HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.Wagner View Plane.1974.~ •
RECORD 0~ PROCE[DINGS 100 Leaves
rosa •: e. r. r~~.rcxn e. e. a r. ee.
ORDINANCE N0. ~`~
(Series of 1 IF
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 24-9 (h) OF TIIE MUNICIPAL CODE;
ESTABLISHING Tllls WAGNER PAP~K, COOPER AVENUE,. COURT HOUSE,
WIIEELI'sP. OPERA HOUSE ANll MAIN STREET VIEW PLANES; AND REQUIP.ING,
IN CERTAIN AREAS P.FFECTED BY T11L' VIEW PLANES, DEVELOPMENT UNDER.
SECTION 24_10.1, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
WH1iREAS, the Aspen City Council earlier this year enacted
Section 24-9 (h) of the Municipal Code entitled "Mountain view
height limi.tat-ions", and, in so doing,-began the designation
of_ view planes within the City of Aspen, and
WIIERF,AS, the City Council wishes to create additional view
plane:: and provide, on certain lands affected by said view planes,
for development under Section 24-10.1, PUD Planned Unit Develop-
ment so as to provide maximum flexibility in building design
and variations in height, lot area, lot width, and yard require-
meats,
NOW, TI-'sP.EFORE, BE I'1' OP.DAINED BY TITS CITY COUNCIL OF T11E
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1.
That the Punicipal Code of tl-~e City of Aspen, Colorado, is
hereby amended by adding a new subjection 24-9 (h) (4) (b)
which said subsection reads as follows;
"(b) Wagner Park View Plane. There is hereby established a
view plane originating in the North Central part of Wagner
Park above which plane no land use or building shall project.
The reference point bears N 58° 03` 11" E 198.65 feet from
the Northwesterly cornar of Block 83 Or.i~inal Aspen Tocansite;
el.cvation of the reference point is 7921.93 feet above mean
' sea Level. The vic;a plane consists of a sector component
more.,ar.ti_cularly clescr.i.bed as follows;
.~- .
~. ,
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
fORM V C. f. Nn[C Rit • ~ 1. C _ ~~_
All that space which is within the projection of a sector
of 9 degrees 46'.18" and above a plane which passes through
the reference point described by two radial lines which bear
S 36 degrees OS' 49" E and S 45 degrees 52' 07" E respectively
from the reference point, at an inclination of 3 degrees 39' 10"
above the horizontal."
Co nt-i nn 7.
That the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby
amended by adding a new subsection 24-9 (h) (4) (c) which said
subsection reads as follows:
"(c) Cooper Avenue View Plane. There is hereby established a
view plane originating on the Northerly side of Cooper Avenue
Easterly of Galena Street above which plane no land use or
building shall project. The reference point bears N 75 degrees
41' S2" E 147.78 feet from the Northwesterly property corner
of Block 96 Original Aspen Townsite, an aluminum cap Located
in the sidewalk. Elevation of the reference point is 7922.91
feet above mean sea level. The view plane consists of spatial
components more particularly described as follows:
All that space which is within the projection of a section of
48 degrees 00' 00" described by two radial lines which bear
S 11 degrees 41' 08" E and S 36 degrees 18' 52" W respectively
from the reference point, and above a plane which passes through
the reference point at an inclination of 6 degrees 20' OS"
above the horizontal."
Section 3.
That the 1wlunicipal Codc of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby
amended by adding a new subsection 24-9 (h) (4) (d) which said
subsection reads as follows:
' "(d) Court house View Planes. There are hereby established two
(2) view plnncs originating front the sidewalk on the Northerly
side of Main Street. L:astcrly of Galena Street above which
p]+inc:, no land ucc or. building :hcill l,~rojc~ct.
(2)
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
ran. a c. r..aecn u. e. e. n ~ o. '
(1) View plane number one.
The reference point bears S 79 degrees 43' 29" E 69.00 .feet
from the Southwesterly property corner of block 92 Original
Aspen Townsite; a plastic survey cap. Elevation of the
reference point is 7914.52 feet above mean sea level. The
view plane consists. of spatial components more particularly
described as follows:
All that space which i.s within the project of a sector of
27 degrees 48' 40" described by two (2) radial lines which
bear S 16 degrees 59' 48" E and S 10 degrees 58' 52" V7
respectively from the reference point, and above a plane
which passes through the reference point at an inclinal~ion
of 4 degrees 25' above the horizontal.
(2) View plane number two.
The reference point bears S 74 degrees 14' 26" E 131.46
feet from the Southwesterly property corner of block 92,
Original Aspen Townsite. Elevation of the reference point
is 7915.22 feet above mean sea level. The view plane
consists of spatial components more particularly described
as follows:
All that space which i-s within the projection of a sector
of 26 degrees 04' 38" described by two (2) radial lines
which bear S 03 degrees 36' 26" E and S 22 degrees 28' 12" W
respectively from the reference point, and above a plane
which passes through the reference point at an inclination
of 4 degrees 58' 20" above the hor.izontal."
Section 4.
That the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is
hereby amended by adding a new subsection 24-9 (h) (4) (c) which
laid subsection r.cads as follows:
"(e) Whcelcr Opera house Vicw Plane. There is hereby
established a v.i.cw plane or.i_ginating front the Whcelcr Opcr.a
House wcsEcrl}' of. Mill. Strcct above which plane no land use
(3)
~..1
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
ronv u e, r. xo ¢xse e. e. a c.
or building shall project. The Easterly end point of the
base line for the view plane bears S 37 degrees 31' 12" E
8.06 feet from the Southeasterly property corner of Block 81,
Original Aspen Townsite. The reference base line bears N 74
degrees 30' 11" }4 a distance of 140.45 feet from the Easterly
end point of the base line for the vieca plane at an elevation
of 719.38 feet above mean sea level. The view plane consists
of spatial components more particularly described as follows:
All that space which is within the projection of radial
lines from the Easterly and Westerly terminus of the base
line which bear S 30 degrees 21' 11" E and S 66 degrees
08' S9" W respectively and which is above a plane which
passes through the reference point at an inclination of 2
degrees 50' 38" above horizontal."
S~c`ion S_
That the P;unicipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is
hereby amended by adding a new subsection 24-9 (h) (4) (f) which
said subsection reads as follows:
(4)
if
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
IORM N C. I. MOI!Y[l R, B. f 1. C'J.
"(f) Main Street View Plane. There is hereby established a
view plane originating from Main Street above which plane
no land use or building shall project, The reference point
bears N 78° 22' 29" W 92.35 feet from the Southeasterly
property corner of Block 79 Original Aspen Townsite, The
reference base line bears N 75° 09' 11"td 51,40 feet from
the reference point. Elevation of the reference point and
reference base line is 7909.10 feet above mean sea level,
The view plane consists ot- two radial components more
particularly described as follows:
All that space which is within the projection of two radial
lines which bear S 29° 10' 06" E from the reference point,
and S 80° 29' 29" W from the Westerly terminus of_ the
reference base line, and which is also above a plane which
passes through the reference base line at an angle of
inclination of 6° 29' 20" above horizontal."
Section 6.
That the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is
hereby amended by adding a new section 24-9 (h) (5) which said
section reads as follows:
"(5) When any view plane hereinabove established projects
at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum allowable
building height to below that otherwise provided for in this
Code, all development of areas so affected shall proceed
according to the provisions of Section 24_10.1, et, seq,,
PUD Planned Unit Devc].opment, so as to afford maximum
flexibility in builclin~; design with special consideration
to build ink; bulk and hci.ght, open and pedestrian space,
(5)
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
ranx a c. r. x~ccxcc e. a. n i. co.
and similarly to permit variations in lot area, lot
width, yard and building height requirements, including
view plane height limitations. Provided, however, the
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission may exempt any
applicant from the requirements of Section 24-10.1
when any proposed develol;ment satisfies the building
design requirements above enumerated."
Section 7.
If any provisions of this ordinance or the application
thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such
invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applicatienB
of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid
provisions or applications, and to this end the provisions or
applications of this ordinance are declared to be severable.
Section 8.
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the
a25' day of ~~7 CLcc_(~J 1974, at 5 P.M. in the City
Council Chambers, City Hall Building, Aspen, Colorado.
INTRODUCED, READ AND 012DERED PiJBI,1SIIED as provided by law
by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at its
regular meeting held at the City of Aspen, Colorado, on the
day of ~~, ~n~~,, ~ 1974. --- ~
"-"`~_ ~:
E~T71:ST~~
J ~ Cit y C 7 ~~ i7 ~~~-`
i
Stacy S1:at~~ IlI /
Mayor. % ~..- //
,~~ ~ ~ ~~t~-L
v
c~
~~
,c"'
~ '~~~,~ ~
~~
1'
.2
3
4
'5
6
7
9,I
10
11
12
13
14
W
$ 15
W
Z-:-16
z~
;o
~` 17
u U
3~ 18
-m
J
a 19i
U i
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
321
ORDINANCE N0. 9386
ADI ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY. OF CARLSEAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
TITLE 21 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE
Ab1ENDMENT OF SECTION 21.06.010 AND. BY
THE ADDITION OF CHAPTER 21.40 TO ESTAB-
LISH THE S-P SCENIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY _
ZONE.
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California,
does ordain as follows:
SECTION l: That Title 21, Chapter 21.06 is amended by
the amendment of Section 21.06.010 to read as follows:
"21.06.010 Names of zones. In order to classify, regu-
late, restrict and segregate the uses of land and buildings, to
regulate and restrict the height and bulk of buildings and to
regulate the area of yards and other open spaces about buildings,
and to regulate the density of population, twenty-one classes of
zones are by this title established to be known as.follows:
E-A - Exclusive Agricultural Zone
R-A - Residential Agricultural Zone --
R-1 - One-family Residential Zone
R-2 - Two-family Residential Zone
----- R-3L - Limited Multiple-family Residential Zone
R-3 - Multiple-family Residential Zone
R-P - Residential-Professional Zone
R-T - Residential Tourist Zone
R-W - Residential i4ater Way Zone
RD-D4 - Residential Density-Multiple Zone
C-1 - Neighborhood Commercial Zone
C-2 - General Commercial Zone
C-M - Heavy Commercial-Limited Industrial Zone
F-P - Floodplain Overlay Zone
M - Industrial Zone
0-S - Open Space Zone
P-P4 - Planned Industrial Zone
P-U - Public Utility Zone
P-C - Planned Community Zone
L-C - Limited Control Zone
S-P - Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone"
SECTIOYd 2: That Title 21 of the Municipal Code is amended
by renumbering Chapter 21.40 Signs to Chapter 21.41 Signs and by
the addition of the following as Chapter 21.40:
"Chapter 21.40
S-P SCENIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY ZONE
Sections:
21.40.010
21.40.020
21.40.030
21.40.040
21.40.050
21.40.060
Intent and purpose.
Application.
Permitted uses and structures.
Special use permit required.
Exceptions.
Permit application.
1
2
3
4
'5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
W
zz 16
w=
0
`'= 17
~ 4J
W V
8Q 18
-~
a 19
~ 201
21
22
23
• 24
25
26
27
28
291
301
311
321
21,40,070 Filing fees,
21.40.080 Information to accompany permit application.
21.40,090 Transmittal to Planning Commission.
21.40.100 Planning Commission determination.
21.4.0.110 Development standards.
21.40.120. Conditions.
21.40.130 Announcements of findings and decision by
resolution.
21.40.140 Effective date of order and appeal process.
i 21.40.010 Intent and'aurpose. The intent and purpose of
the S-P Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone is to:
', (a) Supplement the underlying zoning by providing addi- _
tional regulations for development within designated areas to
preserve or enhance outstanding views, flora and geology, or other
unique natural attributes and historical and cultural resources.
(b) Provide regulations in areas which possess outstanding
scenic qualities or would create buffers between incompatible
land uses which enhance the appearance of the environment and
contribute to community pride and community prestige.
(c) To preserve-those areas of the City that provide
unique and special open space functions consistent with the under-
lying permitted use.
(d} .Implement the goals and objectives of the General Plan
21.40.020 ~AppTication. The S-P Scenic Preservation Over-
lay Zone shall be applied in a uniform manner to those areas with-
in the City of Carlsbad which, in the opinion. of the City Council,
are worthy of preservation because of their outstanding views,
flora and geology, or other unique natural attributes and histori-
cal and cultural resources. The boundaries of this zone shall be
established by the procedures designated in Chapter 21.52 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code. Shen only a portion of a parcel of land
lies within the designated scenic overlay, the provisions of this
chapter shall apply only to that portion lying within said scenic
overlay boundaries.
21.40.030 Permitted uses and structures. In the S-P
Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone any prsncipal use, accessory use,
transitional use or conditional use_pexa~~Gted in the underlying
.zone is permitted subject to the same conditions and restructions
applicable in such underlying lone and to all of the requirements
of this chapter and to the development standards provided in
Chapters 21.41 and 21.44. ,
21.40.040 Special use permit required. Unless specifi-
cally exempted from the permit requirement pursuant to Section
21.40.050, no permit or other entitlement shall issue for any use
permitted by Section 21.40.030 nor shall any such use be estab-
lished until a special use permit therefor has been issued pursuant
to this chapter.
21.40.050 Exceptions. The following uses are excepted
from the 'special use permit requirements:
(a) Development of one single-family dwelling unit on a
parcel of record at the time of adoption of this chapter.
