Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.reg.06262002 PITKIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING AGENDA WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 2002 2:00 PM Location: Plaza One Conference Room ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO AGENDA CONSENT ACTIONS Minutes of June 4 and June 18 Special Meetings and June 12 Regular Meeting Flying Fish Cafe LLC Transfer of Ownership Liquor License, Jennifer Doss Contract for MOA Between Pitkin County Airport and FAA on Installing Localizer and Relocating Precision Approach Path Indicator, Jim Elwood, Ray Krebs Resolution Authorizing City of Aspen Parks and Open Space Ranger to Enforce County Open Space and Trails Laws, Dale Will CONSENT PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 2"d Reading, Amendment to License and Use Agreement for Terminal Gift Shop with Aspen Flight Deck(PN 6/15), Jim Elwood, Edna Adeh 2. 2nd Reading, Resolution Approving an IGA with Aspen and RFTA Regarding Transfer of Assets to RFTA and a Related IGA with Aspen for Joint Use of Transit Facilities, Tom Oken 3. 2nd Reading, Acquisition of Filoha Meadows Property, Dale Will 4. 2"d Reading, Ordinance Accepting Conveyance of Real Property from Raymond and Camilla Auger and an Ordinance Accepting the Conveyance of Real Property from R&R Trading, Inc., Debbie Quinn, (to be continued to 7/10) 5. Jazz at Aspen Snowmass Special Event Liquor License, Jennifer Doss (PN 6/8) ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS ADMINISTRATIVE PUBLIC HEARINGS 3:00 PM PUBLIC COMMENT, COMMISSIONER COMMENTS, PROCLAMATIONS LAND USE AGENDA CONSENT PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Sunshine Ranch, LLC Appeal of Hearing Officer Determination, (PN 05/25/02), (to be continued to 7/10/02)—B. McNellis CONSENT ACTIONS LAND USE PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Verizon Special Review for a Telecommunications Facility, (PN 05/25/02)—B. McNellis LAND USE ACTIONS 3. Broeder Deck Awning Appeal, (continued from 6/12/02)—B. McNellis 4. Stonehenge Star Properties, LP Appeal from Denial of Building Permit—J. Schaffner 5. Sawmill Hill Remediation—L. Clarke 6. Fiala Request for Exemption from Redstone Moratorium—L. Clarke BOCC OPEN DISCUSSION ADJOURN I APPROVED JULY 10, 2002 MINUTES PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING JUNE 26, 2002 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Clapper called the regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners to order at 2:05 p.m. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Patti Clapper, Jack Hatfield, Mick Ireland, Dorothea Farris and Shellie Roy CONSENT ACTIONS: APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 4 AND JUNE 18 SPECIAL MEETINGS AND JUNE 12 REGULAR MEETING—MOTION TO APPROVE — Staff Persons: Jeanette Jones/Lyndee Dean, Deputy County Clerks FLYING FISH CAFE LLC TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP LIQUOR LICENSE— MOTION TO APPROVE— Staff Person: Jennifer Doss, Deputy County Clerk CONTRACT WITH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION NORTHWEST MOUNTAIN REGION FOR INSTALLATION OF LOCALIZER AND RELOCATION OF THE EXISTING PRECISION APPROACH PATH INDICATOR—MOTION TO APPROVE—Staff Person: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CITY OF ASPEN PARKS AND OPEN SPACE RANGER TO ENFORCE COUNTY OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS LAWS —MOTION TO APPROVE— Staff Person: Dale Will, Open Space and Trails Director Commissioner Hatfield moved approval of the Consent Actions Agenda. Commissioner Farris seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. CONSENT PUBLIC HEARINGS SECOND READING—ORDINANCE AMENDING LICENSE AND USE AGREEMENT FOR TERMINAL GIFT SHOP WITH ASPEN FLIGHT DECK—MOTION TO APPROVE—Staff Person: Edna Adah, Airport Contracts Manager BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 26,2002 SECOND READING RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH ASPEN AND ROARING FORK TRANSIT AUTHORITY REGARDING TRANSFER OF ASSETS TO ROARING FORK TRANSIT AGENCY AND A RELATED INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH ASPEN FOR JOINT USE OF TRANSIT FACILITIES—MOTION TO APPROVE— Staff Person: Dan Blankenship, Roaring Fork Transit Authority SECOND READING—ORDINANCE APPROVING ACQUISITION OF FILOHA MEADOWS PROPERTY—MOTION TO APPROVE - Staff Person: Dale Will, Open Space and Trails Director SECOND READING —ORDINANCE ACCEPTING CONVEYANCE OF REAL PROPERTY FROM RAYMOND AND CAMILLA AUGER AND AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE CONVEYANCE OF REAL PROPERTY FROM R7R TRADING, INC—CONTINUED TO JULY 10, 2002 JAZZ AS ASPEN SNOWMASS SPECIAL EVENT LIQUOR LICENSE—MOTION TO APPROVE - Staff Person: Jennifer Doss, Deputy County Clerk Chairperson Clapper opened the hearing to public comment. There being none, she closed the public hearing. Commissioner Farris moved approval of the Consent Public Hearings Agenda. Commissioner Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE LAND USE AGENDA: Lance Clarke, Assistant Director of Community Development, asked to add a request for a takings request for the Spencer 1041 in order to keep within the required time limitations. It was decided it would be added to the end of the agenda. Commissioner Hatfield moved to add the request for takings for the Spencer 1041 to the end of today's agenda. Commissioner Farris seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENT: Julie Ann Woods of Community Development and Brian Flynn of the City Parks' Department addressed the board with regard to Cozy Point. The County Commissioners voted at the June 12`h regular meeting to approve the Cozy Point Ranch 1041 hazard review, conceptual submission and GMQS exemption for relocation of three cabins. The Commissioners did, however, condition the approval. Ms. Woods and Mr. Flynn asked the board if they would reconsider some slight modifications to some of their conditions. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 26,2002 3 A letter was submitted to the board dated June 25, 2002 from Jeff Woods, City of Aspen Parks and Recreation Manager. Said letter is attached hereto and made a part of this record as EXHIBIT "A". The two conditions that they are concerned with are the one regarding dogs on the property and the other is with the County Commissioners approving any future changes in physical structures or use. They have come up with language that they hope the Commissioners will reconsider. The language is shown, in full, in their letter attached to this record. John Ely, County Attorney, informed the board that they would need to vote to reconsider this matter. Commissioner Roy moved to reconsider two of the conditions of approval on the Cozy Point Ranch application as voted on by the board on June 12, 2002. Chairperson Clapper seconded the motion. Commissioner Hatfield wanted to clarify for staff that they should focus on the application only and not the entire property. It was announced that the board would reconsider these two conditions on July 10,2002. Chairperson Clapper called the question. Motion passed unanimously. Next to appear before the board were Jim Ward and Charlie Hopton. They are members of the Hunter Creek Task Force as well as Friends of Hunter Creek. Mr. Hopton informed the board that money had been budgeted for trail work up there but nothing has been done yet. In light of the recent ruling, they would like to get time on a future work session to discuss trail work, weed control and other issues with the board. Discussion ensued on their request. Chairperson Clapper stated that she would meet with Hilary Smith, County Manager, on Monday to see when this could be set for a future meeting. Commissioner Ireland expressed appreciation for their support of the Commissioners. It was decided that Tim McFlynn would be the point person for this matter. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Commissioner Hatfield reminded everyone that we all know that we are in a drought situation. He announced that the Snowmass Water and Sanitation District has gone and essentially cut their hours of watering in half. Even though we have plenty of water rights, etc. they are doing the best they can to help the overall water situation. He noted that other cities in Colorado are getting in line, too. Each jurisdiction approaches this differently, he said. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 26,2002 µ Commissioner Hatfield also thanked the City of Aspen and the Aspen Parks and Open Space ranger for their cooperation and enforcement of open space rules on our County open space. The City of Aspen is going to allow their ranger to do this. He said that this is a real positive, as the County does not have a ranger of their own. Commissioner Roy spoke about sales tax. She reminded everyone that the loss of sales tax revenue is heavily impacting this community. She said that she wanted to applaud the bureaucracy that runs this County contrary to the impression that many of us have that bureaucracies do not function efficiently. She said that she saw a group of County Section Heads very carefully analyze over the course of a month or so where the County could cut. The County, she continued, because of the Fenton Amendment, offered it for almost twenty years without an increase in their general fund. We the voters took mercy on them, she said, and at least granted them a CPI in 1992. Because of that, she went on, the County is not flush with funds and there was not a great deal of excess to cut. One of the positions that were lost, she said, was due to the success of that person. About eight years ago the County did not have a Safety Program. That program was started and was very successful. She wanted to congratulate and compliment not only the people who went through this very rigorous process, but the remainder of the people here at Pitkin County. They do a phenomenal job, she said, and the people of this community should be very proud. Commissioner Ireland reminded everyone that it was wildfire season. He said that there was nothing to prohibit anybody right now in establishing defensible space in the thinning of shrubs and trees that could save their homes and County from the recent disasters in our state. He said that there were a host of subdivisions that are all right now very vulnerable to fire. He said that it is a personal responsibility on all of us to make sure that our property is not the one to promote a wildfire if one starts. It is dangerous right now, he added, and people need to take action for themselves and their community. Chairperson Clapper added that for those who do have conditions of approval, they need to look at those and be specific to them. She has a concern about people going out and clear cutting. Not that there aren't some areas that should be cut, she explained, but that there are also wildlife issues where we get caught in between defensible space and wildlife habitat. She said that people need to check before they start clear-cutting. Secondly, Commissioner Ireland said he also wanted to echo Commissioner Roy's comments on the three staff persons whose jobs were terminated this week. He said that he wanted to thank them for their service as they were quality employees and very dedicated. He reminded everyone that in August and November people are going to be asked for an opportunity to restore some of the income that we have lost through sales tax declines and lost due to the Tabor Amendment. He said that those votes are not to restore those three positions as those are gone for good. There are other things that are at risk in this community, he added,that have to be considered for termination if the County does not get the help from the voters on the property tax question. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 4 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 26,2002 Finally, Commissioner Ireland reminded everyone that on July 41h was the Aspen Boogey Buddies 5 Race. He helped to start this race twenty years ago and Lenny Weinglass has generously sponsored it since then and made it very profitable for the Aspen Buddy Program. He hopes people will take the time to participate. Commissioner Farris added that she spoke to County Sheriff, Bob Braudis the other day regarding wildfires. She said that if anyone has questions regarding setting up fire pits or you have concerns about camping to call the Sheriff s office for direction. She said that they are aggressively pursuing any violations. There are fines for those not using bear proof containers also, she added. LAND USE AGENDA: CONSENT PUBLIC HEARINGS: READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON APPEAL OF THE HEARING OFFICER'S DETERMINATION ON THE SUNSHINE RANCH, LLC—MOTION TO CONTINUE TO JULY 1% 2002 Brian McNellis—County Planner Chairperson Clapper opened the hearing to public comment. There being none, she closed the public hearing and brought the matter back to the board. Commissioner Farris moved to continue the Sunshine Ranch appeal to July 10, 2002. Commissioner Ireland seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. LAND USE PUBLIC HEARINGS: READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL TO THE VERIZON SPECIAL REVIEW FOR A TELECOMMUNICATION SITE AT THE ASPEN AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER—MOTION TO APPROVE Brian McNellis—County Planner; Verizon Wireless—Applicant; Ann Closser of Closser Consulting—Applicant's Representative Mr. McNellis began his presentation as outlined in his memorandum to the board. Said memorandum is attached hereto and made a part of this record as EXHIBIT "B". The letter of request from the applicant dated May 01, 2002 to Mr. McNellis is attached hereto and made a part of this record as EXHIBIT "C". Also submitted was a simulated photograph of the antennas on the subject property. Said photograph is attached hereto and made a part of this record as EXHIBIT "D". Commissioner Ireland moved to approve the Verizon special review. Commissioner Farris seconded the motion. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 5 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 26,2002 David Kennard, radio frequency engineer, and Ann Closser, applicant's representative answered several questions from Commissioner Hatfield to his satisfaction. Commissioner Hatfield questioned Mr. McNellis on condition number 3 which states "the approved antennas shall not exceed 28 feet in height from existing grade". Mr. McNellis said that applicant's represented that 28 feet was from ground to the top of the antenna being that the antennas were four feet high. Chairperson Clapper wanted to clarify to staff that any future co-locations have the same height requirement. Commissioner Hatfield was opposed to Mr. McNellis' response in item D.2 of his memorandum. It states, in part, that this application will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property or endanger the public health, safety or welfare. He said that he does not agree with this as it will allow for more people to use cell phones in their cars while driving. Chairperson Clapper opened the hearing to public comment. There being no comment, she closed the public hearing and called the question. Chairperson Clapper called the question on approving the Verizon special review. Motion passed unanimously. LAND USE ACTIONS: CONTINUED READING ON RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF THE APPEAL OF THE ZONING OFFICER DETERMINATION OF THE BROEDER AWNING AS CREATING ADDITIONAL FLOOR AREA—MOTION TO INTERPRET CODE WITH DENIAL OF APPEAL Brian McNellis—County Planner; William Broeder—Applicant; Eugene Alder—Applicant's Representative Staff s agenda item summary, with attachments, is made a part of this record and attached hereto as EXHIBIT "E". There have been no changes or new Code amendments affecting this request. Joanna Schaffner, County Zoning Officer, said that although this is not an appeal to a denial of a building permit, it is a broader issue and has greater ramifications than this particular awning on this particular house. It's not just this awning, she said, it's all awnings, all trellises, all loges, and other things that fall under this sub-section of the FAR definition. Chairperson Clapper asked the board if they want to consider previous discussions on keeping the awning up for one season and down for the other season? Eugene Alder, applicant's representative, said that the applicant is perfectly willing to do that if the board is so inclined. