Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
coa.lu.ca.Mountain View Plane.1973
I LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE is hereby given that a Public Hearing is scheduled in the District Courtroom, County Courthouse, Pitkin County, Aspep, Colorado on February 26, 1973 at 8:00 P.M. to consider changing the District Zoning Map from the Present R -15, R -30, and AF -1 to AR -2 a parcel of land owned by Top of Aspen, Inc. and described as follows: Parcel 1 All of the following described mining claims: Alma M. A ine U.S.M.S. 3944 ?' Buchwacker U.S.td.5. 6642 Ballarat U.S-M.S. 6542 LaCt Chance U.S.M.S: 4238 Della S. U.S .m. 6936 A.M. Rai. "Otorm 02 U.S.U.S. 3939 Sno,r torm 02 U.S.I•I.S. U.S.M.o., 631E Fos;il 6318 Fos3ill Fraction U.S.BI.S. U.S.M.S. 6910' 6910 Caucade 02 Contraband. U.S.:I.S. 6949 A.M. oa I #2 U.S.i4.5. 4471 Jaay y Gould ,M1I U.S..S . 6948 A.M. Joplin r U.S -M.S. 1794 JOplin 02 U'S -M-S. 5914 Li.'zie U.S-M.S. 6948 A.M. .forth Star U- 0 -M.S, U.S.M.S. 47;12•, Park 61Q5 Rainstorm U.S-M.S. 3935 Regent U.S -M-S. 6270 Result U.S-M.S. 3936 Robert Emmett U.S-M.S. 6044 Snowstorm U.S-M.S. 6044 Tiger U.S -M,S. 6270 Pride of Aspen p U- S-11'S` U.S-M.S. 3937 7883 All portions of the follow:tnr, northerly and easterly of doacribed mining claims lying lino as the Samo Records the is de,scribed Della S. - Smuggler compromise in.Book 97, Page of Pitkin County, to wits 77 of the Snuggler General U.S. Z". >. 1656 Jackson Glendale c U.S.M•S. 3941 Arl;ansau U.S.M.S. 5359 Chatfield U.S•ii.5. 8394 Part of Chatfield U.S•M.S. U.S.BI.S. 1462 1462 % ! t' J.C. Johnson U.S.Di.S. 1436 n.. l ) r "i Excluding that tract described in Book 177, Page 378 of the Records of Pitkin County. Parcel l contains 199.4 acres •'move or, less. Parcel 2 That part of the Brov;n Placer, M.S. No. 15047, containing 10.041 acres, more or less, described as follows] Beginning at corner No. 9, M.S. No. 15047,``, Thence running N 0 020' W 1215 feet to a point; Thence N 09 059, W 120 feet to a point; Thence S 21 009' W 1302.6 feet to a point; Thence S 89 °59, E 600 foot to said corner No. 9 >,' the Place of beginning. Parcel 3 That part of the Ensaa Lode, M.S. 2120, the Mollie Gibson Lode, M.S. 4201 and the Lone Pino Lode, 2S.S. 1910 described in Hook 234 at Page 40; that parcel described in Book 219 at Page 271; and that Part of the N.W. 1/4 of the S.E. 1/4 described in Book 213 at Page 471 that lies northerly and easterly of the centerline of the Salvation Ditch, all in Pitkin County, Colorado, con- taining 16.00 acres, more or lens. All of the above described parcel 3 is situated in the south 1/2 of S3ction 7, T.10 S., R.84 W, of the 6th P.M. A map of the area is on file and may be examined in the office of the Pitkin County Building Department, Pitkin County Courthouse, Aspen, Colorado during usual business hours. At such hearing all persons in interest may appear and be heard. If You are unable to appear personally at such hearing you are urged to state your views by letter. Hearing is scheduled as a joint Public Hearing of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County Colorado. Peggy E. Miklich County Clerk and Recorder Published January 25, February 1, 8, 15, 1973 Ki 1 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 SEkOt .,���� �REAAS�SO/NN CHECKED No such s:. Ih suck ; .n :....:. �. ...., DO no reu °X g t spen, olo. Zn� riot germ... -KspER.'GOLORADO 81611 -R- %n F� Ga A SFp ryu/ fq,- N4ya�fics ee o� -��` J 100 Elda Swanson Aspen, Colorado is Vc..— 14187:, 2. n:1 i'to, e L ltL"I -- BOX 694 Tr SEKTEO (2 ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 v 4 P.O. P' , ASPEN, P E BOX 694 N* COLD, U"I'i- ------ rEd_x.__ P" Addressee Insufficient Adld No such StTcet-- Tber NO Such offi�; Do not re,- Spar solidated Box 4 8 P.D. BOX 694 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 % T To Z 0 S E IN IR _ND ER REASON CHECKED VRCIWMeO�efi'�,'j Addressee unknown Insufficient Address No such street_. No Such office , -.,.: 00 no remai; W, P.O. BOX 694 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 - 77 Aspen Colo. 'P N" 1St NN e' 2nd No Box 15 NAI A E t! 1973 1st XI NOB Aspen, 10 2nd Nobc6--- Aeturn. 7ild P1% I -,J- � U CY) G. H. Lawrence, Est. Lr) 1 Marine Plaza C\1 Milwaukee, Wisc. (0 to N C 0 V N T Y T K I N 0 U T Y P I T} A *I N C 0 U T OFFICE OF BUILw1 °" P.O. BOX 694 f: ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Epp,RI ,O - le, BEgSO.! gddre$ed\ „iL� Glsullic eee a,;rc,yh -!used 0o uch, Ir ct dot rr7-id n st tember` i this anus! comings Lo .HarrY Vau9h LC) N 0 x OFFICC -9 vry._....'_ P.O. BOX 694 Colorado NR” Aspen, Retutn� ----r' c v TUR Top O Mr. Rani V. Edmondson gspp, 1 Box 754 1St Aspen, Co Od ra 4+c� aFw41n 7 r eu--__ L� f�F5tA4rz A3C s : _ - t'�VospfiAh NROS9MhoFtf6ee$rinsWe DBdIWoP9iANlifriittll�2NRM6�Ps �.�„_ -�' `- ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 TO ery oO SKNOER REASON/ Ct E( "cD Unclaimed RAused__ Addre$$ee unDruvm Insuffickr.! Address __ -- No suci� $'Feet number_ No such office i state_.. — Do not remail in i is onVEIOPP p. ui Willa Box 4 °;�OifCe Aspen olo• girl fdotice_ f P I IT K N C 0 U N T Y P T K N C U T Y T K N C 0 U N T OFFICE OF BUILDINj INSPECTOR P.O. BOX 694 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 vi TG SEh Unclai� d Spq, f . ° No h sfiZ, t�Ces� ry, A OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR P.O. -BOX 694 ASPEN. COLORADO 01611 RE'OR,. v RED \ as e �0 not emai /;n\St`t�m,�o�� W. D. Owens e °�aloPe Aspen, Colorado -•era' _wp A°d,_ rma° 4onsulic,�,Pe °ot `anrai /!n t/r SaP'�\ C James G. Konrad Aspen, Colo. , NAME - Ist 2nd Note Return,_r N7:,: � 1st iro 1973 2nd No Retur NAME - Ist 2nd Note Return,_r N7:,: � 1st iro 1973 2nd No Retur M { P.O-BOX 694 r 17 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 [S SEA., G f J nnk 'j tldress L��!/"� mp A Ze n--n k-] r-iii °1b {�. in � nU�' 1,r stet. 1 this ester /M' ary C. Roges Aspen, Colo. MIMES- 562570 so z o m X 0 m o r > m D r O O 00 O Z m t 0 m 4 C) o 0 0 H d n a o �a a ih 1 -' OF NAME. A t91'3 1st Wot +c-=' 2nd Notic��� Return_—' A i J mriVFD-LEFB NO ADDRESS—.:—' ` UNKNOWN — NO SUCH STREET NUMBER UNCLAIMED REFUS Don Randall 2oijTr SIB. & 2540 lad. Palm B�a Florida 33480 Addressee unknown _ ipsuBkient Addrcsa No such strcet__numbe .. . No such office ce in state Do not rcma4 in this emebpe Murr Watts J n Meyering 720 W.Pxx Unit As n, Colo. NAME_ 1St Notir.} 2nd NOtt:' Return op I K I N 0 U N T Y I T N 0 N Y I A N C 0 U T Y P.O. BOX b94 a _. ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 - qd° 1 ° °`lee\ i° �'?� James G. Kon d O Aspen, rado P.O. BOX 694 --. ASPEN. COCORA'D© 81611 Rfl sg � Homeowners Association � Block 4 Red Mountain Ranch Aspen, Colo. ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 !° t tare liz� G= (p "° 0/0 -,Ezra K. Baer Aspen, Colorado e_. ----- Retu, NA. "'. 141973 n1 �' i F prate 14.10 `;..DEB m cc I Ci ADOL F C), cl !4 - P4,1--3 . IV No. 76-0635 � Z ZN i' (D !, !, rm z ft P. 0 0 r rn 0 0 ti -4 L.) 0 a) m 0 co C !� lf�q 0 Z Z m 0 0 A "' s & Mrs. 1101 pen, Co] ' 0 4 0* *0 "w- Ih 4e, S41 �It, C�40 110, 04 off, eel 107 Harold G. Everett 3. $- (.6 r- 05 z Aspen, Colorado A. Gilner Est ,r NAME 1st ri.7u W -I" 29d Nouce--�– -'0 Retura� 1St vd ls: is 01, s 6� ,R cllect' 4,� ia Ol V Dunaway BOX 15 7 9 kS.Ve Colo. A. Gilner Est ,r NAME 1st ri.7u W -I" 29d Nouce--�– -'0 Retura� 1St vd ls: is 01, :7 i `v C 0 U N T Y i F 1 In / J 1 14 I N C 0 U N T Y I OFFICE Uh iUILUINV u'-- -- -- '0- P.O. Boxtgn ' - ASPEN: CBCbRADO _81611 �ETG s . T O I /q CPSas�p �fgp0j� cy SF'�i '1' Su /G ee c F�, o e un B Op uph mdi/ /0 y S/a a 9tber \ �N /pp e Lz ASPEN, CQLOF{ADO-81611 7 _ rM1l Via© 40,0" 470'y 01V CA 0. No 'enr p ssc �' 'h a, s i 120, ,.i 5 ra.r,�- u. +' 0�2+ryt,� d r%'Z*r 47 r.. Elizabeth R. Wilton Y ) G Aspen, Colo. � A Miss Gay McNaughton C/o Homeowners ASSOC. Block 4, Red Mountain Ranch Aspen, Colo Upe /aimR %0Ok 1eNOFR �0 iddr _ 01 CNF,,.._ ip'p State mbe r. this � epee/ v ThMas W. Leonard Aspen, Colo. Nd�t.1� r 1st i;_ � 141923 2nd Nntt _ Return lst NOti e � _ 2nd Notice- Return — r ` r'f B 141973 1st 2nd tut ce .. Return._ P T K N C r 7 I T K N v U T Y 7T' K I N C 0 U N T Y ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 E. roN, P.O. BOX 694 - ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 ( +� .p P.O. BOX 694 r C. A. elly 5300 Cherry Kap4as City, Mo -64176 ��c ✓ t) 2c 1 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 �- NAME tSt Not' °c +197. fid Notice Return _ - S yae� f bra✓ 1.;. i,'✓ E� a a Cutting 1 1065 rJmb\ e -- '�- e' Wool C ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 �- NAME tSt Not' °c +197. fid Notice Return _ - James Martin 95 Emerson Street Apt. Denver, Colorado 8921 NAME Ist NOt'. 2n:j i::..• -- Return E� a Cutting FEB 16 1973 1065 -- n, Colo. N PIT. r." lyre J ;6j efurro — James Martin 95 Emerson Street Apt. Denver, Colorado 8921 NAME Ist NOt'. 2n:j i::..• -- Return P.O. BOX 694 7U ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 - _ . t0 Hto S 400re��ha'\iF,F,.K'D No agent 4n�- ttosHU soon a , n\ tv soon shoot �o ory /ca \ q� rema" i tdaep ,,be Fitz /t7llvl. pe s-1 nVa /nPe 370 I� Elmh ASYEN;tv�vnnw o,o�..._— _ „s -U nct2 ^FASpp� } N "a0 G.4osoohh s cept u, n L "fib, /J i� Loey. Xnquist Box 702 CD Aspen, Colo. Odr y4oV "vN L:�tS... l l tl e NO Sol /ir;ee` )r , !\ P,fy FO h soc � e0 c .....,.: <s, j, M. J. Delhonaica Estate. Aspen, Colorado -FEB 1 1973 ni+ C �ij"` ii 113 42 _ P X41973 2�,d 1�iotce_- Reim a NAm 1st NOGG 41y73 2nd Notice-` ` Rtiurn �—"' P-1 I 8 iii C 0 U N T Y P T I N C 0 U N T Y OFFICE OF BUILDINGINSPEC- P.O. BOX 694 — • RETUR ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TD ryFo 1/0,; . JNSOAv v. No sic C O yer Samuel Appleton . 07 " rns s oc. Lti ae B , Ranch O Aspen, Colo. co r- 0 z .ASIR. COQQWP:M611 nc /sim�Fks� ��R - . -.. �_�_ .......ter..,.• -,. N0B /4% "1 pgfnV, Rf4Y p - No och q�d� "� 00 sOCh sl�eeJ\ e not rp�`, rns nnn • in'hisdte \\ enL� /n is i�g 141973 2nd j',k(r,,; Return _ 0) °e John Flournoy pp c/o Homeowners Assoc. CJ Bolck 4, Red Mtn. Ranch Q Aspen, Colo. ca 0 z Mr. Nick Treliamis $ Aspen, lo. n��7C 2nd Nobce= Return (OFFICE OF BUILDII SPECTOR P.O. Box-( ASPEN. C( 0 LO St t Ord H. Johnson Box '6 Aspen Colorado 81611 CS z Corporat John lair d C c/o Home Owners Assoc. Red Mountain Ranch Aspen, Colo. 1st Nc,':190 1973 2n" FIT - -- I� NEI , 11=1MOR , GOLF COURSE o \ �.r 1 'r- A T I r 0 I Iowa: 8025 Pits' z� V E R j� R April 4, 1973 PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION ASPEN - SHADOW MOUNTAIN GREEN LINE REZONING WHEREAS, the City of Aspen and Pitkin County have jointly initiated a rezoning application for portions of Aspen- Shadow Mountain, and WHEREAS, a joint public hearing of the Aspen City Council, the Pitkin County Commissioners and the city and county planning commissions was scheduled for, adver- tised for and held on February 26, 1973, and WHEREAS, based on the evidence, testimony, letters and exhibits submitted, the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission finds as follows: 1. That a reduction in population density that could be accommodated by the present zoned capa- city is necessary to encourage the most appropri- ate use of land, lessen congestion in the streets, improve safety from fire and natural hazards, to facilitate adequate provision for transportation, water, sewage, drainage, open space, public buil- dings and other public requirements, to avoid undue concentration of population and destruction of existing physical environment, prevent the over- crowding of land and promote the general welfare of the community. 2. An original error was made in the 1955 county zoning; land use forecast was inaccurate since the Greenline rezoning page 2 application area was not considered developable and investigation on the physical conditions of the area was restricted because of the limited information available at the time of the 1955 zoning. 3. That change in conditions has occurred making the present zoning incorrect and it is necessary to change the existing zoning to prevent various harms from being created against the community. 4. The proposed change of zoning was preceded by careful study, is in compliance with a basic plan for land use and is made in accordance with an adopted plan which considered the needs of the community as a whole; the adopted Aspen Area General Plan is on file with the County Clerk and Recorder and has represented a meaningful advance notice of the intended land use policies and development patterns of Pitkin County. 5. A general review of the master plan now in process finds the 1966 recommendation for the area to be correct. 6. That the climatic and meteorological conditions of the application area justify a change in zoning to protect the clear air drainage basin for the valley necessary to maintain quality air standards; that alteration of soil and vegetative cover to the extent that will result from presently allowed land develop- ment activities would drastically upset the natural Greenline rezoning page 3 watershed, greatly accelerate erosion, decrease quality of runoff because of increased sedimen- tation, increase quantity of runoff, and create excess costs of water filtering to avoid stream pollution. 7. Maintaining the natural scenic beauty of the mountain landscape has become an increasingly important zoning consideration for Pitkin County because of its dependence on tourism and the need to protect the sales tax base generated largely by visitors to the Aspen area; maintaining the natural scenic beauty therefore is not a matter of luxury, individual preference or judgement but a necessity since a reliable recreation industry is essential for the economic, cultural and general welfare of the community. 8. That it is important to protect the profile of the historically significant Silver Queen to maintain the Aspen area's position as a historical - cultural center. 9. The City of Aspen is expending $7,680,023.95 in public funds for the acquisition of open space lands to preserve a physical setting necessary for a recreation community; this investment must be protected, and no other alternatives exist with the exception of complementary zoning to adequately protect the investment. 10. The community is making a substantial public e - r-\ *ft.01 1�*#, Greenline rezoning page 4 expenditure on transportation, and this expen- diture should not be jeopardized by allowing land uses which will create a transportation demand that exceeds the system's planned capacity. 11. The present zoning has not successfully dealt with one of its principal aims, controlling the demand for public facilities and the burden of future taxes by changing zoning on lands which have not yet been developed. 12. That the impairment to property values which would result from the zone change is accompanied by benefits to the public and protection afforded to others. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission recommends rezoning from T, Tourist, AR -1, Accommodation & Recreation and R -15, Residential districts to AF -2, Agricultural and Forestry dis- trict for lands which are above 8040 mean sea level, said 8040 elevation to be established from U.S.G.S. Bench Mark in the wall of the southwest corner of the Pitkin County Court; House, elevation 7906.802 feet, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Pitkin County shall have established on the ground the above said zone district boundary of 8040 elevation, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that, because physical con- ditions vary along the proposed 8040 zone boundary, a separate w� Greenline rezoning page 5 site review and consideration of the rights land owners have previously established will be necessary for action on each development proposal along above said proposed zone district boundary. Chairman Pitkin County Planning Commission Dated this day of , 1973. /• 4 Addition to the minutes - Greenline Hearing This first slide shows the application area outlined in red. It contains the , contains approximately 2080 acres. The boundary of the application area follows the 8040 foot elevation across the face of Aspen and Shadow Mountains and then follows the indefinite Forest Service boundary to the existing AR -1 zoning boundary which extends two miles south of the indefinite Forest Service boundary and is 1 mile in width. The zone application boundary along Castle Creek follows the centerline of Castle Creek. the next three slides, are of the application area taken from "'—' ' � - - Smuggler Mountain, starting at the east end of the application area above the Stillwater area and extending in an arc across to Shadow Mountain. A"% .r (1) PETER GUY: I'd like to open this public hearing with a few remarks then I'll turn it over to Herb Bartel. After his presentation we'll have comments and questions: from the City Council and the County.Commissioners and then turn it over t.o questi,,ns or comments from the floor HERB BARTEL: There is a problem in the defnition in the legal notice however I have discussed with Lenny Oates and we will go ahead with the hearing. We feel the application is signigicant enough that a pre- hearing would be in order. we hav a collectee a great d(2&l to of information and the iij notice can be republished with the corrected definition. I do have a slide presentation to familiarize you with the application and then Mr. Bean will make comments. INSERT REMARKS BY HERB BARTEL FOR FIRST FOUR OR FIVE SLIDES._ r � HERB BARTEL: S i�'n., �',� ,� g w�,,, f.:om the Owl Creek intersection looking back to the application ar a here and then a few close up slides of again that west side of Shadow Mountain. W: then made a couple of slikes of what the original zoning was, this again jrst to show you the boudnary of the area beacuse our other maps don't shoo this part of the application. The next hide then the same basic area, the same scale of the map indicating that in 19E5 the land was zoned Tourist all the way to the indefinite boundaries of the National Forest and that was zoned at that time by County initiated altion as Trafton will talk about. The AF zoning at that time was completely different thaen it is today. The uses in the Tourist zone I think are signigicant. It does allow hotels, motels, multi. family uses, offices, restauuants, it's a very very basic zone. Going back to what the zoning pattern is today, the County then somewhre in the early sixties, xi 60 to 62 cahnged the AF zoning to AR and estended that down into what was the primary ski area. the City then in 1967 as far as the south side annexation zoned the portion of this application in the City AR -1 which was again a comprible zone to the Tourist District. It allows offices, restaurants very high denisty uses. The next slide shows what the proposal is. This is based on the recommendations of the ::aster Plan and what we've done this evening as fara as our information for submikksssion is corcernedis the recommendation 9r the plan. AF -2 reccomended it the County , AF receommended in the Citl. Now it's imporatant to indicate that should this zoning be accomplished that this would be the first step. The second skEpxkhakx2x£sa1x essential step that I feel woudl be to pr,)vide some mandatory use for any of the developments within this area beca -ise many geological hazards, there are many site characteristics that have to be considered. I think -there are some imporatnt design considerations. We have not at this point prepared those specific recommendations as we feel that this down zoning is the next essential step. Okay, this map taken from the 1966 Plan to show you basically the development patteras that are ocurring at the base of the mountain, the top is Aspen Mountain the dotted lires going i;p, the existing ski lifts. You can see where the primaries are, they're ,.rowding into the ski runs, the development proposals that we are aware e , there may be many others. Again concentrated in the primary where wo already have most of the congestion problem. Now we'll go through these really quickly, these just to show the development patterns that are ocurring which we feel there's a basis for implementation of the paln because we feel that they are not in the best interests. Just run through them pretty fast Fred. Some of the areas that we feel are obviously going to developer extending on up with the lift all the way to the point. Next slide shows that this in is in fact happening and this isn't just a scare tactic that the Planning Office is using. It is known and we feel that it will develop if the zoning isn't changed. Looking at the central part of the application area again this area through here all private land and prime building area allowed by the present zoning. The west end of the appli= cation area the 8040 elevation was signigicant that part of this whole appli- cation passes througgh the upper part of the development here, goes across the mountain so if tomorrow you want to check that that's basically the line. What we did here is to show you some slides of what happens if the base faciliteis are not available as they a;-e in the case of the mountain now. The development that has ocurred at the base of the mountain is utilizing in effect the roads that ave available, the utilities that are available r and hog) ana has not at this point scarre<. the mountain. This is not the case if you go to new areas where those base facilities are not available and we feel "that these same agguments' apply to the uppez slopes of Aspen Mountain and again wP "can run through these pretty quickly. Tla application area and what happens there when we provide hte base road facilitci.s. Next, REd Mountain. Not only do you have to put in the roads and that's v(-y damaging, you have to put in th.0 utilities. The problem with these is they, a few yearn agars , an inters €trop one Of MOUntain valley that, ! :io City afte the :ubdivison was approved then had to provide oe *,,r r,> it. 7n order to :o that you have to take the utilities up to provide the kind of pressure that you need for the developemnt.: T w,.,.. ,.r rho r -; . iiee -base. A couple of close up slides just to show that these really are significant cuts This one taker, the year the cut was made, the next slide taken just a couple of weeks age. Really the only thing that changes on tehse as we see it is the weather. The people really try to reahabilitate the slopes. The problem that you encounter is that the growing season is very short, precipitation is xsxg limited and although they may have grass on them. look at them very closely If you view tlem from a distance they still make a marked scar on the land= scape because you've changed the natural vegetation of the area. A couple of the resource inventories that we've done again are sirgxigi significant. The County Commissioners a few years ago made the determination that they would fund a soil inventory for all of Pitkin County. This is a three year project, we did ask the Soil Conservation Service for a separate release for the Aspen Mountain area and basically what the findings are is that the slopeiin the application area above 30o have a very severe limitation for development. That they just can't subport intense developement. THey have high erosion potential There are mane areas where the slopes are unstable. This slide merdly to show you that we've done it. This is not the technical part of the application. The specific reports maps and so on will be submitted as exhibits. Again some of the really graphic soil problems tf this area, just at the base of the lift, one of the areas thats identified as being very unstable. You can see that the carious small cuts the right kind of moisture conditions, the whole bank breaks off and slides down, it makes a pretty graphic example of that the Soli Conservation Seravice is talking about. problem soils. This is a kind of a special interest slide. The scar on Smuggler Mountain made orignally in the late eighteen hundreds of as a result of a water flume that broke on the ridge of the mountain. The watercoming down forming a gulley still hasn't repaired itself. The significance of this that any kind of a working in an area with an unstable condition is that you may trigger a reaction that you didn't indlend, that at some later date you can't repair even if you intend. It just takes years and years for the natural balances to reestablish them- selves. This a historic slide of what happendd to show you that we didn't make it up. You can see the maiden scar where the flume broke, where it came down, formed a pulley and took everything out along Hunter Creek. Okay avalanche danger is a problem. We don't see it today. The face of the mountain With these slides taken along tie old railroadaline , compliments of the Historic Society and we can just goi through them pretty fast to show you that that when you fakne take the vegetation out hhere is avalance danger. WE have identified the primary area subject to avalance and one of the main areas is the west face of Shadow Mountain ou can see here really without any special _ .1 training what's happening. The areas with �,,,,�s at the base these are all pwfsafiaiiy very high potential avalance areas, one of the other special geologic problems isxJtkisxsiida and this slide really hides it is rock fall. These boulders look very msall but ghere not. The next slide shows, a very small boulder came down hit the trailer wich s is parked behind the railroad grade completely went thru the panneling and knowked it off. Heal Clark keep reminding me that this whole area is zoned and that the only review that is necessary is the review for building code itself and theres no question at this point whether or not a developemnt should occur as a matter of compliance with the code. I This shows you the primary area that produces the rock fall. 5'his c'-ck ` ,"i �a1 A!A Greg s,,Qr� interpretive gaps provided by the U.S. Geological Survey. Basically what happens is the straight vertical sloper, during freezing and thwwing disintegrating the rocks and breaking loose. And really a very very difficult natural hazard to control. Alright, one of the special problems that we're going to have to deal if with if we're really serious about quality streams and stream sedimentation and there's no question that this whole area, this whole application area is a water shed area and at best conditions khn.7nxaasxkn they can be in fkv is the present state of developement. Basicall what; happens is that all the runoff in this area going thru the city steets down Co the river at and I can't find it I'm too close, down to the river at tLis point without really filtering out any of the sidementation that pickus up in this whole core area of Aspen. The processes that the CityxA of Aspen has and the CApital Improvements program just to deal with the problme as it now esists is $350,000, }`}Y"eie`-eeeY'khis+g g ar,••, (3) Well you realty can do something about it if you address the land problem. The point is that the Agricultuer Forestry mone is the most com atible as IfI�ar as preserving the water shed is concerned and maintaining` 4! t,; �r gf&.,Lltn:. Pn�Pr This shows you where the water goes and whta it, looks like. THis was taken close to the Mill Street bridge. That's private propety. Okay special problem, air pollution. This slide was taken 12/28/71 and it was ataken from REd Butte, this road along the base of the Red Butte. The next slide taken exaclty the same time looking the opposite direction. You can see all the smoke, now what this indicates is that you have special climatic conditions in Aspen. Special, the next slide That there'are special problems which impair drainagbe that these mountain in effect provide a reservoir for clear\ %rainage just as they provide reservoir for the protection of the water shed and during the cooler hours the colder air sliding which is heavier slides down off the mountain and really deposits all of tpr pollutants on the City to give a temperature invefsion which is ° �' in this type of 446kt and everyting is trapped and just can't escape For the technical basis of this file, for the file, Lamont has written a very throurough analysys of what he feels the present air pollution problem is and how to deal with it and one of the considerations in dealing with air pollution of course is land use. Next slide. okay another special resource of the application area, there are two elk herds , we've outlined the areas in brown. Mr. Whitaker says that these are critical areas because there about the only remianing areas for deer and elk in this Caslte Creek Difficult Creek Gold Hill drainage. Now it just isn't every recreation area you can go to that hhs that possiblity for observation 6f wildlife and we feel that that it is a critical resource , bhat ought to have a lot broader base for determinationwhether you're going to destrDy it or not and just the Planning Office or just hte landowners. This again jus� an interest slide to show you that there is competition and we better thin.: about it in Aspen, go on very quickly. Okay. One of the importatn resources of Aspen Mountain is a seenic resource. This whole area again zoned tourist as far as the eye can see. Basically what our recommendation �� ¢ is is that the green line be established at some point through here.A there would still be a significant amount of development along the base of the mountain but not a change in the nautral character. Fred just run thru these other slides very quickly. All of these taken up the "' Thre is precedence in Colorado to preserve scenic viewsxisxpsbiizxpaiass from public places so we feel that there is a legal base to maintain the mountain as a scenic resource. Well one of the interesting historic pieces of the mountain the Silver Queen and I didn't know about all these things, I had a lot of help. But tis is basically what the miners had in mind, the face of the hair falling down the rock area. They must have had a lot of imagination I guess from workin in those dark mines, but never the less it is a scenic resourse. ff the potential does exist for these to be building sites mxxkzkuts for hotels restaurants, again someting that we have to make a hard decision on. The essence of any zoning is a plan and there is an adopted plan and that plan is of record and it recommends agriculture forestry zoning for the application area with the exceptions of the ski slopes and with the exeption of some of the very very lower slopes along Caslte Creek. We feel that the recommendations of the paan are correct, that that AF zoning in effect isx gives the commuity an opportunity to deal with the problem of over crowding which is real because overcrowing overloads public facilities and deficiency in publci facilities palce a purden on taxes and I think this is as as something that most people are concerned about. In addition to that the AF zoning is the zone district that's most cmmpatible with the capabilities of the mountains themselves. The slopes of the mountain, geologic hazards, the special physical characteristics of the application area. I think the other major consideration is that research as far as the size that a recreation`ik$a should maintain to avoid the problems of noise, of congestion of just zhudvx aj sheer bus *ness is really. hn � r/ if we really expect to take advantage of any of this knowledge that's being developed, w'e're going to have to save some of these areas so that theyn actually aren't lost. That's the Last slide. Thank you, Fred. If you could get the lights for me Hal. Well wiat I have here is the list of the documents that the Planning Office has compiJ.ed that we want to submit as evedence in support of this case. Now obvious_y I'm not going to go through all of those because its' significant, we have reports fxom the ORban Design significance of the mountain, the recommendation in those reports that the city establish a green line. We have on loan from the Colorado GEologic Survey hhe interpretative mmps for the Aspen quadtrangle. Tlege are not yet available to the public, they will be in a month or so, but basically what the map shows, avalance areas, slope considerations, special geoligic problems, rock fall, unstable sloptes, some of the axid old mining ewes so that yoth know where the problems areif., (4) excavation problems, a,getting back to the problemsxknxa again of the qaulity of the water in the streams: I think what I'll really do is, because this stack is so significati is not even attempt to go through it, but it is intended to provide the technical ba:; is for the file and I'd like then to have Trafton Bean make his comments, i:racE: e was the original planner in 1955 when the county adopted zonin g. Sometimes oe tease Trafton U ' -41're ,.,�in Colorado but he says he doesnt lobk that old TRAFTON BEAN: Its' a pleasure for me to be a part of this meeting for a number of reasons. I think anything that's said now would be somewhat anticlimatic in terms of the very fine presentation which Herb has made and I would urge all of the public officials involved in this to carefully read the list of documents that Herab has outlined dor you and if you have an opportunity, look at the separate exhibits. Wht thoughts I have to state and add to the meeting tonight are in writing for those of you again who wish to look at some of these tingsk ladSer and part of the reason for putting them in wiiting is so that we can make a brief presentation at this public hearing but my participation would also be invmvled in questions or comments pha taht may come up later. Three things that I'd like to talk about and I'll tell you exactlty what I want to say about them in the beginnning and then just quikkly run thru them. First of all as to the original oonigg. The original zoning applied to the area now under sondideration for rezoning could in todays terms baxz definitely be considered faulty. There is no question about that. Secondly is from the standpiont of changing conditons with of course are a #amm jawmxxfazmtxx major factor in any rezoning studyi. A numder of changing conditioon have occureed which you people are better aware of or more knowlegable of than I am, but the point is that changing conditosn have ocurred in quantity and a3Tdx3xthinkxymx you could almost say and Ixkt I think theres no doubt but that the zoning passed in 1955 and amended in 1960 and 61 is subject of change now because of the many realted changesxaxdxza in conditions in the community. And finally whether or not this tyep of rezoning is logical, feasible, I don't want to say legal because that isn't my business, but as a basis for public actions I would like to site some eaxamples where public agencies have been faced with simlilar situations and have made decisions in line with the kind of change we're suggesti . to you tonight. As far as the original zoning, three factors ocurred at the time in 1954 and 1955, at the time of the orignal study, which could be considered mistakes today. IN No. 1 is the fact that we had very ppor jDam maps available for drawing zoning district boudndneies. This isx was especailly tru in the vicinity of the City of Aspen and as many of you know we had later boundary disputes and quite a few events that proved the the questions in the maps that were available in the middle fifties. So we had to use the best maps we could and one type of map information that we did not havei in the middle fifties and we do currently have is the slope data as far as the topography, and that is actaat3cc acurate slope information as it would apply to this particular area. So thems no question in my mind that the maps were definitely not as accurate as they shuld nave been to meet the needs of current zoning. SEocndly, when we looked at the early zoning, many of these, I don't see aiy here although I think we had, Well Tom is here but not very many people were involved in the stdtes but at the time of that zoning we pruposely usedsa ssxit section lines and quarter section lines and known map survey lines as boundaries feeling that in many cases the topography would stop the zone and that we really didn't have to be too accurate. Now this situationxt® applies to so called indefinite bmxddx boundaries as being the only east west line in the city to be fond on the map, the map already being stated as iszaz inaccurate. But we did use that line believing that the steep topography would stop the develpments prior to any serious damage ocurring. wkixkxtkzxsxaxa and I wish other members, other people who took part in tholse studies were availabel but I do recall this of definitely applyintg in this area. It's anot5er section of the county too where we're, where we were not too concerned with precise lines because the topography would handle it anyway and finally the third point, in terms of the early mapping, As we looked.at those maps we , we felt that that what we were doing in the original zoning was setting up some kind of interim process. We had only a few classifications, the differences between them were quite great and this room was filled, well not this room but over first in the hotel and there were poeple who didn't want any zoning anyway so I don't think the lines established at that time were intended to last for seventeen years. Normally you think of zoning as being reviewd compreshensivley every five years. and in a fast growing area like this, possibly even omore often. So I would think in terms if you want to talk, about faulty lines the intention intkoonx those days was not to create a permanent line that would be beyond any further review.&(44 ;,,L! 01: ?,,eo.rl.cr`16,-. this ,SP w., �Pnn ;,maces: /,ier ksome of thexkxa changing conditions that impress me and there are many that Herb has listed but here are a few that I bbink are most impootaint. No 1 you do r have a mp!a master plan prepared in 1966 and at a (5) cost of more than ten times the fees paid -for the early zoning studies fmr a larger area and that's proper. I dont' think aren enough was spent back in the plan but I only realte the cost that when funds became available in the middle sixties the comprehensive )lan was prepared and as a result you haaaxnx.now have recommendations based on much more ietailed investigations and studies than were available in the middle fiftiies. The reasc that since you now have this comprehhensive plan certianly it is a reason and a chnage in conditions to consider rezoning of this area as well as some others perhaps where conflict exists between the 66 plan and the zoning created ten years prior to that. Another fact that you must recongnize and I'm Impressed with seeing Herb's presentation tonight and knowing what he's doing and knwoing what many others are doing in the way of planning, buthte public attitudes in ASpen and Pitkin County are considerably different gain now than hhey were even five years ago, not to mention seventeen. This is a changed condition. It means that public officials who were for years swamped with people who didn't want any part of any zoning and they, I know some of those are still available in the county but where they xaxa heard mostly the anti feelings about zoning now I think in many ways they're getting people comapining that zoning doesn't do enough.and I say that wihtxr%"a with o tongue in cheek because too much zoning can also be bad if it's improper handled but I think there is public support, a changing condition that does help to justif a reconsideration of an area such as the one presented tonight. Now the fact of building permits and growth ocurring at the base of Aspen Mountain in this past seventeen years has to be recognized. First the information vhich was made available to Jae from city and county records. Seem five hundred new dweeling units in soma 39 separate dmai;tingxsnigs buildings have located osuth of Dean Street betwene Orignal Street and Garmisch so we're talking about five hundred dwelling units meaning more than a thousand people for just in this one tight area at the ease of the mountain. We've seenpictures of it in the slided. This is a significaht change crating obviosly more traffic congestions, more off streeet parking conflicts and more people problems if you want to generalize it in that way. Thinking of the use of the mountain for skiing, it's interesting to note that in the same period of time the use of the maountian has increased more than four times the use at the time of orignal zoning was adopted. Some 62,000 back in the 54 - 55 winter being of course over 275,000 last season. just on Ajax Mounatin, on Aspen Moujnatin and this again will emphasize the need for moore, well I shouldn't say need, but theproblems of more traffic and more parking among other conflicts. The mentions U.S. Department of Agricluture Soil Conservation Saxxixnx Survey ahs to be an imporatant new influence ¢n the changing conditions that should give public officials reason to take a new look at this area. Statemenst in that report dated 9/6/ of this gaar, there is an avalance dangxx hazard in many locations of the surveyed area, meaning Aspen Mountain, The fact that any high density a uses or concentrated developments should be avoided on these soils. Slopes of more than 30% should generally be avoided for homesites or commercial developm ent. Gives technical data, facts to help the Board in use type of zoning and finally the last change that I would want to mention, most of my recent experiences have been for private developers and we become amazed at times at the number of ways difficult land can be developed for use. Now if the planning is done sensitive to the environment perhaps some of these develpments can occur on land today wher it could not have resulted in years past without serious damage but the odds of this occuring that is develpment without damage to the environment are extremely unlikely and what we're faced with is improved equipment, the idea of using tramways for example to transport people koxpxsxagaxaxxaxyxtvxshaapxaxsasx from flat areas to steep areas, lighter building materials, desang, pre constructed units which are placed either by helicopter or by large cranes in difficult locations, so what we're faced with is when those people, who ever they were, Tom years agao said that topography would stop developme;, when they made that statement at that time I think they were unrealistic in terms of what can happen and is happening today and I'm basin this last on experiences we've had from the standpoint of working for many private developers. Now some of these public actions and I think everyone here heard me talk before and knows I'm not trying to infrinqe on the attorneys area, your city attorney and your county attorney will advise you as to what they think is proper, but in zoning it seems that frequently overlooked the purpose of zoning the philosophy of it and the rights that youxaxs have as public officials in this case to make changes, so I'd lmke to just quote quickly a few sources here that I think are right on the button with what possibly is worrying some of you tonight. Here's a statement, " the regulation of the nmmber of families to a given lot area is of viatl importance to the oerderly development of a rapidly growing territory adjoingin a city, particularly for reasons of sanitation therein." Now that strangley enough comes from a Colorado case in 1953, or in other words, not quite 20 years ago, so it's right out of our own state and sounds like the same situtation we're talking about tonight. " Pppulation density control is aimed at solving some of the problems of congestion, striking as it does at the root of the traffic problem by prevenitnig over - conce..tration, furnishing a sound basis for planning municipal services "xxzkxasxsxiaxx3sx sa; earxan $xkxaxsp ®xgai3xn3inasxitxx This is a 1958 case in New Jersey. Here a statement by a noted zoning authority, Norman Williams about what zoning should be, should consider and it used to alway be said public health, safety and general welfare and this is a book he prepared in 1966. JUst reading the headers. "Protection against physical dangers; Protection aginst heavey traffic; Protection against congestion; protection gains esthetic nuisances; protection against physcological uses] regulations of the rate of development and protection of the municipal tax based And just one statemnt on this last one, I've (6) Finally certain types of zoning controls are concerned with regulating the rate and amount of development, particularyly in order to keep some control over the resulting dmcand faux public services so the burdeti on the municipal tax base is not excessive. Zoning is not unreasonable, 1ksasxisxaRNkk0Xxg4®kax merely because, this is another quote merely because the land would have agreater value if zoned for another use. The essence of zoning is to provide a balance and well ordered scheme for all activities deemed essential to the particular municipality subject to the rule of reason, the kind of community and the kind of balance is exclusively a matter for local legiiative determinat This is a 1962 ruling. "The factors to be takne into consideration seem to indicate the court's willinness to permit sizable reduction in market value where thex regulations aim can only be justified under a broad reading of general welfare ". '65 case in Masschusets. "We deem it fundamental that, in this area of governmental action, what is be -st for the body politic, in the long -run must prevail over the interest of particular partise." this is 158, City of New York. And then finally some statements by the city attorney of Los Angeles, Roger Arnebergh. These were given a at a meeting in Dallas in 1970 and I think their exactly the basis for the kind of discussion we're hearing tonight. " The factors that justify zone ghanges resulting from teh adoption of a master comprehensive zoning plan for a city well may differ from thoses that would justify an amendment or zone change invloving only small areas, after such a master or comprehensive plan has been adopted. In the adoption of an overall master plan of zoning, broader p principals of pallning area applicable." And the same am man, " There is no doubt in my mind that problems arising foram pollution, ecology and environmental considerations may justify a zone change." and finally, " The legislative body having zoning jurisdicti, has a wide descretion in rezoning property. Just as it has the power to initally zone in matter with which many zoning expers would disagree, so the legislative body has the powe to make zoning changes that could be considered unwise. But if reasonably minds can diff as to the reasonable -ness of the rezoning -- if the matter is fairly debateable -- the courts will not (or at least should not) substitute their judgement for that of the legislative body." Now these then would be jsut sources, I realize in stating this last part of my report that attorneys would quickly rise to say you can find an equal number of statements kkxtjust to the contrary, but again I want to repeat that having been involved in the early zoning I think what happendd then is no longer applicable to this particular area. There are a number of changing conditions that do support a new look at this and from what sources I have access to in terms of Planing and zoning there's plenty of justification to make a change PETER GUY: Okay, before I open up to questions from the floor, I'd like to give the City P & Z,.the County P & Z, any of the City Council that are here, any of the County Commissioners, the opportunity to ask questions or make comments. When they are through , I have three letters that I'd like to read into the record and then we'll have questions and comments from the floor HERB BARTEL: Peter, why don't you go ahead with the letters. PETER GUY: Okay. First one is Frederic Benedict, addressed to Pitkin County Commissioners, dated September 26: " GEntlemen:, My wife and I would like to give support to the proposed green line on Aspen Mountain. If such a line becomes fact we will give a visual easement to the County for the thirty or so steep acres that we own above the 8040 foot elevation. Such a visual easment would prevent any structures from being built on the land. I was a memeber of the first Pitkin CoBnty Zoning Board when the initital zonig was done. The only reason that steep unbuildable land was inlcuded was to set zoning boundaries according to legal devisions of land. It was not anticipatec that the steep land would be used for buildng. It was only done to make easily described land boundaries. A terrible mistake was made. kxk It should have been done according to topography, but the attornyes wanted easibly described straight lines. Sincerely, Frederic Benedict" The rsmNoug second letter is address to the Board of Commissioners, Pitkin County, dated September 26 "The Music Associates of Aspen look with favor upon the County's application dated September 26, 1972 proposing kksak a change of zoning from AXxRx Tourist to AF -2 along Capiiak Creek which affects the property owned by the Musci ASsociates and that which abutts it. We feel that the proposed change will enhance and protect our property for the purposes for which we will use it now and in the future. We therefore urge adoption of this change. Sincerely, Music ASsociate of Aspen, INC. Edgar B. Stern „i The las one is signed by Dave Barbee and I see Dave is here. DAVE BARBEE: I'll speak to ti later on PETER GUY: Would you lmke me to. Alright, so jst ignore it HANS GRAMIGER: Mr. Chiarman, I have a letter that you could read into the record PETER GUY: Okayl. It's address Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and Chain.an of the County Planning Zoning Commission, dated September 26 "Gentlemen: This letter is in direct response to the