HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.rz.Aspen Ice Garden.1977
,.~
GRANGER COSTIRYA~N*~ ~„ .~ ~ ' _
243 ABRAHAM'S LAN>+'"""°,:`~: ' ~' ~.-
VILLANOVA, PA. 1998~Aic R~i~l_:'L.;
~~~'i ~.
October 17, 1977 - ----
Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Gentlemen:
I have just received today notice of
the public hearing which was scheduled for tomorrow
with respect to the rezoning request made by the Aspen
Ice Garden.
As an owner of Condominium 3B in the
Cottonwoods Condominiums, I hope it is not too late to
record with you my strong hope that the application to
permit the Garden to be used as an assembly hall in
which to hold musical concerts will be denied. Grant-
ing of the petition would seem to me to radically change
the neighborhood area, creating, as it were, an island
of noise unbecoming to the present community.
Yours very truly,
J,~,,, .w ~o~~ ,.
Grang~ Costikyai~
GC/def
Received after Public Hearing - October 20, 1977
..
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff, Bill Kane
RE: Conduct of Concerts at the Aspen Ice Rink and Alternative Ways
Dealing with the Proposal via the Zoning Code
DATE: October 24, 1977
At your meeting of October 18, 1977, by motion you denied the rezoning
request of the Aspen Ice Garden to go from R-15 to C-1 Commercial for
the purpose of conducting eight rock concerts per year. The motion had
attached to it the directions to the Planning Staff to come back with
more information on alternative ways that such concerts for community
benefit could be accommodated in the Zoning Code, short of totally
rezoning the property to a commercial zone thereby making the concert
hall a use permitted by right. There are three general ways in which
the Code could be amended to allow the envisioned concerts to take place
in the R-15 district. These are: 1) the addition of assembly halls as
a conditional use in the R-15 and R-6 zones; 2) the determination by
the Board that this use is consistent with residential areas and was
somehow intended to be allowed at the time of the drafting of this
ordinance and could be justified within the existing language; and
3) to amend the Code and make assembly halls a use by right within the
R-15 and R-6 zones. Needless to say, each of these alternatives carry
with them different levels of impact and different levels of control
by the Board. Each is discussed below with our recommendations obviously
being for the conditional use approach.
Conditional Use
Under the conditional use approach, basically two steps would be
involved. First would be to amend the R-15 zone, listing assembly
halls as a conditional use. This amendment would require a recom-
mendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission and then a public
hearing and Ordinance by the City Council which would require two
readings. The Code amendment process would probably take 30 to 40
days. Having established assembly halls as a conditional use in
this district, then you could entertain a specific conditional use
application with specific details on the timing and nature of the
events envisioned in the facility. Through such a process you
could require more detailed information on the timing of the events,
the total seating capacity and attendance envisioned at the events,
detailed proposals and commitments to transportation to and from
the Ice Garden, security measures, and timing for the completion of
the events in the evening. In addition, you may want'.to require
a commitment to an annual calendar, that if amended, would require
review once again before your Board. While this may appear to be
a somewhat lengthy process, we recommend this approach given the
acceptability of the concept to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
It gives you a maximum degree of review and control over the events
without rezoning and drastically altering a land use characteristics
of the area. If your determination as to the acceptability of these
concerts is grounded in your belief that the activities are for
community groups and community benefit, you may want to go so far
as to require some financial statement and commitment as to the
percentages that would be distributed among the various parties
involved.
~ ~~~
,,,.
,,
Memorandum
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
October 24, 1977
Page Two
Use Determination
Under this approach, you would be required to make a finding that
the concerts proposed represent a reasonable continuation of
activities that are currently carried out at the Ice Garden. That
is, that the concerts proposed do not constitute an expansion of
a non-conforming use. Needless to say, we find this approach to
be hard to justify in that the concert activities call for a
six-fold increase of people at one time in using the facility.
This approach would leave you with a minimum of control in that
by making such a finding, the concerts could be carried out with
no conditions. It would not be logically consistent to attach
conditions to a use determination. You must make a finding as to
whether it logically has existed there in the past or has not
and to attach conditions to the determination as to whether it is
legal and non-conforming, really would not work. We discourage
this approach.
Permitted Use By Right
Under this approach, you would simply amend the zoning code to
allow assembly halls as a use by right in residential districts.
This would require a hearing before the Planning and Zoning Com-
mission and City Council with two readings of an ordinance by
Council. This approach would provide the least in the way of
control or review of activities at the Ice Garden and again is
an approach we do not recommend.
Conclusion
We recommend that the conditional use approach be taken with respect to
conducting concerts at the Ice Garden in that the conditional use hearing
gives you the authority to require information and impose conditions and
basically provide the wherewithal to carry out these concerts in a manner
that would be most consistent with the residential setting within which
the Ice Garden is situated. We will discuss the merits of each of these
in more detail with you at your meeting on Wovember 2. However, should
you wish to come in prior to that and discuss it somemore, we would
be happy to do that. It is our understanding that some discussion
may take place between the Ice Garden owners and City Administration
regarding possible involvement of the City in some of the programs which
may reduce the requirement for the number of concerts and so the nature
of the application may even be amended prior to your next meeting. We
will try to keep you informed as events take place.
lmk
cc: Aspen City Council
John McBride
Dave Baxter
Bill Tharp
Ralph Brendes
/"\
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: Rezoning Code Change
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on December
6, 1977, at a meeting held at 5:00 p,m. in the City Council Chambers,
Aspen, before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission to amend the
R-15 and R-6 zones to include assembly halls as a conditional use. A
copy of the rezoning proposal may be examined by the public in the
office of the City/County Planner, City Hall, during regular business
hours.
Published in the Aspen Times, Thursday, November 17, 1977.
/s/ Kathryn S. Hauter
City Clerk
Received after public hearir!'~` October 20, 1977~y~ ~' L1 `~~~,,~~~~
`~ , f l i ".
ti~ lLC
/~IK~N ~/~rNn~~ l/. ~j'C.P v`..
/30 S~'~-l~ CiCa~t°vta~.~T~.e2 RGUTE ____ _~_-_.._.-._
~ 4~1~d
~(.
~~, t[%
~ ~~~ ~~ ' ~ ~ i ~u ~$ ~~~~
~~~~~ ~ ~ ~
~~~4/ ~i't" /~ C
,~
Ci[i1, ~1~~ ,l ~ti.[CC ~~~
~~~(~2f2 ~,v[l~
'7//[// c v 4 /~/ly/lam/ ,7 ~~ ~~L ,~
f/ ~ !~ lti / /v c Lt ~ ~~_ L~
~~ ~.tJ~~ ~ J~~ ~ t ,h2N ~n ~~~ 6C'L`u°~~
p „ ,/~ ~~~~ , 1, a- ~~~C /
~ /~,~/
(.1C (~C ~ ~ ~~,~1 ~L c ~i~C~'~lcr~
~7
ti //
Ocf i~ /~
JYI~s. Chanle5 ~GUeiSenthal "`~
1030 Cast Couat~and ~ ace
~i~wau~Cee, ~isconsin 53211
peace S<JLJ:
l ~# 2ecei.vec{ uniac/ ~ha~ ~vu aae having, a pu~llc
mee~.lnrZ vn Oct. /8#li cvnce~uuncZ chon~.in~ ~vn.cn~ Mara f2-/5
~o C-/ w~u.ch uavu.lc( perm/.t mr~.atca.L mne~ a~~ the Aspen
Tce ~a~ea. I vma a cyrtdvminran - Cv~tvraa~vc(.~ 1-A u~h~
acnv~ the .~.~ee# anc' I can vet much aclain.~~ ~,i.~.
