'.` :'v' . ��." __ . .�1M{�.ts`y}xi s�_,.
i
.> ,�
• , . .
PITRIN COIINTY COMMISSIONERS "
REGQLAR MEETING AGENDA
District Courtroom � ' '
TUESDAY. APRIL 23, 1991 (FRED CRONLEY NOT PRESENT) . r.•
5:30 PM PUHLIC COMMENT � � '.� �
;,,...
CONSENT A(iENDA �.,.� ,
Minutes of Previous Meeting
1. Library Board of Trustee Appointment, Kathy Chandler ,j "
2. Extension Advisory Committee Appointments, Mary Sue +' • •�
Kennington ��
_ ADMINISTRATIVE Pi1BLIC HEARINGS �;A; 4
3. 2nd Reading, Resolution Setting Airline Fees, Tom Oken �""`
4. 2nd Reading, 1991 Supplemental Budget Appropriation, Lynn ' � �``'
� Dunlop �'
i 5. 2nd Reading, Pitkin County Partial Consent Decree, Smugg2er a
� Mountain Superfund Litigation, Tom Smith
� I,AND IISE PIIBLIC BEARINGB
6. Margy's Hut Special Review, Mary Lackner (Staff requests '
� tabZing) '
7. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Sludge Site Annual '�
_ Review, Mary Lackner
8. Snowmass Village Water and Sanitation District Sludge Site �R� ,
• Annual Review, Mary Lackner �i-'
9. Mollica Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission Decision Y�'•
and General Submission Review, Mary Lackner (Staff requests !: 'j
tabling to May 28th) � �`
I,AND USE ACTIONS ;!"�I •
;� � .
10. Batten Employee Dwelling Unit, Cindy Houben
il. 1st Reading and Set for PubZic Hearing, Code Amendment - :, �
Section 6.1, Cindy Houben �
12. Murry Low Impact Subdivision Final Plat, Ellen Sassano ,
13. Wildcat Ranch Einal Plat, Cindy Houben
ADHINIBTRATIVS ACTIONS �
� 14. lst Reading and Set for Public Hearing, FBO Lease !
Extensions, Brad Christopher "��
'• 15. lst Reading and Set for Public Hearing, Institutional �" < .
Controls, Tom Smith •'r��
16. lst Reading, 1990 Supplemental Budget Appropriation, Lynn 1�, '.,. _
Dunlop e � `
17. I990 Supplemental Budget Appropriation, RFTA Resolution 91- '` � '.
�.. _
4, Dan Blankenship � •
18. 1991 Supplemental Budget Appropriation, RFTA Resolution 91- ?.•:'L .
5, Dan Blankenship �"�
• AQTOURN .".�.
PLSASB NOTE: ALL PDBLIG HEARINGS ARE NOTICED FOR 5:30 PM. ACTIIAL TIMES
WILL VA12Y. I. ,'
�,rf"
��"''�
t . .
. x'my ' " .. . . �� :. � . . � .. . . . . . ` . . . .
r�, i
�y?�iA�.�.- - � ; . ..
� +
��� '
�����{i�(; � �
��
� •
y
��
.:e:
_._....w__.� �-IWYIIrY "- -. . 1
:���` ,
�� 3 _ �: . . . . . .
� t � *
b
' x*i.t(�', .-:.' 'r- � .� ' . A . � �M�Y'Y ����.. ��~��� ��CpdyL1.S�C��ITt h
Y )}
r� �' \ P� vy l r���{ t .' y�,y S1yk.it�M � �f�1 .t5 � d+7 g{� t 1
� ,��C y V^ • ��� Y .:i.:�sf a .t'• ��li. � �v :,.� �j�'. � �f_r��' yf��.
. . . . .n��� !� p�. }} . p ' .�# ��., . . �� .�.� i 74. �i4
� 4
��.�„ -� .. _. �� . �.�'ri.f _ . '{'�.�'.� . _ ... ..... .'�~ 9 �}it l..
/ '
�` � _ APPROVEp AT . •
MINIITES MAY 14 1991 �
PITRIN COUNTY 80ARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS MEETINU �
. R�GIILAR MRETING �:�� .
APRIL 23. 1991 ". .�'�.:y� ,
�t�
.•, � .
CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Ethridge called the meeting to order at ;.f '
5:30 p.m. '� •
�� .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Wayne Ethridge, Commissioners Jim True, i
Herschel Ross and Bi11 Tuite. Commissioner Crowley was absent. �N. '.
:: a,�. '.
PUBLZC COPffKENT: Chairman Ethridge asked if there was anyone "' °�.
;� :
a present wishing to comment at this time. There being none he :'
closed the public comment portion of the meeting. `
.;
CON3ENT AGENDA:
APPROVAL OF MINIITES OF APRIL 9. 1991 '
APPOINTMENT OF CHIICR VIbAL TO A FIVS YEAR TERM TO THE LIBRARY BOARD +
. OF TRUSTEES '�
v6
APPOINTMENT OF JESBIE MOR48 SANDY HOLMES. NANCY ADAMS. MIRE ��`
JOFiNSON TERRY LA$AELL CDRT DFRES P&(i MCGADOCR. JIM DORE, SHIRLEX =4''
� RITTER AND JIIDY BSLL TO THE PITRTN CODNTY OVERALL ERTEN3ION L: '
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
_' �,.��
Commissioner Ross moved approval of the Consent Agenda. With a :-'�,
second by Commissioner Tuite, the motion passed unanimously. ` �
SECOND READIN(i - RESOLifTION SETTING AIRLINE FEES - MOTION TO ,. i
APPROOE - PASSED UNANIMOUSLY - Reid Haughey, County Manager, stated � �
that this resolution will set the airline fees at $.88 per thousand � �,
pounds. This is in response to a couple of different events at the
airport the most major one was the additional security costs that
' were incurred as a result of the Level 4 security alert as a result t •
of the middle east war. In addition, there have been some minor '
amendments to the list of capital projects which had been prior
approved by the airlines. ;�"4 ' •
c
Brad Christopher, Airport Manager, submitted two documents for the n�t '., __
record: 1) a progress report from himself to the County t��
Commissioners outlining the progress on Highway 82 and the land �'� � '
' acquisition projects; 2) a rate list and a comparable rates and j ,
' charges at other airports which are comparable to Aspen. A copy ��•{ .
of these documents are made a part of this record as EXHIBTT ��A��. �
i :'`�
�
BOARD OF CODNTY COMMI88IONERB 1 APRIL 23, 1991
_ �,•--.-
- i . .
�� ' - � •
x`�4. R I': . . _ . .
1 ;f`:. • . . . �
l...
�t� r�
:.".r�`'^..'�a� . .
.,^�,�,���,,}. .
'�.:�',�n
r�.
x
,�i�w •
t`yT
M
&,a"�.�
.1J.,.�
::y
_ ..r.._ �_ � . _
- r�.�..._.
.:;:_F�
�� , _ • � . ,...
t �� . ,
��" � Y�L ,�����.`'� � E t ��,�1�� t.
�� ��-r ����_f���.: p, �w�k. �,•�l',���,. �; � ; ,g� c�-{2'��'-��+j�c���h,�`I%:�P�rl +�f•��'�'\}�� ��� ��7����'`�v� .
. ... - .�4'��� �s� '_u �,r� �4�r.: u`7a.t��'V rl�ya� i 7 .
,,�(s�4.. t r y' �, t � � ' ^`'' �:...�. ilJ ct s +
c �
. . 'i$';.iF� . . _. . .. . �c�,��.•F � � °'l+. S.,f� .j .,�i a
f � . _,� _ . �`�`!�. . ._. �.li���-.-�4"?� U�.
. . �.
i • . ,
Robert See, representing Continental Airlines, read a prepared �
statement regarding their position on the proposed fees. A copy • � �"
of this is made a part of this record as EXHIBIT "B". :'.r .
Jim Jansen, representing United Express, stated that they would •
like to go on record in support of Continental's letter. He said `i �.{�,,
they understand that there were a lot of additional costs ..�, . .
incurred, and they are willing and obligated to assist in that. :..�j �
However, they have a disagreement with how they are being charged )
and how the County is going about that.
.•'� . .
Tom Oken, Administrative Services Manager, proceeded to review ��
staff's position on the proposed increase in fees and how they ;'., 4
arrived at the rate. He said the amount the airlines are being ;�; t°
� asked to pay is not the full amount of the security charge cost ?".i',,;;.
to the airport. One of the benePits of the residual agreement is ,. ;.
that in fact, both of the costs are being picked up by the other �
concessions. So the increase in landing fees that are proposed '
for the airlines does not equate to a $200,000 increase in their
� landing fees. He proceeded to review staff's proposal with this
reqard. A copy of this is made a part of this record as SXHIBIT
^C". He said this proposal is exactly what Continental is �; .�
requesting, that if the charges are being passed through to them
then the County should look at some way to defer capital t
- projects, etc. to do that. And that is the proposal which was �
outlined in his Zetter of April 8 to the airlines. }�'� .
Mr. See stated, that they do not have any objection to the safety .`��.�
; and noise study that the County would like to do. He thinks �� ��
j where the confusion comes from the airline level is that on one '�� �
- hand they are supporting expansion of the general aviation
facility at the airport and on the other hand the County is '� ,
asking for $15o to do a noise and safety study that is going to �� �
limit general aviation.
.. i
Chairman Et}�ridge stated, that he thinks Mr. See might be if,'. . �
presuming the results of some of those studies. He said the Y •: ,.
issue of the kind of expansion at the general aviation enfl of the
airport is a topic of discussion of the Board of County
� ` Commissioners at the moment. Also, the proposed fees which ' ••
� average $.70 per thousand for 1991 and 1992 compare very �
favorably across the state.
�tt •
A discussion ensued with regard to this matter. j'
1
Commissioner Ross moved approval of the Resolution setting -`��
airline fees and charges for 199Z. With a second by Commissioner ���
� Tuite, the motion passed unanimously_ � •
3..uE
; SECOND READING - 1991 SUPPLEMENTAL BIIDGET APPROPRIATION - MOTION "
� � TO APPROVE - PASSED UNANIMOUSLY - Haughey stated, that this is ,.'� ,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2 APRIL 23, 1991
:;,,..,.
�
i ,
!
' , , t . _
'�" '.: • • .
..Ajv:�.:�;Ti _ , .
�.:M'riv-" . .
'„.1ir.'.y��;. . � .
�1�R3::°.n . - .
Y i"�,r^.Ly,+'' _
`�.. _
�.�'�t.`•�,>.: � , �
hr".�'.F:F:;Y ,
+� -,x
'�,r�
.��''ST . • .
{
�
�1iw�}'',�'
•ki...:::
��:
���` . , • � - ' `
��. �� `
y -e ti wti� :, �. ��� �t �f�!�w��. : r t k���Y ri � y y��t
r1, : S . t-� �,�, .��i. . : } .,Y� � d1LSy k1 �� �`.���l� i.,�.ty�,�,�'U't� ���'j��yt�'�jrt,.�.
A � ' f i rF v,� �(_�� N
�rf�,yt1�� 14 �,;' �E � � � f S I�s-. �`.�n v. nks��..,+c .e�a)�ke. � t
��.. T �6`�. � 1 ��. S4{. -., t f\ �1 A�Y 1�� 1
. . .. � .. ��FT�J�a . . . *���� .. ."►��`;��.. _. . ...'o'. ., i. 1,''�':!
� �
� ' ..
y , . • •
second reading on this resolution and most of the items that are _..
included have been discussed in particular this takes care of the
various adjustments to date that have been made in the 1991 • ,
budget and has a net grand total revenue expenditure reduction of .
one million dollars that is spread across a variety of different ��r
funds.
> Chairman Ethridge opened the hearing to public comment. There �. ',�•� '
being none, he closed the public hearing. ,?,. "
Commissioner Ross moved approval of second reading of the 1991 '.+
Supplemental Budqet Resolution_ With a second by Commissioner �%
Tuite, the motion passed unanimously. '�,
�. :
SECOND READING - PITICIN COIINTY PAT2TIAL CONSENT DECREE. SMUGGLER 'S� %
MOUNTAIN SUPERFUND LITIGATION - MOTION TO TABLE - PASSED �- •'
�� UNANIMOUSLY �'�"`�
FIRST READING AND SET FOR PUBLIC AEARIN6 - ORDINANCE AMENDING
TITLE VII BUILDING REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO INSTITUTIONAL
CONTROLS WITHIN THE SMUGGLER MODP7'lAIN SIIPERFUND SITE - MOTION TO
APPROVE AND SET FoR SECOND READING - PASSED UNAt�IIMOUSLY - Tora
Smith, Special Counsel, summarized this item by stating that this
is a public hearing on the Consent Decree which is intended to • , .
