Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.reg.03132002 PITKIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING AGENDA WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 2002 12 NOON JOINT LUNCH MEETING WITH OPEN SPACE BOARD SPECIAL MEETING Executive Session ADJOURN SPECIAL MEETING �2:00 PM Location: Plaza One Conference Room ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO AGENDA CONSENT AGENDA Minutes of 12/12/01 Meeting with P&Z and 2/27/02 Regular Meeting Employment Contract, Hilary Smith CONSENT ACTIONS 1. AT&T Franchise Renewal Letter, Debbie Quinn ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS 2. 151 Reading and Set for Public Hearing on 3/27, Airport Passenger Facility Charge, Jim Elwood (PN March 16) ADMINISTRATIVE PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. 2nd Reading, Reprecincting Resolution, Silvia Davis 4. 2"d Reading, Ordinance Granting A Conservation Easement Over North Star Nature Preserve, Dale Will (PN 3/2) 5. BOCC Open Discussion- Youth Center 3:00 PM PUBLIC COMMENT, COMMISSIONER COMMENTS, PROCLAMATIONS LAND USE AGENDA CONSENT PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. W/J Ranch Road Vacations, Minor Plat Amendment, I" Reading, (PN2/9/02) (to be continued to 4/24/02), L. Clarke ACTIONS 2. Griggs 1041 Hazard Review, Remediation of Takings, B. McNellis LAND USE PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Land Use Code Amendment, Wildfire Areas, Roof Construction, continued 2"d Reading, (PN2/16/02), T.Pregl 4. High Drive Road Vacation and Major Plat Amendment, Crystal River Park, V Reading, (PN 2/9/02), T. Pregl 5. T-Lazy-7 1041 Hazard Review, Conceptual Submission, Special Review and GMQS Exemption for TDR Receiver Site, GMQS Exemption for Replacement Unit, CDU (PN 2/9/02), S.Wolff LAND USE ACTIONS BOCC OPEN DISCUSSION EXECUTIVE SESSION ADJOURN APPROVED MARCH 27, 2002 MINUTES PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING MARCH 13, 2002 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Patti Clapper called the regular meeting of the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners to order at 2:09 PM. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Patti Clapper, Mick Ireland, Dorothea Farris, Shellie Roy and Jack Hatfield COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: None ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA: None CONSENT AGENDA: APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2001 JOINT MEETING WITH PLANNING AND ZONING AND FEBRUARY 27, 2002 REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS—MOTION TO APPROVE Staff Persons: Lyndee Dean/Jeanette Jones, Deputy County Clerks APPROVAL OF EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT FOR THE PITKIN COUNTY MANAGER 2002—MOTION TO APPROVE Hilary Fletcher Smith— County Manager Commissioner Farris would like a 2-year contract minimum and asked the rest of the board members if they would like to discuss this request. It was decided that as John Ely, County Attorney, was on his way to tonight's meeting and not yet in attendance, the board would approve this contract as presented but would consider Commissioner Farris' request when they can have a discussion with Mr. Ely on the legalities. Commissioner Farris moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. CONSENT ACTIONS: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 13,2002 AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CHAIRPERSON TO SIGN AND SEND THE CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE RENEWAL LETTER TO TCI OF NORTHERN NEW JERSEY, INC. AND AT&T T BROADBAND AND INTERNET SERVICES - MOTION TO AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRPERSON TO SIGN AND SEND RENEWAL LETTER Debbie Quinn— Assistant County Manager Copy of renewal letter is attached hereto and made a part of this record as EXHIBIT "A". Commissioner Farris moved to authorize the Chairperson to sign and send the Cable Television Franchise Renewal letter. Commissioner Roy seconded the motion. Chairperson Clapper called the question. Motion passed 4 to 0 with Commissioner Ireland entering the room while the voting took place. Upon Commissioner Ireland's return he stated that he had a constituent call him about this and mentioned a letter from a constituent about AT&T. Chairperson Clapper said she thought the letter he referred to was not an objection but that he was concerned about a monopoly. Debbie Quinn, Assistant County Manager, informed the board that she is working on either an MOI (memo of interest) or an AIS (agenda item summary) for the board on a formal request to approve of the merger with Compass and AT&T. She thinks this may be the concern Commissioner Ireland referred to. She said the board has until July to deal with that issue. Commissioner Ireland said that the board needs to put that on an agenda. Hilary Fletcher Smith, County Manager said that she would do that. Commissioner Ireland wished to vote aye on this authorization. Therefore the motion passed unanimously. ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS: FIRST READING ON RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING IMPLEMENTATION OF A $4.50 PASSENGER FACILITY CHARGE AT THE ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY AIRPORT—MOTION TO APPROVE ON FIRST READING AND SET SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING TO MARCH 27, 2002 James P. Elwood, Director of Aviation Chairperson Clapper asked Mr. Elwood that other than this, is there a $5.00 security fee on every ticket now? Mr. Elwood responded that there is a $2.50 per leg, up to $5.00 in total so the answer is yes. It goes directly to the Federal Government. It does not come through the community. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 13,2002 Commissioner Farris moved to approve the resolution on first reading and set second reading and public hearing to March 27, 2002. Commissioner Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. ADMINISTRATIVE PUBLIC HEARINGS: SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON RESOLUTION CHANGING THE ELECTION PRECINCT BOUNDARIES—MOTION TO APPROVE Silvia Davis— County Clerk and Recorder and Jody Tankersley—Election Deputy A list of the Pitkin County voting precincts is attached hereto and made a part of this record as EXHIBIT `B". Commissioner Hatfield moved to approve the resolution changing the election precinct boundaries. Commissioner Roy seconded the motion. Commissioner Roy would like to take this opportunity to convey this information to the public as this meeting is televised by Grassroots TV. Therefore, Ms. Davis went over the various precincts noting the changes that have occurred. Ms. Davis also asked the board if they could suggest a better polling place for either Precinct 7 or 8. Several suggestions were offered but none were found acceptable for one reason or another. Commissioner Farris wanted to make sure that whatever place was chosen that it would be handicap accessible. Chairperson Clapper opened the hearing to public comment. There being none, she closed the public hearing and called the question. Motion passed unanimously. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE GRANTING A CONSERVATION EASEMENT OVER THE NORTH STAR NATURE PRESERVE— MOTION TO APPROVE Dale Will—Director of Open Space and Trails Mr. Will's agenda item summary is attached hereto and made a part of this record as EXHIBIT «C». Commissioner Farris moved to approve the ordinance granting a conservation easement over the North Star Nature Preserve. Commissioner Hatfield seconded the motion. Chairperson Clapper opened the hearing to public comment. There being none, she closed the public hearing and called the question. Motion passed unanimously. BOCC OPEN DISCUSSION ON THE YOUTH CENTER BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 13,2002 Chairperson Clapper stated that this issue is regarding the conveyance of the County owned land under the Youth Center. The County currently owns half of the land under the existing Youth Center building and the City of Aspen is requesting the County to complete some previous, "what the City feels are", agreements to convey the land with no fee to the City of Aspen. Helen Klanderud, Mayor of Aspen, explained that a Quit Claim Deed would be recorded for the land under the Youth Center and a Lot Split for the remaining portions of the plaza parcel. Chairperson Clapper continued to say that the board has had extensive discussion going back and forth on this issue and she feels there should be a little more discussion. She does not necessarily agree with the need to move the Youth Center but that decision has already been made by the City. She said she thinks that there should be something in downtown Aspen for youth to use. In her opinion, she doesn't feel that there is a previous agreement in writing and signed that mandates the conveyance of this parcel. But, she also sees and understands the City's position that they have relied upon many memorandums and emails, but really it turns out to be a hand shake kind of agreement. Commissioner Shellie Roy wanted to find out as much as she could about the Youth Center issue and after going over documents she put together an"information sheet" that she went over, reading aloud at this time. Said "information sheet" is attached hereto and made a part of this record as EXHIBIT "D". Commissioner Roy said that the County needs a new meeting room and she would like to see part of the Youth Center used for that, though she is concerned about the City's needs as well. She thinks discussions could continue in order to work out something beneficial to both entities. Commissioner Farris said that it is a fact that half the land under the Youth Center belongs to the City and half belongs to the County. She said that it is a fact that the City needs space and the County needs space. She said that we could continue to have discussions but she feels this issue needs to be resolved so that both the City and the County can move forward with their plans. She said that she thinks it is foolish to continue this debate to what we "think" may have been said. She said what would the County really do with half the land under the Youth Center. She appreciates Commissioner Roy's research but is ready to convey the land to the City. Commissioner Ireland is ready to convey the land as well. He doesn't see any benefit to the County holding on to that half of the property since they don't plan on developing it. It is not like the County is giving it away. He said he thinks it is being given from one group of taxpayers to another. And he thinks the taxpayers overlap and the taxpayers benefit from this exchange. He said he might have felt differently had the County ever considered any use of this property. Commissioner Hatfield said that fortunately, or unfortunately, he has none of the history on this issue that the rest of the board members do. He said that he thinks signed agreements are the only things that stand up. He takes his role as a single one of the five County Commissioners in BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 4 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 13,2002 fiscal matters very seriously. He does not like giving up assets without understanding there's a trade off somewhere. So, at this time, he is in a neutral position. Hilary Smith, County Manager, wanted to make a clarification about a statement made in today's discussion. She mentioned Commissioner Farris' comment about a redevelopment plan that is going forward with the Community Task Force. She wanted to make sure everyone was aware that it was on the Obermeyer parcel. That is separate from the property being discussed here. Commissioner Ireland stated that he, individually, is bound by the agreements he makes even when he does not sign a piece of paper. It is his personal Code of Conduct that if he agrees to do something he will do it. He stands by agreements that have been made even if not reduced to writing. He continues to support this exchange. He said he believes it is a benefit to the taxpayers as a whole. Helen Klanderud, Aspen Mayor, wanted to make several comments. She said that she respects the boards' position as she is in the same position on the other side of the street in terms of fiscal responsibility to the citizens. She wasn't on City Council when the plans to move the Youth Center incorporated into the new Pool and Ice Facility were initiated. However, there was a ballot question in 1999 that clearly anticipated that move. She would also like to apologize as the City has gotten frustrated in the last couple of months. As Commissioner Roy pointed out, she said, the entire history of various agreements and emails and whatever else have had moments where tempers have flared. Please be assured that she is here in good faith in hopes that this can be resolved. Regarding moving the Youth Center, she doesn't know if that was the City's idea. It certainly has been her understanding since she's been on the Council that it was the Youth Center's idea. On April 28th of this year will be 20 years since she signed the very first document on behalf of the City to begin all of these land trades. She informed Commissioner Roy that the Yellow Brick had never been a part of this. The Youth Center aspect was added, whether it is called the Tuite Agreement or whatever, she said, in 1991 or 92. The Youth Center became part of that agreement because, in fact, the one-hundred and nine thousand and some dollars promissory note agreed to be repaid in 1982 was totally paid by the City to the tune of$364,000.00. Reimbursement was not made for that and she isn't even certain if it was requested. So, there was somewhat of a quid pro quo there. Whether the value under the Youth Center is worth more than that or not. At that time the City was very interested in building a performing art center. She believes that there was a ballot question on that but the money was never forthcoming and within a ten-year period it was to revert to the County. Which it did. It was discovered when the City built the Parking Garage, she continued. That was not that whole property. There is a sliver of that property that ended up under the garage. What is now the Library land would go back to the County and the City would get the parking garage. There have been talks about the elevator and who is responsible for this and who is responsible for that. She said that you probably have BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 5 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 13,2002 noticed in Commissioner Roy's information sheet the agreement letter signed by Bob Gish, who was the public works in the City and the County person (whose name she could not recall). As of today, the outstanding pieces are following through on the agreement for the land under the Youth Center and finishing off these lot splits on the two remaining parcels. Lot 5 has already been transferred. She explained that if you read the Lease, sections that Commissioner Roy referred to anticipate that in the event of default those are the remedies available. The default section lists the conditions of default and the next section lists the remedies for default. She said she and Chairperson Clapper discussed these sections on Friday. All of the conditions of default, by the way she added, are default by the Youth Center, not the City or County defaulting. If this land trade happens and the Youth Center moves that is not a vacation of that property. There would be no vacation if this deal doesn't go through unless they decided independently to move on their own someplace. Mayor Klanderud wanted to read a portion of a letter written by former County Manager, Suzanne Konchan to Amy Margerum, then City Manager. She read, "given the lack of executed agreements between the City and the County over the past decade regarding these subdivisions, it is the hope of the County that this payment and accompanying memorandum will be able to commence the necessary actions to complete these transactions. Given the lack of conveyance of Lot 5 of the Rio Grande Subdivision, the board was somewhat reluctant to complete the payment of the promissory note and surveying costs. Nevertheless, they have agreed to authorize me to send this payment as an action of good faith on the previous agreements and to resolve this outstanding payment issue. In light of recent discussions and agreements between the City and County, most notably the County's agreement to forego reimbursement of telephone maintenance costs, we are hopeful that future agreements can move forward without the baggage of past actions". This letter was dated December 10, 1996. It is Mayor Klanderud's hope that we can do the same today. Commissioner Roy urged this board that if they are going to give this land Chairperson Clapper asked Mayor Klanderud two questions, for the record. First, she asked if the City was willing to offer to purchase this property under the Youth Center from the County? To which, Mayor Klanderud responded, no. Second, she asked if the City was willing to move forward with their purchase agreement with the Youth Center without the need for the County to convey this property? To which, Mayor Klanderud responded, no. Commissioner Farris made a motion to direct staff to prepare an ordinance for the conveyance of the property and authorizing the Chairperson to sign the necessary documents. Commissioner Ireland seconded the motion. Chairperson Clapper called the question. Motion passed 4 to 1 with Commissioner Roy voting nay. PUBLIC COMMENT: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 6 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 13,2002 Chris Kiley of the Aspen Skiing Company approached the board along with Maureen Fox, a junior at Aspen High School. They were requesting that the junior class hold their prom at the Sundeck on Aspen Mountain. It will be on April 20, 2002 from 9:00 PM to midnight. A request has been filed with County staff and they are preparing to approve it administratively. Mr. Kiley had one additional question for the board asking that the application fee be refunded so that the class may use that money to assist them in holding the prom. Mr. Kiley referenced the temporary use fee to be $780.00. Mr. Kiley informed the board that the requested date was also outside of the Aspen Skiing Company's approved gondola use period. The board was informed that this could be handled administratively. Commissioner Ireland said that the board has traditionally looked at fee waivers as a group at the end of the year using their discretionary fund. Chairperson Clapper reminded Commissioner Ireland that the class would need the money now for the event and couldn't wait until the end of the year. Commissioner Ireland suggested that the payment be allowed to be an outstanding invoice until the board can make their decision at the end of the year. Unfortunately, he was informed that the fee had already been paid. Commissioner Hatfield said that he agreed with Commissioner Ireland in that staff to make a recommendation as long as the recommendation is yes. Also, he has no problem in taking this money out of the board's discretionary fund at this time. Although Mr. Kiley referenced the temporary use fee to be $780.00, County Planner, Suzanne Wolff commented that the normal temporary use fee is only $275.00. In order to make this simple, Commissioner Ireland stated that it was clear that the board wanted to allocate whatever the amount is from their discretionary fund to Community Development. Jim Curtis, planner and representative for Tagert Lakes Holdings, LLC, requested five or ten minutes in front of the board on the March 27 agenda to clarify an item on the resolution approving the Tagert Lakes parcel 3 1041 hazard review, conceptual submission, special review and GMQS exemption. The board approved the Tagert resolution on February 13, 2002. The board will have Mr. Curtis added to their March 27 agenda. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Commissioner Farris commented that Aspenites have a very special place because of their sense of place. She announced the passing of two of them recently. One was Mona Frost whose memorial service will be held on Saturday, March 16 at the Community Church. Ms. Frost BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 7 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 13,2002 taught many of the kids in this community and taught music to them and she was a member of as many boards as there were in town for as many years as she lived here. Her sister, Lucille Price, also taught many of the kids in kindergarten. She also announced the passing of Patti Hodgson whose memorial service will be held tomorrow, March 14 at the Catholic Church. She was a librarian with the school district for years and years. She, too, was a member of this community in total, Commissioner Farris added. She asked for a note of recognition for both of these women. Chairperson Patti Clapper also sadly announced the passing of local resident Susan "Susie" Baker whose memorial services will be held at the Community Church at 1:00 PM with a gathering at the Elk's Club to follow. Commissioner Roy wished to make a comment. She stated that"I've served for over ten years this community as a volunteer and as an elected person. And, during that time I've had to make some very hard decisions that were counter to what my feelings were. And, I've had to make those decisions based on what agreements were. Currently, we went through a very messy hearing where a man was defamed and many builders were brought to task because they had agreed to something with Pitkin County. And we forced them to honor that". "Today, I gave to my board two signed and recorded documents. One was an ordinance and one was a Lease Agreement. There were no other signed or recorded documents. Many times when I sit in this position I hear, but they said, she said, whatnot. Unfortunately, my board did something I think was very meritorious. But, what they gave me to the message today was that these signed documents are not worth a thing". Commissioner Hatfield said that he was glad to be back from Mexico. Commissioner Ireland congratulated the three- (3) Aspen High School students who will be in the Junior Olympics and came in first nationally. He apologized for not remembering all their full names. Sim Hamilton, he continued, won the 5-kilometer skate ski in Idaho against a national field by 20 seconds which is an enormous margin. He is the son of Ruth and Skip Hamilton. He added that Skip Hamilton is a former record holder and winner of the 100-mile run in Leadville two or three times. The other two won in half-pipe and he said he thought one was snowboarding and the other skiing. He also congratulated the Basalt girls for an incredible season and going to the State Basketball Tournament along with the Aspen High School boys' team. Commissioner Ireland also stated that he was glad to hear that United Airlines will be increasing their services by 15% more flights. They want to recapture some of the audience lost in the wake of their struggle with the mechanics in the September 11, 2001. He thought that this could be good news for our community LAND USE AGENDA ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE LAND USE AGENDA: None BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 8 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 13,2002 CONSENT PUBLIC HEARING: FIRST READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE APPROVING W/J ROAD VACATIONS AND MINOR PLAT AMENDMENTS—MOTION TO CONTINUE TO APRIL 24, 2002 Lance Clarke—Assistant Director of Community Development Commissioner Ireland moved to continue the ordinance approving W/J Road Vacations and Minor Plat Amendments to April 24, 2002. Commissioner Hatfield seconded the motion. Chairperson Clapper opened the hearing to public comment on this item. There being none, she closed the public hearing and called the question. Motion passed 4 to 1 with Commissioner Roy voting nay. LAND USE ACTIONS: RESOLUTION FINDING A TAKING AND REMEDIATING THE TAKING FOR THE GRIGGS 1041 HAZARD REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION—MOTION THAT A TAKING HAS OCCURRED AND TO APPROVE THE REMEDIATION, AS AMENDED Brian McNellis— County Planner; Terri and Kelly Griggs—Applicant Commissioner Farris noted that the zoning and number of acres was inconsistent with regard to the first page of Mr. McNellis' memorandum and the first page of the draft resolution. Mr. McNellis stated that he believes the correct zoning to be R-15 and that the acreage should reflect 0.98 acres, which is what the draft resolution shows. Mr. McNellis proceeded with his presentation as outlined in his memorandum dated March 13, 2002. Said memorandum, with attachments, is attached hereto and made a part of this record as EXHIBIT "E". Commissioner Farris moved to find that there is a taking and that it is a severe wildfire area and so the board is forced to deny it because of the severe wildfire and therefore she finds that a taking has occurred. Commissioner Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Farris would suggest that the board proceed to remediate this taking by granting approval, with conditions on the land, in the proposal before them. Her concern has to do with the flood and the mudflow that comes down above this property. A lot of that mud when it comes down stops right there on the road because the culvert is too small to accommodate it when it comes down. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 9 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 13,2002 She asked if that culvert would be replaced, and by whom, so that it doesn't go over that culvert and go onto his property because part of his mitigation suggestion here is that he put in some structure to prevent that from coming to that little piece that's near his house. Most of it, she added, is below where his house would be. Mr. Griggs said that his understanding was that they had a bigger culvert with the idea that everything would go through the culvert and instead it wiped the road out or clogged up. What they have been doing, he said, is pushing off onto his property, which they actually haven't done since he's owned the property but that's the history. He would be willing to work something out with them regarding this problem, as he does own half that road. Chairperson Clapper restated Commissioner Farris' concerns by saying that she wants a condition of this mitigation to address the proper funneling of debris. Mr. McNellis suggested an expansion of condition number 7. He said it could make sure that the applicant works with the County Engineer to devise something that would mitigate to the best possible extent. This was acceptable to Commissioner Farris. And, she understands that some of it you can't help. Commissioner Hatfield stated that merger, therefore, was not an issue at this time, but he did have a few other questions. He asked about the floor area being limited to 2000 square feet according to the current Code. He wanted to know if the applicant understood what that meant. Mr. Griggs said he didn't and would like some clarification. Mr. McNellis said that staff s understanding was that the property was very small and restricted and anything greater than 2000 square feet could be built on that property. He recommends not going any higher. Mr. Griggs said he understands that and that his initial plan was to build a 750 square foot house and so it is not an issue with him at this time. But, when he does add on to that house, he said, he would have to decide in what manner he would add on. Commissioner Farris moved to approve the remediation, as amended with the expansion of condition number 7. Commissioner Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. LAND USE PUBLIC HEARINGS: THIRD READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE PITKIN COUNTY LAND USE CODE SECTION 3-80-070, WILDFIRE AREAS—MOTION TO TABLE TO A DATE UNCERTAIN (this will be re- noticed when it returns to the board) Tamara Pregl— County Planner BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 10 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 13,2002 Chairperson Clapper announced that this item was continued at the February 27, 2002 board meeting in order to allow another level of comfort from the fire districts. Ms. Pregl began her presentation as outlined in her memorandum. Said memorandum is attached hereto and made a part of this record as EXHIBIT "F". She explained that she added a new paragraph, 5.b. that deals with a test project and with setting up some kind of protocol for monitoring and testing the procedures. She informed the board that Darryl Grob, Fire Chief of the Aspen Fire Protection District, was here to update the board on information regarding that protocol. Ms. Pregl also stated that she was not sure if there were to be one or more test projects and that the board may want to clarify this. Ms. Houben said since the last time this item was before the board, Lance Clarke, Assistant Director of Community Development, has received several calls from people around the County requesting to be a test project. Commissioner Ireland responded by saying he doesn't want to get into the business of allowing 30 houses to do this testing and then find out that it isn't a good idea. Then staff would have to send out 30 change of roof orders as opposed to one or two. This is his concern. Ms. Houben clarified that the board would like the discretion of what becomes a test project and what doesn't versus administratively. Darryl Grob, Fire Chief of the Aspen Fire Protection District, addressed the board. He said that in the intervening couple of weeks since this issue was first approached he has had many conversations and a great deal of research about this matter. He introduced several people in the audience today such as Mike Vaille, who represents the Cedar Shake and Shingle Bureau and John Dennison from the State Forest Service, who has been doing quite a bit of leg work among people such as the Colorado State University Wood Products Division as well as the Mezzula Fire Sciences Lab. He added that all of those involved are conceding that it may be appropriate to reevaluate opinions that they have held a long time as a consequence of the experience base. But, there is a possibility that the industry has, in fact, made progress in that period of time and it may warrant them taking a closer look at it. Hence, the idea of doing a test project. To reiterate, Mr. Grob added that their objections to the original set of amendments in the Land Use Code was premised on the fact that there is a mosaic of community risk. When you pose a question such as allowing wood shakes in a wildfire environment, their responsibility in the fire services is to try and tell the board does that lower the community risk, keep it the same or does it increase. Their discomfort was that when they looked closely at the rating system, the testing protocols, the accelerated weathering demonstrations, etc., they were not comfortable to the point where they could make any valid conclusions about the performance of these materials in this environment. Some of the questions raised, Mr. Grob continued were what are the costs, who will pay, and how do you contractually obligate an owner of a property to allow access over a period of time to the testers and the materials required for the tests. Mr. Grob stated that this is going to be very BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS I I REGULAR MEETING MARCH 13,2002 difficult to make real. When he has spoken to Mr. Vaille, John Dennison and Ed Van Walraven, Aspen Fire Marshall, they all indicated a willingness to at least give the concept a once over. His suggestion was that it would really be appropriate to have the Code officials, the fire officials, the State Forest Service, their academic people, the Bureau, and people who would represent them, to get together in a room, rather than all playing telephone tag through him, and try to see if they can arrive at a consensus vision about what this test demonstration project would be. Chairperson Clapper opened the hearing to public comment. Paul Taddune, local attorney, asked what Mr. Grob's research has shown? Mr. Grob responded that the conditions, in terms of ultraviolet exposure, freeze, thaw of the weathering conditions here, and the environmental impact of our locale, that will apply to these products are not accurately reflected in the testing that has been done. John Dennison spoke of some of his concerns that he has shared with Darryl Grob. He spoke about a gentleman named Jack Cohen who is the most well respected researcher of wildfires and their interaction with structures. One of the things Mr. Cohen told him was that"there is no fire retardant wood shake or shingle that has been proven to last for the life of the roof'. He also stated that"the two main problems are that the products have not been tested to be effective for the life of the roof and there's no way to determine if the installed shingles meet any flammability standards whatever they might be. The shingles are not stamped or otherwise identified as meeting a standard. Likewise, there's no way to determine after the installation whether a roof is flammable or not and what shingles originally installed. Wood roofs dominate the flammability of the interface". Mr. Dennison said that Mr. Cohen suggested that industry representatives from the competing products be invited to testify in front of the Board of County Commissioners. He also said that several others were so close in appearance to wood roofs that they often cannot be distinguished without a close inspection. Mr. Dennison also spoke with Chris Jennings who is with the Colorado State University Forest Sciences Department. Mr. Jennings talked to him about the different testing parameters and how they were originally established. Further discussion ensued among the board and those present regarding testing protocol. Commissioner Farris doesn't see "us" duplicating the cedar shake industry research and testing. If doing the common sense approach is not something you could standardize enough to be acceptable then she would say let's not bother to do it. Commissioner Ireland said that he thinks the board could pass the ordinance but if we can't come up with a test and the protocol then it doesn't mean anything and the board wouldn't go ahead with it. He said to give those present a chance and if, upon returning to the board they say there's no workable protocol then the paragraph regarding testing would be mute and deleted from the ordinance. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 12 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 13,2002 Commissioner Hatfield said he thinks the board is dealing with some very serious business here. And, the thought that the board might pass an ordinance that could, potentially, increase the level of risk tells him that the board must proceed very cautiously. He is of the opinion that the board should table this to allow the parties to get together and create the protocol and bring it back to the board. He won't support this today and he is hoping the board tables this and does not waste staff s time. Commissioner Roy agrees with Commissioner Hatfield. She has the same concerns and believes that Mr. Grob's suggestion of the various groups getting together is the proper way to proceed with this. Ms. Pregl addressed Commissioner Hatfield's comments. She reminded him that the procedures do have to come back to the board in order for that to even go forward. Paragraph 5.b. does state that prior to designation as a test project a protocol for the monitoring and testing procedures shall be accepted by the board. Chairperson Clapper commented that her concern was that she might be able to approve this ordinance based on paragraph 5.b but she is not sure she would approve this if that paragraph were taken out. She restated, for clarification, that the board would not allow the shingles without paragraph 5.b. Chairperson Clapper closed the public hearing. Commissioner Roy moved to table this item to a date uncertain pursuant to developing the protocol for the testing. Item will be re-noticed when it comes back to the board. Commissioner Hatfield seconded the motion. Ms. Houben asked who would be responsible for facilitating the meeting to set up the test protocol? Mr. Grob responded that he would be happy to work with all of the vested parties. Chairperson Clapper called the question to table this item to a date uncertain. Motion passed unanimously. FIRST READING ON ORDINANCE GRANTING APPROVAL OF THE VACATION OF HIGH DRIVE AND A SMALL PORTION OF RUBY MOUNTAIN DRIVE ADJACENT TO LOT 3, CRYSTAL RIVER PARK SUBDIVISION—MOTION TO APPROVE AT FIRST READING, AS AMENDED, AND SET SECOND READING TO MARCH 27, 2002 Tamara Pregl— County Planner; CRV Properties Ltd., Liability Co. (Lots 15-17) —Applicant; Steven and Stephanie Litz (Lot 3), Fritz Karl and Margarita Carrasco De Thumer (Lot 18), Peter and Mary Louise Menardi (Lot 19), and David Clemente (Lot 20)— Co-Applicants; Bob McCormick and Sherry Rubin—Representatives for the Applicants BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 13 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 13,2002 Commissioner Roy moved to approve the ordinance granting approval of the vacation of High Drive and a small portion of Ruby Mountain Drive adjacent to Lot 3, Crystal River Park Subdivision with the following change in the Now Therefore Be It Resolved section. She would like the change to be that the board grant approval of the High Drive Road Vacation and a portion of Ruby Mountain Drive adjacent to Lot 3, to be substituted with the driveway easement and then the vacation would be subject to the following condition. Commissioner Roy explained her reason for this change. She said that in that section it is not clear that the concern of the Planning and Zoning Commission and of staff that there continue to be an easement of some sort to protect the other two land locked parcels, unless they were to be sterilized. Commissioner Ireland seconded the motion. Tamara Pregl, County Planner, proceeded with her presentation as outlined in her memorandum. Said memorandum is attached hereto and made a part of this record as EXHIBIT "G". Robert McCormick, representing the applicants, addressed the board as mirrored in his letters to the Community Development dated October 15, 2001 and November 01, 2001. Said letters are attached hereto and made a part of this record as EXHIBIT "H". Commissioner Farris asked Mr. McCormick as the owner of those three lots, why not just take away the building right on those two lots? Mr. McCormick stated that he has someone interested in the property and part of what they would be interested in is doing a conservation easement on those two lots and actually getting a tax advantage on that. He can't do that due to his status as a dealer in real estate. Commissioner Roy restated her motion for Ms. Pregl and explained to Commissioner Farris why she felt the change was merited. She said that when she reads it, it does not state clearly what the board wants to accomplish, which is to replace. It was decided that Commissioner Roy's suggested addition, made in her original motion, be added as condition number 3 rather than expanding the Now Therefore Be It Resolved section. Mr. McCormick would like condition number 2 to reflect a longer time period to allow for recording of the plat. The board was agreeable in changing this from thirty (30) days to ninety (90) days. Chairperson Clapper clarified the motion to approve the ordinance, as amended with the following changes at first reading, and set second reading to March 27, 2002. Inclusion of condition number 3 to show board granting approval of the High Drive Road Vacation and a portion of Ruby Mountain Drive adjacent to Lot 3, to be substituted with the driveway easement and then the vacation would be subject to the following condition. And, the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 14 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 13,2002 board agreed to give ninety (90) days, rather than thirty (30 days, to allow applicants to record the plat. Chairperson Clapper opened the hearing to public comment. There being none she closed the public hearing. Chairperson Clapper called the question. Motion passed unanimously. READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DEANE/T LAZY 7 RANCH CORP. 1041 HAZARD REVIEW, CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION, SPECIAL REVIEW AND GMQS EXEMPTION—MOTION TO APPROVE, AS AMENDED Suzanne Wolff— Senior County Planner; Rick Deane, Landon Deane and T Lazy 7 Ranch Corp. —Applicants Ms. Wolff proceeded with her presentation as outlined in her memorandum to the board. Said memorandum, with attachments, is attached hereto and made a part of this record as EXHIBIT 66199. Ms. Wolff handed out a memorandum from Jonathan Lowsky, County Wildlife Biologist, dated March 07, 2002, as it was not included with her packet. Said memorandum is attached hereto and made a part of this record as EXHIBIT "J". She commented on condition number 9A that states, "only one dog shall be permitted per residence, and the dogs shall be kenneled". She said that Mr. Lowsky did not recommend kenneling dogs but that Kevin Wright of the Colorado Division of Wildlife did. Given the lack of wildlife habitat issues on either of the envelopes, the Code really does not support that dog restriction. She would recommend, therefore, that the board delete this condition. Ms. Wolff also commented that as this application is creating a new 35-acre parcel with Transferable Development Rights, exactions are not required by the Code for schools, affordable housing or parks. The applicants would be required, however, to pay for road impact fees. Chairperson Clapper clarified for the record that this application was not the same as the replacement of the burned property that was recently before the board. With regard to the driveway road that goes to the 35-acre parcel house site and whether or not it meets the Code, applicant Landon Deane asked the board if Bud Eylar, County Engineer, could take a look at it after the snow melts and respond at that time to that question? Chairperson Clapper said the only problem the board had with that issue is that the road meet County Code and that whatever amount of work that would take the applicant would not need to go above that. She said the County requires 16 feet in width with a total of 20 feet allowing for 2 feet of shoulder on either side. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 15 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 13,2002 Jim Bulkley rebuilt that road about 3 years ago and he thinks they are well over 16 feet. He would be willing to take anybody from the County up there to look it over. When weather permits, Chairperson Clapper said, he can arrange to be there with someone from the County. Commissioner Roy had two things she would like to change. One was condition number 18 which states that the caretaker dwelling unit shall be limited to 700 net livable square feet. She would like that to read "unit shall be limited to livable square footage as defined in the Code" as that is one of the things the board has been discussing in the recent Code rewrites. The second item she would like to change is the deletion of condition number 7C which reads "for any free market residential structure of 5,000 gross square feet or greater, the applicant shall comply with Section 4.01.01 (B) of the Pitkin County Assets Management Plan, which requires the applicant to provide construction trip and residential trip generation studies for review and approval by the County Engineer". She feels this is redundant, as currently the board is requiring a road impact mitigation. She doesn't see what this accomplishes except maybe more jobs for planning consultants. Cindy Houben, Director of Community Development, said this deals specifically with Bud Eylar, County Engineer. He is able to then take a look at the project and see when it will be constructed and how many construction trips there will be and then assess what needs might be in that area. Discussion ensued on condition number 7C and Commissioner Roy's request for deletion. Based upon Commissioner Roy's concerns with condition number 7C, Commissioner Farris suggested the word STUDIES be changed to INFORMATION. This was acceptable to Commissioner Roy and the board. With regard to condition number 9A with respect to the dog restriction being deleted, Commissioner Farris wanted to make sure that the dog restriction is based upon Kevin Wright's report that it is essential because of the criteria he has that we have restrictions on the dogs. If that criteria aren't there, then she thinks it is inappropriate. The board was in agreement to deleting condition number 9A with respect to the dog restrictions. Commissioner Hatfield said that he feels such a large home seems out of character for that area and asked why the applicants want to build such a large home? Ms. Deane responded by saying that the 35-acre parcel is being created for sale. The location of that parcel is in more of a residential neighborhood. The 7500 square feet asked for would include the house, the garage, the caretaker dwelling unit, a caretaker dwelling unit, a swimming pool and other things that would go along with the house. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 16 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 13,2002 Ms. Deane told the board that she wanted to thank Cindy Houben and Suzanne Wolff for all their help with this application. The board agreed on Commissioner Roy's request to change condition number 18 to read "unit shall be limited to livable square footage as defined in the Code" Chairperson Clapper opened the hearing to public comment. Ms. Deane wanted to discuss a fireplace in the new home. The Code does not allow for a fireplace in that area. She asked if she could give up one or more fireplaces on the ranch in order to have one in the 5,750 square foot house? After a short discussion, Ms. Deane was informed that she would have to pursue that with the County Environmental Health Department. Mr. Bulkley informed the board that he came there 35 years ago and lives at the top of the road. He has improved the road constantly over that period. He thinks the board will find it is more than adequate. He said that he has represented groups such as those in Starwood where there are covenants that control and dictate, before your deed is issued, that you must contribute to road maintenance. Any private road that doesn't have that kind of infrastructure behind it, he continued, is subject to good will. He doesn't think it's a problem here at all but there was one neighbor who traditionally never contributed to the road and the other people took up the slack. With this new 35-acre tract, Mr. Bulkley stated, the Deanes have assured him that the deed to that property will have a participation clause for this roadwork. Mr. Bulkley has known the Deane family for 35 years and he can recommend that they are top quality people. Chairperson Clapper closed the public hearing and brought the matter back to the board for their comments. Commissioner Ireland had three concerns on this project. First, he shares Commissioner Hatfield's concerns about a 7500-square foot residence under any circumstances. The argument has been made that not far from here there are huge residences at the Highlands. He doesn't think a residence of that size belongs that far from the urban area. Second, if approved, he said he thinks the board should require the same impact fees that they require of an ordinary subdivision and that is park fees and affordable housing mitigation. He is disinclined to vote for applications that don't provide for employee housing mitigation. He added that the board has discretionary approval over this and that there is no requirement that they allow construction on a 35-acre subdivided parcel. Third, he objects to any subdivision of property for the purpose of creating a luxury lot for sale that retains an agricultural classification. He thinks that that is borderline criminal. He thinks it is absurd that somebody sells a lot for $2,000,000.00 to $3,000,000.00 but the owner of the lot pays $15 or $20 a year taxes on that lot. He thinks that is wrong. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 17 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 13,2002 Therefore, Commissioner Ireland would make a condition of approval that commercial agricultural activities that would be sufficient to meet the agricultural classification standard not be allowed. Commissioner Roy said that the board needs to remember that at the time the Code was written it was deemed an equitable trade to not require the mitigation payments in exchange for sterilization of the land. And that's the rule we're operating under, she added. Commissioner Farris asked County Attorney, John Ely, if the board could put Commissioner Ireland's suggested condition in the resolution? John Ely responded with yes. Commissioner Farris said she would have no problem with that. She is pleased to have two more parcels of wilderness taken out of development potential. Instead of no commercial agricultural activities, Commissioner Roy made a suggestion that perhaps the building envelopes could be deemed residential and the remaining parcel outside those building envelopes can be agricultural. John Ely responded by saying that the board could do that but it wouldn't have any effect on the tax classification. Mr. Ely said that it is based on actual use. And, if there is actual use that generates a profit or could generate a profit then there's an argument for classification as agricultural for property tax purposes. So, if there is not that ability, then the argument could not be made. Mr. Ely said if he is hearing Commissioner Roy correctly, then what she is saying is that the board should adopt what Commissioner Ireland is suggesting only adopt it in a way that it is restricted only to the building envelope and not to the entire 35-acres. Commissioner Roy said yes, that is what she is saying. Ms. Deane said that in relation to her parcel she has spent a lot of time with the Assessor in the last couple of years. She asked the Assessor if this parcel was created would the applicants be taxed as vacant land. She said the Assessor answered no, not as long as the applicants are using it and the use is agricultural. The lay of the 35-acre parcel is pretty much that the only area that can be used agriculturally is the building envelope because everything else is on the hillside. Ms. Deane asked that this condition not go into effect until the land is sold because it is used for grazing of their horses. The board agreed that a condition be added that at such time a building permit is applied for on the 35-acre parcel, that no commercial agricultural activities be allowed on that parcel. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 18 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 13,2002 Chairperson Clapper would like to see some affordable housing mitigation provided. She does not have a problem with the use of TDRs but would leave that up to the board's discretion. She would like to maintain that affordable housing that the Deane's have so graciously provided over the years. She just wanted to put that out there. Commissioner Hatfield asked if the CDUs were approved literally for housing? Ms. Deane said that the CDU above the garage would be for her daughter until her house is built in the next ten years. Commissioner Farris moved to approve this resolution with the following amendments: 1 Deletion of condition 9A regarding dogs. 2 Change the word studies to information in condition 7C. 3 On condition 18 that the wording be changed to read "unit shall be limited to livable square footage as defined in the Code" 4 On the 35-acre parcel that includes the TDRs, a statement will be added that there will be no commercial agricultural activities permitted at such time the building permit is applied for. Commissioner Roy seconded the motion. Commissioner Hatfield agreed with Chairperson Clapper's remarks about affordable housing. He deplores the State law of 35-acre subdivision exemption because it's a dodge around subdivision and the board's ability to deal with PUDs and the planning of the whole ranch, etc. The Code speaks for itself, he added, and he thinks the board has an obligation here to act in a certain way. But, for the record, he would state his contempt for the State law. Commissioner Farris agreed with Commissioner Hatfield and she would feel differently, in a way, if we didn't know that there has been a lot of affordable housing provided at the ranch. She agrees that the 35-acre law does not benefit Counties. Commissioner Ireland said that we are talking about prospective impacts, impacts that will be created. Ms. Deane remarked that the applicants house 100% of their employees and they also rent out any unit that they don't have an employee in to the working public. Although they are not deed restricted, she added, they might keep it that way because it gives them flexibility. She said that they are already housing maybe 20 people from the County above their 40 employees. She said she thinks that they are doing their fair share for the County. Chairperson Clapper remarked for the record. She has concern for mitigation of rock fall, debris flow, mud slides and house size. She wants the applicants to be very careful in designing that house. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 19 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 13,2002 Commissioner Ireland commented that he is distraught that the board continues to pose mitigation questions in terms of choosing among what you need. You can have good schools or you can have good housing or you can have good roads. He says that you can have mitigation for all of that not just for the open space which is what a TDR is designed to do. He said you are getting something in return for loss of open space and you are allowing development. But, you are not getting something for your park fees or housing fees. Chairperson Clapper called the question. Motion to approve, as amended, passed four to one with Commissioner Ireland voting nay. BOCC OPEN DISCUSSION: Commissioner Farris asked if anyone on the board was interested in pursuing another letter to Representative Diana DeGette with regard to roadless areas? She asked if the board wanted her to get this letter more formulated and then come back to the board with it? Basically it says that the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners support roadless areas. Commissioner Farris said that in Garfield County, for example, they are permitting gas wells every ten acres and then the road is going to the gas well. And they are saying that it is a road when it is really a jeep trail but they are calling it a road and then saying to the "Feds" that it has to be taken out of the roadless area. The board members said yes they would like Commissioner Farris to get the letter more formulated and then return it to the board. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Farris moved to go into Executive Session at 6:13 PM to discuss property acquisition, Tree Farm mitigation, and the Braun Ranch settlement all pursuant to CRS 24-6- 402 4 a and b. Commissioner Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 20 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 13,2002 Respectful . submitted, Lyn4 R. Dean Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners Patti Kay-Cla per Chairperson of the Board of County Commissioners ww/g/minutes/2002/03132002 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 21 REGULAR MEETING MARCH 13,2002 EXHIBIT February 26, 2002 A -o�- TCI of Northern New Jersey, Inc. Attention: G eral Manager 201 Aspen Airport Business Center Aspen, CO 81611 AT&T Broadband and Internet Services Attention: Legal Department 188 Inverness Drive West, 6`h Floor Englewood, CO 80112 To Whom It May Concern: Pitkin County conducted a performance evaluation session under the Cable Television Franchise Agreement between Pitkin County and TCI of Northern New Jersey, Inc.. (the "Agreement") on January 8, 2002. Jim Niswender, General Manager for this area, was extremely helpful in providing information and explanations to staff and the Board of County Commissioners in connection with this review. The County has been satisfied with the performance of TCI under the Agreement. As part of the review, the County received written notice from TCI that it completed an upgrade of the Cable System in Pitkin County served by the Aspen head end to 750MHz, and activated two-way capability. During the review, the County agreed to accept the upgrade without further verification. In accordance with the provisions of Section 12.1 of the Agreement, the Agreement is extended to November 16, 2009. Additional annual payments of$15,000.00 to the County's designated access provider will commence on November 15, 2005. Please feel free to call Assistant County Manager Debbie Quinn at 920-5208 if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado Patti Kay-Clapper Chair EXHIBIT FINAL (3/13/02) PITKIN COUNTY VOTING PRECINCTS 1. Roaring Fork East/independence Pass/Lower Smuggler: Beginning at Mount Oklahoma, a point on the County line between Pitkin and Lake Counties; then southerly along the ridge of the Continental Divide to a ridge that runs easterly between Pitkin and Gunnison Counties; then westerly along the ridge separating Pitkin County and Gunnison County to the point of intersection with Richmond Hill Road; then northerly along the centerline of Richmond Hill Road to the point of intersection with the easterly ridge of Copper Gulch; then northerly along said easterly ridge to the Roaring Fork River; then westerly along the centerline of the Roaring Fork River to the intersection with the Neale Street(No Problem) Bridge; then westerly along the centerline of Neale Street to the intersection with Original Street; then westerly along the centerline of Original Street to the intersection with Main Street; then westerly along the centerline of Main Street to the intersection with Mill Street; then northerly along the centerline of Mill Street to the intersection with Gibson Avenue; then easterly along the centerline of Gibson Avenue to the intersection with South Avenue; then easterly along the centerline of South Avenue to Spruce Street; then north along the centerline of Spruce Street to Park Circle; then easterly along the centerline of Park Circle to the intersection with the Aspen City Limits; then northerly and easterly along the Aspen City Limits to the most northerly point of the Aspen City Limits; then northeast along the southern property line of Randall Park (owned by Pitkin County) to the centerline of Hunter Creek; then northeast along the centerline of Hunter Creek to it's headwaters in the upper Roaring Fork River drainage; then east along an undefined line to the point of beginning on the ridgeline between Pitkin and Lake Counties (Mount Oklahoma). 2. Aspen Core South of Main Street/Ute Avenue/Shadow Mountain: Beginning at a point on the east side of Aspen where the Roaring Fork River is intersected by the Aspen City Limits; then southerly along the centerline of the Roaring Fork River to the confluence with an intermittent stream that flows from Richmond Hill near Ute Rock; then southerly along the centerline of the intermittent stream to the eastern ridgeline of Copper Gulch; then southerly along the eastern ridgeline of Copper Gulch to Aspen Mountain Road (County Road #14); then westerly and northerly along the centerline of Aspen Mountain Road to the lowest switchback below Shadow Mountain (at approximately 8600-feet elevation); then west along an undefined line to the centerline of Castle Creek; then northerly along the centerline of Castle Creek to a point defined by the centerline of Main Street as extended westerly; then east along this undefined western extension of Main Street and the centerline of Main Street to the intersection with Neale Street; then easterly along the centerline of Neale Street to the center of the bridge crossing the Roaring Fork River (No Problem Bridge); then easterly and southerly along the centerline of the Roaring Fork River to where the Roaring Fork River is intersected by the Aspen City Limits, the Point of Beginning. G:WectionslprecinctJ-13-02 precincts.doc Page 1 3. Red Mountain/Hunter Creek/North of Gibson Avenue & Park Circle: Beginning at Mount Oklahoma located on the ridge between Pitkin County and Lake County; then west along an undefined line to the headwaters of Hunter Creek; then westerly and northerly along the centerline of Hunter Creek to the property corner of Randall Park; then easterly and southerly along the property line of Randall Park to the northern-most corner of the Aspen City Limits; then southerly along the Aspen City Limits to the intersection with Park Circle; then westerly along the centerline of Park Circle to the intersection with Spruce Street; then south along the centerline of Spruce Street to the intersection with South Avenue; then westerly along the centerline of South Avenue to the intersection with Gibson Avenue; then easterly along the centerline of Gibson Avenue to the intersection with Mill Street; then southerly along the centerline of Mill Street to the intersection with Rio Grande Place; then easterly and northerly along the south property line of the 225 North Mill LLC property to the Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Project; then westerly and northerly along the south property line of the Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Project property to the Hallam Lake Nature Preserve; then northerly along the south property line of the Hallam Nature preserve to the Roaring Fork River; then westerly and northerly along the centerline of the Roaring Fork River to the confluence with Slaughterhouse Gulch; then northerly up the centerline of Slaughterhouse Gulch to the western peak of Red Mountain (elevation 9905-feet); then northerly down the centerline of an intermittent stream located in the center of Sections 24 and 25, T.9S., R.85W. to an undefined point located '/4-mile south of the centerline of Woody Creek Road; then easterly along an undefined line located 1/4-mile south of the centerline of Woody Creek Road to an undefined point south of the first switchback before the road climbs up towards Kobey Park; then directly east to the boundary of the Aspen School District; then south and east along the boundary of the Aspen School District to the ridge defining the boundary between Pitkin County and Lake County; then southerly along the ridgeline between Pitkin County and Lake County to the Point of Beginning (Mount Oklahoma). 4. Aspen West End North of Main Street/Cemetery Lane: Beginning at the intersection of Rio Grande Place and Mill Street; then southerly along the centerline of Mill Street to the intersection with Main Street; then westerly along the centerline of Main Street to the intersection with 8`h Street; then westerly along a line defined as Main Street extended to the centerline with Castle Creek; then northerly along the centerline of Castle Creek to the intersection with State Highway 82; then westerly along the centerline of State Highway 82, passing on the north side of the Castle Creek Road/Maroon Creek Road roundabout, to Maroon Creek; then northerly along the centerline of Maroon Creek to the intersection with the Aspen City Limits; the easterly and northerly along the Aspen City Limits to Cemetery Lane; then northerly along the centerline of Cemetery Lane to the intersection with the Roaring Fork River (Slaughterhouse Bridge); then easterly and southerly along the centerline of the Roaring Fork River to the point where the river in crossed by the property line of the Hallam Lake Nature Preserve; then southerly and easterly along the southern property line of the Hallam Lake Nature Preserve to the Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Project; then easterly along the property line of the Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Project to the southern property line of the 225 North Mill LLC property; the east along the property line to the Point of Beginning (intersection of Rio Grande Place and Mill Street). G.l elec tionsl precinct U-13-02 precincts.doc Page 2 5. Castle and Maroon Creeks/Entrance of Aspen/AABC/Stanwood: Beginning at a point on the Roaring Fork River where the Slaughterhouse Bridge is located; then southerly and westerly along the Aspen City Limits to Maroon Creek; then southerly along the centerline of Maroon Creek to State Highway 82; then east along the centerline of Highway 82, passing on the north of the Castle Creek Road/Maroon Creek Road roundabout to the centerline with Castle Creek; then south along the centerline of Castle Creek to a point where an undefined line extends directly east of the lower switchback below Shadow Mountain (at approximately 8600-feet elevation) of Aspen Mountain Road; then east along this undefined line to said lower switchback of Aspen Mountain Road; then southerly along the centerline of Aspen Mountain Road to the intersection with Richmond Hill Road; then southerly along the centerline of Richmond Hill Road to the ridgeline delineating the boundary between Pitkin County and Gunnison County; then southerly and easterly along the ridge delineating the boundary between Pitkin County and Gunnison County to a point where it is intersected by the boundary of the Aspen School District; then northerly and easterly along the Aspen School District Boundary to the Town Limits of Snowmass Village; then easterly and northerly along the Town Limits of Snowmass Village to the northern property line of the Owl Creek Subdivision; then easterly and northerly along the northern property line of the Owl Creek Subdivision to the eastern property line of the Airport Ranch; then northerly along the property line of the Airport Ranch to State Highway 82; then east from Highway 82 to the centerline of the Roaring Fork River; then northerly along the centerline of the Roaring Fork River to the southern property line of the W/J property; then easterly along the property line to the southern property line of the W/J property; then easterly along the property line to the southern property line of the Moore property; then easterly along the property line to the northern property line of the Star Mountain Ranch; then easterly to a point located '/4-mile south of the centerline of Woody Creek Road; then easterly along a line located '/4-mile south of Woody Creek Road to the intersection with an intermittent stream located near the center of Sections 24 and 25, T.9S., R.85W.; then southerly up the centerline of said intermittent stream to the western peak of Red Mountain, (elevation 9905-feet); then southerly down the centerline of Slaughterhouse Gulch to the confluence with the Roaring Fork River; then southerly down the centerline of the Roaring Fork River to the Point of Beginning (Slaughterhouse Bridge). 6. Snowmass Village: Beginning at a point on Brush Creek Road where it is intersected by the Town Limits of Snowmass Village; then southerly and westerly along the Town Limits of Snowmass Village to it's southernmost intersection with the boundary of the Aspen School District; then northerly and easterly along the Aspen School District boundary until it is intersected with the Town Limits of Snowmass Village at the southeast corner of Section 17, T.9S. R.85W.; then southerly along the Town Limits of Snowmass Village to the Point of Beginning (Brush Creek Road). G:Ielectionslprecinetl3-13-02 precincts.doc Page 3 7. Woody Creek/Brush Creek/Aspen Village: Beginning at a point on State Highway 82 where It Is Intersected with the northern property line of the Airport Ranch (south of Brush Creek Road In the Shale Bluffs area); then southerly along the boundary of the Airport Ranch to the intersection of the northern property line of the Owl Creek Subdivision; then westerly along the northern property line of the Owl Creek Subdivision to the Town Limits of Snowmass Village; then northerly along the Town Limits of Snowmass Village to the intersection of the Aspen School District Boundary located at the southeast corner of Section 17. T.9S., R.85W.; then northerly, easterly and southerly for approximately 29.4 miles along the Aspen School District Boundary to a location on the boundary line located directly east of a point 1/4-mile south of the first switchback on Woody Creek Road before the road climbs towards Kobey Park; then west to said point located '/4-mile south of the first switchback on Woody Creek Road; then westerly along a line located '/4-mile south of the centerline of Woody Creek Road to the north property line of the Starwood Mountain Ranch Subdivision; then westerly along the northern property line of the Starwood Mountain Ranch Subdivision and the southern property line of the Moore property; then westerly along the Moore property line to the W/J property; then westerly along the southern property line of the W/J property to the centerline of the Roaring Fork River; then south along the centerline of the Roaring Fork River to the northern property line of the Airport Ranch; then west along the northern property line of the Airport Ranch to the Point of Beginning (State Highway 82). 8. Snowmass & Capitol Creeks/Old Snowmass/Lazy Glen: Beginning at the point where the Aspen School District Boundary intersects the Roaring Fork River (in Snowmass Canyon); then southerly, easterly and westerly along the boundary of the Aspen School District to a point on the ridge separating Pitkin County and Gunnison County; then westerly and northerly along the ridge between Pitkin County and Gunnison County to Snowmass Mountain; then northerly and westerly along the Ridge of the Elk Mountains to the headwaters of East Sopris Creek; then northerly and easterly along the centerline of East Sopris Creek to the property line between the Light Ranch and the Bureau of Land Management in Section 6, T. 9S., R.86W.; then north along said property line to the ridge of Light Hill (BLM); then northeast to the intersection of State Highway 82 and the Roaring Fork River at Wingo Junction; then northerly and easterly along the centerline of the Roaring Fork River to the east property line of lands owned by the Bureau of Land Management; then north along said property line to a point located ''/z- mile north of the centerline of the Roaring Fork River; then easterly and southerly along an undefined line located '/2-mile north of the Roaring Fork River to the intersection with the boundary of the Aspen School District; then west along the boundary of the Aspen School District to the Point of Beginning (Roaring Fork River). G.lelectionslprecinctl3-13-02 precincts.doc Page 4 9. Basalt/Frying Pan/Emma: Beginning at the point on the Continental Divide where Pitkin County, Eagle County and Lake County meet; then south along the boundary between Pitkin County and Lake County to the Intersection with the boundary of the Aspen School District; then westerly along the boundary of the Aspen School District to a point located '/2-mile east of the centerline of the Roaring Fork River; then easterly along an undefined line located 1/2-mile north of the centerline of the Roaring Fork River to the western property line of land owned by the Bureau of Land Management in Section 21 , T.9S., R.86W.; then south along said property line to the centerline of the Roaring Fork River; then south along the centerline of the Roaring Fork River to the intersection with State Highway 82 (Wingo owned of East Sopris Creek to it headwaters below the Ridge of the Elk Mountains; then northerly along the Ridge of the Elk Mountains to the east peak of Mount Sopris; then northeast along a ridge of Mount Sopris to the headwaters of Prince Creek (Thomas Lake); then northerly and westerly along the centerline of Prince Creek to the National Forest boundary line; then easterly, northerly and westerly along the boundary line of federal lands to the boundary between Pitkin County and Garfield County; then east along the Pitkin County line to the Point of Beginning. 10. Crystal River Valley: Beginning at a point on the Pitkin County line where the boundary with federal lands intersect at the boundary between Township 8 South, Range 88 West and Township 8 South, Range 87 West; then southerly, easterly and westerly along the boundary of public lands to the intersection with Prince Creek; then southerly along the centerline of Prince Creek to Thomas Lake; then southwest up a ridgeline to the east peak of Mount Sopris; then southerly along the Ridge of the Elk Mountains to Snowmass Mountain; then west along the county line between Pitkin County and Gunnison County; then continuing northerly along the Pitkin County line on Huntsman Ridge to the point where Pitkin County, Mesa County and Garfield County intersect; then east along the boundary between Pitkin County and Garfield County to the Point of Beginning. G.W2ctions 1preci=63-13-02 precincts.doe Page 5 EXHIBIT Meeting Date: March 13, 2002 Special Meeting Title: North Star Preserve Conservation Easement Initiator of Issue: Dale Will Description of Issue: ��� ,� i}� femi'ior 'File ordinance authorizes the County to enter into an agreement with the Aspen Valley Land Trust which limits the latter's power to amend conservation easements obtained through County processes, and to convey an easement over the North Star Preserve. The latter action stems from a commitment made by the County to ensure the permanent protection of the preserve, which is otherwise restricted only by the political will of the current board of county commissioners. Additionally, conveyance of a conservation easement on this property is a requirement of the North Star Nature Preserve 2000 Resource Management Plan, adopted by the BOCC July 26, 2000 (Section 1.08(H)). The agreement with AVLT regarding easement amendments is meant to address misunderstandings that occurred through AVLT's amendment of the conservation easement on the Flying Dog Ranch. This agreement would require County consent to any future amendments of easements which result from land use applications (such as Flying Dog) or through partnerships with the Open Space Program. Note that where the County owns the fee title to the eased lands, this is less of a concern because such an amendment would require the fee owner's consent in any event. It is hoped that this agreement will enhance the working partnership of the County and the Land Trust, which are each pioneers in the field of land conservation in Colorado. Recommendation: Approve the Ordinance on second reading. -1- EXHIBIT Shellie Roy �\ --J) 3 �- From: Shellie Roy <shellier@rof.net> To: Jack Hatfield <jackh@co.pitkin.co.us>; Jack Hatfield <hatfield@rof.net>; Hilary Smith <hilarys@co.pitkin.co.us>; Dorothea Farris <dfarris@sopris.net>, <pattic@sopris.net>; <mick@sopris.net>, Hilary Fletcher Smith <hilarys@ci.aspen.co.us>, John Ely <johne@ci.aspen.co.us> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 11:41 PM Subject: Youth Center Readings The following is a result of my attempt to understand the Youth Center debacle by reading the `Yellow Folder' from the City. I put down my thoughts in the form of A memo as I wanted to talk to all concerned. I am e-mailing this only to my Board, Hillary and John E at this time. TO: BOCC, John Ely, John Worcester, City Council FROM: Shelfie Roy RE: Youth Center Parcel DATE: late Tuesday, 3/5/02 I spoke to Tom McCabe recently regarding this parcel. Tom and I exchanged impressions that this issue had become one of principal on the part of both our Boards. Tom urged me to read the rather thick folder that John Worcester had prepared. Ile assured me, as had John himself at one of our meetings on this subject, that upon reading the history, I would agree. I'd like to share with all of you what I read. The saga begins officially with a Land Exchange Agreement signed by Herman Edel and Helen Klandarud on April 28, 1982. The terms appear to be as follows: The City conveys 5,621 sq. ft. to County called `Jail Property' The City agrees to incorporate in SPA for Rio Grande Property an area sufficient & Appropriate for future County use...and land so designated will upon Request be conveyed to County without added consideration. The County conveys 13,000 sq. ft west of Courthouse (Stable Property) to City County Conveys to City 40,000sq. ft (Aspen One Property) County conveys to City Oden property City pays $98,553 to County for Oden Property and assumes Promissory Note Ofapprox. $15,000 annually County buys Beahnar Property City conveys back to County Oden Property if Performing Arts not built and County reimburses City cost of Oden Note plus statutory interest. A Warranty Deed to this effect is recorded on Sept. 1, 1982 03/12/2002 May 9, 1991 a Nlemo is sent from the City to the County with a draft IGA. The word draft is underlined every time it is used. There is also a clarification in the cover memo stating, "IGA assumes that the City will take ownership of the Youth Center. We simply wrote it that way to get it on paper. It is, of course, subject to negotiation. ... if we can't resolve ownership of the land under the Youth Center building soon, we will need to agree on a three party lease similar to the one attached. The IGA is an attempt to begin addressing the 1982 Land Exchange Agreement As a library and a parking garage, not a performing Arts Center was built. January 24, 1992 a three party lease/IGA is signed by both parties. This agreement does not appear in the folder of information provided by John Worcester, but it was recorded. This agreement provided that both City and County own the land under the Youth Center. If the use should change the two governmental entities agree to buy the Youth Center out for $1 M. If either government can't or doesn't wish to continue To own the building the other party will buy them out. Memos from the City to the County start up again May 13, 1992. The memo is cordial and lists discussion items including a possible trade for the northern triangle below the jail for the County's half of the Youth Center. Memos discuss whether County or Library reimburses City for Oden purchase. One memo states the Library paid the City $25,270 on Feb. 20, 1992. Jul 9, 92 `message display' is a short exchange between John Worcester and Tim Whitsitt From John (city attorney): Jed gave me a copy of your recent letter to Amy for my tiles. f trust that your not mentioning the exchange of the library parcel for the garage parcel was an oversight? Answer from Tim (County attorney): We want to take over the garage, you can have the stinking library November 9, 1992, the City signs an IGA, but the County does not. From this time through most of 1995, the file is a series of Message Displays and Memos from the City to the County. There is no response from the County and the City tone gets angrier. There is some communication from Staff(s) trying to resolve maintance issues and the like. A couple from Tom Okum trying to resolve whom owes who money and how much. December 10, 1996 Suzanne Konchan writes a Memo to Amy Margerum. There are obviously some unresolved issues but the second to last line, 1 st page is telling: `Since the purpose of this subdivision of County property solely benefits the City..." I took office in January 1997. My first knowledge of this issue was a request by John Ely for some `housekeeping' —convey the County's land under the Youth Center to the City. The Board at the time asked why and some time later, John brought us a map and began to outline what he said was called the Tait compromise'. As a group, when we saw the land as it lay out on the map, we could not understand why the County would have agreed to such an unequal distribution of land. Mick's memory was that a prior Board had agreed to it, but could not remember anything more. We asked John Ely to get us more information. When he brought it back, there was no more information. We instructed him to say we would be glad to work cooperatively with the City to grant them the trolley easement, the land under the elevator and the turn-around, but there was absolutely no reason on earth to convey the land under the Youth Center. 