(b) Minor modification or alteration of existing struc-
tures or buildings which involves new land coverage of less than
two hundred square feet and does not increase the height of the
existing structure.
(c) The repair or reconstruction of an existing noncon-
forming structure that is destroyed by fire or other disaster to
y
2.
.~ ~
1
2
3.1
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0l
11'
12
13
14
' ~ 15
;z¢_ 16
•~u
" 17
'~a
W U .
!~a 18
7 ' N
~ U 19
201
211
22
23 it
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31.
no more than fifty percent of the structure's original value.
21.'40.'060 Permit' application. The Planning Director
shall pr ascribe the form for special use permit applications and
may pre:-cribe the type of information to be submitted. too appli-
cation shall be accepted unless it complies with such requirements.
The application after_ payment of the required fee shall be piled
with the Planning Director. -
21.40.070Fil'ing,fees,
use oermit shall be as the City
lish.
'The filing-fees for a special
Council may by resolution estab-
21.40".080 Information to accompany permit' application.
An application for a special use permit shall be accompanied by '
five copies of the following, except as otherwise specified:
(a) Plot plan of the property involved, showing proposed
grading, structure(s) or use;
(b) Legal description of the property involved;
(c) Description. of the proposed use of the property unless
such can be sufficiently described on the application form;
(d) Environmental Impact Assessment (one copy only);
(e) Environmental Impact Report {twenty .copies) if re-_
quired; and ~ '
(f) Any other maps, plans, information and data that the
Planning Director may deem appropriate. '
21.40.090 Transmittal to the Planning Commission. The
Planning Director shall transmit the application for a special
use permit, together ~•7ith his recommendation thereon, to the
Planning Commission when all necessary reports and processing have
been completed. When an application is relative to another dis-
cretionary permit, it may be considered by the Planning Commission
concurrent with their consideration of the discretionary permit.
The Planning Director shall notify the .applicant of the date and
place at which the Commission will consider the matter at least
seven days prior to such consideration.
21.40.100 Planning Commission determination: The Plannin
Commission shall not issue a special use permit unless-they deter-
mine that the permit is consistent with the purposes of this
chapter and all applicable General and Specific Plans, and that
it will not adversely affect the scenic, historical or cultural
qualities of the property. In exercising their discretion in
making such determinations the Commission may impose specific
development standards in accord with Section 21.40.110 and shall
consider the following factors:
(a) When the S-P Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone is
applied to protect something worth looking at, i.e., a landmark,
a civic center, a mountain, or an area bounding the main entrance
to the city, the development standards of the proposed use should
deal with preserving the integrity of that amenity.
(b) ~•7hen the S-P Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone is
applied to .an area from which there is an outstanding view, i.e.r
a scenic corridor, the development standards of the proposed use
should deal with maintaining those views as much as possible.
(c) Special consideration should be given to preserving
the following:
(1) Hillsides, hilltops, valleys, beaches, lagoons
and lakes that provide visual and physical relief in the form of
natural contrast to the City.
3211
3.
~ _
(2) Open space areas which assist in
boyhood, district and City .identity.
(3) Unique topograrhical features or
outcroppings and other .notable landmar};s.
defining neigh-
natural rock
(4) Areas of significant historical value.
(S) ,Prime vista sites. •
(6) Scenic an3 historical corridors.
'5
6
7
8
W
~a
:z
W C
LL
J
u~iU
~<
-m
J
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
i71
18
i9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
21.40.110 Development standards. Specific development •
standards may be applaed to areas within the S-P Scenic Preserva-
tion Overlay Zona by Specific Plan or as part of a special use
permit. Such standards shall control notwithstanding the provi-
sions of the underlying zone and may:.include-but are not limited t
the following:
•(a) Sign control - restrictions on size, content, design
and location.
(b) Underground utilities - requiring the undergrounding
of utilities when said action is necessary to carry out the intent
and purpose of this chapter.
(c) Landscaping - prescribing landscaping requirements.
.and review of plans.
(d) Architectural treatment - establishing acceptable
architectural motifs and review of plans.
(e) Setbacks - establishment of deeper setbacks when
necessary to maintain scenic corridor.
(f) Side yards - establishment of wider side yards when
providing views through the property.
(g) Height limitations - reducing maximum height limits
in order to maximize views from beyond.
(h) Building bulk - restrictions on maximum bulk•of build-
ings to break up solid facade.
(i) Spacing of buildings - requiring off-set spacing of
.buildings to.maximize a prime vista point..
(j) Other conditions - any other regulation or condition
necessary to protect the scenic resources of the community consis-
tent with the purposes of this chapter.
21.40.120 Conditions. The Planning Commission or City
Council, on appeal may impose such conditions on the applicant
and the permit. as are determined necessary consistent with the
provisions of this chapter..
21.40.130 Announcements of findings and decision b reso-
lution. Not more than twenty days following the termination of
the proceedings on a special use permit, the `Planning Commission
shall announce its findings and decision by formal resolution, and
the resolution shall-recite, among other things, the facts and
reasons which, in the opinion of the Planning Commission, make
the approval, conditional approval or denial of the special use
permit necessary to carry out the provisions and general purpose
of this chapter, and shall order that the special use permit be
granted or denied, and if such resolution orders that the special
use permit be granted, it shall also recite such conditions and
limitations as the Commission may .impose.
21.40.140 Effective date of order and appeal process. The
order of the Planning Commission in granting or denying a special
use permit shall become final and effective ten days after the
rendering of its decision granting or denying the special use
permit unless within such ten-day period .an appeal in writing is
filed with the City Clerk by either an applicant o7• an opponent.
The filing of such appeal within such time limit shall stay the
effective date of the order.of the Planning Commission until such
4.
r
11~
2I
3
4 ~~
5
6'I
7
8
91
10 ''
~11,
1211
13'
14'
8 15
~z -16
z¢
~o
`~ 17
W U
~Q 18
_o
J
a 19
20
21
22
23
• 24
25
26
27
28
29
3OI
31
X321
tir~eas the City Council has acted on the appeal as specified by
Section;. 21.50.110, 21.50.].20, 21.50.130, 21,SO.I40, 21.50:150
and 21.50.160 of this title. In making its decision on any such
appeal the City.Council°shall be guided by the provisions of
Section 21.31.100."
EFFECTIVE DA^i%: This ordinance shall be e~fective thirty
days after its adoption, and.the City Clerk shall certify to the
adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at least
once in the Carlsbad Journal within fifteen days after its adop-
tion. adjourned
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a n/ regular meeting of
the Carlsbad City Council held on the 26th day of March 1974,
and thereafter PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting .
of said City Council held on the 2nd day of April , 1974,
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Councilman Frazee, McComas and Lewis.
NOES: None
----ABSENT: None
ABSTAINED: Councilman Chase , ~''
(Yr~~i! ~ . ~C -2
-, ROBERT C. FRAZEE Mayor
ATTEST:
~'
~.F/2~i
MA~GA T E. ADAt4S City Clerk
(SEAL)
s
5.
`• ,
~ /9 ~~
~~.ri ,iZll ~ ~~ ~~J
~~~ ~~
~J ~ ~~~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~
;j~C~/, ~ .ems , ~~~
~ ~ ~
~~ `-
~ _ ~~ ~ ~
,~
~ -- ~~
~ .
~~-~ C~x~~~~
~,, /~yn may//. ~ ~c ~ a ,~ /~ ~
~ ~~ ~ ~~~~
,~ ,~! ~ ~ 0
~ ~ ~~
~~ ~ ,
~P /3-
~. _.._ r
THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
RECOMMENDING ESTABLISHING VIEW PLANES FROM WAGNER PARK,
COOPER AVENUE (BETWEEN GALENA AND HUNTER), THE WHEELER
OPERA HOUSE, AND THE COURTHOUSE; RECOMMENDING P,U,D,,
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, IN AREAS WHERE THE PERMISSIBLE
HEIGHT IS AFFECTED BY THE VIEW PLANES ESTABLISHED UNDER
SECTION 24-9(h); AND FURTHER RECOMMENDING THAT BEFORE
SUCH VIEW PLANES ORDINANCES ARE ENACTED BY THE CITY COUN-
CIL IT THOROUGHLY EXAMINE THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH
ACTION AND POSSIBILITY OF COMPENSATION THAT MAY BE RE-
QUIRED BY ESTABLISHMENT OF VIEW CORRIDORS WITHIN THE CITY
OF ASPEN,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
undertakes continuing review of the City of Aspen Zoning
Code in an effort to provide for the orderly growth and
development of the city, and
WHEREAS, views of the surrounding mountains are an
essential quality of Aspen and contribute to the prosperity
and welfare of the city as a resort community, and
WHEREAS, development within the city is threatening
to eliminate desirable mountain views and therefore diminish
the natural heritage of the city, and
WHEREAS, Section 24-9 (h) of the Aspen Municipal Code
authorizes the establishment of view planes needed to pro_
tect mountain views from obstruction, and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has
considered all arguments both for and against the establish-
ment of Wagner Park, Cooper Avenue (between Galena and Hunter),
the Wheeler Opera House and the Courthouse concludes that
said view planes are in accordance with the intent of Section
24-9 (h) of the Aspen Municipal Code and are necessary to
protect those specific mountain views from obstruction, and
WHEREAS, the Commission is apprised that the concept of
view planes is one new both to the planning and legal profession
and there exists unanswered questions as to whether the establish_
went of a view plane may, in some instances, be considered a
"taking"; and the Commission wishes to temper its recommenda-
tions to the City Council with a request that the Council
direct the city attorney, before adoption by ordinance, to
investigate all the legal consequences to the city, of such
action,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council
establish the following view planes:
1, Wagner Park view plane originating in the North Central
part of Wagner Park above which plane no land use or building
shall project, The reference point bears N 58°03'11" E 198.65
feet from the Northwesterly corner of Block 83 Original Aspen
Townsite; elevation of the reference point is 7921.93 feet
above mean sea level. The view plane consists of a sector
component more particularly described as follows:
All that space which is within the projection of a sector
of 9°46'18" and above a plane which passes through the
reference point described by two radial lines which bear
S 36°05'49" E and S 45°52'07" E respectively from the
reference point, at an inclination of 3°39'10" above the
horizontal.
2, Courthouse view planes originating from the sidewalk on
the Northerly side of Main Street Easterly of Galena Street
above which planes no land use or building shall project.
View plane number one.
The reference point bears S 79°43'29" E 69.00 feet from
the Southwesterly property corner of block 92 Original
Aspen Townsite; a plastic survey cap, Elevation of the
reference point is 7914.52 feet above mean sea level.
The view plane consists of spatial components more par_
ticularly described as follows;
(2 )
All that space which is within the project of a
sector of 27°48'40" described by two (2) radial
lines which bear S 16°59'48" E and S 10°58'52" W
respectively from the reference point, and above a
plane which passes through the reference point at
an inclination of 4°25' above the horizontal.
View plane number two.
The reference point bears S 74°14' 26" E 131.46 feet
from the Southwesterly property corner of block 92,
Original Aspen Townsite. Elevation of the reference
point is 7915.22 feet above mean sea level. The view
plane consists of spatial components more particularly
described as follows:
All that space which is within the projection of a
sector of 26°04'38" described by two (2) radial lines
which bear S 03° 36' 26" E and S 22° 28' 12" W respec-
tively from the reference point, and above a plane
which passes through the reference point at an inclina-
tion of 4°48'20" above the horizontal.
3. Wheeler Opera House view plane originating from the
Wheeler Opera House westerly of Mill Street above which
plane no land use or building shall project. The Easterly
end point of the base line for the view plane bears 5 37°31'12"
E 8.06 feet from the Southeasterly property corner of Block 81,
Original Aspen Townsite. The reference base line bears
N 74°30'11" W a distance of 140.45 feet from the Easterly end
point of the base line for the view plane at an elevation of
7919.38 feet above mean sea level. The view plane consists
of spatial components more particularly described as follows:
All that space which. is within the projection of radial
lines from the Easterly and Westerly terminus of the base
line which bear S 30°21'11" E and S 66°08'59" W respec-
(3)
tively and which is above a plane which passes through
the reference point at an inclination of 2°50'38" above
horizontal.
4. Cooper Avenue view plane originating on the Northerly side
of Cooper Avenue Easterly of Galena Street above which plane
no land use or building shall project. The reference point
bears N 75°41'52" E 147.78 feet from the Northwesterly pro-
perty corner of Block 96 Original Aspen Townsite, an aluminum
cap located in the sidewalk. Elevation of the reference point
is 7922.91 feet above mean sea level. The view plane consists
of spatial components more particularly described as follows:
All that space which is within the projection of a
section of 48°00'00" described by two (2) radial lines
which bear S 11°41'08" E and S 36°18'52" W respectively
from the reference point, and above a plane which passes
through the reference point at an inclination of 6°20'05"
above the horizontal.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends that the Municipal Code of the City of
Aspen, Colorado, be amended by adding a new section 24-9 (h)(5)
which such section shall read as follows:
"(5) When any view plane hereinabove established projects
at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum allow-
able building height to below that otherwise provided
for in this Code, all development of areas so affected
shall proceed according to the provisions of Section
24-10,1, et, seq., PUD Planned Unit Development, so
as to afford maximum flexibility in building design
with special consideration to building bulk and
height, open and pedestrian space, and similarly
to permit variations in lot area, lot width, yard
and building height requirements, including view
(3)
plane height limitations, Provided, however, the
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission may exempt any
applicant from the requirements of Section 24_10.1
when any proposed development satisfies the building
design requirements above enumerated."