! settle claims made by the United States against Pitkin County and
pending litigation for past and future response costs incurred by
the Environmental Protection Agency in responding to the presence
. of hazardous materials and the Smuggler Mountain Superfund site. �. �
Those costs include administrative and legal costs as well as the
costs of the cleannp of that site. This Consent Decree would
settle all claims of the United States past, present and future
- with regard to those.
The other item on the agenda is first reading and set for public �"
hearing the Institutional Controls which represent the most
significant commitment by Pitkin County to the remediation of the
site. Those Institutional Controls involved are a set o£ �
requirements to assure that development and other activities
within the boundaries of the site do not unnecessarily inter£ere ,
with the remedy once it is completed. And where construction or �,
other activities are undertaken that do require interference with ,
� the remedy, that the property is restored to assure that �"
contaminated materia2s are not expased. He said the Consent t%�
Decree includes a commitment by the County to consider y�",
Institutional Controls. If the County does not adopt or changes :� ' �
those Institutional Controls in a way that makes them •
unacceptable to the EPA, then the Consent Decree will be null and -
void. �;� '
� The Consent Decree also includes provisions for the County to set ��.
' aside the Molly Gibson property as a permanent repository for +�
- � high level wastes that are removed from other areas of the site. ;
Y.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3 APRIL 23, 1991
:.�.
$ i;<�"
t " _
�', `,;�: .
��4� � � '
�..A�i�i;��.' , � - .
.'yY�'�.-:,�{-. �
]���� '
y:��?y�'
t:,+,:.r J ` .
.'�{�+i.
:'���t':?� '
:-,4�'awe„c�.k.: .
.�i�i
f�.
w'��`{��e'
,. A.1�`5z �
�.
y+7�.
M
;p;;���
��� � Y 1 � . ' � . . .. � ` .
"] � 6i�'y � ` . . . ..
� �'��,�u Mt� ..� a .
�, � y�, � �'1� � ��6„�"C��f�u,Y'„7� '� °r""�' C,y '� !f 1;�,,)�
} . w.�t�?1.`"4� M;i.��'I• �7r� ,.� . �� i :r .�- `'� � r'�t,e�t 1 �R �s}$t�i�' Er� .�s�;y��� + y��`YY�.�"i((:.,7
��N 3 :� j Y � .�., T�`W M � iC. ✓1 � 's'4.A.7 �
. . ,Y 4L';4e� . . . �C�� '4� sL r�' � + ��4'`�
. A' � , '" {��1{���' .. _ . r F J .
. ... .. ....., ,:?�4�R.Ye.
�• . i..�.
After all the wastes have been placed then it will be permanently �
capped by EPA contractors, and the County will be responsible for -
inspection and monitoring of that repository site into the
future. He said there are other obligations contained in the • -
Consent Decree i.e, reporting requirements, obligation to provide , •
clean fill available at the Pitkin County Airport and other � r . _
administrative ways to help the EPA in performing the remedy.
� But there is no provision for the County to contribute �" ;'��..,;�`' '
financially to the cleanup of the site. The in-kind services '�
defined in the Consent Decree are the extent of the County's �� �
l.iability. In exchange for that, all claims are waived and the
County has no other obligations. However, there are provisions -
in the superfund statute that are reflected in the Consent Decree `' , .,
i;:.
which allow the EPA to in effect reopen the ques�ion of liability �
against the County if it is determined that the reraedy is : i��
inadequate or that there is a level of health risk associated j� '
with the site that was not previously known. If those events '� ��
occur, then he has negotiated for provisions that would preserve
the County's ability to deny any liability and to contest its ',�
being named as a PRP as if the issue had risen for the first
time.
Smith said that at £irst reading, two issues were brought up.
First was the question of delisting of the Smuggler Mountain
site. He said he has been in contact with the EPA and the ��' •
Department of Justice attorneys and have received information
which relates to the process of delisting for superfund sites.
• His review of the regu�ations and EPA internal policy as well as
his discussions with the EPA attorney assigned to this case is �
that the site can be delisted alth�ugh it is likely that the
final delistir.g of the site will be in the distant future. The �
, requirement is two fold: 1) that the construction elements for
remediation as distinguished from institutional controls must be r
complete with respect to all operable units which would included
Operable Unit No. 2 the cleanup of the Smuqgler Mine. The �'
cleanup of the mine is still in the planning stages, and the �":
remedial investiqation is scheduled to be done within the next �"
year. Following completion of that study, a remedy has to �� •
selected, and then negotiations would ensue with those �' �
responsible parties. In addition to getting the site cleaned up, '
, D there is a five year review that has to be completed for the site
to be eliqible for delisting. However, there is a alternative to � .,
delisting which might provide some benefit. This has to do with '
a newly created category on the Superfund National Priorities i�
List which identifies those sites where construction has been !� ,
� completed. This is called the "Construction Completion
7 Category." Sites are eligible when the physical construation
required by the remedy, has been completed on the site. He said "
� they are trying to determine if this is available with respect to
� Operable Unit No. 1 prior to remediation of Operable Unit No. 2.
- ! In addition, there are a couple of other developments which might
i
-`� BOARD OF COUNTX COMMISSIONERS 4 APRIL 23, 1991 t"
f
____ a ��'
,� �
; `_ ,,: , _ . ;-. :, �
��� ._ : _
, a�:�� ,
� -� . . .
��
F°^' .
�`4i``3?��� � � . . . � •
-a i�'i�" '� � . . '
�...
.!�?t�:. '
�.:�`;,�;.;•'.r
t����-;ri� �
,:i �
.r�=�;''•�i*
�k�.
��� .
>�'
�.:::-n;.
�. �.�. --_________
,z
� ir �
;
;_�� �6yx��1�Z . . . .. . � . a - :�� :ts, o.. .:v,..�f;.��,4'3 c�l -i;� ° 7�v ci�
J S 3$y�v l � '�: �..• � Si.,,'� �� � a`°• �s'� `� ��•� �, '�'��{�t k j 4
� � , ?� 4 •y��. 3 �4tv � ��� �` �l. i
� �' �"�'�C �y k�'7 �.F e %'"a �,, t' '' !�`�3 ':4°�1.+�°"�'!�" vah.ti.;��,�s+,�x�„<���y�.�, ����t}�f
„ ��r 1.. �,.Y� ,� . �i�,.,t�y�,.;,.s 1 "..t S. �... i..
. . } _. .. , �.� . . �aG"'�ii^"[I��t�n�5.. . . .....���,�°I�8`l�"L�E:�`
R� .
be of assistance with this regard. He said there continues to be •�
a political effort to get EPA to show more flexibility with
respect to providing protection for future purchasers. Also, he
has been informed, that the EPA is in the process of developing a
policy designed to address the concerns exgressed here and in
other sites where residential properties lie within the
boundaries of the superfund site. And not withstanding cleanup ��
there are problems getting financing or selling the property
within those sites. xe is hoping that the policy with come up
some time in the not too distance future.
j He said the Homeowners' Associations are soon to see Consent
Decrees similar to the individual homeowners Consent Decrees. He
.`:�:i said there has been no significant progress towards settlement
with the Hunter Creek Commons Corporation which is the
. '.;;� corporation that is made up of homeowners associations within
Hunter Creek.
1/^tf� Reid Haughey stated, that the Denver Agreement, which is the .
basis by which the various negotiations were based, called for 11
different points. At a meeting with the homeowners last night, a
' variety of questions were raised. He said the actions that are
, ,'� before the board tonight and which have already been taken are
,.;� all the implementing mechanisms for the Denver Agreement. Last
night the citizens brought up a variety of issues relative to the
, � Denver Agreement, the most open of which was the issue with
_ ,,;; regard to Hunter Creek, that there are still open negotiations
.E<� going on at Hunter Creek on how to implement the remedy and where
�, the costs will lie for that. Also, there are still questions on
future contribution protection to future landowners. With regard
` to the finish treatment for certain private drives there is some
�;'� concern about that, where the berm will go, and the confusion of
. �,`.,� the process for delisting and also reclassifying the site. Based
;�;',�, on these concerns, the Board may want to consider what its action
will be tonight in approving the Consent Decree on second reading
ti�:�� which would be closing the second of the three implementing ,
.: � vehicles for the Denver Agreement, the Consent Decree and the
`�°? Institutional Controls.
„�._� Chairman Ethridge opened the hearing to public comment.
;.: �
�-i:.
, ,:� There were several landowners present who asked that second
."`;� reading of the Consent Decree be tabled until such time as some .
of the outstanding issues have been resolved and their questions
answered.
1
;:::i Tom Smith reiterated his previous statement, that he thinks it
' � would be ill advised to take the chance that EPA will vanish from �
;��� the site without remediating it and seeking to recover the costs
of such remediation. The revised remediation would be
j-� astronomically more expensive because it would probably require
off-site transportation hazards. He said EPA is committed to
`';y.� BOARD OF CODNTY COMMISSIONER.S 5 APRIL 23, 1991
:�:�
-�
r,`��:�
i�*n: .
_____ r�
�
�.
.:
;r��r .. , _
���s;� • �
`',m�l`i:`'�r" , � .
.�(,�� �
,a:�t:���.. . •
`'��+' �
�:�;����.-�:`
:����a ,
� �
�'= •
� '
<;.-��
•ca,
��
.a,''�,�t �
�����y ;f��') r �i A
� � .`t ,t;n �• a , � - ��� , :�� ,�, i- A -i "xti i'�°Y y». 0. /1�
i t�7t11'1� � ,_y � �t '�.�} �. > 5 .. t A�.. �F� h .+ � y�`.�C�� ���u!w' 141,r� f ��u"'�p��,r-��SY�T��a �.
v /�,� �'f' �„aie � Y'� i E _
f ' ,�`��{7 k 'i: �'eF. r 3 z '�:�� ��rti � 3 �'` r� � '��! <
n. ��.�+iy 1.. ��, ���.� . ....�� 1,.. ; I�e� �µ�}ti�.4�,
. ���..'�� . .. .. .��.`.�t . .. w.� .'�. ,.. . . ... .. .. ..5.�!�`�1��+'"L�f�.
i.
this site, superfund monies have been set aside to clean it up,
and in his opinion, there is virtually no hope that they are '
going tc vanish from the site before they clean it up.
Brooke Pecerson, Attorney for the Smuggler Mobile Home Owners
Association and the Smuggler Caucus, stated, that he thinks the
citizen's Consent Decree has gone through the same process as the
County's Consent Decree. He said there are two substantive
- .� issues that remain unaddressed in the Consent Decree. Those are �
the protection for lenders who loan on property as well as
-- �. protection for future landowners from any cost of liability with
- respect to the site. He said those two issues may in the next
two or three weeks, be given some attention. Both of these
issues are on a national level which the Department of Justice,
as the attorney for the EPA, have consistently said that they
will not address those on a site specific site.
��:)��� .
' With respect to the question of delisting he thinks there is some
';'� misunderstanding. when John Moscato said the property could not
:=�;y be delisted he thinks what he was referring to is it would not be
removed from some list from the EPA archives of roles of
properties which have been remediated.
:r:�
' Peterson said there are a number of property owners who have not
�=� received plans for remediation on the property that is owned in �
common. In addition, there are a number of individual property ,
owners who have yet to receive final plot plans. It is the
� • position of the Smuggler Caucus that they would recommend to
. �'=��'.;� people that they sign the Consent Decree only if the plot as they
have for their property is acceptable to them. He thinks a
- - tabling of the matter tonight would give a stronq statement to
± the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Justice
,;.,V`y`.;{� that the answers to some of the questions have to come forth
:T'-`�'� quickly or their whole scheme for what they want to do this
summer will probably fall by the way side.
��.-� Chairman Ethridge closed the public hearing.
%� � Commissioner True moved to table the public hearing and second
reading on the Consent Decree and approve on first reading and
<,;, set for public hearing the Institutional Controls both to be
conducted on May 28, 1991. With a second by Commissioner Ross,
` ::.=:� the motion passed unanimously.
MARGY'S HUT SPECIAL REVIEW - MOTION TO TABLE - PASSED UNANIMOIISLY
[��';� Chairman Ethridge opened the public hearing on this matter. Amy
, Margerum stated that staff requests a tabling of this matter to � -_
;`�� ; May 14, 1991 to allow them time to comment on the United States (
`,:'+�
Forest Service's Environmental Assessment.