legal notice announce theJoing public hearing of th( City of Aspen Planning 8nd Zoning Commisison, City Council, Pitkin County Planning and Zc,ning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners for Pitkin County for B:OOP.M. (7) September 26, 1972 at the Pitkin County'Courthoeree in Aspen Colorado, concerning a proposed change of a portion of the Pitkin,County zoning district map from AR -1 accomodations and recreation district anit T- Tourst District and R -15 residential district to AF -2 Agriculture an(F Forestry district. There is no question about it that Your concern is pointed in the right direction and I honestly doubt that there are 1�4io14 persons and or landowneers affected by the proposed change who do not share your concern. Hopefully there will be a way whereby most of the concerned landowners will agree to xmij compromise with certain voluntary ecceptable restrictions without the necessity of lenghty and costly court action. The site of axvxo the proposed restaurant and night club "On The Rocks" is presently within the boundaris to of the T- Tourist district and I acquired it on June 15, 1961. A trade name affadavit for Hans of Aspen On the Rocks Restuarant and Supper Club was filed by me on July 25, 1961 under No. 111830 at the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders Office. I therefore object to the prposed change of zoning insofar as it affects my property and my supper M club project. Very truly yours, Hans R. Gramiger." JIM MARKALUNS: I'd like to ask, Jim Markaluna, I'd like to ask a quesion of the planner Have you incorporated in your data for the various boards information specifically sizomographic activities of the Castle Creek fault area particularly 1915 and 1923? HERB BARTEL: No we have not. As recent information as we could acquiee was from the State Geological Survey on interpretive maps which did not inlcude sizmographic JIM.MARKALUNAS: I think if you check ire with Regis College get some information on Mai that PETER GUY: Anyone else? Fromthe City and County? If not I'll go ahead and open it up to comments from the floor. Okay, if you would state your name for the record please I'll open up to questions or comments from the floor. Yes sir. MURRAY POPE: My name is Murray Pope. I'm a resident of the county and I'd like to make a statement on tka behalf of the executive committee of the Roaring Fork Group of Sierra Club. " We support the proposed green line zoning amendment to lower zoning denistV'on Aspen Mountain above the 8040 foot controur line. x8axmik Present zoning would permit blanketing Aspen Mountain with high density development, kowixgx housing up to 120,000 people according to figures reAtesed by the City and County Bildng Inspectors. Even if only a fraction- of this developemnt occurred it would obviously be detrimental to skiing, spoil the view of AS -pen Mountain from the town and place a tremedous additonal population burden on already strained facilities. Althou the green line amendment would kK2Vxkax2z1i1 will help to limit xna ruaaway development on Aspen Mountain we belivee it is only astep in the righ direction. Af -2 zoning would still allow a great deal of undesirable develpment on the mountain. We belivve most of this land should be zoned as open spice. In cases where this would work a hardship an presnt property onwers considerati.on could be given to purchase of development rights possible land exchanges or other forms of compensation. We belive the commisiion should be commended for proposing this amendment and again we support it fully." PETRR GUY: Dave DAVE BARBEE: I'll just read into the record kkatx the letter that I sen and I thought I was going to be absent. I'm David Barbee and I'm speaking for my boxtx brother and sister as well as myself. We jointly own some land which you saw on that very nice elide as I guess, tl,e bulk of that portion to the right of the developed ski area that is presently undeveloperl. As landholders inthe area unders consideration and long time residents of Aspen I wn<it to endorse the proposal by the City of Aspen and Pitkin County to change the zoning as identified by the legal notice published in Aspen Today. Two years ago we made a decision that the hillside portion of our property, approximately eleveon or twelve acres, would be so preserved in it's natural state in perpetuity it would be protected by deed restriction upon sale or other dispostion. We did this in order tm insure that at least a portion of the last unscarred hillside of the mountain would remian in it's natural state. The land to which I refer is the mndivided portion of Eames Addition lying to the west of No. 1 Lift and encompassing the borad abase of the hillside. We do feel however that since this hillside area is a portion of our oveaall site which totals about 18 acres that it be considered as such for purposes of density capulation in the future development of the remaining six acres. To reiiterate we heartily endorse the coneept of the preservation of remianing open undeveloped hillside and therefore this zoning change is in the best interests of Aspen." I'd like to underscore thought the fact that once more in some kind of future density calculations that some kind of consideration be given not only to ourselfres but to other land holders that are quite severely affected, however I once more must underscore the fact that I think it's terribly imporatnt that this be done. It certainly is myx in my opinion, long overdue if anyting. PETER GUY: Don (8) DON KOMPF ?: I'd like to know, I don't.know if this is permissible or not but the right knowledge, Mr. Gramiger stated that he airade an aptlication for a restaurnat on the face of the proposed area in 1961, now all of'a sudden now he raises an objection and if this is possible I'd like to ask Mr. EramigeY why nbthinq was done before to that restaurant since 1961, but now he raises an objection to the rezoning , or is that permissible at this time PETER GUY: Well I'd prefer not to get into any kind of a dhbate but, Hans do you want to make any kind of a statement other than what you already did? HANS GRAMIGER: No I don't believe so. I think the gentleman misunderstand the letter. I said I acquired the property and I filed a trade name affidavit but as you know a good development takes a long time to plan it, to work out. That's to answer ycur questions. STACY STANLEY: Stacy Stanley speaking for Trout Unlimited, Our statement is to Mr. Bartel " Aspen on of Colorado's finest trout fisheries gongxfkxxxkkaxesxkax flowing thru the center of town. Many of streams like the Roaring Fork River have been ruined with the advent of progress. Mining and other industries, highly constructed land development in small water sheds can greatly accelerate damage caused by filtration and other wate pollution factors such as sewage treatment. Aspen is settling ponds filtration in the Roarin Fork. The spring runoff is a for our water shed drainage And the stripping of nautral ground cover due to the construction and as much of 50% of the erosoion Aside from during the construction period if water shed drainage area is kaxndx as land development such as apartments and condominiums cause a population increase. Aspen's sewage treatment facilities are currently operating above mucf} of the time. INcrasing the effluent discharge into the Roaring Fork River threatens our water supply and aquatic life further. Trout Unlimited is currently conducting a Roaring Fork Greenway Study whih emphasizes that our back yard scenic , reareational and essential water supply must not become merely a fo ri increased growth. Trout Unlmited will further suggest that develpopment in Aspen should cease completely until after settling ponds sewage plant expansion and other protective merasure be provided to insure the safety of the Roaring Fok River at present and for the future. Our organization therefore expresses it's support for the Aspen Green Line amendment to curtail further growht on Aspen Mountain. Let us take this first step in positive action toxpxokaxr for the protect of the Roaring For, Valley watershed.. we also are inlcuidng the documentation for the statements made in the letter PAT FALON: Pat Falon, County resident; The Pitkin County League of Women Voters urgers the rezoning of Aspen Mountain. We feel this green line amendment is absolutely essential to control high density development which will be sure to occur on Aspen Mountain. We urge the immediate updating of the master plan inorder to achieve the proper planned deve- .opment for Pitkin County. ED WATTS: My name is Ed Watts and I'm a resident of Chicago and I'm a land owner approximately betweeen Peter Voughts place and the AspenMasic Shhool in the river valley which includesand I would concur with the zoning on the basis BUT I think your support foxxwkat or wh&t you're asking for support beacuse of unbiuldable real estate as well as you know other defenses of your zoning are a little bit weak. I think when you get further up the river, up around Rob Roy's place that it's going to he a little hard to justify although I'm for it. I think that your justification is osmewhat weak as to the kind of, but that property does fall into the good building site areas and although I would like to See you suddeed , I would like to see you , I guess your thinking and build a better case f6r what you want to do ROB ROY: I'm Rob Roy and I live on Castle Creek. I must say it's nice to come to a meetino and be for something I am for this amendment. I have some questions on why, as I understand it your'e asking for AF -1 or AF -2? HERB BARTEL: Af -2 in the county ROB ROY:At the present time there is no AF -2 in the county. HERB BARTEL: The immedaite area is AF -1 ROB ROY: That's correct. and AF -2 is a new zoning classification. MARV REYNOLDS: We have some up the Crystal HERB BARTEL;; Wll no,it's not new since i've been here Af -3 was the new district added (9) ROB ROY: What have we got now; We've �lot Af -1 AF. -2, classifications inthe county HERB BARTEL: We have three ROB ROY: This came in when the new zoning did and AF -32 _Is there only two HERB BARTEL: I can't tell you when it came in. It was here wehn Icame TRAFOTN BEAN: It was a part of the last amendment made during ROB ROY: I've got a few mnnx minor questions, just kind of background informatin As I say I'm for the change, but who initiated this change? TRAFTON BEAN: The City and County Planning Office but after checking ROB ROY: They did not go back and check with the propery owners HERB BARTEL: No we did not ROBY ROY: The reason I bring this up is dimply because the Caslte Creek VAlely Mheociation asked to be rezoned AF -2 and it was never considered by the Planning Commission. They said we had to go back and get all the property owners to agree HERBBARTEL: THre is provision for public initaiated application wtihout notice, in the mhse of the city ROB ROY: May I again go on record as a member of the Cstle Ceeel Valley Association and ask that you consider rezoned AF -2 which we request several years back JAY BAXTER: thinking that if Rob and his group are really serious in this that thers a simple way that they can apply formally and it goes xitkxtxmxitkmxx right through like any rezoning consideration HERB BARTEL: That's Correct where the application is submitted by the landowners. where that's not the case if it's by public action which is different procedure JAY: BAXTER: I understand that. I just thought maybe Rob was man unaware and if they really wanted that they coudd apply for it and it's just like the one we had a week ago only you initiated the thing rather tkatn than that. ROB ROY: You correct me if I'm wrong but I can only do it for my two acres I can't do it oirRxxnxnxyx for everbody in the Castle Creek drainage. HERB BARTEL: THat's correct ROB ROY; You grays guys could do it as a blanket. This is my point. You 're a little bit inconsistent in your actions as far as I'm concerned MARV REYNODLS: Mr. Chiarman, I'd like to clarify one point. I was at that zoning applica or at the time the reuest was made in the, the request was not for AF -2 zonig it was for a new classification, Rural Residential which we didn't even have a classification designation for ROB ROY: The lcoses thing to it is AF -2 JIM BREASTED: I would like to say that I think Rob Roy has brought up a very good point but I think it's out of the question right now. LOEY RINQUIST: I'm Loye Reinquest and I I'm Oust curiious, if one woi want to carry on a mining operation could one if this is rezoned A & F IRV SHCECHTER: Its' a permitted use Loey RINGQUIST: Do you have to have permission IRV SHCECTHER: No it's a permitted use in A & F LOEY RINGQUIST: What HAL CLARK: Its' a permitted use in the AF zone Loey RINQUIST: Is it if it's just left Tourist? (10) LOYE REINQUEST: Well I might want to, .,,i'',giean I think HAL CLARK: No I just say that beacause it: s. allowed w I have a right to ask that question HERB ARTEL; Well it's permitted by special review which means that it is not automatic by the P & Z andx9oxx the County Commmissioners in the AF -2 district BILL CARNEY;; Bile Carney, I represent Spar Consolidated Mining and Developmnt company which is a landowner HERB BARTEL: Only for a gravel operation (� BILL CARNEY: So that if spmeone comes to wikk you with an application for a mining permit in AF -2, how do you excerise the discretion about whether there will be mingin or not HERB BARTL: I can only answer that in kind of a salty way and that would be with reasonableness. That there are certain stanadrads that we would have to get together on in order to make a fair determination q J _ i v r v e �// V/4 e, / � / BILL CARNEY: The other gaesEion I have right now is, hqv the 8040 line thats s*own on the map was located and I raise that question because I've got several different dopographic maps. USGS maps and others one by TRi Cc which, all of them show a differnet 8040 line. I can't get the same topographic line on any two maps that I look at, and none of them correspond with the one that is part of this planning proposal and on that basis, for my cline, I have to object to the notice that's been i3iven with respect to is the area thatts being rezoned. We can't locate the land that's subject to the rezning fxmmxkhxx2RAflx1ixxxxpx, where the 8040 line runs and my client has land that overlies the 8040 line throughout that area. We "ve got some real difficulties and I'd like to hear what maps were used and for which part of the location they were used JIM BERATEB:BREASTED: May I speak to that? I don't know whether I'm correct in speacking to that but there's a bench mark on the southwest corner of this Courthouse and I presuem that would be used to determine the 8040 line BILL CARNEY: Well I think it depends on which maps were used whether or not htat bench mark was used. AS I say there are a variety of maps, they don't all contain a consistent 8040 line at the base of the mountian. I could pull out three differnece maps and draw you three different lines and that's part of the difficulty. CLYDE VAGNEUR: Did you have it surveyed? JIM CARNEY: No I'm using the maps that are available now and I assume that the Planner used some available maps and I'd like to know which ones and if they all agreed on the looation of the 8040 line HERB BARTEL: Well the basis for the 8040 line is different than merely looking at a topographic i1ap. First that the master plan was clear in it's recommentaion that didn't intend the development to go all the way up the mountain and we felt that um ri interperetation of that plan that some develpment could occur along the base and that the damage is done when you extend that doo far up the mountain by the utility custs, the road cuts, so basically we feel that it can go up to that klevation without major dama using the base failities available That's one of the considerations for that line. SMUMMNlyX The second is that it is the eleveation above which the city cannot provide gravity water service. They can provide service below that line and we recognize that at this point the City Council has not aSopded a firm policy on that but htis is an engineering fact. Above that liee it's going to gost a lot of money, there's going to be expense for the pressure system. These facts are documented in the file by they City WAter Engineer. The third poing I think tkE=xgmxx is the major consideration too is that the physical dmx conditins really change with respe -ct so slope as you go up the mountain and again I think this is one of the considerations in the matter plan. BILL CARNEY: I dont' think that that dddressed itself to my question about which maps were used and how the 8040 line was located in terms of drawing it on the public notice and themaps that we have of xp pxhkiE record here because I've got probkems in reconciling thosemaps with the maps that I've seen. HERB BARTLE: Okay, well this was drawn on the U.S. GEological Map that the city has used as a base map for it's wate system MICHAEL GASSMAN: I'm Michael Gassman; I'm a surveyor, sort of I think that you can take three surveryors to daw a map and they will, tmxtsExkxxaxpak , they will locate a particu' elevation in three different places on the map because a map is an apstraction. Everyone abstarct things in a slightly different way. On the other hand the three surveyc: they could go out and locate a line that's 8040 feet high on the ground and they would all agree precisely. I think the 4jhing that controls is not how it looks onthe map (11)' TRAFTON BEAN: Mr. Chiarman, someone asked 'Me about the review procedures. Do you have a copy of the current zonig resolution'fo3� 'the county? For the county yes TRAFTON BEAN: Well then are you aware of the provisions on page 18 which do specail consideration for review of special review projects. No 3 & 4 in particular should be pointed out. They do not refer specifically to mining operations but they do include mining operations under the general category of any use permitted in addition to meeeting the general provisions andintent of this resolution would be required to specifically show, and then it goes on to sayamong other things it's impact on its' environmental influences and the last paragraph talking about what the Board of County Commissioners may do in reviewing ikx this type of situation. It lists a number of tpics which they might control thru their review and therefore these topics are I think are definitely by reference. The kind of development xne information that would be looked at at the time of review HERB BARTEL: Peter, while theres a little break I should ask that any statements were read that we don't have a copy of that a copy be submitted becasue it's impossible for the secreatry to get that full statement in the record as it's read. HAL CLARK: Peter, while theres a lull I thin$ -I can answer Loey Ringquists question a little bit better having looked thru the zoing code on mining. Present AR -1 district on the mountaindoes not mention the word mining at all as a description of uses allowed The present Tourist zone allows minging under special review and the proposed AF -2 zoma allows mingin under special review LOEYRINGQUIST. Thank you PETER GUY: Anyone else? BOB STEPEHS: Bob Stephens; I'd like to say that I kaxnx concur pretty much with the way Dave Barbee presented his statement in that I would like consideration as to density I think the 8040 line as far as a buidding line is definitely a good line. I don't necessarily gktin:c think it's the ultimatum as far as a denisty line mzxeptime is concerened Herb Bartel brought up a lot of statements about the pressure heads in the water and so forth and I feel this is true, that we can't run water all the way to the top of the mountain. develop it all the way to the top. But I think that the 8040 line , it could be developed up to it or below it and I have voluntary green lined my property at 8060 before the zoning ever came up, but I did want the ability to go approximately 8150- 8200 as far as density is concerned as I have a lot of very flat land on part of my property which adjoins the Barbee property. In the past couple of years I've given the county some land in the higher most part of this area for open space, recreational purpose: This is no string attached land, I didn't get anyting from the county for it and I have two more that I can atnx anticipate in giving the countyxpw on the same basis and I felt that this land even though it was about 8400 feet was an unbuildable as far as high density use, I felt that it probably shouldn't be built on at all , althog it was availbabe for my density pprposes, but I gavve to it to the county anyway, so I thinkmost of the property owners on the edge of Aspen Mountain if you would take a whoel poll will volunatry green line their areas and you really won't have to get into any trouble with the courts. I think if you take away the value of the peoples property and take away all their density then I think you probalby could end up in the courts So I would suggest the 8040 line with a, and nothing could be built above the 8040 line even in the AF zone. I see no reason why anyting should built above further above 8040 on the face of Aspen Mountain and on the face of Shadow Mountain aove the 8040 1 }ne but I think the density situation cold be used, utilized all the way to 8200 feet. I think this 8040 point as far as the density line is concerned is a nebulous point and I think that you'd have to restrict our building above the 8040 but not necessarily our density. CONNIE HARVEY: I'm Connie Harvey, I'd just like to say I do think this is a good proposa77 but don't wait too long leaving the balance in AF -2 zone because we'll have the same problem in land cuts and land slides and all the things that have beeen broutht out tonigh Somehow this should be zoned as open space. ROB ROY: I would be against allowing the density on Castle Creek above the 8040 line to apply to tha land below the 8040 line on Caslte Creek and in general on Aspen Mountain as well, personally. ; Does the 8040 line go on Castle Creek or is it HERB BARTEL: Its the center line /,4 along Castle Creek What happens when you q1 q :6,M' Z pa- ,,K��L"""t ��":C"", q / ell (12) HERB BARTEL; It ends before you get there:..- It would go to the indefinite boundary ROB ROY: OUr house is at R 28x 8200 feet' HERB BARTEL: The application boudnary aiine on Castel Creek again is the center of the stream but does not make reference to the 8040 elevation HANS GRAMIGER: Mr. Chairman I believe that if you want to wait long enough someboyd invairably will ask the question Connie Harvey did bring out that acutally they house in the middle of lets say the Little Nell ski slope the aceess, the kx utilites and everying else the same problem would exist whether it's a house or condominiums. Now I would like to see if you gentlemne, if you do go ahead with this program will give consideration to a pecific project, a special project, I'm speaking of my own project from the simple point of view that for the simple rason that if you develope this line and actually you coujld have done it by contorur by saying well as Mr., what is the original palnners name TRAFMON BEAN: Bean HANS GRAMIGER: Tmx1omim1xikxmmk*xknxptixkxix He pointed out, he po9inted out that what twenty years ago seemed impossible now theres axwagx a threat. The rocks at the time looked as it couldn't be developed and now thers a threat but frankly I could build a house and make my access with a cable car and objection, a ski lift serving a few people. I really feel that if my project does go through it's going to be an axEix asset to the community. It's going to be a , you know, otherwise I would have built it a long time ago. It's going to be an asset, it's going to be blended into the mountain and I feel that the 8040 line has nothing to do with my mountain because I don't even waht to build a house on the 8039 line, but it so happens that ak the top of the mountain is 8060, that's why I bought if, for aht particular reason mf tkjere is a consieration, then I'm standing behind my letter . If of course you're going to omnsinx consider, considerably cut me off by saying you cannot you're ten acres I'm only plannig one development for ten acres. Now I'm not syaing anybody has to liek it it's not a matter of liek or dislike, this is a matter of my right of develop my property. which of the zoning and while I'm very much aware, as I said in my letter that I feel that landowners who are have recognized that we cannot just build houses and apartments all the way up the mojntain. And then you brought in the fact that utilities already are not available from a certain point, from a certina height. Ten years ago I already knew how I was going to solve that because I'm bringing everyting up, you know, on my cable earn so I think I would like to hear from somebody with authority, Herb, I'd like to hear from somebody with authority whether this rezoning change gives special consideartion to certain gty �6v�aekS• HERB BARTEL: You mean to commercial projects? HANS GRAMIGER: Projects that area llowded under the present zoing HERB BARTEL No it would not. It would only, it would only allow those uses j listed in the AF zone and restuarnats are not included in that list HANS GRAMIGER: No they are allowed in the presenu,zone HERB BARTE: Thats correct HANS GRAMIGER: And in other words a man has plans for ten years , he might forget about them HERB BARTEL: If the zone change is made he would no longer be able to use the land for that purpose HANS GARMIGER: And in other wards you deprive me of the use of the land of Ben acres correct? HERB BARTEL: For other than AF uses HANS GRAMIGER: You ant me to build houses all the way p up to the 8040 ROB ROY: At the same time, that brings up an interesting point. On the ski mountain you have two reastaruants already and those of rouse would be non complying HERB BARTEL: The AF zone, the AF -2 zone in the county does allow ski lifts and other ski faciliteis and our interprestation would be that the restaurant at the sundeck is part of the facilities 1111m ARNEY: Isn't it true that the AF zone in the city does not allow ski lifts? r. (13) HERB BARTEL: It allows 0 e_. recreation and we feel that skiing is iN e// JIM CARNEY: But there is a specific mention xndxxxvkkxxxxsxsxwWxr ski use under other classifications in the city but not in that one; is that correct? HERB BARTEL: I don't want to answer that without looking at the city PETER GUY: Anyone else? STEPHEN WARE: Stepehn Wre. I'm here on behalf of a number of lcients. A great deal of them would be concerned with teh county proposals that with the city land. I would like to ask if any thought was given to the disignation of this 8040 line of existing developemnts? Does that generalyy circumvent exiting developemts? HERB BARTEL: No there are several existing develpemnts that would be affected, indicated is Shade Mountain, pact of the area of the Aslp and basically kkxxiissxisx1kxxxDJkx if the line is approved at that location those units above the line would be non conforming which means they continue to maintain and repair / but you don't expand them 49 We recognize that the line did pass thru these repair structures STEPHEN WARE: We';ve been trying to draw a line over near the Aslp to see where the 8040 line is there It occurs to me that there is going to be a termemdous amount of difficult a tremendous amount of litigation concerning that designation this 8040 line It seems to me that it would be a very expensive way for the County to designate a boundary on a zoning area. It seems that if someone were to come in, part of their, come in with a zoning application, part of the presentation or the wkowx showing they have to make is that kkxix they're below this 8040 line if they wnat to go into the high density development and further seems it would be a burden on the county to show, en the event htat they felt that it was not right, to go out and make a survey of the land and make a survey of that line, then be problems of which survey was correct and go on into court for a long time. I'ts not the type of line that we're used to ixxRxpxxx especailly in a high density boundary on zoning where it's layed out in what's known as meets and bounds a fiarly distinquishable line that there can be very little argument about. It seems to me that this proposal by the county using an elevation lire thatxkxxsx hasn't been surveyed ever to my knowledge, is going to leadk the county up a very expensive road for at least the next ten years, until the maximum density is reached along the bottom of the mountain. It seems to me that this could be easily circumvented byk both the city and the county by establishing a meets and bounds line that could take into effect, take into accounts more things. It seems to me that this line going along an 8040 is arbitrary in a lot of areas. It seems kkxx it lets this building go over and it lets this nice dry or this nice flat spot go under. It's an arbitrary line, it's not a good a line as we could draw if we sat down and started at the edge of Shadow Mountain and moved up to the indiefinite boundary, adjusting the line to go with the potential for development, whether it's hidden from town or not hidden from town, whether it's in the low end of town or the high end of town. THere's certainly differences in view along the mountain, some places we might want to go up ashigh as 8080 or higher even, other places we might want to go lower. It seems to me that the line that is proposed here is not the best we could do, that it's not rationally based and that &he line by it's nature being an elevation line and being one that's not surveyed now and is going to be succeptible to a hell of a lot of survey interpeetation is going to leave the county open for of litigation about whether this five foot strip is in or out and that five foot strip across my property is iixxxi:undxedxkxekxixnq twelve hundred feet long, that's a hell of a lot of units in five feet and it's going to be a hell of wrpx a way, it could be another unit , one feet or two feet. It seems to me to be a very unwise pathk to take and I would urge that some attempt be made to set this thixkgx thing out on the mountain by meets and bounds and to adjust the line along the xixxkriox elevation in a more rational manner xrkiaxx than just taking an arbitrary line of 8040. Now granted perhaps 8040 is the best arbitrary lin that we could draw across the mountain but I don't kiixkgx think that what we wnat is an arbitrary line. I know specifically, with reference to the Aspen. Alps, whom I represent, that we have a development that goes up, the plans have been in for a long time. The kiFhR; highest building that they can build and will beuild is there, building number seven. There is another buildng that's been on the plans for some tiem. It may or may not be above the 8040 line. We thin4 that it is, it looks like it is. It certainly doesn't seem to be in keeping that, inkeeping with the policy, the intended policy of the zoning provisions that this area be excluded. I'ts already been buildt up, it's a fairly high density area theres good roads in there now, the water gets up to the top. NOne of these things seem to apply. Getting into the other areas that really don't have much to do with the city' proposal, the game trails and soil samples, without further investiagion I couldn't see the relevance in that area in as much as we do have some very successful building there Likewise, there seem to areas that Kee below the 8040 that are very steep, particualry out on this end and this end. It doens't seem tl be reasonable that these areas are left out of kkisx the zoining curctmvention while other areas that are buildable, that could be done, could be built without damage to view, these areas have been excluded. I think that's all I have to say about the 8040 line and about the Method in which the bottom of the mountain has been descirbed, one way or the other. I urge that both Commissions (14) give considerable thought to this matter. I think it's very imporation and I ttxg think that if we talk to either of the attorneys for the city or the county, you could see that there's going to be a hell of a lot of potential in here fees thatxxsx are going to have to pe paid on litigation because of the inprecisemess of that line. Another area that a lot of these litigations costs could come from, is the fact that that line is arbitrary. When you're drawing aline like that, you're going to have to show some reason to draw an arbritray line like that. If we're going tozkx zone half of ghe state of Colorado well of course we can't go walk the line and say well this here we want to move ofrer a little bit and then come back and swing around. Maybe in a very large area mikkx that's very low denisty you can use a straight line through it. In a high density area like this where property values are very highk meticulously go through the area to be covered by that zoning line and that you have to adjust it according the the rational that you're putting forth as a foundation for your zoning proposal and then if you don't do this it's another pitfall that could undermine the entire zoingn proposal. It seems to me that we oughtxtokx to be very sure about this proposal. We should be very sure that it's on a proper foundation and it's an a foundation that's going to last a long time and not one that's going to be suceptible to every pot shot tkx:tx anybody wants to take at it. I think the zoning propdsal as it sits with the:bammxdaxsxax boundaries as they are defined is just such a proposal and I think it could fall very easily. It could also be a tremendous expense of the county. Thank you. IRV SHECTHER: 8040 line is not an arabitrary line, it was based, as Mr. Bartel said, primarily on where the water tank is which is sutiatted at approximately 8040 and the Commission from, the special committee from both city and county did consider density uses and as you said variances to these densitites and we said that it would be easier for us to literally blanket this area and have special considerations or special reviews, which Mr. Bartel said also for these special areas. These land owners would have to come in for a sepcial review for all of this land that is in this area. STEPHEN WARE: I'm not saying that the line itself isn't the best straight line that we could draw. I'm not saying that theres a better elevation line that we could draw it on. I'm sn-ing that we could draw a better line that would be a hell of a mot more in keeping with the purposes that underline this bE&& laxgxgxm1omsatx19Yxx zoning proposal by making the line move along the hill to encompass godd buildng sites and to exa:lude bad buiding sites. IRV SHECTHER: Well that will happen with the specail review STEPEHN WARE: Only above the line IRV SHECTHER: and below the line STEPHEN WARE: Below the line, the zoning is not going to change HERB BARTEL: Well my staff comment which )z —JL 7art r; It ,_ inidactes that there would be a special review proceedings for all the developments along the base of the mountain. STEPHEN WARE: Is that the same special review, oh, for all developments along the base of the mountain, whether it be in R -15 or HERB BARTEL:Whether it be in the AF zone, should it be established, or below that STEPEHN WARE: Would it be a PUD review HERB BARTEL: i trould be that general type of procedure BILL CARNEY: Yes, I'd like to speak a little bit, representing Spar Consolidated Mining Company, we've got approximately four hundred acres of mining claims on Rhe cmountain. Some of those are owned entirely by us, some are with fractional interests, some of Mr. WAres clients have other fractions of those interests. Those claims are spread over the entire mo -ntain almost up to the sundeck. Ninety percent of them or more are under lease to the Aspen Skiing Corporation. Nxdsrxmy In my clients case there undere lease untilthe year 2056, so that the risk of development is not very iminent with respect to those areas. we do have some land at the base of the mountain that is excepted from the ski lease and it was excepted in the process of negotitating over what land was appropriate for ski runs and what land was appropriate fro development and the areas that are xs excepted are generally flat areas, they are not subject the are not areas iwth rock problems, slide problems. They are highly varhubable sites in my clients easmx paid tourist prices for that land. THere in the city and I would like to address myself primarily to th city problem because there will be an official heraring later as I understand it with respect to the county. We have approximately five ardx acres of land it might be as high as six, it's hard to calucalte because it depends on where the 8040 line runs. We've had difficulties with that. We have approximately five to six acres now zoned Tourist which would be zoned A and F. We have the ability now to do approximately 160 units on that property, under this proposal we could mxtix do five unikts. Now'.4s a tremendous loss of (15) it's a lots of value of property that is suitable for developemnt in the way that the which is right next to it has been dnxaipmdx developed. We're not talking about green Tace, we're talking about areas that are, where bhe sky is filled now with the chimneys from Fifth Avenue. We're talking about areas hwhere we have mine tailings that are not areas of natural beauthy , there are a great many cuts along there already. Properly done, I think that kind of developemnt can enhance that area. i suggest that we can solve our own water problems. THat's not something that the zoning body has to concern itself with. How a developer will get water to a particular site now, that's something that culd be handled when the time comes to handle it, but the loss in value on those acres is teremendoss, if we can only do one acre homesites which is basically what we would be allowed to do right up against the Fifth Avenue, right up agains IkEx 700 Monarch. It doens't make sense in terms of land use and we havent' been consulted in connection with planning this zoning propoals. Certainly we would have aaggested another line that makes more sense in terms of site evaulation and reasonalble use of these sites. I think we would be willing to make some open space dedications if we had the chance to do some planning, over aperiod of time with the planning office in stead of being forced to react to a blanket proposal that arbitraryly draws the line right thru our land and says you- can't develope from here on up. I have serious problems with the proposal as it realtes to the caounty but we need more time mmxaxto evaluate whether it's possible to xsa utilize the land above 8040 at all under an A & F zone. We don't think it's economically feasible to use it at all and we are strongly concerned with this amounts to dm confiscation with msx all our land above the 8040 level because it's simply not subdividable. Now Mr. Bartel ahs spoekn about special review procdures To my knowledge, those aren'nt really in existence right now. He's talking about something that we might get in the future. We need the ability to put highly concentrated uses where the land can be used and we cant spread it all over the county. I think that's our concern is that an A & F zone simply isn't suitable for that land. We have. we $pay have parcels that are useful, we do know of some that cross the 8040 line which are usable and which are suitable for development. One of them was proposed several ynasa years ago to the planning office . I think tight money closed the project down. It was a project for a youth hostel over on the Change Claim up Ute avenue, and that is something that is still under consideatation. The 8040 line runs right thu the proposed project. That land is useful, at least we thought so two years ago and the same holds tru with a the claims on the front of the mountain which are right next to exisgin development. Thank you. ROB ROY: I'm not an attorney. THose two gentlemen are. I'd like to repute there statements. I think the 8040 line is a perfectly good line. Anytime we do this , that s an arbitrary line I'd like to bring up a couple of questions that you guys have gsut come up with. Maybe this special review iwll take tare of it. When you tal$ the 8040 line, are Vou alking the foundations of a buildng or the roof of a building IRV SHECHTER: WE've already considered that ROBY ROY: Okay. Now I *d another thing I would like to have you consider and that is I'd like to see you stop what happerde in the sity when they changed the density A bund of developers went around and put in footings so that they could do their project in a year or a year and ahalf or two years later. I'd like to have you stop that right now. Make no exceptions, don't allow atgting over 8040. Make it the roof not to exceed 8040. THant'smy own feeling. HANS GRAMIGER: I address this question to the County Commissioners. Since this is a legal meeting I'd like to put it in the record. Herb Bartel says there will be sa special review, then he tells me there will be no special review. Iry Shecther of the Commission thinks there will be a review and I, while I'm sypathetic to the whole cause and I think it's a wonderful, nice quiet meeting, nobody has gotten out of hand. I really tink that there should be incorporated in this zoning change a review so that a project can stand on it's own merits what it is proposed because I don't want to go into a legal jangle what might be considered appropiration, and what might be the borderline of, I'm not blowing anybody elses mind, I'm blowing my onw. and I'm only saying a review factor should be incorporated in the zoning change so that if a man comes up at the proper time just like with PUD he plans a develpment, a man comes up and says well I want do this it's doing to look that way and under the form &r zoning it was allowed now theoretically wouldn't be would you review it, that there is a provision for review. I'm not asking for a guarantee that the review would be affirmative or the review factor should be incorproated in the zoing change RALPH BRENDES: I;m Ralph Brendes. I live on Castle Creek. I am an attorney, I don't represnet anybody tonight but I would point out that so fare we've heard I think about nine comments from the gorup, from people that favor, and I'm in favor of the green belt at the 8040 line and we've heard three or four against all of which I say own land that would be affected. If as a community we're going to try to develop'malls, we're going to try to do a lot of things, every time we try to do one of these things, if we put a mall downtown, Phils' Sinclair will be in troubel because nobody can Opt to his gas station (16) We -1 the same thing- we're talking about doing now with the green line. The simple fact of the matter is that zmxixgxdnHsx that's what zoning does. You zone for the benefit of the whole and sometimes hurst the individual. Now the fact that a man wkmsxgmksxiiai loses potential value forxkk his property because of zoning is not in itself xmix #mx1Jm ixxikakxdixRxkimxx any reason not to go in that direction . we heard large sums of money are goint to be lost, pottntially lost because planned developments won't take Mace. That is a, I would just again reming the Commissioners, that that isx in itself is not a reason not to rezone this property. I think the community of Aspenvalues the view from tmwn , we all know what Red Mountai looks like, we all know what AJax could look like and I think that we as a community, probably 90 percent of the mjosxx people in this room want to see that green line above the 8040 and we as a coounity have that right to do it thru zoning and I would urge that the Commissioners do so. BOB STEPEHSN: I think everybody wants to see this 8040 line and I'm also in favor of that. I thinly we need a lot more review on this thing and I'd be willing to take all my property an put it into a moratorium for a period of 18 months. I can do an extensive master plan study on it and work with the County Commisisonrs and work with the governing bodies and wouldn't do a hitnkg to my property during this 18 monthperiod and I think we'd proably get a lot better zoning resolution if a lot of the property ownrs were really involved with this thin4 a mountain, did this we'd probably have a heck of a lot better looking thing than we ended up with. I think we're probably doing it a little too fast on this thinkg. I think that a moratorium on the whole base of the mountain, voluntarily with all these property owners. wou.d probably solve a lot of problems and stop a lot of litigation that has been talked about by a lot of people in this room tonight. What's the planners feeling on a moratorium for eighteen montsh? HERB BARTEL: xHx I havent felt that at this point it was necessary. I think that where a moratorium is necessary is where we're not coming to gr(bps with the problem. As I see it now, we're making progress DAVID BARBEE:It's a, I diffrence with what you're saying Bob, because I basically agree with you but not completely. It seems to me that the kind of approack that was taken, I dont think it's too late to modify it a little bit, maybe could have been an error. I think that just approaching the property owners directly at some kind of a meeting prior to something like this would have been appropriate and I think that the majority of us would have said, you know, I think this is great, I think we could have decided on some kind of a line and I think with some few exdeptions mainly on people who own very small p&eces of property, that something could have been worked out and still can. And I'd lake to make a suggetion that such a meeting take place sometime in the very near future. I feel the same urgency that I think many others feel about the necessity for this line. I very much disagfee with, once omore I'm not an attorney, but I disagree with the idea that we soemhow develope ameets and bounds desciription that kind of conforms with somebody's idea about where this line ought to go and changes around ever)?body's property. Talk about arbitrary, I dont' thinkg there could be nayting more arbritary and certainly would Leave the county and cij�yp open for all kinds of litigation and I , I can't speak bor Bob, but fm at least for myself I certainly would be perhaps one of the first so I really hope that soemhow we could have aporperty owners meeting perhaps xikkxsmm xwhere some of these specific things could be worked out. I think it could be done very easily ROB ROY: I have a couple of quick questions. How long have you been working on this Herb? HERB BARTEL: Well I worked on this do the weekends during the month of September ROB ROY: Just the month of September ' HERB BARTEL: Yes. A pm specifica bmxxk amount of time HERB BARTEL: Oh yes, The Master Plan committe talked about it about the middle of July ROB ROY: Then it's been considered longer than that HERB BARTEL: Oh well it's in the master plan ROB ROY: AS far as I'm concerned Planningand Zoning takes to long.. You've considered it, do it. Don't, the big problem in Aspen and Pitkin Countyis talking the thing to death. It's got to be done so do it WATTS: Other than I resent your boundaries a little bit because they look like the state of Texas, is there any reason why you shouldn't run the Castle Creek line further to the south and further up the Castle Creek road. Your conditions remain the same, your saing your slide areas N (17) HERB BARTEL: we foolowed the mrignianl line , where the Tourist zone was aplied in 1955 and we stopped it where WATTS: THey are already agriculture HERB BARTEL: Up the fralley from that point 1ka it is already agriculture Forestry HANS GRAMIGER: I have to make an, this is a leagal meeting, correct? PETER GUY: Public Hearing to consider HANS GRAMIGER: I beg your pardon PETER GUY: Its' a public hearing HANS GRAMIGER: Everything is recorded? PETER GUY: Sure. Keep that in mind please HANS GRAMIGER: Okay. I'm sorry. I have to make an announcement then, it's very simpl -y I believe in democratic government as fara as it goes, as far as I can see it go. I can see that the potential law, as long as it s on the books stay there, I see that it is endangering my project. I don't believe that someboyd will out of the kindness of their heart remember that in 1961 I bought it and will give me consideration for my restaurant on the mountin, therefore I make this public announcement This very tinkg; I will with all legal diligency withy my lawyer apply from Hal Clark for a buildng permit for my restaurant. I will everything, water, sanitation, structural, the mountain, everything. I want to make this public, right now, here, that in case I should have difficulty E to get a building permit for part or for all that, and I though I was thru with the courtroom, the two last judges on the right had some very importnat gnxxmyxVxEpaxkyx decisions for my property. I really thought I was going to be completely quiet, forget it and enjoy myself. I can't do it. I have to fight against it. So, be sure this is on the record. I will apply for a buildng permit. Everyting is going to be absolutely legal. There will be no loophole that the Pitkin County Building INspector obey strictly the law because we're going to get that building permit, and if not we're going to have a law suit, I'm sorry Because I found out it just doens't work that way RICHARD SCALES: My name is Ricahrd Scales. The ASpen Environmental Task Force urges of the adoption of the AF zone (GET COPY OF LETTER OR FOR INSERTION) ROB ROY: Another point that comes up as the meeting goes on. Dont' be worried about law suits. Riapix People can 4et so upset that they can bering a law suit for you to do it PETER GUY: Is there anyone else. JIM BLANNING: I'd like to, Jim Blanning, I'm represeneting MacCcCulley who bought a lot from me and it's up on a high line. I'd like to agree with Dave Barbee and Bob Stepehens -on a get together and try to work it out among the individual prorperty owners. I think if you'll rememeber the city, the one, I think it was the north annexation which certain county commissioner proceeded to knowk that out due to survey technicalities as I remember. I kdix don't think anybody really wants a big hassle which it can turn into because theres a lot xe of vested interesnt. But I do think that a good working agreement could be made up among the people if they're given an opportunity but if you try to shove this down everybody's throat kkuy s®xkxafxkaxnxa®xzkHiisx they have no choice but to sort of fight it according to their own interests and there are going to be a lot of varied interests and I'd just like to say that I agree as far as the meeting is EEx m conerened, I think it could be worked out. Mr. McCulley is in Engalnd right now so I can't say as to what his true views are but he asked me tm sit in, on this. STEXHSNXWAREX PETER GUY: Anyone else want to enter anyting for the record? STEPEHN WARE: I would like to say one more thing and that's that I think a great deal more will be brought out concerning this rezoning and the effects it's going to have At the time the county portion applcation is to be considered, I think that a greta deal of this information, I intend to have at least one planner here, will be applicable to some of hte problems that the city is confronting. It might be in the best interests of the city and the city's bsiidiarxpxEpEsaisx zoning proposal to avail themselves of the infomation or presentatiaons that may be available at that hearing prior to making a decision onthis matter. JOSEPHINE MANN; I'm Josephine Mann. I would like to compliment you people for having a public hearing first and then perhaps having the property owners afterwards PETER GUY; _ If there are not other comments I'd like to close the public hearing and thank . 