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 6 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 26,2002 Commissioner Hatfield said that he does not want to consider a seasonal use. He said that this is not a seasonal issue but essentially complying with the Code and how it is interpreted. He said that he wished he could rule in favor of the applicant but he doesn't see how he could. Commissioner Roy said that the board had discussed seasonal use to try and be adaptive but then we come into conflict with the Code. Commissioner Farris said that it is just an attempt to get another room and does not want to support it. Commissioner Hatfield asked County Attorney, John Ely for his opinion on awnings and how they relate to architectural projections? Mr. Ely said that a horizontal projection is what the Code refers to as opposed to architectural projections. To him, horizontal projections mean those more flat than vertical. Something that is built off of a structure in a horizontal projection. Mr. Alder said that Commissioner Hatfield's question is a pertinent one to Mr. Ely. But, he said, he looks at it and thinks that it's not really what Mr. Ely's or anyone's legal definition of horizontal projections of roofs and floors is, but what a layman's interpretation of that is when he would go to the Code and not how the Planning Office has interpreted it over the last eight or nine years. He said that you would have to construe an awning as a roof as opposed to just a horizontal projection in order for it to come under the Code definition. That was one of the reasons, he said, that the board was looking to amend the Code because there was some ambiguity there. He said that Commissioner Ireland's opinion last time was that you should count everything or you should count nothing but it should be a specific definition of what you're counting. That, he said, is the basis of the applicant's objection. Commissioner Ireland moved that the Code be interpreted to allow an awning beyond the committed square footprint of up to 600 feet only from June 01 to September 01 for the purpose of shade. Commissioner Roy seconded the motion (appeal denied). Commissioner Hatfield asked has the applicant calculated the square footage of the house in order to understand whether if this was counted in the square footage would he, in fact, comply? Mr. Alder said that in their meeting on January 23, 2002 a letter submitted as an exhibit showed how large the house was when the CO was issued. He said that he thinks that was 4315 square feet. Under current County guidelines, he said, he thinks the maximum allowed would be 3900 square feet or so. So, he added, any square footage for any awning would be in excess. As there was some confusion by the board on this issue, Commissioner Ireland tried to clarify it. He said that the applicant had a 4300 square foot house. The zoning was changed or altered in a manner that made it a non-conforming use and if you started today you would only get 3900 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 7 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 26,2002 square feet. This does not go over,the applicant is already over, he said. This would be an issue of non-conformity if you interpret this as part of the structure. Chairperson Clapper further clarified that Commissioner Ireland's seasonal use is not including in the allowable square footage so it's a moot point. Commissioner Roy supports Commissioner Ireland's motion. Commissioner Hatfield does not agree with Commissioner Ireland's motion. He said it is an interpretation of the way we've been doing business. And, he stated this is inconsistent with how we define extensions of the roof. Chairperson Clapper said she would support Commissioner Ireland's motion. Chairperson Clapper called the question. Motion passed 3 to 2 with Commissioner Farris and Commissioner Hatfield voting nay. THE BOARD TOOK A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK AT THIS TIME RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPEAL OF DENIAL OF A BUILDING PERMIT FOR STONEHENGE STAR PROPERTIES, LP—MOTION TO DENY, WITH AMENDMENT TO STIPULATION Joanna Schaffner—County Zoning Officer; Stonehenge Star Properties, LP—Applicant Ms. Schaffner's memorandum to the board, with attachments, is made a part of this record and attached hereto as EXHIBIT "F". Commissioner Ireland moved to accept staffs recommendation to deny the appeal, and allow an amendment to the stipulation to apply the rive foot overhang exemption on this parcel as it is applied throughout the county's rural area, and to allow the 2500 square foot floor area allowance to be exceeded by the square footage necessary to allow the proposed gazebo (approximately 74 square feet). Commissioner Roy seconded the motion. RESOLUTION REMEDIATING THE TAKING FOR SAWMILL HILL PARCELS 2, 4, 5 AND 6—MOTION TO APPROVE,AS PRESENTED Lance Clarke—Assistant Director of Community Development; Karl Hipp, Parcel 2; Theodore Allegra, Parcel 4; Caryn Crague, Parcel 5; Cecil Deloach, Parcel 6—Applicants; Cindy Tester— Applicant's Attorney Lance Clarke explained to the board that Cindy Testor's son was in the hospital and so she would not be able to attend today's meeting. Mr. Clarke said if there are any questions on this item it could be continued and that Ms. Testor and the applicants were okay with that as long as there were no changes. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 8 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 26,2002 Lance Clarke's agenda item summary on this item is attached hereto and made a part of this record as EXHIBIT "G". Mr. Clarke proceeded to explain the history on this item as mirrored in his agenda item summary. In the agenda item summary there were several items requested by the applicants that are not the norm for 1041 conditions. They are: 1 utility lines are not required to be buried 2 road improvements will not be to county standards 3 conditions may be relied on for five years Mr. Clarke responded to those items. With regard to the utility lines, he said that the applicants didn't want to bury them, but since then they have met with Holy Cross. Holy Cross said that they only way they can do that is that the utility lines will have to be in the driveway and buried and that's what staff wanted. So, he said, applicants were then agreeable. With respect to the road improvements not being to county standards, he said that "we" know that. It is a road that just can't meet county standards, but staff will do the best they can. Regarding the conditions being relied on for five years, even though applicants originally requested twenty years, Mr. Clarke said that typically on a remediation, staff puts two years. He said that he has no difficulty in this case with five years. Mr. Clarke said that the applicants have agreed with his remarks above. Commissioner Hatfield asked about condition number 15 in the resolution. It states, "if a road improvement district is formed for Redstone Boulevard South or Sawmill Hill Road, all lot owners part of this approval must join". Commissioner Hatfield wanted to know if that meant all six-lot owners. Mr. Clarke answered by saying that the only people that have approval are these four. The other two people do not have approval. If they ever come in for 1041 approval, he added, that would be put into their approvals as well. Mr. Clarke answered several other questions from Commissioner Hatfield to the Commissioner's satisfaction. Commissioner Hatfield moved to approve the takings remediation as presented. Commissioner Ireland seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. APPEAL BY MARTIN FIALA TO BE EXEMPTED FROM THE REDSTONE MORATORIUM—WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT Lance Clarke—Assistant Director of Community Development; Martin Fiala—Applicant BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 9 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 26,2002 /O Mr. Clarke informed the board that he received a call around 2:30 today from Mr. Fiala that he did not intend to go forward with his request to be exempted from the Redstone Moratorium. But, Mr. Clarke added, that Mr. Fiala did say that he did wish the board to know that at some future date he would like the opportunity to address the board about the HPC and its activities. SPENCER, LOT 14, 1041 HAZARD REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION TAKINGS DETERMINATION—MOTION TO CONTINUE TO JULY 10, 2002 Brian McNellis—County Planner; Paul Spencer—Applicant Lance Clarke, Assistant Director of Community Development, informed the board that he notified the applicant to appear around 5:00 PM today based on when he assumed the board would be hearing this item. Mr. Clarke said that the applicant just did the appeal on Friday and so staff did not have an opportunity to get this on the agenda. As it was earlier than 5:00 PM at this time, Mr. Clarke said it was fine for the board to proceed. This item was added at the end of today's agenda to keep within the specified time limitations required for this appeal. The memorandum associated with this item, and attachments, is made a part of this record and attached hereto as EXHIBIT "H". The board took a moment to quickly read over this packet material. Commissioner Roy moved to find a takings. Her motion failed for a second. Commissioner Hatfield would like to continue this item in order to fully read the information presented in staff s packet as there are additional issues other than slopes in excess of 30 percent he thinks need to be discussed. Commissioner Hatfield moved to continue the Spencer Takings Determination to July 10, 2002. Commissioner Farris seconded the motion. Commissioner Farris had a clarifying question regarding staffs memorandum. On the front page of staff's memorandum it states that the location of the proposed building envelope cannot be accessed without crossing slopes in excess of 30 percent. On the second page of the memorandum, however, the summary of recommendation states that the board shall find no taking has occurred because I.A. the applicant has no reasonable investment- backed expectation to develop a new single-family residence in a severe wildfire hazard area. She asked which one was it? Was it slopes in excess of 30 percent or severe wildfire hazard area? Mr. McNellis apologized for this error and responded that the correct statement would be slopes in excess of 30 percent. In response to Commissioner Farris' request, he will correct that error by the next meeting on July 10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 10 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 26,2002 l� Chairperson Clapper called the question. Motion to continue the Spencer Takings Determination to July 10,2002 passed 4 to 1 with Commissioner Roy voting nay as she would rather approve it now. BOCC OPEN DISCUSSION: Chairperson Clapper asked John Ely, County Attorney if this was a good time to talk about the . Stillwater roof issue? Mr. Ely said that it was not on the agenda, it wasn't a noticed item and the board didn't move to add that to their agenda at the beginning of this meeting. Therefore, it was not discussed. The other issue Chairperson Clapper wanted to bring up was with Smuggler Road. She asked if staff has followed through regarding the vehicles that were illegally parked in the right-of-ways up there? Mr. Ely said that the property was inspected. Chairperson Clapper is concerned with the issues of cars parked illegally along some of the easements on Smuggler Road. And, she doesn't want fire trucks to be unable to get up that road should a wildfire start there. Commissioner Hatfield spoke about the latest CCI memorandum deadline of July 12, 2002. Chairperson Clapper will check with Hilary Smith, County Manager regarding Tuesday's agenda for dealing with the CCI memorandum. Commissioner Hatfield also addressed the upcoming rail conference in Washington, D.C. He said that he is inclined to believe that he has less interest in going due to the County's budget restraints. But, if there is a way that there could be some cost sharing or ways to get around some costs, those who could work that out could go. Chairperson Clapper said that she is determined to go to one, but she isn't sure the time frame is right now. Commissioner Farris said that it would depend what's on the agenda. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Hatfield moved to adjourn the regular meeting at 4:33 PM. Commissioner Farris seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 11 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 26,2002 7' I v 7es ctfully su it ed, J anette Jones ( dministrative Items) Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners L ndee . Dean(Land Use Itemss ) nClerto the Board of County Commissioners ` jkt / - Oy, Patti Kay-Clar Chairperson of the Board of County Commissioners ww/g/m i nutes/2002/06262002 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 12 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 26,2002 /3 EX IBIT June 25, 2002 THE CnY of ASPEN Board of County Commissioners 530 East Main, 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 18611 Dear Commissioners, Recently the Board of County Commissioners reviewed and approved a resolution approving the Cozy Point Ranch 1041 review, conceptual submission, and GMQS exemption for the relocation of three cabins to the property. After reviewing the conditions required with this approval, the City of Aspen is requesting slight modifications to the resolution. It is our intention to approach the asking for reconsideration of two conditions. Specifically, wording of two of the conditions does not adequately address the agricultural nature or the history of this parcel. The following conditions on the Cozy Point Cabin resolution reads as follows: 3. The applicant shall comply with the following measures to mitigate impacts on wildlife: A. Dogs shall be prohibited, with the exception of working dogs. The equestrian center, ranch operations, and living areas at Cozy Point Ranch all are deeply entrenched within the agricultural character of this property. Numerous trained dogs have been living on the ranch since the City first purchased the property, and we feel that it is restrictive to prohibit dogs from a ranch of this scale, especially with the addition of three storage cabins. We are completely committed to the protection of the wildlife resources in and around the ranch, and have gone to great lengths to ensure no roaming or out of control dogs are on the ranch premises. We have discussed this with the Pitkin County Wildlife Biologist, and have agreed upon the following condition modification A. All dogs on the property skull be properly kenneled at all times. No dogs shall be allowed to run at large off the property. 4. Any new facilities or uses, expansions of existing facilities, or changes in use shall require further review by the BOCC. 130 Som GALENA STREET - ASPEN,COLORADO 81611-1975 - PHONE 970.920.5000 FAX 970.920.5197 / www.aspengov.com l/ Feinted.R.,Ie Papa The equestrian and agricultural resource at Cozy Point is constantly in a state of flux. The facilities, many constructed in the 1890's, have many repair and remodel needs. We agree that any major changes of use of the facilities should have BOCC oversight, yet we do not agree that making small modifications to the property such as a new roof, or a hay storage shed should need to be reviewed each and every time by the BOCC. This condition would be overly restrictive to our lessee. The City would of course go through all over permitting processes already established for this type of action. We propose the following change: 5. Any new major facilities or uses, major expansion of facilities, or changes in use shall require further review by the BOCC. We look forward to discussing these items with you. We have included a copy of the City's Asset Management Plan, which outlines the 10-year plan for upgrades, and maintenance of the facility. Additionally, you will find a map identifying the entire parcel and the area of impact by these management plans and the movement of the historical structures. Sin erely, AG (� oodJes City of Aspen Parks and Recreation Manager � f O O cr �_ D Ss O N J m C d 'AJ p i 5n O y e1 G A M M M 9 C = ypL1 N p M 8 V _ N O N N O M s N M N M M M M M M M M O p O O O O O p O m p C O O O O O O O O O O 8 O CC O 5m 33333 gam' O ' 8 33 i N M O m 3 O N M N N M M y V M M O S a �bbJJ G O O A Z _ m W N M N M N M N M N OO O O O O R SZ O O O $ p O O O O O O O N s = _ p P MR O O O Yip SZ O O O O O 3 C g g To O SZ O O O O O O O p O O O O O $ s g $ M M M 9 m M N C O o Q $ O g O o O O o O O o O o 3 8 O m o 3 p M M M V In 41 M M y VI N O O O O O O Q tl c 1 MC O N r N C NM M A N M M M N g M M M M O O N o O O O O O 88 O ' � 6 l D This mapidrawing is a graphical representation Legend ry of the features depicted and is not a legal Cozy Point Ranch — �.d.1 " representation. The accuracy may change depending on the enlargement or reduction. 0 500 1,000 Feet N ®2002 City of Aspen l i l 7 EXHIBIT MEMORANDUM — -O TO: Board of County Commissioners Regular Meeting—June 26, 2002 THRU: Cindy Houb; Community Development Director FROM: Brian McNellis, Planner RE: Verizon Special Review for a Telecommunications Facility SUMMARY: The Applicant is requesting Special Review approval pursuant to Code Section 3-210 for the construction of a wireless telecommunications facility, including four 4' whip antennas and a I V X 20' equipment shelter. Staff has included as part of this application a 1041 Hazard Review Exemption for the proposed equipment shelter pursuant to Code Section 3-80-020 (A). APPLICANT: Verizon Wireless REPRESENTAIVE: Ann Closser, Closser Consulting LOCATION: 301 Aspen Airport Business Center ZONING/LOT SIZE: B-2 / 19,040 square feet BACKGROUND: Pitkin County is currently in the process of creating specific code language to address future development of telecommunication facilities. This process involves the designation of mapped locations where such development can occur. Staff supports the inclusion of the subject parcel of this application to be considered for telecommunication designation. STAFF COMMENTS: Special Review Standards: A telecommunication facility is considered a Special Review Use within the B-2 zone district and is subject to the following standards pursuant to Section 3-210 of the Land Use Code: A. The special review use shall consider: 1. The applicable County Master Plan; Response: The proposed site is within the mapped scenic foreground area as defined by the Pitkin County Down Valley Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of l � to minimize the visual impacts of limited development which may occur in the foreground so as to obtain an aesthetically pleasing, rural approach to the resorts." The proposed development will have minimal impact on scenic quality as it is not readily visible from Highway 82. 