Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.Rubey Park view plane 1973 LEGAL NOTICE Notice is hereby given, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission shall hold a public hearing on June 1.9 , 1973 , 5 : 00 p.m. , City Council Chambers to (1) establish a view corridor from Rubev Park located in Block 90 extending toward Aspen Mountain and (2) establish a view corridor from Rubey Park located in Block 90 extending toward Independence Pass. 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 May 30 , 1973 June, 1973 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING PRESERVATION OF THE VIEW OF ASPEN MOUNTAIN AND INDEPENDENCE PASS THROUGH THE ADOPTION OF TWO SEPARATE VIEW PLANES FROM RUBEY PARK LOCATED IN BLOCK 90 TOWARD BOTH ASPEN MOUNTAIN & INDEPENDENCE PASS 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 develop- ment 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 protect mountain views from obstruction, and WHEREAS , two separate view planes from Rubey Park are necessary to protect views of Aspen Mountain and Independence Pass from an area owned and improved by the City of Aspen for intensive use for a park and as a transportation center by visitors and residents alike, and WHEREAS , the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission has considered all arguments both for and against the estab- lishment of two separate view planes from Rubey Park toward Aspen Mountain and Independence Pass and concludes that said page 2 View Planes - Rubey Park 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, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council establish two specific view planes from Rubey Park located in Block 90 by adding to Section 24-9 (h) (1) a new subsection (c) entitled Rubey Park View Planes, (1) Aspen Mountain and (2) Independence Pass, as described on the attached legal description. Dated this 2! day of 1(,, , 1973. Chairman Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Rubey Park View Planes . There are hereby established view corridors originating from Rubey Park above which plane no land use or building shall project. Reference point for view corridor number one bears N 35°18' 01" W 170. 70 feet from the northeasterly property corner of Block 91 original Aspen townsite. Elevation of the reference point number one is 7932 .60 feet above mean sea level. The view corridor 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 line which bear S 32°02 ' 43" E and S 87°46 ' 57" W respectively from the reference point, and which is also above the view plane which passes through the reference point at an angle of inclination of 10 006 ' 30" above horizontal. View Plane number two shows reference point bears N 53°53' 06" W 284.48 feet from the northeasterly property corner of Block 91 original Aspen townsite. Elevation of the reference point number two is 7931. 84 feet above mean sea level. The view corridor consists of two radial components more particularly described as follows : All that space which is within the projection of a sector of 8°58' 08" described by two radial line which bear S 45°36' 56" E and S 36°38' 48" E respectively from the reference point, and which is also above the view plane which passes through the reference point at an angle of inclination of 3°37 ' above horizontal. L MARCH 19, 1974 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 (MAIN 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 (CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING NEVER HELD ON RUBEY PARK INDEPENDENCE PASS VIEW CORRIDOR ALTHOUGH TABLED JULY 23, 1973 . ) PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES APRIL 16, 1974 BEFORE DECISION IS MADE P & Z HAVE REQUESTED A SITE INSPECTION AT A REGULAR MEETING . (AT THIS MEETING SITE INSPECTION NOT SET) RECORD OF PROCEEL..'!GS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning April 16, 1974 Meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Spencer Schiffer at 5:10 p.m. . with members Bryan Johnson, Jack Jenkins, Geri Vagneur and Janet Landry. Also present City/County Planner Iler.b Bartel, Assistant Planners Donna Baer and John Stanford and City Attorney Sandra Stuller. OLD BUSINESS Vice Chairman Schiffer stated that the Molny/Eubanks Molny/Eubanks ' project was given final approval under Ordinance #19 Final Approval subject to certain conditions. Stated that those con- ditions have been fulfilled, consequently, final approval is complete. Bartel pointed out that Molny has acquired an additional 7' easement which was part of of the Card property and can move those structures an additional 7 ' away from the river, which is even that much better than what he had shown on the plan. Stated that does not require any action of the Commission. Landry made a motion that final approval be granted for the Molny/Eubanks project under Ordinance °l.9 since all the conditions had been met. Motion failed for lack of a second. Rio Grande Vice Chairman Schiffer suggested this discussion be Subdivision placed at the end of the agenda. Concensus of the Com- mission was to place this item at the end of the agenda. Resolutions for Bartel submitted the resolutions for exemptions to con- Exen,ptions to dominiumize duplexes which the Commission acted on at Condominiumize the last regular meeting. Duplexes Schiffer pointed out that this was only two: Jordan/ Hecht and Chestnut/Weiman. Stated that have complied with the requirements and regulations. Concensus of Commission was to have Vice Chairman Schif- fer sign the two resolutions. Set Public Vice Chairman Schiffer stated that it was necessary for Hearing Date the Commission to set a date for the public hearing of the historic designation of the City Hall, Lift #1 (old) and the Community Church. Johnson made a motion to set the