1 ...._-. - w.r (1?) HERB BARTEL: We foolowed the orignianl line , where the Tourist zone was aplied in 1955 and we stopped it where WATTS: THey are already agriculture HERB BARTEL: up the fralley from that point ions it is already agriculture Forestry HANS GRAMIGER: I have to make an, this is a leagal meeting, correct? PETER GUY: Public Hearing to consider HANS GRAMIGER: I beg your pardon PETER GUY: Its' a public hearing HANS GRAMIGER: Everything is recorded? PETER GUY: Sure. Keep that in mind please HANS GRAMIGER: Okay. I'm sorry. I have to make an announcement then, it's very simpl -y I believe in democratic government as fara as it goes, as far as I can see it go. I can see that the potential law, as long as it s on the books stay there, I see that it is endangering my project. I don't believe that someboyd will out of the kindness of their heart remember that in 1961 I bought it and will give me consideration for my restaurant on he mountin, therefore I make this public announcement 1 from Hal Clark This very tinkg; I will with all legal diligency withy my lawyer apply for a buildng permit for my restaurant. I will everything, water, sanitation, structural, the mountain, everything. I want to make this public, right now, here, that in case I should have difficulty s to get a building permit for part or for all that, and I though I was thru with the courtroom, the two last judges on the right had some very importnat xoxxm;:xgxalaaxkrx decisions for my property. I really thought I was going to be completely quiet, forget it and enjoy myself. I can't do it. I have to fight against it. So, be sure this is on the record. I will apply for a buildng permit. - Everyting is going to be absolutely legal. There will be no loophole that the Pitkin County Building INspector obey strictly the law because we're going to get that building permit, and if not we're going to have a law suit, I'm sorry Because I found out it just doens't work that way RICHARD SCALES: My name is Ricahrd scales. The Aspen Environmental Task Force urges of the adoption of the AF zone (GET COPY OF LETTER ME FOR INSERTION) ROE ROY: Another point that comes up as the meeting goes on. Dont' be worried about law suits. Rispix People can 4et so upset that they can bering a law suit for you to do it PETER GUY: Is there anyone else. JIM BLANNING: I'd like to, Jim Blanning, I'm represeneting MacCcCulley who bought a lot from me and it's up on a high line. I'd like to agree with Dave Barbee and Bob Stepehens -on a get together and try to work it out among the individual prorperty owners. I think if you'll rememeber the city, the one, I think it was the north annexation which certain county commissioner proceeded to knowk that out due to survey technicalities as I remember. I ktat don't think anybody really wants a big hassle which it can turn into because theres a lot xs of vested interesnt. But I do think that a good working agreement could be made up among the people if they're given an opportunity but if you try to shove this down everybody's throat kksy ssxkxukxkRxuxtzxcksidux they have no choice but to sort of fight it according to their own interests and there are going to be a lot of varied interests and I'd just like to say that I agree as far as the meeting is OUR 0 conerened, I think it could be worked out. Mr. McCulley is in Engalnd right now so I can't say as to what his true views are but he asked me td, sit in. on this,. STERHENXNAREX PETER GUY: Anyone else want to enter anyting for the record? STEPEHN WARE: I would like to say one more thing and that's that I think a great deal more will be brought out concerning this rezoning and the effects it's going to have At the time the county portion applcation is to be considered, I think that a greta deal of this information, I intend to have at least one planner here, will be applicable to some of hte problems that the city is confronting. It might be in the best interests of the city and the city's bniidim9xpxO10Ossisx zoning proposal to avail themselves of the infomation or presentatiaons that may be available at that hearing prior to making a decision onthis matter. JOSEPHINE MANN; I'm Josephine Mann... I would like to compliment you people for having a public hearing first and then perhaps having the property Owners afterwards n and thank PETEP GUY; if there are not otitcr comment:; I'd ike tf. close the 6 g F 'x iy /O "CZ"AZ-0'V Public Hearing: Aspen & Shadow Mountain Rezoning Application September 26, 1972 Exhibits Submitted by Planning Office at Public Hearing I. General Information 1) letter: Trafton Bean Harman, O'Donnel & Henninger Assoc. Inc. Planning Consultants date September 26, 1972 2) letter: Jerry Brown Aspen Area General Plan: Final Report 1966 Inventory Report 1965 3) Resolution No. 13 Goals Task Force Resolution City Council July 14, 1972 August 14, 1972 Goals Task Force Objectives October 19, 1971 4) Annual Skier Visits -Aspen Mountain 1954/55 season to 1971/72 season 5) Urban Design Report Hart, Krivatsy, Stubee December, 1971 6) Reference Exhibit- Aspen /Dreams & Dilemmas Pitkin County by Peggy Clifford and Library John M. Smith Co 10 978.8 Cl 7) Pitkin County Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 15, 1972 Densities under present zoning 8) Zoning District Map- Official Map Pitkin County Approved June 5, 1955 9) Maps 3 sheets- 1955 Zoning Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning 10) Aspen & Shadow Mountain Property Ownership Maps 4 sheets 11) Topographic Map of Portion of Aspen Ski Area 12) South Annexation Map- 3 sheets March 24, 1967 13) Topographic Map of Zoning Application Area 14) 'Zoning Bulletin:Quinlan Publishing Company Case: Albert v. Kalamazoo date July, 1972 s' II. Public Facilities and Utilities 15) letter: Dale H. Rea Consulting Engineer Littleton, Colorado date September 5, 1972 16) letter: Ken Ash Metropolitan Sanitation District Flow Capacity Analysis date September 18, 1972 17) letter: Willard C. Clapper, Fire Chief Aspen Volunteer Fire Department date September 11, 1972 18) Aspen Central Area Circulation & Parking Plan by Alan M. Voorhees & Assoc. Inc. Draft September 25, 1972 Regional Transit Feasibility Study by Alan M. Voorhees & Assoc. Inc. May, 1972 III. Resource Analysis 19) letter: R.S. Whaley, Assoc. Dean Colorado State University College of Forestry & Natural Resources date September 8, 1972 20) Soils Report- Soil Conservation Service Tom Bargsten, Soil Scientist Maps of soil types & slopes date August 29, 1972 Rock Outcrop Maps -Aspen Mountain Soil Conservation Service Tom Bargsten, Soil Scientist date August 29, 1972 2 sheets ....:r,.. ;.:- Vftw . 21) Soils, Slope & Vegetative Investigation -Aspen Mountain Area Soil Conservation Service Tom Bargsten, Soil Scientist date September 6, 1972 22) Slope Percentage Maps - Soil Conservation Service Tom Bargsten, Soil Scientist date September 19, 1972 2 sheets 23) Interpretive Geologic Maps -Aspen Quadrangle U.S. Geological Service 6 sheets Bruce Bryant 1972 1. avalanche areas 2, slope map 3. permeability 4. ease of excavation -Aspen Quadrangle 5. potential hazard areas 6. mines 24) letter: Dr. John W. Marr, Ecologist Vegetative Study Professor of Biology 2 Maps University of Colorado date August 28, 1972 25) letter: Lamont Kinkade, City, County, State Sanitarian Department of Environmental Health & Pollution Control date September 10, 1972 charts- benzene solubles and suspended particulates 26) letter: Steven Weiner, Engineer Air Pollution Control Division State of Colorado Department of Health date March 12, 1971 charts- benzene solubles and suspended particulates for statewide area 27) Air Contaminate Emission Inventory 1970 Colorado Department of Health 28) letter: Allen F. Whitaker Wildlife Conservation Officer Division of Game, Fish & Parks map of critical elk wintering areas date September 8, 1972 29) letter: John E. Burns U.S. Forest Service Draft Management Plan- Aspen Urban Influence Planning Area date August 25, 1972 30) Aspen Times Articles- Cloud Burst- Rock Slide Fatality - August 7, 1964 May 28, 1953 31) letter: Holder Engineering Service March 25, 1965 9 Public Hearing: Aspen & Shadow Mountain Rezoning Application September 26, 1972 Exhibits Submitted by Planning Office at Public Hearing I. General Information 1) letter: Trafton Bean Harman, O'Donnel & Henninger Assoc. Inc. Planning Consultants date September 26, 1972 2) letter: Jerry Brown Aspen Area General Plan: Final Report 1966 Inventory Report 1965 3) Resolution No. 13 Goals Task Force Resolution City Council July 14, 1972 August 14, 1972 Goals Task Force Objectives October 19, 1971 4) Annual Skier Visits -Aspen Mountain 1954/55 season to 1971/72 season 5) Urban Design Report Hart, Krivatsy, Stubee December, 1971 6) Reference Exhibit- Aspen /Dreams & Dilemmas Pitkin County by Peggy Clifford and Library John M. Smith Co 10 978.8 Cl 7) Pitkin County Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 15, 1972 Densities under present zoning 8) Zoning District Map- Official Map Pitkin County Approved June 5, 1955 9) Maps 3 sheets- 1955 Zoning Existing Zoning - Proposed Zoning 10) Aspen & Shadow Mountain Property Ownership Maps 4 sheets 11) Topographic Map of Portion of Aspen Ski Area 12) South Annexation Map- 3 sheets March 24, 1967 13) Topographic Map of Zoning Application Area 14) Zoning Bulletin:Quinlan Publishing Company Case: Albert v. Kalamazoo date July, 1972 !'4 if y- II. Public Facilities and Utilities 15) letter: Dale H. Rea Consulting Engineer Littleton, Colorado date September 5, 1972 16) letter: Ken Ash Metropolitan Sanitation District Flow Capacity Analysis date September 18, 1972 17) letter: Willard C. Clapper, Fire Chief Aspen Volunteer Fire Department date September 11, 1972 18) Aspen Central Area Circulation & Parking Plan by Alan M. Voorhees & Assoc. Inc. Draft September 25, 1972 Regional Transit Feasibility Study by Alan M. Voorhees & Assoc. Inc. May, 1972 III. Resource Analysis 19) letter: R.S. Whaley, Assoc. Dean Colorado State University College of Forestry & Natural Resources date September 8, 1972 20) Soils Report- Soil Conservation Service Tom Bargsten, Soil Scientist Maps of soil types & slopes date August 29, 1972 Rock Outcrop Maps -Aspen Mountain Soil Conservation Service Tom Bargsten, Soil Scientist date August 29, 1972 2 sheets 21) Soils, Slope & Vegetative Investigation -Aspen Mountain Area Soil Conservation Service Tom Bargsten, Soil Scientist date September 6, 1972 22) Slope Percentage Maps - Soil Conservation Service Tom Bargsten, Soil Scientist date September. 19, 1972 2 sheets 23) Interpretive Geologic Maps -Aspen Quadrangle U.S. Geological Service 6 sheets Bruce Bryant 1972 1. avalanche areas 2. slope map 3. permeability 4. ease of excavation -Aspen Quadrangle 5. potential hazard areas 6. mines { '1x1 I �w 24) letter: Dr. John W. Marr, Ecologist Vegetative Study Professor of Biology 2 Maps University of Colorado date August 28, 1972 25) letter: Lamont Kinkade, City, County, State Sanitarian Department of Environmental Health & Pollution Control date September 10, 1972 charts- benzene solubles and suspended particulates 26) letter: Steven Weiner, Engineer Air Pollution Control Division State of Colorado Department of Health date March 12, 1971 charts- benzene solubles and suspended particulates for statewide area 27) Air Contaminate Emission Inventory 1970 Colorado Department of Health 28) letter: Allen F. Whitaker Wildlife Conservation Officer Division of Game, Fish & Parks map of critical elk wintering areas date September 8, 1972 29) letter: John E. Burns U.S. Forest Service Draft Management Plan- Aspen Urban Influence Planning Area date August 25, 1972 30) Aspen Times Articles- Cloud Burst- Rock Slide Fatality - August 7, 1964 May 28, 1953 31) letter: Holder Engineering Service March 25, 1965 r-� A THE WEHNER REALTY CO. 900 HARMAN AVENUE DAYTON, OHIO 45419 TELEPHONE 299 -4693 Feb. 17 1973 Miss re Cgy E 19iklich Fitkin ounty Clerk & Recorder Office Of Bldg Inspector r.O.Box 694 Aspen Colorado 81611 ae are in receipt of your Certified Mail regarding a meeting of the Joint public hearinj of The Pitki n Planing and Zoning Commission on Feb. 86 1973 at 8.00 Oclovk, to consider an amendment to the Pitkin County Zoning District AR -1. N0562553 County Man from On Sept 21 1972,we sent i *ou a letter for some information as requested therein, but up to thepresent time have not received any kind of a reply to thi, reauest.We appreciate the fact that you are busy with everyday affairs of your office,but do not believe that you have been that busy since the receipt of this letter,that you have not been able to give us a reply to our questions. As expleined in that letter one of our Vice Fresid.ents visited. Aspen,and talked tD a number of people regarding the situation there and the pos-ibilities in connection with our land,but was not able to obtain very much information that would help us to comment-, on this amendment that you are contemplating. If your Zoning is anything like ours in this part of the country,it would only affed;tf people that owned land that had a certain Zoning at thepresent time,end which affected their use of it and someone wanted to use it for another pu.rpose,and wanted the �oning chanmed to take care of their use. Therefore we do not believe that the changing of Zoning as contemplated would have any affect on our la.nd,and,from the map that you sent us,which we were unable to read,even with a Magnifying Glass, 3/1.2 inch in size,we do not know what your amendment,Green Lire Zoning means. We have recently pa'dyour taxes for the year 1972 Schedule No 4170.No 628.which describes the land as Saltee USMS #11294 R.F. 7 -394. We will be unable to attend the meeting of Feb.26 1973,a.nd do not know what other questions to ask,or recommendations to make in regard to this Amendment,unless we do receive some answers to the questions conbhined in our letter of Sept. Tl 1972. Thanking you for your attention to this second reauest,we are Yours re- nectful17 The hxn � tv Co 900 Harman Ave. Fres. Dayton Ohio 45419 r,S,For your information we are enclosing a cony of our letter of Sept. 21 1972 THE WEHNER REALTY CO. 900 HARMAN AVENUE DAYTON, OHIO 45419 TELEPHONE 299 -4893 Sept 21 1972 Office Of Building Inspector Attn•Peggy E.Miklich Clerk & Recorder V.O.Box 694 Lorraine Greves City C1erk,City Of Aspen Colorado 81611 Aspen Col, Gentlemen; Vie are in receipt of your Certified t ?ail Letter No.612994 dated Sept 13 1972,regardin); a Joint Public henrin- scheduled in District Courtroom,County Courthouse Pitkin Cot_znty ,Aspen Colorado,on Sept 26th 1972.to consider changing a portion 6f The Pitkin County Zoning Pop. Sneo we do not know anythin? about the area around Aspen,wo do n ^•t Imovm Surat tivhat is being; proposed from the map thr.t you rent us,and ern,!ot mska any comment on it.Kor,ever in jvne 1:,62 one of the Vice Presidents of The l�ehner Realty Co had to mrko a trip to Denveriand :ze asked hi , to visit Aspcn,end see what he could find out about this property.rie did this at a cost of a little over 1;200 to The Company and gave us a very good detailed report after returning and at that time he advised us that he,or a great :-rany of the people that he talked to,did not see any future from mining ores in this district,and that he would be of the opinion thrt peyin any more taxes and assessnents,would be throwing money away. He found that P.:r. Louis Wehner,the rres.of The :.r.hner Rer.lty Cc at that time,had 'teen payi -g taxes on thaws property since 1903.lie wr.s one of the original stockholders of Tho 3altec `.Anin7 Co.The Saltec lode mining; claim U.S.Mineral Survey No 11294 is situated in the Roaring tinin- District of The County Of Pitkin about three riles south of the Torn Of Aspen on what is 1 -.notin as the Aspen Contact. All of the members ^nd stockholders including `r i',ehner are doce^.sed,but the tible has never been transfored to The ,.ohner Realty Co,or any of the heirs of his.Yho ?" 'ohner Realty Co is composed of six menbers of t "r i+ehners family,a °ld is a cl�sod stock Com ^any. : ?r, Robert Kiley Treas.of Pitkin County,i.n his letter to The .ehnor Realty Co,whieh was an answer to this Conpanys letter of Vny 6 1938,his letter being dated M2y 12 1938,wns of the opin:t6 t,that it may be of advantsne for tLe o- ,naors at thrt time to hold this nropertyo t;e coo not knot: if this cha'?^^ in Zon3_n7 is +.c, =-:n, any difference in t_,e taxes;lwoseasments,or charges to this property,because if is will we rre certainly against any other expenses on thhis pro : ?crty. April ',1 1956,I recoiVed a lit ;.er Vr. :� :ev. Jos-_?.h 7.3osch,tho rvotor Of St ': :"r.rys Church in i.spen,which was a reply to a letut,er that I had sent hi. -:.e re>ardinrr . the prooerty. sine 0 he and his fvInily in Dayton Ohio were long; tis:c friends of mine,r_ud h? rave me about tho mvino, information thf-A our Vice Yresiclent had received in 1962 when he visited y ,r City. .,p are wondorning if there has been any change since thr.t ti .e, that world be of -.iy benkfit to our r.roppty.Thcre was sole tr1k of i +pother Skiuii't, sinco the pro arty at that time was au out,j kyty;;ijqy a half a --.ilo South of the Ski Lift. Mr. v.olf sent us a copy of The A_-pen Timos dated ,..y 25 196^9 which contained the ads,op several Real Rstato Brokers,?'oore Realty Co Aspen Rer.lty Co,t ans Of Aspen, etc . nd we :°were yonder -iin- if' any of them handled for sale,this type of Peal 7stato,and a- proximately %vhat price it m:+y be sold for,if it i3 salevblo. 0 THE WEHNER REALTY CO. 900 HARMAN AVENUE DAYTON. OHIO 45419 ' TELEPHONE 299 -4893 (2) Sept, 21 1972 Since you people are more than likely residents of Aspen for a number of years,and know what is happening to this area,we will appreciate an answer to our question,as to what,if any,tLis change in Zoning will have on the expenses on our property,or any improvement to the possible sale of it,as soon as you may get a chance to do so. Thanking you in advance for whatever information you may be able to furnish this Company,,we are, Yours respectfully. 900 Harme.n Ave. The WWmer Realty Co. Dayton Ohio 45419 By — Pres, & Tress. WILLIAM J. GARNEY ATTORNEY AT LAW THE WHEELER OPERA HOUSE. P. O. BOX 3136 ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 (303) 925 -1923 January 19, 1973 Leonard M. Oates, Esquire Pitkin County Attorney Clark, Oates, Austin & McGrath P.O. Box 3707 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Green Line Rezoning Proposal Dear Lennie: On Wednesday January 17, 1973, a notice of a joint public hearing of the Pitkin County Planning & Zoning Commission and the Pitkin County Commissioners scheduled for February 12, 1973 was published in Aspen Today. On behalf of my client, Spar Consolidated Mining & Development Company, I wish to register our formal objections to the notice in the following respects: 1. I reiterate here and incorporate herein by this reference the objections of Mr. Stephen A. ware in his letter of September 25, 1972 addressed to Mr. Herb Bartel with respect to the vagueness of the description of the area to be rezoned. Specifically, the 8040 elevation line has to our knowledge, never been located on any official survey of Pitkin County, and there are wide discrepancies in the location of the 8040 elevation line on various sur- veys which I have seen. 2. The joint hearing procedure announced in the public notice will not fill the requirements of 1963 C.R.S. 106 -2 -11, which requires the County Commissioners to hold a public hearing after receiving certification of zoning plans from the Planning & Zoning Commission, and upon thirty days notice given by one publication. f�L M Leonard M. Oates, Esquire January 19, 1973 Page 2 3. The rezoning application does not comply with the requirements of paragraph 3 of the "Policy Statement: Rezoning Hearings of the Pitkin County Planning & Zoning Commission, in that the information required to be filed by an applicant has not been filed `thirty days prior to the scheduled hearing. Our objections to the substance of the rezoning proposal will be presented at the public hearing, provided however, that we are not waiving our right to make the objections stated in this letter. Very truly yours, William J. Ca ey WJC:am cc: Mr. Dwight K. Shellman, Jr. Mr. Joseph E. Edwards Dr. J. Sterling Baxter Mr. Herb Bartel Mr. Hal Clark Mr. Stephen A. Ware Mr. Charles E. Goodhue II Mr. Hans Graminger Box 67 Aspen, Colorado Dear Hans: OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR COUNTY OF PITKIN P.O. BOX 694 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 January 18, 1973 This letter will summarize the content of our discussions during the week of January 15 -19, 1973, regarding your intent to construct a restaurant on your land atop Shadow Mountain. As you know, there is a Public Hearing scheduled on February 12, 1973 to consider rezoning land on Shadow Mountain above the 8040 line from Tourist to Agriculture and Forestry I. At this time I cannot comment on how this will affect your plans. The Building Department has certain basic concerns about your development. They are as follows: 1. An excavation and gradirg permit shall be required as provided in Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code, 1970 ed. Section 7006 details information required for a grading permit. 2. Due to possible danger to adjacent property from rdckfall, avalance, etc., and do to the known instability of the Ajax- Shadow Mountain mining area (Castle Creek Fault Zone), the Building Department shall require submittal of a Soil Engineering Report and an Engineering Geology Report. Criteria for these reports are found in Sections 7006 (e) (f) of the 1970 U.B.C. 3. The Pitkin County Engineer will review these reports to assure the safety of your project. 4. A survey of your property will be required as will the monumentry of all corners before issuance. of a building permit. 5. Two copies of your building plans will also be required. Please contact our department if you have any questions concerning these matters. Sincerely, Hal Clark Building Inspector Pitkin County HC /rh cc: Dwight Shellman,Chairman Pitkin County Commissioners Herb Bartel City /County Planner I r � L WILLIAM J. GARNEY ATTORNEY AT LAW THE WHEELER OPERA HOUSE. P. O. BOX 3136 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925-1923 February 20, 1973 Ms. Peggy Miklich Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder P. O. Box I Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Proposed Green Line Rezoning of Aspen Mountain Dear Peggy: On behalf of my client, spar Consolidated Mining and Development Company, I submit herewith as part of the hearing record for the hearing scheduled for February 26, 1973 the following memorandum of law. I would appreciate it if this is made part of the official record of the hearing. Very truly yours, WJC /lb Enclosure WILLIAM J. CCARNEY ATTORNEY AT LAM' MEMORANDUM THE WHEELER OPERA HOUSE. P. O. 8OX 3136 ASPEN, COLORADO 8 161 1 (303) 926 -1923 TO: Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission, Pitkin County Commissioners, Pitkin County Attorney and Aspen City Attorney FROM: William J. Carney DATE: February 7, 1973 RE: Legality of Proposed Rezoning of Aspen Mountain FACTS I represent Spar Consolidated Mining and Development Company, a Colorado limited partnership ( "Spar "). Spar is the successor in interest to three groups - two corporations called "Spar Consolidated "lines Company" and "Percy LaSalle Mines Company ", and the personal holdings of the Brown Familv. The present members of the partnership have a cash investment of over $1,600,000, plus interests in the predecessor corporations. The cash contributions of the limited partners can be verified in the Certificate of Limited Partnership recorded in Book 260 at page 835 in the records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. A financing statement is on file with the Colorado Secretary of State evidencing the investment of Electro- Care - Industries, Inc. These investments were paid largely to long -term Aspen residents. The properties purchased by Spar have been acquired within the pastseveral years. Spar's properties fall into two basic categories - lode claims on Aspen Mountain and placer claims on Castle Creek. Memorandum Page 2 It is estimated that approximately 253 acres of land owned by Spar are under lease to Aspen Skiing Corporation. That lease leases the surface to Aspen Skiing Corporation for skiing purposes, and if Aspen ceases to use any ski run for two con- secutive years, rights revert to Spar. In addition, the lease reserves to Spar the right to conduct surface mining operations on the entire property, except for a narrow strip along each lift line. Spar owns approximately 335 acres on Castle Creek. Spar's property on Aspen mountain is located in both the City of Aspen and Pitkin County, while its Castle Creek properties are located in the County. Existing Zoning Pattern: The land in the City of Aspen is zoned AR -1, Accomodations and Recreation. The land in Pitkin County is currently zoned T, Tourist , and AR -1, Accomodations and Recreation, on Aspen Mountain, and T, Tourist, and R -15, Residential, along Castle Creek. Because of the huge number of claims owned in whole or in party by Spar, it is extremely difficult to calculate the maximum possible density available to Spar. The matter is complicated somewhat -by the ski lease and the fact that some terrain is not suitable for building. Nevertheless, some observations are nossible. For example, approximately 135 acres are wholly owned by Spar under the ski lease, and approximately 11 acres are not subject to the ski lease. 146 acres contain over 6 million square feet. If we assume all of this acreage is available to be built on at the lowest density available now on Aspen Mountain the County's AR-1 classification, one unlimited unit could be built for each 1,500 square feet of lot area, or 4,000 unlimited units. Similar figures can be applied to the land on Castle Creek now zoned Tourist. The potential value of these holdings is considerable. For example, approximately 11 acres near the base of the mountain contain over 479,000 square feet. If a value of $6 per square foot is used for these sites alone, they are currently worth $2,874,000. These values obviously justify high development costs for water, sewer transportation, landscaping, erosion control and beautification.' Memorandum Page 3 The proposed rezoning would drastically reduce available develop- ment opportunities. For example, the 479,000 square feet at the base of the mountain which are excepted from the ski lease are presently zoned AR -1 in the City of Aspen and T in Pitkin County. With the exception of part of the Chance Claim (above Ute Avenue), nearly all of this would be rezoned AF in Aspen and AF -2 in Pitkin County. Perhaps 2.5 acres of the Chance would remain zoned AR -1 in Aspen. The loss of available density is roughly as follows: Present Zoning Claims Excepted from Ski Lease: Aspen AR -1 (90%) 431,000 sq.ft. Pitkin County T (100) 48,000 sq.ft. Maximum Value (at No. Units* $5,000 per unit) 287 $1,435,000 32 160,000 319 $1,595,000 A survey of all of Spar's properties is now under way. Without complete site studies it is impossible to predict site development costs. Preliminary review of site development costs for the single - family home sites under the proposed zoning indicates costs will exceed the maximum selling price of the sites, leaving little or no value for the land. Most of the balance of Spar's land is subject to the ski lease. Recent reviews of these holdings (which include the 11 acres pre- viously discussed) show the following totals for the Aspen Mountain Area: Acreage leased for skiing 253.05 Acreage not under ski lease 359.25 Subtotal 612.30 Less acreage discussed above 11.00 Total 601.30 Proposed Maximum Value (at Zoning No. Units $5,000 per unit) Aspen AR -1 110,000 sq.ft. 73 $ 365,000* Aspen A & F 321,000 sq.ft. 4 170,000 ** Pitkin County AF -2 48,000 sq.ft. 0 -0- 77_ $ 535,000 Net Loss: 242 $1,060,000 *based on unlimited units, and assumption that applicable height ,and set -back requirements can be complied with. * *single family lots valued at $35,000 each for two -acre sites. A survey of all of Spar's properties is now under way. Without complete site studies it is impossible to predict site development costs. Preliminary review of site development costs for the single - family home sites under the proposed zoning indicates costs will exceed the maximum selling price of the sites, leaving little or no value for the land. Most of the balance of Spar's land is subject to the ski lease. Recent reviews of these holdings (which include the 11 acres pre- viously discussed) show the following totals for the Aspen Mountain Area: Acreage leased for skiing 253.05 Acreage not under ski lease 359.25 Subtotal 612.30 Less acreage discussed above 11.00 Total 601.30 Memorandum Page 4 This acreage is now zoned either T or AR -1 by Pitkin County, and is proposed to be rezoned AF -2. Assuming for the moment that only the land not under the ski lease can be built upon, 348 acres (359 less 11) are available for development. The values which can be realized by building at available densities only at the most suitable sites are obviously quite high. Such values obviously justifv sophisticated solutions to the transportation problems presented by the terrain of Aspen Mountain. The density can also be utilized where the terrain and access permit, and a return of investment seems probable. Planned Unit Development is available. on the other hand, if the property is zoned AF -2, the minimum lot size is two acres, and maximum densitv is one two - family dwelling, for a total density of 348 units, or a reduction of 96 %. Planned Unit Development is not available, so that many sites would AF rendered useless because of terrain or access problems. zoning encourages subdivision sprawl, which maximizes the visual impact of development. The cost of site development for the sites which appear useful under AF -2 will either equal or exceed the price which could be obtained for the sites, thus rendering the property itself valueless. ARGUMENT The proposed zoning is illegal. It violates the purposes of the city and county zoning rules and it deprives the property of any beneficial use. It bears no reasonable relation to protection or promotion of the public health, safety, and morals recognized by the courts and it is arbitrary as applied to the property in question. oning enactment must stand o fall While it is true that each z rules factors, several general after consideration of many proposed applicable to the present situation make clear that thhe e p P zoning could not withstand judicial scrutiny. "For a landowner to prove that a zoning ordinance is unconstitutional as applied to his property, he must show either that the zoning ordinance is not substan- tially related to the public health, safety, or welfare, or that the zoning ordinance precludes the use of his property for any purpose to which it can be reasonably adapted. Villa e of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 47 S.Ct. 114, 71 L.Ed. 303 (1926); Huneke v. Glaspy, 155 Colo. 593, 396 P.2d 453 (1964); Baum v. City and County of Denver, 147 Colo. 104, 363 P.2d 688 (1961); Cit of En lewood v. Apostolic Christian Church, 146 Colo. 374, 362 P.2d 172 (1961)." (Board of County Com'rs of Jefferson Co. v. Simmons, Colo. inion.) 494 P.2d 85 (1972) Erickson, dissentin g op �h Memorandum Page 5 The first ground, the general challenge to the exercise of the police power, subsumes attacks on arbitrary zoning as well as objections to zoning where the "public benefit" is negligible, subjective, speculative or disproportionate to the value taken from the individual landowner. The other independent ground precludes restrictions on property which decrease its value past a certain point regardless of public benefit. REZONING PROPOSAL DEPRIVES SPAR OF ANY REASONABLE nF T LAND AND THUS IS CONFISCATORY AND VOID Colorado follows the general rules various state and federal courts have formulated to balance the police power of zoning against individual property rights protected by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and similar pro- visions in state constitutions. The earliest case in the area antedates judicial approval of zoning laws. In Quintini v. Mayor of City of Bay St. Louis, 64 Miss. 483, 1 So. 625 (1887), the court invalidated an "ocean view" ordinance which prohibited all building on the ocean side of a highway, noting that the purpose of the ordinance was solely beautification, and holding it confisca- tory. Colorado authority is in accord: "Under no circumstances could an ordinance amending the zoning map in a way that would deprive the owner of all economic use be upheld. Colo. Const. Art. II, §15; U.S. Const. Amend. V." (City of Fort Collins v. Dooney, Colo. 496 P.2d 316 (1972 The basic test of confiscation was set out in a practical, if vague manner by the Supreme Court at an early date. In Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 413, 43 S.Ct. 158, 159, 67 L.Ed. 322, 325, Justice Holmes said: "Government hardly could go on if to some extent values incident to property could not be diminished without paying for every such change in the general law. As long recognized some values * * * must yield to the police power. But obviously the implied limitation must have its limits or the contract and due process clauses are gone. One fact for consideration in deter- mining such limits is the extent of the diminution. When it reaches a certain magnitude, in most if not in all cases there must be an exercise of eminent domain and compensation to sustain the act." f^ Memorandum Page 6 Little Colorado law exists in this area, beyond City and County of Denver v. Denver Buick, Inc. 141 Colo 121, 347 P.2d 919 (1960) where a rea_uirement off - street parking confiscatory and invalid. Thus it becomes necessary to look to other jurisdictions for guidance. In Harrington Glen, Inc. v. Municipal Bd. of Adjustment, 243 A.2d 233, N.J. 1968 the court spoke to the problem Mr. Justice Holmes raised,collecting authority. Quite simply, a restraint on all practical use goes beyond the boundary between zoning and eminent domain; it cannot be sustained as zoning. "The only distinction between such zoning restriction and an actual taking by the municipality is that the restriction leaves the owner with the burden of paying taxes on the property, while the outright taking relieves him of that burden. Ordinarily restraint upon all practical use, such as that which would follow from denial of a variance, is spoken of in terms of confis- cation. Morris Cnty. Land, etc. v. Parsippany -Troy Hills Twp., 40 N.J. 539, 554- -557, 193 A.2d 232 (1963); Kozesnik v. Montgomery Tcap., 24 N.J. 154, lug, 131 A.2d 1 (1957); Graves v. Bloomfield Planning Bd., 97 N.J. Super. 306, 315, 235 A.2d bl (Law Div. 1967); Mischiara v. Board of Adjust. of Piscataway Twp., 77 N.J. Super. 288, 292, 186 A.2d 141 (Law Div. 1962); Kryscnski v. Shenkin, 53 N.J. Super. 590, 597, 148 A.2d 58 App.Div.), certification denied, 29 N.J. 465, 149 A.2d 859 (1959); Burke v. Borough of Spring Lake Bd. of Adjust., 52 N.J. Super. 498, 503, 145 A.2d 790 (App.Div.1958); Robyns v. City of Dearborn, 341 Mich. 495, 67 N.W.2d 718 (1954); Ritenour v. Dearborn Twri., 326 Mich. 242, 40 N.W.2d 137 1949); Arverne Bay Const. Co. v. Thatcher, 278 N.Y. 222, 15 N.E.2d 587, 592, 117 A.L.R. 1110 (1938); Bexson v. Board of Zoning & AEEeals, Torn of Hempstead, 28 A.D.2d 848, 281 N.Y.S.2d 569 (1967); Saravo Bros. Const. Co. v. Zoning Bd. of Review, Town of Johnston, R.I., 231 A.2d ; Ken Bd. of Review, City of Warwick, R.I., 216 A.2d 511 (1966); Denton v. - Zoning Bd. of Review, City of Warwick, 86 R.Y. 219, 133 A.2d 718 (1957); Annotation 117 A.L.R. 1117, 1129 (1938)." (243 A.2d 233, 237) 4 Memorandum Page 7 Denying all practical use does not mean denying all use. "...regulations which so restrict the use of the particular land as to render it valueless, to leave.the owner with the right to use the land for purposes which are not economically feasible or to permit the owner only uses which are highly improbable or practically impossible under the circumstances have no reasonable tendency to serve the health, safety, morals, or welfare of the community. This is a taking of property without due process of law and amounts to confiscation. See 58 Ohio Jurisprudence 2d, Zoning, Section 92. (Dusi v. Wilhelm, 266 N.E.2d 280, 282 (Ct.C.Pl.Ohio 1970), emphasis added) Economic feasibility and thus the right to practical use depends upon the circumstances in each individual situation. See, Francis v. City and County of Denver, 160 Colo. 440, 418 P.2d 5 1966 . "A property owner may also be unconstitutionally deprived of any beneficial use of his property due to the topography or other physical features of his land which either entirely precludes the use of the land for any permitted use or, by reason of the cost of site development or low yield of lots for residential development, makes it economically unfeasible to use the land therefor. (Voelcker v. City of Glen Cove, 212 N.Y.S.2d 835; McConnell, et al. v. Incorporated Village of Tuckahoe, 25 App.Div.2d 441, 266 N.Y.S.2d 821; Tarrant v. Incorporated Village o P.oslyn, 187 N.Y.S.2d 821, 19 Misc.2d 238, aff'd 1 f 0 App iv.2d 37, 197 N.Y.S.2d 317, aff'd 8 N.Y.2d 783, 201 N.Y.S.2d 796; Hyde v. Incorporated Village of Baxter Estates, 140 N.Y.S.2d 890, aff'd 2 App.Div.2d 889, 156 N.Y.S.2d 378, aff'd 3 N.Y.2d 873, 166 N.Y.S.2d 314; Spanich v. City of Livonia (Mich.), 94 N.W.2d 62; Morris County Land Co. v. Parsippany -Troy Hills Township, 40 N.J. 539; Wildlife Preserves, Inc. v. Poole N.J. Super. App.Div. 1964), 201 A.2d 377.)" Rathkopf, The Law of Zoning and Planning, Vol. 1, 1971 Cum.Supp., p. 65, emphasis added) McConnell, et al. v. Incorporated Village of Tuckahoe, 266 N.Y.S.2d 821 (App.Div. ) involved a fact situation strikingly similar to the situation at hand. The court struck down the zoning change. "The main thrust of plaintiffs' claim is that they were unconstitutionally deprived of any beneficial use of the property by this zoning change due to the unusual topography of the site. i Memorandum "Plaintiffs paid $10,000 to acquire the rights of the buyer at the auction sale; the bid price was $25,000. The experts who testified for plaintiffs agreed that the property could not be feasibly developed for any uses included in Residence B. one expert, with the aid of topographical surveys and other exhibits, described the slope of this parcel which ascended in its slightly more than 100 foot depth from level 155 feet at one point on the street to level 198 feet at one point in the rear. This expert then analyzed that the cost of site development alone to build four houses there would range from a low of $16,800 per plot to a high of $35,500 per plot, these high costs being due to the deep excavation work and to construction of extensive concrete retaining walls that would be necessary. "Two- family dwellings on this site and in this neighbor- hood would not sell for more than $25,000 to $33,000 and, since the site development without a constructed house would in many instances exceed the sales price, lack of feasibi.li.ty_ is demonstrated_.." (266 N.Y.S.2d 821, 823, emphasis added) In the present situation the topography of the area under consideration for rezoning is such that the cost of development, particularly the construction of access roads and the instal- lation of adequate water and sewage facilities, makes the cost of two -acre plots family homesites exceed their sale value. This in effect reduces the value of the land to zero. Further, it must be obvious that the land in question is virtually useless for agricultural purposes. This "zero value" situation arose in Curtiss - Wright Corp. v. Incorporated Village of Garden city, 57 N.Y.S.2d 377, 385, where the court held the zoning I as confiscatory, saying: "The court finds that the entire value of the buildings would be destroyed and that the value of the land would be more than offset by the cost of demolishing the buildings and of making the improvements to the land to fit if for residential use, for which it is not now and will not in the now foreseeable future be adapted." (emphasis added) Memorandum... Page 9 In Barney & Casey Co, v. Town of Milton, 324 Mass. 440, 87 N.E. 2d 9 (1949) marsh land along a river front which had formerly been used as a coal storage yard and a lumber yard was zoned residential. The court noted that industrial and commercial uses would give the wrong impression at the entrance to the town, and would impair the view of the river for some residences on nearby heights. The court noted that placing footings and found- ations for residences would be extremely difficult and costly, and struck down the zoning. The court dealt directly with the problem of aesthetics: "Aesthetic considerations may not be disregarded in determining the validity of a zoning by -law but they do not alone justify restrictions upon private property merely for the purpose of preserving the beauty of a neighborhood or town. The decision itself plainly demonstrates that the judge in reaching his conclusion relied principally upon the fact that the elimination of these residential restrictions upon the petitioner's land would be likely to give one entering the town from Boston along Granite Avenue a wrong impression of the attractiveness of the town as a residential community and also that the removal of the restrictions might result in interfering with the panorama of river and marsh now enjoyed by those living on elevated land some distance away. A piece of marsh land which was formerly occupied by a lumber company and which was useless for residence purposes could not properly be zoned for such purposes where it appeared that one of the primary reasons for the enactment of the zoning by -law was that, if the premises were used for the drilling of oil, the masts and dericks would be visible from residences located upon a nearby bluff. North Muskegon v. Miller, 249 Mich. 52, 227 N.W. 743. A by -law adopted for the purpose of providing for a beautiful and dignified village frontage along a public way in order that those passing along the way would be impressed with its desirability as a residential community was not a sufficient basis for the existance of the by -law. Dowsey v. village of Kensington, 257 N.Y. 221, 230, 177 N.E. 427, 86 ALR 642. Undue weight must not be given to aesthetic considerations which can only play an incidental or insulary role and some real, substantial and sufficient basis for the imposition of zoning restrictions. Regard for the preservation of natural beauty of a neighborhood makes the enactment of a zoning regulation desirable but does not itself give vitality to the regulation (citations omitted)." 87 N.E.2d at 14 -15 An almost identical factual situation arose in Cooper Lumber Co. v. Dammers, 2 N.J. Misc. 289, 125 A. 325 (1924) where lumber Memorandum w Page 10 yard property along a'river was rezoned residential. In striking down the ordinance, the court stated: "The purpose of the placing of this property in a residential section is, as we infer from the testimony and briefs, for the purpose of beautifying in time this portion of the bank of the Plassaic River. In other words, the purpose of prohibiting this particular piece of property from being used for the purpose for which it is best fitted is aesthetic. As was stated by Mr. Justice Swayze in the case of Passaic v. Patterson Bill Posting Co. . . . 62 A. 267 . . . aesthetic considerations are a matter of luxury and indulgence rather than of necessity, and it is necessity alone which justifies the exercise of the police power to take private property without compensation'." 125 A. at 327 Topography and feasability of use were the crucial considera- tions in Tarrant v.Incorporated Village of Roslyn, 187 N.Y.S. 2d 133, 19 Misc.2d 238; affirmed 10 App. Div. 2d 37, 197 N.Y.S.2d 317; affirmed 8 N.Y.2d 782, 168 N.E.2d 134, 201 N.Y.S. 2d 796. There the court struck down single family residential zoning of a parcel of land topographically unsuited for homes, where an access road could not be built to serve homes and the property surrounding it on three sides contained apartments. On Aspen Mountain, apartments are only on one side but property toward Independence Pass is zoned AR -1, as well. Zoning out all uses except uses regarded as beautiful and desirable by the community did not originate with the current "greenline" proposal. The judicial response has been that these uses are commendable, but must be achieved by the eminent domain power, not the police power. In Dooley v. Town Plan and Zoning Commission of Fairfield, 197 A. 2d 770 (Conn., 1964), the town of Fairfield rezoned property which had been previously zoned residential to a zone called flood plain district. The area was along Long Island Sound, and contained a tidal stream where the sea ran inland during high tides. Permitted uses in the flood plain district included parks, playgrounds, marinas, boathouses, landings and docks, clubhouses, wildlife sanctuaries, farming, truck and nursery gardening and motor vehicle parking. The court noted that the effect of the rezoning was to freeze the area into a practically unusable state. It noted that most of the uses were of a town or governmental nature, and that farming and marinas were impos- sible. The court stated: "There can be no doubt of that, from the standpoint of private ownership, the change of a zone to flood plain district froze the area into a practically unusable state. Memorandum Page 11 The uses which are presently permitted in the new zone place such limitations on the area that the enforcement of the regulation amounts, in effect, to a practical confiscation of the land. (cites omitted) Further, although the objective of the Fairfield Flood and Erosion Control Board is a laudable one and although we have no reason to doubt the high purpose of their action, these factors cannot overcome Constitutional principles. The plaintiffs have been deprived by the change of zone of any worthwhile rights or benefits in their land. Where most of the value of a persons property has to be sacrificed so that community welfare may be served, and where the owner does not directly benefit from the evil avoided (see, eg, the Old Smoke Nuisance cases such as State v. Hillman, 110 Conn. 92, 147 A. 294), the occasion is appropriate for the exercise of eminent domain." 