2. County Land Use Policies in Article 2; Response: Community Balance: Pursuant to Code Section 2-10, "the dominant policy of Pitkin County is to conserve and protect from further degradation the present natural environment and its resources. Development which can be accommodated within these limits will be managed to maintain a balance between residential, commercial and tourist accommodations." The Aspen Airport Business Center has been designated as the primary location within Pitkin County where commercial activities occur. The proposal will not create any degradation to the natural environment or its resources. Scenic Ouality: Pursuant to Code Section 2-120, it is "the policy of the County to preserve its natural, rural scenery for the benefit of its residents and the continued viability of its resort economy. To preserve scenic quality, the county will prohibit or require mitigation of the visual impacts of land uses and development." 11 There will be minimal visual impacts associated with the antennas. The facility will be consistent with development that has occurred in the surrounding area. Noise: Pursuant to Code Section 2-150, it is "the policy of the County to permit only that development which will not generate noise which would adversely impact community noise levels." The proposed development will not produce noise other than that produced by an air conditioning system that will be installed to cool the ground equipment. Impacts to Road S sy tern: Pursuant to Code Section 2-190, it is "the policy of the County to preclude development which generates traffic volumes in excess the capacity of the County road system or which causes significant service level reductions." The proposed use will not generate traffic other than for a routine maintenance check twice a month. 3. The intent of the zone district in which it is proposed to be located; Response: The intent of the B-2 zone district is "to provide for the establishment of commercial and low-intensity, non-polluting industrial uses which do not require or generate high customer traffic volumes and to permit customary accessory uses, including high density, long term residential dwelling units." The parcel will continue to be used for commercial use. The additional commercial use, as proposed, will allow the property to be for further commercial activity while generating minimal traffic impacts. 4. The character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhance the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the proposed parcel for development; Response: The proposed antennas will not enhance the visual quality of the surrounding area nor will it highly degrade it. The proposed use is consistent with development that has occurred in the Aspen Airport Business Center. B. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed special review use must be in harmony with the surrounding area and minimize adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties. Response: The proposed facility may have minimal visual impacts on the surrounding environment but will be in harmony with surrounding development. The facility will require only two vehicular visits a month for maintenance. The proposal will not adversely effect pedestrian or vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations, and odors on the parcel or surrounding properties. C. 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 medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools. Response: The location currently provides adequate services to support the proposal. D. An application for a special review use must demonstrate to the Board of County Commissioners that the proposed development will not: I. Materially endanger the public health, safety or welfare; and 2. Substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property. 2D Response. The Applicant has argued that installation of this facility will enhance community safety by providing additional cell phone coverage along the Highway 82 corridor. The Applicant has not demonstrated that the proposal will not injure the value of adjacent or abutting properties. Referral Comments: Joanna Schaffner, Pitkin County Zoning Officer reviewed the application and commented that the proposed equipment storage area must meet all floor area requirements, height and setback requirements for the property. To the best of Staff s knowledge, the proposed facility meets all zoning requirements. John McBride of the AABC Homeowners' Association commented that the association is in support of the project. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the BOCC approve the Verizon Special Review for a Telecommunications Facility as it is in compliance with the proposed telecommunication site standards to be adopted by the County at a future date. ZI . . . . . . . . . . . . . EXHIBIT Closser Consulting Limited Liability Compan 4305 Darlev Avenue Boulder, CO 80305-6027 Tel. 303.554.143, Ann Closser Fax 303.494.0826 Gloria Brown Email: aclosser(widcomm.com May 1, 2002 Brian McNellis Pitkin County Community Development Department 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 By Federal Express Re: Colorado RSA No. 3 Limited Partnership Cellular Facility, 301 Aspen Airport Business Center ("AABC") (Project Name: CO 3 Aspen Airport, Alt. 7) Dear Brian: Consistent with your Pre-application conference summary dated October 1, 2001, I submit the following letter of request on behalf of my client, Colorado RSA No. 3 Limited Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless ("Verizon'). Land Use Process You have advised that special use approval will be required. This will be a one- step process with a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. I am familiar with the County's decision to implement a master plan to facilitate the development of collocated multi-user telecommunication sites. That master plan will take the form of overlay zone districts. In addition to the master plan, the County will enact regulations which will address the siting and design criteria applicable to such developments. However, I understand that the Verizon facility can continue to be processed, notwithstanding the legislative process which is underway. I received an email from Debbie Quinn on April 26 stating that there may be a several month delay for some of the code revisions. Verizon and the Burkholders have taken measures to include the property (301 AABC) on the Telecommunications Overlay ("TEL"). I sent a letter on February 6, 2002 to John Ely, Esq. requesting that the Burkholder property be included in the TEL. Additionally, on January 31, 2002 Craton Burkholder submitted an affidavit to the Planning Department requesting that his property be included on the master plan map. 1 2� He specifically stated his desire to collocate several providers at this location. However, it appears that the TEL and accompanying regulations will not be completed for quite some time. Time is of the essence for Verizon, as the need for improved cellular service along Hwy.82, and specifically at the airport are crucial. For these reasons,Verizon wants to move forward with the processing of this modest installation through the special use process. Facility Description Verizon will occupy the premises pursuant to a lease agreement with Burkholder Investments,Ltd. The property is currently occupied by the Aspen Animal Hospital. The Verizon installation(on the roof and at the rear of the property)will not conflict with the Aspen Animal Hospital use of the property. In fact, additional storage space will be provided for the current tenants, and the rear dirt parking area will be paved. The Verizon facility will have two components;whip antennas and equipment. Verizon proposes to install four whip antennas to the roof of the building. Each antenna will be 4' long and approximately 2"wide. The antennas will be placed in a north/south direction and will be placed 4' apart. The total tip height of the antennas will be 28' from grade. The Verizon cellular equipment will be located in a 11' x 20' shelter made of concrete blocks to match the existing building. An enclosure of comparable dimensions will be placed adjacent to the equipment shelter,to provide additional storage for the existing tenants. The height of the shelter will be 14'6". The shelter and new storage area will be located at the rear of the building, away from the main flow of traffic in the AABC. The facility will be accessed from American Road located to the rear of the property. Parking will be immediately adjacent to the shelter in an area currently used for parking. After the initial period of construction,the facility will be visited only one to two times each month for routine maintenance. The traffic impacts associated with the installation will be minimal. The facility will require telephone service(two T-1 connections)and power(200 amp service). Verizon will arrange for and pay for its own utilities. The telephone pedestal and transformer are located in the southwest corner(rear)of the property. The telephone lines and power will be run in an underground easement from the southwest corner of the property to the cellular facility. The utilities will be located in an existing 10' easement from the landowner to Verizon. There will be no overhead utilities. The facility will not require water or sewer services. Code Criteria I will address the identified Code Criteria: Special Review Criteria Section 3-210 A The special review use shall consider: 1 The applicable County Master Plan The area in question is located within the "scenic foreground" area in the Down Valley Comprehensive Plan. This area is designed to "minimize the visual impacts of limited development which may occur in the foreground so as to obtain an aesthetically pleasing, rural, approach to the resorts." The Verizon facility is consistent with this designation as ?113 it will create minimal, if any, visual impacts in the gateway to Aspen and surrounding resort communities. 2 County Land Use Policies in Article 2 1 will address only the applicable policies in Article 2. The facility will not be manned, water and sewer issues are not relevant. There are no geologic or historic features which will be impacted by the installation. Further, there will be no noise, radiation, wildlife, or air quality issues associated with this development. Section 2-10, Community Balance The cellular facility will provide wireless telecommunications services to the residents of Pitkin County, without any degradation of the natural environment. Further, the facility will promote a balance between commercial, residential, and tourist accommodations. Cellular telephone service is used by a variety of individuals; business, residential uses, and certainly the traveling public. Section 2-120, Scenic Quality The proposed installation will not have any appreciable impact on the rural scenery and continued viability of the resort economy. The traveling public along Hwy. 82 will have only modest views of the antennas. Traveling at normal highway speed, the site will not be noticeable to motorists. The equipment shelter will not be visible to those traveling along the highway. The scenic qualities of the area will not be compromised, to even a slight degree. Section 2-1901mpacts on Road System, 2-230 Transportation There will be minimal construction traffic for a period of six weeks. After that time, a technician will visit the premises one to two times each month for routine maintenance. There will be no appreciable impacts on the existing road system. The facility will not create any congestion on the local streets, and the provision of cellular service will actually promote the safety of traveling motorists. 3. The intent of the zone district. The proposed development will be located in a B-2 zone district. The intent of this zone district is to provide for"the establishment of commercial and low-intensity, non- polluting industrial uses which do not require or generate high customer traffic volumes...." The modest installation, four whip antennas and equipment storage area, is entirely consistent with the intent of this business district. The use is commercial and will generate only nominal traffic. 4 The character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The site will be situate on the Aspen Animal Hospital, a small business enterprise. The site is surrounded by other businesses, including a small AT&T installation. Neighboring businesses include a construction equipment rental establishment, a professional building 3 with several (8-9) professional offices, and also a bakery. The cellular facility will enhance the complimentary mix of uses in the area, low intensity commercial enterprises, with daily business, and some residential traffic. B. 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, parking trash service delivery, noise vibrations and odor on surrounding properties. The operating characteristics of this unmanned installation will have no adverse effects on pedestrians, vehicles,parking, trash, or delivery service. The wireless antennas and equipment will not create any noise or vibrations. The only noise associated with the facility will be an air conditioning unit necessary to maintain an internal temperature less than 70 degrees. Any noise to be generated by the installation will be well in compliance with state standards, and will not impact on-site or off-site land uses. C. There must be adequate public facilities and services to service the special review use including but not limited to roads potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks police fire protection emergency medical services, hospital and medical services drainage systems, and schools. The unmanned facility will place no burdens on public services. The installation will require both power and telephone, yet those services will be installed at the expense of Verizon. The existing phone and utility service will not be diminished by the cellular facility. In fact, the current electric service to the existing building may be enhanced in conjunction with the new Verizon utility line. The facility will have no impacts on water, sewer, parks, police, drainage, schools and emergency service providers. The facility will improve both the availability and reliability of cellular telephone service in the area. Therefore, the Verizon development will actually enhance the provision of emergency services, while placing no appreciable burdens on available public services. D. An application for a special review use must demonstrate to the Board of County Commissioners that the proposed development will not: Materially endanger the public health safety, or welfare; and The facility will enhance the availability of cellular telephone service, not only in the business center, but predominantly along Hwy. 82 and at the airport. The increased wireless telecommunication capabilities will promote the safety and welfare of those residing, working, or traveling within the coverage area. In fact, the increased cellular service will actually facilitate the provision of emergency services, such as police, fire and ambulance services. Substantially iniure the value of adioining or abutting property. The installation will have no impact on the value of adjoining properties. This is a commercial business center, and the 4' whip antennas and storage spaces (for the cellular 4 equipment and also for the existing tenant) cannot conceivably have any impacts to surrounding property values. Section 3-60 Environmental and Aesthetic Standards 3-60-020 Air Ouality The unmanned cellular facility will not have any impacts on air quality. 3-60-030 Preservation of Natural Landscape No off site fill will be used at the site. Less than 50 cubic yards of soil will be disturbed, hence,this standard does not apply to the Verizon development. 3-60-040 Scenic Overlay Brian, you and I have discussed this standard. You advised that the facility will not be located within a scenic overlay. Therefore, I have not addressed the Scenic Overlay conservation measures. 