public hearing for the historic designation of City Hall, the old Lift #1 and the Community Church for 5: 00 p.m. May 21, 1974 . Motion seconded by Vagneur. All in favor, motion carried. Public Hearing / Vice Chairman Schiffer opened the public hearing on the Rubey Park View aaY�� Rubey Park View Planes. Planes Schiffer pointed out that this hearing included the In- dependence Pass corridor and the Aspen Mountain View corridor. Bartel submitted a map showing the two proposed view planes. Stated that they had decreased the angle of the Aspen Mountain View Corridor and retained the In- dependence Pass Plane. Stated that the reason for this . was first, wanted to, where possible, limit the view plane to one for the undeveloped portion of the block directly across from Rubey Park and that with both Rubey Park and Wagoner. Park being public land and the use of Rubey Park for transportation center, in the long run there is going to be a shift from the place where vi :i- RECORD OF PROCEE JGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning April 16, 1974 tors concentrate to the direction of the Mill Street in- ./ ter.section. Stated that the disadvantage in that is . that Galena Street is projected as the pedestrian link from the river to the downtown area to the transpor- tation stop, so the view of Aspen Mountain would be blocked except for the small corridor off the street. Bartel stated that the Planning Office feels it is very important to maintain the view of Independence Pass since this is a very high tourist concentration area and since there are not very many locations where there is a com- bination of both a foreground view of Aspen Mountain and a distant view of Independence Pass. Bartel stated that the front part'of the property could still be developed for a single story use. The back corner would have the height limits of the zoning code as it now is. Stated that the view line for Independence Pass could be varied through the PUD procedure. Bartel summarized by saying the Planning Office trade- off proposed at this public hearing is to decrease the angle of the Aspen Mountain view and retain the Inde- pendence Pass View. Vagneur questioned how much of the undeveloped land is under the Aspen Mountain View Plane. Bartel stated that the proposal is that none of it that is not built on would be under the Aspen Mountain View Plane. Attorney Jim Moran was present representing Curt Chase who owns the property affected by this view plane. Stated that they have on file a letter from him out- lining the affects of both view planes on this property. Moran stated that the compromise that was indicated is really no compromise at all. Indicated on map how the view plane affects the subject property. Moran stated that at the study session at noon, one of the reasons for the so-called compromise was stated to be that no one's property should be subject to two view planes. Stated that that problem has not been remedied. Stated that the unusable portion has been expanded by the pro- posal. Stated that the space that is now occupied by the house is subject to the Aspen Mountain View plane and he is still subject to two view planes. Moran stated that if you are standing in the alley at Rubey Park on Mill Street, you see none of Independence Pass. When you stand at the corner of Durant and Mill Street you see none of Independence Pass. Stated it is only at that one particular point for a length of ap- proximately 4-6 paces that you get the narrow view of Independence Pass. Stated that the idea that tourist concentration is going to move to that point at this stage is rank speculation. Stated that there is no data to support the statement that this is the tourists ' first visual impression of Aspen. • Moran stated that the combined affect of this is that the two lots on the west side of Chases' s property are restricted to the existing height of his house which is approximately 24 or 25 foot. Stated that when the view _2_ RECORD OF PROCEED, 4GS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning April 16, 1974 plane up the mountain crosses the back end of the pro- / perty it reaches 37; feet. Pointed out that the other plane causes the problem. Questioned what type of building could be designed that is 11 ' tall in one place and can go as high as 14 ' to 18 ' in the back. Moran further stated that there have been indications in the previous history of these two view planes that because of the severe affects on this property, affects that do not relate to developed property on either side of it, that there should be some negotiation, some dis- cussion of a possible solution. Did not feel PUD was any real solution. Requires additional dedication of open space. Does not allow development according to existing zoning. Stated that what this does is carve up this property, place an undue burden on it that is not shared by the neighboring property. Pointed out that Rubey Park, from a public standpoint, is not a park. It is being held by the City for development as it pleases and the City is preserving all its options there and taking them away from his client. Feels that the affect on this property is clearly a taking. Moran stated that he did not feel the City should take away a long-time citizen's property rights for the un- demonstrable benefit it would give to the tourists waiting for a bus for a few minutes. Moran stated that he did not feel the City could ask individual citizens to pick up the tab for making this a more beautiful place. Moran stated that the value of the land to Chase and eventually to anyone is not as a single family dwelling directly opposite the transportation center. Vice Chairman Schiffer questioned Moran on whether or not he had any specific recommendations regarding a compromise on the view