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Aspen City Council request
of the city attorney a full summary of the legal principles
involved and a recommendation from the city attorney as to
validity of the establishment of the view plane, and consider
such summary and recommendation prior to adoption by ordinance
of the view planes hereinabove enumerated,
Dates this S' day of ~~ , 1974.
A ~
C airman
Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission
1,~ e ..
ORDINANCF. N'0, ~,
.._ _~.._
(Seri_es of 1973)
AN ORDINANCE Ab1ENDING SECTION 24-9 OF CHAPTER 24 OF THE h1UNICIPAL
CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, BY THE ADllITION OF SUBSECTION
(h) RESTRICTING HEIGiITS OF STRUCTURES VdITHIN AREAS NECESSARY TO
PRESERVE MO}JNTAIN VIE1'~S.
W}iEREAS, the city council has determined that to preserve
certain mountain views will promote the health and general welfare
of the residents of the City of Aspen and conserve the value of
property therein;
AND WHEREAS, the preservation of mountain views from parks
and other public places within the city will increase the beauty
of the City of Aspen and the enjoyment of its residents, will
strengthen the city's environmental heritage, enhance its attrac-
tiveness to tourists, will maintain property values, and generally
promote t}ie prosperity and welfare of the community;
AP:D R`IIF:REAS, the city council has found that specific height
limitations shall be established in designated areas of the City
of Aspen to prevent the obstruction of mountain views;
NOIV THEREFCP.E, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY CO UNC'IL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1.
Section 24-9 of the Diunicipal Code of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, i,~hich section is entitled "Supplementary Regulations,"
i.s hereby amended by the addition of subsection (h) which new
subsection shaJ_I read as follows:
,,
,_,
~.
"(h) Mountain View Ileight Limitations - Intention - To protect
from obstruction mountain views from designated parks and other
public places to increase the beauty of Aspen and the enjoyment
of its residents and visitors, to strengthen the city's environ-
mental heritage, enhance its tourist industry and maintain property
values, promote the general prosperity and welfare of the community.
(1) No land shall be used and no building shall be erected,
constructed, altered or changed so as to invade any area
designated as an area necessary for the preservation of any
mountain view,
(2) Aihenever any use or building lies partially within
and partially without an area designated as an area neces-
sary for the preservation of any mountain view, the
restrictions of this subsection shall apply,
(3) The commission of any act prohibited by this sub-
section slxall constitute a violation of Chapter 24 of this
Code and remedies provided therein may be had by any person
aggrieved by any violation of this subsection.
(4) All elevations used herein are based on the United
States Geologic Survey (USGS) benchmark located in the
southwesterly corner of the Pitkin County Courthouse
Foundation at an elevation of 7,909.00 feet above mean
sea level.
a. Glory Hole Park View Plane. There is hereby
established a view plane originating from Glory Hole
Park above ~+~hich plane no land use or building shall
project. The reference point bears N 19° 06' 00" W
a distance of 919.85 feet from Corner 1 of the Aspen
Townsite, a 1954 I3LD1 brass cap; the reference base
line bears N 55° 04' OS" E a distance of 73.00 feet
from the reference point. Elevation of the reference
point and reference base line is 7949.75 feet above
sea level. 1'he view plane consists of tivo spatial
(2)
a. ~. ..
components more particularly described as follows:
1. All that space which is tivit}xi.n the projection
of a sector of 9° 54' 00" described by two radial
lines which bear S 44° 49" 55" E and S 34° 55' S5"
E respectively from the reference point, and which
is also above the view plane which passes through
tlxe reference base line at an inclination of 3°
30' above horizontal.
Z. All that area which is within the projection
of the following described perimeter and which
is also above the view plane which passes through
the reference base line at an inclination of
3° 30' above horizontal, The perimeter is more
fully described as follows: Beginning at the
reference point: thence N 55° 04' 05" E a dis-
tance of 73.00 feet along the reference base line;
thence S 34° 55' S5" E a distance of 418.27 feet
to a point on the northerly radial. line of the view
sector; thence N 44° 49' S5" W along said radial
line a distance of 424.59 feet to the reference
point."
Section 2.
If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof
to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity
slxall not affect other provisions or applications of the ordinance
which can be givAn effect without the invalid provisions or ap-
plications, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are
declared to be severable.
Section 3.
The council finds this ordinance is necessary for the immedi-
ate preservation of. the public welfare and determines that it shal].
take effect immediately upon its final passage ar.d publication
(:5}
,., -«
ti.s ~....
Section 4.
.,.,
...
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held at
~:'~/_..~; ,7 f' %;;~7~~ at ~~.'.~~% P. M. in the City
i
~'
Council Chambers, City I-Tall Building, Aspen, Colorado.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHEll as provided by law
by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, on this
/~ day of ~/'" .-.t 1973.
ATTEST:
~ ;,~
. ~
,~
__E~~y C'1 e r cT--°
~~/ i'
ayoM r
FINALLY ADOPTED, PASSED AND APPROVED THIS ,-- '`~ day of
~" '' 19 7 3
' ,
~,
% ~/~
,. ; .%%
ayo r j
ATTEST:
_,. ~ /
i
City Clem
,.~ ,~.,
„~ ~...~
STATE OF COLORADO)
ss
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
CERTIFICATE
I, Lorraine Graves, City Clerk of Aspen, Colorado,
do hereby certify that the above and foregoing ordinance was
introduced, read by title, and passed on first reading at a
regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Aspen on
May 14 197_ ~ and published in the Aspen Today ,
a weekly newspaper of general circulation, published in the
City of Aspen, Colorado, in its issue of Dz,~„ l6 197,
7
and was finally adopted and approved at a regular meeting of
the City Council on MaY 29 , 1973 and ordered
published as Ordinance No. 17 , Series of 1973 of
said City, as provided by law.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the
seal of said City of Aspen, Colorado, this
day of May , 197_ 3
29th
f ~~
~_-'Lorraine Graves, ity er
;,liC ~ ;iii il0ii ti .',':1 .. ;; '•; I F~`;iS
G11+1.'~1F~ t'le F;~iJCn P~I:,1n~li Co _ :~~~-~n ~_l~n~,*,~
taken contir~.i,-'{; z c , _r~.w of the. ~ ;., _~ cf P.spen i'o.1i. ,_. C, dF. ;.a
an efSort to prw> ,1~ for- , he c c?erl?; d.:~:at h a,ld dE 'elopr'eni:
of the ci_ry, arul
T..? ~'~T?}il,c y `.'1C:•`~dS O i- t71 E! Slll"1'Olhl(3 ~ I74 ii77ll,td__::S
arm' 211 OSSE.'ii i~19.~. C1Uah t}' OF p.SpC7"7 and COi1tT1_}JL7'`t'. tt_~ ~:'T C
prosperity and w~:lfare of the city as a resort coi;om~?.litcT,
aliil
}~Hi'.PI;AS, deve1oplr,cnt wi.tllir, the cit}~ 1 s
threatening t0 eliminate d~sirab~e rn~u:;t,.in v_.e:•,s z.n1 t.~e_~
by diminish th nat.ural. her-it~gc~ of isle C1_t_yy
1\0[x', TI}FF:EI~O}:, P}, TT }?EY'.O.T•,~,?FD, that. t}:~.
D 1_drt111ng COnffi'i 7..SS10'il r'8C CII1~IO11dS t~iHt 111:)llT".tal.n V1;''i~?E ~i.'OIIL
na1"}CS and Oti?.C'_r pllbllC p.La:;".i UC. pT':'_Srl_V:'1 bV ;.'SL`_,`±'v}-L~'.I]_n
SpeC1 ~1C V12W pl_aneS i_7"t 4.'!)1C}1 Ob ii i'. 1"LCtiOnS OT l: il< Vi..eW :i t7 ,`; 1. i_
be prchi.bited,
BE IT PUR'i'HER I:FSOLV'EDy ghat i.he Aspcr 'lal~_ning
Ccrnmission here"by "recoa;rnend~ io i:h•~ City Counci7_ arL~ptirn. of
t1iE attacile.d flmErlCtlTi'lll-. tG ~.113ptCr LSD Oil 'l:lle [`.iil'.1C11J3 ~_ GcdC
whi-ch pro•.ri_cl s for es tabl9.sllill ; vies: planes and include:> a
specific viev.= pian~~ f;}r Glory Hole Perk,
j
~> ~
d~Sj)8i1'Y18r1.lllllg ~: 7Gn]_ng GOiCAl7.6S 1_i11
Dated this 1-7th day of ,?lp?-.i.i 19?•
r-
i
a. ~ . ,
P
V
y
W
~o
M
.•n~
R'
d
{~) M
./ Y1
r
Q
,a
TKO/
lr~`
1~
t
3
.` 5
IL t
7 ~
a
~`
~ ~'
~ ~!
r ~~~
~ o
~ ~~
q ~n
V'
X-
r~ t
~ u
n_
~
,
i ~ ~
..~ .
e
~
o
_
y
~~
~
-
~
Q
6
vrY 7 k
~~
3
~~.
-7
~~
~~
t,
41 O~
`1 . ~1 ~
`~, ~ ~ ~~
~' -_~,
~~ ~^
~~
~~1'-~
Yep T~.. .
VIEW CONTROL
DECEMBER, 1971 ADAM KRIVATSY SUBMITTED HIS REPORT
A PROPOSAL FOR AN URBAN DESIGN SUPPLEMENT
TO THE HISTORIC AND ZONING ORDINANCES
MINTUES
P & Z JANUARY 4, 1972 DISCUSSED THE KRIVATSY REPORT
P ~ Z MARCH 22, 1973 REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING APRIL 17, 1973
MOTION TO THAT EFFECT PASSED
P ~ Z APRIL 17, 1973 PUBLIC HEARING RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTION OF THE SPECIFIC VIEW CORRIDOR FOR
GLORY HOLE PARK OF INDEPENDENCE PASS AND A
GENERAL AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE TO ALLOW
FOR THE ESTABLISHING OF VIEW CORRIDORS.
MOTION PASSED
C.C. MAY 14, 1973 ORDINANCE #17 PUBLIC HEARING GLORY HOLE PARK
AND GENERAL PROVISION TO MAKE A PART OF CHAPTER
24 ALLOWING VIEW PLANES OR VIEW CORRIDORS TO
BE ESTABLISHED.
P ~ Z JUNE 19, 1973 PUBLIC HEARING ON RUBEY PARK AND HOTEL JEROME
(MAIN STREET
MOTION PASSED ON MAIN STREET AND TABLED RUBEY
PARK.
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VIEW PLANE ON MAIN ST.
RECOMMENDING TO COUNCIL WAS SUBMITTED.
P & Z JUNE 21, 1973 REVISED SLIDE OF RUBEY PARK OF INDEPENDENCE
PASS WAS PRESENTED, RESOLUTION TO APPROVE
CHANGE, AND RECOMMEND SAME TO THE CITY COUNCIL
AS AMENDED.
MOTION PASSED
C.C. JULY 23, 1973 PUBLIC HEARING HOTEL JEROME (MAIN STREET)
TABLED TO AUGUST 27, 1973
C.C. AUGUST 27, 1973 NOT IN MINUTES OF TABLED PUBLIC HEARING
P & Z NOVEMBER 13, 1973 STUDY SESSION
P & Z DECEMBER 4, 1973 PUBLIC HEARING SET FOR JANUARY 15, 1974
P & Z JANUARY 15, 1974 MOTION TO RECOMMEND VIEW PLANES FROM WAGNER
PARK, COOPER AVENUE, WHEELER OPERA HOUSE,
AND THE COURTHOUSE TO CITY COUNCIL, THE CITY
ATTORNEY TO MAKE AN EXTENSIVE INVESTIGATION
TO RE-AFFIRM HER POSITION ON THE MATTER AND
MAKE THAT PRESENTATION TO THE COUNCIL AT
THE TIME THIS RESOLUTION IS PRESENTED TO THEM.
PUBLIC HEARING
VIEW CONTROL CONTINUED
MINUTES
C.C. MARCH 25, 1974 VIEW PRESERVATION ORDINANCE PUBLIC HEARING
ACCEPTED ALL VIEWS EXCEPTING RUBEY PARK
WHICH IS TO BE READVERTISED FOR APRIL 16, 1974
BY PLANNING AND ZONING.
MARCH 19, 1974 ,
,•"e,
,.~
RUBEY PARK HEARINGS AND MINUTES
PUBLIC HEARINGS JUNE 19, 1973 - PLANNING AND ZONING
JULY 23, 1973 - CITY COUNCIL
MARCH 19, 1974 - PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 16, 1974 - PLANNING AND ZONING
PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES
JUNE 19, 1973 PUBLIC HEARING CMAIN STREET ALSO)
TABLED RUBEY PARK TO REVISE DESCRIPTION
AND SLIDE
JUNE 21, 1973 REVISED SLIDE OF VIEW PLANE, ADOPTED
RESOLUTION, FORWARDED TO COUNCIL
JULY 10, 1973 COMMISSION AGREED TO BRING VIEW PLANE
PROPOSALS BACK TO THE PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION
AUGUST 9, 1973 JIM MORAN PRESENT FOR CURT CHASE
HERB PRESENTED TWO PROPOSALS ON VIEW
PLANES FROM RUBEY PARK - ASPEN MOUNTAIN
AND INDEPENDENCE PASS
INVESTIGATE THE POSSIBILITY OF MAKING
ARRANGEMENT FOR VIEW CONSIDERATION
CRITERIA AFTER ORDINANCE #19 IS NO
LONGER IN EFFECT.
