Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.Main St View Plane.1973June, 1973 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING PRESERVATION OF THE VIEW OF ASPEN MOUNTAIN THROUGH THE ADOPTION OF A VIEW PLANE FROM THE PUBLIC PED- ESTRIAN WAY IN FRONT OF THE HOTEL JEROME TOWARD ASPEN MOUNTAIN 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, a view plane from the public pedestrian way on the southern boundary of Block 89 is necessary to pro- tect the view of Aspen Mountain from an area that is of primary visitor interest and contains a building (Hotel Jerome) that is undergoing procedure to zone it as an H, Historic Overlay District, and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has considered all arguments both for and against the establish ment of a view plane from the public pedestrian way in front of the Hotel Jerome toward Aspen Mountain and concludes that said view plane is in accordance with the intent of Section 2~ (h) of the Aspen Municipal Code and is necessary to protect f specific mountain view from obstruction, page 2 View Control - Hotel Jerome NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council establish a specific view plane from the public pedestrian way on the southern boundary of Block 89 (Hotel Jerome) by adding to Section 24-9 (h) a new subsection (b) entitled Hotel Jerome View Plane as described on the attached legal description. Dated this~day of__ ~/~rA 1973. ~~ -~ ~.~~- Chairman Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission HOTEL JERpIONE VIEW PLANE. There is hereby established a view corridor originating from the Hotel Jerome 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" W 510 feet from the reference point. Elevation of the reference point and reference base line is 7909.10 feet above mean sea level. The view corridor con- sists of two radial components more particu- larly described as follows: 1. All that space which is within the pro- jection of two radial line which bear S29°10'06"E from the reference point, and 580°29'29"W from the Westerly terminus of the reference base line, and which is also above the view plane which passes through the reference base line at an angle of inclination of 6°29'20" above horizontal. R~CU~;Ci OF f'13~CCED!!`:rS l~?i' I_ ~~::c r. e. a _. i ~. ._. __ __ -___'__ _ _ Regular i•?eeting ~ Aspen P1ann=i.ng s mooning January y, 7.97 Meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Bruce Gillis at 5:40 p.m. with Chuck Vidal, Bryan Johnson, Jack Jenkins and Spence Schiffer. Also pros-ent City/County Planner Herb Bartel. and Assistant Planners Donna Baer and Jehn Stanford. Johnson made a motion to send a recommendation to City Council asking for a Resolution commending Jim Adams for the time and effort he has spent on the Commission during it's most difficult times. :Motion seconded by Schiffer. A11 in favor, motion carried. OLD BUSINESS Gillis stated that there had been a decision to go Vill of Aspen, / through the procedure of a potential reversing of the Phase II vote on %he Villa. Stated that a motion to that affect Rehearing would have to be made by a member who had voted in fa- vor of the project the last time. Schiffer made a motion to re-hold the procedure, secon- ded by Jenkins. All in favor, motion carried. Attorney Jim Moran, representing Attorney Art Daily, was present and stated that he would like to preserve for Mr. Daily, at such time as the Coru;.ission does rehear the matter, the privilege of argument that rehearing is not appropriate or within the jurisdiction of the Commission. Would like to preserve the point for fur- ther argument that what the Commission has just done ' is erroneous and not witl-.in their jurisdiction. .:ity Attorney Sandra Stuller stated that she had no objections to that proposal. Schiffer made a motion to hold the meeting for the re- _ hearing at the earliest possible date, seconded by John- son. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting date set for January 22nd. View Plane Memo ~ Bartel stated that *_he Planning Office had written a memo on the View Plane preservation, and wanted the members to review that before the meeting of th~_ i5th. Stated that a study session had been held, and they had the ordinance on the view preservation, and wha±: it does specifically is provide for PUD opticns where the height limit as set by the view preservation is less i than that allowed by the existing zoning.. Grant-In-Aid J Bartel stated that the County had made application for Application - a grant-in-aid for open space for the land adjacent to County the hospital, and stated that there was a letter con- : corning that for the Commission's consideration. Bartel stated that the Commission By-Laws would be in- cluded in the packet for the next meeting. Rezoning of Ute J Bartel stated that he and Stanford had worked on a plan Avenue area and requested the Commission set a public hearing to consider a change in zoning from the area south of Waters and generally centered along Ute Avenue. Bartel stated that the point that that raises is whether or not the Commission would like to review these items with the applicant or whether they would like to do the Mixed Residential part of the agenda first. Stated that he felt Vidal should have precedent in this matter. Bartel stated that he did not want to get into discus- ®~ ~~• HOLLAND & HART ATTORNEYS AT LAW 500 EOUITq 6LE BUILDING JOSIPH G. HO LL PND T SiEPrvEN H. HART MEE ? MO Rgrv ]30 BEVENT EENTN STREET H4 R xENrvETH RuRewx° ° B , M RE ROBE RT L V ER SCHVRE DENVER,COLORADO H0202 L.WHIT E JAMES GOROONG GREINER STEELpT RO BERL H. DVRHq M~JR, M.MnE R, JR. TELEPHONE AREA CODE 303 292-9200 O AV IE ON J R H~G REGORY wVSiIN FLEMING NE LLY OHN M SCXMIp T,JR. ANN H.MO RISON JgMES P. uNDSwr CABLE ADDRESS HOLHART, DENVER uAM C. M~uEwgN ns.xgnN TRACEY,JR. W AM VELA MOVNTAIN PLq 2A BUILDING gLLEN M E " R JOHN S. CwSTELLwNO BEN E.CRI p Lnw oErvrv15 M JPCrc50n P, O. BO% 1126 ABPE N COLD RAOO H1611 JAMES E Gq RTV ROBE Ri E.BENSON , , FIE LO GeENiOn pONALp O. RIrv CrvErv TELEPHONE 925-34]6 AREA CODE 303 °PVIO BUTLER RIC HgRO M.rcOON ',"""""`AR"` WARREN L.TOMLINSON `HARLEB?BR""pT gORERT i. CONNERY August 17, 1973 BRVCE i. BVELL gpON 6EP iTY HARRY L. H0950N OF CO VNSEL Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission c/o Mr. Herb Bartel, City-County Planner P,O, Box V Aspen, Colorado 81611 THUR C. GAILY STEVEN M. HPN NON JEFFREY C. POND JOXN O-COOMBC JOHN VNDEM CARLSON BRVCE W. BP TT LEP NOELLL PAN DY L PARCEL SOLOMON NG BP PON JOSEPH N. OE RAISMES ROBE Rt J. MOIR G RAMAM M. CLAR N, JR. MARrc R. LE VY DAVID G. PALMER JEANNETiE P METER prtH eox xlE xouoEE V R. agoorcE JACxsoN M CXAEL O. MARTIN BRITTON WMI , WPLiER W. GAPNSET~ JR. RAVL N. ROD RIGVE2 JACK 1. SMITn Re: Bergman building - Hotel Jerome Viewplane Ordinance and Ordinance 19 Ladies and Gentlemen: Since I am not sure which of the points and questions raised in this letter are more appropriate for Herb and which for the Commission itself, I am sending sufficient copies (again) for circulation to all members of the Commission and Herb, all in care of Herb, and at a time when our Ordinance 19 appearance has not yet been put on the agenda, to the best of my knowledge. I would first like to summarize what has happened to date. As you know, the Bergmans were almost at the point of applying for a building permit when the Hotel Jerome Viewplane Ordinance was recommended by your Commission. Under Ordinance 9, this had the effect of prohibiting the issuance of a building permit, since the building then on the drawing boards would have intruded into this viewplane in violation of the recommended ordinance. As we have discussed, the validity of viewplane ordinances in Colorado has not been decided by the Courts, but there is authority from o per jurisdictions, mentioned in my letter of August 6, which would indicate they might be treated as the taking of a scenic easement through the air space owned by the landowner, for which compensation must be paid. Since the Bergmans really wanted to build a building, rather than be the first to litigate a viewplane ordinance in Colorado, it was decided that we should attempt to reach some sort of compromise solution. ,~, , .. Aspen Planning &a ~ HoLL.