planes. Moran stated that his recommendation is, if the City wants something from a property owner, why don't they come like any private citizen to the property owner and try to negotiate. Stated that he had offerred to dis- cuss the matter with the City but no overtures had been made. Felt that if the City wants those particular con- cessions that it is incumbent on them to approach the property owner. Feel this is two much to ask from one individual for the betterment of this City for the peo- ple at the transportation center. Jenkins stated that he did not feel that two view planes were necessary affecting one piece of property. Johnson stated that he had looked at the view plane in- numerable times and can understand that the City would like to protect its views, but on that particular In- dependence Pass view plane cannot support it. Vagneur stated that she agreed and could not support it. Landry stated that she was intrigued with the idea of a compromise, but cannot support the view plane as it is. Stated she would like to have a view of Independence Pass from that area, but not necessarily the proposed -3- RECORD OF PROCEE AGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning April 16, 1974 point. Vagneur stated that she would like to support some ac- tion to get the Planning Department to work with the property owner. Jenkins questioned Moran as to whether or not he had a problem with the view plane of Aspen Mountain and what it was. Moran stated that he did, but not nearly as bad of one. Jenkins stated he felt that they should get together and try to come up with some type of compromise. Bartel stated that he wanted to include in the file the applicant' s submission and the City's submissions so that everything for this hearing that has been collected to date is part of the file for records purposes. Vice Chairman Schiffer closed the public hearing on the Rubey Park View Planes. Schiffer suggested that all the Commission members go to the site and take a look at the view planes together and discuss them there and then get together in a study session with the property owner. Hopefully could do that before the meeting of May 21, 1974 . Jenkins stated that he felt the Commission needed more information concerning the transportation center. Felt this might affect the view. plane. Moran suggested that since there is no development pre- sently planned for those six lots, would like to have the Rubey Park view planes not recommended or cancelled at this time. Stated that if the development situation changed, would undertake to tell the Commission at that time that something was being planned. Jenkins stated he would like to get the problem out of the way in the near future and would like to have an inspection and a study session. Vice Chairman Schiffer suggested tabling this project but have the Planning Office put this item on the schedule. SUBDIVISION Attorney Ron Austin was present to represent this pro- . EXEMPTIONS ject. Hibberd Condo- ,, minium Houses Austin stated that the requests are being made under Section 20-10 of the Municipal Code which is the excep- tions and exemptions portion of the subdivision regu- lations. Austin reminded the Commission that they had voted to disapprove the proposed project on the basis of 20-7 (5i) which in effect is the finding by the Commission that the site is unsuitable for subdivision. Stated that he did not expect the Commission to reverse their decision at this meeting but is here in order to exhaust his ad- ministrative remedies. Austin submitted a letter containing the engineering. _4_ LEGAL NOTICE Notice is hereby given that the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission shall hold a public hearing on April 16 , 1974 , at 5 : 00 p.m. in the City Council Cahambers to reconsider two amendments to Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code to establish two view corridors from Rubey Park, which view corridors are more particularly described as : View Corridor One (To Aspen Mountain) Reference point for view corridor number one bears N 35°18 ' 01"W 170. 70 feet from the northeasterly property corner of Block 91 original Aspen townsite . Elevation of the reference point number one is 7932. 60 feet above mean sea level. The view corridor con- sists 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 line which bear S 32°02 ' 43" E and S 87°46 ' 57" W respectively from the reference point, and which is also above the view plane which passes through the reference point at an angle of inclination of 10°06 ' 30" above horizontal. View Corridor Two (To Independence Pass) View Plane number two shows reference point bears N 53 053 ' 06" W 284. 48 feet from the northeasterly property corner of Block 91 original Aspen townsite. Elevation of the reference point num- ber two is 7931. 84 feet above mean sea level. The view corridor consists of two radial components more particularly described as follows : All that space which is within the projection of a sector of 8°58 ' 08" described by two radial line which bear S 45°36 ' 56" E and S 36°38 ' 48" E respec- tively from the reference point, and which is also above the view plane which passes through the re- ference point at an angle of inclination of 3°37 ' above horizontal. /s/ Lorraine Graves City Clerk Published in the Aspen Times apentrl 28 , 1974 MARCH 19, 1974 RUBEY PARK INDEPENDENCE PASS SUMMARY OF VIEW CORRIDOR CONSIDERATIONS 1 . MAINTAINING ASPEN ' S EXISTING SCENIC VIEWS FROM PLACES WHERE VISITORS CONCENTRATE IS AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF A PLAN. PRELIMINARY EVALUATION PITKIN COUNTY RESI- DENTS PERSONAL INCOME - 1973 - INDICATES THAT $35 MILLION OF $51 MILLION ESTIMATED PERSONAL INCOME CAME FROM WAGES, SALARIES, PROFITS, RENTS, GENERATED BY TOURISM AND RECREATION BUSINESS . 