NO PLANNING AND ZONING MOTIONS
FEBRUARY 5, 1974 MOTION TO RECONSIDER RUBEY PARK AND
RESCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING FOR MARCH 19,
1974.
MARCH 19, 1974 PUBLIC HEARING RESCHEDULED TO APRIL 16
COUNCIL MINUTES 1974 DUE TO MISADVERTISEMENT.
JULY 23, 1973 TABLED PUBLIC HEARING TO AUGUST 27, 1973
AUGUST 27, 1973 NO MENTION OF RUBEY PARK VIEW PLANE MADE
CCITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING NEVER HELD
ON RUBEY PARK INDEPENDENCE PASS VIEW
CORRIDOR ALTHOUGH TABLED JULY 23, 1973.)
-,
LEGP:L IQOTICE
Notice is hereby given, the Aspen City Planning and Zoning Coir~tission
sYiall hold a public hearing on January 15, 1974, 5:00 p.m, to consider
an amendment to Chapter 24 Zoning of the Municipal Code, City of Aspen
Supplementary Regulations Mountain View Height Limitations, and to
establish the following view corridors: (1_) Rukr~y park located in
Block 90 Vi_e;a Corridor extending to,-;ard Aspen Mountain; (2) Rube. Par}-
located in Block SO View y
Corridor extending toward Independence Pass;
(3) Glagner Park located in Block 83 Vied Corridcr extending to~,,•ar;l
Independence Pass; (4) Cooper Avenue (bet~acen Galena and Hunter.)
located i.n Bllock 95 Viecv Corridor extending tocaar_d Aspen Mountain;
(5) [•,heeler Opera Mouse located in B1ocY, E). View Corridor extending
toward Aspen mountain; (E) Court House located in BlocY, 92 View
Corridor extending toward Aspen Mountain; (7) Main Street (between
tdill and Monarch) located in Block 79 View Corridor extending toward
Aspen Mountain.
Complete proposal is on file in the office of the City/County Planner
and maybe exaamined by any interested person or persons during office
hours.
/s/ Lorraine Graves
City Clerk
Published in the Aspen Times December 19, 1973
Page 6-D The Aspen4 imes December 20, 7973
~~ :.~,
`~~y'~ _ ~i~e'~d~~
_. ,
W `~yL
'~d~
,,
~,,t<
~~us8
,,_,, ~-_
-~`VIEW~ PRESERVATION MAP ~~
,,. ,
1~
.~
~- ~ r y .T' ~ y'~
~, y _.,-~ ~1~6 ~~, ~." y-~ rte`.
y~yyY' ) ~.~~ iJi~, ~~ ~~' ~~"~ ~ G
fir-' TI _ T~, '~`~-~~ ~-" \ a
-~' _
~ ~yy ~ ~ 1~~z;~,
~~
~ y.Jrl` ` ` ~ '; C ~' ~ 1 ~ J ~~~~ , A
1~.
5~,,)
~ . y ~, ; ,, , ~ ,d ~ ~ ~ '~~
fir`,
,~
,~ ~, `,
~" ~, `~
~` );ti..
/'~ „ + Zoning o[ the Municipal Code, City of As n. toward Independence Pass; l4) Copper
P~ Ily I I~IIC~ Supplementary RegWations Mountain View Avenue (between Galena andHunter)localed
Height Limim[ions and to eslabliah the in Black 95V~ew"'. Corridor extending toward
LEGAL NOTICE [dlowlnQ view corridors: (U Rubey Park Aspen Moantaim, (5) Wheeler Opera House
Notice is hereb rven, the As Cit bcated m Block 90 View Corridor extendmmgg located in Block Bl View Corridor extending
Y H P~ Y toward Aspen Mountain; (2) Rubey Paek toward Aspen Mountain; (8) Court Houae
Planni~ end Zoning Commission shall hold located in Block 90 View Corridor extendmg located in Block 92 View Corridor extendi~
a public hearing on Sanuary 15, 1994, 5:00 p-m. toward lndepeMence Pass (3)Wagner Park toward Aspen Mountain; (7) Main Street
to consider an amendment to Chapter 29 located in Black 83 View Ctorridor extending (between Noll and Monerchl located in Black
`%, .
~ rUE -
,,r .
~~
LEGEND DESCRIPTION:
1. VIEW PLANE BASE LINE
78 View Corridor extending towartl Aspen 2. ARC DESIGNATING A PRESCRIBED
Mounlaim D13TANCE FROM BASE LINE.
Complete proposal is on Eile in the oftice of 0. APPROXIMATE ALLOWABLE HEIGHT
the City-County Planner and may be IN FEET OF NEW CONSTRUCTION. AC-
examinedbyanyinteresled person or persons TUAL ALLOWABLE HEIGHT IS THE
during office hours. VERTICAL DISTANCE FROM EXISTING
Lorraine Graves GRADE TO THE VIEW PLANE.
City Clerk 4. TOTAL WIDTH Oft HORIZONTAL
Published in the Aspen Times December 29, ANGLE OF VIEW PLANE.
1993.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
~. ~. ~~E.~E~ a. ~~.
ORDINANCE N0.
(Series of 197 )
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 29-g (h) OF THE MUNICIPAL
CODE; ESTABLISHING THE WAGNER PARK, COOPER AVENUE, COURT
HOUSE, WHEELER OPERA HOUSE, RUBEY PARK AND MAIN STREET VIEW
PLANES: AND REQUIRING, IN CERTAIN AREAS AFFECTED BY THE
VIEW PLANES, DEVELOPMENT UNDER SECTION 24-10.1, PLANNED UNIT
.DEVELOPMENT.
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council earlier this year
enacted Section 24-9 (h) of the Municipal Code entitled
"Mountain view height limitations", and, in so doing, began
the designation of view planes within the City of Aspen, and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to create additional
view planes and provide, on certain lands affected by said
view planes, for development under Section 24-10.1, PUD
Planned Unit Development so as to provide maximum flexibility
in building design and variations in height, lot area, lot
width, and yard requirements,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY" COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF APSEPd, COLORADO:
Section 1.
That the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado,
is hereby amended by adding a new subsection 24-9 (h) (4)
(b) which said subsection reads as follows:
"(b) Wagner Park View Plane. There is hereby established
a view plane originating in the North Central part of
Wagner Park above which plane no land use or building
shall project. The reference point bears N 58° C3' 11"
E 198.65 feet from the Northwesterly corner of Block
83 Original Aspen Townsite; elevation of the reference
point is 7921.93 feet above mean sea level. The view
plane consists of a sector component more particularly
described as follows:
RECORD OF PROCEEDIFdGS 100 Leaves
nECMEI B. 9. 9 L
All that space which is within the projection of a
sector of 9° 46' 18" and above a plane which passes
through the reference point described by two radial
lines which bear S 36° 05' 49" E and S 45° 52' 07"
E respectively from the reference point, at an
inclination of i° 39' 10" above the horizontal."
Section 2.
That the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado,
is hereby amended by adding a new subsection 24-9 (h) (4) (c)
which said subsection reads as follows:
"(c) Cooper Avenue View Plane. There is hereby
established a vievr plane originating on the Northerly
side of Cooper Avenue Easterly of Galena Street above
which plane no land use or building shall project. The
reference point bears N 75° 41' 52" E 147.78 feet from
the Northwesterly property corner of Block 96 Original
Aspen Townsite, an aluminum cap located in the sidewalk.
Elevation of the reference point is 7922.91 feet above
mean sea level. The view plane ccnsists of spatial
components more particularly described as follows:
All that space which is within the projection of a
section of 48° 00' 00" described by two radial
lines which bear S 11° 41' 08" E and S 36° 18' 52" W
respectively from the reference point, and above a
plane which passes through the reference point at
an inclination of 6° 20' 05" above the horizontal."
Section 3.
That the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado,
is hereby amended by adding a new subsection 24-9 (h) (4) (d)
~-
whi.ch said subsection reads as follows:
(2)
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
,~~. b ~. F „~.E~.« a. a. ,
"(d) Court House View Planes. There are hereby estab-
lished two (2) view planes originating from the sidewalk
on the Northerly side of Main Street Easterly of Galena
Street above which planes no land use or building shall
project.
(1) View plane number one.
The reference point bears S 79° 43' 29" E 69.00
feet from the Southwesterly property corner of block
g2 Original Aspen Townsite; a plastic survey cap.
Elevation of the reference point is 7914.52 feet
above mean sea level. The view plane consists of
spatial components more particularly described as
follows:
All that space which is within the project of a
sector of 27° 48' 40" described by two (2) radial
lines which bear S 16° 59' 48" E and S 10° 58' 52" W
respectively from the reference point, and above a
plane which passes through the reference point at
an inclination of 4° 25' above the horizontal.
(2) View plane number two.
The reference point bears S 7%{° 14' 26" E 131.46 feet
from the Southwesterly property corner of block 92,
Original Aspen Townsite. Elevation of the reference
point is 7915.22 feet above mean sea level. The
view plane consists of spatial components more
particularly described as follows:
All that space which is within the projection of a
sector of 26° 04' 38" described by two (2) radial
lines which bear S 03° 36' 26" E and S 22° 28' 12"
(3)
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
o C. i. NO[CK EE B. B. B L. CJ.
W respectively from the reference point, and above
a plane which passes through the reference point at
an inclination of 4° 48" 20" above the horizontal."
Sar.tinn 4.
That the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado,
is hereby amended by adding a new subsection 24-9 (h) (4) (e)
which said subsection reads as follows:
"(e) Wheeler Opera House View Plane. There is hereby
established a view plane originating from the Wheeler
Opera House westerly of Mill Street above which plane
no land use or building shall project. The Easterly
end point of the base line for the view plane bears S
37° 31' 12" E 8.06 feet from the Southeasterly .property
corner of Block 81, Original Aspen Townsite. The reference
base line bears N 74° 30' 11" W a distance of 140.45 feet
from the Easterly end point of the base line for the
view plane at an elevation of 718.38 feet above mean
sea level. The view plane consists of spatial components
more particularly described as follows:
All that space which is within the projection of radial
lines from the Easterly and Wester'iy terminus of the
base line which bear S 30° 21' 11" E and S 66° 08' 59"
W respectively and which is above a plane which passes
through the reference point at an inclination of 2° 50' 38"
above horizontal."
Section 5.
That the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado,
is hereby amended by adding a new subsection ~ g (h) (4) (f)
which said subsection reads as follows:
(4)
F„, .. .,
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
[. f. NOECN EL B. B. B t, CB.
"(f)~ Rubey Park Viet, Planes. There are hereby established
two (2) view planes originating from Rubey Park above
which planes no land use or building shall project.
(1) View plane number one.
The reference point bears N 35° 18' Ol" W 170.70
feet from the Northeasterly property corner of
Block 91 Original Aspen Towr.site. Elevation of the
reference point is 7932.60 feet above mean sea level.
The view plane consists of two radial components
more particularly described as follows:
All that space which is within the projection of a
sector of 119° 49' 40" described by two radial
lines which bear S 32° 02' 43" E and S 87° 46' 57"
W respectively from the reference point, and which
is also above a plane which passes through the
reference point at an angle of inclination of
10° 06' 30" above horizontal.
(2) View plane number two.
The reference point bears N 53° 53' 06" W 284.48
from Northeasterly property corner of Block 91
Original Aspen Townsite. Elevation of the reference
point is 7931.84 feet above mean sea level. The
view plane consists of two radial components more
particularly described as follows:
All that space which is within the pr°ojection of
a sector of 8° 58' 08" described by two radial
lines which bear S 45° 36' 56" E and S 36° 38' 48"
E respectively from the reference point, and which
is also above a plane which passes t rh ough the
reference point at an angle of inclination of
3° 37' above horizontal."
(5)
RECOfiD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
~. ,.
Ser.tion F,_
That the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado,
is hereby amended by adding a new subsection 24-9 (h) (4) (g)
which said subsection reads as follows:
"(g) Main Street View Plane. There is hereby established
a view plane originating from Main Street above which
plane no land use or building shall project. The reference
point bears N 78° 22' 29" W 92.35 feet from the South-
easterly property corner of Block 79 Original Aspen Town-
site. The reference base line bears N 75° 09' 11" W
5140 feet from the reference point. Elevation of the
reference point and reference base line is 7909.10 feet
above mean sea level. The view plane consists of two
radial components more particularly described as follovrs:
All that space which is within the projection of two
radial lines which bear S 29° 10' 06" E from the reference
point, and S 80° 29' 29" W from the Westerly terminus
of the reference base line, and which is also above a
plane which passes through the reference base line at an
angle of inclination of 6° 29' 20" above horizontal."
Section 7.
That the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado,
is hereby amended by adding a new section 24-g (h) (5) which
said section reads as follows:
"(5) When any view plane hereinabove established projects
at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum allowable
building height to below that otherwise provided for in
this Code, all development of areas so affected shall
proceed according to the provisions of~e~ion 24-10.1,
et. seq., PUD Planned Unit Development, so as to afford
`(6)
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
[. [, x0[C Y.EE B. B. B
maximum flexibility in building design with special
consideration to building bulk and height, open and
pedestrian space, and similarly to permit variations
in lot area, lot width, yard and building height require-
ments, including view plane height limitations. Provided,
however, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission may
exempt any applicant from the requirements of Section 24-10.1
when any proposed development satisfies the building design
requirements above enumerated."