A., I con nv~ able #v 6e ~heae I hvpe #lai.~ le#ea +ui.LL
Heave ~v e~i,ve rtv~i.ce .~lfat ure aice aAcuw+~~ .uU~J c/zan,~e.
Hine ciux~r/.~ .such a.~ a cr»ace~r~ mvecLcl a~iuract ~ me,LL a.~ the
nvi~e it uroulcl mahe uk~u.lc( Ge vet uia(etinaG.Le ~ a ov~nen.
7fE.anh r~u veiny much.
Sincerce.Cr~
~ ~- ~~ ~ ~
Dom, ark n1~. ~'e,iaentha,L
Submitted October 19, 1977 -after public hearing
FIDELITY
" AMERICAN BANKx. HIGH AND CRAWFORD STREETS • PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA 23705.804/393-9661
TIDEWATER
October 14, 1977
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Commissioners:
I understand that a public hearing will be held on October 18th,
on a request for rezoning made by the Aspen Ice Garden, Inc., to change
the classification from R-15 to C-1.
I, as the owner of Apartment 2-C, in the Cottonwoods Condomin-
ium, located diagonally across the intersection from the "Ice Palace,"
strongly object to favorable consideration being given their request for
a zoning change.
At times the noise and traffic congestion by past users of that
facility have been annoying and bothersome to me, as, I am sure, they
have been to other residents of that part of town. I do not object to
the continued use of the "Ice Palace" in the manner in which it has been
used historically, and is being used currently.
I strongly resist any expanded use as an assembly hall in which
to hold musical concerts or other public gatherings of that type.
I urge you to deny the rezoning request.
Respectfully
Monte M. Miller
President
MMM:dkl
i
Received October 19, 1977 - After public hearing
.~,
~'. _~~_~~,,,-yra,
4 w/ u .,
MEMORANDUM
T0: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Bill Kane, Planning Director
RE: Rezoning Request for Aspen Ice Garden to go from R-15, existing,
to C-1, proposed
DATE: October 13, 1977
This is a request for the rezoning of the Aspen Ice Garden to go to C-1
from R-15 for the express purpose of conducting, on the order, of eight
musical concerts per year. Prior to this application for rezoning, a
request was made before the Aspen City Council for determination as to
the propriety of conducting these events in this facility. Upon advice
from the Planning Staff and the City Attorney, the Council directed the
applicant to proceed with the rezoning request, should he want to pursue
this. This action by the Council should not be construed as either an
endorsement or support of the proposal, but merely was a technical finding
that they could not, in any capacity, rule on conducting concerts in the
Ice Garden inasmuch as that request constituted an illegal non-conforming
use. I think the Council found in their decision that the only way to
achieve this from the applicant's point of view would be to request and
receive a rezoning. We are including, in the packet, a memo which was
directed from the Planning Staff, Bill Kane, to the Aspen City Council
regarding concerts in the Aspen Ice Garden and this will serve as some
background on the Planning Staff's position regarding the propriety of this
use in that area.
We have reviewed the application for rezoning and find it to be complete,
with proper notification having been made of all the surrounding property
owners. In order to give you some feel for the response in the neigh-
borhood regarding this matter, we are including copies of letters received
to date regarding their request.
Our response to this request is a brief one. We feel that a rezoning to
C-1 of this area would constitute a serious threat and erosion of the
basis for residential zoning that was strenously fought for in April
of 1975. Although the applicant intends the zoning change only to accom-
modate rock concerts at the facility, once given a rezoning, there would
be little to prohibit more intensive use of the facilities. The area
was zoned R-6 in 1975 and subsequently rezoned "R-15" in 1976. It was
the clear intention of the Aspen Land Use Plan of 1973, and all subsequent
zoning actions, to reserve this area and this neighborhood for residential
development. Even the lodges in this area are non-conforming in and that
the area has been zoned "Residential" and "Commercial Lodges", at this
point, are also non-conforming. It is a basic tenant of zoning that in
a district in which many uses are found to be non-conforming that any
improvement to any use should be done so in a fashion to bring the area
more into conformance with the zoning district. That is, the zoning
ordinance presumes that should a lodge be removed, then at some point in
the future, it would be replaced with single-family residential development.
In accordance with this zoning direction, many homes have received sub-
stantial improvement and investment in the area and their owners have
put this time and energy investmehtintoproperties in reliance of single-
family low density residential development that has been assured them by
the City of Aspen. To go back on that proposition and agreement now,
,~~
Aspen Planning and Zoning
Aspen Ice Garden
Page Two
October 13, 1977
would represent a serious detriment to established residential values
in the area. Aside from these considerations, the site is limited by
several real constraints. Number one, most obvious, is parking. What
is being envisioned here is a facility to handle 2,000 people at one
time with virtually no off-street parking facilities. Even if rezoned,
it is highly unlikely that the building inspector could determine that
the full requirements of the zoning code have been met to accommodate
the use envisioned. Secondly, the land use pattern in the area is such
that the residences, having received investment and improvement in the
area, are those most closely affected being directly across the street.
And a thirdly, the change to a concert facility, in our view, represents
a substantial change to the uses now being conducted and must be viewed
as a substantial expansion of a non-conforming use, should the zoning
not be granted. That is, you may hear the argument that a concert
facility is not dramatically different than the skating facility which
is presently conducted and constitutes a 1'egal non-conforming use. The
simple facts are that skating at its peak times will probably only
accommodate 300 people, to include spectators and skaters. With a
facility proposed here, 2,000 people could be accommodated at the Aspen
Ice Garden at one time, representing at least a six-fold increase. There
are collateral issues to be considered with this project which go beyond
the immediate site impacts. Arguments could be offered on both sides
regarding the growth implications of creating a facility capable of
handling 2,000 people at one time. This argument relating to the quality
of entertainment that could be produced and the possible draw upon
surrounding areas for rock concert facility.
Conclusion and Recommendation
In our view, the application before you should be denied, and recommended
for denial before the City Council for the following reasons:
1. The area involved is residential and can be proved to be
residential as evidenced by investment in the surrounding
area in reliance of single-family residential zoning; and
as such, is inappropriate for a spot of C-1 Commercial
zoning.
2. The facility in question would be totally inadequate to
meet the zoning guidelines of the C-1 district for the
uses that are intended in this application.
3. A rezoning cannot be viewed only within the narrow limits
of the uses that are proposed by the applicant for this
facility, but must be viewed realistically within the
context of all those uses that are permitted in C-1. And
it is clear upon a cursory review that the majority of
uses permitted in C-1 would be incompatible with the
quiet residential area presently existing.
4. A rezoning to C-1 of this block would constitute a serious
detriment threat for at least substantial erosion of the
land use planning concepts emboded in the 1973 Aspen Land
Use Plan and the City of Aspen Zoning Ordinance and Map;
and, as such, constitutes a proposal which flies in the
face of the cumulative affect of some five years of planning.
lmk
enc.
~,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Planning Office, Bill Kane
RE: Request for Rock Concerts at the Aspen Ice Garden
DATE: August 4, 1977 '
It is our understanding that a reo,uest will be made for a schedule of
rock concerts to be conducted at the Aspen Ice Garden on a regular
basis; for basic commercial reasons, that is, not for Community benefit.