2 . PROPOSED AS TRANSIT STATION FOR DOWNTOWN - FIGURE AS ON ITS PRESENT USE AS BUS TERMINAL . RUBEY PARK TO BUTTERMILK ONE-WAY ONLY BASED ON 1974 FEBRUARY AVERAGE : WEEK 4, 150 PASSENGERS DAY 593 PASSENGERS RUBEY PARK TO BUTTERMILK ONE-WAY ONLY BASED ON 1974 FEBRUARY PEAK : WEEK 5, 125 PASSENGERS DAY 732 PASSENGERS NOTE : INFORMATION FROM THE ASPEN SKIING CORPORATION 3 . RUBEY PARK PURCHASE - $300, 000 INTEREST $100, 000 4. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND MAINTENANCE FOR BEAUTIFICATION ONLY PAST THREE (3) YEARS - $21, 000 5 . SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN LAND VALUE THAT HAS OCCURRED CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO PUBLIC EXPENDITURE AND PUBLIC ACTION. THIS INCREASE IN LAND VALUE IS REALIZED AS PROFIT BY THE LAND OWNER . LEGAL NOTICE Notice is hereby given that the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission shall hold a public hearing on March 19 , 1974 , at 5 : 00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers to consider an amendment to the zoning Chapter of the Aspen Municipal Code to establish a view corridor from Rubey Park, more particu- larly described as follows : All that space which is within the projection of a sector if 119°49 ' 40" described by two radial line which bear S 32°02 ' 43 " E and S 87046 ' 57" 'v respectively from the reference point, and which is also above the view plane which passes through the reference point at an angle of inclination of 10006 ' 30" above horizontal. 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 Times February 21 , 1974 • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning March 19, 1974 Meeting was called to order by Chairman Bruce Gillis at 5:10 p.m. with Commis- sion members Jack Jenkins, Geri Vagneur and Janet Landry. Also present City/ County Planner Herb Bartel and Assistant Planners Donna Baer and John Stanford, • City Attorney Sandra Stuller, City Economist Larry Simmons and Assistant Engin- eer Ed Del Duca. OLD BUSINESS Chairman Gillis request that the media provide some Off Street Parking - type of different notification of the public input on Study Session off street parking for the study session on Tuesday, 3/26/74 March 26th. Stated that the Commission would appreciate different ideas by the public and would like to show the public what type of parking recommendations the Commission would like to consider. Open Space Proposal was forwarded to the Commission from Council - Presentation - concerning amending the open space requirements - by Jack Walls Councilmember Jack Walls. Presentation by Walls was set for the Commission study session of March 28 , 1974 . MINUTES 3/5/74 & 3/7/74 Vagneur made a motion to approve the minutes of March 5, 1974 and March 7 , 1974 . Motion seconded by Jenkins. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Gillis opened the public hearing on the Rubey Rubey Park View Park View Plane. Plane Attorney Jim Moran was present and questioned if the Resolution that went up from P & Z to Council on the other view planes was available to the public. Bartel stated that the view corridor under considera- tion is Rubey Park to Independence Pass . Moran stated that the Commission could not hold a pub- lic hearing on that view plane at this meeting since the legal notice of the public hearing was for the view plane to Aspen Mountain. Jenkins made a motion to reset the public hearing for April 9, 1974 , motion seconded by Vagneur. All in favor, motion carried. V PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Gillis opened the public hearing on the Trail Trail System Plan System Plan Amendment. Amendment Bartel submitted a map of the adopted Trail System Plan. Reminded the Commission that they are required to give public notice to amend an adopted plan. Stated that this plan was a.lopted by both the City and County Planning & Zoning C.• ..missions. Stated that the amend ments that are proposed would be reviewed. • Bartel stated that the first general amendment that the were trying to accomplish is to provide cross-town link with the trail system, both north and south of Main Street so that pedestrian traffic has its own desig- nated area to cross town. Bartel gave a brief review of the trail system. Stated RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning March 19 , 1974 Planning & Zoning Commission on April 2nd at their next regular meeting and still be ready for the earliest time that it could he placed on the Council agenda. Chairman Gillis stated that the Aspen Center - Subdivision Final Plat would be on the agenda for April 2, 1974. ORDINANCE k19 Bartel stated that he would be showing the Commission the Land Use Plan work that has been done to date for the area around Aspen Mountain. Pointed out that they have given the Commission preliminary presenta..tions on the mixed residential areas , but have not shown them anything for the orange area on the map. Independence Pass/ Bartel request that the public hearing for the Indepen- • Rubey Park Public dence Pass/Rubey Park View Planes he rescheduled for a Hearing - regular meeting date. Stated that the date previously Reschedule scheduled in this meeting, April 9th, was not a regular meeting date. Jenkins made a motion to withdraw the motion setting the public hearing for April 9th. Vagneur withdrew her second. All in favor, motion carried. Jenkins made a motion to reschedule the public hearing for • the Independenc. Pass/Rubey Park View Plane for April 16th, 1974 . Motion seconded by Vagncur. All in favor, motion carried. ORDIN7_`CL ,",79 Assistant Planner Jobs Stanford submitted beginning analy- Land Use Plan sis of the Ordinance #19 Map which is the recreation-ac- commodatio: s. Stated that the varic s, shades of gray in- dicate various levels