~,xn fi HrvuT Zoning Commission August 17, 1973 Page two To date, I think all concerned have been satisfied with the results, Your commission did not like the first revised building proposal any more than we did, but agreed to ask City Council to table the proposed Hotel Jerome Viewplane ordinance to see what else the Bergman's architects could come up with. The architects then came up with a revised and more attractive building but one which would not intrude into the viewplane. This was to be accomplished by a proposed partial intrusion into the front open space otherwise required and a substantial diminution and re- shuffling of interior space, You then approved the first part of our requested "trade off", which you are empowered to do under Ordinance 19, but deferred action on our request for the elim- ination of some of the required parking spaces until a later full review under Ordinance 19, and promised we would be put on the agenda for this review as soon as possible, hopefully within the next 3 weeks (now 2). At this point, I only wish to make certain we are all in agreement on the following: (1) That the material which has been filed to date is sufficient under Ordinance 19 for review of our "conceptual or sketch plan presentation". Please advise as soon as possible if anything else is needed in this regard. (2) That the planned use is an "appliance store" exempt from review except for "lot and yard requirements and building heights" and modification of off-street parking requirements (See Ordinance 19 under A. Central Area, Sections 1, 2 and 3). (3) That the front open-space instrusion having been approved at your August 7 meeting (as continued to August 9) and the revised building height, in conformance with the viewplane angle, in effect having been approved at that same time, that the off-street parking question is really the only one still to be reviewed and resolved. (4) That in reviewing our request for the elimination of some of the required off-street parking spaces, you will consider the background, as recited above, of this particular Ordinance 19 review, and remember that the Bergmans are not asking something for nothing. They have given up quite a biro accommodate the viewplane, where legatry they were probably not required to do so, at least not without compensation, However, we trust that you will continue to show the good faith and willingness to work out these problems with us that has been present so far. r Aspen Planning &~ Zoning Commission August 17, 1973 Page three HOLLAND ~@ HART If there is any substantial disagreement concerning the above points, I would appreciate hearing from you before the scheduled August 27 public hearing on the proposed Hotel Jerome Viewplane Ordinance. Otherwise, we will plan to cover the remaining matters to be reviewed, as indicated above, whenever we are next placed on the agenda. We hope, of course, that this will be soon, and perhaps within the 3 week period mentioned on August 9. Sincerely yours, ~~ Kenneth D. Hubbard for HOLLAND & HART KDH/bw cc: Mr. & Mrs. Carl Bergman Pielstick - Rosolack P.S. Since writing the above, I have been advised that we are on the agenda for your September 4 meeting, so my questions concerning "when" have been answered. ,,. CIO LLAIID &HART ro: PLANNING OFFICE DATE: AU~uSt 8 1973 FROM: Ken Hubbard RE: Attached These were handed to Herb to be handed out to City P & Z members at the meeting last night. He handed them back to me when it became necessary to postpone the meeting until Thursday night, August 9. However, it might save some time at that meeting if these could somehow be distributed to the P & Z members before the continued meeting. Please call me if you would like some assistance in doing this. HOLLAND & HART ATTORNEYS AT LAW Jo slAn c. Ho LLAND JOR NHL HART T WILLIAM O. EM BRE E~JR. JAMES L RITE M WESTFELOT PVIOE M RJR. RODE RT P. Dnv lsoN N FLEMING NELLY Ann H.MORISON WILLIAM C McCLEPRN JAY W.TRACE YSJR. JOHN ALLEN MOORE nIOLAW ames E. HEGARTv O C. BENSON DAVID BUTLER PEL FA RLEY L.TOMLINSON RRVCE T.BVELL OON O TER MES iTMORAN NENNEiX O ARD ROBERT L.VER SC XVRE GORDON G IN ER O URHPM~JR. EAM E. MURANE H ~GREGOgv Au sTIN L.W M