197 A.2d at 773 -774 In finding this zoning unconstitutional and confiscatory, the court cited Denver v. Denver Buick, Inc., 141 Colo. 121. In Hager v. Louisville, 261 S.W.2d 619 (Ky. Ct. App. 1953) a designation of land on a master plan as a "pending area" for flood control was held confiscatory and invalid. In Morris County Land Improvement Co. v. Township of Parsippany- Troy Hills, 40 N.J. 539, 193 A. 2d 232 (1963) , rezoning of a wetland was declared invalid. The plaintiff owned 66 acres in a swampy area called Troy Meadows. The swampy area was largly owned by a non - profit corporation which was holding it as a wild- life sanctuary and nature study refuge. The swamp also served as a holding basin for runoff into the Passiac River, which reduced the effect of floods in the remainder of the township. Plaintiff's land lay along a public road, and the plaintiff owned land on the other side of the road in another township which was zoned industrial. The meadow would have required substantial land filling operations before it could be used. The area in question was rezoned in a 'meadows development zone" which allowed only agricultural uses, raising of aquatic plants, fish and fish food, outdoor recreational uses operated by government agencies, conservation uses including drainage control, wildlife sanctuaries, hunting and fishing preserves, and various other facility uses such as transmission lines, towers, etc. The zoning ordinance also prohibited land fill operations except by special permit which would establish that no impairment of present use of adjacent properties would occur. The plaintiff applied for a permit for land fill, and this was denied, and suit was brought to challenge the zoning ordinance. The court, in holding the ordinance invalid, noted that the primary object of the zoning regulation was to retain the land substantially in its natural state, and that this was done in part by prohibiting land fill, which, due to the unstable nature of the land prohibited effectively any building upon it. The court then noted that many of the permitted uses were quasi- public • Memorandum 4 Page 12 or public in nature, and that the only practical use which could be made of the property is as a hunting or fishing preserve or wildlife sanctuary, which the court did not consider productive. The court noted that the main purpose of enacting the regulations was for a public benefit - use of the area as a water detention basin in aid of flood control, and preservation of the land as open space for the benefits would accrue to the local public from an undeveloped area such as this. The Court quoted from the opinion of Mr. Justice Holmes in Pennsylvania Cole Company v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 415, 43 S.C. 158, 160, 67 L. Ed. 322, 326 (1922) supra: "The general rule at least is that while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking. * * *We are in danger of forgetting that a strong public desire to improve the public condition is not enough to warrant achieving the desire by a shorter cut than the Con- stitutional way of paying for the change." 193 A.2d at 241. The court's opinion went on: "While the issue of regulation as against taking is always a matter of degree, there can be no question but that the line has been crossed with the purpose and practical effect of the regulation is to appropriate private property for a flood water detention basin or open space. These are laudable public purposes and we do not doubt the high- mindedness of their motivation. But such factors cannot cure basic unconstitutionality. Nor is the situation saved because the owner of most of the land in the zone, justifiably desirous of preserv- ing an appropriate area in its natural state as a wetland wildlife sanctuary, supports the regulations. Both public uses are necessarily so all- encompassing as practically to prevent the exercise by a private owner or any worthwhile rights or benefits in the land. So public acquisition rather than regulation is required." 193 A. 2d at 241 -242 To the same effect, see State of Maine v. Johnson,265 A.2d 711 (Me. 1970)(State Wetlands Act prohibiting practical use held invalid). It is significant that many of the goals of the rezoning in the last two cases are quite similar to those expressed by the planning office at the September, 1972 public hearing - preservation of areas of natural beauty, wildlife, flood control, etc. And, like here, the permitted uses were either public in nature or not feasible. Surely no one would argue that forestry or agriculture are economically viable uses for the Aspen Mountain and Castle Creek areas. There are no agricultural operations in the area, and no timber operations. The only other use allowed in the City of Aspen under the AF zone is nurseries and green- houses. Surely no one suggests that all of the acreage within Memorandum Page 13 the City limits proposed to be rezoned can support such a use in this small community. Aspen is not the first community to attempt to zone property as residential in an attempt to keep the property open. The result generally in such cases has been invalidation of the zoning as confiscation, where the residential use is not feasible. In Eaton v. Sweeney, 257 N.Y. 176, 177 N.E. 412 (1931) property in the C -- ity off Saratoga Springs was zoned residential and hotel, but was surrounded by commercial uses rendering residential and hotel use unsuitable. Note that building residences was not impossible; it would merely have been economically foolish to develop for residential use. The Court of Appeals discerned the real reason for the zoning classification, and struck it down, saying: "Eaton cannot be deprived of his property for the benefit of the city park or to advance the State's interest in the development of Saratoga. These, of course, are worthy and magnificent causes which do not seek to progress by depriving private citizens of their property without compensation. If the City of Saratoga Springs desires to beautify the property adjoining its park and its entrances thereto, it cannot do so b_y the mere zoning process, if this results in rendering private property valueless." 177 N.E. at 414 The New York Court of Appeals grappled with another problem of aesthetics at the same time in Dowsey v. Village of Kensington, 257 N.Y. 221, 177 N.E. 427, 86 ALR 642 (1931). There a small quiet town was zoned entirely residential, including land on a street used for commercial purposes on the edge of the town. In a thoughtful opinion by Mr. Justice Lehman, the court in- validated the residential zoning with respect to this property, even though a variance procedure was available in hardship cases, saying: "The inference is reasonable that the property fronting on Middle Neck Road has been included in the residence district primarily for the purpose of providing a beautiful and dignified village frontage on the public throughfare. Aesthetic considerations are, fortunately, not wholly without weight within a practical world. Perhaps such considerations need not be disregarded in the formulation of regulations to promote the public welfare. (citation omitted) 'Public welfare' is a concept which in recent years has been widened to include many matters which Memorandum Page 14 in other times were regarded as outside the limits of governmental concern. As yet, at least, no judicial definition has been formulated which is wide enough to include purely aesthetic considerations. Certainly an ordinance is unreasonable which restricts property upon the boundary of the Village to a use for which the property is not adapted, and thereby destroys the greater part of its value in order that the beauty of the Village as a whole may be enhanced. In such case the owner of the property cannot be required to ask as a special privilege for a variation of the restriction. The restriction itself constitutes an invasion of his property rights." 177 N.E. at 430. And see Chusud Realty Corp. v. Kensington, 40 Misc. 2d 259, 243 N.Y.S. 2d 149 (1963). The rejection of the variance procedure is particularly relevant to the current proposal, where vague references have been made to "special review" to ameliorate the confiscation which is apparently obvious even to the Planning office. Mr. Justice Lehman rejected a variance procedure as saving the ordinance, because it required an application to develop the property, while the owner might wish to sell rather than to build, in which case he would be penalized since a buyer would assume that it could not be used for any purpose except residential. In testing whether a zoning ordinance is confiscatory the Holmesian approach to measuring the value of the property before and after is often used. The magnitude of the restriction which is permissible under the police power is not clear in Colorado. There. is some language which indicated that an ordinance becomes confiscatory when there is no reasonable use to which an owner can put his property. In City and County of Denver v. Denver Buick, Inc., 141 Colo. 121, 347 P. 2d 919 (1960), supra, that point was apparently reached when parking was required of landowners in a business district, even though parking lots are obviously a common use in such areas. The Colorado court has not yet used the Holmesian approach of measuring the dollar value of the loss, but many other jurisdictions have done so. The New York courts have repeatedly used such a test, as have other states, and a brief summary of the magnitude of value reductions considered may provide some rough guidelines in this area. In Isenbarth v. Bartnett, 206 App. Div. 546, 201 N.Y.S. 383, affirmed 237 N.Y. 617, 143 N.E. 765 (1923) residential zoning was held confiscatory where the property was worth $15,000 for residential use and $55,000 for business use, a relationship of approximately the same magnitude as Spar anticipates for its property. Memorandum Page 15 In Westwood Forest 23 N.Y.2d 424, 297 from apartment use where the value of between $10,000 an depending on which Estates, Inc. V. Village of South Nyack, N.Y.S.2d 129, 244 N.E.2d 700 (1969), rezoning to single family residential was invalidated land was $125,000 for apartment use and 3 $42,500 for single - family residence use, witness was believed. In Helms v. City of Charlotte, 122 S.E.2d 817 (N.C. 1961), the court struck down residential zoning where it was shown that "upon completion of a residence upon the lot, the market value of the house and lot would be less than the cost of constructing the residence." 122 S.E.2d at 824 In National Land & Investment Co. v. Kohn, 419 Pa. 504, 215 A.2d 597 (1965), suburban zoning into four -acre residential zoning was held invalid where if used as one -acre home sites the land was worth $260,000, and its value as rezoned was only $175,000. In McConnell v. Villaqe of Tuckahoe, 25 App. Div.2d 441, 266 N.Y.S.2d 821, where site development costs for four lots would range from $16,800 to $35,500 per plot, and two - family dwellings in the neighborhood could not be sold for more than $25,000 to $33,000, the court held the zoning confiscatory. In Dusi v. Wilhelm, 25 Ohio Misc. 111, 266 N.E.2d 280 (1970), the court found residential zoning confiscatory where property could be sold for $3,500 for single family residence sites and for a net profit of $68,400 if sold as mobile home sites. But see Norb 254 A.2d 700 from a range to $3,500 an llage Joint Venture v Countv Council (Md. 1969), where rezoning wnacn reauced values of $3,500 to $8,00 an acre to a range of $2,000 acre was sustained. The general rule of these cases is stated in Rathkopf, "The Law of Zoning and Planning" 6 -6: "The ordinance, therefore, is not to be held unconstitutional merely because property may not be put to its most profit- able use. The mere diminution of profits or the increased costs of operating a business caused by the restrictions of the ordinance are not sufficient to render an ordinance void. But where property values are extensively reduced by restrictions and the corresponding gain to the public is slight, the ordinance will be held invalid as confis- catory. Also, if the incursion into private property rights is sufficiently great the ordinance will be held confiscatory irrespective of any corresponding gain to the public. This result occurs when the ordinance restricts property to uses for which it is not reasonably adapted. The reason for this is that doubtlessly that in such cases the owner's 'share in the common consideration to compensate him for the great loss suffered. A necessity for monetary compensation for loss suffered Memorandum Page 16 ` arises when restrictions are placed on property in order to create a public benefit rather than to prevent a public harm." That the police power can be exercised through zoning only to protect the public welfare, rather than to advance it, is apparently the rationale of many of the leading cases. In Isenbarth v. Bartnett, 206 App. Div. 546, 201 N.Y.S. 383 (1923), affirmed 237 N.Y. 617, 143 N.E. 765, the court stated: "There can be no doubt that this action was a yielding to the idea of preserving the vista of this private park by restricting petitioners' property to a use which the development of the rest of the street and neighborhood had rendered obsolete. The Court of Appeals in People Exrel Sheldon v. Board of Appeals, 234 N.Y. 484, 138 N.E. 416, has lately dealt with the factors which would justify zoning a neighborhood as 'Business'. These factors have been sacrificed to the purely aesthetic purpose of preserving a vista to private property, which is a matter to be secured so far as it may by private covenant, without the backing of the police power. In People Exrel Lankton v. Roberts, Misc. 439, 440, 153 N.Y.S. 143, affirmed 171 App. Div. 890, 155 N.Y.S. 1133, the Court quoted with approval Judge Dilon's treatise on Municipal Corporations (5th Ed. Section 695), giving that jurists opinion that the police report cannot, for aesthetic pur- poses, be used to deprive the owner of property of its full beneficial use, and that, in short, zoning or similar legislation is not to be exercised for purposes other than the health, safety, convience, and public welfare of the people at large. "it might add to the general attractiveness of the City to preserve its private vista, but, if so, such would seem to be a matter to be governed by the eminent domain principle, with compensation to the owner, rather than the zoning practice, with loss to him. At common law, a fine vista was not a property right, either publically or privately, Coke says that an easement of prospect was 'a matter of delight only', and not of necessity, and therefore no action would lie for its impairment 19 Corp. Jur. 902." 201 N.Y.S. at 386 It is because improving the beauty of an area is not protecting the welfare of the people that it is generally not held to be a permissible exercise of the police power. The courts do not disapprove of municipalities taking action to beautify their areas; it is rather that in such activities they are no longer protecting one property owner from another but are benefiting all in a positive way. Professor Allison Dunham puts it thus: Memorandum Page 17 "But to compel a particular owner to undertake an activity to benefit the public, even if in the form of a restriction, is to compel one person to assume the cost of a benefit conferred on others without hope for recoup - ment of the cost. An owner is compelled to furnish a public benefit just as much when his land is taken for the runway of an airport as when he is prevented from building upon his land so that airplanes may approach the runway. In the former the landowner is paid without question; in the latter there is an attempt from time to time to compel the landowner to furnish the easement of flight without compensation by restricting building. The evil of the latter system is that there is no approxima- tion of equal sharing of cost or of sharing according to capacity to pav as there is where a public benefit is obtained by subsidy or expenditure of public funds. The accident of ownership of a particular location determines the persons in the community bearing the cost of increasing the general welfare. A further consequence of an attempt to obtain a benefit by means of a restriction is that the full cost of the public benefit is thereby concealed from those in our democratic society who are given the power of deciding whether or not they want to obtain a benefit." Dunham, "A Legal and Economic Basis for City Planning," 58 COLUM. L. REV. 650, 665. The rule, as stated by Professor Dunham, is that the state can impose restrictions.on land owners to keep them from imposing costs on others but must compensate the landowner in order to obtain a public benefit. Many of the cases, as this memo will demonstrate, take the rule one step further and hold that the restrictions must be reasonably related to the costs imposed - that the zoning must not be arbitrary. "Thus it has been held unconstitutional to compel an owner, without compensation, to leave his land vacant in order to obtain the advantages of open land for the public or in order to save the land for future park purchase, but it is within the constitutional power to compel an owner to leave a portion of his land vacant where building would be harmful to the use and enjoyment of other land (e.g., set -back lines). It is unconstitutional to compel an owner to commit his land to park use in order to meet the public desire for a park, but an owner may be compelled to furnish a portion of his land for a park where the need for a park results primarily from activity on other land of the owner. It is unconstitutional to compel him to use his land as a parking lot in order to obtain a parking lot for the community but it is within constitutional power to compel an owner to provide Memorandum Page 18 a parking lot for the parking needs of activities on his own land. (But see Denver Buick, supra) It is improper to compel a railroad to install grade- crossings for highways in order to promote the convenience of highway users, but it is permissible to compel the rail- road to install grade - crossings so as to eliminate danger and hazards from the railroad's use of its own property. It is not permissible to compel an owner to hold land in reserve for industrial purposes by restrict- ing his use to industrial purposes only, but it is permissible to exclude industrial development from districts where such development will harm other uses in the district. It is beyond state power to compel an owner without compensation to set aside or give land to the public for a street or highway, but it is within that power to compel him to do so where the need for the streets is related to the traffic generated by the owner's use of his other land. Likewise the state may compel an owner to furnish other community facilities such as water and sewer lines at his own expense where the need for such facilities results in part at lease from activities on his other land." Ibid at 666. While appraisals have not yet been made to determine the exact magnitude of the loss to Spar from the proposed rezoning there can be no doubt that it will be large, where some of the land now has a fair market value of over $250,000 per acre, as currently zoned. There can be little doubt that if rezoned A -F, it will not sell for $500,000 per two - acre homesite, or even a fraction of that amount. It is clear from its very title, as well as from the Planning Office's presentation at the September public hearing, that the purpose of this rezoning proposal is to prevent development by making it economically unfeasible, not to control it in a fashion compatible with neighboring land. This is confiscation. The power to zone is not the power to confiscate, directly or indi- rectly. This the court said in Tews v. Woolhiser, 165 N.E. 827 (Ill. 1933) forthrightly: "Zoning which admittedly limits property to a use which cannot reasonably be made of it cannot be said to set aside such property to a use but constitutes the taking of such property without just.compensation. Use of property is an element of ownership therein. Regardless of the opinion of zealots that property may properly, by zoning, be utterly destroyed without compensation, such principle finds no support in the genius of our govern- ment nor in the principles of justice as we know them. Such a doctrine shocks the sense of justice. If it be of public benefit that property remain open and unused, then certainly the public, and not private individuals, should bear the cost of reasonable compensation for such property under the rules of law governing the condem- nation of private property for public use." Memorandum Page 19 See, City and County of Denver v. 121, 347 P.2d 919, 923 -24 (1960). 141 Colo. THE REZONING IS NOT SUBSTANTIALLY RELATED TO ITS STATED PURPOSES AND IS THUS ARBITRARY. In addition to being confiscatory, the propose zoning change goes beyond the limits of the police power on several counts. Zoning is arbitrary and invalid if it does not effectuate the purposes of the zoning rules under which it is enacted. Board of County Commissioners of Jefferson County V. Simmons, sunr.7, 494 P.2d 85, , and cases cited. The Municipal Code of the City of Aspen and the Pitkin County Zoning Resolution both provide that the purpose of zoning enacted pursuant to them is, inter alia, to encourage the most appro- priate use of land. (Code Sec. 24 -1, Resolution Subsec. 1.2) Proponents of the zoning change will be hard pressed to argue convincingly that houses on two -acre plots on the subject property (or any of the other uses permitted) are better land use than multiple unit dwellings on any objective grounds. Determining an appropriate use involves consideration of private as well as public rights. "We said in Huff v. Board of Zonina Appeals, 214 Md. 48, 58, 59, 133 A.2d 83, that a comprehensive plan should seek to accomplish, as far as possible, the most appro- priate uses of land, consistent not only with the public interest but also with safeguarding of the interests of the individual property owner." (Board of County Com'rs. v. Oak Hill Farms, Inc., 192 A.2d 761 C.A. M . 1963)). A. The Zoning is Inconsistent With Surroundinq Uses. The area in question takes its character from the area surroun- ding it to the north, all of which is currently developed with hotels, lodges, and multiple unit dwellings. To suggest that land immediately adjacent to it is best suited for farming or ranching uses, or the rural residential use allowed in the A -F zone is obviously wrong. Tourist traffic, summer and winter would interfere with these uses, and the timber stands are insufficient for lumber operations. Indeed, such uses within city limits seem highly incongruous. In addition, if the County failed to adopt such zoning and the City adopted it, the result would be a small pasture surrounded by condominiums, in short, spot zoning. "Where property is so zoned at variance with existing conditions in the surrounding area that the objects of the enabling act are not and cannot be advanced by such restrictions, the imposition of such restrictions is arbitrary with respect to the particular property involved." (Ruthkopf, The Law of Zoning and Planning, Vol. 1, p. 5 -1, citing Gordon v. City of [7dheaton, 12 Ill. 2d. 284, 146 N.E.2d 37, 39 Memorandum Page 20 I .. While no two cases involving zoning to a use inconsistent with existing uses in the area are identical, some illustrations of the rule will demonstrate that a radical shift from high- density tourist lodging to a pastoral use is arbitrary and void. It should be noted that the proposed rezoning could create several non - conforming uses - Shadow Mountain Condominiums, the upper unit of the Aspen Alps, and the city water tank, all of which appear to be at least partially above the 8040 line. Rezoning which creates substantial non - conforming uses is always suspect as void. See Bogert v. Washington Twp., 25 N.J. 57; and Colvin v. village of Skokie, 203 N.E.2d 451 (ILL. Ct. App. 1964). These cases holding zoning arbitrary where uses in the area are inconsis- tent with the permitted uses under the rezoning are really a gradation of the confiscation cases because the court is con- cluding that the permitted uses are not reasonable in view of surrounding uses. In Eaton v. SYeeney, 257 N.Y. 176, 177 N.E. 412 (1931), property zoned for residences and hotels was surrounded by commercial uses,and the zoning was declared invalid. In Isenbarth v. Bart - nett, 206 App. Div. 546, 201 N.Y.S. 383, (1923), affirmed 237 N.Y. 617, 143 N.E. 765, the property in question was near a private park, and was zoned residential for four blocks along a busy street where all recent improvements had been commercial. Similarly, in Dowsey v. Village of Kensington, 257, N.Y. 221, 177 N.E. 427, 86 ALR 642 (1931), all of a village was zoned residential, including land along a border of the village on a busy street where all neighboring property was zoned for commercial and apartment uses. The court held the ordinance invalid.. In Tarrant v. Incorporated Village of Roslvn, 187 N.Y.S.2d 133, 19 Misc. 2d 238, affirmed, 10 App. Div.2d 37, 197 N.Y.S.2d 317, affirmed 8 N.Y.2d 782, 168 N.E.2d 134, 201 N.Y.S.2d, the court invalidated single - family zoning for property surrounded on three sides by apartments, and the topography was unsuitable for residences. In Stevens v. Town of Huntington, 20 N.Y.2d 352, 283 N.Y.S.2d 16, property on a busy street was zoned residential to protect the character of a side street on which the property also abutted and the zoning was invalidated. Other cases holding zoning arbitrary and void because of nearby land uses include: Hedqcock v People ex rel. Arden Realty and Investment Co., 98. Colo. 522, 57 P.2d 891 (1936) - property on block used mostly for commercial uses was zoned residential. Grand Trunk 1949) - property a zoned residential. o. v. City of Detroit, 40 N.W.2d 195 (Mich. ailroad right of way in a blighted area Memorandum Page 21 Schiffer v. Village of Wilmette, 245 N.E.2d 143 (Ill. 1969) - property zoned residential where all other uses on busy street were commercial, except for one residence. Dusi v. Wilhelm, 25 Ohio Misc. 111, 266 N.E.2d 280 (1970) - residential zoning allowed only one mobile home per lot, where there were several trailer courts within a few blocks, including an existing one (a non - conformity use) on the rear of the lot in question. In the present case, Aspen Mountain serves over 2,500 skiers per day on peak days, all of whom are transported to the base of the mountain. In addition, a transportation proposal calls for utilization of the old railroad right of way along the base of the mountain for a narrow gauage railroad as part of a mass transporta- tion system, which will create more traffic at the base of the mountain. These facts, in addition to the large number of condo- miniums bordering on the land to be rezoned, cast grave doubts on the validity of the zoning. .B.The Zoning Fails to Achieve Permissible Purposes. An examination of the stated purposes of the rezoning will demonstrate that the rezoning accomplishes none of them. Population Reduction. Whether government can outlaw population, rather than serve it, as an exercise of the police power, is a debatable concept. Nevertheless, assuming population reduction is a permissible goal, this rezoning is hardly the appropriate way to accomplish it. Both in the city and the county there are tremendous amounts of undeveloped land in a variety of zoning classifications. Rezoning the land in question cannot stop growth, or even slow it significantly. Rezoning the entire city and county, or reducing allowable densities in all zoning classes, might accomplish these purposes, but rezoning one parcel will not. Reduce Street Congestion. Comments about population reduction also apply here. In fact, if there is to be any development in Pitkin County or Aspen, the least street congestion will be caused by development at the base of Aspen Mountain, where cars are least required by visitors. In winter season peaks, the primary activity centers are the ski slopes and the shops and restaurants in downtown Aspen. In the case of Aspen Mountain, they are only a few blocks apart, and walking between them is easier than attempting to park in downtown Aspen. Improvement of Safety from Fire and Natural Hazards. While this is a laudable goal, no showing has been made that this rezoning will accomplish it. There is no evidence that water pressure stops at the 8040' elevation. In fact, Chief Clapper has told another landowner with plans for development above 8040' that water pressure is adequate for fire protection. Aspen has a water tank above 8150' elevation. Furthermore, there are large .2 Memorandum Page 22 ground water resources available under Aspen Mountain, as evidenced by the flooding of some of the mine tunnels in the past. With respect to natural hazards, U.S.G.S. maps show areas of avalanche hazard, steep slopes, a variety of rock and soil conditions on Aspen Mountain. The same showings could be made on any mountain in Pitkin County, including some currently under development. The avalanche danger is at least slightly exaggerated, since it is shown on large parts of Aspen Mountain which are used by the public for skiing. Most importantly, the proposed rezoning does nothing to solve any problems that may exist from natural hazards. Isere the zoning is on the horns bf a dilemma; if it prevents all development above 8040' it is confiscatory; if it does not, there is nothing to prevent homes from being built on the most dangerous parts of two -acre sites. Other methods are obviously more appropriate to protect from natural hazards, such as defining standards for mountain building, including permissible soils, slopes, and special review for avalanche conditions. Facilitate Adequate Provision for Transportation, Water, Sewage, Drainage., Open Space and Public Buildings. General comments about population reduction also apply here. So do comments about street congestion. No evidence has been presented to show how this rezoning will solve the general growth- related problems of transportation, water and sewage. The reference to public buildings is incomprehensible. No evidence has been presented that the rezoning will have a significant effect on drainage problems. As mentioned before, the rezoning will not legally prevent all development if it does so as a practical matter it is void as confiscatory. But if development is possible, it will be in two -acre homesites which will require many miles of roads and utility cuts, which will aggravate drainage problems far more than well- planned development concentrated at the base of the mountain, or on other appropriate sites on Castle Creek. Well - planned development, with proper grading and planting, can actually improve drainage situations. Again, drainage is a county -wide problem, to be solved by standards which apply uniformly throughout the city and county. Provision of Open Space. This is the real reason for the rezoning. If the zoning accomplishes this, it is confiscatory and void. If it does not, it is arbitrary. For example, if building upon two - acre home sites is possible, development may be scattered over the mountain, rather than limited to concentrated development on the most desirable sites. Avoiding Undue Concentration of Population. Withouting reducing the densities allowable in the Tourist and A -R zones throughout the City and County, it is obvious that this rezoning merely shifts and concentrates population density, rather than reducing it. What is meant by destruction of physical environment in ' this context is not the least bit clear. If it means that build - ina destroys open space, that much is obvious, but it is difficult to stop such destruction short of stopping all building - an iFnermissible goal. Memorandum Page 23 Prevent the Overcrowding of Land and General Welfare of the Com- munity. That this rezoning only prevents crowding of some land, and does not solve the "problem" with respect to many other parcels zoned for high density use must by now be obvious. Further, by reducing densities within and at the border of Aspen, a land scarcity is created which may drive development to two -acre sites scattered all over the county, creating one massive subdivision, which would leave no natural open space. Thus the ultimate effect of this rezoning may be the opposite of what is desired. Error in Earlier Planning. There was no error. It makes plan- ning sense to place tourist housing near the activity centers, reducing traffic and transportation problems; and the reliance on automobiles. Furthermore, this zoning has been in effect for over 17 years. The 1966 Master Plan designated this area as "Public and Institutional ", and included among the permitted uses public and private schools, churches and related residential uses, lodges, clubs, etc." (emphasis added.) "Aspen Area General Plan, Final Report 1966 ", p.8. Thus property owners and purchasers have had a reasonable right to rely on the zoning, and govern- mental officials are estopped from changing their minds, absent a change of circumstances on the property. In fact, development has proceeded as expected, intensifying as it proceeds toward the mountain. Prevention of Air and Water Pollution and Soil Erosion. To suggest that development of this area would cause air pollution is ridiculous. The primary causes of air pollution in Aspen are wood - burning fireplaces and the automobile. It is a simple matter to outlaw wood- burning fireplaces. As pointed out previous- ly, development of Aspen Mountain would cause less increase in automobile traffic than any area in the County or City. Finally, the zoning assumes that alteration of Aspen Mountain would adversely affect erosion and water quality. It should be pointed out that Aspen Mountain is constantly being cut with new roads by four - wheel drive vehicles which are free to drive anywhere they want, and that the Mountain is a mass of scars and tailings from mining days. Proper development can provide terracing and other devices to prevent erosion, and new planting to improve ground cover. Proper safeguards against unreasonable scarring can be imposed as part of the building code, if the Planning office wished to protect the watershed throughout the valley. As long as no safeguards exist elsewhere in the area, it is absurd to think that singling out this one area will have a material affect on either water or air pollution. Maintaining Natural scenic Beauty. If Pitkin County and Aspen want a park, Spar is willing to sell. But zoning cannot be used for this purpose. Furthermore, as long as Smuggler and Red Mountains are being developed, this zoning will not achieve the goal of maintaining a natural valley surrounding Aspen. Protecting the Profile of the Silver Queen. This is in the same category as maintaining natural scenic beauty - a park use. Memorandum Page 24 complementing and Protecting Aspen's Purchased Open Space, for Which no Alternative Exists. This means Aspen has run out of green space acquisition funds, and now wishes to acquire more space by zoning. Restraining Growth Not to Exceed the Capacity of the Transporta- tion System which is Planned. This relates to population reduction previously discussed. Further, tourists housed in this area would create the least demand for public transportation, being within walking distance of major'activity centers. Controlling Demand for Future Public Facilities and the Burden of Future Taxes. This ,relates again to population reduction, previously commented on. The impairment of property values is accompanied by benefits to the public and protection afforded to others. This is a self - serving legal conclusion not borne out by the foregoing analysis. In short, all of the proper zoning goals have been recited, but no attempt has been made to relate them to specific problems arising from the land sought to be rezoned. The real reason for the proposal is found in its title - a green line, or open space, and all the rest is merely window dressing in an attempt to add some legal justification to the proposal. Numerous cases, mostly in eastern states facing population growth pressures, have dealt with attempts of areas to shut off growth in an attempt to preserve a rural atmosphere, the "character" of a community, to avoid increasing public facilities, or, in some cases, to zone out economic groups thought "undesirable ". The latter is often described as "snob" or "exclusionary" zoning, and is the subject of a substantial literature. A recent such case is Appeal of Girsh, 437 Pa. 237, 263 A.2d 395 (1970), which challenged a township zoning ordinance which made no previsions for apartment use, though the town had a population of 13,000. In invalidating the ordinance, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated: "In refusing to allow apartment development as part of its zoning scheme, appellee has in effect decided to zone out the people who would be able to live in the township if apartments were available." 263 A.2d at 397. A similar New York case grappled with the same problem, where the community justified a prohibition of all new construction of multiple family dwellings on the basis of an inadequate sewage plant which was allegedly polluting the Hudson River. The court noted that this was a problem which could not be shifted to property owners who had not yet developed their property, noting a heavy diminution in value, saying: Memorandum Page 25 "A municipality has, of course, the power to take appropriate steps to deal with sanitation problems, including those created by inadequate biological treatment of sewage. The instant sanitation problem is, however, general to the community and not caused by the nature of the plaintiff's land (citation omitted). It is, therefore, impermissible to single out this plaintiff to bear a heavy financial burden because of a general condition in the community (citation omitted)." 244 N.E.2d at 702. A rezoning of Fairfax County, Virginia, a part of the Washington, D. C., metropolitan area, bears a strong resemblance to the proposed zoning not only because of the attempt to deal with all of the problems related to growth, but also because the rezoning concentrated on a part of the county, rather than all of it. Board of County Supervisors of Fairfax County v. Carper, 200 Va. 53, 107 S.E.2d 390 (1959). Fairfax County doubled its population between 1950 and 1957, and was the fastest growing county in the United States. The eastern one -third of the county contained 90% of the population, while the western two - thirds consisted of a few established towns and wooded and agricultural land, land divided into three acre tracts and over, and land sub - divided into one -half acre lots. The population growth created problems of obtaining adequate sewer, water, fire protection and schools. While the eastern one -third of the county was served with public water and a county sewer system, this was not true in the western two - thirds. Under the rezoning, the eastern one -third of the county was zoned for lots running from one -fifth of an acre to one acre. The western two- thirds of the county was zoned for agriculture, with development on minimum lots of two acres, and around the settled communities the minimum lot size was one acre in the western portion of the county. In invalidating the zoning, the Virginia Supreme Court first noted the justification for it: "Evidence was stated on behalf of the appellant to show that the purpose and effect of the amendment were to prevent an exhaustion of ground water supplies by subdivision of less than two -acre lots in the western two- thirds of the county; that it abolished the threat to public health b;7 prohibiting the develop- ment of subdivisions of less than two -acre lots, using septic fields or private sewer systems; that it continued in effect existing and predicted land uses in both the eastern one -third and western two - thirds of the county; that property values in the western two - thirds had increased to some extent since its adoption; that it bolstered the precarious economic condition of the county and reduced the waste of physical and economic resources; that schools could be built in the eastern portion at much less cost than in the western area; that it would not prevent use of the land for agriculture; that it had achieved Memorandum Pam a reasonable plan of orderly community development; that in some areas the two -acre requirement for lots was necessary to protect the character of the neighborhood; and that it had prevented extensive commercial development in the western two - thirds of the county and channeled it back into the eastern portion, where water and sewage were available, all in the interest of the general welfare." 107 S.E.2d at 394. Having noted the problems, the court then noted that there were other solutions for many of them, as they are here: "The evidence offered on behalf of the appellees shows that sufficient ground water supplies are available in the western area for lots of less than two acres; that public service companies could supply water if the demand justifies it; that proper sewer facilities could be provided by the use of septic tanks or small sewage disposal systems without endangering the health of the inhabitants; that the health and safety of the county :ere and are protected by the sanitation ordinance, the subdivision ordinance, the subdivision control ordinance, and set -back requirements of the 1941 Zoning ordinance as amended; that there was a demand for houses to be built on land of less than two acres in the western area: that the effect of the'Freehill Amendment' has been to prevent use of the land for subdivision development in the western area...." 107 S.E. 2d at 394. In holding the ordinance invalid, the court stated: "The practical effect of the amendment is to prevent people in the low imcome bracket from living in the western area and forcing them into the eastern area, thereby reserving the western area for those who could afford to build houses on two acres or more. This would serve private rather than public interest. Such an intentional and exclusionary purpose would bear no relation to the health, safety, morals, prosperity and general welfare." The court held that zoning could not be used to set up a barrier against respectable citizens wishing to build homes for the purpose of protecting large estates. Perhaps the same comment could be made of zoning in Aspen which, in an area of high land costs, zones out multiple family dwellings. In Aronson v. Town of Sharon, 195 N.E. 2d 341 (1964) a Boston suburb attempted to ease its growth pangs by zoning one district for minimum lot sizes of 1000,000 square feet. The court, in holding the zoning invalid, stated: Memorandum Page 27 "The respondent argues: 'The physical characteristics of the district, considered in conjunction with those of the 'town, a town of residences, large camps, a retreat house, fish and game clubs, a wildlife sanctuary, and a large recreation and conservation area, indicate that all that has made Sharon beautiful ** *will best be maintained by the lot size requirements of its zoning by -law. The zoning in question would encourage leaving land in the natural state, which will provide the inhabitants, and those who come to Sharon, with a community which has the living and recreational amenities that are fundamental to mental and physical health.' This resembled the finding as to the second basis of the plan, namely, 'to initiate a positive program of land acquisition for the town itself' and the finding that the separation of the rural resident area helped to create an opportunity to cause land in it to be kept and used for conservation purposes. We cannot resist the conclusion that, however worthy the objectives, the by -law attempts to achieve a result which properly should be the subject of eminent domain. "In Simon v. Needhan, 311 Mass. 560, 563, 42 N.E.2d 516, quoted supra, are enumerated certain possible advantages of living upon an acre lot as compared with one of ten thousand square feet. While initially an increase in lot size might have the effects there noted, the law of diminishing returns will set in at some point. As applied to the petitioners' property, the Ettainment of such advantages does not reasonably require lots of one hundred thousand square feet. Nor would they be attained by keeping the rural district undeveloped, even though this might contribute to the welfare of each inhabitant. Granting value on recreational areas to the community as a whole, the burden of providing them should not be borne by the individual property owner unless he is compensated." 195 N.E.2d at 345. National Land and Investment Company V. Kohn, 419 Pa. 504, 215 A.2d 597 (165), involved an attempt by a Philadelphia suburb to restrict growth by zoning the township into one, two and four acre home sites. Because the case, which invalidat- ed the zoning with respect to a parcel in the 4 -acre zone, involved so many of the issues present in the greenline proposal - roads, traffic, open space, preservation of historic sites, and preservation of rural character, the opinion will be quoted at length. In dealing with the problem of pollution as a justification, the court noted the statutory power of townships to establish sanitary regulations, and that percolation tests could determine if lots were large enough to handle sewage, Memorandum Page 28 and held that a blanket four acre regulation was not a reasonable or necessary solution to pollution. The township noted that some of its roads were already being used at peak capacity, and that the present network would be at full capacity by 1972, which would make providing fire protection difficult: "It can be seen, therefore, that the restriction to four acre lots, so far as traffic is concerned, is based upon possible future conditions. Zoning is a tool in the hands of governmental bodies which enables them to more effectively meet the demands of evolving and growing communities. It must not and cannot be used by those officials as an instrument by which they may shirk their responsibilities. Zoning is a means by which a governmental body can plan for the future - it may not be used as a means to deny the future. The evidence on record indicates that for the present and the immediate future the road system of East Town Township is adequate to handle the traffic load. It is also quite convincing that the roads will become increasingly inadequate as time goes by and that improvements and additions will eventually have to be made. Zoning provisions may not be used, however, to avoid the increased responsibilities and economic burden which time and natural growth invaribly bring." 215 A.2d at 609 -610. The court then dealt with the justification that the zoning was necessary to preserve the "character" of the area, which was an area of great beauty containing old homes surrounded by beautiful pasture, farms and woodland: "Involved in preserving East Town's 'character' are four aspects of concern which the township gives for desiring four acre minimum zoning. First, they cite the preserva- tion of open space and the creation of a 'green belt' which, as most present day commentators impress upon us, are worthy goals. while in full agreement with these goals, we are convinced that four acre minimum zoning does not achieve the creation of a green belt in its technical sense, and, to the limited extent that open space is so preserved, such zoning as is here involved is not a permissible means to that end. By suggesting that the creation of a green belt is a purpose behind this zoning, appellants betray their arguments that there is a ready market for four acre plots. only if there is no market for four, acre lots will the land continue to be open and undeveloped and a green belt created. This, however would amount to confiscation of the property of East Town landowners for which they must be compensated. If the preservation of open spaces is the township objective, there are means by which this can be accomplished which include authorization for "cluster zoning' or condemnation of development rights with Memorandum Page 29 compensation paid for that which is taken. A four acre minimum acreage requirement is not a reasonable method by which the stated end can be achieved." 215 A. 2d at 610 -611. The court then went on to reject the argument that this zoning was needed to preserve historic sites in their proper setting. It noted that the sites in question were surrounded by land to protect them, and concluded: "In any event, beautification of several structures of minor_ historical significance either calls for nor legit- imatizes the imposition of low density zoning of the magnitude here contemplated upon 30% of the township." 215 A.2d at 611. Certainly that characterization suits the "Silver Queen" profile, which cannot even be seen from the City of Aspen and is virtually unknown to visitors. It might also be remembered that during the silver boom a whole town existed on the mountain, in Tourtelotte Park. The courts opinion then went on to treat the issue of preserving the "setting" of handsome old homes in the area: "Closely related to the goal of protecting historic monuments is the expressed desire to protect the 'setting' for a numher of old homes in East Town, some dating back to the early days of our common wealth. Appellants denominate this goal as falling, within the ambit of promoting the 'general welfare.' Unfortunately, the concept of the general welfare defies meaningful capsuled description and constitutes an exceedingly difficult standard against which to test the validity of legislation. However, it must always be ascertained that the outset whether, in fact, it is the public welfare which is being benefited or whether; disguised as legislation for the public welfare, a zoning ordinance actually serves purely private interests. "There is no doubt that many of the residents of this area are highly desirous of keeping it the way it is, preferring quite naturally, to look out upon land in its natural state, rather than on other homes. These desires, however, do not rise to the level of public welfare. This is purely a matter of private desire which zoning regulations may not be employed to effectuate." 