of slope - the darker the gray, the steeper the slope. Map showed the 8040 line in green and the proposed transit ratite, City property, etc. . . Stanford stated that they are in the process now of be- ginning to work on land ownership and existing land use. Bartel stated that there are several significant parcels of City ownership and circulation aspects. Stated that first, the City did receive from the Ski Corp at the time of the Number One Lift a fairly sizeable area on Dean Street and an easement extending up to and an easement for ski purposes only up to the base of the area of the Nam,ber One-A Lift. In addition to that, the City has some public ownership at the end of Mill Street, which is generally not a public known fact. Indicated on the map the series of lots which are public. Bartel stated that at the time of the Mountain Queen sub- divisiun plat, the City Council by agreement, made pro- vision for a street extension from Monarch to Mill and the provision in that agreement is that the City would make every effort to acquire that by donation. If that is not possible the City then would proceed with condemnation and the costs covered by the Silver Queen project. So in this area one of the things desirable to follow up is that connecting link from Monarch to Mill. Bartel pointed out on the map the area which is the ac- commodations area and the accommodations area transition which recommended a very low density - smaller buildings - so that there be a blending trom the built up area into the mountainside. Stated that the Engineering Office has -B- RECORD OF PHOGUITOWOS 100 Leaves } egcl ar Meeting Aspen Mar i n Zoning February ,4 q Meeting was called to order by Char. m„n H; u< e Vi-1 lis at 5 : 15 p.m. with. members Chuck Vidal, Bryan Johnson, Jack Jenkins , Spence Schiffer and Geri Vagneur . Also present City/County Planner Herb Bartel and. Assistant Planners Donna Baer and John Stanford. MINUTES Gillis stated that there had been a request from Ms . 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 the 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 Commission 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 the Rio Grande Conceptual Site Plan for Rio Grande Conceptual February 14th. Requested that if any of the members Site 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-up ' Resolution - View to the public hearing, which included the view from Preservation Wagner Park, Cooper Avenue , the Wheeler Opera House , and the Courthouse and further included the provision through PUD to provide the flexibility in the view corridor with variations 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 hst.ab fish- ing View Planes From Wagner Park , Cooper Avenue (lie 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 1/ Bartel gave a briof background of this view plan_. of Recommendation -- Stated that it was recommended by the Commission independence Pass in the Re olalien dated uno 21 , 1973 . It was et View Plane from for City Council hearing sometime in August and was. ltuhey Park tabled at the City Council mooting following a re- RECORD OF Pi OU1.:.EDINOS 100 I_CiV(?5 Regular Meeting Aspen Planning F. Zoning February 5 , J 9 '4 quest that it should be reconsidered , consequently, the Council meeting has not been held on this view plane although it was published. Bartel then stated that there was a meeting on August 9 , 1973 , at which time the Commission stated that they would like to investigate the alternatives to main- tain the view and still provide flexibility on the de- velopment of the site. Bartel stated that he felt the PUB provision in the Code relating to the view corridors would provide that flexibility. Stated that it would not be finally ef- fective until adopted by the City Council. Stated it does come under the Commission ' s resolution of June 21st, which puts it under Ordinance #9 . Stated that if the Commission would like to rescind that or hear new arguments , would ask that the Commission re- schedule the public hearing on it since you cannot change the action of the Commission following the public hearing without holding a new hearing. Jenkins stated that he felt that with two view planes over the one piece of property, if the Commission did anything short of guaranteeing or specifying very positively some leeway, would have a problem recom- mending that view plane . Vagneur stated that she would be in favor of a public hearing on the view plane. Bartel stated that the original proposal was made by the Planning Office on June 19 , 1973 , and at that time, the Planning Office was asked to change it, by request of the Commission, which the Planning Of- fice did. It was then resubmitted on June 21st and adopted. Stated that now the Planning Office is faced with a change in the Commission. Bartel stated he would like to give his position now on the view corridor in order that the attorney and the landowners involved would know the Planning Of- fice position on the matter before the public hear- ing. Jim Moran, attorney, was present and stated that the publication in June was. the first time that the land- owner had any idea that the view plane was being con- sidered. Moran stated that he attended the meeting of July 10 , 1973 , prior to the time that the Council was to con- sider it, and requested that the Commission withdraw its recommendation to the City Council and take a look at it again, due to the effect it has on Curt Chase ' s property. Moran quoted the minutes of that meeting as saying , "Commission agreed to bring view plane proposals back to Planning and Zoning Commission for further consideration before sending recommenda- tions to Council . Further agreed that it could he beneficial to take a field trip to the proposed view plane site in order to determine