We strongly recommend against this in that the proposed use is not
allowed in the R-6 .residential district within which the Ice Garden
is located. The proposal constitutes a blatent expansion of a non-
conforming use which is clearly prohibited by the City Code Section
24-12.2, 24-12.4.
Aside from the obvious prohibitions found in the Code, common sense
dictates that the noise and congestion attendant to such functions is
not compatable with existing land use and zoning, which is in turn,
a reflection of the. land use trend which the City seeks to encourage
in the area.
There is an additional issue which summons the parable of the "camel and
the tent" and that is simply one of where does the line get drawn.
You would expose yourself to similar requests for additional. concerts
in this area and similar requests from other areas of the City.
We strongly recommend against the request.
lmk
~...,. 1
qr~ ~"
~-
M E M O R A N D U M "~A - i<%^.v'w~"y i
TO: Ralph Brendes, Esquire ''`` \
~ ~,~
FROM: The Research Group, Inc. //
RE: Colorado/Local Government/Zoning $f ~VV``-
FILE: W1217C
YI/ "`
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
~~
Client is the owner of an ice rink whic can be suitabl ~
used for concerts. This use of the rink, however, is now prohibited
by a residential zoning classification. Client would like to have
the classification changed to commercial so that concerts can be
~..
a
held in the rink, but the city planning department has so far
opposed his efforts. The City Charter of Aspen provides for the
use of the initiative to propose and enact new ordinances subject
only to certain restrictions not material here. Client feels
that if the initiative is conducted, the zoning change that he
proposes will prevail. He therefore wishes to investigate the
possibility of using the initiative process to effect the proposed
reclassification.
QUESTION PRESENTED:
PAay the initiative process provided for in the Aspen City
THE
A£SEAAGH CROVP
1\COAPOMTED
Charter be used to enact a change in the city zoning ordinance?
Conclusion:
A reading of Colorado and California cases suggests strongly
that the initiative may properly be used to effect zoning changes
,,,~,,,
under the provisions of the Aspen City Charter. A series of
California cases holds that the provisions of a charter are
controlling over provisions of state zoning statutes specifying
zoning procedures. They also hold that procedural due process
considerations do not impede this use of the initiative. Colo-
rado courts have not dealt with the initiative in the context
of zoning changes, but they have construed referendum provisions
in city charters to permit the use of the referendum to effect
zoning reclassifications. The reasoning of these cases suggests
that they would treat the Aspen initiative provision similarly.
DISCUSSION OF AUTHORITY:
Although the question of whether the initiative may be
used to enact a proposed new or amended zoning ordinance has
not come before the Colorado courts, a number of other juris-
dictions have dealt with the issue. Due to the complexity of
both the factual settings and the legal issues of the cases,
the results have not been uniform. However, analysis of several
closely analogous California cases and of the treatment Colorado
courts have given a very similar device, the referendum, dis-
closes a strong probability that under Colorado law, the initiative
is available as a means of effecting change in a municipal zoning
ordinance.
In determining the applicability of initiative provisions
~'tle found in state constitutions and statutes and municipal charters
RESEAACN CROUP
1\CORPOMTED to zoning ordinances, the courts have had to consider a number
of factors. Of greatest significance in the courts' thinking
has been that any use of the initiative to effect change in
_2_
.-~-~, --
. \/.
zoning schemes may be in conflict with the zoning statutes enacted
by the legislatures of all the states. These statutes typically
vest in municipal legislative bodies the authority to adopt
zoning measures and specify in some detail the procedures that
are to be followed. These procedures are intended to satisfy
the due process notions that property owners are to be notified
of proposed changes in the zoning law which may have an impact
on their property and that such affected parties must be given
the opportunity to be heard on the matter. Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann.,
Title 31, Art. 23, is such a statute. In addition, a deter-
mination of the issue has sometimes required the courts to balance
the value of•direct citizen participation in the legislative
process against the need for comprehensive planning by professionals.
Some courts have been unwilling to permit a "piecemeal attack"
by initiative or referendum upon a comprehensive zoning scheme.
Finally, and often overriding the other issues, the courts have
been called upon to construe the specific language of the zoning
statutes and provisions reserving the initiative power to the
electors.
These issues have been faced in a line of California cases
beginning with Hurst v. Burlingame, 207 Cal. 134, 277 P. 308 (1929)
(Appendix A). There, the plaintiff attacked a zoning plan which
had been adopted under initiative provisions of the California
Constitution and statutes. He maintained that the plan was in-
THE
RESEARCH cnoDP valid because it had not been enacted in accord with the California
IVEOEPOMTED
zoning statute then in effect. The city of Burlingame was or-
ganized under California's General Municipal Corporations Act
-3-
~.
and did not have its own charter
Ncting first that "an ordinance
adopted by a city organized under general law is subject to and
controlled by general law", the state Supreme Court, following
the rule of serveral other jurisdictions, held that:
. The initiative law and the zoning
law are hopelessly inconsistent and in
conflict as to the manner of the prep-
aration and adoption of a zoning ordi-
nance. The Zoning Act is a special
statute dealing with a particular sub-
ject and must be deemed to be control-
ling over the initiative, which is
general in its scope.
Id., 277 P, at 311. Judgment was affirmed for the plaintiff.
Several subsequent cases involving municipalities organized
under the general state law followed the Hurst decision in holding
the initiative not applicable to zoning ordinances. Then in 1962,
a case arose in which the plaintiffs proposed to enact a zoning
ordinance under the provisions of the Palo Alto City Charter
specifying procedures for use of the initiative. Fletcher v.
THE
AESEAACN GROUP
I\GORPOAATED
Porter, 203 Cal. App. 2d 313, 21 Cal. Rptr. 452 (1962) (Appendix B).
The court there held that because Palo Alto was a charter city,
the state legislature could not interfere in the regulation of
its purely internal affairs. Since the initiative procedure there
was brought under charter provisions rather than state statute,
the holding in the Hurst case was not applicable and the initiative
on the zoning ordinance was proper.
Bayless v. Limber, 23 Cal. App. 3d 463, 102 Cal. Rptr. 647
(1972) (Appendix C) reached a similar result. There, the plaintiffs
sought a writ of mandate directing the city government to process
-4-
. ,.,~
. 'a..s
an initiative petition on a proposed change in the city zoning
ordinance. The petition was brought under the provisions of the
city charter. Holding that the initiative was proper under the
charter, the court went on to observe:
Respondent City Council and respondent
City Clerk contend that this holding is
contrary to those of Hurst v. City of
Burlingame, 207 Cal. 134, 277 P. 308,
and Laguna Beach Taxpayers' Assn. v.
City Council, 187 Ca1.App.2d 412, 9
Cal.Rptr. 775. In making this contention
respondents overlook the decisive fact
that these cases involved general law
cities while this case is concerned
with a chartered city. In those cases
it was held that zoning may not be done
by initiative because the procedure
leading to the enactment of an initia-
tive ordinance is incompatible with
that prescribed by statute for the
enactment of zoning ordinances by a
city council...But the manner of enact-
ing municipal ordinances is a municipal
affair and, as previously indicated,
the charter of a chartered city, rather
that state statutes, govern municipal
affairs within such a city.
Id., 102 Ca1.Rptr. at 650. See also Duran v. Cassidy, 28 Cal.