215 A.2d at 611. The court went on to note that if home owners desired to protect their settings, that they were free to acquire such land as was necessary for that purpose. Memorandum Page 30 "The fourth argument advanced by appellants, and one closely analagous to the preceding one, is that the rural character of the area must be preserved. If the township were developed on the basis of this zoning, however, it could not be seriously contended that the land would retain its rural character - it would simply be dotted with larger homes on larger lots." 216 A.2d at 611 -612. "The township's brief raises (but unfortunately, does not attempt to answer) the interesting issue of the township's responsibility to those who do not yet live in the township, but who are part, or may become part, of the population expansion of the suburbs. Four acre zoning represents East Town's position that it does not desire to accomodate those who are pressing for admittance to the township unless such admittance will not create any additional burdens upon governmental functions and services. The question posed is whether the township can stand in the way of the natural forces which send our growing population into hitherto undeveloped areas in search of a comfortable place to live. We have concluded not. A zoning ordinance whose primary purpose is to prevent the entrance of new comers in order to avoid future burdens, economic and otherwise, upon the administration of public services and facilities, cannot be held valid." 215 A.2d at 612. Several other Pennsylvania cases deal with problems of land uses which place pressures on community facilities. In re O'Hara's Appeal, 389 Pa. 35, 131 A.2d 587 (1957) was an appeal from a denial of an application by the Archbishop of the Diocese of Philadelphia for a "special exception" to build a high school within an "AA" residential district. This district provided for educational uses only with the consent of the Board of Adjustment. That consent was denied and the lower court sustained the Board's decision. The evidence showed that the neighborhood in question was one of fine suburban homes, with relatively narrow streets not equipped to handle heavy traffic, and that building a school there would have a slight effect on property values, and would burden the community with increased costs of improving streets etc. In dealing with the problem of increased costs for the community the court stated: "The court found that the proposed use would increase traffic, which under the circumstances, would create dangers and hazards and would be adverse to public safety. Any traffic increase with its attendant noises,dirt, danger and hazards is unpleasant, yet, such increase is one of the 'inevitable accompaniments of suburban progress Memorandum " Page 31 and of our constantly expanding popul, standing alone, does not constitute a reason to refuse a property owner the of his land: (citation omitted). It anticipated increase in traffic which refusal of a 'special exception' in a ition' which, sufficient legitimate use is not any will justify the zoning case. The anticipated increase in traffic must be of such a character that it bears a substantial relation to the health and safety of the community. A prediction of the effect of such an increase in traffic must indicate that not only is there a likelihood but a high degree of probability that it will affect the safety and health of the community, and such prediction must be based on evidence sufficient for the purpose. Until such strong degree of probability is evidenced by legally sufficient testimony no court should act in such a way as to deprive a landowner of the otherwise legitimate use of his land. An examination of the instant record fails to reveal evidence sufficient to justify a finding that the anticipated increase in traffic bears any substantial relation to the health and safety of this community or the requisite high degree of probability that such an increase will affect adversely the health and safety of the community. The record merely indicates an anticipated minimal increase of traffic. "The (looser) court further found that the contemplated use will 'change the quiet residential character of the neighborhood and will have a sliqht damaging effect on real estate values and the entireneighborhood' (emphasis ours). What we said in P4edinger's Appeal, supra, 377 Pa. at p. 266, 104 A.2d at p. 122, is particularly opposite: 'we therefore hold that neither aesthetic reasons or conservation of property values or the stabilization of economic values on a township are, singly or combined, sufficient to promote the health or the morals or the safety or the general welfare of the township or its inhabitants or property owners, within the meaning of the enabling Act of 1931, as amended, or under the Con- stitution of Pennsylvania'. 131 A.2d at 596 -597. The court then dealt with the cost of community facilities: "The court finds also that the expense which would be occasioned to the township by reason of the consequent widening of streets, placement of sidewalks and street whiting, is a factor to be considered. What relationship this factor bears to the standards set forth for granting or refusing a special exception - the health, morals and safety of the community - is beyond comprehension. Any use of this site would affect consequentially the township in that it would require the widening of streets, etc. As a matter of fact, appellant has offered of record to Memorandum Page 32 assume part of any attendant expense by widening at least a portion of Royal Avenue at its own expense, providing for off - highway parking and placing sidewalks along the main artery of traffic. This reason bears no relationship to the only standards which must guide the Board of the court in their exercise of discretion." 131 A.2d at 597. The court them summarized the justifications for denial of the application: "An analysis of the reasons advanced by the (lower) court for denying this application indicates that the court erred in refusing to allow the proposed use. Three reasons assigned by the court - the cost to the township, the availability of another site, the inadequacy of the present site - bear no relationship to the only standards which must guide the court in the exercise of its discretion and therefore the court clearly exceeded its powers and abused its discretion in this respect. The fourth reason - the effect on the character of the neighborhood - has already been ruled by this court insufficient: Medinger's Appeal, supra. The fifth reason - the anticipated increase in traffic - fails by reason of the fact that the evidence is insufficient to show a high degree of probability at the anticipated increase in traffic will adversely affect the health or safety of the community. 131 A.2d at 598. "The lanquage of Mr. Justice Bell in Medinger's Appeal, supra, 377 Pa. at p. 225, 104 A.2d at p. 122, is particular- ly applicable: 'the natural or zealous desire of many zoning boards to protect, improve and develop their community, to plan a city or a township or a community that is both practical and beautiful, and to conserve the property values as well as the 'tone' of that community is commendable. But they must remember that property owners have certain rights which are ordained, protected and preserved in our Constitution in which neither zeal nor worthwhile objectives can impinge upon or abolish'." 131 A.2d at 598 -99. The court held that the application to build a school should have been granted. And in Appeal of Manns, 3 Pa. Commonwealth 242, 281 A.2d 355 (1971), a Pennsylvania Court had to deal with an application for a stone quarry in a rural residential area. Again the court kept the permissible goals of zoning and the police power in mind, and subjected the rejection of the quarry application to tests of reasonableness, finding the denial of a special exception arbitrary, since the legitimate concerns of the community could be met through other means, as they can in the present situation. Memorandum Page 33 "In denying the application for special exception the Zoning Hearing Board found that the proposed use would be detrimental to the public interest for five general reasons. These reasons were, (1) the effect of the quarry on land value and on the future development of the township; (2) the effect of the quarry on the need for future public services; (3) the effect of the quarry with regard to water, air and noise pollution; (4) the effect of the quarry on the water table as that affects both wells and septic systems; and (5) the effect of the quarry operation with relation to the present traffic pattern in the area. Although there is support in the record for these findings we are of the opinion that taken either collectively or individually they are insufficient in law to sustain the denial of this application for a special exception." 21 A.2d at 359 -360. "The Board found that the Quarry in existence would tend to depress residential land value within the immediate area, finding of fact no. 37, and that the introduction of the quarry, in finding no. 43, would retard future residential development within that surrounding area where the quarry would be seen, smelled, heard, felt or where dust would settle. Little elaboration is necessary upon the basic premise that a change in the character of the residential area or a slight damaging effect on real estate values cannot justify a denial of a special exception (citation omitted) neither aesthetic reasons, nor the conservation of property values or the stabilization of economic values in a township are, singly or combined, sufficient to promote the health, morals or safety of the community (citations omitted)." 281 A.2d at 360. The court noted that the Board also found that the proposed use would be economically disadvantageous to the township, since it would require more services than it would produce in revenue. The court noted that there was little evidence in the record ,to support this and said: "Be that as it may, however, and even accepting this finding we do not believe that this con- sideration is a justification for a denial to its property owner of the lawful use of his land. It is now clear that zoning may not be used to avoid the increased responsibilities and economic burdens which time and natural growth invariably bring. (citations omitted). Admittedly, the use of this land for the proposed purpose will Memorandum Page 34 require increased police protection, will impose a somewhat heavier burden on the road network, and will require an increase in all of the municipal services over what is now necessary for the support of what is primarily vacant and unused ground. However, any use'of this ground would impose some increased burden upon the municipality but to deny the lawful use of the land on this basis would be a palpable invasion of the rights of the property holder and a clearly arbitrary use of discretion. The power to regulate the use of property does not extend to an arbitrary, unnecessary or unreasonable intermeddling with private ownership of property even though such act may be labeled for the preservation of health, safety and general welfare. The exercise must have some substantial relation to the public good within the spheres held proper. It must not be from an arbitrary desire to resist the natural operation of economic laws or for purely aesthetic considerations (citation omitted)." 281 A.2d at 360 -361. The Board also found that the quarry operation would pollute a stream in the area. There was some evidence that occasionally some of the machinery might leak oil and that perhaps some of this might find its way into the stream. The court noted that this would be an infinitesimal amount, and noted that there was very little evidence that the quarry's dust suppression system would place polluted water in the stream. The court also commented: "In any event, even if there were some possible danger of pollution this could be controled by conditions imposed upon the grant of the application and if not complied with controlled through the remedial provisions of the zoning ordinance or in a court of equity of actual pollution occurred." 281 A.2d at 361. The Board also found that the quarry operation would produce dust and air pollution. The court noted that the zoning ordinance provided for the amount of dust allowable in a quarry operation, and that the Board could insist upon compliance with those standards. The Board also found an adverse public effect by virtue of the traffic to be generated by the quarry. Trucks to be used by the quarry were quite large, although within permissible standards allowed by Pennsylvania law. It was undisputed that some of the roads in the area are presently inadequate to handle such trucks, and that changes would be required at intersections, widening of some roads etc. In rejecting this problem as a reason for denying the exception the court stated: Y. ' Memorandum Page 35 "Where the use applied for is allowable by special exception, it must be contemplated that the use would cause some increase.in traffic. However, in order to find that an increase in traffic can justify denial of a special exception, it must be shown that the increase is of such character as to bear a substantial relation to the health and safety of the community, or a high degree of probability that such an increase would adversely effect the health and safety of the community (citation omitted). Recognizing that the application will result in some increased traffic, noise, dust and other similar inconviences, that factor alone cannot deny the use contemplated because many of the allowable and contemplated uses within the zoning district obviously contemplate increased traffic and these other noted inconviences (citation omitted). of course there are situations where an increase in traffic will justify the refusal of a special exception. However, such increase must be of such a character as to bear substantial relation to the health and safety of the community. It must be recognized that many of the permitted uses not requiring special exception would have the effect of increase in traffic as well (citation omitted). Although there may be an increase in traffic, there must be a high degree of probability of causing a serious detriment to the community. In contemporary society development and progress are likely to bring with them increased traffic, but this, standing alone, is not sufficient to justify the refusal of an otherwise lawful use of property (citation omitted)." 281 A.2d at 363. The court held that the special exception should be granted. In the present instance the rezoning is a change of an isolated parcel and as such may be invalidated as arbitrary where a more general rezoning might stand. In Schiffer v. Village of Wilmette, 245 N.E.2d 143, 147 (App.Ct.I11.1969) the court quoted from another case with approval: "'...And although a zoning ordinance may be valid in its general aspects, yet in some circumstances involving a particular piece of property it may be so clearly arbi- trary and unreasonable as to result in confiscation in violation of the constitutional rights of the owner. (Petropoulos v. City of Chicago, 5 Ill.2d 270, 125 N.E.2d 522). In determining whether or not a zoning ordinance is arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious in its application to a given parcel of land, among the factors to be taken into consideration are the character of the neighborhood, existing uses and zoning of nearby property, the amount by which property values are de- creased, the extent to which the diminution in value promotes the public health, safety, morals or welfare, the relative gain to the public as compared with the Memorandum Paqe 36 hardship imposed upo the suitability of t for which it is zone property has remaine context of the land v. City of Elmhurst, n the individual property owner, he subject property for the purpose d, and the length of time the d unimproved, considered in the development in the area. (Flyers 12 1ll.2d 537, 147 N.E.2d 300)... The proposed change must fall under each of the criteria; a consideration of all is cumulative. Distinguisable from the pure confiscation discussed above, is the "balancing" standard. In the present circumstance the re- zoning deprives the property of any beneficial use; but, even if Mr. Justice Holmes' boundary in dimunition of value were not reached, the zoning would still be invalid under the "balancing" standard. No substantial decrease can be upheld where the classification bears no substantial relationship to the public welfare. Westwood Meat market v. McLucas, 146 Colo. 453, 361 P.2d 776 (1961). Exchange Nat'l Bank of Chicago v. Village of Skokie, 229 N.E.2d 552 (App.Ct.I11.1967) and Stevens v. Town of Huntington, 229 N.E.2d 591 (Ct..App.N.Y.1967). The most obvious zoning which bears no relation to the public wel- fare is aesthetic zoning. Scenery alone is not justification for zoning. "It may be conceded that, in implementing the plan apparently contemplated by the framers of this ordinance, aesthetics may be a valid consideration', but such consi- deration must be merely an incident and not the moving. factor. Wolverine Siqn Works v. City of Bloomfield Hills (1937), 279 Mich. 205, 271 N.W.823; Hitchman v. Township of Oakland (1951), 329 Mich. 331, 45 N.W.2d 306. While we are not insensitive to the disruptive and un- sightly effect which the proposed towers and lines may have upon the scenic beauty of the Wixom area, we cannot sustain the ordinance for purely aesthetic reasons or unsupported fears of the City planners. The ordinance to the extent that it is predicated upon an exclusive aesthetic basis is held to be invalid." (Detroit Edison Company v. City of Wixom, 172 N.W.2d 382 (Mich.1965 ?). (emphasis added) See also Kenyon Peck, Inc. v. Kennedy, 168 S.E.2d 117 Va. 1969) and De Maria v. Enfield Zoning & Planning Comm'n., 271 A.2d 105, 108 (Conn.1970). Here the cost of beauty and open space, previously borne by bond issues has been shifted to a few landowners. Where considerations other than aesthetic are advanced, the gain to the public must be balanced against the cost to the landowner. Where property values are extensively reduced by the zoning and the gain to the public is slight, the zoning is invalid. Rathkopf, The Law of Planning and Zoning, p. 6 -6 supplemented in footnote 8 to the text, 1971 Cum. Supp. pp. 70 -71; Nectow v. City of Cambridge, 277 U.S. 183, + Memorandum Page 37 72 L.Ed.842; Brehmer v. City of K'rr ille (Ct.Civ.App.Tex.1959), 320 S.W.2d 193; County of Lake v. Neal (Sup.Ct.I11.1962), 181 N.E. 2d 85, 90. And see Weitlinr v. County of du Page (Sup.Ct.I11.1962), 186 N.E.2d 291, in which the court said: 'The rule is well established that if the gain to the public is small when compared with the hard- ship imposed upon individual property owners, no valid basis for an exercise of the police power exists (County of Lake v. McNeal, 24 Ill.2d 253, 181 N.E.2d 85). It is not the owner's loss of value alone that is significant but the fact that the public welfare does not require the restriction and the resulting loss. Where, as here, it is shown that no reasonable basis of public welfare requires the restriction and resulting loss, the ordinance must fall and in determining whether a sufficient hardship on the individual has been shown the law does not require that his property be totally unsuitable for the purpose classified. It is sufficient that a substantial decrease in value results from a classification bearing no substantial relation to the public welfare.' To the same effect, see Granger v Board of Adjustment of City of DeMoines (Iowa), 44 N.W.2d 299; Forbes v. Hubbard, 348 Ill. 166, 180 N.E.2d 67; First National Bank & Trust Co. v. City of Evanston (App.Ct.I11.1964), 203 N.E.2d 6, 8, and cases cited; Colvin v. Village of Skokie (Ill.), 203 N.E.2d 457, in which the court stated that the evidence must show that the restrictions bear a real and substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare; Briqht v. City of Evanston, 206 N.E.2d 765; Wehrmeister v. du Page County, 141 N.E.2d 26; Hebser v. Zoninq Board of Appeals of Peoria County, 193 N.E.2d 325; Schmidt v. Board of Adjustment of City of Newark, 9 N.J. 405,88 A.2d 607; Goldstein v. Zoning Board of Review' of City of Warwick '(Sup. R.I. 1967), 227 A.2d 195 197. "And see Shepard v. Village of Skaneateles, 300 N.Y. 115, 89 N.E.2d 619; I:arbison v. Cite of Buffalo, 4 N.Y.2d 553, 176 N.Y.S.2d 598,602, 152 N.E.2d 42; Chusud Realty Corp. v. Village of Kensi.nq- ton, 40 Misc.2d 259,243 N.Y.S.2d 149, aff'd 255 Y4.Y.5.4111 A.D. 'R_895; New York Trap Rock Corp. v. Town of Clarkstown,149 N.Y.S. 2d 290 and by implication, Dowsey v. Village of Kensington, 257 N.Y. 221; Eaton V. 177 N E 412 and Vernon Park Realty 121 N.E.20 517, in the subject parcel imposition of the serve the purposes Sw.eenv, 257 N.Y. 176, . • . Corp. v. City of Mount Vernon, 307 N.Y. 493, all of which the uses of property surrounding were such that, as a practical matter, the restrictions on the subject parcel did not evidenced by the zoning plan..." ` Memorandum Page 38 The Michigan Supreme Court might have been speaking to the present situation in Lincolnhol v. Village of Shoreham, 118 N.E.2d 289, 292 (Mich. 1962): "A zoning ordinance which restricts property to a use for which it is not adapted and thereby destroys the greater part of its value in order that the beauty pf the municipality may be enhanced is unreasonable. Grand Trunk Western Railroad Co. v. City of Detroit, 326 Mich. 387, 40 N.W.2d 195. See, also, City of Pleasant Ridge v. Cooper, 267 Mich. 603, 255 N.W. 371, wherein this Court ruled an ordinance is unreasonable which restricts property upon a boundary line of a village to a use for which the property is not adapted. Also, see Spanich v. City_ of Livonia, 355 Mich 252, 94 N.W.2d 62. No debatable question as to reasonableness of the ordinance as applied to plaintiffs' property is presented here..." In addition to the cases cited above which deal with problems of growth and beauty much like those present in the Aspen area, many other cases have held that aesthetics alone are not a sufficient basis for zoning. These cases are collected in an annotation at 21 ALR3d 1222, which will not be dealt with here in detail. It is worth noting that the issue first arose in • series of billboard cases, where the courts ultimately found • variety of justifications under the police power for zoning billboards out of residential areas. It is worth noting however, that the ultimate solution to the billboard problem has not been through zoning but through acquisition under the federal highway beautification program. If appropriate local officials are interested in such acquisitions, at least Spar is interested in working out a feasible program. C. The City and County Are Estopped from Revising the Zoning Here. That the proposed rezoning is not even related validly to its stated objectives other than aesthetics can be documented from the analysis of Mr. Dale Moberg, presented by Spar and Smuggler - Durant Mining Company. Nor can the proposal be related to the 1966 Master Plan. The Master Plan has been honored over the past seven years by a total failure of either city or county to take any affirmative action to rezone in compliance with the plan with the single exception of this current attempt. Thus property owners who have purchased land over the past five years or more have had every right to assume that the Master Plan was a dead letter, and that government officials would take no action to implement it. During that period, Spar's owners bought their existing holdings at prices reflecting existing zoning. City and County Officials had several years prior to that within which to imple- ment the Master Plan, and did nothing. Memorandum 4 Page 39 Colorado courts have long recognized that a government may become equitably estopped from changing its zoning where landowners have taken actions in reliance on the existing zoning to their detriment. For example in Crawford v. McLaughlin, 172 Colo.,366, 473 P.2d 725 (1970), prior to enactment of an ordinance restricting the height of apartment buildings, the landowner had acquired land at a price twice what it would have been worth had the height restrictions been in effect, and had employed architects to design a building. All of these factors were significant in leading the Colorado Supreme Court to hold that the City of Denver could not later restrict the height of a building through what was denominated a "mountain view" ordinance. And see Denver v. Stockhouse, 135 Colo. 289, 310 P.2d296 (1957), where, when a landowner relied upon a building permit, the city was held estopped to later complain that the building was in the wrong zoning classification, and the permit issued by mistake, where the landowner had spent $18,000 in reliance on the issuance of the permit. Here the landowners have spent nearly 100 times that sum in reliance on the existing zoning classifications. Next, it is now too late to begin re Master Plana As Trafton Bean stated hearing, conditions in Pitkin County in just the past five years, so that now obsolete, and needs replacement. at this date are the same as relying zoning to implement a 1966 at the September public have changed considerably the 1966 Master Plan is Attempts to rely on it on no plan at all. Finally, several of the zones proposed do not allow mining as a permitted use, except by special review, where no legal standards have been set. To the extent that these ordinances interfere with federal grants of mineral rights, they are invalid. Black v. Elkhorn Mining Co., 52 Fed. 859, affirmed 163 U.S. 445, 16 S.Ct. 1101, 41 L.Ed.221 (1892) and Butte City Water Co. v. Baker, 196 U.S. 125, 25 S.Ct. 212, 49 L.Ed. 409, 412 (1904) CONCLUSION Spar's land will be rendered essentially useless by the proposed rezoning. In addition, it should be obvious now that the proposed rezoning is arbitrary, since it does not solve the purported evils of growth for the area, and imposes a tremendous cost on one land area which should properly be borne by the community at large, either through purchase or a reduction of densities in all zoning classifications, which would equally burden all lands which cause problems related to growth. ITccxx�� I I , �Il7s�.7 ghos. S. ghompson West est Cential Ave., Rt. 9 Wichita, J�ansas 67212 x.q. vt- kIL y -��,,,,A, �C..y� vL� �A?- l.l✓Vt -i LT � ✓ u ✓✓''u i Y � J� �-'C Cvvti.� � � L� ✓�'- v � c' - _, i 'J U HERB Another Moore Memo of the Moment - Sept 27,'72 3) Subject: Public Hearing Sept 26th- Rezoning Aspen Mtn FOLLOW -UP CRITIQUE . It is my suggestion that you solicit a number of individuals to evaluate your Public Hearings in writing. Then call a meeting and discuss, analyjze and try to come up with positive recommendations. One off-the-top-of-my- head critique is not expected to be an end, but a start for this process. GOOD. First Planning Meeting presentation I remember that was prepared in depth with exhibits and an attempt to apply environmental impacts. This material was covered quickly. You left it to the individuals to dig into it if interested. Would be valuable to keep a library card on this material to record who and how many study it. Planning Dept should get a news release out on this material via the newspapers and Commentary, as well as hit the lunch circuit, espec. environmental orgs('1'D Parks, Sierras, ETF, etc. A couple of local envir experts on P &Z would be valuable to help prepare, present and publicize these studies in future. Wolcott and Stuart Mace would be excellent. P &Z budget should pay these guys as well as their expenses. This is allowed by State Statutes. These would be two good guys to get to critique your hearings. Also the material should be presented to Roger Hansen for evaluations and suggestions. I will review the material using the Wisconsin Envir Checklist and the Oil Shale Envir Statement as guidelines. A SUGGESTION: P &Z Presentation should requirements- contours,drainage -trail etc.etc. This would be an opportunity of public presentation to the private familiarize the P &Z and officials and time and cost of these sub -div regs a be modeled on Sub -Div application ' system -site lines - ownership map - for the P &Z to give good examples developers. It would also help the public with the nuts and bolts, 2d the philosophy behind them. REASONABLE PLANS - The public seemingly accepted the concept to limit the environmental ^�C impacts above 8040 elevation. What about these principle as applied below the line and elsewhere in the County ? The Rule of Reason would apply these principles - environmental impacts of erosion, sedimentation to streams, earth scars due to roads,utilities and construction, the disturbance to wildlife and the ecology, the effects of incr density with special reference to public facilities and circulation, and to preserve scenic values important to a resort economy and the quality of life for residents as well. / The slide presentation touched on a little of this on Red Mtn and up in / Mtn Valley. What preventive plans and rehab programs exist for areas other than those covered by the sub -div regs? Ski areas, utilities, public roads and highways and facilities? The lack of an ownership map and the neglect of mining interests by `a the P &Z violates my image of a planning body that is fair and objective 1 and discharging its public responsibility to continually communicate with all people and interests. The P &Z projects an image of Us against Them,but good,open planning cannot be creative if we play blind man's buff. The slide showing the lower Aspen Mtn scene in historic times could have been expanded to show more , especially the settlement of Tourtellotte Park. This would help in explaing and locating the scale of the mineral deposits and interests, as well as the rehab work done by the Ski Corp. and the reopvery time involved. What seemed missing to me was the whole question of the past, present and future use of Aspen Mtn and its total effects on the City. No numbers were given showing type of winter and summer use. We did not seem to recognize the nature of the actual land use in a ski area. Lift lines, restaurants, water and sewage and power, pivnics and the growth of X- country skiing, helicopters and snow cat tours, maintenance, and the future potential of tying Little Annie ski area into Ajax. The summer maintenance, construction on lifts,trails and facilities employeesjvehicles,chain saws, heavy equipment,blasting,burning, jeepers, hikers with dogs, etc. The existing environmental impacts upon the ecology and especially the elk herds left unanswered questions in the face of existing and potential realities. DENSITIES: again the existing, past and future trends were not spelled out in numbers, estimates, forecasts. No real data inventory was Ishown overall. The LWV was espec strong on the question of density. The presentation should have put this into perspective within the study area as well as within the city limits and environs. It seemed to be an opportune time to re- introduce and follow -up on the Ski Corps letter warning about the bed -ski balance which is what Aspen density is really all about. This would immediately point up the numbers of people vs the facilitiesoskiing, tourist,commercial,water, sewer, parking ,transit,circulation,etc.etc. In fact, from the testimony I got the impression that all these environmental impacts were bad above the green line ( or is it blue ? or do I see too much red ? ? ?) and below the line an evaluation of these principles was left hanging unanswered. GOALS TASK FORCE COMMITTEE: Here we had an opportunity for this Committee tp try to apply their social costing mechanism to show why environmental impacts above 8040 are not tolerable and are not too destructive below the line. How much natural and social environmental violence is real ? (eg: cloud burst potential on cleared mtn ski trails increases chances of another major flooding mud slide down into the congested base of the ski slopes) and when,what,how,why and when we can accept and cannot accept these risks ? Basically, a social costing mechanism is our way of measuring and defining acceptable and unacceptable violence in specific areas. Perhaps the clearest example of this is in the public opinion on the need to four lane hwy 82 west of Aspen in order to make it safe and protect life and property, while Hwy 82 east on Independence Pass is to be kept "Scenic" while it remains a high risk design. How about that ? Misc. Notes: Please research ntl experience with open space credits for not using marginal, dangerous, or otherwise unbuildable land, or getting open space credit for surrounding public or private open space. Red Mtn is now our standard,widely recognized bad example of mtn development. What overall rehab program is there for correcting this situation ? \ Fire danger ? Maybe I missed this but safety seems to require this be considered for any mtn side zoning. Jim Adams ? Isn't he on the Gen Plan Up- Dating Committee ? Did he bring up the ski -bed density balance question ? Aspen Mtn flooding. You rcvd a copy of my suggestions to T.U. on the need for a flood control program. The question of proper site locations for bldg and access that fit into the contours and help the scenery was not handled very well. This aesthetic design factor could have been well handled in slides of various hillside homes and developments stressing the building -in and scale factors. RECAP: This is a quick look at the meeting. I need to read the Minutes and reports and interview planning people. Again, it would be valuable to sit down and discuss various individual points of view to pull this overall problem together. kncbx THE WEHNER REALTY CO. 900 HARMAN AVENUE DAYTON, OHIO 45419 TELEPHONE 299 -4893 Sept •21 1972 Office Of uildin Inspector Attn.Peggy E.Miklich Clerk & Recorder e.O.Box 694 Lorraine Grgves City C1erk,City Of Aspen Colorado 81511 Aspen Col, Genclomen; lie are in receipt of ,,our Certified JHail Letter No.612994 dated Sep 13 1972,regardin� a "oint Public hearing scheduled in District Cou'troom,County Courthouse Pitkin County ,Aspen Colorado,on Sept 26th 197z.to consider changing a portion of The Pitkin County Zoning Map. i.r 'we do not know anything about the area around Aspen,we do n-ot know et `.s beinf; proposed from the map that you a.ent us,and cannot m" )p:r comment on it.However in June 1962 one of the Vice Presidents of ::iie Wehner Realty Co had to rake a trip to Denverrand we asked hLl to visit Aspen,and see what he could find out about this property.He did this at a cost of a little over (200 to The Company,and gave us a very good detailed rey,ort after returnin;,a.nd at that time he advised us that he,or a great mangy* of the people th,t he talked to,did not see any future from minim; ores in this district,an.d that he would be of the opinion that payin,; any more taxes and asse -1 sment s, would be throwing money away. He found t,iat iuir. Louis Vichner,the i- res.of The 11ehner Realty Co at that time,had been pay .g taxes on thals property since 1903.'rie was one of the original stockholders of The Saltec Mining Co.The Saltec lode mining claim U.S.Mineral Survey No 11294 is situated in the Roaring Mining Distric" of The County Of Pitkin about three miles south of the Town Of Aspen on what is known as the Aspen Contact. All of the members and stockholders including Mr Wehner are deceased,but the title has never been transfered to The Wehner Realty Co,or any of the heirs of his.The ',ehner Realty Cp is composed of six menbers of Mr c'iehners family,and is a closed stock Company. Mr. Robert Kiley Treas.of Pitkin County,in his letter to The . *Iehnor Realty Co,which was an answer to this Companys letter of May 6 1938,his letter being dated May 12 1938,was of the opin-1oh,that it may be of advantsge for the owners at that time to hold this property, ;+e do not know if this change in Zoning is to make any difference in the taxes,;•assessments,or charges to this property,because if is will we are certainly against any other expenses on this property. April 21 1956,I received a letter IS,r. Rev. Joseph E.Bosch,the Pastor Of St Marys Church in. Aspen,which was a reply to a letter that I had sent hime regarding the property,since he and his family in Dayton Ohio were long ttie friends of n?ine,-und he gave me about the same information that our Vice President had received in 1962 when he visited your City.: +e are wonderning if there has been any change since that ti:ae,that would be of any ben1fit to our propPty.There was some talk of anotilaer SkiLift,since the pro-erty at that time was about ,j�ft k �i a half a mile South of the Ski Lift. TSr, golf sent us a copy of `.i'he Aspen Times dated My 25 1962, which contained the ads,of several Real Estate Brokers,ir:oore Realty Co Aspen Realty Co,HRns Of Aspen,etc,and we were wonderning if any of them handled for sale, this type of Real Estate,and approximately what price it May to sold for,if it is saleable. THE WEHNER REALTY CO. 900 HARMAN AVENUE DAYTON. OHIO 45419 TELEPHONE 299 -4893 (2) Sept. 21 1972 Since you people are more than likely residents of Aspen for a number of years,and know what is happening to t._is area,we will appreciate an nnswer to our question,as to what,if any,this change in 'Zoning will have n ti;e expenses on our property,or any iriprovement to the possible sale of it,as soon as you may get a chance to do so. Thanking you in advance for whatever information you may be able to furnish this Company,we are, Yours respectfully. 900 Harman Ave. The VvIahner`Realty Co. Dayton Ohio 45419 By tern _.,,,� kes, & Treas.` lOf " "SON- LONGFELLOW and ASSOCIATES SURVEYORS - ENGINEERS Aspen — Snowmass -at -Aspen P. O. Box 5547 — West Village Annex Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 923 -3496 October 25, 1972 GREEN LINE ZONING An area being part of Section 18, 1.9, and 30, Township 10 South, Range 84 West and Section 12, 13, 24 and 25, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th Principal Meridian. Said area is mere fully described as follows: Beainning at a point being the 1/4 corner common to said Section i8 and 19; thence Southerly along the North -South center line of said Sections 19 and 30 to. the South 1/4 corner of said Section 30; thence Westerly along the South line of said Sections 30 and 25 to the South 1/4 corner of said Section 25; thence Northerly along the North -South center line of said Section 25 and 24 to the common 1/4 corner of said Sections 13 and 24; thence Westerly along the South line of said Section 13 to the centerline of Castle Creek; thence Northeasterly along the centerline of Castle Creek to the South line of Section 12; thence Easterly along the South line of said Section 12 to the intersection with a contour line at elevation of 8040 feet above mean sea level, (said line to be established from U.S.G.S. Bench Mark in the wall of the Southwest corner of the Pitkin County Court House, elevation 7906.802 feet); thence Easterly along said contour line to the intersection with the Southerly lire of said Section 18; thence Westerly along said Southerly line of said Section 1.8 to the point of beginning. Excepting from the above description all that portion lying within the South annexation to the City of Aspen, Colorado as shown on the plat of record in Plat Book 3, Page 132 in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE is hereby given that a joint Public Hearing of the Board of Pitkin County County Commissioners and The Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission is scheduled in the District Courtroom, Pitkin County Courthouse, Aspen, Colorado on February 26, 1973 at 8:00 P.M. to consider an amendment to the Pitkin County Zoning District Map from AR -1, ACCOMODATIONS and RECREATION DISTRICT and T, TOURIST DISTRICT, both of which are high density residential districts, to AF -2, AGRICULTURE and FORESTRY DISTRICT, a low density resi- dential district. The land for which the above amendment to the Pitkin County District Map is being considered is described as follows: The Pitkin County Zoning Resolution and Zoning District Maps may be examined in the office of the Pitkin County Building Department, Pitkin County Courthouse, Aspen, Colorado during usual business hours. At such hearing all persons in interest may appear and be heard. If you are unable to appear personally at such hearing you are urged to state your views by letter. All information previously submitted on this matter at the September 26, 1972 hearing shall be resubmitted for the record by the Planning Office. Peggy E. Miklich Pitkin County Clerk & Recorder Published January 24, February 1,8, 15, 1973. Simon P. Swanson and Ruth M. Thompson: c/o Mrs. Thos. J. Thompson 11022 W. Central Rt. 9, Wichita, Kansas, 67212 David Touff: 47 South Ash Street, Denver, Colorado John C. Voorhees: Box 18735, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 73118 Hans R. Gramiger: Box 67, Aspen Louise Berg Est.: c/o Virginia Jones, Woody Creek Wehner Realty Co.: c/o J. Francis Murphy, 900 Harmon Avenue Dayton 9, Ohio C. A; Kelly: 5300 Cherry, Kansas City, Mo. 64110 M. J. Delhonaica, Est.: Aspen Harry Vaugh Cummings: Aspen Virginia Flynn White: 3902 Charles Street, La Mesa, California Charles George Patterson, Box 253, Aspen W. E. Hughes, C. J. Hughes, L. M. Hughes, Box 1177, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 87501 Charles F. Urshel, Box 267, Aspen James C. Blanning: Box 43, Aspen McCullock Mining Co.: c/o Tri -Co, Box 1730, Aspen John Wayne; c/o Ed Smart, Box 799, Aspen Aspen Skiing Corp.; Box 1248, Aspen John L. Herron: Box 545, Aspen Fred Leucbel: 1237 Yardley Road, Norrisville, Pa. James Harkin, Est.: c/o Helen H. Webb, 1955 Leavenworth Street, San Francisco 33, California Stanford H. Johnson: Box 406, Aspen Mrs. J. G. Holden, Jr.: c/o Mrs. A. B. Luper, Box 83, Adams Co., Lima, Ill. Waddill Catchings: Box Y, Aspen E. J. Grover: 3264 F Rd., Clifton, Colo. 81520 Little Annie Develop. Corp.: c/o Waddill Catchings, Box Y, Aspen G. H. Lawrence, Est.: 1 Marine Plaza, Milwaukee, Wisc. Midnight Mining Co.: Box 545, Aspen Loushin, John: c/o Ludvick Loushin, Box 252, Aspen Loushin, John L. Jr. u " " " to Loushin, William Loushin, Frank " Ophir Queens Gulch Mining Co.: Theodore Cooper, Sr., 2370 Dahlia Street, Denver, Colo., 80207 Quaker Realty Corp.: Box 462, Aspen Loey Rinquist; Box 702, Aspen Dorothy K. Shaw, Box 510, Aspen, W. R. Shaw: Box 510, Aspen Smuggler Durant Mining Corp.: c/o Eva B. Baxter,i 0 3 / ��,� New York City 19, New York Spar Consolidated Mining Development Company: Box 4298, Aspen Robert Stevens, Box 1147, Aspen W. D. Owens: Aspen J. Milton Durand: Aspen Elda Swanson. Aspen Mary C. Roges: Aspen Harold G. Everett: Aspen Elizabeth R. Wilton: Aspen Thos. W. Leonard: Aspen Ezra K. Baer: Aspen i Simon P. Swanson and Ruth M. Thompson: c/o Mrs. Thos. J. Thompson 11022 W. Central Rt. 9, Wichita, Kansas, 67212 David Touff: 47 South Ash Street, Denver, Colorado John C. Voorhees: Box 18735, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 73118 Hans R. Gramiger;0' Box 67, Aspen Louise Berg Est. .✓ c/o Virginia Jones, Woody Creek Wehner Realty Co./� c/o J. Francis Murphy, 900 Harmon Avenue Dayton 9, Ohio C. A; Kelly:✓ 5300 Cherry, Kansas City, Mo. 64110 M. J. Delhonaica',f Est.: Aspen Harry Vaugh Cummings. Aspen Virginia Flynn White:./ 3902 Charles Street, La Mesa, California Charles George Patterson!"Box 253, Aspen W. E. Hughes, C. J. Hughes', L. M. Hughes, Box 1177, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 87501 Charles F. Urshel✓ Sox 267, Aspen James C. Blanning4f Box 43, Aspen McCullock Mining Co.. c/o Tri -Co, Box 1730, Aspen John Wayne:" c/o Ed Smart, Box 799, Aspen Aspen Skiing Corp! Box 1248, Aspen John L. Herron:; P* 545, Aspen Fred LeucbeljO 1237 Yardley Road, Norrisville, Pa. James Harkin# Est.: c/o Helen H. Webb, 1955 Leavenworth Street, San Francisco 33, California Stanford H. Johnson:*' Box 406, Aspen Mrs. J. G. Holden r Jr.: c/o Mrs. A. B. Luper, Box 83, Adams Co., Lima, Ill. Waddill Catchings :40' Box Y, Aspen E. J. Grover:] 3264 F Rd., Clifton, Colo. 81520 Little Annie DevelopleCorp.: c/o Waddill Catchings, Box Y, Aspen G. H. Lawrence, Est. Y 1 Marine Plaza, Milwaukee, Wisc. Midnight Mining Co.: &,Box 545, Aspen Loushin, John: 0, c/o Ludvick Loushin, Box 252, Aspen Loushin, John L. ire, q " It Loushin, William✓ Loushin, Frank f " Ophir Queens Gulch Mining Street, Denver, Co Quaker Realty #torp.: Box Co: Theodore Cooper, Sr., 2370 Dahlia Lo., 80207 462, Aspen ", i Loey Rinquist ✓ Box 702, Aspen Dorothy K. Shaw,4`Box 510, Aspen, W. R. Shaw e Box 510, Aspen Smuggler Durant Mining Corp.'', c/o Eva B. Baxter, SAu-_}1 -nzc %03 New York City 19, New York Spar`t'onsolidated Mining Development Coppany !' Box 4298, Aspen Robert Stevens ♦ Box 1147, Aspen W. D. Owens:~ Aspen J. Milton Durand!' Aspen Elda Swanson!' Aspen Mary C. Roges: Aspen Harold G. Everett. ,Aspen Elizabeth R. Wilt: Aspen Thos. W. Leonard: Aspen Ezra K. Baer: ✓ Aspen page 2 Michael Merolt, Est.: Box 423, Aspen Ted Merolt: Box 649, Aspen Peter Vought: Box 568, Aspen Keith Hefner: Box 2150, Aspen Leonard Thomas, Est.: c/o William Clark, Box 3707, Aspen Aspen Music School: Box AA, Aspen, Edward Wachs: 100 Shepard Street, Wheeling, Illinois, 60090 David Barber: Box 778, Aspen V-4 00 ILM CD 0 z M_ C1: N r-A (D O z I z 00 cn z C.� N z N LD P�� Fps RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(1 (plus postage) SENT TO POSTMARK POSTMARK _ -MOCulla IC Mining Comp-ny P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE Aspen, Colorado 81611 OR DATE 16y6A1T ?i_CO DATE STS (IT AND N0. - - -� Pra7 ATE1AND ZIP CODE _Aspen. Colorado 81611r\ RETURN 1. Shows to whom and date delivered .._... 150 `J OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL PEES RETURN t. Sit Ows to whom and date deliver etl ... 35 With delivery to RECEIPT addressee only ...._.. SERVICES ' 2' Shows to whom date and where delivered 6500' .358 j _ with delivery to addressee only ...... 850 t DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .... ... ......_...... .... 500 SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) PS Farm _:7i.___ (extra Iwo required ).- ......... ....- .. ....... ..... . SERVICES F With delivery to addressee only .. Nov-1971 daW NO NAT .P- (aee other side) T FOR INTERIONAL MAIL •doer: taro o.aar.aea RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30e (plus postage) SftNn Wayne POSTMARK PORTDATEN T� Ov, bG; PORT P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE Aspen, Colorado 81611 OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN 1. Shots to whom and date ssee only 650 RECEIPT With delivery t addressee only . ed .. 650 2. Shows to wham, sate and where delivered .. 350 SERVICES With delivery to addressee only .... 850 DATE STS (IT AND N0. Box 799 - N -' RETURN 1. Shows to whom and date delivered .._... 150 P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE Aspen Colorado 81611 .. r 350 _ 0 TIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES With delivery to addressee only ...... FEES RETURN 1. Shows to whom and slate addressee only .: 150 With delivery to date delivered only ._.. 650 RECEIPT 2, Shows to whom , date and where delivered .: 350 SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra Iwo required ).- ......... ....- .. ....... ..... . SERVICES F With delivery to addressee only .. 85 I- ; DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ........... .. . ........ ... . 500 SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) - - - -- , PS Form 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED- (See other lido) Nov. 1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL a doer: moosar..ea RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30e (plus postage) z a K. Baer POSTMARK PORTDATEN T� Ov, bG; STREET AND NO. P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE Aspen, Colorado 81611 OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN 1. Shots to whom and date ssee only 650 RECEIPT With delivery t addressee only . ed .. 650 2. Shows to wham, sate and where delivered .. 350 SERVICES With delivery to addressee only .... 850 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ...... ............. .... sot SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) . ..- . ........................ PS Farm ___ Fors meueaurr nwrnarr nnnusnrn - OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES jaw.._ ............. .......... I... m„e, -.r Nev.1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL ao.o: serer o.aar.ase RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30t (plus postage) SENT TO POSTMARK POSTMARK Elizabeth R. Wilton STREET AND NO. Box 43 ON DATE r ' STREET AND NO. P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE Aspen, Colorado 81611 RETURN 1. Shows to whom and date deliveretl .... 150 - OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN 1. Shows to whom and date delivered .._... 150 RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ...... 650 .. 2. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 350 PS Form ____ un u.snaur: rnureaee menu SERVICES With delivery to addressee only ...... 850 ..i ?mss DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ....... ..._...._ ....... ......_....... 500 SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra Iwo required ).- ......... ....- .. ....... ..... . PS Farm Fors meuaaurr rnarears neniins, DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .... _ ......... . ............ .. 500 _._- -' - e ..._....., Nov.1971 NOT FOR INTERNA A - T - IONAL MAIL •aro: tar,o o- oar Idea RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30e (plus postage) SENT TO POSTMARK James C. Blanning OR DATE - - STREET AND NO. Box 43 P&sWAID 71C61brado 81611 onstage) OR DATE '- ' OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN 1. Shows to whom and date deliveretl .... 150 RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ...... 