exactly what the affects of the view planes would he . " -2- flLC OH) C I ppoc=fticl`' i0! Leavy., f:eau.tar Meeting Asr,c Platt �i nq Zoning February, 5 1974 Moran further pointed out that they were to come back on August 9 , 1973 , which they did , and talked about this particular view plane again . ,mated t:_-L he had brought in Jim er ' : cross-section snowing the aE- fect that these combined view planes had on this pro- perty, and a discussion ensued as to whether or not there were any compromises which would guarantee con- cessions so that development could take place under whatever the then-existing zoning was , without being penalized by the view planes. Stated that otherwise , they would have no choice but to take the matter to Court. Moran pointed out that Bartel had stated that his con- cern was what would happen after Ordinance #19 runs out. Stated that basically, what happened on August 9th was that the matter was tabled by the Commission . Feels that this matter is still with the Commission awaiting action. Bartel pointed out that there is a signed Resolution , and stated that he interprets this as the action of the Commission. Stated that the date of the signed resolution was June 21st. Feel the only way the Com- . mission can change their action is to hold another public hearing. Moran stated that the Commission had essentially re- versed that action on July 10th, 1973 , when they said they withdrew their recommendation. Bartel stated that in the Council meeting of July 23 , 1973 , it was moved to table the public hearing on the Rubey Park corridors until the August 27th Council meeting. Stated that there have been no Council hear- ings on it at all. Schiffer made a motion to reconsider the Rubey Park view planes and to reschedule the public hearing for March 19th, 1974 . Motion seconded by Vagneur. All in favor, with the exception of Vidal who was opposed. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Gillis opened the public hearing on Margaret Margaret Meadows Sub- Meadows Subdivision, Preliminary Plat. division - Preliminary Plat Chairman Gillis stated that the applicant had nothing to present and it was the recommendation that the Com- mission extend the public hearing to another date , preferrable February 19th. Public hearing on Margaret Meadows Subdivision , Pre- liminary Plat was rescheduled for February 19 , 1974 . RIO Grande - Pre- Dick Schottland was present and stated thai: they had liminary Plat tabled the subdivision. Bartel request that it he rescheduled at this meeting in order that it not have to be re-published. Public hearing on Rio Grande, Preliminary Plat was rescheduled for February 19 , 1974 . Bartel suggest that the applicant handcarry those re- -3- firr1V, t I is r I ,I r Is I e 1 t.'- h*. cin August t � 2I o View Corridors Ken Hubbard , attosedy representing Carl Berman ,f was prc . '11t C,,, _ i- ,.,, �11;�,R silQ O i , 1 ]' 1.1'�I , clr Il 1 C t Ce;. t0 tile, 1, - 1S1 i IAn ��.t_i'�' r t-f "i 1 their revised bu7_) _ i i plans were accepted , would avoid 1(L^ tri1:;) r1 of the building into the proposed V:1_CP' plane . it ' i-':CI. that the Cemaissjon would need to approve two things : (1) an intrusion of 10 ' Into the open space in front of the building . (2) the elimination of some of the otherwise required parking spaces , Bartel pointed out that the view plane consideration had been tabled by City Council because they wanted discussion of possible tradeoffs . Bartel stated that the open space trade-off is a proper consideration in this case . Hubbard stated they would like to be considered under Or- dinance ;,t19 at this meeting. Chairman Adams stated that the Commission was not prepared to do that at the present time, and would prefer to stick with the vied plane consideration. Bergman and Hubbard then submitted building p]_ans, that they felt: would be in full compliance e with the view plane as pro- posed. Commission °.<<',r('.?C. that the plans as submitted were in con pliance with the proposed view planet Jenkins made a motion to approve the plans as relates to the view corridor, seconded h5' Jon:°on. All. in favor, motion carried , Bruce, C i 1 I i ,, arrived , View Plane Attorney Jim Moran was p e ;ent repro. eni :ing Curt Chase. llubey P.sr9: Bartel t e1 h rw i slides...3.1.1 t 11 t i the two 1> opo ,e ' vlow p I<1,1:-, fJ 0n'. Rur cy t a:r.k tnsn tiountaln. and I1 l;1, 1 diC'rma. 1'ass ,, . 1'io]"C')1 1> > ht:::'u ouL i i ?.t ilt,' n:iC ' COS" 1`"L009"S 1 r r 1 M1 ' i r t- bui ]_;1 ,1, h.,-: ,..m: 011 1_.1hes 1 „ )yro1)e Ly to apl v 1 mai eI-) 11 ' in 1. , ccd.. cli;d ) 9 i't ,`. i in leek , (111 d;l \ i:rata 0 '._ ' tl ,-`i 1 , k' , * '11 C:L I !i),"ii. . 1 111111 1 ('C1uY! t. 0 I CH,' (j(1,11 . [111 , 11 11 , 12 1 'n.- (110. 111,:.10:1 1;0, 11111,1 i,i-1 1`, I r ■ _ c . LEC.CP,1:7Y Or riu,ourtmlia.;s _ H... '. .: ± y..,.....-±,..y::...-..ii._......... ____---....ry• pecelef Msetias Aspen Planning Cy Zoning Au-dat: 9 1.973 At this point , TAbrC11 submitted the cross-sections prepared by loser, N.,...Y.CILD pointed out that if one walked a short. tance to Wc.,.ger Park, would be able to see all, of Aspen Mbuntaici and independence Pass . Bartel stated that the view from Rubey Park was wanted since Rubey Park is a transportation concentration, rather than a casual stroll through Wagner Park. Moran stated that the City and Chase were in similar posi- tions because neither knows what they ' re going to do with their property. Questioned whether or not the Commission wanted to preserve that view at such a high cost to Chase . Bartel pointed out that the view corridor in no way restricts what can be done underground, and that 11 ' is all that is re quired for a single-story building. Moran stated that the compromise would be a trade-off that would allow