App. 3d 574, 104 Ca1.Rptr. 793 (1972) (Appendix D).
,IAE More recently, in the case of San Diego Building Contractors
AESEAAOA GAOVP
I~ICOAPOMTED ssociation v. City Council of San Diego, 13 Cal. 3d 205, 529 P.2d
70, 118 Ca1.Rptr. 146 (1974) (Appendix E), the California Supreme
affirmed the holding of the Fletcher and Bayless cases,
-5-
~.~
supra, that "a charter's broad grant of the initiative and
referendum powers clearly applies to zoning measures." Then,
in an important holding, the court went on to address itself
to the objection that adoption of a zoning ordinance by ini-
tiative denies procedural due process to the property holders
affected. Noting that the San Diego ordinance before the
Court, which had been adopted by an initiative, was clearly
a legislative act, and quoting Justice Holmes from the case of
Bi-Metallic Co. v. State Board of Equalization of Colorado,
239 U.S. 441, 36 S.Ct. 141 (1915), the court concluded that:
. .due process requires "notice and
hearing" only in quasi-judicial or ad-
judicatory settings and not with res-
pect to the adoption of general legis-
lation. Since the enactment of the
instant general zoning ordinance
through the initiative process was
unquestionably a legislative, as dis-
tinguished from adjudicative act, the
constitutional requirements. of "notice"
and "hearing" do not apply.
nrP
PESEAPCH GROVP
INOOPPORATED
Id., 118 Cal. Rptr. at 149. It also denied that the impact
which zoning legislation has upon property values in any way
brings it within an exception to the rule that legislative acts
do not require notice and hearing. The United States Supreme
Court dismissed plaintiff's appeal, 407 U.S. 901, 96 S.Ct. 3184
(1976). See also the companion case of Builders Association of
Santa Clara-Santa Cruz Counties v. Superior Court of Santa Clara
County, 13 Cal. 3d 225, 529 P.2d 582, 118 Cal.Rptr. 158 (1974)
(Appendix F), and Associated Home Builders of Greater Eastbay, Inc.
v. City of Livermore, 18 Ca1.3d 582, 557 P.2d 473, 135 Ca1.Rptr.
41 (1976) (Appendix G), which severly criticizes the Hurst decision.
_r._
,,,,, ~ „
~..~
These California cases are of course not binding on the
Colorado courts. They do suggest strongly, however, that where
the language of a municipal charter permits the adoption of a
zoning ordinance by initiative, the zoning procedures prescribed
in the state zoning ordinance need not be deemed to pre-empt
the charter provision, and the procedural due process guarantees
that would be required in a judicial proceeding, are inapplicable.
Although, as noted earlier, no Colorado court has held on the use
of the initiative to enact a zoning ordinance, it is likely
that the Colorado courts would find the reasoning of the cases
cited here strongly persuasive. In two recent cases, Colorado
judges have taken a liberal view of the use of the referendum,
a device closely related to the initiative, in zoning changes.
There is little reason why the reasoning of these cases, considered
in the light of the California cases, would not lead to a similar
liberal view of the use of the initiative.
In City of Fort Collins v. Dooney, 178 Col. 25, 496 P.2d
316 (1972), the City Council of Fort Collins, according to pre-
scribed procedures, enacted a zoning ordinance. Plaintiffs filed
a petition with the Council seeking a referendum on the ordinance
under a provision of the city's charter. The Council rejected
the petition on grounds that the referendum provision was not
applicable to a zoning ordinance and then sought a declaratory
judgment to that effect. On appeal, the Colorado Supreme Court
THE
AESEA AGH CAOVA examined the referendum provision at length, noting that it
HvconvoAnTeo
explicitly reached all ordinances with only three exceptions.
It then cited an earlier holding that a referendum provision,
being a reservation of power to the people, should not be narrowly
-7-
. ~
construed, and held that "When the charter provides that the
referendum shall apply to all ordinances, except three types,
none of which encompasses zoning, we cannot read into the pro-
vision an exception which is not there." 496 P.2d at
It is clear that where statutory and charter language permit the
Colorado courts to uphold the maximum participation of the
electors in the legislative process, they will do so, declining
to restrict the referendum power pursuant to a supposed need to
protect a comprehensive plan, as a few courts have done. The
court also found specifically that due process requirements
were met in the referendum procedure by "the election campaign,
the debate and airing of opposing opinions." The use of the
referendum was found to be proper in the context of zoning or-
dinances.
Several months later, a factually similar case, Witkin
Homes, Inc. v. City and County of Denver, 31 Col. r~pp. 410, 504
P.2d 1121 (1972), came before the Colorado Court of Appeals.
There, the plaintiff had sought to prohibit the city from sub-
mitting to referendum a zoning ordinance it had already passed.
The court held that "In construing a home rule charter, broad
effect is given to the power granted a city council to submit
a matter to a vote of the people, and any limitation on that
power will be narrowly construed." Zoning ordinances were
within the scope of the referendum power.
THE
AESEAACH cEOOr In light of the refusal of these two courts to read ex-
INCOPPoRATED
eptions to the referendum power into the referendum provisions
f the two city charters, it is most unlikely that a court
give a narrow reading to the initiative provision of the
-8-
r~"O .-`
~.. J
Aspen charter. The provision is very similar to the Fort Collins
referendum provision, reserving the initiative power to the
electorate except in clearly specified circumstances, none of
which relate to zoning ordinances. .The words "any ordinance"
in the provision must therefore be taken to include proposed
zoning ordinances. It is the clearly expressed policy of
Colorado courts to reserve as much power to the electorate as
the language of the referendum and initiative provisions permits,
and there are no policy reasons for a restrictive reading of
these provisions which have not been convincingly countered by
Colorado and California courts.
In a recent law review note, the author made a detailed
analysis of the cases dealing with the use of the initiative
and referendum to effect zoning changes. His conclusion is
worth noting:
The use of the initiative and referen-
dum in zoning appears compatible with
constitutional, statutory, and common
law limitations on their scope. The
appropriate judicial course would thus
be to uphold the use of these devices
while subjecting all zoning measures
to the same judicial scrutiny of sub-
stance whether passed by initiative or
referendum or by conventional processes.
Experience may show that the initiative
and referendum do indeed hamper the
rxR
RESEARGR cROUr process of land use planning. An ade-
INCOPPoMTRD
quate opportunity will then be available
to limit these devices.
Oren, "The Initiative and Referendum's Use in Zoning", 64
Cal. L.R. 74 at 106 (Jan. 1976).
_q_
~.. . '
Regular.Meeting _„___.--._-T_ - Aspen City Council _ __ _ Au ust 8 1977
9_... _. !_. __._
Councilman Behrendt moved to approve the transfer; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in II
favor, motion carried. ;~ -
USE OF ASPEN ICE GARDEN FOR CONCERTS •~
Mayor Standley said this issue should not be heard at the Council level. It is a rezoning
request and has to go through P & Z. It is on the Council agenda because if Council is Use of Aspen
not in favor of the project, the applicants will not waste time going to P 5 2. This is Icy ~~~
a presentation alimut the management and conceptual idea for the ice garden. for concerts
Ralph Brendes said after he had put on Snowshow, which was a one time shot, he discovered'
concerts at the ice garden were workable and this was a good facility. Brendes stated 'i ~,g{t. v--~.~ a"`"
the impact on the noise in the neighborhood was minimal. Brendes said he represented
Aspen Production Company and these concerts will provide substantial funds for charities..