-:..�.�,� Commissioner Tuite moved to table the matter to May 14, 1991.
� With a second by Commissioner Ross, the motion passed
- �'" BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 6 APRIL 23, 1991
_�,M� '
-4'Ci�,j
-3��j 1
:...-.i�� .
�;•.
T3�.•
��1�rr
.�� .,�~ ' ` . ._ .. � .. _ . . ' . . � � - � - � �. . . . .. . .
Y �
��Tro 1'� . ' .
!�s.``��,;8,�,�'�,' . ' . .
4°�;y,.,; _ . . ;
.Fr-4A�.:;ii�ii. -
. 'y'�i�r r". , .
4r�r.(�4- �. .
a�C.��'�'t},� � I
. '�,+,'�t�`�
i�,�
�f� •
.�r
i'i+i�"'
•J.G
..�y�:C
���y�c:'�S! +&tNt '2 d; ' F '
�"�'y"! ,�J'x�,w.; 3. .i . � u� � � �S� ' .:>:.5cK }.t�.�,y�Hp ,'.� � -.
1 <4�fF'�� .� r �� i ' S ,,:�a � } _ � ����.' �. ���'���ay!�.�}�'7 dr�^�.�_�p 1."�rj'��t'.l���k:� ...
# `G?� L .,r�?,
e �����1�„"'n�y�T� �.� `� '�� ir.�'� ��� � • ;j>' ,. �'r�`��r,'e�,r��y}.:
L
. A �J��e��� ��i `'�`: !f'"�t L
.�'?`�*�!�,�n�. �r . '''; .. .. ...�°�len�.. .... . ... .. . ..K,.ki"!��'{..''k'7f��.'.
`� unanimously.
RESOLUTION GRANTING THE 1991 ANNIIAL SPECIAL REVIEW APPROVAL TO
THE ASPEN CONSOLIDATED SANITATION DISTRICT - MOTZON TO APPROVE
PASSED DNANIMOIISLY - Ellen Sassano summarized this item by
stating, that the applicant, the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation �
District has complied with permit conditions in this past year
with the exceptlon of two conditions: 1) the applicant has not
granted the County a fishing easement along the Roaring Fork
- - � River; 2) there has been no agreement between the ACSD, the
� County and the W/J Ranch reqarding the Rio Grande Trail
� alignment.
_ ;
With regard to the fishing easement, since the sludge land is
- still under the management of the EPA, the District cannot
legally grant an easement. The District could possibly grant a
� s license if that is acceptable to the Board. The District feels
` �'a•fl this would be best done with relocating the trail so as to not
'°�.' duplicate efforts at the cost of the taxpayer. The District does
':i�e�_.-..
.,�,� not restrict people from using the property for fishing.
: s�;,
With regard to the Rio Grande Trail alignment, the applicant has
submitted three alternatives to the realignment of the Rio Grande
' ry Trail to the Board. It was determined at the last review that
the applicant work with the W/J Ranch and County staff as to the
'*�;i:� best alignment. This has not yet been completed.
�
�
- Sassano said other than those two conditions, the applicant has ,
- complied with conditions of the permit over the last year, and �-
'f'.',:^� staff is recoaunending approval of the annual review of the permit
subject to compliance with those two conditions prior to the next
_ �r annual review.
;>�;�,,� Bruce Matherly, representing the applicant, addressed the fishing
" w.-;:`-�y" easement by stating, that the District sludge site was paid for
"' with EPA grant money, and as a result the EPA maintains an �
'��•��=:� interest in the site. He said their attorney feels that they
;;� cannot grant a fishing easement persia because of that. He has '
� ? talked to the Colorado Department of Health, and they have
indicated to him that it depends on how the site was designated
'� for application. It was just designated as the upper part for
application, and they felt a fishing easement would not be a •
' ;� problem but they would have to work this out with the EPA. '
�';._� With regard to the relocation of the Rio Grande Trail, they have
;•,;,� provided two or three different alternative alignments for that
,:y and they are more than willinq to do any one of them. However,
•- ; their problem is they do not own the land that basically would -
�, connect the dots. There is a private landowner to the east that �,
lthey have to deal with. .,
�;:i�;��ll Chairman Ethridge opened the hearing to public comment. There �
-.,,�,
. ''?'.:;. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 7 APRIL 23, 1991
���
T�..j,j'
:�
c:.°_
��.�Tt.� ' .
'r.L�
_� ��K"l� , . . . � " .. . .
�,� .:...s. �, ' �: . . � ... �." �.� �. ' . � �. . ' . . .. ' .
����t
+�:,�'�•.��
r,�r=;',,,.r`q ,
-.�; .
'.°'���ti�'�i w � ' .� .
•�xra���'�t .
.r`"r.:�_a+�• _ ,
:�;�.d
;kr�`�^:r. �
�f�x .
m
��
Z'+cr
�
i:.+.J"�,;.
.:�.x:
��
.
���X� ., 1���.,� +s t,3.-. � �, T �� -. 4 ,i ��� ,.S, 1.. .il.;..�ys '��n A i{r�,.��rFa .
.. � �; d�.
� �-�: k� - ,y �.,7�. .r" t. �: _ � yij''�L�.� 'y •.f - $ � ,p#�t. t' a .
� !i � .�_�.•e.sl�."Y4�.. kl_.�..L_�wvP.�vr�G�'.i�:!t,.a..�J...._ S".+_. . . . . . ...._�., 'Kr� .�C:�t r.C;^%.<Y.%�.L:.
.�
;�� being none, he closed the public hearinq.
!> Commissioner Ross moved to approve with staff's recommended
conditions; that those conditions be accomplished before the next
annual review, With a second by Commissioner Tuite the motion
passed unanimously.
j RESOLUTION GRANTING 1991 ANNUAL RE.'VIEW SPECIAL REVIEW APPROVAL TO
THE SNOWMA.SS WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT SLUDGS SITE - MOTION
TO APPROVE - PASSED UNANIMOIISLY - Ellen Sassano stated that with
regard to this application the issues are the same as the Aspen
� - • Consolidated District's approval. Therefore, staff's
recommendation is the same, that the two outstanding issues be
- resolved prior to the next annual approval. -
Chairman Ethridge opened the hearing to public comment. There
being none, he closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Ross moved to approve with staff's recommended
� conditions; that those conditions be accomplished before the next
_N+'N� annual review. With a second by Commissioner Tuite, the motion
passed unanimously.
's'::'�{
MOLLICA APPEAL OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECISION AND
GENERAL SUBMISSION REVIEW - MOTION TO TABLE - PASSED IINANIMOUSLY
=' j Commissioner Ross moved to table this matter to May 28, 1991.
With a second by Commissioner Tuite, the motion passed
'='v� unanimously. `
' RESOLUTION APPROVING BATTEN El�LOYEE DWELLING IINIT - MOTION TO �
;� � APPROVE - PASSED UNANIMOUSLY - Sassano summarized this item by
, =i' .� stating, that the applicants Mr. and Mrs. Frank Batten, are �
• ,� requesting approval of an attached caretaker unit. The
. application meets all the code criteria for a caretaker unit, the
:t applicant has agreed to deed restrict the unit and staff is
�-�.;;:x recommending approval of the caretaker unit subjeot to the deed
" restriction.
a��.� Commissioner Ross moved approval of the application. With a `
-: •= second by Commissioner Tuite, the motion passed unanimously. ,
..j:j`..c ,.
= j FIRST RF.ADING AND SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING CODE AMENDMENT SECTION
� 6.1 OF THE PITKIN COUNTY LAND USE CODE - Francis Krizmanich, ':.
.-� representing the Planning office, stated, that this is a proposed
;:`� code amendment to 6-6.1 which is the section of the land use code
= that gives the Planning Commission the authority to approve items .
which are some times Two-Step Special Review. The issue they
have run into is when they have single family residential
dwellings out in the County on metes and bounds unsubdivided `
lands. They end up getting stuck in a two-step process sometimes �,
•"�'1 for a rather minor process. What this code amendment is intended
�`y`j to do, is when the Planning Commission reviews a single family
_�
,_:� BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 8 APRIL 23, 1991
a�
-?.>� � .
-:��
.�
TT.
5yµ,.... - ' .. � �� . . . _ � � . ' .. � . . .,._ . � . �
_�� k�1�.�'P�C� �' . _ . ... t � .
���j.
,����:� . •
�
�.'•i`�;'}� .
?�s•j::-y . . ..
��€:., � ': .
Y- . sr: . . . .
Z��'�Yf... � •
�� ,.r
�`� '
�.,,:iS::H,:
j�f�,�.�."�.,.,�,:���};� .
,�-"'�wa
'T�'��' .
��*
-r
e:+s
.w.
��r.��4r1 � . .. . . ..
x ``c'+� .. .� � -
� 9sr5Cy ..� 43ti' :t . . .
'X�i9'1� -L�p�f'�Ey � "'r.,y: ..',':� '?` '._� ;; i ' e °� �' '+ ' .} K:i 'q��fvrY. ��.; '��`���J�:� �a�t `r
� � +:�� '.; .� � - *.. . 1 ..� k.�. �t �jx "? f L � �St}�l s .
t . ,yh� 1 `.� -. �`�y3 y1 . ..�. �'�'uF �,l rf .��������}������.
!. . ...C'N���i�,�5..�„�i'���.�:�5ii:�1`!a�Fi,{��,:w�`�:. . .� _ . .. ..,... � n`.� �c�'�:iti���..
• �:
house in relation to the 1041 hazards this also gives them the
�;. ability to approve General Submission which saves them a step of
coming to the Board for a public hearing. •
A discussion ensued with regard to the appeals process.
It was agreed that language would be added to the code stating
"that the Board would be the appeal body for the Commission's
decision�which were appealed."
_ . , Commissioner Ross moved approval of first reading as amended and
set for public hearing on June ll, 1991. With a second by
Commissioner Tuite, the motion passed unanimously.
RESOLi1TION APPROVING MQRRY I,OW IMPACT SIIBDIVISION FINAL PLAT-
MOTION TO APPROVE - PASSED UNANIMOIISLY - Sassano summarized this
- item by stating, that the applicants, Paul and Bonnie Murry, are
requesting Final Plat approval of the Murry Low Impact
- =-�`� Subdivision. Staff recommends approval subject to conditions
,'::� shown in staff's memo. A copy of these conditions are made a •
`'_y� part of this record as EXHIBIT "D".
...�. 'j"'� -
Chairman Ethridge asked that language be added to Condition No. 1
which states "prior to signature by the Chairman."
;,.�
' Commissioner Ross moved approval of Final Plat for the Hurry Low
''-'*� Impact Subdivision with staff's recommended conditions and the
proposed amendment to the language which Chairman Ethridge asked
••! for. With a second by Commissioner Tuite the motion passed
' unanimously.
i:..,5
,� �� RESOLUTION APPROVING WILDCAT RANCH SIIBDIVISION EXEMPTION FINAL
_- ;� PLAT - MOTION TO APPROVE PASSED UATANIMOIISLY - Amy Margerum,
Planning Director, summarized this item by stating, that the
°' '� Board has before them toni ht the Final Plat for the Wildcat
���M•; 4
- `::`�`� Ranch Subdivision Exemption. Staff is recommending approval as
-� the applicants have adequately complied with the conditions that
were imposed in the General Submission Resolution. The final
�Y�`,� plat consists of not only the Subdivision Exemption Plat and the • '
''i';,-i 1041 Hazard Plat but also the wildlife management enhancement
_:': .� plan, the wildlife agreement with the County, deeding two acres ' '
to the Deaf Camp and a lot line adjustment and associated
;,z easements associated with the Deaf Camp, deeding 35 acres to the ;,_
� ,� County for employee housing, the associated easements and
� ��,•d development for the 35 acre parcel, and granting an easement to
,,+�.� the County for a bus stop. �
Margerum said there are a couple of issues which have been
;�;:=:3 brought up. The first is staff did receive a letter from the "
'�:' i Town of Snowmass Village requesting that a trail upon which an
� easement was granted as part of the review process be available
•;`�Y;:I for mountain bike use. This would require an amendment to the
� BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 9 APRIL 23, 1991
..a;•� .
'h��
',��
+`+
nh�y� T. . ... 4 . � . . .. . . `.- _ .. , �. . .. , � . � .. �. �I
__� r ..
.;��.s��� ; � .
���'�� _ . ' . .
�:���'�-"-��. - .
..,�::,,ca.�,; .
;.t,�.;�d<-` , � . � .