SCH MIDT~J R. M ESIP. LIN OSAV EDWIN 5 SAMUEL PnGUY~iON JOHN S. CASTE LLAND O EN NIS M JACNS ON BERT E. BENSON DONALD O. NINONEN HPRD M.NOON CHARLES T. BRAN Oi ROBE Ri T. CONNERY HARAOON BEPi iY 500 EOUITA BLE BUILDING ]30 SEVENTEENTH GTREET DENVER. COLORADO H0202 ARTHUR C. OAI LY STEVEN M. HANNON JEFFREY C. PONV JOHN D. LOOM BC JOHN UN DEM CARLSON EVGENE F McGUIRE BRVCE W. sATT LER IN DELL L. GUMPER AN VY L. PA RCEL SOLOMON N. BPRON JO SEPX N. OE RAISME$ RO BE RT J. MOIR GRAXAM M. CLAR N~JR. MARK R. LE VY OAVIO G. PALM ER JEANNETTE G METER VVITH BONNIE NOZLOFF q. OPOONE JACN50N MICHAEL D. MARTIN Bfl 1TTON WHIT E~J R. WALTER W. GPRNSE Y, JR. RAVL N, qOD RIGVE2 JACK L. SMITX nM^O F'E LOUNSE LV ~' TELEPHONE AREA CODE 303 292-9200 CABLE ADDRESS HOLHART. DENVER MOUNTAIN PLAZA BUILDING P. O. BO% 112 H, ASPEN, COLD RA00 81611 TELEPHONE 925-34]6 AREA CODE 303 August 6, 1973 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission City of Aspen P.O. Box 694 Aspen, Co. 51611 Ladies and Gentlemen: Reference is made to my earlier letter, dated July 5, 1973, and the minutes of your meeting of July 10, 1973, as continued to July 12, 1973. The Bergmans and their architects have consulted amongst themselves and with the planning office and have come up with revised building plans which will be presented at your meeting of August 7, 1973. These revised plans, if accepted, would avoid intrusion of the building into the proposed view plane, but in order to accomplish this, you would need to approve two things: (1) An intrusion of 10 feet into the open space in front of the building; and (2) The elimination of some of the otherwise-required parking spaces. The result would be a building which preserves the view plane and which is much more attractive, in our opinion, than the one which we showed you on July 12, To put this request in a proper context, I would remind you that the view plane ordinance would have the effect of eliminating almost 5000 square feet from the building for which an application for building permit was about to be filed when the ordinance was proposed. In our opinion, the City by this ordinance could be legally treated as having condemned without compensation a scenic easement through the air space owned by the Bergmans. The situation is analagous to that in the case of Indiana Toll Road Commissioner v Jankovich, 193 N.E. 2d 237 (1963), w ere a eig res ric ion r^• V HOLLAND .& HART '"~ Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission August 6, 1973 Page two zoning ordinance applicable to land surrounding the Gary Municipal Airport was held invalid by the Indiana Supreme Court as an attempt to take and appropriate "the ordinarily usable air space of pro- perty adjacent to the Gary Airport without the payment of compensation" The U.S. Supreme Court refused an appeal from this decision in 379 U.S. 487 (1965). See also Volume 2 Nichols, Law of Eminent Domain, wherein it is stated: 1. Section 6.20: "In the exercise of eminent domain property, or an easement therein, is taken from the owner and applied to public use because the use or enjoyment of such property or easement is beneficial to the public..." 2. Section 6.35: "It has been strongly intimated that when the height of structures near a park or public building has been limited so that the beauty of the public reservation will not be marred, the restriction is really taking of an easement by eminent domain." As stated in my letter of July 5, the Bergmans probably could successfully challenge this ordinance but "...do not wish to pro- ceed in this manner if they can find some way to co-operate with the City in achieving its goals and still come close to building the structure they have been planning for the past several months." The plan which they are now presenting would meet these mutual objectives, in our opinion, and the requests concerning the front open space intrusion and the elimination of some parking spaces can be considered the compensation for the taking, should anyone wish to view the situation in legal terms (as we lawyers are in- clined to do). We hope that you will give this new proposal your thoughtful consideration, as we have exerted every effort to come up with an attractive building which will preserve the view towards Aspen Mountain, eliminate the need for further legal wrangles and be satisfactory to all concerned. Since~ly yours, -?