Brendes stated he intended to go through the bureaucratic shuffle, but does not want to
go through it until he finds out what kind of support there is.
Brendes showed Council slides of the last performance, how it was set up and arranged
and taken down. Brendes told Council that they would obtain a portable stage if they
were to do this permanently, and also get a precut floor. Brendes stated the acoustics
are excellent and there are no beams or posts to obstruct views.
Brendes pointed out one of the concerns of the planning office is noise pollution. A
decibel count report on the last concert was submitted. The loudest noise was a diesel
engine idling outside. Antoher concern is the nature of the neighborhood and the parking
problem. Brendes stated he would be willing to do whatever is necessary in that area.
Brendes said at the last concert there was no major impact on the neighborhood; there
was no big traffic congestion. There were no complaints. Brendes submitted a map of
the neighborhood and pointed out there are only five houses.
Brendes stated there is no place in Aspen to put on concerts. Each concert they-will
put on will have a charity sponsored. They get proceeds from the gate, beer, patron
seats, etc. Viable charities can earn up to $7500 from these concerts. Brendes said
he felt that one of the allowable uses of an ice rink facility is to be converted into
an auditorium. An ice rink should be a conditional use in this residential neighborhood.
This would be an alternative to changing the zoning. Brendes stated this is a perfect
use for the facility; why not have a facility that can seat 2,000 to put on benefits
and to bring in good shows.
Bill Tharp told Council they are not asking for a revolutionary change in the use of
the rink. Not too long ago this would have been permissable. When the area was down
zoned, the ice rink became a non-conforming use. Tharp said it would be logical to
at least pursue the idea of a private facility being offered in a manner that costs
t h'e public no money and is for public functions.
Councilman Van Ness said he would be interested in going through the P & Z with this
idea, but would make no guarantees. Councilman Van Ness said this is worth looking
into; it is an opportunity to get some high quality music into town. Councilwoman
Johnston said she was not a bit interested in having such a facility in Aspen. Snowmass
is doing a performing arts center and that will take care of concerts. Councilman
Behrendt said this neighborhood has had no physical change in three years. The neigh-
borhood has been downzoned specifically. There is substantial noise impact; some of
the decibel readings are as high as 99 with only a temporary PA system. Councilman
6ehrendt said he did not complain during the Snowshow because that was a one time benefit
concert. The ice palace already impacts the neighborhood as far as traffic. Councilman
Behrendt stated this use seems inappropriate.
Councilman 13ershey stated he was not interested. Councilman Parry said he felt this
i_s someChing that should be tried. Councilman Parry said he attended the Snowshow and
walked around and there was no noise impact in the neighborhood. Mayor Standley said
he would be interested if the whole thing could be managed properly. tle would have a
n e~ntive position unless there is strong management.
ADMINISTRATIVE' DELAY - Bell Mountain Sports
Chuck Vidal told Council that the present lessee of Bell Mountain Sports has closed down
for the summer and has created an opportunity for the building owner to expand on the Relief from
second floor. Vidal said the owner is trying to react to this opportunity and to add on pdministrativ
a s<•cond floor of approximately 2,000 square feet. This would be office space primarily Delay - Le11
[or Che Conant and the owner. Mt. Sports
Mayor :, C:andley asked if the Council had the right to grant administrative relief. City
Attorney Vuctall stated the Council did have some disgression there. The Council does
have a proc~edent for giving relief. Planner Kane stated the planning office would not
recommend doing this. This is an area the GMP is directed towards. This addition would
be 2,000 square feet. If the Council opens vp relief to everyone, they will scrap the
whole plan. Kane stated that unless the Council Found a unique set of circumstances that
apply to this applicant they should not grant relief.
Councilman Parry pointed out that the growth manayement plan was supposed to be done
early .n the spring. someone has come in with a nice plan to do a good building. The
Council has a chance to change a building that already exists. Mayor Standley pointed
out the bui 7.d ings that got Ordinance #].9 exceptions. Mayor Standley stated the Council
doe::n'c have a yood track record on try inq to be sympathetic to developers. Councilman
Bchrendl said it appeared that the applicant is attempting to Como in before controls
are oxurtcd on the rest of the conununity. This would be adding 2,000 square feet before
controls are put on.
Council wn man Johnston moved to deny this application; seconded by Councilman 6ehrend t.
Count il.members Parry, ^erhscy, Van Ness opposed Councilmembers Johnston, 6ehrend t, and
Mayor SCa nd ley in favor. Mo ti.on NO'C carried.
CUSTOMER CITY OF ASPENS ~# ,z
s~` FINANCE DEPARTMENT
V" ~' CASHIER'S RECEIPT ~I " ~ ~04~
I1-111 LICENSES & PERMITS 01-111 FINES 8 FORFEITS
511 ^ BUSINESS LICENSES 561 ^ COURT FINES
512 ^ SALES TAX LICENSES 562 ^ COURT BONDS -FORFEIT
513 ^ BEER -WINE -LIQUOR LICENSES 563-O1 ^ TOWING FINES -IMPOUND
514 ^ CONTRACTOR'S LICENSES 553-02 ^ TOWING FINES -NOT IMPOUND
516 ^ LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION 564 ^ TRAFFIC FINES
517 ^ DOG LICENSE 566 ^ FALSE ALARM FINES
518 ^ CENTRAL ALARM LICENSE 568 ^ DOG IMPOUND FINES
519 ^ BICYCLE LICENSES 569 ^ OTHER FINES & FORFEITS
520 ^ EXCAVATION PERMITS
521 ^ CONSTRUCTION PERMITS 01-111 O THER MISC. REVENUES
522 ^ ELECTRICAL PERMITS 579 ^ MAPS, CODES, ZONING REGS.
523 ^ PLUMBING PERMITS 589 ^ OTHERS (DESCRIBE)
524 ^ HEATING PERMITS
525 ^ SEPTIC TANK PERMITS
~ 01-988-632-03 ^ XEROXING (DESCRIBE)
'
" ~
[~ OTHER -ACCT. NOr'-_ i
,
~ - I ~ ~ -° ~ ~'- -~ -"
_~ t f Y ~ --~ _, l ~-;
IPTION: (NAME, NUMBER, ETC.): ~ ~ ~s.~~ I ~ -~~ 1-' F'• l~~
~~Cl f 1 r'~
Y
I
I
i CASHIER VALIDATION
RECEIVED FROM f ,~ ^~ '• a' y'
-~`- --r ,--,-~
Aspen/Pi1
130 s
aspet
ng Office
reet
1611
October 3, 1977
TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS:
Please take notice that the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission will
conduct a public hearing on October 18, 1977, at a meeting starting at
5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Nall, on the rezoning
request made by the Aspen Ice Garden, Inc. (the northern half of Block
54, Lots A through i). The Aspen Ice Garden, Inc. has made application
for rezoning the area from its present classification of R-15 to C-1 which
would permit the use of the Aspen Ice Garden as an assembly hall in which
to hold musical concerts. Section 24-11.5 of the Municipal Code requires
that all private applications for rezoning may be considered only in
October of each year.
A copy of the rezoning application may be reviewed by the public in the
City/County Planning Office, 130 South Galena, Aspen City Hall, Aspen,
and inquiries may be made to Karen Smith, Assistant Planner, 925-2020,
ext. 224, during regular business hours.