��.'.
?� �.
jf�s�' �( � , • ,
,��4�Y
�F��`�.-. ,
r��R�
,�a"�� .
'�
r
a✓��
.:+.....
��iWr��� � � ... .. � .. ' . . . . . . .
� -. T ^ ,,y�
'll�sxrs� 4 oti K.r.�;1�,���'�5t�.��`�:�3�4�ys ,�n-�����'����r`�'y�r�s .
� '��;�g '� "yv k"� +d 1���� a� : � �y j,��'S��`��}, � �rili�y x .E'� !�� 'ait ,cf:
i$.,_y 4S,',�,• t, k t�r �,�"'2,�, .:•,M5'- �,rCr�`:�;f,,r�,,� t� � ��}_��+'�� ��'c37'�',�.tF'•y..,��� s ` ,ri . .
..fy�. k _ .. .-1a��'M"i� `.. �.+�'�l!+�.T�•v���'R�. .�,�''P+NF"r'�µ �t�S y+ci.+N ..f .:3-b�t s
e. . �
approved development plan but it can be done if the they want to
go through that type of exercise. The second issue is a -
, fisherman's access to Snowmass Creek. Although this access was �
not a condition of approval, it has come to staff's attention -r
that there is no public access to the fisherman's easement which `
,.,{�, ,.
was granted along Snowmass Creek. Staff does feel there is a
potential easement by virtue of the Snowmass Creek Bridge because
; the County is claiming that bridge is a public bridge because of
maintenance reasons. Staff does not feel this should hold up the
� i final plat approval because it was not a condition required at
the time of Detailed Submission. , .
_ The other issues are associated with the 35 acre employee housing �
gift parcel. She said this was a gift of a 35 acre parcel and G
associated easements that would allow the County to develop
affordable housing in the future. During the final plat review, �^
� staff questioned the ultimate ability to actually develop housing �'"
j on the parcel because of limitations on adequate water supply and
� necessary improvements to Highway 82 in terms of that
intersection. However, she thinks it should be recognized that
this was a gift as part of the development approvals, and the
' County should accept it understanding the limitations.
3
� Tim Whitsitt, County Attorney, advised the Board to accept the 35 I
..,� acre gift parcel. However, he thinks there might be some !
difficulties in developing the parcel because no water rights are
{ being granted with it. '
jA discussion ensued with regard to how the property would be
:��i deeded to the County. ,
i
I i
� Ron Garfield, Attorney for the applicant, stated that he would .
.� recommend to his client that they convey the 35 acre qift parcel ;
to the County by special warranty deed which is the form in which '
they received it.
A discussion ensued with regard to a fisherman's easement. � '
'� Chuck Vidal stated, that the road is the road which is being Y :
� utilized by the Deaf Camp. This was their gift parcel to the � - .
camp, and the camp would like to minimize, if all possible,
increased traffic down that road because they will be utilizing
� both sides of it with the children, etc. .
! Chairman Ethridge asked if the applicant had the ability now to ,
� grant an easement to the County that would allow public access to � � -
the fisherman's easement. � � �
� Ron Garfield responded, that they have discussed this with their
� client and are not prepared to make any other offers on the �
access issue. ti
. it .
;� BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 10 APRIL 23, 1991
�.E:
_�� ,p I .
O
<. ^r . .. - .. � . . . . .. . . ,. . ' . . ; . . . . . . . . . � .
�'.�x��`
��..yr�?A,_;'q' • .
�'3�'y:r;,. . . . .. �
.y.G11�:tMt. � . �
1 W��.., . . . . �
�IY3�q n .
'���'w
:�{'.el�+i.° � '
M����'�;,
X k
,��4
Ir � .
i
��
K
�a.�s
�� � ' . _ ._.
: . . �� . . � i � ._ �� - � .
.:� �:'. .- `. . . ��- .� �: ���v�r 1 �.. ��'��n�:}''.`.��'�3 «s ��...
�I 1 .'n,d � f-�.:`�i� .. . .' �".Q.R � � � .� � H,° 1` n`!' 4'{ S�s t
'��*. �` t,." �, �y-p��,z f � 1,� �,.�'��-���°'°�"���'.� Y,�� �Ji ,�''kt�s ;
� �?,�. �µ 9 T C�'� ik�CS+yii�� .�' a .E� , '' '�7r�.k, •�rri.� 4'�'� a ��1 � ���� �'i�.'Pr ,
. . . .X .��;zd�' �:.y` ��..i': f",��.�.�Yi,",_��' +r.��. � � i 77` C jy��;'f t i���,�` . .
�����'��. � •.,,mtTPk� v' °�pe. a'� ��,�� 1 S
� . . . � � . . . �������i:�te•-��1'.�s,,..��5:.,, 'e{r�r.i�k
d
Commissioner Ross moved approval of the Resolation granting Final
Plat for the Wildcat Ranch Subdivision Exemption, I041 Hazard
• Review and Employee Dwelling Units, Boundary Line Adjustment and
authorized the Chairman to sign the Resolution. With a second by
Commissioner True, the motion passed unanimously'.
_ , � FIRST READTNG AND SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING RESOLUTION APPROVING FHO
LEASE EXTENSIONS - IiOTION TO APPROVE AND SET FOR SECOND REARING-
_. ; PASSED IINANIMOUSLY - Brad Christopher, Airport Manager, stated
� that the resolution before the Board tonight is an identical
resolution which the Board reviewed in their work session with
the exception of the cover sheet which has been adjusted to
reflect the changes which the Board directed staff to make.
- �::�:.. = Commissioner Ross moved approval of first readinq with the
..� changes and set for public hearing on May 14, 1991. Commissioner
."'_.�:;
T�;:,,;;;.�. Tuite seconded the motion.
,ss� ,�
- Chairman 8thridge stated, that he would be voting against the
motion because he Pelt the ti.meframe outlined by staff is
unrealistic particularly considering the potential need to do a
� GMP allocation by the first of July_
�`:iF
He called Eor a vote. The motion passed with three yea votes
- � with one nay vote by Commissioner Ethridge
��" � FIRST READING AND SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING 1990 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET
, � ' RESOLUTION - MOTION TO APPROVE - PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
� �� � Commissioner Tuite moved approval of first readinq and set for
;;,;,':. : .x second reading and public hearing on May 14, 199i.
; SECOND READING - ROARING FORR TRANSIT AGEPiCY 1990 BIIDGET
RESOLUTION 91-4 - MOTTON TO APPROVE - PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
_ s SECOND RF.ADING - ROARING FORR TRANSIT AGENCY 199I SUPP •L�NTAL
• � BUDGET APPROPRIATION RESOLUTION 91-5 - MOTION TO APPROVE - PASSED
�� h UNANIMOUSLY
Commissioner Tuite moved approval of both RFTA Resolutions. With
� „�<;;=i?r' 4 a second by Commissioner Ross, the motion passed unanimously.
�.'.-�Y:� �
-:=+ + AA7oURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
f
_ i s ctfully sub t ed,
`M•Tr,T � �^ _ �
r��iis%il
,�.'.���' ' eanette Jone
• Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners
...r-`•r°i.'•_ . _
.'F:`;;'y: I
'X�'.-`y. ...
+���.� � BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERS 11 APRIL 23, 1991
t.�(t kS_::
''Nt-M.. >I .
v�''..��`�.�
�:�'� 5
-..� :.r,� ,
��*'
��i
R`-»r+ .- . . . . . � . . '. . .� . - � . . . �
��uti� .
,.��:,,•':S°r.', _ . . . .
:1a..4���!'. . �. . ,-
a�����; � . � .
�':��' . . . �
�f q>.�r,t>.r� �
.:sd
���
P �.. -
�T '
x
t,yi�
.W..;,..
y,".e:.
��� ,
r„�;.,;� . — _.:.
��4 , ',
' r `�"� ;��' �'`�ir r �x'��3+��'i` �f
` �� •d m .v'` " � . � - . ., � v-F,,Ly dr�����,.'t�'���t� t ;�i ,� �ti.��'1 rid� „�;�}r�j r c �:
�f' � ,�71 R��y���e,.av'+.t�{ y.ti7'�f.y��+Z ���b "e^..... '"7_�.���1�"�.��1�„ 'L �''y�`�,j�7yt�a5ti,��j��i��rr�. J��f 4r
vt
''�}:j.. wi�i.k+�i'.R��`�''F6l��r�'�-"'�����.�'! ! ,� �'�..��t'.3�t�,�' ��,'�$?�,:,nr�,,���'`...{s��,�Fr �'�.y . � � +
. 1 7 ( iL � s r � i
f
4 !,"w?.Y{��...1: ,Y', } .
hWY 03 '91 02�26PM ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY RIRPORT P'2i3
, .. _ � �51711111���ii`r'�.t'I�q..�r.�}'j-4':; .
t� � {���iili!(i1:fi:�.i'.� �
�'{!fi�I:'�')':[:1!Ii�.�l'.;,�:'.l'�_ .
M E M O R A N D V M��;,_- . _y.-93�9.�..-�---
. ,..
,.
%� . r /,i t K.E- �f�S .:.` -
�;,..;..,.�;<!/rt�!O,r.� .f�..�.R/_
-�+ . _._��.T►-��..___..T_ ..r'...
. t:�..�. �.,.
TO: Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners �
Reid Iiaughey, County Manager '``�� �
FROM: Brad Christopher, Director of Aviation ��I
DATE: Tuasday, April 23, 1991 ' �s
12E: Progress Report of Land Acquisition and S.S. 82 '.�
Relocation Projects ;, ;
:�, ;:-
The purpose of this memorandum is to advise the soard of County � "�� �`::'
Commissioners and County Manager of tha current status of the above
. referenced airport projects, and to inPOrm you that County Staff
has, �at�d will continue to exercise qood faith diligence in
completing these projacts as soon as poseible.
�!: ,
LAND ACOUSSIT20N
After two (2) attempts to acquire the "Airport Ranch - East" ��'
� through negatiation (County issued two oPEers to purchase), Pitkin ;N� ,
- County filed a petition in eminent domain in State Dist. Court in `1`.
J'aly, 1990, to acquire the property. Subsequently, both appraisal ��'
documents were updated by January, 1991, and the required appraisal +.; j
review was completed by the Colorado Department of Highways in ry'� .
April, 1991. The County Attorney's best estimata of a court date �4:,
is August/September, 1991. ,`''t.
;`i
Due to the uncertainty of the final determinat�on of value by the
court, Pit3cin County is virtually paralyzed fn moving forward
beyond this point to secure the property. The FAA has advised ` ` �
stafE that it would ba extremely unwise to request federal fundinq � ��' '
for the land acquisition based upon County appraisals. After � '
funding is approved by the FAA, they may only increase the amount
of the grant award by 15$. Therefore, if the couYts were to ,. ,
� • determine a value significantly hiqher than the County's appraisal �
(and grant Yequest), then the County could stand to loose
considerable money, �•.j
�'y{
S.H. 82 RELOCATION ��r .
�
Essentially, the County's inability to move forward with tha j�,,,,r ,
highway relocation project is larqely due to the land acquisition i,•r{
delays. All engineering•design for the new higriway was approved by ,;
, the Colorado Department of Highways and the Federal Aviation
Administration in Spring, 1990. Additionally, both the CDOH and �� •
the FAA mutually agreed to deem the projact a "categoriaal
. �;;.
1 :
:n.:
T.`: -.._... .. ..... .. . .._ ,,.... ... . . .. . . ..t: � . . .. . . . ._._, . .
t•-+�`s6 . .
�°y.y� . . . . .
��,-�`�'t z . -
��..-,.
r..,.';v i:. .
..k��:�..5"_ , ' . .
���:�;�� . � .
:a�.'�jf$'t�j'l . . � , .
��y° . �
t
w �':,.
*��'.
�4��'y�x
�EY�s�
�y�+� .
t"`s''
�.
�,.�r�..
::2..
, „��x
! �i �, y t " �' . ' -- .
�'���i ��y j - '%t `� ^' n�;.'' v �' . 'F. '7�,. ii'S �,'�� hV'��4 ��' ��.
1t
,� �-F fj1 �,• .. . ;-r. .. a ,, f� .• '� P��.- � �� �
� .� w r � , : d� t. [�('" i���1�L
i ti � ti.� � ST, � i R�t '�?i4 ..vi r�� b�?�xW �;r�si::
f ny��t1'��^s�q• kt�. � ��li 4"''�',� �p� r � �"�' 4�i � � �,4h �'r� �:tis ..