Section 8.
If any provisions of this ordinance or the application
thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such
invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications
of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid
provisions or applications, and to this end the provisions
or applications of this ordinance are declared to be severable.
Section 9.
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on
197 , at 5 p. m. in the City Council
Chambers, City Hall Buidling, Aspen, Colorado.
INTRODUCED, READ ARID ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by
law by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at
its regular meeting held at the City of Aspen, Colorado, on
the day of
197
Stacy Stand ley III /
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
{7)
~.-
RECO~iD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
t. f.x KEI B. B.fI
FINALLY ADOPTEll, FASSED AND APPROVED this
day of
197
ATTEST:
Cle
Stacy Standley III
Mayor
F`Y
WHEELER OPERA HOUSE VIEW CORRIDORS. There is hereby established
view corridors originating on the Nort!ierly side of Hyman
Avense Westerly of Mill Street above which plane no land
use or building shall project. The Easterly end point
of t~e base line for view corridor number one (1) bears
S 37 32'12" E 8.06 feet from the Southeasterly property
corner of Block 81, Original Aspen Townsite. The refer-
ence base line bears N 74°30'11" W a distance of 140.45
feet from Easterly end point of the base line for the
view corridor number one (1) at an elevation of 7918.38 feet
above mean sea level. The view corridor consists of spatial
components more particularly described as follows:
All that space which is within the
radial lines from the Easterly and
of the base line which bear S 30°4
08'59" W respectively and which is
passes through the reference point
2°50'38" above horizontal.
projection of
Westerly terminus
1'11" E and S 66°
above a plane which
at an inclination of
Also a secon view corridor origi ing at the Westerly
terminus of th above mentioned ference base line said
view corridor is ore fully de ribed as follows:
All that space wh is ithin the projection of a
sector of 11°35'40" cribed by two (2) radial lines which
bear S 44°49'46" E 33°14'06" E respectively from the
reference point,a above lane which passes through
the reference po' t at an in 'nation of 5°20'35" above the
horizontal and assing through reference point at an
elevation 79 .94 feet above mean sea level.
t£ ~ °h
Wagner Park View Corridor. There is hereby established a
view corridor originating in the North Central part of Wagner
Park above which plane no land use or building shall project.
The reference point bears N 58°03'11"E 198.65 feet from the
Northwesterly corner of block 83 Original Aspen Townsite;
elevation of the reference point is 7921.93 feet above mean
sea level. The view corridor consists of a sector component
more particularly described as follows:
All that space which is within .the projection cf a sector
of 9°46'18" and above a plane which passes through the
reference point described by two radial lines which bear
S 36°05'49" E and S 45°52.'07" E respectively from the
reference point, at an inclination of 3°39'10" above the
horizontal.
~. ,~
.,,,~
Court House View Corridors. There is hereby established
two (2) view corridors originatsng from the sidewalk on the
Northerly side of Main Street Easterly of Galena Street
above which plane no land use or building shall project..
View corridor number one (1)
The reference point bears S 79°43'29"
the Southwesterly property corner of
Aspen Townsite; a plastic survey cap.
reference point is 7914.52 feet above
The view corridor consists of spatial
particulary described as follows:
E 69.00 feet from
dock 92 Original
Elevation of the
mean sea level.
components more
All that space which is within the projection of a
sector of 27°58'40" described by two (2) radial lines
which bear S 16°59'48" E and S 10°58'52" W respectively
from the reference point, and above a plane which passes
through the reference point at an inclination of 4°25'
above the horizontal.
View corridor Number two (2)
The reference point bears S 74°14'26" E 131.46 feet from
the Southwesly property corner of block 92, Original Aspen
Townsite. Elevation of the reference point is 7915.22 feet
above mean sea level. The view corridor consists of spatial
components more particularly described as follows:
All that space which is within the projection of a sector
of 26°04'38" described by two (2) radial lines which bear
S 03?36'26" E and S 22°28'12" W respectively from the re-
ference point and above a plane which passes through the
reference point at an inclination of 4°58'20" above the
horizontal.
~,,, v ~~
Cooper Ave. View Corridor. There is hereby established a view
corridor originating on the Northerly side of Cooper Ave.
Easterly of Galena Street above which plane no land use or
building shall project. The reference point bears N 75°41'52"E
147.78 feet from the Northwesterly property corner of block 96
Original Aspen Townsite, an aluminum cap located in the sidewalk.
Elevation of the reference point is 7922.91 feet above mean sea
level. The view corridor consists of a spatial component more
particularly described as follows:
All that space which is within the projection of a sector
of 48°00'00" described by two radial lines which bear
S 11°41'08" E and S 36°18'52" W respectively from the
reference point, and above a plane which passes through the
reference point at an inclination of 6°20'05" above the
horizontal.
~,
fiGC01;y 0{= 'isOt,~F::f~Si,ly`
10(1 L.e,wt±s
`.iL ]. 0. h. t>
R('Cj'1_iaY Mectlnq TS__~L:11 _P lalln l2lQ_ b _ 7.011 J.nct ._-_~... J:_llll2iry ]_~], ] C'_i
per.ty. Stated :hat. i.t is a letter of both C:Lty and
County Planr.r;=_nq & Zoning Commission's support of
the Grant-in-Aid application. Poi.nteci o:a. that i.t does
not include the actual hospital site itself.
Schiffer. made a motion for the Chairman. to sign the
letter of support of the Grant-in-T.id appl.i.cati_on.
Motion seco?lded by Vagneur.. All in favor, motion
carried.
PUBLIC HEARING V Chairman Gillis opened the public hearing on view
View Control control.
Bartel submitted slides on view cor..trol. Stated that
they were somewhat different than the slides shovan
in the study session held in November. Stated that
the Commission had requested not to hold the public
hearing until after the first of the year.
First aerial photograph showed all of the locations
with the exception. of Glory Hole Park from which the
view corridors have been proposed.
Second slide cans a telep;zot.o shot from Glory Hole Park;
which is the one completed by City Council. Stated
that was done in May of '73.
Bartel stated that the Planning Office proposed that
the building heights be set so that elevation.> of the
buildings would not exceed the lines indicates on the
photogr_~aphs.
Next slide showed the second location, which had also
been acted on by the Planning & Zoning Commission in
June of '73, Main Street corridor, near the Hotel Jer-
ome.
Bartel stated the inventory for view preservation was
done in 1971. Bartel stated that on all of the slides
with lines across the screed, the lower line i.s the
line proposed for preservation of the view plane, and
the upper line is the line of building heights allowed
by the present Code.
Next slide was the view corridor of Wagner Park, also
acted on in June of 1973.
Bartel pointed out that also proposed was a view cor-
ridor of Independence Pass from the southcaest corner
of Rubey Park. Stated that this also was recommended
by the P & Z. The City Council scheduled a publ.i_c
hearing, but that public hearing was not held so that
the Planning & Zocling Conuni.;;sion couldreccns:ider this
particular recommendation of the Planning Off"ice.
Next slide, which had not been acted on :,y the P & Z,
was the view corridor from the Courthouse steps.
Following slide was the vie~~+ corridor from the open
area east of tho Courthouse. Stated that: on this par-
ticular slide, the existing building hcigh': all.o::'~hl.c:
was not shown, but. stated that it would t:otall.y tl]ock.
the existing view of Aspen Mountain.
-2-
Fl'=C:)}?1`! C3~ :'FICA cE~'!1~.GS
~. :~,.,
Itegt.ia.r I~leeti.~:rg _ Aspen Planning ~_7,
,7arnrary 15, 1374
Bartel stated that. one of the areas cahich ia.e )?lannin
Office was interested in preserving views in 1971 ~•aas
~ the vievr of Independence Pass from the open 1o t, just:
to the east of the Courthouse. Stated that since that
time, the view is gone. Stated that this was an ex-
amp'le of what is happening and why it is im:~ortant f.or
the Planning & Zoning Cornrnission to make a decision on
the question of view preservation.
Next slide showed the view from Cooper Street where
the building was moved out on the land belonging. to
the Ski Corps.
Bartel stated that the Wheeler Opera House is also pro-
posed for view preservation. Pointed out that the
Wheeler Opera House is on the register for. historic
places in the City. Stated that last year $30,000 Baas
spent on restoration for two sides of the Giheeler.
Have estimated for the exterior only approximately an
additional $60,000 for historic restoration. Showed
slide with view proposal.
Bartel stated that on the Vdheeler Opera House view
corridor, we have not only a view out to the Mountain,
but also a view from Wagner Park back t-o the Historic
Landmark, and obviously the view preservation program
would not maintain that lot as an open field, but it
would retain the significance of the Wheeler Opera
Y.ouse as a landmark structure.
Next slide showed a proposed view corridor from the
Cooper Street mall area looking toward Aspen fountain.
Next slide was approximately the same area, btrt a dif-
ferent block, Durant Street, an example of what the
building heights do as far as the view of Aspen_ Moun-
tain is concerned. Stated that this is not included
in the view preservation program, but is included as
an example of what the Planning Office think:; the con-
siderations are to maintain views.
Wagner Park, with a view of Independence Pass, is shown
on the Ordinance rk19 map. Stated that the building has
been removed, so we have at this location a similar
situation to Glory Hole Park where the view has been
preserved.
Bartel stated that there are many other locations which
were included in the inventory i.n which specific pre-
servation techniques are not needed and panoramic vies::=:
are assured because of public ownership, such as the
view of Aspen Mountain from Wagner Park, the view of
Aspen Mountain from the library, and the views up the
streets. Stated that the pcint is that the Planning
Office is not trying to preserve only one type of vicca.
Concerned with views up the street, concerned with slot
views between buildings, concerned with panorama view:>
from the parks, such as F'aepcke Park and Wagner Park.
Chairman Gillis stated that he would prefer not to
consider the two Itubey Park views in the discussion
at this meeting.
Bartel pointed out that the Planning Office had handed
-3-
~..
(iLCO(i[3 t?i~ t-' O%~.E_!:!;'~G i .L'+) ~ea~'c~s
.. ,.
Itcgular. A7eeting Aspen P1„nnin~7 & Zoning January 1 1974
out a memo at the last meeting explaining ::`~,~ the Plan-
ning Office thought that this was i*n?x~a'te.nt, ^'.iat the
design considcraticns were. Further- statci t!.a i.he
Planning Office, in addition to the memo, l;as a fili_
of some 20 exhibits which represent the work which
represent the work which has been done to date on vieca
preservation.
Bartel stated that, with respect to the Planning Office
position, is that the first consideration is a Plan-
ning or.e, and the Planning Office does not present a
proposal to the P & Z without showing it to the City's
legal counsel first. Bartel stated that he would not
want to eliminate any of these view considerations at
this point by Planning Office decision. Feel that if
they are eliminated because of political consideration e.
or because of legal considerations, that would be ok.
Stated that all of these view corridors were shown on
the Ordinance #!19 map.
Bartel stated that one of the considerations at the
time of Ordinance #19 was to compile current plans
and Planning Office work, so the Planning Office has
included the Greenway Plan, the trail plan, the vieca
preservation plan, etc...
Schiffer questioned Bartel. on why the Planning Cffice
had decided to opt for amendment of the zoning ordi-
nance rather than the purchase of view easements that
were recommended in the report given to the Commission.
Bartel stated that the original work that was done by
Adam Kravatsky and himself and the working maps which
are included in the 20-some exhibits, proposed view
corridors from a full range of places within the City,
many of which were private places. Stated that the
Planning Office felt that the proposals should be made
only from public places and that the reference to the
purchase of easements, at least for Planning purposes,
does not apply to the public places that are used for
focal points. Stated that in addition to that, on
each of the public places, they were selected because
of public investment or because of the concentration
of tourist activity or because they play a particularly
important function in maintaining Aspen's character,
keeping the countryside visible, giving the impression
of smallness. Stated that it is his position, as a
planning matter, purchase is not necessary. Stated
that the City Attorney has the final word in that mat-
ter.
Vidal requested that Bartel elaborate on the difference
between a view corridor from a public place as opposed
to a view corridor from a private place in terms of
whether it should be purchased or not.
Bartel stated that he felt that on a private place,
using an example, would be something like the view cf
Aspen Mountain from the La Cocina restaurant. would
not really 1>e a place where there is a justification
of expenditure of public dollars. Pointed out that.
the other. extreme, a public place, Rubcy Par}; for ~x-
ample, $400,000 i.n the purchase of the land and the
transportation and park planning really uses that as
-4-
~, r
RECORD OE PROCEEf7l~dGS 100 l_eavf~s
Pc:.gular Mecti.ng Aspen Planning & Zoninq January 15, 1S/4
one of the focal points for the downtown area.
Vidal questioned the justification for payment of the
view corridor from that place. 4uestioned if the
Planning Office felt that if there is a significant
public investment in one place that the issue of the
view corridor and paying for. that is not the same as
if you were creating a vi.eca for a private location.
Bartel stated that he felt the public investment was
a very important part of it, but felt the other part
is to maintain the character and the quality from
public places.
Vidal questioned Bartel on whether or not there is a
difference betcaeen public and private places as to
whether or not they should be paid for.
Barte]. stated that if the City got into establishing
view corridors frcm private places there would be no
end to it.
Gillis questioned Bartel on how the Planning Office
justified having a view corridor from the Wheeler
which belongs to Mr. Shell.