Aspen/Pig
130 s
aspen
ng Office
reet
1611
October 3, 1977
TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS:
Please take notice that the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission will
conduct a public hearing on October 18, 1977, at a meeting starting at
5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, .4spen City Hall, on the rezoning
request made by the Aspen Ice Garden, Inc. (the northern half of Block
54, Lots A through I). The Aspen Ice Garden, Inc. has made application
for rezoning the area from its present classification of R-15 to C-1 which
would permit the use of the Aspen Ice Garden as an assembly hall in which
to hold musical concerts. Section 24-11.5 of the Municipal Code requires
that all private applications for rezoning may be considered only in
October of each year.
A copy of the rezoning application may be reviewed by the public in the
City/County Planning Office, 130 South Galena, Aspen City Hall, Aspen,
and inquiries may be made to Karen Smith, Assistant Planner, 925-2020,
ext. 224, during regular business hours.
RETURNED FROM ON OCTOBER 12, 1977:
John S. Poppell
P.O. Box 3463
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Aspen/Pig
130 s
aspen
ng Office
reet
1611
October 3, 1977
TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS:
Please take notice that the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission will
conduct a public hearing on October 18, 1977, at a meeting starting at
5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, on the rezoning
request made by the Aspen Ice Garden, Inc. (the northern half of Block
54, Lots A through I). The Aspen Ice Garden, Inc. has made application
for rezoning the area from its present classification of R-15 to C-1 which
would permit the use of the Aspen Ice Garden as an assembly hall in which
to hold musical concerts. Section 24-11.5 of the Municipal Code requires
that all private applications for rezoning may be considered only in
October of each year.
A copy of the rezoning application may be reviewed by the public in the
City/County Planning Office, 130 South Galena, Aspen City Hall, Aspen,
and inquiries may be made to Karen Smith, Assistant Planner, 925-2020,
ext. 224, during regular business hours.
RETURNED FRO'•i OfJ OCTOBER 12, 1977:
Kathleen f9ortimer
P.O. Box 2431
Aspen, Colorado S1611
L'
'1 9 ,Sn
4 /
PUBLIC NOTICE
Re: Rezoning of the Aspen Ice Garden
Please take notice that the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission will
conduct a public hearing on October 18, 1977, at a meeting starting at
5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, on the rezoning
request made by the Aspen Ice Garden, Inc. (the northern half of Block
54, Lots A through I). The Aspen Ice Garden, Inc. has made application
for rezoning the area from its present classification of R-15 to C-1 which
would permit the use of the Aspen Ice Garden as an assembly hall in which
to hold musical concerts. Section 24-11.5 of the Municipal Code requires
that all private applications for rezoning may be considered only in
October of each year.
A copy of the rezoning application may be reviewed by the public in the
City/County Planning Office, 130 South Galena, Aspen .City Hall, Aspen,
and inquiries may be made to Karen Smith, Assistant Planner, 925-2020,
ext. 224, during regular business hours.
/s/ Kathryn S. Hauter
City Clerk
Published in the Aspen Times, Thursday, September 29, 1977.
Planning & Zoning Commission
City of Aspen
City Hall,'
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Ammar Sirs
This letter will serve as the formal application by
the Aspen Ice Garden, Inc. for a rezoning under Section
24-11.5 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen from
its present classification (R-15) to that of zoning
category "C-1" so to permit the use of the Aspen Ice
Garden as an assembly hall in which to hold musical concerts.
Enclosed you will find a survey map of the property
'; for which rezoning is r uested (the northern half of
Block 54, Lots A thr ~~ w 11 as a list of all
property owners w ~q~~the property for which
E rezoning is requ ~ ~ m the Aspen Ice
Garden in the a t o t ~pver the application
fees and publigB on ~yo seed any other informa-
tion or data, ~ 1 fr.
I understa~ that' ng a d3Zoning Commission will
be having a h ng ing f$quest in October;
please notify as act ~ date has been determined,
so that we can ~r e en_t ~n accordingly.
If you have
application, plea ~
attorney at law.
WT:ml
Enclosures
r
er que -~r~iYs about this rezoning
~' of Yall me or Ralph C. Brendes,
~' L L 918
/Ver/'y,'t'ruly y_oursR,~ ~
(~ ( j "~ -
William E. Tharp, Manager
r ___.__ _
i ___..
r
.~,
~..~ ~..~
BLOCK 46
Lot - A & B - Thomas R. and Janice Finley - 333 W. Hopkins
C & D - Barbara Lynn and Thomas Campion - P.O. Box 528,
Ketchum, Idaho 83340
E, F. & I. - Merrill Ford, 360 Mary Street,
Grosse Pointe Farms, Michigan 48236
K - M - Michael & Susan Behrendt - Box 46, 334 W. Hyman
N & 0 - H. Michael Behrendt - Box 46, 3.34 W. Hyman
P & Q - Genevieve Birlauf (Mrs. Joseph Leininger)
963 Wing Avenue, Palo Alto, Calif. 94303
R ~ S - W. M. Properties, Ltd., William and Pamela Smith
Box 2765, Aspen, Colorado.
BLOCK 47 (Does not exist as lots)
Part F &.i - Fred 0. Lane, P. 0. Box 597, Aspen, Colorado
BLOCK 53
Lot - A - C - James E. Moore - Box 707, Aspen, Colorado
D & E - Robert F. Robert J. Appleton - Box 712, Aspen, Colo.
F ~ G - Howard A. Vaughn, Jr. - Box 367, Hebron, I11. 60034
H & I - Mary Emma Dean, 343 Dexter St., Denver, Co. 80220
K - N - John ~ Wilhemina Eymere - 232 W. Hyman, Aspen
0 ~ P - Ruth Humphreys Brown - Box A, Carbondale, Colo. 81623
Q - Phillipe and Susan Menu - Box 2239, Aspen, Colorado
~ BLOCK 54 (Ice Garden)
Lot - K - 0 - Carol F. Stevens - Box 1147, Aspen, Colorado
P & Q - Margaret Stevens - Box 1147, Aspen, Colorado
R 6 S - Jayne W. Smith - Box 2176, Aspen, Colorado
BLOCK 60
Lot - A & Bw - Margaret Bonar Day - Box 923, Aspen, Colorado
Be - G - Holiday House of Aspen, c/o Aspen Holiday, Inc.,
Box 634, Aspen, Colorado
H - N. A. and Lena Prechtl - Box 593, Aspen, Colorado
I - N - Cottonwood Condominiums, c/o Edwin Baker
3202 South Magnolia, Denver, Colo. 80222
0 - S ~ Aspen Townhouses Association (see page 2)
BLOCK 61
Lot - A & B - Mary C. Johnston, Box 926, Aspen, Colorado
C - G - Wm. D. & Margaret Snare, 300 Clermont St., Denver 80220
H - I - Inez Marshall Zordel, Box 74, Aspen, Colorado
K - 0 - Peter Mocklin, Box 807, Aspen, Colorado
P - Peter Mocklin - Box 807, Aspen, Colorado
Q - S - Aspen West Condominium Association (see page 2)
BLOCK 45
tot - K & L - Ted V. & Silvia H. Brown, 230 Bunker Hill Rd.
Houston, Texas 77024
M - 0 - Shadow View Condominium Association (see page 2)
P - S - Aspen A Condominiums Association (see page 2)
~..,~ ~.