~ e~-'~... Kenneth D. Hubbard for HOLLAND & HART KDH/bw cc: Mr. & Mrs. Carl Bergman Pielstick - Rosolack Mr. R. L. Fischer July 25, 1973 Kenneth D. Hubbard Holland & Hart P.O. Box 1128 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Ken: This letter is in response to your correspondence dated July 16, 1973 on behalf of Carl Bergman. In regard to your questions concerning off-street park- ing I feel that the Planning Commission would have auth- ority under Ordinance 19 to decide if required spaces could be leased from the City. I am including for your information a copy of the standard lease agreement used by the City at present. The price for each space is currently $4,800.00. When processing any application from which a building permit might issue it is the policy of the City to make a routine check to ensure compliance with all regulations as they apply to existing enterprises operated by the applicant. A general review under the zoning code would include checking conformance with Section 24-9, parking requirements and Section 24-7, use square foot limitation. A general review of the building code would include a check to ensure compliance with fire protection requirements. Sincerely yours, Fred Wooden Assistant Planner FW/bk enclosure .~ a. (e.. ,. ~ <J ~. .% HOLLAND & HART ATTORNEYS AT LAW 500 EOUITA BLE BUILDING arvO pOrvp T ]30 SEVENTEENTH STREET nRiHVR G OAIV STEVEN M. rvArvrvON STEPHEN H. HART JgMES i MORPN JEFFPEY C. PONp JOHN O. COOMgE HN H U DENVER~DOLORADO 80202 JOHN Urv EM UgLSON o EUGENEF MCGUIRE EM BPE E, JP. gOgEgT L sCHVRE W 1 L V BRUCE W S AT TLER IN pELLL MPER A ME 5 .WHITE GORDON G G REINER FE L Di ERT X OURHa M JR. M B qN OY L. Pq RCEL SOLO MON NG BARON R , MnER E M. L LIAM E. MUR qNE TELEPHONE AREA CODE 303 292-9200 JOSEPH N. OE RgI5ME5 ROBEgT J. MOIq VISON V AVSiIN pa R GRAHgM M. CLA RN, JP. DAVID G. PALM ER MgRN R. LEVY JEgN NETiE P METER ELLY L.W LL MSCH MI pi,JR. E H MO RISOn JAMES P,UNOSAr CABLE ADDRESS HOLHART, DENVER JU OITH BON NIE ItOZLOFF R. BPOOFE JACItsON m 4 MccLEaRrv rv S.rc W ILLI pWl nHN MIC HAEL p. MARTIN BRIT TON wH rtE~JR. E O Wp LT EP W. GARNSE Yr JR. JOHN nLI EN MOORE JOHN S. CAS iE LL NNO MOUNTAIN PLAZA BUILDING RAUL N. ROD RIGVEZ CNSON JACM L. SMITH RO pERT E.pEN50n S E TV P, O. BOX 1128, ASPEN, COLD RA00 81611 pErvTON D C OONgLp O. xIrv OrvEN TELEPHONE 925-34]6 AREA CODE 303 MOpN LEY FLES i AN DT RoO o" GDrv ERTT` NERY Jul 16 1973 9RUGE T. HARAppN EEAiTY y , R OBSDN_ Mr. Herb Bartel City Planner P.O. Box V Aspen, Co. 81611 Re: Hotel Jerome View Plane Ordi nance and the Bergmans Dear Herb: Referring to the results of the July 12 meeting with the City Planning & Zoning Commission, I understand that the Commission will recommend to Council on or before the July 23 public hearing date that the proposed ordinance be tabled pending further efforts to try to accommodate the Bergman's building plans and protection of the view from the Hotel Jerome towards Aspen Mountain. Accord- ingly, we are not preparing to appear on July 23 to argue against the passage of this ordinance, hoping that we will be able to reach some compromise which will enable us to support a proposed ordinance which would enable the Bergmans to build a building which they can live with without unreasonably obstructing this view. If my understanding of the current status is in anyway incorrect, please let me know right away. Concerning possible compromises, Bob Fischer and Russ Pielstick are hard at work on one possibility which we hope to have ready to present to P & Z at its July 24 meeting. One crucial question here, however, is the availability of leased or acquired city space for off-street parking for a structure in the C-1 district. Is it your position that P & Z could authorize this under Ordinance 19 even though §24-9 of the Municipal Code now refers only to the C-C district? If not, what other means would be available to reach this