50 RETURN 1. Shows to whom and date delivered ... 2. SNOwa to whom, Date and where delivered . 3 RECEIPT 3. Shows to whom, dale and where delivered . 350 , SERVICES With delivery to addressee only ... 850 SERVICES With delivery to addressee only . 858 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ........_ ..... ............. ........ .... .............. 506 SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) ..... ............................... PS Form ____ un u.snaur: rnureaee menu SPECIAL DELIVERY (axba fee required)-. ......... sow.._ Nov.1971 ...__......__ __._....__ ..._...__ NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL �... ,,,,,., ,.�.r •oao: rero e- sar..ee RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30e (plus onstage) SENT TO POSTMARK Charles Georqe Patterson POSTMARK Fred Leucbel Box 253 Oi SYR L o udvick Loushin OR DATE '- ' STREET AND NO. o d> : !U / P.., S A E AND ZIP CODE i RETURN 1. Shows to whom and date delivered ... ICES A4 RDDITIONAL FEES RECEIPT 3. Shows to whom, dale and where delivered . 350 , RETURN I ' Shows to whom and date delivered .. SERVICES With delivery to addressee only . 858 ' RECEIPT . With delivery to addressee only . ... 6 SPECIAL DELIVERY (axba fee required)-. ......... I. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 350 SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra lee required) - - - - - -- SERVICES With delivery to addressee only RECEIPT 2. Shows tow, om, date end where delivered.. 350 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .... _ ......... . ............ .. 500 SPECIAL DELIVERY (exbo Jae required - ............................... 850 PS Farm Fors DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ..... ....... ...... . _......._ Due - - _ - SPECIAL DELIVEflV (2 Pauntls or less) ........... ............................... 450 aaw.._ ...__......__ _........_ i.ea mnar ,reel Nev.1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MALI a a.o: .ere 000..ee wet N `__q co z tO N Ln N T-4 T.0 0 z CY? Q0 M T__4 M c\j 0 z In M N 0 z A� 00 CV 0 z I- LJO N r i O z was RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(1 (plus postage) SENT TO POSTMARK Charles Georqe Patterson ORDATE _ STREET AND N0. Box 253 Oi SYR L o udvick Loushin P.O., STATE AND ZIP COOS ; Aspen, Colorado 81611`` o d> : !U / OPTIONAL SEPV ICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN 1. Shows to whom and date delivered ... RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only . �. 65 RECEIPT 3. Shows to whom, dale and where delivered . 350 , SERVICES' _' Shows to wham, date and where delirerttl .. 350 SERVICES With delivery to addressee only . 858 With delivery to addressee only .. _... 850 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .. ..... _. ..... ._.. ... .. 500 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ....., .. 50d SPECIAL DELIVERY (axba fee required)-. ......... PS F.- OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES Nov.1971 auw NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAILe .arofei ern oaaer-.aeaJ RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30e (plus postage) SENT TO POSTMARK postage) OR DATE y. LGushln, Jr OR DATE SYR L o udvick Loushin ' �^ P. ., TE IP CODE Aspen, Colorado 81611 t ' . OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES V5 RETURN 1. Shows to whom antl date delivered . "5f, Wnh delivery to addressee only era(, RECEIPT 3. Shows to whom, dale and where delivered . 350 , 650 SERVICES With delivery to addressee only . 858 P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .. ..... _. ..... ._.. ... .. 500 SPECIAL DELIVERY (eats fee required) - - - - - -- PS Form ____ un iseuoalrrr rnuroerr DDnuinrn- __ _ __ _ sauU - -_ _.__..____ __._._.__ .._ .___ _ Nov.1971 NOi FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL < Cali: taro o- oar -aa I RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -305 (plus postage) SENT TO SQ 0ANWDD Liam Clark OR DATE POSTMARK OR DATE Merolt Est. �RO.$S�iTA2TEE A 1. Shows to whom and date delivered 150 RETURN ' _Michael STREET AND N0.'' Box 421 With delivery to addressee only .. _ 650 P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE Aspen. Colorado 81611 SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required)...... SERVICES With delivery to addressee only .. ... 850 OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ... ......... .... ........... ................. 500 SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra lee required) - - - - - -- PS Ism. _ Fors IFoe11DAForr rnVFoeOr PonVln Fn- _ RETURN S. Snows to'horn aand Sate de- livered .... 150 WiIN delivery to addressee only ............ 650 RECEIPT 2. Shows tow, om, date end where delivered.. 350 - SERVICES With delivery to addressee only ....... 850 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ..... ....... ...... . _......._ Due - - _ - SPECIAL DELIVEflV (2 Pauntls or less) ........... ............................... 450 POD Form 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED- (See other side) July 1969 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL seen: roro o.sar -ase RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30e (plus postage) SENT TO POSTMARK POSTMARK Keith Hefner SQ 0ANWDD Liam Clark OR DATE ;IOREET AND N0. Bo P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE �RO.$S�iTA2TEE A 1. Shows to whom and date delivered 150 RETURN ' ASP e to ADOI s RETURN 1. Shows to whom and date delivered ............ 150 With delivery to addressee only .. _ 650 RECEIPT ' 2. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 350 SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required)...... SERVICES With delivery to addressee only .. ... 850 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ... ......... .... ........... ................. 500 SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra lee required) - - - - - -- PS Ism. _ Fors IFoe11DAForr rnVFoeOr PonVln Fn- Nov.1971 iOV° NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL aa�a too oaer..w RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -3051 (plus postage) I SENT TO P POSTMARK Leonard Thomas Estate O OR DATE SQ 0ANWDD Liam Clark Box 3707 AND ZIP CODE CjODEE g �RO.$S�iTA2TEE A 1. Shows to whom and date delivered 150 RETURN ' ' W SERVICES With delivery to addressee only . 8 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ...... 500 SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required)...... PS Form NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED- (S th i 3800 ire o er s e w Apr. 1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL ea.o: roro o.aar -ass .I RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIEU MAIL -JUV tpms 110509e7 SENT TO POSTMARK OR DATE C.-. T r rayis r STREET AND NO. P, A AND ZIP C( •$'FMS Cli ton, Colorado 81 °i �- OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FE RECEIETURN PT 1. Shows to whom and date delivers .. .... 150 ti R With delivery to addressee on) �.. 650 ' 2. Shows to whom, Date and wMre delivuAd .350 , SERVICES With delivery to addressee only '-R50 + ,- DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ..-... ....... ..... ........._.,............ 0 SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fair required) ------ - -- PS Fmme ____ un liftHRANCF COVERAGE PROVIDED- (Sea other side) Nov.1971 JOVV NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL I C aro: mo o -an -ass side) Nov.1971 JOVV NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL I C aro: mo o -an -ass '-i N LF') N T-1 co 0 z LTA N S"^I z t� L0 N T,I Q0 z CYj r- cy1 f\1 T-4. ED O z LIII f` LO NI z RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30e (plus postage) SENT ro POSTMARK aow "' ^' ^ "•" ` ^`•• ^"` • ^.. ^".a— lase "rNr Lee) Nov.1977 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL ao<o: n>o o.aro.as• RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30e (plus postage) SENT TO POSTMARK OR DATE V�t�.e --ten ;A1P neval nmer* COI' sc "Vadill Catchings OR DATE oA OR DATE P.O., FTATE AND ZIP CODE Y - —yBox ,_fig_ eTRP 10 A EES RETURN I. Shows to Whom and date delivered .. I50 RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only .. .... 6500 P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE SERVICES' 3. Shows to whom and where delivered .. 350 RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only .. With delive y to addessee only .... 55 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY jj 9 j 6 j0 ... _ ............. Rod DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ..............._ ..... ....._ 500 SPECIAL DELI VERY (extra fee requi red) ... .........._.._ � PS Form r aow "' ^' ^ "•" ` ^`•• ^"` • ^.. ^".a— lase "rNr Lee) Nov.1977 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL ao<o: n>o o.aro.as• RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30e (plus postage) SENT TO POSTMARK POSTMARK Mining C'o_ OR DATE _ STREET AND N0. OR DATE G_ H. Lawrence, Est. - OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR—ADDITIONAL FEES —T STREET AND NO. I Mari Do TIT A7n ' RECEIPT P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE RETURN I. Shows to whom and date delivered .... 1501 RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only .. Z. Shows to whom, date and where delivered.,. 350 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY jj 9 j 6 j0 ... _ ............. Rod SERVICES Mi litilifIRMfti ADDITIONAL FEES r RETURN 1. Shows to whom and data delivered 150 RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only .. ... 650 (extra Eve PS Foo.. a. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 350 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .. S SERVICES' With delivery to addressee only ... 85@ DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ... SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra Fee required) I ..... I .... . - ..... PS Form NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED (See other Lae) Nov.1971 3800 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL •a•o: ,a>a o.an..a• RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30e (plus postage) SENT TO POSTMARK I Ferm NO INU N. v.1971 COVERAGE PROVIOED- v.1971 3800 S NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL . (St. �. ooa side) RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 (olus oostaffe) SENT TO POSTMARK MirTnight Mining C'o_ OR DATE _ STREET AND N0. P speri, 76oiorado 81611 Ransa City, Mo. 64110L��• r - OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR—ADDITIONAL FEES —T RETURN I. Shows to whom and date delivered ............ 15 ' RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ............ 650 RETURN I. Shows to whom and date delivered .... 1501 RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only .. Z. Shows to whom, date and where delivered.,. 350 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY jj 9 j 6 j0 ... _ ............. Rod SERVICES With deliver, to addressee only ..... 85@ L DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ._ ............ .... ... ... .... 50! SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fore required) PS DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .......... .........._ ... Sod I Ferm NO INU N. v.1971 COVERAGE PROVIOED- v.1971 3800 S NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL . (St. �. ooa side) RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 (olus oostaffe) SENT TO POSTMARK POSTMARK Virginia Flynn White STREET AND N0. �- OR DATE STREET AND N0, P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE j� Ransa City, Mo. 64110L��• r P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE RETURN I. Shows to whom and Oate delivered 15@ ' RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ,6S0 v '.. RE Al FEES RETURN I. Shows to whom and date delivered .... 1501 RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only .. 650' DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY jj 9 j 6 j0 ... _ ............. Rod SERVICES 2. Shows to whom, dale and where delivered . 350 L With delivery to addressee only 350 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .......... .........._ ... Sod SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra Eve PS Foo.. DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .. S hill JeW -NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL" •a,.oeBno ossarlao hill f RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 (plus postage) j SENT TO U7KD4f,VUvick Loushin AT 1 ZIP C DE ..Y Aspen, Colorado 81611 OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN t. Snows to whom and data delivered .... 150 RECEIPT , With Delivery to addressee only .. ..... 6500 SERVICES F' Shows to wham, date and where delivered .. 350 With delivery to addressee only .... 850 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY 50d SPECIAL DEIIVERY (extra fag raqu red) .._.. � PS From Nov.1971 3888 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED — NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL eo <ofeo oosa•r'�w I C'h CT) N z sew rl- N E.O z N SI I TO z 01) N a--1 0 z N z RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 (plus postage) SENT TO POSTMARK C. A. Kelly OR DATE STREET AND N0. �- 5300 Cherry P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE j� Ransa City, Mo. 64110L��• r OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES 1 RETURN I. Shows to whom and Oate delivered 15@ ' RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ,6S0 With delivery to addressee only - 650 7' Shows to whom, date and Where delivered '350.' ' RECEIPT F. Shows to whom, date and where delivered . 350 SERVICES With delivery to addressee only el SERVICES With delivery to addressee only .._ 250 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY jj 9 j 6 j0 ... _ ............. Rod SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) PS F...a un .L ^.. ^. ^... ,. ^... ^. ^.._...,.. ^.^ PS Farm _ Nn IMeIIRANOF OTriFl F PRnYIn Fn— Is— sA...:4.1 Nov.1971 aNW— NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL" •a�oBe �o oa•r.tlu) I RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL —Ne (plus postage) SENT TO POSTMARK OR DATE Louise Berg Est. Z �jMAN740rginia Jones OR DATE \ P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE ra.... a.. r•......L lrr.l v'sr ado_ Box 545 OP At"SExvrces �Ox Aumttuwu BEES RETURN 1. Shows to whom and Oat* delivered 150 With delivery to addressee only - 650 Aspen, Colorado 81611 ' RECEIPT F. Shows to whom, date and where delivered . 350 r SERVICES With delivery to addressee only .._ 250 RETURN N, 1. Shows to whom and date Delivered 154 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ........ .... _. ... ........ Due SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra tae required) -.... . PS Farm _ Nn IMeIIRANOF OTriFl F PRnYIn Fn— Is— sA...:4.1 Nov.1971 ao" NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL .oxo: moos•mao RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30e (plus postage) 3�Nlllon P. Swanson, Ruth M. Th MgWEK Wichita, Kansas 67212 OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RF7UPN 1. Shows to wM1Om and III delivered ............ 150 Wiin delivery, to atldressee only ............ 650 RECEIPT =, Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 350 SERVICES Wllh delivery to addressee only ... 850 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ........ ...... -. --- SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra Fes re Wired) " " " -' PS Form 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED— (See other side) I Noy. 1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL a a <o:.erao aar.au RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 (nlus nnstadi s,TbRn L. Herron POSTMARK POSTMARK OR DATE OR DATE \ ?STREET AND N0. Box 545 STREET AND N0, Tzi 67 P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE Aspen, Colorado 81611 7p) r OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES .' RETURN N, 1. Shows to whom and date Delivered 154 RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only 650 7ed351 R SFpVICES O• Shows to whom, date and where delivered With delivery to addressee only 350 i DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ............... ............ .,:,. 50! SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) - - ......._....__......... delivery to addressee only D DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .. S SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fw raqui red) PS Fe D Nov.1971 oauu NO ...wcu— (See other side) T FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL a oeo:.na..ao.... RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30e (plus postage) SENT TO P POSTMARK OR DATE Hans R. G Gramiger O STREET AND N0, Tzi 67 P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE q' RPTI PEES q RETURN 1. Shows to whom and data Delivered 7 RECEIPT W 7ed351 R F' S Shows to wham, date and where tlahrerWith d SERVICES F delivery to addressee only D DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .. S SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fw raqui red) PS Fe Nov.1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL ao•o: .aro o- ear -•w t.- 00 CY) i\j i"4 (D z I z 00 N S"'I C..0 z 07 09 N Q0 z C"i C71 C� N (e"/'a( CID z RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30e (plus postage) sENT T POSTMARK James C. Adams } E1 a Swanson STREET AND NO, POSTMARK STREET AND NO. j OR DATE STREET AND NO, P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE I Aspen, Colorado 81611 _ RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(l PO, STATE AND ZIP CODE r Aspenr Colorado 81611 1 � -" OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES R ETUgN t. Shows to whom and date delivered RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only 3. Shows to whom, date DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ....... 500 SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required SERVICES and where delivered _ WiID delivery to addressee only .. ... g- DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ....... DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ... .- 500 -- SPECIAL DELIVERY (eatro fee required) RETURN ' I. Shows to whom and date delivered . 15g RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ... "of PS P.— SERVICES Z. Shows to whom, date and where delivered 35� PSF..,a .. With delivery to addressee only DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .....? Nov.1971 dCW 11T4UnAnbL uuYC11ANt r11UVIULu— (Sea other side) NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL < aeo:,,,ao.av,..w RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30e (plus postage) SENT TO POSTMARK James C. Adams } l -OR DATE STREET AND NO, 1'—.OR DATE STREET AND NO. j t l P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE I Aspen, Colorado 81611 _ RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(l OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES / RETURN 1, Sine to whom and date deliver e0 .7`L RECEIPT With delivery to atldressee only ....... 6D0_ ' RECEIPT addressee only SEpY10E5 Shows to whom, date and where delivered . 35C With delivery to addressee only ..... BS0 850 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ....... 500 SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required PS Far. _.. wn rw...a.aa..,........_. --------- P DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ....... li 5 Form NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED - Nov.1971 3800 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See other side) ..— •oeo: ,v,o oav>..ee RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(1 (plus nestasel I 5!111 TOMi lton Durand s1 _ POSTMARK W. E. Hughes, CTS J. Hughes, -� 1'—.OR DATE STREET AND NO. j t l P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE Aspen, Colorado 81611 _ RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(l _ !,. r OPTIONAL SERVICES PDR AD0I TIONAL FEES RETURN 1. Shows to whom one 0310 delivered Wrth delivery to ' RECEIPT addressee only .. T. Shows to whom, tlale one where tlehvered �. 35C SERVICES Wrth Delivery io addressee only .... 850 850 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ..__..._ . ................_....... 500 SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) ... .... ._ ............ PS Far. _.. wn rw...a.aa..,........_. --------- P5 F..— DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ....... Nov.1971 aew NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAILa eo(3.. other side) ee II 1 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30e (plus pastarel SENT TO W. D. Owens _ POSTMARK W. E. Hughes, CTS J. Hughes, OR DATE -, --� OR DATE STREET AND NO, 7 r j t l P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE Aspen, Colorado 81611 _ RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(l OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES Z RETURN I. Shows to whom antl date delivered With delivery to RECEIPT addressee only ... ... ... SERVICES Z. Shows to whom, date and where delivered . 850 350 RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ... Willi delivery to addressee only ... 850 =. Shows to whom, date and where delivered DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ........ ...... 500 SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra foe required) P5 F..— DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ....... 500 Nov.1971 JNW r•uasn.a, rnuvfuau— (5ee other side) NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL a oeo: RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(1 (plus postage SENT TO _ POSTMARK W. E. Hughes, CTS J. Hughes, OR DATE -, --� OR DATE STREET AND NO. j t l P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE Aspen, Colorado 81611 _ RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(l ' OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN 1. Shows to whom and data delivered ... 150 ' RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ...... 650 RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ... E. Shows to whom, date and where delivered SERVICES . 350 =. Shows to whom, date and where delivered With delivery to addressee only ... 850 SERVICES With Delivery to addressee only ... DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ....... 500 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY _....... _... ._ Soo SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) Shows to whom, date and where delivered With delivery to addressee only \65g_ RETURN ' I. Shows to whom and date delivered . 15g RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ... "of PS P.— SERVICES Z. Shows to whom, date and where delivered 35� PSF..,a Nev.1971 aow - -- rnuvsucu— (See other side) NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL peep: n>o 000.u, r� � z CD P"I z r— N N__q CID 6 z ill M N'"4 0 z C1e1 f` N r I (..0 z 1 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(1 (plus postage) i SENT TO lase other side) eoeo: u,o a.as,.u, POSTMARK W. E. Hughes, CTS J. Hughes, OR DATE -, --� OR DATE S A 0. Box 1248 N. Form NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED— 3900 (Sea other side) P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE _Aspen, Colorado 81611 _ RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(l f (plus postage) OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN 1. Shows to whom and date delivered ... ISd POSTMARK RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ... 650 STREET AND NO, =. Shows to whom, date and where delivered 350 RETURN I. Shows to whom and date delivered SERVICES With Delivery to addressee only ... BSQ' \ L DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY _....... _... ._ Soo SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra lee required) Shows to whom, date and where delivered With delivery to addressee only \65g_ RETURN ' I. Shows to whom and date delivered . 15g RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ... "of • r I SENT TO lase other side) eoeo: u,o a.as,.u, POSTMARK W. E. Hughes, CTS J. Hughes, OR DATE -, --� 5a86ET EN ug e S Box � N. Form NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED— 3900 (Sea other side) NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL eoeo: n>o o -a,nue f _ RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(l f (plus postage) SENT TO SERVICES Z' Shows to whom, date and where delivered ,. 35e' With delivery to addressee only ............. 85 POSTMARK Charlps F Tlrshal OR DATE STREET AND NO, - Box 267 RETURN I. Shows to whom and date delivered P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE (l \ PS Ferro NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED - Nev.1971 3800 4 ION L 5 R IC FOR ADDITIONAL FEES Shows to whom, date and where delivered With delivery to addressee only \65g_ RETURN ' I. Shows to whom and date delivered . 15g RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ... "of • r I SERVICES Z. Shows to whom, date and where delivered 35� PSF..,a .. With delivery to addressee only DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .....? / SPECIAL DELIVERY (sxha fee required) PS Ferro 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED— NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (Sea other side) eoeo:,,,00- aa,..sa 41 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(1 (plus oastasel I SENT TO lase other side) eoeo: u,o a.as,.u, POSTMARK W. E. Hughes, CTS J. Hughes, OR DATE -, --� 5a86ET EN ug e S Box 1177 Y,7aHFJh 1`19-98TWILECKNOV21111fODNew Mexico 87501,,.'�� Box 18735 / OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN 1. Shows to whom and date delivered RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only .... .. 65Cy SERVICES Z' Shows to whom, date and where delivered ,. 35e' With delivery to addressee only ............. 85 P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ....... Spg SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) ._ ............. " PS F..a. OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN I. Shows to whom and date delivered Nev.1971 dOVU •• ax rruvial (5ee other side) NOT FOR INTERNA7IONAL MAIL •ado: ,,,o o.a,,..ea RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30t (plus postage) SENT TO POSTMARK N".1971 aaw '-- — NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAII lase other side) eoeo: u,o a.as,.u, RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(1 (plus postage) J Ohn C. Voorhees POSTMARK OR DATE Y,7aHFJh - Box 18735 EE AN NO. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 7311 �\ P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE Aspen, Colorado 81611 " - OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN I. Shows to whom and date delivered RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only . PS Ferro NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED - Nev.1971 3800 4 S. SERVICES Shows to whom, date and where delivered With delivery to addressee only \65g_ ' DELIVER TO AUUKL55LL ONLY ........._. 500 SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) PSF..,a ..a ,.,......... .....__.._ ___...___ N".1971 aaw '-- — NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAII lase other side) eoeo: u,o a.as,.u, RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(1 (plus postage) J Ohn C. Voorhees POSTMARK OR DATE STREET AND N0. - Box 18735 P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE.. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 7311 OPTIONAL SEpV.... FOR ADDITIONAL FEES try RETURN 1. Shows to whom and data delivered .... RECEIPT With of ivory to addressee only ........... 650 SERVICES 2• Shows to whom, Oate and where delivered 356 - .. Wrth delivery to atldressee only ..... 85@ DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ' ........... SPECIAL DELIVERY "– 50d (sxha fee required) ; PS Ferro NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED - Nev.1971 3800 4 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (Sea other side) eoeo: N Lr ) N W z c—I CD N 0 z CD (D N z N s I 0 z CD 00 cm N 0 z RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(1 (plus oostare) SENT TO POSTMARK _Waddill Catchings DATE \ Sff#k ANY NO. (plus oostate) !Rs�'gfnA;D t6196rado 81611 , OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL fFES RETURN I. Shows to whom and date delivered ..... RECEIPT Wtdeivery to addressee only RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ....... 650 ONLY ....... .... ..... ..... SO SERVICES' E' Shows to wham, date and where delivered .. 350 - Witty delivery to addressee only ......... 850 .. 850 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ... .. ........... ........ 50! SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fae requred) ... _......... ......... PS Fe.n PS Fnnn Nov1971 O6W NOT FOR INTERNpiIONAI MAIN eeroeBi e>o oae>'tlw RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(1 (plus oostate) SENT TO lo.e other .1001 aero: o>o o.aaz.ee POSTMARK CERTIFIED MAIL -30(1 (plus OR DATE 8 Box 46 P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE J650 As en, Colorado 81611 RETURN I. Shows to whom and Onto delivered ............ 50 RETURN With delivery to addressee only .. ..... 650 OPTI EwhomBand A TORA I ShowsVto d te delivered RECEIPT Wtdeivery to addressee only ONLY ....... .... ..... ..... SO _' Shows to whom, Bate and where delivered ., 350 - SERVICES' With delivery to addressee only .. 850 _ DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ..__.. ........_..... - .......... -..... 500 SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra I" required)... .............. ................ PS Fnnn PS Ferias ain rue.1eaune n _ - Nov.1971 JULIO — NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL lo.e other .1001 aero: o>o o.aaz.ee RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(1 (plus postage) SENT TO NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL ae0o: POSTMARK RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(I (plus OR DATE Lima 1014• R ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN I. Shows to whom and Onto delivered ............ 50 RETURN With delivery to addressee only .. ..... 650 OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES 6c/o "lle' n H. Webb ' RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ...._ DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ....... .... ..... ..... SO SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) -- San Francisco 33, Calif 850 �C^ DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ...._ ...... ... ............. _. ............ SO! SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra lee requi red)... PS Ferias ain rue.1eaune n _ - OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN I. Shows to whom and date delivered ... IS RECEIPT With tlelivery to addressee only ... 650 - Sao 2, Shows to wNOin, date and where delivered .. 350 SERVICES With delivery to addressee only ... 850 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ........ ..... ......... ........ ........._. ..... ..... .. 50! SPECIAL DELIVERY (Gallo fare required) .. ......... ..L....- .......... PS Form ____ sin luenoaurc nnucoano oonvincn N".1971 sow NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL ae0o: u>o o.a>.aee RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(I (plus postage) I SENT TO POSTMARK ___ •ese: OR DATE Mrs. J. G. Holden Jr. CERTIFIED MAIL -30(1 615VbANftTs. A. B. Luper Box 8A PLEST A.dAfeiNCd6 ODE ddllllll SS Lima 1014• R ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN I. Shows to whom and Onto delivered ............ 50 RETURN With delivery to addressee only .. ..... 650 OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES 3. She WS to whom, dale and where delivered .. 350 SERVICES With delivery to addressee only .... 850 ' RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ...._ DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ....... .... ..... ..... SO SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) -- PS Fero. ____ on meoeaarrc rnucoAnc oommnen Jow Nov.1971 .__...... ..__ TREE_ NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL ___ •ese: _.._...__, ie>o o.a0>..se RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(1 (plus postage) T TO dry C. Roges POSTMARK OR DATE ' - POSTMARK OR DATE P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE Denver, Colorado OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN I. Shows to whom and date delivered ...,... 150 RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ....... 650 SERVICES ' Shos to wAean date and where delivered _ 350 With delivery to addressee only ._......... 850, STREET AND NO. P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE Aspen, Colorado 81611 _ 1 OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN I• Shows to whom and date delivered ..... 150 ' RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ...._ 650 RECEIPT 3. Shows to whom, date and where delivered . 350 SERVICES With delivery to addressee only ..... 850 �•, DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ...._ ...... ... ............. _. ............ SO! SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra lee requi red)... PS Ferias ain rue.1eaune n delivery to addressee only -- -- TERN--- -- - -- ---- : Nov.1971 NOT FOA INTERNATIONAL MAIL one: rho ti N r-q W z Uf ) 00 Im N r-' 6 z CD Cn N (.o z t1-" 0) r-q W z w iv • z RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30t (plus oostate) SENT TO POSTMARK OR DATE ' - qlllrsl_h Street South P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE Denver, Colorado OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN I. Shows to whom and date delivered ...,... 150 RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ....... 650 SERVICES ' Shos to wAean date and where delivered _ 350 With delivery to addressee only ._......... 850, DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .. _._.. ..._...,......_ _..........,. 50t SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) ........................... PS Fern. _ un i niri _ aeW .._ ...__......__ __._....__ iara erne. .1vel Nov.1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL eoro: moo -an.ue RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(1 (plus postage) SENT TO POSTMARK Harold G Everett OR -DATE STREET AND N0. � � I�� J s P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE 1 �( _Aspen, PS NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED Nov.197 1971 3800 Colorado 81611 { uj �e eYO: ova o.ae>rse I RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30L1 OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES -Music School \ RETURN OR DATE 1. AN to whom and date delivered 150 RECEIPT livery ' I. Shows lto whom, date ..... , Colorado 81611 SERVICES With and where delivered .. 35C Shrews to whomand data delivere0 ...._. 150 delivery to addressee only 850 35A DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ..._. ......__... ......_ Sao PS Ferro 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED— Nov.1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (Sea other aide) e ono: , r>a o -aa>se RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(1 (plus postage writ? David Barber POSTMARK OR DATE STREET AND N0. - BOX P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE Aspen, Colorado 81611 C' OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES i RETURN ' 1. Shows to whom and date delivered 54 RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only SERVICES 2. Shows t ed o whom, date _and _whore deliver.: 35 W 11, . I -' - °• ^` °411 •c ^* Isxlra foe regui tad) �� PS F 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDEO- Nov.1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL a e(See other side) vo: woo.aevree RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(l (plus AND NO. '^ - ^•^ -nom_ in' xe'Y RETURN I. Shows to whom and date delivered .. RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only .. . 650 ; SERVICES 7. Shows to whom, date and where delivered . S� - With delivery to addressee only .. DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) ..._. PS NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED Nov.197 1971 3800 -(See other aide) NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL - — �e eYO: ova o.ae>rse I RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30L1 (plus postage)I!I -Music School POSTMARK OR DATE NO. - A ND ZIP CODE .. Fm , Colorado 81611 ITIONAI SERVICES POR ADDITIONAI PEESI• Shrews to whomand data delivere0 ...._. 150 With delivery to addressee only..... 650 eoamrce 7. Shows. to whom, date and where delive?ed 35A Fo he rm R00 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED - Nev.1971 S NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL so�ueBaother ;idNj En CT) N z N Ln N cfl z PR P_ Lr) N e"'I C0 z C\j Co M T" l CY7 N 6 z CM C� N (.C) z RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(1 (plus postage) SENT TO NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL earo: POSTMARK i ns (plus OR DATE •� - - -" SPeter STREET pND N0. _II 6cE/F iNiau3vick Loushin P. TE IP CODE OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES Aspen, Colorado 81611 650 P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE E. Shawl to whem, dab and where delivered . 350 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .. ......... ....................... 50d ¢�•� OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY _ - ....... .... ,.... .... ... 500 RETURN I. Shows to whom and date delivered ..... 150 ' RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only .... 65C 2. Shows to wham, date and where delivered .. 350 SERVICES With delivery to addressee only _ ... 850' .. SY DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ..__.. ..... ........ 500 SPECIAL DELIVERY (.,,o fee required) . ..... . 350 PS Fnnn ern m.I.S a nnuenane eenvmrn DELIVER With delivery to addressee only ............ TO ADDRESSEE ONLY Nov.1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL earo: moo.ao..ee RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30e (plus oostate) SENT TO POSTMARK POSTMARK I in STREET AND NO OR DATE WHD*_wLd'Ti'5c'k Loushin P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE _ _II 6cE/F iNiau3vick Loushin PASpen ",N0 ffoi °6rado 81611 OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN I. Shows to whom and date delivered ... 150 RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ...... 650 P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE E. Shawl to whem, dab and where delivered . 350 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .. ......... ....................... 50d SERVICES With delivery to addressee only .... 850 PSF...,. .... ..._..�...__ _ ___.._. DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY _ - ....... .... ,.... .... ... 500 SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required)..... .............................. PS Form NO We... 0 TIONgI SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES 3000 NCE COVERAGE PROVIDED— (See other side) Nov.1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30t1 (plus postage) SENT TO POSTMARK CR DATE 3800 C COVERAGE PROVIDED— (See other side) Nov.1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL earo: moo- ae7.aN RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -301 (plus postage) r POSTMARK eaTOMerolt DATE OR DATE STREET AND NO Box 649 M P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE _ _II 6cE/F iNiau3vick Loushin P. ., TE IP CODE Aspen, Colorado 81611 OPTIONAL SERVICES PoR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN I. Shows to whom and date delivered ISO RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only .... 650 P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE 2. Shows to wham, dale and where delivered . 350 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .. ......... ....................... 50d SERVICES' With delivery to addressee only ...... 850 PSF...,. .... ..._..�...__ _ ___.._. DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ....... ........._.. _.. _...... 500 SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required). -.... .,..._._ PS Form NO INSURAN E 0 TIONgI SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES 3800 C COVERAGE PROVIDED— (See other side) Nov.1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL earo: moo- ae7.aN RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -301 (plus postage) r POD Form 3800 July 1969 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED— (See other side) NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL eaeo: ie7...a> -gee RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(1 Ltd 00 Ln N z 00 LP`) N r-i W z M 00 Lfi N S� (.0 z N Cp LO N T-1 Q z rts 11 POSTMARK eaTOMerolt DATE OR DATE STREET AND NO Box 649 AND N0. P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE Aspen Colorado 81611 OPTIONAL SERVICES POR ADDITIONAL FEES OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN /. 6hdWa to whom and data delivered 150 With delivery to addressee only .. 650 �i RECEIPT R. Shows to whem, date and where delivered .. 380 P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE SERVICES' With delivery to addressee only ............ 850 ' DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .. ......... ....................... 50d SPECIAL DELIVERY (2 pounds or less) ........... ............................... 150 POD Form 3800 July 1969 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED— (See other side) NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL eaeo: ie7...a> -gee RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(1 Ltd 00 Ln N z 00 LP`) N r-i W z M 00 Lfi N S� (.0 z N Cp LO N T-1 Q z rts 11 C= 01 VCEIS Spar Consolidated and Mining OR DATE 6DE�t7 11UpEUent Company Box 4298 STREET AND N0. _ \ OPTIONAL SERVICES POR ADDITIONAL FEES ax 1147 SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) ...------- .- ° - - - - -- �i SERVICES t. Shows to whom, date and where delivJli `�T50 P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE 6PEDIgL DELIVERY (extra fee required) __ � ' 00 SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra ..................... orado 81611 PSF...,. .... ..._..�...__ _ ___.._. �� Lr) , 0 TIONgI SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN 1. 6M1Ows to whom and date delivered RECEIPT ' With delivery to addressee only .. SY SERVICES = Shows to whom, date and where delivered 350 DELIVER With delivery to addressee only ............ TO ADDRESSEE ONLY . 85 0 SPECIAL ............. ......... ...... DELIVERY (extra foe raga sd) _....... . ...... 500 PS Ferro Nov.1971 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIOEO- (Sea other tidal Fti NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL earo; ie7. o.as7.aee r RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30t1 (plus nostare) I SENT TO POSTMARK Spar Consolidated and Mining OR DATE 6DE�t7 11UpEUent Company Box 4298 OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE Aspen, Colorado 81611 , OPTIONAL SERVICES POR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN I. Shows to whom antl date delivered I50 '. RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only 650¢ E. Shows to whom, date SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) ...------- .- ° - - - - -- and where delivered . 35$( SERVICES' With delivery to addressee only . __ 850_ SERVICES t. Shows to whom, date and where delivJli `�T50 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ..... 500 6PEDIgL DELIVERY (extra fee required) __ � PS F.— ___ DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .___ ... .......... 50 Nov.1971 JDUU — .s rnusru ED—__ (See other side) NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL ear.: ie7e o- aa7.aN RECEIPT FOR UKTIMU MAIL. —sue LPIUS PUUdtoq SENT TO POSTMARK OR DATE 1- _ -v, 6IS of va B. Baxter PP;" NO New yrk City 19, New Y k OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN 1. Shows to whom and date delivered .._. With delivery to addressee only _. RELEIPT ' R. Shows to whom, date and where delivered 11spen rolo adO H1611 \' SERVICES With delivery t0 addressee only .... 85� OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES r DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ......... _ ....................... ............ 500 SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) ...------- .- ° - - - - -- PS Form _ NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED— (Sae other side. Nov.1971 'a'r11 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL ooeo: ie7o o.se7..N RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -3011 (plus postage) SENT TO POSTMARK W. R. Shaw OR DATE STREET AND NO. Box 510 nnro by R Shaw STATE AND ZIP CODE 11spen rolo adO H1611 \' STREET AND N0. OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES r RETURN 1. Shows to whom and dab delivered 1 0 RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ...Ii P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE SERVICES t. Shows to whom, date and where delivJli `�T50 With delivery to addressee only 8 ``� DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .___ ... .......... 50 SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra ..................... .. PSF...,. .... ..._..�...__ _ ___.._. SERVICES E• Shows to whom, date and where delivered Nov.1971 JDW ursnwws rnsNmaU— (Sae other side) f NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL .ado: 1070 0 -N7.•N Ij RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -3011 (plus postage) I SENT TO POSTMARK nnro by R Shaw OR DATE STREET AND N0. Box 510 P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE AS; 1 9�._Colorad0 81611 YTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN I. Shows to whom and date delivered 15�;. ' RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only .. SERVICES E• Shows to whom, date and where delivered 0 , With delivery to addressee only .... 850 -_ DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ... 500 SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) ........ PS Form NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDEO- Nev.1971 3900 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL a aeoe m.......... RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -3011 SENT TO P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE Aspen, Colorado 81611 OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN 1. Shows to whom and date delivered ... 150 RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only 650 SERVICES 2. Shows to whom, date and where d'It, �.ed .` 350 With delivery t0 addressee `` 'q OFI .__.. •. .ee •vgal real ............... . ........ �.. .._�..J... PS Form NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED - Nov.1971 3800 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See other side) e ae0: ,.7...sY7..N E39 N R--q CD z CR I— L0 N 0 z 00 lIzr L.n CU LO LSD 0 z t-1 L-n I.N. Q0 L-C) O z L0 Ll) N L0 6 z RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30e (plus postaffe) SENT r0 POSTMARK POSTMARK Wehner Realty Co. STheodor oper, Sr. OR DATE 1TREVb1Ne TIP. Francis Murphy - -,9p-0�.D —H�AF1p=an Av2nna DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ..... ............ ............................... 500 -.- - PUa(Jil Z(1 CODbhio OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN I. Shows to whom and date delivered 5¢ With delivery to 55¢ RECFIPT addressee only . RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only SERVICES' _' Shows to whom, dale and where delivered With delivery to addressee only 360 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE DELIVEK TO ADDRESSEE ONLY . _ _ . .................. ,'S0! SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) - PS Form PS Fen- _ ran r 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED— (Sea other side) Nov.1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL aoeo: 10700397.4114 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30e (plus postage, SENT TO POSTMARK ea.o: faro 0- aer.asa OR GATE STheodor oper, Sr. (plus postage) E/r-L! /LNX DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ..... ............ ............................... 500 Denver, Colorado ft6ii �;!a2Q P.O., STATE ND� CO` OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEE3 RETURN I. Shows to whom and date delivered \ ... @ RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ., ... 6 0 PTION SERVICE FOR ADDIT 2' Shows to whom, date and where delivered BS RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only SERVICES With deliverer to addressee only .... - DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .. ................. ...... ...... Soo SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) - , ............................ PS Fen- _ ran r _ Nev.1971 aow NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL ea.o: faro 0- aer.asa RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30q (plus postage) SENT TO — POSTMARK POSTMARK 3 P.0 T AND ZIP COD OR DATE STRE E/r-L! /LNX DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ..... ............ ............................... 500 SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee requirer� ... ............ P.O., STATE ND� CO` IN __ _ __ v PTION SERVICE FOR ADDIT -L RETURN 1. Shows to wham and date delivered . . ...... RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only 65¢ J Z• Shows to whom, date and where delivered . 350 I SERVICES With delivery to addressee only ............ 