the property to be developed in the future in the seine manner as the surrounding property which is C-1 district. Stated that: they wanted to preserve the "build-. ability" that is presently there . Bartel pointed out that they didn ' t need a view corridor if there was no building on the property. Further pointed out that the Commission. had acknowledged its willingness to wait by their request for Council to table it . Their onl-reei.711 . is what happens after Ordinance #19 is not in effect. Bartel. stated that: he would like to handle the consileraLion while still. under Ordinence :1'19 . Would like to either es- tablish a compibmime cottiaoo or make an agreement that the view corridor would be a consideratibne Moran. stated that he would. like to have in. that type of am- rangemant a concession from. the City that the cstalClimiftert: of vidc7 corridor and corres1ienc.! ag ad:lusirents would be cede aecommedatig what veuld otherwise be the holding cmpecity of that piep-fty undfr the thin' us intl ng zonil:{.., , Bartel. qmesidfue .1 vtdmItm. or net tiefy vsmeivl ace,. n...-mul. so um just C.id o ' t vve,m a v , cw C.M•YJM....? , '....y ,.:.1.-J.. d L1,1: 1 Lie 15..,*-Hsii.H.,,',1. :,;1.,.,..mt: ,...J. 1,-y :ny-;_ ! p-nd ,...:H... :.: (..(.,py t.. ,f. .:., :... • (..ix,:w, :- ...:- 1 :,.(,..-, . . .,H. L.H..! :..',..; .,..y ..i.v ., ,:.,-... ,,-, :.Th , :11?-,,,,..-.H H.-../..i , • -,....:. : ii H.- (-.H.Ly Al. i.D.....,H ,/ -', H.' 1.,0 :5H H.; -..... i i. (.. ! -j.-H..•', : 11 i ;. , i ,..] .: .. HY-.',..: • :. .''. ■ H :..•..:.-. . (1. H ''. L') i. HH, y : . :.. 1.. ...H. .H: L j (H ■ ;I : ...] Y(:. ... ..: . . .H . : ••• (. : : H .-. . :: : .,.H.:• ..... ..H ,. s.' :. .! L. , j 'ii '..• i k.-1.1 :, , , ,. .. . , , . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . „ „ ., : , . ..:. . . . • . . ■ . . • ' . . • • ' • • • • . . . .. - . • • - • . • ; . • , . , • .- • . . , , . . ',, , , . :. . : ,•. - • : , . , . . • • . . t • , 1 ' . H : . • . • I . • • . . • • ? ! : ,- CY--, : [.... H, H . j :: : . ', I I' . 1'.• :H!...• i ' . i ! ii• , '. ••, i:H • , • • • ni fi f ! v C ail Hy ] .I'•,- ' I , kao ciik to order by M van Saaay Sta.aliJy .. ![ ; On p .. City linntactir Ruts (tay't)cli . ,.r v. HTh . . ail :sir v; ,_ to approvc ..li<. r ,i _,_.), of Ju:!_y 9 , 19 /3 a', i oi> _ ct . . �.7 _ ,.i tJ l" tL]'_ City Clerk. C! Gu�i!'.. by (;O Ji1Ld l.pan LTC <..-tC'_U . All in t .. , i F i C1.z c+6 John Pus eh, uncier Citizens Participation, suggested ;1tnS P is lei"pl i:iOil be put at she entrance to the City relating the message that the citizen has the right-of-way. Another pedestrian accident this week on Main Street . Suggest also the mer- cury vapor lights in the core area he changed to white phosphate coating which gives more light . The street light at Mill and Main should be changed to lengthen the time for Main Street so that pedestrians have sufficient time to cross the street. Further suggest the sales tax charts he changed so that errors are not made by merchants for pur- chases under $1. 00 . Attorney Robert Gruetter stated the City Attorney 's letter has been transmitted to Mr . Trueman and he is prepared to close on Wednesday of this week. Toro 's Stock Required forms were submitted to Council. Councilwoman Transfer Pedersen moved to approve the stock transfer as submitted. Seconded by Councilman Breasted . Roll call vote - Council- men Pedersen, aye ; Breasted, aye ; Markalunas , aye ; Walls, aye ; Mayor Standley, aye. Motion carried . View Corridors - Councilman Breasted moved to table the public hearings on view corridors for Rubey Park and Mill and Main until August 27th Council meeting. Seconded by Councilwoman Markalunas . All in favor, motion carried. Paragon Parlour, Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. Attorney Gruetter Purchase and Sale stated the file is complete and stated the applicant is the of Liquor License sole owner of the license and stock and is of high character . Stated the total premises of the Paragon has been sold to two- individuals ; this application relates to the existing bar area and a small portion of the kitchen facilities. City Attorney Stuller questioned what the condominium lay- out is . Attorney Gruetter stated total area is considered as one unit although the declaration does provide for splitting into two units . There being no further comments , Mayor Standley closed the public hearing. Councilman Walls moved to approve the purchase and sale of the liquor license of the Paragon. Parlour . Seconded by Gounailwomtn Pedersen.. Roll call vote -. Councilmen Wa].1s , aye ; Marko:tunas , aye ; Breasted, aye ; Pedersen , aye; Mayor Stan'ii 'y , aye . Motion carried , , in TV Ay` tE i�`23, CORaei lL]J f7 ti C',• I-/_'(i 7lhJ'C'L11 Co rend by l:i.t:,to nLU i_7iLl ill•.f1 I i.�hi C ] 973 Saj'Jn , of 1.973 on .i non: iedi1 g. Seconded by Cou ic:i.J..... .ikl7n Sctdc;_'.-,on- All fnvor , w)uion unified . LEGAL NOTICE Notice is hercily given , the Aspen City Council shall hold a public hearing on July 23 , 1973 , 4 : 00 p.m. to consider an amendment to the zoning Chapter of the Aspen Municipal Code to (1) establish a view corridor from Rubey Park located in Block 90 extending toward Aspen Mountain and (2) establish a view cor- ridor from Rubey Park located in Block 90 extending toward Independence Pass . 