3-60-050 Scenic Ouality A. Visual Damage: Development shall avoid alterations to the natural landscape which are visible from other properties and public use areas. The roof mounted antennas and equipment shelter will not alter any natural landscape visible from other properties and public use areas. B. Landscaping and Lighting: Landscaping and/or outdoor lighting proposals shall comply with the Pitkin County Landscape Guidelines. At the present time, there is no landscaping proposed for the equipment storage areas. The shelter will face a rear alley, adjacent to a parking area. The utility of landscaping in this area is dubious. The shelters will be constructed of concrete to match the adjacent building, therefore mitigating any visual impacts associated with the installation. Landscaping will provide little off-site benefit, and will be difficult to maintain in this area. However, if landscaping is recommended by the Pitkin County planning staff, Verizon will take all reasonable measures to install and maintain the plantings. Any lighting associated with the equipment shelter will be motion sensored This lighting will be similar to other commercial buildings in the AABC. There will be no lighting associated with the antennas. C. Utilities: Install utilities in a manner which minimizes damage to the natural environment. The utilities associated with the installation will be run underground in a 10' utility easement from the southwest corner of the property. D. Scenic Views and Vistas: Preserve scenic views and vistas. The 4' whip antennas, 2" in diameter, extending to 28' from grade will not degrade any scenic view or vistas. 5 2l0 E. Satellite Dishes: Mitigate the visual impacts of satellite dishes by using earth- tone colors screening and siting relative to other land uses. The facility will not employ satellite dishes. However, the antennas will be painted brown to match the existing building. F. Screening Buildings: Use natural topography whenever possible to screen buildings to the maximum extent possible. The site and surrounding topography is essentially flat. However,the existing building will screen the shelter from view—from the front of the property (the area of the highest traffic). G. Topography' Utilize natural topography whenever possible to screen the buildings to the maximum extent possible. Again, the topography will provide little screening potential. However, the design, choice of materials, shelter and antenna placement will all help to mitigate any visual impacts associated with the installation. The antennas will be low in height, slender whips, and painted brown. The equipment and storage shelters will appear to be a part of the existing concrete masonry building, and will not be discernable as a separate use. 3-60-060 Solar Access Not applicable to the four 4' whip antennas. 3-60-070 Reduction in Density for Steep Slopes Not applicable. Thank you for your consideration of this information. Very truly yours, kaa(*�L Ann S. Closser Cc: Ms. Diana Feathers 6 2-7 -. - EXHIBIT 9 2 Y 4 EXISTING VIEW 'a r s ' i veovoseo viLw CO3-ASPEN AIRPORT- ALT 7 SIMULATION '° `p ""°' LOOKING NORTH wwc[r �VRO20 'yVS EXHIBIT AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY - Z TO: Board of County Commissioners le�cO- THRU: Cindy Hou en, Community Development Director FROM: Brian McNellis, Planner RE: Broeder Appeal of Zoning Officer Determination Regarding Floor Area DATE: June 26, 2002 APPLICANT: William Broeder LOCATION: 1940 Red Mountain Road ZONING/LOT SIZE: R-30 / 30,474 sq. ft. SUMMARY: The Community Development Department was recently made aware of an awning that was constructed without a building permit on the existing Broeder residence. The Zoning Officer determined, upon building permit submission, that the awning created residential space that met the definition of floor area in the Pitkin County Land Use Code. Although awnings are not specifically addressed in the code language, the Zoning Office considers awnings to be architectural projections of the roof, which add area and bulk to a structure and therefore should be included in floor area calculations. The Applicant argues that the Zoning Officer's interpretation of floor area is a broad determination and that an awning should not be construed as a roof or a projection thereof. The Broeder property is within the R-30 zone district and is subject to floor area ratio (FAR). This application was continued on November 281h to allow the Applicant to receive counsel regarding seasonal use of the awning. This application was heard again on January 23, 2002, at which time the Board tabled the appeal with consent of the applicant until new language regarding the use of awning was included in the new code language. The Applicant has requested that the appeal be re-heard since the adoption of new code language is taking more time than anticipated. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the BOCC deny the Applicant's appeal of the Zoning Officer's determination of floor area since the awning constitutes an enclosed area of the residence that adds bulk and square footage to the structure. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Zoning Officer letter to Applicant 2. Applicant's Appeal letter 3. Zoning Officer memo to 392C d 4. Architectural plans of awning 5. Staff photos of awning 6. Draft resolution 30 I�TTr4�#�lE�r l August 3 , 200i ASPEN/PITKiN COMMUNRY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Mr . William Broeder C/o Mr . Gene Alder NEILEY & ALDER 201 North Mill Street Suite 102 Aspen, CO 81611 Re : Building Permit 0852 . 2001 Dear Mr . Broeder, As you know, a Correction Notice was issued at 1940 Red Mountain- Road on March 301h because an awning was being erected without a building permit . A building permit application was submitted later the same ,day. As the zoning officer reviewing this application, I have requested that floor area calculations of the existing residence be submitted so that_ I may determine compliance with the floor area requirements of the R-30 zone district . Mr . Alder has asked that I explain my determination that an awning is included in floor area calculations . Enclosed is the definition of Floor Area taken from the Pitkin County Land Use Code . It, explains how floor area is calculated. This definition became effective in June of 1994 with the adoption of the ' 94 Land Use Code . As you can tell by reviewing paragraphs A-G, Floor Area attempts to include all elements that add area and bulk to a structure . For example, below grade areas are exempt up to 4 , 000 square feet since' no mass is evident above the surface . Paragraph B addresses Roof Overhangs and Decks . Awnings are not specifically addressed in this section, but this office views awnings as architectural projections and considers them extensions of the roof . This interpretation is also 130 Sou-a CAL.NA STREET ASPEN,COLORADO 81611-1975 PHONE 970.920.5090 FAA 970.920.5439 I nmee-R,16e Paper, applied to loggias, where the structure may even be partially open to the sky. These interpretations were first made back in 1994 by the County' s Zoning Administrator and author of the definition of Floor Area . They have been consistently applied ever since . If you wish to file an appeal to the administrative determination on this matter, you should contact county planner, Ezra Louthis at 920-5042 . Sincerely, oanna S . Schaffner County Zoning Officer 3v NEILEY & ALDER ppe ATTORNEYS 201 North Mill Street, Suite 102 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Richard Y. Neiley,Jr.,P.C. iy FAX Number 96 Eugene M. Alder, P.C. (970) 925.9393 (97 August 17, 2001 Joanna S. Schaffner and Ezra Louthis Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Dept. 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Building permit 0852.2001 Dear Joanna and Ezra: As you know, this law office represents William Broeder. Mr. Broeder hereby re- quests a hearing with respect to the administrative decision by your department that the deck awning erected at his residence at 1940 Red Mountain Road constitutes"floor area"under the Pitkin County land use code. To the extent that your interpretation requires him to obtain a building permit, or resulted in the denial of the above-referenced building permit, Mr. Broeder wishes to appeal the same. The land use code defines "floor area" as including "the area under the horizontal projection of roofs or floors..." Joanna, your letter to me states that while awnings are not specific- ally addressed in the code, your office still considers them to be roof"extensions"and therefore to be treated the same way as roofs. The fact that the zoning administrator began interpreting the code this way in 1994 does not make it right. By his logic,the canopy created by the large patio umbrellas at Cache Cache and Boogies could probably be considered "floor area," too. Simply put, I do not believe that Colorado law requires or allows governmental restrictions on an owner's use of his real property to be broadly interpreted. In fact, I think that the opposite is true, and that such regulations are to be narrowly construed. Indeed, while the code makes it plain that decks exceeding 30 inches above grade are "floors" for purposes of calculating floor area, it does not make a corollary reference anywhere to awnings being"roofs." The negative implication from this is that they are not, and it would have been a simple matter for the Commissioners to amend the land use code to rectify this omission, if it actually had been one. OCa,nr" Community Development administrative appeal August 17, 2001 Page 2 Thank you for your courtesy and attention to this matter. Please advise me when a hearing date has been scheduled for the appeal. Very truly yours, NEILEY & ALDER Eu ene N : Alder EMA:me cc: Bill Broeder NEILEY & ALDER �7�f HA1tNr ATTORNEYS 201 North Mill Street, Suite 102 Z Aspen, Colorado 81611 Richard Y. Neiley,Jr.,P.C. FAX Number Eugene M. Alder,P.C. (970) 925.9393 (970) 925.9396 February 14, 2002 Joanna S. Schaffner and Brian McNellis Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Dept. 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Appeal from denial of building permit application 0852.2001 Dear Joanna and Brian: As you know, an appeal was lodged by William Breeder last August to your department's determination that a building permit would not be issued for his deck awning because the same constituted new "floor area" under the Pitkin County land use code. Since then, Joanna, you have characterized the appeal as relating solely to your interpretation of the code, and not to the denial of his building permit. This characterization is not accurate. Mr. Broeder's appeal was lodged pursuant to Subsection 4-160-010 of the land use code, which provides: Any applicant for a development permit or other affected party may appeal an approval, conditional approval or denial of a development application no later than 15 working days of the decision. In your letter to Mr.Breeder of August 7,2001,Joanna, you provided the reasons for your interpretation of the code as requiring the area under his awning to be included as "floor area." You concluded your letter with a statement advising Mr. Breeder that if he wished to appeal this administration determination, he should contact Ezra Louthis. This was accomplished by virtue of my letter to you and Mr. Louthis of August 17, 2001. The above-referenced section of the code does not provide for appeals except as they relate to approvals, conditional approvals, or denials of development applications. It does not allow appeals to be made simply from adverse"code interpretations"by your department. Consequently, I do not understand why you have characterized Mr. Broeder's appeal as such. If, after reviewing this letter,there is any reason that you still believe Mr. Broeder's building permit application for his Letter to Ms. Schaffner and Mr. McNellis February 14, 2002 Page 2 awning was not "denied" by your department last year, e.g., some administrative step was not performed by you, I need to be advised of the same immediately. Thank you. Very truly yours, NEILEY & ALDER Eu ne . AIder EIvIA:me cc: Bill Broeder John Ely, Esquire 3� M E M O R A N D U M3 TO : Brian McNellis, Planning FROM: Joanna S . Schaffner, Zoning DATE: November 21, 2001 RE: Broeder appeal to an administrative decision 2737-063-03-001 Regarding the Broeder appeal to my decision to include awnings as floor area, I offer the following comments : The Pitkin County Land Use Code' s definition -of ` Floor Area" states in part : "B . Roof Overhangs and Decks : The floor area of a building, or portion thereof, not provided with surrounding exterior walls shall include the area under the horizontal projection of roofs or floors, when the roof or floor exceeds five feet (5' ) . These architectural projections are exempt for five feet (5' ) of the perimeter of each story of the structure . Architectural projections may project up to ten feet (10' ) and still be exempt, so long as the total perimeter space for a floor is less than or equal to the total area allowed for the five foot (5' ) exemption. This exemption cannot be used to transfer space between floors ." Although not specifically identified in the definition, the decision to include awnings, trellises, loggias, etc. under " horizontal, architectural projections" in floor area dates back to 1994 when this definition was first adopted, and has been consistently applied ever since. ( In fact, the issue was first raised when the Cantina constructed their loggia in the early 19901s . ) In the BOCC meetings held during the moratorium of 2000, a discussion was held on whether these areas should continue to be calculated. Recognizing the potential impacts of such development if not regulated, the BOCC decided to count all architectural projections greater than 5 feet in the rural area, and to allow up to 10 feet in the UGB area with the above restriction. 3� Since horizontal projections have been reduced to five feet in the rural area, architects have complained about this language being applied to loggias and trellises . When the allowance was greater, this interpretation was not so much of an issue for the rural area. Since the allowance in the UGB continues to be generous, and architects, therefore, enjoy greater design flexibility, the interpretation has not been an issue in the UGB until now. The subject awning covers approximately 900 square feet . Of this total area, approximately 600 square feet is contained in areas further than 5 feet away from the exterior wall of the existing residence . As much as 300 square feet of this total may be exempt from the calculation of floor area pursuant to the above definition, however, the applicant has not submitted information on existing decks and overhangs to determine compliance . If calculated, this awning may add 300-600 square feet_ to the existing residence . Please note that subsequent to the red-tag being issued, the applicant installed canvas walls along the outer portion of the awning (see attached photos) . If the present interpretation continues, the walls may add even more square footage to the residence, since the ' overhang" may have been converted to enclosed space . 3g Feb 02 02 01 : 24p ARCHITECTURAL AWNING 3037918570 p. 2 AiwocoT In -� co PQ y t"� zqw E-co �7 N F N U W A \ P N Q U � 0iv m z I J � � U I aQ a 3wo i � N O vi ti vi ON yy o mp II I vp C] K I ui` C i W m cli � II IIto II I H c w oLo II I II c\lI :\ c� II o E U ir4 co co I vi U -Gfdr�UY' LEVELOFMEh w P, I n r�wzz I � w�caF + 'Q cif-- z � aN �' l 7.j 1+tT`" YM�".+`rxrt'.Ir �'.v�Y' <v Q a �"i• C ♦• a. / •l� s ,�a• I«. ,� � 1., � x y �.t't!. 1 _ r " �' (gyp ��.r ' ' � � y fa .dry ' . ~•,t . 'r�'� < •< l • 4:7.etlS•i r '. .. r, , 'y��'r 6A t�S. ''�e' . .� M , ,F.�Y t��•,et �i�\ fY ,1r , �! u•/Y^ l �.R• s „ ' I`�lr. Wes`/r � C4�Y �.' .. / �`' " t K� ass fr� +ti P e °'^s'='R ".SIs - . •• . s t"M,a•! � •"' a •J , � .. ,l �'� 4(Y.6•w"+ r ,. ,; f40000 ,#rmcknN T" RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE ZONING OFFICER DETERMINATION OF THE BROEDER AWNING AS CREATING ADDITIONAL FLOOR AREA Resolution No. -2002 RECITALS 1. William Broeder has applied to the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners (`BOCC") to consider an appeal of a determination by the Pitkin County Zoning Officer that a constructed awning on his property meets the definition of floor area and shall be calculated as such. 2. The property is located at 1940 Red Mountain Road. 3. The property is zoned R-30 and contains 30,474 square feet. 4. The BOCC heard this appeal at a duly noticed public meeting on November 28, 2001, January 23, 2002 and June 26, 2002 at which time evidence and testimony were presented with respect to this appeal. 5. The BOCC denied the appeal since the awning is an extension of the roof that results in additional square footage within the existing residence. Resolution No._-2002 Page 2 APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2002. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Lyndee R. Dean, Patty Kay-Clapper, Deputy Clerk and Recorder Chair Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: C John Ely, Cind Houben, County Attorney Community Development Director Case#P146-01 PID#273706303001 EXHIBIT fly M E M O R A N D U M �Q To: Board of County Commissioners Thru: Cindy Houben, Community Development Director FROM: Joanna S . Schaffner DATE: June 26, 2002 RE: Stonehenge Star Properties, LP - Appeal of a staff interpretation resulting in the denial of a Building Permit Parcel ID# 2735-261-00-004 History: In September 2000, Pitkin County entered into a Stipulation agreement with the owner of 202 Midnight Mine Road, Mary Ralph Lowe . In Stipulation in Pitkin County v. Stonehenge, 99 CV 39-1, Stonehenge relinquished its right to construct a 15, 000 square foot residence in exchange for two 2, 500 square foot single-family residences plus a 500 square foot garage and 500 square foot below grade space for each residence. The stipulation specifically noted that floor area calculation was to be based on the definition in effect in 1992 . This 1992 definition simply stated that floor area is the ,Area included within the surrounding exterior wall surface of a building or portion thereof, exclusive of courts . The floor area of a building, or portion thereof, not provided with surrounding exterior walls shall be the usable area under the horizontal projection of the roof or floor above" . In a 1993 memo from Francis Krizmanich to the BOCC, Francis explains how this definition has given rise to numerous and varied interpretations over the years . " In response to this problem the Zoning Staff developed an interpretation of "Useable" floor area a few years ago . This interpretation is : "The following section identifies specific building areas that are not clearly defined and how the Zoning Office will calculate these area: A. The floor area in these areas is counted in full : 1 . Living spaces; 2 . Basement areas over five feet six inches (5' 6" ) in height; 3 . Mechanical rooms; 4 . That portion of porch, deck, or roof overhangs which exceed three feet (3' ) ; 5. Stairwells, chimneys, dumbwaiters, etc. B. The floor area in the following areas is excluded from FAR: 1 . Crawl spaces, basements, and attics under a height of five feet six inches (5' 6" 0) ; 2 . Uncovered decks and terraces which are less than five feet six inches above grade; 3 . Atriums/courts/interior open areas; and/or 4 . Space less than three feet (3' ) under the horizontal projection roofs, porches, and decks ." PRESENT: Earlier this year, the applicant submitted a building permit application for a 2, 500 square foot house plus a 500 square foot below grade area, and a 500 square foot garage. The zoning office interpreted an attached gazebo (see attached plan) as an overhang, exempted the first three feet and included the remaining portion in the calculation of floor area. The house then exceeded the allowed 2, 500 square feet by 100 square feet . The Zoning Office required a reduction in the proposed floor area. The applicant removed the gazebo and the permit was issued. However, the applicant wishes to retain the gazebo, and is therefore appealing the staff determination and applying for an amendment to the stipulation, arguing that "it was never intended that more stringent prior regulations should be applied." Today, up to five feet of overhang can be exempted from floor area calculations in the county' s rural area. Approving the amendment has no significant impacts to the county as the total allowed floor area for this parcel is still less than that allowed by the AFR-10 zone district. Applying a 5 foot exemption to the gazebo results in an additional 74 square feet beyond the allowed 2, 500 square feet. RECO14-IENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the appeal as staff believe its interpretation to be correct, but staff does not object to an amendment to the stipulation approval to apply the five foot overhang exemption on this parcel as it is applied throughout the county' s rural area, and to allow the 2500 square foot floor area allowance to be exceeded by the square footage necessary to allow the proposed gazebo (approximately 74 square feet) . �3 gob- ............ ------------------------ --------- ---- --- -------- ------------------- L------------------------- -------------------r -------- ------------------- I JACK MLLER AND AS ! NEILEY & ALDER EXH BIT ATTORNEYS 201 North Mill Street, Suite 102 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Richard Y. Neiley,Jr.,P.C. FAX Number Eugene M. Alder,P.C. (970) 925.9393 (970) 925-9396 May 15, 2002 Joanna S. Schaffner and Ezra Louthis Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Dept. 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Appeal from denial of building permit application 0382.2002 Dear Joanna and Ezra: As you know, this law office represents Stonehenge Star Properties, LP. My client hereby requests a hearing with respect to the administrative decision by your department to include certain architectural features of the proposed cabin within the land use code's definition of"floor area." As I understand it from Jack Miller, the project architect, that while these amenities would not be considered"floor area"under the current code,they were pursuant to the 1992 code. Because of their inclusion, you did not approve Stonehenge's plans as submitted because the cabin's floor area purportedly exceeded what the parties' settlement stipulation allows. In executing the stipulation, the parties did not intend that more stringent land use regulations from 1992 be applied to reduce the size of the applicant's proposed residence any more than current regulations would. Rather, the reference to the 1992 regulations in the stipulation was intended to prevent the application of more stringent regulations which could conceivably be enacted inthefuture. Stonehenge voluntary released nearly two-thirds of its building rights in the stipulation, which was a tremendous boon for the County. To the extent that your interpretation of the stipula- tion resulted in the denial of the above-referenced building permit as originally submitted, Stonehenge wishes to appeal the same. It seems to me that your interpretation of the parties' stipulation does not appear to be consistent, Joanna. On the one hand, you have said that the 1992 land use code would be strictly applied to restrict Stonehenge's use of its property,notwithstanding other language in the stipulation which references "net livable space" and would allow a larger residence to be built. On the other hand, you have chosen to ignore the stipulation's requirement that the building permit should be issued prior to the applicant's execution and recordation of a deed restriction, because of your department's later administrative determination requiring a deed restriction to be recorded first. I Community Development administrative appeal May 15, 2002 Page 2 don't see how you can reconcile your strict construction of the stipulation in one instance and completely ignoring its express terms in another. Finally, I do not believe that Colorado law requires or allows governmental restrictions on an owner's use of its real property to be broadly interpreted. In fact, the opposite is true, and such restrictions are to be narrowly construed in accordance with C.R.S. § 38-34-103 (see attached statute). Paragraph 4 of the stipulation says two different things. First, it says that the cabins may be up to 2,500 square feet in size,with"floor area"calculated pursuant to the 1992 land use code. Then, it says that the cabins may have up to 2,500 square feet of"net livable space" calculated in accordance with the 1992 regulations. As you know, "floor area" and "net livable space" are not synonymous terms. The 1988 land use code defined "floor area" as "Area included within the surrounding exterior wall surface of a building or portion thereof, exclusive of courts. The floor area of a building, or portion thereof, not provided with surrounding exterior walls shall be the usable area under the horizontal projection of the roof or floor above." "Net livable space," on the other hand, is the interior square feet of living area(interior floor area minus interior walls). This term is defined by the county housing guidelines rather than the code, and conforms with general usage. If there is a conflict between these two terms, then the more expansive definition should have been applied to Stonehenge's building permit application, not the more restrictive. Thank you for your courtesy and attention to this matter. Please advise me when a hearing date has been scheduled for the appeal. Very truly yours, NEILEY & ALDER EMA:me e .Eug Alder enclosure cc: Stonehenge Star Properties, LP Jack Miller Page I of 1 Home Edit Search New Search S 38-34-103 - Building or use restrictions strictly construed. I Building restrictions and all restrictions as to the use or occupancy of real property shall he strictly construed, and restrictions which provide for the forfeiture or defeasance of title to or janiinterest in real property because of the violation of the restrictions on other real property and i the parcels of real property are owned by different persons or individuals shall be construed as applying only to the property embraced in the restriction and owned by the party on whose property the violation of the restriction occurred. Source: L. 27: p. 606, § 46. CSA: C. 40, § 153. CRS 53: § 118-8-3. C.R.S. 1963: l 18-8-3. C.J.S. See 26 C.J.S.- needs. $ ti 66, 147, 163. Law reviews. For note, "The Effect of Tax Titles Upon Easements and Restrictions Upon the Use of Land in Colorado", see 33 Dicta 228 (1956). For article, "Subdivision", see 28 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 471 (1956). Under this section, any doubt relative to the meaning and application of a covenant must be resolved in favor of unrestricted use of property and all restrictions relative to the use or occupancy of real property must be strictly construed. Covenant provision that allowed two horses or bovine animals to be kept on a lot of five or less acres" did not prohibit sheep from being maintained on such a lot. Dunne v. Shenandoah Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., 12 P.3d 340 (Colo.App. 2000). Phrase "single-family dwelling" in restrictive covenant is a structural restriction c--d not a use restriction. Double D Manor v. Evergreen Meadows, 773 P.2d 1046 (Colo. 1989). Use of single-family dwelling as group home for developmentally disabled children is a residential use and does not violate residential use requirement of restrictive covenant. Double D Manor v. Evergreen Meadows, 773 P.2d 1046 (Colo. 1989). }fome Edit Search New Search http://64.78.178.125/cgi-dos/statdsnp.exe?N&srch=38-34-1 01,e-,=t n.e,�-')t ,ofa.,..—, �� EXHIBIT � April 30, 2002 Mr. Gene Alder - C/o NEILEY 6 ALDER 201 North Mill Street Aspen, CO 61611 ASPEN/PITKIN Re: Stonehenge - COMMUNRY DEVELOPMENT DEPAW EW Dear Gene, This letter is in response to your request for a determination of how floor area regulations were applied in my review of building permit application #0382.2002, for a single-family residence for Mary Ralph Lowe, to be located at 202 Midnight Road. Pursuant to the Stipulation in Pitkin County v. Stone,henge, .99 CV 39-1, floor area on this parcel is to be calculated pursuant to the County' s definition of floor area in 1992 . The 1992 Code defines Floor Area as - the "area included within the surrounding exterior .wall surface of a building or portion thereof, exclusive of courts . The floor area of a - building, or portion thereof, not provided with surrounding exterior -walls shall be the usable area under the horizontal projection of the roof or floor above." - As you can imagine, Zoning was dressed upon to define "usable area" . I'm not sure exactly how, it may have just been a written staff policy, but at some point "usable area" morphed into a three foot overhang exemption. , If I apply a three foot exemption to the proposed attached gazebo, roughly 100 square ,feet will apply toward floor area. Using today' s overhang exemption of 5 feet. still results in an increase of roughly 74 square feet of floor area. This uses all ofthe 25.5 square feet of - remaining floor area. I encourage the architect to provide more exact numbers, but it appears that an increase from the allowed 2500 square feet is necessary regardless 'of which definition is applied. Incidentally, the proposed exterior lighting plan does not comply with ordinance 99-6.0, and the recording of a deed restriction for the existing residence pursuant to the above referenced stipulation has .not yet occurred. These outstanding items will hold up the issuance,cf .the building permit. - I hope this letter addresses your concerns.. If not, please call me at 920-5105 . Sincerely, . Aoanna S. Schaffner County Zoning Officer 130 SOVTN GALENA STREET ASPEN,COLORADO E1611-1975 PHONE 970.920.5090 FA 970.920.3439 �� APR-19-02 FRI 12:35 PM Neiley & Alder FAX NO. 970+925+9396 P. 02 EXHIBIT NEILEY & ALDER 201 North Mill Street, Suite 102 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Richard Y. Nelley, Jr. (970) 925-9393 [utlene M. Alder Fax (970) 925-9396 April 2, 2002 VIA IrAC'S11V ILF: 920-5195 ,lohm P.[y, Esquire Pitkin C'aunty Attorney 530 Vasl Main Street, Suilu 301 Aspen, Coloratlu 81011 he: Stipulation in Pilkin County v. Stonehenge, 99 CV 39-1 Deal-Jol m: '['his letter is a follow up to our telephone conversation of last Friday. As 1 advised you, my client recently filed a building permit application with the Pitkin County Community Development departmcut in order to be able to cemmcucc construction of a cabin upon its property on Midnight Miuc head. In September 2000, Stonehenge and the County stipulated that my client wauid he allowed to build two, 2,500 square foot cabins in exchange for its relinquishment of a devclopmcnt right to build one 15,000 square foot residence. Other considerations were also provided, including my client's agreement to settle the pending bridge condemnation case for 514,700 instead of the$l 10,000 tc which ik was entitled. The settlement stipulation provided,inter alia, as follows: 4. Stonehenge al,rces to relinquish its existing site approval which presently allows it to build a 15,060 square (out residence on the Property on the cast side of Castle Crock. In exchanl;c,Pitkin County agrees that Sionehenne shall be allowed to build iwo, 2,500 square foot, single-family residences oil the Property on the east side of Castle Creek,with"floor area"calculated under the land use regulations in effect as oflhe date of the original 1041 approval for the parcel in 1992; provided,however, that Stonchcrr-c acknowledges and agrees that each site shall contain no more,than 2,500 square feet of uvt livahle space,plus 500 square feet of garage space, and 500 square feet of below grade space (in each case, calculated in accordance with the al'orcmundoncd 1992reguiations). Stonr;hcnge'srclinquishmentof its existing right to build shall not become effective unless and until the County has approved Stonehenge's 1041 hazard review application as provided in the followingparagraph. I APR-19-02 FRI 12:35 PM Neiley & Alder FAX NO. 970+925+9396 P. 03 Lot lcr to Mr. Fly April 2, 2002 page 2 Stottcltengo's pending building permit application includes certain architectural fcatures which the Community Development department has included in the calculation of the eahia's floor area. Joanna Schaffner has indicated that while these amenities would not be considored "Iloor arca" under the current code, they were pursuant to the 1992 code. Because: of Ihcir inolusioru, Ms. Scllaf ter hm not approved Stonehenge's plans as submiuedbecause, she says, tbr. cabirl's floor area exceeds what, lho parties' settlement stipulation allows, I,amgraph h of the stipulation says two different things. hirst, it says that the cabins lnay be up to 2,500 square feet in size, with "floor area" calculated pursuant to the 1992 land use cock. Then,it says that the cabins mayhave up to 2,500 square feel of"net livable space"calculated in ucconlancc with the 1992 regulations. As you]snow, "floor area"and "net livable space"are not synonymous, terms. The 1989 land use code defined "floor area" as "Area included within the sunouudingexteriorwall surface oFabuildingor portion thereof,exclusive ofcourts. The floor area of a hrlildinl„ or portion thereof, not provided with surrounding exterior walls shall be the usable arca under the horizontal projection of the roof or floor above." "Net livable spaco,"oil the other hand, is the i tit crior square Feel oI']iving area(interior floor area minus interior walls). This term is (Ioliucd by the county housing guidelines rather than lho code, and conforms with general usage. It is now apparent that the settlement stipulation that Debbie Quinn and I drafted contains an ambiguity. Our intent, which you may verify with Debbie,was that Stonehenge would be ably to build two modest cabins in place, of one very large residence, and by referencing pro- existing'regulations we meant to avoid the possibility ofmore stringent regulations being enacted, as is currently contemplated. It was never intended that more stri ngent prior regulations should be applied. Stoncliengo voluntary released nearly two-thirds of its building rights in the stipulation, which was a tremorudous boon for the County, but this building permit issue may force file parties back into court. Pleaso he assured that 1 have no desire to revisit this matter with thejudge in order pre,:elvuth stipuintion'selllbl(lllty. lii:ncc,tproposcasacompromisethatthcCounlyagrecihat the 1992 rcgulaf ions apply ex cop Ito the extent that they are more stringent than current regulations, and Slonehungc will acknowledge that the 2,500 square foot sire linutation applies to "floor area" anti clot to "eet livable space," lfwo can agree to do this,the matter will be completely resolved. Thank you for your courtesy and attention to this matter. Please give rue it call when you have had an opportunity to review this letter. Very truly yours, N HULEY R ALDER ) e,UgC11C- M Alder LiA'(A:nuc cc: William Solomon, Esquire �O EXHIBIT AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY TO: Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Cindy Houben, Corrummity Development Director FROM: Lance Clarle, Assistant Director SUB.IECT: Sawmill Hill Parcels 2,4,5,6 Remediation of Taking DATE: June 26, 2002 REQUEST: Consideration of proposed resolution of remediation of a taking on the Sawmill Hill parcels 2,4,5,6. APPLICANT: Karl Hipp, Parcel 2; Theodore Allegra, Parcel 4; Caryn Crague, Parcel 5; Cecil Delaoch, Parcel 6. LOCATION: South of Redstone, above Cleveholm Manor. APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Cindy Tester, Attorney at Law BACKGROUND/ DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: In 1999, the Sawmill Hill Group (Robert McCormick, Karl Hipp, William Argeros, Theodore Allegra, Caryn Crague, Cecil Deloach) applied for 1041 Hazard Review for 6 lots on "Sawmill Hill". Prior to a decision being rendered by the Hearing Officer, McCormick and Argeros withdrew from the application. In February, 2000, the Hearing Officer denied the application for the 4 remaining lots due to presence of slopes exceeding 30% in the building envelopes, and a proposed access that could not meet county standards without impacting slopes exceeding 30%. The Applicants appealed under the Takings provisions of the Code. The BOCC made a finding of no taking in April, 2000. The Applicants subsequently filed suit. In December, 2000, the BOCC rescinded the resolution that found no taking had occurred, and after reconsideration of the facts, determined that a taking had occurred. The attached resolution is a proposed remediation of the taking that has been discussed with the Applicants. There are several items in the proposed remediation resolution which have been requested by the Applicant which are not the norm for 1041 conditions; 1) Utility lines are not 5-1 required to be buried. 