result? I would also like to discuss with you the specifics of the "upon terms and conditions and in such places authorized and approved by the city manager" language of §24-9, as currently interpreted and implemented. i L ~ \ Mr. Herb Bartel °' July 16, 1973 Page two f A FIO LLAND ~ HART `'° '~ You also mentioned a further possible condition on any compromise in the form of a review of Carl's Pharmacy, under the heading of "zoning enforcement." Do you have something specific in mind here, or just a general review? I am not aware of any violations of the zoning code, but would appreciate knowing if you have any possible violations in mind which we should review with Carl. Sincerely yours, /iil~1,R,~J . ° Kenneth D. Hubbard for HOLLAND & HART KDH/bw cc: Mr. & Mrs. Carl Bergman Mr. R.L. Fischer Pielstick-Rosolack __. _ r' J051AH G. HOLLAND OON O PMES TTMORAN W ILL'IPMO M9RE E,J R. gOOERi L.VER $CHVRE JAMES L.WHIiE GOROONG IN ER RICX M,WESiEELDi PORE RT H M,J R. PE RJR. ILLIAM E. MVRANE ROBERT P OAVI50N EGORV PV STIN LLY L.WLLIPM SCH MIO i,JR. ERAN NEH EM ORIS ON JAMES P. LIN DSAY Iw Am c. M=u EARN N s. N W.igPCE Y, JR. SAMUEL P. GUYiON JOHN PLLEN MOORE JOXN S.CASTE LL ANO D EN NIS M JA<NSON aMES E.NEGARiY RODE Fi E.DENSON FIELD C.RENiON OO NALD O. XINONEN DAVID DUiLEq RICHARD M.XOON J. MI<HPEL FaRLEY CHARLES i.DPAN DT WaRgEN L.iOM LINEON RODE Ri i. CONNERY BRUCE TDUELL HARADDN ecairr XORSON HAOF counsEL 500 EOUITgBLE BUILDING ]30 SEVENTEENTH STREET DENVERr COLORADO 80202 TELEPHONE AREA CODE 303 292-9200 CABLE ADDRESS HOLHART, DENVER MOUNTAIN PLAZA BUILDING P. O. SO% 1128 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE 925.34]6 AREA CODE 303 July 5, 1973 Planning & Zoning Commission City of Aspen Aspen, Co, 81611 PRTHVR GOAT LY $iEVEN M. HANNON JEFFREY C. POND JOXN O. COOMDE JOHN VNDEM CPRLSOH EVGENE F McG VIRE BRV CE W. EPT TLER LIN DELL L.GVM PER RqN DY L. Pq PCEL SOLOMON N. BARON JO SE PX N. DE RAISMES ROBEflT J. MOIR G RAXAM M. <LARM,JR. MPRX R. LE VY DAVID G. PALMED JEAN NET TE P METER JV OIiX 90N NIE XOZLOFF R. BROOKE JPCXSDN MICHAEL D. MARTIN RRIi iON WHIIE,J R. A LTEfl W. GARNSEY, JR. RAUL N. ROD RIGUE2 JACM L. SMITH Re: Proposed Bergman building and proposed Hotel Jerome viewplane ordinance Ladies & Gentlemen: We represent Mr, and Mrs, Carl Bergman, owners of Carl's Pharmacy, who in October, 1972, started work on the plans for a new building to be erected on their other Main Street land, diagonally across the street from the Hotel Jerome. Since that time, they have spent several thousand dollars in architects' fees and for other expenses. There have also been numerous con- ferences with various city officials concerning these plans, starting with the Planning office and continuing with the Building Inspector's office. No hints of any problems with the proposed structure were raised until last month, when the Bergmans were advised by the City, through a telephone call to one of their architects, Russ Pielstick, of your proposed Hotel Jerome view- plane ordinance, The proposed structure would consist of 12,000 square feet (gross) of additional retail space, office space, storage space and underground parking. The proposed viewplane ordinance, accord- ing to the architects, would have the effect of eliminating almost 50% of the usable area of the structure, Thus, as you can see, the proposed ordinance would have a rather drastic effect on the Bergman's plans. .^. ,.~j \~/ HOLLAND ~ HART ATTORNEYS AT lAW ,,~ Planning & Zoning HoLr.nivn ~ HnaT Commission July 5, 1973 Page two Work on the plans has halted pending a determination of what to do. Of course, Council has not yet passed this ordinance, but probably will accept your recommendation. Further, existing Ordinance 9 and proposed Ordinance 19 are involved as well, and pretty effectively halt the Bergman's project even at this point, assuming their validity, One alternative, of course, would be to challenge one or more of these ordinances and their drastic effect on the Bergmans. However, litigation is costly and time-consuming, even assuming the probability of favorable results. Further, the Bergmans do not wish to proceed in this