' t Page 2
BLOCK 52
Lot - K - M - Beuttas, Diana & Smith, Christopher -
1540 No. State Parkway, Chicago, I11. 60022
N - 0 - Robert W. Chatmast ~ Wayne J. Harris, Jr.
215 So. Monarch #100, Aspen, Colorado
P 6 Q - Beattie, Robert P. - Box 4580, Aspen, Colorado
R 6 S - Holahan, Wylie - Box 436 - Aspen, Colorado
BLOCK 59
Lot - K ~ L - Anna L. Anderson- Box ,101, Aspen, Colorado
M & N - Sebastian J. Brunga - Sox 966, New Castle, Co. 81647
0 = Q - David and Judith Jones, 12 0 W. Hopkins Ave., Aspen, Co
R & S - Sebastian J. •Brunga - Box 966, New Castle, Co. 81647
BLOCK 60 Lota 0-S (Aspen Townhouses Association)
1 - John K. & Nancy T. Tipton-6477 E. Manor Dr., Englewood, Colo.
80110
~2 - Mary P. Pullen-Lieutenant River, Old Lyme, Ct. 06371
3 - W. Charles & Radine E. Simpson-108 W. Hyman, ~~3, Aspen
4 - Roberta R. Lewis - 167 Bellaire St., Denver, Colo. 80220
6 - Kenneth F. Cross & Kathleen Mortimer- Box 2431, Aspen
8 - George R. & Louise'~Krieger - 33 Frederick Lane, Glendale,
Missouri 63122
9 - Virginia Kraut (Robert Lewis) - 101 West Mall Plaza,
Carnegie, Pa. 15106
BLOCK 61, Lots Q-S (Aspen~West Condominium Association)
1 - Thomas & Carolee Dickerson - Box 11784, Aspen, Colo. 81611
lA--Linda Dimit (Dickersons) - Box 11784, Aspen, Colo. 81611
2 - Avis Badami (Trustee) - Box B-231, Tahoe City, Calif. 95730
3 - F. Michael Clement - Box 2960, Aspen, Colo. -81611
4 - Anna Cooke - Box 9431, Aspen, Colo. 81611
5 - Anita L. Colony - Box 3174, Aspen, Colo. 81611
BLOCK 45, Lts. M - 0 (Shadow View Condominium Association).
A - Sue Mitchell Crowley-409 S. Greenwood Avenue, Columbia,
Missouri 65201
B - John Stoddard -,Box 2408, Aspen, Colorado 81611
C - Priscilla C. Harper - Box 10906, Aspen, Colorado 81611
D - John S. Poppell (Wick, Dorothy).- Box 3463, Aspen, Colo. 81611
BLOCK 45, Lots P-S (Aspen "A" Condominiums)
1 - Richard D. Osur - 199 Palmerston Road, Rochester, New York
14618
2 - Phyllis Bergen - Box 2409, Aspen, Colorado 81611
~. .-~,
\,/ 4,.f
BLOCK 46
Lot - A & B - Thomas R. and Janice Finley - 333 W. Hopkins
C & D - Barbara Lynn and Thomas Campion - P.O. Box 528,
Ketchum, Idaho 83340
E, F. & I. - Merrill Ford, 360 Mary Street,
Grosse Pointe Farms, Michigan 48236
K - M - Michael & Susan Behrendt - Box 46, 334 W. Hyman
N & 0 - H. Michael Behrendt - Box 46, 334 W. Hyman
P & Q - Genevieve Birlauf (Mrs. Joseph Leininger)
963 Wing Avenue, Palo Alto, Calif. 94303
R & S - W. M. Properties, Ltd., William and Pamela Smith
Box 2765, Aspen, Colorado.
BLOCK 47 (Does not exist as lots)
Part F & I - Fred 0. Lane, P. 0. Box 597, Aspen, Colorado
BLOCK 53
Lot - A - C - James E. Moore - Box 707, Aspen, Colorado
D & E - Robert F. Robert J. Appleton - Box 712, Aspen, Colo.
F & G - Howard A. Vaughn, Jr. - Box 367, Hebron, I11. 60034
H & I - Mary Emma Dean, 343 Dexter St., Denver, Co. 80220
K - N - John & Wilhemina Eymere - 232 W. Hyman, Aspen
0 & P - Ruth Humphreys Brown - Box A, Carbondale, Colo. 81623
Q - Phillipe and Susan Menu - Box 2239, Aspen, Colorado
BLOCK 54 (Ice Garden)
Lot - K - 0 - Carol F. Stevens - Box 1147, Aspen, Colorado
P & Q - Margaret Stevens - Box 1147, Aspen, Colorado
R & S - Jayne W. Smith - Box 2176, Aspen, Colorado
BLOCK 60
Lot - A & Bw - Margaret Bonar Day - Box 923, Aspen, Colorado
Be - G - Holiday House of Aspen, c/o Aspen Holiday, Inc.,
Box 634, Aspen, Colorado
H - N. A. and Lena Prechtl - Box 593, Aspen, Colorado
I - N - Cottonwood Condominiums, c/o Edwin Baker
3202 South Magnolia, Denver, Colo. 80222
0 - S _ Aspen Townhouses Association
BLOCK 61
Lot - A & B - Mary C. Johnston, Box 926, Aspen, Colorado
C - G - Wm. D. & Margaret Snare, 300 Clermont St., Denver 80220
H - I - Inez Marshall Zordel, Box 74, Aspen, Colorado
K - 0 - Peter Mocklin, Box 807, Aspen, Colorado
P - Peter Mocklin - Box 807, Aspen, Colorado
Q - S - Aspen West Condominium Association
BLOCK 45
Lot - K & L - Ted V. & Silvia H. Brown, 230 Bunker Hill Rd.
Houston, Texas 77024
L & N - Shadow View Condominium Association
0 - S - Aspen A Condominiums Association
,.~, -~.
w,.s ....
BLOCK 52
Lot - K - M - Beuttas, Diana & Smith, Christopher -
1540 No. State Parkway, Chicago, I11. 60022
N - 0 - Robert W. Chatmast & Wayne J. Harris, Jr.
215 So. Monarch ~p100, Aspen, Colorado
P & Q - Bealtie, Robert P. - Box 4580, Aspen, Colorado
R & S - Holahan, Wylie - Box 436 - Aspen, Colorado
BLOCK 59
Lot - K & L - Anna L. Anderson- Box 101, Aspen, Colorado
M & N - Sebastian J. Brungs - Box 966, New Castle, Co. 81647
0 - Q - David and Judith Jones, 120 W. Hopkins Ave., Aspen, Co.
R & S - Sebastian J. Brungs - Box 966, New Castle, Co. 81647
..
~/~, ~ ~
/c~ ~.<Cc,~,
`- ~
~ i~ ~
~~~
. f 1~~~ ~
.~
~~
Gum ~~.
(~ S
December 6, 1977
To: Sheryl Simmen
From: Phyllis Kenny
Mary McCarten telephoned today. She
is an owner of the Coachliqht across
the street from the Ice Palace.
She stated that she supports and stands
behind the rink and also stated she thought
a plan should be incorporated for a
recreation program at the rink.