03/12/2002 A year later'? ? while I was out of commission, the BOCC meet with an angry City who stated the BOCC was not honoring its commitment. My personal impression as I read through the folder is the two governments work remarkably well together to accomplish community needs. I believe the City put out a draft IGA proposing the County gift the Youth Center land, but the wording in the cover letter indicates they didn't figure the County would be receptive. I low this maybe tongue in cheek approach mutated into this horrible misunderstanding is in the dust ofhistory. But Tim Whitsett's response pretty much states where the County was - no way!! It is clear though, that this has become a matter of principal with several principals being at stake. But one principal [ hold is the City is doing a remarkable job accomplishing major community goals with the work at the Golf Course and at [slim. I also am very aware that you complicated the projects for yourselves by trying to meet the needs of so many different groups including the Youth Center. I admit I may be reading between the lines but it appears the Agreement made with the Youth Center by the City incorporated a contingency that the County deed their land to the City as a way to force the County into an action that seems to not be In the County's best interests. It also violates the agreement signed by both parties in 1992. What is missing is the why? I can only speak ftom my own perspectative as a trustee of County assets, but I sincerely fail to understand why the City felt the County had no need of this property? Looking at the exchange 53,000 sq. ft. of land plus the Oden land for 5,621 sq. ft., $98,553 and the assumption of a note leads me to believe either [ am missing something or there is a piece we are not aware of. Again, reading between the lines, someone absorbed much of the $190,000 Note To Odens...which may be some of the basis of the City position. What I am unclear on is was the Oden property in addition to the 13,000 Stable Property and The 40,OOOsq.ft. of Aspen One?Or are these another name for Oden property? 03/12/2002 I EXHIBIT �L MEMORANDUM TO: Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners Regular Meeting—March 13, 2002 �-. r ' THRU: Cindy Houb�hjmmunity Development Director FROM: Brian McNellis,Planner* RE: Griggs 1041 Hazard Review and Conceptual Submission Takings Determination SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The Applicants are requesting a takings hearing, pursuant to Section 4-150 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code, as a result of the Hearing Officer's denial on July 17, 2001. This is a request for a reconsideration of the previous determination by the BOCC on October 10, 2001 that no taking had occurred. The Applicants contend that the denial constitutes a taking of private property without just compensation. The Applicants are requesting 1041 Hazard Review, Conceptual Submission approval to establish a building envelope for the construction of a single-family residence. The proposed building envelope is encumbered by severe wildfire hazard and the property is located in a potential mud- slide activity area. APPLICANT: Kelly and Terri Griggs LOCATION: Tract 18, Swiss Village Subdivision ZONING/LOT SIZE: The property is zoned AFR-10. The property is 0.97 acres and is non- conforming in size. STAFF COMMENTS: The standard of review for a Board takings determination is identified in Section 3-290 of the Land Use Code, and reads as follows: "The Board shall determine whether the property owner will be denied all reasonable use and economic return on the property as a result of the questioned determination. If the Board determines that a taking has or may occur, it shall take such action as it deems appropriate to remedy the situation. In making its decision the Board shall consider the value of the property as a whole and shall not base its decision on the impact of the regulation on one portion of the ownership interest. In making its determination, the Board shall consider the beneficial uses which remain in the property notwithstanding the challenged determination and shall give due consideration to the reasonable investment- backed expectations of the landowner. " 1 Section 4-150 of the Code requires that the Applicants submit the request for a takings hearing within 15 days of the Board's decision and that the Board schedule a hearing within 15 days of the request. The Board is required to make a decision regarding the application for a taking determination within 15 days after the hearing on the matter. SUMMARY OF APPLICANT'S POSITION: The Applicants request a taking determination pursuant to Code section 4-150 and have addressed the criteria of Code section 5-220-010 in the attached letter. The Applicants contend that the Hearing Officer's denial of the application has denied them all beneficial use and economic return on their property. ISSUES RELATED TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: Issues related to the proposed development on the subject property have been fully addressed in staffs memorandum to the Hearing Officer dated June 26, 2001. The application was denied by the Hearing Officer based on the finding that the proposed building envelope contains severe wildfire hazard where pursuant to Section 3-80-070(A) of the Land Use Code, development is prohibited. — Wildfire Hazard: The property is rated as severe wildfire hazard. According to Section 3- 80-070(A)(2) of the Code,development is prohibited within areas that are identified by the Colorado State Forest Service as areas containing severe wildfire hazard. John Denison of the Colorado State Forest Service indicated that the severe wildlife hazard would require mitigation and gave recommendations in his attached letter. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: Pursuant to section 3-290-020 of the Code, the Board shall consider whether or not a taking has occurred by virtue of the previous denial. The BOCC shall: 1. Find that no taking has occurred because: A. The Applicant has no reasonable investment-backed expectation to develop a new single-family residence in a severe wildfire hazard areas; B. The Applicant has not been denied all reasonable use and economic return in connection with the denial of the development application; and C. The Applicant does not have the right to the most profitable use of his property, which would require development in hazard areas. 2. Find that a taking has occurred because: A. The proposed building envelope is in the most suitable location on the property for development; and B. The denial constitutes a taking of all reasonable use and economic return from the subject property. 1 ATTACHMENTS: 1 rl.aA rloenitifi= — N�/�r"tfKff�D 2. Letter from Applicant's representative regarding takings determination _3;.._ 'NOT-f7' G/>�/, —Rr.F.y2'ro FINAL PeCcAbeb 4. StafPs memo to the Hearing Officer °�uMeArts. ✓5. CSFS letter /// Fire Protection District letter Homeowners' Association letter Geologic Report " Mr.McNellis has received a Bachelors Degree in Environmental Design from the University of Colorado and has worked as a Planning professional for 7 years. Mr.McNellis has been an employee of Pitkin County for a total of 6 years. 3 1 ATTACHMENT TO.3-13-Di MEMORANDUM of b • Mc Aff.11 s opM�N�t TO: Pitkin County Hearing Officer OWNER/APPLICANT: Kelly and Terry Griggs RE: Griggs 1041 Hazard Review DATE: July 18, 2001 Subsection 4-150-010 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code states any applicant for a development permit who is adversely affected or aggrieved by a determination by the Planning and Zoning Commission or Board of County Commissioners, and where such applicant contends that the determination constitutes a taking of private property without just compensation in violation of the United States or Colorado constitutions, such property owner shall, as a perquisite to appeal orjudicial review of the decision, request a hearing pursuant to this section before the Board of County Commissioners no later than fifteen (15) days from the date of decision. As a prerequisite to appeal orjudicial review of this decision we, on behalf of our client Kelly and Terry Griggs, are formally submitting this letter of petition to request a hearing on this day of July 17, 2001 pursuant to Section 4-150-020 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code. Additional submitted information required from Section 5-220-010 is as follows: A. A written request for the takings hearing prepared pursuant to the procedures in Section 4-150. • Seethe above paragraphs B. An identification of the property and the property interest adversely affected • The property is located on Tract 18, Swiss Village, at 103 Apache Trail, Carbondale, CO 81623 C. Past and current uses of the property • Raw land D. The petitioner's original purchase price of the property • $78,000 E. The assessed valuation of the property • Based on a 2001 property assessment-$85,000 F. Appraisals and/or preliminary estimates of value made on the property • Appraisal based on single-family structure and (1) one caretaker dwelling unit-$200,000 G. Current mortgage principal balance and interest rate • Mortgage principal balance $58,000 • Interest rate 8.5% H. Past income generated by the property and expenses relating to the property • No past income has been generated by the property • Property expense: 1041 Hazard Review application $7,469 • Property expense: Perk test $817 I I. Ownership structure for the property (partnership, corporation, etc.) • Partnership: Terry & Kelly Griggs (husband and wife) J. Owner's tax bracket • Based on 2000 gross income-$106,000 K. Rental value of the property with and without the offending determination • Value unknown L. Sale value of the property with and without the offending determination; and • Comparable: (1) one acre of raw land located in the Swiss Village Subdivision, mapped in a severe wildfire 1041 Hazard area, valued at approximately$115,000 M. Any other information bearing on the difference in the value of the property with and without the offending determination. • None to date Applicant acknowledges that they have been informed by Pitkin County of the existence of 1041 severe environmental hazard area on their property. Our client looks forward to the County's final determination regarding the underlying 104 1 application. Any improvements and/or mitigation conditions that come forward are anticipated. Sincerely, OTAK Roger Millar, Principal, PE, FASCE, AICP XC. Kelly and Terry Griggs XCI. Project File ATTACHMENT/_ MEMORANDUM TOJjj-oz MEMORANDUM (w Irfd.bf ) TO: Pitkin County Hearing Officer FROM: Brian McNellis, Planner- RE: Griggs 1041 Hazard and Conceptual Submission DATE: July 17, 2001 REQUEST: The Applicant requests 1041 Hazard Review and Conceptual Submission approval to establish a building envelope that will contain a single-family residence and customary accessory uses. OWNER/APPLICANT: Kelly and Terry Griggs LOCATION: Tract 18, Swiss Village Subdivision REFERRAL COMMENTS: Staff referred this application, but no comments were received from the County Attorney, Engineer, Wildlife Biologist,Zoning Officer, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Crystal River Caucus, or Swiss Village Homeowner's Association. 1041 HAZARD REVIEW Geologic: The property slopes slightly upwards to the west at a grade that is mostly between 15 and 30 percent. The Code prohibits development on slopes exceeding 15 percent unless it can be determined that a specific design would result in less impact than if the development was limited to slopes of less than 15 percent. There are a few areas within the proposed building envelope that exceed 30 percent slope, which is prohibited pursuant to Code Section 3-80-050. The building envelope must be modified to exclude these steep slope areas. It does not appear that the proposed driveway can adequately meet Pitkin County standards as it is currently over a 20 percent grade. Bill Gavette of the Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District, reviewed the application and stated in his referral letter that the proposed access appeared to be adequate from an emergency access perspective. Mr. Gavette's letter is attached for reference. The Applicants would be required to obtain an access permit prior to building permit submission. Staff has been alerted by neighbors in Swiss Village that this property has a history of mud slide activity associated with the drainage creek that runs through the property. This information has not been verified by the Pitkin County Engineer. Staff would recommend that a geologic analysis of the property be conducted before any development be permitted on the property. Wildfire: The property is mapped as severe wildfire hazard and John Denison of the Colorado State Forest Service concurs with this rating. Pursuant to Code Section 3-80-070, development is prohibited in any area that is rated severe wildfire hazard. Wildlife: The property is not mapped for wildlife activity. Staff observed riparian vegetation that should be preserved along the drainage that runs through the property. In this regard, the building envelope should be modified to encroach no closer than 20 feet to the drainage. 1 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Hearing Officer deny this application as the property is rated severe wildfire and pursuant to Code Section 3-80-070, development is prohibited in severe wildfire hazard areas. ATTACHMENTS 1_ Col D � 3—I3 �2 memo 3 Draft 4 Sian ' �Q Mr. McNellis has received a Bachelors Degree in Environmental Design from the University of Colorado and has worked as a Planning professional for 6 years. Mr. McNellis has been an employee of Pitkin County for a total of 5 years. I i I I I ATTACHMENT 5 TO 3--13�MEMORANDUM W]` � � O June 14, 2001 C Att Nt1.L1 f � RECEIVED a FOREST SERVICE JUN 18 2001 Brian Nellis ASPEN IPITKIN State Services Building Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Dept. --OMMUNRY DEVELOPMENT 222 S.6th Street,Room 416 130 South Galena St. Grand Junction,Colorado 81501 Aspen, CO 81611 Telephone: (970)248-7325 Dear Brian I visited the Griggs property in the Swiss Village Subdivision on June 14,2001 with Sharee Von Ellig of Otak Rock Creek Studio. As we have noted in the past, the Swiss Village Subdivision is in a severe wildfire hazard area. Steep slopes, narrow roads and continuous (horizontal&vertical) vegetation characterize this entire subdivision, and this lot is no exception. The home for this lot should be to a "stand alone" design and construction materials standard Firewise Construction Design & Materials sent to Ms.Von Ellig). Additionally, considerable thinning of trees and brush will be needed to mitigate the severe wildfire hazards, specifically to the limits the lot allows: 1. For a distance of 35 feet in every direction from the house establish and maintain vegetation at 6 inches or less. This can be accomplished with mowed grass, low growing perennials or some type of hardscape(e.g.,rock mulch,pavers,sidewalk). Woody plant material should not be planted within this perimeter. In addition flammable material (e.g., firewood) should not be stored here. 2. For a distance of 100 feet downslope, remove standing dead and enhance existing clumps of Gambel oak,serviceberry and other shrubs and trees by reducing the overall diameter of a clump to 2 '/2 times its height and the spacing between clumps to 3 times the height. For example: if the shrubs average 10 feet tall, a clump allowed to remain should be no larger than 25 feet in diameter and the distance to any other clumps should be �30 feet. The area between clumps should support vegetation that remains less than 2 feet in height like grass, flowers or shrubs like snowberry. Mowing between clumps will encourage grass over woody vegetation. Remove (prune)the lower limbs/branches of all shrubs and trees within clumps allowed to remain to eliminate ladder fuels. This should be done up to half the total height of the plant, or ten feet (whichever is least). Since most of the shrubs involved with the needed thinning are vigorous sprouters after being cut, It should be required that all cut stumps be treated with Garton® or its equivalent immediately after cutting. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these wildfire hazards. Slnc rely, / �Y Joh W. Denison District Forester cc: Sharee Von Ellig, Otak Rock Creek Studio .REO JUN 2 b P001 00,",gI4U�;�iy DEVELOPb7E�ll J FIRE • EMS • RESCUE ATTACHMENT_ Tune 24, 2001 TQI/ 12-MEMORANDUM (Ot t 164L1.L A I Brian McNellis Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Griggs, 1041 Hazard Review Brian: I have reviewed the application for the Griggs property. I would offer the following comments regarding fire protection for the property. Access to the property is off Apache Trail. The current access to the building envelope is located at the northeast corner of the property. This access appears to be adequate for emergency apparatus. Water supplies for fire protection would initially be limited to water carried on responding fire apparatus. Additional water could be supplied from the fire hydrant near the entrance to the subdivision. This hydrant has a limited water supply. I believe that a 10,000 gallons water storage tank feeds it. Additional water would be supplied by tanker shuttle. Response time to the property is approximately 15 - 20 minutes with response coming from Station No.2 in Redstone and Station No.I in Carbondale If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. i Sincer Bill Gavette Deputy Chief Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District 1 300 Meadowood Drive • Carbondale, CO 81623 • 970/963-2491 Fax 963-0569 ATTACHMENT_ July 12, 2001 TO323-62—MEMORANDUM Cott N Pitkin County Courthouse First Floor Conference Room 506 E Main Aspen, CO 81611 Attn: James True, Public Hearing Officer Dear Mr. True; The Crystal River Estates Homeowner's Association would like to submit the following information for your revi'fw and consideration in regards to the request for approval by Terry Griggs for a building envelope for a single family residence and customary accessory use. The property in question is located on Tract 18, Swiss Village, at 103 Apache Trail, Carbondale, CO 81623. Said property is located immediately next to a one hundred year flood plain. Also, this area consistently has one—two mud slides a year requiring rebuilding of the road in this immediate area. These mud slides consistently move from the upper road all the way down to Highway 133 causing destruction to all areas in its path; Tract 18 of Swiss Village is in the immediate path of the mud slide areas. This entire area is very unstable due to floods and mud slides. Also, there is no access for Tract 18 of Swiss Village on the upper road which is in the Crystal River Estates Homeowner's Association. Any access from the upper road would require approval from the Crystal River Estates Homeowner's Association, along with a subsequent payment to the Crystal River Estates Homeowner's Association. It would also require a "no liability" legal agreement for any damages to Tract 18 during road repair to the upper road by Crystal River Estates Homeowner's Association due to any and all flood/mud slides. We appreciate your consideration in this matter. Respectfully Submitted, Crystal River Estates Homeowner's Association D AUG 16-2001 iei-41 H—P GEOTECH P.02iO4 litp5020 County Road Gentechnical,Inc 5030 County Road 154 Glenwood Springs,Colorado 3I601 Phone: 7711-945-798 8 Fax: 970.945.84:4 hpgeo@hpgeote h.com ATTACHMENT 6 August 15, 2001 TO_P1-0_2,MEMORANDUM (144t44I.us ) Mr, Terry Griggs 111 North Harper Avenue Los Angeles, California 90048 Job No. 101 334 Subject: Debris FIow Constraints Review for a Proposed Residence, Swiss Village, Tract 18, Pitkin County, Colorado Dear Mr. Griggs: As r�quested, we have reviewed the potential debris flow constraints to the proposed residence planned on Tract 18. The purpose of the review was to assess the debris flow potential at the site and to develop mitigation concepts that can be used to reduce the potential risk to the proposed residence. A reconnaissance of the site and adjacent area was made on August 1, 2001. Based on our field observations an assessment of the debris flow constraints to the proposed development was made. This report summarize our observations and presents our conclusions and recommendations. Proposed Development: It is our understanding that you plan to construct a single storyl wood frame residence at the location shown on Fig. 1. The residence will have plan dimensions of about 28 by 36 feet and will not have a basement level. The septic dispQsal system will be located to the cast of the residence. Access to the residence will be by a driveway from Apache Trail. Some grading has been done at the proposed building site and little additional grading should be needed to prepare the building site. I Site renditions: Tract 18 covers about one acre and is located between Apache Trail -okee Lane, see Fig. 1. The tract is on a larger alluvial fan along the western side of the Crystal River valley about five miles north of Redstone. The property is in the NE )A of Section 29, T. 9 S„ R. 88 W. The fan head is located about 500 feet up slops and to the west of the property. The fan has a relatively uniform slope that averages about 15%. A deep, well entrenched fan head channel is present between the propFrty and the fan head to the west. Cross-sections transverse to the channel flow line were measured on the property and up slope of the property, see Fig. 2. Near the fan head'the channel is 19 to 22 feet deep and has a maximum cross-section area of about 570 ¢quare feet. About 50 feet up slope of Cherokee Lane the channel is 10 to 12 feet deep,and has a maximum cross-section area of about 146 square feet. Near the proposed building site the channel is 6 to 7 feet deep and has a maximum cross-section area iof about 40 square feet. The drainage basin up slope of the fan is very steep and covets over 100 acres. 