. ..�r�.[ ����
.s�r�::t�-' . . _ ..t: . Y.... �..:i . .o+. .. -:Y��i'A?:?+�9 r,-.6"�.y�}�S�k:'.
f '
MFlY 03 '91 92�21PM f�SPEN/PZTKIN COLMTY RIRPORT P.3/3 _
i
exalusion" at that time, thus an environmental assessment was deem
unhecessary. The Pitxir� County Planning and Zoning Commission
approved the project during the same time period. The primary �;•,X�
reason that the highway project has been delayed is due to the
` County�s inability to secure the property for the reasons indicated �a�, �
� above. It is poseible to "take possession" of tha property prior �:�i'�.;�` �
to a court det�rmination of value. However, it would be t; : .
-. financially imprudent to construct a new highway on property for �
which a value has not been determined. Because of the uncertainty !; �
� of the final value of the property we need to acquire, it is � � �.
necessary for the airport to hold enough reserva capital to acquire ; ;�;: -
the land in the worst case scenario. For this reason alone, the F�: .
airport is restricted in undertaking a major canstruction project ° ' �
j untfl that value is determined. ��
_ ,f:
� ,��
, . . � , �'i. .
i
�
.. �� . �'!.' .
� .
'. �
. . .�� - �' �: .
1 �.
�
a �
� •
. � 4i,
� 1'f, .
� �`,,
,`� i'' ` i —
s
,; �
1 ��i .
a �� -,
a
, �;.
f'y
� �;•� .
<i ��iF;
' ��� . Y
��� � ' . . .� .•
:i
."__'�_ . - . s',�..."'"' ..�.s::. .... -...-.:_.. ._.. l..'• .'.::; '\.:. .: .....,...... . .
.. ""':s.......�._.�'.:�:.,_.�. .,.:...,...... . :. . .- :, .,_.
:Y,^ "� .. . . " . ' . ..
� �'. . .. � � � . . : ' ,. .. ' . - . �
� �i�� . F.. • . 1�
'� . . . . . '�) . �
.k, �
� •
�k.,T�C,.. .
....tf .. � . ' . .
.r
.:��,::c � .
��-'�-_y���gx��}�.yt��� 11 ..;� � . .. .� .
,.�� �=i tl��ja � :��• . �:t .,4 A� ;�.4 � - 9 7,a.8� y.,r�t..:1��, �'�;
� *� . . . � �_,� ���� � 4� �
/ 4 ' � ' .. � � �Y Y�
1 ' �� � r ^�,.'f - ��.�yF�i.�Y�'.n� _ � � . "��Y '•t,� � F/' 7
,�t �1 i L t �" wv 0. 'Y. 1�� y ` i •:�.k �4 . k T: `t 3 x'�t ��.�
x�+t��,[ �,ai; �'7�, � .i't ���`} ,� :
, � .. • :'�y� _. . '���_;0.� . . �. , u . �`�,�:!�'�1:��t'�},
� . �.
i
I �-
AIRPOItT TERMINAL RENT & LANDING FEE COMPARISON ��'.� -. .,,
i i�
� ' . i.':T,,,.,�..
� `. .
�- April 23, 1991 4� ,
r
�
��
AIRPORT LANDING F888 TL^12MINAL RSNT �, ��
(per 1,000) - (per sq. ft.) u ,y
E�:
� - . ��i,'•z
a,�.
k
Durango, CO $ .70 $ 14.95 j'`
�
� Grand Junction, CO $ .72 1/2 S 21.79
Colorado Springs, CO $ .61 $ 14.59 ticket
i 21,52 baggage ,
� 14.47 common !
14.59 secured
a 13.75 eXClusive
1
`s t�et-way use per landing) 9.79 .
- . ��. '
1 ,;;
� Denver, CO $ 1.613 $ 77.84 bag claim �
84.66 ticketinq
j 45.74 bag mk/up
� 28.si storage �
� 43.18 concs.A 1`
• 31.32 concs.8
;
Jackson Hole, WY $ .975 , $ 15.00 secured � • '
� 16.00 counter
� 14.00 cargo •
; 16.00 admin. ;
, (per month) $150.00 ramp 5.,,
� ! Palm Springs, CA $ 1.22 16.05 exolus. �
; 8.60 shared j;;,;`�f
� 9.82 bagqaqe '�� ' .
; 4.50 wlk/area
; �� . --
� � �
f jS�r �
a..�{ �
;
:,��:
i.-�.
. �.t;
i f`- .
� biE'd 12i0d21IFi AlNfIOJ NIN1IdiN3d5Fi Wd8T:20 T6. 60 1.HW
d N3d5 '' I ',�
,
1
�, ��,.. ,.:, . >.;:,:" . ' _.� - - � '
, _.. --_
, ,_..�_ ., .,-. ..,:: .,. .,.. ,. . , = - . .,:_ ., l•- !.. -
ih ' � ' . . � . . �
�a . ' . .
,...�`t'w. - ,
� ��/p�. . . . . ' ' . � , �
� \1 1
tr'. ..Y'' . . . , .
,.�������� .
.`,i��`�
�.�
�`�' � . �1. _ . .. . . � .. .��. _ . . .. � , � . . . .. . . , . , � .
��S_ � � .:� _ . - G � �.r . .
Z
, t . . , ) : 2 . .:" � ' ���Y����� ='J �, ...S� "�7� �.�rL e�N.
1 '� . . - b. w y!��^ ♦ � t ffS
r �[ q� ���� �a � f '� �
�' �':,a ?q+h1�'° �y t, '1: i;�f } �� a�i.�v t !'��*��' �c�u� i.,��nr�'` � • } .ryr � �g''x,.:
� 5 '.w• '{` .� 1.. ��` s��'.� L�"�1 4 y :�.y r ' �"' i� �f L � .`F�(t tf
_ u�'�;�a�a��KK����� ��.'� . �`����� .►.'�',ir��'. ` ���''�•, k�C i f+1�4°��4,'�f.:�
. .. .-:,. Ir3ue�".y. � 4. .
� BOHRO OF C0.G(3iMy�'H`5 /
p17K4iv C,:l�,!;v?Y �i :, .
4' PU;f�iG 1-IC�1'il�y r:'1}:�:ta — . .
,�,`�
08i?:__.."�—P
sunicci:tt��J'`/�� �1D "� ONTINENTAL EXPRE55
L�;h.{vu. �i!?��----_' '� _
April 23, 1992 .r..r
��;
� �>�''.���
Co�mnissioners .
Pitkin County � ,
530 E. Main Street, Ste. 1 �„
Aspen, Colorado 81611 f ;�.'
� Dear Sirs: 1 '
; A-
_ The following is the position taken by Continental Express j ;:-
operating at the Pitkin County Airport in reference to the level four �':�;
g law enforcement policy. Please accept this as our forncal statement_ ''i.;.
fLevel four security was a requirement established by the Federal
Government of the airport, in conjunction with FAR 107(contingency
plans), to increase law enforcement during a war time (open _
hostilitiesj situation. The airline consortium is not in agreement
with airport management that the costs for the added security should be �
passed directly to the airlines_ Both Airport and aircarrier were �'
' given specific directions and incurred additional expense. The Airline
_ cannot absorb all expenses. By way of explanation:
- The term sheet does not provide language for operation under
- any but general conditions.
.
` - Had the term sheet been followed up with a lease as indicated, • •
. standard airline airport lease language makes provisions for
?, extraordinary situations as well as force majeure where the -
standard terms and conditions will not apply. �'
� �
v - As a matter of economics: �'
o Airlines picked up exorbitant fuel costs - 100s x ��
� millions � ,
i o Airlines felt recession effect as well
� o Continued to support resort needs at scheduled
service levels '''•
� t .
` o Incurred additional costs to put Airline
: contingency plan, re: service bulletin C-91-03,
into effect at Airport. ,�. .
Il`
- Airline was not consulted on how to estahlish law enforcement � -_
� or of options. $1600/day is exorbitant and was not necessary '� �
at least for the initial 80 days_ Program lasted 73 days, �'
; it is the position of Continental Express that the cost of war is � '
` the responsibility of a11 entities involved here. The airlines cannot
: afford to underwrite these extraordinary expenses. If it is the `�'
<3 position of the board to continue pursuing reimbursement from the '' �
=�j airlines for all the law enforcement costs, then other projects .F. '
� involving airline support must be discontinued.
'i �`�'
�� HANGAR NO 6•STAPLETON INTERNATIONAL AIRPOR'f•DENVER,COLORADO 80207•(303)39&6585 � ''
—�� �j �:
[ ... ., ...�._.,.. .. .._ .. . . .....: ..._... . . . . .,.. .. . . .,.__ . .............. ... ..
� �s�... ' , . . � . . � . . � . .
�. h:��. - � . . . .. �
����~- . . . � . _ • . . .
��',`�?:''r� � . � —�,
y. �`,;�i� . .. . . �
��i.
��.
� •
?�ii'}�;
•M4.a.�
,..,�;. ._
.,-�
,
.�� -- r . .- .
y �.t @ l � {. ,.
� 33m � r �1�1 .� a.
�� :LL� , �.: �_._ .,' .. � �.: �S 9 �.;s ' r4'Y ��r:
` �+ � ' � /
�.��4T� � , „ .�e � r S r _,��p� ga, �' �
�! ��' _�( ��t� °k�, �.f .,;� � � -{� �'� �if"� ^ ��� ?�'r.�'i�i,�� ;
X^,�-' "�'4'�Me� ,. .',r,}i�� '��"�,�,+ r �.��-� �' ii �i�- y1�r a>
. . � "a IW. . .. � . . ' '+L`�.�' . ?.. �, ���f�k:'A . �� . ��",��u,.
�k:_�
i
, : ,
�
Pitkin County
Page -2-
a;
i .
The airport and airline have enjoyed a strong working relationship
to this point with the airlines supporting all airport projects and e;�, �
operation on a residual basis. This allows broad opportunity for }�
- Airport growth. � •
; For this extraordinary situation, Continental Express requests the '
airport to withdraw the resolution in favor of another, more equitable t: `' .
� resolution which would spread the cost to all who benefit from the
`� airport.
�,�,!,f� Respectf lly,
- .. >.� i
N. .
`'}'� �
. �,�;
"�' R bert See, Manager
k Properties,Facilities & Contracts
�
. �
'�� RS/kv ,
,� ..
#;
, �,'�
1' '�
�
�� '
�
4r
��
.�z,�..( . - ..
y�
s ..
r S.;
�v
;riy.. ; 4 -
� � -
�v,=� �
'.�a s
.rs � '.
; j �
��
. �� i
`�`.-� � .
1��,�
�
' �
_� :F -:a,..,:.:�:.cu...,w...�.�w��.,�..:...r:,..�a�:�__ ,:�.. ,.. ,._.._:..� �..:.<<:...�_,;:.��,.:..��-�_�__..,. . __. . . ,. .... .,_. .�:. ..
� ..
� :a, . . �� . . . . . . .
,i.' . .. � � . . ... - � . � . . . . . , .
�J�. . .. . . ���� � � . .
i ,
a.: --.:y,. , ,
�
:�
.�,r�
i��. � ` '
, �+ t .
r L ;.. .. � �. . .' � , �)�,q� � a�i � ��!'k�X�r,:�t� _t� i^li���'�TiiN �
� ... � Y.. . � � '+ �,,„g. y-�FC'��� �� � .�r � 'it �f � ,
' yi¢�'y" ��'" ~V tj t, w/ y M iSR 4x v Ai k �nti�°a�r � v nfe� St
s !►a �, k �'i t `� 1 y „y �, � . . !S �j"Ir u, +-y ,�.�' �i•�y� -
- s,.�1�r t r 9 1, s�it � u� n �� y j +' y'�(9i J1�1.�I�!�,,L rk ii�� ' � ��.
.. ��:f�� ,.��.�R{�����ji��*��►��.�:i . �,.�M����7�i�v�'..�...«F..�R��9i�X'...iyrcd;b�1�^..1 4ti°�{�rZ!.
H7 ,��7 �
� � ' • BQ{�f;U l�l'���i. �:T, .?��Z�J 1_..
� F'�1k11J��tsl`!:!T�. . .
Fub;ie H�arin±�;:.;::�::s '
oatr.:.--- --`�"�3'-_9_/ '
� AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY '' �
Sub;ecC�L�u��<E._��!!aK� fets . --
•• :.:
REGULAR MEETING DATE: April 23, 1991 : i ��C��.....
.
lx.i.Nu. .........._ •�
_...._..... .:�.