2) Road improvements will not be to county standards. 3) The conditions may be relied on for 5 years. Staff will discuss these items at the meeting. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the BOCC adopt a motion, "approving the remediation resolution for Sawmill Hill". At1. �tion Mat Art.40 FI t b lancet/sawmillhill 1041 memo.doe 2 �� EXHIBIT MEMORANDUM TO: Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners Regular Meeting—June 26, 2002 THRU: Cindy Houben, o wuty Development Director FROM: Brian McNellis, Planner RE: Spencer, Lot 14, 1041 Hazard Review and Conceptual Submission Takings Determination SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The Applicant requested 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 June 18, 2002, for Lot 14 of the Section 36 Subdivision. The Applicant contends the denial constitutes a taking of private property without just compensation. The Applicant is requesting 1041 Hazard Review, Conceptual Submission approval to establish a building envelope for the construction of a single-family residence. The location of the proposed building envelope cannot be accessed without crossing slopes in excess of 30 percent. APPLICANT: Paul Spencer LOCATION: The property is located off the south side of East Sopris Creek Road in Section 36 (T8S, R87W). The property is more specifically described as Lot 14 of Section 36 Subdivision. ZONING/LOT SIZE: The property is zoned RS-30 PUD. Lot 14 is 38.408 acres and is 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. " 53 Section 4-150 of the Code requires that the Applicant 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 Applicant requests a takings determination pursuant to Code section 4-150 and has addressed the criteria of Code section 5-220-010 in the attached letter. The Applicant contends that the Hearing Officer's denial of the application has denied him all beneficial use and economic return on the property. ISSUES RELATED TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: Issues related to the proposed development on the subject property have been fully addressed in staff s memorandum to the Hearing Officer dated June 18, 2002. The Hearing Officer, upon the finding that the proposed access traverses slopes greater than 30 percent, denied the application pursuant to Section 3-80- 050 (C) of the Land Use Code. 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 and access road 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. The BOCC shall direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval or denial based on their final ruling. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Letter from Applicant's representative regarding takings determination 2. Gepyofi` inP'Af4i- T)-termination ho f lode ed 3. Staff s memo to the Hearing Officer ' 06/20/02 03i17A P.001 BOUNDARIES UNLIMITED INC June 21, 2002 # , Board of Pitkin County Commissioners a c/o Mr. Brian McNellis Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Request for a Takings Determination Spencer 1041 Hazard Review and Conceptual Submission Kergonvo Properties, LLC Properties, Lot 14, Majestic Peaks Pointe Subdivision Exemption Plat Dear Commissioners, On behalf of the applicant, 1 hereby request a Takings Hearing before the Board of County Commissioners scheduled on June 26, 2002 for the above referenced property. The Pitkin County Hearing Officer denied the Spencer 1041 Hazard Review and Conceptual Submission application for Lot 14 on June 18, 2002 based on access couldn't be achieved without traversing slopes in excess of 30 percent, which is prohibited pursuant to Code Section 3-80-050 (C)(1). I contend that the denial of my application by the Hearing Officer constitutes a taking of the private property. The owner of the above referenced property is willing to comply with the conditions to mitigate impacts as recommended by Planner Mr, Brian McNellis. This request for a Taking Hearing is submitted pursuant to Pitkin County Land Use Code, which directs an Applicant that has been denied use of his property to petition the Board for consideration pursuant to Section 3-290(Takings Determination)of the Land Use Code. The following information is respectfully submitted to comply with the requirements of Section 5-220-010 of the Code. Code:A.A written request for a hearing: Response: This letter constitutes a written request. Code:H.An identification of the property and the property interest adwarsely affected by the determination: Response: Lot 14, Majestic Peaks Pointe Subdivision Exemption Plat, in the southeast '/4 of Sec 36, Township 8 South,Range 87 West of the 6 Principal Meridian, Pitkin County, State of Colorado, being more fully described in Book 59,Page 12 of the Pitkin County Records. Code: C. Pact and Current uses of the property: Response: The 38,408 acre property is currently unimproved and has been used for agricultural purposes. 0401 Road 1498,Glenwood Springs,CO 81601 PH: (970)379-8362 FX:(970)945-5252 • 06/20/02 03i17R P.002 Code: D. The petitioner's original purchave price for the property: Response: Property was purchased for$131,250, r Code:E The assessed valuation of the property Response: The assessed Value of the property for the year 2001 is $180,000. Code: r Appraisals and/or preliminary estimates of value made on the property: Response: The property is currently worth $485,000. Adjacent Lot 13 is under contract for$367,000, which has lesser views. Code: G. Current Mortgage principal, balance and interest rate: Response: Principal &balance is $86,250 at an interest rate of 6.5 percent. Code: H. Past Income generated by the property and expenses relating to the property: Response: Past income generated prior to current ownership is unknown, but was probably very minimal at best. Presently, no income is generated from this property, Total current expenses to date related to this property is$85,460 which includes taxes for $6,000, access road improvements for$31.,000, power improvements for$30,000. Landscape (trees) improvements for $400, Well Permit for $60 and 1041 application (planning, engineering, surveying, title search and fees) for S18,000. Code:L Ownership structure for the propery(partnership, corporation, etc): Response: Property currently owned by a Limited Liability Company (LI C). Code:J. Gutter's tax bracket: Response: 30 percent Code: K. Rental value of the property with and without the offending determination. Response: zero Code: L. Sale value of the property with and without the offending determination: Response: Value with offending determination is$10,000; Value without offending determination is $485,000. Code:M.Arty other information bearing on the diferenee in the value of the property with antl without the offending delerminationc Response: Potential use of property with offending determination would be agricultural (grazing),Potential use of property without offending determination would be a very private single-family residence. Sincerely, BOUNDARIE 11v1TTBD INC. ce . Lewr , Project Manager A�-,�cN2�Wr MEMORANDUM TO: Jim True,Pitkin County Hearing Officer FROM: Brian McNellis, Planner RE: Spencer 1041 Hazard Review and Conceptual Submission DATE: June 18,2002 REQUEST: The applicant requests 1041 Hazard Review and Conceptual Submission approval to establish building envelopes for single-family residences and customary accessory structures on Lots 13 and 14 of Section 36. The application also entails the construction of a driveway to access the proposed building envelope on lot 13 and the improvement of an existing right of way and utility easement to access the proposed building envelope on Lot 14. APPLICANT: Paul Spencer LOCATION: The properties are located on the south side of East Sopris Creek road in Section 36 (TBS, R87W). ZONING/LOT SIZE: The properties are zoned RS-30 PUD. Lot 13 contains 35.155 acres and Lot 14 contains 38.408 acres. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Comments from the Pitkin County Wildlife Biologist,Division of Wildlife, Colorado State Forest Service, the Engineer and Basalt Fire District are incorporated throughout this memo. 1041 HAZARD REVIEW: ENVIRONMENTAL&AESTHETIC STANDARDS (SECTION 3-60): Preservation of Natural Landscape: The Applicant proposes building envelopes that will be well hidden from any viewplane associated with East Sopris Creek Road. Solar Access: Although mostly west facing, the location of the building envelopes allows for limited utilization of solar exposure. Scenic Overlay/Scenic Quality: The property is not within a mapped scenic area. Development within the proposed building envelopes will not be visible from any major corridors. WATER RESOURCES (SECTION 3-70): Water Supply: The Applicant has proposed individual wells for each of the lots. 1041 HAZARD REVIEW (SECTION 3-80): Wildfire: The properties have been mapped as a severe wildfire hazard area with scattered areas medium and low wildfire hazard. It appears to staff that the proposed building envelopes are situated in severe s7 hazard areas. John Denison of the Colorado State Forest Service visited the property and made no mention as to whether each of the building envelopes were rated low,medium, or severe hazard. Mr. Derision did mention that the service road to the lots is surrounded by severe wildfire hazard. He seemed to have little concern with the locations of the proposed building envelopes. Development within severe wildfire hazard areas is prohibited pursuant to Code Section 3-80-070 (A). Vince Urbina of the Colorado State Forest Service reviewed the comments and rated Lots 13 and 14 as medium wildfire hazard based on the comments of Mr. Denison. Geologic: The property contains steep slopes in excess of 30 percent. The proposed building envelopes entirely avoid these steep slopes. However,the proposed access road and recorded easement to Lot 14 traverses slopes in excess of 30 percent,which is prohibited pursuant to Code Section 3-80-050 (C) (2). Wildlife: Both Lots 13 and 14 have been mapped for elk production areas; this was not however verified in the field. Jonathan Lowsky, the Pitkin County Wildlife Biologist, and Kevin Wright from the Division of Wildlife visited the site with staff. Both were concerned with the elk-and mule deer migration routes that exist on the property and wanted assurance that development would not encroach into these areas (especially on the east side of the ridge that cuts through Lot 14). Mr. Wright agreed with the location of the building envelope for Lot 13,but wanted to limit development on the proposed building envelope for Lot 14,to the northern '/2 to avoid a migration route for elk and mule deer. It was also mentioned that the area is vital habitat for bears and mountain lions. Conditions of approval as suggested by the Division of Wildlife and the Wildlife Biologist are incorporated into the attached Hearing Officer determination. IMPROVEMENTS & SERVICES (SECTION 3-110): Water& Sewer: The Applicant proposes to install an individualized septic system on each of the lots. Access: The property is accessed from"Section 36"road, which intersects with East Sopris Creek Road. The road is improved up to the Spencer property where the applicant proposes to construct a driveway from Lot 13. The Applicant proposes also to extend Section 36 Road to access the proposed building envelope for Lot 14. The established access easement for access to Lot 14 traverses slopes in excess of 30 percent, which is prohibited pursuant to Code Section 3-80-050 (C) (1). Public Utilities: the Applicant plans to utilize wind energy to generate electricity for each of the lots. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Spencer 1041 Hazard Review and Conceptual Submission for Lot 13 subject to the conditions of approval in the attached draft Hearing Officer Determination. Staff further recommends denial to Lot 14 since access cannot be achieved without traversing 30 percent slopes, which is prohibited pursuant to Section 3-80-050 (C) (2) of the Pitkin County Land Use Code. TTACHENTS: 1. M Colorado State Forest Service letter Division of Wildlife letter ✓3. Wildlife Biologist memo (� Draft Determination July 10, 2001 FOREST SERVICE Paul Spencer State Services Building P.O. Box 491 222 S.6th Street, Room 416 Basalt, CO 81621 Grand Junction,Colorado 81501 Telephone:(970)248-7325 Re: 4 Lots in Section 36 Dear Mr. Spencer We visited the proposed building envelopes on lots 13, 14, 15, and 16 on Jun 19, 2001. The access road leading to these lots is perhaps the most severe wildfire hazard: There are heavy, continuous, brushy fuels on both sides of this road in many places, with steep slopes leading up to the road_ The oak, serviceberry and snowberry on the downhill side, in particular, of this road should be thinned according to the enclosed standards. Additionally, the road should at least meet "Driveway Standards" and have multiple ingress and egress as well as turnouts to provide for passage of two vehicles. For example: for a 21-40% slope the shrubs should be thinned and maintained to standard for a distance of at least 150 ft. On the individual lots there were good building envelopes that had little natural continuity of fuel and moderate slope. The map you showed to me had CDOW recommendations for building envelopes. From a wildfire hazard perspective, sometimes I could agree with their locations, but often not. Specifically: Lot 13: This building envelope was on a gentle slope with few hazardous fuels needing treatment.Ay,eP/rtirv- Lot 14: Envelope location was good, provided shrubs could be thinned to standard (enclosed).ME�Plu-N Lot 15: From a wildfire hazard standpoint, a preferable building location would be higher on the slope, away from the heavier fuels. 5c yIEi Lot 16: Again, from a wildfire perspective a better envelope would be out of the saddle (which would funnel a wildfire through) and closer to the slope leading up to the lot, but set back at least 100 feet from the edge of the slope. There is a bald spot in this area that - would be good because little additional vegetative treatment would be needed_ A�&FZVC�� Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposal. Sincerely, John W. Denison District Forester cc: Bruce Lewis, Boundaries Unlimited Tamara Pregl, Community Development Dept. STATE OF COLORADO Bill Owens,Govemor G00�O DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Russell George,Director ON OF 6080 Broadway For Wildlife- Telephone:Denver,Colorado 90216 (303)297-1192 Far People 4-06-02 Pitkin County Community Development 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Spencer 1041 Dear Brian: These lots are at the upper end of the See. 36 subdivision and lie within elk and mule deer travel routes, migration pattern, and winter range. Winter range use is restricted to mild and light winters, except for the south facing slopes and the area south of the ridgeline of lots 14, 15, and 16. 