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 July 4 , 1973 • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Continued Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning July 10 , 1973 It was further pointed out that due to the view plane, Bergman would lose 3,966 square feet of the total 12 , 000 square feet of above-ground space. Vidal stated that the possible .view plane in- trusion is an architectural problem, and thus would have to be solved by the architects . Further considerations pointed out by Bergman were: (1) They would try to save the trees; (2) Replacing curb in Main Street; (3) Gen- eral site improvement; (5) Zoning enforce- ment policy - review by Building Inspector. Commission agreed to table Bergman's request un- til a possible compromise could be worked out. JCurt Chase - Attcrney Jim Moran, representing Curt Chase, was View Plane present to voice his concern about the Indepen- Consideration dence Pass View Plane from Rubey Park. Moran requested consideration for withdrawing the recommended view planes from Rubey Park and fur- ther review by the Planning Office of the recom- mendations. Stated the combination of view planes has serious consequences for Chases' s property. Presently, he would have to oppose the view plane to Independence Pass. Moran pointed out the view plane at present goes from 15 feet at the property line, to approxi- mately 25 feet at the opposite side. Stated that Chase has no development plans at the pre- sent time. Would like to see the view planes brought back to the Planning and Zoning Com- mission for further considerations. Bartel explained that the first presentation from the Planning Office did not include the view of Independence Pass, but it was added at the re- quest of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Stated that in order for the view planes to get a full test, they must relate to specific deve- lopment proposals. Moran then brought up the question of the view plane as a taking of space. Moran further ques- tioned why the Planning Office has not sent notice to the property owners affected by the view planes of at least the public hearings on the view planes . Bartel explained that this was due primarily to a lack of money, and that it was quite an ex- pensive process . Commission agreed to bring view planes proposals back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for further consideration before sending recommen- dations to Council. Further agreed that it would be beneficial to take a field trip to the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Continued Meeting ' Aspen Planning & Zoning July 10 , 1973 proposed view plane sites in order to determine exactly what the affects of the view planes would be. Meeting adjourned into study session at 7 : 15 p.m. • (17 � Se tary /j/ • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Recessed Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning June 21, 1973 ' Meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Bruce Gillis at 5 : 00 p.m. with Charles Collins, Victor Goodhard and Barbara Lewis . Also. present frcm the Planning Office, Herb Bartel , Fred Wooden, Donna Baer and City Engineer David Ellis . Comission agreed to hold their next regular meeting on July 10th due to the holiday of July 4th. View Ru ey Park Revised slide of the view plain from Rubey Park of Independence Pass was presented by Fred Wooden. . Noted the new height of buildings in the view plain would be 17-1/2 ' . Lewis moved, to approve the change , adopt the res- olution and recommend same to the City Council as amended of Rubey Park view plain. Seconded by Goodhard. All in favor,motion carried. Courthouse Historic Designation, Pitkin County Courthouse - H Overlay Mr. Wooden submitted the investigation report of the Historic Preservation Commission recommending H overlay and the approval of the County Commissioners for such designation. Request the P &. Z give preliminary approval and schedule a joint public hearing with the HPC. Goodhard moved to approve the resolution for H overlay district of the Pitkin County Courthouse and schedule a public hearing for July 17th. Seconded by Collins . All in favor, motion carried. Building Permit Review Criteria - Mr. Bartel inform- ed the Commission second reading of Ordinance #19 Criteria, Bldg. is scheduled for Council meeting on Monday and the Permit Review criteria is a part of that ordinance. Request P & Z tenative approval of the criteria. Changes in the criteria may occur following adoption of Ordinance #19 , i.e. requiring market feasibility _ ', studies on large complex developments etc. Lewis moved to give tenative approval of the building permit review criteria as submitted. Seconded by Goodhard. All in favor, motion carried. Barbara Lewis left the table due to conflict of interest on the next agenda item. DRC Phasing Destination Resort Corporation Phasing - Applicant request permission to obtain building permit for second phase of development. Mr. Bartel referred to the regulation under PUD which requires a schedule of development to be submitted along with final approval of the outline developement plan. The second phase of this development is scheduled for 1974 . Applicant stated the reason they are requesting the permit at this time is because the second phase calls for recreational facilities and do not wish I to be delayed in construction for next year. Feel t foundations etc. can be started this fall and intend to get an early start next spring. I - 1 - • RECORD OE PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning June10 , 1073 William Dunaway questioned if there were any bonuses given when there is a view plane involved. Mr. Wooden 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 Mountain and Independence Pass were estab- lished. Height of buildings within the view plane of Aspen Mountain would be 25 ' allowed and of Independence Pass ranging from 191 to 30' . Slides and maps were reviewed. Barbara Lewis questioned if the building height line 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 Lewis. Goodhard moved to recess this meeting to Thursday at 5: 00 p.m. , seconded by Collins . All in favor, meeting adjourned at 7 :10 p .m. Lorraine Graves, City Clerk