Bartel. stated that the City has placed that building
on the register for Historic places. The lot is as
much of the setting of the S9heeler as the buidling
itself. The expenditure for purchase of the building,
the expenditure for restoration of the building all
have some overlap to the adjacent property. The City
also, one day, would like to acquire that land.
Vidal stated that he agreed with the justification fcr
not paying for any view corridors for private land.
Stated he still did not understand the justification
for not paying for view corridors from public lands.
Bartel stated that he felt that just as zoning has its
primary responsiblity the protection of environmental
qualities, it also has as its responsiblity the pro-
tection of character, quality, setting, and, in this
case, those design elements are all important for the
tourist economy, which the zoning also has a respon-
sibility to foster.
Vagneur dated that she had a problem with Cooper Street
Stated that the Commission had recommended to Mr. tdar-
cus that he acquire the rest of that City block if he
could to do a half-block development. If that, at the
end of that•block is allowed to be 35' high, and that
is the limitation from that corridor, how could the
Commission in good faith ask him to do what the Com-
mission had recommended.
Bartel stated that the ordinance that was handed out
at the last meeting, not only proposed these corridors,
but also proposed an amendment to the view preservatisrr
section of the zoning code which says that the ai.-eas
falling within these corridors are subject to PUD pro-
visions so that the Commission may vary the heights of
buildings, may vary open space requirements, may vary
lot areas through the PUD process so that the provi.;ior
-5-
R~Ci) t7 C)i RO~~:EEe7li`~G
X00 L~~.+~~s
Regular t•ieeting Aspen P1_nninq & Zoning _____ Janucirv ].5, ] 97
i.s there for the flexibility. Further stated that the
Commission tray waive those PUD requirements, and that
was put in :;pecifi.cally so t=hat if the applicant cie--
monstrates that he's taken all those things in co con-
sideration, that he does not have to deal with all of
the time-consuming PUD provisiwis, and proceeds on
with the next step, provided that the P t: Z ma}ces that:
exception.
Schiffer request. Bartel explain to the audience exac-
tly cahat the specific numeric designations on the reap
meant.
Bartel explained that within any view corridor, the
building height increase with increasing distance from
the focal point. Above the elevation of the focal point
the building heights vary - stated that the elevations
on the rnap were approximate.
Vidal questioned if the degree of inclination was the
same for all of the planes.
Bartel stated that it was not. Each has a separate
legal description which describes the extent of the
area covered and the angle involved.
Y.en Hubbard, attorney from Holland and Hart, was pre-
sent representing Aspen Skiing Corporation, which has
some land i.n Block 90 which would be affected, and
also on behalf of Attorney Jim Moran representing
Curt Chase.
Hubbard stated that h~ felt, from the previous cor-
respondence when they went tYirough the Hotel Jerome
view plane ordinance on the Bergman application, that
the Commission would have a good idea as to xhat their
position would be on the matter. Basically, they feel
that the land owner owns the air space above his land
and the Conunission is telling him that he can't build
as high as his neighbor in the same zoning classifi-
cation in order that the public can enjoy these views.
Hubbard stated that he felt that in a sense, the Ci~y
would be taking his property, and the proposed ordi-
nance purports to be an amendment to the Zoning Code,
so it would be part of the police power rather. than
a taY.ing. Felt that even putting all the view planes
into one ordinance, it does not affect everyone within
a zoning classification uniformly.
Hubbard stated, that as one author has stated, the mos'.
common test for a taking is whether the act: is designee
to benefit the public or to pre-/ent harm, and if it's
the former, to benefit the public, it is a taking.
Hubbard also questioned whether the r.equi.r~ment that
affected lands be considered under PUD prevents the
act from being treated as a taking.
fiubbard stated that there i.s no assurance under an or-
dinance like this that there would be any concessions.
Hubbard referred to the language in the Co]_orado
Con°stitution which states i.n Art.icle II, Section 15,
"Private pr-operty shall not be taY.en or damaged for.-
-~-
RFCG'i?C) OF t'RZC.:=DIi:'~~S 10" L<:iv,s
~.
Regular T;eeting Aspen Planning & 'Loni.nq Janu~u'v 1.5, 1974
public or private use without just compensation,"
Stated that he felt the landowners that are z.ifi=cted
by an ordinance like this are i.ncurri.ng d;~may-e to tii~~i
property for tire. benefit of the public. Stat.e.d that
they have found no cases which involve a view r_or-
ridor orr.1inance, but stated that there are cases which
uphold scenic easement laws for the very reason that.
they do provide compensation.
Hubbard further sited the analogy of the Airport Heicrh
Restriction cases, mentioned by Moran in his letter to
the Commission, which have gone up to the U.S. Supreme
Court and have been decided in favor of the affected
landowners.
Hubbard stated that he thought there were possible
questions on the adequacy of the notice given and cer-
tain ambiguities in the ordinance and the maps, and
also the basic Question of whether the ordinance can
really be understood by most of the people affected.
Hubbard suggest that the Commission approach the land-
owners the way you would in a condemnation case and
negotiate with them before the ordinance goes into
affect.
Gillis stated that he felt that would be an initiative
from the City Council rather than the Commission, and
stated that this was purely a planning decision and
not a legal question.
Hubbard stated that if the Commission felt that that
idea had any merit, a recommendation from the Commis-
sion to the City Council would have an affect on their
decision.
A member of the public questioned the Commission as
to whether or not the Commission had the intent to
take any legal considerations in their decision.
Gillis stated that he felt it should not be.
Vidal stated that he felt the Commission could respon-
sibly act with its eyes closed in total to other ele-
ments. Stated that he felt the variety of considera-
tions, both legal and planning, could not be easily
separated.
Vidal stated he felt it would be highly valuable for
the Commission to have information to the contrary,
that is, that the view corridors were not a taY.ing.
Michael Kinsley was present, representing the Environ-
mental Task Force, and stated that he felt it would
be appropriate for. the City Attorney to have a reply
to the argument on the taking.
Vidal stated than. he did not feel that the Commi.ssion'r
decisions relative to those Y.ind of issues should be
postponed until you get into Court and then find out
whether or. not it i.s legal.
Kinsley stated that from hi.s point. of view, he dial not:
feel the establishment of view corridors would be con-
-7-
FiL-"CUFIt:t C?.' PliC)C ~Dlf<Ci:i
100 Leaves
~. `..•... ... f..~-i'vr'. 2. i. 6 1. t'i.
ular A7eetina Aspen Plar?ninu S Zonin:t January 15, 1974
sidered a taking.
Gillis reminded the Commission that Bartel had stated
that this had gone through the City Attorney and has
passed with her approval.
A member of the public questioned Bartel how you could
tell. by looking at the map where the lines end.
Bartel stated that by looking at the map, you really
could not tell, because that line projected can in-
tersect the mountain at some point.
Bartel explained that on the map there are two dis-
tances shown: (1) the distance from the focal point;
(2) the approximate building height at that distance
from the focal point.
A member of the Architects' Collaborative submitted.
a letter to the Commission. Stated that they agree
that the study of view planes is an important item
for the City. Stated that the most important item
that affects the building on the land happens to be
a view corridor, and t}?ere has been no other item that
has been taken into account. when you develope a piece
of land. Stated that if such legislation goes through,
it states that the view corridor will affect the height
of the buildings and nothing else will affect the
height. Questioned if there should be some type of
plan behind this view plane proposal,. of which the
view p)_ane ordinance is a part, rather than making
the view ordinance a separate entity that will control
all of the development of this land. Stated that the
Collaborative believes that there should be a method
by which a developer of lands in these affected areas
can make some sort of trade-off with the City, if he
can shcw that his land can be developed in such a way
that the view plane can go through and still preserve
the view. Stated that the view plane establishes a
rather rigid method of building. Stated that it caill
give the developer a lot of problems and will not give
the City a good building.
Bartel answered those questions by reading the Section
of the view plane program that includes the amendment
to the zoning code itself.
"When any view plane, here and above e~~tab-
lished, projects at such an angle so ae! to
reduce the maximum allowable building height
to below that: otherwise provided in this Code,
a.ll developments of the area so affected shall
proceed according to the provisions of (PUD
Section) so as to afford maximum flex.bi.lity
in building design with special considerat.i.on
of building bulk and height and open and ped-
estrian space, and similarly, to permit var:i.-
ati.ons in lot area, lot width, yard and building
height requirements, including view p]anc !?eight
].imi_tatior,s, provic]cd, ]ro::cver, that the Asper.
Planning & Toni-ng Conunise:ion may exempt etn ap-
plication from the requirements when any pro-
posed development: sati.sf.i.es the building de-
sign requirements above enumerated."
Ii1~CCR~I tl~= 4'i-i~7t~::~:17i iGS
70i1 ~.oav<a
~,, ~,
Regular Meeti_nq_ Aspen I?lanninr_ <<, 'honing __ January 1._i, 1974
Bartel stated that: he felt: the Planning Office's in-
tent was not to say that we want to dcsi.gn buildings
automatically within those colored areas of i_]~e rnaps.
Stated that he felt the challenge v:as available to the
landowner and to the architect to see what they can
do within these basis, and that is included as a spe-
cific amendment as part of the program.
Bartel further stated that the intent of the building
permit review process was to enable the Commission to
further_ study to prepare amendments to the Zoning Code
and the Zoning Plop, of which this is one.
A member of the public stated that he
mission would not be taking into account
' items which affect a piece of property.
felt the Com-
all the other
Bartel stated that the Planning Office concern was
that the view corridor, once lost, is not likely to
reappear. Further stated that the City does not at
this time have a :whole design plan, but has the view
preservation element of one and the historic preser-
vation element is one that is also in process. The
mall element is in process. Feel the whole question
of the bulk, scale, heigYrt of buildings is a separate
matter. May find that the City can adopt specific
height, bulk regulations at a later date, but at this
point, this is the best the Planning Office has to of-
fer.
A member of the public stated th&t the uniformity of
building heights, he felt, was not good. Stated that
he felt the City coup:: have some high-rise buildings
if they regulated that with open space at the ground
area. Stated he could see no reason ~:•hy there could
not be some high-rise buildings penetrating i:he view
planes and yet still maintain the view planes.
Kinsley stated that the community has stated very
clearly three times in the last 16 months that they
want to control growth and this is an element of that.
Stated that the Environmental Task Force is voting
unanimously to support this proposal.
Kinsley then read a brief statement from the fiTF:
"This action is essential to preserving the
character of our mountain community. The pres-
sure to develope Aspen properties to maximum
height will eventually create the canyon-syn-
drome found in most cities. In Aspen t,le can-
yons would be three and. four stories deep. At
that point, Aspen would become a truly urban
experience. Our mountains would become ob-
scured from our view. We feel that view pre-
servation is a valid public purpose, consis-
tent with cor.;munity needs. We feel that it=.
is appropriate for the City of Aspen t:o exer-
cise this police power for the public welf,_ire,
and that to discourage this ordinance o:ould
create a potential harm to the characrt.er of
Aspen, which is essential for its survival as
a resort conununity, and we suppox:t it."
-9-
hF`_CCif;il Cf{= N[-sf}C~CE`k)Ii~GS 100 Le,zvcs
Regt=lar Pleeti.ng Aspen Yiannirig & 'Lon.ing _ Jar:uary 1`i,_1~4
Another member of the public stated that. ho was in
favor of the view or.-di.nance, but it seems to hi. n; t}:~t
the way that. they are layed out, them wi.11 be some
parcels within these vie:v ordinances that caill bear
the brunt of the damage or the taking. Feels that it
is unfair to have a taking of these parcels and make
certain individuals boar the brunt of the cost of the
paying of these view corridors for the public bcnefi.t.
Should be some way that the public at-large pays for
the benefit that they will receive.
Jenkins stated that with negotiation and understand-
ing of the problems on both sides, feels it i.s not
impossible to work out a solution. Sited F~ergman's
building and the compromise that was worked out.
Jenkins further stated that the Commission had the
basis of some working agreements that could be in-
cluded in the. zoning after Ordinance X19.
Schiffer stated that he felt the legal considerations
were really relevant.
Kinsley stated he felt there was a need for the City
to rebutt some of the points that had been made at
this meeting.
City Attorney Sandra Stuller explained that when this
matter first came up to consideration, it was last
April. Stated that a great deal of research Y!ad been
done, and again pointed out, there a.re absolutely no
cases i_n poi-nt of view planes and the taking issue.
Stated that she had cone tc Denver, and Denver_ also
has a view plane ordinance shooting various view
planes over highly dense or commercial areas in the
city from public areas. Stated that there was one
challenge to the view planes on appeal. The exact.
taking issue was not discussed. Stated that it went
up on a building permit question that was a fairly
mundane issue at that time.
Ms. Stuller stated that her problem as City Attorney,
is that the Commission is not really being posited
with legal questions here. What is being offered to
the Commission are summary legal propositions which
the Conunission, as laymen, can rebutt. Pointed out
that it is a matter of degree: how public the nature
of the taking is versus how private the burder: is.
Everytime you pass a zoning ordinance you are taking
someone's land and their right t=o develope it the way
they want to.
Ms. Stuller stated that the second level of consider-
ation is the offer Hubbard made to talk about cases.
Stated that she could not talk to the Conunission about
cases she was not prepared t:o do that. at this point
and felt that the Commission was not prepared to do
that at this point either.
Ms. Stuller stated that the third level of consder-
ation i.s whether or not the City Attorney could give
the Commission a point blank yes-or-no, i.t's legal or
not lcgal to each specific view plane as it's plattcx]
for the Cormnissi.on's consi.der.ation at this meeting.