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Resolution Setting Airline Fees
'>�'.�.�F .
STAFF RESPONSIBLE: Tom Oken and Brad Christopher
DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE: In February we reviewed with you the � �
projected $294,000 cost to provide FAA-mandated security levels �
' at the airport for six months. You authorized us to submit for . ,.
airline approval a revised airport capital improvement plan that 1
' �• •
l. would postpone and reduce some projects (e.g., G.A. ',
- ramp expansion) to offset the security costs and the addition of ,
some other projects (e.g., noise and safety studies); "�'�
r :. .
j 2. would waive for 1991 the reguirement that landing fees
� be calculated to produce coverage of 1.5 times debt service,
accepting a 1.35 level instead; and
3. resulted in landing fees of $.97 per thousand pounds ��
for 1991 and $.43 for 1992, an average of $.70 £or the two years, r.
On March 29th the FAA allowed us to reduce security at the �
r� airport resulting in a reduction of security costs to $180,682 {,
'+�,/ for this year. This also permits a landing fee of $.70 for this , � '
' � year using the formula above.
�� Despite numerous conference calls and letters and an update with
the airlines on April 2nd, we have not yet obtained airline
. approval of the revised plan (approval of at least one airline is '
required under our agreement with the airlines in order to add or h
� change projects in the plan.) Consequently, we recommend that �
.� you move forward for now with the following alternative as (.
�+ summarized in the attached airport plan: ti •
, . .
r
+ 1. leave the capital improvement plan unchanged from the �
'' version that was approved by the airlines as part of our
� agreement; thus, further airline approval is not required but
, there is no airport funding for noise and safety studies; �
;,.
� 2. leave the coverage reguirement at 1.5 times debt ' .
service, as per the agreement;
� ; .
� 3. implement the resulting landing fee of $.88 for 1991; ' , �-
, the fee could be reduced later this year if we reach an � • �
agreement.
i 1; .
� RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct the public hearing and approve on i�
, second reading. Since we are setting fees unilaterally, staff ,'
� •`� will need to present some additional documentation for the record t.
^+ '� at the hearing. The airlines may also have written or oral
comments.
;;.
I' .
i �•_r?
-� i� . �� .• .
�
..,. .. �. :,. :'. �,... . . �. � :_..--. .�-,�.:...:. .. .:... .:.. .
.:;...,�. .:.�.,.. _... ; ,'. .
/` .� . .. . . . . . .. . . .... . . . .. .
� . .
I 6��
�.�'ir.:.. . .
�`f��.. ' . � _ .
.k�°;`,<;jl+: ' .
:^yN kt�`"'.�'� � . , � ' ' .
1'""yki � - � .
:f���"%'_ i
r. t�1•�'+� . ..
'�Sm�?,;�=1s�.:: ,
��'
`a;'4� u
� •
r �
�
.+e...�'i� .
,- -
�-� .
' ' j�l�'Y h f� t . � . . .
{
r g�
�y�Z.�i 1331"4�� `y,��vC����'��_��'�itH e,x, �4 r . ���r � � � - � ��� � � r ylj.� .
..y��e�,d;, ,;�� .._3, ?� . ,. r�:._�.,.�t` � 't; '•x=hi �r,x„?. td'aM� ,r.:.•.N#!}•;��i3fi6'�YA's1rl�+l�ci.i:�-ui+ �
�. 7r,- � ��?;i
�. - , -^ �"�;�.�':';
P[fK[f!q1�,"�ITY hiRf.�ni
APPfO�U CIP 19So 1989 1990 1991 1Ti'2 1993 149A
a/2'3/?i --------------------------------- :�,::,`
� ------------
� :>
i; � ,
�IJi:F1J.i.�ii,Tiiti�FiSuFi�S 266,O;G �.t`a,r�5 iA1�'�J4 �15„�S'0 �a,540 aio�61`.+ ;a3�iA�
COtICE$5[N{BEV@�5 514,1� oa5�db9 f+$,i,t9[ ;"?I,ti02 "w'O,t&i °d0,550 $id,9[q
OTtIEP,FF4E!2�E� 159,s16 207,101 1Q6,1�0 12's,E75 12E,9�0 130,1�E 1,C'i,�06 • '
ItITEfiESf/ASS�f J�[°UVAI��PERAT 6d,315 hd,9N, l3;,d54 153,428 100,�1 Y?,452 11�,2�3 -
------------- ------------------------------------ • u
' TOfAL RQN-AI.�LIf6 REVEtdJES 1,Ol:,�l 1,2�1,2e1 1,275,195 1,�,095 L,332,439 1,403,759 i,q55,7�1 �`;,"'`r �
' (Percentage of tota!r.wenues) 5�.2X 59.ai S9JX 59.ii 60.ES E0.9Y ti0.5: !':::T-: ".- �•
S ` t,'.
� . ,•;.,., �.
__ AIRLIIF h�t11S(ixr at C�[,�;�� 535,S2S 553,333 533,458 620,216 651,221 B�i,?� 711,9?� ':,i':,�
AIftLIIE Gk iNEP,TIIi��➢�tUP'afiff SI,d01 56,1h1 5?,d55 57,000 54,650 62,843 65,�5
;� at�.ti�ttamtrr,�s('r?ii�;ual)_202,307 23i,7W_231,7�4 _2Eb,052 ttl„i93 155,£4� ih5,0i5 ,
� TOTW_AIRLII�f�S NID CIb1AGES P�,512 848�1�4 367�b57 ?b,i,'1f.S o'42,d59 902,A75 �a8,911 .:
(Fercenta9e of totyl rrienues) 43.R:
40.6X 40.3: 40.5X �9.'LI 34.1X ;8.5: �,'.�-.
� - - ---------°- •. .
, , . .
` � 70ThL HEYEtAIFS 1,��12„�u3 2,S?,455 2,152,852 2,35�,163 2,274,959 2,306,233 2.404,711 � ,
- _--.__._- --=-'--- '=---___ _________ ________ _________ ________ ;�f
� � ',I . '1i'w .
CUVEPJSE 2J1 3.dd 1.10 1.50 1.57 1.5�1 1.S:i j�' '
�
� Lan;ia3 uri�fs 311,242 �24,ai: ,id0,�0 3�,� ;25,000 325,000 :�25,000
i
j � Ldf�!�lff9 TE'[: O.� 0.72 0.6S (i.t�; 0.56 0.48 0.51 '
�,� Rent P?r s���:�e foot 25.60 2b.68 21.Sd 23.5,i 31.11 32.b7 3d.31 �.
3
- q
:� .
�
�
, �
`�
_ .�
_ � �. -
� a•.
,. ,:� �' ; ,
;� � .
�.�;.
� � ` � �-
� r
.:_�s
�;.:
� :
� �.
t
���t __.,,;_ . - ..____--- ___V.. ..._._... '_" ' -,r.�.__..... .._ _.'..�_ � `RJ
"��.. � " : � � - - (.
. - . , ( . .
��
, : � � .
�,
.� ;
��r .
�� _. . .
�`Y, �
`�.•. _. ,
�
�
-��.,?
-��,��.` i , - �� � � ,.
�t�, � y �+ � v� l �{iv.��,�_Y a�,,.s(;��. Cj��'�.t�4'M`7.Jr,j ;.
!�C �1
` y4��,�'bcf '°��„) pR,�,�,d ��"� . � . , yr'..t^4yy♦4II ^w"ifi'�'. sy���' �{4t�*'��t,��`�`�^���*� t����'�iE�f, :.
' ��. � Q'. la �Sl"��d y�+�, .�. � �t,. +.�� � �1� `��2J�'�� (5�` 'Y�.iV 5 �...
.. � '�'�j S ..,.�yw���i�MS2�,{,. . `�.�.� ..��.!���1.�"�'Ir��..� .. . . . . J a1Tiv�4..,,.Y���1�+Y r}.'...
�
r' ,
' , I ..
- ' BOAIiD Or G0. ;� ,.���},.� , . ,
': i`IT1(lid�i'�'�=',ti' �
PUb;iG Hr;arin!i�.,:�i�s. •
o���:_.._.%Y_-�3-_9! �
� AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY GJ�'yI't:/��---./� �NO/k` FLf-s � ' .
q �_ � :
'-'
�.. ,
REGULAR MEETING DATE: A ril 23, 1991 ��C�� "r
P L'x!�.rvo. �___.......�._._........__ • . . .
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Resolution Setting Airline Fees f�';:.�
��
STAFF RESPONSIBLE: Tom Oken and Brad Christopher �
DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE: In February we reviewed with you the �
� projected $294,000 cost to provide FAA-mandated security levels
at the airport for six months. You authorized us to submit for �'.,
airline approval a revised airport capital improvement plan that �
: �
; :{
l. would postpone and reduce some projects (e.g., G.A.
ramp expansion) to offset the security costs and the addition of `�
some other projects (e.g., noise and safety studies) ; �+,; .
2. would waive for 1991 the requirement that landing fees
be calculated to produce coverage of 1.5 times debt service,
accepting a. 1.35 level instead; and
3. resulted in landing fees of $.97 per thousand pounds , .
for 1991 and $.43 for 1992, an average of $.70 for the two years.
On March 29th the FAA allowed us to reduce security at the
� airport resulting in a reduction of security costs to $180,682 •
� for this year. This also permits a landing fee of $.7o for this
year using the formula above.
� Despite numerous conference calls and letters and an update with
; the airlines on April 2nd, we have not yet obtained airline �
< approval of the revised plan (approval of at least one airline is �
� required under our agreement with the airlines in order to add or
change projects in the plan.) Consequently, we recommend that
„ you move forward for now with the following alternative as �' . •
summarized in the attached airport plan: t. .•
f1. leave the capital improvement plan unchanged from the
version that was approved by the airlines as part of our �
� agreement; thus, further airline approval is not required but � �
' there is no airport funding for noise and safety studies; �.� �
' 2. leave the coverage requirement at 1.5 times debt • •
service, as per the agreement; I`
i ' '-
{ 3. implement the resulting landing fee of $.88 for 1991; i �
� the fee could be reduced later this year if we reach an
� agreement. ;, ,
� RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct the public hearing and approve on �
! second reading. Since we are setting fees unilaterally, staff `�,
,j ,J will need to present some additional documentation for the record
at the hearing. The airlines may also have written or oral
comments.
;;
i�.
_� A i
y .
� . . . , .. . � . .r. . . .
,�T ���...:. :..... .�":.: .'. , ' . . ..... ....:�.. . .. . . ... . . . . � ,
'� .
����; � - � - � �.
. � � .
`�����;i _ �
�� ; ; , ,
�;�«;,
r��;�x . .
�
,. -
�v�
.M..
��,�,,�; .
��`!Y �dfyC 4 /��J a��: -. :�. . . :
f .� � '... -. . + � .
� .t <L� �, �, �.... x : '. °v � � ' . t Q'.��. �, k5. �, .� + :{f� .
:: {� �.]�,�
1 K 1�q�rA" "M1'y. 1 y�+����' \' :y .� �A("kCW � x �.�� ;j� ��f��,��
nj�� k '7 � 3 .! �h: � � �T�R
yJ+, -'P' 7 •au�.: 4.�,..�i:, _ t ��.�� � ( .
' a ... � . � f ) �EA...
����"� �'�r� ,�� _ •wa��x+.'_ � i �t...r�hi��x�Yt;�
f � � ''. . . ,:' . .
!
�i -
i
flTfill fi'd6l1Y i,i;�i�iE;i
` ' AFPF?VEC riF 1°F$ 1?3? 1�`� la?1 1Y12 1;?3 1494
iOi/2?/?I ---------------•-------------------------------- �
� ��Ff.BhTII�E:!FEIF�S 1,@Y.;,9i? I,�tr',"-f.a4 1,79E.,4[G 1,503,d95 1„kv,9S1 1,A.4".,401 I,S:�I,.i2: 'r• � •-
j
� j C.�T SC(�9fif: l•^.:�9-i5;_: �"3,2�% 2:'s3,7^, c;1,GCJ :�b�2iF� Sni,i02 SL5,2S� tir?�;`�
�
:..-e h tit'a I�O,�a. 13D�„5
� CAPIThL IHPRGVEI�IIi; `
Ct�+let�tere�inal 7.^7,£"?5 17,15t l�,E� "�' :
- - • Eypass.tmlding xprc�n l6,2Q] 1,95;
TBr1xaY slur�s �,9''i7
u,�i r����s��«� i,sss 2a9 z,roo
=I !�P9ro�ii:A�cuhlu+er i8,.�41 l,L� '::
;i::
.;' ! $mHplql t�1rn;eS 2�5.''.l
Aeplace srrtwPlcas 15,370 15,3i0
��� A�id::nouploi�v k�ra.:: 21,a"S3
hpron ezp L liry`itir�g 9,255
- i::l
�: Rad�r crntrot ccotcr �oo,��.l cl,ns) .,,��s
• ,ti,:.�z
2a�5ab�:�t;�llel ta�twel' 47,e,i0 � .