manner if they can find some way to co-operate with the City in achieving its goals and still come close to building the structure they have been planning for the past several months, Since the Planning & Zoning Commission has recommended the viewplane ordinance which creates the problem and will also have numerous review powers under Ordinance 19, should it pass, we are starting with you in these efforts to try to find a compromise solution. About the only workable compromise would seem to be a partial "trade-off" of the open space in front of the building as designed for the space being taken by the proposed viewplane ordinance. This would restore only 1440 square feet of the 6000 square feet lost as a result of the viewplane ordinance, according to the architects, but it would provide a situation which the Bergmans feel they could probably live with, and would still allow the City to have its public viewplane, The Bergmans would like to explore with you this possibility and any others which would not substantially deprive them of their planned building and their property, if there are any others. They will appear at your next meeting to further discuss this matter with you, and will have some sketches to show to you at that time. Sincerely yours, ~~~.~~, ~ Kenneth D. Hubbard for HOLLAND & HART KDH/bw cc: Mr. & Mrs, Carl Bergman Pielstick - Rosolack Mr. R.L. Fischer . ~• i.. ~i_Lin~ ~' P_spcn Ci.L~~ C:~un:_i.l .i~tty "'• I ;_ _~t.i~~= s:'.a c ~1~~d to or'<'o~° by ii?~'<i~- Stacy 5tF•nc11e5° a1 4t09 p.ri, r~itlt Cou„~i.1- ~. 'It ~.'YCf 1 ,.`i- ( ,I"'T:...•i, J:";Y~ 11 U,1S t..: Cl, l~cptl0l?a 11C:':~iGl ~. ~til _i ~, Jacl: td,.l_LS, (;~ L? C~t t, ;'t ~,.`~~ ~~ t)(l}'d ~i t_"i'i_1_~1.., ai"ld C1-t)i llallJL^7~' loll :~~ C'?IIlp:~c 11. i Lut.ir,ci~lot~;~tt 1 c~~r^cn nu_vc-d to approve the: n~ttuicas of July 9, 197;3 as preh~„'c1 ~;~:~ n:ai_lec: bti the City C1_erlc, Seconded by Councilman Breasted. A11 in favor, ~.~~.ut7_ntt ~. £trt: :i_ed, Ci.t:iv_ens Jo1'u: $uscl~., unP.er Citizens Part=ici_pation, suggested signs P:u~ti_c:ipat:ion be put at tl e entrance to the City relating the m_ssaee that the citiz,~n has the ri-ght-of-way. At:other pedcstri_an accident this weelc on Ptai.n Street. Suggest also the mer- cur;~ vapor lighter in the core area be changed to Col:ite phosphate coating which gives more light. The street light at 1`ii11 and 1.:-ti_n should be changed to lengthen the tirt~ f:or h1<:i.n Street- so that pedestrians have sufficient time to cross th.e street. Further. suggest the sales tax charts be changed so that errors are not made by merchants for pur- chases under $1,G0, Attorney Robert Gruetter stated the City Attorney's letter has been tran~mi_eted to 14r, Trueman and he is prepared to close on 47ednesday of this week. Toro's Stock Required forms were submitted to Council. Councilworan 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; ldalls, 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 D'fain until August 2%tlt Council meeting, Seconded by Councilwoman t4arlcaluras, 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 i.s 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 condomi_n9_tun lay- ouC is, Attorney Gruetter stared total area is considered as one unit although t-he declaration does provide for splitting into two units. There being no further comments, 1`layor Standley closed the public hearing. Cou~lci.lman t•7ail.s moved to approve the purchase and sale of the J.i_quor license of. the Paragon Parlour. Seconded by (`nn•-.ni lnv~:n a., Unr7 r~:•cn:, A"l l nol l vr.. n - !'...... ~.i l.r....-, il•.l l ,. r -w .:~ LEGAL NOTICE Notice is herebygiven, the Aspen City Council shall hold a public hearirq on Juiy 23, 1973, 4:00 p.m. to consideran amendment to the zoning Chapter of the Aspen P4unicipal Ccde to establish a veiw corridor from the public sidewalk in front of the Hotel Jerome property (Block 79) extending toward Aspen tdountain . ' Complete proposal is on file in the office of the City¢ourty Planner City Hall 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 ,.µ, .~. ., RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves rowv .a e. c eoece e~ e. e. e i __ -__.. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning June 1'~, 1973 occurs, they request only 10' around each site be dis- turbed. Just that amount of disturbance will increase the run off by 200%. It is questionable if re-vege- tation can take place to take care of the drainage. Mr. Hibberd stated he would excavate with very small eouipment and in some areas would excavate by hand. Mr. Hibberd also presented a $4,000 bond to cover the replanting. Mr. Hibberd also stated he would be willing to redesign his plans to eliminate the foundations and put the structures on columns. Vice Chairman Gillis 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 tte site. Commission request Mr. Hibberd work out all technical requirements 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 Planes Vice Chairman Gillis opened the public hearing on view 1 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 reouest 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 the view plane and recommending same to Council was submitted. Mr. Russ Piertick stated he was against this proposal, presently the architect on the proposed building for th vacant lot across the street. By the time this proposa was heard of, the design of the project was complete and had met with the Building Inspector and met all code requirements. Mr. Pielstrick showed to the Commis- sion the plans of the building and what the view plane does to the project. Stated this creates a zoning en- velope, view of the back of the Opera House and f-urther feel the mountains are a part of the heritage of the City and should be enjoyed by all by view corridors from the mall, Chamber of Commerce steps, Paepcke Par. l:, etc. .... RECORD G!~ I'ROC(:'~d!P~GS 7"s` t_ea~~es Continued Pieetinq Ashen Plann_-~q & 'ar.irc Commi-ssior. "_•I-:v ~.,_, 1~?3 Meeting was reconvened at 5:15 p.m. by Chairman Adams wish Charley Collins, Barbara Lewis, ar.d Charles Vida:.. Also present City/Cou::::y Planner. Herb Bartel and assistant Planner Fred i•;ooden. • Stream Margin The Planning & Zoning Commission reco~siendec? Request - approval of request last year pendi.n? st::dy on Charles i~;orth flood hazards by the Corps of Engineers. i~uild- ing date in November was specified but Worth did not build ~t that time. r Letter from the Corps indicates the water in Castle Creek adjacent to Lot 10 caould reach depths of about 3' from Intermediate Regional Flood flc-s • (100-year) and ^' from Standard Project Flood flo:•;. - Under these conditions Lot 10 would pe flooded. worth has amended his building site to correspor_d with_,these figures. Plan i.s to have the house out of any of the floods that are shos•rn on the Corps' reap; hoa:ever, Worth does plan an art studio within the area of the Standard Project Flood. Collins feels the City should from Worth releasing the City incurred by floodinc,., Collins moved to approve the irg permit with the condition release from the oo-rner. receive a letter from damages issuance of a build- of the letter of Lewis feels there should be the stipulation that the studio cannot be used later for livin7 purposes. Collins amended the motion to say that any building on the site be located above the T_nter- mediate Regional Flood (100-year flood plane) as set forth by the Corps of Engineers, Also the letter of release be submitted, Seconded by • Lewis, All in favor, motion carried. Hotel Jerome ~ Herb Bartel•asked the Commission for approval to View Plane set public hearing for t"re second P & Z meeting in June to discuss a vier n1an~~ from the Hotel Jerome toward P_spen Mountain. Commission all in agreement to ask Planning Office to set the hearing. Master Plan Proposed resolution is to be adopted as an additicr. Amendment to the General P].an to be used as the basis for Resolution - the stream margin review and not to become law. Roaring Fork Resolution must be accepted by the Planning & Greenway Zoning Conunission to be passed on to the City Council. No restrictions will be placed on buildings al.onr, ( the Greenway. Provides official guide>. to use =n the strean~ margin requests. At this time, ther^ t .. ..• ,