850 SERVICES' Z' Shows to whom, date and where delivered DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ............................... ...................... Soo — _ SPECIgL DELIVERY (extra fee requi red ..... ............................... With delivery to addressee only ............ 85@ PS For. - DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .................... ............................... 50! _ E _— — SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required)....... .................... 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED— (See other aide) Apr. 19797 1 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL a GPO : 3871 O - 480 -799 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -305+ (plus postage) S T TO POSTMARK OR DATE Apr. 1971 joula NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL o1P0: 1872 0 - 460 -743 I RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 (plus postage) POSTMARK OR DATE ET AND NO P.O., STATE AN IP CO r= ] 1 �, A L/T FU r J _ OPTIO AL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN Shows to whom and data tlelivered . Ij50 0'- RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only .. 5¢ Ge ,' SERVICES' 1. Shows to whom, data and who tlelivered .. 35¢ f I With delivery to atltlressee only ............ 850 Apr. 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIOED- r. 1 197 971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See ether aide) a GPO: 3873 0 - 460 -743 00 LO N f-q z rte. 1-n L0 0 z M _Z1. L.f ) N LO z C-) LS) LS-) N LO Cj z M LS) LS7 N L0 z RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL-30(, (plus oostare) SENT TC POSTMARK : 3 P.0 T AND ZIP COD OPTIONAL ._ SER CES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN I. Shows to whom and date delivered ........... RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ............ z. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. SERVICES With delivery to addressee only ............ 150 65@ 350 850 \ ..i �� 1� DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ..... ............ ............................... 500 SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee requirer� ... ............ PS Ferm ____ Iln ruuro hatr Pnareeeo Rnnumrn �(^� __ _ __ Apr. 1971 joula NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL o1P0: 1872 0 - 460 -743 I RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 (plus postage) POSTMARK OR DATE ET AND NO P.O., STATE AN IP CO r= ] 1 �, A L/T FU r J _ OPTIO AL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN Shows to whom and data tlelivered . Ij50 0'- RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only .. 5¢ Ge ,' SERVICES' 1. Shows to whom, data and who tlelivered .. 35¢ f I With delivery to atltlressee only ............ 850 Apr. 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIOED- r. 1 197 971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See ether aide) a GPO: 3873 0 - 460 -743 00 LO N f-q z rte. 1-n L0 0 z M _Z1. L.f ) N LO z C-) LS) LS-) N LO Cj z M LS) LS7 N L0 z RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL-30(, (plus oostare) SENT TC POSTMARK piaaker Realty Corporation OR DATE STREET AND NO. Rox-462 P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE Aspen, Colorado 81611 STREET AND N OPTIONAL SERVICES POR ADDITIONAL FEES . RFiURN I. Shows to wham and date delivered RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only',. 650 �(^� SERVICES 2. Shows to whom, date and where dell red 350 With delivery to addressee only .. ,850 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .. ...._ , Ot SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) ..._ b� OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR AOOIIIUIIi FEES Aouu ' ° ^'•'• ^�` •'•'•`•• ^•" •••,•u,.•,— laee Omer ardel Nov.1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL eevo: i n00aar.au RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30e (plus oosta¢e) SE Tb POSTMARK OR DATE POSTMARK POSTMARK PTION_A SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES [ OR DATE STREET AND NO STREET AND N NO INSURANC C P.O., �(^� � `ST %[/ b� OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR AOOIIIUIIi FEES RETURN I. Shows to wham and date delivered .. 15¢ RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only .. 650 SERVICES' Z' Shows to whom, date and where delivered . 350 _ With delivery to addressee only ............ 85@ 65¢ - DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .................... ............................... 50! _ E _— — SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required)....... .................... Shows to whom, date and where delivered 35¢ PS Fis un SERVICES With delivery to addressee only ............ Apr. 1971 JOOp NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL loo NOT I a GPO :18Ti O - 460 -743 "r RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(l (plus oosta¢e) SENT T9, - POSTMARK OR DATE STRE AND N0. s'Z POSTMARK PTION_A SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES [ PETURN 1 Shows to whom and date did area ........... RECEIPT Wilh delivery to addressee only ............ 65¢ ' 7. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 35@ , OR DATE. -, STREET AND N NO INSURANC C �(^� � P. ST E AND ZIP CODE ., _ ;J�`.. y _ OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RE7UPN I. Shows to wham and date delivered .... 15Q RECEIPT ' With delivery to addressee only .. 65¢ p. Shows to whom, date and where delivered 35¢ SERVICES With delivery to addressee only ............ 850 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ....................... ............................... 50@ SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required)- .................._ - PS F— un Apr. 1971 6 °w lase erne, sloe NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAILw a OPO :1BTd O RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(+ (plus postage) SEN _ P POSTMARK OR DATE STRE AND N0. s'Z P.O., S7 AND ZIP CODE C PTION_A SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES [ PETURN 1 Shows to whom and date did area ........... RECEIPT Wilh delivery to addressee only ............ 65¢ ' 7. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 35@ , DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE _ ONLY ................... _ ........... Soo _ SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) ...... - ....... .................... PS Form N NO INSURANC C Apr. 1971 3800 E OVERAGE PROVIDED— (See other side) I NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL a GPO: 1842 O - 480 -799 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -305+ (plus postage) lint )AN D N0. .� . P, SAT IP CODE ar w \\ _ OPTIONAL own; to ESOITt — FE RETURN I. S�owt to whom and date aelive It , rI 41 i RECEIPT With delivery 10 addressee only ............ ¢ ' 1. Shows to wham, data and where dmlrered ,. 35k SERVICES_ With delivery to addressee on d % _ DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY y .. ......... iii _ __._ .................... ............................... 50! ..' SPECIAL DELIVERY .............. PS Farm NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED — Apr. 1971 3800 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (Sea other side) a GPO ;1871 0 -460 -743 C� LS') N Q0 L0 z Q0 LS) N L.D LS0 z i-O L.C) N Q0 L0 z I_7 Y-) CV L0 z LO 1-0 L\j LO Ls) ri RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 (plus postal SENT r POSTMARK �l 7 _ _ c�c C/ I� DATE OR DATE S7 EET ANA N0. s11 OR DATE S EET AND ZIP CODE n PD ZDE ^� 0�_ L SERVICES R ADDITIONAL FEES L/ _ _ _ RETURN 1. -Shows to who and date delivered With delivery to OPTIO AL SERVICES FOR ADDITION FEES" ' ' RECEIPT addressee only 50 2. Shows to whom, Oate and where delivered 36aQ Z SERVICES With delivery to addressee only ... 55C 35¢ _DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .......... ............... . ............ ................ — bOd • -�� SPECIAL DELIVERY (exttrr a fns required ) .............................. r — ..... s O PS Farm ____ un wnraaunc r PTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES _ auvu _ ___ .__ TERN_..__ ..._..___ 0-4, Apr. 1971 NOT FOA INTERNATIONAL MAIL rt GPO :1R7i O -96C RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -300 (plus postage) S T T EENN� POSTMARK POSTMARK I� /" j/'/ � V �� l P OR DATE S EET AND n PD ZDE L/ -i OPTIO AL SERVICES FOR ADDITION FEES" ntl ... 15¢ RETURN 1. Shows to whom and date delivered see . With delivery to addressee only �� I\ \ P.O., TE AND ZIP CODE RECEIPT e ' 2. Shows to de dale and where delivered .. 35¢ O SERVICES With delivery to addressee only ............ i 35¢ __.. DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ..................... ..._.........._................ SOd SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required). t PTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES PS Farm ____ Sin INSIIRAMOF COVFRACF PROVIn Fn— RETURN 1. Shows to wham and date delivered ........ .. RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ......... 2. Shows to wham, tlate and where delivered .. ¢S C, SERVICES With delivery to addressee only ............ 8 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ....................... ............................... 500 SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) .. - - .. ... PS Farm ____ sin IueuoAMPIC rnUCDAns oonvmsn Apr. 1971 'osru NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL . M':-1972-0--460-743' RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -300 (plus postage) SENT Ty POSTMARK y� 0 R DATE l P , STREET AND NO. r n PD ZDE L/ -i OPTIO AL SERVICES FOR ADDITION FEES" ntl ... 15¢ RETURN 1. Shows to whom and date delivered see . With delivery to addressee only 65¢ RECEIPT e ' 2. Shows to de dale and where delivered .. 35¢ 6 SERVICES With delivery to addressee only ............ 85¢ 35¢ __.. DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ..................... ..._.........._................ SOd SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required). 85¢ PS Farm ____ Sin INSIIRAMOF COVFRACF PROVIn Fn— 1A.. A., dd.l Apr. 1971 40ou NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL oceo: lore G- 46o -74s RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(1 (plus postage) Sf.N% Tq l POSTMARK OR DATE l P P.O., S TATE AND P.O., S ZIP CODE C��— TIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL d dfa—te F addressee ssee only . 6 t a 35¢ SERVICES 2 85¢ -- SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fan required). PS Form NO INSURANCE C Apr. 1971 3800 — (See other side) NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL o M: 1078.- 480 -799 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 (plus postage) S 0 - POSTMARK OR DATE STREET 1 NO. ' (� P.O. ATE AND ZIP CODE OPT RVICES FO DITIONAL FEES RETURN 1. Sows to who nil tltle delivered 15¢ RECEIPT With deliv y to addressee only ........... 65¢ SERVICES ' Z. Shows to whom, data and where delivered .. 35¢ With delivery to addressee only .- ......... 85¢ _ DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ........... .... ........................... I ....... SOd SPECIAL .— Apr. 1971 "aw — NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAILw lane other sids) e GPO : 107R O - 980 -749 r� Ln Lr) CV LO O z LS-) L0 Ldp z b LO L.f) QO LO 0 z Q0 L0 0 z M L( ) L� LO z RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 (plus postage) POSTMARK OR DATE - STREET AND N P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE �FOJ ERVFCES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES ® Z: RETURN 1. Shows to wham and date delivered .. 150 With delivery to addressee only . . .. 650 t. . RECEIPT Z• Shows to whom, date and where delivered . 35¢ SERVICES With delivery to addressee only ......... 85¢ DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ... ....... ............................ _............. 500 SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required ) ........................ PS Fan. ____ un mevoeure rn.enarr ......en _ -FOR- . .......... ......___ _..._. -.,.., Apr. 1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL aGPp: 19U 0 -980 -749 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -300 (plus postage) SENT T. POSTMARK OR DATE r STREET AND ✓ ` y \ P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE i, I a' OPTIONAL E1IVICE3 POR and date deli FEES \_ , RETURN 1. Shows to whom an0 dme delivered ..... RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ......_.... 65¢ ' Z. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 35¢ SERVICES With delivery to addressee only ............ 85¢ DELIVER TO-ADDRESSEE ONLY ... ............................... ................... bOd -- — SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra lee required) ........ I ..................... PS Form NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED— (See other side, Apr. 1971 3800 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL oD, ,, G -aeo -Ias I RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 (plus postage) M SENT3Qr POSTMARK (�. s OR DATE STREET P.O. E AND ZIP CODE / I/ �(�6 L _ OPTIONAL SERVICES R AOOITIONA FEES RETURN t. Shows to whom and date delivered ...... 15Q RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ._......... 65@ SERVICES ' Z. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 35¢ With delivery to addressee only ............ 850 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY __ .. _SOQ SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) . . ................... PS Fnrm Apr. 1971 JDUV •• NOT FOR INTERNATI ONAL MAID lie• erne, sloe/ n GPO : IB7a O -460 -799 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAI . -a �fN%TO , P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE // r I �(''� 61 `. OPTIONAL S RVIC FOR ADOITI C FEES G Q RETURN 1. -Shows to wham and date delivered RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only SERVICES' 2. Shows to whom, date and wM1ere delivered - - _ With delivery to addressee only .... DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE rrpd _ ................... ............................... SPECIAL DELIVERY — - -- (axlra !ee required) ..... ............................... PS Form 0 - 4 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED - Apr.1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See c GPO :le7i O - 480 -799 -743 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30({ (plus postage) SENT TO POSTMARK OR DATE -S LET A, N0. P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE IOWA L SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN 1. Shows to whom and -date delivered 1 ¢ �� ) With tlelivery to addressee only ..yea¢ RECEIPT ' Z. Shows to whom, date and where delivered y� SERVICES With delivery to addressee only ..........:.85¢ �2s DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ...................... ............................... SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) ............... - - -' PS Farm ____ Nn IMSIIRANDF CRVFRACF PROVIOEn— Is.. nfhe, dd.) Apr. 1971 'aww NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL a PO: 10Ta O - 980 -749 Apr. 1971 "aw — NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAILw lane other sids) e GPO : 107R O - 980 -749 r� Ln Lr) CV LO O z LS-) L0 Ldp z b LO L.f) QO LO 0 z Q0 L0 0 z M L( ) L� LO z RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 (plus postage) POSTMARK OR DATE - STREET AND N P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE �FOJ ERVFCES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES ® Z: RETURN 1. Shows to wham and date delivered .. 150 With delivery to addressee only . . .. 650 t. . RECEIPT Z• Shows to whom, date and where delivered . 35¢ SERVICES With delivery to addressee only ......... 85¢ DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ... ....... ............................ _............. 500 SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required ) ........................ PS Fan. ____ un mevoeure rn.enarr ......en _ -FOR- . .......... ......___ _..._. -.,.., Apr. 1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL aGPp: 19U 0 -980 -749 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -300 (plus postage) SENT T. POSTMARK OR DATE r STREET AND ✓ ` y \ P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE i, I a' OPTIONAL E1IVICE3 POR and date deli FEES \_ , RETURN 1. Shows to whom an0 dme delivered ..... RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ......_.... 65¢ ' Z. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 35¢ SERVICES With delivery to addressee only ............ 85¢ DELIVER TO-ADDRESSEE ONLY ... ............................... ................... bOd -- — SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra lee required) ........ I ..................... PS Form NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED— (See other side, Apr. 1971 3800 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL oD, ,, G -aeo -Ias I RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 (plus postage) M SENT3Qr POSTMARK (�. s OR DATE STREET P.O. E AND ZIP CODE / I/ �(�6 L _ OPTIONAL SERVICES R AOOITIONA FEES RETURN t. Shows to whom and date delivered ...... 15Q RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ._......... 65@ SERVICES ' Z. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 35¢ With delivery to addressee only ............ 850 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY __ .. _SOQ SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) . . ................... PS Fnrm Apr. 1971 JDUV •• NOT FOR INTERNATI ONAL MAID lie• erne, sloe/ n GPO : IB7a O -460 -799 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAI . -a �fN%TO , P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE // r I �(''� 61 `. OPTIONAL S RVIC FOR ADOITI C FEES G Q RETURN 1. -Shows to wham and date delivered RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only SERVICES' 2. Shows to whom, date and wM1ere delivered - - _ With delivery to addressee only .... DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE rrpd _ ................... ............................... SPECIAL DELIVERY — - -- (axlra !ee required) ..... ............................... PS Form 0 - 4 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED - Apr.1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See c GPO :le7i O - 480 -799 -743 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30({ (plus postage) SENT TO POSTMARK OR DATE -S LET A, N0. P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE IOWA L SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN 1. Shows to whom and -date delivered 1 ¢ �� ) With tlelivery to addressee only ..yea¢ RECEIPT ' Z. Shows to whom, date and where delivered y� SERVICES With delivery to addressee only ..........:.85¢ �2s DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ...................... ............................... SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) ............... - - -' PS Farm ____ Nn IMSIIRANDF CRVFRACF PROVIOEn— Is.. nfhe, dd.) Apr. 1971 'aww NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL a PO: 10Ta O - 980 -749 _ -FOR- . .......... ......___ _..._. -.,.., Apr. 1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL aGPp: 19U 0 -980 -749 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -300 (plus postage) SENT T. POSTMARK OR DATE r STREET AND ✓ ` y \ P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE i, I a' OPTIONAL E1IVICE3 POR and date deli FEES \_ , RETURN 1. Shows to whom an0 dme delivered ..... RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ......_.... 65¢ ' Z. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 35¢ SERVICES With delivery to addressee only ............ 85¢ DELIVER TO-ADDRESSEE ONLY ... ............................... ................... bOd -- — SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra lee required) ........ I ..................... PS Form NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED— (See other side, Apr. 1971 3800 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL oD, ,, G -aeo -Ias I RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 (plus postage) M SENT3Qr POSTMARK (�. s OR DATE STREET P.O. E AND ZIP CODE / I/ �(�6 L _ OPTIONAL SERVICES R AOOITIONA FEES RETURN t. Shows to whom and date delivered ...... 15Q RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ._......... 65@ SERVICES ' Z. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 35¢ With delivery to addressee only ............ 850 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY __ .. _SOQ SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) . . ................... PS Fnrm Apr. 1971 JDUV •• NOT FOR INTERNATI ONAL MAID lie• erne, sloe/ n GPO : IB7a O -460 -799 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAI . -a �fN%TO , P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE // r I �(''� 61 `. OPTIONAL S RVIC FOR ADOITI C FEES G Q RETURN 1. -Shows to wham and date delivered RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only SERVICES' 2. Shows to whom, date and wM1ere delivered - - _ With delivery to addressee only .... DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE rrpd _ ................... ............................... SPECIAL DELIVERY — - -- (axlra !ee required) ..... ............................... PS Form 0 - 4 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED - Apr.1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See c GPO :le7i O - 480 -799 -743 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30({ (plus postage) SENT TO POSTMARK OR DATE -S LET A, N0. P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE IOWA L SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN 1. Shows to whom and -date delivered 1 ¢ �� ) With tlelivery to addressee only ..yea¢ RECEIPT ' Z. Shows to whom, date and where delivered y� SERVICES With delivery to addressee only ..........:.85¢ �2s DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ...................... ............................... SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) ............... - - -' PS Farm ____ Nn IMSIIRANDF CRVFRACF PROVIOEn— Is.. nfhe, dd.) Apr. 1971 'aww NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL a PO: 10Ta O - 980 -749 Apr. 1971 3800 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL oD, ,, G -aeo -Ias I RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 (plus postage) M SENT3Qr POSTMARK (�. s OR DATE STREET P.O. E AND ZIP CODE / I/ �(�6 L _ OPTIONAL SERVICES R AOOITIONA FEES RETURN t. Shows to whom and date delivered ...... 15Q RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ._......... 65@ SERVICES ' Z. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 35¢ With delivery to addressee only ............ 850 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY __ .. _SOQ SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) . . ................... PS Fnrm Apr. 1971 JDUV •• NOT FOR INTERNATI ONAL MAID lie• erne, sloe/ n GPO : IB7a O -460 -799 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAI . -a �fN%TO , P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE // r I �(''� 61 `. OPTIONAL S RVIC FOR ADOITI C FEES G Q RETURN 1. -Shows to wham and date delivered RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only SERVICES' 2. Shows to whom, date and wM1ere delivered - - _ With delivery to addressee only .... DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE rrpd _ ................... ............................... SPECIAL DELIVERY — - -- (axlra !ee required) ..... ............................... PS Form 0 - 4 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED - Apr.1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See c GPO :le7i O - 480 -799 -743 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30({ (plus postage) SENT TO POSTMARK OR DATE -S LET A, N0. P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE IOWA L SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN 1. Shows to whom and -date delivered 1 ¢ �� ) With tlelivery to addressee only ..yea¢ RECEIPT ' Z. Shows to whom, date and where delivered y� SERVICES With delivery to addressee only ..........:.85¢ �2s DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ...................... ............................... SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) ............... - - -' PS Farm ____ Nn IMSIIRANDF CRVFRACF PROVIOEn— Is.. nfhe, dd.) Apr. 1971 'aww NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL a PO: 10Ta O - 980 -749 SENT3Qr POSTMARK (�. s OR DATE STREET P.O. E AND ZIP CODE / I/ �(�6 L _ OPTIONAL SERVICES R AOOITIONA FEES RETURN t. Shows to whom and date delivered ...... 15Q RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ._......... 65@ SERVICES ' Z. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 35¢ With delivery to addressee only ............ 850 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY __ .. _SOQ SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) . . ................... PS Fnrm Apr. 1971 JDUV •• NOT FOR INTERNATI ONAL MAID lie• erne, sloe/ n GPO : IB7a O -460 -799 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAI . -a �fN%TO , P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE // r I �(''� 61 `. OPTIONAL S RVIC FOR ADOITI C FEES G Q RETURN 1. -Shows to wham and date delivered RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only SERVICES' 2. Shows to whom, date and wM1ere delivered - - _ With delivery to addressee only .... DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE rrpd _ ................... ............................... SPECIAL DELIVERY — - -- (axlra !ee required) ..... ............................... PS Form 0 - 4 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED - Apr.1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See c GPO :le7i O - 480 -799 -743 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30({ (plus postage) SENT TO POSTMARK OR DATE -S LET A, N0. P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE IOWA L SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN 1. Shows to whom and -date delivered 1 ¢ �� ) With tlelivery to addressee only ..yea¢ RECEIPT ' Z. Shows to whom, date and where delivered y� SERVICES With delivery to addressee only ..........:.85¢ �2s DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ...................... ............................... SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) ............... - - -' PS Farm ____ Nn IMSIIRANDF CRVFRACF PROVIOEn— Is.. nfhe, dd.) Apr. 1971 'aww NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL a PO: 10Ta O - 980 -749 Apr. 1971 JDUV •• NOT FOR INTERNATI ONAL MAID lie• erne, sloe/ n GPO : IB7a O -460 -799 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAI . -a �fN%TO , P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE // r I �(''� 61 `. OPTIONAL S RVIC FOR ADOITI C FEES G Q RETURN 1. -Shows to wham and date delivered RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only SERVICES' 2. Shows to whom, date and wM1ere delivered - - _ With delivery to addressee only .... DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE rrpd _ ................... ............................... SPECIAL DELIVERY — - -- (axlra !ee required) ..... ............................... PS Form 0 - 4 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED - Apr.1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See c GPO :le7i O - 480 -799 -743 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30({ (plus postage) SENT TO POSTMARK OR DATE -S LET A, N0. P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE IOWA L SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN 1. Shows to whom and -date delivered 1 ¢ �� ) With tlelivery to addressee only ..yea¢ RECEIPT ' Z. Shows to whom, date and where delivered y� SERVICES With delivery to addressee only ..........:.85¢ �2s DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ...................... ............................... SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) ............... - - -' PS Farm ____ Nn IMSIIRANDF CRVFRACF PROVIOEn— Is.. nfhe, dd.) Apr. 1971 'aww NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL a PO: 10Ta O - 980 -749 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30({ (plus postage) SENT TO POSTMARK OR DATE -S LET A, N0. P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE IOWA L SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN 1. Shows to whom and -date delivered 1 ¢ �� ) With tlelivery to addressee only ..yea¢ RECEIPT ' Z. Shows to whom, date and where delivered y� SERVICES With delivery to addressee only ..........:.85¢ �2s DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ...................... ............................... SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) ............... - - -' PS Farm ____ Nn IMSIIRANDF CRVFRACF PROVIOEn— Is.. nfhe, dd.) Apr. 1971 'aww NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL a PO: 10Ta O - 980 -749 Apr. 1971 'aww NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL a PO: 10Ta O - 980 -749 LO Q0 L0 d z r) Q0 1.0 L\j f.0 LSD C> z i RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 (plus oostaee) SE r POSTMARK POSTMARK POSTMARK OR DATE - v � OR DATE ST T AO. 5 STREET AND N0. ... P.O., STc CODE -� - -, \ k0DITIONMIL RETU /. Shows to whom and date delivered ... ✓. _ TIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES � -- STATE AND ZIP CODE ' 2• Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. SERVI RETURN 1. Shows to whom and data deNvered .. R ECE IFT With delivery to addressee only ... ' 2. Shows to whom, date and where delivered SERVICES_ With delivery to addressee only ... 15g 654 384 854 OPTIONAL SERVICES F DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ......... . ......... 50! SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee regw red) 654 v '1 •• PS Fe 2 Shows SERVICES to 'whom, date and where delivered .. 354 Apr. 1971 JSUU NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAID- Carlo cruet wee/ GPO : ran O - 460 -749 C RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -3054 (plus postage) t SENT TO POSTMARK POSTMARK POSTMARK OR DATE - v � OR DATE -- STRE AND NO' OR DATE STREET AND N0. � L OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADO IONAL FEES -� - -, EET AI N0. k0DITIONMIL RETU /. Shows to whom and date delivered ... With delivery to addr so only RECEIPT ess . L STATE AND ZIP CODE ' 2• Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. SERVI '�• �jf /I` - OPTIONAL SERVICES F RETURN t. Shows to whom and Eate delivered ISO RECEIPT ' W ith delivery to addressee only .. 654 v '1 •• _ OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR I} OVAL FEES 2 Shows SERVICES to 'whom, date and where delivered .. 354 ' With delivery to addressee only .... 654 With delivery to addressee only ............ 854 2, Shows to wham, date and where delivered .. 354 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ....................... ............................... 50! - SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra tae required) ... .............. With delivery to addressee only ............ 854 PS Form SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra Iwe required) ... ............................... — 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED- (See other side) r Apr. 1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL a GPO :]BTJ O - +BO -999 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -3054 (plus postage) SENT TO POSTMARK - . VLOATE Jo VU .._ ...__......__ __. _....... ...........— lav vrnal wael Apr. 1971 NOT FOfl INTERNATIONAL MAIL a GPO :1872 O -960 -799 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 (plus postage) T POSTMARK POSTMARK POSTM OR DATE - v � OR DATE -- STRE AND NO' P.� STATE AN I CODE " F n r � L OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADO IONAL FEES -� - -, EET AI N0. P IONA_L SERVICES DD� FEES RETU /. Shows to whom and date delivered ... With delivery to addr so only RECEIPT ess . 1 STATE AND ZIP CODE ' 2• Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. SERVI 30 . 3 CES With delivery to addressee only ............ 854 _ SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra Fes required).........._ DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .._ ............._. ................_............. 50! — _. v '1 •• _ OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR I} OVAL FEES RETURN t. Shows to whom and date delivered ... ISO RECEIPT ' With delivery to addressee only .... 654 a G, 18T2 0- 980 -749 RECEIPT 2, Shows to wham, date and where delivered .. 354 SERVICES With delivery to addressee only ............ 854 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE_ONLY ....................... ............................... 500 -- SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra Iwe required) ... ............................... — SPECIAL PS Fe un � PS Form Jo VU .._ ...__......__ __. _....... ...........— lav vrnal wael Apr. 1971 NOT FOfl INTERNATIONAL MAIL a GPO :1872 O -960 -799 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 (plus postage) T POSTMARK POSTMARK POSTM OR DATE - v � OR DATE -- STRE AND NO' P.� STATE AN I CODE " F n r � L OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADO IONAL FEES PS Form _ U k V - P IONA_L SERVICES DD� FEES RETU /. Shows to whom and date delivered ... With delivery to addr so only RECEIPT ess . 654 S RETURN 1. Shows to whom and date aeNVarea 150 654 ' 2• Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. SERVI 30 . 3 CES With delivery to addressee only ............ 854 _ SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra Fes required).........._ DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .._ ............._. ................_............. 50! — _. _ _ SPECIAL DELIVERY ( extro fad required).. ... ............................... PS Fa, ,. un meuownr n 0 z PS Fe un Apr. 1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL 654 Jow .._ ...__......__ __ ......... ..........— lave Brno noel Apr- 1871 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL o GPO :1BT2 O- +80 -749 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -3054 (plus postage) r� r Q0 LO C\j (.T_) LO Q z r._ r_0 r� L.Q LO Cj z I` Ln N (,0 LO 0 z RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 (plus postage) T TO POSTMARK POSTM OR DATE - v � TR/W AT P.O., STATE AND ZIP ODE % s-s� P.O., STATE AN ZIP CODE / " F n r � L OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADO IONAL FEES PS Form _ Ift NO 0, RETURN 1 -Shows to whom and date delivered .. LO N RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only S RETURN 1. Shows to whom and date aeNVarea 150 654 SERVICES' 2• Shows to whom, date and where delivered With delivery to addressee only . 3 SERVICES With delivery to addressee . 854 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY . ...... ........ ._._.... ...... 516 _ SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra Fes required).........._ - _ SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) .. .. PS Fa, ,. un meuownr n 0 z snub .._ ...__......__ __......... ..._......— la.. vrnv" noel Apr. 1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL a GPO :1872 O- 960 -799 G (A Lf) CV LQ L0 0 z SE TV POSTMARK POSTM OR DATE IONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES. RETURN I. Shows to whom and —date—der. ve only .. ... red ... 1 RECEIPT With delivery to addressee (§64 ' 2. Shows to wham, date and where delivered tS5 SERVICES With delivery to addressee only ............b,' STREET AND NO. c. P.O., STATE AN ZIP CODE / " F n r � L VAD PS Form _ Ift NO 0, �TI1. .. LO N SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES S RETURN 1. Shows to whom and date aeNVarea 150 654 RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ' 2. Shows to whom, dale and whets delivered . 354 P.O., S�CODE LO SERVICES With delivery to addressee . 854 ' 354 only DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ........ .. .... .. 500 _ SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) .. .. 854 0 z PS Form 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED- (See other side) Apr. 1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL 654 a G, 18T2 0- 980 -749 RECEIPT RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -305^ (plus Poe Al. lI 3800 by side) f Apr. 1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL acm: ],, G- +eo -7 +s RFr -FIAT FnR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 (plus postage) SENT / ^ POSTM P.O., STAT D Z CODE e� IONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES. RETURN I. Shows to whom and —date—der. ve only .. ... red ... 1 RECEIPT With delivery to addressee (§64 ' 2. Shows to wham, date and where delivered tS5 SERVICES With delivery to addressee only ............b,' DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .............. ............................... ......... 50! OR SPECIAL DELIVERY � L VAD PS Form _ Ift NO 0, (See other side, Apr. 1971 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDEO- C _ OPTIONAL ERVICES fOR OITIONAL FEES RETURN 1. Shows to whom and date tlelirare0 154 - P.O., S�CODE 654 \ d d SERVICES .. With 354 SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES _. 854 _ _OPTIONAL RETURN t. Shows to wham and date delivered .. 154 _ DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ........................................ _ .... ...... _ With delivery to addressee only ............ 654 SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee rsqui red) ..... ............................... RECEIPT 2. Shows to whom, date and where delivered . 354 SERVICES With delivery to addressee Only ............ 85_4 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ....................... ............................... __ —. 504 SPECIAL . - _— Wr DELIVERY (extra fee rsqui red) ������������������������....... � PS Form NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED— (See or Al. lI 3800 by side) f Apr. 1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL acm: ],, G- +eo -7 +s RFr -FIAT FnR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 (plus postage) SENT POSTMARK OR DATE \r•)\ 1 STREET P.O., STAT D Z CODE e� IONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES. RETURN I. Shows to whom and —date—der. ve only .. ... red ... 1 RECEIPT With delivery to addressee (§64 ' 2. Shows to wham, date and where delivered tS5 SERVICES With delivery to addressee only ............b,' DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .............. ............................... ......... 50! where deOVered ., DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE -'Y ivory to addressee only .. SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required )- ---- ° - - - - °° VAD PS Form _ Nn INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED- (See other side, Apr. 1971 av °° NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL .GP0: 18720 -460 -749 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30,4 (plus nostaoel - POSTMARK RECEIPT SERVICES 2• leltvere8 With delivery to addressee only Shows to whom, date and OR DATE where deOVered ., DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE -'Y ivory to addressee only .. / („T ST R VAD ONL' (extra fee required).... "- /may % �c P.O. CODE Apr. 1971 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDEO- \ ' \ "y �•�� _ OPTIONAL ERVICES fOR OITIONAL FEES RETURN 1. Shows to whom and date tlelirare0 154 - RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only .. 2, Shows to whom, dNe antl where tlelivered 654 \ d d SERVICES .. With 354 _ delivery to atldressee only ............ 854 _ DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ........................................ _ .... ...... _ 50d SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee rsqui red) ..... ............................... _ -- PS Fe Apr. 1971 'oils NOT FOA INTERNATIONAL MAIL Cleo Other nee) a GPO :3078 O- 480 -749 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED NO. CODE Q� OPTI AL SERYIC ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN 1. -Shows whom and Cale VV RECEIPT SERVICES 2• leltvere8 With delivery to addressee only Shows to whom, date and 54 where deOVered ., DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE -'Y ivory to addressee only .. 3g 854 SPECIAL DELIVERY PS ONL' (extra fee required).... "- 50!��v, �Ja Apr. 1971 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDEO- NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (S•• 'rite, side) tr GPO ; lade 1-41-1, N Ln N Q0 L.0 z t--I rn Ln N Q0 z Ln N Q0 Len z M 000 L0 N Q0 LS') z co 00 1-0 N Q0 L0 0 r� RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 (plus postage) SENT 0 r RETURN 1. ows to Wham anE ate Delivered RECEIPT With tlelivery to addressee ?` POSTMARK — n� _ _ �/ TO ADDRESSEE ONLY — y OR DATE ST AND NO.� PS Form ..... ..._ A P, . 1971 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED—- Qd NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL e. ether sid, a GPO :Ion O -460-" RETURN 1. Shoves to wham and ate Eelivnstl Wlth delivery P.O., STAT ND ZIP CODE RECEIPT to addressee only SERVICES 2. Shows to whom, date and where delivered 650 350 \ l .. —__ WNh tlelivery to addressee only ... 850 `�.,) 1- i . OP NAL SERVICES ADDITIONAL FEES 50! -- —FOR RETURN t. Shows to whom and date Oslivsto ... g RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only .... @ %•.o / SERVICES 3. Shaves to whom, date and where delivered .. With delivery to addressee only ............ 350 85@ p _DELIVER TO ADDRESS SPECIAL DELIVERY (e fee 350 PS Ferro LI — With delivery to addressee only ............ 850 Apr. 1971 000""` xtra s rqui rod) 90 INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED— (See other Sid.) NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL nGPO:1,, O- 460 -749 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED TEFTo v IS- P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE TION SERVICES FOR p001T10NpL FEES RETURN t. Shows to whom and date delivered 15g RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only . 650 SERVICES 2. Shows to whom, data and where delivered .. 350 With delivery to atltlressee only ........ 850 _ DELIVER _ ADDRESSEE ONLY ............. SPECIAL DELIVERY -- -- — 504 (extra fee required) .... ................................ PS Ferro NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED — Apr. 1971 3800 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See other side a GPO :1872 O -960 -7 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAI _ Z S 1/ N OE P.O., ST -- -- — ' —___ PTIONAL ERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES - - ;; �\ RETURN 1. ows to Wham anE ate Delivered RECEIPT With tlelivery to addressee ?` LL onl 65Q SERVICES 2. Showsto whom, Oats and where Oallver With tlelivery to addressee only .) 35¢ DELIVER ' f TO ADDRESSEE ONLY — y (See *the, side. SPECIAL DEL VERY -- (extra fee ragWred) _ PS Form ..... ..._ A P, . 1971 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED—- ' .r - NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL e. ether sid, a GPO :Ion O -460-" RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIEn �a .•'`ice, _ .. Apr. 1971 3800 NU INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED — NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See other side) e GPO: ran O - 460 -793 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -3054 (plus postage) SENT TO POSTMARK _ v OR DATE ST EET AND NO. _ (See *the, side. STREET D P.O., STATE AN.D ZZZI/IIq ODE 7 v U_P.f40GI 'hT� SERVICES F R p0 AL FEES_ P.O., STAT AND ZIP CODE RETURN 1. Shoves to wham and ate Eelivnstl Wlth delivery 15Q �\ uUJJ /C? RECEIPT to addressee only SERVICES 2. Shows to whom, date and where delivered 650 350 \ l .. —__ WNh tlelivery to addressee only ... 850 `�.,) 1- i . DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ....... - -- 50! -- _ _ .... SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) - -- PS Form NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED Ap1'. 1971 3800 -(See other side) NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL With delivery to addressee Only . - - — 2, 65Q"'' GPO :1878 O -460 -749 I.,, y 0J L J N Qc z %0 L� N L.0 6) z N b" Ln N QD L17, z 1� L / N L0 Let') O z LF Q0 Lr) z RFCFIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(, (plus postage) SENT IO POSTMARK OR DATE R AND NO. P.O., TE AND ZIP CODE OPTIONAL SERVI FOR —ADDITIONAL FEES to and d delivered ....... 150 RETUR t _ Shows m te RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ....... .._. 650 2. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 350 SERVICES _ With delivery to addressee only - .... ...... 850 __— DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ...... ... .... .... SOQ SPECIAL OEUVERY (extra fee regw red) == =- PS Form ____ Nn INSIIRANP.F COVERAGE PROVIDED— (See *the, side. Apr. 1971 40uu NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL n CO. 1BTR 0- 460 -T99 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -3014 (plus nostac l SENT TO .......... ES 2• Shows to whom, eats oneWith POSTMARK LRE delivery to atltlresseeeonelivered .. 35Q R TO ADDRESSEE ONIY—�85t L DELIVERY Squired) ..... OR GATE STREET D _ 7 v , GPO . 1972 0 460 -T49 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -311,4 I- rr,lrrw ..__a_ P.O., STAT AND ZIP CODE 4 �? s� PTiONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES'. RETURN t. Shows to wham and date delivered ........... 15 RECEIPT With delivery to addressee Only . - - — 2, 65Q"'' SERVICES Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 350 LI — With delivery to addressee only ............ 850 �rE' DED LIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ...................... ............ .............. . -.... 50! SPECIAL DELIVERY _ -- - (extra fee required) ��� ................. .............. -- PS Fe.,., --------- Apr. 1971 JULIO .. mono..— (See ether side) NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL <GPO: 1875 0 - 460 -743 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30x4 (plus postage) SENT TO POSTMARK OR DATE L a wT' STREET AND NO�J P.O., _ STAT N l EE L � � OP AL—SE ES FOR At01TI0NRli PEES RETUR t. Shows to Whom and date delivered ........._. 15Q if �� •� I RECEIPT With delivery to and Wher only .......d- 650 ' SERVICES I. Shows to whom, data and where delivered .. 350 l — With delivery to addressee only ............ 18�5# �1 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .,. ... .... -- - SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra Fes raqul red) ..... ............................._ - — PS Form 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED — Apr. 1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See ether side) e GPO :IBTS 0 - 480 -T49 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL --30t4 SENT TO N_ I REETT 3* NO. P S ATE AND ZIP CODE N 1. Shows to whom and date delivered . \ -d PT With delivery to address ee only .......... ES 2• Shows to whom, eats oneWith d LRE delivery to atltlresseeeonelivered .. 35Q R TO ADDRESSEE ONIY—�85t L DELIVERY Squired) ..... ............................... Form Apr, 1971 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED— NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (see ether ride) , GPO . 1972 0 460 -T49 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -311,4 I- rr,lrrw ..__a_ P.O., STATE ANd ZIP CODE OPTWERVI ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN and data delivered RECEIPT With de hem to addressee only . ! SERVICES' 2• Shows to wham, date antl where n i .....etl .. 8 ! `" DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY delivery to ad Ore only., ,,, 85 / _ t SPECIAL DELIVERY (antra tae requira� ................................... ....� PS Form Apr. 1971 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED — NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See other aide) 4 GPO: 1972 0 - 401 i� N Q0 LSD 0 z r LI7 N Q0 L.0 z f7 11-3 N (.0 Ldp 0 z Lf) N Q0 LO 0 z N Lf) N (D Ln O z RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 (plus postage) j ANC 3800 R E COVERAGE PROVIDEO- (See other '"del Apr. 1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL a GPO : 1072 O - 480 -749 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 STREET AND NO. P.O., SJATE AND ZIP CODE RETURN t. SROws to Wham and date delivered . \ 150 �£ /�1( \ RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only 650 2. Shows to whom, date and where delivered . 350 (� 4 SERVICES With delivery to addressee only DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ... -35L r,,p 0 4 SPECIAL DELIVERY -- L - (extra fee equi red) .......... ..._0000........... PS Form 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED -` Apr. 1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (Se 0-N3 a GPO ;1072 O- 960 -799 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 (plus postage) Ytl# TO POSTMARK OR DATE TREET AND NO. - P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE TIONAI SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN 1. Shows to whom and date delivered ........... 150 RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ............ 650 SERVICES 2. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 350 With delivery to addressee only ............ 850 DELIVEN TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ....................... ............................... .SOd SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required)-- .............. . PS Fnr ran meunaunr nnur *anr Apr. 1971 .._ ...