1 �1 AUG 16-2001 10:41 H-P GEOTECH P.03iO4 Mr. Terry Griggs Page 2 August 15, 2001 A- ° ime of our field reconnaissance a small amount of surface flow was present in the enannel. The surface flow is conveyed under Cherokee Lane and Apache Trail in small capacity culverts. A debris clean up pile to the southwest of Cherokee Lane indicates that the culvert has been plugged by debris since the road was built. Residences are located on several of the adjacent tracts. Vegetation consists of dense oak and other brush. Analysis of Field Observations: The fan head channel to the west and up slope of Tract 18 and Cherokee Lane is deeply incised below the fan surface and has the capacity of conveying debris flow surge discharges of several thousand cubic feet per second without over topping and spreading on the fan surface. Near Cherokee Lane the channel capacity diminish substantially. Near the proposed building site the existing channel will only conveying a few tens of cubic feet per second without over topping and spreading onto the fan surface. It appears that two or more major debris flows have occurred on the alluvial fan at the project site within the past 200 years. There is evidence of a recent debris flow in the chaniteI that had a confined flow depth of about 6 feet and an estimated surge discharge of about 20 to 40 cubic feet per second. A debris flow on a similar fan a few miles to the i :h of the project site in the summer of 1999 was large enough to reach and block HisW.ny 113. The 1999 flow had an estimated surge discharge between 160 and 240 cubic feet per second based on superelevation measurements at channel bends. The 1999.debris flow, if located at the project site, would likely exceed the existing channel capacity near the building site. Debris Flow Risk Assessment: The alluvial fan at the site is geologically active and the f4n will be the site of future debris flows that could potentially reach the proposed building site on Tract 18. Debris flows associated with intense thunderstorms occur every,few years along of the Crystal River valley between Marble and Carbondale, but recurrence times are longer on individual fans in the region. Determination of statistical recurrence times for thunderstorms large enough to produce major debris flow at thproject site would require long-term observations that are not presently available. Cone dering the regional setting, major debris flows at the project site probably have statistical recurrence times between 20 and 100 years. A major debris flow could result in damage to a conventionally designed residence at the proposed building site and could posse ly harm the building occupants. If the debris flow risk is not acceptable, then mitigition should be considered. Mitigation concepts are discussed in the following sectit n. Dc" i "low Mitigatlon Concepts: It should be possible to provide a reasonable level of protection for the residence and its occupants with a control dike at the approximate ' N-P GEOTEGH V RUC, 16-2001 10:41 H-P GEOTECH P.04iO4 Mr. Terry Griggs Page 3 August 15, 2001 location shown on Fig. 1. Also, flood proofing and direct protection of the building is a possible alternative. Flood proofing and direct protection will not prevent some building and site damage by erosion and the deposition of mud and debris. Channel improvements do not appear to be a feasible mitigation for this site. The purpose of the control dike is to prevent the spreading of mud and debris into the proposed building area. The dike would not restrain debris spreading and deposition to the south of the dike as has naturally occurred in past debris flows. When specific building and grading plans are available additional study will be needed to determine an appropriate location and height for the control dike. The dike height could vary and will'probably be in the range of 3 to 8 feet. F1r•-,I proofing and direct protection of the building will require special building design a:= 1 -ations. Windows, doors and other structurally week building components should be located above potential flow depths. Building walls exposed to mud and debris should be designed to resist expected impact and deposition loads. If this alternative is considered, additional study will be needed to develop appropriate design criteria. Lirroations: This study was conducted according to generally accepted engineering geology principles and practices in this area, at this time. We stake no warranty either expressed or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based on our field observations and our experience in the area. This report has been prepared exclusively for our client to evaluate potential debris flow risks and possible mitigation options. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our info#udon. Additional study will be needed to develop appropriate design criteria if mitigation is used to protect the residence. Respectfully submitted, I HE�WORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, nrc. Rain 0 Mock Engineering Geologist Reviewed by: 'SSA' .N 5tev'en L. P ik, RGi41/ksw ;' IG�o f a4 e H-P GEOTECH TOTAL P.04 f 1� AUG 16-2001 15:02 H—P GEOTECH P-02iO3 �r ! / M U) j N i �" .. 94 bi �✓ ;' :; � k � CD -44 rIt \ �\ 9vi'7 x — w hwom+wAWLAK swim VNlage- Trot18 Fi8. 1 01 3Mtwr: GEO7ECHNICAL, Inc. Conceptual Debris Flow Mftatlon I AUG 16-2001 11:03 H—P GECTECH P.03iO3 North South Lsm Farr Fen 22.0 R te.0 R i 4.0 fL Mm*mm Chard*Arse M of C herm l SWO a 0.150 Section 1 (Near Fmt Head) North South �x.on� Fen Fan 9-9 R 11.5 R 5S R 2S R Mmomum Clwrnel Area 145 of Charnel Mope-0.150 Section 2 (Up Skips of Cherokee lane) North South contra Building g R B I Dike 22.0uikli SRO Fan 1 7.0 R 5.6 L 1.0 R Nkm"un Chwmal Nee 40 of Channel Slope=0.150 Section 3 (Near Proposed Bulking Site) Scale: 1 In. =201L 101 334 HEPWORTH-PAWIAK swim V ICross-Trod a Fig. 2 GE07ECHNICAL Inc, TOTAL P.03 1 EXHIBIT MEMORANDUM -l3-OZ TO: Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners Regular Meeting—March 13, 2002 THRU: Cindy Houben, Community Development Director VIA FROM: Tamara Pregl, Planner* RE: Code Amendment to Section 3-80-070, Wildfire Areas SUMMARY OF REQUEST: This is a County-initiated Ordinance proposing an amendment to section 3 80-070 of the Land Use Code. .27 ISSUE: Second reading of this Ordinance was heard by the BOCC on February W2002. At the request of the BOCC, the ordinance has been amended to reflect the discussion that took place on February�l,�d 7 with respect to selecting a"test' development project where wood shake shingles may be installed in a manner that results in a Class A roof covering installed in accordance with product listing. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board pass the following motion,"to approve the 3rd Reading of Code Amendment to Section 3-80-070, Wildfire Areas,to allow for installation of Class A roof coverings only in the Low Wildfire Hazard Areas, subject to the conditions outlined in the a. .�— ordinance." ATTACHMENT: -- - lVr7- )4T'T70­cHe._b *Ms.Preg(has a Masters in Urban Planningfrom the Univeaity of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Ms.Pregl has been working with Pitkin County Community Development Department as a Ptannerfor 4 years. EXHIBIT MEMORANDUM TO: Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners Regular Meeting—March 13, 20Q;L ,gyp THRU: Cindy Houben, Community Development DirectorCl V(V,`(�v FROM: Tamara Pregl,Planner RE: Ruby Mountain Drive Road Vacation(Crystal River Park Subdivision)-- 1 Reading (public hearing) SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The Applicants are requesting that High Drive be completely vacated, as well as a small portion of Ruby Mountain Drive(formally Aspen Drive)adjacent to Lot 3. APPLICANT(S): CRV Properties Ltd. Liability Co. (Lots 15, 16, &17) CO-APPLICANTS: Steven& Stephanie Litz(Lot 3); Fritz Karl &Margarita Carrasco De Thumer(Lot 18); Peter&Lary Louise Menardi (Lot 19); and David Clemente(Lot 20). REPRESENTATIVE: Bob McCormick and Sherry Rubin LOCATION: The Crystal River Park Subdivision is located south of Redstone on the west side of Highway 133. ISSUES: Staffs memo to the Planning and Zoning Commission(P&Z)provides a complete review of the pertinent standards of the Land Use Code. The Planning and Zoning Commission passed a unanimous recommendation of approval (4-0). Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting are attached this memorandum. The P&Z agreed with staff that the complete vacation of High Drive would create two land locked lots within a Board approved subdivision and should therefore not be allowed. The P&Z has agreed to allow the Applicant to established High Drive as a private driveway with a minimum width of 14' which meets county standards. The driveway shall be located in the same location as the platted High Drive and shall be delineated on the amended plat. RECOMMENDATION: Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board pass the following motion, "to approve the I'Reading of the vacation of High Drive and a small portion of Ruby Mountain Drive adjacent to Lot 3, subject to the conditions in the aiiochd ordinance,and setting 2'Reading for March 27, 2002." ATTACHMENTS: —� — VOT sH"rriC-He ✓l/January 15, 2002,Planning&Zoning Commission minutes ✓s Staff memo to Planning Commission dated January 15,20002 Application and site plans are attached separately. •Ms.Prtgl har a Murm in Usban PlanningJrom the i/nnxrsiry ofWurovin-Milwvbz M.Preg1 M,yeen w.tin%w+th PiYa'n Cwnry Cammuniry Un'dnPmm+Ogumman ac a PlarmerJw4 ors. "d'eut� rs6 5, row:. MINUTES PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION :�T/lCEh�iEN7T PLAZA ONE MEETING ROOM JANUARY 15, 2002 Draft: Ist INDIVIDUALS PRESENT: I ATTACHMENT Pitkin County Planning & Zoning Commissioners Peter Martin (chair) TO 3-13MEMORANDUM Michael o -OZ(PAR") Paul Rudnnickick John Howard Staff Tamara Pregl j Lance Clarke [t i Applicant's or Representative's for: High Drive Road Vacation,Major Plat Amendment, Crystal River Park Subdivision W/J Ranch Road Vacation and Minor Plat Amendment I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Peter Martin called the meeting to order and introduced those present. II. COMMENTS A. Commissioners Comments Martin noted that he read the staff memo regarding the project in Crystal River, contacted Bob McCormick and visited the site. B. Planning Staff Comments Lance Clarke stated that Staff would look into providing a separate summary score sheet for the P&Z as the City does. Martin asked that the summary sheet also indicate what the issues are. Clarke noted that there would be another major round of scoring coming up in the next couple of - months. There are currently seven applications, and they will greatly exceed the request for the available 40,000 Sq.Ft. Clarke introduced Jennifer Doss as the new recording secretary. Clarke stated that a Staff/P&Z work session has been scheduled for the new proposed land use code and zone districts on January 22, 2002. He stated that Martin had wanted to concentrate on the RC/R35 controversy for the first meeting. There was discussion regarding holding an.additional meeting on January 29". It was decided to wait and see how the meeting on the 22n'went. Clarke noted that February 5"would be the annual chair election. Clarke briefed the P&Z on the recent BOCC actions. C. Public Comments There were no public comments. III. MINUTES There were no minutes for review. IV. OLD BUSINESS There was no Old Business for review. V. NEW BUSINESS A. High Drive Road Vacation, Major Plat Amendment,Crystal River Park Subdivision Staff Presentation Tamara Pregl presented a summary of the application as outlined in the meeting packet. She 1 MINUTES PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 2002 pointed out the location of the proposed road vacation and stated that the applicant is proposing to completely vacate High Drive and put a driveway up to Lot 17. Pregl stated that they are also proposing to vacate the portion of the easement that was never built. She indicated the issue to be that if the road were vacated two lots would remain landlocked. Pregl indicated that Bud Eylar,the County Engineer, is okay with the road being vacated as long as there is some type of easement that can service those properties if the lots are ever developed. Preg] stated that Staff is recommending denial of the application because of the possibility of the lots being landlocked. Rudnick commented that he found it confusing that the property is being marketed for sale with the expectation that the buyer will sanitize the property. He questioned why the seller didn't sanitize it if he wanted to vacate the road. Rudnick asked what benefit there was to the applicant in vacating the road and substituting the easement. Pregl responded that the applicant should respond to that. Applicant Presentation Bob McCormick,the Applicant, stated that the three parcels are being marketed with a contractual agreement that there only be one building on the site along with the right for a conservation easement on the other two parcels. He stated that as a real estate dealer, there are no tax advantages to doing a conservation easement. McCormick stated that he has been offered 2-3 times what he is asking for the property, for the right to build on the upper portion of the property. He indicated that he would prefer not to see that portion of the property developed and added that the road vacation would make it very difficult to develop. However,McCormick stated,there may be compelling reasons for a person to do so, and he doesn't want to completely take away their ability to move off of what he feels is the preferred site. Martin asked if the prospect was for one house rather than three. McCormick responded that was correct. Martin asked McCormick if he were willing to dedicate an easement that could be used where the roadway is. McCormick responded that he would be willing to grant and record a 30-foot easement if necessary. He stated that he thought it was better to have a driveway instead of a public road up there indicating that a driveway would take a permit that would have to be addressed by the homeowner's association and a variance from the Board of Adjustment because of the road cuts. Howard suggested that the BOA would have to give them the variance because of the hardship. McCormick responded that he didn't third:so because it was being sold as one piece. Clarke stated that it didn't make any difference how the property is sold,that it's three platted and separate lots as long as the lot lines remain. Staff had suggested moving the lot lines, but at this point the Applicant doesn't want to do that because it will reduce the value of the conservation easement. Augello asked if the homeowner's association would have to review the proposed driveway even with the recorded easement. McCormick responded that was correct. Augello stated that he views this as an access easement and stated that if the homeowner's association still has a say in the driveway then creating the driveway easement doesn't solve the land locked parcel issue. Clarke stated that if they adjust the plat to a driveway easement they would require that it be shown on the plat. He didn't think the homeowners association would have the ability to deny access to platted lots. Rudnick suggested the possibility of the buyer agreeing to a conservation easement. There was discussion on how this would affect the tax benefits. Public Comments Ruth Kinney, Secretary for the Board of Directors of the Crystal Park Homeowner's Association, stated on behalf of the Board that they were in favor of vacating the road. She stated that they would love to see the upper properties never built on for all of the reasons mentioned above and in addition because there is a lot of elk in that area. She stated that whatever could be done to accommodate the vacation of the 2 MINUTES PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION road would be appreciated. JANUARY 15, 2002 Commissioner Comments & Questions Martin asked what the primary reason was for vacating the road. McCormick responded that it was to help ensure there wouldn't be a road up to the upper portion of the property therefore making it difficult for a person to build there. Rudnick stated that if the agreement ensures only one building site on the three lots then the conservation easement is significantly diminished. McCormick responded that this a contractual agreement and not a recorded easement. Augello pointed out that the County would have no way of enforcing this. Martin stated that according to Colorado law, if you sell a landlocked parcel and you retain a parcel that can provide access there is an implied easement through it. He asked if McCormick wouldn't have to provide access through Lot 17 to the two other lots as a matter of law. Clarke stated that the lots are not currently landlocked, and suggested that the P&Z would not want to take action to lock them. Rudnick stated that there was no way that he could vote for this application. He stated that it seemed everyone would like to see one house built on three lots and the rest open space. Rudnick again suggested that the applicant should come in with the buyer and the buyer should agree to a conservation easement. Augello stated that this would accomplish what the applicant has in mind, and provide the comfort the P&Z is looking for. Martin suggested that the driveway easement would accomplish the same thing as the road. Howard stated that the driveway easement would simply narrow the road. Martin asked if it would solve the access problem by turning it into a driveway. Rudnick stated that this wouldn't solve the Applicants problem and that whether it's an easement or a road,he still has the same issue. Martin suggested that there was a consensus that it is desirable to have one house rather than three and that this protects the wildlife. The P&Z agreed with this statement. Martin asked if it would be better for the Applicant to table this and bring it back with a buyer, rather than get a denial tonight. Augello stated that he had no problem vacating the road, however he'd require a driveway easement. He agreed with Clarke's suggestion that the P&Z had no business creating landlocked lots. There was further discussion on the tax benefits. Rudnick asked how it would benefit the applicant to convert a road to a driveway easement. McCormick responded that it would change the road to a driveway, which would make a huge difference in the way it looks. In addition to that, because a driveway easement is reviewed by the homeowner's assocation, the buyer would have to prove that is the best place to build. McCormick commented that the homeowner's association takes strong, active measures into construction and the way things are done. Rudnick stated that other than achieving a less obtrusive access to the lots he didn't see how this would change the applicant's circumstances at all. Martin stated that although he'd known the applicant for a long time and placed a lot of trust in him, it was still his responsibility as a P&Z member to ensure that lots 16 & 18 would never be developed on. Martin stated that he didn't see where anything could be lost if they get the easement. He pointed out that Staff wants the easement to be recorded on the plat and the problem with this, as every owner in the subdivision is aware, is that you have to sign off on the plat amendment. Clarke stated that he isn't positive that's correct and indicated that they aren't doing anything less than a vacation, which didn't require every owner in the subdivision to sign it. Motion: Commissioner John Howard moved to a rove the resolution for the Hi h Drive Road Vacation Major Plat Amendment Crystal River Park Subdivision with an amendment that a driveway easement he on the recorded plat in substantially the Same location as the road seconded by Commissioner Paul 3 b MINUTES PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 2002 Rudnick. Commissioners Howard, Rudnick, Augello and Martin voted unanimously in favor of the motion. B. W/J Ranch Road Vacation and Minor Plat Amendment Staff Presentation Lance Clarke gave a summary of the application as outlined in the memo. He stated that Shane Harvey was present to represent the Lowe W3 LLC, who are the current owners of the Ranch. Clarke stated that while reviewing past plats,the applicant discovered many situations where the location of existine easements and rights-of-way"as built"are shown on different locations on the plat. He indicated that the applicant would like to get a corrected plat adopted before proceeding with any further development of the property. Clarke stated that the application has been broken down to six different proposed vacations of existing rights-of way and substitutions or grants of new rights-of-way. He pointed out and explained these locations on the plat provided as outlined below: 1. Request to vacate the existing 60-foot Elam Road easement and right-of-way in exchange for a grant of a new easement and right-of-way in the"as built" alignment all the way to the end of the W/J Ranch. 2. Request to vacate the Lower River Road easement in exchange for grant of"as built" replacement easement and right-of-way. 3. Request to vacate the Mclain Flats Road easement and right-of-way in exchange for easement and right-of-way in"as built" location. 4. Request to vacate the portions of the Rio Grande Trail easement in exchange for replacement easements and rights-of-way in the"as built"location. 5. Request to vacate a portion of the 100-foot Rio Grande Railroad right-of-way. 6. Request to vacate the 60-foot easement that is potentially for the straightening of Mclain Flats Road. Clarke stated that the County is not interested in expanding the Elam Road right-of-way beyond where it ends right now. They are interested in having the grant of the corrected"as built" location. He added that they might not need any portion of Elam Road if they vacate the 60-foot right-of-way for a new Me Lain flats Road. Rudnick asked if Elam maintained the road. Clarke agreed with that, and added that it is actually a county right-of-way for only a portion. Regarding the Rio Grande Trail right-of-way, Rudnick wanted to ensure there would be no break in the public trail. The applicant stated that it would not and pointed out how the trail winds around and crosses Elam Road on a map provided. Clarke commented that Staff doesn't want to recommend the vacation of the existing 100' Rio Grande Railroad right-of-way because there has been lots of discussion about valley wide rail and it's undetermined where this will lead. He stated that this is an existing right-of-way and one of the potential spots to crossing the river. If they eliminate any portion of right-of-way, it limits their options in terms of where rail might go. Clarke stated that Staff is recommending approval for everything proposed with the exception of the additional right-of-way for Elam Road and the vacation of the 100-foot Rio Grand right-of-way, which goes across the park and gravel pit. He stated that they would want to discuss with the BOCC whether or not the 60-foot McLain Flats right-of-way will ever be needed. Rudnick stated that he isn't assured, in looking at the map, that there isn't an interruption in the Rio Grande Trail. The applicant stated that the map was old. He disagreed with Rudnick's statement indicating that he's been out there many times with open space and trails. There was further discussion regarding the trail. Rudnick stated that as long as it's within the easement he has no problem with it. Clarke commented that Open Space and Trails had reviewed this and didn't have any problems with it. 4 MEMORANDUM ATTACHMENT_ TO: Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission TO ;-l3 '0ZMEMORANDUM FROM: Tamara Pregl, Planner" RE: High Drive Road Vacation (Crystal River Park Subdivision) DATE: January 15,2002 SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The Applicants are requesting that High Drive be completely vacated, as well as a small portion of Ruby Mountain Drive(formally Aspen Drive)adjacent to Lot 3. APPLICANT(S): CRV Properties Ltd. Liability Co. (Lots 15, 16, &17) CO-APPLICANTS: Steven& Stephanie Litz(Lot 3); Fritz Karl &Margarita Carrasco De Thumer(Lot 18); Peter&Lary Louise Menardi (Lot 19); and David Clemente(Lot 20). REPRESENTATIVE: Bob McCormick and Sherry Rubin LOCATION: The Crystal River Park Subdivision is located south of Redstone on the west side of Highway 133. ZONING: The properties are zoned AFR-10. The lots are non-conforming in size. PROCEDURE/PROCESS: This is a two-step review requiring Planning and Zoning Commission review and a public hearing before the Board of County Commissioner. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: High Drive and Ruby Mountain Drive are platted on the Crystal River Park Subdivision Plat which is recorded in Book 3 at Page 103. High Drive has never been constructed and the Applicant has indicated that the construction of High Drive would create sigrificant visual disturbance. The Applicant is also requesting that the portion of Ruby Mountain Road, which was not constructed as platted, be vacated, due to slopes and grade considerations, as well as the desire to end the road at this point. As seen in the photos below,a cul-de-sac was constructed when the driveway to Lot 18 was constructed and an casement granted for the use of the road as constructed. A IL ew n bllse nceted on Lot 18.View taken om of lower s u y ew o b13,star ng a ncent to the house on Lot 18. Platted Ruby Mountain Road. Fxisting Road alignment not constructed as platted. Mountain Road would have extended up the slope on the upper right Picture taken from platted curve(not constructed)of road on Lot 3 as hand side of this photography. represented on amended site plan. / , l High Drive Road Vacation P&Z: January 15, 2002 Page 2 REFERRAL COMMENTS: Referral agency comments are incorporated throughout this memorandum, and are attached for reference. Written comments were not received from the County Engineer, Crystal River Caucus, and Crystal River Park Homeowner's Association. Staff did conduct a site visit with the County Engineer and comments should be provided prior to the meeting or at the meeting. STAFF COMMENTS: ROAD VACATION(SECTION 3-200-070) A road or easement may be vacated at the request of a private landowner(s)or at the insistence of the County subject to compliance with the following three standards of Section 3-200-070 of the Land Use Code. I. Vacation shall be approved if it is demonstrated that upon vacation there shall remain suitable access to public and private land presently accessed by the street or easement proposed for vacation. Response: The Applicant is requesting that High Drive be completely vacated since the Applicant feels that if this Drive is constructed,the cuts will be visible. The Applicant has also indicated the preference for the lot lines between Lots 15, 16 & 17 to remain. The Applicant has indicated that Lots 15, 16& 17 are currently on the market for sale as having one development area which is located on Lot 17, behind a rock formation which is located directly behind the existing residence on Lot 18. The Applicant has indicated that this location is preferable for development since it minimizes visibility of this area from the subdivision and State Highway 133. The Applicant has indicated that if the lot lines are removed,the lot area will increase which will also increase the required setbacks making the preferred, encouraged area of development on Lot 17 more difficult if not impossible without Board of Adjustment approval. In the Road Plan and Profile (date 10/3/01)submitted with the application, the Applicant has delineated the proposed new driveway to service the area of preferred development on Lot 17. This proposed driveway alignment has slopes of 14%- 16%. The Pitkin Comity Assets Management Plan allows for a maximum grade of 12%, however,this may be varied upon review of the County Engineer and the Community Development Director(section 4-19 of the Plan). In addition, as noted by Joanna Schaffner,Zoning Official,the proposed driveway violates the Y( inch rule and she encourages the driveway to be located further from the north property line outside of the required setback, or a variance from the Board of Adjustment will be required. The Applicant is of the opinion that if High Drive is vacated and the lots are purchased by one owner, as currently marketed,that the potential development of Lots 15 & 16 will be highly unlikely due to the process a property owner would be required to go through in order to provide an access easement to these lots. The Applicant is encouraging potential purchasers to place Lots 15 & 16 into a conservation easement, however, there is no guarantee that this will happen. Since these are platted lots, future owner(s) will have the ability to sell these lots individually allowing development on lots 15 & 16. 32) High Drive Road Vacation P&Z: January 15, 2002 Page 3 Although the Crystal River Park Subdivision is a Board approved subdivision, if the lots are held in common ownership, as are Lots 15, 16& 17,the lots do not merge. Vacating High Drive would create landlocked lots, which is not allowed by County regulations. All affected lot owners support the vacation of High Drive and the portion of Ruby Mountain Road which was platted but never constructed. I 4 S {, View of proposed driveway alignment of existing culde-sac. Driveway View of proposed driveway alignment from preferred development to residence on Lot 18,located on bottom left of photography. location on Lot 17. 31 e yywr� " i i-I b� /. at. View of platted high Drive alignment Rock fnmlatlon to left of View of planed High Drive alignment Itom Lot3, photograph. 2. In the event of vacation, right-of-way or easements may be reserved for the continued use of existing sewer, gas, water or similar pipelines and appurtenance,for ditches, canals and appurtenances, and for electric, telephone, and similar lines and appurtenances. Equestrian,pedestrian, vehicular or other trails may also be reserved by the Board of County Commissioners. 3 High Drive Road Vacation P&Z: January 15, 2002 Page 4 Response: If High Drive is vacated and the lot lines are not removed between Lots 15, 16 & 17, and the subject lots are ever developed separately,there will be no access or utility easement for these lots. 3. Any written instrument of vacation or a resubdivision plat approved by the Board of County Commissioners purporting to vacate or relocate roadways or portions thereof which remains of record in the counties where the roadway affected are situated for a period of seven (7)years shall be prima fade evidence of an effective vacation ofsuch former roadways. Response: If the BOCC approves the proposed road vacations,an amended plat delineating the road vacation shall be recorded within 60 days of approval. ➢ ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Joanna Schaffner, County Zoning Officer, has provided written comments which are attached to this memorandum. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend denial of this request for the following reasons: § Lots 15, 16 & 17 are held in common ownership. Since the Crystal River Park Subdivision is a Board approved Subdivision,the lots do not merge. Therefore,the request to vacate High Drive would eliminate platted access to Lots 15 & 16,creating landlocked parcels, which is not allowed by County regulations. The Applicant has not represented an alternative easement if development is pursued on Lots 15 & 16. § The Applicant requests that the property lines between Lots 15, 16& 17 remain in order to maintain setbacks for smaller lots instead of one large parcel. The lots are marketed as having one development area as described previously in this memorandum. The Applicant is encouraging future property owners to place the majority of the "combined"property in a conservation easement. There is no guarantee that the purchaser(s) will place the majority of the lots in a conversation easement. In addition,there is no guarantee that a future property owner will only build on Lot 17. ATTACHMENTS: _. Zoning Officer 'Ms.Pregl has a Masters in Urban Planning from the University of WisamsiaMilwaukee. Ms.Pregl has been working with Pitkin County Community Development Department as a Planner for4 years. 35 Joanna Schaffner, 09:27 AM I/4/02 , Hill Drive road vacation Page I of 1 f X-Sender: joannas@comdev 1` X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 ATTACHMENT Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 09:27:32 -0700 To: tamara Pregl <tamarap@ci.aspen.co.us> TO/-1519 MEMORANDUM From: Joanna Schaffner <joannas@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: Hill Drive road vacation CPAA764 I have reviewed the above referenced application and offer the following comments. 1. It is my understanding that lots 15,16, and 17 are held in common ownership. However, since this is considered a Board approved subdivision, the lots do not merge unless the owner requests removal of the lot lines between lots 15 and 16 and 16 and 17. Otherwise this application eliminates access to lots 15 and 16, which could still be sold separately. 2. Part of Hill Drive is proposed to be vacated, however, there is no proposal to replace the access easement. 3. A proposed access easement, which if the lots will merge should extend to at least past the driveway to 17, should be reviewed by the county engineer and fire marshall to ensure slope and radius requirements can be met. 4. The driveway for Lot 17, as proposed, violates the 30 inch rule. The applicant should relocate the drive further from the north lot line to ensure that grades will not change more than 30 inches above or below the natural grade within this required setback. Otherwise a variance from the Board of Adjustment is required prior to issuance of an access permit. A hardship as to why the drive cannot be located further from the lot line must be demonstrated by the applicant before a variance can be granted. 5. The plat for Crystal River Park still shows Hill Drive as Aspen Drive. How/when was this name changed? Was the public record properly amended, and emergency agencies notified? 3 EXHIBIT October 15, 2001 Attn: Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Dept. RE: Summary letter explaining the request and Addressing all land use code standards in Section 3-200-070 and Section 5-200 Reference: Road Vacation for a portion of Ruby Mtn. Drive. Location: Crystal River Park Subdivision. Section 30200-070 Street and easement vacation. We, the landowners of property that adjoins this section of Ruby Mtn. Drive (see enclosed map) hereby request that this portion of the road be vacated. Due to slope and grade considerations and the desire to end the road at this point, a cul-de-sac was constructed when the driveway to lot 18 was constructed and an easement granted for the use of the road as constructed. The road in this section was never constructed and will not be needed for ingress or egress purposes. We are satisfied with the access that we have at this time and would like to vacate this portion of the road as shown. Section 5-200 Bob McCormick/Sherry Rubin(See attached authorization to represent) 117 Redstone Blvd. Redstone, Co. 81623 970-963-3408 3 :EXHIBIT: ., j November 1, 2001 Tamara Pregl Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Dept. 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Co. 81611 RE: P 170-01 Dear Ms. Pregl, Enclosed please find the additional information that we discussed last week when I submitted the road vacation plan. Please note that the vacation of this additional portion of the road will require the driveway to Lot 17 to be 14% grade. I don't think that this should be a problem as Lot 17 is a south-southeast facing lot and the section of the drive that exceeds 12% is only about 35 feet long down to the proposed cul-de-sac. The drive in this location makes it possible to avoid a switchback in the steep area of the lot to the southwest and the deep road cuts necessary. If you have any questions or if you need any additional information please contact Sherry Rubin or myself. S' erely, W_j .�C Al � �� Bob McCormick 3 EXHIBIT 11 /( PiTKIN CpIJN'f"V NRF.-APPI..ICATIt)N CONFERENCr SU3IiYl_aIL`s' � 3 -i3-0 z. PROJECT: Hill Dri1,c Roa.l Vtication 'J p n - LOCATION; Crystal River Park Sribdk isiou APPLICANT: 80b11,1cC0rrnick PHONFiFAX: 96 ;3408,'go3-263i DA 1'E: October 2, 20b I PLANNER: Tamara Pregl, 920-�l us Type of Application: l(i)ad Vacati(lil llescription of Yrnjueti➢ecclopmatt: Thy s pplic.ant i.; re�uastn�g site v cation of a paruem of Hill Dike adjacent ro Lots 3 and 17 in the Ct),stal River Part. Suhdia isiun. Areas in which the Applicant has been requested to respond, types of repurts requested; [.;itl[1 -I Cufle Section,v to he be utldt_esseal in letter of request Section 3-200.070: Street and Easement Vacations Section -200: Street gild Easement Vacations Staff will refer the application to the follolviug agencies: Cowity Attornoy, Zcu:inp t aunty Er ,nir=r, Cr;st,d River Canons, Crystal River Park 110A Review by; MZ and BOCC. Public Hearing? Yes, at BOCC. A Public notice sign sliatl Kr posted on ih1- property at least l5 tltlys prier to the hetafing Pursuant to Section 4-90 ufthe Land Use Code, Tile Applicant shall mail notices to all adjacent property owners at least 30 days prior to the hearing with the return address ol'the Conlin unit} Dtvelopment Department(n copy of notice shall be obtained from the Community Development .Department), The names and nddresses shall be those on the current tax records ofPiticin County aes they appeared no more than 60 slays prior to the (fate of the public hearing. The Applicant shall submit a copy of the adjacent property owners with the complete applications. What fee is the upplicaot requested to submit; Total I ejwoL: $1,210 (make cheek out to `'Pitkin County 91c isurer'") Plannill,)OD1co (deposit) Yll,l 10 (additional hrs are billed at a ram ot'$Ikj/hr); Clerk and Rc r,rdur ($IGU3 Referral Foos: Fvcs for the- County Engineer wil I be billed on the final gill at a rate of S65/hour. Please submit: A list of adjacent prOperty owners and 2 copies of the 'tlgreentcnt To Pay' form du net include with each packet copy) Nwnber of copies of the application and maps to he submitted; I E, For a cmuplete application, please indoda the following in each packet: 5umnuary lotto uaplaining the request and uddrussino all Land Use Code standards lislad above. • Consent fi-on owners)to process applic.tion and authorizing the repreentatk e(if applicLble). • Petition from abutting property owners pursu:lm tit Section '-Nio-D20. Parcel description, including legal description and vicinity snap. • Proof of ownership (f orn a title cornpany'or attorney liocnscd in itu State of Colorado). • Amended plat showing road vacation. Copy of this pre-app force. V'i l'8; !'larsjn e-applic-ariore coillerenee st+Munary is urh isory in n anwe and not bindhig on dte f'oao�{}�. TI e inTurrraaJion pl ovidru'tn 1unnuu v iv bAse<1Or�c't+traits zuititrf .atnrrdnnle sire/s7�7/ft inter�>ieliiliatt.r hosed u�,nrz re�,resen;clliorts i� lhr ayi,,iicaw, .idd;tinrxc�l i�a�armrrriora ntnv Le regvu eel za on ennEyled€ration,of lhs ct}�f�lic nien. V _,1r1lvi 'T IIILr- H7rC[I I1r; .,=i_ EXHIBIT } \t tt Sanctity ofContracto 8 3-13—OZ STEWART TITLE y °G 0:0 ASIM-N', INC. To Whom It May Concern, October 18, 2001 A search of the public records at the Clark and Recorder's Office, of Pitkin County; Colorado indicates the following as the owners of the real estate described below: Lot(s)_, CRYSTAL RIVER PARK SUBDIVISION, Second Addition, according to the Plat thereof recorded February 6, 1968 in Flat Boole 3 at Page 103. COUNTY OF PITKIN!, ST-xTE OF COLOR DO. Lot 3 - Steven C. Litz and Stephanie Litz Lots 15, 16 and 17 C.R.V. Properties Ltd. Liability Co. Lot IS - Fritz Karl Thurmer and Margarita Carrasco De Thunder Lot 19 - Peter J. Menardi and Lary Louise Menardi Lot 20 - David P. Clemente If anyone at our office can be of any further assistance, please feel free to call Yours truely, Tom Twitchell Title Examiner °Etthalicing the.Real Estate Closing Process"TM 620 East Hopkins •AspeA,Colarado 81.611 970-925-3577 •Fax: 970.925-1384 a Stewiu:IPiortnatian Senices cornpazry • M'SE:STC • wwW.stewaa.com 'I'Lh-GI `fi OOLUQ ' OR ZQU1 1 C L `/C1i I.. -1U 11UQ,IRa'Y 71 iaQ-CC.T P 02 I8i 09:61 . .:i1 $ Sb5�-31633 GRR. Ir._. ' F.62 EXHIBIT AsperdPilLu CsUuuty;Corta uoi!y fycpt. tt // 3 -!3 D 1157 We the owners of Lot 3, Crystal Fiver ptuA 5ufktiv siori, j., 9 #2 hereby rcgt:es'1 that ads portion of Ruby�Sotmtaia Drive formally knovni as A,.spnn Drive on the plat of subdivision, see mwq)irncb sed, be ,'acdtt'd. *`e further request that Bob McCortruck and/or Sherry R.uNn Ifepresent us as 4indowriers hi this vaoariou pm ess. r date: /'�> ����;; Steven C. i date. Stephanie itz L / r I 1k-11-kit 1? E 2 1--111210 THUFT ER 15 =01 EXHIBIT Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Dept. -3 I —OZ We the owners of Lot 18. Crystal ]fiver Park Subdivision, Filing #2 hereby request that this portion of Ruby Mountain Drive form ily known as Aspen Drive on the plat of the subdivision, see map enclosed, kw vacated. We further request that Bob McCormick and/or Sherry Rubin rppr�xcnt us as landowners in this vacation process. date; Fritz Karl Thurmer /G %' /i?LiiG'r date: Margarita Carrasco De Tht rmer EXHIBIT Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Dept. TI 3 -13-62 1, the owner of Lot 15, 16 & 17, Crystal River Park Subdivision, Filing #2 hereby request that this portion of Ruby Mountain Drive formally known as Aspen Drive and High Drive on the plat of the subdivision, see map enclosed, be vacated. We further request that Bob McCormick and/or Sherry Rubin represent us as landowners in this vacation process. I do not want to participate financially in this process and herby agree to quit claim any right, title title or interest in said vacated road. CRV Properties, LLC Robert McCormick, manager 3 EXHIBIT \\ It 3 13-oZ 0 Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Dept. 1, die owner of Lot 20, Crystal River Park Subdivision, Filing N2 hereby request that this portion of Ruby Mountain Drive Formally known as Aspen Drive and High Drive on the plat of the subdivision,see map enclosed, be vacated. We further request that Bob McCormick and/or Sherry Rubin represent us as landowners in this vacation process. OCT -_O '01 10 FR FJUHDP'i R-C! .614 790 4064 TO 919709G F.;� Fl.01,,U1 EX:-313 T AspeniPitkin Countv Community Development Dent- 02112 We, the owners of Lot 19, Crystal River Park subdivision, Filing #2 hereby request that the portion of Ruby Mountain Drive formally known as Aspen Drive and High Drive on the plat of the subdivision, see map enclosed.$be vacated together with the provision that the building envelopes on adjacent Lots 16 and 17 remain the same as if the roadway known as Aspen Drive was not vacated, that is to say, that the North-South boundary of the building envelopes on Lots 16 and 17 will be at least 42.5 feet from the new property line between Lot 19 and Lots 16 and 17 after the Aspen Drive roadway is vacated. We further request that Bob McCormick and/or Sherry Rubin represent us as landowners in this vacation process. 4Pjer enaidi Male Menardi Date 4 ^ V F m W F O N 1 N (� o• _ 's v� I� V• � t f \Z Jd ' p� � =N W r / LO W \ a a HI m \ ee x� abb�w M N a \ V• �R, - C A 4, 3.90.9°AO 5 � 3 1 14 w y -=9 :o z _ o• o e w � W w rB� M1 m �� J N NOU �3lif o�-»e cocwxa MOM"WOW 6 10/r[/e0 3]r0 I w vO p 31=10W PIA Nru avow NOtl "NO '�N W>1B3✓A16 3wlNlq'J Ndl 37N3a83w H.'MYIwOo'IYI 3d0 AVM3N80 03SA38 10/OC/01 I sis '8 0 OOVNIOJ 'A NnO3 NINIld x A9 NOISN3N 31V0 ON 515 530 NJItltlOYN BOB F 3 m I e 8 AOOSi vn] s',c.z ns %W4 3Y3 G Z \ zo � \ 8 3a ° s N. : \ E b� a CYCY N P Y&we 8 gg n'ssm a]n c ma r]s . g a i , v v , v v\ t �`` ' •\ \ \ 1 .. v` ¢ C �.``"\ \ \ \ \ \\•, �., m `g Z epp *pp 1. t' &88 yy �'$§0$' i I i I � N. \ \ •\ ...\ \ , •\ \ n � � S a s W O G H 9 W \ N + a EXHIBIT MEMORANDUM t _L._ TO: Board of County Commissioners 3 -1 3 -62_ Regular Meeting-March 13,2002 THI2U: Cindy Houben,Community Development Director FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Senior Planner* RE: Deane/T Lazy 7 1041 Hazard Review, Conceptual Submission, Special Review& GMQS Exemption for a TDR Receiver Site and Caretaker Dwelling Units, and GMQS Exemption for a Replacement Unit REQUEST: The Applicant proposes to create a 35+acre parcel from an approximately 200 acre parcel. The Applicant requests approval to establish a building envelope on the new parcel and utilize TDRs to develop a single family residence of up to 7,500 square feet of floor area. The Applicant is also requesting approval to demolish an existing cabin and replace it with a residence of ip to 5,750 square feet of floor area within the remaining 160 acre parcel. Caretaker units are also proposed on the new parcel and associated with the replacement residence. APPLICANT: Rick&Landon Deane and T Lazy 7 Ranch Corp. REPRESENTATIVE: Tom Smith LOCATION: 3129 Maroon Creek Road ZONING/LOT SIZE: The property is zoned AFR-10 and contains approximately 200 acres. ACCESS: The new 35 acre parcel will be accessed from Maroon Creek Road via an existing driveway that serves three existing residences. The replacement residence will be accessed from Maroon Creek Road via an existing ranch road. REFERRAL AGENCIES: Comments from Aspen Fire,Division of Wildlife,Colorado State Forest Service,Environmental Health,Zoning, Housing,Maroon/Castle Creek Caucus,County Engineer and Zoning are attached for reference. STAFF COMMENTS 1041 HAZARD REV/EN'& CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION Wild ire: Vince Urbina of the Colorado State Forest Service rates the wildfire hazard within the building envelope on the proposed 35 acre parcel as low to medium and within the replacement unit building envelope as low. Mr. Urbina's recommendations are included as conditions of approval. Ed Van Walraven with the Aspen Fire Protection District states that the project shall meet all of the codes and requirements of the District, including but not limited to, installation of an approved fire sprinkler system, fire department access, and provisions for the turning around of department apparatus. Wildli e: Kevin Wright, District Wildlife Manager for the Division of Wildlife, states that the proposed building envelopes do not fall within any mapped wildlife areas. He states that both building envelopes are clustered with existing residences, buildings and activities, and should not have significant impacts on wildlife. Mr. Wright notes that there is a debris flow and associated wet area to the southwest of the envelope on the 35 acre parcel;the envelope has been located to avoid this area. Mr. Wright's recommendations to minimize impacts on wildlife are included in the conditions of approval. Geologic: While the new 35 acre parcel contains slopes in excess of 30%, the proposed building envelope contains slopes of approximately 20%. HP Geotech prepared a geologic site assessment for the proposed building envelope, and makes the following findings: • The proposed building envelope is not located directly downslope of cliff outcrops and is not exposed to a potential rockfall hazard. • The building envelope is located on the upper part of an alluvial fan, and a residence on the site will be exposed to a potential debris flow risk. The building envelope avoids the area to the southwest of the envelope that is identified as a recent debris flow deposit. Debris flow mitigation is recommended, either with a "debris flow control structure" upslope of any buildings or"direct structure protection." • The residence or other occupied structures should be designed to comply with the UBC requirements for Seismic Risk Zone 1. The Code permits development within alluvial fans subject to mitigation, if there is not an adequate hazard-free area on the site. The building envelope is located in the only area on the parcel that is not impacted by slopes in excess of 30% and the entire area is within the alluvial fan. The proposed building envelope for the replacement unit contains slopes of less than 15%, and is not otherwise impacted by geologic hazards. Access: As noted previously, both proposed building envelopes are accessed primarily via existing roads/driveways. The Applicant will be required to obtain County Access/Driveway Development Permits to extend the driveways to the building envelopes. The new 35 acre parcel is accessed via an existing driveway that provides access to three other properties that contain a total of 5 dwelling units. The Pitkin County Assets Management Plan permits a driveway standard for a road that serves 1-5 residential uses. Since a new residence and a caretaker unit will utilize this access,the Applicant will be required to upgrade the existing driveway to the Country Access standard(20 foot wide roadway with 16 foot travel lanes and 2 foot shoulders on each side). Staff estimates that the existing driveway averages 12 feet in width. Water& Sewer: A new exempt well will be installed to serve the 35 acre parcel. The Applicant notes that no water shares from the existing irrigation ditch will accompany the land Domestic water is already available for the replacement unit. Individual sewage disposal systems will be installed for the new development. GMQS EXEMPT/ON: The new parcel was legally created pursuant to the State's 35 acre subdivision exemption. Utilization of TDRs on newly created lots exempts the development from growth management, pursuant to Section 9-110-042 of the Code. q q The Code also provides a GMQS Exemption for replacement of one legally established single family residential structure on a pre-1978 parcel with a new structure of up to 5,750 square feet of floor area The County issued a demolition permit for"Johnny's Cabin"on February 23, 2002, which is the structure to be replaced with the new residence. The cabin contained 600 square feet and is listed on the T Lazy 7 Inventory as"long term housing." Staff has been unable to locale a building permit for the cabin in our files (building permits were not required prior to 19731 and the Assessor does not have information on when most of the structures on the property were constructed. Staff does not have any information to document that the cabin was not legally created at the time it was built, and,therefore, asserts that the Applicant is eligible for the replacement unit. Staff has asked the Applicant to provide any available documentation at the meeting,though we are aware that many of the ranch's documents were lost when the lodge burned. Staff would note that there are many existing dwelling units on the property(residential and tourist accommodations)that could also be replaced based on the same determination of legal creation, butany additional replacement units would be limited to the size and footprint of the existing structures, subject to special review and growth management or TDRs to expand and relocate the replacement structure. SPEmL REVIEW: Special review approval is required to establish the new parcel as a TDR receiver site for up to a total of 7,500 square feet,and to construct a caretaker dwelling unit on the new parcel and adjacent to the replacement residence, subject to the standards in Section 3-210. A. The special review use shall consider the applicable County Master Plan. Response: No master plan is applicable in this area of the County. B. The special review use shall not conflict with any applicabb sections of the Pitkin County Land Use Code, including the County Land Use Policies in Article 2. Response: The proposed uses do not conflict with any applicable Code sections. C. The special review use shall be consistent with the intent of the Zone District in which it is proposed to be located Response: The proposed uses are consistent with the intent of the AFR 10 zone district to preserve rural character, wildlife habitat and scenic quality while permitting low density, single family dwdling units and accessory uses. D. The special review use shall be compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed,for development and surrounding land uses, or shall enhance the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. Response: Development of a residence of up to 7,500 square feet of floor area on the 35 acre parcel is not incompatible with adjacent residential development. The adjacent residencesrange in size from approximately 2,900 square feet to 6,700 square feet(based on the Assessor's records). Adjacent properties have caretaker units,and the caretaker unit that will be associated with the replacement residence is located in close proximity to existing buildings on the ranch in an area that has been disturbed by ranch activities, and is consistent with the historical practice of housing employees on the ranch. The Caucus did not express any concerns with the proposed development. E. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed special review use must be in harmony with the surrounding area and minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, traffic gene-ation,parking, trash, service delivery, air/water pollution or other impacts on natural resources, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties. Response: The proposed residence on the 35 acre parcel will have minimal impacts on the environmentand minimal visual impact on adjacent parcels. The proposed building envelope avoids hazard areas or the hazards can be mitigated, as specified above. The Housing Office recommends approval of the caretaker dwelling units, subject to compliance with conditions included in the attached resolution. F. There must be adequate public facilities and services to serve the special review use including but not limited to roads,potable water, sewer, solid waste,parks,police,fire protection, emergency medcal services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools. Response: The property is accessed via an existing driveway from Maroon Creek Road. A well and septic system will service the residence. The property is served by the Aspen Fire Protection District. The residence will have a minimal impact on Maroon Creek Road and other public facilities and services. G. An application for a special review use must demonstrate to the Board of County Commissioners that the proposed development will not: 1. Materially endanger the public health, safety or welfare;and 2. Substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property. Response: Staff has no information that would indicate that the development will endanger the public health, safety or welfare, or injure the value of adjacent properties. CARETAKER DWELLING UNITS: Pursuant to Section 9-110-041(C) of the Code, a detached caretaker dwelling unit not to exceed 700 square feet may be permitted on a conforming size lot in the AFR-10 zone district under the following conditions and limitations: 1. The floor area of the caretaker unit shall be included in the total allowed floor area for the lot or parcel of land Response: The new parcel will be limited to a maximum of 7,500 square feet of floor area exempt from growth management through the use of TDRs. The CDU will be included in this maximum. The CDU associated with the replacement residence will also count towards the 5,750 square feet of floor area fiat is exempt from growth management. 2. There shall be provided one off-street parking space far each bedroom in the caretaker unit. Response: Adequate on-site parking will be provided for the CDUs. 3. The applicant shall deed restrict the unit to comply with the caretaker unit deed restriction pursuant to Section 9-110-041(C)(2)(c) of the Land Use Code. 1 Response: The Applicant agrees to deed restrict the units. The Housing Office recommends approval of the CDUs. 4. The dwelling unit deed restriction may only be removed upon approval by the Community Development Director. Response: This requirement shall be included in the deed restriction. EXACTIONS: Since the Applicant is not subdividing the property pursuant to County subdivision regulations, exactions for parks/recreation/open space and schools are not required. In addition, by utilizing the replacement provision and TDRs and not subdividing the property, no affordable housing mitigation is required to offset any new employees who will be generated by the development. The Applicant will be subject to the fair share requirements for roads. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the BOCC adopt a"motion to approve the Deane/T Lazy 7 1041 Hazard Review, Conceptual Submission, Special Review and GMQS Exemption, subject to the -aaadw4.Resolution." Attachments 1 CO Division of Wildlife ,/2. CO State Forest Service -A Maroon/Castle Creek Caucus d. Housing . Environmental Health 1�. County Engineer i 14 Zoning Aspen Fire Application and Site Plan provided separately '.Ms WOIff'saprofeasiuval planner with a Bachelor's degree in Urban Studies from she University of Pennsylvania,and a member or the American Institute of Certified Planners. Ms. W.If hrs worked for the AalsoPitkln Counry Community Development Department for 9'b years,and as a Planner/Senior Planner within that deprttmem for 6 years. In her planning Position, Ms.Wolff by reviewed numemm lend we application yun oral to the Pidds,County Lead Use Code. STATE OF COLORADO Bill Owens,Govemor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER O Ruaeall George,Director Off'OF w W80 Broadway Denver,Colorado 8021e ATTACHMENT ForWddlife- Telephone:(303)297-1192 For People TOE 3-4ZMEMORANDUM 2-12-02 tbOalM) Pitkin County Community Development 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Deane/TLazy 7 Ranch Dear Suzanne: The Deane's ranch and proposed new homesites do not fall within any mapped wildlife areas. Black bears do inhabit the area and forage along the creek and hillside. The southern parcel is on a bench adjacent to 2 cabins and within a meadow/pasture, as well as it is clustered with the buildings and activities of the ranch below. Construction of a single family home here should not have any significant additional impacts to wildlife. The northern 35-ac. parcel is accessed off existing driveways and is clustered with the adjacent homes. There is a debris flow and associated wet area to the southwest of the envelope. There should not be any significant additional impacts to wildlife for this building site as long as the building site itself maintains a minimum 20' buffer between the wet area and any disturbance or construction of the site. This wet area should be delineated and marked before any constriction begins. The following recommendations will help to minimi e wildlife impacts for both sites: 1. maintain native vegetation outside the building envelope, especially for the 35 ac. site 2. restrict to 1 dog/home with a kennel restriction; kennel be constructed before the C.O. is issued 3. all trash/garbage be kept in approved bear proof garbage containers. The use of a trash compactor in each residence should be encouraged. All outside door handles should be the round type versus the lever type to help deter bear entry into the home. The home should include in its design and construction some type of cooling system other than open doors and windows. This will help minimize the chance of bears entering the home. The primary means of bears gaining entry is usually through open windows and doors. 4. Any landscaping should not include any berry, nut, or fruit producing tree or shrub in order to minimi e an attractant to for bears. 5. All outside lighting be down lighting 6. Homeowners be provided brochures on living with wildlife. I have included copies for your convenience w DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,Greg E.Welcher,Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION,Pock Enstrom,Chair•Robert Shoemaker,Vice-ChWr.Marianna RaRopoilos,Secretary Members,Bernard Black.Tom Burke.Philp James.Brad Phelps .Olive Valdez Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincer Kevin Wri eManagger District W Aspen Cc: Jonathan LoEvsky FOREST February 19, 2002 SERVICE State Services Building Suzanne Wolff 222 S.6th Street,Room 416 Aspen/ Pitkin Community Development Department Grand Junction,Colorado 81501 130 South Galena Street Telephone: (970)248-7325 Aspen, CO 81611 ATTACHMENT 0Z Re: Deane/T-Lazy Seven Ranch 1041 Wildfire Hazard Review TO.$l3 DZ MEMORANDUM Suzanne, (w..•') I visited the site with Rick and Landon Deane on February 6th. We looked at two separate parcels. Both parcels have proposed access that will originate at a right angle to either the iJlar oc„ Creek Road or an existing driveway to another home, which is desirable for emergency vehicle access. Parcel 1 is a 35-acre piece on the north end of the property. The aspect of the building envelope is east with a slope of 20%. The vegetation is primarily aspen with an understory of scattered chokecherry. I would rate the wildfire hazard as low to medium. There is some standing dead aspen that should be removed. Parcel 2 is on the south end of the property. The aspect is also east. The vegetation primarily pasture grass with very scattered aspen clumps. The wildfire hazard is low. The only wildfire problems I foresee will be with future landscaping being too close to the structure. To avoid creating problems I recommend the following. 1. For a distance of 10 to 15 feet around all structures establish and maintain vegetation at 6 inches or less. This can be done with mowed grass, low growing perennials or some type of hard scape (e.g., sidewalk, rock mulch, pavers). Woody vegetation should not be planted within this perimeter. In addition flammable material (e.g., firewood) should not be stored here. 2. Beyond the 10 to 15 foot perimeter and up to 30 feet from any structure keep grass mowed to a height of 6 inches or less. 3 Ft_iture landscaping should be clumped or in the r--.asp of conifers planted so there is at least 10 feet between crowns measured from the outermost branch of neighboring trees. 4. Remove standing or down dead aspen within 100 feet of any structure since this can serve as a wildfire hazard as well. Thank you for the opportunity to review this application and feel free to call me with any questions. Sincerely, / Vince Urbina ���••••// Assistant District Forester Cc: Ed VanWalraven — Aspen FD Rick and Landon Deane Toklat Gallery, 08:08 PM 3/6/02 -0700, Deane 1041 Page 1 of 1 MAROON/CASTLE CREEK CAUCUS PO BOX 8986 ASPEN, CO 81612 6 March 2002 ATTACHMENT Ms. Suzanne Wolfe Aspen/Pitkin TO 3 13-02-MEMORANDUM Community Development Dept. w►K��) 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Deane 1041 Hazard Review: PID 273521400005 Dear Suzanne, At our March 1,2002, Executive Committee Meeting, at which the Deanes were present, we reviewed this application. Our only problem with this application is the excessive size of the CDUs for each home (see page 4 of application)!!!! It is obviously a typo but certainly enlivened our meeting. I understand from a subsequent (to the meeting) conversation with you that there might be a code problem with the driveway accessing the new 35-acre parcel and trust that will addressed by you and the commissioners to everyone's satisfaction. We also spoke at length with the Deanes about their ongoing efforts to preserve their land from any major development and we commend them for those efforts. With kind regards, Lynne Pfrimmer Mace Chair, Executive Committee Printed for Suzanne Wolff<suzannew@co.pitkin.co.us> 3/6/02 FEH.15.2002 4:33PM ASPEN HOUSING 'OFC NO.554 P.2 MEMORANDUM ATTACHMENT_ TO: Summe wom Community Development Depww=t T0,3/;j Z MEMORANDUM FROM; Cindy Chriatemen and Victoria Giannola,Housing Dice DATE: February 15,2002 RE: DEANEIT-LAZY SEVEN RANCH, SUBDIVISION CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION, GMQS MMbV ION, 1041 HAZARD REVIEW & SPECIAL REVIEW FOR A CARETAKER DWELLING UNIT Parcel ID No.2735-2144"05;P005-02 O: The applicant is proposing to create a 35-acre parcel, which would be a Receiving Site for two i transfer development rights (TDR'a) to allow a single-family rosfdencc of up to 7,500 square feet The applicant is also proposing to demolish an existing dwelling unit and replace it with a new residence with a garage and caretaker dwelling unit The property is located along Maroon Creek Road in Piddn County. This referral is divided into two sections. Section One addresses the TDR's and reoonsttuctim of a single- family home. Section Two addresses the oareW=dwelling unit. SE Background; The applicant has geoured two TDR's through a prior approval,which will be applied to the 35$cre parcel. In June 2000,the spplimfs primary residence was lost in a fire,and the new residenuc will become their principal residence. Discussion (Affordable Housing Units): Given no subdivision of lots beyond the 35aore parcel allowed by right and the replacement of an existing mail,no housing mitigation is required to be reviewed before the Housing Authority Board. Requirement; No housing mitigation is required for this application. Recommendation: Staff rccogniva the non-applicability of housing mitigation for this application as it relates to both the 354ere Receiving Site and the replacement housing. SECTION TWO; f'aratiirar DwalWra Unitr According to Section 9410-041, Cardaker Dweflf»p Units, the Board of County Commissioners or the Community Devolopmatt Director may approve Centel= Dwelling Units under the following conditions: 1. The unit does not exceed 700 square feet of floor area. 2, Total floor ores of the principal and carotd=unit does not exceed the allowable FAR 3, One off-street parking space is provided / 4. A deed restriction is placed on the unit ; Staff rocommends approval of this request under the following conditions; FEB.15.2002 4:34PM ASPEN HOUSING OFC NO.554 P.3 j. 1, Couditioas 1 thmuph 4 stated above am met. 2. The kitchen contains at least a twoabumer stove wath OVM a%ndwdd atok Ind at least a 6-rabic tact «Sigecator plus tierzer. 3, The unit bas a eeporate el MWe not part of the pdaoipd teeideAM and is a tohlly private unit 4. The deed nmicdon sheU be m=dad Our to laauaxe of a bullft panrut S. The floor plans ibr the camW=dwelling imitate provided to the Hcuaiog Office pdor to buflding permit 6. upon completion of the unit but pdor to Cer"Cate of Occupancy,staff may conduct an wApeation of the unit for wmplianm dah W e�d\�I\pNllkdd[eCdec I I i I � Y � 4 I i ATTACHMENT J MEMORANDUM TO.3-13-0 2 MEMORANDUM tWOl PP) To: Suzanne Wolff, Community Development Department From: Norm Marrah, Pitkin County Environmental Health Department Date: February 20, 2002 Re: Deane/T-Lazy Seven 1041 Hazard Review, Conceptual Submission, Special Review and GMQS Exemption Parcel ID# 2735-214-00-005; CASE#P005-02 The Pitkin County Environmental Health Department has reviewed the details of the Deane/T- Lazy Seven application under the authority of the Pitkin County Land Use Code and has the following comments. The applicant plans to create a new 35 acre parcel in the northern portion of the property and build a new single family residence with a detached caretaker unit. The applicant also proposes to demolish an existing dwelling unit and to establish a building envelope for a replacement residence and garage/CDU in the southern portion of the property. ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: Sections 2-170 and 3-70-100: "it is the policy of the County to insure the availability of a water supply of adequate quality,quantity,pressure and dependability for fire protection and support of a proposed land use prior to approval of the use.The County shall require land uses to hook up to existing public systems if service is available."(Prior code 2-17) - The first step in the project is to establish a water source. The applicant must document to the Environmental Health Department that the well(s) meet required setback distances from the septic system prior to issuance of septic system permits and building permits. Pitkin County Land Use Code requires that the well site be within the building envelope. The applicant should know that it may take from 2-6 weeks to obtain a well permit and then additional time to schedule the drilling company. The owners will need tests of on-site wells done by a water engineer or well driller. The minimum yield from a well is .07 gal/person/min and there must be storage or yield capable of a 24 hour supply for domestic purposes only, not fire fighting or outside irrigation. That means storage equal to 100 gal/person/day must be installed as a minimum. The applicant should ensure that the water quality is acceptable by having it tested by a lab for bacteria (coliform). This can be done locally at the Snowmass Water and Sanitation District or Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. We recommend low water landscaping (xeriscaping), with the timing of any sprinkler systems decreased for low water plants. Contact the Colorado State University Cooperative Extension office or Denver Water Board for more information on xeriscaping. PrinnM on Ka d d va�, 1 Condition of approval: The applicant must document to the Environmental Health Department that the well(s) meet setback requirements and that the quantity of the well water is adequate, prior to issuance of septic system and building permits. SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: Sections 2-180 and 3-110-050: "It is the policy of the County to ensure that adequate sewage treatment facilities are available to serve existing and new developments. Any proposed system must be shown to be financially feasible considering a reasonable tax base and other legal criteria prior to approval of any land use." (Prior code 2. 18) All septic systems installed within Pitkin County require septic permits issued by the Environmental Health Department, and must comply with the County's Individual Sewage Disposal System Regulation. The County cannot issue building permit until a septic system permit has been obtained. The department can evaluate the site and soil tests only between April 15 and Nov. 15. The owner should carefully evaluate this schedule to make sure all steps have been taken to make the permitting process as fast as possible. If the site is in a location where high ground water is possible the engineer must do percolation tests during the time of high runoff in the area of the proposed leach field. The time of high ground water can vary and may be any time,normally during April,May,June. High ground water can occur at a different time each year and is determined by weather conditions which are not predictable. Condition of approval: The Environmental Health Department must issue a permit for construction of the septic system, prior to issuance of a building permit. WATER RESOURCES IMPACTS: Sections 2-140 and 3-70-050 and 3-70-100: "it is the policy of the county to preserve and protect its present water resources,recognizing the County's semi-arid character and that significant transmountain and transbasin diversions and the vested rights of senior appropriators in the basin have materially curtailed the availability of an already scarce water resource. To this end it is the policy of the County that no land use be initiated which would adversely affect the quantity,quality,or accessibility of the County's water resources;or which would occur at the expense of established water-dependent agricultural activities;or which would result in increased salinization of water resources,loss of minimum stream flows,further destruction of wildlife habitat,or major expenditures to reacquire or redistribute major water resources. It is also the policy of the County to maintain a natural vegetative buffer along its surface waters such that the surface and groundwaters of the area are not encroached upon by land uses or other human activities which could cause deterioration of water quality or impair the natural treatment processes provided by meadows and wetlands." (Prior code 2-14) This application should not impact down stream water quality if the setbacks between the septic system and physical features comply with the Pitkin County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations. The Environmental Health Department's mission includes to preserving and protecting the quality of Pitkin County's water resources. Since a large percentage of the population is dependent upon water from wells, elimination of groundwater pollution, and protection of aquifers and their drainage areas are of utmost importance. Roofs and asphalt areas can be nonpoint sources of water discharge that can contaminate water supplies. This Department recommends that nonpoint sources of discharge be retained on the property of origin. To PO.lm.RttydN P." 2 accomplish this, the owner can use landscaping, drainage patterns, detention ponds, and/or dry wells for containment of water runoff from buildings. AIR QUALITY: Sections 2-130 and 3-60-020: "it is the policy of the County to permit only that development which will not degrade air quality." A project should not contribute significantly to degradation of air quality in Pitkin County if it consists of only a single family home (with caretaker unit) or is a simple lot split. No mitigation is necessary. FIREPLACE NON-ATTAINMENT AREA: This site may have two devices in each residential building: either two gas log fireplaces, two certified clean-burning woodstoves, or one of each. Each building may also have unlimited numbers of decorative gas appliances. New homes may NOT have wood burning fireplaces,nor may any heating device use coal as fuel. The owners cannot install fireplaces or woodstoves in barns or agricultural buildings. Any remodeling that affects the firebox of a fireplace will necessitate that the device meet current regulations. The Building Department must receive the fireplace/woodstove registration document. FUGITIVE DUST A single family home is exempt from needing a Fugitive Dust Control Plan. However, any extensive project which will impact adjoining neighbors and/or roads require a Plan. The Plan must prevent windblown dust from blowing off the property or creating a nuisance. Preventative measures can include fencing, watering of haul roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove mud carried out by trucks, speed limits, or other measures. The Environmental Health Department must approve the plan. When application is turned in for an Earthmoving Permit, the approved Fugitive Dust Plan must be attached. permits until they get this report. If there is no asbestos, the demolition can proceed. If asbestos is present, a licensed asbestos removal contractor must remove it. PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL - Before demolition, we encourage the applicant to have the building tested for asbestos, and if any asbestos is present, they should contact this Department regarding proper removal. CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS: Section 2-70: °n is the polity of the County to consider whether approval of uses or development of lands within Pitkin County is consistent with applicable laws of the United States of America and the State of Colorado." (Prior code 2-7) 3 PrImN on aeryeiM Paper NOISE Construction work must comply with the Pitkin County Noise Abatement Ordinance. This includes the provision that no construction noise is allowed in residential districts between the hours of 7 pm and 7 am, and no-noise is allowed on Sundays and federal holidays. Please refer to Title VIII of the Pitkin County Code,Noise Abatement. G:\lur\T Lazy Seven.doc i to 2 � PrintM on w yde r.�. 