'There are a series of 3 knobs or high points within these lots with saddles or low areas between these high points. These saddles are beavity used by elk and deer during their daily movements, as well as, during migration movements. The sagebrush covered hills are heavily browsed as well as areas with southerly exposure. This area also lies within mule deer and elk transitional range. Currently, there is little disturbance as it is at the end of the Sec. 36 subdivision and receives little traffic. Black bear inhabit the area and will forage within the mountain shrub habitat. Mountain lion also inhabit the area. Development of the site should try to avoid south facing slopes and the saddle areas. The maps contained within the application were difficult to interpret the exact building envelope location due to the scale of the map and lack of a map showing the proposed building envelopes in relation to the remainder of the lot. Site visits were conducted with the applicant's representative earlier and it appears that the building envelopes approximate the locations selected at that time. I conducted another site visit on 4-4-02 to verify the building locations. I was unable to locate any flagging or stakes for lot 13 and did locate a few stakes for lot 14. Lot 13 building site and envelope should be located below the access road and approximately below the point where the access road splits and one 2 track continues northeast and the other turns and goes east up to a saddle of lot 16. This is a relatively flat area and will result in less vegetation removal. Lot 14 building envelope and site was located northeast of the saddle between lot 14 and lot 16. The stakes were approximately where we had preiouslyvisited. For Lot 14,the best building site should be located in the northern '/: of the proposed envelope in an area which sits above and back from the saddle and in an area consisting of oak and sagebrush opening. This is also located at the north end of the rock outcrop, which overlooks the site. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,Greg E.Walcher,Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION,Rick Enstrom,Chair.Robert Shoemaker,Vice-Chair.Marianna RaRopoulos,Secretary Members,Bernard Black.Tom Burke.Philp James.Brad Phelps .Olive Valdez The following recommendations will help to minimize wildlife impacts: 1. No dogs would be best. If dogs are allowed, restrictto 1 dog with a kennel restriction. The kennel should be built before the C.O. is issued. There should be no dogs allowed on site by construction workers. This needs to be relayed to the contractor and adequately enforced 2. All trash be kept in approved bear proof containers. All outside doorknobs should be the round type versus the lever type in order to help minimize entry into the home by bears. I would encourage the use of a trash compactor. I would also encourage a home cooling system other than open windows and doors, as this is the primary way bears gain entry in to the home. 3 Any landscaping not contain any nut, fruit; or berry producing tree or shrub in order to minimise an attractant for bears. 4. All horse hay be fenced at the owners' e—,Tense with 8' high mesh game proof fencing. 5. I would discourage fencing unless needed for horses. Any fencing must meet the fence code 6. Maintain native vegetation outside the building envelope, including any snags for cavity nesters. 7. All outside lighting be directed downward 8. Bury all utilities 9: Any disturbed areas be revegetated with native vegetation with a weed management program The access road in to the lots needs to be revegetated, as there is currently disturbed slopes from road construction. (this may be from a lower lot currently under construction). l0. Homeowner be made aware that the DOW is not liable for damage done to personal property by bears and is not liable for damage to landscaping and ornamental plants done by deer and elk. 11. Homeowners be provided brochures on living with wildlife Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please give me a call Sin'cee rely, Kevin Wright District Wil Manager Aspen I Ar�r���+►nc�r 03 PITKIN COUNTY NATURAL RESOURCES TO: Brian McNellis, Community Development FROM: Jonathan Lowsky, Wildlife Biologist SUBJECT: Spencer 1041 Hazard Review & Conceptual Submission DATE: 05/10/2002 The Spencer Lots are located within Section 36 at the top of the ridge that divides the East Sopris Creek and Capital Creek watersheds. The southernmost portion of the property crests the ridge onto the south facing slopes and knobs above Capital Creek whereas the majority of the property lies on the predominantly north facing slopes above East Sopris Creek. The property lies within a broad mule deer and elk migration pattern from the Mount Sopris area down to winter range on The Crown and Light Hill. There are two saddles on the property where the topographical constraints of three knobs force the migrating animals into two narrow corridors. Site visits to the property have confirmed that the use of these two corridors is very active. Both deer and elk use the property as transition range or migration habitat—areas where they spend significant periods of time on their way between summer and winter ranges. Browse of preferred forage shrubs is moderate to heavy and scat piles, both mule deer and elk, are quite dense on the property. It appears that the proposed building envelopes have been located in the areas presented to Kevin Wright and myself on site visits with Mr. Spencer and Mr. Lewis. It is, however, somewhat difficult to correlate the site plans with what we saw on the site. Mr. Wright has spent more time on the property and has very specific descriptions of the locations of the envelopes as presented to us by the applicant(Please see the letter from Kevin Wright's letter to you dated 04/06/2002). Black bears are very active in this area and Section 36 has a significant history of human-bear conflicts. Given the above site assessment, the following conditions will reduce the impacts of the proposed development on ecological communities: 1. The applicant must comply with all of the General Standards as described in §3-80.80(A)of the Land Use Code. 2. The building envelopes should be located as described in Mr. Wright's 04/06/2002 letter. 3. No structure, including fences, should be allowed within 200 feet of the migration corridors described above. 76 SERVICE CENTER ROAD • ASPEN, CO • 81611 PHONE: 970,920.5395 • FAX: 970.920.5374 ^ r 4. The 2001 Wildlife Protection Ordinance (# 010—2001) requires installation and use of approved bear-proof trash containers. Verification of this condition should be required before issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 5. Dogs must be kenneled as per §3-80.80(D)(2) of the Land Use Code. 6. As per §3-80.80(A)(I 1) of the Land Use Code, 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. 7. 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 Land Use Code. 8. Fruit-bearing trees and shrubs should be avoided in any landscaping within 20 feet of structures due to the high level of black bear activity in this area. 9. Tall, overly mature trees and standing dead trees should be retained whenever possible outside of the defensible space requirements as per §3-80.80(A)(13) of the Land Use Code. 10. An orange safety fence must be placed around all construction sites to prevent any unnecessary vegetation disturbance during construction. Verification of this condition should be required prior to any construction activity. 11. Any areas disturbed outside the building envelope must be revegetated with native plants according to a revegetation plan submitted by the applicant and approved by the County 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. Spencer 1041 Referral Memo Page 2 05/ 10/2002 � y DETERMINATION OF THE HEARING OFFICER OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, DENYING THE SPENCER 1041 HAZARD REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION FOR LOT 14, SECTION 36 Determination No. -2002 RECITALS 1. Paul Spencer(hereafter"Applicant') has applied to the Pitkin County Hearing Officer(hereafter "Hearing Officer") for 1041 Hazard Review approval to establish a building envelope for the construction a new single-family residence on lot 14 of Section 36, T8S, R87W. 3. The property is zoned RS-30 PUD and contains 38.408 acres. 4. The Hearing Officer heard this application at a public hearing on June 18, 2002, at which time evidence and testimony were presented with respect to this application. 5. The Hearing Officer finds that the building envelope cannot be accessed without impacting slopes of greater than 30 percent, which is prohibited pursuant to Section 3-80-050 (C) (2) of the Pitkin County Land Use Code NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Pitkin County Hearing Officer that approval is hereby denied to the Spencer 1041 Hazard Review and Conceptual Submission for Lot 14, Section 36, pursuant to Code Section 3-80-080 (B) which prohibits development on slopes greater than 30 percent. Hearing Officer Determination No._-2002 Page 2 NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING PUBLISHED IN THE ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY ON THE 18th DAY OF MAY 2002. DENYED ON THE 18th DAY OF JUNE 2002. ATTEST: HEARING OFFICER OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Isabel Calderon James R. True Administrative Assistant Hearing Officer Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: John Ely, Cindy Houben, County Attorney Community Development Director Case#P046-02 PID#246536400012 2 C THE ASPEN TIMES y � 310 East Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 < PROOF OF PUBLICATION!,BLICNOrICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLEASE FARE NOTICE: Ford the Board of County STATE OF COLORADO ) Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, will consider the following Ordinance for the second L ss. reading at their regular meeting of the Board of 1 County Commissioners on June 26,2002 at 2:00 COUNTYOF PITKIN } oin-or as soon as business allows, the Plaza) Meeting Room, 1st floor, Courthouse Annex linllding,530 East Main Street,Aspen,Colorado, at which tine and place all members of the pule Ile may appear and be heard: 1, Andy Stone /Jenna Weatherred do solemnly swear that I SEE ATTACHED ORDINANCE.FOR TEXT am PUBLISHER of the ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY; that the Copies of the proposed Ordinance am avalabie I., peblle Inspection during regular business same Is a weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in part, and hours in the Office of the Clerk and Recorder,530 East Main Street,Asper,Colorado Bl till. Phone published In the County of PITKIN, State of Colorado and has (sm) 920 157 Ieanette Jones, Deputy Comfy a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been Clerk A gAN ORDINANCE OF'HE BOARD OFCOLIN'fY published continuous) and uninterruptedly in said Count of COMMISSIONERS OF P'TK'N COUNTY, P Y P Y Y COLORADO APPROVING AN AMENDMENT'TO Pitkin for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks LICENSE.AND USE AGREEMENT BETWEEN ASPEN FLIGHT DECK,LLC AND BOARD OF COUNTY next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or COM MISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY advertisement; that said newspaper has been admitted to the ordinance Nn nl 2«,2 Rif— Series United States mails as second-class matter under the provi- 1.Pitkin county,a Colorado bontande County,is the owner,sponsor and operator of the Aspee/ sions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amendments there- Pitkin County Airport(Study Field),located In the vicinity of Aspen.Colorado,and has the authority of, and that said newspaper is a weekly newspaper duty qual- to regulate commercial activities and to lease and ified for publishing legal notices and advertisements within the license space a. 1 101 et pursuant U2 inter P 9 9 alia, 19PB O.R.E. in,Air e[seq.,pursuant t 2, Title meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado. 11)of the Pitkin County Code, Article 1, Section 8.4 of tho Pitkin County Home Rule Charte, L Pitkin County and Aspen Plight Deck,1J.0 etr term into a License and Use Agreement on Ne- That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published vember 1,1997 for a period of file years with an in the regular and entire issue of eve number of said week- optional lw°-year renewal term, The originalg every Agreement leases space to Aspen Flight Deck LLC ly newspaper for the period of consecutive Insertions; (tire T-essee")for the gift shop space. 3.Lessee desires lease an additional area.of 120 and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of ,aare feet at the soull,end of the bearding area said newspaper dated_Q rQ 1� A.D., 20 � , and to construct and equip a gilt shop to provide seance to passengers In the hoarding area. the Iasi publication of said notice was in the issue of said 9. Pitkm County finds that the additional space P for the gift shop Is in the best interest of the pu0- newspaperdated 7U N�,1�� A. D. 20� he,theCrmty and the Airport. 5.The Amendment is attached hereto as Exhibit A In witness whereof I have hereunto set m hand. NOW,THEREFORE,be It ordained by the Board Y ui County Commissioners of Pitkin County,C°lu 1 d that the Board authorize the County Csign an its ers be, I tl the A a Idgene the their to sign on its be, hall e between t to the Lice end Use Agreement between the Board of County Com- oners of Pitkin, pose,y nit Aspen Flight Pu IlSher Deck. LLC for the purpose of a. and local gift shop r be constructed,equippedgal-.d located in Ithe NTRODUCED end, of the boarding area INTRODUCED.FIRST READ.AND SET FOR PU811C. Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for HEARING BY 'THE BOARD AT ITS REGULAR MEETING ON rHE 12TH DAY OF JUNE:2002... the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, this day of PUBLISHED, INCLUDING NOTICE OF PUBLIC A.D., 20 02— HEARING, IN THE ASPEN TIMES ON THE IS'fH DAY OF JUNE'1002. APPROVED AND AOOPT'ED AFTER SECOND READING(OR SUBSEQUENT READING)AND Pull (SEAL) Ate) l !/11 ,( LTC. HEARING ON THE _ DAY OF _ 41 v`�LW� IjVV`-L"''f 2on2. 1 - 2002.Published in The Aspen'Does June 15,20112. Notary P%Tic BE71> My Commission expires kb—GG -0Z TH: A:r:w T:m:s \" 310 East Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO } } ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN } PUBLIC NOTICE 1, And Stone /Jenna Weatherred do solemn) swear that I PLEASE TAKE NOTICE. That the Hood of Cean,y Y Y (_nmmlaalmlera o oun f Pitkin Cty.Colnra f. at Its am PUBLISHER of the ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY; that the regular meeting on luue T6,LUIIt an 1 after a du,y nntlttvl public hearing, npprmed the blluwhr same is a weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in part, and ordinanee: If AN ORDINANCE OF'PHE HOARD OF COUNTY published in the County of PITKIN, State of Colorado and has CEIMMISSIONERS OF PrrKIN COUNTY, a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been CLN'E%O APPROVING AN AMENDMENT I'O 9LIC NSE,ND USEACNEEMENI'BETWEEN ASPEN published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of PLIGHT DECK.LLC AND BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY Pitkin for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks C-PllS n,the mg te,t n,IF,ordlnattce areavalla- ble far pubic Inspection during regular business next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or hnnra,,,the glee,,,the Cle,k and Recordel salt advertisement; that said newspaper has been admitted to the �970)92ry1157 e' ^spen.col„coda Ilgl,. phone United States mails as second-class matter under the provi- Jeanette Jones sions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amendments there- Pubilshe,(f III, ,;Pen 'times Del'°ty cmty rlerk m m LWL. of, and that said newspaper is a weekly newspaper duly qual- (8962) July 6. 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 I consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated --S0 t,, b ' A.D., 20 � _ , and the last publication of said notipe was in the issue of said newspaper dated T A. D. 20 ( 1 D, _ . In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand. Publish Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for thje ounty of Pitkin, State of Colorado, this . 