__.FO._ _ I NTRNA_N A _MA _ a ap. o ,:.,1.9.72 .,.,., ,....3 0 - +e0-745 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30q (plus postage) SE TO POSTMARK OIL., BATS. S =TREET AND NO. 7 y\ AND ZIP CODE r� V L _ OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES -a RETURN i. Shows to whom and date delivered ._........ 150 RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ............ 650 2. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 350 SERVICES With delivery to addressee only ............ 850 -DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ............................... 0000 500 SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee raqui red).. ... .. 0000 PS Form __ -- un rueunaurr rnurnaor asnumcn saw.._ ...__......__ __. _0000__ 00._00___ ,.,.. 7...4. .....3 Apr. 1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL aGP0:1 -720 -460 -749 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 (plus postage) SENT TO POSTMARK OR DATE STREET AND J 0. P.O., E qND ZIP CODE PTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN 1. Shows to whom and date delivered ........... Be RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only 0000._..... 650 SERVICES 2. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 350 With delivery to addressee only ............ 850 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ....................... ............................... 500 SPECIAL DELIVERY (extro fee required).._ ............................... - -- PS Fnr. _ __ un menaaurr onurnanc nnnnmrn .. Apr. 1971 JOVV NOT f0R INTERNATM IONA MAIL < GP(): 1872 - 4 O -960 -799 Lo Z0 Ln 0 z M LO L9 LO 0 z LSD N W LSD z Lf LO N L0 LTA z RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 (plus postage) SE 0 POSTMARK OR DATE yry R ND N ! .0., TA E AND ZIP CODE Uv r' OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES G� RETURN 1 -Shows to whom and date delivered L.- RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ........... .I f1s66�� 1 ' 3. Shows to whom, date and where delivered SERVICES With delivery - _ -- _ DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY 0000. RpO� SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required)...._ ey U �- PS For m 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED- (See other side) Apr. 1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL acPO:9ea 1 - +e1-791 RFrFIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 (plus postage)' ` SE n POSTMARK OR DATE STREET AND NO. �^ , _ 3 P.O., STAY jD ZIP CODE :^6 Z � 0 ONAL SER OR ADDITIONAL FEES _� — -- - -- RETURN 1. Shows to whom and data Delivered ........... .150 RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only 2. Shaves to wham dale and where delivered .. 35� SERVICES With delivery to addressee only 850' - -- 500 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ed . .. .... SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee regm red) =— .-- - PS Form ____ ND INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED- (See other side. Apr. 1971 40° NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL aGM: 1972 0 - 480 -743 RECEIPT FOR CERTIhILU MAIL -3U(" kplUS PUa►ngcF 0 POSTMARK STREET N0. —OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN 1. Shows to whom and data delivered .. ... 150 RECEIPT With dell u dry to addre5see only ._......... 650 \ d� ' 2. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 350 -" SERVICES With delivery to addressee only ....... 500 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .......... .. 0000 SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) -. - - - — PS Form _ NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED- (See other side, Apr. 1971 40- NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL aGP0: 1972 0 - 460 -749 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED OC2- gyt.4�t - -�� n STREET AND NO OR DATE ^. P.O., TE AND ZIP CODE r+1 y�1 OPTIONS— ER VICES FOR ADDITIONAL RETURN 1, Shows to wham anddale Eeiieered RECEIPT ' With delivery to addressee only .........._ SERVICES 2. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 35 d v With delivery to addressee only ............ 850_ DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .. SPECIAVDELIVERY(ex�ro tea required) PS Form 0000 0000... Apr. 1971 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED- (See other side) NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL a GPO (Sea of er BO -741 m-09F - O UST : Ode a (OP!, idyl* *as) 11VW 1VN011VN831N1 MCI ION -OOIAOBd 30V93AO3 33NVVRSHI ON 008C lw °�,sd ..... ............................... (Pe.gnh*4 aol ""a) Atl3A113_0_ iV193dS _ " " "" A1NO 33SS3800V 01 83A 1130 P Al uo aassasppa 0f AJRA!A 41iw � SE, ueulep usyN pue SleD 'woyM of savoy$ 2 S3oil A Q' ^ Y29 ` " "�° Aloo aasselppa of AsanllaD 41!M poleANap Slop plot m_*yw Sl ldl333111 swoy_S 'I' N8013tl n - 333! 1YN0111O0V 80d S331A— ill Sdo G�9� OA ON 3ONV 3 d '01 IV S 31VO No NtltlW1SOd ' (9304 lid sn d ) O11N3S I) + 0£ -11VW 031411830 HOd 14130321 z CSI Iv 01 v tr, POSTIdARN DUFF DATTEE \. P.O., STATf.ANO 2IP CODE G/ C _ qrIONAL-S—ERV ES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES ` RETURN 1. Shows to whom And date delivered 15e 1 _ -SPECIAL TO ADDRESSEE ONLY - 00.00_. 0000... ..... 500 SPECIAL DELIVERY _ - - Is Form NO INSU A 3800 R E COVERAGE PROVIDEO- (See other '"del Apr. 1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL a GPO : 1072 O - 480 -749 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 STREET AND NO. P.O., SJATE AND ZIP CODE RETURN t. SROws to Wham and date delivered . \ 150 �£ /�1( \ RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only 650 2. Shows to whom, date and where delivered . 350 (� 4 SERVICES With delivery to addressee only DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ... -35L r,,p 0 4 SPECIAL DELIVERY -- L - (extra fee equi red) .......... ..._0000........... PS Form 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED -` Apr. 1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (Se 0-N3 a GPO ;1072 O- 960 -799 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 (plus postage) Ytl# TO POSTMARK OR DATE TREET AND NO. - P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE TIONAI SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN 1. Shows to whom and date delivered ........... 150 RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ............ 650 SERVICES 2. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 350 With delivery to addressee only ............ 850 DELIVEN TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ....................... ............................... .SOd SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required)-- .............. . PS Fnr ran meunaunr nnur *anr Apr. 1971 .._ ...__.FO._ _ I NTRNA_N A _MA _ a ap. o ,:.,1.9.72 .,.,., ,....3 0 - +e0-745 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30q (plus postage) SE TO POSTMARK OIL., BATS. S =TREET AND NO. 7 y\ AND ZIP CODE r� V L _ OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES -a RETURN i. Shows to whom and date delivered ._........ 150 RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ............ 650 2. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 350 SERVICES With delivery to addressee only ............ 850 -DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ............................... 0000 500 SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee raqui red).. ... .. 0000 PS Form __ -- un rueunaurr rnurnaor asnumcn saw.._ ...__......__ __. _0000__ 00._00___ ,.,.. 7...4. .....3 Apr. 1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL aGP0:1 -720 -460 -749 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 (plus postage) SENT TO POSTMARK OR DATE STREET AND J 0. P.O., E qND ZIP CODE PTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN 1. Shows to whom and date delivered ........... Be RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only 0000._..... 650 SERVICES 2. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 350 With delivery to addressee only ............ 850 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ....................... ............................... 500 SPECIAL DELIVERY (extro fee required).._ ............................... - -- PS Fnr. _ __ un menaaurr onurnanc nnnnmrn .. Apr. 1971 JOVV NOT f0R INTERNATM IONA MAIL < GP(): 1872 - 4 O -960 -799 Lo Z0 Ln 0 z M LO L9 LO 0 z LSD N W LSD z Lf LO N L0 LTA z RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 (plus postage) SE 0 POSTMARK OR DATE yry R ND N ! .0., TA E AND ZIP CODE Uv r' OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES G� RETURN 1 -Shows to whom and date delivered L.- RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ........... .I f1s66�� 1 ' 3. Shows to whom, date and where delivered SERVICES With delivery - _ -- _ DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY 0000. RpO� SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required)...._ ey U �- PS For m 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED- (See other side) Apr. 1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL acPO:9ea 1 - +e1-791 RFrFIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 (plus postage)' ` SE n POSTMARK OR DATE STREET AND NO. �^ , _ 3 P.O., STAY jD ZIP CODE :^6 Z � 0 ONAL SER OR ADDITIONAL FEES _� — -- - -- RETURN 1. Shows to whom and data Delivered ........... .150 RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only 2. Shaves to wham dale and where delivered .. 35� SERVICES With delivery to addressee only 850' - -- 500 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ed . .. .... SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee regm red) =— .-- - PS Form ____ ND INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED- (See other side. Apr. 1971 40° NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL aGM: 1972 0 - 480 -743 RECEIPT FOR CERTIhILU MAIL -3U(" kplUS PUa►ngcF 0 POSTMARK STREET N0. —OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN 1. Shows to whom and data delivered .. ... 150 RECEIPT With dell u dry to addre5see only ._......... 650 \ d� ' 2. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 350 -" SERVICES With delivery to addressee only ....... 500 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .......... .. 0000 SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) -. - - - — PS Form _ NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED- (See other side, Apr. 1971 40- NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL aGP0: 1972 0 - 460 -749 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED OC2- gyt.4�t - -�� n STREET AND NO OR DATE ^. P.O., TE AND ZIP CODE r+1 y�1 OPTIONS— ER VICES FOR ADDITIONAL RETURN 1, Shows to wham anddale Eeiieered RECEIPT ' With delivery to addressee only .........._ SERVICES 2. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 35 d v With delivery to addressee only ............ 850_ DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .. SPECIAVDELIVERY(ex�ro tea required) PS Form 0000 0000... Apr. 1971 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED- (See other side) NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL a GPO (Sea of er BO -741 m-09F - O UST : Ode a (OP!, idyl* *as) 11VW 1VN011VN831N1 MCI ION -OOIAOBd 30V93AO3 33NVVRSHI ON 008C lw °�,sd ..... ............................... (Pe.gnh*4 aol ""a) Atl3A113_0_ iV193dS _ " " "" A1NO 33SS3800V 01 83A 1130 P Al uo aassasppa 0f AJRA!A 41iw � SE, ueulep usyN pue SleD 'woyM of savoy$ 2 S3oil A Q' ^ Y29 ` " "�° Aloo aasselppa of AsanllaD 41!M poleANap Slop plot m_*yw Sl ldl333111 swoy_S 'I' N8013tl n - 333! 1YN0111O0V 80d S331A— ill Sdo G�9� OA ON 3ONV 3 d '01 IV S 31VO No NtltlW1SOd ' (9304 lid sn d ) O11N3S I) + 0£ -11VW 031411830 HOd 14130321 z CSI Iv 01 v tr, RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 (plus postage) Ytl# TO POSTMARK OR DATE TREET AND NO. - P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE TIONAI SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN 1. Shows to whom and date delivered ........... 150 RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ............ 650 SERVICES 2. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 350 With delivery to addressee only ............ 850 DELIVEN TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ....................... ............................... .SOd SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required)-- .............. . PS Fnr ran meunaunr nnur *anr Apr. 1971 .._ ...__.FO._ _ I NTRNA_N A _MA _ a ap. o ,:.,1.9.72 .,.,., ,....3 0 - +e0-745 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30q (plus postage) SE TO POSTMARK OIL., BATS. S =TREET AND NO. 7 y\ AND ZIP CODE r� V L _ OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES -a RETURN i. Shows to whom and date delivered ._........ 150 RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ............ 650 2. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 350 SERVICES With delivery to addressee only ............ 850 -DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ............................... 0000 500 SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee raqui red).. ... .. 0000 PS Form __ -- un rueunaurr rnurnaor asnumcn saw.._ ...__......__ __. _0000__ 00._00___ ,.,.. 7...4. .....3 Apr. 1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL aGP0:1 -720 -460 -749 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 (plus postage) SENT TO POSTMARK OR DATE STREET AND J 0. P.O., E qND ZIP CODE PTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN 1. Shows to whom and date delivered ........... Be RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only 0000._..... 650 SERVICES 2. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 350 With delivery to addressee only ............ 850 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ....................... ............................... 500 SPECIAL DELIVERY (extro fee required).._ ............................... - -- PS Fnr. _ __ un menaaurr onurnanc nnnnmrn .. Apr. 1971 JOVV NOT f0R INTERNATM IONA MAIL < GP(): 1872 - 4 O -960 -799 Lo Z0 Ln 0 z M LO L9 LO 0 z LSD N W LSD z Lf LO N L0 LTA z RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 (plus postage) SE 0 POSTMARK OR DATE yry R ND N ! .0., TA E AND ZIP CODE Uv r' OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES G� RETURN 1 -Shows to whom and date delivered L.- RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ........... .I f1s66�� 1 ' 3. Shows to whom, date and where delivered SERVICES With delivery - _ -- _ DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY 0000. RpO� SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required)...._ ey U �- PS For m 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED- (See other side) Apr. 1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL acPO:9ea 1 - +e1-791 RFrFIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 (plus postage)' ` SE n POSTMARK OR DATE STREET AND NO. �^ , _ 3 P.O., STAY jD ZIP CODE :^6 Z � 0 ONAL SER OR ADDITIONAL FEES _� — -- - -- RETURN 1. Shows to whom and data Delivered ........... .150 RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only 2. Shaves to wham dale and where delivered .. 35� SERVICES With delivery to addressee only 850' - -- 500 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ed . .. .... SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee regm red) =— .-- - PS Form ____ ND INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED- (See other side. Apr. 1971 40° NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL aGM: 1972 0 - 480 -743 RECEIPT FOR CERTIhILU MAIL -3U(" kplUS PUa►ngcF 0 POSTMARK STREET N0. —OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN 1. Shows to whom and data delivered .. ... 150 RECEIPT With dell u dry to addre5see only ._......... 650 \ d� ' 2. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 350 -" SERVICES With delivery to addressee only ....... 500 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .......... .. 0000 SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) -. - - - — PS Form _ NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED- (See other side, Apr. 1971 40- NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL aGP0: 1972 0 - 460 -749 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED OC2- gyt.4�t - -�� n STREET AND NO OR DATE ^. P.O., TE AND ZIP CODE r+1 y�1 OPTIONS— ER VICES FOR ADDITIONAL RETURN 1, Shows to wham anddale Eeiieered RECEIPT ' With delivery to addressee only .........._ SERVICES 2. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 35 d v With delivery to addressee only ............ 850_ DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .. SPECIAVDELIVERY(ex�ro tea required) PS Form 0000 0000... Apr. 1971 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED- (See other side) NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL a GPO (Sea of er BO -741 m-09F - O UST : Ode a (OP!, idyl* *as) 11VW 1VN011VN831N1 MCI ION -OOIAOBd 30V93AO3 33NVVRSHI ON 008C lw °�,sd ..... ............................... (Pe.gnh*4 aol ""a) Atl3A113_0_ iV193dS _ " " "" A1NO 33SS3800V 01 83A 1130 P Al uo aassasppa 0f AJRA!A 41iw � SE, ueulep usyN pue SleD 'woyM of savoy$ 2 S3oil A Q' ^ Y29 ` " "�° Aloo aasselppa of AsanllaD 41!M poleANap Slop plot m_*yw Sl ldl333111 swoy_S 'I' N8013tl n - 333! 1YN0111O0V 80d S331A— ill Sdo G�9� OA ON 3ONV 3 d '01 IV S 31VO No NtltlW1SOd ' (9304 lid sn d ) O11N3S I) + 0£ -11VW 031411830 HOd 14130321 z CSI Iv 01 v tr, Apr. 1971 .._ ...__.FO._ _ I NTRNA_N A _MA _ a ap. o ,:.,1.9.72 .,.,., ,....3 0 - +e0-745 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30q (plus postage) SE TO POSTMARK OIL., BATS. S =TREET AND NO. 7 y\ AND ZIP CODE r� V L _ OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES -a RETURN i. Shows to whom and date delivered ._........ 150 RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ............ 650 2. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 350 SERVICES With delivery to addressee only ............ 850 -DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ............................... 0000 500 SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee raqui red).. ... .. 0000 PS Form __ -- un rueunaurr rnurnaor asnumcn saw.._ ...__......__ __. _0000__ 00._00___ ,.,.. 7...4. .....3 Apr. 1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL aGP0:1 -720 -460 -749 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 (plus postage) SENT TO POSTMARK OR DATE STREET AND J 0. P.O., E qND ZIP CODE PTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN 1. Shows to whom and date delivered ........... Be RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only 0000._..... 650 SERVICES 2. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 350 With delivery to addressee only ............ 850 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ....................... ............................... 500 SPECIAL DELIVERY (extro fee required).._ ............................... - -- PS Fnr. _ __ un menaaurr onurnanc nnnnmrn .. Apr. 1971 JOVV NOT f0R INTERNATM IONA MAIL < GP(): 1872 - 4 O -960 -799 Lo Z0 Ln 0 z M LO L9 LO 0 z LSD N W LSD z Lf LO N L0 LTA z RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 (plus postage) SE 0 POSTMARK OR DATE yry R ND N ! .0., TA E AND ZIP CODE Uv r' OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES G� RETURN 1 -Shows to whom and date delivered L.- RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ........... .I f1s66�� 1 ' 3. Shows to whom, date and where delivered SERVICES With delivery - _ -- _ DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY 0000. RpO� SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required)...._ ey U �- PS For m 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED- (See other side) Apr. 1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL acPO:9ea 1 - +e1-791 RFrFIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 (plus postage)' ` SE n POSTMARK OR DATE STREET AND NO. �^ , _ 3 P.O., STAY jD ZIP CODE :^6 Z � 0 ONAL SER OR ADDITIONAL FEES _� — -- - -- RETURN 1. Shows to whom and data Delivered ........... .150 RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only 2. Shaves to wham dale and where delivered .. 35� SERVICES With delivery to addressee only 850' - -- 500 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ed . .. .... SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee regm red) =— .-- - PS Form ____ ND INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED- (See other side. Apr. 1971 40° NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL aGM: 1972 0 - 480 -743 RECEIPT FOR CERTIhILU MAIL -3U(" kplUS PUa►ngcF 0 POSTMARK STREET N0. —OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN 1. Shows to whom and data delivered .. ... 150 RECEIPT With dell u dry to addre5see only ._......... 650 \ d� ' 2. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 350 -" SERVICES With delivery to addressee only ....... 500 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .......... .. 0000 SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) -. - - - — PS Form _ NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED- (See other side, Apr. 1971 40- NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL aGP0: 1972 0 - 460 -749 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED OC2- gyt.4�t - -�� n STREET AND NO OR DATE ^. P.O., TE AND ZIP CODE r+1 y�1 OPTIONS— ER VICES FOR ADDITIONAL RETURN 1, Shows to wham anddale Eeiieered RECEIPT ' With delivery to addressee only .........._ SERVICES 2. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 35 d v With delivery to addressee only ............ 850_ DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .. SPECIAVDELIVERY(ex�ro tea required) PS Form 0000 0000... Apr. 1971 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED- (See other side) NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL a GPO (Sea of er BO -741 m-09F - O UST : Ode a (OP!, idyl* *as) 11VW 1VN011VN831N1 MCI ION -OOIAOBd 30V93AO3 33NVVRSHI ON 008C lw °�,sd ..... ............................... (Pe.gnh*4 aol ""a) Atl3A113_0_ iV193dS _ " " "" A1NO 33SS3800V 01 83A 1130 P Al uo aassasppa 0f AJRA!A 41iw � SE, ueulep usyN pue SleD 'woyM of savoy$ 2 S3oil A Q' ^ Y29 ` " "�° Aloo aasselppa of AsanllaD 41!M poleANap Slop plot m_*yw Sl ldl333111 swoy_S 'I' N8013tl n - 333! 1YN0111O0V 80d S331A— ill Sdo G�9� OA ON 3ONV 3 d '01 IV S 31VO No NtltlW1SOd ' (9304 lid sn d ) O11N3S I) + 0£ -11VW 031411830 HOd 14130321 z CSI Iv 01 v tr, saw.._ ...__......__ __. _0000__ 00._00___ ,.,.. 7...4. .....3 Apr. 1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL aGP0:1 -720 -460 -749 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 (plus postage) SENT TO POSTMARK OR DATE STREET AND J 0. P.O., E qND ZIP CODE PTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN 1. Shows to whom and date delivered ........... Be RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only 0000._..... 650 SERVICES 2. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 350 With delivery to addressee only ............ 850 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ....................... ............................... 500 SPECIAL DELIVERY (extro fee required).._ ............................... - -- PS Fnr. _ __ un menaaurr onurnanc nnnnmrn .. Apr. 1971 JOVV NOT f0R INTERNATM IONA MAIL < GP(): 1872 - 4 O -960 -799 Lo Z0 Ln 0 z M LO L9 LO 0 z LSD N W LSD z Lf LO N L0 LTA z RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 (plus postage) SE 0 POSTMARK OR DATE yry R ND N ! .0., TA E AND ZIP CODE Uv r' OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES G� RETURN 1 -Shows to whom and date delivered L.- RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ........... .I f1s66�� 1 ' 3. Shows to whom, date and where delivered SERVICES With delivery - _ -- _ DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY 0000. RpO� SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required)...._ ey U �- PS For m 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED- (See other side) Apr. 1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL acPO:9ea 1 - +e1-791 RFrFIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 (plus postage)' ` SE n POSTMARK OR DATE STREET AND NO. �^ , _ 3 P.O., STAY jD ZIP CODE :^6 Z � 0 ONAL SER OR ADDITIONAL FEES _� — -- - -- RETURN 1. Shows to whom and data Delivered ........... .150 RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only 2. Shaves to wham dale and where delivered .. 35� SERVICES With delivery to addressee only 850' - -- 500 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ed . .. .... SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee regm red) =— .-- - PS Form ____ ND INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED- (See other side. Apr. 1971 40° NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL aGM: 1972 0 - 480 -743 RECEIPT FOR CERTIhILU MAIL -3U(" kplUS PUa►ngcF 0 POSTMARK STREET N0. —OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN 1. Shows to whom and data delivered .. ... 150 RECEIPT With dell u dry to addre5see only ._......... 650 \ d� ' 2. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 350 -" SERVICES With delivery to addressee only ....... 500 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .......... .. 0000 SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) -. - - - — PS Form _ NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED- (See other side, Apr. 1971 40- NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL aGP0: 1972 0 - 460 -749 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED OC2- gyt.4�t - -�� n STREET AND NO OR DATE ^. P.O., TE AND ZIP CODE r+1 y�1 OPTIONS— ER VICES FOR ADDITIONAL RETURN 1, Shows to wham anddale Eeiieered RECEIPT ' With delivery to addressee only .........._ SERVICES 2. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 35 d v With delivery to addressee only ............ 850_ DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .. SPECIAVDELIVERY(ex�ro tea required) PS Form 0000 0000... Apr. 1971 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED- (See other side) NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL a GPO (Sea of er BO -741 m-09F - O UST : Ode a (OP!, idyl* *as) 11VW 1VN011VN831N1 MCI ION -OOIAOBd 30V93AO3 33NVVRSHI ON 008C lw °�,sd ..... ............................... (Pe.gnh*4 aol ""a) Atl3A113_0_ iV193dS _ " " "" A1NO 33SS3800V 01 83A 1130 P Al uo aassasppa 0f AJRA!A 41iw � SE, ueulep usyN pue SleD 'woyM of savoy$ 2 S3oil A Q' ^ Y29 ` " "�° Aloo aasselppa of AsanllaD 41!M poleANap Slop plot m_*yw Sl ldl333111 swoy_S 'I' N8013tl n - 333! 1YN0111O0V 80d S331A— ill Sdo G�9� OA ON 3ONV 3 d '01 IV S 31VO No NtltlW1SOd ' (9304 lid sn d ) O11N3S I) + 0£ -11VW 031411830 HOd 14130321 z CSI Iv 01 v tr, .. Apr. 1971 JOVV NOT f0R INTERNATM IONA MAIL < GP(): 1872 - 4 O -960 -799 Lo Z0 Ln 0 z M LO L9 LO 0 z LSD N W LSD z Lf LO N L0 LTA z RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 (plus postage) SE 0 POSTMARK OR DATE yry R ND N ! .0., TA E AND ZIP CODE Uv r' OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES G� RETURN 1 -Shows to whom and date delivered L.- RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ........... .I f1s66�� 1 ' 3. Shows to whom, date and where delivered SERVICES With delivery - _ -- _ DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY 0000. RpO� SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required)...._ ey U �- PS For m 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED- (See other side) Apr. 1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL acPO:9ea 1 - +e1-791 RFrFIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 (plus postage)' ` SE n POSTMARK OR DATE STREET AND NO. �^ , _ 3 P.O., STAY jD ZIP CODE :^6 Z � 0 ONAL SER OR ADDITIONAL FEES _� — -- - -- RETURN 1. Shows to whom and data Delivered ........... .150 RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only 2. Shaves to wham dale and where delivered .. 35� SERVICES With delivery to addressee only 850' - -- 500 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ed . .. .... SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee regm red) =— .-- - PS Form ____ ND INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED- (See other side. Apr. 1971 40° NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL aGM: 1972 0 - 480 -743 RECEIPT FOR CERTIhILU MAIL -3U(" kplUS PUa►ngcF 0 POSTMARK STREET N0. —OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN 1. Shows to whom and data delivered .. ... 150 RECEIPT With dell u dry to addre5see only ._......... 650 \ d� ' 2. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 350 -" SERVICES With delivery to addressee only ....... 500 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .......... .. 0000 SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) -. - - - — PS Form _ NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED- (See other side, Apr. 1971 40- NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL aGP0: 1972 0 - 460 -749 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED OC2- gyt.4�t - -�� n STREET AND NO OR DATE ^. P.O., TE AND ZIP CODE r+1 y�1 OPTIONS— ER VICES FOR ADDITIONAL RETURN 1, Shows to wham anddale Eeiieered RECEIPT ' With delivery to addressee only .........._ SERVICES 2. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 35 d v With delivery to addressee only ............ 850_ DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .. SPECIAVDELIVERY(ex�ro tea required) PS Form 0000 0000... Apr. 1971 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED- (See other side) NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL a GPO (Sea of er BO -741 m-09F - O UST : Ode a (OP!, idyl* *as) 11VW 1VN011VN831N1 MCI ION -OOIAOBd 30V93AO3 33NVVRSHI ON 008C lw °�,sd ..... ............................... (Pe.gnh*4 aol ""a) Atl3A113_0_ iV193dS _ " " "" A1NO 33SS3800V 01 83A 1130 P Al uo aassasppa 0f AJRA!A 41iw � SE, ueulep usyN pue SleD 'woyM of savoy$ 2 S3oil A Q' ^ Y29 ` " "�° Aloo aasselppa of AsanllaD 41!M poleANap Slop plot m_*yw Sl ldl333111 swoy_S 'I' N8013tl n - 333! 1YN0111O0V 80d S331A— ill Sdo G�9� OA ON 3ONV 3 d '01 IV S 31VO No NtltlW1SOd ' (9304 lid sn d ) O11N3S I) + 0£ -11VW 031411830 HOd 14130321 z CSI Iv 01 v tr, m 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED- (See other side) Apr. 1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL acPO:9ea 1 - +e1-791 RFrFIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 (plus postage)' ` SE n POSTMARK OR DATE STREET AND NO. �^ , _ 3 P.O., STAY jD ZIP CODE :^6 Z � 0 ONAL SER OR ADDITIONAL FEES _� — -- - -- RETURN 1. Shows to whom and data Delivered ........... .150 RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only 2. Shaves to wham dale and where delivered .. 35� SERVICES With delivery to addressee only 850' - -- 500 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ed . .. .... SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee regm red) =— .-- - PS Form ____ ND INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED- (See other side. Apr. 1971 40° NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL aGM: 1972 0 - 480 -743 RECEIPT FOR CERTIhILU MAIL -3U(" kplUS PUa►ngcF 0 POSTMARK STREET N0. —OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN 1. Shows to whom and data delivered .. ... 150 RECEIPT With dell u dry to addre5see only ._......... 650 \ d� ' 2. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 350 -" SERVICES With delivery to addressee only ....... 500 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .......... .. 0000 SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) -. - - - — PS Form _ NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED- (See other side, Apr. 1971 40- NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL aGP0: 1972 0 - 460 -749 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED OC2- gyt.4�t - -�� n STREET AND NO OR DATE ^. P.O., TE AND ZIP CODE r+1 y�1 OPTIONS— ER VICES FOR ADDITIONAL RETURN 1, Shows to wham anddale Eeiieered RECEIPT ' With delivery to addressee only .........._ SERVICES 2. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 35 d v With delivery to addressee only ............ 850_ DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .. SPECIAVDELIVERY(ex�ro tea required) PS Form 0000 0000... Apr. 1971 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED- (See other side) NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL a GPO (Sea of er BO -741 m-09F - O UST : Ode a (OP!, idyl* *as) 11VW 1VN011VN831N1 MCI ION -OOIAOBd 30V93AO3 33NVVRSHI ON 008C lw °�,sd ..... ............................... (Pe.gnh*4 aol ""a) Atl3A113_0_ iV193dS _ " " "" A1NO 33SS3800V 01 83A 1130 P Al uo aassasppa 0f AJRA!A 41iw � SE, ueulep usyN pue SleD 'woyM of savoy$ 2 S3oil A Q' ^ Y29 ` " "�° Aloo aasselppa of AsanllaD 41!M poleANap Slop plot m_*yw Sl ldl333111 swoy_S 'I' N8013tl n - 333! 1YN0111O0V 80d S331A— ill Sdo G�9� OA ON 3ONV 3 d '01 IV S 31VO No NtltlW1SOd ' (9304 lid sn d ) O11N3S I) + 0£ -11VW 031411830 HOd 14130321 z CSI Iv 01 v tr, Apr. 1971 40° NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL aGM: 1972 0 - 480 -743 RECEIPT FOR CERTIhILU MAIL -3U(" kplUS PUa►ngcF 0 POSTMARK STREET N0. —OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN 1. Shows to whom and data delivered .. ... 150 RECEIPT With dell u dry to addre5see only ._......... 650 \ d� ' 2. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 350 -" SERVICES With delivery to addressee only ....... 500 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .......... .. 0000 SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) -. - - - — PS Form _ NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED- (See other side, Apr. 1971 40- NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL aGP0: 1972 0 - 460 -749 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED OC2- gyt.4�t - -�� n STREET AND NO OR DATE ^. P.O., TE AND ZIP CODE r+1 y�1 OPTIONS— ER VICES FOR ADDITIONAL RETURN 1, Shows to wham anddale Eeiieered RECEIPT ' With delivery to addressee only .........._ SERVICES 2. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 35 d v With delivery to addressee only ............ 850_ DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .. SPECIAVDELIVERY(ex�ro tea required) PS Form 0000 0000... Apr. 1971 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED- (See other side) NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL a GPO (Sea of er BO -741 m-09F - O UST : Ode a (OP!, idyl* *as) 11VW 1VN011VN831N1 MCI ION -OOIAOBd 30V93AO3 33NVVRSHI ON 008C lw °�,sd ..... ............................... (Pe.gnh*4 aol ""a) Atl3A113_0_ iV193dS _ " " "" A1NO 33SS3800V 01 83A 1130 P Al uo aassasppa 0f AJRA!A 41iw � SE, ueulep usyN pue SleD 'woyM of savoy$ 2 S3oil A Q' ^ Y29 ` " "�° Aloo aasselppa of AsanllaD 41!M poleANap Slop plot m_*yw Sl ldl333111 swoy_S 'I' N8013tl n - 333! 1YN0111O0V 80d S331A— ill Sdo G�9� OA ON 3ONV 3 d '01 IV S 31VO No NtltlW1SOd ' (9304 lid sn d ) O11N3S I) + 0£ -11VW 031411830 HOd 14130321 z CSI Iv 01 v tr, Apr. 1971 40- NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL aGP0: 1972 0 - 460 -749 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED OC2- gyt.4�t - -�� n STREET AND NO OR DATE ^. P.O., TE AND ZIP CODE r+1 y�1 OPTIONS— ER VICES FOR ADDITIONAL RETURN 1, Shows to wham anddale Eeiieered RECEIPT ' With delivery to addressee only .........._ SERVICES 2. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 35 d v With delivery to addressee only ............ 850_ DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .. SPECIAVDELIVERY(ex�ro tea required) PS Form 0000 0000... Apr. 1971 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED- (See other side) NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL a GPO (Sea of er BO -741 m-09F - O UST : Ode a (OP!, idyl* *as) 11VW 1VN011VN831N1 MCI ION -OOIAOBd 30V93AO3 33NVVRSHI ON 008C lw °�,sd ..... ............................... (Pe.gnh*4 aol ""a) Atl3A113_0_ iV193dS _ " " "" A1NO 33SS3800V 01 83A 1130 P Al uo aassasppa 0f AJRA!A 41iw � SE, ueulep usyN pue SleD 'woyM of savoy$ 2 S3oil A Q' ^ Y29 ` " "�° Aloo aasselppa of AsanllaD 41!M poleANap Slop plot m_*yw Sl ldl333111 swoy_S 'I' N8013tl n - 333! 1YN0111O0V 80d S331A— ill Sdo G�9� OA ON 3ONV 3 d '01 IV S 31VO No NtltlW1SOd ' (9304 lid sn d ) O11N3S I) + 0£ -11VW 031411830 HOd 14130321 z CSI Iv 01 v tr, m-09F - O UST : Ode a (OP!, idyl* *as) 11VW 1VN011VN831N1 MCI ION -OOIAOBd 30V93AO3 33NVVRSHI ON 008C lw °�,sd ..... ............................... (Pe.gnh*4 aol ""a) Atl3A113_0_ iV193dS _ " " "" A1NO 33SS3800V 01 83A 1130 P Al uo aassasppa 0f AJRA!A 41iw � SE, ueulep usyN pue SleD 'woyM of savoy$ 2 S3oil A Q' ^ Y29 ` " "�° Aloo aasselppa of AsanllaD 41!M poleANap Slop plot m_*yw Sl ldl333111 swoy_S 'I' N8013tl n - 333! 1YN0111O0V 80d S331A— ill Sdo G�9� OA ON 3ONV 3 d '01 IV S 31VO No NtltlW1SOd ' (9304 lid sn d ) O11N3S I) + 0£ -11VW 031411830 HOd 14130321 z CSI Iv 01 v tr, z CSI Iv 01 v tr, F"- QU L.� yO /-4 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 (plus postag SENT TO - i P POSTMARK t�/ll / O OR DATE STRE TND cz �- P.O., ST E AND ZIP I CODE CODE ( \ ��--- F F -_ P deliventl 1,158 J J� RECEIPT W only .. 650 U U,. SERVICES With delivery to addressee only .. 85! - - - _ DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .... . ......._ .. ... SOQ PE SCIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required)... � � PS Form NO INS. A 3800 R N E COVERAGE PROVIDED— (See other side) Apr. 1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL a GYO :IBT2 O -480 -949 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MMAIL -30(4 (ply ostage) ffSENT /✓ 3T EK D N�O.0 AND Zlp CO Ln RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED SENT 0 STREET iD NO l:Q - -P.O., STAT D ZIP C E N — c OPTI AL SERVICE F R ADDITIONAL FEES �R Qa RETURN 1. Shows to whom antl data delivered ]355! Cr') RECEIPT With Delivery to addressee only . > \550. ^_ L0 ' 2. Shows to whom, date and where delivered - 5 SERVICES With delivery to addressee only ... ! a DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ...... .......... . '- O SPECIAL DELIVERY - - -- (extra fee required) ..... ....... . F74 PS Form 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED— (Sae other side) Apr. 1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL a GPO :1892 O - 980 -949 f RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -300 (plus postage) N POSTMARK OR DATE AND CODE �L'n SERVICES -' - •• "- em .....eras . 35� u ♦ I - - -•• • , -- •= r io audressee only With delivery to addressee only 85 SERVICES �' Shawf 10 Whem, date and where dlUrered 35! _ DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY O. DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY delivery to addressee only O SPECIAL DELIVERY 50! 85e (extra fee required) .... ... —� SPECIAL DELIVERY - -- 50! ( x f g ' d) PS Form NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED — Apr. 1971 3800 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See other side) Apr. 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDEU- pr. 1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See other side) a GPO :1892 O -4e0 -949 a GPO : Ion O - 480 -942 RECEIPT FOR CERTI IED MAIL -30(4 (plus postage) I RECEIPT FOR rFBTICILrn ..... F� Ln c\.1 L0 L.� O z SENT 0 POSTMARK OR R DATE STREET 5 G , P.O., STATE ZIP CODE )%\ v OPT AL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN 1. Shows to whom and dote tlelivared 450 ..4i� Wit RECEIPT ' Z. Shows Oelivei�toeadtlresseeeoOeyrNretl �95e J t�5 // SERVICES DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY 50! _ SPECIAL - DELIVERY (e#ro fee required) - ........... .. -' - -` ............. PS Form NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED (Sae other side) Apr. 1971 3800 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL ,GPO: 1992 0 - 480 -943 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30x4 (plus postage) SENT TO /- rte} / POSTMARK P.O., TATE A14D ZIP CODE �- LO �\ TIONCL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES -RETURN ws to wham and date Delivered ..._...... 15d d RECEIPT With delivery to addressee Only ............ 65V I.� 2. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 350 SERVICES With delivery to addressee only ............ 850 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ...... .- ................._.... ...._........... 50! _ __ Q SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required)-----°°° - z PS Form 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED— (See other side) Apr. 1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL aGP0:18T20 -460 -999 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 (plus postage) 00 Lti CV C9 Lf� O z SEN TO POSTMARK Q OR DATE STREET AND N0. f) P.O., STATE AND CODE _ OPTION SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES �� ,. RETURN 1. Shows to wham and date delivere.. 50—' -" RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ............ 65& V 2. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 35l� i SERVICES ' With delivery to addressee only ...... 850 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ....................... ............................... 50! SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) ..- - PS Form NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED S IT 'd ( as of ar w a) Apr. 1971 3800 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL , C, 1098 ....... LO � P 0., S7p E AND ZIP CODE J PTIONA_L SERVICES FOR -- ADDITIONAL FEES " ✓AEI '�1 RETDRN 1. Shows to Whom antl date delivered LO RECEIPT ' With deliver 65Q ~ ,/ SERVICES 7. Shows to whom, E to addressee only With deliver ate antl where dslireretl.' Qa DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .y to adtlreseee only _Y SPECIAL DELIVERY - ----- - - -, -- z (extra fee re wrw .. .... 50! PSForm 9 d) ............................... .... Apr. 1971 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (Sea other side) APO :Ie'r2 0 - 9eo -94s SERVICES -' - •• "- em .....eras . 35� u ♦ I - - -•• • , -- •= r io audressee only With delivery to addressee only 85 SERVICES �' Shawf 10 Whem, date and where dlUrered 35! _ DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY O. DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY delivery to addressee only O SPECIAL DELIVERY 50! 85e (extra fee required) .... ... —� SPECIAL DELIVERY - -- 50! ( x f g ' d) PS Form NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED — Apr. 1971 3800 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See other side) Apr. 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDEU- pr. 1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See other side) a GPO :1892 O -4e0 -949 a GPO : Ion O - 480 -942 RECEIPT FOR CERTI IED MAIL -30(4 (plus postage) I RECEIPT FOR rFBTICILrn ..... F� Ln c\.1 L0 L.� O z SENT 0 POSTMARK OR R DATE STREET 5 G , P.O., STATE ZIP CODE )%\ v OPT AL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN 1. Shows to whom and dote tlelivared 450 ..4i� Wit RECEIPT ' Z. Shows Oelivei�toeadtlresseeeoOeyrNretl �95e J t�5 // SERVICES DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY 50! _ SPECIAL - DELIVERY (e#ro fee required) - ........... .. -' - -` ............. PS Form NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED (Sae other side) Apr. 1971 3800 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL ,GPO: 1992 0 - 480 -943 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30x4 (plus postage) SENT TO /- rte} / POSTMARK P.O., TATE A14D ZIP CODE �- LO �\ TIONCL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES -RETURN ws to wham and date Delivered ..._...... 15d d RECEIPT With delivery to addressee Only ............ 65V I.� 2. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 350 SERVICES With delivery to addressee only ............ 850 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ...... .- ................._.... ...._........... 50! _ __ Q SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required)-----°°° - z PS Form 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED— (See other side) Apr. 1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL aGP0:18T20 -460 -999 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 (plus postage) 00 Lti CV C9 Lf� O z SEN TO POSTMARK Q OR DATE STREET AND N0. f) P.O., STATE AND CODE _ OPTION SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES �� ,. RETURN 1. Shows to wham and date delivere.. 50—' -" RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ............ 65& V 2. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 35l� i SERVICES ' With delivery to addressee only ...... 850 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ....................... ............................... 50! SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) ..- - PS Form NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED S IT 'd ( as of ar w a) Apr. 1971 3800 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL , C, 1098 ....... LO � P 0., S7p E AND ZIP CODE J PTIONA_L SERVICES FOR -- ADDITIONAL FEES " ✓AEI '�1 RETDRN 1. Shows to Whom antl date delivered LO RECEIPT ' With deliver 65Q ~ ,/ SERVICES 7. Shows to whom, E to addressee only With deliver ate antl where dslireretl.' Qa DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .y to adtlreseee only _Y SPECIAL DELIVERY - ----- - - -, -- z (extra fee re wrw .. .... 50! PSForm 9 d) ............................... .... Apr. 1971 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (Sea other side) APO :Ie'r2 0 - 9eo -94s (Sae other side) Apr. 1971 3800 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL ,GPO: 1992 0 - 480 -943 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30x4 (plus postage) SENT TO /- rte} / POSTMARK P.O., TATE A14D ZIP CODE �- LO �\ TIONCL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES -RETURN ws to wham and date Delivered ..._...... 15d d RECEIPT With delivery to addressee Only ............ 65V I.� 2. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 350 SERVICES With delivery to addressee only ............ 850 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ...... .- ................._.... ...._........... 50! _ __ Q SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required)-----°°° - z PS Form 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED— (See other side) Apr. 1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL aGP0:18T20 -460 -999 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30(4 (plus postage) 00 Lti CV C9 Lf� O z SEN TO POSTMARK Q OR DATE STREET AND N0. f) P.O., STATE AND CODE _ OPTION SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES �� ,. RETURN 1. Shows to wham and date delivere.. 50—' -" RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ............ 65& V 2. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 35l� i SERVICES ' With delivery to addressee only ...... 850 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ....................... ............................... 50! SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) ..- - PS Form NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED S IT 'd ( as of ar w a) Apr. 1971 3800 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL , C, 1098 ....... LO � P 0., S7p E AND ZIP CODE J PTIONA_L SERVICES FOR -- ADDITIONAL FEES " ✓AEI '�1 RETDRN 1. Shows to Whom antl date delivered LO RECEIPT ' With deliver 65Q ~ ,/ SERVICES 7. Shows to whom, E to addressee only With deliver ate antl where dslireretl.' Qa DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .y to adtlreseee only _Y SPECIAL DELIVERY - ----- - - -, -- z (extra fee re wrw .. .... 50! PSForm 9 d) ............................... .... Apr. 1971 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (Sea other side) APO :Ie'r2 0 - 9eo -94s 00 Lti CV C9 Lf� O z SEN TO POSTMARK Q OR DATE STREET AND N0. f) P.O., STATE AND CODE _ OPTION SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES �� ,. RETURN 1. Shows to wham and date delivere.. 50—' -" RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only ............ 65& V 2. Shows to whom, date and where delivered .. 35l� i SERVICES ' With delivery to addressee only ...... 850 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY ....................... ............................... 50! SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) ..- - PS Form NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED S IT 'd ( as of ar w a) Apr. 1971 3800 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL , C, 1098 ....... LO � P 0., S7p E AND ZIP CODE J PTIONA_L SERVICES FOR -- ADDITIONAL FEES " ✓AEI '�1 RETDRN 1. Shows to Whom antl date delivered LO RECEIPT ' With deliver 65Q ~ ,/ SERVICES 7. Shows to whom, E to addressee only With deliver ate antl where dslireretl.' Qa DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .y to adtlreseee only _Y SPECIAL DELIVERY - ----- - - -, -- z (extra fee re wrw .. .... 50! PSForm 9 d) ............................... .... Apr. 1971 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (Sea other side) APO :Ie'r2 0 - 9eo -94s ( as of ar w a) Apr. 1971 3800 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL , C, 1098 ....... LO � P 0., S7p E AND ZIP CODE J PTIONA_L SERVICES FOR -- ADDITIONAL FEES " ✓AEI '�1 RETDRN 1. Shows to Whom antl date delivered LO RECEIPT ' With deliver 65Q ~ ,/ SERVICES 7. Shows to whom, E to addressee only With deliver ate antl where dslireretl.' Qa DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .y to adtlreseee only _Y SPECIAL DELIVERY - ----- - - -, -- z (extra fee re wrw .. .... 50! PSForm 9 d) ............................... .... Apr. 1971 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (Sea other side) APO :Ie'r2 0 - 9eo -94s