'�';�;� trort��3�a c ia,:i�w:r :a,a.�o i,ia2
^'�;':`� Ncquire lzr�d 1bo,090 i1,533 16,�07 �,000
Aelaate;.9..2 15,172 125,fA0
� Erpar�d G.h. aprwi Id7,4ItJ 213,70D
, i E�tend ncrth taxiaay
• � R�Plare asP���lt 4r,,�� 5,773 S,07b 45,000 26,0[q 25,0� 23,000
.'��',•: AF,�F tnx;,• 31,5�
AP,FF 9ara4e 75,�J
' o Pzlaate a�rss n.i�}� i5,S�0 52��00
- . � ��
`'y':!.. . Ezyand PjrkirF 563�0�
'�z.:=,�. ieroinal(u�ni�tiings 4Q,�?0� �7��4 7��?� 91,000
-�';� Rehab&.A.apron bE�400
;y Ezpan�airline ras� �„3p�
' hrd acte�s rystea 7,50p
"`�` '� t?-ic=cuntainra�t
, . �`:;�:..y a 25,OIX1
. �. �,. tl0ica 6 S�T?tY Stu�i05 . - .
:`h`''"�`=' ni�cE�lanea,s aa,a5 aa,�s.s �ssz2 »,ci2 :a,a� so,000 �,a;o
,:_E-�v.:,: . ,
��Y!;� Inflatia� 0 �S,AS? S3,bJ5 �4.,15? -
.:� ,Y� t
° �I F;;IOR IfA�iJ�P,f'lUS)JC�EFICIT ' {^<1;,35?I J,2.;a IFi,2bU) �221,2pS) � '
� r�l CL�kIfY C!�1lRiBUtif!I (2I7,:2:! :
- `� REPh'ihLIIT�:CIT1'L C:tiA1TY IOAN t! �S,FAO ]3,AOU 15,b1x7 1:,�00 0 0 j��
- pFERM1fIN6 rE:x'kYE[i�CEAiE 4i�2..+ ^),'�5 :a,9:( l.�'i3,6ib {�0,'.�3) 2�i,�3�1� 26,�}13
��� I�T B@"8!fPx::E11S Q (,465�000) (3°4,218) (212�(K�0) (.i7�000) i.1
. �'�
��. -------------------------------------------------�---
�F TUTId EYPEIH1ITUfiES 1�8J9�5?i 2�(��1i5 !��.fAi 2�354�Iti.i 1�%4�95`� 2��6�2�� ?�461�i1I
`+•.j� cc-_--�- --__-c=-_ __--,_-c= ❑c_cc.c= -c-c_=c- ==--cc== =c=:=---_ . .
.�, �
:�_ �
�;.��� , -
r s � � .'
��4„ �
t n+T'I�
�pI
r� �� �
`k'
t �`
':`1�1a�.< . .
•'��1T"- .
� � T
��I . . . . .. .
�.� . _...__'__... .._-._�__`__ __"' .......... . .....___�.__.___ .... . . . . """"_._�_---.....�.. .v.l�- �
� i�. . . . . . ... . . . .. . � . . . "" , ��� ,
��.t. ?� . . � . ... " . , � . . . . . . . . . .. . f�. .
�.�. ., . � �. . . . . . . ' � � . �. '.�l - . .
/
��� ..�.- . ' . . . � . . . � � .
� ;/��. . . . . . . . .,
i' � . � . � . . � - � . . .
.. r . . . . ' � . .
;y; - . - � . � . . . . . , �
�-�' . . � . . .
'� �
�;_
Y, .
Y�4,p/�Yr '
:��yN''4 '1 �jt / � _ :
'• 'r�� _ 3 ' ' 4 . . .
� � .y"ts�. :-, � ���, .' � { .�' i ��� �nF��".'�` � ���C..
1 r- } y �
�r < •� �f-i wr,v k �.t, ` '� •.'1 t 7 ". � '1'4.� �i' � ��•.� x ' R v r.�, r' � Q
. ads<T,- a��.,,,l,���.��i��9 1,.� Y .�y� „ 7 .�:. .•� :3. .�`'�� J�'�}.
' � � �+�.� y�� .r^*,�+7`�fi
. . �
y �`�'�`.�3.- �.. . 1,_ . :.e�`�'r�.. _. ��.�'F��:�
� '
. ., �
s � .
" P[fKl11 p?�fiITY AiFF!:k,i
APP1�,1YEQ CfP 1 oY'b' 19b9 19911 1991 1992 1993 1994 • '
a/r�/?� ------------------------------- _ - .
------------ ::: .
� -- ,_
:.^� _
�'i:FJiL i�7ihii�a+6iSu6kS 2u6�0iu :.:0�':5 �i�i�0 �15�990 �i:4,5Q0 S.ia�619 o4S,i0C
C�kICESSDW kE4Ei�5 519,1� i55,4d4 b33,191 N1,b02 8,i0,13,i &10,550 3i4„�fYJ 5.
�fY
OTfER ftryE��S 159,31b 207,101 lOb,750 123,p5 126,9� 130,1;w 1,U,i:� >' ,�'�
IIITEfiESi/h5�xf ShL[S'ttfk�-t1PERAT 6�,315 4d,9p6 181,�tSd 153,d28 100,;87 5?,452 1�1,'L?8
TOTAL fXW-h[FLDIE FF4EtPJES l,012,M1 1;a1,2b1 1,2C5,1?� 1,350,595 l,i�,4S9 1,dOb,75? !,dSS,i.id
(Percentage of tutal rever�es) 56.2i 59.4: 59.7i 59.IE 60.� fA.9� b0.5: ' i�::
� f :. -
AIRLIIF ftQlfs"(incr at CF[,�,^� 55,:�23 558,333 553,A59 b20,216 b51,�1 6?3„�: 7V,9:"�
AIALII&GF Q4E°Tltff F�II�III�EI� 51,407 56,16! 52,455 57,OD0 54,E50 e2,�13 65,;55 �
`� AtFLII&UJ7DIIIG fEES(�e;i.ua11 202,301 2i3,7� 231,1�14 2'•b,�i2 181,593 155,o�1d 155,Oi5 � !�
I r;
iOTqL hi6lllk FEES WID CINf�ES ;0'�,542 �48,194 2d1,Gi7 3Gi,2FS sT?2,4o9 SU2,d75 �43,°;7 '�i',
. � (FM�centage of totol r�ienues) 43.G: 41.6w 40.0 M1.9: i9.2i ;9.1i ;9.5:
a :,; .
,..;:
`� ------------------------------------- �:: .
d TOTAL REYEIdIES !,s;�"n,�G3 2,OF9,455 2,152,652 2,S#,163 2,214,959 2,;,06,25'i 2,A04,711
E
(bYEPA6E 2.11 s.44 1.70 l.50 1.57 1.50 1.S:i ,�, �
!
�
i
Larn;in9 t��iyufs ;1I,242 320,.i33 ;ri0,800 ,i:5,� 325,OU0 �,� .'a25,W0
r>1 larr�ing fee> U.6;� �.72 O.b6 0.£o U.56 0.�8 0.51 : ' �
�.�J
fient p?r s�p�are foot 25.60 7b.F,8 D."a3 23.6.i 31.12 32.67 34..1
� .
� i
_ 9 i.
� _ ,
� ..
�
,� r ,
. � �u .
.i ,,.f '
- '!':
� -
�,I _
;
�f,�, 1
�{, � . �!a. � .�.
. � � . . . ��t' .
. � `� ;,i;.
E� `;'.
� I!;.rR< '
,;-:;4;
;, ;I�
' w .,.;,:�� :�. .. -,;�:.� _..._:,., ......;:r . . ...:::....... ...:.. ... :_;.. ,,, __.._..
. ..,_. .,. ._�.�_ ..,_..
. - - � - . �:
, �� .. .
�s�i ,'.. � � .
li .
f
r.
i �
S�:' '`!' . � . . . .. . � ..
�.
.����
.!�w
'�. � !} ., } ' � m , �.t �. �� : - � � .; ' .
`.�� �,,�'� ' �'' .�. u �-�:i. � 1� . q �a:be �i� iy �`s t�.
� , 1 � 1 x d��.. � �� ,�,
! , G .. ., 1 .. . �. f3''S-��.4�!'�F,���� � �t r�`��,. ��r�
`� �` ''�r���m � w��Ttra �t �l't '- �y 4�T� r. ��.��A x �F±P � '^�M � �F,� 3,� � �+t /
�p 'Y '� S _ � � �u�' y kv
�`�iq"�1',��.e"�. 1��„y�� � .. M.. ,h���.... ... �' . ,A- .'�.i�'Pr,,.•F);{���r:.
J .
►
' � , a
t1;:C7:d5 fil � , . �
� 1 �','-Nar-Sl . .
fILE:5�11�AISPO"r.T�hI'�OX -------ACTUAL------------- ----P R 0 7 E C T E D---------- ' . -
, , ;,
, ---1�'3a--- 1?37 l4`�`n' 11a9 1330 t7?l !9?? 1?93 17'4 � _ . :.
. .. � ���•.�-� � .
; InFtat';ar, [ l.LU
i Earnir�9s Factor :.OR; `'�t�
i `.� •
- llperating f;?vxnu^s
pirlice Rents 223,417 2.�r'",d11 535,62E SSo,s�� 563,452 620,21b �51,�1 653,7� 717,9;8 '
Airlihe L,nGin�Fecs 1?S,G�i :?0?,817 �J2,:u17 233,?i� 2.il,i4d 2ib,052 1S1,3ti L`.S,uld !65,015 .
CFA P,�i�t�UY$POQ(�t b�2<6 4.,823 51,407 56,161 52,d55 57,�0 59,5:,� b2,243 ti5,525
Janitorial P.e't.ap�r;eaent 3,!_� 21,b'39
! ------------------------------------------------------
Airlina S�ibtotal ?fA,423 503,2�i ;�:7,542 843,1?4 2GI,F5? 953,2i� 542,469 902,915 9�3,9;1 � �
�.�
FfiR�Pnt 53,(q0 SS,S�d 144,0� 144,�0 144,000 144,(q0 144,[I00 l�td,(p0 14#,OO110 -
fuel Flowag?fezs ?0,1?,d 10i,62i 120,� 122,519 124,592 130,,�2 1�7„n,i ld4,2a1 151,Aa2 �''±��
License fees/stale gallc�riage taz 2,ii0 2,i�2 2,Oo5 07,207 �?,�0 41,168 43,227 a5,s8'd 47,n5"
' GA Landirr�Fe�s
; ca�,axocat ias,� l�s,:>a� 2�,0� �,�,;as so;,�o ais,�so �2a,s?o :�,��s �a,,,io�
j P.ental Cars 315,514 316,409 �7,039 d56,515 43d,56E 513,7E5 SU0,000 500,000 5�0,000 `�
I Bar am�fiestawant 28,990 35,�,� 38,SOS 40,�00 4�,2W 43,�f00 4A,bN 45,�0 47,000
'i r,ift�t��� :0,1�0 21�T �,WO 2A�000 2d,t�h7 2M1,000 24.L�Q
Gramd Trans�ortatirn 11,1M !1,100 6,150 48,500 �2,b25 ai,009 e�,0� 3S,nlh? 33,0f;10
1
� Farl;ir:g 24,790 :,1,52A 41,PS0 56,�0 :2,C50 8?,:�0 1ib,t� �H� '
� AMerti>iny 43,�3 dS,Cdq 101,?50 116,�7 135,w� 1d5,rapJ 1-0S,l� �
� ' Other Concessions 13,0.12 13,1lm 8,5�5 11,397 E,h10 9,4� 9,900 9,900 9,900 �
; Terainal Ccnc�SiMS Subtot 369,27E 435,969 519,171 655,4f.9 f.u',191 797,0� E30,iF3 cA0,550 �74,;00 �
1
Chartzr Landing Fe�s 6,712 I,i:�f 6,932 5,�99 7,210 11,D5 11,2;5 11,2i5 11,275
I�rth?e�ci:rel��nts I1,500 9,Ebi 2S0 ?,3�0 6,LFq ,
�� R 6 E Rental 5�,200 59,a0Q S/,450 51,2C0 1,•"�0 i,� 1,�1 1,0�.^
T-h2n9a1'.°,?:ifs 20,445 21,160 22,3:5 23,SOfl 24,M0 2d,OW 2A,[H10 2A,Ulq 2•t,0� �� -
� Aie"how 26,,H,b :i5�503 42�OSS 57,�2a 44,C�d� 6l,lOG GJ,IU 61,�5.i ?p,Tl
; pther S!,75b ao,E�6 �0�21 53,02� �,540 25,;C�1 25,700 25,;OD �,iu0 ..