-10-
~rC QFi't~ ~~' f~f~~i'L 1_1:. ~.if~'cV5 7UY? l..l~[rV CS
~.~eti.ng-- Ps pen PJ_°i_ni.nc7 & Zo;~ing--- -- Janua_y 15, 7.9(=1
Stated that nobo:iy could do that.
Ms. Stul.lcr. pointed out that evertiru_ you set. up a
review procedure, you are exchanq_:i.ng consistu.icy <and
predictability for flexibility.
Ms. Stuller stated that she felt the elements that
will be taken into consideration if anything i_s liti-
gated is hoca public tare nature of the viewing area i.s.
How important and how unique is the viewed area, and
what are the possibilities of compensating people in
the interim. Stated that the 1?lanning Office has
tried to concentrate the view planes from highly
public areas because they are heavily trafficed, it's
important that the City preserve its investment i.n
these public areas, etc... Tried to preserve views
that were unique..
Concerning preserving the views from public places ver-
sus private places. Stated .that in the latter situ-
ation, you are causing a loss to one private enter-
prise for the benefit of another private enterprise.
The. public element is not there.
Bartel explained that one consideration was that the
City boundary is such that where some situations oc-
cur, the City will not have jurisdiction.
Ms. Stuller stated that, as Bartel stated, all. these
things come through her office first, and extensive
research was done on the legitimz.cy of the qur-stion.
Stated that the City was going to try to make these
as amenable as possible. Stated that she was con-
vinced that the premise was legitimate.
Hubbard stated that he felt the odds were more in
favor of this being considered a taking than not,
and if that is the situation, why not, then, con-
sider alternatives, a.nd the alternative he suggested
was negotiating with affected landowners in advance.
Ms. Stuller stated that the Council, if they really
felt someone was being heavily burdened by a view
plane, would not even worry that much about an at-
tack on the ordinance, but would really like to hear
the applicant and his proposition and negotiate for
pay.
Further pointed out that the taking question, you do
not lose your right to compensation for taking after
the ordinance.
Ms. Stuller stated that she felt another point is that
any action that the P & Z would take at this point
would just put the ordinance in a hole for a year.
Ordinance enactment would be another process, and may-
be the City Council should actively seek each of the
landowners that we can anticipate arc going to be
seriously affected and see i_f they have any concerns
at this time.
Pete Stone was present, and stated that he felt that
he was n!ore affected than anyone else in Rspen.Statc:a
that they were in the middle of a decision concerning
-11-
i~EGOI.n ~F i'FtOC!"E#3i1~!CxS ?n~ I..~~v~.;
Regular Mectinq Aspen Planning & 7,oning January 1~, ].97<<
the purchase of three more lots that would l>e affected
by a view corridor.
Ms. Stuller pointed out that in the appeals that they
review, there is a possibility that one could be exern-
pted from the view plane established.
Pete Stone request the City Attorney to offer some jus-
tification for this confiscation of land.
Ms. Stuller stated that the just ifieations are politi-
cal, etc. Stated that as for the legal theory, as
for the most part, it is a weighing. Further reminded
Stone that the Council is the only body that can nego-
tiate for compensation.
Assistant Engineer Ed Del Duca pointed out that the
view planes were also of some benefit to those affected
by it, since their. views would also be protected by the
view planes.
Vice Chairman Schiffer closed the public hearing.
Vidal pointed out that in the Commission's and the
staff's program was an attempt to get the Architects'
Collaborative to address themselves to the massing
problem of the core area. Stated that the necessary
tools are in existence right now to address themselves
to the view corridors. S~'ould like to take a view ror-
ridor map and have the P & Z establish it as a policy
in the Ordinance $19 review, that the Commissicn would
consider these elements and maintain these views, at
the same time, suggest that maybe there is no rush to
implement this right away.
Vidal stated that he did not feel that the view plane
consideration should be taken by itself. Felt it
should be in context with the whole massing analysis.
Bartel stated that at a previous meeting when the Ute
Avenue area was under consideration, the Planning Of-
fice tried to make the point that they have priorities,
some of which are geographical while others include
such things as the rewriting of the Zoning Code, a
new zoning map, etc.... Stated that he felt it would
be better to proceed with these on a one-by-one basis
so that they are not suddenly giving the public a mass
of proposals and land use considerations to digest at
the end of the Ordinance ;19 period.
Bartel further stated that the Commission now has, un-
der Ordinance $19, the opportunity to consider views.
Feel that if the Commission hopes to enter into dis-
cussions on trade-offs with landowners, that they can
not wait until the end or. the Ordinance #f 19 period to
do that since they will be talking about some very
specialized design considerations, one of which is
historic zoning as well as a new zoning man and new
zoning text for the entire county. Stated that it is
hi.s position that as the information is completed by
the Planning Office, it s'crould he presented to the
P & Z, the P & Z should act on it if they erish.
Vidal stated that he still could not see the necessity
for ruslring this.
R[.CUF<F7 OF F~FiOCtE[?IP~G5
100 Leaves
I:cr,u_lar Meeting _ Aspen ,Planning & 7.oni
January 15, ].97~_
Bartel stated that he <9i.d not feel the project had be:a:
hurried. Stated that he work had been done in `71,
and that much work had been done on it since then.
Vagneur stated that it was her interpretation that the
Commission was voting on or reconmlending to the Counci';
that tae approve all of the view plane corridors at thi:
time, with the exception of the ones that have already
been acted on.
Bartel stated that the view corridors that the P & Z
has not acted on included: (1) the two from the court-
house; (2) the 6aheeler Opera House; (3) Wagner Park;
and (4) the Cooper Street Mall proposed exemption.
Vagneur stated that she could not recommend the Wheeler
Opera ]louse for the reason that part of it is based on
the ownership of private land.
Bartel stated that it was basically the same concept
that ex;_sted on Main Street. Stated that it was real-
ly the public place, the street and the side~•ra].k when
they talk about the land adjacent to the Wheeler.
Stated that the Commission could consider them on an
individual basis.
Bartel stated that the first consideraticns is the
amendment to the zoning code, the PUD provision. The
second consideration would be the view planes recom-
mended.
Johnson stated that he supported the view planes and
felt that they were an important enough consideration
for the entire community that they are worth paving.
Jenkins stated that he, too, supported the view planes.
Would like to make very positive point that the Com-
mission include in the final zoning procedure after
Ordinance #19 is that the Commission is capable of
giving consideration to particular locations, and par-
ticular sites that warrant that consideration.
Schiffer stated that he, too, agreed with the principle
but feels there are very relevant legal considerations.
Stated that he felt there were probably alternative
ways to do the same thing in a more equitable way.
Stated he would like to see a recommendation to the
Council to approve this conditioned on their directing
the City Attorney to make an extensive legal investi-
gation to insure that the City is not doing sornething
that they should not, legally. Realize that there are
probally very relevant considerations concerning to};inc,
of private property, and that troubles him.
Johnson made a moiton to reconunend to City Council. the
doption of the view plane ordinance. Seconded by Jen-
kins.
Bartel stated that procedurally he would like to see
the Commission direct the Planning Office to prepare
a resolution recommending them, cahich the Planning Of--
f:ice would bi.ng back for reconsideration by the Com-
mission.
-13-
Fi~CCt!?t3 C?i= PP;r;L'!~I_:f}fI~JC,~
Regular PSeeti.nq Ashen Planning & 7onind Janaur~~ 15, 1S?"i4
Scciffer stated 'chat. he would approve this subject to
the condition that the Council first require brat th:.
City Attorney make e, thorough, lengthy investigation
as to legal issues involved, present that i.n ~:rief
form, and the Council maY,e a deterrni-nation after they
have that input.
Main Ilo~ion Roll call vote - Schiffer, nay; Jenkins, a.ye; Johnson,
aye; Vagnuer, nay; Vidal, nay. Motion A~OT carried.
Jenkins made a motion that the previous mot-ion be a-
mended to include the request that the City Council
have the City Attorney make an extensive investigation
to re-affirm her position on the matter and make that
presentation to the Council at the time that .this reso
luti.on is presented to them. Seconded by Vidal.
Roll call vote - Schiffer, aye; Jenkins,. aye; Johnson,
aye; Vagneur, nay; Vidal, nay. }lotion carried.
Concept Plan for Bartel stated that the Planning Office had prepared
11'~ Acre Rio Grande the concept plan for the 11; acres pf the Rio Grande
Property Property, and stated that before they put it up for
V public reaction, the Planning Office wanted to submit
it to the Commission.
Further stated that since the meeting will proba'~ly
be continued until Thursday, perhaps the Commission
would like the Planning Office to make its study ses-
sion presentation of the site plan for the Rio Grande
Property on Thursday.
Schiffer questioned what to do about the Ute Village
Condominiums since a decision must be made at tnis
meeting.
Ms. Baer pointed out that the people representing the
Third Generation project were from out of town, so
request that their presentation be allowed for this
meeting.
Commission agreed to hold a
Grande Property on Thursday
meeting until Thursday.
study session on the Ric
and also to continue this
Ute Village request a continuation to the February 5th
meeting, both Ordinance #19 and Subdivision. Hoping
to see Planning Office recommendations before the hear
ing.
Ms. Baer pointed out that the agenda for February 5th
was a full agenda. Commission and applicant agreed
to continue the Ute Village request for conceptual
approval and prelinu.nary plat to February 7th.
Third Generation ' Johnson made a motion to continue the meeting, with
Building - the exception of this presentation, until Thursday,
Conceptual January 17th at 5:30 p.m. Seconded by Jenkins. All
Presentation in favor, motion carried.
Study session was scheduled for Thursday, January 17th
at 4:30 p.m. for the 11'2 acre Ri-o Grande Property.
Applicant explained that they were before the Conun.i.:-a-
-14-
~.
RFCORC C)I~ s'F{(;Ci:~i7IC!GS
1 OJ 6_e~ vea
c r. e<
Reaular_ ,"leetinq Aspen Planni.nr. S Toni-nq F'~~bruary :~, ]974----
Meeting t,~as called to order by Chairman Bruce Gillis at 5:15 p.m. wi.ti; members
Chuck Vidal, Bryan Johnson, Jack Jenkins, Spence Schiffer and Geri Vc;c r~eur.
Also present City/County Planner. Serb Bartel and Assistant Planners Do~ina
Baer and Joh n Stanford.
MINUTES Gillis stated that there had been a request from DIS.
1/8/74 & Pat Maddalone of Benedict and Associates that the
1/10/74 minutes of December 18, 1973, were misstated.
12/18/73 Ms. Maddalone wished to correct page 7 in tkte minutes,
where it was stated that the applicant had withdrawn
their subdivision request and Ms. Baer stated that
she had received a letter requesting that they with-
draw until the 15th.
Chairman Gillis stated that Ms. Maddalone wished to
have the minutes corrected to read, "We are agree-
able to extending the time required for action by
the Planning and Zoning Co~;miission to January 15th,
1974, on Ordinance #19 Conceptual Phase, Subdivision,
Preliminary Phase and Planned Unit Development Out-
line Phase."
Vagneur made a motion to rescind approval of the
minutes of December 18, 1974, and~add the above
correction with approval. Motion seconded by Jenkins.
All in favor, motion carried.
Johnson made a motion to approve the minutes of Janu-
ary 8, 1974, and January 10, 1974. Motion seconded
by Jenkins. All in favor, motion carried.
OLD BUSINESS Bartel pointed out that a study session had been
Study Session - scheduled on t he Rio Grande Conceptual Site Plan for
P.io Grande Conceptual Feuruary 14th. Requested that if any of the members
Situ Plan had any input which they would like for the meeting,
2/14/74 to contact the Planning Office.
VIEW PRESERVATION{.~~ Bartel stated that the Resolution was the follow-un
Resolution - View to the public hearing, which included the view frcm
Preservation Wagner Park, Cooper Avenue, the Wheeler Opera House,
and the Courthouse and further included the prevision
through PUD to provide the flexibility in the view
corridor with variaticns in building height and set-
back. Has included the request that the City Attor-
ney submit an opinion to the Council before they take
any action on it concerning the legal aspects.
Johnson made a motion to send the Planning & Zoning
Commission Resolution entitled "Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission Resolution Recommending Establish-
ing View Planes From bVagner Park, Cooper Avenue (Be
tween Galena and Hunter), Wheeler Opera House and
Court House and Recommending PUD, ,Planned Unit De-
velopment in Certain Areas Affected by the View
Planes Under Section 24-9 (h)" to the City Council.
Motion seconded by Vagneur.. All in favor, with the
exception of Chuck Vidal who was opposed. Motion
carried. ~
Reconsideration Bartel. gave a brief background of: this view plane.
of Recommendation - Stated that it was recommended by the Commission
lndependcnce Pass in the ]:esolut.ion dated June 21., 1. 973. It; was set:
Victy Plane from for Cii .y Council hearing sometime in August and was
Rubey Park tabled at the City Council mectiny following a re-
j ~',
REC~ri(~ OF Ri~OCEEDEI'dGS
~~
700 Leaves
fOPX ~p C. i. N]E't Ct B. 8. ~ L C1.
Regular Meeting Aspen 7'lanning & 7.oning June 1.`~, 197:5
occurs, they request only 10' around each site be di_s~-
turbed, Just that amount of disturbance will increase
the run off by 200%. It is ouestionable if re-vege-
tati.on can take place to take care of the drainage.