Vim" / ~~~' ,.~
i.r
WEST SIDE IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION
701 North Third Street
Aspen, Colorado, 81611
~-•~,
.~~
December 1, 1977
To: The Chairman for the Record
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Aspen
Aspen, Colorado 81611
The West Side Improvement Association, which includes
property owners in R-15 and R-6 zones, .some of whom live
in the immediate vicinity of the Aspen Ice Garden, opposes
the proposed inclusion of assembly halls as a conditional.
use in R-15 and R-6 residential neighborhoods. ;,
First, while we are sympathetic to the need for a large
.auditorium in Aspen for benefits, rock concerts and the
like, we feel such an auditorium 'in an otherwise quiet
residential zone is entirely inappropriate on even a
temporary basis. We support the.citv's ongoing effort to
develop a performing arts center in an appropriate
location but cannot support this makeshift and unsatis-
factory_compromise.
Second,, concerts and benefits would bring•an intolerable
quantity of cars and people into~an area the city itself
has designated a quiet residential neighborhood and an
area that.is in no way equipped to deal with such crowds.
Third, making assembly halls a conditional use in R-15 and
R-6 would weaken the zoning code as a whole, make the
code vulnerable to further assaults, set a very dangerous
precedent, and contradict .the intent of R-15 and R-6
zoning which is to reserve certain areas of the city for
residential. use and prevent commercial incursions. For
these reasons, we request that the Planning and Zoning
Commission reject this proposal.
Respectfully,
Board of Directors,
West Side Improvement Association
,xrs s t
M E M O R A N D U M
T0: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Bill Kane, Planning Office
RE: Public Hearing of December 6, 1977 to Consider the Amendment of
the R-15 and R-6 Zoning Districts to Include Assembly Halls as
Conditional Use
DATE: December 1, 1977
At your November 1, 1977 meeting, the Board decided to recommend to City
Council that the zoning code be amended to allow assembly halls as
Conditional Uses in the R-6 and R-15 zoning districts in the City. This
was a follow-up in response to a former request fora rezoning of the
Aspen Ice Garden to go from R-15 to C-1 Commercial for the purpose of
allowing eight (8) rock concerts per year. At that meeting, you were
presented with many citizens supporting the application because of
community benefits accruing to the community school and other voluntary
organizations who would be able to participate in the returns from the
conduct of such activities. Also, evidence was presented by the owners
of the Ice Garden suggesting that with current economic conditions, the
facility was losing money and it did not have a bright outlook for its
continued operation. Taking much of this information into consideration,
you decided to: 1) deny the zoning application; but 2) ask the planning
staff to present alternative ways within which the zoning code could be
amended to consider the rock concerts at that facility. As you know,
we have recommended against these activities at that site for some time;
but given the board's clear desire to accommodate the request, we
pointed out the three options of: 1) conditional use; 2) use determination;
and 3) permitted use by right as alternative ways to accommodate the
request. At the Novmeber 1st meeting, the Board determined to amend the
Code to allow assembly halls as conditional uses and then conduct a
specific conditional use hearing on the rock concert request and in that
setting you would be able to set certain requirements to include: parking,
hours of operation, maintenance, police protection, etc. etc.
Upon a close examination of the Zoning Code, it has been made clear to
us that the request envisioned, does require a public hearing before
the P&Z before such a recommendation can be made. Under Article 10 of
the City Zoning Code, hearing requirements are clearly spelled out; and
the specific requirement for your hearing is set forth in Section
24-11.3 c. In accordance with that Section, your meeting of December
6th has been set aside as an official hearing date to consider public
input and make a recommendation to Council on the proposed amendment.
To refresh your memories and bring you totally up-to-date on the application,
I am including three key memos that relate the history of -the request:
one of August 4, 1977 to the Aspen City Council; one of October 13, 1977 to
the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission; and the most recent one of
October 24, 1977 to the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission. I think in
these memos, you will find the thread of history which relates the original
request made to Council on through the various meetings before P&Z.
In making a recommendation on this amendment to the Code, we would
recommend that the Planning and Zoning Commission be somewhat specific
with the applicants and indicate, in general, how many concerts per/year
and what hours of operation you would anticipate approving in a conditional
use hearing. I think a flat amendment to the Code without specific
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Page Two
December 1, 1977
indication of concern for the concerts envisioned would be something we
could not support and we would recommend the amendment subject to specific
conditions on number per/year and specific limitations on hours of
operation. It is our general conclusion, that eight (8) concerts per/
year evenly distributed throughout the year represents a very intensive
use of this site and we recommend against such a heavy use. In addition,
the application is worsened substantially by the fact that the applicant
intends to cluster most of these concerts during the winter months creating
a situation whereby you may actually be entertaining as many as two con-
certs per/month in that area. It is our opinion, that if concerts are
conducted on an infrequent basis, and are clearly conducted for community
benefit and for the perpetuation of the Ice Garden, then there is some
basis for them taking place; if on an irregular and unscheduled basis
and again on an infrequent basis. We recommend against a committment
to eight (8) per/year and sugges± that the applicants come back with some
clear reasoning as to what number of concerts would be necessary to
support the financial viability of the Ice Garden and provide reasonable
on-going support to community organizations. In general, we do not believe
it's a reasonable alternative to support community volunteer organizations
with a compromise to land-use regulations and planning goals.
lmk
enc.
cc: City Council
.y~.
3
~-
~-
n{~
J
N
1
~m
l _~o
n
,n
~ rK ~'~
1
1 ~~" I
I
1~
'~ ,~ /
LJ K
~ VI
~^ ~ YT '
til ~ ~-,-.,-.
CS la
~1S q 2! I H1.
~ EY" TI
Cy~ rt
(a .::.
t
i 1~ ~ d i
`~ ~'
v - L
i
~~ ~-.-.
_ __ ~ r
i, ~ " ,
a ~
C i
pn
I'
-,
I
_.__.._
- r
-it
1
b~
1,. i
}'
C
U
~J
z:
~,
C
1
[r C -.
jo t ,
r
~, ;~ f ,:
~ ~,, -
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
~ ti ... ~ C
,
~~
~
~ Q -:
p ~
( 1-~
~
/0 ~.. ~~ ~1
/,
- I YY
..
~, ~4 ..~ - ,-
,.
._
:~
l'.. ~~ ~ li ~ J c
~ ~H
~~~!!! ti 1)
I
UI . ', ~
f r~
T g-.
~ ,
,
b
~ ~ -.~
~ ~
v_
G~ o
W o
~ `
~ ~ ~
;
~ _---
nm
~ ~ ~,
, N
j
(~ ~ ~ -v 1->
`~ ~ i - I~r_
~ ~
m
' -~o ~ -s-t
.
~~
-- A -
-.-.,
--
c =
_
~ ~'v
__
v ~ _~
;" ` I
t . T-
r7 ~ C~ 4J
~ • I V~
•-'J{~~ ~vl~
i, r ~ r
~
° :_~-
.
~, ~
~o _ -----
~ N~~;
>~,-
b ~ ~
~
v ~;
1
~~ 1
o:
~ '~ m ~ ~
~.
,1 w '
~ e`
O Q
~
~
;;
- ~r
m ~, Y~ ~,
o ,
Y Cr y
O ~'~ U
~~LI
-. . 1~ t+~
~3av.is ~}siw bl~b1~
c
(~
I i
It's
-~ i
~o
N
r
---- -
~n
`~
(~ry ,•
VI „
__
1•
~ --~ -
k..
S a•~
p7 ~<
~_.. _
I O
I
.`.
u.~
m -
~.1. .