� ------------------------------------------------------
� ` Ali Uiher r�L:tal 155,49? !7?,S� 159,3Jb i07,!Ol 1(�n,J50 12�,c7i 12c,?SO 1;�0,1�%, 1.u,50L
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
� �' T .�
Total 1lperating f,?�tenues I,1S1,109 1,277,i�9F 1,734,618 2,Q44,519 1,9e5,�S8 2,200�1a5 2,17A,1'2 2,20„JSl 2,�00,"�'3
3 `. '� �sf� . � .
�?�eraGing Espemes
; Personal Services 106,702 220,�5 205,349 ?oR,�� 253,997 291,02b ".#i,51; 3:0,£5b 35b,SS9 �
` furchased�ervites 58.i,2b0 617,303 773,.533 i55,2�0 85's,2a, 9b6,502 1,014,8,u 1,0�5,515 1,11S,S5� ��. "' : '-
i Itaterials and��piies lB�.i� ;w,i35 V7,61i AO,lcl 55,76E 55,2i'"� 52�Oa� EA,�dS E�,9?2 �� �
� Speciat le3aL and audit fees 2�,d81 3:i,�?4 10,000 l0,500 11,025 11,S7b ; '.
� SeturitY !o^O,b� ;�
---------------------------------------------------------------- g
i � ,
I Total D�erating Expenses 7�,?B2 $iti,1�l,0�,979 l,03<,966 1,196,a0; I,5�3,d95 1,:�,957 1,450,¢01 1,S1,.i21
t � �i',
• � Operating ir�i?EeFore �.+ :`
Uepreciatirn 471,E27 d01,150 �,Oo9 °51,581 7b8,995 697,240 7u5,21� JdE,�O 76?,lbl 1 •
i ,` ,
;V {'.:�`•�
� � i
� __ _ __..,.. __:'
__.. _...--. __.._ _ _ _ __... ._.__ _.. . _
��--- --- � l
y • ,
.y�� . . �� .
�� � f .. . � r ' � . - . .
.�z.:`z . ' ' . . '
+F ...
�.: ,
ry..: �.i�/�:" . ' � .
�.
'� �
�
.��.
�'-
��� '� .. ' —
� ,
<,, �x�a,� , x
� � ��r�t1 � , r� 4� I �� �, - •p � s •,y
t ,; E , ..�r� �, a � 4 d!r j4�', �fy s' � 'a`�n •'� � �"t1�7.
������ � ._.. �y kt�* .C�+�"'ks� ., :.:�.at�`t � �``., . . �u �.. .r��'�'F �
� ,Y +A���. .tifa'� k . aY�{,.�"� .. ._ . . . 1�. ._ . �r. .ty'VyS-:.;
. J F15 J'`
R: "l'
� BOARD�F��.CGi�?t�1'R'S
- F1TKiN C;��.�.,Y'
���;�lic 1-ir;ariijg i_::hi'i;i�s
D�ic:_._._�=-�3---��
5ut�i�. .._.rnv���
��p! -
!�. <'•�. .__ ---
� ' " RECOMPIENDATION `�`�
Staff recommends approval of the Murry Low Impact Subdivision '
- Final Plat subject to the following conditions:
_ 1) Prior to recording o£ the final plat and covenants, the
' following revisions shall be made:
,''��'� Plat Revisions
K,,.ti
.:,<cJ�;..
��� a. The fishing easement shall be noted on the Plat by
{�"= book and
r:•:.;,- page:
' b. Pursuant to condition number 12 of the General
~� Submission Resolution, the applicant agreed to provide
-' a limited access easement along the east side of Lot 2
'`'�� for provision of public access to the Roaring Fork
22iver; This easement shall be noted on the Plat;
' t= c. Pursuant to condition number 16 of the GeneraT
�"`�<.`•',;�- Submission Resolution, the applicant was to add the
• ;� following plat note:
, Y
"The Denver and Rio Grande Railroad Right-of-
. %'•�:���•:.,� Way on this site may be actively used for
;',s:"�:'=! transportation purposes." �
--�, :�
����:':'�� This note shall be added to the Plat;
'-_' ?i�4 .
� ' "` d. The 100 year floodplain elevation, as established by a •
�� professiona2 engineer, shaZl be clearly delineated on
the plat; l•
�,
,,"'� e. Pro ert lines se aratin the �'
, ,.,t'. p y p g parcels shall be more
^-�� clearly defined. Distance and bearings of lot lines
�;L��, shall be stated on plat as reqUired by the Subdivision
;.,>,-^.• � standards of the Land Use Code. !
^'� ' 4 f. Highway 82 is shown on the plat as 80 feet wide. The
'���. .,;� applicant shall clarify as to whether this width _
�:-�;=;, + includes the Highway right-of-way or shows pavement
�;;$'t<.j only;
�� �
,.a`•`;k,'. 1
y�. ,
��, `'.' �`.
� •�
��
�r"w-
_—,'. �t� r � �;-`.' ., ...._.,.. ..,.._ . � �,�-.:"_.,, . ,... , - z
.. , .. � �, ,.
. .., S� . • �•'=
�v�s€�` _ .. ' �.
�. 14w�z. . , �j�
� '�'r • ' � ..
�r
..�,�
�. ''�,;ik' �
µt��"�,�p '
�k O+�?Sr ' .
aA�rt;.-
__� .�, �.�� � _ - --
.3�:C
���d
� :t , / � . .. . � . � -,".. .
f��� �'t .��.` 'TS � ' - ` G- � -� � .
,. f �.M p�c � ` a til��t'��„i�+,
:,♦ �`J ' ' � .�� I r�fr � ) k � Fl� �
I, �:l'� -� f �t(4A�' �y y� ru � ':,' � �IS.e t�k_si�4'�r � � f `7f�r� y y �""�j�''�"'"� . .
`�t��rC �'f � '7' �'d � �� ��� � ��'�r� �:. �j?`✓�-Yp`( }i
. . N 9�" " T .d t��'� i ,� N,�'1���CS„Z 1.S.
.�' . �'�.�l-'� -`� 4�! ,!* +� 1
l
�,��'� _.. _�.�a+��. '�.`,:
i
g. The southwest portion of the building envelope for Lot
2 is in the Highway 82 setback, which is 200� as -
measured from what appears to be the Highway right-of-
way shown on the Plat. The envelope shall be amended -
to remove the area within the setback.
h. Lot lines for both Lots 1 and 2 shall be reconfigured
to remove the "flag lot" effect currently shown. �`'
- - � Existing non-conformities as to lot width are
, �
i exacerbated by the current configuration. Lot acreages
- - � shall be adjusted accordingly. �
i. Access to Lot 2 shall be clearly delineated. It is not
`�;� clear whether proposed access abuts a public right-of- ,
way or whether an access easement from Lot 1 is
_ ��'.:;�� required.
-µ.r4 j. The driveway for Lot 1 shall be delineated on the Plat.
. �,: i
,y.s� k. The County road shall be clearZy delineated and
labeled.
�'� Revisions to Covenants
T�� a. Article VII
�
' � Section 1(a1
- . r,.y
- �-�!�:.:..� � .
''�<':a Paragraph (3) - Last sentence - Delete words "primary
` � dwelZing". Replace with "structure".
� Paragraph (4) - Add final sentence which says, "Fencing
, <, r�;#1� which is approved by the Committee shall be 42" or less � �
;;ti��•; in height, and three strand or less".
� `�'�r�= Section i(bl
``�<'
~:={s='�'`: Paragraph (1) - Second sentence - Shall read, "Further, •
-,,,it� no dwelling and no other structure or above ground
improvement on a Lot shall exceed height limitations
;•.:�� set forth in the zoning code of Pitkin County."
� �,;`'� Paragraph (1) - Last sentence shall be deleted.
-"�`! Section 1 f el
�°� I Paragraph (1j - First sentence - Delete "mobile homes".
;�Y; Paragraph (Ij - Second sentence - Revise to read: "The ;
�:�ts:� provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to ;
;;:�r,K� temporary construction shelters, mobile homes, or �:
� `'��" facilities maintained during and used exclusively in
���� 2
�#.�
*
.:_�• ,
� ��,.
��;._
r:�,�
.
—� �:
., ,.:... , , ..-
-:�, ,� ::.. .. ., ..:... ..__�_ - .
, ....� _. _.,_..r. _. . ,. , ...... !. .,
,1.• -'F . . ... . . .
"� ;
,1�-.�'.,��,nd. . . ,/ j' . .
�'lkY�'S 4' .. . _ , , . , ' . ..
�
��f/
:�+ �
���� '
h +
� �
� •
���.��J .
��
�
� �
�''�'��+ , _. � . ..
.'�� � !k j'' . . ./ i Y - �. . � '
t C „ , +�, ° r t� x,, Ft ri:.,�.
� , .. �!r� � ,.}� ,� . s
� ,. .. � y i`•j �.� _ �i��'4
1 � �tkA �'"�p,'�i{. �i f.' ` '; "~VC- "`'"������� ,; �y:;r'r a �` � r;>� '
y ^��.�� ♦.. � 4H�,j��4� ' - � l }� J� F 7':.`r����.,r
.: �. '' -,; '.
'�'�° T�;�' ..� •: �a .. '' .
.. .,���M ,. . . .. .. . . . �'�!4,°`NS�. � �.4�. . � . ..1 . ...�,�_y7fl. �3'Tf�s'uj:.
1 �c� v �:CSr�(�k+�:
Y
t.
� connection with the construction of any dwelling or
1 other improvement permitted by this Article VII. One "
mobile home may be used for residential purposes upon a ;.
building site during actual construction, but not in -
any case to exceed one year, provided that a buildinq �"
; permit is obtained from the Pitkin County Building •
�
Inspector, specifying the period of occupancy.
� �
_ _ Section lffl
't
... Paragraph (2) - Add a fourth sentence which is to read:
"Sign dimensions shall comply with the zoning code of
Pitkin County, if said code is more restrictive."
°''=? Paragraph (3) - Add a second sentence which is to read:
"Sign dimensions shall comply with the zoning code of
- '�;:��:� Pitkin County, if said code is more restrictive."
'�'`�-� Paragraph (4) - Sentence two - Revise to read: "With � '
'��� reference to For Sale or For Rent signs for residential
'=`� resales, the same may be erected upon a Lot, provided
that no more than one sign is erected and that such
;p sign does not exceed a total face area of six (6)
square feet for "sale" signs and three (3) square feet
r� for "rental" signs. Sign dimensions shall comply with
� the zoning code of Pitkin County, if said code is more
: � restrictive.��
;�=�`� Paragraph (6) - Subsection (j) - The applicant shall
'; detail the Wildfire Safety Guidelines for Rural
,.� Homeowners.
Covenants shall make it clear that any covenant which
- �;'�:`� stipulates a condition of approval placed by the County
�:.� in Resolution No. �, may only be changed upon
�_Y;�� approval by the County.
yx J:
`h>�� Finally, Covenants shall make it clear that, pursuant '
�'� to General Submission condition �15, "All of the
`_. j acreage outside of the building envelopes, as '
� designated on the Final Plat shall be deed restricted
�:= ; against further development." Pursuant to Ordinance No. �:.
:_3.�
89-07, further subdivision shall also be prohibited.
'•_-;V;� 2) Prior to issuance of a building permit, it shall be found
that the applicant has complied with all conditions of
,}� Resolution No. 90 � _
:�
�
r`t_�
'•iyy
==� ;
.,.�c°'..� .
�`:�R� 3
�-:
�
s��+; �
.
. ;
_� , ; . .
fr ....:�:.. . _ , . . ,... . ., . _ . - , .. _ _ . ... _ r -- �
_ . , ,
_. .
... .._
t=
;F� , . l/ .
����.., . � .
�.
,t ;+� ; . ' .
,.
��•� � •
��
.
r
���yY. . 1
���
�� •
BY+�'
�1..`