94''' day of .I A.D., 20 0 . (SEAL) � C� Notary Public My Commission expires k0-OL-o Z To Asrzx tm:s 310 East Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 PROOF OF PUBLICATION _ z STATE OF COLORADO } # } ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN } PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING I, Andy Stone /Jenna Weafherred do solemnly swear that 1 Please take nods that the Board of County Cm- am PUBLISHER of the ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY; that the ...asWnera W PBkin county, Colorado will con- duct a public hearing on the loltowing reaolutlan same Is a weekly newspaper printed, In whole or in part, and on June 26,2002.at 2 p.m.,at the Board of Coun- ty Co crid,donele Mc011bl Riwm,Pitkin C°mdy published In the County of PITKIN, State of Colorado and has Courthouse Pm=a, 530 East Main street, Aspen, a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been Colorado,at whllh b'ne and place ab m nd"'cl of [he public may appear and be heard: published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of + RESOLUTION OF FHE BOARD OF COUNTY Pitkin fora eriod of more than fift -two consecutive weeks COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORA- P Y DO,APPROVING AN J(iA WITH 1'I1E CITY OF AS- next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or PEN AND RITA REGARDING TRANSFER OF AS SE'rs '1'0 RFTA AND APPROVING AN IGA WITH advertisement; that said newspaper has been admitted to the 'I'l1E CITY OF ASPEN REGARDING SHARIWJ United States mails as second-class matter under the provi- rRANSiTFACP.rIIES Copies o1 the proposed resolullou are avullahle sions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amendments there- for public ij,apectloo From e:30 aan.to I ul, of, and that said news a er is a week) dui ual- In the ua,oe o1 the Clerk and Recorder, 550 E P P Y news a er P P Y9 MawsneeaAanen.G,Inrad° P11-111wan9201180 ified for publishing legal notices and advertisements within the yCIan yClerk P 9 g Deputy County Clerk meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado. Pnbliahed in The Aapeu Titnea oo Jude 15,2002. lav7n 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 1 consecutive Insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated jknfWS A.D., 20 O_,and the last publication of said noti a was in the issue of said newspaper dated ,e A. D. 20 O Z In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand. Ct(� ublish%F- Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, this �_ day of _W(Sr, A.D., 20 OZ 1 (SEAL) Notary P&Tic My Commission expires �c To Asax Timm 310 East Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 p µ z PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO } } Ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN } I, Andy Stone/Jenna Weatherred do solemnly swear that I am PUBLISHER of the ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY; that the PI,..—I„ke nudes'Bun`t1u,Boe d of County Cmn- same Is a week) newspaper rinted, in whole or in art, and nm.i...nrs nI PItkW County;Colorado,besndopt- YP P ed on June zs,mdz.the tonnwing resolution published in the County of PITKIN, State of Colorado and has A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONLRS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORA- a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been DO,APPROVING AN]GA WITH THE CITY OF AS- FEN continuous) and uninterruptedly in said County of SET AND R rA ANREGD APPRORDINGVING TRANSFER OF AS - published Y p y 1 SETS TO RFr ME CITY O AND API`REGAR, AN IGA WITH Pitkin for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks TRANSIT ACILITIES'P N REC,A plNf, SHARING next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or Cnples of we Intl te,t of thl"resnlnUo^e a am- ble for public inspection In the^Bice of Ibe Clerk advertisement; that said newspaper has been admitted to the and Recemer, 531)E Mal..St., Asprn.l:nioradn, United States mails as second-class matter under the provl- PbblWu,d sn Ih, Al,,,nswarb"sineasbn,,20 ,luou,bed to 'H,e Aspen Ames on July 11 r,. sions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amendments there- (8R8F) 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 I— consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated Y-l 6 µ''A.D., 20 (-,,? , and the last publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated TO k Lamle x X D. 20_ -? In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand. t l F%blisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary pub_li�)n and for t*County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, this day of daJIS A.D., 20 O�_ . (SEAL) - /C NoltCary Public My Commission expires b 10 -oz .- TH: AVE TIMS 310 East Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 I)H _1 -/1 2- PROOF OF PUBLICATION 11D1111A STATE OF COLORADO } } ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN } PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:That the Board of County Cr nmted...has of Piton County, Colorado, will I, And Stone /Jenna Weatherred do solemn) that I [told a public hearing on the following Ordinance y Y swear aI the Hoard's regular meet log en Wednesday, am PUBLISHER of the ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY; that the Jupe 20,2002 to begln at 2:01 PM,or wort as o as the conduct of business allows, at tile Plaza 1 same is a weekly newspaper printed, In whole or in part, and Meeting Room, Ist loot, CourtLouae Annex published in the Count of PITKIN, State of Colorado and has at which fin East Main ail m, bars,Colorado, Y al wMch fine and place all members of the pub, a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been Ile may appear and beAN '80F THF.000NIY published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN CO UNT'Y. COLORADO,APPROVING ACQUISITION Pilkin for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks OF FILOHA MEADOWS next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or DR°IRFaTAIL.5 advertisement; that said newspaper has been admitted to the I 'Hue Pilkh, Cmtety Gen. So... and 'o-ans Heard of'trustees is charged with the re_spnns4 United States mails as second-class matter under the provi- billy of rerunning open space properties within Pitkin County,and; sions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amendments there- 2. The Pitkin County Open space and Tails of, and that said newspaper is a week) newspaper dui ual- Bomd bet asteea ritya,caatedce"with aeauf YY 9 properties as priority acgplaitirna, with .conic . ified for publishing legal notices and advertisements within the lands and habitat lands as priorities. P 9 9 3 The approximately 50-men Filoha Meadows meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado. ('Property') is possessed of outstanding:emit and habitat values. It was once part of the Kelly Grange Ranch which also included the Hot' Springs Ranch which the County purchased last That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published ar 11 similarly aesu(red,FlIgm Meadow,wound in the regular and entire issue of eve number of said week- 'emerge with the Hot springs parcel and`ens°- g every luteu contiguous 185-acre meadow of superlative ly newspaper for the period of�_ consecutive Insertions; ento and habitat value 4c The Johnson family currently owns a trial of and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of approximately 63 acres. The County will acquire said newspaper dated �, �,w 9 1 A.D.,20 _-CZ , and east off he Cr sta"`a`reprising all n the rasa east of the Crystal River except for an the sparest the last publication of said notice was in the Issue of said mately 2,,,e piece surrounding an existing P greenhouse. This I.acre piece would be nuA newspaper dated A. D. 20 G Z eat to a e.nservatio„ easement and world ., main part of the Johnsons retained lands. l'he Property is highly visible Irom the High- In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand. way 13g Seem,Bywaysheep elk critical win- In ter range for th hen the and elk. 8.As part of the Deal Hte Johnsons will complete i trillion, djust a enl ilh the,,their ,the who lives in al ths,nt conveyance n the south the result of which Crystal y lr a the County of the S , er archR Railroad Crude Inking Hot Springs Ranch in At exiimad County Easement ublisher� mrrngn me was arse snbtlivislen, and all I. Redstone. the Sellers du not wish this open to general public access for three years following Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary pub is in and for the closing date.Ce the Open Space Deparunent has a COCO grant the County of Pitkin Stale of Colorado, this V1 day of pending. COCO staff have recommended a $230,111(n)contribution toward this purchase. The A.D., 20 0L GOCO Board will decide on this on June 14.2002. 8.On June 12, 2002 the Open Space and Trails 'I Boardpassed a resolution recommending the ex- (SEAL) I pendilure of up to$800,000 for the acquisition of thrP! - / THE NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the BoaN of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Notary PO"6ffc crluraae as mnnwa: My Commission expires 1. The Boats approves as expenditure of up to $800,000, minus any amount awarded by Great Outdoors Colorado,for the purchase of the at, proximately 50acre Filoha Meadows Property un- der terms substantially the same as provided to the pilots Meadows purchase contract dated June 4,2002, 2, The Chair Is authorized to execute a contract for the Purchase of the property following appro- val of the form by the County Attorneys office and Open Space Director,and is authorized to ex- cute such other documents,as may be necessa- ry to finalize this transaction following approval " of the form of these documents by the County At- torney's office and Open Space Director 3. That adjustments be made to the year 2002 budget ask iows: OPEN SPACE AND TItAZL4 FUND Previous This -Revised Budget Change Pro,Budget Fllnha Meadows expenditures To Asms tM:S 310 East Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 u PROOF OF PUBLICATION fit' '� -'- STATE OF COLORADO } /Jym C } ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN PUBLIC NOTICE OF SPECIAL EVENT LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION I, Andy Stone /Jena Weatherred do solemnly swear that I PURSUANT'TO'1'HE LIQUOR am PUBLISHER of the ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY; that the LAWS OFCODO same Is a'weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in part, and 3AZZ TASPEN SNOWMASS published In the County of PITKIN, State of Colorado and has 2002 LABOR DAY FESTIVAL 110 E HALLAM STE 104 a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been ASPEN,CO 81611 HAS published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of LICENSING OFFICIALSQUES OF Pitkin for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks PITKIN COUNTY '1'D GRANT A SPECIAL EVENT next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or LIQUOR LICENSE advertisement; that said newspaper has been admitted to the ID DISPENSE MALT,SPIRITUOUS &VINOUS LIQUOR United States mails as second-class matter under the provi- FOR CONSUMPTION ON THE PREMISES sions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amendments there- PUBLIC HEARING of, and that said newspaper is a weekly newspaper duly qual- ON To PL ICi�N ified for publishing legal notices and advertisements within the AT PITKIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado. MEETING BPLACE PITKIN COUNTY CLERK&RECORDERS That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published OFFICE 530 E MAIN STREET in the regular and entire issue of every number of said week- SUITE 101 ly newspaper for the period of consecutive insertions; ASPEN,O and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of ' said newspaper dated �j N _ SC A.D.,20 6 Z , and 1IUNE is z 02 the last publication of said notice was in the issue of said 2:00pm newspaper dated A. D. 20 C DATE OF APPLICATION: MAY 10,2002 In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand. BY ORDER OF THE PITKIN COUNTY CLERK PETITIONS &REMONSTRANCES MAY BE FILED WITH THE PITKIN COUNTY CLERK P blisher 530 EAST MAIN STREET SUITE 101 ASPEN,CO Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for Published to The Aspen Times on t County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, this day of June R,2002.M31) A.D., 20 _ . (SEAL) Notary P%is My Commission expires i0-CU dL THE ASPEN :Mzs 310 East Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO } } ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN } lotIBLIC NOTICE I, Andy Stone/Jenna Weatherred do solemnly swear that I RE VERIZON SPECIAL REVILw FOR A IeIr1 OM- am PUBLISHER of the ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY; that the NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN th tza prmrC hearing same is a week) newspaper rinted, in whole or in art, and will he held m,wedn t:l:oty, PM zc,,h.al ,re- YP p Mill a letlng h hegln el h00 PM or as soon;,reg published in the County of PITKIN, State of Colorado and has after as the`nna of bnsipess alI„w,, hewn the Board at County Coo mmissl"ners, Plaza One a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been Cnnle,ence Room,530 L Maln St.,Aspen to con- sider as appllcatinn sulnnitted by Verizon Wire- published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of to erert a cell phone antenna o,an exishng structure within the Aspen Airport Busluess Cen- Pitkin for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks ter.n,e property Is lorarod at 301 AABC. rho,up, I.- next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or sprtmonireso1i°ea hrU ay Devoe for nt De rt rpectlan in the Community Development Depart- advertisement; that said newspaper has been admitted to the anent City Hall, 130 S. Galena St. Aepen CO United States mails as second-class matter under the provi- C Pat Iu rther inlurnmtion,conmet Brian McNellis at sions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amendments there- "70 920-50H;eanette Jones,Deputy County Clerk of, and that said newspaper is a week) newspaper dul ual- Iloardollinmrty C May 25,ioners YY q Published in The Aspen nmea nn May zs,2012. ified for publishing legal notices and advertisements within the (8779) 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--_I— consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated �N u 7� A.D.,20 � , and the last publication of said n tige was in the issue of said newspaper dated Y)A -S A. D. 20 G' In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand. Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for 14a County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, this 3 day of s1�Y1e_A.D., 20 02. (SEAL) � -n Notary Public My Commission expires � -Ob-02 THS ASPE TIMM 310 East Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO ) } ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN } I, Andy Stone /Jenne Weatherred do solemnly swear that I _ pulnac nurlcc am PUBLISHER of the ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY; that the nu'nca Is elaaeov clvcn rn THE ,;ctvranL same is a weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in part, and °pL1 : rhn�.>n,li,26,11102 thr.ldon, ,Cop„_ Y =mnmisslnners of Pitkin County, Cellpublished in the County of PITKIN, State of Colorado and has dol>,e,l ae.,,nitm No ua-z,('z�ran,h,G,I,I„ val to Ne Verizon 'pedal review(or ,tulecom- a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been m ,i ,ion ,Ile n, ,,,e gspen .Airpor, lusiness published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of 1`e` r''e hleeo pr„pertY is descrmeA ns qs- pen Airport 13uvnees CemeS 81ock z,Lot:1,filing Pitkin for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks 1. mi, upprovnl „r n it,sp¢c❑ic ,levelo,vnent next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or Finn""'n�"s a 4e"eA pp,perty,; ,,t pnrs„n„t t„ ne,�za,Article ra,f@5. advertisement; that said newspaper has been admitted to the 11ihIIshM in The A,,,,Times luo July I$11NIL United States mails as second-class matter under the provi- ,11L„ 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_ I consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated Ir l r A.D.,20 C -^ , and the last publication of said dotice was in the issue of said newspaper dated T-t vt I"��"v'A. D. 20 ('� �,� . In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand. Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado; this IS day of A.D., 20 Offcy— _ . (SEAL) 1 Notary Public My Commission expires ��"f6`O`O-z-- 0 U TO AVE TIMS 310 East Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 jj4no 44trccct S PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO } } ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN } PUBLIC NOTICE I, Andy Stone/Jenna Weatherred do solemnly swear that I PLEASE.TAKE NOTICE Thad the hoard of County Commissioners of Pitkin County,Colorado,at Its am PUBLISHER of the ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY; that the n:g,Aarmeednsun June 2n,2nuz and after adnly- naticed pubis,hearing,adopted the lolluwlug or- same is a weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in part, and dinance: AN ORDINANCE THE V published in the County of PITKIN, State of Colorado and has COMMISSIONERS OFF PITKINN COUNTY, CouNTV. a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been COLOPAIkO,APPROVING ACQUISITION OF IlI.O11AMEADOWS published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of OIkDINANCENO'2-_ cnples of the full text Of the Ordinance are leaila- Pitkin for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks hle Inn pnhhe Inspecdnn dining regmar badness hours In the Office of the Clerk and Recorder,530 next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or East Main street Aspen,cnlorado 81611, Phone advertisement; that said newspaper has been admitted to the t970)020b 15]. Jeannne,nnea United States mails as second-class matter under the provi- Deputy County C,erk Published in The Aspen limes,Weekend Edition, sions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amendments there- nn Jwy s.2002.(8977) 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 f consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said noti a was in the issue of said newspaper dated 5\ l �j f=A .,20 O Z ,and the last publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated __T L ��}`'A. D. 20 0 Z . in witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand. I , Pu lisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, this V�!L day of A.D., 20 (SEAL) Notary Public My Commission expires 'd Z_