Mr. Hibberd stated he would excavate with very small
equipment and in some areas would excavate by hand,
Mr. Hibberd a7_so presented a $4,000 bond to cover the
replanting, Mr, Hibberd also stated he would be wi17_in
to redesi-gn his plans to eliminate the foundations and
put the structures on columns.
Vice Chairman GiJ1is recommend only one unit be allowed
this year to see what the impacts to the land are, Mr.
Hibberd stated he would commit to having no excavation
equipment on tie site.
Commission request Mr, Hibberd work out a7.1 technical
reouirements with the City Engineer and Fire Chief and
their report be in writing,
Further Mr. Hibberd either redesign the structures
(3) sites) with no excavation or Commission will con-
sider only 1 site for 1973 with excavation.
View Pl,~nes Vice Chairman Gillis opened the public hearing on vi_e~~;
J plane from the Hotel Jerome and from Rubey Park.
Assistant Planner Wooden reviewed with the Commission
and citizens maps showing the view to be retained from
the Hotel Jerome frontage on Main of Aspen Mountain and
Shadow Mountain. Slides of the view were shown es-
tablishing the height of buildings in the view plane
of 20'. Feel this is a legitimate request because it
does start on public right-of~way; consideration is now
under way of designating the Hotel Jerome as a his-
toric site; and the Hotel Jerome plays a major part as
relates to meeting of people. Resolution approving
i the view plane and recorrnending same to Council was
submitted,
Mr. Russ Pielratick stated he was against this proposal;
presently the archiT.ect on the proposed building for th
vacant lot across the street, By the time this proposa
was heard of., the design of Y.he pxoject was complete
and had met with the Building Inspector and met: all
code requirements. Mr. Pielstricl: showed to the Com*nis-
sion the plans of the building and what the vierr,lane
does to tiie project, Stated this creates a zoning; en-
velopc~, vi_c:w of the buck of the Ol,era lloizse an.l i'aril:e
feel. th<a maunta.ns are a prrt of the her-.t~ge or tl~c
City and s1:ou7d br, enjoyed by all by view corrid,>rs
fx"6ill th^ Illa]_1-, (;lL8iL111('r Of (;OlllLt£'TC'L! Steps, 1'aepC'`C 1~(iTi-~
P tC.
~-~
1 , \.
RECO~i!~3 0 5'ROCEEC3lP1GS
..,
~ 00 (_('nl~ 03
.~.~~ ~, ~ .. ~,«.~~ e. a. e , ~,.
Regular rleeting, Aspen Planning & Zoning _Junelcl, 173
William Dunataay Questioned if there were any bonuses
given when there is a view plane involved. Mr. G?ooden
stated the P & Z could recommend considerations.to
the Board of Adjustment.. Vice Chairman Gillis stated
there will be additional planes established.
Rubey Park Mr. Wooden pointed out the points from which the view
View Plane of Aspen Twfountain and Independence Pass were estab~
1FShed. Height of buildings within the view plane of
Aspen Mountain would be 25' allowed and of Independence
Pass ranging from 19' to 30'. Slides and maps were
reviewed.
Barbara Leiais Questioned if the building height lino.
could be lowered, i.e. change vertical angle to re-
late to the corner of the Alps Bldg.
Vice Chairman Gillis closed the public hearing.
Lewis moved to accept the view plan from the Hotel Je~
rome as outlined, and recommend same to Council. in the
form of the resolution submitted. Seconded by Good-
.hard. All in favor, motion carried.
Rubey Park View•Plane was tabled, Mr. Wooden to revise
the description and slide as outlined by Letais.
Goodhard moved to recess this meeting to Thursday et
5:00 p.m., seconded by Collins. All in favor, meeting
adjourned at 7:10 p.m. .
~--Lorraine Graves, City Clerk
~h ~ ^ \~ ~~
~ ~ ~~~ J
LEGAL NOTICES ~ ~~~ ~~ e,' ~~~
Notice is hereby given, that the Aspen Plann and Zing
Commission shall hold a public hearing on Apr ,
5:00„~~m:;"~t" uncil Chambers to consider a final dev-
~,,,eif~pment plan submitted by Destination Resort~~~~~
,.: r
'TAt2"'proposal will be on file seven days prior to the hear-
ing date in the office of the City/County Planner and maybe
examined by any interested person during office hours.
/s/ Lorraine Graves
City Clerk "
Published in the Aspen Today March 28, 1973
Notice is hereby given, that the Aspen City Council shall
hold a public hearing on April 23, 1973, 4:00 p.m. City
Council Chambers to consider the OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
submitted by Blue Sky Inc., location being Lot 3, Hoag
Subdivision of the City of Aspen. __
Complete proposal will be on file seven days prior to the
hearing date in the office of the City/County Planner and maybe
examined by any interested person during office hours.
/s/ Lorraine Graves
City Clerk
LEGAL NOTICES
Notice is hereby given,
Commission shall hold a
5:00 p.m., City Council
elopment plan submitted
~t
,,.
~yl ~`rP ~f`,
that the Aspen Planning and Zoning
public hearing on April 17, 1973,
Chambers to consider the final dev-
by Destination Resort Corporation.
Complete proposal mill be on file seven days prior to the hear-
ing date in the office of the City/County Planner and maybe
examined by any interested person during office hours.
/s/ Lorraine Graves
City Clerk '
Published iri the Aspen Today March 28, 1973
Notice is hereby given, that the Aspen City Council shall
hold a public hearing on April 23, 1973, 4:00 p.m. City
Council Chambers to consider the OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
submitted by Blue Sky Inc., location being Lot 3, Hoag
Subdivision of the City of Aspen.
Complete proposal will be on file seven days prior to the
hearing date in the office of the City/County Planner and maybe
examined by any interested person during office hours.
/s/ Lorraine Graves
City Clerk
Published in the Aspen Today March 28, 1973
~otice is hereby given, that the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission shall hold a public hearing on April 17, 1973,
5:00 p.m., City Council Chambers to consider an amendment
to the Zoning Chapter of the Municipal Code to establish a
view corridor from Glory Hole Park extending toward Independence
Pass.
Complete proposal is on file in the office of the City/County
Planner and maybe examined by any interested person during
office hours.
/s/ Lorraine Graves
City Clerk
Published in the Aspen Today March 28,
Notice is hereby given, that the Aspen
Commission shall hold a public hearing
5:00 p.m., City Council Chambers to co
the Aspen Area General Plan to include
1973
Planning and Zoning
on April 17, 1973,
Zsider an amendment to
a trail system plan.
Complete proposal is on file in the office of the City/County
Planner and may be examined by any interested person or persons
during office hours.
/s/ Lorraine Graves, City Clerk
Published in the Aspen Today March 28, 1973
"~.:~
.,,_ ,~
LEGAL NGTICE
Notice is hereb iv~!'f `"'t
Y 4~ the spen City Council all hold a public
hearing on May 14, 1973, 4:00 p.m., City Council Chambers to
consider an amendment to the Zoning Chapter of the Municipal Code to
establish a view corridor from Glory Hole Park extending toward
Independence Pass.
Complete proposal is on file in the office
and maybe examined by any inter-sted person
hours.
/s/ Lorraine Graves
City Clerk
of the City/County Planner
or persons during office.
Published in the Aspen Today April 25, 1973.
f
C p ,,
TRI-CO Management, Inc.
Planning • Design • Surveying • Engineering -Construction
and Management of Land
April 6, 1973 (=~' ?
Herb Bartel
Aspen City Planner
Dear Herb:
,~°
The final development plan of Destination Resort-
Aspen, Ltd. is in compliance with the original
view corridor plan VI dated 2/18/73.
Buildings shown on the final development plan,
sheet 1, are in compliance with sheet VT as
presented to the Aspen P&Z and Aspen City Council.
Sincerely yours,
ames F. Reser
dob
Box 1730
Aspen
Colorado 81611
303.925.2688
A Subsidiary of Trico Corporation Offices throughout the West
,„
.. .~,,
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
A C. I. ~-P:I(f19. 0.61.
Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning July 10 1973
Meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman Bruce Gillis at 5:15 p.m,
with Barbara Lewis, Charles Vidal, Bryan Johnson, and Jack Jenkins, Also
present City/County Planner Herb Bartel, Assistant Planners Fred Wooden and
Donna Baer, City Engineer David Ellis, and Fire Chief Willard Clapper,
Barbara Lewis moved to approve the minutes of the June 5th, I9th, and 21st
meetings as prepared and mailed by the Secretary. Seconded by Johnson. All
in favor, motion carried.
mmission agreed to hold their next regular meeting on Tuesday, July 17th.
~ew Planes - Fred Wooden suggested the P & Z desi note view la
$ P
Future Proposals in an orderly progression. Wooden submitted propos
outline for view controls in a report by Mr. Adam
Krivatsy done in December of 1971. Suggested areas
for view control include the Jerome Hotel, Courthou
Cooper Building, Wheeler Opera House, Wagner Park,
Rubey Pack, and Glory Hole Park.
Wooden suggested that since presently the Wheeler
Opera House and Wagner Park have good views, the
P & Z should begin view consideration of Courthouse
and Cooper Building.
nes
ed
se,
Vidal suggested incorporating aII the view plane con-
siderations into one public hearing once the Planning
Office has completed the necessary research for the
sake of time. Wooden agreed to bring all four view
plane considerations forward at the same time.
Aspen Architects Ted Mularz, Chairman of the Aspen Architects Col-
Collaboration - oaboration, distributed copies of a memorandum sent
Commercial Core from Herb Bartel to the Collaboration.
Proposal
Larry Yaw, a member of the Collaboration, submitted
proposal for the implementation of the Urban Design
Plan for the Core Area.
Yaw suggested that the process would begin with two
phases, Phase I would be a programming phase, This
would include identification of objectives, ordering
and co-ordinating, research (a document with methods,
fees, process, etc...) Would provide an idea of the
order of activities and what to expect.
Phase II would be an inventory phase and would include•
(1) identification of resources; (2) mutually current
and pertinent information (3) would provide a data
base. Not only would this be a physical inventory,
but also a legislative inventory (existing regulatory
criteria, both state and local).
Yaw further suggested that the local legal community
organize in the same manner as the Collaboration,
since there is much legislative planning to be done.
~
.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning March 22 1973
Proposal for the public hearing oa April 3rd relating
to Open Space Amendment as a clarification to the re-
quirement was submitted by Mr. Bartel. Commission
agreed with the proposal.
View , ~q~. Bartel request the Commission schedule a public
Control '~ hearing. Gillis moved to schedule a public hearing
oa view control for April 17th. Seconded by Lewis.
All in favor, motion carried.
Lewis moved to adjourn at 6;10 p.m., seconded by Good-
. hard. All in favor, meeting adjourned.-
,~_.'
r
LEGAL, NOTICE
Notice is hercoy given, the Aspen City Council shall hold a
public hearing on July 23, 1973, 4:00 p.m, to consider an
amendmer_t to the zoning Chapter of the Aspen i•.unicipal Co.ie to
(1) establish a view corridor from F.ubey Par?; located in Block
90 extending toward Aspen Plountain and (2) establish a view cor-
ridor from Rubey Park located in Block 90 extending toward
Independence 'r ass.
Complete preposai is on file in
Planner an3 may be examined by
persons during office hours.
the office of the City!County
any interested person or
/s/ Lorraine Graves
City Clerk
Published in the Aspen Today July 4, 1973
SANDRA M. STIILLER
ATTORNEY AT LAW
ASPEN ARCADES BUILDING
Box 2584
ASPEN. COLORADO 81811
(3031 925-2834
March 19, 1973
Mr. Herb Bartel
City-County Planning Office
Post Office Box V
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Mountain View Ordinance
Dear Herb:
Enclosed is the first draft of a proposed mountain view ordinance.
It occurred to me, while reviewing my notes of our meeting on the
subject, that you probably had an entirely different approach in
mind, and, consequently, the requested meeting on Tuesday. In
any event, my thoughts:
1. First, a general principal in zoning law is that the de-
lineation of boundaries (usually districts) is a legislative
function. The city council is the only body given legislative
authority and so the adoption of each view plane will probably
have to be done by the council.
2. I think view height restrictions should be supplementary
regulations under 24-9 for the following reasons:
a. as part of section 24-9, it is clear that view
height limitations are in addition to existing
limitations imposed in the various use districts,
and not in lieu of them;
b. as part of Chapter 24 the restrictions are
(1) given the benefit of the nonconforming
structures elimiation procedures (24-10(b)};
and the benefit of the enforcement, penalty
and remedy provisions for violation of zoning
ordinances;
(2) subject to the review procedures established
for the Board of Adjustment. The height
limitations will be specifically defined and
the Board's review procedures should be adequate
to provide relief in hardship cases. However
there is no requirement for public notice
in the procedures for review of applications
for a variance, and we might provide for
such notice in this case.
I think it unnecessary to include, in each use district (and
PUD) section, a paragraph that the height limitations are appli-
cable (as was done with the Historic and Stream Margin provisions).
The ordinance as drafted would allow the description of height
limitations in as many different forms as required by the terrain
and intended mountain view., The introductory paragraphs refer
to "an area necessary to preserve a mountain view" which seems
to leave open the possibility of describing restrictions in terms
of a vertical angle or maximum height plane; height limitation
as determined by elevation; or height limitation according to
a formula based on distance from a point of reference.
V~;x`y truly rs,
San- M. Stuller
Enclosure