4 Bud Eylar, 03:54 PM 3/5/02 -0600, RE: deane Page 1 of 1 From: Bud Eylar <bude@ci.aspen.co.us> Reply-To: "bude@co.pitkin.co.us" <bude@ci.aspen.co.us> / To: "'Suzanne Wolff" <suzannew@ci.aspen.co.us> ATTACHMENT (P Subject: RE: deane Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 15:54:30 -0600 Organization: Pitkin County Public Works TO3- 2—MEMORANDUM X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211tvo►I�r) X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean Suzanne, here are my comments. The applicant shall be required to submit a Drainage and Erosion Control Plan to the County Engineer. The submittal shall be made before the issuance of a Building Permit. The plan shall detail the sizes and location of culverts and other drainage features. It should detail the methods and Best Management Practices to be used to control runoff and erosion both during and after construction. It should also detail the maintenance practices to be employed during construction. The applicant shall be required to obtain a Pitkin County Access/Driveway Development Permit Before the issuance of a Building Permit. The following information must be submitted before the permit application is deemed complete. * A site plan, showing the location of the proposed access in relation to the nearest county road. * A plan and profile drawn to the appropriate graphic scale and showing horizontal and vertical dimensions and curve data. * The proposed access shall meet all current county standards for driveway construction as shown in the latest edition of the "Pitkin County Asset Management Plan". * The plan should show all drainage associated with the construction of the drive in its final alignment. It should include location and sizes of culverts or other drainage features. * If it is determined that portions of the existing access need to be upgraded to meet county standards, the Country Access standard will apply for the upgraded portion. ---Original Message----- From: Suzanne Wolff [SMTP:suzannew@ci.aspen.co.us] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 12:50 PM To: bude@co.pitkin.co.us; jonathan@co.pitkin.co.us Subject: deane i need your comments ASAP. thanks Printed for Suzanne Wolff<suzannew@co.pitkin.co.us> 3/5/02 Joanna Schaffner, 08:43 AM 2/22/02 -0700, T Lazy 7 Page 1 of 1 X-Sender: joannas@comdev (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 08:43:23 -0700 To: suzannew@co.pitkin.co.us From: Joanna Schaffner <joannas@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: T Lazy 7 1 have reviewed the above referenced application and offer the following comment: How has the applicant demonstrated that the unit to be replaced was legally established? H ATTACHMENT / TO -J-0 MEMORANDUM �6vp�F1�) W Printed for Suzanne Wolff<suzannew@co.pitkin.co.us> 2/22/02 I ATTACHMENT TO.3n1aQ2MEMORANDUM Memo ` w04"' Date: 2/20/2002 TO: Suzanne Wolff,Community Development Department Frons Ed Van Walraven RE Deanelf-lazy Seven Ranch PID 2735-214-00-005; CASE#P005-02 Suzanne, This project shall meet all of the codes and requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection District. This includes but is not limited to the installation of approved automatic fire sprinkler systems, fire department access, and provisions for the turning around of fire department apparatus. Please note, I have discussed the above requirements with the applicant. Please call me if you have any comments or concerns. T nk W PITKIN COUNTY WILDLIFE & NATURAL RESOURCE ECOLOGY EXHIBIT TO: Suzanne Wolff, Community Development FROM: Jonathan Lowsky, Wildlife Biologist SUBJECT: Deane/T-Lazy 71041 Hazard Review & Conceptual Submission DATE: 03/07/2002 None of this development is proposed within any mapped or field verified ecologically sensitive areas protected by the Land Use Code. The lot designated for the replacement residence is proposed on a previously disturbed site with little, if any, ecological value. Consequently, it is unlikely that this development will result in any additional loss of wildlife habitat or disturb any remaining important ecological communities. The 35-acre site is proposed in an area dominated by a declining aspen stand and chokecherry. Although this site is not protected by the land use code it does provide habitat for wildlife including songbirds and black bears. Indeed, black bears are known to be very active in this area with a history of conflict with humans. Given the above information, the following conditions will reduce the impacts of the proposed development on ecological communities: 1. An orange safety fence should be required around all building sites to prevent any unnecessary vegetation disturbance during construction. 2. Wood fencing shall employ three rails or less, be the round or split rail type, shall not exceed 48 inches in height above ground level and 12 inches in width (top view), and shall have at least 18 inches between two of the rails. Wire fencing shall consist of no more than 3 strands of smooth wire and shall not exceed 42 inches in height. 3. Installation and use of approved bear-proof trash containers as required by the 2001 Wildlife Protection Ordinance. Verification of this condition should be required before issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 4. Fruit-bearing trees and shrubs should be avoided in any landscaping due to the high level of black bear activity in this area. 5. Native vegetation must be maintained outside the building envelope as per Section 3- 80.80(A)(3). 6. Tall, overly mature and standing dead aspen should be retained whenever possible as nesting 76 SERVICE CENTER ROAD • ASPEN, CO • 81611 PHONE: 970.920.5395 • FAX: 970.920.5374 and roosting habitat as per Section 3-80.80(A)(13) of the Pitkin County Land Use Code. 7. Tree removal should be avoided to the maximum extent possible when constructing access roads. Any trees that must be removed for such construction should be relocated on the property whenever possible. 8. Any vegetation altered for an access road, utility line or similar use must be replaced with vegetation equal in type and quantity to that being removed according to a mitigation plan approved by the County as per §3-80.80(A)(4) of the Pitkin County Land Use Code. 9. Any areas outside the building envelope disturbed during construction must be revegetated with native plants according to a revegetation plan submitted by the applicant and approved by the Natural Resource Division prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. This plan must contain the following elements: A. The name of the project; B. The name, address and phone number of the person preparing the Revegetation Plan; C. The name, address and phone number of the person(s) responsible for executing the plan; D. If applicable, the availability of irrigation water and, if available, the amount of water, the name of the ditch company and the method of delivering water to the site; E. A brief narrative describing the planting and seeding methods; F. A description by common and scientific name of the species of plants to be used, seed ratios and source, and container size or caliper measurement of plants to be installed; G. A drawing of the site with the location of plants to be installed shown clearly. Deane/T-Lazy 7 1041 Referral Memo Page 2 3/7/2002 3 TH: A:r:N Tim*: Box Aspen, Colorado 3 PROOF OF PUBLICATION pq I t l STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. Copy of Notice PUBLIC NQTNB Coon of Pitkin ) Ott County a"M rA1. NOTtcE ThaE ehe B w c«mtr c�.wnsa:nano G+mtx. CaldrdF .vDI coMider the wllo g Denakeim It the Dowd'. regular meeting on Wednea�iy,kl.rch I8,YDB2 at I,Andy Stone, do solemnly swear that I am the Publisher z�gam.n m.00n..Pu Waw of THE ASPEN TIlv[ES: that the same is a weekly newspa- Foe.co thwke Ann" -!SM.etmg per printed, in, whole or in part, and published in the tQdhw J�mo�l.t Wd plWe&11 menhva of the public mad F THE BOA fie OF County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, and has a general dr- co &CORNSOLIMON MM OF PMMN OU�e culation therein; that said newspaper has been COLORADO. chigrANc ore uEenON pDE published continuously and uninterruptedly in said C wsCINCTd hup ed geeo Wwn as ova labia County of Pitkin, for a period of more than fifty-two wr,pubhc ImpecBon dw(ng ngutar bt we.. consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the boon w.the.ODke of the 0,k e,d Recorder,W3 Bw.r Mew Street A.]Peu,cobr a.81611,Ph e annexed legal notice or advertisement; that said newspaper (970)92MI57 or(970)9204M.. Jeahette Jones has been admitted to the United States mails as second Depetp county Clerk class matter under the provisions of the Act of March 3, Pobllkhed N The Aston Tlwes,Weekend echt n p on March 2,2602.(g926) 1879, or any amendments thereof, and that said newspaper is a weekly newspaper duly qualified for pub lishinglegal notices and advertisements with the meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was pub- lished in the regular and entire issue of every number of said weekly newspaper for the period of t consecu- tive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 0)N-rti Z A.D., 20 D Z and that the last Pub- lication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated M,.(h(?-Z A.D.,20 Q 2— s� Subscribe and sworn to before me, a notary Public in an for the Coun of Pitkin, State of Colorado, on this day of A.D., 2__0 0, 2 �1 do Notary Public My commission expires �'b- ett�— THE ASPEN TIMES 310 East Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 PROOF OF PUBLICATION 3 -1.3 - 02 STATE OF COLORADO ) AAA#3 ) ss. j COUNTY OF PITKIN } PUBLIC NOTICE PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:That the Board of County Conennawtne of Phun County,Colorado,eftet e duly±ioticed public hearing. have adopted the I, Andy Stone /Jenne Weathefled do solemnly swear that I dlow ng Resolution at the Boag's 12 egu ar meet- am PUBLISHER of the ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY; that the oars WMW OFMCBoehW COOMMISMONER OF p[n�f COUM'Y: COUMADO, CHANGING THE same is a weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in part, and E1EC93 C PRPE1NCp BOUNDARIES. Notice Of published in the County of PITKIN, State of Colorado and has TP m op Menh 222 moi rApn o1 In l a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been he Resolution are ava labia for public(nape bn 9C=regpp business hours In the Office of the published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Cwk a sea Main Street,Aspen, Colorado E1611. Phone(9M 9205157 or 070) Pitkin for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks 92R next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or DepntymrarJones Pungahe l 1.The Aspen TI.,Weekend Edition advertisement; that said newspaper has been admitted to the on Ma h23,2W2.(M7) United States mails as second-class matter under the provi- sions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amendments there- of, and that said newspaper Is a weekly newspaper duly qual- ified for publishing legal notices and advertisements within the meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire Issue of every number of said week- ly newspaper for the period of—L consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated QOA P_7-3 A.D.,20 02 and the last publication of said notice was in the Issue of said newspaper dated JVA 2 23 A. D. 20 02- In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand. 3—L PLblishe Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for he County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, this J :;- day of A.D., 20 d� (SEAL) Notary Public My Commission expires V. I THr Yr:illTim: 3 - 13�02-0 Box Eq Aspen, Colorado PROOF OF PUBLICATIONS STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. Copy of Notice County of Pitkin ) PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC NEARING PLEASE TREE NOTICE:That theCounty, Board of County hold a p ibMre of Pitkin,County, Colorado, will hold a public hearing on the blowing Ordinance I,Andy Stone, do solemnly swear that I am the Publisher at the Board's regular meeting on Wednesday, March 13,21W to begin al 2:00 PM,or as soon as of THE ASPEN TIMES: that the same is a weekly newspa- the conduct of business allows, at the Plara i per printed, in, whole or in part, and published in the Meeting eaildi g 305"Ea,t"Mai�ree<"Aspen,ColaAnn" County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, and has a general cir- at which time and place all oembera.the pul> Ile mq,appear and be heard: culation therein; that said newspaper has been AN OROINANCE OF TIHE:BOARD OF COUNTY Ublished continuous) d uninterruptedly in COMMISSIONERS OF PRKIN COUNTY,COLORA- P Y an P Yn said DO.CRANING A CONSERVATION EASEMENT County of Pitkin, for a period of more than fifty-two OVER THE NORTH STAR NATURE PRESERVE consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the oRDRANCE«=oz NANCEi5 annexed legal notice or advertisement; that said newspaper 1.The North Star Nature Prese:°e<Pa.°rK)was has been admitted to the United States mails as second adatsin0 a Uwrs orCoouty In nty Open Sp79. prior ace to class matter under the provisions of the Act of March 3, theHurne Role Charter In 1990,and consequently P is without failed protection tram conversion to 1879, or any amendments thereof, and that said newspaper rmriopen space uses. is a weeks newspaper dui qualified for publishing legal 2, `�""t n'er""gs.of th`North Star Users YY 4 P o o croup,the County agreed that a comervayon notices and advertisements with the meaning of the laws of ea•®isof almnw be granted to a hand eosssar - don"niration to ensure that the Preserve m the State of Colorado. - end. nsPoll*d In p tdM ma,to that end, that the Mmagemem Plan adopted In July a20W serves-as a permanent cetiloE nor the Intensity of That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was pub- race on.[uea of the Pasefve :ARFi )]Shed In the regular and discussions with several covcrvadw en, and entire issue Of every number of tnies,it has been decided that the Aspen Nailer said weekly newspaper for the period of_4-consecu- Lend Trust(AVLT)In best qualified to hold!the 'couservanm easemMt AVLT ha furthermore live insertions; and that the first publication of said notice agreed fo certain Itrwtawas on amendment w was in the issue of aid newspaper dated °sty NOWt ed NIT he RDAINED,by. rY) fM Z A.D., 20 D� and that the last Fub- the Board of county Cormubelonas of PRidn County,Colorado ar follow;: lication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper f Thaeoardapprona the grant a....Va- dated f f)(hL Z A.D., 20 O Z Boi 1l*Mpat osm theldt'tt"r"''Jp+>w~ Hie w�Sweav tam 4hmwR �p p"Whor s: _ fteercelbnal use,west N tlK'Roso in P.KRin t Is he l ��1`('7/'_ prahlhdtM In ppeep�eektuRy;.C: No increase e W .' amauat nl Star acme me above that Noosed - _ [.ad,the D,Stallo thanes in the Plan will ever a al- ' )owes; D. No changes N the North Star Maosgc- Subscribe and sworn to before me, a notaryn1ent Plan""lbGa w1tR011conspit.1the AVLT;and E. AV1.T must agree to reciprocal m Pub in for the Countyof Pitkin, State of Colorado, strittions'on its'abmty to amend any easentest obtained through County process,as described on this day of A.D.,20_C�1__- in the ggeeemept dated January 2,2002. 2.Tha Chair is au hmieed to aseerte the cower, vatior,easentent in substantially the attached lorro.'foRowlft.approvN of the torso of those docWgents by.the County Attenney's of ices and Notary Public Open Space Direct.,and Is authodaed to ace ogee stich other documents as may be.necessary My commission expires to Onagre Its.transaction. Copies of the:proposed Ordinance are aeallable for public Inspections during regular business hors:in the Office of the Clark and Recoalm 530 East Mein Street,Aspen.Colorado 81611. Phone (970)9205157 hao Jones. Deputy Comfy Clerk arch The Aspen?Imo,Weekend Edition, on M on March 2.2002.(8429) i THE ASPEN 310 East Main Street,Aspen, Colorado 81611 PROOF OF PUBLICATION 3 - 13 - 0 STATE OF COLORADO ) N y as. PUBLIC NOTICE COUNTY OF PITKIN ) PIEASETAKENOTICE: Thetthe Board of County Commleabnera of Pitkln County.Colorado,a[I[s regular Meatln8 on Mach 1.1 2002 and after a do- ly-.o[kid.publldheMng,adop[ed.[he fallowing OrAlbeitde: - I, Andy Stone/Jenna Weatherred do solemnly swear that I AN OBINNANCE OF THE BOARD,OF COUNTY am PUBLISHER of the ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY; that the DOMML9510NERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORA- DO GRANTING A CONSERVATION EASEMENT OVER THE NOR7N STAR NATQM PRESERVE same is a weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in part, and oRONANCE»_-02 - Copses of the tdR text of the Ordtnance are—'[a- published in the County of PITKIN, State of Colorado and has ble for pubec Gupec bet duNng re8ular husrrogs Hours In the ORlca of the Chet.and Recorder,530 a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been East Mal.Street,Aspen.Coloeada81611. Phone published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of (9TD92�5157' Jeauette,apes Pitkin for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks Depury County Clerk PoWnext prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or on Mian,h Ahetl 23,2M2.(8In The 51T Imes,Weekend Edition. advertisement; that said newspaper has been admitted to the United States mails as second-class matter under the provi- sions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amendments there- of, and that said newspaper is a weekly newspaper duly qual- ified for publishing legal notices and advertisements within the meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire Issue of every number of said week- ly newspaper for the period of / consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated fY AVLZ-3 A.D.,20 6Z ,and the last publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 7,3 A. D. 20 UZ In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand. P blisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary publics and for the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, this 2J day of QUA! A.D., 20 (SEAL) (/Notary Public My Commission expires k 0-84,-02 AMN TIM: Box E Aspen, Colorado PROOF OF PUBLICATION /�G✓Pfj STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. Copy of Notice PUBLIC nonce E@ WWE Map, u.0 ROAD VACAnONS, M" County of Pitkin ) PUT AhtVMMENrslFlE 1) NOTICE IS HOWZY ONF.i that a publlc hewing will be hew on tNedne lay March 12,2M,at a � I,Andy Stone,do solemnly swear that I am the Publisher �meat th to begin am PM on m soon ihere.hu as thecoMhxt of a 6wlnasealbwa,ho- of THE ASPEN TAMES: that the same is a weekly newspa- fore the Board of county Comml.e OMIC11 PWn o Conjw owe Eo er,Spp E.Mate St.,:A.pen to per printed, in, whole or in part, and published in the consider in appeeadm mybmleed by L. WA County of Pitkin,State of Colorado, and has a general cir- f2.c to grew. . de, a°ha"ea """a"rwm easements and rights of May shown ue pint moo- culation therein; that said newspaper has been dated With EoccR"ohnionno.goes Thewoa_ published continuously and uninterruptedly in said W W1p°at°dpA end adjacendto the W/JRUKh andisHeicrlbea as a onset of land Senate,to Eeo County of Pitkin, for a period of more than fifty-two tlan 21,Tuwnsh1182eoth,IteW EE Weft Of Ire consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the gth PAL The apPl ""°N a'°""°" 1a a-Wt lar puplk Impectlat 1.the Common"Dwmlop. annexed legal notice or advertisement; that said newspaper meal Department,Cey Hag,120 S.Galena sl,A• has been admitted to the United States mails as second penco Etsp. For further bdortwtb0.wwWt Ipnce Glade at class matter under the provisions of the Act of March 3, (9M 920MR. 1879,or any amendments thereof, and that said newspaper Jeanette Jones,Depoty County Clerk sowdof C•tmty Comodnw e is a a weekly newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal p The Asp"new,on%664* notices and advertisements with the meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was pub- lished in the regular and entire issue of eve number of said weekly newspaper for the period of I consecu- tive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was ,.1^n the issue of said newspaper dated r� B ` 1 A.D., 20 0 a, and that the last pub- lication of said n lice was in the issue of said newspaper dated A.D.,20 Qa Subsc ibed and sworn to before me, a notary public k and for the Co of Pitkin, State of Colorado, on this�_day of A.D.,20 QV_ Notary Public My commission expires 3 TEE ASPEN TIMES Box E 1,4 a 1 P3 Aspen, Colorado PROOF OF PUBLICATION U� STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. Copy of Notice County of Pitkin ) RCxcx PUNK NOTICE DRNB(CRYSTAL RM PARR SUBDIVI. SION)ROAD VACAT8R1(PITWt) - . NDnCE 18.HEREBY GIVEN tMt,Wblk he q I,Andy Stone, do solemnly swear that I am the Publisher =W {"a°1ee0ay"'""h 13,2M M 8 rkj ltM b PM or y coa,: of THE ASPEN TIIvfES: that the same s a weekly newspa- 'b°1B^np.<�cat C buMW eRowa, per printed, in, whole or in part, and published in the OtC tli��Of WE.M"v{ 1R 911n,w County of Pitkin,State of Colorado, and has a general cir- `O"Mft m-Pw1�s bwft dbyBobMcca. culation therein; that said newspaper has been edeke St"Ruble MquwjW the v ,c a fth D�h*.4ceu(W Ll 15;16. 17.18,196 published continuously and uninterruptedly in said 29•CryNel SIM Pqk Subd i-ih,and a ma Pattie a Ruh'AbuMNe Ddw(iue ASPee County of Pitkin, for a period of more than fifty-two Wd )ad* tbl%07"N—Pmk 804 consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the i f- T"°Grnw M-S0dlN.we 1.loc;iee annexed legal notice or advertisement; that said newspaper Mme.PPu�.�u Wwddlnt ea ee°,'" has been admitted to the United States mails as second PUW 1e6P°cude ht the Com WtyneeeloPetw DePw"m ,.CBy Hetl,130 S.GWl St., UpP class matter under the provisions of the Act of March 3, C0816u. 1879,or any amendments thereof,and that said newspaper P 1w�bry Wit.«rm..P eg{a is a a weekly newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal 1°"'°"• +kParcouaycyk notices and advertisements with the meaning of the laws of PUMANd V aY� the State of Colorado. 2M.(ea2n "Be dh Mb urr s; That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was pub- lished in the regular and entire issue of eve4y number of said weekly newspaper for the period of consecu- tive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated V'FG 9 A.D., 20 Q '-), and that the last pub- lication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated -A.D.,20 0 DL-, Subsc 'bed and sworn to before me, a notary public ' ar)d for the Co of Pitkin, State of Colorado, on this�—day of G ru ADr 20 QZ _. Notary Pub is My commission expires (a-0 -02, THE ASHEN TIMES Box E Aspen, Colorado PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. Copy of Notice County of Pitkin ) T4AZy SPAN RAWH,a, 8a , SPecuL I,Andy Stone,do solemnly swear that I am the Publisher "oeae cwpie um.'' ^d a� pyyk tmw,a of THE ASPEN TIMES: that the same is a weekly newspa- WO be he6°- .ML_M ts,2= per printed, in, whole or in part, and published in the �, `�aaspna«...om County of Pitkin,State of Colorado,and has a general cir- mw the eow'a eciay ' = culation therein; that said newspaper has been aa.c«mWMM Rq ,ssoF MWO ffi,A, 'pw to published continuously and uninterruptedly in said ,� "'�"°°..b kWby Bkk Wd Count of Pitkin, for period of more than fifty-two , Dup�w�xa0wh.ewmre mMop.ae Y P Y "�*b MOW as.me,p c in nn ndtae,,, consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the wrnm<tme „g 'iae apple a Vie.. annexed legal notice or advertisement; that said newspaper 'WAW Y TM W dWW".wft%b jy has been admitted to the United States mails as second �°"ddem'seow...k.edeoo.,..,x class matter under the provisions of the Act of March 3, t mmw A0p&w b.?'°" "'do 1879, or any amendments thereof, and that said newspaper n ew_u..ft V`y, W d110- is a a weekly newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal *4 ow In`dN'WAhm pwtm'd ree W"". notices and advertisements with the meanie of the laws of u"P"Wty a kcaad m M m ��.e the State of Colorado. g W ft�� `pw`w f j 1d i ,"Ww 39 114MI/4 d3,e .2L d "PIWI dtMY4It sum„2Z TawWdpi0$00tk That the annexed legal notice or advertisement.was pub- RMW d6 %1W of tw ft PA M. lished in the regular and entire issue of every number of •n=w.m �„m,a 'W�,� said weekly newspaper for the period of I consecu- war 1X& I Dwp tive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice 81611. ~p"CO was in the issue of said newspaper dated 00011Sutrke WbWM A.D., 20 Qol and that the last pub- lication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper �.ndace�ycamy,k q, dated f g cj A.D.,20 0,1 zoga.2M.M3 m TW Agora ram,a, 06 FCW.Y B: - J Subscr bed and sworn to before me, a notary public ' and for the Co ty of Pitkin, State of Colorado, on this day of lD A�.�Dy.,20 OQ_. Notary Public My commission expires V�-G('D-OZ J THE Asrzx. TIMES 310 East Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO } '' —'/3 Z.•� COUNTY OF PITKIN } ss. � iC.UCH PUBLIC NOTICE I, And Y PUBLIC: That on March Stone /Jenna Weatherred do solemn) swear that I NOTICE HEREBY h 13 TO THE GENERAL T , 2002 the Board of am PUBLISHER of the ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY; that the County Commissioners of Pitkin County.Colora- do, same is a week) newspaper rinted, in whole or in art, and the adopted Resolution No. op.2 41 approving YP p the Deane/T lazy 7 Ranch Corp. 1041 hazard re- published in the County of PITKIN, State of Colorado and has view,conceptual submission,special review and GMQS exemption.The subject property Is descri- a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been bed as the WI/2 of the NWI/4 of Section 22;the published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of SEI/4 of the NEI/4;the SEl/4 of Section 21,all in Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the Sixth Pitkin for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks Principal Meridian.This approval of a site specif- next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or is development plan includes a vested property right pursuant to Title 24,Article fib,CR& advertisement; that said newspaper has been admitted to the Jeanette.lones United States mails as second-class matter under the rovi- Deputy e on April 27,nty Clerk 02. P Published in The Aspen Times on April 27,'2002. sions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amendments there- (8686) of, and that said newspaper is a weekly newspaper duly qual- ified for publishing legal notices and advertisements within the meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said week- ly newspaper for the period of r consecutive insertions; and.that the first public ion of.said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated � 2- A.D., 20 -0-2— and the last publication o said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated A. D. 20 0 In witn s whereof I h hereunto set my hand. Publisher Subscri ed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the Cou ty of Pitkin, State of Colorado, this JS day of -I--- \ 20 � (SEAL) 1 Aw� Notary Public My Commission expires �(o